APPENDIX
LUCILIUS’ GREEK LEXICON
(Abbreviations: cj. = conjectural; M. = Marx (F. Marx, C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae, Leipzig 1904-5); W. = Warmington (E. H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin III, Loeb Classical Library, rev. ed. 1967)).
I. Quotations from Homer
ac ton d’exe¯rpaxen Apollo¯n ‘and him Apollo rescued’ 268 W. = 232 M. ~ Il. 20
A¯res A˘res (grammatical point on the spelling of long and short A) 372 W. (= 355 M.) ~ Il. 5.31
Amphitryonis acoetin ‘Amphitryon’s spouse’ 569 W. (= 541 M.) ~ Od. 11.266
euplocamo (fem. dat.) ‘with lovely tresses’ 1095 W. (= 991 M.) ~ Od. 5.390
calliplocamon (fem. acc.) ‘with lovely curls’ 567 W. (= 540 M.) ~ Il. 14.326, 18.407;
callisphyron (fem. acc.) ‘with lovely ankles’ 567 W. (= 540 M.) ~ e.g. Il. 9.560, Od. 5.333
coure¯n eupatereiam ‘daughter of a noble sire’ 572 W. (= 545 M.) ~ e.g. Il. 6.292
e¯ pa¯sin necyessi cataphthimenoisin ‘than to be a king over all the souls that are dead and gone’ 492 W. (= 463 M.) ~ Od. 11.491
Ixionie¯s alochoeo ‘Ixion’s wife’ 29 W. (= 25 M.) ~ Il. 14.317
II. Technical Terms
Philosophy
archais (dat. plur.) ‘first principles’ 807 (= 790 M.)
atomus (acc. plur.) ‘atoms’ 820 (= 753 M.)
eido¯la (acc. plur.) ‘images’ 820 (= 753 M.)
eis aithera ‘to the sky’ 848 W. (= 799 M.)
ge¯ ‘earth’ 810 W. (= 793 M.)
pneuma ‘air’ 810 W. (= 793 M.)
stoicheia, stoicheiois (Latinised stoechia, stoechiis) ‘elements’ 809 (= 792 M.), 807 (= 790 M.), 811 (794 M.)
zetematium (Latinised) ‘a little problem’ 675 W. (= 650 M.)
Grammar & Rhetoric
archetypa or archaeotera (neutr. plur.) ‘models’ 411 W. (= 1111 M.)
atechnon ‘inartistic’ 191 W. (= 186 M.)
cacosyntheton ‘ugly-sounding’ (letter R) 389 W. (= 377 M.)
epipho¯ni (imperative?) ‘utter’ 869 W. (= 908 M.)
eupho¯na (neutr. plur.) ‘sonorous’ (words) after 418 W. (= 1168 M.)
Isocration ‘in the manner of Isocrates’ 191 W. (= 186 M.)
lēro¯des ‘silly’ (talk) 192 W. (= 187 M.) (cj. ochle¯ron ‘tiresome’)
lexeis ‘words’ 84 W. (= 84 M.)
meiracio¯des ‘childish; affected’ (style) 192 W. (= 187 M.)
poeeticon ‘creative’ 542 W. (= 495 M.)
rhe¯sis (nom. plur.?) ‘speeches’ 788 W. (= 709 M.) (cj.)
rhetoricoterus ‘more eloquent’ 86 W. (= 86 M.)
sche¯ma ‘figure’ 416 W. (= 1133 M.) (but sche¯ma abl. sing. ‘posture’ 972 W. = 804 M.)
schole¯ ‘school’ 822-3 W. (= 756 M.)
semno¯s (adv.) ‘in a grand style’ 15 W. (= 15 M.)
sigma ‘sigma’ (the Greek letter) 391 W. (= 379 M.)
Medicine
apepsia ‘indigestion’ 976 W. (= 923 M.)
arthriticos ‘gouty’ 354 W. (= 331 M.)
III. Spoken Greek (?)
agelastos ‘the Unsmiling’ p. 422 W. (= 1300 M.)
aigilipoi ‘steep’ (mountains) 105 W. (= 113 M.)
amphitapos ‘double-napped coverlet’ 13 W. (= 13 M.), 277 W. (= 252 M.)
arytaena (Latinised) ‘’ladle’ 14 W. (= 17 M.)
Atticon ‘Attic’ coin 1259 W. (= 1199 M.)
cele¯tas (acc. plur.) ‘small fast boat’ 1359
chaere ‘hello’ 92-3 W. (= 93-4 M.)
Chios te dynaste¯s (sc. oinos) ‘Lord of Chios’ (wine) 596 W. (= 1131 M.)
chrysizon (sc. oinos) wine ‘of golden colour’ 1226-7 W. (= 1155 M.)
clinopodas (acc. plur.) ‘bed-feet’ 15 W. (= 15 M.)
diallaxon (fut. participle) ‘about to cross’ 334 W. (= 306 M.)
emble¯mate (abl. sing.) ‘mosaic’ 85 W. (= 85 M.)
empleuron (fem. acc.), ‘broad-flanked’ (woman) 1056 W. (= 1251 M.)
epiteugma, ‘hit, success’ 955 W. (= 829 M.)
hype¯reticos ‘dispatch-boat’? p. 421 W. (= 1359 M.)
muco ? (dat./abl. sing.) ‘the recesses’ (of a house) 1024 W. (= 1075 M.)
o¯motribes (sc. elaion) ‘cold-pressed’ (olive oil) 987 W. (= 961 M.)
oxyodontes ‘sharp-toothed’ 1028 W. (= 1065 M.)
Pararhenchon ‘the one who snores alongside’ 251 W. (= 1223 M.)
pso¯locopoumai ‘I burst with lust’ 332 W. (= 304 M.)
sophos ‘wise man’ 201 W. (= 1236 M.)
stomide (abl. sing.) ‘bridle-bit’ 518 W. (= 511 M.) (cj.)
te¯sorophylax (= the¯saurophylax) ‘treasurer’ 623 W. (= 581 M.) (with Oscan pronunciation)
thaunomeno? (cj. ‘thaumaino’ ‘I am surprised’, or chauno(s) meno¯ ‘I’ll stay relaxed’) 275 W. (= 238 M.)
tocoglyphos ‘usurer’ 540 W. (= 497 M.)
bibliography
Adams, J.N. (1982), The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London.
— (1984) ‘Female speech in Latin comedy’, Antichthon 18: 43-77.
— (1995), Pelagonius, Veterinary Treatises and the Language of Veterinary Medicine, Leiden–New York.
— (2002), Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge.
— (2003), ‘ ‘Romanitas’ and the Latin language’, CQ 53: 184-205.
— and Mayer, R.G. (eds.) (1999), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry, Oxford.
— Janse, M., Swain, S. (eds.) (2002), Bilingualism in Ancient Society. Language Contact and the Written Word, Oxford.
Arcellaschi, A. (1992), ‘Ennius et l’apparition d’un langage philosophique’, in La langue latine langue de la philosophie (Actes du colloque organisé par l’École française de Rome avec le concours de l’Université de Rome «La Sapienza» [Rome 17-19 mai 1990]), Rome: 59-73.
Argenio, R. (1963), ‘I grecismi in Lucilio’, RSC 11: 5-17.
Astbury, R. (1983), ‘Notes on Varro’s Menippeans’, C&M 34: 141-60.
Babič, M. (2003), ‘Fremdsprachliches in Plautus’ Poenulus’, in Oniga 2003: 17-30.
Baier, T. (2001), ‘Lucilius und die griechischen Wörter’, in Manuwald 2001: 37-50.
Baldwin, B. (1992), ‘Greek in Cicero’s letters’, AC 25: 1-17.
Bettini, M. (2003), ‘Graphicus –ice e alcuni riferimenti plautini alla pittura. Metafore pittoriche e rappresentazione drammatica’, in Oniga 2003: 31-61.
Biville, F. (1987), Graphie et prononciation des mots grecs en latin, Paris.
— (1989b), ‘Grec et latin: contacts linguistiques et création lexicale. Pour une typologie des hellénismes lexicaux du latin’, CILL 15.1-4: 29-40.
— (1990), Les Emprunts du latin au grec. Approche phonétique, Tome I: Introduction et consonantisme, Louvain-Paris.
— (1992), ‘Les interférences entre les lexiques grec et latin, et le Dictionnaire Étymologique de P. Chantraine’, in F. Létoublon (ed.), La langue et les textes en grec ancien (Actes du Colloque Pierre Chantraine [Grenoble, 5-8 septembre 1989]), Amsterdam: 227-240.
— (2002) ‘The Graeco-Romans and Graeco-Latin: a terminological framework for cases of bilingualism’, in Adams-Janse-Swain (2002): 77-102.
Boldrer, F. (2003), ‘Il bilinguismo di Cicerone: scripta Graeca Latina (fam. 15, 4), in Oniga 2003: 131-150.
Boyancé, P. (1956), ‘La connaissance du grec à Rome’, REL 34: 111-131.
Cavalca, M.G. (2001), I grecismi nel Satyricon di Petronio, Bologna.
Coleman, R. (1989), ‘The formation of specialized vocabularies in philosophy, grammar and rhetoric: winners and losers’, CILL 15.1-4: 77-89.
Cucchiarelli, A. (2001), La satira e il poeta: Orazio tra Epodi e Sermones, Pisa.
De Meo, C. (1983), Lingue tecniche del latino, Bologna.
Deschamps, L. (1976), Étude sur la langue de Varron dans les satires Ménippées, Lille-Paris.
Dickey, E. (2002) Latin forms of address: from Plautus to Apuleius, Oxford.
Dubuisson, M. (1985), Le latin de Polybe. Les implications historiques d’un cas de bilinguisme, Paris.
— (1991), ‘Graecus, Graeculus, Graecari: l’emploi péjoratif du nom des Grecs en latin’, in S. Said (ed.), ELLHNISMOS, Quelques jalons pour une histoire de l’identité grecque (Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 25-27 octobre 1989), Leiden -New York –København - Köln: 315-335.
— (1992a), ‘Le grec à Rome à l’epoque de Cicéron. Extension et qualité du bilinguisme’, Annales ESC 1:187-206.
— (1992b), ‘Le contact linguistique gréco-latin: problèmes d’interférences et d’emprunts’, Lalies 10: 91-109.
Dunkel, G.E. (2000), ‘Remarks on code-switching in Cicero’s letters to Atticus’, Museum Helveticum 57: 122-129.
Elliott, R.C. (1982), The Literary Persona, Chicago–London.
Ernout, A. (1954), Aspects du vocabulaire latin, Paris.
Fraenkel, Ed. (1957), Horace, Oxford.
Freudenburg, K. (1993), The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory of Satire, Princeton.
— (2001), Satires of Rome: threatening poses from Lucilius to Juvenal, Cambridge.
Fucecchi, M. (2003), ‘Il plurilinguismo della Menippea latina: appunti su Varrone satirico e l’Apocolocyntosis di Seneca’, in Oniga 2003: 91-130.
Gelsomino, R. (1959), ‘Il greco e i grecismi di Augusto. La vita privata’, Maia 11: 120-131.
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1995), ‘Code-switching in the context of dialect/standard language relations’, in Milroy- Muysken 1995: 45-67.
Grassi, E. (1961), ‘Nota a Lucilio’, A&R 6: 148.
Gruen, E.S., Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, Ithaca-New York 1992.
Gusmani, R. (1973), ‘Di alcuni presunti prestiti greci in latino’, BSL 3: 76-88.
Henderson, J. (1991), The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd ed., New York–Oxford 1991.
Highet, G. (1974), ‘Masks and faces in satire’, Hermes 102: 321-37.
Horsfall, N. (1979), ‘Doctus sermones utriusque linguae’, EMC 23: 79-95.
Hough, J.N. (1934), ‘The use of Greek words by Plautus’, AJPh 55: 346-364.
Hutchinson, G.O. (1998), Cicero’s Correspondence. A Literary Study, Oxford: 13-16.
Jannaccone, S. (1950), Recherches sur les éléments grecs du vocabulaire latin de l’Empire, I, Paris.
Jocelyn, H.D. (1999), ‘Code-Switching in the Comoedia Palliata’, in G. Vogt-Spira & B. Rommel (edd.), Rezeption und Identität. Die kulturelle Auseinandersetzung Roms mit Griechenland als europäisches Paradigma, Stuttgart: 169-195.
Jones, F.M.A. (1989), ‘A Note on Lucilius 88-94 M.’, LCM 14: 153-4.
Kaimio, J. (1979), The Romans and the Greek Language, Helsinki.
Korfmacher, W. Ch. (1934-5), ‘Grecizing in Lucilian satire’, CJ 30: 453-462.
Lachmann, K. (1851), [‘De Graecis apud Lucilius’], Berlin (= Kleinere Schriften II, Berlin 1876: 73-76).
Langslow, D.R. (2000), Medical Latin in the Roman Empire, Oxford.
Leumann, M. (1977), Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre, Munich: 74-78; 124-125.
Lévy, C. (1992), ‘Cicéron createur du vocabulaire latin de la connaissance: essay de synthèse’, in La langue latine langue de la philosophie, Rome: 91-106.
Manuwald, G. (ed.) (2001), Die Satiriker Lucilius und seine Zeit, München.
Mariotti, I. (1960), Studi luciliani, Firenze 1960.
Mazzarino, A. (1963), ‘Ancora greco in Lucilio’, Helikon 3: 467-472.
McClure, E. (1998), ‘The relationship between form and function in written national language — English Codeswitching’, in R. Jacobson (ed.), Codeswitching Worldwide, Berlin-New York 1998: 125-150.
Milroy, L. - Muysken, P. (eds.) (1995), One Speaker, Two Languages. Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Code-switching, Cambridge.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1988), ‘Differentiating borrowing and codeswitching’, in K. Ferrara, K. Walters and W. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Change and Contact, Austin: 318-325.
— (1993), Duelling Languages. Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching, Oxford.
North, H. (1952), ‘The use of poetry in the training of the ancient orator’, Traditio 8: 1-33. (p. 27 ff. quote in Powell 1995)
Oksala, P. (1953), Die griechischen Lehnwörter in der Prosaschriften Ciceros, Helsinki.
Oliensis, E. (1998), Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority, Cambridge.
Oniga, R. (ed.) (2003), Il plurilinguismo nella tradizione letteraria latina, Rome.
Pabon, J.M. (1939), ‘El griego, lengua de la intimidad entre los Romanos’, Emerita 7: 126-131.
Petersmann, H. (1995), ‘The language of early Roman satire’: its function and characteristics’, in Adams and Mayer: 289-310.
Poccetti, P. (2003), ‘Il plurilinguismo nelle satire di Lucilio e le selve dell’interpretazione: gli elementi italici nei frammenti 581 e 1318 M.’, in Oniga 2003: 63-89.
Powell, J.G.F. (1995), ‘Cicero’s translations from Greek’, in J.G.F. Powell (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher, Oxford: 273-300.
— (1999), ‘Stylistic registers in Juvenal’, in Adams and Mayer: 311-334.
Romaine, S. (1995), Bilingualism (2nd ed.), Cambridge.
Rose, H. J. (1921), ‘The Greek of Cicero’, JHS 41: 91-116.
Rudd, N. (1986), Themes in Roman Satire, London).
Saalfeld, G. A. (1884), Die Lautgesetze der griechischen Lehnwörter im Lateinischen, Leipzig: xii-132.
Salanitro, M. (1982-7), ‘Grecismi e greco nelle Menippee di Varrone’, Helikon 22-27: 297-349.
Shipp, G.P. (1953), ‘Greek in Plautus’, WSt 66: 105-112.
— (1979), Modern Greek Evidence for the Ancient Greek Vocabulary, Sydney.
Scribner, H.S. (1920), ‘Cicero as a Hellenist’, CJ 16: 81-92. (Boyancé says it’s not very interesting)
Seamann, W.H. (1954-5), ‘The Understanding of Greek by Plautus’ Audience’, CJ 50: 115-119.
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1962-3), ‘LSJ and Cicero’s Letters’, CQ 12: 159-165; 13: 88.
Steele, R. B. (1900), ‘The Greek in Cicero’s epistles’, AJPh 21: 387-410.
Swain, S. (2002), ‘Bilingualism in Cicero? The evidence of code-switching’, in Adams-Janse-Swain (2002) 128-167.
Trappes-Lomax, J.M. (2002), ‘Three suggestions in Latin poetry. Lucilius 186-7 (Marx)’, CQ 52: 611.
Venini, P. (1952), ‘La distribuzione delle parole greche nell’epistolario di Cicerone, Rend. Ist. Lomb. 85: 50 ff.
— (1952), ‘Le parole greche nell’epistolario di Plinio’, Rend. Ist. Lomb. 85: II.259-269.
Weis, R. (1992), ‘Zur Kenntis des Griechischen im Rom der republikanischen Zeit’, in Müller et al. (1992), 137-142.
Weise, O. (1882), Die griechischen Wörter im Latein, Leipzig (reprinted 1964): 11-42.
Wenskus, O. (1993), ‘Zitatzwang als Motiv für Codewechsel in der lateinischen Prosa’, Glotta 71: 205-216.
— (1998), Emblematischer Codewechsel und Verwandtes in der lateinischen Prosa. Zwischen Nähesprache und Distanzsprache, Innsbruck.
Woytek, J. (1970), Sprachliche Studien zur Satura Menippea Varros, Wien-Köln-Graz: 21, 49-52.
Zetzel, J.E.G. (2002), ‘Dreaming about Quirinus: Horace’s Satires and the development of Augustan poetry’, in T. Woodman and D. Feeney, Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace, Cambridge: 38-52.
[1] See Diom. gramm. 1.485 K. satira dicitur carmen apud Romanos nunc quidem maledicum et ad carpenda hominum uitia … compositum, quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius et Persius. Et olim carmen quod ex uariis poematibus constabat satira uocabatur, quale scripserunt Pacuuius et Ennius. See also Quint. Inst. 10.1.95 alterum illud prius saturae genus, sed non sola carminum uarietate mixtum.
[2] See, most recently, Petersmann 1999: 289-90.
[3] Quintilian, Inst. 1.10.93 satura quidem tota nostra est, in qua primus insignem laudem adeptus Lucilius quosdam ita deditos sic adhuc habet amatores ut eum non eiusdem modo operis auctoribus sed omnibus poetis praeferre non dubitent.
[4] In this paper I concentrate on the tradition of Latin verse satire as identified by Horace (and carried on by Persius and Juvenal). It goes without saying that the Greek element is far more prominent in the parallel tradition of the so-called Menippean satire, itself a literary form derived from a Greek model.
[5] Cf. Zetzel 2002: 38-42, and n. 4 p. 211; Cucchiarelli 2001: 176-77.
[6] See e.g. Powell 1995: 290; Gruen 1992; Adams 2003.
[7] Schol. Hor. Sat. 1.7.2 ‘Hybrida’ dicitur, qui habet Graecum patrem et matrem Italam; aut per contrarium Hybridam dicunt appellari, qui mixto genere sermonis loquatur Greace Latineque …translatiue ergo Horatius lacerauit Persium quasi semiromanum. See also Biville 2002: 88-9.
[8] Suet. gramm. 1.1 antiquissimi doctorum, qui et poetae et semigraeci erant (Liuium et Ennium dico, quos utraque lingua domi forisque docuisse adhuc notum est).
[9] Varro, RR 2.1.2 ‘for Scrofa, ‘who is a much better man than I’ (hosper mou pollo¯n ameinon) – I say it in Greek to two half-Greek shepherds (semigraecis pastoribus)’: cf. e.g. Hom. Il. 7.114.
[10] Hor. S. 2.1.32-34 ille uelut fidis arcana sodalibus olim / credebat libris … / … quo fit ut omnis / uotiua pateat ueluti descripta tabella / uita senis. On the notion of ‘self-portraiture’ see Fraenkel 1957: 152 f.
[11] See e.g. Pabon 1939; see contra Adams 2002: 308-23.
[12] A comparable analysis may be conducted on Varro’s Menippean Satires. Varro, like Lucilius, occasionally uses Italian languages as well as Greek to reproduce un-Roman traits: see e.g. Astbury 1983: 144 on the Celtic word gabalus ‘gallows’ (Varr. Men. 24); cf. Salanitro 1990: 70.
[14] E.H. Warmington’s edition (Remains of Old Latin III, Loeb Classical Library, rev. ed. 1967) records 1272 lines, plus a section on single words and phrases counts at 418-23; F. Marx’ edition (Leipzig 1904-5) included 1378 ‘lines’ (either complete or not, isolated words, and testimonia on the text).
[15] The word cantherius indicates a horse of low quality, not necessarily a ‘gelding’ (as in Warmington’s translation): see Adams 1995: 70 and 105.
[16] Cf. Pollux 7.61, Hsch. s.v.: see Biville 1990: 1.151.
[17] Plaut. Most. 991 libertas paenulast tergo tuo ‘your freedom’s a cloak for your shoulders’; Cic. Att. 13.33a.1 has the proverb paenulam scindere ‘to tear one’s coat’, i.e. to beg someone to stay.
[18] See the Index of Greek words in Marx’s edition, vol. I (1904); Mariotti 1960: 50-81.
[19] See e.g. A. Giacalone Ramat in Milroy-Muysken 1995: 59; McClure 1998: 134.
[21] Cf. Myers-Scotton 1993: 176.
[22] I am grateful for this remark to Prof. F. Bellandi.
[23] See Adams 1982: 13 (on Gr. psolos) and 2002: 361.
[24] See also Anacr. 439 P.; Eupolis PCG V 174: see Henderson 1991: 137.
[25] Porph. Hor. Sat. 1.2.125 ‘Haec ubi supposuit dextro corpus mihi laeuum’: hoc est, quod Lucilius ait in VIII ‘et cruribus crura diallaxon’.
[27] Eur. Heracl. 836 to deuteron de pous epallachtheis podi. See J. Wilkins’ note ad loc.
[28] I owe this suggestion to Prof. Rolando Ferri and Dr. Lucia Prauscello.
[29] See Hough 1934, Shipp 1953, Jocelyn 1999, Babič 2003, Bettini 2003.
[30] First of all Lachmann 1851; Korfmacher 1934-5, Mariotti 1960: 50-81, Argenio 1963, Mazzarino 1963, Petersmann 1999, Baier 2001, Poccetti 2003.
[31] See Woytek 1970, Deschamps 1976, Salanitro 1982-7, Fucecchi 2003.
[32] See Steele 1900, Scriber 1920, Rose 1921, Venini 1952, Shackleton Bailey 1962-3, Hutchinson 1998, Baldwin 2002, Boldrer 2003; a socio-linguistic approach in Dunkel 2000, Swain 2002, Adams 2002: 308-47.
[33] See most recently Fucecchi 2003.
[34] See most recently Cavalca 2001.
[36] A list of authors in Wenskus 1998.
[37] See Zetzel 2002: 42.
[38] Varro RR 2.5.1 at Q. Lucienus senator, homo quamuis humanus ac iocosus, introiens, familiaris omnium nostrum: ‘Synepirotae’ inquit ‘chaerete: Scrofam enim et Varronem nostrum, ‘poimena lao¯n’, mane salutaui’. On this passage see Wenskus 1998: 13; Biville 2002: 78.
[39] Commentators suggest that the two-syllable word Lucilius had in mind might have been an abusive term such as e.g. moecha, porne¯, or sim. (‘whore’).
[40] Rudd 1986: 168. See also Adams 2002: 331.
[41] See e.g. De Meo 1983. On Latin philosophical language in particular see Coleman 1989; Arcellaschi 1992 (Ennius); Levy 1992, Powell 1995 (Cicero).
[42] For the relation in frequency of Greek/Latin terms in Columella, Celsus, Cassius Felix and others, see Adams 1995: 341 ff.; Langslow 2001: 76 ff. (with summary diagram at 99).
[43] Cf. Langslow 2001: 29.
[44] First in Pliny the Younger, Epist. 7.27.5.
[45] Serv. Aen. 10.104 de interitu Lupi; Lact. 4.3.12 deorum concilium.
[46] There is a gap in the text at this point, but one would be tempted to imagine that Lucilius deliberately extended the narration to an annoying extent. Housman’s supplement at line 188 W. (= 183 M.) is a mere attempt at reconstructing the narrative.
[47] Unless we read ochle¯ronque ‘irksome, tiresome’ with Trappes-Lomax 2002: 611: cf. Dion. Hal. Dem. 15, Thuc. 30. The manuscripts of Gellius exhibit a nonsensical ochle¯ro¯des (in Greek letters); le¯rodes is an emendation of Scaliger.
[48] See Adams 2002: 326-7.
[49] Thaunomeno is the transmitted text of Nonius manuscripts, defended by I. Mariotti; Haupt proposed a metrically unsuitable thaumaeno (i.e. Greek thaumaino) and Lachmann thauma men, equivalent in meaning (‘I am surprised’, ‘indeed a surprise’). Marx conjectured a possibly obscene chauno’ meno, which Warmington renders as ‘I’ll thtay open’.
[50] See Mariotti 1960: 80.
[51] See Adams 1984 on Roman comedy.
[52] Courtney ad loc., with Heliodor. 8.6.4, Machon 223 Gow). Juvenal’s passage is appropriately quoted by H.A. Holden in his note to Cic. off. 1.111, for which see below, IV.
[53] Adams 2002: 361, within a thorough discussion at 360-2. See also Kaimio 1979: 192, Swain 2002: 164-5.
[54] On this passage and similar cases of loan-shift see Adams 2002: 465. See also Biville 2002: 98-102.
[55] See Mariotti 1960: 58.
[56] See Adams 2002: 325-9; Petersmann 1999: 338.
[57] M.L. West, note to Hes. Th. 831 (Oxford 1966: 387-8). Eduard Fraenkel – in a manuscript note to our passage in his own copy of Marx’s edition of Lucilius, now in the Sackler (Oxford) – entered a parallel from Attic comedy where semno¯s seems to mark the contrast between the language of gods and the language of men: Sannyrio (PCG VII.1) ‘we immortals call “sacrificial offer” what you mortals semnos call “barley meal” ’ (pelanon <kaloumen he¯meis hoi theoi / ha kaleite semno¯s alphith’ humeis hoi brotoi). The supplement is Isaac Casaubon’s; Meineke proposed to read asemnos; others propose to move the adverb to line 1: see Kassel-Austin ad loc. The text is undeniably problematic.
[58] Cic. Orat. 164 quare bonitate potius nostrorum uerborum utamur quam splendore Graecorum ‘therefore let us use the good Latin words, rather than the magnificent Greek ones’.
[59] Cic. Brut. 140 non enim tam praeclarum est scire Latine quam turpe nescire, neque tam id mihi oratoris boni quam ciuis Romani proprium uidetur. On the alleged connection between Latin and Roman citizenship see Adams 2003: 186.
[60] Cic. Off. 1.111 omnino si quicquam est decorum, nihil est profecto magis quam aequabilitas cum uniuersae uitae …. ut enim sermone eo debemus uti, qui uernaculus est nobis, ne, ut quidam, Graeca uerba inculcantes iure optimo rideamur, sic in actiones omnemque uitam nullam discrepantiam conferre debemus. The word uernaculus is an emendation of Watt; the transmitted text has notus, Baiter conjectured innatus.
[61] See A. Dyck’s note ad loc.
[62] On the political implications of the trial see Gruen 1992: 257-8, 290-1.
[63] See Adams 2002: 355.
[64] See Swain 2002: 128-167.
[65] Atkins 1952: II.11-2: ‘it is with Lucilius that we get ... the first direct attack on current abuses of diction solecisms ... provincialisms ... fondness for Graecisms, a mannerism much affected in the cultured circles of his day.’
[66] See Grassi 1961: 148, Adams 2002: 673. The Greek form of address seems enough to motivate Albucius’ resentment. A different interpretation has however been put forward. Jones (1989: 153-4) recalls the substandard word titus ‘dove’ = membrum uirile (cf. Schol. Pers. 1.20; Adams 1982: 32, 44, 214), arguing that there may be a ‘double entendre worthy of repetition, both abusive and amusing’ in the use of the praenomen (with chiastic contrast, Albuci ... Tite ... Tite ... Albucius). Either way Scaevola’s apparently polite salutation was clearly meant as a verbal assault.
[67] See Dickey 2002: 70.
[68] Cic. Brut. 131 doctus etiam graecis T. Albucius uel potius plane Graecus … fuit enim Athenis adulescens, perfectus Epicureus euaserat, minime aptum ad dicendum genus.
[69] On the notion of aggressive accommodation see Adams 2002: 353.
[70] Cicero’s comment is found in the accompanying letter addressed to Atticus (10.8.10 odiosas litteras). On this episode see Swain 2002: 164 n. 100.
[71] Cicero quotes Lucil. 84 f. again in Orator 149.
[72] Cic. Att. 1.16.13 qua re, ut opinor, philosophe¯teon, id quod tu facis, et istos consulatus non flocci facteon ‘therefore I suppose one must take to letters, as you do, and not care a button for their consulship’ (transl. D.R. Shackleton Bailey).
[73] Cf. Adams 2002: 309.
[74] Cic. Verr. 2.4.5 erant aenea duo … signa …Canephoroe ipsae uocabantur; sed earum artificem — quem? quemnam? recte admones, Polyclitum esse dicebant. North 1952: 27 speaks of Cicero’s ‘fear of exciting popular resentment against superior erudition, or possibly things Greek’.
[76] Elliott 1982: 165 ff.
