---
title: "Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae"
author: "Aulus Gellius"
translator: "John C. Rolfe"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 36 of 46
url: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/36/
cite: "Aulus Gellius, tr. John C. Rolfe, Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae, section 36. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/36/"
---

# 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.

## 36. Book XVI · chapters 1–8

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/36/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/36/#p-N

[¶0] 1. A saying of Musonius, the Greek philosopher, which is of practical value and worth hearing and bearing in mind; and a remark of equal value made by Marcus Cato many years before to the knights at Numantia. WHEN I was still young and a schoolboy, I heard that this Greek sentiment which I have subjoined was uttered by the philosopher Musonius, and since it is a true and brilliant saying, expressed briefly and roundly, I very willingly committed it to memory: "If you accomplish anything noble with toil, the toil passes, but the noble deed endures. If you do anything shameful with pleasure, the pleasure passes, but the shame endures." Later, I read that same sentiment in the speech of Marcus Cato which he delivered At Numantia to the Knights. Although it is expressed somewhat loosely and diffusely compared with the Greek which I have given, yet, since it is prior in time and more ancient, it ought to seem worthy of greater respect. The words in the speech are as follows: “Bear in mind, that if through toil you accomplish a good deed, that toil will quickly pass from you, the good deed will not leave you so long as you live; but if through pleasure you do anything dishonourable, the pleasure will quickly pass away, that dishonourable act will remain with you for ever.”

> Latin: 1. Verba Musoni philosophi Graeca, digna atque utilia audiri observarique; eiusdemque utilitatis sententia a M. Catone multis ante annis Numantiae ad equites dicta. ADULESCENTULI cum etiamtum in scholis essemus, ἐνθυμημάτιον hoc Graecum quod adposui dictum esse a Musonio philosopho audiebamus et, quoniam vere atque luculente dictum verbisque est brevibus et rotundis vinctum, perquam libenter memineramus: Ἄν τι πράξῃς καλὸν μετὰ πόνου, ὁ μὲν πόνος οἴχεται, τὸ δὲ καλὸν μένει· ἄν τι ποιήσῃς αἰσχρὸν μετὰ ἡδονῆς, τὸ μὲν ἡδὺ οἴχεται, τὸ δὲ αἰσχρὸν μένει. Postea istam ipsam sententiam in Catonis oratione, quam dixit Numantiae apud Equites, positam legimus. Quae etsi laxioribus paulo longioribusque verbis comprehensa est praequam illud Graecum quod diximus, quoniam tamen prior tempore antiquiorque est, venerabilior videri debet. Verba ex oratione haec sunt: “Cogitate cum animis vestris, si quid vos per laborem recte feceritis, labor ille a vobis cito recedet, bene factum a vobis, dum vivitis, non abscedet; sed si qua per voluptatem nequiter feceritis, voluptas cito abibit, nequiter factum illud apud vos semperselmper manebit.”

[¶1] 2. The nature of the rule of the logicians in disputation and declamation, and the defect of that rule. THEY say that it is a rule of the dialectic art, that if there is inquiry and discussion of any subject, and you are called upon to answer a question which is asked, you should answer the question by a simple “yes” or “no.” And those who do not observe that rule, but answer more than they were asked, or differently, are thought to be both uneducated and unobservant of the customs and laws of debate. As a matter of fact this dictum undoubtedly ought to be followed in very many debates. For a discussion will become endless and hopelessly involved, unless it is confined to simple questions and answers. But there seem to be some discussions in which, if you answer what you are asked briefly and directly, you are caught in a trap. For if anyone should put a question in these words: “I ask you to tell me whether you have given up committing adultery or not,” whichever way you answer according to this rule of debate, whether you say “yes” or “no,” you will be caught in a dilemma, equally if you should say that you are an adulterer, or should deny it; for one who has not given up a thing has not of necessity ever done it. That then is a deceptive kind of catch-question, and can by no means lead to the inference and conclusion that he commits adultery who says that he has not given up doing it. But what will the defenders of that rule do in that dilemma, in which they must necessarily be caught, if they give a simple answer to the question? For if I should ask any one of them: “Do you, or do you not, have what you have not lost? I demand the answer 'yes' or no,'” whichever way he replies briefly, he will be caught. For if he says that he does not have what he has not lost, the conclusion will be drawn that he has no eyes, since he has not lost them; but if he says that he has it, it will be concluded that he has horns, because he has not lost them. Therefore it will be more cautious and more correct to reply as follows: “I have whatever I had, if I have not lost it.” But an answer of that kind is not made in accordance with the rule which we have mentioned; for more is answered than was asked. Therefore this proviso also is commonly added to the rule, that one need not answer catchquestions.

> Latin: 2. Cuiusmodi sit lex apud dialecticos percontandi disserendique; et quae sit eius legis reprehensio. LEGEM esse aiunt disciplinae dialecticae, si de quapiam re quaeratur disputeturque atque ibi quid rogere ut respondeas, tum ne amplius quid dicas quam id solum quod es rogatus aut aias aut neges; eamque legem qui non servent, et aut plus aut aliter quam sunt rogati respondeant, existumanturexistumnantur indoctique esse disputandique morem atque rationem non tenere. Hoc quidem quod dicunt in plerisque disputationibus procul dubio fieri oportet. Indefinitus namque inexplicabilisque sermo fiet, nisi interrogationibus responsionibusque simplicibus fuerit determinatus. Sed enim esse quaedam videntur, in quibus si breviter et ad id quod rogatus fueris respondeas, capiare. Nam si quis his verbis interroget: “Postulo uti respondeas desierisne facere adulterium an non,” utrumcumque dialectica lege responderis, sive aias seu neges, haerebis in captione, tamquam si te dicas adulterum quam si neges; nam qui facere non desinit, non id necessario etiam fecit. Falsa igitur est species istius captionis et nequaquam procedere ad id potest, ut conligi concludique possit eum facere adulterium qui se negaverit facere desisse. Quid autem legis istius propugnatores in illa captiuncula facient, in qua haerere eos necessum est, si nihil amplius quam quod interrogati erunt responderint? Nam, si ita ego istorum aliquem rogem: “Quicquid non perdidisti habeasne an non habeas postulo ut aias aut neges,” utrumcumque breviter respondent, capietur. Nam si habere se negaverit quod non perdidit, colligetur oculos eum non habere, quos non perdidit; sin vero habere se dixerit, colligetur habere eum cornua, quae non perdidit. Rectius igitur cautiusque ita respondebitur: “Quicquid habui, id habeo, si id non perdidi.” Sed huiuscemodi responsio non fit ex ea lege quam diximus; plus enim, quam quod rogatus est, respondet. Propterea id quoque ad eam legem addi solet, non esse captiosis interrogationibus respondendum.

[¶2] 3. By what means Erasistratus, the physician, said that one could do for a time without eating, if food chanced to be lacking, and endure hunger; and his own words on that subject. I OFTEN spent whole days in Rome with Favorinus. His delightful conversation held my mind enthralled, and I attended him wherever he went, as if actually taken prisoner by his eloquence; to such a degree did he constantly delight me with his most agreeable discourse. Once when he had gone to visit a sick man, and I had entered with him, having conversed for some time in Greek about the man's illness with the physicians who chanced to be there at the time, he said: “This ought not to seem surprising either, that although previously he was always eager for food, now after an enforced fast of three days all his former appetite is lost. For what Erasistratus has written is pretty nearly true,” said he, “that the empty and open fibres of the intestines, the hollowness of the belly within and the empty and yawning cavity of the stomach, cause hunger; but when these are either filled with food or are contracted and brought together by continued fasting, then, since the place into which the food is received is either filled or made smaller, the impulse to take food, or to crave it, is destroyed.” He declared that Erasistratus also said that the Scythians too, when it was necessary for them to endure protracted hunger, bound a very tight bandage around their bellies. That by such compression of the belly it was believed that hunger could be prevented. These things and many others of the kind Favorinus said most entertainingly on that occasion; but later, when I chanced to be reading the first book of Erasistratus' Distinctions, I found in that book the very passage which 1 had heard Favorinus quote. The words of Erasistratus on the subject are as follows: “I reasoned therefore that the ability to fast for a long time is caused by strong compression of the belly; for with those who voluntarily fast for a long time, at first hunger ensues, but later it passes away.” Then a little later: “And the Scythians also are accustomed, when on any occasion it is necessary to fast, to bind up the belly with broad belts, in the belief that the hunger thus troubles them less; and one may almost say too that when the stomach is full, men feel no hunger for the reason that there is no vacuity in it, and likewise when it is greatly compressed there is no vacuity.” In the same book Erasistratus declares that a kind of irresistibly violent hunger, which the Greeks call bou/limos, or “ox-hunger,” is much more apt to be felt on very cold days than when tile weather is calm and pleasant, and that the reasons why this disorder prevails especially at such times have not yet become clear to him. The words which he uses are these: “It is unknown and requires investigation, both in reference to the case in question and in that of others who suffer from 'ox-hunger,' why this symptom appears rather on cold days than in warm weather.”

> Latin: 3. Quanam ratione effici dixerit Erasistratus medicus, si cibus forte deerit, ut tolerari aliquantisper inedia possit et tolerari fames; verbaque ipsa Erasistrati super ea re scripta. Cum Favorino Romae dies plerumque totos eramus tenebatque animos nostros homo ille fandi dulcissimus atque eum, quoquo iret, quasi ex lingua prorsum eius capti prosequebamur; ita sermonibus usquequaque amoenissimis demulcebat. Tum ad quendam aegrum cum isset visere nosque cum eo una introissemus multaque ad medicos, qui tumturn forte istic erant, valitudinis eius gratia oratione Graeca dixisset, “Ac ne hoc quidem mirum,” inquit, “videri debet, quod, cum antehac semper edundi fuerit adpetens, nunc post imperatam inediam tridui omnis eius adpetitio pristina elanguerit.” “Nam quod Erasistratus scriptum,” inquit, “reliquit propemodum verum est: esuritionem faciunt inanes patentesque intestinorum fibrae et cava intus ventris ac stomachi vacua et hiantia; quae ubi aut cibo conplentur aut inanitate diutina contrahuntur et conivent, tunc loco, in quem cibus capitur, vel stipato vel adducto, voluntas capiendi eius desiderandique restinguitur.” Scythas quoque ait eundem Erasistratum dicere, cum sit usus ut famem longius tolerent, fasceis ventrem strictissime circumligare. Ea ventris conpressione esuritionem posse depelli creditum est. Haec tum Favorinus multaque istiusmodi alia adfabilissime dicebat, nos autem postea, cum librum forte Erasistrati legeremus Διαιρέσεων primum, id ipsum in eo libro, quod Favorinum audiebamusaudiebanus dicere, scripture offendimus. Verba Erasistrati ad eam rem pertinentia haec sunt: Ἐλογιζόμεθα οὖν παρὰ τὴν ἰσχυρὰν σύμπτωσιν τῆς κοιλίας εἶναι τὴν σφόδρα ἀσιτίαν· καὶ γὰρ τοῖς ἐπίπλεον ἀσιτοῦσιν κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις χρόνοις ἡ πεῖνα παρακολουθεῖ, ὕστερον δὲ οὐκέτι. Deinde paululum infra: Εἰθισμένοι δέ εἰσιν καὶ οἱ Σκύθαι, ὅταν διά τινα καιρὸν ἀναγκάζωνται ἀσιτεῖν, ζώναις πλατείαις τὴν κοιλίαν διασφίγγειν, ὡς τῆς πείνης αὐτοὺς ἧττον ἐνοχλούσης· σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ ὅταν πλήρης κοιλία ᾖ, διὰ τὸ κένωμα ἐν αὐτῇ μηδὲν εἶναι, διὰ τοῦτο οὐ πεινῶσιν, ὅταν δὲ σφόδρα συμπεπτωκυῖα ᾖ, κένωμα οὐκ ἔχει. In eodem libro Erasistratus vim quandam famis non tolerabilem, quam Graeci βούλιμον appellant, in diebus frigidissimis multo facilius accidere ait quam cum serenum atque placidum est, atque eius rei causas, cur is morbus in eo plerumque tempore oriatur, nondum sibi esse compertas dicit. Verba quibus id dicit, haec sunt: Ἄπορον δὲ καὶ δεόμενον ἐπισκέψεως καὶ ἐπὶ τούτου καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν βουλιμιώντων, διὰ τί ἐν τοῖς ψύχεσιν μᾶλλον τὸ σύμπτωμα τοῦτο γίνεται ἢ ἐν ταῖς εὐδίαις;

[¶3] 4. In what fashion and in what language the war-herald of the Roman people was accustomed to declare war upon those against whom the people had voted that war should be made; also in what words the oath relating to the prohibition and punishment of theft by the soldiers was couched; and how the soldiers that were enrolled were to appear at an appointed time and place, with some exceptional cases in which they might properly be freed from that oath. CINCIUS writes in his third book On Military Science that the war-herald of the Roman people, when he declared war on the enemy and hurled a spear into their territory, used the following words: “Whereas the Hermundulan people and the men of the Hermundulam people have made war against the Roman people and have transgressed against them, and whereas the Roman people has ordered war with the Hermundulan people and the men of the Hermundulans, therefore I and the Roman people declare and make war with the Hermundulan people and with the men of the Hermundulans.” Also in the fifth book of the same Cincius On Military Science we read the following: "When a levy was made in ancient times and soldiers were enrolled, the tribune of the soldiers compelled them to take an oath in the following words dictated by the magistrate: 'In the army of the consuls Gaius Laelius, son of Gaius, and Lucius Cornelius, son of Publius, and for ten miles around it, you will not with malice aforethought commit a theft, either alone or with others, of more than the value of a silver sesterce in any one day. And except for one spear, a spear shaft, wood, fruit, fodder, a bladder, a purse and a torch, if you find or carry off anything there which is not your own and is worth more than one silver sesterce, you will bring it to the consul Gaius Laelius, son of Gaius, or to the consul Lucius Cornelius, son of Publius, or to whomsoever either of them shall appoint, or you will make known within the next three days whatever you have found or wrongfully carried off, or you will restore it to him whom you suppose to be its rightful owner, as you wish to do what is right." “Moreover, when soldiers had been enrolled, a day was appointed on which they should appear and should answer to the consul's summons; then an oath was taken, binding them to appear, with the addition of the following exceptions: 'Unless there be any of the following excuses: a funeral in his family or purification from a dead body (provided these were not appointed for that day in order that he might not appear on that day), a dangerous disease, or an omen which could not be passed by without expiatory rites, or an anniversary sacrifice which could not be properly celebrated unless he himself were present on that day, violence or the attack of enemies, a stated and appointed day with a foreigners; if anyone shall have any of these excuses, then on the day following that on which he is excused for these reasons he shall come and render service to the one who held the levy in that district, village or town.'” Also in the same book are these words: 'When a soldier was absent on the appointed day and had not been excused, he was branded as a deserter. Also in the sixth book we find this: “The columns of cavalry were called the wings of the army, because they were placed around the legions on the right and on the left, as wings are on tile bodies of birds. In a legion there are sixty centuries, thirty maniples, and ten cohorts.”

> Latin: 4. Quo ritu quibusque verbis fetialis populi Romani bellum indicere solitus sit his quibus populus bellum fieri iusserat; et item in quae verba conceptum fuerit iusiurandum de furtis militaribus sanciendis; et uti milites scripti intra praedictum diem in loco certo frequentarentfrequentitarent, causis quibusdam exceptis, propter quas id iusiurandum remitti aecumaecui esset. CINCIUS in libro tertio De Re Militari, fetialem populi Romani bellum indicentem hostibus telumque in agrum eorum iacientem, hisce verbis uti scripsit: “Quod populus Hermundulus hominesque populi Hermunduli adversus populum Romanum bellum fecere deliqueruntque, quodque populus Romanus cum populo Hermundulo hominibusque Hermundulis bellum iussit, ob eam rem ego populusque Romanus populo Hermundulo hominibusque Hermundulis bellum dico facioque.” Item in libro eiusdem Cincii De Re Militari quinto ita scriptum est: “Cum dilectus antiquitus fieret et milites scriberentur, iusiurandum eos tribunus militaris adigebat in verba haec (magistratus verba): ‘C. Laelii C. fili consulis, L. Cornelii P. fili consulis in exercitu, decemque milia passuum prope, furtum non facies dolo malo solus neque cum pluribus pluris nummi argentei in dies singulos; extraque hastam, hastile, ligna, poma, pabulum, utrem, follem, faculam si quid ibi inveneris sustulerisve quod tuum non erit, quod pluris nummi argentei erit, uti tu ad C. Laelium C. filium consulem Luciumve Cornelium P. filium sive quem ad tuter eorum iusserit proferes, aut profitebere in triduotridiuo proximo quidquid inveneris sustulerisve dolo malo, aut domino suo, cuium id censebis esse, reddes, uti quod rectum factum esse voles.’” “Militibus autem scriptis, dies praefinibatur quo die adessent et citanti consuli responderent; deinde concipiebatur iusiurandum,” “ut adessent, his additis exceptionibus: ‘Nisi harunce quae causa erit: funus familiare feriaeve denicales, quae non eius rei causa in eum diem conlatae sint, quo is eo die minus ibi esset, morbus sonticus auspiciumve quod sine piaculo praeterire non liceat, sacrificiumve anniversarium quod recte fieri non possit nisi ipsus eo die ibi sit, vis hostesve, status condictusve dies cum hoste; si cui eorum harunce quae causa erit, tum se postridie quam per eas causas licebit, eo die venturum adiuturumque eum qui eum pagum, vicum, oppidumve delegerit.’” Item in eodem libro verba haec sunt: “Miles cum die, qui prodictus est, aberat neque excusatus erat, infrequens notabatur.” Item in libro sexto hoc scriptum est: “Alae dictae exercitus equitum ordines, quod circum legiones dextra sinistraque tamquam alae in avium corporibus locabantur. In legione sunt centuriae sexaginta, manipuli triginta, cohortes decem.”

[¶4] 5. The meaning of vestibulum and the various derivations proposed for the word. THERE are numerous words which we use commonly, without however clearly knowing what their proper and exact meaning is; but following an uncertain and vulgar tradition without investigating the matter, we seem to say what we mean rather than say it; an example is vestibulum or “vestibule,” a word frequently met in conversation, yet not wholly clear to all who readily make use of it. For I have observed that some men who are by no means without learning think that the vestibule is the front part of the house, which is commonly known as the atrium. Gaius Aelius Gallus, in the second book of his work On the Meaning of Words relating to the Civil Law, says that the vestibule is not in the house itself, nor is it a part of the house, but is an open place before the door of the house, through which there is approach and access to the house from the street, while on the right and left the door is hemmed in by buildings extended to the street and the door itself is at a distance from the street, separated from it by this vacant space. Furthermore, it is often inquired what the derivation of this word is; but nearly everything that I have read on the subject has seemed awkward and absurd. But what I recall hearing from Sulpicius Apollinaris, a man of choice learning, is as follows:
The particle ve, like some others, is now intensive and now the reverse; for of vetis and vehenens, the former is made by intensifying the idea of age, with elision, and the latter from the power and force of the mind. But vescus, which is formed from the particle ve and esca, assumes the force of both opposite meanings. For Lucretius uses vescum salem, or ' devouring salt,' in one sense, indicating a strong propensity to eat, Lucilius in the other sense, of fastidiousness in eating. Those then in early times who made spacious houses left a vacant place before the entrance, midway between the door of the house and the street. There those who had come to pay their respects to the master of the house took their places before they were admitted, standing neither in the street nor within the house. Therefore from that standing in a large space, and as it were from a kind of 'standing place,' the name vestibule was given to the great places left, as I have said, before the doors of houses, in which those who had come to call stood, before they were admitted to the house. But we shall have to bear in mind that this word was not always used literally by the early writers, but in various figurative senses, which however are so formed as not to differ widely from that proper meaning which we have mentioned, as for example in the sixth book of Vergil:
Before the vestibule, e'en in Hell's very jaws,
Avenging Cares and Grief have made their beds.
For he does not call the front part of the infernal dwelling the 'vestibule,' although one might be misled into thinking it so called, but he designates two places outside the doors of Orcus, the ' vestibule' and the fauces, of which 'vestibule' is applied to the part as it were before the house itself and before the private rooms of Orcus, while fauces designates the narrow passage through which the vestibule was approached.

> Latin: 5. “Vestibulum” quid significet; deque eius vocabuli rationibus. PLERAQUE sunt vocabula quibus vulgo utimur, neque tamen liquido scimus quid ea proprie atque vere significent; sed incompertam et vulgariam traditionem rei non exploratae secuti, videmur magis dicere quod volumus, quam dicimus; sicuti est “vestibulum,” verbum in sermonibus celebre atque obvium, non omnibus tamen qui illo facile utuntur satis spectatum. Animadverti enim quosdam hautquaquam indoctos viros opinari “vestibulum” esse partem domus primorei, quam vulgus “atrium” vocat. C. Aelius Gallus, in libro De Significatione verborumVerhorunm Quae ad Ius Civile pertinentPertilent secundo, “vestibulum” esse dicit non in ipsis aedibus neque partem aedium, sed locum ante ianuamianuaim domus vacuum, per quem a via aditus accessusque ad aedis est, cum dextra sinistraque ianuam tecta saepiunt viae iuncta atque ipsa ianua procul a via est, area vacanti intersita. Quae porro huic vocabulo ratio sit, quaeri multum solet; sed quae scripta legi, ea ferme omnia inconcinna atque absurda visa sunt. Quod Sulpicium autem Apollinarem memini dicere, virum elegant scientia ornatum, huiuscemodi est: “‘Ve’ particula, sicuti quaedam alia, tum intentionem significat, tum minutionem.” “Nam ‘vetus’ et ‘vehemens’, alterum ab aetatis magnitudinemnagnitudine compositumcoimlpositum elisumque est, alterum a mentis vi atque impetu dicitur. ‘Vescum’ autem, quod ex ‘ve’ particula et ‘esca’ copulatum est, utriusque diversae significationis vim capit.” “Aliter enim Lucretius ‘vescum’ salem dicit ex edendi intentione, aliter Lucilius ‘vescum’ appellat cum edendi fastidio.” “Qui domos igitur amplas antiquitus faciebant, locum ante ianuam vacuum relinquebant, qui inter fores domus et viam medius esset.” “In eo loco, qui dominum eius domus salutatum venerant, priusquam admitterentur, consistebant et neque in via stabant, neque intra aedis erant.” “Ab illa ergo grandis loci consistione et quasi quadam stabulatione ‘vestibula’ appellate sunt spatia, sicuti diximus, grandia ante fores aedium relicta, in quibus starent qui venissent, priusquam in domumdoinum intromitterentur.” “Meminisse autem debebimus id vocabulum non sempersenmper a veteribus scriptoribus proprie, sed per quasdam translationes esse dictum, quae tamen ita sunt factae, ut ab ista de qua diximus proprietate non longe desciverint, sicut illud in sexto Vergilii:
Vestibulum ante ipsum primisque in faucibus Orci
Luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae:” “non enim ‘vestibulum’ priorem partem domus infernae esse dicit, quod obrepere potest tamquam si ita dicatur, sed loca duo demonstrat extra Orci fores, ‘vestibulum’ et ‘fauces,’ ex quibus ‘vestibulum’ appellate ante ipsam quasi domum et ante ipsa Orci penetralia, ‘fauces’ autem vocat iter angustum, per quod ad vestibulum adiretur.”

[¶5] 6. What the victims are which are called bidentes, and why they were so called; and the opinions of Publius Nigidius and Julius Hyginus on that subject. ON my return from Greece I put in at Brundisium. There a dabbler in the Latin language, who had been called from Rome by the people of Brundisium, was offering himself generally to be tested. I also went to him for the sake of amusement, for my mind was weary and languid from the tossing of the sea. He was reading in a barbarous and ignorant manner from the seventh book of Vergil, in which this verse occurs:
An hundred woolly sheep (bidentes) he duly slew,
and he invited anyone to ask him anything whatever which one wished to learn. Then I, marvelling at the assurance of the ignorant fellow, said: “Will you tell us, master, why bidentes are so called?” “Bidentes,” said he, “means sheep, and he called them 'woolly,' to show more clearly that they are sheep.” I replied:
We will see later whether only sheep are called bidentes, as you say, and whether Pomponius, the writer of Atellanae, was in error in his Transalpine Gauls, when he wrote this:
O Mars, if ever I return, I vow
To sacrifice to thee with two-toothed (bidenti) boar.
But now I asked you whether you know the reason for this name.
And he, without a moment's hesitation, but with the greatest possible assurance, said: “Sheep are called bidentes, because they have only two teeth.” “Where on earth, pray,” said I, “have you seen a sheep that by nature had only two teeth? For that is a portent and ought to be met with expiatory offerings.” Then he, greatly disturbed and angry with me, cried: “Ask rather such questions as ought to be put to a grammarian; for one inquires of shepherds about the teeth of sheep.” I laughed at the wit of the blockhead and left him. Now Publius Nigidius, in the book which he wrote On Sacrificial Meats, says that not sheep alone are called bidentes, but all victims that are two years old; yet he has not explained clearly why they are called bidentes. But I find written in some Notes on the Pontifical Law what I had myself thought, that they were first called bidennes, that is biennes with the insertion of the letter d; then by long use in speech the word became changed and from bidennes was formed bidentes, because the latter seemed easier and less harsh to pronounce. However, Julius Hyginus, who seems not to have been ignorant of pontifical law, in the fourth book of his work On Virgil, wrote that those victims were called bidentes which were of such an age that they had two prominent teeth. I quote his own words: “The victim called bidens should have eight teeth, but of these two should be more prominent than the rest, to make it plain that they have passed from infancy to a less tender age.” Whether this opinion of Hyginus is true or not may be determined by observation without resort to argument.

> Latin: 6. Hostiae quae dicuntur “bidentes,” quid sint et quam ob causam ita appellatae sint; superque ea re P. Nigidii et Iulii Hygini sententiae. REDEUNTES ex Graecia, Brundisium navem advertimus. Ibi quispiam linguae Latinae litterator, Roma a Brundisinis accersitus, experiundum sese vulgo dabat. Imus ad eum nos quoque oblectamenti gratia, erat enim fessus atque languens animus de aestu maris. Legebat barbare insciteque Vergilii septimum, in quo libro hic versus est: Centum lanigeras mactabat rite bidentis, et iubebat rogare se si quis quid omnium rerum vellet discere. Tum ego, indocti hominis confidentiam demiratus: “Docesne,” inquam, “nos, magister, cur ‘bidentes’ dicantur?” “‘Bidentes,’” inquit, “oves appellatae, idcircoque lanigeras dixit, ut oves planius demonstraret.” “Posthac,” inquam, “videbimus an oves solae, ut tu ais, bidentes dicantur et an Pomponius, Atellanarum poeta, in Gallis Transalpinis erraverit, cum hoc scripsit:
Mars, tíbi factúrum voveo, si umquam rédierit,
Bidénti verre,” “sed nunc ego a te rogavi ecquam scias esse huiusce vocabuli rationem.” Atque ille nihil cunctatus, sed nimium quantum audacter: “Oves,” inquit, “‘bidentes’ dictae, quod duos tantum dentes habeant.” “Ubi terrarum, quaeso te,” inquam, “duos solos per naturam dentes habere ovem vidisti? Ostentum enim est et piaculis factis procurandum.” Tum ille permotus mili et inritatus: “Quaere,” inquit, “ea potius quae e grammatico quaerenda sunt; nam de ovium dentibus opiliones percontantur.” Facetias nebulonis hominis risi et reliqui. P. autem Nigidius, in libro quem De extisErtis composuit, “bidentes” appellari ait non oves solas, sed omnes bimas hostias, neque tamen dixit apertius, cur “bidentes”; sed, quod ultro existumabamus, id scriptum invenimus in commentariis quibusdamquisbusdam ad ius pontificum pertinentibus, “bidennes” primo dictas, d littera inmissa, quasi “biennes,” tum longo usu loquendi corruptam vocem esse et ex “bidennibus” “bidentes” factum,.quoniam id videbatur esse dictu facilius leniusque. Hyginus tamen Iulius, qui ius pontificum non videtur ignorasse, in quarto librorum quos De Vergilio fecit, “bidentes” appellari scripsit hostias quae per aetatem duos dentes altiores haberent. Verba illius ipsa posui: “Quae ‘bidens’ est,” inquit, “hostia, oportet habeat dentes octo, sed ex his duo ceteris altiores, per quos appareat ex minore aetate in maiorem transcendisse.” Haec Hygini opinio an vera sit, non argui argumentis, sed oculis videri potest.

[¶6] 7. That Laberius formed many words freely and boldly, and that he even uses numerous words whose Latinity is often questioned. LABERIUS, in the mimes which he wrote, coined words with the greatest possible freedom. For he said mendicimonium for “beggary,” moechimonium, adulterio or adulteritas for “adultery,” depudicavit for “dishonoured,” and abluvium for diluvium, or “deluge”; in the farce which he entitled The Basket he uses manuatus est for “he stole,” and in The Fuller he calls a thief manuarius, saying: Thief (manuari), you have lost your shame, and he makes many other innovations of the same kind. He also used obsolete and obscene words, such as are spoken only by the dregs of the people, as in the Spinners' Shop:
Orcus, in truth, will bear you on his shoulders (catomum) nude.
He uses elutriare for “washing out” linen, and lavandaria, or “wash,” of those things which are sent to be washed. He says:
Into the fulling business I am hurled (coicior),
and
O heater (Calidoniamcaldonia), what's your haste? Would'st aught outstrip?
Also in the Ropemaker he applies the term talabarriunculi to those whom the general public call talabarriones. He writes in the Compitlia:
My jaws I've tamed (malaxavi),
and in The Forgetful Man,
This is that dolt (gurdus) who, when two months ago
From Africa I came, did meet me here,
As I did say.
Also in the farce entitled Natalicius he uses cippus for a small column, obba for a cup, camella for a bowl, pittacim for a flap and capitium for a breast band; the last-named passage reads:
A breast-band (capitium) you put on, the tunic's flap (pittacium). Further, in his Anna Peranna he uses gubernius for pilot, and plans for sycophant, and nanus for dwarf; but Marcus Cicero also wrote planus for sycophant in the speech which he delivered In Defence of Cluentius. Moreover Laberius in the farce entitled The Saturnalia calls a sausage bolulus and says homo levanna instead of levis or “slight.” In the Necyomantia too he uses the very vulgar expression cocio for what our forefathers called arillator or “haggler.” His words are these:
Two wives? More trouble this, the haggler (cocio) says;
Six aediles he had seen. However, in the farce which he called Alexandrea, he used the same Greek word which is in common use, but correctly and in good Latin form; for he put emplastrum in the neuter, not in the feminine gender, as those half-educated innovators of ours do. I quote the words of that farce:
What is an oath? A plaster (emplastrum) for a debt.

> Latin: 7. Quod Laberius verba pleraque licentius petulantiusque finxit; et quod multis item verbis utitur de quibus an sint Latina quaeri solet. LABERIUS, in mimis quos scriptitavit, oppido quam verba finxit praelicenter. Nam et “mendicimonium” dicit et “moechimoniummechimonium” et “adulterionem” “adulteritatemque” pro “adulterio” et “depudicavit” pro “stupravit” et “abluvium” pro “diluvio” et, quod in mimo ponit quem Cophinum inscripsit, “manuatus est” pro “furatus est” et item in Fullone furem “manuarium” appellat:
manuari (inquit) pudorem perdidisti,
multaque alia huiuscemodi novat. Neque non obsoleta quoque et maculantia ex sordidiore vulgi usu ponit, quale est in Staminariis:
Tóllet bona fide vos Orcus nudasnuidas in catómum. Et “elutriare lintea” et “lavandaria” dicit, quae ad lavandum sint data, et:
coicior (inquit) in fullónicam,
et:
Quid próperas? ecquid praecurris, caldónia? Item in Restione “talabarriunculos” dicit, quos vulgus “talabarriones,” item in Compitalibus:
malas malaxavi, item in Cacomnemone:
Hic est (inquit)
Íillelle gurdus, quem ego me abhinc menses duos ex África
Vénientem excepísse tibi narrávi,
item in mimo, qui inscribitur NataliciusNatalicilus, “cippum” dicit et “obbam” et “camellam” et “pittacium” et “capitium”:
Induis (inquit) cápitium tunicaé pittacium. Praeterea in Anna Peranna “gubernium” pro “gubernatore” et “planum” pro “sycophanta” et “nanum” pro “pumilione” dicit; quamquam “planum” pro “sycophanta” M. quoque Cicero in oratione scriptum reliquit, quam Pro Cluentio dixit. Atque item, in mimo qui Saturnalia inscriptus est, “botulum” pro “farcimine” appellat et “hominem levennam” pro “levi.” Item in NecyomantiaNecyomnantia “cocionem” pervulgate dicit, quem veteres “arillatorem” dixerunt. Verba Laberi haec sunt:
Duas uxores? hercle hoc plus negóti est, inquit cócio;
Séx aediles viderat. Sed enim, in mimo quem inscripsit Alexandream, eodem quidem quo vulgus, sed probe Latineque usus est Graeco vocabulo; “emplastrum” enim dixit οὐθετέρως, non genere feminino, ut isti novicii semidocti. Verba ex eo mimo adposui:
Quíd est ius iurandum? emplastrum aeris álieni.

[¶7] 8. The meaning of what the logicians call “an axiom,” and what it is called by our countrymen; and some other things which belong to the elements of the dialectic art. WHEN I wished to be introduced to the science of logic and instructed in it, it was necessary to take up and learn what the dialecticians call ei)sagwgai/ or “introductory exercises.” Then because at first I had to learn about axioms, which Marcus Varro calls, now proposita, or “propositions,” and now proloquia, or “preliminary statements,” I sought diligently for the Commentary on Proloquia of Lucius Aelius, a learned man, who was the teacher of Varro; and finding it in the library of Peace, I read it. But I found in it nothing that was written to instruct or to make the matter clear, but Aelius seems to have made that book rather as suggestions for his own use than for the purpose of teaching others. I therefore of necessity returned to my Greek books. From these I obtained this definition of an axiom: lekto\n au)totele\s a)po/fanton o(/son a)f' au(tw=|. This I forbore to turn into Latin, since it would have been necessary to use new and as yet uncoined words, such as, from their strangeness, the ear could hardly endure. But Marcus Varro in the twenty-fourth book of his Latin Language, dedicated to Cicero, thus defines the word very briefly: “A proloquium is a statement in which nothing is lacking.” But his definition will be clearer if I give an example. An axiom, then, or a preliminary proposition, if you prefer, is of this kind: “Hannibal was a Carthaginian”; “Scipio destroyed Numantia”; “Milo was found guilty of murder”; “pleasure is neither a good nor an evil”; and in general any saying which is a full and perfect thought, so expressed in words that it is necessarily either true or false, is called by the logicians an “axiom,” by Marcus Varro, as I have said, a “proposition,” but by Marcus Cicero a pronuntiatum, or “pronouncement,” a word however which he declared that he used “only until I can find a better one.” But what the Greeks call sunhmme/non a)ci/wma, or “a hypothetical syllogism,” some of our countrymen call adiunctum, others conexum. The following are examples of this: “If Plato is walking, Plato is moving”; “if it is day, the sun is above the earth.” Also what they call sumpeplegme/non, or “a compound proposition,” we call coniunctum or copulatum; for example: “Publius Scipio, son of Paulus, was twice consul and celebrated a triumph, and held the censorship, and was the colleague of Lucius Mummius in his censorship.” But in the whole of a proposition of this kind, if one member is false, even if the rest are true, the whole is said to be false. For if to all those true statements which I have made about that Scipio I add “and he worsted Hannibal in Africa,” which is false, all those other statements which are made in conjunction will not be true, because of this one false statement which is made with them. There is also another form, which the Greeks call diezeugme/non a)ci/wma, or “a disjunctive proposition,” and we call disiunctum. For example: “Pleasure is either good or evil, or it is neither good nor evil.” Now all statements which are contrasted ought to be opposed to each other, and their opposites, which the Greeks call a)ntikei/mena, ought also to be opposed. Of all statements which are contrasted, one ought to be true and the rest false. But if none at all of them is true, or if all, or more than one, are true, or if the contrasted things are not at odds, or if those which are opposed to each other are not contrary, then that is a false contrast and is called paradiezeugme/non. For instance, this case, in which the things which are opposed are not contraries: “Either you run or you walk or you stand.” These acts are indeed contrasted, but when opposed they are not contrary; for “not to walk” and “not to stand” and “not to run” are not contrary to one another, since those things are called “contraries” which cannot be true at the same time. But you may at once and at the same time neither walk, stand, nor run. But for the present it will be enough to have given this little taste of logic, and I need only add by way of advice, that the study and knowledge of this science in its rudiments does indeed, as a rule, seem forbidding and contemptible, as well as disagreeable and useless. But when you have made some progress, then finally its advantages will become clear to you, and a kind of insatiable desire for acquiring it will arise; so much so, that if you do not set bounds to it, there will be great danger lest, as many others have done, you should reach a second childhood amid those mazes and meanders of logic, as if among the rocks of the Sirens.

> Latin: 8. Quid significet et quid a nostris appellatum sit quod “axioma” dialectici dicunt; et quaedam alia quae prima in disciplina dialectica traduntur. CUM in disciplinas dialecticas induci atque imbui vellemus, necessus fuit adire atque cognoscere quas vocant dialectici εἰσαγωγάς. Tum, quia in primo περὶ ἀξιωμάτων discendum, quae M. Varro alias “profata,” alias “proloquia” appellat, commentariumCommeniarium De Proloquiis L. Aelii, docti hominis, qui magister Varronis fuit, studiose quaesivimus eumque in Pacis bibliotheca repertun legimus. Sed in eo nihil edocenter neque ad instituendum explanate scriptum est, fecisseque videtur eum librum Aelius sui magis admonendi quam aliorum docendi gratia. Redimus igitur necessario ad Graecos libros. Ex quibus accepimus ἀξίωμα esse his verbis definitum: λεκτὸν αὐτοτελὲς ἀπόφαντον ὅσον ἐφʼ αὑτῷ. Hoc ego supersedi vertere, quia novis et inconditis vocibus utendum fuit, quas pati aures per insolentiam vix possent. Sed M. Varro in libro De Lingua Latina ad Ciceronem quarto vicesimo expeditissime ita finit: “Proloquium est sententia in qua nihil desideratur.” Erit autem planius quid istud sit, si exemplum eius dixerimus. Ἀξίωμα igitur, sive id “proloquium” dicere placet, huiusmodihuiuscemodi est: “Hannibal Poenus fuit”; “Scipio Numantiam delevit”; “Milo caedis damnatus est”; “neque bonum est voluptas neque malum”; et omnino quicquid ita dicitur plena atque perfecta verborum sententia, ut id necesse sit aut verum aut falsum esse, id a dialecticis ἀξίωμα appellatum est, a M. Varrone, sicuti dixi, “proloquium,” a M. autem Cicerone “pronuntiatum,” quo ille tamen vocabulo tantisper uti se adtestatus est, “quoad melius,” inquit, “invenero.” Sed quod Graeci συνημμένον ἀξίωμα dicunt, id alii nostrorum “adiunctum,” alii “conexum” dixerunt. Id “conexum” tale est: “si Plato ambulat, Plato movetur”; “si dies est, sol super terras est.” Item quod illi συμπεπλεγμένον, nos vel “coniunctum” vel “copulatum” dicimus, quod est huiuscemodieiusdemmodi: “P. Scipio, Pauli filius, et bis consul fuit et triumphavit et censura functus est et collega in censura L. Mummi fuit.” In omni autem coniuncto si unum est mendacium, etiamsi cetera vera sunt, totum esse mendacium dicitur. Nam si ad ea omnia quae de Scipione illo vera dixi, addidero “et Hannibalem in Africa superavit,” quod est falsum, universa quoque illa quae coniuncte dicta sunt, propter hoc unum quod falsum accesserit, quia simul dicentur, vera non erunt. Est item aliud quod Graeci διεζευγμένον ἀξίωμα, nos “disiunctum” dicimus. Id huiusmodihuiuscemodi est: “Aut malum est voluptas aut bonum, aut neque bonum neque malum est.” Omnia autem quae disiunguntur pugnantia esse inter sese oportet, eorumque opposita, quae ἀντικείμενα Graeci dicunt, ea quoque ipsa inter se adversa esse. Ex omnibus quae disiunguntur unum esse verum debet, falsa cetera. Quod si aut nihil omnium verum aut omnia plurave quam unum vera erunt, aut quae disiuncta sunt non pugnabunt, aut quae opposita eorum sunt contraria inter sese non erunt, tunc id disiunctum mendacium est et appellatur παραδιεζευγμένον, sicuti hoc est, in quo quae opposita non sunt contraria: “Aut curris aut ambulas aut stas.” Nam ipsa quidem inter se adversa sunt, sed opposita eorum non pugnant: “non ambulare” enim et “non stare” et “non currere” contraria inter sese non sunt, quoniam “contraria” ea dicuntur quae simul vera esse non queunt; possis enim simul eodemque tempore neque ambulare neque stare neque currere. Sed hoc iam breve ex dialectica libamentum dedisse. nunc satis erit atque id solum addendum admonendumque est, quod huius disciplinae studium atque cognitio in principiis quidem taetra et aspernabilis insuavisque esse et inutilis videri solet, sed, ubi aliquantum processeris, tum denique et emolumentum eius in animo tuo dilucebit et sequitur quaedam discendi voluptas insatiabilis, cui sane nisi modum feceris, periculum non mediocre erit ne, ut plerique alii, tu quoque in illis dialecticae gyris atque maeandrismeandris, tamquam apud Sirenios scopulos, consenescas.