Noctes Atticae

Certain words from the first book of the Annals of Quintus Claudius, noted in a hasty reading.

WHENEVER I read the book of an early writer, I tried afterwards, for the purpose of quickening my memory, to recall and review any passages in the book which were worthy of note, in the way either of praise or censure; and I found it an exceedingly helpful exercise for ensuring my recollection of elegant words and phrases, whenever need of them should arise. For example, in the first book of the Annals of Quintus Claudius, which I had read on the preceding two days, I noted these passages:

The greater number,

says he, [*](Frag. 22, Peter2.)

threw away their arms and hid themselves unarmed.

The verb inhatebrant, for

hid themselves,

seemed poetic, but neither improper nor harsh.

While these things were going on,

he says, [*](Frag. 13, Peter2.)

the Latins, their spirits raised because of their easy victory, form a plan.

Subnixo animo is. significant and carefully chosen expression with the force of

raised and elevated in spirit

; and it indicates loftiness and confidence of spirit, since we are, as it were, raised and lifted up by that upon which we depend.

He bids each one,

he says, [*](Frag. 23, Peter2.)

go to his own house and enjoy his possessions.

Frunisci, meaning

enjoy,

was somewhat rare in the days of Marcus Tullius and became still rarer after that time, and its Latinity was questioned by those who were unacquainted with our early literature. However, fruniscor is not only good Latin, but it is more elegant and pleasing than fruor, from which it is formed in the same way as fatiscor from fateor. Quintus Metellus Numidicus, who is known to have used the Latin tongue with purity and simplicity, in the letter which he sent when in exile To the Domitii, wrote as follows:

They indeed were cut off from every right and honour, I lack neither water nor fire and I enjoy (fruiscor) the greatest glory.

Novius, in his Atellan farce entitled The Miser, uses this word: [*](v. 77, Ribbeck3.)

1. What eagerly they sought they can't enjoy (frunisci);
2. Who does not spare, enjoys the goods he has.

And the Romans,

says Quadrigarius, [*](rag. 24, Peter2.)

get possession of (copiantur) many arms and a great supply of provisions, and enormous booty.

Copiantur is a soldier's word, and you will not readily find it in the pleaders of civil suits; it is formed in the same way as lignantur, or

gather wood,

pabulantur, or

forage,

and aquantur, or

get water.

Quadrigarius uses sole occaso for

at sunset.

[*](Id. 3.) This expression has a flavour of antiquity which is not without charm, if one possesses an ear that is not dull and commonplace; furthermore the phrase occurs in the Twelve Tables in the following passage: [*](i. 7, 8, 9.)

Before midday let them hear the case, with both parties making their pleas in person. After midday, decide the ease in favour of the one who is present. If both are present, let sunset be the limit of the proceedings.

We,

says he, [*](Frag. 25, Peter2.)

will leave it undecided (in medium).

The common people say in medio; for they think that in medium is an error, and if you should say in medium ponere (to make known), [*](The phrase in medium has various meanings, according to the context and the verb with which it is used; cf. Cic. ad Fam. xv. 2. 6, se . . . eam rem numquam in medium propter periculi metum protulisse; Cluent. 77; Virg. Aen. v. 401. If the lexicons are to be trusted, in medium ponere is rare, and the usual expression is in medio ponere, e.g. Cic. Nat. Deor. i. 13, ponam in medio sententias philosophorum.) they consider that also a solecism; but if anyone examines these words with some care, that expression will seem to him the more correct and the more expressive; moreover in Greek qei=nai ei)s me/son, is not an error. "After it was announced," he says, [*](Frag. 1, Peter2.)

that a battle had been fought against the Gauls (in Gallos), the State was troubled.

In Gallos is nester and finer than cum Gallis or contra Gallos; for these are somewhat awkward and out of date.

At the same time,

he says, [*](Id. 8.)

he excelled in person, in exploits, in eloquence, in position, in energy, and confidence alike, so that it was easily seen that he possessed from himself and in himself a great equipment (magnum viaticum) for overthrowing the republic.

Magnum viaticum is a novel expression for great ability and great resources, and Claudius seems to have followed the Greeks, who transferred e)fo/dion from the meaning of

money for a journey

to preparation for other things, and often say e)fodi/ason for

prepare

and

make ready.

For Marcus Manlius,

said he, [*](Frag. 7, Peter2.)

who, as I have shown above, saved the Capitol from the Gauls, and whose service, along with that of Marcus Furius the dictator, the State found especially (cumprime) valiant and irresistible against the Gauls, yielded to no one in race, in strength and in warlike valour.

Adprime is more frequent for

especially

; cumprime is rarer and is derived from the expression cumprimis with the force of inprimis. Quadrigarius says [*](Id. 26.) that

he has no need for riches (divitias).

We use the ablative divitiis with opus. But this usage of his is not a mistake in grammar, nor is it even what is termed a figure; for it is correct Latin and the early writers quite frequently used that case; moreover, no reason can be given why divis opus esse is more correct than divitias, except by those who look upon the innovations of grammarians as oracular responses.

For herein especially,

says he, [*](Id. 9.)

lies the injustice of the gods, that the worst men are the least subject to injury, and that they do not allow the best men to remain long (diurnare) with us.

His use of diurnare for diu vivere is unusual, but it is justified by the figure by which we use perennare (to last for years). He says: [*](Id. 6.)

He conversed (consermonabatur) with them.

Semocinari seems somewhat rustic, but is more correct; sermocinari is more common, but is not such pure Latin.

That he would not do even that,

says he, [*](Id. 17.)

which he then advised.

He has used ne id quoque for ne id quidem; the former is not common now in conversation, but is very frequent in the books of the earlier writers.

Such is the sanctity (sanctitudo) of the fane,

says he, [*](Id. 2.)

that no one ever ventured to violate it.

Sanctitas and sanctimonia are equally good Latin, but the word sanctitudo somehow has greater dignity, just as Marcus Cato, in his speech Against Lucius Veturius, thought it more forcible to use duritudo than duritia, saying, [*](xviii. 8, Jordan.)

Who knew his impudence and hardihood (duritudinem).

Since the Roman people,

says Quadrigarius, [*](Frag. 20, Peter2.)

had given such a pledge (arrabo) to the Samites.

He applied the term arrabo to the six hundred hostages and preferred to use that word rather than pignus, since the force of arrabo in that connection is weightier and more pointed; but nowadays arrabo is beginning to be numbered among vulgar words, and arra seems even more so, although the early writers often used arra, and Laberius [*](v. 152, Ribbeck3.) has it several times.

They have spent most wretched lives (vitas),

says Quadrigarius, [*](Frag. 27, Peter2.) and, [*](Id. 28.)

This man is worn out by too much leisure (otiis).

In both cases elegance is sought by the use of the plural number.

Cominius,

says he, [*](Frag. 4, Peter2.)

came down the same way he had gone up and so deceived the Gauls.

He says that Cominius

gave words to the Gauls,

meaning

deceived them,

although he had said nothing to anybody; and the Gauls who were besieging the Capitol had seen him neither going up nor coming down. But

he gave words

is used with the meaning of

he escaped the notice of, and circumvented.

Again he says: [*](Id. 29.)

There were valleys and great woods (arboreta).

Arboreta is a less familiar word, arbusta [*](From earlier arbos and -etum.) the more usual one.

They thought,

says he, [*](Frag. 5, Peter2.)

that those who were without and those that were within the citadel were exchanging communications (commutationes) and plans

Commutationes, meaning

conferences and communications,

is not usual, but, by Heaven! is neither erroneous nor inelegant.

These few notes on that book, such things as I remembered after reading it, I have now jotted down for my own use.

The words of Marcus Varro in the twenty fifth book of his Humran Antiquities, in which he has interpreted a line of Homer contrary to the general opinion.

IT happened in the course of conversations which we carried on about the dates of various inventions for human use, that a young man not without learning observed that the use of spartum or

Spanish broom

also was for a long time unknown in the land of Greece and that it was imported from Spain many years after the taking of Ilium. One or two half-educated fellows who were present there, of the class that the Greeks call a)gorai=oi, or

haunters of the market-place,

laughed in derision of this statement, and declared that the man who had made it had read a copy of Homer which happened to lack the following verse: [*](Iliad ii. 135.)

1. And rotted the ship's timbers, loosed the ropes (spa/rta).

Then the youth, in great vexation, replied:

It was not my book that lacked that line, but you who badly lacked a teacher, if you believe that spa/rta in that verse means what we call spartum, or 'a

v3.p.213

rope of Spanish broom'

They only laughed the louder, and would have continued to do so, had he not produced the twenty-fifth book of Varro's Human Antiquities, in which Varro writes as follows of that Homeric word: [*](Frag. 4, Mirsch.)

I believe that spa/rta in Homer does not mean sparta, or 'Spanish broom,' but rather spa/rtoi, a kind of broom which is said to grow in the Theban territory. In Greece there has only recently been a supply of spartum, imported from Spain. The Liburnians did not make use of that material either, but as a rule fastened their ships together with thongs, [*](See sutiles naves, Plin. N. H. xxiv. 65.) while the Greeks made more use of hemp, tow, and other cultivated plants (sativis), from which ropes got their name of sparta.

Since Varro says this, I have grave doubts whether the last syllable in the Homeric word ought not to have an acute accent; unless it be because words of this kind, when they pass from their general meaning to the designation of a particular thing, are distinguished by a difference in accent.

What the poet Menander said to Philemon, by whom he was often undeservedly defeated in contests in comedy; and that Euripides was very often vanquished in tragedy by obscure poets.

IN contests in comedy Menander was often defeated by Philemon, a writer by no means his equal, owing to intrigue, favour, and partisanship. When Menander once happened to meet his rival, he said:

Pray pardon me, Philemon, but really, don't you blush when you defeat me?

Marcus Varro says [*](p. 351, Bipont.) that Euripides also, although he wrote seventy-five tragedies, was victor with only five, [*](Some MSS. of the Greek Life of Euripides give fifteen, which seems a more probable number for so popular a poet. Sophocles won eighteen at the City Dionysia alone.) and was often vanquished by some very poor poets.

Some say that Menander left one hundred and eight comedies, others that the number was a hundred and nine. But we find these words of Apollodorus, a very famous writer, about Menander in his work entitled Chronica: [*](Frag. 77, p. 358, Jacoby.)

1. Cephissia's child, by Diopeithes sired,
2. An hundred plays he left and five besides;
3. At fifty-two he died.

Yet Apollodorus also writes in the same book that out of all those hundred and five dramas Menander gained the victory only with eight.

That it is by no mears true, as some meticulous artists in rhetoric affirm, that Marcus Cicero, in his book On Friendship, made use of a faulty argument and postulated

the disputed for the admitted

; with a careful discussion and examination of this whole question.

MARCUS CICERO, in the dialogue entitled Laelius, or On Friendship, wishes to teach us that friendship ought not to be cultivated in the hope and expectation of advantage, profit, or gain, but that it should be sought and cherished because in itself it is rich in virtue and honour, even though no aid and no advantage can be gained from it. This thought he has expressed in the following words, put into the mouth of Gaius Laelius, a wise man and a very

dear friend of Publius Africanus [*](§30.)

well, then, does Africanus need my help? No more do I need his. But I love him because of a certain admiration for his virtues; he in turn has affection for me perhaps because of some opinion which he has formed of my character; and intimacy has increased our attachment. But although many great advantages have resulted, yet the motives for our friendship did not arise from the hope of those advantages. For just as we are kindly and generous, not in order to compel a return—for we do not put favours out at interest, but we are naturally inclined to generosity —just so we think that friendship is to be desired, not because we are led by hope of gain, but because all its fruit is in the affection itself.

When it chanced that these words were read in a company of cultured men, a sophistical rhetorician, skilled in both tongues, a man of some note among those clever and meticulous teachers known as texnikoi,/ or

connoisseurs,

who was at the same time not without ability in disputation, expressed the opinion that Marcus Tullius had used an argument which was neither sound nor clear, but one which was of the same uncertainty as the question at issue itself; and he described that fault by Greek words, saying that Cicero had postulated a)ufisbhtou/menon a)nti\ o(mologoume/nou, that is,

what was disputed rather than what was admitted.

For,

said he,

he took benefci, 'the kindly,' and liberales, 'the generous,' to confirm what he said about friendship, although that very question is commonly asked and ought to be asked, with what thought and purpose one who acts liberally and kindly is kind and generous. Whether it is

v3.p.219

because he hopes for a return of the favour, and tries to arouse in the one to whom he is kind a like feeling towards himself, as almost all seem to do; or because he is by nature kindly, and kindness and generosity gratify him for their own sakes without any thought of a return of the favour, which is as a rule the rarest of all.

Furthermore, he thought that arguments ought to be either convincing, or clear and not open to controversy, and he said that the term apodixis, [*](That is, a)po/deicis.) or

demonstration,

was properly used only when things that are doubtful or obscure are made plain through things about which there is no doubt. And in order that he might show that the kind and generous ought not to be taken as an argument or example for the question about friendship, he said:

By the same comparison and the same appearance of reason, friendship in its turn may be taken as an argument, if one should declare that men ought to be kindly and generous, not from the hope of a return, but from the desire and love of honourable conduct. For he will be able to argue in a very similar manner as follows: ' Now just as we do not embrace friendship through hope of advantage, so we ought not to be generous and kindly with the desire of having the favour returned.' He will indeed,

said he,

be able to say this, but friendship cannot furnish an argument for generosity, nor generosity for friendship, since in the case of each there is equally an open question.

It seemed to some that this artist in rhetoric argued cleverly and learnedly, but that as a matter of fact he was ignorant of the true meaning of terms. For Cicero calls a man

kind and generous

in the sense that the philosophers believe those words ought to be used: not of one who, as Cicero himself expresses it, puts favours out at interest, but of one who shows kindness without having any secret reason which redounds to his own advantage. Therefore he has used an argument which is not obscure or doubtful, but trustworthy and clear, since if anyone is truly kind and generous, it is not asked with what motive he acts kindly or generously. For he must be called by very different names if, when he does such things, he does them for his own advantage rather than for that of another. Possibly the criticism made by this sophist might have some justification, if Cicero had said: [*](As quoted in § 2.)

For as we do some kind and generous action, not in order to compel a return.

For it might seem that anyone who was not kindly might happen to do a kind action, if it was done because of some accidental circumstance and not through a fixed habit of constant kindliness. But since Cicero spoke of

kindly and generous people,

and meant no other sort than that which we have mentioned before, it is

with unwashed feet,

[*](Cf. i. 9. 8 (vol. i, p. 49) with the note, and Plautus, Poen. 316, illotis manibus. The reference is to washing before handling sacred objects or performing religious rites. Et verbis is an addition by Gellius, in the sense of hasty, inconsiderate language.) as the proverb says, and unwashed words that our critic assails the argument of that most learned man.

That what Verrius Flaccus wrote about servus recepticius, in his second book On the Obscurities of Marcus Cato, is false.

MARCUS CATO, when recommending the Voconian law, [*](His recommendation of this law is also mentioned by Cicero, Cato Mai. 14, who discusses some features of the law in Verr. ii. 1. 101 ff.; see also xx. 1. 23, below. The law, which in general had to do with inheritances, has been the subject of much discussion; one of its provisions was that no one should make a woman his heir.) spoke as follows: [*](p. 54, 5, Jordan.)

In the beginning the woman brought you a great dowry; then she holds back a large sum of money, which she does not entrust to the control of her husband, but lends it to her husband. Later, becoming angry with him, she orders a servus recepticius, or ' slave of her own,' to hound him and demand the money.

The question was asked what was meant by servus recepticius. At once the books of Verrius Flaccus On the Obscurities of Cato were asked for and produced. In the second book was found the statement [*](p. xvi, Müller.) that servus recepticius was the name applied to a slave that was worthless and of no value, who, after being sold, was returned because of some fault and taken back.

Therefore,

says Flaccus, "a slave of that kind was bidden to hound her husband and demand the money, in order that the man's vexation might be greater, and the insult put upon him still more bitter, for the very reason that a worthless slave dunned him for the payment of money."

But with the indulgence and pardon of those, if such there be, who are influenced by the authority of Verrius Flaccus, this must be said. That recepticius servus in the case of which Cato is speaking is something very different from what Verrius wrote. And this is easy for anyone to understand; for the situation is undoubtedly this: when the woman

gave the dowry to her husband, what she retained of her property and did not give over to her husband she was said to

hold back

(recipere), just as now also at sales those things are said to be

held back

which are set aside and not sold. This word Plautus also used in the Trinumnus in this line: [*](v. 194.)

1. But when he sold the house, this little place
2. Behind it he held back (recepit).

That is, when he sold the house, he did not sell a small part which was behind the house, but held it back. Cato himself too, wishing to describe the woman as rich, says:

The woman brings a great dowry and holds back a large sum of money

; that is, she gives a great dowry and retains possession of a large sum of money. From that property then which she kept for herself after giving her dowry, she lent money to her husband. When she happened to be vexed with her husband and determined to demand the money back, she appoints to demand it from him a seruves recepticius, that is, a slave of her very own, whom she had held back with the rest of the money and had not given as part of her dowry, but had retained; for it was not right for the woman to give such an order to a slave of her husband, but only to one of her very own.

I forbear to say more in defence of this view of mine; for the opinion of Verrius and mine are before you, each by itself; anyone therefore may adopt whichever of the two seems to him the truer.