---
title: "Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae"
author: "Aulus Gellius"
translator: "John C. Rolfe"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 16 of 46
url: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/16/
cite: "Aulus Gellius, tr. John C. Rolfe, Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae, section 16. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/16/"
---

# 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.

## 16. Book VI · chapters 13–22

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/16/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/16/#p-N

[¶0] 13. 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 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.

> Latin: 13. Quem “classicum” dicat M. Cato, quem “infra classem.” “CLASSICI” dicebantur non omnes qui in quinque classibus erant, sed primae tantum classis homines, qui centum et viginti quinque milia aeris ampliusve censi erant. “Infra classes” autem appellabantur secundae classis ceterarumque omnium classium, qui minore summa aeris, quam quod supra dixi, censebantur. Hoc eo strictim notavi, quoniam in M. Catonis oratione, Qua Voconiam legem suasit, quaeri solet quid sit “classicus,” quid “infra classem.”

[¶1] 14. 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 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; 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 and Polybius 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.

> Latin: 14. De tribus dicendi generibus; ac de tribus philosophis qui ab Atheniensibus ad senatum Romam legati missi sunt. ET in carmine et in soluta oratione genera dicendi probabilia sunt tria, quae Graeci χαρακτῆρας vocant nominaque eis fecerunt ἁδρόν, ἰσχνόν, μέσον. Nos quoque (quem primum posuimus “uberem” vocamus, secundum “gracilem,” tertium “mediocrem.” Uberi dignitas atque amplitudo est, gracili venustas et subtilitas, medius in confinio est utriusque modi particeps. His singulis orationis virtutibus vitia agnata sunt pari numero, quae earum modum et habitum simulacris falsis ementiuntur. Sic plerumque sufflati atque tumidi fallunt pro uberibus, squalentes et ieiunidici pro gracilibus, incerti et ambigui pro mediocribus. Vera autem et propria huiuscemodihuitscemodi formarum exempla in Latina lingua M. Varro esse dicit ubertatis Pacuvium, gracilitatis Lucilium, mediocritatis Terentium. Sed ea ipsa genera dicendi iam antiquitus tradita ab Homero sunt tria in tribus: magnificum in Ulixe et ubertum, subtile in Menelao et cohibitum, mixtum moderatumque in Nestore. Animadversa eadem tripertita varietas est in tribus philosophis quos Athenienses Romam ad senatum legaverant, inpetratum uti multam remitteret, quam fecerat is propter Oropi vastationem. Ea multa fuerat talentum fere quingentum. Erant isti philosophi Carneades ex Academia, Diogenes Stoicus. Critolaus Peripateticus. Et in senatum quidem introducti interprete usi sunt C. Acilio senatore; sed ante ipsi seorsum quisque ostentandi gratia magno conventu hominum dissertaverunt. Tum admirationi fuisse aiunt Rutilius et Polybius philosophorum trium sui cuiusque generis facundiam. “Violenta,” inquiunt, “et rapida Carneades dicebat, scita et teretia Critolaus, modesta Diogenes et sobria.” Unumquodque autem genus, ut diximus, cum caste pudiceque ornatur, fit illustrius, cum fucatur atque praelinitur, fit praestigiosum.

[¶2] 15. 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, wrote that cruel and severe judgments were passed upon theft in early times, and that Brutus used to say 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: “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.”

> Latin: 15. Quam severe moribus maiorum in fares vindicatum sit; et quid scripserit Mucius Scaevola super eo quod servandum datum commodatumve esset. LABEO in libro De Duodecim Tabulis secundo acria et severaseveral iudicia de furtis habita esse apud veteres scripsit, idque Brutum solitum dicere, et furti damnatum esse qui iumentum aliorsum duxerat quam quo utendum acceperat, item qui longius produxerat quam in quem locum petierat. Itaque Q. Scaevola, in librorum quos De iurelure Civili composuit XVI., verba haec posuit: “Quod cui servandum datum est, si id usus est, sive quod utendum accepit, ad aliam rem atque accepit usus est, furti se obligavit.”

[¶3] 16. 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 the greater number of things of that kind which such gluttons seek out on land and sea. 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 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, 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:
What things do mortals need, save two alone,
The fruits of Ceres and the cooling spring,
Which are at hand and made to nourish us?
With this abundance we are not content,
But hunt out other foods through luxury.

> Latin: 16. Locus exscriptus ex satura M. Varronis, quae Περὶ Ἐδεσμάτων inscripta est, de peregrinis ciborum generibus; et appositi versus Euripidi, quibus delicatorum hominum luxuriantem gulam confutavit. M. VARRO, in satura quam Περὶ Ἐδεσμάτων inscripsit, lepide admodum et scite factis versibus cenarum, ciborum exquisitas delicias comprehendit. Nam pleraque id genus, quae helluones isti terra et mari conquirunt, exposuit inclusitque in numeros senarios. Et ipsos quidem versus, cui otium erit in libro quo dixi positos legat; genera autem nominaque edulium et domicilia ciborum omnibus aliis praestantia, quae profunda ingluvies vestigavit, quae Varro obprobrans exsecutus est, haec sunt ferme, quantum nobis memoriae est pavus e Samo, Phrygia attagena, grues Melicae, haedus ex Ambracia, pelamys Chalcedonia, muraena Tartesia, aselli Pessinuntii, ostrea Tarenti, pectunculus Siculus, helops RhodiusRodius, scari Cilices, nuces Thasiae, palma Aegyptia, glans Hiberica. Hanc autem peragrantis gulae et in sucos inquirentis industriam atque has undiquevorsum indagines cuppediarum maiore detestatione dignas censebimus, si versus Euripidi recordemur, quibus saepissime Chrysippus philosophus usus, tamquam ἡδυπαθείας edendi repertas esse, non per usum vitae necessarium, sed per luxum animi parata atque facilia fastidientis per inprobam satietatis lasciviam. Versus Euripidi adscribendos putavi:
Ἐπεὶ τί δεῖ βροτοῖσι, πλὴν δυεῖν μόνον,
Δήμητρος ἀκτῆς, πώματός θʼ ὑδρηχόου,
Ἅπερ πάρεστι καὶ πεφυχʼ ἡμᾶς τρέφειν;
Ὧν οὐκ ἀπαρκεῖ πλησμονή. Τρυφῇ δέ τοι
Ἄλλων ἐδεστῶν μηχανὰς θηρώμεθα.

[¶4] 17. 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 for the sake of trying or testing him, but rather from an eager desire for knowledge, what obnoxius meant and what was the origin and history of the word. And he, looking at me and ridiculing what he considered the insignificance and unfitness of the query, said: “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,” said he, “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:
By Heaven! I now am utterly undone,
Not only partly so (non obnoxie).
This does not in the least agree with what you have 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.” But then I, amazed at the ignorance of the presumptuous fellow, answered:
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: '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:
For now the stars' bright sheen is seen undimmed.
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:
What joy the fields to view
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 agree with you:
'Tis meet a man should live inspired by courage true,
In conscious innocence should boldly challenge foes.
True freedom his who bears a pure and steadfast heart,
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:
He'll join with me and hatch the biggest jubilee,
Stuff'd with most joy, for son and father too.
For life they both shall be in debt (obnoxii) to both of us,
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:
Although I come to you attracted by your pay,
Don't think that I for that am subject to your will (tibi... obnoxium);
If you speak ill of me, you'll hear a like reply.

> Latin: 17. Sermo habitus cum grammatico insolentiarum et inperitiarum pleno de significatione vocabuli quod est “obnoxius”; deque eius vocis origine. PERCONTABAR Romae quempiam grammaticum primae in docendo celebritatis, non hercle experiundi vel temptandi gratia, sed discendi magis studio et cupidine, quid significaret “obnoxius” quaeque eius vocabuli origo ac ratio esset. Atque ille aspicit me, inludens levitatem quaestionis pravitatemque: “Obscuram,” inquit, “sane rem quaeris multaque prorsus vigilia indagandam!” “Quis adeo tam linguae Latinae ignarus est, quin sciat eum dici ‘obnoxium’ cui quid ab eo cui esse ‘obnoxius’ dicitur incommodari et noceri potest, ut qui habeat aliquem noxae, id est culpae suae, conscium? Quin potius,” inquit, “haec mittis nugalia et affers ea quae digna quaeri tractarique sint?” Tum vero ego permotus, agendum iam oblique, ut cum homine stulto, existimavi et “Cetera,” inquam, “vir doctissime, remotiora gravioraque si discere et scire debuero, quando mihi usus venerit, tum quaeram ex te atque discam; sed enim quia dixi saepe ‘obnoxius’ et quid dicerem nescivi, didici ex te et scire nunc coepi quod non ego omnium solus, ut tibi sum visus, ignoravi, sed, ut res est, Plautus quoque, homo linguae atque elegantiae in verbis Latinae princeps, quid esset ‘obnoxius’ nescivit; versus enim est in Sticho illius ita. scriptus:
nuncNune ego hercle perii pláne, non obnóxie,
quod minime congruit cum ista, quam me docuisti, significatione; composuit enim Plautus tamquam duo inter se contraria ‘plane’ et ‘obnoxie,’ quod a tua significatione longe abest.” Atque ille grammaticus satis ridicule, quasi “obnoxius” et “obnoxie” non declinatione sola, sed re atque sententia differrent, “Ego,” inquit, “dixi quid esset ‘obnoxius,’ non quid ‘obnoxie.’” At tunc ego admirans insolentis hominis inscitiam, “Mittamus,” inquam, “sicuti vis, quod Plautus ‘obnoxie’ dixit, si id nimis esse remotum putas,” “atque illud quoque praetermittamus, quod Sallustius in Catilina scribit:” “‘Minari etiam ferro, ni sibi obnoxia foret,’ et quod videtur novius pervulgatiusque esse, id me doce. Versus enim Vergilii sunt notissimi:
Nam neque tunc astris acies obtunsa videri,
Nec fratris radiis obnoxia surgere luna,” “quod tu ais ‘culpae suae conscium.’ Alio quoque loco Vergilius verbo isto utitur a tua sententia diverse in his versibus:
iuvat arva videre
Non rastris hominum, non ulli obnoxia curae;
cura enim prodesse arvis solet, non nocere, quod tu de ‘obnoxio’ dixisti.” “Iam vero illud etiam Q. Enni quo pacto congruere tecum potest, quod scribit in Phoenice in hisce versibus:
Séd virum verá virtute vívere animatum áddecet,
Fórtiterque innóxium stare ádversum adversários.
Éa libertas ést, qui pectus púrum et firmum géstitat,
Áaliaeliae res obnóxiosae nócte in obscurá latent?” At ille oscitans et alucinanti similis: “Nunc,” inquit, “mihi operae non est. Cum otium erit, revises ad me atque disces quid in verbo isto et Vergilius et Sallustius et Plautus et Ennius senserint.” At nebulo quidem ille, ubi hoc dixit, digressus est; si quis autem volet non originem solam verbi istius, sed significationem quoque eius varietatemque recensere, ut hoc etiam Plautinum spectet, adscripsi versus ex Asinaria:
Máximas opímitates gaúdio effertíssimas
Súis eris ille úna mecum páriet gnatoque ét patri;
Ádeo ut aetatem ámbo ambobus nóbis sint obnóxii
Nóstro devincti beneficio. Qua vero ille grammaticus finitione usus est, ea videtur in verbo tam multiplici unam tantummodo usurpationem eius notasse, quae quidem congruit cum significatu quo Caecilius usus est in Chrysio in his versibus:
quamquam ego mercéde huchue conductús tua
Advénio, ne tibi me ésse ob eam rem obnóxium
Reáre; audibis mále, si maledicís mihi.

[¶5] 18. 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, 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 in Rome, declaring that they had been released and freed from their obligation because, after leaving the enemy's camp, they had returned to it as if for some chance reason, but really with intent to deceive, and having thus kept the letter of the oath, they had come away again unsworn. This dishonourable cleverness of theirs was considered so shameful, that they were generally despised and reprobated; and later the censors punished them with all possible fines and marks of disgrace, on the ground that they had not done what they had sworn to do. Furthermore Cornelius Nepos, in the fifth book of his Examples 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.

> Latin: 18. De observata custoditaque apud Romanos iurisiurandi sanctimonia; atque inibi de decem captivis, quos Romam Hannibal deiurio ab his accepto legavit. IUSIURANDUM apud Romanos inviolate sancteque habitum servatumque est. Id et moribus legibusque multis ostenditur, et hoc, quod dicemus, ei rei non tenue argumentum esse potest. Post proelium Cannense Hannibal, Carthaginiensium imperator, ex captivis nostris electos decem Romam misit mandavitque eis pactusque est, ut, si populo Romano videretur, permutatio fieret captivorum et pro his quos alteri plures acciperent, darent argenti pondo libram et selibram. Hoc, priusquam proficiscerentur, iusiurandum eos adegit, redituros esse in castra Poenica, si Romani captivos non permutarent. Veniunt Romam decem captivi. Mandatum Poeni imperatoris in senatu exponunt. Permutatio senatui non placita. Parentes, cognati adfinesque captivorum amplexi eos postliminio in patriam redisse dicebant statumque eorum integrum incolumemque esse, ac ne ad hostes redire vellent orabant. Tum octo ex his postliminium iustum non esse sibi responderunt, quoniam deiurio vincti forent, statimque, uti iurati erant, ad Hannibalem profecti sunt. Duo reliqui Romae manserunt solutosque esse se ac liberator religione dicebant, quoniam, cum egressi castra hostium fuissent, commenticio consilio regressi eodem, tamquam si ob aliquam fortuitam causam, issent atque ita iureiurando satisfacto rursum iniurati abissent. Haec eorum fraudulenta calliditas tam esse turpis existimata est, ut contempti vulgo discerptique sint censoresque eos postea omnium notarum et damnis et ignominiis adfecerint, quoniam quod facturos deieraverant non fecissent. Cornelius autem Nepos in libro Exemplorum quinto id quoque litteris mandavit, multis in senatu placuisse ut hi qui redire nollent, datis custodibus, ad Hannibalem deducerentur, sed eamcam sententiam numero plurium quibus id non videretur superatam; eos tamen qui ad Hannibalem non redissent usque adeo intestabiles invisosque fuisse, ut taedium vitae ceperint necemque sibi consciverint.

[¶6] 19. 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. It runs as follows: Gaius Minucius Augurinus, tribune of the commons, imposed a fine on Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, brother of Scipio Africanus the elder, and demanded that he should give security for its payment. Scipio Africanus appealed to the college of tribunes on behalf of his brother, asking them to defend against the violent measures of their colleague a man who had been consul and had celebrated a triumph. Having heard the case, eight of the tribunes rendered a decision. 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 Gracchus, although he was a bitter personal enemy of Publius Scipio Africanus because of numerous disagreements on political questions, publicly made oath that he had not been reconciled with Publius Africanus nor become his friend, and then read a decree which he had written out. 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 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.

> Latin: 19. Historia ex annalibus sumpta de Tiberio Graccho, Gracchorum patre, tribuno plebis; atque inibi tribunicia decreta cum ipsis verbis relata. PULCRUM atque liberale atque magnanimum factum Tiberii Sempronii Gracchi in Exemplis repositum est. Id exemplum huiuscemodi est: L. Scipioni Asiatico, P. Scipionis Africani superioris fratri, C. Minucius Augurinus tribunus plebi multam irrogavit eumque ob eam causam praedes poscebat. Scipio Africanus fratris nomine ad collegium tribunorum provocabat, petebatque ut virum consularem triumphalemque a collegae vi defenderent. Octo tribuni cognita causa decreverunt. Eius decreti verba, quae posui, ex annalium monumentis exscripta sunt: “Quod P. Scipio Africanus postulavit pro L. Scipione Asiatico fratre, cum contra leges contraque morem maiorum tribunus pl. hominibus accitis per vim inauspicato sententiam de eo tulerit multamque nullo exemplo irrogaverit praedesque eum ob eam rem dare cogat aut, si non det, in vincula duci iubeat, ut eum a collegae vi prohibeamus. Et quod contra collega postulavit ne sibi intercedamus quominus suapte potestate uti liceat, de ea re nostrum sententia omnium ea est: Si L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus collegae arbitratu praedes dabit, collegae ne eum in vincula ducat intercedemus; si eius arbitratu praedes non dabit, quominus collega sua potestate utatur non intercedemus.” Post hoc decretum cum Augurinus tribunus L. Scipionem praedes non dantem prendi et in carcerem duci iussisset, tunc Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus tr. pl., pater Tiberi atque C. Gracchorum, cum P. Scipioni Africano inimicus gravis ob plerasque in republica dissensiones esset, iuravit palam in amicitiam inque gratiam se cum P. Africano non redisse, atque ita decretum ex tabula recitavit. Eius decreti verba haec sunt: “Cum L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus triumphans hostium duces in carcerem coniectarit, alienum videtur esse dignitate reipublicae, in eum locum imperatorem populi Romani duci, in quem locum ab eo coniecti sunt duces hostium; itaque L. Cornelium Scipionem Asiaticum a collegae vi prohibeo.” Valerius autem Antias contra hanc decretorum memoriam contraque auctoritates veterum annalium post Africani mortem intercessionem istam pro Scipione Asiatico factam esse a Tiberio Graccho dixit, neque multam irrogatam Scipioni, sed damnatum eum peculatus ob Antiochinam pecuniam, quia praedes non daret, in carcerem duci coeptum atque ita intercedente Graccho exemptum.

[¶7] 20. 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:
Such is the soil that wealthy Capua ploughs
And Nola near Vesuvius' height.
That afterwards Virgil asked the people of Nola to allow him to run their city water into his estate, which was near by, but that they refused to grant the favour which he asked; that thereupon the offended poet erased the name of their city from his poem, as if consigning it to oblivion, changing Nola to ora (region) and leaving the phrase in this form:
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:
The other fountain e'en in summer flows,
Like unto hail, chill snow, or crystal ice,
and similarly in another place:
Up to the top he pushed (a)/nw w)/qeske) the stone. Catullus too, the most graceful of poets, in the following verses,
Boy, who servest old Falernian,
Pour out stronger cups for me,
Following queen Postumia's mandate,
Tipsier she than tipsy grape,
although he might have said ebrio, and used acinum in the neuter gender, as was more usual, nevertheless through love of the melody of that Homeric hiatus he said ebria, because it blended with the following a. But those who think that Catullus wrote ebriosa or ebrioso—for that incorrect reading is also found—have unquestionably happened upon editions copied from corrupt texts.

> Latin: 20. Quod Vergilius a Nolanis ob aquam sibi non permissam sustulit e versu suo “Nolam” et posuit “oram”; atque ibi quaedam alia de iucunda consonantia litterarum. SCRIPTUM in quodam commentario repperi, versus istos a Vergilio ita primum esse recitatos atque editos:
Talem dives arat Capua et vicina Vesevo
Nola iugo;
postea Vergilium petisse a Nolanis, aquam uti duceret in propinquum rus, Nolanos beneficium petitum non fecisse, poetam offensum nomen urbis eorum, quasi ex hominum memoria, sic ex carmine suo derasisse, “oram” que pro “Nola” mutasse atque ita reliquisse;
et vicina Vesevo
Ora iugo. Ea res verane an falsa sit, non laboro; quin tamen melius suaviusque ad aures sit “ora” quam “Nola,” dubium id non est. Nam vocalis in priore versu extrema eademque in sequenti prima canoro simul atque iucundo hiatu tractim sonat. Est adeo invenire apud nobiles poetas huiuscemodi suavitatis multa, quae appareat navata esse, non fortuita; sed praeter ceteros omnis apud Homerum plurima. Uno quippe in loco tales tamque hiantes sonitus in assiduis vocibus pluribus facit:
Ἡ δʼ ἑτέρη θέρεϊ προρέει εἰκυῖα χαλάζῃ
Ἢ χιόνι ψυχρῇ ἢ ἐξ ὕδατος κρυστάλλῳ,
atque item alio loco:
Λᾶαν ἄνω ὤθεσκε ποτὶ λόφον. Catullus quoque elegantissimus poetarum in hisce versibus:
Minister vetuli puer Falerni,
Inger mi calices amariores,
Ut lex Postumiae iubet magistrae
Ebria acina ebriosioris,
cum dicere “ebrio” posset et, quod erat usitatius, “acinum” in neutro genere appellare, amans tamen hiatus illius Homerici suavitatem, “ebriam” dixit propter insequentis a litterae concentum. Qui “ebriosa” autem Catullum dixisse putant aut “ebrioso,” nam id quoque temere scriptum invenitur, in libros scilicet de corruptis exemplaribus factos inciderunt.

[¶8] 21. 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,” and quoad morietur, or “until he shall die,” are used, two opposite things really seem to be said, but the two expressions indicate one and the same time. Also when we say “as long as the senate shall be in session,” and “until the senate shall adjourn,” although “be in session” and “adjourn” are opposites, yet one and the same idea is expressed by both phrases. For when two periods of time are opposed to each other and yet are so connected that the end of one coincides with the beginning of the other, it makes no difference whether the exact point of their meeting is designated by the end of the first period or the beginning of the second.

> Latin: 21. “Quoad vivet” “quoad” que “morietur” cur id ipsum temporis significent, cum ex duobus sint facta contrariis. “QUOAD vivet” cum dicitur, cum item dicitur “quoad morietur,” videntur quidem duae res dici contrariae; sed idem atque unum tempus utraque verba demonstrant. Item cum dicitur “quoad senatus habebitur” et “quoad senatus dimittetur,” tametsi “haberi” atque “dimitti” contraria sunt, unum atque id ipsum tamen utroque in verbo ostenditur. Tempora enim duo cum inter sese opposita sunt atque ita cohaerentia ut alterius finis cum alterius initio misceatur, non refert utrum per extremitatem prioris an per initium sequentis locus ipse confinis demonstretur.

[¶9] 22. 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, 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.

> Latin: 22. Quod censores equum adimere soliti sunt equitibus corpulentis et praepinguibus; quaesitumque utrum ea res cum ignominia an incolumi dignitate equitum facta sit. NIMIS pingui homini et corpulento censores equum adimere solitos, scilicet minus idoneum ratos esse cum tanti corporis pondere ad faciendum equitis munus. Non enim poena id fuit, ut quidam existimant, sed munus sine ignominia remittebatur. Tamen Cato, in oratione quam De Sacrificio Commisso scripsit, obicit hanc rem criminosius, uti magis videri possit cum ignominia fuisse. Quod si ita accipias, id profecto existimandum est, non omnino inculpatum neque indesidem visum esse, cuius corpus in tam inmodicum modum luxuriasset exuberassetque.