Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights

ToposText · Aulus Gellius · 404 sections

urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.6
§ 5.6 On military crowns, with a description of the triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp, naval, ovation, and olive crowns. Military crowns are many and varied. Of these the most highly esteemed I find to be in general the following: the “triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp and naval crowns.” There is besides the so-called “ovation” crown, and lastly also the “olive” crown, which is regularly worn by those who have not taken part in a battle, but nevertheless are awarded a triumph. “Triumphal” crowns are of gold and are presented to a commander in recognition of the honour of a triumph. This in common parlance is “gold for a crown.” This crown in ancient times was of laurel, but later they began to make them of gold. The “siege” crown is the one which those who have been delivered from a state of siege presented to the general who delivered them. That crown is of grass, and custom requires that it be made of grass which grew in the place within which the besieged were confined. This crown of grass the Roman senate and people presented to Quintus Fabius Maximus in the second Punic war, because he had freed the city of Rome from siege by the enemy. The crown is called “civic” which one citizen gives to another who has saved his life in battle, in recognition of the preservation of his life and safety. It is made of the leaves of the esculent oak, because the earliest food and means of supporting life were furnished by that oak; it was formerly made also from the holm oak, because that is the species which is most nearly related to the esculent; this we learn from a comedy of Caecilius, who says: They pass with cloaks and crowns of holm; ye Gods. But Masurius Sabinus, in the eleventh book of his Memoirs, says that it was the custom to award the civic crown only when the man who had saved the life of a fellow citizen had at the same time slain the enemy who threatened him, and had not given ground in that battle; under other conditions he says that the honour of the civic crown was not granted. He adds, however, that Tiberius Caesar was once asked to decide whether a soldier might receive the civic crown who had saved a citizen in battle and killed two of the enemy, yet had not held the position in which he was fighting, but the enemy had occupied it. The emperor ruled that the soldier seemed to be among those who deserved the civic crown, since it was clear that he had rescued a fellow citizen from a place so perilous that it could not be held even by valiant warriors. It was this civic crown that Lucius Gellius, an ex-censor, proposed in the senate that his country should award to Cicero in his consulship, because it was through his efforts that the frightful conspiracy of Catiline had been detected and punished. The “mural” crown is that which is awarded by a commander to the man who is first to mount the wall and force his way into an enemy's town; therefore it is ornamented with representations of the battlements of a wall. A “camp” crown is presented by a general to the soldier who is first to fight his way into a hostile camp; that crown represents a palisade. The “naval” crown is commonly awarded to the armed man who has been the first to board an enemy ship in a sea-fight; it is decorated with representations of the beaks of ships. Now the “mural,” “camp,” and “naval” crowns are regularly made of gold. The “ovation” crown is of myrtle. it was worn by generals who entered the city in an ovation. The occasion for awarding an ovation, and not a triumph, is that wars have not been declared in due form and so have not been waged with a legitimate enemy, or that the adversaries' character is low or unworthy, as in the case of slaves or pirates, or that, because of a quick surrender, a victory was won which was “dustless,” as the saying is, and bloodless. For such an easy victory they believed that the leaves sacred to Venus were appropriate, on the ground that it was a triumph, not of Mars, but as it were of Venus. And Marcus Crassus, when he returned after ending the Servile war and entered the city in an ovation, disdainfully rejected the myrtle crown and used his influence to have a decree passed by the senate, that he should be crowned with laurel, not with myrtle. Marcus Cato charges Marcus Fulvius Nobilior with having awarded crowns to his soldiers for the most trifling reasons possible, for the sake of popularity. On that subject I give you Cato's own words: “Now to begin with, who ever saw anyone presented with a crown, when a town had not been taken nor an enemy's camp burned?. But Fulvius, against whom Cato brought that charge, had bestowed crowns on his soldiers for industry in building a rampart or in digging a well. I must not pass over a point relating to ovations, about which I learn that the ancient writers disagreed. For some of them have stated that the man who celebrated an ovation was accustomed to enter the city on horseback: but Masurius Sabinus says that they entered on foot, followed, not by their soldiers, but by the senate in a body.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.7
§ 5.7 How cleverly Gavius Bassus explained the word persona, and what he said to be the origin of that word. Cleverly, by Heaven! and wittily, in my opinion, does Gavius Bassus explain the derivation of the word persona, in the work that he composed On the Origin of Words; for he suggests that that word is formed from personare. ”For," he says, “the head and the face are shut in on all sides by the covering of the persona, or mask, and only one passage is left for the issue of the voice; and since this opening is neither free nor broad, but sends forth the voice after it has been concentrated and forced into one single means of egress, it makes the sound clearer and more resonant. Since then that covering of the face gives clearness and resonance to the voice, it is for that reason called persona, the o being lengthened because of the formation of the word.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.8
§ 5.8 A defence of some lines of Virgil, in which the grammarian Julius Hyginus alleged that there was a mistake; and also the meaning of lituus, and on the etymology of that word. Here, wielding his Quirinal augur-staff, Girt with scant shift and bearing on his left The sacred shield, Picus appeared enthroned. In these verses Hyginus wrote that Virgil was in error, alleging that he did not notice that the words ipse Quirinali lituo lacked something. “For,” said he, “if we have not observed that something is lacking, the sentence seems to read'girt with staff and scant shift,' which,” says he, “is utterly absurd; for since the lituus is a short wand, curved at its thicker end, such as the augurs use, how on earth can one be looked upon as'girt with a lituus?'. As a matter of fact, it was Hyginus himself who failed to notice that this expression, like very many others, contains an ellipsis. For example, when we say, ” Marcus Cicero, a man of great eloquence" and “Quintus Roscius, an actor of consummate grace,” neither of these phrases is full and complete, but to the hearer they seem full and complete. As Vergil wrote in another place: Victorious Butes of huge bulk, that is, having huge bulk, and also in another passage: Into the ring he hurled gauntlets of giant weight, and similarly: A house of gore and cruel feasts, dark, huge within. so then it would seem that the phrase in question ought to be interpreted as “ Picus was with the Quirinal staff,” just as we say “the statue was with a large head,. and in fact est, erat and fuit are often omitted, with elegant effect and without any loss of meaning. And since mention has been made of the lituus, I must not pass over a question which obviously may be asked, whether the augurs' lituus is called after the trumpet of the same name, or whether the trumpet derived its name lituus from the augurs' staff; for both have the same form and both alike are curved. But if, as some think, the trumpet was called lituus from its sound, because of the Homeric expression λίγξε βιός, The bow twanged, it must be concluded that the augural staff was called lituus from its resemblance to the trumpet. And Virgil uses that word also as synonymous with tuba: He even faced the fray Conspicuous both with clarion (lituo) and with spear.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.9
§ 5.9 The story of Croesus' dumb son, from the books of Herodotus. The son of king Croesus, when he was already old enough to speak, was dumb, and after he had become a well-grown youth, he was still unable to utter a word. Hence he was for a long time regarded as mute and tongue-tied. When his father had been vanquished in a great war, the city in which he lived had been taken, and one of the enemy was rushing upon him with drawn sword, unaware that he was the king, then the young man opened his mouth in an attempt to cry out. And by that effort and the force of his breath he broke the impediment and the bond upon his tongue, and spoke plainly and clearly, shouting to the enemy not to kill king Croesus. Then the foeman withheld his sword, the king's life was saved, and from that time on the youth began to speak. Herodotus in his Histories is the chronicler of that event, and the words which he says the son of Croesus first spoke are: ”Man, do not kill Croesus." But also an athlete of Samos — his name was Echeklous — although he had previously been speechless, is said to have begun to speak for a similar reason. For when in a sacred contest the casting of lots between the Samians and their opponents was not being done fairly, and he had noticed that a lot with a false name was being slipped in, he suddenly shouted in a loud voice to the man who was doing it that he saw what he was up to. And he too was freed from the check upon his speech and for all the remaining time of his life spoke without stammering or lack of clearness.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.10
§ 5.10 On the arguments which by the Greeks are called ἀντιστρέφοντα, and in Latin may be termed reciproca. Among fallacious arguments the one which the Greeks call ἀντιστρέφων seems to be by far the most fallacious. Such arguments some of our own philosophers have rather appropriately termed reciproca, or “convertible.” The fallacy arises from the fact that the argument that is presented may be turned in the opposite direction and used against the one who has offered it, and is equally strong for both sides of the question. An example is the well-known argument which Protagoras, the keenest of all sophists, is said to have used against his pupil Euathlus. For a dispute arose between them and an altercation as to the fee which had been agreed upon, as follows. Euathlus, a wealthy young man, was desirous of instruction in oratory and the pleading of causes. He became a pupil of Protagoras and promised to pay him a large sum of money, as much as Protagoras had demanded. He paid half of the amount at once, before beginning his lessons, and agreed to pay the remaining half on the day when he first pleaded before jurors and won his case. Afterwards, when he had been for some little time a pupil and follower of Protagoras, and had in fact made considerable progress in the study of oratory, he nevertheless did not undertake any causes. And when the time was already getting long, and he seemed to be acting thus in order not to pay the rest of the fee. Protagoras formed what seemed to him at the time a wily scheme; he determined to demand his pay according to the contract, and brought suit against Euathlus. And when they had appeared before the jurors to bring forward and to contest the case, Protagoras began as follows: “Let me tell you, most foolish of youths, that in either event you will have to pay what I am demanding, whether judgment be pronounced for or against you. For if the case goes against you, the money will be due me in accordance with the verdict, because I have won; but if the decision be in your favour, the money will be due me according to our contract, since you will have won a case.” To this Euathlus replied: “I might have met this sophism of yours, tricky as it is, by not pleading my own cause but employing another as my advocate. But I take greater satisfaction in a victory in which I defeat you, not only in the suit, but also in this argument of yours. So let me tell you in turn, wisest of masters, that in either event I shall not have to pay what you demand, whether judgment be pronounced for or against me. For if the jurors decide in my favour, according to their verdict nothing will be due you, because I have won; but if they give judgment against me, by the terms of our contract I shall owe you nothing, because I have not won a case.” Then the jurors, thinking that the plea on both sides was uncertain and insoluble, for fear that their decision, for whichever side it was rendered, might annul itself, left the matter undecided and postponed the case to a distant day. Thus a celebrated master of oratory was refuted by his youthful pupil with his own argument, and his cleverly devised sophism failed.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.11
§ 5.11 The impossibility of regarding Bias's syllogism on marriage as an example of ἀντιστρέφων. Some think that the famous answer of the wise and noble Bias, like that of Protagoras of which I have just spoken, was ἀντιστρέφων. For Bias, being asked by a certain man whether he should marry or lead a single life, said: “You are sure to marry a woman either beautiful or ugly; and if beautiful, you will share her with others, but if ugly, she will be a punishment. But neither of these things is desirable; therefore do not marry.” Now, they turn this argument about in this way. “If I marry a beautiful woman, she will not be a punishment; but if an ugly one, I shall be her sole possessor; therefore marry.” But this syllogism does not seem to be in the least convertible, since it appears somewhat weaker and less convincing when turned into the second form. For Bias maintained that one should not marry because of one of two disadvantages which must necessarily be suffered by one who took a wife. But he who converts the proposition does not defend himself against the inconvenience which is mentioned, but says that he is free from another which is not mentioned. But to maintain the opinion that Bias expressed, it is enough that a man who has taken a wife must necessarily suffer one or the other of two disadvantages, of having a wife that is unfaithful, or a punishment. But our countryman Favorinus, when that syllogism which Bias had employed happened to be mentioned, of which the first premise is: “You will marry either a beautiful or an ugly woman,” declared that this was not a fact, and that it was not a fair antithesis, since it was not inevitable that one of the two opposites be true. which must be the case in a disjunctive proposition. For obviously certain outstanding extremes of appearance are postulated, ugliness and beauty. “But there is,” said he, “a third possibility also, lying between those two opposites, and that possibility Bias did not observe or regard. For between a very beautiful and a very ugly woman there is a mean in appearance, which is free from the danger to which an excess of beauty is exposed, and also from the feeling of repulsion inspired by extreme ugliness. A woman of that kind is called by Quintus Ennius in the Melanippa by the very elegant term'normal,. and such a woman will be neither unfaithful nor a punishment.” This moderate and modest beauty Favorinus, to my mind most sagaciously, called “conjugal.” Moreover Ennius, in the tragedy which I mentioned, says that those women as a rule are of unblemished chastity who possess normal beauty.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.12
§ 5.12 On the names of the gods of the Roman people called Diovis and Vediovis. In ancient prayers we have observed that these names of deities appear: Diovis and Vediovis. furthermore, there is also a temple of Vediovis at Rome, between the Citadel and the Capitolium. The explanation of these names I have found to be this. the ancient Latins derived Iovis from iuvare (help), and called that same god “father,” thus adding a second word. For Iovispater is the full and complete form, which becomes Iupiter by the syncope or change of some of the letters. So also Neptunuspater is used as a compound, and Saturnuspater and Ianuspater and Marspater — for that is the original form of Marspiter — and Jove also was called Diespiter, that is, the father of day and of light. And therefore by a name of similar origin Jove is called Diovis and also Lucetius, because he blesses us and helps us by means of the day and the light, which are equivalent to life itself. And Lucetius is applied to Jove by Gnaeus Naevius in his poem On the Punic War. Accordingly, when they had given the names Iovis and Diovis from iuvare (help), they applied a name of the contrary meaning to that god who had, not the power to help, but the force to do harm — for some gods they worshipped in order to gain their favour, others they propitiated in order to avert their hostility; and they called him Vediovis, thus taking away and denying his power to give help. For the particle ve which appears in different forms in different words, now being spelled with these two letters and now with an a inserted between the two, has two meanings which also differ from each other. For ve, like very many other particles, has the effect either of weakening or of strengthening the force of a word; and it therefore happens that some words to which that particle is prefixed are ambiguous and may be used with either force, such as vescus (small), vemens (mighty), and vegrandis (very small), a point which I have discussed elsewhere in greater detail. But vesanus and vecordes are used with only one of the meanings of ve, namely, the privative or negative force, which the Greeks call κατὰ στέρησιν. It is for this reason that the statue of the god Vediovis, which is in the temple of which I spoke above, holds arrows, which, as everyone knows, are devised to inflict harm. For that reason it has often been said that that god is Apollo; and a she- goat is sacrificed to him in the customary fashion, and a representation of that animal stands near his statue. It was for this reason, they say, that Virgil, a man deeply versed in antiquarian lore, but never making a display of his knowledge, prays to the unpropitious gods in the Georgics, thus intimating that in gods of that kind there is a power capable of injuring rather than aiding. The verses of Vergil are these: A task of narrow span, but no small praise, If unpropitious powers bar not my way And favouring Phoebus grant a poet's prayer. And among those gods which ought to be placated in order to avert evil influences from ourselves or our harvests are reckoned Auruncus and Robigus.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.13
§ 5.13 On the rank and order of obligations established by the usage of the Roman people. There was once a discussion, in my presence and hearing, of the rank and order of obligations, carried on by a company of men of advanced age and high position at Rome, who were also eminent for their knowledge and command of ancient usage and conduct. And when the question was asked to whom we ought first and foremost to discharge those obligations, in case it should be necessary to prefer some to others in giving assistance or showing attention, there was a difference of opinion. But it was readily agreed and accepted, that in accordance with the usage of the Roman people the place next after parents should be held by wards entrusted to our honour and protection; that second to them came clients, who also had committed themselves to our honour and guardianship; that then in the third place were guests; and finally relations by blood and by marriage. Of this custom and practice there are numerous proofs and illustrations in the ancient records, of which, because it is now at hand, I will cite only this one at present, relating to clients and kindred. Marcus Cato in the speech which he delivered before the censors Against Lentulus wrote thus: “Our forefathers regarded it as a more sacred obligation to defend their wards than not to deceive a client. One testifies in a client's behalf against one's relatives; testimony against a client is given by no one. A father held the first position of honour; next after him a patron.” Masurius Sabinus, however, in the third book of his Civil Law assigns a higher place to a guest than to a client. The passage from that book is this: “In the matter of obligations our forefathers observed the following order: first to a ward, then to a guest, then to a client, next to a blood relation, finally to a relation by marriage. Other things being equal, women were given preference to men, but a ward who was under age took precedence of one who was a grown woman. Also those who were appointed by will to be guardians of the sons of a man against whom they had appeared in court, appeared for the ward in the same case.” Very clear and strong testimony on this subject is furnished by the authority of Gaius Caesar, when he was high priest; for in the speech which he delivered In Defence of the Bithynians he made use of this preamble: “In consideration either of my guest-friendship with king Nicomedes or my relationship to those whose case is on trial, O Marcus Iuncus, I could not refuse this duty. For the remembrance of men ought not to be so obliterated by their death as not to be retained by those nearest to them, and without the height of disgrace we cannot forsake clients to whom we are bound to render aid even against our kinsfolk.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.14
§ 5.14 The account of Apion, a learned man who was surnamed Plistonices, of the mutual recognition, due to old acquaintance, that he had seen at Rome between a man and a lion. Apion, who was called Plistonices, was a man widely versed in letters, and possessing an extensive and varied knowledge of things Greek. In his works, which are recognized as of no little repute, is contained an account of almost all the remarkable things which are to be seen and heard in Egypt. Now, in his account of what he professes either to have heard or read he is perhaps too verbose through a reprehensible love of display — for he is a great self-advertiser in parading his learning. but this incident, which he describes in the fifth book of his Wonders of Egypt, he declares that he neither heard nor read, but saw himself with his own eyes in the city of Rome. “In the Great Circus,” he says, “a battle with wild beasts on a grand scale was being exhibited to the people. Of that spectacle, since I chanced to be in Rome, I was,” he says, “an eye-witness. There were there many savage wild beasts, brutes remarkable for their huge size, and all of uncommon appearance or unusual ferocity. But beyond all others,” says he, “did the vast size of the lions excite the rest. This one lion had drawn to himself the attention and eyes of all because of the activity and huge size of his body, his terrific and deep roar, the development of his muscles, and the mane streaming over his shoulders. There was brought in, among many others who had been condemned to fight with the wild beasts, the slave of an ex-consul; the slave's name was Androclus. When that lion saw him from a distance,” says Apion, “he stopped short as if in amazement, and then approached the man slowly and quietly, as if he recognized him. Then, wagging his tail in a mild and caressing way, after the manner and fashion of fawning dogs, he came close to the man, who was now half dead from fright, and gently licked his feet and hands. The man Androclus, while submitting to the caresses of so fierce a beast, regained his lost courage and gradually turned his eyes to look at the lion. Then,” says Apion, “you might have seen man and lion exchange joyful greetings, as if they had recognized each other.” He says that at this sight, so truly astonishing, the people broke out into mighty shouts; and Gaius Caesar called Androclus to him and inquired the reason why that fiercest of lions had spared him alone. Then Androclus related a strange and surprising story. “My master,” said he, “was governing Africa with proconsular authority. While there, I was forced by his undeserved and daily floggings to run away, and that my hiding-places might be safer from my master, the ruler of that country, I took refuge in lonely plains and deserts, intending, if food should fail me, to seek death in some form. Then,” said he, “when the midday sun was fierce and scorching, finding a remote and secluded cavern, I entered it, and hid myself. Not long afterwards this lion came to the same cave with one paw lame and bleeding, making known by groans and moans the torturing pain of his wound.” And then, at the first sight of the approaching lion, Androclus said that his mind was overwhelmed with fear and dread. “But when the lion,” said he, “had entered what was evidently his own lair, and saw me cowering at a distance, he approached me mildly and gently, and lifting up his foot, was evidently showing it to me and holding it out as if to ask for help. Then,” said he, “I drew out a huge splinter that was embedded in the sole of the foot, squeezed out the pus that had formed in the interior of the wound, wiped away the blood, and dried it thoroughly, being now free from any great feeling of fear. Then, relieved by that attention and treatment of mine, the lion, putting his paw in my hand, lay down and went to sleep. and for three whole years from that day the lion and I lived in the same cave, and on the same food as well. For he used to bring for me to the cave the choicest parts of the game which he took in hunting, which I, having no means of making a fire, dried in the noonday sun and ate. But,” said he, “after I had finally grown tired of that wild life, I left the cave when the lion had gone off to hunt, and after travelling nearly three days, I was seen and caught by some soldiers and taken from Africa to Rome to my master. He at once had me condemned to death by being thrown to the wild beasts. But,” said he, “I perceive that this lion was also captured, after I left him, and that he is now requiting me for my kindness and my cure of him.” Apion records that Androclus told this story, and that when it had been made known to the people by being written out in full on a tablet and carried about the Circus, at the request of all Androclus was freed, acquitted and presented with the lion by vote of the people. “Afterwards,” said he, “we used to see Androclus with the lion, attached to a slender leash, making the rounds of the shops throughout the city; Androclus was given money, the lion was sprinkled with flowers, and everyone who met them anywhere exclaimed:'This is the lion that was a man's friend, this is the man who was physician to a lion.'”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.15
§ 5.15 That it is a disputed question among philosophers whether voice is corporeal or incorporeal. A question that has been argued long and continuously by the most famous philosophers is whether voice has body or is incorporeal. for the word incorporeus has been coined by some of them, corresponding exactly to the Greek ἀσώματος. Now a body is that which is either active or passive: this in Greek is defined as τὸ ἤτοι ποιοῦν ἢ πάσχον, or “that which either acts or is acted upon.” Wishing to reproduce this definition the poet Lucretius wrote: Naught save a body can be touched or touch. The Greeks also define body in another way, as τὸ τριχῆ διάστατον, or “that which has three dimensions.” But the Stoics maintain that voice is a body, and say that it is air which has been struck. Plato, however, thinks that voice is not corporeal: “for,” says he, “not the air which is struck, but the stroke and the blow themselves are voice.” Democritus, and following him Epicurus, declare that voice consists of individual particles, and they call it, to use their own words, ῥευμα ἀτόμων, or “a stream of atoms.” When I heard of these and other sophistries, the result of a self-satisfied cleverness combined with lack of employment, and saw in these subtleties no real advantage affecting the conduct of life, and no end to the inquiry, I agreed with Ennius' Neoptolemus, who rightly says: Philosophizing there must be, but by the few; Since for all men it's not to be desired.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.16
§ 5.16 On the function of the eye and the process of vision. I have observed that the philosophers have varying opinions about the method of seeing and the nature of vision. The Stoics say that the causes of sight are the emission of rays from the eyes to those objects which can be seen, and the simultaneous expansion of the air. Epicurus believes that there is a constant flow from all bodies of images of those bodies themselves, and that these impinge upon the eyes and hence the sensation of seeing arises. Plato is of the opinion that a kind of fire or light issues from the eyes, and that this, being united and joined either with the light of the sun or with that of some other fire, by means of its own and the external force makes us see whatever it has struck and illumined. But here too we must not dally longer, but follow the advice of that Neoptolemus in Ennius, of whom I have just written, who advises having a “taste” of philosophy, but not “gorging oneself with it.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.17
§ 5.17 Why the first days after the Kalends, Nones and Ides are considered unlucky; and why many avoid also the fourth day before the Kalends, Nones or Ides, on the ground that it is ill-omened. Verrius Flaccus, in the fourth book of his work On the Meaning of Words, writes that the days immediately following the Kalends, Nones and Ides, which the common people ignorantly call “holidays,” are properly called, and considered, “ill-omened,” for this reason:. “When the city,” he says, “had been recovered from the Senonian Gauls, Lucius Atilius stated in the senate that Quintus Sulpicius, tribune of the soldiers, when on the eve of fighting against the Gauls at the Allia, offered sacrifice in anticipation of that battle on the day after the Ides; that the army of the Roman people was thereupon cut to pieces, and three days later the whole city, except the Capitol, was taken. Also many other senators said that they remembered that whenever with a view to waging war a magistrate of the Roman people had sacrificed on the day after the Kalends, Nones or Ides, in the very next battle of that war the State had suffered disaster. Then the senate referred the matter to the pontiffs, that they might take what action they saw fit. The pontiffs decreed that no offering would properly be made on those days.” Many also avoid the fourth day before the Kalends, Nones and Ides, as ill-omened. It is often inquired whether any religious reason for that observance is recorded. I myself have found nothing in literature pertaining to that matter, except that Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in the fifth book of his Annals, says that the prodigious slaughter of the battle of Cannae occurred on the fourth day before the Nones of August.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.18
§ 5.18 In what respect, and how far, history differs from annals; and a quotation on that subject from the first book of the Histories of Sempronius Asellio. Some think that history differs from annals in this particular, that while each is a narrative of events, yet history is properly an account of events in which the narrator took part. and that this is the opinion of some men is stated by Verrius Flaccus in the fourth book of his treatise On the Meaning of Words. He adds that he for his part has doubts about the matter, but he thinks that the view may have some appearance of reason, since ἱστορία in Greek means a knowledge of current events. But we often hear it said that annals are exactly the same as histories. but that histories are not exactly the same as annals. just as a man is necessarily an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a man. Thus they say that history is the setting forth of events or their description, or whatever term may be used; but that annals set down the events of many years successively, with observance of the chronological order. When, however, events are recorded, not year by year, but day by day, such a history is called in Greek ἐφημερίς, or “a diary,” a term of which the Latin interpretation is found in the first book of Sempronius Asellio. I have quoted a passage of some length from that book, in order at the same time to show what his opinion is of the difference between history and chronicle. “But between those,” he says, “who have desired to leave us annals, and those who have tried to write the history of the Roman people, there was this essential difference. The books of annals merely made known what happened and in what year it happened, which is like writing a diary, which the Greeks call ἐφημερίς. For my part, I realize that it is not enough to make known what has been done, but that one should also show with what purpose and for what reason things were done.” A little later in the same book Asellio writes: “For annals cannot in any way make men more eager to defend their country, or more reluctant to do wrong. Furthermore, to write over and over again in whose consulship a war was begun and ended, and who in consequence entered the city in a triumph, and in that book not to state what happened in the course of the war, what decrees the senate made during that time, or what law or bill was passed, and with what motives these things were done — that is to tell stories to children, not to write history.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.19
§ 5.19 The meaning of adoptatio and also of adrogatio, and how they differ; and the formula used by the official who, when children are adopted, brings the business before the people. When outsiders are taken into another's family and given the relationship of children, it is done either through a praetor or through the people. If done by a praetor, the process is called adoptatio; if through the people, arrogatio." Now, we have adoptatio, when those who are adopted are surrendered in court through a thrice repeated sale by the father under whose control they are, and are claimed by the one who adopts them in the presence of the official before whom the legal action takes place. The process is called adrogatio, when persons who are their own masters deliver themselves into the control of another, and are themselves responsible for the act. But arrogations are not made without due consideration and investigation. for the so-called comitia curiata are summoned under the authority of the pontiffs, and it is inquired whether the age of the one who wishes to adopt is not rather suited to begetting children of his own; precaution is taken that the property of the one who is being adopted is not being sought under false pretences; and an oath is administered which is said to have been formulated for use in that ceremony by Quintus Mucius, when he was pontifex maximus. But no one may be adopted by adrogatio who is not yet ready to assume the gown of manhood. The name adrogatio is due to the fact that this kind of transfer to another's family is accomplished through a rogatio or “request,” put to the people. The language of this request is as follows: “Express your desire and ordain that Lucius Valerius be the son of Lucius Titius as justly and lawfully as if he had been born of that father and the mother of his family, and that Titius have the power of life and death over Valerius which a father has over a son. This, just as I have stated it, I thus ask of you, fellow Romans.” Neither a ward nor a woman who is not under the control of her father may be adopted by adrogatio; since women have no part in the comitia, and it is not right that guardians should have so much authority and power over their wards as to be able to subject to the control of another a free person who has been committed to their protection. Freedmen, however, may legally be adopted in that way by freeborn citizens, according to Masurius Sabinus. But he adds that it is not allowed, that men of the condition of freedmen should by process of adoption usurp the privileges of the freeborn. “Furthermore,” says he, if that ancient law be maintained, even a slave may be surrendered by his master for adoption through the agency of a praetor." And he declares that several authorities on ancient law have written that this can be done. I have observed in a speech of Publius Scipio On Morals, which he made to the people in his censorship, that among the things that he criticized, on the ground that they were done contrary to the usage of our forefathers, he also found fault with this, that an adopted son was of profit to his adoptive father in gaining the rewards for paternity. The passage in that speech is as follows: “A father votes in one tribe, the son in another, an adopted son is of as much advantage as if one had a son of his own; orders are given to take the census of absentees, and hence it is not necessary for anyone to appear in person at the census.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.20
§ 5.20 The Latin word coined by Sinnius Capito for “solecism,” and what the early writers of Latin called that same fault; and also Sinnius Capito's definition of a solecism. A solecism, which by Sinnius Capito and other men of his time was called in Latin inparilitas, or “inequality,” the earlier Latin writers termed stribiligo, evidently meaning the improper use of an inverted form of expression, a sort of twist as it were. This kind of fault is thus defined by Sinnius Capito, in a letter which he wrote to Clodius Tuscus: “A solecism,” he says, “is an irregular and incongruous joining together of the parts of speech.” Since “soloecismus” is a Greek word, the question is often asked, whether it was used by the men of Attica who spoke most elegantly. But I have as yet found neither soloecismus nor barbarismus in good Greek writers. for just as they used βάρβαρος, so they used σόλοικος. So too our earlier writers used soloecus regularly, soloecismus never, I think. But if that be so, soloecismus is proper usage neither in Greek nor in Latin.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:5.21
§ 5.21 One who says pluria, compluria and compluriens speaks good Latin, and not incorrectly. An extremely learned man, a friend of mine, chanced in the course of conversation to use the word pluria, not at all with a desire to show off, or because he thought that plura ought not to be used. For he is a man of serious scholarship and devoted to the duties of life, and not at all meticulous in the use of words. But, I think, from constant perusal of the early writers a word which he had often met in books had become second nature to his tongue. There was present when he said this a very audacious critic of language, who had read very little and that of the most ordinary sort; this fellow had some trifling instruction in the art of grammar, which was partly ill-digested and confused and partly false, and this he used to cast like dust into the eyes of any with whom he had entered into discussion. Thus on that occasion he said to my friend: “You were incorrect in saying plura; for that form has neither justification nor authorities.” Thereupon that friend of mine rejoiced with a smile: “My good sir, since I now have leisure from more serious affairs, I wish you would please explain to me why pluria and compluria — for they do not differ — are used barbarously and incorrectly by Marcus Cato, Quintus Claudius, Valerius Antias, Lucius Aelius, Publius Nigidius, and Marcus Varro, whom we have as endorsers and sanctioners of this form, to say nothing of a great number of the early poets and orators.” And the fellow answered with excessive arrogance: “You are welcome to those authorities of yours, dug up from the age of the Fauns and Aborigines, but what is your answer to this rule. No neuter comparative in the nominative plural has an i before its final a; for example, meliora, maiora, graviora. Accordingly, then, it is proper to say plura, not pluria, in order that there be no i before final a in a comparative, contrary to the invariable rule.” Then that friend of mine, thinking that the self-confident fellow deserved a few words, said: “There are numerous letters of Sinnius Capito, a very learned man, collected in a single volume and deposited, I think, in the Temple of Peace. The first letter is addressed to Pacuvius Labeo, and it is prefixed by the title,'Pluria, not plura, should be used.” In that letter he has collected the grammatical rules to show that pluria, and not plura, is good Latin. Therefore I refer you to Capito. From him you will learn at the same time, provided you can comprehend what is written in that letter. that pluria, or plura, is the positive and simple form, not, as it seems to you, a comparative." It also confirms that view of Sinnius, that when we say complures or “several,” we are not using a comparative. Moreover, from the word compluria is derived the adverb compluriens, “often.” Since this is not a common word, I have added a verse of Plautus, from the comedy entitled The Persian: What do you fear? — By Heaven! I am afraid; I've had the feeling many a time and oft (compluriens). Marcus Cato too, in the fourth book of his Origins, has used this word three times in the same passage: “Often (compluriens) did their mercenary soldiers kill one another in large numbers in the camp; often (compluriens) did many together desert to the enemy; often (compluriens) did they attack their general.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.1
§ 6.1 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 life and 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 about 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 it was far more because of his exploits than because of that prodigy that he too was believed to be a man of godlike excellence. This too I venture to relate, which the same writers that I mentioned before have put on record: This Scipio Africanus used often to go to the Capitolium in the latter part of the night, before the break of day, give orders that the shrine of Jupiter be opened, and remain there a long time alone, apparently consulting Jupiter about matters of state; and the guardians of the temple were often amazed that on his coming to the Capitolium alone at such an hour the dogs, that flew at all other intruders, neither barked at him nor molested him. These popular beliefs about Scipio seemed to be confirmed and attested by many remarkable actions and sayings of his. Of these the following is a single example. He was engaged in the siege of a town in Spain, which was strongly fortified and defended, protected by its position, and also well provisioned; and there was no prospect of taking it. One day he sat holding court in his camp, at a point from which there was a distant view of the town. Then one of his soldiers who were on trial before him asked in the usual way on what day and in what place he bade them give bail for their appearance. Then Scipio, stretching forth his hand towards the very citadel of the town he was besieging, said: “Appear the day after tomorrow in yonder place.” And so it happened; on the third day, the town was captured, and on that same day he held court in the citadel of the place.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.2
§ 6.2 Of a disgraceful blunder of Caesellius Vindex, which we find in his work entitled Archaic Terms. In those highly celebrated notes of Caesellius Vindex On Archaic Terms we find a shameful oversight, although in fact the man is seldom caught napping. This error has escaped the notice of many, in spite of their diligent search for opportunities to find fault with Caesellius, even through misrepresentation. Now, Caesellius wrote that Quintus Ennius, in the thirteenth book of his Annals, used cor in the masculine gender. I add Caesellius' own words: “ Ennius used cor, like many other words, in the masculine gender; for in Annals XIII he wrote quem cor.” He then quoted two verses of Ennius: While Hannibal, of bold breast, did me exhort Not to make war, what heart thought he was mine? The speaker is Antiochus, king of Asia. He is surprised and indignant that Hannibal, the Carthaginian, discourages his desire to make war on the people of Rome. Now, Caesellius understands the lines to mean that Antiochus says: “ Hannibal dissuades me from making war. In so doing, what kind of heart does he think I have, and how foolish does he believe me to be, when he gives me such advice?. So Caesellius; but Ennius' meaning was quite different. For there are three verses, not two, which belong to this utterance of the poet's, and Caesellius overlooked the third verse: Through valour war's great advocate and friend. The meaning and arrangement of these three verses I believe to be this: ” Hannibal, that boldest and most valiant of men, who I believed (for that is the meaning of cor meum credidit, exactly as if he had said “who I, foolish man, believed”) would strongly advise war, discourages and dissuades me from making war." Caesellius, however, somewhat carelessly misled as to the connection of the words, assumed that Ennius said quem cor, reading quem with an acute accent, as if it belonged with cor and not with Hannibal. But I am well aware that one might, if anyone should have so little understanding, defend Caesellius' masculine cor by maintaining that the third verse should be read apart from the others, as if Antiochus had exclaimed in broken and abrupt language “a mighty adviser!” But those who would argue thus do not deserve a reply.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.3
§ 6.3 What Tullius Tiro, Cicero's freedman, criticized in the speech which Marcus Cato delivered in the senate in defence of the Rhodians; and our answer to his strictures. The State of Rhodes is famed for the happy situation of the island, its celebrated works of art, its skill in seamanship and its naval victories. Although a friend and ally of the Roman people, that State was on cordial terms with Perses, son of Philip and king of Macedon, with whom the Romans were at war; accordingly, the Rhodians often sent envoys to Rome and tried to reconcile the contending parties. But when their attempts at peace-making failed, many of the Rhodians harangued the people in their assemblies, agreeing that if peace were not made, the Rhodians should aid the king in his contest with the people of Rome. but as to that question no official action was taken. When, however, Perses was defeated and taken prisoner, the Rhodians were in great fear because of what had been said and done on many occasions in the popular assemblies; and they sent envoys to Rome, to apologize for the hastiness of some of their fellow-citizens and vindicate their loyalty as a community. When the envoys reached Rome and were admitted to the senate, after having humbly pleaded their cause they left the House, and the senators were called upon for their opinions. When some of the members complained of the Rhodians, declaring that they had been disloyal, and recommended that war be declared upon them, then Marcus Cato arose. He endeavoured to defend and save our very good and faithful allies, to whom many of the most distinguished senators were hostile through a desire to plunder and possess their wealth; and he delivered that famous speech entitled For the Rhodians, which is included in the fifth book of his Origins and is also in circulation as a separate publication. Now Tullius Tiro, Marcus Cicero's freedman, was unquestionably a man of refined taste and by no means unacquainted with our early history and literature. He had been liberally educated from his earliest years, and Cicero found in him an assistant, and in a sense a partner, in his literary work. But surely Tiro showed more presumption than can be tolerated or excused. For he wrote a letter to Quintus Axius, a friend of his patron, with excessive assurance and warmth, in which, as he imagined, he criticized that speech For the Rhodians with keen and fine judgment. It chanced to take my fancy to touch upon certain of the animadversions which he makes in that letter, and I shall doubtless be the more readily pardoned for finding fault with Tiro, because he took Cato to task. His first charge was that Cato, “ignorantly and absurdly,” to use Tiro's own language, made use of a preamble which was excessively severe and fault-finding, in which he declared that he feared lest the fathers, having their minds upset by joy and exultation at their success, might act unwisely and be in no state of mind for understanding and deliberating aright. Tiro says: “Advocates who are pleading for clients ought in their opening remarks to win over and propitiate the jurors with complimentary and respectful language; they ought, while their minds, as they wait to hear the case, are still in suspense and cool, to render them complacent, and not to arouse contradiction by insults and arrogant threats.” Then he has given us Cato's own preamble, which runs as follows: “I am aware that in happy, successful and prosperous times the minds of most men are wont to be puffed up, and their arrogance and self-confidence to wax and swell. Therefore I am now gravely concerned, since this enterprise has gone on so successfully, lest something adverse may happen in our deliberations, to bring to naught our good fortune, and lest this joy of ours become too extravagant. Adversity subdues and shows what ought to be done; prosperity, since it inspires joy, commonly turns men aside from wise counsel and right understanding. Therefore it is with the greater emphasis that I advise and urge that this matter be put off for a few days, until we regain our self-command after so great rejoicing.” “Then what Cato says next,” continues Tiro, “amounts to a confession rather than a defence; for it does not contain a refutation or shifting of the charge, but the sharing of it with many others, which of course amounts to nothing in the way of excuse. Moreover,” says Tiro, “he also acknowledges that the Rhodians, who were accused of favouring the king's cause against the Roman people and wishing him success, did so from motives of self-interest, for fear that the Romans, already proud and self-confident, with the addition of a victory over king Perses might become immoderately insolent.” And he gives Cato's own words, as follows: “And I really think that the Rhodians did not wish us to end the war as we did, with a victory over king Perses. But it was not the Rhodians alone who had that feeling, but I believe that many peoples and many nations agreed with them. And I am inclined to think that some of them did not wish us success, not in order that we might be disgraced, but because they feared that if there were no one of whom we stood in dread, we would do whatever we chose. I think, then, that it was with an eye to their own freedom that they held that opinion, in order not to be under our sole dominion and enslaved to us. But for all that, the Rhodians never publicly aided Perses. Reflect how much more cautiously we deal with one another as individuals. For each one of us, if he thinks that anything is being done contrary to his interests, strives with might and main to prevent it; but they in spite of all permitted this very thing to happen.” Now as to his criticism of Cato's introduction, Tiro ought to have known that although Cato defended the Rhodians, he did so as a senator who had been consul and censor and was recommending what he thought was best for the public welfare, not as an advocate pleading the cause of the accused. For one kind of introduction is appropriate for a man who is defending clients before jurors and striving in every way to excite pity and compassion; quite another for a man of eminent authority, when the senate is asked for its opinion on a matter of State, and when, indignant at the highly unjust opinions of some of the members, he gives plain and emphatic expression at once to his indignation and his sorrow, speaking in behalf of the public welfare and the safety of our allies.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.3.2
§ 6.3.2 Indeed, it is a proper and salutary rule of the schools of rhetoric, that jurors who are to pass judgment on the person of a stranger and on a case which does not personally concern them (so that apart from the duty of acting as jurors no danger or emolument will come to them) ought to be conciliated and induced by mild and soothing language to have regard for the reputation and safety of the prisoner at the bar. But when the common prestige, honour and advantage of all are involved, and therefore one must advise what is to be done, or what must be put off that has already been begun, then one who busies himself with an introduction designed to make his hearers friendly and kindly disposed towards himself wastes his efforts in needless talk. For the common interests and dangers have themselves already disposed the jurors to listen to advice, and it is rather they themselves that demand good-will on the part of their counsellor. But when Tiro says that Cato admitted that the Rhodians did not wish the Romans to fight as successfully as they did, and king Perses to be conquered by the Roman people, and when he asserts that he declared that not the Rhodians alone, but many other nations too, had the same feeling, but that this availed nothing in excuse or extenuation of their fault — in this very first point Tiro is guilty of a shameless lie. He quotes Cato's words, yet misrepresents him by giving them a false interpretation. For Cato does not admit that the Rhodians did not wish the Roman people to be victorious, but said that he thought they did not; and this was unquestionably an expression of his own opinion, not a concession of the guilt of the Rhodians. On this point, in my judgment at least, Cato is not only free from reproach, but is even deserving of praise and admiration. For he apparently expressed a frank and conscientious opinion adverse to the Rhodians; but then, having established confidence in his candour, he so changed and shifted that very statement which seemed to militate against them, that on that account alone it seemed right that they should be more highly esteemed and beloved by the people of Rome; inasmuch as they took no steps to aid the king, although they wished him to succeed and although his success would have been to their advantage. Later on, Tiro quotes the following words from the same speech: “Shall we, then, of a sudden abandon these great services given and received and this strong friendship? Shall we be the first to do what we say they merely wished to do?. ”This," says Tiro, “is a worthless and faulty argument. For it might be replied:'Certainly we shall anticipate them, for if we do not, we shall be caught unawares and must fall into the snares against which we failed to guard in advance.” Lucilius," he says, “justly criticizes the poet Euripides for this reason, that when king Polyphontes declared that he had killed his brother, because his brother had previously planned to slay him, Meropa, his brother's wife, confuted the king with these words: If, as you say, my husband planned your death, You too should only plan, till that time came. But that,” says Tiro, “is altogether full of absurdity, to wish to do something, and yet have the design and purpose of never doing what you wish to do.” But, as a matter of fact, Tiro failed to observe that the reason for taking precautions is not the same in all cases, and that the occupations and actions of human life, and the obligations of anticipation or postponement or even of taking vengeance or precautions, are not like a combat of gladiators. For to a gladiator ready to fight the fortune of battle offers the alternative, either to kill, if he should conquer, or to die, if he should yield. But the life of men in general is not restricted by such unfair or inevitable necessities that one must be first to commit an injury in order to avoid suffering injury. In fact, such conduct was so alien to the humanity of the Roman people that they often forbore to avenge the wrongs inflicted upon them. Then Tiro says that later in that same speech Cato used arguments that were disingenuous and excessively audacious, not suited to the character which Cato showed at other times, but cunning and deceitful, resembling the subtleties of the Greek sophists. “For although,” says he, “he charged the Rhodians with having wished to make war on the Roman people, he declared that they did not deserve punishment, because they had not made war in spite of their strong desire to do so.” He says that Cato introduced what the logicians call an ἐπαγωγή, a most treacherous and sophistical device, designed not so much for the truth as for cavil, since by deceptive examples he tried to establish and prove that no one who wished to do wrong deserved to be punished, unless he actually accomplished his desire.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.3.3
§ 6.3.3 Now Cato's words in that speech are as follows: “He who uses the strongest language against them says that they wished to be our enemies. Pray is there any one of you who, so far as he is concerned, would think it fair to suffer punishment because he is accused of having wished to do wrong? No one, I think; for so far as I am concerned, I should not.” Then a little farther on he says: “What? Is there any law so severe as to provide that if anyone wish to do so and so, he be fined a thousand sesterces, provided that be less than half his property; if anyone shall desire to have more than five hundred acres, let the fine be so much; if anyone shall wish to have a greater number of cattle, let the fine be thus and so. In fact, we all wish to have more, and we do so with impunity.” Later he continues: “But if it is not right for honour to be conferred because anyone says that he wished to do well, but yet did not do so, shall the Rhodians suffer, not because they did wrong, but because they are said to have wished to do wrong?. With such arguments Tullius Tiro says that Marcus Cato strove to show that the Rhodians also ought not to be punished, because although they had wished to be enemies of the Roman people, they had actually not been such. Furthermore, he says that it cannot be denied that to wish to have more than five hundred acres, which was forbidden by Stolo's bill, is not exactly the same thing as to wish to make an unjust and unrighteous war upon the Roman people; also that it could not be denied that rewards and punishments belong to different categories. ”For services," he says, “that are promised should be awaited, and not rewarded until they are performed; but in the case of threatening injuries, it is fair to guard against them rather than wait for them. For it is an admission of the greatest folly,” he declares, “not to go to meet wickedness that is planned, but to await and expect it, and then, when it has been committed and accomplished, at last to inflict punishment, when what is done cannot be undone.” These are the criticisms which Tiro passed upon Cato, not altogether pointless or wholly unreasonable. but as a matter of fact, Cato did not leave this ἐπαγωγή bare, isolated and unsupported, but he propped it up in various ways and clothed it with many other arguments. Furthermore, since he had an eye as much to the interests of the State as to those of the Rhodians, he regarded nothing that he said or did in that matter as discreditable, provided he strove by every kind of argument to save our allies. And first of all, he very cleverly sought to find actions which are prohibited, not by natural or by international law, but by statutes passed to remedy some evil or meet an emergency; such for example as the one which limited the number of cattle or the amount of land. In such cases that which is forbidden cannot lawfully be done; but to wish to do it, and if it should be allowed, is not dishonourable. And then he gradually compared and connected such actions as these with that which in itself it is neither lawful to do nor to wish to do. Then finally, in order that the impropriety of the comparison may not become evident, he defends it by numerous bulwarks, not laying great stress on those trivial and ideal censures of unlawful desires, such as form the arguments of philosophers in their leisure moments, but striving with might and main for one single end, namely, that the cause of the Rhodians, whose friendship it was to the interests of the commonwealth to retain, should be shown either to be just, or in any event, at least pardonable. Accordingly, he now affirms that the Rhodians did not make war and did not desire to do so; but again he declares that only acts should be considered and judged, and that mere empty wishes are liable neither to laws nor punishment; sometimes, however, as if admitting their guilt, he asks that they be pardoned and shows that forgiveness is expedient in human relations, arousing fear of popular outbreaks, if pardon is not granted, and on the other hand showing that if they forgive, the greatness of the Roman people will be maintained. The charge of arrogance too, which in particular was brought against the Rhodians in the senate at that time, he evaded and eluded by a brilliant and all but inspired mode of reply. I shall give Cato's very words, since Tiro has passed them by. “They say that the Rhodians are arrogant, bringing a charge against them which I should on no account wish to have brought against me and my children. Suppose they are arrogant. What is that to us? Are you to be angry merely because someone is more arrogant than we are?. Absolutely nothing could be said with greater force or weight than this apostrophe against men proud of their deeds, loving pride in themselves, but condemning it in others.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.3.4
§ 6.3.4 It is further to be observed that throughout that speech of Cato's recourse is had to every weapon and device of the art rhetorical; but we are not conscious of their use, as we are in mock combats or in battles feigned for the sake of entertainment. For the case was not pleaded, I say, with an excess of refinement, elegance and observance of rule, but just as in a doubtful battle, when the troops are scattered, the contest rages in many parts of the field with uncertain outcome, so in that case at that time, when the notorious arrogance of the Rhodians had aroused the hatred and hostility of many men, Cato used every method of protection and defence without discrimination, at one time commending the Rhodians as of the highest merit, again exculpating them and declaring them blameless, yet again demanding that their property and riches should not be coveted, now asking for their pardon as if they were in the wrong, now pointing out their friendship to the commonwealth, appealing now to clemency, now to the mercy shown by our forefathers, now to the public interest. All this might perhaps have been said in a more orderly and euphonic style, yet I do not believe that it could have been said with greater vigour and vividness. It was therefore unfair of Tullius Tiro to single out from all the qualities of so rich a speech, apt in their connection with one another, a small and bare part to criticize, by asserting that it was not worthy of Marcus Cato to maintain that the mere desire for delinquencies that were not actually committed did not merit punishment. But one will form a juster and more candid opinion of these words of mine, spoken in reply to Tullius Tiro, and judge accordingly, if one will take in hand Cato's own speech in its entirety, and will also take the trouble to look up and read the letter of Tiro to Axius. For then he will be able either to correct or confirm what I have said more truthfully and after fuller examination.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.4
§ 6.4 What sort of slaves Caelius Sabinus, the writer on civil law, said were commonly sold with caps on their heads, and why; and what chattels were sold under a crown in the days of our forefathers; and the meaning of that same expression ”under a crown." Caelius Sabinus, the jurist, has written that it was usual, when selling slaves, to put caps on those for whom the seller assumed no responsibility. He says that the reason for that custom was, that the law required that slaves of that kind be marked when offered for sale, in order that buyers might not err and be deceived; that it might not be necessary to wait for the bill of sale, but might be obvious at once what kind of slaves they were. “Just so,” he says, “in ancient times slaves taken by right of conquest were sold wearing garlands, and hence were said to be sold'under a crown.' For as the crown was a sign that those who were being sold were captives, so a cap upon the head indicated that slaves were being sold for whom the seller gave the buyer no guarantee.” There is, however, another explanation of the reason for the common saying that captives were sold “under a crown” namely, because a guard of soldiers stood around the bands of prisoners that were offered for sale, and such a ring of soldiers was called corona. But that the reason which I first gave is the more probable one is made clear by Marcus Cato in the book which he wrote On Military Science. Cato's words are as follows: “That the people may rather crown themselves and go to offer thanks for success gained through their own efforts than be crowned and sold because of ill-success.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.5
§ 6.5 A noteworthy story about the actor Polus. There was in the land of Greece an actor of wide reputation, who excelled all others in his clear delivery and graceful action. They say that his name was Polus, and he often acted the tragedies of famous poets with intelligence and dignity. This Polus lost by death a son whom he dearly loved. After he felt that he had indulged his grief sufficiently, he returned to the practice of his profession. At that time he was to act the Electra of Sophocles at Athens, and it was his part to carry an urn which was supposed to contain the ashes of Orestes. The plot of the play requires that Electra, who is represented as carrying her brother's remains, should lament and bewail the fate that she believed had overtaken him. Accordingly Polus, clad in the mourning garb of Electra, took from the tomb the ashes and urn of his son, embraced them as if they were those of Orestes, and filled the whole place, not with the appearance and imitation of sorrow, but with genuine grief and unfeigned lamentation. Therefore, while it seemed that a play was being acted, it was in fact real grief that was enacted.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.6
§ 6.6 What Aristotle wrote of the congenital absence of some of the senses. Nature has given five senses to living beings; sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell, called by the Greeks αἰσθήσεις. Of these some animals lack one and some another, being born into the world blind, or without the sense of smell or hearing. But Aristotle asserts that no animal is born without sense of taste or of touch. His own words, from the book which he wrote On Memory, are as follows: “Except for some imperfect animals, all have taste or touch.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.7
§ 6.7 Whether affatim, like admodum, should be pronounced with an acute accent on the first syllable; with some painstaking observations on the accents of other words. The poet Annianus, in addition to his charming personality, was highly skilled in ancient literature and literary criticism, and conversed with remarkable grace and learning. He pronounced affatim, as he did admodum, with an acute accent on the first, and not on the medial, syllable; and he believed that the ancients so pronounced the word. He adds that in his hearing the grammarian Probus thus read the following lines of the Cistellaria of Plautus: Canst do a valiant deed? — Enough (affatim) there be Who can. I've no desire to be called brave. and he said that the reason for that accent was that affatim was not two parts of speech, but was made up of two parts that had united to form a single word; just as also in the word which we call exadversum he thought that the second syllable should have the acute accent, because the word was one part of speech, and not two. Accordingly, he maintained that the two following verses of Terence ought to be read thus: Over against (exadversum) the school to which she went A barber had his shop. He added besides that the preposition ad was commonly accented when it indicated ἐπίτασις, or as we say, “emphasis,” as in adfabre, admodum, and adprobe. In all else, indeed, Annianus spoke aptly enough. But if he supposed that this particle was always accented when it denoted emphasis, that rule is obviously not without exceptions. for when we say adpotus, adprimus, and adprime, emphasis is evident in all those words, yet it is not at all proper to pronounce the particle ad with the acute accent. I must admit, however, that adprobus, which means “highly approved,” ought to be accented on the first syllable. Caecilius uses that word in his comedy entitled The Triumph: Hierocles, my friend, is a most worthy (adprobus) youth. In those words, then, which we say do not have the acute accent, is not this the reason — that the following syllable is longer by nature, and a long penult does not as a rule permit the accenting of the preceding syllable in words of more than two syllables. But Lucius Livius in his Odyssey uses adprimus in the sense of “by far the first” in the following line: And then the mighty hero, foremost of all (adprimus), Patroclus. Livius in his Odyssey too pronounces praemodum like admodum; he says parcentes praemodum, which means “beyond measure merciful,” and praemodum is equivalent to praeter modum. And in this word, of course, the first syllable will have to have the acute accent.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.8
§ 6.8 An incredible story about a dolphin which loved a boy. That dolphins are affectionate and amorous is shown, not only by ancient history, but also by tales of recent date. For in the sea of Puteoli, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, as Apion has written, and some centuries before at Naupactus, as Theophrastus tells us, dolphins are positively known to have been ardently in love. And they did not love those of their own kind, but had an extraordinary passion, like that of human beings, for boys of handsome figure, whom they chanced to have seen in boats or in the shoal waters near the shore. I have appended the words of that learned man Apion, from the fifth book of his Egyptian History, in which he tells of an amorous dolphin and a boy who did not reject its advances, of their intimacy and play with each other, the dolphin carrying the boy and the boy bestriding the fish; and Apion declares that of all this he himself and many others were eye-witnesses. “Now I myself,” he writes, “near Dicaearchia saw a dolphin that fell in love with a boy called Hyacinthus. For the fish with passionate eagerness came at his call, and drawing in his fins, to avoid wounding the delicate skin of the object of his affection, carried him as if mounted upon a horse for a distance of two hundred stadia. Rome and all Italy turned out to see a fish that was under the sway of Aphrodite.” To this he adds a detail that is no less wonderful. “Afterwards,” he says, “that same boy who was beloved by the dolphin fell sick and died. But the lover, when he had often come to the familiar shore, and the boy, who used to await his coming at the edge of the shoal water, was nowhere to be seen, pined away from longing and died. He was found lying on the shore by those who knew the story and was buried in the same tomb with his favourite.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.9
§ 6.9 That many early writers used peposci, memordi, pepugi, spepondi and cecurri, and not, as was afterwards customary, forms with o or u in the first syllable, and that in so doing said that they followed Greek usage; that it has further been observed that men who were neither unlearned nor obscure made from the verb descendo, not descendi, but descendidi. Poposci, momordi, pupugi and cucurri seem to be the approved forms, and today they are used by almost all better-educated men. But Quintus Ennius in his Satires wrote memorderit with an e, and not momorderit, as follows:'Tis not my way, as if a dog had bit me (memorderit). So too Laberius in the Galli: Now from my whole estate A hundred thousand have I bitten off (memordi). The same Laberius too in his Colorator: And when, o'er slow fire cooked, I came beneath her teeth, Twice, thrice she bit (memordit). Also Publius Nigidius in his second book On Animals: “As when a serpent bites (memordit) one, a hen is split and placed upon the wound.” Likewise Plautus in the Aulularia: How he the man did fleece (admemordit). But Plautus again, in the Trigemini, said neither praememordisse nor praemomordisse, but praemorsisse, in the following line: Had I not fled into your midst, Methinks he'd bitten me (praemorsisset). Atta too in the Conciliatrix says: A bear, he says, bit him (memordisse). Valerius Antias too, in the forty-fifth book of his Annals, has left on record peposci, not poposci in this passage: “Finally Licinius, tribune of the commons, charged him with high treason and asked (peposcit) from the praetor Marcus Marcius a day for holding the comitia.” In the same way Atta in the Aedilicia says: But he will be afraid, if I do prick him (pepugero). Probus has noted that Aelius Tubero also, in his work dedicated to Gaius Ippius, wrote occecurrit, and he has quoted him as follows: “If the general form should present itself (occecurrerit).” Probus also observed that Valerius Antias in the twenty-second book of his Histories wrote speponderant, and he quotes his words as follows: “ Tiberius Gracchus, who had been quaestor to Gaius Mancinus in Spain, and the others who had guaranteed (speponderant) peace.” Now the explanation of these forms might seem to be this: since the Greeks in one form of the past tense, which they call παρακείμενον, or “perfect,” commonly change the second letter of the verb to e, as φράφω γέγραφα, ποιῶ πεποίηκα, λαλῶ λελάληκα,κρατῶ κεκράτηκα, λούω λέλουκα, so accordingly mordeo makes memordi. posco peposci, tendo tetendi, tango tetigi, pungo pepugi, curro cecurri, tollo tetuli, and spondeo spepondi. Thus Marcus Tullius and Gaius Caesar used mordeo memordi, pungo pepugi, spondeo spepondi. I find besides that from the verb scindo in the same way was made, not sciderat, but sciciderat. Lucius Accius in the first book of his Sotadici writes sciciderat. These are his words: And had the eagle then, as these declare, His bosom rent (sciciderat). Ennius too in his Melanippa says: When the rock he shall split (sciciderit). Valerius Antias in the seventy-fifth book of his Histories wrote these words: “Then, having arranged for the funeral, he went down (descendidit) to the Forum.” Laberius too in the Catularius wrote thus: I wondered how my breasts had fallen low (descendiderant).
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.10
§ 6.10 As ususcapio is treated as a compound noun in the nominative case, so pignoriscapio is taken together as one word in the same case. As ususcapio is treated as a compound word, in which the letter a is pronounced long, just so pignoriscapio was pronounced as one word with a long a. These are the words of Cato in the first book of his Epistolary Questions: “Pignoriscapio, resorted to because of military pay which a soldier ought to receive from the public paymaster, is a word by itself.” From this it is perfectly clear that one may say capio as if it were captio, in connection with both usus and pignus.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.11
§ 6.11 That neither levitas nor nequitia has the meaning that is given to those words in ordinary conversation. I observe that levitas is now generally used to denote inconsistency and changeableness, and nequitia, in the sense of craftiness and cunning. But those of the men of early days who spoke properly and purely applied the term leves to those whom we now commonly call worthless and meriting no esteem. That is, they used levitas with precisely the force of vilitas, and applied the term nequam to a man of no importance nor worth, the sort of man that the Greeks usually call ἄσωτος (beyond recovery) or ἀκόλαστος (incorrigible). One who desires examples of these words need not resort to books that are very inaccessible, but he will find them in Marcus Tullius' second Oration against Antony. For when Cicero wished to indicate a kind of extreme sordidness in the life and conduct of Marcus Antonius, that he lurked in a tavern, that he drank deep until evening, and that he travelled with his face covered, so as not to be recognized — when he wished to give expression to these and similar charges against him, he said: “Just see the worthlessness (levitatem) of the man,” as if by that reproach he branded him with all those various marks of infamy which I have mentioned. But afterwards, when he had heaped upon the same Antony other scornful and opprobrious charges, he finally added “O man of no worth (nequam)! for there is no term that I can use more fittingly.” But from that passage of Marcus Tullius I should like to add a somewhat longer extract: “Just see the worthlessness of the man! Having come to Saxa Rubra at about the tenth hour of the day, he lurked in a certain low tavern, and shutting himself up there drank deep until evening. Then riding swiftly to the city in a cab, he came to his home with covered face. The doorkeeper asked:'Who are you?''The bearer of a letter from Marcus,' was the reply. He was at once taken to the lady on whose account he had come, and handed her the letter. While she read it with tears — for it was written in amorous terms and its main point was this: that hereafter he would have nothing to do with that actress, that he had cast aside all his love for her and transferred it to the reader — when the woman wept still more copiously, the compassionate man could not endure it; he uncovered his face and threw himself on her neck. O man of no worth! — for I can use no more fitting term; was it, then, that your wife might unexpectedly see you, when you had surprised her by appearing as her lover, that you upset the city with terror by night and Italy with dread for many days?. In a very similar way Quintus Claudius too, in the first book of his Annals, called a prodigal and wasteful life of luxury nequitia, using these words: ”They persuade a young man from Lucania, who was born in a most exalted station, but had squandered great wealth in luxury and prodigality (nequitia)." Marcus Varro in his work On the Latin Language says: “Just as from non and volo we have nolo, so from ne and quicquam is formed nequam, with the loss of the medial syllable.” Publius Africanus, speaking In his own Defence against Tiberius Asellus in the matter of a fine, thus addressed the people: “All the evils, shameful deeds, and crimes that men commit come from two things, malice and profligacy (nequitia). Against which charge do you defend yourself, that of malice or profligacy, or both together? If you wish to defend yourself against the charge of profligacy, well and good; if you have squandered more money on one harlot than you reported for the census as the value of all the equipment of your Sabine estate; if this is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces? If you have wasted more than a third of your patrimony and spent it on your vices; if that is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces? You do not care to defend yourself against the charge of profligacy; at least refute the charge of malice. If you have sworn falsely in set terms knowingly and deliberately; if this is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces?”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.12
§ 6.12 Of the tunics called chiridotae; that Publius Africanus reproved Sulpicius Gallus for wearing them. For a man to wear tunics coming below the arms and as far as the wrists, and almost to the fingers, was considered unbecoming in Rome and in all Latium. Such tunics our countrymen called by the Greek name chiridotae (long-sleeved), and they thought that a long and full-flowing garment was not unbecoming for women only, to hide their arms and legs from sight. But Roman men at first wore the toga alone without tunics; later, they had close, short tunics ending below the shoulders, the kind which the Greeks call ἐξωμίδες (sleeveless). Habituated to this older fashion, Publius Africanus, son of Paulus, a man gifted with all worthy arts and every virtue, among many other things with which he reproached Publius Sulpicius Gallus, an effeminate man, included this also, that he wore tunics which covered his whole hands. Scipio's words are these: “For one who daily perfumes himself and dresses before a mirror, whose eyebrows are trimmed, who walks abroad with beard plucked out and thighs made smooth, who at banquets, though a young man, has reclined in a long-sleeved tunic on the inner side of the couch with a lover, who is fond not only of wine but of men — does anyone doubt that he does what wantons commonly do?. Virgil too attacks tunics of this kind as effeminate and shameful, saying: Sleeves have their tunics, and their turbans, ribbons. Quintus Ennius also seems to have spoken not without scorn of ”the tunic-clad men" of the Carthaginians.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.13
§ 6.13 Whom Marcus Cato calls classici or “belonging to a class,” and whom infra classem or “below class.” Not all those men who were enrolled in the five classes were called classici, but only the men of the first class, who were rated at a hundred and twenty-five thousand asses or more. But those of the second class and of all the other classes, who were rated ata smaller sum than that which I just mentioned, were called infra classem. I have briefly noted this, because in connection with the speech of Marcus Cato In Support of the Voconian Law the question is often raised, what is meant by classicus and what byinfra classem.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.14
§ 6.14 Of the three literary styles; and of the three philosophers who were sent as envoys by the Athenians to the senate at Rome. Both in verse and in prose there are three approved styles, which the Greeks call χαρακτῆρες and to which they have given the names of ἁδρός, ἰσχνός and μέσος. We also call the one which I put first “grand,” the second “plain,” and the third “middle.” The grand style possesses dignity and richness, the plain, grace and elegance; the middle lies on the border line and partakes of the qualities of both. To each of these excellent styles there are related an equal number of faulty ones, arising from unsuccessful attempts to imitate their manner and character. Thus very often pompous and bombastic speakers lay claim to the grand style, the mean and bald to the plain, and the unclear and ambiguous to the middle. But true and genuine Latin examples of these styles are said by Marcus Varro to be: Pacuvius of the grand style, Lucilius of the plain, and Terence of the middle. But in early days these same three styles of speaking were exemplified in three men by Homer: the grand and rich in Ulysses, the elegant and restrained in Menelaus, the middle and moderate in Nestor. This threefold variety is also to be observed in the three philosophers whom the Athenians sent as envoys to the senate at Rome, to persuade the senators to remit the fine which they had imposed upon the Athenians because of the sack of Oropos; and the fine amounted to nearly five hundred talents. The philosophers in question were Carneades of the Academy, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic. When they were admitted to the House, they made use of Gaius Acilius, one of the senators, as interpreter; but beforehand each one of them separately, for the purpose of exhibiting his eloquence, lectured to a large company. Rutilius and Polybius declare that all three aroused admiration for their oratory, each in his own style. “ Carneades,” they say, “spoke with a vehemence that carried you away, Critolaus with art and polish, Diogenes with restraint and sobriety.” Each of these styles, as I have said, is more brilliant when it is chastely and moderately adorned; when it is rouged and bepowdered, it becomes mere jugglery.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.15
§ 6.15 How severely thieves were punished by the laws of our forefathers; and what Mucius Scaevola wrote about that which is given or entrusted to anyone's care. Labeo, in his second book On the Twelve Tables, wrote that cruel and severe judgments were passed upon theft in early times, and that Brutus used to say that a man was pronounced guilty of theft who had merely led an animal to another place than the one where he had been given the privilege of using it, as well as one who had driven it farther than he had bargained to do. Accordingly, Quintus Scaevola, in the sixteenth book of his work On the Civil Law, wrote these words: “If anyone has used something that was entrusted to his care, or having borrowed anything to use, has applied it to another purpose than that for which he borrowed, he is liable for theft.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.16
§ 6.16 A passage about foreign varieties of food, copied from the satire of Marcus Varro entitled Περὶ Ἐδεσμάτων, or On Edibles; and with it some verses of Euripides, in which he assails the extravagant gluttony of luxurious men. Marcus Varro, in the satire which he entitled Περὶ Ἐδεσμάτων, in verses written with great charm and cleverness, treats of exquisite elegance in banquets and viands. For he has set forth and described in senarii the greater number of things of that kind which such gluttons seek out on land and sea. As for the verses themselves, he who has leisure may find and read them in the book which I have mentioned. So far as my memory goes, these are the varieties and names of the foods surpassing all others, which a bottomless gullet has hunted out and which Varro has assailed in his satire, with the places where they are found. a peacock from Samos, a woodcock from Phrygia, cranes of Media, a kid from Ambracia, a young tunny from Chalcedon, a lamprey from Tartessus, codfish from Pessinus, oysters from Tarentum, cockles from Sicily, a swordfish from Rhodes, pike from Cilicia, nuts from Thasos, dates from Egypt, acorns from Spain. But this tireless gluttony, which is ever wandering about and seeking for flavours, and this eager quest for dainties from all quarters, we shall consider deserving of the greater detestation, if we recall the verses of Euripides of which the philosopher Chrysippus made frequent use, to the effect that gastronomic delicacies were contrived, not because of the necessary uses of life, but because of a spirit of luxury that disdains what is easily attainable because of the immoderate wantonness that springs from satiety. I have thought that I ought to append the verses of Euripides: What things do mortals need, save two alone, The fruits of Ceres and the cooling spring, Which are at hand and made to nourish us? With this abundance we are not content, But hunt out other foods through luxury.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.17
§ 6.17 A conversation held with a grammarian, who was full of insolence and ignorance, as to the meaning of the word obnoxius; and of the origin of that word. I inquired at Rome of a certain grammarian who had the highest repute as a teacher, not indeed for the sake of trying or testing him, but rather from an eager desire for knowledge, what obnoxius meant and what was the origin and the history of the word. And he, looking at me and ridiculing what he considered the insignificance and unfitness of the query, said: “Truly a difficult question is this that you ask, one demanding very many sleepless nights of investigation. Who, pray, is so ignorant of the Latin tongue as not to know that one is called obnoxius who can be inconvenienced or injured by another, to whom he is said to be obnoxius because the other is conscious of his noxa, that is to say, of his guilt? Why not rather,” said he, “drop these trifles and put questions worthy of study and discussion?. Then indeed I was angry, but thinking that I ought to dissemble, since I was dealing with a fool, I said: ”If, most learned sir, I need to learn and to know other things that are more abstruse and more important, when the occasion arises I shall inquire and learn them from you; but inasmuch as I have often used the word obnoxius without knowing what I was saying, I have learned from you and am now beginning to understand what not I alone, as you seem to think, was ignorant of; for as a matter of fact, Plautus too, though a man of the first rank in his use of the Latin language and in elegance of diction, did not know the meaning of obnoxius. For there is a passage of his in the Stichus which reads as follows: By heaven! I now am utterly undone, Not only partly so (non obnoxie). This does not in the least agree with what you have taught me; for Plautus contrasted plane and obnoxie as two opposites, which is far removed from your meaning." But that grammarian retorted foolishly enough, as if obnoxius and obnoxie differed, not merely in form, but in their substance and meaning: “I gave a definition of obnoxius, not obnoxie.” But then I, amazed at the ignorance of the presumptuous fellow, answered, “Let us, as you wish, disregard the fact that Plautus said obnoxie, if you think that too far-fetched. and let us also say nothing of the passage in Sallust's Catiline:'Also to threaten her with his sword, if she would not be submissive (obnoxia) to him'. but explain to me this example, which is certainly more recent and more familiar. For the following lines of Virgil's are very well known: For now the stars' bright sheen is seen undimmed. The rising Moon owes naught (nec... obnoxia) to brother's rays. but you say that it means'conscious of her guilt.' In another place too Virgil uses this word with a meaning different from yours, in these lines: What joy the fields to view That owe no debt (non obnoxia) to hoe or care of man. For care is generally a benefit to fields, not an injury, as it would be according to your definition of obnoxius. Furthermore, how can what Quintus Ennius writes in the following verses from the Phoenix agree with you:'Tis meet a man should live inspired by courage true, In conscious innocence should boldly challenge foes. True freedom his who bears a pure and steadfast heart, All else less import has (obnoxiosae) and lurks in gloomy night”. But our grammarian, with open mouth as if in a dream, said: “Just now I have no time to spare. When I have leisure, come to see me and learn what Virgil, Plautus, Sallust and Ennius meant by that word.” So saying that fool made off; but in case anyone should wish to investigate, not only the origin of this word, but also its variety of meaning, in order that he may take into consideration this Plautine use also, I have quoted the following lines from the Asinaria: He'll join with me and hatch the biggest jubilee, Stuff'd with most joy, for son and father too. For life they both shall be in debt (obnoxii) to both of us, By our services fast bound. Now, in the definition which that grammarian gave, he seems in a word of such manifold content to have noted only one of its uses — a use, it is true, which agrees with that of Caecilius in these verses of the Chrysium: Although I come to you attracted by your pay, Don't think that I for that am subject to your will (tibi... obnoxium); If you speak ill of me, you'll hear a like reply.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.18
§ 6.18 On the strict observance by the Romans of the sanctity of an oath; and also the story of the ten prisoners whom Hannibal sent to Rome under oath. An oath was regarded and kept by the Romans as something inviolable and sacred. This is evident from many of their customs and laws, and this tale which I shall tell may be regarded as no slight support of the truth of the statement. After the battle of Cannae Hannibal, commander of the Carthaginians, selected ten Roman prisoners and sent them to the city, instructing them and agreeing that, if it seemed good to the Roman people, there should be an exchange of prisoners, and that for each captive that one side should receive in excess of the other side, there should be paid a pound and a half of silver. Before they left, he compelled them to take oath that they would return to the Punic camp, if the Romans would not agree to an exchange. The ten captives come to Rome. They deliver the message of the Punic commander in the senate. The senate refused an exchange. The parents, kinsfolk and connexions of the prisoners amid embraces declared that they had returned to their native land in accordance with the law of postliminium, and that their condition of independence was complete and inviolate; they therefore besought them not to think of returning to the enemy. Then eight of their number rejoined that they had no just right of postliminium, since they were bound by an oath, and they at once went back to Hannibal, as they had sworn to do. The other two remained in Rome, declaring that they had been released and freed from their obligation because, after leaving the enemy's camp, they had returned to it as if for some chance reason, but really with intent to deceive, and having thus kept the letter of the oath, they had come away again unsworn. This dishonourable cleverness of theirs was considered so shameful, that they were generally despised and reprobated; and later the censors punished them with all possible fines and marks of disgrace, on the ground that they had not done what they had sworn to do. Furthermore Cornelius Nepos, in the fifth book of his Examples, has recorded also that many of the senators recommended that those who refused to return should be sent to Hannibal under guard, but that the motion was defeated by a majority of dissentients. He adds that, in spite of this, those who had not returned to Hannibal were so infamous and hated that they became tired of life and committed suicide.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.19
§ 6.19 A story, taken from the annals, about Tiberius Gracchus, tribune of the commons and father of the Gracchi; and also an exact quotation of the decrees of the tribunes. A fine, noble and generous action of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus is recorded in the Examples. It runs as follows: Gaius Minucius Augurinus, tribune of the commons, imposed a fine on Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, brother of Scipio Africanus the elder, and demanded that he should give security for its payment. Scipio Africanus appealed to the college of tribunes on behalf of his brother, asking them to defend against the violent measures of their colleague a man who had been consul and had celebrated a triumph. Having heard the case, eight of the tribunes rendered a decision. The words of their decree, which I have quoted, are taken from the records of the annals: “Whereas Publius Scipio Africanus has asked us to protect his brother, Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, against the violent measures of one of our colleagues, in that, contrary to the laws and the customs of our forefathers, that tribune of the commons, having illegally convened an assembly without consulting the auspices, pronounced sentence upon him and imposed an unprecedented fine, and compels him to furnish security for its payment, or if he does not do so, orders that he be imprisoned; and whereas, on the other hand, our colleague has demanded that we should not interfere with him in the exercise of his legal authority — our unanimous decision in this matter is as follows: If Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus will furnish security in accordance with the decision of our colleague, we will forbid our colleague to take him to prison; but if he shall not furnish the securities in accordance with our colleague's decision, we will not interfere with our colleague in the exercise of his lawful authority.” After this decree, Lucius Scipio refused to give security and the tribune Augurinus ordered him to be arrested and taken to prison. Thereupon Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, one of the tribunes of the commons and father of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, although he was a bitter personal enemy of Publius Scipio Africanus because of numerous disagreements on political questions, publicly made oath that he had not been reconciled with Publius Africanus nor become his friend, and then read a decree which he had written out. That decree ran as follows: “Whereas Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, during the celebration of a triumph, cast the leaders of the enemy into prison, it seems contrary to the dignity of our country that the Roman people's commander should be consigned to the same place to which he had committed the leaders of the enemy; therefore I forbid my colleague to take violent measures towards Lucius Scipio Asiaticus.” But Valerius Antias, contradicting this record of the decrees and the testimony of the ancient annals, has said that it was after the death of Africanus that Tiberius Gracchus interposed that veto in behalf of Scipio Asiaticus; also that Scipio was not fined, but that being convicted of embezzlement of the money taken from Antiochus and refusing to give bail, was just being taken to prison when he was saved by this veto of Gracchus.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.20
§ 6.20 That Virgil removed Nola from one of his lines and substituted ora because the inhabitants of Nola had refused him water; and also some additional notes on the agreeable euphony of vowels. I have found it noted in a certain commentary that the following lines were first read and published by Virgil in this form: Such is the soil that wealthy Capua ploughs And Nola near Vesuvius' height. That afterwards Virgil asked the people of Nola to allow him to run their city water into his estate, which was near by, but that they refused to grant the favour which he asked; that thereupon the offended poet erased the name of their city from his poem, as if consigning it to oblivion, changing from Nola to ora (region) and leaving the phrase in this form: The region near Vesuvius' height. With the truth or falsity of this note I am not concerned; but there is no doubt that ora has a more agreeable and musical sound than Nola. For the last vowel in the first line and the first vowel in the following line being the same, the sound is prolonged by an hiatus that is at the same time melodious and pleasing. Indeed, it is possible to find in famous poets many instances of such melody, which appears to be the result of art rather than accident; but in Homer they are more frequent than in all other poets. In fact, in one single passage he introduces a number of sounds of such a nature, and with such an hiatus, in a series of successive words; for example: The other fountain e'en in summer flows, Like upon hail, chill snow, or crystal ice, and similarly in another place: Up to the top he pushed (ἄνω ὤθεσκε) the stone. Catullus too, the most graceful of poets, in the following verses, Boy, who servest old Falernian, Pour out stronger cups for me, Following queen Postumia's mandate, Tipsier she than tipsy grape, although he might have said ebrio, and used acinum in the neuter gender, as was more usual, nevertheless through love of the melody of that Homeric hiatus he said ebria, because it blended with the following a. But those who think that Catullus wrote ebriosa or ebrioso — for that incorrect reading is also found — have unquestionably happened upon editions copied from corrupt texts.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.21
§ 6.21 Why it is that the phrases quoad vivet and quoad morietur indicate the very same time, although based upon opposite things. When the expressions quoad vivet, or “so long as he shall live,” and quoad morietur, or “until he shall die,” are used, two opposite things really seem to be said, but the two expressions indicate one and the same time. Also when we say “as long as the senate shall be in session,” and “until the senate shall adjourn,” although “be in session” and “adjourn” are opposites, yet one and the same idea is expressed by both phrases. For when two periods of time are opposed to each other and yet are so connected that the end of one coincides with the beginning of the other, it makes no difference whether the exact point of their meeting is designated by the end of the first period or the beginning of the second.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:6.22
§ 6.22 On the custom of the censors of taking their horse from corpulent and excessively fat knights; and the question whether such action also involved degradation or left them their rank as knights. The censors used to take his horse from a man who was too fat and corpulent, evidently because they thought that so heavy a person was unfit to perform the duties of a knight. For this was not a punishment, as some think, but the knight was relieved of duty without loss of rank. Yet Cato, in the speech which he wrote On Neglecting Sacrifice, makes such an occurrence a somewhat serious charge, thus apparently indicating that it was attended with disgrace. If you understand that to have been the case, you must certainly assume that it was because a man was not looked upon as wholly free from the reproach of slothfulness, if his body had bulked and swollen to such unwieldy dimensions.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.1
§ 7.1 How Chrysippus replied to those who denied the existence of Providence. Those who do not believe that the world was created for God and mankind, or that human affairs are ruled by Providence, think that they are using a strong argument when they say: “If there were a Providence, there would be no evils.” For they declare that nothing is less consistent with Providence than the existence of such a quantity of troubles and evils in a world which He is said to have made for the sake of man. Chrysippus, arguing against such views in the fourth book of his treatise On Providence, says: “There is absolutely nothing more foolish than those me. who think that good could exist, if there were at the same time no evil. For since good is the opposite of evil, it necessarily follows that both must exist in opposition to each other, supported as it were by mutual adverse forces; since as a matter of fact no opposite is conceivable without something to oppose it. For how could there be an idea of justice if there were no acts of injustice? or what else is justice than the absence of injustice? How too can courage be understood except by contrast with cowardice? Or temperance except by contrast with intemperance? How also could there be wisdom, if folly did not exist as its opposite. Therefore,” said he, “why do not the fools also wish that there may be truth, but no falsehood? For it is in the same way that good and evil exist, happiness and unhappiness, pain and pleasure. For, as Plato says, they are bound one to the other by their opposing extremes; if you take away one, you will have removed both.” In the same book Chrysippus also considers and discusses this question, which he thinks worth investigating: whether men's diseases come by nature; that is, whether nature herself, or Providence, if you will, which created this structure of the universe and the human race, also created the diseases, weakness, and bodily infirmities from which mankind suffers. He, however, does not think that it was nature's original intention to make men subject to disease; for that would never have been consistent with nature as the source and mother of all things good. “But,” said he, “when she was creating and bringing forth many great things which were highly suitable and useful, there were also produced at the same time troubles closely connected with those good things that she was creating”; and he declared that these were not due to nature, but to certain inevitable consequences, a process that he himself calls κατὰ παρακολούθησιν. “Exactly as,” he says, “when nature fashioned men's bodies, a higher reason and the actual usefulness of what she was creating demanded that the head be made of very delicate and small bones. But this greater usefulness of one part was attended with an external disadvantage; namely, that the head was but slightly protected and could be damaged by slight blows and shocks. In the same way diseases too and illness were created at the same time with health. Exactly, by Heaven!” said he, “as vices, through their relationship to the opposite quality, are produced at the same time that virtue is created for mankind by nature's design.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.2
§ 7.2 How Chrysippus also maintained the power and inevitable nature of fate, but at the same time declared that we had control over our plans and decisions. Chrysippus, the leader of the Stoic philosophy, defined fate, which the Greeks call εἱμαρμένη, in about the following terms: “ Fate,” he says, “is an eternal and unalterable series of circumstances, and a chain rolling and entangling itself through an unbroken series of consequences, from which it is fashioned and made up.” But I have copied Chrysippus' very words, as exactly as I could recall them, in order that, if my interpretation should seem too obscure to anyone, he may turn his attention to the philosopher's own language. For in the fourth book of his work On Providence, he says that εἱμαρμένη is “an orderly series, established by nature, of all events, following one another and joined together from eternity, and their unalterable interdependence.” But the authors of other views and of other schools of philosophy openly criticize this definition as follows. “If Chrysippus,” they say, “believes that all things are set in motion and directed by fate, and that the course of fate and its coils cannot be turned aside or evaded, then the sins and faults of men too ought not to cause anger or be attributed to themselves and their inclinations, but to a certain unavoidable impulse which arises from fate,” which is the mistress and arbiter of all things, and through which everything that will happen must happen; and that therefore the establishing of penalties for the guilty by law is unjust, if men do not voluntarily commit crimes, but are led into them by fate. Against these criticisms Chrysippus argues at length, subtilely and cleverly, but the purport of all that he has written on that subject is about this. “Although it is a fact,” he says, “that all things are subject to an inevitable and fundamental law and are closely linked to fate, yet the peculiar properties of our minds are subject to fate only according to their individuality and quality. For if in the beginning they are fashioned by nature for health and usefulness, they will avoid with little opposition and little difficulty all that force with which fate threatens them from without. But if they are rough, ignorant, crude, and without any support from education, through their own perversity and voluntary impulse they plunge into continual faults and sin, even though the assault of some inconvenience due to fate be slight or non-existent. And that this very thing should happen in this way is due to that natural and inevitable connection of events which is called'fate.” For it is in the nature of things, so to speak, fated and inevitable that evil characters should not be free from sins and faults." A little later he uses an illustration of this statement of his, which is in truth quite neat and appropriate: “For instance,” he says, “if you roll a cylindrical stone over a sloping, steep piece of ground, you do indeed furnish the beginning and cause of its rapid descent, yet soon its speeds onward, not because you make it do so, but because of its peculiar form and natural tendency to roll; just so the order, the law, and the inevitable quality of fate set in motion the various classes of things and the beginnings of causes, but the carrying out of our designs and thoughts, and even our actions, are regulated by each individual's own will and the characteristics of his mind.” Then he adds these words, in harmony with what I have said: “Therefore it is said by the Pythagoreans also: You'll learn that men have ills which they themselves Bring on themselves, for harm comes to each of them through themselves, and they go astray through their own impulse and are harmed by their own purpose and determination.” Therefore he says that wicked, slothful, sinful and reckless men ought not to be endured or listened to, who, when they are caught fast in guilt and sin, take refuge in the inevitable nature of fate, as if in the asylum of some shrine, declaring that their outrageous actions must be charged, not to their own heedlessness, but to fate. The first to express this thought was the oldest and wisest of the poets, in these verses: Alas! how wrongly mortals blame the gods! From us, they say, comes evil; they themselves By their own folly woes unfated bear. Therefore Marcus Cicero, in the book which he wrote On Fate after first remarking that this question is highly obscure and involved, declares that even the philosopher Chrysippus was unable to extricate himself from its difficulties, using these words: “ Chrysippus, in spite of all efforts and labor, is perplexed how to explain that everything is ruled by fate, but that we nevertheless have some control over our conduct.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.3
§ 7.3 An account, taken from the works of Tubero, of a serpent of unprecedented length. Tubero in his Histories has recorded that in the first Punic war the consul Atilius Regulus, when encamped at the Bagradas river in Africa, fought a stubborn and fierce battle with a single serpent of extraordinary size, which had its lair in that region; that in a mighty struggle with the entire army the reptile was attacked for a long time with hurling engines and catapults; and that when it was finally killed, its skin, a hundred and twenty feet long, was sent to Rome.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.4
§ 7.4 A new account, written by the above-mentioned Tubero, of the capture of Regulus by the Carthaginians; and always what Tuditanus wrote about that same Regulus. I recently read in the works of Tuditanus the well-known story about Atilius Regulus: That Regulus, when a prisoner, in addition to the advice which he gave in the senate at Rome against making an exchange of prisoners with the Carthaginians, also declared that the Carthaginians had given him a poison, not of immediate effect, but such as to delay his death for a season; that their design was that he should live for a time, until the exchange was accomplished, but afterwards should waste away as the drug gradually took effect. Tubero in his Histories says that this Regulus returned to Carthage and was put to death by the Carthaginians with tortures of a novel kind. “They confined him,” he says, “in a dark and deep dungeon, and a long time afterwards suddenly brought him out, when the sun was shining most brightly, and exposed him to its direct rays, holding him and forcing him to fix his gaze upon the sky. They even drew his eyelids apart upward and downward and sewed them fast, so that he could not close his eyes.”4 Tuditanus, however, reports that Regulus was for a long time deprived of sleep and so killed, and that when this became known at Rome, Carthaginian captives of the highest rank were handed over by the senate to his sons, who shut them in a chest studded within with spikes; and that they too were tortured to death by lack of sleep.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.5
§ 7.5 An error of the jurist Alfenus in the interpretation of early words. The jurist Alfenus, a pupil of Servius Sulpicius and a man greatly interested in matters antiquarian, in the thirty-fourth book of his Digests and the second of his Miscellanies, says: “In a treaty which was made between the Roman people and the Carthaginians the provision is found, that the Carthaginians should pay each year to the Roman people a certain weight of argenti puri puti, and the meaning of puri puti was asked. I replied,” he says, “that putus meant'very pure,' just as we say novicius fornovus (new) and propicius for proprius (proper), when we wish to augment and amplify the meaning of novus and proprius.” Upon reading this, I was surprised that Alfenus should think that the relation of purus and putus was the same as that of novicius and novus. for if the word were puricius, then it would indeed appear to be formed like novicius. It was also surprising that he thought that novicius was used to imply amplification, since in fact novicius does not mean “more new,” but is merely a derivative and variant of novus. Accordingly I agree with those who think that putus is derived from puto and therefore pronounce the word with the first syllable short, not long as Alfenus seems to have thought it, since he wrote that putus came from purus. Moreover, the earlier writers used putare of removing and pruning away from anything whatever was superfluous and unnecessary, or even injurious and foreign, leaving only what seemed useful and without blemish. For that was the meaning of putare, “to prune,” as applied to trees and vines, and so too as used of accounts. The verb puto itself also, which we use for the purpose of stating our opinion, certainly means nothing else than that in an obscure and difficult matter we do our best, by cutting away and lopping off false views, to retain what seems true and pure and sound. Therefore in the treaty which Carthage silver was called putum, as having been thoroughly purified and refined, as free from all foreign matter, and as spotless and whitened by the removal from it of all impurities. But the expression purum putum occurs, not only in the treaty with Carthage, but also in many other early writings, including the tragedy of Quintus Ennius entitled Alexander, and the satire of Marcus Varro called Δὶς Παῖδες οἱ Γέροντες, or Old Men are Children for a Second Time.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.6
§ 7.6 That Julius Hyginus was hasty and foolish in his criticism of Virgil for calling the wings of Daedalus praepetes; also a note on the meaning of aves praepetes and of those birds which Nigidius called inferae. From Minos' realms in flight brave Daedalus On pinion swift (praepetibus),'tis said, did dare the sky. In these lines of Virgil Julius Hyginus criticizes the use of pennis praepetibus as an improper and ignorant expression. “For,” says he, “those birds are called praepetes by the augurs which either fly onward auspiciously or alight in suitable places. Therefore he thought it inappropriate in Virgil to use an augural term in speaking of the flight of Daedalus, which had nothing to do with the science of the augurs. But of a truth it was Hyginus who was altogether foolish in supposing that the meaning of praepetes was known to him, but unknown to Virgil and to Gnaeus Matius, a learned man, who in the second book of his Iliad called winged Victory praepes in the following line: While Victory swift (praepes) the victor's palm bestows. Furthermore, why does he not find fault also with Quintus Ennius, who in his Annals uses praepes, not of the wings of Daedalus, but of something very different, in the following line: Brundisium girt with fair, propitious (praepete) port. But if Hyginus had regarded the force and origin of the word rather than merely noting the meaning given to it by the augurs, he would certainly pardon the poets for using words in a figurative and metaphorical sense rather than literally. For since not only the birds themselves which fly auspiciously, but also the places which they take, since these are suitable and propitious, are called praepetes, therefore Virgil called the wings of Daedalus praepetes, since he had come from places in which he feared danger into safer regions. Furthermore, the augurs call places praepetes, and Ennius in the first book of his Annals said: In fair, propitious (praepetibus) places they alight. But birds that are the opposite of praepetes are called inferae, or ”low," according to Nigidius Figulus, who says in the first book of his Private Augury: “The right is opposed to the left, praepes to infera.” From this we may infer that birds were called praepetes which have a higher and loftier flight, since Nigidius said that the praepetes were contrasted with the inferae. In my youth in Rome, when I was still in attendance on the grammarians, I gave special attention to Sulpicius Apollinaris. Once when there was a discussion about augural law and mention had been made of praepetes aves, I heard him say to Erucius Clarus, the city prefect, that in his opinion praepetes was equivalent to Homer's τανυπτέρυγες, or “wide-winged,” since the augurs had special regard to those birds whose flight was broad and wide because of their great wings. And then he quoted these verses of Homer: You bid me trust the flight of wide-winged birds, But I regard them not, nor think of them.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.7
§ 7.7 On Acca Laurentia and Gaia Taracia; and on the origin of the priesthood of the Arval Brethren. The names of Acca Larentia and Gaia Taracia, or Fufetia as she is sometimes called, are frequent in the early annals. To the former of these after her death, but to Taracia while she still lived, the Roman people paid distinguished honours. And that Taracia, at any rate, was a Vestal virgin is proved by the Horatian law which was laid before the people with regard to her. By this law very many honours are bestowed upon her and among them the right of giving testimony is granted her, and that privilege is given to no other woman in the State. The word testabilis is used in the Horatian law itself. and its opposite occurs in the Twelve Tables: “Let him be infamous and intestabilis, or'forbidden to testify.'. Besides, if at the age of forty she should wish to leave the priesthood and marry, the right and privilege of withdrawing from the order and marrying were allowed her, in gratitude for her generosity and kindness in presenting to the people the Campus Tiberinus or Martius. But Acca Larentia was a public prostitute and by that trade had earned a great deal of money. In her will she made king Romulus heir to her property, according to Antias' History; according to some others, the Roman people. Because of that favour public sacrifice was offered to her by the priest of Quirinus and a day was consecrated to her memory in the Calendar. But Masurius Sabinus, in the first book of his Memorialia, following certain historians, asserts that Acca Larentia was Romulus' nurse. His words are: ”This woman, who had twelve sons, lost one of them by death. In his place Romulus gave himself to Acca as a son, and called himself and her other sons' Arval Brethren.' Since that time there has always been a college of Arval Brethren, twelve in number, and the insignia of the priesthood are a garland of wheat ears and white fillets."
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.8
§ 7.8 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. But those who have an abundance of talent, leisure and eloquence may use this material for a pair of little declamations on Alexander and Scipio. I shall be satisfied with relating this, which is a matter of historical record: Whether it be false or true is uncertain, but at any rate the story goes that your Scipio in his youth did not have an unblemished reputation, and that it was all but generally believed that it was at him that the following verses were aimed by the poet Gnaeus Naevius: E'en he who oft times mighty deeds hath done, Whose glory and exploits still live, to whom The nations bow, his father once led home, Clad in a single garment, from his love. I think it was by these verses that Valerius Antius was led to hold an opinion opposed to that of all other writers about Scipio's character, and to write, contrary to what I said above, that the captured maiden was not returned to her father, but was kept by Scipio and possessed by him in amorous dalliance.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.9
§ 7.9 A passage taken from the Annals of Lucius Piso, highly diverting in content and graceful in style. Because the action of Gnaeus Flavius, the curule aedile, son of Annius, which Lucius Piso described in the third book of his Annals, seemed worthy of record, and because the story is told by Piso in a very pure and charming style, I have quoted the entire passage from Piso's Annals. “ Gnaeus Flavius, the son of a freedman,” he says, “was a scribe by profession and was in the service of a curule aedile at the time of the election of the succeeding aediles. The assembly of the tribes named Flavius curule aedile, but the magistrate who presided at the election refused to accept him as an aedile, not thinking it right that one who followed the profession of scribe should be made an aedile. Gnaeus Flavius, son of Annius, is said to have laid aside his tablets and resigned his clerkship, and he was then made a curule aedile. ”This same Gnaeus Flavius, son of Annius, is said to have come to call upon a sick colleague. When he arrived and entered the room, several young nobles were seated there. They treated Flavius with contempt and none of them was willing to rise in his presence. Gnaeus Flavius, son of Annius, the aedile, laughed at this rudeness; then he ordered his curule chair to be brought and placed it on the threshold, in order that none of them might be able to go out, and that all of them against their will might see him sitting on his chair of state."
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.10
§ 7.10 A story about Euclides, the Socratic, by whose example the philosopher Taurus used to urge his pupils to be diligent in the pursuit of philosophy. The philosopher Taurus, a celebrated Platonist of my time, used to urge the study of philosophy by many other good and wholesome examples and in particular stimulated the minds of the young by what he said that Euclides the Socratic used to do. “The Athenians,” said he, “had provided in one of their decrees that any citizen of Megara who should be found to have set foot in Athens should for that suffer death. so great,” says he, “was the hatred of the neighbouring men of Megara with which the Athenians were inflamed. Then Euclides, who was from that very town of Megara and before the passage of that decree had been accustomed to come to Athens and to listen to Socrates, after the enactment of that measure, at nightfall, as darkness was coming on, clad in a woman's long tunic, wrapped in a parti-coloured mantle, and with veiled head, used to walk from his home in Megara to Athens, to visit Socrates, in order that he might at least for some part of the night share in the master's teaching and discourse. And just before dawn he went back again, a distance of somewhat over twenty miles, disguised in that same garb. But nowadays,” said Taurus, “we may see the philosophers themselves running to the doors of rich young men, to give them instruction, and there they sit and wait until nearly noonday, for their pupils to sleep off all last night's wine.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.11
§ 7.11 A passage from a speech of Quintus Metellus Numidicus, which it was my pleasure to recall, since it draws attention to the obligation of self-respect and dignity in the conduct of life. One should not vie in abusive language with the basest of men or wrangle with foul words with the shameless and the wicked, since you because like them and their exact mate so long as you say things which match and are exactly like what you hear. This truth may be learned no less from an address of Quintus Metellus Numidicus, a man of wisdom, than from the books and the teachings of the philosophers. These are the words of Metellus from his speech Against Gaius Manlius, Tribune of the Commons, by whom he had been assailed and taunted in spiteful terms in a speech delivered before the people. “Now, fellow citizens, so far as Manlius is concerned, since he thinks that he will appear a greater man, if he keeps calling me his enemy, who neither count him as my friend nor take account of him as an enemy, I do not propose to say another word. For I consider him not only wholly unworthy to be spoken of by good men, but unfit even to be reproached by the upright. For if you name an insignificant fellow of his kind at a time when you cannot punish him, you confer honour upon him rather than ignominy.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.12
§ 7.12 That neither testamentum, as Servius Sulpicius thought, nor sacellum, as Gaius Trebatius believed, is a compound, but the former is an extended form of testatio, the latter a diminutive of sacrum. I do not understand what reason led Servius Sulpicius the jurist, the most learned man of his time, to write in the second book of his work On the Annulling of Sacred Rites that testamentum is a compound word. for he declared that it was made up of mentis contestatio, or “an attesting of the mind.” What then are we to say about calciamentum (shoe), paludamentum (cloak), pavimentum (pavement), vestimentum (clothing), and thousands of other words that have been extended by a suffix of that kind? As a matter of fact, Servius, or whoever it was who first made the statement, was evidently misled by a notion of the presence of mens in testamentum, an idea that is to be sure false, but neither inappropriate nor unattractive, just as indeed Gaius Trebatius too was misled into a similar attractive combination. For he says in the second book of his work On Religions: “A sacellum, or'shrine,' is a small place consecrated to a god and containing an altar.” Then he adds these words: “Sacellum, I think, is made up of the two words sacer and cella, as if it were sacra cella, or'a sacred chamber.'. This indeed is what Trebatius wrote, but who does not know both that sacellum is not a compound, and that it is not made up of sacer and cella, but is the diminutive of sacrum?
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.13
§ 7.13 On the brief topics discussed at the table of the philosopher Taurus and called Sympoticae, or Table Talk. This custom was practised and observed at Athens by those who were on intimate terms with the philosopher Taurus. when he invited us to his home, in order that we might not come wholly tax-free, as the saying is, and without a contribution, we brought to the simple meal, not dainty foods, but ingenious topics for discussion. Accordingly, each one of us came with a question which he had thought up and prepared, and when the eating ended, conversation began. The questions, however, were neither weighty nor serious, but certain neat but trifling ἐνθυμημάτια, or problems, which would pique a mind enlivened with wine; for instance, the examples of a playful subtlety which I shall quote. The question was asked, when a dying man died — when he was already in the grasp of death, or while he still lived? And when did a rising man rise — when he was already standing, or while he was still seated? And when did one who was learning an art become an artist — when he already was one, or when he was still learning. For whichever answer you make, your statement will be absurd and laughable, and it will seem much more absurd, if you say that it is in either case, or in neither. But when some declared that all these questions were pointless and idle sophisms, Taurus said: ”Do not despise such problems, as if they were mere trifling amusements. The most earnest of philosophers have seriously debated this question. Some have thought that the term'die' was properly used, and that the moment of death came, while life still remained; others have left no life in that moment, but have claimed for death all that period which is termed'dying." Also in regard to other similar problems they have argued for different times and maintained opposite opinions. But our master Plato," said he, “assigned that time neither to life nor to death, and took the same position in every discussion of similar questions. For he saw that the alternatives were mutually contrary, that one of the two opposites could not be maintained while the other existed, and that the question arose from the juxtaposition of two opposing extremes, namely life and death. Therefore he himself devised, and gave a name to, a new period of time, lying on the boundary between the two, which he called in appropriate and exact language ἡ ἐξαίφνης φύσις, or'the moment of sudden separation.' And this very term, as I have given it,” said he, “you will find used by him in the dialogue entitled Parmenides.” Of such a kind were our “contributions” at Taurus' house, and such were, as he himself used to put it, the τραγημάτια or “sweetmeats” of our desserts.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.14
§ 7.14 The three reasons given by the philosophers for punishing crimes; and why Plato mentions only two of these, and not three. It has been thought that there should be three reasons for punishing crimes. One of these, which the Greeks call either κόλασις or νουθεσία, is the infliction of punishment for the purpose of correction and reformation, in order that one who has done wrong thoughtlessly may become more careful and scrupulous. The second is called τιμωρία by those who have made a more exact differentiation between terms of this kind. That reason for punishment exists when the dignity and the prestige of the one who is sinned against must be maintained, lest the omission of punishment bring him into contempt and diminish the esteem in which he is held; and therefore they think that it was given a name derived from the preservation of honour (τιμή). A third reason for punishment is that which is called by the Greeks παράδειγμα, when punishment is necessary for the sake of example, in order that others through fear of a recognized penalty may be kept from similar sins, which it is to the common interest to prevent. Therefore our forefathers also used the word exempla, or “examples,” for the severest and heaviest penalties. Accordingly, when there is either strong hope that the culprit will voluntarily correct himself without punishment, or on the other hand when there is no hope that he could be reformed and corrected; or when there is no need to fear loss of prestige in the one who has been sinned against; or if the sin is not of such a sort that punishment must be inflicted in order that it may inspire a necessary feeling of fear — then in the case of all such sins the desire to inflict punishment does not seem to be at all fitting. Other philosophers have discussed these three reasons for punishment in various places, and so too had our countryman Taurus in the first book of the Commentaries when he wrote On the Gorgias of Plato. But Plato himself says in plain terms that there are only two reasons for punishment: one being that which I put first — for the sake of correction; the second, that which I gave in the third place — as an example to inspire fear. These are Plato's own words in the Gorgias: “It is fitting that everyone who suffers punishment, when justly punished by another, either be made better and profit thereby, or serve as an example to others, in order that they, seeing his punishment, may be reformed through fear.” In these words you may readily understand that Plato used τιμωρία, not in the sense that I said above is given by some, but with the general meaning of any punishment. But whether he omitted the maintenance of the prestige of an injured person as a reason for inflicting punishment, on the ground that it was altogether insignificant and worthy of contempt, or rather passed over it as something not germane to his subject, since he was writing about punishments to be inflicted after this life and not during life and among men, this question I leave undecided.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.15
§ 7.15 On the verb quiesco whether it should be pronounced with a long or a short e. A friend of mine, a man of much learning and devoted to the liberal arts, pronounced the verb quiescit ("be quiet") in the usual manner, with a short e. Another man, also a friend of mine, marvellous in the use of grammatical rules as jugglers' tricks, so to say, and excessively fastidious in rejecting common words, thought that the first man had been guilty of a barbarism, maintaining that he ought to have lengthened the e, rather than shortened it. For he asserted that quiescit ought to be pronounced like calescit, nitescit, stupescit and many other words of that kind. He also added the statement that quies (quiet) is pronounced with the e long, not short. But my first-named friend, with the unassuming modesty which was characteristic of him in all matters, said that not even if the Aelii, the Cincii and the Santrae had decided that the word ought to be so pronounced, would he follow their ruling against the universal usage of the Latin language, nor would he speak it such an eccentric fashion as to be discordant and strange in his diction. Nevertheless he wrote a letter on the subject, among some exercises for his own amusement, in which he tried to prove that quiesco is not like those words which I have quoted above; that it is not derived from quies but rather quies from quiesco. He also maintained that quiesco has the form and derivation of a Greek word, and he tried to show, by reasons that were by no means without force, that the word should not be pronounced with a long e.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.16
§ 7.16 On a use by the poet Catullus of the word deprecor, which is unusual, it is true, but appropriate and correct; and on the origin of that word, with examples from early writers. As we chanced to be strolling one evening in the Lyceum, we were furnished with sport and amusement by a certain man, of the kind that lays claim to a reputation for eloquence by a superficial and ill-regulated use of language, without having learned any of the usages and principles of the Latin tongue. For while Catullus in one of his poems had used the word deprecor rather cleverly, that fellow, unable to appreciate this, declared that the following verses which I have quoted were very flat, although in the judgment of all men they are most charming: My Lesbia constantly speaks ill of me And cease not. By Jove! she cares for me! How do I know?'Tis just the same with me; I rail at, but by Jove! I worship, her. Our good man thought that deprecor in this passage was used in the sense that is commonly given the word by the vulgar; that is, “I pray earnestly,” “I beseech,” “I entreat,” where the preposition de is used intensively and emphatically. And if that were so, the verses would indeed be flat. But as a matter of fact the sense is exactly the opposite; for the preposition de, since it has a double force, contains two meanings in one and the same word. For deprecor is used by Catullus in the sense of “denounce, execrate, drive away,” or “avert by prayers”. but it also has the opposite meaning, when Cicero In Defence of Publius Sulla speaks as follows: “How many men's lives did he beg off (est deprecatus) from Sulla.” Similarly in his speech Against the Agrarian Law Cicero says: “If I do any wrong, there are no masks of ancestors to intercede (deprecentur, ”beg off") for me with you by their prayers." But Catullus was not alone in using this word with that meaning. Indeed, the books are full of cases of its occurrence in the same sense, and of these I have quoted one or two which had come to mind. Quintus Ennius in the Erechtheus, not differing greatly from Catullus, says: Who now win freedom by my own distress For those whose slavery I by woe avert (deprecor). He means “I drive away” and “remove,” either by resort to prayer or in some other way. Similarly in the Chresphontes Ennius writes: When I my own life spare, may I avert (deprecer) Death from mine enemy. Cicero, in the sixth book of his Republic, wrote: “Which indeed was so much the more remarkable, because, while the colleagues were in the same case, they not only did not incur the same hatred, but the affection felt for Gracchus even averted (deprecabatur) the unpopularity of Claudius.” Here too the meaning is not “earnestly entreated,” but “warded off” unpopularity, so to speak, and defended him against it, a meaning which the Greeks express by the parallel word παραιτεῖσθαι. Cicero also uses the word in the same way in his Defence of Aulus Caecina, saying: “What can you do for a man like this? Can you not sometimes permit one to avert (deprecetur) the odium of the greatest wickedness by the excuse of the most abysmal folly?. Also in the first book of his second Arraignment of Verres: ”Now what can Hortensius do? Will he try to avert (deprecetur) the charge of avarice by the praise of economy? But he is defending a man who is utterly disgraced and sunk in lust and crime." So then Catullus means that he is doing the same as Lesbia, in publicly speaking ill of her, scorning and rejecting her, and constantly praying to be rid of her, and yet loving her to madness.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:7.17
§ 7.17 Who was the first of all to establish a public library; and how many books there were in the public libraries at Athens before the Persian invasions. The tyrant Pisistratus is said to have been the first to establish at Athens a public library of books relating to the liberal arts. Then the Athenians themselves added to this collection with considerable diligence and care; but later Xerxes, when he got possession of Athens and burned the entire city except the citadel, removed that whole collection of books and carried them off to Persia. Finally, a long time afterwards, king Seleucus, who was surnamed Nicator, had all those books taken back to Athens. At a later time an enormous quantity of books, nearly seven hundred thousand volumes, was either acquired or written in Egypt under the kings known as Ptolemies; but these were all burned during the sack of the city in our first war with Alexandria, not intentionally or by anyone's order, but accidentally by the auxiliary soldiers.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.1
§ 8.1 Whether the expression hesterna nocte, for “last night,” is right or wrong, and what the grammarians have said about those words; also that the decemvirs in the Twelve Tables used nox for noctu, meaning “by night.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.2
§ 8.2 Ten words pointed out to me by Favorinus which, although in use by the Greeks, are of foreign origin and barbarous; also the same number given him me which, though of general and common use by those who speak Latin, are by no means Latin and are not to be found in the early literature.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.3
§ 8.3 In what terms and how severely the philosopher Peregrinus in my hearing rebuked a young Roman of equestrian rank, who stood before him inattentive and constantly yawning.... and saw him continually yawning and noticed the degenerate dreaminess expressed in his attitude of mind and body.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.4
§ 8.4 That Herodotus, that most famous writer of history, was wrong in saying that the pine alone of all trees never puts forth new shoots from the same roots, after being cut down; and that he stated as an established fact about rainwater and snow a thing which had not been sufficiently investigated.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.5
§ 8.5 On the meaning of Virgil's expression caelum stare pulvere and of Lucilius' pecus sentibus stare.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.6
§ 8.6 That when a reconciliation takes place after trifling offences, mutual complaints are useless; and Taurus' discourse on that subject, with a quotation from the treatise of Theophrastus; and what Marcus Cicero also thought about the love arising from friendship, added in his own words.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.7
§ 8.7 What we have learned and know of the nature and character of memory from Aristotle's work entitled Περὶ Μνήμης or On Memory; and also some other examples, of which we have heard or read, about extraordinary powers of memory or its total loss.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.8
§ 8.8 My experience in trying to interpret and, as it were, to reproduce in Latin certain passages of Plato.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.9
§ 8.9 How Theophrastus, the most eloquent philosopher of his entire generation, when on the point of making a brief speech to the people of Athens, was overcome by bashfulness and kept silence; and how Demosthenes had a similar experience when speaking before king Philip.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.10
§ 8.10 A discussion that I had in the town of Eleusis with a conceited grammarian who, although ignorant of the tenses of verbs and the exercises of schoolboys, ostentatiously proposed abstruse questions of a hazy and formidable character, to impress the minds of the unlearned. Would wish a lying scoundrel.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.11
§ 8.11 The witty reply of Socrates to his wife Xanthippe, when she asked that they might spend more money for their dinners during the Dionysiac festival.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.12
§ 8.12 On the meaning of plerique omnes, or “almost all,” in the early literature; and on the probable Greek origin of that expression.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.13
§ 8.13 That eupsones, a word used by the people of Africa, is not Phoenician, but Greek.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.14
§ 8.14 A highly entertaining discussion of the philosopher Favorinus with a tiresome person who held forth on the double meaning of certain words; also some unusual expressions from the poet Naevius and from Gnaeus Gellius; and further, some investigations of the derivation of words by Publius Nigidius.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:8.15
§ 8.15 How the poet Laberius was ignominiously treated by Gaius Caesar, with a quotation of Laberius' own words on that subject. A pleasant and remarkable story from the books of Heracleides of Pontus.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.1
§ 9.1 Why Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in the nineteenth book of his Annals, wrote that missiles hit their mark more accurately and surely if they are hurled from below, than if they are hurled from above. When Quintus Claudius, in the nineteenth book of his Annals, was describing an attack upon a town by the proconsul Metellus, and its defence against him by the townspeople from the top of the walls, he wrote these words: “The archers and slingers on both sides showered their weapons with the utmost vigour and courage. But there is this difference between shooting an arrow or a stone downward or upward; for neither missile can be discharged accurately downward, but both upwards with excellent effect. Therefore the soldiers of Metellus suffered far fewer wounds, and, what was of the greatest importance, they very easily drove the enemy back from the battlements by means of their slingers.” I asked Antonius Julianus, the rhetorician, why what Quadrigarius had said was so; namely, that the shots of missiles are closer and more accurate if you discharge a stone or an arrow upwards rather than downwards, in spite of the fact that a throw from above downward is swifter and easier than one in the opposite direction. Then Julianus, after commending the character of the question, said: “His statement about an arrow and a stone may be made about almost any missile weapon. But, as you have said, throwing is easier if you throw downwards, provided you wish only to throw, and not to hit a mark. But when the direction and force of the throw must be regulated and guided, then, if you are throwing downwards, the control and command of the marksman are impaired by the downward impulse itself, such as it is, and by the weight of the falling missile. But if you throw your weapon upwards, and direct hand and eye to hitting something above you, the missile which you have hurled will go to the spot to which the impulse which you have given bears it.” It was to this general effect that Julianus chatted with us about those words of Quintus Claudius. With regard to the remark of the same Claudius, “they very easily drove the enemy from the battlements,” it must be observed that he used the word defendebant, not in the sense which it commonly has, but yet quite properly and in accordance with good Latin usage. For defendere and offendere are opposed to each other, the latter meaning ἐμποδὼν ἔχειν, that is, “to run against something and fall upon it,” the former, ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖν, that is, “to avert and drive away”; and the latter is Claudius' meaning in this passage.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.2
§ 9.2 In what terms Herodes Atticus reproved a man who in appearance and dress falsely laid claim to the title and character of philosopher. To Herodes Atticus, the ex-consul, renowned for his personal charm and his Grecian eloquence, there once came, when I was present, a man in a cloak, with long hair and a beard that reached almost to his waist, and asked that money be given him εἰς ἄρτους, that is, “for bread.” Then Herodes asked him who on earth he was. and the man, with anger in his voice and expression, replied that he was a philosopher, adding that he wondered why Herodes thought it necessary to ask what was obvious. “I see,” said Herodes, “a beard and a cloak; the philosopher I do not yet see. Now, I pray you, be so good as to tell me by what evidence you think we may recognize you as a philosopher.” Meanwhile some of Herodes' companions told him that the fellow was a vagabond of worthless character, who frequented foul dives and was in the habit of being shamefully abusive if he did not get what he demanded. Thereupon Herodes said: “Let us give him some money, whatever his character may be, not because he is a man, but because we are men,” and he ordered enough money to be given him to buy bread for thirty days. Then, turning to those of us who were with him, he said: “ Musonius ordered a thousand sesterces to be given to a fakir of this sort who posed as a philosopher, and when several told him that the fellow was a rascal and knave and deserving of nothing good, Musonius, they say, replied with a smile: ἄξιος οὖν ἐστὶν ἀργυρίου,'then he deserves money.” But," said Herodes, “it is rather this that causes me resentment and vexation, that foul and evil beasts of this sort usurp a most sacred name and call themselves philosophers. Now, my ancestors the Athenians by public decree made it unlawful for slaves ever to be given the names of those valiant youths Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who to restore liberty tried to slay the tyrant Hippias; for they thought it impious for the names of men who had sacrificed themselves for their country's freedom to be disgraced by contact with slavery. Why then do we allow the glorious title of philosopher to be defiled in the person of the basest of men? Moreover,” said he, “I hear that the early Romans, setting a similar example in a case of the opposite nature, voted that the forenames of certain patricians who had deserved ill of their country and for that reason had been condemned to death should never be given to any patrician of the same clan, in order that their very names might seem to be dishonoured and done to death, as well as the malefactors themselves.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.3
§ 9.3 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 most 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.” But Philip's own words are these: Φίλιππος Ἀριστοτέλει χαίρειν. Ἴσθι μοι γεγονότα υἱόν. πολλὴν οὖν τοῖς θεοῖς ἔχω χάριν, οὐχ οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ γενέσει τοῦ παιδός, ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ κατὰ σὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτὸν γεγονέναι ἐλπίζω γάρ αὐτὸν ὑπὸ σοῦ τραφέντα καὶ παιδευθέντα ἄξιον ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων διαδοχῆς.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.4
§ 9.4 On some extraordinary marvels found among barbarian peoples; and on awful and deadly spells; and also on the sudden change of women into men. When I was returning from Greece to Italy and had come to Brundisium, after disembarking I was strolling about in that famous port, which Quintus Ennius called praepes, or “propitious,” using an epithet that is somewhat far-fetched, but altogether apt. There I saw some bundles of books exposed for sale. and I at once eagerly hurried to them. Now, all those books were in Greek, filled with marvellous tales, things unheard of, incredible; but the writers were ancient and of no mean authority: Aristeas of Proconnesus, Isigonus of Nicaea, Ctesias and Onesicritus, Philostephanus and Hegesias. The volumes themselves, however, were filthy from long neglect, in bad condition and unsightly. Nevertheless, I drew near and asked their price; then, attracted by their extraordinary and unexpected cheapness, I bought a large number of them for a small sum, and ran through all of them hastily in the course of the next two nights. As I read, I culled from them, and noted down, some things that were remarkable and for the most part unmentioned by our native writers; these I have inserted here and there in these notes, so that whoever shall read them may not be found to be wholly ignorant and ἀνήκοος, or “uninstructed,” when hearing tales of that kind. Those books, then, contained matter of the following sort: that the most remote of the Scythians, who pass their life in the far north, eat human flesh and subsist on the nourishment of that food, and are called ἀνθρωποφάγοι, or “cannibals.” Also that there are men in the same latitude having one eye in the middle of the forehead and called Arimaspi, who are of the appearance that the poets give the Cyclopes. That there are also in the same region other men, of marvellous swiftness, whose feet are turned backwards and do not point forward, as in the rest of mankind. Further, that it was handed down by tradition that in a distant land called Albania men are born whose hair turns white in childhood and who see better by night than in the daytime. That it was also a matter of assured belief that the Sauromatae, who dwell far away beyond the river Borysthenes, take food only every other day and fast on the intervening day. In those same books I ran upon this statement too, which I later read also in the seventh book of the Natural History of Plinius Secundus, that in the land of Africa there are families of persons who work spells by voice and tongue. for if they should chance to have bestowed extravagant praise upon beautiful trees, plentiful crops, charming children, fine horses, flocks that are well fed and in good condition, suddenly, for no other cause than this, all these would die. That with the eyes too a deadly spell is cast, is written in those same books, and it is said that there are persons among the Illyrians who by their gaze kill those at whom they have looked for some time in anger; and that those persons themselves, both men and women, who possess this power of harmful gaze, have two pupils in each eye. Also that in the mountains of the land of India there are men who have the heads of dogs, and bark, and that they feed upon birds and wild animals which they have taken in the chase. That in the remotest lands of the east too there are other marvellous men called monocoli, or “one-legged,” who run by hopping with their single leg and are of a most lively swiftness. And that there are also some others who are without necks and have eyes in their shoulders. But all bounds of wonder are passed by the statement of those same writers, that there is a tribe in farthest India with bodies that are rough and covered with feathers like birds, who eat no food but live by inhaling the perfume of flowers. And that not far from these people is the land of Pygmies, the tallest of whom are not more than two feet and a quarter in height. These and many other stories of the kind I read; but when writing them down, I was seized with disgust for such worthless writings, which contribute nothing to the enrichment or profit of life. Nevertheless, the fancy took me to add to this collection of marvels a thing which Plinius Secundus, a man of high authority in his day and generation by reason of his talent and his position, recorded in the seventh book of his Natural History, not as something that he had heard or read, but that he knew to be true and had himself seen. The words therefore which I have quoted below are his own, taken from that book, and they certainly make us hesitate to reject or ridicule that familiar yarn of the poets of old about Caenis and Caeneus. He says that the change of women into men is not a fiction. “We find,” says he, “in the annals that in the consulship of Quintus Licinius Crassus and Gaius Cassius Longinus a girl at Casinum was changed into a boy in the house of her parents and by direction of the diviners was deported to a desert island. Licinius Mucianus has stated that he saw at Argos one Arescontes, whose name had been Arescusa; that she had even been married, but presently grew a beard, became a man, and had taken a wife: and that at Smyrna also he had seen a boy who had experienced the same change. I myself in Africa saw Lucius Cossutius, a citizen of Thysdrus, who had been changed into a man on his wedding day and was still living when I wrote this.” Pliny also wrote this in the same book:'There are persons who from birth are bisexual, whom we call'hermaphrodites'; they were formerly termed androgyni and regarded as prodigies, but now are instruments of pleasure."
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.5
§ 9.5 Diverse views of eminent philosophers as to the nature and character of pleasure; and the words in which the philosopher Hierocles attacked the principles of Epicurus. As to pleasure the philosophers of old expressed varying opinions. Epicurus makes pleasure the highest good, but defines it as σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς κατάστημα, or “a well-balanced condition of body.” Antisthenes the Socratic calls it the greatest evil; for this is the expression he uses: μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην; that is to say, “may I go mad rather than feel pleasure.” Speusippus and all the old Academy declare that pleasure and pain are two evils opposed to each other, but that what lay midway between the two was the good. Zeno thought that pleasure was indifferent, that is neutral, neither good nor evil, that, namely, which he called by the Greek term ἀδιάφορον. Critolaus the Peripatetic declares that pleasure is an evil and gives birth to many other evils: injustice, sloth, forgetfulness, and cowardice. Earlier than all these Plato discoursed in so many and varied ways about pleasure, that all those opinions which I have set forth may seem to have flowed from the founts of his discourses; for he makes use of each one of them according to the suggestion offered by the nature of pleasure itself, which is manifold, and according to the demands made by the character of the topics which he is treating and of the effect that he wishes to produce. But our countryman Taurus, whenever mention was made of Epicurus, always had on his lips and tongue these words of Hierocles the Stoic, a man of righteousness and dignity: “ Pleasure an end, a harlot's creed; there is no Providence, not even a harlot's creed.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.6
§ 9.6 With what quantity the first syllable of the frequentative verb from ago should be pronounced. From ago and egi are derived the verbs actito and actitavi, which the grammarians call “frequentatives.” These verbs I have heard some men, and those not without learning, pronounce with a shortening of the first syllable, and give as their reason that the first letter of the primitive ago is pronounced short. Why then do we make the first vowel long in the frequentative forms esito and unctito, which are derived from edo and ungo, in which the first letter is short; and on the contrary, pronounce the first vowel short in dictito from dīco? Accordingly, should not actito and actitavi rather be lengthened? For the first syllable of almost all frequentatives is pronounced in the same way as the same syllable of the past participle of the verbs from which they are formed: for example, lego lectus makes lectito; ungo unctus, unctito; scribo scriptus, scriptito; moveo motus, motito; pendeo pensus, pensito; edo esus, esito; but dico dictus forms dictito; gero gestus, gestito; veho vectus, vectito; rapio raptus, raptito; capio captus, căptito; facio factus, factito. So then actito should be pronounced with the first syllable long, since it is from ago and actus.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.7
§ 9.7 That the leaves of the olive tree turn over at the summer and the winter solstice, and that the lyre at that same season produces sounds from other strings than those that are struck. It is commonly both written and believed that at the winter and the summer solstice the leaves of olive trees turn over, and that the side which had been underneath and hidden becomes uppermost and is exposed to sight and to the sun. And I myself was led to test this statement more than once, and found it to be almost exactly true. But about the lyre there is an assertion that is less often made and is even more remarkable. And this both other learned men and also Suetonius Tranquillus, in the first book of his History of the Games, declare to have been fully investigated and to be generally accepted; namely, that when some strings of the lyre are struck with the fingers at the time of the winter solstice, other strings give out sound.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.8
§ 9.8 That it is inevitable that one has much should need much, with a brief and graceful aphorism of the philosopher Favorinus on that subject. That is certainly true which wise men have said as the result of observation and experience, that he who has much is in need of much, and that great want arises from great abundance and not from great lack; for many things are wanted to maintain the many things that you have. Whoever then, having much, desires to provide and take precaution that nothing may fail or be lacking, needs to lose, not gain, and must have less in order to want less. I recall that Favorinus once, amid loud and general applause, rounded off this thought, putting it into the fewest possible words: “It is not possible for one who wants fifteen thousand cloaks to want more things; for if I want more than I possess, by taking away from what I have I shall be contented with what remains.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.9
§ 9.9 What method should be followed in translating Greek expressions; and on those verses of Homer which Virgil is thought to have translated either well and happily or unsuccessfully. Whenever striking expressions from the Greek poets are to be translated and imitated, they say that we should not always strive to render every single word with exact literalness. For many things lose their charm if they are transplanted too forcibly — unwillingly, as it were, and reluctantly. Virgil therefore showed skill and good judgment in omitting some things and rendering others, when he was dealing with passages of Homer or Hesiod or Apollonius or Parthenius or Callimachus or Theocritus, or some other poet. For example, when very recently the Bucolics of Theocritus and Virgil were being read together at table, we perceived that Virgil had omitted something that in the Greek is, to be sure, wonderfully pleasing, but neither could nor ought to have been translated. But what he has substituted for that omission is almost more charming and graceful. Theocritus writes: But when her goatherd boy goes by you should see my Cleariste Fling apples, and her pretty lips call pouting to be kissed. Virgil has. My Phyllis me with pelted apples plies, Then tripping to the woods the wanton hies, And wishes to be seen before she flies. Also in another place I notice that what was very sweet in the Greek was prudently omitted. Theocritus writes: O Tityrus, well-beloved, feed my goats, And lead them to the front, good Tityrus; But'ware yon buck- goat yellow, lest he butt. But how could Virgil reproduce τὸ καλὸν πεφιλημένε ("well-beloved"), words that, by Heaven! defy translation, but have a certain native charm. He therefore omitted that expression and translated the rest very cleverly, except in using caper for Theocritus'ἐνόρχας. for, according to Marcus Varro, a goat is called caper in Latin only after he has been castrated. Virgil's version is. Till I return — not long — feed thou my goats; Then, Tityrus, give them a drink, but as you go, Avoid the buck- goat's horn — the fellow butts. And since I am speaking on the subject of translation, I recall hearing from pupils of Valerius Probus, a learned man and well trained in reading and estimating the ancient writings, that he used to say that Virgil had never translated Homer less successfully than in these delightful lines which Homer wrote about Nausicaa: As when o'er Erymanth Diana roves, Or wide Taygetus' resounding groves, A silver train the huntress queen surrounds, Her rattling quiver from her shoulder sounds; Fierce in the sport, along the mountain's brow They bay the boar or chase the bounding roe; High o'er the lawn, with more majestic pace, Above the nymphs she treads with stately grace; Distinguished excellence the goddess proves, Exults Latona as the virgin moves: With equal grace Nausicaa trod the plain, And shone transcendent o'er the beauteous train. This passage Virgil renders thus. As on Eurotas' banks or Cynthus' heights Diana guides her dancing bands, whose train A thousand Oreads follow, right and left; A quiver bears she on her shoulder fair, And as she treads, the goddesses o'ertops; Joys thrill Latona's silent breast. First of all, they said that Probus thought that in Homer the maiden Nausicaa, playing among her girl companions in solitary places, was consistently and properly compared with Diana hunting on the mountain heights among the rural goddesses; but that Virgil had made a comparison that was by no means suitable, since Dido, walking with dignified dress and gait in the midst of a city, and surrounded by the Tyrian chiefs, “pressing on the work of her rising kingdom,” as he himself says, can have no points of similarity corresponding with the sports and hunts of Diana. Then secondly, that Homer mentions plainly and directly Diana's interest and pleasure in the chase, while Virgil, not having said a word about the goddess' hunting, merely pictures her as carrying a quiver on her shoulder, as if it were a burden or a pack. And they said that Probus was particularly surprised at this feature of Virgil's version, that while Homer's Leto rejoices with a joy that is unaffected, deep, and springing from the very depths of her heart and soul — for the words γέγηθε δέ τε φρένα Λητώ, or “ Leto rejoiced in heart,” mean nothing else — Virgil, on the other hand, in his attempt to imitate this, had depicted a joy that is passive, mild, slow, and as it were floating on the surface of the heart. for Probus said that he did not know what else the word pertemptant could mean. Besides all this, Virgil seemed to have left out the flower of the whole passage, by giving only a faint shadow of this verse of Homer's: And shone transcendent o'er the beauteous train. For no greater or more complete praise of beauty can be expressed than that she alone excelled where all were beautiful, that she alone was easily distinguished from all the rest.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.10
§ 9.10 The low and odious criticism with which Annaeus Cornutus befouled the lines of Virgil in which the poet with chaste reserve spoke of the intercourse of Venus and Vulcan. The poet Annianus, and with him many other devotees of the same Muse, extolled with high and constant praise the verses of Virgil in which, while depicting and describing the conjugal union of Vulcan and Venus, an act that nature's law bids us conceal, he veiled it with a modest paraphrase. For thus he wrote: So speaking, the desired embrace he gave, And sinking on the bosom of his spouse, Calm slumber then he wooed in every limb. But they thought it less difficult, in speaking of such a subject, to use one or two words that suggest it by a slight and delicate hint, such as Homer's παρθενίη ζώνη, or “maiden girdle”; λέκτροιο θεσμόν, “the right of the couch”; and ἔργα φιλοτήσια, “love's labours”. that no other than Virgil has ever spoken of those sacred mysteries of chaste intercourse in so many and such plain words, which yet were not licentious, but pure and honourable. But Annaeus Cornutus, a man in many other respects, to be sure, lacking neither in learning nor taste, nevertheless, in the second book of the work which he compiled On Figurative Language, defamed the high praise of all that modesty by an utterly silly and odious criticism. For after expressing approval of that kind of figurative language, and observing that the lines were composed with due circumspection, he added: “ Virgil nevertheless was somewhat indiscreet in using the word membra.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.11
§ 9.11 Of Valerius Corvinus and the origin of his surname. There is not one of the well-known historians who has varied in telling the story of Valerius Maximus, who was called Corvinus because of the help and defence rendered him by a raven. That truly remarkable event is in fact thus related in the annals. In the consulship of Lucius Furius and Appius Claudius, a young man of such a family was appointed tribune of the soldiers. And at that time vast forces of Gauls had encamped in the Pomptine district, and the Roman army was being drawn up in order of battle by the consuls, who were not a little disquieted by the strength and number of the enemy. Meanwhile the leader of the Gauls, a man of enormous size and stature, his armour gleaming with gold, advanced with long strides and flourishing his spear, at the same time casting haughty and contemptuous glances in all directions. Filled with scorn for all that he saw, he challenged anyone from the entire Roman army to come out and meet him, if he dared. Thereupon, while all were wavering between fear and shame, the tribune Valerius, first obtaining the consuls' permission to fight with the Gaul who was boasting so vainly, advanced to meet him, boldly yet modestly. They meet, they halt, they were already engaging in combat. And at that moment a divine power is manifest. a raven, hitherto unseen, suddenly flies to the spot, perches on the tribune's helmet, and from there begins an attack on the face and the eyes of his adversary. It flew at the Gaul, harassed him, tore his hand with its claws, obstructed his sight with its wings, and after venting its rage flew back to the tribune's helmet. Thus the tribune, before the eyes of both armies, relying on his own valour and defended by the help of the bird, conquered and killed the arrogant leader of the enemy, and thus won the surname Corvinus. This happened four hundred and five years after the founding of Rome. To that Corvinus the deified Augustus caused a statue to be erected in his Forum. On the head of this statue is the figure of a raven, a reminder of the event and of the combat which I have described.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.12
§ 9.12 On words which are used with two opposite meanings, both active and passive. As the adjective formidulosus may be used both of one who fears and of one who is feared, invidiosus of one who envies and of one who is envied, suspiciosus of one who suspects and of one who is suspected, ambitiosus of one who courts favour and one who is courted, gratiosus also of one who gives, and of one who receives, thanks, laboriosus of one who toils and of one who causes toil — as many other words of this kind are used in both ways, so infestus too has a double meaning. For he is called infestus who inflicts injury on anyone, and on the other hand he who is threatened with injury from another source is also said to be infestus. But the meaning which I gave first surely needs no illustration, so many are there who use infestus in the sense of hostile and adverse; but that second meaning is less familiar and more obscure. For who of the common run would readily call a man infestusto whom another is hostile? However, not only did many of the earlier writers speak in that way, but Marcus Tullius also gave the word that meaning in the speech which he wrote In Defence of Gnaeus Plancius, saying. “I were grieved, gentlemen of the jury, and keenly distressed, if this man's safety should be more endangered (infestior) for the very reason that he had protected my life and safety by his own kindliness, protection and watchfulness.” Accordingly, I inquired into the origin and meaning of the word and found this statement in the writings of Nigidius: “Infestus is derived from festinare,” says he, “for one who threatens anyone, and is in hasten to attack him, and hurries eagerly to crush him; or on the other hand one whose peril and ruin are being hastened — both of these are called infestus from the urgent imminence of the injury which one is either about to inflict on someone, or to suffer.” Now, that no one may have to search for an example of suspiciosus, which I mentioned above, and of formidulosus in its less usual sense, Marcus Cato, On the Property of Florius, used suspiciosus as follows: “But except in the case of one who practised public prostitution, or had hired himself out to a procurer, even though he had been ill-famed and suspected (suspiciosus), they decided that it was unlawful to use force against the person of a freeman.” For in this passage Cato uses suspiciosus in the sense of “suspected,” not that of “suspecting.” Sallust too in the Catiline uses formidulosus of one who is feared, in this passage: “To such men consequently no labour was unfamiliar, no region too rough or too steep, no armed foeman to be dreaded (formidulosus).” Gaius Calvus also in his poems uses laboriosus, not in the ordinary sense of “one who toils,” but of that on which labour is spent, saying: The hard and toilsome (laboriosum) country he will shun. In the same way Laberius also in the Sister says: By Castor! sleepy (somniculosum) wine. and Cinna in his poems: As Punic Psyllus doth the sleepy (somniculosam) asp. Metus also and iniuria, and some other words of the kind, may be used in this double sense; for metus hostium, “fear of the enemy,” is a correct expression both when the enemy fear and when they are feared. Thus Sallust in the first book of his History speaks of “the fear of Pompey,” not implying that Pompey was afraid, which is the more common meaning, but that he was feared. These are Sallust's words: “That war was aroused by the fear of the victorious Pompey, who was restoring Hiempsal to his kingdom.” Also in another passage: “After the fear of the Carthaginians had been dispelled and there was leisure to engage in dissensions.” In the same way we speak of the “injuries,” as well as of those who inflict them as of those who suffer them, and illustrations of that usage are readily found. The following passage from Virgil affords a similar instance of this kind of double meaning; he says: Slow from Ulysses' wound, using vulnus, not of a wound that Ulysses had suffered, but of one that he had inflicted. Nescius also is used as well of one who is unknown as of one who does not know. but its use in the sense of one who does not know is common, while it is rarely used of that which is unknown. Ignarus has the same double application, not only to one who is ignorant, but also to one who is not known. Thus Plautus in the Rudens says: In unknown (nesciis) realms are we where hope knows naught (nescia). And Sallust: “With the natural desire of mankind to visit unknown (ignara) places.” And Virgil: Unknown (ignarum) the Laurentine shore doth Mimas hold.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.13
§ 9.13 A passage from the history of Claudius Quadrigarius, in which he pictured the combat of Manlius Torquatus, a young noble, with a hostile Gaul, who challenged the whole Roman army. Titus Manlius was a man of the highest birth and of exalted rank. This Manlius was given the surname Torquatus. The reason for the surname, we are told, was that he wore as a decoration a golden neck-chain, a trophy taken from an enemy whom he had slain. But who the enemy was, and what his nationality, how formidable his huge size, how insolent his challenge, and how the battle was fought — all this Quintus Claudius has described in the first book of his Annals with words of the utmost purity and clearness, and with the simple and unaffected charm of the old-time style. When the philosopher Favorinus read this passage from that work, he used to say that his mind was stirred and affected by no less emotion and excitement than if he were himself an eye-witness of their contest. I have added the words of Quintus Claudius in which that battle is pictured. “In the meantime a Gaul came forward, who was naked except for a shield and two swords and the ornament of a neck-chain and bracelets; in strength and size, in youthful vigour and in courage as well, he excelled all the rest. In the very height of the battle, when the two armies were fighting with the utmost ardour, he began to make signs with his hand to both sides, to cease fighting. The combat ceased. As soon as silence was secured, he called out in a mighty voice that if anyone wished to engage him in single combat, he should come forward. This no one dared do, because of his huge size and savage aspect. Then the Gaul began to laugh at them and to stick out his tongue. This at once roused the great indignation of one Titus Manlius, a youth of the highest birth, that such an insult should be offered his country, and that no one from so great an army should accept the challenge. He, as I say, stepped forth, and would not suffer Roman valour to be shamefully tarnished by a Gaul. Armed with a foot-soldier's shield and a Spanish sword, he confronted the Gaul. Their meeting took place on the very bridge, in the presence of both armies, amid great apprehension. Thus they confronted each other, as I said before: the Gaul, according to his method of fighting, with shield advanced and awaiting an attack; Manlius, relying on courage rather than skill, struck shield against shield, and threw the Gaul off his balance. While the Gaul was trying to regain the same position, Manlius again struck shield against shield, and again forced the man to change his ground. In this fashion he slipped in under the Gaul's sword and stabbed him in the breast with his Spanish blade. Then at once with the same mode of attack he struck his adversary's right shoulder, and he did not give ground at all until he overthrew him, without giving the Gaul a chance to strike a blow. After he had overthrown him, he cut off his head, tore off his neck-chain, and put it, covered with blood as it was, around his own neck. Because of this act, he himself and his descendants had the surname Torquatus.” From this Titus Manlius, whose battle Quadrigarius described above, all harsh and cruel commands are called “Manlian”; for at a later time, when he was consul in a war against the Latins, Manlius caused his own son to be beheaded, because he had been sent by his father on a scouting expedition with orders not to fight, and disregarding the command, had killed one of the enemy who had challenged him.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.14
§ 9.14 That Quadrigarius also, with correct Latinity, used facies as a genitive; and some other observations on the inflection of similar words. The expression that I quoted above from Quintus Claudius, “On account of his great size and savage aspect (facies),” I have inquired into by examining several old manuscripts, and have found it to be as I wrote it. For it was in that way, as a rule, that the early writers declined the word — facies facies — whereas the rule of grammar now requires faciei as the genitive. But I did find some corrupt manuscripts in which faciei was written, with erasure of the former reading. I remember too having found both facies and facii written in the same manuscript of Claudius in the library at Tibur. But facies was written in the text and facii, with double i, in the margin opposite. nor did I regard that as inconsistent with a certain early usage; for from the nominative dies they used both dies and dii as the genitive, and from fames, both famis and fami. Quintus Ennius, in the sixteenth book of his Annals, wrote dies for diei in the following verse: Caused by the distant time of the last day (dies). Caesellius asserts that Cicero also wrote dies for diei in his oration For Publius Sestius, and after sparing no pains and inspecting several old manuscripts, I found Caesellius to be right. These are the words of Marcus Tullius: “But the knights shall pay the penalty for that day (dies).” As a result, I readily believe those who have stated that they saw a manuscript from Virgil's own hand, in which it was written: When Libra shall make like the hours of day (dies) and sleep, where dies is used for diei. But just as in this place Virgil evidently wrote dies, so there is no doubt that he wrote dii for diei in the following line: As gifts for that day's (dii) merriment, where the less learned read dei, doubtless shrinking from the use of so uncommon a form. But the older writers declined dies dii, as they did fames fami, pernicies pernicii, progenies progenii, luxuries luxuri, acies acii. For Marcus Cato in his oration On the Punic War wrote as follows: “The women and children were driven out because of the famine (fami causa).” Lucilius in his twelfth book has: Wrinkled and full of hunger (fami). Sisenna in the sixth book of his History writes: “That the Romans came for the purpose of dealing destruction (pernicii).” Pacuvius in the Paulus says: O sire supreme of our own race's (progenii) sire. Gnaeus Matius in the twenty-first book of his Iliad: The army's (acii) other part the river's wave had shunned. Again Matius in Book XXIII writes: Or bides in death some semblance of a form (specii) Of those who speak no more. Gaius Gracchus, On the Publishing of the Laws has: “They say that those measures were taken because of luxury (luxurii causa),. and farther on in the same speech we find: ”What is necessarily provided to sustain life is not luxury (luxuries),. which shows that he used luxurii as the genitive of luxuries. Marcus Tullius also has left pernicii on record, in the speech in which he defended Sextus Roscius. These are his words: “We think that none of these things was produced by divine will for the purpose of dealing destruction (pernicii), but by the very force and greatness of Nature.” We must therefore suppose that Quadrigarius wrote either facies or facii as the genitive; but I have not found the reading facie in any ancient manuscript. But in the dative case those who spoke the best Latin did not use the form faciei, which is now current, but facie. For example, Lucilius in his Satires: Which first is joined to a fair face And youth. And in his seventh book: Who loves you, and who to your youth and charms (facie), Plays courtier, promising to be your friend. However, there are not a few who read facii in both these passages of Lucilius. But Gaius Caesar, in the second book of his treatise On Analogy, thinks that we should use die and specie as genitive forms. I have also found die in the genitive case in a manuscript of Sallust's Jugurtha of the utmost trustworthiness and of venerable age. These were the words: “when scarcely a tenth part of the day (die) was left.” For I do not think we ought to accept such a quibble as the assertion that die is used for ex die.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.15
§ 9.15 On the kind of debate which the Greeks call ἄπορος. With the rhetorician Antonius Julianus I had withdrawn to Naples during the season of the summer holidays, wishing to escape the heat of Rome. And there was there at the time a young man of the richer class studying with tutors in both languages, and trying to gain a command of Latin eloquence in order to plead at the bar in Rome; and he begged Julianus to hear one of his declamations. Julianus went to hear him and I went along with him. The young fellow entered the room, made some preliminary remarks in a more arrogant and presumptuous style than became his years, and then asked that subjects for debate be given him. There was present there with us a pupil of Julianus, a man of ready speech and good ability, who was already offended that in the hearing of man like Julianus the fellow should show such rashness and should dare to test himself in extempore speaking. Therefore, to try him, he proposed a topic for debate that was not logically constructed, of the kind which the Greeks call ἄπορος, and in Latin might with some propriety be termed inexplicabile, that is, “unsolvable.” The subject was of this kind: “Seven judges are to hear the case of a defendant, and judgment is to be passed in accordance with the decision of a majority of their number. When the seven judges had heard the case, two decided that the defendant ought to be punished with exile; two, that he ought to be fined; the remaining three, that he should be put to death. The execution of the accused is demanded according to the decision of the three judges, but he appeals.” As soon as the young man had heard this, without any reflection and without waiting for other subjects to be proposed, he began at once with incredible speed to reel off all sorts of principles and apply them to that same question, pouring out floods of confused and meaningless words and a torrent of verbiage. All the other members of his company, who were in the habit of listening to him, showed their delight by loud applause, but Julianus blushed and sweat from shame and embarrassment. But when after many thousand lines of drivel the fellow at last came to an end and we went out, his friends and comrades followed Julianus and asked him for his opinion. Whereupon Julianus very wittily replied “Don't ask me what I think; without controversy this young man is eloquent.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:9.16
§ 9.16 How Plinius Secundus, although not without learning, failed to observe and detect the fallacy in an argument of the kind that the Greeks call ἀντιστρέφον. Plinius Secundus was considered the most learned man of his time. He left a work, entitled For Students of Oratory, which is by no manner of means to be lightly regarded. In that work he introduces much varied material that will delight the ears of the learned. He also quotes a number of arguments that he regards as cleverly and skilfully urged in the course of debates. For instance, he cites this argument from such a debate: "'A brave man shall be given the reward which he desires. A man who had done a brave deed asked for the wife of another in marriage, and received her. Then the man whose wife she had been did a brave deed. He demands the return of his wife, but is refused." On the part of the second brave man, who demanded the return of his wife," says Pliny, “this elegant and plausible argument was presented:'If the law is valid, return her to me; if it is not valid, return her.'. But it escaped Pliny's notice that this bit of reasoning, which he thought very acute, was not without the fallacy which the Greeks call ἀντιστρέφον, or ”a convertible proposition." And that is a deceptive fallacy, which lies concealed under a false appearance of truth; for that very argument may just as easily be turned about and used against the same man, and might, for example, be put thus by that former husband: “If the law is valid, I do not return her; if it is not valid, I do not return her.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.1
§ 10.1 Whether one ought to say tertium consul or tertio; and how Gnaeus Pompeius, when he would inscribe his honours on the theatre which he was about to dedicate, by Cicero's advice evaded the difficulty as to the form of that word. I sent a letter from Athens to a friend of mine in Rome. In it I said that I had now written him for the third time (tertium). In his reply he asked employ to give my reason for having written tertium and not tertio. He added that he hoped that I would at the same time inform him what I thought about the question whether one should say tertium consul, meaning “consul for the third time,” and quartum, or tertio and quarto; since he had heard a learned man at Rome say tertio and quarto consul, not tertium and quartum; also, that Coelius had so written at the beginning of his third book and that Quintus Claudius in his eleventh book said that Marius was chosen consul for the seventh time, using septimo. In reply to these questions, to decide both matters about which he had written to me, I contented myself with quoting Marcus Varro, a more learned man in my opinion than Coelius and Claudius together. For Varro has made it quite plain what ought to be said, and I did not wish, when at a distance, to enter into a dispute with a man who had the name of being learned. Marcus Varro's words, in the fifth book of his Disciplinae, are as follows: “It is one thing to be made praetor quarto, and another quartum; for quarto refers to order and indicates that three were elected before him; quartum refers to time and indicates that he had been made praetor three times before. Accordingly Ennius was right when he wrote: Quintus, his sire, a fourth time (quartum) consul is, and Pompeius was timid when, in order to avoid writing consul tertium or tertio on his theatre, he did not write the final letters.” What Varro briefly and somewhat obscurely hinted at concerning Pompey, Tullius Tiro, Cicero's freedman, wrote at greater length in one of his letters, substantially as follows: “When Pompey was preparing to consecrate the temple of Victory, the steps of which formed his theatre, and to inscribe upon it his name and honours, the question arose whether consul tertium should be written, or tertio. Pompey took great pains to refer this question to the most learned men of Rome, and when there was difference of opinion, some maintaining that tertio ought to be written, others tertium, Pompey asked Cicero,” says Varro, “to decide upon what seemed to him the more correct form.” Then Cicero was reluctant to pass judgment upon learned men, lest he might seem to have censured the men themselves in criticizing their opinion. “He accordingly advised Pompey to write neither tertium nor tertio, but to inscribe the first four letters only, so that the meaning was shown without writing the whole word, but yet the doubt as to the form of the word was concealed.” But that of which Varro and Tiro spoke is not now written in that way on this same theatre. For when, many years later, the back wall of the stage had fallen and was restored, the number of the third consulship was indicated, not as before, by the first four letters, but merely by three incised lines. However, in the fourth book of Marcus Cato's Origines we find: “The Carthaginians broke the treaty for the sixth time (sextum).” This word indicates that they had violated the treaty five times before, and that this was the sixth time. The Greeks too in distinguishing numbers of this kind use τρίτον καὶ τέταρτον, which corresponds to the Latin words tertium quartumque.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.2
§ 10.2 What Aristotle has recorded about the number of children born at one time. The philosopher Aristotle has recorded that a woman in Egypt bore five children at one birth; this, he said, was the limit of human multiple parturition; more children than that had never known to be born at one time, and even that number was very rare. But in the reign of the deified Augustus the historians of the time say that a maid servant of Caesar Augustus in the region of Laurentum brought forth five children, and that they lived for a few days; that their mother died not long after she had been delivered, whereupon a monument was erected to her by order of Augustus on the via Laurentina, and on it was inscribed the number of her children, as I have given it.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.3
§ 10.3 A collection of famous passages from the speeches of Gaius Gracchus, Marcus Cicero and Marcus Cato, and a comparison of them. Gaius Gracchus is regarded as a powerful and vigorous speaker. No one disputes this. But how can one tolerate the opinion of some, that he was more impressive, more spirited and more fluent than Marcus Tullius. Indeed, I lately read the speech of Gaius Gracchus On the Promulgation of Laws, in which, with all the indignation of which he is master, he complains that Marcus Marius and other distinguished men of the Italian free-towns were unlawfully beaten with rods by magistrates of the Roman people. His words on the subject are as follows: “The consul lately came to Teanum Sidicinum. His wife said that she wished to bathe in the men's baths. Marcus Marius, the quaestor of Sidicinum, was instructed to send away the bathers from the baths. The wife tells her husband that the baths were not given up to her soon enough and that they were not sufficiently clean. Therefore a stake was planted in the forum and Marcus Marius, the most illustrious man of his city, was led to it. His clothing was stripped off, he was whipped with rods. The people of Cales, when they heard of this, passed a decree that no one should think of using the public baths when a Roman magistrate was in town. At Ferentinum, for the same reason, our praetor ordered the quaestors to be arrested; one threw himself from the wall, the other was caught and beaten with rods.” In speaking of such an atrocious action, in so lamentable and distressing a manifestation of public injustice, has he said anything either fluent or brilliant, or in such a way as to arouse tears and pity; is there anything that shows an outpouring of indignation and solemn and impressive remonstrance? Brevity there is, to be sure, grace, and a simple purity of expression, such as we sometimes have in the more refined of the comedies. Gracchus also in another place speaks as follows: “I will give you a single example of the lawlessness of our young men, and of their entire lack of self-control. Within the last few years a young man who had not yet held a magisterial office was sent as an envoy from Asia. He was carried in a litter. A herdsman, one of the peasants of Venusia, met him, and not knowing whom they were bearing, asked in jest if they were carrying a corpse. Upon hearing this, the young man ordered that the litter be set down and that the peasant be beaten to death with the thongs by which it was fastened.” Now these words about so lawless and cruel an outrage do not differ in the least from those of ordinary conversation. But in Marcus Tullius, when in a similar case Roman citizens, innocent men, are beaten with rods contrary to justice and contrary to the laws, or tortured to death, what pity is then aroused! What complaints does he utter! How he brings the whole scene before our eyes! What a mighty surge of indignation and bitterness comes seething forth. By Heaven! when I read those words of Cicero's, my mind is possessed with the sight and sound of blows, cries and lamentation. For example, the words which he speaks about Gaius Verres, which I have quoted so far as my memory went, which was all that I could do at present: “The man himself came into the forum, blazing with wickedness and frenzy. His eyes burned, every feature of his face displayed cruelty. All were waiting to see to what ends he would go, or what he would do, when on a sudden he gave orders that the man be dragged forth, that he be stripped in the middle of the forum and bound, and that rods be brought.” Now, so help me! the mere words “he ordered that he be stripped and bound, and rods brought” arouse such emotion and horror that you do not seem to hear the act described, but to see it acted before your face. But Gracchus plays the part, not of one who complains or implores, but of a mere narrator: “A stake,” he says, “was planted in the forum, his clothing was stripped off, he was beaten with rods.” But Marcus Cicero, finely representing the idea of continued action, says, not “he was beaten,” but “a citizen of Rome was being beaten with rods in the middle of the forum at Messana, while in the meantime no groan, no sound was heard from that wretched man amid his torture and the resounding blows except these words,'I am a Roman citizen.' By thus calling to mind his citizenship he hoped to avert all their stripes and free his body from torture.” Then Cicero with vigour, spirit and fiery indignation complains of so cruel an outrage and inspires the Romans with hatred and detestation of Verres by these words: "O beloved name of liberty! O eminent justice of our country! O Porcian and Sempronian laws! O authority of the tribunes, earnestly desired and finally restored to the Roman commons! Pray, have all these blessings fallen to this estate, that a Roman citizen, in a province of the Roman people, in a town of our allies, should be bound and flogged in the forum by one who derived the emblems of his power from the favour of the Roman people? What! when fire and hot irons and other tortures were applied, although your victim's bitter lamentation and piteous outcries did not affect you, were you not moved by the tears and loud groans even of the Roman citizens who were then present?. These outrages Marcus Tullius bewailed bitterly and solemnly, in appropriate and eloquent terms. But if anyone has so rustic and so dull an ear that this brilliant and delightful speech and the harmonious arrangement of Cicero's words do not give him pleasure; if he prefers the earlier oration because it is unadorned, concise and unstudied, yet has a certain native charm, and because it has, so to say, a shade and colour of misty antiquity — let such a one, if he has any judgment at all, study the address in a similar case of Marcus Cato, a man of a still earlier time, to whose vigour and flow of language Gracchus could never hope to attain. He will realize, I think, that Cato was not content with the eloquence of his own time, but aspired to do even then what Cicero later accomplished. For in the speech which is entitled On Sham Battles he thus made complaint of Quintus Thermus: “He said that his provisions had not been satisfactorily attended to by the decemvirs. He ordered them to be stripped and scourged. The Bruttiani scourged the decemvirs, many men saw it done. Who could endure such an insult, such tyranny, such slavery? No king has ever dared to act thus; shall such outrages be inflicted upon good men, born of a good family, and of good intentions? Where is the protection of our allies? Where is the honour of our forefathers? To think that you have dared to inflict signal wrongs, blows, lashes, stripes, these pains and tortures, accompanied with disgrace and extreme ignominy, since their fellow citizens and many other men looked on! But amid how great grief, what groans, what tears, what lamentations have I heard that this was done? Even slaves bitterly resent injustice; what feeling do you think that such men, sprung from good families, endowed with high character, had and will have so long as they live. When Cato said ”the Bruttiani scourged them," lest haply anyone should inquire the meaning of Bruttiani, it is this. When Hannibal the Carthaginian was in Italy with his army, and the Romans had suffered several defeats, the Bruttii were the first people of all Italy to revolt to Hannibal. Angered at this, the Romans, after Hannibal left Italy and the Carthaginians were defeated, by way of ignominious punishment refused to enrol the Bruttii as soldiers or treat them as allies, but commanded them to serve the magistrates when they went to their provinces, and to perform the duties of slaves. Accordingly, they accompanied the magistrates in the capacity of those who are called “floggers” in the plays, and bound or scourged those whom they were ordered. And because they came from the land of the Bruttii, they were called Bruttiani.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.4
§ 10.4 How Publius Nigidius with great cleverness showed that words are not arbitrary, but natural. Publius Nigidius in his Grammatical Notes shows that nouns and verbs were formed, not by a chance use, but by a certain power and design of nature, a subject very popular in the discussions of the philosophers. for they used to inquire whether words originate by “nature” or are man-made. Nigidius employs many arguments to this end, to shown that words appear to be natural rather than arbitrary. Among these the following seems particularly neat and ingenious. “When we say vos, or'you,'” says Nigidius, “we make a movement of the mouth suitable to the meaning of the word; for we gradually protrude the tips of our lips and direct the impulse of the breath towards those with whom we are speaking. But on the other hand, when we say nos, or'us,' we do not pronounce the word with a powerful forward impulse of the voice, nor with the lips protruded, but we restrain our breath and our lips, so to speak, within ourselves. The same thing happens in the words tu or'thou,' ego or'I,' tibi'to thee,' and mihi'to me.' For just as when we assent or dissent, a movement of the head or eyes corresponds with the nature of the expression, so too in the pronunciation of these words there is a kind of natural gesture made with the mouth and breath. The same principle that we have noted in our own speech applies also to Greek words.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.5
§ 10.5 Whether avarus is a simple word or, as it appears to Publius Nigidius, a compound, made up of two parts. Publius Nigidius, in the twenty-ninth book of his Commentaries, declares that avarus is not a simple word, but is compounded of two parts: “For that man,” he says, “is called avarus, or'covetous,' who is avidus aeris, or'eager for money;' but in the compound the letter e is lost.” He also says that a man is called by the compound term locuples, or “rich” when he holds pleraque loca, that is to say, “many possessions.” But his statement about locuples is the stronger and more probable. As to avarus there is doubt; for why may it not seem to be derived from one single word, namely aveo, and formed in the same way as amarus, about which there is general agreement that it is not a compound?
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.6
§ 10.6 That a fine was imposed by the plebeian aediles on the daughter of Appius Caecus, a woman of rank, because she spoke too arrogantly. Public punishment was formerly inflicted, not only upon crimes, but even upon arrogant language; so necessary did men think it to maintain the dignity of Roman conduct inviolable. For the daughter of the celebrated Appius Caecus, when leaving the plays of which she had been a spectator, was jostled by the crowd of people that surrounded her, flocking together from all sides. When she had extricated herself, complaining that she had been roughly handled, she added: “What, pray, would have become of me, and how much more should I have been crowded and pressed upon, had not my brother Publius Claudius lost his fleet in the sea-fight and with it a vast number of citizens? Surely I should have lost my life, overwhelmed by a still greater mass of people. How I wish,” said she, “that my brother might come to life again, take another fleet to Sicily, and destroy that crowd which has just knocked poor me about.” Because of such wicked and arrogant words, Gaius Fundanius and Tiberius Sempronius, the plebeian aediles, imposed a fine upon the woman of twenty five thousand pounds of full-weight bronze. Ateius Capito, in his commentary On Public Trials, says that this happened in the first Punic war, in the consulship of Fabius Licinus and Otacilius Crassus.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.7
§ 10.7 Marcus Varro, I remember, writes that of the rivers which flow outside the limits of the Roman empire the Nile is first in size, the Danube second, and next the Rhone. Of all the rivers which flow into the seas included within the Roman empire, which the Greeks call “the inner sea,” it is agreed that the Nile is the greatest. Sallust wrote that the Danube is next in size. but Varro, when he discussed the part of the earth which is called Europe, placed the Rhone among the first three rivers of that quarter of the earth, by which he seems to make it a rival of the Danube; for the Danube also is in Europe.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.8
§ 10.8 That among the ignominious punishments which were inflicted upon soldiers was the letting of blood; and what seems to be the reason for such a penalty. This also was a military punishment in old times, to disgrace a soldier by ordering a vein to be opened, and letting blood. There is no reason assigned for this in the old records, so far as I could find; but I infer that it was first done to soldiers whose minds were affected and who were not in a normal condition, so that it appears to have been not so much a punishment as a medical treatment. But afterwards I suppose that the same penalty was customarily inflicted for many other offences, on the ground that all who sinned were not of sound mind.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.9
§ 10.9 In what way and in what form the Roman army is commonly drawn up, and the names of the formations. There are military terms which are applied to an army drawn up in a certain manner: “the front,” “reserves,” “wedge,” “ring,” “mass,” “shears,” “saw,” “wings,” “towers.” These and some other terms you may find in the books of those who have written about military affairs. However, they are taken from the things themselves to which the names are strictly applied, and in drawing up an army the forms of the objects designated by each of these words is represented.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.10
§ 10.10 The reason why the ancient Greeks and Romans wore a ring on the next to the little finger of the left hand. I have heard that the ancient Greeks wore a ring on the finger of the left hand which is next to the little finger. They say, too, that the Roman men commonly wore their rings in that way. Apion in his Egyptian History says that the reason for this practice is, that upon cutting into and opening human bodies, a custom in Egypt which the Greeks call ἀνατομαί, or “dissection,” it was found that a very fine nerve proceeded from that finger alone of which we have spoken, and made its way to the human heart; that it therefore seemed quite reasonable that this finger in particular should be honoured with such an ornament, since it seems to be joined, and as it were united, with that supreme organ, the heart.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:10.11
§ 10.11 The derivation and meaning of the word mature, and that it is generally used improperly; and also that the genitive of praecox is praecocis and not praecoquis. Mature in present usage signifies “hastily” and “quickly,” contrary to the true force of the word; for mature means quite a different thing. Therefore Publius Nigidius, a man eminent in the pursuit of all the liberal arts, says: “Mature means neither'too soon' nor'too late,' but something between the two and intermediate.” Publius Nigidius has spoken well and properly. For of grain and fruits those are called matura, or “mature,” which are neither unripe and hard, nor falling and decayed, but full-grown and ripened in their proper time. But since that which was not done negligently was said to be done mature, the force of the word has been greatly extended, and an act is now said to be done mature which is done with some haste, and not one which is done without negligence; whereas such things are immoderately hastened are more properly called inmatura, or “untimely.” That limitation of the word, and of the action itself, which was made by Nigidius was very elegantly expressed by the deified Augustus with two Greek words; for we are told that he used to say in conversation, and write in his letters, σπεῦδε βραδέως, that is, “make haste slowly,” by which he recommended that to accomplish a result we should use at once the promptness of energy and the delay of carefulness, and it is from these two opposite qualities that maturitas springs. Virgil also, to one who is observant, has skilfully distinguished the two words properare and maturare as clearly opposite, in these verses: Whenever winter's rains the hind confine, Much is there that at leisure may be done (maturare), Which in fair weather he must hurry on (properanda). Most elegantly has he distinguished between those two words; for in rural life the preparations during rainy weather may be made at leisure, since one has time for them; but in fine weather, since time presses, one must hasten. But when we wish to indicate that anything has been done under too great pressure and too hurriedly, then it is more properly said to have been done praemature, or “prematurely,” than mature. Thus Afranius in his Italian play called The Title says: With madness praemature you seek a hasty power. In this verse it is to be observed that he says praecocem and not praecoquem; for the nominative case is not praecoquis, but praecox.

Via ToposText (topostext.org), a project of the Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation created by Brady Kiesling. Translated by John Carew Rolfe (1859-1943). Composed ca. 160 CE. Licence: public domain. Source.