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).

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

v3.p.229

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.

v3.p.231

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.

v3.p.233

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,

v3.p.235

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

v3.p.237

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

v3.p.239

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.

What Favorinus thought of the verses of Virgil in which he imitated the poet Pindar in his description of an eruption of Mount Aetna; his comparison and evaluation of the verses of the two poets on the same theme.

I REMEMBER that the philosopher Favorinus, when he had gone during the hot season to the villa of a friend of his at Antium, and I had come from Rome to see him, discoursed in about the following manner about the poets Pindar and Virgil.

The friends and intimates of Publius Vergilius,

said he,

in the accounts which they have left us of his talents and his character, say that he used to declare that he produced verses after the manner and fashion of a
v3.p.241
bear. For he said that as that beast brought forth her young formless and misshapen, and afterwards by licking the young cub gave it form and shape, just so the fresh products of his mind were rude in form and imperfect, but afterwards by working over them and polishing them he gave them a definite form and expression. [*](Cf. Suet. Vita Verg. 22 (ii. p. 470, L.C.L.).) That this was honestly and truly said by that man of fine taste,

said he, "is shown by the result. For the parts that he left perfected and polished, to which his judgment and approval had applied the final hand, enjoy the highest praise for poetical beauty; but those parts which he postponed, with the intention of revising them later, but was unable to finish because he was overtaken by death, are in no way worthy of the fame and taste of the most elegant of poets. It was for that reason, when he was laid low by disease and saw that death was near, that he begged and earnestly besought his best friends to burn the Aeneid, which he had not yet sufficiently revised.

Now among the passages,

said Favorinus,

which particularly seem to have needed revision and correction is the one which was composed about Mount Aetna. For wishing to rival the poem which the earlier poet Pindar composed about the nature and eruption of that mountain, he has heaped up such words and expressions that in this passage at least he is more extravagant and bombastic even than Pindar himself, who was thought to have too rich and luxuriant a style. And in order that you yourselves,

said he, "may be judges of what I say, I will repeat Pindar's poem about Mount Aetna, so far as I can remember it: [*](Pyth. i. 21 ff.)

v3.p.243

Mount Aetna, from whose inmost caves burst forth
The purest fount of unapproachable fire.
By day her rivers roll a lurid stream
Of smoke, while 'mid the gloom of night red flame,
On sweeping, whirleth rocks with crashing din
Far down to the deep sea. And high aloft
That monster [*](The monster was the giant Typhoeus, or Typhon, who was struck by Zeus' thunder-bolt and buried under Aetna.) flingeth fearful founts of fire,
A marvel to behold or e'en to hear
From close at hand.

Now hear the verses of Virgil, which I may more truly say that he began than finished: [*](Aen. iii. 570 ff.)

There lies a port, safe from the winds' approach,
Spacious itself, but Aetna close at hand
Thunders with crashes dire, and now hurls forth
Skyward a dusky cloud with eddies black
And glowing ash, and uplifts balls of flame
And licks the stars; now spews forth rocks,
The mountain's entrails torn, hurls molten crags
Groaning to heaven, and seethes from depths profound.

Now in the first place,

said Favorinus,

Pindar has more closely followed the truth and has given a realistic description of what actually happened there, and what he saw with his own eyes; namely, that Aetna in the daytime sends forth smoke and at night fire; but Virgil, labouring to find grand and sonorous words, confuses the two periods of time and makes no distinction between them. Then the Greek has vividly pictured the streams of fire belched from the depths and the flowing rivers of smoke, and
v3.p.245
the rushing of lurid and spiral volumes of flame into the waters of the sea, like so many fiery serpents; but our poet, attempting to render r(o/on kapnou= ai)/qwna, 'a lurid stream of smoke,' has clumsily and diffusely piled up the words atram nubem turbine piceo et favilla fomented, 'a dusky cloud smoking with eddies black and glowing ash,' and what Pindar called krounoi/, or 'founts,' he has harshly and inaccurately rendered by 'balls of flame.' Likewise when he says sidearm lamb it, 'it licks the stars,' this also,

he says,

is a useless and foolish elaboration. And this too is inexplicable and almost incomprehensible, when he speaks of a 'black cloud smoking with eddies black and glowing ash.' For things which glow,

said Favorinus,

do not usually smoke nor are they black; unless candenti ('glowing') is used vulgarly and inaccurately for hot ashes, instead of those which are fiery and gleaming. For candens, of course, is connected with candor, or 'whiteness,' not with calor ('heat'). But when he says saxa et scopulos eructari et erigi, 'that rocks and crags are spewed forth and whirled skyward,' and that these same crags at once liquefieri et gemere atque glomerari ad auras, 'are molten and groan and are whirled to heaven,' this,

he said,

is what Pindar never wrote and what was never spoken by anyone; and it is the most monstrous of all monstrous descriptions.

[*](Not all modern critics would agree with Favorinus as to Virgil's last two lines, with their elaborate accommodation of sound to sense.)

v3.p.247

That Plutarch in his Symposiacs defended the opinion of Plato about the structure and nature of the stomach, and of the tube which is called traxei=a, against the physician Erasistratus, urging the authority of the ancient physician Hippocrates.

BOTH Plutarch [*](Sympos. vii. 1.) and certain other learned men have written that Plato was criticized by the famous physician Erasistratus, [*](p. 194, Fuchs.) because he said [*](Tim. 44, p. 91, A; 31, p. 70, c.) that drink went to the lungs and having sufficiently moistened them, flowed through them, since they are somewhat porous, and from there passed into the bladder. They declared that the originator of that error was Alcaeus, who wrote [*](Frag. 39, Bergk4.) in his poems:

Wet now the lungs with wine; the dog-star shines,

but that Erasistratus himself declared [*](pp. 184 ff. and 194, Fuchs.) that there were two little canals, so to speak, or pipes, and that they extended downward from the throat; that through one of these all food and drink passed and went into the stomach, and from there were carried into the belly, which the Greeks call h( ka/tw koili/a. That there it is reduced and digested and then the drier excrement passes into the bowels, which the Greeks call ko/lon, [*](The three places referred to are the stomach, the small intestine and the large intestine. Neither the Greek nor the Latin terms are always used consistently.) and the moisture through the kidneys into the bladder. But through the other tube, which the Greeks call the traxei=a a)rthri/a, or

rough windpipe,

the breath passes from the lips into the lungs, and from there goes back into the mouth and nostrils, and along this same road a passage for the voice also is made; and lest drink

v3.p.249

or drier food, which ought to pass into the stomach, should fall from the mouth and slip into that tube through which the breath goes back and forth, and by such an accident the path of the breath should be cut off, there has been placed at these two openings by a kind of helpful device of nature, a sort of movable valve which is called the

epiglottis,

which alternately shuts and opens. This epiglottis, while we are eating and drinking, covers and protects

the rough windpipe,

in order that no particle of food or drink may fall into that path, so to speak, of the rising and falling breath; and on that account no moisture passes into the lungs, since the opening of the windpipe itself is well protected.

These are the views of the physician Erasistratus, as opposed to Plato. But Plutarch, in his Symposiacs, [*](vii. 1. 3.) says that the originator of Plato's opinion was Hippocrates, and that the same opinion was held by Philistion of Locris [*](Frag. 7, p. 112, Wellmann.) and Dioxippus the pupil of Hippocrates, famous physicians of the olden time; also that the epiglottis, of which Erasistratus spoke, was not placed where it is to prevent anything that we drank from flowing into the windpipe; for fluid seems necessary and serviceable for refreshing and moistening the lungs; but it was placed there as a kind of controller and arbiter, to exclude or admit whatever was necessary for the health of the body; to keep away all foods from the windpipe and turn them to the stomach, but to divide what is drunk between the stomach and the lungs. And that part which ought to be admitted into the lungs through the windpipe the epiglottis does not let through rapidly and all at once, but when it has been checked and held back, as it were by a kind

v3.p.251

of dam, it allows it to pass gradually and little by little, and turns aside all the remainder into the other tube leading to the stomach.

Of ignoble subjects, called by the Greeks a)/docoi, or

unexpected,

argued by Favorinus for the sake of practice.

NOT only the sophists of old, but the philosophers as well, took up ignoble subjects, [*](See Pease, Things without Honor, Class. Phil. xxi. pp. 27 ff. An example is Erasmus' Praise of Folly.) or if you prefer, unexpected ones, a)/docoi u(poqe/seis, as the Greeks call them; and our friend Favorinus took a great deal of pleasure in descending to such subjects, [*](Frag. 65, Marres.) either thinking them suitable for stimulating his thoughts or exercising his cleverness or overcoming difficulties by practice. For example, when he attempted to praise Thersites and pronounced a eulogy upon the quartan ague, [*](See note 1, p. 252.) he said many clever and ingenious things on both topics, which he has left written in his works.

But in his eulogy of fever he even produced Plato as a witness, declaring that the philosopher wrote [*](Tim. 10, p. 86 A.) that one who after suffering from quartan ague got well and recovered his full strength, would afterwards enjoy surer and more constant health. And in that same eulogy he made this quip, which, of a truth, is not ungraceful:

The following lines,

he says,

have met with the approval of many generations of men: [*](Hesiod, Works and Days, 825.)
Sometimes a day is like a stepmother,
And sometimes like a mother.

v3.p.253
The meaning of the verses is that a man cannot fare well every day, but fares well on one day and ill on another. Since it is true,

he says,

that in human affairs things are in turn, now good, now bad, how much more fortunate is this fever which has an interval of two days, [*](Owing to the Roman method of inclusive reckoning, the quartan ague, occurring on every fourth day, had an interval of two days; see Class Phil. viii. 1 ff.) since it has only one stepmother, but two mothers!

How many and what varieties of meaning the particle quin has, and that it is often obscure in the earlier literature.

THE particle quin, which the grammarians call a conjunction, seems to connect sentences in various ways and with divers meanings. For it seems to have one meaning when we say, as if chiding or questioning or exhorting, quin venis?

Why don't you come?

quin legis?

Why don't you read?

or quin fugis?

Why don't you flee?

; but it has a different meaning when we affirm, for example, that

there is no doubt but that (quin) Marcus Tullius is the most eloquent of all men,

and still a third, when we add something which seems contradictory to a former statement:

Isocrates did not plead causes, not but that he thought it useful and honourable so to do.

In the last of these sentences the meaning is not very different from that which is found in the third book of Marcus Cato's Origins: [*](Frag. 73, Peter2.)

these I describe last, not but that they are good and valiant peoples.

[*](This rather difficult example I do not find in our grammars.) Also in the second book of the Origins Marcus Cato has used this particle in a very similar manner: [*](Id. 36.)

He did not consider it enough to have slandered him privately, without openly defaming his character.

v3.p.255

I have noted, besides, that Quadrigarius in the eighth book of his Annals has used that particle in a very obscure manner. I quote his exact words: [*](Frag. 70, Peter2.)

He came to Rome; he barely succeeds in having a triumph voted.

[*](Quin = why not; see note 4 below.) Also in the sixth book of the same writer's Annals are these words: [*](Id. 58.)

It lacked little but that (quin) they should leave their camp and yield to the enemy.

Now I am quite well aware that someone may say off-hand that there is no difficulty in these words; for quin in both passages is used for ut, and the meaning is perfectly plain if you say:

He came to Rome; he with difficulty brought it about that a triumph should be voted

; [*](This translation, which Gellius rightly rejects, neglects the negative in quin. Both examples from Quadrigarius might be explained as dubitative questions in the paratactic form; e.g. Why should not a triumph be granted him?) and also in the other passage,

It almost happened that they left their camp and yielded to the enemy.

Let those who are so ready find refuge in changing words which they do not understand, but let them do so with more modesty, when the occasion permits.

Only one who has learned that this particle of which we are speaking is a compound and formed of two parts, and that it does not merely have the function of a connective but has a definite meaning of its own, [*](quin is formed from qui, the ablative of the interrogative and relative stem qui-, and -ne, not. It is used in both dependent and independent sentences. See Lane, Lat. Gr.2 1980 ff.) will ever understand its variations in meaning. But because an explanation of these would require a long dissertation, he who has leisure may find it in the Commentaries of Publius Nigidius which he entitled Grammatical. [*](Frag. 52, Swoboda.)

v3.p.257

Neat sayings selected from the Mimes of Publilius.

PUBLILIUS wrote mimes. He was thought worthy of being rated about equal to Laberius. But the scurrility and the arrogance of Laberius so offended Gaius Caesar, that he declared that he was better pleased with the mimes of Publilius than with those of Laberius. Many sayings of this Publilius are current, which are neat and well adapted to the use of ordinary conversation. Among these are the following, consisting of a single line each, which I have indeed taken pleasure in quoting: [*](Meyer, vv. 362, 55, 176, 106, 104, 193, 221, 178, 264, 245, 645, 383, 416, 469. In one instance it has seemed necessary to use two lines in the English version.)

Bad is the plan which cannot bear a change.
He gains by giving who has given to worth.
Endure and don't deplore what can't be helped. [*](Cf. What can't be cured must be endured.)
Who's given too much, will want more than's allowed. [*](Cf. Give an inch, he'll take an ell.)
A witty colmrade at vour side,
To walk's as easy as to ride.
Frugality is misery in disguise.
Heirs' tears are laughter underneath a mask.
Patience too oft provoked is turned to rage.
He wrongly Neptune blames, who suffers shipwreck twice.
Regard a friend as one who may be foe.
By bearing old wrongs new ones you provoke.
With danger ever danger's overcome.
'Mid too much wrangling truth is often lost.
Who courteously declines, grants half your suit.

v3.p.259

That Carneades the Academic purged his stomach with hellebore when about to write against the dogmas of Zeno the Stoic; and of the nature and curative powers of white and black hellebore.

WHEN Carneades, the Academic philosopher, was about to write against the books of the Stoic Zeno, he cleansed the upper part of his body with white hellebore, in order that none of the corrupt humours of his stomach might rise to the abode of his mind and weaken the power and vigour of his intellect; with such care and such preparation did this man of surpassing talent set about refuting what Zeno had written. When I had read of this in Grecian history, I inquired what was meant by the term

white hellebore.

Then I learned that there are two kinds of hellebore distinguished by a difference in colour, white and black; but that those colours are distinguished neither in the seed of the hellebore nor in its plant, but in the root; further, that with white hellebore the stomach and upper belly [*](The small intestine, see note on xvii. 11. 2.) are purged by vomiting; by the black the so-called lower belly is loosened, [*](The large intestine.) and the effect of both is to remove the noxious humours in which the causes of diseases are situated. But that there is danger lest, when every avenue of the body is opened, along with the causes of disease the juices on which the principle of life depends should also pass away, and the man should perish from exhaustion because of the destruction of the entire foundation of natural nourishment.

v3.p.261

But Plinius Secundus, in his work On Natural History, wrote [*](xxv. 52.) that hellebore could be taken with the greatest safety in the island of Anticyra. [*](There were three places of this name, all celebrated for their hellebore, which was regarded as a cure for insanity. One was in Locris, on the Corinthian Gulf; the second was on the Maliac Gulf at the foot of Mt. Oeta. The third, usually considered the most important, was a town of Phocis on the Corinthian Gulf. See Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v., where Plin. N. H. xxv. 52 is assigned to the last-named, in spite of iasula. Baumgarten-Crasius, Suetonius, refer the reference in Calig. xxix to an island, which they do not, locate. In Hor. Ars. Poet. 300, tribus Anticyris may refer to three Anticyras, but is more probably used in a general sense.) That for this reason Livius Drusus, the former tribune of the commons, when he was suffering from the so-called

election

disease, [*](See note on xvi. 4. 4.) sailed to Anticyra, drank hellebore in that island, and was thus cured of the ailment.

I have read besides that the Gauls, when hunting, dip their arrows in hellebore, because the wild animals that are struck and killed by arrows thus treated become tenderer for eating; but because of the contagion of the hellebore they are said to cut out a large piece of flesh around the wounds made by the arrows.

That Pontic ducks have a power which is able to expel poisons; and also of the skill of Mithridates in preparing antidotes.

IT is said that the ducks of Pontus commonly live by eating poisons. It was also written by Lenaeus, [*](See Suet. De G. amm. xv. (ii, p. 418, L.C.L.).) the freedman of Pompey the Great, that Mithridates, the famous king of Pontus, was skilled in medicine and in antidotes of that kind, and that he was accustomed to mix the blood of these ducks with drugs that have the power of expelling poisons, and that the blood was the very most powerful agency

v3.p.263

in their preparation; furthermore, that the king himself by the constant use of such remedies guarded against hidden plots at banquets; nay more, that lie often voluntarily and wittingly, to show his immunity, drank a swift and rapid poison, which yet did him no harm. Therefore, at a later time, when he had been defeated in battle, and after fleeing to the remotest bounds of his kingdom had resolved to take his own life, having vainly tried the most violent poisons for the purpose of hastening his death, he fell upon his own sword. the most celebrated antidote of this king is the one which is called

Mithridatian.

That Mithridates, king of Pontus, spoke the languages of twenty-five nations; and that Quintus Ennius said that he had three hearts, because he was proficient in three tongues, Greek, Oscan, and Latin.

QUINTUS ENNIUS used to say that he had three hearts, because he knew how to speak Greek, Oscan, and Latin. But Mithridates, the celebrated king of Pontus and Bithynia, who was overcome in war by Gnaeus Pompeius, [*](66–63 B.C.) was proficient in the languages of the twenty-five races which he held under his sway. He never spoke to the men of all those nations through an interpreter, but whenever it was necessary for him to address any one of them, he used his language and speech with as much skill as if he were his fellow-countryman.

v3.p.265