Noctes Atticae

Of the tunics called chiridotae; that Publius Africanus reproved Sulpicius Gallus for wearing them.

FOR a man to wear tunics coming below the arms and as far as the wrists, and almost to the fingers, was considered unbecoming in Rome and in all Latium. Such tunics our countrymen called by the Greek name chiridotae (long-sleeved), and they thought that a long and full-flowing garment was not unbecoming for women only, to hide their arms and legs from sight. But Roman men at first wore the toga alone without tunics; later, they had close, short tunics ending below the shoulders, the kind which the Greeks call e)cwmi/des (sleeveless). [*](More literally, leaving the shoulders bare. ) Habituated to this older fashion, Publius Africanus, son of Paulus, a man gifted with all worthy arts and every virtue, among many other things with which he

reproached Publius Sulpicius Gallus, an effeminate man, included this also, that he wore tunics which covered his whole hands. Scipio's words are these: [*](O. R. F., p. 181, Meyer2.)

For one who daily perfumes himself and dresses before a mirror, whose eyebrows are trimmed, who walks abroad with beard plucked out and thighs made smooth, who at banquets, though a young man, has reclined in a long-sleeved tunic on the inner side of the couch with a lover, who is fond not only of wine but of men—does anyone doubt that he does what wantons commonly do?

Virgil too attacks tunics of this kind as effeminate and shameful, saying: [*](Aen, ix. 616.)

1. Sleeves have their tunics, and their turbans, ribbons.

Quintus Ennius also seems to have spoken not without scorn of

the tunic-clad men

of the Carthaginians. [*](Ann. 325, Vahlen2.)

Whom Marcus Cato calls classici or

belonging to a class,

and whom infra classem or

below class.

NOT all those men who were enrolled in the five classes [*](The five classes into which the Roman citizens were divided by the constitution attributed to Servius Tullius. The division was for military purposes and was made on the basis of a property qualification.) were called classici, but only the men of the first class, who were rated at a hundred and twenty-five thousand asses or more. But those of the second class and of all the other classes, who were rated at

a smaller sum than that which I just mentioned, were called infra classes. I have briefly noted this, because in connection with the speech of Marcus Cato In Support of the Voconian Law the question is often raised, what is meant by classicus and what by infra classem.

Of the three literary styles; and of the three philosophers who were sent as envoys by the Athenians to the senate at Rome.

BOTH in verse and in prose there are three approved styles, which the Greeks call xarakth=res and to which they have given the names of a(dro/s, i)sxno/s and me/sos. We also call the one which I put first

grand,

the second

plain,

and the third

middle.

The grand style possesses dignity and richness, the plain, grace and elegance; the middle lies on the border line and partakes of the qualities of both.

To each of these excellent styles there are related an equal number of faulty ones, arising from unsuccessful attempts to imitate their manner and character. Thus very often pompous and bombastic speakers lay claim to the grand style, the mean and bald to the plain, and the unclear and ambiguous to the middle. But true and genuine Latin examples of these styles are said by Marcus Varro [*](Fr. 80, Wilmanns.) to be: Pacuvius of the grand style, Lucilius of the plain, and Terence of the middle. But in early days these same three styles of speaking were exemplified in three men by Homer: the grand and rich in

Ulysses, the elegant and restrained in Menelaus, the middle and moderate in Nestor.

This threefold variety is also to be observed in the three philosophers whom the Athenians sent as envoys to the senate at Rome, to persuade the senators to remit the fine which they had imposed upon the Athenians because of the sack of Oropos; [*](The embassy was sent in 155 B.C. Plutarch, Cat. Mai. xxii. (L.C.L. ii., p. 369) says that the fine was five hundred talents.) and the fine amounted to nearly five hundred talents. The philosophers in question were Carneades of the Academy, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic. When they were admitted to the House, they made use of Gaius Acilius, one of the senators, as interpreter; but beforehand each one of them separately, for the purpose of exhibiting his eloquence, lectured to a large company. Rutilius [*](Fr. 3, Peter2.) and Polybius [*](xxxiii. 2, p. 1287, H.) declare that all three aroused admiration for their oratory, each in his own style.

Carneades,

they say,

spoke with a vehemence that carried you away, Critolaus with art and polish, Diogenes with restraint and sobriety.

Each of these styles, as I have said, is more brilliant when it is chastely and moderately adorned; when it is rouged and be powdered, it becomes mere jugglery.

How severely thieves were punished by the laws of our forefathers; and whit Mucius Scaevola wrote about that which is given or entrusted to anyone's care.

LABEO, in his second book On the Twelve Tables,[*](Fr. 23, Huschke; 1, Bremer.) wrote that cruel and severe judgments were passed

upon theft in early times, and that Brutus used to say [*](Resp. 6, Bremer.) that a man was pronounced guilty of theft who had merely led an animal to another place than the one where he had been given the privilege of using it, as well as one who had driven it farther than he had bargained to do. Accordingly, Quintus Scaevola, in the sixteenth book of his work On the Civil Law, wrote these words: [*](Fr. 2, Huschke; Iur. Civ. xvi. 1, Bremer (i, p. 97).)

If anyone has used something that was entrusted to his care, or having borrowed anything to use, has applied it to another purpose than that for which he borrowed it, he is liable for theft.

A passage about foreign varieties of food, copied from the satire of Marcus Varro entitled Peri\ )Edesma/twn, or On Edibles; and with it some verses of Euripides, in which he assails the extravagant gluttony of luxurious men.

MARCUS VARRO, in the satire which he entitled Peri\ )Edesma/twn, in verses written with great charm and cleverness, treats of exquisite elegance in banquets and viands. For he has set forth and described in senarii [*](That is, iambic trimeters, consisting of six iambic feet.) the greater number of things of that kind which such gluttons seek out on land and sea. [*](Fr. 403, Bücheler.)

As for the verses themselves, he who has leisure may find and read them in the book which I have mentioned. So far as my memory goes, these are the varieties and names of the foods surpassing all others, which a bottomless gullet has hunted out and which Varro has assailed in his satire, with the places where they are found: a peacock from Samos, a woodcock from Phrygia, cranes of Media,

a kid from Ambracia, a young tunny from Chalcedon, a lamprey from Tartessus, codfish from Pessinus, oysters from Tarentum, cockles from Sicily, a swordfish from Rhodes [*](Or perhaps a sturgeon; the identification of some of these beasts and fish is very uncertain.) pike from Cilicia, nuts from Thasos, dates from Egypt, acorns from Spain.

But this tireless gluttony, which is ever wandering about and seeking for flavours, and this eager quest of dainties from all quarters, we shall consider deserving of the greater detestation, if we recall the verses of Euripides of which the philosopher Chrysippus made frequent use, [*](p. 344, Baguet.) to the effect that gastronomic delicacies were contrived, not because of the necessary uses of life, but because of a spirit of luxury that disdains what is easily attainable because of the immoderate wantonness that springs from satiety.

I have thought that I ought to append the verses of Euripides: [*](Fr. 884, Nauck.2)

1. What things do mortals need, save two alone,
2. The fruits of Ceres and the cooling spring,
3. Which are at hand and made to nourish us?
4. With this abundance we are not content,
5. But hunt out other foods through luxury.

A conversation held with a grammarian, who was full of insolence and ignorance, as to the meaning of the word obnoxius; and of the origin of that word.

I INQUIRED at Rome of a certain grammarian who had the highest repute as a teacher, not indeed

for the sake of trying or testing him, but rather from an eager desire for knowledge, what obnoxius meant and what was the origin and history of the word. And he, looking at me and ridiculing what he considered the insignificance and unfitness of the query, said:

Truly a difficult question is this that you ask, one demanding very many sleepless nights of investigation! Who, pray, is so ignorant of the Latin tongue as not to know that one is called obnoxius who can be inconvenienced or injured by another, to whom he is said to be obnoxius because the other is conscious of his noxa, that is to say, of his guilt? Why not rather,

said he,

drop these trifles and put questions worthy of study and discussion?

Then indeed I was angry, but thinking that I ought to dissemble, since I was dealing with a fool, I said;

If, most learned sir, I need to learn and to know other things that are more abstruse and more important, when the occasion arises I shall inquire and learn them from you; but inasmuch as I have often used the word obnoxious without knowing what I was saying, I have learned from you and am now beginning to understand what not I alone, as you seem to think, was ignorant of; for as a matter of fact, Plautus too, though a man of the first rank in his use of the Latin language and in elegance of diction, did not know the meaning of obnoxius. For there is a passage of his in the Stichus which reads as follows:

1. By Heaven! I now am utterly undone,
2. Not only partly so (non obnoxie). [*](497. Cf. Salmasius, ad loc., obnoxie perire dicitur, qui non plane nec funditus perit, sed aliquam spem salutis habet. Cf. Poen. 787; Amph. 372.)

This does not in the least agree with what you have

v2.p.71

taught me; for Plautus contrasted plane and obnoxie as two opposites, which is far removed from your meaning.

But that grammarian retorted foolishly enough, as if obnoxius and obnoxie differed, not merely in form, but in their substance and meaning:

I gave a definition of obnoxins, not obnoxie.

But then I, amazed at the ignorance of the presumptuous fellow, answered:

Let us, as you wish, disregard the fact that Plautus said obnoxie, if you think that too far-fetched; and let us also say nothing of the passage in Sallust's Catiline: [*](xxiii. 3.) 'Also to threaten her with his sword, if she would not be submissive (obnoxia) to him'; but explain to me this example, which is certainly more recent and more familiar. For the following verses of Virgil's are very well known: [*](Georg. i. 395–6.)

1. For now the stars' bright sheen is seen undimmed.
2. The rising Moon owes naught (nec .. obnoxia) to brother's rays;

but you say that it means 'conscious of her guilt.' In another place too Virgil uses this word with a meaning different from yours, in these lines: [*](Georg. ii. 438.)

1. What joy the fields to view
2. That owe no debt (non obnoxia) to hoe or care of man.

for care is generally a benefit to fields, not an injury, as it would be according to your definition of obnoxius. Furthermore, how can what Quintus Ennius writes in the following verses from the Phoenix [*](257 ff., Ribbeck.3) agree with you:

v2.p.73

1. 'Tis meet a man should live inspired by courage true,
2. In conscious innocence should boldly challenge foes.
3. True freedom his who bears a pure and steadfast heart,
4. All else less import has (obnoxiosae) and lurks in gloomy night?

But our grammarian, with open mouth as if in a dream, said:

Just now I have no time to spare. When I have leisure, come to see me and learn what Virgil, Plautus, Sallust and Ennius meant by that word.

So saying that fool made off; but in case anyone should wish to investigate, not only the origin of this word, but also its variety of meaning, in order that he may take into consideration this Plautine use also, I have quoted the following lines from the Asinaria: [*](282.)

1. He'll join with me and hatch the biggest jubilee,
2. Stuff'd with most joy, for son and father too.
3. For life they both shall be in debt (obnoxii) to both of us,
4. By our services fast bound.

Now, in the definition which that grammarian gave, he seems in a word of such manifold content to have noted only one of its uses—a use, it is true, which agrees with that of Caecilius in these verses of the Chrysium: [*](21, Ribbeck.3)

1. Although I come to you attracted by your pay,
2. Don't think that I for that am subject to your will (tibi . . . obnoxium);
3. If you speak ill of me, you'll hear a like reply.

On the strict observance by the Romans of the sanctity of an oath; and also the story of the ten prisoners whom Hannibal sent to Rome under oath.

AN oath was regarded and kept by the Romans as something inviolable and sacred. This is evident from many of their customs and laws, and this tale which I shall tell may be regarded as no slight support of the truth of the statement. After the battle of Cannae Hannibal, commander of the Carthaginians, selected ten Roman prisoners and sent them to the city, instructing them and agreeing that, if it seemed good to the Roman people, there should be an exchange of prisoners, and that for each captive that one side should receive in excess of the other side, there should be paid a pound and a half of silver. Before they left, he compelled them to take oath that they would return to the Punic camp, if the Romans would not agree to an exchange.

The ten captives come to Rome. They deliver the message of the Punic commander in the senate. The senate refused an exchange. The parents, kinsfolk and connexions of the prisoners amid embraces declared that they had returned to their native land in accordance with the law of postliminium, [*](Recovery of civic rights by a person who has been reduced to slavery by capture in war, Pomponius, Dig. xlix. 15. 5, and 19.) and that their condition of independence was complete and inviolate; they therefore besought them not to think of returning to the enemy. Then eight of their number rejoined that they had no just right of postliminium, since they were bound by an oath, and they at once went back to Hannibal, as they had sworn to do. The other two remained

in Rome, declaring that they had been released and freed from their obligation because, after leaving the enemy's camp, they had returned to it as if for some chance reason, but really with intent to deceive, and having thus kept the letter of the oath, they had come away again unsworn. This dishonourable cleverness of theirs was considered so shameful, that they were generally despised and reprobated; and later the censors punished them with all possible fines and marks of disgrace, on the ground that they had not done what they had sworn to do.

Furthermore Cornelius Nepos, in the fifth book of his Examples [*](Corn. Nepos, Ex. fr. 2, Peter2,) has recorded also that many of the senators recommended that those who refused to return should be sent to Hannibal under guard, but that the motion was defeated by a majority of dissentients. He adds that, in spite of this, those who had not returned to Hannibal were so infamous and hated that they became tired of life and committed suicide.

A story, taken from the annals, about Tiberius Gracchus, tribune of the commons and father of the Gracchi; and also an exact quotation of the decrees of the tribunes.

A FINE, noble and generous action of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus is recorded in the Examples.[*](Nepos, Ex,, fr. 3, Peter2,) It runs as follows: Gaius Minucius Augurinus, tribune of the commons, imposed a fine on Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, brother of Scipio Africanus the elder, [*](The famous conqueror of Hannibal at Zama in 202 B.C. He served as legatus under his brother in the war against Antiochus, in 190 B.C.) and demanded that he should give security

for its payment. Scipio Africanus appealed to the college of tribunes on behalf of his brother, asking them to defend against the violent measures of their colleague a man who had been consul and had celebrated a triumph. Having heard the case, eight [*](At this period there were ten tribunes; Augurinus and Gracchus were the other two.) of the tribunes rendered a decision.

The words of their decree, which I have quoted, are taken from the records of the annals:

Whereas Publius Scipio Africanus has asked us to protect his brother, Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, against the violent measures of one of our colleagues, in that, contrary to the laws and the customs of our forefathers, that tribune of the commons, having illegally convened an assembly without consulting the auspices, pronounced sentence upon him and imposed an unprecedented fine, and compels him to furnish security for its payment, or if he does not do so, orders that he be imprisoned; and whereas, on the other hand, our colleague has demanded that we should not interfere with him in the exercise of his legal authority—our unanimous decision in this matter is as follows: If Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus will furnish security in accordance with the decision of our colleague, we will forbid our colleague to take him to prison; but if he shall not furnish the securities in accordance with our colleague's decision, we will not interfere with our colleague in the exercise of his lawful authority.

After this decree, Lucius Scipio refused to give security and the tribune Augurinus ordered him to be arrested and taken to prison. Thereupon Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, one of the tribunes of the commons and father of Tiberius and Gaius

Gracchus, although he was a bitter personal enemy of Publius Scipio Africanus because of numerous disagreements on political questions, publicly made oath that he had not been reconciled with Publius Africanus nor become his friend, and then read a decree which he had written out.

That decree ran as follows:

Whereas Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, during the celebration of a triumph, cast the leaders of the enemy into prison, it seems contrary to the dignity of our country that the Roman people's commander should be consigned to the same place to which he had committed the leaders of the enemy; therefore I forbid my colleague to take violent measures towards Lucius Scipio Asiaticus.

But Valerius Antias, contradicting this record of the decrees and the testimony of the ancient annals, has said [*](Page 267 note, Peter2.) that it was after the death of Africanus that Tiberius Gracchus interposed that veto in behalf of Scipio Asiaticus; also that Scipio was not fined, but that being convicted of embezzlement of the money taken from Antiochus and refusing to give bail, was just being taken to prison when he was saved by this veto of Gracchus.