Attic Nights (13.18-13.22)

The meaning of Marcus Cato's phrase

betwixt mouth and morsel.

THERE is a speech by Marcus Cato Censorius On the Improper Election of Aediles. In that oration is this passage: [*]

Nowadays they say that the standing-grain, still in the blade, is a good harvest. Do not count too much upon it. I have often heard that many things may come inter os atque offam, or 'between the mouth and the morsel'; but there certainly is a long distance between a morsel and the blade.

Erucius Clarus, who was prefect of the city and twice consul, a man deeply interested in the customs and literature of early days, wrote to Sulpicius Apollinaris, the most learned man within my memory, begging and entreating that he would write him the meaning of those words. Then, in my presence, for at that time I was a young man in Rome and was in attendance upon him for purposes of instruction, Apollinaris replied to Clarus very briefly, as was natural when writing to a man of learning, that

between mouth and morsel

was an old proverb, meaning the same as the poetic Greek adage:

'Twixt cup and lip there's many a slip.

That Plato attributes a line of Sophocles to Euripides; and some other matters of the same kind.

THERE is an iambic trimeter verse of notorious antiquity:

By converse with the wise wax tyrants wise.

This verse Plato in his Theaetetus [*] attributes to Euripides. I am very much surprised at this; for I have met it in the tragedy of Sophocles entitled Ajax the Locrian [*] and Sophocles was born before Euripides.

But the following line is equally well known:

I who am old shall lead you, also old.

And this is found both in a tragedy of Sophocles, of which the title is Phthiotides, [*] and in the Bacchae of Euripides. [*]

I have further observed that in the Fire-bringing Prometheus of Aeschylus and in the tragedy of Euripides entitled Ino an identical verse occurs, except for a few syllables. In Aeschylus it runs thus: [*]

When proper, keeping silent, and saying what is fit.

In Euripides thus: [*]

When proper, keeping silent, speaking when 'tis safe.

But Aeschylus was considerably the earlier writer. [*]

Of the lineage and names of the Porcian family.

WHEN Sulpicius Apollinaris and I, with some others who were friends of his or mine, were sitting in the library of the Palace of Tiberius, it chanced that a book was brought to us bearing the name of Marcus Cato Nepos. We at once began to inquire who this Marcus Cato Nepos was. And thereupon a young man, not unacquainted with letters, so far as I could judge from his language, said:

This Marcus Cato is called Nepos, not as a surname, but because he was the grandson of Marcus Cato Censorius through his son, and father of Marcus Cato the ex-praetor, who slew himself with his own sword at Utica during the civil war. There is a book of Marcus Cicero's about the life of the last-named, entitled Laus Catonis, or A Eulogy of Cato, in which Cicero says [*] that he was the great-grandson of Marcus Cato Censorius. Therefore the father of the man whom Cicero eulogized was this Marcus Cato, whose orations are circulated under the name of Marcus Cato Nepos.

Then Apollinaris. very quietly and mildly, as was his custom when passing criticism, said:

I congratulate you, my son, that at your age you have been able to favour us with a little lecture on the family of Cato, even though you do not know who this Marcus Cato was, about whom we are now inquiring. For the famous Marcus Cato Censorius had not one, but several grandsons, although not all were sprung from the same father. For the famous Marcus Cato, who was both an orator and

v2.p.465

a censor, had two sons, born of different mothers and of very different ages; since, when one of them was a young man, his mother died and his father, who was already well on in years, married the maiden daughter of his client Salonius, from whom was born to him Marcus Cato Salonianus, a surname which he derived from Salonius, his mother's father. But from Cato's elder son, who died when praetorelect, while his father was still living, and left some admirable works on The Science of Law, there was born the man about whom we are inquiring, Marcus Cato, son of Marcus, and grandson of Marcus. He was an orator of some power and left many speeches written in the manner of his grandfather; he was consul with Quintus Marcius Rex, and during his consulship went to Africa and died in that province. But he was not, as you said he was, the father of Marcus Cato the ex-praetor, who killed himself at Utica and whom Cicero eulogized; nor because he was the grandson of Cato the censor and Cato of Utica was the censor's great-grandson does it necessarily follow that the former was the father of the latter. For this grandson whose speech was just brought to us did, it is true, have a son called Marcus Cato, but he was not the Cato who died at Utica, but the one who, after being curule aedile and praetor, went to Gallia Narbonensis and there ended his life. But by that other son of Censorius, a far younger man, who, as I said, was surnamed Salonianus, two sons were begotten: Lucius and Marcus Cato. That Marcus Cato was tribune of the commons and died when a candidate for the praetorship; he begot Marcus Cato the ex-praetor, who committed suicide at Utica during the civil war, and when Marcus

v2.p.467

Tullius wrote the latter's life and panegyric he said that he was the great-grandson of Cato the censor. You see therefore that the branch of the family which is descended from Cato's younger son differs not only in its pedigree, but in its dates as well; for because that Salonianus was born near the end of his father's life, as I said, his descendants also were considerably later than those of his elder brother. This difference in dates you will readily perceive from that speech itself, when you read it.

Thus spoke Sulpicius Apollinaris in my hearing. Later we found that what he had said was so, when we read the Funeral Eulogies and the Genealogy of the Porcian Family.

That the most elegant writers pay more attention to the pleasing sound of words and phrases (what the Greeks call eu)fwni/a, or

euphony

) than to the rules and precepts devised by the grammarians.

VALERIUS PROBUS was once asked, as I learned from one of his friends, whether one ought to say has urbis or has urbes and hanc turrem. or hanc turrim.

If,

he replied,

you are either composing verse or writing prose and have to use those words, pay no attention to the musty, fusty rules of the grammarians, but consult your own ear as to what is to be said in any given place. What it favours will surely be the best.

Then the one who had asked the question said:

What do you mean by 'consult my ear'?

and he told me that Probus answered:

Just as Vergil did his, when in different passages

v2.p.469

he has used urbis and urbes, following the taste and judgment of his ear. For in the first Georgic, which,

said he,

I have read in a copy corrected by the poet's own hand, he wrote urbis with an i. These are the words of the verses: [*]

O'er cities (urbis) if you choose to watch, and rule

Our lands, O Caesar great.

But turn and change it so as to read urbes, and somehow you will make it duller and heavier. On the other hand, in the third Aeneid he wrote urbes with an e: [*]

An hundred mighty cities (urbes) they inhabit.

Change this too so as to read urbis and the word will be too slender and colourless, so great indeed is the different effect of combination in the harmony of neighbouring sounds. Moreover, Vergil also said turrim, not turrem, and securim, not securem:

A turret (turrim) on sheer edge standing, [*]

and

Has shaken from his neck the ill-aimed axe (securim). [*]

These words have, I think, a more agreeable lightness than if you should use the form in e in both places.

But the one who had asked the question, a boorish fellow surely and with untrained ear, said:

I don't just understand why you say that one form is better and more correct in one place and the other in the other.

Then Probus, now somewhat impatient, retorted:

Don't trouble then to inquire whether you ought to say urbis or urbes. For since

v2.p.471

you are the kind of man that I see you are and err without detriment to yourself, you will lose nothing whichever you say.

With these words then and this conclusion Probus dismissed the man, somewhat rudely, as was his way with stupid folk. But I afterwards found another similar instance of double spelling by Vergil. For he has used tres and tris in the same passage with such fineness of taste, that if you should read differently and change one for the other, and have any ear at all, you would perceive that the sweetness of the sound is spoiled. These are the lines, from the tenth book of the Aeneid: [*]

Three (tres) Thracians too from Boreas' distant race,

And three (iris) whom Idas sent from Ismarus' land.

In one place he has tres, in the other tris; weigh and ponder both, and you will find that each sounds most suitable in its own place. But also in this line of Vergil, [*]

This end (haec finis) to Priam's fortunes then,

if you change haec and say hic finis, it will be hard and unrhythmical and your ears will shrink from the change. Just as, on the contrary, you would make the following verse of Vergil less sweet, if you were to change it: [*]

What end (quem finem) of labours, great king, dost thou grant?

For if you should say quam das finem, you would somehow make the sound of the words harsh and somewhat weak.

Ennius too spoke of rectos cupressos, or

straight cypresses,

contrary to the accepted gender of that word, in the following verse:

On cliffs the nodding pine and cypress straight. [*]

The sound of the word, I think, seemed to him stronger and more vigorous, if he said rectos cupressos rather than rectas. But, on the other hand, this same Ennius in the eighteenth book of his Annals [*] said aere fulva instead of fulvo, not merely because Homer said h)e/ra baqeia, [*] but because this sound, I think, seemed more sonorous and agreeable.

In the same way Marcus Cicero also thought it smoother and more polished to write, in his fifth Oration against Verres, [*] fretiu rather than freto. He says

divided by a narrow strait (fretu)

; for it would have been heavier and more archaic to say perangusto freto. Also in his second Oration against Verres, making use of a like rhythm, he said [*]

by an evident sin,

using peccatu instead of peccato; for I find this written in one or two of Tiro's copies, of very trustworthy antiquity. These are Cicero's words:

No one lived in such a way that no part of his life was free from extreme disgrace, no one was detected in such manifest sin (peccatu) that while he had been shameless in committing it, he would seem even more shameless if he denied it.

Not only is the sound of this word more elegant in this passage, but the reason for using the word is definite and sound. For hic peccatus, equivalent to peccatio, is correct and good Latin, just as many of the early writers used incestus (criminal), not of the one who committed the crime, but of the crime

itself, and tributus, where we say tributum (tribute). Adlegatus (instigation) too and arbitratus (judgment) are used for adlegatio and arbitratio, and preserving these forms we say arbitratu and adlegatu meo. So then Cicero said in manifesto peccatu, as the early writers said in manifesto incestu, not that it was not good Latin to say peccato, but because in that context the use of peccatu was finer and smoother to the ear.

With equal regard for our ears Lucretius made funis feminine in these verses: [*]

No golden rope (aurea funis), methinks, let down from heaven

The race of mortals to this earth of ours,

although with equally good rhythm he might have used the more common aureus funis and written:

Aureus e caelo demisit funis in arva.

Marcus Cicero calls [*] even priests by a feminine term, antistitae, instead of antislites, which is demanded by the grammarians' rule. For while he usually avoided the obsolete words used by the earlier writers, yet in this passage, pleased with the sound of the word, he said:

The priests of Ceres and the guardians (antistitae) of her shrine.

To such a degree have writers in some cases followed neither reason nor usage in choosing a word, but only the ear, which weighs words according to its own standards. [*]

And as for those who do not feel this,

says Marcus Cicero himself, [*] when speaking about appropriate and rhythmical language,

I know not what ears they have, or what there is in them resembling a man.

But the early grammarians have noted this feature in Homer above all, that when he had said in one place [*] koloiou/s te yhra/s te,

both crows and starlings,

in another place [*] he did not use yhrwn te, but yarwn:

As lights a cloud of starlings (yarwn) or of daws,

not conforming to general usage, but seeking the pleasing effect peculiar to the word in each of the two positions; for if you change one of these for the other, you will give both a harsh sound.

The words of Titus Castricius to his young pupils on unbecoming clothes and shoes.

TITUS CASTRICIUS, a teacher of the art of rhetoric, who held the first rank at Rome as a declaimer and an instructor, a man of the greatest influence and dignity, was highly regarded also by the deified Hadrian for his character and his learning. Once when 1 happened to be with him (for I attended him as my master) and he had seen some pupils of his who were senators wearing tunics and cloaks on a holiday, and with sandals on their feet, [*] he said:

For my part, I should have preferred to see you in your togas, or if that was too much trouble, at least with girdles and mantles. But if this present attire of yours is now pardonable from long custom, yet it is not at all seemly for you, who are senators of the Roman people, to go through the streets of the city

v2.p.479

in sandals, nor by Jove! is this less criminal in you than it was in one whom Marcus Tullius once reproved for such attire.

This, and some other things to the same purport, Castricius said in my hearing with true Roman austerity. But several of those who had heard him asked why he had said soleatos, or

in sandals,

of those who wore gallicae, or

Gallic slippers,

and not soleae. But Castricius certainly spoke purely and properly; for in general all kinds of foot-gear which cover only the bottom of the soles, leaving the rest almost bare, and are bound on by slender thongs, are called soleae, or sometimes by the Greek word crepidulae. But gallicae, I think, is a new word, which came into use not long before the time of Marcus Cicero. In fact, he himself uses it in his second Oration against Antony: [*]

You ran about,

says lie,

in slippers (gallicis) and cloak.

Nor do I find this word with that meaning in any other writer—a writer of high authority, that is; but, as I have said, they called that kind of shoe crepidae and crepidulae, shortening the first syllable of the Greek word krhpides, and the makers of such shoes they termed crepidarii. Sempronius Asellio in the fourteenth book of his Histories says: [*]

He asked for a cobbler's knife from a maker of slippers (crepidarius sutor).