Some remarkable stories about the elder Publius Africanus, drawn from the annals.

1 The tale which in Grecian history is told of Olympias, wife of king Philip and mother of Alexander, is also recorded of the mother of that Publius Scipio who was the first to be called Africanus. For both Gaius Oppius ¹ and Julius Hyginus, ² as well as others who have written of the life and deeds of Africanus, declare that his mother was for a long time thought to be barren, and that Publius Scipio, her husband, had also given up hope of offspring; that afterwards, in her own room and bed, when she was lying alone in the absence of her husband and had fallen asleep, of a sudden a huge serpent was seen lying by her side; and that when those who had seen it were frightened and cried out, the snake glided away and could not be found. It is said that Publius Scipio himself consulted soothsayers about the occurrence; that they, after offering sacrifice, declared that he would have children, and not many days after that serpent had been seen in her bed, the woman began to experience the indications and sensation of conception. ³ Afterwards, in the tenth month, she gave birth to that Publius Scipio who conquered Hannibal and the Carthaginians in Africa in the second Punic war. ⁴ But it was far more because of his exploits than because of that prodigy that he too ⁵ was believed to be a man of godlike excellence.

This too I venture to relate, which the same writers that I mentioned before have put on record: This Scipio Africanus used often to go to the Capitolium in the latter part of the night, before the break of day, give orders that the shrine of Jupiter be opened, ⁶ and remain there a long time alone, apparently consulting Jupiter about matters of state; and the guardians of the temple were often amazed that on his coming to the Capitolium alone at such an hour the dogs, ⁷ that flew at all other intruders, neither barked at him nor molested him.

These popular beliefs about Scipio seemed to be confirmed and attested by many remarkable actions and sayings of his. Of these the following is a single example: He was engaged in the siege of a town ⁸ in Spain, which was strongly fortified and defended, protected by its position, and also well provisioned; and there was no prospect of taking it. One day he sat holding court in his camp, at a point from which there was a distant view of the town. Then one of the soldiers who were on trial before him asked in the usual way on what day and in what place he bade them give bail for their appearance. Then Scipio, stretching forth his hand towards the very citadel of the town which he was besieging, said: And so it happened; on the third day, the day on which he had ordered them to appear, the town was captured, and on that same day he held court in the citadel of the place.

Of a disgraceful blunder of Caesellius Vindex, which we find in his work entitled Archaic Terms.

1 IN those highly celebrated notes of Caesellius Vindex On Archaic Terms we find a shameful oversight, although in fact the man is seldom caught napping. This error has escaped the notice of many, in spite of their diligent search for opportunities to find fault with Caesellius, even through misrepresentation. Now, Caesellius wrote that Quintus Ennius, in the thirteenth book of his Annals, used cor in the masculine gender.

I add Caesellius' own words: He then quoted two verses of Ennius ⁹ : The speaker is Antiochus, king of Asia. He is surprised and indignant that Hannibal, the Carthaginian, discourages his desire to make war on the people of Rome. ¹⁰ Now, Caesellius understands the lines to mean that Antiochus says:

So Caesellius; but Ennius' meaning was quite different. For there are three verses, not two, which belong to this utterance of the poet's, and Caesellius overlooked the third verse: The meaning and arrangement of these three verses I believe to be this: Caesellius, however, somewhat carelessly misled as to the connection of the words, assumed that Ennius said quem cor, reading quem with an acute accent, ¹¹ as if it belonged with cor and not with Hannibal. But I am well aware that one might, if anyone should have so little understanding, defend Caesellius' masculine cor by maintaining that the third verse should be read apart from the others, as if Antiochus had exclaimed in broken and abrupt language But those who would argue thus do not deserve a reply.

What Tullius Tiro, Cicero's freedman, criticized in the speech which Marcus Cato delivered in the senate in defence of the Rhodians; and our answer to his strictures.

1 THE State of Rhodes is famed for the happy situation of the island, its celebrated works of art, its skill in seamanship and its naval victories. Although a friend and ally of the Roman people, that State was on cordial terms with Perses, son of Philip and king of Macedon, with whom the Romans were at war; ¹² accordingly, the Rhodians often sent envoys to Rome and tried to reconcile the contending parties. But when their attempts at peace-making failed, many of the Rhodians harangued the people in their assemblies, urging that if peace were not made, the Rhodians should aid the king in his contest with the people of Rome; but as to that question no official action was taken. When, however, Perses was defeated and taken prisoner, the Rhodians were in great fear because of what had been said and done on many occasions in the popular assemblies; and they sent envoys to Rome, to apologize for the hastiness of some of their fellow-citizens and vindicate their loyalty as a community. When the envoys reached Rome and were admitted to the senate, after having humbly pleaded their cause they left the House, and the senators were called upon for their opinions. When some of the members complained of the Rhodians, declaring that they had been disloyal, and recommended that war be declared upon them, then Marcus Cato arose. He endeavoured to defend and save our very good and faithful allies, to whom many of the most distinguished senators were hostile through a desire to plunder and possess their wealth; and he delivered that famous speech entitled For the Rhodians, which is included in the fifth book of his Origins and is also in circulation as a separate publication.

Now Tullius Tiro, Marcus Cicero's freedman, was unquestionably a man of refined taste and by no means unacquainted with our early history and literature. He had been liberally educated from his earliest years, and Cicero found in him an assistant, and in a sense a partner, in his literary work. But surely Tiro showed more presumption than can be tolerated or excused. For he wrote a letter ¹³ to Quintus Axius, a friend of his patron, with excessive assurance and warmth, in which, as he imagined, he criticized that speech For the Rhodians with keen and fine judgment. It chanced to take my fancy to touch upon certain of the animadversions which he makes in that letter, and I shall doubtless be the more readily pardoned for finding fault with Tiro, because he took Cato to task.

His first charge was that Cato, to use Tiro's own language, made use of a preamble which was excessively arrogant and excessively severe and fault-finding, in which he declared that he feared lest the fathers, having their minds upset by joy and exultation at their success, might act unwisely and be in no state of mind for understanding and deliberating aright. Tiro says: Then he has given us Cato's own preamble, which runs as follows: ¹⁴

continues Tiro, says Tiro, And he gives Cato's own words, as follows: ¹⁵

Now as to his criticism of Cato's introduction, Tiro ought to have known that although Cato defended the Rhodians, he did so as a senator who had been consul and censor and was recommending what he thought was best for the public welfare, not as an advocate pleading the cause of the accused. For one kind of introduction is appropriate for a man who is defending clients before jurors and striving in every way to excite pity and compassion; quite another for a man of eminent authority, when the senate is asked for its opinion on a matter of State, and when, indignant at the highly unjust opinions of some of the members, he gives plain and emphatic expression at once to his indignation and his sorrow, speaking in behalf of the public welfare and the safety of our allies. Indeed, it is a proper and salutary rule of the schools of rhetoric, that jurors who are to pass judgment on the person of a stranger and on a case which does not personally concern them (so that apart from the duty of acting as jurors no danger or emolument will come to them) ought to be conciliated and induced by mild and soothing language to have regard for the reputation and safety of the prisoner at the bar. But when the common prestige, honour and advantage of all are involved, and therefore one must advise what is to be done, or what must be put off that has already been begun, then one who busies oneself with an introduction designed to make his hearers friendly and kindly disposed towards himself wastes his efforts in needless talk. For the common interests and dangers have themselves already disposed the jurors to listen to advice, and it is rather they themselves that demand good-will ¹⁶ on the part of their counsellor. But when Tiro says that Cato admitted that the Rhodians did not wish the Romans to fight as successfully as they did, and king Perses to be conquered by the Roman people, and when he asserts that he declared that not the Rhodians alone, but many other nations too, had the same feeling, but that this availed nothing in excuse or extenuation of their fault—in this very first point Tiro is guilty of a shameless lie. He quotes Cato's words, yet misrepresents him by giving them a false interpretation. For Cato does not admit that the Rhodians did not wish the Roman people to be victorious, but said that he thought they did not; and this was unquestionably an expression of his own opinion, not an concession of the guilt of the Rhodians. On this point, in my judgment at least, Cato is not only free from reproach, but is even deserving of praise and admiration. For he apparently expressed a frank and conscientious opinion adverse to the Rhodians; but then, having established confidence in his candour, ¹⁷ he so changed and shifted that very statement which seemed to militate against them, that on that account alone it seemed right that they should be more highly esteemed and beloved by the people of Rome; inasmuch as they took no steps to aid the king, although they wished him to succeed and although his success would have been to their advantage.

Later on, Tiro quotes the following words from the same speech: ¹⁸ says Tiro, he says, says Tiro, But, as a matter of fact, Tiro failed to observe that the reason for taking precautions is not the same in all cases, and that the occupations and actions of human life, and the obligations of anticipation or postponement or even of taking vengeance or precautions, are not like a combat of gladiators. For to a gladiator ready to fight the fortune of battle offers the alternative, either to kill, if he should conquer, or to die, if he should yield. But the life of men in general is not restricted by such unfair or inevitable necessities that one must be first to commit an injury in order to avoid suffering injury. In fact, such conduct was so alien to the humanity of the Roman people that they often forbore to avenge the wrongs inflicted upon them.

Then Tiro says that later in that same speech Cato used arguments that were disingenuous and excessively audacious, not suited to the character which Cato showed at other times, but cunning and deceitful, resembling the subtleties of the Greek sophists. says he, He says that Cato introduced what the logicians call an e)pagwgh/, ²² a most treacherous and sophistical device. designed not so much for the truth as for cavil, since by deceptive examples he tried to establish and prove that no one who wished to do wrong deserved to be punished, unless he actually accomplished his desire. Now Cato's words in that speech are as follows: ²³ Then a little farther on he says: ²⁴ Later he continues: ²⁷ With such arguments Tullius Tiro says that Marcus Cato strove to show that the Rhodians also ought not to be punished, because although they had wished to be enemies of the Roman people, they had actually not been such. Furthermore, he says that it cannot be denied that to wish to have more than five hundred acres, which was forbidden by Stolo's ²⁸ bill, is not exactly the same thing as to wish to make an unjust and unrighteous war upon the Roman people; also that it could not be denied that rewards and punishments belong to different categories. he says, he declares,

These are the criticisms which Tiro passed upon Cato, not altogether pointless or wholly unreasonable; but as a matter of fact, Cato did not leave this e)pagwgh/ bare, isolated and unsupported, but he propped it up in various ways and clothed it with many other arguments. Furthermore, since lie had an eye as much to the interests of the State as to those of the Rhodians, he regarded nothing that he said or did in that matter as discreditable, provided he strove by every kind of argument to save our allies. And first of all, he very cleverly sought to find actions which are prohibited, not by natural or by international law, but by statutes passed to remedy some evil or meet an emergency; such for example as the one which limited the number of cattle or the amount of land. In such cases that which is forbidden cannot lawfully be done; but to wish to do it, if it should be allowed, is not dishonourable. And then he gradually compared and connected such actions as these with that which in itself it is neither lawful to do nor to wish to do. Then finally, in order that the impropriety of the comparison may not become evident, he defends it by numerous bulwarks, not laying great stress on those trivial and ideal censures of unlawful desires, such as form the arguments of philosophers in their leisure moments, but striving with might and main for one single end, namely, that the cause of the Rhodians, whose friendship it was to the interests of the commonwealth to retain, should be shown either to be just, or in any event, at least pardonable. Accordingly, he now affirms that the Rhodians did not make war and did not desire to do so; but again he declares that only acts should be considered and judged, and that mere empty wishes are liable neither to laws nor punishment; sometimes, however, as if admitting their guilt, he asks that they be pardoned and shows that forgiveness is expedient in human relations, arousing fear of popular outbreaks, if pardon is not granted, and on the other hand showing that if they forgive, the greatness of the Roman people will be maintained.

The charge of arrogance too, which in particular was brought against the Rhodians in the senate at that time, he evaded and eluded by a brilliant and all but inspired mode of reply. I shall give Cato's very words, ²⁹ since Tiro has passed them by: Absolutely nothing could be said with greater force or weight than this apostrophe against men proud of their deeds, loving pride in themselves, but condemning it in others.

It is further to be observed that throughout that speech of Cato's recourse is had to every weapon and device of the art rhetorical; but we are not conscious of their use, as we are in mock combats or in battles feigned for the sake of entertainment. For the case was not pleaded, I say, with an excess of refinement, elegance and observance of rule, but just as in a doubtful battle, when the troops are scattered, the contest rages in many parts of the field with uncertain outcome, so in that case at that time, when the notorious arrogance of the Rhodians had aroused the hatred and hostility of many men, Cato used every method of protection and defence without discrimination, at one time commending the Rhodians as of the highest merit, again exculpating them and declaring them blameless, yet again demanding that their property and riches should not be coveted, now asking for their pardon as if they were in the wrong, now pointing out their friendship to the commonwealth, appealing now to clemency, now to the mercy shown by our forefathers, now to the public interest. All this might perhaps have been said in a more orderly and euphonic style, yet I do not believe that it could have been said with greater vigour and vividness. It was therefore unfair of Tullius Tiro to single out from all the qualities of so rich a speech, apt in their connection with one another, a small and bare part to criticize, by asserting that it was not worthy of Marcus Cato to maintain that the mere desire for delinquencies that were not actually committed did not merit punishment.

But one will form a juster and more candid opinion of these words of mine, spoken in reply to Tullius Tiro, and judge accordingly, if one will take in hand Cato's own speech in its entirety, and will also take the trouble to look up and read the letter of Tiro to Axius. For then he will be able either to correct or confirm what I have said more truthfully and after fuller examination.

What sort of slaves Caelius Sabinus, the writer on civil law, said were commonly sold with caps on their heads, and why; and what chattels were sold under a crown in the days of our forefathers; and the meaning of that same expression

1 CAELIUS SABINUS, the jurist, has written ³⁰ that it was usual, when selling slaves, to put caps on those for whom the seller assumed no responsibility. He says that the reason for that custom was, that the law required that slaves of that kind be marked when offered for sale, in order that buyers might not err and be deceived; that it might not be necessary to wait for the bill of sale, but might be obvious at once what kind of slaves they were. he says,

There is, however, another explanation of the reason for the common saying that captives were sold namely, because a guard of soldiers stood around the bands of prisoners that were offered for sale, and such a ring of soldiers was called corona. But that the reason which I first gave is the more probable one is made clear by Marcus Cato in the book which he wrote On Military Science.

Cato's words are as follows ³¹

A noteworthy story about the actor Polus. ³²

1 THERE was in the land of Greece an actor of wide reputation, who excelled all others in his clear delivery and graceful action. They say that his name was Polus, and he often acted the tragedies of famous poets with intelligence and dignity. This Polus lost by death a son whom he dearly loved. After he felt that he had indulged his grief sufficiently, he returned to the practice of his profession.

At that time he was to act the Electra of Sophocles at Athens, and it was his part to carry an urn which was supposed to contain the ashes of Orestes. The plot of the play requires that Electra, who is represented as carrying her brother's remains, should lament and bewail the fate that she believed had overtaken him. Accordingly Polus, clad in the mourning garb of Electra, took from the tomb the ashes and urn of his son, embraced them as if they were those of Orestes, and filled the whole place, not with the appearance and imitation of sorrow, but with genuine grief and unfeigned lamentation. Therefore, while it seemed that a play was being acted, it was in fact real grief that was enacted.

What Aristotle wrote of the congenital absence of some of the senses.

1 NATURE has given five senses to living beings; sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell, called by the Greeks ai)sqh/seis. Of these some animals lack one and some another, being born into the world blind, or without the sense of smell or hearing. But Aristotle asserts that no animal is born without the sense of taste or of touch.

His own words, from the book which he wrote On Memory, are as follows: ³³

Whether affatim, like admodunm, should be pronounced with an acute accent on the first syllable; with some painstaking observations on the accents of other words.

1 THE poet Annianus, ³⁴ in addition to his charming personality, was highly skilled in ancient literature and literary criticism, and conversed with remarkable grace and learning. He pronounced affalim, as he did admodum, with an acute accent ³⁵ on the first, and not on the medial, syllable; and he believed that the ancients so pronounced the word. He adds that in his hearing the grammarian Probus thus read the following lines of the Cistellaria of Plautus: ³⁶ and he said that the reason for that accent was that affatim was not two parts of speech, but was made up of two parts that had united to form a single word; just as also in the word which we call exadversum he thought that the second syllable should have the acute accent, because the word was one part of speech, and not two. Accordingly, he maintained that the two following verses of Terence ³⁷ ought to be read thus: He added besides that the preposition ad was commonly accented when it indicated e)pi/tasis, or as we say, as in ádfabre, ádmodum, and ádprobe.

In all else, indeed, Annianus spoke aptly enough. But if he supposed that this particle was always accented when it denoted emphasis, that rule is obviously not without exceptions; for when we say adpotus, adprimus, and adprime, emphasis is evident in all those words, yet it is not at all proper to pronounce the particle ad with the acute accent. I must admit, however, that adprobus, which means ought to be accented on the first syllable. Caecilius uses that word in his comedy entitled The Triumph: ³⁸

In those words, then, which we say do not have the acute accent, is not this the reason—that the following syllable is longer by nature, and a long penult does not as a rule ³⁹ permit the accenting of the preceding syllable in words of more than two syllables? But Lucius Livius in his Odyssey uses ádprimus in the sense of in the following line: ⁴⁰

Livius in his Odyssey too pronounces praemodum like admodum; he says ⁴¹ parcentes praemodum, which means and praemodum is equivalent to praeter modum. And in this word, of course, the first syllable will have to have the acute accent.

An incredible story about a dolphin which loved a boy.

1 THAT dolphins are affectionate and amorous is shown, not only by ancient history, but also by tales of recent date. For in the sea of Puteoli, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, as Apion has written, and some centuries before at Naupactus, as Theophrastus tells us, dolphins are positively known to have been ardently in love. And they did not love those of their own kind, but had an extraordinary passion, like that of human beings, for boys of handsome figure, whom they chanced to have seen in boats or in the shoal waters near the shore.

I have appended the words of that learned man Apion, from the fifth book of his Egyptian History, in which he tells of an amorous dolphin and a boy who did not reject its advances, of their intimacy and play with each other, the dolphin carrying the boy and the boy bestriding the fish; and Apion declares that of all this he himself and many others were eye-witnesses. he writes, ⁴² To this he adds a detail that is no less wonderful. he says, ⁴⁴

That many early writers used peposci, memordi pepugi, spepondi and cecurri, and not, as was afterwards customary, forms with o or u in the first syllable, and that in so doing said that they followed Greek usage; that it has further been observed that men who were neither unlearned nor obscure made from the verb descendo, not descendi, but descendidi.

1 POPOSCI, momordi, pupugi and cucurri seem to be the approved forms, and to-day they are used by almost all better-educated men. But Quintus Ennius in his Satires wrote memorderit with an e, and not momorderit, as follows: ⁴⁵ So too Laberius in the Galli: ⁴⁶ The same Laberius too in his Colorator: ⁴⁷ Also Publius Nigidius in his second book On Animals: ⁴⁸ Likewise Plautus in the Aulularia: ⁴⁹ But Plautus again, in the Trigemini, said neither praememordisse nor praemomordisse, but praemorsisse, in the following line: ⁵⁰ Atta too in the Conciliatrix says: ⁵¹ Valerius Antias too, in the forty-fifth book of his Annals, has left on record peposci, not poposci ⁵² in this passage: ⁵³

In the same way Atta in the Aedilicia says: ⁵⁴

Probus has noted that Aelius Tubero also, in his work dedicated to Gaius Oppius, wrote occecurrit, and he has quoted him as follows: ⁵⁵ Probus also observed that Valerius Antias in the twenty-second book of his Histories wrote speponderant, and he quotes his words as follows: ⁵⁶

Now the explanation of these forms might seem to be this: since the Greeks in one form of the past tense, which they call parakei/menon, or commonly change the second letter of the verb to e, as gra/fw ge/grafa, poiw= pepoi/hka, lalw= lela/lhka, kratw= kekra/thka, lou/w le/louka, so accordingly mordeo makes memordi, posco peposci, tendo tetendi, tango tetigi, pungo pepugi, curro cecurri, tollo tetuli, and spondeo spepondi. Thus Marcus Tullius ⁵⁷ and Gaius Caesar ⁵⁸ used mordeo memordi, pungo pepugi, spondeo spepondi.

I find besides that from the verb scindo in the same way was made, not sciderat, but sciciderat. Lucius Accius in the first book of his Sotadici writes sciciderat. These are his words: ⁵⁹ Ennius too in his Melanippa says: ⁶⁰ * * * * * ⁶¹ Valerius Antias in the seventy-fifth book of his Histories wrote these words: ⁶² Laberius too in the Catularius wrote thus: ⁶³

As ususcapio is treated as a compound noun in the nominative case, so pignoriscapio is taken together as one word in the same case.

1 As ususcapio is treated as a compound word, in which the letter a is pronounced long, just so pignoriscapio was pronounced as one word with a long a. These are the words of Cato in the first book of his Epistolary Questions: ^{64 66} From this it is perfectly clear that one may say capio as if it were captio, in connection with both usus and pignus.

That neither levitas nor nequitia has the meaning that is given to those words in ordinary conversation.

1 I OBSERVE that levitas is now generally used to denote inconsistency and changeableness, and nequitia, in the sense of craftiness and cunning. But those of the men of early days who spoke properly and purely applied the term leves to those whom we now commonly call worthless and meriting no esteem. That is, they used levitas with precisely the force of vilitas, and applied the term nequam to a man of no importance nor worth, the sort of man that the Greeks usually call a)/swtos (beyond recovery) or a)ko/lastos(incorrigible).

One who desires examples of these words need not resort to books that are very inaccessible, but he will find them in Marcus Tullius' second Oration against Antony. For when Cicero wished to indicate a kind of extreme sordidness in the life and conduct of Marcus Antonius, that he lurked in a tavern, that he drank deep until evening, and that he travelled with his face covered, so as not to be recognized— when he wished to give expression to these and similar charges against him, he said: ⁶⁷ as if by that reproach he branded him with all those various marks of infamy which I have mentioned. But afterwards, when he had heaped upon the same Antony sundry other scornful and opprobrious charges, he finally added

But from that passage of Marcus Tullius I should like to add a somewhat longer extract:

In a very similar way Quintus Claudius too, in the first book of his Annals, called a prodigal and wasteful life of luxury nequitia, using these words: ⁷⁰ Marcus Varro in his work On the Latin Language says: ⁷¹ Publius Africanus, speaking In his own Defence against Tiberius Asellus in the matter of a fine, thus addressed the people: ⁷²

Of the tunics called chiridotae; that Publius Africanus reproved Sulpicius Gallus for wearing them.

1 FOR a man to wear tunics coming below the arms and as far as the wrists, and almost to the fingers, was considered unbecoming in Rome and in all Latium. Such tunics our countrymen called by the Greek name chiridotae (long-sleeved), and they thought that a long and full-flowing garment was not unbecoming for women only, to hide their arms and legs from sight. But Roman men at first wore the toga alone without tunics; later, they had close, short tunics ending below the shoulders, the kind which the Greeks call e)cwmi/des (sleeveless). ⁷⁴ Habituated to this older fashion, Publius Africanus, son of Paulus, a man gifted with all worthy arts and every virtue, among many other things with which he reproached Publius Sulpicius Gallus, an effeminate man, included this also, that he wore tunics which covered his whole hands. Scipio's words are these: ⁷⁵

Virgil too attacks tunics of this kind as effeminate and shameful, saying: ⁷⁶

Quintus Ennius also seems to have spoken not without scorn of of the Carthaginians. ⁷⁷

Whom Marcus Cato calls classici or and whom infra classem or

1 NOT all those men who were enrolled in the five classes ⁷⁸ were called classici, but only the men of the first class, who were rated at a hundred and twenty-five thousand asses or more. But those of the second class and of all the other classes, who were rated at a smaller sum than that which I just mentioned, were called infra classes. I have briefly noted this, because in connection with the speech of Marcus Cato In Support of the Voconian Law the question is often raised, what is meant by classicus and what by infra classem.

Of the three literary styles; and of the three philosophers who were sent as envoys by the Athenians to the senate at Rome.

1 BOTH in verse and in prose there are three approved styles, which the Greeks call xarakth=res and to which they have given the names of a(dro/s, i)sxno/s and me/sos. We also call the one which I put first the second and the third

The grand style possesses dignity and richness, the plain, grace and elegance; the middle lies on the border line and partakes of the qualities of both.

To each of these excellent styles there are related an equal number of faulty ones, arising from unsuccessful attempts to imitate their manner and character. Thus very often pompous and bombastic speakers lay claim to the grand style, the mean and bald to the plain, and the unclear and ambiguous to the middle. But true and genuine Latin examples of these styles are said by Marcus Varro ⁷⁹ to be: Pacuvius of the grand style, Lucilius of the plain, and Terence of the middle. But in early days these same three styles of speaking were exemplified in three men by Homer: the grand and rich in Ulysses, the elegant and restrained in Menelaus, the middle and moderate in Nestor.

This threefold variety is also to be observed in the three philosophers whom the Athenians sent as envoys to the senate at Rome, to persuade the senators to remit the fine which they had imposed upon the Athenians because of the sack of Oropos; ⁸⁰ and the fine amounted to nearly five hundred talents. The philosophers in question were Carneades of the Academy, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic. When they were admitted to the House, they made use of Gaius Acilius, one of the senators, as interpreter; but beforehand each one of them separately, for the purpose of exhibiting his eloquence, lectured to a large company. Rutilius ⁸¹ and Polybius ⁸² declare that all three aroused admiration for their oratory, each in his own style. they say,

Each of these styles, as I have said, is more brilliant when it is chastely and moderately adorned; when it is rouged and be powdered, it becomes mere jugglery.

How severely thieves were punished by the laws of our forefathers; and whit Mucius Scaevola wrote about that which is given or entrusted to anyone's care.

1 LABEO, in his second book On the Twelve Tables, ⁸³ wrote that cruel and severe judgments were passed upon theft in early times, and that Brutus used to say ⁸⁴ that a man was pronounced guilty of theft who had merely led an animal to another place than the one where he had been given the privilege of using it, as well as one who had driven it farther than he had bargained to do. Accordingly, Quintus Scaevola, in the sixteenth book of his work On the Civil Law, wrote these words: ⁸⁵

A passage about foreign varieties of food, copied from the satire of Marcus Varro entitled Peri\ )Edesma/twn, or On Edibles; and with it some verses of Euripides, in which he assails the extravagant gluttony of luxurious men.

1 MARCUS VARRO, in the satire which he entitled Peri\ )Edesma/twn, in verses written with great charm and cleverness, treats of exquisite elegance in banquets and viands. For he has set forth and described in senarii ⁸⁶ the greater number of things of that kind which such gluttons seek out on land and sea. ⁸⁷

As for the verses themselves, he who has leisure may find and read them in the book which I have mentioned. So far as my memory goes, these are the varieties and names of the foods surpassing all others, which a bottomless gullet has hunted out and which Varro has assailed in his satire, with the places where they are found: a peacock from Samos, a woodcock from Phrygia, cranes of Media, a kid from Ambracia, a young tunny from Chalcedon, a lamprey from Tartessus, codfish from Pessinus, oysters from Tarentum, cockles from Sicily, a swordfish from Rhodes ⁸⁸ pike from Cilicia, nuts from Thasos, dates from Egypt, acorns from Spain.

But this tireless gluttony, which is ever wandering about and seeking for flavours, and this eager quest of dainties from all quarters, we shall consider deserving of the greater detestation, if we recall the verses of Euripides of which the philosopher Chrysippus made frequent use, ⁸⁹ to the effect that gastronomic delicacies were contrived, not because of the necessary uses of life, but because of a spirit of luxury that disdains what is easily attainable because of the immoderate wantonness that springs from satiety.

I have thought that I ought to append the verses of Euripides: ⁹⁰

A conversation held with a grammarian, who was full of insolence and ignorance, as to the meaning of the word obnoxius; and of the origin of that word.

1 I INQUIRED at Rome of a certain grammarian who had the highest repute as a teacher, not indeed for the sake of trying or testing him, but rather from an eager desire for knowledge, what obnoxius meant and what was the origin and history of the word. And he, looking at me and ridiculing what he considered the insignificance and unfitness of the query, said: said he,

Then indeed I was angry, but thinking that I ought to dissemble, since I was dealing with a fool, I said;

But that grammarian retorted foolishly enough, as if obnoxius and obnoxie differed, not merely in form, but in their substance and meaning: But then I, amazed at the ignorance of the presumptuous fellow, answered:

But our grammarian, with open mouth as if in a dream, said:

So saying that fool made off; but in case anyone should wish to investigate, not only the origin of this word, but also its variety of meaning, in order that he may take into consideration this Plautine use also, I have quoted the following lines from the Asinaria: ⁹⁶

Now, in the definition which that grammarian gave, he seems in a word of such manifold content to have noted only one of its uses—a use, it is true, which agrees with that of Caecilius in these verses of the Chrysium: ⁹⁷

On the strict observance by the Romans of the sanctity of an oath; and also the story of the ten prisoners whom Hannibal sent to Rome under oath.

1 AN oath was regarded and kept by the Romans as something inviolable and sacred. This is evident from many of their customs and laws, and this tale which I shall tell may be regarded as no slight support of the truth of the statement. After the battle of Cannae Hannibal, commander of the Carthaginians, selected ten Roman prisoners and sent them to the city, instructing them and agreeing that, if it seemed good to the Roman people, there should be an exchange of prisoners, and that for each captive that one side should receive in excess of the other side, there should be paid a pound and a half of silver. Before they left, he compelled them to take oath that they would return to the Punic camp, if the Romans would not agree to an exchange.

The ten captives come to Rome. They deliver the message of the Punic commander in the senate. The senate refused an exchange. The parents, kinsfolk and connexions of the prisoners amid embraces declared that they had returned to their native land in accordance with the law of postliminium, ⁹⁸ and that their condition of independence was complete and inviolate; they therefore besought them not to think of returning to the enemy. Then eight of their number rejoined that they had no just right of postliminium, since they were bound by an oath, and they at once went back to Hannibal, as they had sworn to do. The other two remained in Rome, declaring that they had been released and freed from their obligation because, after leaving the enemy's camp, they had returned to it as if for some chance reason, but really with intent to deceive, and having thus kept the letter of the oath, they had come away again unsworn. This dishonourable cleverness of theirs was considered so shameful, that they were generally despised and reprobated; and later the censors punished them with all possible fines and marks of disgrace, on the ground that they had not done what they had sworn to do.

Furthermore Cornelius Nepos, in the fifth book of his Examples ⁹⁹ has recorded also that many of the senators recommended that those who refused to return should be sent to Hannibal under guard, but that the motion was defeated by a majority of dissentients. He adds that, in spite of this, those who had not returned to Hannibal were so infamous and hated that they became tired of life and committed suicide.

A story, taken from the annals, about Tiberius Gracchus, tribune of the commons and father of the Gracchi; and also an exact quotation of the decrees of the tribunes.

1 A FINE, noble and generous action of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus is recorded in the Examples. ¹⁰⁰ It runs as follows: Gaius Minucius Augurinus, tribune of the commons, imposed a fine on Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, brother of Scipio Africanus the elder, ¹⁰¹ and demanded that he should give security for its payment. Scipio Africanus appealed to the college of tribunes on behalf of his brother, asking them to defend against the violent measures of their colleague a man who had been consul and had celebrated a triumph. Having heard the case, eight ¹⁰² of the tribunes rendered a decision.

The words of their decree, which I have quoted, are taken from the records of the annals:

After this decree, Lucius Scipio refused to give security and the tribune Augurinus ordered him to be arrested and taken to prison. Thereupon Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, one of the tribunes of the commons and father of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, although he was a bitter personal enemy of Publius Scipio Africanus because of numerous disagreements on political questions, publicly made oath that he had not been reconciled with Publius Africanus nor become his friend, and then read a decree which he had written out.

That decree ran as follows:

But Valerius Antias, contradicting this record of the decrees and the testimony of the ancient annals, has said ¹⁰³ that it was after the death of Africanus that Tiberius Gracchus interposed that veto in behalf of Scipio Asiaticus; also that Scipio was not fined, but that being convicted of embezzlement of the money taken from Antiochus and refusing to give bail, was just being taken to prison when he was saved by this veto of Gracchus.

That Virgil removed Nola from one of his lines and substituted ora because the inhabitants of Nola had refused him water; and also some additional notes on the agreeable euphony of vowels.

1 I HAVE found it noted in a certain commentary that the following lines were first read and published by Virgil in this form: ¹⁰⁴ That afterwards Virgil asked the people of Nola to allow him to run their city water into his estate, which was near by, but that they refused to grant the favour which he asked; that thereupon the offended poet erased the name of their city from his poem, as if consigning it to oblivion, changing Nola to ora (region) and leaving the phrase in this form:

With the truth or falsity of this note I am not concerned; but there is no doubt that ora has a more agreeable and musical sound than Nola. For the last vowel in the first line and the first vowel in the following line being the same, the sound is prolonged by an hiatus that is at the same time melodious and pleasing. Indeed, it is possible to find in famous poets many instances of such melody, which appears to be the result of art rather than accident; but in Homer they are more frequent than in all other poets. In fact, in one single passage he introduces a number of sounds of such a nature, and with such an hiatus, in a series of successive words; for example: ¹⁰⁵ and similarly in another place: ¹⁰⁷

Catullus too, the most graceful of poets, in the following verses, ¹⁰⁸ although he might have said ebrio, and used acinum in the neuter gender, as was more usual, nevertheless through love of the melody of that Homeric hiatus he said ebria, because it blended with the following a. But those who think that Catullus wrote ebriosa or ebrioso—for that incorrect reading is also found—have unquestionably happened upon editions copied from corrupt texts.

Why it is that the phrases quoad vivet and quoad morietur indicate the very same time, although based upon opposite things.

1 WHEN the expressions quoad vivet, or and quoad morietur, or are used, two opposite things really seem to be said, but the two expressions indicate one and the same time. Also when we say and although and are opposites, yet one and the same idea is expressed by both phrases. For when two periods of time are opposed to each other and yet are so connected that the end of one coincides with the beginning of the other, it makes no difference whether the exact point of their meeting is designated by the end of the first period or the beginning of the second.

On the custom of the censors of taking their horse from corpulent and excessively fat knights; and the question whether such action also involved degradation or left them their rank as knights.

1 THE censors used to take his horse from a man who was too fat and corpulent, evidently because they thought that so heavy a person was unfit to perform the duties of a knight. For this was not a punishment, as some think, but the knight was relieved of duty without loss of rank. Yet Cato, in the speech which he wrote On Neglecting Sacrifice, ¹¹⁰ makes such an occurrence a somewhat serious charge, thus apparently indicating that it was attended with disgrace. If you understand that to have been the case, you must certainly assume that it was because a man was not looked upon as wholly free from the reproach of slothfulness, if his body had bulked and swollen to such unwieldy dimensions.