In this article I consider five anonymous quotations in Stephanus of Byzantium. The first is very probably an overlooked fragment of early mythography. The other four are much less likely to be early, but theoretically could be and are included for the sake of completeness.

In lines 646–60 of his translation of Aratus’ Phaenomena, Germanicus narrates the story of Orion, the mythical hunter killed by a scorpion sent by Diana because of his attempt to rape the goddess, and then transformed into a star. In particular, line 651 describes Orion's hunting:

nudabatque feris angusto stipite siluas.

(1) 2.4:

In the eighth book of Lucan's Bellum Ciuile, Pompey sends the Galatian king Deiotarus into the distant East to seek an alliance with Parthia, the vast empire beyond the Euphrates ruled by the Arsacid dynasty. His instructions to Deiotarus begin with these lines (8.211–14):

‘quando’ ait ‘Emathiis amissus cladibus orbis,
qua Romanus erat, superest, fidissime regum,
Eoam temptare fidem populosque bibentis
Euphraten et adhuc securum a Caesare Tigrim.’

Catalepton 10 (Sabinus ille) is a unique survival from antiquity: it is the only parody of an entire poem to reach us, and is written in pure iambic trimeters, a near intractable metre. Addressed to Sabinus, an upstart muleteer, the poem launches a stinging attack at him, and draws attention to his status as a parvenu. It remains incredibly close to its charming model—Catullus 4 (Phaselos ille)—in structural, lexical, stylistic and metrical terms, but rather different in purport. In attempting to reassess a number of problems in the text of the poem, the textual critic ought largely to be guided by the relationship of Sabinus ille to its model, as it is clear that the author of Catalepton 10 was an incredibly close reader of the Catullan text and sought not only to imitate through parody but also to subvert and deflate his predecessor's poem.

Varro's De lingua Latina (= Ling.) is a treasure trove of information. Of the originally twenty-five books, six have come down to us more or less complete. Among these, Books 5–7 give us many hundreds of etymologies, and Books 8–10 discuss the question whether Latin morphology is regular or not. What Varro rarely comments on is sociolinguistic variation. The sociolinguistic comments in Varro's work can almost be counted on one hand. For instance, in 5.162 Varro remarks that cenaculum, from cena ‘dinner’, means ‘attic’ in Roman Latin, but that the original meaning was, as one might expect, ‘dining-room’, a meaning preserved in the non-Roman dialects of Latium, Falerii and Corduba in Spain; the meaning also lives on in religious uses in Lanuvium. In 7.96, Varro tells us that some words are pronounced with -ae- by some, but with -ē- by others. We know that non-Roman varieties of Latin monophthongized -ae- earlier than the Roman dialect did. Varro mentions pairs like scaena / scēna ‘stage’, a loan from Greek σκηνή, which shows that -ae- is hypercorrect here. Interestingly, only in one such pair is the variant with -ē- ascribed to country people, in the name Maesius / Mēsius, and this is indeed the only pair where the diphthong -ae- is original rather than the result of hypercorrection.

(1) 1.21:

At Her. 6.113–18 Hypsipyle lays out for Jason the advantages to be gained by marrying her: the prestige of her noble and even divine family, and the fertile island of Lemnos, which will come as her dowry. She then adds the fact that she is pregnant with twins (6.119–22); this thought introduces a new section, which extends until line 130.

Towards the beginning of Book 3, Lucretius starts his description of the soul. According to Epicurus, the soul is divided into two, an irrational part, which is coextensive with the body, and a rational part, the ‘mind’, which is located in the chest. This position is a relic from an earlier, non–philosophical tradition, and was adopted by several different philosophers. But Alexandrian doctors would soon correctly locate the mind in the head, and later Epicureans would have to defend an increasingly uncomfortable and out-of-date position.

In a chapter illustrating outrageous words and criminal deeds (dicta improba aut facta scelerata), Valerius Maximus, the Tiberian editor of exempla, includes in his list of foreign (externa) examples reference to an impious son, Mithridates, who fought with his father over who should rule (9.11.ext.2):

In Silv. 4.4 Statius pays homage to Vitorius Marcellus, the young dedicatee of the poem (for this small but meaningful detail, see Stat. Silv. 4.4.45 iuuenes … annos; 4.4.74 iuuenemque … parentem), praising his skills as an orator (4.4.39–45) and foreseeing a brilliant military career for him (4.4.61–4). The last point is highlighted in a brief portrait of Marcellus as a perfect foot soldier and horseman (4.4.64–9):

… nec enim tibi sola potentis
eloquii uirtus: sunt membra accommoda bellis    65
quique grauem tarde subeant thoraca lacerti.
seu campo pedes ire pares, est agmina supra
nutaturus apex, seu frena sonantia flectes,
seruiet asper equus.

In the interpretation of fragments the omission or neglect of even the most minute detail can lead a scholar to false conclusions or to ill-founded speculations. How careful one must be to draw out every possibility and nuance from every little piece of textual evidence can be seen in the following case. This is the text of Soph. fr. 781 (ed. Radt) as quoted by a late lexicographer (Etym. Magn. s.v. ἔγχος [313.3–4]):

One of the most famous inscriptions to have survived from ancient Rome is the acta of the Ludi Saeculares of 17 b.c. (CIL 6.32323 = ILS 5050), and one of the most evocative of all epigraphic sentences occupies a line to itself (149): Carmen composuit Q. Horatius Flaccus. This reference to the author of the Carmen Saeculare, says Fraenkel, ‘was the result of a carefully considered decision of the highest authorities’. The degree of careful consideration is initially evident from the prominent positioning of the poet's name directly above those of Augustus and Agrippa in the following line. It will also be noticed that the sentence concludes with a clausula (cretic + spondee) which is one of Cicero's favourites. A further refinement emerges, however, if the poet's name is spelled out in full, something precluded by the naming conventions of the inscription:

Cārmēn cōmpŏsŭīt ´ Quīntŭs Hŏrātĭūs | Flaccus.

In 1977, French excavations at Aï Khanoum in north-east Afghanistan—a foundation of Antiochus I Sotēr and subsequently one of the major cities of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom—of a building dating to shortly before the destruction of the place in 145 b.c.e. uncovered inter alia the remains of a papyrus and a parchment document. The papyrus text, dated by Cavallo on the basis of its letterforms to the mid third century b.c.e., preserved a fragment of a philosophical dialogue seemingly to be associated with the Peripatetic school. The second document consisted of two separate portions of a piece of parchment roughly assigned on the basis of its letterforms to the second half of the third or the first half of the second century b.c.e.; as also in the case of the papyrus, the letters survived not on the parchment itself but impressed upon the hardened dirt that surrounded it. Only column II of the original editors’ ‘Texte 2a’ (the more substantial of the two parchment fragments) contains a significant amount of text, which appears in neither TrGF nor PCG. I present it here without regard to standard editorial niceties, which are rendered impossible by the desperate state of the original document, now almost certainly lost, and the nature of the original publication.