Noctes Atticae

The meaning of adoptatio and also of adrogatio, and how they differ; and the formula used by the official who, when children are adopted, brings the business before the people.

WHEN outsiders are taken into another's family and given the relationship of children, it is done either through a praetor or through the people. If done by a praetor, the process is called adoptatio; if through the people, arrogatio. Now, we have adoptatio, when those who are adopted are surrendered in court through a thrice repeated sale [*](This was a symbolic sale, made by thrice touching a balance with a penny, in the presence of a praetor; see Suet., Aug. lxiv.) by the father under whose control they are, and are claimed by the one who adopts them in the presence of the official before whom the legal action takes place. The process is called adrogatio, when persons who are their own masters deliver themselves into the control of another, and are themselves responsible for the act. But arrogations are not made without due consideration and investigation; for the so-called comitia curiata [*](The assembly of the curiae, the thirty divisions into which the Roman citizens were divided, ten for each of the original three tribes. It was superseded at an early period by the comitia centuriata, and its action was confined to formalities. See xv. 27. 5.) are summoned under the authority of the pontiffs, and it is inquired whether the age of the one who wishes to adopt is not rather suited to begetting children of his own; precaution is taken that the property of the one who is being adopted is not being sought under false pretences; and an oath is administered which is said

to have been formulated for use in that ceremony by Quintus Mucius, [*](Fr. 13, Huschke; I. p. 58 and p. 80, Bremer.) when he was pontifex maxinus. But no one may be adopted by adrogatio who is not yet ready to assume the gown of manhood. The name adrogatio is due to the fact that this kind of transfer to another's family is accomplished through a rogatio or

request,

put to the people.

The language of this request is as follows:

Express your desire and ordain that Lucius Valerius be the son of Lucius Titius as justly and lawfully as if he had been born of that father and the mother of his family, and that Titius have that power of life and death over Valerius which a father has over a son. This, just as I have stated it, I thus ask of you, fellow Romans.

Neither a ward nor a woman who is not under the control of her father may be adopted by adrogatio; since women have no part in the comitia, and it is not right that guardians should have so much authority and power over their wards as to be able to subject to the control of another a free person who has been committed to their protection. Freedmen, however, may legally be adopted in that way by freeborn citizens, according to Masurius Sabinus. [*](Fr. 27, Huschke; Jus. Civ. 60, Bremer.) But he adds that it is not allowed, and he thinks it never ought to be allowed, that men of the condition of freedmen should by process of adoption usurp the privileges of the freeborn.

Furthermore,

says he,

if that ancient law be maintained, even a slave may be surrendered by his master for adoption through the agency of a praetor.

And he declares that several authorities [*](Cato, Fr. 4a, I. p. 21, Bremer.) on ancient law have written that this can be done.

I have observed in a speech of Publius Scipio On

Morals, which he made to the people in his censorship, that among the things that he criticized, on the ground that they were done contrary to the usage of our forefathers, he also found fault with this, that an adopted son was of profit to his adoptive father in gaining the rewards for paternity. [*](That is, the privileges and exemptions conferred upon the fathers of children, later comprised under the ius trium liberorum; see ii. 15. 3 ff.) The passage in that speech is as follows: [*](O.R.F.2 p. 180.)

A father votes in one tribe, the son in another, [*](The meaning is that a man who had been adopted would vote in the tribe of his adoptive father, which might be different from that of his own father.) an adopted son is of as much advantage as if one had a son of his own; orders are given to take the census of absentees, and hence it is not necessary for anyone to appear in person at the census.

The Latin word coined by Sinnius Capito for

solecism,

and what the early writers of Latin called that same fault: and also Sinnius Capito's definition of a solecism.

A solecism, which by Sinnius Capito and other lien of his time was called in Latin inparilitas, or

inequality,

the earlier Latin writers termed stribiligo, [*](This word, which seems to occur only here and in Arnobius i. 36, apparently means twisted, awry.) evidently meaning the improper use of an inverted form of expression, a sort of twist as it were. This kind of fault is thus defined by Sinnius Capito, in a letter which lie wrote to Clodius Tuscus:

A solecism,

he says, [*](Fr. 2, Huschke.)

is an irregular and incongruous joining together of the parts of speech.

Since

soloecismus

is a Greek word, the question is often asked, whether it was used by the men of Attica who spoke most elegantly. But I have as yet found neither soloecismus nor barbarismus [*](These words were applied to any impropriety in the use of language.) in good Greek writers; for just as they used ba/rbaros, so they used so/loikos. [*](Both words have the general meaning of foreign ; according to some, so/loikos was derived from Soloi, a town of Cilicia, whose inhabitants spoke a perverted Attic dialect. This derivation seems to be accepted to-day. Barbarus is regarded as an onomatopoeic word, representing stammering; cf. balbus.) So too our earlier writers used soloecus regularly, soloecismus never, I think. But if that be so, soloecismus is proper usage neither in Greek nor in Latin.

One who says pluria, compluria and compluriens speaks good Latin, and not incorrectly.

AN extremely learned man, a friend of mine, chanced in the course of conversation to use the word pluria, not at all with a desire to show off, or because he thought that plura ought not to be used. For he is a man of serious scholarship and devoted to the duties of life, and not at all meticulous in the use of words. But, I think, from constant perusal of the early writers a word which he had often met in books had become second nature to his tongue.

There was present when he said this a very audacious critic of language, who had read very little and that of the most ordinary sort; this fellow had some trifling instruction in the art of grammar, which was partly ill-digested and confused and partly false, and this he used to cast like dust into the eyes of any with whom he had entered into discussion. Thus on that occasion he said to my friend:

You were incorrect in saying pluria; for that form has

v1.p.445

neither justification nor authorities.

Thereupon that friend of mine rejoined with a smile:

My: good sir, since I now have leisure from more serious affairs, I wish you would please explain to me why pluria and compluria—for they do not differ-are used barbarously and incorrectly by Marcus Cato, [*](Fr. 24, Peter.) Quintus Claudius, [*](Fr. 90, Peter.) Valerius Antias, [*](Fr. 65, Peter.) Lucius Aelius, [*](Fr. 48, Fun.) Publius Nigidius, [*](Frag. 64, Swoboda.) and Marcus Varro, whom we have as endorsers and sanctioners of this form, to say nothing of a great number of the early poets and orators.

And the fellow answered with excessive arrogance:

You are welcome to those authorities of yours, dug up from the age of the Fauns and Aborigines, but what is your answer to this rule? No neuter comparative in the nominative plural has an i before its final a; for example, meliora, maiora, graviora. Accordingly, then, it is proper to say plura, not pluria, in order that there be no i before final a in a comparative, contrary to the invariable rule.

Then that friend of mine, thinking that the self-confident fellow deserved few words, said:

There are numerous letters of Sinnius Capito, a very learned man, collected in a single volume and deposited, I think, in the Temple of Peace. The first letter is addressed to Pacuvius Labeo, and it is prefixed by the title, 'Pluria, not plura, should be used.' [*](Fr. 1, Huschke.) In that letter he has collected the grammatical rules to show that pluria, and not plura, is good Latin. Therefore I refer you to Capito. From him you will learn at the same time, provided you can comprehend what is written in that letter, that pluria, or plura, is the positive and simple form, not, as it seems to you, a comparative.

It also confirms that view of Sinnius, that when

we say complures or

several,

we are not using a comparative. Moreover, from the word compluria is derived the adverb compluriens,

often.

Since this is not a common word, I have added a verse of Plautus, from the comedy entitled The Persian: [*](v. 534.)

1. What do you fear?—By Heaven! I am afraid;
2. I've had the feeling many a time and oft (compluriens).

Marcus Cato too, in the fourth book of his Origins, has used this word three times in the same passage: [*](Fr. 79, Peter.)

Often (compluriens) did their mercenary soldiers kill one another in large numbers in the camp; often (compluriens) did many together desert to the enemy; often (compluriens) did they attack their general.

Some remarkable stories about the elder Publius Africanus, drawn from the annals.

The tale which in Grecian history is told of Olympias, wife of king Philip and mother of Alexander, is also recorded of the mother of that Publius Scipio who was the first to be called Africanus. For both Gaius Oppius [*](Fr. 2, Peter2.) and Julius Hyginus, [*](Fr. 4, Peter2; p. 37, Bunte.) as well as others who have written of the life and deeds of Africanus, declare that his mother was for a long time thought to be barren, and that Publius Scipio, her husband, had also given up hope of offspring; that afterwards, in her own room and bed, when she was lying alone in the absence of her husband and had fallen asleep, of a sudden a huge serpent was seen lying by her side; and that when those who had seen it were frightened and cried out, the snake glided away and could not be found. It is said that Publius Scipio himself consulted soothsayers about the occurrence; that they, after offering sacrifice, declared that he would have children, and not many days after that serpent had been seen in her bed, the woman began to

experience the indications and sensation of conception. [*](A similar story is told of Augustus (Suet. Aug. xciv. 4) as well as of Alexander the Great (§ 1 and Livy, xxvi. 19. 7).) Afterwards, in the tenth month, she gave birth to that Publius Scipio who conquered Hannibal and the Carthaginians in Africa in the second Punic war. [*](At Zama, 202 B.C.) But it was far more because of his exploits than because of that prodigy that he too [*](As well as Alexander and Augustus; see note 1.) was believed to be a man of godlike excellence.

This too I venture to relate, which the same writers that I mentioned before have put on record: This Scipio Africanus used often to go to the Capitolium in the latter part of the night, before the break of day, give orders that the shrine of Jupiter be opened, [*](The name Capitolium was applied to the southern summit of the Capitoline Hill, and also to the temple of Juppiter Optimus Maximus. The temple contained three shrines, to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva.) and remain there a long time alone, apparently consulting Jupiter about matters of state; and the guardians of the temple were often amazed that on his coming to the Capitolium alone at such an hour the dogs, [*](The temple was guarded at night by dogs, as were doubtless other similar places, and as it is said that the ruins of Pompeii are to-day. Geese were also used for the purpose; see Cic. pro Sex. Rose. 56, anseribus cibaria publice locantur et canes aluntur in Capitolio, ut significent, si fures venerint.) that flew at all other intruders, neither barked at him nor molested him.

These popular beliefs about Scipio seemed to be confirmed and attested by many remarkable actions and sayings of his. Of these the following is a single example: He was engaged in the siege of a town [*](According to Valerius Maximus, iii. 7. 1, the town was Badia.) in Spain, which was strongly fortified and defended, protected by its position, and also well provisioned; and there was no prospect of taking it. One day he sat holding court in his camp, at a point from which there was a distant view of the town.

Then one of the soldiers who were on trial before him asked in the usual way on what day and in what place he bade them give bail for their appearance. Then Scipio, stretching forth his hand towards the very citadel of the town which he was besieging, said:

Appear the day after to-morrow in yonder place.

And so it happened; on the third day, the day on which he had ordered them to appear, the town was captured, and on that same day he held court in the citadel of the place.

Of a disgraceful blunder of Caesellius Vindex, which we find in his work entitled Archaic Terms.

IN those highly celebrated notes of Caesellius Vindex On Archaic Terms we find a shameful oversight, although in fact the man is seldom caught napping. This error has escaped the notice of many, in spite of their diligent search for opportunities to find fault with Caesellius, even through misrepresentation. Now, Caesellius wrote that Quintus Ennius, in the thirteenth book of his Annals, used cor in the masculine gender.

I add Caesellius' own words:

Ennius used cor, like many other words, in the masculine gender; for in Annals xiii. he wrote quem cor.

He then quoted two verses of Ennius [*](381 ff., Vahlen2.) :

1. While Hannibal, of bold breast, did me exhort
2. Not to make war, what heart thought he was mine?

The speaker is Antiochus, king of Asia. He is surprised and indignant that Hannibal, the Carthaginian, discourages his desire to make war on the people of Rome. [*](Antiochus did not follow Hannibal's advice and suffered a crushing defeat at Thermopylae in 191 B.C.) Now, Caesellius understands the lines to mean that Antiochus says:

Hannibal dissuades me from making war. In so doing, what kind of heart does he think I have, and how foolish does he believe me to be, when he gives me such advice?

So Caesellius; but Ennius' meaning was quite different. For there are three verses, not two, which belong to this utterance of the poet's, and Caesellius overlooked the third verse:

1. Through valour war's great advocate and friend.

The meaning and arrangement of these three verses I believe to be this:

Hannibal, that boldest and most valiant of men, who I believed (for that is the meaning of cor meum credidit, exactly as if he had said

who l, foolish man, believed

) would strongly advise war, discourages and dissuades me from making war.

Caesellius, however, somewhat carelessly misled as to the connection of the words, assumed that Ennius said quem cor, reading quem with an acute accent, [*](The interrogative quem would be stressed (have an acute accent), while the relative quem would not (i.e., would have a grave accent).) as if it belonged with cor and not with Hannibal. But I am well aware that one might, if anyone should have so little understanding, defend Caesellius' masculine cor by maintaining that the third verse should be read apart from the others, as if Antiochus had exclaimed in broken and abrupt language

a mighty adviser!

But those who would argue thus do not deserve a reply.