The Worlds of Aulus Gellius

TH E W OR LDS OF AULUS GE LLIU S This page intentionally left blank The Worlds of Aulus Gellius Edited by LEOFRAN...

Author: Leofranc Holford-Strevens | Amiel Vardi

189 downloads 1286 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

TH E W OR LDS OF AULUS GE LLIU S

This page intentionally left blank

The Worlds of Aulus Gellius

Edited by

LEOFRANC HOLFORD-STREVENS and

AMIEL VARDI

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # Oxford University Press 2004 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data The worlds of Aulus Gellius / [edited by] Leofranc Holford-Strevens, Amiel Vardi. p. cm. Summary: ‘‘Aulus Gellius originated the modern use of ‘classical’ and ‘humanities’. This study examines his life and writings’’ – Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-926482-1 (alk. paper) 1. Gellius, Aulus- 2. Gellius, Aulus-Noctes Atticae. 3. Authors, Latin-Biography. 4. Rome–In literature- I. Holford-Strevens, Leofranc. II. Vardi, Amiel D. PA6391.W67 2005 8780 .01–dc22 2004024141 ISBN 0–19–926482–1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset by Kolam Information Services Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk

Preface The idea for this book originated during the preparations for the colloquium on ‘Aulus Gellius and his Worlds’ held at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, on 17 May 2003. That occasion was to our knowledge the Wrst conference ever devoted to Gellius; likewise this volume, incorporating all the papers delivered at the colloquium but conceived on a larger scale, is the Wrst collection, in any language, of Gellian essays by various hands. The plural ‘Worlds’ in the title of colloquium and collection was and is intentional, for Gellius moved in his own day, and has moved since, in several worlds. We see him amongst lawyers and philosophers, the student learning from his elders, the scholar correcting the ignorant, the loving friend of the polymath Favorinus, the zealous recorder of Fronto’s verbal precision. He hears lawsuits and visits libraries: he is at home in the study, but mixes without awkwardness in society. At one moment he deals in philosophical speculation about the nature of instantaneity; at another he is telling tales of dolphins who doted on boys, or retailing his favourite love-poems. We see him in Rome, in villeggiatura, and by the sea, but also in Greece, now inspecting a manuscript at Patrae, now travelling to the Pythian Games at Delphi, the rest of the time at Athens or in Attica. He improved his command of Greek, and studied philosophy with Taurus the Platonist; at one moment he was the tourist visiting Euripides’ cave, at another the scholar discussing Latin in the Lyceum; he attended Herodes Atticus at his mansion, and the Cynic Peregrinus at his hovel; a boat-trip on a starry night Wnds him testing by observation an etymology for septemtriones, a journey back from Eleusis makes us conjecture initiation in the Mysteries—a mark of respectability, not religiosity. Immersed as he had been, and soon would be, in the Roman world, it is this Greek world (and its Roman representative Favorinus) that gave him ingenii cultus and breadth of mind, and it is to the winter nights in Attica, nights that though objectively shorter than those further north in Rome seemed long to Gellius in the quiet deme where he resided, those nights he whiled away, when not participating in the amusements of Saturnalia, by writing up his notes, that we owe his work, with all its charm and erudition.

vi

Preface

Indeed, if Antonine Athens had left no other trace, and in all other respects meant no more to us than the donkey-bearing Athens of the Turcocratia, still it would claim and receive our thanks for the Attic Nights. The question whether and in what respects we should view Gellius as reXecting contemporary Greek cultural phenomena (such as linguistic Atticism and the so-called Second Sophistic) on the one hand, or independent Roman traditions on the other, occupied much Gellian scholarship of the twentieth century, and continues to receive consideration in the present volume. But the numerous worlds of Antonine Rome and Greece do not exhaust those of Aulus Gellius. After his death, he became a resource for pagan and Christian alike, read by Nonius, Ammianus, and Macrobius, by Minucius Felix, Lactantius, and Augustine, sometimes for his words, sometimes for his matter. In the Middle Ages, though often read in Xorilegia rather than the original, and subjected to the false name of Agellius, he was not neglected by those who had access to him: his works were sought out, and as many pre-1400 copies now lost are attested as now survive. The Renaissance eagerly adopted him not only as a source of information, but as a model for its elegant presentation; indeed, it was he, rather than Cicero, who deWned the humanists’ humanitas. The Enlightenment even elevated Gellius to the next world, as described in the Vision of the amateur philosopher Abraham Tucker. At Wrst he does not appear entirely to his advantage: as John Locke is made to explain, ‘having a very moderate capacity he could produce little of his own’, but being no more than ‘a diligent honest creature’ (for which reason indeed ‘we acknowledge him for one of our line’) whose talents were ‘industry and exactness’, he is set to recording the narrator’s adventures. Yet at the end we Wnd he may have been both less and more: on the one hand, it is conceivable that his records were inaccurate: ‘if there be anything in them not consonant to the truth of facts it is his fault for misleading me’; on the other he was capable of original comment: ‘It vexed me that I could not recover his interlineations for by the imperfect notion I have of them I imagine they tend to harmonize Reason with Religion . . . ’. Tucker thus corrects the very prejudice that he anticipates; for a period was to follow in which, Gellius’ information appearing to have been mined, like other authors who had the misfortune to survive he was disparaged as an inferior substitute for his lost sources. But now that scholarship has come to terms with his blurred distinction between fact and Wction, and understood that he is no mere transcriber, but has notions of his own and a design

Preface

vii

that we should think as well as read, not only do we once more acknowledge him for one of our line, but we have escorted him back to the world that is rightly his, of authors deemed worthy of study for their own sake. It would be impossible to enclose all Gellius’ worlds within the compass of one volume; a selection was necessary. The essays are distributed into three Parts: ‘Contexts and Achievements’, ‘Ideologies’, and ‘Reception’. In Part I Simon Swain examines the implications for Romans, and in particular the Antonines—Apuleius and Fronto as well as Gellius—of using, or not using, Greek within a Latin context. Alessandro Garcea and Valeria Lomanto consider ancient approaches to loan-words, and the diVerences between Fronto’s and Gellius’ evaluations of the lively vulgarisms in Laberius’ mimes; Franco Cavazza elucidates Gellius’ linguistic skills as an etymologist by seeking to isolate those derivations he hit on for himself; Graham Anderson compares his skills as a narrator with those of other writers, in particular Fronto and Aelian; Andrew J. Stevenson considers his relation to the antiquarian tradition on which he drew so extensively. Part II was conceived as a tribute to the late Rene´ Marache, who initiated the modern rehabilitation of Gellius and credited him with an humanisme gellien in which the primary role was played by ethics (‘le primat de la morale’). Amiel Vardi reviews the expectations that Gellius raised by choosing to write in the genre of miscellany, and the manner in which his departures from generic conventions allow him to project his ideas about knowledge, learning, and the intellectual world; Teresa Morgan demonstrates that his claim to educate his readers in sound morality can be upheld on a more generous understanding of ethical instruction than recent critics have allowed; Stephen M. Beall engages directly with Marache’s concept, which he vindicates by reinterpreting it of mental and social improvement; Wytse Keulen compares Gellius’ attitude to intellectuals with that of Apuleius against a background of satirical tradition. In the opening chapter of Part III, Leofranc Holford-Strevens considers the medieval exploitation of a morally improving Gellian text, false ascriptions to Gellius of matter from other sources, and traces of his diVusion through manuscripts now lost or fragmentary. Michael Heath studies his presence in sixteenth-century France, covering his editorial history and his service to scholarship and literature, above all Montaigne’s Essais; Wnally, Anthony Grafton shows humanists learning from him how to accumulate information, display their learning, and conduct their quarrels, but also

viii

Preface

demonstrates how he stimulated scientiWc research—a surprising achievement, it may be, but not inappropriate for the man who wrote on missile trajectories and Wre-prevention. As Gellius challenged the demarcations of specialized learning, and changed masks between insider and outsider at will, so the established and younger contributors to this volume include Gellian experts looking out and specialists in other Welds looking in. They also exhibit both traditional and new approaches. Gellius’ linguistic interests are considered in the light of both ancient grammatical doctrine and modern comparative philology within a context of Quellenforschung (Cavazza) and stylistics (Garcea and Lomanto). Several authors treat him against a broader social, cultural, and literary background: ancient views on education and ethics (Morgan, Beall); antiquarianism (Stevenson); the ambivalent place of the intellectual (Keulen); a bilingual culture in which the choice of language is seldom innocent (Swain); the learned miscellany (Vardi); the practice of narrative (Anderson). Others consider Gellius’ place in the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Baroque (HolfordStrevens, Heath, Grafton), ranging in purview from manuscript studies by way of homiletics to emblems, music, and mechanics. Almost every paper touches on central issues in the history of ideas such as concepts of language, tradition, and ethnicity and competing views of knowledge, science(s), and intellectual life. Insights have been gained from recent intellectual developments: the part played by Xorilegia in medieval learning (Holford-Strevens); feminist and post-modern views of ethics (Morgan); sociolinguistics and the play of powers controlling choice of language (Swain); genre theory and narratology (Anderson, Vardi); ironic self-presentation and subversion (Keulen). Such approaches may be indicative of fascinating developments in Gellian studies yet to come. Our thanks are due to Bonnie Blackburn for preparing the music example in Ch. 10 and for help with the indexes, to the Royal Library in Brussels for Pl. 10. 2, and to Princeton University Library for the illustrations in Ch. 12. We also owe a debt of gratitude to all those who attended and contributed to the Corpus colloquium, whether as speakers or as audience, but above all to Ewen Bowie for proposing it in the Wrst place, for organizing it with patience and enthusiasm, and for encouraging the publication of the present volume. Le o f r a n c Ho l f o r d -St r e v e n s Oxford Am i e l Va r d i Jerusalem 22 March 2004

Contents List of Illustrations Abbreviations

xi xiii

List of Contributors

xv

PART I: CONTEXTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS 1. Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Antonine Rome: Apuleius, Fronto, and Gellius

3

SIMON SWAIN

2. Gellius and Fronto on Loanwords and Literary Models: Their Evaluation of Laberius A L E SS A ND R O G A R CE A

41

and V AL E R I A LO M A NT O

3. Gellius the Etymologist: Gellius’ Etymologies and Modern Etymology

65

F R A N CO CA V A Z Z A

4. Aulus Gellius as a Storyteller

105

G R A HA M A ND E R SO N

5. Gellius and the Roman Antiquarian Tradition

118

A N D RE W J . S T E V E N S O N

PART II: IDEOLOGIES 6. Genre, Conventions, and Cultural Programme in Gellius’ Noctes Atticae

159

A M I E L V A RD I

7. Educational Values

187

TERESA MORGAN

8. Gellian Humanism Revisited

206

S T E P HE N M . B E AL L

9. Gellius, Apuleius, and Satire on the Intellectual W YT S E K E U L E N

223

x

Contents PART III: RECEPTION

10. Recht as een Palmen-Bohm and Other Facets of Gellius’ Medieval and Humanistic Reception

249

L E O F R AN C H O L F O R D- ST RE V E N S

11. Gellius in the French Renaissance

282

M I C H A E L HE A T H

12. ConXict and Harmony in the Collegium Gellianum

318

A N T HO NY GR A F T O N

Bibliography

343

Index Locorum Potiorum Index Verborum de quibus A. Gellius disputat

375 379

Index Rerum et Nominum

380

List of Illustrations Plates 10.1. Emblem of the palm-tree, from Omnia Andreae Alciati .V.C. emblemata (Paris, 1608) 10.2. First page in text order of Fragmentum Egmondanum (Brussels, Royal Library, MS IV 625/60 (Gellius 14. 2. 19–25) 12.1. Design for a bookwheel, from Agostino Ramelli, Le diverse et artiWciose machine (Paris, 1588) 12.2. Design for a model of Archytas and his dove, from Athanasius Kircher, Magnes: siue de arte mechanica opus tripartitum, 3rd edn. (Rome, 1654)

257

267 325

340

Music example 10.1. Original text and melody of Anke van Tharaw, stt. 6–7, from Heinrich Albert, Fu¨nVter Theil der Arien (Ko¨nigsberg, 1642)

258


Abbreviations Bla¨nsdorf Bonaria C. CCSL CGL

Courtney CSEL D. DK DS Funaioli GG GL

Huschke–Seckel– Ku¨bler J. LHSz

Ju¨rgen Bla¨nsdorf, Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1995) Mario Bonaria, Mimi Romani2 (Rome, 1965). Codex Justinianus Corpus Christianorum, series Latina Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum a G. Loewe incohatum, ed. Georg Goetz, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1888–1923; repr. Amsterdam, 1965) Edward Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford, 1993) Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Digest Hermann Diels, rev. Walther Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6 (Berlin, 1951) Deutero-Servius Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta, ed. Gino Funaioli (Leipzig, 1907) Grammatici Graeci Grammatici Latini, ed. Heinrich Keil (vols. i, iv–vii), Martin Hertz (vols. ii–iii), Hermann Hagen (suppl.), 8 vols. in all (Leipzig, 1855– 80) Iurisprudentia anteiustiniana, ed. Ph. E. Huschke, rev. Emil Seckel and Bernhard Ku¨bler, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1908). Justinian, Institutiones Lateinische Grammatik2, i: Manu Leumann, Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre; ii: J. B. Hofmann, rev. Anton Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik; iii: Fritz Radt and Abel Westerbrink, Stellenregister und Verzeichnis

xiv

Abbreviations

der nichtlateinischen Wo¨rter (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, II 2/1–3; Munich, 1977–9) Malcovati Enrica Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta liberae rei publicae4 (Turin, 1976). Mazzarino Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta aetatis Caesareae, ed. Antonio Mazzarino, i (all published) (Turin, 1955) MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica Peter Hermann Peter, Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae, 2 vols. (Leipzig, i 21914, ii. 1906; repr. Stuttgart, 1967) PF Pauli excerpta ex libris Pompei Festi de uerborum signiWcatu, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Leipzig, 1913) PG Patrologia Graeca PL Patrologia Latina Ribbeck2 Otto Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta2, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1871–3; repr. Hildesheim, 1962) 3 Ribbeck Otto Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum poesis fragmenta3, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1897–8). Schanz–Hosius Martin Schanz, Geschichte der ro¨mischen Literatur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian4, rev. Carl Hosius, vols. i–ii (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 8; Munich, 1914–35, repr. with vols. iii–iv of the 3rd edn., 1959–67). Periodicals are abbreviated as in L’Anneé philologique. Festus and PF are cited by page and line of Lindsay, Nonius in the form ‘2 L. ¼ 3. 9 M.’ Stricter would be ‘p. 2 L. ¼ p. 3 Merc. l. 9 Mue.’: the pagination of Josias Mercerus’ second edition (Paris and Sedan, 1614; reproduced line for line Leipzig, 1826) was indicated by Lucian Mueller (2 vols., Leipzig, 1888), whose lineation was cued to Mercerus’ pages and not his own; Mercerus’ pages and Mueller’s lines are indicated by W. M. Lindsay (3 vols. Leipzig, 1903), and cited in preference to his own pages, though these are sooner found.

List of Contributors G r a h a m A n d e r s o n is Professor of Classics at the University of Kent. His interests are in narrative literature in Antiquity, and in the cultural history of the Roman Empire: he is the author of Ancient Fiction (1984); Philostratus (1986), The Second Sophistic (1993), Sage, Saint and Sophist (1994), and Fairytale in the GraecoRoman World (2000). S t e p h e n M . B e a l l is Associate Professor of Classics at Marquette University, Milwaukee. He is the author of a dissertation entitled ‘Civilis eruditio: Style and Content in the ‘‘Attic Nights’’ of Aulus Gellius’ (University of California, Berkeley, 1988) and of several articles relating to Gellius. F r a n c o Ca v a z z a is Professor of the History of Linguistics at the Universita` degli Studi di Bologna. His edition of Gellius (Bologna, 1985– ) has reached the end of book 13; he is also the author of Studio su Varrone etimologo e grammatico (1981), Questioni di ortoepia e ortograWa latina (1999), and Lezioni di indeoeuropeistica (2001–4), besides numerous articles on Gellius and other subjects. A l e s s a n d r o G a r c e a is Associate Professor at the Universite´ de Toulouse-Le Mirail and a researcher with the Laboratoire d’Histoire des Theóries Linguistiques (CNRS). His published articles include substantial studies of Gellius, most notably ‘Gellio e la dialettica’ (2000; based on his tesi di laurea at Turin). He is the editor of Colloquia absentium: studi sulla comunicazione epistolare in Cicerone (2003). A n t h o n y G r a f t o n is Dodge Professor in the Department of History, Princeton University. His many publications include Joseph Scaliger (1983–93), Forgers and Critics (1990), Defenders of the Text (1991), Commerce with the Classics (1997), and The Footnote (1998). M i c h a e l He a t h is Professor of French at King’s College London. He is the author of Crusading Commonplaces (1986) and Rabelais (1996), the editor of Rene´ de Lucinge, and the translator of numerous pieces for the Toronto Collected Works of Erasmus.

xvi

List of Contributors

L e o f r a n c H o l f o r d - S t r e v e n s is Consultant ScholarEditor at the Oxford University Press. He is the author of Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement and (with Bonnie J. Blackburn) of The Oxford Companion to the Year; also of numerous articles on classical and other themes. W y t s e K e u l e n is a postdoctoral researcher at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. His dissertation, entitled Apuleius Madaurensis, Metamorphoses, Book I, 1–20: Introduction, Text, Commentary (2003), will be published in the Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius. V a l e r i a L o m a n t o is Associate Professor in the Dipartimento di Filologia, Linguistica, e Tradizione Classica ‘Augusto Rostagni’ at the Universita` degli Studi di Torino. Her publications include ‘Lessici latini e lessicograWa automatica’ (1980), Concordantiae in Q. Aurelii Symmachi opera (1983), Index Grammaticus (1990: with Nino Marinone), and ‘Cesare e la teoria dell’eloquenza’ (1994–5). T e r e s a M o r g a n is Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at Oriel College, Oxford. She is the author of Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (1998). A n d r e w J. S t e v e n s o n is Departmental Administrator in the Department of Continuing Education at Lancaster University. He is the author of a thesis entitled ‘Aulus Gellius and Roman Antiquarian Writing’ (King’s College London, 1993). Si m o n S w a i n is Professor of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Warwick. His publications include Hellenism and Empire (1996), Dio Chrysostom (2003), Bilingualism in Ancient Society (2003; with J. N. Adams and Mark Janse), and Approaching Late Antiquity (2004; with M. J. Edwards). A m i e l V a r d i is Senior Lecturer in Classical Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of a dissertation entitled ‘Aulus Gellius as Reader of Poetry’ (in Hebrew) and a number of articles on Gellius and on Roman intellectual life in the Wrst two centuries of our era.

I CONTEXTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS


1 Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Antonine Rome Apuleius, Fronto, and Gellius Si m on Sw a in Understanding the cultural context of Aulus Gellius might seem straightforward. He was a highly educated Roman who had travelled to Athens as a student, knew prominent Greek sophists and philosophers, was an active member of the second-century Kulturszene at Rome, and was appointed to the respectable position of iudex extra ordinem. There is enough to interpret here without going further. But if we are interested in Gellius’ attitude to Greece and the Greek language, we cannot ignore the background of over two centuries of intense thinking and rethinking by Romans of their relationship with the older and more prestigious culture of their conquered neighbours. The legacy of this thought is apparent in Gellius and his contemporaries both in their responses to Greece and—more importantly—in how they viewed themselves as the leading lights of Latin literature in their time. For this reason I shall start this chapter by sketching relevant aspects of that relationship from the time of Cicero down to Apuleius. This sketch will necessarily be rapid and much of interest and importance will be omitted. I shall then focus in more detail on Fronto and on Gellius himself.

1. context and background: cicero to apuleius When Julius Caesar remarked that Cicero was more deserving of a medal than any military commander because ‘it was more I should like to thank the editors for their invitation to write this piece and for their comments and assistance. I am very grateful to Jim Adams for suggestions and encouragement.

Simon Swain

4

important to advance the boundaries of Rome’s ingenium than her imperium’ (Pliny the Elder, Natural History 7. 117), he knew what he was talking about. Control of culture was the central part of ancient education because it promised members of the governing classes power. Yet in the time of Cicero’s boyhood professional instruction in Latin rhetoric was still the object of suspicion at Rome. Towards the end of his life Cicero records in his patriotic history of Roman rhetoric, the Brutus, that the censors of 92 bc, M. Antonius and L. Licinius Crassus, had in fact banned the teaching of rhetoric in Latin. It is no coincidence that these two men are identiWed by Cicero as having ‘equalled the glory of the Greeks’ in their rhetorical powers (138). This privileged position entitled them to condemn lesser talents and to reinforce the traditional system of teaching the tricks of rhetoric through immersion in Greek—as if we should learn to express ourselves in English by practising Wrst in French. When Cicero presents Crassus discussing the edict in another late dialogue, On the Orator (3. 93–5), he has him predict that a time will come when ‘that old and superior wisdom of the Greeks’ will be transferred to Rome. Men of great learning will be needed for this to happen; but, if they should appear, ‘they will be ranked above the Greeks.’ In these remarks of Crassus, Cicero was praising his own success. It is his generation that witnessed the maturity of Latin culture. Already in Cicero’s 20s or 30s the author of the Ad Herennium was pointing the way forward to formal, Greek-style rhetorical instruction in and for Latin. Cicero records that he still declaimed in Greek to shape his Latin usage at this time (Brutus 310) and he continued to do so till the end of his life (Ad Att. 9. 4). But things were changing. Translation complemented this process by developing awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of Latin in relation to Greek. Cicero’s little work, De optimo genere oratorum, from 46 is ostensibly an introduction to translations of On the Crown and Against Ctesiphon.1 But the absence of the translations simply reinforces the purpose of what is in eVect a defence of using Greek models to produce excellent Latin. It is well known that Cicero and others of his epoch had a mixed view of Greeks. They admired classical Greek civilization but often despised the contemporary Greeks they ruled over.2 This attitude reXects the particular circumstances of the time as much as 1

I accept the authenticity of this work, as J. G. F. Powell, ‘Cicero’s Translations’, 278 is inclined to do. 2 N. Petrochilos, Roman Attitudes, is a useful survey of Roman views.

Bilingualism and Biculturalism

5

anything. A combination of exploitative provincial government, Roman civil wars, and Greek political chaos had made Greeks despicable and cringing in Roman eyes. We should remember that despite the Hellenizing tastes of many individuals in their homes and private endeavours, Rome itself was hardly Hellenized as a city in terms of its amenities. The Theatre of Pompey (inaugurated in 55) was the Wrst in a very long line of buildings that were built under the inXuence of Greek (or rather Hellenistic–Greek) styles and aspirations. This new Rome was Wrst realized in the long reign of Augustus. Greek styles and inXuences permeate his buildings, and this reXects the very important but gradual change in the status and character of the City during the Empire as it became ever more cosmopolitan in appearance and population and the old capital of the Roman Republic faded from sight. The acquisition of Greek by the Romans of the Late Republic may be seen as a process of Sprachanschluß (‘language annexation’), as Wrst described by the sociolinguist Henrik Becker in connection with the rise of Czech and Hungarian to national standard languages in the context of the dominance of German.3 The process is a familiar one: codiWcation and enrichment, purism, the development of the national literary language on the model of an existing better-established code with a view to usurping and replacing it. This is what Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Varro, and the late Republican and Augustan poets did at Rome. A fascinating part of the Roman annexation of Greek is the phenomenon of code-switching or the practice of using two or more languages in the same utterance.4 Code-switching is not necessarily indicative of bilingualism (which is the ability to deploy two languages equally or fairly equally). Rather, it is an expression of a desire or a need to deploy and negotiate two (or more) language-speciWc identities. In the case of the Romans of the Late Republic—at least in the sole extensive source of evidence, Cicero—using Greek tags, quotations, or starting or Wnishing an utterance in Greek is, as I have argued elsewhere, a sign of a wish to display knowledge of Greek to those members of the Roman elite who shared their tastes.5 It stakes a claim to be recognized as a cultural equal. The evidence points strongly to the fact that Romans’ Greek identity in language usage was accessed mainly in private and—though proof on this 3

H. Becker, Sprachanschlu¨sse. As deWned by Adams and Swain in J. N. Adams, M. Janse, S. Swain, Bilingualism, 2. 5 Swain, ‘Bilingualism in Cicero?’ 4

Simon Swain

6

point is lacking—between men.6 There is no evidence for the often casual assumption that Romans regularly spoke in Greek to each other. Greek was part of the construction of Romanness. Moreover, it was something to play down or hide in Roman public life. We might expect Romans to have become more relaxed about Greek from the Augustan period onwards. After all, Roman power was indisputable and Roman intellectual and artistic worth was assured by the establishment of their own canons and by the beautiWcation of Rome and other Roman cities. But our sources, though uneven in their value, show that tension continued. In the Wfth decade of the Wrst century ad Seneca the Elder recalled the performances he had seen at Rome by teachers of rhetoric who were active for the most part under Augustus, the generation on a par with, or ahead of, ‘insolent Greece’ owing to the eVorts of Cicero (Controuersiae 1 pr. 6). Seneca’s recollections are especially useful because he was writing for the beneWt of men who were training to become lawyers. He recalls a world of Greek and Roman declaimers who operated in both Greek and Latin. One of his hate Wgures is the Greek L. Cestius Pius, who always spoke in Latin. Cestius got above himself by attacking Cicero and, much to Seneca’s satisfaction, was given a sound hiding by Cicero’s son (Suasoriae 7. 12–13). Among the Romans Arellius Fuscus declaimed ‘more often in Greek than in Latin’ (Suas. 4. 5) and is charged with plagiarizing a Greek rhetor called Adaeus. ‘I did it for training’s sake,’ he says. ‘Roman orators, historians, and poets have not stolen sayings from the Greeks but have laid down a challenge to them’ (Contr. 9. 1. 13–14). Seneca’s favourite Roman rhetor, Porcius Latro, ‘could not be suspected of theft, for he both despised the Greeks and was ignorant of them’ (Contr. 10. 4. 21). His most extensive comparison of a theme (clearly Greek in origin) developed by both Greek and Latin declaimers is intended to show ‘how easy is the passage from Greek eloquence to Latin’ and how Latin has ‘as much resourcefulness [as Greek], but less licence’ (Contr. 10. 4. 23).7 These attitudes are still visible at the end of the century and the beginning of the next in Quintilian and Pliny the Younger (if such a chronological leap may be excused). The comparability of Greek and Latin literature is the subject of much of book 10 of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria, and he includes a short section (5. 2–3) on the value of translation for expanding vocabulary and developing 6 7

On this aspect cf. O. Wenskus, ‘Wie schreibt man?’ Ut cogitetis Latinam linguam facultatis non minus habere, licentiae minus.


7

powers of expression. But the last book, book 12, is the most interesting for our purposes. Here Quintilian concentrates on the intellectual and moral qualities and the general knowledge needed to produce a perfect orator. The penultimate chapter (10) is a fascinating commentary on Roman bilingualism. Praise of Cicero (the revival of whose style and concept of oratory is Quintilian’s constant goal) leads to a Ciceronian deWnition of what constitutes the true Roman ‘Attic’ orator (10. 12–26). The self-appointed Roman ‘Attici’ of the Late Republic had attacked Cicero but failed to appreciate that the best Attic oratory was to be found in Cicero’s model, Demosthenes. Quintilian does not record this as historical information.8 The view he opposes, that Lysias represented the best in Athenian oratory, is, he says, still held by Greeks (10. 21, 24, 27).9 He is evidently sensitive to the ‘Atticizing’ renaissance of Greek literature that was now Wrmly under way in the Greek world. Perhaps for this reason he now jumps to a general comparison of Greek and Latin (10. 27–39). Latin, he aYrms, closely resembles Greek in many departments of rhetoric, but is inferior in its sounds and elocution. It shows ‘extreme poverty’ in word-building (a major worry for Quintilian: 1. 5. 32, 5. 70, 6. 31; 8. 3. 30–3, 6. 31–3). But the demerits of Latin are turned into a major triumph. For if Romans are not as ‘graceful’, they must win on the intellectual resources available to them, viz. inventiveness, strength, weight, and fullness of expression (12. 10. 36–9). Styling the major Roman orators uelut Attici Romanorum, he asks about them, ‘Who is dissatisWed by something that cannot be bettered?’ (10. 39).10 Quintilian’s pupil, Pliny the Younger, saw himself as to some extent standing in Cicero’s shoes (cf. Letters 4. 8. 4–5), so it is not surprising that he displays a recognizably Ciceronian attitude towards Greeks. Contempt towards the moderns is combined with a self-conscious admiration of the classics. Pliny’s views naturally bend with circumstance. The last letter in book 8 to a certain Maximus who is going to Greece as an imperial troubleshooter contains obvious echoes of Cicero’s famous public letter to his brother during his propraetorship of Asia (Ad Quintum 1. 1) and is the clearest example of a negative and patronizing 8

On the Republican debate see J. Wisse, ‘Greeks’; Swain, Hellenism, 21–7 (the wider Greek picture). 9 Inst. 12. 10. 27 in hac . . . opinione perseuerantis Graecos. Cf. e.g. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lysias, and contemporary with Quintilian Plutarch’s ridicule of the man who drinks only from Attic ware, has clothes of Attic wool, and ‘sits still and inactive in the delicate, thin jacket of Lysias’ (De audiendo 42 d–e). 10 Cui porro non satis est quo nihil esse melius potest?

8

Simon Swain

viewpoint.11 The comments are literary pretension, but are not to be dismissed on that account. They are a perfect example of the normal Roman distinction between the present-day Greeks and their cultural and racial ancestors. Two contemporary Greeks who followed the ideals of the past are fulsomely praised. The Stoic philosopher Euphrates at 1. 10 and the Atticist orator Isaeus at 2. 3 (sermo Graecus, immo Atticus), both well known from Greek sources, virtually serve as models for Pliny’s own life (in the Letters at any rate). Otherwise there are the familiar slurs. Pliny sneers at the Bithynian noble Fonteius Magnus: ‘he is like most of those Greeks in mistaking wordiness for word power—the result is that you Wnd yourself overwhelmed by a torrent of sentences that are lengthy, stilted, and monotonous’ (5. 20. 4).12 Naturally Pliny found nothing odd about quoting Homer a little later in the same letter to promote the merits of a ‘little speech’ of his own. In the previous book he laments to Arrius Antoninus, ‘I envy the Greeks when I see your preference for writing [verse] in their language. The brilliant work you have done in that foreign tongue you have learned means that I do not have to guess about your ability to express yourself in your native speech (sermone patrio)’ (4. 3. 5). Arrius’ Greek is of course more ‘Attic’ than the Athenians’ own, a conceit we shall observe in other second-century authors.13 Later in book 4 we read the fascinating letter about the exile Valerius Licinianus, who was resident in Sicily. Formerly among the most eloquent barristers at Rome, he has now become ‘a rhetor after being an orator’, i.e. he has been reduced to the status of a teacher of rhetoric from that of an active speechmaker at the Roman bar. Pliny comments that Licinianus is obliged to enter the lecture hall ‘in a Greek cloak’, for he is banned from wearing the citizen’s toga, and therefore has to begin by saying, ‘I am going to declaim in Latin’ (4. 11. 1–3). Greek higher intellectual culture is Wne, but popular activities are bound to be scorned. Thus Pliny crows about the suspension of a Greek-style gymnastic competition at Vienna in Gallia Narbonensis which ‘had been infecting the moral character’ of the townsfolk (4. 22). When he himself acted as a 11 8. 24. 2–5 ‘reverence (Greece’s) ancient glory and its present old age . . . It is Athens you are approaching, Lacedaemon you are ruling . . . Remember the past of each city, without despising it because it is this no more (non ut despicias quod esse desierit)’. Cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny, ad loc. 12 Est plerisque Graecorum, ut illi, pro copia uolubilitas: tam longas tamque frigidas perihodos uno spiritu quasi torrente contorquent. 13 Cf. Swain, ‘Bilingualism in Cicero?’, 148 for possible precedents in the characterization of Pomponius Atticus.


9

governor in Bithynia he sneered to Trajan about the Greeks’ addiction to ‘gymnasia’ (10. 40. 2). None of this is surprising, for Roman authors had for a long time hypocritically condemned the material side of Greek culture while openly appropriating and acknowleding its intellectual opportunities.14 The use of Greek to validate one’s culture in front of male Roman peers comes through again strongly. Pliny tells Arrius that his Latin versions of Arrius’ Greek poems were hampered by ‘what Lucretius calls ‘‘the poverty of our native tongue’’ ’ (4. 18. 1).15 Pliny does not believe this any more than Cicero or Quintilian.16 The invocation of Lucretius is a polite apologia. The comparability of the two languages (see especially the start of 7. 9 on translation as the key to original composition, cf. 7. 30. 5 on Pliny and Demosthenes) is assumed. But it must be remembered that the Romans’ Sprachanschluß meant that no genuine equality was intended in their bilingual culture. The diVerence in power was far too clear. And for Pliny this is neatly expressed in his claim that his hendecasyllables (a Romanized Greek metre) were ‘set to the cithara and the lyre by Greeks who have learnt Latin out of love for my little book; but why should I boast?’ (7. 4. 9). Pliny’s generation witnessed further cosmopolitan developments in the capital. There were senators from the Greek East for the Wrst time and the massive Hellenistic complex of Trajan’s Forum on the design of Apollodorus of Tarsus.17 Trajan’s selfpresentation as a new Augustus, emphasizing the importance of Italy through his alimentary foundations, is no more out of keeping with this than the Greek verse of Pliny and his friends. On this reading his successor Hadrian’s obsession with Greek culture should be seen as part of a long-term process rather than as an individual’s taste. Hadrian’s erection of the Wrst Greek-style temple at Rome—Venus and Roma, where Roma as the spirit of Empire was for the Wrst time worshipped at Rome itself—is a bold 14 Note Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny, 353 ‘Pliny is freer than most of his contemporaries from the Roman dislike of Graeculi’. 15 For Lucretius (De rerum natura 1. 136–9, 832; 3. 260; cf. Seneca the Elder, Contr. 7 pr. 3, Seneca the Younger, Letters 58. 1) see D. Sedley, ‘Lucretius’ Use of Greek’. For a full survey of the evidence with attention to sociolinguistic categories, see T. Fo¨gen, Patrii sermonis egestas. Cf. S. M. Beall, below, p. 219. 16 Cicero: cf. De Wnibus 1. 10, 2. 13, 3. 15, 3. 51; De nat. deor. 1. 8; Disp. Tusc. 2. 35, 3. 11; Ad Atticum 12. 52. 3. 17 H. Halfmann, Die Senatoren, and ‘Die Senatoren aus den kleinasiatischen Provinzen’; J. E. Packer, Forum of Trajan, esp. 174–200.

10

Simon Swain

but realistic assessment of the changing character of the City and its role within a cosmopolitan empire. At some point in the latter part of Trajan’s reign or the early part of Hadrian’s Suetonius wrote his biographical accounts of Roman history and culture. Suetonius sometimes wrote in Greek. Whom for? The Suda ( 895) lists his works in Greek (of course) and this has caused confusion. It is possible that lost works like that on Roman customs (—æd ŒÆd H K ÆPB § ø ŒÆd MŁH ) were written for educated Greeks, thereby documenting their wish ‘to be informed about the Roman world to which they felt they belonged’;18 but since it is probable that only two titles—the fragmentarily surviving On the Games of the Greeks (—æd H Ææ ‚ººØ ÆØØH ) and On Terms of Insult (—æd ıø ºø Ø ºÆØH )19—were actually written in Greek (these are known to late Greek authors, whereas the other lost works are quoted in the main by Latin authors), it is more likely that composition in Greek of what are essentially lexical commentaries with copious quotation from the poets should be seen as a normal part of a grammarian’s output and a display of Greek for Roman pupils and friends. In fact there are a number of casual comments in the Caesars which show the attitudes we have been considering well enough. But a much more important work is the De grammaticis et rhetoribus. Here Suetonius outlines the development of grammatical and rhetorical studies at Rome and sketches the lives of some of the leading practitioners from the end of the second century bc down to the second half of the Wrst century ad. He is almost totally silent about the role of Greeks in establishing the teaching of language and letters at Rome. As Robert Kaster remarks, ‘the Romans are seen to pull themselves up by their own cultural bootstraps’.20 Suetonius, like Cicero, is evidently keen to accord Latin culture its own pedigree. The same attitude is clear from the less well-preserved section of his book which deals with Latin rhetoric. The attitudes of Quintilian, Pliny, and Suetonius are traditional: well adjusted to the Empire politically, culturally they recall and further the mindset of Cicero and the Late Republic. Behind the application of this to contemporary culture we may, as has been hinted, see a sign of a ‘purist’ reaction to the renaissance of Greek 18 A. Dihle, Greek and Latin Literature, 259. Plutarch, for example, oVers very many explanations of Roman customs and institutions. 19 Ed. J. Taillardat, Sue´tone. 20 R. A. Kaster, edn. of Suetonius: De Grammaticis, p. xlv.


11

literature, especially rhetoric, that was well under way in the Greek East by the reign of Trajan. Before turning to Fronto, Gellius, and his contemporaries, something must be said about this so-called ‘Second Sophistic’ movement and its reception at Rome. Second Sophistic is the modern name for the Greek culture of the Roman period. In recent work the phrase, which is found in Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists (481, 507), has been applied to the distinctive combination of literary and cultural activity and political life that Philostratus records for the sophists—the rhetorical stars and, speciWcally, the teachers of rhetoric—of the period from the mid-Wrst to the mid-third century when he was writing. Philostratus actually intends it as a description of the taste for Wctional declamatory oratory that characterizes the sophists’ work; but he spends much of his time describing their way of life and their civic and political activity, and that is why ‘Second Sophistic’ has come to take on a wider sense that includes but goes beyond literature alone. More to the point, there is a very distinctive combination of classicizing linguistic and literary tastes with a phenomenally successful urbanism in the Greek world from c. ad 50 to 250. The word ‘sophist’ at this time means someone who teaches declamatory oratory. It carried prestige because (and this was explicitly in Philostratus’ mind) it recalled the great sophists of classical Athens.21 There is a good deal of overlap with the unmarked term ‘rhetor’, and at any one time the sense of teaching or declamatory virtuosity may prevail.22 If Suetonius had lived a century later, we might have had a list of Latin sophists comparable to that of Philostratus. Clearly there were such Wgures who taught the art of Wctional declamation. From the second century (probably) we have the Minor Declamations attributed to Quintilian; but there is not much else.23 In fact we know of no one who exactly matches the proWle of the sophists of the Greek East. That said, if we use the phrase Second Sophistic in its enlarged sense (as we should), can we not then include Suetonius, Gellius, Fronto, Marcus, Apuleius, and others like them within it? To my mind such a usage adds little and causes confusion. There is no obvious link in the western Empire between a thriving civic culture 21 Philostratus’ overuse of the term in his Lives (where it is applied to those who rejected it like Aelius Aristides and Dio Chrysostom) is also due to the appointment of oYcial sophists on public salaries from the 180s onward. 22 Swain, Hellenism, 97–8. 23 The declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus and the Major Declamations (also Ps.-Quintilian) are of uncertain date.

12

Simon Swain

and a distinctive form of language and literature, as there is in the Greek East. Thus it does not help to follow e.g. Barnes in calling the Christian Latin author Tertullian a ‘sophist’. He was certainly not one.24 The only possible candidate is Apuleius, and I wish to examine his credentials in this regard more carefully, for his attitudes to Greek and Latin high culture will help to illustrate those of his contemporaries nicely. Even on an exclusively intellectual or literary level Apuleius’ range and standard make him look quite diVerent from comparable Greek Wgures. Apuleius was a showman and a playboy, clever but shallow. He deserved to be condemned for seducing a rich widow, but had the audacity to base his claim to innocence on the intellectual aYnity between himself and the judge (the Apology). His egotism made him publish four books of highlights from his display speeches, which were thoughtfully pruned in later antiquity (the Florida). Intellectual vanity led him to write a hack account of Socrates and his Deity. Finally his talents found a legitimate outlet in a comic novel about a man’s life as an ass (the Metamorphoses), a story he plagiarized (perhaps) from an anonymous Greek text called the Ass. The collection of Florida looks like the sort of display rhetoric that Greek rhetors and sophists had to perform for a living.25 But Apuleius did not write Wctitious speeches or (pseudo-)historical declamations. He did not write exercise books of rhetoric and no pupils are known. If his style of writing was ‘sophistic’, i.e. jingly-jangly, ecphrastic, archaizing, obscure, pretentious, what does this add up to? In any case he claimed to be a ‘philosopher’. Perhaps we should just call him an ‘intellectual’.26 Apuleius, like Gellius, had a huge admiration for classical Greek culture. Contemporary Greece was a place to poke fun at (Metamorphoses). If we want to understand his cultural background, we must place him in the same cultural mould as the other Roman 24 T. D. Barnes, Tertullian, ch. 14 (whose point is stylistic). At Adv. Valentinianos 5. 1 Tertullian refers positively to the apologist Miltiades as the ‘sophist of the churches’; Miltiades may have been a sophist before converting and using his talents for apologetic. Elsewhere he uses the term, if at all, with disapprobation (e.g. De idololatria 9. 7 as part of a rejection of all traditional teaching). In his training and inclination Tertullian was simply a rhetor Romanus (P. Steinmetz, Untersuchungen, 231). 25 J. L. Hilton in S. J. Harrison et al., Apuleius: Rhetorical Works, 123–33. 26 Thus I cannot agree with S. J. Harrison, Apuleius, that Apuleius should be styled a ‘Latin sophist’. Harrison is relying on the loose modern—Bowersockian—interpretation of a sophist as a ‘virtuoso rhetor’; but the sense of teaching should always be part of the deWnition. It is signiWcant that Apuleius keeps the term sophist to refer to the very diVerent sophists of classical Athens: Fl. 9. 15; 18. 18, 19, 28; De Platone 2. 9.


13

authors we have been examining. For Apuleius was particularly concerned to be known for his knowledge of Greek; that is, the demonstration that he commanded Greek culture was a key part of his self-presentation as a master of Latin. There is one passage where he depends precisely on this for the basis of his personal identity, and I shall come to it shortly. But the text which most obviously presents his claim to high culture is the Apology, for knowledge of both the languages, education, cosmopolitanism, and intellectual broad-mindedness are the major planks of his defence. If Latin and Greek were equals on the standard Roman view, a view which is encapsulated in Romans’ use of the phrase ‘both the languages’,27 other tongues and cultures were beyond the pale. Thus Apuleius was free in this speech to impugn his enemies’ barbarian manners (10, 91). He could not have written a Greek letter they had attributed to him because it was composed in such ‘barbarous language’ (87. 4). It suited his opponent better, who could not read Greek at all (cf. 30. 11). He himself regards the Greek classics as maiores meos and promptly produces for the court—or alleges he did—a scientiWc treatise he had written in Greek (36. 3). He uses Greek terms—taking care to express them with a ‘Latin stamp’—because he is breaking new ground in science (38). He combines a patriam barbaram (Madauros) with an eloquentiam Graecam (25. 2), which (as he tells us elsewhere) had been acquired in Athens (Florida 18. 15–16, 42–3; 20. 4). This reference to his place of origin as ‘barbarian’ is of course ironic, as is made plain by the preceding reference to the Scythian wise man, Anacharsis (Apology 24. 6). As with Fronto when he decides to write in Greek, Anacharsis is invoked by Apuleius to make it plain that in his own opinion his Greek is as proWcient as any nonGreek’s could be, and that his social and educational standing is every bit as good as that of the legendary sage. This irony is not just a ploy for the court, for the speech we have is addressed to a general, reading audience, and has no doubt been tampered with for the purpose.28 Apuleius does not think his background is barbarian any more than he believes his opponent’s home is ‘your famous Attic Zarath’ (24. 10).29 He thinks of the barbarian 27

Cf. below n. 127, and pp. 9, 29. See T. Kotula, ‘Vtraque lingua eruditi’, on Africa; M. Dubuisson, ‘Vtraque lingua’; N. Horsfall, ‘Doctus sermones’, L. A. Holford-Strevens, ‘Vtraque lingua’, for limitations. 28 Clear references to rewriting for publication can be found in Plin. Epp. 1. 20. 6–8, 3. 18. 1, 4. 9. 23; cf. Quint. Inst. 12. 10. 49–57. On this aspect of the Apology see B. L. Hijmans, ‘Apuleius orator’, 1715–19. 29 Cf. Fronto fr. 51 (p. 271) illae uestrae Athenae Dorocorthoro (i.e. Reims).

14

Simon Swain

because it is a negation of being a Roman whose culture is assured through the knowledge of Latin and Greek.30 In the famous preface to his Metamorphoses Apuleius teases readers by asking who the author of the work is (Quis ille?).31 He answers by saying that his ‘ancient stock’ is ‘Attic Hymettus and Ephyrean Isthmus and Spartan Taenarus, fruitful lands preserved for ever in even more fruitful books’; I take this to refer to a cultural rather than a family background.32 ‘There’, he continues, ‘I served my stint with the Attic tongue in the Wrst campaigns of boyhood. Soon afterwards, in the city of the Latins, as a newcomer to Roman pursuits I took on and cultivated the native speech with laborious eVort and no teacher to guide me.’ The Wrst sentence in this section is explained by familiar Roman educational practices. ‘I prefer’, says Quintilian, ‘that a boy should begin by speaking Greek, because Latin, being in general use, will be imbibed by him even if we do not want it . . . I do not, however, wish that this principle should be adhered to so religiously that he should for a long time speak and learn only Greek, as is commonly done . . . Latin ought to follow at no great interval and in a short time proceed side by side with Greek. The result 30

Cf. Claudius’ remark to ‘a certain barbarian’ who is holding forth in Greek and Latin: ‘since you are trained in both our languages (cum utroque . . . sermone nostro sis paratus)’ (Suetonius, Claud. 42. 1). 31 The preface is now the subject of a volume of essays in itself: A. Kahane and A. Laird, Companion. My comments are designed to exemplify the development of bilingual politics in the Antonine Empire rather than to engage with the plethora of Apuleian scholars. The translation below in text is a conXation of versions by Hanson (Loeb Classical Library) and Harrison and Winterbottom in Kahane and Laird. For convenience the text (Harrison and Winterbottom; see also Nisbet’s treatment of cola and clausulae in the same volume) is: At ego tibi sermone isto Milesio uarias fabulas conseram auresque tuas beniuolas lepido susurro permulceam—modo si papyrum Aegyptiam argutia Nilotici calami inscriptam non spreueris inspicere. Wguras fortunasque hominum in alias imagines conuersas et in se rursum mutuo nexu refectas, ut mireris, exordior. ‘quis ille?’ paucis accipe. Hymettos Attica et Isthmos Ephyraea et Taenaros Spartiatica, glebae felices aeternum libris felicioribus conditae, mea uetus prosapia est. ibi linguam Atthidem primis pueritiae stipendiis merui; mox in urbe Latia aduena studiorum Quiritium indigenam sermonem aerumnabili labore, nullo magistro praeeunte, aggressus excolui. en ecce praefamur ueniam, siquid exotici ac forensis sermonis rudis locutor oVendero. iam haec equidem ipsa uocis immutatio desultoriae scientiae stilo quem accessimus respondet: fabulam Graecanicam incipimus. lector intende: laetaberis. 32 Cf. above, 13, for maiores meos at Apol. 36. 3. For Hymettus as a reference to Attic oratory see van den Hout, Commentary, 261 on Fronto Ep. Ant. imp. 4. 2, p. 106. 23. The reference to Corinth (‘Ephyraean Isthmus’) is interesting because of course modern Corinth was Roman and however much it was Hellenized by the 2nd c. (cf. below, 31) Greeks were well aware of its history: see e.g. Swain, Hellenism, 339, 347–8 on Pausanias. For the purpose of stressing his cultural aYliations Apuleius uses an erudite name sanctioned by Latin poetry.


15

will be that, as soon as we begin to pay equal attention to both the languages (linguam utramque), neither one will get in the way of the other’ (Inst. 1. 1. 12–14).

Tacitus also mentions the early learning of Greek.33 This introduction was consolidated by attendance on a grammaticus Graecus. Such teachers were hired, of course, and there is perhaps a reference to this expenditure in the prologue-speaker’s stipendiis. Next Latin: ‘soon afterwards’ (cf. Quintilian’s ‘at no great interval and in a short time’) the speaker went to Rome new to ‘Roman pursuits’ to get to grips with the Latin of the capital’s lawcourts (the ‘foreign speech of the forum’ in the next sentence) with ‘no teacher to guide me’, not to learn Latin ab initio.34 The idea of ‘cultivating’ civilized accomplishments at Rome recurs at Fl. 17. 4 in an address to the proconsul of Africa in 163/4.35 And the language of the city of Rome as a paradigmatic form of Latin is speciWed again at Met. 11. 28. 6 ‘lawsuits in the Roman language’ (probably) and Fl. 18. 43 (surely).36 33 Dialogue on Orators 29. 1 at nunc natus infans delegatur Graeculae alicui ancillae. For these Greek nurses cf. Soranus, Gynaecology 2. 19. 15: the wetnurse should be ‘Greek so the infant nourished by her becomes accustomed to the fairest of languages’. 34 Indigenam sermonem refers to Apuleius’ own Latin. For the antithesis ‘newcomer’/’native speech’ (aduena studiorum Quiritium indigenam sermonem . . . excolui), cf. Met. 11. 26. 3: Lucius is ‘a newcomer to the shrine (of Isis on the Campus Martius) but a native of the cult’ ( fani quidem aduena, religionis autem indigena). 35 semper ab ineunte aeuo bonas artes sedulo colui, eamque existimationem [i.e. the governor’s correct appreciation of Apuleius’] morum ac studiorum cum in prouincia nostra tum etiam Romae penes amicos tuos quaesisse me . . . testis es. 36 There are obvious linguistic links between 1. 1. 4 studiorum Quiritium indigenam sermonem aerumnabili labore . . . exotici ac forensis sermonis, 11. 28. 6 patrocinia sermonis Romani, and 11. 30. 4 gloriosa in foro . . . patrocinia . . . studiorum meorum laboriosa doctrina. At Fl. 18. 43 Romanae linguae is paired with atticissabit as speciWc forms following the couplings Graeco et Latino (38) and Graecum et Latinum (39). In the Met. contrasts between Latin and Greek are noted as such (4. 32. 6, 9. 39, 11. 17. 3) and ‘Greek’ is always a marked usage (3. 9. 1, 3. 29. 2, 10. 10. 4, 10. 29. 4), not a starting point. J. N. Adams, ‘ ‘‘Romanitas’’ ’, 191–7 shows that the paradigmatic value of the Latin of Rome was an idea that only really enjoyed currency in the 1st c. bc; in the Empire ‘Roman’ in lingustic contexts has no connection with Rome (cf. further Flobert, ‘Lingua Latina’, 206–8; J. Kramer’s wide-ranging but pertinent Sprachbezeichnungen). But he notes that the Ciceronian passages that express it (Verr. 5. 167; esp. De orat. 3. 42–4 cum sit quaedam certa uox Romani generis urbisque propria, etc.) are the basis of Quintilian, Inst. 8. 1. 3 (et uerba omnia et uox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane uideatur, non ciuitate donata). Apuleius like Quintilian is recalling the Late Republican viewpoint (pace Adams). He has no technical concern with dialect: it is a cultural-political assumption of the power of the centre that was, if one wished to use it, as valid in Apuleius’ day as it had been in Cicero’s.

16

Simon Swain

Next Apuleius links bilingualism with the bicultural subjectmatter of his book. ‘Now in fact this very changing of language corresponds to the style we have approached, which is like the skill of jumping from one horse to another: we begin a story that is Greek in form.’ ‘This very changing of language’ is the speaker’s successive education in Attic Greek and Roman Latin, his bilingualism. How does it ‘correspond to the style’ of the work? Since adjectives in -cus could be ethnic (‘a Greek woman’) or ktetic (‘a Greek yoghurt made in England’) in sense, Latin developed suYxes to avoid the ambiguity, especially in technical contexts. The word Graecanicus is one of these.37 Apuleius is writing a Milesian tale, he says in the Wrst line. He refers of course to the ‘Milesian tales’ of Cornelius Sisenna. These were a translation from a Greek source. But Apuleius is certainly not coming clean about the fact that the Metamorphoses is a version of the anonymous Ass. The Ass is a ribald, sexually explicit tale of life in Roman Greece. It is written in good enough Greek, but not the Atticizing Greek required for higher, formal literary genres in this period. It was not the sort of text that a high stylist in Latin would want to acknowledge in the context of talking up his own Latin and Greek culture.38 What he means is that his story is Roman but Greek in form/set in Greece. This is its style and the style recalls, he says, the scientia of jumping from one horse to another. This expertise refers to Apuleius’ own biculturalism.39 When he says his ‘changing of language corresponds’ to this style, he is not referring to the Greek source of his book, but to its typology, which demonstrates familiarity with Greek while staying carefully within the bounds of what was sanctioned by the Latin heritage. Roman bilingualism aYrmed the value of Roman culture through its 37 M. Dubuisson, ‘Graecus, Graeculus, Graecari’, 319–20 n. 31, referring to M. Fruyt, Proble`mes me´thodologiques, 61–8, esp. 66–7. Harrison and Winterbottom’s ‘of Greek origin’ is quite wrong. 38 Given the nature and style of the Ass and its non-idealization of Greece and the fact the hero is very probably Roman (since he and his brother have diVerent praenomina: Swain, ‘Hiding Author’, 61), it is diYcult to envisage a Greek writer from the period of the Second Sophistic. There is one obvious Roman candidate: Apuleius (an old idea: see H. J. Mason, ‘Fabula Graecanica’, 3 ¼ 220; note also Mason’s scepticism about Apuleius acknowledging the Ass: 6 ¼ 226, id., ‘The Metamorphoses’). Cf. and contrast Harrison, Apuleius, 181–3 on the (possibly pseudonymous) De mundo, which hides the fact it translates a particular text (ps.Aristotle —æd Œ ı) but ensures mention of Aristotelen prudentissimum et doctissimum philosophorum et Theophrastum auctorem (§289). 39 M. Dubuisson, ‘Art de la voltige’, 612, sees desultoria scientia as a ‘de´signation imageé’ for ‘code-switching’; but there is no code-switching in the Met. in the proper sense of the phrase.


17

command of Greek. The Metamorphoses takes on a Greek guise to show it is Roman; and the speaker proves his knowledge of Greek to show his standing in Latin. In this regard, not much had changed since Cicero. This is how Apuleius wishes his identity to be discovered.

2. c o r n e l i u s f ro n to Apuleius’ bilingualism was theatrical: no Greek who spoke Latin would have performed in both languages consecutively, as he boasts of having done (Fl. 18. 38–43; ‘False Preface’ to De deo Socratis, fr. 5). Yet the more he shows oV, the more he boasts, the more worried he seems. Anyone who reads him will notice immediately that he includes spectacular archaisms in his Latin, especially in the comic Metamorphoses, but also in the excerpts of the Florida.40 We know that this ‘gouˆt archaı¨sant’ was shared, though without anything approaching the contortions of Apuleius, by Gellius and Fronto. Was Marache, who Wrst promoted the idea of archaism, right to separate what was going on in Latin from the classicizing and puristic Atticism of the Greek Second Sophistic? From the literary point of view, the answer is ‘yes’.41 The preVergilian and pre-Ciceronian authors who were modish among the archaizers (if I may use this term) did not enjoy the status of canonical texts in a way comparable to the Greek classics. Vergil and Cicero were certainly of huge importance too. Crucially, the archaizers formed many more new words than they dredged up old ones.42 So ‘archaism’ seems misleading. For what emerges from Fronto and Gellius is the importance of knowing the whole of Latin literature down to Vergil. We might do better to see these second-century authors as linguistic nationalists whose aim was to reinvigorate Latin as a language that was capable of change and innovation but also rightly proud of its ancient pedigree.43 The extension of this nationalism beyond literary circles is in doubt, however, and it is diYcult to argue that we are dealing with a ‘movement’ as such. It looks much more like the personal tastes 40

See the studies of M. Bernhard, Stil; H. Koziol, Stil. Marache, Critique litte´raire, 110–11. W. D. Lebek’s study of archaizing usages in the literature of the Republican period is also important. 42 Marache, Mots nouveaux. 43 So F. Portalupi, Marco Cornelio Frontone, 21–38; cf. ead., Frontone, Gellio, Apuleio; see too Steinmetz, Untersuchungen (on Fronto 171–87). 41

18

Simon Swain

of a limited group of intellectuals dedicated to grammatical and exegetical researches rather than the ‘high’ end of an extended linguistic continuum with ramiWcations down to the lower levels, such as we Wnd in the case of the Atticism of the Greek world. On the other hand, these intellectuals and grammarians were sensitive to what was happening in Greek society. Apuleius’ Latin certainly gave him a distinctive style and the appearance of intellectual superiority from his command of all Latin literature. He alone of the archaizers uses the verb atticissare of his Greek (Fl. 18. 43; ‘False Preface’, loc. cit.).44 He would have been fully aware of the social prestige that linguistic Atticism expressed in the Greek East, and to this extent he was surely trying to mimic or rival in Latin the purism of his Greek contemporaries. He must have expected his readers to approve, if not to follow, his endeavours. The fact that he was the Wrst Roman litte´rateur of note to make his career in a provincial environment may also be relevant: Apuleius was as free from normative pressures as his later contemporary, the even more contorted Tertullian. But he also had to demonstrate possession of the highest culture to be taken seriously. In an earlier study of Cicero’s bilingual practices I have followed Carol Myers-Scotton’s use of the well-known concept of ‘markedness’ to try to determine the function in Cicero’s Latin of individual Greek words and runs of Greek. Unlike the modern oral correspondents studied by Myers-Scotton, Cicero’s negotiation of a Greek identity is (as I have remarked above) an expression of his Romanness rather than a genuine biculturalism. For the most part code-switching into Greek as we see it in his letters is a (paradoxically) unmarked choice. Cicero naturally uses a limited quantity of Greek to some addressees in a private context within and as part of his Latin speech. We have no idea how Apuleius used Greek in non-public discourse since we have no private letters. The works he wrote in Greek are obviously a marked choice: a very clear expression of a Roman’s ability to control Greek. But for the use of Greek code-switching and longer passages of Greek in Antonine bilingualism we can turn to Apuleius’ older contemporary Cornelius Fronto. Fronto’s letters comprise a mixed bag of private and public correspondence including especially letters to his pupil Marcus Aurelius Wrst as Caesar under Antoninus Pius and then as emperor. Several of the letters are in fact treatises or declamations. There are six letters 44 Plautus’ use of atticissare (Menaechmi 12), albeit non-linguistic (but cf. PF 26. 7–8 L.), would have been a welcome precedent.


19

(and a fragment of a seventh memo) by Fronto entirely in Greek, to which I shall return. Language is naturally important in the Wve scenes recorded (or invented) by Gellius. Fronto taught Marcus rhetoric.45 The relationship of pupil and master was always overshadowed by that of the client and the prince. The two men used two codes to speak to one another. The Wrst is profuse expressions of love and friendship. The second is problems of health. These occupy much of the correspondence. They may of course be taken at face value (and often are), but probably should not be wholesale. Language purity and ability to change register—to code-switch—into Greek is certainly important in the Wrst code, love, and it is on this that I shall be concentrating here. An example or two will be helpful.46 At Ep. M. Caes. 1. 3 (ad 144–5) Fronto expatiates on the excessiveness of Marcus’ love for him. ‘You wish to run to me, to Xy to me, the peculiar behaviour of lovers’ (1, p. 3 v.d.H.2). Marcus’ mother is envious of Fronto. Marcus should be ready to answer those who ask why he loves Fronto so much. The causes can never be known—there is no ratio behind it. ‘Let them doubt, discuss, dispute, guess, puzzle over the origin of our amor as they do about the sources of the Nile’ (10, p. 5. 13–14). In a letter to Fronto during the latter’s consulship (142) Marcus begins, ‘I surrender: you have won. Beyond question your loving has beaten all the lovers who ever lived. Take the crown and let the herald proclaim publicly before your own tribunal this your victory: ‘‘M. Cornelius Fronto, consul, is the winner. He is crowned in the contest of the Great Games of Love’’ (. ˚ æ ºØ æ ø o Æ ØŒA†, Æ FÆØ e IªH Æ H ªºø Øº ø )’ (Ep. M. Caes. 2. 5. 1, p. 25. 23–6). Marcus will never fail in his ‘prothymia’, a Plautine Graecism (hence in the Roman alphabet) which leads him to make up a Plautine pastiche about the rival love of Fronto’s wife, Cratia.47 It was not the eloquence of Fronto’s letter to him, but its huge aVection that makes him feel thus (2). He then comes to business: ‘that other letter of yours, in which you indicated why you were putting oV delivering the speech in which you will praise my Lord’ (i.e. Pius). Marcus took the letter straight to Pius, who thoroughly enjoyed its ‘superlative elegance’. The Lord Pius told Marcus that he approved Fronto’s 45

E. Champlin, Fronto, ch. 8. Numeration of the letters follows that of van den Hout’s Teubner; translations are based on Haines’s Loeb. Chronology follows van den Hout 292–4 as modiWed by the recently corrected date of Fronto’s consulship (W. Eck, ‘Cornelius Fronto’). 47 On prothymia cf. Marache, Mots nouveaux, 95: ‘Le mot n’est pas senti comme grec, mais comme plautien.’ 46

20

Simon Swain

reasons in the course of the ‘long conversation we held about you’ (3). There is much in this exchange of signiWcance, not least being the code-switch in §1. There is no need for scepticism about the aVection between Marcus and Fronto, though the diVerence in status was far too great to make it equally balanced and some have been too ready to take the expressions of love at face value. The language of friendship is well known from the politics of the Late Republic as a political discourse. This discourse is present in the letters of Fronto to Marcus, Pius, and Verus.48 Yet there is nothing in the earlier period to compare with the lovers’ talk used by Marcus and Fronto. In the present letter the ‘long conversation’ about Fronto ‘no doubt made your ears keep ringing in the Forum’. No doubt it did: yet another Plautine comic term (tinnire) reinforces the courtier’s status relative to the prince’s. The Greek code-switch itself is complex: it is a joke and also a compliment, but one Marcus can aVord to make. Political realities should always be kept in mind. Consider the following. Love is expressed in Greek at great length in the Greek erotic letter Fronto sent to Marcus shortly after Marcus took the name ‘Caesar’ in 139 (Addit. epist. 8, pp. 250–5). Fronto had whetted Marcus’ appetite for this work by saying that very few of his compositions pleased him as much, Marcus tells him (Ep. M. Caes. 3. 9. 2, p. 42. 9–10). Fronto says his letter is a ‘third’ following letters ‘after’ Lysias and Plato (i.e. Socrates) in the Phaedrus.49 Fronto is c KæH , ‘not a lover’. But he appreciates Marcus’ beauty better than ı, ‘this man’ (2). If Fronto gives Marcus money, it is a gift; if KŒE does, it is payment. You should know, he continues, what disgrace comes upon you from the fact that everyone knows ‘he is your erastes’—they suspect you of B æø, ‘the act’, and call you ‘his eroˆmenos’, but I call you kalos (5). This evil will stick to young men at the start of a long life for longer (7). His erotic poems are disgusting. He is like a wild beast driven on P Yæ ı, ‘by sexual desire’ (8). Tell the other boys about the Xower which vainly loves the sun: ‘I shall show it to you, if we go for a walk outside the wall as far as the Ilissus’ (10–11). 48 D. Konstan, Friendship, for the rosy view in general, with references to other less amiable scholars. 49 Van den Hout, Commentary, 561 must be right in contending that Buttmann and later editors were wrong to take Fronto as saying he had simply sent copies of the Plato: rather, the phrases Øa ¸ı ı and Øa —ºø —referring to the two earlier letters—mean a ‘cento of Plato’s Phaedrus with additions by Fronto himself ’.


21

Fronto’s remarks owe much to those of Plato’s Lysias (Phaedr. 230 e–234 c). He too is a ‘non-lover’. But for Lysias the non-lover is in fact a sexual partner who is not handicapped by the usual emotions of lovers. The contrast between this non-lover and the ‘lover’ is theoretical. Now Fronto begins from this; but for him Marcus’ ‘lover’ is a real person, a real rival, who has composed obscene poetry for him (not mentioned by Plato). Fronto himself of course is a real non-lover: no sex for him. In his reply (Addit. epist. 7, pp. 249–50) Marcus overturns his arguments by insisting that he is the lover of Fronto (‘erasten tuum’) and sidesteps Fronto’s preference for ‘non amantibus’ by telling him he will go on loving him for ever. He ignores Fronto’s Platonic insinuations and casts himself in the role of the superior in their relationship. He rejoices in the triumph of Fronto as his eroˆmenos (2). The triumph is speciWcally Fronto’s command of Greek, which leads Marcus to say that Fronto has ‘outstripped those Attici [here ¼ Atticists] who are so self-satisWed and provocative’. Marcus is Socrates to Fronto’s Phaedrus (3), another inversion of the pupil–master relationship. What or whom Fronto is really getting at in the erotic letter is unclear.50 Among the many other expressions of love between the two men we should at least mention Ep. M. Caes. 2. 10. 3, p. 30. 13, where Marcus writing to Fronto as consul Wnishes by calling him mi semper anima dulcissima. This is almost certainly a female form of address, used between women and to women. Marcus is suggesting that he wears the trousers.51 As to Fronto and his erotic letter, it is signiWcant that he appears to raise a problem about the nature of their love in Greek, which is a typical use of a diVerent linguistic register to discuss an awkward topic. This has nothing to do with ‘bilingualism’ as such: it is a very Roman matter. And it allows Marcus in his reply to praise Fronto as superior to the Greek Atticists. If the above surmise is right, Fronto may not have found this entirely satisfactory. The superiority of Fronto’s language is often on Marcus’ lips (e.g. Ep. Ant. imp. 1. 4. 2 ‘the elegance of your style . . . you speak Latin, while the rest of us speak neither Latin nor Greek’, p. 92. 6–7). As to Greek, Fronto himself is conWdent. At Ep. Ant. Pium 8 (pp. 166–7, of c.156/7), where he asks to be excused from his proconsulship, he tells the emperor as proof of his integrity that 50 Van den Hout, Commentary, 561, ‘This trivial work should not be taken seriously’, is an inadequate dismissal of suspicions raised amongst others by A. Barigazzi, Favorino, 162. 51 J. N. Adams, ‘Vindolanda’, 120 with n. 195. E. Dickey, Address, 158 misunderstands Adams’s point.

22

Simon Swain

he has already arranged for friends from Alexandria to deal with his Greek correspondence. But this is administrative convenience. We have in fact one letter in Greek to a Greek speaker on business: Ad amic. 1. 2, p. 171. Thanks to a recently published inscription from Side it is clear that the addressee, Apollonides, is Marcus’ and Verus’ ab epistulis Graecis, P. Aelius Apollonides.52 Fronto asks him to aid Sulpicius Cornelianus (who would go on to be ab epistulis Graecis under Commodus).53 Language choice is here pragmatic. Apollonides dealt with the emperors’ Greek, and the letter concerns a man whose career was heading in the same direction. Fronto wanted something done for him; hence he wrote in Greek.54 More interesting than this letter of recommendation are the two letters in Greek to Marcus’ mother Domitia Lucilla, the letters to and from the historian and advocate Appian of Alexandria, and the letter of consolation to Fronto’s sometime enemy the great Herodes Atticus. The Wrst letter to Domitia Lucilla is an elaborate apology for the delay in producing his speech of thanks to the emperor for his suVect consulship (Ep. M. Caes. 2. 3, pp. 21–4). It was ‘written in Greek as a compliment to her high standard of education’.55 This is true on one level. It is also a compliment to Marcus, since Fronto sends the letter via Marcus (Ep. M. Caes. 2. 2. 8, p. 21. 12–15) requesting him to correct any ‘barbarism’ in it ‘for you are fresher from Greek (than I)’.56 He would not want Marcus’ mother to think he was an ‘opicus’, a term which is used in second-century authors to signal ignorance of Greek.57 Fronto says he has used Greek out of ‘shamelessness’ (inpudentia). Certainly the letter could have been written in Latin. But much of it is an elaborate discussion of similes (NŒ ) oVering excuses for not having written before. The vast majority of the Greek code-switches in the Letters are in fact metalinguistic: Greek remained essential to grammatical and rhetorical instruction.58 Thus it has a natural W. Eck, ‘P. Aelius Apollonides’. He was apparently the Wrst to hold this post. Champlin, Fronto, 29–30; Eck, op. cit. 54 Eck’s diagnosis of ‘eine besondere Reverenz vor seiner Stellung’ (op. cit. 240) goes too far. 55 A. Birley, Marcus, 83; cf. J. Kaimio, Romans and Greek Language, 190, 249–50. 56 Cf. Cicero, Ad Att. 1. 19. 10. 57 See below, 38–9. 58 Examples: Ep. M. Caes. 3. 8. 2, p. 41. 20–4, technical terms, cum ¨ æ ı locos K ØØæø tractaremus . . . in hac NŒ [on this ‘Mischform’, cf. O. Wenskus, ‘Triggering’, 175–8], quam de patre tuo teque depinxi, Ø H ıŒø ºÆ , Œº. (p. 41. 20–4); Marcus in Ep. M. Caes. 1. 4, pp. 5–8, a run of code-switches, 52 53


23

role here. But just as it allowed Fronto to praise Marcus’ command of the other tongue, so he Xatters Domitia by asking her to disregard anything which is barbarous or ‘not fully Attic’ (2. 3. 5. p. 24. 1–3). He compares himself to the wise Anacharsis who could not ‘Atticize fully’, but spoke sense. As we have seen, Apuleius invokes this sage for similar reasons at Apology 24. In the second letter, from the end of his consulship (so August 142), Fronto excuses himself from attending Domitia’s birthday celebration (Ep. M. Caes. 2. 15, pp. 32–3). In his stead he has sent his wife Cratia. As with the previous letter, he informs Marcus of what he has done, though this time he does not send the Greek (Ep. M. Caes. 2. 13, cf. 14, p. 32). Neither letter provides evidence for the linguistic choice of Roman women.59 What we may note is that both letters are excuses and suggest (and no more) that the shift into Greek should be connected with this. It oVers an indirect method of deXecting criticism and because of this is at the same time a further admission of inferiority. As has been indicated, the happy surface layer of Antonine politics should not blind us to the realities of a courtier’s life in an autocratic regime, however benevolent. Cratia is presented to Marcus as Domitia’s ‘clienta’: the word is indeed ‘arresting’.60 I pass on to the Appian letters (Addit. epist. 4–5, pp. 242–8). Appian of Alexandria the historian tells us himself that he worked as an advocate at Rome for many years.61 At some point in the 150s Fronto wrote to Pius for the third time to request an honorary procuratorship for his long-standing friend (Ep. Ant. Pium 10, p. 168). Appian was Fronto’s client. In Fronto’s correspondence including quotations especially from the Odyssey (for the pattern, cf. Swain, ‘Bilingualism in Cicero?’, 158), on which Fronto comments in the next letter, omnia istaec inter Graecos uersus Latina ita scite alternata sunt a te et interposita, ut est ille in pyrrhicha uersicolorum discursus, quom . . . (‘like the movements of the variously coloured performers in the pyrrhic dance . . . ’, 1. 5. 4, pp. 8. 20–9. 3); De eloq. 2. 14, p. 142. 1–3 ÆFÆ Kd ÆhØ , ØÆŒıØ , < æ ß >æªŁÆØ, Œº. 59 Note Apul. Apol. 78–87 on Pudentilla’s epistulam . . . Graecatiorem to her son about her marriage to Apuleius and the letter to her written in Apuleius’ name in bad Greek by his enemies. Generalization from this is hazardous; but cf. Juvenal’s well-known comments at Sat. 6. 187–99 about Roman women using Greek to express ‘their fears and troubles, their joy and anger . . . their heartfelt secrets’ (tr. Rudd) and for terms of endearment to arouse male lovers; this concerns switching register in the private domain: Swain, ‘Bilingualism in Cicero?’, 164–6. In general, Wenskus, ‘Wie schreibt man?’ 60 Champlin, Fronto, 109. It is another Plautine favourite. On the letters to Domitia note Wenskus, ‘Wie schriebt man?’, 227–30. 61 ´ . Famerie, Le Latin, 8–13; cf. Champlin, Appian, Preface 15. 62 with E Fronto, 42.

24

Simon Swain

are two ‘polite but remarkably uninformative letters in Greek’ concerning two slave boys whom Appian had presented to Fronto and whom Fronto had returned.62 In his letter to Pius Fronto had stressed Appian’s probitas. The main point of the Greek letters is that Appian had overstepped the mark by giving Fronto a gift that was too costly. It is clear from the Wrst letter (Appian to Fronto) that Fronto had simply returned the slaves. As a social inferior Appian was due to pay his respects but had feigned illness (‘I could not see you today either, as owing to gastric trouble last night I have only just got up’, Addit. epist. 4. 1, p. 242. 13–14). That gave him time to oVer up written arguments that might be ‘just’ or ‘pedantic’ ( ºÆØŒ).63 He argues from the general behaviour of cities and gods. With the letter he sent back the slaves and he ends by demanding that they should not be returned. Fronto replies at some length and without preamble. His language becomes strong. The scale of the gift suggests an arrogant and tyrannical attitude on the part of the receiver and makes him appear greedy (4, 6). Appian has attempted to secure himself a reputation as ªÆºæø , whereas Fronto has been put upon and has lost repute.64 But he will be ªÆºæø if he does not accept the gift. Exchange should proceed on an equitable basis and people should do as Fronto does in ‘sending back exactly what was sent’ (8). Appian spoke Latin very well. Why Greek? Gifts are complicated matters, especially between social unequals. There is a very nice example from the 120s of a successful attempt by a social inferior to foist a gift on a superior. The small town of Forum Sempronii had decreed a statue to their local bigwig, C. Hedius Verus. When he read the decree, he refused the honour. On the base of the statue that was erected later the decurions record that on the earlier occasion Verus had ‘as it were reproached us with our feebleness’. They were right. The second time round they ‘did not send the decree’. Rather, ‘so that you cannot turn it down, the statue has already been made and is on its way’. It only remained for Verus to write his own inscription.65 All this is very much in keeping with Plutarch’s fascinating little essay, —æd ıø Æ. To suVer dusoˆpia is to be ‘discountenanced’, and the essay reXects a particular problem of high imperial society at this time, that of not 62

63 Champlin, loc. cit. Cf. van den Hout, Commentary, 551 ad loc. Kb b K Æ ı I æE æ ŁÆØ ØÆ . 65 CIL 11. 6123 antea . . . (15) honore tantummodo te conten/tum esse rescriberes, quae res tuam quidem / modestiam inlustraret, nobis uero uelut / segnitiam exprobraret. igitur statua / decreta, ne quid negare possis, iam comparata / (20) aduehitur . . . qualem inscriptionem dandam putas, petentibus facito notum. 64


25

being able to say no to superiors, for Plutarch speciWcally Romans, and also to inferiors who eVectively have one cornered. As to Fronto and Appian, Greek may seem a strange choice because the superior is writing in the language of the inferior. But as Plutarch realized, superiors in an autocratic regime do not have absolute power. They are caught in perpetual negotiations over status. The complexity of negotiation between Fronto and Appian was carried out in Greek not because it gave Fronto the opportunity to use Greek to a Greek, but because writing in Greek oVered a subtler way of reminding Appian where power lay. Finally, I turn to Herodes Atticus and the lawsuit in which he and Fronto were rival advocates in what appears to be Herodes’ prosecution of one Demostratus (who is presumably the same man who with others attacked Herodes in the 170s).66 Marcus ‘advises’ or, as he then says, ‘asks’ Fronto to ensure he deals with Herodes honourably (honestissime, Ep. M. Caes. 3. 2. 1, p. 36). This letter must be from near the beginning of their relationship, since Marcus describes himself (ironically, of course) as a ‘little boy’ (puerulus), which surely means he is not much more than twenty.67 Fronto writes back to ask for ‘advice’ (Ep. M. Caes. 3. 3, pp. 36–8). The trial will bring up many unpleasant matters. But ‘if I call him a Greekling and an ignoramus, it won’t be war to the end’ (3). Fronto is obviously frightened, for he immediately sends a short note telling Marcus who else will be opposing Herodes.68 Among them is ‘Marcianus noster’, where ‘our’ means from Cirta like Fronto (Ep. M. Caes. 3. 4, p. 38). Fronto knew full well that ‘this age needs the adviser more than the helper’,69 and the acceptance of Marcus’ advice is rammed home in the following two letters and the Wrst two of the next book. What is going on? When Fronto went on the attack, he reached for a familiar slur: 66 For the whole matter see W. Ameling, Herodes, i. 74–6; ii. 30–5; Champlin, Fronto, 62–3; G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists, 92–100 in full Symean mode. 67 Note also that Herodes had plainly not yet become his teacher: ‘I do not forget that he was educated in the house of my grandfather P. Calvisius, and I educated with you’ (p. 36. 20–1). 68 He shows similar concern much later on when he Wnds out from Marcus that Lucius Verus, who has requested some of his work and had been sent Pro Demostrato as Fronto’s own choice, is likely to be oVended by remarks he had made about a certain Asclepiodotus. Since the speech had long been in public circulation, there was nothing to do but promise that Asclepiodotus (perhaps a successful imperial freedman: Champlin, Fronto, 172 n. 113) would in future be amicissimum just as Herodes is ‘despite the speech’: Ep. Ant. imp. 3. 4. 1 (p. 102. 17–19), Ep. Ver. imp. 1. 8. 1 (p. 113. 12–14). 69 De eloq. 2. 18 (p. 144. 22–3).

26

Simon Swain

‘Greekling’.70 But ‘ignoramus’ (indoctus)? There may be aversion from Atticist pretensions.71 But Fronto could hardly have believed the charge. The Wnal chapter in the aVair is the death of Herodes’ neonate (c.144/5) and Marcus’ ‘wish’ that Fronto write to console him (Ep. M. Caes. 1. 6. 10, p. 13. 14–16). The consolation was written in Greek (Ep. M. Caes. 2. 1, pp. 16–17). The choice is again interesting. In political standing Herodes was superior to Fronto (having been consul ordinarius in 143). The register could reXect this, or purvey sympathy to Herodes by writing in his own language. Yet it is a consolation with a sting in the tail. That Herodes is told not to mourn more than beWts a man of paideia is traditional advice (though Herodes’ bouts of excessive grieving must have been known about).72 But Fronto’s main point is to advise the Athenian to concentrate on loving Marcus. ‘As long as he remains to us—for I confess and make no secret of the fact that I am your anterasteˆs— everything else in our case is easily remediable and of far less importance.’73 Fronto makes it plain that their good relations are conditional on the existence of Marcus. He does this in Greek. In Cicero’s letters there are two long continuous passages in Greek at Ad Atticum 6. 4. 3 and 6. 5. 1–2. These are certainly humorous in intention and concern the Wnancial practices of a freedman with a signiWcant Greek name (Philotimos). Plutarch apparently knew of letters by Cicero to Greeks in Greek.74 That is as we should expect. In the same way freedmen might have been spoken to and written to in Greek. In the case of Fronto we have a fragment he quotes from a memo in Greek to a libertus of Verus called Charilas (Ep. Ver. imp. 1. 12. 3, p. 116. 16–18). The powerful freedman of an emperor was a very diVerent creature from any Greek freedman Cicero had to deal with. Fronto asks this chamberlain(?) if it is convenient (hŒÆØæ ) to attend the emperors in the diYcult situation following the death of Pius.75 He records this in a 70 Pliny, Ep. 10. 40. 2; Juvenal, Sat. 3. 78, 6. 186. Note that Graeculus is not in itself pejorative, but takes its tone from the context: Dubuisson, ‘Graecus, Graeculus, Graecari’. 71 Cf. Marcus’ impolite remarks about Polemon, with Fronto’s reply (Ep. M. Caes. 2. 10. 1, pp. 29. 19–30. 6; 2. 2. 5, p. 20. 6–8), Marcus on the prouocantis Atticos (Addit. epist. 7. 2, p. 249. 11), Fronto on the Atticists’ laboriousness(?) (Ep. Ant. imp. 4. 2. 5, p. 106. 23–4). 72 Herodes’ grieving: cf. Gellius 19. 12. 2 ex morte pueri (with Philostr. VS 558–9). 73 † æÆ (p. 17. 14–15). a ÆººÆ ª Æ E PÆÆ ŒÆd ı ÆŒæH 74 Plutarch, Cicero 24. 75 Chamberlain: cf. Ep. Ver. imp. 1. 7. 1 primum me intromitti in cubiculum iubebas (p. 112. 2–3).


27

letter excusing his non-attendance to Verus in reply to a reproachful, but (as he is keen to stress) aVectionate letter from the prince (Ep. Ver. imp. 1. 11. pp. 114–15). Verus could aVord to be both: the courtier himself needed a defensio. The appropriate register to Verus was Latin; to his freedman, Greek; or rather, it was easier for Fronto to seek instructions (‘you tell me— Ø—as a man of sense and a friend to me’) from this freedman in Greek without compromising his status too nakedly.76 This is as much a sign of the changed times as the composition of letters in Greek to Domitia Lucilla. For the most part, as I have said, Greek in Fronto is metalinguistic. There are in addition a handful of code-switches involving matters of health or in greetings (Cicero is similar here). But there is one Wnal matter to be addressed before passing to Gellius. Codeswitches and borrowing are obviously interrelated. Indeed, the borrowing has been well deWned as ‘a code-switch with a fulltime job’.77 In his Meditations Marcus recalls that Fronto had taught him that the Roman nobility lacked real aVection ( ƒ ŒÆº Ø . . . P ÆæÆØ I æªæ ø N ).78 In a letter to Verus asking him to support the impoverished senator, Gavius Clarus, Fronto describes him as a man who has a ‘Øº æªÆ which is perhaps not Roman, for there is nothing I have found less at Rome . . . than a man genuinely Øº æª . The reason why there is not even a Roman word for this virtue must, I suppose, be that in reality there is no one at Rome who is Øº æª ’ (Ep. Ver. imp. 1. 6. 7, p. 111. 17–20). Only Marcus is addressed as Øº æª Æ Łæø (De fer. Als. 4. 2, p. 234. 13). In another letter of recommendation, to the proconsul of Africa Lollianus Avitus on behalf of his fellow-Cirtan Licinius Montanus, Fronto describes Montanus as ‘worthy, upright, philostorgus . . . since there is no term for this among the Romans’ (Ad amic. 1. 3. 4, p. 173. 15–16). If we can trust the terribly diYcult codex of the letters, Fronto here wrote it in the Latin alphabet. Clearly, to his pupils Marcus and Lucius Verus, he used the word in Greek as something that was untranslatable. Before code-switching was studied properly, it was often thought that switches represented a speaker’s attempt to plug gaps in the lexicon. This idea has now been discarded because code-switches in the main duplicate 76 Van den Hout, Commentary, 285 notes that ‘Fronto cannot have a word with Charilas himself: Charilas sends him a note (hortante eo).’ 77 P. Gardner-Chloros, ‘Code-Switching’, 102. 78 Ad se ips. 1. 11.

28

Simon Swain

information and operate alongside synonyms in the matrix language. Use of the term Øº æªÆ is, however, a conscious attempt to Wll a hole, and this is why the word in Fronto Xirts with the status of a borrowing. In recent decades borrowing itself has come to be viewed as a sociolinguistic process in which each borrowing will be subject to a varying degree of phonological and morphological integration.79 It may be suggested in addition that the Latinization of the word in the letter to Lollianus Avitus felt right in the public context of a letter of recommendation to a governor (who was not an ex-pupil). But Fronto’s move to naturalize the term went too far: no other Roman uses a word which is so implicitly critical of Roman practice,80 and which puts Fronto’s expressions of amor to Marcus in their rightful place.

3. aulus gellius Fronto shows key symptoms of what has been termed the ‘service aristocracy’. The idea of a service aristocracy is in this context a development of Norbert Elias’s classic work on the rise of the mannered, courtly aristocracies of Europe in the late Middle Ages.81 In the hands of Veyne and Foucault this was elaborated into a thesis about the ‘privatization’ of aristocratic life in the High Roman Empire and its disengagement from real power. As means of public competition were removed from the nobility, manners and conduct became increasingly important. Family life and the aVective marriage relation assumed a crucial role in the nobleman’s self-fashioning as the places where he must achieve maximum control of himself. ‘Spiritual exercises’ were the particular route to ‘le souci de soi’. These exercises were for dedicated Stoics like Seneca and of course Marcus Aurelius.82 But the culture of mutual and self-inspection was found among the elites of East and West. I have argued elsewhere that the Veyne–Foucault model does not work without modiWcation for the eastern, Greekspeaking nobilities. For them we can certainly point to a clear concern with internal and external evaluation of appearance, of sexuality and marriage, of language; but the context of all this is the still considerable local political power of their class in the great 79

Cf. the studies of R. Mougeon and E. Beniak, Linguistic Consequences. Cf. Champlin, Fronto, 90. N. Elias, Court Society and Civilizing Process. 82 P. Veyne, ‘La famille et l’amour’ and ‘The Roman Empire’; M. Foucault, Care of the Self; P. Hadot, Inner Citadel. 80 81


29

cities of the East.83 The same is doubtless true of the majority of the western elites. But the model is attractive for Fronto and Gellius and anyone else who belonged to the court or its periphery (and we need to take the idea of a periphery Xexibly, remembering that we often know very little of individual aspirations and opportunities or institutional spurs). Thus the intensity of the discourse of love and aVection between Fronto and Marcus marks it out as a mannered response to the pressure of an unequal relationship.84 There is also a good deal in the letters on the perfect marriages of Fronto and Cratia and his daughter and her husband AuWdius Victorinus and on Fronto’s grandchildren.85 The longest of the letters concerns the death of one of these (De nepote amisso 2, pp. 235–9) and ends with a ringing self-endorsement of Fronto’s life as a faithful public servant, a signiWcant combination.86 Language was crucial as one of the primary means of selfevaluation, external validation, and commentary. It was properly the sphere of the language professional, the grammarian; but the basis of his inXuence lay in the wide acceptance of his premisses and their usefulness in determining social status and social integration. In Aulus Gellius the grammarian’s interests and the cultural practices they reXect are presented to a general, educated audience. In the preface to his book the practice of excerpting, which was the beginning of the collection, explicitly reXects the activities of the grammarian (§§2 V.). But the literary motive for writing is emphasized immediately: not for Gellius are the ‘witty titles’ ( festiuitates inscriptionum) of writers of works like his in ‘both the languages’. The Nights are here located in a bicultural environment, for of the thirty titles Gellius now mentions nineteen are Greek. He condemns these predecessors and rivals for their studied prettiness. He is rustic with no regard for elegantia; but he does not induce a feeling of ‘repugnance’ (taedium) like the others—‘especially the Greeks’—who aimed only at ‘volume’.87 He will stimulate quick minds to learning, and rescue those who are busy with life ‘from an ignorance (imperitia) of things and words which is disgraceful and boorish’ (10–12). His reader is precisely the ‘educated member of polite society’.88 The rest of the preface is an elaborate captatio 83

S. Swain, ‘Plutarch’s Moral Program’, 90–6. That complications may have been felt (above, 23) is not surprising. 85 See esp. the aVective letter on Fronto petit-Wls, Ad amic. 1. 12, pp. 178–9. 86 §§8–9, p. 238. 6–25. The tone recalls Fronto’s letters of recommendation: here he recommends himself. 87 Taedium: cf. 9. 4. 12, 10. 12. 1. 88 L. A. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 37 [27] citing §13 of the Preface. 84

30

Simon Swain

beneuolentiae which culminates with Aristophanes’ call in the Frogs (354–6, 369–71) for the uncultured to leave while the initiates of the Muses ‘stir up our all-night revelling’.89 In all this Gellius styles his reader a member of the in-group who will want to possess the fruits of ‘both the languages’. Gellius was an admirer of the great cultural Wgures of his day. Some of these have professional expertise in grammar (Sulpicius Apollinaris) or rhetoric (Antonius Julianus) or philosophy (Calvenus Taurus, Favorinus), others are over-educated amateurs who combine high education and occasional teaching with politics (Fronto, Herodes Atticus). The most appealing chapters of the Attic Nights are dialogues or staged scenes presenting these characters in discussion of Roman or Greek high culture. This is part of the artistry of the work. But it is also a genuine reXection of a culture where continuous evaluation by male peers was the name of the game. Language looms large in Gellius’ focuses, of course; and there is a good deal of thought on the relationship between Romans, classical Greece, and contemporary Greek speakers. What emerges very strongly from Gellius is a sense of the past as a repository of correct social behaviour. This is hardly surprising given the traditions of Roman historiography and the value accorded to exempla in literature and art. What is new in Gellius is the convergence of this tradition with linguistic correctness and the bilingual/bicultural attitudes of Romans to Greece. I begin with an example from the end of the Attic Nights which places discussion of these matters in a familiar courtly and mannered context. The scene is a debate between Favorinus and the jurist Sextus Caecilius (Africanus), pupil and follower of the great jurist-politician Salvius Julianus Aemilianus. For anyone investigating Antonine culture, Favorinus has to be a focus. As we shall see, Favorinus appears in Gellius as an expert on Greek and Roman culture. He is biculturalism incarnate. Yet as Gellius was quite aware, Favorinus presented himself Wrst and foremost as a Hellenist.90 Favorinus came from Arelate in Gaul and we know little of his background and education other than that he was very rich.91 All his works were in Greek. His ‘conversion’ to Hellenism is made explicit in a well-known passage of his Corinthian Oration, which survives as Dio Chrysostom Or. 37.92 In this witty, ironic, 89

Cf. n. 105. Cf. 13. 25. 4, on which see below, 33. Barigazzi, Favorino, 98–148 includes the Gellian testimonia and fragments for Favorinus with useful comments. 91 M. Gleason, Making Men, 3–20, 131–58. 92 On this see the Wne study of J. Ko¨nig, ‘Favorinus’ Corinthian Oration’. 90


31

sarcastic speech he demands that the Corinthians retain his statue. Greek Corinth was destroyed by the Romans in 146 bc and was then founded as a Roman colony in 44 by Julius Caesar. In the Hadrianic period its public epigraphy suddenly turns Greek.93 This may well have to do with Hadrian’s strenuous attempts to repristinate the modern Greeks, for Corinth was promptly enrolled in the Panhellenion, the organization Hadrian set up to promote classical Greek culture through worship of his own cult.94 The Hadrianic eVort points to a city that was still strongly Roman (as we should expect of the administrative capital of provincia Achaia), and it is this that Favorinus unkindly alludes to after a panegyric of the classical Greek city.95 He has zealously pursued Greek culture with greater success than any Roman heretofore and any Greek of the present day. He has sacriWced everything ‘for one thing, to seem Greek and to be Greek’ (25). He deserves a statue in every city, ‘in yours, because though Roman he has been rendered Greek, as your own country has been’ (26).96 This arrogant claim to be a champion of Hellenic culture was naturally contested by Greeks.97 For Gellius Favorinus’ Hellenism is not a problem, so long as it respects Roman culture. At Attic Nights 20. 1 Favorinus disputes Caecilius’ claim that the Twelve Tables were drawn up in the ‘choicest and most concise language’. To Favorinus they appeared to be riddled with confusion and laid down punishments that were either too harsh or too lenient. The cruelty of some punishments is what particularly exercises him: there is ‘nothing more savage and divergent from human nature (ab hominis ingenio)’ (19). The attack focuses on hominis ingenium not for sentimental reasons only, but because for Gellius’ circle being a human being—humanitas— refers to the combination of education and civilization in society.98 93 J. H. Kent, Corinth, 18–19. Roman culture is taken as dominant in Ps.-Julian, Letters 198 Bidez, which A. J. S. Spawforth, ‘Corinth’, convincingly dates to the 1st c. ad. 94 Panhellenion: Swain, Hellenism, 69 n. 7, 75–6; C. P. Jones, ‘Panhellenion’; esp. A. J. S. Spawforth, ‘Panhellenion’. 95 Even the panegyric is not free of spite: §18 Corinthian treachery at the Battle of Salamis (‘I pay no attention to Herodotus’). 96 ‘øÆÐØ J Iºº Ł, u æ Ææd !æÆ. For the rare Iºº Ø cf. Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 147, Pollux, Onom. 5. 154 s.v. "æ . 97 Galen, De opt. doctr. i. 41. 12–42.6 K., De diV. puls. viii. 587. 13 K.; Lucian, Eunuch; Phrynichus, ¯Œº ª 218 Fischer; Polemon, On Physiognomy (Script. physiogn. i. 160–4 Foerster). Philostr. VS 489–92 is neutral. 98 See 13. 17. 1 ‘humanitatem’ appellauerunt id propemodum, quod Graeci ÆØÆ uocant, nos eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artis dicimus. See too Beall, below, Ch. 8.

32

Simon Swain

Gellius has Caecilius ‘embrace Favorinus with both arms’ and praise his superlative command of Greek and Roman culture. With a suspicion of philosophical discourse that is found elsewhere in the Nights,99 he then bids him depart from his ‘sceptical procedures’ (i.e. his Academic scepticism, §21), and is presented as justifying the Laws from Favorinus’ critique, culminating in a defence of the ‘merciless and inhumane’ punishment of sundering debtors Wdei gratia (§§47–54). ‘When Sextus Caecilius had said these and other things to the approval and praise of everyone present including Favorinus . . . ’ (§55): Gellius allows Favorinus’ Hellenism to be checked by a moral apology for early Roman brutality.100 For most of the time Favorinus is a revered source of bilingual knowledge. For example, at 2. 22 he discourses on the Latin and Greek names for winds before apologizing for delivering an IŒæÆØ K ØØŒØŒ (25). In glossing the comments Gellius writes quod supra autem dixi KÆ (30): Favorinus and Gellius are fused. Later in the same book (2. 26) Favorinus and Fronto (in his Wrst appearance in the Nights) discourse on Latin and Greek terms for colours. Favorinus is made to say that Latin suVers form a greater inopia than Greek in names for colours. Fronto defends Latin from the Greek which ‘you seem to prefer’ with regard to terms for ‘red’ (7, cf. 17). The early borrowing poeniceus, ‘which you called E Ø in Greek, is ours’, whereas its ı ı spadix (Vergil) is ‘ours from the Greek’ (§9).101 ‘Therefore, my dear Favorinus, the Greeks do not have more names for shades of red than we’ (16). As to green, Vergil was happier ‘to use a well-known Greek term [i.e. glaucus] than an unusual Latin one [i.e. caerulus]’ (18). Favorinus answers in an appropriately courtly manner: ‘Were it not for you, and perhaps you alone, the Greek language would surely have stood out in front; but you, my dear Fronto . . . ’, and he is immediately enabled to explicate two lines of Ennius ‘which I (previously) could not understand in the slightest’ (20–3). It is important for Gellius to present Favorinus talking with authority on Latin. So at the start of book 4 Favorinus squashes the pretentions of ‘a certain man with a wealth of grammatical material who was parading triXing matters from the classroom’ and dared to discourse on the word penus. While the man ‘prattles 99

e.g. 5. 15. 9. Cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 128 [90]. Note 6. 15 for neutral information on harsh early punishments (cf. Holford-Strevens, op. cit. 313–14); 6. 18 the power of oaths in the Hannibalic War; further 7. 14, cf. 11. 18. 101 Cf. 3. 9. 9. 100


33

away’ (blatiret; another Plautine favourite), Favorinus speaks ‘quietly’.102 He ends by saying, ‘Although I have dedicated myself to philosophy, I did not neglect to learn things like this. For Roman citizens speaking Latin it is no less disgraceful not to designate a thing by its proper term than it is to call a man by another’s name’ (4. 1. 18). There is an important gloss on this comment by Gellius: ‘this is how Favorinus took discussions on common matters like this from the insigniWcant and the trivial to something much more useful to hear and learn of, which was not dragged in irrelevantly, nor for display, but arose from the context and accorded with it’ (§19).103 The explicit political comment turned remarks on the usage of penus into something of general utility. At 11. 3. 1 Gellius himself contends that trivial grammatical matters—such as the usage of pro—‘are extremely important for acquiring a deep knowledge of the ancients’ writings and an understanding of the Latin language’. At 13. 29. 6 he says something similar of Fronto’s remarks on the meaning of mortales in the annalist (and favourite Gellian author) Claudius Quadrigarius.104 He had included Fronto’s comments ‘lest a fairly thorough consideration of such words should escape us’. For Gellius detailed linguistic knowledge was the indispensable basis of culture. Favorinus as an expert on Latin is the theme of 13. 25 on manubiae and praeda and the role of synonyms. The setting is courtly: Trajan’s Forum awaiting ‘his friend the consul who was trying cases’ (§2). When a man with a reputation for doctrina asserts that ‘ex manubiis means ex praeda’, Favorinus is made to say, ‘Even though my principal and almost entire attention has been given to the literature and arts of Greece, I am not so inattentive to the Latin lexicon, which I study in an occasional and haphazard manner, that I am unaware of this common interpretation of manubiae, that makes it a synonym of praeda’ (§4). He then proceeds to reveal his deep familiarity with Cicero and Cato, backed up by quotations from Homer and Aristophanes to make general points. The fact that the quotations are to some extent at least those of Gellius reinforces the point that it is Gellius’ Favorinus who is moderating Latin usage.105 102 As recommended by 7. 11, cf. 6. 17 for Gellius himself; further 8. 14 (Favorinus; title only), 9. 2 (Herodes), 13. 20. 5 (Sulpicius Apollinaris), 18. 10. 5 (Calvenus Taurus). For lack of courtesy in this regard cf. e.g 13. 21. 9 (Valerius Probus prope inclementer), 14. 5 (wrangling grammarians), 18. 7. 2–3 (Domitius the Madman). 103 Indidem nata acceptaque. 104 Quadrigarius: cf. 17. 2 with Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 243 [179–80]. 105 As Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 125 [88] points out, the Frogs is ‘the one Aristophanic play that Gellius has demonstrably read’.

34

Simon Swain

This emerges explicitly in 14. 1 where Gellius writes up his notes of a speech delivered by Favorinus against astrology. The speech had been in ‘brilliant’ Greek. Gellius does not allow continuous Greek into his Nights with the exception of quoted passages, only one of which is long.106 At 14. 1 he includes much direct speech, but it is evidently his. There is virtually no Greek.107 At §32 Gellius apologizes for the pedestrian style in which ‘we have touched on these mattters’. And after treating us to a little more of Favorinus, he adds, ‘In addition to what I heard Favorinus say, I can recall many testimonies of the ancient poets . . . ’ (i.e. Pacuvius and Accius, §34). He adds, ‘The same Favorinus . . . concluded with arguments of this sort . . . ’ (§§35–6). The interweaving of Favorinus and Gellius is manifest and the quotation of similar thoughts in the old Roman poets successfully Romanizes a Greek topic. A like apology for a translation comes at the end of 12. 1 after the rendition of Favorinus’ advice on breastfeeding to a Roman noblewoman. ‘I heard Favorinus say this in Greek, and I have reproduced his views, so far as I can remember them, for the sake of general utility . . . [though] hardly any Latin eloquence could equal his, and least of all my slight powers’ (§24). As editors have noted, the Latin translation is improved by echoes of Ovid.108 Gellius is highly conscious of his mission to give information by presenting interesting examples (pr. 16 V.). Here again advice which is suited to Greek—a medical subject—is purveyed in Latin, though his audience would have been perfectly capable of reading it in Greek.109 The Romanized Favorinus is on show also in 14. 2, where he advises Gellius how to proceed as a judge by aptly quoting a speech of Cato the Elder on the fact that recourse must be had to character to decide disputes where the evidence is insuYcient. At 17. 10 Favorinus is allowed to compare Vergil unfavourably with Pindar (which suggests the remarks are Favorinus’); but the criticism of what is for Favorinus an unrevised passage shows why Vergil was in general ‘the most elegant of poets’.110 106 Cf. 19. 2. 5 (Aristotle), 16. 3. 7–8, 10 (Erasistratus), and the long 10. 22. 4–23 (Plato). 107 Cf. 5 ut uerbo ipsius utar, Æıææ (NB a colloquialism), 23. Gellius several times quotes snippets of Favorinus in Greek. 108 Am. 2. 14. 7 at 12. 1. 8, Met. 15. 218 at 12. 1. 9. 109 Cf. 16. 3 for Favorinus on Erasistratus’ idea of appetite (with Gellius’ own quotation in Greek of Erasistratus, cf. above, n. 106). For the importance of medical knowledge to humanitas see 18. 10. 8. 110 Cf. Valerius Probus’ criticism at 9. 9. 12–17.


35

The function of the particular point as a spur to general knowledge has been alluded to already regarding the testimonies of Favorinus and Fronto. Gellius was quite aware that some of his recollections were boring and pedantic. He countered this by placing dull information in an arresting or entertaining context— the routing of an obstreperous grammarian, a boat trip on the starstudded Saronic gulf, wandering home from the Vatican plain as the sun set, and so on. Fronto’s discussion of words used mainly in the singular or the plural attracts another apology: it is indeed ‘on a trivial matter, but not at variance with the study of the Latin language’ (19. 8. 2). Although the discussion is exclusively Roman, the results tell us much about Antonine biculturalism. Fronto is made to tell his audience to Wnd examples of the forms he has been discussing in any orator or poet ‘provided they are from the earlier band (e cohorte . . . antiquiore)’,111 which sort he glosses as classicus adsiduusque aliquis scriptor, non proletarius (15). The deWnition of a good ‘classical’ author is expressed in terms of the old Republican constitutional arrangements as someone who is ‘good-class’ and ‘landowning’, not ‘proletarian’.112 It owes something to Plautus, Miles Gloriosus 752.113 But the political meaning should not be ignored, and in three ways. First, intellectuals in the ancient world tended to be restricted to the wealthy. Second, grading citizens by class and making clear their duties and obligations to each other is something dear to Gellius.114 Third, for Fronto and his like good Latin literature went back a long way into the Republican period. Antiquity as a basis for sustaining the idea of Latin’s parity with Greek was as important to Fronto and Gellius as it had been to Cicero. Bilingualism is explicit in the last appearance of Fronto in the Nights, 19. 13. The subject is Fronto’s belief that the Latin word pumilio should be used for ‘dwarf’ rather than the ‘vulgar and barbarous’ nanus. Gellius’ teacher Sulpicius Apollinaris corrects him by informing him portentously that nanus is not barbarous but Greek. ‘Yet this word would have been given citizenship by you or established in a Latin colony, if you had deigned to use it, and it would be very much more acceptable than the low and vulgar words which Laberius introduced into the Latin language’ (3). 111 Here antiquior means any one before Julius Caesar, whose De analogia is the point of departure. 112 Cf. 6. 13; 16. 10 for Gellius’ interest in these terms. 113 Proletario sermone nunc quidem, hospes, utere. 114 See e.g. 2. 2 (fathers and sons), 2. 7 (children), 5. 13 (precedence of obligations), 12. 4 (Ennius on behaviour of inferiors).

36

Simon Swain

This is not much of a compliment; but Laberius’ use of the word had stuck in Gellius’ mind.115 The idea of words being given citizenship is a cliche´.116 It is only partly humorous: the power of Fronto to arbitrate on good Latin is aYrmed.117 Humour is on display again in the marvellous vignette of the rhetor Antonius Julianus, ‘the public teacher of young men’ (including Gellius himself), and ‘a large number of Greeks’ who derided Latin poetry (19. 9). The scene is a dinner party at a small estate ‘near the City’ held by a young man of equestrian rank from Asia for his friends and teachers, an unpromising mixture. The man is a Greek who has come to Rome to learn Latin. Julianus asks for some lyric, and Gellius includes a drinking song to relieve the ‘labour of his sleepless toils’. This is tongue in cheek, of course; but also sets the scene for the Greeks to attack Julianus as a mere ‘ranter’ of a language devoid of Venus and the Muse. These Greeks are Latin-speakers: they are ‘not uninterested in our literature’, and ask Julianus whether there are any delightful poems in Latin ‘barring some of Catullus and Calvus. For those of Laevius are involved, Hortensius’ lack charm, Cinna’s reWnement, Memmius’ are heavy, and in short all have written work which is unpolished and discordant’ (§7).118 Julianus, roused to anger, then speaks pro lingua patria tanquam pro aris et focis, attacks their ‘ditties’, and proceeds to sing some early Latin epigrams ‘lest you should condemn us, that is, the Latin Name, for I Ææ ØÆ, as if we were clearly without culture and taste’ (§9). There is plenty of light-heartedness in all this; but when Gellius says he thinks ‘nothing can be found in Greek or Latin which is more elegant, more charming, more polished, or more concise’119 than the Latin poems he quotes, he is being quite serious. Whether Gellius here records quotations actually delivered or foisted on his speaker is irrelevant:120 it was he who chose to publish them in his work. The Preface makes clear what is evident throughout, that Gellius is a very ‘hands-on’ author who uses 115

See 16. 7. 10; cf. A. Garcea and V. Lomanto, below, Ch. 2, esp. 50---2. O. Wenskus, ‘Markieren’, 234–6. On citizenship and Latin cf. Adams, ‘ ‘‘Romanitas’’ ’, 185–8. 117 Cf. §5 for the hierarchy of the grammarians. 118 Nam Laeuius inplicata et Hortensius inuenusta et Cinna inlepida et Memmius dura ac deinceps omnes rudia fecerunt atque absona. On the attitudes here cf. B. Rochette, Le Latin, 267–9, Fo¨gen, Patrii sermonis egestas, 212–16. 119 Reading pressius; see A. D. Vardi, ‘Brevity’. 120 He sometimes claims to have ‘noted down the very words at the time’: 20. 6. 15. But at 12. 13. 17 he congratulates himself on a quotation he prepared ‘before coming to you (i.e. Sulpicius Apollinaris)’. 116


37

others’ material as he wants to purvey a strong moralizing tone and to promote his belief in the association of antique virtue and correct Latinity. This attitude is relevant to his control of Greek material and his comments on it. The Nights contain a fair amount of Greek (the overall quantity is of course very small), but most of it is technical terminology or free-standing quotation. There is virtually no code-switching which is not clearly connected with grammatical, rhetorical, or philosophical subjects (the most common type of code-switching in Latin literature).121 Most of the technical switches are marked as ‘the Greeks say’, vel sim. The Nights are not private letters: the private scenes Gellius gives us, however Wctional, are presented to a male public audience.122 Hence code-switching as an unmarked choice as we see it in Cicero’s private letters was not an option. The sketch of Julianus certainly shows how relaxed Gellius can be with regard to contemporary Greeks; Fronto could never have laughed like this. Gellius and his fellow-Romans went as students to Greece ‘ad capiendum ingenii cultum’, which is not ‘in quest of culture’ (Loeb), but rather ‘to train their intellects’ (1. 2. 1). Gellius had not the slightest doubt that ‘culture’ was fully available at Rome. The comparability of Roman and Greek culture is clear from the same note 1. 2, which is set at a dinner held by Herodes Atticus in Greece. Herodes is always introduced in the Nights as a consular or senator, i.e. he is Romanized as well as celebrated for his knowledge of Greek.123 In this note he demolishes the pretensions of a pseudo-Stoic who sets himself above ‘all leaders of the Attic language, the togaed race, and the Latin Name’ (§4). The abuse accords both cultures equal status. This belief in comparability is seen especially in Gellius’ practice of and concerns about translation from Greek.124 His fears of 121 Cf. 1. 5. 1 a Œ ł illa ºÆ ŒØÆ (quoting Aeschines, In Tim. 131 a Œ ła ÆFÆ ºÆ ŒØÆ), 11. 15. 8 P Øºø hercle Apollinaris noster . . . ait. Contrast 18. 7. 4 (said by Favorinus) Videtur enim mihi K ØÆ ŁÆØ. Scitote . . . tamen intemperiem istam, quae ºÆª ºÆ dicitur, non paruis nec abiectis ingeniis accidere, Iººa r ÆØ Ø e Ł F æøœŒ et ueritates plerumque fortiter dicere, sed respectum non habere ŒÆØæ F æ ı; Favorinus is allowed to code-switch, and maybe he did do so readily. For technical switching cf. n. 58. 122 It is worth noting that discussion of women in the Nights remains entirely traditional: 1. 6; 4. 3, cf. 10. 23, 12. 1, 17. 21. 44, 18. 6; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 308–13. 123 See 1. 2. 1, 9. 2. 1, 18. 10. 1, 19. 12. 1. 124 Cf. L. Gamberale, La traduzione, chs. 2–3 on Gellius’ techniques of literary translation, Fo¨gen, Patrii sermonis egestas, 193–216; [Holford-Strevens, ‘An Antonine Litte´tateur’]. For the wider context of Latin translation from Greek consult A. Traina, ‘Le traduzioni’, G. J. M. Bartelink, Hieronymus.

38

Simon Swain

spoiling the Greek of Favorinus have been mentioned. At 10. 22. 3 he refrains from translating Plato’s words in the Gorgias, for ‘no Latin speech could aspire to their qualities, much less my own’.125 Elsewhere he oVers a translation of a passage in the Symposium (17. 20. 3, 9; note the false modesty). On the other hand Epictetus is translated without apology at 19. 1. 15–20,126 and in 19. 11 Gellius is happy to oVer a verse paraphrase of the famous amatory epigram attributed to Plato done by ‘a friend of mine, PŒ Æ ı adulescens’. Unfortunately the note on his experiences of translating Plato in book 8 is lost (8. 8). But the various comments on the problems of and opportunities presented by translating longer passages or individual words give suYcient indication that Gellius thought some things were best left in Greek and at the same time believed that Roman authors like Vergil could translate with real Xair or could fall Xat.127 It is knowledge of Greek that is crucial. Symptomatic of this is the development of the word opicus. In origin this was an ethnic, an early form of Oscus. But a fragment of Cato the Elder makes it clear that it was used by Greeks to disparage Romans.128 It then developed the sense of a Roman who failed to understand Greek. Gellius quotes this usage from Cicero’s freedman, Tiro (13. 9. 4). Philodemus’ use of the word (in Greek) is comparable.129 This sense was current among second-century intellectuals (Juvenal, Terentius Scaurus, Fronto, Marcus, Gellius).130 Gellius calls his 125

His quotation from Plato is the longest piece of continuous Greek in the Nights. Similarly 9. 3. 5–6 (a letter attributed to Philip of Macedon). The story of Arion at 16. 19 is a very free paraphrase of Herodotus; cf. Fronto’s declamation on the same theme, pp. 241–2, with G. Anderson, below, 108---11. 127 Cf. 2. 23 (lengthy evaluation of Caecilius Statius’ unsucessful version of Menander, with adverse judgement on Roman comedy in general, cf. Quint. Inst. 10. 1. 99–100; Fo¨gen, Patrii sermonis egestas, 194–6); 9. 9 (Vergil); 11. 16 ( ºı æÆª , with praise of Greek’s terseness at §9; Fo¨gen 210–11); 16. 8 (IøÆ); 18. 13. 5 (examples of sophismata); 18. 14 (‘absurd’ to invent Latin terms for hemiolios or epitritos; NB the MSS transliterate, but perhaps Greek script should be restored; cf. 1. 20. 9); 19. 2. 2 (IŒºÆ ); 20. 5. 13 (ı ). 128 Cato, De medicina fr. 1 (Pliny, NH 29. 14) nos quoque dictitant barbaros et spurcius nos quam alios Opicon appellatione foedant. On the development of the ethnic (Opicus>Opscus>Oscus see O. Skutsch on Ennius, Ann. 291 (pp. 469–70 of his commentary). 129 AP 5. 132. 7 ‘if she is an Opikeˆ and called Flora and cannot sing Sappho’. 130 Juvenal, Sat. 3. 207; Scaurus, De orthogr., GL vii. 23. 2; Fronto, Ep. M. Caes. 2. 2. 8, p. 21. 15 (cf. above, 22), Marcus ap. Fronto, Ep. M. Caes. 2. 11. 2, p. 31. 6; the reading at Ep. M. Caes. 3. 6 (p. 39. 19) is very insecure. At Juvenal, Sat. 6. 455 female language, but not speciWcally Greek, is at issue. The same usage occurs three centuries later in Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. 8. 3. 1 (his ‘barbarian transcription’ of Philostratus’ Apollonius). But in Ausonius, where the word is used several times, 126


39

fellow-students ‘opici’ in jest: ‘why don’t you barbarians . . . ?’, and at 11. 16. 7 he applies it to a man who had failed to grasp his explanation of ºı æÆª (cf. §2: the man is ‘ignorant of Greek language and literature’). This humour is not without signiWcance. In the grammarian Scaurus there is contempt for someone who cannot follow his explanation of aspirated words in Greek. In Fronto there is tension, in Marcus self-irony. Gellius’ attitude is relaxed towards his companions. But the ignorant man was plainly annoying: he is one of the ‘profane crowd’ to whom Gellius applies the words of Aristophanes at the end of his Preface. Not to understand Greek was not to belong. The picture which emerges from Gellius is that of a man who believed fervently in the association of culture and morality. Knowledge of language and literature was the key expression of this. When the grammarian Aelius Melissus published a book ‘within my memory’ with the ‘hugely attractive title’ of On Correct Language, ‘who would regard himself as qualiWed to speak correctly and properly unless he had learned Melissus’ correct meanings (proprietates)?’ (18. 6. 1–3). When Melissus had made a mistake (as he had), who could fail to be disappointed?131 It is in the nature of grammarians to pronounce on correct speech and correct spelling (Scaurus’ De orthographia). But the interest of a wider public in such matters—Gellius’ readers—implies a wide concern about the role of language. But what role? As has been remarked, Fronto, Gellius, and Apuleius oVer insuYcient evidence of a widespread linguistic movement. In any case, trying to look at things in terms of Greek purism is the wrong way to go about it. Rather, Gellius and the others are concerned to demonstate their command of all Roman culture and its transmission through literature. This includes early Latin (the ueteres); but it certainly does not stop with these authors. Their understanding of the Latin language in its full development gave them the right in their own eyes to innovate extensively. We should assume that they would have been happy for those as cultured and as literary as themselves to do the same. Tertullian has been seen as one of their natural heirs in this regard.132 As the Wrst Latin churchman, he the sense ranges from ‘obsolete’ to ‘indulging in oral sex’: see J. N. Adams, ‘An Epigram’, 100, 109 on the genital alphabet of Ep. 87. 131 Other good examples of Gellius confronting the experts: 6. 3, 6. 17, 13. 31, 14. 6, 15. 9. 132 Steinmetz, Untersuchungen, 231, 374.

40

Simon Swain

was trying in part to establish an intellectual Latin lexicon for the new religion. This lexicon had perforce to contain and naturalize Greek terminology.133 This is a further stage in the process of Sprachanschluß that began with Republican authors and was continued by Fronto, Gellius, and Apuleius. All these men needed Greek to show they possessed culture. They needed it to enrich Latin as necessary. They needed it as an alternative register (for technical subjects, the aVections, awkward or problematical relations). They needed to be in control of it in an era when the Greek language was again at the height of its powers. Favorinus and Marcus Aurelius (Meditations) are the most striking surviving examples of Latin speakers making extensive use of Greek at this time. But we should not forget Claudius Aelian in the early decades of the next century. His two surviving miscellanies, the Varia historia and De natura animalium, not to mention his Letters of Farmers, would have excited the scorn of Gellius. In them he makes bold claims for his choice of language (Atticizing Greek) and his ability to sustain it (Nat. An. pr. ad Wn., epil. ad Wn.; Letter 20 ad Wn.). Yet Aelian was exceptional. More interesting is evidence for the continuing acceptability of Greek codeswitching in Latin in the same generation from the great jurist Ulpian.134 Ulpian may have been a descendant of Roman or Italian merchants. If his family were ‘Greek’, then he is the Wrst writer from the Greek East whose political choices led him to write in Latin. Whatever the case, he clearly expects his Latin readers to know suYcient Greek to understand his switches and, more importantly, to accept them as normal. There are in fact a very few examples of code-switches in earlier jurists and a couple immediately after Ulpian. But Ulpian’s usage is far more extensive, with thirty-eight examples. This should perhaps be connected with his conscious attempt to promote Roman law in the new environment of the Constitutio Antoniniana. It may well show that he was in fact a Greek speaker who failed to appreciate the constraints on Greek in Latin public discourse (law). It also shows an appreciation that Greek was a natural part of Latin speech and that display of a Greek identity, far from being intrusive, was a sine qua non of the highest Roman culture. This is something Gellius’ age understood perfectly. 133 See esp. Against the Valentinians 6 on the futility of translating Valentinus’ technical terms. Cf. Adv. Praxean 3. 3 ‘si quid utriusque linguae praecerpsi’. For Tertullian’s innovative graphical procedures to aid Greekless readers see Adv. Val. 6. 2 with J.-C. Fredouille, edn. ii. 216–17. 134 T. Honore´, Ulpian, 90–2.

2 Gellius and Fronto on Loanwords and Literary Models Their Evaluation of Laberius A l es sa n dr o Ga r ce a an d Va l er ia L om a nt o In this chapter we shall focus on ch. 19. 13 of the Noctes Atticae, where Fronto investigates the origin of the word nanus (§1). In his analysis, Gellius recalls the linguistic categories of Latinus, Graecus, barbarus, whose theoretical grounds we shall clarify (§2). After considering the Latin texts where nanus occurs (§3), we shall speciWcally discuss the case of Laberius, an author on whom Gellius and Fronto have a diVerent opinion. We shall complete our analysis with the study of the references to Laberius in the Noctes Atticae (§4).

1. the hesitation of fronto between nanvs and p v m i l i o (gellius 19. 1 3 . 1–2) In Noctes Atticae 19. 13 Fronto (test. 9, p. 265. 3–14 v:d:H:2 ) doubts the Latinity of nanus, suspecting it to be a sordidum . . . uerbum et barbarum. To nanus Fronto prefers the native term pumilio, which is attested in the works of early writers. As Fronto is not sure of his choice, he asks his friends, who are waiting with him to pay the emperor their respects in the salutatio Caesaris: C. Sulpicius Apollinaris, regarded by Gellius as an outstanding grammarian, teacher of the future emperor Pertinax in the early 140s (HA Pert. 1. 4), and M. Postumius Festus, an orator of Numidian origin, equally Xuent in Greek and Latin (cf. CIL vi. 1416 oratorem utraque facundia maximum). We wish to thank Leofranc Holford-Strevens for discussing a previous version of this paper.

42

Alessandro Garcea, Valeria Lomanto

1. Stabant forte una in uestibulo Palatii fabulantes Fronto Cornelius et Festus Postumius et Apollinaris Sulpicius, atque ego ibi adsistens cum quibusdam aliis sermones eorum, quos de litterarum disciplinis habebant, curiosius captabam. 2. Tum Fronto Apollinari ‘fac me’ inquit ‘oro, magister, ut sim certus, an recte supersederim ‘‘nanos’’ dicere parua nimis statura homines maluerimque eos ‘‘pumiliones’’ appellare, quoniam hoc scriptum esse in libris ueterum memineram, ‘‘nanos’’ autem sordidum esse uerbum et barbarum credebam.’

The term pumilio represents a sort of hyperonym for human, animal, and vegetable varieties of dwarfs. In his Natural History, Pliny, who had described Conopas as a minimus man and implicitly Andromeda as a minima woman during the reign of Augustus (7. 75), notes that there are dwarf kinds (pumiliones) of birds like hens (10. 156), and, more generally, of all species of animals (11. 260). Later on, he speaks of the pollard plane called chamaeplatanus, lit. ‘ground-plane’, stunted in height and belonging to the genus pumilionum (12. 13). Finally, he describes the methods of making a vine slow to fruit, shrivelled, and knotty, ‘with the growth natural to dwarfs’ (pumilionum incremento 17. 176). The use of pumilio with reference to human beings, lacking in Pliny, occurs in Lucretius’ De rerum natura, which can be identiWed, according to the present evidence, with the libri ueterum mentioned by Fronto. While showing that love makes people blind to the faults of the beloved, the poet quotes some examples of the ancient topos of euphemistic terms of endearment and, more generally, of the psychological mechanism of changing the objective reality in bonam partem (4. 1160–70).1 A squat, dwarWsh woman (pumilio) appears in the eye of her lover as one of the Graces, as the very soul of wit: paruula pumilio ‘chariton mia’ ‘tota merum sal’ (4. 1162). The reference to Lucretius is consistent with Fronto’s ideas on style, according to which Lucretius is a linguistic model. Using metaphorical expressions, Fronto conceives his literary theory in three stages: the genus humile of mutterers (murmurantes), and two levels of genus sublime, i.e. the lower, represented by the mugitus of Ennius, Accius, and Lucretius, and the higher, represented by the tuba of Cato, Gracchus, Cicero, and Sallust (De eloq. 4. 4, p. 148.

1 See the description of the behaviour of the I cæ KæøØŒ towards the ÆE in Plato, Rep. 474 d 7–475 a 2 and Ovid’s imitation, Ars 2. 657–62; other examples of Xattering terms applied to unattractive characteristics are found in the Hellenistic handbook —æd Iæ Øø by Philaenis (P. Oxy. 2891 fr. 3. 5–9); Theocr. 10. 26–37; Hor. Serm. 1. 3. 38–67; Asclepiades, AP 5. 210. See R. Verdie`re, ‘L’euphe´misme amoureux’.

Loanwords and Literary Models

43

8–11 v:d:H:2 ).2 Fronto also expresses similar evaluations in a sort of canon of ueteres who have operated dilectus uerborum. They should be imitated, because their long-neglected language may suggest insperata atque inopinata uerba, i.e. unconventional words: Wherefore few indeed of our old writers have surrendered themselves to that toil, pursuit, and hazard of seeking out words with especial diligence. M. Porcius alone of the orators of all time, and his constant imitator C. Sallustius, are among these; of poets Plautus especially, and most especially Q. Ennius and his zealous rival L. Coelius, not to omit Naevius and Lucretius, Accius too, and Caecilius, also Laberius. Besides these, certain other writers are noticeable for choiceness in special spheres, as Novius, Pomponius and their like in rustic and jocular and comic words, Atta in women’s talk, Sisenna in erotics, Lucilius in the technical language of each art and business. (Ep. M. Caes. 4. 3. 2, pp. 56. 18–57. 4 v:d:H:2 , tr. C. R. Haines, i. 5.)

The imitation of ancient authors, pursued by Fronto and Gellius3 in order to give new vitality and meaningfulness to the literary language, must not hinder the perspicuity of communication. Both the former (ibid. §3, p. 57. 24–7 v:d:H:2 ) and the latter (11. 7. 3) think that the unsuitable use of archaisms, without clarity or reWnement, betrays incomplete (semidoctus) or belatedly acquired learning (OłØÆŁÆ) respectively. Such inadequate messages should be replaced by common, even trite, expressions. Gellius agrees with his master Fronto on the theoretical aspects of his literary doctrine, but, as we shall see, he makes his own independent assessment of the authors to be imitated. The case of Laberius, the Wrst to use the word nanus, is exemplary of this attitude.

2. the categories of l a t i n v s g r a e c v s barbarvs ( gellius 19. 1 3 . 3 a ) In his answer to Fronto, Apollinaris admits that the word nanus belongs to the sermo uulgaris. Yet he speciWes that it is not a 2 See the commentary by A. Pennacini, La funzione dell’arcaismo, 109–11 (misinterpreted by M. P. J. van den Hout, Commentary, 350–1) and P. Soverini, ‘Aspetti e problemi’, 936–7. Fronto also proposes a quadripartite division of the genera dicendi (gracilis, aridus, sublimis, mediocris), where Lucretius is deWned as sublimis (De eloq. 1. 2, p. 133. 12 v:d:H:2 ). On the evaluation of Lucretius by Fronto, see R. Poignault, ‘Lucre`ce’, 179–83. 3 On the theoretical problem of archaism from Caes. Anal. fr. 2 Funaioli to Gell. 1. 10 (the source of this fragment), see V. Lomanto, ‘Cesare e la teoria dell’eloquenza’, 57–64; on Fronto, see also Soverini, ‘Aspetti e problemi’, 955–63.

44


barbarous word, but a Greek one (< A , ): it occurs in literary works such as Aristophanes’ comedy The Cargo Boats ( ˇºŒ; fr. 441 Kassel–Austin), and—according to an etymological principle—its brief extent is consistent with its small referent. ‘Est quidem’ inquit ‘hoc’ Apollinaris ‘in consuetudine inperiti uulgi frequens, sed barbarum non est censeturque linguae Graecae origine; ı enim Graeci uocauerunt breui atque humili corpore homines paulum supra terram exstantes idque ita dixerunt adhibita quadam ratione etymologiae cum sententia uocabuli competente et, si memoria’ inquit ‘mihi non labat, scriptum hoc est in comoedia Aristophanis, cui nomen est ˇºŒ.’

The Greek origin of nanus is already attested in Varro, LL 5. 119, where a jar shaped as a bearded dwarf is named nanus cum Graeco nomine et cum Latino nomine . . . barbatus (see also Fest. 184. 25–7 L., where the Latin name of the same object is pumilio, and CGL ii. 28. 22 bardatus e ŒF ). What is interesting in Apollinaris’ answer is the opposition between uerba Graeca and uerba barbara, according to what is a conventional antithesis within Greek culture. The Greeks considered anyone who was not a Greek as a barbarian, including the Romans (cf. Fest. 32. 14–15 barbari dicebantur antiquitus omnes gentes, exceptis Graecis).4 This viewpoint was adopted by the Romans themselves in ethnic as well as in linguistic terms. For the former, note Plautus’ description of Naevius as poeta barbarus (Mil. 211);5 for the latter, the contrast between Graecus and barbarus, the later designating Latin, can already be found in the expression uortit barbare of Plautus (Trin. 19; Asin. 11) and is still current in Cic. Orat. 160. Here the author criticizes the reproduction of Greek phonemes in Latin nominal inXection (in barbaris casibus Graecam litteram adhibere).6 Soon, however, the employment of grammatical Greek patterns for the description of Latin linguistic structures admitted the 4 See e.g. H. Diller, ‘Die Hellenen-Barbaren-Antithese’ and E. Le´vy, ‘Naissance’. In Greece, the deviations from the standard language are represented in Plato’s Cratylus as ØŒ (forms not belonging to Attic) and foreign words not understandable by Greek speakers (ÆæÆæØŒ). See B. Rochette, ‘Les ØŒ et les ÆæÆæØŒa O ÆÆ’, 95–7. Aristotle, in ch. 22 of his Poetics, recommends grandeur and avoidance of the ordinary in style. These qualities can be achieved by employing unusual words ( ØŒ): however, their presence in the ºØ must not be excessive, in order to avoid ÆY ØªÆ, i.e. surfeit of metaphors, and ÆæÆæØ, i.e. excess of foreign terms (1458a 18–31). See R. Dupont-Roc and J. Lallot, edn. 357–60. 5 Cf. PF 32. 15–16. Whereas J. C. Dumont, ‘Plaute’, 70 considers Plautus’ line as a ‘de´rision des pre´juge´s grecs de supe´riorite´’, F. Desbordes, ‘Latinitas’, 38 observes that Plautus ‘pre´sente le point de vue des Grecs, non pas force´ment qu’il l’assume’. 6 Cf. also Cic. Rep. 1. 58 (Romulus rules over ‘barbarian’ speakers).


45

theory that Latin was a kind of Greek,7 speciWcally a sort of Aeolic dialect. Both Greek grammarians living and teaching in Rome (Hypsicrates of Amysos, Philoxenus of Alexandria, Terentius Tyrannio, Claudius Didymus, L. Ateius Praetextatus Philologus) and native Latin grammarians (Santra, Clodius Tuscus, Cloatius Verus) wrote on this subject between the beginning of the Wrst century bc and the middle of the Wrst century ad.8 Varro, who criticizes his master Aelius Stilo for systematically explaining Latin words only out of other Latin words, does not on the other hand follow the opposite ‘Hellenizing’ explanation. He points out, however, some speciWc features common to ‘Aeolic’ and Latin:9 (1) the preservation of the Aeolic digamma = in the Latin semiconsonant /w/ (a phenomenon typical of Cypriot and Pamphylian): =ØÆº > uitulus (LL 5. 96), = æÆ > uesper (LL 6. 6), æ =ØE > prouidere (LL 6. 96); see also Priscian, Inst., GL ii. 15. 1–5, who quotes Varro’s opinion (fr. 71 Goetz– Scho¨ll ¼ 270, pp. 291–2 Funaioli) and Didymus fr. 1, p. 447 Funaioli on the identity of Aeolic = with Latin /w/; (2) barytonesis, a phenomenon occurring in Asiatic Aeolic: puteus< Aeolic (Attic ; LL 5. 24–5); (3) > ı with nasal or labial voiceless consonant (see point 2); typical of Aeolic and Arcado-Cypriot; (4) the preservation of ancient Æ (which excludes the Ionic–Attic dialect): Aº > malum (LL 5. 102). Another similarity between ‘Aeolic’ and Latin is pointed out by Philoxenus, who notices the absence of the dual in the nominal inXection of both languages (fr. 323 Theodoridis ¼ Choerobosc. In Theod., GG iv. 2. 34. 4–9).10 As we can understand from all these phenomena, the concept of ‘Aeolic’ in these authors is an extended 7 See M. Dubuisson, ‘Le latin’, 67: ‘on peut conside´rer comme au moins probable que l’e´laboration de la theórie de l’origine eólienne du latin, indispensable comple´ment a` la le´gende de l’origine grecque de Rome, fut l’œuvre des grammairiens grecs et romains de l’entourage de Pompeé, suscite´s et encourage´s par celui-ci’. 8 See T. Cupaiuolo, La teoria della derivazione, and R. Giomini, ‘Il grammatico Filosseno’. 9 See G. Pascucci, ‘Le componenti linguistiche’, 356–8; F. Cavazza, Studio su Varrone, 88–97; D. Briquel, ‘La conception du latin’, 1035–7; further observations in K. Scho¨psdau, ‘Vergleiche zwischen Lateinisch und Griechisch’, 117–21. 10 The fragment of Philoxenus which seems to make a connection between the weakening of /g/ in Aeolic and the evolution of -gy-> -iy-> -i- in Latin (fr. 11, p. 446 Funaioli ¼Etym. Gud. p. 377 Sturz: Ø . . . KŒ FÐ ÆªÆ i.e. maiestatis) is not retained in C. Theodoridis’ edn. (Die Fragmente, 49–50), because the sentence Øº . . . Ææ `N ºFØ ªæÆc Øa F NHÆ is declared to be a gloss arising from fr. 542 (dealing with the allographs ªØæ =ªØæ ).

46


one: it is the language of diVerent people who at various times departed from Latium (Siculi: Varro, LL 5. 101 lepus > º æØ) or entered it (Pelasgi: Varro in Macr. Sat. 1. 7. 28–30; Evander’s Arcadians, Hercules’ Argei: Varro, LL 5. 21, 45). This hypothesis is parallel to, and probably convergent with, the annalistic tradition of the Arcadian origin of Rome, as found in the fragments of Fabius Pictor (1, p. 2 Funaioli ¼ 1, p. 5 Peter2 ), Cincius Alimentus (p. 2 Funaioli ¼ 1, p. 40 Peter2 ) and Cn. Gellius (2, p. 120 Funaioli ¼ 3, p. 148 Peter2 ).11 Consequently, Greek and Latin form a pair frequently considered as a sort of unity, utraque lingua,12 while the word ‘barbarian’ represents a tertium genus, including all other languages. Even when Greek is incorporated in the domain of peregrinitas, as is the case with the taxonomy of Quintilian, Inst. 1. 5. 55–8 (where Latin and foreign words are diVerentiated: §55 uerba aut Latina aut peregrina sunt), a special relationship between Greek and Latin is nevertheless underlined. Greek loanwords are so many—Quintilian claims—because Latin is derived from Greek and it also borrows Greek terms when it lacks its own. The contributions from diVerent languages, on the other hand, constitute a distinct, composite ‘barbarian’ group.13 Increasing linguistic awareness among Latin grammarians is indicated by the fact that, having at Wrst been deWned as a variety of Greek, Latin eventually becomes the theoretical focus, in relation 11 ` abbastanza chiaro in See E. Gabba, ‘Il latino come dialetto greco’, 190: ‘E primo luogo che la teoria del latino come dialetto eolico e` collegata alla partizione linguistica delle stirpi greche, riferita da Strabone ma certamente derivata dall’indagine dialettologica dell’eta` alessandrina; in secondo luogo che essa e` stata originariamente elaborata non sulla base di una qualsiasi indagine linguistica, ma come conseguenza e riXesso di una teoria ‘‘storica’’ largamente accettata, vale a dire dell’origine ‘‘arcadica’’ di Roma.’ On the role of Evander in the transmission of the Greek alphabet to the Romans, see A. Garcea, ‘Ce´sar et l’alphabet’, 159–60. 12 See M. Dubuisson, ‘Vtraque lingua’; Desbordes, ‘Latinitas’, 37. L. A. Holford-Strevens, ‘Vtraque lingua doctus’ gives a great number of important examples of Greek knowledge of Latin as well as Roman knowledge of Greek. 13 According to Quintilian, Etruscan, Sabine, and Praenestine words can be considered as Roman ones. Some Gaulish words, such as raeda ‘four-wheeled travelling-carriage’, used by Cicero (cf. Mil. 28–9; Phil. 2. 58; Att. 5. 17. 1; 6. 1. 25) and petorritum ‘open four-wheeled carriage’, used by Horace (cf. Serm. 1. 6. 104; Ep. 2. 1. 192), are also well established. Quintilian also mentions the Punic mappa ‘table-napkin’ and the Hispanic gurdus ‘blockhead, dolt’ (see infra, §4 and n. 55). On this passage, see B. Rochette, ‘Latinitas—peregrinitas’, 104–5 and R. Mu¨ller, Sprachbewußtsein, 44; on petorritum, see Gell. 15. 30, who quotes Varro’s Antiquitates rerum diuinarum (§7: fr. 203 Cardauns ¼ 133, p. 236 Funaioli) in support of the Gaulish origin of the term.


47

to which all other languages are diVerentiated.14 Thus the tripartite pattern Latinus, Graecus, barbarus, which also occurs in ethniccultural hyperboles,15 is now systematized in the grammatical tradition, where Latin at all linguistic levels undergoes a tripartition. On the phonographematic level, for example, Diomedes (GL i. 426. 8–10) considers that the sign < z >, designating /z/, has been introduced from Greek into Latin in order to transcribe both Greek (e.g. Zenon, Zacynthus) and ‘barbarian’ words (e.g. Mezentius, gaza). Moreover, according to Cassiodorus (in Eutych. GL vii. 199. 13–15), both Greek (e.g. Halys, He˘cuba, He¯gio, Hieron, Ho˘merus, hymen, ho¯ra, Thybris, Phoebus, chorus) and ‘barbarian’ (e.g. Rhenus, Hannibal) forms preserve the original aspiration in Latin. On the morphophonemic level, Varro (fr. 113 Goetz–Scho¨ll ¼ 243, p. 269 Funaioli) had already classiWed syllables as Greek (e.g. hymnos, Zenon) or ‘barbarian’ (e.g. gaza) depending on language of origin.16 Moreover, the norms ruling Latin accent do not apply to interjections, i.e. marginal elements of lexicon, and loanwords. But, while a barbarum nomen uel uerbum aliquod peregrinum takes an arbitrary accent, non-integrated Graeca uerba save their original accent (cf. Explan. GL iv. 483. 29–34).17 On the morphological level, the tripartition Latinum, Graecum, barbarum applies to both variable and invariable forms. Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae oVer the most systematic treatment of nominal inXection of barbarian words, according to their ending in the nominative. He not only lists diVerent typologies (e.g. GL ii. 222. 1–4 on forms ending in -ar: Latin Caesar, Greek nectar, ‘barbarian’ Aspar, Bostar), but also illustrates some peculiarities of the barbarian terms. For example, commenting on the toponyms Suthul and Muthul, Priscian prefers to consider them as communia, rather than neuter, because Punic, like Chaldaean, Hebrew, and Syriac, lacks this gender (GL ii. 147. 18–148. 3). He adds that barbarian words end frequently in phonological clusters which 14

See M. Baratin, La Naissance de la syntaxe, 350–8. See e.g. Cic. Fin. 2. 49 a quo [sc. Epicuro] non solum Graecia et Italia, sed etiam omnis barbaria commota est; Diu. 1. 84 si Graeci, si barbari, si maiores etiam nostri; Juvenal 10. 138 Romanus Graiusque et barbarus induperator; Quint. Inst. 5. 10. 24 nec idem [sc. mos] in barbaro, Romano, Graeco. 16 See J. Collart, Varron grammairien, 73–5. 17 See also Diomedes, GL i. 433. 31–4; [Prisc.] Acc., GL iii. 520. 23–5; Donatus, Mai. 610. 9–10 Holtz; Cledonius, GL v. 33. 18–20; Jul. Tol. 172. 60–4 Maestre Yenes. 15

48


are foreign to Latin and Greek and diYcult to adapt to Latin inXectional classes (GL ii. 148. 7–12: e.g. Abraham, Ioachim, Loth, Ruth, Iacob, David, Balac). This kind of problem was already discussed by Varro, who attests to a polemic between Crates and Aristarchus (LL 8. 64–5). The latter explained the invariability of the uocabula litterarum, both in Greek and Latin, by their barbarian, Chaldaean, origin (§64 non esse uocabula nostra, sed penitus barbara). Varro agrees with this opinion in a fragment of his De antiquitate litterarum (fr. 40 Goetz–Scho¨ll ¼ 1, pp. 183–4 Funaioli): the characters’ names cannot be adapted to the system of Latin cases because they reproduce their original form in Chaldaean. The taxonomy of linguistic units in three species hides their diVerent contribution to the overall system of the Latin language. In the vast corpus of the grammatici Latini, only barbarian proper nouns18 are taken into account and admitted. On the other hand, barbarian common nouns are generally proscribed as errors in speech in chapters de uitiis et uirtutibus orationis, where the external 18 Barbara nomina ending in -al: Adherbal, (H)Annibal, (H)Asdrubal, Hamilcar, Hiempsal, Mastanabal (Charis. 24. 24–6, 29–32, 44. 6–8 Barwick; Anon. Bob. 14. 8–12 De Nonno; Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 2. 147. 7–8, 214. 8–10, 312. 14–16; [Prisc.] Acc., GL iii. 523. 8–9; [Probus] Cath., GL iv. 8. 27–9; Phocas, 9. 1, p. 35. 2–3 Casaceli; Sacerdos, GL vi. 473. 24–6; Martyr. GL vii. 187. 11–16); in -ar: Arar, Aspar, Bostar, Hamilcar (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 149. 14–150. 6; 222. 1–4; 313. 12–14); in -co: Sic(c)o, Franco ([Probus], Cath., GL iv. 9. 37–10. 1; Sacerdos, GL vi. 475. 8–9); in -e¯l : Michael, Gabriel, Abel, Nechamel, Daniel, Samuel, Isdrahel (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 147. 11–12; 214. 15; 312. 19–20; Sacerdos, GL vi. 473. 27–9); in -es: Tigranes, Mithridates, Ariobarzanes (Prisc. Nom. 5. 10–13); in -on: Rubicon, Saxon ([Probus], Cath., GL iv. 9. 12–18; Sacerdos, GL vi. 474. 18–19); in -ul: Suthul, Muthul (Charis. 30. 22, 44. 6–8 Barwick; Anon. Bob. 19. 14–15 De Nonno; Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 147. 18–148. 3; [Probus], Cath., GL iv. 8. 29–30; Sacerdos, GL vi. 473. 26–7); other forms: Abodlas (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 42. 15–16); Abraham (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 7–12); Aizi (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 205. 6–7); Artabazes ([Probus] Cath., GL iv. 31. 17–18; Sacerdos, GL vi. 481. 25–6); Atax (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 164. 6–7; 166. 24–167. 2); Balac (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 10); Berzobim (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 205. 6–7); Bocchus (Martyr. GL vii. 172. 6–8); Bogud (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 146. 18–19; 213. 14–214. 2); Brixo ([Probus] Cath., GL iv. 11. 10–11); David (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 10); Heriul ([Prisc.] Acc., GL iii. 523. 14); Iacob (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 9); Iliturgi (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 205. 5–6); Ioachim (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 9); Loth (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 9); Massiua (Martyr. GL vii. 172. 8–11, 4–10); Muluccha (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 201. 15–17; Phocas 5. 2, p. 32. 20–1 Casaceli); Ormizas ([Probus] Cath., GL iv. 31. 16–17; Sacerdos, GL vi. 481. 23–4); Pharnax (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 279. 5–8); Ruth (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 148. 9); Tanaquil (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 214. 16); Tharros ([Probus] Cath., GL iv. 22. 25–7); Turia (Cledon., GL v. 41. 24; Phocas 5. 2, p. 32. 20–1 Casaceli); Volux (Prisc. Inst., GL ii. 166. 24–167. 2, 279. 5–6); Zidar ([Probus], Cath., GL iv. 13. 24). Outside the few examples of barbarolexis, the only ‘barbarian’ common noun quoted in the corpus of grammatici Latini is nap(h)t(h)a(s) ([Probus] Cath., GL iv. 22. 21–2, 29. 4–6, 30. 15–17; Sacerdos, GL vi. 480. 3–5, 481. 19–21).


49

opposition Latin/barbarian gives way to the internal opposition Latin/barbarism.19 Quintilian, at Inst. 1. 5. 7–10,20 proposes a tripartite classiWcation of such phenomena: one type is the ethnic word (§8), another comes from an insolent or vulgar way of speaking (§9), a third consists in the addition (addictio), omission (omissio), substitution (immutatio), or transposition (transmutatio) of a letter or a syllable (§10). The Wrst type is exempliWed by loanwords such as the Gaulish cantus ‘iron tyre of a wheel’, used by Persius 5. 71, and ploxenum ‘carriage body’, used by Catullus 97. 6, casamo (¼adsectator?), used by Labienus or Cornelius Gallus, and the Sardinian mastruca ‘heavy cloak’, used by Cic. Scaur. 45h Clark ¼ 45d Olechowska. This last term also occurs among the examples that Latin grammarians, following Donatus, derive from classical authors in order to illustrate the phenomenon of barbarolexis.21 They conceive the use of a term which is neither indigenous nor derived from Greek as a threat to the correct usage of their language, i.e. Roman Latin.22 Their examples are given below: (1) acinaces ‘Persian short sword’ (Hor. Carm. 1. 27. 5; Curt. 4. 15. 30; V.Fl. 6. 701; Tac. Ann. 12. 51);23 19

See Desbordes, ‘Latinitas’, 39. See R. Vainio, Latinitas and Barbarisms, 25–6, 87–8, 131. See Donatus, Mai. 653. 2–4 Holtz; Pompeius, GL v. 284. 20–8; Jul. Tol. 179. 13–18 Maestre Yenes; Consentius, Barb. 2. 6–10, 19. 9–16 Niedermann. Holtz, edn. of Donatus, 150 comments upon these passages: ‘ce n’est pas n’importe quels mots barbares qui sont cite´s, mais uniquement des termes qui ont pour eux l’auctoritas . . . Ces exemples sont classiques depuis longtemps . . . ’. See also the deWnitions of barbarolexis in Cominianus quoted by Charis. 350. 4–6 Barwick; Diom. GL i. 451. 30–2; Serv. Mai., GL iv. 444. 7–8; Audax, GL vii. 361. 19–21; Isid. Etym. 1. 32. 2. The Wrst occurrence of the term barbarolexis (cf. TLL ii. 1735. 14–23) is found in the 3rd-c. grammar attributed to Sacerdos (GL vi. 451. 4–15): according to this text, ‘if a word—either a Latin or a Greek one—was corrupted by an element from another language, this was a barbarolexis, a barbarous way of writing the word’ (Vainio, Latinitas and Barbarisms, 91). From Charisius on the term barbarolexis no longer refers to Greek words. Holtz, edn. of Donatus, 137 rightly observes: ‘Il est vraisemblable que le sens premier de ÆæÆæØ [i.e. language where foreign words have penetrated] survit dans barbarolexis ( æÆæ ºØ), terme qui lui-meˆme suppose la linguistique stoı¨cienne.’ 22 As R. Coleman (‘Quintilian 1. 6’, 917) rightly observes, ‘Helle¯nismo´s embraced certain dialects outside Attic that enjoyed considerable and long established cultural and political prestige [ . . . ], Latinitas by contrast was identiWed expressly with Roman Latin.’ This is also the reason why Latin grammarians do not take into consideration ‘regional’ loanwords, i.e. ‘the transfer of local terms belonging to other languages into the Latin’ of diVerent areas of the Empire (see J. N. Adams, Bilingualism, 443). 23 This word also occurs in a list of peregrina uerba by Consentius (Ars, GL v. 364. 8–15): Gallic mannus, Persian acinacis and gaza, Punic tubur. 20 21

50


(2) cateia ‘curved missile’ (Verg. Aen. 7. 741 with DS ad loc., V. Fl. 6. 83; Sil. 3. 277; Gell. 10. 25. 2; cf. also Isid. Etym. 18. 7. 7); (3) dellas ‘reed-grass, sedge’: Augustine, GL v. 496. 10; (4) magalia ‘huts, tents’ (Hem. Hist. 38; Verg. Aen. 1. 421 with DS ad loc., Aen. 4. 259 with. Serv. ad loc.; Liv. 41. 27. 12; cf. also Char. 37. 8–9 Barwick; Isid. Etym. 15. 12. 4);24 (5) mastruca (cf. Isid. Etym. 19. 23. 5).

3. vulgarisms and disdain for laberius ( gellius 19. 13. 3b–5) Apollinaris’ contrast between Latina and peregrina uerba explains why Fronto hesitates to use the term nanus without knowing its origin: he risks making an error of barbarolexis. In his answer, Apollinaris not only quotes a reference showing the Greek origin of nanus, but also acknowledges in his friend the right that Pomponius Porcellus had denied to the emperor Tiberius, i.e. that of conferring Roman or at least Latin citizenship upon every word he uses. Anyway, nanus is considered a much less vulgar word than those introduced into the Latin language by Laberius. Fuisset autem uerbum hoc a te ciuitate donatum aut in Latinam coloniam deductum, si tu eo uti dignatus fores, essetque id inpendio probabilius, quam quae a Laberio ignobilia nimis et sordentia in usum linguae Latinae intromissa sunt.

The theoretical assumption underlying the praise of Fronto by Apollinaris is that correct linguistic usage must be evaluated through the criterion of auctoritas, i.e. the warrant of the prestigious authors of Latin literature. In comparison with the deWnition of Latinitas given by Varro (fr. 115 Goetz–Scho¨ll ¼ 268, pp. 289– 90 Funaioli), where the four parameters of natura, analogia, consuetudo, auctoritas are mentioned, only the last one (the literary tradition) is maintained in the Noctes Atticae, to the detriment of linguistic system and common linguistic habits.25 According to this theoretical pattern, in the concluding sections of Noctes Atticae 19. 13, an anonymous grammarian is asked by Postumius 24

See D. Lippi, ‘Magalia’. On the parameters of Latinitas in Varro and Quintilian, see V. Lomanto, ‘Il sistema del sermo Latinus’ and Coleman, ‘Quintilian 1. 6’; on their reception by Gellius, see F. Cavazza, ‘Gellio e i canoni (varroniani?)’ and A. Garcea, ‘Gellio e la dialettica’, 189–94. 25


51

whether nanus, commonly26 applied to small mules and ponies, is correct in Latin, and which authors have made use of it. In his reply, the anonymous grammarian recalls some lines of Helvius Cinna (fr. 9, p. 221 Bla¨nsdorf ¼ p. 220 Courtney): 4. Tum Festus Postumius grammatico cuipiam Latino, Frontonis familiari ‘docuit’ inquit ‘nos Apollinaris ‘‘nanos’’ uerbum Graecum esse, tu nos doce, in quo de mulis aut eculeis humilioribus uulgo dicitur, anne Latinum sit et aput quem scriptum reperiatur.’ 5. Atque ille grammaticus, homo sane perquam in noscendis ueteribus scriptis exercitus, ‘si piaculum’ inquit ‘non committitur praesente Apollinare, quid de uoce ulla Graeca Latinaue sentiam, dicere, audeo tibi, Feste, quaerenti respondere esse hoc uerbum Latinum scriptumque inueniri in poematis Helui Cinnae, non ignobilis neque indocti poetae’, uersusque eius ipsos dixit, quos, quoniam memoriae mihi forte aderant, adscripsi: at nunc me Genumana per salicta bigis raeda rapit citata nanis.27

The example of the poeta nouus Cinna bestows on nanus the status of a term perfectly integrated in the Latin lexicon, as is the case with raeda, a word occurring in the same line and considered by Quintilian (Inst. 1. 5. 57) as Gaulish (see above, §2). Fronto, however, had doubted the propriety of using nanus not so much for animals as for people. Gellius seems intentionally to forget some occurrences of this term: (1) Propertius 4. 8. 41 nanus (Paris. lat. 8233mg : Magnus ø) et ipse suos breuiter concretus in artus, but this author is never quoted in the Noctes Atticae; (2) Juvenal 8. 32 nanum cuiusdam Atlanta uocamus, but this author is never quoted in the Noctes Atticae;

26 Vulgo: see Mu¨ller, Sprachbewußtsein, 133: ‘Daß Gellius mit vulgus und vulgo die Ausdrucksebenen der untadeligen consuetudo sermonis meinen kann, zeigen mehrere Rechtfertigungen von Wortwendungen . . . ’. 27 These lines probably belong to a poem in Phalaecian hendecasyllables written ¨ berlegungen’, during a journey and perhaps to a verse letter (see K. Deichgra¨ber, ‘U 67; E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets, 220). The syntagm Genumana per salicta, which has been interpreted by some scholars as an allusion to the Cisalpine origin of Cinna (see A. Traglia, Poetae noui, 142; T. P. Wiseman, Cinna the Poet, 46–7; L. C. Watson, ‘Cinna and Euphorion’, 100; Courtney, op. cit. 220–1; contra G. V. Sumner, review of Wiseman, op. cit., 394; G. E. Manzoni, ‘Elvio Cinna’, 18–19), recalls both the salicta of Enn. Ann. 39–40 Vahlen2 ¼ 38–9 Skutsch and Euphorion’s use of personal and place-names. The Gaulish paroxytone pronuntiation of Cenoma˘ńi is adapted into Latin Cenoma¯ńi or Ceno´ma˘ni: the prosody Ge˘nu˘ma¯na˘ may be deemed a licence on Cinna’s part (see A. Grilli, ‘Sul nome’).

52


(3) Suetonius Tib. 61. 6 a quodam nano astante mensae inter copreas, but this author is quoted only twice in Noctes Atticae (9. 7. 3, 15. 4. 4); (4) Laberius: Gellius (16. 7. 10) himself testiWes that Laberius, 2 in his mime Anna Peranna (fr. 3 Ribbeck3 ¼ 12 Bonaria ), was the Wrst to use nanus for pumilio. This strange forgetfulness is consistent with other pieces of evidence spread in ch. 19. 13: Wrst, Fronto doubts the Latinitas of the word nanus when it is applied to human dwarfs (§2); secondly, Apollinaris considers this term as deriving from the variety of sermo uulgaris and, at the same time, qualiWes many terms that Laberius introduced in Latin as ignobilia nimis et sordentia (§3); thirdly, an anonymous grammarian quotes some lines by Cinna (§5), where nani is referred to animals, rather than Laberius, who uses nani to refer to human beings. The argumentative structure of Noctes 19. 13 tries to hide the discrepancy between Gellius and Fronto in evaluating Laberius: Fronto introduces the mimographer in the canon of the ueteres who are most expert in dilectus uerborum; Gellius, while not overturning his master’s judgement, nevertheless corrects it.

4. laberius ’ lexicon Gellius acknowledges Laberius’ narrative and descriptive skills. In 10. 17. 2, after reporting that Democritus deliberately blinded himself to be able to concentrate better on his meditations, Gellius praises Laberius’ retelling of this episode (72–9 R. ¼ 90–7 B.) for its reWned construction and its detailed descriptiveness: Id factum eius [sc. Democriti] modumque ipsum, quo caecitatem facile sollertia subtilissima consciuit, Laberius poeta in mimo, quem scripsit Restionem, uersibus quidem satis munde atque graphice factis descripsit.

In general our mimographer’s language is considered to be authoritative on the morphological and syntactical level. In 6. 9 Gellius discusses the vocalism of the reduplicative perfect and notes that the reduplicative syllable sometimes features the timbre /e˘/ as in Greek, e.g. tetuli, while at others the timbre of the root vowel, e.g. cucurri. Even in this latter type, however, the correctness of non-assimilated forms is vouched for by both archaic and late Republican authors. Among these, Gellius includes Laberius: in §§3–4 he quotes two fragments, one from Galli (49–50 R. ¼ 63–4 B.) de integro patrimonio meo centum milia j nummum memordi, and


53

the other from Colorator (27–8 R. ¼ 40–1 B.) itaque leni pruna percoctus simul sub dentes mulieris j ueni, bis, ter memordit.28 In 1. 7. 12 a line from Gemelli (51 R. ¼ 65 B.) non putaui hoc eam facturum is inserted among quotations from Plautus, Gaius Gracchus, Claudius Quadrigarius, and Valerius Antias to justify the invariable form of future inWnitive in Cicero, Verr. 2. 5. 167: hanc sibi rem praesidio sperant futurum.29 When relating a discussion with Sulpicius Apollinaris on the alternative forms of the genitive of personal pronouns in 20. 6, Gellius quotes a line from Necyomantia (62 R. ¼ 81 B.) dum diutius detinetur, nostri oblitus est to show the correctness of the type nostri uestri as opposed to the type nostrum uestrum.30 Gellius also approves of a number of Laberius’ word-choices.31 In 16. 9. 4 the line from Compitalia (29 R. ¼ 43 B.) nunc tu lentu’s, nunc tu susque deque fers shows that the Latin syntagm susque deque ferre is equivalent to the Greek IØÆ æE .32 In 3. 18 Gellius questions the meaning of the formula pedarii senatores by contrasting the interpretation given by Gavius Bassus (fr. 7, p. 490 Funaioli)33 with that given by Varro (Men. 220 Astbury).34 In §9, he quotes a line 28

This fragment from Galli is also quoted by Nonius (205 L. ¼ 124. 24–5 M.). On the reduplicative perfect, see LHSz i. 586–7; for a more detailed discussion, see F. Bader, ‘Vocalisme et redoublement’, 167–75. 29 On the invariable future inWnitive, see LHSz i. 618–19, ii. 342–3. For a more detailed discussion, see V. Bulhart, ‘InWnitiv auf -urum’; M. Leumann, ‘InWnitiv auf -turum esse’. 30 On the genitive of personal pronouns, see LHSz i. 464–5. 31 In our discussion of the words used by Laberius, we shall point out only the parallel passages drawn from literary texts predating Gellius. 32 On this syntagm, see LHSz ii. 263; see also A. Otto, Sprichwo¨rter, n. 1723. The nexus susque deque also occurs in Plautus, Amph. 886 atque id me susque deque esse habituram putat; Lucilius 110–11 Marx ¼ 3 fr. 8 Charpin uerum haec ludus ibi, susque omnia deque fuerunt, j susque et deque fuere, inquam, omnia ludus iocusque; Varro, Log. fr. 65 Bolisani quod si non horum omnium similia essent principia ac postprincipia, susque deque esset; Cicero, Att. 14. 6. 1 de Octauio susque deque. PF 371. 4 glosses susque deque as plus minusue. 33 Gell. 3. 18. 4 Senatores [ . . . ] dicit [sc. Gauius Bassus] in ueterum aetate, qui curulem magistratum gessissent, curru solitos honoris gratia in curiam uehi, in quo curru sella esset, super quam considerent, quae ob eam causam ‘curulis’ appellaretur; sed eos senatores, qui magistratum curulem nondum ceperant, pedibus itauisse in curiam; propterea senatores nondum maioribus honoribus ‘pedarios’ nominatos. 34 Ibid. §§5–6 M. autem Varro in satira Menippea, quae l Œø inscripta est, equites quosdam dicit pedarios appellatos uideturque eos signiWcare, qui nondum a censoribus in senatum lecti senatores quidem non erant, sed, quia honoribus populi usi erant, in senatum ueniebant et sententiae ius habebant. Nam et curulibus magistratibus functi, si nondum a censoribus in senatum lecti erant, senatores non erant et, quia in postremis scripti erant, non rogabantur sententias, sed, quas principes dixerant, in eas discedebant.

54


from Stricturae (88 R. ¼ 109 B.) to conWrm that pedarius is to be preferred to the barbarism pedaneus.35 In 17. 2. 21 Gellius points out that arrabo, meaning pignus, though used by Claudius Quadrigarius (fr. 20, p. 215 Peter2 ), thereafter in sordidis uerbis haberi coeptus est ac multo uidetur sordidius arra, quamquam arra quoque ueteres saepe dixerint et compluriens Laberius (152 R. ¼ 125 B.).36 When discussing the words signiWcatione aduersa et reciproca in 9. 12, Gellius includes among the examples provided in §11 the line from Sorores (86 R. ¼ 104 B.) ecastor mustum somniculosum, where he assigns to the adjective somniculosum the causative meaning of ‘sleep-inducing’. Such a meaning is also attested in one of Cinna’s fragments (10, p. 221 Bla¨nsdorf, Courtney) somniculosam ut Poenus aspidem Psyllus.37 However, Gellius does not always seem to consider Laberius’ selection of suYxes as grammatically correct or semantically clear. In 3. 12 he disagrees with Nigidius’ proposal (fr. 26, p. 170 Funaioli) to describe the person who is bibendi auidus non only as bibax, but also bibosus following the model of uinosus. The adjective bibosus is attested only in Salinator, from which Gellius quotes the line (80 R. ¼ 99 B.) non mammosa, non annosa, non bibosa, non procax. Although in this context Laberius’ use of the suYx -o¯sus 35 On the competition between the two suYxes -a¯rius and -a¯neus, see W. A. Baehrens, Appendix Probi, who discusses the following pairs: extraneus/extrarius, praecidaneus/praecidarius, praesentaneus/praesentarius, proletaneus/proletarius, ripaneus/riparius, subitaneus/subitarius, temporaneus/temporarius. In his gloss on pedarius Festus 232. 6–10 reports the mocking comment by Lucilius (1102 Marx ¼ H fr. 103 Charpin): pedarium senatorem*signiWcat Lucilius*‘agi pes uocem mittere coepit’; qui ita appellatur, quia tacitus transeundo ad eum, cuius sententiam probat, quid sentiat, indicat. Pedaneus also occurs in Cic. Att. 1. 19. 9, 1. 20. 4 and Tac. Ann. 3. 65. 2. On the technical meaning of pedaneus, see A. O’Brien Moore, Senatus, 680–1. 36 Although Gellius claims that the ueteres usually employed arra, i.e. the apocopated form of the Graecism arrabo (cf. Varro, LL 7. 175 hoc uerbum item a Graeco IææÆ ), in fact arra became widespread in the language of jurists and of the Church only after Pliny (NH 29. 21, 33. 28). A. Ernout and A. Meillet (Dictionnaire, s.v. arra) put down the apocope of arrabo to the frequency of this Graecism—perhaps mediated by Etruscan—in the language of trade, and especially of procurers: arra would then be an example of a vulgarism turning into a technical term. On the two forms, see LHSz i. 382 and E. P. Hamp, ‘arr(h)a’. 37 Laberius’ line is also quoted by Nonius (254 L. ¼ 172. 26–7 M.). Cinna’s line is also quoted by Gellius at the end of his analysis (9. 12. 7–12) of the twofold meaning, both active and passive, of adjectives ending in -o¯sus. In addition to the two lines by Laberius and Cinna, somniculosus also occurs in Fronto, Ep. M. Caes. 4. 12. 4, p. 66. 13–14 v:d:H:2 : hoc unum ex Annalibus sumptum amoris mei argumentum poeticum et sane somniculosum: see van den Hout, Commentary, 182. somniculosus is attested much more often with the meaning of ‘sleepy, drowsy’: e.g. Cic. Sen. 36; Sen. Nat. 5. 11. 1; Mart. 3. 58. 36; Suet. Claud. 39. 1.


55

is motivated by the pursuit of assonance and isosyllabism, Gellius rightly observes that this suYx is to be joined to nominal stems only.38 In 11. 15 Gellius’ consideration of the meaning of the suYx -bundus starts from amorabunda, which occurs in Laberius’ Lacus Auernus (57 R. ¼ 69 B.) and is called by Gellius uerbum inusitatius Wctum. In his opinion, the interpretation of amorabunda is doubtful, because according to Caesellius Vindex (pp. 232–6 Vitale) words ending in -bundus are the same as present participles, according to Terentius Scaurus (fr. 9, p. 3 Kummrow) they express simulation, according to Sulpicius Apollinaris they have an intensifying force.39 Gellius’ reservations, hinted at in 3. 12 and 11. 15, are developed at length in 16. 7. Here he reproaches Laberius for his excessive boldness in coining neologisms and questions the correctness of many of his word-choices; as the capitulum has it:40 Quod Laberius uerba pleraque licentius petulantiusque Wnxit; et quod multis item uerbis utitur, de quibus, an sint Latina, quaeri solet.

On the basis of purist criteria and apart from any aesthetic evaluations, Gellius identiWes two categories of words which he Wnds equally blameworthy, namely neologisms and vulgarisms, i.e. terms that are excluded from the literary tradition although they are current in living Latin.41 In §§1–3 examples are given of neologisms coined praelicenter, and for some of them the customary equivalent is also provided: 38 To the suYx -o¯sus Gellius also devotes ch. 4. 9, where he contests Nigidius’ hypothesis (fr. 4, p. 162 Funaioli) that this suYx has a pejorative meaning, and from adjectives, such as formosus, ingeniosus, oYciosus, he infers that -o¯sus indicates the abundance of a not necessarily negative quality or tendency. On this point, see LHSz i. 341–2, and A. Ernout, Les Adjectifs; also F. Cavazza, below, Ch. 3, §3.5. 39 On the Gellian passage, see L. Dalmasso, ‘Aulo Gellio’, 204; M. Carilli, ‘ArtiWciosita`’, 22 n. 15; Cavazza, below, Ch. 3, §3.13. On this formation, see LHSz i. 332, and for a close analysis P. Langlois, ‘Les formations en -bundus’, and E. Pianezzola, Gli aggettivi verbali in -bundus. 40 On this chapter, see Dalmasso, ‘Aulo Gellio’, 208–14, 480–4, with abundant references to glossaries. On the composite character of Laberius’ lexicon, see Carilli, ‘ArtiWciosita`’, 24–6, 32–3. 41 Gellius makes a partially identical distinction in 11. 7. 1, where he Wrst makes a general condemnation (par . . . delictum) of both neologisms and trite terms, but then, as if to rectify his strong censure (sed), distinguishes between the two categories, judging neologisms—by which he means both new coinages and terms which have long been dismissed (cf. §3)—as more disagreeable and reprehensible (molestius . . . culpatiusque): Verbis uti aut nimis obsoletis exculcatisque aut insolentibus nouitatisque durae et inlepidae par esse delictum uidetur. Sed molestius equidem culpatiusque esse arbitror uerba noua, incognita, inaudita dicere quam inuolgata et sordentia.

56


1. Laberius in mimis, quos scriptitauit, oppido quam uerba Wnxit praelicenter. 2. Nam et ‘mendicimonium’ dicit et ‘moechimonium’ et ‘adulterionem’ ‘adulteritatem’que pro ‘adulterio’ et ‘depudicauit’ pro ‘stuprauit’ et ‘abluuium’ pro ‘diluuio’ et, quod in mimo ponit, quem Cophinum inscripsit, ‘manuatus est’ pro ‘furatus est’. 3. Et item in Fullone furem ‘manuarium’ appellat: ‘manuari’ inquit ‘pudorem perdidisti’, multaque alia huiuscemodi nouat.

In the hapax legomena mendicimonium (150 R. ¼ 137 B.) and moechimonium (150 R. ¼ 138 B.) the suYx -mo¯nium, which is used to derive abstract nouns from nomina personalia designating social or juridical condition, e.g. matrimonium, testimonium, is joined to the native word mendicus and to the Graecism moechus to deWne the condition of the beggar and the adulterer respectively.42 Likewise, adulterio and adulteritas are both derived from adulter, by means of the unprecedented attachment of two very productive inXections, -io¯n- (150 R. ¼ 122 B.) and -ta¯t- (150 R. ¼ 123 B.) respectively, to the stem.43 In depudicare (150 R. ¼ 128 B.), a verb derived from pudicus, the preWx de- retains the concrete privative meaning shown in the likely models or parallels for depudicare, Plautus’ deartuare (Capt. 641, 672) and Varro’s deuirginare (Men. 409 Astbury).44Abluuium (150 R. ¼ 120 B.) is attested only in the technical jargon of land-surveyors with the meaning of ‘Xood’ and features a mismatched preWx. Fronto had warned against the selection of inappropriate preWxes, especially as far as the compounds of luere and verbs derived from the same root are concerned (Ad M. Caes. 4. 3. 4, p. 58. 5–13 v:d:H:2 ). With his reWned linguistic sensitivity, Fronto considers colluere to be Wtting to mean the act of rinsing one’s mouth, pelluere that of washing the Xoor, lauere that of wetting one’s cheeks with tears, lauare that of washing clothes, abluere that of wiping oV dust or one’s sweat, eluere and elauere that of washing away a stain whether slight or very stubborn, diluere that of diluting honeyed wine, proluere that of gargling, subluere that of scraping the hooves of a beast of burden.45 While manuari (39 R. ¼ 53 B.) occurs uniquely in 42 The two words are also quoted by Non. 205 L. ¼ 140. 32–3 M. On the suYx -mo¯nium, see LHSz i. 297. On the possible parody of juridical language, see Carilli, ‘ArtiWciosita`’, 27. 43 Adulterio is also quoted by Non. 97 L. ¼ 70. 3 M. On the two suYxes, see LHSz i. 365–6, 272–4. 44 On the preWx de-, see LHSz ii. 263–4. 45 Nolim igitur te ignorare syllabae unius discrimen quantum referat. Os ‘colluere’ dicam, pauimentum autem in balneis ‘pelluere’, non ‘colluere’; lacrimis uero genas


57

Laberius’ corpus,46 manuarius (46 R. ¼ 60 B.) occurs elsewhere but it is employed as a synonym of fur only by Laberius. As an adjective, it is deWned in the DiVerentiae of Pseudo-Suetonius (p. 311. 30 ReiVerscheid) quod manu tangitur aut sustinetur, and occurs in legal language and in Suetonius’ De poetis (p. 20. 1–3 Rostagni), where it refers to the millstones that Plautus was compelled to turn.47 It is not clear how this deWnition can be related to the use made of manuarius in NA 18. 13. 4. In this chapter Gellius tells that he has celebrated Saturnalia in Athens with some friends and that they whiled away the time telling each other riddles. The right solution to each riddle earned the prize of a sesterce; otherwise, the penalty of a sesterce had to be paid: hoc aere conlecto quasi manuario cenula curabatur omnibus, qui eum lusum luseramus.48 Much more numerous are the words in Laberius’ lexicon of which Gellius disapproves as alien to literary language, a sort of blemish or a jarring note in a stylistically lofty register. The survey of such words opens in §4 with catomum (87 R. ¼ 107–8 B.), a term resulting from the fusion of ŒÆ t and indicating someone who is heaved onto somebody else’s shoulders to be Xogged: Neque non obsoleta quoque et maculantia ex sordidiore uulgi usu ponit, quale est in Staminariis: tollet bona Wde uos Orcus nudas in catomum.

Undoubtedly the syntagm in catomum had a certain vulgar Xavour.49 This syntagm also occurs in Fam. 7. 25. 1, where Cicero ‘lauere’ dicam, non ‘pelluere’ neque ‘colluere’; uestimenta autem ‘lauare’, non ‘lauere’; sudorem porro et puluerem ‘abluere’, non ‘lauare’; sed maculam elegantius ‘eluere’ quam ‘abluere’. si quid uero magis haeserit nec sine aliquo detrimento exigi possit, Plautino uerbo ‘elauere’ dicam. tum praeterea mulsum ‘diluere’, fauces ‘proluere’, ungulam iumento ‘subluere’. On this passage, see van den Hout, Commentary, 157–8. 46 This neologism is also quoted by Non. 205 L. ¼ 141. 1–2 M. On manuari and manuarius, see Carilli, ‘ArtiWciosita`, 27–8. 47 Plautus . . . propter annonae diYcultatem ad molas manuarias pistori se locauerat. On the alternative suYxes -a¯lis (-a¯ris) and -a¯rius, see LHSz i. 351; see also Pliny (fr. 17, p. 249 Mazzarino ¼ Dub. serm. fr. 44 Della Casa): aqualium an potius aquarium dici debeat quaerit Plinius Secundus et putat, ut laterale laterarium, scutale scutarium, et manuale saxum, manuarium uas, proin aqualis aquarium dici. 48 Translators and dictionaries assign to the adjective as it occurs in this passage the meaning of ‘won in a game of dice, at gambling’, which they infer from the context in which Gellius compares exchanging riddles to playing dice, a kind of entertainment typical of Saturnalia. But quasi suggests that by means of this comparison Gellius intends to associate the money collected through an erudite pastime with that won by lucky gamesters. 49 For the numerous emendations proposed to Laberius’ text, see the apparatus in Bonaria’s edn.

58


expresses his fear that Caesar, once returned from his victory at Munda, would avenge himself on those who had shown sympathy to Cato, now dead by suicide in Utica, just as a schoolmaster would cane his undisciplined pupils: magister adest citius quam putaramus: uereor ne in catomum Catonianos.50 Also the derivative verb catomidiare occurs in an informal context in Petronius, 132. 2, where it means the punishment inXicted on Encolpius by a lady from Croton: matrona . . . me iubet catomidiari. The list of words of which Gellius disapproves goes on cadenced by the anaphora of item in §§5–9, where isolated forms are found together with quotations of entire lines: 5. Et ‘elutriare lintea’ et ‘lauandaria’ dicit, quae ad lauandum sint data, et ‘coicior’ inquit ‘in fullonicam’, et quid properas? ecquid praecurris Calidoniam? 6. Item in Restione ‘talabarriunculos’ dicit, quos uulgus talabarriones; 7. item in Compitalibus: malas malaxaui; 8. item in Cacomnemone: ‘hic est’ inquit ‘ille gurdus, quem ego me abhinc menses duos ex Africa uenientem excepisse tibi narraui.’ 9. Item in mimo, qui inscribitur Natalicius, ‘cippum’ dicit et ‘obbam’ et ‘camellam’ et ‘pittacium’ et ‘capitium’: ‘induis’ inquit ‘capitium tunicae pittacium’.

The reasons for Gellius’ censure are not always clear. It can be pointed out that many of the words he lists are either hapax legomena or terms attested, in the age before Marcus Aurelius, only in texts with technical content. Elutriare, which in Laberius occurs with lintea as its object (150 R. ¼ 130 B.), is used by Pliny with the same meaning of ‘to wash, to rinse’ in NH 9. 133, where elutriare is said of the wool to be dyed purple. In NH 14. 114, elutriare refers to the ingredients of the oxymeli, a mixture consisting mainly of honey and vinegar, and means perhaps ‘to Wlter, to purify’. Lauandaria (150 R. ¼ 133 B.), in which the gerundive suYx is joined to the suYx -a¯rius, is not attested elsewhere as a neuter plural noun. The other occurrences of 50 A scrupulous exegesis of both Cicero and Laberius is provided by R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, v. 192, on Epist. 668 ¼ Fam. 7. 25.


59

fullonica (147 R. ¼ 127 B.) as a feminine noun are found only in technical texts.51 One wonders how vulgarism may apply to Calidoniam, the emendation generally accepted for the caldonia read by the extant manuscripts (148 R. ¼ 176 B.). It may be that Laberius alludes to the mythical Atalanta, excellent huntress and unequalled runner, who took part in the hunting of the Calydonian boar.52 Laberius used the vulgar word talabarrio even more sordidly in the diminutive talabarriunculus (79 R. ¼ 98 B.); neither occurs elsewhere and their meaning is obscure.53 In the alliterating syntagm malas malaxaui (37 R. ¼ 42 B.), Laberius uses the Graecism malaxare with a tranferred meaning. The verb malaxare, whose origin is explained in Varro, LL 6. 96 (ab eo quod illi ÆºÆØ nos malaxare),54 also occurs in Seneca, Ep. 66. 53 an potius optem ut malaxandos articulos exsoletis meis porrigam? The vulgar character and foreign origin of gurdus (13 R. ¼ 26 B.) are attested by Quintilian, Inst. 1. 5. 57, where this term is included among examples of uerba peregrina: ‘gurdos’, quos pro stolidis accipit uulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audiui.55 Cippus (60 R. ¼ 76 B.) appears to be a technical term rather than a vulgarism. It occurs in Varro, LL 5. 143, with the meaning of ‘boundary stone’ (cippi pomeri stant et circum Ariciam et circum Romam), and poets use it with the meaning of ‘tombstone’. The word is found in Lucilius (1255–6 Marx ¼ H fr. 105 Charpin) to exemplify a sacrilegious robbery: homines nequam, malus ut quartarius, cippos j collegere omnes; in Horace, Serm. 1. 8. 12–13, it refers to communal graves: mille pedes in fronte, trecentos cippus in agrum j hic dabat; in Persius 1. 37 it is used with regard to a poet’s lasting fame: non leuior cippus nunc inprimit ossa? From the latter meaning, according to Caesar, BG 7. 73. 5, the soldiers’ habit 51

On fullonica, see LHSz i. 338. Rolfe retains caldonia, which he relates to cal(i)dus and interprets as a vocative addressed to either an attendant at the public baths or a ‘quick, hasty’ woman. Julien accepts the emendation Calidoniam and suggests the translation ‘la chauVeuse’. Our ignorance of the plot prevents our understanding the word. 53 J. Knobloch (‘Talabarriunculus’) recognizes in this neologism the juxtaposition of two elements that he relates to barrire and to the Wrst element of the onomatopoeic taratantara (Enn. Ann. 140 Vahlen2 ¼ 451 Skutsch), dissimilated as tala. He speculates that the term could be assigned the meaning of ‘kleiner Schreihals’. 54 The Latin verb is modelled on the Greek sigmatic aorist: see LHSz i. 552. 55 On Quintilian’s testimony, which has long been debated by both literary and linguistic scholars, see e.g. F. Scho¨ll, ‘Wortforschung’, 313–17, and J. Cousin, ‘Proble`mes’, 63–4: both scholars acknowledge the vulgar connotation of gurdus, but while the former allows its Spanish origin, the latter doubts it. 52

60


derives of calling cippi the network of branches emerging from the trunks hammered into the ground to defend the camp.56 The elder Seneca uses cippus with a more generic meaning in Contr. 7. 4. 7 to designate the stand on which Calvus climbs during trials to make his threats more telling: inponi se supra cippum iussit—erat enim paruolus statura. Obba (60 R. ¼ 78 B.) too seems to be a technical term. It is glossed poculi genus by Nonius (213, 874 L. ¼ 146. 8, 545. 1 M.) and used by Varro, Men. 114 Astbury: dolia atque apothecas triclinaris {Melicas{ Calenas obbas et Cumanos calices,57 by Pers. 5. 147–8: Veiientanumque rubellum j exhalet uapida laesum pice sessilis obba?, and by Tert. Apol. 13. 7: quo diVert ab epulo Iouis silicernium, a simpulo obba, ab haruspice pollinctor? While obba designates a vessel of above-average quality,58camella (60 R. ¼ 75 B.) indicates a rather rough vessel. It is attested in the literary language both in Ovid, Fast. 4. 779–80 (tum licet adposita, ueluti cratere, camella j lac niueum potes) and in several occurrences in Petronius.59 The phrase capitium tunicae pittacium is of doubtful interpretation (61 R. ¼ 77 B.) because the meaning of capitium is multifarious and that of pittacium is very generic. In Varro, LL 5. 131, capitium seems to designate a sort of brassiere: capitium ab eo quod capit pectus, and this meaning is conWrmed by two fragments of the De uita populi Romani (47–8 Riposati) where a number of women’s garments are listed. The lexicographers, however, assign capitium a diVerent meaning. Festus 230. 12–13 reports that Stilo (fr. 3, p. 58 Funaioli) glossed pescia of the Carmen Saliare (fr. 5, p. 6 Bla¨nsdorf) with the phrase capitia ex pellibus agninis facta. Nonius, 56 Truncis arborum aut admodum Wrmis ramis abscisis atque horum delibratis ac praeacutis cacuminibus perpetuae fossae quinos pedes altae ducebantur. Huc illi stipites demissi et ab inWmo reuincti, ne reuelli possent, ab ramis eminebant. Quini erant ordines coniuncti inter se atque implicati: quo qui intrauerant se ipsi acutissimis uallis induebant. Hos cippos appellabant. 57 In the second passage dedicated to the lexeme obba (874 L. ¼ 545. 1–6 M.), Nonius quotes a fragment from the Menippeae as well as an extract from the Epistula ad Marullum: utrum meridie an uesperi libentius ad obbas accedas, locus ac tempus aduentus declarabit. 58 The name probably derives from the name of the African city of Obba, mentioned in Livy 30. 7. 10, from where this artefact had spread. 59 Cf. Petronius, 64. 13: Trimalchio camellam grandem iussit misceri potionesque diuidi omnibus seruis; 135. 3–4: Oenothea . . . camellam etiam uetustate ruptam pice temperata refecit. tum clauum, qui detrahentem secutus cum camella lignea fuerat, fumoso parieti reddidit; 137. 10: infra manus meas camellam uini posuit. According to Ernout–Meillet, Dictionnaire, s.v. (cf. W. Heraeus, ‘Die Sprache des Petronius’, 80, with abundant evidence) the derivation of camella from the Graecism camera (ŒÆæÆ) is rendered uncertain by the /e¯/ of the Greek form ŒºÆ.


61

in turn, paraphrases capitia with capitum tegmina (870 L. ¼ 542. 23 M.).60 In Celsus 3. 10 the Graecism pittacium, which designates a remnant of leather or of cloth, means a compress soaked in an emulsion of vinegar and rose-water to be kept on the forehead as a remedy for migraine. In Petronius 34. 6 pittacium designates a label: statim allatae sunt amphorae uitreae diligenter gypsatae, quarum in ceruicibus pittacia erant aYxa; and in 56. 7 a lottery ticket: pittacia in scypho circumferri coeperunt.61 In §§10–12 Gellius lists a series of words drawn from three mimes: 10. Praeterea in Anna Peranna ‘gubernium’ pro ‘gubernatore’ et ‘planum’ pro ‘sycophanta’ et ‘nanum’ pro ‘pumilione’ dicit; quamquam ‘planum’ pro ‘sycophanta’ M. quoque Cicero in oratione scriptum reliquit, quam Pro Cluentio dixit. 11. Atque item in mimo, qui Saturnalia inscriptus est, ‘botulum’ pro ‘farcimine’ appellat et ‘hominem leuennam’ pro ‘leui’. 12. Item in Necyomantia ‘cocionem’ peruulgate dicit, quem ueteres ‘arillatorem’ dixerunt. uerba Laberi haec sunt: duas uxores? hercle hoc plus negoti est, inquit cocio; sex aediles uiderat.

The Graecism gubernius (3 R. ¼ 11 B.) is attested only in late Latin, in particular Christian Latin, although it may have been common in nautical parlance in pre-classical times.62 By contrast a few occurrences of planus (3 R. ¼ 13 B.) are recorded in literary texts. Gellius himself mentions Cicero, who, in Cluent. 72, calls Staienus, one of his client’s antagonists, a planus improbissimus ‘most wicked impostor’. The word occurs in Hor. Ep. 1. 17. 58–9, with the meaning of ‘impostor’: nec semel inrisus triuiis attollere curat j fracto crure planum. In Petronius 140. 15, planus refers to people who live by their wits and exploit the gullibility and greed of the mob: unde plani autem, unde leuatores uiuerent, nisi aut locellos aut sonantes aere sacellos pro hamis in turbam mitterent? (cf. 82. 2). In Plin. NH 35. 89, planus refers to a court jester: Apelles was invited to a banquet by one of Ptolemy’s jesters, who was urged to do so by the painter’s rivals, aware of the king’s dislike for him; at Ptolemy’s request, Apelles then portrayed the jester who had invited him: arrepto carbone extincto e foculo imaginem in pariete delineauit, 60 In Republican Latin, capitium designated a jacket or shawl that adhered to the tunic so as to become an appendix to the tunic itself. Eventually, in late and especially in ecclesiastical Latin, it came to mean the neck-opening of the tunic or a hood: on the change in meaning, see Dalmasso, ‘Aulo Gellio’, 211–12. 61 See A. D’Ors, ‘ ØŒØ ’. 62 See G. Gundermann, ‘Gubernius, gubernus’.

62


adgnoscente uoltum plani rege inchoatum protinus. Botulus (801 R. ¼ 100 B.) occurs in texts that draw abundantly on slang. In PF 32. 8 the botulus is deWned as a genus farciminis, namely a kind of sausage; like many words relating to cookery, it may be of Oscan origin. Tomacula and botuli make up the stuYng of the pig laid, among countless other courses, on Trimalchio’s table. Since the cook pretends that he has forgotten to disembowel the pig, Trimalchio orders him to do so in front of the guests, and suddenly (49. 10) ex plagis ponderis inclinatione crescentibus tomacula cum botulis eVusa sunt. A botulus is the subject of Martial’s epigram 14. 72, with which the poet oVers a friend the sausage that he in his turn had received as a present: qui uenit botulus mediae tibi tempore brumae, j Saturni septem uenerat ante dies. Leuenna (801 R. ¼ 101 B.), whose suYx is apparently of Etruscan origin, is not attested elsewhere.63 Cocio (63 R. ¼ 79 B.) occurs elsewhere only in Petronius (14. 7, 15. 4 and 8), that is in the episode where Encolpius and Ascyltos manage to recover the stolen tunic in which they had hidden their money by exchanging an elegant cloak for it.64 Paul glosses Cocio as a synonym of arillator (19. 1) and suggests a meaningful paraetymology (44. 15–16): coctiones dicti uidentur a cunctatione, quod in emendis uendendisque mercibus tarde perueniant ad iusti pretii Wnem. The digest of Gellius’ censures ends in §§13–14 with the notice about a Graecism, emplastrum, very widespread in the technical jargon of medicine and agriculture. Gellius approves not so much of its use as of the adherence to the original neuter gender:65 13. Sed enim in mimo, quem inscripsit Alexandream, eodem quidem, quo uulgus, sed probe Latineque usus est Graeco uocabulo: emplastrum enim dixit PŁæø, non genere feminino, ut isti nouicii semidocti. 14. Verba ex eo mimo adposui: ‘quid est ius iurandum? emplastrum aeris alieni’.

The use of emplastrum (1 R. ¼ 9 B.) as a feminine noun is not attested in texts that either precede or are contemporary with Gellius. Nor can the nouicii semidocti be identiWed who are held responsible for the mistake. Perhaps they are the grammarians of average education with whom Gellius often conducts a polemic. However, in actual fact many Greek loanwords that came into Latin through contacts among uneducated speakers show 63

See W. Schulze, Eigennamen, 283, and Carilli, ‘ArtiWciosita`’, 32. On this term, see LHSz i. 154, and the extensive treatment in Heraeus, ‘Die Sprache des Petronius’, 56–7. 65 Cf. Cavazza, below, Ch. 3, §3.17. 64


63

alterations in both their gender and stem. For instance, Greek neuters ending in -Æ with stem ending in a dental consonant have been assimilated in Latin to feminine nouns in -a¯- (e.g. diadema, dogma, schema). Greek masculine and feminine consonant-stems have been included among Latin nouns in -a¯- (e.g. cratera, crepida, lampada). Other such nouns are interpreted as masculine nouns in -o˘- (cf. abacus, delphinus, elephantus etc.).66 Gellius concludes the chapter so decidedly critical of Laberius by pointing out his correctness as far as morphology is concerned, consistently with his comments in other chapters. His disapproval is limited to the lexicon, which, on the other hand, is the aspect of the mimographer’s language that Fronto appreciates. In addition to some terms that are not attested in texts predating the midsecond century or are not attested elsewhere (mendicimonium, moechimonium, adulterio, adulteritas, depudicare, manuari, manuarius with the euphemistic meaning of ‘thief’, lauandaria meaning ‘laundry, washing’, talabarriunculus, gubernius, leuenna), Gellius censures other words, whose vulgar character is evident either from other sources (gurdus) or from the structure of the word itself (catomum and perhaps malaxare). The vulgar connotation of a number of terms apparently depends, above all, on the character of their referent (garments: capitium; cooking utensils: obba, camella; simple food: botulus; people living on the fringe of society: planus, nanus, cocio), or on their use in the technical jargons of arts and crafts (abluuium, elutriare, fullonica meaning ‘laundry’, cippus, emplastrum), or on their generic meaning (pittacium). These words, however, occur either in technical texts (of land-surveyors, medical doctors, veterinary surgeons), or in literary, even poetic, works, whose language deliberately draws on folk idioms (Lucilius, Varro the satirist, Horace’s Sermones and Epistulae, Persius, Petronius, Martial).

5. conclusion Among the vulgarisms mentioned in 16. 7 the most important term in the light of 19. 13 is nanus, which in the former is only brieXy criticized, while in the latter it is discussed in detail as to its origin and use. Gellius’ perspective in the two chapters is not contradictory: nanus is not a uerbum barbarum but a Graecism, it occurs in Aristophanes and Cinna and therefore has the status of a literary 66

On this phenomenon, see LHSz i. 453–9.

64


word. These remarks, however, do not prevent Gellius from negatively assessing the extension of the use of nanus from small animals to people of short stature. Gellius and Fronto thus express two divergent opinions of Laberius: the latter’s appraisal is unreservedly positive, the former is critical especially of Laberius’ lexical selections.67 This diVerence in opinion between disciple and master not only shows that, at least on some occasions, Gellius gives proof of his independence from Fronto, in spite of his great admiration for his master. Most of all, such a discrepancy shows that within a literary movement which is generally considered to be homogeneous, one can record a variety of positions and that the love for the ueteres does not necessarily imply an unconditional approval.68 If 19. 13 reXects a real conversation between Fronto, Postumius, and Sulpicius Apollinaris, 16. 7 represents a sort of expansion of the reservations which Fronto had put forward with regard to one or more of Laberius’ lexical choices. If, on the other hand, the debate on nanus is Wctitious, the doubt attributed by Gellius to Fronto could be seen as a trick on Gellius’ part to make his master in some way share his own perplexity concerning Laberius’ lexicon. 67 R. Marache, Critique litte´raire, 158, 232–3 attributes to Fronto and Gellius an equal admiration for Laberius; by contrast, Mu¨ller, Sprachbewußtsein, 149 n. 40 hints at a diVerent evaluation by the two. 68 On a similar discrepancy between Gellius and Fronto with regard to Vergil, see A. Garcea, ‘Gellio, il bilinguismo greco-latino’, 194–5. For a recent evaluation of the archaist movement, see U. Schindel, ‘Archaismus als EpochenbegriV’.

Addendum. Although this chapter is the fruit of joint research, §§1–3 are attributable to Alessandro Garcea, §§ 4–5 to Valeria Lomanto.

3 Gellius the Etymologist Gellius’ Etymologies and Modern Etymology Fr a nc o Ca v az za

1. introduction 1.1. Students of grammar and etymology have always known that in antiquity these two disciplines fared unequally. Grammar, which lent itself more both to theorizing and to direct analysis, became so systematic that its study depends even now in part on the ancients; etymology, not an independent science till the nineteenth century, was by its nature too technical, too dependent on a scientiWc rigour unattainable in antiquity, to achieve successes and stable results and to leave an inheritance for posterity. In consequence, although the Stoics, unjustiWably conWdent in their methods, proclaimed that there was no word whose etymology could not be stated (Varro fr. 130 Goetz–Scho¨ll ¼ 265. 125–7, pp. 281–2 Funaioli), such etymologists as Plato and Varro have bequeathed us only a few intuitions and guesses, not all without merit. Quintilian’s substantial mistrust of etymology (Inst. 1. 6. 28–38) is expressed in words that betray the ancient linguists’ discomfort and uncertainty, despite the claim by many etymologists (whether or not they acknowledged the name) that etymology discharged the special function of revealing the ueritas of a word used for example in law or public institutions or religious ritual, even at times of accounting for sociolinguistic phenomena. 1.2. That, in substance, is the spirit of Varronian etymology (the most familiar to us), devised by the student of national IæÆØ º ªÆ in order to investigate primitive Rome and her original institutions. Clear and well known too is the connection of etymology with philosophy, not only in the systematic structure of the etymological Author and translator wish jointly to acknowledge fruitful discussions of this chapter.

66

Franco Cavazza

chapters in De lingua Latina, but also in the search for the uerum of things and the relation between the human mind and reality, for which the etymological studies of Aristotle may serve as symbol.

2. gellius the etymologist and his sources 2.1. Gellius, heir to a similar intellectual tradition, could not stand outside it; neither the knowledge nor the premisses for such an advance were available, even had he been a titan of erudition. As an etymologist we cannot expect him to do more than continue on established lines with the methods, procedure, and to a lesser extent ends already stated. Being the student and devotee of grammar that he was, he is interested in etymology mainly as a means towards correctness in the use of language. He had already seen that it provided a key for the interpretation of linguistic facts: correct spelling, correct expression, correct meaning all came from the etymology of words. This is the essence of Gellius’ ‘etymological thought’, even though, having been brought up on previous researches, he did not always avoid philosophical schemes of etymology related to the quest for the uerum, as when he puts forward etyma, not his own, of soror and frater (13. 10).1 2.2. Gellius, despite some scholars’ opinion to the contrary, is an independent thinker.2 And Gellius the etymologist is the same as Gellius the historian, the jurist, the scientist (in the broad sense), the archaeologist (in the Varronian sense), the philosopher, etc. He depends on his sources, but has a mind of his own;3 he does not merely weigh up other people’s ideas, he judges them, Wlters them, and shows in his selection an individual personality: he aims at aesthetic beauty, at linguistic correctness. He not only quotes his sources but corrects them, as he not infrequently does in matters of philology and literature. Sometimes he names them; at other times we can identify them with a high degree of probability from his mode of composition (since consecutive chapters may derive from 1

I cite Gellius by P. K. Marshall’s edn., but use my own text of books 1–13. See F. Cavazza, ‘Gellio grammatico’, 259–60 ¼ 85–6 and passim, esp. 273–74 ¼ 99–100. 3 Gellian source-criticism attracted most interest in the second half of the 19th c.; I know of no more recent exhaustive or important works in the Weld. Amongst the chief exponents (cited by Hosius in his edn.) are L. Mercklin, ‘Citiermethode’, J. Kretzschmer, De Gellii fontibus, and L. L. Ruske, De A. Gellii fontibus (who was concerned only with part of Gellius’ work), cited below as ‘M.’, ‘K.’, and ‘R.’ respectively. 2

Gellius the Etymologist

67

the same source), from other indirect evidence in his work, or by legitimate conjecture. However, it is those etymologies that cannot be assigned to his sources, and therefore may be considered his own, with which I shall be concerned below. 2.3. Gellius has privileged and preferred sources for etymology;4 the most important are Favorinus (K. 104–6; R. 53–61), Sulpicius Apollinaris (K. 106–8),5 P. Nigidius Figulus (K. 54–8), M. Verrius Flaccus (K. 68–76; R. 38–40), M. Terentius Varro (K. 44–54; R. 21–33), and Valerius Probus (K. 82–92).6 These stand out clearly for the abundance of references to their authority and consequently give rise to the most problems relating to Gellius’ etymologies. They plainly suYce, with their doctrina, to cover the whole range of his interests, except perhaps for legal terms, and are the main sources both of the etymologies and of the Noctes Atticae as a whole. 2.4. In addition there are minor sources, mainly jurists but also amateur etymologists (if the term is permissible for Antiquity), including minimal sources cited in this context only once; amongst these we may pick out Gellius’ teacher M. Cornelius Fronto (K. 103), whose etymologies appear in seven passages, and his friends and presumed oral sources Julius Celsinus and the poet Julius Paulus.7 4 References to named authors, readily located in the respective editions, are omitted on grounds of space; but I shall normally cite the passages in which anonymous authors, less easily found, appear. 5 Cf. J. W. Beck, Sulpicius Apollinaris, 18–50. 6 Cf. J. Aistermann, De M. Valerio Probo [hereafter ‘Aistermann’], 115–56 (‘De Probo Gellii auctore’). 7 Others are the emperor Hadrian (R. 43), Alfenus Varus (K. 65), Annianus (K. 101), M. Antistius Labeo (K. 66; R. 65–6), Antonius Julianus (K. 101), M. [immo C.] Asinius Pollio (K. 64, cf. Aistermann 132), Q. Asconius Pedianus (cf. H. Nettleship, ‘The Noctes Atticae’, 411 ¼ 271), C. Ateius Capito (K. 66; R. 66–7), Aurelius Opillus (K. 41–2), Calvenus (alias Calvisius) Taurus (R. 50–3), Sex. Caecilius, Caesellius Vindex (K. 95), Ser. Claudius (K. 42–3), Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (R. 17–19), Cloatius Verus (K. 98), P. Cornelius Scipio minor (R. 14–15), C. Aelius Gallus (K. 61), Suetonius Tranquillus (R. 43–4), Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (K. 59–60; R. 65), Timaeus (K. 38–9; R. 5), certainly at second hand, Aelius Stilo (K. 41), Gavius Bassus (K. 99–100; R. 38), Hypsicrates (K. 44), C. Julius Hyginus (K. 77; R. 40–1), Julius Modestus (R. 38), read directly despite the single quotation, D. Laberius, Laelius Felix (R. 71, cf. 66), P. Lavinius (K. 100), Masurius Sabinus (K. 79–80; R. 67–70), Q. Mucius Scaevola (K. 40–1; R. 64), perhaps at second hand (presumably through Masurius Sabinus’ De iure ciuili, cf. R. 64), Neratius, read directly though cited only once, C. Plinius Secundus (K. 13–15; see M. 641–3 and Beck, ‘Studia’, 5–25, esp. 9–11), M. Porcius Cato (K. 39–40; R. 10–14), Sempronius Asellio (cf. K. 71), probably through Verrius, Sinnius Capito (K. 61–2), C. Trebatius, probably at second hand, M. Tullius Cicero (K. 59), M. Tullius Tiro (K. 62–4), M. Valerius Messala Augur (R. 65), Q. Valerius Soranus (in Varro, Quaest. epistol.),

68

Franco Cavazza

2.5. To these we should add anonymous persons, most of whom are oral sources; in some cases they are probably Wctitious—not covers for Gellius himself since he does not accept their etymologies. They are the intelligentsia of the time.8 2.6. Amongst the 366 etymologies advanced by Gellius,9 some may be claimed for him in the absence of even hidden evidence for a source; others, as I shall show, seem not to be original. Clearly, not all the anonymous etymologies can be assigned to Gellius, in view of the ancient (and modern) practice of ementiri doctrinam. Without other evidence, it may be hard to tell what is truly Gellius’ own; take the case of Morta in 3. 16. 11. It has been suggested that the treatment of some Greek words implies Gellius’ dependence on Sulpicius Apollinaris (cf. K. 108) or Favorinus, although in view of his visit or visits to Greece he might have been capable of expressing his own opinion on the topic. Furthermore, the treatment of homoptota (which more than once is anonymous) may suggest he is applying a rule laid down by others. Yet it remains possible, as we shall see, that some etymological comments genuinely belong to him and his doctrina. On the other hand, inconsistent in this as in other matters, Gellius does not systematically pass oV other people’s learning as his own, nor does he on principle hide his own light under a bushel. We can but draw what inferences we may on the authorship of, or responsibility for, the etymologies proposed. It will be understood that a Gellian scholar likes to think, where he can, that the etymological doctrine is Gellius’ and not another’s. C. Valgius Rufus (K. 68), Velius Longus (K. 93), who is named in only one passage, passed on by a doctus amicus, though K. 93 envisages direct use. 8 Quispiam (2. 21. 6–7), amicus (7. 15. 2–5), (erat) qui (diceret) (12. 14. 3), (fuit) qui (diceret), homo in libris atque in litteris adsiduus (12. 14. 6), homo (15. 30. 2–3), nebulo (16. 6. 12), cf. uulgus grammaticorum (2. 21. 6–7), turba grammaticorum nouicia (11. 1. 5), nouicii semidocti (16. 7. 13), commentarii ad ius pontiWcum (16. 6. 13). 9 This Wgure retains validity despite a degree of approximation. Etymologies of related words, or words structurally associated by a common derivational morpheme (e.g. -osus, -mentum, -ulentus), are open-ended as covering words not expressly mentioned. Sometimes no etymology as such is proposed for discussion, but one is implicit in the discussion itself (e.g. of humanitas in 13. 17). Nevertheless, the count attests Gellius’ undoubted interest in etymology: relative to his 398 chapters it shows a ratio of 0.9 etymologies per chapter, which, allowing for miscounts, leads to the rather high average for a miscellany of one etymology per chapter, proving Gellius’ interest beyond doubt. The calculation comes from a study I have not had time to prepare for publication; the list of etymologies, not reproduced here for reasons of relevance and above all space, is available—though in need of revision and possible corrections—for any interested party by email from or .


69

3. gellius ’ etymologies 3.1. This said, we may now examine certain interesting passages capable of attribution to Gellius and therefore useful in revealing him to us as an etymologist in the ancient tradition; granted that he shows no innovations in method, certain interesting observations, certain correct proposals, or at least certain good intuitions conWrm his grammatical competence.10 3.2. In 1. 18. 5, having noted that Varro challenged false etymologies made by L. Aelius Stilo on Stoic principles,11 preferring in accordance with common Latin practice12 to derive Latin words from Greek when the sound seemed to match, Gellius remarks that Varro made a like error in deriving Latin fur from furuus and not from æ:13 Nonne sic uidetur Varro de fure, tamquam L. Aelius de lepore? Nam quod a Graecis nunc Œº dicitur, antiquiore Graeca lingua æ dictus est. Hinc per adWnitatem litterarum, qui æ Graece, est Latine ‘fur’.

3.2.1. The source is unknown. Hosius (edn. i, p. xxiv) denies Gellius the credit for discovering Varro’s error. Since the passage seems to be of legal interest, the source may be a jurist;14 but although Hosius writes ‘Gellius videtur sua mutuatus esse a iurisconsulto aliquo’, he may also have used an etymological, that is to say grammatical source.15 Doubt is unavoidable. However, 10

See Cavazza, ‘Gellio grammatico’, esp. 269 ¼ 95, on Gellius the etymologist. SpeciWcally the interpretation of lepus as le(ui)-pes, with false division. Plainly, too, the ancients paid no attention to the consonantism of their etymologies or even the vowel-quantities, audible as they still were. 12 Obviously the Latins could not imagine a common IE origin for Greek and Latin, but only suppose the more prestigious language to be a superstrate over another whose literature had a later historical origin, being thus superior both absolutely and in age. 13 Varro . . . ‘furem’ dicit ex eo dictum, quod ueteres Romani ‘furuum’ atrum appellauerint et fures per noctem, quae atra sit, facilius furentur (Gell. 1. 18. 3–4). 14 So Hosius (edn. i, p. xxiv); but the texts he cites with the Greek etymology are from late Latinity: cf. D. 47. 2. 1. pr.; the author cited is Paul, who Xourished in the early 3rd c. ad, hence later than Gellius. In this passage several etymologies are cited, showing that uncertainty persisted in Paul’s day (from fraus, according to Masurius Sabinus; from ferre or from Greek, according to others); cf. also J. 4. 1. 2, which adds to the etymologies mentioned that of Varro cited above from Gellius. Behind all this there will have been a long etymological tradition whose origin is lost to us. 15 Hosius (ibid.) does not consider Cloatius Verus as Gellius’ source because Gellius does not trust him (NA 16. 12). Indeed he does not; but some correct Greek etymologies may still have reached him through Cloatius, of whom indeed he admits (ibid. cap.) that, amidst his errors and absurdities, there were words he satis commode . . . ad origines linguae Graecae redigit. 11

70

Franco Cavazza

since some jurists relate furtum to furuum (cf. Labeo, fr. 14, p. 561 Funaioli), others to æ with Gellius, there is no bar on supposing a juristic source. Unfortunately Masurius Sabinus, whose De furtis Gellius knows and quotes, does not help us resolve the problem, so that this conjecture is only a partial solution. But other attestations of a Greek etymology for fu¯r, albeit post-Gellian, may be of value as coming from grammarians,16 and might tell against dependence on a purely legal source. The grammarians are unlikely to depend on Gellius; at best he and they have a common source, so that it is legitimate to think of Probus,17 whether or not (in Gellius’ case) transmitted through Sulpicius Apollinaris, even in respect of the phonetic correspondence.18 Be the source legal or grammatical, such reasoning is admissible only if Gellius is to be denied even a modicum of authority; moreover, had he depended on a respected source, he would not assert with his typical modesty (cf. 14. 1. 32, 14. 2. 25) that Varro might be right and that he dare not express a view in the face of so great an authority. There is no reason why Gellius’ contacts with the Greek world should not have enabled him to detect similarities between Greek and Latin words, and therefore to derive the latter from the former. If so, he found conWrmation in other authors of a conjecture he had made suo Marte.19 Although Gellius sometimes presents matter from the same source or on similar subjects in two successive chapters, no such assistance is available in the present case. 3.2.2. Gellius’ etymology is correct within the limits of the ancient perspective: the connection between æ and fu¯r seems beyond doubt. J. Pokorny, IEW 128–32 (esp. 129–30) derives both words from the root *bher-, whose Greek (æø) and Latin (fero¯) descendants are Indo-Europeanist classics; the consonants are regular, but the vowels require explanation. In the Greek word 16 Cf. Serv. on Georg. 3. 407, Aen. 2. 18, 9. 348, derived (not very convincingly) by Hosius from Gellius (cited in Serv. Aen. 5. 738). Cf. too Prisc. GL ii. 11. 19–21. 17 For Servius’ and Priscian’s dependence on Probus cf. Nettleship, ‘The Noctes Atticae’, 391 ¼ 248. 18 Festus, who cites various derivatives of furuus (PF 74. 11–12: Furuum nigrum, uel atrum. Hinc dicta furnus, Furiae, funus, fuligo, fulgus, fumus), does not help us here: fur is absent, but silence does not disprove its presence in Verrius, who appears to be the source for the other passage presenting a phonetic relation between Greek and Latin (13. 9, esp. §5). Unhelpful too is Val. Max. 2. 4. 5 (furuus ¼ niger); he shares sources with Gellius, but only for history (cf. Nettleship, ‘The Noctes Atticae’, 402–3 ¼ 261–2). 19 On fur and its etymological complex see R. Maltby, Lexicon, 248, whose account, albeit incomplete, conWrms that Varro’s is the oldest attested.


71

the lengthened grade o¯ is a regular Indo-European Ablaut from the normal grade e.20 The word, even though not Homeric, is an archaic root-noun (*bho¯r-) of a type that Indo-European languages tend to eliminate,21 and ought to mean ‘carrier’: the sense of carrying away what is not one’s own but has been stolen need not be connected with the form of the word, given that Armenian bur˙n ( Lat. f- is normal, e.g. IE *bhudh-underlies fundus) and, above all, for u¯;24 I concur in Gernet’s rejection of this theory.25 Ernout–Meillet also entertain the possibility that Greek and Latin forms both come from a non-Indo-European word; I disagree for three reasons: (i) the 20 Even though, like the corresponding long vowel in Latin, it is not conWned to particular morphological categories, e.g. the nom. sg., but maintained throught the declension: both æ øæ and fu ¯ r fu ¯ ris illustrate a tendency, especially in Latin (also found in Germanic, but rare or absent in other IE languages), to generalize the lengthened grade throughout the paradigm. The nom. sg. is normally asigmatic in masculines and feminines: cf. A. Ernout, Morphologie, 43–4, who also discusses the lack of long/short vowel alternation between the nominative and the other cases (citing monosyllables such as fu ¯ r and so¯l), but also A. L. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar, 211, who proposes *fer->*fo¯rs (sic) >fu ¯ r-, for Wnal *rs>rr>r comparing (obscurely) fa˘r, a neuter derived from the -s- stem *fars, farris ( Old Lat. *opelont->*opelent->*opolent-, whence *opolentus>opulentus, corresponding to Hitt. happinant-, ‘rich’ (so Szemereńyi, ‘The Latin Adjectives’ 277–9, and Syncope, 147),77 or fusion of two suYxes, -ul(o)- and -ento- (so Ernout), or even development of the Indo-European suYx went- (Skt. -vant-, Gk. = ) into Lat. -ent- (*polens> *oppolens>*oppulentus, which, simpliWed to opulentus, underlay the entire adjective class, giving rise to a suYx -ulentus. 78 But Aitzetmu¨ller (n. 76) does not see a direct relation between -went- and -lent-, which have in common a group -nt- with elative force (reconstructed from various languages), whereas the possessive sense (‘furnished with’) puts the preceding -l- of the Latin suYx on the same plane as the -w- of the Greek, as already having that sense, like the -li- of Lat. Wde¯lis (cf. M. Leumann, ‘Lat. Laut- u. Form. 1955–1962’, 100).


91

all since, though the etymology is the same, the explanation is diVerent. Problems arise with the other deverbatives. If the passage of Valgius Rufus and Tiro are allowed to be direct quotations, the last part of the chapter may be Gellius’ own; dependence on Varro for so obvious a suYx, on the basis of LL 6. 36 ab lego lectio et lector, 8. 57 a legendo lector, is not very likely. Only those who deny all originality to Gellius—even though, as in other cases, he appears to list a series of examples derived from his own reading— will think (as not even Aistermann does) of Probus, mediated by Sulpicius Apollinaris (perhaps even for the quotations); there is no evidence in favour of such a notion. 3.14.2. Gellius’ etymology is correct inasmuch as the Romans, perhaps by folk-etymology, associated lictor with ligare; but direct derivation is impossible. The list of -tor formations that follows is not only correct in itself, but bears out a law that nomina agentis have a long stem-vowel even if in the present on which they are based it is short. This is indeed generally the case, as with the past pasticiples and frequentatives discussed in 9. 6, provided the Wnal consonant of the stem is devoiced before the suYx and not originally voiceless.79 However, it is not absolute: in particular, /i/ is not lengthened in the past participle or nomen agentis when it is short in the present.80 Hence, although lıctor could in principle come from a hypothetical *ligere, this would have to be not the *lıgere implied by Gellius’ explanation but *lıgere. 3.15. In 13. 9. 5 we have a list of Latin words supposedly derived from Greek, two of which may be Gellian etymologies: ueteres nostri non usque eo rupices et agrestes fuerunt, ut stellas hyadas idcirco ‘suculas’ nominarent, quod o Latine ‘sues’ dicantur; sed ut, quod Graeci ! æ, nos ‘super’ dicimus, quod illi o Ø , nos ‘supinus’, quod illi ! æ, nos ‘subulcus’, quod item illi o , nos primo ‘sypnus’, deinde per ‘y’ Graecae Latinaeque litterae cognationem ‘somnus’: sic, quod ab illis !, a nobis primo ‘syades’, deinde ‘suculae’ appellatae.

3.15.1. Tiro had asserted (§4; fr. 13, p. 402 Funaioli) that the ueteres had calqued suculae on !, which they had wrongly 79 This appears to be a corollary of Lachmann’s much-debated Law, which can no longer be accepted as a universal principle, but remains a sound observation of certain facts: see K. Lachmann, In T. Lucr. De rerum nat. libros, 54–5, also my edn. iv. 185–9 on NA 9. 6, vi. 120–7 on 12. 3. The bibliography is endless; I have taken account of most of it in the 70-odd pages I devote to the topic in the forthcoming vol. iii/2 of my Lezioni di indoeuropeistica, §6. 3 V. 80 This is one of the few certainties in the debate over Lachmann’s Law. Note too pıstor from pınso, with secondary lengthening before /ns/.

92

Franco Cavazza

derived from o instead of oØ .81 Gellius denies that they had mistaken the etymology, and credits them for noticing what appeared to have escaped Tiro, that Greek !- corresponds to Latin su-; hence ! was Wrst Latinized as syades, then adapted to give suculae. He would seem to have this etymology from Verrius: see Fest. 394. 13–15 (super) uerum ponitur etiam pro de, Graeca consuetudine, ut illi dicunt ! æ and above all 390. 11–19 (where Tiro’s explanation is probably faulted); cf. 370. 20–4 suppum antiqui dicebant, quem nunc supinum dicimus ex Graeco, uidelicet pro aspiratione ponentes <s> litteram. Over suculae < !82 (cf. Fest. 390. 17) there seems to be no real disagreement between Tiro and Verrius, since the two relationships o sues and ! suculae are set side by side; at most Tiro’s only explanation for the initial s of suculae may seem to be the false semantic—not phonetic—association with sues, whereas Gellius’ source clearly demonstrates that in the words listed Greek !- corresponds to Latin su-. The phonetic relations are correct, but having no conception of diachronic comparison, the Romans, including Gellius, had to envisage the Latin words as straightforwardly derived from Greek. However, the surviving parallel accounts do not include subulcus and somnus; they might well have been in Gellius’ source, but it seems better to suppose them his own additions. 3.15.2. Even phonetically these etymologies are correct within ancient limitations, some formal inaccuracies apart, given that forms with a common root do not always correspond. As regards the two ‘Gellian’ words, I repeat my comments in edn. vii. 130–1: su˘bulcus is derived from su¯s, with short stem-vowel in alternation with the long (cf. su˘-cerda) on the pattern of bu˘bulcus,83 derived from bo¯s, where -bulcus/-fulcus may correspond to ıºÆŒ, even though caution is needed.84Subulcus and ! æ85 are not an exact match, but remain valid as regards the Wrst syllable, which is precisely Gellius’ point here. Inexact, but basically correct, is the 81 In fact this last is a folk-etymology, whereas !, formed like ºØ, does indeed seem related to y, ‘sow’; Lat. suculae will be either a semantic calque or an independent word. 82 Cf. Cic. ND 2. 111, Arat. fr. 28 Soubiran, Plin. NH. 2. 106. The etymology of suculae (and !) is taken up by Isid. Etym. 3. 71. 12. 83 A dialectal variant, with internal -f-, was bufulcus, which remains in Italian bifolco *sop-no-> som-no-, with regressive assimilation (cf. O. Szemereńyi, Einfu¨hrung, 41).

94

Franco Cavazza

also seems to be merit in his implicit intuition, inexact but coherent, that Nigidius’ etymology is phonetically unsound, since the particle ab > au- in au-tumo is not in the required phonological situation (preceding an f ), unless that is to over-interpret him. Unfortunately he says nothing else on the etymology of autumo, leaving us unable to pass a Wnal judgement on his comment, not least because we lack his analysis of the word: evidently not as au-tumo, but we do not know whether he considered it a uerbum Latinum et uetus, or perhaps connected with words in -tumu-s (see his discussion of aeditumus and similar forms in 12. 10). Speculation apart, Gellius’ hesitation, this time legitimate, about the origin of au- does not extend to autumo, but only to the two verbs mentioned by Cicero. His suggestion of a Greek etymology for au is thus well founded (perhaps the only case in Antiquity: see below) and seems to counter Cicero’s thesis of euphonic mutation of ab. We shall return to the etymologies below. As for the source, here too I prefer to see Gellius as independent. Not so Hosius (edn. i, p. xlix), who after evaluating other scholars’ conjectures proposes Velius Longus, who lived approximately in Gellius’ time or a little earlier, in the Wrst half of the second century ad. He cites the same passage of Cicero (GL vii. 60. 6–10), but does not mention Nigidius; moreover, the work concerned is De orthographia. Gellius does cite Velius Longus, but only in 18. 9, for his commentarius de usu antiquae lectionis, featuring archaic Latin authors and passages of Homer. But other considerations arise here, since several problems are rolled into one: the Ciceronian passage, Nigidius’ etymology of autumo, and the Greek etymology of au-. It is possible that Cicero was mediated (through Velius Longus?),87 but Gellius (if we may trust what he writes) has said legimus in §1, which, used with reference to himself (as usual in the pluralis maiestatis, cf. e.g. 13. 18. 3 nobis praesentibus), makes Cicero the immediate source. That would exclude Velius, who contributes at most the Homeric verses of §8. It is better to suppose that Gellius read Cicero directly and that the quotation from Orator is all his own work. As others have noted, NA 15. 3 reappears almost word for word in Macrobius (GL v. 600. 17–22 and 637. 19–31 ¼ 15. 14–16, 17 De Paolis, besides v. 637. 19–31, also incorporating Gell. §8); given his propensity to quote Gellius, there is no need to posit a common 87 An alternative source would be Probus, whose concern for euphony is attested in 13. 21 and who may be Sulpicius’ (or Gellius’) source in 4. 17 (Aistermann 132–4); however, the arguments adduced by Hosius for deriving 2. 17 from him are unsatisfactory.


95

source. The grammarians, well acquainted as they are with the Ciceronian passage, do not cite further instances (cf. Prisc. GL ii. 18. 14, 39. 3–4, 46. 15–16; so already Quint. inst. 1. 5. 69); there is no question of adducing Nigidius’ autumo. Hence, although Velius Longus cites Cicero’s examples too, he need not necessarily be Gellius’ source, as Hosius would have it; his comparison with 18. 9, derived from Velius, is insuYcient proof, since there Velius seems only a partial source, either because he is (in part?) cited indirectly (perhaps a mere literary device), or because the vague expression doctores . . . et interpretes uocum Graecarum (§9) seems to exclude him, unless it is a blind concealing a single source (cf. K. 6 V.). But then whom do the Greek verses come from? Perhaps from the anonymous doctores et interpretes or even Gellius himself (knowledge of Homer was not a mark of extraordinary erudition; cf. Gell. 15. 6. 1), but despite the above comments they may yet go back to Velius, who might therefore also be the source for those in 15. 3. 8.88 Even so, Gellius may be credited with the observation on the nature of au (with reference to Greek), not found in any previous Latin author. His usual modest tone in making this suggestion, together with the comparison with other prepositions supposedly derived from Greek (cf. super in 13. 9. 5), which he might have observed for himself, may vindicate paternity of the proposal for him. In conclusion, although there are no certainties, both the manner of expression and the structure of the passage bring me back once again, but more willingly, to Gellius himself. 3.16.2. As for the etymologies, one is not actually present, and Gellius’ doubt tells against Cicero’s seemingly correct suggestion, not otherwise disputed in antiquity. For us too the etymology of autumo is uncertain. One might relate it to autem as nego to nec, neg-, but without the excessive conWdence of Walde–Hofmann, LEW i. 88, or rather the authors they cite. Negumo, or rather negumate for negate in the carmen of the uates Cn. Marcius, cited by Festus (162. 5–7), gets us nowhere, being (if it ever existed) a uocabulum Wctum based on autumo. As for au-, Gellius deserves credit for writing an potius ‘au’ particula sua sit propria origine: although, like all ancient scholars, he ascribes correspondences between words with a common Indo-European origin to derivation from Greek, his intuition, though hesitantly expressed, is exceptional and well founded. It is not certain that he had in 88 Gellius’ failure to cite Velius outside the passage quoted does not mean he did not use him elsewhere.

96

Franco Cavazza

mind Greek Æs (related to Lat. aut, autem), which as even an ancient might have seen is an independent particle and not a preverb. In fact the (Aeolic) Greek forms he cites should be analysed as follows: in ÆPæıÆ , ÆP- comes from *I -=æø, whereas ÆPÆ Ø breaks down as I-=-=Æ Ø, with uncertainty whether I- is copulative-intensive (perhaps better) or privative. The examples, in short, are not correct, but the basic fact remains that au-, or rather au, has an origin of its own. Ernout–Meillet, Dictionnaire, 2, write: ‘le au- qui devant f sert de pre´verbe, dans au-fero¯ . . . , au-fugio¯ . . . re´pond a` v. irl. o´, ua et a` v. pruss. au-, v. sl. u, lit. au, hitt. u-wa (correlatif), cf. skr. a´va et lat. ue¯-. C’est un mot diVe´rent [sc. from ab].’89 Naturally other scholars agree, not so much on fero, aufero, or fugio, aufugio, as in treating au as an independent word.90 Gellius’ intuition, besides being valid, is all the more meritorious for having no ancient counterparts and even being advanced against the authority of Cicero, whose prestige erects a barrier for the ancients, and without reference to whom they did not discuss the subject.91 3.17. In 16. 7. 13 we have a Graecism: [Laberius] in mimo, quem inscripsit Alexandream, eodem quidem, quo uulgus, sed probe Latineque usus est Graeco uocabulo: ‘emplastrum’ enim dixit PŁæø, non genere feminino, ut isti nouicii semidocti.

3.17.1. The correction (emplastrum is etymologically neuter!),92 directed against ignorant innovators, may be ascribed to one of Gellius’ teachers, for instance Sulpicius Apollinaris, who in 19. 13. 3 cites a Greek word adopted in Latin (nanus), but deemed vulgar and censurable (contrast our present passage) and also mentions Laberius. Either then it is Sulpicius who transits and comments on him orally, or, since the etymology is simple, we may 89 F. Metzger, ‘Latin uxor’, 171, exploits this diVerence to propose another etymology for a much-vexed word: ‘we may . . . explain uxor as IE *u-k-sor, in which u belongs with IE *au(e) ‘‘away’’ (Latin aufero, Skt. avabharati, Latin aufugio, Got. auþeis, etc.)’. 90 Walde–Hofmann, LEW i. 79 (cf. 485; less clearly 556), LHSz i. 61, citing Gk. ÆPØ , ‘retire, retreat’ ¼ I ÆøæE , I ÆŁÆØ (Hesych.), and Pokorny, IEW 72–3, on the root *au-, *aue-, *ue¯˘-, ‘down, away from’, with congeners in at least Ð nine Indo-European phyla.Ð 91 See too Maltby, Lexicon, 1–2, cf. 65, on the (casus) ablatiuus: Sergius (or Seruius), Explan. in Don., GL iv. 534. 31–535. 1–2 ablatiuus, quod per eum auferre nos ab aliquo aliquid signiWcemus, ut ‘ab hoc magistro’, 544. 14 ablatiuus ab auferendo dictus, ‘aufer ab eo’ (cf. Isid. Orig. 1. 7. 32). All this established a tradition and leaves Gellius in splendid isolation. 92 Cf. Garcea–Lomanto, above, 62.


97

need look no further than Gellius himself. (The word is ancient; it is attested in Cato, Agr. 39. 2). 3.17.2. The etymology is correct (the word, a medical term, has entered Romance), as a borrowing from Greek ºÆæ ; plausible too seems Gellius’ observation that the feminine emplastra is incorrect. It may be one of those cases, frequent in the Romance languages, in which neuters plural, in both everyday words and technical terms—have been popularly interpreted as feminines singular, because of the common ending -a (cf. folia> It. foglia, mirabilia> It. meraviglia). 3.18. In 17. 2. 4, commenting on selected passages of Claudius Quadrigarius, Gellius presents an etymology by compositio: ‘Ea’ inquit ‘dum Wunt, Latini subnixo animo <ex uictoria inerti consilium ineunt.’ ‘Subnixo animo>’ quasi sublimi et supra nixo, uerbum bene signiWcans et non fortuitum; demonstratque animi altitudinem Wduciamque, quoniam, quibus innitimur, iis quasi erigimur attollimurque.

3.18.1. Quadrigarius has been read directly; the etymology seems to be Gellius’ own. Essentially we have an interpretation, but its etymological connection may be inferred both from Gellius’ need to explain the word and the contrast between this sense of subnixus, ‘buoyed up, ‘relying on’, and its rare opposite ‘subdued’ (cf. Nonius below), found at Tert. De patientia 4. 3 de hominibus . . . seruitute subnixis (subnexis J. J. Scaliger). This is not the only place where Gellius explains compositiones with a praepositio, or uses etymology to ascertain the true sense of a word.93 Attempts have been made to discern a double interpretation, non only from sub þ nitor, but—given Gellius’ twofold paraetymology, a typical ancient approximation—from the sup- of supra, and sub- (sublimis)94þ nitor, with support from Nonius (652 L. ¼ 405. 23–8 M.), who presents both senses and after inapposite quotations for the Wrst follows Gellius for the second: subnixum subditum . . . subnixum sublime, hoc est susum nixum. 93

Cf. e.g. 2. 17 and obnoxius (6. 17: above, §3.8), deprecor (7. 16), proXigo (15. 5), and further obesus (19. 7; see below. §3.19). For the two senses, ‘placed under’ and ‘supported’, and for other nuances cf. CGL ii. 465. 45 $ subnixus; v. 42. 11 (Plac.) subnixus est instructus aliquo auxilio. item subnixus suVultus ex omni parte ¼ 100. 17 and 155. 10 and cf. iv. 288. 10; iv. 394. 24 subnixus submisus humilis; 177. 35 subnixus humilis uel subpositus aut incumbens; iv. 177. 26 ¼ 287. 41 ¼ 570. 9 subnexa (subnixa) subiecta (uel) supposita (subp.) and cf. v. 153. 26 subnexa. subiecta subposita. set melius. suVultam uel subWrmata; v. 419. 22 ¼ 427. 55 subnixis subiunctis. 94 Sublımis (explained at PF 401. 5–6 with a play on superior and supra) comes from sub þ lımis (¼lımus, ‘oblique’) and means etymologically ‘rising aslant’, then generally ‘which raises itself’.

98

Franco Cavazza

Aiming to reproduce the compositio, Gellius explains the sense ‘supported by’ for subnixus by a word of similar though not identical meaning, sublimis; his use of supra, though not connected with the word in question, is not etymologically incorrect, given that sub (sup) and super clearly share a root despite the ancient, that is IndoEuropean, opposition between the two senses. For Quadrigarius, mediation through Probus (or even Sulpicius Apollinaris, his possible conduit to Gellius) is rendered conceivable by some features of the discussion, such as the apparent borrowing of §§5–6 from a peritus antiquitatis (etymology fruniscor < fruor) and of §9 from a specialist in the lingua castrensis (etymology copiari < copia) who exhibits the preference of historical and lexical over aesthetic interpretations, of which latter Gellius is not free. The suspicion that §§5–8, 9 may not be his own might have induced us to credit Gellius with only one of the Wve etymologies in this chapter; but such a decision would be highly questionable. Rather, all the etymologies in the passage should be ascribed to him. Citing words from Quadrigarius, Gellius writes (§§5–16): ‘’ rarius quidem fuit in aetate M. Tulli ac deinceps infra rarissimum, dubitatumque est ab inperitis antiquitatis, an Latinum foret. Non modo autem Latinum, sed iucundius amoeniusque etiam uerbum est ‘fruniscor’ quam ‘fruor’, et ut ‘fatiscor’ a ‘fateor’, ita ‘fruniscor’ factum est a ‘fruor’ . . . 9. . . . ‘’ uerbum castrense est, nec facile id reperias apud ciuilium causarum oratores, ex eademque Wgura est, qua ‘lignantur’ et ‘pabulantur’ et ‘aquantur’ . . . 14. . . . ‘Adprime’ crebrius est, ‘cumprime’ rarius traductumque ex eo est, quod ‘cumprimis’ dicebant pro eo quod est ‘inprimis’ . . . 16. . . . Inusitate ‘diurnare’ dixit pro ‘diu uiuere’, sed ea Wguratione est, qua dicimus ‘perennare’.

3.18.2. Gellius’ etymology of subnixus, from sub-nitor, despite a somewhat ambiguous interpretation, admittedly of homorrhiza, is correct.95 3.18.3. That of fruniscor is correct and, obvious though it is, is stated here for the Wrst time. It is an archaic (never classical) doublet of fruor, from which it derives, and resembles a few verbs with (expressive?) double suYx, -n- þ -ısc-, e.g. conquinisco or ocquinisco.96 The comparison with fatiscor/fateor is inopportune 95 Cf.Walde–Hofmann, LEW ii. 171, who rely on Gellius’ quotation from Quadrigarius for the Wrst attestation of subnixus. 96 The etymology of fruor, inseparable from frux, poses the problem that -g- is absent from the present stem; the IE root is *bhru ¯ g-, with congeners in Germanic (Pokorny, IEW 173, proposes that *fru ¯ gor, whence *fru ¯ g-nıscor > fru ¯ nıscor, was supplanted by *fru ¯ guor). Ð


99

(there is no double suYx) and etymologically false: fatiscor has nothing to do with fateor, but is related to *fatis, found in ad fatim>aVatim, and hence to fatigo. The etymologies of copiari, lignari, pabulari, and aquari, which are found here for the Wrst time, unstated but implicit in the technical term Wgura (so too in Wguratione at §16), are correct, though these are obvious denominatives (cf. Prisc. GL ii. 433. 10) of unambiguous meaning (Gellius adds only that they belong to a special language): that of copiari reappears, this time explicitly, in Non. 123 L. ¼ 87. 3–6 M. copiatur a copia . . . ut lignantur et pabulantur et aquantur, obviously derived from Gellius, those of pabulor and aquor in Prisc. GL ii. 433. 20, 17–18 respectively a pabulo ‘pabulor, pabularis’; ab aqua ‘aquor, aquaris’. The derivation of cumprime from a compositio, namely cumprimis, is also correct and obvious, the basis clearly being primus; so too is that of diurnare, like that of perennare and other denominative verbs. The former is based not on diu¯ but on diurnus, which in turn seems to be formed not directly from dies but from diu-, formed from dies on the basis of nocturnus (Italian retains in full use the verb soggiornare igneam fecit uolitantem per aerem. Quod et aliqui nostri temporis facere gloriantur.

Conflict and Harmony

339

some ambivalence—Favorinus’ report of the wooden, rather than Wery, dove that Archytas had made, ratione quadam disciplinaque mechanica, and that a combination of weights and cunningly concealed currents of air caused to Xy (10. 12. 9–10).51 Archytas, at once a political Wgure and a mathematician, made a natural hero for moderns dreaming that philosophy could give men power.52 According to Diogenes Laertius, after all, Archytas had been the Wrst ‘to make mechanics into a system by applying mathematical principles to them’ (8. 83).53 He soon became a canonical and heroic Wgure. Henry Cornelius Agrippa quoted the same passage, to the same eVect, in his De occulta philosophia of 1533, the Renaissance magician’s desk reference. So did Petrus Ramus, who took Archytas’ ability to make a Xying automaton as proof that mathematics could and should serve practical purposes.54 A number of modern engineers supposedly emulated Archytas’ achievement—from Regiomontanus, who devised both an iron Xy and a model eagle that Xew out from the walls of Nuremberg to greet the Holy Roman Emperor, to Turrianus, who crafted moving models of men and horses that marched up and down the imperial dinner table and mechanical passerculi that Xew above them. By the middle of the seventeenth century, when Descartes asserted that men could forge automata that emulated human or animal movements in every way and envisaged animals as automata of this kind, he was for once not making a bold and individual claim but stating a view that many others held. Athanasius Kircher and Gaspar Schott also saw animals, and even humans, as organic machines—from the vomiting lobster that illustrated the principle of the siphon to the professional regurgitators who amused them in 51 Cf. Lamola’s comment on Archytas’ dove, Vat. lat. 3453, fo. 73v on 10. 12. 9: Mirum de columba. Lamola probably classed this report with those sceptically recounted by Gellius, drawing on books of wonders, in 9. 4. On these Lamola remarks, fo. 64r on §6: Mirabilia quaedam. 52 On Archytas’ political career see K. von Fritz, Pythagorean Politics in South Italy, 97, and the recent summary of his life by C. Riedweg, ‘Archytas’, with references to the literature. 53 See the brief but helpful discussion in W. K. C. Guthrie, History, i. 335. For a more detailed discussion and a full bibliography, see M. Pugliara, ‘La colomba di Archita’. 54 Henry Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia libri tres, bk. 2, ch. 1, pp. 249–50: Leguntur etiam statuae Mercurii quae loquebantur et columba Architae quae lignea uolabat . . . On the importance of these stories in the 16th c. see O. Mayr, ‘Automatenlegenden in der Spa¨trenaissance’; J. P. Zetterberg, ‘The Mistaking’; P. Zambelli, ‘Cornelius Agrippa’; Minsoo Kang, ‘Wonders of Mathematical Magic’.

Pl. 12.2. Design for a model of Archytas and his dove, from Athanasius Kircher, Magnes: siue de arte mechanica opus tripartitum, 3rd edn. (Rome, 1654), p. 264, fig. 23. Photograph used by permission of Princeton University Library

Conflict and Harmony

341

the Piazza Navona. They Wlled Kircher’s museum in the Collegio Romano of the Jesuits with ingenious machines and automata of every kind, most of them based on the hydraulic and pneumatic devices of Hero of Alexandria.55 Both men took a deep interest in Archytas’ Xying automaton. But all Kircher could devise, when he tried to imagine how the device had worked, was a miniature version that avowedly did nothing more than imitate the motions of the original. He began with a tiny model of a bird, into which he inserted a metal strip. A magnet, Wxed above the top of the vessel in which the bird moved, held it up in the air. When turned, the magnet made the bird look as if it were Xying in circles. The line that connected it to the hand of a tiny model of Archytas, set to pivot on a needle, made the human Wgure revolve in its turn, as if it watched the progress of its bird. It was an ingenious fake, but a fake none the less—rather like Kircher’s more celebrated sunXower clock, which also used the power of magnetism to simulate what Kircher saw as the genuine principles of cosmic sympathy in action.56 In the end, Schott had to confess that he could not see how to make a bird like this. Both air and moving parts might help make it Xy (Pl. 12. 2); but neither could impart suYcient power on its own (after all, Schott noted, footballs rise both because of the air they contain and because of the violent motion men impart to them). ‘Something more is needed, then,’ he wrote, ‘and as many complain, up to now authors have left this unexplained.’57 At the height of the ScientiWc Revolution, Gellius still mattered. He not only supplied a vital slogan, Veritas Wlia Temporis, but also provided an ideal case in point: the automaton of Archytas, which could be seen either as an ancient achievement that no known modern technique could replicate or as a problem like Fermat’s Last Theorem. In either event, it served—as things in Gellius so 55 For a general introduction to the world of Kircher and Schott, see I. Rowland, Ecstatic Journey, and D. Stolzenberg (ed.), The Great Art of Knowing. For their mechanical principles and devices see Gaspar Schott, Technica curiosa. 56 For the dove see Kircher, Magnes, bk. 2, pt. 4, ch. 1, probl. 10, pp. 263–5. On Kircher’s sunXower clock see T. Hankins and R. Silverman, Instruments and the Imagination. 57 G. Schott, Mechanica hydraulico-pneumatica, pars II, classis I, caput III, machina X, p. 243: Duo tam prodigiosi uolatus principia indicat Gellius: inclusum aerem, et partium libramentum. Vt tamen utrumque conferre, ita neutrum suYcere, optime obseruarunt Mechanici; neque enim sola aeris densatione, sed impulsu ualido folles lusorii agitantur in sublime: nec ullum partium aequilibrium innatae contranititur grauitati, ne quod pondere praeualet, deprimatur deorsum, nedum ut sursum eleuetur. Aliquid igitur ulterius requiritur, quod hactenus inexplicatum ab Authoribus fuisse plerique dolent et conqueruntur.

342

Anthony Grafton

often did—to stretch the minds of yet another generation of readers. The Noctes Atticae, in other words, served as a great quarry— rather like the city of Rome itself. But like Rome, it also played many other roles. It inspired readers to devise new forms of scholarly play and work. It helped to deWne the new antiquarianism and philology of the Wfteenth and sixteenth centuries, for which Gellius provided indispensable stylistic and methodological models. It suggested that classical scholarship, rightly understood, was still vital in the age of the New Philosophy—as much for those who carried out radical experiments as for those who wrote manifestos. Above all, however, the case of Gellius underlines a rather diVerent and more signiWcant point. The creators of modern classical scholarship found not just the objects of their study, but most of the tools they applied to them, in the same body of ancient texts. Even their most original and innovative scholarly practices were often formed by inference, emulation, or imagination from the examples of ancient scholarship that they knew best. The history of early modern philology could thus be seen as a sort of extended Collegium Gellianum. And even Gellius, that master of false modesty well and truly expressed, would surely have found satisfaction in his modern fate.

Bibliography PRIMARY SOURCES

The texts and translations listed below are those cited by at least one contributor; they are not necessarily the best, latest, or standard resources. (i) Aulus Gellius Untitled editio princeps by Jo. Andreas de Buxis (Rome, 1469). Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum commentarii, ed. Ph. Beroaldus (Bologna, 1503). Auli Gellii linguae et graecae et latinae fulgentissimi syderis, noctium atticarum libri xx, ed. Jod. Bad. Ascensius (Paris, 1508). Accipite studiosi omnes Auli Gellii noctes micantissimas, ed. Nicolaus Ferrettus (Venice, 1509). Auli Gellii uiri disertissimi Noctium Atticarum libri XX, ed. Joannes Connellus (Paris, 1511; repr. Lyon, 1512). Auli Gellii noctes redditae nuper omni discussa caligine micantissimae, ed. Carolus Aldobrandus (Florence, 1514 [1513 stil. Flor.]). Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri undeuiginti, ed. J. B. Egnatius (Venice, 1515). Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri undeuiginti, ed. Jod. Badius Ascensius (Paris, 1517, and subsequent revisions, the last by Michael Vascosanus, 1536). A. Gellii luculentissimi scriptoris Noctes Atticae, ed. Joannes Soter (Cologne, 1526, 2 1533). Auli Gellii luculentissimi scriptoris Noctes Atticae, pr. Sebastianus Gryphius (Lyon, 1532 and subsequent edns.). Auli Gellii Noctes Aticae, pr. Georgius de Caballis (Venice, 1565). Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, seu Vigiliae Atticae, ed. Ludovicus Carrio (Paris, 1585). Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. Joannes Tornaesius (Lyon, 1592). Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. J. Fr. Gronovius (Amsterdam, 1651). Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. J. Fr. Gronovius (Leiden, 1687). Les Nuits Attiques d’Aulugelle, trans. F. J. I. (Donze´-)Verteuil, 3 vols. (Paris, 1776–7). Avla Gellija AWnskix nocˇej zapiski, trans. Afanasij Ivanov (Moscow, 1787). Aulus Gellius: Die attischen Na¨chte, trans. Fritz Weiss, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1875–6; repr. Darmstadt, 1992).

344

Bibliography

A. Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri XX, ed. M. J. Hertz, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1883–5). A. Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri XX, ed. C. Hosius, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1903). Aulu-Gelle: Les Nuits attiques, trans. Maurice Mignon, 3 vols. (Paris, 1934). The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, ed. and trans. John C. Rolfe, 3 vols. (Loeb Classical Library; New York and London, 1927; rev. Cambridge, MA, and London, 1946). Aulus Gellius: Nopt, ile atice, trans. David Popescu (Bucharest, 1965), with ‘Introducere’ by Iancu Fischer, pp. vii–lxxx. Aulu-Gelle: Les Nuits attiques, ed. Rene´ Marache (vols. i–iii), Yvette Julien (vol. iv), 4 vols. (Bude´; Paris, 1967–98). A. Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. P. K. Marshall, 2 vols. (Oxford Classical Texts; Oxford, 1968, rev. 1990). Aulo Gellio: Le notti attiche, ed. Franco Cavazza, 8 vols. so far (Bologna, 1985– ). Aulus Gellius: Attische Na¨chte. Aus einem Lesebuch des Kaisers Marc Aurel, trans. Heinz Berthold (Leipzig, 1987). Le notti attiche di Aulo Gellio, ed. Giorgio Bernardi Perini, 2 vols. (Turin, 1992, rev. 1996). Aulo Gelio: Noches a´ticas, trans. Amparo Gaos Schmidt, 2 vols. so far (Mexico City, 2000– ). (ii) Other authors (ancient, medieval, modern)

A few editions not conveniently cited under an author appear under Secondary Sources. Aeschylus: Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, 3: Aeschylus, ed. Stefan Radt (Go¨ttingen, 1985). Agrippa, Henry Cornelius, De occulta philosophia libri tres, ed. Vittoria Perrone Compagni (Leiden, 1992). Agroecius, Ars de orthographia, ed. Mariarosaria Pugliarello (Milan, 1978). Albert, Heinrich, Fu¨nVter Theil der Arien (Ko¨nigsberg, 1642 and reprs.). Anonymus Bobiensis: La Grammatica dell’Anonymus Bobiensis (GL I 533–565 Keil), ed. Mario De Nonno (Rome, 1982). Apuleius: Apuleius of Madauros, Florida, ed. Vincent Hunink (Amsterdam, 2001). —— Apuleius Madaurensis, Metamorphoses, Book I, 1–20: Introduction, Text, Commentary, ed. W. H. Keulen (Diss. Groningen, 2003). —— Apuleius Madaurensis: Metamorphoses, Livre II. Texte, introduction et commentaire, ed. Danielle van Mal-Maeder (Groningen, 2001). —— Apuleius Madaurensis, Metamorphoses, Book IX: Text, Introduction and Commentary, ed. B. L. Hijmans, Jr., R. Th. van der Paardt, V. Schmidt, Berber Wesseling, and Maaike Zimmerman (Groningen, 1995).

Bibliography

345

—— Metamorphoses, ed. and trans. J. Arthur Hanson, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1989). —— Rhetorical Works, trans. S. J. Harrison, J. L. Hilton, and V. J. C. Hunink (Oxford, 2001). Aristippus: in Gabriele Giannantoni, I cirenaici: raccolta delle fonte antiche (Florence, 1958), —— Aristippi et Cyrenaicorum fragmenta, ed. Erich Mannebach (Leiden, 1961). Aristophanes: `æØ ı ´æÆ Ø: The Frogs of Aristophanes, ed. and trans. B. B. Rogers (London, 1902). Aristotle: Aristote: La Poe´tique ed. Roselyne Dupont-Roc and Jean Lallot (Paris, 1980). —— Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, ed. Valentin Rose (Leipzig, 1886; repr. Stuttgart, 1966). —— Librorum deperditorum fragmenta, ed. Olof Gigon ¼ vol. iii of Aristotelis opera, ed. Immanuel Bekker, 5 vols. (Berlin, 2 1960---87; replacing Latin translations in 1st edn.). Bacon, Francis, The Essays, or Counsels Civil and Moral, ed. Brian Vickers (Oxford, 1999). —— Works, ed. James Spedding, Robert Ellis, and Douglas Heath, 7 vols. (London, 1857–9). Barzizza, Gasparino: Gasparini Barzizii Bergomatis et Guiniforti Wlii opera, ed. J. A. Furietti (Rome, 1723). —— ‘Lettere e orazioni edite e inedite di Gasparino Barzizza’, ed. Remigio Sabbadini, Archivio storico lombardo, 13 (2 3) (1886), 363–78, 563–83, 825–36. Bede: Bedae opera de temporibus, ed. Charles W. Jones (Cambridge, MA, 1943). ` il est faict un ample discours Boaistuau, Pierre, Le Theatre du Monde, ou des miseres humaines (Paris, 1561). —— et al., Histoires prodigieuses divisees en six tomes (Paris, 1597–8). Bonaventure: Doctoris seraphici s. Bonaventurae S. R. E. Cardinalis opera omnia, 10 vols. (Quaracchi, 1882–1902). Bounin, Gabriel, La Soltane, ed. Michael Heath (Textes litte´raires; Exeter, 1977). Bracciolini, Poggio, De infelicitate principum, ed. Davide Canfora (Rome, 1998). —— Lettere, ed. Helene Harth, 3 vols. (Florence, 1984–7). Bude´, Guillaume, Altera editio annotationum in Pandectas (Paris, 1542). —— De asse et partibus eius (Paris, 1514). Burley, Walter: Gualteri Burlaei liber de vita et moribus philosophorum: ¨ bersetzung der Eskurialbibliothek, ed. Hermann Mit einer altspanischen U Knust (Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 177; Tu¨bingen, 1886). Bussi, Giovanni Andrea, Prefazioni alle edizioni di Sweynheym e Pannartz, prototipograW romani, ed. Massimo Miglio (Milan, 1978).

346

Bibliography

‘Caecilius Balbus’: Caecilii Balbi de nugis philosophorum quae supersunt, ed. Eduard Wo¨lZin (Basel, 1855). ´ tienne Baluze, rev. Pierre de Chiniac Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. E de La Bastide Duclaux, 2 vols. (Paris, 1780, repr. 1902). Cato the Elder: in M. Porci Catonis orationum reliquiae, ed. Maria Teresa Sblendorio Cugusi (Il pensiero antico, Studi e testi, 12; Turin, 1982). Charisius: Charisii artis grammaticae libri V, ed. Karl Barwick, rev. Friedmer Ku¨hnert (Leipzig, 1964; 1 1925). Charron, Pierre, De la sagesse livres trois (Bordeaux, 1601), trans. Samson Lennard, Of Wisdome Three Bookes (London, before 1612; repr. Amsterdam and New York, 1971). Cicero: The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero, ed. R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, 7 vols. (Dublin, vol. i 31904, vols. ii–vi 21906–33, vol. vii 11901). —— M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia, fasc. 25a: Pro M. Aemilio Scauro oratio, ed. Elz˙bieta Olechowska (Leipzig, 1984). —— Pro Scauro: in M. Tulli Ciceronis orationes, vi, ed. A. C. Clark (Oxford, 1911), unpaginated. Consentius, Ars de barbarismis et metaplasmis (with Victorinus, Fragmentum de soloecismo et barbarismo), ed. Maximilian Niedermann (Neuchaˆtel, 1937). Crinitus, Petrus, De honesta disciplina libri xxv (Florence, 1504; repr. Paris, 1525); ed. Carlo Angeleri (Rome, 1955). Dach, Simon, Gedichte, ed. Walther Ziesemer, 4 vols. (Halle, 1936–8). Decembrio, Angelo Camillo, De politia literaria, ed. Norbert Witten (Munich, 2002). Des Pe´riers, Bonaventure, Cymbalum mundi, ed. Max Gauna (Paris, 2000). Dio Chrysostom, Orations VII, XII and XXXVI, ed. D. A. Russell (Cambridge, 1992). Donatus: Louis Holtz, Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical: e´tude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diVusion (IV e ---IX e sie`cle) et e´dition critique (Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, Documents, e´tudes et re´pertoires; Paris, 1981). Dunchad of Reims, Glossae in Martianum, ed. Cora E. Lutz (Lancaster, PA, 1944; cites by pages of Dick). Ennius: The Annals of Quintus Ennius, ed. Otto Skutsch (Oxford, 1985). —— Ennianae poesis reliquiae, ed. Johannes Vahlen (Leipzig, 21903). Erasmus, Desiderius, The Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto, 1974– ). —— Opera omnia (Amsterdam, 1969– ). —— Opus epistolarum, ed. F. S. and P. S. Allen, 12 vols. (Oxford, 1906–58, repr. 1992). Estienne, Henri, Noctes Parisinae: in L. Carrio’s edn. of Gellius. Estienne, Robert, Thesaurus linguae latinae (Lyon, 1573). Etymologicum Graecae linguae Gudianum: Et alia grammaticorum scripta e codicibus manuscriptis nunc primum edita, ed. Fr. W. Sturz (Leipzig, 1818).

Bibliography

347

Favorinus: Favorino di Arelate: Opere, ed. Adelmo Barigazzi (Florence, 1966). Fronto: M. Cornelii Frontonis epistulae, ed. M. P. J. van den Hout (2 Leipzig, 1988). Giorgi, Francesco, De harmonia mundi (Venice, 1525). Giovio, Paolo, Dialogo dell’imprese militari e amorose, ed. Maria Luisa Goglio (Rome, 1978). Giraldi, Lilio Gregorio, Opera quae extant omnia, 2 vols. (Basel, 1580). Guarino, Battista, De ordine dicendi et studendi ¼ ‘A Program of Teaching and Learning’, ed. and trans. Craig W. Kallendorf, Humanist Educational Treatises (The I Tatti Renaissance Library; Cambridge, MA, 2002), 260–309. Guarino da Verona, Epistolario, ed. Remigio Sabbadini, 3 vols. (Venice, 1915–19). Guillemeau, Jacques, De la nourriture et gouvernement des enfans, de`s le commencement de leur naissance (Paris, 1609). Guy d’Amiens: The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens, ed. Frank Barlow (Oxford Medieval Texts; Oxford, 1999). Herbert of Bosham, Herberti de Boseham . . opera quae exstant omnia, ed. J. A. Giles, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1845–6). Hyginus: Hygini Fabulae, ed. H. J. Rose (Leiden, 1933, repr. 1963). Johannes a Leydis, Chronicon Egmundanum seu Annales Regalium Abbatum Egmundensium, ed. Antonius Matthaeus III (Leiden, 1712). John Lydus: Ioannes Lydus, On Powers or The Magistracies of the Roman State, ed. Anastasius C. Bandy (Philadelphia, 1983). John of Salisbury, Policraticus, ed. C. C. J. Webb, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1909); bks. 1–4 ed. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan (Corpus Christianorum, continuatio mediaevalis, 118; Turnhout, 1993). Jordanes: Iordanis Romana et Getica, ed. Th. Mommsen (MGH Auctores antiquissimi, 5/1; Berlin, 1882; repr. Munich, 1982). Joubert, Laurent, Erreurs populaires au fait de la medecine et regime de sante´ corrigez par M. Laur. Ioubert (Avignon, 1578). —— Traite´ du ris, contenant son essance, ses causes et mervelheus eVais (Paris, 1579). Julian of Toledo: Ars Iuliani Toletani episcopi: una grama´tica latina de la Espanã visigoda, ed. Marıá A. H. Maestre Yenes (Toledo, 1973). Kircher, Athanasius, Magnes, siue de arte mechanica opus tripartitum, 3rd edn. (Rome, 1654). Lucilius: C. Lucilii carminum reliquiae, ed. Friedrich Marx, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1904–5). —— Satires, ed. François Charpin, 3 vols. (Paris, 1978–91). Macrobius: Aur. Theodosii Macrobii V. Cl. & Inlustris Opera accedunt integrae Isacii Pontani, Joh. Meursii, Jacobi Gronovii Notae & Animadversiones. Editio novissima cum Indice Rerum & Vocum locupletissimo, published by Thomas Dring and Charles Harper (London, 1694).

348

Bibliography

Macrobius: Macrobe (Œuvres comple`tes), Varron (De la langue latine), Pomponius Me´la (Œuvres comple`tes) avec la traduction en français, ed. De´sire´ Nisard (Paris, 1850). —— Macrobii Theodosii de verborum Graeci et Latini diVerentiis vel societatibus excerpta, ed. Paolo De Paolis (Urbino, 1990). Martianus Capella, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, ed. Adolf Dick (Stuttgart, 2 1925). Mexia, Pedro, Les Diverses Leçons, trans. C. Gruget (Paris, 1552). Montaigne, Michel de, Les Essais, ed. Pierre Villey and V.-L. Saulnier (Paris, 1965). Philoxenus: Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos, ed. Christos Theodoridis (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, 2; Berlin, 1976). Phocas: Foca: De nomine et verbo, ed. F. Casaceli (Naples, 1984). Pliny the Elder: Il dubius sermo di Plinio, ed. Adriana Casa (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Wlologia classica e medioevale; Genoa, 1969). Plutarch: Causes of Natural Phenomena (Quaestiones Naturales), ed. F. H. Sandbach, in Plutarch’s Moralia, xi (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1965), 131–229. —— ‘Plutarchi de causis naturalibus, Gyberto Longolio interprete’, in Plutarchi Chaeronensis opuscula uaria: quae magna ex parte sunt philosophica: Vulgo` autem Moralia opuscula nimis angusta appellatione vocantur, ex diuersorum interpretationibus, ed. Henr. Stephanus, 3 vols. (n.p., 1572) ¼ —º ıæ ı .ÆØæø ø a ø Æ ıªªæÆÆ: Plutarchi Chaeronensis quae extant opera, cum latina interpretatione, vols. vii–ix out of 13, iii [ix]. 255–7 (index), 258–77. —— Politiques, ou Civiles institutions pour bien re´gir la chose publ[ique], jadis composeés en grec par Plutarche et despuys translateés en françoys par maistre Geofroy Tory . . . Disputation de Phavorin, philosophe, nouvellement y a este adjousteé. Item chapitre demonstrant combien sont d’estatz de la chose pub[lique] (Lyon, 1534). —— The Roman Questions of Plutarch, trans. and comm. H. J. Rose (Oxford, 1924). Polenton, Sicco, Scriptorum illustrium Latinae linguae libri xviii, ed. B. L. Ullman (Rome, 1928). Posidippus, Epigrammi (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), ed. Guido Bastianini and Claudio Gallazzi (Milan, 2001) Poliziano, Angelo, Opera (Basel, 1553). Priscian, De nomine, in Prisciani Caesariensis Institutio de nomine et pronomine et verbo, ed. Marina Passalacqua (Testi grammaticali latini, 2; Urbino, 1992). ‘Probus’, De iuris notarum, ed. Theodor Mommsen, in GL iv. 267–76. Rabelais, François, Œuvres comple`tes, ed. Mireille Huchon (Paris, 1994). Radulphus de Diceto, Opera historica, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (Rolls Series 68; London, 1876). Rhetores Graeci, ed. Christian Walz, 9 vols. (Paris, 1832–6).

Bibliography

349

Rhodiginus, Caelius, Lectionum antiquarum libri (Venice, 1516, and subsequent edns.). Salutati, Coluccio, Epistolario, ed. Francesco Novati, 4 vols. (Rome, 1891–1911). Scaliger, Joseph Justus, Autobiography, trans. George W. Robinson (Cambridge, MA, 1927). Scaliger, Julius Caesar, Orationes duae contra Erasmum, ed. Michel Magnien (Geneva, 1999). —— Poetices libri septem (Paris, 1561). Schott, Gaspar, Mechanica hydraulico-pneumatica (Frankfurt, 1657). —— Technica curiosa, ed. and trans. Maurizio Sonnino (Rome, 2000). Solinus: C. Iulii Solini Collectanea rerum memorabilium, ed. Th. Mommsen (Berlin, 2 1895). Suetonius: C. Suetoni Tranquilli de grammaticis et rhetoribus, ed. Rodney Potter Robinson (Paris, 1925); ed. Robert A. Kaster (Oxford, 1995). —— C. Suetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae, ed. August ReiVerscheid (Leipzig, 1860). —— C. Suetoni Tranquilli quae supersunt omnia, ed. C. L. Roth (Leipzig, 1858). —— Sue´tone, —æd ºÆØH , —æd ÆØØH , extraits byzantins, ed. Jean Taillardat (Paris, 1967). —— Suetonio, De poetis e biograW minori, ed. Augusto Rostagni (Biblioteca di Wlologica classica, A6; Turin, 1944). Terentius Scaurus: in H. F. Kummrow, Symbola critica ad grammaticos Latinos (Greifswald, 1880). Tertullian: Tertullien, Contre les Valentiniens, ed. J.-C. Fredouille, 2 vols. (SC 280–1) (Paris, 1980–1). Textor, Joannes Ravisius, OYcina partim historicis partim poeticis referta disciplinis (Paris, 1532). Tucker, Abraham, ‘The Vision’ ¼ ‘Edward Search’, The Light of Nature Pursued, 5 pts. in 2 vols. (London, 1768), ii/2. 118–335; 2nd edn. in Tucker’s name, 7 vols. (1805), iii. 428–645. Varro: Antiquitates rerum diuinarum, in Reinhold Agahd, ‘M. Terenti Varronis Antiquitatum Rerum Divinarum Libri I, XIV, XV, XVI. Praemissae sunt quaestiones Varronianae’, JbClPh, Supplbd. 24 (Leipzig, 1898), 1–220, 367–81. —— Antiquitates rerum humanarum, in Paul Mirsch, ‘De M. Terenti Varronis Antiquitatum Rerum Humanarum libris XXV’, Leipziger Studien, 5 (1882), 1–144. —— I logistori varroniani, ed. Ettore Bolisani (Padua, 1937). —— M. Terenti Varronis de lingua Latina quae supersunt: accedunt grammaticorum Varronis librorum fragmenta, ed. Georg Goetz and Fritz Scho¨ll (Leipzig, 1910). —— M. Terentius Varro antiquitates rerum diuinarum, ed. Burkhart Cardauns (Wiesbaden, 1976). —— M. Terenti Varronis de uita populi Romani, ed. Benedetto Riposati (Milan, 1939).

350

Bibliography

Varro: Saturarum Menippearum fragmenta, ed. Raymond Astbury (Munich and Leipzig, 2 2002). Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum maius, 4 vols. (Douai, 1624, repr. 1965). Vives, Juan Luis, Opera omnia, 8 vols. (Valencia, 1782–90; repr. London, 1964). William of Malmesbury, Polyhistor, ed. Helen Testroet Ouellette (Binghamton, NY, 1982). SECONDARY SOURCES Adams, J. N., Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2003). —— ‘An Epigram of Ausonius (87, p. 344 Peiper)’, Latomus, 42 (1983), 95–109. —— ‘The Latin of the Vindolanda Writing Tablets: An Interim Report’, JRS 85 (1995), 86–134. —— ‘ ‘‘Romanitas’’ and the Latin Language’, CQ2 53 (2003), 184–205. —— Janse, Mark, and Swain, Simon (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text (Oxford, 2002). [Adda, Giovanni d’], Indagini storiche, artistiche e bibliograWche sulla libreria visconteo-sforzesca del Castello di Pavia compilate ed illustrate con documenti inediti per cura di un biblioWlo (Milan, 1875). Aistermann, Josef, De M. Valerio Probo Berytio capita quattuor: accedit reliquiarum collectio (Bonn, 1910). Aitzetmu¨ller, Rudolf, ‘Lateinisch -lentus und andere -nt-Bildungen’, Die Sprache, 3 (1957), 131–4. Alinei, Mario, Origini delle lingue d’Europa, i: La Teoria della Continuita`; ii: Continuita` dal Mesolitico all’eta` del Ferro nelle principali aree etnolinguistiche (Bologna, 1996–2000). Ameling, W., Herodes Atticus, 2 vols. (Hildesheim, 1983). Anderson, Graham, ‘Athenaeus: The Sophistic Environment’, ANRW II 34. 3 (1997), 2173–85. —— ‘Aulus Gellius: A Miscellanist and his World’, ANRW II 34. 2 (1994), 1834–62. —— Lucian: Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic (Leiden, 1976). —— Philostratus: Biography and Belles Lettres in the Third Century a.d. (London, Sydney, and Dover, NH, 1986). Andersson-Schmitt, Margarete, Hallberg, Ha˚kan, and Hedlund, Monica, Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universita¨tsbibliothek Uppsala: Katalog u¨ber [sic, cf. Swedish katalog o¨ver] die C-Sammlung, 7 vols. (Stockholm and Uppsala, 1988–95). Andre´, Jean-Marie, ‘Le de Otio de Fronton et les loisirs de MarcAure`le’, REL 49 (1971), 228–61. —— L’Otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine (Paris, 1966). Anstey, Henry, Munimenta academica (Rolls Series; London, 1868). AntolIń, Guillermo, Cata´logo de los co´dices latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial, 5 vols. (Madrid, 1910–23).

Bibliography

351

Astarita, Maria Laura, La cultura nelle ‘Noctes Atticae’ (Catania, 1993). —— ‘Un evoluzione nei recenti studi su Aulo Gellio’, Bolletino di studi latini, 25 (1995), 172–88. Babbitt, Irving, Literature and the American College: Essays in Defense of the Humanities (Cambridge, MA, 1908), 1–31. Bader, Françoise, ‘Apophonie et recomposition dans les compose´s’, RPh3 34 (1960), 236–47. —— La Formation des compose´s nominaux du latin (Paris, 1962). —— ‘Vocalisme et redoublement au parfait radical en latin’, BSL 63 (1968), 160–96. Baehrens, W. A., Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulga¨rlateinischen Appendix Probi (Halle, 1922). Baldwin, Barry, Studies in Aulus Gellius (Lawrence, KS, 1975). Baratin, Marc, La Naissance de la syntaxe a` Rome (Paris, 1989). Barnes, T. D., Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (rev. edn., Oxford, 1985). Baron, Hans, ‘Aulus Gellius in the Renaissance: His InXuence and a Manuscript from the School of Guarino’, in id., From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni: Studies in Humanistic and Political Literature (Chicago, 1968), 196–217 (Wrst published in SPh 48 (1951), 107–25, 49 (1952), 248–50). Bartelink, G. J. M., Hieronymus: Liber de optimo genere interpretandi (Epistula 57). Ein Kommentar (Mnemosyne Suppl. 61; Leiden, 1980). Baxandall, Michael, ‘A Dialogue on Art from the Court of Leonello d’Este: Angelo Decembrio’s De Politia Litteraria Pars LXVIII’, JWI 26 (1963), 304–26. Beall, Stephen M., ‘Aulus Gellius 17.8: Composition and the Gentleman Scholar’, CPh 94 (1999), 55–64. —— ‘Civilis eruditio: Style and Content in the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius’ (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1988). —— ‘Homo fandi dulcissimus: The Role of Favorinus in the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius’, AJPh 122 (2001), 87–106. —— ‘Translation in Aulus Gellius’, CQ2 47 (1997), 215–26. Beck, J. W., ‘Studia Gelliana et Pliniana’, JbClPh. Supplbd:2 19. 1–55 (Leipzig 1893). —— Sulpicius Apollinaris (Progr. van het Gymnasium te Groningen, Groningen, 1884). Becker, Gustav Heinrich, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui (Bonn, 1885). Becker, Henrik, Zwei Sprachanschlu¨sse (Leipzig and Berlin, 1948). Benhabib, Seyla, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (Cambridge, 1992). Bent, Margaret, ‘New and Little-Known Fragments of English Medieval Polyphony’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 21 (1968), 137–56.

352

Bibliography

´ mile, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europeén Benveniste, E (Paris, 1935, repr. 1948). Berlin, Isaiah, The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History (London, 1992). Bernard, Edward, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1697). Bernhard, Max, Der Stil des Apuleius von Madaura: Ein Beitrag zur Stilistik des Spa¨tlateins (Stuttgart, 1927; repr. Amsterdam, 1965). Berthold, Heinz, Aulus Gellius: Aufgliederung und Auswahl seiner Themen (diss. Leipzig, 1959). —— ‘Aulus Gellius. Seine Bedeutung als Vermittler antiker Bildungsund Kulturtraditionen’, WZ Halle-Wittenberg, 39 (1980), 45–50. —— ‘Interpretationsprobleme im Miszellanwerk des Aulus Gellius’, WZ Rostock, 34 (1985), 12–15. Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa, Inventa´rio dos Co´dices Alcobacenses, 5 parts (Lisbon, 1930–2) plus index volume (Lisbon, 1978). Binder, Vera, ‘Vir elegantissimi eloquii et multae undecumque scientiae — Das Selbstversta¨ndnis des Aulus Gellius zwischen Fachwissen und Allgemeinbildung’, in Marietta Horster and Christiane Reitz (eds.), Antike Fachschriftsteller: Literarischer Diskurs und sozialer Kontext (Palingenesia, 80; Stuttgart, 2003), 105–20. Biondi, Albano, ‘Angelo Decembrio e la cultura del principe’, in Giuseppe Papagno and Amedeo Quondam (eds.), La corte e lo spazio: Ferrara estense, 3 vols. (Rome, 1982), ii. 637–57. Birley, Anthony R. Marcus Aurelius2 (London, 1987). Blair, Ann, The Theater of Nature: Jean Bodin and Renaissance Science (Princeton, 1997). Bled, O., ‘Une bibliothe`que de chanoine au xve sie`cle’ (Extrait de la 128e livraison du Bulletin historique de la Socie´te´ des Antiquaires de la Morinie; Saint-Omer, 1884). Bloomer, W. Martin, Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility (London, 1992). Boissier, Gaston, E´tude sur la vie et les ouvrages de M. T. Varron (Paris, 1861). Bolgar, R. R., The Classical Heritage and its BeneWciaries from the Carolingian Age to the End of the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1954). Bo¨mer, Franz, ‘Der Commentarius: zur Vorgeschichte und literarischen Form der Schriften Caesars’, Hermes, 81 (1953), 210–50. Bompaire, Jacques, Lucien ećrivain: imitation et creátion (Paris, 1958). Bona, Ferdinando, Contributo allo studio della composizione del ‘De verborum signiWcatu’ di Verrio Flacco (Collana della Fondazione G. Castelli, 34; Milan, 1964). Bonner, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (Berkeley, 1977). Borsa, Mario, ‘Correspondence of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and Pier Candido Decembrio’, English Historical Review, 19 (1904), 509–26.

Bibliography

353

¨ berlieferung bis Borst, Arno, Der karolingische Reichskalender und seine U ins 12. Jahrhundert, 3 vols. (MGH Libri memoriales II/1–3; Hanover, 2001). Bottiglioni, Gino, Manuale dei dialetti italici (Bologna, 1954). Bougerol, J. G., Les Manuscrits franciscains de la Bibliothe`que de Troyes (Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 23; Grottaferrata, 1982). Bouteron, Marcel, and Tremblot, Jean Camille, Bibliothe`que de l’lnstitut: ancien et nouveau fonds (Paris, 1928). Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969). Bowie, Ewen, ‘Hadrian, Favorinus, and Plutarch’, in J. Mossman (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual World, 1–15. Bradley, K. R., Suetonius’ Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary (Collection Latomus, 157; Brussels, 1978). Branca, Vittore, Poliziano e l’umanesimo della parola (Turin, 1983). Braund, David, ‘Learning, Luxury and Empire: Athenaeus’ Roman Patron’, in id. and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 3–22. —— and Wilkins, John (eds.), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman World (Exeter, 2000). Briquel, Dominique, ‘La conception du latin comme langue mixte chez Varron’, in C. Moussy (ed.), De lingua Latina nouae quaestiones, 1033–43. —— De asse et partibus eius (Paris, 1514). Bulhart, Vinzenz, ‘Neutrum absolutum und der InWnitiv auf -urum’, WS 70 (1957), 78–83. Callahan, Virginia Woods, ‘Andrea Alciato’s Palm Tree Emblem: A Humanist Document’, Emblematica, 6 (1992), 219–35. Calvi, Felice, Famiglie notabili milanesi, ii (Milan, 1881). Cameron, Alan, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes (Oxford, 1993). Campanelli, Maurizio, Polemiche e Wlologia ai primordi della stampa: Le Observationes di Domizio Calderini (Rome, 2001). Campanile, Domitilla, ‘Cornelio Dolabella, la donna di Smirne e l’Areopago (Val. Max. 8, 1, amb., 2)’, RAL9 15 (2004), 155–75. Carilli, Maria, ‘ArtiWciosita` ed espressivita` negli hapax di Laberio’, SRIL 3 (1980), 19–33. Carlson, David R., ‘The Writings of Bernard Andre´ (c.1450–c.1522)’, Renaissance Studies, 12 (1998), 229–50. Carter, C. J., ‘Valerius Maximus’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Empire and Aftermath (London, 1975), 26–56. Cavazza, Franco, ‘Appunti sul sintagma ‘‘minime malus’’ e su altre analoghe litoti indicanti ‘‘l’ingenuita`’’, ‘‘l’insipienza’’, ‘‘la stupidita`’’’, Orpheus2 , 15 (1994), 119–53. —— ‘Come si forma la lingua. ChiariWcazioni sulla declinatio varroniana’, in P. Serra Zanetti (ed.), In verbis verum amare (Miscellanea dell’Istituto di Filologia Latina e Medioevale, Universita` di Bologna; Bologna, 1980), 135–42. —— ‘Due note sulla terminologia tecnica etimologico-grammaticale di Varrone’, GIF 12 (33) (1981), 209–19.

354

Bibliography

Cavazza, Franco, ‘L’etimologia classica: ‘‘Lautvera¨nderungen’’ e ‘‘grammatica nova’’’, Maia, 36 (1984), 21–35. —— ‘Gellio e i canoni (varroniani?) della Latinitas’, in Pierangiolo Berrettoni and Franco Lorenzi (eds.), Grammatica e ideologia nella storia della linguistica (Perugia, 1997), 85–151. —— ‘Gellio grammatico e i suoi rapporti con l’ars grammatica romana’, HL 13/2–3 (1986), 259–79; repr. in D. J. Taylor (ed.), The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (Amsterdam and Philadephia, 1987), 85–105. —— ‘Gli aggettivi in -i˘-ti˘mus ed il rapporto fra aedituus ed aeditumus, I’, Latomus, 54 (1995), 577–91. —— Lezioni di indoeuropeistica con particolare riguardo alle lingue classiche (sanscrito, greco, latino, gotico) (Pisa, 2001– ). —— Studio su Varrone etimologo e grammatico (Universita` di Bologna, Pubblicazione della Facolta` di Magistero2 , 7; Florence, 1981). —— ‘Un ‘‘nuovo Gellio’’: il problema di una nuova edizione e la questione dei codices recentiores (e dei Xorilegia)’, Maia, 51 (1999), 47–88; addendum, Maia, 56 (2004), 105–10. Celenza, Christopher, ‘Creating Canons in Fifteenth-Century Ferrara: Angelo Decembrio’s De politia litteraria, 1.10’, RenQ 57 (2004), 43–98. Champlin, Edward, Fronto and Antonine Rome (Cambridge, MA, 1980). Chantraine, Pierre, Dictionnaire e´tymologique de la langue grecque, 5 vols. (Paris, 1968–80). Chassant, Louis-Alphonse, Dictionnaire des abre´viations latines et françaises usiteés dans les inscriptions lapidaires et me´talliques, les manuscrits et les chartes du moyen aˆge, 5th edn. (Paris, 1884). Coleman, Robert, ‘Quintilian 1. 6 and the DeWnition of Latinitas’, in C. Moussy (ed.), De lingua Latina nouae quaestiones, 917–30. Coler, Christopher, Parergorum liber singularis (Nuremberg, 1597). Colie, Rosalie L., The Resources of Kind: Genre-Theory in the Renaissance (Berkeley, 1973). Collart, Jean, Varron grammairien latin (Paris, 1954). Cousin, Jean, ‘Proble`mes biographiques et litte´raires relatifs a` Quintilien’, REL 9 (1931), 62–76. Culler, Jonathan, Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature (London, 1975). Cupaiuolo, Teresa, La teoria della derivazione della lingua latina dall’eolico (Palermo, 1925). Curran, Brian, and Grafton, Anthony, ‘A Fifteenth-Century Site Report on the Vatican Obelisk’, JWI 58 (1995), 234–8. D’Agostino, Vittorio, ‘Aulo Gellio e le ‘‘Notti Attiche’’ ’, RSC 5 (1957), 26–34. Dahlmann, Hellfried, ‘Der ro¨mische Gelehrte’, Das humanistische Gymnasium, 42 (1931), 185–92; repr. in id., Kleine Schriften (Hildesheim, 1970), 1–8.

Bibliography

355

—— Ein Gedicht des Apuleius? (Gellius 19, 11) (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz: Abhandlungen der Geistesund Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 8; Wiesbaden, 1979). Dalmasso, Lorenzo, ‘Aulo Gellio lessicografo’, RFIC 51 (1923), 195–216, 468–84. Davidson, James, ‘Pleasure and Pedantry in Athenaeus’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 292–303. ¨ berlegungen zu den Gedichten und Gedichtbu¨Deichgra¨ber, Karl, ‘U chern der Neoteriker’, Hermes, 99 (1971), 46–70. Deiter, Heinrich, ‘Ein Tusculanen-codex der universita¨tsbibliothek zu Leiden aus dem 12. jahrhundert’, Philologus, 42 (1884), 171–3. Delisle, L. V., Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothe`que impe´riale/ nationale, 3 vols. (Paris, 1868–81). —— Inventaire des manuscrits de la BN, fonds de Cluni (Paris, 1884). Della Corte, Francesco, Svetonio, eques romanus2 (Florence, 1967). Del Vecchio, Luciana, and Fiore, A(nna) Maria, ‘Fabula in satura: osservazioni su alcuni frammenti delle Satire di Ennio’, InvLuc 20 (1998), 59–72. Desbordes, Françoise, ‘Latinitas: constitution et e´volution d’un mode`le d’identite´ linguistique’, in S. Saı¨d (ed.), ¯ºº Ø, 33–47. Di Bacco, Giuliano, and Na´das, John, ‘The Papal Chapels and Italian Sources of Polyphony during the Great Schism’, in Richard Sherr (ed.), Papal Music and Musicians in Medieval and Renaissance Rome (Oxford, 1998), 44–92. Dickey, Eleanor, Latin Forms of Address from Plautus to Apuleius (Oxford, 2002). Dihle, Albrecht, Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire, trans. Manfred Malzahn (London, 1994). Diller, Hans, ‘Die Hellenen-Barbaren-Antithese im Zeitalter der Perserkriege’, in Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur l’Antiquite´ classique, viii: Grecs et barbares (Vandœuvres-Geneva, 1962), 37–82; repr. in Kleine Schriften zur antiken Literatur, ed. H.-J. Newiger and Hans SeyVert (Munich, 1971), 419–50. Dionisotti, Carlo, ‘Calderini, Poliziano e altri’, IMU 11 (1968), 151–79. Dirksen, H. E., ‘Die Auszu¨ge aus den Schriften der ro¨mischen Rechtsgelehrten in den Noctes Atticae des A. Gellius’, Abhandlungen der Ko¨niglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philologische und historische Abtheilung, 1851, 29–77; repr. in Hinterlassene Schriften zur Kritik und Auslegung der Quellen ro¨mischer Rechtgeschichte und Alterthumskunde, ed. F. D. Sanio, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1871, repr. Frankfurt, 1973), i. 21–63. Dolbeau, François, ‘Un nouveau catalogue des manuscrits de Lobbes aux xie et xiie sie`cles’, Recherches augustiniennes, 13 (1978), 3–36; 14 (1979), 191–248. Donno, Elizabeth Story, ‘Old Mouse-Eaten Records: History in Sidney’s Apology’, Studies in Philology, 72 (1975), 275–98. ´ lvaro, ‘ ØŒØ — pittaciarium’, Aegyptus, 31 (1951) 339–43. D’Ors, A

356

Bibliography

Dowden, Ken, ‘The Roman Audience of the Golden Ass’, in James Tatum (ed.), The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore and London, 1994), 419–34. Dubuisson, Michel, ‘Art de voltige et ‘‘code-switching’’ (Apuleé, Me´tamorphoses I, 1, 5–6)’, Latomus, 59 (2000), 607–13. —— ‘Graecus, Graeculus, Graecari: l’emploi pe´joratif du nom des Grecs en latin’, in S. Saı¨d (ed.), ¯ºº Ø, 315–35. —— ‘Le latin est-il une langue barbare?’, Kte`ma, 9 (1984), 55–68. —— ‘Vtraque lingua’, AC 50 (1981), 274–86. Dumont, J.-C. ‘Plaute, Barbare et heureux de l’eˆtre’, Kte`ma, 9 (1984), 69–77. Earl, Donald, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, ANRW I 2 (1972), 842–56. Eck, Werner, ‘P. Aelius Apollonides, ab epistulis graecis, und ein Brief des Cornelius Fronto’, ZPE 91 (1992), 236–42. —— ‘M. Cornelius Fronto, Lehrer Marc Aurels, consul suVectus im J. 142’, RhM 2 141 (1998), 193–6. Elias, Norbert, The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, trans. Edmund Jephcott, rev. edn. (Oxford and Malden, MA, 2000). —— The Court Society, trans. Edmund Jephcott (New York, 1983). Ernout, Alfred, Les Adjectifs latins en -o¯sus et en -ulentus (Paris, 1949). —— ‘Les e´le´ments e´trusques du vocabulaire latin’, BSL 30 (1930), 82–124. —— Morphologie historique du latin3 (Paris, 1953). —— and Meillet, Antoine, Dictionnaire e´tymologique de la langue latine4 (Paris, 1967). Euw, Anton von, and Plotzek, Joachim M., Die Handschriften der Sammlung Ludwig, 4 vols. (Cologne, 1979–85). Faider, Paul, ‘Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum praefatio’, Museé belge, 3 (1927), 189–216. Falster, Christian, ‘Specimen Emendationum in A. Gellii Lib. I, II, III, & IIII. Edit. Gronov. 1706 in 4’, in J. G. Krause (ed.), Noua Litteraria anni M DCC XXI (Leipzig, 1721), 138–43. ´ tienne, Le Latin et le grec d’Appien (Geneva, 1998). Famerie, E Fanna, Fidelis a, Ratio novae collectionis operum omnium . . . S. Bonaventurae proxime in lucem edendae (Turin, 1874). Faucon, Maurice, La Librairie des papes d’Avignon, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886–7). Flobert, Pierre, ‘Lingua Latina et Lingua Romana: purisme, administration et Invasions Barbares’, Kte`ma, 13 (1988), 205–12. Fo¨gen, Thorsten, Patrii sermonis egestas: Einstellungen lateinischer Autoren zu ihrer Muttersprache (Beitra¨ge zur Altertumskunde, 150; Munich and Leipzig, 2000). Foot, Philippa, Natural Goodness (Oxford, 2001). Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, iii: The Care of the Self, trans. Robert Hurley (London, 1988).

Bibliography

357

Fowler, Alastair, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes (Cambridge, MA, 1982). Franceschini, Adriano, Artisti a Ferrara in eta` umanistica e rinascimentale: testimonianze archivistiche. Parte I dal 1346 al 1471 (Ferrara, 1993). Fredouille, J.-C., et al. (eds.), Titres et articulations du texte dans les œuvres antiques: actes du Colloque International de Chantilly 13–15 dećembre 1994 (Paris, 1997). Friderici, Robertus, De librorum antiquorum capitum divisione atque summariis: accedit de Catonis de agricultura libro disputatio (diss. Marburg, 1911). Frigge`, Daniela, ‘Redazioni e tradizione della ‘‘Politia litteraria’’ di Angelo Decembrio’, IMU 37 (1994), 27–65. Fritz, Kurt von, Pythagorean Politics in South Italy: An Analysis of the Sources (New York, 1940). Fruyt, Miche`le, ‘Me´taphore, me´tonymie et synecdoque dans le lexique latin’, Glotta, 67 (1989), 106–22. —— Proble`mes me´thodologiques de de´rivation a` propos des suYxes latin en ...cus (Paris, 1986). Fuhrmann, Manfred, Das systematische Lehrbuch: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike (Go¨ttingen, 1960). Fumagalli, Edoardo, ‘Appunti sulla biblioteca dei Visconti e degli Sforza’, Studi petrarcheschi, ns 7 (1990), 93–211. Gabba, Emilio, ‘Il latino come dialetto greco’, in AA. VV., Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni (Turin, 1963), 188–94. Gaide, Françoise, ‘Les de´rive´s synchroniques deńominaux collectifs en latin. Quelques e´le´ments pour une e´tude synchronique et diachronique’, RPh3 63 (1989), 221–8. Gamberale, Leopoldo, ‘Note sulla tradizione di Gellio’, RFIC 103 (1975), 33–55. —— La traduzione in Gellio (Rome, 1969). Gaos Schmidt, Amparo, ‘El plan rector de las Noches a´ticas’, Nova Tellus, 17 (1999), 109–24. Garcea, Alessandro, ‘Ce´sar et l’alphabet: un fragment du De analogia (fr. 4 p. 148 Funaioli ¼ 5 p. 179 s. Klotz)’, Histoire e´piste´mologie langage, 24/2 (2002), 147–64. —— ‘Gellio e la dialettica’, MAT 24 (2000), 53–204. —— ‘Gellio, il bilinguismo greco-latino e i nomi dei colori’, in R. Oniga (ed.), Il plurilinguismo nella tradizione letteraria latina (Rome, 2003), 173–98. Gardner-Chloros, Penelope, ‘Code-Switching in Relation to Language Contact and Convergence’, in Georges Lu¨di (ed.), Devenir bilingue — parler bilingue: actes du 2e colloque sur le bilinguisme, Universite´ de Neuchaˆtel, 20–22 septembre 1984 (Tu¨bingen, 1987), 99–111. Gautier Dalche´, Patrick, ‘Deux lectures et un commentaire de Jean Scot: Censorinus, Aulu-Gelle (livres I et III) et Be`de le Veńe´rable’, RHT 21 (1991), 115–33.

358

Bibliography

Gebhardus, Janus, Antiquarum lectionum libri duo (Herborn, 1618). Georgiev, V. I., Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages3 (SoWa, 1981). Gernet, Louis, ‘Notes de lexicologie juridique’, Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, 5 ¼ Me´langes E´mile Boisacq (Brussels, 1937), 391–8. Giomini, RaVaele, ‘Il grammatico Filosseno e la derivazione del latino dall’eolico’, PP 8 (1953), 365–76. Girgensohn, Dieter, ‘Il testamento di Pietro Miani (‘‘Emilianus’’) vescovo di Vicenza ({1433)’, Archivio veneto, 5th ser. 167 (1989), 5–59. Gleason, M. W., Making Men: Sophists and Self-Representation in Ancient Rome (Princeton, 1995). Goldmann, Artur, ‘Drei italienische Handschiftenkataloge s. XIII–XV’, Centralblatt fu¨r Bibliothekswesen, 4 (1887), 137–55. Gombrich, Ernst H., ‘From the Revival of Letters to the Reform of the Arts: Niccolo` Niccoli and Filippo Brunelleschi’, in Douglas Fraser, Howard Hibbard, and Milton J. Levine (eds.), Essays Presented to Rudolf Wittkower on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ii: Essays in the History of Art (London, 1967), 71–82. ¨ sterreichs, i: Gottlieb, Theodor, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge O Niedero¨sterreich (Vienna, 1915; repr. Aalen, 1974). Gradenwitz, Otto, Laterculi vocum Latinarum (Leipzig, 1904; repr. Hildesheim, 1966). Grafton, Anthony, Commerce with the Classics (Ann Arbor, 1997). Green, Peter, ‘Strepsiades, Socrates and the Abuses of Intellectualism’, GRBS 20 (1979), 15–25. Grilli, Alberto, ‘Sul nome dei Galli Cenomani’, Maia, 37 (1985), 245–7. Grillnberger, P. Otto, ‘Die Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek zu Wilhering’, in Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Cistercienser-Stifte, 2 vols. (Xenia Bernardina, Pars II; Vienna, 1891), ii. 1–114. Guillemin, Anne-Marie, Pline et la vie litte´raire de son temps (Paris, 1929). Gumbert, J. P., ‘Wanneer werkte C?’, in G. N. M. Vis (ed.), Egmond tussen Kerk en wereld (Hilversum, 1993), 183–91. Gundermann, Gotthold, ‘Gubernius. Gubernus’, ALL 7 (1892), 587–8. Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, 6 vols. (Cambridge, 1962–81). Gutie´rrez, David, ‘La Biblioteca di San Giovanni a Carbonara di Napoli’, Analecta Augustiniana, 29 (1966), 59–212. Gutzwiller, Kathryn J., Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context (Berkeley, 1998). Hadot, Pierre, The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, MA, 1998). —— What is Ancient Philosophy?, trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge, MA, 2002).

Bibliography

359

Ha¨fner, Ralph, ‘Philologische Festkultur in Hamburg im ersten Drittel des 18. Jahrhunderts: Fabricius, Brockes, Telemann’, in id. (ed.), Philologie und Erkenntnis: Beitra¨ge zu BegriV und Problem fru¨hneuzeitlicher ‘Philologie’ (Fru¨he Neuzeit, 61; Tu¨bingen, 2001), 349–78. Hagedorn, Dieter, and Weber, M., ‘Die griechisch-koptische Rezension der Menandersentenzen’, ZPE 3 (1968), 15–50. Ha¨gg, Tomas, The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford, 1983). Halfmann, Helmut, Die Senatoren aus dem o¨stlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. n. Chr. (Go¨ttingen, 1979). —— ‘Die Senatoren aus den kleinasiatischen Provinzen des ro¨mischen Reiches vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert (Asia, Pontus-Bithynia, Lycia-Pamphylia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Cilicia)’, in Atti del Colloquio Internazionale AIEG su epigraWa e ordine senatorio, Roma, 14–20 maggio 1981 (Tituli, 4–5; Rome, 1982), ii. 603–50. Hamel, Christopher de, and Nolden, Reiner, ‘Die neuerworbene Beda-Handschrift aus St. Maximin’, in Karolingische Handschriften — Beda-Handschriften und -Fru¨hdrucke (exhibition catalogue, Trier, 1990), 14–28. Hamp, E. P., ‘Latin arr(h)a’, Glotta, 63 (1985), 109. Hankins, Thomas L., and Silverman, Robert J., Instruments and the Imagination (Princeton, 1995). Hansen, William F., Ancient Greek Popular Literature (Bloomington, IN, 1998). —— Ariadne’s Thread: A Guide to International Tales Found in Classical Literature (Ithaca, NY, 2002). Harrison, S. J., Apuleius: A Latin Sophist (Oxford, 2000). —— ‘Apuleius Eroticus: Anth. Lat. 712 Riese’, Hermes, 120 (1992), 83–9. —— ‘The Milesian Tales and the Roman Novel’, Groningen Colloquia on the Novel, 9 (1998), 61–73. —— (ed.), Oxford Readings in the Roman Novel (Oxford, 1999). Henkel, Arthur, and Scho¨ne, Albrecht, Emblemata: Handbuch zur Sinnbildkunst des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1967; Sonderausgabe 1978). Henriksson, Karl-Eerik, Griechische Bu¨chertitel in der ro¨mischen Literatur (Helsinki, 1956). Heraeus, Wilhelm, ‘Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen’, in Kleine Schriften von Wilhelm Heraeus zum 75. Geburtstag am 4. Dezember 1937, ed. J. B. Hofmann (Indogermanische Bibliothek, dritte Reihe, Untersuchungen, 17; Heidelberg, 1937), 52–150 (superseding Wrst publication in Programm des Gymnasiums und der Realschule zu OVenbach a. M., Leipzig, 1899). Hijmans, B. L., jr., ‘Apuleius orator: ‘‘Pro se de Magia’’ and ‘‘Florida’’ ’, ANRW II 34. 2 (1994), 1708–84. Hirzel, Rudolf, Der Dialog: Ein literarhistorischer Versuch, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1895). Holford-Strevens, L. A., ‘Analecta Gelliana’, CQ2 43 (1993), 292–7.

360

Bibliography

Holford-Strevens, L. A.,‘ ‘‘And by the bitter taste disclose the ground’’ (Gell. I 21 on Verg. Georg. II 246f.)’, Eikasmos, 11 (2000), 309–34. ¨ berset—— ‘An Antonine Litte´rateur: The Case of Aulus Gellius’, in U zung, Translation, Traduction, i (Handbu¨cher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, forthcoming). —— Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement (Oxford, 2003) [1st edn. Aulus Gellius (London, 1988)]. —— ‘Aulus Gellius: The Non-Visual Portraitist’, in M. J. Edwards and S. Swain (eds.), Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1997), 93–116. —— ‘Fact and Fiction in Aulus Gellius’, LCM 7 (1982), 65–8. —— ‘Favorinus: The Man of Paradoxes’, in Jonathan Barnes and Miriam GriYn (eds.), Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome (Oxford, 1997), 188–217. —— ‘Gellius among the Friars Minor’, LCM 18.8 (Oct. 1993), 126–7. —— ‘Getting away with Murder: The Literary and Forensic Fortune of Two Roman Exempla’, IJCT 7 (2000–1), 484–514. —— ‘Vtraque lingua doctus: Some Notes on Bilingualism in the Roman Empire’, in H. D. Jocelyn (ed.), Tria Lustria: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent (Liverpool, 1993), 203–13. Honore´, Tony, Ulpian: Pioneer of Human Rights (Oxford, 2002). Horsfall, Nicholas, ‘Doctus sermones utriusque linguae?’, EMC 23 (1979), 79–95. —— ‘ ‘‘Generic Composition’’ and Petronius’ Satyricon’, SCI 11 (1991/ 2), 123–38. Hout, M. P. J. van den, A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto (Mnemosyne, Supp. 190; Leiden, 1999). Humphries, K. W., The Friars’ Libraries (Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues, 1; London, 1990). Ioppolo, Anna Maria, ‘The Academic Position of Favorinus of Arelate’, Phronesis, 38 (1993), 183–213. Irigoin, Jean, ‘Titres, sous-titres et sommaires dans les œuvres des historiens grecs du 1er sie`cle avant J.-C. au ve sie`cle apre`s J.-C.’, in J.-C. Fredouille et al. (eds.), Titres et articulations du texte, 127–34. Isager, Jacob, Pliny on Art and Society: The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art (Odense, 1991). Jacob, Christian, ‘Athenaeus the Librarian’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 85–110. Jaffe´, Philipp, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum, 6 vols. (Berlin, 1864–73). James, Montague Rhodes, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge, 1903). —— The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1900–4). Janocki, J. A. A., Specimen Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Zaluscianae (Dresden, 1752). Janson, Tore, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions (Stockholm, 1964).

Bibliography

361

Jones, C. P., Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, MA, 1986). —— ‘The Panhellenion’, Chiron, 26 (1996), 29–56. —— Plutarch and Rome (Oxford, 1971). Jones, R. E., ‘Cicero’s Accuracy of Characterization in his Dialogues’, AJPh 60 (1939), 307–23. Julien, Yvette, ‘Fronton: Histoire d’Arion. Du mythe a` l’aVaire judiciaire’, in Au miroir de la culture antique: Me´langes oVerts au pre´sident Rene´ Marache (Rennes, 1992), 323–38. Junghanns, Paul, Die Erza¨hlungstechnik von Apuleius’ Metamorphosen und ihrer Vorlage (Philologus Suppl. 24/1; Leipzig, 1932). Kahane, Ahuvia, and Laird, Andrew (eds.), A Companion to the Prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (Oxford, 2001). Kaimio, Jorma, The Romans and the Greek Language (Helsinki, 1979). Kang, Minsoo, ‘Wonders of Mathematical Magic: Lists of Automata in the Transition from Magic to Science, 1533–1662’, Comitatus, 33 (2002), 113–39. Kaster, Robert A., Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 11; Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1998). —— ‘ ‘‘Humanitas’’ and Roman Education’, SStor 9 (1986), 5–15. Kenney, E. J., ‘In the Mill with Slaves: Lucius Looks Back in Gratitude’, TAPhA 133 (2003), 159–92. Kent, J. H., Corinth VIII.3. The Inscriptions 1926–1950 (Princeton, 1966). Keulen, W. H., ‘Comic Invention and Superstitious Frenzy in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses: The Figure of Socrates as an Icon of Satirical SelfExposure’, AJPh 124 (2003), 107–35. —— ‘Lucius’ Kinship Diplomacy: Plutarchan ReXections in an Apuleian Character’, in Lukas de Blois et al. (eds.), Plutarch’s InXuence on Ancient and Modern Art and Literature: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the International Plutarch Society, Nijmegen/Hernen, May 1–5, 2002 (Leiden, 2004), 261–73. —— ‘Swordplay—Wordplay: Phraseology of Fiction in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, in S. Panayotakis, M. Zimmerman, and W. H. Keulen (eds.), The Ancient Novel and Beyond (Leiden, 2003), 161–70. Kleyn, H. G., ‘De catalogus der boeken van de abdij te Egmond’, Archief voor Nederlandsche kerkgeschiedenis, 2 (1887), 127–70. Knobloch, Johann, ‘Talabarriunculus — der kleine Schreihals’, RhM 2 136 (1993), 191–2. Ko¨nig, Jason, ‘Favorinus’ Corinthian Oration in its Corinthian Context’, PCPhS 47 (2001), 141–71. Konstan, David, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge, 1997). Kotula, Tadeusz, ‘Vtraque lingua eruditi. Une page relative a` l’histoire de l’e´ducation dans l’Afrique romaine’, in Jacqueline Bibauw (ed.), Hommages a` Marcel Renard, 3 vols. (Collection Latomus, 101–3; Brussels, 1969), ii. 386–92. ¨ . und die ro¨mische Religion’, Ko¨ves-Zulauf, Thomas, ‘Plinius d. A ANRW II 16. 1 (1978), 187–288.

362

Bibliography

Koziol, Heinrich, Der Stil des L. Apuleius (Vienna, 1872). Kramer, Johannes, Die Sprachbezeichnungen Latinus und Romanus im Lateinischen und Romanischen (Berlin, 1998). Kretzschmer, Julius, De A. Gellii fontibus. Part. I. De auctoribus A. Gellii grammaticis (Posen [Poznan´], 1860). Kristeller, Paul Oskar, Iter Italicum: accedunt alia itinera, 6 vols. (Leiden, 1963–92; index vol. Leiden, 1997). La Garanderie, Marie-Madeleine de, Christianisme et lettres profanes: essai sur l’humanisme français et sur la penseé de Guillaume Bude´ (Paris, 1995). Lachmann, Karl, In T. Lucretii Cari De rerum natura libros commentarius (Berlin, 1850; 2 1855, repr. New York and London, 1979). Lagercrantz, Otto, ‘Lateinische Worterkla¨rungen’, KZ 37 (2 17) (1904), 177–89. Lakmann, Marie-Luise, ‘Favorinus von Arelate: Aulus Gellius u¨ber seinen Lehrer’, in Beate Czapla et al. (eds.), Vir bonus dicendi peritus: Festschrift fu¨r Alfons Weische zum 65. Geburstag (Wiesbaden, 1997), 233–43. Lamberton, Robert, Homer the Theologian (Berkeley, 1986). Lampen, Willibrord, ‘De boekenlijst der oude Abdij van Egmond’, in A. Beekman (ed.), Tien eeuwen Egmond (Heemstede, 1950), 77–95. —— ‘Catalogus librorum abbatiae Sancti Adalberti Egmondanae’, Antonianum, 17 (1942), 29–72. Langlois, Pierre, ‘Les formations en -bundus: index et commentaire’, REL 39 (1961), 117–34. Lebek, W. D., Verba Prisca: Die Anfa¨nge des Archaisierens in der lateinischen Beredsamkeit und Geschichtsschreibung (Hypomnemata, 25; Go¨ttingen, 1970). Leedham-Green, Elisabeth, and McKitterick, David, ‘A Catalogue of Cambridge University Library in 1583’, in James P. Carley and Colin G. Tite (eds.), Books and Collectors 1200–1700: Essays Presented to Andrew Watson (The British Library Studies in the History of the Book; London, 1977), 153–235. Lejeune, Michel, ‘Discussions e´tymologiques’, REA 63 (1961), 433–8. Lenel, Otto, Palingenesia iuris civilis, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1889, repr. Graz, 1960). Leo`nij, Lorenzo, Inventario dei codici della Comunale di Todi (Todi, 1878). Leumann, Manu, ‘Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre 1955–1962’, Glotta, 42 (1964), 69–120. —— ‘Zum lat. InWn. fut. akt. auf -turum esse’, MSS 31 (1973), 129–31. Levine, Philip, ‘Cicero and the Literary Dialogue’, CJ 53 (1958), 146–51. Le´vy, Edmond, ‘Naissance du concept de barbare’, Kte´ma, 9 (1984), 5–14. Lindsay, W. M., Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin (Oxford, 1901).

Bibliography

363

Lippi, Donatella, ‘Magalia, magaria, mapalia (Verg., Aen. IV 259)’, Prometheus, 10 (1984), 241–2. Lipsius, Justus, Epistolicae quaestiones (Antwerp, 1577). Ljungerud, Ivar, ‘Ehren-Rettung M. Simonis Dachii’, Euphorion, 61 (1967), 36–84. Lomanto, Valeria, ‘Cesare e la teoria dell’eloquenza’, MAT 18–19 (1994–5), 3–127. —— ‘Il sistema del sermo Latinus in Quintiliano’, in Giorgio Ba`rberi Squarotti et al. (eds.), Voce di molte acque: miscellanea di studi oVerti a Eugenio Corsini (Turin, 1994), 237–56. Lucas, H., ‘Zu den Milesiaca des Aristides’, Philologus, 66 (1907), 16–35. Lu¨hr, F.-F., ‘Res inauditae, incredulae: Aspekte lateinischer Unterhaltungsliteratur bei Petronius, Plinius dem Ju¨ngeren und Gellius’, Der altsprachliche Unterricht, 19 (1976), 5–19. Lukinovich, Alessandra, ‘The Play of ReXections between Literary Form and the Sympotic Theme in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus’, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion (Oxford, 1990), 263–71. Luzzatto, Maria Jagoda, ‘Note su Aviano e sulle raccolte esopiche greco-latine’, Prometheus, 10 (1984), 75–94. Lyons, John D., Exemplum: The Rhetoric of Example in Early Modern France and Italy (Princeton, 1989). MacIntyre, Alasdair, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition (London and Notre Dame, IN, 1990). Magnien, Michel, ‘Anacreón, Ronsard et J.-C. Scaliger’, in Robert Aulotte et al. (eds.), Me´langes sur la litte´rature de la Renaissance a` la me´moire de V.-L. Saulnier (Geneva, 1984), 399–410. Magnien-Simonin, Catherine, ‘Montaigne et Aulu-Gelle’, Bulletin de la Socie´te´ des Amis de Montaigne7 , 41–2 (1995), 7–23. Maltby, Robert, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds, 1991). Manitius, Karl, Handschriften antiker Autoren in mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen (Zeitschrift fu¨r Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft 67; Leipzig, 1935). Manitius, Maximilian, ‘Gellius bei Vinzenz von Beauvais’, Philologus, 51 (1892), 189–91. —— ‘Philologisches aus alten Bibliothekskatalogen (bis 1300)’, RhM 2 47 (1892), suppl. 72–3. Manzoni, G. E., ‘Elvio Cinna, sodale cenomano’, in P. V. Cova et al. (eds.), Letteratura dell’Italia settentrionale: cinque studi (Milan, 1992), 17–59. Marache, Rene´, La Critique litte´raire de langue latine et le de´veloppement du gouˆt archaı¨sant au IIe sie`cle de notre e`re (Rennes, 1952). —— ‘La mise en sce`ne des Nuits attiques: Aulu-Gelle et la diatribe’, Pallas, 1 (1953), 84–95. —— Mots nouveaux et mots archa¨ıques chez Fronton et Aulu-Gelle (Paris, 1957).

364

Bibliography

Mare, A. C. de la, Marshall, P. K., and Rouse, Richard H., ‘Pietro da Montagnana and the Text of Aulus Gellius’, Scriptorium, 30 (1976), 219–25. Marećhal, A., ‘A propos de la pre´face des Nuits Attiques’, RPh2 55 (3 3) (1929), 288–93. Marrier, Martin, Bibliotheca Cluniacensis (Paris, 1614). Marrou, Henri-Ireńeé, A History of Education in Antiquity3 , trans. George Lamb (London, 1956). Marsh, David, The Quattrocento Dialogue: Classical Tradition and Humanist Innovation (Cambridge, MA, 1980). Marshall, P. K., ‘Aulus Gellius’, in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), 176–80. —— ‘Four Lexicographical Notes on Gellius’, Mnemosyne4 , 15 (1962), 272–4. —— Martin, Janet, and Rouse, Richard H., ‘Clare College MS. 26 and the Circulation of Aulus Gellius 1–7 in Medieval England and France’, Mediaeval Studies, 42 (1980), 353–94. Marstrander, Carl, ‘Les noms de deésses latin Morta, gaulois Rosmerta’, SO 6 (1928), 52–4. Martin, Henry, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothe`que de l’Arsenal, 9 vols. (Paris, 1885–99). Martin, Josef, Symposion: Die Geschichte einer literarischen Form (Paderborn, 1931). Maselli, Giorgio, Lingua e scuola in Gellio grammatico (Lecce, 1979). Maslakov, G., ‘The Roman Antiquarian Tradition in Late Antiquity’, in Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett (eds.), History and Historians in Late Antiquity (Sydney, 1983), 100–6. Mason, H. J., ‘The Distinction of Lucius in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, Phoenix, 37 (1983), 135–43. —— ‘Fabula graecanica: Apuleius and his Greek Sources’, in B. L. Hijmans and R. Th. van der Paardt (eds.), Aspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass (Groningen, 1978), 1–15; repr. in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Oxford Readings, 217–36. —— ‘The Metamorphoses of Apuleius and its Greek Sources’, in Heinz Hofmann (ed.), Latin Fiction: The Latin Novel in Context (London, 1999), 103–12. Mayr, Otto, ‘Automatenlegenden in der Spa¨trenaissance’, Technikgeschichte, 41 (1974), 20–32. Meeks, Wayne A., The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries (New Haven, 1993). Me´hat, Andre´, E´tudes sur les ‘Stromates’ de Cle´ment d’Alexandrie (Paris, 1966). Mensching, Eckart, Favorin von Arelate, Memorabilien und Omnigena Historia (Berlin, 1963). Mercer, R. G. G., The Teaching of Gasparino Barzizza, with Special Reference to his Place in Paduan Humanism (MHRA Texts and Dissertations, 10; London, 1979).

Bibliography

365

Mercklin, Ludwig, ‘Die Citiermethode und Quellenbenutzung des A. Gellius in den Noctes Atticae’, JbClPh, Supplbd. 3 (Leipzig, 1860), 635–710 (also issued separately). Metzger, Fritz, ‘Latin uxor’, AJPh 65 (1944), 170–1. Meyer, Gustav, and Burckhardt, Max, Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universita¨t Basel, Beschreibendes Verzeichnis: Abteilung B, Theologische Pergamenthandschriften, 3 vols. (Basle, 1960–75). Michel, Alain, ‘Rhe´torique et philosophie au second sie`cle ap. J.-C.’, ANRW II 34. 1 (Berlin, 1993), 3–78. Milazzo, Andrea, Aùlo Ge`llio, sua gente, sua terra natale, data della nascita e della morte (Palermo, 1938); repr. in Atti del V Congresso di Studi Romani, 5 vols. (Rome, 1939–46), v. 254–64. Miller, J. F., ‘Callimachus and the Augustan Aetiological Elegy’, ANRW II 30. 1 (1982), 371–417. Mo¨llendorV, P. von, Auf der Suche nach der verlogenen Wahrheit: Lukians Wahre Geschichten (Classica Monacensia, 21; Tu¨bingen, 2000). Momigliano, A. D., ‘Ancient History and the Antiquarian’, JWI 13 (1950), 285–315; repr. in id., Contributo alla storia degli studi classici (Rome, 1955), 67–106. Mommsen, Theodor, Abriß des ro¨mischen Staatsrechts (Leipzig, 1907). —— Ro¨misches Staatsrecht3 , 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1887–8). Monceaux, Paul, Les Africains: e´tude sur la litte´rature latine d’Afrique. Les Paıëns (Paris, 1894). Morgan, Teresa, ‘Assessment in Roman Education’, Assessment in Education, 8 (2001), 11–24. —— Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge, 1998). Mosellanus, Petrus, Annotationes in Auli Gellii Noctes Atticas (Basel, 1526, and subsequent edns.). Moss, Ann, Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought (Oxford, 1996). Mossman, Judith, ‘Plutarch’s Dinner of the Seven Wise Men and its Place in Symposion Literature’, in ead. (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual World, 119–40. —— (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual World (London, 1997). ´ douard, Linguistic Consequences of Mougeon, Raymond, and Beniak, E Language Contact and Restriction: The Case of French in Ontario, Canada (Oxford, 1991). Moussy, Claude (ed.), De lingua Latina nouae quaestiones: actes du X e Colloque international de linguistique latine (Leuven, Paris, and Sterling, VA, 2001). Mu¨ller, Roman, Sprachbewußtsein und Sprachvariation im lateinischen Schrifttum der Antike (Zetemata, 111; Munich, 2001). Munk Olsen, Birger, L’E´tude des auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e sie`cles, 3 vols. (Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, Documents, e´tudes et re´pertoires; Paris, 1982–9).

366

Bibliography

Mutschmann, Hermann, ‘Inhaltsangabe und Kapitelu¨berschrift im antiken Buch’, Hermes, 46 (1911), 93–107. Nascimento, Aires Augusto, ‘Poggio e o seu interesse por co´dices de Alcobaça’, Revista da Faculdade de Letras, Universidade de Lisboa5 , 13–14 (1990), 37–40. —— ‘La rećeption des auteurs classiques dans l’espace culturel portugais: une question ouverte’, in Claudio Leonardi and Birger Munk Olsen (eds.), The Classical Tradition in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Spoleto, 1995), 47–56. Nettleship, Henry, ‘The Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius’, AJPh 4 (1883), 391–415; repr. in id., Lectures and Essays on Subjects Connected with Latin Literature and Scholarship (Oxford, 1885), 248–76. Nichols, E. W., ‘The Semantics of the Termination -ario-’, AJPh 50 (1929), 40–63. Niedermann, Max, Phone´tique historique du latin4 (Paris, 1985). Nolhac, Pierre de, La Bibliothe`que de Fulvio Orsini (Paris, 1887). —— ‘Le catalogue de la premie`re bibliothe`que de Pe´trarque a` Vaucluse’, Revue des bibliothe`ques, 16 (1906), 341–3. Norden, Eduard, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance3 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1915). O’Brien Moore, Ainsworth, Senatus, RE Suppl. vi (1935), 660–800. Ohl, Raymond, ‘A Literateur in the Age of the Antonines’, Classical Weekly, 20 (1927), 99–105. Onions, J. H., ‘Notes on Gellius’, Journal of Philology, 11 (1882), 77–9. Opsomer, Jan, ‘Favorinus versus Epictetus on the Philosophical Heritage of Plutarch: A Debate on Epistemology’, in J. Mossman (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual World, 17–39. Otto, August, Die Sprichwo¨rter und sprichwo¨rtlichen Redensarten der Ro¨mer (Leipzig, 1890). Paardt, R. Th. van der, ‘The Unmasked ‘‘I’’: Apuleius’ Metamorphoses XI.27’, Mnemosyne4 , 34 (1981), 96–106; repr. in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Oxford Readings, 237–46. Packer, J. E., The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments in Brief (Berkeley, 2001). ´ ngel, ‘Sobre los compuestos nominales latinos con preWjo de Pariente, A valor intensivo’, Emerita, 47 (1979), 113–48. Pascucci, Giovanni, ‘Le componenti linguistiche del latino secondo la dottrina varroniana’, in AA. VV., Studi su Varrone, sulla retorica, storiograWa e poesia latina: Scritti in onore di Benedetto Riposati (Rieti, 1979), ii. 339–63. ´ lisabeth, La Bibliothe`que des Visconti et des Sforza (Paris, Pellegrin, E 1955). —— La Bibliothe`que des Visconti et des Sforza, Supple´ment (Paris, 1969). —— ‘Manuscrits d’auteurs latins de l’e´poque classique conserve´s dans les bibliothe`ques publiques de Sue`de’, Bulletin d’information de l’Institut de Recherche et d’histoire des textes, 4 (1955), 7–33.

Bibliography

367

—— et al., Les Manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothe`que Vaticane, 3 vols. so far (Paris, 1975– ). Pennacini, Adriano, La funzione dell’arcaismo e del neologismo nelle teorie della prosa da CorniWcio a Frontone (Turin, 1974). Penwill, J. L., ‘Ambages reciprocae: Reviewing Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, Ramus, 19 (1990), 1–25. Perrot, Jean, Les De´rive´s latins en -men et -mentum (Paris, 1961). Perry, B. E., The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical Account of Their Origins (Sather Classical Lectures, 37; Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967). Perry, Jon Pearson, ‘A Fifteenth-Century Dialogue on Literary Taste: Angelo Decembrio’s Account of Playwright Ugolino Pisani at the Court of Leonello d’Este’, RenQ 39 (1986), 613–43. Peter, Hermann, Die geschichtliche Litteratur u¨ber die ro¨mische Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I. und ihre Quellen (Leipzig, 1897). Petitmengin, Pierre, ‘Capitula paıëns et chre´tiens’, in J.-C. Fredouille et al. (eds.), Titres et articulations du texte, 491–507. Petrochilos, Nicholas, Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens, 1974). Petzholdt, Julius, ‘Bibliothekskatalog des Bamberger Domkapitels aus dem XIII. Jahrhundert’, Neuer Anzeiger fu¨r Bibliographie und Bibliothekswissenschaft, 1877, 276–7. Pfeiffer, Rudolf, History of Classical Scholarship, i: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968). —— History of Classical Scholarship, ii: From 1300 to 1850 (Oxford, 1976). —— ‘Ku¨chenlatein’, Philologus, 86 (1931), 455–9; repr. in id., Ausgewa¨hlte Schriften, ed. Winfried Bu¨hler (Munich, 1960), 183–7. Pfohl, Gerhard (ed.), Griechische Inschriften als Zeugnisse des privaten und o¨Ventlichen Lebens (Munich, 1965). Pianezzola, Emilio, Gli aggettivi verbali in -bundus (Florence, 1965). Poignault, Re´my, ‘Les re´fe´rences a` Lucre`ce chez Quintilien, Fronton et Aulu-Gelle’, in id. (ed.), Pre´sence de Lucre`ce (Tours, 1999), 177–98. Pokorny, Julius, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wo¨rterbuch, 2 vols. (Bern and Munich, 1959–69). Portalupi, Felicita, Frontone, Gellio, Apuleio: ricerca stilistica (Turin, 1974). —— Marco Cornelio Frontone (Turin, 1961). Powell, J. G. F., ‘Cicero’s Translations from Greek’, in id. (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers (Oxford, 1995), 273–300. Pugliara, Monica, ‘La colomba di Archita’, in Eugenio Lo Sardo (ed.), Athanasius Kircher: il museo del mondo (Rome, 2001), 253–5. Pugliarello, Mariarosaria, ‘Disparilitas e memoria nella trama delle Noctes Atticae’, Serta antiqua et mediaevalia, 1 (Genoa, 1997), 95–109. Raine, James, Catalogi veteres librorum cathedralis Dunelm (Surtees Society, 7; London, 1838). Ramat, Paolo, ‘L’etimologia del nome latino ‘‘Morta’’ ’, AGI 45 (1960), 61–7.

368

Bibliography

Ranke, Kurt, ‘Androklus und der Lo¨we (AaTh 156)’, in id., Enzyklopa¨die des Ma¨rchens, i (Berlin, 1977), 501–8. Rawson, Elizabeth, ‘Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian’, JRS 62 (1972), 33–45; repr. in ead., Roman Culture and Society, 58–79. —— Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London, 1985) . —— ‘The Introduction of Logical Organisation in Roman Prose Literature’, PBSR 46 (1978), 12–34; repr. in ead., Roman Culture and Society, 324–51. —— Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers, ed. Fergus Millar (Oxford, 1991). Reitzenstein, Richard, Verrianische Forschungen (Breslauer Philologische Abhandlungen, 1. Band, 4. Heft; Breslau, 1887). Relihan, J. C., Ancient Menippean Satire (Baltimore and London, 1993). Reynolds, L. D. (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983). Riedweg, Christoph, ‘Archytas [1, aus Tarent]’, Der neue Pauly, i (1996), 1029–31. Riginos, Alice Swift, Platonica: The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings of Plato (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 3: Leiden, 1976). Rizzo, Silvia, Il lessico Wlologico degli umanisti (Sussidi eruditi, 26; Rome, 1984). Robinson, J. Armitage, and James, Montague Rhodes, The Manuscripts of Westminster Abbey (Cambridge, 1909). Rochette, Bruno, Le Latin dans le monde grec: Recherches sur la diVusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces helleńophones de l’Empire romain (Collection Latomus, 233; Brussels, 1997). —— ‘Latinitas — peregrinitas: purisme et nationalisme linguistique chez les auteurs latins’, Orbis, 40 (1988), 97–110. —— ‘Les ØŒ et les ÆæÆæØŒa O ÆÆ dans les theóries linguistiques grećo-latines’, AC 65 (1996), 91–105. Romeri, Luciana, ‘The º ªØ : Athenaeus between Banquet and Anti-Banquet’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 256–71. Roth, Francis, The English Austin Friars 1249–1538, i: History, ii: Sources (Cassiciacum, 6–7; New York, 1966 and 1961 respectively). —— ‘A History of the English Austin Friars (continuation)’, Augustiniana, 16 (1966), 446–519. Rouse, Mary A. and Richard H., Authentic Witnesses (Notre Dame, IN, 1991). Rowland, Ingrid, Ecstatic Journey: Athanasius Kircher in Baroque Rome (Chicago, 2000). Rubio Fernańdez, Lisardo, Cata´logo de los manuscritos cla´sicos latinos existentes en Espanã (Madrid, 1984). Ruske, L. L., De A. Gellii noctium Atticarum fontibus quaestiones selectae (Glatz [¼ Kłodzko], 1883). Russell, D. A., Plutarch (London, 1973).

Bibliography

369

Sabbadini, Remigio, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV, rev. Eugenio Garin, 2 vols. (Florence, 1967). —— La scuola et gli studi di Guarino Guarini Veronese (Catania, 1896), repr. in id., Guariniana, ed. Mario Sancipriano, 2 vols. in 1 (Turin, 1964), vol. ii. SaI¨d, Suzanne (ed.), ¯ ºº Ø: quelques jalons pour une histoire de l’identite´ grecque. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 25–27 octobre 1989 (Leiden, 1991). Samaran, Charles, La Maison d’Armagnac au XVe sie`cle et les dernie`res luttes de la feódalite´ dans le Midi de la France (Paris, 1907). Sandy, Gerald N., The Greek World of Apuleius: Apuleius and the Second Sophistic (Mnemosyne, Supp. 174; Leiden, 1997). —— ‘West meets East: Western Students in Athens in the Mid-Second Century a.d.’, in Heinz Hofmann (ed.), Groningen Colloquia on the Novel, 5 (1993), 163–73. Saxl, Fritz, ‘Veritas Wlia Temporis’, in Raymond Klibansky and R. J. Paton (eds.), Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer (Oxford, 1936), 197–222. Schepens, Guido, and Delcroix, Kris, ‘Ancient Paradoxography: Origin, Evolution, Production, and Reception’, in Oronzo Pecere and Antonio Stramaglia, La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino: Atti del convegno internazionale (Cassino, 14–17 settembre 1994) (Cassino, 1996), 373–460. Schindel, Ulrich, ‘Archaismus als EpochenbegriV zum Selbversta¨ndnis des 2. Jhs.’, Hermes, 122 (1994), 327–41. Schmidt, Ludwig, ‘Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Studien in sa¨chsischen Klo¨stern’, Neues Archiv fu¨r sa¨chsiche Geschichte, 18 (1897), 201–72. Schneyer, J. B., Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters fu¨r die Zeit von 1150—1350, 11 vols. (Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Texte und Untersuchungen, 43; Mu¨nster, 1969–90). Scho¨ll, Fritz, ‘Zur lateinischen Wortforschung’, IF 31 (1912–13), 309–20. Scho¨psdau, Klaus, ‘Vergleiche zwischen Lateinisch und Griechisch in der antiken Sprachwissenschaft’, in C. W. Mu¨ller, K. Sier, and J. Werner (eds), Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der griechischro¨mischen Antike (Stuttgart, 1992), 115–36. Schulze, Wilhelm, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Go¨ttingen, 1904). Scipioni, Silvia, I codici umanistici di Gellio (Edizioni di storia e letteratura; Rome, 2003). Sedley, David, ‘Lucretius’ Use and Avoidance of Greek’, in J. N. Adams and R. G. Mayer (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry (London, 1999), 227–46. Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966, 2 1985).

370

Bibliography

Sidney, Sir Philip, Complete Works, ed. Albert Feuillerat, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1912–23). Sihler, A. L., New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (New York and Oxford, 1995). Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics2 (Cambridge, 1993). Skidmore, Clive, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus (Exeter, 1996). Skydsgaard, J. E., Varro the Scholar: Studies in the First Book of Varro’s De Re Rustica (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici IV, Supplementum; Copenhagen, 1968). Small, Jocelyn Penny, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London and New York, 1997). Smith, Malcolm C., ‘A Sixteenth-Century Anti-Theist’, Bibliothe`que d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 53 (1991), 593–618. Soverini, Paolo (1994), ‘Aspetti e problemi delle teorie retoriche frontoniane’, ANRW II 34. 2, 919–1004. Spawforth, A. J. S., ‘Corinth, Argos, and the Imperial Cult: PseudoJulian, Letters 198’, Hesperia, 63 (1994), 211–32. —— ‘The Panhellenion Again’, Chiron, 29 (1999), 339–52. Stein, Arthur, Ro¨mische Inschriften in der antiken Literatur (Prague, 1931). Steinmetz, Peter, Untersuchungen zur ro¨mischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrhunderts nach Christi Geburt (Wiesbaden, 1982). Stevenson, A. J., ‘Aulus Gellius and Roman Antiquarian Writing’ (Ph.D. diss., London, 1993). Stolz, Friedrich, Schmalz, J. H., Leumann, Manu, and Hofmann, J. B., Lateinische Grammatik, 2 vols. (Munich, 1926–8). Stolzenberg, Daniel (ed.), The Great Art of Knowing: The Baroque Encyclopedia of Athanasius Kircher (Stanford, CA, 2001). Strzelecki, WŁadysŁaw, Quaestiones Verrianae (Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, wydział 1, no. 13; Warsaw, 1932). Sumner, G. V., review of T. P. Wiseman, Cinna the Poet, in Phoenix, 29 (1975), 392–8. Swain, Simon, ‘Apuleius Sophista’ (review of S. J. Harrison, Apuleius: A Latin Sophist), CR2 51 (2001), 269–70. —— ‘Bilingualism in Cicero? The Evidence of Code-Switching’, in J. N. Adams, M. Janse, and S. Swain, Bilingualism, 128–67. —— Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, ad 50–250 (Oxford, 1996). —— ‘Plutarch’s Moral Program’, in S. B. Pomeroy (ed.), Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom and A Consolation to His Wife (New York, 1999), 85–96. —— ‘The Hiding Author: Context and Implication’, in A. Kahane and A. Laird (eds.), A Companion, 55–63. Szemereńyi, Oswald, Einfu¨hrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft4 (Darmstadt, 1990).

Bibliography

371

—— ‘The Latin Adjectives in -ulentus’, Glotta, 33 (1954), 266–82. —— Syncope in Greek and Indo-European and the Nature of IndoEuropean Accent (Naples, 1964). Tarrant, H. A. S, ‘Platonic Interpretation in Aulus Gellius’, GRBS 37 (1996), 173–93. Tempesti, A. M., ‘Quinto Terenzio Scauro, grammatico adrianeo’, SRIL 1 (1977), 175–220. Tervarent, Guy de, Attributs et symboles dans l’art profane 1450–1600: Dictionnaire d’un langage perdu (Geneva, 1959, suppl. 1964). Thomson, Rodney M., William of Malmesbury, rev. edn. (Woodbridge, 2003). Toner, J. P., Leisure and Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1995). Traglia, Antonio, Poetae noui2 (Rome, 1974). Traina, Alfonso, ‘Le traduzioni’, in Guglielmo Cavallo, Paolo Fedeli, Andrea Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, ii: La circolazione del testo (Rome, 1990), 93–123. Tristano, Caterina, La biblioteca di un umanista calabrese, Aulo Giano Parrasio (Manziano, [1988]). Truhla´rˇ, Josef, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Latinorum qui in C. R. Bibliotheca Publica atque Universitatis Pragensis asservantur, 2 vols. (Prague, 1905–6). Tuerk, Egbert, ‘Macrobe et les Nuits Attiques’, Latomus, 24 (1965), 381–406. Vainio, Raija, Latinitas and Barbarisms according to the Roman Grammarians: Attitudes towards Language in the Light of Grammatical Examples (Turku, 1999). Vardi, Amiel, ‘An Anthology of Early Latin Epigrams? A Ghost Reconsidered’, CQ2 50 (2000), 147–58. —— ‘A Book of Verse Beneath a Bough: Literature for Recreation in the Early Principate’, SCI 21 (2002), 83–96. —— ‘Brevity, Conciseness, and Compression in Roman Poetic Criticism and the Text of Gellius’ Noctes Atticae 19.9.30’, AJPh 121 (2000), 291–8. —— ‘Gellius Against the Professors’, ZPE 137 (2001), 41–54. —— ‘Why Attic Nights? or What’s in a Name?’, CQ2 43 (1993), 298–301. Verdie`re, Raoul, ‘L’euphe´misme amoureux dans les sobriquets fe´minins a` Rome’, GIF 11 (1958), 160–6. Veyne, Paul, ‘La famille et l’amour sous le Haut-Empire romain’, Annales E.S.C. 33 (1978), 35–63; repr. in id., La Socie´te´ romaine (Paris, 1991), 88–130. —— ‘The Roman Empire’, in id. (ed.), A History of Private Life [series eds. Philippe Arie`s and Georges Duby], i: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA, 1987), 5–234. Villey, Pierre, Les Sources et l’e´volution des Essais de Montaigne2 (Paris, 1933). Vitale, M. T., ‘Cesellio Vindice’, SRIL 1 (1977), 221–58.

372

Bibliography

Vogel, Theodor, ‘De Noctium Atticarum A. Gellii compositione’, in Philologische Abhandlungen Martin Hertz zum siebzigsten Geburtstage von ehemaligen Schu¨len dargebracht (Berlin, 1888), 1–13. Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1957–79). Walde, Alois, and Hofmann, J. B., Lateinisches etymologisches W o¨ rterbuch3 , 2 vols. (Heidelberg, 1938–54). Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, Suetonius: The Scholar and his Caesars (London, 1983). Watson, L. C., ‘Cinna and Euphorion’, SIFC 54 (1982), 93–110. Wenskus, Otta, ‘Markieren der Basissprache in lateinischen Texten mit griechischen Einschaltungen und Entlehnungen’, IF 101 (1996), 233–57. —— ‘Triggering und Einschaltung griechischer Formen in lateinischer Prosa’, IF 100 (1995), 172–92. ——‘Wie schreibt man einer Dame? Zum Problem der Sprachwahl in der ro¨mischen Epistolographie’, WS 114 (2001), 215–32. Whitmarsh, Tim, ‘The Politics and Poetics of Parasitism: Athenaeus on Parasites and Flatterers’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 304–15. Wieacker, Franz, Ro¨mische Rechtsgeschichte. Quellenkunde, Rechtsbildung, Jurisprudenz und Rechtsliteratur (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 10. 3. 1. 1; Munich, 1988). Wijn, Henrik van, Huiszittend Leeven, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1801–12). Wilkins, John, ‘Dialogue and Comedy: The Structure of the Deipnosophistae’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, 23–37. Wilkinson, L. P., Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge, 1963). Williams, Bernard, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (London, 1985). Wind, Edgar, ‘Aenigma Termini’, JWI 1 (1937–8), 66–9; repr. as ‘aenigma termini: The Emblem of Erasmus of Rotterdam’ with expanded notes in id., The Eloquence of Symbols: Studies in Humanist Art, ed. Jaynie Anderson (Oxford, 1993; 1 1983), 77–82. —— Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (London, 2 1967, repr. 1968; repr. Oxford, 1980). Wiseman, T. P., Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays (Leicester, 1974). Wisse, Jakob, ‘Greeks, Romans, and the Rise of Atticism’, in J. G. J. Abbenes, S. P. Slings, and Ineke Sluiter (eds.), Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle: A Collection of Papers in Honour of D. M. Schenkeveld (Amsterdam, 1995), 65–82. Wood, Antony, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. Philip Bliss, 4 vols. (London, 1813–20). Wyatt, W. F., Jr., Indo-European /a/ (Philadelphia, 1970). Yates, Frances, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London, 1964, 2 2002).

Bibliography

373

Yoder, Edward, ‘A Second-Century Classical Scholar’, CJ 33 (1938), 280–94. Zambelli, Paola, ‘Cornelius Agrippa, ein kritischer Magus’, in August Buck (ed.), Die okkulten Wissenschaften in der Renaissance (Wiesbaden, 1992), 65–89. Zanker, Paul, The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity, trans. Alan Shapiro (Sather Classical Lectures, 59; Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, 1995). Zazzeri, Raimondo, Sui codici e libri a stampa della Biblioteca Malatestiana di Cesena (Cesena, 1887). Zetterberg, J. Peter, ‘The Mistaking of ‘‘the Mathematicks’’ for Magic in Tudor and Stuart England’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 11/1 (1980), 83–97. Zetzel, J. E. G., Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity (New York, 1981). Ziino, Agostino, Il Codice T. III. 2: Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria (Lucca, 1994). Zimmermann, August, ‘Zu aua¯rus, ama¯rus, ca¯rus’, KZ 38 (2 18) (1905), 502–3. Zoll, Gallus, Cicero Platonis aemulus: Untersuchung u¨ber die Form von Ciceros Dialogen, besonders De Oratore (Zurich, 1962).


Index Locorum Potiorum loci gelliani pr. (at large): 29, 316 pr. 1–3: 172–3, 225–6 pr. 1: 172–3, 189–90 pr. 2: 136, 215–17, 298, 324, 326 pr. 4–9: 126, 160–1 pr. 4: 125–6 pr. 5: 164, 239, 299 pr. 11–12: 162 pr. 11: 216 pr. 12: 167, 169, 182, 189, 207, 214, 216, 219, 237, 239, 284 pr. 13: 169, 189, 190, 218, 221 pr. 16: 34, 172, 200, 215, 216, 220 pr. 17–18: 213 pr. 17: 169, 173 pr. 19: 220, 221 pr. 20: 233 pr. 21: 221 pr. 23–4: 317 pr. 23: 182, 184 pr. 24: 220, 221 pr. 25: 127, 176 1. 1: 190–1 1. 1. 1: 225 1. 1. 2: 285, 287, 293, 300 1. 2: 37, 113–14, 193, 210, 298 1. 2. 4: 233 1. 7: 292, 334 1. 8: 106, 291, 292, 301 1. 10. 4: 306 1. 12: 302 1. 15. 3: 193 1. 15: 298, 307 1. 18. 5: 69–72 1. 19: 107–8 1. 23: 107 1. 26. 5–9: 313–14, 317

2. 2. 1: 184 2. 3: 333, 335 2. 20: 72–4 2. 21. 8–9: 141 2. 22: 32 2. 25: 212 2. 26: 32 2. 26. 1: 191, 192–3 2. 27: 194 2. 28: 147, 288, 303 2. 29: 113 3. 4: 291 3. 6: 249–58 3. 12: 54–5 3. 15: 296, 300, 301, 304, 309 3. 16: 304–5 3. 16. 11: 68, 74–6 4. 1: 32–3, 191, 218 4. 9: 55 n. 38, 76–7 5. 2: 290, 310 5. 3: 311 5. 5: 313 5. 12: 294 5. 13: 200 5. 14: 112–13, 238, 240, 294, 301, 302, 307, 314 5. 15–16: 194, 212 6. 1: 301 6. 3: 193–4 6. 5: 107 6. 7. 12: 78–9 6. 8: 107 6. 11. 8: 79–80 6. 12: 106

376

Index Locorum Potiorum

6. 17: 80–2, 211 6. 18: 106 7. 4: 106 7. 8: 106 7. 12: 82–5 7. 13: 209 8. 2: 85 8. 13: 85–7 8. 14: 191 9. 2: 115 9. 4: 302–3, 329, 339 n. 51 9. 4. 3: 126 9. 4. 5: 174 9. 4. 13: 138, 238, 240, 241 9. 10: 316 9. 14: 335 9. 16. 3: 238 10. 2: 296, 303 10. 2. 9–10: 338–41 10. 5: 87–8 10. 12. 1: 207 10. 17: 297, 300, 301 10. 17. 2: 52–5 10. 19. 3: 193 10. 22: 227 10. 22. 3: 38 10. 22. 24: 194–5 11. 1. 6: 291 11. 7. 3: 43 11. 15: 55, 88–90 11. 18: 154, 195, 203 12. 1: 34, 190, 288, 289, 295–6, 309 n. 58 12. 2: 292, 299 12. 3: 90–1 12. 4: 200 12. 6: 300, 333 12. 7: 305–6, 310 13. 8. 1–3: 216 13. 9: 91–3

13. 9. 2–3: 161 13. 11: 311 13. 18. 2: 183–4 13. 22. 1: 193 13. 25: 33 13. 29: 33 14. 1: 34 14. 2: 34 14. 2. 25: 139–40 14. 5: 114, 212 14. 6. 1: 161–2 14. 7: 137 15. 1. 6–7: 302 15. 3: 93–5 15. 4: 112–13, 301 15. 10: 300, 301, 311 15. 16: 292, 300, 304 16. 5. 1: 218 16. 7: 55–63, 293 16. 7. 1–3: 55–7 16. 7. 4–9: 57–61 16. 7. 10–12: 52, 61–2 16. 7. 13–14: 62–3 16. 7. 13: 96–7 16. 19: 108–12 17. 2. 4: 97–8 17. 2. 5–6: 98–9 17. 10: 34 17. 20. 4: 243 18. 1. 2: 182 18. 4. 1: 228 18. 6. 1–3: 39 18. 6. 3: 152–3 18. 7: 227, 242–3 19. 1: 303, 310, 320 19. 7. 2: 215 19. 7. 3: 99–100 19. 7. 4–5: 100–1 19. 7. 12: 206 19. 8. 2: 35 19. 8. 6: 140

Index Locorum Potiorum 19. 8. 15: 329 19. 9: 36, 224 19. 9. 6: 300 19. 9. 10–14: 291 19. 10. 14: 233 19. 11: 38, 224 19. 13: 35–6, 41–52, 63–4, 218–19 20. 1: 31–2 20. 1. 9: 140 20. 1. 54: 300 20. 6: 334

loci alieni Aelian Nat. anim. 7. 48: 112–13 Apuleius Apologia 9: 224 Metamorphoses 1. 1: 14–16 1. 1. 1–6: 236–8 1. 2. 1: 225, 232 1. 3. 2–3: 232 1. 4. 2: 240 1. 8. 2: 231–2 9. 13. 5: 237 Aristophanes Ranae 354–6, 369–71: 221, 233–4 Bonaventure (Ps.-) Sermo, Quaracchi edn. ix. 281–9: 259–62 Cicero De oratore 3. 93–5: 4 Epistulae ad Atticum 6. 4. 3: 26 6. 5. 1–2: 26

377

Epistulae ad familiares 7. 25. 1: 57–8 Orator 160: 44 Rep. 1. 38: 124 ‘Dio of Prusa’ Oratio 37 [really Favorinus]: 30–1 Fronto Ad amicos 1. 2: 22 Additamentum epistularum 4–5: 23–5 7: 21 8: 20 Arion: 108–11 De eloquentia 4. 4: 42 Epistulae ad M. Caesarem et invicem 1. 3: 19 1. 6: 26 2. 1: 26 2. 2: 22 2. 3: 22–3 2. 5. 1: 19–20 2. 10. 3: 21 2. 15: 23 3. 2: 25 3. 3: 25 3. 4: 25 3. 9. 2: 20 4. 3. 2–3: 43 Epistulae ad Antoninum Imperatorem et invicem 1. 4. 2: 21 8: 21–2 Epistulae ad Verum imperatorem et invicem 1. 12. 3: 26 Heracleitus DK 22 B 40: 207, 237 Herodotus 1. 23–4: 108–12

378 John of Salisbury Policraticus 4. 11: 262–5 5. 6: 252–3 Lucian Dialogi maritimi 5 Macleod: 112 Vera Historia 1. 3–4: 240 Macrobius Saturnalia 1. pr. 2–3, 10: 127 3. 4. 3: 141 Philostratus Vitae Sophistarum 481: 11 507: 11 578: 115 Pliny the Elder Natural History pr. 10: 127 pr. 12–13: 171 pr. 17: 137 pr. 18: 126 pr. 24: 126, 160 pr. 25: 307 pr. 26: 126 pr. 33: 127, 174–5 35. 89: 61 Pliny the Younger Epistulae 1. 1. 1: 173 4. 3. 5: 8

Index Locorum Potiorum 4. 11. 1–3: 8 4. 22: 8 5. 20. 4: 8 7. 4. 9: 9 8. 24: 7–8 9. 33: 107 Plutarch Quaestiones conuiuales 8. 5. 4: 249, 250 Quaestiones naturales 32: 256 Septem sapientium conuiuium 18: 112 Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 1. 1. 12–14: 14–15 12. 10: 7 Seneca the Elder Controversiae 1. pr. 6: 6 9. 1. 13–14: 6 10. 4. 21, 23: 6 10. 5: 107 Suasoriae 4. 5: 6 7. 12–13: 6 Seneca the Younger Epistulae morales 108. 30–1: 124 Vergil Aeneid 8. 404–6: 316

Index Verborum de quibus A. Gellius disputat abluuium 56, 63 admodum 78–9 adprime 79, 98 adulterio, -ritas 56, 63 apiarium 72–4 au- 93–6, 102 n. 102 auarus 87–8 autumo 93–6 botulus 61, 62, 63 -bundus 55, 89–90 Calidonia 58–9 camella 58, 60, 63 capitium 58, 60–1, 63 catomum 57–8, 63 cippus 58, 59–60, 63 cocio 61, 62, 63 cumprime 98–9 cupso 85–7 depudicare 56, 63 diurnare 98–9 elutriare 58, 63 emplastrum 62, 63, 96–7 foedifragus 100–1 frunisci 98–9 fullonica 58–9, 63 fur 69–72 gubernius 61, 63 gurdus 46 n. 13, 58–9, 63 lauandaria 58, 63 -lentus (-o/ulentus) 89–90 leporarium 72–4 leuenna 61, 62, 63

lictor 90–1 malaxare 58, 59, 63 manuari, -arius 56–7, 63 mendicimonium 56, 63 -mentum 68 n. 9, 82–5 moechimonium 56, 63 Morta 68, 74–6 nanus 35, 41–52, 61, 63, 64, 96, 219 nequitia 79–80 obba 58, 60, 63 obesus 99–100 obnoxius 80–2 -osus 54–5 and n. 38, 68–9, 76–8 perennare 98–9 piscina 72–3 pittacium 58, 60–1, 63 planus 61–2, 63 praemodum 78–9 pumilio 41–2, 44, 61 see also nanus roborarium 72–4 sacellum 83–5 somnus 91–3 subnixus 97–8 subulcus 91–2 suculae 91–3 super 91–2 supinus 91–2 talabarrio, -unculus 58–9, 63 testamentum 82–4 uiuarium 72–4

Index Rerum et Nominum abbreviations, ancient lists of 134–5 Academic philosophy, see under Gellius; philosophy; scepticism accentuation 47, 78–9 Accius 42, 43 Aelian 40, 111–12, 167, 171, 172, 298 Aelius Melissus 152 Aelius Stilo, L. 45, 68, 69, 119 Aeolic dialect 45–6 Agricola, Rudolf 324 Agrippa, Henry Cornelius 339 Albert, Heinrich, see ‘Anke van Tharaw’ Alberti, Leon Battista 322, 323 Alciato, Andrea 256–7 Aleander, Hieronymus 283 Alexander III, king of Macedon 190, 204, 262–3, 301, 310 chastity of 106, 201, 301 Alexander V (Pietro Filargi), Pope 271 Alfonso, bishop of Burgos 321 Alfonso V, king of Aragon (I of Naples) 328, 335 alternative views, presentation of 139–41, 211–12 amateurism 185 Androcles (Androclus, ‘Androdus’) 112–13, 294, 301, 302, 308, 314 ‘Anke van Tharaw’, song 258–9 Annianus 78 Antiochus III 313 antiquarianism 106, 107, 113, 114, 118–55 passim, 168, 342

see also under Cicero; etymology; genre; institutions; law; Pliny, elder; Romanocentrism; Varro antiquities, physical 123, 144 Apion 107, 112, 238–41 passim, 307, 314 I ÆÆ, see commentarii; Favorinus; Plutarch Appian 23–5 Apuleius 183, 223–45, 290, 297, 336, 338 acquaintance with G. 224 archaism in 17–18 bilingualism in 12–17 not a sophist 12 reading 189 n. 5 sympotic dialogue 244 Arcadian origin of Rome 46 Arcado-Cypriot dialect 45 archaism 12, 17–18, 43, 111, 218, 236, 242, 245 Archelaos, condottiero 302 Archytas, his mechanical dove 338–42 Areopagites, see Dolabella Aretino, Pietro 338 Arion and the dolphin 108–12 Aristarchus 48 Aristophanes 44, 63, 234 Clouds 230, 231 Frogs 221, 233–4 Aristotle 194, 249, 250, 289, 296, 315 etymological studies 66 Philip’s letter to 190 Problems 141, 249 Ascensius, Jodocus Badius (Josse Bade) 284–7, 290, 299 Asinius Gallus 292

Index Rerum et Nominum Ateius Capito, C. 67 n. 7, 121 Athenaeus 167, 169, 178, 183, 186, 309 Attic, Atticism: culture 13–14 language 16, 17–18, 23, 26, 40, and see hyper-Atticism style 7 Atticists, Greek, outstripped by Roman 8, 21 auctoritas, linguistic 50–3 audience, target, see readers, intended Augustine 50, 86, 129, 145–6, 297 adapts G. 310, 320 Augustus 120, 138, 296 by error for Julius Caesar 306 authorial ‘I’ 179–80, 184 see also self-presentation automata 339, 341, and see Archytas autopsy 112–13, 138, 239–40 Bacon, Francis 213 n. 39, 338 barbarism (barbarolexis, barbarus): in Greek 13, 22, 85, 192 in Latin 41, 43–50, 54, 101, 192, and see Index Verborum s.v. nanus see also opicus barytonesis 45 Barzizza, Gasparino 270–2 Bassus, Ventidius 301 Bede 249, 253, 320 Belriguardo, Este country house 329 Benedict XIII, antipope, see Luna, Pedro de Benhabib, Seyla 196–8, 203 Be´rault, Nicolas 290 Bernard the Deacon 253 Beroaldus, Philippus, the elder 282–5, 293 Berquin, Louis de 284 bibliographical references, in ancient works 125–7

381

bilingualism 5–9, 13, 16–17, 18, 21, 30, 32, 35 see also code-swiching birth, multiple 296, 303 Boaistuau, Pierre 295, 301–2 Bonaventure, St 259, 261 Bononiensis, Jacobus (Giacomo Cristiani) 283 booksellers 329 Bourbon, Nicolas 293 Bracciolini, Poggio 273, 278–9, 321, 322–3, 329 breastfeeding 34, 190, 288, 289, 295–6 Brundisium 174, 238, 241, 329 Bruni, Leonardo 278 Bucephalus 290, 310 Bude´, Guillaume 290–1 Burley, Walter 265 Busbecq, Augier Ghislain de 287 Busleiden, Hieronymus 278 ‘busy people’ 165, 167, 169, 174, 176 see also readers, G’s intended Buxis, Joannes Andreas de (Giovanni Andrea Bussi) 256 n. 20, 282, 327, 329–30, 335–6 Caecilius Statius 43, 75 Caesar, C. Julius 5, 31, 35 n. 111, 135 n. 48, 327 n. 21 compliments Cicero 3 confused with Augustus 306 Caesellius Vindex 55, 67 n. 7, 93–4, 212 n. 36, 298 Calderini, Domizio 335 Calderini, Giovanni 279, 321 calendar 143, 145, 147–9, 151, 154, 294 Cannae, survivor’s mother 296, 309 canonical texts 329, 335–6, 337, 339 career 185–6

382


Carrio, Ludovicus (Luis Carrioń, Lodewijk/Louis Carrion) 276, 282, 286–9, 300 Cassiodorus Senator 47 Cato, elder 33, 34, 241, 298, 332 and antiquarianism 119 cited for etymology 67 n. 7 as father 190 language 38, 76, 97, 242, 268 n. 49 style 42 works: De agri cultura 128; Pro Rodiensibus 194 Cato, younger 58 Cephisia 329 Cestius Pius, L. 6 Chaldaean (¼ Aramaic) 47–8 chapters, G.’s, see commentarii; variety characters, see dialogues, dramatis personae Charron, Pierre 213 chreiai 106, 114, 179, 265 Cicero 132, 194, 241, 289, 298, 315 antiquarianism in 118 n. 1, 119, 124, 150 in Antonine era 154–5 dates of birth and death 294, 332 dialogues 154, 181–2, 183, 186, 328, 329 as etymologist 67 n. 7, 80, 81, 93–6 Familiares, manuscript tradition of 337 and Greek 3–6, 17, 18, 26 note-taking 135 repartee 193 style 42, as model for imitation (Ciceronianism) 290, 291–2, 297 usage not recognized by ignorant grammarians 116, 334 Cinna, C. Helvius 51, 52, 54, 63 ciuilis eruditio 218–19 classicus 35, 329 Clement of Alexandria 160 n. 5, 163–4, 166 n. 26, 170, 171

code-switching 3–40 passim and borrowing 26–8 defined 5–6 in expressions of love and affection 19–21 in G. 36–7 as mark of inferiority 23, 24–5 as mark of superiority 24–5 metalinguistic 22, 27 in technical terms 37 Collegium Gellianum 331 Columella, L. Junius 127–8, 175, 177 n. 71 commentarii (I ÆÆ, ! ÆÆ) 162–5, 179–80, 299–303, 327 compositio (morphological) 78, 80, 83, 97–9, 101, 103 comprehensiveness 135, 165–6, 187–8 see also encyclopaedic works Connellus, Joannes (Jean Conneau) 283, 290 contents, table of 125, 127–30, 174–8 Corinth 31 Correr, Angelo, see Gregory XII, Pope Crassus Dives Mucianus, P. Licinius 312–13 Crates of Mallos 48 Crinitus, Petrus (Piero Del Riccio Baldi, Pietro Crinito) 285, 287, 293 as imitator of G. 297, 299–300, 330 Ctesias of Cnidos 240 cultivation of intellect 215 Cymbalum mundi 307–8 Cynicism, see under Gellius; philosophy death from joy 296, 300, 301, 304, 309 Decembrio, Angelo 279, 318–19, 328–9 Decembrio, Pier Candido 278

Index Rerum et Nominum declinatio 73, 83, 89, 101 Democritus’ self-blinding 52, 297, 300, 301, 311, 334 n. 39 Demosthenes 7, 9, 106, 193, 194, 291, 301 denarius, rate against drachma 290 Descartes, Rene´ 339 Des Pe´riers, Bonaventure 307 dialogues 154, 180–4, 302, 328–31 dramatis personae 180, 183–4, 225–6, 328, 330–1 mise en sce`ne 180, 181–3, 225–6, 329 Platonic/Socratic 181, 182, 226–7, 244 sympotic 180, 181, 226, 244 see also Athenaeus; Cicero; Macrobius; Plutarch diatribe 179, 208–10, 213, 232, 242, 300 Didymus, Claudius 45 digamma 45 diminutives 74 n. 35, 83–5 Diomedes, grammarian 47 diversity, formal, of G.’s chapters 179–80, and see ordo rerum fortuitus see also variety Dolabella, Cn. (immo P.) Cornelius, judgment of 305–6, 310 dolphin stories 107 see also Arion Domitius Insanus 33 n. 102, 211 n. 26, 227–8, 242–3 Donatus, Aelius 49 dove, mechanical, see Archytas dramatic setting, see dialogues, mise en sce`ne education 187–205, 287 as sociable activity 191, 194, 195 value of: in grammar 191–3; in law 194; in philosophy 193, 194–5; in rhetoric 190, 193–5

383

Egnatius, Baptista (Giovanni Battista Cipelli) 284, 336 n. 41 Egyptian priests 338 Einhart 320 Elbene, Pierre d’ 287 eloquence, betterment of 217–19 emblems 256–7 encyclopaedic works 119–20, 135, 138, 164–5, 303–4, 327 see also comprehensiveness Ennius 32, 42–3, 81–2, 154, 332 on friendship 200, 216 rivals Euripides 193 Erasmus, Desiderius 256, 291–3, 306, 324 Adagia 254, 297, 304, 327 motto 332–3 Este, Leonello d’ 277, 318–19, 323, 328, 329 Estienne, Henri 282, 286–9, 293–4, 309, 315, 330–1 Auli Gelli Apologia 297–9 Noctes Parisinae 287–8 Estienne, Paul 287–8, 289 Estienne, Robert 293–4, 330–1 Estouteville, Guillaume d’, Cardinal of Rouen 330 ethics 39, 195–205, 208, 213 see also miscellanies; moral virtues etymology 62, 65–104, 218 in antiquarian tradition 124–5, 142, 150 philosophical theories of 65 see also compositio; declinatio; ŒÆ I æÆØ ; Favorinus; Fronto; Nigidius Figulus; Stoic philosophy; Sulpicius Apollinaris; Varro Euripides 288, 300, 332 excerpta 132–8, 162, 166–7, 179–80, 323–7 exclusiveness, intellectuals’ 232–4 exempla 30, 106, 151, 170, 204, 303 Fronto’s Arion not so used 108 taken from G. 292, 296, 299, 314 as title 126

384


experts 184, 185 G.’s objection to 168, 212–13, 217 exposure scenes 116, 168–9, 184, 226, 227, 228, 243 in humanist writings 318–19, 323, 329 Fabricius, J. A. 331 family 199, 200–1 Favorinus 30–1, 185 as etymologist 67, 68, 73, 85–6 quoted from G. 299, 300, 306, 339 philosopher 30, 187 n. 1, 208–9, 210, 242 as prototype 328–30 reading 189 n. 5 as represented in G. 31–4, 140, 155, 191, 208–10, 217, 305; condemning incomprehensible archaism 218; discussing Latin 32, 218–19, 242–3 as sceptic 140, 208–9, 211–14 sophist 155, 185, 227 works: ` ÆÆ 163, 180–1 n. 82; ˚ æØ ŁØÆŒ 30–1; —Æ Æ c ƒ æÆ 161–2, 168, 241 n. 67 see also breastfeeding Federigo da Montefeltre 318 Ferrara 277, 318–19, 328, 331 Ferrettus, Nicolaus 283, 286 fiction 37, 116, 181, 331 Filargi, Pietro, see Alexander V florilegia 164, 249–55, 268 Fontenay, Guy de 301 Foot, Philippa 197–8, 203 friendship 200 Frontinus 128, 175, 176 n. 66, 326 Fronto 42–3, 56, 64, 155, 183, 224, 226, 327 authority in Latin 218–19 code-switching in 18–28 correspondence 18–28 as etymologist 67

as linguistic nationalist 17, 35 and Marcus 18–28, passim note-taking 135 reading 189 n. 5 as represented in G. 50–2, 56, 140, 190, 191, 329, and see Index Verborum s.v. nanus as rhetorician 194 on sham philosophers 230 theory of style 42–3 see also love Fronto, Ps.-, Differentiae 84 n. 59, 87 Fufetius, Mettius 300, 301 Gaius, Institutiones 154 games, Roman 147 Gaulish 75 Gavius Bassus 53, 67 n. 7 Gellius, A.: Academic philosophy in 208–13 acquaintance with Apuleius 224 African origin 85–6 alternative views in 139–41 antiquarianism in 118–55 bibliographical lists in 125 Cynic philosophy in 208, 214 as etymologist, 65–104 Greek in 37–9, 44, 52, 53, 62; in etymologies 69–71, 91–7, 101, 103 humanisme gellien, see Marache independent thinker 52, 63–4, 66–8, 70–97 passim manuscripts of: fragmentary 265–70; lost 272–81 as model 289, 315, 316–17, 322–31, and see Crinitus narrative manner 105–17 oral sources 67–8, 73, 78, 89, 96 plots 180, 184 reading 189 n. 5 repertoire of tales 105–8 as rhetoriscus 243–4 scene-setting 182, and see dialogues, mise en sce`ne

Index Rerum et Nominum scepticism in 211–13 as source 94, 169, 249–342 passim as stimulus 331–42 Stoicism in 208, 210, 214 see also Augustine; authorial ‘I’; bilingualism; code-switching; commentarii; contents, table of; dialogues; diversity; exempla; experts; exposure scenes; Favorinus; Fronto; headings; Herodes Atticus; knowledge; Macrobius; ordo rerum fortuitus; otium; palm-tree; philosophy; Pliny, elder; Politianus; question-andanswer process; Quintilian; range of fields; readers; Romanocentrism; selfpresentation; sexuality; Socrates; translation; Tucker; utility; variety; Verrius Flaccus genre 159–86, 298, 299–303, 316–17 antiquarianism as 118 departures from 165–86 diversity of, see diversity; variety expectations of 126–7, 159, 165–86 generic indicators 159–65 of individual chapters 179–86 see also dialogues; miscellany; symposium Giorgi, Francesco 338–9 Giovio, Paolo 256 Giraldi, Lilio Gregorio 333 gladiator, imperial 311 gnomologia 166, 170 Gracchanus, M. Junius 119 Gracchus, C. Sempronius 42, 53, 292 Graecisms 44–50, 56, 59, 61–2, 63, 96–7, 101 grammar 39, 66, 138, 142, 167, 190, 191–3 see also education

385

Greek 3–40 passim as source of Latin 44–5, 69–73, 85–6, 91–3, 94–9 see also Aeolic; Gellius, Greek in Gregory XII (Angelo Correr), Pope 271 Gronovius, Johannes Fredericus 253, 280, 285, 289 Gruget, Claude 301 Gryphius (Greif), printing family 286, 289 n. 39 Gualenghi, Giovanni 329 Guarino, Battista 323, 327 Guarino da Verona 318, 321–2, 323, 326–7, 328, 334 Guerre, Martin 310 Guevara, Antonio de 295, 296, 302, 314 Guibert of Tournai 256, 259–62 Guillemeau, Jacques 296 Hadrian 9–10, 31, 74–5, 155, 290, 305, 329 Hannibal 106, 313 headings (capitula; lemmata) 125, 130–3, 177 n. 71, 298 G.’s ascribed to ‘Pseudogellius’ by Stephanus 288 see also contents, table of hedgehog and fox 221–2 Hercules 190–1, 285 Hero of Alexandria 341 Herodes Atticus 25–6, 185, 327, 329 as represented in G. 113–15, 190, 210, 243 Herodotus 108–12, 321 Hesiod 298, 309 Hittite 74, 78, 90 Homer 283, 291, 297, 298, 305 homoptota 68 humanisme gellien, see Marache humanitas 31, 207 n. 8, 217, 220 n. 50 humiliation scenes, see exposure scenes Hyginus (fabulist) 128, 131

386


Hyginus, C. Julius (grammarian) 67 n. 7, 162 n. 15, 212 hyper-Atticism 114 inscriptions, use of 138 institutions: as antiquarian theme 142–51 of daily life 123, 149 military 123, 148–9 political 123, 143–5, 148–9 religious 107–8, 123, 144, 145–7 intellectuals and intellectual life 183–6, 223–45, esp. 223, 230–4 irony 160, 177, 228, 240, 242–3 directed at oneself 231, 234, 242–4, 245 Socratic (Næø Æ) 214 see also modesty, false; satire Isidore of Seville 81, 87, 121, 251–3, 320 itemization 124, 137–9, 163–4, 165, 177–8, 184–5 Jerome 189 John of Salisbury 252–3, 259, 262, 264–5, 306 Joubert, Laurent 289, 294–7 Julianus, Antonius 30–6, 37, 193, 210 n. 23, 216, 224 Julius Celsinus 67, 99, 100, 215 Julius Paulus 67, 99, 100, 210 Juvenal 183 ŒÆ I æÆØ 99, 101 Kircher, Athanasius 339–41 knowledge 161–2 G.’s view of 178–9, 184–5 Laberius, D. 35–6, 41–64 passim, 96, 300 La Boe¨tie, Estienne de 315 Lachmann’s Law 91 nn. 79, 80 Laevius 36, 99–100 Lais 106, 291, 292, 301 Lamola, Giovanni 321, 334, 339 n. 51

Larcius Licinus 292 lark and her young 113 Latin, supposed poverty of 7, 9 Latinus, Latina uerba 44–50 law 167, 195 legal matters, as antiquarian theme 123, 149–50 see also education libraries 182, 329, 330, 335 public 132, 137 link-vowel 101 Livy 135, 274, 312, 324, 330 Lollianus Avitus 27, 28, 224 Longolius, Gysbertus 256 love: expressions of 19–21, 28 sexual and non-sexual 20–1 see also sexuality Lucian 112, 115, 116, 183, 230, 242 Somnium 185 Teacher of Rhetoric 235 True History 240 Lucius, fictional protagonist of Apuleius’ Met. 223–45 passim, esp. 234–40 Lucretius 9, 42–3 Luna, Pedro de (‘Benedict XIII’) 271, 277 Lupus of Ferrie`res 320 Lydus, John 121, 151 Macedo, philosopher 298 Machiavelli, Niccolo` 330 Macrobius 99, 137, 249, 281, 291, 294, 336 alternative views in 139–41 antiquarianism in 121, 153 commended in Renaissance 297, 327 dialogue form in 127, 154 as model 331 in Montaigne 308–9 structure of Saturnalia 133, 169 uses G. 94 magi, Renaissance 338–9

Index Rerum et Nominum manner of life 172–4, 182, 185–6, 219–22 see also intellectuals and intellectual life Manutius, Aldus 283 Marache, Rene´ vii, 206–22 passim Marcus Aurelius 205 as correspondent of Fronto, see Fronto marvels, see mirabilia Maseriensis/Maserius, Aegidius (Gilles de Maizie`res) 282–3, 285 Masurius Sabinus 70, 76–7 Medici, Cosimo de’ 270 n. 61, 279, 318, 329 Meleager of Gadara 170 memory 164–5, 215–16 Menander 38 n. 127, 75 Mexia (Mejıá), Pedro 299, 301, 309, 315 Miani, Pietro 270, 271 n. 68, 279 Miletus, maidens of 300, 301, 311 Milo of Croton 300, 301, 304 mirabilia (marvels, miracula) 152, 168, 207, 214, 238–41, 300 collections of 167, 170, 174, 302–3 miscellany 159–86 passim, 215, 239 and n. 61, 241, 299–303, 327, 335, 337 ethics in 189–90, 196, 198, 204–5 as genre 160–2, 237, 238 sympotic 167, 180, 181–2, 226 as title 161, 330 mise en sce`ne, see under dialogues Mithridates VI of Pontus 309 modesty, false 160, 177–8, 342 see also irony Montaigne, Michel de 213, 282, 304, 308–17 moral virtues 201–3 executive virtues 202 relational virtues 202–3 see also ethics morphology 47, 52, 63, 78 morphophonemics 47

387

Mosellanus, Petrus (Peter Schade) 285–6, 293, 333, 334 n. 38 Musonius Rufus 210 nationalism, Roman 199–200, 219 linguistic 17 wards off Greek attacks 32, 33, 35–7 see also Roman culture comparable with Greek; Romanocentrism neologisms 55–7, 293–4, 296 Nepos, Cornelius 212 Niccoli, Niccolo` 278–9, 322, 329 Nicholas V, Pope 322 Nicholas of Cusa 279, 321 Nigidius Figulus, P. 54–5, 163, 212, 217, 315 on etymology 67, 76–7, 87–8, 93–5, 101 Nonius Marcellus 60, 72, 74, 97, 122, 129, 135–6 notebooks 323–7, 331–2 opicus 22, 38–9 ordo rerum fortuitus 122, 161, 165–6, 169–79, 288, 315–16, 326 ore del libro 335 organization: alphabetical 131, 136 systematic/logical 130, 165, 176–8, 304, 323, 326–7; of philosophy 187–8, 196 thematic 169–70 see also ordo rerum fortuitus Oscan 72, 74 otium 172, 200, 215, 216, 218, 220–1 Roman view of 125–6 as setting for dialogues 154, 181–3 see also ‘busy people’ Ovid 294

388


Pacuvius 309 palm-tree, wood of 249–59 Pamphile 163, 170–1, 172–3, 180 Parvus, Joannes (Jean Petit) 282–3, 285 Pasquier, Estienne 288 past, reconstructed 294, 328, 331 patronage 19–20, 23, 24–5, 199–200 Pelacani, Biagio, doctor diabolicus 255 n. 19 peregrina uerba 46, 50 Perotti, Niccolo` di 335 Pertinax, P. Helvius 41 Petrarch 121, 281, 289, 321, 327 Petronius 58, 60, 61–2, 63 Philip II, king of Macedon 38 n. 126, 190, 194 philology, critical 334–7, 341–2 philosophy 30, 33, 167, 308, 315, 339 Academic, see under scepticism Cynic 208, 214 and etymology 65, 69, 83 in G. 168, 214, 298; his approach to 187–8, 190–1, 194–5, 200; and see under Gellius New 337–42 popular 207, and see diatribe Pyrrhonian, see under scepticism Pythagorean 194 sham 233, and see sham philosophers Stoic 28, 208, 210, 211, 214; and etymology 69, 83; in Renaissance 288, 310, 311 sympotic 208–10 see also education; Favorinus philostorgia 27–8 Philostratus 11, 115, 116, 185, 285 Philoxenus, grammarian 45 phonographematics 47 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 330 Pisani, Ugolino 319, 322 Pius, Baptista 284

Plato 42 n. 1, 44 n. 4, 65, 102 Platonic pedagogy 332 see also dialogues, Platonic/ Socratic Plautus 19, 43, 44, 75, 80–2, 213, 332 his language 20, 33, 35, 53, 56, 57, 116 pleasure 182, 191–2, 195, 217, 291 in learning 151–4, 172, 190, 215, 216–17, 220–1 in philosophy 194 in variety 171–2, 181 see also otium Pliny, elder 137, 171, 302, 307, 323, 326–7, 335 alternative views in 139–41 and the antiquarian tradition 121, 124–7 autopsy in 137–8, 239–40 bibliographical lists in 125 comprehensiveness 135 emended from G. 290 G. on 238–41 and n. 61 genre of NH 164, 166 mirabilia in 238–9, 241, 302 note-rolls 136 systematic organization 130–3 table of contents 127–30, 174–7 uses inscriptions 138 vocabulary 42, 58, 61, 73 see also encylopaedic works Pliny, younger 6–10, 116, 150, 173, 183, 189, 287 narrative in 107 plots, G.’s, see under Gellius Plutarch 135, 141, 183, 186, 210, 290, 321, 324 alternative views in 139, 141 headings/rubrics in 131 in Antonine culture 223, 225–6, 244 in Montaigne 311, 312, 315, 317 notebooks 136 on Romans and Roman culture 24–5, 26 his slave 313–14, 317

Index Rerum et Nominum sympotic dialogues 167, 169, 183, 209, 210, 214, 225–6 as Trajan’s tutor 261–2 uses inscriptions 138 works: ` ÆÆ 163; De garrulitate 306; De uitioso pudore 24–5; Praecepta gerendae reipublicae 289; Quaestiones conuiuales 167, 169, 209, 226; Quaestiones Graecae 131; Quaestiones Romanae 131, 139; (spurious) Institutio Traiani 262 see also palm-tree, wood of Polenton, Sicco 326, 331–2 Politianus, Angelus (Agnolo degli Ambrogini da Montepulciano, Angelo Poliziano) 283, 284, 290, 330, 331 and G. 289, 333, 335–7 Miscellanea 330, 333, 337 polymathy 162, 236–40 Postumius Festus, M. 41–2, 50–1, 64 pregnancy, duration of 304–5 principles, general/ universal 178–9, 196–7, 198 Priscian 45, 47, 70 n. 17, 99, 130, 328 Probus, M. Valerius 33 n. 102, 34 n. 110, 134–5 as etymologist 67, 70, 75, 77–8, 79, 81, 91, 98 professionals, see experts Protagoras 311 Pseudogellius, see under headings Ptolemy, his Geography 329 Publilius Syrus 309 Punic 47, 85–6 Pythagoras 190, 285 Quadrigarius, Q. Claudius 53, 54, 79, 97–8, 335 question-and-answer process 125, 132–4

389

Quintilian 10–11, 14–15, 46, 49, 51, 59, 65 on comparability of Greek and Latin 6–7, 9 and G., resemblances in outlook 190–1, 193 as model in Renaissance 297, 328 Rabelais, François 300, 303–8 Radulphus de Diceto 254 Ramus, Petrus 339 range of fields 165–6, 167–9 readers, G.’s intended 29–30, 39, 165, 177, 198–9, 204–5 and Montaigne’s 316 see also ‘busy people’ Regiomontanus (Johann Mu¨ller) 339 Resta, Lazzarino 270, 271 brothers of 271 rhetoric 11, 115, 167, 190–1, 193–4 Atticist 7, 8 bilingual, at Rome 6, 8, 242 and the Second Sophistic 11, 111, 154–5, 235, 242 teaching in Latin forbidden 4 see also education rhetoriscus, see under Gellius Rhodiginus, Caelius (Ludovico Ricchieri) 297, 299, 300, 333–4 riddles 56–7, 332–4 Roman culture comparable with Greek 37–8 Romanocentrism: of antiquarian tradition 150–1 in G. 204–5 Rouen, Cardinal of, see Estouteville Rufinus, P. Cornelius 301 Sallust 5, 42, 43, 81, 334 Sardinian, ancient 49 satire 223–45 self-satire 223, 228, 230, 231, 242–3 see also irony

390


Savonarola, Girolamo 330 Scaliger, Joseph Justus 293, 337 Scaliger, Julius Caesar 291–3, 306 scepticism 32, 211–13, 227, 231, 232 Academic 32, 140 n. 66, 208–9, 213 Pyrrhonian 211, 213 see also under Gellius Schott, Gaspar 339, 341 Scientific Revolution 341 Scipio, elder 311–12 chastity of 201, 301, denied 106 Scipio, younger 72–3, 124, 291 Scribonius Largus 128, 175 Second Sophistic 11–12, 154, 234–6, 244–5, 337 see also sophists selectivity 165–7 self-presentation 116, 184–6, 211–12, 228, 231, 240–3 see also authorial ‘I’ Seneca, elder 6, 60, 107, 115 Seneca, younger 28, 121, 124, 164, 167, 292, 299 Senecas, Sicco Polenton’s distribution of authorship between 331–2 service aristocracy 28–9 sexuality, Montaigne’s treatment inspired by G. 316 sham philosophers 115, 230–3, 244 Sidney, Sir Philip 324 slaves 195, 199 see also under Plutarch Socrates, fictional character in Apuleius’ Met. 226, 228–30, 231–2 Socrates, son of Sophroniscus: in G. 228–30 Socratic themes 208–13 see also under dialogues; irony Solinus 170, 172, 253 sophists 11–12, 116, 154, 185, 234–6, 237, 243–4 see also Second Sophistic Sophocles 287

sordida uerba, see vulgarism Soter, Joannes (Johann Heil) 285 Sotion 106, 161 Sprachanschluß (language annexation) 5, 9, 40 Stewart, Alexander 332 Stoicism, see under philosophy in G., see under Gellius Strozzi, Tito Vespasiano 318–19 Suetonius 10–11, 52, 57, 121, 126, 128, 134–5 alternative views in 139–40 emphasis on detail 138–9 interest in institutions 144–8 passim systematic organization in 133–4 Suetonius, Ps.- 57 suffixes: -alis (-aris) 57 n. 47 -aneus 54 n. 35 -arius, -arium 54 n. 35, 57 n. 47, 58, 74 -monium 56 see also Index Verborum Sulla 302 Sulpicius Apollinaris, C. 35, 41–2, 43–4, 50–2, 53, 55, 184, 229 and etymology 67, 75, 81, 89, 96 as source for Probus’ opinions 70, 75, 81, 91, 98 Sulpicius Rufus, Ser. 77, 81, 82–4 suspension of judgement 213–14 see also alternative views; scepticism symposium 167, 179, 182, 225–6, 231, 236 see also Apuleius; Athenaeus; dialogues, sympotic; miscellany, sympotic; philosophy, sympotic; Plutarch Tacitus 15, 144, 150, 324 tales, G.’s repertoire of, see under Gellius

Index Rerum et Nominum Taurus, L. Calvenus 184, 191, 194, 208–10, 213, 214, 224, 243–4 Terentius Scaurus 38–9, 55 Terminus 332–4 Tertullian 12, 39–40, 297 Tesserant, Claude de 302–3 Textor, Joannes Ravisius (Jean Tixier de Ravisy) 300, 304, 309 theft, thieves 154, 195, 202–4, 291 Theodore Gaza 335–6 thieves, see theft Tiraqueau, Andre´ 304–5 Tiro, M. Tullius 90–2, 161, 163 titles, of ancient works 125–6, 152–3, 159–64 passim translation 4, 6–7, 34, 37–8, 108, 192–3, 310 from G. 289, 295; by Montaigne 312, 314; by Rabelais 306 Trebatius, C. 83–4 Trot, Bartholomaeus 284 Tucker, Abraham, G. in vi Turrianus (Gianello Turriano) 339 Twelve Tables 31, 195, 291 Ulpian 40 utility 33, 162, 171–2, 207, 214–22, 239, 241 in antiquarianism 130, 155 educational 188, 190–1, 195 ! ÆÆ, see commentarii Valerius Antias 106 Valerius Maximus 106, 117, 205, 297, 303, 304, 326 contents, table of 175 not source for etymology 70 n. 18 Valerius Soranus 127–8, 175 Valgius Rufus 90–1 Valla, Lorenzo 323 variety 161–3, 289, 316, and see diversity; ordo rerum fortuitus

391

see also under pleasure Varro 311, 332–3 alternative views in 139–41 and the antiquarian tradition (IæÆØ º ªÆ) 65, 102, 116–55 passim bibliographical lists in 125 emphasis on detail 139 etymology in (general) 45, 65, 67, 85; (specific) 44, 46, 47, 48, 53, 59, 60, 69, 72–3, 74, 79–80, 83–4, 91 interest in institutions 143–51 method of writing 136 systematic organization in 130–2 table of contents in 125, 128–9 uses inscriptions 138 works: Aetia 131; Antiquitates 119–20, 121–2, 132, 139, 143–8, 150, epitomated 132, recycled 136, structure of 129, unindexed 128; De lingua Latina 66, 119, 143, 145, 146, 150, epitomated 132, structure of 129, 133, 136; De re rustica 125; De uita populi Romani 129, 139, 143–4, 147; Disciplinae 166; ¯NÆªøªØŒ 137, 162–3; Epistolicae quaestiones 137, 143–7; Logistorici 129; Menippean Satires 231 Vascosan, Michel 285 Velius Longus 94–5 Vergil 17, 155, 290, 298, 310, 316, 318, 334–5 compared with Greek authors 32, 34, 38, 193, 291 Veritas filia temporis 338, 341 Verrius Flaccus 132, 135, 136, 138, 139, 148, 150 alphabetical order in 131–2 alternative views in 140 etymology in 67, 73, 79, 87, 92 not G.’s source 81, 84, 90–1 rubrics in 133 Vespasiano da Bisticci 329

392


Vestal Virgins 146, 302 Vignier, Nicolas 294 Vincent of Beauvais 262 nn. 38, 39, 265 Vitturi, Daniele 270 Vives, Juan Luis 287, 288, 292, 297–9 Volaterranus, Raphael 300 Vulcob, Johann 288 vulgarism 49, 50–2, 54, 55, 57–63, 96

William of Malmesbury 252 Wind, Edgar 332, 333 women 37 n. 122, 197, 199, 200–1, 311 their language 21, 23, 43 names for their garments 60 see also breastfeeding Xenophon 163

The Worlds of Aulus Gellius

Worlds Of the Imperium

Worlds Of the Imperium

Worlds Of the Imperium

Wonder of the Worlds

The Mirror of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

Worlds of the Imperium

Worlds Of the Imperium

The Ashes of Worlds

The Killing of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Worlds of If

The Ashes of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Worlds of If

The Mirror of Worlds

Wonder of the Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Mirror of Worlds

Worlds Of the Imperium

The Mirror of Worlds

The Worlds of If

The Ashes of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Well Of The Worlds

The War of the Worlds

The Well Of The Worlds

The Store Of The Worlds

The Worlds of Aulus Gellius

Worlds Of the Imperium

Worlds Of the Imperium

Worlds Of the Imperium

Wonder of the Worlds

The Mirror of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

Worlds of the Imperium

Worlds Of the Imperium

The Ashes of Worlds

The Killing of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Worlds of If

The Ashes of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Worlds of If

The Mirror of Worlds

Wonder of the Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Mirror of Worlds

Worlds Of the Imperium

The Mirror of Worlds

The Worlds of If

The Ashes of Worlds

The Ashes of Worlds

The Well Of The Worlds

The War of the Worlds

The Well Of The Worlds

The Store Of The Worlds

Recommend Documents