---
title: "Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae"
author: "Aulus Gellius"
translator: "John C. Rolfe"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 12 of 46
url: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/12/
cite: "Aulus Gellius, tr. John C. Rolfe, Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae, section 12. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/12/"
---

# Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae

*Aulus Gellius, tr. John C. Rolfe*

Notes made on winter nights near Athens: grammar, law, philosophy and stories, Androclus and the lion among them.

> Latin: ed. John C. Rolfe, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit, phi1254.phi001, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: John C. Rolfe, from the Perseus Digital Library (phi1254.phi001.perseus-eng1). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (books, chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 12. Book V · chapters 1–12

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/12/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/12/#p-N

[¶0] 1. That the philosopher Musonius criticized and rebuked those who expressed approval of a philosopher's discourse by loud shouts and extravagant demonstrations of praise. I have heard that the philosopher Musonius was accustomed... “When a philosopher,” he says, “is uttering words of encouragement, of warning, of persuasion, or of rebuke, or is discussing any other philosophical theme, then if his hearers utter trite and commonplace expressions of praise without reflection or restraint, if they shout too, if they gesticulate, if they are stirred and swayed and impassioned by the charm of his utterance, by the rhythm of his words, and by certain musical notes, as it were, then you may know that speaker and hearers are wasting their time, and that they are not hearing a philosopher's lecture, but a flute-player's recital. The mind,” said he, “of one who is listening to a philosopher, so long as what is said is helpful and salutary, and furnishes a cure for faults and vices, has no time or leisure for continued and extravagant applause. Whoever the hearer may be, unless he is wholly lost, during the course of the philosopher's address he must necessarily shudder and feel secret shame and repentance, or rejoice or wonder, and even show changes of countenance and betray varying emotions, according as the philosopher's discourse has affected him and his consciousness of the different tendencies of his mind, whether noble or base.” He added that great applause is not inconsistent with admiration, but that the greatest admiration gives rise, not to words, but to silence. “Therefore,” said he, "the wisest of all poets does not represent those who heard Ulysses' splendid account of his hardships as leaping up, when he ceased speaking, with shouts and noisy demonstrations, but he says they were one and all silent, as if amazed and confounded, since the gratification of their ears even affected their power of utterance."
Thus he; but they in silence all were hushed
And held in rapture through the shadowy hall.

> Latin: 1. Quod Musonius philosophus reprehendit inprobavitque laudari philosophum disserentem a vociferantibus et in laudando gestientibus. … MUSONIUM philosophum solitum accepimus. “Cum philosophus,” inquit, “hortatur, monet, suadet, obiurgat aliudve quid disciplinarum disserit, tum qui audiunt si de summo et soluto pectore obvias vulgatasque laudes effutiunt, si clamitant etiam, si gestiunt, si vocum eius festivitatibus, si modulis verborum, si quibusdam quasi fritamentis orationis moventur, exagitantur et gestiunt, tum scias et qui dicit et qui audiunt frustra esse, neque illi philosophum loqui, sed tibicinem canere.” “Animus,” inquit, “audientis philosophum, dum quae dicuntur utilia ac salubria sunt et errorum atque vitiorum medicinas ferunt, laxamentum atque otium prolixe profuseque laudandi non habet. Quisquis ille est qui audit, nisi ille est plane deperditus,” “inter ipsam philosophi orationem et perhorrescat necesse est et pudeat tacitus et paeniteat et gaudeat et admiretur,” “varios adeo vultus disparilesque sensus gerat, proinde ut eum conscientiamque eius adfecerit utrarumque animi partium, aut sincerarum aut aegrarum, philosophi pertractatio.” Praeterea dicebat magnam laudem non abesse ab admiratione, admirationem autem quae maxima est non verba parere, sed silentium. “Idcirco,” inquit, “poetarum sapientissimus auditores illos Ulixi, labores suos inlustrissime narrantis, ubi loquendi finis factus, non exsultareexultare ne strepere nec vociferari facit, sed consiluisse universos dicit, quasi attonitosattonitcs et obstupidos, delenimentis aurium ad origines usque vocis permanantibus:
Ὣς φάτο· τοὶ δʼ ἄρα πάντες ἀκὴν ἐγένοντο σιωπῇ,
Κηληθμῷ δʼ ἔσχοντο κατὰ μέγαρα σκιόεντα.”

[¶1] 2. About the horse of king Alexander, called Bucephalas. THE horse of king Alexander was called Bucephalas because of the shape of his head. Chares wrote that he was bought for thirteen talents and given to king Philip; that amount in Roman money is three hundred and twelve thousand sesterces. It seemed a noteworthy characteristic of this horse that when he was armed and equipped for battle, he would never allow himself to be mounted by any other than the king. It is also related that Alexander in the war against India, mounted upon that horse and doing valorous deeds, had driven him, with disregard of his own safety, too far into the enemies' ranks. The horse had suffered deep wounds in his neck and side from the weapons hurled from every hand at Alexander, but though dying and almost exhausted from loss of blood, he yet in swiftest course bore the king from the midst of the foe; but when he had taken him out of range of the weapons, the horse at once fell, and satisfied with having saved his master breathed his last, with indications of relief that were almost human. Then king Alexander, after winning the victory in that war, founded a city in that region and in honour of his horse called it Bucephalon.

> Latin: 2. Super equo Alexandri regis, qui Bucephalas appellatus est. EQUUS Alexandri regis et capite et nomine “Bucephalas” fuit. Emptum Chares scripsit talentis tredecim et regi Philippo donatumdonatums; hoc autem aeris nostri summa est sestertia trecenta duodecim. Super hoc equo dignum memoria visum, quod, ubi ornatus erat armatusque ad proelium, haud umquam inscendi sese ab alio nisi ab rege passus sit. Id etiam de isto equo memoratum est, quod, cum insidens in eo Alexander bello Indico et facinora faciens fortia, in hostium cuneum non satis sibi providens inmisisset, coniectisque undique in Alexandrum telis, vulneribus altis in cervice atque in latere equus perfossus esset, moribundus tamen ac prope iam exanguis e mediis hostibus regem vivacissimo cursu retulit atque, ubi eum extra tela extulerat, ilico concidit et, domini iam superstitis securus, quasi cum sensus humani solacio animam expiravit. Tum rex Alexander, parta eius belli victoria, oppidum in isdem locis condidit idque ob equi honores “Bucephalon” appellavit.

[¶2] 3. The reason and the occasion which are said to have introduced Protagoras to the study of philosophical literature. THEY say that Protagoras, a man eminent in the pursuit of learning, whose name Plato gave to that famous dialogue of his, in his youth earned his living as a hired labourer and often carried heavy burdens on his back, being one of that class of men which the Greeks call a)xqofo/roi and we Latins baiuli, or porters. He was once carrying a great number of blocks of wood, bound together with a short rope, from the neighbouring countryside into his native town of Abdera. It chanced at the time that Democritus, a citizen of that same city, a man esteemed before all others for his fine character and his knowledge of philosophy, as he was going out of the city, saw Protagoras walking along easily and rapidly with that burden, of a kind so awkward and so difficult to hold together. Democritus drew near, and noticing with what skill and judgment the wood was arranged and tied, asked the man to stop and rest awhile. When Protagoras did as he was asked, and Democritus again observed that the almost circular heap of blocks was bound with a short rope, and was balanced and held together with all but geometrical accuracy, lie asked who had put the wood together in that way. When Protagoras replied that he had done it himself, Democritus asked him to untie the bundle and arrange it again in the same way. But after he had done so, then Democritus, astonished at the keen intellect and cleverness of this uneducated man, said: “My dear young man, since you have a talent for doing things well, there are greater and better employments which you can follow with me”; and he at once took him away, kept him at his own house, supplied him with money, taught him philosophy, and made him the great man that he afterwards became. Yet this Protagoras was not a true philosopher, but the cleverest of sophists; for in consideration of the payment of a huge annual fee, he used to promise his pupils that he would teach them by what verbal dexterity the weaker cause could be made the stronger, a process which he called in Greek: to\n h(/ttw lo/gon krei/ttw poiei=n, or “making the worse appear the better reason.”

> Latin: 3. Quae causa quodque initium fuisse dicatur Protagorae ad philosophiae litteras adeundi. PROTAGORAM, virum in studiis doctrinarum egregium, cuius nomen Plato libro suo illi incluto inscripsit, adulescentem aiunt victus quaerendi gratia in mercedem missum vecturasque onerum corpore suo factitavisse, quod genus Graeci ἀχθοφόρους vocant, Latine “baiulos” appellamus. Is de proximo rure Abdera in oppidum, cuius popularis fuit, caudices ligni plurimos funiculo brevi circumdatos portabat. tumTurn forte Democritus, civitatis eiusdem civis, homo ante alios virtutis et philosophiae gratia venerandus, cum egrederetur extra urbem, videt eum cum illo genere oneris tam impedito ac tam incohibili facile atque expedite incedentem, et prope accedit et iuncturam posituramque ligni scite periteque factam considerat petitque ut paululum adquiescat. Quod ubi Protagoras, ut erat petitum, fecit atque itidem Democritus acervum ilium et quasi orbem caudicum, brevi vinculo comprehensum, ratione quadam quasi geometrica librari continerique animadvertit, interrogavit quis id lignum ita composuisset, et cum ille a se compositum dixisset, desideravit uti solveret ac denuo in modum eundem collocaret. At postquam ille solvit ac similiter composuit, tum Democritus, animi aciem sollertiamque hominis non docti demiratus, “Mi adulescens,” inquit, “cum ingenium bene faciendi habeas, sunt maiora melioraque quae facere mecum possis,” abduxitque eum statimstating secumque habuit et sumptum ministravit et philosophias docuit et esse eum fecit quantus postea fuit. Is tamen Protagoras insincerus quidem philosophus, sed acerrimus sophistarum fuit; pecuniam quippe ingentem cum a discipulis acciperet annuam, pollicebatur se id docere quanam verborum industria causa infirmior fieret fortior, quam rem Graece ita dicebat: τὸν ἥττω λόγον κρείττω ποιεῖν.

[¶3] 4. On the word duovicesimus, which is unknown to the general public, but occurs frequently in the writings of the learned. I CHANCED to be sitting in a bookshop in the Sigillaria with the poet Julius Paulus, the most learned man within my memory; and there was on sale there the Annals of Fabius in a copy of good and undoubted age, which the dealer maintained was without errors. But one of the better known grammarians, who had been called in by a purchaser to inspect the book, said that he had found in it one error; but the bookseller for his part offered to wager any amount whatever that there was not a mistake even in a single letter. The grammarian pointed out the following passage in the fourth book: “Therefore it was then that for the first time one of the two consuls was chosen from the plebeians, in the twenty-second (duovicesimo) year after the Gauls captured Rome.” “It ought,” said lie, “to read, not duovicesimo, but duodevicesimo or twenty-second; for what is the meaning of duovicesimo?”... Varro in the sixteenth book of his Antiquities of Man; there he wrote as follows: “He died in the twenty-second year (duovicesimo); he was king for twenty-one years.”...

> Latin: 4. De verbo “duovicesimo,” quod vulgo incognitum eat, a viris doctis multifariam in libris scriptum est. APUD Sigillaria forte in libraria ego et Iulius Paulus poeta, vir memoria nostra doctissimus, consideramus; atque ibi expositi erant Fabii Annales, bonae atque sincerae vetustatis libri, quos venditor sine mendis esse contendebat. Grammaticus autem quispiam de nobilioribus, ab emptore ad spectandos libros adhibitus, repperisse se unum in libro mendum dicebat; sed contra librarius in quodvis pignus vocabat, si in una uspiam littera delictum esset. Ostendebat grammaticus ita scriptum in libro quarto: “Quapropter tum primumprimnum ex plebe alter consul factus est, duovicesimo anno postquam Romam Galli ceperunt.” “Non,” inquit, “duovicesimo, sed ‘duo et vicesimo’ scribi oportuit.” “Quid enim est duovicesimo?” … Varro Humanarum Rerum lib. XVI; hic ita scripsit: Mortuus est anno duovicesimo; rex fuit annos XXI. … CuiusmodiCuiustnodi ioco incavillatus sit Antiochum regem Poenus Hannibal.

[¶4] 5. How the Carthaginian Hannibal jested at the expense of king Antiochus. IN collections of old tales it is recorded that Hannibal the Carthaginian made a highly witty jest when at the court of king Antiochus. The jest was this: Antiochus was displaying to him on the plain the gigantic forces which he had mustered to make war on the Roman people, and was manœuvring his army glittering with gold and silver ornaments. He also brought up chariots with scythes, elephants with turrets, and horsemen with brilliant bridles, saddlecloths, neck-chains and trappings. And then the king, filled with vainglory at the sight of an army so great and so well-equipped, turned to Hannibal and said: “Do you think that all this can be equalled and that it is enough for the Romans?” Then the Carthaginian, deriding the worthlessness and inefficiency of the king's troops in their costly armour, replied: “I think all this will be enough, yes, quite enough, for the Romans, even though they are most avaricious.” Absolutely nothing could equal this remark for wit and sarcasm; the king had inquired about the size of his army and asked for a comparative estimate; Hannibal in his reply referred to it as booty.

> Latin: 5. IN libris veterum memoriarum scriptum est, Hannibalem Carthaginiensem apud regem Antiochum facetissime cavillatum esse. Ea cavillatio huiuscemodi fuit: ostendebat ei Antiochus in campo copias ingentis quas bellum populo Romano facturus comparaverat, convertebatque exercitum insignibus argenteis et aureis florentem; inducebat etiam currus cum falcibus et elephantos cum turribus equitatumque frenis, ephippiis, monilibus, phaleris praefulgentem. Atque ibi rex, contemplatione tanti ac tam ornati exercitus gloriabundus, Hannibalem aspicit et “Putasne,” inquit, “conferri posse ac satis esse Romanis haec omnia?” Tum Poenus, eludens ignaviam inbelliamqueinbelliarnque militum eius pretiose armatorum: “Satis, plane satis esse credo Romanis haec omnia, etiamsi avarissimi sunt.” Nihil prorsum neque tam lepide neque tam acerbe dici potest; rex de numero exercitus sui ac de aestimanda aequiperatione quaesiverat, respondit Hannibal de praeda.

[¶5] 6. On military crowns, with a description of the triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp, naval, ovation, and olive crowns. MILITARY crowns are many and varied. Of these the most highly esteemed I find to be in general the following: the “triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp and naval crowns.” There is besides the so-called “ovation” crown, and lastly also the “olive” crown, which is regularly worn by those who have not taken part in a battle, but nevertheless are awarded a triumph. “Triumphal” crowns are of gold and are presented to a commander in recognition of the honour of a triumph. This in common parlance is “gold for a crown.” This crown in ancient times was of laurel, but later they began to make them of gold. The “siege” crown is the one which those who have been delivered from a state of siege present to the general who delivered them. That crown is of grass, and custom requires that it be made of grass which grew in the place within which the besieged were confined. This crown of grass the Roman senate and people presented to Quintus Fabius Maximus in the second Punic war, because he had freed the city of Rome from siege by the enemy. The crown is called “civic” which one citizen gives to another who has saved his life in battle, in recognition of the preservation of his life and safety. It is made of the leaves of the esculent oak, because the earliest food and means of supporting life were furnished by that oak; it was formerly made also from the holm oak, because that is the species which is most nearly related to the esculent; this we learn from a comedy of Caecilius, who says:
They pass with cloaks and crowns of holm; ye Gods!
But Masurius Sabinus, in the eleventh book of his Memoirs, says that it was the custom to award the civic crown only when the man who had saved the life of a fellow citizen had at the same time slain the enemy who threatened him, and had not given ground in that battle; under other conditions he says that the honour of the civic crown was not granted. He adds, however, that Tiberius Caesar was once asked to decide whether a soldier might receive the civic crown who had saved a citizen in battle and killed two of the enemy, yet had not held the position in which he was fighting, but the enemy had occupied it. The emperor ruled that the soldier seemed to be among those who deserved the civic crown, since it was clear that he had rescued a fellow citizen from a place so perilous that it could not be held even by valiant warriors. It was this civic crown that Lucius Gellius, an ex-censor, proposed in the senate that his country should award to Cicero in his consulship, because it was through his efforts that the frightful conspiracy of Catiline had been detected and punished. The “mural” crown is that which is awarded by a commander to the man who is first to mount the wall and force his way into an enemy's town; therefore it is ornamented with representations of the battlements of a wall. A “camp” crown is presented by a general to the soldier who is first to fight his way into a hostile camp; that crown represents a palisade. The “naval” crown is commonly awarded to the armed man who has been the first to board an enemy ship in a sea-fight; it is decorated with representations of the beaks of ships. Now the “mural,” “camp,” and “naval” crowns are regularly made of gold. The “ovation” crown is of myrtle; it was worn by generals who entered the city in an ovation. The occasion for awarding an ovation, and not a triumph, is that wars have not been declared in due form and so have not been waged with a legitimate enemy, or that the adversaries' character is low or unworthy, as in the case of slaves or pirates, or that, because of a quick surrender, a victory was won which was “dustless,” as the saying is, and bloodless. For such an easy victory they believed that the leaves sacred to Venus were appropriate, on the ground that it was a triumph, not of Mars, but as it were of Venus. And Marcus Crassus, when he returned after ending the Servile war and entered the city in an ovation, disdainfully rejected the myrtle crown and used his influence to have a decree passed by the senate, that he should be crowned with laurel, not with myrtle. Marcus Cato charges Marcus Fulvius Nobilior with having awarded crowns to his soldiers for the most trifling reasons possible, for the sake of popularity. On that subject I give you Cato's own words: “Now to begin with, who ever saw anyone presented with a crown, when a town had not been taken or an enemy's camp burned?” But Fulvius, against whom Cato brought that charge, had bestowed crowns on his soldiers for industry in building a rampart or in digging a well. I must not pass over a point relating to ovations, about which I learn that the ancient writers disagreed. For some of them have stated that the man who celebrated an ovation was accustomed to enter the city on horseback: but Masurius Sabinus says that they entered on foot, followed, not by their soldiers, but by the senate in a body.

> Latin: 6. De coronis militaribus; quae sit earum triumphalistriumnphalis, quae obsidionalis, quae civica, quae muralis, quae castrensis, quae navalis, quae ovalis, quae oleaginea. MILITARES coronae multae et variae sunt. Quarum quae nobilissimae sunt, has ferme esse accepimus: “triumphalem, obsidionalem, civicam, muralem, castrensem, navalem”; est ea quoque corona quae “ovalis” dicitur, est item postrema “oleaginea,” qua uti solent qui in proelio non fuerunt sed triumphum procurant. “Triumphales” coronae sunt aureae, quae imperatoribus ob honorem triumphi mittuntur. Id vulgo dicitur “aurum coronarium.” Haec antiquitus e lauru erant, post fieri ex auro coeptae. “Obsidionalis” est, quam ii qui liberati obsidione sunt dant ei duci qui liberavit. Ea corona graminea est, observarique solitum ut fieret e gramine quod in eo loco gnatum esset intra quem clausi erant qui obsidebantur. Hanc coronam gramineam senatus populusque Romanus Q. Fabio Maximo dedit bello Poenorum secundo, quod urbem Romam obsidione hostium liberasset. “Civica” corona appellatur, quam civis civi a quo in proelio servatus est testem vitae salutisque perceptae dat. Ea fit e fronde quernea, quoniam cibus victusque antiquissimus quercus capi solitus; fuit etiam ex ilice, quod genus superiori proximum est, sicuti scriptum est in quadam comoedia Caecilii:
† “Advehuntur,” (inquit), “cum ilignea corona et chlamyde; di vostram fidem!” Masurius autem Sabinus, in undecimo Librorum Memorialium, civicam coronam tum dari solitam dicit, cum is qui civem servaverat eodem tempore etiam hostem occiderat neque locum in ea pugna reliquerat; aliter ius civicae coronae negat concessum. Tiberium tamen Caesarem consultum an civicam coronam capere posset qui civem in proelio servasset et hostes ibidem duos interfecisset, sed locum in quo pugnabat non retinuisset eoque loco hostes potiti essent, rescripsisse dicit eum quoque civica dignum videri, quod appareret e tam iniquo loco civem ab co servatum, ut etiam a fortiter pugnantibus retineri non quiverit. Hac corona civica L. Gellius, vir censorius, in senatu Ciceronem consulem donari a republica censuit, quod eius opera esset atrocissima illa Catilinae coniuratio detecta vindicataque. “Muralis” est corona, qua donatur ab imperatore qui primusprirus murum subiit inque oppidum hostium per vim ascendit; idcirco quasi muri pinnis decorata est. “Castrensis” est corona, qua donat imperator eum qui primus hostium castra pugnans introivit; ea corona insigne valli habet. “Navalis” est, qua donari solet maritimomaritino proelio qui primus in hostium navem armatus transiluit; ea quasi navium rostris insignita est. Et “muralis” autem et “castrensis” et “navalis” fieri ex auro solent. “Ovalis” corona murtea est; ea utebantur imperatores qui ovantes urbem introibant. Ovandi ac non triumphandi causa est, cum aut bella non rite indicta neque cum iustoilusto hoste gesta sunt, aut hostium nomen humile et non idoneum est, ut servorum piratarumque, aut, deditione repente facta, “inpulverea,” ut dici solet, incruentaque victoria obvenit. Cui facilitati aptam esse Veneris frondem crediderunt, quod non Martius, sed quasi Venerius quidam triumphus foret. Ac murteam coronam M. Crassus, cum bello fugitivorum confecto ovans rediret, insolenter aspernatus est senatusque consultum faciundum per gratiam curavit, ut lauro, non murto, coronaretur. Marcus Cato obicit M. Fulvio Nobiliori quod milites per ambitum coronis de levissimis causis donasset. De qua re verba ipsa apposui Catonis: “Iam principio quis vidit corona donari quemquam, cum oppidum captum non esset aut castra hostium non incensa essent?” Fulvius autem, in quem hoc a Catone dictum est, coronis donaverat milites qui vallum curaverant aut qui puteum strenue foderant. Praetereundum non est quod ad ovationes attinet, super quo dissensisse veteres scriptores accipio. Partim enim scripserunt qui ovaret introire solitum equo vehentem; set Sabinus Masurius pedibus ingredi ovantes dicit, sequentibus eos non militibus, sed universo senatu.

[¶6] 7. How cleverly Gavius Bassus explained the word persons, and what he said to be the origin of that word. CLEVERLY, by Heaven! and wittily, in my opinion, does Gavius Bassus explain the derivation of the word persona, in the work that he composed On the Origin of Words; for he suggests that that word is formed from personae. “For,” he says, “the head and the face are shut in on all sides by the covering of the persona, or mask, and only one passage is left for the issue of the voice; and since this opening is neither free nor broad, but sends forth the voice after it has been concentrated and forced into one single means of egress, it makes the sound clearer and more resonant. Since then that covering of the face gives clearness and resonance to the voice, it is for that reason called persona, the o being lengthened because of the formation of the word.”

> Latin: 7. “Personae” vocabulum quamqualn lepide interpretatusinlterpretatus sit quamque esse vocis eius originem dixerit Gavius Bassus. LEPIDE, mi hercules, et scite Gavius Bassus in libris, quos De Origine Vocabulorum composuit, unde appellata “persona” sit interpretatur; a personando enim id vocabulum factum esse coniectat. “Nam caput,” inquit, “et os coperimento personae tectum undique unaque tantum vocis emittendae via pervium, quoniam non vaga neque diffusa est, set in unum tantummodo exitum collectam coactamque vocem ciet, magis claros canorosque sonitus facit. Quoniam igitur indumentum illud oris clarescere et resonare vocer facit, ob eam causam ‘persona’ dicta est, ‘o’ littera propter vocabuli formam productiore.”

[¶7] 8. A defence of some lines of Virgil, in which the grammarian Julius Hyginus alleged that there was a mistake; and also the meaning of lituus; and on the etymology of that word. HERE, wielding his Quirinal augur-staff,
Girt with scant shift and bearing on his left
The sacred shield, Picus appeared enthroned. In these verses Hyginus wrote that Virgil was in error, alleging that he did not notice that the words ipse Quirinali lituo lacked something. “For,” said he, “if we have not observed that something is lacking, the sentence seems to read ' girt with staff and scant shift,' which,” says he, “is utterly absurd; for since the lituus is a short wand, curved at its thicker end, such as the augurs use, how on earth can one be looked upon as ' girt with a lituus? '” As a matter of fact, it was Hyginus himself who failed to notice that this expression, like very many others, contains an ellipsis. For example, when we say “Marcus Cicero, a man of great eloquence” and “Quintus Roscius, an actor of consummate grace,” neither of these phrases is full and complete, but to the hearer they seem full and complete. As Vergil wrote in another place:
Victorious Butes of huge bulk,
that is, having huge bulk, and also in another passage: Into the ring he hurled gauntlets of giant weight, and similarly:
A house of gore and cruel feasts, dark, huge within,
so then it would seem that the phrase in question ought to be interpreted as “Picus was with the Quirinal staff,” just as we say “the statue was with a large head,” and in fact est, erat and fuit are often omitted, with elegant effect and without any loss of meaning. And since mention has been made of the lituus, I must not pass over a question which obviously may be asked, whether the augurs' lituus is called after the trumpet of the same name, or whether the trumpet derived its name lituus from the augurs' staff; for both have the same form and both alike are curved. But if, as some think, the trumpet was called lituus from its sound, because of the Homeric expression li/gce bio/s,
The bow twanged,
it must be concluded that the augural staff was called litmus from its resemblance to the trumpet. And Virgil uses that word also as synonymous with tuba:
He even faced the fray
Conspicuous both with clarion (lituo) and with spear.

> Latin: 8. Defensus error a Vergilii versibus, quos arguerat Iulius Hyginus grammaticus; et ibidem, quid sit lituus; deque ἐτυμολογίᾳ vocis eius. IPSE Quirinali lituo parvaque sedebat
Subcinctus trabea laevaque ancile gerebat.
In his versibus errasse Hyginus Vergilium scripsit, tamquam non animadverterit deesse aliquid hisce verbis:
Ipse Quirinali lituo.
“Nam si nihil,” inquit, “deesse animadverterimus, videtur ita dictum ut fiat ‘lituo et trabea subcinctus,’ quod est,” inquit, “absurdissimum; quippe cum ‘lituus’ sit virga brevis, in parte qua robustior est incurva, qua augures utuntur, quonam modo ‘subcinctus lituo’ videri potest?” Immo ipse Hyginus parum animadvertit sic hoc esse dictum, ut pleraque dici per defectionem solent. Veluti cum dicitur “M. Cicero homo magna eloquentia” et “Q. Roscius histrio summa venustate,” non plenum hoc utrumque neque perfectum est, sed enim pro pleno atque perfecto auditur. Ut Vergilius alio in loco:
Victorem Buten inmani corpore,
id est corpus inmane habentem, et item alibi:
In medium geminos inmani pondere caestus
Proiecit,
ac similiter:
Domus sanie dapibusque cruentis,
Intus opaca, ingens,
sic igitur id quoque videri dictum debet: “Picus Quirinali lituo erat,” sicuti dicimus: “statua grandi capite erat.” Et “est” autem et “erat” et “fuit” plerumque absunt cum elegantia sine detrimento sententiae. Et, quoniam facta “litui” mentio est, non praetermittendum est quod posse quaeri animadvertimus, utrum lituus auguralis a tuba quae “lituus” appellatur, an tuba a lituo augurum “lituus” dicta sit; utrumque enim pari forma et pariter incurvum est. Sed si, ut quidam putant, tuba a sonitu “lituus” appellata est ex illo Homerico verbo:
Λίγξε βιός,
necesse est ita accipi, ut virga auguralis a tubae similitudine “lituus” vocetur. Utitur autem vocabulo isto Vergilius et pro tuba:
Et lituo pugnas insignis obibat et hasta.

[¶8] 9. The story of Croesus dumb son, from the books of Herodotus. THE son of king Croesus, when he was already old enough to speak, was dumb, and after lie had become a well-grown youth, he was still unable to utter a word. Hence he was for a long time regarded as mute and tongue-tied. When his father had been vanquished in a great war, the city in which he lived had been taken, and one of the enemy was rushing upon him with drawn sword, unaware that he was the king, then the young man opened his mouth in an attempt to cry out. And by that effort and the force of his breath he broke the impediment and the bond upon his tongue, and spoke plainly and clearly, shouting to the enemy not to kill king Croesus. Then the foeman withheld his sword, the king's life was saved, and from that time on the youth began to speak. Herodotus in his Histories is the chronicler of that event, and the words which he says the son of Croesus first spoke are: “Man, do not kill Croesus.” But also an athlete of Samos—his name was Echeklous—although he had previously been speechless, is said to have begun to speak for a similar reason. For when in a sacred contest the casting of lots between the Samians and their opponents was not being done fairly, and he had noticed that a lot with a false name was being slipped in, he suddenly shouted in a loud voice to the man who was doing it that he saw what he was up to. And he too was freed from the check upon his speech and for all the remaining time of his life spoke without stammering or lack of clearness.

> Latin: 9. Historia de Croesi filio muto, ex Herodoti libris. filius Croesi regis, cum iam fari per aetatem posset, infans erat et, cum iam multum adolevisset, item nihil fari quibat. Mutus adeo et elinguis diu habitus est. Cum in patrem eius, bello magno victum et urbe in qua erat capta, hostis gladio educto, regem esse ignorans, invaderet, diduxit adulescens os, clamare nitens, eoque nisu atque impetu spiritus vitium nodumque linguae rupit planeque et articulate elocutus est, clamans in hostemhosterm ne rex Croesus occideretur. Tum et hostis gladium reduxit et rex vita donatus est et adulescens loqui prorsum deinceps incepit. Herodotus in Historiis huius memoriae scriptor est eiusque verba sunt, quae prima dixisse filium Croesi refert: Ἄνθρωπε, μὴ κτεῖνε Κροῖσον. Sed et quispiam Samius athleta, nomen illi fuit Ἐχεκλοῦς, cum antea non loquens fuisset, ob similem dicitur causam loqui coepisse. Nam cum in sacro certamine sortitio inter ipsos et aduersariosadversaries non bona fide fieret et sortem nominis falsam subici animadvertisset, repente in eum qui id faciebat, videre sese quid faceret, magnum inclamavit. Atque is oris vinclo solutus per omne inde vitae tempus non turbide neque adhaese locutus est.

[¶9] 10. On the arguments which by the Greeks are called a)ntistre/fon: ta, and in Latin may be termed reciproca. AMONG fallacious arguments the one which the Greeks call a)ntistre/fon seems to be by far the most fallacious. Such arguments some of our own philosophers have rather appropriately termed reciproca, or “convertible.” The fallacy arises from the fact that the argument that is presented may be turned in the opposite direction and used against the one who has offered it, and is equally strong for both sides of the question. An example is the well-known argument which Protagoras, the keenest of all sophists, is said to have used against his pupil Euathlus. For a dispute arose between them and an altercation as to the fee which had been agreed upon, as follows: Euathlus, a wealthy young man, was desirous of instruction in oratory and the pleading of causes. He became a pupil of Protagoras and promised to pay him a large sum of money, as much as Protagoras had demanded. He paid half of the amount at once, before beginning his lessons, and agreed to pay the remaining half on the day when he first pleaded before jurors and won his case. Afterwards, when he had been for some little time a pupil and follower of Protagoras, and had in fact made considerable progress in the study of oratory, he nevertheless did not undertake any cases. And when the time was already getting long, and he seemed to be acting thus in order not to pay the rest of the fee, Protagoras formed what seemed to him at the time a wily scheme; he determined to demand his pay according to the contract, and brought suit against Euathlus. And when they had appeared before the jurors to bring forward and to contest the case, Protagoras began as follows: “Let me tell you, most foolish of youths, that in either event you will have to pay what I am demanding, whether judgment be pronounced for or against you. For if the case goes against you, the money will be due me in accordance with the verdict, because I have won; but if the decision be in your favour, the money will be due me according to our contract, since you will have won a case.” To this Euatlllus replied: “I might have met this sophism of yours, tricky as it is, by not pleading my own cause but employing another as my advocate. But I take greater satisfaction in a victory in which I defeat you, not only in the suit, but also in this argument of yours. So let me tell you in turn, wisest of masters, that in either event I shall not have to pay what you demand, whether judgment be pronounced for or against me. For if the jurors decide in my favour, according to their verdict nothing will be due you, because I have won; but if they give judgment against me, by the terms of our contract I shall owe you nothing, because I have not won a case.” Then the jurors, thinking that the plea on both sides was uncertain and insoluble, for fear that their decision, for whichever side it was rendered, might annul itself, left the matter undecided and postponed the case to a distant day. Thus a celebrated master of oratory was refuted by his youthful pupil with his own argument, and his cleverly devised sophism failed.

> Latin: 10. De argumentisarguments quae Graece ἀντιστρέφοντα appellantur, a nobis “reciproca” dici possunt. INTER vitia argumentorum longe maximum esse vitium videtur quae ἀντιστρέφοντα Graeci dicunt. Ea quidam e nostris non hercle nimis absurde “reciproca” appellaverunt. Id autem vitium accidit hoc modo, cum argumentum propositum referri contra convertique in eum potest a quo dictum est, et utrimque pariter valet; quale est pervolgatum illud quo Protagoram, sophistarum acerrimum, usum esse ferunt adversus Euathlum, discipulum suum. Lis namque inter eos et controversia super pactapact mercede haec fuit. Euathlus, adulescens dives, eloquentiae discendae causarumque orandi cupiens fuit. Is in disciplinam Protagorae sese dedit daturumque promisit mercedemmercederm grandem pecuniam, quantam Protagoras petiverat, dimidiumque eius dedit iam tunc statim priusquam disceret, pepigitque ut reliquum dimidium daret quo primoprimro die causam apud iudices orasset et vicisset. Postea cum diutule auditor adsectatorque Protagorae fuisset et in studio quidem facundiae abunde promovisset, causas tamen non reciperet tempusque iam longum transcurreret et facere id videretur, ne relicum mercedis daret, capit consilium Protagoras, ut tum existimabat, astutum; petere institit ex pacto mercedem, litem cum Euathlo contestatur. Et cum ad iudices coniciendae consistendaeque causae gratia venissent, tum Protagoras sic exorsus est: “Disce,” inquit, “stultissime adulescens, utroque id modo fore uti reddas quod peto, sive contra te pronuntiatum erit sive pro te.” “Nam si contra te lis data erit, merces mihi ex sententia debebitur, quia ego vicero; sin vero secundum te iudicatum erit, merces mihi ex pacto debebitur, quia tu viceris.” Ad ea respondit Euathlus: “Potui,” inquit, “huic tuae tam ancipiti captioni isse obviam, si verba non ipse facerem atque alio patrono uterer.” “Sed maius mihi in ista victoria prolubium est, cum te non in causa tantum, sed in argumento quoque isto vinco.” “Disce igitur tu quoque, magister sapientissime, utroque modo fore uti non reddam quod petis, sive contra me pronuntiatum fuerit sive pro me.” “Nam si iudices pro causa mea senserint, nihil tibi ex sententia debebitur, quia ego vicero; sin contra me pronuntiaverint, nihil tibi ex pacto debebo, quia non vicero.” Tum iudices, dubiosum hoc inexplicabileque esse quod utrimque dicebatur rati, ne sententia sua, utramcumque in partem dicta esset, ipsa sese rescinderet, rem iniudicatam reliquerunt causamque in diem longissimam distulerunt. Sic ab adulescente discipulo magister eloquentiae inclutus suo sibi argumento confutatus est et captionis versute excogitatae frustratus fuit.

[¶10] 11. The impossibility of regarding Bias' syllogism on marriage as an example of a)ntistre/fon. SOME think that the famous answer of the wise and noble Bias, like that of Protagoras of which I have just spoken, was a)ntistre/fon. For Bias, being asked by a certain man whether lie should marry or lead a single life, said: “You are sure to marry a woman either beautiful or ugly; and if beautiful, you will share her with others, but if ugly, she will be a punishment. But neither of these things is desirable; therefore do not marry.” Now, they turn this argument about in this way. “If I marry a beautiful woman, she will not be a punishment; but if an ugly one, I shall be her sole possessor; therefore marry.” But this syllogism does not seem to be in the least convertible, since it appears somewhat weaker and less convincing when turned into the second form. For Bias maintained that one should not marry because of one of two disadvantages which must necessarily be suffered by one who took a wife. But he who converts the proposition does not defend himself against the inconvenience which is mentioned, but says that he is free from another which is not mentioned. But to maintain the opinion that Bias expressed, it is enough that a man who has taken a wife must necessarily suffer one or the other of two disadvantages, of having a wife that is unfaithful, or a punishment. But our countryman Favorinus, when that syllogism which Bias had employed happened to be mentioned, of which the first premise is: “You will marry either a beautiful or an ugly woman,” declared that this was not a fact, and that it was not a fair antithesis, since it was not inevitable that one of the two opposites be true, which must be the case in a disjunctive proposition. For obviously certain outstanding extremes of appearance are postulated, ugliness and beauty. “But there is,” said he, “a third possibility also, lying between those two opposites, and that possibility Bias did not observe or regard. For between a very beautiful and a very ugly woman there is a mean in appearance, which is free from the danger to which an excess of beauty is exposed, and also from the feeling of repulsion inspired by extreme ugliness. A woman of that kind is called by Quintus Ennius in the Melanippa by the very elegant term ' normal,' and such a woman will be neither unfaithful nor a punishment.” This moderate and modest beauty Favorinus, to my mind most sagaciously, called “conjugal.” Moreover Ennius, in the tragedy which I mentioned, says that those women as a rule are of unblemished chastity who possess normal beauty.

> Latin: 11. Biantis de re uxoria syllogismum non posse videri ἀντιστρέφειν. EXISTIMANT quidam etiam illud Biantis, viri sapientis ac nobilis, responsum consimile esse atque est Protagorion illud de quo dixi modo, ἀντιστρέφον. Nam cum rogatus esset a quodam Bias, deberetne uxorem ducere an vitam vivere caelibem, Ἤτοι, inquit, καλὴν ἄξεις ἢ αἰσχράν· καὶ εἰ καλήν, ἕξεις κοινήν, εἰ δὲ αἰσχράν, ἕξεις ποινήν· ἑκάτερον δὲ οὐ ληπτέον· οὐ γαμητέον ἄρα. Sic autem hoc rursum convertunt: Εἰ μὲν καλὴν ἄξω, οὐχ ἕξω ποινήν· εἰ δὲ αἰσχράν, οὐχ ἕξω κοινήν· γαμητέον ἄρα. Sed minime hoc esse videtur ἀντιστρέφον, quoniam ex altero latere conversum frigidius est infirmiusque. Nam Bias proposuit non esse ducendam uxorem propter alterutrum incommodum, quod necessario patiendum erit ei qui duxerit. Qui convertit autem, non ab eo se defendit incommodo quod adest, sed carere se altero dicit quod non adest. Satis est autem tuendae sententiae quam Bias dixit, quod eum qui duxit uxorem pati necesse est ex duobus incommodis alterum, ut aut κοινὴν habeat aut ποινήν. Sed Favorinus noster, cum facta esset forte mentio syllogismi istius quo Bias usus est, cuius prima πρότασις est, ἤτοι καλὴν ἄξεις ἢ αἰσχράν, non ratum id neque iustum diiunctivum esse ait, quoniam non necessum sit alterum ex duobus quae diiunguntur verum esse, quod in proloquio diiunctivo necessarium est. Eminentia enim quadam significari formarum turpes et pulcrae videntur. “Est autem,” inquit, “tertium quoque inter duo ista quae diiunguntur, cuius rationem prospectumque Bias non habuit.” “Inter enim pulcherrimam feminam et deformissimam media forma quaedam est, quae et a nimiae pulcritudinis periculo et a summae deformitatis odio vacat;” “qualis a Quinto Ennio in Melanippa perquam eleganti vocabulo ‘stata’ dicitur, quae neque κοινὴ futura sit neque ποινή.” Quam formam modicam et modestam Favorinus non, mi hercule, inscite appellabat “uxoriam.” Ennius autem in ista quam dixi tragoedia, eas fere feminas ait incolumi pudicitia esse quae stata forma forent.

[¶11] 12. On the names of the gods of the Roman people called Diovis and Vediovis. IN ancient prayers we have observed that these names of deities appear: Diovis and Vediovis; furthermore, there is also a temple of Vediovis at Rome, between the Citadel and the Capitolium. The explanation of these names I have found to be this: the ancient Latins derived Iovis from iuvare (help), and called that same god “father,” thus adding a second word. For Iovispater is the full and complete form, which becomes Iupiter by the syncope or change of some of the letters. So also Neptunuspater is used as a compound, and Saturnus— pater and Ianuspater and Marspater—for that is the original form of Marspiter—and Jove also was called Diespiter, that is, the father of day and of light. And therefore by a name of similar origin Jove is called Diovis and also Lucetius, because he blesses and helps us by means of the day and the light, which are equivalent to life itself. And Lucetius is applied to Jove by Gnaeus Naevius in his poem On the Punic war. Accordingly, when they had given the names Iovis and Diovis from iuvare (help), they applied a lame of the contrary meaning to that god who had, not the power to help, but the force to do harm—for some gods they worshipped in order to gain their favour, others they propitiated in order to avert their hostility; and they called him Vediovis, thus taking away and denying his power to give help. For the particle ve which appears in different forms in different words, now being spelled with these two letters and now with an a inserted between the two, has two meanings which also differ from each other. For ve, like very many other particles, has the effect either of weakening or of strengthening the force of a word; and it therefore happens that some words to which that particle is prefixed are ambiguous and may be used with either force, such as vescus (small), vemens (mighty), and vegrandis (very small), a point which I have discussed elsewhere in greater detail. But vesanus and vecordes are used with only one of the meanings of ve, namely, the privative or negative force, which the Greeks call kata\ ste/rhsin. It is for this reason that the statue of the god Vediovis, which is in the temple of which I spoke above, holds arrows, which, as everyone knows, are devised to inflict harm. For that reason it has often been said that that god is Apollo; and a shegoat is sacrificed to him in the customary fashion, and a representation of that animal stands near his statue. It was for this reason, they say, that Virgil, a man deeply versed in antiquarian lore, but never making a display of his knowledge, prays to the unpropitious gods in the Georgics, thus intimating that in gods of that kind there is a power capable of injuring rather than aiding. The verses of Vergil are these:
A task of narrow span, but no small praise,
If unpropitious powers bar not my way
And favouring Phoebus grant a poet's prayer. And among those gods which ought to be placated in order to avert evil influences from ourselves or our harvests are reckoned Auruncus and Robigus.

> Latin: 12. De nominibus deorum populi Romani Diovis et Vediovis. IN antiquis precationibus nomina haec deorum inesse animadvertimus: “Diovis” et “Vediovis”; est autem etiam aedes Vediovis Romae inter Arcem et Capitolium. Eorum nominum rationem esse hanc comperi: “Iovemlove” Latini veteres a “iuvando” appellavere, eundemque alio vocabulo iuncto “patrem” dixerunt. Nam quod est, elisis aut inmutatis quibusdam litteris, “Iupiter,” id plenum atque integrum est “Iovispater.” Sic et “Neptunuspater” coniuncte dictus est et “Saturnuspater” et “IanuspaterManuspater” et “Marspater” —hoc enim est “Marspiter” — itemque Iovis “Diespiter” appellatus, id est diei et lucis pater. Idcircoque simili nominenominee Iovis “Diovis” dictus est et “Lucetius,” quod nos die et luce quasi vita ipsa afficeret et iuvaret. “Lucetium” autem Iovem Cn. Naevius in libris Belli Poenici appellat. Cum Iovem igitur et Diovem a iuvando nominassent, eum contra deum, qui non iuvandi potestatem, sed vim nocendi haberet—nam deos quosdam, ut prodessent, celebrabant, quosdam, ut ne obessent, placabant—“Vediovem” appellaverunt, dempta atque detracta iuvandi facultate. “Ve” enim particula, quae in aliis atque aliis vocabulis varia, tum per has duas litteras, tum “a” littera media inmissa dicitur, duplicem significatum eundemque inter sese diversum capit. Nam et augendae rei et minuendae valet, sicuti aliae particulae plurimae; propter quod accidit ut quaedam vocabula quibus particula ista praeponitur ambigua sint et utroqueversum dicantur, veluti “vescum,” “vemens” et “vegrande,” de quibus alio in loco, uberiore tractatu facto, admonuimus; “vesani” autem et “vecordes” ex una tantum parte dicti, quae privativa est, quam Graeci κατὰ στέρησιν dicunt. Simulacrum igitur dei Vediovis, quod est in aede de qua supra dixi, sagittas tenet, quae sunt videlicet partae ad nocendum. Quapropter eum deum plerumque Apollinem esse dixerunt; immolaturque ritu humano capra eiusque animalis figmentum iuxta simulacrum stat. Propterea Vergilium quoque aiunt, multae antiquitatis hominem sine ostentationis studio peritum, numina laeva in Georgicis deprecari, significantem vim quandam esse huiuscemodi deorum in laedendo magis quam in iuvando potentem. Versus Vergilii sunt:
In tenui labor; at tenuis non gloria, si quem
Numina laeva sinunt auditque vocatus Apollo. In istis autem diis quos placari oportet, uti mala a nobis vel a frugibus natis amoliantur, Auruncus quoque habetur et Robigus.