The truth about line 70 was public property as far back as Plathner, who is quoted by Ruperti , but modern editors shy away from it and, with a perverse unanimity, print the accusative rubetam. Not only must viro then be taken with sitiente as an ablative absolute, in spite of the proximity of porrectura, but there is no internal coherence in the relative clause. R. Beer put his finger on the nerve of the matter: ‘possumus quidem miscere vinum, miscere (...) venenum, sed si mulier vinum porrigit interea venenum miscet, non vino immiscet, nihil inest periculi viro.’ All is resolved once the proper force of sitiente is recognized: it qualifies rubeta and means sitim faciente, ‘parching’. (shrink)

The truth about line 70 was public property as far back as Plathner, who is quoted by Ruperti, but modern editors shy away from it and, with a perverse unanimity, print the accusative rubetam. Not only must viro then be taken with sitiente as an ablative absolute, in spite of the proximity of porrectura, but there is no internal coherence in the relative clause. R. Beer put his finger on the nerve of the matter: ‘possumus quidem miscere vinum, miscere venenum, (...) sed si mulier vinum porrigit interea venenum miscet, non vino immiscet, nihil inest periculi viro.’ All is resolved once the proper force of sitiente is recognized: it qualifies rubeta and means sitim faciente, ‘parching’. (shrink)