The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius
Translated by J. C. Rolfe
The Loeb Classical Library
Harvard University Press, 1961
Volume I, Book II. 27.1-5
The criticism of Titus Castricius passed upon passages from Sallust and Demosthenes, in which the one described Philip, the other Sertorius.
This is Demosthenes’ striking and brilliant description of king Philip: “I saw that Philip himself, with whom we were struggling, had in his desire for empire and absolute power had one eye knocked out, his collar-bone broken, his hand and leg maimed, and was ready to resign any part of his body that fortune chose to take from him, provided that with what remained he might live in honour and glory.” Sallust, desiring to rival this description, in his Histories thus wrote of the leader Sertorius: “He won great glory in Spain, while military tribune under the command of Titus Didius, rendered valuable service in the Marsic war in providing troops and arms, but he got no credit for much that was then done under his direction and orders, at first because of his low birth and afterwards through unfriendly historians; but during his lifetime his appearance bore testimony to these deeds, in many scars on his breast, and in the loss of an eye. Indeed, he rejoiced gently in his bodily disfigurement, caring nothing for what he had lost, because he kept the rest with greater glory.”
In his estimate of these words of the two writers Titus Castricius said: “Is it not beyond the range of human capability to rejoice in bodily disfigurement? For rejoicing is a certain exaltation of spirit delighting in the realization of something greatly desired. How much truer, more natural, and more in accordance with human limitations is this: ‘Giving up whatever part of his body fortune chose to take.’ In these words,” said he, “Philip is shown not like Sertorius, rejoicing in bodily disfigurement, which” he said, “is unheard of and extravagant, but as a scorner of bodily losses and injuries in his thirst for honour and glory, who in exchange for the fame which he coveted would sacrifice his limbs one by one to the attacks of fortune.”
Volume I, Book V. 2. 1-5
About the horse of king Alexander, called Bucephalus.
The horse of king Alexander was called Bucephalus because of the shape of his head. Chares wrote that he was bought for thirteen talents and given to king Philip; that amount in Roman money is three hundred and twelve thousand sesterces. It seemed a noteworthy characteristic of this horse that when he was armed and equipped for battle, he would never allow himself to be mounted by any other than the king. It is also related that Alexander in the war against India, mounted upon that horse and doing valorous deeds, had driven him, with disregard of his own safety, too far into the enemies’ ranks. The horse had suffered deep wounds in his neck and side from the weapons hurled from every hand at Alexander, but though dying and almost exhausted from loss of blood, he yet in swiftest course bore the king from the midst of the foe; but when he had taken him out of range of the weapons, the horse at once fell and satisfied with having saved his master breathed his last, with indications of relief that were almost human. Then king Alexander, after winning the victory in that war, founded a city in that region and in honour of his horse called it Bucephalon.
Volume II, Book VI. 1. 1-5
Some remarkable stories about the elder Publius Africanus drawn from the annals.
The tale which in Grecian history is told of Olympias, wife of king Philip and mother of Alexander, is also recorded of the mother of that Publius Scipio who was the first to be called Africanus. For both Gaius Oppius and Julius Hyginus, as well as others who have written of the deeds of Africanus, declare that his mother was for a long time thought to be barren, and that Publius Scipio, her husband, had also given up hope of offspring; that afterwards, in her own room and bed, when she was lying alone in the absence of her husband and had fallen asleep, of a sudden a huge serpent was seen lying by her side; and that when those who had seen it were frightened and cried out, the snake glided away and could not be found. It is said that Publius Scipio himself consulted soothsayers abut the occurrence; that they, after offering sacrifice, declared that he would have children, and not many days after that serpent had been seen in her bed, the woman began to experience the indications and sensation of conception. Afterwards, in the tenth month, she gave birth to that Publius Scipio who conquered Hannibal and the Carthaginians in Africa in the second Punic war. But is was far more because of his exploits than because of that prodigy that he too was believed to be a man of godlike excellence.
Volume II, Book VII. 8. 1-4
Some noteworthy anecdotes of King Alexander and of Publius Scipio.
Apion, a Greek, called Pleistoneices, possessed a fluent and lively style. Writing in praise of king Alexander, he says* “He forbade the wife of his vanquished foe, a woman of surpassing loveliness, to be brought into his presence, in order that he might not touch her even with his eyes.” We have then the subject for a pleasant discussion – which of the two shall justly be considered the more continent: Publius Africanus the elder, who after he had stormed Carthage, a powerful city in Spain, and a marriageable girl of wonderful beauty, the daughter of a noble Spaniard, had been taken prisoner and brought to him, restored her unharmed to her father; or king Alexander who refused even to see the wife of king Darius, who was also his sister, when he had taken her captive in a great battle and had heard that she was of extreme beauty, but forbade her to be brought before him.
*F.H.G. iii. 515
Volume II, Book IX. 3. 1-5
A letter of king Philip to the philosopher Aristotle with regard to the recent birth of his son Alexander.
Philip, son of Amyntas, was king of the land of Macedonia. Through his valour and energy the Macedonians had greatly increased and enriched their kingdom, and had begun to extend their power over many nations and peoples, so that Demosthenes, in those famous orations and addresses, insists that his power and arms are to be feared and dreaded by all Greece. This Philip, although almost constantly busied and distracted by the labours and triumphs of war, yet never was a stranger to the Muse of the liberal arts and the pursuit of culture, but his acts and words never lacked charm and refinement. In fact collections of his letters are in circulation, which abound in elegance, grace, and wisdom, as for example, the one in which he announced to the philosopher Aristotle the birth of his son Alexander.
Since this letter is an encouragement to care and attention in the education of children, I thought that it ought to be quoted in full, as an admonition to parents. It may be translated, then, about as follows:
“Philip to Aristotle, Greeting.
“Know that a son is born to me. For this indeed I thank the gods, not so much because he is born, as because it is his good fortune to be born during your lifetime. For I hope that as a result of your training and instruction he will prove worthy of us and of succeeding to our kingdom.”
Volume II, Book XIII. 4. 1-3
Copy of a letter of Alexander to his mother Olympias; and Olympias’ witty reply.
In many of the records of Alexander’s deeds, and not long ago in the book of Marcus Varro entitled Orestes or On Madness, I have read that Olympias, the wife of Philip, wrote a very witty reply to her son Alexander. For he had addressed his mother as follows: “King Alexander, son of Jupiter Hammon, greets his mother Olympias.” Olympias replied to this effect: “Pray, my son,” said she, “be silent, and do not slander me or accuse me before Juno; undoubtedly she will take cruel vengeance on me, if you admit in your letters that I am her husband’s paramour.” This courteous reply of a wise and prudent woman to her arrogant son seemed to warn him in a mild and polite fashion to give up the foolish idea which he had formed from his great victories, from the flattery of his courtiers, and from his incredible success – that he was the son of Jupiter.
Volume III, Book XVII. 21. 28-36
The times after the founding of Rome and before the second war with Carthage at which distinguished Greeks and Romans flourished.
Then, about the four hundredth year after the founding of the city, Philip, son of Amyntas and father of Alexander, became king of Macedonia. At that time Alexander was born, and a few years later the philosopher Plato went to the court of the younger Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily; then some little time afterwards Philip defeated the Athenians in the great battle at Chaeronea. At that time the orator Demosthenes sought safety in flight from the battlefield, and when he was bitterly taunted with his flight he jestingly replied in the well-known verse:
The man who runs away will fight again.
Later Philip fell victim to a conspiracy; but Alexander, who succeeded him, crossed over into Asia and the Orient, to subdue the Persians. But another Alexander, surnamed Molossus, came into Italy intending to make war on the Roman people – for already the fame of Roman valour and success was beginning to be conspicuous among foreign nations – but he died before beginning the war. We have learned that on his way to Italy that Molossus said that he was going against the Romans as a nation of men, but the Macedonian was going against the Persians as one of women. Later, the Macedonian Alexander, having subdued the greater part of the east, died after a reign of eleven years. Not long after this the philosopher Aristotle ended his life, and a little later, Demosthenes; at about that same time the Roman people engaged in a dangerous and protracted war with the Samnites and the consuls Tiberius Veturius and Spurius Postumius were surrounded by Samnites in a perilous position near Caudium and being sent under the yoke were allowed to depart only when they had made a shameful treaty; and when for that reason the consuls by vote of the people were surrendered to the Samnites through the fetial priests, they were not accepted.
Volume III, Book XX. 5. 1 – 12
Specimens of letters of King Alexander and the philosopher Aristotle, just as they were written; with a rendering of the same into Latin.
The philosopher Aristotle, the teacher of king Alexander, is said to have had two forms of lectures and instructions which he delivered to his pupils. One of these was the kind called (…), or “exoteric,’ the other (…), or “acroatic.”* Those were called “exoteric” which gave training in rhetorical exercises, logical subtlety, and acquaintance with politics; those were called “acroatic” in which a more profound and recondite philosophy was discussed, which related to the contemplation of nature or dialectic discussions. To the practice of the “acroatic” training which I have mentioned he devoted the morning hours in the Lyceum, and he did not ordinarily admit any pupil to it until he had tested his ability, his elementary knowledge, and his zeal and devotion to study. The esoteric lectures and exercises in speaking he held at the same place in the evening and opened them generally to young men without distinction. This he called (…), or “the evening walk,” the other which have mentioned above, (…), or “the morning walk.”; for on both occasions he walked as he spoke. He also divided his books on all these subjects into two divisions, calling one set “exoteric,” the other “acroatic.”
*i.e. esoteric, or inner, for the initiated only. The term was originally applied to Aristotle’s acroatic (or acroamatic) writings, which were not made public, as were his exoteric Dialogues, but were read to hearers only and were of a strictly scientific character. Except for the fragments of his Dialogues, all the works of Aristotle which have come down to us are of the latter class.
When King Alexander knew that he had published those books of the “acroatic” set, although at that time the king was keeping almost all of Asia in a state of panic by his deeds of arms, and was pressing King Darius himself hard by attacks and victories, yet in the midst of such urgent affairs he sent a letter to Aristotle, saying that the philosopher had not done right in publishing the books and so revealing to the public the acroatic training, in which he himself had been instructed. “For in what other way,” said he, “can I excel the rest, if that instruction which I have received from you becomes the common property of all the world? For I would rather be first in learning than in wealth and power.”
Aristotle replied to him to this purport: “Know that the acroatic books, which you complain have been made public and not hidden as they contained secrets, have neither been made public nor hidden, since they can be understood only by those have heard my lectures.”
I have added copies of both letters, taken from the book of the philosopher Andronicus. I was particularly charmed with the slender thread of elegant brevity in the letter of each.
“Alexander to Aristotle, Greeting.
“You have not done right in publishing your acroatic lectures: for wherein, pray, shall I differ from other men, if these lectures, by which I was instructed, become the common property of all? As for me, I should wish to excel in acquaintance with what is noblest, rather than in power. Farewell.”
“Aristotle to King Alexander, Greeting.
“You have written to me regarding my acroatic lectures, thinking that I ought to have kept them secret. Know then that they have both been made public and not made public. For they are intelligible only to those who have heard me. Farewell, King Alexander.”