The Deipnosophists; or, Banquet of the Learned of Athenæus, Vol. 3 (of 3)

BOOK XV.

as the all-accomplished Euripides says, my good Timocrates—

to recapitulate to you the numerous things which were said in those most admirable banquets, on account of the varied nature of the topics introduced, and the novel mode in which they were continually treated. For there were frequent discussions about the order in which the dishes were served up, and about the things which are done after the chief part of the supper is over, such as I can hardly recollect; and some one of the guests quoted the following iambics from The Lacedæmonians of Plato—

2. And after this quotation there arose, I think, a discussion about the cottabus and cottabus-players. Now by the term ἀποκοτταβίζοντες, one of the physicians who were present thought those people were meant, who, after the bath, for the sake of purging their stomach, drink a full draught of wine and then throw it up again; and he said that this was not an ancient custom, and that he was not aware of any ancient author who had alluded to this mode of purging. On which account Erasistratus of Julia, in his treatise on Universal Medicine, reproves those who act in this way, pointing out that it is a practice very injurious to the eyes, and having a very astringent effect on the stomach. And Ulpian addressed him thus—

For it was wittily said by one of our companions, that if there were no physicians there would be nothing more stupid than grammarians. For who is there of us who does not know that this kind of ἀποκοτταβισμὸς was not that of the ancients? unless you think that the cottabus-players of Ameipsias vomited. Since, then, you are ignorant of what this is which is the subject of our present discussion, learn from me, in the first place, that the cottabus is a sport of Sicilian invention, the Sicilians having been the original contrivers of it, as Critias the son of Callæschrus tells us in his Elegies, where he says—

And Dicæarchus the Messenian, the pupil of Aristotle, in his treatise on Alcæus, says that the word λατάγη is also a Sicilian noun. But λατάγη means the drops which are left in the bottom after the cup is drained, and which the players used to throw with inverted hand into the κοτταβεῖον. But Clitarchus, in his treatise on Words, says that the Thessalians and Rhodians both call the κότταβος itself, or splash made by the cups, λατάγη.

3. The prize also which was proposed for those who gained the victory in drinking was called κότταβος, as Euripides shows us in his Œneus, where he says—

The vessel, too, into which they threw the drops was also called κότταβος, as Cratinus shows in his Nemesis. But Plato the comic poet, in his Jupiter Ill-treated, makes out that the cottabus was a sort of drunken game, in which those who were defeated yielded up their tools[112] to the victor. And these are his words—

4. There was a kind of cottabus also which they used to call κάτακτος, that is, when lamps are lifted up and then let down again. Eubulus, in his Bellerophon, says—

And Antiphanes, in his Birthday of Venus, says—

And in a subsequent passage he says—

5. For a man must curve his hand excessively before he can throw the cottabus elegantly, as Dicæarchus says; and Plato intimates as much in his Jupiter Ill-treated, where some one calls out to Hercules not to hold his hand too stiff, when he is going to play the cottabus. They also called the very act of throwing the cottabus ἀπ' ἀγκύλης, because they curved (ἀπαγκυλόω) the right hand in throwing it. Though some say that ἀγκύλη, in this phrase, means a kind of cup. And Bacchylides, in his Love Poems, says—

And Æschylus, in his Bone Gatherers, speaks of ἀγκυλητοὶ κότταβοι, saying—

Now, that he who succeeded in throwing the cottabus properly received a prize, Antiphanes has shown us in a passage already quoted. And the prize consisted of eggs, sweetmeats, and confectionery. And Cephisodorus, in his Trophonius, and Callias or Diocles, in the Cyclopes, (whichever of the two is the author,) and Eupolis, and Hermippus, in his Iambics, prove the same thing.

Now what is called the κατακτὸς cottabus was something of this kind. There is a high lamp, having on it what is called the Manes, on which the dish, when thrown down, ought to fall; and from thence it falls into the platter which lies below, and which is struck by the cottabus. And there was room for very great dexterity in throwing the cottabus. And Nicochares speaks of the Manes in his Lacedæmonians.

6. There is also another way of playing this game with a platter. This platter is filled with water, and in it there are floating some empty saucers, at which the players throw their drops out of their cups, and endeavour to sink them. And he who has succeeded in sinking the greatest number gains the victory. Ameipsias, in his play entitled The Men playing at the Cottabus or Mania, says—

And Cratinus, in his Nemesis, says—

And Aristophanes, in his Feasters, says—

And Hermippus, in his Fates, says—

And Achæus, in his Linus, speaking of the Satyrs, says—

And the poet uses λέγοντες here, because they used to utter the names of their sweethearts as they threw the cottabi on the saucers. On which account Sophocles, in his Inachus, called the drops which were thrown, sacred to Venus—

And Euripides, in his Pleisthenes, says—

And Callimachus says—

7. There was also another kind of way of playing at the cottabus, in the feasts which lasted all night, which is mentioned by Callippus in his Festival lasting all Night, where he says—

There were also sweetmeats at these nocturnal festivals, in which the men continued awake an extraordinary time dancing. And these sweetmeats used to be called at that time χαρίσιοι, from the joy (χαρὰ) of those who received them. And Eubulus, in his Ancylion, mentions them, speaking as follows—

And presently afterwards he says—

But that kisses were also given as the prize Eubulus tells us in a subsequent passage—

But that the cottabus was a sport to which the Sicilians were greatly addicted, is plain from the fact that they had rooms built adapted to the game; which Dicæarchus, in his treatise on Alcæus, states to have been the case. So that it was not without reason that Callimachus affixed the epithet of Sicilian to λάταξ. And Dionysius, who was surnamed the Brazen, mentions both the λάταγες and the κότταβοι in his Elegies, where he says—

8. After this, Ulpian demanded a larger goblet to drink out of, quoting these lines out of the same collection of Elegies—

For let us be guided by the younger Cratinus, who says in his Omphale—

In answer to whom Cynulcus, who was always ready for a tilt at the Syrian, and who never let the quarrel drop which he had against him, now that there was a sort of tumult in the party, said—What is this chorus of Syrbenians?[116] And I myself also recollect some lines of this poetry, which I will quote, that Ulpian may not give himself airs as being the only one who was able to extract anything about the cottabus out of those old stores of the Homeridæ—

which have a clear reference to the present discussion. For I see the servants now bringing us garlands and perfumes. Why now are those who are crowned said to be in love when their crowns are broken? For when I was a boy, and when I used to read the Epigrams of Callimachus, in which this is one of the topics dilated on, I was anxious to understand this point. For the poet of Cyrene says—

So now it is your business, you most accomplished man, to explain this difficulty which has occupied me these thousand years, O Democritus, and to tell me why lovers crown the doors of their mistresses.

9. And Democritus replied—But that I may quote some of the verses of this Brazen poet and orator Dionysius, (and he was called Brazen because he advised the Athenians to adopt a brazen coinage; and Callimachus mentions the oration in his list of Oratorical Performances,) I myself will cite some lines out of his Elegies. And do you, O Theodorus, for this is your proper name—

You ask, then, why, if the garlands of men who have been crowned are pulled to pieces, they are said to be in love. "Is it, since love takes away the strict regularity of manners in the case of lovers, that on this account they think the loss of a conspicuous ornament, a sort of beacon (as Clearchus says, in the first book of his Art of Love) and signal, that they to whom this has happened have lost the strict decorum of their manners? Or do men interpret this circumstance also by divination, as they do many other things? For the ornament of a crown, as there is nothing lasting in it, is a sort of emblem of a passion which does not endure, but assumes a specious appearance for a while: and such a passion is love. For no people are more careful to study appearance than those who are in love. Unless, perhaps, nature, as a sort of god, administering everything with justice and equity, thinks that lovers ought not to be crowned till they have subdued their love; that is to say, till, having prevailed upon the object of their love, they are released from their desire. And accordingly, the loss of their crown we make the token of their being still occupied in the fields of love. Or perhaps Love himself, not permitting any one to be crowned in opposition to, or to be proclaimed as victor over himself, takes their crowns from these men, and gives the perception of this to others, indicating that these men are subdued by him: on which account all the rest say that these men are in love. Or is it because that cannot be loosed which has never been bound, but love is the chain of some who wear crowns, (for no one else who is bound is more anxious about being crowned than a lover,) that men consider that the loosing of the garland is a sign of love, and therefore say that these men are in love? Or is it because very often lovers, when they have been crowned, often out of agitation as it should seem, allow their crowns to fall to pieces, and so we argue backwards, and attribute this passion to all whom we see in this predicament; thinking that their crown never would have come to pieces, if they had not been in love? Or is it because these loosings happen only in the case of men bound or men in love; and so, men thinking that the loosing of the garland is the loosing also of those who are bound, consider that such men are in love? For those in love are bound, unless you would rather say that, because those who are in love are crowned with love, therefore their crown is not of a lasting kind; for it is difficult to put a small and ordinary kind of crown on a large and divine one. Men also crown the doors of the houses of the objects of their love, either with a view to do them honour, as they adorn with crowns the vestibule of some god to do him honour: or perhaps the offering of the crowns is made, not to the beloved objects, but to the god Love. For thinking the beloved object the statue, as it were, of Love, and his house the temple of Love, they, under this idea, adorn with crowns the vestibules of those whom they love. And for the same reason some people even sacrifice at the doors of those whom they love. Or shall we rather say that people who fancy that they are deprived, or who really have been deprived of the ornament of their soul, consecrate to those who have deprived them of it, the ornament also of their body, being bewildered by their passion, and despoiling themselves in order to do so? And every one who is in love does this when the object of his love is present, but when he is not present, then he makes this offering in the public roads. On which account Lycophronides has represented that goatherd in love, as saying—

10. Moreover, that most divine writer Plato, in the seventh book of his Laws, proposes a problem having reference to crowns, which it is worth while to solve; and these are the words of the philosopher:—"Let there be distributions of apples and crowns to a greater and a lesser number of people, in such a way that the numbers shall always be equal." These are the words of Plato. But what he means is something of this sort. He wishes to find one number of such a nature that, if divided among all who come in to the very last, it shall give an equal number of apples or crowns to every one. I say, then, that the number sixty will fulfil these conditions of equality in the case of six fellow-feasters; for I am aware that at the beginning we said that a supper party ought not to consist of more than five. But we are as numerous as the sand of the sea. Accordingly the number sixty, when the party is completed to the number of six guests, will begin to be divided in this manner. The first man came into the banqueting-room, and received sixty garlands. He gives to the second who comes in half of them; and then each of them have thirty. Then when a third comes in they divide the whole sixty, so that each of them may have twenty. Again, they divide them again in like manner at the entrance of a fourth guest, so that each has fifteen; and when a fifth comes in they all have twelve a-piece. And when the sixth guest arrives, they divide them again, and each individual has ten. And in this way the equal division of the garlands is accomplished.

11. When Democritus had said this, Ulpian, looking towards Cynulcus, said—