Noctes Atticae

Gellius, Aulus

Gellius, Aulus. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. Rolfe, John C., translator. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann, 1927 (printing).

How elegantly and clearly the philosopher Favorinus described the difference between the style of Plato and that of Lysias.

FAVORINUS used to say of Plato and Lysias:

If you take a single word from a discourse of Plato or change it, and do it with the utmost skill, you will nevertheless mar the elegance of his style; if you do the same to Lysias, you will obscure his meaning.

On some words which Virgil is asserted to have used carelessly and negligently; and the answer to be made to those who bring this false charge.

SOME grammarians of an earlier time, men by no means without learning and repute, who wrote

v1.p.135

commentaries on Virgil, and among them Annaeus Cornutus, criticize the poet's use of a word in the following verses [*](Eel. vi. 75. ff.) as careless and negligent:

That, her white waist with howling monsters girt,
Dread Scylla knocked about (vexasse) Ulysses' ships
Amid the swirling depths, and, piteous sight!
The trembling sailors with her sea-dogs rent.

They think, namely, that vexasse is a weak word, indicating a slight and trivial annoyance, and not adapted to such a horror as the sudden seizing and rending of human beings by a ruthless monster.

They also criticize another word in the following: [*](Georg. iii. 4)

Who has not heard
Of king Eurystheus' pitiless commands
And altars of Busiris, the unpraised (inlaudati)?

Inlaudati, they say, is not at all a suitable world, but is quite inadequate to express abhorrence of a wretch who, because he used to sacrifice guests from all over the world, was not merely

undeserving of praise,

but rather deserving of the abhorrence and execration of the whole human race.

They have criticized still another word in the verse: [*](Aen. x. 314.)

Through tunic rough (squalentem) with gold the sword drank from his pierced side,

on the ground that it is out of place to say auro squalentem, since the filth of squalor is quite opposed to the brilliance and splendour of gold.

Now as to the word vexasse, I believe the following answer may be made: vexasse is an intensive verb, and is obviously derived from ve-

v1.p.137

here, in which there is already some notion of compulsion by another; for a man who is carried is not his own master. But vexare, which is derived from vehere, unquestionably implies greater force and impulse. For vexare is properly used of one who is seized and carried away, and dragged about hither and yon; just as taxare denotes more forcible and repeated action than tangere, from which it is undoubtedly derived; and iactare a much fuller and more vigorous action than iacere, from which it comes; and quassare something severer and more violent than quatere. Therefore, merely because vexare is commonly used of the annoyance of smoke or wind or dust is no reason why the original force and meaning of the word should be lost; and that meaning was preserved by the earlier writers who, as became them, spoke correctly and clearly.

Marcus Cato, in the speech which he wrote On the Achaeans, [*](xxxv. Jordan.) has these words:

And when Hannibal was rending and harrying (vexaret) the land of Italy.

'hat is to say, Cato used vexare of the effect on Italy of Hannibal's conduct, at a time when no species of disaster, cruelty or savagery could be imagined which Italy did not suffer from his hands. Marcus Tullius, in his fourth Oration against Verres, wrote:

This [*](The temple of Artemis at Syracuse; § 122.) was so pillaged and ravaged by that wretch, that it did not seem to have been laid waste (vexata) by an enemy who in the heat of war still felt some religious scruple and some respect for customary law, but by barbarous pirates.

But concerning inlaudatus it seems possible to give two answers. One is of this kind: There is absolutely no one who is of so perverted a character

v1.p.139

as not sometimes to do or say something that can be commended (laudari.) And therefore this very ancient line has become a familiar proverb:

Oft-times even a fool expresses himself to the purpose.

But one who, on the contrary, in his every act and at all times, deserves no praise (laude) at all is inlaudatus, and such a man is the very worst and most despicable of all mortals, just as freedom from all reproach makes one inculpatus (blameless). Now inculpatus is the synonym for perfect goodness; therefore conversely inlaudatus represents the limit of extreme wickedness. It is for that reason that Homer usually bestows high praise, not by enumerating virtues, but by denying faults; for example: [*](Iliad iv. 366, 768, etc.)

And not unwillingly they charged,

and again: [*](Iliad iv. 223.)

Not then would you divine Atrides see
Confused, inactive, nor yet loath to fight.

Epicurus too in a similar way defined the greatest pleasure as the removal and absence of all pain, in these words: [*](Sent. iii. p. 72, Ussing.)

The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of all that pains.

Again Virgil on the same principle called the Stygian pool

unlovely.

[*](Georg. iv. 479; Aen. vi. 438.) For just as he expressed abhorrence of the

unpraised

man by the denial of praise, so he abhorred the

unlovable

by the denial of love. Another defence of inlaudatus is this: laudare in early Latin means

to name

and

cite.

Thus in civil actions they use laudare of an authority, when he is cited. Conversely, the inlaudatus is the same as

v1.p.141

the inlaudabilis, namely, one who is worthy neither of mention nor remembrance, and is never to be named; as, for example, in days gone by the common council of Asia decreed that no one should ever mention the name of the man who had burned the temple of Diana at Ephesus. [*](He is said to have set fire to the temple in order to make himself notorious for all time; see Val. Max. viii. 14. Exb. 5. His name, Herostratus, was preserved by Theopompus.)

There remains the third criticism, his use of the expression

a tunic rough with gold.

But squalentem signifies a quantity or thick layer of gold, laid on so as to resemble scales. For squalere is used of the thick, rough scales (squamae) which are to be seen on the skins of fish or snakes. This is made clear both by others and indeed by this same poet in several passages; thus: [*](Aen. xi. 770.)

A skin his covering was, plumed with brazen scales (squamis)
And clasped with gold.

and again: [*](Aen. xi. 487.)

And now has he his flashing breastplate donned,
Bristling with brazen scales (squamis).

Accius too in the Pelopidae writes thus: [*](v. 517, Ribbeck3.)

This serpent's scales (squamae) rough gold and purple wrought.

Thus we see that squalere was applied to whatever was overloaded and excessively crowded with anything, in order that its strange appearance might strike terror into those who looked upon it. So too on neglected and scaly bodies the deep layer of dirt was called squalor, and by long and continued use in that sense the entire word has become so corrupted, that finally squalor has come to be used of nothing but filth.

v1.p.143

Of the obedience of children to their parents; and quotations on this subject from the writings of the philosophers, in which it is inquired whether all a father's commands should be obeyed.

IT is a frequent subject of discussion with philosophers, whether a father should always be obeyed, whatever the nature of his commands. As to this question writers On Duty, both Greeks and our own countrymen, have stated that there are three opinions to be noticed and considered, and these they have differentiated with great acuteness The first is, that all a father's commands must be obeyed; the second, that in some he is to be obeyed, in others not; the third, that it is not necessary to yield to and obey one's father in anything.

Since at first sight this last opinion is altogether shameful, I shall begin by stating what has been said on that point.

A father's command,

they say,

is either right or wrong. If it is right, it is not to be obeyed because it is his order, but the thing must be done because it is right that it be done. If his command is wrong, surely that should on no account be done which ought not to be done.

Thus they arrive at the conclusion that a father's command should never be obeyed. But I have neither heard that this view has met with approval —for it is a mere quibble, both silly and foolish, as I shall presently show—nor can the opinion which we stated first, that all a father's commands are to be obeyed, be regarded as true and acceptable. For what if he shall command treason to one's country, a mother's murder, or some other base or impious

v1.p.145

deed? The intermediate view, therefore, has seemed best and safest, that some commands are to be obeyed and others not. But yet they say that commands which ought not to be obeyed must nevertheless be declined gently and respectfully, without excessive aversion or bitter recrimination, and rather left undone than spurned.

But that conclusion from which it is inferred, as has been said above, that a father is never to be obeyed, is faulty, and may be refuted and disposed of as follows: All human actions are, as learned men have decided, either honourable or base. Whatever is inherently right or honourable, such as keeping faith, defending one's country, loving one's friend's, ought to be done whether a father commands it or not; but whatever is of the opposite nature, and is base and altogether evil, should not be done even at a father's order. Actions, however, which lie between these, and are called by the Greeks now me/sa, or

neutral,

and now a)dia/fora, or

indifferent,

such as going to war, tilling the fields, seeking office, pleading causes, marrying a wife, going when ordered, coming when called; since these and similar actions are in themselves neither honourable nor base, but are to be approved or disapproved exactly according to the manner in which we perform them: for this reason they believe that in every kind of action of this description a father should be obeyed; as for instance, if he should order his son to marry a wife or to plead for the accused. For since each of these acts, in its actual nature and of itself, is neither honourable nor base, if a father should command it, he ought to be obeyed. But if he should order his son to

v1.p.147

marry a woman of ill repute, infamous and criminal, or to speak in defence of a Catiline, a Tubulus, [*](Catiline and Clodius are too notorious to require comment. L. Hostilius Tubulus, praetor in 142 B. C., accepted bribes when presiding at a trial for murder. Cic., De Nal. Deorum i. 63 and elsewhere, cites him as an example of iniquity. ) or a Publius Clodius, of course he ought not to be obeyed, since by the addition of a certain degree of evil these acts cease to be inherently neutral and indifferent. Hence the premise of those who say that

the commands of a father are either honourable or base

is incomplete, and it cannot be considered what the Greeks call

sound and regular disjunctive proposition.

For that disjunctive premise lacks the third member,

or are neither honourable nor base.

If this be added, the conclusion cannot be drawn that a father's command must never be obeyed.

The unfairness of Plutarch's criticism of Epicurus' knowledge of the syllogism.

PLUTARCH, in the second book of his essay On Homer,[*](vii, p. 100, Bern.) asserts that Epicurus made use of an incomplete, perverted and faulty syllogism, and he quotes Epicurus' own words: [*](Sent. II, p. 71, Ussing.)

Death is nothing to us, for what is dissolved is without perception, and what is without perception is nothing to us.

Now Epicurus,

says Plutarch, "omitted what he ought to have stated as his major premise, that death is a dissolution of body and soul, and then, to prove something else, he goes on to use the very premise that he had omitted, as if it had been stated and conceded. But this syllogism," says Plutarch,

cannot advance, unless that premise be first presented.

v1.p.149

What Plutarch wrote as to the form and sequence of a syllogism is true enough; for if you wish to argue and reason according to the teaching of the schools, you ought to say:

Death is the dissolution of soul and body; but what is dissolved is without perception; and what is without perception is nothing to us.

But we cannot suppose that Epicurus, being the man he was, omitted that part of the syllogism through ignorance, or that it was his intention to state a syllogism complete in all its members and limitations, as is done in the schools of the logicians; but since the separation of body and soul by death is self-evident, he of course did not think it necessary to call attention to what was perfectly obvious to everyone. For the same reason, too, he put the conclusion of the syllogism, not at the end, but at the beginning; for who does not see that this also was not due to inadvertence?

In Plato too you will often find syllogisms in which the order prescribed in the schools is disregarded and inverted, with a kind of lofty disdain of criticism.

How the same Plutarch, with obvious captiousness, criticized the use of a word by Epicurus.

IN the same book, [*](vii, p. 101, Bern.) Plutarch also finds fault a second time with Epicurus for using an inappropriate word and giving it an incorrect meaning. Now Epicurus wrote as follows: [*](Sect. iii, p. 72, Ussing.)

The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of everything that pains.

Plutarch declares that he ought not to have said

v1.p.151

of everything that pains,

but

of everything that is painful

; for it is the removal of pain, he explains, that should be indicated, not of that which causes pain.

In bringing this charge against Epicurus Plutarch is

word-chasing

with excessive minuteness and almost with frigidity; for far from hunting up such verbal meticulousness and such refinements of diction, Epicurus hunts them down. [*](There is an obvious word-play on sectatur and insectatur.)

The meaning of favisae Capitolinae; and what Marcus Varro replied to Servius Sulpicius, who asked him about that term.

SERVIUS SULPICIUS, an authority on civil law and a man well versed in letters, wrote [*](p. 140, Bremer. ) to Marcus Varro and asked him to explain the meaning of a term which was used in the records of the censors; the term in question was favisae Capitolinae. Varro wrote in reply [*](p. 199, Bipont.) that he recalled that Quintus Catulus, when in charge of the restoration of the Capitol, [*](After the destruction of the temple by fire in 83 B.C. In spite of Caesar's opposition (Suet. Jul. xv), Catulus dedicated the new temple in 69 B. C.) had said that it had been his desire to lower the area Capitolina, [*](The open space in front of and around the temple of Jupiter.) in order that the ascent to the temple might have more steps and that the podium might be higher, to correspond with the elevation and size of the pediment [*](Sulla and Catulus in their restorations of the Capitoline temple used columns that were taller than those of the earlier building. Catulus wished to make the podium (or elevated platform) higher, to correspond with the greater elevation and size of the pediment (or gable). This he could have done most easily by lowering the area about the temple.) ; but that he had been unable to carry out his plan because the favisae had prevented. These, he said, were certain underground chambers and cisterns in the area, in which

v1.p.153

it was the custom to store ancient statues that had fallen from the temple, and some other consecrated objects from among the votive offerings. And then Varro goes on to say in the same letter, that he had never found any explanation of the term favisae in literature, but that Quintus Valerius Soranus used to assert that what we called by their Greek name thesauri (treasuries) the early Latins termed favisae, their reason being that there was deposited in them, not uncoined copper and silver, but stamped and minted money. His theory therefore was, he said, that the second letter had dropped out of the word flavisae, and that certain chambers and pits, which the attendants of the Capitol used for the preservation of old and sacred objects, were called favisae. [*](For original flavisae, from flare. Minted or coined money had to be softened or melted before being cast or struck, and for this process the word isflare; hence the directors of the mint were called Triumviri Auro Argento Aere Flando Feriundo, where aere is of course an old dative. Favisa is apparently for *fovisa and cognate with forea, pit.)