¹ Fragments of Lucilius will be cited with the numberings of Warmington, E.H. (ed.), Remains of Old Latin, vol. III: Lucilius, The Twelve Tables (Cambridge, MA, 1938)Google Scholar, and Marx, F., C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1904–1905)Google Scholar; the text is that of Marx with deviations noted, and translations are largely adapted from those of Warmington.

² For this in conjunction with the idea that ‘philosophy at Rome was in the air’, see Zetzel, J.E.G., ‘Philosophy is in the streets’, in Williams, G.D. and Volk, K. (edd.), Roman Reflections: Studies in Latin Philosophy (Oxford, 2015), 50–62, at 61Google Scholar. Cichorius, C., Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin, 1908), 47Google Scholar goes too far in claiming that Lucilius was therefore an adherent of Academic philosophy.

³ Carneades could also be made into a prolific philosopher by a later generation. Varro's elaboration of the Carneadea diuisio on natural ends reached the number 288: Rawson, E., Intellectual Life in the Roman Republic (London, 1985), 139Google Scholar.

⁴ Clitomachus is also associated with Lucius Censorinus in the same passage of Cicero's Lucullus, with the result that his ‘practical credentials’ are ‘highlighted’: Woolf, R., Cicero: The Philosophy of a Roman Sceptic (London, 2015), 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Interestingly, Censorinus features in Valerius Maximus’ anecdote about Lupus’ political trajectory (6.9.10, discussed below).

⁵ Note, though, that Carneades’ pronouncements were ‘not in dialogical, question-and-answer form’: Castagnoli, L., ‘How dialectical was Stoic dialectic?’, in Nightingale, A. and Sedley, D. (edd.), Ancient Models of Mind: Studies in Human and Divine Rationality (Cambridge, 2010), 153–79, at 156Google Scholar. Ioppolo, A.M., ‘L'assenso nella filosofia di Clitomaco: un problema di linguaggio?’, in Ioppolo, A.M. and Sedley, D. (edd.), Pyrrhonists, Patricians, Platonizers: Hellenistic Philosophy in the Period 155–86 b.c. (Rome, 2007), 225–67Google Scholar challenges the usual identification of Clitomachus’ role as that of an unquestioning scribe.

⁶ ‘Aus Versehen’: Mommsen, T., Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), 708 n. 3Google Scholar; see e.g. Ferguson, W.S., ‘The Lex Calpurnia of 149 b.c.’, JRS 11 (1921), 86–100, at 100Google Scholar.

⁷ Freudenburg, K., ‘Seneca's Apocolocyntosis: censors in the afterworld’, in Bartsch, S. and Schiesaro, A. (edd.), The Cambridge Companion to Seneca (Cambridge, 2015), 93–105, at 98–100Google Scholar follows Bauman, R.A., Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics: A Study of the Roman Jurists in their Political Setting, 316–82 b.c. (Munich, 1983), 205–6Google Scholar; cf. Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts (Cambridge, MA, 1968), 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who supports the earlier date based on Lentulus’ inability to commit extortion in the 140s. See Brennan, T.C., The Praetorship in the Roman Republic (Oxford, 2000), 235Google Scholar, with the note at 349. It has been noted to me by Loren J. Samons that it was proconsuls who were tried de repetundis—hence Eden, P.T., Seneca: Apocolocyntosis (Cambridge, 1984), 16Google Scholar calls Lupus one—but I find no evidence for him holding this office.

⁸ Some of the vast bibliography is cited by Powell, J.G.F., ‘The embassy of the three philosophers to Rome in 155 b.c.’, in Kremmydas, C. and Tempest, K. (edd.), Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change (Oxford, 2013), 219–47, at 231 n. 25Google Scholar, and passim. Schmidt, E.A., Musen in Rom: Deutung von Welt und Geschichte in grossen Texten der römischen Literatur (Tübingen, 2001), 33Google Scholar is alone in treating, albeit briefly, the embassy as relevant to Lucilius’ Concilium.

⁹ For doubts about the accuracy of Lactantius, who ascribes a whole speech in Cic. Rep. 3, spoken by Philus, to Carneades, see Glucker, J., ‘Carneades in Rome—some unsolved problems’, in Powell, J.G.F. and North, J.A. (edd.), Cicero's Republic (London, 2001), 57–82Google Scholar.

¹⁰ This fragment has been assigned to the first book since Dousa's edition. Krenkel, W., Lucilius: Satiren (Leiden, 1970), 1.64Google Scholar places the fragment later in Book 1 than other commentators, because he connects it with the judgement of Lupus, i.e. that even Carneades would not know what to do with him.

¹¹ Michelfeit, J., ‘Zum Aufbau des ersten Buches des Lucilius’, Hermes 93 (1965), 113–28, at 125Google Scholar. Muecke, F., ‘Rome's first satirists: Ennius and Lucilius’, in Freudenburg, K. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire (Cambridge, 2005), 33–47, at 43–4Google Scholar merely states without elaboration: ‘His recent death was topical and suited the subject of the satire.’

¹² I owe this formulation to an anonymous reader, with thanks.

¹³ The possibility is concomitant with the status of the adynaton figure as a type of proverb, as concluded by Rowe, G.O., ‘The adynaton as a stylistic device’, AJPh 86 (1965), 387–96Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Note the re- of remittat: one reason for it being ‘second time around’ would be that Carneades had already been before the Roman Senate in 155 b.c.e. (no matter that he was alive, that time).

¹⁵ Influentially stated in Anderson, W.S., Essays in Roman Satire (Princeton, 1982), 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Mayer, R., ‘Persona(l) problems: the literary persona in antiquity revisited’, MD 50 (2003), 55–80, especially at 71–8Google Scholar.

¹⁶ For instance, Hass, K., Lucilius und der Beginn der Persönlichkeitsdichtung in Rom (Stuttgart, 2007), 76–89Google Scholar on Lucilius’ apparent philosophy has only one page (77) on the key fragment, and ends her overview with an accurate but uninspiring conclusion: ‘Lucilius ist nicht Stoiker, Epikureer oder Akademiker—er ist Lucilius’ (89).

¹⁷ Cf. Dutsch, D., ‘The beginnings: philosophy in Roman literature before 155 b.c.’, in Garani, M. and Konstan, D. (edd.), The Philosophizing Muse: The Influence of Greek Philosophy on Roman Poetry (Newcastle, 2014), 1–25, at 21Google Scholar on Lucilius’ unsympathetic treatment of all schools in the surviving fragments: ‘Significantly, all the philosophers come under criticism.’ Krenkel (n. 10), 2.435 elliptically comments on Lucilius’ mention of Polemon (and Xenocrates?): ‘Lucilius kannte … die Geschichte der Akademie’.

¹⁸ Powell (n. 8), especially 237–45 is keen to scotch the existence of these extra-senatorial lectures as impossible to verify, and indeed as Cicero's invention. While that is certainly possible, it seems plausible that the tradition of Carneades’ doings in Rome, and especially the for-and-against nature of his discourses there, must have sprung up soon after the visit.

¹⁹ Cf. Perin, C., ‘Scepticism and belief’, in Bett, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism (Cambridge, 2010), 145–64, at 149–50Google Scholar.

²⁰ Schofield, M., ‘Cicero for and against divination’, JRS 76 (1986), 47–65, at 55Google Scholar. Cf. Cic. Luc. 131: non quo probaret sed ut opponeret Stoicis (‘not because he held it himself but in order to combat the Stoics with it’).

²¹ Vogt, K.M., ‘Scepticism and action’, in Bett, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism (Cambridge, 2010), 165–80, at 170Google Scholar. Cf. Baraz, Y., A Written Republic: Cicero's Philosophical Politics (Princeton, 2012), 134Google Scholar (with references) on how Cicero's probabile (translating Carneades’ πιθανόν, ‘believable’) ‘refers to rhetorical persuasion’.

²² As at Cic. Luc. 78; cf. Ioppolo, A.M., Opinione e scienza: il dibattito tra Stoici e Accademici nel III e nel II secolo a.C. (Naples, 1986), 195Google Scholar.

²³ Cf. the treatment of Lucilius as involved with Stoic anti-compositional theories of grammatical arrangement in Horace's Satires: see Freudenburg, K., The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory of Satire (Princeton, 1993), 109–19, 132–9, 145–62Google Scholar. Mariotti, I., Studi Luciliani (Florence, 1960), 40Google Scholar claims that Panaetius via Scipio Aemilianus necessarily infused Lucilius with Stoic ideas, though note Raschke, W.R., ‘Arma pro amico: Lucilian satire at the crisis of the Roman Republic’, Hermes 115 (1987), 299–318, at 302–3Google Scholar.

²⁴ 749 Warmington = 738 Marx, certa sunt sine detrimento quae inter sese commodent (‘There are established things which men may give and take on loan among themselves without disadvantage’; cf. Cic. Off. 1.51); the infamous uirtus fragment (1196–208 Warmington = 1326–38 Marx), which Görler, W., ‘Zum virtus-Fragment des Lucilius (1326–1338 Marx) und zur Geschichte der stoischen Güterlehre’, Hermes 112 (1984), 445–68Google Scholar sees as Stoic, partly accepted by Dutsch (n. 17), 22–3, though Gruen, E.S., Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca, NY, 1992), 310Google Scholar thinks it is straight parody; Raschke, W.R., ‘The virtue of Lucilius’, Latomus 49 (1990), 352–69, at 364–5Google Scholar claims it to be practical Roman moralizing, rejecting Greek influence.

²⁵ See Chahoud, A., ‘Romani ueteres atque urbani sales: a note on Cicero, De Oratore 2.262 and Lucilius 173M’, in Kraus, C.S., Marincola, J. and Pelling, C. (edd.), Ancient Historiography and its Contexts: Studies in Honour of A.J. Woodman (Oxford, 2010), 87–96, at 94Google Scholar.

²⁶ See e.g. Frede, M., ‘The Sceptic's two kinds of assent and the question of the possibility of knowledge’, in Rorty, R., Schneewind, J. and Skinner, Q. (edd.), Philosophy in History (Cambridge, 1984), 225–54, at 267–71Google Scholar, on the controversial interpretation of Carneades on opinions proposed by Catulus (and held by his father) at Cic. Luc. 148.

²⁷ I have work on this fragment forthcoming elsewhere, and so do not treat it here; Ahl, F., Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets (Ithaca, NY, 1985), 95–7Google Scholar is one of many to note that Lupus’ overly harsh judgements are the basis for Lucilius’ critique of him.

²⁸ Cf. Cic. Tusc. 4.7 on arbitration: ‘but let everyone defend his views, for judgement is free’. Gildenhard, I., Paideia Romana: Cicero's Tusculan Disputations (Cambridge, 2007), 201–3Google Scholar analyses Cicero's statements at Tusc. 4.5–7 in terms of writing under Caesar's dominatus.

²⁹ Characterized by Atticus as ‘freedom of argumentation’ (libertas disserendi, Leg. 1.36); in that context, Cicero's argument is said to lack such Carneadean freedom, owing to his dependence on sources, but he counters the charge as necessary to deal with so important a matter as the Republic, and, in any case, he has exercised free judgement by choosing one source: Atkins, J.W., Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason: The Republic and Laws (Cambridge, 2013), 179–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Mariotti (n. 23), 53–4 notes the sympotic context.

³¹ See Cichorius (n. 2), 228; Classen, C.J., ‘Grundlagen und Absicht der Kritik des Lucilius’, in Klodt, C. (ed.), Satura lanx: Festschrift für Werner A. Krenkel zum 70. Geburtstag (Hildesheim, 1996), 11–28, at 17Google Scholar is more cautious.

³² σεμνῶς has a literary-critical role, as Aristotle uses it to describe the use of unfamiliar words at Poet. 1458a21. See Adams, J.N., Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2003), 327CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Whitton, C., Pliny the Younger: Epistles Book II (Cambridge, 2013), 176Google Scholar. Arist. Rhet. 1406b3–7 characterizes τὸ σεμνόν as epic, then tragic; cf. Piwonka, M. Puelma, Lucilius und Kallimachos: Zur Geschichte einer Gattung der hellenistisch-römischen Poesie (Frankfurt, 1949), 14Google Scholar.

³³ As argued by Baier, T., ‘Lucilius und die griechischen Wörter’, in Manuwald, G., Der Satiriker Lucilius und seine Zeit (Munich, 2001), 37–50, at 41Google Scholar.

³⁴ Petersmann, H., ‘The language of early Roman satire: its function and characteristics’, in Adams, J.N. and Mayer, R.G. (edd.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry (Oxford, 1999), 289–310, at 298Google Scholar thinks Ennius’ use of Greek is Lucilius’ target.

³⁵ Cicero uses a fragment of Lucilius (1249 Warmington = 1305 Marx) to illustrate ἐποχή (Att. 13.21.3).

³⁶ For the question, see Schmidt (n. 8), 33. Cf. Sen. Apocol. 5.2 on Claudius.

³⁷ Gell. NA 6.14.9, Plut. Cat. 22.4; see Gruen, E.S., Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden, 1990), 176Google Scholar.

³⁸ Cicero comments, perhaps somewhat acidly (implying ‘Punic faith’), that ‘he was a clever man, as you'd expect from a Carthaginian’ (Luc. 98).

³⁹ On the language issue, there are newer Roman gods such as Liber, Janus and Quirinus in attendance (24–7 Warmington = 21–2 Marx), not to mention Lupus. Chahoud, A., ‘The Roman satirist speaks Greek’, Classics Ireland 11 (2004), 1–46, at 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar raises the possibility that ‘the gods were imagined to speak an idiom of their own’.

⁴⁰ Puelma Piwonka (n. 32), 30–1.

⁴¹ For Lucilius on further mortal imitation of divine banquets, see also 469 Warmington = 444 Marx, idem epulo cibus atque epulae Iouis omnipotentis (‘the same food and festive dishes in a feast of all-powerful Jupiter’), with e.g. Marx (n. 1), 2.165.

⁴² These fragments stem from different sources, hence the split: the former is preserved by pseudo-Asconius, the latter in Rufinianus’ De Figuris Sententiarum.

⁴³ Fiske, G.C., Lucilius and Horace: A Study in the Classical Tradition of Imitation (Madison, 1920), 153Google Scholar, who quotes Il. 1.423 (the epithet ‘blameless’ is not Odyssean).

⁴⁴ Intriguingly, the book of Clitomachus dedicated to Lucilius covered the same subjects as an earlier work of the same author dedicated to somebody else (Cic. Luc. 102): such a do-over is much like the holding of a new council.

⁴⁵ Cf. Cic. Nat. D. 3.44, where Carneades is named; Meijer, P.A., Stoic Theology: Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods (Delft, 2007), 180–206Google Scholar. For the sorites, see e.g. Burnyeat, M.F., ‘Gods and heaps’, in Schofield, M. and Nussbaum, M. (edd.), Language and Logos: Studies in Ancient Greek Philosophy (Cambridge, 1982), 315–38, at 326–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ Frede, D., ‘Theodicy and providential care in Stoicism’, in Frede, D. and Laks, A. (edd.), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath (Leiden, 2002), 85–117, at 112Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ For Carneades as a positive atheist, or at least an agnostic via ‘suspension of judgement’ (cf. Sext. Emp. Math. 9.191), see Sedley, D., ‘From the Presocratics to the Hellenistic age’, in Bullivant, S. and Ruse, M. (edd.), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Oxford, 2013), 139–51, at 147–50Google Scholar; Whitmarsh, T., Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World (London, 2016), 161–5Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Cf. Long, A.A., ‘Scepticism about gods in Hellenistic philosophy’, in Griffith, M. and Mastronarde, D.J. (edd.), Cabinet of the Muses: Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer (Atlanta, 1990), 279–91, at 287Google Scholar: ‘nor is it difficult to imagine Carneades anticipating Plutarch in ridiculing the very notion of perishable gods’. See e.g. Thorsrud, H., Ancient Scepticism (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2009), 60–5Google Scholar on the nuances of Carneades’ arguments (as represented at Cic. Nat. D. 3.29–34).

⁴⁹ Contra e.g. the bald statement of Krenkel (n. 10), 2.705. I do not follow the justification of Marx (n. 1), 2.419 that this is the ‘wit of a most elegant poet who has mixed in his satire the human with the divine, immortal with mortal, living and dead’. See the important discussion of Pease, A.S., ‘The son of Neptune’, HSPh 54 (1943), 69–82Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ The early Lucilian editor Dousa assigned the fragment to Book 1, though Cichorius (n. 2), 347 guesses that its place is somewhere in Books 2 to 10, on complex dating grounds (between 119 and 112 b.c.e., he claims).

⁵¹ Cf. the scenario sketched by Waszink, J.H., ‘Zur ersten Satire des Lucilius’, in Korzeniewski, D. (ed.), Die römische Satire (Darmstadt, 1970), 267–74, at 270Google Scholar, where Neptune speaks against Rome and in Lupus’ defence; see also Martin, S. Romano, El tópico grecolatino del concilio de los dioses (Hildesheim, 2009), 171Google Scholar on the ‘humanization’ of Neptune in the Carneades fragment and on the attack on Apollo's divination, the latter not treated here.

⁵² Cf. Knuuttila, S. & Sihvola, J., ‘Ancient Scepticism and philosophy of religion’, in Sihvola, J. (ed.), Ancient Scepticism and the Sceptical Tradition (Helsinki, 2000), 125–44, at 131–2Google Scholar.

⁵³ See e.g. Fantham, E., ‘Mime: the missing link in Roman literary history’, CW 82 (1989), 153–63, at 161 n. 47Google Scholar for Lucilius as the possible start of a tradition of divine councils. I do not share the opinion supported by Skutsch, O., Studia Enniana (London, 1968), 109–12Google Scholar that the hexameter-ending feruentia rapa uorare (Apocol. 9.5) was originally from Lucilius.

⁵⁴ There is no link, contra Pierini, R. degl'Innocenti, ‘Il concilio degli dèi tra Lucilio e Ovidio’, A&R 32 (1987), 137–47Google Scholar, with Ov. Met. 1.190–1. However, a better comparison involving Carneades might be Cic. Fin. 2.59: ‘as Carneades says, imagine you know that a viper is lurking somewhere, and that someone whose death would benefit you is about to sit down on it unawares.’

⁵⁵ Ascribed to Book 1 by Nonius, here with Scaliger's rendering icterus for transmitted citer, not ‘Lachmann's’ as claimed at Goh, I., ‘Trebonius’ allusion to Lucilius (Cic. Fam. 12.16.3)’, SO 87 (2013), 79–89, at 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where teter is adopted. I do not see the ‘consternation’ that Muecke (n. 11), 46 identifies. Krenkel (n. 10), 1.121 claims that ‘Ein Gott beschreibt den Lupus mit kräftigen Worten’.

⁵⁶ That said, Diogenes claims that Carneades grew his hair and nails owing to his devotion to philosophy (4.62), which suggests an uncivilized and bestial aspect to his lifestyle.

⁵⁷ See Goldhill, S., ‘The anecdote: exploring the boundaries between oral and literate performance in the Second Sophistic’, in Johnson, W.A. and Parker, H.N. (edd.), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford, 2009), 96–112, at 106Google Scholar for this passage in the context of the Second Sophistic chreia tradition.

⁵⁸ White, S.A., ‘Cicero and the therapists’, in Powell, J.G.F. (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher (Oxford, 1995), 219–46, at 242Google Scholar; the Latin seems to indicate that this remedy is as effective as the passage of time, with the same kind of ‘even if’ as in 35 Warmington = 31 Marx. Cf. Carneades on freedom from pain (Cic. Fin. 2.38).

⁵⁹ See e.g. Cole, S., Cicero and the Rise of Deification at Rome (Cambridge, 2013), 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on Cic. Rep. 1.25), 94 (on Rep. 2.17), 100 (on Rep. 6.24)—all concerning Romulus, though cf. Plut. Aem. 17.7. Gärtner, H.-A., ‘Politische Deutungen von Sonnenfinsternissen in der Antike’, in Köhler, H., Görgemanns, H. and Baumbach, M. (edd.), “Sturmend auf finsterem Pfad …”: Ein Symposion zur Sonnenfinsternis in der Antike (Heidelberg, 2000), 35–48, at 44Google Scholar discusses this eclipse, recorded in the Suda as a solar eclipse, at the death of Carneades as intended to oppose Carneades, the moon, to Plato, the sun. Thanks to Lynette Mitchell and Karen Ní Mheallaigh for assistance on this point.

⁶⁰ Cf. Annas, J., ‘Cicero on Stoic moral philosophy and private property’, in Griffin, M. and Barnes, J. (edd.), Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society (Oxford, 1989), 151–73, at 157Google Scholar: ‘Carneades’ speech [against justice] was clearly a source of good examples.’

⁶¹ Cf. Cic. Luc. 98: ‘Carneades used to joke (ludere): “if my conclusion is valid, I stick to it; but if it's invalid, Diogenes should pay me back my mina”.’

⁶² Connors, C., ‘Epic allusion in Roman satire’, in Freudenburg, K. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire (Cambridge, 2005), 123–45, at 127–9Google Scholar. Waszink (n. 51), 270 notes that Neptune, as god of the sea, may well have spoken this line, and observes the Greek diction at 272.

⁶³ There is here a possible onomastic pun, of the type identified by Gale, M., ‘Etymological wordplay and poetic succession in Lucretius’, CPh 96 (2001), 168–72Google Scholar: Carneades’ name begins with carn-, the root of the Latin word for ‘flesh’ (caro, carnis, f.). Cf. the second Homeric quotation in Diog. Laert. 4.63, which incorporates Mentor and thus juxtaposes Homer's Mentor with the interlocutor Mentor, who was cuckolding Carneades: Usher, M.D., ‘Carneades’ quip: orality, philosophy, wit, and the poetics of impromptu quotation’, Oral Tradition 21 (2006), 190–209, at 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ Cf. e.g. Numenius, fr. 27 = Eusebius, Preparation 14.738d: ‘And if there were ever a need of marvellous statements, he would rise up as violent as a river in flood, overflowing with rapid stream everything on this side and that, and would fall on his hearers and drag them along with him in a tumult.’

⁶⁵ See e.g. Sorabji, R., Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate (Ithaca, NY, 1993), 127–8Google Scholar. Cf. Cic. Nat. D. 3.29, where Carneades is claimed to have argued that every living thing is mortal because corporeal and changeable.

⁶⁶ Val. Max. 8.7 ext. 5; in Plin. HN 25.51, Gell. NA 17.15 it is Carneades before debating Zeno; at Petron. Sat. 88.4 it is Chrysippus himself who takes the hellebore; see Bartsch, S., Persius: A Study in Food, Philosophy, and the Figural (Chicago, 2015), 88Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Porph. Abst. 3.20.3, with Sedley, D., Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2007), 236–8Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ I support, though, the cautious conclusions of Clayman, D.L., Timon of Phlius: Pyrrhonism into Poetry (Berlin and New York, 2010), 107–12Google Scholar, who is loath to believe in Diels's influential attribution of a full-blown fishing scene to Timon (based on Lucian's Piscator).

⁶⁹ For these fragments, see now Lurie, M., ‘Der schiffbrüchige Odysseus oder: Wie Arkesilaos zum Skeptiker wurde. Zu Timon von Phleius Fr. 806 SH (32 D)’, Philologus 58 (2014), 183–6Google Scholar, with Clayman (n. 68), 108–9.

⁷⁰ Fiske (n. 43), 152–3, endorsed by e.g. Richlin, A., The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (New York, 1992), 172Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Clayman (n. 68), 81–3, with Ax, W., ‘Timons Gang in die Unterwelt: ein Betrag zur Geschichte der antiken Literaturparodie’, Hermes 119 (1991), 177–93Google Scholar.

⁷² Cicero thus participates in a ‘symbolic heroizing of Carneades’: Lévy, C., ‘The Sceptical Academy: decline and afterlife’, in Bett, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism (Cambridge, 2010), 81–104, at 83Google Scholar.

⁷³ Yet, the statue of Carneades in Athens which inspired Cicero's recollection is more conciliatory than might be expected from the anger he showed towards the Stoics (‘against whose teaching his temper had grown hot’, Cic. Tusc. 5.83): Zanker, P. (trans. Shapiro, A.), The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995), 180–3Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Cf. Cic. Fat. 19 with its example regarding causation that ‘Carneades is going down to the Academy’, and the explanation (with piquant ‘boredom’) at Woolf (n. 4), 90.

⁷⁵ Usher (n. 63) has the details, in the context of oral composition in spontaneous philosophy.

⁷⁶ Usher (n. 63), 204.

⁷⁷ Cf. the comparison at Numenius, fr. 27 (= Eusebius, Preparation 14.738d) of Carneades to a robber; van Nuffelen, P., Rethinking the Gods: Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post-Hellenistic Period (Cambridge, 2012), 76Google Scholar is too quick to dismiss this.

⁷⁸ Note that Cicero says that Carneades and Clitomachus were ‘in exile’, from Cyrene and Carthage respectively, as they lived permanently abroad in Athens (exsilium … quantum tandem a perpetua peregrinatione differt, Tusc. 5.107): the phrasing is suggestive for the similarity of Carneades and Lupus here posited, given that, although repetundae was not a capital charge (cf. Sherwin-White, A.N., ‘The extortion procedure again’, JRS 42 [1952], 43–55Google Scholar), those convicted routinely fled Rome to avoid paying large sums of money in damages: see e.g. Alexander, M.C., ‘How many Roman senators were ever prosecuted? The evidence from the Late Republic’, Phoenix 47 (1993), 238–55, at 243–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Tusc. 5 passage is linked to the Luc. 137 joke (reproduced above) by Ioppolo, A.M., ‘Carneade e il terzo libro delle Tusculanae’, Elenchos 1 (1980), 76–91, at 89–90Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Despite what Sextus Empiricus says about ‘the myth-making of poets … full of every impiety’ (Math. 9.192), and contra Wardle, D., Cicero on Divination: De divinatione, Book 1 (Oxford, 2006), 132Google Scholar on Cic. Div. 1.13. Caston, R.R., ‘Pacuuius hoc melius quam Sophocles: Cicero's use of drama in the treatment of the emotions’, in Cairns, D. and Fulkerson, L. (edd.), Emotions between Greece and Rome (London, 2015), 129–48, at 147Google Scholar claims that Carneades here ‘shows an unwillingness to confront pain in a realistic way’.

⁸⁰ See now Keane, C., Juvenal and the Satiric Genre (Oxford, 2015), 117–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with Lucilius’ uirtus fragment referred to at 149.

⁸¹ See, for another example beyond the Concilium, Feeney, D., Literature and Religion at Rome (Cambridge, 1998), 93–4Google Scholar.

⁸² This article has been helped by advice from many readers, both anonymous and known to the author, including Alessandro Barchiesi, Kirk Freudenburg and Emily Gowers, and the editors of CQ. A large debt is also owed to audiences at Boston University, especially James Uden, and Dartmouth College, particularly Michael Lurie and Roberta Stewart, with special thanks to Margaret Graver.