Noctes Atticae

That neither levitas nor nequitia has the meaning that is given to those words in ordinary conversation.

I OBSERVE that levitas is now generally used to denote inconsistency and changeableness, and nequitia, in the sense of craftiness and cunning. But those of the men of early days who spoke properly and purely applied the term leves to those whom we now commonly call worthless and meriting no esteem. That is, they used levitas with precisely the force of vilitas, and applied the term nequam to a man of no

importance nor worth, the sort of man that the Greeks usually call a)/swtos (beyond recovery) or a)ko/lastos(incorrigible).

One who desires examples of these words need not resort to books that are very inaccessible, but he will find them in Marcus Tullius' second Oration against Antony. For when Cicero wished to indicate a kind of extreme sordidness in the life and conduct of Marcus Antonius, that he lurked in a tavern, that he drank deep until evening, and that he travelled with his face covered, so as not to be recognized— when he wished to give expression to these and similar charges against him, he said: [*](Phil. ii. 77.)

Just see the worthlessness (levitatem) of the man,

as if by that reproach he branded him with all those various marks of infamy which I have mentioned. But afterwards, when he had heaped upon the same Antony sundry other scornful and opprobrious charges, he finally added

O man of no worth (nequam)! for there is no term that I can use more fittingly.

But from that passage of Marcus Tullius I should like to add a somewhat longer extract:

Just see the worthlessness of the man! Having come to Saxa Rubra at about the tenth hour of the day, [*](About four o'clock in the afternoon.) he lurked in a certain low tavern, and shutting himself up there drank deep until evening. Then riding swiftly to the city in a cab, he came to his home with covered face. The doorkeeper asked: 'Who are you?' 'The bearer of a letter from Marcus,' was the reply. He was at once taken to the lady on whose account he had come, [*](His wife, Fulvia.) and handed her the letter. While she read it with tears—for it was written in amorous terms and its

v2.p.55

main point was this: that hereafter he would have nothing to do with that actress, that he had cast aside all his love for her and transferred it to the reader—when the woman wept still more copiously, the compassionate man could not endure it; he uncovered his face and threw himself on her neck. O man of no worth!—for I can use no more fitting term; was it, then, that your wife might unexpectedly see you, when you had surprised her by appearing as her lover, that you upset the city with terror by night and Italy with dread for many days?

In a very similar way Quintus Claudius too, in the first book of his Annals, called a prodigal and wasteful life of luxury nequitia, using these words: [*](Fr. 15, Peter2.)

They persuade a young man from Lucania, who was born in a most exalted station, but had squandered great wealth in luxury and prodigality (nequitia).

Marcus Varro in his work On the Latin Language says: [*](x. 5. 81.)

Just as from non and volo we have nolo, so from ne and quicquam is formed nequam, with the loss of the medial syllable.

Publius Africanus, speaking In his own Defence against Tiberius Asellus in the matter of a fine, thus addressed the people: [*](O. R. F., p. 183, Meyer2.)

All the evils, shameful deeds, and crimes that men commit come from two things, malice and profligacy (nequitia). Against which charge do you defend yourself, that of malice or profligacy, or both together? If you wish to defend yourself against the charge of profligacy, well and good; if you have squandered more money on one harlot than you reported for the census as the value of all the

v2.p.57

equipment of your Sabine estate; if this is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces? [*](The lexicons and commentators define the sponsio as a legal wager, in which the two parties to a suit put up a sum of money, which was forfeited by the one who lost his case; and they cite Gaius, Inst. iv. 93. But in iv. 94 Gaius says that only one party pledged a sum of money (unde etiam is, cum quo agetur, non restipulabatur), that it was merely a preliminary to legal action, and that the sum was not forfeited (non tamen haec summa sponsionis exigitur; nec enim poenalis sed praeiudicialis, et propter hoc solum fit, ut per earn de re iudicetur). Wagers, however, were common; see Plaut. Pers. 186 ff.; Cas. prol. 75; Catull. 44. 4; Ovid, Ars Amat. i. 168.) If you have wasted more than a third of your patrimony and spent it on your vices; if that is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces? You do not care to defend yourself against the charge of profligacy; at least refute the charge of malice. If you have sworn falsely in set terms knowingly and deliberately; if this is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces?

Of the tunics called chiridotae; that Publius Africanus reproved Sulpicius Gallus for wearing them.

FOR a man to wear tunics coming below the arms and as far as the wrists, and almost to the fingers, was considered unbecoming in Rome and in all Latium. Such tunics our countrymen called by the Greek name chiridotae (long-sleeved), and they thought that a long and full-flowing garment was not unbecoming for women only, to hide their arms and legs from sight. But Roman men at first wore the toga alone without tunics; later, they had close, short tunics ending below the shoulders, the kind which the Greeks call e)cwmi/des (sleeveless). [*](More literally, leaving the shoulders bare. ) Habituated to this older fashion, Publius Africanus, son of Paulus, a man gifted with all worthy arts and every virtue, among many other things with which he

reproached Publius Sulpicius Gallus, an effeminate man, included this also, that he wore tunics which covered his whole hands. Scipio's words are these: [*](O. R. F., p. 181, Meyer2.)

For one who daily perfumes himself and dresses before a mirror, whose eyebrows are trimmed, who walks abroad with beard plucked out and thighs made smooth, who at banquets, though a young man, has reclined in a long-sleeved tunic on the inner side of the couch with a lover, who is fond not only of wine but of men—does anyone doubt that he does what wantons commonly do?

Virgil too attacks tunics of this kind as effeminate and shameful, saying: [*](Aen, ix. 616.)

1. Sleeves have their tunics, and their turbans, ribbons.

Quintus Ennius also seems to have spoken not without scorn of

the tunic-clad men

of the Carthaginians. [*](Ann. 325, Vahlen2.)

Whom Marcus Cato calls classici or

belonging to a class,

and whom infra classem or

below class.

NOT all those men who were enrolled in the five classes [*](The five classes into which the Roman citizens were divided by the constitution attributed to Servius Tullius. The division was for military purposes and was made on the basis of a property qualification.) were called classici, but only the men of the first class, who were rated at a hundred and twenty-five thousand asses or more. But those of the second class and of all the other classes, who were rated at

a smaller sum than that which I just mentioned, were called infra classes. I have briefly noted this, because in connection with the speech of Marcus Cato In Support of the Voconian Law the question is often raised, what is meant by classicus and what by infra classem.

Of the three literary styles; and of the three philosophers who were sent as envoys by the Athenians to the senate at Rome.

BOTH in verse and in prose there are three approved styles, which the Greeks call xarakth=res and to which they have given the names of a(dro/s, i)sxno/s and me/sos. We also call the one which I put first

grand,

the second

plain,

and the third

middle.

The grand style possesses dignity and richness, the plain, grace and elegance; the middle lies on the border line and partakes of the qualities of both.

To each of these excellent styles there are related an equal number of faulty ones, arising from unsuccessful attempts to imitate their manner and character. Thus very often pompous and bombastic speakers lay claim to the grand style, the mean and bald to the plain, and the unclear and ambiguous to the middle. But true and genuine Latin examples of these styles are said by Marcus Varro [*](Fr. 80, Wilmanns.) to be: Pacuvius of the grand style, Lucilius of the plain, and Terence of the middle. But in early days these same three styles of speaking were exemplified in three men by Homer: the grand and rich in

Ulysses, the elegant and restrained in Menelaus, the middle and moderate in Nestor.

This threefold variety is also to be observed in the three philosophers whom the Athenians sent as envoys to the senate at Rome, to persuade the senators to remit the fine which they had imposed upon the Athenians because of the sack of Oropos; [*](The embassy was sent in 155 B.C. Plutarch, Cat. Mai. xxii. (L.C.L. ii., p. 369) says that the fine was five hundred talents.) and the fine amounted to nearly five hundred talents. The philosophers in question were Carneades of the Academy, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic. When they were admitted to the House, they made use of Gaius Acilius, one of the senators, as interpreter; but beforehand each one of them separately, for the purpose of exhibiting his eloquence, lectured to a large company. Rutilius [*](Fr. 3, Peter2.) and Polybius [*](xxxiii. 2, p. 1287, H.) declare that all three aroused admiration for their oratory, each in his own style.

Carneades,

they say,

spoke with a vehemence that carried you away, Critolaus with art and polish, Diogenes with restraint and sobriety.

Each of these styles, as I have said, is more brilliant when it is chastely and moderately adorned; when it is rouged and be powdered, it becomes mere jugglery.

How severely thieves were punished by the laws of our forefathers; and whit Mucius Scaevola wrote about that which is given or entrusted to anyone's care.

LABEO, in his second book On the Twelve Tables,[*](Fr. 23, Huschke; 1, Bremer.) wrote that cruel and severe judgments were passed

upon theft in early times, and that Brutus used to say [*](Resp. 6, Bremer.) that a man was pronounced guilty of theft who had merely led an animal to another place than the one where he had been given the privilege of using it, as well as one who had driven it farther than he had bargained to do. Accordingly, Quintus Scaevola, in the sixteenth book of his work On the Civil Law, wrote these words: [*](Fr. 2, Huschke; Iur. Civ. xvi. 1, Bremer (i, p. 97).)

If anyone has used something that was entrusted to his care, or having borrowed anything to use, has applied it to another purpose than that for which he borrowed it, he is liable for theft.

A passage about foreign varieties of food, copied from the satire of Marcus Varro entitled Peri\ )Edesma/twn, or On Edibles; and with it some verses of Euripides, in which he assails the extravagant gluttony of luxurious men.

MARCUS VARRO, in the satire which he entitled Peri\ )Edesma/twn, in verses written with great charm and cleverness, treats of exquisite elegance in banquets and viands. For he has set forth and described in senarii [*](That is, iambic trimeters, consisting of six iambic feet.) the greater number of things of that kind which such gluttons seek out on land and sea. [*](Fr. 403, Bücheler.)

As for the verses themselves, he who has leisure may find and read them in the book which I have mentioned. So far as my memory goes, these are the varieties and names of the foods surpassing all others, which a bottomless gullet has hunted out and which Varro has assailed in his satire, with the places where they are found: a peacock from Samos, a woodcock from Phrygia, cranes of Media,

a kid from Ambracia, a young tunny from Chalcedon, a lamprey from Tartessus, codfish from Pessinus, oysters from Tarentum, cockles from Sicily, a swordfish from Rhodes [*](Or perhaps a sturgeon; the identification of some of these beasts and fish is very uncertain.) pike from Cilicia, nuts from Thasos, dates from Egypt, acorns from Spain.

But this tireless gluttony, which is ever wandering about and seeking for flavours, and this eager quest of dainties from all quarters, we shall consider deserving of the greater detestation, if we recall the verses of Euripides of which the philosopher Chrysippus made frequent use, [*](p. 344, Baguet.) to the effect that gastronomic delicacies were contrived, not because of the necessary uses of life, but because of a spirit of luxury that disdains what is easily attainable because of the immoderate wantonness that springs from satiety.

I have thought that I ought to append the verses of Euripides: [*](Fr. 884, Nauck.2)

1. What things do mortals need, save two alone,
2. The fruits of Ceres and the cooling spring,
3. Which are at hand and made to nourish us?
4. With this abundance we are not content,
5. But hunt out other foods through luxury.