Noctes Atticae

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.

These words from the Atinian law,

the claim on whatever shall be stolen shall be everlasting,

seemed to Publius Nigidius and Quintus Scaevola to have reference not less to a past theft than to a future one.

THE words of the ancient Atinian law [*](Different from the plebiscitum of xiv. 8. 2. The date is uncertain.) are as follows: [*](Fontes Iur. Rom., p. 45, 6.)

Whatever shall have been stolen, let the right to claim the thing be everlasting.

Who would suppose that in these words the law referred to anything else than to future time? But Quintus Scaevola says [*](Fr. 3, Huschke; Iur. Civ. xvi. 5, Bremer.) that his father [*](Resp. 4, Bremer.) and Brutus [*](Resp. 5, Bremer.) and Manilius, [*](Resp. 5, Bremer.) exceedingly learned men, inquired and were in doubt whether the law was valid in cases of future theft only or also in those already committed in the past; since subruptum erit seems to indicate both times, past as well as future.

Therefore Publius Nigidius, the most learned man of the Roman State, discussed this uncertainty of theirs in the twenty-third book of his Grammatical Notes. [*](Fr. 34, Swoboda.) And he himself too has the same opinion, that the indication of the time is indefinite, but he speaks very concisely and obscurely, so that you may see that he is rather making notes to aid his own memory than trying to instruct his readers. [*](Cf. xvi. 8. 3.) However, his meaning seems to be that est and erit are independent words; when they are used alone, they have and retain their own tense, but when they are joined with a past participle, they lose the force of their own tense, and are transferred to the past. For when I say in campo est, or

he is in the field,

and in comitio est, or

he is in the comitium,

I refer to the present time; also when I say in campo erit (he will be in the field), or in comitio erit (he will be in the comitium), I indicate future time: but when I say factum est, scriptum est or subruptum est, although the verb est is in the present tense, it is nevertheless united with the past and ceases to be present.

Similarly then,

he says,

with regard also to the wording of the law; if you divide and separate these two words subruptum and erit, so that you understand subruptum erit as you would certamen erit, that is, 'there will be a contest,' or sacrificium erit (there will be a sacrifice), then the law will seem to have reference to an act completed in future time; but if you understand the two words to be united and mingled, so that subruptum erit is not two words, but one, and is a single form of the passive inflection, then that word indicates past time no less than future.

In conversation at the table of the philosopher Taurus questions of this kind were proposed and discussed:

why oil congeals often and readily, wine seldom, vinegar hardly ever,

and

that the waters of rivers and springs freeze, while the sea does not.

THE philosopher Taurus at Athens usually entertained us at dinner at the time of day when evening had already come on; for there that is the time for dining. [*](In Rome the dinner-hour was considerably earlier, usually the ninth hour, or about three o'clock in the afternoon; see Hor. Epist. 1. 7. 71; Mart. iv. 8. 6. To-day, too, the dinner-hour is later in Athens than in Rome, although the difference is not so great as in ancient times.) The entire basis and foundation of the meal usually consisted of one pot of Egyptian beans, to which were added gourds cut in small pieces.

One day when this dish had been brought and placed upon the table, and we were ready and awaiting the meal, Taurus ordered a slave-boy to pour some oil into the pot. The slave was a boy of Attic birth, at most eight years old, overflowing with the merry wit characteristic of his race and his time of life. He brought an empty Samian flask, from oversight, as he said, supposing there was oil in it, turned it up and, as he usually did, passed it with his hand over all parts of the pot; but no oil came out. The boy, in anger, looked savagely at the flask, shook it violently, and again turned it over the pot; and when we were all quietly and furtively laughing at his actions, he said in Greek, and excellent Attic Greek at that:

Don't laugh; there's oil in it; but don't you know how cold it was this morning; it's congealed.

You rascal,

said Taurus with a laugh,

run and fetch some oil.

But when the boy had gone out to buy oil, Taurus, not at all put out by the delay, said:

The pot needs oil, and, as I see, is intolerably hot; let us withhold our hands and meanwhile, since the slave has just told us that oil is in the habit of congealing, let us consider why oil congeals often and readily, but wine rarely.

And he looked at me and bade me give my opinion. Then I replied that I inferred that wine congealed less quickly because it had in it certain seeds of heat and was naturally more fiery, and that was why Homer called [*](Iliad i. 462, etc.) it ai)/qoy, [*](In Homer this word, from ai)qo/s, fire and o)/y, eye, means fiery-looking or sparkling, rather than fiery. Gellius seems to be wrong so far as Homer is concerned, although some other writers used ai)/qoy in the sense of fiery, as applied to persons.) and not, as some supposed, on account of its colour.

It is indeed,

says Taurus,

as you say. For it is well known that wine, when we drink it, warms the body. But oil is equally calorific and has no less power of warming the body. Besides, if those things which are warmer are frozen with greater difficulty, it follows that those which are colder freeze more readily. But vinegar is the most cooling of all things and yet it never freezes. Is the reason then for the quicker freezing of oil to be found in its lightness? For those things seem to congeal more readily which are lighter and smoother.

Taurus says besides that it is also worth inquiring why the waters of rivers and streams freeze, while all the sea is incapable of freezing.

Although Herodotus,

said he,

the writer of history, contrary to the opinion of almost all who have investigated these matters, writes [*](iv. 28 (ii., p. 226, L.C.L.).) that the Bosphoric sea, which is called Cimmerian, [*](The Cimmerian Bosphorus, the present Strait of Yenikale, connecting the Palus Maeotis (Sea of Azov) with the Pontus Euxinus or Black Sea.) and all that part of the sea which is termed Scythian, [*](Herodotus does not use the term Scythian Sea, but says the sea, referring to the Palus Maeotis and the Euxine. See the map, Herod., L.C.L., vol. ii.) is bound fast by the cold and brought to a standstill.

While Taurus was thus speaking, the boy had returned, the pot had cooled off, and the time had come to eat and hold our peace.

Of the cypher letters which are found in the epistles of Gains Caesar, and of other secret forms of writing taken from ancient history; and what the Laconian skuta/lh is.

THERE are volumes of letters of Gaius Caesar addressed to Gaius Oppius and Cornelius Balbus,

who had charge of his affairs in his absence. In certain parts of these letters [*](ii. p. 137, Dinter.) there are found individual characters which are not connected to form syllables, but apparently are written at random; for no word can be formed from those letters. But a secret agreement had been made between the correspondents about a change in the position of the letters, so that, in writing, one name and position was given to one letter and another to another, but in reading its own place and force was restored to each of them. [*](See Suet. Jul. lvi. 6, who says that Caesar wrote d for a, and so on with the other letters.) But which letter was written for which was, as I have already said, agreed upon by those who devised this secret code. There is in fact a commentary of the grammarian Probus, On the Secret meaning of the Letters appearing in the Epistles of Gains Caesar, which is a very careful piece of work.

But the ancient Lacedaemonians, when they wanted to conceal and disguise the public dispatches sent to their generals, in order that, in case they were intercepted by the enemy, their plans might not be known, used to send letters written in the following manner. There were two thin, cylindrical wands of the same thickness and length, smoothed and prepared so as to be exactly alike. One of these was given to the general when he went to war, the other the magistrates kept at home under their control and seal. When the need of more secret communication arose, they bound about the staff a thong of moderate thickness, but long enough for the purpose, in a simple spiral, in such a way that the edges of the thong which was twined around the stick met and were joined throughout. Then they wrote the dispatch on that thong across

the connected edges of the joints, with the lines running from the top to the bottom. When the letter had been written in this way, the thong was unrolled from the wand and sent to the general, who was familiar with the device. But the unrolling of the thong made the letters imperfect and broken, and their parts and strokes [*](See note on xiii. 31. 10, and A.J.P. xlviii, No. 1.) were divided and separated. Therefore, if the thong fell into the hands of the enemy, nothing at all could be made out from the writing; but when the one to whom the letter was sent had received it, he wound it around the corresponding staff, which he had, from the top to the bottom, just as he knew that it ought to be done, and thus the letters, united by encircling a similar staff, came together again, rendering the dispatch entire and undamaged, and easy to read. This kind of letter the Lacedaemonians called skuta/lh. I also read this in an ancient history of Carthage, that a certain famous man of that country —whether it was Hasdrubal or another I do not recall—disguised a letter written about secret matters in the following way: he took new tablets, not yet provided with wax, and cut the letters into the wood. Afterwards he covered the tablet with wax in the usual way and sent it, apparently without writing, to one to whom he had previously told his plan. The recipient then scraped off the wax, found the letters safe and sound inscribed upon the wood, and read them.

There is also in the records of Grecian history another profound and difficult method of concealment, devised by a barbarian's cunning. He was called Histiaeus and was born in the land of Asia in no mean station. At that time king Darius held

sway in Asia. This Histiaeus, being in Persia with Darius, wished to send a confidential message to a certain Aristagoras in a secret manner. He devised this remarkable method of concealing a letter. He shaved all the hair from the head of a slave of his who had long suffered from weak eyes, as if for the purpose of treatment. Then he tattooed the forms of the letters on his smooth head. When in this way he had written what he wished, he kept the man at home for a time, until his hair grew out. When this happened, he ordered him to go to Aristagoras, adding:

When you come to him, say that I told him to shave your head, as I did a little while ago.

The slave, as he was bidden, came to Aristagoras and delivered his master's order. Aristagoras, thinking that the command must have some reason, did as he was directed. And thus the letter reached its destination.