---
title: "Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae"
author: "Aulus Gellius"
translator: "John C. Rolfe"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 26 of 46
url: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/26/
cite: "Aulus Gellius, tr. John C. Rolfe, Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae, section 26. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/26/"
---

# 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.

## 26. Book XI · chapters 12–16

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/26/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/26/#p-N

[¶0] 12. That the philosopher Chrysippus says that every word is ambiguous and of doubtful meaning, while Diodorus, on the contrary, thinks that no word is ambiguous. CHRYSIPPUS asserts that every word is by nature ambiguous, since two or more things may be understood from the same word. But Diodorus, surnamed Cronus, says: “No word is ambiguous, and no one speaks or receives a word in two senses; and it ought not to seem to be said in any other sense than that which the speaker feels that he is giving to it. But when I,” said he, “meant one thing and you have understood another, it may seem that I have spoken obscurely rather than ambiguously; for the nature of an ambiguous word should be such that he who speaks it expresses two or more meanings. But no man expresses two meanings who has felt that he is expressing but one.”

> Latin: 12. Quod Chrysippus philosophus omne verbum ambiguum dubiumque esse dicit, Diodorus contra nullum verbum ambiguum esse putat. CHRYSIPPUS ait omne verbum ambiguum natura esse, quoniam ex eodem duo vel plura accipi possunt. Diodorus autem, cui Crono cognomentum fuit, “Nullum,” inquit, “verbum est ambiguum, nec quisquam ambiguum dicit aut sentit, nec aliud dici videri debet quam quod se dicere sentit is qui dicit.” “At cum ego,” inquit, “aliud sensi, tu aliud accepisti, obscure magis dictum videri potest quam ambigue; ambigui enim verbi natura illa esse debuit, ut qui id diceret duo vel plura diceret. Nemo autem duo vel plura dicit, qui se sensit unum dicere.”

[¶1] 13. What Titus Castricius thought about the wording of a sentence of Gaius Gracchus; and that he showed that it contributed nothing to the effectiveness of the sentence. THE speech of Gaius Gracchus Against Publius Popilius was read before Titus Castricius, a teacher of the art of rhetoric and a man of sound and solid judgment. At the beginning of that speech the sentences were constructed with more care and regard for rhythm than was customary with the early orators. The words, arranged as I have said, are as follows: “If you now reject rashly the things which all these years you have earnestly sought and longed for, it must be said either that you formerly sought them earnestly, or now have rejected them without consideration.” Well then, the flow and rhythm of this well-rounded and smooth-flowing sentence pleased us to a remarkable and unparalleled degree, and still more the evidence that composition of that kind appealed even in those early days to Gaius Gracchus, a man of distinction and dignity. But when those very same words were read again and again at our request, we were admonished by Castricius to consider what the force and value of the thought was, and not to allow our ears to be charmed by the rhythm of a well-turned sentence and through mere pleasure to confuse our judgment as well. And when by this admonition he had made us more alert, “Look deeply,” said he, “into the meaning of these words, and tell me pray, some of you, whether there is any weight or elegance in this sentence: 'If you rashly reject the things which all these years you have earnestly sought and longed for, it must be said either that you formerly sought them earnestly or now reject them without consideration.' For to whom of all men does it not occur, that it is certainly natural that you should be said earnestly to have sought what you earnestly sought, and to have rejected without consideration what you rejected without consideration? But I think,” said he, “if it had been written thus: ' If you now reject what you have sought and longed for these many years, it must be said that you formerly sought it earnestly or that you now reject it without consideration'; if,” said he, “it were spoken thus, the sentence would be weightier and more solid and would arouse some reasonable expectation in the hearer; but as it is, these words 'earnestly' and 'without consideration,' on which the whole effect of the sentence rests, are not only spoken at the end of the sentence, but are also put earlier where they are not needed, so that what ought to arise and spring from the very conception of the subject is spoken wholly before the subject demands it. For one who says: ' If you do this, you will be said to have done it earnestly,' says something that is composed and arranged with some regard to sense; but one who says: 'If you do it earnestly, you will be said to have done it earnestly,' speaks in much the same way as if he should say: 'If you do it earnestly, you will do it earnestly.' I have warned you of this,” said he, “not with the idea of censuring Gaius Gracchus—may the gods give me a wiser mind! for if any fault or error can be mentioned in a man of such powerful eloquence, it is wholly excused by his authority and overlooked in view of his antiquity—but in order that you might be on your guard lest the rhythmic sound of any flowing eloquence should easily dazzle you, and that you might first balance the actual weight of the substance against the high quality of the diction; so that if any sentence was uttered that was weighty, honest and sound, then, if you thought best, you might praise also the mere flow of the language and the delivery; that if, on the contrary, thoughts that were cold, trifling and futile should be conveyed in words neatly and rhythmically arranged, they might have the same effect upon you as when men conspicuous for their deformity and their ludicrous appearance imitate actors and play the buffoon.”

> Latin: 13. Quid Titus Castricius de verbis deque sententia quadam C. Gracchi existimarit; quodque esse eam sine ullo sensus emolumento docuerit. APUD Titum Castricium, disciplinae rhetoricae doctorem, gravi atque firmo iudicio virum, legebatur oratio C. Gracchi In P. Popilium. In eius orationis principio conlocata verba sunt accuratius modulatiusque quam veterum oratorum consuetudo fert. Ea verba, sicuti dixi conposita, haec sunt: “Quae vos cupide per hosce annos adpetistis atque voluistis, ea si temere repudiaritis, abesse non potest quin aut olim cupide adpetisse aut nunc temere repudiasse dicamini.” Cursus igitur hic et sonus rotundae volubilisque sententiae eximie nos et unice delectabat, tanto id magis, quod iam tunc C. Graccho, viro inlustri et severo, eiusmodi compositionem fuisse cordi videbamus. Sed enim, cum eadem ipsa verba saepius petentibus nobis lectitarentur, admoniti a Castricio sumus ut consideraremus quae vis quodve emolumentum eius sententiae foret, neque pateremur ut aures nostrae cadentis apte orationis modis eblanditae animum quoque nobis voluptate inani perfunderent. Cumque nos admonitione ista adtentiores fecisset, “Inspicite,” inquit, “penitus quid efficiant verba haec, dicatque mihi, quaeso, aliqui vestrum, an sit ulla huiusce sententiae gravitas aut gratia: ‘Quae vos cupide per hosce annos adpetistis atque voluistis, ea si temere repudiaritis, abesse non potest quin aut olim cupide adpetisse aut nunc temere repudiasse dicamini.’” “Cui enim omnium hominum in mentem non venit id profecto usu venire, ut quod cupide adpetieris, cupide adpetisse et quod temere repudiaveris, temere repudiasse dicaris?” “At si, opinor,” inquit, “ita scriptum esset: ‘Quae vos per hosce annos adpetistis atque voluistis, ea nunc si repudiaritis, abesse non potest quin aut olim cupide adpetisse aut nunc temere repudiasse dicamini’;” “si ita,” inquit, “diceretur, gravior scilicet solidiorque fieret sententia et acciperet aliquid iustae in audiendo expectationis;” “nunc autem verba haec ‘cupide’ et ‘temere,’ in quibus verbis omne momentum rei est, non in concludenda sententia tantum dicuntur, sed supra quoque nondum desiderata ponuntur et quae nasci oririque ex ipsa rei conceptione debebant, ante omnino quam res postulat dicuntur. Nam qui ita dicit: ‘si hoc feceris, cupide fecisse diceris,’ rem dicit sensus alicuius ratione conlectam et consertam; qui vero ita dicit: ‘si cupide feceris, cupide fecisse diceris,’ non longe secus dicit atque si diceret: ‘si cupide feceris, cupide feceris.’” “Haec ego,” inquit, “admonui, non ut C. Graccho vitio darem,—dii enim mentem meliorem mihi! nam, si quicquam in tam fortis facundiae viro vitii vel erroris esse dici potest, id omne et auctoritas eius exhausit et vetustas consumpsit,—sed uti caveretis ne vos facile praestringeret modulatus aliqui currentis facundiae sonitus atque ut vim ipsam rerum virtutemque verborum prius pensitaretis et, si quidem gravis atque integra et sincera sententia diceretur, tum, si ita videretur, gressibus quoque ipsis orationis et gestibus plauderetis; si vero frigidi et leves et futtiles sensus in verba apte numeroseque posita includerentur, non esse id secus crederetis quam cum homines insigni deformitate ac facie deridicula imitantur histriones et gestiunt.”

[¶2] 14. The discreet and admirable reply of King Romulus as to his use of wine. Lucius Piso FRUGI has shown an elegant simplicity of diction and thought in the first book of his Annals, when writing of the life and habits of King Romulus. His words are as follows: “They say also of Romulus, that being invited to dinner, he drank but little there, giving the reason that he had business for the following day. They answer: ' If all men were like you, Romulus, wine would be cheaper.' ' Nay, dear,' answered Romulus, ' if each man drank as much as he wished; for I drank as much as I wished.'”

> Latin: 14. Sobria et pulcherrima Romuli regis responsio circa vini usum. SIMPLICISSIMA suavitate et rei et orationis L. Piso Frugi usus est in primo Annali, cum de Romuli regis vita atque victu scriberet. Ea verba, quae scripsit, haec sunt: “Eundem Romulum dicunt, ad cenam vocatum, ibi non multum bibisse, quia postridie negotium haberet. Ei dicunt: ‘Romule, si istud omnes homines faciant, vinum vilius sit.’ His respondit: ‘immo vero carum, si quantum quisque volet bibat; nam ego bibi, quantum volui.’”

[¶3] 15. On ludibundus and errabundus and the suffix in words of that kind; that Laberius used amorabunda in the same way as ludibunda and errabunda; also that Sisenna in the case of a word of that sort made a new form. LABERIUS in his Lake Avernus spoke of a woman in love as amorabunda, coining a word in a somewhat unusual manner. Caesellius Vindex in his Commentary on Archaic Words said that this word was used on the same principle that ludibunda, ridibunda and errabunda are used for ludens, ridens and errans. But Terentius Scaurus, a highly distinguished grammarian of the time of the deified Hadrian, among other things which he wrote On the Mistakes of Caesellius, declared that about this word also he was wrong in thinking that ludens and ludibunda, ridens and ridibunda, errans and errabunda were identical. “For ludibunda, ridibunda, and errabunda,” he says, “are applied to one who plays the part of, or imitates, one who plays, laughs or wanders.” But why Scaurus was led to censure Caesellius on this point, I certainly could not understand. For there is no doubt that these words, each after its own kind, have the same meaning that is indicated by the words from which they are derived. But I should prefer to seem not to understand the meaning of “act the laugher” or “imitate the laugher” rather than charge Scaurus himself with lack of knowledge. But Scaurus ought rather, in censuring the commentaries of Caesellius, to have taken him to task for what he left unsaid; namely, whether ludibundus, ridibundus and errabundus differ at all from ludens, ridens and errans, and to what extent, and so with other words of the same kind; whether they differ only in some slight degree from their primitives, and what is the general force of the suffix which is added to words of that kind. For in examining a phenomenon of that nature that were a more pertinent inquiry, just as in vinulentus, lutulentus and turbulentus it is usual to ask whether that suffix is superfluous and without meaning, paragwgh/, as the Greeks say, or whether the suffix has some special force of its own. However, in noting this criticism of Scaurus it occurred to me that Sisenna, in the fourth book of his Histories, used a word of the same form. He says: “He came to the town, laying waste the fields (populabundus),” which of course means “while he was laying waste the fields,” not, as Sisenna says of similar words, “when he played the part of, or imitated, one laying waste.” But when I was inquiring about the signification and origin of such forms as populabundus, errabundus, laetabundus, ludibundus, and many other words of that kind, our friend Apollinaris—very appositely by Heaven! —remarked that it seemed to him that the final syllable of such words indicated force and abundance, and as it were, an excess of the quality belonging to the primitive word. Thus laetabundus is used of one who is excessively joyful, and errabundus of one who has wandered long and far, and he showed that all other words of that form are so used that this addition and ending indicates a great and overflowing force and abundance That the translation of certain Greek words into the Latin language is very difficult, for example, that which in Greek is called polupragmosu/nh.

> Latin: 15. De “ludibundo” et “errabundo” atque id genus verborum productionibus; et quod Laberius sic “amorabundam” dixit, ut dicitur “ludibunda” et “errabunda”; atque inibi quod Sisenna per huiuscemodi verbum nova figura usus est. LABERIUS in Lacu Averno mulierem amantem, verbo inusitatius ficto, “amorabundam” dixit. Id verbum Caesellius Vindex in Commentario Lectionum Antiquarum ea figura scriptum dixit, qua “ludibunda” et “ridibunda” et “errabunda” dicitur “ludens” et “ridens” et “errans.” Terentius autem Scaurus, divi Hadriani temporibus grammaticus vel nobilissimus, inter alia quae De Caeselli Erroribus conposuit, in hoc quoque verbo errasse eum scripsit, quod idem esse putaverit “ludens” et “ludibunda,” “ridens” et “ridibunda,” “errans” et “errabunda.” “Nam ‘ludibunda,’” inquit, “et ‘ridibunda’ et ‘errabunda’ ea dicitur quae ludentem vel ridentem vel errantem agit aut simulat.” Sed qua ratione Scaurus adductus sit ut Caesellium in eo reprehenderet,non hercle reperiebamus. Non est enim dubium quin haec, genere ipso dumtaxat, idem significent quod ea demonstrant a quibus producuntur. Quid esset autem ludentem agere vel imitari non intellegere videri maluimus quam insimulare eum tamquam ipsum minus intellegentem. Quin magis Scaurum oportuit, commentaria Caeselli criminantem, hoc ab eo praeteritum requirere, quod non dixerit an quid et quantulum differret a “ludibundo” “ludens” et “ridibundo” “ridens” et “errabundo” “errans” ceteraque quae horum sunt similia, an a principalibus verbis paulum aliquid distarent, et quam omnino vim haberet particula haec extrema eiusmodi vocabulis addita. Hoc enim fuit potius requirendum in istiusmodi figurae tractatu, sicuti requiri solet in “vinulento” et “lutulento” et “turbulento,” vacuane et inanis sit istaec productio, cuiusmodi sunt quae παραγωγάς GraeciGracci dicunt, an extrema illa particula habeat aliquid suae propriae significationis. Cum reprehensionem autem illam Scauri notaremus, in memoriam nobis rediit quod Sisenna in quarto Historiarum eiusdem figurae verbo ita usus est. “Populabundus,” inquit, “agros ad oppidum pervenit,” quod scilicet significat “cum agros popularetur,” non, ut Scaurus in consimilibus verbis ait, “cum populantem ageret” vel “cum imitaretur.” Sed inquirentibus nobis quaenam ratio et origo esset huiuscemodi figurae “populabundus” et “errabundus” et “laetabundus” et “ludibundus” multorumque aliorum id genus verborum, εὐεπιβόλως hercle Apollinaris noster videri sibi ait particulam istam postremam in quam verba talia exeunt vim et copiam et quasi abundantiam rei cuius id verbum esset demonstrare, ut “laetabundus” is dicatur qui abunde laetus sit, et “errabundus,” qui longo atque abundanti errore sit, ceteraque omnia ex ea figura ita dici ostendit, ut productio haec et extremitas largam et fluentem vim et copiam declararet.

[¶4] 16. looking for something else, the edicts of the early praetors fell into my hands, and I thought it worth while to read and become acquainted with them.

> Latin: 16. Quod Graecorum verborum quorundam difficillima est in Latinam linguam mutatio, velut quod Graece dicitur πολυπραγμοσύνη.

[¶5] Then I found this, written in one of the earlier edicts: “If anyone of those who have taken public contracts for clearing the rivers of nets shall be brought before me, and shall be accused of not having done that which by the terms of his contract he was bound to do.”

> Latin: ADIECIMUS saepe animum ad vocabula rerum non paucissima quae neque singulis verbis, ut a Graecis, neque, si maxime pluribus eas res verbis dicamus, tam dilucide tamque apte demonstrari Latina oratione possunt quam Graeci ea dicunt privis vocibus.

[¶6] Thereupon the question arose what “clearing of nets” meant.

> Latin: Nuper etiam cum adlatus esset ad nos Plutarchi liber et eius libri indicem legissemus, qui erat Περὶ Πολυπραγμοσύνης, percontanti cuipiam qui et litterarum et vocum Graecarum expers fuit cuiusnam liber et qua de re scriptus esset, nomen quidem scriptoris statim diximus, rem de qua scriptum fuit dicturi, haesimus.

[¶7] Then a friend of mine who was sitting with us said that he had read in the seventh book of Gavius On the Origin of Words that those trees which either projected from the banks of rivers, or were found in their beds, were called retae, and that they got their name from nets, because they impeded the course of ships and, so to speak, netted them.

> Latin: Ac tum quidem primo, quia non satis commode opinabar interpretaturum me esse, si dicerem librum scriptum “De Negotiositate,” aliud institui aput me exquirere, quod, ut dicitur, verbum de verbo expressum esset.

[¶8] Therefore he thought that the custom was to farm out the rivers to be “cleaned of nets,” that is to say, cleaned out, in order that vessels meeting such branches might suffer neither delay nor danger.

> Latin: Nihil erat prorsus quod aut meminissem legere me aut, si etiam vellem fingere, quod non insigniter asperum absurdumque esset, si ex multitudine et negotio verbum unum compingerem, sicuti “multiiuga” dicimus et “multicolora” et “multiformia.”
Sed non minus inlepide ita diceretur quam si interpretari voce una velis πολυφιλίαν aut πολυτροπίαν aut πολυσαρκίαν.

[¶9] The punishment which Draco the Athenian, in the laws which he made for his fellow-citizens, inflicted upon thieves; that of Solon later;

> Latin: Quamobrem, cum diutule tacitus in cogitando fuissem, respondi tandem non videri mihi significari eam rem posse uno nomine, et idcirco iuncta oratione quid vellet Graecum id verbum parabam dicere.

[¶10] and that of our own decemvirs, who compiled the Twelve Tables; to which it is added, that among the Egyptians thefts were permitted and lawful, while among the Lacedaemonians they were even strongly encouraged and commended as a useful exercise;

> Latin: “Ad multas igitur res adgressio earumque omnium rerum actio πολυπραγμοσύνη,” inquam, “Graece dicitur, de qua hunc librum conpositum esse, inscriptio ista indicat.”

[¶11] also a memorable utterance of Marcus Cato about the punishment of theft. DRACO the Athenian was considered a good man and of great wisdom, and he was skilled in law, human and divine.

> Latin: Tum ille opicus, verbis meis inchoatis et inconditis adductus virtutemque esse πολυπραγμοσύνην ratus, “Hortatur,” inquit, “nos profecto nescio quis hic Plutarchus ad negotia capessenda et ad res obeundas plurimas cum industria et celeritate, nomenque ipsius virtutis de qua locuturus esset libro ipsi, sicuti dicis, non incommode praescripsit.” “Minime,” inquam, “vero;”

[¶12] This Draco was the first of all to make laws for the use of the Athenians. In those laws he decreed and enacted that one guilty of any theft whatsoever should be punished with death, and added many other statutes that were excessively severe.

> Latin: “neque enim ista omnino virtus est, cuius Graeco nomine argumentum hoc libri demonstratur, neque id quod tu opinare aut ego me dicere sentio aut Plutarchus facit. Deterret enim nos hoc quidem in libro, quam potest maxime, a varia promiscaque et non necessaria rerum cuiuscemodi plurimarum et cogitatione et petitione.”

[¶13] Therefore his laws, since they seemed very much too harsh, were abolished, not by order and decree, but by the tacit, unwritten consent of the Athenians. After that, they made use of other, milder laws, compiled by Solon.

> Latin: “Sed huius,” inquam, “tui erroris culpam esse intellego in mea scilicet infacundia, qui ne pluribus quidem verbis potuerim non obscurissime dicere quod a Graecis perfectissime verbo uno et planissime dicitur.”

[¶14] This Solon was one of the famous seven wise men.

> Latin: Quid significet in veteribus praetorum edictis: “qui flumina retanda publice redempta habent.”

[¶15] He thought proper by his law to punish thieves, not with death, as Draco had formerly done, but by a fine of twice the value of the stolen goods.

> Latin: EDICTA veterum praetorum sedentibus forte nobis in bibliotheca templi Traiani et aliud quid quaerentibus cum in manus incidissent, legere atque cognoscere libitum est.

[¶16] But our decemvirs, who after the expulsion of the kings compiled laws on Twelve Tables for the use of the Romans, did not show equal severity in punishing thieves of every kind, nor yet too lax leniency.

> Latin: Tum in quodam edicto antiquiore ita scriptum invenimus: “Qui flumina retanda publice redempta habent, si quis eorum ad me eductus fuerit, qui dicatur quod eum ex lege locationis facere oportuerit non fecisse.”
“Retanda” igitur quid esset quaerebatur.

[¶17] For they permitted a thief who was caught in the act to be put to death, only if it was night when he committed the theft, or if in the daytime he defended himself with a weapon when taken. But other thieves taken in the act, if they were freemen, the decemvirs ordered to be scourged and handed over to the one from whom the theft had been made, provided they had committed the theft in daylight and had not defended themselves with a weapon. Slaves taken in the act were to be scourged and hurled from the rock, but they decided that boys under age should be flogged at the discretion of the praetor and the damage which they had done made good. Those thefts also which were detected by the girdle and mask, they punished as if the culprit had been caught in the act.

> Latin: Dixit ibi quispiam nobiscum sedens amicus meus in libro se Gavi De Origine Vocabulorum VII. legisse, “retas” vocari arbores quae aut ripis fluminum eminerent aut in alveis eorum extarent, appellatasque esse a retibus, quod praetereuntes naves inpedirent et quasi inretirent; idcircoque sese arbitrari, “retanda” flumina locari solita esse, id est purganda, ne quid aut morae aut periculi navibus in ea virgulta incidentibus fieret. Qua poena Draco Atheniensis, in legibus quas populo Atheniensi scripsit, fures adfecerit; et qua postea Solon; et qua item decemviri nostri, qui duodecimDaodecim Tabulas scripserunt; atque inibi adscriptum quod aput Aegyptios furta licita et permissa sunt, aput Lacedaemonios autem cum studio quoque adfectata et pro exercitio utili celebrata; ac praeterea M. Catonis de poeniendis furtis digna memoria sententia.

[¶18] But to-day we have departed from that law of the decemvirs;

> Latin: DRACO Atheniensis vir bonus multaque esse prudentia existimatus est iurisque divini et humani peritus fuit.
Is Draco leges, quibus Athenienses uterentur, primus omnium tulit.

[¶19] for if anyone wishes to try a case of manifest theft by process of law, action is brought for four times the value.

> Latin: In illis legibus furem cuiusmodicumque furti supplicio capitis poeniendum esse et alia pleraque nimis severe censuit sanxitque.

[¶20] But “manifest theft,” says Masurius, “is one which is detected while it is being committed. The act is completed when the stolen object is carried to its destination.”

> Latin: Eius igitur leges, quoniam videbantur impendio acerbiores, non decreto iussoque, set tacito inlitteratoque Atheniensium consensu oblitteratae sunt. Postea legibus aliis mitioribusnitioribus,

[¶21] When stolen goods are found in possession of the thief (concepti) or in that of another (oblati), the penalty is threefold.

> Latin: a Solone compositiscornpositis, usi sunt. Is Solon e septem illis inclutis sapientibus fuit. Is sua lege in fures, non, ut Draco antea, mortis, sed dupli poena vindicandum existimavit.

[¶22] But one who wishes to learn what oblatum means, and conceptum, and many other particulars of the same kind taken from the admirable customs of our forefathers, and both useful and agreeable to know, will consult the book of Sabinus entitled On Thefts.

> Latin: Decemviri autem nostri, qui post reges exactos leges, quibus populus Romanus uteretur, in XII. Tabulis scripserunt, neque pari severitate in poeniendis omnium generum furibusfurious neque remissa nimis lenitate usi sunt.
Nam furem qui manifesto furto prensus esset tum demum occidi permiserunt, si aut, cum faceret furtum, nox esset, aut interdiu telo se, cum prenderetur, defenderet.

[¶23] In this book there is also written a thing that is not commonly known, that thefts are committed, not only of men and movable objects which can be purloined and carried off secretly, but also of an estate and of houses; also that a farmer was found guilty of theft, because he had sold the farm which he had rented and deprived the owner of its possession.

> Latin: Ex ceteris autem manifestis furibus liberos verberari addicique iusserunt ei cui furtum factum esset, si modo id luci fecissent neque se telo defendissent; servos item furti manifesti prensos verberibus adfici et e saxo praecipitari, sed pueros inpuberes praetoris arbitratu verberari voluerunt noxiamque ab his factam sarciri.
Ea quoque furta quae per lancem liciumque concepta essent, proinde ac si manifesta forent, vindicaverunt.

[¶24] And Sabinus tells this also, which is still more surprising, that one person was convicted of having stolen a man, who, when a runaway slave chanced to pass within sight of his master, held out his gown as if he were putting it on, and so prevented the slave from being seen by his master.

> Latin: Sed nunc a lege illa decemvirali discessum est. Nam si qui super manifesto furto iure et ordine experiri velit, actio in quadruplum datur.
“Manifestum” autem “furtum est,” ut ait Masurius, “quod deprehenditur dum fit. Faciendi finis est, cum perlatum est quo ferri coeperat.”

[¶25] Then upon all other thefts, which were called “not manifest,” they imposed a two-fold penalty.

> Latin: Furti concepti, item oblati, tripli poena est.

[¶26] I recall also that I read in the work of the jurist Aristo, a man of no slight learning, that among the ancient Egyptians, a race of men known to have been ingenious in inventions and keen in getting at the bottom of things, thefts of all kinds were lawful and went unpunished.

> Latin: Sed quod sit “oblatum,” quod “conceptum,” et pleraque alia ad eam rem ex egregiis veterum moribus accepta neque inutilia cognitu neque iniucunda qui legere volet, inveniet Sabini librum cui titulus est De Furtis.
In quo id quoque scriptum est, quod volgo inopinatum est, non hominum tantum neque rerum moventium, quae auferri occulte et subripi possunt, sed fundi quoque et aedium fieri furtum; condemnatum quoque furti colonum, qui fundo quem conduxerat vendito, possessione eius dominum intervertisset.

[¶27] Among the Lacedaemonians too, those serious and vigorous men (a matter for which the evidence is not so remote as in the case of the Egyptians) many famous writers, who have composed records of their laws and customs, affirm that thieving was lawful and customary, and that it was practised by their young men, not for base gain or to furnish the means for indulgence or amassing wealth, but as an exercise and training in the art of war;

> Latin: Atque id etiam, quod magis inopinabile est, Sabinus dicit, furem esse hominis iudicatum, qui cum fugitivus praeter oculos forte domini iret, obtentu togae, tamquam se amiciens, ne videretur a domino, obstitisset.
Allis deinde furtis omnibus, quae “nec manifesta” appellantur, poenam imposuerunt dupli.

[¶28] for dexterity and practice in thieving made the minds of the youth keen and strong for clever ambuscades, and for endurance in watching, and for the swiftness of surprise.

> Latin: Id etiam memini legere me in libro Aristonis iureconsulti, hautquaquam indocti viri, aput veteres Aegyptios, quod genus hominum constat et in artibus reperiendis sollertes extitisse et in cognitione rerum indaganda sagaces, furta omnia fuisse licita et inpunita.

[¶29] Marcus Cato, however, in the speech which he wrote On Dividing Spoils among the Soldiers, complains in strong and choice language about unpunished thievery and lawlessness. I have quoted his words, since they pleased me greatly: “Those who commit private theft pass their lives in confinement and fetters; plunderers of the public, in purple and gold.”

> Latin: Aput Lacedaemonios quoque, sobrios illos et acres viros, cuius rei non adeo ut Aegyptiis fides longinqua est, non pauci neque ignobiles scriptores, qui de moribus legibusque eorum memorias condiderunt, ius atque usum fuisse furandi dicunt, idque a iuventute eorum non ad turpia lucra neque ad sumptum libidini praebendum comparandamve opulentiam, sed pro exercitio disciplinaque rei bellicae factitatum, quod et furandi sollertia et adsuetudo acueret firmaretque animos adulescentium et ad insidiarum astus et ad vigilandi tolerantiam et ad obrependi celeritatem.

[¶30] But I think I ought not to pass over the highly ethical and strict definition of theft made by the wisest men, lest anyone should consider him only a thief who privately purloins anything or secretly carries it off. The words are those of Sabinus in his second book On Civil Law: “He is guilty of theft who has touched anything belonging to another, when he has reason to know that he does so against the owner's will.”

> Latin: Sed enim M. Cato in oratione, quam De Praeda Militibus Dividenda scripsit, vehementibus et inlustribus verbis de inpunitate peculatus atque licentia conqueritur. Ea verba, quoniam nobis inpense placuerunt. adscripsimus: “Fures,” inquit, “privatorum furtorum in nervo atque in compedibus aetatem agunt, fures publici in auro atque in purpura.”

[¶31] Also in another chapter: “He who silently carries off another's property for the sake of gain is guilty of theft, whether he knows to whom the object belongs or not.”

> Latin: Quam caste autem ac religiose a prudentissimis viris quid esset “furtum” definitum sit, praetereundum non puto, ne quis eum solum esse furem putet, qui occulte tollit aut clam subripit.
Verba sunt Sabini ex libro luris Civilis secundo: “Qui alienam rem adtrectavit, cum id se invito domino facere iudicare deberet, furti tenetur.”

[¶32] Thus has Sabinus written, in the book which I just now mentioned, about handling things for the purpose of stealing them.

> Latin: Item alio capite: “Qui alienum tacens lucri faciendi causa sustulit, furti obstringitur, sive scit cuius sit, sive nescit.”

[¶33] But we ought to remember, according to what I have written above, that a theft may be committed even without touching anything, when the mind alone and the thoughts desire that a theft be committed.

> Latin: Haec quidem sic, in eo quo nunc dixi, Sabinus scripsit de rebus furti faciendi causa adtrectatis.
Sed meminisse debemus, secundum ea quae supra scripsi, furtum sine ulla quoque adtrectatione fieri posse, sola mente atque animo ut furtum fiat adnitente.

[¶34] Therefore Sabinus says that he has no doubt that a master should be convicted of theft who has ordered a slave of his to steal something.

> Latin: Quocirca ne id quidem Sabinus dubitare se ait, quin dominus furti sit condemnandus qui servo suo uti furtum faceret imperavit.