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).

The story of king Tarquin the Proud and the Sibylline Books.

IN ancient annals we find this tradition about the Sibylline Books. An old woman, a perfect stranger, came to king Tarquin the Proud, bringing nine books; she declared that they were oracles of the gods and that she wished to sell them. Tarquin inquired the price; the woman demanded an

v1.p.91

immense and exorbitant sum: the king laughed her to scorn, believing her to be in her dotage. Then she placed a lighted brazier before him, burned three of the books to ashes, and asked whether he would buy the remaining six at the same price. But at this Tarquin laughed all the more and said that there was now no doubt that the old woman was crazy. Upon that the woman at once burned up three more books and again calmly made the same request, that he would buy the remaining three at the original figure. Tarquin now became serious and more thoughtful, and realising that such persistence and confidence were not to be treated lightly, he bought the three books that were left at as high a price as had been asked for all nine. Now it is a fact that after then leaving Tarquin, that woman was never seen again anywhere. The three books were deposited in a shrine [*](In the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol. Augustus transferred them to the temple of Apollo on the Palatine; see Suet. Aug. xxxi. 1.) and called

Sibylline

; [*](Because the old woman was regarded as a Sibyl. Although the books came to Tarquin by way of Cumae, the origin of the Sibylline books was probably Asia Minor. There were several Sibyls (Varro enumerates ten), of whom the Erythraean, from whom the books apparently came, was the most important; see Marquardt, Stautsverew. 1112. 350 ff.) to them the Fifteen [*](See note 4, page 61.) resort whenever tile immortal gods are to be consulted as to the welfare of the State.

On what the geometers call e)pi/pedos, stereo/s, ku/bos and grammh/, with the Latin equivalents for all these terms.

OF the figures which the geometers call sxh/mata there are two kinds,

plane

and

solid.

These the Greeks themselves call respectively e)pi/pedos and stereo/s. A

plane

figure is one that has all its lines in two dimensions only, breadth and length; for

v1.p.93

example, triangles and squares, which are drawn on a flat surface without height. We have a

solid

figure, when its several lines do not produce merely length and breadth in a plane, but are raised so as to produce height also; such are in general the triangular columns which they call

pyramids,

or those which are bounded on all sides by squares, such as the Greeks call ku/boi, [*](See Euclid, Elementa I, Definitions, 20, cubs autem est aequaliter aequalis aequaliter, sive qui tribus aequalibus numeris comprehenditur.) and we quadrantalia. For the ku/bos is a figure which is square on all its sides,

like the dice,

says Marcus Varro, [*](Fr. p. 350, Bipont.)

with which we play on a gaming-board, for which reason the dice themselves are called ku/boi

Similarly in numbers too the term ku/bos is used, when every factor [*](Euclid, l. c., 17, "ubi autem tres numeri inter se multiplicantes numerum aliquem efficiunt, numerus inde ortus soliduss" (= ku/bos) est, latera autem eius numeri inter se multiplicantes.) consisting of the same number is equally resolved into the cube number itself, [*](That is, is an equal factor in the cube number.) as is the case when three is taken three times and the resulting number itself is then trebled.

Pythagoras declared that the cube of the number three controls the course of the moon, since the moon passes through its orbit in twenty-seven days, and the ternio, or

triad,

which the Greeks call tria/s, when cubed makes twenty-seven.

Furthermore, our geometers apply the term linea, or

line,

to what the Greeks call grammh/. This is defined by Marcus Varro as follows: [*](Fr. p. 337, Bipont.)

A line,

says he,

is length without breadth or height.

But Euclid says more tersely, omitting

height

: [*](l.c. 2, grammh\ de\ mh=kos a)plate/s.)

A line is mh=kos a)plate/s, or 'breadthless length.'

)Aplate/s cannot be expressed in Latin by a single word, unless you should venture to coin the term inlatabile.

v1.p.95

The positive assertion of Julius Hyginus that he had read a manuscript of Virgil from the poet's own household, in which there was written et ora tristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror and not the usual reading, sensu torquebit amaro.

NEARLY everyone reads these lines from the Georgics of Virgi [*](ii. 246 f.) in this way:

At sapor indicium faciet manifestus et ora
Tristia temptantum sensu torquebit amaro. [*](But the taste will tell its tale full plainly, and with its bitter flavour will distort the testers' poured mouths.)

Hyginus, however, on my word no obscure grammarian, in the Commentaries [*](Fr. 4, p. 528, Fun.) which he wrote on Virgil, declares and insists that it was not this that Virgil left, but what he himself found in a copy which had come from the home and family of the poet:

et ora
Tristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror, [*](But the bitterness of the sensation will distort the testers' soured mouths.)

and this reading has commended itself, not to Hyginus alone, but also to some other learned men, because it seems absurd to say

the taste will distort with its bitter sensation.

Since,

they say,

taste itself is a sensation, it cannot have another sensation in itself, but it is exactly as if one should say, 'the sensation will distort with a bitter sensation.'

Moreover, when I had read Hyginus' note to Favorinus, and the strangeness and harshness of the phrase

sensu torquebit amaro

at once had displeased him,

v1.p.97

he said with a laugh:

I am ready to swear by Jupiter and the stone, [*](This much discussed oath is best taken as equivalent to per lovem et lapidem; see Fowler, Roman Festivals, p. 231; Nettleship, Essays, p. 35, and others. The locus classicus on the process is Polybius, iii. 25; of. Plutarch, Sulla, 10.) which is considered the most sacred of oaths, that Virgil never wrote that, but I believe that Hyginus is right. For Virgil was not the first to coin that word arbitrarily, but he found it in the poems of Lucretius and made use of it, not disdaining to follow the authority of a poet who excelled in talent and power of expression.

The passage, from the fourth book of Lucretius, reads as follows: [*](iv. 221 f.)

dilutaque contra
Cum tuimur misceri absinthia, tangit amaror. [*](When we look on at the mixing of a decoction of wormwood in our presence, its bitterness affects us.)

And in fact we see that Virgil imitated, not only single words of Lucretius, but often almost whole lines and passages.

Whether it is correct Latin for counsel for the defence to say superesse se,

that he is appearing for

those whom he is defending; and the proper meaning of superesse.

AN incorrect and improper meaning of a word has been established by long usage, in that we use the expression hic illi superest when we wish to say that anyone appears as another's advocate and pleads his cause. And this is not merely the language of the streets and of the common people, but is used in the forum, the comitium and the courts. Those, however, who have spoken language undefiled have

v1.p.99

for the most part used superesse in the sense of

to overflow, be superfluous, or exceed the required amount.

Thus Marcus Varro, in the satire entitled

You know not what evening may bring,

[*](Fr. 340, Bücheler.) uses superfuisse in the sense of having exceeded the amount proper for the occasion. These are his words:

Not everything should be read at a dinner party, but preferably such works as are at the same time improving and diverting, so that this feature of the entertainment also may seem not to have been neglected, rather than overdone.

I remember happening to be present in the court of a praetor who was a man of learning, and that on that occasion an advocate of some repute pleaded in such fashion that he wandered from the subject and did not touch upon the point at issue. Thereupon the praetor said to the man whose case was before him:

You have no counsel.

And when the pleader protested, saying

I am present (supersum) for the honourable gentleman,

the praetor wittily retorted:

You surely present too much, but you do not represent your client.

[*](It is difficult to reproduce the word-play on superesse, be present for and be superfluous. There is a pun also on adesse, be present and help, assist.)

Marcus Cicero, too, in his book entitled On Reducing the Civil Law to a System [*](Fr. 2, p. 980, Orelli2; Fr. 1, Huschke, and Bremer.) wrote these words:

Indeed Quintus Aelius Tubero did not fall short of his predecessors in knowledge of the law, in learning he even outstripped them.

In this passage superfuit seems to mean

he went beyond, surpassed and excelled his predecessors in his learning, which, however, was excessive and overabundant

; [*](It was superfluous in being more than he needed for the practice of his profession.) for Tubero was thoroughly versed in Stoic dialectics.

v1.p.101

Cicero's use of the word in the second book [*](An error of Gellius; the reference is iii. 32.) of the Republic also deserves attention. This is the passage in question:

I should not object, Laelius, if I did not think that these friends wished, and if I myself did not desire, that you should take some part in this discussion of ours, especially since you yourself said yesterday that you would give us even more than enough (te superfuturum). But that indeed is impossible: we all ask you not to give us less than enough (ne desis).

Now Julius Paulus, the most learned man within my recollection, used to say witll keenness and understanding that superesse and its Greek equivalent had more than one meaning: for he declared that the Greeks used perisso/n both ways, either of what was superfluous and unnecessary or of what was too abundant, overflowing and excessive; that in the same way our earlier writers also employed superesse sometimes of what was superfluous, idle and not wholly necessary, a sense which we have just cited from Varro, and sometimes, as in Cicero, of that which indeed surpassed other things in copiousness and plentifulness, yet was immoderate and too extensive, and gushed forth more abundantly than was sufficient. Therefore one who says superesse se with reference to a man whom he is defending tries to convey none of these meanings, but uses superesse in a sense that is unknown and not in use. And he will not be able to appeal even to the authority of Virgil, who in his Georgics wrote as follows: [*](iii. 10.)

I will be first to bear, so but my life still last (supersit),
Home to my native land . . .

v1.p.103

For in this place Virgil seems to have used that word somewhat irregularly in giving supersit the sense of

be present for a longer or more extended period,

but on the contrary his use of the word in the following line is more nearly the accepted one: [*](iii. 126.)

They cut him tender grass,
Give corn and much fresh water, that his strength
Be more than equal to (superesse) the pleasing toil.

for here superesse means to be more than equal to the task and not to be crushed by it.

I also used to raise the question whether the ancients used superesse in the sense of

to be left and be lacking for the completion of an act.

For to express that idea Sallust says, not superesse, but superare. These are his words in the Jugurtha: [*](lxx. 2.)

This man was in the habit of exercising a command independently of the king, and of attending to all business which had been left undone (superaverant) by Jugurtha when he was weary or engaged in more important affairs.

But we find in the third book of Ennius' Annals: [*](v. 158, Vahlen2.)

Then he declares one task's left over (super esse) for him,

that is, is left and remains undone; but there superesse must be divided and read as if it were not one part of speech, but two, as in fact it is. Cicero, however, in his second Oration against Antony [*](Phil. ii. 71, cum praescrtim belli pars tanta restaret.) expresses

what is left

by restare, not by superesse.

Besides these uses we find superesse with the meaning

survive.

For it is so employed in the book of letters of Marcus Cicero to Lucius Plancus, [*](The tenth book of the Epist. ad Fam. contains numerous letters of Cicero to Plancus and of Plancus to Cicero.) as

v1.p.105

well as in a letter of Marcus Asinius Pollio to Cicero, [*](Ad Fam. x. 33.5. It should be Gaius Asinius Pollio.) as follows:

For I wish neither to fail the commonwealth nor to survive it (superesse),

meaning that if the commonwealth should be destroyed and perish, he does not wish to live. Again in the Asinaria of Plautus that same force is still more evident in these, the first verses of that comedy: [*](v. 16.)

As you would hope to have your only son
Survive (superesse) you and be ever sound and hale.

Thus we have to avoid, not merely an improper use of the word, but also the evil omene, in case an older man, acting as advocate for a youth, should say that he

survives

him.

Who Papirius Praetextatus was; the reason for that surname; and the whole of the entertaining story about that same Papirius.

THE story of Papirius Praetextatus was told and committed to writing in the speech which Marcus Cato made To the soldiers against Galba,[*](xxxix, Jordan.) with great charm, brilliance and elegance of diction. I should have included Cato's own words in this very commentary, if I had had access to the book at the time when I dictated this extract. But if you would like to hear the bare tale, without the noble and dignified language, the incident was about as follows: It was formerly the custom at Rome for senators to enter the House with their sons under age. [*](The toga praetexta, with a purple border, was worn by senators and also by boys of free birth until they assumed the toga virlis.) In those days, when a matter of considerable importance

v1.p.107

had been discussed and was postponed to the following day, it was voted that no one should mention the subject of the debate until the matter was decided. The mother of the young Papirius, who had been in the House with his father, asked her son what the Fathers had taken up in the senate. The boy replied that it was a secret and that he could not tell. The woman became all the more eager to hear about it; the secrecy of the matter and the boy's silence piqued her curiosity; she therefore questioned him more pressingly and urgently. Then the boy, because of his mother's insistence, resorted to a witty and amusing falsehood. He said that the senate had discussed the question whether it seemed more expedient, and to the advantage of the State, for one man to have two wives or one woman to have two husbands. On hearing this, she is panic-stricken, rushes excitedly from the house, and carries the news to the other matrons. Next day a crowd of matrons came to the senate, imploring with tears and entreaties that one woman might have two husbands rather than one man two wives. The senators, as they entered the House, were wondering at this strange madness of the women and the meaning of such a demand, when young Papirius, stepping forward to the middle of the House, told in detail what his mother had insisted on hearing, what he himself had said to her, in fact, the whole story exactly as it had happened. The senate paid homage to the boy's cleverness and loyalty, but voted that thereafter boys should not enter the House with their fathers, save only this Papirius; and the boy was henceforth honoured with the

v1.p.109

surname Praetextatus, because of his discretion in keeping silent and in speaking, while he was still young enough to wear the purple-bordered gown.

Three epitaphs of three early poets, Naevius, Plautus and Pacuvius, composed by themselves and inscribed upon their tombs.

THERE are three epitaphs of famous poets, Gnaeus Naevius, Plautus and Marcus Pacuvius, composed by themselves and left to be inscribed upon their tombs, which I have thought ought to be included among these notes, because of their distinction and charm.

The epitaph of Naevius, although full of Campanian [*](This has been regarded as evidence that Naevius was a native of Campania; but Campanian arrogance was proverbial.) arrogance, might have been regarded as a just estimate, if he had not written it himself: [*](The authorship of all these epitaphs is questioned: Gudeman thought they came from Varro's Imagines; see Trans. Amer Phil. Assoc. xxv, 150 ff.; cf p. 296. 3, Bährens.)

If that immortals might for mortals weep,
Then would divine Camenae [*](The Latin equivalent of the Greek Muses.) weep for Naevius.
For after he to Orcus as treasure was consigned,
The Romans straight forgot to speak the Latin tongue.

We should be inclined to doubt whether the epitaph of Plautus was really by his own hand, if it had not been quoted by Marcus Varro in the first book of his work On Poets: [*](p. 296. 4, Bährens.)

v1.p.111

Since Plautus has met death, Comedy mourns,
Deserted is the stage; then Laughter, Sport and Wit,
And Music's countless numbers [*](Numeri innumeri was formerly rendered unrhythmic measures and applied to Plautus' supposed irregularities in scansion; it rather refers to the variety of his metres.) all together wept. [*](The metre of the Latin is dactylic hexameter; final a in deserta is lengthened, and s in ludus is suppressed.)

Pacuvius' epitaph is the most modest and simple, worthy of his dignity and good taste: [*](p. 296, 5, Bährens.)

Young man, although you haste, this little stone
Entreats thee to regard it, then to read its tale.
Here lie the bones of Marcus, hight Pacuvius.
Of this I would not have you unaware. Good-bye.

Marcus Varro's definition of the word

indutiae

; to which is added a somewhat careful investigation of the derivation of that word.

MARCUS VARRO, in that book of his Antiquities of Man which treats Of War and Peace, [*](xxii, fr. 1, 2, Mirsch.) defines indutiae (a truce) in two ways.

A truce,

he says,

is peace for a few days in camp;

and again in another place,

A truce is a holiday in war.

But each of these definitions seems to be wittily and happily concise rather than clear or satisfactory. For a truce is not a peace—since war continues, although fighting ceases—nor is it restricted to a camp or to a few days only. For what are we to say if a truce is made for some months, and the

v1.p.113

troops withdraw from camp into the towns? Have we not then also a truce? Again, if a truce is to be defined as only lasting for a few days, what are we to say of the fact, recorded by Quadrigarius in the first book of his Annals, that Gaius Pontius the Samnite asked the Roman dictator for a truce of six hours? [*](Fr. 21, Peter.) The definition

a holiday in war,

too, is rather happy than clear or precise.

Now the Greeks, more significantly and more pointedly, have called such an agreement to cease from fighting e)kexeiri/a, or

a staying of hands,

substituting for one letter of harsher sound a smoother one. [*](That is, e)kexeiri/a instead of an original e)xexeiri/a, from e)/xw and xei/r, the first x, an aspirate, being reduced to the smooth mute k, since in Greek an aspirate may not begin two successive syllables.) For since there is no fighting at such a time and their hands are withheld, they called it e)kexeiri/a. But it surely was not Varro's task to define a truce too scrupulously, and to observe all the laws and canons of definition; for he thought it sufficient to give an explanation of the kind which the Greeks call tu/poi (

typical

) and u(pografai/ (

outline

), rather than o(rismoi/ (

exact definition

I have for a long time been inquiring into the derivation of indutiae, but of the many explanations which I have either heard or read this which I am going to mention seems most reasonable. I believe that indutiae is made up of inde uti iam (

that from then on

). The stipulation of a truce is to this effect, that there shall be no fighting and no trouble up to a fixed time, but that after that time all the laws of war shall again be in force. Therefore, since a definite date is set and an agreement is

v1.p.115

made that before that date there shall be no fighting but when that time comes,

that from then on,

fighting shall be resumed: by uniting (as it were) and combining those words which I have mentioned the term indutiae is formed. [*](The correct derivation seems to be from *in-du-tus (cf. duellum for bellum), not in a state of war.)

But Aurelius Opilius, in the first book of his work entitled The Muses, says: [*](p. 88, Fun.)

It is called a truce when enemies pass back and forth from one side to another safely and without strife; from this the name seems to be formed, as if it were initiae, [*](This derivation is clearer from the older form induitiae; see the critical note.) that is, an approach and entrance.

I have not omitted this note of Aurelius, for fear that it might appear to some rival of these Nights a more elegant etymology, merely because he thought that it had escaped my notice when I was investigating the origin of the word.

The answer of the philosopher Taurus, when I asked him whether a wise man ever got angry.

I ONCE asked Taurus in his lecture-room whether a wise man got angry. For after his daily discourses he often gave everyone the opportunity of asking whatever questions he wished. On this occasion he first discussed the disease or passion of anger seriously and at length, setting forth what is to be fund in the books of the ancients and in his own commentaries; then, turning to me who had asked

v1.p.117

the question, he said:

This is what I think about getting angry, but it will not be out of place for you to hear also the opinion of my master Plutarch, a man of great learning and wisdom. Plutarch,

said he,

once gave orders that one of his slaves, a worthless and insolent fellow, but one whose ears had been filled with the teachings and arguments of philosophy, should be stripped of his tunic for some offence or other and flogged. They had begun to beat him, and the slave kept protesting that he did not deserve the flogging; that he was guilty of no wrong, no crime. Finally, while the lashing still went on, he began to shout, no longer uttering complaints or shrieks and groans, but serious reproaches. Plutarch's conduct, he said, was unworthy of a philosopher; to be angry was shameful: his master had often descanted on the evil of anger and had even written an excellent treatise Peri\ )Aorghsi/as; [*](On Freedom from Anger; the work has not survived.) it was in no way consistent with all that was written in that book that its author should fall into a fit of violent rage and punish his slave with many stripes. Then Plutarch calmly and mildly made answer: ' What makes you think, scoundrel, that I am now angry with you. Is it from my expression, my voice, my colour, or even my words, that you believe me to be in the grasp of anger? In my opinion my eyes are not fierce, my expression is not disturbed, I am neither shouting madly nor foaming at the mouth and getting red in the face; I am saying nothing to cause me shame or regret; I am not trembling at all from anger or making violent gestures. For all these actions, if you did but know it, are the usual signs of angry passions.' And with these words, turning to the man who was plying the lash,
v1.p.119
he said: 'In the meantime, while this fellow and I are arguing, do you keep at it.'

Now the sum and substance of Taurus' whole disquisition was this: he did not believe that a)orghsi/a or

freedom from anger,

and a)nalghsi/a, or

lack of sensibility,

were identical; but that a mind not prone to anger was one thing, a spirit a)na/lghtos and a)nai/sqhtos, that is, callous and unfeeling, quite another. For as of all the rest of the emotions which the Latin philosophers call affects or affectiones, and the Greeks pa/qh, so of the one which, when it becomes a cruel desire for vengeance, is called

anger,

he did not recommend as expedient a total lack, ste/rhsis as the Greeks say, but a moderate amount, which they call metrio/ths.

v1.p.123

How Socrates used to train himself in physical endurance; and of the temperate habits of that philosopher.

Among voluntary tasks and exercises for strengthening his body for any chance demands upon its endurance we are told that Socrates habitually practised this one: he would stand, so the story goes, in one fixed position, all day and all night, from early dawn until the next sunrise, open-eyed, motionless, in his very tracks and with face and eyes riveted to the same spot in deep meditation, as if his mind and soul had been, as it were, withdrawn from his body. When Favorinus in his discussion of the man's fortitude and his many other virtues had reached this point, he said:

He often stood from sun to sun, more rigid than the tree trunks.

[*](Fr. 66. Marres.)

His temperance also is said to have been so great, that he lived almost the whole period of his life with health unimpaired. Even amid the havoc of that plague which, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, devastated Athens with a deadly species of disease, by temperate and abstemious habits he is said to have avoided the ill-effects of indulgence and retained his physical vigour so completely, that he was not at all affected by the calamity common to all.

v1.p.125

What rules of courtesy should be observed by fathers and sons in taking their places at able, keeping their seats, and similar matters at home and elsewhere, when the sons are magistrates and the fathers private citizens; and a discourse of the philosopher Taurus on this subject, with an illustration taken from Roman history.

THE governor of the province of Crete, a man of senatorial rank, had come to Athens for the purpose of visiting and becoming acquainted with the philosopher Taurus, and in company with this same governor was his father. Taurus, having just dismissed his pupils, was sitting before the door of his room, and we stood by his side conversing with him. In came the governor of the province and with him his father. Taurus arose quietly, and after salutations had been exchanged, sat down again. Presently the single chair that was at hand was brought and placed near them, while others were being fetched. Taurus invited the governor's father to be seated; to which he replied:

Rather let this man take the seat, since he is a magistrate of the Roman people.

Without prejudicing the case,

said Taurus,

do you meanwhile sit down, while we look into the matter and inquire whether it is more proper for you, who are the father, to sit, or your son, who is a magistrate.

And when the father had seated himself, and another chair had been placed near by for his son also, Taurus discussed the question with what, by the gods! was a most excellent valuation of honours and duties.

The substance of the discussions was this: In public places, functions and acts the rights of fathers,

v1.p.127

compared with tile authority of sons who are magistrates, give way somewhat and are eclipsed; but when they are sitting together unofficially in the intimacy of home life, or walking about, or even reclining at a dinner-party of intimate friends, then the official distinctions between a son who is a magistrate and a father who is a private citizen are at an end, while those that are natural and inherent come into play.

Now, your visit to me,

said he,

our present conversation, and this discussion of duties are private actions. Therefore enjoy the same priority of honours at my house which it is proper for you to enjoy in your own home as the older man.

These remarks and others to the same purport were made by Taurus at once seriously and pleasantly. Moreover, it has seemed not out of place to add what I have read in Claudius about the etiquette of father and son under such circumstances. I therefore quote Quadrigarius' actual words, transcribed from the sixth book of his Annals [*](Fr. 57. Peter.) "The consuls then elected were Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus for the second time and Quintus Fabius Maximus, son of the Maximus who had been consul the year before. The father, at the time proconsul, mounted upon a horse met his son the consul, and because lie was his father, would not dismount, nor did the lictors, who knew that the two men lived in the most perfect harmony, presume to order him to do so. As the father drew near, the consul said:

What next?

The lictor in attendance quickly understood and ordered Maximus the proconsul to dismount. Fabius obeyed the order and warmly commended his son for asserting the authority which he had as the gift of the people."

v1.p.129

For what reason our forefathers inserted the aspirate h in certain verbs and nouns.

THE letter h (or perhaps it should be called a breathing rather than a letter) was added by our forefathers to give strength and vigour to the pronunciation of many words, in order that they might have a fresher and livelier sound; and this they seem to have done from their devotion to the Attic language, and under its influence. It is well known that the people of Attica, contrary to the usage of the other Greek races, pronounced i(xqu/s (fish), i(/ppos (horse), and many other words besides, with a rough breathing on the first letter. [*](I find no authority for this. Brugmann in Müller's Handbuch, II, 61 (end) cites i(/ppos as a word which originally had a smooth breathing and acquired the rough from the combination o( i)/ppos. Since the i in i)xqu/s is prosthetic, i(xqu/s, if it existed must have had the same origin, but Brugmann does not cite it. See also Indoger. Forsch. xxii, p. 197 (gives some additional information).) In the same way our ancestors said lachrumae (tears), sepulchrum (burial-place), ahenum (of bronze), vehemens (violent), incohare (begin), helluari (gormandize), hallucinari (dream), honera (burdens), honustum (burdened). For in all these words there seems to be no reason for that letter, or breathing, except to increase the force and vigour of the sound by adding certain sinews, so to speak.

But apropos of the inclusion of ahenum among my examples, I recall that Fidus Optatus, a grammarian of considerable repute in Rome, showed me a remarkably old copy of the second book of the Aeneid, bought in the Sigillaria [*](A street or quarter in Rome where the little images were sold which were given as presents at the festival of the Sigillaria; this was on Dec. 21 and 22, an extension of the Saturnalia, although not a religious holiday. The aureus was the standard gold coin of the Romans, of the value of 100 sesterces; its weight varied at different periods.) for twenty pieces of gold, which was believed to have belonged to

v1.p.131

Virgil himself. In that book, although the following two lines were written thus: [*](ii. 469 f. )

Before the entrance-court, hard by the gate,
With sheen of brazen (aena) arms proud Pyrrhus gleams,

we observed that the letter h had been added above the line, changing aena to ahena. So too in the best manuscripts we find this verse of Virgil's written as follows: [*](Georg. i. 296.)

Or skims with leaves the bubbling brass's (aleni) wave.

The reason given by Gavius Bassus for calling a certain kind of judicial inquiry divitiatio; and the explanation that others have given of the same term.

WHEN inquiry is made about the choice of a prosecutor, and judgment is rendered on the question to which of two or more persons the prosecution of a defendant, or a share in the prosecution, is to be entrusted, this process and examination by jurors is called divinatio.[*](Cf. Cicero's Divinatio in Caecilium, preliminary to the prosecution of Verres.) The reason for the use of this term is a matter of frequent inquiry.

Gavius Bassus, in the third book of his work On the Origin of Terms, says: [*](Fr. I. Fun.)

This kind of trial is called divinatio because the juror ought in a sense to divine what verdict it is proper for him to give.

The explanation offered in these words of Gavius Bassus is far from complete, or rather, it is inadequate and meagre. But at least he seems to be trying to show that divinatio is used because in

v1.p.133

other trials it is the habit of the juror to be influenced by what he has heard and by what has been shown by evidence or by witnesses; but in this instance, when a prosecutor is to be selected, the considerations which can influence a juror are very few and slight, and therefore he must, so to speak,

divine

what man is the better fitted to make the accusation.

Thus Bassus. But some others think that the divinatio is so called because, while prosecutor and defendant are two things that are, as it were, related and connected, so that neither can exist without the other, yet in this form of trial, while there is already a defendant, there is as yet no prosecutor, and therefore the factor which is still lacking and unknown—namely, what man is to be the prosecutor—must be supplied by divination.

How elegantly and clearly the philosopher Favorinus described the difference between the style of Plato and that of Lysias.

FAVORINUS used to say of Plato and Lysias:

If you take a single word from a discourse of Plato or change it, and do it with the utmost skill, you will nevertheless mar the elegance of his style; if you do the same to Lysias, you will obscure his meaning.

On some words which Virgil is asserted to have used carelessly and negligently; and the answer to be made to those who bring this false charge.

SOME grammarians of an earlier time, men by no means without learning and repute, who wrote

v1.p.135

commentaries on Virgil, and among them Annaeus Cornutus, criticize the poet's use of a word in the following verses [*](Eel. vi. 75. ff.) as careless and negligent:

That, her white waist with howling monsters girt,
Dread Scylla knocked about (vexasse) Ulysses' ships
Amid the swirling depths, and, piteous sight!
The trembling sailors with her sea-dogs rent.

They think, namely, that vexasse is a weak word, indicating a slight and trivial annoyance, and not adapted to such a horror as the sudden seizing and rending of human beings by a ruthless monster.

They also criticize another word in the following: [*](Georg. iii. 4)

Who has not heard
Of king Eurystheus' pitiless commands
And altars of Busiris, the unpraised (inlaudati)?

Inlaudati, they say, is not at all a suitable world, but is quite inadequate to express abhorrence of a wretch who, because he used to sacrifice guests from all over the world, was not merely

undeserving of praise,

but rather deserving of the abhorrence and execration of the whole human race.

They have criticized still another word in the verse: [*](Aen. x. 314.)

Through tunic rough (squalentem) with gold the sword drank from his pierced side,

on the ground that it is out of place to say auro squalentem, since the filth of squalor is quite opposed to the brilliance and splendour of gold.

Now as to the word vexasse, I believe the following answer may be made: vexasse is an intensive verb, and is obviously derived from ve-

v1.p.137

here, in which there is already some notion of compulsion by another; for a man who is carried is not his own master. But vexare, which is derived from vehere, unquestionably implies greater force and impulse. For vexare is properly used of one who is seized and carried away, and dragged about hither and yon; just as taxare denotes more forcible and repeated action than tangere, from which it is undoubtedly derived; and iactare a much fuller and more vigorous action than iacere, from which it comes; and quassare something severer and more violent than quatere. Therefore, merely because vexare is commonly used of the annoyance of smoke or wind or dust is no reason why the original force and meaning of the word should be lost; and that meaning was preserved by the earlier writers who, as became them, spoke correctly and clearly.

Marcus Cato, in the speech which he wrote On the Achaeans, [*](xxxv. Jordan.) has these words:

And when Hannibal was rending and harrying (vexaret) the land of Italy.

'hat is to say, Cato used vexare of the effect on Italy of Hannibal's conduct, at a time when no species of disaster, cruelty or savagery could be imagined which Italy did not suffer from his hands. Marcus Tullius, in his fourth Oration against Verres, wrote:

This [*](The temple of Artemis at Syracuse; § 122.) was so pillaged and ravaged by that wretch, that it did not seem to have been laid waste (vexata) by an enemy who in the heat of war still felt some religious scruple and some respect for customary law, but by barbarous pirates.

But concerning inlaudatus it seems possible to give two answers. One is of this kind: There is absolutely no one who is of so perverted a character

v1.p.139

as not sometimes to do or say something that can be commended (laudari.) And therefore this very ancient line has become a familiar proverb:

Oft-times even a fool expresses himself to the purpose.

But one who, on the contrary, in his every act and at all times, deserves no praise (laude) at all is inlaudatus, and such a man is the very worst and most despicable of all mortals, just as freedom from all reproach makes one inculpatus (blameless). Now inculpatus is the synonym for perfect goodness; therefore conversely inlaudatus represents the limit of extreme wickedness. It is for that reason that Homer usually bestows high praise, not by enumerating virtues, but by denying faults; for example: [*](Iliad iv. 366, 768, etc.)

And not unwillingly they charged,

and again: [*](Iliad iv. 223.)

Not then would you divine Atrides see
Confused, inactive, nor yet loath to fight.

Epicurus too in a similar way defined the greatest pleasure as the removal and absence of all pain, in these words: [*](Sent. iii. p. 72, Ussing.)

The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of all that pains.

Again Virgil on the same principle called the Stygian pool

unlovely.

[*](Georg. iv. 479; Aen. vi. 438.) For just as he expressed abhorrence of the

unpraised

man by the denial of praise, so he abhorred the

unlovable

by the denial of love. Another defence of inlaudatus is this: laudare in early Latin means

to name

and

cite.

Thus in civil actions they use laudare of an authority, when he is cited. Conversely, the inlaudatus is the same as

v1.p.141

the inlaudabilis, namely, one who is worthy neither of mention nor remembrance, and is never to be named; as, for example, in days gone by the common council of Asia decreed that no one should ever mention the name of the man who had burned the temple of Diana at Ephesus. [*](He is said to have set fire to the temple in order to make himself notorious for all time; see Val. Max. viii. 14. Exb. 5. His name, Herostratus, was preserved by Theopompus.)

There remains the third criticism, his use of the expression

a tunic rough with gold.

But squalentem signifies a quantity or thick layer of gold, laid on so as to resemble scales. For squalere is used of the thick, rough scales (squamae) which are to be seen on the skins of fish or snakes. This is made clear both by others and indeed by this same poet in several passages; thus: [*](Aen. xi. 770.)

A skin his covering was, plumed with brazen scales (squamis)
And clasped with gold.

and again: [*](Aen. xi. 487.)

And now has he his flashing breastplate donned,
Bristling with brazen scales (squamis).

Accius too in the Pelopidae writes thus: [*](v. 517, Ribbeck3.)

This serpent's scales (squamae) rough gold and purple wrought.

Thus we see that squalere was applied to whatever was overloaded and excessively crowded with anything, in order that its strange appearance might strike terror into those who looked upon it. So too on neglected and scaly bodies the deep layer of dirt was called squalor, and by long and continued use in that sense the entire word has become so corrupted, that finally squalor has come to be used of nothing but filth.

v1.p.143

Of the obedience of children to their parents; and quotations on this subject from the writings of the philosophers, in which it is inquired whether all a father's commands should be obeyed.

IT is a frequent subject of discussion with philosophers, whether a father should always be obeyed, whatever the nature of his commands. As to this question writers On Duty, both Greeks and our own countrymen, have stated that there are three opinions to be noticed and considered, and these they have differentiated with great acuteness The first is, that all a father's commands must be obeyed; the second, that in some he is to be obeyed, in others not; the third, that it is not necessary to yield to and obey one's father in anything.

Since at first sight this last opinion is altogether shameful, I shall begin by stating what has been said on that point.

A father's command,

they say,

is either right or wrong. If it is right, it is not to be obeyed because it is his order, but the thing must be done because it is right that it be done. If his command is wrong, surely that should on no account be done which ought not to be done.

Thus they arrive at the conclusion that a father's command should never be obeyed. But I have neither heard that this view has met with approval —for it is a mere quibble, both silly and foolish, as I shall presently show—nor can the opinion which we stated first, that all a father's commands are to be obeyed, be regarded as true and acceptable. For what if he shall command treason to one's country, a mother's murder, or some other base or impious

v1.p.145

deed? The intermediate view, therefore, has seemed best and safest, that some commands are to be obeyed and others not. But yet they say that commands which ought not to be obeyed must nevertheless be declined gently and respectfully, without excessive aversion or bitter recrimination, and rather left undone than spurned.

But that conclusion from which it is inferred, as has been said above, that a father is never to be obeyed, is faulty, and may be refuted and disposed of as follows: All human actions are, as learned men have decided, either honourable or base. Whatever is inherently right or honourable, such as keeping faith, defending one's country, loving one's friend's, ought to be done whether a father commands it or not; but whatever is of the opposite nature, and is base and altogether evil, should not be done even at a father's order. Actions, however, which lie between these, and are called by the Greeks now me/sa, or

neutral,

and now a)dia/fora, or

indifferent,

such as going to war, tilling the fields, seeking office, pleading causes, marrying a wife, going when ordered, coming when called; since these and similar actions are in themselves neither honourable nor base, but are to be approved or disapproved exactly according to the manner in which we perform them: for this reason they believe that in every kind of action of this description a father should be obeyed; as for instance, if he should order his son to marry a wife or to plead for the accused. For since each of these acts, in its actual nature and of itself, is neither honourable nor base, if a father should command it, he ought to be obeyed. But if he should order his son to

v1.p.147

marry a woman of ill repute, infamous and criminal, or to speak in defence of a Catiline, a Tubulus, [*](Catiline and Clodius are too notorious to require comment. L. Hostilius Tubulus, praetor in 142 B. C., accepted bribes when presiding at a trial for murder. Cic., De Nal. Deorum i. 63 and elsewhere, cites him as an example of iniquity. ) or a Publius Clodius, of course he ought not to be obeyed, since by the addition of a certain degree of evil these acts cease to be inherently neutral and indifferent. Hence the premise of those who say that

the commands of a father are either honourable or base

is incomplete, and it cannot be considered what the Greeks call

sound and regular disjunctive proposition.

For that disjunctive premise lacks the third member,

or are neither honourable nor base.

If this be added, the conclusion cannot be drawn that a father's command must never be obeyed.

The unfairness of Plutarch's criticism of Epicurus' knowledge of the syllogism.

PLUTARCH, in the second book of his essay On Homer,[*](vii, p. 100, Bern.) asserts that Epicurus made use of an incomplete, perverted and faulty syllogism, and he quotes Epicurus' own words: [*](Sent. II, p. 71, Ussing.)

Death is nothing to us, for what is dissolved is without perception, and what is without perception is nothing to us.

Now Epicurus,

says Plutarch, "omitted what he ought to have stated as his major premise, that death is a dissolution of body and soul, and then, to prove something else, he goes on to use the very premise that he had omitted, as if it had been stated and conceded. But this syllogism," says Plutarch,

cannot advance, unless that premise be first presented.

v1.p.149

What Plutarch wrote as to the form and sequence of a syllogism is true enough; for if you wish to argue and reason according to the teaching of the schools, you ought to say:

Death is the dissolution of soul and body; but what is dissolved is without perception; and what is without perception is nothing to us.

But we cannot suppose that Epicurus, being the man he was, omitted that part of the syllogism through ignorance, or that it was his intention to state a syllogism complete in all its members and limitations, as is done in the schools of the logicians; but since the separation of body and soul by death is self-evident, he of course did not think it necessary to call attention to what was perfectly obvious to everyone. For the same reason, too, he put the conclusion of the syllogism, not at the end, but at the beginning; for who does not see that this also was not due to inadvertence?

In Plato too you will often find syllogisms in which the order prescribed in the schools is disregarded and inverted, with a kind of lofty disdain of criticism.

How the same Plutarch, with obvious captiousness, criticized the use of a word by Epicurus.

IN the same book, [*](vii, p. 101, Bern.) Plutarch also finds fault a second time with Epicurus for using an inappropriate word and giving it an incorrect meaning. Now Epicurus wrote as follows: [*](Sect. iii, p. 72, Ussing.)

The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of everything that pains.

Plutarch declares that he ought not to have said

v1.p.151

of everything that pains,

but

of everything that is painful

; for it is the removal of pain, he explains, that should be indicated, not of that which causes pain.

In bringing this charge against Epicurus Plutarch is

word-chasing

with excessive minuteness and almost with frigidity; for far from hunting up such verbal meticulousness and such refinements of diction, Epicurus hunts them down. [*](There is an obvious word-play on sectatur and insectatur.)

The meaning of favisae Capitolinae; and what Marcus Varro replied to Servius Sulpicius, who asked him about that term.

SERVIUS SULPICIUS, an authority on civil law and a man well versed in letters, wrote [*](p. 140, Bremer. ) to Marcus Varro and asked him to explain the meaning of a term which was used in the records of the censors; the term in question was favisae Capitolinae. Varro wrote in reply [*](p. 199, Bipont.) that he recalled that Quintus Catulus, when in charge of the restoration of the Capitol, [*](After the destruction of the temple by fire in 83 B.C. In spite of Caesar's opposition (Suet. Jul. xv), Catulus dedicated the new temple in 69 B. C.) had said that it had been his desire to lower the area Capitolina, [*](The open space in front of and around the temple of Jupiter.) in order that the ascent to the temple might have more steps and that the podium might be higher, to correspond with the elevation and size of the pediment [*](Sulla and Catulus in their restorations of the Capitoline temple used columns that were taller than those of the earlier building. Catulus wished to make the podium (or elevated platform) higher, to correspond with the greater elevation and size of the pediment (or gable). This he could have done most easily by lowering the area about the temple.) ; but that he had been unable to carry out his plan because the favisae had prevented. These, he said, were certain underground chambers and cisterns in the area, in which

v1.p.153

it was the custom to store ancient statues that had fallen from the temple, and some other consecrated objects from among the votive offerings. And then Varro goes on to say in the same letter, that he had never found any explanation of the term favisae in literature, but that Quintus Valerius Soranus used to assert that what we called by their Greek name thesauri (treasuries) the early Latins termed favisae, their reason being that there was deposited in them, not uncoined copper and silver, but stamped and minted money. His theory therefore was, he said, that the second letter had dropped out of the word flavisae, and that certain chambers and pits, which the attendants of the Capitol used for the preservation of old and sacred objects, were called favisae. [*](For original flavisae, from flare. Minted or coined money had to be softened or melted before being cast or struck, and for this process the word isflare; hence the directors of the mint were called Triumviri Auro Argento Aere Flando Feriundo, where aere is of course an old dative. Favisa is apparently for *fovisa and cognate with forea, pit.)

Numerous important details about Sicinius Dentatus, the distinguished warrior.

WE read in the annals that Lucius Sicinius Dentatus, who was tribune of the commons in the consulship of Spurius Tarpeius and Aulus Aternius, [*](454 B.C.) was a warrior of incredible energy; that he won a name for his exceeding great valour, and was called the Roman Achilles. It is said that he fought with the enemy in one hundred and twenty battles, and had not a scar on his back, but forty-five in front; that golden crowns were given him eight

v1.p.155

times, the siege crown once, mural crowns three times, and civic crowns fourteen times; that eighty-three neck-chains were awarded him, more than one hundred and sixty armlets, and eighteen spears; he was presented besides with twenty-five decorations [*](The Romans awarded a great variety of military prizes, which are here enumerated, for the most part, in descending order of importance. Phalerae were discs of metal worn on the breast like medals, or sometimes on the harness of horses; the spears were hastae purae, unused (hence bloodless ) and perhaps sometimes headless weapons, although they are represented with heads on two tombstones (Cagnat et Chapot, Arch. Rom. ii, p. 359, and Bonner Jahrbücher, 114 (1905), Plate 1, Fig. 4). Besides golden crowns without a particular designation, there were others which are enunerated and described in v. 6.) ; he had a number of spoils of war, [*](The armour of the defeated antagonist; cf. Livy xxii. 6. 5. etc.) many of which were won in single combat; he took part with his generals in nine triumphal processions.