DE ANTIQUIS DICTIONIBUS. 15 
as taken from the. * libri rerum verborumque veterum," is the same as that of Petro- 
nius. It is possible that in other instances also, in which Gellius or his interlocutors 
do not mention, or even allude, to their sources, the definitions are not their own, but 
derived from earlier sources (* libri rerum verborumque veterum "). Nay, I am inclined 
to go a step further, and suppose that, in many instances in which Gellius communi- 
cates certain information, or puts it in the mouths of other persons, contemporaries 
and friends of his, the information belonged neither to these interlocutors nor to 
Gellius, but was derived from earlier works. In case Petronius's independence of 
Gellius can be at all maintained, this hypothesis may meet the difficulty presented by 
passages such as the preceding on humanitas, in which the information given appears 
to proceed from Gellius. This kind of integrity of acknowledging the sources of 
information, was not so clearly understood among the ancients as it is now. Pliny 
the elder furnishes a striking illustration. Although he took the material of many 
articles from the work of Dioscorides of Anazarbus, and sometimes copied him 
verbatim, yet in one instance only is he supposed to refer to him, 36, 20, 37, 144: 
* Schistos et haematites cognationem habent. Haematites invenitur in metallis, ustus 
mini colorem imitatur; uritur ut Phrygius, sed non restinguitur vino; adulteratum 
haematiten discernunt venae rubentes et friabilis natura. Oculis cruore suffusis mire 
convenit; sistit profluvia mulierum potus; bibunt et qui sanguinem reiecerunt cum 
suco Punici mali; et in vesicae vitiis efficax; bibitur et in vino contra serpentium ictus. 
Infirmiora omnia eadem in eo quem schiston appellant; in iis commodior croco similis, 
peculiaris explendis oculorum lacunis in lacte muliebri, procidentisque oculos praeclare 
cohibet. Haec est sententia eorum qui nuperrime scripsere." Comparing the two 
sections of Diosc. 5, 144 and 145, epi aiparírov and "epi oyioroù, it will be found that 
the description of Dioscorides, besides being much fuller than that of Pliny, contains 
all the particulars mentioned by the latter: 76 xiwvaBdper éowviav — xalerar de éudepós TH 
Dpvyio Mp TOD olvov rrepinpnuevov — arredéyxeras de 6 Kexaxoreyvnpevos 7pÓrov pev tals dia- 
deet — xai úpaipois opOarpois — rivera De adv otvo pos Óvaovpiav Kai poixas Kai pos alpa- 
Tos mAúces on xvXQ poids — Braum Ze THv avTHY TO aipariry eiedhiperat, TH evrovía povov 
Aevrrdpevos aúrod — úpioros Se elvas Boxel d wapaxpoxitwv Th xpog — TAnpo? de Kal koikopara 
yuvarxei@ Siebes yadaxte kai TPOS TpoTTHcES. | 
35. Faciem. The two manuscripts differ in a few unimportant forms only. As 
to the matter, cf. A. Gell. N. A. 13, 29: * Animadvertere est pleraque verborum 
Latinorum ex ea significatione, de qua nata sunt, decessisse vel in aliam longe vel in 
proximam, eamque decessionem factam esse consuetudine et inscitia temere dicentium, 
quae cuiusmodi sint, non didicerint. Sicuti quidam faciem esse hominis putant os tantum 
