Noctes Atticae

That the word elegantia in earlier days was not used of a more refined nature, but of excessive fastidiousness in dress and mode of life, and was a term of reproach.

IT was not customary to call a man elegans, or

elegant,

by way of praise, but up to the time of Marcus Cato that word as a rule was a reproach, not a compliment. And this we may observe both in some other writers, and also in the work of Cato entitled Carmen de Moribus. In this book is the following passage: [*](p. 82, 10, Jordan.)

They thought that avarice included all the vices; whoever was considered extravagant, ambitious, elegant, vicious or good-fornothing received praise.

[*](That is, in comparison with the miser.) It is evident from these words that in days of old the

elegant

man was so called, not because of refinement of character, but because he was excessively particular and extravagant in his attire and mode of life.

Later, the

elegant

man ceased indeed to be reproached, but he was deemed worthy of no commendation, unless his elegance was very moderate. Thus Marcus Tullius commended Lucius Crassus and Quintus Scaevola, not for mere elegance, but for elegance combined with great frugality.

Crassus,

he says, [*](Brut. 148.)

was the most frugal of elegant men; Scaevola the most elegant of the frugal.

Besides this, in the same work of Cato, I recall also these scattered and cursory remarks: [*](p. 83, 1, Jordan.)

It was

v2.p.305

the custom,

says he,

to dress becomingly in the forum, at home to cover their nakedness. They paid more for horses than for cooks. The poetic art was not esteemed. If anyone devoted himself to it, or frequented banquets, he was called a 'ruffian.'

This sentiment too, of conspicuous truthfulness, is to be found in the same work: [*](Id., p. 83, 5.)

Indeed, human life is very like iron. If you use it, it wears out; if you do not, it is nevertheless consumed by rust. In the same way we see men worn out by toil; if you toil not, sluggishness and torpor are more injurious than toil.

The nature and degree of the variety of usage in the particle pro; and some examples of the differences.

WHEN I have leisure from legal business, and walk or ride for the sake of bodily exercise, I have the habit sometimes of silently meditating upon questions that are trifling indeed and insignificant, even negligible in the eyes of the uneducated, but are nevertheless highly necessary for a thorough understanding of the early writers and a knowledge of the Latin language. For example, lately in the retirement of Praeneste, [*](From this passage some have inferred that Gellius had a villa at Praeneste.) as I was taking my evening walk alone, I began to consider the nature and degree of variety in the use of certain particles in the Latin language; for instance, in the preposition pro. For I saw that we had one use in

the priests passed a decree in the name of their order,

and another in

that a witness who had been called in

v2.p.307

said by way of testimony

; that Marcus Cato used it in still another way in the fourth book of his Origins: [*](Fr. 91, Peter2.)

The battle was fought and ended before the camp,

and also in the fifth book: [*](Fr. 96, Peter2.)

That all the islands and cities were in favour of the Illyrian land.

Also

before the temple of Castor

is one form of expression,

on the rostra

another,

before, or on, the tribunal

[*](On the origin of such expressions, see Frank, Riv. di Fil. liii (1925), p. 105.) another,

in presence of the assembly

another, and

the tribune of the commons interposed a veto in view of his authority

still another. Now, I thought that anyone who imagined that all these expressions were wholly alike and equal, or were entirely different, was in error; for I was of the opinion that this variety came from the same origin and source, but yet that its end was not the same. And this surely anyone will easily understand, [*](The preceding statement is not easy to understand. Gellius seems to mean that all the different significations of pro developed from one or two original meanings. Thus for or before will give the general meaning in nearly all the examples except on the rostra and on the tribunal, for which see Frank's article, cited in the preceding note.) if he attentively considers the question and has a somewhat extensive use and knowledge of the early language.