---
title: "Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae"
author: "Aulus Gellius"
translator: "John C. Rolfe"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 31 of 46
url: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/31/
cite: "Aulus Gellius, tr. John C. Rolfe, Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae, section 31. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/31/"
---

# 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.

## 31. Book XIII · chapters 24–31

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/31/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/31/#p-N

[¶0] 24. Remarks of Marcus Cato, who declared that he lacked many things, yet desired nothing. MARCUS CATO, ex-consul and ex-censor, says that when the State and private individuals were abounding in wealth, his country-seats were plain and unadorned, and not even whitewashed, up to the seventieth year of his age. And later he uses these words on the subject: “I have no building, utensil or garment bought with a great price, no costly slave or maidservant. If I have anything to use,” he says, “I use it; if not, I do without. So far as I am concerned, everyone may use and enjoy what he has.” Then he goes on to say: “They find fault with me, because I lack many things; but I with them, because they cannot do without them.” This simple frankness of the man of Tusculum, who says that he lacks many things, yet desires nothing, truly has more effect in inducing thrift and contentment with small means than the Greek sophistries of those who profess to be philosophers and invent vain shadows of words, declaring that they have nothing and yet lack nothing and desire nothing, while all the time they are fevered with having, with lacking, and with desiring.

> Latin: 24. Verba M. Catonis, egere se multis rebus et nihil tamen cupere dicentis. M. CATO, consularis et censorius, publicis iam privatisque opulentis rebus, villas suas inexcultas et rudes, ne tectorio quidem praelitas fuisse dicit ad annum usque aetatis suae septuagesimum. Atque ibi postea his verbis utitur: “Neque mihi,” inquit, “aedificatio neque vasum neque vestimentum ullum est manupretiosum neque pretiosus servus neque ancilla. Si quid est,” inquit, “quod utar, utor; si non est, egeo. Suum cuique per me uti atque frui licet.” Tum deinde addit: “Vitio vertunt, quia multa egeo; at ego illis, quia nequeunt egere.” Haec mera veritas Tusculani hominis, egere se multis rebus et nihil tamen cupere dicentis, plus hercle promovet ad exhortandam parsimoniam sustinendamque inopiam quam Graecae istorum praestigiae, philosophari sese dicentium umbrasque verborum inanes fingentium, qui se nihil habere et nihil tamen egere ac nihil cupere dicunt, cum et habendo et egendo et cupiendo ardeant.

[¶1] 25. The meaning of manubiae is asked and discussed; with some observations as to the propriety of using several words of the same meaning.

> Latin: 25. Quaesitum tractatumque, quid sint “manubiae”; atque inibi dicta quaedam de ratione utendi verbis pluribus idem significantibus.

[¶2] ALL along the roof of the colonnades of Trajan's forum there are placed gilded statues of horses and representations of military standards, and underneath is written Ex manubiis.

> Latin: IN fastigiis fori Traiani simulacra sunt sita circumundique inaurata equorum atque signorm militarium, subscriptumque est:

[¶3] Favorinus inquired, when he was walking in the court of the forum, waiting for his friend the consul, who was hearing cases from the tribunal—and I at the time was in attendance on him—he asked, I say, what that inscription manubiae seemed to us really to mean.

> Latin: “Ex manubiis.” Quaerebat Favorinus, cum in area fori ambularet et amicum suum consulem opperiretur causas pro tribunali cognoscentem nosque tunc eum sectaremur—quaerebat, inquam, quid nobis videretur significare proprie “manubiarum” illa inscriptio.

[¶4] Then one of those who were with him, a man of a great and wide-spread reputation for his devotion to learned pursuits, said: “Ex manubiis is the same as ex praeda; for manubiae is the term for booty which is taken mann, that is 'by hand.'”

> Latin: Tum quispiam qui cum eo erat, homo in studiis doctrinae multi atque celebrati nominis: “Ex manubiis,” inquit, “significat ‘ex praeda’; ‘manubiae’ enim dicuntur praeda quae manu capta est.” “Etiamsi,” inquit Favorinus,

[¶5] Then Favorinus rejoined: “Although my principal and almost my entire attention has been given to the literature and arts of Greece, I am nevertheless not so inattentive to the Latin language, to which I devote occasional or desultory study, as to be unaware of this common interpretation of manubiae, which makes it a synonym of praeda. But I raise the question, whether Marcus Tullius, a man most careful in his diction, in the speech which he delivered against Rullus on the first of January On the Agrarian Law, joined manubiae and praeda by an idle and inelegant repetition, if it be true that these two words have the same meaning and do not differ in any respect at all.” And then, such was Favorinus' marvellous and almost miraculous memory, he at once added Cicero's own words.

> Latin: “opera mihi princeps et prope omnis in litteris disciplinisque Graecis sumpta est, non usque eo tamen infrequens sum vocum Latinarum, quas subsicivo aut tumultuario studio colo, ut hanc ignorem manubiarum interpretationem vulgariam, quod esse dicantur ‘manubiae’ praeda. Sed quaero an M. Tullius, verborum homo diligentissimus, in oratione quam dixit De Lege Agraria Kalendis Ianuariis contra Rullum, inani et inlepida geminatione iunxerit ‘manubias’ et ‘praedam,’ si duo haec verba idem significant neque ulla re aliqua dissident.” Atque, ut erat Favorinus egregia vel divina quadam memoria,
verba ipsa M. Tulli statim dixit.

[¶6] These I have appended: “The decemvirs will sell the booty (praedam), the proceeds of the spoils (manubias), the goods reserved for public auction, in fact Gnaeus Pompeius' camp, while the general sits looking on”;

> Latin: Ea nos hic adscripsimus: “Praedam, manubias, sectionem, castra denique Cn. Pompei, sedente imperatore, decemviri vendent”; et infra itidem duo haec simul iunctim posita dixit: “Ex praeda, ex manubiis, ex auro coronario.”

[¶7] and just below he again used these two words in conjunction: “From the booty (ex praeda), from the proceeds of the spoils (ex manubiis), from the crown-money.” Then, turning to the man who had said that manubiae was the same as praeda, Favorinus said, "Does it seem to you that in both these passages Marcus Cicero weakly and frigidly used two words which, as you think, mean the same thing, thus showing himself deserving of the ridicule with which in Aristophanes, the wittiest of comic writers, Euripides assailed Aeschylus, saying:
Wise Aeschylus has said the same thing twice;
'I come into the land,' says he, 'and enter it.'
But 'enter' and ' come into' are the same.

> Latin: Ac deinde ad eum convertit qui manubias esse praedam dixerat, et: “Videturne tibi,” inquit, “utroque in loco M. Cicero duobus verbis idem, sicuti tu putas, significantibus inepte et frigide esse usus ac tali ioco dignus quali apud Aristophanen, facetissimum comicorum, Euripides Aeschylum insectatus est, cum ait:
Δὶς ταὐτὸν ἡμῖν εἶπεν ὁ σοφὸς Αἰσχύλος.
Ἥκω γὰρ εἰς γῆν, φησι., καὶ κατέρχομαι·
Ἥκω δὲ ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ κατέρχομαι.
Νὴ τὸν Δίʼ, ὥσπερ γʼ εἴ τις εἴποι γείτονι,
Χρῆσον σὺ μάκτραν, εἰ δὲ βούλει, κάρδοπον?”

[¶8] By Heaven, yes! It's just as if one said
To a neighbour: 'Use the pot, or else the pan'? “But by no means,” said he, “do Cicero's words seem like such repetitions as ma/ktra, pot, and ka/rdopos, pan, which are used either by our own poets or orators and those of the Greeks, for the purpose of giving weight or adornment to their subject by the use of two or more words of the same meaning.”

> Latin: “Nequaquam vero,” inquit ille, “talia videntur, quale est μάκτρα et κάρδοπος, qua vel a poetis vel oratoribus Graecis nostrisque venerandae et ornandae rei gratia duobus eadem pluribusve nominibus frequentantur.”

[¶9] “Pray,” said Favorinus, "what force has this repetition and recapitulation of the same thing under another name in manubiae and praeda? It does not adorn the sentence, does it, as is sometimes the case? It does not make it more exact or more melodious, does it? Does it make an effective cumulation of words designed to strengthen the accusation or brand the crime? As, for example, in the speech of the same Marcus Tullius On the Appointment of an Accuser one and the same thing is expressed in several words with force and severity: ' All Sicily, if it could speak with one voice, would say this: “Whatever gold, whatever silver, whatever jewels I had in my cities, abodes and shrines.'”

> Latin: “Quid igitur,” inquit Favorinus, “valet haec repetitio instauratioque eiusdem rei sub alio nomine in ‘manubiis’ et in ‘praeda’? Num ornat, ut alioqui solet, orationem? Num eam modulatiorem aptioremque reddit? Num onerandi vel exprobrandi criminis causa exaggerationem aliquam speciosam facit? Sicut in libro eiusdem M. Tulli, qui De Constituendo Accusatore est, una eademque res pluribus verbis vehementer atque atrociter dicitur: ‘Sicilia tota, si una voce loqueretur, hoc diceret: “Quod auri, quod argenti, quod ornamentorum in meis urbibus, sedibus, delubris fuit.”’ Nam cum urbes semel totas dixisset, sedes delubraque addidit, quae sunt ipsa quoque in urbibus. Item in eodem libro simili modo:”

[¶10] For having once mentioned the cities as a whole, he added 'abodes' and 'shrines,' which are themselves a part of the cities.

> Latin: “‘Siciliam,’ inquit, ‘provinciam C. Verres per triennium depopulatus esse, Siculorum civitates vastasse, domos exinanisse, fana spoliasse dicitur.’”

[¶11] Also in the same oration he says in a similar manner: 'During three years Gaius Verres is said to have plundered the province of Sicily, devastated the cities of the Sicilians, emptied their homes, pillaged their shrines.' Does he not seem to you, when he had mentioned the province of Sicily and had besides added the cities as well, to have included the houses also and the shrines, which he later mentioned? So too do not those many and varied words, 'plundered, devastated, emptied, pillaged,' have one and the same force? They surely do.

> Latin: “Ecquid videtur, cum Siciliam provinciam dixerit atque insuper etiam civitates addiderit, domos etiam et fana, quae infra posuit, conprehendisse? Verba haec item multa atque varia: ‘depopulatus esse, vastasse, exinanisse, spoliasse,’ nonne unam et eandem vim in sese habent? Sane. Sed quia cum dignitate orationis et cum gravi verborum copia dicuntur, quamquam eadem fere sint et ex una sententia cooriantur, plura tamen esse existimantur, quoniam et aures et animum saepius feriunt.”

[¶12] But since the mention of them all adds to the dignity of the speech and the impressive copiousness of its diction, although they are nearly the same and spring from a single idea, yet they appear to contain more meaning because they strike the ears and mind more frequently. "This kind of adornment, by heaping up in a single charge a great number of severe terms, was frequently used even in early days by our most ancient orator, the famous Marcus Cato, in his speeches; for example in the one entitled On the Ten, when he accused Thermus because he had put to death ten freeborn men at the same time, he used the following words of the same meaning, which, as they are brilliant flashes of Latin eloquence, which was just then coming into being, I have thought fit to call to mind: 'You seek to cover up your abominable crime with a still worse crime, you slaughter men like swine, you commit frightful bloodshed, you cause ten deaths, slay ten freemen, take life from ten men, untried, unjudged, uncondemned.'

> Latin: “Hoc ornatus genus in crimine uno vocibus multis atque saevis extruendo ille iam tunc M. Cato antiquissimus in orationibus suis celebravit, sicuti in illa, quae inscripta est De Decem Hominibus, cum Thermum accusavit quod decem liberos homines eodem tempore interfecisset, hisce verbis eandem omnibus rem significantibus usus est, quae quoniam sunt eloquentiae Latinae tunc primum exorientis lumina quaedam sublustria, libitum est ea mihi ἀπομνημονεύειν: ‘Tuum nefarium facinus peiore facinore operire postulas, succidias humanas facis, tantam trucidationem facis, decem funera facis, decem capita libera interficis, decem hominibus vitam eripis, indicta causa, iniudicatis, incondemnatis.’”

[¶13] So too Marcus Cato, at the beginning of the speech which he delivered in the senate, In Defence of the Rhodians, wishing to describe too great prosperity, used three words which mean the same thing.

> Latin: “Item M. Cato in orationis principio, quam dixit in senatu Pro Rodiensibus, cum vellet res nimis prosperas dicere, tribus vocabulis idem sentientibus dixit.”

[¶14] His language is as follows: I know that most men in favourable, happy and prosperous circumstances are wont to be puffed up in spirit and to increase in arrogance and haughtiness.'

> Latin: “Verba eius haec sunt: ‘Scio solere plerisque hominibus in rebus secundis atque prolixis atque prosperis animum excellere atque superbiam atque ferociam augescere.’”

[¶15] In the seventh book of his Origins too, in the speech which he spoke Against Servius Galba, Cato used several words to express the same thing: ' Many things have dissuaded me from appearing here, my years, my time of life, my voice, my strength, my old age;

> Latin: “Itidem Cato ex Originum VII., in oratione quam Contra Servium Galbam dixit, conpluribus vocabulis super eadem re usus est: ‘Multa me dehortata sunt huc prodire, anni, aetas, vox, vires, senectus; verum enimvero cum tantam rem peragier arbitrarer … ’”

[¶16] but nevertheless, when I reflected that so important a matter was being discussed..." "But above all in Homer there is a brilliant heaping up of the same idea and thought, in these lines:
Zeus from the weapons, from the dust and blood,
From carnage, from the tumult Hector bore.

> Latin: “Sed ante omnis apud Homerum eiusdem rei atque sententiae luculenta exaggeratio est:
Ἕκτορα δʼ ἐκ βελέων ὕπαγε Ζεὺς ἔκ τε κονίης
Ἔκ τʼ ἀνδροκτασίης ἔκ θʼ αἵματος ἔκ τε κυδοιμοῦ.
Item alio in versu:
Ὑσμῖναί τε μαχαί τε φόνοι τʼ ἀνδροκτασίαι τε.”

[¶17] Also in another verse:
Engagements, battles, carnage, deaths of men.
For although all those numerous synonymous terms mean nothing more than 'battle,' yet the varied aspects of this concept are elegantly and charmingly depicted by the use of several different words.

> Latin: “Nam cum omnia ista utrubique multa et cognominata nihil plus demonstrent quam ‘proelium,’ huius tamen rei varia facies delectabiliter ac decore multis variisque verbis depicta est.”

[¶18] And in the same poet this one thought is repeated with admirable effect by the use of two words; for Idaeus, when he interrupted the armed contest of Hector and Ajax, addressed them thus:
No longer fight, dear youths, nor still contend,
and in this verse it ought not to be supposed that the second word, meaning the same as the first, was added and lugged in without reason, merely to fill out the metre;

> Latin: “Neque non illa quoque aput eundem poetam una in duobus verbis sententia cum egregia ratione repetita est; Idaeus enim, cum inter Aiacem et Hectorem decertantes armis intercederet, his ad eos verbis usus est:
Μηκέτι, παῖδε φίλω, πολεμίζετε μηδὲ μάχεσθε,”

[¶19] for that is utterly silly and false. But while he gently and calmly chided the obstinate fierceness and love of battle in two youths burning with a desire for glory, he emphasized and impressed upon them the atrocity of the act and the sin of their insistence by adding one word to another; and that double form of address made his admonition more impressive.

> Latin: “in quo versu non oportet videri alterum verbum, idem quod superius significans, supplendi numeri causa extrinsecus additum et consarcinatum. Est enim hoc inane admodum et futtile. Sed cum in iuvenibus gloriae studio flagrantibus pervicaciam ferociamque et cupidinem pugnae leniter tamen ac placide obiurgaret, atrocitatem rei et culpam perseverandi bis idem dicendo alio atque alio verbo auxit inculcavitque, duplexque eadem conpellatio admonitionem facit instantiorem.”

[¶20] Nor ought the following repetition of the same thought to seem any more weak and cold:
With death the suitors threatened, and with fate, Telemachus,
because he said the same thing twice in qa/naton (death) and mo/ron (fate); for the heinousness of attempting so cruel and unjust a murder is deplored by the admirable repetition of the word meaning 'death.'

> Latin: “Ne illa quidem significationis eiusdemi repetitio ignava et frigida videri debet:
Μνηστῆρες δʼ ἄρα Τηλεμάχῳ θάνατόν τε μόρον τε Ἤρτυον,
quod bis idem, θάνατον et μόρον, dixerit; indignitas enim moliendae tam acerbae tamque iniustae necis miranda mortis iteratione defleta est.”

[¶21] Who too is of so dull a mind as not to understand that in
Away, begone, dire dream,
and
Away, begone, swift Iris,
two words of the same meaning are not used to no purpose, e)k parallh/lwn, 'as the repetition of two similar words,' as some think, but are a vigorous exhortation to the swiftness which is enjoined?"

> Latin: “Ceterum quis tam obtunso ingeniost, quin intellegat:
Βάσκʼ ἴθι, οὖλε Ὄνειρε,
et:
Βάσκʼ ἴθι, Ἶρι ταχεῖα,
verba idem duo significantia non frustra posita esse ἐκ παραλλήλων, ut quidam putant, sed hortamentum esse acre imperatae celeritatis?”

[¶22] “Also those thrice repeated words in the speech of Marcus Cicero Against Lucius Piso, although displeasing to men of less sensitive ears, did not merely aim at elegance, but buffeted Piso's assumed expression of countenance by the rhythmical accumulation of several words.

> Latin: “Verba quoque illa M. Ciceronis In L. Pisonen trigemina, etiamsi durae auris hominibus non placent, non venustatem modo numeris quaesiverunt, sed figuram simulationemque oris pluribus simul vocibus everberaverunt:”

[¶23] Cicero says: Finally, your whole countenance, which is, so to speak, the silent voice of the mind, this it was that incited men to crime, this deceived, tricked, cheated those to whom it was not familiar.'

> Latin: “‘Vultus denique,’ inquit, ‘totus, qui sermo quidam tacitus mentis est, hic in fraudem homines impulit, hic eos quibus erat ignotus decepit, fefellit, induxit.’”

[¶24] Well then,” continued Favorinus, "is the use of praeda and manubiae in the same writer similar to this? Truly, not at all!

> Latin: “Quid igitur? Simile est,” inquit, “apud eundem in ‘praeda’ et ‘manubiis’? Nihil profecto istiusmodi est.”

[¶25] For by the addition of manubiae the sentence does not become more ornate, more forcible, or more euphonius; but manubiae means one thing, as we learn from the books on antiquities and on the early Latin, praeda quite another.

> Latin: “Nam neque ornatius fit additis ‘manubiis’ neque exaggeratius modulatiusve; sed aliud omnino ‘praeda’ est, ut in libris rerum verborumque veterum scriptum est,”
“aliud ‘manubiae.’ Nam ‘praeda’ dicitur corpora ipsa rerum quae capta sunt, ‘manubiae’”

[¶26] For praeda is used of the actual objects making up the booty, but manubiae designates the money collected by the quaestor from the sale of the booty. Therefore Marcus Tullius, in order to rouse greater hatred of the decemvirs, said that they would carry off and appropriate the two: both the booty which had not yet been sold and the money which had been received from the sale of the booty."

> Latin: “vero appellatae sunt pecunia a quaestore ex venditione praedae redacta. Utrumque ergo dixit M. Tullius cumulandae invidiae gratia decemviros ablaturos persecuturosque: et praedam quae nondum esset venundata, et pecuniam quae ex venditione praedae percepta esset.”

[¶27] “Therefore this inscription which you see, ex manubiis, does not designate the objects and the mass of booty itself, for none of these was taken from the enemy by Trajan, but it declares that these statues were made and procured 'from the manubiae,' that is, with the money derived from the sale of the booty.

> Latin: “Itaque haec inscriptio quam videtis: ‘Ex manubiis,’ non res corporaque ipsa praedae demonstrat, nihil enim captum est horum a Traiano ex hostibus, sed facta esse haec conparataque ‘ex manubiis,’ id est ex pecunia praedaticia, declarat.”
“‘Manubiae’ enim sunt, sicuti iam dixi, non praeda,”

[¶28] For manubiae means, as I have already said, not booty, but money collected from the sale of the booty by a quaestor of the Roman people. But when I said 'by the quaestor,' one ought now to understand that the praefect of the treasury is meant.

> Latin: “sed pecunia per quaestorem populi Romani ex praeda vendita contracta. Quod ‘per quaestorem’ autem dixi, intellegi nunc oportet praefectum aerario significari.”

[¶29] For the charge of the treasury has been transferred from the quaestors to praefects. However, it is possible to find instances in which writers of no little fame have written in such a way as to use praeda for manubiae or manubiae for praeda, either from carelessness or indifference; or by some metaphorical figure they have interchanged the words, which is allowable when done with judgment and skill.

> Latin: “Nam cura aerarii a quaestoribus ad praefectos translata est. Est tamen nonnusquam invenire ita scripsisse quosdam non ignobiles scriptores, ut aut temere aut incuriose ‘praedam’ pro ‘manubiis’ et ‘manubias’ pro ‘praeda’ posuerint, aut tropica quadam figura mutationem vocabuli fecerint, quod facere concessum est scite id periteque facientibus.”

[¶30] But those who have spoken properly and accurately, as did Marcus Tullius in that passage, have used manubiae of money.”

> Latin: “Sed enim, qui proprie atque signate locuti sunt, sicut hoc in loco M. Tullius, ‘manubias’ pecuniam dixerunt.”

[¶31] 26. A passage of Publius Nigidius in which he says that in Valeri, the vocative case of the name Valerius, the first syllable should have an acute accent; with other remarks of the same writer on correct writing. THESE are the words of Publius Nigidius, a man pre-eminent for his knowledge of all the sciences, from the twenty-fourth book of his Grammatical Notes: “How then can the accent be correctly used, if in names like Valeri we do not know whether they are genitive or vocative? For the second syllable of the genitive has a higher pitch than the first, and on the last syllable the pitch falls again; but in the vocative case the first syllable has the highest pitch, and then there is a gradual descent.” Thus indeed Nigidius bids us speak. But if anyone nowadays, calling to a Valerius, accents the first syllable of the vocative according to the direction of Nigidius, he will not escape being laughed at. Furthermore, Nigidius calls the acute accent “the highest pitch,” and what we call accentus, or “accent,” he calls voculatio, or “tone,” and the case which we now call genetivus, or “genitive,” he calls casus interrogandi, “the case of asking.” This too I notice in the same book of Nigidius: “If you write the genitive case of amicus,” he says, “or of magnus, end the word with a single i; but if you write the nominative plural, you must write magnei and amicei, with an e followed by i, and so with similar words. Also if you write terra in the genitive, let it end with the letter i, as terrai; but in the dative with e, as terrae. Also one who writes mei in the genitive case, as when we say mei studiosus, or ' devoted to me,' let him write it with i only (mei), not with e (meei); but when he writes mehei, it must be written with e and i, since it is the dative case.” Led by the authority of a most learned man, I thought that I ought not to pass by these statements, for the sake of those who desire a knowledge of such matters.

> Latin: 26. Verba P. Nigidii quibus dicit in nomine Valeri in casu vocandi primam syllabam acuendam esse; et item alia ex eiusdem verbis ad rectam scripturam pertinentia. P. NIGIDII verba sunt ex Commentariorum Grammaticorum vicesimo quarto, hominis in disciplinis doctrinarum omnium praecellentis: “Deinde,” inquit, “voculatio qui poterit servari, si non sciemus in nominibus, ut ‘Valeri,’ utrum interrogandi an vocandi sint? Nam interrogandi secunda syllaba superiore tonost quam prima, deinde novissima deicitur; at in casu vocandi summo tonost prima, deinde gradatim descendunt.” Sic quidem Nigidius dici praecipit. Sed si quis nunc, Valerium appellans, in casu vocandi secundum id praeceptum Nigidii acuerit primam, non aberit quin rideatur. “Summum” autem “tonum” προσῳδίαν acutam dicit et quem “accentum” nos dicimus “voculationem” appellat et “casum interrogandi” eum dicit, quem nunc nos “genetivum” dicimus. Id quoque in eodem libro Nigidiano animadvertimus: “Si ‘huius,’” inquit, “‘amici’ vel ‘huius magni’ scribas, unum i facito extremum, sin vero ‘hei magnei,’ ‘hei amicei,’ casu multitudinis recto, tum ante i scribendum erit e, atque id ipsum facies in similibus. Item si ‘huius terrai’ scribas, i littera fit extrema, si ‘huic terrae,’ per e scribendum est. Item ‘mei’ qui scribit in casu interrogandi, velut cum dicimus ‘mei studiosus,’ per i unum scribat, non per e; at cum ‘mehei,’ tum per e et i scribendum est, quia dandi casus est.” Haec nos auctoritate doctissimi hominis adducti, propter eos qui harum quoque rerum scientiam quaerunt, non praetermittenda existimavimus.

[¶32] 27. Of verses of Homer and Parthenius, which Virgil seems to have followed. THERE is a verse of the poet Parthenius:
To Glaucus, Nereus and sea-dwelling Melicertes.
This verse Virgil has emulated, and has made it equal to the original by a graceful change of two words:
To Glaucus, Panopea, and Ino's son Melicertes. But the following verse of Homer he has not indeed equalled, nor approached. For that of Homer seems to be simpler and more natural, that of Virgil more modern and daubed over with a kind of stucco, as it were:
Homer::
A bull to Alpheus, to Poseidon one.
Virgil::
A bull to Neptune, and to you, Apollo fair.

> Latin: 27. De versibus, quos Vergilius sectatus videtur, Homeri ac Partheni. PARTHENI poetae versus est:
Γλαύκῳ καὶ Νηρεῖ καὶ εἰναλίῳ Μελικέρτῃ. Eum versum Vergilius aemulatus est, itaque fecit duobus vocabulis venuste inmutatis parem:
Glauco et Panopeae et Inoo Melicertae. Sed illi Homerico non sane re parem neque similem fecit; esse enim videtur Homeri simplicior et sincerior, Vergilii autem νεωτερικώτερος et quodam quasi ferumine inmisso fucatior:
Ταῦρον δʼ Ἀλφειῷ, ταῦρον δὲ Ποσειδάωνι.
Taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi, pulcher Apollo.

[¶33] 28. Of an opinion of the philosopher Panaetius, which he expressed in his second book On Duties, where he urges men to be alert and prepared to guard against injuries on all occasions. THE second book of the philosopher Panaetius On Duties was being read to us, being one of those three celebrated books which Marcus Tullius emulated with great care and very great labour. In it there was written, in addition to many other incentives to virtue, one especially which ought to be kept fixed in the mind. And it is to this general purport: “The life of men,” he says, “who pass their time in the midst of affairs, and who wish to be helpful to themselves and to others, is exposed to constant and almost daily troubles and sudden dangers. To guard against and avoid these one needs a mind that is always ready and alert, such as the athletes have who are called 'pancratists.' For just as they, when called to the contest, stand with their arms raised and stretched out, and protect their head and face by opposing their hands as a rampart; and as all their limbs, before the battle has begun, are ready to avoid or to deal blows—so the spirit and mind of the wise man, on the watch everywhere and at all times against violence and wanton injuries, ought to be alert, ready, strongly protected, prepared in time of trouble, never flagging in attention, never relaxing its watchfulness, opposing judgment and forethought like arms and hands to the strokes of fortune and the snares of the wicked, lest in any way a hostile and sudden onslaught be made upon us when we are unprepared and unprotected.”

> Latin: 28. De sententia Panaetii philosophi, quam scripsit in libro De Officiis secundo, qua hortatur ut homines ad cavendas iniurias in omni loco intenti paratique sint. LEGEBATUR Panaetii philosophi liber De Officiis secundus ex tribus illis inclitis libris, quos M. Tullius magno cum studio maximoque opere aemulatus est. Ibi scriptum est, cum multa alia ad bonam frugem ducentia, tum vel maxime quod esse haerereque in animo debet. Id autem est ad hanc fere sententiam: “Vita,” inquit, “hominum qui aetatem in medio rerum agunt ac sibi suisque esse usui volunt, negotia periculaque ex improviso adsidua et prope cotidiana fert. Ad ea cavenda atque declinanda perinde esse oportet animo prompto semper atque intento, ut sunt athletarum, qui ‘pancratiastae’ vocantur.” “Nam sicut illi ad certandum vocati proiectis alte brachiis consistunt caputque et os suum manibus oppositis quasi vallo praemuniunt, membraque eorum omnia, priusquam pugna mota est, aut ad vitandos ictus cauta sunt aut ad faciendos parata—ita animus atque mens viri prudentis, adversus vim et petulantias iniuriarum omni in loco atque in tempore prospiciens, esse debet erecta, ardua, saepta solide, expedita in sollicitis, numquam conivens, nusquam aciem suam flectens, consilia cogitationesque contra fortunae verbera contraque insidias iniquorum, quasi brachia et manus, protendens, ne qua in re adversa et repentina incursio inparatis inprotectisque nobis oboriatur.”

[¶34] 29. That Quadrigarius used the expression cum multis mortalibus; whether it would have made any difference if he had said cum multis hominibus, and how great a difference. THE following is a passage of Claudius Quadrigarius from the thirteenth book of his Annals: “When the assembly had been dismissed, Metellus came to the Capitol with many mortals (cum mortalibus mulltis); from there he went home attended by the entire city.” When this book and this passage were read to Marcus Fronto, as I was sitting with him in company with some others, it seemed to one of those present, a man not without learning, that the use of mortalibus multis for hominibus multis in a work of history was foolish and frigid, and savoured too much of poetry. Then Fronto said to the man who expressed this opinion: “Do you, a man of most refined taste in other matters, say that mortalibus multis seems to you foolish and frigid, and do you think there is no reason why a man whose language is chaste, pure and almost conversational, preferred to say mortalibus rather than hominibus? And do you think that he would have described a multitude in the same way if he said cum multis hominibus and not cum multis mortalibus? For my part,” continued Fronto, “unless my regard and veneration for this writer, and for all early Latin, blinds my judgment, I think that it is far, far fuller, richer and more comprehensive in describing almost the whole population of the city to have said mortales rather than homines. For the expression ' many men' may be confined and limited to even a moderate number, but 'many mortals' somehow in some indefinable manner includes almost all the people in the city, of every rank, age and sex; so you see Quadrigarius, wishing to describe the crowd as vast and mixed, as in fact it was, said that Metellus came into the Capitol ' with many mortals, speaking with more force than if he had said 'with many men.'” When we, as was fitting, had expressed, not only approval, but admiration of all this that we had heard from Fronto, he said: “Take care, however, not to think that mortales multi is to be used always and everywhere in place of multi homines, lest that Greek proverb, to\ e)pi\ th=| fakh=| mu/ron, or 'myrrh on lentils, which is found in one of Varro's Satires, be applied to you.” This judgment of Fronto's, though relating to trifling and unimportant words, I thought I ought not to pass by, lest the somewhat subtle distinction between words of this kind should escape and elude us.

> Latin: 29. Quod Quadrigarius “cum multis mortalibus” dixit; an quid et quantum differret, si dixisset “cum multis hominibus.” VERBA sunt Claudi Quadrigarii ex Annalium eius XIII: “Contione dimissa, Metellus in Capitolium venit cum mortalibus multis; inde domum proficiscitur, tota civitas eum reduxit.” Cum is liber eaque verba M. Frontoni, nobis ei ac plerisque aliis adsidentibus, legerentur et cuidam haut sane viro indocto videretur “mortalibus multis” pro “hominibus multis” inepte frigideque in historia nimisque id poetice dixisse, tum Fronto illi cui hoc videbatur: “Ain tu,” inquit, “aliarum homo rerum iudicii elegantissimi, ‘mortalibus multis’ ineptum tibi videri et frigidum, nil autem arbitrare causae fuisse quod vir modesti atque puri ac prope cotidiani sermonis ‘mortalibus’ maluit quam ‘hominibus’ dicere, eandemque credis futuram fuisse multitudinis demonstrationem, si ‘cum multis hominibus,’ ac non ‘cum multis mortalibus’ diceret?” “Ego quidem,” inquit, “sic existimo, nisi si me scriptoris istius omnisque antiquae orationis amor atque veneratio caeco esse iudicio facit, longe longeque esse amplius, prolixius, fusius, in significanda totius prope civitatis multitudine ‘mortales’ quam ‘homines’ dixisse.” “Namque ‘multorum hominum’ appellatio intra modicum quoque numerum cohiberi atque includi potest, ‘multi’ autem ‘mortales’ nescio quo pacto et quodam sensu inenarrabili omne fere genus quod in civitate est et ordinum et aetatum et sexus conprehendunt; quod scilicet Quadrigarius, ita ut res erat, ingentem atque promiscam multitudinem volens ostendere, ‘cum multis mortalibus’ Metellum in Capitolium venisse dixit ἐμφατικώτερον quam si ‘cum multis hominibus’ dixisset.” Ea nos omnia quae Fronto dixit, cum ita ut par erat, non adprobantes tantum, sed admirantes quoque audiremus, “Videte tamen,” inquit, “ne existimetis, semper atque in omni loco ‘mortales multos’ pro ‘multis hominibus’ dicendum, ne plane fiat Graecum illud de Varronis Satura proverbium τὸ ἐπὶ τῇ φακῇ μύρον.” Hoc iudicium Frontonis, etiam in parvis minutisque vocabulis, non praetermittendum putavi, ne nos forte fugeret lateretque subtilior huiuscemodi verborum consideratio.

[¶35] 30. That fades has a wider application than is commonly supposed. WE may observe that many Latin words have departed from their original signification and passed into one that is either far different or near akin, and that such a departure is due to the usage of those ignorant people who carelessly use words of which they have not learned the meaning. As, for example, some think that facies, applied to a man, means only the face, eyes and cheeks, that which the Greeks call pro/swpon; whereas facies really designates the whole form, dimensions and, as it were, the make-up of the entire body, being formed from facio as species is from aspects and figura from fingere. Accordingly Pacuvius, in the tragedy entitled Niptra, used faces for the height of a man's body in these lines:
A man in prime of life, of spirit bold,
Of stature (facie) tall. But facies is applied, not only to the bodies of men, but also to the appearance of other things of every kind. For facies may be said properly, if the application be seasonable, of a mountain, the heavens and the sea. The words of Sallust in the second book of his Histories are “Sardinia, in the African Sea, having the appearance (facies) of a human foot, projects farther on the eastern than on the western side.” And, by the way, it has also occurred to me that Plautus too, in the Poenulus, said facies, meaning the appearance of the whole body and complexion. These are his words:
But tell me, pray, how looks (qua sit facie) that nurse of yours?—
Not very tall, complexion dark.—'Tis she!—
A comely wench, with pretty mouth, black eyes—
By Jove! a picture of her limned in words!
Besides, I remember that Quadrigarius in his nineteenth book used facies for stature and the form of the whole body.

> Latin: 30. Non hactenus esse “faciem” qua vulgo dicitur. ANIMADVERTERE est pleraque verborum Latinorum ex ea significatione de qua nata sunt decessisse vel in aliam longe vel in proximam, eamque decessionem factam esse consuetudine et inscitia temere dicentium quae cuimodi sint non didicerint. Sicuti quidam “faciem” esse hominis putant os tantum et oculos et genas, quod Graeci πρόσωπον dicunt, quando “facies” sit forma omnis et modus et factura quaedam corporis totius, a “faciendo” dicta, ut ab “aspectu” “species” et a “fingendo” “figura.” Itaque Pacuvius in tragoedia, quae Niptra inscribitur, “faciem” dixit hominis pro corporis longitudine:
aetate (inquit) íntegra,
Feróci ingenio, fácie procerá virum. Non solum autem in hominum corporibus, sed etiam in rerum cuiusquemodi aliarum “facies” dicitur. Nam montis et caeli et maris “facies,” si tempestive dicatur, probe dicitur. Sallustii verba sunt ex Historia secunda: “Sardinia in Africo mari facie vestigii humani in orientem quam occidentem latior prominet.” Ecce autem id quoque in mentem venit, quod etiam Plautus in Poenulo “faciem” pro totius corporis colorisque habitu dixit. Verba Plauti haec sunt:
Set eárum nutrix quá sit facie mi éxpedi.—
Statúra non magna córpore aquilost. —
Ipsa east.—
Specié venusta, óre atque oculis pérnigris.—
Formám quidem hercle vérbis depinxtí probe! Praeterea memini Quadrigarium in undevicesimo “faciem” pro statura totiusque corporis figura dixisse.

[¶36] 31. The meaning of caninum prandium in Marcus Varro's satire. LATELY a foolish, boastful fellow, sitting in a bookseller's shop, was praising and advertising himself, asserting that he was the only one under all heaven who could interpret the Satires of Marcus Varro, which by some are called Cynical, by others Menippean. And then he displayed some passages of no great difficulty, which he said no one could presume to explain. At the time I chanced to have with me a book of those Satires, entitled (Udroku/wn, or The Water Dog. I therefore went up to him and said: “Master, of course you know that old Greek saying, that music, if it be hidden, is of no account. I beg you therefore to read these few lines and tell me the meaning of the proverb contained in them.” “Do you rather,” he replied, “read me what you do not understand, in order that I may interpret it for you.” “How on earth can I read,” I replied, “what I cannot understand? Surely my reading will be indistinct and confused, and will even distract your attention.” Then, as many others who were there present agreed with me and made the same request, I handed him an ancient copy of the satire, of tested correctness and clearly written. But he took it with a most disturbed and worried expression. But what shall I say followed? I really do not dare to ask you to believe me. Ignorant schoolboys, if they had taken up that book, could not have read more laughably, so wretchedly did he pronounce the words and murder the thought. Then, since many were beginning to laugh, he returned the book to me, saying, “You see that my eyes are weak and almost ruined by constant night work; I could barely make out even the forms of the letters. When my eyes have recovered, come to me and I will read the whole of that book to you.” “Master,” said I, “I hope your eyes may improve; but I pray you, tell me this, for which you will have no need of your eyes; what does caninum prandium mean in the passage which you read?” And that egregious blockhead, as if alarmed by the difficulty of the question, at once got up and made off, saying: “You ask no small matter; I do not give such instruction for nothing.” The words of the passage in which that proverb is found are as follows: “Do you not know that Mnesitheus writes that there are three kinds of wine, dark, light and medium, which the Greeks call kirro/s or 'tawny'; and new, old and medium? And that the dark gives virility, the light increases the urine, and the medium helps digestion? That the new cools, the old heats, and the medium is a dinner for a dog (caninum prandium)?” The meaning of “a dinner for a dog,” though a slight matter, I have investigated long and anxiously. Now an abstemious meal, at which there is no drinking, is called “a dog's meal,” since the dog has no need of wine. Therefore when Mnesitheus named a medium wine, which was neither new nor old—and many men speak as if all wine was either new or old—he meant that the medium wine had the power neither of the old nor of the new, and was therefore not to be considered wine at all, because it neither cooled nor heated. By refrigerare (to cool), he means the same as the Greek yu/xein.

> Latin: 31. Quid sit in satura M. Varronis “caninum prandium.” LAUDABAT venditabatque se nuper quispiam in libraria sedens homo inepte gloriosus, tamquam unus esset in omni caelo Saturarum M. Varronis enarrator, quas partim Cynicas, alii Menippeas appellant. Et iaciebat inde quaedam non admodum difficilia, ad quae conicienda adspirare posse neminem dicebat. Tum forte ego eum librum ex isdem saturis ferebam, qui Ὑδροκύων inscriptus est. Propius igitur accessi et: “Nosti,” inquam, “magister, verbum illud scilicet e Graecia vetus, musicam quae sit abscondita, eam esse nulli rei? Oro ergo te, legas hos versus pauculos et proverbii istius quod in his versibus est sententiam dicas mihi.” “Lege,” inquit, “tu mihi potius quae non intellegis, ut ea tibi ego enarrem.” “Quonam,” inquam, “pacto legere ego possum quae non adsequor? Indistincta namque et confusa fient quae legero, et tuam quoque impedient intentionem.” Tunc aliis etiam qui ibi aderant compluribus idem comprobantibus desiderantibusque, accipit a me librum veterem fidei spectatae, luculente scriptum. Accipit autem inconstantissimo vultu et maestissimo. Sed quid deinde dicam? Non audeo hercle postulare ut id credatur mihi. Pueri in ludo rudes, si eum librum accepissent, non hi magis in legendo deridiculi fuissent, ita et sententias intercidebat et verba corrupte pronuntiabat. Reddit igitur mihi librum, multis iam ridentibus, et “Vides,” inquit, “oculos meos aegros adsiduisque lucubrationibus prope iam perditos; vix ipsos litterarum apices potui conprehendere; cum valebo ab oculis, revise ad me et librum istum tibi totum legam.” “Recte,” inquam, “sit oculis, magister, tuis;” “sed, in quo illis nihil opus est, id, rogo te, dicas mihi: ‘caninum prandium’ in hoc loco quem legisti quid significat?” Atque ille egregius nebulo, quasi difficili quaestione proterritus, exurgit statim et abiens, “Non,” inquit, “parvam rem quaeris; talia ego gratis non doceo.” Eius autem loci, in quo id proverbium est, verba haec sunt: “Non vides apud Mnesitheum scribi tria genera esse vini, nigrum, album, medium, quod vocant κιρρόν, et novum, vetus, medium? Et efficere nigrum virus, album urinam, medium πέψιν? Novum refrigerare, vetus calefacere, medium esse prandium caninum?” Quid significet prandium caninum, rem leviculam, diu et anxie quaesivimus. Prandium autem abstemium, in quo nihil potatur, “caninum” dicitur, quoniam canis vino caret. Cum igitur “medium vinum” appellasset, quod neque novum esset neque vetus—et plerumque homines ita loquantur, ut omne vinum aut novum esse dicant aut vetus —nullam vim habere significavit neque novi neque veteris quod medium esset, et idcirco pro vino non habendum, quia neque refrigeraret neque calefaceret. “Refrigerare” id dicit quod Graece “ψύχειν” dicitur.