Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights

ToposText · Aulus Gellius · 404 sections

urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.11
§ 15.11 The words of a decree of the senate on expelling philosophers from the city of Rome; also the words of the edict of the censors by which those were rebuked and restrained who had begun to establish and practise the art of rhetoric at Rome. IN the consulship of Gaius Fannius Strabo and Marcus Valerius Messala the following decree of the senate was passed regarding Latin speaking philosophers and rhetoricians: "(The praetor Marcus Pomponius laid a proposition before the senate. As the result of a discussion about philosophers and rhetoricians, the senate decreed that Marcus Pomponius, the praetor, should take heed and provide, in whatever way seemed to him in accord with the interests of the State and his oath of office, that they should not remain in Rome." Then some years after that decree of the senate Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and Lucius Licinius Crassus the censors issued the following edict for restraining the Latin rhetoricians: “It has been reported to us that there be men who have introduced a new kind of training, and that our young men frequent their schools; that these men have assumed the title of Latin rhetoricians, and that young men spend whole days with them in idleness. Our forefathers determined what they wished their children to learn and what schools they desired them to attend. These innovations in the customs and principles of our forefathers neither please us nor seem proper. Therefore it seems necessary to make our opinion known, both to those who have such schools and to those who are in the habit of attending them, that they are displeasing to us.” And it was not only in those times, which were somewhat rude and not yet refined by Greek training, that philosophers were driven from the city of Rome, but even in the reign of Domitian by a decree of the senate they were driven from the city and forbidden Italy. And it was at that time that the philosopher Epictetus also withdrew from Rome to Nicopolis because of that senatorial decree.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.12
§ 15.12 A highly memorable passage from a speech of Gracchus, regarding his frugality and continence. WHEN Gaius Gracchus returned from Sardinia, he delivered a speech to an assembly of the people in the following words: “I conducted myself in my province,” said he, “as I thought would be to your advantage, not as I believed would contribute to my own ambitions. There was no tavern at my establishment, nor did slaves of conspicuous beauty wait upon me, and at an entertainment of mine your sons were treated with more modesty than at their general's tent.” Later on he continues as follows: “I so conducted myself in my province that no one could truly say that I received a penny, or more than that, by way of present, or that anyone was put to expense on my account. I spent two years in my province; if any courtesan entered my house or anyone's slave was bribed on my account, consider me the lowest and basest of mankind. Since I conducted myself so continently towards their slaves, you may judge from that on what terms I lived with your sons.” Then after an interval he goes on: “Accordingly, fellow citizens, when I left for Rome, I brought back empty from the province the purses which I took there full of money. Others have brought home overflowing with money the jars which they took to their province filled with wine.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.13
§ 15.13 Of some unusual words, which are used in either voice and are called by the grammarians “common.” UTOR, vereor, hortor and consolor are “common” verbs and can be used either way: “I respect you” and “I am respected by you,” that is, “you respect me”; “I use you” and “I am used by you,” that is, “you use me”; “I exhort you” and “I am exhorted by you,” that is, “you exhort me”; “I console you” and “I am consoled by you,” that is, “you console me.” Testor too and interpretor are used in a reciprocal sense. But all these words are unusual in the second of these meanings, and it is a matter of inquiry whether they are ever so used. Afranius in The Cousins says: Lo! there his children hold a sire's life cheap, Where rather feared than honoured (vereri) he would be. Here vereor is used in its less common sense. Novius also in the Wood-dealer uses the word utor with a passive meaning: Since a deal of gear is bought which is not used (utitur). That is, “which is not to be used.” Marcus Cato in the fifth book of his Origins has this: “He led forth his army, fed, ready, and encouraged (cohortatum), and drew it up in order of battle.” We find consolor also used in a different sense from the one which it commonly has, in a letter of Quintus Metellus, which he wrote during his exile to Gnaeus and Lucius Domitius. “But,” he says, “when I realize your feeling towards me, I am very greatly consoled (consolor), and your loyalty and worth are brought before my eyes.” Marcus Tullius used testata and interpretata in the same manner in the first book of his work On Divination, so that testor and interpreter ought also to be considered to be “common” verbs. Sallust too in a similar way says: “The goods of the proscribed having been given away (dilargitis),” indicating that largior is one of the “common” verbs. Moreover, we see that veritum, like puditum and pigitum, is used impersonally and indefinitely, not only by the earlier writers, but also by Marcus Tullius in the second book of his De Finibus. “First (I will refute),” says he, “the view of Aristippus and of all the Cyrenaic philosophers, to whom it caused no fear (veritum est) to assign the highest good to that pleasure which affects the senses with greatest delight.” Dignor, too, veneror, confiteor and testor are treated as “common” verbs. Thus we find in Virgil: Of wedlock high with Venus worthy deemed (dignale), and Revered in prayer (venerata), shall grant a voyage safe. Moreover, confessi aeris, meaning a debt of which admission is made, is written in the Twelve Tables in these words: “For an admitted debt, when the matter has been taken into court, let the respite be thirty days.” Also in those same Tables we find this: “Whoever shall allow himself to be summoned as a witness or shall act as a balance-holder, if he does not give his testimony, let him be regarded as dishonoured and incapable of giving testimony in the future.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.14
§ 15.14 That Metellus Numidicus borrowed a new form of expression from Greek usage. IN Quintus Metellus Numidicus, in the third book of his Accusation of Valerius Messala, I have made note of a novel expression. The words of his speech are as follows: “When he knew that he had incurred so grave an accusation, and that our allies had come to the senate in tears, to make complaint that they had been exacted enormous sums of money (pecunias maximas exactos esse).” He says “that they had been exacted enormous sums of money,” instead of “that enormous sums of money had been exacted from them.” This seemed to me an imitation of a Greek idiom; for the Greeks say: εἰσεπράξατό με ἀργύριον, meaning “he exacted me money.” But if this can be said, so too can “one is exacted money,” and Caecilius seems to have used that form of expression in his Supposititious Aeschinus: Yet I the customs-fee exacted am. That is to say, “yet the customs-fee is exacted from me.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.15
§ 15.15 That the early writers used passis velis and passis manibus, not from the verb patior, to which the participle belongs, but from pando, to which it does not belong. FROM the verb pando the ancients made passum, not pansum, and with the preposition ex they formed expassum, not expansum. Caecilius in the Fellowbreakfasters says: That yesterday he'd looked in from the roof, Had this announced, and straight the veil was spread (expassum). A woman too is said to be capillo passo, or “with disordered hair,” when it is hanging down and loosened, and we saypassis manibus and velis passis of hands and sails stretched out and spread. Therefore Plautus in his Braggart Captain, changing an a into an e, as is usual in compound words, uses dispessis for dispassis in these lines: Methinks you thus must die without the gate, When you shall hold the cross with hands outstretched (dispessis).
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.16
§ 15.16 Of the singular death of Milo of Croton. MILO of Croton, a famous athlete, who was first crowned at the sixty-second Olympiad, as the chronicles record, ended his life in a strange and lamentable manner. When he was already advanced in age and had given up the athletic art, he chanced to be journeying alone in a wooded part of Italy. Near the road he saw an oak tree, the middle of which gaped with wide cracks. Then wishing, I suppose, to try whether he still had any strength left, he put his fingers into the hollows of the tree and tried to rend apart and split the oak. And in fact he did tear asunder and divide the middle part; but when the oak was thus split into two parts, and he relaxed his hold as if he had accomplished his attempt, the tree returned to its natural position when the pressure ceased, and catching and holding his hands as it came together and united, it kept the man there, to be torn to pieces by wild beasts.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.17
§ 15.17 Why young men of noble rank at Athens gave up playing the pipes, although it was one of their native customs. ALCIBIADES the Athenian in his boyhood was being trained in the liberal arts and sciences at the home of his uncle, Pericles; and Pericles had ordered Antigenides, a player on the pipes, to be sent for, to teach the boy to play on that instrument, which was then considered a great accomplishment. But when the pipes were handed to him and he had put them to his lips and blown, disgusted at the ugly distortion of his face, he threw them away and broke them in two. When this matter was noised abroad, by the universal consent of the Athenians of that time the art of playing the pipes was given up. This story is told in the twenty-ninth book of the Commentary of Pamphila.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.18
§ 15.18 That the battle which Gaius Caesar fought on the plains of Pharsalus during the civil war was announced on the very same day at Patavium in Italy, and his victory foretold, by the divination of a seer. ON the day that Gaius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius engaged in battle in Thessaly during the civil war, an event occurred at Patavium in Transpadane Italy, which is deserving of record. A priest called Cornelius, a man of good birth, honoured for scrupulousness in his office and revered for the purity of his life, was suddenly seized by a prophetic inspiration and said that he saw a most furious battle taking place afar off; then he shouted out, just as if he were personally taking part in the engagement, that some were giving way, others pressing on; that he saw before him carnage, flight, flying weapons, a renewal of the engagement, an attack, groans and wounds; and later he suddenly exclaimed that Caesar was victorious. At the time the prophecy of the priest Cornelius seemed unimportant and without meaning. Afterwards, however, it caused great surprise, since not only the time of the battle which was fought in Thessaly, and its predicted outcome, were verified, but all the shifting fortunes of the day and the very conflict of the two armies were represented by the gestures and words of the seer.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.19
§ 15.19 Memorable words of Marcus Varro, from the satire entitled περὶ ᾿εδεσμάτων. THERE are not a few to whom that may apply which is said by Marcus Varro in his satire entitled περὶ ᾿εδεσμάτων or On Eatables. His words are these: “If you had given to philosophy a twelfth part of the effort which you spent in making your baker give you good bread, you would long since have become a good man. As it is, those who know him are willing to buy him at a hundred thousand sesterces, while no one who knows you would take you at a hundred.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.20
§ 15.20 Certain facts about the birth, life and character of the poet Euripides, and about the end of his life. Theopompus says that the mother of the poet Euripides made a living by selling country produce. Furthermore, when Euripides was born, his father was assured by the astrologers that the boy, when he grew up, would be victor in the games; for that was his destiny. His father, understanding this to mean that he ought to be an athlete, exercised and strengthened his son's body and took him to Olympia to contend among the wrestlers. And at first he was not admitted to the contest because of his time of life, but afterwards he engaged in the Eleusinian and Thesean contests and won crowns. Later, turning from attention to bodily exercise to the desire of training his mind, he was a pupil of the natural philosopher Anaxagoras and the rhetorician Prodicus, and, in moral philosophy, of Socrates. At the age of eighteen he attempted to write a tragedy. Philochorus relates that there is on the island of Salamis a grim and gloomy cavern, which I myself have seen, in which Euripides wrote tragedies. He is said to have had an exceeding antipathy towards almost all women, either because he had a natural disinclination to their society, or because he had had two wives at the same time (since that was permitted by a decree passed by the Athenians ) and they had made wedlock hateful to him. Aristophanes also notices his antipathy to women in the first edition of the Thesmophoriazousae in these verses: Now then I urge and call on all our sex This man to punish for his many crimes. For on us, women, he brings bitter woes, Himself brought up'mid bitter garden plants. But Alexander the Aetolian composed the following lines about Euripides: The pupil of stout Anaxagoras, Of churlish speech and gloomy, ne'er has learned To jest amid the wine; but what he wrote Might honey and the Sirens well have known. When Euripides was in Macedonia at the court of Archelaus, and had become an intimate friend of the king, returning home one night from a dinner with the monarch he was torn by dogs, which were set upon him by a rival of his, and death resulted from his wounds. The Macedonians treated his tomb and his memory with such honour that they used to proclaim: “Never, Euripides, shall thy monument perish,” also by way of self-glorification, because the distinguished poet had met his death and been buried in their land. Therefore when envoys, sent to them by the Athenians, begged that they should allow his bones to be moved to Athens, his native land, the Macedonians unanimously persisted in refusing.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.21
§ 15.21 That by the poets the sons of Jupiter are represented as most wise and refined, but those of Neptune as very haughty and rude. THE poets have called the sons of Jupiter most excellent in worth, wisdom and strength, for example Aeacus, Minos and Sarpedon; the sons of Neptune, the Cyclops, Cercyon, Sciron, and the Laestrygonians, they said, were most haughty and cruel, and strangers to all refinement, as being sprung from the sea.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.22
§ 15.22 A story of the distinguished leader Sertorius; of his cunning, and of the clever devices which he used to control and conciliate his barbarian soldiers. SERTORIUS, a brave man and a distinguished general, was skilled in using and commanding an army. In times of great difficulty he would lie to his soldiers, if a lie was advantageous, he would read forged letters for genuine ones, feign dreams, and resort to fictitious omens, if such devices helped him to keep up the spirits of his soldiers. the following story about Sertorius is particularly well known: A white hind of remarkable beauty, agility and swiftness was given him as a present by a man of Lusitania. He tried to convince everyone that the animal had been given him by the gods, and that inspired by the divine power of Diana, it talked with him, and showed and indicated what it was expedient to do; and if any command which he felt obliged to give his soldiers seemed unusually difficult, he declared that he had been advised by the hind. When he said that, all willingly rendered obedience, as if to a god. One day, when an advance of the enemy had been reported, the hind, alarmed by the hurry and confusion, took to flight and hid in a neighbouring marsh, and after being sought for in vain was believed to have perished. Not many days later, word was brought to Sertorius that the hind had been found. Then he bade the one who had brought the news to keep silence, threatening him with punishment in case he revealed the matter to anyone; and he ordered him suddenly on the following day to let the animal into the place where lie himself was with his friends. Then, next day, having called in his friends, he said that he had dreamed that the lost hind had returned to him, and after its usual manner had told him what ought to be done. Thereupon he signed to the slave to do what he had ordered; the hind was let loose and burst into Sertorius' room, amid shouts of amazement. This credulity of the barbarians was very helpful to Sertorius in important matters. It is recorded that of those tribes which acted with Sertorius, although he was defeated in many battles, not one ever deserted him, although that race of men is most inconstant.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.23
§ 15.23 Of the age of the famous historians, Hellanicus, Herodotus and Thucydides. HELLANICUS, Herodotus, and Thucydides, writers of history, enjoyed great glory at almost the same time, and did not differ very greatly in age. For Hellanicus seems to have been sixty-five years old at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, Herodotus fifty-three, Thucydides forty. This is stated in the eleventh book of Pamphila.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.24
§ 15.24 Vulcacius Sedigitus' canon of the Latin writers of comedy, from the book which he wrote On Poets. SEDIGITUS, in the book which he wrote On Poets, shows in the following verses of his what he thought of those who wrote comedies, which one he thinks surpasses all the rest, and then what rank and honour he gives to each of them: This question many doubtfully dispute, Which comic poet they'd award the palm. This doubt my judgment shall for you resolve; If any differ from me, senseless he. First place I give Caecilius Statius. Plautus holds second rank without a peer; Then Naevius third, for passion and for fire. If fourth there be, be he Licinius. I place Atilius next, after Licinius. These let Terentius follow, sixth in rank. Turpilius seventh, Trabea eighth place holds. Ninth palm I gladly give to Luscius, To Ennius tenth, as bard of long ago.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.25
§ 15.25 Of certain new words which I had met in the Miimiambics of Gnaeus Matius. GNAEUS MATIUS, a learned man, in his Mimiambics properly and fitly coined the word recentatur for the idea expressed by the Greek ἀναι εοῦται, that is “it is born again and is again made new.” The lines in which the word occurs are these: E'en now doth Phoebus gleam, again is born (recentatur) The common light to joys of mortal men. Matius too, in the same Mimiarmbics, says edulcare, meaning “to sweeten,” in these lines: And therefore it is fit to sweeten (edulcare) life, And bitter cares with wisdom to control.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.26
§ 15.26 In what words the philosopher Aristotle defined a syllogism; and an interpretation of his definition in Latin terms. ARISTOTLE defines a syllogism in these lines: “A sentence in which, granted certain premises, something else than these premises necessarily follows as the result of these premises.” The following interpretation of this definition seemed to me fairly good: “A syllogism is a sentence in which, certain things being granted and accepted, something else than that which was granted is necessarily established through what was granted.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.27
§ 15.27 The meaning of comitia calata, curiata, centuriata, and tribulta, and of concilium, and other related matters of the same kind. IN the first book of the work of Laelius Felix addressed To Quintus Mucius it is said that Labeo wrote that the comitia calata, or “convoked assembly,” was held on behalf of the college of pontiffs for the purpose of installing the king or the flamen. Of these assemblies some were those “of the curies”, others those “of the centuries”; the former were called together (calari being used in the sense of “convoke”) by the curiate lictor, the latter by a horn blower. In that same assembly, which we have said was called calata, or “convoked,” wills were customarily made and sacrifices annulled. For we learn that there were three kinds of wills: one which was made in the “convoked assembly” before the collected people, a second on the battle-field, when the men were called into line for the purpose of fighting, a third the symbolic sale of a householder's property by means of the coin and balance. In the same book of Laelius Felix this is written: “One who orders a part of the people to assemble, but not all the people, ought to announce a council rather than an assembly. Moreover, tribunes do not summon the patricians, nor may they refer any question to them. Therefore bills which are passed on the initiative of the tribunes of the commons are properly called plebiscita, or'decrees of the commons,' rather than'laws.' In former times the patricians were not bound by such decrees until the dictator Quintus Hortensius passed a law, providing that all the Quirites should be bound by whatever enactment the commons should pass.” It is also written in the same book: “When voting is done according to families of men, the assembly is called'curiate'; when it is according to property and age,' centuriate'; when according to regions and localities,'tribal.' Further it impious for the assembly of the centuries to be held within the pomerium, because the army must be summoned outside of the city, and it is not lawful for it to be summoned within the city. Therefore it was customary for the assembly of the centuries to be held in the Campus Martius, and the army to be summoned there for purposes of defence while the people were busy casting their votes.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.28
§ 15.28 That Cornelius Nepos was in error when he wrote that Cicero defended Sextus Roscius at the age of twenty-three. CORNELIUS NEPOS was a careful student of records and one of Marcus Cicero's most intimate friends. Yet in the first book of his Life of Cicero he seems to have erred in writing that Cicero made his first plea in a public trial at the age of twenty-three years, defending Sextus Roscius, who was charged with murder. For if we count the years from Quintus Caepio and Quintus Serranus, in whose consulship [106 BCE] Cicero was born on the third day before the Nones of January, to Marcus Tullius and Gnaeus Dolabella, in whose consulate [81 BCE] he pleaded a private case In Defence of Quinctius before Aquilius Gallus as judge, the result is twenty-six years. And there is no doubt that he defended Sextus Roscius on a charge of murder the year after he spoke In Defence of Quinctius; that is, at the age of twenty-seven, in the consulship of Lucius Sulla Felix and Metellus Pius, the former for a second time. Asconius Pedianus has noted that Fenestella also made a mistake in regard to this matter, in writing that he pleaded for Sextus Roscius in the twenty-sixth year of his age. But the mistake of Nepos is greater than that of Fenestella, unless anyone is inclined to believe that Nepos, led by a feeling of friendship and regard, suppressed four years in order to increase our admiration of Cicero, by making it appear that he delivered his brilliant speech In Defence of Roscius when he was a very young man. This also has been noted and recorded by the admirers of both orators, that Demosthenes and Cicero delivered their first brilliant speeches in the courts at the same age, the former Against Androtion and Against Timocrates at the age of twenty-seven, the latter when a year younger In Defence of Quinctius and at twenty-seven In Defence of Sextus Roscius. Also, the number of years which they lived did not differ very greatly; Cicero died at sixty-three, Demosthenes at sixty.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.29
§ 15.29 A new form of expression used by Lucius Piso, the writer of annals. THE two following modes of saying “my name is Julius ” are common and familiar: mihi nomen est Iulius and mihi nomen est Iulio. I have actually found a third, and new, form in Piso, in the second book of his Annals. His words are these: “They feared his colleague, Lucius Tarquinius, because he had the Tarquinian name; and he begged him to leave Rome of his own free will.” “Because,” says he, “he had the Tarquinian name”; this is as if I should say mihi nomen est Iulium, or “I have the Julian name.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.30
§ 15.30 Whether the word petorritum, applied to a vehicle, is Greek or Gallic. THOSE who approach the study of letters late in life, after they are worn out and exhausted by some other occupation, particularly if they are garrulous and of only moderate keenness, make themselves exceedingly ridiculous and silly by displaying their would-be knowledge. To this class that man surely belongs, who lately talked fine-spun nonsense about petorrita, or “four-wheeled wagons.” For when the question was asked, what form of vehicle the petorritum was, and from what language the word came, he falsely described a form of vehicle very unlike the real one; he also declared that the name was Greek and interpreted it as meaning “flying wheels,” maintaining that pelorritum was formed by the change of a single letter from pelorrotum, and that this form was actually used by Valerius Probus. When I had got together many copies of the Commentaries of Probus, I did not find that spelling in them, and I do not believe that Probus used it anywhere else. For petorritum is not a hybrid word derived in part from the Greek, but the entire word belongs to the people across the Alps; for it is a Gallic word. It is found in the fourteenth book of Marcus Varro's Divine Antiquities, where Varro, speaking of petorritum, says that it is a Gallic term. He also says that lancea, or “lance,” is not a Latin, but a Spanish word.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:15.31
§ 15.31 A message sent by the Rhodians about the celebrated picture of Ialysus to Demetrius, leader of the enemy, at the time when they were besieged by him. THE island of Rhodes, of ancient fame, and the fairest and richest town in it were besieged and assaulted by Demetrius, a famous general of his time, who was surnamed πολιορκητής, or “the taker of cities,” from his skill and training in conducting sieges and the cleverness of the engines which he devised for the capture of towns. On that occasion he was preparing in the course of the siege to attack, pillage and burn a public building without the walls of the town, which had only a weak garrison. In this building was that famous picture of Ialysus, the work of Protogenes, the distinguished painter; and incited by anger against them, Demetrius begrudged the Rhodians the beauty and fame of that work of art. The Rhodians sent envoys to Demetrius with this message: “What on earth is your reason for wishing to set fire to that building and destroy our painting? For if you overcome all of us and take this whole town, through your victory you will gain possession also of that painting, uninjured and entire; but if you are unable to overcome us by your siege, we beg you to take thought lest it bring shame upon you, because you could not conquer the Rhodians in war, to have waged war with the dead Protogenes.” Upon hearing this message from the envoys, Demetrius abandoned the siege and spared both the picture and the city.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.1
§ 16.1 A saying of Musonius, the Greek philosopher, which is of practical value and worth hearing and bearing in mind; and a remark of equal value made by Marcus Cato many years before to the knights at Numantia. WHEN I was still young and a schoolboy, I heard that this Greek sentiment which I have subjoined was uttered by the philosopher Musonius, and since it is a true and brilliant saying, expressed briefly and roundly, I very willingly committed it to memory: If you accomplish anything noble with toil, the toil passes, but the noble deed endures. If you do anything shameful with pleasure, the pleasure passes, but the shame endures." Later, I read that same sentiment in the speech of Marcus Cato which he delivered at Numantia to the Knights. Although it is expressed somewhat loosely and diffusely compared with the Greek which I have given, yet, since it is prior in time and more ancient, it ought to seem worthy of greater respect. The words in the speech are as follows: “Bear in mind, that if through toil you accomplish a good deed, that toil will quickly pass from you, the good deed will not leave you so long as you live; but if through pleasure you do anything dishonourable, the pleasure will quickly pass away, that dishonourable act will remain with you for ever.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.2
§ 16.2 The nature of the rule of the logicians in disputation and declamation, and the defect of that rule. THEY say that it is a rule of the dialectic art, that if there is inquiry and discussion of any subject, and you are called upon to answer a question which is asked, you should answer the question by a simple “yes” or “no.” And those who do not observe that rule, but answer more than they were asked, or differently, are thought to be both uneducated and unobservant of the customs and laws of debate. As a matter of fact this dictum undoubtedly ought to be followed in very many debates. For a discussion will become endless and hopelessly involved, unless it is confined to simple questions and answers. But there seem to be some discussions in which, if you answer what you are asked briefly and directly, you are caught in a trap. For if anyone should put a question in these words: “I ask you to tell me whether you have given up committing adultery or not,” whichever way you answer according to this rule of debate, whether you say “yes” or “no,” you will be caught in a dilemma, equally if you should say that you are an adulterer, or should deny it; for one who has not given up a thing has not of necessity ever done it. That then is a deceptive kind of catch-question, and can by no means lead to the inference and conclusion that he commits adultery who says that he has not given up doing it. But what will the defenders of that rule do in that dilemma, in which they must necessarily be caught, if they give a simple answer to the question? For if I should ask any one of them: “Do you, or do you not, have what you have not lost? I demand the answer'yes' or no,'” whichever way he replies briefly, he will be caught. For if he says that he does not have what he has not lost, the conclusion will be drawn that he has no eyes, since he has not lost them; but if he says that he has it, it will be concluded that he has horns, because he has not lost them. Therefore it will be more cautious and more correct to reply as follows: “I have whatever I had, if I have not lost it.” But an answer of that kind is not made in accordance with the rule which we have mentioned; for more is answered than was asked. Therefore this proviso also is commonly added to the rule, that one need not answer catchquestions.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.3
§ 16.3 By what means Erasistratus, the physician, said that one could do for a time without eating, if food chanced to be lacking, and endure hunger; and his own words on that subject. I OFTEN spent whole days in Rome with Favorinus. His delightful conversation held my mind enthralled, and I attended him wherever he went, as if actually taken prisoner by his eloquence; to such a degree did he constantly delight me with his most agreeable discourse. Once when he had gone to visit a sick man, and I had entered with him, having conversed for some time in Greek about the man's illness with the physicians who chanced to be there at the time, he said: “This ought not to seem surprising either, that although previously he was always eager for food, now after an enforced fast of three days all his former appetite is lost. For what Erasistratus has written is pretty nearly true,” said he, “that the empty and open fibres of the intestines, the hollowness of the belly within and the empty and yawning cavity of the stomach, cause hunger; but when these are either filled with food or are contracted and brought together by continued fasting, then, since the place into which the food is received is either filled or made smaller, the impulse to take food, or to crave it, is destroyed.” He declared that Erasistratus also said that the Scythians too, when it was necessary for them to endure protracted hunger, bound a very tight bandage around their bellies. That by such compression of the belly it was believed that hunger could be prevented. These things and many others of the kind Favorinus said most entertainingly on that occasion; but later, when I chanced to be reading the first book of Erasistratus' Distinctions, I found in that book the very passage which I had heard Favorinus quote. The words of Erasistratus on the subject are as follows: “I reasoned therefore that the ability to fast for a long time is caused by strong compression of the belly; for with those who voluntarily fast for a long time, at first hunger ensues, but later it passes away.” Then a little later: “And the Scythians also are accustomed, when on any occasion it is necessary to fast, to bind up the belly with broad belts, in the belief that the hunger thus troubles them less; and one may almost say too that when the stomach is full, men feel no hunger for the reason that there is no vacuity in it, and likewise when it is greatly compressed there is no vacuity.” In the same book Erasistratus declares that a kind of irresistibly violent hunger, which the Greeks call βούλιμος, or “ ox -hunger,” is much more apt to be felt on very cold days than when the weather is calm and pleasant, and that the reasons why this disorder prevails especially at such times have not yet become clear to him. The words which he uses are these: “It is unknown and requires investigation, both in reference to the case in question and in that of others who suffer from' ox -hunger,' why this symptom appears rather on cold days than in warm weather.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.4
§ 16.4 In what fashion and in what language the war-herald of the Roman people was accustomed to declare war upon those against whom the people had voted that war should be made; also in what words the oath relating to the prohibition and punishment of theft by the soldiers was couched; and how the soldiers that were enrolled were to appear at an appointed time and place, with some exceptional cases in which they might properly be freed from that oath. Cincius writes in his third book On Military Science that the war-herald of the Roman people, when he declared war on the enemy and hurled a spear into their territory, used the following words: “Whereas the Hermundulan people and the men of the Hermundulan people have made war against the Roman people and have transgressed against them, and whereas the Roman people has ordered war with the Hermundulan people and the men of the Hermundulans, therefore I and the Roman people declare and make war with the Hermundulan people and with the men of the Hermundulans.” Also in the fifth book of the same Cincius On Military Science we read the following: “When a levy was made in ancient times and soldiers were enrolled, the tribune of the soldiers compelled them to take an oath in the following words dictated by the magistrate:'In the army of the consuls Gaius Laelius, son of Gaius, and Lucius Cornelius, son of Publius [190 BCE], and for ten miles around it, you will not with malice aforethought commit a theft, either alone or with others, of more than the value of a silver sesterce in any one day. And except for one spear, a spear shaft, wood, fruit, fodder, a bladder, a purse and a torch, if you find or carry off anything there which is not your own and is worth more than one silver sesterce, you will bring it to the consul Gaius Laelius, son of Gaius, or to the consul Lucius Cornelius, son of Publius, or to whomsoever either of them shall appoint, or you will make known within the next three days whatever you have found or wrongfully carried off, or you will restore it to him whom you suppose to be its rightful owner, as you wish to do what is right.' ”Moreover, when soldiers had been enrolled, a day was appointed on which they should appear and should answer to the consul's summons; then an oath was taken, binding them to appear, with the addition of the following exceptions:'Unless there be any of the following excuses: a funeral in his family or purification from a dead body (provided these were not appointed for that day in order that he might not appear on that day), a dangerous disease, or an omen which could not be passed by without expiatory rites, or an anniversary sacrifice which could not be properly celebrated unless he himself were present on that day, violence or the attack of enemies, a stated and appointed day with a foreigners; if anyone shall have any of these excuses, then on the day following that on which he is excused for these reasons he shall come and render service to the one who held the levy in that district, village or town.'" Also in the same book are these words: "'When a soldier was absent on the appointed day and had not been excused, he was branded as a deserter." Also in the sixth book we find this: “The columns of cavalry were called the wings of the army, because they were placed around the legions on the right and on the left, as wings are on the bodies of birds. In a legion there are sixty centuries, thirty maniples, and ten cohorts.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.5
§ 16.5 The meaning of vestibulum and the various derivations proposed for the word. THERE are numerous words which we use commonly, without however clearly knowing what their proper and exact meaning is; but following an uncertain and vulgar tradition without investigating the matter, we seem to say what we mean rather than say it; an example is vestibulum or “vestibule,” a word frequently met in conversation, yet not wholly clear to all who readily make use of it. For I have observed that some men who are by no means without learning think that the vestibule is the front part of the house, which is commonly known as the atrium. Gaius Aelius Gallus, in the second book of his work On the Meaning of Words relating to the Civil Law, says that the vestibule is not in the house itself, nor is it a part of the house, but is an open place before the door of the house, through which there is approach and access to the house from the street, while on the right and left the door is hemmed in by buildings extended to the street and the door itself is at a distance from the street, separated from it by this vacant space. Furthermore, it is often inquired what the derivation of this word is; but nearly everything that I have read on the subject has seemed awkward and absurd. But what I recall hearing from Sulpicius Apollinaris, a man of choice learning, is as follows: “The particle ve, like some others, is now intensive and now the reverse; for of vetis and vehenens, the former is made by intensifying the idea of age, with elision, and the latter from the power and force of the mind. But vescus, which is formed from the particle ve and esca, assumes the force of both opposite meanings. For Lucretius uses vescum salem, or'devouring salt,' in one sense, indicating a strong propensity to eat, Lucilius in the other sense, of fastidiousness in eating. Those then in early times who made spacious houses left a vacant place before the entrance, midway between the door of the house and the street. There those who had come to pay their respects to the master of the house took their places before they were admitted, standing neither in the street nor within the house. Therefore from that standing in a large space, and as it were from a kind of'standing place,' the name vestibule was given to the great places left, as I have said, before the doors of houses, in which those who had come to call stood, before they were admitted to the house. But we shall have to bear in mind that this word was not always used literally by the early writers, but in various figurative senses, which however are so formed as not to differ widely from that proper meaning which we have mentioned, as for example in the sixth book of Vergil: Before the vestibule, e'en in Hell's very jaws, Avenging Cares and Grief have made their beds. For he does not call the front part of the infernal dwelling the'vestibule,' although one might be misled into thinking it so called, but he designates two places outside the doors of Orcus, the'vestibule' and the fauces, of which'vestibule' is applied to the part as it were before the house itself and before the private rooms of Orcus, while fauces designates the narrow passage through which the vestibule was approached.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.6
§ 16.6 What the victims are which are called bidentes, and why they were so called; and the opinions of Publius Nigidius and Julius Hyginus on that subject. ON my return from Greece I put in at Brundisium. There a dabbler in the Latin language, who had been called from Rome by the people of Brundisium, was offering himself generally to be tested. I also went to him for the sake of amusement, for my mind was weary and languid from the tossing of the sea. He was reading in a barbarous and ignorant manner from the seventh book of Vergil, in which this verse occurs: An hundred woolly sheep (bidentes) he duly slew, and he invited anyone to ask him anything whatever which one wished to learn. Then I, marvelling at the assurance of the ignorant fellow, said: “Will you tell us, master, why bidentes are so called?” “Bidentes,” said he, “means sheep, and he called them'woolly,' to show more clearly that they are sheep.” I replied: “We will see later whether only sheep are called bidentes, as you say, and whether Pomponius, the writer of Atellanae, was in error in his Transalpine Gauls, when he wrote this: O Mars, if ever I return, I vow To sacrifice to thee with two-toothed (bidenti) boar. But now I asked you whether you know the reason for this name.” And he, without a moment's hesitation, but with the greatest possible assurance, said: “ Sheep are called bidentes, because they have only two teeth.” “Where on earth, pray,” said I, “have you seen a sheep that by nature had only two teeth? For that is a portent and ought to be met with expiatory offerings.” Then he, greatly disturbed and angry with me, cried: “Ask rather such questions as ought to be put to a grammarian; for one inquires of shepherds about the teeth of sheep.” I laughed at the wit of the blockhead and left him. Now Publius Nigidius, in the book which he wrote On Sacrificial Meats, says that not sheep alone are called bidentes, but all victims that are two years old; yet he has not explained clearly why they are called bidentes. But I find written in some Notes on the Pontifical Law what I had myself thought, that they were first called bidennes, that is biennes with the insertion of the letter d; then by long use in speech the word became changed and from bidennes was formed bidentes, because the latter seemed easier and less harsh to pronounce. However, Julius Hyginus, who seems not to have been ignorant of pontifical law, in the fourth book of his work On Virgil, wrote that those victims were called bidentes which were of such an age that they had two prominent teeth. I quote his own words: “The victim called bidens should have eight teeth, but of these two should be more prominent than the rest, to make it plain that they have passed from infancy to a less tender age.” Whether this opinion of Hyginus is true or not may be determined by observation without resort to argument.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.7
§ 16.7 That Laberius formed many words freely and boldly, and that he even uses numerous words whose Latinity is often questioned. LABERIUS, in the mimes which he wrote, coined words with the greatest possible freedom. For he said mendicimonium for “beggary,” moechimonium, adulterio or adulteritas for “adultery,” depudicavit for “dishonoured,” and abluvium for diluvium, or “deluge”; in the farce which he entitled The Basket he uses manuatus est for “he stole,” and in The Fuller he calls a thief manuarius, saying: Thief (manuari), you have lost your shame, and he makes many other innovations of the same kind. He also used obsolete and obscene words, such as are spoken only by the dregs of the people, as in the Spinners' Shop: Orcus, in truth, will bear you on his shoulders (catomum) nude. He uses elutriare for “washing out” linen, and lavandaria, or “wash,” of those things which are sent to be washed. He says: Into the fulling business I am hurled (coicior), and O heater (Calidoniam), what's your haste? Would'st aught outstrip? Also in the Ropemaker he applies the term talabarriunculi to those whom the general public call talabarriones. He writes in the Compitlia: My jaws I've tamed (malaxavi), and in The Forgetful Man, This is that dolt (gurdus) who, when two months ago From Africa I came, did meet me here, As I did say. Also in the farce entitled Natalicius he uses cippus for a small column, obba for a cup, camella for a bowl, pittacim for a flap and capitium for a breast band; the last-named passage reads: A breast-band (capitium) you put on, the tunic's flap (pittacium). Further, in his Anna Peranna he uses gubernius for pilot, and plans for sycophant, and nanus for dwarf; but Marcus Cicero also wrote planus for sycophant in the speech which he delivered In Defence of Cluentius. Moreover Laberius in the farce entitled The Saturnalia calls a sausage bolulus and says homo levanna instead of levis or “slight.” In the Necyomantia too he uses the very vulgar expression cocio for what our forefathers called arillator or “haggler.” His words are these: Two wives? More trouble this, the haggler (cocio) says; Six aediles he had seen. However, in the farce which he called Alexandrea, he used the same Greek word which is in common use, but correctly and in good Latin form; for he put emplastrum in the neuter, not in the feminine gender, as those half-educated innovators of ours do. I quote the words of that farce: What is an oath? A plaster (emplastrum) for a debt.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.8
§ 16.8 The meaning of what the logicians call “an axiom,” and what it is called by our countrymen; and some other things which belong to the elements of the dialectic art. WHEN I wished to be introduced to the science of logic and instructed in it, it was necessary to take up and learn what the dialecticians call εἰσαγωγαί or “introductory exercises.” Then because at first I had to learn about axioms, which Marcus Varro calls, now proposita, or “propositions,” and now proloquia, or “preliminary statements,” I sought diligently for the Commentary on Proloquia of Lucius Aelius, a learned man, who was the teacher of Varro; and finding it in the library of Peace, I read it. But I found in it nothing that was written to instruct or to make the matter clear, but Aelius seems to have made that book rather as suggestions for his own use than for the purpose of teaching others. I therefore of necessity returned to my Greek books. From these I obtained this definition of an axiom: λεκτὸν αὐτοτελὲς ἀπόφαντον ὅσον ἀφ᾽ αὑτῷ. This I forbore to turn into Latin, since it would have been necessary to use new and as yet uncoined words, such as, from their strangeness, the ear could hardly endure. But Marcus Varro in the twenty-fourth book of his Latin Language, dedicated to Cicero, thus defines the word very briefly: “A proloquium is a statement in which nothing is lacking.” But his definition will be clearer if I give an example. An axiom, then, or a preliminary proposition, if you prefer, is of this kind: “ Hannibal was a Carthaginian”; “ Scipio destroyed Numantia ”; “ Milo was found guilty of murder”; “pleasure is neither a good nor an evil”; and in general any saying which is a full and perfect thought, so expressed in words that it is necessarily either true or false, is called by the logicians an “axiom,” by Marcus Varro, as I have said, a “proposition,” but by Marcus Cicero a pronuntiatum, or “pronouncement,” a word however which he declared that he used “only until I can find a better one.” But what the Greeks call συνημμένον ἀξίωμα, or “a hypothetical syllogism,” some of our countrymen calladiunctum, others conexum. The following are examples of this: “If Plato is walking, Plato is moving”; “if it is day, the sun is above the earth.” Also what they call συμπεπλεγμένον, or “a compound proposition,” we call coniunctumor copulatum; for example: “ Publius Scipio, son of Paulus, was twice consul and celebrated a triumph, and held the censorship, and was the colleague of Lucius Mummius in his censorship.” But in the whole of a proposition of this kind, if one member is false, even if the rest are true, the whole is said to be false. For if to all those true statements which I have made about that Scipio I add “and he worsted Hannibal in Africa,” which is false, all those other statements which are made in conjunction will not be true, because of this one false statement which is made with them. There is also another form, which the Greeks call διεζευγμένον ἀξίωμα, or “a disjunctive proposition,” and we call disiunctum. For example: “ Pleasure is either good or evil, or it is neither good nor evil.” Now all statements which are contrasted ought to be opposed to each other, and their opposites, which the Greeks call ἀντικείμενα, ought also to be opposed. Of all statements which are contrasted, one ought to be true and the rest false. But if none at all of them is true, or if all, or more than one, are true, or if the contrasted things are not at odds, or if those which are opposed to each other are not contrary, then that is a false contrast and is called παραδιεζευγμένον. For instance, this case, in which the things which are opposed are not contraries: “Either you run or you walk or you stand.” These acts are indeed contrasted, but when opposed they are not contrary; for “not to walk” and “not to stand” and “not to run” are not contrary to one another, since those things are called “contraries” which cannot be true at the same time. But you may at once and at the same time neither walk, stand, nor run. But for the present it will be enough to have given this little taste of logic, and I need only add by way of advice, that the study and knowledge of this science in its rudiments does indeed, as a rule, seem forbidding and contemptible, as well as disagreeable and useless. But when you have made some progress, then finally its advantages will become clear to you, and a kind of insatiable desire for acquiring it will arise; so much so, that if you do not set bounds to it, there will be great danger lest, as many others have done, you should reach a second childhood amid those mazes and meanders of logic, as if among the rocks of the Sirens.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.9
§ 16.9 The meaning of the expression susque deque, which occurs frequently in the books of early writers. SUSQUE dequefero, susque deque sum, or susque deque habeo — for all these forms occur, meaning “it's all one to me” — is an expression used in the everyday language of cultivated men. It occurs frequently in poems too and in the letters of the early writers; but you will more readily find persons who flaunt the phrase than who understand it. So true is it that many of us hasten to use out-of-the-way words that we have stumbled upon, but not to learn their meaning. Now susque deque ferre means to be indifferent and not to lay much stress upon anything that happens; sometimes it means to neglect and despise, having about the force of the Greek word ἀδιαφορεῖν. Laberius says in his Compitalia: Now you are dull, now'tis all one to you (susque deque fers); Your wife sits by you on the marriage bed, A penny slave unseemly language dares. Marcus Varro in his Sisenna, or On History says: “But if all these things did not have similar beginnings and sequels, it would be all one (susque deque esset).” So Lucilius in his third book writes: All this was sport, to us it was all one (susque deque fierunt), All one it was, I say, all sport and play; That was hard toil, when we gained Setia's bourne: αιγίλιποι heights, Aetnas, rough Athoses.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.10
§ 16.10 The meaning of proletarii and capite censi; also of adsiduus in the Twelve Tables, and the origin of the word. ONE day there was a cessation of business in the Forum at Rome, and as the holiday was being joyfully celebrated, it chanced that one of the books of the Annals of Ennius was read in an assembly of very many persons. In this book the following lines occurred: With shield and savage sword is Proletarius armed At public cost; they guard our walls, our mart and town. Then the question was raised there, what proletarius meant. And seeing in that company a man who was skilled in the civil law, a friend of mine, I asked him to explain the word to us; and when he rejoined that he was an expert in civil law and not in grammatical matters, I said: “You in particular ought to explain this, since, as you declare, you are skilled in civil law. For Quintus Ennius took this word from your Twelve Tables, in which, if I remember aright, we have the following:'For a freeholder let the protector be a freeholder. For a proletariate citizen let whoso will be protector. ”We therefore ask you to consider that not one of the books of Quintus Ennius' Annals, but the Twelve Tables are being read, and interpret the meaning of'proletariate citizen' in that law." “It is true,” said he, “that if I had learned the law of the Fauns and Aborigines, I ought to explain and interpret this. But since proletarii, adsidui, sanates, vades, subvades,'twenty-five asses,''retaliation,' and trials for theft'by plate and girdle' have disappeared, and since all the ancient lore of the Twelve Tables, except for legal questions before the court of the centumviri, was put to sleep by the Aebutian law, I ought only to exhibit interest in, and knowledge of, the law and statutes and legal terms which we now actually use.” Just then, by some chance, we caught sight of Julius Paulus passing by, the most learned poet within my recollection. We greeted him, and when he was asked to enlighten us as to the meaning and derivation of that word, he said: “Those of the Roman commons who were humblest and of smallest means, and who reported no more than fifteen hundred asses at the census, were called proletarii, but those who were rated as having no property at all, or next to none, were termed capite censi, or'counted by head.' And the lowest rating of the capite censi was three hundred and seventy-five asses. But since property and money were regarded as a hostage and pledge of loyalty to the State, and since there was in them a kind of guarantee and assurance of patriotism, neither the proletarii nor the capite censi were enrolled as soldiers except in some time of extraordinary disorder, because they had little or no property and money. However, the class of proletarii was somewhat more honourable in fact and in name than that of the capite censi; for in times of danger to the State, when there was a scarcity of men of military age, they were enrolled for hasty service, and arms were furnished them at public expense. And they were called, not capite censi, but by a more auspicious name derived from their duty and function of producing offspring, for although they could not greatly aid the State with what small property they had, yet they added to the population of their country by their power of begetting children. Gaius Marius is said to have been the first, according to some in the war with the Cimbri in a most critical period for our country, or more probably, as Sallust says, in the Jugurthine war, to have enrolled soldiers from the capite censi, since such an act was unheard of before that time. Adsidaus in the Twelve Tables is used of one who is rich and well to do, either because he contributed'asses' (that is, money) when the exigencies of the State required it, or from his'assiduity' in making contributions according to the amount of his property.” Now the words of Sallust in the Iugurthine War about Gaius Marius and the capite censi are these: “He himself in the meantime enrolled soldiers, not according to the classes, or in the manner of our forefathers, but allowing anyone to volunteer, for the most part the lowest class (capite censos). Some say that he did this through lack of good men, others because of a desire to curry favour, since that class had given him honour and rank, and as a matter of fact, to one who aspires to power the poorest man is the most helpful.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.11
§ 16.11 A story taken from the books of Herodotus about the destruction of the Psylli, who dwelt in the African Syrtes. THE race of the Marsians in Italy is said to have sprung from the son of Circe.'Therefore it was given to the Marsic men, provided their families were not stained through the admixture of foreign alliances, by an inborn hereditary power to be the subduers of poisonous serpents and to perform wonderful cures by incantations and the juices of plants. We see certain persons called Psylli endowed with this same power. And when I had sought in ancient records for information about their name and race, I found at last in the fourth book of Herodotus this story about them: that the Psylli had once been neighbours in the land of Africa of the Nasamones, and that the South Wind at a certain season in their territories blew very long and hard; that because of that gale all the water in the regions which they inhabited dried up; that the Psylli, deprived of their water supply, were grievously incensed at the South Wind because of that injury and voted to take up arms and march against the South Wind as against an enemy, and demand restitution according to the laws of war. And when they had thus set out, the South Wind came to meet them with a great blast of air, and piling upon them mountainous heaps of sand, buried them all with their entire forces and arms. Through this act the Psylli all perished to a man, and accordingly their territories were occupied by the Nasamones.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.12
§ 16.12 Of those words which Cloatius Verus referred to a Greek origin, either quite fittingly or too absurdly and tastelessly. CLOATIUS VERUS, in the books which he entitled Words taken from the Greek, says not a few things indeed which show careful and keen investigation, but also some which are foolish and trifling. “Errare (to err),” he says, “is derived from the Greek ἔρρειν,” and he quotes a line of Homer in which that word occurs: Swift wander (ἔρρει) from the isle, most wretched man. Cloatius also wrote that alucinari, or “dream,” is derived from the Greek ἀλύειν, or “be distraught,” and from this he thinks that the word elucus also is taken, with a change of a to e, meaning a certain sluggishness and stupidity of mind, which commonly comes to dreamy folk. He also derives fascinum, or “charm,” as if it were bascanum, and fascinare, as if it were bascinare, or “bewitch.” All these are fitting and proper enough. But in his fourth book he says: “Faenerator is equivalent to φαινεράτωρ, meaning'to appear at one's best,' since that class of men present an appearance of kindliness and pretend to be accommodating to poor men who are in need of money”; and he declared that this was stated by Hypsicrates, a grammarian whose books on Words Borrowed from the Greeks are very well known. But whether Cloatius himself or some other blockhead gave vent to this nonsense, nothing can be more silly. For faenerator, as Marcus Varro wrote in the third book of his Latin Diction, “is so called from feanus, or'interest,' but faenus,” he says, “is derived from fetus, or'offspring,' and from a birth, as it were, from money, producing and giving increase.” Therefore he says that Marcus Cato and others of his time pronounced generator without the letter a, just as fetus itself and fecunditas were pronounced.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.13
§ 16.13 The meaning of municipium and how it differs from colonia; and what municipes are and the derivation and proper use of that word; and also what the deified Hadrian said in the senate about the name and rights of municipes. MUNICIPES and municipia are words which are readily spoken and in common use, and you would never find a man who uses them who does not think that he understands perfectly what he is saying. But in fact it is something different, and the meaning is different. For how rarely is one of us found who, coming from a colony of the Roman people, does not say what is far removed from reason and from truth, namely, that he is municeps and that his fellow citizens are municipes? So general is the ignorance of what municipia are and what rights they have, and how far they differ from a “colony,” as well as the belief that coloniae are better off than municipia. With regard to the errors in this opinion which is so general the deified Hadrian, in the speech which he delivered in the senate In Behalf of the Italicenses, from whom he himself came, discoursed most learnedly, showing his surprise that the Italicenses themselves and also some other ancient municipia, among whom he names the citizens of Utica, when they might enjoy their own customs and laws, desired instead to have the rights of colonies. Moreover, he asserts that the citizens of Praeneste earnestly begged and prayed the emperor Tiberius that they might be changed from a colony into the condition of a municipium, and that Tiberius granted their request by way of conferring a favour, because in their territory, and near their town itself, he had recovered from a dangerous illness. Municipes, then, are Roman citizens from free towns, using their own laws and enjoying their own rights, merely sharing with the Roman people an honorary munus, or “privilege” (from the enjoyment of which privilege they appear to derive their name), and bound by no other compulsion and no other law of the Roman people, except such as their own citizens have officially ratified. We learn besides that the people of Caere were the first municipes without the right of suffrage, and that it was allowed them to assume the honour of Roman citizenship, but yet to be free from service and burdens, in return for receiving and guarding sacred objects during the war with the Gauls. Hence by contraries those tablets were called Caerites on which the censors ordered those to be enrolled whom they deprived of their votes by way of disgrace. But the relationship of the “colonies” is a different one; for they do not come into citizenship from without, nor grow from roots of their own, but they are as it were transplanted from the State and have all the laws and institutions of the Roman people, not those of their own choice. This condition, although it is more exposed to control and less free, is nevertheless thought preferable and superior because of the greatness and majesty of the Roman people, of which those colonies seem to be miniatures, as it were, and in a way copies; and at the same time because the rights of the municipal towns become obscure and invalid, and from ignorance of their existence the townsmen are no longer able to make use of them.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.14
§ 16.14 That Marcus Cato said there was a difference between properare and festinare, and how inappropriately Verrius Flaccus explained the origin of the latter word. FESTINARE and properare seem to indicate the same thing and to be used of the same thing. But Marcus Cato thinks that there is a difference, and that the difference is this — I quote his own words from the speech which he pronounced On his Own Merits: “It is one thing to hasten (properare), another to hurry (festinare). He who finishes some one thing in good season, hastens (properat); one who begins many things at the same time but does not finish them, hurries (festinat).” Verrius Flaccus, wishing to explain the nature of this difference, says “Festinat is derived from for (to speak), since those idle folk who can accomplish nothing talk more than they act.” But that seems too forced and absurd, nor can the first letter of the two words be of such weight that because of it such different words as festino and for should appear to be the same. But it seems more fitting and closer to explain festinare as equivalent to fessum esse or “be wearied.” For one who tires himself out by hastily attacking many things at once no longer hastens, but hurries.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.15
§ 16.15 The strange thing recorded of partridges by Theophrastus and of hares by Theopompus. THEOPHRASTUS, most expert of philosophers, declares that in Paphlagonia all the partridges have two hearts; Theopompus, that in Bisaltia the hares have two livers each.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.16
§ 16.16 That the name Agrippa was given to those whose birth was difficult and unnatural; and of the goddesses called Prorsa and Postverta. THOSE at whose birth the feet appeared first, instead of the head, which is considered the most difficult and dangerous form of parturition, are called Agrippae, a word formed from aegritudo, or “difficulty,” and pedes (feet). But Varro says that the position of children in the womb is with the head lowest and the feet raised up, not according to the nature of a man, but of a tree. For he likens the branches of a tree to the feet and legs, and the stock and trunk to the head. “Accordingly,” says he, “when they chanced to be turned upon their feet in an unnatural position, since their arms are usually extended they are wont to be held back, and then women give birth with greater difficulty. For the purpose of averting this danger altars were set up at Rome to the two Carmentes, of whom one was called Postverta, the other Prorsa, named from natural and unnatural births, and their power over them.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.17
§ 16.17 Of the origin of the term ager Vaticanus. WE had been told that the ager Vaticanus, or “Vatican region,” and the presiding deity of the same place, took their names from the vaticinia, or “prophecies,” which were wont to be made in that region through the power and inspiration of that god. But in addition to that reason Marcus Varro, in his Antiquities of the Gods, states that there is another explanation of the name: For, “says he, just as Aius was called a god and the altar was erected in his honour which stands at the bottom of the Nova Via, because in that place a voice from heaven was heard, so that god was called Vaticanus who controls the beginnings of human speech, since children, as soon as they are born, first utter the sound which forms the first syllable of Vaticanus; hence the word vagire ('cry'), which represents the sound of a new-born infant's voice.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.18
§ 16.18 Some interesting and instructive remarks about that part of Geometry which is called “Optics”; of another part called “Harmony,” and also of a third called “Metric.” A PART of Geometry which relates to the sight is called ὀπτική or “Optics,” another part, relating to the ears, is known as κανονική or “ Harmony,” which musicians make use of as the foundation of their art. These are concerned respectively with the spaces and the intervals between lines and with the theory of musical numbers. Optics effect many surprising things, such as the appearance in one mirror of several images of the same thing; also that a mirror placed in a certain position shows no image, but when moved to another spot gives reflections; also that if you look straight into a mirror, your reflection is such that your head appears below and your feet uppermost. This science also gives the reasons for optical illusions, such as the magnifying of objects seen in the water, and the small size of those that are remote from the eye. Harmony, on the other hand, measures the length and pitch of sounds. The measure of the length of a tone is called ῥυθμός, or rhythm of its pitch, μέλος, or “melody.” There is also another variety of Harmony which is called μετρική, or “Metric,” by which the combination of long and short syllables, and those which are neither long nor short, and the verse measure according to the principles of geometry are examined with the aid of the ears. “But these things,” says Marcus Varro, “we either do not learn at all, or we leave off before we know why they ought to be learned. But the pleasure,” he says, “and the advantage of such sciences appear in their later study, when they have been completely mastered; but in their mere elements they seem foolish and unattractive.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:16.19
§ 16.19 A story about the lyre-player Arion, taken from the work of Herodotus. HERODOTUS has written of the famous lyre-player Arion in terse and vigorous language and in simple and elegant style. “ Arion,” says he, “in days of old was a celebrated player upon the lyre. The town in which he was born was Methymna, but from the name of his country and the island as a whole he was a Lesbian. This Arion for the sake of his art was held in friendship and affection by Periander, king of Corinth. Later, he left the king, to visit the famous lands of Sicily and Italy. On his arrival there he charmed the ears and minds of all in the cities of both countries, and there he was enriched as well as being generally admired and beloved. Then later, laden with money and with wealth of all kinds, he determined to return to Corinth, choosing a Corinthian vessel and crew, as better known to him and more friendly.” But Herodotus says that those Corinthians, having received Arion on board and put to sea, formed the plan of murdering him for the sake of his money. Then he, realizing that death was at hand, gave them possession of his money and other goods, but begged that they should at least spare his life. The sailors were moved by his prayers only so far as to refrain from putting him to death with their own hands, but they bade him at once, before their eyes, leap headlong into the sea. “Then,” says Herodotus, “the poor man, in terror and utterly hopeless of life, finally made the one request that before meeting his end he might be allowed to put on all his costume, take his lyre, and sing a song in consolation of his fate. The sailors, though savage and cruel, nevertheless had a desire to hear him; his request was granted. Then afterwards, crowned in the usual way, robed and adorned, he stood upon the extreme stern and lifting up his voice on high sang the song called'orthian.' Finally, having finished his song, with his lyre and all his equipment, just as he stood and sang, he threw himself far out into the deep. The sailors, not doubting in the least that he had perished, held on the course which they had begun. But an unheard of, strange and miraculous thing happened.” Herodotus asserts that a dolphin suddenly swam up amid the waves, dove under the floating man, and lifting his back above the flood, carried him and landed him at Taenarum in the Laconian land, with his person and adornment uninjured. Then Arion went from there straight to Corinth and, just as he was when the dolphin carried him, presented himself unexpectedly to king Periander and told him exactly what had occurred. The king did not believe the story but ordered that Arion be imprisoned as an impostor. He hunted up the sailors, and in the absence of Arion craftily questioned them, asking whether they had heard anything of Arion in the places from which they had come. They replied that the man had been in the land of Italy when they left it, that he was doing well there, enjoying the devotion and the pleasures of the cities, and that both in prestige and in money he was rich and fortunate. Then, in the midst of their story, Arion suddenly appeared with his lyre, clad in the garments in which he had thrown himself into the sea; the sailors were amazed and proved guilty, and could not deny their crime. This story is told by the Lesbians and the Corinthians, and in testimony to its truth two brazen images are to be seen near Taenarum, the dolphin carrying the man, who is seated on his back.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.1
§ 17.1 That Asinius Gallus and Largius Licinus criticized a saying of Cicero's in the speech which he delivered For Marcus Caelius; and what may be said with truth and propriety in defence of that saying, in reply to those most foolish critics. JUST as there have been monsters of men who expressed impious and false opinions about the immortal gods, so there have been some so extravagant and so ignorant that they have dared to say that Marcus Cicero spoke without correctness, propriety, or consideration; among these are Asinius Gallus and Largius Licinus, and the latter's book even bears the outrageous title of The Scourge of Cicero. Now the other things that they have censured are certainly not worth hearing or mentioning; but let us consider the value of this stricture of theirs, in which particularly they are, in their own opinion, very keen critics of language. Marcus Cicero in his speech For Marcus Caelius writes as follows: “As to the charge made against his chastity and published by all his accusers, not in the form of actual charges, but of gossip and calumnies, Marcus Caelius will never take that so much to heart, as to repent that he was not born ugly.” They think that Cicero has not used the proper word in saying paeniteat, or “repent,” and they go so far as to add that it is almost absurd; “for,” they say, “we regularly use paenitere when things which we ourselves have done, or which have been done in accordance with our wish and design, later begin to displease us and we change our opinion about them.” But that no one correctly says that he “repents being born” or “repents being mortal,” or “because he feels pain from any chance injury or wound inflicted upon his body”; for in such cases there is no design or choice on our part, but such things happen to us against our will by some necessity or force of nature. “In the same way,” they continue, “it was not a matter of choice with Marcus Caelius with what person he was born; yet he says that'he did not repent this,' as if there were in that circumstance ground for a feeling of repentance.” This is in fact, as they say, the force of that word, and paenitere is strictly used of none but voluntary acts, although our forefathers used that same word also in a different sense and connected paenitere with the words paene (almost) and paenuria (want). But that is another question, and will be spoken of in another place. But with regard to the point at issue, giving to paenitere this same meaning which is commonly recognized, what Marcus Cicero said is not only not foolish, but in the highest degree elegant and witty. For since the adversaries and detractors of Marcus Caelius, inasmuch as he was of handsome person, made use of his appearance and figure to throw doubt upon his chastity, therefore Cicero, making sport of such an absurd charge as to impute to him as a fault the good looks which nature had given him, has deliberately adopted that very same false charge of which he is making fun, saying: “ Marcus Caelius is not sorry for not having been born ugly”; so that by the very fact of speaking thus he might reproach his accusers and wittily show that they were doing an absurd thing in making Caelius' handsome person an accusation against him, just as if the person with which he was born depended upon his own volition.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.2
§ 17.2 Certain words from the first book of the Annals of Quintus Claudius, noted in a hasty reading. WHENEVER I read the book of an early writer, I tried afterwards, for the purpose of quickening my memory, to recall and review any passages in the book which were worthy of note, in the way either of praise or censure; and I found it an exceedingly helpful exercise for ensuring my recollection of elegant words and phrases, whenever need of them should arise. For example, in the first book of the Annals of Quintus Claudius, which I had read on the preceding two days, I noted these passages: “The greater number,” says he, “threw away their arms and hid themselves unarmed.” The verb inhatebrant, for “hid themselves,” seemed poetic, but neither improper nor harsh. “While these things were going on,” he says, “the Latins, their spirits raised because of their easy victory, form a plan.” Subnixo animo is. significant and carefully chosen expression with the force of “raised and elevated in spirit”; and it indicates loftiness and confidence of spirit, since we are, as it were, raised and lifted up by that upon which we depend. “He bids each one,” he says, “go to his own house and enjoy his possessions.” Frunisci, meaning “enjoy,” was somewhat rare in the days of Marcus Tullius and became still rarer after that time, and its Latinity was questioned by those who were unacquainted with our early literature. However, fruniscor is not only good Latin, but it is more elegant and pleasing than fruor, from which it is formed in the same way as fatiscor from fateor. Quintus Metellus Numidicus, who is known to have used the Latin tongue with purity and simplicity, in the letter which he sent when in exile To the Domitii, wrote as follows: “They indeed were cut off from every right and honour, I lack neither water nor fire and I enjoy (fruiscor) the greatest glory.” Novius, in his Atellan farce entitled The Miser, uses this word: What eagerly they sought they can't enjoy (frunisci); Who does not spare, enjoys the goods he has. “And the Romans,” says Quadrigarius, “get possession of (copiantur) many arms and a great supply of provisions, and enormous booty.” Copiantur is a soldier's word, and you will not readily find it in the pleaders of civil suits; it is formed in the same way as lignantur, or “gather wood,” pabulantur, or “forage,” and aquantur, or “get water.” Quadrigarius uses sole occaso for “at sunset.” This expression has a flavour of antiquity which is not without charm, if one possesses an ear that is not dull and commonplace; furthermore the phrase occurs in the Twelve Tables in the following passage: “Before midday let them hear the case, with both parties making their pleas in person. After midday, decide the ease in favour of the one who is present. If both are present, let sunset be the limit of the proceedings.” “We,” says he, “will leave it undecided (in medium).” The common people say in medio; for they think that in medium is an error, and if you should say in medium ponere (to make known), they consider that also a solecism; but if anyone examines these words with some care, that expression will seem to him the more correct and the more expressive; moreover in Greek θεῖναι εἰς μέσον, is not an error. After it was announced," he says, “that a battle had been fought against the Gauls (in Gallos), the State was troubled.” In Gallos is nester and finer than cum Gallisor contra Gallos; for these are somewhat awkward and out of date. “At the same time,” he says, “he excelled in person, in exploits, in eloquence, in position, in energy, and confidence alike, so that it was easily seen that he possessed from himself and in himself a great equipment (magnum viaticum) for overthrowing the republic.” Magnum viaticum is a novel expression for great ability and great resources, and Claudius seems to have followed the Greeks, who transferred ἐφόδιον from the meaning of “money for a journey” to preparation for other things, and often say ἐφοδίασον for “prepare” and “make ready.” “For Marcus Manlius,” said he, “who, as I have shown above, saved the Capitol from the Gauls, and whose service, along with that of Marcus Furius the dictator, the State found especially (cumprime) valiant and irresistible against the Gauls, yielded to no one in race, in strength and in warlike valour.” Adprime is more frequent for “especially”; cumprime is rarer and is derived from the expression cumprimis with the force of inprimis. Quadrigarius says that “he has no need for riches (divitias).” We use the ablative divitiis with opus. But this usage of his is not a mistake in grammar, nor is it even what is termed a figure; for it is correct Latin and the early writers quite frequently used that case; moreover, no reason can be given why divis opus esse is more correct than divitias, except by those who look upon the innovations of grammarians as oracular responses. “For herein especially,” says he, “lies the injustice of the gods, that the worst men are the least subject to injury, and that they do not allow the best men to remain long (diurnare) with us.” His use of diurnare for diu vivere is unusual, but it is justified by the figure by which we use perennare (to last for years). He says: “He conversed (consermonabatur) with them.” Semocinari seems somewhat rustic, but is more correct; sermocinari is more common, but is not such pure Latin. “That he would not do even that,” says he, “which he then advised.” He has used ne id quoque for ne id quidem; the former is not common now in conversation, but is very frequent in the books of the earlier writers. “Such is the sanctity (sanctitudo) of the fane,” says he, “that no one ever ventured to violate it.” Sanctitas and sanctimonia are equally good Latin, but the word sanctitudo somehow has greater dignity, just as Marcus Cato, in his speech Against Lucius Veturius, thought it more forcible to use duritudo than duritia, saying, “Who knew his impudence and hardihood (duritudinem).” “Since the Roman people,” says Quadrigarius, “had given such a pledge (arrabo) to the Samites.” He applied the term arrabo to the six hundred hostages and preferred to use that word rather than pignus, since the force of arraboin that connection is weightier and more pointed; but nowadays arrabo is beginning to be numbered among vulgar words, and arra seems even more so, although the early writers often used arra, and Laberius has it several times. “They have spent most wretched lives (vitas),” says Quadrigarius, and, “This man is worn out by too much leisure (otiis).” In both cases elegance is sought by the use of the plural number. “ Cominius,” says he, “came down the same way he had gone up and so deceived the Gauls.” He says that Cominius “gave words to the Gauls,” meaning “deceived them,” although he had said nothing to anybody; and the Gauls who were besieging the Capitol had seen him neither going up nor coming down. But “he gave words” is used with the meaning of “he escaped the notice of, and circumvented.” Again he says: “There were valleys and great woods (arboreta).” Arboreta is a less familiar word, arbusta the more usual one. “They thought,” says he, “that those who were without and those that were within the citadel were exchanging communications (commutationes) and plans” Commutationes, meaning “conferences and communications,” is not usual, but, by Heaven! is neither erroneous nor inelegant. These few notes on that book, such things as I remembered after reading it, I have now jotted down for my own use.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.3
§ 17.3 The words of Marcus Varro in the twenty fifth book of his Human Antiquities, in which he has interpreted a line of Homer contrary to the general opinion. IT happened in the course of conversations which we carried on about the dates of various inventions for human use, that a young man not without learning observed that the use of spartum or “Spanish broom” also was for a long time unknown in the land of Greece and that it was imported from Spain many years after the taking of Ilium. One or two half-educated fellows who were present there, of the class that the Greeks call ἀγοραῖοι, or “haunters of the market-place,” laughed in derision of this statement, and declared that the man who had made it had read a copy of Homer which happened to lack the following verse: And rotted the ship's timbers, loosed the ropes (σπάρτα). Then the youth, in great vexation, replied: “It was not my book that lacked that line, but you who badly lacked a teacher, if you believe that σπάρτα in that verse means what we call spartum, or'a rope of Spanish broom'” They only laughed the louder, and would have continued to do so, had he not produced the twenty-fifth book of Varro's Human Antiquities, in which Varro writes as follows of that Homeric word: “I believe that σπάρτα in Homer does not mean sparta, or'Spanish broom,' but rather σπάρτοι, a kind of broom which is said to grow in the Theban territory. In Greece there has only recently been a supply of spartum, imported from Spain. The Liburnians did not make use of that material either, but as a rule fastened their ships together with thongs, while the Greeks made more use of hemp, tow, and other cultivated plants (sativis), from which ropes got their name of sparta.” Since Varro says this, I have grave doubts whether the last syllable in the Homeric word ought not to have an acute accent; unless it be because words of this kind, when they pass from their general meaning to the designation of a particular thing, are distinguished by a difference in accent.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.4
§ 17.4 What the poet Menander said to Philemon, by whom he was often undeservedly defeated in contests in comedy; and that Euripides was very often vanquished in tragedy by obscure poets. IN contests in comedy Menander was often defeated by Philemon, a writer by no means his equal, owing to intrigue, favour, and partisanship. When Menander once happened to meet his rival, he said: “Pray pardon me, Philemon, but really, don't you blush when you defeat me?” Marcus Varro says that Euripides also, although he wrote seventy-five tragedies, was victor with only five, and was often vanquished by some very poor poets. Some say that Menander left one hundred and eight comedies, others that the number was a hundred and nine. But we find these words of Apollodorus, a very famous writer, about Menander in his work entitled Chronica: Cephissia's child, by Diopeithes sired, An hundred plays he left and five besides; At fifty-two he died. Yet Apollodorus also writes in the same book that out of all those hundred and five dramas Menander gained the victory only with eight.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.5
§ 17.5 That it is by no means true, as some meticulous artists in rhetoric affirm, that Marcus Cicero, in his book On Friendship, made use of a faulty argument and postulated “the disputed for the admitted”; with a careful discussion and examination of this whole question. MARCUS CICERO, in the dialogue entitled Laelius, or On Friendship, wishes to teach us that friendship ought not to be cultivated in the hope and expectation of advantage, profit, or gain, but that it should be sought and cherished because in itself it is rich in virtue and honour, even though no aid and no advantage can be gained from it. This thought he has expressed in the following words, put into the mouth of Gaius Laelius, a wise man and a very dear friend of Publius Africanus “well, then, does Africanus need my help? No more do I need his. But I love him because of a certain admiration for his virtues; he in turn has affection for me perhaps because of some opinion which he has formed of my character; and intimacy has increased our attachment. But although many great advantages have resulted, yet the motives for our friendship did not arise from the hope of those advantages. For just as we are kindly and generous, not in order to compel a return — for we do not put favours out at interest, but we are naturally inclined to generosity — just so we think that friendship is to be desired, not because we are led by hope of gain, but because all its fruit is in the affection itself.” When it chanced that these words were read in a company of cultured men, a sophistical rhetorician, skilled in both tongues, a man of some note among those clever and meticulous teachers known as τεχνικοι,´ or “connoisseurs,” who was at the same time not without ability in disputation, expressed the opinion that Marcus Tullius had used an argument which was neither sound nor clear, but one which was of the same uncertainty as the question at issue itself; and he described that fault by Greek words, saying that Cicero had postulated ἀμφισβητούμενον ἀντὶὁμολογουμένου, that is, “what was disputed rather than what was admitted.” “For,” said he, “he took benefici,'the kindly,' and liberales,'the generous,' to confirm what he said about friendship, although that very question is commonly asked and ought to be asked, with what thought and purpose one who acts liberally and kindly is kind and generous. Whether it is because he hopes for a return of the favour, and tries to arouse in the one to whom he is kind a like feeling towards himself, as almost all seem to do; or because he is by nature kindly, and kindness and generosity gratify him for their own sakes without any thought of a return of the favour, which is as a rule the rarest of all.” Furthermore, he thought that arguments ought to be either convincing, or clear and not open to controversy, and he said that the term apodixis, or “demonstration,” was properly used only when things that are doubtful or obscure are made plain through things about which there is no doubt. And in order that he might show that the kind and generous ought not to be taken as an argument or example for the question about friendship, he said: “By the same comparison and the same appearance of reason, friendship in its turn may be taken as an argument, if one should declare that men ought to be kindly and generous, not from the hope of a return, but from the desire and love of honourable conduct. For he will be able to argue in a very similar manner as follows:' Now just as we do not embrace friendship through hope of advantage, so we ought not to be generous and kindly with the desire of having the favour returned.' He will indeed,” said he, “be able to say this, but friendship cannot furnish an argument for generosity, nor generosity for friendship, since in the case of each there is equally an open question.” It seemed to some that this artist in rhetoric argued cleverly and learnedly, but that as a matter of fact he was ignorant of the true meaning of terms. For Cicero calls a man “kind and generous” in the sense that the philosophers believe those words ought to be used: not of one who, as Cicero himself expresses it, puts favours out at interest, but of one who shows kindness without having any secret reason which redounds to his own advantage. Therefore he has used an argument which is not obscure or doubtful, but trustworthy and clear, since if anyone is truly kind and generous, it is not asked with what motive he acts kindly or generously. For he must be called by very different names if, when he does such things, he does them for his own advantage rather than for that of another. Possibly the criticism made by this sophist might have some justification, if Cicero had said: “For as we do some kind and generous action, not in order to compel a return.” For it might seem that anyone who was not kindly might happen to do a kind action, if it was done because of some accidental circumstance and not through a fixed habit of constant kindliness. But since Cicero spoke of “kindly and generous people,” and meant no other sort than that which we have mentioned before, it is “with unwashed feet,” as the proverb says, and unwashed words that our critic assails the argument of that most learned man.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.6
§ 17.6 That what Verrius Flaccus wrote about servus recepticius, in his second book On the Obscurities of Marcus Cato, is false. MARCUS CATO, when recommending the Voconian law, spoke as follows: “In the beginning the woman brought you a great dowry; then she holds back a large sum of money, which she does not entrust to the control of her husband, but lends it to her husband. Later, becoming angry with him, she orders a servus recepticius, or'slave of her own,' to hound him and demand the money.” The question was asked what was meant by servus recepticius. At once the books of Verrius Flaccus On the Obscurities of Cato were asked for and produced. In the second book was found the statement that servus recepticius was the name applied to a slave that was worthless and of no value, who, after being sold, was returned because of some fault and taken back. “Therefore,” says Flaccus, "a slave of that kind was bidden to hound her husband and demand the money, in order that the man's vexation might be greater, and the insult put upon him still more bitter, for the very reason that a worthless slave dunned him for the payment of money. But with the indulgence and pardon of those, if such there be, who are influenced by the authority of Verrius Flaccus, this must be said. That recepticius servus in the case of which Cato is speaking is something very different from what Verrius wrote. And this is easy for anyone to understand; for the situation is undoubtedly this: when the woman gave the dowry to her husband, what she retained of her property and did not give over to her husband she was said to “hold back” (recipere), just as now also at sales those things are said to be “held back” which are set aside and not sold. This word Plautus also used in the Trinumnus in this line: But when he sold the house, this little place Behind it he held back (recepit). That is, when he sold the house, he did not sell a small part which was behind the house, but held it back. Cato himself too, wishing to describe the woman as rich, says: “The woman brings a great dowry and holds back a large sum of money”; that is, she gives a great dowry and retains possession of a large sum of money. From that property then which she kept for herself after giving her dowry, she lent money to her husband. When she happened to be vexed with her husband and determined to demand the money back, she appoints to demand it from him a seruves recepticius, that is, a slave of her very own, whom she had held back with the rest of the money and had not given as part of her dowry, but had retained; for it was not right for the woman to give such an order to a slave of her husband, but only to one of her very own. I forbear to say more in defence of this view of mine; for the opinion of Verrius and mine are before you, each by itself; anyone therefore may adopt whichever of the two seems to him the truer.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.7
§ 17.7 These words from the Atinian law, “the claim on whatever shall be stolen shall be everlasting,” seemed to Publius Nigidius and Quintus Scaevola to have reference not less to a past theft than to a future one. THE words of the ancient Atinian law are as follows: “Whatever shall have been stolen, let the right to claim the thing be everlasting.” Who would suppose that in these words the law referred to anything else than to future time? But Quintus Scaevola says that his father and Brutus and Manilius, exceedingly learned men, inquired and were in doubt whether the law was valid in cases of future theft only or also in those already committed in the past; since subruptum erit seems to indicate both times, past as well as future. Therefore Publius Nigidius, the most learned man of the Roman State, discussed this uncertainty of theirs in the twenty-third book of his Grammatical Notes. And he himself too has the same opinion, that the indication of the time is indefinite, but he speaks very concisely and obscurely, so that you may see that he is rather making notes to aid his own memory than trying to instruct his readers. However, his meaning seems to be that est and erit are independent words; when they are used alone, they have and retain their own tense, but when they are joined with a past participle, they lose the force of their own tense, and are transferred to the past. For when I say in campo est, or “he is in the field,” and in comitio est, or “he is in the comitium,” I refer to the present time; also when I sayin campo erit (he will be in the field), or in comitio erit (he will be in the comitium), I indicate future time: but when I say factum est, scriptum est or subruptum est, although the verb est is in the present tense, it is nevertheless united with the past and ceases to be present. “Similarly then,” he says, “with regard also to the wording of the law; if you divide and separate these two words subruptum and erit, so that you understand subruptum erit as you would certamen erit, that is,'there will be a contest,' or sacrificium erit (there will be a sacrifice), then the law will seem to have reference to an act completed in future time; but if you understand the two words to be united and mingled, so that subruptum erit is not two words, but one, and is a single form of the passive inflection, then that word indicates past time no less than future.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.8
§ 17.8 In conversation at the table of the philosopher Taurus questions of this kind were proposed and discussed: “why oil congeals often and readily, wine seldom, vinegar hardly ever,” and “that the waters of rivers and springs freeze, while the sea does not.” THE philosopher Taurus at Athens usually entertained us at dinner at the time of day when evening had already come on; for there that is the time for dining. The entire basis and foundation of the meal usually consisted of one pot of Egyptian beans, to which were added gourds cut in small pieces. One day when this dish had been brought and placed upon the table, and we were ready and awaiting the meal, Taurus ordered a slave-boy to pour some oil into the pot. The slave was a boy of Attic birth, at most eight years old, overflowing with the merry wit characteristic of his race and his time of life. He brought an empty Samian flask, from oversight, as he said, supposing there was oil in it, turned it up and, as he usually did, passed it with his hand over all parts of the pot; but no oil came out. The boy, in anger, looked savagely at the flask, shook it violently, and again turned it over the pot; and when we were all quietly and furtively laughing at his actions, he said in Greek, and excellent Attic Greek at that: “Don't laugh; there's oil in it; but don't you know how cold it was this morning; it's congealed.” “You rascal,” said Taurus with a laugh, “run and fetch some oil.” But when the boy had gone out to buy oil, Taurus, not at all put out by the delay, said: “The pot needs oil, and, as I see, is intolerably hot; let us withhold our hands and meanwhile, since the slave has just told us that oil is in the habit of congealing, let us consider why oil congeals often and readily, but wine rarely.” And he looked at me and bade me give my opinion. Then I replied that I inferred that wine congealed less quickly because it had in it certain seeds of heat and was naturally more fiery, and that was why Homer called it αἴθοψ, and not, as some supposed, on account of its colour. “It is indeed,” says Taurus, “as you say. For it is well known that wine, when we drink it, warms the body. But oil is equally calorific and has no less power of warming the body. Besides, if those things which are warmer are frozen with greater difficulty, it follows that those which are colder freeze more readily. But vinegar is the most cooling of all things and yet it never freezes. Is the reason then for the quicker freezing of oil to be found in its lightness? For those things seem to congeal more readily which are lighter and smoother.” Taurus says besides that it is also worth inquiring why the waters of rivers and streams freeze, while all the sea is incapable of freezing. “Although Herodotus,” said he, “the writer of history, contrary to the opinion of almost all who have investigated these matters, writes that the Bosphoric sea, which is called Cimmerian, and all that part of the sea which is termed Scythian, is bound fast by the cold and brought to a standstill.” While Taurus was thus speaking, the boy had returned, the pot had cooled off, and the time had come to eat and hold our peace.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.9
§ 17.9 Of the cypher letters which are found in the epistles of Gaius Caesar, and of other secret forms of writing taken from ancient history; and what the Laconian σκυτάλη is. THERE are volumes of letters of Gaius Caesar addressed to Gaius Oppius and Cornelius Balbus, who had charge of his affairs in his absence. In certain parts of these letters there are found individual characters which are not connected to form syllables, but apparently are written at random; for no word can be formed from those letters. But a secret agreement had been made between the correspondents about a change in the position of the letters, so that, in writing, one name and position was given to one letter and another to another, but in reading its own place and force was restored to each of them. But which letter was written for which was, as I have already said, agreed upon by those who devised this secret code. There is in fact a commentary of the grammarian Probus, On the Secret meaning of the Letters appearing in the Epistles of Gaius Caesar, which is a very careful piece of work. But the ancient Lacedemonians, when they wanted to conceal and disguise the public dispatches sent to their generals, in order that, in case they were intercepted by the enemy, their plans might not be known, used to send letters written in the following manner. There were two thin, cylindrical wands of the same thickness and length, smoothed and prepared so as to be exactly alike. One of these was given to the general when he went to war, the other the magistrates kept at home under their control and seal. When the need of more secret communication arose, they bound about the staff a thong of moderate thickness, but long enough for the purpose, in a simple spiral, in such a way that the edges of the thong which was twined around the stick met and were joined throughout. Then they wrote the dispatch on that thong across the connected edges of the joints, with the lines running from the top to the bottom. When the letter had been written in this way, the thong was unrolled from the wand and sent to the general, who was familiar with the device. But the unrolling of the thong made the letters imperfect and broken, and their parts and strokes were divided and separated. Therefore, if the thong fell into the hands of the enemy, nothing at all could be made out from the writing; but when the one to whom the letter was sent had received it, he wound it around the corresponding staff, which he had, from the top to the bottom, just as he knew that it ought to be done, and thus the letters, united by encircling a similar staff, came together again, rendering the dispatch entire and undamaged, and easy to read. This kind of letter the Lacedemonians called σκυτάλη. I also read this in an ancient history of Carthage, that a certain famous man of that country — whether it was Hasdrubal or another I do not recall — disguised a letter written about secret matters in the following way: he took new tablets, not yet provided with wax, and cut the letters into the wood. Afterwards he covered the tablet with wax in the usual way and sent it, apparently without writing, to one to whom he had previously told his plan. The recipient then scraped off the wax, found the letters safe and sound inscribed upon the wood, and read them. There is also in the records of Grecian history another profound and difficult method of concealment, devised by a barbarian's cunning. He was called Histiaeus and was born in the land of Asia in no mean station. At that time king Darius held sway in Asia. This Histiaeus, being in Persia with Darius, wished to send a confidential message to a certain Aristagoras in a secret manner. He devised this remarkable method of concealing a letter. He shaved all the hair from the head of a slave of his who had long suffered from weak eyes, as if for the purpose of treatment. Then he tattooed the forms of the letters on his smooth head. When in this way he had written what he wished, he kept the man at home for a time, until his hair grew out. When this happened, he ordered him to go to Aristagoras, adding: “When you come to him, say that I told him to shave your head, as I did a little while ago.” The slave, as he was bidden, came to Aristagoras and delivered his master's order. Aristagoras, thinking that the command must have some reason, did as he was directed. And thus the letter reached its destination.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.10
§ 17.10 What Favorinus thought of the verses of Virgil in which he imitated the poet Pindar in his description of an eruption of Mount Aetna; his comparison and evaluation of the verses of the two poets on the same theme. I REMEMBER that the philosopher Favorinus, when he had gone during the hot season to the villa of a friend of his at Antium, and I had come from Rome to see him, discoursed in about the following manner about the poets Pindar and Virgil. “The friends and intimates of Publius Vergilius,” said he, “in the accounts which they have left us of his talents and his character, say that he used to declare that he produced verses after the manner and fashion of a bear. For he said that as that beast brought forth her young formless and misshapen, and afterwards by licking the young cub gave it form and shape, just so the fresh products of his mind were rude in form and imperfect, but afterwards by working over them and polishing them he gave them a definite form and expression. That this was honestly and truly said by that man of fine taste,” said he, “is shown by the result. For the parts that he left perfected and polished, to which his judgment and approval had applied the final hand, enjoy the highest praise for poetical beauty; but those parts which he postponed, with the intention of revising them later, but was unable to finish because he was overtaken by death, are in no way worthy of the fame and taste of the most elegant of poets. It was for that reason, when he was laid low by disease and saw that death was near, that he begged and earnestly besought his best friends to burn the Aeneid, which he had not yet sufficiently revised. ”Now among the passages," said Favorinus, “which particularly seem to have needed revision and correction is the one which was composed about Mount Aetna. For wishing to rival the poem which the earlier poet Pindar composed about the nature and eruption of that mountain, he has heaped up such words and expressions that in this passage at least he is more extravagant and bombastic even than Pindar himself, who was thought to have too rich and luxuriant a style. And in order that you yourselves,” said he, “may be judges of what I say, I will repeat Pindar's poem about Mount Aetna, so far as I can remember it: Mount Aetna, from whose inmost caves burst forth The purest fount of unapproachable fire. By day her rivers roll a lurid stream Of smoke, while'mid the gloom of night red flame, On sweeping, whirleth rocks with crashing din Far down to the deep sea. And high aloft That monster flingeth fearful founts of fire, A marvel to behold or e'en to hear From close at hand. ”Now hear the verses of Virgil, which I may more truly say that he began than finished: There lies a port, safe from the winds' approach, Spacious itself, but Aetna close at hand Thunders with crashes dire, and now hurls forth Skyward a dusky cloud with eddies black And glowing ash, and uplifts balls of flame And licks the stars; now spews forth rocks, The mountain's entrails torn, hurls molten crags Groaning to heaven, and seethes from depths profound. “Now in the first place,” said Favorinus, “ Pindar has more closely followed the truth and has given a realistic description of what actually happened there, and what he saw with his own eyes; namely, that Aetna in the daytime sends forth smoke and at night fire; but Virgil, labouring to find grand and sonorous words, confuses the two periods of time and makes no distinction between them. Then the Greek has vividly pictured the streams of fire belched from the depths and the flowing rivers of smoke, and the rushing of lurid and spiral volumes of flame into the waters of the sea, like so many fiery serpents; but our poet, attempting to render ῥόον καπνοῦ αἴθωνα,'a lurid stream of smoke,' has clumsily and diffusely piled up the words atram nubem turbine piceo et favilla fomented,'a dusky cloud smoking with eddies black and glowing ash,' and what Pindar called κρουνοί, or'founts,' he has harshly and inaccurately rendered by'balls of flame.' Likewise when he says sidera lambit,'it licks the stars,' this also,” he says, “is a useless and foolish elaboration. And this too is inexplicable and almost incomprehensible, when he speaks of a'black cloud smoking with eddies black and glowing ash.' For things which glow,” said Favorinus, “do not usually smoke nor are they black; unless candenti ('glowing') is used vulgarly and inaccurately for hot ashes, instead of those which are fiery and gleaming. For candens, of course, is connected with candor, or'whiteness,' not with calor ('heat'). But when he says saxa et scopulos eructari et erigi,'that rocks and crags are spewed forth and whirled skyward,' and that these same crags at once liquefieri et gemere atque glomerari ad auras,'are molten and groan and are whirled to heaven,' this,” he said, “is what Pindar never wrote and what was never spoken by anyone; and it is the most monstrous of all monstrous descriptions.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.11
§ 17.11 That Plutarch in his Symposiacs defended the opinion of Plato about the structure and nature of the stomach, and of the tube which is called τραχεῖα, against the physician Erasistratus, urging the authority of the ancient physician Hippocrates. BOTH Plutarch and certain other learned men have written that Plato was criticized by the famous physician Erasistratus, because he said that drink went to the lungs and having sufficiently moistened them, flowed through them, since they are somewhat porous, and from there passed into the bladder. They declared that the originator of that error was Alcaeus, who wrote in his poems: Wet now the lungs with wine; the dog -star shines, but that Erasistratus himself declared that there were two little canals, so to speak, or pipes, and that they extended downward from the throat; that through one of these all food and drink passed and went into the stomach, and from there were carried into the belly, which the Greeks call ἡ κάτω κοιλία. That there it is reduced and digested and then the drier excrement passes into the bowels, which the Greeks call κόλον, and the moisture through the kidneys into the bladder. But through the other tube, which the Greeks call the τραχεῖα ἀρτηρία, or “rough windpipe,” the breath passes from the lips into the lungs, and from there goes back into the mouth and nostrils, and along this same road a passage for the voice also is made; and lest drink or drier food, which ought to pass into the stomach, should fall from the mouth and slip into that tube through which the breath goes back and forth, and by such an accident the path of the breath should be cut off, there has been placed at these two openings by a kind of helpful device of nature, a sort of movable valve which is called the “epiglottis,” which alternately shuts and opens. This epiglottis, while we are eating and drinking, covers and protects “the rough windpipe,” in order that no particle of food or drink may fall into that path, so to speak, of the rising and falling breath; and on that account no moisture passes into the lungs, since the opening of the windpipe itself is well protected. These are the views of the physician Erasistratus, as opposed to Plato. But Plutarch, in his Symposiacs, says that the originator of Plato's opinion was Hippocrates, and that the same opinion was held by Philistion of Locris and Dioxippus the pupil of Hippocrates, famous physicians of the olden time; also that the epiglottis, of which Erasistratus spoke, was not placed where it is to prevent anything that we drank from flowing into the windpipe; for fluid seems necessary and serviceable for refreshing and moistening the lungs; but it was placed there as a kind of controller and arbiter, to exclude or admit whatever was necessary for the health of the body; to keep away all foods from the windpipe and turn them to the stomach, but to divide what is drunk between the stomach and the lungs. And that part which ought to be admitted into the lungs through the windpipe the epiglottis does not let through rapidly and all at once, but when it has been checked and held back, as it were by a kind of dam, it allows it to pass gradually and little by little, and turns aside all the remainder into the other tube leading to the stomach.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.12
§ 17.12 Of ignoble subjects, called by the Greeks ἄδοξοι, or “unexpected,” argued by Favorinus for the sake of practice. NOT only the sophists of old, but the philosophers as well, took up ignoble subjects, or if you prefer, unexpected ones, ἄδοξοι ὑποθέσεις, as the Greeks call them; and our friend Favorinus took a great deal of pleasure in descending to such subjects, either thinking them suitable for stimulating his thoughts or exercising his cleverness or overcoming difficulties by practice. For example, when he attempted to praise Thersites and pronounced a eulogy upon the quartan ague, he said many clever and ingenious things on both topics, which he has left written in his works. But in his eulogy of fever he even produced Plato as a witness, declaring that the philosopher wrote that one who after suffering from quartan ague got well and recovered his full strength, would afterwards enjoy surer and more constant health. And in that same eulogy he made this quip, which, of a truth, is not ungraceful: “The following lines,” he says, “have met with the approval of many generations of men: Sometimes a day is like a stepmother, And sometimes like a mother. The meaning of the verses is that a man cannot fare well every day, but fares well on one day and ill on another. Since it is true,” he says, “that in human affairs things are in turn, now good, now bad, how much more fortunate is this fever which has an interval of two days, since it has only one stepmother, but two mothers!”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.13
§ 17.13 How many and what varieties of meaning the particle quin has, and that it is often obscure in the earlier literature. THE particle quin, which the grammarians call a conjunction, seems to connect sentences in various ways and with divers meanings. For it seems to have one meaning when we say, as if chiding or questioning or exhorting, quin venis?"Why don't you come?" quin legis? “Why don't you read?” or quin fugis? “Why don't you flee?”; but it has a different meaning when we affirm, for example, that “there is no doubt but that (quin) Marcus Tullius is the most eloquent of all men,” and still a third, when we add something which seems contradictory to a former statement: “ Isocrates did not plead causes, not but that he thought it useful and honourable so to do.” In the last of these sentences the meaning is not very different from that which is found in the third book of Marcus Cato's Origins: “these I describe last, not but that they are good and valiant peoples.” Also in the second book of the Origins Marcus Cato has used this particle in a very similar manner: “He did not consider it enough to have slandered him privately, without openly defaming his character.” I have noted, besides, that Quadrigarius in the eighth book of his Annals has used that particle in a very obscure manner. I quote his exact words: “He came to Rome; he barely succeeds in having a triumph voted.” Also in the sixth book of the same writer's Annals are these words: “It lacked little but that (quin) they should leave their camp and yield to the enemy.” Now I am quite well aware that someone may say off-hand that there is no difficulty in these words; for quin in both passages is used for ut, and the meaning is perfectly plain if you say: “He came to Rome; he with difficulty brought it about that a triumph should be voted”; and also in the other passage, “It almost happened that they left their camp and yielded to the enemy.” Let those who are so ready find refuge in changing words which they do not understand, but let them do so with more modesty, when the occasion permits. Only one who has learned that this particle of which we are speaking is a compound and formed of two parts, and that it does not merely have the function of a connective but has a definite meaning of its own, will ever understand its variations in meaning. But because an explanation of these would require a long dissertation, he who has leisure may find it in the Commentaries of Publius Nigidius which he entitled Grammatical.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.14
§ 17.14 Neat sayings selected from the Mimes of Publilius. PUBLILIUS wrote mimes. He was thought worthy of being rated about equal to Laberius. But the scurrility and the arrogance of Laberius so offended Gaius Caesar, that he declared that he was better pleased with the mimes of Publilius than with those of Laberius. Many sayings of this Publilius are current, which are neat and well adapted to the use of ordinary conversation. Among these are the following, consisting of a single line each, which I have indeed taken pleasure in quoting: Bad is the plan which cannot bear a change. He gains by giving who has given to worth. Endure and don't deplore what can't be helped. Who's given too much, will want more than's allowed. A witty comrade at your side, To walk's as easy as to ride. Frugality is misery in disguise. Heirs' tears are laughter underneath a mask. Patience too oft provoked is turned to rage. He wrongly Neptune blames, who suffers shipwreck twice. Regard a friend as one who may be foe. By bearing old wrongs new ones you provoke. With danger ever danger's overcome.'Mid too much wrangling truth is often lost. Who courteously declines, grants half your suit.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.15
§ 17.15 That Carneades the Academic purged his stomach with hellebore when about to write against the dogmas of Zeno the Stoic; and of the nature and curative powers of white and black hellebore. WHEN Carneades, the Academic philosopher, was about to write against the books of the Stoic Zeno, he cleansed the upper part of his body with white hellebore, in order that none of the corrupt humours of his stomach might rise to the abode of his mind and weaken the power and vigour of his intellect; with such care and such preparation did this man of surpassing talent set about refuting what Zeno had written. When I had read of this in Grecian history, I inquired what was meant by the term “white hellebore.” Then I learned that there are two kinds of hellebore distinguished by a difference in colour, white and black; but that those colours are distinguished neither in the seed of the hellebore nor in its plant, but in the root; further, that with white hellebore the stomach and upper belly are purged by vomiting; by the black the so-called lower belly is loosened, and the effect of both is to remove the noxious humours in which the causes of diseases are situated. But that there is danger lest, when every avenue of the body is opened, along with the causes of disease the juices on which the principle of life depends should also pass away, and the man should perish from exhaustion because of the destruction of the entire foundation of natural nourishment. But Plinius Secundus, in his work On Natural History, wrote that hellebore could be taken with the greatest safety in the island of Anticyra. That for this reason Livius Drusus, the former tribune of the commons, when he was suffering from the so-called “election” disease, sailed to Anticyra, drank hellebore in that island, and was thus cured of the ailment. I have read besides that the Gauls, when hunting, dip their arrows in hellebore, because the wild animals that are struck and killed by arrows thus treated become tenderer for eating; but because of the contagion of the hellebore they are said to cut out a large piece of flesh around the wounds made by the arrows.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.16
§ 17.16 That Pontic ducks have a power which is able to expel poisons; and also of the skill of Mithridates in preparing antidotes. IT is said that the ducks of Pontus commonly live by eating poisons. It was also written by Lenaeus, the freedman of Pompey the Great, that Mithridates, the famous king of Pontus, was skilled in medicine and in antidotes of that kind, and that he was accustomed to mix the blood of these ducks with drugs that have the power of expelling poisons, and that the blood was the very most powerful agency in their preparation; furthermore, that the king himself by the constant use of such remedies guarded against hidden plots at banquets; nay more, that lie often voluntarily and wittingly, to show his immunity, drank a swift and rapid poison, which yet did him no harm. Therefore, at a later time, when he had been defeated in battle, and after fleeing to the remotest bounds of his kingdom had resolved to take his own life, having vainly tried the most violent poisons for the purpose of hastening his death, he fell upon his own sword. the most celebrated antidote of this king is the one which is called “Mithridatian.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.17
§ 17.17 That Mithridates, king of Pontus, spoke the languages of twenty-five nations; and that Quintus Ennius said that he had three hearts, because he was proficient in three tongues, Greek, Oscan, and Latin. QUINTUS ENNIUS used to say that he had three hearts, because he knew how to speak Greek, Oscan, and Latin. But Mithridates, the celebrated king of Pontus and Bithynia, who was overcome in war by Gnaeus Pompeius, was proficient in the languages of the twenty-five races which he held under his sway. He never spoke to the men of all those nations through an interpreter, but whenever it was necessary for him to address any one of them, he used his language and speech with as much skill as if he were his fellow-countryman.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.18
§ 17.18 The statement of Marcus Varro that Gaius Sallustius, the writer of history, was taken in adultery by Annius Milo and was let go only after he had been beaten with thongs and had paid a sum of money. MARCUS VARRO, a man of great trustworthiness and authority in his writings and in his life, in the work which he entitled Pius, or On Peace, says that Gaius Sallustius, the author of those austere and dignified works, whom we see in his history writing and acting, like a censor, was taken in adultery by Annius Milo, soundly beaten with thongs, and allowed to escape only after paying a sum of money.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.19
§ 17.19 What Epictetus the philosophers used to say to worthless and vile men, who zealously followed the pursuit of philosophy; and the two words whose remembrance he enjoyed as by far the most salutary in all respects. I HEARD Favorinus say that the philosopher Epictetus declared that very many of those who professed to be philosophers were of the kind ἄνευ τοῦ πράττειν, μέχρι τοῦ λέγειν, which means “without deeds, limited to words”; that is, they preached but did not practise. But that is still more severe which Arrian, in his work On the Dissertations of Epictetus, has written that this philosopher used to say. “For,” says Arrian, “when he perceived that a man without shame, persistent in wickedness, of abandoned character, reckless, boastful, and cultivating everything else except his soul — when he saw such a man taking up also the study and pursuit of philosophy, attacking natural history, practising logic and balancing and investigating many problems of that kind, he used to invoke the help of gods and men, and usually amid his exclamations chided the man in these terms:'O man, where are you storing these things? Consider whether the vessel be clean. For if you take them into your self-conceit, they are lost; if they are spoiled, they become urine or vinegar or something worse, if possible.'” Nothing surely could be weightier, nothing truer than these words, in which the greatest of philosophers declared that the learning and precepts of philosophy, flowing into a base and degenerate man, as if into a soiled and filthy vessel, are turned, altered, spoiled, and as he himself more cynically expresses it, become urine or, if possible, something worse than urine. Moreover, that same Epictetus, as we also heard from Favorinus, used to say that there were two faults which were by far the worst and most disgusting of all, lack of endurance and lack of self-restraint, when we cannot put up with or bear the wrongs which we ought to endure, or cannot restrain ourselves from actions or pleasures from which we ought to refrain. “Therefore,” said he, “if anyone would take these two words to heart and use them for his own guidance and regulation, he will be almost without sin and will lead a very peaceful life. These two words,” he said, “are ἀνέχου (bear) and ἀπέχου (forbear).”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.20
§ 17.20 A passage taken from the Symposium of Plato, skilful. harmonious and fitting in its rhythm and structure, which for the sake of practice I have turned into the Latin tongue. THE Symposium of Plato was being read before the philosopher Taurus. Those words of Pausanias in which, taking his turn among the banqueters, lie eulogizes love, I admired so much that I even resolved to commit them to memory. And the words, if I remember rightly, are as follows'Every action is of this nature: in and of itself, when done, it is neither good nor bad; for example, what we are now doing, drinking, or singing, or arguing. Not one of these things is in itself good, but it may become so by the way in which it is done. Well and rightly done, it becomes a good action; wrongly done, it becomes shameful. It is the same with love; for not all love is honourable or worthy of raise, but only that which leads us to love worthily." When these words had been read, thereupon Taurus said to me: “Ho! you young rhetorician” — for so he used to call me in the beginning, when I was first admitted to his class, supposing that I had come to Athens only to work up eloquence — “do you see this syllogism, full of meaning, brilliant, well rounded and constructed in brief and smooth numbers with a kind of symmetrical turn? Can you quote us so aptand so melodiously formed a passage from the works of your rhetoricians? But yet I advise you to look upon this rhythm as an incidental feature; for one must penetrate to the inmost depths of Plato's mind and feel the weight and dignity of his subject matter, not be diverted to the charm of his diction or the grace of his expression.” This admonition of Taurus as to Plato's style not only did not deter me, but even encouraged me to try to equal the elegance of the Greek in a Latin rendering; and just as there are small and insignificant animals which through wantonness imitate everything which they have seen or heard, just so I had the assurance, not indeed to rival those qualities which I admired in Plato's style, but to give a shadowy outline of them, such as the following, which I patterned on those very words of his: “Every act, in general,” he says, “is of this nature; it is in itself neither base nor honourable; as, for example, the things which we ourselves are now doing, drinking, singing, arguing. For none of these things is honourable in itself, but it becomes so by the manner in which it is done; if it is done rightly and honourably, it is then honourable; but if it is not rightly done, then it is shameful. It is the same with love; thus not every kind of love is honourable, not every kind is deserving of praise, but only that which leads us to love honourably.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.21
§ 17.21 The times after the foundling of Rome and before the second war with Carthage at which distinguished Greeks and Romans flourished. I WISHED to have a kind of survey of ancient times, and also of the famous men who were born in those days, lest I might in conversation chance to make some careless remark about the date and life of celebrated men, as that ignorant sophist did who lately, in a public lecture, said that Carneades the philosopher was presented with a sum of money by king Alexander, son of Philip, and that Panaetius the Stoic was intimate with the elder Africanus. In order, I say, to guard against such errors in dates and periods of time, I made notes from the books known as Chronicles of the times when those Greeks and Romans flourished who were famous and conspicuous either for talent or for political power, between the founding of Rome and the second Punic war. And these excerpts of mine, made in various and sundry places, I have now put hastily together. For it was not my endeavour with keen and subtle care to compile a catalogue of the eminent men of both nations who lived at the same time, but merely to strew these Nights of mine lightly here and there with a few of these flowers of history. Moreover, it seemed sufficient in this survey to speak of the dates of a few men, from which it would not be difficult to infer the periods also of many more whom I did not name. I shall begin, then, with the illustrious Solon; for, as regards Homer and Hesiod, it is agreed by almost all writers, either that they lived at approximately the same period, or that Homer was somewhat the earlier; yet that both lived before the founding of Rome, when the Silvii were ruling in Alba, more than a hundred and sixty years after the Trojan War, as Cassius has written about Homer and Hesiod in the first book of his Annals, but about a hundred and sixty years before the founding of Rome, as Cornelius Nepos says of Homer in the first book of his Chronicles. Well then, we are told that Solon, one of the famous sages, drew up laws for the Athenians when Tarquinius Priscus was king at Rome, in the thirtythird year of his reign. Afterwards, when Servius Tullius was king, Pisistratus was tyrant at Athens, Solon having previously gone into voluntary exile, since he had not been believed when he predicted that tyranny. Still later, Pythagoras of Samos came to Italy, when the son of Tarquinius was king, he who was surnamed the Proud, and at that same time Hipparchus, son of Pisistratus and brother of the tyrant Hippias, was slain at Athens by Harmodius and Aristogeiton. And Cornelius Nepos adds that when Tullus Hostilius was king at Rome Archilochus was already illustrious and famous for his poems. Then, in the two hundred and sixtieth year after the founding (of Rome, or not much later, it is recorded that the Persians were vanquished by the Athenians in the famous battle of Marathon under the lead of Miltiades, who after that victory was condemned by the Athenians and died in the public prison. At that time Aeschylus. the tragic poet, flourished at Athens.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.22
§ 17.22 In Rome, at about the same time, the commons, as the result of a secession, for the first time elected their own tribunes and aediles; and not much later Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, harassed and exasperated by the tribunes of the commons, turned traitor to the republic and joined the Volscians, who were then our enemies, and lade war upon the Roman people. Then a few years later, King Xerxes was beaten and put to flight by the Athenians and a good part of Greece, under the lead of Themistocles, in the sea-fight at Salamis. About three years afterwards, in the consulship of Menenius Agrippa and Marcus Horatius Pulvillus, during the war with Veii, the patrician Fabii, three hundred and six in number, along with their dependents, were all ambushed at the river Cremera and slain. At about that time Empedocles of Agrigentum was eminent in the domain of natural philosophy. But at Rome at that epoch it is stated that a board of ten was appointed to codify laws, and that at first they compiled ten tables, to which afterwards two more were added. Then the great Peloponnesian war began in Greece, which Thucydides has handed down to memory, about three hundred and twenty-three years after the founding of Rome. At that time Olus Postumius Tubertus was dictator at Rome, and executed his own son, because he had fought against the enemy contrary to his father's order. The people of Fidenae and the Aequians were then at war with the Roman people. During that period Sophocles, and later Euripides, were famous and renowned as tragic poets, Hippocrates as a physician, and as a philosopher, Democritus; Socrates the Athenian was younger than these, but was in part their contemporary. Somewhat later, when the military tribunes with consular authority were in power at Rome, about the three hundred and forty-seventh year after the founding of the city, the notorious thirty tyrants were imposed upon the Athenians by the Lacedemonians, and in Sicily the elder Dionysius was tyrant.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.23
§ 17.23 A few years later, at Athens, Socrates was condemned to death and executed in prison by means of poison. At about the same time, at Rome, Marcus Furius Camillus was dictator and took Veii. Not long afterwards came the war with the Senones, when the Gauls captured Rome with the exception of the Capitol. Not long after these events the astronomer Eudoxus was famed in the land of Greece, the Lacedemonians were defeated by the Athenians at Corinth under the lead of Phormio, and at Rome Marcus Manlius, who during the siege of the Capitol had repulsed the Gauls as they were climbing up its steep cliffs, was convicted of having formed the design of making himself king. Marcus Varro says that he was condemned to death and hurled from the Tarpeian rock; but Cornelius Nepos has written that he was scourged to death. In the very same year, which was the seventh after the recovery of the city, it is recorded that the philosopher Aristotle was born. Next, some years after the war with the Senones, the Thebans defeated the Lacedemonians at Leuctra under the lead of Epaminondas, and a little later in the city of Rome the law of Licinius Stolo provided for the elections of consuls also from the plebeians, whereas before that time it was not lawful for a consul to be chosen except from the patrician familiis. Then, about the four hundredth year after the founding of the city, Philip, son of Amyntas and father of Alexander, became king of Macedonia. At that time Alexander was born, and a few years later the philosopher Plato went to the court of the younger Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily; then some little time afterwards Philip defeated the Athenians in the great battle at Chaeronea. At that time the orator Demosthenes sought safety in flight from the battlefield, and when he was bitterly taunted with his flight he jestingly replied in the well-known verse: The man who runs away will fight again. Later Philip fell victim to a conspiracy; but Alexander, who succeeded him, crossed over into Asia and the Orient, to subdue the Persians. But another Alexander surnamed Molossus came into Italy intending to make war on the Roman people — for already the fame of Roman valour and success was beginning to be conspicuous among foreign nations — but he died before beginning the war. We have learned that on his way to Italy that Molossus said that he was going against the Romans as a nation of men, but the Macedonian was going against the Persians as one of women. Later, the Macedonian Alexander, having subdued the greater part of the east, died after a reign of eleven years. Not long after this the philosopher Aristotle ended his life, and a little later, Demosthenes; at about that same time the Roman people engaged in a dangerous and protracted war with the Samites and the consuls Tiberius Veturius and Spurius Postumius were surrounded by the Samites in a perilous position near Caudium and being sent under the yoke were allowed to depart only when they had made a shameful treaty; and when for that reason the consuls by vote of the people were surrendered to the Samites through the fetial priests, they were not accepted.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:17.24
§ 17.24 Then, about four hundred and seventy years after the founding of the city, war was begun with king Pyrrhus. At that time Epicurus the Athenian and Zeno of Citium were famed as philosophers, and at the same time the censors at Rome, Gaius Fabricius Luscinus and Quintus Aemilius Papus, expelled from the senate Publius Cornelius Rufinus, who had twice been consul and dictator; and they recorded as the reason for that censure the fact that they had learned of his using ten pounds' weight of silverware at a dinner. Then, in about the four hundred and ninetieth year after the founding of Rome, when the consuls were Appius Claudius, surnamed Caudex, brother of the celebrated Appius the Blind, and Marcus Fluvius Flaccus, the first war with the Carthaginians broke out, and not long afterwards Callimachus, the poet of Cyrene, was famous at the court of king Ptolemy at Alexandria. A little more than twenty years later, when peace had been made with the Carthaginians and the consuls were C. Claudius Centho, son of Appius the Blind, and Marcus Sempronius Tuditanus, the poet Lucius Livius was the very first to put plays upon the stage at Rome, more than a hundred and sixty years after the death of Sophocles and Euripides and about fifty-two years after the death of Menander. The consuls Claudius and Tuditanus were followed by Quintus Valerius and Gaius Mamilius, in whose year the poet Quintus Ennius was born, as Marcus Varro has written in the first book of his work On Poets; and he adds that at the age of sixty-seven Ennius had written the twelfth Book of the Annals, and that Ennius himself says so in that same book. Five hundred and nineteen years after the founding of Rome, Spurius Carvilius Ruga, at the advice of his friends, was the first Roman to divorce his wife, on the ground that she was barren and that he had taken oath before the censors that he married for the purpose of having children. In that same year the poet Naevius exhibited plays to the people, and Marcus Varro says in the first book of his work On Poets that Naevius served in the first Punic war and that the poet himself makes that statement in the poem which he wrote on that same war. But Porcius Licinius says in the following verses that Rome was later in taking up the poetic art: In the second Punic war with winged flight The Muse to Romulus' warrior nation came. Then, about fifteen years later, war was begun with the Carthaginians, and not very long after that Marcus Cato was famous as a political orator and Plautus as a dramatic poet; and at that same time Diogenes the Stoic, Carneades the Academic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic were sent by the Athenians as envoys to the senate of the Roman people on public business. Not very long after this came Quintus Ennius, and then Caecilius and Terence, and afterwards Pacuvius and when Pacuvius was already an old man, Accius and then Lucilius, who was still more famous through his criticisms of the poems of his predecessors. But I have gone too far, since the limit that I set for these little notes was the second Punic war.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.1
§ 18.1 Discussions held by a Stoic philosopher and in opposition by a Peripatetic, with Favorinus as arbiter; and the question at issue was, how far virtue availed in determining a happy life and to what extent happiness was dependent on what are called external circumstances THERE were two friends of Favorinus, philosophers of no little note in the city of Rome; one of them was a follower of the Peripatetic school, the other of the Stoic. I was once present when these men argued ably and vigorously, each for his own beliefs, when we were all with Favorinus at Ostia. And we were walking along the shore in springtime, just as evening was falling. And on that occasion the Stoic maintained that man could enjoy a happy life only through virtue, and that the greatest wretchedness was due to wickedness only, even though all the other blessings, which are called external, should be lacking to the virtuous man and present with the wicked. The Peripatetic, on the other hand, admitted that a wretched life was due solely to vicious thoughts and wickedness, but he believed that virtue alone was by no means sufficient to round out all the parts of a happy life, since the complete use of one's limbs, good health, a reasonably attractive person, property, good repute, and all the other advantages of body and fortune seemed necessary to make a perfectly happy life. Here the Stoic made outcry against him, and maintaining that his opponent was advancing two contrary propositions, expressed his surprise that, since wickedness and virtue were two opposites, and a wretched and a happy life were also opposites, he did not preserve in each the force and nature of an opposite, but believed that wickedness alone was sufficient to cause an unhappy life, at the same time declaring that virtue alone was not sufficient to guarantee a happy life. And he said that it was especially inconsistent and contradictory for one who maintained that a life could in no way be made happy if virtue alone were lacking, to deny on the other hand that a life could be happy when virtue alone was present, and thus to take away from virtue when present and demanding it, that honour which he gave and bestowed upon virtue when lacking. Thereupon the Peripatetic, in truth very wittily, said: “Pray pardon me, and tell me this, whether you think that an amphora of wine from which a congius has been taken, is still an amphora?” “By no means,” was the reply, “can that be called an amphora of wine, from which a congius is missing.” When the Peripatetic heard this, he retorted: “Then it will have to be said that one congius makes an amphora of wine, since when that one is lacking, it is not an amphora, and when it is added, it becomes an amphora. But if it is absurd to say that an amphora is made from one single congius, it is equally absurd to say that a life is made happy by virtue alone by itself, because when virtue is lacking life can never be happy.” Then Favorinus, turning to the Peripatetic, said: “This clever turn which you have used about the congius of wine is indeed set forth in the books; but, as you know, it ought to be regarded rather as a neat catch than as an honest or plausible argument. For when a congius is lacking, it indeed causes the amphora not to be of full measure; but when it is added and put in, it alone does not make, but completes, an amphora. But virtue, as the Stoics say, is not an addition or a supplement, but it by itself is the equivalent of a happy life, and therefore it alone makes a happy life, when it is present.” These and some other minute and knotty arguments each advanced in support of his own opinion, before Favorinus as umpire. But when the first night-lights appeared and the darkness grew thicker, we escorted Favorinus to the house where he was putting up; and when he went in, we separated.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.2
§ 18.2 What kind of questions we used to discuss when spending the Saturnalia at Athens; and some amusing sophistries and enigmas WE used to spend the Saturnalia at Athens very merrily yet temperately, not “relaxing our minds,” as the saying is — for, as Musonius asserts, to relax the mind is like losing it — but diverting our minds a little and relieving them by the delights of pleasant and improving conversation. Accordingly, a number of us Romans who had come to Greece, and who attended the same lectures and devoted ourselves to the same teachers, met at the same dinner-table. Then the one who was giving the entertainment in his turn, offered as a prize for solving a problem the work of some old Greek or Roman writer and a crown woven from laurel, and put to us as many questions as there were guests present. But when he had put them all, the question which each was to discuss and the order of speaking were determined by lot. Then, when a question was correctly answered, the reward was a crown and a prize; if it was not correctly answered, it was passed on to the next in the allotment, and this process was repeated throughout the circle. If no one could answer a particular question, the crown was dedicated to the god in whose honour the festival was held. Now the questions that were proposed were of this kind: an obscure saying of some early poet, amusing rather than perplexing; some point in ancient history; the correction of some tenet of philosophy which was commonly misinterpreted, the solution of some sophistical catch, the investigation of a rare and unusual word, or of an obscure use of the tense of a verb of plain meaning. And I recollect that once seven questions were put, the first of which was an explanation of these verses in the Saturae of Quintus Ennius, in which one word is very neatly used in many different senses. They run as follows: Who tries with craft another to deceive, Deceives himself, if he says he's deceived Whom he'd deceive. For if whom you'd deceive Perceives that he's deceived, the deceiver'tis Who is deceived, if'other's not deceived. The second question was how it ought to be understood and interpreted that Plato in the State which he planned in his books said κοινὰς τὰς γυναῖκας, that is, declared that women “should be common property,” and that the rewards of the bravest men and the greatest warriors should be the kisses of boys and maidens. In the third place this was asked, in what words the fallacy of the following catches consisted and how they could be made out and explained: “What you have not lost, that you have. You have not lost horns; therefore you have horns.” Also another catch: “What I am, that you are not. I am a man; therefore you are not a man.” Then it was inquired what was the solution of this sophistry: “When I lie and admit that I lie, do I lie or speak the truth?” Afterwards this question was put, why the patricians are in the habit of entertaining one another on the Megalensia, and the plebeians on the Cerealia. Next came this question: “What one of the early poets used the verb verant, in the sense of'they speak the truth'?” The sixth question was, what kind of plant the “asphodel” was, which Hesiod mentioned in the following lines: O fools! who know not how much half exceeds the whole, Or that the asphodel and mallow make fine food. And also what Hesiod meant when he said that the half was more than the whole. The last of all the questions was this: of what tense the verbs scripserim, legerim and venerim are, perfect or future, or both. When these questions had been put in the order that I have mentioned, and had been discussed and explained by the several guests on whom the lots fell, we were all presented with crowns and books, except for the one question about the verb verant. For at the time no one remembered that the word was used by Quintus Ennius in the thirteenth book of his Annals in the following line: Do seers speak truth (verant), predicting life's extent? Therefore the crown for this question was presented to Saturn, the god of that festival.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.3
§ 18.3 What the orator Aeschines, in the speech in which he accused Timarchus of unchastity, said that the Lacedemonians decided about the praiseworthy suggestion of a most unpraiseworthy man AESCHINES, the most acute and sagacious of the orators who gained renown in the Athenian assemblies, in that cruel, slanderous and virulent speech in which he severely and directly accused Timarchus of unchastity, says that a man of advanced years and high character, a leader in that State, once gave noble and distinguished counsel to the Lacedemonians. “The people of Lacedemon,” he says, “were deliberating as to what was honourable and expedient in a matter of great moment to their State. Then there arose, for the purpose of giving his opinion, a man notorious for the baseness of his past life, but at the same time highly eminent for his eloquence and oratory. The advice which he gave, and the course which he said ought to be followed, were approved and accepted by all, and a decree of the people was about to be passed in accordance with his opinion. Thereupon one of that body of leading citizens whom the Lacedemonians, because of the prestige of their age and rank, reverenced as judges and directors of public policy, sprang up in a spirit of anger and vexation, and said:' What prospect, Lacedemonians, or what hope, pray, will there be that this city and this State can longer be secure and invincible, if we follow counsellors whose past life is like that of this man? Even if this advice is honourable and noble, let us not, I pray you, allow it to be disgraced by the pollution of its most shameful author.' And when he had said this, he selected a man conspicuous before all others for his courage and justice, but a poor speaker and without eloquence, and bade him, with the consent and at the request of all, to deliver that opinion of the eloquent man in the best language he could command, in order that, without mention of the former speaker, the vote and decree of the people might be passed under the name of him alone who had last made that proposition. And the action which that most sagacious old man had recommended was taken. So the good advice endured, but its base author was displaced.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.4
§ 18.4 How Sulpicius Apollinaris made fun of a man who asserted that he alone understood Sallust's histories, by inquiring the meaning of these words in Sallust: incertum, stolidior an vacnior. WHEN I was already a young man at Rome, having laid aside the purple-bordered toga of boyhood, and was on my own account seeking masters of deeper knowledge, I happened to be with the booksellers in Shoemaker's Street at the time when Sulpicius Apollinaris, the most learned man of all within my memory, in the presence of a large gathering made fun of a boastful fellow who was parading his reading of Sallust, and turned him into ridicule with that kind of witty irony which Socrates used against the sophists. For when the man declared that he was the one and only reader and expositor of Sallust, and openly boasted that he did not merely search into the outer skin and obvious meaning of his sentences, but delved into and thoroughly examined the very blood and marrow of his words, then Apollinaris, pretending to embrace and venerate his learning, said: “Most opportunely, my good master, do you come to me now with the blood and marrow of Sallust's language. For yesterday I was asked what in the world those words of his meant which he wrote in the fourth book of his Histories about Gnaeus Lentulus, of whom he says that it is uncertain whether he was more churlish or more unreliable”; and he quoted the very words, as Sallust wrote them: “But Gnaeus Lentulus, his colleague, surnamed Clodianus, a man of patrician family — and it is not at all easy to say whether he was more churlish or more unreliable — proposed a bill for exacting the money which Sulla had remitted to the purchasers of property.” Apolinaris therefore asserted that it was asked of him, and that he had not been able to answer the question, what was meant by vanior and what by stolidior, since Sallust seemed to have separated the words and contrasted them with each other, as if they were different and unlike and did not both designate the same fault; and therefore he asked that the man would tell him the meaning and origin of the two words. Then the other, showing by a grin and a grimace that he despised both the subject of the inquiry and the questioner himself; said: “I am accustomed to examine and explain the marrow and blood of ancient and recondite words, as I said, not of those which are in common use and trite. Surely a man is more worthless and stupid than Gnaeus Lentulus himself, if he does not know that vanitas and stoliditas indicate the same kind of folly.” But having said that, he left us in the very midst of our discussion and began to sneak off: Then we laid hold on him and pressed him, and in particular Apollinaris begged him to discourse at greater length and more plainly upon the difference, or, if he preferred, on the similarity of the words, and not to begrudge the information to one who was eager to learn. Then the fellow, realizing by this time that he was being laughed at, pleaded an engagement and made off But we afterwards learned from Apollinaris that the term rani was properly applied, not as in common parlance to those who were foolish or dull or silly, but, as the most learned of the ancients had used them, to liars, deceivers, and those who cleverly devised light and empty statements in place of those which were true and earnest. But that those were called stolidi who were not so much foolish and witless as austere, churlish and disagreeable, such men as the Greeks called μοχθηροί, “ugly fellows,” and φορτικοί, “common” or “vulgar folk.” He also said that the roots and derivations of these words were to be found in the books of Nigidius. Having sought for these words and found them, with examples of their earliest meanings, I made a note of them, in order to include them in the notes contained in these Nights, and I think that I have already introduced them somewhere among them.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.5
§ 18.5 That Quintus Ennius, in the seventh book of his Annals, wrote quadrupes eques, and not quadrupes equus, as many read it. A NUMBER of us young men, friends of his, were at Puteoli with the rhetorician Antonius Julianus, a fine man in truth and of distinguished eloquence, and we were spending the summer holidays in amusement and gaiety, amid literary diversions and seemly and improving pleasures. And while we were there, word was brought to Julianus that a certain reader, a man not without learning, was reciting the Annals of Ennius to the people in the theatre in a very refined and musical voice. “Let us go,” said he, “to hear this'Ennianist,' whoever he may be”; for that was the name by which the man wished to be called. When at last we had found him reading amid loud applause — and he was reading the seventh book of the Annals of Ennius — we first heard him wrongly recite the following lines: Then with great force on rush the four-footed horse (equus) And elephants, and without adding many more verses, he departed amid the praises and applause of the whole company. Then Julianus, as he came out of the theatre, said: “What think you of this reader and his four-footed horse? For surely he read it thus: Denique vi magna quadrupes equus atque elephant Proiciunt sese. Do you think that, if he had had a master and instructor worth a penny, he would have said quadrupes equus and not quadrupes eques? For no one who has given any attention to ancient literature doubts that Ennius left it written in that way.” When several of those who were present declared that they had read quadrupes equus, each with his own teacher, and wondered what was the meaning oft quadrupes eques, Julianus rejoined: "I could wish, my worthy young friends, that you had read Quintus Ennius as accurately as did Publius Vergilius, who, imitating this verse of his in The Georgics, used eques for equus in these lines: Thessalian Lapiths, high on horses' back, Gave us the bit and circling course, and taught The horse full armed, to gallop o'er the plain And round his paces proud. In this passage, unless one is foolishly and silkily captious, equiter can be taken in no other sense than that of' horse,' for many of the early writers called the man who sat upon a horse eques and also the horse on which he sat. Henceequitare also, which is derived from the word eques, equitis, was said both of the man who rode the horse and of the horse which carried the man. Lucilius, indeed, a man conspicuous for his command of the Latin language, says equum equitare in these lines: With what we see the courser run and trot, With this he runs and trots. Now,'tis with eyes We see him trot; hence with his eyes he trots. “But,” said Apollinaris, “I was not content with these examples, and in order that it might not appear uncertain and doubtful, but clear and evident, whether Ennius wrote equus or eques, I procured at great trouble and expense, for the sake of examining one line, a copy of heavy and venerable antiquity, which it was almost certain had been edited by the hand of Lampadio; and in that copy I found eques and not equus written in that line.” This at the time Julianus explained to us, along with other problems, clearly and courteously. But afterwards I ran upon the very same remarks in some very well-known handbooks.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.6
§ 18.6 That Aelius Melissus, in the book to which he gave the title On Correctness of Speech, and which on its publication he called a horn of plenty, wrote something that deserves neither to be said nor heard, when he expressed the opinion that matrona and mater familias differ in meaning, thus making a distinction that is wholly groundless. WITHIN my memory Aelius Melissus held the highest rank among the grammarians of his day at Rome; but in literary criticism he showed greater boastfulness and sophistry than real merit. Besides many other works which he wrote, he made a book which at the time when it was issued seemed to be one of remarkable learning. The title of the book was designed to be especially attractive to readers, for it was called Correct Language. Who, then, would suppose that he could speak correctly or with propriety unless he had learned those rules of Melissus? From that book I take these words: “ Matrona,'a matron,' is a woman who has given birth once; she who has done so more than once is called mater familias,'mother of a family'; just so a sow which has had one litter is called porcetra; one which has had more, scrofa.” But to decide whether Melissus thought out this distinction between matrona and mater familias and that it was his own conjecture, or whether he read what someone else had written, surely requires soothsayers. For with regard to porcetra he has, it is true, the authority of Pomponius in the Atellan farce which bears that very title but that “matron” was applied only to a woman who had given birth once, and “mother of a family” only to one who had done so more than once, can be proved by the authority of no ancient writer. Indeed, that seems much more probable which competent interpreters of ancient terms have written, that “matron” was properly applied to one who had contracted a marriage with a man, so long as she remained in that state, even though children were not yet born to them; and that she was so called from the word mater, or “mother,” a state which she had not yet attained, but which she had the hope and promise of attaining later. Matrimonium itself, or “marriage,” has the same derivation; but that woman only is called “mother of the household” who is in the power and possession of her husband, or in the power and possession of the one under whose authority her husband is; since she had come, not only into a state of wedlock, but also into the family of her husband and into the position of his heir.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.7
§ 18.7 How Favorinus treated a man who made an unseasonable inquiry about words of ambiguous meaning; and in that connection the different meanings of the word contio. DOMITIUS was a learned and famous grammarian in the city of Rome, who was given the surname Insanus, or “The Madman,” because he was by nature rather difficult and churlish. When our friend Favorinus, in my company, chanced to have met this Domitius at the temple of Carmentis, Favorinus said: “I pray you, master, tell me whether I was in error in saying contiones, when I wanted to turn δημηγορίαι into Latin; for I am in doubt and should be glad to be informed whether any of the men of old who spoke with special elegance used contio of words and of a speech.” Then Domitius, with excited voice and expression, replied: “There is absolutely no hope left of anything good, when even you distinguished philosophers care for nothing save words and the authority for words. But I will send you a book, in which you will find what you ask. For I, a grammarian, am inquiring into the conduct of life and manners, while you philosophers are nothing but mortualia, or'winding sheets,' as Marcus Cato says: for you collect glossaries and word-lists, filthy, foolish, trifling things, like the dirges of female hired mourners. And I could wish,” said he, “that all we mortals were dumb! for then dishonesty would lack its chief instrumenti.” When we had left him, Favorinus said: “We approached this man at an unseasonable time. For he seems to me to be clearly mad. Know, however,” said he, “that the disorder which is called μελαγχολία, or'melancholia,' does not attack small or contemptible minds, but it is in a way a kind of heroic affliction and its victims often speak the truth boldly, but without regard to time or moderation. For example, what think you of this which he just said of philosophers? If Antisthenes or Diogenes had said it, would it not have seemed worthy of remembrance?” But a little later Domitius sent Favorinus the book which he had promised — I think it was one by Verrius Flaccus — in which the following was written with regard to questions of that kind: that senatus (senate) was used both of a place and of persons; civitas (state) of a situation and a town, also of the rights of a community, and of a body of men; further that tribus (tribes) and decuriae (decuries) designated places, privileges and persons, and that contio had three meanings: the place and tribunal from which speaking was done, as Marcus Tullius in his speech, In Reply to the Address of Quintus Metelius, says: “I mounted the tribunal (contionem); the people assembled.” It also signifies an assembly of the people gathered together, since the same Marcus Tullius says in his Orator: “I have often heard audiences (contiones) cry out, when words ended in a proper rhythm; for the ears expect the thought to be expressed in harmonious words.” It likewise designated the speech itself which was made to the people. Examples of these uses were not given in that book. But afterwards I found and showed to Favorinus at his request instances of all these meanings in Cicero, as I remarked above, and in the most elegant of the early writers; but that which he especially desired, an example of contio used for words and of a speech, I pointed out in the title of a book by Cicero, which he had called In Reply to the Address of Quintus Metellus; for there Contionem surely means nothing else than the speech itself which was delivered by Metellus.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.8
§ 18.8 That ὁμοιοτέλευτα, ὁμοιόπτωτα, and other devices of the kind which are considered ornaments of style, are silly and uerile, is indicated, among other places, in some verses of Lucilius. LUCILIUS in the fifth book of his Satires shows, and indeed most wittily, how silly, useless, and puerile are ὁμοιοτέλευτα, or “words of the same ending,” ἰσοκατάληκτα, or “words of the same sound,” πάρισα, or “words exactly balanced,” ὁμοιόπτωτα, or “words of the same case,” and other niceties of that kind which those foolish pedants who wish to appear to be followers of Isocrates use in their compositions without moderation or taste. For having complained to a friend because he did not come to see him when he was ill, he adds these merry words: Although you do not ask me how I am, I'll tell you, since with those I still abide Who of all mortals are the lesser part... You are the slacker friend who'd wish him dead Whom you'd not visit though it was your debit. But if you chide this “visit” joined with “debit” ('Twas writ by chance), if you detest it all, This silly, puerile, Isocratic stuff, I'll waste no time on you, since such you are.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.9
§ 18.9 The meaning of the word insecenda in Marcus Cato; and that insecenda ought to be read rather than insequenda, which many prefer. IN an old book, containing the speech of Marcus Cato On Ptolemy against Thermus, were these words: “But if he did everything craftily, everything for the sake of avarice and pelf, such abominable crimes as we have never heard of or read of, he ought to suffer punishment for his acts...” The question was raised what insecenda meant. Of those who were present at the time there was one who was a dabbler in literature and another who was versed in it; that is to say, one was teaching the subject, the other was learned in it. These two disagreed with each other, the grammarian maintaining that insequenda ought to be written: “For,” said he, “insequenda should be written, notinsecenda, since insequens means... and inseque has come down to us in the sense of'proceed to say,' and accordingly insequor was written by Ennius in the following verses: Proceed, O Muse, when Rome with Philip warred, To tell the valorous deeds our leaders wrought.” But the other, more learned, man declared that there was no mistake, but that it was written correctly and properly, and that we ought to trust Velius Longus, a man not without learning, who wrote in the commentary which he composed On the Use of Archaic Terms, that inseque should not be read in Ennius, but insece; and that therefore the early writers called what we term narrationes, or “tales,” insectiones; that Varro also explained this verse from the Menaechmi of Plautus: Nihilo minus esse videtur sectius quam somnia, as follows: “they seem to me no more worth telling than if they were dreams.” Such was their discussion. I think that both Marcus Cato and Quintus Ennius wrote insecenda and insece without u. For in the library at Patrae I found a manuscript of Livius Andronicus of undoubted antiquity, entitled ᾿οδύσσεια, in which the first line contained this word without the letter u: Tell me (insece), O Muse, about the crafty man, translated from this line of Homer: ῎ανδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον. On that point then I trust a book of great age and authority. For the fact that the line of Plautus has sectius quam somnia lends no weight to the opposite opinion. However, even if the men of old did say insece and not inseque, I suppose because it was lighter and smoother, yet the two words seem to have the same meaning. For sequo and sequor and likewise secta and sectio differ in the manner of their use, but anyone who examines them closely will find that their derivation and meaning are the same. The teachers also and interpreters of Greek words think that in ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, and ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, μοῦσαι, ἔννεπε, and ἔσπετε are expressed by the Latin word inseque; for they say that in one word the ν is doubled, in the other changed to ς. And they also say that the word ἔπη, which means “words” or “verses,” can he derived only ἀπὸτοῦ ἕπεσθαι καὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν, that is from “follow” and “say.” Therefore for the same reason our forefathers called narrations and discourses insectiones.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.10
§ 18.10 That those persons are in error who think that in testing for fever the pulse of the veins is felt, and not that of the arteries. IN the midst of the summer's heat I had withdrawn to the country house of Herodes, a man of senatorial rank, at a place in the territory of Attica which is called Cephisia, abounding in clear waters and groves. There I was confined to my bed by an attack of diarrhoea, accompanied by a high fever. When the philosopher Calvisius Taurus, and some others who were disciples of his, had come there from Athens to visit me, the physician who had been found there and who was sitting by me at the time, began to tell Taurus what discomfort I suffered and with what variations and intervals the fever came and went. Then in the course of the conversation remarking that I was now getting better, he said to Taurus: “You too may satisfy yourself of this, ἐὰν ἅψῃ αὐτοῦ τῆς φλεβός, which in our language certainly leans: si attigeris venam illius; that is,'if you will put your finger on his vein.'” The learned men who accompanied Taurus were shocked by this careless language in calling an artery a vein, and looking on him as a physician of little value, showed their opinion by their murmurs and expression. Whereupon Taurus, very mildly, as was his way, said: “We feel sure, my good sir, that you are not unaware of the difference between veins and arteries; that the veins have no power of motion and are examined only for the purpose of drawing off blood, but that the arteries by their motion and pulsation show the condition and degree of fever. But, as I see, you spoke rather in common parlance than through ignorance; for I have heard others, as well as you, erroneously use the term'vein' for'artery.' Let us then find that you are more skilled in curing diseases than in the use of language, and with the favour of the gods restore this man to us by your art, sound and well, as soon as possible.” Afterwards when I recalled this criticism of the physician, I thought that it was shameful, not only for a physician, but for all cultivated and liberally educated men, not to know even such facts pertaining to the knowledge of our bodies as are not deep and recondite, but which nature, for the purpose of maintaining our health, has allowed to be evident and obvious. Therefore I devoted such spare time as I had to dipping into those books on the art of medicine which I thought were suited to instruct me, and from them I seem to have learned, not only many other things which have to do with human experience, but also concerning veins and arteries what I may express as follows: A “vein” is a receptacle, or ἀγγεῖον, as the physicians call it, for blood mingled and combined with vital breath, in which the blood predominates and the breath is less. An “artery” is a receptacle for the vital breath mingled and combined with blood, in which there is more breath and less blood. σφυγμός (pulsation) is the natural and involuntary expansion and contraction in the heart and in the artery. But the ancient Greek physicians defined it thus: “An involuntary dilation or contraction of the pulse and of the heart.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.11
§ 18.11 Words from the poems of Furius of Antium which were ignorantly criticised by Caesellius Vindex; a quotation of the very verses which include the words in question. I CERTAINLY do not agree with Caesellius Vindex, the grammarian, though in my opinion he is by no means without learning. But yet this was a hasty and ignorant statement of his, that the ancient poet Furius of Antium had degraded the Latin language by forming words of a kind which to me did not seem inconsistent with a poet's license nor to be vulgar or unpleasant to speak and utter, as are some others which have been harshly and tastelessly fashioned by distinguished poets. The expressions of Furius which Caesellius censures are these: that he uses lutescere of earth which has turned into mud, noctescere of darkness that has arisen like that of night, virescere of recovering former strength, describes the wind curling the blue sea and making it shine by purpurat, and uses opulescere for becoming rich. I have added the very lines from the poems of Furius in which these words occur: Blood floods the world, the deep earth turns to mud (lutescit), All becomes night (noctescunt) with darkness of black gloom. Their courage grows, valour's renewed (virescit) by wounds. The fleet, like sea-bird, lightly skims the deep, The East Wind's breath empurples (purpurat) the green surge. That on their native plains they may grow rich (opulescere).
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.12
§ 18.12 That our forefathers had the custom of changing passive verbs and turning them into active. THIS also used to be regarded as a kind of elegance in composition, to use active verbs in place of those which had a passive form and then in turn to substitute the former for the latter. Thus Juventius in a comedy says: I care not if my cloak resplendent be, or spot. Is not this far more graceful and pleasing than if he said maculetur, “if it be spotted”? Plautus also says in a similar way: What's wrong? — This cloak doth wrinkle (rugat), I'm ill clad. Also Plautus uses pulveret, not of making dusty, but of being dusty: Go, sprinkle, slave; I'd have this entrance neat. My Venus comes, don't let the place show dust (pulveret). In the Asinaria he uses contemples for contempleris: Observe (contemples) my head, if you'd your interest heed. Gnaeus Gellius in his Annals writes: “After the storm quieted (sedavit) Adherbal sacrificed a bull ”; Marcus Cato in his Origins: “Many strangers came to that same place from the country. Therefore their wealth waxed (auxit).” Varro in the books which he wrote On Latin Diction, dedicated to Marcellus, said: “In the former word the accents that were grave remain so. The others change,” where mutant, “change,” is a very elegant expression for mutantur,"are changed." The same expression too seems to be used by Varro in the seventh book of his Divine Antiquities: “What a difference (quid mutet) there is between princesses may be seen in Antigone and Tullia.” But passive verbs instead of active are found in the writings of almost all the men of the olden time. A few of these, which I recall now, are the following: muneror te, or “I reward you,” for munero; significor, or “I indicate,” for significo; assentior, or “I assent,” for assentio; sacrificor, or “I sacrifice,” for sacrifice; faeneror, or “I practise usury,” for faenero; pigneror, or “I take as a pledge,” for pignero, and many others of the same kind, which will be noted as I meet them in reading.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.13
§ 18.13 The retort which the philosopher Diogenes made, when he was challenged by a logician with an impudent sophistry. AT Athens during the Saturnalia we engaged in a pleasant and improving diversion of this kind: when a number of us who were interested in the same study had met at the time of the bath, we discussed the catch questions which are called “sophisms,” and each one of us cast them before the company in his turn, like knuckle-bones or dice. The prize for solving a problem, or the penalty for failing to understand it, was a single sestertius. From the money thus collected, as if it had been won at dice, a little dinner was provided for all of us who had taken part in the game. Now the sophisms were somewhat as follows, although they cannot be expressed very elegantly in Latin, or even without clumsiness: “What snow is, that hail is not; but snow is white, therefore hail is not white.” A somewhat similar one is this: “What man is, that a horse is not; man is an animal, therefore a horse is not an animal.” The one who was called upon by the throw of the dice to solve and refute the sophistry was expected to tell in what part of the proposition and in what word the fallacy consisted, and what ought not to be granted and conceded; if he did not succeed, he was fined one sestertius. The fine contributed to the dinner. I must tell you how wittily Diogenes paid back a sophism of that kind which I have mentioned above, proposed with insulting intent by a logician of the Platonic school. For when the logician had asked: “You are not what I am, are you?” and Diogenes had admitted it, he added: “But I am a man.” And when Diogenes had assented to that also and the logician had concluded: “Then you are not a man,” Diogenes retorted: “That is a lie, but if you want it to be true, begin your proposition with me.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.14
§ 18.14 What the number is which is called hemiolios and what epitritos; and that our countrymen have not rashly ventured to translate those words into Latin. CERTAIN numerical figures which the Greeks call by definite terms have no corresponding names in Latin. But those who have written in Latin about numbers have used the Greek expressions and have hesitated to make up Latin equivalents, since that would be absurd. For what name could one give to a number which is said to be hemiolios orepitritos? But hemiolios is a number which contains in itself some other whole number and its half, as three compared with two, fifteen with ten, thirty with twenty; epitritos is a number which contains another whole number and its third part, as four compared with three, twelve with nine, forty with thirty. It does not seem out of place to note and to remember these numerical terms; for unless they are understood, some of the most subtle calculations recorded in the writings of the philosophers cannot be comprehended.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:18.15
§ 18.15 That Marcus Varro in heroic verse noted a matter demanding very minute and careful observation. IN the long lines called hexameters, and likewise in senarii, students of metric have observed that the first two feet, and also the last two, may consist each of a single part of speech, but that those between may not, but are always formed of words which are either divided, or combined and run together. Varro in his book On the Arts wrote that he had observed in hexameter verse that the fifth half-foot always ends a word, and that the first five half-feet are of equally great importance in making a verse with the following seven; and he argues that this happens in accordance with a certain geometrical ratio.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.1
§ 19.1 The reply of a certain philosopher, when he was asked why he turned pale in a storm at sea. We were sailing from Cassiopa to Brundisium over the Ionian Sea, violent, vast and storm-tossed. During almost the whole of the night which followed our first day a fierce side-wind blew, which had filled our ship with water. Then afterwards, while we were all still lamenting, and working hard at the pumps, day at last dawned. But there was no less danger and no slackening of the violence of the wind; on the contrary, more frequent whirlwinds, a black sky, masses of fog, and a kind of fearful cloud-forms, which they called typhones, or “typhoons,” seemed to hang over and threaten us, ready to overwhelm the ship. In our company was an eminent philosopher of the Stoic sect, whom I had known at Athens as a man of no slight importance, holding the young men who were his pupils under very good control. In the midst of the great dangers of that time and that tumult of sea and sky I looked for him, desiring to know in what state of mind he was and whether he was unterrified and courageous. And then I beheld the man frightened and ghastly pale, not indeed uttering any lamentations, as all the rest were doing, nor any outcries of that kind, but in his loss of colour and distracted expression not differing much from the others. But when the sky cleared, the sea grew calm, and the heat of danger cooled, then the Stoic was approached by a rich Greek from Asia, a man of elegant apparel, as we saw, and with an abundance of baggage and many attendants, while he himself showed signs of a luxurious person and disposition. This man, in a bantering tone, said: “What does this mean, Sir philosopher, that when we were in danger you were afraid and turned pale, while I neither feared nor changed colour?” And the philosopher, after hesitating for a moment about the propriety of answering him, said: “If in such a terrible storm I did show a little fear, you are not worthy to be told the reason for it. But, if you please, the famous Aristippus, the pupil of Socrates, shall answer for me, who on being asked on a similar occasion by a man much like you why he feared, though a philosopher, while his questioner on the contrary had no fear, replied that they had not the same motives, for his questioner need not be very anxious about the life of a worthless coxcomb, but he himself feared for the life of an Aristippus.” With these words then the Stoic rid himself of the rich Asiatic. But later, when we were approaching Brundisium and sea and sky were calm, I asked him what the reason for his fear was, which he had refused to reveal to the man who had improperly addressed him. And he quietly and courteously replied: “Since you are desirous of knowing, hear what our forefathers, the founders of the Stoic sect, thought about that brief but inevitable and natural fear, or rather,” said he, “read it, for if you read it, you will be the more ready to believe it and you will remember it better.” Thereupon before my eyes he drew from his little bag the fifth book of the Discourses of the philosopher Epictetus, which, as arranged by Arrian, undoubtedly agree with the writings of Zeno and Chrysippus. In that book I read this statement, which of course was written in Greek: “The mental visions, which the philosophers call φαντασίαι or'phantasies,' by which the mind of man on the very first appearance of an object is impelled to the perception of the object, are neither voluntary nor controlled by the will, but through a certain power of their own they force their recognition upon men; but the expressions of assent, which they call συγκαταθέσεις, by which these visions are recognized, are voluntary and subject to man's will. Therefore when some terrifying sound, either from heaven or from a falling building or as a sudden announcement of some danger, or anything else of that kind occurs, even the mind of a wise man must necessarily be disturbed, must shrink and feel alarm, not from a preconceived idea of any danger, but from certain swift and unexpected attacks which forestall the power of the mind and of reason. Presently, however, the wise man does not approve'such phantasies,' that is to say, such terrifying mental visions (to quote the Greek,'he does not consent to them nor confirm them'), but he rejects and scorns them, nor does he see in them anything that ought to excite fear. And they say that there is this difference between the mind of a foolish man and that of a wise man, that the foolish man thinks that such'visions' are in fact as dreadful and terrifying as they appear at the original impact of them on his mind, and by his assent he approves of such ideas as if they were rightly to be feared, and'confirms' them; for προσεπιδοξάζει is the word which the Stoics use in their discourses on the subject. But the wise man, after being affected for a short time and slightly in his colour and expression,'does not assent,' but retains the steadfastness and strength of the opinion which he has always had about visions of this kind, namely that they are in no wise to be feared but excite terror by a false appearance and vain alarms.” That these were the opinions and utterances of Epictetus the philosopher in accordance with the beliefs of the Stoics I read in that book which I have mentioned, and I thought that they ought to be recorded for this reason, that when things of the kind which I have named chance to occur, we may not think that to fear for a time and, as it were, turn white is the mark of a foolish and weak man, but in that brief but natural impulse we yield rather to human weakness than because we believe that those things are what they seem.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.2
§ 19.2 That of the five senses of the body two in particular we share with beasts; and that pleasure which comes from hearing, sight and smell is base and reprehensible, but that which comes from taste and touch is the most shameful of all, since the last two are felt also by beasts, the others only by mankind. MEN have five senses, which the Greeks call αἰσθήσεις, by which mental or bodily pleasure is evidently sought: taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing. From all of these the enjoyment of any immoderate pleasure is regarded as base and reprehensible. But excessive pleasure from taste or touch in the opinion of philosophers is the basest of all things, and those in particular who have given themselves up to those two animal pleasures the Greeks call by terms of the gravest reproach either ἀκρατεῖς or ἀκόλαστοι; we call them either incontinences (incontinent) or intemperantes (intemperate); for if you should desire to have a closer translation of ἀκόλαστοι, the equivalent will be too unusual. But those two pleasures of taste and touch, namely, gluttony and venery, are the only ones common to man with the lower animals, and therefore whoever is enslaved to these beastly pleasures is regarded as in the number of brutes and beasts; the remaining pleasures proceeding from the other three senses seem to be peculiar to man alone. I have added the words of Aristotle the philosopher on this subject, in order that the authority of that renowned and illustrious man might turn us from such shameful pleasures: “Why are they called incontinent who indulge to excess in the pleasures of taste and touch? For both those who are immoderate in venery and those who are immoderate in the enjoyment of food are such. But of the latter, some find this gratification in the tongue and others in the throat, and it was for that reason that Philoxenos prayed to have the throat of a crane. Is it because the pleasures derived from such sources are common to us with the other animals? And being thus common they are the most dishonourable and more than the other pleasures, or alone, objects of reproach, so that we censure a man who is addicted to them and call him incontinent and incorrigible because he is enslaved to the meanest of pleasures. Now, there being five senses, the other animals are gratified by the two which have been mentioned only, but from the others they either enjoy no pleasure at all, or they merely experience it incidentally.” Who, then, having any human modesty, would take pleasure in those two delights of venery and gluttony, which are common to man with the hog and the ass? Socrates indeed used to say that many men wish to live in order to eat and drink, but that he ate and drank in order to live. Hippocrates, moreover, a man of divine wisdom, believed of venery that it was a part of the horrible disease which our countrymen call comitialis, or “the election disease”; for these are his very words as they have come down to us: “that coition is a brief epilepsy.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.3
§ 19.3 That it is more disgraceful to be praised coldly than to be accused bitterly. FAVORINUS the philosopher used to say that it was more shameful to be praised faintly and coldly than to be censured violently and severely: “For,” said he, “the man who reviles and censures you is regarded as unjust and hostile towards you in proportion to the bitterness of his invective, and therefore he is usually not believed. But one who praises grudgingly and faintly seems to lack a theme; he is regarded as the friend of a man whom he would like to praise but as unable to find anything in him which he can justly commend.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.4
§ 19.4 Why the bowels are loosened by sudden terror; also why fire provokes urine. THERE is a work of Aristotle, entitled Physical Questions, which is most delightful, and filled with choice knowledge of all kinds. In this book he inquires why it happens that those who are seized with sudden fear of some great catastrophe commonly suffer at once from looseness of the bowels. He also inquires why it happens that one who has stood for some time before a fire is overtaken with a desire to make water. And he says that the cause of the loosening and discharge of the bowels because of fear is due to the fact that all terror is cold producing, or ψυχροποιός, as he calls it, and that by the effect of that cold it drives and expels all the blood and heat from the surface of the skin and at the same time causes those who fear to grow pale, because the blood leaves the face. “Now this blood and heat,” he says, “being driven inwards, usually moves the bowels and stimulates them.” For the frequent urinating caused by nearness to a fire he gave this reason: “The fire dissolves the solid matter, as the sun does snow.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.5
§ 19.5 A statement from the works of Aristotle, that snow-water is a very bad thing to drink; and that ice is formed from snow. IN the hottest season of the year with some companions and friends of mine who were students of eloquence or of philosophy, I had withdrawn to the country-place of a rich friend at Tibur. There was with us a good man of the Peripatetic school, well trained and especially devoted to Aristotle. When we drank a good deal of water made of melted snow, he tried to restrain us and rather severely scolded us. He cited us the authority of famous physicians and in particular of the philosopher Aristotle, a man skilled in all human knowledge, who declared that snow-water was indeed helpful to grain and trees, but was a very unwholesome drink for human beings, and that it gradually produced wasting diseases in the body, which made their appearance only after a long time. This counsel he gave us repeatedly in a spirit of prudence and goodwill. But when the drinking of snow-water went on without interruption, from the library of Tibur, which at that time was in the temple of Hercules and was well supplied with books, he drew out a volume of Aristotle and brought it to us, saying: “At least believe the words of this wisest of men and cease to ruin your health.” In that book it was written that water from snow was very bad to drink, as was also that water which was more solidly and completely congealed, which the Greeks call κρύσταλλος, or “clear ice”; and the following reason was there given for this: “That when water is hardened by the cold air and congeals, it necessarily follows that evaporation takes place and that a kind of very thin vapour, so to speak, is forced from it and comes out of it. But its lightest part,” he said, “is that which is evaporated; what remains is heavier and less clean and wholesome, and this part, beaten upon by the throbbing of the air, takes on the form and colour of white foam. But that some more wholesome part is forced out and evaporated from the snow is shown by the fact that it becomes less than it was before it congealed.” I have taken a few of Aristotle's own words from that book, and I quote them: “Why is the water made from snow or ice unwholesome? Because from all water that is frozen the lightest and thinnest part evaporates. And the proof of this is that when it melts after being frozen, its volume is less than before. But since the most wholesome part is gone, it necessarily follows that what is left is less wholesome.” After I read this, we decided to pay honour to the learned Aristotle. And so I for my part immediately declared war upon snow and swore hatred against it, while the others made truces with it on various terms.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.6
§ 19.6 That shame drives the blood outward, while fear checks it. IN the Problems of the philosopher Aristotle is the following passage: “Why do men who are ashamed turn red and those who fear grow pale; although these emotions are similar? Because the blood of those who feel shame flows from the heart to all parts of the body, and therefore comes to the surface; but the blood of those who fear rushes to the heart, and consequently leaves all the other parts of the body.” When I had read this at Athens with our friend Taurus and had asked him what he thought about that reason which had been assigned, he answered: “He has told us properly and truly what happens when the blood is diffused or concentrated, but he has not told us why this takes place. For the question may still be asked why it is that shame diffuses the blood and fear contracts it, when shame is a kind of fear and is defined by the philosophers as'the fear of just censure.' For they say: αἰσχύνη ἐστὶν φόβος δικαίου ψόγου.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.7
§ 19.7 The meaning of obesus and of some other early words. THE poet Julius Paulus, a worthy man, very learned in early history and letters, inherited a small estate in the Vatican district. He often invited us there to visit him and entertained us very pleasantly and generously with vegetables and fruits. And so one mild day in autumn, when Julius Celsinus and I had dined with him, and after hearing the Alcestis of Laevius read at his table were returning to the city just before sunset, we were ruminating on the rhetorical figures and the new or striking use of words in that poem of Laevius', and as each word occurred that was worthy of notice with reference to its future use by ourselves, we committed it to memory. Now the passages which then came to mind were of this sort: Of chest and body wasted (obeso) everywhere, Of mind devoid of sense and slow of pace, With age o'ercome. Here we noticed that obesus is used, rather in its proper than in its common signification, to mean slender and lean; for the vulgar use obesus, ἀκύρως (improperly), or κατὰ ἀντίφρασιν (by contraries), for uber (bulky) and pinguis (fat). We also observed that he spoke of an extinct race as oblittera instead of oblitterata, and that he characterized enemies who broke treaties as foedifragi, not foederifragi; that he called the blushing Aurora pudoricolor, or “shame-coloured” and Memnon, nocticolor, or “night-coloured”; also that he used forte for “hesitatingly,” and said silenta loca, or “silent places,” from the verb sileo; further, that he used pulverulenta for “dusty” and pestilenta for “pestilent,” the genitive case instead of the ablative with careo; magno impete, or “mighty onset,” instead of impetu; that he used fortescere for fortem fieri, or “become brave,” dolentia for dolor, or “sorrow,”avens for libens, or “desirous”; that he spoke of curae intolerantes, or “unendurable cares,” instead of intolerandae, manciolae tenellae, or “tender hands,” instead of manus, and quis tam siliceo for “who is of so flinty a heart?” He also says fiere inpendio infit, meaningfieri inpense incipit, or “the expense begins to be great,” and he used accipetret for laceret, or “rends.” We entertained ourselves on our way with these notes on Laevius' diction. But others we passed over as too poetic and unsuited to use in prose; for example, when he calls Nestor trisaeclisenex, or “an old man who had lived three generations” and dulciorelocus isle, or “that sweet-mouthed speaker,” when he calls great swelling waves multigruma, or “great-hillocked,” and says that rivers congealed by the cold have an onychinum tegimen, or “an onyx covering”; also his many humorous multiple compounds, as when he calls his detractors subductisupercilicarptores, or “carpers with raised eye-brows.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.8
§ 19.8 An inquiry whether harena, caelum and triticum are found in the plural; also whether quadrigae, inimicitiae, and some other words, occur in the singular. WHEN I was a young man at Rome, before I went to Athens, I often paid a visit to Cornelius Fronto, when I had leisure from my masters and my lectures, and enjoyed his refined conversations, which abounded besides in excellent information. Whenever I saw him and heard him speak, I almost never failed to come away improved and better informed. An example is the following little talk of his, held one day on a trivial subject, it is true, but yet not without importance for the study of the Latin language. For when an intimate friend of his, a learned man and an eminent poet of the day, said that he had been cured of dropsy by the use of hot sand (calentes harenae), thereupon Fronto in jesting fashion said: “You are indeed freed of your complaint, but not of the complaint of improper language. For Gaius Caesar, the famous life-dictator and father-in-law of Gnaeus Pompeius, from whom the family and the name of the Caesars are derived, a man of wonderful talent, surpassing all others of his time in the purity of his diction, in the work On Analogy, which he dedicated to Marcus Cicero, wrote that harenae is an improper term, since harena ought never to be used in the plural, any more than caelum (heaven) and triticum (wheat). But on the other hand he thinks that quadrigae, even though it be a single chariot, that is, one team of four horses yoked together, ought always to be used in the plural number, like arma (arms), moenia (walls), comitia (election) and inimicitiae (hostility) — unless, my finest of poets, you have anything to say in reply, to excuse yourself and show that you have not made an error. ”With regard to caelum," said the poet, “and triticum I do not deny that they ought always to be used in the singular, nor with regard to arma, moenia and comitia, that their use ought to be confined to the plural; but we will inquire rather about inimicitiae and quadigae. And perhaps in the case of quadrigae I shall yield to the authority of the early writers: but what reason is there why Caesar should think that inimicitia was not used by the ancients, as were inscientia (ignorance) and impotentia (impotence) and iniuria (injury), and ought not to be used by us, when Plautus, that glory of the Latin tongue, even used delicia in the singular number instead of deliciae? For he says: O my delight, my darling (delicia). Furthermore Quintus Ennius, in that most famous book of his, said: Such is my habit; plain upon my brow Friendship I bear and enmity (inmicitiam) to see. But pray, who else has written or said that harenae is not good Latin? And therefore I beg of you, if Gaius Caesar's book is accessible, that you have it brought, in order that you may judge with how much confidence he makes this statement.” At the time, the first book On Analogy being brought, I committed to memory these few words from it; for, first asserting that neither caelum, triticum, nor harena admitted a plural meaning, Caesar said: “Do you not think that it happens from the nature of these things that we say'one land' and'several lands,''city' and'cities,''command' and'commands,' and that we cannot convert quadrigae into the form of a singular noun or harena into a plural?” When these words had been read, Fronto said to the poet: “Does it not seem to you that Gaius Caesar has decided against you as to the status of this word with sufficient clearness and force?” Thereupon the poet, greatly impressed by the authority of the book, said: “If it were lawful to appeal from Caesar, I would now appeal from this book of his. But since he has neglected to give the reason for his opinion, I now ask you to tell on what ground you think it an error to say quadriga and harenae.” Then Fronto replied as follows: “Quadrigae is always confined to the plural number, even though there be only one horse, since four horses yoked together are called quadrigae, from quadriugae, and certainly a term which designates many horses ought not to be included under the oneness expressed by the singular number. The same reasoning must be applied to harena, but in a different form; for since harena, though used in the singular number, nevertheless indicates the multiplicity and abundance of the minute parts of which it consists, harenae seems to be an ignorant and improper usage, as if the word needed a plural form,. when its collective nature makes it natural for it to be used in the singular. But,” said he, “I have said this, not in order to give my authority and signature to this opinion and rule, but that I might not leave the view of that learned man, Caesar, unsupported. For while caelum, or'sky,' is always used in the singular, but mare, or'sea,' and terra, or'land,' not always, and pulvis, or'dust,' ventus, or'wind,' and fumus, or'smoke,' not always, why did the early writers sometimes use indutiae, or'truce,' and caerimoniae, or'ceremony,' in the singular, but never feriae, or'holiday,' nundinae, or'market day,' inferiae, or'offering to the dead,' and exsequiae, or'obsequies'? Why may mel, or'honey,' and vinum, or'wine,' and other words of that kind, be used in the plural, but not lacte (milk)? All these questions, I say, cannot be investigated, unravelled, and thrashed out by men of affairs in so busy a city; indeed, I see that you have been delayed even by these matters of which I have spoken, being intent, I suppose, on some business. So go now and inquire, when you chance to have leisure, whether any orator or poet, provided he be of that earlier band — that is to say, any classical or authoritative writer, not one of the common herd — has used quadriga or harenae.” Now Fronto asked us to look up these words, I think, not because he thought that they were to be found in any books of the early writers, but to rouse in us an interest in reading for the purpose of hunting down rare words. The one, then, which seemed the rarest, quadriga, I found used in the singular number in that book of Marcus Varro's Satires which is entitled Ecdemeticus. But I sought with less interest for an example of the plural harenae, because, except Gaius Caesar, no one among learned men has used that form, so far as I can recall.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.9
§ 19.9 The very neat reply of Antonius Julianus to certain Greeks at a banquet. A YOUNG man of equestrian rank from the land of Asia, gifted by nature, well off in manners and fortune, with a taste and talent for music, was celebrating the anniversary of the day on which he began life by giving a dinner to his friends and teachers in a little country place near the city. There had come with us then to that dinner the rhetorician Antonius Julianus, a public teacher of young men, who spoke in the Spanish manner, but was very eloquent, besides being well acquainted with our early literature. When there was an end of eating and drinking, and the time came for conversation, Julianus asked that the singers and lyre-players be produced, the most skilful of both sexes, whom he knew that the young man had at hand. And when the boys and girls were brought in, they sang in a most charming way several odes of Anacreon and Sappho, as well as some erotic elegies of more recent poets that were sweet and graceful. But we were especially pleased with some delightful verses of Anacreon, written in his old age, which I noted down, in order that sometimes the toil and worry of this task of mine might find relief in the sweetness of poetical compositions: Shaping the silver, Hephaestus, Make me no panoply, pray; What do I care for war's combats? Make me a drinking cup rather, Deep as you ever can make it; Carve on it no stars and no wains; What care I, pray, for the Pleiads, What for the star of Bootes? Make vines, and clusters upon them, Treading them Love and Bathyllus, Made of pure gold, with Lyaeus. Then several Greeks who were present at that dinner, men of refinement and not without considerable acquaintance also with our literature, began to attack and assail Julianus the rhetorician as altogether barbarous and rustic, since he was sprung from the land of Spain, was a mere ranter of violent and noisy speech, and taught exercises in a tongue which had no charm and no sweetness of Venus and the Muse; and they asked him more than once what he thought of Anacreon and the other poets of that kind, and whether any of our bards had written such smooth-flowing and delightful poems; “except,” said they, “perhaps a few of Catullus and also possibly a few of Calvus; for the compositions of Laevius were involved, those of Hortensius without elegance, of Cinna harsh, of Memmius rude, and in short those of all the poets without polish or melody.” Then Julianus, filled with anger and indignation, spoke as follows in behalf of his mother tongue, as if for his altars and his fires: “I must indeed grant you that in such licentiousness and baseness you would outdo Alcinus and that as you outstrip us in the pleasures of adornment and of food, so you do also in the wantonness of your ditties. But lest you should condemn us, that is, the Latin race, as lacking in Aphrodite's charm, just as if we were barbarous and ignorant, allow me, I pray, to cover my head with my cloak (as they say Socrates did when making somewhat indelicate remarks), and hear and learn that our forefathers also were lovers and devoted to Venus before those poets whom you have named.” Then lying upon his back with veiled head, he chanted in exceedingly sweet tones some verses of Valerius Aedituus, an early poet, and also of Porcius Licinus and Quintus Catulus; and I think that nothing can be found neater, more graceful, more polished and more terse than those verses, either in Greek or in Latin: The verses of Aedituus are as follows: When, Pamphila, I try to tell my love, What shall I ask of you? Words fail my lips, A sudden sweat o'erflows my ardent breast; Thus fond and silent, I refrain and die. And he also added other verses of the same poet, no less sweet than the former ones: O Phileros, why a torch, that we need not? Just as we are we'll go, our hearts aflame. That flame no wild wind's blast can ever quench, Or rain that falls torrential from the skies; Venus herself alone can quell her fire, No other force there is that has such power. He also recited the following verses of Porcius Licinus: O shepherds of the lambs, the ewes' young brood, Seek ye for fire? Come hither; man is fire. Touch I the wood with finger-tip, it burns; Your flock's a flame, all I behold is fire. The verses of Quintus Catulus were these: My soul has left me; it has fled, methinks, To Theotimus; he its refuge is. But what if I should beg that he refuse The truant to admit, but cast it out? I'll go to him; but what if I be caught? What shall I do? Queen Venus, lend me aid.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.10
§ 19.10 That the words praeter propter, which are in common use, were found also in Ennius. I REMEMBER that I once went with Julius Celsinus the Numidian to visit Cornelius Fronto, who was then seriously ill with the gout. When we arrived and were admitted, we found him lying on a Greek couch, and sitting around him a large number of men famous for learning, birth or fortune. By his side stood several builders, who had been summoned to construct some new baths and were exhibiting different plans for baths, drawn on little pieces of parchment. When he had selected one plan and specimen of their work, he inquired what the expense would be of completing that entire project. And when the architect had said that it would probably require about three hundred thousand sesterces, one of Fronto's friends said, “And another fifty thousand, more or less (praeterpropter).” Then Fronto, interrupting the conversation which he had begun to hold about the expense of the baths, and looking at the friend who had said that another fifty thousand would be needed praeterpropter, asked him what that word meant. And the friend replied: "'That word is not my own, for you may hear many men using it; but what the word means you must ask from a grammarian, not from me"; and at the same time he pointed out a grammarian of no little fame as a teacher at Rome, who was sitting there with them. Then the grammarian, surprised by the uncertainty about a familiar and much used word, said: “We inquire about something which does not at all deserve the honour of investigation, for this is some utterly plebeian expression or other, better known in the talk of mechanics than in that of cultivated men.” But Fronto, raising his voice and with a more earnest expression, said: “Sir, does this word seem to you so degraded and utterly faulty, when Marcus Cato and Marcus Varro, and the early writers in general, have used it as necessary and as good Latin?” And thereupon Julius Celsinus reminded him that also in the tragedy of Ennius entitled Iphigeina the very word about which we were inquiring was found, and that it was more frequently corrupted by the grammarians than explained. Consequently, he at once asked that the Iphigenia of Quintus Ennius be brought and in a chorus of that tragedy we read these lines: That man in truth who knows not leisure's use More trouble has than one by tasks pursued; For he who has a task must be performed, Devotes himself to that with heart and soul; The idle mind knows not what'tis it wants. With us it is the same; for not at home Are we nor in the field; from place to place We haste; and once arrived, we would be gone. Aimless we drift, we live but more or less (praeterpropter). When this had been read there, then Fronto said to the grammarian, who was already wavering: “Have you heard, most worthy master, that your Ennius used praeterpropter, and that too in an expression of opinion resembling the austerest diatribes of the philosophers? We beg you then to tell us, since we are now investigating a word used by Ennius, what the hidden meaning is in this line: Aimless we drift, we live but more or less.” And the grammarian, in a profuse sweat and blushing deeply, since many of the company were laughing long and loud at this, got up, saying as he left: “I will tell you at a later time, when we are alone, Fronto, in order that ignorant folk may not hear and learn.” And so we all rose, leaving the consideration of the word at that point.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.11
§ 19.11 He gives some amatory verses of Plato, with which the philosopher amused himself when he was a very young man and was contending for the tragic prize. HERE are two Greek verses that are famous and deemed worthy of remembrance by many learned men because of their charm and graceful terseness. There are in fact not a few ancient writers who declare that they are the work of the philosopher Plato, with which he amused himself in his youth, while at the same time he was beginning his literary career by writing tragedies. My soul, when I kissed Agathon, did pass My lips; as though, poor soul,'would leap across. This distich a friend of mine, a young man no stranger to the Muses, has paraphrased somewhat boldly and freely in a number of lines. And since they seemed to me not undeserving of remembrance, I have added them here: When with my parted lips my love I kiss, And quaff the breath's sweet balm from open mouth, Smitten with love my soul mounts to my lips, And through my love's soft mouth its way would take, Passing the open gateway of the lips. But if our kiss, delayed, had been prolonged, By love's fire swayed my soul that way had ta'en, And left me. Faith, a wondrous thing it were, If I should die, but live within my love.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.12
§ 19.12 A discourse of Herodes Atticus on the power and nature of pain, and a confirmation of his view by the example of an ignorant countryman who cut down fruit-trees along with thorns. I ONCE heard Herodes Atticus, the ex-consul, holding forth at Athens in the Greek language, in which he far surpassed almost all the men of our time in distinction, fluency, and elegance of diction. He was speaking at the time against the ἀπάθεια, or “lack of feeling” of the Stoics, in consequence of having been assailed by one of that sect, who alleged that he did not endure the grief which he felt at the death of a beloved boy with sufficient wisdom and fortitude. The sense of the discourse, so far as I remember, was as follows: that no man, who felt and thought normally, could be wholly exempt and free from those emotions of the mind, which he called πάθη, caused by sorrow, desire, fear, anger and pleasure; and even if he could so resist them as to be free from them altogether, he would not be better off, since his mind would grow weak and sluggish, being deprived of the support of certain emotions, as of a highly necessary stimulus. For he declared that those feelings and impulses of the mind, though they become faults when excessive, are connected and involved in certain powers and activities of the intellect; and therefore, if we should in our ignorance eradicate them altogether, there would be danger lest we lose also the good and useful qualities of the mind which are connected with them. Therefore he thought that they ought to be regulated, and pruned skilfully and carefully, so that those only should be removed which are unsuitable and unnatural, lest in fact that should happen which once (according to the story) befell an ignorant and rude Thracian in cultivating a field which he had bought. “When a man of Thrace,” said he, “from a remote and barbarous land, and unskilled in agriculture, had moved into a more civilized country, in order to lead a less wild life, he bought a farm planted with olives and vines. Knowing nothing at all about the care of vines or trees, he chanced to see a neighbour cutting down the thorns which had sprung up high and wide, pruning his ash-trees almost to their tops, pulling up the suckers of his vines which had spread over the earth from the main roots, and cutting off the tall straight shoots on his fruit and olive trees. He drew near and asked why the other was making such havoc of his wood and leaves. The neighbour answered;'In order to make the field clean and neat and the trees and vines more productive.' The Thracian left his neighbour with thanks, rejoicing that he had gained some knowledge of farming. Then he took his sickle and axe; and thereupon in his pitiful ignorance the fellow cuts down all his vines and olives, lopping off the richest branches of the trees and the most fruitful shoots of the vines, and, with the idea of clearing up his place, he pulls up all the shrubs and shoots fit for bearing fruits and crops, along with the brambles and thorns, having learnt assurance at a ruinous price and acquired boldness in error through faulty imitation. Thus it is,” said Herodes, “that those disciples of insensibility, wishing to be thought calm, courageous and steadfast because of showing neither desire nor grief, neither wrath nor joy, root out all the more vigorous emotions of the mind, and grow old in the torpor of a sluggish and, as it were, nerveless life.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.13
§ 19.13 That what we call pumiliones the Greeks term νάνοι. CORNELIUS FRONTO, Festus Postumius, and Sulpicius Apollinaris chanced to be standing and talking together in the vestibule of the Palace; and I, being near by with some companions, eagerly listened to their conversations on literary subjects. Then said Fronto to Apollinaris: “I pray you, Sir, inform me whether I was right in forbearing to call men of excessively small stature nam and in preferring the term pumiliones; for I remembered that the latter word appears in the books of early writers, while I thought that nam was vulgar and barbarous.” “It is true,” replied Apollinaris, that the word nam is frequent in the language of the ignorant vulgar; yet it is not barbarous, but is thought to be of Greek origin; for the Greeks called men of short and low stature, rising but little above the ground, νάνοι, or'dwarfs,' using that word by the application of a certain etymological principle corresponding with its meaning, and if my memory is not at fault," said he, “it occurs in the comedy of Aristophanes entitled ῾ολκάδες, or The Cargo Boats. But this word would have been given citizenship by you, or established in a Latin colony, if you had deigned to use it, and it would be very much more acceptable than the low and vulgar words which Laberius introduced into the Latin language.” Thereupon Postumius Festus said to a Latin grammarian, a friend of Fronto's: “ Apollinaris has told us that nam is a Greek word; do you inform us whether it is good Latin, when it is used, as it commonly is, of small mules or ponies, and in what author it is found.” And that grammarian, a man very well versed in knowledge of the early literature, said: “If I am not committing sacrilege in giving my opinion of any Greek or Latin word in the presence of Apollinaris, I venture to reply to your inquiry, Festus, that the word is Latin and is found in the poems of Helvius Cinna, a poet neither obscure nor without learning” And he gave the verses themselves, which I have added, since I chanced to remember them: But now through Genunanian willow groves the wagon hurries me with dwarf steeds (bigis nanis) twain.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:19.14
§ 19.14 That Marcus Varro and Publius Nigidius, the most learned Romans of their time, were contemporaries of Caesar and Cicero, and that the commentaries of Nigidius, because of their obscurity and subtlety, did not become popular. THE time of Marcus Cicero and Gaius Caesar had few men of surpassing eloquence, but in encyclopaedic learning and in the varied sciences by which humanity is ennobled it possesses two towering figures in Marcus Varro and Publius Nigidius. Now the records of knowledge and learning left in written form by Varro are familiar and in general use, the observations of Nigidius, however, are not so widely known, but their obscurity and subtlety have caused them to be neglected, as of little practical value. As a specimen I may cite what I read a short time ago in his work entitled Grammatical Notes; from this book I have made a few extracts, as an example of the nature of his writings. When discussing the nature and order of the letters which the grammarians call vocales, or “vowels,” he wrote the following, which I leave unexplained, in order to test my readers' powers of application: “A and o,” he says, “always stand first in diphthongs, i and u always second, e both follows and precedes; it precedes in Euripus, follows in Aemilius. If anyone supposes that u precedes in the words Valeriuis, Vannonis, and Volusius, or that i precedes iniampridem (long ago), iecur (liver), iocis (joke), and iucundus (agreeable), he will be wrong, for when these letters precede, they are in fact not vowels.” These words also are from the same book: “Between the letters n and g another element is introduced, as in the words aguis ( snake ), angari, ancora (anchor), increpat (chides), incurrit (runs upon), and ingenuus (free-born). In all these we have, not a true n, but a so-called n adullerinum. For the tongue shows that it is not an ordinary n; since if it were that sound, the tongue would touch the palate in making it.” Then in another place we find this: “I do not charge those Greeks with so great ignorance in writing ou (-ū) with o and v, as I do those who wrote ei (=ī) with e and i; for the former the Greeks lid from necessity, in the latter case there was no compulsion.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:20.1
§ 20.1 A discussion of the jurist Sextus Caecilius and the philosopher Favorinus about the laws of the Twelve Tables. SEXTUS CAECILIUS was famed for his knowledge, experience and authority in the science of jurisprudence and in understanding and interpreting the laws of the Roman people. It happened that as we were waiting to pay our respects to Caesar, the philosopher Favorinus met and accosted Caecilius in the Palatine square in my presence and that of several others. In the conversation which they carried on at the time mention was made of the laws of the decemvirs, which the board of ten appointed by the people for that purpose wrote and inscribed upon twelve tablets. When Sextus Caecilius, who had examined and studied the laws of many cities, said that they were drawn up in the most choice and concise terms, Favorinus rejoined: “It may be as you say in the greater part of those laws; for I read your twelve tables with as eager interest as I did the twelve books of Plato On the Laws. But some of them seem to me to be either very obscure or very cruel, or on the other hand too mild and lenient, or by no means to be taken exactly as they are written.” “As for the obscurities,” said Sextus Caecilius, “let us not charge those to the fault of the makers of the laws, but to the ignorance of those who cannot follow their meaning, although they also who do not fully understand what is written may he excused. For long lapse of time has rendered old words and customs obsolete, and it is in the light of those words and customs that the sense of the laws is to be understood. As a matter of fact, the laws were compiled and written in the three hundredth year after the founding of Rome, and from that time until today is clearly not less than six hundred years. But what can be looked upon as cruel in those laws? Unless you think a law is cruel which punishes with death a judge or arbiter appointed by law, who has been convicted of taking a bribe for rendering his decision, or which hands over a thief caught in the act to be the slave of the man from whom he stole, and makes it lawful to kill a robber who comes by night. Tell me, I pray, tell me, you deep student of philosophy, whether you think that the perfidy of a juror who sells his oath contrary to all laws, human and divine, or the intolerable audacity of an open theft, or the treacherous violence of a nocturnal footpad, does not deserve the penalty of death?” “Don't ask me,” said Favorinus, “what I think. For you know that, according to the practice of the sect to which I belong, I am accustomed rather to inquire than to decide. But the Roman people is a judge neither insignificant nor contemptible, and while they thought that such crimes ought to be punished, they yet believed that punishments of that kind were too severe; for they have allowed the laws which prescribed such excessive penalties to die out from disuse and old age. Just so they considered it also an inhuman provision, that if a man has been summoned to court, and being disabled through illness or years is too weak to walk,'a covered waggon he need not spread'; but the man is carried out and placed upon a beast of burden and conveyed from his home to the praetor in the comitium, as if he were a living corpse. For why should one who is a prey to illness, and unable to appear, be haled into court at the demand of his adversary, clinging to a draught animal? But as for my statement that some laws were excessively lenient, do not you yourself think that law too lax, which reads as follows with regard to the penalty for an injury:'If anyone has inflicted an injury upon another, let him be fined twenty-five asses'? For who will be found so poor that twenty-five asses would keep him from inflicting an injury if he desired to? And therefore your friend Labeo also, in the work which he wrote On the Twelve Tables, expressing his disapproval of that law, says: One Lucius Veratius was an exceedingly wicked man and of cruel brutality. He used to amuse himself by striking free men in the face with his open hand. A slave followed him with a purse full of asses; as often as he had buffeted anyone, he ordered twenty-five asses to be counted out at once, according to the provision of the Twelve Tables' Therefore,” he continued, “the praetors afterwards decided that this law was obsolete and invalid and declared that they would appoint arbiters to appraise damages. Again, some things in those laws obviously cannot, a. have said, even be carried out; for instance, the one referring to retaliation, which reads as follows, if my memory is correct:'If one has broken another's limb, there shall be retaliation, unless a compromise be made.' Now not to mention the cruelty of the vengeance, the exaction even of a just retaliation is impossible. For if one whose limb has been broken by another wishes to retaliate by breaking a limb of has injurer, can he succeed, pray, in breaking the limb in exactly the same manner? In this case there first arises this insoluble difficulty. What about one who has broken another's limb unintentionally? For what has been done unintentionally ought to be retaliated unintentionally. For a chance blow and an intentional one do not fall under the same category of retaliation. How then will it be possible to imitate unintentional action, when in retaliating one has not the right of intention, but of unintention? But if he break it intentionally, the offender will certainly not allow himself to be injured more deeply or more severely; but by what weight and measure this can be avoided, I do not understand. Nay more, if retaliation is taken to a greater extent or differently, it will be a matter of absurd cruelty that a counter-action for retaliation should arise and an endless interchange of retaliation take place. But that enormity of cutting and dividing a man's body, if an individual is brought to trial for debt and adjudged to several creditors, I do not care to remember, and I am ashamed to mention it. For what can seem more savage, what more inconsistent with humanity, than for the limbs of a poor debtor to be barbarously butchered and sold, just as today his goods are divided and sold?” Then Sextus Caecilius, throwing both arms about Favorinus, said: “You are indeed the one man within my memory who is most familiar both with Greek and with Roman lore. For what philosopher is skilled and learned in the laws of his sect to the extent to which you are thoroughly versed in our decemviral legislation? But yet, I pray you, depart for a little from that academic manner of arguing of yours, and laying aside the passion for attacking or defending anything whatever according to your inclination, consider more seriously what is the nature of the details which you have censured, and do not scorn those ancient laws merely because there are many of them which even the Roman people have now ceased to use. For you surely are not unaware that according to the manners of the times, the conditions of governments, considerations of immediate utility, and the vehemence of the vices which are to be remedied, the advantages and remedies offered by the laws are often changed and modified, and do not remain in the same condition; on the contrary, like the face of heaven and the sea, they vary according to the seasons of circumstances and of fortune. What seemed more salutary than that law of Stolo limiting the number of acres? What more expedient than the bill of Voconius regulating the inheritances of women? What was thought so necessary for checking the luxury of the citizens as the law of Licinius and Fannius and other sumptuary laws? Yet all these have been wiped out and buried by the wealth of the State, as if by the waves of a swelling sea. But why did that law appear to you inhumane which in my opinion is the most humane of all; that law, namely, which provides that a beast be furnished for a sick or aged man who is called into court? The words of that law,'if he summon him to court,' are as follows: If disease or age be a hindrance, let the summoner provide a beast; if he does not wish, he need not spread a covered waggon.' Do you by any chance suppose that morbus (disease) here means a dangerous sickness with a high fever and ague, and that iumentum (beast) means only one animal, capable of carrying someone on his back; and is it for that reason that you think it was inhumane for a man lying sick-a-bed at his home to be placed upon a beast and hurried off to court? That is by no means the case, my dear Favorinus. For morbus in that law does not mean a serious complaint attended with fever, but some defect of weakness and indisposition, not involving danger to life. On the contrary, a more severe disorder, having the power of material injury, the writers of those laws call in another place, not morbus alone, but morbus sonticus, or'a serious disease.' iumentum also does not have only the meaning which it has at present, but it might even mean a vehicle drawn by yoked animals; for our forefathers formed iumentum from iungo. Furthermore arcera was the name for a waggon, enclosed and shut in on all sides like a great chest (arca), and strewn with robes, and in it men who were too ill or old used to be carried lying down. What cruelty then does there seem to you to be in deciding that a waggon ought to be furnished for a poor or needy man who was called into court, if haply through lameness or some other mischance he was unable to walk; and in not requiring that'a closed carriage' be luxuriously strewn, when a conveyance of any kind was sufficient for the invalid? And they made that decision, in order that the excuse of a diseased body might not give perpetual immunity to those who neglected their obligations and put off suits at law; but foolishly. ”They assessed inflicted injuries at twenty-five asses. They did not, my dear Favorinus, by any means compensate all injuries by that trifling sum, although even that small number of asses meant a heavy weight of copper; for the as which the people then used weighed a pound. But more cruel injuries, such as breaking a bone, inflicted not only on freemen but even on slaves, they punished with a heavier fine, and for some injuries they even prescribed retaliation. This very law of retaliation, my dear sir, you criticized somewhat unfairly, saying with facetious captiousness that it was impossible to carry it out, since injury and retaliation could not be exactly alike, and because it was not easy to break a limb in such a way as to be an exact aequilibrium, or'balance,' as you put it, of the breaking of the other man's. It is true, my dear Favorinus, that to make exact retaliation is very difficult. But the Ten, wishing by retaliation to diminish and abolish such violence as beating and injuring, thought that men ought to be restrained by the fear of such a penalty; and they did not think that so much consideration ought to be had for one who broke another's limb, and refused to compromise by buying off retaliation, as to consider that the question ought to be raised whether he broke it intentionally or not, nor did they make the retaliation in such a case exactly equivalent or weigh it in a balance; but they aimed rather at exacting the same spirit and the same violence in breaking the same part of the body, but not also the same result, since the degree of intention can be determined, but the effect of a chance blow cannot. “But if this is as I say, and as the condition of fairness itself dictates, those mutual retaliations that you imagined were certainly rather ingenious than real. But since you think that even this kind of punishment is cruel, what cruelty, pray, is there in doing the same thing to you which you have done to another? especially when you have the opportunity of compromising, and when it is not necessary for you to suffer retaliation unless you choose that alternative. As for your idea that the praetors' edict was preferable in taking cognizance of injuries, I want you to realize this, that this retaliation also was wont of necessity to be subject to the discretion of a judge. For if a defendant, who refused to compromise, did not obey the judge who ordered retaliation, the judge considered the case and fined the man a sum of money; so that, if the defendant thought the compromise hard and the retaliation cruel, the severity of the law was limited to a fine. ”It remains for me to answer your belief that the cutting and division of a man's body is most inhuman. It was by the exercise and cultivation of all the virtues that the Roman people sprang from a lowly origin to such a height of greatness, but most of all and in particular they cultivated integrity and regarded it as sacred, whether public or private. Thus for the purpose of vindicating the public honour it surrendered its consuls, most distinguished men, to the enemy, thus it maintained that a client taken under a man's protection should be held dearer than his relatives and protected against his own kindred, nor was any crime thought to be worse than if anyone was convicted of having defrauded a client. This degree of faith our forefathers ordained, not only in public functions, but also in private contracts, and particularly in the use and interchange of borrowed money; for they thought that this aid to temporary need, which is made necessary by the common intercourse of life, was lost, if perfidy on the part of debtors escaped with a slight punishment. Therefore in the case of those liable for an acknowledged debt thirty days were allowed for raising the money to satisfy the obligation, and those days the Ten called'legitimate,' as if they formed a kind of moratorium, that is to say, a cessation and interruption of judicial proceedings, during which no legal action could be taken against them. “Then later, unless they had paid the debt, they were summoned before the praetor and were by him made over to those to whom they had been adjudged; and they were also fastened in the stocks or in fetters. For that, I think, is the meaning of these words: For a confessed debt and for judgment duly pronounced let thirty days be the legitimate time. Then let there be a laying on of hands, bring him to court. If he does not satisfy the judgment, or unless someone in the presence of the magistrate intervenes as a surety, let the creditor take him home and fasten him in stocks or in fetters. Let him fasten him with not less than fifteen pounds weight, or if he wish, with more. If the prisoner wishes, he may live at his own expense. If he does not, the creditor shall give him a pound of meal each day. If he wishes, he may give more.' In the meantime the right of compromising the case was allowed, and if they did not compromise it, debtors were confined for sixty days. During that time on three successive market-days they were brought before the praetor and the amount of the judgment against them was announced. But on the third day they were capitally condemned or sent across the Tiber to be sold abroad. But they made this capital punishment horrible by a show of cruelty and fearful by unusual terrors, for the sake, as I have said, of making faith sacred. For if there were several, to whom the debtor had been adjudged, the laws allowed them to cut the man who had been made over to them in pieces, if they wished, and share his body. And indeed I will quote the very words of the law, less haply you should think that I shrink from their odium:'On the third market day,' it says,'let them cut him up; if they have cut more or less, let them not be held accountable.' Nothing surely is more merciless, nothing less humane, unless, as is evident on the face of it, such a cruel punishment was threatened in order that they might never have to resort to it. For nowadays we see many condemned and bound, because worthless men despise the punishment of bondage; but I have never read or heard of anyone having been cut up in ancient days, since the severity of that law could not be scorned. Or do you suppose, Favorinus, that if the penalty provided by the Twelve Tables for false witness had not become obsolete, and if now, as formerly, one who was convicted of giving false witness was hurled from the Tarpeian Rock, that we should see so many guilty of lying on the witness stand? Severity in punishing crime is often the cause of upright and careful living. The story of the Alban Mettius Fufetius is not unknown even to me, although I read few books of that kind. Since he had treacherously broken a pact and agreement made with the king of the Roman people, he was bound to two four-horse teams and torn asunder as the horses rushed in opposite directions. Who denies that this is an unusual and cruel punishment? but see what the most refined of poets says: But you, O Alban, should have kept your word.” When Sextus Caecilius had said these and other things with the approval of all who were present, including Favorinus himself, it was announced that Caesar was now receiving, and we separated.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:20.2
§ 20.2 The meaning of the word siticines in a speech of Marcus Cato's. THE word siticines is found in a speech of Marcus Cato entitled Let not a Former Official retain his power, when his Successor arrives. He speaks of siticines, liticines and tubicines. But Caesellius Vindex, in his Notes on Early Words, declares that he knows that liticines played upon the lituus, or “clarion,” and tibicines on the tuba, or “trumpet,” but, being a man of conscientious honesty, he says that he does not know what instrument the siticines used. But I have found in the Miscellanies of Ateius Capito that those were called siticines who played in the presence of those who were “laid away” (sitos), that is, who were dead and buried; and that they had a special kind of trumpet on which they played, differing from those of the other trumpeters.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:20.3
§ 20.3 Why the poet Lucius Accius in his Pragmatica said that sicinnistae was a “nebulous word.” THOSE whom the vulgar call sicinistae, persons who speak more accurately have called sicinnistae with a double n. For the sicinnium was an ancient form of dance. Moreover, those who now stand and sing formerly danced as they sang. Lucius Accius used this word in his Pragmatica, and says that sicinnistae are so called by a “nebulous” (nebuloso) term, using the word “nebulous,” I suppose, because the reason for the term sicinnium was obscure.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:20.4
§ 20.4 That devotion to play-actors, and love of them, was shameful and disgraceful, with a quotation of the words of the philosopher Aristotle on that subject. A WEALTHY young man, a pupil of the philosopher Taurus, was devoted to, and delighted in, the society of comic and tragic actors and musicians, as if they were freemen. Now in Greek they call artists of that kind οἱ περὶ διόνυσον τεχνῖται or “craftsmen of Dionysus.” Taurus, wishing to wean that youth from the intimacy and companionship of men connected with the stage, sent him these words extracted from the work of Aristotle entitled Universal Questions, and bade him read it over every day: “Why are the craftsmen of Dionysus for the most part worthless fellows? Is it because they are least of all familiar with reading and philosophy, since the greater part of their life is given to their essential pursuits and much of their time is spent in intemperance and sometimes in poverty too? For both of these things are incentives to wickedness.”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:20.5
§ 20.5 Specimens of letters of King Alexander and the philosopher Aristotle. just as they were written; with a rendering of the same into Latin. THE philosopher Aristotle, the teacher of king Alexander, is said to have had two forms of the lectures and instructions which he delivered to his pupils. One of these was the kind called ἐξωτερικά, or “exoteric,” the other ἀκροατικά, or “acroatic.” Those were called “exoteric” which gave training in rhetorical exercises, logical subtlety, and acquaintance with politics; those were called “acroatic” in which a more profound and recondite philosophy was discussed, which related to the contemplation of nature or dialectic discussions. To the practice of the “acroatic” training which I have mentioned he devoted the morning hours in the Lyceum, and he did not ordinarily admit any pupil to it until he had tested his ability, his elementary knowledge, and his zeal and devotion to study. The exoteric lectures and exercises in speaking lie held at the same place in the evening and opened them generally to young men without distinction. This he called δειλινὸς περίπατος, or “the evening walk,” the other which I have mentioned above, ἑωθινός, or “the morning walk”; for on both occasions he walked as he spoke. He also divided his books on all these subjects into two divisions, calling one set “exoteric,” the other “acroatic.” When King Alexander knew that he had published those books of the “acroatic” set, although at that time the king was keeping almost all of Asia in a state of panic by his deeds of arms, and was pressing King Darius himself hard by attacks and victories, yet in the midst of such urgent affairs he sent a letter to Aristotle, saying that the philosopher had not done right in publishing the books and so revealing to the public the acroatic training, in which he himself had been instructed. “For in what other way,” said he, “can I excel the rest, it that instruction which I have received from you becomes the common property of all the world? For I would rather be first in learning than in wealth and power.” Aristotle replied to him to this purport: “Know that the acroatic books, which you complain have been made public and not hidden as if they contained secrets, have neither been made public nor hidden, since they can be understood only by those who have heard my lectures.” I have added copies of both letters, taken from the book of the philosopher Andronicus. I was particularly charmed with the slender thread of elegant brevity in the letter of each. " Alexander to Aristotle, Greeting. “You have not done right in publishing your acroatic lectures; for wherein, pray, shall I differ from other men, if these lectures, by which I was instructed, become the common property of all? As for me, I should wish to excel in acquaintance with what is noblest, rather than in power. Farewell.” " Aristotle to King Alexander, Greeting. “You have written to me regarding my acroatic lectures, thinking that I ought to have kept them secret. Know then that they have both been made public and not made public. For they are intelligible only to those who have heard me. Farewell, King Alexander.” When trying, in the phrase ξυνετοὶ γὰρ εἰσιν, to express the word ξυνετοί by a single Latin term, I found nothing better than what is written by Marcus Cato in the sixth book of his Origins: “Therefore I think the information is more comprehensible (cognobilior).”
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:20.6
§ 20.6 It is asked and discussed whether it is more correct to say habeo curam vestri, or vestrum. I asked Sulpicius Apollinaris, when I was studying with him at Rome in my youth, on what principle people said habeo curam vestri, or “I have care for you,” and misereor vestri, or “I pity you,” and what he thought the nominative case of vestri was in such connections. Thereupon he answered me as follows: “You ask something of me about which I too have long been in a state of uncertainty. For it seems to me that one ought to say, not vestri, but vestrum, just as the Greeks say ἐπιμελοῦμαι ὑμῶν and κήδομαι ὑμῶν, where ὑμῶν is translated by vestrum more fittingly than by vestri, having vos for the naming case, or the'direct' case, as you called it. Yet in not a few places,” said he, "I find nostri and vestri, not nostrum or vestrum. Thus Lucius Sulla says, in the second book of his Autobiography: “But if it is possible that even now you think of me (nostri), and believe me worthy to be your fellow citizen rather than your enemy, and to fight for you rather than against you, this will surely be due to my services and those of my forefathers.” Also Terence in the Phormio: Of such a nature are we almost all, That with ourselves (nostri) we discontented are. Afranius wrote in an Italian play: At last some god or other pitied us (nostri). And Laberius in the Necyomantia: Detained for many days, he us (nostri) forgot. “There is no doubt,” said he, “that in all these phrases:'we are discontented,' he forgot us,''he pitied us' (nostri), the same case is used as in'I repent' (mei paenitet),'he pitied me' (mei miseritus est),' he forgot me' (mei oblitus est). But mei is the case of questioning, which the grammarians call'genitive,' and comes from ego; and the plural of ego is nos. Tui also is formed from tu, and the plural of this is vos. For Plautus has thus declined those pronouns in the Pseudolus, in the following lines: O Sir, could I be told without your words What wretchedness so grievous troubles you, I would have spared the trouble of two men: My own (mei), of asking you, and yours (tis/tui), of answering. For Plautus here uses mei, not from meus, but from ego. Therefore if you should choose to say patrem mei instead of patrem meum, as the Greeks say τὸν πατέρα μου, it would be unusual, but surely correct, and on the same principle that Plautus used labori mei,'the trouble of me,' for labori meo,' my trouble.' The same rule applies also in the plural number, where Gracchus said misereri vestrum and Marcus Cicero contentio vestrum, and contention nostrum, and on the same principle Quadrigarius in the nineteenth book of his Annals wrote these words:' Gaius Marius, when pray will you pity us (nostrum) and the State?' Why then should Terence use paenitet nostri, not nostrum, and Afranius nostri miseritus est, not nostrum? Indeed,” said he, “no reason for this occurs to me except the authority of a certain ancient usage, which was not too anxious or scrupulous in the use of language. For just as vestrorum is often used for vestrum, as in this line from the Mustellaria of Plautus, The greatest part of you (vestrorum) know that is true (where vestrorum is for vestrum), in the same way vestri also is sometimes used for vestrum. But undoubtedly one who desires to speak very correctly will prefer vestrum to vestri. And therefore,” said he, “those have acted most arbitrarily who in many copies of Sallust have corrupted a thoroughly sound reading. For although he wrote in the Catiline:'Often your forefathers (maiores vestrum), pitying the Roman commons,' they erased vestrum and wrote vestri over it. And from this that error has grown and found its way into more manuscripts.” This is what I remember hearing from Apollinaris, and I noted down his very words at the time, exactly as they were spoken.
urn:cts:latinLit:phi1254.phi001:20.7
§ 20.7 How the opinions of the Greeks differ as to the number of Niobe's children. A STRANGE and indeed almost absurd variation is to be noted in the Greek poets as to the number of Niobe's children. For Homer says that she had six sons and six daughters; Euripides, seven of each; Sappho, nine; Bacchylides and Pindar, ten; while certain other writers have said that there were only three sons and three daughters.

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.