Abstract

In paragraph 162 of Cato’s De agricultura there is an inconsistency between the topic announced in the headline - Salsura pernarum ofellae Puteolanae - and the subsequent text, as it is solely concerned with the salsura pernarum. All recent discussions assume that the text deals with two different recipes. In my paper, I suggest that, given Cato’s usus scribendi as well as the form of other recipes, Cato presents one recipe only: The headline specifies its name and alludes to the process of its production (in reversed order) so that neither et nor a comma should be inserted between pernarum and ofellae (as most editors have done ever since Merula’s editio princeps). Finally, I offer an explanation for the inconsistency between the different forms of the title in the rubrica and in the summarium that correspond to this paragraph.