---
title: "Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae"
author: "Aulus Gellius"
translator: "John C. Rolfe"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 23 of 46
url: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/23/
cite: "Aulus Gellius, tr. John C. Rolfe, Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae, section 23. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/23/"
---

# 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.

## 23. Book X · chapters 12–20

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/23/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/23/#p-N

[¶0] 12. Of extravagant tales which Plinius Secundus most unjustly ascribes to the philosopher Democritus; and also about the flying image of a dove. PLINY THE ELDER, in the twenty-eighth book of his Natural History asserts that there is a book of that most famous philosopher Democritus On the Power and Nature of the Chameleon, and that he had read it; and then he transmits to us many foolish and intolerable absurdities, alleging that they were written by Democritus. Of these unwillingly, since they disgust me, I recall a few, as follows: that the hawk, the swiftest of all birds, if it chance to fly over a chameleon which is crawling on the ground, is dragged down and falls through some force to the earth, and offers and gives itself up of its own accord to be torn to pieces by the other birds. Another statement too is past human belief, namely, that if the head and neck of the chameleon be burned by means of the wood which is called oak, rain and thunder are suddenly produced, and that this same thing is experienced if the liver of that animal is burned upon the roof of a house. There is also another story, which by heaven! I hesitated about putting down, so preposterous is it; but I have made it a rule that we ought to speak our mind about the fallacious seduction of marvels of that kind, by which the keenest minds are often deceived and led to their ruin, and in particular those which are especially eager for knowledge. But I return to Pliny. He says that the left foot of the chameleon is roasted with an iron heated in the fire, along with an herb called by the same name, “chameleon”; both are mixed in an ointment, formed into a paste, and put in a wooden vessel. He who carries the vessel, even if he go openly amid a throng, can be seen by no one. I think that these marvellous and false stories written by Plinius Secundus are not worthy of the name of Democritus; the same is true of what the same Pliny, in his tenth book, asserts that Democritus wrote; namely, that there were certain birds with a language of their own, and that by mixing the blood of those birds a serpent was produced; that whoso ate it would understand the language of birds and their conversation. Many fictions of this kind seem to have been attached to the name of Democritus by ignorant men, who sheltered themselves under his reputation and authority. But that which Archytas the Pythagorean is said to have devised and accomplished ought to seem no less marvellous, but yet not wholly absurd. For not only many eminent Greeks, but also the philosopher Favorinus, a most diligent searcher of ancient records, have stated most positively that Archytas made a wooden model of a dove with such mechanical ingenuity and art that it flew; so nicely balanced was it, you see, with weights and moved by a current of air enclosed and hidden within it. About so improbable a story I prefer to give Favorinus' own words: “Archytas the Tarentine, being in other lines also a mechanician, made a flying dove out of wood. Whenever it lit, it did not rise again. For until this....”

> Latin: 12. De portentis fabularum quae Plinius Secundus indignissime in Democritum philosophum confert; et ibidem de simulacro volucri columbae. LIBRUM esse Democriti, nobilissimi philosophorum, De Vi et Natura Chamaeleontis eumque se legisse Plinius Secundus in Naturalis Historiae vicesimo octavo refert, multaque vana atque intoleranda auribus deinde quasi a Democrito scripta tradit, ex quibus pauca haec inviti meminimus, quia pertaesum est: accipitrem avium rapidissimum a chamaeleonte humi reptante, si eum forte supervolet, detrahi et cadere vi quadam in terram ceterisque avibus laniandum sponte sua obiicere sese et dedere. Item aliud ultra humanam fidem: caput et collum chamaeleontis si uratur ligno quod appellatur “robur,” imbres et tonitrus fieri derepentederelente, idque ipsum usu venire, si iecur eiusdem animalis in summis tegulis uratur. Item aliud, quod hercle an ponerem dubitavi, ita est deridiculae vanitatis, nisi idcirco plane posui quod oportuit nos dicere quid de istiusmodi admirationum fallaci inlecebra sentiremus, qua plerumque capiuntur et ad perniciem elabuntur ingenia maxime sollertia, eaque potissimum quae discendi cupidiora sunt. Sed redeo ad Plinium. Sinistrum pedem ait chamaeleontis ferro ex igni calefacto torreri cum herba, quae appellatur eodem nomine chamaeleontis, et utrumque macerari unguento conligique in modum pastilli atque in vas mitti ligneum et eum qui id vas ferat, etiamsi is in medio palam versetur, a nullo videri posse. His portentis atque praestigiis a Plinio Secundo scriptis non dignum esse cognomen Democriti puto; vel illud quale est quod idem Plinius in decimo libro Democritum scripsisse adseverat, aves quasdam esse certis vocabulis et earum avium confuso sanguine gigni serpentem; eum qui ederit linguas avium et conloquia interpretaturum. Multa autem videntur ab hominibus istis male sollertibus huiuscemodi commenta in Democriti nomen data, nobilitatis auctoritatisque eius perfugio utentibus. Sed id quod Archytam Pythagoricum commentum esse atque fecisse traditur, neque minus admirabile neque tamen vanum aeque videri debet. Nam et plerique nobilium Graecorum et Favorinus philosophus, memoriarum veterum exequentissimus, affirmatissime scripserunt simulacrum columbae e ligno ab Archyta ratione quadam disciplinaque mechanica factum volasse; ita erat scilicet libramentis suspensum et aura spiritus inclusa atque occulta concitum. Libet hercle super re tam abhorrenti a fide ipsius Favorini verba ponere: Ἀρχύτας Ταραντῖνος, τὰ ἄλλα καὶ μηχανικὸς ὤν, ἐποίησεν περιστερὰν ξυλίνην πετομένην· ὁπότε καθίσειεν, οὐκέτι ἀνίστατο. μέχρι γὰρ τούτου … “Cum partim hominum” qua ratione veteres dixerint.

[¶1] 13. On what principle the ancients said cum. partim hominum. PARTIM homninum venerunt is a common expression, meaning “a part of the men came,” that is, “some men.” For partim is here an adverb and is not declined by cases. Hence we may say cum partim hominum, that is, “with some men” or “with a certain part of the men.” Marcus Cato, in his speech On the> property of Florius has written as follows: “There she acted like a harlot, she went from the banquet straight to the couch and with a part of them (cum partim illorum) she often conducted herself in the same manner.” The less educated, however, read cum parti, as if partim were declined as a noun, not used as an adverb. But Quintus Claudius, in the twenty-first book of his Annals, has used this figure in a somewhat less usual manner; he says: “For with the part of the forces (cum partim copiis) of young men that was pleasing to him.” Also in the twenty-third book of the Annals of Claudius are these words: “But that I therefore acted thus, but whether to say that it happened from the negligence of a part of the magistrates (neglegentia partim magistratum), from avarice, or from the calamity of the Roman people, I know not.”

> Latin: 13. “PARTIM hominum venerunt” plerumque dicitur, quod significat “pars hominum venit,” id est “quidam homines.” Nam “partim” hoc in loco adverbium est neque in casus inclinatur, sicuti “cum partim hominum” dici potest, id est cum quibusdam hominibus et quasi cum quadam parte hominum. M. Cato in oratione De Re Floria ita scripsit: “Ibi pro scorto fuit, in cubiculum subrectitavit e convivio, cum partim illorum iam saepe ad eundem modum erat.” Imperitiores autem “cum parti” legunt, tamquam declinatum sit quasi vocabulum, non dictum quasi adverbium. Sed Q. Claudius in vicesimo primo Annali insolentius paulo hac figura est ita usus: “Enimn cum partim copiis hominum adulescentium placentem sibi.” Itemque Claudi in vicesimo tertio Annali verba haec sunt: “Sed idcirco me fecisse, quod utrum neglegentia partim magistratum an avaritia an calamitate populi Romani evenisse dicam, nescio.”

[¶2] 14. In what connection Cato said iniuria mihi factum itur. I HEAR the phrase illi iniuriam factum iri, or “injury will be done to him,” I hear contumeliam dictum iri, or “insult will be offered,” commonly so used everywhere, and I notice that this form of expression is a general one; I therefore refrain from citing examples. But contumelia illi or iniuria factum itur, “injury or insult is going to be offered him,” is somewhat less common, and therefore I shall give an example of that. Marcus Cato, speaking For Himself against Gaius Cassius, says: “And so it happened, fellow citizens, that in this insult which is going to be put upon me (quae mihi factum itur) by the insolence of this man I also, fellow citizens (so help me!), pity our country.” But just as contumeliam factum iri means “to go to inflict an injury,” that is, to take pains that it be inflicted, just so contumelia nihi factum itur expresses the same idea, merely with a change of case.

> Latin: 14. “Iniuria mihimilli factum itur” quali verborum ordine Cato dixerit. AUDIO “illi iniuriam factum iri,” audio “contumeliam dictum iri” vulgo quoque ita dici, vulgo et istam esse verborum figuram iam in medio loquendi usu, idcircoque exemplis supersedeo. Sed “contumelia illi” vel “iniuria factum itur” paulo est remotius, exemplum igitur ponemus. M. Cato Pro Se contra C. Cassium: “Atque evenit ita, Quirites, uti in hac contumelia quae mihi per huiusce petulantiam factum itur, rei quoque publicae medius fidius miserear, Quirites.” Sicut autem “contumeliam factum iri” significat iri ad contumeliam faciendam, id est opera dari quo fiat, ita “contumelia mihi factum itur” casu tantum inmutato idem dicit.

[¶3] 15. Of the ceremonies of the priest and priestess of Jupiter; and words quoted from the praetor's edict, in which he declares that he will not compel either the Vestal virgins or the priest of Jupiter to take oath. CEREMONIES in great number are imposed upon the priest of Jupiter and also many abstentions, of which we read in the books written On the Public Priests; and they are also recorded in the first book of Fabius Pictor. Of these the following are in general what I remember: It is unlawful for the priest of Jupiter to ride upon a horse; it is also unlawful for him to see the “classes arrayed” outside the pomerium, that is, the army in battle array; hence the priest of Jupiter is rarely made consul, since wars were entrusted to the consuls; also it is always unlawful for the priest to take an oath; likewise to wear a ring, unless it be perforated and without a gem. It is against the law for fire to be taken from the flaminia, that is, from the home of the flamen Dialis, except for a sacred rite; if a person in fetters enter his house, he must be loosed, the bonds must be drawn up through the impluvium to the roof and from there let down into the street. He has no knot in his head-dress, girdle, or any other part of his dress; if anyone is being taken to be flogged and falls at his feet as a suppliant, it is unlawful for the man to be flogged on that day. Only a free man may cut the hair of the Dialis. It is not customary for the Dialis to touch, or even name, a she-goat, raw flesh, ivy, and beans. The priest of Jupiter must not pass under an arbour of vines. The feet of the couch on which he sleeps must be smeared with a thin coating of clay, and he must not sleep away from this bed for three nights in succession, and no other person must sleep in that bed. At the foot of his bed there should be a box with sacrificial cakes. The cuttings of the nails and hair of the Dialis must be buried in the earth under a fruitful tree. Every day is a holy day for the Dialis. He must not be in the open air without his cap; that he might go without it in the house has only recently been decided by the pontiffs, so Masurius Sabinus wrote, and it is said that some other ceremonies have been remitted and he has been excused from observing them. “The priest of Jupiter” must not touch any bread fermented with yeast. He does not lay off his inner tunic except under cover, in order that he may not be naked in the open air, as it were under the eye of Jupiter. No other has a place at table above the flamen Dialis, except the rex sacrificulus. If the Dialis has lost his wife he abdicates his office. The marriage of the priest cannot be dissolved except by death. He never enters a place of burial, he never touches a dead body; but he is not forbidden to attend a funeral. The ceremonies of the priestess of Jupiter are about the same; they say that she observes other separate ones: for example, that she wears a dyed robe, that she has a twig from a fruitful tree in her head-dress, that it is forbidden for her to go up more than three rounds of a ladder, except the so called Greek ladders; also, when she goes to the Argei, that she neither combs her head nor dresses her hair. I have added the words of the praetor in his standing edict concerning the flamen Dialis and the priestess of Vesta: “In the whole of my jurisdiction I will not compel the flamen of Jupiter or a priestess of Vesta to take an oath.” The words of Marcus Varro about the flamen Dialis, in the second book of his Divine Antiquities, are as follows: “He alone has a white cap, either because he is the greatest of priests, or because a white victim should be sacrificed to Jupiter.”

> Latin: 15. De flaminis Dialis deque flaminicae caerimonis; verbaque ex edicto praetoris apposita, quibus dicit non coacturum se ad iurandum neque virgines Vestae neque Dialem. CAERIMONIAE impositae flamini Diali multae, item castus multiplices, quos in libris qui De Sacerdotibus Publicis compositi sunt, item in Fabii Pictoris librorum primo scriptos legimus. Unde haec ferme sunt, quae commeminimus: Equo Dialem flaminem vehi religio est; item religio est “classemclassesm procinctam” extra pomerium, id est exercitum armatum, videre; idcirco rarenter flamen Dialis creatus consul est, cum bella consulibus mandabantur? item iurare Dialem fas numquam est; item anulo uti nisi pervio cassoque fas non est. Ignem e “flaminia,” id est flaminis Dialis domo, nisi sacrum efferri ius non est; vinetum, si aedes eius introierit, solvi necessum est et vincula per impluvium in tegulas subduci atque inde foras in viam demitti. Nodum in apice neque in cinctu neque in alia parte ullum habet; si quis ad verberandum ducatur, si ad pedes eius supplex procubuerit, eo die verberari piaculum est. Capillum Dialis, nisi qui liber homo est, non detonset. Capram et carnem incoctam et hederam et fabam neque tangere Diali mos est neque nominare. Propagines e vitibus altius praetentas non succedit. Pedes lecti, in quo cubat, luto tenui circumlitos esse oportet et de eo lecto trinoctium continuum non decubat neque in eo lecto cubare alium fas est. Apud eius lecti fulcrum capsulam esse cum strue atque ferto oportet. Unguium Dialis et capilli segmina subter arborem felicem terra operiuntur. Dialis cotidie feriatus est. Sine apice sub divo esse licitum non est; sub tecto uti liceret, non pridem a pontificibus constitutum, Masurius Sabinus scripsit et alia quaedam remissa gratiaque aliquot caerimoniarum facta dicitur. Farinam fermento inbutam adtingere ei fas non est. Tunica intima, nisi in locis tectis, non exuit se, ne sub caelo, tamquam sub oculis Iovis, nudus sit. Super flaminem Dialem in convivio, nisi rex sacrificulus, haut quisquam alius accumbit. Uxorem si amisit, flamonio decedit. Matrimonium flaminis nisi morte dirimi ius non est. Locum in quo bustum est numquam ingreditur, mortuum numquam attingit; funus tamen exequi non est religio. Eaedem ferme caerimoniae sunt flaminicae Dialis; alias seorsum aiunt observitare, veluti est quod venenato operitur et quod in rica surculum de arbore felici habet et quod scalas, nisi quae Graecae appellantur, escendere ei plus tribus gradibus religiosum est atque etiam, cum it ad Argeos, quod neque comit caput neque capillum depectit. Verba praetoris ex edicto perpetuo de flamine Diali et de sacerdote Vestae adscripsi: “Sacerdotem Vestalem et flaminem Dialem in omni mea iurisdictione iurare non cogam.” Verba M. Varronis ex secundo Rerum Divinarum super flamine Diali haec sunt: “Is solum album habet galerum, vel quod maximus, vel quod Iouilovi immolata hostia alba id fieri oporteat.”

[¶4] 16. Errors in Roman History which Julius Hyginus noted in Virgil's sixth book. HYGINUS criticizes a passage in Virgil's sixth book and thinks that he would have corrected it. Palinurus is in the Lower World, begging Aeneas to take care that his body be found and buried. His words are:
O save me from these ills, unconquered one;
Or throw thou earth upon me, for you can,
And to the port of Velia return.
“How,” said he, “could either Palinurus know and name 'the port of Velia,' or Aeneas find the place from that name, when the town of Velia, from which he has called the harbour in that place 'Veline' was founded in the Lucanian district and called by that name when Servius Tullius was reigning in Rome, more than six hundred years after Aeneas came to Italy? For of those,” he adds, “who were driven from the land of Phocis by Harpalus, prefect of king Cyrus, some founded Velia, and others Massilia. Most absurdly, then, does Palinurus ask Aeneas to seek out the Veline port, when at that time no such name existed anywhere. Nor ought that to be considered a similar error,” said he,
which occurs in the first book:
Exiled by fate, to Italy fared and to Lavinian strand,
and similarly in the sixth book:
At last stood lightly poised on the Chalcidian height,
since it is usually allowed the poet himself to mention, kata\ pro/lhyin, 'by anticipation,' in his own person some historical facts which took place later and of which he himself could know; just as Virgil knew the town of Lavinium and the colony from Calchis. But how could Palinurus,
he said, “know of events that occurred six hundred years later, unless anyone believes that in the Lower World he had the power of divination, as in fact the souls of the deceased commonly do? But even if you understand it in that way, although nothing of the kind is said, yet how could Aeneas, who did not have the power of divination, seek out the Veline port, the name of which at that time, as we have said before, was not in existence anywhere?” He also censures the following passage in the same book, and thinks that Virgil would have corrected it, had not death prevented: “For,” says He,
when he had named Theseus among those who had visited the Lower World and returned, and had said:
But why name Theseus? why Alcides great?
And my race too is from almighty Jove,
he nevertheless adds afterwards:
Unhappy Theseus sits, will sit for aye.
But how,
says he, “could it happen that one should sit for ever in the Lower World whom the poet mentions before among those who went down there and returned again, especially when the story of Theseus says that Hercules tore him from the rock and led him to the light of the Upper World?” He also says that Virgil erred in these lines:
He Argos and Mycenae shall uproot,
City of Agamemnon, and the heir
Of Aeacus himself, from war-renowned
Achilles sprung, his ancestors of Troy
Avenging and Minerva's spotless shrine.
“He has confounded,” says Hyginus, “different persons and times. For the wars with the Achaeans and with Pyrrus were not waged at the same time nor by the same men. For Pyrrus, whom he calls a descendant of Aeacus, having crossed over from Epirus into Italy, waged war with the Romans against Manius Curius, who was their leader in that war. But the Argive, that is, the Achaean war, was carried on many years after under the lead of Lucius Mummius. The middle verse, therefore, about Pyrrus,” says he, “may be omitted, since it was inserted inopportunely; and Virgil,” he said, “undoubtedly would have struck it out.”

> Latin: 16. Quos errores Iulius Hyginus in sexto Vergilii animadverterit, in Romana historia erratos. REPREHENDIT Hyginus Vergilium correcturumque eum fuisse existimat quod in libro sexto scriptum est. Palinurus est aput inferos, petens ab Aenea ut suum corpus requirendum et sepeliendum curet. Is hoc dicit:
Eripe me his, invicte, malis, aut tu mihi terram
iniceIniice, namque potes, portusque require Velinos. “Quo,” inquit, “modo aut Palinurus novisse et nominare potuit ‘portus Velinos’ aut Aeneas ex eo nomine locum invenire, cum Velia oppidum, a quo portum qui in eo loco est ‘Velinum’ dixit, Servio Tullio Romae regnante, post annum amplius sescentesimum quam Aeneas in Italiam venit conditum in agro Lucano et eo nomine appellatum est?” “Nam qui ab Harpalo,” inquit, “regis Cyri praefecto, ex terra Phocide fugati sunt, alii Veliam, partim Massiliam condiderunt.” “Inscitissime igitur petit ut Aeneas portum Velinum requirat, cum id nomen eo tempore fuerit nusquam gentium.” “Neque simile,” inquit, “illud videri debet, quod est in primo carmine:
Italiam fato profugus LaviniaqueLavinaque venit
Litora,
et aeque in sexto libro:” “
Chalcidicaque levis tandem superastitit arce,” “quoniam poetae ipsi quaedam κατὰ πρόληψιν historiae dicere ex sua persona concedi solet, quae facta ipse postea scire potuit, sicut Vergilius scivit de Lavinio oppido et de colonia Chalcidicensi.” “Sed Palinuros qui potuit,” inquit, “scire ea quae post annos sescentos facta sunt, nisi quis eum divinasse aput inferos putat, proinde ut animae defunctorum solent?” “Sed et si ita accipias, quamquam non ita dicitur, Aeneas tamen, qui non divinabat, quo pacto potuit requirere portum Velinum, cui nomen tunc, sicut diximus, nullum usquam fuit?” Item hoc quoque in eodem libro reprehendit et correcturum fuisse Vergilium putat, nisi mors occupasset. “Nam cum Thesea,” inquit, “inter eos nominasset, qui ad inferos adissent ac redissent, dixissetque:
quid Thesea, magnum
Quid memorem Alciden? et mi genus ab Iove summo est,
postea tamen infert:
sedet aeternumque sedebit
Infelix Theseus.” “Qui autem,” inquit, “fieri potest, ut aeternum aput inferos sedeat, quem supra cum is nominat qui descenderint illuc atque inde rursum evaserint, praesertim cum ita sit fabula de Theseo, atque si Hercules eum evellerit e petra et in lucem ad superos eduxeriteduxeri?” Item in his versibus errasse Vergilium dicit:
Eruet ille Argos Agamemnoniasque Mycenas
Ipsumque Aeaciden, genus armipotentis Achilli,
Ultus avos Troiae, templa intemerata Minervae. “Confudit,” inquit, “et personas diversas et tempora. Nam neque eodem tempore neque per eosdem homines cum Achaeis et cum Pyrro bellatum est. Pyrrus enim,” “quem dicit Aeaciden, de Epiro in Italiam transgressus cum Romanis depugnavit adversus Manium Curium, in eo bello ducem.” “Argivum autem bellum, id est Achaicum, multis post annis a L. Mummio imperatore gestum est.” “Potest igitur,” inquit, “medius eximi versus, qui de Pyrro inportune inmissus est, quem Vergilius procul dubio exempturus,” inquit, “fuit.”

[¶5] 17. Why and how the philosopher Democritus deprived himself of his eye-sight; and the very fine and elegant verses of Laberius on that subject. IT is written in the records of Grecian story that the philosopher Democritus, a man worthy of reverence beyond all others and of the highest authority, of his own accord deprived himself of eyesight, because he believed that the thoughts and meditations of his mind in examining nature's laws would be more vivid and exact, if he should free them from the allurements of sight and the distractions offered by the eyes. This act of his, and the manner too in which he easily blinded himself by a most ingenious device, the poet Laberius has described, in a farce called The Ropemaker, in very elegant and finished verses; but he has imagined another reason for voluntary blindness and applied it with no little neatness to his own subject. For the character who speaks these lines in Laberius is a rich and stingy miser, lamenting in vigorous terms the excessive extravagance and dissipation of his young son. These are the verses of Laberius:
Democritus, Abdera's scientist,
Set up a shield to face Hyperion's rise,
That sight he might destroy by blaze of brass,
Thus by the sun's rays he destroyed his eyes,
Lest he should see bad citizens' good luck;
So I with blaze and splendour of my gold,
Would render sightless my concluding years,
Lest I should see my spendthrift son's good luck.

> Latin: 17. Quam ob causam et quali modo Democritus philosophus luminibus oculorum sese privaverit; et super ea re versus Laberii pure admodum et venuste facti. DEMOCRITUM philosophum in monumentis historiae Graecae scriptum est, virum praeter alios venerandum auctoritateque antiqua praeditum, luminibus oculorum sua sponte se privasse, quia existimaret cogitationes commentationesque animi sui in contemplandis naturae rationibus vegetiores et exactiores fore, si eas videndi inlecebris et oculorum impedimentis liberasset. Id factum eius modumque ipsum quo caecitatem facile sollertia subtilissima conscivit, Laberius poeta in mimo quem scripsit Restionem, versibus quidem satis munde atque graphice factis descripsit, sed causam voluntariae caecitatis finxit aliam vertitque in eam rem quam tum agebat, non inconcinniter. Est enim persona, quae hoc aput Laberium dicit, divitis avari et parci, sumptum plurimum asotiamque adulescentis vivide plorantis. Versus Laberiani sunt: Demócritus Abderítes physicus phílosophus
Clipeúm constituit cóntra exortum Hyperíonis,
Oculós effodere ut pósset splendore aéreo.
Ita rádiis solis áciem effodit lúminis,
Malís bene esse né videret cívibus.
Sic égo fulgentis spléndorem pecúniae
Volo élucificare éxitum aetatí meae,
Ne in ré bona esse vídeam nequam fílium.

[¶6] 18. The story of Artemisia; and of the contest at the tomb of Mausolus in which celebrated writers took part. ARTEMISIA is said to have loved her husband Mausolus with a love surpassing all the tales of passion and beyond one's conception of human affection. Now Mausolus, as Marcus Tullius tells us, was king of the land of Caria; according to some Greek historians he was governor of a province, the official whom the Greeks term a satrap. When this Mausolus had met his end amid the lamentations and in the arms of his wife, and had been buried with a magnificent funeral, Artemisia, inflamed with grief and with longing for her spouse, mingled his bones and ashes with spices, ground them into the form of a powder, put them in water, and drank them; and she is said to have given many other proofs of the violence of her passion. For perpetuating the memory of her husband, she also erected, with great expenditure of labour, that highly celebrated tomb, which has been deemed worthy of being numbered among the seven wonders of the world. When Artemisia dedicated this monument, consecrated to the deified shades of Mausolus, she instituted an agon, that is to say, a contest in celebrating his praises, offering magnificent prizes of money and other valuables. Three men distinguished for their eminent talent and eloquence are said to have come to contend in this eulogy, Theopompus, Theodectes and Naucrates; some have even written that Isocrates himself entered the lists with them. But Theopompus was adjudged the victor in that contest. He was a pupil of Isocrates. The tragedy of Theodectes, entitled Mausolus, is still extant to-day; and that in it Theodectes was more pleasing than in his prose writings is the opinion of Hyginus in his Examples.

> Latin: 18. Historia de Artemisia; deque eo certamine quod aput Mausoli sepulcrum a scriptoribus inclutis decertatum est. ARTEMISIA Mausolum virum amasse fertur supra omnis amorum fabulas ultraque affectionis humanae fidem. Mausolus autem fuit, ut M. Tullius ait, rex terrae Cariae, ut quidam Graecarum historiarum scriptores, provinciae praefectus σατράπην Graeci vocant. Is Mausolus, ubi fato perfunctus inter lamenta et manus uxoris funere magnifico sepultus est, Artemisia, luctu atque desiderio mariti flagrans uxor, ossa cineremque eius mixta odoribus contusaque in faciem pulveris aquae indidit ebibitque multaque alia violenti amoris indicia fecisse dicitur. Molita quoque est ingenti impetu operis conservandae mariti memoriae sepulcrum illud memoratissimum dignatumque numerari inter septem omnium terrarum spectacula. Id monumentum Artemisia cum dis manibus sacrum Mausoli dicaret, “agona,” id est certamen laudibus eius dicundis, facit ponitque praemia pecuniae aliarumque rerum bonarum amplissima. Ad eas laudes decertandas venisse dicuntur viri nobiles ingenio atque lingua praestabili, Theopompus, Theodectes, Naucrates; sunt etiam qui Isocratem ipsum cum his certavisse memoriae mandaverint. Sed eo certamine vicisse Theopompum iudicatum est. Is fuit Isocrates discipulus. Extat nuncnune quoque Theodecti tragoedia, quae inscribitur Mausolus; in qua eum magis quam in prosa placuisse Hyginus in Exemplis refert.

[¶7] 19. That a sin is not removed or lessened by citing in excuse similar sins which others have committed; with a passage front a speech of Demosthenes on that subject. THE philosopher Taurus once reproved a young man with severe and vigorous censure because he had turned from the rhetoricians and the study of eloquence to the pursuit of philosophy, declaring that he had done something dishonourable and shameful. Now the young man did not deny the allegation, but urged in his defence that it was commonly done and tried to justify the baseness of the fault by citing examples and by the excuse of custom. And then Taurus, being the more irritated by the very nature of his defence, said: “Foolish and worthless fellow, if the authority and rules of philosophy do not deter you from following bad examples, does not even the saying of your own celebrated Demosthenes occur to you? For since it is couched in a polished and graceful form of words, it might, like a sort of rhetorical catch, the more easily remain fixed in your memory. For,” said he, “if I do not forget what as a matter of fact I read in my early youth, these are the words of Demosthenes, spoken against one who, as you now do, tried to justify and excuse his own sin by those of others: 'Say not, Sir, that this has often been done, but that it ought to be so done; for if anything was ever done contrary to the laws, and you followed that example, you would not for that reason justly escape punishment, but you would suffer much more severely. For just as, if anyone had suffered a penalty for it, you would not have proposed this, so if you suffer punishment now, no one else will propose it.'” Thus did Taurus, by the use of every kind of persuasion and admonition, incline his disciples to the principles of a virtuous and blameless manner of life.

> Latin: 19. Non purgari neque levari peccatum, cum praetenditur peccatorum quae alii quoque peccaverunt similitudo; atque inibi verba ex oratione super ea re Demosthenis. INCESSEBAT quempiam Taurus philosophus severa atque vehementi obiurgatione adulescentem a rhetoribus et a facundiae studio ad disciplinas philosophiae transgressum, quod factum quiddam esse ab eo diceret inhonesteinlloneste et improbe. At ille non ibat infitias fecisse, sed id solitum esse fieri defendebat turpitudinemque delicti exemplorum usu et consuetudinis venia deprecabatur. Atque ibi Taurus isto ipso defensionis genere inritatior: “Homo,” inquit, “stulte et nihili, si te a malis exemplis auctoritates et rationes philosophiae non abducunt, ne illius quidem Demosthenis vestri sententia tibi in mentem venit, quae, quia lepidis et venustis vocum modis vincta est, quasi quaedam cantilena rhetorica facilius adhaerere memoriae tuae potuit?” “Nam si me” inquit “non fallit quod quidem in primori pueritia legerim, verba haec sunt Demosthenis adversus eum, qui, ut tu nunc facis, peccatum suum peccatis alienis exemptum purgatumque ibat: Σὺ δὴ μὴ λέγε, ὡς γέγονε τοῦτο πολλάκις, ἀλλʼ ὡς οὕτω προσήκει γίγνεσθαι· οὐ γάρ, εἴ τι πώποτε μὴ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐπράχθη, σὺ δὲ τοῦτο ἐμιμήσω, διὰ τοῦτο ἀποφύγοις ἂν δικαίως, ἀλλά πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἁλίσκοιο· ὥσπερ γάρ, εἴ τις ἑάλω, σὺ τοῦτα οὐκ ἂν ἔγραψας, οὕτως, ἐὰν σὺ νῦν δίκην δῷς, ἄλλος οὐ γράψει.” Sic Taurus, omni suasionum admonitionumque genere utens, sectatores suos ad rationes bonae inculpataeque indolis ducebat.

[¶8] 20. The meaning of rogatio, lex, plebisscitum and privilegium, and to what extent all those terms differ. I HEAR it asked what the meaning is of lex, plebisscitum, rogatio, and privilegium. Ateius Capito, a man highly skilled in public and private law, defined the meaning of lex in these words: “A law,” said he, “is a general decree of the people, or of the commons, answering an appeal made to them by a magistrate.” If this definition is correct, neither the appeal for Pompey's military command, nor about the recall of Cicero, nor as to the murder or Clodius, nor any similar decrees of the people of commons, can be called laws. For they are not general decrees, and they are framed with regard, not to the whole body of citizens, but to individuals. Hence they ought rather to be called privilegia, or “privileges,” since the ancients used priva where we now use singula (private or individual). This word Lucilius used in the first book of his Satires:
I'll give them, when they come, each his own (priva) piece
Of tunny belly and acarne heads. Capito, however, in the same definition divided the plebes, or “commons,” from the populus, or “people,” since in the term “people” are embraced every part of the state and all its orders, but “commons” is properly applied to that part in which the patrician families of the citizens are not included. Therefore, according to Capito, a plebisscitum is a law which the commons, and not the people, adopt. But the head itself, the origin, and as it were the fount of this whole process of law is the rogatio, whether the appeal (rogatio) is to the people or to the commons, on a matter relating to all or to individuals. For all the words under discussion are understood and included in the fundamental principle and name of rogatio; for unless the people or commons be appealed to (rogetur), no decree of the people or commons can be passed. But although all this is true, yet in the old records we observe that no great distinction is made among the words in question. For the common term lex is used both of decrees of the commons and of “privileges,” and all are called by the indiscriminate and inexact name rogatio. Even Sallust, who is most observant of propriety in the use of words, has yielded to custom and applied the term “law” to the “privilege” which was passed with reference to the return of Gnaeus Pompeius. The passage, from the second book of his Histories, reads as follows: “For when Sulla, as consul, proposed a law (legem) touching his return, the tribune of the commons, Gaius Herennius, had vetoed it by previous arrangement.”

> Latin: 20. Quid sit “rogatio,” quid “lex,” quid “plebisscitum,” quid “privilegium”; et quantum ista omnia differant. QUAERI audio quid “lex” sit, quid “plebisscitum,” quid “rogatio,” quid “privilegium.” Ateius Capito, publici privatique iuris peritissimus, quid “lex” esset hisce verbis definivit. “Lex,” inquit, “est generale iussum populi aut plebis, rogante magistratu.” Ea definitio si probe facta est, neque de imperio Cn. Pompei neque de reditu M. Ciceronis neque de caede P. Clodi quaestio neque alia id genus populi plebisve iussa “leges” vocari possunt. Non sunt enim generalia iussa neque de universis civibus, sed de singulis concepta; quocirca “privilegia” potius vocari debent, quia veteres “priva” dixerunt quae nos “singula” dicimus. Quo verbo Lucilius in primo Satirarum libro usus est:
abdomina thynni
Advenientibus priva dabo cephalaeaque acarnae. “Plebem” autem Capito in eadem definitione seorsum a “populo” divisit, quoniam in “populo” omnis pars civitatis omnesque eius ordines contineantur, “plebes” vero ea dicatur, in qua gentes civium patriciae non insunt. “Plebisscitum” igitur est secundum eum Capitonem lex, quam plebes, non populus, accipit. Sed totius huius rei iurisque, sive cum populus sive cum plebs rogatur, sive quod ad singulos sive quod ad universos pertinet, caput ipsum et origo et quasi fons “rogatio” est. Ista enim omnia vocabula censentur continenturque “rogationis” principali genere et nomine; nam, nisi populus aut plebs rogetur, nullum plebis aut populi iussum fieri potest. Sed quamquam haec ita sunt, in veteribus tamen scriptis non magnam vocabulorum istorum differentiam esse animadvertimus. Nam et “plebisscita” et “privilegia” translaticio nomine “legis” appellaverunt eademque omnia confuso et indistincto vocabulo “rogationes” dixerunt. Sallustius quoque, proprietatum in verbis retinentissimus, consuetudini concessit et privilegium, quod de Cn. Pompei reditu ferebatur, “legem” appellavit. Verba ex secunda eius Historia haec sunt: “Nam Sullam consulem de reditu eius legem ferentem ex conposito tr. pl. C. Herennius prohibuerat.”