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).
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,
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
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
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 asaid 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.v3.p.241bear. 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,
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.)
Now hear the verses of Virgil, which I may more truly say that he began than finished: [*](Aen. iii. 570 ff.)
- 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.
- 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, andhe says,v3.p.245the 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,
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.)
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:
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
- Wet now the lungs with wine; the dog-star shines,
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
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
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.)he says,
- Sometimes a day is like a stepmother,
- And sometimes like a mother.
v3.p.253The 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,
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
electiondisease, [*](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
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.
The statement of Marcus Vairo that Gaius Sallustius, the writer of history, was taken in adultery by Annius Milo and was let go only after he had been beaten with thongs and had paid a sum of money.
MARCUS VARRO, a man of great trustworthiness and authority in his writings and in his life, in the work which he entitled Pius, or On Peace, [*](p. 256, Ricse) says that Gaius Sallustius, the author of those austere and dignified works, whom we see in his history writing and acting, like a censor, was taken in adultery by Annius Milo, soundly beaten with thongs, and allowed to escape only after paying a sum of money. [*](On this story see Sallust, L.C. L., p. x.)
What Epictetus the philosophers used to say to worthless and vile men, who zealously followed the pursuit of philosophy; and the two words whose remembrance he enjoyed as by far the most salutary in all respects.
I HEARD Favorinus say that the philosopher Epictetus declared [*](Frag. 10, p. 410, Schenkl., L.C.L. II, p. 452 ff.) that very many of those who professed to be philosophers were of the kind a)/neu tou= pra/ttein, me/xri tou= le/gein, which means
without deeds, limited to words; that is, they preached but did not practise. But that is still more severe which Arrian, in his work On the Dissertations of Epictetus, [*](ii. 19; cf. Gell. i. 2. 8.) has written that this philosopher used to say.
For,says Arrian,
when he perceived that a man without shame, persistent in wickedness, of abandonedNothing surely could be weightier, nothing truer than these words, in which the greatest of philosophers declared that the learning and precepts of philosophy, flowing into a base and degenerate man, as if into a soiled and filthy vessel, are turned, altered, spoiled, and as he himself more cynically expresses it, become urine or, if possible, something worse than urine. Moreover, that same Epictetus, as we also heard from Favorinus, used to say that there were two faults which were by far the worst and most disgusting of all, lack of endurance and lack of self-restraint, when we cannot put up with or bear the wrongs which we ought to endure, or cannot restrain ourselves from actions or pleasures from which we ought to refrain.v3.p.267character, reckless, boastful, and cultivating everything else except his soul—when he saw such a man taking up also the study and pursuit of philosophy, attacking natural history, practising logic and balancing and investigating many problems of that kind, he used to invoke the help [*](That is, he used some phrase equivalent to pro deum atque hominum fidem (Heaven help us!).) of gods and men, and usually amid his exclamations chided the man in these terms: 'O man, where are you storing these things? Consider whether the vessel be clean. For if you take them into your self-conceit, they are lost; if they are spoiled, they become urine or vinegar or something worse, if possible.'
Therefore,said he,
if anyone would take these two words to heart and use them for his own guidance and regulation, he will be almost without sin and will lead a very peaceful life. These two words,he said,
are a)ne/xou (bear) and a)pe/xou (forbear).[*](The two Greek words, like Eng. bear and forbear, formed a stock formula.)