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 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.
Denis V. Keyer (Wed,) studied this question.