Noctes Atticae

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.

How Quintus Ennius rivalled [*](The principle of rivalry, the a)gw/n, was a recognized feature of literary technique.) certain verses of Euripides.

IN the Hecuba of Euripides there are some verses remarkable and brilliant in their diction, their thought and their terseness. Hecuba is speaking to Ulysses: [*](v. 293; the translation is that of Way, L.C.L.)

1. Thine high repute, how ill soe'er thou speak'st,
2. Shall sway them; for the same speech carrieth not
3. Like weight from men contemned and men revered.

These verses Quintus Ennius, when he translated that tragedy, rivalled with no little success. The verses of Ennius are the same in number, as follows: [*](v. 165, Ribbeck3.)

1. Though thou speak'st ill, thou wilt the Achivi sway;
2. The selfsame words and speech have other weight
3. When spoken by the great and by the obscure.

Ennius, as I have said, did well; but yet ignobiles and opulenti do not seem to express the full force of a)docou/ntwn and dokou/ntwn; for not all who are obscure are contemned, nor are the great all revered.

Some brief notes about the Pyrronian philosophers and the Academics; and of the difference between them.

THOSE whom we call the Pyrronian philosophers are designated by the Greek name skeptikoi/, or

sceptics,

which means about the same as

inquirers

and

investigators.

For they decide nothing and determine nothing, but are always engaged in inquiring and considering what there is in all nature concerning which it is possible to decide and determine. And moreover they believe that they do not see or hear anything clearly, but that they undergo and experience something like seeing and hearing; but they are in doubt as to the nature and character of those very things which cause them those experiences, and they deliberate about them: and they declare that in everything assurance and absolute truth seem so beyond our grasp, owing to the mingling and confusing of the indications of truth and falsehood, that any man who is not rash and precipitate in his judgment ought to use the language which they say was used by Pyrro, the founder of that philosophy:

Does not this matter stand so, rather than so, or is it neither?

For they deny that proofs of anything and its real qualities can be known and understood, and they try in many ways to point this out and demonstrate it. On this subject Favorinus too with great keenness and subtlety has composed ten books, which he entitled Purrwnei=oi Tro/poi, or The Pyrronian Principles. [*](p. 88, Marres. Apparently a discussion of the arguments by which the Pyrronian philosophers supported their beliefs.)

It is besides a question of long standing, which has been discussed by many Greek writers, whether the Pyrronian and Academic philosophers differ at all, and to what extent. For both are called

sceptics, inquirers and doubters,

since both affirm nothing and believe that nothing is understood. But they say that appearances, which they call fantasi/ai, are produced from all objects, not according to the nature of the objects themselves, but according to the condition of mind or body of those to whom those appearances come. Therefore they call absolutely all things that affect men's senses ta\ pro/s ti. [*](That is, things relative to something else.) This expression means that there is nothing at all that is self-dependent or which has its own power and nature, but that absolutely all things have

reference

v2.p.313

to something else

and seem to be such as their appearance is while they are seen, and such as they are formed by our senses, to which they come, not by the things themselves, from which they have proceeded. But although the Pyrronians and the Academics express themselves very much alike about these matters, yet they are thought to differ from each other both in certain other respects and especially for this reason—because the Academics do, as it were,

comprehend

[*](Comprehendo is used in a technical sense; cf. Cic. Acad. Pr. ii. 47, cum plane compresserat (manum) pugnumque fecerat, comprehensionem illam esse dicebat; also Acad. Post. i. 11, where kata/lhpton is rendered by comprehensio, and kata/lhyin by rebus quae manu prenderentur.) the very fact that nothing can be comprehended, and, as it were, decide that nothing can be decided, while the Pyrronians assert that not even that can by any means be regarded as true, because nothing is regarded as true.

That at Rome women did not swear by Hercules nor men by Castor.

IN our early writings neither do Roman women swear by Hercules nor the men by Castor. But why the women did not swear by Hercules is evident, since they abstain from sacrificing to Hercules. On the other hand, why the men did not name Castor in oaths is not easy to say. Nowhere, then, is it possible to find an instance, among good writers, either of a woman saying

by Hercules

or a man,

by Castor

; but edepol, which is an oath by Pollux, is common to both man and woman. Marcus Varro, however, asserts [*](p. 375, Bipont.) that the earliest men were wont to swear neither by Castor nor by Pollux, but that this oath was used by women alone and was taken from the Eleusinian initiations; that gradually, however, through ignorance of ancient usage, men began to say edepol, and thus it became a customary expression; but that the use of

by Castor

by a man appears in no ancient writing.

That very old words which have become antiquated and obsolete ought not to be used.

To use words that are too antiquated and worn out, or those which are unusual and of a harsh and unpleasant novelty, seems to be equally faulty. But for my own part I think it more offensive and censurable to use words that are new, unknown and unheard of, than those that are trite and mean. Furthermore, I maintain that those words also seem new which are out of use and obsolete, even though they are of ancient date. [*](Cf. Hor. Ars. Poet. 46 ff.) In fact, it is a common fault of lately acquired learning, or o)yimaqi/a as the Greeks call it, to make a great point anywhere and everywhere, and in connection with any subject whatever, to talk about what you have never learned and of which you were long ignorant, when at last you have begun to know something about it. For instance, at Rome in my presence a man of experience and celebrated as a pleader, who had acquired a sudden and, so to speak, haphazard kind of education, was speaking before the prefect of the city and wished to say that a certain man lived upon poor and wretched food, ate bread made from bran,

and drank flat and spoiled wine:

This Roman knight,

said he,

eats apluda and drinks flocces.

All who were present looked at one another, at first somewhat seriously, with a disturbed and inquiring aspect, wondering what in the world the two words meant; then presently they all burst into a laugh, as if he had said something in Etruscan or Gallic. Now that man had read that the farmers of ancient days called the chaff of grain apluda, and that the word was used by Plautus in the comedy entitled Astraba, [*](14, Götz; 16, Linds.) if that play be the work of Plautus. He had also heard that flocces in the early language meant the lees of wine pressed from the skins of grapes, corresponding to the dregs of oil from olives. This he had read in the Polumeni [*](The Pwlou/menoi, or Men offered for sale.) of Caecilius, [*](190, Ribbeck3.) and he had saved up those two words as ornaments for his speeches.

Another Einfaltspinsel also, after some little reading of that kind, when his opponent requested that a case be postponed, said:

I pray you, praetor, help me, aid me! How long, pray, shall this bovinator delay me?

And he bawled it out three or four times in a loud voice:

He is a bovinator.

A murmur began to arise from many of those who were present, as if in wonder at this monster of a word. But he, waving his arms and gesticulating, cried:

What, haven't you read Lucilius, who calls a shuffler bovinator?

And, in fact, this verse occurs in Lucilius' eleventh book: [*](417, Marx.)

If trifling shuffler (bovinator) with abusive tongue.

What Marcus Cato thought and said of Albinus, who, though a Roman, wrote a history of Rome in the Greek language, having first asked indulgence for his lack of skill in that tongue.

MARCUS CATO is said to have rebuked Aulus Albinus with great justice and neatness. Albinus, who had been consul with Lucius Lucullus, [*](In 151 B.C.) composed a Roman History in the Greek language. In the introduction to his work he wrote to this effect: [*](Fr. 1, Peter2.) that no one ought to blame him if he had written anything then in those books that was incorrect or inelegant;

for

he continues,

I am a Roman, born in Latium, and the Greek language is quite foreign to me

; and accordingly he asked indulgence and freedom from adverse criticism in case he had made any errors. When Marcus Cato had read this,

Surely, Aulus,

said he,

you are a great trifler in preferring to apologize for a fault rather than avoid it. For we usually ask pardon either when we have erred through inadvertence or done wrong under compulsion. But tell me, I pray you,

said he,

who compelled you to do that for which you ask pardon before doing it.

This is told in the thirteenth book of Cornelius Nepos' work On Famous Men. [*](Fr. 15, Peter2.)

The story of the Milesian envoys and the orator Demosthenes, found in the works of Critolaus.

CRITOLAUS has written [*](F. H. G. iv. 373.) that envoys came from Miletus to Athens on public business, perhaps for

the purpose of asking aid. Then they engaged such advocates as they chose, to speak for them, and the advocates, according to their instructions, addressed the people in behalf of the Milesians. Demosthenes vigorously opposed the demands of the Milesians, maintaining that the Milesians did not deserve aid, nor was it to the interest of the State to grant it. The matter was postponed to the next day. The envoys came to Demosthenes and begged him earnestly not to speak against them; he asked for money, and received the amount which he demanded. On the following day, when the case was taken up again, Demosthenes, with his neck and shoulders wrapped in thick wool, came forward before the people and said that he was suffering from quinsy and hence could not speak against the Milesians. Then one of the populace cried out that it was, not quinsy, but

silverinsy

from which Demosthenes was suffering.

Demosthenes himself too, as Critolaus also relates, did not afterwards conceal that matter, but actually made a boast of it. For when he had asked Aristodemus, the player, what sum he had received for acting, and Aristodemus [*](Ps.-Plutarch, Decem Orat. Vitae, Demosth., p. 848, B, says that the actor was Polos. Famous actors made large sums of money; according to Pliny, N.H. vii. 129, the celebrated Roman actor Roscius made 500,000 sesterces yearly.) had replied,

a talent,

Demosthenes rejoined:

Why, I got more than that for holding my tongue.

That Gaius Gracchus in a speech of his applied the story related above to the orator Demades, and not to Demosthenes; and a quotation of Gracchus' words.

THE story which in the preceding chapter we said was told by Critolaus about Demosthenes, Gaius

Gracchus, in the speech Against the Aufeian Law, applied to Demades in the following words: [*](0. R. F., p. 242, Meyer2.)

For you, fellow citizens, if you wish to be wise and honest, and if you inquire into the matter, will find that none of us comes forward here without pay. All of us who address you are after something, and no one appears before you for any purpose except to carry something away. I myself, who am now recommending you to increase your taxes, in order that you may the more easily serve your own advantage and administer the government, do not come here for nothing; but I ask of you, not money, but honour and your good opinion. Those who come forward to persuade you not to accept this law, do not seek honour from you, but money from Nicomedes; those also who advise you to accept it are not seeking a good opinion from you, but from Mithridates a reward and an increase of their possessions; those, however, of the same rank and order who are silent are your very bitterest enemies, since they take money from all and are false to all. You, thinking that they are innocent of such conduct, give them your esteem; but the embassies from the kings, thinking it is for their sake that they are silent, give them great gifts and rewards. So in the land of Greece, when a Greek tragic actor boasted that he had received a whole talent for one play, Demades, the most eloquent man of his country, is said to have replied to him: 'Does it seem wonderful to you that you have gained a talent by speaking? I was paid ten talents by the king for holding my tongue.' Just so, these men now receive a very high price for holding their tongues.

The words of Publius Nigidius, in which he says that there is a difference between

lying

and

telling a falsehood.

THESE are the very words of Publius Nigidius, [*](Fr. 49, Swoboda.) a man of great eminence in the pursuit of the liberal arts, whom Marcus Cicero highly respected because of his talent and learning:

There is a difference between telling a falsehood and lying. One who lies is not himself deceived, but tries to deceive another; he who tells a falsehood is himself deceived.

He also adds this:

One who lies deceives, so far as he is able; but one who tells a falsehood does not himself deceive, any more than he can help.

He also had this on the same subject:

A good man,

says he,

ought to take pains not to lie, a wise man, not to tell what is false; the former affects the man himself, the latter does not.

With variety, by Heaven! and neatness has Nigidius distinguished so many opinions relating to the same thing, as if he were constantly saying something new.