The Curculio, with its 729 lines, is the shortest play of Plautus which has survived, about half the length of the Miles Gloriosus (1,437 lines) or Rudens (1,423 lines). The Epidicus, with 733 lines, and the Stichus, with 775, are almost as brief. It is most unlikely that any of these shorter plays took even a full hour to perform. Although it is possible that their Greek originals were also of less than normal length, the many signs of compression and disproportion in their development seem to guarantee that their brevity is imposed by Plautus.

This is manifestly a rather elusive subject, shifting with time, place, and circumstance, and obscured by insufficient evidence. However, an attempt to arrive at certain generalizations about Greek diplomacy, particularly in view of some modern assumptions which seem to be mistaken, may be thought justified.

According to the Ars Amatoria the notorious rape took place on the occasion of a primitive dramatic entertainment staged in a theatre, in which the seats and furnishings were also primitive. There is no time for a description of the arts of the performers—a tibicen and a ludius—before the Romans, impatient for action, receive their signal from Romulus. Nor is there any mention of a god in whose honour the entertainment had been provided.

Plutarch of Chaeronea was a voluminous writer whose experience of the Graeco-Roman world of his own day was quite as comprehensive as his knowledge of earlier ages. The ancient historian is often daunted by the sheer bulk of Plutarch's work and prefers customarily to concentrate his attention upon the Lives, which, if not history, at least contain much historical matter.

The critics have not been generous towards Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica as a whole, but their praise of his Medea episode, whether moderate or immoderate, has been fairly unanimous. W. C. Summers writes: ‘Valerius manages to treat the same theme with originality and power; in psychological probability his version seems to me superior to anything that has reached us from antiquity’. And J. M. K. Martin: ‘Where he displayed the most distinct originality, where he parted company with the Alexandrian poet with greatest advantage to himself and his readers, is in the treatment of the episode of Medea and Jason’. Earlier articles of mine have endeavoured to illustrate Valerius' basic originality, i.e. that, however much he takes over from others, the final product is something new and distinctive.

The primary meaning of haurire is ‘to take by scooping, to draw’, and it is used of liquids and of solids which pour. The first section of this paper will try to show that this meaning is frequent and sometimes missed by the commentators. The second section will trace the development of other meanings showing that this root is not applied to drinking and swallowing, except metaphorically, until well into the first century A.D., except once in Livy.

The reader of Juvenal's fifth satire, making his way through the new Oxford text edited by W. V. Clausen, finds the sweep of the poet's indignant rhetoric interrupted by the obeli of 104. Reference to Clausen's paper which he quotes in support of his proposed reading glaucis sparsus (A.J.P. lxxvi [1955], 58–60) reveals that he proceeds from the assumption that the line is corrupt, and evidence that this is the case must be sought elsewhere.

Trinvndinvm, best known as the minimum interval prescribed between the promulgatio and rogatio of a law by the Lex Caecilia Didia of 98 B.C., but also employed in a number of other constitutional and legal contexts, is generally supposed now to mean a period of 24 days R (I shall use this symbol to show that I am following the Roman method of counting, in which the day from which the reckoning starts and the day with which it finished are both included): in other words, it is held to be three Roman eight-day weeks.

There are signs that a list of parallelisms containing quite lengthy citations of republican works in prose and all kinds of verse, as well as remarks highly critical of Virgil, provided the material of Saturnalia 6. 2, Saturnalia 6. 3, and Saturnalia 6. 1. 55–65.1

Whereas Macrobius transmits the uersus parallelisms practically without comment, the locus parallelisms have a certain amount of discussion clustered at the beginning and at the end. This is for the most part neutral and matter of fact but in 6. 2. 33 the harsh tone of an obtrectator makes itself heard: nee Tullio conpilando, dummodo undique ornamenta sibi conferret, abstinuit. The original list was excerpted very carelessly: in 6. 2. 29 the Virgil citation ought to continue for two more verses; in 6. 2. 7, 9, and 24 the Lucretius citations are likewise defective.

Walter Savage Landor's exasperated marginal comment on line 13 of Horace, C. 1. 4 (‘pallida mors has nothing to do with the above’) has sent modern commentators scurrying to the poem's defence. The skirmish has been won for Horace, but at the expense perhaps of magnifying the importance of line 13: A. Y. Campbell insisted that pallida mors, far from being irrelevant, was ‘the focus of the whole poem’

The career of the father of Claudius Etruscus is of special importance in the history of the Imperial administration in the first century A.D. In the course of a long life he rose from slave status under Tiberius to be head of the Imperial financial administration and to equestrian status under Vespasian. He was one of the most important, wealthy, and influential of the Imperial freedmen in the first century when their influence was at its peak; he is one of the best documented of their number outside the pages of Tacitus; yet we do not know his personal name—he has to remain simply ‘the father of Claudius Etruscus’ —and even his nomen gentilicium and the date of his appointment to be the secretary a rationibus are subject to disput.

Whatever fond hopes their author may have entertained when he published them, the Letters of the younger Pliny did not meet with an appreciative public. The first, indeed almost the only, writer before modern times to have read them with care and to have signalled his admiration by imitation is Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Auvergne in the late fifth century.

Readings from a manuscript which once belonged to Rodolphus Agricola and later to Theodore Ryck were well known to and lightly esteemed by the editors of Tacitus from the late seventeenth to mid nineteenth centuries. Ryck cited over 1,200 of them in his edition of 1687. Later the whereabouts of the manuscript remained long unknown, until it was rediscovered by C. W. Mendell as Leidensis BPL 16. B in the University Library at Leiden.

Suetonius records that as Vespasian lay on his death-bed his dying words were Vae puto deus fio (Vespas. 23. 4). If we assume that Vespasian could hardly have believed that he was literally destined for divinity, it is an open question what exactly he intended by this remark. As a general rule scholars seem to have interpreted it as a sarcastic sneer at deification: one reads for example such statements as ‘Historically we do not associate the reign of Vespasian with the Emperor Cult.

In conjunction with the Imperial status-indication, the Imperial nomina gentilicia provide the basic dating criterion for the Augusti liberti. Especially useful is the terminus ad quem, which is, in general, approximately 40 years after the death of the last possible manumitting emperor. Thus, the inscription of a Ti. Claudius Aug. lib. is not likely to be later than A.D. 100 and certainly (except under exceptional circumstances) not later than A.D. IIO.

I Should like to draw attention to two little-known inscriptions of republican senators; both men deserve notice in that each of them may illustrate the early stages of the recruitment of provincial senators, from Transpadane and Narbonese Gaul respectively.