Noctes Atticae

Numerous important details about Sicinius Dentatus, the distinguished warrior.

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

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

A law of Solon, the result of careful thought and consideration, which at first sight seems unfair and unjust, but on close examination is found to be altogether helpful and salutary.

AMONG those very early laws of Solon which were inscribed upon wooden tablets at Athens, and which, promulgated by him, the Athenians ratified by penalties and oaths, to ensure their permanence, Aristotle says [*](Cf. Pol. )Aqhn. 8.) that there was one to this effect:

If because of strife and disagreement civil dissension shall ensue and a division of the people into two parties, and if for that reason each side, led by their angry feelings, shall take up arms and fight, then if anyone at that time, and in such a condition of civil discord, shall not ally himself with one or the other faction, but by himself and apart shall hold aloof from the common calamity of the State, let hint be deprived of his home, his country, and all his property, and be an exile and an outlaw.

When I read this law of Solon, who was a man of extraordinary wisdom, I was at first filled with something like great amazement, and I asked myself why it was that those who had held themselves aloof from dissension and civil strife were thought to be deserving of punishment. Then those who had profoundly and thoroughly studied the purpose and meaning of the law declared that it was designed, not to increase, but to terminate, dissension. And that is exactly so. For if all good men, who have been unequal to checking the dissension at the outset, do not abandon the aroused and frenzied people, but divide and ally themselves with one or the other faction, then the result will be, that when they have become members of the two opposing parties, and, being men of more than ordinary influence, have begun to guide and direct those parties, harmony can best be restored and established through the efforts of such men, controlling and soothing as they will the members of their respective factions, and desiring to reconcile rather than destroy their opponents.

The philosopher Favorinus thought that this same course ought to be adopted also with brothers, or with friends, who are at odds; that is, that those who are neutral and kindly disposed towards both parties, if they have had little influence in bringing about a reconciliation because they have not made their friendly feelings evident, should then take sides, some one and some the other, and through this manifestation of devotion pave the way for restoring harmony.

But as it is,

said he,

most of the friends of both parties make a merit of abandoning the two disputants, leaving them to the tender

v1.p.159

mercies of ill-disposed or greedy advisers, who, animated by hatred or by avarice, add fuel to their strife and inflame their passions.

That the early writers used liberi in the plural number even of a single son or daughter.

The early orators and writers of history or of poetry called even one son or daughter liberi, using the plural. And I have not only noticed this usage at various times in the works of several other of the older writers, but I just now ran across it in the fifth book of Sempronius Asellio's History. [*](Fr. 6, Peter.) This Asellio was military tribune under Publius Scipio Africanus at Numantia and wrote a detailed account of the events in whose action he himself took part.

His words about Tiberius Gracchus, tribune of the commons, at the time when he was killed on the Capitol, are as follows:

For whenever Gracchus left home, he was never accompanied by less than three or four thousand men.

And farther on he wrote thus of the same Gracchus:

He began to beg that they would at least defend him and his children (liberi); and then he ordered that the one male child which he had at that time should be brought out, and almost in tears commended him to the protection of the people.

That Marcus Cato, in the speech entitled Against the Exile Tiberius, says stitisses vadimonium with an i, and not stetisses; and the explanation of that word.

IN an old copy of the speech of Marcus Cato, which is entitled ,Against the Exile Tiberius,[*](xliii. Jordan.) we find

the following words:

What if with veiled head you had kept your recognizance?

Cato indeed wrote stitisses, correctly; but revisers have boldly and falsely written an e and put stelisses in all the editions, on the ground that stitisses is an unmeaning and worthless reading. Nay, it is rather they themselves that are ignorant and worthless, in not knowing that Cato wrote stitisses because sisteretur is used of recognizance, not staretur.

To what extent in ancient days it was to old age in particular that high honours were paid; and why it was that later those same honours were extended to husbands and fathers; and in that connection some provisions of the seventh section of the Julian law.

AMONG the earliest Romans, as a rule, neither birth nor wealth was more highly honoured than age, but older men were reverenced by their juniors almost like gods and like their own parents, and everywhere and in every kind of honour they were regarded as first and of prior right. From a dinner-party, too, older men were escorted home by younger men, as we read in the records of the past, a custom which, as tradition has it, the Romans took over from the Lacedaemonians, by whom, in accordance with the laws of Lycurgus, greater honour on all occasions was paid to greater age.

But after it came to be realised that progeny were a necessity for the State, and there was occasion to add to the productivity of the people by premiums and other inducements, then in certain respects greater deference was shown to men who had a wife, and to those who had children, than to older

men who had neither wives nor children. Thus in chapter seven of the Julian law [*](In 18 B.C. Augustus proposed a law de maritandis ordinibus,imposing liabilities on the unmarried and offering rewards to those who married and reared children. It was violently opposed, but was finally passed in a modified form. See Suet. Aug. xxxiv. In A.D. 9 the lex Papia Poppaea, called from the consules suffecti of the year, was added. The combined Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea contained at least 35 chapters (Dig. 23. 2. 19). ) priority in assuming the emblems of power is given, not to the elder of the consuls, but to him who either has more children tinder his control than his colleague, or has lost them in war. But if both have an equal number of children, the one who has a wife, or is eligible for marriage, is preferred. If, however, both are married and are fathers of the same number of children, then the standard of honour of early times is restored, and the elder is first to assume the rods. But when both consuls are without wives and have the same number of sons, or are husbands but have no children, there is no provision in that law as to age. However, I hear that it was usual for those who had legal priority to yield the rods for the first month to colleagues who were either considerably older than they, or of much higher rank, or who were entering upon a second consulship.

Sulpicius Apollinaris' criticism of Caesellius Vindex for his explanation of a passage in Virgil.

VIRGIL has the following lines in the sixth book: [*](760 ff.)

1. Yon princeling, thou beholdest leaning there
2. Upon a bloodless [*](See note 1, p. 155.) lance, shall next emerge
3. Into the realms of day. He is the first
4. Of half-Italian strain, thy last-born heir,
5. To thine old age by fair Lavinia given,
v1.p.165
6. Called Silvius, a royal Alban name
7. (Of sylvan birth and sylvan nurture he),
8. A king himself and sire of kings to come,
9. By whom our race in Alba Longa reign.

It appeared to Caesellius that there was utter inconsistency between

1. thy last-born heir

and

1. To thine old age by fair Lavinia given,
2. Of sylvan birth.

For if, as is shown by the testimony of almost all the annals, this Silvius was born after the death of Aeneas, and for that reason was given the forename Postumus, with what propriety does Virgil add:

1. To thine old age by fair Lavinia given,
2. Of sylvan birth?

For these words would seem to imply that while Aeneas was still living, but was already an old man, a son Silvius was born to him and was reared. Therefore Caesellius, in his Notes on Early Readings, expressed the opinion that the meaning of the words was as follows:

Postuma proles,

said he,

does not mean a child born after the death of his father, but the one who was born last; this applies to Silvius, who was born late and after the usual time, when Aeneas was already an old man.

But Caesellius names no adequate authority for this version, while that Silvius was born, as I have said, after Aeneas' death, has ample testimony.

Therefore Sulpicius Apollinaris, among other criticisms of Caesellius, notes this statement of his as

an error, and says that the cause of the error is the phrase quem tibi longaevo.

Longaevo,

he says,

does not mean 'when old,' for that is contrary to historical truth, but rather ' admitted into a life that is now long and unending, and made immortal.' For Anchises, who says this to his son, knew that after Aeneas had ended his life among men he would be immortal and a local deity, and enjoy a long and everlasting existence.

Thus Apollinaris, ingeniously enough. But yet a

long life

is one thing, and an

unending life

another, and the gods are not called

of great age,

but

immortal.