Noctes Atticae

The story of Artemisia; and of the contest at the tomb of Mausolus in which celebrated writers took part.

ARTEMISIA is said to have loved her husband Mausolus with a love surpassing all the tales of passion and beyond one's conception of human

affection. Now Mausolus, as Marcus Tullius tells us, [*](Tusc. Disp. iii. 75.) was king of the land of Caria; according to some Greek historians he was governor of a province, the official whom the Greeks term a satrap. When this Mausolus had met his end amid the lamentations and in the arms of his wife, [*](In 353 B.C.) and had been buried with a magnificent funeral, Artemisia, inflamed with grief and with longing for her spouse, mingled his bones and ashes with spices, ground them into the form of a powder, put them in water, and drank them; and she is said to have given many other proofs of the violence of her passion. For perpetuating the memory of her husband, she also erected, with great expenditure of labour, that highly celebrated tomb, [*](The famous Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, adorned by Scopas, Bryaxis, Timotheus and Leochares with sculptures, the remains of which are now in the British Museum. It was a square building, 140 feet high, surrounded by Ionic columns. It stood upon a lofty base and was surmounted by a pyramid of steps ending in a platform, on which was a four-horse chariot. The term mausoleum was applied by the Romans to large and magnificent tombs such as the mausoleum of Augustus and that of Hadrian.) which has been deemed worthy of being numbered among the seven wonders of the world. [*](The other six wonders were: The walls and hanging gardens of Babylon; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; the statue of Olympian Zeus by Phidias; the Pyramids; and the Pharos, or lighthouse, at Alexandria.) When Artemisia dedicated this monument, consecrated to the deified shades of Mausolus, she instituted an agon, that is to say, a contest in celebrating his praises, offering magnificent prizes of money and other valuables. Three men distinguished for their eminent talent and eloquence are said to have come to contend in this eulogy, Theopompus, Theodectes [*](The more approved spelling is Theodectas; see C.I.G. ii. 977.) and Naucrates; some have even written that Isocrates himself entered the lists with them. But Theopompus was adjudged the victor in that contest. He was a pupil of Isocrates.

The tragedy of Theodectes, entitled Mausolus, is still extant to-day; and that in it Theodectes was more pleasing than in his prose writings is the opinion of Hyginus in his Examples. [*](Fr. 1, Peter.)

That a sin is not removed or lessened by citing in excuse similar sins which others have committed; with a passage front a speech of Demosthenes on that subject.

THE philosopher Taurus once reproved a young man with severe and vigorous censure because he had turned from the rhetoricians and the study of eloquence to the pursuit of philosophy, declaring that he had done something dishonourable and shameful. Now the young man did not deny the allegation, but urged in his defence that it was commonly done and tried to justify the baseness of the fault by citing examples and by the excuse of custom. And then Taurus, being the more irritated by the very nature of his defence, said:

Foolish and worthless fellow, if the authority and rules of philosophy do not deter you from following bad examples, does not even the saying of your own celebrated Demosthenes occur to you? For since it is couched in a polished and graceful form of words, it might, like a sort of rhetorical catch, the more easily remain fixed in your memory. For,

said he,

if I do not forget what as a matter of fact I read in my early youth, these are the words of Demosthenes, spoken against one who, as you now do, tried to justify and excuse his own sin by those of others: [*](Adv. Androt. 7, p. 595. ) 'Say not, Sir, that this has often been done, but that it ought to be so done; for if anything was ever done contrary to the

v2.p.267

laws, and you followed that example, you would not for that reason justly escape punishment, but you would suffer much more severely. For just as, if anyone had suffered a penalty for it, you would not have proposed this, so if you suffer punishment now, no one else will propose it.'

Thus did Taurus, by the use of every kind of persuasion and admonition, incline his disciples to the principles of a virtuous and blameless manner of life.

The meaning of rogatio, lex, plebisscitum and privilegium, and to what extent all those terms differ.

I HEAR it asked what the meaning is of lex, plebisscitum, rogatio, and privilegium. Ateius Capito, a man highly skilled in public and private law, defined the meaning of lex in these words: [*](Fr. 22, Huschke; Coniect. fr. 13, Bremer.)

A law,

said he,

is a general decree of the people, or of the commons, answering an appeal [*](That is, a royatio.) made to them by a magistrate.

If this definition is correct, neither the appeal for Pompey's military command, nor about the recall of Cicero, nor as to the murder or Clodius, nor any similar decrees of the people of commons, can be called laws. For they are not general decrees, and they are framed with regard, not to the whole body of citizens, but to individuals. Hence they ought rather to be called privilegia, or

privileges,

since the ancients used priva where we now use singula (private or individual). This word Lucilius used in the first book of his Satires: [*](v. 49, Marx.)

1. I'll give them, when they come, each his own (priva) piece
2. Of tunny belly and acarne [*](The acarne was a kind of sea-fish.) heads.

Capito, however, in the same definition divided [*](Fr. 23, Huschke; 14, Bremer.) the plebes, [*](The older form of the nominative plebs.) or

commons,

from the populus, or

people,

since in the term

people

are embraced every part of the state and all its orders, but

commons

is properly applied to that part in which the patrician families of the citizens are not included. Therefore, according to Capito, a plebisscitum is a law which the commons, and not the people, adopt.

But the head itself, the origin, and as it were the fount of this whole process of law is the rogatio, whether the appeal (rogatio) is to the people or to the commons, on a matter relating to all or to individuals. For all the words under discussion are understood and included in the fundamental principle and name of rogatio; for unless the people or commons be appealed to (rogetur), no decree of the people or commons can be passed.

But although all this is true, yet in the old records we observe that no great distinction is made among the words in question. For the common term lex is used both of decrees of the commons and of

privileges,

and all are called by the indiscriminate and inexact name rogatio.

Even Sallust, who is most observant of propriety in the use of words, has yielded to custom and applied the term

law

to the

privilege

which was passed with reference to the return of Gnaeus Pompeius. The passage, from the second book of his Histories, reads as follows: [*](ii. 21, Maur.)

For when Sulla, as consul, proposed a law (legem) touching his return, the tribune of the commons, Gaius Herennius, had vetoed it by previous arrangement.

Why Marcus Cicero very scrupulously avoided any use of the words novissime and novissimus.

IT is clear that Marcus Cicero was unwilling to use many a word which is now in general circulation, and was so in his time, because he did not approve of them; for instance, novissimus and novissine. For although both Marcus Cato [*](Fr. inc. 51, Jordan.) and Sallust, [*](Cat. xxxiii. 2; Jug. x. 2; xix. 7, etc.) as well as others also of the same period, have used that word generally, and although many men besides who were not without learning wrote it in their books, yet he seems to have abstained from it, on the ground that it was not good Latin, since Lucius Aelius Stilo, [*](p. 53, 15, Fun.) who was the most learned man of his time, had avoided its use, as that of a novel and improper word.

Moreover, what Marcus Varro too thought of that word I have deemed it fitting to show from his own words in the sixth book of his De Lingua Latina, dedicated to Cicero: [*](vii. 59.)

What used to be called extremum or 'last,'

says he,

is beginning to be called generally novissimum, a word which within my own memory both Aelius and several old men avoided as too new a term; as to its origin, just as from vetus we have vetustior and veterrimus, so from novus we get novior and novissimus.

[*](Novissimus occurs in Caesar and in Cicero, Rosc. Com. 30; novior is avoided wholly by the classical writers.)

A passage taken from Plato's book entitled Gorgias, on the abuses of false philosophy, with which those who are ignorant of the rewards of true philosophy assail philosophers without reason.

PLATO, a man most devoted to the truth and most ready to point it out to all, has said truly and nobly, though not from the mouth of a dignified or suitable character, all that in general may be said against those idle and worthless fellows, who, sheltered under the name of philosophy, follow profitless idleness and darkness of speech and life. For although Callicles, whom he makes his speaker, being ignorant of true philosophy, heaps dishonourable and undeserved abuse upon philosophers, yet what he says is to be taken in such a way that we may gradually come to understand it as a warning to ourselves not to deserve such reproofs, and not by idle and foolish sloth to feign the pursuit and cultivation of philosophy.

I have written down Plato's own words on this subject from the book called Gorgias, not attempting to translate them, because no Latinity, much less my own, can emulate their qualities: [*](Gorgias 40, p. 484 C-D; 485 A-E.)

Philosophy, Socrates, is indeed a nice thing, if one pursue it in youth with moderation; but if one occupy oneself with it longer than is proper, it is a corrupter of men. For even if a man be well endowed by nature and follow philosophy when past his youth, he must necessarily be ignorant of all those things in which a man ought to be versed if he is to be honourable, good and of high repute. For such men are ignorant both of the laws relating to the city, and of the language which

v2.p.275

it is necessary to use in the intercourse of human society, both privately and publicly, and of the pleasures and desires of human life; in brief, they are wholly unacquainted with manners. Accordingly, when they engage in any private or public business, they become a laughing-stock; just exactly as statesmen, I suppose, become ridiculous when they enter into your debates and discussions.

A little later he adds the following: "But I think it best to take part in both. It is good to pursue philosophy merely as a matter of education, and to be a philosopher is not dishonourable when one is young; but when one who is already older persists in the business, the thing becomes laughable, Socrates, and I for my part feel the same towards those who philosophize as towards those who lisp and play. Whenever I see a little boy, to whom it is fitting to speak thus, lisping and playing, I am pleased, and it seems to me becoming and liberal and suited to the age of childhood; but when I hear a small boy speaking with precision, it seems to me to be a disagreeable thing; it wounds my ears and appears to be something befitting a slave. When, however, one hears a man lisping, or sees him playing, it appears ridiculous, unmanly and deserving of stripes. I feel just the same way towards the philosophers When I see philosophy in a young man, I rejoice; it seems to me fitting, and I think that the young man in question is ingenuous; that he who does not study philosophy is not ingenuous and will never himself be worthy of anything noble or generous. But when I see an older man still philosophizing and not giving it up, such a man, Socrates, seems to me to deserve stripes. For, as I have just said, it is possible for such a man, even

though naturally well endowed, to become unmanly, avoiding the business of the city and the marketplace, where, as the poet says, [*](Homer, Iliad ix. 441 f. ou)/pw ei)do/q' o(moii/ou pole/moio Ou)d' a)gore/wn, i(/na t' a)/ndres a)riprepe/es tele/qousin.) men become

most eminent,

and living the rest of his life in hiding with young men, whispering in a corner with three or four of them, but never accomplishing anything liberal, great or satisfactory."

These sentiments, as I have said, Plato put into the mouth of a man of no great worth indeed, yet possessing a reputation for common sense and understanding and a kind of uncompromising frankness. He does not, of course, refer to that philosophy which is the teacher of all the virtues, which excels in the discharge of public and private duties alike, and which, if nothing prevents, governs cities and the State with firmness, courage and wisdom; but rather to that futile and childish attention to trifles which contributes nothing to the conduct and guidance of life, but in which people of that kind grow old in

ill-timed playmaking,

[*](Cf. Hor. Odes iv. 6 15, Troas male feriatos. Since Gellius mentions Horace by name only once, and once by possible implication (see Index), the expression had doubtless become proverbial.) regarded as philosophers by the vulgar, as they were by him from whose lips the words that I have quoted come. [*](That is, Callicles; see § 2.)

A passage from a speech of Marcus Cato on the mode of life and manners of women of the olden time; and also that the husband had the right to kill his wife, if she were taken in adultery.

Those who have written about the life and civilization of the Roman people say that the women of Rome and Latium

lived an abstemious life

; that is, that they abstained altogether from wine, which in the early language was called temetum; that it was an established custom for them to kiss their kinsfolk for the purpose of detection, so that, if they had been drinking, the odour might betray them. But they say that the women were accustomed to drink the second brewing, raisin wine, spiced wine [*](Flavoured with myrrh.) and other sweet-tasting drinks of that kind. And these things are indeed made known in those books which I have mentioned, but Marcus Cato declares that women were not only censured but also punished by a judge no less severely if they had drunk wine than if they had disgraced themselves by adultery.

I have copied Marcus Cato's words from the oration entitled On the Dowry, in which it is also stated that husbands had the right to kill wives taken in adultery: [*](p. 68. 3, Jordan.)

When a husband puts away his wife,

says he,

he judges the woman as a censor would, and has full powers if she has been guilty of any wrong or shameful act; she is severely punished if she has drunk wine; if she has done wrong with another man, she is condemned to death.

Further, as to the right to put her to death it was thus written:

If you should take your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death without a trial; but if you should commit adultery or indecency, she must not presume to lay a finger on you, nor does the law allow it.

That the most elegant speakers used the expressions die pristini, die crastini, die quarti, and die quinti, not those which are current now.

I HEAR die quarto and die quinto, which the Greeks express by ei)s teta/rthn kai\ ei)s pe/mpthn, used nowadays even by learned men, and one who speaks otherwise is looked down upon as crude and illiterate. But in the time of Marcus Tullius, and earlier, they did not, I think, speak in that way; for they used diequinte and diequinti as a compound adverb, with the second syllable of the word shortened. The deified Augustus, too, who was well versed in the Latin tongue and an imitator of his father's [*](That is, his adoptive father, Julius Caesar.) elegance in discourse, has often in his letters [*](p. 145, Weichert.) used that means of designating the days. But it will be sufficient to show the undeviating usage of the men of old, if I quote the regular formula of the praetor, in which, according to the usage of our forefathers, he is accustomed to proclaim the festival known as the Compitalia. [*](A movable festival, celebrated between Dec. 15 and Jan. 5, at cross-roads, in honour of the Lares compitales.) His words are as follows:

On the ninth day the Roman people, the Quirites, will celebrate the Compitalia; when they shall have begun, legal business ceases.

The praetor says dienoni, not die nono.

And not the praetor alone, but almost all antiquity, spoke in that way. Look you, this passage of the well-known poet Pomponius comes to my mind, from the Atellan farce entitled Mevia: [*](ii, 77, Ribbeck.3)

1. For six days now I've done no stroke of work;
2. The fourth day (diequarte) I, poor wretch, shall starve to death.

There is also the following passage from Coelius in the second book of his Histories: [*](Fr. 25, Peter2.)

If you are willing to give me the cavalry and follow me yourself with the rest of the army, on the fifth day (diequinti) I will have your dinner ready for you in the Capitol at Rome.

[*](Said to Hannibal by his officer Maharbal after the battle of Cannae, 216 B.C.) But Coelius took both the story itself and the word from the fourth book of Marcus Cato's Origines, where we find the following: [*](Fr. 86, Peter2.)

Then the master of the horse thus advised the Carthaginian dictator: 'Send me to Rome with the cavalry; on the fifth day (diequinti) your dinner shall be ready for you in the Capitol.'

The final syllable of that word I find written sometimes with e and sometimes with i; for it was usual with those men of olden times very often to use those letters without distinction, saying praefiscine and praefiscini, proclivi and proclive, and using many other words of that kind with either ending; in the same way too they said die pristini, that is,

the day before,

which is commonly expressed by pridie, changing the order of the words in the compound, as if it were pristino die. Also by a similar usage they said die crastini, meaning crastino die or

to-morrow.

The priests of the Roman people, too, when they make a proclamation for the third day, say diem perendini. But just as very many people said die pristini, so Marcus Cato in his oration Against Furius [*](xix. 7, Jordan.) said die proximi or

the next day

; and Gnaeus Matius, an exceedingly learned man, in his Mimiambi, instead of our nudius tertius, or

four days ago,

has die quarto, in these lines: [*](Fr. 11, Bahrens.)

1. Of late, four days ago (die quarto), as I recall,
2. The only pitcher in the house he broke.

Therefore the distinction will be found to be, that we use die quarto of the past, but diequarte of the future.

The names of certain weapons, darts and swords, and also of boats and ships, which are found in the books of the early writers.

ONCE upon a time, when I was riding in a carriage, to keep my mind from being dull and unoccupied and a prey to worthless trifles, it chanced to occur to me to try to recall the names of weapons, darts and swords which are found in the early histories, and also the various kinds of boats and their names. Those, then, of the former that came to mind at the time are the following: spear, pike, fire-pike, half-pike, iron bolt, Gallic spear, lance, hunting-darts, javelins, long bolts, barbed-javelins, German spears, thonged-javelin, Gallic bolt, broadswords, poisoned arrows, [*](See McCartney, Figurative Use of Animal Names, p. 47.) Illyrian hunting-spears, cimeters, darts, swords, daggers, broadswords, double-edged swords, small-swords, poniards, cleavers.

Of the lingula, or

little tongue,

since it is less common, I think I ought to say that the ancients applied that term to an oblong small-sword, made in the form of a tongue; it is mentioned by Naevius in his tragedy Hesione. I quote the line: [*](Fr. 1, Ribbeck3, who gives the title as Aesiona. There is of course a word-play on lingula.)

1. Pray let me seem to please you with my tongue,
2. But with my little tongue (lingula).

The rumpia too is a kind of weapon of the Thracian people, and the word occurs in the fourteenth book of the Annals of Quintus Ennius. [*](Ann. 390, Vahlen2; cf. Livy xxxi. 39. 11.)

The names of ships which I recalled at the time are these: merchant-ships, cargo-carriers, skiffs, warships, cavalry-transports, cutters, fast cruisers, or, as the Greeks call them, ke/lhtes, barques, smacks, sailing-skiffs, light galleys, which the Greeks call i(stiokopoi or e)paktri/des, scouting-boats, galliots, tenders, flatboats, vetutiae moediae, yachts, pinnaces, long-galliots, scullers' boats, caupuls, [*](Many of these names, both of weapons and ships, are most uncertain; for some no exact equivalent can be found.) arks, fair-weather craft, pinks, lighters, spy-boats.

That Asinius Pollio showed ignorance in criticizing Sallust because he used transgressus (crossing) for transfretatio (crossing the sea) and trangressi (those who had crossed) for qui transfretaverant (those who had crossed the sea).

ASINIUS POLLIO, in a letter which he addressed to Plancus, and certain others who were unfriendly to Gaius Sallustius, thought that Sallust deserved censure because in the first book of his Histories he called the crossing of the sea and a passage made in ships transgresses, using transgressi of those who had crossed the sea, for which the usual term is transfretare. I give Sallust's own words: [*](Hist. i. 104, Maur.)

Accordingly Sertorius, having left a small garrison in Mauretania and taking advantage of a dark night and a favourable tide, tried either by secrecy or speed to avoid a battle while crossing (in transgressu).

Then later he wrote: [*](ib. i. 105.)

When they had crossed (transgressos), a mountain which had been seized in advance by the Lusitanians gave them all shelter.

This, they say, is an improper and careless usage, supported by no adequate authority.

For transgressus,

says Pollio,

comes from transgredi, 'to step

v2.p.289

across,' and this word itself refers to walking and stepping with the feet.

Therefore Pollio thought that the verb transgredi did not apply to those who fly or creep or sail, but only to those who walk and measure the way with their feet. Hence they say that in no good writer can transgressus be found applied to ships, or as the equivalent of transfretatio.

But, since cursus, or

running,

is often correctly used of ships, I ask why it is that ships may not be said to make a transgressus, especially since the small extent of the narrow strait which flows between Spain and the Afric land is most elegantly described by the word transgressio, as being a distance of only a few steps. But as to those who ask for authority and assert that ingredi or transgredi has not been used of sailing, I should like them to tell me how much difference they think there is between ingredi, or

march,

and ambulare, or

walk.

Yet Cato in his book On Farming says: [*](i. 3.)

A farm should be chosen in a situation where there is a large town near by and the sea, or a river where ships pass (ambulant).

Moreover Lucretius, by the use of this same expression, bears testimony that such figures are intentional and are regarded as ornaments of diction. For in his fourth book he speaks of a shout as

marching

(gradientem) through the windpipe and jaws, which is much bolder than the Sallustian expression about the ships. The lines of Lucretius are as follows: [*](iv. 526.)

1. The voice besides doth often scrape the throat;
2. A shout forth marching (gradiens) doth make the windpipe rough.

Accordingly, Sallust, in the same book, uses progressus, not only of those who sailed in ships, but also of floating skiffs. I have added his own words about the skiffs: [*](Hist. i. 98, Maur.)

Some of them, after going (progressae) but a little way, the load being excessive and unstable, when panic had thrown the passengers into disorder, began to sink.

A story of the Roman and the Carthaginian people, showing that they were rivals of nearly equal strength.

IT is stated in ancient records that the strength, the spirit and the numbers of the Roman and the Carthaginian people were once equal. And this opinion was not without foundation. With other nations the contest was for the independence of one or the other state, with the Carthaginians it was for the rule of the world.

An indication of this is found in the following word and act of each of the two peoples: Quintus Fabius, a Roman general, delivered a letter to the Carthaginians, in which it was written that the Roman people had sent them a spear and a herald's staff, signs respectively of war and peace; they might choose whichever they pleased and regard the one which they should choose as sent them by the Roman people. The Carthaginians replied that they chose neither one; those who had brought them might leave whichever they liked; that whatever should be left them they would consider that they themselves had chosen.

Marcus Varro, however, says that neither the spear itself nor the staff itself was sent, but two

tokens, on one of which was engraved the representation of a staff; on the other that of a spear.

About the limits of the periods of boyhood, manhood and old age, taken from the History of Tubero.

TUBERO, in the first book of his History,[*](Fr. 4, Peter2.) has written that King Servius Tullius, when he divided the Roman people into those five classes of older and younger men for the purpose of making the enrolment, regarded as pueri, or

boys,

those who were less than seventeen years old; then, from their seventeenth year, when they were thought to be fit for service, he enrolled them as soldiers, calling them up to the age of forty-six iuniores, or

younger men,

and beyond that age, seniores, or

elders.

I have made a note of this fact, in order that from the rating of Servius Tullius, that most sagacious king, the distinctions between boyhood, manhood, and old age might be known, as they were established by the judgment, and according to the usage, of our forefathers.

That the particle atque is not only conjunctive, but has many and varied meanings.

THE particle atque is said by the grammarians to be a copulative conjunction. And as a matter of fact, it very often joins and connects words; but sometimes it has certain other powers, which are

not sufficiently observed, except by those engaged in a diligent examination of the early literature. For it has the force of an adverb when we say

I have acted otherwise than (atque) you,

for it is equivalent to aliter quam tu; and if it is doubled, it amplifies and emphasizes a statement, as we note in the Annals of Quintus Ennius, unless my memory of this verse is at fault: [*](Ann. 537, Vahlen.2)

1. And quickly (atque atque) to the walls the Roman manhood came.

The opposite of this meaning is expressed by deque, also found in the early writers. [*](Text and meaning are uncertain of this and the following sentence; see critical note.)

Atque is said to have been used besides for another adverb also, namely statim, as is thought to be the case in these lines of Virgil, where that particle is employed obscurely and irregularly: [*](Georg. i. 199.)

1. Thus, by Fate's law, all speeds towards the worse,
2. And giving way, falls back; e'en as if one
3. Whose oars can barely force his skiff upstream
4. Should chance to slack his arms and cease to drive;
5. Then straightway (atque) down the flood he's swept away.

On the origin of the term terra Italia, or

the land of Italy

; of that fine which is called

supreme

; concerning the reason for the name and on the Aternian law; and in what words the

smallest

fine used to be pronounced in ancient days.

TIMAEUS, in the History[*](F.H.G. i. 195, Müller ) which he composed in the Greek language about the affairs of the Roman people, and Marcus Varro in his Human Antiquities, [*](x. f. 1, Mirsch.) wrote that the land of Italy derived its name from a Greek word, oxen in the old Greek tongue being called i)taloi/; for in Italy there was a great abundance of cattle, and in that land pastures are numerous and grazing is a frequent employment.

Furthermore, we may infer that it was for the same reason—namely, since Italy at that time so abounded in cattle—that the fine was established which is called

supreme,

consisting of two sheep and thirty oxen each day, obviously proportionate to the abundance of oxen and the scarcity of sheep. But when a fine of that sort, consisting of cattle and sheep, was pronounced by a magistrate, oxen and sheep were brought, now of small, again of greater value; and this made the penalty of the fine unequal. Therefore later, by the Aternian law, [*](Passed by the consul, A. Atinius, in 454 B.C.) the value of a sheep was fixed at ten pieces of brass, of the cattle at a hundred apiece. Now the

smallest

fine is that of one sheep. The

supreme

fine is of that number which we have mentioned, beyond which it is not lawful to impose a fine for a period of successive days; [*](That is, for a certain number of animals to be paid on a number of successive days.) and for that reason it is called

supreme,

that is, greatest and heaviest.

When therefore even now, according to ancient usage, either the

smallest

or the

supreme

fine is pronounced by Roman magistrates, it is regularly observed that oves (

sheep

) be given the masculine gender; and Marcus Varro has thus recorded the words of the law by which the smallest fine was pronounced: [*](xxiii. fr. 2, Mirsch.)

Against Marcus Terentius, since, though summoned, he has neither appeared nor been excused, I pronounce a fine of one sheep (unum ovem)

; and they declared that the fine did not appear to be legal unless that gender was used.

Furthermore, Marcus Varro, in the twenty-first book of his Human Antiquities, also says [*](xxi. fr. 1, Mirsch.) that the word for fine (multa) is itself not Latin, but Sabine, and he remarks that it endured even to within his own memory in the speech of the Samnites, who are sprung from the Sabines. But the upstart herd of grammarians have asserted that this word, like some others, is used on the principle of opposites. [*](That is, the lucus a non lucendo idea.) Furthermore, since it is a usage and custom in language for us to say even now, as the greater number of the early men did, multam dixit and multa dicta est, I have thought it not out of place to note that Marcus Cato spoke otherwise. [*](Fr. 82, Peter2.) For in the fourth book of his Origins are these words:

Our commander, if anyone has gone to battle out of order, imposes (facit) a fine upon him.

But it may seem that Cato changed the word with an eye to propriety, since the fine was imposed in camp and in the army, not pronounced in the comitium or in the presence of the people.

That the word elegantia in earlier days was not used of a more refined nature, but of excessive fastidiousness in dress and mode of life, and was a term of reproach.

IT was not customary to call a man elegans, or

elegant,

by way of praise, but up to the time of Marcus Cato that word as a rule was a reproach, not a compliment. And this we may observe both in some other writers, and also in the work of Cato entitled Carmen de Moribus. In this book is the following passage: [*](p. 82, 10, Jordan.)

They thought that avarice included all the vices; whoever was considered extravagant, ambitious, elegant, vicious or good-fornothing received praise.

[*](That is, in comparison with the miser.) It is evident from these words that in days of old the

elegant

man was so called, not because of refinement of character, but because he was excessively particular and extravagant in his attire and mode of life.

Later, the

elegant

man ceased indeed to be reproached, but he was deemed worthy of no commendation, unless his elegance was very moderate. Thus Marcus Tullius commended Lucius Crassus and Quintus Scaevola, not for mere elegance, but for elegance combined with great frugality.

Crassus,

he says, [*](Brut. 148.)

was the most frugal of elegant men; Scaevola the most elegant of the frugal.

Besides this, in the same work of Cato, I recall also these scattered and cursory remarks: [*](p. 83, 1, Jordan.)

It was

v2.p.305

the custom,

says he,

to dress becomingly in the forum, at home to cover their nakedness. They paid more for horses than for cooks. The poetic art was not esteemed. If anyone devoted himself to it, or frequented banquets, he was called a 'ruffian.'

This sentiment too, of conspicuous truthfulness, is to be found in the same work: [*](Id., p. 83, 5.)

Indeed, human life is very like iron. If you use it, it wears out; if you do not, it is nevertheless consumed by rust. In the same way we see men worn out by toil; if you toil not, sluggishness and torpor are more injurious than toil.

The nature and degree of the variety of usage in the particle pro; and some examples of the differences.

WHEN I have leisure from legal business, and walk or ride for the sake of bodily exercise, I have the habit sometimes of silently meditating upon questions that are trifling indeed and insignificant, even negligible in the eyes of the uneducated, but are nevertheless highly necessary for a thorough understanding of the early writers and a knowledge of the Latin language. For example, lately in the retirement of Praeneste, [*](From this passage some have inferred that Gellius had a villa at Praeneste.) as I was taking my evening walk alone, I began to consider the nature and degree of variety in the use of certain particles in the Latin language; for instance, in the preposition pro. For I saw that we had one use in

the priests passed a decree in the name of their order,

and another in

that a witness who had been called in

v2.p.307

said by way of testimony

; that Marcus Cato used it in still another way in the fourth book of his Origins: [*](Fr. 91, Peter2.)

The battle was fought and ended before the camp,

and also in the fifth book: [*](Fr. 96, Peter2.)

That all the islands and cities were in favour of the Illyrian land.

Also

before the temple of Castor

is one form of expression,

on the rostra

another,

before, or on, the tribunal

[*](On the origin of such expressions, see Frank, Riv. di Fil. liii (1925), p. 105.) another,

in presence of the assembly

another, and

the tribune of the commons interposed a veto in view of his authority

still another. Now, I thought that anyone who imagined that all these expressions were wholly alike and equal, or were entirely different, was in error; for I was of the opinion that this variety came from the same origin and source, but yet that its end was not the same. And this surely anyone will easily understand, [*](The preceding statement is not easy to understand. Gellius seems to mean that all the different significations of pro developed from one or two original meanings. Thus for or before will give the general meaning in nearly all the examples except on the rostra and on the tribunal, for which see Frank's article, cited in the preceding note.) if he attentively considers the question and has a somewhat extensive use and knowledge of the early language.