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).

In these words of Cicero, from his fifth oration Against Verres, hanc sibi rem praesidio sperant futurum, there is no error in writing or grammar but those are wrong who do violence to good copies by writing futuram; and in that connection mention is also made of another word of Cicero's which, though correct, is wrongly changed; with a few incidental remarks on the melody and cadence of periods for which Cicero earnestly strove.

IN the fifth oration of Cicero Against Verres,[*](ii. 5. 167. ) in a copy of unimpeachable fidelity, since it was the result of Tiro's [*](Cicero's favourite freedman, who not only aided him in his literary work, but also, after the orator's death, collected, arranged, and published his patron's writings, in particular his correspondence.) careful scholarship, is this passage:

Men of low degree and humble birth sail the seas; they come to places which they had never before visited. They are neither known to those to whom they have come nor can they always find acquaintances to vouch for them, yet because of this mere faith in their citizenship they believe that they will be safe, not only before our magistrates, who are constrained by fear of the
v1.p.37
laws and public opinion, and not only among Roman citizens, who are united by the common bond of language, rights, and many interests, but wherever they may come, they hope that this possession will protect them.

It seemed to many that there was an error in the last word. For they thought that futuram should be written instead of futurum, and they were sure that the book ought to be corrected, lest like the adulterer in the comedy of Plautus [*](Bacch. 918.) —for so they jested about the error which they thought they had found—this solecism in an oration of Cicero's should be

caught in the act.

There chanced to be present there a friend of mine, who had become an expert from wide reading and to whom almost all the older literature had been the object of study, meditation and wakeful nights. He, on examining the book, declared that there was no mistake in writing or grammar in that word, but that Cicero had written correctly and in accordance with early usage.

For futurum is not,

said he, " to be taken with rem, as hasty and careless readers think, nor is it used as a participle. It is an infinitive, the kind of word which the Greeks call a)pare/mfatos or 'indeterminate,' affected neither by number nor gender, but altogether free and independent, such a word as Gaius Gracchus used in the speech entitled On Publius Popilius, delivered in the places of assembly, [*](Gracchus delivered two speeches against Popilius, one in the Forum at Rome (pro rostris), the other circum conciliabula, in the market-places of various towns of Latium; see Meyer, O. R. F,2 p. 239.) in which we read: 'I suppose that my enemies will say this.' He said dicturum, not dicturos; and is it not clear that dicturum in Gracchus is used according to the same principle

v1.p.39

as futurum in Cicero? Just as in the Greek language, without any suspicion of error, words such as e)rei=n, poih/sein, e)/sesqai, and the like, are used in all genders and all numbers without distinction." He added that in the third book of the Annals of Claudius Quadrigarius are these words: [*](Fr. 43, Peter.)

While they were being cut to pieces, the forces of the enemy would be busy there (copias . . . futurum)

; and at the beginning of the eighteenth book of the same Quadrigarius: [*](Fr. 79, Peter.)

If you enjoy health proportionate to your own merit and our good-will, we have reason to hope that the gods will bless the good (deos . . . facturum)

; that similarly Valerius Antias also in his twenty-fourth book wrote:

If those religious rites should be performed, and the omens should be wholly favourable, the soothsayers declared that everything would proceed as they desired (omnia . . .processurum esse).

[*](Fr. 59, Peter.)

Plautus also in the Casina, [*](v. 691.) speaking of a girl, used occisurum, not occisuram in the following passage: Has Casina a sword?—Yes, two of them.— Why two?—With one she'd fain the bailiff slay, With t'other you. So too Laberius in The Twins wrote: [*](v. 51, Ribbeck.3) I thought not she would do (facturum) it. Now, all those men were not unaware of the nature of a solecism, but Gracchus used dicturum, Quadrigarius futurum and facturum, Antias processurum, Plautus occisurum and Laberius facturum, in the infinitive mood, a mood which is not inflected for mood or number or person or tense or gender,
v1.p.41
but expresses them all by one and the same form, just as Marcus Cicero did not use fiturum in the masculine or neuter gender—for that would clearly be a solecism—but employed a form which is independent of any influence of gender.

[*](Cellius' friend was partly right. Such forms as dicturum were derived from the second supine dictu + *erom (earlier *esom), the infinitive of sum. Later, the resulting form dicturum was looked upon as a participle and declined. In the early writers such infinitives did not change their form, and did not add the tautological esse.)

Furthermore, that same friend of mine used to say that in the oration of that same Marcus Tullius On Pompey's Military Command [*](§ 33.) Cicero wrote the following, and so my friend always read it:

Since you know that your harbours, and those harbours from which you draw the breath of life, were in tile power of the pirates.

And he declared that in potestatem fuisse [*](That is, for in potestate.) was not a solecism, as the half-educated vulgar think, but he maintained that it was used in accordance with a definite and correct principle, one which the Greeks also followed; and Plautus, who is most choice in his Latinity, said in the Amphitruo: [*](v. 180. Leo reads num número mi in mentém fruit it hasn't just occurred to me, has it?)

Número mihi in mentém fuit,

not in mente, as we commonly say.

But besides Plautus, whom my friend used as an example in this instance, I myself have come upon a great abundance of such expressions in the early writers, and I have jotted them down here and there in these notes of mine. But quite apart from that rule and those authorities, the very sound and order of the words make it quite clear that it is more in accordance with the careful attention to diction and the rhythmical style of Marcus Tullius that, either

v1.p.43

being good Latin, he should prefer to say potestatem rather than potestate. For the former construction is more agreeable to the ear and better rounded, the latter harsher and less finished, provided always that a man has an ear attuned to such distinctions, not one that is dull and sluggish; it is for the same reason indeed that he preferred to say explicavit rather than explicuit, which was already coming to be the commoner form.

These are his own words from the speech which he delivered On Pomnpey's Military Command: [*](§ 30.)

Sicily is a witness, which, begirt on all sides by many dangers, he freed (explicavit), not by the threat of war, but by his promptness in decision.

But if lie had said explicuit, the sentence would halt with weak and imperfect rhythm. [*](The cadence _u_u was a favourite one with Cicero at the end of a sentence.)

An anecdote found in the works of the philosopher Sotion about the courtesan Lais and the orator Demosthenes.

SOTION was a man of the Peripatetic school, far from unknown. He wrote a book filled with wide and varied information and called it Ke/ras )Amalqei/as,[*](The Horn of Amantheia; see Greek Index.) which is about equivalent to The Horn of Plenty.

In that book is found the following anecdote about the orator Demosthenes and the courtesan Lais:

Lais of Corinth,

he says,

used to gain a great deal of money by the grace and charm of her beauty, and was frequently visited by wealthy men from all over Greece; but no one was received who did not give what she demanded, and her
v1.p.45
demands were extravagant enough.

He says that this was the origin of the proverb common among the Greeks:

Not every man may fare to Corinth town, [*](Cf. Horace, Epist. i. 17. 36.)

for in vain would any man go to Corinth to visit Lais who could not pay her price.

The great Demosthenes approached her secretly and asked for her favours. But Lais demanded ten thousand drachmas

—a sum equivalent in our money to ten thousand denarii. [*](The drachma and the denarius (about 8d. or 16 cents) was the average wage of a day-labourer.)

Amazed and shocked at the woman's great impudence and the vast sum of money demanded, Demosthenes turned away, remarking as he left her: 'I will not buy regret at such a price.'

But the Greek words which he is said to have used are neater; he said: Ou)k w)nou=mai muri/wn draxmw=n metame/leian. [*](I will not buy regret for ten thousand drachmas.) .

What the method and what the order of the Pythagorean training was, and the amount of time which was prescribed and accepted as the period for learning and at the same time keeping silence.

IT is said that the order and method followed by Pythagoras, and afterwards by his school and his successors, in admitting and training their pupils were as follows: At the very outset he

physiognomized

the young men who presented themselves for instruction. That word means to inquire into the character and dispositions of men by an inference drawn from their facial appearance and

v1.p.47

expression, and from the form and bearing of their whole body. Then, when he had thus examined a man and found him suitable, he at once gave orders that he should be admitted to the school and should keep silence for a fixed period of time; this was not the same for all, but differed according to his estimate of the man's capacity for learning quickly. But the one who kept silent listened to what was said by others; he was, however, religiously forbidden to ask questions, if he had not fully understood, or to remark upon what he had heard. Now, no one kept silence for less than two years, and during the entire period of silent listening they were called a)koustikoi/ or

auditors.

But when they had learned what is of all things the most difficult, to keep quiet and listen, and had finally begun to be adepts in that silence which is called e)xemuqi/a or

continence in words,

they were then allowed to speak, to ask questions, and to write down what they had heard, and to express their own opinions. During this stage they were called maqhmatikoi/ or

students of science,

evidently from those branches of knowledge which they had now begun to learn and practise; for the ancient Greeks called geometry, gnomonics, [*](The science of dialling, concerned with the making and testing of sun-dials (gnw/mones).) music and other higher studies maqh/mata or

sciences

; but the common people apply the term mathematici to those who ought to be called by their ethnic name, Chaldaeans. [*](Chaldaei and mathematici were general terms for astrologers at Rome; see e.g. Suet. Dom. xiv. 1, xv. 3; Tib. lxix; etc.) Finally, equipped with this scientific training, they advanced to the investigation of the phenomena of the universe and the laws of nature,

v1.p.49

and then, and not till then, they were called fusikoi/ or

natural philosophers.

Having thus expressed himself about Pythagoras, my friend Taurus continued: "But nowadays these fellows who turn to philosophy on a sudden with unwashed feet, [*](Proverbial for without preparation.) not content with being wholly 'without purpose, without learning, and without scientific training,' even lay down the law as to how they are to be taught philosophy. One says, 'first teach me this,' another chimes in,' I want to learn this, I don't want to learn that'; one is eager to begin with the Symposiumn of Plato because of the revel of Alcibiades, [*](Ch. 30.) another with the Phaedrus on account of the speech of Lysias. [*](Ch. 6.) By Jupiter!" said he,

one man actually asks to read Plato, not in order to better his life, but to deck out his diction and style, not to gain in discretion, but in prettiness.

That is what Taurus used to say, in comparing the modern students of philosophy with the Pythagoreans of old.

But I must not omit this fact either—that all of them, as soon as they had been admitted by Pythagoras into that band of disciples, at once devoted to the common use whatever estate and property they had, and an inseparable fellowship was formed, like the old-time association which in Roman legal parlance was termed an

undivided inheritance.

[*](See Servius on Aen. viii. 612, ercto non cito, id est, hereditate non divisa; nam citus divisus siqnificat.)

v1.p.51

In what terms the philosopher Favorinus rebuked a young man who used language that was too old-fashioned and archaic.

THE philosopher Favorinus thus addressed a young man who was very fond of old words and made a display in his ordinary, everyday conversation of many expressions that were quite too unfamiliar and archaic:

Curius,

said he,

and Fabricius and Coruncanius, men of the olden days, and of a still earlier time than these those famous triplets, the Horatii, talked clearly and intelligibly with their fellows, using the language of their own day, not that of the Aurunci, the Sicani, or the Pelasgi, who are said to have been the earliest inhabitants of Italy. You, on the contrary, just as if you were talking to-day with Evander's mother, [*](Evander, a Greek from Pallanteum in Arcadia, migrated to Italy and settled on the Palatine hill before the coming of Aeneas.) use words that have already been obsolete for many years, because you want no one to know and comprehend what you are saying. Why not accomplish your purpose more fully, foolish fellow, and say nothing at all? But you assert that you love the olden time, because it is honest, sterling, sober and temperate. Live by all means according to the manners of the past, but speak in the language of the present, and always remember and take to heart what Gaius Caesar, a man of surpassing talent and wisdom, wrote in the first book of his treatise On Analogy: [*](A work on grammar in two books, mentioned among the writings of Caesar by Suet. Jul. lvi. 5; Fronto, p. 221, Naber (L.C.L. ii, pp. 29 and 255 ff.); described by Cic. Brut. 253 as de ratione Latine loquendi.) 'Avoid, as you would a rock, a strange and unfamiliar word.'

v1.p.53

The statement of the celebrated writer Thucydides, that the Lacedaemonians in battle used pipes and not trumpets, with a citation of his words on that subject; and the remark of Herodotus that king Alyattes had female lyre-players as part of his military equipment; and finally, some notes on the pipe used by Gracchus when addressing assemblies.

THUCYDIDES, the most authoritative of Greek historians, tells us [*](v. 70.) that the Lacedaemonians, greatest of warriors, made use in battle, not of signals by horns or trumpets, but of the music of pipes, certainly not in conformity with any religious usage or from any ceremonial reason, nor yet that their courage might be roused and stimulated, which is the purpose of horns and trumpets; but on the contrary that they might be calmer and advance in better order, because the effect of the flute-player's notes is to restrain impetuosity. So firmly were they convinced that in meeting the enemy and beginning battle nothing contributed more to valour and confidence than to be soothed by gentler sounds and keep their feelings under control. Accordingly, when the army was drawn up, and began to advance in battle-array against the foe, pipers stationed in the ranks began to play. Thereupon, by this quiet, pleasant, and even solemn prelude the fierce impetuosity of the soldiers was checked, in conformity with a kind of discipline of military music, so to speak, so that they might not rush forth in straggling disorder.

But I should like to quote the very words of that outstanding writer, which have greater distinction and credibility than my own:

And after this the
v1.p.55
attack began. The Argives and their allies rushed forward eagerly and in a rage, but the Lacedaemonians advanced slowly to the music of many flute-players stationed at regular intervals; this not for any religious reason, but in order that they might make the attack while marching together rhythmically, and that their ranks might not be broken, which commonly happens to great armies when they advance to the attack.

Tradition has it that the Cretans also commonly entered battle with the lyre playing before them and regulating their step. Futhermore, Alyattes, king of the land of Lydia, a man of barbaric manners and luxury, when he made war on the Milesians, as Herodotus tells us in his History, [*](i. 17.) had in his army and his battle-array orchestras of pipe and lyre-players, and even female flute-players, such as are the delight of wanton banqueters. Homer, however, says [*](Iliad, iii. 8.) that the Achaeans entered battle, relying, not on the music of lyres and pipes, but on silent harmony and unanimity of spirit:

In silence came the Achaeans, breathing rage,
Resolved in mind on one another's aid.

What then is the meaning of that soul-stirring shout of the Roman soldiers which, as the annalists have told us, was regularly raised when charging the foe? [*](This is approved by Julius Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 92. 5.) Was that done contrary to so generally accepted a rule of old-time discipline? Or are a quiet advance and silence needful when an army is marching against an enemy that is far off and visible from a distance, but when they have almost come to blows, then must the foe, already at close quarters, be driven back by a violent assault and terrified by shouting?

v1.p.57

But, look you, the Laconian pipe-playing reminds me also of that oratorical pipe, which they say was played for Gaius Gracchus when he addressed the people, and gave him the proper pitch. But it is not at all true, as is commonly stated, that a musician always stood behind him as he spoke, playing the pipe, and by varying the pitch now restrained and now animated his feelings and his delivery. For what could be more absurd than that a piper should play measures, notes, and a kind of series of changing melodies for Gracchus when addressing an assembly, as if for a dancing mountebank? But more reliable authorities declare that the musician took his place unobserved in the audience and at intervals sounded on a short pipe a deeper note, to restrain and calm the exuberant energy of the orator's delivery. And that in my opinion is the correct view, for it is unthinkable that Gracchus' well-known natural vehemence needed any incitement or impulse from without. Yet Marcus Cicero thinks that the piper was employed by Gracchus for both purposes, in order that with notes now soft, now shrill, he might animate his oratory when it was becoming weak and feeble, or check it when too violent and passionate. I quote Cicero's own words: [*](De Orat. iii. 225.)

And so this same Gracchus, Catulus, as you may hear from your client Licinius, an educated man, who was at that time Gracchus' slave and amanuensis, [*](The more usual expression for amanuensis is (servus) a manu, but ad manum also occurs.) used to have a skilful musician stand behind him in concealment when he addressed an audience, who could quickly breathe a note to arouse the speaker if languid, or recall him from undue vehemence.

v1.p.59

Finally, Aristotle wrote in his volume of Problems [*](The marching of the cowards, because of their fear, would not be in time with the music.) that the custom of the Lacedaemonians which I have mentioned, of entering battle to the music of pipers, was adopted in order to make the fearlessness and ardour of the soldiers more evident and indubitable.

For,

said he,

distrust and fear are not at all consistent with an advance of that kind, and such an intrepid and rhythmical advance cannot be made by the faint-hearted and despondent.

I have added a few of Aristotle's own words on the subject:

Why, when on the point of encountering danger, did they advance to music of the pipe? In order to detect the cowards by their failure to keep time.

* * * [*](Some comment on the quotation should follow. Hertz indicated a lacuna.)

AT what age, from what kind of family, by what rites, ceremonies and observances, and under what title a Vestal virgin is

taken

by the chief pontiff; what legal privileges she has immediately upon being chosen; also that, according to Labeo, she is lawfully neither heir of an intestate person, nor is anyone her heir, in case she dies without a will.

Those who have written about

taking

a Vestal virgin, of whom the most painstaking is Antistius Labeo, [*](De Iure Pontificali, fr. 21, Huschke; 3, Bremer.) have stated that it is unlawful for a girl to be chosen who is less than six, or more than ten, years old; she must also have both father and mother living; she must be free too from any impediment in her speech, must not have impaired hearing, or be marked by any other bodily defect;

v1.p.61

she must not herself have been freed from paternal control, [*](The Roman father had control over his children (patria potestas) until he died, or lost his civic rights through some misconduct, or voluntarily emancipated them; for a striking example see Suet. Tib. xv. 2.) nor her father before her, even if her father is still living and she is under the control of her grandfather; [*](If a man was emancipated after having children born to him, the latter remained under the control of their grand-father (cf. Gains, i. 133) and were legally orphans, hence not patrima et matrimra; Pruner, Hestia-Vesta, p. 273, N. 1.) neither one nor both of her parents may have been slaves or engaged in mean occupations. [*](Cf. Cic. De Off. i. 150.) But they say that one whose sister has been chosen to that priesthood acquires exemption, as well as one whose father is a1 flamen or an augur, one of the Fifteen in charge of the Sibylline Books, [*](The X V viri sacris faciundis, who had charge of the Sibylline Books. Tarquin appointed IIviri sacris faciundis for the purpose (Livy, v. 13. 6), but by the Licinian laws of 367 B.C. the number was increased to ten, five patricians and five plebeians. The Fifteen are first mentioned by Cicero (Epist. viii. 4. 1) in 51 B.C. They were ex-praetors or ex-consuls until a late period, and the priesthood continued to exist until the books were burned by Stilicho in the fourth century. ) one of the Seven who oversee the banquets of the gods, or a dancing priest of Mars. Exemption from that priesthood is regularly allowed also to the betrothed of a pontiff and to the daughter of a priest of the tubilustrium. [*](At the tubilustrium, on March 23, the trumpets used in sacred rites were purified by the tibicines sacrorum populi Romani; at the same time the Salii had their third procession in honour of Mars and Nerio; cf. Festus, 482. 27, Lindsay.) Furthermore the writings of Ateius Capito inform us [*](De lure Pontificali, fr. 11, Huschke; 7, Bremer.) that the daughter of a man without residence in Italy must not be chosen, and that the daughter of one who has three children must be excused.

Now, as soon as the Vestal virgin is chosen, escorted to the House of Vesta and delivered to the pontiffs, she immediately passes from the control of her father without the ceremony of emancipation or loss of civil rights, and acquires the right to make a will.

But as to the method and ritual for choosing a Vestal, there are, it is true, no ancient written records,

v1.p.63

except that the first to be appointed was chosen by Numa. There is, however, a Papian law, [*](The date of this law is unknown; it is not identical with the lex Papia-Poppaea of 250 B.C.) which provides that twenty maidens be selected from the people at the discretion of the chief pontiff, that a choice by lot be made from that number in the assembly, [*](The comitia calata; see xv. 27. l. ff.) and that the girl whose lot is drawn be

taken

by the chief pontiff and become Vesta's. But that allotment in accordance with the Papian law is usually unnecessary at present. For if any man of respectable birth goes to the chief pontiff and offers his daughter for the priesthood, provided consideration may be given to her candidacy without violating any religious requirement, the senate grants him exemption from the Papian law.

Now the Vestal is said to be

taken,

it appears, because she is grasped by the hand of the chief pontiff and led away from the parent under whose control she is, as if she had been taken in war. In the first book of Fabius Pictor's History [*](Fr. 4, Huschke; 1, Bremer.) the formula is given which the chief pontiff should use in choosing a Vestal. It is this:

I take thee, Amata, as one who has fulfilled all the legal requirements, to be priestess of Vesta, to perform the rites which it is lawful for a Vestal to perform for the Roman people, the Quirites.

Now, many think that the term

taken

ought to be used only of a Vestal. But, as a matter of fact, the flamens of Jupiter also, as well as the augurs, were said to be

taken.

Lucius Sulla, in the second book of his Autobiography, [*](Fr. 2, Peter.) wrote as follows:

Publius Cornelius, the first to receive the surname Sulla, was taken to be flamen of Jupiter.

Marcus

v1.p.65

Cato, in his accusation of Servius Galba, says of the Lusitanians: [*](The title of the oration is variously given as Contra Servium Galbam and Pro Direptis Lusitanis; perhaps the two titles were combined in one. See Jordan's Cato, p. 27.)

Yet they say that they wished to revolt. I myself at the present moment wish a thorough knowledge of the pontifical law; shall I therefore be taken as chief pontiff? If I wish to understand the science of augury thoroughly, shall anyone for that reason take me as augur?

Furthermore, in the Commentaries on the Twelve Tables compiled by Labeo [*](Fr. 24, Huschke; 2, Bremer. The comment quoted by Gellius is on Twelve Tables V. 1.) we find this passage:

A Vestal virgin is not heir to any intestate person, nor is anyone her heir, should she die without making a will, but her property, they say, reverts to the public treasury. The legal principle involved is an unsettled question.

The Vestal is called

Amata

when taken by the chief pontiff, because there is a tradition that the first one who was chosen bore that name. [*](Various other reasons have been given, of which perhaps the most attractive is that it is from an original a)dama/ta, inwedded. According to Pruner, Hestia-Vesta, p. 276, followed by Rossbach in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v., amata is not a proper name, but means beloved.)

On the philosophical question, what would be more proper on receipt of an order-to do scrupulously what was commanded, or sometimes even to disobey, in the hope that it would be more advantageous to the giver of the order; and an exposition of varying views on that subject.

IN interpreting, evaluating and weighing the obligations which the philosophers call kaqh/konta, or

duties,

the question is often asked, when some task has been assigned to you and exactly what was to be done has been defined, whether you ought to do anything contrary to instructions, if by so doing

v1.p.67

it might seem that the outcome would be more successful and more advantageous to the one who imposed the task upon you. It is a difficult question which has been answered both ways by wise men. For several have taken a position on the one side and expressed the decided belief that when a matter has once for all been determined, after due deliberation, by the one whose business and right are concerned, nothing should be done contrary to his order, even if some unlooked for occurrence should promise a better way of accomplishing the end in view; for fear that, if the expectation were not realized, the offender would be liable to blame and inexorable punishment for his insubordination. If, on the other hand, the affair chanced to result more favourably, thanks would indeed be due the gods, but nevertheless a precedent would seem to have been established, which might ruin well-laid plans by weakening the binding force of a command. Others have thought that the disadvantages to be feared, in case the order was not strictly obeyed, should carefully be weighed in advance against the advantage looped for, and if the former were comparatively light and trivial, while on the contrary a greater and more substantial advantage was confidently to be expected, then they judged that one might go counter to instructions, to avoid losing a providential opportunity for successful action; and they did not believe that a precedent for disobedience was to be feared, provided always that considerations of such a kind could be urged. But they thought that particular regard should be paid to the temperament and disposition of the person whose business and command were involved: he must not be stern,

v1.p.69

hard, autocratic and implacable, as in the case of the orders of a Postumius and a Manlius. [*](Titus Manlius Torquatus had his own son executed for disobedience to his father's command; see ix. 13. 29. A similar story is told of Postumius; see xvii. 21. 17; cf. Otto, Sprichw. p. 209.) For if an account must be rendered to such a commander, they recommended that nothing be done contrary to the letter of his order.

I think that this question of obedience to commands of such a nature will be more clearly defined, if I add the example set by Publius Crassus Mucianus, a distinguished and eminent man. This Crassus is said by Sempronius Asellio [*](Fr. 8, Peter.) and several other writers of Roman history to have had the five greatest and chiefest of blessings; for he was very rich, of the highest birth, exceedingly eloquent, most learned in the law, and chief pontiff. When he, in his consulship, was in command in [*](In the year of his consulship (131 B.C.) he was sent with an army against Aristonicus, who laid claim to the kingdom of Pergamum, which Attalus III had bequeathed to the Romans.) the province of Asia, and was making preparations to beset and assault Leucae, he needed a long, stout beam from which to make a battering-ram, to breach the walls of that city. Accordingly, he wrote to the chief engineer of the people of Mylatta, [*](The text seems hopelessly corrupt. We perhaps have a fusion of e)pa/rxwn a)rxitekto/nwn (Dittenberger3, 804. 5) and its equivalent magister( == praefectus) fabrumt. With a)rxite/ktona (Hertz), the meaning would be 'builder. With matgistrumn (Hosius), the chief magistrate, or perhaps a ship-captain (sc. navis). For the town, Bergk proposed Mytilene; Hosius, Myrina. The MSS. suggest Mylasa (Mylassa, Mylatta).) allies and friends of the Romans, to have the larger of two masts which he had seen in their city sent him. Then the chief engineer on learning the purpose for which Crassus wanted the mast, did not send him the larger, as had been ordered, but the smaller, which he thought was more suitable, and better adapted for

v1.p.71

making a ram, besides being easier to transport. Crassus ordered him to be summoned, asked why he had not sent the mast which had been ordered, and ignoring the excuses and reasons which the man urged, caused him to be stripped and soundly beaten with rods; for he thought that all the authority of a commander was weakened and made of no effect, if one might reply to orders which he received, not with due obedience, but with an unsolicited plan of his own.

What was said and done by Gaius Fabricius, a man of great renown and great deeds, but of simple establishment and little money, when the Samnites offered him a great amount of gold, in the belief that he was a poor man.

JULIUS HYGINUS, in the sixth book of his work On the Lizes and Deeds of Famous Men,[*](Fr. 3, Peter.) says that a deputation from the Samnites came to Gaius Fabricius, the Roman general, and after mentioning his many important acts of kindness and generosity to the Samnites since peace was restored, offered him a present of a large sum of money, begging that he would accept and use it. And they said that they did this because they saw that his house and mode of life were far from magnificent, and that he was not so well provided for as his high rank demanded. Thereupon Fabricius passed his open hands from his ears to his eyes, then down to his nose, his mouth, his throat, and finally to the lower part of his belly; then he replied to the envoys:

So long as I can restrain and control all those members which I have touched, I shall never lack
v1.p.73
anything; therefore I cannot accept money, for which I have no use, from those who, I am sure, do have use for it.

What a tiresome and utterly hateful fault is vain and empty loquacity, and how often it has been censured in deservedly strong language by the greatest Greek and Latin writers.

THE talk of empty-headed, vain and tiresome babblers, who with no foundation of solid matter let out a stream of tipsy, tottering words, has justly been thought to come from the lips and not from the heart. Moreover, men say that the tongue ought not to be unrestrained and rambling, but guided and, so to speak, steered by cords connected with the heart and inmost breast. Yet you may see some men spouting forth words with no exercise of judgment, but with such great and profound assurance that many of them in the very act of speaking are evidently unaware that they are talking. Ulysses, on the contrary, a man gifted with sagacious eloquence, spoke, not from his lips but from his heart, as Hommer says—a remark which applies less to the sound and quality of his utterance than to the depth of the thoughts inwardly conceived; and the poet went on to say, with great aptness, that the teeth form a rampart to check wanton words, in order that reckless speech may not only be restrained by that watchful sentry the heart, but also hedged in by a kind of outpost, so to speak, stationed at the lips.

v1.p.75

The words of Homer which I mentioned above are these: [*](Iliad, iii. 221.)

When from his breast his mighty voice went forth

and: [*](Iliad, iv. 350, etc.)

What a word has passed the barrier of your teeth.

I have added also a passage from Marcus Tullius, in which he expresses his strong and just hatred of silly and unmeaning volubility. He says: [*](De Orat. iii. 142.)

Provided this fact be recognized, that neither should one commend the dumbness of a man who knows a subject, but is unable to give it expression in speech, nor the ignorance of one who lacks knowledge of his subject, but abounds in words; yet if one must choose one or the other alternative, I for my part would prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity.

Also in the first book of the De Oratore [*](i. 51.) he wrote as follows:

For what is so insane as the empty sound of words, however well-chosen and elegant, if there be no foundation of sense or sagacity?

But Marcus Cato in particular is a relentless assailant of this fault. For in the speech entitled If Caelius, tribune of the commons, should have summoned him, [*](See Jordan's Cato, xl. 1. The meaning of the title, which is uncertain, is discussed in his Prolegomena, p. lxix f. Se refers to Cato himself. By some the speech is regarded as identical with the one mentioned by Fronto, vol. i, p. 117, L.C.L., and by Plutarch, Cato ix. 7, vol. ii, p. 329, L. C.L.) he says:

That man is never silent who is afflicted with the disease of talking, as one in a lethargy is afflicted with that of drinking and sleeping. For if you should not come together when he calls an assembly, so eager is he to talk that he would hire someone to listen. And so you hear him, but you do not listen, just as if he were a quack. For a quack's words are heard, but no one trusts himself
v1.p.77
to him when he is sick.

Again Cato, in the same speech, [*](xl. 2, Jordan.) upbraiding the same Marcus Caelius, tribune of the commons, for the cheapness at which not only his speech but also his silence could be bought, says:

For a crust of bread he can be hired either to keep silence or to speak.

Most deservedly too does Homer call Thersites alone of all the Greeks a)metroeph/s,

of measureless speech,

and a)krito/muqos, [*](Iliad ii. 212 246.)

a reckless babbler,

declaring that his words are many and a)/kosma, or

disordered,

like the endless chatter of daws; [*](Iliad, ii 213.) for what else does e)kolw/a (

he chattered

) mean? There is also a line of Eupolis most pointedly aimed at men of that kind: [*](Fr. 95, Koch.)

In chatter excellent, unable quite to speak,

and our countryman Sallust, wishing to imitate this, writes: [*](Hist. iv. 43, Maur.)

Talkative rather than eloquent.

It is for the same reason that Hesiod, wisest of poets, says [*](Works and Days, 719.) that the tongue should not be vulgarly exposed but hidden like a treasure, and that it is exhibited with best effect when it is modest, restrained and musical. His own words are:

The greatest of man's treasures is the tongue,
Which wins most favour when it spares its words
And measured is of movement.

The following verse of Epicharmus is also to the point: [*](Fr. 272, Kaib.)

Thou art not skilled in speech, yet silence cannot keep,

and it is from this line surely that the saying arose:

Who, though he could not speak, could not be silent.

v1.p.79

I once heard Favorinus say that the familiar lines of Euripides: [*](Bacch. 386.)

Of unrestrained mouth
And of lawless folly
Is disaster the end,

ought not to be understood as directed only at those who spoke impiously or lawlessly, but might even with special propriety be used also of men who prate foolishly and immoderately, whose tongues are so extravagant and unbridled that they ceaselessly flow and seethe with the foulest dregs of language, the sort of persons to whom the Greeks apply the highly significant term kata/glwssoi, or

given to talk.

I learned from a friend of his, a man of learning, that the famous grammarian Valerius Probus, shortly before his death, began to read Sallust's well-known saying, [*](Cat. v. 4.)

a certain amount of eloquence but little discretion,

abundant talkativeness, too little discretion,

and that he insisted that Sallust left it in that form, since the word loquentia was very characteristic of Sallust, an innovator in diction, [*](It is true that Sallust was fond of new words, but the best MSS. of Sallust are unanimous for eloquentiae. Besides this passage of Gellius, L. and S. cite loquentia only in Plin. Epist. v. 20. 5, Iulius Cordus . . . solet dicere aliud esse eloquentiam, aliud loquentiam.) while eloquentia was not at all consistent with lack of discretion.

Finally, loquacity of this kind and a disorderly mass of empty grandiloquence is scored with striking epithets by Aristophanes, wittiest of poets, in the following lines: [*](Frogs, 837 ff., Rogers (L. C. L.). The epithets are applied to Aeschylus!)

A stubborn-creating, stubborn-pulling fellow,
Uncurbed, unfettered, uncontrolled of speech,
Unperiphrastic, bombastiloquent.

v1.p.81

And no less pointedly did our forefathers also call men of that kind, who were drowned in words, "babblers, gabbllers and chatterboxes."

That those words of Quadrigarius in the third book of his Annals,

there a thousand of men is killed,

are not used arbitrarily or by a poetic figure, but in accordance with a definite and approved rule of the science of grammar.

QUADRIGARIUS in the third book of his Annals[*](Fr. 44, Peter.) wrote the following: "There a thousand of men is killed," using occiditur, not occiduntur. So too Lucilius in the third book of his Satires,

From gate to gate a thousand of paces is.
Thence to Salcrnum six, [*](v. 124, Marx, who has exinde for sex inde and supplies sumus, mus profecti.)

has mille est, not mille sunt. Varro in the seventeenth book of his Antiquilies of Man writes: [*](xviii, fr. 2, Mirsch. )

To the beginning of Romulus' reign is more than a thousand and one hundred years,

Marcus Cato in the first book of his Origins, [*](Fr. 26, Peter.)

From there it is nearly a thousand of paces.

Marcus Cicero has in his sixth Oration against Antony, [*](Phil. vi. 15.)

Is the middle Janus [*](The middle Janus was the seat of money-lenders and bankers. As a district it extended along the northern side of the Forum Romanum. The Janus itself was near the basilica Aemlia, perhaps at the entrance to the Argiletum.) so subject to the patronage of Lucius Antonius? Who has ever been found in that Janus who would lend Lucius Antonius a thousand of sesterces?

In these and many other passages mile is used in the singular number, and that is not, as some think, a concession to early usage or admitted as a neat figure of speech, but it is obviously demanded

v1.p.83

by rule. For the word mille does not stand for the Greek xilioi,

thousand,

but for xilia/s,

a thousand

; and just as they say one xilia/s, or two xilia/des, so we say one thousand and two thousands according to a definite and regular rule. Therefore these common expressions are correct and good usage,

There is a thousand of denarii in the chest,

and

There is a thousand of horsemen in the army.

Furthermore Lucilius, in addition to the example cited above, makes this point still clearer in another place also: for in his fifteenth book he says: [*](506 ff., Marx, who punctuates with a comma after succussor, with a slight change in the meaning, taking nullus seqetur in the sense of non sequetur. On the Campanian horses see Livy, viii.11.5 and xxvi.4.3, 6; Val. Max. ii.3.3.)

This horse no jolting fine Campanian steed,
Though he has passed him by one thousand, aye
And twain, of paces, can in a longer course
Compete with, but he will in fact appear
To run the other way.

So too in the ninth book: [*](327, Marx.)

With sesterces a thousand you can gain
A hundred thousand.

Lucilius wrote milli passum instead of mille passibus and uno milli nummum for unis mille nunmis, thus showing clearly that mille is a noun, used in the singular number, that its plural is milia, and that it also forms an ablative case. Nor ought we to expect the rest of the cases; for there are many other words which are declined only in single cases, and even some which are not declined at all. Therefore we can no longer doubt that Cicero, in the speech which he wrote In Defence of Milo, [*](§53.) used these words:

Before the estate of Clodius, where fully a thousand of
v1.p.85
ablebodied men was employed on those crazy substructures,

not

were employed,

as we find it in less accurate copies; for one rule requires us to say

a thousand men,

but another,

a thousand of men.

The patience with which Socrates endured his wife's shrewish disposition; and in that connection what Marcus Varro says in one of his satires about the duty of a husband.

XANTHIPPE, the wife of the philosopher Socrates, is said to have been ill-tempered and quarrelsome to a degree, with a constant flood of feminine tantrums and annoyances day and night. Alcibiades, amazed at this outrageous conduct of hers towards her husband, asked Socrates what earthly reason he had for not showing so shrewish a woman the door.

Because,

replied Socrates,

it is by enduring such a person at home that I accustom and train myself to bear more easily away from home the impudence and injustice of other persons.

In the same vein Varro also said in the Menippean Satire [*](Varro's Menippean Satires, in 150 books, based to some extent on the Speudoge/loion of Menippus, a Cynic philosopher of the third century B.C., treated in a mixture of prose and verse a great variety of moral and serious topics in a playful and sometimes jocose manner. For other titles see Index under (M.) Terentius Varro, and for the fragments, Bücheler's Petronius, 3d. ed., Berlin, 1882, pp. 161 ff.) which he entitled On the Duty of a Husband: [*](Fr 83, Bücheler.)

A wife's faults must be either put down or put up with. He who puts down her faults, makes his wife more agreeable; he who puts up with them, improves himself.

Varro contrasted the two words tollere and ferre very cleverly, [*](For a similar play on two meanings of tollere, cf. Suet. Aug. xii.) to be sure,

v1.p.87

but he obviously uses tollere in the sense of

correct.

It is evident too that Varro thought that if a fault of that kind in a wife cannot be corrected, it should be tolerated, in so far of course as a man may endure it honourably; for faults are less serious than crimes.

How Marcus Varro, in the fourteenth book of his Antiquities of Man, [*](Fr. 99, Agahd. In the lemma, or chapter heading, Varro's statement is wrongly reffered to the Antiquities of Man, the other division of his great work Antiquitatum Libri XLI, treating the political and religious institutions of the Romans. Only scanty fragments have survived.) criticizes his master Lucius Aelius for a false etymology; and how Varro in his turn, in the same book, gives a false origin for fur.

IN the fourteenth book of his Divine Antiquities[*](Fr. 99, Agahd. In the lemma, or chapter heading, Varro's statement is wrongly referred to the Antiquities of Man, the other division of his great work Antiquitatum Libri XLI, treating the political and religious institutions of the Romans. Only scanty fragments have survived.) Marcus Varro shows that Lucius Aelius, the most learned Roman of his time, went astray and followed a false etymological principle in separating an old Greek word which had been taken over into the Roman language into two Latin words, just as if it were of Latin origin.

I quote Varro's own words on the subject:

In this regard our countryman Lucius Aelius, the most gifted man of letters within my memory, was sometimes misled. For he gave false derivations of several early Greek words, under the impression that they were native to our tongue. We do not use the word lepus ('hare') because the animal is levipes ('light-footed'), as he asserts, but because it is an old Greek word. Many of the early words of that people are unfamiliar, because to-day the Greeks use other words in their place; and it may not be generally known that among these are Graecus, for which they now use (/Ellhn, puteus ('well') which
v1.p.89
they call fre/ar, and lepus, which they call lagwo/s. But as to this, far from disparaging Aelius' ability, I commend his diligence; for it is good fortune that brings success, endeavour that deserves praise.

Tis is what Varro wrote in the first part of his book, with great skill in the explanation of words, with wide knowledge of the usage of both languages, and marked kindliness towards Aelius himself. But in the latter part of the same book he says that fur is so called because the early Romans used furvus for ater (

black

), and thieves steal most easily in the night, which is black. Is it not clear that Varro made the same mistake about fur that Aelius did about lepus. For what the Greeks now call kle/pths, or

thief,

in the earlier Greek language was called fw/r. Hence, owing to the similarity in sound, he who in Greek is fw/r, in Latin is fur. But whether that fact escaped Varro's memory at the time, or on the other hand he thought that fur was more appropriately and consistently named from furvus, that is,

black,

as to that question it is not for me to pass judgment on a man of such surpassing learning.

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.