^{page 142 note 2} De Or. ii. 265.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 3} Gell. xv. 11. 2.

^{page 142 note 4} De Or. iii. 93–95.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 5} Suet. Rhet. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 6} Brut. 310.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 7} Or. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} N.D. ii. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} Off. ii. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 3} Brut. 314–16.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 4} Plut. Cic. 3. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 5} Att. i. 15. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 6} Ibid. 9. 2. For animadversions on his taste and doubts about his enthusiasm see Showerman, G., Am. Fourn. Phil, xxv (1904), 306–14.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 7} Att. i. 8. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 8} Parad. v. 2. 37Google Scholar, ‘intuentem te, admirantem, clamores tollentem cum uideo, seruum esse ineptiarum omnium iudico.’

^{page 143 note 9} Verr. ii. 4. 147Google Scholar; cf. Val. Max. ii. 2. 2Google Scholar, Liv. xlv. 29.

^{page 143 note 10} Arch. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 11} The use of the word as a title of Cicero's contemporary, Antiochos I of Commagene (kindly pointed out to me by Professor Momigliano), confirms this interpretation. See R.E. i. 2487 ff.Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Antiochos (37)’. Cicero repeats the claim in Flac. 9Google Scholar: ‘nam si quis unquam de nostris hominibus a genere isto studio ac uoluntate non abhorrens fuit, me et esse arbitror et magis etiam turn cum plus erat oti fuisse.’

^{page 144 note 1} Cic. 5. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 2} Fin. i. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 3} Brut. 306–16.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 4} Ibid. 309, 332; N.D. i. 6Google Scholar; Fin. i. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 5} Polyb. xxxi. 23–25.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 6} Clu. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 7} Ibid. 142.

^{page 144 note 8} Fin. iv. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 1} Verr. ii. 2. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} Hentzner, P., Travels in England (1598)Google Scholar, from Wilson, J. Dover, Life in Shakespeare's England (Harmondsworth, 1944), 18.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} Q.Fr. i. 1Google Scholar; cf. Plin. Ep. viii. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 4} Q.Fr. i. 1. 6Google Scholar, ‘constat enim ea provincia primum ex eo genere sociorum, quod est ex hominum omni genere humanissimum.’

^{page 145 note 5} Q.Fr. i. 1. 16Google Scholar; cf. i. 1. 18.

^{page 145 note 6} Juvenal (iii. 61) uses the term Greek in the same sweeping way and then pulls himself up: ‘quamuis quota portio faecis Achaei?’

^{page 145 note 7} The fallacia of Greek officiate had already been castigated by the Greek Polybios, who tells us (vi. 56. 13; cf. 38. 4) that not even ten seals and twenty witnesses could guarantee the proper administration of a single talent.

^{page 146 note 1} Q.Fr. i. 1. 27–28.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} Flac. Fr. 2Google Scholar; cf. Hier. Ep. 10. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 3} Again, there were honourable exceptions in the persons of witnesses for the defence, e.g. the Apollonidenses: ‘homines sunt tota ex Asia frugalissimi, sanctissimi, a Graecorum luxuria et leuitate remotissimi, patres familias suo contenti, aratores, rusticani’ (Flac. 71).Google Scholar Cf. his magnificent testimonial to the Greeks of Marseilles: ‘cuius ego ciuitatis disciplinam atque grauitatem non solum Graeciae sed haud scio an cunctis gentibus anteponendam iure dicam’ (Flac. 63).Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 4} Flac. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 5} Flac. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 1} Q.Fr. i. 2. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} Att. i. 2. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 3} The Commentariolum may not have been written by Quintus and was certainly not written in 64 (see Henderson, M. I., J.R.S. xl (1950), 8–21)Google Scholar, but it is still evidence for the campaign and it is not, for the purpose of this essay, inconsistent with other evidence.

^{page 147 note 4} Red. in Sen. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 5} Ibid. 13.

^{page 147 note 6} Ibid. 14.

^{page 147 note 7} Pis. 22, 67.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 8} Pis. 70.Google Scholar Compare the attack on Antony's new jurymen in Phil. v. 5. 12Google Scholar: ‘legit aleatores, legit exsules, legit Graecos’.

^{page 147 note 9} De Or. i. 47Google Scholar, 221. In i. 47 Crassus is speaking, in i. 221 Antonius; but, since Antonius speaks of ineptum et Graeculum, and since he anticipates the observations of Crassus (ii. 18) on Greek ineptia both speakers may here be reasonably taken as representing Cicero.

^{page 148 note 1} De Or. ii. 13–20.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 2} Cicero, well aware of the Latin language's poorer vocabulary, is always on the watch for evidence to the contrary. In Tusc. ii. 35 he is enchanted with the discovery that π⋯νος represents both labor and dolor: ‘o uerborum inops interdum, quibus abundare te semper putas, Graecia!’ See the references below, p. 156, n. 5.

^{page 148 note 3} De Or. ii. 75–76.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 4} Brut. 316.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 5} Rab. Post. 35–36.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 6} Mil. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 7} Ibid. 80.

^{page 148 note 8} Ibid. 55.

^{page 148 note 9} Fam. xiii. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} Fam. xiii. 1. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} Fam. xvi. 4. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} Att. vii. 18. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 4} Inv. i. 35Google Scholar; cf. Plautus, , Ann. 11Google Scholar, ‘Maccus uortit barbare’ and the refs. in Haarhoff, T. J., The Stranger at the Gate (Oxford, 1948), 216–21.Google Scholar In Rep. i. 58 Laelius distinguishes: ‘sin id nomen moribus dandum est non linguis, non Graecos minus barbaros quam Romanos puto’.

^{page 149 note 5} Lig. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 6} Fam. xiii. 78. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} Ph. 211 f., 317–19.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} Div. i. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 3} Mur. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 4} e.g. Verr. ii. 4. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} Fin. iv. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 2} Archias was a client of Pompey's rival Lucullus; perhaps Cicero, disappointed by Pompey's coolness, meant to assert himself a little.

^{page 151 note 3} Att. i. 16. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 4} Arch. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 5} Har. Resp. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 6} De Or. i. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 1} Ibid. i. 47.

^{page 152 note 2} Ibid. i. 46.

^{page 152 note 3} Ibid. i. 197.

^{page 152 note 4} Ibid. i. 195.

^{page 152 note 5} Ibid. i. 198. In Rep. iv. 10Google Scholar the superiority of Rome is shown by the lower status she accords to actors.

^{page 152 note 6} De Or. ii. 153, 156.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 7} Ibid. ii. 154 f. For a different Scipio and another side of Cicero see Rep. i. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 8} De Or. iii. 55–68.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} Ibid. iii. 69.

^{page 153 note 2} Ibid. iii. 137.

^{page 153 note 3} Leg. ii. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 4} Rep. i. 36Google Scholar; cf. De Or. ii. 154–5.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} Rep. ii. 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} Rep. ii. 34–37.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 3} Ibid. iii. 5.

^{page 154 note 4} Ibid. 7.

^{page 154 note 5} Tusc. i. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} Ibid. i. 2–4.

^{page 155 note 2} viii. 56. 5.

^{page 155 note 3} Tusc. ii. 5Google Scholar; cf. iv. 1.

^{page 155 note 4} Ibid. ii. 6; cf. Div. ii. 5Google Scholar, ‘magnificum illud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum, ut Graecis de philosophia litteris non egeant’. Without actually saying so Cicero suggests that any Roman debt to Greece is hereby cancelled.

^{page 155 note 5} Tusc. ii. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 6} Ibid. iv. 1–5; Rep. ii. 28.

^{page 155 note 7} Tusc. iv. 5–6.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} There is the same assumption, expressed more strongly, in Off. ii. 5Google Scholar: ‘maximis igitur in malis hoc tamen boni assecuti uidemur ut ea litteris mandaremus, quae nee erant satis nota nostris et erant cognitione dignissima’; cf. Div. ii. 1; N.D. 1.7, 91; Off. i. 1.

^{page 156 note 2} Fin. ii. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 3} Ibid. ii. 67.

^{page 156 note 4} Ibid. iii. 5; cf. iii. 15, passim.

^{page 156 note 5} Ibid. v. 96; cf. above, p. 148, n. 2. For other linguistic claims see N.D. i. 8Google Scholar; Fin. i. 10Google Scholar; iii. 5; Tusc. ii. 35Google Scholar; iii. 10–11, 16, 23; Div. i. 1Google Scholar; Sen. 45.Google Scholar For simple honesty in this matter see Vitruvius v. 4.6: ‘harmonia autem est musica litteratura obscura et difficilis, maxime quidem quibus Graecae litterae non sunt notae. quam si uolumus explicare, necesse est etiam Graecis uerbis uti, quod nonnulla eorum Latinas non habent appellationes.’

^{page 157 note 1} Fin. i. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 2} Here the comparison with South Africa is instructive. It has been vividly drawn by ProfessorHaarhoff, T. J. in The Stranger at the Gate (Oxford, 1048).Google Scholar The Afrikaner has gained political mastery and linguistic parity, but he is still fighting for his culture.

^{page 158 note 1} It goes without saying that Cicero, like his father and, probably, his grand-father, gave his son a Greek education. Nor is it astonishing if the African who publicly disparages the European also takes care to send his children to a school with a high proportion of European teachers. If he can afford it he sends them to Europe.

^{page 159 note 1} Ep. ii. 1. 156 f.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 2} De Or. ii. 154–5Google Scholar is of course, much truer to Scipio than Rep. i. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 3} Lucr. i. 66 ff.

^{page 159 note 4} Tusc. i. 7Google Scholar; cf. iv. 7.

^{page 159 note 5} It is the greater pity that for hundreds of years, Arabic translations apart, the Greek philosophers were known to Europe mainly through Cicero. They made their impact partly because their vitality survived interpretation, partly because their interpreter's narrower vision was still wide enough to take in a good deal of them.