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).

The discreet and admirable reply of King Romulus as to his use of wine.

Lucius Piso FRUGI has shown an elegant simplicity of diction and thought in the first book of his Annals, when writing of the life and habits of King Romulus. His words are as follows: [*](Fr. 8, Peter.)

They say also of
v2.p.333
Romulus, that being invited to dinner, he drank but little there, giving the reason that he had business for the following day. They [*](That is, his table companions.) answer: ' If all men were like you, Romulus, wine would be cheaper.' ' Nay, dear,' answered Romulus, ' if each man drank as much as he wished; for I drank as much as I wished.'

On ludibundus and errabundus and the suffix in words of that kind; that Laberius used amorabunda in the same way as ludibunda and errabunda; also that Sisenna in the case of a word of that sort made a new form.

LABERIUS in his Lake Avernus spoke [*](57, Ribbeck3.) of a woman in love as amorabunda, coining a word in a somewhat unusual manner. Caesellius Vindex in his Commentary on Archaic Words said that this word was used on the same principle that ludibunda, ridibunda and errabunda are used for ludens, ridens and errans. But Terentius Scaurus, a highly distinguished grammarian of the time of the deified Hadrian, among other things which he wrote On the Mistakes of Caesellius, declared [*](Fr. 9, Kummrow.) that about this word also he was wrong in thinking that ludens and ludibunda, ridens and ridibunda, errans and errabunda were identical.

For ludibunda, ridibunda, and errabunda,
he says,
are applied to one who plays the part of, or imitates, one who plays, laughs or wanders.

But why Scaurus was led to censure Caesellius on this point, I certainly could not understand. For there is no doubt that these words, each after its

v2.p.335
own kind, have the same meaning that is indicated by the words from which they are derived. But I should prefer to seem not to understand the meaning of
act the laugher
or
imitate the laugher
rather than charge Scaurus himself with lack of knowledge. But Scaurus ought rather, in censuring the commentaries of Caesellius, to have taken him to task for what he left unsaid; namely, whether ludibundus, ridibundus and errabundus differ at all from ludens, ridens and errans, and to what extent, and so with other words of the same kind; whether they differ only in some slight degree from their primitives, and what is the general force of the suffix which is added to words of that kind. For in examining a phenomenon of that nature that were a more pertinent inquiry, just as in vinulentus, lutulentus and turbulentus it is usual to ask whether that suffix is superfluous and without meaning, paragwgh/, as the Greeks say, [*](That is, an addition to the end of a syllable.) or whether the suffix has some special force of its own.

However, in noting this criticism of Scaurus it occurred to me that Sisenna, in the fourth book of his Histories, used a word of the same form. He says: [*](Fr. 55, Peter.)

He came to the town, laying waste the fields (populabundus),
which of course means
while he was laying waste the fields,
not, as Sisenna says of similar words,
when he played the part of, or imitated, one laying waste.

But when I was inquiring about the signification and origin of such forms as populabundus, errabundus, laetabundus, ludibundus, and many other words of that kind, our friend Apollinaris—very appositely by Heaven! —remarked that it seemed to him that the final syllable of such words indicated force and abundance, and as it were, an excess of the quality belonging to

v2.p.337
the primitive word. Thus laetabundus is used of one who is excessively joyful, and errabundus of one who has wandered long and far, and he showed that all other words of that form are so used that this addition and ending indicates a great and overflowing force and abundance [*](In general these words in-bundus have the same force as the pres. participle; the intensive force in a few words comes originally from forms like versabundus, formed from intensive verbs. See Stolz, Hist. Lat. Gr. i, p. 570.)

That the translation of certain Greek words into the Latin language is very difficult, for example, that which in Greek is called polupragmosu/nh. [*]() The word means

being busy about many things,
often with the idea of
officiousness
or
meddling.

WE have frequently observed not a few names of things which we cannot express in Latin by single words, as in Greek; and even if we use very many words, those ideas cannot be expressed in Latin so aptly and so clearly as the Greeks express them by single terms. Lately, when a book of Plutarch had been brought to me, and I had read its title, which was Peri\ Polupragmosu/nhs, a man who was unacquainted with Greek letters and words asked who the author was and what the book was about. The name of the writer I gave him at once, but I hesitated when on the point of naming the subject of the work. At first indeed, since it did not seem to me that it would be a very apt interpretation if I said that it was written De Negotiositale or

On Busyness,
I began to rack my brains for something else which would render the title word for word, as the saying is. But there was absolutely nothing that
v2.p.339
I remembered to have read, or even that I could invent, that was not to a degree harsh and absurd, if I fashioned a single word out of multitudo, or
multitude,
and negotium, or
business,
in the same way that we say multiiugus (
manifold
), multicolorus (
multicoloured
) and multiformius (
multiform
). But it would be no less uncouth an expression than if you should try to translate by one word polufili/a (abundance of friends), polutropi/a (versatility), or polusarki/a (fleshiness). Therefore, after spending a brief time in silent thought, I finally answered that in my opinion the idea could not be expressed by a single word, and accordingly I was preparing to indicate the meaning of that Greek word by a phrase.

Well then,
said I,
undertaking many things and busying oneself with them all is called in Greek polupragmosu/nh, and the title shows that this is the subject of our book.
Then that illiterate fellow, misled by my unfinished, rough-and-ready language and believing that polupragmosu/nh was a virtue, said:
Doubtless this Plutarch, whoever he is, urges us to engage in business and to undertake very many enterprises with energy and dispatch, and properly enough he has written as the title of the book itself the name of this virtue about which, as you say, he is intending to speak.
Not at all,
said I;
for that is by no means a virtue which, expressed by a Greek term, serves to indicate the subject of this book; and neither does Plutarch do what you suppose, nor do I intend to say that he did. For, as a matter of fact, it is in this book that he tries to dissuade us, so far as he can, from the haphazard, promiscuous and unnecessary planning and pursuit
v2.p.341
of such a multitude of things. But,
said I,
I realize that this mistake of yours is due to my imperfect command of language, since even in so many words I could not express otherwise than very obscurely what in Greek is expressed with perfect elegance and clearness by a single term.

The meaning of the expression found in the old praetorian edicts:

those who have undertaken public contracts for clearing the rivers of nets.

As I chanced to be sitting in the library of Trajan's temple, [*](The Bibliotheca Ulpia in the temple in Trajan's forum. Other great public libraries at Rome were in Vespasian's temple of Peace (see v. 21. 9 and the note), in Augustus' temple of Apollo on the Palatine hill, and in the porticus Octaniae. The first public library at Rome was founded by Asinius Pollio.) looking for something else, the edicts of the early praetors fell into my hands, and I thought it worth while to read and become acquainted with them. Then I found this, written in one of the earlier edicts:

If anyone of those who have taken public contracts for clearing the rivers of nets shall be brought before me, and shall be accused of not having done that which by the terms of his contract he was bound to do.
Thereupon the question arose what
clearing of nets
meant.

Then a friend of mine who was sitting with us said that he had read in the seventh book of Gavius On the Origin of Words [*](Fr. 2, Fun.; Jur. Civ. 126, Bremer.) that those trees which either projected from the banks of rivers, or were found in their beds, were called retae, and that they got their name from nets, because they impeded the course of ships and, so to speak, netted them. Therefore he thought that the custom was to farm

v2.p.343
out the rivers to be
cleaned of nets,
that is to say, cleaned out, in order that vessels meeting such branches might suffer neither delay nor danger.

The punishment which Draco the Athenian, in the laws which he made for his fellow-citizens, inflicted upon thieves; that of Solon later; and that of our own decemvirs, who compiled the Twelve Tables; to which it is added, that among the Egyptians thefts were permitted and lawful, while among the Lacedaemonians they were even strongly encouraged and commended as a useful exercise; also a memorable utterance of Marcus Cato about the punishment of theft.

DRACO the Athenian was considered a good man and of great wisdom, and he was skilled in law, human and divine. This Draco was the first of all to make laws for the use of the Athenians. In those laws he decreed and enacted that one guilty of any theft whatsoever should be punished with death, and added many other statutes that were excessively severe.

Therefore his laws, since they seemed very much too harsh, were abolished, not by order and decree, but by the tacit, unwritten consent of the Athenians. After that, they made use of other, milder laws, compiled by Solon. This Solon was one of the famous seven wise men. [*](See note 2, vol. i. p. 11.) He thought proper by his law to punish thieves, not with death, as Draco had formerly done, but by a fine of twice the value of the stolen goods.

But our decemvirs, who after the expulsion of the kings compiled laws on Twelve Tables for the use of the Romans, did not show equal severity in

v2.p.345
punishing thieves of every kind, nor yet too lax leniency. For they permitted [*](viii. 13 ff.) a thief who was caught in the act to be put to death, only if it was night when he committed the theft, or if in the daytime he defended himself with a weapon when taken. But other thieves taken in the act, if they were freemen, the decemvirs ordered to be scourged and handed over [*](To be his bondsman, until the debt was paid.) to the one from whom the theft had been made, provided they had committed the theft in daylight and had not defended themselves with a weapon. Slaves taken in the act were to be scourged and hurled from the rock, [*](That is, the Tarpeian Rock on the Capitoline Hill.) but they decided that boys under age should be flogged at the discretion of the praetor and the damage which they had done made good. Those thefts also which were detected by the girdle and mask, [*](See Paul. Festus, pp. 104—5, Lindsay. The searchers were clad only in a girdle, that they might not be suspected of bringing anything in with them and saying that it had been stolen, and they held a perforated plate before their faces, because of the presence of the women of the household.) they punished as if the culprit had been caught in the act.

But to-day we have departed from that law of the decemvirs; for if anyone wishes to try a case of manifest theft by process of law, action is brought for four times the value. But

manifest theft,
says Masurius, [*](Fr. 7, Huschke; Jur. Civ. 126, Bremer (ii, p. 517).)
is one which is detected while it is being committed. The act is completed when the stolen object is carried to its destination.
When stolen goods are found in possession of the thief (concepti) or in that of another (oblati), the penalty is threefold.

But one who wishes to learn what oblatum means, and conceptum, and many other particulars of the same kind taken from the admirable customs of our forefathers, and both useful and agreeable to know, will consult the book of Sabinus entitled On Thefts. In this book there is also written [*](Fr. 7, Huschke; 3–5, Bremer (ii, p. 383).) a thing that is not

v2.p.347
commonly known, that thefts are committed, not only of men and movable objects which can be purloined and carried off secretly, but also of an estate and of houses; also that a farmer was found guilty of theft, because he had sold the farm which he had rented and deprived the owner of its possession. And Sabinus tells this also, which is still more surprising, that one person was convicted of having stolen a man, who, when a runaway slave chanced to pass within sight of his master, held out his gown as if he were putting it on, and so prevented the slave from being seen by his master.

Then upon all other thefts, which were called

not manifest,
they imposed a two-fold penalty. [*](XII. Tab. viii. 16.) I recall also that I read in the work of the jurist Aristo, [*](Fr. 1, Huschke; ii. 2, p. 393, Bremer.) a man of no slight learning, that among the ancient Egyptians, a race of men known to have been ingenious in inventions and keen in getting at the bottom of things, thefts of all kinds were lawful and went unpunished.

Among the Lacedaemonians too, those serious and vigorous men (a matter for which the evidence is not so remote as in the case of the Egyptians) many famous writers, who have composed records of their laws and customs, affirm that thieving was lawful and customary, and that it was practised by their young men, not for base gain or to furnish the means for indulgence or amassing wealth, but as an exercise and training in the art of war; for dexterity and practice in thieving made the minds of the youth keen and strong for clever ambuscades, and for endurance in watching, and for the swiftness of surprise.

Marcus Cato, however, in the speech which he

v2.p.349
wrote On Dividing Spoils among the Soldiers, complains in strong and choice language about unpunished thievery and lawlessness. I have quoted his words, since they pleased me greatly: [*](p. 69, 1, Jordan.)
Those who commit private theft pass their lives in confinement and fetters; plunderers of the public, in purple and gold.

But I think I ought not to pass over the highly ethical and strict definition of theft made by the wisest men, lest anyone should consider him only a thief who privately purloins anything or secretly carries it off. The words are those of Sabinus in his second book On Civil Law: [*](Fr. 2, Huschke; 113, Bremer (ii, p. 513).)

He is guilty of theft who has touched anything belonging to another, when he has reason to know that he does so against the owner's will.
Also in another chapter: [*](Fr. 3, Huschke; 119, Bremer (ii, p. 515).)
He who silently carries off another's property for the sake of gain is guilty of theft, whether he knows to whom the object belongs or not.

Thus has Sabinus written, in the book which I just now mentioned, about handling things for the purpose of stealing them. But we ought to remember, according to what I have written above, that a theft may be committed even without touching anything, when the mind alone and the thoughts desire that a theft be committed. Therefore Sabinus says [*](Fr. 4, Huschke; 127, Bremer.) that he has no doubt that a master should be convicted of theft who has ordered a slave of his to steal something.