Certum est dare lintea retro: Juvenal 3. 205; 5. 141, 143–144; 6. 195, 197–198 Reconsidered

Abstract

The article re-examines five problems in three passages of Juvenal. In 3. 205 recubans sub eodem marmore Chiron cannot imply a sculptural table support, since the personage lives in extreme poverty. Instead, marmore must be taken ironically (cf. coccina in Mart. 2. 43. 8) and eodem as ‘aforementioned’: a tiny cheap stand for vessels is described as if it were a marble display table for precious cups.

Mycale in 5. 141 is Trebius’ concubine: her triplets cannot be Trebius’ legitimate heirs, hence Virro indulges their children. Nunc in v. 141 is to be understood within the irrealis discourse: “now, when you are (hypothetically) rich” (cf. 10. 43). In v. 138 tu (Φ) is to be preferred to tunc (PRFO). In 5. 143–144 a waistcoat, small nuts, and pennies cannot be gifts to the triplets. Rose was right in taking viridem thoraca as a metonymy for a tamed monkey (hence schol. vet. ad loc. …ut simiae), rogatum as a supine and the pair of -que’s as mock epic style: the monkey begs for pennies and small nuts in reward for the performance.

In 6. 195 relictis must be retained in the sense of ‘refrained from’ (cf. Pers. 5. 61; Hor. Serm. 2. 6. 89; AP 150) and taken impersonally as referring to the Romans in general: ‘you use in public words that but lately were refrained from (even) under the blanket’. In 6. 197–198 the words ut tamen omnes subsidant pinnae are not addressed to the old woman (‘to flatten out all <your> feathers’), but express the opposite of quod enim non excitet inguen in v. 196; the ut clause is pseudo-final: the effect of the old woman’s ugly face is presented as a purpose.