---
title: "Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae"
author: "Aulus Gellius"
translator: "John C. Rolfe"
languages: [la, en]
shelf: "Classical Latin"
section: 8 of 46
url: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/8/
cite: "Aulus Gellius, tr. John C. Rolfe, Attic Nights · Noctes Atticae, section 8. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/8/"
---

# 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.

## 8. Book III · chapters 1–10

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/8/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/gellius-attic-nights/8/#p-N

[¶0] 1. A discussion of the question why Sallust said that avarice rendered effeminate, not only a manly soul, but also the very body itself. WHEN winter was already waning, we were walking with the philosopher Favorinus in the court of the Titian baths, enjoying the mild warmth of the sun; and there, as we walked, Sallust's Catiline was being read, a book which Favorinus had seen in the hands of a friend and had asked him to read. The following passage from that book had been recited: “Avarice implies a desire for money, which no wise man covets; steeped as it were with noxious poisons, it renders the most manly body and soul effeminate; it is ever unbounded, nor can either plenty or want make it less.” Then Favorinus looked at me and said: “How does avarice make a man's body effeminate? For I seem to grasp in general the meaning of his statement that it has that effect on a manly soul, but how it also makes his body effeminate I do not yet comprehend.” “I too,” said I, “have for a long time been putting myself that question, and if you had not anticipated me, I should of my own accord have asked you to answer it.” Scarcely had I said this with some hesitation, when one of the disciples of Favorinus, who seemed to be an old hand in the study of literature, broke in: “I once heard Valerius Probus say that Sallust here used a kind of poetic circumlocution, and meaning to say that a man was corrupted by avarice, spoke of his body and soul, the two factors which indicate a man; for man is made up of body and soul.” “Never,” replied Favorinus, “at least, so far as I know, was our Probus guilty of such impertinent and bold subtlety as to say that Sallust, a most skilful artist in conciseness, used poetic paraphrases.” There was with us at the time in the same promenade a man of considerable learning. He too, on being asked by Favorinus whether he had anything to say on the subject, answered to this effect: “We observe that almost all those whose minds are possessed and corrupted by avarice and who have devoted themselves to the acquisition of money from any and every source, so regulate their lives, that compared with money they neglect manly toil and attention to bodily exercise, as they do everything else. For they are commonly intent upon indoor and sedentary pursuits, in which all their vigour of mind and body is enfeebled and, as Sallust says, 'rendered effeminate.'” Then Favorinus asked to have the same words of Sallust read again, and when they had been read, he said: “How then are we to explain the fact, that it is possible to find many men who are greedy for money, but nevertheless have strong and active bodies?” To this the man replied thus: “Your answer is certainly to the point. Whoever,” said he, “is greedy for money, but nevertheless has a body that is strong and in good condition, must necessarily be possessed either by an interest in, or devotion to, other things as well, and cannot be equally niggardly in his care of himself. For if extreme avarice, to the exclusion of everything else, lay hold upon all a man's actions and desires, and if it extend even to neglect of his body, so that because of that one passion he has regard neither for virtue nor physical strength, nor body, nor soul—then, and then only, can that vice truly be said to cause effeminacy both of body and of soul, since such men care neither for themselves nor for anything else except money.” Then said Favorinus: “Either what you have said is reasonable, or Sallust, through hatred of avarice, brought against it a heavier charge than he could justify.”

> Latin: 1. Quaesitum atque tractatum quam ob causam Sallustius avaritiam dixerit non animumanimumum modo virilem, sed corpus quoque ipsum effeminareefferninare. HIEME iam decedente, apud balneas Titias in area subcalido sole cum Favorino philosopho ambulabamus; atque ibi inter ambulandum legebatur Catilina Sallustii, quem in manu amici conspectum legi iusserat. Cumque haec verba ex eo libro lecta essent: “Avaritia pecuniae studium habet, quam nemo sapiens concupivit; ea quasi venenis malis imbuta corpus animumque virilem effeminat, semper infinita et insatiabilis est, neque copia neque inopia minuitur,” tum Favorinus me aspiciens “Quo,” inquit, “pacto corpus hominis avaritia effeminat? Quid enim istuc sit, quod animum virilem ab ea effeminari dixit, videor ferme assequi, set quonam modo corpus quoque hominis effeminet nondum reperiorcperio.” “Et ego,” inquam, “longe iamdiu in eo ipse quaerendo fui ac, nisi tu occupasses, ultro te hoc rogassem.” Vix ego haec dixeram cunctabundus, atque inibi quispiam de sectatoribus Favorini, qui videbatur esse in litteris veterator, “Valerium,” inquit, “Probum audivi haec dicere: usum esse Sallustium circumlocutione quadam poetica et, cum dicere vellet hominem avaritia corrumpi, corpus et animum dixisse, quae duae res hominem demonstrarent; namque homo ex anima et corpore est.” “Numquam,” inquit Favorinus, “quod equidem scio, tam inportuna tamque audaci argutia fuit noster Probus, ut Sallustium, vel subtilissimum brevitatis artificem, periphrasis poetarum facere diceret.” Erat tum nobiscum in eodem ambulacro homo quispiam sane doctus. Is quoque a Favorino rogatus ecquid haberet super ea re dicere, huiuscemodi verbis usus est: “Quorum,” inquit, “avaritia mentem tenuit et corrupit quique sese quaerundae undique pecuniae dediderunt, eos plerosque tali genere vitae occupatos videmus, ut sicuti alia in his omnia prae pecunia, ita labor quoque virilis exercendique corporis studium relictui sit.” “Negotiis enim se plerumque umbraticis et sellulariis quaestibus intentos habent, in quibus omnis eorum vigor animi corporisque elanguescit et, quod Sallustius ait, ‘effeminatur.’” Tum Favorinus legi denuo verba eadem Sallustii iubet atque, ubi lecta sunt, “Quid igitur,” inquit, “dicimus, quod multos videre est pecuniae cupidos et eosdem tamen corpore esse vegeto ac valenti?” Tum ille ita respondit: “Respondes non hercle inscite. Quisquis,” inquit, “est pecuniae cupiens et corpore tamen est bene habito ac strenuo, aliarum quoque rerum vel studio vel exercitio eum teneri necessum est atque in sese colendo non aeque esse parcum.” “Nam si avaritia sola summa omnes hominis partes affectionesque occupet et si ad incuriam usque corporis grassetur, ut per illam unam neque virtutis neque virium neque corporis neque animi cura adsit, tum denique id vere dici potest effeminando esse et animo et corpori, si qui neque sese neque aliud curent, nisi pecuniam.” Tum Favorinus “Aut hoc,” inquit, “quod dixisti, probabile est, aut Sallustius odio avaritiae plus quam par fuit eam criminatus est.”

[¶1] 2. Which was the birthday, according to Marcus Varro, of those born before the sixth hour of the night, or after it and in that connection, concerning the duration and limits of the days that are termed “civil” and are reckoned differently all over the world; and in addition, what Quintus Mucius wrote about that woman who claimed freedom from her husband's control illegally, because she had not taken account of the civil year. IT is often inquired which day should be considered and called the birthday of those who are born in the third, the fourth, or any other hour of the night; that is, whether it is the day that preceded, or the day that followed, that night. Marcus Varro, in that book of his Human Antiquities which he wrote On Days, says: “Persons who are born during the twenty-four hours between one midnight and the next midnight are considered to have been born on one and the same day.” From these words it appears that he so apportioned the reckoning of the days, that the birthday of one who is born after sunset, but before midnight, is the day after which that night began; but that, on the other hand, one who is born during the last six hours of the night is considered to have been born on the day which dawned after that night. However, Varro also wrote in that same book that the Athenians reckon differently, and that they regard all the intervening time from one sunset to the next as one single day. That the Babylonians counted still differently; for they called by the name of one day the whole space of time between sunrise and the beginning of the next sunrise; but that in the land of Umbria many said that from midday to the following midday was one and the same day. “But this,” he said, “is too absurd. For the birthday of one who is born among the Umbrians at mid-day on the first of the month will have to be considered as both half of the first day of the month and that part of the second day which comes before midday.” But it is shown by abundant evidence that the Roman people, as Varro said, reckoned each day from midnight to the next midnight. The religious ceremonies of the Romans are performed in part by day, others by night; but those which take place by night are appointed for certain days, not for nights; accordingly, those that take place during the last six hours of the night are said to take place on the day which dawns immediately after that night. Moreover, the ceremony and method of taking the auspices point to the same way of reckoning; for the magistrates, whenever they must take the auspices, and transact the business for which they have taken the auspices, on the same day, take the auspices after midnight and transact tile business after midday, when the sun is high, and they are then said to have taken the auspices and acted on the same day. Again, when the tribunes of the commons, who are not allowed to be away from Rome for a whole day, leave the city after midnight and return after the first lighting of the lamps on the following day, but before midnight, they are not considered to have been absent for a whole day, since they returned before the completion of the sixth hour of the night, and were in the city of Rome for some part of that day. I have read that Quintus Mucius, the jurist, also used to say that a woman did not become her own mistress who, after entering upon marriage relations with a man on the day called the Kalends of January, left him, for the purpose of emancipating herself, on the fourth day before the Kalends of the following January; for the period of three nights, during which the Twelve Tables provided that a woman must be separated from her husband for the purpose of gaining her independence, could not be completed, since the last six hours of the third night belonged to the next year, which began on the first of January. Now since I found all the above details about the duration and limits of days, pertaining to the observance and the system of ancient law, in the works of our early writers, I did not doubt that Virgil also indicated the same thing, not directly and openly, but, as became one treating poetic themes, by an indirect and as it were veiled allusion to ancient observance. He says:
For dewy Night has wheeled her way
Far past her middle course; the panting steeds
Of orient Morn breathe pitiless on me.
For in these lines he wished to remind us covertly, as I have said, that the day which the Romans have called “civil” begins after the completion of the sixth hour of the night.

> Latin: 2. Quemnam esse natalem diem M. Varro dicat, qui ante noctis horam sextam postve eamearn nati sunt; atque inibi de temporibus terminisque dierum qui civiles nominantur et usquequaque gentium varie observantur; et praeterea quid Q. Mucius scripserit super ea muliere quae a marito non iure se usurpavisset, quod rationem civilis anni non habuerit. QUAERI solitum est, qui noctis hora tertia quartave sive qua alia nati sunt, uter dies natalis haberi appellarique debeat, isne quem nox ea consecuta est, an qui dies noctem consecutus est. M. Varro in libro Rerum humanarumHumnanarum, quem De Diebus scripsit, “homines,” inquit, “qui inde a media nocte ad proximam mediam noctem in his horis viginti quattuor nati sunt, uno die nati dicuntur.” Quibus verbis ita videtur dierum observationem divisisse, ut qui post solem occasum ante mediam noctem natus sit, is ei dies natalis sit, a quo die ea nox coeperit; contra vero, qui in sex noctis horis posterioribus nascatur, eo die videri natum, qui post eamearn noctem diluxerit. Athenienses autem aliter observare, idem Varro in eodem libro scripsit, eosque a sole occaso ad solem iterum occidentem omne id medium tempus unum diem esse dicere. Babylonios porro aliter; a sole enim exorto ad exortum eiusdem incipientem totum id spatium unius diei nomine appellare; multos vero in terra Umbria unum et eundem diem esse dicere a meridie ad insequentem meridiem; “quod quidem,” inquit, “nimis absurdum est. Nam qui Kalendis hora sexta apud Umbros natus est, dies eius natalis videri debebit et Kalendarum dimidiarum et qui est post Kalendas dies ante horam eius diei sextam.” Populum autem Romanum ita, uti Varro dixit, dies singulos adnumerare a media nocte ad mediam proximam, multis argumentis ostenditur. Sacra sunt Romana partim diurna, alia nocturna, sed ea quae inter noctem fiunt diebus addicuntur, non noctibus; quae igitur sex posterioribus noctis horis fiunt, eo die fieri dicuntur qui proximus eam noctem inlucescit. Ad hoc ritus quoque et mos auspicandi eandem esse observationem docet; nam magistratus, quando uno die eis auspicandum est et id super quo auspicaverunt agendum, post mediam noctem auspicantur et post meridiem sole magno agunt, auspicatique esse et egisse eodem die dicuntur. Praeterea tribuni plebei, quos nullum diem abessealesse Roma licet, cum post mediam noctem proficiscuntur et post primam facem ante mediam sequentem revertuntur, non videntur afuisse unum diem, quoniam, ante horam noctis sextam regressi, parte aliqua illius in urbe Roma sunt. Q. quoque Mucium iureconsultum dicere solitum legi, non esse usurpatam mulierem, quae, cum Kalendis Ianuariis apud virum matrimonii causa esse coepisset, ante diem IV. Kalendas Ianuarias sequentes usurpatumusulpatum isset; non enim posse impleri trinoctium, quod abesse a viro usurpandi causa ex Duodecim Tabulis deberet, quoniam tertiae noctis posterioris sex horae alterius anni essent, qui inciperet ex Kalendis. Istaec autem omnia de dierum temporibus et finibus ad observationem disciplinamque iuris antiqui pertinentia cum in libris veterum inveniremus, non dubitabamus quin Vergilius quoque id ipsum ostenderit, non exposite atque aperte, sed, ut hominemhoiniem decuit poeticas res agentem, recondita et quasi operta veteris ritus significatione: Torquet (inquit) medios nox umida cursus
Et me saevus equis oriens afflavit anhelis. His enim versibus oblique, sicuti dixi, admonere voluit, diem quem Romani “civilem” appellaverunt a sexta noctis hora oriri.

[¶2] 3. On investigating and identifying the comedies of Plautus, since the genuine and the spurious without distinction are said to have been inscribed with his name; and further as to the report that Plautus wrote plays in a bakery and Naevius in prison. I AM convinced of the truth of the statement which I have heard made by men well trained in literature, who have read a great many plays of Plautus with care and attention: namely, that with regard to the so-called “doubtful” plays they would trust, not the lists of Aelius or Sedigitus or Claudius or Aurelius or Accius or Manilius, but Plautus himself and the characteristic features of his manner and diction. Indeed, this is the criterion which we find Varro using. For in addition to those one and twenty known as “Varronian,” which he set apart from the rest because they were not questioned but by common consent were attributed to Plautus, he accepted also some others, influenced by the style and humour of their language, which was characteristic of Plautus; and although these had already been listed under the names of other poets, he claimed them for Plautus: for example, one that I was recently reading, called The Boeotian woman. For although it is not among those one and twenty and is attributed to Aquilius, still Varro had not the least doubt that it was Plautine, nor will any other habitual reader of Plautus doubt it, even if lie knows only the following verses from that play, which, since they are, to speak in the manner of that famous poet, most Plautine, I recall and have noted down. There a hungry parasite speaks as follows:
The gods confound the man who first found out
How to distinguish hours! Confound him, too,
Who in this place set up a sun-dial
To cut and hack my days so wretchedly
Into small portions! When I was a boy,
My belly was my only sun-dial, one more sure,
Truer, and more exact than any of them.
This dial told me when 'twas proper time
To go to dinner, when I had aught to eat;
But nowadays, why even when I have,
I can't fall to unless the sun gives leave.
The town's so full of these confounded dials
The greatest part of the inhabitants,
Shrunk up with hunger, crawl along the streets. My master Favorinus too, when I was reading the Nervularia of Plautus, and he had heard this line of the comedy:
Old, wheezing, physicky, mere foundered hags
With dry, parched, painted hides, shrivell'd and shrunk,
delighted with the wit of the archaic words that describe the ugly defects of harlots, cried: “By heaven! just this one verse is enough to convince one that the play is Plautine.” I myself too a little while ago, when reading the Fretum—that is the name of a comedy which some think is not Plautine—had no manner of doubt that it was by Plautus and in fact of all his plays the most authentic. From it I copied these two lines, with the intention of looking up the story of the Arretine oracle:
Now here we have at the great games the Arretine response:
I perish if I don't, and if I do, I'm flogged. Yet Marcus Varro, in the first book of his Comedies of Plautus, quotes these words of Accius: “For not the Twin Panders nor the Slave-ring nor the Old Woman were the work of Plautus, nor were ever the Twice Violated or the Boeotian woman, nor were the Clownish Rustic or the Partners in, Death the work of Titus Maccius.” In that same book of Varro's we are told also that there was another writer of comedies called Plautius. Since his plays bore the title “Plauti,” they were accepted as Plautine, although in fact they were not Plautine by Plautus, but Plautinian by Plautius. Now there are in circulation under the name of Plautus about one hundred and thirty comedies; but that most learned of men Lucius Aelius thought that only twenty-five of them were his. However, there is no doubt that those which do not appear to have been written by Plautus but are attached to his name, were the work of poets of old but were revised and touched up by him, and that is why they savour of the Plautine style. Now Varro and several others have recorded that the Saturio, the Addictus, and a third comedy, the name of which I do not now recall, were written by Plautus in a bakery, when, after losing in trade all the money which he had earned in employments connected with the stage, he had returned penniless to Rome, and to earn a livelihood had hired himself out to a baker, to turn a mill, of the kind which is called a “push-mill.” So too we are told of Naevius that he wrote two plays in prison, the Soothsayer and the Leon, when by reason of his constant abuse and insults aimed at the leading men of the city, after the manner of the Greek poets, he had been imprisoned at Rome by the triumvirs. And afterwards he was set free by the tribunes of the commons, when he had apologized for his offences and the saucy language with which he had previously assailed many men.

> Latin: 3. De noscendis explorandisque Plauti comoediis, quoniamquonian promiscepromise verae atque falsae nomine eius inscriptaeinscriptac feruntur; atque inibi, quod Plautus in pistrino et Naevius in carcere fabulas scriptitarint. VERUM esse comperior quod quosdam bene litteratos homines dicere audivi, qui plerasque Plauti comoedias curiose atque contente lectitarunt, non indicibus Aelii nec Sedigiti nec Claudii nec Aurelii nec Accii nec Manilii super his fabulis quae dicuntur “ambiguae” crediturum, sed ipsi Plauto moribusque ingeni atque linguae eius. Hac enim iudicii norma Varronem quoque usum videmus. Nam praeter illas unam et viginti quae “Varronianae” vocantur, quas idcirco a ceteris segregavit, quoniam dubiosae non erant set consensu omnium Plauti esse censebantur, quasdam item alias probavit adductus filo atque facetia sermonis Plauto congruentis easque iam nominibus aliorum occupatas Plauto vindicavit, sicuti istam quam nuperrime legebamus, cui est nomen Boeotia. Nam cum in illis una et viginti non sit et esse Aquili dicatur, nihil tamen Varro dubitavit quin Plauti foret, neque alius quisquam non infrequens Plauti lector dubitaverit, si vel hos solos ex ea fabula versus cognoverit, qui quoniam sunt, ut de illius Plauti more dicam, Plautinissimi, propterea et meminimus eos et ascripsimus. Parasitus ibi esuriens haec dicit:
Ut illúm di perdant, prímus qui horas répperit,
Quique ádeo primus státuit hichie solárium,
Qui míhi comminuit mísero articulatím diem.
Nam unúm me puero vénter erat soláríum
Multo ómnium istorum óptimum et veríssimum;
Ubivís monebat ésse, nisi quom níl erat.
Nunc étiam quod est non éstur, nisi solí libet;
Itaque ádeo iam oppletum óppidum est soláriis,
Maiór pars populi iam áridi reptánt fame. Favorinus quoque noster, cum Nervulariam Plauti legerem, quae inter incertas habita est, et audisset ex ea comoedia versum hunc:
Scrattáe, scrupipedae, stríttivillae sórdidae,
delectatus faceta verborum antiquitate, meretricum vitia atque deformitates significantium, “vel unus hercle,” inquit, “hic versus Plauti esse hanc fabulam satis potest fidei fecisse.” Nos quoque ipsi nuperrime, cum legeremus Fretum—nomen est id comoediae quam Plauti esse quidam non putant,—haut quicquam dubitavimus quin ea Plauti foret, et omnium quidem maxime genuina. Ex qua duo hos versus exscripsimus, ut historiam quaereremus oraculi Arretini:
Nunc íllud est quód responsum Arreti ludis magnis dícitur:
Períbo, si non fécero, si fáxo, vapulábo. M. tamen Varro in libro De Comoediis Plautinis primo Accii verba haec ponit: “Nam nec Geminei Lenones nec Condalium nec Anus Plauti, nec Bis Coimpressa nec Boeotia umquam fuit, neque adeo Agroecus neque Commorientes Macci Titi.” In eodem libro M. Varronis id quoque scriptum, et Plautium fuisse quempiam poetam comoediarum. Quoniam fabulae eae “Plauti” inscriptae forent, acceptas esse quasi Plautinas, cum essent non a Plauto Plautinae, sed a Plautio Plautianae. Feruntur autem sub Plauti nomine comoediaecomoediac circiter centum atque triginta; sed homo eruditissimus L. Aelius quinque et viginti eius esse solas existimavit. Neque tamen dubium est quin istaec quae scriptae a Plauto non videntur et nomini eius addicuntur, veterum poetarum fuerint et ab eo retractatae et expolitae sint ac propterea resipiant stilum Plautinum. Sed enim Saturionem et Addictum et tertiam quandam, cuius nunc mihi nomen non subpetit, in pistrino eum scripsisse Varro et plerique alii memoriae tradiderunt, cum, pecunia omni quam in operas artificum scaenicorum pepereratpeperat, in mercatibus perdita, inops Romam redisset et ob quaerendum victum ad circumagendas molas quae “trusatiles” appellantur, operam pistori locasset. Sicuti de Naevio quoque accepimus fabulas eum in carcere duas scripsisse, Hariolum et Leontem, cum ob assiduam maledicentiam et probra in principes civitatis de Graecorum poetarum more dicta in vincula Romae a triumviris coniectus esset. Unde post a tribunis plebis exemptus est, cum in his quas supra dixi fabulis delicta sua et petulantias dictorum quibus multos ante laeserat diluisset.

[¶3] 4. That it was an inherited custom of Publius Africanus and other distinguished men of his time to shave their beard and cheeks. I FOUND it stated in books which I read dealing with the life of Publius Scipio Africanus, that Publius Scipio, the son of Paulus, after he had celebrated a triumph because of his victory over the Carthaginians and had been censor, was accused before the people by Claudius Asellus, tribune of the commons, whom he had degraded from knighthood during his censorship; and that Scipio, although he was under accusation, neither ceased to shave his beard and to wear white raiment nor appeared in the usual garb of those under accusation. But since it is certain that at that time Scipio was less than forty years old, I was surprised at the statement about shaving his beard. I have learned, however, that in those same times the other nobles shaved their beards at that time of life, and that is why we see many busts of early men represented in that way, men who were not very old, but in middle life.

> Latin: 4. Quod P. Africano et aliis tunc viris nobilibus ante aetatem senectam barbam et genas radere mos patrius fuit. IN libris quos de vita P. Scipionis Africani compositos legimus, scriptum esse animadvertimus P. Scipioni, Pauli filio, postquam de Poenis triumphaverat censorque fuerat, diem dictum esse ad populum a Claudio Asello tribuno plebis, cui equum in censura ademerat, eumque, cum esset reus, neque barbam desisse radi neque candida veste uti neque fuisse cultu solito reorum. Sed cum in eo tempore Scipionem minorem quadraginta annorum fuisse constaret, quod de barba rasa ita scriptum esset mirabamur. Comperimus autem ceteros quoque in isdem temporibus nobiles viros barbam in eiusmodi aetate rasitavisse, idcircoque plerasque imagines veterum, non admodum senum, sed in medio aetatis, ita factas videmus.

[¶4] 5. How the philosopher Arcesilaus severely yet humorously taunted a man with the vice of voluptuousness and with unmanliness of expression and conduct. PLUTARCH tells us that Arcesilaus the philosopher used strong language about a certain rich man, who was too pleasure-loving, but nevertheless had a reputation for uprightness and freedom from sensuality. For when he observed the man's affected speech, his artfully arranged hair, and his wanton glances, teeming with seduction and voluptuousness, he said: “It makes no difference with what parts of your body you debauch yourself, front or rear.”

> Latin: 5. Deliciarum vitium et mollities oculorum et corporis ab Arcesila philosopho cuidam obprobrata acerbe simul et festiviter. PLUTARCHUS refert Arcesilaum philosophum vehementi verbo usum esse de quodam nimis delicato divite, qui incorruptus tamen et a stupro integer dicebatur. Nam cum vocem eius infractam capillumque arte compositum et oculos ludibundos atque inlecebrae voluptatisque plenos videret, “Nihil interest,” inquit, “quibus membris cinaedi sitis, posterioribusposteriorilus an prioribus.”

[¶5] 6. On the natural strength of the palm-tree; for when weights are placed upon its wood, it resists their pressure. A TRULY wonderful fact is stated by Aristotle in the seventh book of his Problems, and by Plutarch in the eighth of his Symposiaca. “If,” say they, “you place heavy weights on the wood of the palmtree, and load it so heavily and press it down so hard that the burden is too great to bear, the wood does not give way downward, nor is it made concave, but it rises against the weight and struggles upward and assumes a convex form. It is for that reason,” says Plutarch, “that the palm has been chosen as the symbol of victory in contests, since the nature of its wood is such that it does not yield to what presses hard upon it and tries to crush it.”

> Latin: 6. De vi atque natura palmae arboris, quod lignum ex ea ponderibus positis renitatur. PER hercle rem mirandam Aristoteles in septimo Problematorum et Plutarchus in octavo Symposiacorum dicit. “Si super palmae,” inquiunt, “arboris lignum magna pondera inponas ac tam graviter urgeas oneresque, ut magnitudomnagnitudo oneris sustineri non queat, non deorsum palma cedit nec intra flectitur, sed adversus pondus resurgit et sursum nititur recurvaturque”; “propterea,” inquit Plutarchus, “in certaminibus palmam signum esse placuit victoriae, quoniam ingenium ligni eiusmodi est, ut urgentibus opprimentibusque non cedat.”

[¶6] 7. A tale from the annals about Quintus Caedicius, tribune of the soldiers; and a passage from the Origins of Marcus Cato, in which he likens the valour of Caedicius to that of the Spartan Leonidas. A GLORIOUS deed, by the Gods! and well worthy of the noble strains of Greek eloquence, is that of the military tribune Quintus Caedicius, recorded by Marcus Cato in his Origins. The actual account runs about as follows: In the first Punic war the Carthaginian general in Sicily advanced to meet the Roman army and was first to take possession of the hills and strategic points. As the result of this, the Roman soldiers made their way into a place exposed to surprise and extreme danger. The tribune went to the consul and pointed out that destruction was imminent from their unfavourable position and from the fact that the enemy had surrounded them. “My advice is,” said he, “if you want to save the day, that you order some four hundred soldiers to advance to yonder wart” —for that is Cato's term for a high and rough bit of ground—“and command and conjure them to hold it. When the enemy see that, undoubtedly all their bravest and most active men will be intent upon attacking and fighting with them; they will devote themselves to that one task, and beyond a doubt all those four hundred will be slaughtered. Then in the meantime, while the enemy is engaged in killing them, you will have time to get the army out of this position. There is no other way of safety but this.” The consul replied to the tribune that the plan seemed to him equally wise; “but who, pray,” said he, “will there be to lead those four hundred men of yours to that place in the midst of the enemy's troops?” “If you find no one else,” answered the tribune, “you may use me for that dangerous enterprise. I offer this life of mine to you and to my country.” The consul thanked and commended the tribune. The tribune and his four hundred marched forth to death. The enemy marvelled at their boldness; they were on tiptoe of expectation to see where they would go. But when it appeared that they were on their way to occupy that hill, the Carthaginian commander sent against them the strongest men in his army, horse and foot. The Roman soldiers were surrounded; though surrounded, they resisted; the battle was long and doubtful. At last numbers triumphed. Every man of the four hundred fell, including the tribune, either run through with swords or overwhelmed with missiles. Meanwhile the consul, while the battle was raging there, withdrew to a safe position on high ground. But what, by Heaven's help, befell that tribune, the leader of the four hundred soldiers, in the battle, I have added, no longer using my own words, but giving those of Cato himself, who says: “The immortal gods gave the tribune good fortune equal to his valour; for this is what happened. Although he had been wounded in many places during the battle, yet his head was uninjured, and they recognized him among the dead, unconscious from wounds and loss of blood. They bore him off the field, he recovered, and often after that rendered brave and vigorous service to his country; and by that act of leading that forlorn hope lie saved the rest of the army. But what a difference it makes where you do the same service! The Laconian Leonidas, who performed a like exploit at Thermopylae, because of his valour won unexampled glory and gratitude from all Greece, and was honoured with memorials of the highest distinction; they showed their appreciation of that deed of his by pictures, statues and honorary inscriptions, in their histories, and in other ways; but the tribune of the soldiers, who had done the same thing and saved an army, gained small glory for his deeds.” With such high personal testimony did Marcus Cato honour this valorous deed of Quintus Caedicius the tribune. But Claudius Quadrigarius, in the third book of his Annals, says that the man's name was not Caedicius, but Laberius.

> Latin: 7. Historia ex annalibus sumpta de Q. Caedicio tribuno militummilitu; verbaque ex Originibus M. Catonis apposita, quibus Caedici virtutem cum Spartano Leonida aequiperat. PULCRUM, dii boni, facinus Graecarumque facundiarum magniloquentia condignum M. Cato libris Originum de Q. Caedicio tribuno militum scriptum reliquit. Id profecto est ad hanc ferme sententiam: Imperator Poenus in terra Sicilia, bello Carthaginiensi primo, obviam Romano exercitu progreditur, colles locosque idoneos prior occupat. Milites Romani, uti res nata est, in locum insinuant fraudi et perniciei obnoxium. Tribulus ad consulem venit, ostendit exitium de loci importunitate et hostium circumstantia maturum. “Censeo,” inquit, “si rem servare vis, faciundum ut quadringentos aliquos milites ad verrucam illam,” sic enim Cato locum editum asperumque appellat, “ire iubeas, eamque uti occupent imperes horterisque; hostes profecto ubi id viderint, fortissimus quisque et promptissimus ad occursandum pugnandumque in eos praevertentur unoque illo negotio sese alligabunt atque illi omnes quadringenti procul dubio obtruncabuntur.” “Tunc interea, occupatis in ea caede hostibus, tempus exercitus ex hoc loco educendi habebis.” “Alia nisi haec salutis via nulla est.” Consul tribuno respondit, consilium quidem istud aeque providens sibi viderier; “sed istos,” inquit, “milites quadringentos ad eum locum in hostium cuneos quisnam erit qui ducat?” “Si alium,” inquit tribunus, “neminem reperisrepperis, me licet ad hoc periculum utare; ego hanc tibi et reipublicae animam do.” Consul tribuno gratias laudesque agit. Tribunus et quadringenti ad moriendum proficiscuntur. Hostes eorum audaciam demirantur, quorsum ire pergant in expectando sunt. Sed ubi apparuit ad eam verrucam occupandam iter intendere, mittit adversum illos imperator Carthaginiensis peditatum equitatumque quos in exercitu viros habuit strenuissimos. Romani milites circumveniuntur, circumventi repugnant; fit proelium diu anceps. Tandem superat multitudo. Quadringenti omnes cum tribuno perfossi gladiis aut missilibus operti cadunt. Consul interim, dum ibi pugnatur, se in locos tutos atque editos subducit. Sed quod illi tribuno, duci militum quadringentorum, divinitus in eo proelio usus venit, non iam nostris, sed ipsius Catonis verbis subiecimus: “Dii inmortales tribuno militum fortunam ex virtute eius dedere. Nam ita evenit: cum saucius multifariam ibi factus esset, tamen vulnus capiti nullum evenit, eumque inter mortuos, defetigatum vulneribus atque quod sanguen eius defluxerat, cognovere. Eum sustulere, isque convaluit, saepeque post illa operam reipublicae fortem atque strenuam perhibuitpraehibuit illoque facto, quod illos milites subduxit, exercitum ceterum servavit. Sed idem benefactum quo in loco ponas, nimium interest. Leonides Laco, qui simile apud Thermopylas fecit, propter eius virtutes omnis Graecia gloriam atque gratiam praecipuam claritudinis inclitissimae decoravere monumentis: signis, statuis, elogiis, historiis aliisque rebus gratissimum id eius factum habuere; at tribuno militum parva laus pro factis relicta, qui idem fecerat atque rem servaverat.” Hanc Q. Caedici tribuni virtutem M. Cato tali suo testimonio decoravit. Claudius autem Quadrigarius Annalis tertio non Caedicio nomen fuisse ait, sed Laberio.

[¶7] 8. A fine letter of the consuls Gaius Fabricius and Quintus Aemilius to king Pyrrhus, recorded by the historian Quintus Claudius. AT the time when king Pyrrhus was on Italian soil and had won one or two battles, when the Romans were getting anxious, and the greater part of Italy had gone over to the king, a certain Timochares, an Ambracian and a friend of king Pyrrhus, came stealthily to the consul Gaius Fabricius and asked a reward, promising that if they could come to terms, he would poison the king. This, he said, could easily be done, since his son was the monarch's cup-bearer. Fabricius transmitted this offer to the senate. The senate sent envoys to the king, instructing them not to reveal anything about Timochares, but to warn the king to act with more caution, and be on his guard against the treachery of those nearest to his own person. This, as I have told it, is the version found in the History of Valerius Antias. But Quadrigarius, in his third book, says that it was not Timochares, but Nicias, that approached the consul; that the embassy was not sent by the senate, but by the consuls; and that Pyrrhus thanked and complimented the Roman people in a letter, besides clothing and returning all the prisoners that were then in his hands. The consuls at that time were Gaius Fabricius and Quintus Aemilius. The letter which they sent to king Pyrrhus about that matter, according to Claudius Quadrigarius, ran as follows:
" The Roman consuls greet king Pyrrhus.
We, being greatly disturbed in spirit because of your continued acts of injustice, desire to war with you as an enemy. But as a matter of general precedent and honour, it has seemed to us that we should desire your personal safety, in order that we may have the opportunity of vanquishing you in the field. Your friend Nicias came to us, to ask for a reward if he should secretly slay you. We replied that we had no such wish, and that he could look for no advantage from such an action; at the same time it seemed proper to inform you, for fear that if anything of the kind should happen, the nations might think that it was done with our connivance, and also because we have no desire to make war by means of bribes or rewards or trickery. As for you, if you do not take heed, you will have a fall."

> Latin: 8. Litterae eximiae consulum C. Fabricii et Q. Aemilii ad regem Pyrrum, a Q. Claudio scriptore historiarum in memoriammemorial datae. CUM Pyrrus rex in terra Italia esset et unam atque alteram pugnas prospere pugnasset satisque agerent Romani et pleraque Italia ad regem descivisset, tum Ambraciensis quispiam Timochares, regis Pyrri amicus, ad C. Fabricium consulem furtim venit ac praemium petivit et, si de praemio conveniret, promisit regem venenis necare, idque facile esse factu dixit, quoniam filius suus pocula in convivio regi ministraret. Eam rem Fabricius ad senatum scripsit. Senatus ad regem legatos misit mandavitque ut de Timochare nihil proderent, sed monerent uti rex circumspectius ageret atque a proximorum insidiis salutem tutaretur. Hoc ita, uti diximus, in Valeri Antiatis Historia scriptum est. Quadrigarius autem in libro tertio non Timocharem, sed Niciam adisse ad consulem scripsit, neque legatos a senatu missos, sed a consulibus, et Pyrrum populo Romano laudes atque gratias scripsisse captivosque omnes quos tum habuit vestivisse et reddidisse. Consules tum fuerunt C. Fabricius et Q. Aemilius. Litteras, quas ad regem Pyrrum super ea causa miserunt, Claudius Quadrigarius scripsit fuisse hoc exemplo:
Consules Romani salutem dicunt Pyrro regi.
Nos pro tuis iniuriis continuis animo tenus commoti inimiciter tecum bellare studemus. Sed communis exempli et fidei ergo visum ut te salvum velimus, ut esset quem armis vincere possemus. Ad nos venit Nicias familiaris tuus, qui sibi praemium a nobis peteret, si te clam interfecisset. Id nos negavimus velle, neve ob eam rem quicquam commodi expectaret, et simul visum est ut te certiorem faceremus, ne quid eiusmodi, si accidisset, nostro consilio civitates putarent factumfittum, et quod nobis non placet pretio aut praemio aut dolis pugnare. Tu, nisi caves, iacebis.

[¶8] 9. The characteristics of the horse of Seius, which is mentioned in the proverb; and as to the colour of the horses which are called spadices; and the explanation of that term. GAVIUS BASSUS in his Commentaries, and Julius Modestus in the second book of his Miscellaneous Questions, tell the history of the horse of Seius, a tale wonderful and worthy of record. They say that there was a clerk called Gnaeus Seius, and that he had a horse foaled at Argos, in the land of Greece, about which there was a persistent tradition that it was sprung from the breed of horses that had belonged to the Thracian Diomedes, those which Hercules, after slaying Diomedes, had taken from Thrace to Argos. They say that this horse was of extraordinary size, with a lofty neck, bay in colour, with a thick, glossy mane, and that it was far superior to all horses in other points of excellence; but that same horse, they go on to say, was of such a fate or fortune, that whoever owned and possessed it came to utter ruin, as well as his whole house, his family and all his possessions. Thus, to begin with, that Gnaeus Seius who owned him was condemned and suffered a cruel death at the hands of Marcus Antonius, afterwards one of the triumvirs for setting the State in order. At that same time Cornelius Dolabella, the consul, on his way to Syria, attracted by the renown of this horse, turned aside to Argos, was fired with a desire to own the animal, and bought it for a hundred thousand sesterces; but Dolabella in his turn was besieged in Syria during the civil war, and slain. And soon afterwards Gaius Cassius, who had besieged Dolabella, carried off this same horse, which had been Dolabella's. It is notorious too that this Cassius, after his party had been vanquished and his army routed, met a wretched end. Then later, after the death of Cassius, Antonius, who had defeated him, sought for this famous horse of Cassius, and after getting possession of it was himself afterwards defeated and deserted in his turn, and died an ignominious death. Hence the proverb, applied to unfortunate men, arose and is current:
“That man has the horse of Seius.” The meaning is the same of that other old proverb, which I have heard quoted thus: “the gold of Tolosa.” For when the town of Tolosa in the land of Gaul was pillaged by the consul Quintus Caepio, and a quantity of gold was found in the temples of that town, whoever touched a piece of gold from that sack died a wretched and agonizing death. Gavius Bassus reports that he saw this horse at Argos; that it was of incredible beauty and strength and of the richest possible colouring. This colour, as I have said, we call poeniceus; the Greeks sometimes name it foi=nic, at others spa/dic, since the branch of the palm (foi=nic), torn from the tree with its fruit, is called spadix.

> Latin: 9. Quis et cuiusmodi fuerit qui in proverbio fertur equus Seianus; et qualis color equorum sit qui “spadices” vocantur; deque istius vocabuli ratione. GAVIUS BASSUS in commentariisCommenariis suis, item Iuliuslulius Modestus in secundo Quaestionum Confusarum, historiam de equo Seiano tradunt dignam memoria atque admiratione: Gnaeum Seium quempiam scribam fuisse eumque habuisse equum natum Argis in terra Graecia, de quo fama constans esset tamquam de genere equorum progenitus foret qui Diomedis Thracis fuissent, quos Hercules, Diomede occiso, e Thracia Argos perduxisset. Eum equum fuisse dicunt magnitudine invisitata, cervice ardua, colore poeniceo, flora et comanti iuba, omnibusque aliis equorum laudibus quoque longe praestitisse; sed eundem equum tali fuisse fato sive fortuna ferunt, ut quisquis haberet eum possideretque, ut is cum omni domo, familia fortunisque omnibus suis ad internecionem deperiret. Itaque primum illum Gnaeum Seium, dominum eius, a M. Antonio, qui postea triumvirum reipublicae constituendae fuit, capitis damnatum, miserando supplicio affectum esse; eodem tempore Cornelium Dolabellam consulem, im Syriam proficiscentem, fama istius equi adductumadductumi Argos devertisse cupidineque habendi eius exarsisse emisseque eum sestertiis centum milibus; sed ipsum quoque Dolabellam in Syria bello civili obsessum atque interfectum esse; mox eundem equum, qui Dolabellae fuerat, C. Cassium, qui Dolabellam obsederat, abduxisse. Eum Cassium postea satis notum est victis partibus fusoque exercitu suo miseram mortem oppetisse, deinde post Antonium, post interitum Cassii parta victoria, equum illum nobilem Cassi requisisse et, cum eo potitus esset, ipsum quoque postea victum atque desertum, detestabili exitio interisse. Hinc proverbium de hominibus calamitosis ortum dicique solitum: “Ille homo habet equum Seianum.” Eadem sententia est illius quoque veteris proverbii, quod ita dictum accepimus: “aurum Tolosanum.” Nam cum oppidum Tolosanum in terra Gallia Quintus Caepio consul diripuisset multumque auri in eius oppidi templis fuisset, quisquis ex ea direptione aurum attigit misero cruciabilique exitu periit. Hunc equum Gavius Bassus vidisse se Argis refert haut credibili pulcritudine vigoreque et colore exuberantissimo. Quem colorem nos, sicuti dixi, poeniceum dicimus, Graeci partim φοίνικα, alii σπάδικα appellant, quoniam palmae termes ex arbore cum fructu avulsus “spadix” dicitur.

[¶9] 10. That in many natural phenomena a certain power and efficacy of the number seven has been observed, concerning which Marcus Varro discourses at length in his Hebdomades. MARCUS VARRO, in the first book of his work entitled Hebdomades or On Portraits, speaks of many varied excellencies and powers of the number seven, which the Greeks call e(bdoma/s. “For that number,” he says, “forms the Greater and the Lesser Bear in the heavens; also the vergiliae, which the Greeks call pleia/des; and it is likewise the number of those stars which some call 'wandering,' but Publius Nigidius' wanderers.'” Varro also says that there are seven circles in the heavens, perpendicular to its axis. The two smallest of these, which touch the ends of the axis, he says are called po/loi, or “poles”; but that because of their small diameter they cannot be represented on what is termed an armillary sphere. And the zodiac itself is not uninfluenced by the number seven; for the summer solstice occurs in the seventh sign from the winter solstice, and the winter solstice in the seventh after the summer, and one equinox in the seventh sign after the other. Then too those winter days during which the kingfishers nest on the water he says are seven in number. Besides this, he writes that the course of the moon is completed in four times seven complete days; “for on the twenty-eighth day,” he says, “the moon returns to the same point from which it started,” and he quotes Aristides of Samos as his authority for this opinion. In this case he says that one should not only take note of the fact that the moon finishes its journey in four times seven, that is eight and twenty, days, but also that this number seven, if, beginning with one and going on until it reaches itself, it includes the sum of all the numbers through which it has passed and then adds itself, makes the number eight and twenty, which is the number of days of the revolution of the moon. He says that the influence of that number extends to and affects also the birth of human beings. “For,” says he, “when the life-giving seed has been introduced into the female womb, in the first seven days it is compacted and coagulated and rendered fit to take shape. Then afterwards in the fourth hebdomad the rudimentary male organ, the head, and the spine which is in the back, are formed. But in the seventh hebdomad, as a rule, that is, by the forty-ninth day,” says he, “the entire embryo is formed in the womb.” He says that this power also has been observed in that number, that before the seventh month neither male nor female child can be born in health and naturally, and that those which are in the womb the most regular time are born two hundred and seventy-three days after conception, that is, not until the beginning of the fortieth hebdomad. Of the periods dangerous to the lives and fortunes of all men, which the Chaldaeans call “climacterics,” all the gravest are combinations of the number seven. Besides this, he says that the extreme limit of growth of the human body is seven feet. That, in my opinion, is truer than the statement of Herodotus, the story-teller, in the first book of his History, that the body of Orestes was found under ground, and that it was seven cubits in height, that is, twelve and a quarter feet; unless, as Homer thought, the men of old were larger and taller of stature, but now, because the world is ageing, as it were, men and things are diminishing in size. The teeth too, he says, appear in the first seven months seven at a time in each jaw, and fall out within seven years, and the back teeth are added, as a rule, within twice seven years. He says that the physicians who use music as a remedy declare that the veins of men, or rather their arteries, are set in motion according to the number seven, and this treatment they call th\n dia\ tessa/rwn sumfwni/an, because it results from the harmony of four tones. He also believes that the periods of danger in diseases have greater violence on the days which are made up of the number seven, and that those days in particular seem to be, as the physicians call them, krisi/moi or “critical”; namely, the first, second and third hebdomad. And Varro does not fail to mention a fact which adds to the power and influence of the number seven, namely, that those who resolve to die of starvation do not meet their end until the seventh day. These remarks of Varro about the number seven show painstaking investigation. But he has also brought together in the same place others which are rather trifling: for example, that there are seven wonderful works in the world, that the sages of old were seven, that the usual number of rounds in the races in the circus is seven, and that seven champions were chosen to attack Thebes. Then he adds in that book the further information that he has entered upon the twelfth hebdomad of his age, and that up to that day he has completed seventy hebdomads of books, of which a considerable number were destroyed when his library was plundered, at the time of his proscription.

> Latin: 10. Quod est quaedam septenarii numeri vis et facultas in multis naturae rebus animaduersaaninadversa, de qua M. Varro in Hebdomadibus disserit copiose. M. VARRO in primo librorum qui inscribuntur Hebdomades vel De Imaginibus, septenarii numeri, quem Graece ἑβδομάδα appellant, virtutes potestatesque multas variasque dicit. “Is namque numerus,” inquit, “septentriones maiores minoresque in caelo facit, item vergilias, quas πλειάδας Graeci vocant, facit etiam stellas quas alii ‘erraticas,’ P. Nigidius ‘errones’ appellat.” Circulos quoque ait in caelo circum longitudinem axis septem esse; ex quis duos minimos, qui axem extimum tangunt, πόλους appellari dicit; sed eos in sphaera, quae κρικωτὴ vocatur, propter brevitatem non inesse. Ac neque ipse zodiacus septenario numero caret; nam in septimo signo fit solstitium a bruma, in septimo bruma a solstitio, in septimo aequinoctium ab aequinoctio. Dies deinde illos quibus alcyones hieme anni in aqua nidulantur, eos quoque septem esse dicit. Praeterea scribit lunae curriculum confici integris quater septenis diebus: “nam die duo- detricesimo luna,” inquit, “ex quo vestigio profecta est, eodem redit,” auctoremque opinionis huius Aristidem esse Samium; in qua re non id solum animadverti debere dicit quod quater septenis, id est octo et viginti, diebus conficeret luna iter suum, sed quod is numerus septenarius, si ab uno profectus, dum ad semetipsum progreditur, omnes per quos progressus est numeros comprehendat ipsumque se addat, facit numerum octo et viginti, quot dies sunt curriculi lunaris. Ad homines quoque nascendos vim numeri istius porrigi pertinereque ait: “Nam cum in uterum,” inquit, “mulieris genitale semen datum est, primis septem diebus conglobatur, coagulaturque fitque ad capiendam figuram idoneum. Post deinde quarta hebdomade, quod eius virile secus futurum est, caput et spina, quae est in dorso, informatur. Septima autem fere hebdomade, id est nono et quadragesimo die, totus,” inquit, “homo in utero absolvitur.” Illam quoque vim numeri huius observatam refert, quod ante mensem septimum neque mas neque femina salubriter ac secundum naturam nasci potest, et quod hi qui iustissime in utero sunt, post ducentos septuaginta tres dies postquam sunt concepti, quadragesima denique hebdomade inita nascuntur. Pericula quoque vitae fortunarumque omnium, quae “climacteras” Chaldaei appellant, gravissimos quosque fieri septenarios. Praeter hoc, modum esse dicit summum adolescendi humani corporis septem pedes. Quod esse magis verum arbitramur quam quod Herodotus, homo fabulator, in primo Historiarum inventum esse sub terra scripsit Oresti corpus cubita longitudinis habens septem, quae faciunt pedes duodecim et quadrantem, nisi si, ut Homerus opinatus est, vastiora prolixioraque fuerunt corpora hominum antiquiorum et nunc, quasi iam mundo senescente, rerum atque hominum decrementa sunt. Dentes quoque et in septem mensibus primis et septenos ex utraque parte gigni ait et cadere annis septimis et genuinos adnasci annis fere bis septenis. Venas etiam in hominibus, vel potius arterias, medicos musicos dicere ait numero moveri septenario, quod ipsi appellant τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν, quae fit in collatione quaternarii numeri. Discrimina etiam periculorum in morbis maiore vi fieri putat in diebus qui conficiuntur ex numero septenario, eosque dies omnium maxime, ita ut medici appellant, κρισίμους videri primam hebdomadam et secundam et tertiam. Neque non id etiam sumit ad vim facultatesque eius numeri augendas, quod, quibus inedia mori consilium est, septimo demumdernum die mortem oppetunt. Haec Varro de numero septenario scripsit admodum conquisite. Sed alia quoque ibidem congerit frigidiuscula: veluti septem opera esse in orbe terrae miranda et sapientes item veteres septem fuisse et curricula ludorum circensium sollemnia septem esse et ad oppugnandas Thebas duces septem delectos. Tum ibi addit, se quoque iam duodecimam annorum hebdomadam ingressum esse et ad eum diem septuaginta hebdomadas librorum conscripsisse, ex quibus aliquammultos, cum proscriptus esset, direptis bibliothecis suis non comparuisse.