Persius is known for his language and stylistic choices – if not the obscurity of his verse –, not least for his disdain for the use of the Greek language in Latin poetry. The latter was a theme favoured by satirists, either when occurring as code-switching or as an intrusive and degenerating power. While the attempt to maintain the purity of the only genre the Romans ever proudly claimed as ‘their own’ (Quint. Inst. 10.1.93: satura quidem tota nostra es) is the obvious explanation for what has been categorised as almost a motif in Roman satire, the issue is more complex. Unsurprisingly, both the disdain for Greek words and their use and inclusion in satires have attracted scholarly attention, both as a general motif and through a focus on specific satirists.Footnote ¹ Students of Persius, attracted by his linguistic choices, have focused on his unique treatment of Greek vocabulary and Graecisms, with studies dating to as early as J. Sorn in 1890 (Die Sprache des Satirikers Persius) to J.C. Bramble’s commentary (Persius and the Programmatic Satire. A Study in Form and Imagery [1974]) as well as more recent attempts to explore his poetics (e.g. S. Tzounakas, ‘The Rejection of Graecisms in Persius 1, 92–106: From Form to Culture’, Grazer Beiträge 26 [2008]; A. Gavrielatos, ‘Greek, Graecisms, and Bilingual Wordplays in Persius’ Satires’, in: S. Kyriakides and C. Michalopoulos [edd.], Secretis bene uiuere siluis: Studies in Latin Literature in Honour of Robert Maltby [2024], pp. 246–71), highlighting both his disdain for and his use of Greek words and Graecisms in his satires.

Linguistic choices and the use of Greek present a twofold challenge when interpreting Persius’ satires: first, the use of Greek by satirists and Persius’ engagement with this tradition, and second, the multifaceted poetics of his work. Although the presence and the influence of Greek elements in Persius have been noted in existing scholarship, a comprehensive analysis has long been lacking – a lacuna now effectively addressed by T.’s monograph. Readers familiar with the author’s prolific scholarship on Persius will know that this is not a mere cataloguing of and commentary on Greek words; with Greek words as his axis, T. presents what should be understood as a full commentary on Persius’ work and, as such, an indispensable tool to appreciate and study his satires. The occurrence of Greek words is discussed in the context of literary criticism more broadly, addressing aspects including the literary activities and preferences of the aula Neroniana, which favoured Graecisms in every aspect of cultural and poetic activity; the alleged moral decay that provokes Persius’ criticism; the poetic trends of his time, which favoured themes distanced from everyday life, such as Greek mythological topoi; and Persius’ poetics shaped by Stoic values at a time of vigorous poetic activity.

The book begins with an introduction (Chapter 1) that succinctly presents the historical and literary background to Persius’ use of Greek words and sets out the framework and parameters for their analysis, stressing that Persius’ objection to their use is not an act of patriotism but is related to his programme and his poetics. In this context the book presents Persius as disappointed with the literary movements of his time – most notably Alexandrianism. Inevitably, Nero’s philhellenism and the possibility of Persius’ implied criticism of Nero are raised, particularly in view of the Vita Persii and the Scholia; T. approaches both with caution throughout the book, inclining more towards K. Freudenburg’s (Satires of Rome. Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal [2001]) position that the satires present an image of Neronian culture that is appropriate for satirical writing, and evokes Persius’ criticism without necessary historicity. Possible allusions to and discussion of the Neronian cultural and literary content of the satires are often highlighted, particularly in Chapters 2 and 3, and most notably in the appendix to Chapter 3.

Within this framework Chapter 2 examines the use of Greek works in Persius’ choliambic ‘Prologue’ as one of the techniques he employs when outlining his poetic preference, agreeing with D.M. Hooley’s (‘Mutatis mutandis: Imitations of Horace in Persius’ First Satire’, Arethusa 17 [1984]) reading of the ‘Prologue’ as Persius’ Ars poetica, including that of the poem’s ring composition. Naturally, the analysis of the Greek words in Persius’ programmatic first satire occupies the longest chapter (Chapter 3), which is divided into sections corresponding to the poem’s structure, with each discussing in detail the satirist’s poetological tenets and highlighting how the careful selection of Greek words amplifies their function. In line with the possible allusions to Nero, T. considers the famous lines of the first satire, which have occasionally been attributed to the emperor (1.93–5 and 99–102), to be Persius’ fabrications and to encapsulate the poetic trends of the time, a position he does not take hastily, but after careful consideration of existing views on the debate (helpfully outlined in an appendix).

Persius returns to the criticism of contemporary poetic trends and priorities in the first part of the fifth satire, which is the theme of Chapter 4. The use of names enables the juxtaposition of Persius’ satire and tragoedia cothurnata, including the satirist’s aversion to tragic mythological themes. This is consistent with another of the book’s aims: in Chapters 3 and 4 Persius’ poetics are discussed regarding his criticism of other literary genres, thus contributing to the existing scholarship on their relation with satire. Greek words Persius uses in the less poetological parts of his oeuvre constitute the body of the analysis in the book’s final chapter (Chapter 5); they are discussed both in their own right and to corroborate the poetological remarks made thus far. The book concludes with a two-page epilogue that epitomises the findings and reflects the framework established in the introduction. When following T.’s rigorous analysis, readers will be assisted by rich and extensive footnotes, which meticulously attend to all possible questions, as well as a clear and detailed index. The book’s editing and presentation throughout are almost impeccable.

A final point: if I had to provide a consensus of the scholarship on Persius’ satires, I would argue that, through ingenuity and skilfulness, Persius is unique and complex, but is not obscure, provided that readers pay attention to the density of meanings and, most importantly, his deliberate lexical and stylistic choices. T.’s book does exactly this: it closely examines and interrogates the use of Greek words, not in a dry and lexicological fashion, but regarding how his choices reflect and also enable a deeper understanding of Persius’ poetics. The book will find its rightful place on the desks of those interested in the literary and cultural activity of Nero’s time, the developments of satiric poetry and ancient literary criticism. For teachers of Latin literature and of Neronian history, the book will serve as a stimulating and thought-provoking addition to their reading lists.