Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

Book XVII

I

1arg

That Asinius Gallus and Largius Licinus criticized a saying of Cicero's in the speech which he delivered For Marcus Caelius; and what may be said with truth and propriety in defence of that saying, in reply to those most foolish critics.

JUST as there have been monsters of men who expressed impious and false opinions about the immortal gods, so there have been some so extravagant and so ignorant that they have dared to say that Marcus Cicero spoke without correctness, propriety, or consideration; among these are Asinius Gallus and Largius Licinus, and the latter's book even bears the outrageous title of The Scourge of Cicero. Now the other things that they have censured are certainly not worth hearing or mentioning; but let us consider the value of this stricture of theirs, in which particularly they are, in their own opinion, very keen critics of language.

Marcus Cicero in his speech For Marcus Caelius¹ writes as follows:

As to the charge made against his chastity and published by all his accusers, not in the form of actual charges, but of gossip and calumnies, Marcus Caelius will never take that so much to heart, as to repent that he was not born ugly.

They think that Cicero has not used the proper word in saying paeniteat, or

repent,

and they go so far as to add that it is almost absurd;

for,

they say,

we regularly use paenitere when things which we ourselves have done, or which have been done in accordance with our wish and design, later begin to displease us and we change our opinion about them.

But that no one correctly says that he

repents being born

repents being mortal,

because he feels pain from any chance injury or wound inflicted upon his body

; for in such cases there is no design or choice on our part, but such things happen to us against our will by some necessity or force of nature.

In the same way,

they continue,

it was not a matter of choice with Marcus Caelius with what person he was born; yet he says that ' he did not repent this,' as if there were in that circumstance ground for a feeling of repentance.

This is in fact, as they say, the force of that word, and paenitere is strictly used of none but voluntary acts, although our forefathers used that same word also in a different sense and connected paenitere with the words paene (almost) and paenuria (want). But that is another question, and will be spoken of in another place. ² But with regard to the point at issue, giving to paenitere this same meaning which is commonly recognized, what Marcus Cicero said is not only not foolish, but in the highest degree elegant and witty. For since the adversaries and detractors of Marcus Caelius, inasmuch as he was of handsome person, made use of his appearance and figure to throw doubt upon his chastity, therefore Cicero, making sport of such an absurd charge as to impute to him as a fault the good looks which nature had given him, has deliberately adopted that very same false charge of which he is making fun, saying:

Marcus Caelius is not sorry for not having been born ugly

; so that by the very fact of speaking thus he might reproach his accusers and wittily show that they were doing an absurd thing in making Caelius' handsome person an accusation against him, just as if the person with which he was born depended upon his own volition.

II

2arg

Certain words from the first book of the Annals of Quintus Claudius, noted in a hasty reading.

WHENEVER I read the book of an early writer, I tried afterwards, for the purpose of quickening my memory, to recall and review any passages in the book which were worthy of note, in the way either of praise or censure; and I found it an exceedingly helpful exercise for ensuring my recollection of elegant words and phrases, whenever need of them should arise. For example, in the first book of the Annals of Quintus Claudius, which I had read on the preceding two days, I noted these passages:

The greater number,

says he, ³

threw away their arms and hid themselves unarmed.

The verb inhatebrant, for

hid themselves,

seemed poetic, but neither improper nor harsh.

While these things were going on,

he says, ⁴

the Latins, their spirits raised because of their easy victory, form a plan.

Subnixo animo is. significant and carefully chosen expression with the force of

raised and elevated in spirit

; and it indicates loftiness and confidence of spirit, since we are, as it were, raised and lifted up by that upon which we depend.

He bids each one,

he says, ⁵

go to his own house and enjoy his possessions.

Frunisci, meaning

enjoy,

was somewhat rare in the days of Marcus Tullius and became still rarer after that time, and its Latinity was questioned by those who were unacquainted with our early literature. However, fruniscor is not only good Latin, but it is more elegant and pleasing than fruor, from which it is formed in the same way as fatiscor from fateor. Quintus Metellus Numidicus, who is known to have used the Latin tongue with purity and simplicity, in the letter which he sent when in exile To the Domitii, wrote as follows:

They indeed were cut off from every right and honour, I lack neither water nor fire and I enjoy ( fruiscor) the greatest glory.

Novius, in his Atellan farce entitled The Miser, uses this word: ⁶

What eagerly they sought they can't enjoy ( frunisci);

Who does not spare, enjoys the goods he has.

And the Romans,

says Quadrigarius, ⁷

get possession of ( copiantur) many arms and a great supply of provisions, and enormous booty.

Copiantur is a soldier's word, and you will not readily find it in the pleaders of civil suits; it is formed in the same way as lignantur, or

gather wood,

pabulantur, or

forage,

and aquantur, or

get water.

Quadrigarius uses sole occaso for

at sunset.

⁸ This expression has a flavour of antiquity which is not without charm, if one possesses an ear that is not dull and commonplace; furthermore the phrase occurs in the Twelve Tables in the following passage: ⁹

Before midday let them hear the case, with both parties making their pleas in person. After midday, decide the ease in favour of the one who is present. If both are present, let sunset be the limit of the proceedings.

We,

says he, ¹⁰

will leave it undecided ( in medium).

The common people say in medio; for they think that in medium is an error, and if you should say in medium ponere (to make known), ¹¹ they consider that also a solecism; but if anyone examines these words with some care, that expression will seem to him the more correct and the more expressive; moreover in Greek qei=nai ei)s me/son, is not an error. "After it was announced," he says, ¹²

that a battle had been fought against the Gauls ( in Gallos), the State was troubled.

In Gallos is nester and finer than cum Gallis or contra Gallos; for these are somewhat awkward and out of date.

At the same time,

he says, ¹³

he excelled in person, in exploits, in eloquence, in position, in energy, and confidence alike, so that it was easily seen that he possessed from himself and in himself a great equipment ( magnum viaticum) for overthrowing the republic.

Magnum viaticum is a novel expression for great ability and great resources, and Claudius seems to have followed the Greeks, who transferred e)fo/dion from the meaning of

money for a journey

to preparation for other things, and often say e)fodi/ason for

prepare

and

make ready.

For Marcus Manlius,

said he, ¹⁴

who, as I have shown above, saved the Capitol from the Gauls, and whose service, along with that of Marcus Furius the dictator, the State found especially ( cumprime) valiant and irresistible against the Gauls, yielded to no one in race, in strength and in warlike valour.

Adprime is more frequent for

especially

; cumprime is rarer and is derived from the expression cumprimis with the force of inprimis. Quadrigarius says ¹⁵ that

he has no need for riches ( divitias).

We use the ablative divitiis with opus. But this usage of his is not a mistake in grammar, nor is it even what is termed a figure; for it is correct Latin and the early writers quite frequently used that case; moreover, no reason can be given why divis opus esse is more correct than divitias, except by those who look upon the innovations of grammarians as oracular responses.

For herein especially,

says he, ¹⁶

lies the injustice of the gods, that the worst men are the least subject to injury, and that they do not allow the best men to remain long ( diurnare) with us.

His use of diurnare for diu vivere is unusual, but it is justified by the figure by which we use perennare (to last for years). He says: ¹⁷

He conversed ( consermonabatur) with them.

Semocinari seems somewhat rustic, but is more correct; sermocinari is more common, but is not such pure Latin.

That he would not do even that,

says he, ¹⁸

which he then advised.

He has used ne id quoque for ne id quidem; the former is not common now in conversation, but is very frequent in the books of the earlier writers.

Such is the sanctity ( sanctitudo) of the fane,

says he, ¹⁹

that no one ever ventured to violate it.

Sanctitas and sanctimonia are equally good Latin, but the word sanctitudo somehow has greater dignity, just as Marcus Cato, in his speech Against Lucius Veturius, thought it more forcible to use duritudo than duritia, saying, ²⁰

Who knew his impudence and hardihood ( duritudinem).

Since the Roman people,

says Quadrigarius, ²¹

had given such a pledge ( arrabo) to the Samites.

He applied the term arrabo to the six hundred hostages and preferred to use that word rather than pignus, since the force of arrabo in that connection is weightier and more pointed; but nowadays arrabo is beginning to be numbered among vulgar words, and arra seems even more so, although the early writers often used arra, and Laberius ²² has it several times.

They have spent most wretched lives ( vitas),

says Quadrigarius, ²³ and, ²⁴

This man is worn out by too much leisure ( otiis).

In both cases elegance is sought by the use of the plural number.

Cominius,

says he, ²⁵

came down the same way he had gone up and so deceived the Gauls.

He says that Cominius

gave words to the Gauls,

meaning

deceived them,

although he had said nothing to anybody; and the Gauls who were besieging the Capitol had seen him neither going up nor coming down. But

he gave words

is used with the meaning of

he escaped the notice of, and circumvented.

Again he says: ²⁶

There were valleys and great woods ( arboreta).

Arboreta is a less familiar word, arbusta²⁷ the more usual one.

They thought,

says he, ²⁸

that those who were without and those that were within the citadel were exchanging communications ( commutationes) and plans

Commutationes, meaning

conferences and communications,

is not usual, but, by Heaven! is neither erroneous nor inelegant.

These few notes on that book, such things as I remembered after reading it, I have now jotted down for my own use.

III

3arg

The words of Marcus Varro in the twenty fifth book of his Humran Antiquities, in which he has interpreted a line of Homer contrary to the general opinion.

IT happened in the course of conversations which we carried on about the dates of various inventions for human use, that a young man not without learning observed that the use of spartum or

Spanish broom

also was for a long time unknown in the land of Greece and that it was imported from Spain many years after the taking of Ilium. One or two half-educated fellows who were present there, of the class that the Greeks call a)gorai=oi, or

haunters of the market-place,

laughed in derision of this statement, and declared that the man who had made it had read a copy of Homer which happened to lack the following verse: ²⁹

And rotted the ship's timbers, loosed the ropes ( spa/rta).

Then the youth, in great vexation, replied:

It was not my book that lacked that line, but you who badly lacked a teacher, if you believe that spa/rta in that verse means what we call spartum, or 'a rope of Spanish broom'

They only laughed the louder, and would have continued to do so, had he not produced the twenty-fifth book of Varro's Human Antiquities, in which Varro writes as follows of that Homeric word: ³⁰

I believe that spa/rta in Homer does not mean sparta, or 'Spanish broom,' but rather spa/rtoi, a kind of broom which is said to grow in the Theban territory. In Greece there has only recently been a supply of spartum, imported from Spain. The Liburnians did not make use of that material either, but as a rule fastened their ships together with thongs, ³¹ while the Greeks made more use of hemp, tow, and other cultivated plants ( sativis), from which ropes got their name of sparta.

Since Varro says this, I have grave doubts whether the last syllable in the Homeric word ought not to have an acute accent; unless it be because words of this kind, when they pass from their general meaning to the designation of a particular thing, are distinguished by a difference in accent.

IV

4arg

What the poet Menander said to Philemon, by whom he was often undeservedly defeated in contests in comedy; and that Euripides was very often vanquished in tragedy by obscure poets.

IN contests in comedy Menander was often defeated by Philemon, a writer by no means his equal, owing to intrigue, favour, and partisanship. When Menander once happened to meet his rival, he said:

Pray pardon me, Philemon, but really, don't you blush when you defeat me?

Marcus Varro says ³² that Euripides also, although he wrote seventy-five tragedies, was victor with only five, ³³ and was often vanquished by some very poor poets.

Some say that Menander left one hundred and eight comedies, others that the number was a hundred and nine. But we find these words of Apollodorus, a very famous writer, about Menander in his work entitled Chronica:³⁴

Cephissia's child, by Diopeithes sired,

An hundred plays he left and five besides;

At fifty-two he died.

Yet Apollodorus also writes in the same book that out of all those hundred and five dramas Menander gained the victory only with eight.

V

5arg

That it is by no mears true, as some meticulous artists in rhetoric affirm, that Marcus Cicero, in his book On Friendship, made use of a faulty argument and postulated

the disputed for the admitted

; with a careful discussion and examination of this whole question.

MARCUS CICERO, in the dialogue entitled Laelius, or On Friendship, wishes to teach us that friendship ought not to be cultivated in the hope and expectation of advantage, profit, or gain, but that it should be sought and cherished because in itself it is rich in virtue and honour, even though no aid and no advantage can be gained from it. This thought he has expressed in the following words, put into the mouth of Gaius Laelius, a wise man and a very dear friend of Publius Africanus ³⁵

well, then, does Africanus need my help? No more do I need his. But I love him because of a certain admiration for his virtues; he in turn has affection for me perhaps because of some opinion which he has formed of my character; and intimacy has increased our attachment. But although many great advantages have resulted, yet the motives for our friendship did not arise from the hope of those advantages. For just as we are kindly and generous, not in order to compel a return—for we do not put favours out at interest, but we are naturally inclined to generosity —just so we think that friendship is to be desired, not because we are led by hope of gain, but because all its fruit is in the affection itself.

When it chanced that these words were read in a company of cultured men, a sophistical rhetorician, skilled in both tongues, a man of some note among those clever and meticulous teachers known as texnikoi,/ or

connoisseurs,

who was at the same time not without ability in disputation, expressed the opinion that Marcus Tullius had used an argument which was neither sound nor clear, but one which was of the same uncertainty as the question at issue itself; and he described that fault by Greek words, saying that Cicero had postulated a)ufisbhtou/menon a)nti\ o(mologoume/nou, that is,

what was disputed rather than what was admitted.

For,

said he,

he took benefci, 'the kindly,' and liberales, 'the generous,' to confirm what he said about friendship, although that very question is commonly asked and ought to be asked, with what thought and purpose one who acts liberally and kindly is kind and generous. Whether it is because he hopes for a return of the favour, and tries to arouse in the one to whom he is kind a like feeling towards himself, as almost all seem to do; or because he is by nature kindly, and kindness and generosity gratify him for their own sakes without any thought of a return of the favour, which is as a rule the rarest of all.

Furthermore, he thought that arguments ought to be either convincing, or clear and not open to controversy, and he said that the term apodixis,³⁶ or

demonstration,

was properly used only when things that are doubtful or obscure are made plain through things about which there is no doubt. And in order that he might show that the kind and generous ought not to be taken as an argument or example for the question about friendship, he said:

By the same comparison and the same appearance of reason, friendship in its turn may be taken as an argument, if one should declare that men ought to be kindly and generous, not from the hope of a return, but from the desire and love of honourable conduct. For he will be able to argue in a very similar manner as follows: ' Now just as we do not embrace friendship through hope of advantage, so we ought not to be generous and kindly with the desire of having the favour returned.' He will indeed,

said he,

be able to say this, but friendship cannot furnish an argument for generosity, nor generosity for friendship, since in the case of each there is equally an open question.

It seemed to some that this artist in rhetoric argued cleverly and learnedly, but that as a matter of fact he was ignorant of the true meaning of terms. For Cicero calls a man

kind and generous

in the sense that the philosophers believe those words ought to be used: not of one who, as Cicero himself expresses it, puts favours out at interest, but of one who shows kindness without having any secret reason which redounds to his own advantage. Therefore he has used an argument which is not obscure or doubtful, but trustworthy and clear, since if anyone is truly kind and generous, it is not asked with what motive he acts kindly or generously. For he must be called by very different names if, when he does such things, he does them for his own advantage rather than for that of another. Possibly the criticism made by this sophist might have some justification, if Cicero had said: ³⁷

For as we do some kind and generous action, not in order to compel a return.

For it might seem that anyone who was not kindly might happen to do a kind action, if it was done because of some accidental circumstance and not through a fixed habit of constant kindliness. But since Cicero spoke of

kindly and generous people,

and meant no other sort than that which we have mentioned before, it is

with unwashed feet,

³⁸ as the proverb says, and unwashed words that our critic assails the argument of that most learned man.

VI

6arg

That what Verrius Flaccus wrote about servus recepticius, in his second book On the Obscurities of Marcus Cato, is false.

MARCUS CATO, when recommending the Voconian law, ³⁹ spoke as follows: ⁴⁰

In the beginning the woman brought you a great dowry; then she holds back a large sum of money, which she does not entrust to the control of her husband, but lends it to her husband. Later, becoming angry with him, she orders a servus recepticius, or ' slave of her own,' to hound him and demand the money.

The question was asked what was meant by servus recepticius. At once the books of Verrius Flaccus On the Obscurities of Cato were asked for and produced. In the second book was found the statement ⁴¹ that servus recepticius was the name applied to a slave that was worthless and of no value, who, after being sold, was returned because of some fault and taken back.

Therefore,

says Flaccus, "a slave of that kind was bidden to hound her husband and demand the money, in order that the man's vexation might be greater, and the insult put upon him still more bitter, for the very reason that a worthless slave dunned him for the payment of money."

But with the indulgence and pardon of those, if such there be, who are influenced by the authority of Verrius Flaccus, this must be said. That recepticius servus in the case of which Cato is speaking is something very different from what Verrius wrote. And this is easy for anyone to understand; for the situation is undoubtedly this: when the woman gave the dowry to her husband, what she retained of her property and did not give over to her husband she was said to

hold back

( recipere), just as now also at sales those things are said to be

held back

which are set aside and not sold. This word Plautus also used in the Trinumnus in this line: ⁴²

But when he sold the house, this little place

Behind it he held back ( recepit).

That is, when he sold the house, he did not sell a small part which was behind the house, but held it back. Cato himself too, wishing to describe the woman as rich, says:

The woman brings a great dowry and holds back a large sum of money

; that is, she gives a great dowry and retains possession of a large sum of money. From that property then which she kept for herself after giving her dowry, she lent money to her husband. When she happened to be vexed with her husband and determined to demand the money back, she appoints to demand it from him a seruves recepticius, that is, a slave of her very own, whom she had held back with the rest of the money and had not given as part of her dowry, but had retained; for it was not right for the woman to give such an order to a slave of her husband, but only to one of her very own.

I forbear to say more in defence of this view of mine; for the opinion of Verrius and mine are before you, each by itself; anyone therefore may adopt whichever of the two seems to him the truer.

VII

7arg

These words from the Atinian law,

the claim on whatever shall be stolen shall be everlasting,

seemed to Publius Nigidius and Quintus Scaevola to have reference not less to a past theft than to a future one.

THE words of the ancient Atinian law ⁴³ are as follows: ⁴⁴

Whatever shall have been stolen, let the right to claim the thing be everlasting.

Who would suppose that in these words the law referred to anything else than to future time? But Quintus Scaevola says ⁴⁵ that his father ⁴⁶ and Brutus ⁴⁷ and Manilius, ⁴⁸ exceedingly learned men, inquired and were in doubt whether the law was valid in cases of future theft only or also in those already committed in the past; since subruptum erit seems to indicate both times, past as well as future.

Therefore Publius Nigidius, the most learned man of the Roman State, discussed this uncertainty of theirs in the twenty-third book of his Grammatical Notes.⁴⁹ And he himself too has the same opinion, that the indication of the time is indefinite, but he speaks very concisely and obscurely, so that you may see that he is rather making notes to aid his own memory than trying to instruct his readers. ⁵⁰ However, his meaning seems to be that est and erit are independent words; when they are used alone, they have and retain their own tense, but when they are joined with a past participle, they lose the force of their own tense, and are transferred to the past. For when I say in campo est, or

he is in the field,

and in comitio est, or

he is in the comitium,

I refer to the present time; also when I say in campo erit (he will be in the field), or in comitio erit (he will be in the comitium), I indicate future time: but when I say factum est, scriptum est or subruptum est, although the verb est is in the present tense, it is nevertheless united with the past and ceases to be present.

Similarly then,

he says,

with regard also to the wording of the law; if you divide and separate these two words subruptum and erit, so that you understand subruptum erit as you would certamen erit, that is, 'there will be a contest,' or sacrificium erit (there will be a sacrifice), then the law will seem to have reference to an act completed in future time; but if you understand the two words to be united and mingled, so that subruptum erit is not two words, but one, and is a single form of the passive inflection, then that word indicates past time no less than future.

VIII

8arg

In conversation at the table of the philosopher Taurus questions of this kind were proposed and discussed:

why oil congeals often and readily, wine seldom, vinegar hardly ever,

and

that the waters of rivers and springs freeze, while the sea does not.

THE philosopher Taurus at Athens usually entertained us at dinner at the time of day when evening had already come on; for there that is the time for dining. ⁵¹ The entire basis and foundation of the meal usually consisted of one pot of Egyptian beans, to which were added gourds cut in small pieces.

One day when this dish had been brought and placed upon the table, and we were ready and awaiting the meal, Taurus ordered a slave-boy to pour some oil into the pot. The slave was a boy of Attic birth, at most eight years old, overflowing with the merry wit characteristic of his race and his time of life. He brought an empty Samian flask, from oversight, as he said, supposing there was oil in it, turned it up and, as he usually did, passed it with his hand over all parts of the pot; but no oil came out. The boy, in anger, looked savagely at the flask, shook it violently, and again turned it over the pot; and when we were all quietly and furtively laughing at his actions, he said in Greek, and excellent Attic Greek at that:

Don't laugh; there's oil in it; but don't you know how cold it was this morning; it's congealed.

You rascal,

said Taurus with a laugh,

run and fetch some oil.

But when the boy had gone out to buy oil, Taurus, not at all put out by the delay, said:

The pot needs oil, and, as I see, is intolerably hot; let us withhold our hands and meanwhile, since the slave has just told us that oil is in the habit of congealing, let us consider why oil congeals often and readily, but wine rarely.

And he looked at me and bade me give my opinion. Then I replied that I inferred that wine congealed less quickly because it had in it certain seeds of heat and was naturally more fiery, and that was why Homer called ⁵² it ai)/qoy,⁵³ and not, as some supposed, on account of its colour.

It is indeed,

says Taurus,

as you say. For it is well known that wine, when we drink it, warms the body. But oil is equally calorific and has no less power of warming the body. Besides, if those things which are warmer are frozen with greater difficulty, it follows that those which are colder freeze more readily. But vinegar is the most cooling of all things and yet it never freezes. Is the reason then for the quicker freezing of oil to be found in its lightness? For those things seem to congeal more readily which are lighter and smoother.

Taurus says besides that it is also worth inquiring why the waters of rivers and streams freeze, while all the sea is incapable of freezing.

Although Herodotus,

said he,

the writer of history, contrary to the opinion of almost all who have investigated these matters, writes ⁵⁴ that the Bosphoric sea, which is called Cimmerian, ⁵⁵ and all that part of the sea which is termed Scythian, ⁵⁶ is bound fast by the cold and brought to a standstill.

While Taurus was thus speaking, the boy had returned, the pot had cooled off, and the time had come to eat and hold our peace.

IX

9arg

Of the cypher letters which are found in the epistles of Gains Caesar, and of other secret forms of writing taken from ancient history; and what the Laconian skuta/lh is.

THERE are volumes of letters of Gaius Caesar addressed to Gaius Oppius and Cornelius Balbus, who had charge of his affairs in his absence. In certain parts of these letters ⁵⁷ there are found individual characters which are not connected to form syllables, but apparently are written at random; for no word can be formed from those letters. But a secret agreement had been made between the correspondents about a change in the position of the letters, so that, in writing, one name and position was given to one letter and another to another, but in reading its own place and force was restored to each of them. ⁵⁸ But which letter was written for which was, as I have already said, agreed upon by those who devised this secret code. There is in fact a commentary of the grammarian Probus, On the Secret meaning of the Letters appearing in the Epistles of Gains Caesar, which is a very careful piece of work.

But the ancient Lacedaemonians, when they wanted to conceal and disguise the public dispatches sent to their generals, in order that, in case they were intercepted by the enemy, their plans might not be known, used to send letters written in the following manner. There were two thin, cylindrical wands of the same thickness and length, smoothed and prepared so as to be exactly alike. One of these was given to the general when he went to war, the other the magistrates kept at home under their control and seal. When the need of more secret communication arose, they bound about the staff a thong of moderate thickness, but long enough for the purpose, in a simple spiral, in such a way that the edges of the thong which was twined around the stick met and were joined throughout. Then they wrote the dispatch on that thong across the connected edges of the joints, with the lines running from the top to the bottom. When the letter had been written in this way, the thong was unrolled from the wand and sent to the general, who was familiar with the device. But the unrolling of the thong made the letters imperfect and broken, and their parts and strokes ⁵⁹ were divided and separated. Therefore, if the thong fell into the hands of the enemy, nothing at all could be made out from the writing; but when the one to whom the letter was sent had received it, he wound it around the corresponding staff, which he had, from the top to the bottom, just as he knew that it ought to be done, and thus the letters, united by encircling a similar staff, came together again, rendering the dispatch entire and undamaged, and easy to read. This kind of letter the Lacedaemonians called skuta/lh. I also read this in an ancient history of Carthage, that a certain famous man of that country —whether it was Hasdrubal or another I do not recall—disguised a letter written about secret matters in the following way: he took new tablets, not yet provided with wax, and cut the letters into the wood. Afterwards he covered the tablet with wax in the usual way and sent it, apparently without writing, to one to whom he had previously told his plan. The recipient then scraped off the wax, found the letters safe and sound inscribed upon the wood, and read them.

There is also in the records of Grecian history another profound and difficult method of concealment, devised by a barbarian's cunning. He was called Histiaeus and was born in the land of Asia in no mean station. At that time king Darius held sway in Asia. This Histiaeus, being in Persia with Darius, wished to send a confidential message to a certain Aristagoras in a secret manner. He devised this remarkable method of concealing a letter. He shaved all the hair from the head of a slave of his who had long suffered from weak eyes, as if for the purpose of treatment. Then he tattooed the forms of the letters on his smooth head. When in this way he had written what he wished, he kept the man at home for a time, until his hair grew out. When this happened, he ordered him to go to Aristagoras, adding:

When you come to him, say that I told him to shave your head, as I did a little while ago.

The slave, as he was bidden, came to Aristagoras and delivered his master's order. Aristagoras, thinking that the command must have some reason, did as he was directed. And thus the letter reached its destination.

X

10arg

What Favorinus thought of the verses of Virgil in which he imitated the poet Pindar in his description of an eruption of Mount Aetna; his comparison and evaluation of the verses of the two poets on the same theme.

I REMEMBER that the philosopher Favorinus, when he had gone during the hot season to the villa of a friend of his at Antium, and I had come from Rome to see him, discoursed in about the following manner about the poets Pindar and Virgil.

The friends and intimates of Publius Vergilius,

said he,

in the accounts which they have left us of his talents and his character, say that he used to declare that he produced verses after the manner and fashion of a bear. For he said that as that beast brought forth her young formless and misshapen, and afterwards by licking the young cub gave it form and shape, just so the fresh products of his mind were rude in form and imperfect, but afterwards by working over them and polishing them he gave them a definite form and expression. ⁶⁰ That this was honestly and truly said by that man of fine taste,

said he, "is shown by the result. For the parts that he left perfected and polished, to which his judgment and approval had applied the final hand, enjoy the highest praise for poetical beauty; but those parts which he postponed, with the intention of revising them later, but was unable to finish because he was overtaken by death, are in no way worthy of the fame and taste of the most elegant of poets. It was for that reason, when he was laid low by disease and saw that death was near, that he begged and earnestly besought his best friends to burn the Aeneid, which he had not yet sufficiently revised.

Now among the passages,

said Favorinus,

which particularly seem to have needed revision and correction is the one which was composed about Mount Aetna. For wishing to rival the poem which the earlier poet Pindar composed about the nature and eruption of that mountain, he has heaped up such words and expressions that in this passage at least he is more extravagant and bombastic even than Pindar himself, who was thought to have too rich and luxuriant a style. And in order that you yourselves,

said he, "may be judges of what I say, I will repeat Pindar's poem about Mount Aetna, so far as I can remember it: ⁶¹

Mount Aetna, from whose inmost caves burst forth

The purest fount of unapproachable fire.

By day her rivers roll a lurid stream

Of smoke, while 'mid the gloom of night red flame,

On sweeping, whirleth rocks with crashing din

Far down to the deep sea. And high aloft

That monster ⁶² flingeth fearful founts of fire,

A marvel to behold or e'en to hear

From close at hand.

Now hear the verses of Virgil, which I may more truly say that he began than finished: ⁶³

There lies a port, safe from the winds' approach,

Spacious itself, but Aetna close at hand

Thunders with crashes dire, and now hurls forth

Skyward a dusky cloud with eddies black

And glowing ash, and uplifts balls of flame

And licks the stars; now spews forth rocks,

The mountain's entrails torn, hurls molten crags

Groaning to heaven, and seethes from depths profound.

Now in the first place,

said Favorinus,

Pindar has more closely followed the truth and has given a realistic description of what actually happened there, and what he saw with his own eyes; namely, that Aetna in the daytime sends forth smoke and at night fire; but Virgil, labouring to find grand and sonorous words, confuses the two periods of time and makes no distinction between them. Then the Greek has vividly pictured the streams of fire belched from the depths and the flowing rivers of smoke, and the rushing of lurid and spiral volumes of flame into the waters of the sea, like so many fiery serpents; but our poet, attempting to render r(o/on kapnou= ai)/qwna, 'a lurid stream of smoke,' has clumsily and diffusely piled up the words atram nubem turbine piceo et favilla fomented, 'a dusky cloud smoking with eddies black and glowing ash,' and what Pindar called krounoi/, or 'founts,' he has harshly and inaccurately rendered by 'balls of flame.' Likewise when he says sidearm lamb it, 'it licks the stars,' this also,

he says,

is a useless and foolish elaboration. And this too is inexplicable and almost incomprehensible, when he speaks of a 'black cloud smoking with eddies black and glowing ash.' For things which glow,

said Favorinus,

do not usually smoke nor are they black; unless candenti ('glowing') is used vulgarly and inaccurately for hot ashes, instead of those which are fiery and gleaming. For candens, of course, is connected with candor, or 'whiteness,' not with calor ('heat'). But when he says saxa et scopulos eructari et erigi, 'that rocks and crags are spewed forth and whirled skyward,' and that these same crags at once liquefieri et gemere atque glomerari ad auras, 'are molten and groan and are whirled to heaven,' this,

he said,

is what Pindar never wrote and what was never spoken by anyone; and it is the most monstrous of all monstrous descriptions.

⁶⁴

XI

11arg

That Plutarch in his Symposiacs defended the opinion of Plato about the structure and nature of the stomach, and of the tube which is called traxei=a, against the physician Erasistratus, urging the authority of the ancient physician Hippocrates.

BOTH Plutarch ⁶⁵ and certain other learned men have written that Plato was criticized by the famous physician Erasistratus, ⁶⁶ because he said ⁶⁷ that drink went to the lungs and having sufficiently moistened them, flowed through them, since they are somewhat porous, and from there passed into the bladder. They declared that the originator of that error was Alcaeus, who wrote ⁶⁸ in his poems:

Wet now the lungs with wine; the dog-star shines,

but that Erasistratus himself declared ⁶⁹ that there were two little canals, so to speak, or pipes, and that they extended downward from the throat; that through one of these all food and drink passed and went into the stomach, and from there were carried into the belly, which the Greeks call h( ka/tw koili/a. That there it is reduced and digested and then the drier excrement passes into the bowels, which the Greeks call ko/lon,⁷⁰ and the moisture through the kidneys into the bladder. But through the other tube, which the Greeks call the traxei=a a)rthri/a, or

rough windpipe,

the breath passes from the lips into the lungs, and from there goes back into the mouth and nostrils, and along this same road a passage for the voice also is made; and lest drink or drier food, which ought to pass into the stomach, should fall from the mouth and slip into that tube through which the breath goes back and forth, and by such an accident the path of the breath should be cut off, there has been placed at these two openings by a kind of helpful device of nature, a sort of movable valve which is called the

epiglottis,

which alternately shuts and opens. This epiglottis, while we are eating and drinking, covers and protects

the rough windpipe,

in order that no particle of food or drink may fall into that path, so to speak, of the rising and falling breath; and on that account no moisture passes into the lungs, since the opening of the windpipe itself is well protected.

These are the views of the physician Erasistratus, as opposed to Plato. But Plutarch, in his Symposiacs,⁷¹ says that the originator of Plato's opinion was Hippocrates, and that the same opinion was held by Philistion of Locris ⁷² and Dioxippus the pupil of Hippocrates, famous physicians of the olden time; also that the epiglottis, of which Erasistratus spoke, was not placed where it is to prevent anything that we drank from flowing into the windpipe; for fluid seems necessary and serviceable for refreshing and moistening the lungs; but it was placed there as a kind of controller and arbiter, to exclude or admit whatever was necessary for the health of the body; to keep away all foods from the windpipe and turn them to the stomach, but to divide what is drunk between the stomach and the lungs. And that part which ought to be admitted into the lungs through the windpipe the epiglottis does not let through rapidly and all at once, but when it has been checked and held back, as it were by a kind of dam, it allows it to pass gradually and little by little, and turns aside all the remainder into the other tube leading to the stomach.

XII

12arg

Of ignoble subjects, called by the Greeks a)/docoi, or

unexpected,

argued by Favorinus for the sake of practice.

NOT only the sophists of old, but the philosophers as well, took up ignoble subjects, ⁷³ or if you prefer, unexpected ones, a)/docoi u(poqe/seis, as the Greeks call them; and our friend Favorinus took a great deal of pleasure in descending to such subjects, ⁷⁴ either thinking them suitable for stimulating his thoughts or exercising his cleverness or overcoming difficulties by practice. For example, when he attempted to praise Thersites and pronounced a eulogy upon the quartan ague, ⁷⁵ he said many clever and ingenious things on both topics, which he has left written in his works.

But in his eulogy of fever he even produced Plato as a witness, declaring that the philosopher wrote ⁷⁶ that one who after suffering from quartan ague got well and recovered his full strength, would afterwards enjoy surer and more constant health. And in that same eulogy he made this quip, which, of a truth, is not ungraceful:

The following lines,

he says,

have met with the approval of many generations of men: ⁷⁷

Sometimes a day is like a stepmother,

And sometimes like a mother.

The meaning of the verses is that a man cannot fare well every day, but fares well on one day and ill on another. Since it is true,

he says,

that in human affairs things are in turn, now good, now bad, how much more fortunate is this fever which has an interval of two days, ⁷⁸ since it has only one stepmother, but two mothers!

XIII

13arg

How many and what varieties of meaning the particle quin has, and that it is often obscure in the earlier literature.

THE particle quin, which the grammarians call a conjunction, seems to connect sentences in various ways and with divers meanings. For it seems to have one meaning when we say, as if chiding or questioning or exhorting, quin venis?

Why don't you come?

quin legis?

Why don't you read?

or quin fugis?

Why don't you flee?

; but it has a different meaning when we affirm, for example, that

there is no doubt but that ( quin) Marcus Tullius is the most eloquent of all men,

and still a third, when we add something which seems contradictory to a former statement:

Isocrates did not plead causes, not but that he thought it useful and honourable so to do.

In the last of these sentences the meaning is not very different from that which is found in the third book of Marcus Cato's Origins:⁷⁹

these I describe last, not but that they are good and valiant peoples.

⁸⁰ Also in the second book of the Origins Marcus Cato has used this particle in a very similar manner: ⁸¹

He did not consider it enough to have slandered him privately, without openly defaming his character.

I have noted, besides, that Quadrigarius in the eighth book of his Annals has used that particle in a very obscure manner. I quote his exact words: ⁸²

He came to Rome; he barely succeeds in having a triumph voted.

⁸³ Also in the sixth book of the same writer's Annals are these words: ⁸⁴

It lacked little but that ( quin) they should leave their camp and yield to the enemy.

Now I am quite well aware that someone may say off-hand that there is no difficulty in these words; for quin in both passages is used for ut, and the meaning is perfectly plain if you say:

He came to Rome; he with difficulty brought it about that a triumph should be voted

; ⁸⁵ and also in the other passage,

It almost happened that they left their camp and yielded to the enemy.

Let those who are so ready find refuge in changing words which they do not understand, but let them do so with more modesty, when the occasion permits.

Only one who has learned that this particle of which we are speaking is a compound and formed of two parts, and that it does not merely have the function of a connective but has a definite meaning of its own, ⁸⁶ will ever understand its variations in meaning. But because an explanation of these would require a long dissertation, he who has leisure may find it in the Commentaries of Publius Nigidius which he entitled Grammatical.⁸⁷

XIV

14arg

Neat sayings selected from the Mimes of Publilius.

PUBLILIUS wrote mimes. He was thought worthy of being rated about equal to Laberius. But the scurrility and the arrogance of Laberius so offended Gaius Caesar, that he declared that he was better pleased with the mimes of Publilius than with those of Laberius. Many sayings of this Publilius are current, which are neat and well adapted to the use of ordinary conversation. Among these are the following, consisting of a single line each, which I have indeed taken pleasure in quoting: ⁸⁸

Bad is the plan which cannot bear a change.

He gains by giving who has given to worth.

Endure and don't deplore what can't be helped. ⁸⁹

Who's given too much, will want more than's allowed. ⁹⁰

A witty colmrade at vour side,

To walk's as easy as to ride.

Frugality is misery in disguise.

Heirs' tears are laughter underneath a mask.

Patience too oft provoked is turned to rage.

He wrongly Neptune blames, who suffers shipwreck twice.

Regard a friend as one who may be foe.

By bearing old wrongs new ones you provoke.

With danger ever danger's overcome.

'Mid too much wrangling truth is often lost.

Who courteously declines, grants half your suit.

XV

15arg

That Carneades the Academic purged his stomach with hellebore when about to write against the dogmas of Zeno the Stoic; and of the nature and curative powers of white and black hellebore.

WHEN Carneades, the Academic philosopher, was about to write against the books of the Stoic Zeno, he cleansed the upper part of his body with white hellebore, in order that none of the corrupt humours of his stomach might rise to the abode of his mind and weaken the power and vigour of his intellect; with such care and such preparation did this man of surpassing talent set about refuting what Zeno had written. When I had read of this in Grecian history, I inquired what was meant by the term

white hellebore.

Then I learned that there are two kinds of hellebore distinguished by a difference in colour, white and black; but that those colours are distinguished neither in the seed of the hellebore nor in its plant, but in the root; further, that with white hellebore the stomach and upper belly ⁹¹ are purged by vomiting; by the black the so-called lower belly is loosened, ⁹² and the effect of both is to remove the noxious humours in which the causes of diseases are situated. But that there is danger lest, when every avenue of the body is opened, along with the causes of disease the juices on which the principle of life depends should also pass away, and the man should perish from exhaustion because of the destruction of the entire foundation of natural nourishment.

But Plinius Secundus, in his work On Natural History, wrote ⁹³ that hellebore could be taken with the greatest safety in the island of Anticyra. ⁹⁴ That for this reason Livius Drusus, the former tribune of the commons, when he was suffering from the so-called

election

disease, ⁹⁵ sailed to Anticyra, drank hellebore in that island, and was thus cured of the ailment.

I have read besides that the Gauls, when hunting, dip their arrows in hellebore, because the wild animals that are struck and killed by arrows thus treated become tenderer for eating; but because of the contagion of the hellebore they are said to cut out a large piece of flesh around the wounds made by the arrows.

XVI

16arg

That Pontic ducks have a power which is able to expel poisons; and also of the skill of Mithridates in preparing antidotes.

IT is said that the ducks of Pontus commonly live by eating poisons. It was also written by Lenaeus, ⁹⁶ the freedman of Pompey the Great, that Mithridates, the famous king of Pontus, was skilled in medicine and in antidotes of that kind, and that he was accustomed to mix the blood of these ducks with drugs that have the power of expelling poisons, and that the blood was the very most powerful agency in their preparation; furthermore, that the king himself by the constant use of such remedies guarded against hidden plots at banquets; nay more, that lie often voluntarily and wittingly, to show his immunity, drank a swift and rapid poison, which yet did him no harm. Therefore, at a later time, when he had been defeated in battle, and after fleeing to the remotest bounds of his kingdom had resolved to take his own life, having vainly tried the most violent poisons for the purpose of hastening his death, he fell upon his own sword. the most celebrated antidote of this king is the one which is called

Mithridatian.

XVII

17arg

That Mithridates, king of Pontus, spoke the languages of twenty-five nations; and that Quintus Ennius said that he had three hearts, because he was proficient in three tongues, Greek, Oscan, and Latin.

QUINTUS ENNIUS used to say that he had three hearts, because he knew how to speak Greek, Oscan, and Latin. But Mithridates, the celebrated king of Pontus and Bithynia, who was overcome in war by Gnaeus Pompeius, ⁹⁷ was proficient in the languages of the twenty-five races which he held under his sway. He never spoke to the men of all those nations through an interpreter, but whenever it was necessary for him to address any one of them, he used his language and speech with as much skill as if he were his fellow-countryman.

XVIII

18arg

The statement of Marcus Vairo that Gaius Sallustius, the writer of history, was taken in adultery by Annius Milo and was let go only after he had been beaten with thongs and had paid a sum of money.

MARCUS VARRO, a man of great trustworthiness and authority in his writings and in his life, in the work which he entitled Pius, or On Peace,⁹⁸ says that Gaius Sallustius, the author of those austere and dignified works, whom we see in his history writing and acting, like a censor, was taken in adultery by Annius Milo, soundly beaten with thongs, and allowed to escape only after paying a sum of money. ⁹⁹

XIX

19arg

What Epictetus the philosophers used to say to worthless and vile men, who zealously followed the pursuit of philosophy; and the two words whose remembrance he enjoyed as by far the most salutary in all respects.

I HEARD Favorinus say that the philosopher Epictetus declared ¹⁰⁰ that very many of those who professed to be philosophers were of the kind a)/neu tou= pra/ttein, me/xri tou= le/gein, which means

without deeds, limited to words

; that is, they preached but did not practise. But that is still more severe which Arrian, in his work On the Dissertations of Epictetus,¹⁰¹ has written that this philosopher used to say.

For,

says Arrian,

when he perceived that a man without shame, persistent in wickedness, of abandoned character, reckless, boastful, and cultivating everything else except his soul—when he saw such a man taking up also the study and pursuit of philosophy, attacking natural history, practising logic and balancing and investigating many problems of that kind, he used to invoke the help ¹⁰² of gods and men, and usually amid his exclamations chided the man in these terms: 'O man, where are you storing these things? Consider whether the vessel be clean. For if you take them into your self-conceit, they are lost; if they are spoiled, they become urine or vinegar or something worse, if possible.'

Nothing surely could be weightier, nothing truer than these words, in which the greatest of philosophers declared that the learning and precepts of philosophy, flowing into a base and degenerate man, as if into a soiled and filthy vessel, are turned, altered, spoiled, and as he himself more cynically expresses it, become urine or, if possible, something worse than urine. Moreover, that same Epictetus, as we also heard from Favorinus, used to say that there were two faults which were by far the worst and most disgusting of all, lack of endurance and lack of self-restraint, when we cannot put up with or bear the wrongs which we ought to endure, or cannot restrain ourselves from actions or pleasures from which we ought to refrain.

Therefore,

said he,

if anyone would take these two words to heart and use them for his own guidance and regulation, he will be almost without sin and will lead a very peaceful life. These two words,

he said,

are a)ne/xou (bear) and a)pe/xou (forbear).

¹⁰³

XX

20arg

A passage taken from the Symposium of Plato, skilful. harmonious and fitting in its rhythm and structure, which for the sake of practice I have turned into the Latin tongue.

THE Symposium of Plato was being read before the philosopher Taurus. Those words of Pausanias in which, taking his turn among the banqueters, lie eulogizes love, I admired so much that I even resolved to commit them to memory. And tile words, if I remember rightly, are as follows ¹⁰⁴ "Every action is of this nature: in and of itself, when done, it is neither good nor bad; for example, what we are now doing, drinking, or singing, or arguing. Not one of these things is in itself good, but it may become so by the way in which it is done. Well and rightly done, it becomes a good action; wrongly done, it becomes shameful. It is the same with love; for not all love is honourable or worthy of raise, but only that which leads us to love worthily." When these words had been read, thereupon Taurus said to me:

Ho! you young rhetorician

— for so he used to call me in the beginning, when I was first admitted to his class, supposing that I had come to Athens only to work up eloquence ¹⁰⁵ —

do you see this syllogism, full of meaning, brilliant, well rounded and constructed in brief and smooth numbers with a kind of symmetrical turn? Can you quote us so aptand so melodiously formed a passage from the works of your rhetoricians? But yet I advise you to look upon this rhythm as an incidental feature; for one must penetrate to the inmost depths of Plato's mind and feel the weight and dignity of his subject matter, not be diverted to the charm of his diction or the grace of his expression.

This admonition of Taurus as to Plato's style not only did not deter me, but even encouraged me to try to equal the elegance of the Greek in a Latin rendering; and just as there are small and insignificant animals which through wantonness imitate everything which they have seen or heard, just so I had the assurance, not indeed to rival those qualities which I admired in Plato's style, but to give a shadowy outline of them, such as the following, which I patterned on those very words of his:

Every act, in general,

he says,

is of this nature; it is in itself neither base nor honourable; as, for example, the things which we ourselves are now doing, drinking, singing, arguing. For none of these things is honourable in itself, but it becomes so by the manner in which it is done; if it is done rightly and honourably, it is then honourable; but if it is not rightly done, then it is shameful. It is the same with love; thus not every kind of love is honourable, not every kind is deserving of praise, but only that which leads us to love honourably.

XXI

21arg

The times after the foundling of Rome and before the second war with Carthage at which distinguished Greeks and Romans flourished. ¹⁰⁶

I WISHED to have a kind of survey of ancient times, and also of the famous men who were born in those days, lest I might in conversation chance to make some careless remark about the date and life of celebrated men, as that ignorant sophist did who lately, in a public lecture, said that Carneades the philosopher ¹⁰⁷ was presented with a sum of money by king Alexander, son of Philip, and that Panaetius the Stoic was intimate with the elder Africanus. ¹⁰⁸ In order, I say, to guard against such errors in dates and periods of time, I made notes from the books known as Chroicles¹⁰⁹ of the times when those Greeks and Romans flourished who were famous and conspicuous either for talent or for political power, between the founding of Rome and the second Punic war. ¹¹⁰ And these excerpts of mine, made in various and sundry places, I have now put hastily together. For it was not my endeavour with keen and subtle care to compile a catalogue of the eminent men of both nations who lived at the same time, but merely to strew these Nights of mine lightly here and there with a few of these flowers of history. ¹¹¹ Moreover, it seemed sufficient in this survey to speak of the dates of a few men, from which it would not be difficult to infer the periods also of many more whom I did not name.

I shall begin, then, with the illustrious Solon; for, as regards Homer and Hesiod, it is agreed by almost all writers, either that they lived at approximately the same period, or that Homer was somewhat the earlier; yet that both lived before the founding of Rome, when the Silvii were ruling in Alba, more than a hundred and sixty years after the Trojan war, as Cassius has written ¹¹² about Homer and Hesiod in the first book of his Annals, but about a hundred and sixty years before the founding of Rome, as Cornelius Nepos says of Homer in the first book of his Chronicles.¹¹³ Well then, we are told that Solon, one of the famous sages, ¹¹⁴ drew up laws for the Athenians when Tarquinius Priscus was king at Rome, ¹¹⁵ in the thirtythird year of his reign. ¹¹⁶ Afterwards, when Servius Tullius was king, ¹¹⁷ Pisistratus was tyrant at Athens, Solon having previously gone into voluntary exile, since he had not been believed when he predicted that tyranny. Still later, Pythagoras of Samos came to Italy, when the son of Tarquinius was king, he who was surnamed the Proud, ¹¹⁸ and at that same time Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus and brother of the tyrant Hippias, was slain at Athens by Harmodius and Aristog, iton. ¹¹⁹ And Cornelius Nepos adds ¹²⁰ that when Tullus Hostilius was king at Rome ¹²¹ Archilochus was already illustrious and famous for his poems. ¹²²

Then, in the two hundred and sixtieth year after the founding (of Rome, or not much later, it is recorded that the Persians were vanquished by the Athenians in the famous battle of Marathon under the lead of Militiades, ¹²³ who after that victory was condemned by the Athenians and died in the public prison. At that time Aesthylus. the tragic poet, flourished at Athens. ¹²⁴ In Rome, at about the same time, the commons, as the result of a secession, for the first time elected their own tribunes and aediles; ¹²⁵ and not much later Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, harassed and exasperated by the tribunes of the commons, turned traitor to the republic and joined the Volscians, who were then our enemies, ¹²⁶ and lade war upon the Roman people. Then a few years later, King Xerxes was beaten and put to flight by the Athenians and a good part of Greece, under the lead of Themistocles, in the sea-fight at Salamis. ¹²⁷ About three ¹²⁸ years afterwards, in the consulship of Menenius Agrippa and Marcus Horatius Pulvillus, during the war with Veii, the patrician Fabii, three hundred and six in number, along with their dependents, ¹²⁹ were all ambushed at the river Cremera and slain.

At about that time Empedocles of Agrigentum was eminent in the domain of natural philosophy. ¹³⁰ But at Rome at that epoch it is stated that a board of ten was appointed ¹³¹ to codify laws, and that at first they compiled ten tables, to which afterwards two more were added.

Then the great Peloponnesian war began in Greece, which Thucydides has handed down to memory, about three hundred and twenty-three years after the founding of Rome. ¹³² At that time Olus Postumius Tubertus was dictator at Rome, and executed his own son, because he had fought against the enemy contrary to his father's order. The people of Fidenae and the Aequians were then at war with the Roman people. ¹³³ During that period Sophocles, and later Euripides, were famous and renowned as tragic poets, Hippocrates as a physician, and as a philosopher, Democritus; Socrates the Athenian was younger than these, ¹³⁴ but was in part their contemporary.

Somewhat later, when the military tribunes with consular authority were in power ¹³⁵ at Rome, about the three hundred and forty-seventh year after the founding of the city, the notorious thirty tyrants were imposed upon the Athenians by the Lacedaemonians, and in Sicily the elder Dionysius was tyrant. ¹³⁶ A few years later, at Athens, Socrates was condemned to death and executed in prison by means of poison. At about the same time, at Rome, Marcus Furius Camillus was dictator and took Veii. Not long afterwards came the war with the Senones, when the Gauls captured Rome with the exception of the Capitol. ¹³⁷

Not long after these events the astronomer Eudoxus was famed in the land of Greece, the Lacedaemonians were defeated by the Athenians at Corinth under the lead of Phormio, ¹³⁸ and at Rome Marcus Manlius, who during the siege of the Capitol had repulsed the Gauls as they were climbing up its steep cliffs, was convicted of having formed the design of making himself king. Marcus Varro says ¹³⁹ that he was condemned to death and hurled from the Tarpeian rock; but Cornelius Nepos has written ¹⁴⁰ that he was scourged to death. In the very same year, which was the seventh after the recovery of the city, it is recorded that the philosopher Aristotle was born. ¹⁴¹

Next, some years after the war with the Senones, the Thebans defeated the Lacedaemonians at Leuctra ¹⁴² under the lead of Epaminondas, and a little later in the city of Rome the law of Licinius Stolo provided for the elections of consuls also from the plebeians, ¹⁴³ whereas before that time it was not lawful for a consul to be chosen except from the patrician familiis families.

Then, about the four hundredth year after the founding of the city, Philip, son of Amyntas and father of Alexander, became king of Macedonia. At that time Alexander was born, ¹⁴⁴ and a few years later the philosopher Plato went to the court of the younger Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily; then some little time afterwards Philip defeated the Athenians in the great battle at Chaeronea. ¹⁴⁵ At that time the orator Demosthenes sought safety in flight from the battlefield, and when he was bitterly taunted with his flight he jestingly replied in the well-known verse: ¹⁴⁶

The man who runs away will fight again.

Later Philip fell victim to a conspiracy; but Alexander, who succeeded him, ¹⁴⁷ crossed over into Asia and the Orient, to subdue the Persians. But another Alexander, surnamed Molossus, came into Italy intending to make war on the Roman people —for already the fame of Roman valour and success was beginning to be conspicuous among foreign nations—but he died before beginning the war. We have learned that on his way to Italy that Molossus said that he was going against the Romans as a nation of men, but the Macedonian was going against the Persians as one of women. Later, the Macedonian Alexander, having subdued the greater part of the east, died ¹⁴⁸ after a reign of eleven years. Not long after this the philosopher Aristotle ended his life, ¹⁴⁹ and a little later, Demosthenes; ¹⁵⁰ at about that same time the Roman people engaged in a dangerous and protracted war with the Samites and the consuls Tiberius Veturius and Spurius Postumius were surrounded by the Samites in a perilous position near Caudium and being sent under the yoke were allowed to depart only when they had made a shameful treaty; ¹⁵¹ and when for that reason the consuls by vote of the people were surrendered to the Samites through the fetial priests, they were not accepted.

Then, about four hundred and seventy years after the founding of the city, war was begun with king Pyrrhus. ¹⁵² At that time Epicurus the Athenian and Zeno of Citium were famed as philosophers, and at the same time the censors at Rome, Gains Fabricius Luscinus and Quintus Aemilius Papus, expelled from the senate Publius Cornelius Rufinus, who had twice been consul and dictator; and they recorded as the reason for that censure the fact that they had learned of his using ten pounds' weight of silverware at a dinner.

Then, in about the four hundred and ninetieth year after the founding of Rome, when the consuls were Appius Claudius, surnamed Caudex, brother of the celebrated Appius the Blind, and Marcus Fluvius Flaccus, the first war with the Carthaginians broke out, ¹⁵³ and not long afterwards Callimachus, the poet of Cyrene, was famous at the court of king Ptolemy at Alexandria. A little more than twenty years later, when peace had been made with the Carthaginians and the consuls were C. Claudius Centho, son of Appius the Blind, and Marcus Sempronius Tuditanus, the poet Lucius Livius was the very first to put plays upon the stage at Rome, ¹⁵⁴ more than a hundred and sixty years after the death of Sophocles and Euripides and about fifty-two years after the death of Menander. The consuls Claudius and Tuditanus were followed by Quintus Valerius and Gaius Mamilius, in whose year the poet Quintus Ennius was born, ¹⁵⁵ as Marcus Varro has written in the first book of his work On Poets;¹⁵⁶ and he adds that at the age of sixty-seven Ennius had written the twelfth Book of the Annals, and that Ennius himself says so in that same book.

Five hundred and nineteen years after the founding of Rome, Spurius Carvilius Ruga, at the advice of his friends, was the first Roman to divorce his wife, on the ground that she was barren and that he had taken oath before the censors that he married for the purpose of having children. ¹⁵⁷ In that same year the poet Naevius exhibited plays to the people, ¹⁵⁸ and Marcus Varro says ¹⁵⁹ in the first book of his work On Poets that Naevius served in the first Punic war and that the poet himself makes that statement in the poem which he wrote on that same war. But Porcius Licinius says ¹⁶⁰ in the following verses that Rome was later in taking up the poetic art:

In the second Punic war with winged flight

The Muse to Romulus' warrior nation came.

Then, about fifteen years later, war was begun with the Carthaginians, ¹⁶¹ and not very long after that Marcus Cato was famous as a political orator and Plautus as a dramatic poet; and at that same time Diogenes the Stoic, Carneades the Academic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic were sent by the Athenians as envoys to the senate of the Roman people on public business. Not very long after this came Quintus Ennius, and then Caecilius and Terence, ¹⁶² and afterwards Pacuvius ¹⁶³ and when Pacuvius was already an old man, Accius and then Lucilius, who was still more famous through his criticisms of the poems of his predecessors.

But I have gone too far, since the limit that I set for these little notes was the second Punic war.

Noctes Atticae. Aulus Gellius. John C. Rolfe (Translator). Cambridge, Mass.. 1927.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by Tufts University.

Current edition Perseus

Attic Nights (English) (Gellius, Aulus. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. Rolfe, John C., translator. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann, 1927 (printing).)

Editions (1)

Noctes Atticae Perseus (Gellius, Aulus. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. Rolfe, John C., editor. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann, 1927 (printing).) — 17.1 focus

I

Argument

Quod Gallus Asinius et Largius Licinus sententiam M. Ciceronis reprehenderunt ex oratione quam dixit Pro M. Caelio Caclio; et quid ad versus homines stolidissimos pro eadem sententia vere ¹ digneque dici possit.

[1] UT quidam fuerunt monstra hominum, quod de dis inmortalibus impias falsasque opiniones prodiderunt, ita nonnulli tam prodigiosi tamque vecordes extiterunt, in quibus sunt Gallus Asinius et Largius Licinus, cuius liber etiam fertur infando titulo Ciceromastix, ut scribere ausi sint M. Ciceronem parum integre atque inproprie atque inconsiderate locutum.

[2] Atque alia quidem quae reprehenderunt neque dictu neque auditu digna sunt,

[3] sed enim hoc, ² in quo sibimet ipsi praeter cetera esse visi sunt verborum pensitatores subtilissimi, cedo, quale id sit consideremus.

[4] M. Cicero Pro M. Caelio ita scribit: Nam quod obiectum est de pudicitia quodque omnium accusatorum non criminibus, sed vocibus maledictisque celebratum est, id numquam tam acerbe feret M. Caelius, ut eum paeniteat non deformem esse natum.

[5] Non existumant verbo proprio esse usum, quod ait paeniteat, atque id prope ineptum etiam esse dicunt.

[6] Nam paenitere, inquiunt, tum dicere solemus, cum quae ipsi fecimus aut quae de nostra voluntate nostroque consilio facta sunt, ea nobis post incipiunt displicere sententiamque in iis nostram demutamus;

[7] neminem autem recte ita loqui paenitere sese, quod natus sit aut paenitere, quod mortalis sit aut quod ex offenso forte vulneratoque corpore dolorem sentiat, quando istiusmodi rerum nec consilium sit nostrum nec arbitrium, sed ea ingratis nostris ³ vi ac necessitate naturae nobis accidant: Sicut hercle, inquiunt,

[8] non voluntarium fuit M. Caelio, quali forma nasceretur, cuius eum dixit non paenitere, tamquam in ea causa res esset ut rationem caperet paenitendi.

[9] Est haec quidem, quam dicunt, verbi huiusce sententia et paenitere nisi in voluntariis rebus non probe dicitur, tametsi antiquiores verbo ipso alio quoque modo usitati sunt et paenitet ab eo quod est paene et paenuria dixerunt. Sed id aliorsum pertinet atque alio in loco dicetur.

[10] Nunc autem, sub hac eadem significatione quae vulgo nota est, non modo ineptum hoc non est quod M. Cicero dixit, sed festivissimum adeo et facetissimum est.

[11] Nam cum adversarii et obtrectatores M. Caeli, quoniam erat pulchro corpore, formam eius et faciem in suspiciones inpudicitiae accerserent, inludens Cicero tam absurdam criminationem, quod formam, quam natura fecerat, vitio darent, eodem ipso errore quem inludebat sciens usus est et non paenitet, inquit, M. Caelium, non deformem esse natum, ut vel hac ipsa re, quod ita dicebat, obprobraret adversariis ac per facetias ostentaret facere eos deridiculum, quod proinde Caelio formam crimini darent, quasi arbitrium eius fuisset, quali forma nasceretur.

II

Argument

Verba quaedam ex Q. Claudi Annalium primo cursim in legendo notata.

[1] CUM librum veteris scriptoris legebamus, conabamur postea memoriae vegetandae gratia indipisci animo ac recensere quae in eo libro scripta essent in utrasque existimationes laudis aut culpae adnotamentis digna, eratque hoc sane quam utile exercitium ad conciliandas nobis, ubi venisset usus, verborum sententiarumque sententiarunlque elegantium recordationes.

[2] Velut haec verba ex Q. Claudi primo Annali, quae meminisse potui, notavi, quem librum legimus biduo proximo superiore.

[3] Arma, inquit, plerique abiciunt atque inermi inlatebrant sese. Inlatebrant verbum poeticum visum est, sed non absurdum neque asperum.

[4] Ea, inquit, dum fiunt, Latini subnixo animo ex victoria inerti consilium ineunt. Subnixo animo⁴ quasi sublimi sublimli et supra nixo, verbum bene significans et non fortuitum; demonstratque animi altitudinem fiduciamque, quoniam quibus innitimur, iis quasi erigimur attollimurque.

[5] Domus, inquit, suas quemque ire iubet et sua omnia frunisci. Frunisci⁵ rarius quidem fuit in aetate M. Tulli ac deinceps infra rarissimum, dubitatunque est ab inperitis antiquitatis an Latinum foret.

[6] Non modo autem Latinum, sed iucundius amoeniusque etiam verbum est fruniscor quam fruor, et ut fatiscor a fateor, ita fruniscor factum est a fruor.

[7] Q. Metellus Numidicus, qui caste pureque lingua usus Latina videtur, in epistula quam exul Ad Domitios misit, ita scripsit: Illi vero omni iure atque honestate interdicti, ego neque aqua neque igni careo et summa gloria fruniscor.

[8] Novius, in Atellania quae Parcus inscripta est, hoc verbo ita utitur:

Quód magno opere quaésiverunt, id frunisci nón queunt.

Qui non parsit ápud se, frunítus est.

[9] Et Romani, inquit, multis armis et magno commeatu praedaque ingenti copiantur. Copiantur⁶ verbum castrense est nec facile id reperias apud civilium causarum oratores, ex eademque figura est qua lignantur et pabulantur et aquantur. Sole, inquit, occaso.

[10] Sole occaso non insuavi vetustate est, si quis aurem habeat non sordidam nec proculcatam; in Duodecim autem Tabulis verbum hoc ita scriptum est: Ante meridiem causam coniciunto, cum perorant ambo praesentes. Post meridiem praesenti litem addicito. Si ambo praesentes, sol ⁷ occasus suprema tempestas esto.

[11] Nos, inquit, in medium relinquemus. Vulgus in medio dicit; nam vitium esse istuc putat et, si dicas in medium ponere, id quoque esse soloecon putant; set probabilius significantiusque sic dici videbitur, si quis ea verba non incuriose introspiciat; Graece quoque θεῖναι εἰς μέσον, vitium id non est.

[12] Postquam nuntiatum est, inquit, ut pugnatum esset in Gallos, id civitas graviter tulit. In Gallos mundius subtiliusque est quam cum Gallis aut contra Gallos; nam pinguiora haec obsoletioraque sunt.

[13] Simul, inquit, forma, factis, eloquentia, dignitate, acrimonia, confidentia pariter praecellebat, ut facile intellegeretur magnum viaticum ex se atque in se ad rempublicam evertendam habere. Magnum viaticum pro magna facultate et paratu magno nove positum est, videturque Graecos secutus, qui ἐφόδιον a sumptu viae ad aliarum quoque rerum apparatus traducunt ac saepe ἐφοδίασον pro eo dicunt, quod est institue et instrue.

[14] Nam Marcus, inquit, Manlius, quem Capitolium servasse a Gallis supra ostendi cuiusque operam cum M. Furio dictatore apud Gallos cumprime fortem atque exsuperabilem respublica sensit, is et genere et vi et virtute bellica nemini concedebat. Adprime crebrius est, cumprime rarius traductumque ex eo est, quod cumprimis dicebant pro quod est inprimis.

[15] Nihil Nihl sibi, inquit, divitias opus esse. Nos divitiis dicimus. Sed vitium hoc orationis nullum est ac ne id quidem est quod figura dici solet; recta enim istaec oratio est et veteres conpluscule ita dixerunt, nec ratio dici potest, cur rectius sit divitiis opus esse quam divitias, nisi qui grammaticorum nova instituta ut τεμένων ἱερά observant.

[16] Nam hac,⁸ inquit, maxime versatur deorum iniquitas, quod deteriores sunt incolumiores neque optimum quemquam inter nos sinunt diurnare. Inusitate diurnare dixit pro diu vivere, sed ex ea figuratione est, qua dicimus perennare. Cum iis, inquit, consermonabatur.

[17] Sermonari rusticius videtur, sed rectius est, sermocinari tritius, ⁹ sed corruptius est.

[18] Sese, inquit, ne id quoque, quod tum suaderet, facturum esse. Ne id quoque dixit pro ne id quidem, infrequens nunc in loquendo, sed in libris veterum creberrimum.

[19] Tanta, inquit, sanctitudo fani est, ut numquam quisquam violare sit ausus. Sanctitas quoque et sanctimonia non minus Latine dicuntur, sed nescio quid maioris dignitatis est verbum sanctitudo,

[20] sicuti M. Cato In L. Veturium duritudinem quam duritiam dicere gravius putavit: Qui illius, inquit, impudentiam norat et duritudinem.

[21] Cum tantus, inquit, arrabo penes Samnites populi Romani esset. Arrabonem dixit sescentos obsides et id maluit quam pignus dicere, quoniam vis huius vocabuli in ea sententia gravior acriorque est; sed nunc arrabo in sordidis verbis haberi coeptus ac multo videtur sordidius arra, quamquam arra quoque veteres saepe dixerint et conpluriens Laberius.

[22]

[23] 22.23 Miserrimas, inquit, vitas exegerunt, et: hic nimiis in otiis, inquit, consumptus est. Elegantia utrobique ex multitudine numeri quaesita est.

[24] Cominius, inquit, qua ascenderat, descendit atque verba Gallis dedit. Verba Cominium dedisse Gallis dicit, qui nihil quicquam cuiquam dixerat; neque eum Galli, qui Capitolium obsidebant, ascendentem aut descendentem ¹⁰ viderant. Sed verba dedit haut secus posuit quam si tu dicas latuit atque obrepsit.

[25] Convalles, inquit, et arboreta magna erant.

Arboreta ignobilius verbum, arbusta celebratius.

[26] Putabant, inquit, eos qui foris atque qui in arce erant inter se commutationes et consilia facere. Commutationes, id est conlationes communicationesque, non usitate dixit, set non hercle inscite nec ineleganter.

[27] Haec ego pauca interim super eo libro, quorum memoria post lectionem subpetierat, mihi notavi.

III

Argument

Verba M. Varronis ex libro quinto et vicesimo Humanarum, quibus contra opinionem volgariam interpretatus est Homeri versum.

[1] IN sermonibus forte quos de temporibus rerum ad usus hominum repertarum agitabamus, adulescens quispiam non indoctus sparti quoque usum in terra Graecia diu incognitum fuisse dixit multisque post Ilium captum tempestatibus ex terra Hispania advectum.

[2] Riserunt hoc ad inludendum ex his, qui ibi aderant, unus atque alter, male homines litterati, quod genus ἀγοραίους Graeci appellant, atque eum qui id dixerat librum legisse Homeri aiebant, cui versus hic forte deesset:

Καὶ δὴ δοῦρα σέσηπε νεῶν καὶ σπάρτα λέλυνται.

[3] Tum ille prorsum inritatus: Non, inquit, meo libro versus iste, ¹¹ sed vobis plane magister defuit, si creditis in eo versu σπάρτα id significare quod nos spartum dicimus.

[4] Maiorem illi risum subiciunt, neque id desierunt, ¹² nisi liber ab eo prolatus esset M. Varronis vicesimus quintus Humanarum, in quo de isto Homeri verbo a Varrone ita scriptum est: Ego σπάρτα apud Homerum non plus spartum significare puto quam σπάρτους, qui dicuntur in agro Thebano nati. In Graecia sparti copia modo coepit esse ex Hispania. Neque ea ipsa facultate usi Liburni; sed hi plerasque naves loris suebant, Graeci magis cannabo et stuppa ceterisque sativis rebus, a quibus σπάρτα appellabant.

[5] Quod cum ita Varro dicat, dubito hercle, an posterior syllaba in eo verbo, quod apud Homerum est, acuenda sit, nisi quia voces huiusmodi, cum ex communi significatione in rei certae proprietatem concedunt, diversitate accentuum separantur.

IV

Argument

Quid Menander poeta Philemoni poetae dixerit, a quo saepe indigne in certaminibus certamninibus comoediarum superatus est; et quod saepissime Euripides in tragoedia ab ignobilibus poetis victus est.

[1] MENANDER a Philemone, nequaquam pari scriptore, in certaminibus comoediarum ambitu gratiaque et factionibus saepenumero vincebatur.

[2] Eum cum forte habuisset obviam, Quaeso, inquit, Philemo, bona venia dic mihi, cum me vincis, non erubescis?

[3] Euripidem quoque M. Varro ait, cum quinque et septuaginta tragoedias scripserit, in quinque solis vicisse, cum eum saepe vincerent aliquot poetae ignavissimi.

[4] Menandrum autem alii centum octo, partim centum novem reliquisse comoedias ferunt.

[5] Sed Apollodori, scriptoris celebratissimi, hos de Menandro versus legimus in libro qui Chronica inscriptus est:

Κηφισιεὺς ὢν ἐκ Διοπείθους πατρός,

Πρὸς τοῖσιν ἑκατὸν πέντε γράψας δράματα

Ἐξέλιπε, πεντήκοντα καὶ δυεῖν ἐτῶν.

[6] Ex istis tamen centum et quinque omnibus, solis eum octo vicisse, idem Apollodorus eodem in libro scripsit.

V

Argument

Nequaquam esse verum, quod minutis quibusdam rhetoricae artificibus videatur, M. Ciceronem in libro quem De Amicitia scripsit vitioso argumento usum, ἀμφισβητούμενον ἀντὶ ὁμολογουμένου posuisse; totumque id consideratius tractatum exploratumque.

[1] M. CICERO, in dialogo cui titulus est Laelius vel De Amicitia, docere volens amicitiam non spe expectationeque utilitatis neque pretii mercedisque causa colendam, sed quod ipsa per sese plena virtutis honestatisque sit expetendam diligendamque esse, etiamsi nihil opis nihilque emolumenti ex ea percipi queat, hac sententia atque his verbis usus est eaque dicere facit C. Laelium, sapientem virum, qui Publii Africani fuerat amicissimus: Quid enim?

[2] Africanus indigens mei? Ne ¹³ ego quidem illius. Sed ego admiratione quadam virtutis eius, ille vicissim opinione fortasse nonnulla quam de meis moribus habebat me dilexit; auxit benivolentiam consuetudo. Sed quamquam utilitates multae et magnae consecutae sunt, non sunt tamen ab earum spe causae diligendi profectae. Ut enim benefici liberalesque sumus, non ut exigamus gratiam—neque enim beneficium faeneramur, sed natura propensi ad liberalitatem sumus—, sic amicitiam non spe mercedis adducti, sed quod omnis eius fructus in ipso amore inest, expetendam putamus.

[3] Hoc cum legeretur in coetu forte hominum doctorum, rhetoricus quidam sophista, utriusque linguae callens, haut sane ignobilis ex istis acutulis et minutis doctoribus qui τεχνικοί appellantur, atque in disserendo tamen non impiger, usum esse existimabat argumento M. Tullium non probo neque apodictico, sed eiusdem quaestionis, cuius esset ea ipsa res de qua quaereretur; verbisque id vitium Graecis appellat, quod accepisset ἀμφισβητούμενον ἀντὶ ὁμολογουμένου.

[4] Nam beneficos, inquit, et liberales sumpsit ad confirmandum id quod de amicitia dicebat, cum ipsum illud et soleat quaeri et debeat, quisquis liberaliter et benigne facit, qua mente quoque consilio benignus liberalisque sit? utrum, quia mutuam gratiam speret et eum in quem benignus sit ad parem curam sui provocet, quod facere plerique omnes videntur, an, quia natura sit benivolus benignitasque eum per sese ipsa et liberalitas delectet sine ulla recipiendae gratiae procuratione, quod est omnium ferme rarissimum?

[5] Argumenta autem censebat aut probabilia esse debere aut perspicua et minime controversa, idque apodixin vocari dicebat, cum ea quae dubia aut obscura sunt, per ea quae ambigua non sunt inlustrantur.

[6] Atque, ut ostenderet beneficos liberalesque ad id quod de amicitia quaereretur quasi argumentum exemplumve sumi non oportere, Eodem, inquit, simulacro eademque rationis imagine amicitia invicem pro argumento sumi potest, si quis adfirmet homines beneficos liberalesque esse debere, non spe aliqua compendii, set amore et studio honestatis.

[7] Poterit enim consimiliter ita dicere: Namque, ut amicitiam non spe utilitatis amplectimur, sic benefici liberalesque non gratiae reciperandae studio esse debemus.

[8] Poterit sane, inquit, ita dicere, sed neque amicitia liberalitati neque liberalitas amicitiae praebere argumentum potest, cum de utraque pariter quaeratur.

[9] Haec ille rhetoricus artifex dicere quibusdam videbatur perite et scienter, sed videlicet eum vocabula rerum vera ignoravisse.

[10] Nam beneficum et liberalem Cicero appellat, ita ut philosophi appellandum esse censent, non eum qui, ut ipse ait, beneficia faeneratur, sed qui benigne facit, nulla tacita ¹⁴ ratione ad utilitates suas redundante.

[11] Non ergo obscuro neque ambiguo argumento usus est, sed certo atque perspicuo, siquidem, qui vere beneficus liberalisque est, qua mente bene aut liberaliter facit non quaeritur. ¹⁵

[12] Aliis enim longe nominibus appellandus est, si, cum talia facit, sui potius quam alterius iuvandi causa facit.

[13] Processisset autem argutatori isti fortassean reprehensio, si Cicero ita dixisset: Ut enim benefice liberaliterque facimus, non ut exigamus gratiam; videretur enim benefice facere etiam in non beneficum cadere posse, si id per aliquam circumstantiam fieret, non per ipsam perpetuae benignitatis constantiam.

[14] Sed cum beneficos liberalesque dixerit neque alius modi isti sint quam cuius esse eos supra diximus, inlotis, quod aiunt, pedibus et verbis reprehendit doctissimi viri orationem.

VI

Argument

Falsum esse, quod Verrius Flaccus, in libro secundo quos De Obscuris M. Catonis composuit, de servo recepticio scriptum reliquit.

[1] M. CATO Voconiam legem suadens verbis hisce usus est: Principio vobis mulier magnam dotem adtulit; tum magnam pecuniam recipit, quam in viri potestatem non conmittit, eam pecuniam viro mutuam dat; postea, ubi irata facta est, servum recepticium sectari atque flagitare virum iubet.

[2] Quaerebatur, servus recepticius quid esset. Libri statim quaesiti allatique sunt Verrii Flacci De Obscuris Catonis. In libro secundo scriptum et inventum est, recepticium servum dici nequam et nulli pretii, qui, cum venum esset datus, redhibitus ob aliquod vitium receptusque sit.

[3] Propterea, inquit, servus eiusmodi sectari maritum et flagitare pecuniam iubebatur, ut eo ipso dolor maior et contumelia gravior viro fieret, quod eum servus nihili petendae pecuniae causa conpellaret.

[4] Cum pace autem cumque venia istorum, si qui sunt, qui Verrii Flacci auctoritate capiuntur, dictum hoc sit.

[5] Recepticius enim servus, in ea re quam dicit Cato, aliud omnino est quam Verrius scripsit.

[6] Atque id cuivis facile intellectu est; res enim procul dubio sic est: quando mulier dotem marito dabat, tum quae ex suis bonis retinebat neque ad virum tramittebat, ea recipere dicebatur, sicuti nunc nune quoque in venditionibus recipi dicuntur, quae excipiuntur neque veneunt.

[7] Quo verbo Plautus quoque in Trinummo usus est in hoc versu:

Postículum hoc recépit, ¹⁶ cum aedis véndidit,

id est: cum aedis vendidit, particulam quandam quae post eas aedis erat non vendidit, sed retinuit.

[8] Ipse etiam Cato mulierem demonstrare locupletem volens: Mulier, inquit, et magnam dotem dat et magnam pecuniam recipit, hoc est: et magnam dotem dat et magnam pecuniam retinet.

[9] Ex ea igitur re familiari, quam sibi dote data retinuit, pecuniam viro mutuam dat.

[10] Eam pecuniam cum viro forte irata repetere instituit, adponit ei flagitatorem servum recepticium, hoc est proprium servum suum, quem cum pecunia reliqua receperat neque dederat doti, sed retinuerat; non enim servo mariti imperare hoc mulierem fas erat, sed proprio suo.

[11] Plura dicere quibus hoc nostrum tuear supersedeo; ipsa enim sunt per sese evidentia et quod a Verrio dicitur et a nobis; quod utrum ergo videbitur cuique verius, eo utatur.

VII

Argument

Verba haec ex Atinia lege: quod subruptum erit, eius rei aeterna auctoritas esto, P. Nigidio et Q. Scaevolae visa esse non minus de praeterito furto quam de futuro cavisse.

[1] LEGIS veteris Atiniae verba sunt: Quod subruptum erit, eius rei aeterna auctoritas esto.

[2] Quis aliud putet in hisce verbis quam de tempore tantum futuro legem loqui?

[3] Sed Q. Scaevola patrem suum et Brutum et Manilium, viros adprime doctos, quaesisse ait dubitasseque utrumne in post facta modo furta lex valeret an etiam in ante facta; quoniam subruptum erit utrumque tempus videretur ostendere, tam praeteritum quam futurum.

[4] Itaque P. Nigidius, civitatis Romanae doctissimus, super dubitatione hac eorum scripsit in tertio vicesimo Grammaticorum Commentariorum. Atque ipse quoque idem putat, incertam esse temporis demonstrationem,

[5] sed anguste perquam et obscure disserit, ut signa rerum ponere videas ad subsidium magis memoriae suae quam ad legentium disciplinam.

[6] Videbatur tamen hoc dicere, suum verbum et est esse et erit; quando per sese ponuntur, habent atque retinent tempus suum, cum vero praeterito iunguntur, vim temporis sui amittunt et in praeteritum contendunt.

[7] Cum enim dico: in campo est et in comitio est, tempus instans significo; item cum dico in campo erit, tempus futurum demonstro; at cum dico: factum est, scriptum est, subruptum est, quamquam est verbum temporis est praesentis, confunditur tamen cum praeterito et praesens esse desinit.

[8] Sic igitur, inquit, etiam istud quod in lege est; si dividas separesque duo verba haec subruptum et erit, ut sic audias subruptum erit,¹⁷ tamquam certamen certanien erit aut sacrificium erit, tum turn videbitur lex in postfuturum loqui; si vero copulate permixteque dictum intellegas, ut subruptum erit non duo, sed unum verbum sit idque unitum ¹⁸ patiendi declinatione sit, Tum hoc verbo non minus praeteritum tempus ostenditur quam futurum.

VIII

Argument

In sermonibus apud mensam Tauri philosophi quaeri agitarique eiusmodi solita: cur oleum saepe et facile, vina rarius congelascant, acetum haut fere umquam et quod aquae fluviorum fontiumque durentur, mare gelu non duretur.

[1] PHILOSOPHUS TAURUS accipiebat nos Athenis cena plerumque ad id diei ubi iam vesperaverat;

[2] id enim est tempus istic cenandi. Frequens eius cenae fundus et firmamentum omne erat aula una lentis Aegyptiae et cucurbitae inibi minutim caesae.

[3] Ea quodam die ubi paratis et expectantibus nobis adlata atque inposita mensae est, puerum iubet Taurus oleum in aulam indere. ¹⁹

[4] Erat is puer genere Atticus, ad annos maxime natus octo, festivissimis aetatis et gentis argutiis scatens.

[5] Gutum Samium ore tenus inprudens inanem, tamquam si inesset oleum, adfert convertitque eum et, ut solitum est, circumegit per omnem partem aulae manum: ²⁰ nullum inde ibat oleum.

[6] Aspicit puer gutum atrocibus oculis stomachabundus et concussum vehementius iterum in aulam vertit;

[7] idque cum omnes sensim atque summissim rideremus, tum puer Graece, et id quidem perquam Attice μὴ γελᾶτε, inquit, ἔνι τοὔλαιον· ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἴστε, οἷα φρίκη περὶ τὸν ὄρθρον γέγονε τήμερον; κεκρυστάλλωται.

[8] Verbero, inquit ridens Taurus, nonne is curriculo atque oleum petis?

Sed cum puer foras emptum isset, nihil ipse ista mora offensior: Aula, inquit, oleo indiget et, ut video, intolerandum fervit; cohibeamus manus atque interea, quoniam puer nunc admonuit solere oleum congelascere, consideremus cur oleum quidem saepe et facile, set vina rarenter congelascant?

[9] Atque aspicit me et iubet quid sentiam dicere.

[10] Tum ego respondi coniectare me vinum idcirco minus cito congelascere, quod semina quaedam caldoris in sese haberet essetque natura ignitius, ob eamque rem dictum esse ab Homero αἴθοπα οἶνον, non, ut alii putarent, propter colorem.

[11] Est quidem, inquit Taurus, ita ut dicis; nam ferme convenit vinum, ubi potum est, calefacere corpora.

[12] Sed non secus oleum quoque calorificum est neque minorem vim in corporibus calefaciendis habet.

[13] Ad hoc, si istaec quae calidiora sunt difficilius gelu coguntur, congruens est ut quae frigidiora sunt facile cogantur.

[14] Acetum autem omnium maxime frigorificum est atque id numquam tamen concrescit.

[15] Num igitur magis causa oleo coaguli celerioris in levitate est? Faciliora enim ad coeundum videntur quae levatiora levioraque sunt.

[16] Praeterea id quoque ait quaeri dignum, cur fluviorum et fontium aquae gelu durentur, mare omne incongelabile sit. Tametsi Herodotus, inquit, historiae scriptor, contra omnium ferme qui haec quaesiverunt opinionem, scribit mare Bosporicum, quod Cimmerium appellatur, earumque partium mare omne quod Scythicum dicitur, gelu stringi et consistere.

[17] Dum haec Taurus, interea puer venerat et aula deferbuerat tempusque esse coeperat edendi et tacendi.

IX

Argument

De notis litterarum quae in C. Caesaris epistulis reperiuntur; deque aliis clandestinis litteris ex vetere historia petitis; ²¹ et quid σκυτάλη sit Laconica.

[1] LIBRI sunt epistularum C. Caesaris ad C. Oppium et Balbum Cornelium, qui rebus eius absentis curabant.

[2] In his epistulis quibusdam in locis inveniuntur litterae singulariae sine coagmentis syllabarum, quas tu putes positas incondite; nam verba ex his litteris confici nulla possunt.

[3] Erat autem conventum inter eos clandestinum de commutando situ litterarum, ut in scripto quidem alia aliae locum et nomen teneret, sed in legendo locus cuique suus et potestas restitueretur;

[4] quaenam vero littera pro qua scriberetur, ante is, sicuti dixi, conplacebat qui hanc scribendi latebram parabant.

[5] Est adeo Probi grammatici commentarius satis curiose factus De Occulta Litterarum Significatione in Epistularum C. Caesaris Scriptura.²²

[6] Lacedaemonii autem veteres, cum dissimulare et occultare litteras publice ad imperatores suos missas volebant, ne, si ab hostibus eae captae ²³ forent, consilia sua noscerentur, epistulas id genus factas mittebant.

[7] Surculi duo erant teretes, oblonguli, pari crassamento eiusdemque longitudinis, derasi atque ornati consimiliter;

[8] unus imperatori in bellum proficiscenti dabatur, alterum domi magistratus cum iure ²⁴ atque cum signo habebant.

[9] Quando usus venerat litterarum secretiorum, circum eum surculum lorum modicae tenuitatis, longum autem quantum rei satis erat, conplicabant, volumine rotundo et simplici, ita uti orae adiunctae undique et cohaerentes lori, quod plicabatur, coirent.

[10] Litteras deinde in eo loro per transversas iuncturarum oras versibus a summo ad imum proficiscentibus inscribebant;

[11] id lorum litteris ita perscriptis revolutum ex surculo imperatori commenti istius conscio mittebant;

[12] resolutio autem lori litteras truncas atque mutilas reddebat membraque earum et apices in partis diversissimas spargebat;

[13] propterea, si id lorum in manus hostium inciderat, nihil quicquam coniectari ex eo scripto quibat;

[14] sed ubi ille ad quem erat missum acceperat, surculo conpari, quem habebat, a ²⁵ capite ad finem, proinde ut debere fieri sciebat, circumplicabat, atque ita litterae per eundem ambitum surculi coalescentes rursum coibant integramque et incorruptam epistulam et facilem legi praestabant.

[15] Hoc genus epistulae Lacedaemonii σκυτάλην appellant.

[16] Legebamus id quoque in vetere historia rerum Poenicarum, virum indidem quempiam inlustrem—sive ille Hasdrubal sive quis alius est non retineo—epistulam scriptam super rebus arcanis hoc modo abscondisse:

[17] pugillaria nova, nondum etiam cera inlita, accepisse, ²⁶ litteras in lignum incidisse, postea tabulas, uti solitum est, cera conlevisse easque tabulas, tamquam non scriptas, cui facturum id praedixerat misisse; eum deinde ceram derasisse litterasque incolumes ligno incisas legisse.

[18] Est et alia in monumentis rerum Graecarum profunda quaedam et inopinabilis latebra, barbarico astu excogitata.

[19] Histiaeus nomine fuit, loco natus in terra Asia non ignobili.

[20] Asiam tunc tenebat imperio rex Darius.

[21] Is Histiaeus, cum in Persis apud Darium esset, Aristagorae cuipiam res quasdam occultas nuntiare furtivo scripto volebat.

[22] Comminiscitur opertum hoc litterarum admirandum. Servo suo diu oculos aegros habenti capillum ex capite omni tamquam medendi gratia deradit caputque eius leve in litterarum formas conpungit.

[23] His litteris quae voluerat perscripsit, hominem postea quoad capillus adolesceret domo continuit.

[24] Ubi id factum est, ire ad Aristagoran iubet et Cum ad eum, inquit,

[25] veneris, mandasse me dicito ut caput tuum, sicut nuper egomet feci, deradat.

[26] Servus, ut imperatum erat, ad Aristagoran venit mandatumque domini adfert.

[27] Atque ille id non esse frustra ratus, quod erat mandatum fecit. Ita litterae perlatae sunt.

X

Argument

Quid de versibus Vergilii Favorinus existumarit, quibus in describenda flagrantia montis Aetnae Pindarum poetam secutus est; conlataque ab eo super eadem re utriusque carmina et diiudicata. ²⁷

[1] FAVORINUM philosophum, cum in hospitis sui Antiatem villam aestu anni concessisset nosque ad eum videndum Roma venissemus, memini super Pindaro poeta et Vergilio in hunc ferme modum disserere:

[2] Amici, inquit, familiaresque P. Vergilii, in his quae de ingenio moribusque eius memoriae tradiderunt, dicere eum solitum ferunt parere se versus more atque ritu ursino.

[3] Namque ut illa bestia fetum ederet ineffigiatum informemque lambendoque id postea quod ita edidisset conformaret et fingeret, proinde ingenii quoque sui partus recentes rudi esse facie et inperfecta, sed deinceps tractando colendoque reddere iis se oris et vultus liniamenta.

[4] Hoc virum iudicii subtilissimi ingenue atque vere dixisse, res, inquit, indicium facit.

[5] Nam quae reliquit perfecta expolitaque quibusque inposuit census atque dilectus sui supremam manum,

[6] omni poeticae venustatis laude florent; sed quae procrastinata sunt ab eo, ut post recenserentur, et absolvi, quoniam mors praeverterat, nequiverunt, nequaquam poetarum elegantissimi nomine atque iudicio digna sunt.

[7] Itaque cum morbo obpressus adventare mortem viderat, petivit oravitque a suis amicissimis inpense, ut Aeneida, quam nondum satis elimavisset, adolerent.

[8] In his autem, inquit, quae videntur retractari et corrigi debuisse, is maxime locus est qui de monte Aetna factus est. Nam cum Pindari, veteris poetae, carmen quod de natura atque flagrantia montis eius compositum est, aemulari vellet, eiusmodi sententias et verba molitus est, ut Pindaro quoque ipso, qui nimis opima pinguique esse facundia existimatus est, insolentior hoc quidem in loco tumidiorque sit.

[9] Atque uti vosmet ipsos, inquit, eius quod dico arbitros faciam, carmen Pindari quod est super monte Aetna, quantulum est mihi memoriae, dicam:

Τᾶς ἐρεύγονται μὲν ἀπλάτου πυρὸς ἁγνόταται

Ἐκ μυχῶν παγαί· ποταμοὶ δʼ ἁμέροισιν μὲν προχέοντιμυχῶν παγαί· ποταμοὶ δʼ ἁμέροισιν μὲν προχέοντι ῥόον καπνοῦ

Αἴθωνʼ· ἀλλʼ ἐν ὄρφναισιν πέτρας

²⁸

Φοίνισσα κυλινδομένα φλὸξ ἐς βαθεῖαν φέρει πόντου πλάκα σὺν πατάγῳ.

Κεῖνο δʼ Ἀφαίστοιο κρουνοὺς ἑρπετὸν

Δεινοτάτους ἀναπέμπει· τέρας μὲν θαυμάσιον προσιδέσθαι, θαῦμα δὲ καὶ παρεόντων ἀκοῦσαι.

[10] Audite nunc, inquit, Vergilii versus, quos inchoasse eum verius dixerim, quam fecisse:

Portus ab accessu ventorum inmotus et ingens

Ipse, sed horrificis iuxta tonat Aetna ruinis

Interdumque atram prorumpit ad aethera nubem,

Turbine fumantem piceo et candente favilla,

Adtollitque globos flammarum et sidera lambit;

Interdum scopulos avulsaque viscera montis

Erigit eructans liquefactaque saxa sub auras

Cum gemitu glomerat fundoque exaestuat imo.

[11] Iam principio, inquit, Pindarus, veritati magis obsecutus, id dixit quod res erat quodque istic usu veniebat quodque oculis videbatur videlatur, interdius fumare Aetnam, noctu flammigare;

[12] Vergilius autem, dum in strepitu sonituque verborum conquirendo laborat, utrumque tempus, nulla discretione facta, confudit.

[13] Atque ille Graecus quidem fontes imitus ²⁹ ignis eructari et fluere amnes fumi et flammarum fulva et tortuosa volumina in plagas maris ferre, quasi quosdam igneos angues, luculente dixit;

[14] at hic noster atram nubem turbine piceo et favilla fumantem ῥόον καπνοῦ αἴθωνα interpretari volens, crasse et inmodice congessit,

[15] globos quoque flammarum flammmarum, quod ille κρουνούς dixerat, duriter et ἀκύρως transtulit.

[16] Item quod ait: sidera lambit, vacanter hoc etiam, inquit, accumulavit et inaniter.

[17] Neque non id quoque inenarrabile esse ait et propemodum insensibile, quod nubem atram fumare dixit turbine piceo et favilla candente.

[18] Non enim fumare, inquit, solent neque atra esse quae sunt candentia; nisi si candenti dixit pervulgate et inproprie pro ferventi favilla, non pro ignea et relucenti. Nam candens scilicet a candore dictum, non a calore.

[19] Quod saxa autem et scopulos eructari et erigi eosdemque ipsos statim liquefieri et gemere atque glomerari sub auras dixit, hoc, inquit, nec a Pindaro scriptum nec umquam fando auditum et omnium, quae monstra dicuntur, monstruosissimum est.

XI

Argument

Quod Plutarchus in libris Symposiacis opinionem Platonis de habitu atque natura stomachi, fistulaeque eius quae τραχεῖα dicitur, adversum Erasistratum medicum tutatus est, auctoritate adhibita antiqui medici Hippocratis.

[1] ET Plutarchus et alii quidam docti viri reprehensum esse ab Erasistrato, nobili medico, Platonem Platonern scripsere, quod potum dixit defluere ad pulmonem eoque satis humectato demanare per eum, quia sit rimosior, et confluere inde in vesicam, errorisque istius fuisse Alcaeum ducem, qui in poematis suis scriberet:

Τέγγε πνεύμονα οἴνῳ· τὸ γὰρ ἄστρον περιτέλλεται,

[2] ipsum autem Erasistratum dicere duas esse quasi canaliculas quasdam vel fistulas easque ab oris faucibus proficisci deorsum, per earumque alteram deduci delabique in stomachum esculenta omnia et posculenta ³⁰ ex eoque ferri in ventriculum, quae Graece appellatur; ἡ κάτω κοιλία, atque ibi subigi digerique, ac deinde aridiora ex his recrementa in alvum convenire, quod Graece κόλον dicitur, humidiora per renes in vesicam.

[3] Per alteram autem fistulam, quae Graece nominatur τραχεῖα ἀρτηρία, spiritum a summo ore in pulmonem atque inde rursum in os et in nares commeare,

[4] perque eandem viam vocis quoque fieri meatum ac, ne potus cibusve aridior, quem oporteret in stomachum ire, procideret ex ore labereturque in eam fistulam per quam spiritus reciprocatur, eaque offensione intercluderetur animae via, inpositam esse arte quadam et ope naturae inde apud duo ista foramina, quae dicitur ἐπιγλωττίς, quasi claustra quaedam mobilia, coniventia vicissim et resurgentia,

[5] eamque ἐπιγλωττίδα inter edendum bibendumque operire atque protegere τὴν τραχεῖαν ἀρτηρίαν, ne quid ex esca potuve incideret in illud quasi aestuantis animae iter; ac propterea nihil humoris influere in pulmonem ore ipso arteriae communito. Haec Erasistratus medicus adversum Platonem.

[6] Sed Plutarchus in libro ³¹ Symposiacorum auctorem Platonis sententiae Hippocraten dicit fuisse idemque esse opinatos et Philistiona Locrum et Dioxippum Hippocraticum, veteres medicos et nobiles; atque illam, de qua Erasistratus dixerat, ἐπιγλωττίδα non idcirco eo in loco constitutam, ne quid ex potu influeret in arteriam; nam pulmoni quoque fovendo rigandoque utiles necessariosque humores videri, set adpositam quasi moderatricem quandam et arbitram prohibendi admittendive quod ex salutis usu foret, uti edulia quidem omnia defenderet ab arteria depelleretque in stomachum, potum autem partiretur inter stomachum et pulmonem et quod ex eo admitti in pulmonem per arteriam deberet, non rapidum id neque universum, sed quadam quasi obice sustenta tum ac repressum sensim paulatimque tramitteret atque omne reliquum in alteram stomachi fistulam derivaret.

XII

Argument

De materiis infamibus, quas Graeci ἀδόξους appellant, a Favorino exercendi gratia disputatis.

[1] INFAMES materias, sive quis mavult dicere inopinabiles, quas Graeci ἀδόξους ὑποθέσεις appellant, et veteres adorti sunt, non sophistae solum, sed philosophi quoque, et noster Favorinus oppido quam libens in eas materias se ³² deiciebat, ³³ vel ingenio expergificando ratus idoneas vel exercendis argutiis vel edomandis usu difficultatibus;

[2] sicuti, cum Thersitae laudes quaesivit et cum febrim quartis diebus recurrentem laudavit, lepida sane multa et non facilia inventu in utramque causam dixit eaque scripta in libris reliquit.

[3] Sed in febris laudibus testem tested etiam Platonem produxit, quem scripsisse ait qui quartanam passus convaluerit viresque integras recuperaverit, fidelius constantiusque postea valiturum. Atque inibi in ³⁴ isdem laudibus non hercle hac sententiola invenuste lusit:

[4] Versus, inquit, est longo hominum aevo probatus:

Ἄλλοτε μητρυιὴ πέλει ἡμέρη, ἄλλοτε μήτηρ.

Eo versu significatur, non omni die bene esse posse, sed isto bene atque alio male.

[5] Quod cum ita sit, inquit, ut in rebus humanis bene aut male vice alterna sit, haec biduo medio intervallata febris quanto est fortunatior, in qua est μία μητρυιά, δύο μητέρες!

XIII

Argument

Quin particula quot qualesque varietates significationis habeat et quam saepe in veterum scriptis obscura sit.

[1] QUIN particula, quam grammatici coniunctionem appellant, variis modis sententiisque conectere orationem videtur.

[2] Aliter enim dici putatur, cum quasi increpantes vel interrogantes vel exhortantes dicimus quin venis? quin legis? quin fugis? aliter, cum ita confirmamus: non dubium est, quin M. Tullius omnium sit eloquentissimus, aliter autem, cum sic componimus, quod quasi prior videtur contrarium: non idcirco causas Isocrates non defendit, quin id utile esse et honestum existumarit;

[3] a quo illa significatio non abhorret, quae est in tertia Origine M. Catonis. Haut eos, inquit, eo postremum scribo, quin populi et boni et strenui sient.

[4] In secunda quoque Origine M. Cato non longe secus hac particula usus est: Neque satis, inquit, habuit quod eum in occulto vitiaverat, quin eius famam prostitueret.

[5] Praeterea animadvertimus Quadrigarium in octavo Annalium particula ista usum esse obscurissime. Verba ipsius posuimus: Romam venit; vix superat quin triumphus decernatur.

[6] Item in sexto Annali eiusdem verba haec sunt: Paene factum est quin castra relinquerent atque cederent hosti.

[7] Non me autem praeterit dicere aliquem posse de summo pectore nil esse in his verbis negotii;

[8] nam quin utrobique positum pro ut planissimumque esse, si ita dicas: Romam venit; vix superat, ut triumphus decernatur; item alio in loco: Paene factum est, ut castra relinquerent atque cederent hosti.

[9] Sed utantur sane, qui tam expediti sunt, perfugiis commutationum in verbis quae non intelleguntur, utantur tamen, ubi id facere poterunt, verecundius.

[10] Hanc particulam de qua dicimus, nisi si quis didicerit compositam copulatamque esse neque vim tantum coniungendi habere, sed certa quadam significatione factam, numquam profecto rationes ac varietates istius comprehensurus est.

[11] Quod quia longioris dissertationis est, poterit, cui otium est, reperire hoc in P. Nigidii Commentariis, quos Grammaticos inscripsit.

XIV

Argument

Sententiae ex Publili mimis Miminis selectae lepidiores.

[1] PUBLILIUS mimos scriptitavit. Dignus habitus est qui subpar Laberio iudicaretur.

[2] C. autem Caesarem ita Laberii maledicentia et adrogantia offendebat, ut acceptiores sibi esse Publili quam Laberii mimos praedicaret.

[3] Huius Publili sententiae feruntur pleraeque lepidae et ad communem sermonum usum commendatissimae, ex quibus sunt istae singulis versibus circumscriptae,

[4] quas libitum hercle est adscribere:

Malum est consilium quód mutari nón potest.

Beneficium dando accépit, qui dignó dedit.

Ferás, non culpes, quód vitari nón potest.

Cui plús licet, quam pár est, plus vult, quám licet.

Comés facundus in via pro véhiculo est.

Frugálitas miséria est rumorís boni.

Herédis fletus súb persona risus est.

Furór fit laesa saépius patiéntia.

Inprobe Neptúnum accusat, qui iterum naufragiúm facit.

Ita amicum amicumi habeas pésse ut facile ³⁵ fieri hunc inimicúm putes.

Veterém ferendo iniúriam invités novam.

Numquám periclum síne periclo vincitur.

Nimium áltercando veritas amíttitur.

Pars bénefici est, quod pétitur si bellé neges.

XV

Argument

Quod Carneades Academicus elleboro elleloro stomachum purgavit, scripturus scriptures adversus Zenonis Stoici decreta deereta; deque natura medellaque ellebori ellelori candidi et nigri.

[1] CARNEADES Academicus, scripturus adversum Stoici Zenonis libros, superior corporis elleboro candido purgavit, ne quid ex corruptis in stomacho humoribus ad domicilia usque animi redundaret et instantiam

[2] vigoremque mentis labefaceret; tanta cura tantoque apparatu appparatu sui vir ingenio praestanti ad refellenda quae scripserat Zeno aggressus;

[3] idque cum in historia Graeca legissem, quod elleboro candido scriptum erat, quid esset quaesivi.

[4] Tum comperi duas species ellebori esse discerniculo coloris insignes, candidi et nigri; eos autem colores non in semine ellebori neque in virgultis, sed in radice dinosci; candido stomachum et ventrem superiorem vomitionibus purgari; nigro alvum, quae inferior vocatur, dilui, utriusque esse hanc vim, ut humores humrores noxios in quibus causae morborum sunt extrahant.

[5] Esse autem periculum ne inter causas morborum, omni corporum via patefacta, ea quoque ipsa, in quibus causa vivendi est, effluant ³⁶ amissoque omni naturalis alimoniae fundamento homo exhaustus intereat.

[6] Set elleborum sumi posse tutissime in insula Anticyra Plinius Secundus in libris Naturalis Historiae scripsit. Propterea Livium Drusum, qui tribunus plebi fuit, cum morbum qui comitialis dicitur pateretur, Anticyram navigasse et in ea insula elleborum bibisse ait, atque ita inorbo liberatum.

[7] Praeterea scriptum legimus Gallos in venatibus tinguere elleboro sagittas, quod his ictae, exanimatae ferae teneriores ad epulas fiant; sed propter ellebori contagium vulnera ex sagittis facta circumcidere latius dicuntur.

XVI

Argument

Anates Ponticas vim habere venenis digerendis potentem; atque inibi de Mitridati regis in id genus medicamentis medicainentum sollertia.

[1] ANATES Ponticas dicitur edundis vulgo venenis victitare.

[2] Scriptum etiam a Lenaeo, Cn. Pompei liberto, Mitridatem illum Ponti regem medicinae rei et remediorum id genus sollertem fuisse solitumque earum sanguine miscere medicamentis quae digerendis venenis valent, eumque sanguinein vel potentissimum esse in ea confectione;

[3] ipsum autem regem adsiduo talium medellarum usu a clandestinis epularum insidiis cavisse,

[4] quin et scientem quoque ultro et ostentandi gratia venenum rapidum et velox saepenumero hausisse, atque id tamen sine noxa fuisse.

[5] Quamobrem postea, cum proelio victus in ultima regni refugisset et mori decrevisset, venena violentissima festinandae necis causa frustra expertus, suo se ipse gladio transegit.

[6] Huius regis antidotus celebratissima est, quae Mitridatios vocatur.

XVII

Argument

Mitridatem, Ponti regem, quinque ³⁷ et viginti gentium linguis locutum; Quintumque Ennium tria corda habere sese dixisse, quod tris linguas percalluisset, Graecam, Oscam, Latinam.

[1] QUINTUS ENNIUS tria corda habere sese dicebat, quod loqui Graece et Osce et Latine sciret.

[2] Mitridates autem, Ponti atque Bithyniae rex inclutus, qui a Cn; Pompeio bello superatus est, quinque ³⁸ et viginti gentium quas sub dicione habuit linguas percalluit earumque omnium gentium viris haut umquam per interpretem conlocutus est, sed ut quemque ab eo appellari usus fuit, proinde lingua et oratione ipsius non minus scite quam si gentilis eius esset locutus est.

XVIII

Argument

Quod M. Varro C. Sallustium. historiae scriptorem, deprehensum ab Annio Milone in adulterio scribit et loris caesum pecuniaque data dimissum dimrissum.

[1] M. VARRO, in litteris atque vita fide homo multa et gravis, in libro quem inscripsit ³⁹ Pius aut De Pace, C. Sallustium scriptorem seriae illius et severae orationis, in cuius historia notiones censorias fieri atque exerceri videmus, in adulterio deprehensum ab Annio Milone loris bene caesuin dicit et, cum dedisset pecuniam, dimissum.

XIX

Argument

Quid Epictetus philosophus dicere solitus sit hominibus honinibus nequam neuam et inpuris, disciplinas philosophiae philosoplhiae studiose tractantibus; et quae duo verba observanda praeceperit omnium omniuni rerum longe lone saluberrima. ⁴⁰

[1] Favorinum FAVOINUM ego audivi dicere Epictetum philosophum dixisse plerosque istos, qui philosophari philosohari viderentur, philosophos esse huiuscemodi eiuscemodi ἄνευ τοῦ πράττειν, μέχρι τοῦ λέγειν; id significat factis procul, verbis tenus.

[2] Iam illud est vehementius quod Arrianus solitum eum dictitare, in libris quos de dissertationibus eius composuit, scriptum reliquit.

[3] Nam cum, inquit, animadverterat hominem pudore amisso, inportuna industria, corruptis moribus, audacem, confidentem lingua ceteraque omnia praeterquam animam procurantem, istiusmodi hominem cum viderat studia quoque et disciplinas philosophiae contrectare et physica adire et meditari dialectica multaque id genus theoremata auspicari sciscitarique, inclamabat deum atque horminum fidem ac plerumque inter clamandum his eum verbis increpabat: Ἄνθρωπε, ποῦ βάλλεις; σκέψαι εἰ κεκάθαρται τὸ ἀγγεῖον· ἂν γὰρ εἰς τὴν οἴησιν αὐτὰ βάλλῃς, ἀπώλετο· ἢν σαπῇ, οὖρον ἢ ὄξος γένοιτο ἢ εἴ τι τούτων χεῖρον.

[4] Nil profecto his verbis gravius, nil verius, quibus declarabat maximus philosophorum, litteras atque doctrinas philosophiae, cum in hominem falsum atque degenerem tamquam in vas spurcum atque pollutum influxissent, verti, mutari, corrumpi et, quod ipse κυνικώτερον ait, urinam fieri aut si quid est urina spurcius.

[5] Praeterea idem ille Epictetus, quod ex eodem Favorino audivimus, solitus dicere est duo esse vitia multo omnium gravissima ac taeterrima, intolerantiam et incontinentiam, cum aut iniurias quae sunt ferendae non toleramus neque ferimus, aut a quibus rebus voluptatibusque nos tenere debemus, non tenemus.

[6] Itaque, inquit, si quis haec duo verba cordi habeat eaque sibi imperando atque observando curet, is erit pleraque inpeccabilis vitamque vivet tranquillissimam. Verba haec duo dicebat: ἀνέχου et ἀπέχου.

XX

Argument

Verba sumpta sumnpta ex Symposio Slnmposio Platonis Pllatonis, numeris rumeris⁴¹ coagmentisque verborum scite modulateque lmodtulatequc apta, ⁴² exercendi exerxcendi gratia in Latinam orationem versa.

[1] Symposium SYIMPOSIUMI Platonis apud philosophum Taurum legebatur.

[2] Verba illa Pausaniae inter convivas amorem vice sua laudantis, ea verba ita prorsum amavimus, ut meminisse etiam studuerimus studuerinius.

[3] Sunt adeo, quae meminimus, verba haec: Πᾶσα γὰρ πρᾶξις ὧδε ἔχει· αὐτὴ ἐφʼ αὑτῆς πραττομένη οὔτε καλὴ οὔτε αἰσχρά· οἷον ὃ νῦν ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν, ἢ πίνειν ἢ ᾁδειν ἢ διαλέγεσθαι. οὐκ ἔστι τούτων αὐτὸ καθʼ αὑτὸ καλὸν αὐδέν, ἀλλʼ ἐν τῇ πράξει, ὡς ἂν πραχθῇ, τοιοῦτον ἀπέβη· καλῶς μὲν γὰρ πραττόμενον καὶ ὀρθῶς καλὸν γίγνεται, μὴ ὀρθῶς δὲ αἰσχρόν· οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸ ἐρᾶ, καὶ ὁ Ἔρως οὐ πᾶς ἐστὶν καλὸς οὐδὲ ἄξιος ἐγκωμιάζεσθαι, ἀλλʼ ὁ καλῶς προτρέπων ἐρᾶν.

[4] Haec verba ubi lecta sunt, atque ibi Taurus mihi Heus, inquit, tu, rhetorisce,—sic enim me in principio prinicipio recens in diatribam acceptum accelptum appellitabat, existimans eloquentiae unius extundendae gratia Athenas venisse,— videsne, inquit, ἐνφύμημα crebrum et coruscum et convexun brevibusque et rotundis numeris cum quadam qualdam aequabili circumactione devinctum?

[5] Habesne nobis dicere in libris rhetorum vestrorum tam apte tamque modulate compositam orationem? Sed hos, inquit, tamen numeros censeo videas ὁδοῦ πάρεργον.

[6] Ad ipsa enim Platonis penetralia ipsarumque rerum pondera et dignitates pergendum est, non ad vocularum eius amoenitatem nec ad verborum venustates deversitandum.

[7] Haec admonitio Tauri de orationis Platonicae modulis non modo non repressit, sed instrinxit etiam nos ad elegantiam Graecae orationis verbis Latinis adfectandam;

[8] atque uti quaedam animalium parva et vilia ad imitandum sunt quas res cumque audierint viderintve petulantia, proinde nos ea quae in Platonis oratione demiramur non aemulari quidem, sed lineas umbrasque facere ausi sumus. Velut ipsum hoc est, quod ex isdem illis verbis eius effinximus:

[9] Omne, inquit, omnino factum sic sese habet; neque turpe est, quantum in eo est, neque honestum: velut est, quas nunc facimus ipsi res, bibere, cantare, disserere. Nihil namque horum ipsum ex sese honestum est; quali cum fieret modo factum est, tale extitit; si recte honesteque factum est, tum honestum fit; sin parum recte, turpe fit. Sic amiare; sic amor non honestus omnis neque omnis laude dignus, sed qui facit nos ut honeste lioneste amemus.

XXI

Argument

Quibus temporibus post Romam conditam Graeci Romanique inlustres viri floruerint ante secundum bellum Carthaginiensium.

[1] UT conspectum quendam aetatum antiquissimarum, item virorum inlustrium qui in his aetatibus nati fuissent haberemus, ne in sermonibus forte inconspectum aliquid super aetate atque vita clarorum elariorum hominum temere diceremus, sicuti sophista ille ἀπαίδευτος, qui publice nuper disserens Carneaden philosophum a rege Alexandro, Philippi filio, pecunia peciunia donatum et Panaetium Stoicum cum superiore Africano vixisse dixit; lit ut ab istiusmodi istiusinodi, inquam inlquam, temporum aetatumque aetatiunqlue erroribus caveremus, et excerpebiamus ex libris lilris qui chronici appellantur quibus quilus temporibus floruissent Graeci simul atque Romani viri, qui vel ingenio vel imperio nobiles insignesque insigiesque post conditam Romam fuissent ante secundum bellum Carthaginiensium, easque nunc excerptiones nostras variis diversisque in locis factas cursim digessimus. Neque enim id nobis negotium fuit, ut acri atque subtili cura excellentium in utraque gente genlte hominum lomninuim συγχρονισμούς componeremus, sed ut Noctes istae quadamtenus quadamntenus his quoque historiae flosculis leviter iniectis aspergerentur.

[2] Satis autem visum est in hoc conmentario de temporibus paucorum hominum dicere, ex quorum aetatibus de pluribus quoque, quos non nominaremus, haut difficilis coniectura fieri posset.

[3] Incipiemus igitur a Solone claro, quoniam de Homero et Hesiodo inter omnes fere scriptores constitit aetatem eos egisse vel isdem fere temporibus vel Homerum aliquanto antiquiorem, utrumque tamen ante Romam conditam vixisse, Silviis Albae regnantibus, annis post bellum Troianum, ut Cassius in prino Annalium de Homero atque Hesiodo scriptum reliquit, plus centum atque sexaginta, ante Romam autem conditam, ut Cornelius Nepos in primo Chronico de Homero dicit, annis circiter centum et sexaginta.

[4] Solonem ergo accepimus, unum ex illo nobili numero sapientium, leges scripsisse Atheniensium, Tarquinio Prisco Romae regnante, anno regni eius tricesimo tertio. ⁴³

[5] Servio autem Tullio regnante, Pisistratus Athenis tyrannus fuit, Solone ante in exilium voluntarium profecto, quoniam id ei praedicenti non creditum est.

[6] Postea Pythagoras Samius in Italiam venit, Tarquini filio regnum optinente, cui cognomentum Superbus fuit,

[7] isdemque temporibus occisus est Athenis ab Harmodio Harinodio et Aristogitone Hipparchus, Pisistrati filius, Hippiae tyranni frater Archilochum autem Nepos Cornelius tradit,

[8] Tullo Hostilio Romae regnante, iam tunc fuisse poematis clarum et nobilem.

[9] Ducentesimo deinde et sexagesimo anno post Romam conditam, aut non longe lone amplius, victos esse ab Atheniensibus Atheniensilus Persas memoriae memorial traditum est pugnam illam inclutam Marathoniam, Miltiade duce, qui post eam victoriam damnatus a populo Atheniensi in vinculis publicis mortem obiit.

[10] Tum Aeschylus Athenis tragoediarum poeta celebris fuit. Romae autem istis ferme temporibus tribunos et aediles tum primum prirnum per seditionem sibi plebes creavit ac non diu post Cn. Marcius Coriolanus exagitatus vexatusque a tribunis plebi ad Vulscos,

[11] qui tum hostes erant, a rep. descivit bellumque populo Romano fecit.

[12] Post deinde paucis annis Xerxes rex ab Atheniensibus et pleraque Graecia, Themistocle Thenistocle duce, navali proelio quod ad Salamina factum est victus fugatusque est.

[13] Inde anno fere quarto, Menenio Agrippa, M. Horatio Pulvillo consulibus, bello Veienti apud fluvium Cremeram Fabii sex et trecenti patricii cum familiis families suis universi ab hostibus circumuenti circumvent perierunt.

[14] Iuxta ea tempora Empedocles Agrigentinus in philosophiae naturalis studio floruit.

[15] Romae autem per eas tempestates decemviros legibus scribundis creatos constitit tabulasque ab his primo decem conscriptas, mox alias duas additas.

[16] Bellum deinde in terra Graecia maximum Peloponnensiacum, quod Thucydides memoriae mandavit, coeptum est circa annum fere post conditam Romam trecentesimum vicesimum tertium.

[17] Qua tempestate Olus Postumius Tubertus dictator Romae fuit, qui filium suum, quod contra suum dictum in hostem pugnaverat, securi necavit. Hostes tunc populi Romani fuerunt Fidenates atque Aequi.

[18] In hoc tempore nobiles celebresque erant Sophocles ac deinde Euripides tragici poetae et Hippocrates medicus et philosophus Democritus, quibus Socrates Atheniensis natu quidem posterior fuit, sed quibusdam temporibus isdem vixerunt.

[19] Iam deinde, tribunis militaribus consulari imperio rempublicam Romae regentibus, ad annum fere conditae urbis trecentesimum quadragesimum septimum, triginta illi tyranni praepositi sunt a Lacedaemoniis Atheniensibus et in Sicilia Dionysius superior tyrannidem tenuit, paucisque annis post Socrates Athenis capitis damnatus est et in carcere veneno necatus.

[20] Set ⁴⁴ ea fere tempestate Romae M. Furius Camillus dictator fuit fruit et Veios cepit;

[21] ac post non longo tempore bellum Senonicum fuit,

[22] cum Galli Romam praeter Capitolium ceperunt ceplerunt.

[23] Neque multo postea Eudoxus astrologus in terra Graecia nobilitatus est Lacedaemoniique ab Atheniensibus apud Corinthun superati duce Phormione,

[24] et M. Manlius Romae, qui Gallos in obsidione Capitolii obrepentes per ardua depulerat, convictus est consilium de regno occupando inisse, damnatusque damatusque capitis e saxo Tarpeio, ut M. Varro ait, praeceps datus, ut Cornelius autem Nepos scriptum reliquit, verberando necatus est;

[25] eoque ipso anno, qui erat post reciperatam urbem septimus, Aristotelem philosophum natum esse memoriae mandatum est.

[26] Aliquot deinde annis post bellum Senonicum Thebani Lacedaemonios Lacedaemonoios duce Epaminonda Epaminoda apud Leuctra superaverunt

[27] ac brevi post tempore teinpore in urbe Roma lege Licinii Stolonis consules creari etiam ex plebe coepti, cum antea ius non esset nisi ex patriciis gentibus fieri consulem.

[28] Circa annum deinde dcinde urbis conditae quadringentesimum quadlringentesimum Philippus, Amyntae filius, Alexandri pater, regnum Macedoniae adeptus est inque eo tempore Alexander natus est

[29] paucisque inde annis post Plato philosophus ad Dionysium Dioilysium Siciliae tyrannum posteriorem profectus est;

[30] post deinde aliquanto tempore Philippus apud Chaeroneam proelio magno Athenienses vicit.

[31] Tum Demosthenes orator ex eo proelio salutem fuga quaesivit, cumque id ei quod fugerat probrose obiceretur, versu illo notissimo elusit:

Ἀνήρ, inquit, ὁ φεύγων καὶ πάλιν μαχήσεται.

Postea Philippus ex insidiis occiditur;

[32] at Alexander regnum adeptus ad subigendos Persas in Asiam atque in Orientem transgressus est.

[33] Alter autem Alexander, cui cognomentum Molosso fuit, in Italiam venit, bellum populo Romano facturus—iam enim fama virtutis felicitatisque Romanae apud exteras gentes enitescere inceptabat—, sed priusquam bellum faceret, vita decessit. Eum Molossum, cum in Italiam transiret, dixisse accepimus se quidem ad Romanos ire quasi in andronitin, Macedonem ad Persas quasi in gynaeconitin.

[34] Postea Macedo Alexander, pleraque parte orientali subacta, cum annos undecim regnavisset, obiit mortis diem.

[35] Neque haut longe post Aristoteles philosophus et post aliquanto Demosthenes vita functi sunt isdemque

[36] ferme tempestatibus populus Romanus gravi ac diutino Samnitium bello conflictatus est consulesque Tiberius Veturius et Spurius Postumius, in locis iniquis apud Caudium a Samnitibus circumvallati ac subiugi missi, turpi foedere facto discesserunt, ob eamque causam, populi iussu Samnitibus per fetiales dediti, recepti non sunt.

[37] Post annum deinde urbis conditae quadringentesimum fere et septuagesimum bellum cum rege Pyrro sumptum est.

[38] Ea tempestate Epicurus Atheniensis et Zeno Citiensis philosophi celebres erant,

[39] eodemque tempore C. Fabricius Luscinus et Q. Aemilius Papus censores Romae fuerunt et P. Cornelium Rufinum, qui bis consul et dictator fuerat, senatu moverunt; causamque isti notae subscripserunt, quod eum comperissent argenti facti cenae gratia decem pondo libras habere.

[40] Anno deinde post Romam conditam quadringentesimo ferme et nonagesimo, consulibus Appio Claudio, cui cognomentum Caudex fuit, Appii illius Caeci fratre, et Marco Fulvio Flacco, bellum adversum Poenos primum coeptum est,

[41] neque diu post Callimachus, poeta Cyrenensis, Alexandriae apud Ptolemaeum regem celebratus est.

[42] Annis deinde postea paulo pluribus quam viginti, pace cum Poenis facta, consulibus C. ⁴⁵ Claudio Centhone, Appii Caeci filio, et M. Sempronio Seimpronio Tuditano, primus omnium L. Livius poeta tabulas docere Romae coepit post Sophoclis et Euripidis mortem annis plus fere centum et sexaginta, post Menandri annis circiter quinquaginta duobus.

[43] Claudium et Tuditanum consules secuntur Q. Valerius et C. Mamilius, quibus natum esse Q. Ennium poetam M. Varro in primo De Poetis libro scripsit eumque, cum septimum et sexagesimum annum haberet, duodecimum ⁴⁶ Annalem scripsisse, idque ipsum Ennium in eodem libro dicere.

[44] Anno deinde post Romam conditam quingentesimo undevicesimo ⁴⁷ Sp. Carvilius Ruga primus Romae de amicorum sententia divortium cum uxore fecit, quod sterila esset iurassetque apud censores, uxorem se liberum quaerundorum ⁴⁸ causa habere,

[45] eodemque anno Cn. Naevius poeta fabulas apud populum dedit, quem M. Varro in libro De Poetis primo stipendia fecisse ait bello Poenico primo, idque ipsum Naevium dicere in eo carmine quod de eodem bello scripsit. Porcius autem Licinus serius ⁴⁹ poeticam Romae coepisse dicit ⁵⁰ in his versibus:

Poénico belló secundo Músa pinnató gradu

Í intulit ntulit se béllicosam in Rómuli gentém feram.

[46] Ac deinde annis fere post quindecim bellum adversum

[47] Poenos sumptum est atque non nimium longe ⁵¹ M. Cato orator in civitate et Plautus poeta in scaena floruerunt foruerunt;

[48] isdemque temporibus Diogenes Stoicus et Carneades Academicus et Critolaus Peripateticus ab Atheniensibus ad senatum populi Romani negotii publici gratia legati sunt.

[49] Neque magno intervallo postea Q. Ennius et iuxta Caecilius et Terentius et subinde et Pacuvius et Pacuvio iam sene Accius clariorque tunc in poematis eorum obtrectandis Lucilius fuit.

[50] Sed progressi longius sumus, cum finem proposuerimus adnotatiunculis istis bellum Poenorum secundum.

Notes on the current edition

Attic Nights

1. §6.

2. This promise is not fulfilled.

3. Frag. 22, Peter 2.

4. Frag. 13, Peter 2.

5. Frag. 23, Peter 2.

6. v. 77, Ribbeck 3.

7. rag. 24, Peter 2.

8. Id. 3.

9. i. 7, 8, 9.

10. Frag. 25, Peter 2.

11. The phrase in medium has various meanings, according to the context and the verb with which it is used; cf. Cic. ad Fam. xv. 2. 6, se . . . eam rem numquam in medium propter periculi metum protulisse; Cluent. 77; Virg. Aen. v. 401. If the lexicons are to be trusted, in medium ponere is rare, and the usual expression is in medio ponere, e.g. Cic. Nat. Deor. i. 13, ponam in medio sententias philosophorum.

12. Frag. 1, Peter 2.

13. Id. 8.

14. Frag. 7, Peter 2.

15. Id. 26.

16. Id. 9.

17. Id. 6.

18. Id. 17.

19. Id. 2.

20. xviii. 8, Jordan.

21. Frag. 20, Peter 2.

22. v. 152, Ribbeck 3.

23. Frag. 27, Peter 2.

24. Id. 28.

25. Frag. 4, Peter 2.

26. Id. 29.

27. From earlier arbos and -etum.

28. Frag. 5, Peter 2.

29. Iliad ii. 135.

30. Frag. 4, Mirsch.

31. See sutiles naves, Plin. N. H. xxiv. 65.

32. p. 351, Bipont.

33. Some MSS. of the Greek Life of Euripides give fifteen, which seems a more probable number for so popular a poet. Sophocles won eighteen at the City Dionysia alone.

34. Frag. 77, p. 358, Jacoby.

35. §30.

36. That is, a)po/deicis.

37. As quoted in § 2.

38. Cf. i. 9. 8 (vol. i, p. 49) with the note, and Plautus, Poen. 316, illotis manibus. The reference is to washing before handling sacred objects or performing religious rites. Et verbis is an addition by Gellius, in the sense of

hasty, inconsiderate language.

39. His recommendation of this law is also mentioned by Cicero, Cato Mai. 14, who discusses some features of the law in Verr. ii. 1. 101 ff.; see also xx. 1. 23, below. The law, which in general had to do with inheritances, has been the subject of much discussion; one of its provisions was that no one should make a woman his heir.

40. p. 54, 5, Jordan.

41. p. xvi, Müller.

42. v. 194.

43. Different from the plebiscitum of xiv. 8. 2. The date is uncertain.

44. Fontes Iur. Rom., p. 45, 6.

45. Fr. 3, Huschke; Iur. Civ. xvi. 5, Bremer.

46. Resp. 4, Bremer.

47. Resp. 5, Bremer.

48. Resp. 5, Bremer.

49. Fr. 34, Swoboda.

50. Cf. xvi. 8. 3.

51. In Rome the dinner-hour was considerably earlier, usually the ninth hour, or about three o'clock in the afternoon; see Hor. Epist. 1. 7. 71; Mart. iv. 8. 6. To-day, too, the dinner-hour is later in Athens than in Rome, although the difference is not so great as in ancient times.

52. Iliad i. 462, etc.

53. In Homer this word, from ai)qo/s,

fire

and o)/y,

eye,

means

fiery-looking

sparkling,

rather than

fiery.

Gellius seems to be wrong so far as Homer is concerned, although some other writers used ai)/qoy in the sense of

fiery,

as applied to persons.

54. iv. 28 (ii., p. 226, L.C.L.).

55. The Cimmerian Bosphorus, the present Strait of Yenikale, connecting the Palus Maeotis (Sea of Azov) with the Pontus Euxinus or Black Sea.

56. Herodotus does not use the term

Scythian Sea,

but says

the sea,

referring to the Palus Maeotis and the Euxine. See the map, Herod., L.C.L., vol. ii.

57. ii. p. 137, Dinter.

58. See Suet. Jul. lvi. 6, who says that Caesar wrote d for a, and so on with the other letters.

59. See note on xiii. 31. 10, and A.J.P. xlviii, No. 1.

60. Cf. Suet. Vita Verg. 22 (ii. p. 470, L.C.L.).

61. Pyth. i. 21 ff.

62. The monster was the giant Typhoeus, or Typhon, who was struck by Zeus' thunder-bolt and buried under Aetna.

63. Aen. iii. 570 ff.

64. Not all modern critics would agree with Favorinus as to Virgil's last two lines, with their elaborate accommodation of sound to sense.

65. Sympos. vii. 1.

66. p. 194, Fuchs.

67. Tim. 44, p. 91, A; 31, p. 70, c.

68. Frag. 39, Bergk 4.

69. pp. 184 ff. and 194, Fuchs.

70. The three places referred to are the stomach, the small intestine and the large intestine. Neither the Greek nor the Latin terms are always used consistently.

71. vii. 1. 3.

72. Frag. 7, p. 112, Wellmann.

73. See Pease,

Things without Honor,

Class. Phil. xxi. pp. 27 ff. An example is Erasmus' Praise of Folly.

74. Frag. 65, Marres.

75. See note 1, p. 252.

76. Tim. 10, p. 86 A.

77. Hesiod, Works and Days, 825.

78. Owing to the Roman method of inclusive reckoning, the quartan ague, occurring on every fourth day, had an interval of two days; see Class Phil. viii. 1 ff.

79. Frag. 73, Peter 2.

80. This rather difficult example I do not find in our grammars.

81. Id. 36.

82. Frag. 70, Peter 2.

83. Quin =

why not

; see note 4 below.

84. Id. 58.

85. This translation, which Gellius rightly rejects, neglects the negative in quin. Both examples from Quadrigarius might be explained as dubitative questions in the paratactic form; e.g.

Why should not a triumph be granted him?

86. quin is formed from qui, the ablative of the interrogative and relative stem qui-, and -ne,

not.

It is used in both dependent and independent sentences. See Lane, Lat. Gr. 2 1980 ff.

87. Frag. 52, Swoboda.

88. Meyer, vv. 362, 55, 176, 106, 104, 193, 221, 178, 264, 245, 645, 383, 416, 469. In one instance it has seemed necessary to use two lines in the English version.

89. Cf.

What can't be cured must be endured.

90. Cf.

Give an inch, he'll take an ell.

91. The small intestine, see note on xvii. 11. 2.

92. The large intestine.

93. xxv. 52.

94. There were three places of this name, all celebrated for their hellebore, which was regarded as a cure for insanity. One was in Locris, on the Corinthian Gulf; the second was on the Maliac Gulf at the foot of Mt. Oeta. The third, usually considered the most important, was a town of Phocis on the Corinthian Gulf. See Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v., where Plin. N. H. xxv. 52 is assigned to the last-named, in spite of iasula. Baumgarten-Crasius, Suetonius, refer the reference in Calig. xxix to an island, which they do not, locate. In Hor. Ars. Poet. 300, tribus Anticyris may refer to three Anticyras, but is more probably used in a general sense.

95. See note on xvi. 4. 4.

96. See Suet. De G. amm. xv. (ii, p. 418, L.C.L.).

97. 66–63 B.C.

98. p. 256, Ricse

99. On this story see Sallust, L.C. L., p. x.

100. Frag. 10, p. 410, Schenkl., L.C.L. II, p. 452 ff.

101. ii. 19; cf. Gell. i. 2. 8.

102. That is, he used some phrase equivalent to pro deum atque hominum fidem (Heaven help us!).

103. The two Greek words, like Eng.

bear and forbear,

formed a stock formula.

104. Symlpos. p. SO, E.

105. This would seem to imply that Gellius went to Athens on completing his studies in Rome; see Introd. p. xv.

106. Leuze has shown (see Biogr. Note, i. p. xxiv) that, besides the Chroica of Cornelius Nepos, Gellius made use of Varronian sources, which used a different chronology. According to the source which he followed, Gellius' dates are reckoned from 751 (Nepos) or 753 B.C. (Varro) as the date of the founding of Rome. He does not, however, confuse these epochs in speaking of the same event. In my notes the Varronian chronology is followed, except as otherwise indicated; for full details see the article of Leutze.

107. Carneades, who was one of the envoys sent from Athens to Rome in 155 B.C., lived more than a hundred years after the death of Alexander.

108. Panaetius, born about 185 B.C., was the teacher and personal friend of the younger Africanus.

109. Chronic ( xronika/) were chronological lists of historical events. The Chronica of Nepos seem to have given the important dates in foreign, as well as in Roman, history, including mythology.

110. 218–202 B.C.

111. After his usual fashion, Gellius tries to present his material in an entertaining form by introducing the anecdote of the ignorant sophist, by freedom of treatment, and by condensation; also by the arrangement of his matter.

112. Frag. 8, Peter 2; F.H.G. iii, p. 688.

113. Frag. 2, Peter 2. Nepos' date is 910 B.C., that of Cassius (Hemina), 1024. Both are too late, for literary and archæological evidence indicate the end of the twelfth century before our era as the time of the Homeric poems. See Amer. Journ. of Phil. xlvi (1925), pp. 26 ff.

114. About 639–559 B.C. For the seven sages see vol. i, p. 10, n. 2.

115. 616–578 B.C., traditional chronology.

116. See the critical note.

117. 578–534 B.C.

118. 534–510 B.C.

119. 514 B. C.

120. Frag. 4, Peter 2.

121. 673–641 B.C.

122. Flourished about 650 B.C.

123. 490 B.C., but Gellius, here following Nepos. puts it in 493.

124. He lived from 525 to 456 B.C.

125. 494 B.C.

126. Leuze suggests that Gellius so arranged his material as to show that at a time when the Greeks were lighting epochmaking battles the Romans were warring with comparatively insignificant Italian peoples.

127. 480 B.C. Gellius is here using a Varroian source; Nepos' date would be 483.

128. That is, in the fourth year; see note on xvii. 12. 5 (p 252).

129. Some 4000 in number. This was in 477 B.C.

130. Flourished about 450 B.C. In § 14–15 Leuze sees the chronology of Fabius Pictor.

131. 451 B.C.

132. 431 B.C.

133. See note on § 11, above. Here the contrast is still more marked.

134. Born 469 B.C.

135. 407 B.C. They were first chosen in 444, but were compelled to resign. From 404 B.C. (407, Nepos) to 367 the series of military tribunes was interrupted by only two consular years. Gellius here records changes in the form of government of Athens, Syracuse and Rome.

136. 404 B.C.

137. 390 B.C.; 387. Varro.

138. 429 B.C.

139. Annales iii, frag. 2. Peter 2. In 384 B.C.

140. Chron., frag. 5, Peter. 2

141. 384 B.C.

142. 371 B.C.

143. 317 B.C.

144. 356 B.C.

145. 338 B.C.

146. Menander, Monost. 45.

147. 336 B.C. Quint. xi. 2. 50

148. 323 B.C.

149. 322 B.C.

150. 322 B.C.

151. 321 B.C.

152. 280 B.C.

153. 264 B.C.

154. 240 B.C.

155. 239 B.C.

156. p. 259, Bipont.

157. 235 B.C. In iv. 3 Gellius gave the date as 231, following a different chronology. Dionysius of Halicarnassus agrees with the former (Varronian) chronology. On the formula liberty quaerundorum causa see note on iv. 3. 2 (vol. i, p. 322).

158. 235 B.C.

159. p. 259, Bipont.

160. Frag. 1, Bährens.

161. 218 B.C.

162. These three poets died respectively in 169, 168 and 159 B.C., before the coming of the envoys to Rome in 155 B.C. Since Gellius announced the second Punic war as his limit, Leuze believes that he added this section from memory.

163. Pacuvius (220–130 B.C.) was older than Terence, but outlived him. Terence's comedies were produced between 166 and 160 B.C.; he died in 159, but the date of his birth is uncertain.

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Book XVII

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

XVI

XVII

XVIII

XIX

XX

XXI

Current edition Perseus

I

Argument

II

Argument

III

Argument

IV

Argument

V

Argument

VI

Argument

VII

Argument

VIII

Argument

IX

Argument

X

Argument

XI

Argument

XII

Argument

XIII

Argument

XIV

Argument

XV

Argument

XVI

Argument

XVII

Argument

XVIII

Argument

XIX

Argument

XX

Argument

XXI

Argument

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers