Readers have struggled to interpret an image from the end of Juvenal's fifth satire, a poem which focusses upon the poor hospitality shown to a dinner guest, Trebius, at the hands of his host, Virro. After repeatedly juxtaposing the luxurious food served to Virro with the scant fare served to Trebius, Juvenal describes the final course of thecena. He again contrasts the host's hyper-abundance with his guest's mere scraps (5.149–55):Virro sibi et reliquis Virronibus illa iubebitpoma dari, quorum solo pascaris odore,qualia (...) perpetuus Phaeacum autumnus habebat,credere quae possis subrepta sororibus Afris:tu scabie frueris mali, quod in aggere roditqui tegitur parma et galea, metuensque flagellidiscit ab hirsuta iaculum torquere capella.Virro will demand that he and the rest of his entourage receive these apples—though you'll dine on their smell alone—like those the endless autumn of the Phaeacians used to yield, which you could believe stolen away from the African sisters: you will enjoy the scab of an apple, which, on the Embankment, is gnawed by someone who is protected by a buckler and helm and who, fearing a whipping, learns to hurl a javelin from atop a shaggy goat.While the core contrast between the quality of each type of fare is clear, the concludingqui-clause is less intelligible. Who could this entity be? On line 153, the scholiast comments:quale simia manducat. Whilequalecould refer to the object being eaten (scabie mali quod) rather than to thequi-antecedent, it is clear in any case that the ancient reader felt that 5.153–5 evoked the image of an ape. Recent commentaries on Juvenal's fifth satire reflect a scholarly consensus: J.D. Duff, Edward Courtney, Susanna Braund and Biagio Santorelli all follow the scholiast's suggestion and believe that the passage describes a trained ape, as do recent readers of the poem. (shrink)

Fustel de Coulanges' thesis that ancient society was founded upon the cult of ancestral tombs has had, for a thoroughly self-contradictory argument, a remarkably successful career. Neither Fustel himself nor the many subsequent scholars who have quoted his views with approval faced clearly the difficulty of deriving a social structure dominated by corporate descent groups from the veneration of tombs placed in individually owned landed property. On the whole, historians have tended to play down Fustel's insistence on the relation between (...) ancestor-cult and property and to exaggerate the role of the corporate kin group. This tendency, which assimilates Fustel to Sir Henry Maine and other lawyers interested in the reconstruction of Indo-European institutions has in my view considerably impeded understanding of the role of kinship in early Greek society; it also obscures one of the most individual aspects of Fustel's work which, thanks to the researches of Philippe Ariès on the development of the modern tomb-cult in the nineteenth century, can now be placed in its historical context. (shrink)