Noctes Atticae

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

BOTH Plutarch [*](Sympos. vii. 1.) and certain other learned men have written that Plato was criticized by the famous physician Erasistratus, [*](p. 194, Fuchs.) because he said [*](Tim. 44, p. 91, A; 31, p. 70, c.) that drink went to the lungs and having sufficiently moistened them, flowed through them, since they are somewhat porous, and from there passed into the bladder. They declared that the originator of that error was Alcaeus, who wrote [*](Frag. 39, Bergk4.) in his poems:

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

but that Erasistratus himself declared [*](pp. 184 ff. and 194, Fuchs.) that there were two little canals, so to speak, or pipes, and that they extended downward from the throat; that through one of these all food and drink passed and went into the stomach, and from there were carried into the belly, which the Greeks call h( ka/tw koili/a. That there it is reduced and digested and then the drier excrement passes into the bowels, which the Greeks call ko/lon, [*](The three places referred to are the stomach, the small intestine and the large intestine. Neither the Greek nor the Latin terms are always used consistently.) and the moisture through the kidneys into the bladder. But through the other tube, which the Greeks call the traxei=a a)rthri/a, or

rough windpipe,

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

epiglottis,

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

the rough windpipe,

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

These are the views of the physician Erasistratus, as opposed to Plato. But Plutarch, in his Symposiacs, [*](vii. 1. 3.) says that the originator of Plato's opinion was Hippocrates, and that the same opinion was held by Philistion of Locris [*](Frag. 7, p. 112, Wellmann.) and Dioxippus the pupil of Hippocrates, famous physicians of the olden time; also that the epiglottis, of which Erasistratus spoke, was not placed where it is to prevent anything that we drank from flowing into the windpipe; for fluid seems necessary and serviceable for refreshing and moistening the lungs; but it was placed there as a kind of controller and arbiter, to exclude or admit whatever was necessary for the health of the body; to keep away all foods from the windpipe and turn them to the stomach, but to divide what is drunk between the stomach and the lungs. And that part which ought to be admitted into the lungs through the windpipe the epiglottis does not let through rapidly and all at once, but when it has been checked and held back, as it were by a kind

of dam, it allows it to pass gradually and little by little, and turns aside all the remainder into the other tube leading to the stomach.

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

unexpected,

argued by Favorinus for the sake of practice.

NOT only the sophists of old, but the philosophers as well, took up ignoble subjects, [*](See Pease, Things without Honor, Class. Phil. xxi. pp. 27 ff. An example is Erasmus' Praise of Folly.) or if you prefer, unexpected ones, a)/docoi u(poqe/seis, as the Greeks call them; and our friend Favorinus took a great deal of pleasure in descending to such subjects, [*](Frag. 65, Marres.) either thinking them suitable for stimulating his thoughts or exercising his cleverness or overcoming difficulties by practice. For example, when he attempted to praise Thersites and pronounced a eulogy upon the quartan ague, [*](See note 1, p. 252.) he said many clever and ingenious things on both topics, which he has left written in his works.

But in his eulogy of fever he even produced Plato as a witness, declaring that the philosopher wrote [*](Tim. 10, p. 86 A.) that one who after suffering from quartan ague got well and recovered his full strength, would afterwards enjoy surer and more constant health. And in that same eulogy he made this quip, which, of a truth, is not ungraceful:

The following lines,

he says,

have met with the approval of many generations of men: [*](Hesiod, Works and Days, 825.)

1. Sometimes a day is like a stepmother,
2. And sometimes like a mother.

v3.p.253

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

he says,

that in human affairs things are in turn, now good, now bad, how much more fortunate is this fever which has an interval of two days, [*](Owing to the Roman method of inclusive reckoning, the quartan ague, occurring on every fourth day, had an interval of two days; see Class Phil. viii. 1 ff.) since it has only one stepmother, but two mothers!

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

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

Why don't you come?

quin legis?

Why don't you read?

or quin fugis?

Why don't you flee?

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

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

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

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

In the last of these sentences the meaning is not very different from that which is found in the third book of Marcus Cato's Origins: [*](Frag. 73, Peter2.)

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

[*](This rather difficult example I do not find in our grammars.) Also in the second book of the Origins Marcus Cato has used this particle in a very similar manner: [*](Id. 36.)

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

I have noted, besides, that Quadrigarius in the eighth book of his Annals has used that particle in a very obscure manner. I quote his exact words: [*](Frag. 70, Peter2.)

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

[*](Quin = why not; see note 4 below.) Also in the sixth book of the same writer's Annals are these words: [*](Id. 58.)

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

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

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

; [*](This translation, which Gellius rightly rejects, neglects the negative in quin. Both examples from Quadrigarius might be explained as dubitative questions in the paratactic form; e.g. Why should not a triumph be granted him?) and also in the other passage,

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

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

Only one who has learned that this particle of which we are speaking is a compound and formed of two parts, and that it does not merely have the function of a connective but has a definite meaning of its own, [*](quin is formed from qui, the ablative of the interrogative and relative stem qui-, and -ne, not. It is used in both dependent and independent sentences. See Lane, Lat. Gr.2 1980 ff.) will ever understand its variations in meaning. But because an explanation of these would require a long dissertation, he who has leisure may find it in the Commentaries of Publius Nigidius which he entitled Grammatical. [*](Frag. 52, Swoboda.)