Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

Book V

I

1arg

That the philosopher Musonius criticized and rebuked those who expressed approval of a philosopher's discourse by loud shouts and extravagant demonstrations of praise.

1 I have heard that the philosopher Musonius ¹ was accustomed. . . ²

When a philosopher,

he says,

is uttering words of encouragement, of warning, of persuasion, or of rebuke, or is discussing any other philosophical theme, then if his hearers utter trite and commonplace expressions of praise without reflection or restraint, if they shout too, if they gesticulate, if they are stirred and swayed and impassioned by the charm of his utterance, by the rhythm of his words, and by certain musical notes, ³ as it were, then you may know that speaker and hearers are wasting their time, and that they are not hearing a philosopher's lecture, but a flute-player's recital. The mind,

said he,

of one who is listening to a philosopher, so long as what is said is helpful and salutary, and furnishes a cure for faults and vices, has no time or leisure for continued and extravagant applause. Whoever the hearer may be, unless he is wholly lost, during the course of the philosopher's address he must necessarily shudder and feel secret shame and repentance, or rejoice or wonder, and even show changes of countenance and betray varying emotions, according as the philosopher's discourse has affected him and his consciousness of the different tendencies of his mind, whether noble or base.

He added that great applause is not inconsistent with admiration, but that the greatest admiration gives rise, not to words, but to silence.

Therefore,

said he, "the wisest of all poets does not represent those who heard Ulysses' splendid account of his hardships as leaping up, when he ceased speaking, with shouts and noisy demonstrations, but he says they were one and all silent, as if amazed and confounded, since the gratification of their ears even affected their power of utterance."

Thus he; but they in silence all were hushed

And held in rapture through the shadowy hall. ⁴

II

2arg

About the horse of king Alexander, called Bucephalas.

1 THE horse of king Alexander was called Bucephalas because of the shape of his head. ⁵ Chares wrote ⁶ that he was bought for thirteen talents and given to king Philip; that amount in Roman money is three hundred and twelve thousand sesterces. It seemed a noteworthy characteristic of this horse that when he was armed and equipped for battle, he would never allow himself to be mounted by any other than the king. ⁷ It is also related that Alexander in the war against India, mounted upon that horse and doing valorous deeds, had driven him, with disregard of his own safety, too far into the enemies' ranks. The horse had suffered deep wounds in his neck and side from the weapons hurled from every hand at Alexander, but though dying and almost exhausted from loss of blood, he yet in swiftest course bore the king from the midst of the foe; but when he had taken him out of range of the weapons, the horse at once fell, and satisfied with having saved his master breathed his last, with indications of relief that were almost human. Then king Alexander, after winning the victory in that war, founded a city in that region and in honour of his horse called it Bucephalon.

III

3arg

The reason and the occasion which are said to have introduced Protagoras to the study of philosophical literature.

1 THEY say that Protagoras, a man eminent in the pursuit of learning, whose name Plato gave to that famous dialogue of his, in his youth earned his living as a hired labourer and often carried heavy burdens on his back, being one of that class of men which the Greeks call a)xqofo/roi and we Latins baiuli, or porters. He was once carrying a great number of blocks of wood, bound together with a short rope, from the neighbouring countryside into his native town of Abdera. It chanced at the time that Democritus, a citizen of that same city, a man esteemed before all others for his fine character and his knowledge of philosophy, as he was going out of the city, saw Protagoras walking along easily and rapidly with that burden, of a kind so awkward and so difficult to hold together. Democritus drew near, and noticing with what skill and judgment the wood was arranged and tied, asked the man to stop and rest awhile. When Protagoras did as he was asked, and Democritus again observed that the almost circular heap of blocks was bound with a short rope, and was balanced and held together with all but geometrical accuracy, lie asked who had put the wood together in that way. When Protagoras replied that he had done it himself, Democritus asked him to untie the bundle and arrange it again in the same way. But after he had done so, then Democritus, astonished at the keen intellect and cleverness of this uneducated man, said:

My dear young man, since you have a talent for doing things well, there are greater and better employments which you can follow with me

; and he at once took him away, kept him at his own house, supplied him with money, taught him philosophy, and made him the great man that he afterwards became.

Yet this Protagoras was not a true philosopher, but the cleverest of sophists; for in consideration of the payment of a huge annual fee, he used to promise his pupils that he would teach them by what verbal dexterity the weaker cause could be made the stronger, a process which he called in Greek: to\n h(/ttw lo/gon krei/ttw poiei=n, or

making the worse appear the better reason.

IV

4arg

On the word duovicesimus, which is unknown to the general public, but occurs frequently in the writings of the learned.

1 I CHANCED to be sitting in a bookshop in the Sigillaria ⁸ with the poet Julius Paulus, the most learned man within my memory; and there was on sale there the Annals of Fabius ⁹ in a copy of good and undoubted age, which the dealer maintained was without errors. But one of the better known grammarians, who had been called in by a purchaser to inspect the book, said that he had found in it one error; but the bookseller for his part offered to wager any amount whatever that there was not a mistake even in a single letter. The grammarian pointed out the following passage in the fourth book: ¹⁰

Therefore it was then that for the first time one of the two consuls was chosen from the plebeians, in the twenty-second ( duovicesimo) year after the Gauls captured Rome.

It ought,

said lie,

to read, not duovicesimo, but duodevicesimo or twenty-second; for what is the meaning of duovicesimo?

. . . Varro ¹¹ in the sixteenth book of his Antiquities of Man; there he wrote as follows: ¹²

He died in the twenty-second year ¹³ ( duovicesimo); he was king for twenty-one years.

. . .

V

5arg

How the Carthaginian Hannibal jested at the expense of king Antiochus.

1 IN collections of old tales it is recorded that Hannibal the Carthaginian made a highly witty jest when at the court of king Antiochus. The jest was this: Antiochus was displaying to him on the plain the gigantic forces which he had mustered to make war on the Roman people, and was manœuvring his army glittering with gold and silver ornaments. He also brought up chariots with scythes, elephants with turrets, and horsemen with brilliant bridles, saddlecloths, neck-chains and trappings. And then the king, filled with vainglory at the sight of an army so great and so well-equipped, turned to Hannibal and said:

Do you think that all this can be equalled and that it is enough for the Romans?

Then the Carthaginian, deriding the worthlessness and inefficiency of the king's troops in their costly armour, replied:

I think all this will be enough, yes, quite enough, for the Romans, even though they are most avaricious.

Absolutely nothing could equal this remark for wit and sarcasm; the king had inquired about the size of his army and asked for a comparative estimate; Hannibal in his reply referred to it as booty.

VI

6arg

On military crowns, with a description of the triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp, naval, ovation, and olive crowns.

1 MILITARY crowns are many and varied. Of these the most highly esteemed I find to be in general the following: the

triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp and naval crowns.

There is besides the so-called

ovation

crown, and lastly also the

olive

crown, which is regularly worn by those who have not taken part in a battle, but nevertheless are awarded a triumph.

Triumphal

crowns are of gold and are presented to a commander in recognition of the honour of a triumph. This in common parlance is

gold for a crown.

This crown in ancient times was of laurel, but later they began to make them of gold.

The

siege

crown is the one which those who have been delivered from a state of siege present to the general who delivered them. That crown is of grass, and custom requires that it be made of grass which grew in the place within which the besieged were confined. This crown of grass the Roman senate and people presented to Quintus Fabius Maximus in the second Punic war, because he had freed the city of Rome from siege by the enemy.

The crown is called

civic

which one citizen gives to another who has saved his life in battle, in recognition of the preservation of his life and safety. It is made of the leaves of the esculent oak, because the earliest food and means of supporting life were furnished by that oak; it was formerly made also from the holm oak, because that is the species which is most nearly related to the esculent; this we learn from a comedy of Caecilius, who says: ¹⁴

They pass with cloaks and crowns of holm; ye Gods!

But Masurius Sabinus, ¹⁵ in the eleventh book of his Memoirs, says that it was the custom to award the civic crown only when the man who had saved the life of a fellow citizen had at the same time slain the enemy who threatened him, and had not given ground in that battle; under other conditions he says that the honour of the civic crown was not granted. He adds, however, that Tiberius Caesar was once asked to decide whether a soldier might receive the civic crown who had saved a citizen in battle and killed two of the enemy, yet had not held the position in which he was fighting, but the enemy had occupied it. The emperor ruled that the soldier seemed to be among those who deserved the civic crown, since it was clear that he had rescued a fellow citizen from a place so perilous that it could not be held even by valiant warriors. It was this civic crown that Lucius Gellius, an ex-censor, proposed in the senate that his country should award to Cicero in his consulship, because it was through his efforts that the frightful conspiracy of Catiline had been detected and punished.

The

mural

crown is that which is awarded by a commander to the man who is first to mount the wall and force his way into an enemy's town; therefore it is ornamented with representations of the battlements of a wall. A

camp

crown is presented by a general to the soldier who is first to fight his way into a hostile camp; that crown represents a palisade. The

naval

crown is commonly awarded to the armed man who has been the first to board an enemy ship in a sea-fight; it is decorated with representations of the beaks of ships. Now the

mural,

camp,

and

naval

crowns are regularly made of gold.

The

ovation

crown is of myrtle; it was worn by generals who entered the city in an ovation.

The occasion for awarding an ovation, and not a triumph, is that wars have not been declared in due form and so have not been waged with a legitimate enemy, or that the adversaries' character is low or unworthy, as in the case of slaves or pirates, or that, because of a quick surrender, a victory was won which was

dustless,

as the saying is, ¹⁶ and bloodless. For such an easy victory they believed that the leaves sacred to Venus were appropriate, on the ground that it was a triumph, not of Mars, but as it were of Venus. And Marcus Crassus, when he returned after ending the Servile war and entered the city in an ovation, disdainfully rejected the myrtle crown and used his influence to have a decree passed by the senate, that he should be crowned with laurel, not with myrtle.

Marcus Cato charges Marcus Fulvius Nobilior ¹⁷ with having awarded crowns to his soldiers for the most trifling reasons possible, for the sake of popularity. On that subject I give you Cato's own words: ¹⁸

Now to begin with, who ever saw anyone presented with a crown, when a town had not been taken or an enemy's camp burned?

But Fulvius, against whom Cato brought that charge, had bestowed crowns on his soldiers for industry in building a rampart or in digging a well.

I must not pass over a point relating to ovations, about which I learn that the ancient writers disagreed. For some of them have stated that the man who celebrated an ovation was accustomed to enter the city on horseback: but Masurius Sabinus says ¹⁹ that they entered on foot, followed, not by their soldiers, but by the senate in a body.

VII

7arg

How cleverly Gavius Bassus explained the word persons, and what he said to be the origin of that word.

1 CLEVERLY, by Heaven! and wittily, in my opinion, does Gavius Bassus explain the derivation of the word persona, in the work that he composed On the Origin of Words; for he suggests that that word is formed from personae.

For,

he says, ²⁰

the head and the face are shut in on all sides by the covering of the persona, or mask, and only one passage is left for the issue of the voice; and since this opening is neither free nor broad, but sends forth the voice after it has been concentrated and forced into one single means of egress, it makes the sound clearer and more resonant. Since then that covering of the face gives clearness and resonance to the voice, it is for that reason called persona, the o being lengthened because of the formation of the word.

VIII

8arg

A defence of some lines of Virgil, in which the grammarian Julius Hyginus alleged that there was a mistake; and also the meaning of lituus; and on the etymology of that word.

HERE, wielding his Quirinal augur-staff,

Girt with scant shift and bearing on his left

The sacred shield, Picus appeared enthroned.

In these verses ²¹ Hyginus wrote ²² that Virgil was in error, alleging that he did not notice that the words ipse Quirinali lituo lacked something.

For,

said he,

if we have not observed that something is lacking, the sentence seems to read ' girt with staff and scant shift,' which,

says he,

is utterly absurd; for since the lituus is a short wand, curved at its thicker end, such as the augurs use, how on earth can one be looked upon as ' girt with a lituus? '

As a matter of fact, it was Hyginus himself who failed to notice that this expression, like very many others, contains an ellipsis. For example, when we say

Marcus Cicero, a man of great eloquence

and

Quintus Roscius, an actor of consummate grace,

neither of these phrases is full and complete, but to the hearer they seem full and complete. As Vergil wrote in another place: ²³

Victorious Butes of huge bulk,

that is, having huge bulk, and also in another passage: ²⁴ Into the ring he hurled gauntlets of giant weight, and similarly: ²⁵

A house of gore and cruel feasts, dark, huge within,

so then it would seem that the phrase in question ought to be interpreted as

Picus was with the Quirinal staff,

just as we say

the statue was with a large head,

and in fact est, erat and fuit are often omitted, with elegant effect and without any loss of meaning. ²⁶

And since mention has been made of the lituus, I must not pass over a question which obviously may be asked, whether the augurs' lituus is called after the trumpet of the same name, or whether the trumpet derived its name lituus from the augurs' staff; for both have the same form and both alike are curved. ²⁷ But if, as some think, the trumpet was called lituus from its sound, because of the Homeric expression li/gce bio/s,²⁸

The bow twanged,

it must be concluded that the augural staff was called litmus from its resemblance to the trumpet. And Virgil uses that word also as synonymous with tuba: ²⁹

He even faced the fray

Conspicuous both with clarion ( lituo) and with spear.

IX

9arg

The story of Croesus dumb son, from the books of Herodotus.

1 THE son of king Croesus, when he was already old enough to speak, was dumb, and after lie had become a well-grown youth, he was still unable to utter a word. Hence he was for a long time regarded as mute and tongue-tied. When his father had been vanquished in a great war, the city in which he lived had been taken, and one of the enemy was rushing upon him with drawn sword, unaware that he was the king, then the young man opened his mouth in an attempt to cry out. And by that effort and the force of his breath he broke the impediment and the bond upon his tongue, and spoke plainly and clearly, shouting to the enemy not to kill king Croesus. Then the foeman withheld his sword, the king's life was saved, and from that time on the youth began to speak. Herodotus in his Histories³⁰ is the chronicler of that event, and the words which he says the son of Croesus first spoke are:

Man, do not kill Croesus.

But also an athlete of Samos—his name was Echeklous—although he had previously been speechless, is said to have begun to speak for a similar reason. For when in a sacred contest the casting of lots between the Samians and their opponents was not being done fairly, and he had noticed that a lot with a false name was being slipped in, he suddenly shouted in a loud voice to the man who was doing it that he saw what he was up to. And he too was freed from the check upon his speech and for all the remaining time of his life spoke without stammering or lack of clearness. ³¹

X

10arg

On the arguments which by the Greeks are called a)ntistre/fon: ta, and in Latin may be termed reciproca.

1 AMONG fallacious arguments the one which the Greeks call a)ntistre/fon seems to be by far the most fallacious. Such arguments some of our own philosophers have rather appropriately termed reciproca, or

convertible.

The fallacy arises from the fact that the argument that is presented may be turned in the opposite direction and used against the one who has offered it, and is equally strong for both sides of the question. An example is the well-known argument which Protagoras, the keenest of all sophists, is said to have used against his pupil Euathlus.

For a dispute arose between them and an altercation as to the fee which had been agreed upon, as follows: Euathlus, a wealthy young man, was desirous of instruction in oratory and the pleading of causes. He became a pupil of Protagoras and promised to pay him a large sum of money, as much as Protagoras had demanded. He paid half of the amount at once, before beginning his lessons, and agreed to pay the remaining half on the day when he first pleaded before jurors and won his case. Afterwards, when he had been for some little time a pupil and follower of Protagoras, and had in fact made considerable progress in the study of oratory, he nevertheless did not undertake any cases. And when the time was already getting long, and he seemed to be acting thus in order not to pay the rest of the fee, Protagoras formed what seemed to him at the time a wily scheme; he determined to demand his pay according to the contract, and brought suit against Euathlus.

And when they had appeared before the jurors to bring forward and to contest the case, Protagoras began as follows:

Let me tell you, most foolish of youths, that in either event you will have to pay what I am demanding, whether judgment be pronounced for or against you. For if the case goes against you, the money will be due me in accordance with the verdict, because I have won; but if the decision be in your favour, the money will be due me according to our contract, since you will have won a case.

To this Euatlllus replied:

I might have met this sophism of yours, tricky as it is, by not pleading my own cause but employing another as my advocate. But I take greater satisfaction in a victory in which I defeat you, not only in the suit, but also in this argument of yours. So let me tell you in turn, wisest of masters, that in either event I shall not have to pay what you demand, whether judgment be pronounced for or against me. For if the jurors decide in my favour, according to their verdict nothing will be due you, because I have won; but if they give judgment against me, by the terms of our contract I shall owe you nothing, because I have not won a case.

Then the jurors, thinking that the plea on both sides was uncertain and insoluble, for fear that their decision, for whichever side it was rendered, might annul itself, left the matter undecided and postponed the case to a distant day. Thus a celebrated master of oratory was refuted by his youthful pupil with his own argument, and his cleverly devised sophism failed.

XI

11arg

The impossibility of regarding Bias' syllogism on marriage as an example of a)ntistre/fon.

1 SOME think that the famous answer of the wise and noble Bias, like that of Protagoras of which I have just spoken, was a)ntistre/fon.³² For Bias, being asked by a certain man whether lie should marry or lead a single life, said:

You are sure to marry a woman either beautiful or ugly; and if beautiful, you will share her with others, but if ugly, she will be a punishment. ³³ But neither of these things is desirable; therefore do not marry.

Now, they turn this argument about in this way.

If I marry a beautiful woman, she will not be a punishment; but if an ugly one, I shall be her sole possessor; therefore marry.

But this syllogism does not seem to be in the least convertible, since it appears somewhat weaker and less convincing when turned into the second form. For Bias maintained that one should not marry because of one of two disadvantages which must necessarily be suffered by one who took a wife. But he who converts the proposition does not defend himself against the inconvenience which is mentioned, but says that he is free from another which is not mentioned. But to maintain the opinion that Bias expressed, it is enough that a man who has taken a wife must necessarily suffer one or the other of two disadvantages, of having a wife that is unfaithful, or a punishment.

But our countryman Favorinus, when that syllogism which Bias had employed happened to be mentioned, of which the first premise is:

You will marry either a beautiful or an ugly woman,

declared that this was not a fact, and that it was not a fair antithesis, since it was not inevitable that one of the two opposites be true, which must be the case in a disjunctive proposition. For obviously certain outstanding extremes of appearance are postulated, ugliness and beauty. ³⁴

But there is,

said he,

a third possibility also, lying between those two opposites, and that possibility Bias did not observe or regard. For between a very beautiful and a very ugly woman there is a mean in appearance, which is free from the danger to which an excess of beauty is exposed, and also from the feeling of repulsion inspired by extreme ugliness. A woman of that kind is called by Quintus Ennius in the Melanippa³⁵ by the very elegant term ' normal,' and such a woman will be neither unfaithful nor a punishment.

This moderate and modest beauty Favorinus, to my mind most sagaciously, called

conjugal.

Moreover Ennius, in the tragedy which I mentioned, says that those women as a rule are of unblemished chastity who possess normal beauty.

XII

12arg

On the names of the gods of the Roman people called Diovis and Vediovis.

1 IN ancient prayers we have observed that these names of deities appear: Diovis and Vediovis; furthermore, there is also a temple of Vediovis at Rome, between the Citadel and the Capitolium. ³⁶ The explanation of these names I have found to be this: the ancient Latins derived Iovis from iuvare (help), and called that same god

father,

thus adding a second word. For Iovispater is the full and complete form, which becomes Iupiter³⁷ by the syncope or change of some of the letters. So also Neptunuspater is used as a compound, and Saturnus— pater and Ianuspater and Marspater—for that is the original form of Marspiter—and Jove also was called Diespiter, that is, the father of day and of light. And therefore by a name of similar origin Jove is called Diovis and also Lucetius, because he blesses and helps us by means of the day and the light, which are equivalent to life itself. And Lucetius is applied to Jove by Gnaeus Naevius in his poem On the Punic war.³⁸

Accordingly, when they had given the names Iovis and Diovis from iuvare (help), they applied a lame of the contrary meaning to that god who had, not the power to help, but the force to do harm—for some gods they worshipped in order to gain their favour, others they propitiated in order to avert their hostility; and they called him Vediovis, thus taking away and denying his power to give help. For the particle ve which appears in different forms in different words, now being spelled with these two letters and now with an a inserted between the two, has two meanings which also differ from each other. For ve, like very many other particles, has the effect either of weakening or of strengthening the force of a word; and it therefore happens that some words to which that particle is prefixed are ambiguous ³⁹ and may be used with either force, such as vescus (small), vemens (mighty), and vegrandis (very small), ⁴⁰ a point which I have discussed elsewhere ⁴¹ in greater detail. But vesanus and vecordes are used with only one of the meanings of ve, namely, the privative or negative force, which the Greeks call kata\ ste/rhsin.

It is for this reason that the statue of the god Vediovis, which is in the temple of which I spoke above, holds arrows, which, as everyone knows, are devised to inflict harm. For that reason it has often been said that that god is Apollo; and a shegoat is sacrificed to him in the customary fashion, ⁴² and a representation of that animal stands near his statue.

It was for this reason, they say, that Virgil, a man deeply versed in antiquarian lore, but never making a display of his knowledge, prays to the unpropitious gods in the Georgics, thus intimating that in gods of that kind there is a power capable of injuring rather than aiding. The verses of Vergil are these: ⁴³

A task of narrow span, but no small praise,

If unpropitious powers bar not my way

And favouring Phoebus grant a poet's prayer. And among those gods which ought to be placated in order to avert evil influences from ourselves or our harvests are reckoned Auruncus ⁴⁴ and Robigus. ⁴⁵

XIII

13arg

On the rank and order of obligations established by the usage of the Roman people.

1 THERE was once a discussion, in my presence and hearing, of the rank and order of obligations, carried on by a company of men of advanced age and high position at Rome, who were also eminent for their knowledge and command of ancient usage and conduct. And when the question was asked to whom we ought first and foremost to discharge those obligations, in case it should be necessary to prefer some to others in giving assistance or showing attention, there was a difference of opinion. But it was readily agreed and accepted, that in accordance with the usage of the Roman people the place next after parents should be held by wards entrusted to our honour and protection; that second to them came clients, who also had committed themselves to our honour and guardianship; that then in the third place were guests; and finally relations by blood and by marriage.

Of this custom and practice there are numerous proofs and illustrations in the ancient records, of which, because it is now at hand, I will cite only this one at present, relating to clients and kindred. Marcus Cato in the speech which he delivered before the censors Against Lentulus wrote thus: ⁴⁶

Our forefathers regarded it as a more sacred obligation to defend their wards than not to deceive a client. One testifies in a client's behalf against one's relatives; testimony against a client is given by no one. A father held the first position of honour; next after him a patron.

Masurius Sabinus, however, in the third book of his Civil Law assigns a higher place to a guest than to a client. The passage from that book is this: ⁴⁷

In the matter of obligations our forefathers observed the following order: first to a ward, then to a guest, then to a client, next to a blood relation, finally to a relation by marriage. Other things being equal, women were given preference to men, but a ward who was under age took precedence of one who was a grown woman. Also those who were appointed by will to be guardians of the sons of a man against whom they had appeared in court, appeared for the ward in the same case.

Very clear and strong testimony on this subject is furnished by the authority of Gaius Caesar, when he was high priest; for in the speech which he delivered In Defence of the Bithynians he made use of this preamble: ⁴⁸

In consideration either of my guest-friendship with king Nicomedes or my relationship to those whose case is on trial, O Marcus Iuncus, I could not refuse this duty. For the remembrance of men ought not to be so obliterated by their death as not to be retained by those nearest to them, and without the height of disgrace we cannot forsake clients to whom we are bound to render aid even against our kinsfolk.

XIV

14arg

The account of Apion, a learned man who was surnamed Plistonices, of the mutual recognition, due to old acquaintance, that he had seen at Rome between a man and a lion.

1 APION, who was called Plistonices, was a man widely versed in letters, and possessing an extensive and varied knowledge of things Greek. In his works, which are recognized as of no little repute, is contained an account of almost all the remarkable things which are to be seen and heard in Egypt. Now, in his account of what he professes either to have heard or read he is perhaps too verbose through a reprehensible love of display—for he is a great self-advertiser in parading his learning; but this incident, which he describes in the fifth book of his Wonders of Egypt,⁴⁹ he declares that he neither heard nor read, but saw himself with his own eyes in the city of Rome.

In the Great Circus,

he says,

a battle with wild beasts on a grand scale was being exhibited to the people. Of that spectacle, since I chanced to be in Rome, I was,

he says,

an eye-witness. There were there many savage wild beasts, brutes remarkable for their huge size, and all of uncommon appearance or unusual ferocity. But beyond all others,

says he,

did the vast size of the lions excite wonder, and one of these in particular surpassed all the rest. This one lion had drawn to himself the attention and eyes of all because of the activity and huge size of his body, his terrific and deep roar, the development of his muscles, and the mane streaming over his shoulders. There was brought in, among many others who had been condemned to fight with the wild beasts, the slave of an ex-consul; the slave's name was Androclus. When that lion saw him from a distance,

says Apion,

he stopped short as if in amazement, and then approached the man slowly and quietly, as if he recognized him. Then, wagging his tail in a mild and caressing way, after the manner and fashion of fawning dogs, he came close to the man, who was now half dead from fright, and gently licked his feet and hands. The man Androclus, while submitting to the caresses of so fierce a beast, regained his lost courage and gradually turned his eyes to look at the lion. Then,

says Apion,

you might have seen man and lion exchange joyful greetings, as if they had recognized each other.

He says that at this sight, so truly astonishing, the people broke out into mighty shouts; and Gaius Caesar called Androclus to him and inquired the reason why that fiercest of lions had spared him alone. Then Androclus related a strange and surprising story.

My master,

said he,

was governing Africa with proconsular authority. While there, I was forced by his undeserved and daily floggings to run away, and that my hiding-places might be safer from my master, the ruler of that country, I took refuge in lonely plains and deserts, intending, if food should fail me, to seek death in some form. Then,

said he,

when the midday sun was fierce and scorching, finding a remote and secluded cavern, I entered it, and hid myself. Not long afterwards this lion came to the same cave with one paw lame and bleeding, making known by groans and moans the torturing pain of his wound.

And then, at the first sight of the approaching lion, Androclus said that his mind was overwhelmed with fear and dread.

But when the lion,

said he,

had entered what was evidently his own lair, and saw me cowering at a distance, he approached me mildly and gently, and lifting up his foot, was evidently showing it to me and holding it out as if to ask for help. Then,

said he,

I drew out a huge splinter that was embedded in the sole of the foot, squeezed out the pus that had formed in the interior of the wound, wiped away the blood, and dried it thoroughly, being now free from any great feeling of fear. Then, relieved by that attention and treatment of mine, the lion, putting his paw in my hand, lay down and went to sleep, and for three whole years from that day the lion and I lived in the same cave, and on the same food as well. For he used to bring for me to the cave the choicest parts of the game which he took in hunting, which I, having no means of making a fire, dried in the noonday sun and ate. But,

said he,

after I had finally grown tired of that wild life, I left the cave when the lion had gone off to hunt, and after travelling nearly three days, I was seen and caught by some soldiers and taken from Africa to Rome to my master. He at once had me condemned to death by being thrown to the wild beasts. But,

said he,

I perceive that this lion was also captured, after I left him, and that he is now requiting me for my kindness and my cure of him.

Apion records that Androclus told this story, and that when it had been made known to the people by being written out in full on a tablet and carried about the Circus, at the request of all Androclus was freed, acquitted and presented with the lion by vote of the people.

Afterwards,

said he,

we used to see Androclus with the lion, attached to a slender leash, making the rounds of the shops throughout the city; Androclus was given money, the lion was sprinkled with flowers, and everyone who met them anywhere exclaimed: 'This is the lion that was a man's friend, this is the man who was physician to a lion.'

XV

15arg

That it is a disputed question among philosophers whether voice is corporeal or incorporeal.

1 A QUESTION that has been argued long and continuously by the most famous philosophers is whether voice has body or is incorporeal; for the word incorporeus has been coined by some of them, corresponding exactly to the Greek a)sw/matos. Now a body is that which is either active or passive: this in Greek is defined as to\ h)/toi poiou=n h)\ pa/sxon, or

that which either acts or is acted upon.

Wishing to reproduce this definition the poet Lucretius wrote: ⁵⁰

Naught save a body can be touched or touch.

The Greeks also define body in another way, as to\ trixh= dia/staton, or

that which has three dimensions.

But the Stoics maintain ⁵¹ that voice is a body, and say that it is air which has been struck; Plato, however, thinks that voice is not corporeal:

for,

says he, ⁵²

not the air which is struck, but the stroke and the blow themselves are voice.

Democritus, and following him Epicurus, declare that voice consists of individual particles, and they call it, to use their own words, r(eu=ma a)to/mwn,⁵³ or

a stream of atoms.

When I heard of these and other sophistries, the result of a self-satisfied cleverness combined with lack of employment, and saw in these subtleties no real advantage affecting the conduct of life, and no end to the inquiry, I agreed with Ennius' Neoptolemus, who rightly says: ⁵⁴

Philosophizing there must be, but by the few;

Since for all men it's not to be desired.

XVI

16arg

On the function of the eye and the process of vision.

1 I HAVE observed that the philosophers have varying opinions about the method of seeing and the nature of vision. The Stoics say ⁵⁵ that the causes of sight are the emission of rays from the eyes to those objects which can be seen, and the simultaneous expansion of the air. Epicurus believes ⁵⁶ that there is a constant flow from all bodies of images of those bodies themselves, and that these impinge upon the eyes and hence the sensation of seeing arises. Plato is of the opinion ⁵⁷ that a kind of fire or light issues from the eyes, and that this, being united and joined either with the light of the sun or with that of some other fire, by means of its own and the external force makes us see whatever it has struck and illumined. But here too we must not dally longer, but follow the advice of that Neoptolemus in Ennius, of whom I have just written, ⁵⁸ who advises having a

taste

of philosophy, but not

gorging oneself with it.

XVII

17arg

Why the first days after the Kalends, Nones and Ides are considered unlucky; and why many avoid also the fourth day before the Kalends, Nones or Ides, on the ground that it is ill-omened.

1 VERRIUS FLACCUS, in the fourth book of his work On the Meaning of Words, writes ⁵⁹ that the days immediately following the Kalends, Nones and Ides, which the common people ignorantly call

holidays,

are properly called, and considered,

ill-omened,

for this reason:—

When the city,

he says,

had been recovered from the Senonian Gauls, Lucius Atilius stated in the senate that Quintus Sulpicius, tribune of the soldiers, when on the eve of fighting against the Gauls at the Allia, ⁶⁰ offered sacrifice in anticipation of that battle on the day after the Ides; that the army of the Roman people was thereupon cut to pieces, and three days later the whole city, except the Capitol, was taken. Also many other senators said that they remembered that whenever with a view to waging war a magistrate of the Roman people had sacrificed on the day after the Kalends, Nones or Ides, in the very next battle of that war the State had suffered disaster. Then the senate referred the matter to the pontiffs, that they might take what action they saw fit. The pontiffs decreed that no offering would properly be made on those days.

Many also avoid the fourth day before the Kalends, Nones and Ides, as ill-omened. It is often inquired whether any religious reason for that observance is recorded. I myself have found nothing in literature pertaining to that matter, except that Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in the fifth book of his Annals, says that the prodigious slaughter of the battle of Cannae occurred on the fourth day before the Nones of August. ⁶¹

XVIII

18arg

In what respect, and how far, history differs from annals; and a quotation on that subject from the first book of the Histories of Sempronius Asellio.

1 SOME think that history differs from annals in this particular, that while each is a narrative of events, yet history is properly an account of events in which the narrator took part; and that this is the opinion of some men is stated by Verrius Flaccus in the fourth book of his treatise On the Meaning of Words.⁶² He adds that he for his part has doubts about the matter, but he thinks that the view may have some appearance of reason, since i(stori/a in Greek means a knowledge of current events. But we often hear it said that annals are exactly the same as histories, but that histories are not exactly the same as annals; just as a man is necessarily an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a man.

Thus they say that history is the setting forth of events or their description, or whatever term may be used; but that annals set down the events of many years successively, with observance of the chronological order. When, however, events are recorded, not year by year, but day by day, such a history is called in Greek e)fhmeri/s, or

a diary,

a term of which the Latin interpretation is found in the first book of Sempronius Asellio. I have quoted a passage of some length from that book, in order at the same time to show what his opinion is of the difference between history and chronicle.

But between those,

he says, ⁶³

who have desired to leave us annals, and those who have tried to write the history of the Roman people, there was this essential difference. The books of annals merely made known what happened and in what year it happened, which is like writing a diary, which the Greeks call e)fhmeri/s. For my part, I realize that it is not enough to make known what has been done, but that one should also show with what purpose and for what reason things were done.

A little later in the same book Asellio writes: ⁶⁴

For annals cannot in any way make men more eager to defend their country, or more reluctant to do wrong. Further-more, to write over and over again in whose consulship a war was begun and ended, and who in consequence entered the city in a triumph, and in that book not to state what happened in the course of the war, what decrees the senate made during that time, or what law or bill was passed, and with what motives these things were done—that is to tell stories to children, not to write history.

XIX

19arg

The meaning of adoptatio and also of adrogatio, and how they differ; and the formula used by the official who, when children are adopted, brings the business before the people.

1 WHEN outsiders are taken into another's family and given the relationship of children, it is done either through a praetor or through the people. If done by a praetor, the process is called adoptatio; if through the people, arrogatio. Now, we have adoptatio, when those who are adopted are surrendered in court through a thrice repeated sale ⁶⁵ by the father under whose control they are, and are claimed by the one who adopts them in the presence of the official before whom the legal action takes place. The process is called adrogatio, when persons who are their own masters deliver themselves into the control of another, and are themselves responsible for the act. But arrogations are not made without due consideration and investigation; for the so-called comitia curiata⁶⁶ are summoned under the authority of the pontiffs, and it is inquired whether the age of the one who wishes to adopt is not rather suited to begetting children of his own; precaution is taken that the property of the one who is being adopted is not being sought under false pretences; and an oath is administered which is said to have been formulated for use in that ceremony by Quintus Mucius, ⁶⁷ when he was pontifex maxinus. But no one may be adopted by adrogatio who is not yet ready to assume the gown of manhood. The name adrogatio is due to the fact that this kind of transfer to another's family is accomplished through a rogatio or

request,

put to the people.

The language of this request is as follows:

Express your desire and ordain that Lucius Valerius be the son of Lucius Titius as justly and lawfully as if he had been born of that father and the mother of his family, and that Titius have that power of life and death over Valerius which a father has over a son. This, just as I have stated it, I thus ask of you, fellow Romans.

Neither a ward nor a woman who is not under the control of her father may be adopted by adrogatio; since women have no part in the comitia, and it is not right that guardians should have so much authority and power over their wards as to be able to subject to the control of another a free person who has been committed to their protection. Freedmen, however, may legally be adopted in that way by freeborn citizens, according to Masurius Sabinus. ⁶⁸ But he adds that it is not allowed, and he thinks it never ought to be allowed, that men of the condition of freedmen should by process of adoption usurp the privileges of the freeborn.

Furthermore,

says he,

if that ancient law be maintained, even a slave may be surrendered by his master for adoption through the agency of a praetor.

And he declares that several authorities ⁶⁹ on ancient law have written that this can be done.

I have observed in a speech of Publius Scipio On Morals, which he made to the people in his censorship, that among the things that he criticized, on the ground that they were done contrary to the usage of our forefathers, he also found fault with this, that an adopted son was of profit to his adoptive father in gaining the rewards for paternity. ⁷⁰ The passage in that speech is as follows: ⁷¹

A father votes in one tribe, the son in another, ⁷² an adopted son is of as much advantage as if one had a son of his own; orders are given to take the census of absentees, and hence it is not necessary for anyone to appear in person at the census.

XX

20arg

The Latin word coined by Sinnius Capito for

solecism,

and what the early writers of Latin called that same fault: and also Sinnius Capito's definition of a solecism.

1 A solecism, which by Sinnius Capito and other lien of his time was called in Latin inparilitas, or

inequality,

the earlier Latin writers termed stribiligo,⁷³ evidently meaning the improper use of an inverted form of expression, a sort of twist as it were. This kind of fault is thus defined by Sinnius Capito, in a letter which lie wrote to Clodius Tuscus:

A solecism,

he says, ⁷⁴

is an irregular and incongruous joining together of the parts of speech.

Since

soloecismus

is a Greek word, the question is often asked, whether it was used by the men of Attica who spoke most elegantly. But I have as yet found neither soloecismus nor barbarismus⁷⁵ in good Greek writers; for just as they used ba/rbaros, so they used so/loikos.⁷⁶ So too our earlier writers used soloecus regularly, soloecismus never, I think. But if that be so, soloecismus is proper usage neither in Greek nor in Latin.

XXI

21arg

One who says pluria, compluria and compluriens speaks good Latin, and not incorrectly.

1 AN extremely learned man, a friend of mine, chanced in the course of conversation to use the word pluria, not at all with a desire to show off, or because he thought that plura ought not to be used. For he is a man of serious scholarship and devoted to the duties of life, and not at all meticulous in the use of words. But, I think, from constant perusal of the early writers a word which he had often met in books had become second nature to his tongue.

There was present when he said this a very audacious critic of language, who had read very little and that of the most ordinary sort; this fellow had some trifling instruction in the art of grammar, which was partly ill-digested and confused and partly false, and this he used to cast like dust into the eyes of any with whom he had entered into discussion. Thus on that occasion he said to my friend:

You were incorrect in saying pluria; for that form has neither justification nor authorities.

Thereupon that friend of mine rejoined with a smile:

My: good sir, since I now have leisure from more serious affairs, I wish you would please explain to me why pluria and compluria—for they do not differ-are used barbarously and incorrectly by Marcus Cato, ⁷⁷ Quintus Claudius, ⁷⁸ Valerius Antias, ⁷⁹ Lucius Aelius, ⁸⁰ Publius Nigidius, ⁸¹ and Marcus Varro, whom we have as endorsers and sanctioners of this form, to say nothing of a great number of the early poets and orators.

And the fellow answered with excessive arrogance:

You are welcome to those authorities of yours, dug up from the age of the Fauns and Aborigines, but what is your answer to this rule? No neuter comparative in the nominative plural has an i before its final a; for example, meliora, maiora, graviora. Accordingly, then, it is proper to say plura, not pluria, in order that there be no i before final a in a comparative, contrary to the invariable rule.

Then that friend of mine, thinking that the self-confident fellow deserved few words, said:

There are numerous letters of Sinnius Capito, a very learned man, collected in a single volume and deposited, I think, in the Temple of Peace. The first letter is addressed to Pacuvius Labeo, and it is prefixed by the title, 'Pluria, not plura, should be used.' ⁸² In that letter he has collected the grammatical rules to show that pluria, and not plura, is good Latin. Therefore I refer you to Capito. From him you will learn at the same time, provided you can comprehend what is written in that letter, that pluria, or plura, is the positive and simple form, not, as it seems to you, a comparative.

It also confirms that view of Sinnius, that when we say complures or

several,

we are not using a comparative. Moreover, from the word compluria is derived the adverb compluriens,

often.

Since this is not a common word, I have added a verse of Plautus, from the comedy entitled The Persian:⁸³

What do you fear?—By Heaven! I am afraid;

I've had the feeling many a time and oft ( compluriens).

Marcus Cato too, in the fourth book of his Origins, has used this word three times in the same passage: ⁸⁴

Often ( compluriens) did their mercenary soldiers kill one another in large numbers in the camp; often ( compluriens) did many together desert to the enemy; often ( compluriens) did they attack their general.

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).) — 5.1 focus

I

Argument

Quod Musonius philosophus reprehendit inprobavitque laudari philosophum disserentem a vociferantibus et in laudando gestientibus.

[1] ¹ MUSONIUM philosophum solitum ² accepimus. Cum philosophus, inquit, hortatur, monet, suadet, obiurgat aliudve quid disciplinarum disserit, tum qui audiunt si de summo et soluto pectore obvias vulgatasque laudes effutiunt, si clamitant etiam, si gestiunt, si vocum eius festivitatibus, si modulis verborum, si quibusdam quasi fritamentis ³ orationis moventur, exagitantur et gestiunt, tum scias et qui dicit et qui audiunt frustra esse, neque illi philosophum loqui, sed tibicinem canere.

[2] Animus, inquit, audientis philosophum, dum ⁴ quae dicuntur utilia ac salubria sunt et errorum atque vitiorum medicinas ferunt, laxamentum atque otium prolixe profuseque laudandi non habet. Quisquis ille est qui audit, nisi ille est plane deperditus,

[3] inter ipsam philosophi orationem et perhorrescat necesse est et pudeat tacitus et paeniteat et gaudeat et admiretur,

[4] varios adeo vultus disparilesque sensus gerat, proinde ut eum conscientiamque eius adfecerit utrarumque animi partium, aut sincerarum aut aegrarum, philosophi pertractatio.

[5] Praeterea dicebat magnam laudem non abesse ab admiratione, admirationem autem quae maxima est non verba parere, sed silentium.

[6] Idcirco, inquit, poetarum sapientissimus auditores illos Ulixi, labores suos inlustrissime narrantis, ubi loquendi finis factus, non exsultare exultare ne strepere nec vociferari facit, sed consiluisse universos dicit, quasi attonitos attonitcs et obstupidos, delenimentis aurium ad origines usque vocis permanantibus:

Ὣς φάτο· τοὶ δʼ ἄρα πάντες ἀκὴν ἐγένοντο σιωπῇ,

Κηληθμῷ δʼ ἔσχοντο κατὰ μέγαρα σκιόεντα.

II

Argument

Super equo Alexandri regis, qui Bucephalas appellatus est.

[1] EQUUS Alexandri regis et capite et nomine Bucephalas fuit.

[2] Emptum Chares scripsit talentis tredecim et regi Philippo donatum donatums; hoc autem aeris nostri summa est sestertia trecenta duodecim.

[3] Super hoc equo dignum memoria visum, quod, ubi ornatus erat armatusque ad proelium, haud umquam inscendi sese ab alio nisi ab rege passus sit.

[4] Id etiam de isto equo memoratum est, quod, cum insidens in eo Alexander bello Indico et facinora faciens fortia, in hostium cuneum non satis sibi providens inmisisset, coniectisque undique in Alexandrum telis, vulneribus altis in cervice atque in latere equus perfossus esset, moribundus tamen ac prope iam exanguis e mediis hostibus regem vivacissimo cursu retulit atque, ubi eum extra tela extulerat, ilico concidit et, domini iam superstitis securus, quasi cum sensus humani solacio animam expiravit.

[5] Tum rex Alexander, parta eius belli victoria, oppidum in isdem locis condidit idque ob equi honores Bucephalon appellavit.

III

Argument

Quae causa quodque initium fuisse dicatur Protagorae ad philosophiae litteras adeundi.

[1] PROTAGORAM, virum in studiis doctrinarum egregium, cuius nomen Plato libro suo illi incluto inscripsit, adulescentem aiunt victus quaerendi gratia in mercedem missum vecturasque onerum corpore suo factitavisse,

[2] quod genus Graeci ἀχθοφόρους vocant, Latine baiulos appellamus.

[3] Is de proximo rure Abdera in oppidum, cuius popularis fuit, caudices ligni plurimos funiculo brevi circumdatos portabat.

[4] tum Turn forte Democritus, civitatis eiusdem civis, homo ante alios virtutis et philosophiae gratia venerandus, cum egrederetur extra urbem, videt eum cum illo genere oneris tam impedito ac tam incohibili facile atque expedite incedentem, et prope accedit et iuncturam posituramque ligni scite periteque factam considerat petitque ut paululum adquiescat.

[5] Quod ubi Protagoras, ut erat petitum, fecit atque itidem Democritus acervum ilium et quasi orbem caudicum, brevi vinculo comprehensum, ratione quadam quasi geometrica librari continerique animadvertit, interrogavit quis id lignum ita composuisset, et cum ille a se compositum dixisset, desideravit uti solveret ac denuo in modum eundem collocaret.

[6] At postquam ille solvit ac similiter composuit, tum Democritus, animi aciem sollertiamque hominis non docti demiratus, Mi adulescens, inquit, cum ingenium bene faciendi habeas, sunt maiora melioraque quae facere mecum possis, abduxitque eum statim stating secumque habuit et sumptum ministravit et philosophias docuit et esse eum fecit quantus postea fuit.

[7] Is tamen Protagoras insincerus quidem philosophus, sed acerrimus sophistarum fuit; pecuniam quippe ingentem cum a discipulis acciperet annuam, pollicebatur se id docere quanam verborum industria causa infirmior fieret fortior, quam rem Graece ita dicebat: τὸν ἥττω λόγον κρείττω ποιεῖν.

IV

Argument

De verbo duovicesimo, quod vulgo incognitum eat, a viris doctis multifariam in libris scriptum est.

[1] APUD Sigillaria forte in libraria ego et Iulius Paulus poeta, vir memoria nostra doctissimus, consideramus; atque ibi expositi erant Fabii Annales, bonae atque sincerae vetustatis libri, quos venditor sine mendis esse contendebat.

[2] Grammaticus autem quispiam de nobilioribus, ab emptore ad spectandos libros adhibitus, repperisse se ⁵ unum in libro mendum dicebat; sed contra librarius in quodvis pignus vocabat, si in una uspiam littera delictum esset. Ostendebat grammaticus ita scriptum in libro quarto:

[3] Quapropter tum primum primnum ex plebe alter consul factus est, duovicesimo anno postquam Romam Galli ceperunt.

[4] Non, inquit, duovicesimo, sed duo et vicesimo scribi oportuit.

[5] Quid enim est duovicesimo? Varro Humanarum Rerum lib. XVI; ⁶ hic ita scripsit: Mortuus est anno duovicesimo; rex fuit annos XXI.

V

Argument

Cuiusmodi Cuiustnodi ioco incavillatus sit Antiochum regem Poenus Hannibal.

[1] IN libris veterum memoriarum scriptum est, Hannibalem Carthaginiensem apud regem Antiochum facetissime cavillatum esse. Ea cavillatio huiuscemodi fuit:

[2] ostendebat ei Antiochus in campo copias ingentis quas bellum populo Romano facturus comparaverat, convertebatque exercitum insignibus argenteis et aureis florentem;

[3] inducebat etiam currus cum falcibus et elephantos cum turribus equitatumque frenis, ephippiis, monilibus, phaleris praefulgentem.

[4] Atque ibi rex, contemplatione tanti ac tam ornati exercitus gloriabundus, Hannibalem aspicit et Putasne, inquit, conferri posse ac satis esse ⁷ Romanis haec omnia?

[5] Tum Poenus, eludens ignaviam inbelliamque inbelliarnque militum eius pretiose armatorum: Satis, plane satis esse credo Romanis haec omnia, etiamsi avarissimi sunt.

[6] Nihil prorsum neque tam lepide neque tam acerbe dici potest;

[7] rex de numero exercitus sui ac de aestimanda aequiperatione quaesiverat, respondit Hannibal de praeda.

VI

Argument

De coronis militaribus; quae sit earum triumphalis triumnphalis, quae obsidionalis, quae civica, quae muralis, quae castrensis, quae navalis, quae ovalis, quae oleaginea.

[1] MILITARES coronae multae et ⁸ variae sunt.

[2] Quarum quae nobilissimae sunt, has ferme esse accepimus: triumphalem, obsidionalem, civicam, muralem, castrensem, navalem ;

[3] est ea quoque corona quae ovalis dicitur, est item postrema oleaginea,

[4] qua uti solent qui in proelio non fuerunt sed triumphum procurant.

Triumphales coronae sunt aureae,

[5] quae imperatoribus ob honorem triumphi mittuntur.

[6] Id vulgo dicitur aurum coronarium.

[7] Haec antiquitus e lauru erant, post fieri ex auro coeptae.

[8] Obsidionalis est, quam ii qui liberati obsidione sunt dant ei duci qui liberavit.

[9] Ea corona graminea est, observarique solitum ut fieret e gramine quod in eo loco gnatum esset intra quem clausi erant qui obsidebantur.

[10] Hanc coronam gramineam senatus populusque Romanus Q. Fabio Maximo dedit bello Poenorum secundo, quod urbem Romam obsidione hostium liberasset.

[11] Civica corona appellatur, quam civis civi a quo in proelio servatus est testem vitae salutisque perceptae dat.

[12] Ea fit e fronde quernea, quoniam cibus victusque antiquissimus quercus ⁹ capi solitus; fuit etiam ex ilice, quod genus superiori proximum est, sicuti scriptum est in quadam comoedia Caecilii:

† Advehuntur,¹⁰ (inquit), cum ilignea corona et chlamyde; di vostram fidem!

[13] Masurius autem Sabinus, in undecimo Librorum Memorialium, civicam coronam tum dari solitam dicit, cum is qui civem servaverat eodem tempore etiam hostem occiderat neque locum in ea pugna reliquerat; aliter ius civicae coronae negat concessum.

[14] Tiberium tamen Caesarem consultum an civicam coronam capere posset qui civem in proelio servasset et hostes ibidem duos interfecisset, sed locum in quo pugnabat non retinuisset eoque loco hostes potiti essent, rescripsisse dicit eum quoque civica dignum videri, quod appareret e tam iniquo loco civem ab co servatum, ut etiam a fortiter pugnantibus retineri non quiverit.

[15] Hac corona civica L. Gellius, vir censorius, in senatu Ciceronem consulem donari a republica censuit, quod eius opera esset atrocissima illa Catilinae coniuratio detecta vindicataque.

[16] Muralis est corona, qua donatur ab imperatore qui primus prirus murum subiit inque oppidum hostium per vim ascendit; idcirco quasi muri pinnis decorata est.

[17] Castrensis est corona, qua donat imperator eum qui primus hostium castra pugnans introivit; ea corona insigne valli habet.

[18] Navalis est, qua donari solet maritimo maritino proelio qui primus in hostium navem ¹¹ armatus transiluit; ea quasi navium rostris insignita est.

[19] Et muralis autem et castrensis et navalis fieri ex auro solent.

[20]

[21] 20.21 Ovalis corona murtea est; ea utebantur imperatores qui ovantes urbem introibant.

Ovandi ac non triumphandi causa est, cum aut bella non rite indicta neque cum iusto ilusto hoste gesta sunt, aut hostium nomen humile et non idoneum est, ut servorum piratarumque, aut, deditione repente facta, inpulverea, ut dici solet, incruentaque victoria obvenit.

[22] Cui facilitati aptam esse Veneris frondem crediderunt, quod non Martius, sed quasi Venerius quidam triumphus foret.

[23] Ac murteam coronam M. Crassus, cum bello fugitivorum confecto ovans rediret, insolenter aspernatus est senatusque consultum faciundum per gratiam curavit, ut lauro, non murto, coronaretur.

[24] Marcus Cato obicit M. Fulvio Nobiliori quod milites per ambitum coronis de levissimis causis donasset. De qua re verba ipsa apposui Catonis:

[25] Iam principio quis vidit corona donari quemquam, cum oppidum captum non esset aut castra hostium non incensa essent?

[26] Fulvius autem, in quem hoc a Catone dictum est, coronis donaverat milites qui ¹² vallum curaverant aut qui puteum strenue foderant.

[27] Praetereundum non est quod ad ovationes attinet, super quo dissensisse veteres scriptores accipio. Partim enim scripserunt qui ovaret introire solitum equo vehentem; set Sabinus Masurius pedibus ingredi ovantes dicit, sequentibus eos non militibus, sed universo senatu.

VII

Argument

Personae vocabulum quam qualn lepide interpretatus inlterpretatus sit quamque esse vocis eius originem dixerit Gavius Bassus.

[1] LEPIDE, mi hercules, et scite Gavius Bassus in libris, quos De Origine Vocabulorum composuit, unde appellata persona sit interpretatur; a personando enim id vocabulum factum esse coniectat.

[2] Nam caput, inquit, et os coperimento personae tectum undique unaque tantum vocis emittendae via pervium, quoniam non vaga neque diffusa est, set ¹³ in unum tantummodo exitum collectam coactamque vocem ciet, magis claros canorosque sonitus facit. Quoniam igitur indumentum illud oris clarescere et resonare vocer facit, ob eam causam persona dicta est, o littera propter vocabuli formam productiore.

VIII

Argument

Defensus error a Vergilii versibus, quos arguerat Iulius Hyginus grammaticus; et ibidem, quid sit lituus; deque ἐτυμολογίᾳ vocis eius.

[1]

IPSE Quirinali lituo parvaque sedebat

Subcinctus trabea laevaque ancile gerebat.

In his versibus errasse Hyginus Vergilium scripsit, tamquam non animadverterit deesse aliquid hisce verbis:

Ipse Quirinali lituo.

Nam si nihil,

[2] inquit, deesse animadverterimus, videtur ita dictum ut fiat lituo et trabea subcinctus, quod est, inquit, absurdissimum; quippe cum lituus sit virga brevis, in parte qua robustior est incurva, qua augures utuntur, quonam modo subcinctus lituo videri potest?

[3] Immo ipse Hyginus parum animadvertit sic hoc esse dictum, ut pleraque dici per defectionem solent.

[4] Veluti cum dicitur M. Cicero homo magna eloquentia et Q. Roscius histrio summa venustate, non plenum hoc utrumque neque perfectum est, sed enim pro pleno atque perfecto auditur.

[5] Ut Vergilius alio in loco:

Victorem Buten inmani corpore,

id est corpus inmane habentem, et item alibi:

In medium geminos inmani pondere caestus

Proiecit,

ac similiter:

Domus sanie dapibusque cruentis,

Intus opaca, ingens,

sic igitur id quoque videri dictum debet:

[6] Picus Quirinali lituo erat, sicuti dicimus: statua grandi capite erat.

[7] Et est autem et erat et fuit plerumque absunt cum elegantia sine detrimento sententiae.

[8] Et, quoniam facta litui mentio est, non praetermittendum est quod posse quaeri animadvertimus, utrum lituus auguralis a tuba quae lituus appellatur, an tuba a lituo augurum lituus dicta sit;

[9] utrumque enim pari forma et pariter incurvum est.

[10] Sed si, ut quidam putant, tuba a sonitu lituus appellata est ex illo Homerico verbo:

Λίγξε βιός,

necesse est ita accipi, ut virga auguralis a tubae similitudine lituus vocetur.

[11] Utitur autem vocabulo isto Vergilius et pro tuba:

Et lituo pugnas insignis obibat et hasta.

IX

Argument

Historia de Croesi filio muto, ¹⁴ ex Herodoti libris.

[1] filius Croesi regis, cum iam fari per aetatem posset, infans erat et, cum iam multum adolevisset, item nihil fari quibat. Mutus adeo et elinguis diu habitus est.

[2] Cum in patrem eius, bello magno victum et urbe in qua erat capta, hostis gladio educto, ¹⁵ regem esse ignorans, invaderet, diduxit adulescens os, clamare nitens, eoque nisu atque impetu spiritus vitium nodumque linguae rupit planeque et articulate elocutus est, clamans in hostem hosterm ne rex Croesus occideretur.

[3] Tum et hostis gladium reduxit et rex vita donatus est et adulescens loqui prorsum deinceps incepit.

[4] Herodotus in Historiis huius memoriae scriptor est eiusque verba sunt, quae prima dixisse filium Croesi refert: Ἄνθρωπε, μὴ κτεῖνε Κροῖσον.

[5] Sed et quispiam Samius athleta, nomen illi fuit Ἐχεκλοῦς, cum antea non loquens fuisset, ob similem dicitur causam loqui coepisse.

[6] Nam cum in sacro certamine sortitio inter ipsos et aduersarios adversaries non bona fide fieret et sortem nominis falsam subici animadvertisset, repente in eum qui id faciebat, videre sese quid faceret, magnum inclamavit. Atque is oris vinclo solutus per omne inde vitae tempus non turbide neque adhaese locutus est.

X

Argument

De argumentis arguments quae Graece ἀντιστρέφοντα appellantur, a nobis reciproca dici possunt.

[1] INTER vitia argumentorum longe maximum esse vitium videtur quae ἀντιστρέφοντα Graeci dicunt.

[2] Ea quidam e nostris non hercle nimis absurde reciproca appellaverunt.

[3] Id autem vitium accidit hoc modo, cum argumentum propositum referri contra convertique in eum potest a quo dictum est, et utrimque pariter valet; quale est pervolgatum illud quo Protagoram, sophistarum acerrimum, usum esse ferunt adversus Euathlum, discipulum suum.

[4] Lis namque inter eos et controversia super pacta pact mercede haec fuit.

[5] Euathlus, adulescens dives, eloquentiae discendae causarumque orandi cupiens fuit.

[6] Is in disciplinam Protagorae sese dedit daturumque promisit mercedem mercederm grandem pecuniam, quantam Protagoras petiverat, dimidiumque eius dedit iam tunc statim priusquam disceret, pepigitque ut reliquum dimidium daret quo primo primro die causam apud iudices orasset et vicisset.

[7] Postea cum diutule auditor adsectatorque Protagorae fuisset et ¹⁶ in studio quidem facundiae abunde promovisset, causas tamen non reciperet tempusque iam longum transcurreret et facere id videretur, ne relicum mercedis daret, capit consilium Protagoras,

[8] ut tum existimabat, astutum; petere institit ex pacto mercedem, litem cum Euathlo contestatur.

[9] Et cum ad iudices coniciendae consistendaeque causae gratia venissent, tum Protagoras sic exorsus est: Disce, inquit, stultissime adulescens, utroque id modo fore uti reddas quod peto, sive contra te pronuntiatum erit sive pro te.

[10] Nam si contra te lis data erit, merces mihi ex sententia debebitur, quia ego vicero; sin vero secundum te iudicatum erit, merces mihi ex pacto debebitur, quia tu viceris.

[11] Ad ea respondit Euathlus: Potui, inquit, huic tuae tam ancipiti captioni isse obviam, si verba non ipse facerem atque alio patrono uterer.

[12] Sed maius mihi in ista victoria prolubium est, cum te non in causa tantum, sed in argumento quoque isto vinco.

[13] Disce igitur tu quoque, magister sapientissime, utroque modo fore uti non reddam quod petis, sive contra me pronuntiatum fuerit sive pro me.

[14] Nam si iudices pro causa mea senserint, nihil tibi ex sententia debebitur, quia ego vicero; sin contra me pronuntiaverint, nihil tibi ex pacto debebo, quia non vicero.

[15] Tum iudices, dubiosum hoc inexplicabileque esse quod utrimque dicebatur rati, ne sententia sua, utramcumque in partem dicta esset, ipsa sese rescinderet, rem iniudicatam reliquerunt causamque in diem longissimam distulerunt.

[16] Sic ab adulescente discipulo magister eloquentiae inclutus suo sibi argumento confutatus est et captionis versute excogitatae frustratus fuit.

XI

Argument

Biantis de re uxoria syllogismum non posse videri ἀντιστρέφειν.

[1] EXISTIMANT quidam etiam illud Biantis, viri sapientis ac nobilis, responsum consimile esse atque est Protagorion illud de quo dixi modo, ἀντιστρέφον.

[2] Nam cum rogatus esset a quodam Bias, deberetne uxorem ducere an vitam vivere caelibem, Ἤτοι, inquit, καλὴν ἄξεις ἢ αἰσχράν· καὶ εἰ καλήν, ἕξεις κοινήν, εἰ δὲ αἰσχράν, ἕξεις ποινήν· ἑκάτερον δὲ οὐ ληπτέον· οὐ γαμητέον ἄρα.

[3] Sic autem hoc rursum convertunt: Εἰ μὲν καλὴν ἄξω, οὐχ ἕξω ποινήν· εἰ δὲ αἰσχράν, οὐχ ἕξω κοινήν· γαμητέον ἄρα.

[4] Sed minime hoc esse videtur ἀντιστρέφον, quoniam ex altero latere conversum frigidius est infirmiusque.

[5] Nam Bias proposuit non esse ducendam uxorem propter alterutrum incommodum, quod necessario patiendum erit ei qui duxerit.

[6] Qui convertit autem, non ab eo se defendit incommodo quod adest, sed carere se altero dicit quod non adest.

[7] Satis est autem tuendae sententiae quam Bias dixit, quod eum qui duxit uxorem pati necesse est ex duobus incommodis alterum, ut aut κοινὴν habeat aut ποινήν.

[8] Sed Favorinus noster, cum facta esset forte mentio syllogismi istius quo Bias usus est, cuius prima πρότασις est, ἤτοι καλὴν ἄξεις ἢ αἰσχράν, non ratum id neque iustum diiunctivum esse ait, quoniam non necessum sit alterum ex duobus quae diiunguntur verum esse,

[9] quod in proloquio diiunctivo necessarium est. Eminentia enim quadam significari formarum turpes et pulcrae videntur.

[10] Est autem, inquit, tertium quoque inter duo ista quae diiunguntur, cuius rationem prospectumque Bias non habuit.

[11] Inter enim pulcherrimam feminam et deformissimam media forma quaedam est, quae et a nimiae pulcritudinis periculo et a summae deformitatis odio vacat;

[12] qualis a Quinto Ennio in Melanippa perquam eleganti vocabulo stata dicitur, quae neque κοινὴ futura sit neque ποινή.

[13] Quam formam modicam et modestam Favorinus non,

[14] mi hercule, inscite appellabat uxoriam. Ennius autem in ista quam dixi tragoedia, eas fere feminas ait incolumi pudicitia esse quae stata forma forent.

XII

Argument

De nominibus deorum populi Romani Diovis et Vediovis.

[1] IN antiquis precationibus nomina haec deorum inesse animadvertimus:

[2] Diovis et Vediovis ; est autem etiam aedes Vediovis Romae inter Arcem et Capitolium.

[3] Eorum nominum rationem esse hanc comperi:

[4] Iovem love Latini veteres a iuvando appellavere, eundemque alio vocabulo iuncto patrem dixerunt.

[5] Nam quod est, elisis aut inmutatis quibusdam litteris, Iupiter, id plenum atque integrum est Iovispater. Sic et Neptunuspater coniuncte dictus est et Saturnuspater et Ianuspater Manuspater et Marspater —hoc enim est Marspiter — itemque Iovis Diespiter appellatus, id est diei et lucis pater.

[6] Idcircoque simili nomine nominee Iovis ¹⁷ Diovis dictus est et Lucetius, quod nos die et luce quasi vita ipsa afficeret et iuvaret.

[7] Lucetium autem Iovem Cn. Naevius in libris Belli Poenici appellat.

[8] Cum Iovem igitur et Diovem a iuvando nominassent, eum contra deum, qui non iuvandi potestatem, sed vim nocendi haberet—nam deos quosdam, ut prodessent, celebrabant, quosdam, ut ne obessent, placabant— Vediovem appellaverunt, dempta atque detracta iuvandi facultate.

[9] Ve enim particula, quae in aliis atque aliis vocabulis varia, tum per has duas litteras, tum a littera media inmissa dicitur, duplicem significatum eundemque inter sese diversum capit.

[10] Nam et augendae rei et minuendae valet, sicuti aliae particulae plurimae; propter quod accidit ut quaedam vocabula quibus particula ista praeponitur ambigua sint et utroqueversum dicantur, veluti vescum, vemens et vegrande, de quibus alio in loco, uberiore tractatu facto, admonuimus; vesani autem et vecordes ex una tantum parte dicti, quae privativa est, quam Graeci κατὰ στέρησιν dicunt.

[11] Simulacrum igitur dei Vediovis, quod est in aede de qua supra dixi, sagittas tenet, quae sunt videlicet partae ad nocendum.

[12] Quapropter eum deum plerumque Apollinem esse dixerunt; immolaturque ritu humano ¹⁸ capra eiusque animalis figmentum iuxta simulacrum stat.

[13] Propterea Vergilium quoque aiunt, multae antiquitatis hominem sine ostentationis studio ¹⁹ peritum, numina laeva in Georgicis deprecari, significantem vim quandam esse huiuscemodi deorum in laedendo magis quam in iuvando potentem. Versus Vergilii sunt:

In tenui labor; at tenuis non gloria, si quem

Numina laeva sinunt auditque vocatus Apollo.

[14] In istis autem diis quos placari oportet, uti mala a nobis vel a frugibus natis amoliantur, Auruncus quoque habetur et Robigus.

XIII

Argument

De officiorum gradu atque ordine ordme moribus populi Romani observato.

[1] SENIORUM hominum et Romae nobilium atque in morum disciplinarumque veterum doctrina memoriaque praestantium disceptatio quaedam fuit, praesente praesentc et audiente me, de gradu atque ordine officiorum. Cumque quaereretur quibus nos ea prioribus potioribusque facere oporteret, si necesse esset in opera danda faciendoque officio alios aliis anteferre, non consentiebatur.²⁰

[2] Conveniebat autem facile constabatque, ex moribus populi Romani primum iuxta parentes locum tenere pupillos debere,fidei tutelaeque nostrae creditos; secundum eos proximum locum clientes habere, qui sese itidem in fidem patrociniumque nostrum dediderunt; tum in tertio loco esse hospites; postea esse cognatos adfinesque.

[3] Huius moris observationisque multa sunt testimonia atque documenta in antiquitatibus perscripta, ex quibus unum hoc interim de clientibus cognatisque, quod prae manibus est, ponemus.

[4] M. Cato in oratione, quam dixit apud censores In Lentulum, ita scripsit: Quod maiores sanctius; habuere, defendi pupillos quam clientem non fallere. Adversus cognatos pro cliente testatur, testimonium adversus clientem nemo dicit. Patrem primum, postea patronum proximum nomen niomen habuere.

[5] Masurius autem Sabinus in libro luris Civilis tertio antiquiorem locum hospiti tribuit quam clienti. Verba ex eo libro haec sunt: In officiis apud maiores ita observatum est, primum tutelae, deinde hospiti, deinde clienti, tum cognato, postea adfini. Aequa ²¹ causa feminae viris potiores habitae pupillarisque tutela muliebri praelata. Etiam adversus quem adfuissent, eius filiis tutores relicti, in eadem causa pupillo aderant.

[6] Firmum atque clarum isti rei testimonium perhibet auctoritas C. Caesaris pontificis maximi, qui in oratione quam Pro Bithynis dixit hoc principio usus est: Vel pro hospitio regis Nicomedis vel pro horum necessitate quorum res ²² agitur, refugere hoc munus, M. Iunce, non potui. Nam neque hominum morte memoria deleri debet quin a proximis retineatur, neque clientes sine summa infamia deseri possunt, quibus etiam a propinquis nostris opem ferre instituimus.

XIV

Argument

Quod Apion, doctus homo, qui Plistonices appellatus est, vidisse se Romae scripsit recognitionem inter sese mutuam ex vetere notitia hominis et leonis.

[1] APION, qui Plistonices appellatus est, litteris homo multis praeditus rerumque Graecarum plurima plurrima atque varia scientia fuit.

[2] Eius libri non incelebres feruntur, quibus omnium ferme quae mirifica in Aegypto visuntur audiunturque historia comprehenditur.

[3] Sed in his quae vel audisse vel legisse sese dicit, fortassean vitio studioque ostentationis sit loquacior—est enim sane quam in praedicandis doctrinis sui ²³ venditator—hoc autem,

[4] quod in libro Aegyptiacorum quinto scripsit, neque audisse neque legisse, sed ipsum sese in urbe Roma vidisse oculis suis confirmat.

[5] In Circo Maximo, inquit, venationis amplissimae pugna populo dabatur.

[6] Eius rei, Romae cum forte essem, spectator, inquit, fui.

[7] Multae ibi saevientes ferae, magnitudines bestiarum excellentes omniumque invisitata aut forma erat aut ferocia. Sed praeter alia omnia leonum, inquit,

[8] immanitas admirationi fuit praeterque omnis ceteros unus.

[9] Is unus leo corporis impetu et vastitudine terrificoque fremitu et sonoro, toris comisque cervicum fluctuantibus, animos oculosque omnium in sese converterat.

[10] Introductus erat inter compluris ceteros ad pugnam bestiarum datos ²⁴ servus viri consularis; ei servo Androclus nomen fuit.

[11] Hunc ille leo ubi vidit procul, repente, inquit, quasi admirans stetit ac deinde sensim atque placide, tamquam noscitabundus, ad hominem accedit.

[12] tum Turn caudam more atque ritu adulantium canum clementer et blande movet hominisque se corpori adiungit cruraque eius et manus, prope iam exanimati metu, lingua leniter demulcet.

[13] Homo Androclus inter illa tam atrocis ferae blandimenta amissum animum recuperat, paulatim oculos ad contuendum leonem refert.

[14] Tum quasi mutua recognitione facta laetos, inquit, et gratulabundos videres hominem et leonem.

[15] Ea re prorsus tam admirabili maximos populi clamores excitatos dicit, accersitumque a C. ²⁵ Caesare Androclum quaesitamque causam cur illi ²⁶ atrocissimus leo uni parsisset.

[16] Ibi Androclus rem mirificam narrat atque admirandam.

[17] Cum provinciam, inquit, Africam proconsulari imperio meus dominus obtineret, ego ibi iniquis eius et cotidianis verberibus ad fugam sum coactus et, ut mihi a domino, terrae illius praeside, tutiores latebrae forent, in camporum et arenarum solitudines concessi ac, si defuisset cibus, consilium fuit mortem aliquo pacto quaerere.

[18] Tum sole medio, inquit, rabido et flagranti specum quandam nanctus remotam latebrosamque, in eam earn me penetro et recondo.

[19] Neque multo post ad eandem specum venit hic leo, debili uno et cruento pede, gemitus edens et murmura, dolorem cruciatumque vulneris commiserantia.

[20] Atque illic primo quidem conspectu advenientis leonis territum sibi et pavefactum animum dixit.

[21] Sed postquam introgressus, inquit, leo, uti re ipsa apparuit, in habitaculum illud suum, videt me procul delitescentem, mitis et mansues accessit et sublatum pedem ostendere mihi et porgere quasi opis petendae gratia visus est.

[22] Ibi, inquit, ego stirpem ingentem, vestigio pedis eius haerentem, revelli conceptamque saniem volnere intimo expressi accuratiusque sine magna iam formidine siccavi penitus atque detersi cruorem.

[23] Illa tunc mea opera et medella levatus, pede in manibus meis posito, recubuit et quievit atque ex eo

[24] die triennium totum ego et leo in eadem specu eodemque et victu viximus.

[25] Nam, quas venabatur feras, membra opimiora ad specum mihi subgerebat, quae ego, ignis copiam non habens, meridiano sole torrens edebam.

[26] Sed ubi me, inquit, vitae illius ferinae iam pertaesum est, leone in venatum profecto, reliqui specum et viam ferme tridui permensus a militibus visus adprehensusque sum et ad dominum ex Africa Romam deductus.

[27] Is me statim rei capitalis damnandum dandumque ad bestias curavit.

[28] Intellego autem, inquit, hunc quoque leonem, me tunc separato captum, gratiam mihi nunc beneficii et medicinae referre.

[29] Haec Apion dixisse Androclum tradit, eaque omnia scripta circumlataque tabula populo declarata, atque ideo cunctis petentibus dimissum Androclum et poena solutum leonemque ei suffragiis populi donatum.

[30] Postea, inquit, videbamus Androclum et leonem, loro tenui revinctum, urbe tota circum tabernas ire, donari aere Androclum, floribus spargi leonem, omnes ubique obvios dicere: Hic est leo hospes hominis, hic est homo medicus leonis.

XV

Argument

Corpusne sit vox an ἀσώματον varias esse philosophorum sententias.

[1] VETUS atque perpetua quaestio inter nobilissimos philosophorum agitata est, corpusne sit vox an incorporeum.

[2] Hoc enim vocabulum quidam finxerunt proinde quod Graece dicitur ἀσώματον.

[3] Corpus autem est quod aut efficient est aut patiens; id Graece definitur τὸ ἤτοι ποιοῦν ἢ πάσχον.

[4] Quam definitionem significare volens, Lucretius poeta ita scripsit:

Tangere enim aut ²⁷ tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res.

[5] Alio quoque modo corpus esse Graeci dicunt τὸ τριχῆ διάστατον.

[6] Sed vocem Stoici corpus esse contendunt eamque esse dicunt ictum aera,

[7] Plato autem non esse vocem corpus putat: Non enim percussus, inquit, aer, sed plaga ipsa atque percussio, id vox est.

[8] Democritus ac deinde Epicurus ex individuis corporibus vocem constare dicunt eamque, ut ipsis eorum verbis utar, ῥεῦμα ἀτόμων appellant.

[9] Hos aliosque talis argutae delectabilisque desidiae aculeos cum audiremus vel lectitaremus neque in his scrupulis aut emolumentum aliquod solidum ad rationem vitae pertinens aut finem ullum quaerendi videremus, Ennianum Neoptolemum probabamus, qui profecto ita ait:

Philósophandum est paúcis; nam omnino haút placet.

XVI

Argument

De vi oculorum deque videndi rationibus.

[1] DE videndi ratione deque cernendi natura diversas esse opiniones philosophorum animadvertimus.

[2] Stoici causas esse videndi dicunt radiorum ex oculis in ea quae videri queunt emissionem aerisque simul intentionem.

[3] Epicurus afluere semper ex omnibus corporibus simulacra quaedam corporum ipsorum eaque sese in oculos inferre atque ita fieri sensum videndi putat.

[4] Plato existimat, genus quoddam ignis lucisque de oculis exire idque, coniunctum continuatumque vel cum luce solis vel cum alterius ignis lumine, sua vi et externa nixum efficere ut quaecumque offenderit inlustraveritque cernamus.

[5] Set hic aeque ²⁸ non diutius muginandum, eiusdemque illius Enniani Neoptolemi, de quo supra scripsimus, consilio utendum est, qui degustandum ex philosophia censet, non in eam earn ingurgitandum.

XVII

Argument

Quam ob causam dies primi post Kalendas, Nonas, Idus atri habeantur; et cur diem quoque quartum ante Kalendas vel Nonas vel Idus quasi religiosum plerique vitent.

[1] VERRIUS FLACCUS, in quarto De Verborum Significatu, dies qui sunt postridie Kalendas, Nonas, Idus, quos vulgus imperite nefastos dicit, propter hanc causam dictos habitosque atros esse scribit.

[2] Urbe, inquit, a Gallis Senonibus recuperata, L. Atilius in senatu verba fecit, Q. Sulpicium tribunum militum, ad Alliam adversus Gallos pugnaturum, rem divinam dimicandi gratia postridie Idus fecisse; tum exercitum populi Romani occidione occisum et post diem tertium eius diei urbem praeter Capitolium captam esse: compluresque alii senatores recordari sese dixerunt, quotiens belli gerendi gratia res divina postridie Kalendas, Nonas, Idus a magistratu populi Romani facta esset, eius belli proximo deinceps proelio rem publicam male gestam esse. Tum senatus eam earn rem ad pontifices reiecit, ut ipsi quod videretur statuerent. Pontifices decreverunt nullum his diebus sacrificium recte futurum.

[3] Ante diem quoque quartum Kalendas vel Nonas vel Idus tamquam inominalem ²⁹ diem plerique vitant.

[4] Eius observationis an religio ulla sit tradita, quaeri solet.

[5] nihil Nillil nos super ea re scriptum invenimus, nisi quod Q. Claudius Annaliun quinto cladem illam pugnae Cannensis vastissimam factam dicit ante diem quartum Nonas Sextiles.

XVIII

Argument

In quid et quantum differat historia ab annalibus; superque ea re verba posita ex libro Rerum Gestarum Sempronii Asellionis primo.

[1] HISTORIAM ab annalibus quidam differre eo putant, quod, cum utrumque sit rerum gestarum narratio, earum tamen proprie rerum sit historia bistoria, quibus rebus gerendis interfuerit is qui narret;

[2] eamque esse opinionem quorundam, Verrius Flaccus refert in libro De Significatu verborum Verborun quarto. Ac se quidem dubitare super ea re dicit, posse autem videri putat nonnihil esse rationis in ea opinione, quod ἱστορία Graece significet rerum cognitionem praesentium.

[3] Sed nos audire soliti sumus annales omnino id esse quod historiae sint;

[4] historias non omnino esse id quod annales sint:

[5] sicuti, quod est homo, id necessario animal esse; quod est animal, non id necesse est hominem esse.

[6] Ita historias quidem esse aiunt rerum gestarum vel expositionem vel demonstrationem vel quo alio nomine id dicendum est; annales vero esse, cum res gestae plurium annorum, observato cuiusque anni ordine, deinceps componuntur.

[7] Cum vero non per annos, sed per dies singulos res gestae scribuntur, ea historia Graeco vocabulo ἐφημερὶς dicitur, cuius Latinum interpretamentum scriptum est in libro Semproni Asellionis primo, ex quo libro plura verba ascripsimus, ut simul ibidem quid ipse inter res gestas et annales esse dixerit ostenderemus.

[8] Verum inter eos, inquit, qui annales relinquere voluissent, et eos qui res gestas a Romanis perscribere conati essent, omnium rerum hoc interfuit. Annales libri tantummodo quod factum quoque anno gestum sit, ea demonstrabant, id est quasi qui diarium scribunt, quam Graeci ἐφημερίδα vocant. Nobis non modo satis esse video, quod factum esset, id pronuntiare, sed etiam quo consilio quaque ratione gesta essent demonstrare.

[9] Paulo post idem Asellio in eodem libro: Nam neque alacriores, inquit, ad rempublicam defendundam, neque segniores ad rem perperam faciundam annales libri commovere quicquam possunt. Scribere autem bellum initum quo consule et quo confectum sit et quis triumphans introierit ex eo, et eo ³⁰ libro quae in bello gesta sint ³¹ non praedicare aut interea quid senatus decreverit aut quae lex rogatiove lata sit neque quibus consiliis ea gesta sint iterare: id fabulas pueris est narrare, non historias scribere.

XIX

Argument

Quid sit adoptatio, quid item sit adrogatio, quantumque haec inter se differant; verbaque eius quae qualiaque sint, qui in liberis adrogandis super ea re populum rogat.

[1] CUM in alienam familiam inque liberorum locum extranei sumuntur, aut per praetorem fit aut per populum.

[2] Quod per praetorem fit, adoptatio dicitur, quod per populum, arrogatio.

[3] Adoptantur autem, cum a parente in cuius potestate sunt tertia mancipatione in iure ceduntur atque ab eo qui adoptat apud eum apud quem legis actio est vindicantur;

[4] adrogantur hi qui, cum sui iuris sunt, in alienam sese potestatem tradunt eiusque rei ipsi auctores fiunt.

[5] Sed adrogationes non temere nec inexplorate committuntur;

[6] nam comitia arbitris pontificibus praebentur, quae curiata appellantur, aetasque eius qui adrogare vult, an liberis lileris potius gignundis idonea sit, bonaque eius qui adrogatur ne insidiose adpetita sint consideratur, iusque iurandum a Q. Mucio pontifice maximo conceptum dicitur, quod in adrogando iuraretur.

[7] Sed adrogari non potest nisi iam vesticeps.

[8] Adrogatio autem dicta, quia genus hoc in alienam familiam transitus per populi rogationem fit.

[9] Eius rogationis verba haec sunt: Velitis, iubeatis, uti L. Valerius L. Titio tam iure legeque filius siet, quam si ex eo patre matreque familias eius natus esset, utique ei vitae necisque in eum potestas siet, uti patri endo filio est. Haec ita uti dixi, ita vos, Quirites, rogo.

[10] Neque pupillus autem neque mulier quae in parentis potestate non est adrogari possunt; quoniam et cum feminis nulla comitiorum communio est et tutoribus in pupillos tantam esse auctoritatem potestatemque fas non est, ut caput liberum fidei suae commissum alienae dicioni ³² subiciant.

[11] Libertinos vero ab ingenuis adoptari quidem iure posse, Masurius Sabinus scripsit.

[12] Sed id neque permitti dicit, neque permittendum esse umquam putat, ut homines libertini ordinis per adoptiones in iura ingenuorum invadant.

[13] Alioquin, inquit, si iuris ista antiquitas servetur, etiam servus a ³³ domino per praetorem dari in adoptionem potest.

[14] Idque ait plerosque iuris veteris auctores posse fieri scripsisse.

[15] Animadvertimus in oratione P. Scipionis, quam censor habuit ad populum De Moribus, inter ea quae reprehendebat, quod contra maiorum instituta fierent, id etiam eum culpavisse, quod filius adoptivos patri adoptatori inter praemia patrum prodesset.

[16] Verba ex ea oratione haec sunt: In alia tribu patrem pattern, in alia filium suffragium ferre, filium adoptivum tam procedere quam si se natum habeat; absentis censeri iubere, ut ad censum nemini necessus sit venire.

XX

Argument

Quod vocabulum Latinum soloecismo fecerit Capito Sinnius, quid autem id ipsum appellaverint veteres Latini; quibusque verbis soloecismum definierit idem Capito Sinnius.

[1] SOLOECISMUS, Latino vocabulo a Sinnio Capitone eiusdemque aetatis aliis inparilitas appellatus, vetustioribus Latinis stribiligo dicebatur, a versura videlicet et pravitate tortuosae orationis, tamquam strobiligo quaedam.

[2] Quod vitium Sinnius Capito in litteris, quas ad Clodium Tuscum dedit, hisce verbis definit: Soloecismus. est, inquit, impar atque inconveniens compositura partium orationis.

[3] Cum Graecum autem vocabulum sit soloecismus, an Attici homines qui elegantius locuti sunt usi eo sint quaeri solet.

[4] Sed nos neque soloecismum neque barbarismum arbbarismum apud Graecorum idoneos adhuc invenimus;

[5] nam sicut βάρβαρον ita σόλοικοι dixerunt.

[6] Nostri quoque antiquiores soloecum facile, soloecismum haut scio an umquam, dixerunt.

[7] Quod si ita est, neque in Graeca neque in Latina lingua soloecismus probe dicitur.

XXI

Argument

Pluria qui dicat et compluria et compluriens non barbare dicere, sed Latine.

[1] PLURIA forte quis dixit sermocinans vir adprime doctus, meus amicus, non hercle studio se ³⁴ ferens ostentandi neque quo plura non dicendum putaret.

[2] Est enim doctrina homo seria et ad vitae officia devincta ac nihil de verbis laborante.

[3] Sed, opinor, assidua veterum scriptorum tractatione inoleverat linguae illius vox quam in libris saepe offenderat.

[4] Aderat, cum ille hoc dicit, reprehensor audaculus verborum, qui perpauca eademque a volgo protrita legerat habebatque nonnullas disciplinae grammaticae inauditiunculas, partim rudes inchoatasque, partim non probas, easque quasi pulverem ob oculos, cum adortus quemque fuerat, adspergebat.

[5] Sicut tunc amico nostro Barbare, inquit, dixisti pluria; nam neque rationem verbum hoc neque auctoritates habet.

[6] Ibi ille amicus ridens, Amabo te, inquit, vir bone, quia nunc mihi a magis seriis rebus otium est, velim doceas nos cur pluria sive compluria, nihil enim differt, non Latine sed barbare dixerint M. Cato, Q. Claudius, Valerius Antias, L. Aelius, P. Nigidius, M. Varro, quos subscriptores approbatoresque huius verbi habemus praeter poetarum oratorumque veterum multam copiam.

[7] Atque ille nimis arroganter Tibi, inquit, habeas auctoritates istas, ex Faunorum et Aboriginum saeculo repetitas, atque huic rationi respondeas.

[8] Nullum enim vocabulum neutrum comparativum numero plurativo, recto casu, ante extremum a habet i litteram, sicuti meliora, maiora, graviora. Proinde igitur plura, non pluria, dici convenit, ne contra formam perpetuam in comparativo i littera sit ante extremum a.

[9] Tum ille amicus noster, cum hominem confidentem pluribus verbis non dignum existimaret, Sinni, inquit, Capitonis, doctissimi viri, epistulae sunt uno in libro multae positae, opinor, in templo Pacis.

[10] Prima epistula scripta est ad Pacuvium Labeonem, cui titulus praescriptus est Pluria, non plura dici debere.

[11] In ea epistula rationes grammaticas posuit per quas docet pluria Latinum esse, plura barbarum. Ad Capitonem igitur te dimittimus.

[12] Ex eo id quoque simul disces, si modo assequi poteris quod in ea epistula scriptum est,

[13] pluria sive plura absolutum esse et simplex, non, ut tibi videtur, comparativum.

[14] Huius opinionis Sinnianae id quoque adiumentum est, quod complures cum dicimus, non comparative dicimus.

[15] Ab eo autem quod est compluria adverbium est factum compluriens.

[16] Id quoniam minus usitatum est, versum Plauti subscripsi ex comoedia quae Persa inscribitur:

Quid metuis?–Metuo hércle vero; sénsi ego ³⁵

Complúriens.

[17] Item M. Cato in IV. Originum eodem in loco ter hoc verbum posuit: Compluriens eorum milites mercennarii inter se multi alteri alteros in castris ³⁶ occidere, compluriens multi simul ad hostis transfugere, compluriens in imperatorem impetum facere.

Notes on the current edition

Attic Nights

1. p. 130, Hense.

2. There seems to be a lacuna in the text; see crit. note.

3. Heracus suggests fritamenta in i. 11, 12.

4. Odyss. xiii. 1. Odysseus (Ulysses) had just finished telling his story to Alcinous, king of the Phaeacians, and his court.

5. Bucephalas in Greek means

ox-headed.

6. Fr. 14, p. 117, Müller.

7. Cf. Suet. Jul. lxi.

8. See note 2, p. 128.

9. Quintus Fabius Pictor, who was sent as an envoy to Delphi after the battle of Cannae (216 B. C.), wrote a history of Rome from the coming of Aeneas to his own time. He wrote in Greek, but a Latin version is mentioned also by Quintilian (i. 6. 12) and was used by Varro and by Cicero.

10. Fr. 6, Peter.

11. There is a lacuna in the text which might be filled by

This question might be answered by.

12. Fr. 1, Mirsch.

13. Of his reign.

14. v. 269, Ribbeck 3.

15. Fr. 17, Huschke; 8, Bremer.

16. )Akoniti/ (

dustless

) was proverbial in Greek for

without an effort,

as in Thuc. iv. 73; Xen. Ages. 6. 3. Cf. Hor. Epist. i. 1. 54, cui sit condicio dulcis sine pulvere palma.

17. Nobilior was consul in 189 B. C. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. i. 2. 3, says that Cato criticized him also for taking Ennius with him to his province of Aetolia.

18. xiv. 1, Jordan.

19. Fr. 26, Huschke; memory. 15, Bremer.

20. Frag. 8, Fun.

21. Aen. vii. 187.

22. Frag. 5, Fun.

23. Aen. v. 372.

24. Aen. v. 401.

25. Aen. iii. 618.

26. This explanation of Quirinali lituo as an ablative of quality is of course wrong; we simply have zeugma in subcinctus,

equipped with

and

girt with.

27. The trumpet called lituits was slightly curved at the end, differing from the tuba, which was straight, and the spiral cornn. The augur's staff was like a crook with a short handle.

28. Iliad iv. 125.

29. Aen. vi. 167.

30. i. 85.

31. Valerius Maximus, i. 8. ext. 4 says: cum ei victoriae quam adeptus erat titulus et praemium eriperetur, indignatione accensus vocalis evasit. Just how he was cheated in the story told by Gellius is not clear, unless the lots were cast to determine which of the contestants should be matched together, and he was matched against an unsuitable opponent.

32. The

convertible

argument described in x.

33. In the Greek there is a word-play on koinh/ and poinh/, which it does not seem possible to reproduce in English. Perhaps, a flirt or a hurt, or, a harlot or a hard lot.

34. That is, in Bias' syllogism.

35. 253, Ribbeck 3.

36. The two summits of the Capitoline Hill.

37. The correct spelling in Latin is Iuppiter.

38. Fr. 55, Bährens.

39. That is, it is uncertain what force ve- has in these words; but see the next note.

40. Gellius is wrong in supposing that ve- strengthened the force of a word; it means

without, apart from.

Nonius cites Lucilias for vegrandis in the sense of

very great,

but wrongly; see Marx on Lucil. 631. Vescus means

small,

or, in an active sense,

make small

(Lucr. i. 326); Walde derives it from rescor in the sense of

eating away, corroding

(Lucr. i. 326) and from ve- escus in the sense of

small

Vemens, for vehemens, is probably a participle ( vehemenos) from veho.

41. xvi. 5. 6.

42. Vediovis, or Veiovis, was the opposite of Jupiter, ve- having its negative force. He was a god of the nether world and of death; hence the arrows and the she-goat, which was an animal connected with the lower world (see Gell. x. 15. 12, and Wissowa Religion und Kultus,p. 237). Some regarded the god as a youthful (little) Jupiter and the she-goat as the one which suckled him in his infancy; others as Apollo, because of the arrows, but the she-goat has no connection with Apollo.

43. Georg. iv. 6.

44. Commonly called Averruncus, although the glosses give also the form Auruncus. From averrunco,

to avert.

45. Also called Robigo (f.), the god or goddess who averted mildew from the grain.

46. xli. 1, Jordan.

47. Fr. 6, Huschke; 2 Bremer.

48. ii. p. 123, Dinter; O. R. F. 2 p. 419.

49. F. H. G. iii. 510.

50. i. 304.

51. II. 141, Arn.

52. Timaeus, p. 67, B.

53. p. 353, Usener.

54. 340, Ribbeck 3.

55. II. 871, Arn.

56. 319, Usener.

57. Timaeus, p. 45, B.

58. xv. 9.

59. p. xiv. Müller.

60. In 390 B. C.

61. August 2, 216 B. C.

62. p. xiv. Müller.

63. Fr. 1, Peter.

64. Fr. 2, Peter.

65. This was a symbolic sale, made by thrice touching a balance with a penny, in the presence of a praetor; see Suet., Aug. lxiv.

66. The assembly of the curiae, the thirty divisions into which the Roman citizens were divided, ten for each of the original three tribes. It was superseded at an early period by the comitia centuriata, and its action was confined to formalities. See xv. 27. 5.

67. Fr. 13, Huschke; I. p. 58 and p. 80, Bremer.

68. Fr. 27, Huschke; Jus. Civ. 60, Bremer.

69. Cato, Fr. 4 a, I. p. 21, Bremer.

70. That is, the privileges and exemptions conferred upon the fathers of children, later comprised under the ius trium liberorum; see ii. 15. 3 ff.

71. O.R.F. 2 p. 180.

72. The meaning is that a man who had been adopted would vote in the tribe of his adoptive father, which might be different from that of his own father.

73. This word, which seems to occur only here and in Arnobius i. 36, apparently means

twisted, awry.

74. Fr. 2, Huschke.

75. These words were applied to any impropriety in the use of language.

76. Both words have the general meaning of

foreign

; according to some, so/loikos was derived from Soloi, a town of Cilicia, whose inhabitants spoke a perverted Attic dialect. This derivation seems to be accepted to-day. Barbarus is regarded as an onomatopoeic word, representing stammering; cf. balbus.

77. Fr. 24, Peter.

78. Fr. 90, Peter.

79. Fr. 65, Peter.

80. Fr. 48, Fun.

81. Frag. 64, Swoboda.

82. Fr. 1, Huschke.

83. v. 534.

84. Fr. 79, Peter.

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Book V

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