The purpose of this article is to consider the problem of the ascribed to Varro and to attempt to show that, despite the doubts expressed by modern scholars, the balance of the evidence does support the traditional interpretation.

Appian, dealing with the ‘Triumvirate’ of 59 B.C., tells us: The usual interpretation of this passage has been that Varro wrote a political pamphlet, possibly in the form of a Menippean satire,2 against the First Triumvirate, to which he gave the title.There are obvious difficulties in this interpretation, which appears to conflict with what we know of Varro's relations with Pompey in the period before the formation of the Triumvirate and his actions afterwards.

In classical writing the description of personal appearance was attempted in various ways. At one extreme the mere ‘passport-identification’ was concernedto enumerate distinguishing characteristics in order to ensure, for example, that a runaway slave or a recalcitrant taxpayer could be identified.

This is one of the Horatian passages most tormented by the critics. Four points, I think, may now be safely regarded as established.

First of all, the lectio tradita can hardly be sound : those who have tried to defend it—their Nestor is Porphyrio himself—have encountered insuperable difficulties. Magnum—to use Kiessling—Heinze's word—is patently ‘sinnlos’. Secondly, none of the proposed conjectures really satisfies. Maga non, as Kiessling-Heinze rightly note, is excluded by metrical reasons alone, not to mention its stylistic harshness ; magica, favoured by Kiessling-Heinze, is scarcely better : the epithet is tautological after venena, and if we accept the emendation we are compelled to postulate a very awkward zeugma (cf. Kiessling-Heinze and Wickham ad loc.). Thirdly, the corruption is pre-medieval, because Porphyrio already read magnum : if we have to apply palaeographical methods for the solution of the problem, we must reason in terms of Roman cursive.

The existence of Otto Weinreich's excellent Türöffnung im Wunder-, Prodigienund-und Zauberglauben der Antike, des Judentums und Christentums continues to make an apology necessary for any re-examination of texts in which doors are made, or encouraged, spontaneously to open, to admit a divinity or, occasionally, to speed his departure. But what little fresh sustenance remains to be sucked from some of these well-gnawed bones may now be usefully supplemented with comment on a number of more recently suggested examples.

In 394 most editors of the Knights read , cited uniquely from this passage in the lexica, in the sense ‘dry up, parch’ (the simple is said to mean , Hdn. Gr. 2. 132, although it nowhere occurs in extant literature; but cf. avos, etc.), referring, for the condition and appearance of the prisoners after long captivity and privations, to Nub. 186, where the allusion is to the squalor and emaciation of the Socratics. Now Aristophanes' skill in maintaining allusively an image, once a keyword has been supplied, makes me wonder how line 394 was intended to complete the metaphor of the harvest and the crop in 392–3.