Noctes Atticae

Why Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in the nineteenth book of his Annals, wrote that missiles hit their mark more accurately and surely if they are hurled from below, than if they are hurled from above.

When Quintus Claudius, in the nineteenth book of his Annals, was describing an attack upon a town by the proconsul Metellus, and its defence against him by the townspeople from the top of the walls, he wrote these words: [*](Fr. 85, Peter2.)

The archers and slingers on both sides showered their weapons with the utmost vigour and courage. But there is this difference between shooting an arrow or a stone downward or upward; for neither missile can be discharged accurately downward, but both upwards with excellent effect. Therefore the soldiers of Metellus suffered far fewer wounds, and, what was of the greatest importance, they very easily drove the enemy back from the battlements by means of their slingers.

I asked Antonius Julianus, the rhetorician, why what Quadrigarius had said was so; namely, that the shots of missiles are closer and more accurate if you discharge a stone or an arrow upwards rather than downwards, in spite of the fact that a throw from above downward is swifter and easier than one in the opposite direction. Then

Julianus, after commending the character of the question, said:

His statement about an arrow and a stone may be made about almost any missile weapon. But, as you have said, throwing is easier if you throw downwards, provided you wish only to throw, and not to hit a mark. But when the direction and force of the throw must be regulated and guided, then, if you are throwing downwards, tile control and command of the marksman are impaired by the downward impulse itself, such as it is, and by the weight of the falling missile. But if you throw your weapon upwards, and direct hand and eye to hitting something above you, the missile which you have hurled will go to the spot to which the impulse which you have given bears it.

It was to this general effect that Julianus chatted with us about those words of Quintus Claudius.

With regard to the remark of the same Claudius,

they very easily drove the enemy from the battlements,

it must be observed that he used the word defendebant, not in the sense which it commonly has, but yet quite properly and in accordance with good Latin usage. For defendere and offendere are opposed to each other, the latter meaning e)mpodw\n e)/xein, that is,

to run against something and fall upon it,

the former, e)kpodw\n poiei=n, that is,

to avert and drive away

; and the latter is Claudius' meaning in this passage.

In what terms Herodes Atticus reproved a man who in appearance and dress falsely laid claim to the title and character of philosopher.

To Herodes Atticus, the ex-consul, renowned for his personal charm and his Grecian eloquence, there

once came, when I was present, a man in a cloak, with long hair and a beard that reached almost to his waist, and asked that money be given him ei)s a)/rtous, that is,

for bread.

Then Herodes asked him who on earth he was, and the man, with anger in his voice and expression, replied that he was a philosopher, adding that he wondered why Herodes thought it necessary to ask what was obvious.

I see,

said Herodes,

a beard and a cloak; the philosopher I do not yet see. Now, I pray you, be so good as to tell me by what evidence you think we may recognize you as a philosopher.

Meanwhile some of Herodes' companions told him that the fellow was a vagabond of worthless character, who frequented foul dives and was in the habit of being shamefully abusive if he did not get what he demanded. Thereupon Herodes said:

Let us give him some money, whatever his character may be, not because he is a man, but because we are men,

and he ordered enough money to be given him to buy bread for thirty days.

Then, turning to those of us who were with him, he said:

Musonius [*](p. 132, Hense.) ordered a thousand sesterces to be given to a fakir of this sort who posed as a philosopher, and when several told him that the fellow was a rascal and knave and deserving of nothing good, Musonius, they say, replied with a smile: a)/cios ou)=n e)sti\n a)rguri/ou, 'then he deserves money.' But,

said Herodes,

it is rather this that causes me resentment and vexation, that foul and evil beasts of this sort usurp a most sacred name and call themselves philosophers. Now, my ancestors the Athenians by public decree made it unlawful for slaves ever to be given the names of those valiant youths Harmodius

v2.p.159

and Aristogeiton, who to restore liberty tried to slay the tyrant Hippias; [*](In 514 B.C. They slew Hipparchus, brother of Hippias and son of Pisistratus. Hippias was afterwards driven from the city and the tyrannicides, who had lost their lives in their attempt, received almost divine honours.) for they thought it impious for the names of men who had sacrificed themselves for their country's freedom to be disgraced by contact with slavery. Why then do we allow the glorious title of philosopher to be defiled in the person of the basest of men? Moreover,

said he,

I hear that the early Romans, setting a similar example in a case of the opposite nature, voted that the forenames of certain patricians who had deserved ill of their country and for that reason had been condemned to death should never be given to any patrician of the same clan, in order that their very names might seem to be dishonoured and done to death, as well as the malefactors themselves.

[*](An example, the discarding of the forename Lucius by the Claudii, is given by Suetonius, Tib. i. 2.)