Noctes Atticae

Why, according to Gavius Bassus, a man is called parcus and what he thought to be the explanation of that word; and how, on the contrary, Favorinus made fun of that explanation of his.

AT the dinners of the philosopher Favorinus, after the guests had taken their places and the serving of the viands began, a slave commonly stood by his table and began to read something, either from Grecian literature or from our own. For example, one day when I was present the reading was from the treatise of the learned Gavius Bassus On the Origin of Verbs and Substantives. In it this passage occurred: [*](Frag. 6, Fun.)

Parcus is a compound word, made up

v1.p.305

of par arcae, that is 'like a strong-box;' for just as all valuables are put away in a strong-box and preserved and kept under its protection, just so a man who is close and content to spend little keeps all his property guarded and hidden away, as in a strong-box. For that reason he is called parcus, as if it were par arcus.

[*](That is, he is like a strong-box. )

Then Favorinus, on hearing these words, said:

That fellow Gavius Bassus has made up and contrived an origin for that word in an unnatural, altogether laboured and repellent manner, rather than explained it. For if it is permissible to draw on one's imagination, why would it not seem more reasonable to believe that a man is called parcus for the reason that he forbids and prevents tile spending of money, as if he were pecuniarcus. Why not rather,

he continued,

adopt an explanation which is simpler and nearer the truth? For parcus is derived neither from arca nor from arceo, but from parum and parvum.

[*](It is needless to say that all these derivations are wrong, and that parcus is connected with parco, spare.)

A discourse of the philosopher Favorinus carried on in the Socratic manner with an over-boastful grammarian; and in that discourse we are told how Quintus Scaevola defined penus [*](A store of provisions.) ; and that this same definition has been criticized and rejected.

IN the entrance hall of the palace on the Palatine a large number of men of almost all ranks had gathered together, waiting an opportunity to pay their respects to Caesar. [*](Doubtless Antoninus Pius, since Gellius always refers to Divus Hadrianus.) And there in a group of scholars, in the presence of the philosopher Favorinus, a man who thought himself unusually rich in grammatical lore was airing trifles worthy of the schoolroom, discoursing on the genders and cases of nouns with raised eyebrows and an exaggerated gravity of voice and expression, as if he were the interpreter and sovereign lord of the Sibyl's oracle. Then, looking at Favorinus, although as yet he was hardly acquainted with him, he said: "Penus too is used in different genders and is variously declined. For the early writers used to say hoc penus and haec penus, and in the genitive peni and penoris; Lucilius in his sixteenth satire also used the word mundus, which describes women's ornaments, not in the masculine gender, as other writers do, but in the neuter, in these words: [*](519 Marx, who reads in the second line: quid mundum atque penus.)

1. A man once willed his wife all ornaments (mundum omne) and stores.
2. But what are ornaments? Who will determine that?

And he kept bawling out illustrations and examples of all these usages; but while he was prating quite too tiresomely, Favorinus interrupted and quietly said:

Well and good, master, whatever your name is, you have taught us more than enough about many things of which we were indeed ignorant and certainly did not ask to know. For what difference does it make to me and the one with whom I am speaking in what gender I use penus, or with what endings I inflect it, provided no one of us does this too barbarously? But this is clearly what I need to know, what penus is, and how far that word may be employed, so that I may not call a thing in everyday use by the wrong name, as those do who begin to speak their Latin in the slave-market.

"

Your question is not at all difficult,

replied the man.

Who indeed does not know that penus is wine, wheat, oil, lentils, beans, and the other things of that kind?

Is not penus also,

said Favorinus,

millet, panic-grass, [*](A kind of grass of the genus Panicun, a word derived, not from panis, bread, but from panus, an ear of millet, or similar grain (Walde).) acorns and barley? for these too are almost of the same sort;

and when the man hesitated and did not answer, he continued:

I do not want you to trouble yourself further about the question whether those things which I have mentioned are called penus. But can you not, instead of telling me some essential part of penus, rather define the meaning of the word by stating its genus and adding its species?

Good Heavens!

said he,

I don't understand

v1.p.313

what you mean by genus and species.

You ask,

replied Favorinus,

to have a matter which has been stated clearly stated still more clearly, which is very difficult; for it is surely a matter of common knowledge that every definition consists of genus and species. But if you ask me to predigest it for you, as they say, I will certainly do that too, for the sake of showing you honour.

And then Favorinus began in this wise:

If,

said he,

I should now ask you to tell me, and as it were to define in words, what a man is, you would not, I suppose, reply that you and I are men. For that is to show who is a man, not to tell what a man is. But if, I say, I should ask you to define exactly what a man is, you would undoubtedly tell me that a man is a mortal living being, endowed with reason and knowledge, or you would define him in some other manner which would differentiate him from all other animals. Similarly, then, I now ask you to tell what penus is, not to name some example of penus.

Then that boaster, now in humble and subdued tones, said:

I have never learned philosophy, nor desired to learn it, and if I do not know whether barley is included under penus, or in what words penus is defined, I am not on that account ignorant also of other branches of learning.

To know what penus is,

said Favorinus, who was now laughing,

is not more a part of my philosophy than of your grammar. For you remember, I suppose, that it is often inquired whether Virgil said penum struere longam or longo ordine; [*](Aen. i. 704 f.: Quinquaginta intus famulae, quibus ordine longo cura penum struere et flammis adolere Penates. The MSS. and Servius have longo; Charisius, longam.) for you surely know that both readings are current. But to make you feel easier in mind, let me say that not even those old masters of the law who

v1.p.315

were called 'wise men' are thought to have defined penus with sufficient accuracy. For I hear that Quintus Scaevola used the following words to explain penus: [*](Jur. Civ. fr. 1, Huschke; II. 5a, Bremer.) Penus,' said he, 'is what is to be eaten or drunk, which is prepared for the use of the father of the family himself; or the mother of the family, or the children of the father, or the household which he has about him or his children and which is not engaged in work [*](If the reading is correct, opus must mean field-work, the reference being to the household servants of the paterfamilies and his children.) . . . as [*](There is a lacuna in the text.) Mucius says ought to be regarded as penus. For articles which are prepared for eating and drinking day by day, for luncheon or dinner, are not penus; but rather the articles of that kind which are collected and stored up for use during a long period are called penus, because they are not ready at hand, but are kept in the innermost part of the house.' [*](Penitus, like Penates, is connected with penus in the sense of an inner chamber. Penus is derived by some from the root pa- of pasco, pabulum, etc.; by others it is connected with pe/nomai and po/nos, as the fruit of labour. Walde, Lat. Etym. Wörterb. s.v., separates penus, an inner chamber, from penus, a store of provisions, connecting the latter with pasco, the former with penes, penetro and Penates.) This information,

said Favorinus, although I had devoted myself to philosophy, I yet did not neglect to acquire; since for Roman citizens speaking Latin it is no less disgraceful not to designate a thing by its proper word than it is to call a man out of his own name.

Thus Favorinus used to lead ordinary conversations of this kind from insignificant and trivial topics to those which were better worth hearing and knowing, topics not lugged in irrelevantly, nor by way of display, but springing from and suggested by the conversations themselves.

Besides what Favorinus said, I think this too ought to be added to our consideration of penus,

that Servius Sulpicius, in his Criticism of the Chapters of Scaevola, wrote [*](Fr. 4, Huschke; 3, Bremer. ) that Aelius Catus believed [*](Fr. 1, Huschke, and Bremer.) that not only articles for eating and drinking, but also incense and wax tapers were included under the head of penus, since they were provided for practically the same purpose. But Masurius Sabinus, in the second book of his Civil Law, declares [*](Fr. 1, Huschke; 38, Bremer.) that whatever was prepared for the beasts of burden which the owner of a house used was also penus. He adds that some [*](Rufi resp. lb, p. 44, Mucii Jur. Civ. fr. 7a, Bremer.) have thought that the term likewise included wood, faggots and charcoal, by means of which the penus was made ready for use. But of articles kept in the same place, for use or for purposes of trade, he thinks that only the amount which was sufficient for a year's needs was to be regarded as penus.

On the difference between a disease and a defect, and the force of those terms in the aediles' edict; also whether eunuchs and barren women can he returned, and the various views as to that question.

THE edict of the curule aediles, [*](The aediles, and some other magistrates, issued an edict, or proclamation, at the beginning of their term of office, relating to the matters over which they had jurisdiction. When successive officials adopted and announced the same body of rules (edictum tralaticium), the edict assumed a more or less permanent form and became practically a code of laws.) in the section containing stipulations about the purchase of slaves, reads as follows: [*](F.J.R. p. 214; cf. Hor. Epist. ii. 2. 1 ff.)

See to it that the sale ticket of each slave be so written that it can be known

v1.p.319

exactly what disease or defect each one has, which one is a runaway or a vagabond, or is still under condemnation for some offence.

Therefore the jurists of old raised the question [*](III. p. 510, Bremer.) of the proper meaning of a

diseased slave

and one that was

defective,

and to what degree a disease differed from a defect. Caelius Sabinus, in the book which he wrote [*](Fr. 1, Huschke; 2, Bremer.) On the Edict of t he Curule Aediles, quotes Labeo, [*](Ad. Ed. Aed. fr. 27, Huschke; 1, Bremer.) as defining a disease in these terms:

Disease is an unnatural condition of any body, which impairs its usefulness.

But he adds that disease affects sometimes the whole body and at other times a part of the body. That a disease of the whole body is, for example, consumption or fever, but of a part of the body anything like blindness or lameness.

But,

he continues,

one who stutters or stammers is defective rather than diseased, and a horse which bites or kicks has faults rather than a disease. But one who has a disease is also at the same time defective. However, the converse is not also true; for one may have defects and yet not be diseased. Therefore in the case of a man who is diseased,

says he,

it will be just and fair to state to what extent ' the price will be less on account of that defect.'

With regard to a eunuch in particular it has been inquired whether he would seem to have been sold contrary to the aediles' edict, if the purchaser did not know that he was a eunuch. They say that Labeo ruled [*](Ad. Ed. Aed. fr. 28, Huschke; 12, Bremer.) that he could be returned as diseased; and that Labeo also wrote that if sows were sterile and had been sold, action could be brought on the basis of the edict of the aediles. But in the case of a barren woman, if the barrenness were

congenital they say that Trebatius gave a ruling opposed to that of Labeo. For while Labeo thought [*](Fr. 28; Huschke; 3, Bremer.) that she could be returned as unsound, they quote Trebatius as declaring [*](Fr. 10, Huschke; Resp. 24. Bremer.) that no action could be taken on the basis of the edict, if the woman had been born barren. But if her health had failed, and in consequence such a defect had resulted that she could not conceive, in that case she appeared to be unsound and there was ground for returning her. With regard to a short-sighted person too, one whom we call in Latin luscitiosus, there is disagreement; for some maintain that such a person should be returned in all cases, while others on the contrary hold that he can be returned only if that defect was the result of disease. Servius indeed ruled [*](Fr. 17, Huschke; Resp. 108, Bremer.) that one who lacked a tooth could be returned, but Labeo said [*](Fr. 29, Huschke; 2, Bremer.) that such a defect was not sufficient ground for a return:

For,

says he,

many men lack some one tooth, and most of them are no more diseased on that account, and it would be altogether absurd to say that men are not born sound, because infants come into the world unprovided with teeth.

I must not omit to say that this also is stated in the works of the early jurists, [*](Cael. Sab. ad. ed. fr. 1 ff., Bremer.) that the difference between a disease and a defect is that the latter is lasting, while the former comes and goes. But if this be so, contrary to the opinion of Labeo, which I quoted above, neither a blind man nor a eunuch is diseased.

I have added a passage from the second book of Masurius Sabinus On Civil Law.: [*](Fr. . 5 Huschke; 173 ff., Bremer.)

A madman or a mute, or one who has a broken or crippled limb, or any defect which impairs his usefulness, is

v1.p.323

diseased. But one who is by nature near-sighted is as sound as one who runs more slowly than others.

That before the divorce of Carvilius there were no lawsuits about a wife's dowry in the city of Rome; further, the proper meaning of the word paelex and its derivation.

IT is on record that for nearly five hundred years after the founding of Rome there were no lawsuits and no warranties [*](That is, the repayment of the dowry in case of a divorce was not secured. A cautio was a verbal or written promise, sometimes confirmed by an oath, as in Suet. Aug. xcviii. 2, ius iurandum et cautionem exegit.) in connection with a wife's dowry in the city of Rome or in Latium, since of course nothing of that kind was called for, inasmuch as no marriages were annulled during that period. Servius Sulpicius too, in the book which he compiled On Dowries, wrote [*](Fr. 1, Huschke; p. 227, Bremer.) that security for a wife's dower seemed to have become necessary for the first time when Spurius Carvilius, who was surnamed Ruga, a man of rank, put away his wife because, owing to some physical defect, no children were born from her; and that this happened in the five hundred and twenty-third year after the founding of the city, in the consulship of Marcus Atilius and Publius Valerius. [*](231 B.C.) And it is reported that this Carvilius dearly loved the wife whom he divorced, and held her in strong affection because of her character, but that above his devotion and his love he set his regard for the oath which the censors had compelled him to take, [*](An oath was regularly required by the censors that a man married for the purpose of begetting legal heirs (liberorum quacrendorum causa); cf. Suet. Jul. lii. 3.) that he would marry a wife for the purpose of begetting children.

Moreover, a woman was called paelex, or

concubine,

and regarded as infamous, if she lived on terms of intimacy with a man who had another woman under his legal control in a state of matrimony, as is evident from this very ancient law, which we are told was one of king Numa's: [*](F.J.R., p. 8, fr. 2; I, p. 135, Bremer. )

Let no concubine touch the temple of Juno; if she touch it, let her, with hair unbound, offer up a ewe lamb to Juno.

Now paelex is the equivalent of pa/llac, that is to say, of pallaki/s. [*](Walde, Lat. Etymn. Wörterb. s.v., regards paelex and the Greek pa/llac and pallaki/s, the former in the sense of a young slave, as loan words from the Phoenician-Hebrew pillegesh, concubine. The spelling pellex is due to popular etymology, which associated the word with pellicio, entice.) Like many other words of ours, this one too is derived from the Greek.

What Servius Sulpicius wrote in his work On Dowries about the law and usage of betrothals in early times.

IN the book to which he gave the title On Dowries Servius Sulpicius wrote [*](Fr. 2, Huschke; p. 226, Bremer.) that in the part of Italy known as Latium betrothals were regularly contracted according to the following customary and legal practice.

One who wished to take a wife,

says he,

demanded of him from whom she was to be received a formal promise that she would be given in marriage. The man who was to take the woman to wife made a corresponding promise. That contract, based upon pledges given and received, was called sponsalia, or 'betrothal.' Thereafter, she who had been promised was called sponsa, and he who had asked her in marriage, sponsus. But if, after such

v1.p.327

an interchange of pledges, the bride to be was not given in marriage, or was not received, then he who had asked for her hand, or he who had promised her, brought suit on the ground of breach of contract. The court took cognizance of the case. The judge inquired why the woman was not given in marriage, or why she was not accepted. If no good and sufficient reason appeared, the judge then assigned a money value to the advantage to be derived from receiving or giving the woman in marriage, and condemned the one who had made the promise, or the one who had asked for it, to pay a fine of that amount.

Servius Sulpicius says that this law of betrothal was observed up to the time when citizenship was given to all Latium by the Julian law. [*](90 B.C.) The same account as the above was given also by Neratius in the book which he wrote On Marriage. [*](Fr. 1, Bremer.)

A story which is told of the treachery of Etruscan diviners; and how because of that circumstance the boys at Rome chanted this verse all over the city:

Bad counsel to the giver is most ruinous.

The statue of that bravest of men, Horatius Cocles, which stood in the Comitium [*](The Comitium, or place of assembly (com-, co), was a templum, or inaugurated plot of ground, orientated according to the points of the compass, at the north-western corner of the Forum Romanum.) at Rome, was struck by lightning. To make expiatory offerings because of that thunderbolt, diviners were summoned from Etruria. These, through personal and national hatred of the Romans, had made up their minds to give false directions for the performance of that rite.

They accordingly gave the misleading advice that the statue in question should be moved to a lower position, on which the sun never shone, being cut off by the high buildings which surrounded the place on every side. When they had induced the Romans to take that course, they were betrayed and brought to trial before the people, and having confessed their duplicity, were put to death. And it became evident, in exact accord with what were later found to be the proper directions, that the statue ought to be taken to an elevated place and set up in a more commanding position in the area of Vulcan; [*](On the lower slope of the Capitoline Hill, at the northwest corner of the Forum.) and after that was done, the matter turned out happily and successfully for the Romans. At that time, then, because the evil counsel of the Etruscan diviners had been detected and punished, this clever line is said to have been composed, and chanted by the boys all over the city: [*](p. 37, Bährens, who needlessly changes the reading.)

1. Bad counsel to the giver is most ruinous.

This story about the diviners and that senarius [*](The senarius was an iambic trimeter, consisting of six iambic feet, or three dipodies. The early Roman dramatic poets allowed substitutions (the tribrach, irrational spondee, irrational anapaest, cyclic dactyl, and proceleusmatic) in every foot except the last; others conformed more closely to the Greek models.) is found in the Annales Maximi, in the eleventh book, [*](Fr. 3, Peter.) and in Verrius Flaccus' first book of Things Worth Remembering. [*](p. xiii, Müller.) But the verse appears to be a translation of the Greek poet Hesiod's familiar line: [*](Works and Days, 166.)

1. And evil counsel aye most evil is
2. To him who gives it.