Noctes Atticae

A conversation held with a grammarian, who was full of insolence and ignorance, as to the meaning of the word obnoxius; and of the origin of that word.

I INQUIRED at Rome of a certain grammarian who had the highest repute as a teacher, not indeed

Truly a difficult question is this that you ask, one demanding very many sleepless nights of investigation! Who, pray, is so ignorant of the Latin tongue as not to know that one is called obnoxius who can be inconvenienced or injured by another, to whom he is said to be obnoxius because the other is conscious of his noxa, that is to say, of his guilt? Why not rather,

drop these trifles and put questions worthy of study and discussion?

Then indeed I was angry, but thinking that I ought to dissemble, since I was dealing with a fool, I said;

If, most learned sir, I need to learn and to know other things that are more abstruse and more important, when the occasion arises I shall inquire and learn them from you; but inasmuch as I have often used the word obnoxious without knowing what I was saying, I have learned from you and am now beginning to understand what not I alone, as you seem to think, was ignorant of; for as a matter of fact, Plautus too, though a man of the first rank in his use of the Latin language and in elegance of diction, did not know the meaning of obnoxius. For there is a passage of his in the Stichus which reads as follows:

1. By Heaven! I now am utterly undone,
2. Not only partly so (non obnoxie). [*](497. Cf. Salmasius, ad loc., obnoxie perire dicitur, qui non plane nec funditus perit, sed aliquam spem salutis habet. Cf. Poen. 787; Amph. 372.)

This does not in the least agree with what you have

v2.p.71

taught me; for Plautus contrasted plane and obnoxie as two opposites, which is far removed from your meaning.

But that grammarian retorted foolishly enough, as if obnoxius and obnoxie differed, not merely in form, but in their substance and meaning:

I gave a definition of obnoxins, not obnoxie.

Let us, as you wish, disregard the fact that Plautus said obnoxie, if you think that too far-fetched; and let us also say nothing of the passage in Sallust's Catiline: [*](xxiii. 3.) 'Also to threaten her with his sword, if she would not be submissive (obnoxia) to him'; but explain to me this example, which is certainly more recent and more familiar. For the following verses of Virgil's are very well known: [*](Georg. i. 395–6.)

1. For now the stars' bright sheen is seen undimmed.
2. The rising Moon owes naught (nec .. obnoxia) to brother's rays;

but you say that it means 'conscious of her guilt.' In another place too Virgil uses this word with a meaning different from yours, in these lines: [*](Georg. ii. 438.)

1. What joy the fields to view
2. That owe no debt (non obnoxia) to hoe or care of man.

for care is generally a benefit to fields, not an injury, as it would be according to your definition of obnoxius. Furthermore, how can what Quintus Ennius writes in the following verses from the Phoenix [*](257 ff., Ribbeck.3) agree with you:

v2.p.73

1. 'Tis meet a man should live inspired by courage true,
2. In conscious innocence should boldly challenge foes.
3. True freedom his who bears a pure and steadfast heart,
4. All else less import has (obnoxiosae) and lurks in gloomy night?

But our grammarian, with open mouth as if in a dream, said:

Just now I have no time to spare. When I have leisure, come to see me and learn what Virgil, Plautus, Sallust and Ennius meant by that word.

So saying that fool made off; but in case anyone should wish to investigate, not only the origin of this word, but also its variety of meaning, in order that he may take into consideration this Plautine use also, I have quoted the following lines from the Asinaria: [*](282.)

1. He'll join with me and hatch the biggest jubilee,
2. Stuff'd with most joy, for son and father too.
3. For life they both shall be in debt (obnoxii) to both of us,
4. By our services fast bound.

Now, in the definition which that grammarian gave, he seems in a word of such manifold content to have noted only one of its uses—a use, it is true, which agrees with that of Caecilius in these verses of the Chrysium: [*](21, Ribbeck.3)

1. Although I come to you attracted by your pay,
2. Don't think that I for that am subject to your will (tibi . . . obnoxium);
3. If you speak ill of me, you'll hear a like reply.

On the strict observance by the Romans of the sanctity of an oath; and also the story of the ten prisoners whom Hannibal sent to Rome under oath.

AN oath was regarded and kept by the Romans as something inviolable and sacred. This is evident from many of their customs and laws, and this tale which I shall tell may be regarded as no slight support of the truth of the statement. After the battle of Cannae Hannibal, commander of the Carthaginians, selected ten Roman prisoners and sent them to the city, instructing them and agreeing that, if it seemed good to the Roman people, there should be an exchange of prisoners, and that for each captive that one side should receive in excess of the other side, there should be paid a pound and a half of silver. Before they left, he compelled them to take oath that they would return to the Punic camp, if the Romans would not agree to an exchange.

The ten captives come to Rome. They deliver the message of the Punic commander in the senate. The senate refused an exchange. The parents, kinsfolk and connexions of the prisoners amid embraces declared that they had returned to their native land in accordance with the law of postliminium, [*](Recovery of civic rights by a person who has been reduced to slavery by capture in war, Pomponius, Dig. xlix. 15. 5, and 19.) and that their condition of independence was complete and inviolate; they therefore besought them not to think of returning to the enemy. Then eight of their number rejoined that they had no just right of postliminium, since they were bound by an oath, and they at once went back to Hannibal, as they had sworn to do. The other two remained

Furthermore Cornelius Nepos, in the fifth book of his Examples [*](Corn. Nepos, Ex. fr. 2, Peter2,) has recorded also that many of the senators recommended that those who refused to return should be sent to Hannibal under guard, but that the motion was defeated by a majority of dissentients. He adds that, in spite of this, those who had not returned to Hannibal were so infamous and hated that they became tired of life and committed suicide.

A story, taken from the annals, about Tiberius Gracchus, tribune of the commons and father of the Gracchi; and also an exact quotation of the decrees of the tribunes.

A FINE, noble and generous action of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus is recorded in the Examples.[*](Nepos, Ex,, fr. 3, Peter2,) It runs as follows: Gaius Minucius Augurinus, tribune of the commons, imposed a fine on Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, brother of Scipio Africanus the elder, [*](The famous conqueror of Hannibal at Zama in 202 B.C. He served as legatus under his brother in the war against Antiochus, in 190 B.C.) and demanded that he should give security

The words of their decree, which I have quoted, are taken from the records of the annals:

Whereas Publius Scipio Africanus has asked us to protect his brother, Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, against the violent measures of one of our colleagues, in that, contrary to the laws and the customs of our forefathers, that tribune of the commons, having illegally convened an assembly without consulting the auspices, pronounced sentence upon him and imposed an unprecedented fine, and compels him to furnish security for its payment, or if he does not do so, orders that he be imprisoned; and whereas, on the other hand, our colleague has demanded that we should not interfere with him in the exercise of his legal authority—our unanimous decision in this matter is as follows: If Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus will furnish security in accordance with the decision of our colleague, we will forbid our colleague to take him to prison; but if he shall not furnish the securities in accordance with our colleague's decision, we will not interfere with our colleague in the exercise of his lawful authority.

After this decree, Lucius Scipio refused to give security and the tribune Augurinus ordered him to be arrested and taken to prison. Thereupon Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, one of the tribunes of the commons and father of Tiberius and Gaius

That decree ran as follows:

Whereas Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, during the celebration of a triumph, cast the leaders of the enemy into prison, it seems contrary to the dignity of our country that the Roman people's commander should be consigned to the same place to which he had committed the leaders of the enemy; therefore I forbid my colleague to take violent measures towards Lucius Scipio Asiaticus.

But Valerius Antias, contradicting this record of the decrees and the testimony of the ancient annals, has said [*](Page 267 note, Peter2.) that it was after the death of Africanus that Tiberius Gracchus interposed that veto in behalf of Scipio Asiaticus; also that Scipio was not fined, but that being convicted of embezzlement of the money taken from Antiochus and refusing to give bail, was just being taken to prison when he was saved by this veto of Gracchus.

That Virgil removed Nola from one of his lines and substituted ora because the inhabitants of Nola had refused him water; and also some additional notes on the agreeable euphony of vowels.

I HAVE found it noted in a certain commentary that the following lines were first read and published by Virgil in this form: [*](Georg. ii. 244 f.)

1. Such is the soil that wealthy Capua ploughs
2. And Nola near Vesuvius' height.

1. The region near Vesuvius' height.

With the truth or falsity of this note I am not concerned; but there is no doubt that ora has a more agreeable and musical sound than Nola. For the last vowel in the first line and the first vowel in the following line being the same, the sound is prolonged by an hiatus that is at the same time melodious and pleasing. Indeed, it is possible to find in famous poets many instances of such melody, which appears to be the result of art rather than accident; but in Homer they are more frequent than in all other poets. In fact, in one single passage he introduces a number of sounds of such a nature, and with such an hiatus, in a series of successive words; for example: [*](Iliad xxii. 151.)

1. The other fountain e'en in summer flows,
2. Like unto hail, chill snow, or crystal ice,
[*](The instances referred to are prore/ei ei)kui=a, xala/zh| h)\, and yuxrh=| h)\.)

1. Up to the top he pushed (a)/nw w)/qeske) the stone.

Catullus too, the most graceful of poets, in the following verses, [*](xxvii. 1.)

1. Boy, who servest old Falernian,
2. Pour out stronger cups for me,
3. Following queen [*](Postumia is the magistra bibendi, who regulated the proportion of wine and water and the size of the cups, and imposed penalties for breaking her rules. Cf. Hor. Odes, i. 4. 18.) Postumia's mandate,
4. Tipsier she than tipsy grape,

Why it is that the phrases quoad vivet and quoad morietur indicate the very same time, although based upon opposite things.

WHEN the expressions quoad vivet, or

so long as he shall live,

until he shall die,

as long as the senate shall be in session,

until the senate shall adjourn,

be in session

adjourn

On the custom of the censors of taking their horse from corpulent and excessively fat knights; and the question whether such action also involved degradation or left them their rank as knights.

THE censors used to take his horse from a man who was too fat and corpulent, evidently because they thought that so heavy a person was unfit to perform the duties of a knight. For this was not a punishment, as some think, but the knight was relieved of duty without loss of rank. Yet Cato, in the speech which he wrote On Neglecting Sacrifice,[*](xviii. 5, Jordan.) makes such an occurrence a somewhat serious charge, thus apparently indicating that it was attended with disgrace. If you understand that to have been the case, you must certainly assume that it was because a man was not looked upon as wholly free from the reproach of slothfulness, if his body had bulked and swollen to such unwieldy dimensions.