Noctes Atticae

Gellius, Aulus

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

That o(moiote/leuta, o(moio/ptwta, and other devices of the kind which are considered ornaments of style, are silly and uerile, is indicated, among other places, in some verses of Lucilius.

LUCILIUS in the fifth book of his Satires shows, and indeed most wittily, how silly, useless, and puerile are o(moiote/leuta, or

words of the same ending,

i)sokata/lhkta, or

words of the same sound,

pa/risa, or

words exactly balanced,

o(moio/ptwta, or

words of the same case,

and other niceties of that kind which those foolish pedants who wish to appear to be followers of Isocrates use in their compositions without moderation or taste. For having complained to a friend because he did not come to see him when he was ill, he adds these merry words: [*](vv. 181 ff., Marx.)

Although you do not ask me how I am,
I'll tell you, since with those I still abide
Who of all mortals are the lesser part [*](The poet has been ill, but still lives; cf. abiit ad plures, Petron. 42.) . . .
You are the slacker friend [*](Marx suggests Tu cessator malus, talis amicus as the sense of the lacuna.) who'd wish him dead
Whom you'd not visit though it was your debit.
But if you chide this
visit
joined with
debit
('Twas writ by chance), if you detest it all,
This silly, puerile, Isocratic [*](The homoioteleuta of Isocrates are mentioned, among others, by Cicero, Orator, 38.) stuff,
I'll waste no time on you, [*](That is, in deleting the jingle.) since such you are. [*](Such a friend as he has described.)

v3.p.327

The meaning of the word insecenda in Marcus Cato; and that insecenda ought to be read rather than insequenda, which many prefer.

IN an old book, containing the speech of Marcus Cato On Ptolemy against Thermus, were these words: [*](p. 42. 6, Jordan.)

But if he did everything craftily, everything for the sake of avarice and pelf, such abominable crimes as we have never heard of or read of, he ought to suffer punishment for his acts. . .

The question was raised what insecenda meant. Of those who were present at the time there was one who was a dabbler in literature and another who was versed in it; that is to say, one was teaching the subject, the other was learned in it. [*](On the distinction between litterator and litteratus see Suet. Gram. iv. (ii. p. 401 f. L.C.L.).) These two disagreed with each other, the grammarian maintaining that insequenda ought to be written:

For,

said he,

insequenda should be written, not insecenda, since insequens means . . . and inseque has come down to us in the sense of 'proceed to say,' and accordingly insequor was written by Ennius in the following verses: [*](Ann. 326 f., Vahlen2, who reads insece.)
Proceed, O Muse, when Rome with Philip warred,
To tell the valorous deeds our leaders wrought.

But the other, more learned, man declared that there was no mistake, but that it was written correctly and properly, and that we ought to trust Velius Longus, a man not without learning, who

v3.p.329

wrote in the commentary which he composed On the Use of Archaic Terms, that inseque should not be read in Ennius, but insece; and that therefore the early writers called what we term narrationes, or

tales,

insectiones; that Varro also explained this verse from the Menaechmi of Plautus: [*](v. 1047.)

Nihilo minus esse videtur sectius quam somnia,

as follows:

they seem to me no more worth telling than if they were dreams.

Such was their discussion.

I think that both Marcus Cato and Quintus Ennius wrote insecenda and insece without u. For in the library at Patrae [*](A city of Achaia, near the entrance to the Corinthian Gulf, modern Patras.) I found a manuscript of Livius Andronicus of undoubted antiquity, entitled )Odu/sseia, in which the first line contained this word without the letter u: [*](Frag. 1, Bahrens.)

Tell me (insece), O Muse, about the crafty man,

translated from this line of Homer: [*](Odyss. i. 1.)

)/Andra moi e)/nnepe, Mou=sa, polu/tropon.

On that point then I trust a book of great age and authority. For the fact that the line of Plautus has sectius quam somnia lends no weight to the opposite opinion. However, even if the men of old did say insece and not inseque, I suppose because it was lighter and smoother, yet the two words seem to have the same meaning. For sequo and sequor and likewise secta and sectio differ in the manner of their use, but anyone who examines them closely will find that their derivation and meaning are the same.

v3.p.331

The teachers also and interpreters of Greek words think that in

a)/ndra moi e)/nnepe, Mou=sa,[*](Odyss. i. 1.)

and

e)/spete nu=n moi, Mou=sai,[*](Iliad ii. 484, etc.)

e)/nnepe, and e)/spete are expressed by the Latin word inseque; for they say that in one word the n is doubled, in the other changed to s. And they also say that the word e)/ph, which means

words

verses,

can he derived only a)po\ tou= e(/pesqai kai\ tou= ei)pei=n, that is from

follow

and

say.

Therefore for the same reason our forefathers called narrations and discourses insectiones.

That those persons are in error who think that in testing for fever the pulse of the veins is felt, and not that of the arteries.

IN the midst of the summer's heat I had withdrawn to the country house of Herodes, a man of senatorial rank, at a place in the territory of Attica which is called Cephisia, abounding in clear waters and groves. There I was confined to my bed by an attack of diarrhoea, accompanied by a high fever. When the philosopher Calvisius Taurus, and some others who were disciples of his, had come there from Athens to visit me, the physician who had been found there and who was sitting by me at the time, began to tell Taurus what discomfort I suffered and with what variations and intervals the fever came and went. Then in the course of the conversation remarking that I was now getting better, he said to Taurus:

You too may satisfy yourself of this, e)a\n
v3.p.333
a(/yh| au)tou= th=s flebo/s, which in our language certainly leans: si attigeris venam illius; that is, 'if you will put your finger on his vein.'

The learned men who accompanied Taurus were shocked by this careless language in calling an artery a vein, and looking on him as a physician of little value, showed their opinion by their murmurs and expression. Whereupon Taurus, very mildly, as was his way, said:

We feel sure, my good sir, that you are not unaware of the difference between veins and arteries; that the veins have no power of motion and are examined only for the purpose of drawing off blood, but that the arteries by their motion and pulsation show the condition and degree of fever. But, as I see, you spoke rather in common parlance than through ignorance; for I have heard others, as well as you, erroneously use the term 'vein' for 'artery.' Let us then find that you are more skilled in curing diseases than in the use of language, and with the favour of the gods restore this man to us by your art, sound and well, as soon as possible.

Afterwards when I recalled this criticism of the physician, I thought that it was shameful, not only for a physician, but for all cultivated and liberally educated men, not to know even such facts pertaining to the knowledge of our bodies as are not deep and recondite, but which nature, for the purpose of maintaining our health, has allowed to be evident and obvious. Therefore I devoted such spare time as I had to dipping into those books on the art of medicine which I thought were suited to instruct me, and from them I seem to have learned, not only many other things which have to do with human experience, but also concerning veins and arteries what I

v3.p.335

may express as follows: A

vein

is a receptacle, or a)ggei=on, as the physicians call it, for blood mingled and combined with vital breath, in which the blood predominates and the breath is less. An

artery

is a receptacle for the vital breath mingled and combined with blood, in which there is more breath and less blood. Sfugmo/s (pulsation) is the natural and involuntary expansion and contraction in the heart and in the artery. But the ancient Greek physicians defined it thus:

An involuntary dilation or contraction of the pulse and of the heart.

Words from the poems of Furius of Antium which were ignorantly criticised by Caesellius Vindex; a quotation of the very verses which include the words in question.

I CERTAINLY do not agree with Caesellius Vindex, the grammarian, though in my opinion he is by no means without learning. But yet this was a hasty and ignorant statement of his, that the ancient poet Furius of Antium had degraded the Latin language by forming words of a kind which to me did not seem inconsistent with a poet's license nor to be vulgar or unpleasant to speak and utter, as are some others which have been harshly and tastelessly fashioned by distinguished poets.

The expressions of Furius which Caesellius censures are these: that he uses lutescere of earth which has turned into mud, noctescere of darkness that has arisen like that of night, virescere of recovering former strength, describes the wind curling the blue sea and making it shine by purpurat, and uses opulescere for becoming rich.

v3.p.337

I have added the very lines from the poems of Furius in which these words occur: [*](Frag. 1–6, Bährens.)

Blood floods the world, the deep earth turns to mud (lutescit),
All becomes night (noctescunt) with darkness of black gloom.
Their courage grows, valour 's renewed (virescit) by wounds.
The fleet, like sea-bird, lightly skims the deep,
The East Wind's breath empurples (purpurat) the green surge.
That on their native plains they may grow rich (opulescere).

That our forefathers had the custom of changing passive verbs and turning them into active.

THIS also used to be regarded as a kind of elegance in composition, to use active verbs in place of those which had a passive form and then in turn to substitute the former for the latter. Thus Juventius in a comedy says: [*](5, Ribbeck3.)

I care not if my cloak resplendent be, or spot. [*](The line is corrupt, but with Seyffert's emendation fairly clear.)

Is not this far more graceful and pleasing than if he said maculetur,

if it be spotted

? Plautus also says in a similar way: [*](Frag. fab. inc. xlv, Götz.)

What's wrong?—This cloak doth wrinkle (rugat), I'm ill clad.

v3.p.339

Also Plautus uses pulveret, not of making dusty, but of being dusty: [*](Id. xlvi.)

Go, sprinkle, slave; I'd have this entrance neat.
My Venus comes, don't let the place show dust (pulveret).

In the Asinaria he uses contemples for contempleris: [*](v. 539.) Observe (contemples) my head, if you'd your interest heed. Gnaeus Gellius in his Annals [*](Frag. 30, Peter2.) writes:

After the storm quieted (sedavit) Adherbal sacrificed a bull

; Marcus Cato in his Origins: [*](Id. 20.)

Many strangers came to that same place from the country. Therefore their wealth waxed (auxit).

Varro in the books which he wrote On Latin Diction, dedicated to Marcellus, said: [*](Frag. 85, G. and S.)

In the former word the accents that were grave remain so. The others change,

where mutant,

change,

is a very elegant expression for mutantur,

are changed.

[*](Elegant because it balances manent.) The same expression too seems to be used by Varro in the seventh book of his Divine Antiquities: [*](Frag. 1, p. cxlv, Merkel.)

What a difference (quid mutet) there is between princesses may be seen in Antigone and Tullia.

But passive verbs instead of active are found in the writings of almost all the men of the olden time. A few of these, which I recall now, are the following: muneror te, or

I reward you,

for munero; significor, or

I indicate,

for significo; assentior, or

I assent,

for assentio; sacrificor, or

I sacrifice,

for sacrifice; faeneror, or

I practise usury,

for faenero; pigneror, or

I take as a pledge,

for pignero, and many others of the same kind, which will be noted as I meet them in reading.

v3.p.341

The retort which the philosopher Diogenes made, when he was challenged by a logician with an impudent sophistry.

AT Athens during the Saturnalia we engaged in a pleasant and improving diversion of this kind: when a number of us who were interested in the same study had met at the time of the bath, we discussed the catch questions which are called

sophisms,

and each one of us cast them before the company in his turn, like knuckle-bones or dice. The prize for solving a problem, or the penalty for failing to understand it, was a single sestertius. From the money thus collected, as if it had been won at dice, a little dinner was provided for all of us who had taken part in the game. Now the sophisms were somewhat as follows, although they cannot be expressed very elegantly in Latin, or even without clumsiness:

What snow is, that hail is not; but snow is white, therefore hail is not white.

A somewhat similar one is this:

What man is, that a horse is not; man is an animal, therefore a horse is not an animal.

The one who was called upon by the throw of the dice to solve and refute the sophistry was expected to tell in what part of the proposition and in what word the fallacy consisted, and what ought not to be granted and conceded; if he did not succeed, he was fined one sestertius. The fine contributed to the dinner.

I must tell you how wittily Diogenes paid back a sophism of that kind which I have mentioned above, proposed with insulting intent by a logician of the Platonic school. For when the logician had

v3.p.343

asked:

You are not what I am, are you?

and Diogenes had admitted it, he added:

But I am a man.

And when Diogenes had assented to that also and the logician had concluded:

Then you are not a man,

Diogenes retorted:

That is a lie, but if you want it to be true, begin your proposition with me.

What the number is which is called hemiolios and what epitritos; and that our countrymen have not rashly ventured to translate those words into Latin.

CERTAIN numerical figures which the Greeks call by definite terms have no corresponding names in Latin. But those who have written in Latin about numbers have used the Greek expressions and have hesitated to make up Latin equivalents, since that would be absurd. For what name could one give to a number which is said to be hemiolios or epitritos? But hemiolios is a number which contains in itself some other whole number and its half, as three compared with two, fifteen with ten, thirty with twenty; epitritos is a number which contains another whole number and its third part, as four compared with three, twelve with nine, forty with thirty. It does not seem out of place to note and to remember these numerical terms; for unless they are understood, some of the most subtle calculations recorded in the writings of the philosophers cannot be comprehended.

v3.p.345

That Marcus Varro in heroic verse noted a matter demanding very minute and careful observation.

IN the long lines called hexameters, and likewise in senarii, [*](See note on iv. 5. 6 (vol. i, p. 328).) students of metric have observed that the first two feet, and also the last two, may consist each of a single part of speech, but that those between may not, but are always formed of words which are either divided, or combined and run together. [*](That is, the first two feet and the last two may consist of undivided words, but the third and fourth are formed either of words which are divided, or of parts of different words. But that this rule is not invariable was shown by Muretus, Variae Lectiones, xi. 6.) Varro in his book On the Arts [*](Fr. 116, G. and S.) wrote that he had observed in hexameter verse that the fifth half-foot always ends a word, [*](That is, there is a caesura in the fifth foot, according to Varro.) and that the first five half-feet are of equally great importance in making a verse with the following seven; and he argues that this happens in accordance with a certain geometrical ratio.

v3.p.349

The reply of a certain philosopher, when he was asked why he turned pale in a storm at sea.

WE were sailing from Cassiopa [*](A town in the north-eastern part of Corcyra, also called Cassiope.) to Brundisium over the Ionian sea, violent, vast and storm-tossed. During almost the whole of the night which followed our first day a fierce side-wind blew, which had filled our ship with water. Then afterwards, while we were all still lamenting, and working hard at the pumps, day at last dawned. But there was no less danger and no slackening of the violence of the wind; on the contrary, more frequent whirlwinds, a black sky, masses of fog, and a kind of fearful cloud-forms, which they called typhones, [*](Typhon, according to Hesiod, was a son of Typhoeus (see note on xvii. 10. 9) and father of the winds; but by later poets he was identified with Typhos or Typhoeus. His name was given to the violent storms called typhoons.) or

typhoons,

seemed to hang over and threaten us, ready to overwhelm the ship.

In our company was an eminent philosopher of the Stoic sect, whom I had known at Athens as a man of no slight importance, holding the young men who were his pupils under very good control. In the midst of the great dangers of that time and that tumult of sea and sky I looked for him, desiring to know in what state of mind he was and whether he was unterrified and courageous. And then I beheld

v3.p.351

the man frightened and ghastly pale, not indeed uttering any lamentations, as all the rest were doing, nor any outcries of that kind, but in his loss of colour and distracted expression not differing much from the others. But when the sky cleared, the sea grew calm, and the heat of danger cooled, then the Stoic was approached by a rich Greek from Asia, a man of elegant apparel, as we saw, and with an abundance of baggage and many attendants, while he himself showed signs of a luxurious person and disposition. This man, in a bantering tone, said:

What does this mean, Sir philosopher, that when we were in danger you were afraid and turned pale, while I neither feared nor changed colour?

And the philosopher, after hesitating for a moment about the propriety of answering him, said:

If in such a terrible storm I did show a little fear, you are not worthy to be told the reason for it. But, if you please, the famous Aristippus, the pupil of Socrates, shall answer for me, [*](Frag. Phil. Graec. ii. 407. 16.) who on being asked on a similar occasion by a man much like you why he feared, though a philosopher, while his questioner on the contrary had no fear, replied that they had not the same motives, for his questioner need not be very anxious about the life of a worthless coxcomb, but he himself feared for the life of an Aristippus.

With these words then the Stoic rid himself of the rich Asiatic. But later, when we were approaching Brundisium and sea and sky were calm, I asked him what the reason for his fear was, which he had refused to reveal to the man who had improperly addressed him. And he quietly and courteously replied:

Since you are desirous of knowing, hear
v3.p.353
what our forefathers, the founders of the Stoic sect, thought about that brief but inevitable and natural fear, or rather,

said he,

read it, for if you read it, you will be the more ready to believe it and you will remember it better.

Thereupon before my eyes he drew from his little bag the fifth book of the Discourses of the philosopher Epictetus, which, as arranged by Arrian, undoubtedly agree with the writings of Zeno and Chrysippus.

In that book I read this statement, which of course was written in Greek [*](Frag. 9, p. 408, Schenkl., L.C.L. II. 448 ff.) :

The mental visions, which the philosophers call fantasi/ai or 'phantasies,' by which the mind of man on the very first appearance of an object is impelled to the perception of the object, are neither voluntary nor controlled by the will, but through a certain power of their own they force their recognition upon men; but the expressions of assent, which they call sugkataqe/seis, by which these visions are recognized, are voluntary and subject to man's will. Therefore when some terrifying sound, either from heaven or from a falling building or as a sudden announcement of some danger, or anything else of that kind occurs, even the mind of a wise man must necessarily be disturbed, must shrink and feel alarm, not from a preconceived idea of any danger, but from certain swift and unexpected attacks which forestall the power of the mind and of reason. Presently, however, the wise man does not approve ' such phantasies,' that is to say, such terrifying mental visions (to quote the Greek, 'he does not consent to them nor confirm them'), but he rejects and scorns them, nor does he see in them anything that ought to excite fear. And they say that there is this difference between
v3.p.355
the mind of a foolish man and that of a wise man, that the foolish man thinks that such ' visions ' are in fact as dreadful and terrifying as they appear at the original impact of them on his mind, and by his assent he approves of such ideas as if they were rightly to be feared, and 'confirms' them; for prosepidoca/zei is the word which the Stoics use in their discourses on the subject. But the wise man, after being affected for a short time and slightly in his colour and expression, 'does not assent,' but retains the steadfastness and strength of the opinion which he has always had about visions of this kind, namely that they are in no wise to be feared but excite terror by a false appearance and vain alarms.

That these were the opinions and utterances of Epictetus the philosopher in accordance with the beliefs of the Stoics I read in that book which I have mentioned, and I thought that they ought to be recorded for this reason, that when things of the kind which I have named chance to occur, we may not think that to fear for a time and, as it were, turn white is the mark of a foolish and weak man, but in that brief but natural impulse we yield rather to human weakness than because we believe that those things are what they seem.

That of the five senses of the body two in particular we share with beasts; and that pleasure which comes from hearing, sight and smell is base and reprehensible, but that which comes from taste and touch is the most shameful of all, since the last two are felt also by beasts, the others only by mankind.

MEN have five senses, which the Greeks call ai)sqh/seis, by which mental or bodily pleasure is

v3.p.357

evidently sought: taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing. From all of these the enjoyment of any immoderate pleasure is regarded as base and reprehensible. But excessive pleasure from taste or touch in the opinion of philosophers is the basest of all things, and those in particular who have given themselves up to those two animal pleasures the Greeks call by terms of the gravest reproach either a)kratei=s or a)ko/lastoi; we call them either incontinences (incontinent) or intemperantes (intemperate); for if you should desire to have a closer translation of a)ko/lastoi, the equivalent will be too unusual. But those two pleasures of taste and touch, namely, gluttony and venery, are the only ones common to man with the lower animals, and therefore whoever is enslaved to these beastly pleasures is regarded as in the number of brutes and beasts; the remaining pleasures proceeding from the other three senses seem to be peculiar to man alone.

I have added the words of Aristotle the philosopher on this subject, [*](Problemata, xxviii. 7.) in order that the authority of that renowned and illustrious man might turn us from such shameful pleasures:

Why are they called incontinent who indulge to excess in the pleasures of taste and touch? For both those who are immoderate in venery and those who are immoderate in the enjoyment of food are such. But of the latter, some find this gratification in the tongue and others in the throat, and it was for that reason that Philoxenos prayed to have the throat of a crane. Is it because the pleasures derived from such sources are common to us with the other animals? And being thus common they are the most dishonourable and more than the other pleasures, or alone, objects of
v3.p.359
reproach, so that we censure a man who is addicted to them and call him incontinent and incorrigible because he is enslaved to the meanest of pleasures. Now, there being five senses, the other animals are gratified by the two which have been mentioned only, but from the others they either enjoy no pleasure at all, or they merely experience it incidentally.

Who, then, having any human modesty, would take pleasure in those two delights of venery and gluttony, which are common to man with the hog and the ass? Socrates indeed used to say that many men wish to live in order to eat and drink, but that he ate and drank in order to live. Hippocrates, moreover, a man of divine wisdom, believed of venery that it was a part of the horrible disease which our countrymen call comitialis, or

the election disease

; [*](See note on xvi. 4. 4.) for these are his very words as they have come down to us:

that coition is a brief epilepsy.

That it is more disgraceful to be praised coldly than to be accused bitterly.

FAVORINUS the philosopher used to say that it was more shameful to be praised faintly and coldly than to be censured violently and severely:

For,

said he,

the man who reviles and censures you is regarded as unjust and hostile towards you in proportion to the bitterness of his invective, and therefore he is usually not believed. But one who praises grudgingly and faintly seems to lack a theme; he is regarded as the friend of a man whom he would like to praise but as unable to find anything in him which he can justly commend.

v3.p.361