Noctes Atticae

That the early writers used liberi in the plural number even of a single son or daughter.

The early orators and writers of history or of poetry called even one son or daughter liberi, using the plural. And I have not only noticed this usage at various times in the works of several other of the older writers, but I just now ran across it in the fifth book of Sempronius Asellio's History. [*](Fr. 6, Peter.) This Asellio was military tribune under Publius Scipio Africanus at Numantia and wrote a detailed account of the events in whose action he himself took part.

His words about Tiberius Gracchus, tribune of the commons, at the time when he was killed on the Capitol, are as follows:

For whenever Gracchus left home, he was never accompanied by less than three or four thousand men.

And farther on he wrote thus of the same Gracchus:

He began to beg that they would at least defend him and his children (liberi); and then he ordered that the one male child which he had at that time should be brought out, and almost in tears commended him to the protection of the people.

That Marcus Cato, in the speech entitled Against the Exile Tiberius, says stitisses vadimonium with an i, and not stetisses; and the explanation of that word.

IN an old copy of the speech of Marcus Cato, which is entitled ,Against the Exile Tiberius,[*](xliii. Jordan.) we find

the following words:

What if with veiled head you had kept your recognizance?

Cato indeed wrote stitisses, correctly; but revisers have boldly and falsely written an e and put stelisses in all the editions, on the ground that stitisses is an unmeaning and worthless reading. Nay, it is rather they themselves that are ignorant and worthless, in not knowing that Cato wrote stitisses because sisteretur is used of recognizance, not staretur.

To what extent in ancient days it was to old age in particular that high honours were paid; and why it was that later those same honours were extended to husbands and fathers; and in that connection some provisions of the seventh section of the Julian law.

AMONG the earliest Romans, as a rule, neither birth nor wealth was more highly honoured than age, but older men were reverenced by their juniors almost like gods and like their own parents, and everywhere and in every kind of honour they were regarded as first and of prior right. From a dinner-party, too, older men were escorted home by younger men, as we read in the records of the past, a custom which, as tradition has it, the Romans took over from the Lacedaemonians, by whom, in accordance with the laws of Lycurgus, greater honour on all occasions was paid to greater age.

But after it came to be realised that progeny were a necessity for the State, and there was occasion to add to the productivity of the people by premiums and other inducements, then in certain respects greater deference was shown to men who had a wife, and to those who had children, than to older

men who had neither wives nor children. Thus in chapter seven of the Julian law [*](In 18 B.C. Augustus proposed a law de maritandis ordinibus,imposing liabilities on the unmarried and offering rewards to those who married and reared children. It was violently opposed, but was finally passed in a modified form. See Suet. Aug. xxxiv. In A.D. 9 the lex Papia Poppaea, called from the consules suffecti of the year, was added. The combined Lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea contained at least 35 chapters (Dig. 23. 2. 19). ) priority in assuming the emblems of power is given, not to the elder of the consuls, but to him who either has more children tinder his control than his colleague, or has lost them in war. But if both have an equal number of children, the one who has a wife, or is eligible for marriage, is preferred. If, however, both are married and are fathers of the same number of children, then the standard of honour of early times is restored, and the elder is first to assume the rods. But when both consuls are without wives and have the same number of sons, or are husbands but have no children, there is no provision in that law as to age. However, I hear that it was usual for those who had legal priority to yield the rods for the first month to colleagues who were either considerably older than they, or of much higher rank, or who were entering upon a second consulship.

Sulpicius Apollinaris' criticism of Caesellius Vindex for his explanation of a passage in Virgil.

VIRGIL has the following lines in the sixth book: [*](760 ff.)

1. Yon princeling, thou beholdest leaning there
2. Upon a bloodless [*](See note 1, p. 155.) lance, shall next emerge
3. Into the realms of day. He is the first
4. Of half-Italian strain, thy last-born heir,
5. To thine old age by fair Lavinia given,
v1.p.165
6. Called Silvius, a royal Alban name
7. (Of sylvan birth and sylvan nurture he),
8. A king himself and sire of kings to come,
9. By whom our race in Alba Longa reign.

It appeared to Caesellius that there was utter inconsistency between

1. thy last-born heir

and

1. To thine old age by fair Lavinia given,
2. Of sylvan birth.

For if, as is shown by the testimony of almost all the annals, this Silvius was born after the death of Aeneas, and for that reason was given the forename Postumus, with what propriety does Virgil add:

1. To thine old age by fair Lavinia given,
2. Of sylvan birth?

For these words would seem to imply that while Aeneas was still living, but was already an old man, a son Silvius was born to him and was reared. Therefore Caesellius, in his Notes on Early Readings, expressed the opinion that the meaning of the words was as follows:

Postuma proles,

said he,

does not mean a child born after the death of his father, but the one who was born last; this applies to Silvius, who was born late and after the usual time, when Aeneas was already an old man.

But Caesellius names no adequate authority for this version, while that Silvius was born, as I have said, after Aeneas' death, has ample testimony.

Therefore Sulpicius Apollinaris, among other criticisms of Caesellius, notes this statement of his as

an error, and says that the cause of the error is the phrase quem tibi longaevo.

Longaevo,

he says,

does not mean 'when old,' for that is contrary to historical truth, but rather ' admitted into a life that is now long and unending, and made immortal.' For Anchises, who says this to his son, knew that after Aeneas had ended his life among men he would be immortal and a local deity, and enjoy a long and everlasting existence.

Thus Apollinaris, ingeniously enough. But yet a

long life

is one thing, and an

unending life

another, and the gods are not called

of great age,

but

immortal.

Marcus Cicero's observations on the nature of certain prepositions; to which is added a discussion of the particular matter which Cicero had observed.

AFTER careful observation Marcus Tullius noted that the prepositions in and con, when prefixed to nouns and verbs, are lengthened and prolonged when they are followed by the initial letters of sapiens and felix; but that in all other instances they are pronounced short.

Cicero's words are: [*](Orator, § 159.)

Indeed, what can be more elegant than this, which does not come about from a natural law, but in accordance with a kind of usage? we pronounce the first vowel in indoctus short, in insanus long; in immanis short, in infelix long; in brief, in compound words in which the first letters are those which begin sapiens and felix the prefix is pronounced long, in all others short; thus we have conposuit but cōnsuevit, cŏncrepuit

v1.p.169

but cōnficit. Consult the rules of grammar and they will censure your usage; refer the matter to your ears and they will approve. Ask why it is so; they will say that it pleases them. And language ought to gratify the pleasure of the ear.

In these words of which Cicero spoke it is clear that the principle is one of euphony, but what are we to say of the preposition pro? For although it is often shortened or lengthened, yet it does not conform to this rule of Marcus Tullius. For it is not always lengthened when it is followed by the first letter of the word fecit, which Cicero says has the effect of lengthening the prepositions in and con. For we pronounce prŏficisci, prŏfugere, prŏfundere, prŏfannu and prŏfestumn with the first vowel short, but prōferre, prōfligare and prōficere with that syllable long. Why is it then that this letter, which, according to Cicero's observation, has the effect of lengthening, does not have the same effect by reason of rule or of euphony in all words of the same kind, [*](That is beginning with f.) but lengthens the vowel in one word and shortens it in another.

Nor, as a matter of fact, is the particle con lengthened only when followed by that letter which Cicero mentioned: for both Cato and Sallust say

faenoribus copertus est.

[*](He is loaded with debt; Fr. 50, Jordan; Sail Hist. iv. 52, Maurenbrecher.) Moreover cōligatus and cōnexus are pronounced long.

But after all, in these cases which I have cited one can see that this particle is lengthened because the letter n is dropped; for the loss of a letter is compensated by the lengthening of the syllable. This principle is observed also in the word cōgo; and it is no contradiction that we pronounce cŏegi

short; for this form cannot be derived from cōgo without violation of the principle of analogy. [*](For analogy in this sense of regularity, see ii. 25. Gellius thought that coegi was an irregular form because oē did not contract, as oi did in cogo; but contraction of unlike vowels did not take place when the second was long; cf. coāctus. Cicero's rule is correct, because a vowel is naturally long before ns and nf. The case of pro is quite different. The ō in cōpertus is due to contraction from co-opertus. Cōligatus is a very rare form; Skutsch, quoted by Hosius, thought it might come from co-alligatus. The ō in cogo is also due to contraction (co-ago, co-igo), which does not apply to the perfect coegi. Compensatory lengthening takes place usually when an s is lost, as in cōnecto for co-snecto, or n before s and f; less commonly when nc is lost before n.)