Noctes Atticae

Gellius, Aulus

Gellius, Aulus. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. Rolfe, John C., translator. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann, 1927 (printing).

Diverse views of eminent philosophers as to the nature and character of pleasure; and the words in which the philosopher Hierocles attacked the principles of Epicurus.

As to pleasure the philosophers of old expressed varying opinions. Epicurus makes pleasure the highest good, but defines it [*](Fr. 28, Usener.) as sarko\s eu)staqe\s kata/sthma, or

a well-balanced condition of body.
Antisthenes the Socratic calls it the greatest evil; for this is the expression he uses: [*](F.P. G. ii. 286. 65.) manei/hn ma=llon h)\ h(sqei/hn; that is to say,
may I go mad rather than feel pleasure.
Speusippus and all the old Academy declare [*](F.P. G. iii. 92. 169.) that pleasure and pain are two evils opposed to each other, but that what lay midway between the two was the good. Zeno thought [*](p. 169, Pearson; i. 195, Arn.) that pleasure was indifferent, that is neutral, neither good nor evil, that,
v2.p.171
namely, which he himself called by the Greek term a)dia/foron. Critolaus the Peripatetic declares that pleasure is an evil and gives birth to many other evils: injustice, sloth, forgetfulness, and cowardice. Earlier than all these, Plato discoursed in so many and varied ways about pleasure, that all those opinions which I have set forth may seem to have flowed from the founts of his discourses; for he makes use of each one of them according to the suggestion offered by the nature of pleasure itself, which is manifold, and according to the demands made by the character of the topics which he is treating and of the effect that he wishes to produce. But our countryman Taurus, whenever mention was made of Epicurus, always had on his lips and tongue these words of Hierocles the Stoic, a man of righteousness and dignity:
Pleasure an end, a harlot's creed; there is no Providence, not even a harlot's creed.

With what quantity the first syllable of the frequentative verb from ago should be pronounced.

FROM ago and egi are derived the verbs actito and actitavi, which the grammarians call

frequentatives.
[*](Most modern grammarians prefer the more comprehensive term intensives.) These verbs I have heard some men, and those not without learning, pronounce with a shortening of the first syllable, and give as their reason that the first letter of the primitive ago is pronounced short. Why then do we make the first vowel long in the frequentative forms esito and unctito, which are derived from edo and ungo, in which the first letter is short;
v2.p.173
and, on the contrary, pronounce the first vowel short in dictito from dīco? Accordingly, should not actito and actitavi rather be lengthened? For the first syllable of almost all frequentatives is pronounced in the same way as the same syllable of the past participle of the verbs from which they are formed: for example, lego lēctus makes lēctito; ungo ūnctus, ūnctito; scrībo scrīptus, scrīptito; moveo mōtus, mōtito; pendeo pēnsus, pēnsito; edo ēsus, ēsito; but dīco dīctus forms dictito; gĕro gĕstus, gĕstito; vĕho vĕctus, vĕctito; răpio răptus, răptito; căpio căptus, căptito; făcio făctus, făctito. So then ăctito should be pronounced with the first syllable long, since it is from ago and ăctus.