In her epochal study of the Vestal virgins, Mary Beard called attention to the ambiguous position of these priestesses in relation to the normative categories of gender in Roman society. 1 Drawing on the insights of structural anthropology, she argued that this ambiguity was central to the Vestals' sacredness. Essentially, her interpretation rests on the proposition that, by combining features relating to the status of unmarried daughters (virgines) with those of married women (matronae), the priestesses became in themselves vessels for the symbolic mediation between culturally opposed categories that Claude Lévi-Strauss, Mary Douglas, and others have identified as a central function of myth and ritual. 2 Although the underlying observation about the peculiarity of the Vestals' "sexual status" must ultimately be allowed to stand, more recent work on the inherent instability of categories of sex and gender suggests that we ought to revisit the problem of the priestesses' ambiguity, paying closer attention to the socially contingent nature of its production. 3 In this article, I will confine my discussion to an aspect of gender construction that Beard regarded as essential to establishing the matronal piece of the Vestals' supposed interstitiality:

This article reexamines the evidence for the relationships between the Vestal virgins and their natal kin from the second century bc to the third century ad. It suggests that the bond between these priestesses and their families remained strong throughout this period and that, as a consequence, interpretations of the Vestals' position within Roman society that emphasize the severing of agnatic ties through their removal from patria potestas may be misguided. When placed in the broader social and legal context, the ritual "capture" of these priestesses is shown to be a necessary feature of their priestly identity, which only marked the Vestals as extraordinary because of the unique intersection of religious and gender categories that characterized their office. Finally, the implications of these findings for the interpretation of Vestal virginity are discussed.

As Palaestrio works to formulate a plan, Periplectomenus looks on and describes the sequence of physical gestures through which the wily slave manifests his mental exertions. It is not difficult for the modern reader to imagine the sight gags that might have accompanied this little monologue, but Periplectomenus' reaction to one pose presents its own interpretative challenges (Plaut. Mil. 209-212): 1 ecce autem aedificat: columnam mento suffigit suo. apage, non placet profecto mihi illaec aedificatio; nam os columnatum poetae esse indaudivi barbaro, quoi bini custodes semper totis horis occubant. But see now what he's building: he puts a column under his chin. Get away! I really can't stand that construction there; for I heard that a face was put on a column for a barbarian poet, who has two guards constantly looming over him, day and night. This passage has long been recognized as a reference to the imprisonment of the playwright Cn. Naevius, who famously courted danger by writing nasty things about such * Published in Classical Philology 115.4. 1 I rely on Lindsay's OCT (1905) for the text of Plautus. Translations are my own.

∆ι ηξ ε¨υοΚ Ζσε0σσιοΚ ησανν0υε φε¨ ∆ιολµ»Κ σγε δογτεξ υ»ι βοφµ»ι λα υ«ι δ νοι•`λα ν¨αξυ Κ π σ¨φυ0ξεφε! ∆¨ι η¨-ξευοΚ ησανν0υεφε! Ε ρ διλοΚ ¨πετυ0υε!. .. Ε. .. ΑΞΕΤ ε πε• υ ξ∆ σ0λοξυοΚ ξ νοξ υ ν πεσ υ« ζ ξ¨ο 2ξαησα ζ¨τ0 ξ¨υοξ ο 2ξαησαζ»-5 Κ υ«ξ ξ νοξ πασαµαβ ξυεΚ πασ1 υ« β α¨τ 騵 οΚ νε¨υ 1 υ« ησανν¨αυ ο-Κ υ»Κ βοφµ»Κ τυ µει µιρ ξει λα λα υ¨α ρ¨ ξυ οξ πσ τ¨ρε ξ¨υ»Κ τυο-8Κ υ»Κ βατιµε αΚ• ο δ ποµευα 2πονι τρο¨τ 0ξυοξ λαυ1 υ ξ ξ¨ νοξ! ο δ µµεξουαν αι δ ξυοξ υ 2σ η¨ σ¨ι οξ¨ Diognetus from Phrearrus was secretary. Diocles was archon. Resolved by the boule and the demos: Acamantis held the prytany, Diognetus was secretary, Euthydicus was president, ??e???anes made the motion. The anagrapheis of the laws shall write up Draco's law on homicide on a stone stele, receiving it from the archon basileus with the help of the secretary of the boule, and they shall set it up in front of the Stoa Basileus. The poletai shall let the contract according to the law, and the hellenotamiai shall provide the money. 1 It is widely acknowledged that the terms of this decree, from the archon-year 409/8 B.C., belong to a context of ongoing constitutional reform at Athens during the last decades of the fifth century B.C. 2 In 411 B.C., the oligarchy of the Four Hundred had had its origins with a board of thirty syngrapheis appointed to look into the 'ancestral laws' of Cleisthenes and draft proposals that were in the best interest of the city. 3 More pretext than doctrine, their appeal to the notion of an ancestral constitution would have a lasting impact on Athenian political discourse. 4 Following

The editing of a text sometimes raises important questions about an author's social milieu and the nature of his art. In the passage below, the speaker is Umbricius, the "friend" whose departure from Rome so vexes the narrator of Juvenal's third Satire. 1 Among the litany of excuses offered for this leave-taking, Umbricius cites the hazards of urban life and the indifference of the city's wealthy classes to the plight of the less fortunate. These issues coalesce in the striking exemplum of a man who loses all his possessions in an apartment fire (3.203-11). The text of Willis' Teubner edition reads: 2 lectus erat Codro Procula minor, urceoli sex ornamentum abaci, necnon et parvulus infra cantharus et recubans rupto de marmore Chiron, 205 iamque vetus Graecos servabat cista libellos, et divina opici rodebant carmina mures. nil habuit Codrus-quis enim negat?-et tamen illud perdidit infelix totum nihil. ultimus autem aerumnae est cumulus, quod nudum et frustra rogantem 210 * Published in The Classical Journal 111.3 (2016). Thanks especially to Chris Nappa and the anonymous readers whose expert feedback on recent drafts greatly improved the present version. 1 3.1: quamvis digressu veteris confusus amici ("although unsettled by the departure of an old friend..."). On the use of the term amicus, see LaFleur (1975), (1976) 394-9; for confusus, Staley (2000) 85-6. Here and throughout, translations are my own. 2 Willis (1997) 31. nemo cibo, nemo hospitio tectoque iuvabit. The bed of Codrus was too small for Procula, six potikins formed the fixtures of his sideboard, together with, underneath, a little wine cup and a reclining Chiron hewn from marble, while an already old basket preserved Greek booklets and barbaric mice gnawed at the divine poems. Codrus had nothing, who would deny it? And yet this miserable man lost all that nothing. But the final dose of suffering is that, though naked and begging in vain, no one will offer him food or grant a welcoming shelter. I leave it to others to judge the novel solution offered in line 205, an emendation scrupulously attributed to Nisbet. 3 It is Willis' other departure from the status quo of recent editions that is relevant for the present discussion: the spelling of the poor man's name in lines 203 and 208. In Clausen's Oxford text, for example, he is not Codrus, but Cordus, a spelling that can be traced back to Knoche's edition. 4 Which version is correct, and how should we decide? Although broadly disseminated in editions of the Satires published in the second half of the twentieth century, Cordus is only supported by one manuscript, U. The others-including P, the most reliable-read Codro ... Codrus where intelligible. 5 This is what Housman printed in his 3 Nisbet (1989) 292. The MSS, which many editors follow, give recubans sub eodem marmore