Noctes Atticae

On the word duovicesimus, which is unknown to the general public, but occurs frequently in the writings of the learned.

I CHANCED to be sitting in a bookshop in the Sigillaria [*](See note 2, p. 128.) with the poet Julius Paulus, the most

learned man within my memory; and there was on sale there the Annals of Fabius [*](Quintus Fabius Pictor, who was sent as an envoy to Delphi after the battle of Cannae (216 B. C.), wrote a history of Rome from the coming of Aeneas to his own time. He wrote in Greek, but a Latin version is mentioned also by Quintilian (i. 6. 12) and was used by Varro and by Cicero.) in a copy of good and undoubted age, which the dealer maintained was without errors. But one of the better known grammarians, who had been called in by a purchaser to inspect the book, said that he had found in it one error; but the bookseller for his part offered to wager any amount whatever that there was not a mistake even in a single letter. The grammarian pointed out the following passage in the fourth book: [*](Fr. 6, Peter.)

Therefore it was then that for the first time one of the two consuls was chosen from the plebeians, in the twenty-second (duovicesimo) year after the Gauls captured Rome.

It ought,

said lie,

to read, not duovicesimo, but duodevicesimo or twenty-second; for what is the meaning of duovicesimo?

. . . Varro [*](There is a lacuna in the text which might be filled by This question might be answered by.) in the sixteenth book of his Antiquities of Man; there he wrote as follows: [*](Fr. 1, Mirsch.)

He died in the twenty-second year [*](Of his reign.) (duovicesimo); he was king for twenty-one years.

. . .

How the Carthaginian Hannibal jested at the expense of king Antiochus.

IN collections of old tales it is recorded that Hannibal the Carthaginian made a highly witty jest when at the court of king Antiochus. The jest was

this: Antiochus was displaying to him on the plain the gigantic forces which he had mustered to make war on the Roman people, and was manœuvring his army glittering with gold and silver ornaments. He also brought up chariots with scythes, elephants with turrets, and horsemen with brilliant bridles, saddlecloths, neck-chains and trappings. And then the king, filled with vainglory at the sight of an army so great and so well-equipped, turned to Hannibal and said:

Do you think that all this can be equalled and that it is enough for the Romans?

Then the Carthaginian, deriding the worthlessness and inefficiency of the king's troops in their costly armour, replied:

I think all this will be enough, yes, quite enough, for the Romans, even though they are most avaricious.

Absolutely nothing could equal this remark for wit and sarcasm; the king had inquired about the size of his army and asked for a comparative estimate; Hannibal in his reply referred to it as booty.

On military crowns, with a description of the triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp, naval, ovation, and olive crowns.

MILITARY crowns are many and varied. Of these the most highly esteemed I find to be in general the following: the

triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp and naval crowns.

There is besides the so-called

ovation

crown, and lastly also the

olive

crown, which is regularly worn by those who have not taken part in a battle, but nevertheless are awarded a triumph.

Triumphal

crowns are of gold and are presented to a commander in recognition of the honour of a triumph. This in common parlance is

gold for a crown.

This crown in ancient times was of laurel, but later they began to make them of gold.

The

siege

crown is the one which those who have been delivered from a state of siege present to the general who delivered them. That crown is of grass, and custom requires that it be made of grass which grew in the place within which the besieged were confined. This crown of grass the Roman senate and people presented to Quintus Fabius Maximus in the second Punic war, because he had freed the city of Rome from siege by the enemy.

The crown is called

civic

which one citizen gives to another who has saved his life in battle, in recognition of the preservation of his life and safety. It is made of the leaves of the esculent oak, because the earliest food and means of supporting life were furnished by that oak; it was formerly made also from the holm oak, because that is the species which is most nearly related to the esculent; this we learn from a comedy of Caecilius, who says: [*](v. 269, Ribbeck3.)

1. They pass with cloaks and crowns of holm; ye Gods!

But Masurius Sabinus, [*](Fr. 17, Huschke; 8, Bremer.) in the eleventh book of his Memoirs, says that it was the custom to award the civic crown only when the man who had saved the life of a fellow citizen had at the same time slain the enemy who threatened him, and had not given ground in that battle; under other conditions he says that the honour of the civic crown was not granted. He adds, however, that Tiberius Caesar was once asked to decide whether a soldier might receive the civic crown who had saved a citizen in battle and killed two of the enemy, yet had not held the position in which he was fighting, but the enemy had occupied it. The emperor ruled that the soldier seemed to be among those who deserved the civic crown, since it was clear that he had rescued a fellow citizen from a place so perilous that it could not be held even by valiant warriors. It was this civic crown that Lucius Gellius, an ex-censor, proposed in the senate that his country should award to Cicero in his consulship, because it was through his efforts that the frightful conspiracy of Catiline had been detected and punished.

The

mural

crown is that which is awarded by a commander to the man who is first to mount the wall and force his way into an enemy's town; therefore it is ornamented with representations of the battlements of a wall. A

camp

crown is presented by a general to the soldier who is first to fight his way into a hostile camp; that crown represents a palisade. The

naval

crown is commonly awarded to the armed man who has been the first to board an enemy ship in a sea-fight; it is decorated with representations of the beaks of ships. Now the

mural,

camp,

and

naval

crowns are regularly made of gold.

The

ovation

crown is of myrtle; it was worn by generals who entered the city in an ovation.

The occasion for awarding an ovation, and not a triumph, is that wars have not been declared in due form and so have not been waged with a legitimate enemy, or that the adversaries' character is low or unworthy, as in the case of slaves or pirates, or that,

because of a quick surrender, a victory was won which was

dustless,

as the saying is, [*]()Akoniti/ (dustless ) was proverbial in Greek for without an effort, as in Thuc. iv. 73; Xen. Ages. 6. 3. Cf. Hor. Epist. i. 1. 54, cui sit condicio dulcis sine pulvere palma.) and bloodless. For such an easy victory they believed that the leaves sacred to Venus were appropriate, on the ground that it was a triumph, not of Mars, but as it were of Venus. And Marcus Crassus, when he returned after ending the Servile war and entered the city in an ovation, disdainfully rejected the myrtle crown and used his influence to have a decree passed by the senate, that he should be crowned with laurel, not with myrtle.

Marcus Cato charges Marcus Fulvius Nobilior [*](Nobilior was consul in 189 B. C. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. i. 2. 3, says that Cato criticized him also for taking Ennius with him to his province of Aetolia.) with having awarded crowns to his soldiers for the most trifling reasons possible, for the sake of popularity. On that subject I give you Cato's own words: [*](xiv. 1, Jordan.)

Now to begin with, who ever saw anyone presented with a crown, when a town had not been taken or an enemy's camp burned?

But Fulvius, against whom Cato brought that charge, had bestowed crowns on his soldiers for industry in building a rampart or in digging a well.

I must not pass over a point relating to ovations, about which I learn that the ancient writers disagreed. For some of them have stated that the man who celebrated an ovation was accustomed to enter the city on horseback: but Masurius Sabinus says [*](Fr. 26, Huschke; memory. 15, Bremer.) that they entered on foot, followed, not by their soldiers, but by the senate in a body.

How cleverly Gavius Bassus explained the word persons, and what he said to be the origin of that word.

CLEVERLY, by Heaven! and wittily, in my opinion, does Gavius Bassus explain the derivation of the word persona, in the work that he composed On the Origin of Words; for he suggests that that word is formed from personae.

For,

he says, [*](Frag. 8, Fun.)

the head and the face are shut in on all sides by the covering of the persona, or mask, and only one passage is left for the issue of the voice; and since this opening is neither free nor broad, but sends forth the voice after it has been concentrated and forced into one single means of egress, it makes the sound clearer and more resonant. Since then that covering of the face gives clearness and resonance to the voice, it is for that reason called persona, the o being lengthened because of the formation of the word.

A defence of some lines of Virgil, in which the grammarian Julius Hyginus alleged that there was a mistake; and also the meaning of lituus; and on the etymology of that word.

1. HERE, wielding his Quirinal augur-staff,
2. Girt with scant shift and bearing on his left
3. The sacred shield, Picus appeared enthroned.

In these verses [*](Aen. vii. 187.) Hyginus wrote [*](Frag. 5, Fun.) that Virgil was in error, alleging that he did not notice that the words ipse Quirinali lituo lacked something.

For,

said he,

if we have not observed that something is lacking, the sentence seems to read ' girt with staff and scant shift,' which,

says he,

is utterly absurd; for since the lituus is a short wand, curved at its thicker end, such as the augurs use, how on earth can one be looked upon as ' girt with a lituus? '

As a matter of fact, it was Hyginus himself who failed to notice that this expression, like very many others, contains an ellipsis. For example, when we say

Marcus Cicero, a man of great eloquence

and

Quintus Roscius, an actor of consummate grace,

neither of these phrases is full and complete, but to the hearer they seem full and complete. As Vergil wrote in another place: [*](Aen. v. 372.)

1. Victorious Butes of huge bulk,

that is, having huge bulk, and also in another passage: [*](Aen. v. 401.) Into the ring he hurled gauntlets of giant weight, and similarly: [*](Aen. iii. 618.)

1. A house of gore and cruel feasts, dark, huge within,

so then it would seem that the phrase in question ought to be interpreted as

Picus was with the Quirinal staff,

just as we say

the statue was with a large head,

and in fact est, erat and fuit are often omitted, with elegant effect and without any loss of meaning. [*](This explanation of Quirinali lituo as an ablative of quality is of course wrong; we simply have zeugma in subcinctus, equipped with and girt with.)

And since mention has been made of the lituus, I must not pass over a question which obviously may be asked, whether the augurs' lituus is called after the trumpet of the same name, or whether the

trumpet derived its name lituus from the augurs' staff; for both have the same form and both alike are curved. [*](The trumpet called lituits was slightly curved at the end, differing from the tuba, which was straight, and the spiral cornn. The augur's staff was like a crook with a short handle.) But if, as some think, the trumpet was called lituus from its sound, because of the Homeric expression li/gce bio/s, [*](Iliad iv. 125.)

1. The bow twanged,

it must be concluded that the augural staff was called litmus from its resemblance to the trumpet. And Virgil uses that word also as synonymous with tuba: [*](Aen. vi. 167.)

1. He even faced the fray
2. Conspicuous both with clarion (lituo) and with spear.

The story of Croesus dumb son, from the books of Herodotus.

THE son of king Croesus, when he was already old enough to speak, was dumb, and after lie had become a well-grown youth, he was still unable to utter a word. Hence he was for a long time regarded as mute and tongue-tied. When his father had been vanquished in a great war, the city in which he lived had been taken, and one of the enemy was rushing upon him with drawn sword, unaware that he was the king, then the young man opened his mouth in an attempt to cry out. And by that effort and the force of his breath he broke the impediment and the bond upon his tongue, and spoke plainly and clearly, shouting to the enemy not to kill king Croesus. Then the foeman withheld his sword, the king's life was saved, and from that

time on the youth began to speak. Herodotus in his Histories [*](i. 85. ) is the chronicler of that event, and the words which he says the son of Croesus first spoke are:

Man, do not kill Croesus.

But also an athlete of Samos—his name was Echeklous—although he had previously been speechless, is said to have begun to speak for a similar reason. For when in a sacred contest the casting of lots between the Samians and their opponents was not being done fairly, and he had noticed that a lot with a false name was being slipped in, he suddenly shouted in a loud voice to the man who was doing it that he saw what he was up to. And he too was freed from the check upon his speech and for all the remaining time of his life spoke without stammering or lack of clearness. [*](Valerius Maximus, i. 8. ext. 4 says: cum ei victoriae quam adeptus erat titulus et praemium eriperetur, indignatione accensus vocalis evasit. Just how he was cheated in the story told by Gellius is not clear, unless the lots were cast to determine which of the contestants should be matched together, and he was matched against an unsuitable opponent.)