e Trickiness of “Utraque Lingua:” Roman Code-Switching and Identity

KIANA REZAKHANLOU

All the Latin literature we study engages with Greek cultural predecessors. But how o en do we stop to think about the linguistic interaction between the two languages? More speci cally, for all our appreciation of biculturalism, how o en do we think of the level of bilingualism which existed in Rome? e Romans’ use of both Latin and Greek is a de ning feature of their linguistic output, and by extension, their identity. Romans documented attitudes towards their own ability to code-switch—the act of alternation between two or more languages or language varieties within a single utterance, conversation, or piece of writing— between Latin and Greek remains a vital indication to what private and public Roman identities entailed. is complicated relationship, of Greek precedent and Latin present, is visible in ancient literary texts, most of all historiographical anecdotes and letters, where the distinction between public and private linguistic usage is levelled with writers preoccupied with status and status markers.

e rst signi er of such all-pervasive bilingualism in Rome is found in imperial texts themselves: the commonly employed expression “utraque lingua” describes the twin-like positioning of Latin and Greek. It implies two languages operating as equals: not only are they complementary to one another, they are linguistically paired at the expense of all other languages.1 Dubuisson (1981a:275) is right to say that “uterque” presupposes two items that have explicitly been previously cited in the text, but we witness Roman authors take this presupposition much more absolutely.2 For example, Horace does not need to mention Latin and Greek by name before he celebrates Maecenas’ learnedness in both languages in writing (“docte sermones utriusque lingua,” Odes 3.8.5) because the collocation of Latin and Greek is strongly and indisputably there within the phrase. Cicero’s treatise De O ciis (the text and title itself being heavily indebted to the Greek Panaetius’ Περὶ Καθήκοντος) espouses the virtues of having “in utriusque orationis facultate” (oratory ability in both) from its very beginning (1.1), and this speaking ability is speci cally, though elliptically, for Greek and Latin side by side.

e necessity of Greek to a Roman upper-class education could not have been more explicitly emphasised by the rhetorician Quintilian in his Institutio Oratoria (1.1.12): “a sermone Graeco puerum incipere malo, quia Latinum, qui pluribus in usu est, vel nobis nolentibus perbibet simul quia disciplinis

1 Rochete (2010:288)

2 quoque Graecis prius instituendus est, unde et nostrae uxerunt.”3 Latin, though admittedly the more useful and widely used language, comes second in the question of linguistic learnedness. Greek is the “prius” (“ rst”) language that the boy is to “incipere” (“begin with”), and the acquisition of Greek, as opposed to the “absorbed” (“perbibet”), simple attainment of Latin, is a sign of culture above all else. Quintilian delineates the necessity of Latin as a language of the everyday, and Greek as a language through which the Roman cultural lineage “ ows” (“ uxerunt”). One could argue for the uniqueness of Quintilian’s position if there were no further attestation to the fact that upper-class Romans were actively disparaged when they were not pro cient in Greek.4 In that same opening to De O ciis, Cicero praises his Latin-Greek education for giving him access to important works of philosophy, but more importantly, for teaching him oratorical skill (i.e. how to speak e ectively and powerfully).5 is mental training that comes with learning Greek is separate from “Graecarum litterarum,” (“Greek literature”) and such high-degree bilingualism takes on a linguistic power of its own. us the importance of Greek as part of an elite Roman’s literary education is only the tip of the iceberg. In other words, the Romans used Greek not only to passively understand texts but also to actively exercise their intellectual agency..

(1981a:277).

Code-switching means alternating between two languages within the same linguistic domain (e.g. the same conversation, letter, or speech). For our purposes, we will analyse Latin and Greek codeswitching within the Roman population, where it occurs for the most part as a linguistic act that conveys familiarity. It is a phenomenon evidenced early on in Latin literature in a variety of contexts, and it is the subject of anecdotal documentation on some of Rome’s most famous gures. Plutarch reports that Marcus

Licinius Crassus switches to Greek from Latin “as was his custom when in an a ectionate state” (“ὥσπερ εἰώθει φιλοφρονούμενος”).6 Cicero’s address to the senate at Syracuse, in which he spoke Greek, is well documented by him, as is the backlash he received for this supposed act of near-mocking deference as a Roman before a Greek audience:7

Postridie mane ab eo postulo ut Syracusanis liceret senatus consultum, quod pridie fecissent, mihi reddere. Ille enim vero negat et ait indignum facinus esse quod ego in senatu Graeco verba fecissem;

3 “I prefer that a boy begins with the Greek language because Latn, used as it is by many, he will absorb at the same tme whether we wish it or not; also because he must frst be instructed in the ways of Greek learning, from which our learning is derived [lit. has fowed]” (translaton mine).

4 cf. Cicero’s disparagement of Verres (2.4.127): “Nam cum ipsa fuit egregie facta, tum epigramma Graecum pernobile incisum est in basi, quod iste eruditus homo et Graeculus, qui haec subtliter iudicat, qui solus intellegit, si unam literam Graecam scisset, certe non sustulisset.”

“For, frst of, it [the Sappho statue] was excellently made, and what’s more, it had a noble Greek epigram engraved upon its base, one which that learned man and Grecian, who judges these maters so shrewdly, who alone understands [their importance], if he had but known one leter of Greek, would certainly not have removed from its place.” (trans. mine)

5 Cic. Of. 1.1: “ut ipse ad meam utlitatem semper cum Graecis Latna coniunxi neque id in philosophia solum, sed etam in dicendi exercitatone feci, idem tbi censeo faciendum, ut par sis in utriusque oratonis facultate.”

“For my own good, I have always combined my study of Latn and Greek, and have done so not in my pursuit of philosophy but also in my exercises in speaking (oratory). I recommend you do the same, so that you may have equal command of both languages.” (trans. mine)

6 Plut. Brut. 40.1: “παυσαμένου δὲ τοῦ δείπνου λαβόμενον τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ σφόδρα τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν, ὥσπερ εἰώθει φιλοφρονούμενος, Ἑλληνικῇ φωνῇ.”

“With supper fnished, he frmly took his [Messala’s] hand and spoke to him in Greek, as he was wont to when feeling afectonate.” (trans. mine)

7 Adams (2003:10) quod quidem apud Graecos Graece locutus essem, id ferri nullo modo posse (Cic. Verr. 2.4.148).8 e lack of direct case equivalence between Latin and Greek allows us to analyse the mapping of the embedded Greek onto the dominant Latin. Take the choice of Cicero to substitute what would be a Latin ablative (following prepositions like “a/ab” or “ex,” which o en express separation from an object) with a Greek dative. e Latin ablative covers the typical functions of movement/location away from, as well as locative (“place in”) and instrumental purposes, and the Greek dative certainly takes on the latter two as part of its nominal purpose. e choice seems natural enough semantically, but what demarcates10 Cicero’s Roman-Greek use of the dative is a pretty universal insistence to use the dative endings -ᾳ and -ῳ, instead of (for rst declension nouns) the more common Attic -ῃ: as Adams11 demonstrates, the -ᾳ ending is the most popular in the Latin ablative-triggering word form and Greek dative combination, as in “cum εὐμενείᾳ”12 (Att.16.11.2) or “uti ὀμοπλοίᾳ”13 (Att.16.4.4). To put it simply, because the graphic and phonetic quality of these letters was similar, Cicero found more impetus to integrate and align them in his code-switching.14 e language of Cicero’s letters is most indebted to the classical Attic Greek dialect, so this persistent displacement of the eta as the dative ending is not due to an attempt at dialectal variation but to adapt Attic Greek to Latin nominal whims. is creates a smooth semantic transition from Latin to Greek in his code-switching letters, and an overwhelmingly orthographical one as well.15 At times, this even pushes him to force a Latinadjacent morphological ending onto the Greek word where a Greek case would be adequate. Consider his use of a Greek dative where the genitive16 would be the more grammatically sound substitution (“ex Dolabellae ἀπιστεἰᾳ” Att.14.19.1).17 Although in Greek the genitive exclusively follows ἀπό and ἐκ (the Greek 8 “On the following day, the frst thing in the morning, I begged him to allow the Syracusans to give me a copy of the resoluton which they had passed a day before. But he refuses, and says that it is a great shame for me to have made a speech in a Greek senate; that, as for my having spoken in the Greek language to Greeks, that was a thing which could not in any way be endured” (trans. C.D. Yonge).

Letter writing is the most renowned for its exposition of code-switching, and Cicero’s personal correspondences stand out as being particularly attuned to the use of Greek within Latin. Within this system of bilingual code-switching, Latin becomes the “matrix” (or, as I will refer to it, “dominant”) language, which serves as the main syntactical framework of a sentence. In turn, Greek is the “embedded” language, which gets slotted into the sentence’s main Latin structure either inputted as individual words or longer phrases and quotations.9 Where the grammar of Latin and Greek fails to seamlessly match up is the point at which we can best analyse the integration of Greek and its purpose. If the manipulation of Greek morphology into Latin syntax proves problematic, how does a Roman writer navigate that? Furthermore, if it presents a di culty, why does he go out of his way to include the Greek in the rst place?

9 Elder/Mullen (2019:65). These terms are indebted to Myers-Scoton’s (1993) linguistc model. For more informaton on diferent code-switching types (intersentental vs intrasentental) and how they manifest in Cicero, see Elder/Mullen (2019:57-62).

10 Elder/Mullen (2019:66)

11 Adams (2003:499)

12 “With goodwill”

13 “Consttuebam ut ὀμοπλοίᾳ”: I have decide to sail in company [with Brutus]

14 Adams (2003:498)

15 Elder/Mullen (2019:66)

16 Adams (2003:501)

17 “Owing to Dolabella’s avarice” prepositional equivalents to “ab” and “ex”), Cicero chooses the dative ending because of the graphic/phonetic correspondence between -ᾳ and the ablative -a rough analogy, Cicero almost creates his own set of rules for his nominal epistolary code-switching.18 is is signi cant considering the kind of evidence we have: it is all written material, with a lack of a spoken corpus. Because of this, it is safe to assume that alongside any regular code-switching that would take place in Cicero’s speech, he is also preoccupied with how the integration of Greek is visually received by his correspondent as well as the greater implications of learnedness and meaning that the Greek words would bring. If there cannot be a direct mapping of form and function within Latin syntax, then the former is privileged. is visual/graphic aspect to code-switching is made even clearer in the letters of Fronto, a Roman grammarian thought only second to Cicero in his rhetorical ability.19 Fronto’s letters to Marcus Aurelius feature the Greek substitutions for Latin ablatival contexts.20 However, he o en writes Greek in the Latin alphabet: “ita neque dem in negotio pannychio (…) laeseris”21 (Ad. M. Caes. iii. 5) is one instance of this transliteration. In this quote, the Greek παννύχῐος appears to have the Latin ablative -o ending as a product of transliteration and subsequent assimilation to Latin. If indeed the use of the adjective is a subtle reference to Iliad 2.24 (“οὐ as some commentators wager, then Fronto’s literary-themed advice to Marcus (to not taint his honour with a fall-out which would be a wasted night-long ordeal, just as the Iliad’s counsel-giver should not waste his time in night-long slumber) is cloaked in a wholly Roman context.23 e choice of linguistic code becomes secondary when the Greek is introduced to Latin.24 Scholars debated whether this counts as a code-switch, or whether it is a borrowing of a Greek word that has established itself as a Latin loan word, meaning it is universally seen as a Latin word.25 I would argue for the former explanation of pannychio, considering its rarity in the corpus and its literary precedent, but the more pressing question to my mind is whether Fronto would have Latinised his Greek code-switch had he been writing to someone with whom he was not so intimate with. I think the answer would be no. at two of the earliest modern editors of Fronto’s work (Van den Hout in his 1988 edition and Haines in his Loeb 1919 version) disagree at points on whether Greek words in the letters are in Greek or Roman script (eg. Haines’ “hypothesim” vs. Van den Hout’s ὑπόθεσιν for Ad M. Caes. iii.16.1) is testament to Fronto’s deliberately ambiguous mediation between the two languages.26

In these two epistolary examples of Roman elite code-switching (and one must note its proponents being elite), the lines between the natural and the literary are blurred. What we might consider to be a very

18 In Linguistcs, analogical change refers to the change which occurs when one linguistc sign is changed in either form or meaning to refect another item in the language system based on of a perceived similarity.

19 XII Panegyrici Latni 8 (5)

20 Elder/Mullen (2019:69)

21 “So that you do not injure your honour in an afair which lasts all night long.” (trans. mine)

22 “Sleep should not last night-long for a man of command” (trans. M. Hammond)

23 Richlin (2006:60)

24 Biville (2002a:92)

25 Mullen (2015:9)

26 Mullen (2015:8) contrived way of switching between languages, done for the purpose of quotation and the evocation of the “Greek cultural sphere,” could be an act of second nature for these Roman gures steeped in rhetoric and learning.27 As Rochette (1997:63) concludes: “jusqu’au règne de Marc Aurèle (161–180), durant lequel, en littérature surtout, la symbiose entre les cultures grecque et latine atteint son apogée, la majorité des savants utilisent le grec.”28 In their letters, they are writing to similarly educated men, so there is also an acknowledgement of their shared, exclusive identity in the relationship and correspondence men such as Marcus Aurelius and Fronto have — they are aware of the positive and reciprocated response towards code-switching in their learned Roman exchange. Much of Cicero’s use of Greek when writing to Atticus can be categorised into philosophical, literary and rhetorical terms. Used in private, Greek becomes an act of recognition within an educated class.29 Fronto would never have used παννύχῐος as a verbal cue if he did not think Marcus Aurelius would understand its meaning and relevance to the letter at large, and he would not Latinise its spelling if he did not want the Greek word to take on a new, speci cally Roman veneer. It is not outlandish to think that these Roman elites could have replicated this written code-switching earnestly and e ectively in speech.30 In Aulus Gellius’ Attic Nights, at times we are not at all far from modern conceptions of the learned conversations of a dinner party: Gellius (19.13.1-5) records a debate between Fronto and two fellow interlocutors equally comfortable in code-switching with Greek. e trio is discussing the origins of the Latin word for dwarfs, “nanos [quoted in the accusative]”) and its connection to the Greek νᾱνους eir conversation is far from trivial—it features a reference to Aristophanes and muses on how a word of possibly Greek origin can become a “Latin colony.”31 inking that Roman elite codeswitching is mainly an act of indulgence and frivolity, of “letting their hair down, so to speak,” is correct insofar as it tends to be private, whether in letters or in groups of friends, but the pressure to produce and receive the bilingualism of one’s interlocutors is still heavily felt, and code-switching’s regular partnership with Greek literary quotation makes it far from a purely banterous means of communication.32 We need not merely imagine the use of elite code-switching in private, erudite settings: the world of bilingual letters comes to life in anecdotal evidence, too.

Owing to the written nature of our evidence, it cannot fully rid itself of some arti ciality, produced as it is under very narrow and above all controlled situations. Cicero, in his Ad Familiares, muses on the role of language in (his) letters, and his conclusion unsurprisingly faces that same contradiction of the writer’s control over his epistolary output and the natural everyday speech one supposes is employed

27 Swain (2002:158); Elder/Mullen (2019:83); Elder/Mullen (2019:89)

28 “Untl the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), during which, in literature most of all, the symbiosis between Greek and Latn cultures reached its peak, the majority of learned men employed Greek.” (translaton mine)

29 Rochete (2010:287)

30 Elder/Mullen (2019:93)

31 Gel. 19.13.3: “mihi non labat scriptum hoc est in comoedia Aristophanis, cui nomen est Ὁλκάδες. Fuisset autem verbum hoc a te civitate donatum aut in Latnam coloniam deductum, si tu eo ut dignatus fores.”

“If my memory is not at fault, it occurs in the comedy of Aristophanes enttled Ὁλκάδες [The Cargo Boats]. But this word would have been given citzenship by you, or established in a Latn colony, if you deigned use it.” (trans. J.C. Rolfe)

32 Jocelyn (1999:183) within them: “epistulas uero cottidianis uerbis texere solemus” (we are accustomed to composing letters with everyday words) (Fam. IX.21.1). What arises further from the quotation, however, which is key to our understanding of Roman code-switching, is the conversational register letters are a orded, which di ers from the language of the law courts and public meetings.33 In short, the unique situation of Latin-Greek bilingualism is found in the private setting of letters as opposed to public scenarios less welcoming of the linguistic act. It is no coincidence that Cicero’s proliferation of Greek in his letters reaches its heights in his correspondence with Atticus, a man who is said to have spoken Greek as if a native of Athens.34 In oneon-one correspondence, the employment of Greek is encouraged, and Cicero fully exploits his friend’s great linguistic ability in their embedded language, but in his public speeches, symbolising Rome’s singular prestige, become the epitome of a “pure Latinity.”35 In what is a public treatise, for all his praise of a strong bilingual education in De O ciis, Cicero condemns the speci c practice of code-switching 36 e points Cicero makes in his private works are more along the lines of Horace’s support for Maecenas’ being “docte” (learned) in Latin and Greek, which seems to grow ever stronger as he praises the satirist Lucilius’ mixing of Latin and Greek.37 It is worth noting, moreover, the more intimate attitude Horace adopts towards the audience of his Satires and even Odes, compared to that of Cicero and his speeches’ recipients. By comparing these clashing views expressed by a single person, one becomes privy to a contradiction of opinion for a linguistic act both readily employed and not easily palatable for some contexts. is discrepancy of a public view of Romanitas as being mediated through Latin alone, whilst Roman learnedness is conveyed through Latin-Greek code-switching, highlights a dichotomy of Roman linguistic identity, one which nonetheless makes complete sense when framed through status-signi ers over markers of nationhood or statehood. Code-switching, as evidenced by Cicero and Fronto’s interactions, constitutes identity as the member of the elite over indicating a speci c allegiance to the Greek or the Roman. One way of describing the Roman “nationality code” would be as follows: the “Romanus” viewed himself as belonging to a “patria” (fatherland), a “genus” (ethnicity), and as is most important to this article, united by speech (“sermon patrius”).38 If strictly abiding by said code, the existence of two languages, of the “utraque lingua,” in the Roman elite consciousness, directly con icts with ideas of nationalistic “Romanitas” and the singular binding language of Latin. But code-switching was not an issue of nationality, at least not when privately uttered. Instead, it was one of status. By framing their Roman identity in sometimes Greek terms, these men signal the proper breadth of their education, that they, as per Quintilian’s maxim, can

33 Mullen (2015:6)

34 Nepos At.4.1: “sic enim Graece loquebatur ut Athenis natus videretur” (“The way he spoke in Greek made it seem as if he had been born in Athens”). See also Cicero’s playful nod to Atcus’ ‘Greekness’ as part of a larger Greek collectve (At.1.16.8): “quem ἀγῶνα vos appellats” (or, as you lot [Greeks] would call it, ἀγῶνα [contests]).

35 Rochete (2010:287)

36 Adams (2003:19): Of. 1.11: “ut enim sermone eo debemus ut qui notus est nobis, ne ut quidam Graeca uerba inculcantes iure optmo rideamur.”

“For as we ought to employ our mother tongue, lest, like certain people who are contnually dragging in Greek words, we draw well-deserved ridicule upon ourselves.” (trans. W. Miller)

37 Sat. 1.10.20-1: “at magnum fecit, quod uerbis Graeca Latnis / miscuit”

“But he did a great thing, in mixing Greek and Latn” (trans. mine)

38 Biville (2002a:88) manipulate and integrate Greek as if they had spoken it “primus”. To take it a step further, they are doing to themselves what Plutarch applies to the Roman gures he writes on as part of his Lives, integrating them into a system of Greek education and analysis: these men have internalised the “civilising role” of Greek “paideia” (education) as a proper avenue through which to nod to an exclusive and noble Hellenism.39 However, they signal an appreciation of Roman indebtedness to Greek culture and literary products without forsaking any self-assuredness in their place in society as Roman men, high-status Roman men, for whom a de ning characteristic of status is “full competence in both Latin and Greek linguistic and cultural spheres.”40 Importantly, however, this signalling of learnedness is to an initiated few, an intimate dinner party circle as it were, not a show of erudition and rank designed for the masses. What remains so fascinating about Roman code-switching, however, is the changing attitudes it experienced over time. For as many praiseworthy anecdotes and self-congratulatory letters in existence, there are reports that portray a Roman animosity towards the elite requirement for Greek uency and the perceived superiority of Greek language as one of high culture. One sees this tension in Anchises’ famous words to Aeneas in Aeneid 6 (846-853): in the realm of culture, there are others (here, the Greeks are implied) who can beat bronze more so ly, create much more lifelike sculpture out of marble, while the Roman “artes” is an imperially driven, authoritative and authoritarian venture. Propaganda aside, it is noteworthy that though Anchises’ words throughout Book 6 and the Heldenschau (show of heroes) are overwhelmingly complimentary to future Rome and its men, it is almost a given that Roman supremacy can never be culturally driven. e cultural inferiority felt amongst some elite Romans is not a surprising occurrence because to ag one’s position as an educated Roman, Greek uency and the ability to codeswitch was a vital component, and yet, a certain level of humiliation existed for a proud state, which still felt somewhat culturally dependent on Greek predecessors.41 From another perspective, the conjoinment with the superior, certainly non-barbaric Greek that Latin enjoyed, the equal footing that “utraque lingua” bestowed upon it, contained a form of psychological defence against Latin as a barbarian language, the conceptualisation of which is made most explicit in Plautus’ prologues, where he confesses to having translated (literally, ‘turned’) Greek originals into the “barbare” Latin.42 Attitudes to Latin and Greek and their power relation was a great, and changing, preoccupation of its o en con dently bilingual proponents. As evidenced by the comments in De O ciis, there existed a great gulf between linguistic ability in Greek and cultural appreciation of the language’s literature. For example, Lucilius Crassus, cited above for his great uency, was highly dismissive of Greek literature and culture, having barely touched “Graecas litteras” according to Cicero (De Orat. 1.82). e discrepancy goes the other way, as well, most noticeably

39 Whitmarsh (2002:178)

40 Elder/Mullen (2019:105)

41 Dubuisson (1981a:283)

42 Dubuisson (1981a:284); Plaut. Asin. 10: “dicam huic nomen Graece Onagost fabulae/Demophilus scripsit, Maccus vortt barbare”

“The Greek name of this play is Onagos/Demophilus wrote it, Maccus translated it into a foreign tongue” (trans. P. Nixon) when it comes to reports of Augustus’ weak linguistic handle on Greek, in spite of a remarkable a nity for Greek culture:43 ne Graecarum quidem disciplinarum leuiore studio tenebatur. in quibus et ipsis praestabat largiter (…) non tamen ut aut loqueretur expedite aut componere aliquid auderet; nam et si quid res exigeret, Latine formabat uertendumque alii dabat. sed plane poematum quoque non imperitus, delectabatur etiam comoedia ueteri et saepe eam exhibuit spectaculis publicis (Suet. Aug. 89.1).44

Augustus’ lack of con dence in the spoken and composed Greek language is not for want of more knowledge of its literature, as his pleasure for poetry and staging of Old Comedy shows. His reliance on a translator (someone to “vertere” (turn) his Latin into Greek) adds an interesting dimension to the limitation of written texts as our basis for code-switching: in some situations, the gap between spoken and written ability is wide. Even if Augustus gave speeches in Greek, and he did (see his Greek address to the Egyptians and Alexandrians in Cassius Dio),45 if we follow Suetonius’ anecdote, it was pre-prepared and not a greatly substantial testament to his linguistic ability. e Roman world was so thoroughly steeped in Hellenism that even when its leader fell short of elite bilingual obligations, intermediaries like translators were employed to redress the linguistic imbalance, instead of adapting that attitude of obligation itself.46

Roman Latin-Greek bilingualism was not a homogenous linguistic phenomenon, nor does the code-switching in the letters of Cicero or Fronto provide an all-inclusive picture of the occurrence within elite Roman populations. In its exclusively written form, one of the greatest limitations to analysing ancient code-switching is an inherent formality, compared to conversational speech. And yet, none of this negates our ability to recognise the code-switching phenomenon and its functions in Roman elite society. From anecdotal evidence, we can say that there was an expectation of Latin-Greek bilingualism for holders of a certain societal status. Where that expectation was met, exceeded even, the Roman individual was praised or at the very least had his linguistic ability recognised. Attitudes towards the sociolinguistic hold of Greek over cultured “Romanitas,” however, were ever-changing, and the balance between Greek and Latin was in constant ux, especially when considering private and public employment. Code-switching was always a marked choice, made with an acute awareness of the cultural, educational background of the interlocutor and of how the embedment of Greek re ected on its user. Roman code-switching was an act of social intention, above all concerned with the markers of elitism and education, an assessment of status over any indication of Greek nationality. Greek was used to the extent that it could be received well amidst a Roman audience, more so in private, less so in public. If the Roman world is to be characterised by its use of these

43 Biville (2002a:85)

44 “He was equally interested in Greek studies, and in these too he excelled greatly. (...) Yet he never acquired the ability to speak Greek fuently or to compose anything in it; for if he had occasion to use the language, he wrote what he had to say in Latn and gave it to someone else to translate. Stll he was far from being ignorant of Greek poetry, even taking pleasure in the Old Comedy and frequently staging it at his public entertainments.” (trans. J.C. Rolfe)

45 D.C 51.16.4: “καὶ

“The speech in which he proclaimed to them his pardon he delivered in Greek, so that they might understand him.” (trans. E. Cary)

46 Biville (2002a:84)