Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:02:25.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JUVENAL 5.104: TEXT AND INTERTEXT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2019

Ben Cartlidge
Ben Cartlidge*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper draws on Juvenal's intertextual relationship with comedy to solve a textual crux involving fish-names. The monograph by Ferriss-Hill will no doubt warn scholarship away from the treatment of Roman satire's intertextuality with Old Comedy for a time. Yet, Greek comedy's influence on Roman satire is far from exhausted, and this paper will show that this influence goes more widely, and more deeply, than is usually seen. In time, one might hope for a renewed monographic treatment of the subject.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , May 2019 , pp. 370 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The translations throughout are my own. Frederick Jones kindly improved a draft of this article; any remaining errors are my own.

References

2 Ferriss-Hill, J.L., Roman Satire and the Old Comic Tradition (Cambridge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The discussions of our passage at 57 and 117 make no mention of the textual difficulty, though from 117 it appears that Ferriss-Hill accepts Bradshaw's idea of a fungal infection; see Bradshaw, A.T. von S., ‘Glacie aspersus maculis: Juvenal 5.104’, CQ 15 (1965), 121–5, at 123Google Scholar.

3 Bradshaw (n. 2), 122.

4 Also accepted by the otherwise sceptical Giangrande, G., ‘Textkritische Beiträge zu lateinischen Dichtern’, Hermes 95 (1967), 110–21, at 118Google Scholar.

5 Bradshaw (n. 2) 122.

6 The relevance of the passage was first spotted by Bücheler.

7 Thompson, D'A.W., ‘Fish in Tiber’, CR 52 (1938), 166–7, at 166Google Scholar, refuting the contention of Owen, S.G., ‘Glanis and Juvenal V. 104’, CR 52 (1938), 116–17, at 116Google Scholar, that Tiberinus was the nomen proprium piscis.

8 Cf. Duff, J.D., D. Iunii Iuvenalis Saturae XIV. Fourteen Satires of Juvenal (Cambridge, 1932), 203Google Scholar; Ferguson, J., Juvenal. The Satires (London, 1979), 179Google Scholar.

9 Campbell, A.Y., ‘Pike and eel: Juvenal 5, 103–6’, CQ 39 (1945), 46–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Most commentators adopt lupus as their interpretation: see Courtney, E., A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London, 1980), 242–4Google Scholar, who reproduces the evidence presented by Mayor; the assumption that the lupus is meant is a key assumption in the defence of the lines by Giangrande (n. 4), 118–21.

11 Campbell (n. 9), 46 with nn. 2 and 3.

12 Owen (n. 7).

13 Thompson (n. 7), 167.

14 Thompson, D'A.W., ‘Glanis and Juvenal V. 104’, CR 52 (1938), 117–19, at 119Google Scholar; Knoche, U., D. Iunius Iuvenalis Saturae (Munich, 1950), 35Google Scholar; Adamietz, J., Untersuchungen zu Juvenal (Wiesbaden, 1972), 106 n. 82Google Scholar.

15 One might also wonder whether a gluttonous fish is not better eating than a fish that was watching its weight.

16 Campbell (n. 9), 46; cf. Courtney (n. 10), 243; Gower, E., The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature (Oxford, 1993), 215Google Scholar.

17 Campbell (n. 9).

18 Rose, H.J., ‘Some passages of Latin poets’, HSPh 47 (1936), 1–15, at 12Google Scholar.

19 Campbell (n. 9), 47 made a similar argument in support of his claim that the elusive fish of this line was the pike: ‘lupus and anguilla make a natural pair; every Cambridge man knows the sign of “The Pike and Eel”’. An argument from ‘natural pairs’ based on Cambridge pub signs is best rejected; yet, the idea that certain fish did ‘belong together’ in ancient literature is demonstrable.

20 σκάρον in the MSS of Athenaeus, variously emended as the form elsewhere has ᾰ. For the diminutive of this form, cf. P.Cair. Zen. 1.59082, although, precisely because the first alpha is short, the form should be proparoxytone; cf. Chandler, H.W., A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation (Oxford, 1881 2), 101Google Scholar, Petersen, W., The Greek Diminutives in –ιον: A Study in Semantics  (Weimar, 1910), 11Google Scholar.

21 For more on this derivational chain, see Petersen, W., The Greek Diminutive Suffix –ισκο–, –ισκη (New Haven, Connecticut, 1913)Google Scholar; Chantraine, P., La formation des mots en grec ancien (Paris, 1933), 73Google Scholar.

22 For the head of the γλαῦκος, cf. Archestratus, fr. 21 Olson-Sens and the editors’ notes ad loc.

23 Thompson, D'A.W., A Glossary of Greek Fishes (Oxford, 1947), 48Google Scholar; see the review of this work by Whatmough, J., CPh 44 (1948), 209–11Google Scholar for a further, though self-confessedly ‘facile’, conjecture on Juv. 5.104.

24 For the word-formation of this last, see Locker, E., ‘Die Bildung der griechischen Kurz- und Kosenamen’, Glotta 22 (1934), 45–100, at 74Google Scholar.

25 Ferriss-Hill (n. 2), 42–3.