This paper owes its inspiration to a remark made by Professor M. Rostovtzeff; in a note in his Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire on the widespread social unrest of the first two centuries A.D., having cited other literary authorities such as Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides, etc., he writes: ‘The social problem as such, the cleavage between the poor and the rich, occupies a prominent place in the dialogues of Lucian; he was fully aware of the importance of (...) the problem.’ No one, as far as I know, has attempted to collect and discuss the main passages in Lucian on this topic, and the latest writer on this aspect of Lucian reaches a conclusion quite opposed to Rostovtzeff and one which I believe to be wholly misleading. The aim of this paper is to collect and discuss the main references in Lucian to the social problem interpreting them in the light of Lucian's life and background, and the social and economic conditions of his age. In particular I shall stress the importance of the Cynic tradition as it bears on Lucian's attitude, but shall endeavour to show that this tradition is firmly rooted in practical politics and actual participation in social revolutionary movements and goes far beyond the repetition of mere ethical cliches generally ascribed to it. (shrink)

In their recent article on this subject, Rose and Sullivan suggest that we read: super scorpionem locustam, super sagittarium oculatam, super capricornum caprum et cornutam, etc. This is attractive and can, I suggest, be supported by a further argument. I propose that locustam be regarded as a pun on the celebrated lady poisoner of the period, Locusta. According to Tacitus, she was already infamous by the year 54, and continued to be a valuable tool of Nero throughout his reign. Petronius (...) is fond of puns, and the passage under discussion contains more than one. And the suggested play on locusta may be confirmed by Trimalchio himself, a little later on, in his lecturette on astrology: in scorpione venenarii et percussores. (shrink)

In their recent article on this subject, Rose and Sullivan suggest that we read: super scorpionem locustam, super sagittarium oculatam, super capricornum caprum et cornutam, etc. This is attractive and can, I suggest, be supported by a further argument.I propose that locustam be regarded as a pun on the celebrated lady poisoner of the period, Locusta. According to Tacitus, she was already infamous by the year 54, and continued to be a valuable tool of Nero throughout his reign. Petronius is (...) fond of puns, and the passage under discussion contains more than one. And the suggested play on locusta may be confirmed by Trimalchio himself, a little later on, in his lecturette on astrology: in scorpione venenarii et percussores. (shrink)

T. D. Barnes has recently impugned the authenticity of these verses and calls for a defence of their genuineness. Although I agree with Fergus Millar that ‘the problem of the Historia Augusta is one into which sane men refrain from entering’,2 yet I think we can at least counter Barnes's objections. Barnes musters four arguments which he naturally calls ‘quite conclusive’. He first points out that the verses are omitted in the epitome of Dio by Xiphilinus, who is our sole (...) source for Dio here, and claims that it is unlikely that Xiphilinus could have omitted such a ‘striking poem’. This is putting an extraordinarily high value on Xiphilinus, who is quite capable of omitting things of greater moment than five Latin verses which he would presumably have had to translate into Greek; as an epitomator of Dio, he is inferior to Zonaras, and his account of Hadrian's reign is particularly poor. (shrink)

A. A. Barrett's recent addition of a raeda to Juvenal 1.155 is a novel and ingenious contribution to the ago-old debate over the text and meaning of the passage in question. His proposal is, however, vulnerable to the following objections. First, it is worth emphasizing that there is no manuscript variant for the traditional reading taeda. In a passage so fraught with problems and textual discrepancies, this is probably suggestive.

When Joseph Partsch wrote ‘Flavii Cresconii Corippi de vita paucissima comperta habemus’ in the preface to his long-standard edition , he was not exaggerating. Yet this has not prevented scholars from equipping the poet with a career, largely in Constantinople. Most recently, some of the details have been revived in the admirable edition of the In laudem Justini Augusti minoris by Averil Cameron. But almost every item is based solely on guesswork; the supposed career may seem to melt away under (...) a fresh and dispassionate look at what has passed for evidence. (shrink)