Noctes Atticae

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

if it be spotted

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

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

After the storm quieted (sedavit) Adherbal sacrificed a bull

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

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

change,

are changed.

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

I reward you,

I indicate,

I assent,

I sacrifice,

I practise usury,

I take as a pledge,

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

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

sophisms,

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

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

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

You are not what I am, are you?

But I am a man.

Then you are not a man,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

typhoons,

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

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

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

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

Since you are desirous of knowing, hear

v3.p.353

what our forefathers, the founders of the Stoic sect, thought about that brief but inevitable and natural fear, or rather,

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

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

The mental visions, which the philosophers call fantasi/ai or 'phantasies,' by which the mind of man on the very first appearance of an object is impelled to the perception of the object, are neither voluntary nor controlled by the will, but through a certain power of their own they force their recognition upon men; but the expressions of assent, which they call sugkataqe/seis, by which these visions are recognized, are voluntary and subject to man's will. Therefore when some terrifying sound, either from heaven or from a falling building or as a sudden announcement of some danger, or anything else of that kind occurs, even the mind of a wise man must necessarily be disturbed, must shrink and feel alarm, not from a preconceived idea of any danger, but from certain swift and unexpected attacks which forestall the power of the mind and of reason. Presently, however, the wise man does not approve ' such phantasies,' that is to say, such terrifying mental visions (to quote the Greek, 'he does not consent to them nor confirm them'), but he rejects and scorns them, nor does he see in them anything that ought to excite fear. And they say that there is this difference between

v3.p.355

the mind of a foolish man and that of a wise man, that the foolish man thinks that such ' visions ' are in fact as dreadful and terrifying as they appear at the original impact of them on his mind, and by his assent he approves of such ideas as if they were rightly to be feared, and 'confirms' them; for prosepidoca/zei is the word which the Stoics use in their discourses on the subject. But the wise man, after being affected for a short time and slightly in his colour and expression, 'does not assent,' but retains the steadfastness and strength of the opinion which he has always had about visions of this kind, namely that they are in no wise to be feared but excite terror by a false appearance and vain alarms.

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

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

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

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

Why are they called incontinent who indulge to excess in the pleasures of taste and touch? For both those who are immoderate in venery and those who are immoderate in the enjoyment of food are such. But of the latter, some find this gratification in the tongue and others in the throat, and it was for that reason that Philoxenos prayed to have the throat of a crane. Is it because the pleasures derived from such sources are common to us with the other animals? And being thus common they are the most dishonourable and more than the other pleasures, or alone, objects of

v3.p.359

reproach, so that we censure a man who is addicted to them and call him incontinent and incorrigible because he is enslaved to the meanest of pleasures. Now, there being five senses, the other animals are gratified by the two which have been mentioned only, but from the others they either enjoy no pleasure at all, or they merely experience it incidentally.

the election disease

that coition is a brief epilepsy.

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

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

For,

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

Why the bowels are loosened by sudden terror; also why fire provokes urine.

THERE is a work of Aristotle, entitled Physical Questions, which is most delightful, and filled with choice knowledge of all kinds. In this book he inquires [*](xxvii. 10; vii. 3.) why it happens that those who are seized with sudden fear of some great catastrophe commonly suffer at once from looseness of the bowels. He also inquires why it happens that one who has stood for some time before a fire is overtaken with a desire to make water. And he says that the cause of the loosening and discharge of the bowels because of fear is due to the fact that all terror is cold producing, or yuxropoio/s, as he calls it, and that by the effect of that cold it drives and expels all the blood and heat from the surface of the skin and at the same time causes those who fear to grow pale, because the blood leaves the face.

Now this blood and heat,

being driven inwards, usually moves the bowels and stimulates them.

The fire dissolves the solid matter, as the sun does snow.

A statement from the works of Aristotle, that snow-water is a very bad thing to drink; and that ice is formed from snow. [*](This is not what Aristotle said, but that water formed from ice was unwholesome, see § 5 and 9. See crit. note 1, p. 362.)

IN the hottest season of the year with some companions and friends of mine who were students of

This counsel he gave us repeatedly in a spirit of prudence and goodwill. But when the drinking of snow-water went on without interruption, from the library of Tibur, which at that time was in the temple of Hercules and was well supplied with books, he drew out a volume of Aristotle and brought it to us, saying:

At least believe the words of this wisest of men and cease to ruin your health.

In that book it was written [*](Frag. 214, Rose.) that water from snow was very bad to drink, as was also that water which was more solidly and completely congealed, which the Greeks call kru/stallos, or

clear ice

That when water is hardened by the cold air and congeals, it necessarily follows that evaporation takes place and that a kind of very thin vapour, so to speak, is forced from it and comes out of it. But its lightest part,

is that which is evaporated; what remains is heavier and less clean and wholesome,

v3.p.365

and this part, beaten upon by the throbbing of the air, takes on the form and colour of white foam. But that some more wholesome part is forced out and evaporated from the snow is shown by the fact that it becomes less than it was before it congealed.

I have taken a few of Aristotle's own words from that book, and I quote them:

Why is the water made from snow or ice unwholesome? Because from all water that is frozen the lightest and thinnest part evaporates. And the proof of this is that when it melts after being frozen, its volume is less than before. But since the most wholesome part is gone, it necessarily follows that what is left is less wholesome.

That shame drives the blood outward, while fear checks it.

IN the Problems of the philosopher Aristotle is the following passage: [*](Frag. 243, Rose.)

Why do men who are ashamed turn red and those who fear grow pale; although these emotions are similar? Because the blood of those who feel shame flows from the heart to all parts of the body, and therefore comes to the surface; but the blood of those who fear rushes to the heart, and consequently leaves all the other parts of the body.

When I had read this at Athens with our friend

He has told us properly and truly what happens when the blood is diffused or concentrated, but he has not told us why this takes place. For the question may still be asked why it is that shame diffuses the blood and fear contracts it, when shame is a kind of fear and is defined by the philosophers as 'the fear of just censure.' For they say: ai)sxu/nh e)sti\n fo/bos dikai/ou yo/gou.

The meaning of obesus and of some other early words.

THE poet Julius Paulus, a worthy man, very learned in early history and letters, inherited a small estate in the Vatican district. He often invited us there to visit him and entertained us very pleasantly and generously with vegetables and fruits. And so one mild day in autumn, when Julius Celsinus and I had dined with him, and after hearing the Alcestis of Laevius read at his table were returning to the city just before sunset, we were ruminating on the rhetorical figures and the new or striking use of words in that poem of Laevius', and as each word occurred that was worthy of notice with reference to its future use by ourselves, [*](This is characteristic of the archaistic period in which Gellius lived.) we committed it to memory.

Now the passages which then came to mind were of this sort: [*](Frag. 8, Bahrens.)

1. Of chest and body wasted (obeso) everywhere,
2. Of mind devoid of sense and slow of pace,
3. With age o'ercome.

shame-coloured

night-coloured

hesitatingly,

silent places,

dusty

pestilent,

mighty onset,

become brave,

sorrow,

desirous

unendurable cares,

tender hands,

who is of so flinty a heart?

the expense begins to be great,

rends.

We entertained ourselves on our way with these notes on Laevius' diction. But others we passed over as too poetic and unsuited to use in prose; for example, when he calls Nestor trisaeclisenex, or

an old man who had lived three generations

that sweet-mouthed speaker,

great-hillocked,

an onyx covering

carpers with raised eye-brows.

An inquiry whether harena, caelum and triticum are found in the plural; also whether quadrigae, inimicitiae, and some other words, occur in the singular.

WHEN I was a young man at Rome, before I went to Athens, I often paid a visit to Cornelius Fronto, when I had leisure from my masters and my lectures, and enjoyed his refined conversations, which abounded besides in excellent information. Whenever I saw him and heard him speak, I almost never failed to come away improved and better informed. An example is the following little talk of his, held one day on a trivial subject, it is true, but yet not without importance for the study of the Latin language. For when an intimate friend of his, a learned man and an eminent poet of the day, said that he had been cured of dropsy by the use of hot sand (calentes harenae), thereupon Fronto in jesting fashion said: "You are indeed freed of your complaint, but not of the complaint of improper language. For Gaius Caesar, the famous life-dictator and father-in-law of Gnaeus Pompeius, from whom the family and the name of the Caesars are derived, a man of wonderful talent, surpassing all others of his time in the purity of his diction, in the work On Analogy, which he dedicated to Marcus Cicero, wrote [*](ii. p. 126, Dinter.) that harenae is an improper term, since harena ought never to be

With regard to caelum,

and triticum I do not deny that they ought always to be used in the singular, nor with regard to arma, moenia and comitia, that their use ought to be confined to the plural; but we will inquire rather about inimicitiae and quadigae. And perhaps in the case of quadrigae I shall yield to the authority of the early writers: but what reason is there why Caesar should think that inimicitia was not used by the ancients, as were inscientia (ignorance) and impotentia (impotence) and iniuria (injury), and ought not to be used by us, when Plautus, that glory of the Latin tongue, even used delicia in the singular number instead of deliciae? For he says: [*](Poen. 365.)

1. O my delight, my darling (delicia).

Furthermore Quintus Ennius, in that most famous book of his, said: [*](Achilles, 12, p. 120, Vahlen2.)

1. Such is my habit; plain upon my brow
2. Friendship I bear and enmity (inmicitiam) to see.

v3.p.375

But pray, who else has written or said that harenae is not good Latin? And therefore I beg of you, if Gaius Caesar's book is accessible, that you have it brought, in order that you may judge with how much confidence he makes this statement.

At the time, the first book On Analogy being brought, I committed to memory these few words from it; for, first asserting that neither caelum, triticum, nor harena admitted a plural meaning, Caesar said:

Do you not think that it happens from the nature of these things that we say ' one land' and 'several lands,' 'city' and 'cities,' 'command' and 'commands,' and that we cannot convert quadrigae into the form of a singular noun or harena into a plural?

When these words had been read, Fronto said to the poet:

Does it not seem to you that Gaius Caesar has decided against you as to the status of this word with sufficient clearness and force?

If it were lawful to appeal from Caesar, I would now appeal from this book of his. But since he has neglected to give the reason for his opinion, I now ask you to tell on what ground you think it an error to say quadriga and harenae.

Quadrigae is always confined to the plural number, even though there be only one horse, since four horses yoked together are called quadrigae, from quadriugae, and certainly a term which designates many horses ought not to be included under the oneness expressed by the singular number. The same reasoning must be applied to harena, but in a different form; for since harena, though used in the singular number,

v3.p.377

nevertheless indicates the multiplicity and abundance of the minute parts of which it consists, harenae seems to be an ignorant and improper usage, as if the word needed a plural form,. when its collective nature makes it natural for it to be used in the singular. But,

I have said this, not in order to give my authority and signature to this opinion and rule, but that I might not leave the view of that learned man, Caesar, unsupported. For while caelum, or 'sky,' is always used in the singular, but mare, or 'sea,' and terra, or 'land,' not always, and pulvis, or 'dust,' ventus, or 'wind,' and fumus, or 'smoke,' not always, why did the early writers sometimes use indutiae, or 'truce,' and caerimoniae, or 'ceremony,' in the singular, but never feriae, or 'holiday,' nundinae, or 'market day,' inferiae, or 'offering to the dead,' and exsequiae, or ' obsequies'? Why may mel, or 'honey,' and vinum, or 'wine,' and other words of that kind, be used in the plural, but not lacte (milk)? [*](The classical form is, of course, lac. Lacte and lact occur in early Latin, and the use of lacte here is an archaism, which was not understood by some of the scribes; see crit. note 2.) All these questions, I say, cannot be investigated, unravelled, and thrashed out by men of affairs in so busy a city; indeed, I see that you have been delayed even by these matters of which I have spoken, being intent, I suppose, on some business. So go now and inquire, when you chance to have leisure, whether any orator or poet, provided he be of that earlier band—that is to say, any classical or authoritative writer, not one of the common herd—has used quadriga or harenae.

The very neat reply of Antonius Julianus to certain Greeks at a banquet.

A YOUNG man of equestrian rank from the land of Asia, gifted by nature, well off in manners and fortune, with a taste and talent for music, was celebrating the anniversary of the day on which he began life by giving a dinner to his friends and teachers in a little country place near the city. There had come with us then to that dinner the rhetorician Antonius Julianus, a public teacher of young men, who spoke in the Spanish manner, [*](Cf. facundia rabida iurgiosaque, § 7.) but was very eloquent, besides being well acquainted with our early literature. When there was an end of eating and drinking, and the time came for conversation, Julianus asked that the singers and lyre-players be produced, the most skilful of both sexes, whom he knew that the young man had at hand. And when the boys and girls were brought in, they sang in a most charming way several odes of Anacreon and Sappho, as well as some erotic elegies of more recent poets that were sweet and graceful. But we were especially pleased with some delightful verses of Anacreon, written in his old age, [*](Poetae Lyrici Graeci, iii., p. 298, Bergk4.) which I noted down, in order that sometimes the toil and worry of this task of mine might find relief in the sweetness of poetical compositions:

1. Shaping the silver, Hephaestus,
2. Make me no panoply, pray;
3. What do I care for war's combats?
4. Make me a drinking cup rather,
5. Deep as you ever can make it;
6. Carve on it no stars and no wains;
7. What care I, pray, for the Pleiads,
8. What for the star of Bootes?
9. Make vines, and clusters upon them,
10. Treading them Love and Bathyllus,
11. Made of pure gold, with Lyaeus.

Then several Greeks who were present at that dinner, men of refinement and not without considerable acquaintance also with our literature, began to attack and assail Julianus the rhetorician as altogether barbarous and rustic, since he was sprung from the land of Spain, was a mere ranter of violent and noisy speech, and taught exercises in a tongue which had no charm and no sweetness of Venus and the Muse; and they asked him more than once what he thought of Anacreon and the other poets of that kind, and whether any of our bards had written such smooth-flowing and delightful poems;

except,

perhaps a few of Catullus and also possibly a few of Calvus; for the compositions of Laevius were involved, those of Hortensius without elegance, of Cinna harsh, of Memmius rude, and in short those of all the poets without polish or melody.

Then Julianus, filled with anger and indignation, spoke as follows in behalf of his mother tongue, as if for his altars and his fires:

I must indeed grant you

v3.p.383

that in such licentiousness and baseness you would outdo Alcinus [*](Probably (see crit. note) another form of Alcinous, King of the Phaeacians. He is not represented by Homer as licentious and base, but that opinion arose at a later time. Cf. Horace, Epist. i. 2. 28 ff.) and that as you outstrip us in the pleasures of adornment and of food, so you do also in the wantonness of your ditties. But lest you should condemn us, that is, the Latin race, as lacking in Aphrodite's charm, just as if we were barbarous and ignorant, allow me, I pray, to cover my head with my cloak (as they say Socrates did when making somewhat indelicate remarks), and hear and learn that our forefathers also were lovers and devoted to Venus before those poets whom you have named.

Then lying upon his back with veiled head, he chanted in exceedingly sweet tones some verses of Valerius Aedituus, an early poet, and also of Porcius Licinus and Quintus Catulus; and I think that nothing can be found neater, more graceful, more polished and more terse than those verses, either in Greek or in Latin:

The verses of Aedituus are as follows: [*](Frag. 1, Bährens.)

1. When, Pamphila, I try to tell my love,
2. What shall I ask of you? Words fail my lips,
3. A sudden sweat o'erflows my ardent [*](Subidus occurs only here, and its meaning is not certain It seems to be connected with the verb subo, burn with love, but some regard it as the opposite of insubidus, foolish, stupid, in which case it might be translated conscious The alliteration and assonance in this epigram are noteworthy.) breast;
4. Thus fond and silent, I refrain and die.
5. And he also added other verses of the same poet,
6. no less sweet than the former ones: [*](Frag. 2, Bährens.)

1. O Phileros, why a torch, that we need not?
2. Just as we are we'll go, our hearts aflame.
3. That flame no wild wind's blast can ever quench,
4. Or rain that falls torrential from the skies;
5. Venus herself alone can quell her fire,
6. No other force there is that has such power.

1. O shepherds of the lambs, the ewes' young brood,
2. Seek ye for fire? Come hither; man is fire.
3. Touch I the wood with finger-tip, it burns;
4. Your flock's a flame, all I behold is fire.

1. My soul has left me; it has fled, methinks,
2. To Theotimus; he its refuge is.
3. But what if I should beg that he refuse
4. The truant to admit, but cast it out?
5. I'll go to him; but what if I be caught?
6. What shall I do? Queen Venus, lend me aid.

That the words praeter propter, which are in common use, were found also in Ennius.

I REMEMBER that I once went with Julius Celsinus the Numidian to visit Cornelius Fronto, who was then seriously ill with the gout. When we arrived and were admitted, we found him lying on a Greek

And another fifty thousand, more or less (praeterpropter).

'That word is not my own, for you may hear many men using it; but what the word means you must ask from a grammarian, not from me

We inquire about something which does not at all deserve the honour of investigation, for this is some utterly plebeian expression or other, better known in the talk of mechanics than in that of cultivated men.

But Fronto, raising his voice and with a more earnest expression, said:

Sir, does this word seem to you so degraded and utterly faulty, when Marcus

v3.p.389

Cato [*](Frag. inc. 53, Jordan.) and Marcus Varro, [*](p. 340 Bipont.) and the early writers in general, have used it as necessary and as good Latin?

1. That man in truth who knows not leisure's use
2. More trouble has than one by tasks pursued;
3. For he who has a task must be performed,
4. Devotes himself to that with heart and soul;
5. The idle mind knows not what 'tis it wants.
6. With us it is the same; for not at home
7. Are we nor in the field; from place to place
8. We haste; and once arrived, we would be gone.
9. Aimless we drift, we live but more or less
10. (praeterpropter). [*](That is, we exist rather than really live. Cf. Sophocles, fr. Iphig. ti/ktei ga\r ou)de\n e)sqlo\n ei)kai/a sxolh/, aimless idleness produces nothing that is good. (Bergk, De Frag. Soph. p. 15.))

When this had been read there, then Fronto said to the grammarian, who was already wavering:

Have you heard, most worthy master, that your Ennius used praeterpropter, and that too in an expression of opinion resembling the austerest diatribes of the philosophers? We beg you then to tell us, since we are now investigating a word used by Ennius, what the hidden meaning is in this line:

v3.p.391

1. Aimless we drift, we live but more or less.

And the grammarian, in a profuse sweat and blushing deeply, since many of the company were laughing long and loud at this, got up, saying as he left:

I will tell you at a later time, when we are alone, Fronto, in order that ignorant folk may not hear and learn.