Noctes Atticae

On the function of the eye and the process of vision.

I HAVE observed that the philosophers have varying opinions about the method of seeing and the nature of vision. The Stoics say [*](II. 871, Arn.) that the causes of sight are the emission of rays from the eyes to those objects which can be seen, and the simultaneous

expansion of the air. Epicurus believes [*](319, Usener.) that there is a constant flow from all bodies of images of those bodies themselves, and that these impinge upon the eyes and hence the sensation of seeing arises. Plato is of the opinion [*](Timaeus, p. 45, B.) that a kind of fire or light issues from the eyes, and that this, being united and joined either with the light of the sun or with that of some other fire, by means of its own and the external force makes us see whatever it has struck and illumined. But here too we must not dally longer, but follow the advice of that Neoptolemus in Ennius, of whom I have just written, [*](xv. 9.) who advises having a

taste

of philosophy, but not

gorging oneself with it.

Why the first days after the Kalends, Nones and Ides are considered unlucky; and why many avoid also the fourth day before the Kalends, Nones or Ides, on the ground that it is ill-omened.

VERRIUS FLACCUS, in the fourth book of his work On the Meaning of Words, writes [*](p. xiv. Müller.) that the days immediately following the Kalends, Nones and Ides, which the common people ignorantly call

holidays,

are properly called, and considered,

ill-omened,

for this reason:—

When the city,

he says,

had been recovered from the Senonian Gauls, Lucius Atilius stated in the senate that Quintus Sulpicius, tribune of the soldiers, when on the eve of fighting against the Gauls at the Allia, [*](In 390 B. C.) offered sacrifice in anticipation of that battle on the day after the Ides; that the army of the Roman people was thereupon cut to pieces, and three days later the whole

v1.p.433

city, except the Capitol, was taken. Also many other senators said that they remembered that whenever with a view to waging war a magistrate of the Roman people had sacrificed on the day after the Kalends, Nones or Ides, in the very next battle of that war the State had suffered disaster. Then the senate referred the matter to the pontiffs, that they might take what action they saw fit. The pontiffs decreed that no offering would properly be made on those days.

Many also avoid the fourth day before the Kalends, Nones and Ides, as ill-omened. It is often inquired whether any religious reason for that observance is recorded. I myself have found nothing in literature pertaining to that matter, except that Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in the fifth book of his Annals, says that the prodigious slaughter of the battle of Cannae occurred on the fourth day before the Nones of August. [*](August 2, 216 B. C.)

In what respect, and how far, history differs from annals; and a quotation on that subject from the first book of the Histories of Sempronius Asellio.

SOME think that history differs from annals in this particular, that while each is a narrative of events, yet history is properly an account of events in which the narrator took part; and that this is the opinion of some men is stated by Verrius Flaccus in the fourth book of his treatise On the Meaning of Words.[*](p. xiv. Müller.) He adds that he for his part has doubts about the matter, but he thinks that the view may have some appearance of reason, since i(stori/a in Greek means a

knowledge of current events. But we often hear it said that annals are exactly the same as histories, but that histories are not exactly the same as annals; just as a man is necessarily an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a man.

Thus they say that history is the setting forth of events or their description, or whatever term may be used; but that annals set down the events of many years successively, with observance of the chronological order. When, however, events are recorded, not year by year, but day by day, such a history is called in Greek e)fhmeri/s, or

a diary,

a term of which the Latin interpretation is found in the first book of Sempronius Asellio. I have quoted a passage of some length from that book, in order at the same time to show what his opinion is of the difference between history and chronicle.

But between those,

he says, [*](Fr. 1, Peter.)

who have desired to leave us annals, and those who have tried to write the history of the Roman people, there was this essential difference. The books of annals merely made known what happened and in what year it happened, which is like writing a diary, which the Greeks call e)fhmeri/s. For my part, I realize that it is not enough to make known what has been done, but that one should also show with what purpose and for what reason things were done.

A little later in the same book Asellio writes: [*](Fr. 2, Peter.)

For annals cannot in any way make men more eager to defend their country, or more reluctant to do wrong. Further-more, to write over and over again in whose consulship a war was begun and ended, and who in consequence entered the city in a triumph, and in that

v1.p.437

book not to state what happened in the course of the war, what decrees the senate made during that time, or what law or bill was passed, and with what motives these things were done—that is to tell stories to children, not to write history.

The meaning of adoptatio and also of adrogatio, and how they differ; and the formula used by the official who, when children are adopted, brings the business before the people.

WHEN outsiders are taken into another's family and given the relationship of children, it is done either through a praetor or through the people. If done by a praetor, the process is called adoptatio; if through the people, arrogatio. Now, we have adoptatio, when those who are adopted are surrendered in court through a thrice repeated sale [*](This was a symbolic sale, made by thrice touching a balance with a penny, in the presence of a praetor; see Suet., Aug. lxiv.) by the father under whose control they are, and are claimed by the one who adopts them in the presence of the official before whom the legal action takes place. The process is called adrogatio, when persons who are their own masters deliver themselves into the control of another, and are themselves responsible for the act. But arrogations are not made without due consideration and investigation; for the so-called comitia curiata [*](The assembly of the curiae, the thirty divisions into which the Roman citizens were divided, ten for each of the original three tribes. It was superseded at an early period by the comitia centuriata, and its action was confined to formalities. See xv. 27. 5.) are summoned under the authority of the pontiffs, and it is inquired whether the age of the one who wishes to adopt is not rather suited to begetting children of his own; precaution is taken that the property of the one who is being adopted is not being sought under false pretences; and an oath is administered which is said

to have been formulated for use in that ceremony by Quintus Mucius, [*](Fr. 13, Huschke; I. p. 58 and p. 80, Bremer.) when he was pontifex maxinus. But no one may be adopted by adrogatio who is not yet ready to assume the gown of manhood. The name adrogatio is due to the fact that this kind of transfer to another's family is accomplished through a rogatio or

request,

put to the people.

The language of this request is as follows:

Express your desire and ordain that Lucius Valerius be the son of Lucius Titius as justly and lawfully as if he had been born of that father and the mother of his family, and that Titius have that power of life and death over Valerius which a father has over a son. This, just as I have stated it, I thus ask of you, fellow Romans.

Neither a ward nor a woman who is not under the control of her father may be adopted by adrogatio; since women have no part in the comitia, and it is not right that guardians should have so much authority and power over their wards as to be able to subject to the control of another a free person who has been committed to their protection. Freedmen, however, may legally be adopted in that way by freeborn citizens, according to Masurius Sabinus. [*](Fr. 27, Huschke; Jus. Civ. 60, Bremer.) But he adds that it is not allowed, and he thinks it never ought to be allowed, that men of the condition of freedmen should by process of adoption usurp the privileges of the freeborn.

Furthermore,

says he,

if that ancient law be maintained, even a slave may be surrendered by his master for adoption through the agency of a praetor.

And he declares that several authorities [*](Cato, Fr. 4a, I. p. 21, Bremer.) on ancient law have written that this can be done.

I have observed in a speech of Publius Scipio On

Morals, which he made to the people in his censorship, that among the things that he criticized, on the ground that they were done contrary to the usage of our forefathers, he also found fault with this, that an adopted son was of profit to his adoptive father in gaining the rewards for paternity. [*](That is, the privileges and exemptions conferred upon the fathers of children, later comprised under the ius trium liberorum; see ii. 15. 3 ff.) The passage in that speech is as follows: [*](O.R.F.2 p. 180.)

A father votes in one tribe, the son in another, [*](The meaning is that a man who had been adopted would vote in the tribe of his adoptive father, which might be different from that of his own father.) an adopted son is of as much advantage as if one had a son of his own; orders are given to take the census of absentees, and hence it is not necessary for anyone to appear in person at the census.

The Latin word coined by Sinnius Capito for

solecism,

and what the early writers of Latin called that same fault: and also Sinnius Capito's definition of a solecism.

A solecism, which by Sinnius Capito and other lien of his time was called in Latin inparilitas, or

inequality,

the earlier Latin writers termed stribiligo, [*](This word, which seems to occur only here and in Arnobius i. 36, apparently means twisted, awry.) evidently meaning the improper use of an inverted form of expression, a sort of twist as it were. This kind of fault is thus defined by Sinnius Capito, in a letter which lie wrote to Clodius Tuscus:

A solecism,

he says, [*](Fr. 2, Huschke.)

is an irregular and incongruous joining together of the parts of speech.

Since

soloecismus

is a Greek word, the question is often asked, whether it was used by the men of Attica who spoke most elegantly. But I have as yet found neither soloecismus nor barbarismus [*](These words were applied to any impropriety in the use of language.) in good Greek writers; for just as they used ba/rbaros, so they used so/loikos. [*](Both words have the general meaning of foreign ; according to some, so/loikos was derived from Soloi, a town of Cilicia, whose inhabitants spoke a perverted Attic dialect. This derivation seems to be accepted to-day. Barbarus is regarded as an onomatopoeic word, representing stammering; cf. balbus.) So too our earlier writers used soloecus regularly, soloecismus never, I think. But if that be so, soloecismus is proper usage neither in Greek nor in Latin.

One who says pluria, compluria and compluriens speaks good Latin, and not incorrectly.

AN extremely learned man, a friend of mine, chanced in the course of conversation to use the word pluria, not at all with a desire to show off, or because he thought that plura ought not to be used. For he is a man of serious scholarship and devoted to the duties of life, and not at all meticulous in the use of words. But, I think, from constant perusal of the early writers a word which he had often met in books had become second nature to his tongue.

There was present when he said this a very audacious critic of language, who had read very little and that of the most ordinary sort; this fellow had some trifling instruction in the art of grammar, which was partly ill-digested and confused and partly false, and this he used to cast like dust into the eyes of any with whom he had entered into discussion. Thus on that occasion he said to my friend:

You were incorrect in saying pluria; for that form has

v1.p.445

neither justification nor authorities.

Thereupon that friend of mine rejoined with a smile:

My: good sir, since I now have leisure from more serious affairs, I wish you would please explain to me why pluria and compluria—for they do not differ-are used barbarously and incorrectly by Marcus Cato, [*](Fr. 24, Peter.) Quintus Claudius, [*](Fr. 90, Peter.) Valerius Antias, [*](Fr. 65, Peter.) Lucius Aelius, [*](Fr. 48, Fun.) Publius Nigidius, [*](Frag. 64, Swoboda.) and Marcus Varro, whom we have as endorsers and sanctioners of this form, to say nothing of a great number of the early poets and orators.

And the fellow answered with excessive arrogance:

You are welcome to those authorities of yours, dug up from the age of the Fauns and Aborigines, but what is your answer to this rule? No neuter comparative in the nominative plural has an i before its final a; for example, meliora, maiora, graviora. Accordingly, then, it is proper to say plura, not pluria, in order that there be no i before final a in a comparative, contrary to the invariable rule.

Then that friend of mine, thinking that the self-confident fellow deserved few words, said:

There are numerous letters of Sinnius Capito, a very learned man, collected in a single volume and deposited, I think, in the Temple of Peace. The first letter is addressed to Pacuvius Labeo, and it is prefixed by the title, 'Pluria, not plura, should be used.' [*](Fr. 1, Huschke.) In that letter he has collected the grammatical rules to show that pluria, and not plura, is good Latin. Therefore I refer you to Capito. From him you will learn at the same time, provided you can comprehend what is written in that letter, that pluria, or plura, is the positive and simple form, not, as it seems to you, a comparative.

It also confirms that view of Sinnius, that when

we say complures or

several,

we are not using a comparative. Moreover, from the word compluria is derived the adverb compluriens,

often.

Since this is not a common word, I have added a verse of Plautus, from the comedy entitled The Persian: [*](v. 534.)

1. What do you fear?—By Heaven! I am afraid;
2. I've had the feeling many a time and oft (compluriens).

Marcus Cato too, in the fourth book of his Origins, has used this word three times in the same passage: [*](Fr. 79, Peter.)

Often (compluriens) did their mercenary soldiers kill one another in large numbers in the camp; often (compluriens) did many together desert to the enemy; often (compluriens) did they attack their general.