§ 1.1  Plutarch's account of the method of comparison and the calculations which the philosopher Pythagoras used in determining the great height of Hercules, while the hero was living among men. In the treatise which he wrote on the mental and physical endowment and achievements of Hercules while he was among men, Plutarch says that the philosopher Pythagoras reasoned sagaciously and acutely in determining and measuring the hero's superiority in size and stature. For since it was generally agreed that Hercules paced off the race-course of the stadium at Pisa, near the temple of Olympian Zeus, and made it six hundred feet long, and since the other courses in the land of Greece, constructed later by other men, were indeed six hundred feet in length, but yet were somewhat shorter than that at Olympia, he readily concluded by a process of comparison that the measured length of Hercules' foot was greater than that of other men in the same proportion as the course at Olympia was longer than the other stadia. Then, having ascertained the size of Hercules' foot, he made a calculation of the bodily height suited to that measure, based upon the natural proportion of all parts of the body, and thus arrived at the logical conclusion that Hercules was as much taller than other men as the course at Olympia exceeded the others that had been constructed with the same number of feet.

§ 1.2  The apt use made by Herodes Atticus, the ex-consul, in reply to an arrogant and boastful young fellow, a student of philosophy in appearance only, of the passage in which Epictetus the Stoic humorously set apart the true Stoic from the mob of prating triflers who called themselves Stoics. While we were students at Athens, Herodes Atticus, a man of consular rank and of true Grecian eloquence, often invited me to his country houses near that city, in company with the honourable Servilianus and several others of our countrymen who had withdrawn from Rome to Greece in quest of culture. And there at that time, while we were with him at the villa called Cephisia, both in the heat of summer and under the burning autumnal sun, we protected ourselves against the trying temperature by the shade of its spacious groves, its long, soft promenades, the cool location of the house, its elegant baths with their abundance of sparkling water, and the charm of the villa as a while, which was everywhere melodious with plashing waters and tuneful birds. There was with us there at the time a young student of philosophy, of the Stoic school according to his own account, but intolerably loquacious and presuming. In the course of the conversations which are commonly carried on at table after dinner, this fellow often used to prate unseasonably, absurdly, and at immoderate length, on the principles of philosophy, maintaining that compared with himself all the Greek-speaking authorities, all wearers of the toga, and the Latin race in general were ignorant boors. As he spoke, he rattled off unfamiliar terms, the catchwords of syllogisms and dialectic tricks, declaring that no one but he could unravel the "master," the "resting," and the "heap" arguments, and other riddles of the kind. Furthermore, as to ethics, the nature of the human intellect, and the origin of the virtues with their duties and limits, or on the other hand the ills caused by disease and sin, and the wasting and destruction of the soul, he stoutly maintained that absolutely no one else had investigated, understood and mastered all these more thoroughly than himself. Further, he believed that torture, bodily pain and deadly peril could neither injure nor detract from the happy state and condition of life which, in his opinion, he had attained, and that no sorrow could even cloud the serenity of the Stoic's face and expression. Once when he was puffing out these empty boasts, and already all, weary of his prating, were thoroughly disgusted and longing for an end, Herodes, speaking in Greek as was his general custom, said: "Allow me, mightiest of philosophers, since we, whom you call laymen, cannot answer you, to read from a book of Epictetus, greatest of Stoics, what he thought and said about such big talk as that of yours." And he bade them bring the first volume of the Discourses of Epictetus, arranged by Arrian, in which that venerable old man with just severity rebukes those young men who, though calling themselves Stoics, showed neither virtue nor honest industry, but merely babbled of trifling propositions and of the fruits of their study of such elements as are taught to children. Then, when the book was brought, there was read the passage which I have appended, in which Epictetus with equal severity and humour set apart and separated from the true and genuine Stoic, who was beyond question without restraint or constraint, unembarrassed, free, prosperous and happy, that other mob of triflers who styled themselves Stoics, and casting the black soot of their verbiage before the eyes of their hearers, laid false claim to the name of the holiest of sects: "'Speak to me of good and evil.' — Listen: The wind, bearing me from Ilium, drove me to the Cicones. "Of all existing things some are good, some evil, and some indifferent. Now the good things are virtues and what partakes of them, the evil are vice and what partakes of vice, and the indifferent lie between these: wealth, health, life, death, pleasure, pain. — 10 'How do you know this?' — Hellanicus says so in his Egyptian History. For what difference does it make whether you say that, or that it was Diogenes in his Ethics or Chrysippus or Cleanthes? Have you then investigated any of these matters and formed an opinion of your own? Let me see how you are accustomed to act in a storm at sea. Do you recall this classification when the sail cracks and you cry aloud? If some idle fellow should stand beside you and say: 'Tell me, for Heaven's sake, what you told me before. It isn't a vice to suffer shipwreck, is it? It doesn't partake of vice, does it?' Would you not hurl a stick of wood at him and cry: 'What have we to do with you, fellow? We perish and you come and crack jokes.' But if Caesar should summon you to answer an accusation . . ." On hearing these words, that most arrogant of youths was mute, just as if the whole diatribe had been pronounced, not by Epictetus against others, but against himself by Herodes.

§ 1.3  The difficult decision which the Lacedemonian Chilo made to save a friend; and that one should consider scrupulously and anxiously whether one ought ever to do wrong in the interest of friends, with notes and quotations on that subject from the writings of Theophrastus and Marcus Cicero. Of Chilo the Lacedemonian, one of that famous group of sages, it is written in the books of those who have recorded the lives and deeds of distinguished men, that he, Chilo, at the close of his life, when death was already close upon him, thus addressed the friends about his bedside: "That very little of what I have said and done in the course of a long life calls for repentance, you yourselves may perhaps know. I, at any rate, at such a time as this do not deceive myself in believing that I have done nothing that it troubles me to remember, except for just one thing; and as to that it is not even now perfectly clear to me whether I did right or wrong. "I was judge with two others, and a friend's life was at stake. Therefore, either my friend must suffer capital punishment or violence must be done to the law. I considered for a long time how to remedy so difficult a situation. The course which I adopted seemed, in comparison with the alternative, the less objectionable; I myself secretly voted for conviction, but I persuaded my fellow judges to vote for acquittal. Thus I myself in a matter of such moment did my duty both as a judge and as a friend. But my action torments me with the fear that there may be something of treachery and guilt in having recommended to others, in the same case, at the same time, and in a common duty, a course for them contrary to what I thought best for myself." This Chilo, then, though a man of surpassing wisdom, was in doubt how far he ought to have gone counter to law and counter to equity for the sake of a friend, and that question distressed him even at the very end of his life. So too many subsequent students of philosophy, as appears in their works, have inquired very carefully and very anxiously, to use their own language, εἰ δεῖ βοηθεῖν τῷ φίλῳ παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ μέχρι πόσου καὶ ποῖα. That is to say, they inquired "whether one may sometimes act contrary to law or contrary to precedent in a friend's behalf, and under what circumstances and to what extent." 10 This problem has been discussed, as I have said, not only by many others, but also with extreme thoroughness by Theophrastus, the most conscientious and learned of the Peripatetic school; the discussion is found, if I remember correctly, in the first book of his treatise On Friendship. That work Cicero evidently read when he too was composing a work On Friendship. Now, the other material that Cicero thought proper to borrow from Theophrastus his talent and command of language enabled him to take and to translate with great taste and pertinence. but this particular topic which, as I have said, has been the object of much inquiry, and is the most difficult one of all, he passed over briefly and hurriedly, not reproducing the thoughtful and detailed argument of Theophrastus, but omitting his involved and as it were over-scrupulous discussion and merely calling attention in a few words to the nature of the problem. I have added Cicero's words, in case anyone should wish to verify my statement: "Therefore these are the limits which I think ought to be observed, namely: when the characters of friends are blameless, then there should be complete harmony of opinions and inclinations in everything without any exception; and, even if by some chance the wishes of a friend are not altogether honourable and require to be forwarded in matters which involve his life or reputation, we should turn aside from the straight path, provided, however, utter disgrace does not follow. For there are limits to the indulgence which can be allowed to friendship." "When it is a question," he says, "either of a friend's life or good name, we must turn aside from the straight path, to further even his dishonourable desire." But he does not tell us what the nature of that deviation ought to be, how far we may go to help him, and how dishonourable the nature of the friend's desire may be. But what does it avail me to know that I must turn aside from the straight path in the event of such dangers to my friends, provided I commit no act of utter disgrace, unless he also informs me what he regards as utter disgrace and, once having turned from the path of rectitude, how far I ought to go? "For," he says, "there are limits to the indulgence which can be allowed to friendship." But that is the very point on which we most need instruction, but which the teachers make least clear, namely, how far and to what degree indulgence must be allowed to friendship. The sage Chilo whom I mentioned before, turned from the path to save a friend. But I can see how far he went; for he gave unsound advice to save his friend. Yet even as to that he was in doubt up to his last hour whether he deserved criticism and censure. "Against one's fatherland," says Cicero, "one must not take up arms for a friend." That of course everybody knew, and "before Theognis was born," as Lucilius says. But what I ask and wish to know is this: when it is that one must act contrary to law and contrary to equity in a friend's behalf, albeit without doing violence to the public liberty and peace; and when it is necessary to turn aside from the path, as he himself put it, in what way and how much, under what circumstances, and to what extent that ought to be done. Pericles, the great Athenian, a man of noble character and endowed with all honourable achievements, declared his opinion — in a single instance, it is true, but yet very clearly. For when a friend asked him to perjure himself in court for his sake, he replied in these words: "One ought to aid one's friends, but only so far as the gods allow." Theophrastus, however, in the book that I have mentioned, discusses this very question more exhaustively and with more care and precision than Cicero. But even he in his exposition does not express an opinion about separate and individual action, nor with the corroborative evidence of examples, but treats classes of actions briefly and generally, in about the following terms. "A small and trifling amount of disgrace or infamy," he says, "should be incurred, if thereby great advantage may be gained for a friend; for the insignificant loss from impairment of honour is repaid and made good by the greater and more substantial honour gained by aiding a friend, and that slight break or rift, so to speak, in one's reputation is repaired by the buttress formed by the advantages gained for one's friend. "Nor ought we," says he, "to be influenced by mere terms, because my fair fame and the advantage of a friend under accusation are not of the same class. For such things must be estimated by their immediate weight and importance, not by verbal terms and the merits of the classes to which they belong. For when the interests of a friend are put into the balance with our own honour in matters of equal importance, or nearly so, our own honour unquestionably turns the scale; but when the advantage of a friend is far greater, but our sacrifice of reputation in a matter of no great moment is insignificant, then what is advantageous to a friend gains in importance in comparison with what is honourable for us, exactly as a great weight of bronze is more valuable than a tiny shred of gold." On this point I append Theophrastus' own words. "If such and such a thing belongs to a more valuable class, yet it is not true that some part of it, compared with a corresponding part of something else, will be preferable. This is not the case, for example, if gold is more valuable than bronze, and a portion of gold, compared with a portion of bronze of corresponding size, is obviously of more worth; but the number and size of the portions will have some influence on our decision." The philosopher Favorinus too, somewhat loosening and inclining the delicate balance of justice to suit the occasion, thus defined such an indulgence in favour: "That which among men is called favour is the relaxing of strictness in time of need." Later on Theophrastus again expressed himself to about this effect: "The relative importance and insignificance of things, and all these considerations of duty, are sometimes directed, controlled, and as it were steered by other external influences and other additional factors, so to say, arising from individuals, conditions and exigencies, as well as by the requirements of existing circumstances; and these influences, which it is difficult to reduce to rules, make them appear now justifiable and now unjustifiable." On these and similar topics Theophrastus wrote very discreetly, scrupulously and conscientiously, yet with more attention to analysis and discussion than with the intention or whether of arriving at a decision, since undoubtedly the variations in circumstances and exigencies, and the minute distinctions and differences, do not admit of a definite and universal rule that can be applied to individual cases; and it is such a rule, as I said at the beginning of this essay, of which we are in search. Now this Chilo, with whom I began this little discussion, is the author not only of some other wise and salutary precepts, but also of the following, which has been found particularly helpful, since it confines within due limits those two most ungovernable passions, love and hatred. "So love," said he, "as if you were possibly destined to hate; and in the same way, hate as if you might perhaps afterwards love." Of this same Chilo the philosopher Plutarch, in the first book of his treatise On the Soul, wrote as follows: "Chilo of old, having heard a man say that he had no enemy, asked him if he had no friend, believing that enmities necessarily followed and were involved in friendships."

§ 1.4  The care and fine taste with which Antonius Julianus examined the artful substitution of one word for another by Marcus Cicero in one of his orations. The rhetorician Antonius Julianus had an exceedingly noble and winning personality. He also possessed learning of a delightful and helpful sort, devoting great attention to the refinements of the writers of old and readily recalling them. Moreover, he inspected all the earlier literature with such care, weighing its merits and ferreting out its defects, that you might say that his judgment was perfect. This Julianus expressed the following opinion of the syllogism which is found in the speech of Marcus Tullius spoken In Defence of Gnaeus Plancius . but first I will quote the exact words on which he passed judgment: "And yet, a debt of money is a different thing from a debt of gratitude. For he who discharges a debt in money ceases forthwith to have that which he has paid, while one who continues in debts keeps what belongs to another. But in the case of a debt of gratitude, he who returns it has it; and he who has it returns it by the mere fact of having it. In the present instance I shall not cease to be Plancius' debtor if I pay this debt, nor should I be paying him any the less simply by feeling goodwill, if the present unfortunate situation had not occurred." "Here," said Julianus, "is to be sure a fine artistry in the way the words are marshalled, something well-rounded that charms the ear by its mere music; but it must be read with the privilege of a slight change in the meaning of one word in order to preserve the truth of the proposition. Now the comparison of a debt of gratitude with a pecuniary debt demands the use of the word 'debt' in both instances. For a debt of money and a debt of gratitude will seem to be properly compared, if we may say that both money and gratitude are owed; but let us consider what happens in the owing or paying of money, and on the other hand in the owing and paying of a debt of gratitude, if we retain the word 'debt' in both instances. Now Cicero," continued Julianus, "having said that a debt of money was a different thing from a debt of gratitude, in giving his reason for that statement applies the word 'owe' to money, but in the case of gratitude substitutes 'has' (i.e. 'feels') for 'owes'; for this is what he says: 'But in the case of a debt of gratitude, he who returns it has it; and he who has it returns it by the mere fact of having it." But that word 'has' does not exactly fit the proposed comparison. For it is the owing, and not the having, of gratitude that is compared with money, and therefore it would have been more consistent to say: 'He who owes pays by the mere fact of owing.' But it would be absurd and quite too forced if a debt of gratitude that was not yet paid should be said to be paid by the mere fact that it was owed. Therefore," said Julianus, "Cicero made a change and substituted a similar word for one which he had dropped, in order to seem to have kept the idea of a comparison of debts, and at the same time retained the careful balance of his period." Thus it was that Julianus elucidated and criticized passages in the earlier literature, which a select group of young men read under his guidance.

§ 1.5  That the orator Demosthenes was criticized because of his care for his person and attire, and taunted with foppishness; and that the orator Hortensius also, because of similar foppishness and the use of theatrical gestures when he spoke, was nicknamed Dionysia the dancing-girl. It is said that Demosthenes in his dress and other personal habits was excessively spruce, elegant and studied. It was for that reason that he was taunted by his rivals and opponents with his "exquisite, pretty mantles" and "soft, pretty tunics"; for that reason, too, that they did not refrain from applying to him foul and shameful epithets, alleging that he was no man and was even guilty of unnatural vice. In like manner Quintus Hortensius, quite the most renowned orator of his time with the exception of Marcus Tullius, because he dressed with extreme foppishness, arranged the folds of his toga with great care and exactness, and in speaking used his hands to excess in lively gestures, was assailed with gibes and shameful charges; and many taunts were hurled at him, even while he was pleading in court, for appearing like an actor. But when Sulla was on trial, and Lucius Torquatus, a man of somewhat boorish and uncouth nature, with great violence and bitterness did not stop with calling Hortensius an actor in the presence of the assembled jurors, but shouted that he was a posturer and a Dionysia — which was the name of a notorious dancing-girl — then Hortensius replied in a soft and gentle tone: "I would rather be a Dionysia, Torquatus, yes, a Dionysia, than like you, a stranger to the Muses, to Venus and to Dionysus."

§ 1.6  An extract from the speech delivered to the people by Metellus Numidicus when he was censor, urging them to marry; why that speech has been criticized and how on the contrary it has been defended. A number of learned men were listening to the reading of the speech which Metellus Numidicus, an earnest and eloquent man, delivered to the people when he was censor, On Marriage, urging them to be ready to undertake its obligations. In that speech these words were written: "If we could get on without a wife, Romans, we would all avoid that annoyance; but since nature has ordained that we can neither live very comfortably with them nor at all without them, we must take thought for our lasting well-being rather than for the pleasure of the moment." It seemed to some of the company that Quintus Metellus, whose purpose as censor was to encourage the people to take wives, ought not to have admitted the annoyance and constant inconveniences of the married state; that to do this was not so much to encourage, as to dissuade and deter them. But they said that his speech ought rather to have taken just the opposite tone, insisting that as a rule there were no annoyances in matrimony, and if after all they seemed sometimes to arise, they were slight, insignificant and easily endured, and whether completely forgotten in its greater pleasures and advantages; furthermore, that even these annoyances did not fall to the lot of all or from any fault natural to matrimony, but as the result of the misconduct and injustice of some husbands and wives. Titus Castricius, however, thought that Metellus had spoken properly and as was altogether worthy of his position. "A censor," said he, "ought to speak in one way, an advocate in another. It is the orator's privilege to make statements that are untrue, daring, crafty, deceptive and sophistical, provided they have some semblance of truth and can by any artifice be made to insinuate themselves into the minds of the persons who are to be influenced. Furthermore," he said, "it is disgraceful for an advocate, even though his case be a bad one, to leave anything unnoticed or undefended. But for a Metellus, a blameless man, with a reputation for dignity and sense of honour, addressing the Roman people with the prestige of such a life and course of honours, it was not becoming to say anything which was not accepted as true by himself and by all men, especially when speaking on a subject which was a matter of everyday knowledge and formed a part of the common and habitual experience of life. Accordingly, having admitted the existence of annoyances notorious with all men, and having thus established confidence in his sincerity and truthfulness, he then found it no difficult or uphill work of convince them of what was the soundest and truest of principles, that the State cannot survive without numerous marriages." This other passage also from the same address of Metellus in my opinion deserves constant reading, not less by Heaven! than the writings of the greatest philosophers. His words are these: "The immortal gods have mighty power, but they are not expected to be more indulgent than our parents. But parents, if their children persist in wrong-doing, disinherit them. What different application of justice then are we to look for from the immortal gods, unless we put an end to our evil ways? Those alone may fairly claim the favour of the gods who are not their own worst enemies. The immortal gods ought to support, not supply, virtue."

§ 1.7  In these words of Cicero, from his fifth oration Against Verres, hanc sibi rem praesidio sperant futurum, there is no error in writing or grammar but those are wrong who do violence to good copies by writing futuram; and in connection mention is also made of another word of Cicero's which, though correct, is wrongly changed; with a few incidental remarks on the melody and cadence of periods for which Cicero earnestly strove. In the fifth oration of Cicero Against Verres, in a copy of unimpeachable fidelity, since it was the result of Tiro's careful scholarship, is this passage. "Men of low degree and humble birth sail the seas; they come to places which they had never before visited. They are neither known to those to whom they have come nor can they always find acquaintances to vouch for them, yet because of this mere faith in their citizenship they believe that they will be safe, not only before our magistrates, who are constrained by fear of the laws and public opinion, and not only among Roman citizens, who are united by the common bond of language, rights, and many interests, but wherever they may come, they hope that this possession will protect them." It seemed to many that there was an error in the last word. For they thought that futuram should be written instead of futurum, and they were sure that the book ought to be corrected, lest like the adulterer in the comedy of Plautus — for so they jested about the error which they thought they had found — this solecism in an oration of Cicero's should be "caught in the act." There chanced to be present there a friend of mine, who had become an expert from wide reading and to whom almost all the older literature had been the object of study, meditation and wakeful nights. He, on examining the book, declared that there was no mistake in writing or grammar in that word, but that Cicero had written correctly and in accordance with early usage. "For futurum is not," said he, "to be taken with rem, as hasty and careless readers think, nor is it used as a participle. It is an infinitive, the kind of word which the Greeks call ἀπαρέμφατος or 'indeterminate,' affected neither by number nor gender. but altogether free and independent, such a word as Gaius Gracchus used in the speech entitled On Publius Popilius, delivered in the places of assembly, in which we read: 'I suppose that my enemies will say this.' He said dicturum, not dicturos; and is it not clear that dicturum in Gracchus is use. according to the same principle as futurum in Cicero? Just as in the Greek language, without any suspicion of error, words such as ἐρεῖν, ποιήσειν, ἔσεσθαι, and the like, are used in all genders and all numbers without distinction." He added that in the third book of the Annals of Claudius Quadrigarius are these words: "While they were being cut to pieces, the forces of the enemy would be busy there (copias . . . futurum)"; and at the beginning of the eighteenth book of the same Quadrigarius: "If you enjoy health proportionate to your own merit and our good-will, we have reason to hope that the gods will bless the good (deos . . . facturum)". that similarly Valerius Antias also in his twenty-fourth book wrote: "If those religious rites should be performed, and the omens should be wholly favourable, the soothsayers declared that everything would proceed as they desired (omnia . . . processurum esse)." "Plautus also in the Casina, speaking of a girl, used occisurum, not occisuram in the following passage: Has Casina a sword? — Yes, two of them. — Why two? — With one she'd fain the bailiff slay, With t'other you. So too Laberius in The Twins wrote: I thought not she would do (facturum) it. Now, all those men were not unaware of the nature of a solecism, but Gracchus used dicturum, Quadrigarius futurum and facturum, Antias processurum, Plautus occisurum and Laberius facturum, in the infinitive mood. a mood which is not inflected for mood or number or person or tense or gender, but expresses them all by one and the same form. just as Marcus Cicero did not use futurum in the masculine or neuter gender — for that would clearly be a solecism — but employed a form which is independent of any influence of gender." Furthermore, that same friend of mine used to say that in the oration of that same Marcus Tullius On Pompey's Military Command Cicero wrote the following, and so my friend always read it: "Since you know that your harbours, and those harbours from which you draw the breath of life, were in the power of the pirates." And he declared that in potestatem fuisse was not a solecism, as the half-educated vulgar think, but he maintained that it was used in accordance with a definite and correct principle, one which the Greeks also followed; and Plautus, who is most choice in his Latinity, said in the Amphitruo: Numero mihi in mentem fuit, not in mente, as we commonly say. But besides Plautus, whom my friend used as an example in this instance, I myself have come upon a great abundance of such expressions in the early writers, and I have jotted them down here and there in these notes of mine. But quite apart from that rule and those authorities, the very sound and order of the words make it quite clear that it is more in accordance with the careful attention to diction and the rhythmical style of Marcus Tullius that, either being good Latin, he should prefer to say potestatem rather than potestate. For the former construction is more agreeable to the ear and better rounded, the latter harsher and less finished, provided always that a man has an ear attuned to such distinctions, not one that is dull and sluggish; it is for the same reason indeed that he preferred to say explicavit rather than explicuit, which was already coming to be the commoner form. These are his own words from the speech which he delivered On Pompey's Military Command: "Sicily is a witness, which, begirt on all sides by many dangers, he freed (explicavit), not by the threat of war, but by his promptness in decision." But if he had said explicuit, the sentence would halt with weak and imperfect rhythm.

§ 1.8  An anecdote found in the works of the philosopher Sotion about the courtesan Lais and the orator Demosthenes. Sotion was a man of the Peripatetic school, far from unknown. He wrote a book filled with wide and varied information and called it Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας. which is about equivalent to The Horn of Plenty. In that book is found the following anecdote about the orator Demosthenes and the courtesan Lais: "Lais of Corinth," he says, "used to gain a great deal of money by the grace and charm of her beauty, and was frequently visited by wealthy men from all over Greece; but no one was received who did not give what she demanded, and her demands were extravagant enough." He says that this was the origin of the proverb common among the Greeks: Not every man may fare to Corinth town, for in vain would any man go to Corinth to visit Lais who could not pay her price. "The great Demosthenes approached her secretly and asked for her favours. But Lais demanded ten thousand drachmas" — a sum equivalent in our money to ten thousand denarii. "Amazed and shocked at the woman's great impudence and the vast sum of money demanded, Demosthenes turned away, remarking as he left her: 'I will not buy regret at such a price.'" But the Greek words which he is said to have used are neater; he said: Ούκ ὠνοῦμαι μυρίων δραχμῶν μεταμέλειαν.

§ 1.9  What the method and what the order of the Pythagorean training was, and the amount of time which was prescribed and accepted as the period for learning and at the same time keeping silence. It is said that the order and method followed by Pythagoras, and afterwards by his school and his successors, in admitting and training their pupils were as follows. At the very outset he "physiognomized" the young men who presented themselves for instruction. That word means to inquire into the character and dispositions of men by an inference drawn from their facial appearance and expression, and from the form and bearing of their whole body. Then, when he had thus examined a man and found him suitable, he at once gave orders that he should be admitted to the school and should keep silence for a fixed period of time; this was not the same for all, but differed according to his estimate of the man's capacity for learning quickly. But the one who kept silent listened to what was said by others; he was, however, religiously forbidden to ask questions, if he had not fully understood, or to remark upon what he had heard. Now, no one kept silence for less than two years, and during the entire period of silent listening they were called ἀκουστικοί or "auditors." But when they had learned what is of all things the most difficult, to keep quiet and listen, and had finally begun to be adepts in that silence which is called ἐχεμυθία or "continence in words," they were then allowed to speak, to ask questions, and to write down what they had heard. and to express their own opinions. During this stage they were called μαθηματικοί or "students of science," evidently from those branches of knowledge which they had now begun to learn and practise; for the ancient Greeks called geometry, gnomonics, music and other higher studies μαθήματα or "sciences"; but the common people apply the term mathematici to those who ought to be called by their ethnic name, Chaldaeans. Finally, equipped with this scientific training, they advanced to the investigation of the phenomena of the universe and the laws of nature, and then, and not till then, they were called φυσικοί or "natural philosophers." Having thus expressed himself about Pythagoras, my friend Taurus continued: "But nowadays these fellows who turn to philosophy on a sudden with unwashed feet, not content with being wholly 'without purpose, without learning, and without scientific training,' even lay down the law as to how they are to be taught philosophy. One says, 'first teach me this,' another chimes in, "I want to learn this, I don't want to learn that'; one is eager to begin with the Symposium of Plato because of the revel of Alcibiades, another with the Phaedrus on account of the speech of Lysias. By Jupiter!" said he, "one man actually asks to read Plato, not in order to better his life, but to deck out his diction and style, not to gain in discretion, but in prettiness." That is what Taurus used to say, in comparing the modern students of philosophy with the Pythagoreans of old. But I must not omit this fact either — that all of them, as soon as they had been admitted by Pythagoras into that band of disciples, at once devoted to the common use whatever estate and property they had, and an inseparable fellowship was formed, like the old-time association which in Roman legal parlance was termed an "undivided inheritance."

§ 1.10  In what terms the philosopher Favorinus rebuked a young man who used language that was too old-fashioned and archaic. The philosopher Favorinus thus addressed a young man who was very fond of old words and made a display in his ordinary, everyday conversation of many expressions that were quite too unfamiliar and archaic: "Curius," said he, "and Fabricius and Coruncanius, men of the olden days, and of a still earlier time than these famous triplets, the Horatii, talked clearly and intelligibly with their fellows, using the language of their own day, not that of the Aurunci, the Sicani, or the Pelasgi, who are said to have been the earliest inhabitants of Italy. You, on the contrary, just as if you were talking today with Evander's mother, use words that have already been obsolete for many years, because you want no one to know and comprehend what you are saying. Why not accomplish your purpose more fully, foolish fellow, and say nothing at all. But you assert that you love the olden time, because it is honest, sterling, sober and temperate. Live by all means according to the manners of the past, but speak in the language of the present, and always remember and take to heart what Gaius Caesar, a man of surpassing talent and wisdom, wrote in the first book of his treatise On Analogy: 'Avoid, as you would a rock, a strange and unfamiliar word.'"

§ 1.11  The statement of the celebrated writer Thucydides, that the Lacedemonians in battle used pipes and not trumpets, with a citation of his words on that subject; and the remark of Herodotus that king Alyattes had female lyre-players as part of his military equipment; and finally, some notes on the pipe used by Gracchus when addressing assemblies. Thucydides, the most authoritative of Greek historians, tells us that the Lacedemonians, greatest of warriors, made use in battle, not of signals by horns or trumpets, but of the music of pipes, certainly not in conformity with any religious usage or from any ceremonial reason, nor yet that their courage might be roused and stimulated, which is the purpose of horns and trumpets; but on the contrary that they might be calmer and advance in better order. because the effect of the flute-player's notes is to restrain impetuosity. So firmly were they convinced that in meeting the enemy and beginning battle nothing contributed more to valour and confidence than to be soothed by gentler sounds and keep their feelings under control. Accordingly, when the army was drawn up, and began to advance in battle-array against the foe, pipers stationed in the ranks began to play. Thereupon, by this quiet, pleasant, and even solemn prelude the fierce impetuosity of the soldiers was checked, in conformity with a kind of discipline of military music, so to speak, so that they might not rush forth in straggling disorder. But I should like to quote the very words of that outstanding writer, which have greater distinction and credibility than my own: "And after this the attack began. The Argives and their allies rushed forward eagerly and in a rage, but the Lacedemonians advanced slowly to the music of many flute-players stationed at regular intervals; this not for any religious reason, but in order that they might make the attack while marching together rhythmically, and that their ranks might not be broken, which commonly happens to great armies when they advance to the attack." Tradition has it that the Cretans also commonly entered battle with the lyre playing before them and regulating their step. Furthermore, Alyattes, king of the land of Lydia, a man of barbaric manners and luxury, when he made war on the Milesians, as Herodotus tells us in his History, had in his army and his battle-array orchestras of pipe- and lyre-players, and even female flute-players, such as are the delight of wanton banqueters. Homer, however, says that the Achaeans entered battle, relying, not on the music of lyres and pipes, but on silent harmony and unanimity of spirit: In silence came the Achaeans, breathing rage, resolved in mind on one another's aid. What then is the meaning of that soul-stirring shout of the Roman soldiers which, as the annalists have told us, was regularly used when charging the foe? Was that done contrary to so generally accepted a rule of old-time discipline? Or are a quiet advance and silence needful when an army is marching against an enemy that is far off and visible from a distance, but when you have almost come to blows, then must the foe, already at close quarters, be driven back by a violent assault and terrified by shouting. But, look you, the Laconian pipe-playing reminds me also of that oratorical pipe, which they say was played for Gaius Gracchus when he addressed the people, and gave him the proper pitch. But it is not at all true, as is commonly stated, that a musician always stood behind him as he spoke, playing the pipe, and by varying the pitch now restrained and now animated his feelings and his delivery. For what could be more absurd than that a piper should play measures, notes, and a kind of series of changing melodies for Gracchus when addressing an assembly, as if for a dancing mountebank. But more reliable authorities declare that the musician took his place unobserved in the audience and at intervals sounded on a short pipe a deeper note, to restrain and calm the exuberant energy of the orator's delivery. And that in my opinion is the correct view, for it is unthinkable that Gracchus' well-known natural vehemence needed any incitement or impulse from without. Yet Marcus Cicero thinks that the piper was employed by Gracchus for both purposes, in order that with notes now soft, now shrill, he might animate his oratory when it was becoming weak and feeble, or check it when too violent and passionate. I quote Cicero's own words. "And so this same Gracchus, Catulus, as you may hear from your client Licinius, an educated man, who was at that time Gracchus' slave and amanuensis, used to have a skilful musician stand behind him in concealment when he addressed an audience, who could quickly breathe a note to arouse the speaker if languid, or recall him from undue vehemence." Finally, Aristotle wrote in his volume of Problems that the custom of the Lacedemonians which I have mentioned, of entering battle to the music of pipers, was adopted in order to make the fearlessness and ardour of the soldiers more evident and indubitable. "For," said he, "distrust and fear are not at all consistent with an advance of that kind, and such an intrepid and rhythmical advance cannot be made by the faint-hearted and despondent." I have added a few of Aristotle's own words on the subject: "Why, when on the point of encountering danger, did they advance to music of the pipe? In order to detect the cowards by their failure to keep time."

§ 1.12  At what age, from what kind of family, by what rites, ceremonies and observances, and under what town a Vestal virgin is "taken" by the chief pontiff; what legal privileges she has immediately upon being chosen; also that, according to Labeo, she is lawfully neither heir of an intestate person, nor is anyone her heir, in case she dies without a will. Those who have written about "taking" a Vestal virgin, of whom the most painstaking is Antistius Labeo, have stated that it is unlawful for a girl to be chosen who is less than six, or more than ten, years old. she must also have both father and mother living. she must be free too from any impediment in her speech, must not have impaired hearing, or be marked by any other bodily defect; she must not herself have been freed from paternal control, nor her father before her, even if her father is still living and she is under the control of her grandfather. neither one nor both of her parents may have been slaves or engaged in mean occupations. But they say that one whose sister has been chosen to that priesthood acquires exemption, as well as one whose father is a flamen or an augur, one of the Fifteen in charge of the Sibylline Books, one of the Seven who oversee the banquets of the gods, or a dancing priest of Mars. Exemption from that priesthood is regularly allowed also to the betrothed of a pontiff and to the daughter of a priest of the tubilustrium. Furthermore the writings of Ateius Capito inform us that the daughter of a man without residence in Italy must not be chosen, and that the daughter of one who has three children must be excused. Now, as soon as the Vestal virgin is chosen, escorted to the House of Vesta and delivered to the pontiffs, she immediately passes from the control of her father without the ceremony of emancipation or loss of civil rights, and acquires the right to make a will. But as to the method and ritual for choosing a Vestal, there are, it is true, no ancient written records, except that the first to be appointed was chosen by Numa. There is, however, a Papian law, which provides that twenty maidens be selected from the people at the discretion of the chief pontiff, that a choice by lot be made from that number in the assembly, and that the girl whose lot is drawn be "taken" by the chief pontiff and become Vesta's. But that allotment in accordance with the Papian law is usually unnecessary at present. For if any man of respectable birth goes to the chief pontiff and offers his daughter for the priesthood, provided consideration may be given to her candidacy without violating any religious requirement, the senate grants him exemption from the Papian law. Now the Vestal is said to be "taken," it appears, because she is grasped by the hand of the chief pontiff and led away from the parent under whose control she is, as if she had been taken in war. In the first book of Fabius Pictor's History the formula is given which the chief pontiff should use in choosing a Vestal. It is this: "I take thee, Amata, as one who has fulfilled all the legal requirements, to be priestess of Vesta, to perform the rites which it is lawful for a Vestal to perform for the Roman people, the Quirites." Now, many think that the term "taken" ought to be used only of a Vestal. But, as a matter of fact, the flamens of Jupiter also, as well as the augurs, were said to be "taken." Lucius Sulla, in the second book of his Autobiography, wrote as follows: "Publius Cornelius, the first to receive the surname Sulla, was taken to be flamen of Jupiter." Marcus Cato, in his accusation of Servius Galba, says of the Lusitanians: "Yet they say that they wished to revolt. I myself at the present moment wish a thorough knowledge of the pontifical law; shall I therefore be taken as chief pontiff? If I wish to understand the science of augury thoroughly, shall anyone for that reason take me as augur?. Furthermore, in the Commentaries on the Twelve Tables compiled by Labeo we find this passage: "A Vestal virgin is not heir to any intestate person, nor is anyone her heir, should she die without making a will, but her property, they say, reverts to the public treasury. The legal principle involved is an unsettled question." The Vestal is called "Amata" when taken by the chief pontiff, because there is a tradition that the first one who was chosen bore that name.

§ 1.13  On the philosophical question, what would be more proper on receipt of an order — to do scrupulously what was commanded, or sometimes even to disobey, in the hope that it would be more advantageous to the giver of the order; and an exposition of varying views on that subject. In interpreting, evaluating and weighing the obligations which the philosophers call καθήκοντα, or "duties," the question is often asked, when some task has been assigned to you and exactly what was to be done has been defined, whether you ought to do anything contrary to instructions, if by so doing it might seem that the outcome would be more successful and more advantageous to the one who imposed the task upon you. It is a difficult question which has been answered both ways by wise men. For several have taken a position on the one side and expressed the decided belief that when a matter has once for all been determined, after due deliberation, by the one whose business and right are concerned, nothing should be done contrary to his order, even if some unlooked for occurrence should promise a better way of accomplishing the end in view; for fear that, if the expectation were not realized, the offender would be liable to blame and inexorable punishment for his insubordination. If, on the other hand, the affair chanced to result more favourably, thanks would indeed be due the gods, but nevertheless a precedent would seem to have been established, which might ruin well-laid plans by weakening the binding force of a command. Others have thought that the disadvantages to be feared, in case the order was not strictly obeyed, should carefully be weighed in advance against the advantage hoped for, and if the former were comparatively light and trivial, while on the contrary a greater and more substantial advantage was confidently to be expected, then they judged that one might go counter to instructions, to avoid losing a providential opportunity for successful action. and they did not believe that a precedent for disobedience was to be feared, provided always that considerations of such a kind could be urged. But they thought that particular regard should be paid to the temperament and disposition of the person whose business and command were involved: he must not be stern, hard, autocratic and implacable, as in the case of the orders of a Postumius and a Manlius. For if an account must be rendered to such a commander, they recommended that nothing be done contrary to the letter of his order. I think that this question of obedience to commands of such a nature will be more clearly defined, if I add the example set by Publius Crassus Mucianus, a distinguished and eminent man. This Crassus is said by Sempronius Asellio and several other writers of Roman history to have had the five greatest and chiefest of blessings; for he was very rich, of the highest birth, exceedingly eloquent, most learned in the law, and chief pontiff. When he, in his consulship, was in command in the province of Asia, and was making preparations to beset and assault Leucae, he needed a long, stout beam from which to make a battering-ram, to breach the walls of that city. Accordingly, he wrote to the chief engineer of the people of Mylatta, allies and friends of the Romans, to have the larger of two masts which he had seen in their city sent him. Then the chief engineer on learning the purpose for which Crassus wanted the mast, did not send him the larger, as had been ordered, but the smaller, which he thought was more suitable, and better adapted for making a ram, besides being easier to transport. Crassus ordered him to be summoned, asked why he had not sent the mast which had been ordered, and ignoring the excuses and reasons which the man urged, caused him to be stripped and soundly beaten with rods; for he thought that all the authority of a commander was weakened and made of no effect, if one might reply to orders which he received, not with due obedience, but with an unsolicited plan of his own.

§ 1.14  What was said and done by Gaius Fabricius, a man of great renown and great deeds, but of simple establishment and little money, when the Samnites offered him a great amount of gold, in the belief that he was a poor man. Julius Hyginus, in the sixth book of his work On the Lives and Deeds of Famous Men, says that a deputation from the Samnites came to Gaius Fabricius, the Roman general, and after mentioning his many important acts of kindness and generosity to the Samnites since peace was restored, offered him a present of a large sum of money, begging that he would accept and use it. And they said that they did this because they saw that his house and mode of life were far from magnificent, and that he was not so well provided for as his high rank demanded. Thereupon Fabricius passed his open hands from his ears to his eyes, then down to his nose, his mouth, his throat, and finally to the lower part of his belly; then he replied to the envoys: "So long as I can restrain and control all those members which I have touched, I shall never lack anything; therefore I cannot accept money, for which I have no use, from those who, I am sure, do have use for it."

§ 1.15  What a tiresome and utterly hateful fault is vain and empty loquacity, and how often it has been censured in deservedly strong language by the greatest Greek and Latin writers. The talk of empty-headed, vain and tiresome babblers, who with no foundation of solid matter let out a stream of tipsy, tottering words, has justly been thought to come from the lips and not from the heart. Moreover, men say that the tongue ought not to be unrestrained and rambling, but guided and, so to speak, steered by cords connected with the heart and inmost breast. Yet you may see some men spouting forth words with no exercise of judgment, but with such great and profound assurance that many of them in the very act of speaking are evidently unaware that they are talking. Ulysses, on the contrary, a man gifted with sagacious eloquence, spoke, not from his lips but from his heart, as Homer says — a remark which applies less to the sound and quality of his utterance than to the depth of the thoughts inwardly conceived; and the poet went on to say, with great aptness, that the teeth form a rampart to check wanton words, in order that reckless speech may not only be restrained by that watchful sentry the heart, but also hedged in by a kind of outpost, so to speak, stationed at the lips. The words of Homer which I mentioned above are these: When from his breast his mighty voice went forth and: What a word has passed the barrier of your teeth. I have added also a passage from Marcus Tullius, in which he expresses his strong and just hatred of silly and unmeaning volubility. He says. "Provided this fact be recognized, that neither should one commend the dumbness of a man who knows a subject, but is unable to give it expression in speech, nor the ignorance of one who lacks knowledge of his subject, but abounds in words; yet if one must choose one or the other alternative, I for my part would prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity." Also in the first book of the De Oratore he wrote as follows: "For what is so insane as the empty sound of words, however well-chosen and elegant, if there be no foundation of sense or sagacity?. But Marcus Cato in particular is a relentless assailant of this fault. For in the speech entitled If Caelius, tribune of the commons, should have summoned him, he says: "That man is never silent who is afflicted with the disease of talking, as one in a lethargy is afflicted with that of drinking and sleeping. For if you should not come together when he calls an assembly, so eager is he to talk that he would hire someone to listen. And so you hear him, but you do not listen, just as if he were a quack. For a quack's words are heard, but no one trusts himself to him when he is sick." Again Cato, in the same speech, upbraiding the same Marcus Caelius, tribune of the commons, for the cheapness at which not only his speech but also his silence could be bought, says: "For a crust of bread he can be hired either to keep silence or to speak." Most deservedly too does Homer call Thersites alone of all the Greeks ἀμετροεπής, "of measureless speech," and ἀκριτόμυθος, "a reckless babbler," declaring that his words are many and ἄκοσμα, or "disordered," like the endless chatter of daws; for what else does ἐκολώα ("he chattered") mean. There is also a line of Eupolis most pointedly aimed at men of that kind: In chatter excellent, unable quite to speak. and our countryman Sallust, wishing to imitate this, writes: "Talkative rather than eloquent." It is for the same reason that Hesiod, wisest of poets, says that the tongue should not be vulgarly exposed but hidden like a treasure, and that it is exhibited with best effect when it is modest, restrained and musical. His own words are: The greatest of man's treasures is the tongue, Which wins most favour when it spares its words And measured is of movement. The following verse of Epicharmus is also to the point: Thou art not skilled in speech, yet silence cannot keep. and it is from this line surely that the saying arose: "Who, though he could not speak, could not be silent." I once heard Favorinus say that the familiar lines of Euripides: Of unrestrained mouth And of lawless folly Is disaster the end, ought not to be understood as directed only at those who spoke impiously or lawlessly, but might even with special propriety be used also of men who prate foolishly and immoderately, whose tongues are so extravagant and unbridled that they ceaselessly flow and seethe with the foulest dregs of language, the sort of persons to whom the Greeks apply the highly significant term κατάγλωσσοι, or "given to talk." I learned from a friend of his, a man of learning, that the famous grammarian Valerius Probus, shortly before his death, began to read Sallust's well-known saying, "a certain amount of eloquence but little discretion", as "abundant talkativeness, too little discretion," and that he insisted that Sallust left it in that form, since the word loquentia was very characteristic of Sallust, an innovator in diction, while eloquentia was not at all consistent with lack of discretion. Finally, loquacity of this kind and a disorderly mass of empty grandiloquence is scored with striking epithets by Aristophanes, wittiest of poets, in the following lines: A stubborn-creating, stubborn-pulling fellow, Uncurbed, unfettered, uncontrolled of speech, Unperiphrastic, bombastiloquent. And no less pointedly did our forefathers also call men of that kind, who were drowned in words, "babblers, gabblers and chatterboxes."

§ 1.16  That those words of Quadrigarius in the third book of his Annals, "there a thousand of men is killed," are not used arbitrarily or by a poetic figure, but in accordance with a definite and approved rule of the science of grammar. Quadrigarius in the third book of his Annals wrote the following: "There a thousand of men is killed," using occiditur, near occiduntur. So too Lucilius in the third book of his Satires, From gate to gate a thousand of paces is. Thence to Salernum six. has mille est, not mille sunt. Varro in the seventeenth book of his Antiquities of Man writes: "To the beginning of Romulus' reign is more than a thousand and one hundred years,. Marcus Cato in the first book of his Origins, "From there it is nearly a thousand of paces." Marcus Cicero has in his sixth Oration against Antony, "is the middle Janus so subject to the patronage of Lucius Antonius? Who has ever been found in that Janus who would lend Lucius Antonius a thousand of sesterces?. In these and many other passages mille is used in the singular number. and that is not, as some think, a concession to early usage or admitted as a neat figure of speech, but it is obviously demanded by rule. For the word mille does not stand for the Greek χίλιοι, "thousand," but for χιλιάς, "a thousand"; and just as they say one χιλιάς, or two χιλιάδες, so we say one thousand and two thousands according to a definite and regular rule. Therefore these common expressions are correct and good usage, "There is a thousand of denarii in the chest," and "There is a thousand of horsemen in the army." Furthermore Lucilius, in addition the example cited above, makes the point still clearer in another place also. for in his fifteenth book he says: This horse no jolting fine Campanian steed, Though he has passed him by one thousand, aye And twain, of paces, can in a longer course Compete with, but he will in fact appear To run the other way. So too in the ninth book: With sesterces a thousand you can gain A hundred thousand. Lucilius wrote milli passum instead of mille passibus and uno milli nummum for unis mille nummis, thus showing clearly that mille is a noun, and that it also forms an ablative case. Nor ought we to expect the rest of these cases; for there are many other words which are declined only in single cases, and even some which are not declined at all. Therefore we can no longer doubt that Cicero, in the speech which he wrote In Defence of Milo, used these words: "Before the estate of Clodius, where fully a thousand of able-bodied men was employed on those crazy substructures," not "were employed," as we find it in less accurate copies; for one rule requires us to say "a thousand men," but another, "a thousand of men."

§ 1.17  The patience with which Socrates endured his wife's shrewish disposition; and in that connection what Marcus Varro says in one of his satires about the duty of a husband. Xanthippe, the wife of the philosopher Socrates, is said to have been ill-tempered and quarrelsome to a degree, with a constant flood of feminine tantrums and annoyances day and night. Alcibiades, amazed at this outrageous conduct of hers towards her husband, asked Socrates what earthly reason he had for not showing so shrewish a woman the door. "Because," replied Socrates, "it is by enduring such a person at home that I accustom and train myself to bear more easily away from home the impudence and injustice of other persons." In the same vein Varro also said in the Menippean Satire which he entitled On the Duty of a Husband: "A wife's faults must be either put down or put up with. He who puts down her faults, makes his wife more agreeable; he who puts up with them, improves himself." Varro contrasted the two words tollere and ferre very cleverly, to be sure, but he obviously uses tollere in the sense of "correct." It is evident that Varro thought that if a fault of that kind in a wife cannot be corrected, it should be tolerated, in so far of course as a man may endure it honourably; for faults are less serious than crimes.

§ 1.18  How Marcus Varro, in the fourteenth book of his Antiquities of Man, criticizes his master Lucius Aelius for a false etymology; and how Varro in his turn, in the same book, gives a false origin for fur. In the fourteenth book of his Divine Antiquities Marcus Varro shows that Lucius Aelius, the most learned Roman of his time, went astray and followed a false etymological principle in separating an old Greek word which had been taken over into the Roman language into two Latin words, just as if it were of Latin origin. I quote Varro's own words on the subject: "In this regard our countryman Lucius Aelius, the most gifted man of letters within my memory, was sometimes misled. For he gave false derivations of several early Greek words, under the impression that they were native to our tongue. We do not use the word lepus ('hare') because the animal is levipes ('light-footed'), as he asserts, but because it is an old Greek word. Many of the early words of that people are unfamiliar, because today the Greeks use other words in their place; and it may not be generally known that among these are Graecus, for which they now use Ἕλλην, puteus ('well') which they call φρέαπ, and lepus, which they call λαγωός. But as to this, far from disparaging Aelius' ability, I commend his diligence; for it is good fortune that brings success, endeavour that deserves praise." This is what Varro wrote in the first part of his book, with great skill in the explanation of words, with wide knowledge of the usage of both languages, and marked kindliness towards Aelius himself. But in the latter part of the same book he says that fur is so called because the early Romans used furvus for ater ('black'), and thieves steal most easily in the night, which is black. Is it not clear that Varro made the same mistake about fur that Aelius made about lepus. For what the Greeks now call κλέπτης, or "thief," in the earlier Greek language was called φώρ. Hence, owing to the similarity in sound, he who in Greek is φώρ, in Latin is fur. But whether that fact escaped Varro's memory at the time, or on the other hand he thought that fur was more appropriately and consistently named from furvus, that is, "black," as to that question it is not for me to pass judgment on a man of such surpassing learning.

§ 1.19  The story of king Tarquin the Proud and the Sibylline Books. In ancient annals we find this tradition about the Sibylline Books. An old woman, a perfect stranger, came to king Tarquin the Proud, bringing nine books; she declared that they were oracles of the gods and that she wished to sell them. Tarquin inquired the price. the woman demanded an immense and exorbitant sum: the king laughed her to scorn, believing her to be in her dotage. Then she placed a lighted brazier before him, burned three of the books to ashes, and asked whether he would buy the remaining six at the same price. But at this Tarquin laughed all the more and said that there was now no doubt that the old woman was crazy. Upon that the woman at once burned up three more books and again calmly made the same request, that he would buy the remaining three at the original figure. Tarquin now became serious and more thoughtful, and realising that such persistence and confidence were not to be treated lightly, he bought the three books that were left at as high a price as had been asked for all nine. Now it is a fact that after then leaving Tarquin, that woman was never seen again anywhere. The three books were deposited in a shrine and called "Sibylline". to them the Fifteen resort whenever the immortal gods are to be consulted as to the welfare of the State.

§ 1.20  On what the geometers call ἐπίπεδος, στερεός, κύβος and γραμμή, with the Latin equivalents for all these terms. Of the figures which the geometers call σχήματα there are two kinds, "plane" and "solid." These the Greeks themselves call respectively ἐπίπεδος and στερεός. A "plane" figure is one that has all its lines in two dimensions only, breadth and length; for example, triangles and squares, which are drawn on a flat surface without height. We have a "solid" figure, when its several lines do not produce merely length and breadth in a plane, but are raised so as to produce height also; such are in general the triangular columns which they call "pyramids," or those which are bounded on all sides by squares, such as the Greeks call κύβοι, and we quadrantalia. For the κύβος is a figure which is square on all its sides, "like the dice," says Marcus Varro, "with which we play on a gaming-board, for which reason the dice themselves are called κύβοι." Similarly in numbers too the term κύβος is used, when every factor consisting of the same number is equally resolved into the cube number itself, as is the case when three is taken three times and the resulting number itself is then trebled. Pythagoras declared that the cube of the number three controls the course of the moon, since the moon passes through its orbit in twenty-seven days, and the ternio, or "triad," which the Greeks call τριάς, when cubed makes twenty-seven. Furthermore, our geometers apply the term linea, or "line," to what the Greeks call γραμμή. This is defined by Marcus Varro as follows: "A line," says he, "is length without breadth or height." But Euclid says more tersely, omitting "height": "A line is μῆκος ἀπλατές, or 'breadthless length.'" Ἀπλατές cannot be expressed in Latin by a single word, unless you should venture to coin the term inlatabile.

§ 1.21  The positive assertion of Julius Hyginus that he had read a manuscript of Virgil from the poet's own household, in which there was written et ora tristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror and not the usual reading, sensu torquebit amaro. Nearly everyone reads these lines from the Georgics of Virgil in this way: At sapor indicium faciet manifestus et ora Tristia temptantum sensu torquebit amaro. Hyginus, however, on my word no obscure grammarian, in the Commentaries which he wrote on Virgil, declares and insists that it was not this that Virgil left, but what he himself found in a copy which had come from the home and family of the poet: et ora Tristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror. and this reading has commended itself, not to Hyginus alone, but also to many other learned men, because it seems absurd to say "the taste will distort with its bitter sensation." "Since," they say, "taste itself is a sensation, it cannot have another sensation in itself, but it is exactly as if one should say, 'the sensation will distort with a bitter sensation.' . Moreover, when I had read Hyginus' note to Favorinus, and the strangeness and harshness of the phrase "sensu torquebit amaro" at once displeased him, he said with a laugh, "I am ready to swear by Jupiter and the stone, which is considered the most sacred of oaths, that Virgil never wrote that, but I believe that Hyginus is right. For Virgil was not the first to coin that word arbitrarily, but he found it in the poems of Lucretius and made use of it, not disdaining to follow the authority of a poet who excelled in talent and power of expression." The passage, from the fourth book of Lucretius, reads as follows: dilutaque contra Cum tuimur misceri absinthia, tangit amaror. And in fact we see that Virgil imitated, not only single words of Lucretius, but often almost whole lines and passages.

§ 1.22  Whether it is correct Latin for counsel for the defence to say superesse se, "that he is appearing for" those whom he is defending; and the proper meaning of superesse. An incorrect and improper meaning of a word has been established by long usage, in that we use the expression hic illi superest when we wish to say that anyone appears as another's advocate and pleads his cause. And this is not merely the language of the streets and of the common people, but is used in the forum, the comitium and the courts. Those, however, who have spoken language undefiled have for the most part used superesse in the sense of "to overflow, be superfluous, or exceed the required amount." Thus Marcus Varro, in the satire entitled "You know not what evening may bring," uses superfuisse in the sense of having exceeded the amount proper for the occasion. These are his words: "Not everything should be read at a dinner party, but preferably such works as are at the same time improving and diverting, so that this feature of the entertainment also may seem not to have been neglected, rather than overdone." I remember happening to be present in the court of a praetor who was a man of learning, and that on that occasion an advocate of some repute pleaded in such fashion that he wandered from the subject and did not touch upon the point at issue. Thereupon the praetor said to the man whose case was before him: "You have no counsel." And when the pleader protested, saying "I am present (supersum) for the honourable gentleman," the praetor wittily retorted: "You surely present too much, but you do not represent your client." Marcus Cicero, too, in his book entitled On Reducing the Civil Law to a System wrote these words: "Indeed Quintus Aelius Tubero did not fall short of his predecessors in knowledge of the law, in learning he even outstripped them." In this passage superfuit seems to mean "he went beyond, surpassed and excelled his predecessors in his learning, which, however, was excessive and overabundant"; for Tubero was thoroughly versed in Stoic dialectics. Cicero's use of the word in the second book of the Republic also deserves attention. This is the passage in question: "I should not object, Laelius, if I did not think that these friends wished, and if I myself did not desire, that you should take some part in this discussion of ours, especially since you yourself said yesterday that you would give us even more than enough (te superfuturum). But that indeed is impossible: we all ask you not to give us less than enough (ne desis)." Now Julius Paulus, the most learned man within my recollection, used to say with keenness and understanding that superesse and its Greek equivalent had more than one meaning: for he declared that the Greeks used περισσόν both ways, either of what was superfluous and unnecessar. or of what was too abundant, overflowing and excessive; that in the same way our earliest writers also employed superesse sometimes of what was superfluous, idle and not wholly necessary, a sense which we have just cited from Varro, and some, as in Cicero, of that which indeed surpassed other things in copiousness and plentifulness, yet was immoderate and too extensive, and gushed forth more abundantly than was sufficient. Therefore one who says superesse se with reference to a man whom he is defending tries to convey none of these meanings, but uses superesse in a sense that is unknown and not in use. And he will not be able to appeal even of that authority of Virgil, who in his Georgics wrote as follows: I will be first to bear, so but my life still last (supersit), Home to my native land . . . For in this place Virgil seems to have used that word somewhat irregularly in giving supersit the sense of "be present for a longer or more extended period,. but on the contrary his use of the word in the following line is more nearly the accepted one: They cut him tender grass, Give corn and much fresh water, that his strengthen Be more than equal to (superesse) the pleasing toil. for here superesse means to be more than equal to the task and not be crushed by it. I also used to raise the question whether the ancients used superesse in the sense of "to be left and be lacking for the completion of an act." For to express that idea Sallust says, not superesse, but superare. These are his words in the Jugurtha: "This man was in the habit of exercising a command independently of the king, and of attending to all business which had been left undone (superaverant) by Jugurtha when he was weary or engaged in more important affairs." But we find in the third book of Ennius' Annals: Then he declares one tasks's left over (super esse) for him, that is, is left and remains undone; but there superesse must be divided and read as if it were not one part of speech, but two, as in fact it is. Cicero, however, in his second Oration against Antony expresses "what is left" by restare, not by superesse. Besides these uses we find superesse with the meaning "survive." For it is so employed in the book of letters of Marcus Cicero to Lucius Plancus, as well as in a letter of Marcus Asinius Pollio to Cicero, as follows: "For I wish neither to fail the commonwealth nor to survive it (superesse)," meaning that if the commonwealth should be destroyed and perish, he does not wish to live. Again in the Asinaria of Plautus that same force is still more evident in these, the first verses of that comedy: As you would hope to have your only son Survive (superesse) you and be ever sound and hale. Thus we have to avoid, not merely an improper use of the word, but also the evil omen, in case an older man, acting as advocate for a youth, should say that he "survives" him.

§ 1.23  Who Papirius Praetextatus was; the reason for that surname; and the whole of the entertaining story about that same Papirius. The story of Papirius Praetextatus was told and committed to writing in the speech which Marcus Cato made To the soldiers against Galba, with great charm, brilliance and elegance of diction. I should have included Cato's own words in this very commentary, if I had had access to the book at the time when I dictated this extract. But if you would like to hear the bare tale, without the noble and dignified language, the incident was about as follows. It was formerly the custom at Rome for senators to enter the House with their sons under age. In those days, when a matter of considerable importance had been discussed and was postponed to the following day, it was voted that no one should mention the subject of the debate until the matter was decided. The mother of the young Papirius, who had been in the House with his father, asked her son what the Fathers had taken up in the senate. The boy replied that it was a secret and that he could not tell. The woman became all the more eager to hear about it; the secrecy of the matter and the boys' silence piqued her curiosity; she therefore questioned him more pressingly and urgently. Then the boy, because of his mother's insistence, resorted to a witty and amusing falsehood. He said that the senate had discussed the question whether it seemed more expedient, and to the advantage of the State, for one man to have two wives or one woman to have two husbands. On hearing this, she is panic-stricken, rushed excitedly from the house. and carries the news to the other matrons. Next day a crowd of matrons came to the senate, imploring with tears and entreaties that one woman might have two husbands rather than one man two wives. The senators, as they entered the House, were wondering at this strange madness of the women and the meaning of such a demand. when young Papirius, stepping forward to the middle of the House, told in detail what his mother had insisted on hearing, what he himself had said to her, in fact, the whole story exactly as it had happened. The senate paid homage to the boy's cleverness and loyalty, but voted that thereafter boys should not enter the House with their fathers, save only this Papirius; and the boy was henceforth honoured with the surname Praetextatus, because of his discretion in keeping silent and in speaking, while he was still young enough to wear the purple-bordered gown.

§ 1.24  Three epitaphs of three early poets, Naevius, Plautus and Pacuvius, composed by themselves and inscribed upon their tombs. There are three epitaphs of famous poets, Gnaeus Naevius, Plautus and Marcus Pacuvius, composed by themselves and left to be inscribed upon their tombs, which I have thought ought to be included among these notes, because of their distinction and charm. The epitaph of Naevius, although full of Campanian arrogance, might have been regarded as a just estimate, if he had not written it himself: If that immortals might for mortals weep, Then would divine Camenae weep for Naevius. For after he to Orcus as treasure was consigned, The Romans straight forgot to speak the Latin tongue. We should be inclined to doubt whether the epitaph of Plautus was really by his own hand, if it had not been quoted by Marcus Varro in the first book of his work On Poets: Since Plautus has met death, Comedy mourns, Deserted is the stage; then Laughter, Sport and Wit, And Music's countless numbers all together wept. Pacuvius' epitaph is the most modest and simple, worthy of his dignity and good taste: Young man, although you haste, this little stone Entreats thee to regard it, then to read its tale. Here lie the bones of Marcus, hight Pacuvius. Of this I would not have you unaware. Good-bye.

§ 1.25  Marcus Varro's definition of the word "indutiae"; to which is added a somewhat careful investigation of the derivation of that word. Marcus Varro, in that book of his Antiquities of Man which treats Of War and Peace, defines indutiae (a truce) in two ways. "A truce," he says, "is peace for a few days in camp;. and again in another place, "A truce is a holiday in war." But each of these definitions seems to be wittily and happily concise rather than clear or satisfactory. For a truce is not a peace — since war continues, although fighting ceases — nor is it restricted to a camp or to a few days only. For what are we to say if a truce is made for some months, and the troops withdraw from camp into the towns? Have we not then also a truce. Again, if a truce is to be defined as only lasting for a few days, what are we to say of the fact, recorded by Quadrigarius in the first book of his Annals, that Gaius Pontius the Samnite asked the Roman dictator for a truce of six hours. The definition "a holiday in war," too, is rather happy than clear or precise. Now the Greeks, more significantly and more pointedly, have called such an agreement to cease from fighting ἐκεχειρία, or "a staying of hands," substituting for one letter of harsher sound a smoother one. For since there is no fighting at such a time and their hands are withheld, they called it ἐκεχειρία. But it surely was not Varro's task to define a truce too scrupulously, and to observe all the laws and canons of definition. for he thought it sufficient to give an explanation of the kind which the Greeks call τύποι ("typical") and ὑπογραφαί ("outline"), rather than ὁρισμοί ("exact definition"). I have for a long time been inquiring into the derivation of indutiae. but of the many explanations which I have either heard or read this which I am going to mention seems most reasonable. I believe that indutiae is made up of inde uti iam ("that from then on"). The stipulation of a truce is to this effect, that there shall be no fighting and no trouble up to a fixed time, but that after that time all the laws of war shall again be in force. Therefore, since a definite date is set and an agreement is made that before that date there shall be no fighting but when that time comes, "that from then on," fighting shall be resumed: by uniting (as it were) and combining those words which I have mentioned the term indutiae is formed. But Aurelius Opilius, in the first book of his work entitled The Muses, says: "It is called a truce when enemies pass back and forth from one side to another safely and without strife; from this the name seems to be formed, as if it were initiae, that is, an approach and entrance." I have not omitted this note of Aurelius, for fear that it might appear to some rival of these Nights a more elegant etymology, merely because he thought that it had escaped my notice when I was investigating the origin of the word.

§ 1.26  The answer of the philosopher Taurus, when I asked him whether a wise man ever got angry. I once asked Taurus in his lecture-room whether a wise man got angry. For after his daily discourses he often gave everyone the opportunity of asking whatever questions he wished. On this occasion he first discussed the disease or passion of anger at length, setting forth what is to be found in the books of the ancients and in his own commentaries; then, turning to me who had asked the question, he said: "This is what I think about getting angry. but it will not be out of place for you to hear also the opinion of my master Plutarch, a man of great learning and wisdom. Plutarch," said he, "once gave orders that one of his slaves, a worthless and insolent fellow, but one whose ears had been filled with the teachings and arguments of philosophy, should be stripped of his tunic for some offence or other and flogged. They had begun to beat him, and the slave kept protesting that he did not deserve the flogging; that he was guilty of no wrong, no crime. Finally, while the lashing still went on, he began to shout, no longer uttering complaints or shrieks and groans, but serious reproaches. Plutarch's conduct, he said, was unworthy of a philosopher; to be angry was shameful: his master had often descanted on the evil of anger and had even written an excellent treatise Περὶ Ἀοργησίας; it was in no way consistent with all that was written in that book that its author should fall into a fit of violent rage and punish his slave with many stripes. Then Plutarch calmly and mildly made answer: 'What makes you think, scoundrel, that I am now angry with you. Is it from my expression, my voice, my colour, or even my words, that you believe me to be in the grasp of anger? In my opinion my eyes are not fierce, my expression is not disturbed, I am neither shouting madly nor foaming at the mouth nor getting red in the face; I am saying nothing to cause me shame or regret; I am not trembling at all from anger or making violent gestures. For all these actions, if you did but know it, are the usual signs of angry passions.' And with these words, turning to the man who was plying the lash, he said: 'In the meantime, while this fellow and I are arguing, do you keep at it.' . Now the sum and substance of Taurus' whole disquisition was this: he did not believe that ἀοργησία or "freedom from anger," and ἀναλγησία, or "lack of sensibility," were identical; but that a mind not prone to anger was one thing, a spirit ἀνάλγητος and ἀναίσθητος, that is, callous and unfeeling, quite another. For as of all the rest of the emotions which the Latin philosophers call affectus or affectiones, and the Greeks πάθη, so of the one which, when it becomes a cruel desire for vengeance, is called "anger," he did not recommend as expedient a total lack, στέρησις as the Greeks say, but a moderate amount, which they call μετριότης.

§ 2.1  How Socrates used to train himself in physical endurance; and of the temperate habits of that philosopher. Among voluntary tasks and exercises for strengthening his body for any chance demands upon its endurance we are told that Socrates habitually practised this one. he would stand, so the story goes, in one fixed position, all day and all night, from early dawn until the next sunrise, open-eyed, motionless, in his very tracks and with face and eyes riveted to the same spot in deep meditation, as if his mind and soul had been, as it were, withdrawn from his body. When Favorinus in his discussion of the man's fortitude and his many other virtues had reached this point, he said: "He often stood from sun to sun, more rigid than the tree trunks." His temperance also is said to have been so great, that he lived almost the whole period of his life with health unimpaired. Even amid the havoc of that plague which, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, devastated Athens with a deadly species of disease, by temperate and abstemious habits he is said to have avoided the ill-effects of indulgence and retained his physical vigour so completely, that he was not at all affected by the calamity common to all.

§ 2.2  What rules of courtesy should be observed by fathers and sons in taking their places at table, keeping their seats, and similar matters at home and elsewhere, when the sons are magistrates and the fathers private citizens; and a discourse of the philosopher Taurus on the subject, with an illustration taken from Roman history. The governor of the province of Crete, a man of senatorial rank, had come to Athens for the purpose of visiting and becoming acquainted with the philosopher Taurus, and in company with this same governor was his father. Taurus, having just dismissed his pupils, was sitting before the door of his room, and we stood by his side conversing with him. In came the governor of the province and with him his father. Taurus arose quietly, and after salutations had been exchanged, sat down again. Presently the single chair that was at hand was brought and placed near them, while others were being fetched. Taurus invited the governor's father to be seated. to which he replied. "Rather let this man take the seat, since he is a magistrate of the Roman people." "Without prejudicing the case," said Taurus, "do you meanwhile sit down, while we look into the matter and inquire whether it is more proper for you, who are the father, to sit, or your son, who is a magistrate." And when the father had seated himself, and another chair had been placed near by for his son also, Taurus discussed the question with what, by the gods! was a most excellent valuation of honours and duties. The substance of the discussions was this: In public places, functions and acts the rights of fathers, compared with the authority of sons who are magistrates, give way somewhat and are eclipsed: but when they are sitting together unofficially in the intimacy of home life, or walking about, or even reclining at a dinner party of intimate friends, then the official distinctions between a son who is a magistrate and a father who is a private citizen are at an end, while those that are natural and inherent come into play. "Now, your visit to me," said he, "our present conversation, and this discussion of duties are private actions. Therefore enjoy the same priority of honours at my house which it is proper for you to enjoy in your own home as the older man." These remarks and others to the same purport were made by Taurus at once seriously and pleasantly. Moreover, it has seemed not out of place to add what I have read in Claudius about the etiquette of father and son under such circumstances. I therefore quote Quadrigarius' actual words, transcribed from the sixth book of his Annals: "The consuls then elected were Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus for the second time and Quintus Fabius Maximus, son of the Maximus who had been consul the year before. The father, at the time proconsul, mounted upon a horse met his son the consul, and because he was his father, would not dismount, nor did the lictors, who knew that the men lived in the most perfect harmony, presume to order him to do so. As the father drew near, the consul said: "What next?" The lictor in attendance quickly understood and ordered Maximus the proconsul to dismount. Fabius obeyed the order and warmly commended his son for asserting the authority which he had as the gift of the people.

§ 2.3  For what reason our forefathers inserted the aspirate H in certain verbs and nouns. The letter H (or perhaps it should be called a breathing rather than a letter) was added by our forefathers to give strength and vigour to the pronunciation of many words, in order that they might have a fresher and livelier sound; and this they seem to have done from their devotion to the Attic language, and under its influence. It is well known that the people of Attica, contrary to the usage of the other Greek races, pronounced ἱχθύς (fish), ἵππος (horse), and many other words besides, with a rough breathing on the first letter. In the same way our ancestors said lachrumae (tears), sepulchrum (burial-place), ahenum (of bronze), vehemens (violent), incohare (begin), helluari (gormandize), hallucinari (dream), honera (burdens), honustum (burdened). For in all these words there seems to be no reason for that letter, or breathing, except to increase the force and vigour of the sound by adding certain sinews, so to speak. But apropos of the inclusion of ahenum among my examples, I recall that Fidus Optatus, a grammarian of considerable repute in Rome, showed me a remarkably old copy of the second book of the Aeneid, bought in the Sigillaria for twenty pieces of gold, which was believed to have belonged to Virgil himself. In that book, although the following two lines were written thus: Before the entrance-court, hard by the gate, With sheen of brazen (aena) arms proud Pyrrhus gleams, we observed that the letter H had been added above the line, changing aena to ahena. So too in the best manuscripts we find this verse of Virgil's written as follows: Or skims with leaves the bubbling brass's (aheni) wave.

§ 2.4  The reason given by Gavius Bassus for calling a certain kind of judicial inquiry divinatio; and the explanation that others have given of the same term. When inquiry is made about the choice of a prosecutor, and judgment is rendered on the question to which of two or more persons the prosecution of a defendant, or a share in the prosecution, is to be entrusted, this process and examination by jurors is called divinatio. The reason for the use of this term is a matter of frequent inquiry. Gavius Bassus, in the third book of his work On the Origin of Terms, says: "This kind of trial is called divinatio because the juror ought in a sense to divine what verdict it is proper for him to give." The explanation offered in these words of Gavius Bassus is far from complete, or rather, it is inadequate and meagre. But at least he seems to be trying to show that divinatio is used because in other trials it was the habit of the juror to be influenced by what he has heard and by what has been shown by evidence or by witnesses; but in this instance, when a prosecutor is to be selected, the considerations which can influence a juror are very few and slight, and therefore he must, so to speak, "divine" what man is the better fitted to make the accusation. Thus Bassus. But some others think that the divinatio is so called because, while prosecutor and defendant are two things that are, as it were, related and connected, so that neither can exist without the other, yet in this form of trial, while there is already a defendant, there is as yet no prosecutor, and therefore the factor which is still lacking and unknown — namely, what man is to be the prosecutor — must be supplied by divination.

§ 2.5  How elegantly and clearly the philosopher Favorinus described the difference between the style of Plato and that of Lysias. Favorinus used to say of Plato and Lysias: "If you take a single word from a discourse of Plato or change it, and do it with the utmost skill, you will nevertheless mar the elegance of his style; if you do the same to Lysias, you will obscure his meaning."

§ 2.6  On some words which Virgil is asserted to have used carelessly and negligently; and the answer to be made to those who bring this false charge. Some grammarians of an earlier time, men by no means without learning and repute, who wrote commentaries on Virgil, and among them Annaeus Cornutus, criticize the poet's use of a word in the following verses as careless and negligent: That, her white waist with howling monsters girt, Dread Scylla knocked about (vexasse) Ulysses' ships Amid the swirling depths, and, piteous sight! The trembling sailors with her sea-dogs rent. They think, namely, that vexasse is a weak word, indicating a slight and trivial annoyance, and not adapted to such a horror as the sudden seizing and rending of human beings by a ruthless monster. They also criticize another word in the following: Who has not heard Of king Eurystheus' pitiless commands And altars of Busiris, the unpraised (inlaudati)? Inlaudati, they say, is not at all a suitable word, but is quite inadequate to express abhorrence of a wretch who, because he used to sacrifice guests from all over the world, was not merely "undeserving of praise," but rather deserving of the abhorrence and execration of the whole human race. They have criticized still another word in the verse: Through tunic rough (squalentem) with gold the sword drank from his pierced side, on the ground that it is out of place to say auro squalentem, since the filth of squalor is quite opposed to the brilliance and splendour of gold. Now as to the word vexasse, I believe the following answer may be made: vexasse is an intensive verb, and is obviously derived from vehere, in which there is already some notion of compulsion by another; for a man who is carried is not his own master. But vexare, which is derived from vehere, unquestionably implies greater force and impulse. For vexare is properly used of one who is seized and carried away, and dragged about hither and yon; just as taxare denotes more forcible and repeated action than tangere, from which it is undoubtedly derived; and iactare a much fuller and more vigorous action than iacere, from which it comes; and quassare something severer and more violent than quatere. Therefore, merely because vexare is commonly used of the annoyance of smoke or wind or dust is no reason why the original force and meaning of the word should be lost; and that meaning was preserved by the earlier writers who, as became them, spoke correctly and clearly. Marcus Cato, in the speech which he wrote On the Achaeans, has these words: "And when Hannibal was rending and harrying (vexaret) the land of Italy." That is to say, Cato used vexare of the effect on Italy of Hannibal's conduct, at a time when no species of disaster, cruelty or savagery could be imagined which Italy did not suffer from his hands. Marcus Tullius, in his fourth Oration against Verres, wrote: "This was so pillaged and ravaged by that wretch, that it did not seem to have been laid waste (vexata) by an enemy who in the heat of war still felt some religious scruple and some respect for customary law, but by barbarous pirates." But concerning inlaudatus it seems possible to give two answers. One is of this kind: There is absolutely no one who is of so perverted a character as not sometimes to do or say something that can be commended (laudari). And therefore this very ancient line has become a familiar proverb: Oft-times even a fool expresses himself to the purpose. But one who, on the contrary, in his every act and at all times, deserves no praise (laude) at all is inlaudatus, and such a man is the very worst and most despicable of all mortals, just as freedom from all reproach makes one inculpatus (blameless). Now inculpatus is the synonym for perfect goodness; therefore conversely inlaudatus represents the limit of extreme wickedness. It is for that reason that Homer usually bestows high praise, not by enumerating virtues, but by denying faults; for example: "And not unwillingly they charged," and again: Not then would you divine Atrides see Confused, inactive, nor yet loath to fight. Epicurus too in a similar way defined the greatest pleasure as the removal and absence of all pain, in these words: "The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of all that pains." Again Virgil on the same principle called the Stygian pool "unlovely." For just as he expressed abhorrence of the "unpraised" man by the denial of praise. so he abhorred the "unlovable" by the denial of love. Another defence of inlaudatus is this: laudare in early Latin means "to name" and "cite." Thus in civil actions they use laudare of an authority, when he is cited. Conversely, the inlaudatus is the same as the inlaudabilis, namely, one who is worthy neither of mention nor remembrance, and is never to be named. as, for example, in days gone by the common council of Asia decreed that no one should ever mention the name of the man who had burned the temple of Diana at Ephesus. There remains the third criticism, his use of the expression "a tunic rough with gold." But squalentem signifies a quantity or thick layer of gold, laid on so as to resemble scales. For squalere is used of the thick, rough scales (squamae) which are to be seen on the skins of fish or snakes. This is made clear both by others and indeed by this same poet in several passages; thus: A skin his covering was, plumed with brazen scales (squamis) And clasped with gold. and again: And now has he his flashing breastplate donned, Bristling with brazen scales (squamis). Accius too in the Pelopidae writes thus: This serpent's scales (squamae) rough gold and purple wrought. Thus we see that squalere was applied to whatever was overloaded and excessively crowded with anything, in order that its strange appearance might strike terror into those who looked upon it. So too on neglected and scaly bodies the deep layer of dirt was called squalor, and by long and continued use in that sense the entire word has become so corrupted, that finally squalor has come to be used of nothing but filth.

§ 2.7  Of the obedience of children to their parents; and quotations on this subject from the writings of the philosophers, in which it is inquired whether all a father's commands should be obeyed. It is a frequent subject of discussion with philosophers, whether a father should always be obeyed, whatever the nature of his commands. As to this question writers On Duty, both Greeks and our own countrymen, have stated that there are three opinions to be noticed and considered, and these they have differentiated with great acuteness. The first is, that all a father's commands must be obeyed. the second, that in some he is to be obeyed, in others not. the third, that it is not necessary to yield to and obey one's father in anything. Since at first sight this last opinion is altogether shameful, I shall begin by stating what has been said on that point. "A father's command," they say, "is either right or wrong. If it is right, it is not to be obeyed because it is his order, but the thing must be done because it is right that it be done. If his command is wrong, surely that should on no account be done which ought not to be done." Thus they arrive at the conclusion that a father's command should never be obeyed. But I have neither heard that this view has met with approval — for it is a mere quibble, both silly and foolish, as I shall presently show. nor can the opinion which we stated first, that all a father's commands are to be obeyed, be regarded as true and acceptable. For what if he shall command treason to one's country, a mother's murder, or some other base or impious deed. The intermediate view, therefore, has seemed best and safest, that some commands are to be obeyed and others not. But yet they say that commands which ought not to be obeyed must nevertheless be declined gently and respectfully, without excessive aversion or bitter recrimination, and rather left undone than spurned. But that conclusion from which it is inferred, as has been said above, that a father is never to be obeyed, is faulty, and may be refuted and disposed of as follows. All human actions are, as learned men have decided, either honourable or base. Whatever is inherently right or honourable, such as keeping faith, defending one's country, loving one's friends, ought to be done whether a father commands it or not. but whatever is of the opposite nature, and is base and altogether evil, should not be done even at a father's order. Actions, however, which lie between these, and are called by the Greeks now μέσα, or "neutral," and now ἀδιάφορα, or "indifferent," such as going to war, tilling the fields, seeking office, pleading causes, marrying a wife, going when ordered, coming when called; since these and similar actions are in themselves neither honourable nor base, but are to be approved or disapproved exactly according to the manner in which we perform them: for this reason they believe that in every kind of action of this description a father should be obeyed; as for instance, if he should order his son to marry a wife or to plead for the accused. For since each of these acts, in its actual nature and of itself, is neither honourable nor base, if a father should command it, he ought to be obeyed. But if he should order his son to marry a woman of ill repute, infamous and criminal, or to speak in defence of a Catiline, a Tubulus, or a Publius Clodius, of course he ought not to be obeyed, since by the addition of a certain degree of evil these acts cease to be inherently neutral and indifferent. Hence the premise of those who say that "the commands of a father are either honourable or base" is incomplete, and it cannot be considered what the Greeks call "a sound and regular disjunctive proposition." For that disjunctive premise lacks the third member, "or are neither honourable nor base." If this be added, the conclusion cannot be drawn that a father's command must never be obeyed.

§ 2.8  The unfairness of Plutarch's criticism of Epicurus' knowledge of the syllogism. Plutarch, in the second book of his essay On Homer, asserts that Epicurus made use of an incomplete, perverted and faulty syllogism, and he quotes Epicurus's own words: "Death is nothing to us, for what is dissolved is without perception, and what is without perception is nothing to us." "Now Epicurus," says Plutarch, "omitted what he ought to have stated as his major premise, that death is a dissolution of body and soul. and then, to prove something else, he goes on to use the very premise that he had omitted, as if it had been stated and conceded. But this syllogism," says Plutarch, "cannot advance, unless that premise be first presented." What Plutarch wrote as to the form and sequence of a syllogism is true enough; for if you wish to argue and reason according to the teaching of the schools, you ought to say: "Death is the dissolution of soul and body; but what is dissolved is without perception; and what is without perception is nothing to us." But we cannot suppose that Epicurus, being the man he was, omitted that part of the syllogism through ignorance. or that it was his intention to state a syllogism complete in all its members and limitations, as is done in the schools of the logicians; but since the separation of body and soul by death is self-evident, he of course did not think it necessary to call attention to what was perfectly obvious to everyone. For the same reason, too, he put the conclusion of the syllogism, not at the end, but at the beginning; for who does not see that this also was not due to inadvertence?. In Plato too you will often find syllogisms in which the order prescribed in the schools is disregarded and inverted, with a kind of lofty disdain of criticism.

§ 2.9  How the same Plutarch, with obvious captiousness, criticized the use of a word by Epicurus. In the same book, Plutarch also finds fault a second time with Epicurus for using an inappropriate word and giving it an incorrect meaning. Now Epicurus wrote as follows: "The utmost height of pleasure is the removal of everything that pains." Plutarch declares that he ought not to have said "of everything that pains," but "of everything that is painful". for it is the removal of pain, he explains, that should be indicated, not of that which causes pain. In bringing this charge against Epicurus Plutarch is "word-chasing" with excessive minuteness and almost with frigidity. for far from hunting up such verbal meticulousness and such refinements of diction, Epicurus hunts them down.

§ 2.10  The meaning of favisae Capitolinae; and what Marcus Varro replied to Servius Sulpicius, who asked him about the term. Servius Sulpicius, an authority on civil law and a man well versed in letters, wrote to Marcus Varro and asked him to explain the meaning of a term which was used in the records of the censors; the term in question was favisae Capitolinae. Varro wrote in reply that he recalled that Quintus Catulus, when in charge of the restoration of the Capitol, had said that it had been his desire to lower the area Capitolina, in order that the ascent to the temple might have more steps and that the podium might be higher, to correspond with the elevation and size of the pediment; but that he had been unable to carry out his plan because the favisae had prevented. These, he said, were certain underground chambers and cisterns in the area, in which it was the custom to store ancient statues that had fallen from the temple, and some other consecrated objects from among the votive offerings. And then Varro goes on to say in the same letter, that he had never found any explanation of the term favisae in literature, but that Quintus Valerius Sorianus used to assert that what we called by their Greek name thesauri (treasuries) the early Latins termed flavisae, their reason being that there was deposited in them, not uncoined copper and silver, but stamped and minted money. His theory therefore was, he said, that the second letter had dropped out of the word flavisae, and that certain chambers and pits, which the attendants of the Capitol used for the preservation of old and sacred objects, were called favisae.

§ 2.11  Numerous important details about Sicinius Dentatus, the distinguished warrior. We read in the annals that Lucius Sicinius Dentatus, who was tribune of the commons in the consulship of Spurius Tarpeius and Aulus Aternius, was a warrior of incredible energy; that he won a name for his exceeding great valour, and was called the Roman Achilles. It is said that he fought with the enemy in one hundred and twenty battles, and had not a scar on his back, but forty-five in front; that golden crowns were given him eight times, the siege crown once, mural crowns three times, and civic crowns fourteen times; that eighty-three neck chains were awarded him, more than one hundred and sixty armlets, and eighteen spears; he was presented besides with twenty-five decorations. he had a number of spoils of war, many of which were won in single combat. he took part with his generals in nine triumphal processions.

§ 2.12  A law of Solon, the result of careful thought and consideration, which at first sight seems unfair and unjust, but on close examination is found to be altogether helpful and salutary. Among those very early laws of Solon which were inscribed upon wooden tablets at Athens, and which, promulgated by him, the Athenians ratified by penalties and oaths, to ensure their permanence, Aristotle says that there was one to this effect: "If because of strife and disagreement civil dissension shall ensue and a division of the people into two parties, and if for that reason each side, led by their angry feelings, shall take up arms and fight, then if anyone at that time, and in such a condition of civil discord, shall not ally himself with one or the other faction, but by himself and apart shall hold aloof from the common calamity of the State, let him be deprived of his home, his country, and all his property, and be an exile and an outlaw." When I read this law of Solon, who was a man of extraordinary wisdom, I was at first filled with something like great amazement, and I asked myself why it was that those who had held themselves aloof from dissension and civil strife were thought to be deserving of punishment. Then those who had profoundly and thoroughly studied the purpose and meaning of the law declared that it was designed, not to increase, but to terminate, dissension. And that is exactly so. For if all good men, who have been unequal to checking the dissension at the outset, do not abandon the aroused and frenzied people, but divide and ally themselves with one or the other faction, then the result will be, that when they have become members of the two opposing parties, and, being men of more than ordinary influence, have begun to guide and direct those parties, harmony can best be restored and established through the efforts of such men, controlling and soothing as they will the members of their respective factions, and desiring to reconcile rather than destroy their opponents. The philosopher Favorinus thought that this same course ought to be adopted also with brothers, or with friends, who are at odds; that is, that those who are neutral and kindly disposed towards both parties, if they have had little influence in bringing about a reconciliation because they have not made their friendly feelings evident, should then take sides, some one and some the other, and through this manifestation of devotion pave the way for restoring harmony. "But as it is," said he, "most of the friends of both parties make a merit of abandoning the two disputants, leaving them to the tender mercies of ill-disposed or greedy advisers, who, animated by hatred or by avarice, add fuel to their strife and inflame their passions."

§ 2.13  That the early writers used liberi in the plural number even of a single son or daughter. The early orators and writers of history or of poetry called even one son or daughter liberi, using the plural. And I have not only noticed this usage at various times in the works of several other of the older writers, but I just now ran across it in the fifth book of Sempronius Asellio's History. This Asellio was military tribune under Publius Scipio Africanus at Numantia and wrote a detailed account of the events in whose action he himself took part. His words about Tiberius Gracchus, tribune of the commons, at the time when he was killed on the Capitol, are as follows: "For whenever Gracchus left home, he was never accompanied by less than three or four thousand men." And farther on he wrote thus of the same Gracchus: "He began to beg that they would at least defend him and his children (liberi); and then he ordered that the one male child which he had at that time should be brought out, and almost in tears commended him to the protection of the people."

§ 2.14  That Marcus Cato, in the speech entitled Against the Exile Tiberius, says stitisses vadimonium with an I, and not stetisses; and the explanation of that word. In an old copy of the speech of Marcus Cato, which is entitled Against the Exile Tiberius, we find the following words: "What if with veiled head you had kept your recognizance?. Cato indeed wrote stitisses, correctly; but revisers have boldly and falsely written an E and put stetisses in all the editions, on the ground that stitisses is an unmeaning and worthless reading. Nay, it is rather they themselves that are ignorant and worthless, in not knowing that Cato wrote stitisses because sisteretur is used of recognizance, not staretur.

§ 2.15  To what extent in ancient days it was to old age in particular that high honours were paid; and why it was that later those same honours were extended to husbands and fathers; and in that connection some provisions of the seventh section of the Julian law. Among the earliest Romans, as a rule, neither birth nor wealth was more highly honoured than age, but older men were reverenced by their juniors almost like gods and like their own parents, and everywhere and in every kind of honour they were regarded as first and of prior right. From a dinner-party, too, older men were escorted home by younger men, as we read in the records of the past, a custom which, as tradition has it, the Romans took over from the Lacedemonians, by whom, in accordance with the laws of Lycurgus, greater honour on all occasions was paid to greater age. But after it came to be realised that progeny were a necessity for the State, and there was occasion to add to the productivity of the people by premiums and other inducements, then in certain respects greater deference was shown to men who had a wife, and to those who had children, than to older men who had neither wives nor children. Thus in chapter seven of the Julian law priority in assuming the emblems of power is given, not to the elder of the consuls, but to him who either has more children under his control than his colleague, or has lost them in war. But if both have an equal number of children, the one who has a wife, or is eligible for marriage, is preferred. If, however, both are married and are fathers of the same number of children, then the standard of honour of early times is restored, and the elder is first to assume the rods. But when both consuls are without wives and have the same number of sons, or are husbands but have no children, there is no provision in that law as to age. However, I hear that it was usual for those who had legal priority to yield the rods for the first month to colleagues who were either considerably older than they, or of much higher rank, or who were entering upon a second consulship.

§ 2.16  Sulpicius Apollinaris' criticism of Caesellius Vindex for his explanation of a passage in Virgil. Virgil has the following lines in the sixth book: Yon princeling, thou beholdest leaning there Upon a bloodless lance, shall next emerge Into the realms of day. He is the first Of half-Italian strain, thy last-born heir, To thine old age by fair Lavinia given, Called Silvius, a royal Alban name (Of sylvan birth and sylvan nurture he), A king himself and sire of kings to come, By whom our race in Alba Longa reign. It appeared to Caesellius that there was utter inconsistency between thy last-born heir and To thine old age by fair Lavinia given, Of sylvan birth. For if, as is shown by the testimony of almost all the annals, this Silvius was born after the death of Aeneas, and for that reason was given the forename Postumus, with what propriety does Virgil add: To thine old age by fair Lavinia given, Of sylvan birth. For these words would seem to imply that while Aeneas was still living, but was already an old man, a son Silvius was born to him and was reared. Therefore Caesellius, in his Notes on Early Readings, expressed the opinion that the meaning of the words was as follows: "Postuma proles," said he, "does not mean a child born after the death of his father, but the one who was born last; this applies to Silvius, who was born late and after the usual time, when Aeneas was already an old man." But Caesellius names no adequate authority for this version. while that Silvius was born, as I have said, after Aeneas' death, has ample testimony. Therefore Sulpicius Apollinaris, among other criticisms of Caesellius, notes this statement of his as an error, and says that the cause of the error is the phrase quem tibi longaevo. "Longaevo," he says, "does not mean 'when old,' for that is contrary to historical truth, but rather 'admitted into a life that is now long and unending, and made immortal." For Anchises, who says this to his son, knew that after Aeneas had ended his life among men he would be immortal and a local deity, and enjoy a long and everlasting existence." Thus Apollinaris, ingeniously enough. But yet a "long life" is one thing, and an "unending life" another, and the gods are not called "of great age," but "immortal."

§ 2.17  Marcus Cicero's observations on the nature of certain prepositions; to which is added a discussion of the particular matter which Cicero had observed. After careful observation Marcus Tullius noted that the prepositions in and con, when prefixed to nouns and verbs, are lengthened and prolonged when they are followed by the initial letters of sapiens and felix; but that in all other instances they are pronounced short. Cicero's words are: "Indeed, what can be more elegant than this, which does not come about from a natural law, but in accordance with a kind of usage? We pronounce the first vowel in indoctus short, in insanus long; in immanis short, in infelix long; in brief, in compound words in which the first letters are those which begin sapiens and felix the prefix is pronounced long, in all others short; thus we have cŏnposuit but consuevit, cŏncrepuit but conficit. Consult the rules of grammar and they will censor your usage; refer the matter to your ears and they will approve. Ask why it is so; they will say that it pleases them. And language ought to gratify the pleasure of the ear. In these words of which Cicero spoke it is clear that the principle is one of euphony, but what are we to say of the preposition pro? For although it is often shortened or lengthened, yet it does not conform to this rule of Marcus Tullius. For it is not always lengthened when it is followed by the first letter of the word fecit, which Cicero says has the effect of lengthening the prepositions in and con. For we pronounce proficisci, profugere, profundere, profanum and profestum with the first vowel short, but proferre, profligare and proficere with that syllable long. Why is it then that this letter, which, according to Cicero's observation, has the effect of lengthening, does not have the same effect by reason of rule or of euphony in all words of the same kind, but lengthens the vowel in one word and shortens it in another. Nor, as a matter of fact, is the particle con lengthened only when followed by that letter which Cicero mentioned. for both Cato and Sallust said "faenoribus copertus est." Moreover coligatus and conexus are pronounced long. But after all, in these cases which I have cited one can see that this particle is lengthened because the letter n is dropped; for the loss of a letter is compensated by the lengthening of the syllable. This principle is observed also in the word cogo. and it is no contradiction that we pronounce cŏegi short; for this form cannot be derived from cogo without violation of the principle of analogy.

§ 2.18  That Phaedo the Socratic was a slave; and that several others also were of that condition. Phaedo of Elis belonged to that famous Socratic band and was on terms of close intimacy with Socrates and Plato. His name was given by Plato to that inspired dialogue of his on the immortality of the soul. This Phaedo, though a slave, was of noble person and intellect, and according to some writers, in his boyhood was driven to prostitution by his master, who was a pander. We are told that Cebes the Socratic, at Socrates' earnest request, bought Phaedo and gave him the opportunity of studying philosophy. And he afterwards became a distinguished philosopher, whose very tasteful discourses on Socrates are in circulation. There were not a few other slaves too afterwards who became famous philosophers. among them that Menippus whose works Marcus Varro emulated in those satires which others call "Cynic," but he himself, "Menippean." Besides these, Pompylus, the slave of the Peripatetic Theophrastus, and the slave of the Stoic Zeno who was called Persaeus, and the slave of Epicurus whose name was Mys, were philosophers of repute. Diogenes the Cynic also served as a slave, but he was a freeborn man, who was sold into slavery. When Xeniades of Corinth wished to buy him and asked whether he knew any trade, Diogenes replied: "I know how to govern free men." Then Xeniades, in admiration of his answer, bought him, set him free, and entrusting to him his own children, said: "Take my children to govern." But as to the well-known philosopher Epictetus, the fact that he too was a slave is too fresh in our memory to need to be committed to writing, as if it had been forgotten.

§ 2.19  On the nature of the verb rescire; and its true and distinctive meaning. I have observed that the verb rescire has a peculiar force, which is not in accord with the general meaning of other words compounded with that same preposition; for we do not use rescire in the same way that we do rescribere (write in reply), relegere (reread), restituere (restore), . . . and substituere (put in the place of). but rescire is properly said of one who learns of something that is hidden, or unlooked for and unexpected. But why the particle re has this special force in this one word alone, I for my part am still inquiring. For I have never yet found that rescivi or rescire was used by those who were careful in their diction, otherwise than of things which were purposely concealed, or happened contrary to anticipation and expectation. although scire itself is used of everything alike, whether favourable or unfavourable, unexpected or expected. Thus Naevius in the Triphallus wrote: If ever I discover (rescivero) that my son Has borrowed money for a love affair, Straightway I'll put you where you'll spit no more. Claudius Quadrigarius in the first book of his Annals says: "When the Lucanians discovered (resciverunt) that they had been deceived and tricked." And again in the same book Quadrigarius uses that word of something sad and unexpected: "When this became known to the relatives (rescierunt propinqui) of the hostages, who, as I have pointed out above, had been delivered to Pontus, their parents and relatives rushed into the street with hair in disarray." Marcus Cato writes in the fourth book of the Origins: "Then next day the dictator orders the master of the horse to be summoned: 'I will send you, if you wish, with the cavalry.' 'It is too late,' said the master of the horse, 'they have found it out already (rescivere).'"

§ 2.20  That for what we commonly call vivaria the earlier writers did not use that term; and when Publius Scipio used for this word in his speech to the people, and afterwards Marcus Varro in his work On Farming. In the third book of his treatise On Farming, Marcus Varro says that the name leporaria is given to certain enclosures, in which wild animals are kept alive and fed. I have appended Varro's own words: "There are three means of keeping animals on the farm — bird houses, leporaria (warrens), and fish-ponds. I am now using the term ornithones of all kinds of birds that are ordinarily kept within the walls of the farmhouse. Leporaria I wish you to understand, not in the sense in which our remote ancestors used the word, of places in which only hares are kept, but of all enclosures which are connected with a farmhouse and contain live animals that are fed." Farther on in the same book Varro writes: "When you bought the farm at Tusculum from Marcus Piso, there were many wild boars in the leporarium." But the word vivaria, which the common people now use — the Greek παράδεισοι and Varro's leporaria — I do not recall meeting anywhere in the older literature. But as to the word roboraria, which we find in the writings of Scipio, who used the purest diction of any man of his time, I have heard several learned men at Rome assert that this means what we call vivaria and that the name came from the "oaken" planks of which the enclosures were made, a kind of enclosure which we see in many places in Italy. This is the passage from Scipio's fifth oration Against Claudius Asellus: "When he had seen the highly-cultivated fields and well-kept farmhouses, he ordered them to set up a measuring rod on the highest point in that district; and from there to build a straight road, in some places through the midst of vineyards, in others through the roborarium and the fish-pond, in still others through the farm buildings." Thus we see that to pools or ponds of water in which live fish are kept in confinement, they gave their own appropriate name of piscinae, or "fish-ponds." Apiaria too is the word commonly used of places in which bee-hives are set; but I recall almost no one of those who have spoken correctly who has used that word either in writing or speaking. But Marcus Varro, in the third book of his treatise On Farming, remarks: "This is the way to make μελισσῶνες, which some call mellaria, or 'places for storing honey.'" But this word which Varro used is Greek; for they say μελισσῶνες, just as they do ἀμπελῶνες (vineyards) and δαφνῶνες (laurel groves).

§ 2.21  About the constellation which the Greeks call ἅμαξα and the Romans septentriones; and as to the origin and meaning of both those words. Several of us, Greeks and Romans, who were pursuing the same studies, were crossing in the same boat from Aigina to the Piraeus. It was night, the sea was calm, the time summer, and the sky bright and clear. So we all sat together in the stern and watched the brilliant stars. Then those of our company who were acquainted with Grecian lore discussed with learning and acumen such questions as these: what the ἅμαξα, or "Wain," was, and what Bootes, which was the Great, and which the Little Bear and why they were so called; in what direction that constellation moved in the course of the advancing night, and why Homer says that this is the only constellation that does not set, in view of the fact that there are some other stars that do not set. Thereupon I turned to our compatriots and said: "Why don't you barbarians tell me why we give the name of septentriones to what the Greeks call ἅμαξα. Now 'because we see seven stars' is not a sufficient answer, but I desire to be informed at some length," said I, "of the meaning of the whole idea which we express by the word septentriones." Then one of them, who had devoted himself to ancient literature and antiquities, replied: "The common run of grammarians think that the word septentriones is derived solely from the number of stars. For they declare that triones of itself has no meaning, but is a mere addition to the word; just as in our word quinquatrus, so called because five is the number of days after the Ides, atrus means nothing. But for my part, I agree with Lucius Aelius and Marcus Varro, who wrote that oxen were called triones, a rustic term it is true, as if they were terriones, that is to say, adapted to ploughing and cultivating the earth. Therefore this constellation, which the early Greeks called ἅμαξα merely from its form and position, because it seemed to resemble a wagon, the early men also of our country called septentriones, from oxen yoked together, that is, seven stars by which yoked oxen (triones) seem to be represented. After giving this opinion, Varro further added," said he, "that he suspected that these seven stars were called triones rather for the reason that they are so situated that every group of three neighbouring stars forms a triangle, that is to say, a three-sided figure." Of these two reasons which he gave, the latter seemed the neater and the more ingenious; for as we looked at that constellation, it actually appeared to consist of triangles.

§ 2.22  Information about the wind called Iapyx and about the names and quarters of other winds, derived from the discourses of Favorinus. At Favorinus' table, when he dined with friends, there was usually read either an old song of one of the lyric poets, or something from history, now in Greek and now in Latin. Thus one day there was read there, in a Latin poem, the word Iapyx, the name of a wind, and the question was asked what wind this was, from what quarter it blew, and what was the origin of so rare a term; and we also asked Favorinus to be so good as to inform us about the names and quarters of the other winds, since there was no general agreement as to their designations, positions or number. Then Favorinus ran on as follows: "It is well known," said he, "that there are four quarters and regions of the heavens — east, west, south and north. East and west are movable and variable points; south and north are permanently fixed and unalterable. For the sun does not always rise in exactly the same place, but its rising is called either equinoctial when it runs the course which is called ἰσημερινός (with equal days and nights), or solstitial, which is equivalent to θεριναὶ τροπαί (summer turnings), or brumal, which is the same as χειμεριναὶ τροπαί, or 'winter turnings." So too the sun does not always set in the same place; for in the same way its setting is called equinoctial, solstitial, or brumal. Therefore the wind which blows from the sun's spring, or equinoctial, rising is called eurus, a word derived, as your etymologists say, from the Greek which means 'that which flows from the east." This wind is called by the Greeks by still another name, ἀφηλιώτες, or 'in the direction of the sun'; and by the Roman sailors, subsolanus (lying beneath the sun). But the wind that comes from the summer and solstitial point of rising is called in Latin aquilo, in Greek βορέας, and some say it was for that reason that Homer called it αἰθρηγενέτης, or 'ether-born'; but boreas, they think, is so named ἀπὸ τῆς βοῆς, 'from the loud shout,' since its blast is violent and noisy. To the third wind, which blows from the point of the winter rising — the Romans call it volturnus — many of the Greeks give a compound name,εὐρόνοτος because it is between eurus and notus. These then are the three east winds: aquilo, volturnus and eurus, and eurus lies between the other two. Opposite to and facing these are three other winds from the west: caurus, which the Greeks commonly call ἀργεστής or 'clearing'; this blows from the quarter opposite aquilo. There is a second, favonius, which in Greek is called ζέφυρος, blowing from the point opposite to eurus; and a third, Africus, which in Greek is λίψ, or 'wet-bringing,' blows in opposition to volturnus. These two opposite quarters of the sky, east and west, have, as we see, six winds opposite to one another. But the south, whence it is a fixed and invariable point, has but one single south wind; this in Latin is termed auster, in Greek νότος, because it is cloudy and wet, for νοτίς is the Greek for 'moisture." The north too, for the same reason, has but one wind. This, called in Latin septentrionarius, in Greek ἀπαρκτίας, or 'from the region of the Bear,' is directly opposite to auster. From this list of eight winds some subtract four, and they declare that they do so on the authority of Homer, who knows only four winds: eurus, auster, aquilo and favonius. blowing from the four quarters of the heaven which we have named primary, so to speak; for they regard the east and west as broader, to be sure, but nevertheless single and not divided into three parts. There are others, on the contrary, who make twelve winds instead of eight, by inserting a third group of four in the intervening space about the south and north, in the same way that the second four are placed between the original two at east and west. "There are also some other names of what might be called special winds, which the natives have coined each in their own districts, either from the designations of the places in which they live or from some other reason which has led to the formation of the word. Thus our Gauls call the wind which blows from their land, the most violent wind to which they are exposed, circius, doubtless from its whirling and stormy character. the Apulians give the name Iapyx — the name by which they themselves are known ( Iapyges) — to the wind that blows from the mouth of Ἰαπυγία itself, from its inmost recesses, as it were. This is, I think, about the same as caurus; for it is a west wind and seems to blow from the quarter opposite eurus. Therefore Virgil says that Cleopatra, when fleeing to Egypt after the sea-fight, was borne onward by Iapyx, and he called an Apulian horse by the same name as the wind, that is, Iapyx. There is also a wind named caecias, which, according to Aristotle blows in such a way as not to drive away clouds, but to attract them. This, he says, is the origin of the proverbial line: Attracting to oneself, as caecias does the clouds. Moreover, besides these which I have mentioned there are in various places other names of winds, of new coinage and each peculiar to its own region, for example the Atabulus of Horace; these too I intended to discuss; I would also have added those which are called etesiae and prodromi, which at a fixed time of year, namely when the dog-star rises, blow from one or another quarter of the heavens; and since I have drunk a good bit, I would have prated on about the meaning of all these terms, had I not already done a deal of talking while all of you have been silent, as if I were delivering an exhibition speech." But for one to do all the talking at a large dinner-party," said he, "is neither decent nor becoming." This is what Favorinus recounted to us at his own table at the time I mentioned, with extreme elegance of diction and in a delightful and graceful style throughout. But as to his statement that the wind which blows from the land of Gaul is called circius, Marcus Cato in his Origins calls that wind, not circius, but cercius. For writing about the Spaniards who dwell on this side the Ebro, he set down these words: "But in this district are the finest iron and silver mines, also a great mountain of pure salt; the more you take from it, the more it grows. The cercius wind, when you speak, fills your mouth; it overturns an armed man or a loaded wagon." In saying above that the ἐτησίαι blow from one or another quarter of the heavens, although following the opinion of many, I rather think I spoke hastily. For in the second book of Publius Nigidius' treatise On Wind are these words: "Both the ἐτησίαι and the annual south winds follow the sun." We ought therefore to inquire into the meaning of "follow the sun."

§ 2.23  A discussion and comparison of passages taken from the comedy of Menander and that of Caecilius, entitled Plocium. I often read comedies which our poets have adapted and translated from the Greeks — Menander or Posidippus, Apollodorus or Alexis, and also some other comic writers. And while I am reading them, they do not seem at all bad; on the contrary, they appear to be written with a wit and charm which you would say absolutely could not be surpassed. But if you compare and place beside them the Greek originals from which they came, and if you match individual passages, reading them together alternately with care and attention, the Latin versions at once begin to appear exceedingly commonplace and mean; so dimmed are they by the wit and brilliance of the Greek comedies, which they were unable to rival. Only recently I had an experience of this kind. I was reading the Plocium or Necklace of Caecilius, much to the delight of myself and those who were present. The fancy took us to read also the Plocium of Menander, from which Caecilius had translated the said comedy. But after we took Menander in hand, good Heavens! how dull and lifeless, and how different from Menander did Caecilius appear! Upon my word, the armour of Diomedes and of Glaucus were not more different in value. Our reading had reached the passage where the aged husband was complaining of his rich and ugly wife, because he had been forced to sell his maid-servant, a girl skilled at her work and very good looking, since his wife suspected her of being his mistress. I shall say nothing of the great difference; but I have had the lines of both poets copied and submitted to others for their decision. This is Menander: 'Now may our heiress fair on both ears sleep. A great and memorable feat is hers; For she has driven forth, as she had planned, The wench that worried her, that all henceforth Of Crobyle alone the face may see, And that the famous woman, she my wife, May also be my tyrant. From the face Dame Nature gave her, she's an ass among apes, As says the adage. I would silent be About that night, the first of many woes. Alas that I took Crobyle to wife, With sixteen talents and a foot of nose. Then too can one her haughtiness endure? By Zeus Olympius and Athena, no! She has dismissed a maid who did her work More quickly than the word was given her, More quickly far than one will bring her back.' But Caecilius renders it thus: 'In very truth is he a wretched man, Who cannot hide his woe away from home; And that my wife makes me by looks and acts: If I kept still, I should betray myself No less. And she has all that you would wish She had not, save the dowry that she brought. Let him who's wise a lesson take from me, Who, like a free man captive to the foe, Am slave, though town and citadel are safe. What! wish her safe who steals whate'er I prize? While longing for her death, a living corpse am I. She says I've secret converse with our maid — That's what she said, and so belaboured me With tears, with prayers, with importunities, That I did sell the wench. Now, I suppose, She blabs like this to neighbours and friends: "Which one of you, when in the bloom of youth, Could from her husband win what I from mine Have gained, who've robbed him of his concubine." Thus they, while I, poor wretch, am torn to shreds.' Now, not to mention the charm of subject matter and diction, which is by no means the same in the two books, I notice this general fact — that some of Menander's lines, brilliant, apt and witty, Caecilius has not attempted to reproduce, even where he might have done so. but he has passed them by as if they were of no value, and has dragged in some other farcical stuff; and what Menander took from actual life, simple, realistic and delightful, this for some reason or other Caecilius has missed. For example, that same old husband, talking with another old man, a neighbour of his, and cursing the arrogance of his rich wife, says: I have to wife an heiress ogress, man! I did not tell you that? What, really? no? She is the mistress of my house and lands, Of all that's hereabout. And in return I have by Zeus! the hardest of hard things. She scolds not only me, but her son too, Her daughter most of all. — You tell a thing There's no contending with. — I know it well. But in this passage Caecilius chose rather to play the buffoon than to be appropriate and suitable to the character that he was representing. For this is the way he spoiled the passage: But tell me sir; is your wife captious, pray? — How can you ask? — But in what manner, then? — I am ashamed to tell. When I come home And sit beside her, she with fasting breath Straight kisses me. — there's no mistake in that. She'd have you spew up what you've drunk abroad. It is clear what your judgment ought to be about that scene also, found in both comedies, which is about of the following purport. The daughter of a poor man was violated during a religious vigil. This was unknown to her father, and she was looked upon as a virgin. Being with child as the result of that assault, at the proper time she is in labour. An honest slave, standing before the door of the house, knowing nothing of the approaching delivery of his master's daughter, and quite unaware that violence had been offered her, hears the groans and prayers of the girl labouring in childbirth; he gives expression to his fear, anger, suspicion, pity and grief. In the Greek comedy all these emotions and feelings of his are wonderfully vivid and clear, but in Caecilius they are all dull and without any grace and dignity of expression. Afterwards, when the same slave by questioning has found out what has happened, in Menander he utters this lament: Alas! thrice wretched he who weds, though poor, And children gets. How foolish is the man Who keeps no watch o'er his necessities, And if he luckless be in life's routine, Can't use his wealth as cloak, but buffeted By ev'ry storm, lives helpless and in grief. All wretchedness he shares, of blessings none, Thus sorrowing for one I'd all men warn. Let us consider whether Caecilius was sufficiently inspired to approach the sincerity and realism of these words. These are the lines of Caecilius, in which he gives some mangled fragments from Menander, patching them with the language of tragic bombast: Unfortunate in truth the man, who poor, Yet children gets, to share his poverty. His fortune and his state at once are clear; The ill fame of the rich their set conceals. Accordingly, as I said above, when I read these passages of Caecilius by themselves, they seem by no means lacking in grace and spirit, but when I compare and match them with the Greek version, I feel that Caecilius should not have followed a guide with whom he could not keep pace.

§ 2.24  On the ancient frugality and on early sumptuary laws. Frugality among the early Romans, and moderation in food and entertainments were secured not only by observance and training at home, but also by public penalties and the inviolable provisions of numerous laws. Only recently I read in the Miscellanies of Ateius Capito an old decree of the senate, passed in the consulship of Gaius Fannius and Marcus Valerius Messala, which provides that the leading citizens, who according to ancient usage "interchanged" at the Megalensian games that is, acted as host to one another in rotation), should take oath before the consuls in set terms, that they would not spend on each dinner more than one hundred and twenty asses in addition to vegetables, bread and wine; that they would not serve foreign, but only native, wine, nor use at table more than one hundred pounds' weight of silverware. But subsequent to that decree of the senate the law of Fannius was passed, which allowed the expenditure of one hundred asses a day at the Ludi Romani and the plebeian games, at the Saturnalia, and on certain other days; of thirty asses on ten additional days each month; but on all other days of only ten. This is the law to which the poet Lucilius alludes when he says: The paltry hundred pence of Fannius. In regard to this some of the commentators on Lucilius have been mistaken in thinking that Fannius' law authorized a regular expenditure of a hundred asses on every kind of day. For, as I have stated above, Fannius authorized one hundred asses on certain holidays which he expressly named, but for all other days he limited the daily outlay to thirty asses for some days and to ten for others. Next the Licinian law was passed which, while allowing the outlay of one hundred asses on designated days, as did the law of Fannius, conceded two hundred asses for weddings and set a limit of thirty for other days; however, after naming a fixed weight of dried meat and salted provisions for each day, it granted the indiscriminate and unlimited use of the products of earth, vine and orchard. This law the poet Laevius mentions in his Erotopaegnia. These are the words of Laevius, by which he means that a kid that had been brought for a feature was sent away and the dinner served with fruit and vegetables, as the Licinian law had provided: The Licinian law is introduced, The liquid light to the kid restored. Lucilius also has the said law in mind in these words: Let us evade the law of Licinius. Afterwards, when these laws were illegible from the rust of age and forgotten, when many men of abundant means were gormandizing, and recklessly pouring their family and fortune into an abyss of dinners and banquets, Lucius Sulla in his dictatorship proposed a law to the people, which provided that on the Kalends, Ides and Nones, on days of games, and on certain regular festivals, it should be proper and lawful to spend three hundred sesterces on a dinner, but on all other days no more than thirty. Besides these laws we find also an Aemilian law, setting a limit not on the expense of dinners, but on the kind and quantity of food. Then the law of Antius, besides curtailing outlay, contained the additional provision, that no magistrate or magistrate elect should dine out anywhere, except at the house of stipulated persons. Lastly, the Julian law came before the people during the principate of Caesar Augustus, by which on working days two hundred sesterces is the limit, on the Kalends, Ides and Nones and some other holidays, three hundred, but at weddings and the banquets following them, a thousand. Ateius Capito says that there is still another edict — but whether of the deified Augustus or of Tiberius Caesar I do not exactly remember — by which the outlay for dinners on various festal days was increased from three hundred sesterces to two thousand, to the end that the rising tide of luxury might be restrained at least within those limits.

§ 2.25  What the Greeks understand by ἀναλογία, and, on the contrary, by ἀνωμαλία. In the Latin language, just as in Greek, some have thought that the principle of ἀναλογία should be followed, others that of ἀνωμαλία. Ἀναλογία is the similar inflection of similar words, which some call in Latin proportio, or "regularity." Ἀνωμαλία is irregularity in inflection, following usage. Now two distinguished Greek grammarians, Aristarchus and Crates, defended with the utmost vigour, the one analogy, the other anomaly. The eighth book of Marcus Varro's treatise On the Latin Language, dedicated to Cicero, maintains that no regard is paid to regularity, and points out that in almost all words usage rules. "As when we decline," says he, "lupus lupi, probus probi, but lepus leporis; again, paro paravi and lavo lavi, pungo pupugi, tundo tutudiand pingo pinxi. And although," he continues, "from ceno and prandeo and poto we form cenatus sum, pransus sum and potus sum, yet from destringor and extergeor and lavor we make destrinxi and extersi and lavi. Furthermore, although from Oscus, Tuscus and Graecus we derive the adverbs Osce, Tusce and Graece, yet from Gallus and Maurus we have Gallice and Maurice; as from probus probe, from doctus docte, but from rarus there is no adverb rare, but some say raro, others rarenter." In the same book Varro goes on to say: "No one uses sentior and that form by itself is naught, but almost everyone says adsentior. Sisenna alone used to say adsentio (I agree) in the senate, but later many followed his example, yet could not prevail over usage."10 But Varro himself in other books wrote a good deal in defence of analogy. Therefore his utterances on the subject are, as it were, commonplaces, to cite now against analogy and again also in its favour.

§ 2.26  Discourses of Marcus Fronto and the philosopher Favorinus on the varieties of colours and their Greek and Latin names: and incidentally, the nature of the colour spadix. When the philosopher Favorinus was on his way to visit the exconsul Marcus Fronto, who was ill with the gout, he wished me also to go with him. And when there at Fronto's, where a number of learned men were present, a discussion took place about colours and their names, to the effect that the shades of colours are manifold, but the names for them are few and indefinite. Favorinus said: "More distinctions of colour are detected by the eye than are expressed by words and terms. For leaving out of account other incongruities, your simple colours, red (rufus) and green (viridis), have single names, but many different shades. And that poverty in names I find more pronounced in Latin than in Greek. For the colour red (rufus) does in fact get its name from redness, but although fire is one kind of red, blood another, purple another, saffron another, and gold still another, yet the Latin tongue does not indicate these special varieties of red by separate and individual words, but includes them all under the one term rubor, except in so far as it borrows names from the things themselves, and calls anything 'fiery,' 'flaming,' 'blood-red,' 'saffron', 'purple' and 'golden." For russus and ruber are no doubt derived from rufus, and do not indicate all its special varieties, but ξανθός and ἐρυθρός and πυρρός and κιρρός and φοῖνιξ seem to mark certain differences in the colour red, either intensifying it or making it lighter, or qualifying it by the admixture of some shade." Then Fronto, replying to Favorinus, said: "I do not deny that the Greek language, which you seem to prefer, is richer and more copious than ours; but nevertheless in naming these colours of which you have just spoken we are not quite so badly off as you think. For russus and ruber, which you have just mentioned, are not the only words that denote the colour red, but we have others also, more numerous than those which you have quoted from the Greek. For fulvus, flavus, rubidus, poeniceus, rutilus, luteus and spadix are names of the colour red, which either brighten it (making it fiery, as it were), or combine it with green, or darken it with black, or make it luminous by a slight addition of gleaming white. For poeniceus, which you call φοῖνιξ in Greek, belongs to our language, and rutilus and spadix, a synonym of poeniceus which is taken over into Latin from the Greek, indicate a rich, gleaming shade of red like that of the fruit of the palm-tree when it is not fully ripened by the sun. And from this spadix and poeniceus get their name. For spadix in Doric is applied to a branch torn from a palm-tree along with its fruit. But the colour fulvus seems to be a mixture of red and green, in which sometimes green predominates, sometimes red. Thus the poet who was most careful in his choice of words applies fulvus to an eagle, to jasper, to fur caps, to gold, to sand, and to a lion; and so Ennius in his Annals uses fulvus of air. Flavus on the other hand seems to be compounded of green and red and white; thus Virgil speaks of golden hair as flava and applies that adjective also to the leaves of the olive, which I see surprises some. and thus, much earlier, Pacuvius called water flava and dust fulvus. I am glad to quote his verses, for they are most charming: Give me thy foot, that with the same soft hands With which oft times I did Ulysses soothe I may with golden (flavis) waters wash away The tawny (fulvum) dust and heal thy weariness. "Now, rubidus is a darker red and with a larger admixture of black. luteus, on the other hand, is a more diluted red, and from this dilution its name too seems to be derived. Therefore, my dear Favorinus," said he, "the shades of red have no more names in Greek than with us. But neither is the colour green expressed by more terms in your language. and Virgil, when he wished to indicate the green colour of a horse, could perfectly well have called the horse caeruleus rather than glaucus, but he preferred to use a familiar Greek word, rather than one which was unusual in Latin. Moreover, our earlier writers used caesia as the equivalent of the Greek γλαυκῶπις, as Nigidius says, from the colour of the sky, as if it were originally caelia." After Fronto had said this, Favorinus, enchanted with his exhaustive knowledge of the subject and his elegant diction, said: "Were it not for you, and perhaps for you alone, the Greek language would surely have come out far ahead; but you, my dear Fronto, exemplify Homer's line: Thou would'st either have won or made the result indecisive. But not only have I listened with pleasure to all your learned remarks, but in particular in describing the diversity of the colour flavus you have made me understand these beautiful lines from the fourteenth book of Ennius' Annals, which before I did not in the least comprehend: The calm sea's golden marble now they skim; Ploughed by the thronging craft, the green seas foam. for 'the green seas' did not seem to correspond with 'golden marble." But since, as you have said, flavus is a colour containing an admixture of green and white, Ennius with the utmost elegance called the foam of the green sea 'golden marble.'"

§ 2.27  The criticism of Titus Castricius passed upon passages from Sallust and Demosthenes, in which the one described Philip, the other Sertorius. This is Demosthenes' striking and brilliant description of king Philip: "I saw that Philip himself, with whom we were struggling, had in his desire for empire and absolute power had one eye knocked out, his collar-bone broken, his hand and leg maimed, and was ready to resign any part of his body that fortune chose to take from him, provided that with what remained he might live in honour and glory." Sallust, desiring to rival this description, in his Histories thus wrote of the leader Sertorius: "He won great glory in Spain, while military tribune under the command of Titus Didius, rendered valuable service in the Marsic war in providing troops and arms; but he got no credit for much that was then done under his direction and orders, at first because of his low birth and afterwards through unfriendly historians; but during his lifetime his appearance bore testimony to these deeds, in many scars on his breast, and in the loss of an eye. Indeed, he rejoiced greatly in his bodily disfigurement, caring nothing for what he had lost, because he kept the rest with greater glory." In his estimate of these words of the two writers Titus Castricius said: "Is it not beyond the range of human capability to rejoice in bodily disfigurement? For rejoicing is a certain exaltation of spirit, delighting in the realization of something greatly desired. How much truer, more natural, and more in accordance with human limitations is this: 'Giving up whatever part of his body fortune chose to take." In these words," said he, "Philip is shown, not like Sertorius, rejoicing in bodily disfigurement, which," he said, "is unheard of and extravagant, but as a scorner of bodily losses and injuries in his thirst for honour and glory, who in exchange for the fame which he coveted would sacrifice his limbs one by one to the attacks of fortune."

§ 2.28  That it is uncertain to which deity sacrifices ought to be offered when there is an earthquake. What is to be regarded as the cause of earthquakes is not only not obvious to the ordinary understanding and thought of mankind, but it is not agreed even among the natural philosophers whether they are due to the mighty winds that gather in the caverns and hollow places of the earth, or to the ebb and flow of subterranean waters in its hollows, as seems to have been the view of the earliest Greeks, who called Neptune "the Earth Shaker"; or whether they are the result of something else or due to the divine power of some other god — all this, I say, is not yet a matter of certain knowledge. For that reason the Romans of old, who were not only exceedingly scrupulous and careful in discharging all the other obligations of life, but also in fulfilling religious duties and venerating the immortal gods, whenever they felt an earthquake or received report of one, decreed a holy day on that account, but forbore to declare and specify in the decree, as is commonly done, the name of the god in whose honour the holy day was to be observed; for fear that by naming one god instead of another they might involve the people in a false observance. If anyone had desecrated that festival, and expiation was therefore necessary, they used to offer a victim "to either the god or goddess," and Marcus Varro tells us that this usage was established by a decree of the pontiffs, since it was uncertain what force, and which of the gods or goddesses, had caused the earthquake. But in the case of eclipses of the sun or moon they concerned themselves no less with trying to discover the causes of that phenomenon. However, Marcus Cato, although a man with a great interest in investigation, nevertheless on this point expressed himself indecisively and superficially. His words in the fourth book of his Origins are as follows: "I do not care to write what appears on the tablet of the high priest: how often grain was dear, how often darkness, or something else, obscured the light of sun or moon." Of so little importance did he consider it either to know or to tell the true causes of eclipses of the sun and moon.

§ 2.29  A fable of the Phrygian Aesop, which is well worth telling. Aesop, the well-known fabulist from Phrygia, has justly been regarded as a wise man, since he taught what it was salutary to call to mind and to recommend, not in an austere and dictatorial manner, as is the way of philosophers, but by inventing witty and entertaining fables he put into men's minds and hearts ideas that were wholesome and carefully considered, while at the same time he enticed their attention. For example, this fable of his about the little nest of a birdlet with delightful humour warns us that in the case of things which one can do, hope and confidence should never be placed in another, but in one's own self. "There is a little bird," he says, "it is called the lark. It lives in the grainfields, and generally builds its nest at such a time that the harvest is at hand exactly when the young birds are ready to be fledged. Such a lark chanced to have built her nest in a field which had been sown rather early in the year; therefore when the grain was turning yellow, the fledglings were still unable to fly. Accordingly, when the mother went off in search of food for her young, she warned them to notice whether anything unusual was said or done there, and to tell it to her on her return. A little later the owner of that grainfield calls his young son and says: 'Do you not see that this is ripe and already calls for hands? Tomorrow then, as soon as it is light, see that you go to our friends and ask them to come and exchange work with us, and help us with this harvest." So saying, he at once went away. And when the lark returned, the chicks, frightened and trembling, twittered about their mother and implored her to make haste and at once carry them off to some other place; 'for,' said they, 'the master has sent to ask his friends to come at daybreak and reap." The mother bids them be easy in mind. 'For if the master,' said she, 'has turned the harvesting over to his friends, the field will not be reaped tomorrow, and I need not take you away today. On the following day the mother flies off to get food. The master waits for those whom he had summoned. The sun grows hot and nothing is done. The day advances and no friends come. Then he says again to his son: 'Those friends of ours are a lot of slackers. Why not rather go and ask our relatives and kinsfolk to come to reap early tomorrow?. This, too, the frightened chicks tell their mother. She urges them once again to be without fear and without worry, saying that hardly any relatives and kinsfolk are so obliging as to undertake labour without any delay and to obey a summons at once. 'But do you," she said, 'observe whether anything more is said." Next day at dawn the bird left to forage. The relatives and kinsfolk neglected the work which they were asked to do. So finally the owner said to his son. 'Enough of friends and relatives. Bring two scythes at daybreak; I myself will take one and you yourself the other, and tomorrow we ourselves will reap the grain with our own hands." When the mother heard from her brood that the farmer had said this, she cried: 'It is time to get out and be off; for this time what he said surely will be done. For now it depends on the very man whose business it is, not on another who is asked to do it." And so the lark moved her nest, the owner harvested his crop." This then is Aesop's fable, showing that trust in friends and relatives is usually idle and vain. But what different warning do the more highly revered books of the philosophers give us, than that we should rely on ourselves alone. and regard everything else that is outside and beyond our control as helpful neither to our affairs nor to ourselves. This parable of Aesop has been rendered in tetrameter verse by Quintus Ennius in his Saturae most cleverly and gracefully. The following are the last two lines of that version, and I surely think it is worth while to remember them and take them to heart: This adage ever have in readiness: Ask not of friends what you yourself can do.

§ 2.30  An observation on the waves of the sea, which take one form when the wind is from the south, and another when it is from the north. It has often been observed in the motion of the waves caused by the north winds or by any current of air from that quarter of the heaven that it is different from that caused by the south and southwest winds. For the waves raised by the blowing of the north wind are very high and follow hard upon each, but as soon as the wind has ceased, they flatten out and subside, and soon there are no waves at all. But it is not the same when the wind blows from the south or southwest; for although these have wholly ceased to blow, still the waves that they have caused continue to swell, and though they have long been undisturbed by wind, yet the sea keeps continually surging. The reason of this is inferred to be, that the winds from the north, falling upon the sea from a higher part of the sky, are borne straight down, as it were headlong, into the depths of ocean, making waves that are not driven forward, but are set in motion from within; and these, being turned up from beneath, roll only so long as the force of that wind which blows in from above continues. The south and southwest winds, on the contrary, forced down to the southern zone and the lowest part of the heavens, are lower and flatter, and as they blow over the surface of the sea, they push forward the waves rather than raise them up. Therefore the waters are not struck from above but are forced forward, and even after the wind has fallen they retain for some time the motion given by the original impulse. Moreover, this very suggestion of mine may be supported by the following lines of Homer, if one reads them carefully. For he wrote thus of the blasts of the west wind: Then Notus drives huge waves against the western cliff. but on the other hand he speaks in a different way of boreas, which we call aquilo: And Boreas aetherborn, uprolling a great wave. For he means that the waves stirred up by the north winds, which are high and blow from above, are so to speak rolled downward, but that by the south winds, which are lower than these, they are driven forward in an upward direction by a somewhat greater force and pushed up. For that is the meaning of the verb ὠθεῖ, as also in another passage: The stone toward the hilltop pushed he up. This also has been observed by the most learned investigators of nature, that when the south winds blow, the sea becomes blue and bright, but, under the north winds, darker and more gloomy. I noted the cause of this when I was making excerpts from the Problems of Aristotle.

§ 3.1  A discussion of the question why Sallust said that avarice rendered effeminate, not only a manly soul, but also the very body itself. When winter was already waning, we were walking with the philosopher Favorinus in the court of the Titian baths, enjoying the mild warmth of the sun; and there, as we walked, Sallust's Catiline was being read, a book which Favorinus had seen in the hands of a friend and had asked him to read. The following passage from that book had been recited: "Avarice implies a desire for money, which no wise man covets; steeped as it were with noxious poisons, it renders the most manly body and soul effeminate; it is ever unbounded, nor can either plenty or want make it less." Then Favorinus looked at me and said: "How does avarice make a man's body effeminate? For I seem to grasp in general the meaning of his statement that it has that effect on a manly soul, but how also it makes his body effeminate I do not yet comprehend." "I too," said I, "have for a long time been putting myself that question, and if you had not anticipated me, I should of my own accord have asked you to answer it." Scarcely had I said this with some hesitation, when one of the disciples of Favorinus, who seemed to be an old hand in the study of literature, broke in: "I once heard Valerius Probus say that Sallust here used a kind of poetic circumlocution, and meaning to say that a man was corrupted by avarice, spoke of his body and soul, the two factors which indicate a man; for man is made up of body and soul." "Never," replied Favorinus, "at least, so far as I know, was our Probus guilty of such impertinent and bold subtlety as to say that Sallust, a most skilful artist in conciseness, used poetic paraphrases." There was with us at the time in the same promenade a man of considerable learning. He too, on being asked by Favorinus whether he had anything to say on the subject, answered to this effect. "We observe that almost all those whose minds are possessed and corrupted by avarice and who have devoted themselves to the acquisition of money from any and every source, so regulate their lives, that compared with money they neglect manly toil and attention to bodily exercise, as they do everything else. For they are commonly intent upon indoor and sedentary pursuits, in which all their vigour of mind and body is enfeebled and, as Sallust says, 'rendered effeminate." Then Favorinus again asked to have the same words of Sallust read again, and when they had been read, he said: "How then are we to explain the fact, that it is possible to find many men who are greedy for money, but nevertheless have strong and active bodies?. To this the man replied thus: "Your answer is certainly to the point. Whoever," said he, "is greedy for money, but nevertheless has a body that is strong and in good condition, must necessarily be possessed either by an interest in, or devotion to, other things as well, and cannot be equally niggardly in his care of himself. For if extreme avarice, to the exclusion of everything else, lay hold upon all a man's actions and desires, and if it extend even to neglect of his body, so that because of that one passion he has regard neither for virtue nor physical strength, nor body, nor soul — then, and then only, can that vice truly be said to cause effeminacy both of body and soul, since such men care neither for themselves nor for anything else except money."14 Then said Favorinus: "Either what you have said is reasonable, or Sallust, through hatred of avarice, brought against it a heavier charge than he could justify."

§ 3.2  Which was the birthday, according to Marcus Varro, of those born before the sixth hour of the night, or after it; and in that connection, concerning the duration and limits of the days that are termed "civil" and are reckoned differently all over the world; and in addition, what Quintus Mucius wrote about that woman who claimed freedom from her husband's control illegally, because she had not taken account of the civil year. It is often inquired which day should be considered and called the birthday of those who are born in the third, the fourth, or any other hour of the night; that is, whether it is the day that preceded, or the day that followed, that night. Marcus Varro, in that book of his Human Antiquities which he wrote On Days, says: "Persons who are born during the twenty-four hours between one midnight and the next midnight are considered to have been born on one and the same day." From these words it appears that he so apportioned the reckoning of the days, that the birthday of one who is born after sunset, but before midnight, is the day after which that night began; but that, on the other hand, one who is born during the last six hours of the night is considered to have been born on the day which dawned after that night. However, Varro also wrote in that same book that the Athenians reckon differently, and that they regard all the intervening time from one sunset to the next as one single day. That the Babylonians counted still differently; for they called by the name of one day the whole space of time between sunrise and the beginning of the next sunrise. but that in the land of Umbria many said that from midday to the following midday was one and the same day. "But this," he said, "is too absurd. For the birthday of one who is born among the Umbrians at midday on the first of the month will have to be considered as both half of the first day of the month and that part of the second day which comes before midday." But it is shown by abundant evidence that the Roman people, as Varro said, reckoned each day from midnight to the next midnight. The religious ceremonies of the Romans are performed in part by day, others by night; but those which take place by night are appointed for certain days, not for nights. accordingly, those that take place during the last six hours of the night are said to take place on the day which dawns immediately after that night. Moreover, the ceremony and method of taking the auspices point to the same way of reckoning; for the magistrates, whenever they must take the auspices, and transact the business for which they have taken the auspices, on the same day, take the auspices after midnight and transact the business after midday, when the sun is high, and they are then said to have taken the auspices and acted on the same day. Again, when the tribunes of the commons, who are not allowed to be away from Rome for a whole day, leave the city after midnight and return after the first lighting of the lamps on the following day, but before midnight, they are not considered to have been absent for a whole day, since they returned before the completion of the sixth hour of the night, and were in the city of Rome for some part of that day. I have read that Quintus Mucius, the jurist, also used to say that a woman did not become her own mistress who, after entering upon marriage relations with a man on the day called the Kalends of January, left him, for the purpose of emancipating herself, on the fourth day before the Kalends of the following January; for the period of three nights, during which the Twelve Tables provided that a woman must be separated from her husband for the purpose of gaining her independence. could not be completed since the last six hours of the third night belonged to the next year, which began on the first of January. Now since I found all the above details about the duration and limits of days, pertaining to the observance and the system of ancient law, in the works of our early writers, I did not doubt that Virgil also indicated the same thing, not directly and openly, but, as became one treating poetic themes, by an indirect and as it were veiled allusion to ancient observance. He said. For dewy Night has wheeled her way Far past her middle course; the panting steeds Of orient Morn breathe pitiless on me. For in these lines he wished to remind us covertly, as I have said, that the day which the Romans have called "civil" begins after the completion of the sixth hour of the night.

§ 3.3  On investigating and identifying the comedies of Plautus, since the genuine and the spurious without distinction are said to have been inscribed with his name; and further as to the report that Plautus wrote plays in a bakery and Naevius in prison. I am convinced of the truth of the statement which I have heard made by men well trained in literature, who have read a great many plays of Plautus with care and attention: namely, that with regard to the so-called "doubtful" plays they would trust, not the lists of Aelius or Sedigitus or Claudius or Aurelius or Accius or Manilius, but Plautus himself and the characteristic features of his manner and diction. Indeed, this is the criterion which we find Varro using. For in addition to those one and twenty known as "Varronian," which he set apart from the rest because they were not questioned but by common consent were attributed to Plautus, he accepted also some others, influenced by the style and humour of their language, which was characteristic of Plautus; and although these had already been listed under the names of other poets, he claimed them for Plautus: for example, one that I was recently reading, called The Boeotian Woman. For although it is not among those one and twenty and is attributed to Aquilius, still Varro had not the least doubt that it was Plautine, nor will any other habitual reader of Plautus doubt it, even if he knows only the following verses from that play, which, since they are, to speak in the manner of that famous poet, most Plautine, I recall and have noted down. There a hungry parasite speaks as follows: The gods confound the man who first found out How to distinguish hours! Confound him, too, Who in this place set up a sundial To cut and hack my days so wretchedly Into small portions! When I was a boy, My belly was my only sun-dial, one more sure, Truer, and more exact than any of them. This dial told me when 'twas proper time To go to dinner, when I had aught to eat; But nowadays, why even when I have, I can't fall to unless the sun gives leave. The town's so full of these confounded dials The greatest part of the inhabitants, Shrunk up with hunger, crawl along the streets. My master Favorinus too, when I was reading the Nervularia of Plautus, and he had heard this line of the comedy: Old, wheezing, physicky, mere foundered hags With dry, parched, painted hides, shrivell'd and shrunk, delighted with the wit of the archaic words that describe the ugly defects of harlots, cried: "By heaven! just this one verse is enough to convince one that the play is Plautine." I myself too a little while ago, when reading the Fretum — that is the name of a comedy which some think is not Plautine — had no manner of doubt that it was by Plautus and in fact of all his plays the most authentic. From it I copied these two lines, with the intention of looking up the story of the Arretine oracle: Now here we have at the great games the Arretine response: I perish if I don't, and if I do, I'm flogged. Now Marcus Varro, in the first book of his Comedies of Plautus, quotes these words of Accius: "For not the Twin Panders nor the Slave-ring nor the Old Woman were the work of Plautus, nor were ever the Twice Violated or the Boeotian Woman, nor were the Clownish Rustic or the Partners in Death the work of Titus Maccius." In that same book of Varro's we are told also that there was another writer of comedies called Plautius. Since his plays bore the title "Plauti," they were accepted as Plautine, although in fact they were not Plautine by Plautus, but Plautinian by Plautius. Now there are in circulation under the name of Plautus about one hundred and thirty comedies. but that most learned of men Lucius Aelius thought that only twenty-five of them were his. However, there is no doubt that those which do not appear to have been written by Plautus but are attached to his name, were the work of poets of old but were revised and touched up by him, and that is why they savour of the Plautine style. Now Varro and several others have recorded that the Saturio, the Addictus, and a third comedy, the name of which I do not now recall, were written by Plautus in a bakery, when, after losing in trade all the money which he had earned in employments connected with the stage, he had returned penniless to Rome, and to earn a livelihood had hired himself out to a baker, to turn a mill, of the kind which is called a "push-mill." So too we are told of Naevius that he wrote two plays in prison, the Soothsayer and the Leon, when by reason of his constant abuse and insults aimed at the leading men of the city, after the manner of the Greek poets, he had been imprisoned at Rome by the triumvirs. And afterwards he was set free by the tribunes of the commons, when he had apologized for his offences and the saucy language with which he had previously assailed many men.

§ 3.4  That it was an inherited custom of Publius Africanus and other distinguished men of his time to shave their beard and cheeks. I found it stated in books which I read dealing with the life of Publius Scipio Africanus, that Publius Scipio, the son of Paulus, after he had celebrated a triumph because of his victory over the Carthaginians and had been censor, was accused before the people by Claudius Asellius, tribune of the commons, whom he had degraded from knighthood during his censorship; and that Scipio, although he was under accusation, neither ceased to shave his beard and to wear white raiment nor appeared in the usual garb of those under accusation. But since it is certain that at that time Scipio was less than forty years old, I was surprised at the statement about shaving his beard. I have learned, however, that in those same times the other nobles shaved their beards at that time of life, and that is why we see many busts of early men represented in that way, men who were not very old, but in middle life.

§ 3.5  How the philosopher Arcesilaus severely yet humorously taunted a man with the vice of voluptuousness and with unmanliness of expression and conduct. Plutarch tells us that Arcesilaus the philosopher used strong language about a certain rich man, who was too pleasure-loving, but nevertheless had a reputation for uprightness and freedom from sensuality. For when he observed the man's affected speech, his artfully arranged hair, and his wanton glances, teeming with seduction and voluptuousness, he said: "It makes no difference with what parts of your body you debauch yourself, front or rear."

§ 3.6  On the natural strength of the palm-tree; for when weights are placed upon its wood, it resists their pressure. A truly wonderful fact is stated by Aristotle in the seventh book of his Problems, and by Plutarch in the eighth of his Symposiaca. "If," say they, "you place heavy weights on the wood of the palm-tree, and load it so heavily and press it down so hard that the burden is too great to bear, the wood does not give way downward, nor is it made concave, but it rises against the weight and struggles upward and assumes a convex form. It is for that reason," says Plutarch, "that the palm has been chosen as the symbol of victory in contests, since the nature of its wood is such that it does not yield to what presses hard upon it and tries to crush it."

§ 3.7  A tale from the annals about Quintus Caedicius, tribune of the soldiers; and a passage from the Origins of Marcus Cato, in which he likens the valour of Caedicius to that of the Spartan Leonidas. A glorious deed, by the gods! and well worthy of the noble strains of Greek eloquence, is that of the military tribune Quintus Caedicius, recorded by Marcus Cato in his Origins. The actual account runs about as follows. In the first Punic war the Carthaginian general in Sicily advanced to meet the Roman army and was first to take possession of the hills and strategic points. As the result of this, the Roman soldiers made their way into a place exposed to surprise and extreme danger. The tribune went to the consul and pointed out that destruction was imminent from their unfavourable position and from the fact that the enemy had surrounded them. "My advice is," said he, "if you want to save the day, that you order some four hundred soldiers to advance to yonder wart" — for that is Cato's term for a high and rough bit of ground — "and command and conjure them to hold it. When the enemy see that, undoubtedly all their bravest and most active men will be intent upon attacking and fighting with them; they will devote themselves to that one task, and beyond a doubt all those four hundred will be slaughtered. Then in the meantime, while the enemy is engaged in killing them, you will have time to get the army out of this position. There is no other way of safety but this." The consul replied to the tribune that the plan seemed to him equally wise; "but who, pray," said he, "will there be to lead those four hundred men of yours to that place in the midst of the enemy's troops?. "If you find no one else," answered the tribune, "you may use me for that dangerous enterprise. I offer this life of mine to you and to my country." The consul thanked and commended the tribune. The tribune and his four hundred marched forth to death. The enemy marvelled at their boldness; they were on tiptoe of expectation to see where they would go. But when it appeared that they were on their way to occupy that hill, the Carthaginian commander sent against them the strongest men in his army, horse and foot. The Roman soldiers were surrounded; though surrounded, they resisted. the battle was long and doubtful. At last numbers triumphed. Every man of the four hundred fell, including the tribune, either run through with swords or overwhelmed with missiles. Meanwhile the consul, while the battle was raging there, withdrew to a safe position on high ground. But what, by Heaven's help, befell that tribune, the leader of the four hundred soldiers, in the battle, I have added, no longer using my own words, but giving those of Cato himself, who says. "The immortal gods gave the tribune good fortune equal to his valour; for this is what happened. Although he had been wounded in many places during the battle, yet his head was uninjured, and they recognized him among the dead, unconscious from wounds and loss of blood. They bore him off the field, he recovered, and often after that rendered brave and vigorous service to his country; and by that act of leading that forlorn hope he saved the rest of the army. But what a difference it makes where you do the same service! The Laconian Leonidas, who performed a like exploit at Thermopylae, because of his valour won unexampled glory and gratitude from all Greece, and was honoured with memorials of the highest distinction; they showed their appreciation of that deed of his by pictures, statues and honorary inscriptions, in their histories, and in other ways; but the tribune of the soldiers, who had done the same thing and saved an army, gained small glory for his deeds." With such high personal testimony did Marcus Cato honour this valorous deed of Quintus Caedicius the tribune. But Claudius Quadrigarius, in the third book of his Annals, says that the man's name was not Caedicius, but Laberius.

§ 3.8  A fine letter of the consuls Gaius Fabricius and Quintus Aemilius to king Pyrrhus, recorded by the historian Quintus Claudius. At the time when king Pyrrhus was on Italian soil and had won one or two battles, when the Romans were getting anxious, and the greater part of Italy had gone over to the king, a certain Timochares, an Ambracian and a friend of king Pyrrhus, came stealthily to the consul Gaius Fabricius and asked a reward, promising that if they could come to terms, he would poison the king. This, he said, could easily be done, since his son was the monarch's cup-bearer. Fabricius transmitted this offer to the senate. The senate sent envoys to the king, instructing them not to reveal anything about Timochares, but to warn the king to act with more caution, and be on his guard against the treachery of those nearest to his own person. This, as I have told it, is the version found in the History of Valerius Antias. But Quadrigarius, in his third book, says that it was not Timochares, but Nicias, that approached the consul; that the embassy was not sent by the senate, but by the consuls; and that Pyrrhus thanked and complimented the Roman people in a letter, besides clothing and returning all the prisoners that were then in his hands. The consuls at that time were Gaius Fabricius and Quintus Aemilius. The letter which they sent to king Pyrrhus about that matter, according to Claudius Quadrigarius, ran as follows. "The Roman consuls greet king Pyrrhus. We, being greatly disturbed in spirit because of your continued acts of injustice, desire to war with you as an enemy. But as a matter of general precedent and honour, it has seemed to us that we should desire your personal safety, in order that we may have the opportunity of vanquishing you in the field. Your friend Nicias came to us, to ask for a reward if he should secretly slay you. We replied that we had no such wish, and that he could look for no advantage from such an action; at the same time it seemed proper to inform you, for fear that if anything of the kind should happen, the nations might think that it was done with our connivance, and also because we have no desire to make war by means of bribes or rewards or trickery. As for you, if you do not take heed, you will have a fall."

§ 3.9  The characteristics of the horse of Seius, which is mentioned in the proverb; and as to the colour of the horses which are called spadices; and the explanation of that term. Gavius Bassus in his Commentaries, and Julius Modestus in the second book of his Miscellaneous Questions, tell the history of the horse of Seius, a tale wonderful and worthy of record. They say that there was a clerk called Gnaeus Seius, and that he had a horse foaled at Argos, in the land of Greece, about which there was a persistent tradition that it was sprung from the breed of horses that had belonged to the Thracian Diomedes, those which Hercules, after slaying Diomedes, had taken from Thrace to Argos. They say that this horse was of extraordinary size, with a lofty neck, bay in colour, with a thick, glossy mane, and that it was far superior to all horses in other points of excellence; but that same horse, they go on to say, was of such a fate or fortune, that whoever owned and possessed it came to utter ruin, as well as his whole house, his family and all his possessions. Thus, to begin with, that Gnaeus Seius who owned him was condemned and suffered a cruel death at the hands of Marcus Antonius, afterwards one of the triumvirs for setting the State in order. At that same time Cornelius Dolabella, the consul, on his way to Syria, attracted by the renown of this horse, turned aside to Argos, was fired with a desire to own the animal, and bought it for a hundred thousand sesterces; but Dolabella in his turn was besieged in Syria during the civil war, and slain. And soon afterwards Gaius Cassius, who had besieged Dolabella, carried off this same horse, which had been Dolabella's. It is notorious too that this Cassius, after his party had been vanquished and his army routed, met a wretched end. Then later, after the death of Cassius, Antonius, who had defeated him, sought for this famous horse of Cassius, and after getting possession of it was himself afterwards defeated and deserted in his turn, and died an ignominious death. Hence the proverb, applied to unfortunate men, arose and is current: "That man has the horse of Seius." The meaning is the same of that other old proverb, which I have heard quoted thus: "the gold of Tolosa." For when the town of Tolosa in the land of Gaul was pillaged by the consul Quintus Caepio, and a quantity of gold was found in the temples of that town, whoever touched a piece of gold from that sack died a wretched and agonizing death. Gavius Bassus reports that he saw this horse at Argos; that it was of incredible beauty and strength and of the richest possible colouring. This colour, as I have said, we call poeniceus; the Greeks sometimes name it φοῖνιξ, at others σπάδιξ, since the branch of the palm (φοῖνιξ), torn from the tree with its fruit, is called spadix.

§ 3.10  That in many natural phenomena a certain power and efficiency of the number seven has been observed, concerning which Marcus Varro discourses at length in his Hebdomades. Marcus Varro, in the first book of his work entitled Hebdomades or On Portraits, speaks of many varied excellencies and powers of the number seven, which the Greeks call ἑβδομάς. "For that number," he says, "forms the Greater and the Lesser Bear in the heavens; also the vergiliae, which the Greeks call πλειάδες; and it is likewise the number of those stars which some call 'wandering,' but Publius Nigidius 'wanderers.' . Varro also says that there are seven circles in the heavens, perpendicular to its axis. The two smallest of these, which touch the ends of the axis, he says are called πόλοι, or "poles"; but that because of their small diameter they cannot be represented on what is termed an armillary sphere. And the zodiac itself it is not uninfluenced by the number seven; for the summer solstice occurs in the seventh sign from the winter solstice, and the winter solstice in the seventh after the summer, and one equinox in the seventh sign after the other. Then too those winter days during which the kingfishers nest on the water he says are seven in number. Besides this, he writes that the course of the moon is completed in four time seven complete days; "for on the twenty-eighth day," he says, "the moon returns to the same point from which it started," and he quotes Aristides of Samos as his authority for this opinion. In this case he says that one should not only take note of the fact that the moon finishes its journey in four times seven, that is eight and twenty, days, but also that this number seven, if, beginning with one and going on until it reaches itself, it includes the sum of all the numbers through which it has passed and then adds itself, makes the number of eight and twenty, which is the number of days of the revolution of the moon. He says that the influence of that number extends to and affects also the birth of human beings. "For," says he, "when the life-giving seed has been introduced into the female womb, in the first seven days it is compacted and coagulated and rendered fit to take shape. Then afterwards in the fourth hebdomad the rudimentary male organ, the head, and the spine which is in the back, are formed. But in the seventh hebdomad, as a rule, that is, by the forty-ninth day," says he, "the entire embryo is formed in the womb." He says that this power also has been observed in that number, that before the seventh month neither male nor female child can be born in health and naturally, and that those which are in the womb the most regular time are born two hundred and seventy-three days after conception, that is, not until the beginning of the fortieth hebdomad. Of the periods dangerous to the lives and fortunes of all men, which the Chaldaeans call "climacterics," all the gravest are combinations of the number seven. Besides this, he says that extreme limit of growth of the human body is seven feet. That, in my opinion, is truer than the statement of Herodotus, the story-teller, in the first book of his History, that the body of Orestes was found under ground, and that it was seven cubits in height, that is, twelve and a quarter feet; unless, as Homer thought, the men of old were larger and taller of stature, but now, because the world is ageing, as it were, men and things are diminishing in size. The teeth too, he says, appear in the first seven months seven at a time in each jaw, and fall out within seven years, and the back teeth are added, as a rule, within twice seven years. He says that the physicians who use music as a remedy declare that the veins of men, or rather their arteries, are set in motion according to the number seven, and this treatment they call τὴν διὰ τεσσάρων συμφωνίαν, because it results from the harmony of four tones. He also believes that the periods of danger in diseases have greater violence on the days which are made up of the number seven, and that those days in particular seem to be, as the physicians call them, κρισίμοι or "critical"; namely, the first, second and third hebdomad. And Varro does not fail to mention a fact which adds to the power and influence of the number seven, namely, that those who resolve to die of starvation do not meet their end until the seventh day. These remarks of Varro about the number seven show painstaking investigation. But he has also brought together in the same place others which are rather trifling: for example, that there are seven wonderful works in the world, that the sages of old were seven, that the usual number of rounds in the races in the circus is seven, and that seven champions were chosen to attack Thebes. Then he adds in that book the further information that he had entered upon the twelfth hebdomad of his age, and that up to that day he has completed seventy hebdomads of books, of which a considerable number were destroyed when his library was plundered, at the time of his proscription.

§ 3.11  The weak arguments by which Accius in his Didascalica attempts to prove that Hesiod was earlier than Homer. As to the age of Homer and Hesiod opinions differ. Some, among whom are Philochorus and Xenophanes, have written that Homer was older than Hesiod; others that he was younger, among them Lucius Accius the poet and Ephorus the historian. But Marcus Varro, in the first book of his Portraits, says that it is not at all certain which of the two was born first, but that there is no doubt that they lived partly in the same period of time, and that this is proved by the inscription engraved upon a tripod which Hesiod is said to have set up on Mount Helicon. Accius, on the contrary, in the first book of his Didascalica, makes use of very weak arguments in his attempt to show that Hesiod was the elder. "Because Homer," he writes, "when he says at the beginning of his poem that Achilles was the son of Peleus, does not inform us who Peleus was; and this he unquestionably would have done, if he did not know that the information had already been given by Hesiod. Again, in the case of Cyclops," says Accius, "he would not have failed to note such a striking characteristic and to make particular mention of the fact that he was one-eyed, were it not that this was equally well known from the poems of his predecessor Hesiod." Also as to Homer's native city there is the very greatest divergence of opinion. Some say that he was from Colophon, some from Smyrna; others assert that he was an Athenian, still others, an Egyptian; and Aristotle declares that he was from the island of Ios. Marcus Varro, in the first book of his Portraits, placed this couplet under the portrait of Homer: This snow-white kid the tomb of Homer marks; For such the Ietae offer to the dead.

§ 3.12  That Publius Nigidius, a man of great learning, applied bibosus to one who was given to drinking heavily and greedily, using a new, but hardly rational, word-formation. Publius Nigidius, in his Grammatical Notes, calls one who is found of drinking bibax and bibosus. Bibax, like edax, I find used by many others; but as yet I have nowhere found an example of bibosus, except in Laberius, and there is no other word similarly derived. For vinosus, or vitiosus, and other formations of the kind, are not parallel, since they are derived from nouns, not from verbs. Laberius, in the mime entitled Salinator, uses this word thus: Not big of breast, not old, not bibulous, not pert.

§ 3.13  How Demosthenes, while still young and a pupil of the philosopher Plato, happening to hear the orator Callistratus addressing the people, deserted Plato and became a follower of Callistratus. Hermippus has written that Demosthenes, when quite young, used to frequent the Academy and listen to Plato. "And this Demosthenes," says he, "when he had left home and, as usual, was on his way to Plato, saw great throngs of people running to the same place; he inquired the reason of this, and learned that they were hurrying to hear Callistratus. This Callistratus was one of those orators in the Athenian republic that they call δημαγωγοί, or 'demagogues." Demosthenes thought it best to turn aside for a moment and find out whether the discourse justified such eager haste. He came," says Hermippus, "and heard Callistratus delivering that famous speech of his, ἡ περὶ Ὠρωποῦ δίκη. He was so moved, so charmed, so captivated, that he became a follower of Callistratus from that moment, deserting Plato and the Academy."

§ 3.14  That whoever says dimidium librum legi, or dimidiam fabulam audivi, and uses other expressions of that kind, speaks incorrectly; and that Marcus Varro gives the explanation of that error; and that no early writer has used such phraseology. Varro believes the dimidium librum legi ("I have read half the book"), or dimidiam fabulam audivi ("I have read half the play"), or any other expression of that kind, is incorrect and faulty usage. "For," says he, "one ought to say dimidiatum librum ('the halved book'), not dimidium, and dimidiatam fabulam, not dimidiam. But, on the contrary, if from a pint a half-pint has been poured, one should not say that 'a halved pint' has been poured, but a 'half-pint,' and when one has received five hundred sesterces out of a thousand that were owing him, we must say that he has received a half sestertium, not a halved one. But if a silver bowl," he says, "which I own in common with another person, has been divided into two parts, I ought to speak of it as 'halved,' not as 'a half'; but my share of the silver of which the bowl is made is a 'half,' not 'halved.' . Thus Varro discusses and analyzes very acutely the difference between dimidium and dimidiatum. and he declares that Quintus Ennius spoke, in his Annals, with understanding in the line: As if one brought a halved cup of wine, and similarly the part that is missing from the cup should be spoken of as "half," not "halved." Now the point of all this argument, which Varro sets forth acutely, it is true, but somewhat obscurely, is this: dimidiatum is equivalent to dismediatum, and means "divided into two parts,. and therefore dimidiatum cannot properly be used except of the thing itself that is divided. dimidium, however, is not that which is itself divided, but is one of the parts of what has been divided. Accordingly, when we wish to say that we have read the half part of a book or heard the half part of a play, if we saydimidiam fabulam or dimidium librum, we make a mistake; for in that case you are using dimidium of the whole thing which has been halved and divided. Therefore Lucilius, following this same rule, says: With one enemy and two feet, like halved pig, and in another place: Why not? To sell his trash the huckster lauds (The rascal!) half a shoe, a strigil split. Again in his twentieth book it is clearer still that Lucilius carefully avoids saying dimidiam horam, but puts dimidium in the place of dimidiam in the following lines: At its own season and the self-same time, The half an hour and three at least elapsed, At the fourth hour again. For while it was natural and easy to say "three and a half elapsed," he watchfully and carefully shunned an improper term. From this it is quite clear that not even "half an hour" can properly be said, but we must say either "a halved hour" or "the half part of an hour." And so Plautus as well, in the Bacchides, writes "half of the gold," not "the halved gold,. and in the Aulularia, "half of the provisions," not "the halved provisions," in this verse: He bade them give him half of all the meats. But in the Menaechmi he has "the halved day," not "half," as follows: Down to the navel now the halved day is dead. Marcus Cato, too, in his work On Farming, writes: "Sow cypress seed thick, just as flax is commonly sown. Over it sift earth from a sieve to the depth of a halved finger. Then smooth it well with a board, with the feet, or with the hands." He says "a halved finger," not "a half." For we ought to say "half of a finger," but the finger itself should be said to be "halved." Marcus Cato also wrote of the Carthaginians: "They buried the men half-way down (dimidiatos) in the ground and built a fire around them; thus they destroyed them." In fact, no one of all those who have spoken correctly has used these words otherwise than in the way I have described.

§ 3.15  That it is recorded in literature and handed down by tradition, that great and unexpected joy has brought sudden death to many, since the breath of life was stifled and could not endure the effects of an unusual and strong emotion. Aristotle the philosopher relates that Polycrita, a woman of high rank in the island of Naxos, on suddenly and unexpectedly hearing joyful news, breathed her last. Philippides too, a comic poet of no little repute, when he had unexpectedly won the prize in a contest of poets at an advanced age, and was rejoicing exceedingly, died suddenly in the midst of his joy. The story also of Diogoras of Rhodes is widely known. This Diogoras had three young sons, a boxer, the second a pancratist, and the third a wrestler. He saw them all victors and crowned at Olympia on the same day, and when the three young men were embracing him there, and having placed their crowns on their father's head were kissing him, and the people were congratulating him and pelting him from all sides with flowers, there in the very stadium, before the eyes of the people, amid the kisses and embraces of his sons, he passed away. Moreover, I have read in our annals that at the time when the army of the Roman people was cut to pieces at Cannae, an aged mother was overwhelmed with grief and sorrow by a message announcing the death of her son; but that report was false, and when not long afterwards the young man returned from that battle to the city, the aged mother, upon suddenly seeing her son, was overpowered by the flood, the shock, and the crash, so to speak, of unlooked-for joy descending upon her, and gave up the ghost.

§ 3.16  The variations in the period of gestation reported by physicians and philosophers; and incidentally the views also of the ancient poets on that subject and many other noteworthy and interesting particulars; and the words of the physician Hippocrates, quoted verbatim from his book entitled Περὶ Τροφῆς. Both physicians and philosophers of distinction have investigated the duration of the period of gestation in man. The general opinion, now accepted as correct, is that after the womb of a woman has conceived the seed, the child is born rarely in the seventh month, never in the eighth, often in ninth, more often in the tenth in number; and that the end of the tenth month, not its beginning, is the extreme limit of human gestation. And this we find the ancient poet Plautus saying in his comedy the Cistellaria, in these words: And then the girl whom he did violate Brought forth a daughter when ten months had sped. That same thing is stated by Menander also, a still older poet and exceedingly well informed as to current opinion; I quote his words on that subject from the play called Plocium or The Necklace: The woman is ten months with child . . . But although our countryman Caecilius wrote a play with the same name and of the same plot, and borrowed extensively from Meander, yet in naming the months of delivery he did not omit the eighth, which Menander had passed by. These are the lines from Caecilius: And may a child in the tenth month be born? — By Pollux! in the ninth, and seventh, and eighth. Marcus Varro leads us to believe that Caecilius did not make this statement thoughtlessly or differ without reason from Menander and from the opinions of many men. For in the fourteenth book of his Divine Antiquities he has left the statement on record that parturition sometimes takes place in the eighth month. In this book he also says that sometimes a child may be born even in the eleventh month, and he cites Aristotle as authority for his statement in regard both to the eighth and the eleventh month. Now, the reason for this disagreement as to the eighth month may be found in Hippocrates' work entitled Περὶ Τροφῆς, or On Nurture, from which these words are taken: "Eighth-month's children exist and do not exist." This statement, so obscure, abrupt, and apparently contradictory, is thus explained by the physician Sabinus, who wrote a very helpful commentary on Hippocrates: "They exist, since they appear to live after the miscarriage; but they do not exist, since they die afterwards; they exist and do not exist therefore, since they live for the moment in appearance, but not in reality." But Varro says that the early Romans did not regard such births as unnatural rarities, but they did believe that a woman was delivered according to nature in the ninth or tenth month, and in no others, and that for this reason they gave to the three Fates names derived from bringing forth, and from the ninth and tenth months. "For Parca," says he, "is derived from partus with the change of one letter, and likewise Nona and Decima from the period of timely delivery." But Caesellius Vindex in his Ancient Readings says: "The names of the Fates are three: Nona, Decuma, Morta; and he quotes this verse from the Odyssey of Livius, the earliest of our poets, When will the day be present that Morta has predicted? But Caesellius, though a man not without learning, took Morta as a name, when he ought to have taken it as equivalent to Moera. Furthermore, besides what I have read in books about human gestation, I also heard of the following case, which occurred in Rome: A woman of good and honourable character, of undoubted chastity, gave birth to a child in the eleventh month after her husband's death, and because of the reckoning of the time the accusation was made that she had conceived after the death of her husband, since the decemvirs had written that a child is born in ten months and not in the eleventh month. The deified Hadrian, however, having heard the case, decided that birth might also occur in the eleventh month, and I myself have read the actual decree with regard to the matter. In that decree Hadrian declares that he makes his decision after looking up the views of the ancient philosophers and physicians. This very day I chanced to read these words in a satire of Marcus Varro's entitled The Will: 'If one or more sons shall be born to me in ten months, let them be disinherited, if they are asses in music; but if one be born to me in the eleventh month, according to Aristotle, let Attius have the same rights under my will as Tettius." Just as it used commonly to be said of things that did not differ from each other, "let Attius be as Tettius,. so Varro means by this old proverb that children born in ten months and in eleven are to have the same and equal rights. But if it is a fact that gestation cannot be prolonged beyond the tenth month, it is pertinent to ask why Homer wrote that Neptune said to a girl whom he had just violated: Rejoice, O woman, in this act of love; A year gone by, fair offspring shall be thine, For not unfruitful is a god's embrace. When I had brought this matter to the attention of several scholars, some of them argued that in Homer's time, as in that of Romulus, the year consisted, not of twelve months, but of ten; others, that it was in accord with Neptune and his majesty that a child by him should develop through a longer period than usual; and others gave other nonsensical reasons. But Favorinus tells me that περιπλομένου ἐνιαυτοῦ does not mean "when the year is ended" (confectus), but "when it is nearing its end" (adfectus). In this instance Favorinus did not use the word adfectus in its popular signification (but yet correctly). for as it was used by Marcus Cicero and the most polished of the early writers, it was properly applied to things which had advanced, or been carried, not to the very end, but nearly to the end. Cicero gives the word that meaning in the speech On the Consular Provinces. Moreover, Hippocrates, in that book of which I wrote above, when he mentioned the number of days within which the embryo conceived in the womb is given form, and had limited the time of gestation itself to the ninth or tenth month, but had said that this nevertheless was not always of the same duration, but that delivery occurred sometimes more quickly, sometimes later, finally used these words: "In these cases there are longer and shorter periods, both wholly and in part; but the longer are not much longer or the shorter much shorter." By this he means that whereas a birth sometimes takes place more quickly, yet it occurs not much more quickly, and when later, not much later. I recall that this question was carefully and thoroughly investigated at Rome, an inquiry demanded by a suit at law of no small moment at the time, whether, namely, a child that had been born alive in the eighth month but had died immediately, satisfied the conditions of the ius trium liberorum, since it seemed to some that the untimely period of the eighth month made it an abortion and not a birth. But since I have told what I have learned about a birth after a year in Homer and about the eleventh month, I think I ought not to omit what I read in the seventh book of the Natural History of Plinius Secundus. But because that story might seem to be beyond belief, I have quoted Pliny's own words: "Masurius makes the statement that the praetor Lucius Papirius, when an heir in the second degree brought suit the possession of an inheritance, decided against him, although the mother said that she had been pregnant for thirteen months; and the reason for his decision was that it seemed to him that no definite period of gestation had been fixed by law." In the same book of Plinius Secundus are these words: "Yawning during childbirth is fatal, just as to sneeze after coition produces abortion."

§ 3.17  The statement of men of the highest authority that Plato bought three books of Philolaus the Pythagorean, and that Aristotle purchased a few books of the philosopher Speusippus, at prices beyond belief. The story goes that the philosopher Plato was a man of very slender means, but that nevertheless he bought three books of Philolaus the Pythagorean for ten thousand denarii. That sum, according to some writers, was given him by his friend Dion of Syracuse. Aristotle too, according to report, bought a very few books of the philosopher Speusippus, after the latter's death, for three Attic talents, a sum equivalent in our money to seventy-two thousand sesterces. The bitter satirist Timon wrote a highly abusive work, which he entitled Σίλλος. In that book he addresses the philosopher Plato in opprobrious terms, alleging that he had bought a treatise on the Pythagorean philosophy at an extravagant figure, and that from it he had compiled that celebrated dialogue the Timaeus. Here are Timon's lines on the subject: Thou, Plato, since for learning thou didst yearn, A tiny book for a vast sum did'st buy, Which taught thee a Timaeus to compose.

§ 3.18  What is meant by pedari senatores, and why they are so called; also the origin of these words in the customary edict of the consuls: "senators and those who are allowed to speak in the senate." There are many who think that those senators were called pedarii who did not express their opinion in words, but agreed with the opinion of others by stepping to their side of the House. How then? Whenever a decree of the senate was passed by division, did not all the senators vote in that manner. Also the following explanation of that word is given, in which Gavius Bassus has left recorded in his Commentaries. For he says that in the time of our forefathers senators who had held a curule magistracy used to ride to the House in a chariot, as a mark of honour; that in that chariot there was a seat on which they sat, which for that reason was called curulis; but that those senators who had not yet held a curule magistracy went on foot to the House: and that therefore the senators who had not yet held the higher magistracies were called pedarii. Marcus Varro, however, in the Menippean Satire entitled Ἱπποκύων, says that some knights were called pedarii, and he seems to mean those who, since they had not yet been enrolled in the senate by the censors, were not indeed senators, but because they had held offices by vote of the people, used to come into the senate and had the right of voting. In fact, even those who had filled curule magistracies, if they had not yet been added by the censors to the list of senators, were not senators, and as their names came among the last, they were not asked their opinions, but went to a division on the views given by the leading members. That was the meaning of the traditional proclamation, which even today the consuls, for the sake of following precedent, use in summoning the senators to the House. The words of the edict are these: "Senators and those who have the right to express their opinion in the senate." I have had a line of Laberius copied also, in which that word is used; I read it in a mime entitled Stricturae: The aye-man's vote is but a tongueless head. I have observed that some use a barbarous form of this word; for instead of pedarii they say pedanii.

§ 3.19  Why, according to Gavius Bassus, a man is called parcus and what he thought to be the explanation of that word; and how, on the contrary, Favorinus made fun of that explanation of his. At the dinners of the philosopher Favorinus, after the guests had taken their places and the serving of the viands began, a slave commonly stood by his table and began to read something, either from Grecian literature or from our own. For example, one day when I was present the reading was from the treatise of the learned Gavius Bassus On the Origin of Verbs and Substantives. In it this passage occurred: "Parcus is a compound word, made up of par arcae, that is 'like a strong-box;' for just as all valuables are put away in a strong-box and preserved and kept under its protection, just so a man who is close and content to spend little keeps all his property guarded and hidden away, as in a strong-box. For that reason he is called parcus, as if it were par arcus." Then Favorinus, on hearing these words, said: "That fellow Gavius Bassus has made up and contrived an origin for that word in an unnatural, altogether laboured and repellent manner, rather than explained it. For if it is permissible to draw on one's imagination, why would it not seem more reasonable to believe that a man is called parcus for the reason that he forbids and prevents the spending of money, as if he were pecuniarcus. Why not rather," he continued, "adopt an explanation which is simpler and nearer the truth? For parcus is derived neither from arca nor from arceo, but from parum and parvum."

§ 4.1  A discourse of the philosopher Favorinus carried on in the Socratic manner with an over-boastful grammarian; and in that discourse we are told how Quintus Scaevola defined penus; and that this same definition has been criticized and rejected. In the entrance hall of the palace on the Palatine a large number of men of almost all ranks had gathered together, waiting an opportunity to pay their respects to Caesar. And there in a group of scholars, in the presence of the philosopher Favorinus, a man who thought himself unusually rich in grammatical lore was airing trifles worthy of the schoolroom, discoursing on the genders and cases of nouns with raised eyebrows and an exaggerated gravity of voice and expression, as if he were the interpreter and sovereign lord of the Sibyl's oracle. Then, looking at Favorinus, although as yet he was hardly acquainted with him, he said: "Penus too is used in different genders and is variously declined. For the early writers used to say hoc penus and haec penus, and in the genitive peni and penoris. Lucilius in his sixteenth satire also used the word mundus, with describes women's ornaments, not in the masculine gender, as other writers do, but in the neuter, in these words: A man once willed his wife all ornaments (mundum omne) and stores. But what are ornaments? Who will determine that. And he kept bawling out illustrations and examples of all these usages; but while he was prating quite too tiresomely, Favorinus interrupted and quietly said: "Well and good, master, whatever your name is, you have taught us more than enough about many things of which we were indeed ignorant and certainly did not ask to know. For what difference does it make to me and the one with whom I am speaking in what gender I use penus, or with what endings I inflect it, provided no one of us does this too barbarously. But this is clearly what I need to know, what penus is, and how far that word may be employed, so that I may not call a thing in everyday use by the wrong name, as those do who begin to speak their Latin in the slave-market." "Your question is not at all difficult," replied the man. "Who indeed does not know that penus is wine, wheat, oil, lentils, beans, and the other things of that kind?. "Is not penus also," said Favorinus, "millet, panic-grass, acorns and barley? for these too are almost of the same sort;" and when the man hesitated and did not answer, he continued. "I do not want you to trouble yourself further about the question whether those things which I have mentioned are called penus. But can you not, instead of telling me some essential part of penus, rather define the meaning of the word by stating its genus and adding its species?" "Good Heavens!" said he, "I don't understand what you mean by genus and species." "You ask," replied Favorinus, "to have a matter which has been stated clearly stated still more clearly, which is very difficult; for it is surely a matter of common knowledge that every definition consists of genus and species. But if you ask me to pre-digest it for you, as they say, I will certainly do that too, for the sake of showing you honour." And then Favorinus began in this wise: "If," said he, "I should now ask you to tell me, and as it were to define in words, what a man is, you would not, I suppose, reply that you and I are men. For that is to show who is a man, not to tell what a man is. But if, I say, I should ask you to define exactly what a man is, you would undoubtedly tell me that a man is a mortal living being, endowed with reason and knowledge, or you would define him in some other manner which would differentiate him from all other animals. Similarly, then, I now ask you to tell what penus is, not to name some example of penus." Then that boaster, now in humble and subdued tones, said: "I have never learned philosophy, nor desired to learn it, and if I do not know whether barley is included under penus, or in what words penus is defined, I am not on that account ignorant also of other branches of learning." "To know what penus is," said Favorinus, who was now laughing, "is not more a part of my philosophy than of your grammar. For you remember, I suppose, that it is often inquired whether Virgil said penum struere longam or longo ordine; for you surely know that both readings are current. But to make you feel easier in mind, let me say that not even those old masters of the law who were called 'wise men' are thought to have defined penus with sufficient accuracy. For I hear that Quintus Scaevola used the following words to explain penus: 'Penus,' said he, 'is what is to be eaten or drunk, which is prepared for the use of the father of the family himself, or the mother of the family, or the children of the father, or the household which he has about him or his children and which is not engaged in work . . . as Mucius says ought to be regarded as penus. For articles which are prepared for eating and drinking day by day, for luncheon or dinner, are not penus; but rather the articles of that kind which are collected and stored up for use during a long period are called penus, because they are not ready at hand, but are kept in the innermost part of the house." This information," said Favorinus, "although I had devoted myself to philosophy, I yet did not neglect to acquire; since for Roman citizens speaking Latin it is no less disgraceful not to designate a thing by its proper word than it is to call a man out of his own name." Thus Favorinus used to lead ordinary conversations of this kind from insignificant and trivial topics to those which were better worth hearing and knowing, topics not lugged in irrelevantly, nor by way of display, but springing from and suggested by the conversations themselves. Besides what Favorinus said, I think this too ought to be added to our consideration of penus, that Servius Sulpicius, in his Criticism of the Chapters of Scaevola, wrote that Aelius Catus believed that not only articles for eating and drinking, but also incense and wax tapers were included under the head of penus, since they were provided for practically the same purpose. But Masurius Sabinus, in the second book of his Civil Law, declares that whatever was prepared for the beasts of burden which the owner of a house used was also penus. He adds that some have thought that the term likewise included wood, faggots and charcoal, by means of which the penus was made ready for use. But of articles kept in the same place, for use or for purposes of trade, he thinks that only the amount which was sufficient for a year's needs was to be regarded as penus.

§ 4.2  On the difference between a disease and a defect, and the force of those terms in the aediles' edict; also whether eunuchs and barren women can be returned, and the various views as to that question. The edict of the curule aediles, in the section containing stipulations about the purchase of slaves, reads as follows: "See to it that the sale ticket of each slave be so written that it can be known exactly what disease or defect each one has, which one is a runaway or a vagabond, or is still under condemnation for some offence." Therefore the jurists of old raised the question of the proper meaning of a "diseased slave" and one that was "defective," and to what degree a disease differed from a defect. Caelius Sabinus, in the book which he wrote On the Edict of the Curule Aediles, quotes Labeo, as defining a disease in these terms: "Disease is an unnatural condition of any body, which impairs its usefulness." But he adds that disease affects sometimes the whole body and at other times a part of the body. That a disease of the whole body is, for example, consumption or fever, but of a part of the body anything like blindness or lameness. "But," he continues, "one who stutters or stammers is defective rather than diseased, and a horse which bites or kicks has faults rather than a disease. But one who has a disease is also at the same time defective. However, the converse is not also true; for one may have defects and yet not be diseased. Therefore in the case of a man who is diseased," says he, "it will be just and fair to state to what extent 'the price will be less on account of that defect.' . With regard to a eunuch in particular it has been inquired whether he would seem to have been sold contrary to the aediles' edict, if the purchaser did not know that he was a eunuch. They say that Labeo ruled that he could be returned as diseased. and that Labeo also wrote that if sows were sterile and had been sold, action could be brought on the basis of the edict of the aediles. But in the case of a barren woman, if the barrenness were congenital they say that Trebatius gave a ruling opposed to that of Labeo. For while Labeo thought that she could be returned as unsound, they quote Trebatius as declaring that no action could be taken on the basis of the edict, if the woman had been born barren. But if her health had failed, and in consequence such a defect had resulted that she could not conceive, in that case she appeared to be unsound and there was ground for returning her. With regard to a short-sighted person too, one whom we call in Latin luscitiosus, there is disagreement; for some maintain that such a person should be returned in all cases, while others on the contrary hold that he can be returned only if that defect was the result of disease. Servius indeed ruled that one who lacked a tooth could be returned, but Labeo said that such a defect was not sufficient ground for a return: "For," says he, "many men lack some one tooth, and most of them are no more diseased on that account, and it would be altogether absurd to say that men are not born sound, because infants come into the world unprovided with teeth." I must not omit to say that this also is stated in the works of the early jurists, that the difference between a disease and a defect is that the latter is lasting, while the former comes and goes. But if this be so, contrary to the opinion of Labeo, which I quoted above, neither a blind man nor a eunuch is diseased. I have added a passage from the second book of Masurius Sabinus On Civil Law: "A madman or a mute, or one who has a broken or crippled limb, or any defect which impairs his usefulness, is diseased. But one who is by nature near-sighted is as sound as one who runs more slowly than others."

§ 4.3  That before the divorce of Carvilius there were no lawsuits about a wife's dowry in the city of Rome; further, the proper meaning of the word paelex and its derivation. It is on record that for nearly five hundred years after the founding of Rome there were no lawsuits and no warranties in connection with a wife's dowry in the city of Rome or in Latium, since of course nothing of that kind was called for, inasmuch as no marriages were annulled during that period. Servius Sulpicius too, in the book which he compiled On Dowries, wrote that security for a wife's dower seemed to have become necessary for the first time when Spurius Carvilius, who was surnamed Ruga, a man of rank, put away his wife because, owing to the some physical defect, no children were born from her; and that this happened in the five hundred and twenty-third year after the founding of the city, in the consulship of Marcus Atilius and Publius Valerius. And it is reported that this Carvilius dearly loved the wife whom he divorced, and held her in strong affection because of her character, but that above his devotion and his love he set his regard for the oath which the censors had compelled him to take, that he would marry a wife for the purpose of begetting children. Moreover, a woman was called paelex, or "concubine," and regarded as infamous, if she lived on terms of intimacy with a man who had another woman under his legal control in a state of matrimony, as is evident from this very ancient law, which we are told was one of king Numa's: "Let no concubine touch the temple of Juno; if she touch it, let her, with hair unbound, offer up a ewe lamb to Juno." Now paelex is the equivalent of πάλλαξ, that is to say, of παλλακίς. Like many other words of ours, this one too is derived from the Greek.

§ 4.4  What Servius Sulpicius wrote in his work On Dowries about the law and usage of betrothals in early times. In the book to which he gave the title On Dowries Servius Sulpicius wrote that in the part of Italy known as Latium betrothals were regularly contracted according to the following customary and legal practice. "One who wished to take a wife," says he, "demanded of him from whom she was to be received a formal promise that she would be given in marriage. The man who was to take the woman to wife made a corresponding promise. That contract, based upon pledges given and received, was called sponsalia, or 'betrothal.' Thereafter, she who had been promised was called sponsa, and he who had asked her in marriage, sponsus. But if, after such an interchange of pledges, the bride to be was not given in marriage, or was not received, then he who had asked for her hand, or he who had promised her, brought suit on the ground of breach of contract. The court took cognizance of the case. The judge inquired why the woman was not given in marriage, or why she was not accepted. If no good and sufficient reason appeared, the judge then assigned a money value to the advantage to be derived from receiving or giving the woman in marriage, and condemned the one who had made the promise, or the one who had asked for it, to pay a fine of that amount." Servius Sulpicius says that this law of betrothal was observed up to the time when citizenship was given to all Latium by the Julian law. The same account as the above was given also by Neratius in the book which he wrote On Marriage.

§ 4.5  A story which is told of the treachery of Etruscan diviners; and how because of that circumstance the boys at Rome chanted this verse all over the city: "Bad counsel to the giver is most ruinous." The statue of that bravest of men, Horatius Cocles, which stood in the Comitium at Rome, was struck by lightning. To make expiatory offerings because of that thunderbolt, diviners were summoned from Etruria. These, through personal and national hatred of the Romans, had made up their minds to give false directions for the performance of that rite. They accordingly gave the misleading advice that the statue in question should be moved to a lower position, on which the sun never shone, being cut off by the high buildings which surrounded the place on every side. When they had induced the Romans to take that course, they were betrayed and brought to trial before the people, and having confessed their duplicity, were put to death. And it became evident, in exact accord with what were later found to be the proper directions, that the statue ought to be taken to an elevated place and set up in a more commanding position in the area of Vulcan; and after that was done, the matter turned out happily and successfully for the Romans. At that time, then, because the evil counsel of the Etruscan diviners had been detected and punished, this clever line is said to have been composed, and chanted by the boys all over the city: Bad counsel to the giver is most ruinous. This story about the diviners and that senarius is found in the Annales Maximi, in the eleventh book, and in Verrius Flaccus' first book of Things Worth Remembering. But the verse appears to be a translation of the Greek poet Hesiod's familiar line: And evil counsel aye most evil is To him who gives it.

§ 4.6  A quotation from an early decree of the senate, which provided that sacrifice should be made with full-grown victims because the spears of Mars had moved in the sanctuary; also an explanation of the meaning of hostiae succidaneae and likewise of porca praecidanea; and further, that Ateius Capito called certain holidays praecidaneae. Not only was an earthquake regularly reported, and expiatory offerings made on that account, but I also find it mentioned in early records, that report was made to the senate when the spears of Mars had moved in the sanctuary in the Regia. Because of such an occurrence, a decree of the senate was passed in the consulship of Marcus Antonius and Aulus Postumius, of which this is a copy: "Whereas Gaius Julius, son of Lucius, the pontifex, has reported that the spears of Mars have moved in the sanctuary in the Regia, the senate has therefore decreed with reference to that matter, that Marcus Antonius the consul should make expiation to Jupiter and Mars with full-grown victims, and with unweaned victims to such of the other gods as he thought proper. They decided that it should be regarded as sufficient for him to have sacrificed with these. If there should be any need of additional victims, the additional offerings should be made with red victims." Inasmuch as the senate called some victims succidaneae, it is often inquired what the word means. Also in the comedy of Plautus which is entitled Epidicus I hear that inquiry is made about that same word, which occurs in these verses: Should I the victim of your folly be And let you sacrifice my back to it, As substitute for yours. Now it is said that the victims were called succidaneae — which is equivalent to succaedaneae, the diphthong AE, according to the custom in compound words, being changed to i, because if the expiation was not effected by the first victims, other victims were brought and killed after them; and since these, after the first had already been offered, were substituted for the sake of making atonement and were "slain in succession to" the others, they were called succidaneae, the letter i, of course, being pronounced long; for I hear that some barbarously shorten that letter in this word. Moreover, it is on the same linguistic principle that praecidanea is applied to those victims which are offered on the day before the regular sacrifices. Also the sow is called praecidanea which it was usual to offer up to Ceres before the harvesting of the new crops, for the sake of expiation in case any had failed to purify a defiled household, or had performed that rite in an improper manner. But that a sow and certain victims are called praecidanea, as I have said, is a matter of common knowledge. that some festivals are called praecidanea is a fact I think that is not known to the general public. Therefore I have quoted a passage from the fifth book of the treatise which Ateius Capito compiled On Pontifical Law: 'Tiberius Coruncanius, the pontifex maximus, appointed feriae praecidaneae, or "a preparatory festival," for a day of ill-omen. The college of pontiffs voted that there need be no religious scruple against celebrating the feriae praecidaneae on that day."

§ 4.7  On a letter of the grammarian Valerius Probus, written to Marcellus, regarding the accent of certain Punic names. Valerius Probus the grammarian was conspicuous among the men of his time for his learning. He pronounced Hannibalem and Hasdrubalem and Hamilcarem with a circumflex accent on the penult, and there is a letter addressed To Marcellus, in which he asserts that Plautus, and Ennius and many other early writers pronounced in that way. but he quotes a single line of Ennius alone, from the book entitled Scipio. That verse, composed in octonarii, I have appended; in it, unless the third syllable of Hannibal's name is circumflexed, the metre will halt. The verse of Ennius to which I referred reads thus: And where near Hannibal's forces he had camped.

§ 4.8  What Gaius Fabricius said of Cornelius Rufinus, an avaricious man, whose election to the consulship he supported, although he hated him and was his personal enemy. Fabricius Luscinus was a man of great renown and great achievements. Publius Cornelius Rufinus was, to be sure, a man energetic in action, a good warrior, and a master of military tactics, but thievish and keen for money. This man Fabricius neither respected nor treated as a friend, but hated him because of his character. Yet when consuls were to be chosen at a highly critical period for the State, and that Rufinus was a candidate while his competitors were without military experience and untrustworthy, Fabricius used every effort to have the office given to Rufinus. When many men expressed surprise at his attitude, in wishing an avaricious man, towards whom he felt bitter personal enmity, to be elected consul, he said. "I would rather be robbed by a fellow-citizen than sold by the enemy." This Rufinus afterwards, when he had been dictator and twice consul, Fabricius in his censorship expelled from the senate on the charge of extravagance, because he possessed ten pounds weight of silver plate. That remark of Fabricius about Rufinus I gave above in the form in which it appears in most historians; but Marcus Cicero, in the second book of the De Oratore, says that it was not made by Fabricius to others, but to Rufinus himself, when he was thanking Fabricius because he had been elected consul through his help.

§ 4.9  On the proper meaning of religiosus; and what changes the meaning of that word has undergone; and remarks of Nigidius Figulus on that subject, drawn from his Commentaries. Nigidius Figulus, in my opinion the most learned of men next to Marcus Varro, in the eleventh book of his Grammatical Commentaries, quotes a truly remarkable line from an early poet: Best it is to be religious, lest one superstitious be. but he does not name the author of the poem. And in the same connection Nigidius adds: "The suffix -osus in words of this kind, such as vinosus, mulierosus, religiosus, always indicates an excessive amount of the quality in question. Therefore religiosus is applied to one who has involved himself in an extreme and superstitious devotion, which was regarded as a fault." But in addition to what Nigidius says, by another shift in meaning religiosus began to be used of an upright and conscientious man, who regulates his conduct by definite laws and limits. Similarly too the following terms, which have the same origin, appear to have acquired different meanings; namely, religiosus dies and religiosa delubra. For those days are called religiosi which are of ill-fame and are hampered by an evil omen, so that on them one must refrain from offering sacrifice or beginning any new business whatever; they are, namely, the days that the ignorant multitude falsely and improperly call nefasti. Thus Marcus Cicero, in the ninth book of his Letters to Atticus, writes: "Our forefathers maintained that the day of the battle at the Allia was more calamitous than that on which the city was taken; because the latter disaster was the result of the former. Therefore the one day is even now religiosus, while the other is unknown to the general public." Yet the same Marcus Tullius, in his speech On Appointing a Prosecutor, uses the term religiosa delubra of shrines which are not ill-omened and gloomy, but full of majesty and sacredness. Masurius Sabinus too, in his Notes on Native Words, says: "Religiosus is that which because of some sacred quality is removed and withdrawn from us; the word is derived from relinquo, as is caerimonia from careo." According to this explanation of Sabinus, temples indeed and shrines — since an accumulation of these does not give rise to censure, as in case of things which are praised for their moderate use — since they are to be approached, not unceremoniously and thoughtlessly, but after purification and in due form, must be both revered and feared, rather than profaned. but those days are called religiosi which for the opposite reason, because they are of dire omen, we avoid. And Terence says: Then too I give her nothing, except to say "All right;" For I avoid confessing my impecunious plight. But if, as Nigidius says, all derivatives of that kind indicate an excessive and immoderate degree, and therefore have a bad sense, as do vinosus ("fond of wine"), mulierosus ("fond of women"), morosus ("whimsical"), verbosus ("wordy"), famosus("notorious"), why are ingeniosus ("talented"), formosus ("beautiful"), officiosus ("dutiful"), and speciosus ("showy"), which are formed in the same way from ingenium, forma, officium, and species, why too are disciplinosus ("well-trained"), consiliosus ("full of wisdom"), victoriosus ("victorious"), words coined by Marcus Cato, why too facundiosus — for Sempronius Asellio in the thirteenth book of his History wrote, "one should regard his deeds, not his words if they are less eloquent (facundiosa)" — why, I say, are all these adjectives used, not in a bad, but in a good sense, although they too indicate an excessive amount of the quality which they signify? Is it because a certain necessary limit must be set for the qualities indicated by those words which I first cited. For favour if it is excessive and without limit, and habits if they are too many and varied, and words if they are unceasing, endless and deafening, and fame if it should be great and restless and begetting envy; all these are neither praiseworthy nor useful. but talent, duty, beauty, training, wisdom, victory and eloquence, being in themselves great virtues, are confined within no limits, but the greater and more extensive they are, the more are they deserving of praise.

§ 4.10  The order observed in calling upon senators for their opinions; and the altercation in the senate between Gaius Caesar, when consul, and Marcus Cato, who tried to use up the whole day in talk. Before the passage of the law which is now observed in the proceedings of the senate, the order in calling for opinions varied. Sometimes the man was first called upon whom the censors had first enrolled in the senate, sometimes the consuls elect. some of the consuls, influenced by friendship or some personal relationship, used to call first upon anyone they pleased, as a compliment, contrary to the regular order. However, when the usual order was not followed, the rule was observed of not calling first upon any but a man of consular rank. It is said that Gaius Caesar, when he was consul with Marcus Bibulus, called upon only four senators out of order. The first of these was Marcus Crassus, but after Caesar had betrothed his daughter to Gnaeus Pompeius, he began to call upon Pompeius first. Caesar gave the senate his reason for this procedure, according to the testimony of Tullius Tiro, Cicero's freedman, who writes that he had the information from his patron. Ateius Capito has made the same statement in his work On Senatorial Conduct. In the same treatise of Capito is this passage: "The consul Gaius Caesar called upon Marcus Cato for his opinion. Cato did not wish to have the motion before the house carried, since he did not think it for the public good. For the purpose of delaying action, he made a long speech and tried to use up the whole day in talking. For it was a senator's right, when asked his opinion, to speak beforehand on any other subject he wished, and as long as he wished. Caesar, in his capacity as consul, summoned an attendant, and since Cato would not stop, ordered him to be arrested in the full tide of his speech and taken to prison. The senate arose in a body and attended Cato to the prison. But this," he says, "aroused such indignation, that Caesar yielded and ordered Cato's release."

§ 4.11  The nature of the information which Aristoxenus has handed down about Pythagoras on the ground that it was more authoritative; and also what Plutarch wrote in the same vein about that same Pythagoras. An erroneous belief of long standing has established itself and become current, that the philosopher Pythagoras did not eat of animals: also that he abstained from the bean, which the Greeks call κύαμος. In accordance with that belief the poet Callimachus wrote: I tell you too, as did Pythagoras, Withhold your hands from beans, a hurtful food. Also, as the result of the same belief, Marcus Cicero wrote these words in the first book of his work On Divination: "Plato therefore bids us go to our sleep in such bodily condition that there may be nothing to cause delusion and disturbance in our minds. It is thought to be for that reason too that the Pythagoreans were forbidden to eat beans, a food that produces great flatulency, which is disturbing to those who seek mental calm." So then Cicero. But Aristoxenus the musician, a man thoroughly versed in early literature, a pupil of the philosopher Aristotle, in the book On Pythagoras which he has left us, says that Pythagoras used no vegetable more often than beans, since that food gently loosened the bowels and relieved them. I add Aristoxenus' own words: "Pythagoras among vegetables especially recommended the bean, saying that it was both digestible and loosening; and therefore he most frequently made use of it." Aristoxenus also relates that Pythagoras ate very young pigs and tender kids. This fact he seems to have learned from his intimate friend Xenophilus the Pythagorean and from some other older men, who lived not long after the time of Pythagoras. And the same information about animal food is given by the poet Alexis, in the comedy entitled "The Pythagorean Bluestocking." Furthermore, the reason for the mistaken idea about abstaining from beans seems to be, that in a poem of Empedocles, who was a follower of Pythagoras, this line is found: O wretches, utter wretches, from beans withhold your hands. For most men thought that κυάμους meant the vegetable, according to the common use of the word. But those who have studied the poems of Empedocles with greater care and knowledge say that here κυάμους refers to the testicles, and that after the Pythagorean manner they were called in a covert and symbolic way κύαμοι, because they are the cause of pregnancy and furnish the power for human generation: and that therefore Empedocles in that verse desired to keep men, not from eating beans, but from excess in venery. Plutarch too, a man of weight in scientific matters, in the first book of his work On Homer wrote that Aristotle gave the same account of the Pythagoreans: namely, that except for a few parts of the flesh they did not abstain from eating animals. Since the statement is contrary to the general belief, I have appended Plutarch's own words: "Aristotle says that the Pythagoreans abstained from the matrix, the heart, the ἀκαλήφη and some other such things, but used all other animal food." Now the ἀκαλήφη is a marine creature which is called the sea-nettle. But Plutarch in his Table Talk says that the Pythagoreans also abstained from mullets. But as to Pythagoras himself, while it is well known that he declared that he had come into the world as Euphorbus, what Cleanthes and Dicaearchus have recorded is less familiar — that he was afterwards Pyrrhus Pyranthius, then Aethalides, and then a beautiful courtesan, whose name was Alco.

§ 4.12  Instances of disgrace and punishment inflicted by the censors, found in ancient records and worthy of notice. If anyone had allowed his land to run to waste and was not giving it sufficient attention, if he had neither ploughed nor weeded it, or if anyone had neglected his orchard or vineyard, such conduct did not go unpunished, but it was taken up by the censors, who reduced such a man to the lowest class of citizens. So too, any Roman knight, if his horse seemed to be skinny or not well groomed, was charged with inpolitiae, a word which means the same thing as negligence. There are authorities for both these punishments, and Marcus Cato has cited frequent instances.

§ 4.13  On the possibility of curing gout by certain melodies played in a special way on the flute. I ran across the statement very recently in the book of Theophrastus On Inspiratio. that many men have believed and put their belief on record, that when gouty pains in the hips are most severe, they are relieved if a flute-player plays soothing measures. That snake-bites are cured by the music of the flute, when played skilfully and melodiously, is also stated in a book of Democritus, entitled On Deadly Infections, in which he shows that the music of the flute is medicine for many ills that flesh is heir to. So very close is the connection between the bodies and the minds of men, and therefore between physical and mental ailments and their remedies.

§ 4.14  A story told of Hostilius Mancinus, a curule aedile, and the courtesan Manilia; and the words of the decree of the tribunes to whom Manilia appealed. As I was reading the ninth book of the Miscellany of Ateius Capito, entitled On Public Decisions, one decree of the tribunes seemed to me full of old-time dignity. For that reason I remember it, and it was rendered for this reason and to this purport. Aulus Hostilius Mancinus was a curule aedile. He brought suit before the people against a courtesan called Manilia, because he said that he had been struck with a stone thrown from her apartment by night, and he exhibited the wound made by the stone. Manilia appealed to the tribunes of the commons. Before them she declared that Mancinus had come to her house in the garb of a reveller; that it would not have been to her advantage to admit him, and that when he tried to break in by force, he had been driven off with stones. The tribunes decided that the aedile had rightly been refused admission to a place to which it had not been seemly for him to go with a garland on his head; therefore they forbade the aedile to bring an action before the people.

§ 4.15  The defence of a passage in the historical works of Sallust, which his enemies attacked in a spirit of malicious criticism. The elegance of Sallust's style and his passion for coining and introducing new words was met with exceeding great hostility, and many men of no mean ability tried to criticize and decry much in his writings. Many of the attacks on him were ignorant or malicious. Yet there are some things that may be regarded as deserving of censure, as for example the following passage in the History of Catiline, which has the appearance of being written somewhat carelessly. Sallust's words are these. "And for myself, although I am well aware that by no means equal repute attends the narrator and the doer of deeds, yet I regard the writing of history as one of the hardest of tasks; first because the style and diction must be equal to the deeds recorded; and in the second place, because such criticisms as you make of others' shortcomings are thought by most men to be due of the malice and envy. Furthermore, when you commemorate the distinguished merit and fame of good men, while everyone is quite ready to believe you when you tell of things which he thinks he could easily do himself, everything beyond that he regards as fictitious, if not false." The critics say: "He declared that he would give the reasons why it appears to be 'hard' 'to write history'; and then, after mentioning the first reason, he does not give a second, but gives utterance to complaints. For it ought not to be regarded as a reason why the work of history is 'hard,' that the reader either misinterprets what is written or does not believe it to be true." They maintain that he ought to say that such work is exposed and subject to misjudgments, rather than "hard"; for that which is "hard" is hard because of the difficulty of its accomplishment, not because of the mistaken opinions of other men. That is what those ill-natured critics say. But Sallust does not use arduus merely in the sense of "hard," but as the equivalent of the Greek word χαλεπός, that is, both difficult and also troublesome, disagreeable and intractable. And the meaning of these words is not inconsistent with that of the passage which was just quoted from Sallust.

§ 4.16  On the inflection of certain words by Varro and Nigidius contrary to everyday usage; and also a quotation of some instances of the same kind from the early writers, with examples. I learn that Marcus Varro and Publius Nigidius, the most learned of all the Romans, always said and wrote senatuis, domuis and fluctuis as the genitive case of the words senatus, domus and fluctus, and used senatui, domui, and fluctui, and other similar words, with the corresponding dative ending. There is also a line of the comic poet Terence, which in the old manuscripts is written as follows: Because, I think, of that old dame (anuis) who died. Some of the early grammarians wished to give this authority of theirs the sanction of a rule; namely, that every dative singular ending in i, if it has not the same form as the genitive singular, makes the genitive singular by adding s, as patri patris, duci ducis, caedi caedis. "Therefore," they say, "since we use senatuis as the dative case, the genitive singular of that word is senatuis, not senatus." But all are not agreed that we should use senatui in the dative case rather than senatu. For example, Lucilius in that same case uses victu and anu, and not victui and anui, in these verses: Since you to honest fare (victu) do waste and feasts prefer, and in another place: I'm doing harm to the old girl (anu). Vergil also in the dative case writes aspectu and not aspectui: Withdraw not from our view (aspectu) and in the Georgics: Nor give themselves to love's embrace (concubitu). Gaius Caesar too, a high authority on the Latin language, says in his Speech against Cato: "owing to the arrogance, haughtiness and tyranny (dominatu) of one man." Also in the First Action against Dolabella, Book I: "Those in whose temples and shrines they had been placed for an honour and an adornment (ornatu)." Also, in his books on analogy he decides that i should be omitted in all such forms.

§ 4.17  A discussion of the natural quantity of certain particles, the long pronunciation of which, when prefixed to verbs, seems to be barbarous and ignorant; with several examples and explanations. In the eleventh book of Lucilius are these lines: Thus base Asellus did great Scipio taunt: Unlucky was his censorship and bad. I hear that many read obiciebat with a long o. and they say that they do this in order to preserve the metre. Again farther on he says: I'd versify the words the herald Granius spoke. In this passage also they lengthen the prefix of the first word for the same reason. Again in the fifteenth book: Subicit huic humilem et suffercitus posteriorem, they read subicit with a long u, because it is not proper for the first syllable to be short in heroic verse. Likewise in the Epidicus of Plautus they lengthen the syllable con in Haste now, Epidicus, prepare yourself, And throw (conice) your mantle round about your neck. In Virgil too I hear that some lengthen the verb subicit in: Parnassian laurel too Lifts (subicit) 'neath large mother-shade its infant stem. But neither the preposition ob nor sub is long by nature, nor is con long either, except when it is followed by the letters which come directly after it in constituit and confecit, or when its n is lost, as in Sallust's faenoribus copertus. But in those instances which I have mentioned above the metre may be preserved without barbarously lengthening the prefixes; for the following letter in those words should be written with two i's, not with one. For the simple verb to which the above-mentioned particles are prefixed, is not icio, but iacio, and the perfect is not icit, but iecit. When that word is used in compounds, the letter a is changed into i, as happens in the verbs insilio and incipio, and thus the first i acquires consonantal force. Accordingly, that syllable, being pronounced a little longer and fuller, does not allow the first syllable to be short, but makes it long by position, and thus the rhythm of the verse and the correct pronunciation are preserved. What I have said leads also to a knowledge of this, that in the line which we find in the sixth book of Virgil: Unconquered chieftain, save me from these ills; Or do thou earth cast on (inice) me, inice is to be written and pronounced as I have indicated above, unless anyone is so ignorant as to lengthen the preposition in in this word too for the sake of the metre. We ask then for what reason the letter o in obicibus is lengthened, since this word is derived from the verb obiicio, and is not at all analogous to motus, which is from moveo and is pronounced with a long o. I myself recall that Sulpicius Apollinaris, a man eminent for his knowledge of literature, pronounced obices and obicibus with a short o, and that in Virgil too he read in the same way the lines: And by what force the oceans fathomless Rise, bursting all their bounds (obicibus). but as I have indicated, he gave the letter i, which in that word also should be doubled, a somewhat fuller and longer sound. It is consistent therefore that subices also, which is formed exactly like obices, should be pronounced with the letter u short. Ennius, in his tragedy which is entitled Achilles, uses subices for the upper air which is directly below the heavens, in these lines: By lofty, humid regions (subices) of the gods I swear, Whence comes the storm with savage roaring wind; yet, in spite of what I have said, you may hear almost everyone read subices with a long u. But Marcus Cato uses that very verb with another prefix in the speech which he delivered On his Consulship: "So the wind bears them to the beginning of the Pyrenees' range, where it extends (proicit) into the deep." And so too Pacuvius in the Chryses: High Ida's cape, whose tongue into the deep extends (proicit).

§ 4.18  Some stories of the elder Publius Africanus, taken from the annals and well worth relating. How greatly the earlier Scipio Africanus excelled in the splendour of his merits, how lofty and noble of spirit he was, and to what an extent he was upheld by consciousness of his own rectitude, is evident from many of his words and acts. Among these are the following two instances of his extreme self-confidence and sense of superiority. When Marcus Naevius, tribune of the commons, accused him before the people and declared that he had received money from king Antiochus to make peace with him in the name of the Roman people on favourable and easy terms, and when the tribune added sundry other charges which were unworthy of so great a man, then Scipio, after a few preliminary remarks such as were called for by the dignity and renown of his life, said: "I recall, fellow citizens, that this is the day on which in Africa in a mighty battle I conquered Hannibal the Carthaginian, the most bitter enemy of your power, and won for you a splendid peace and a glorious victory. Let us then not be ungrateful to the gods, but, I suggest, let us leave this worthless fellow, and go at once to render thanks to Jupiter, greatest and best of gods." So saying, he turned away and set out for the Capitol. Thereupon the whole assembly, which had gathered to pass judgment on Scipio, left the tribune, accompanied Scipio to the Capitol, and then escorted him to his home with the joy and expressions of gratitude suited to a festal occasion. The very speech is in circulation which is believed to have been delivered that day by Scipio, and those who deny its authenticity at least admit that these words which I have quoted were spoken by Scipio. There is also another celebrated act of his. Certain Petilii, tribunes of the commons, influenced they say by Marcus Cato, Scipio's personal enemy, and instigated to appear against him, insisted most vigorously in the senate on his rendering an account of the money of Antiochus and of the booty taken in that war. for he had been deputy to his brother Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, the commander in that campaign. Thereupon Scipio arose, and taking a roll from the fold of his toga, said that it contained an account of all the money and all the booty. that he had brought it to be publicly read and deposited in the treasury. "But that," said he, "I shall not do now, nor will I so degrade myself." And at once, before them all, he tore the roll across with his own hands and rent it into bits, indignant that an account of money taken in war should be required of him, to whose account the salvation of the Roman State and its power ought to be credited.

§ 4.19  What Marcus Varro wrote in his Philosophical-historical Treatise on restricting the diet of immature children. It has been found that if immature children eat a great deal and sleep too much, they become so sluggish as to have the dulness of a sufferer from insomnia or lethargy; and their bodies are stunted and under-developed. This is stated by numerous other physicians and philosophers and also by Marcus Varro in that section of his Philosophical-historical Treatise which is entitled Catus, or On Bringing up Children.

§ 4.20  On the punishment by the censors of men who had made untimely jokes in their hearing; also a deliberation as to the punishment of a man who had happened to yawn when standing before them. Among the severities of the censors these three examples of the extreme strictness of their discipline are recorded in literature. The first is of this sort. The censor was administering the usual oath regarding wives, which was worded as follows: "Have you, to the best of your knowledge and belief, a wife?" The man who was to take the oath was a jester, a sarcastic dog, and too much given to buffoonery. Thinking that he had a chance to crack a joke, when the censor asked him, as was customary, "Have you, to the best of your knowledge and belief, a wife?. he replied: "I indeed have a wife, but not, by Heaven! such a one as I could desire." Then the censor reduced him to a commoner for his untimely quip, and added that the reason for his action was a scurrilous joke made in his presence. Here is another instance of the sternness of the same officials. The censors deliberated about the punishment of a man who had been brought before them by a friend as his advocate, and who had yawned in court very clearly and loudly. He was on the point of being condemned for his lapse, on the ground that it was an indication of a wandering and trifling mind and of wanton and undisguised indifference. But when the man had sworn that the yawn had overcome him much against his will and in spite of his resistance, and that he was afflicted with the disorder known as oscedo, or a tendency to yawning, he was excused from the penalty which had already been determined upon. Publius Scipio Africanus, son of Paulus, included both these stories in a speech which he made when censor, urging the people to follow the customs of their forefathers. Sabinus Masurius too in the seventh book of his Memoirs relates a third instance of severity. He says: "When the censors Publius Scipio Nasica and Marcus Popilius were holding a review of the knights, they saw a horse that was very thin and ill-kept, while its rider was plump and in the best of condition. 'Why is it,' said they, 'that you are better cared for than your mount?' 'Because,' he replied, 'I take care of myself, but Statius, a worthless slave, takes care of the horse.' This answer did not seem sufficiently respectful, and the man was reduced to a commoner, according to custom." Now Statius was a slave-name. In old times there were many slaves of that name. Caecilius too, the famous comic poet, was a slave and as such called Statius. But afterwards this was made into a kind of surname and he was called Caecilius Statius.

§ 5.1  That the philosopher Musonius criticized and rebuked those who expressed approval of a philosopher's discourse by loud shouts and extravagant demonstrations of praise. I have heard that the philosopher Musonius was accustomed. . . . "When a philosopher," he says, "is uttering words of encouragement, of warning, of persuasion, or of rebuke, or is discussing any other philosophical theme, then if his hearers utter trite and commonplace expressions of praise without reflection or restraint, if they shout too, if they gesticulate, if they are stirred and swayed and impassioned by the charm of his utterance, by the rhythm of his words, and by certain musical notes, as it were, then you may know that speaker and hearers are wasting their time, and that they are not hearing a philosopher's lecture, but a fluteplayer's recital. The mind," said he, "of one who is listening to a philosopher, so long as what is said is helpful and salutary, and furnishes a cure for faults and vices, has no time or leisure for continued and extravagant applause. Whoever the hearer may be, unless he is wholly lost. during the course of the philosopher's address he must necessarily shudder and feel secret shame and repentance, or rejoice and wonder. and even show changes of countenance and betray varying emotions, according as the philosopher's discourse has affected him and his consciousness of the different tendencies of his mind, whether noble or base." He added that great applause is not inconsistent with admiration, but that the greatest admiration gives rise, not to words, but to silence. "Therefore," said he, "the wisest of all poets does not represent those who heard Ulysses' splendid account of his hardships as leaping up, when he ceased speaking, with shouts and noisy demonstrations, but he says they were one and all silent, as if amazed and confounded, since the gratification of their ears even affected their power of utterance. Thus he; but they in silence all were hushed And held in rapture through the shadowy hall.

§ 5.2  About the horse of king Alexander, called Bucephalas. The horse of king Alexander was called Bucephalas because of the shape of his head. Chares wrote that he was bought for thirteen talents and given to king Philip; that amount in Roman money is three hundred and twelve thousand sesterces. It seemed a noteworthy characteristic of this horse that when he was armed and equipped for battle, he would never allow himself to be mounted by any other than the king. It is also related that Alexander in the war against India, mounted upon that horse and doing valorous deeds, had driven him, with disregard of his own safety, too far into the enemies' ranks. The horse had suffered deep wounds in his neck and side from the weapons hurled from every hand at Alexander, but though dying and almost exhausted from loss of blood, he yet in swiftest course bore the king from the midst of the foe; but when he had taken him out of range of the weapons, the horse at once fell, and satisfied with having saved his master breathed his last, with indications of relief that were almost human. Then king Alexander, after winning the victory in that war, founded a city in that region and in honour of his horse called it Bucephalon.

§ 5.3  The reason and the occasion which are said to have introduced Protagoras to the study of philosophical literature. They say that Protagoras, a man eminent in the pursuit of learning, whose name Plato gave to that famous dialogue of his, in his youth earned his living as a hired labourer and often carried heavy burdens on his back, being one of that class of me. whom the Greeks call ἀχθοφόροι and we Latins baiuli, or porters. He was once carrying a great number of blocks of wood, bound together with a short rope, from the neighbouring countryside into his native town of Abdera. It chanced at the time that Democritus, a citizen of that same city, a man esteemed before all others for his fine character and his knowledge of philosophy, as he was going out of the city, saw Protagoras walking along easily and rapidly with that burden, of a kind so awkward and so difficult to hold together. Democritus drew near, and noticing with what skill and judgment the wood was arranged and tied, asked the man to stop and rest awhile. When Protagoras did as he was asked, and Democritus again observed that the almost circular heap of blocks was bound with a short rope, and was balanced and held together with all but geometrical accuracy, he asked who had put the wood together in that way. When Protagoras replied that he had done it himself, Democritus asked him to untie the bundle and arrange it again in the same way. But after he had done so, then Democritus, astonished at the keen intellect and cleverness of this uneducated man, said: "My dear young man, since you have a talent for doing things well, there are greater and better employments which you can follow with me"; and he at once took him away, kept him at his own house, supplied him with money, taught him philosophy, and made him the great man that he afterwards became. Yet this Protagoras was not a true philosopher, but the cleverest of sophists; for in consideration of the payment of a huge annual fee, he used to promise his pupils that he would teach them by what verbal dexterity the weaker cause could be made the stronger, a process which he called in Greek: τὸν ἥττω λόγον κρείττω ποιεῖν, or "making the word appear the better reason."

§ 5.4  On the word duovicesimus, which is unknown to the general public, but occurs frequently in the writings of the learned. I chanced to be sitting in a bookshop in the Sigillaria with the poet Julius Paulus, the most learned man within my memory; and there was on sale there the Annals of Fabius in a copy of good and undoubted age, which the dealer maintained was without errors. But one of the better known grammarians, who had been called in by a purchaser to inspect the book, said that he had found in it one error; but the bookseller for his part offered to wager any amount whatever that there was not a mistake even in a single letter. The grammarian pointed out the following passage in the fourth book: "Therefore it was then that for the first time one of the two consuls was chosen from the plebeians, in the twenty-second (duovicesimo) year after the Gauls captured Rome."4 "It ought," to read, not duovicesimo, but duo et vicesimo or twenty-second. for what is the meaning of duovicesimo?" . . . Varro in the sixteenth book of his Antiquities of Man; there he wrote as follows: "He died in the twenty-second year (duovicesimo); he was king for twenty-one years." . . .

§ 5.5  How the Carthaginian Hannibal jested at the expense of king Antiochus. In collections of old tales it is recorded that Hannibal the Carthaginian made a highly witty jest when at the court of king Antiochus. The jest was this. Antiochus was displaying to him on the plain the gigantic forces which he had mustered to make war on the Roman people, and was manoeuvring his army glittering with gold and silver ornaments. He also brought up chariots with scythes, elephants with turrets, and horsemen with brilliant bridles, saddle-cloths, neck-chains and trappings. And then the king, filled with vainglory at the sight of an army so great and so well-equipped, turned to Hannibal and said: "Do you think that all this can be equalled and that it is enough for the Romans?. Then the Carthaginian, deriding the worthlessness and inefficiency of the king's troops in their costly armour, replied: "I think all this will be enough, yes, quite enough for the Romans, even though they are most avaricious." Absolutely nothing could equal this remark for wit and sarcasm. the king had inquired about the size of his army and asked for a comparative estimate; Hannibal in his reply referred to it as booty.

§ 5.6  On military crowns, with a description of the triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp, naval, ovation, and olive crowns. Military crowns are many and varied. Of these the most highly esteemed I find to be in general the following: the "triumphal, siege, civic, mural, camp and naval crowns." There is besides the so-called "ovation" crown, and lastly also the "olive" crown, which is regularly worn by those who have not taken part in a battle, but nevertheless are awarded a triumph. "Triumphal" crowns are of gold and are presented to a commander in recognition of the honour of a triumph. This in common parlance is "gold for a crown." This crown in ancient times was of laurel, but later they began to make them of gold. The "siege" crown is the one which those who have been delivered from a state of siege presented to the general who delivered them. That crown is of grass, and custom requires that it be made of grass which grew in the place within which the besieged were confined. This crown of grass the Roman senate and people presented to Quintus Fabius Maximus in the second Punic war, because he had freed the city of Rome from siege by the enemy. The crown is called "civic" which one citizen gives to another who has saved his life in battle, in recognition of the preservation of his life and safety. It is made of the leaves of the esculent oak, because the earliest food and means of supporting life were furnished by that oak; it was formerly made also from the holm oak, because that is the species which is most nearly related to the esculent; this we learn from a comedy of Caecilius, who says: They pass with cloaks and crowns of holm; ye Gods. But Masurius Sabinus, in the eleventh book of his Memoirs, says that it was the custom to award the civic crown only when the man who had saved the life of a fellow citizen had at the same time slain the enemy who threatened him, and had not given ground in that battle; under other conditions he says that the honour of the civic crown was not granted. He adds, however, that Tiberius Caesar was once asked to decide whether a soldier might receive the civic crown who had saved a citizen in battle and killed two of the enemy, yet had not held the position in which he was fighting, but the enemy had occupied it. The emperor ruled that the soldier seemed to be among those who deserved the civic crown, since it was clear that he had rescued a fellow citizen from a place so perilous that it could not be held even by valiant warriors. It was this civic crown that Lucius Gellius, an ex-censor, proposed in the senate that his country should award to Cicero in his consulship, because it was through his efforts that the frightful conspiracy of Catiline had been detected and punished. The "mural" crown is that which is awarded by a commander to the man who is first to mount the wall and force his way into an enemy's town; therefore it is ornamented with representations of the battlements of a wall. A "camp" crown is presented by a general to the soldier who is first to fight his way into a hostile camp; that crown represents a palisade. The "naval" crown is commonly awarded to the armed man who has been the first to board an enemy ship in a sea-fight; it is decorated with representations of the beaks of ships. Now the "mural," "camp," and "naval" crowns are regularly made of gold. The "ovation" crown is of myrtle. it was worn by generals who entered the city in an ovation. The occasion for awarding an ovation, and not a triumph, is that wars have not been declared in due form and so have not been waged with a legitimate enemy, or that the adversaries' character is low or unworthy, as in the case of slaves or pirates, or that, because of a quick surrender, a victory was won which was "dustless," as the saying is, and bloodless. For such an easy victory they believed that the leaves sacred to Venus were appropriate, on the ground that it was a triumph, not of Mars, but as it were of Venus. And Marcus Crassus, when he returned after ending the Servile war and entered the city in an ovation, disdainfully rejected the myrtle crown and used his influence to have a decree passed by the senate, that he should be crowned with laurel, not with myrtle. Marcus Cato charges Marcus Fulvius Nobilior with having awarded crowns to his soldiers for the most trifling reasons possible, for the sake of popularity. On that subject I give you Cato's own words: "Now to begin with, who ever saw anyone presented with a crown, when a town had not been taken nor an enemy's camp burned?. But Fulvius, against whom Cato brought that charge, had bestowed crowns on his soldiers for industry in building a rampart or in digging a well. I must not pass over a point relating to ovations, about which I learn that the ancient writers disagreed. For some of them have stated that the man who celebrated an ovation was accustomed to enter the city on horseback: but Masurius Sabinus says that they entered on foot, followed, not by their soldiers, but by the senate in a body.

§ 5.7  How cleverly Gavius Bassus explained the word persona, and what he said to be the origin of that word. Cleverly, by Heaven! and wittily, in my opinion, does Gavius Bassus explain the derivation of the word persona, in the work that he composed On the Origin of Words; for he suggests that that word is formed from personare. "For," he says, "the head and the face are shut in on all sides by the covering of the persona, or mask, and only one passage is left for the issue of the voice; and since this opening is neither free nor broad, but sends forth the voice after it has been concentrated and forced into one single means of egress, it makes the sound clearer and more resonant. Since then that covering of the face gives clearness and resonance to the voice, it is for that reason called persona, the o being lengthened because of the formation of the word."

§ 5.8  A defence of some lines of Virgil, in which the grammarian Julius Hyginus alleged that there was a mistake; and also the meaning of lituus, and on the etymology of that word. Here, wielding his Quirinal augur-staff, Girt with scant shift and bearing on his left The sacred shield, Picus appeared enthroned. In these verses Hyginus wrote that Virgil was in error, alleging that he did not notice that the words ipse Quirinali lituo lacked something. "For," said he, "if we have not observed that something is lacking, the sentence seems to read 'girt with staff and scant shift,' which," says he, "is utterly absurd; for since the lituus is a short wand, curved at its thicker end, such as the augurs use, how on earth can one be looked upon as 'girt with a lituus?' . As a matter of fact, it was Hyginus himself who failed to notice that this expression, like very many others, contains an ellipsis. For example, when we say, "Marcus Cicero, a man of great eloquence" and "Quintus Roscius, an actor of consummate grace," neither of these phrases is full and complete, but to the hearer they seem full and complete. As Vergil wrote in another place: Victorious Butes of huge bulk, that is, having huge bulk, and also in another passage: Into the ring he hurled gauntlets of giant weight, and similarly: A house of gore and cruel feasts, dark, huge within. so then it would seem that the phrase in question ought to be interpreted as "Picus was with the Quirinal staff," just as we say "the statue was with a large head,. and in fact est, erat and fuit are often omitted, with elegant effect and without any loss of meaning. And since mention has been made of the lituus, I must not pass over a question which obviously may be asked, whether the augurs' lituus is called after the trumpet of the same name, or whether the trumpet derived its name lituus from the augurs' staff; for both have the same form and both alike are curved. But if, as some think, the trumpet was called lituus from its sound, because of the Homeric expression λίγξε βιός, The bow twanged, it must be concluded that the augural staff was called lituus from its resemblance to the trumpet. And Virgil uses that word also as synonymous with tuba: He even faced the fray Conspicuous both with clarion (lituo) and with spear.

§ 5.9  The story of Croesus' dumb son, from the books of Herodotus. The son of king Croesus, when he was already old enough to speak, was dumb, and after he had become a well-grown youth, he was still unable to utter a word. Hence he was for a long time regarded as mute and tongue-tied. When his father had been vanquished in a great war, the city in which he lived had been taken, and one of the enemy was rushing upon him with drawn sword, unaware that he was the king, then the young man opened his mouth in an attempt to cry out. And by that effort and the force of his breath he broke the impediment and the bond upon his tongue, and spoke plainly and clearly, shouting to the enemy not to kill king Croesus. Then the foeman withheld his sword, the king's life was saved, and from that time on the youth began to speak. Herodotus in his Histories is the chronicler of that event, and the words which he says the son of Croesus first spoke are: "Man, do not kill Croesus." But also an athlete of Samos — his name was Echeklous — although he had previously been speechless, is said to have begun to speak for a similar reason. For when in a sacred contest the casting of lots between the Samians and their opponents was not being done fairly, and he had noticed that a lot with a false name was being slipped in, he suddenly shouted in a loud voice to the man who was doing it that he saw what he was up to. And he too was freed from the check upon his speech and for all the remaining time of his life spoke without stammering or lack of clearness.

§ 5.10  On the arguments which by the Greeks are called ἀντιστρέφοντα, and in Latin may be termed reciproca. Among fallacious arguments the one which the Greeks call ἀντιστρέφων seems to be by far the most fallacious. Such arguments some of our own philosophers have rather appropriately termed reciproca, or "convertible." The fallacy arises from the fact that the argument that is presented may be turned in the opposite direction and used against the one who has offered it, and is equally strong for both sides of the question. An example is the well-known argument which Protagoras, the keenest of all sophists, is said to have used against his pupil Euathlus. For a dispute arose between them and an altercation as to the fee which had been agreed upon, as follows. Euathlus, a wealthy young man, was desirous of instruction in oratory and the pleading of causes. He became a pupil of Protagoras and promised to pay him a large sum of money, as much as Protagoras had demanded. He paid half of the amount at once, before beginning his lessons, and agreed to pay the remaining half on the day when he first pleaded before jurors and won his case. Afterwards, when he had been for some little time a pupil and follower of Protagoras, and had in fact made considerable progress in the study of oratory, he nevertheless did not undertake any causes. And when the time was already getting long, and he seemed to be acting thus in order not to pay the rest of the fee. Protagoras formed what seemed to him at the time a wily scheme; he determined to demand his pay according to the contract, and brought suit against Euathlus. And when they had appeared before the jurors to bring forward and to contest the case, Protagoras began as follows: "Let me tell you, most foolish of youths, that in either event you will have to pay what I am demanding, whether judgment be pronounced for or against you. For if the case goes against you, the money will be due me in accordance with the verdict, because I have won; but if the decision be in your favour, the money will be due me according to our contract, since you will have won a case." To this Euathlus replied: "I might have met this sophism of yours, tricky as it is, by not pleading my own cause but employing another as my advocate. But I take greater satisfaction in a victory in which I defeat you, not only in the suit, but also in this argument of yours. So let me tell you in turn, wisest of masters, that in either event I shall not have to pay what you demand, whether judgment be pronounced for or against me. For if the jurors decide in my favour, according to their verdict nothing will be due you, because I have won; but if they give judgment against me, by the terms of our contract I shall owe you nothing, because I have not won a case." Then the jurors, thinking that the plea on both sides was uncertain and insoluble, for fear that their decision, for whichever side it was rendered, might annul itself, left the matter undecided and postponed the case to a distant day. Thus a celebrated master of oratory was refuted by his youthful pupil with his own argument, and his cleverly devised sophism failed.

§ 5.11  The impossibility of regarding Bias's syllogism on marriage as an example of ἀντιστρέφων. Some think that the famous answer of the wise and noble Bias, like that of Protagoras of which I have just spoken, was ἀντιστρέφων. For Bias, being asked by a certain man whether he should marry or lead a single life, said: "You are sure to marry a woman either beautiful or ugly; and if beautiful, you will share her with others, but if ugly, she will be a punishment. But neither of these things is desirable; therefore do not marry." Now, they turn this argument about in this way. "If I marry a beautiful woman, she will not be a punishment; but if an ugly one, I shall be her sole possessor; therefore marry." But this syllogism does not seem to be in the least convertible, since it appears somewhat weaker and less convincing when turned into the second form. For Bias maintained that one should not marry because of one of two disadvantages which must necessarily be suffered by one who took a wife. But he who converts the proposition does not defend himself against the inconvenience which is mentioned, but says that he is free from another which is not mentioned. But to maintain the opinion that Bias expressed, it is enough that a man who has taken a wife must necessarily suffer one or the other of two disadvantages, of having a wife that is unfaithful, or a punishment. But our countryman Favorinus, when that syllogism which Bias had employed happened to be mentioned, of which the first premise is: "You will marry either a beautiful or an ugly woman," declared that this was not a fact, and that it was not a fair antithesis, since it was not inevitable that one of the two opposites be true. which must be the case in a disjunctive proposition. For obviously certain outstanding extremes of appearance are postulated, ugliness and beauty. "But there is," said he, "a third possibility also, lying between those two opposites, and that possibility Bias did not observe or regard. For between a very beautiful and a very ugly woman there is a mean in appearance, which is free from the danger to which an excess of beauty is exposed, and also from the feeling of repulsion inspired by extreme ugliness. A woman of that kind is called by Quintus Ennius in the Melanippa by the very elegant term 'normal,. and such a woman will be neither unfaithful nor a punishment." This moderate and modest beauty Favorinus, to my mind most sagaciously, called "conjugal." Moreover Ennius, in the tragedy which I mentioned, says that those women as a rule are of unblemished chastity who possess normal beauty.

§ 5.12  On the names of the gods of the Roman people called Diovis and Vediovis. In ancient prayers we have observed that these names of deities appear: Diovis and Vediovis. furthermore, there is also a temple of Vediovis at Rome, between the Citadel and the Capitolium. The explanation of these names I have found to be this. the ancient Latins derived Iovis from iuvare (help), and called that same god "father," thus adding a second word. For Iovispater is the full and complete form, which becomes Iupiter by the syncope or change of some of the letters. So also Neptunuspater is used as a compound, and Saturnuspater and Ianuspater and Marspater — for that is the original form of Marspiter — and Jove also was called Diespiter, that is, the father of day and of light. And therefore by a name of similar origin Jove is called Diovis and also Lucetius, because he blesses us and helps us by means of the day and the light, which are equivalent to life itself. And Lucetius is applied to Jove by Gnaeus Naevius in his poem On the Punic War. Accordingly, when they had given the names Iovis and Diovis from iuvare (help), they applied a name of the contrary meaning to that god who had, not the power to help, but the force to do harm — for some gods they worshipped in order to gain their favour, others they propitiated in order to avert their hostility; and they called him Vediovis, thus taking away and denying his power to give help. For the particle ve which appears in different forms in different words, now being spelled with these two letters and now with an a inserted between the two, has two meanings which also differ from each other. For ve, like very many other particles, has the effect either of weakening or of strengthening the force of a word; and it therefore happens that some words to which that particle is prefixed are ambiguous and may be used with either force, such as vescus (small), vemens (mighty), and vegrandis (very small), a point which I have discussed elsewhere in greater detail. But vesanus and vecordes are used with only one of the meanings of ve, namely, the privative or negative force, which the Greeks call κατὰ στέρησιν. It is for this reason that the statue of the god Vediovis, which is in the temple of which I spoke above, holds arrows, which, as everyone knows, are devised to inflict harm. For that reason it has often been said that that god is Apollo; and a she-goat is sacrificed to him in the customary fashion, and a representation of that animal stands near his statue. It was for this reason, they say, that Virgil, a man deeply versed in antiquarian lore, but never making a display of his knowledge, prays to the unpropitious gods in the Georgics, thus intimating that in gods of that kind there is a power capable of injuring rather than aiding. The verses of Vergil are these: A task of narrow span, but no small praise, If unpropitious powers bar not my way And favouring Phoebus grant a poet's prayer. And among those gods which ought to be placated in order to avert evil influences from ourselves or our harvests are reckoned Auruncus and Robigus.

§ 5.13  On the rank and order of obligations established by the usage of the Roman people. There was once a discussion, in my presence and hearing, of the rank and order of obligations, carried on by a company of men of advanced age and high position at Rome, who were also eminent for their knowledge and command of ancient usage and conduct. And when the question was asked to whom we ought first and foremost to discharge those obligations, in case it should be necessary to prefer some to others in giving assistance or showing attention, there was a difference of opinion. But it was readily agreed and accepted, that in accordance with the usage of the Roman people the place next after parents should be held by wards entrusted to our honour and protection; that second to them came clients, who also had committed themselves to our honour and guardianship; that then in the third place were guests; and finally relations by blood and by marriage. Of this custom and practice there are numerous proofs and illustrations in the ancient records, of which, because it is now at hand, I will cite only this one at present, relating to clients and kindred. Marcus Cato in the speech which he delivered before the censors Against Lentulus wrote thus: "Our forefathers regarded it as a more sacred obligation to defend their wards than not to deceive a client. One testifies in a client's behalf against one's relatives; testimony against a client is given by no one. A father held the first position of honour; next after him a patron." Masurius Sabinus, however, in the third book of his Civil Law assigns a higher place to a guest than to a client. The passage from that book is this: "In the matter of obligations our forefathers observed the following order: first to a ward, then to a guest, then to a client, next to a blood relation, finally to a relation by marriage. Other things being equal, women were given preference to men, but a ward who was under age took precedence of one who was a grown woman. Also those who were appointed by will to be guardians of the sons of a man against whom they had appeared in court, appeared for the ward in the same case." Very clear and strong testimony on this subject is furnished by the authority of Gaius Caesar, when he was high priest; for in the speech which he delivered In Defence of the Bithynians he made use of this preamble: "In consideration either of my guest-friendship with king Nicomedes or my relationship to those whose case is on trial, O Marcus Iuncus, I could not refuse this duty. For the remembrance of men ought not to be so obliterated by their death as not to be retained by those nearest to them, and without the height of disgrace we cannot forsake clients to whom we are bound to render aid even against our kinsfolk."

§ 5.14  The account of Apion, a learned man who was surnamed Plistonices, of the mutual recognition, due to old acquaintance, that he had seen at Rome between a man and a lion. Apion, who was called Plistonices, was a man widely versed in letters, and possessing an extensive and varied knowledge of things Greek. In his works, which are recognized as of no little repute, is contained an account of almost all the remarkable things which are to be seen and heard in Egypt. Now, in his account of what he professes either to have heard or read he is perhaps too verbose through a reprehensible love of display — for he is a great self-advertiser in parading his learning. but this incident, which he describes in the fifth book of his Wonders of Egypt, he declares that he neither heard nor read, but saw himself with his own eyes in the city of Rome. "In the Great Circus," he says, "a battle with wild beasts on a grand scale was being exhibited to the people. Of that spectacle, since I chanced to be in Rome, I was," he says, "an eye-witness. There were there many savage wild beasts, brutes remarkable for their huge size, and all of uncommon appearance or unusual ferocity. But beyond all others," says he, "did the vast size of the lions excite the rest. This one lion had drawn to himself the attention and eyes of all because of the activity and huge size of his body, his terrific and deep roar, the development of his muscles, and the mane streaming over his shoulders. There was brought in, among many others who had been condemned to fight with the wild beasts, the slave of an ex-consul; the slave's name was Androclus. When that lion saw him from a distance," says Apion, "he stopped short as if in amazement, and then approached the man slowly and quietly, as if he recognized him. Then, wagging his tail in a mild and caressing way, after the manner and fashion of fawning dogs, he came close to the man, who was now half dead from fright, and gently licked his feet and hands. The man Androclus, while submitting to the caresses of so fierce a beast, regained his lost courage and gradually turned his eyes to look at the lion. Then," says Apion, "you might have seen man and lion exchange joyful greetings, as if they had recognized each other." He says that at this sight, so truly astonishing, the people broke out into mighty shouts; and Gaius Caesar called Androclus to him and inquired the reason why that fiercest of lions had spared him alone. Then Androclus related a strange and surprising story. "My master," said he, "was governing Africa with proconsular authority. While there, I was forced by his undeserved and daily floggings to run away, and that my hiding-places might be safer from my master, the ruler of that country, I took refuge in lonely plains and deserts, intending, if food should fail me, to seek death in some form. Then," said he, "when the midday sun was fierce and scorching, finding a remote and secluded cavern, I entered it, and hid myself. Not long afterwards this lion came to the same cave with one paw lame and bleeding, making known by groans and moans the torturing pain of his wound." And then, at the first sight of the approaching lion, Androclus said that his mind was overwhelmed with fear and dread. "But when the lion," said he, "had entered what was evidently his own lair, and saw me cowering at a distance, he approached me mildly and gently, and lifting up his foot, was evidently showing it to me and holding it out as if to ask for help. Then," said he, "I drew out a huge splinter that was embedded in the sole of the foot, squeezed out the pus that had formed in the interior of the wound, wiped away the blood, and dried it thoroughly, being now free from any great feeling of fear. Then, relieved by that attention and treatment of mine, the lion, putting his paw in my hand, lay down and went to sleep. and for three whole years from that day the lion and I lived in the same cave, and on the same food as well. For he used to bring for me to the cave the choicest parts of the game which he took in hunting, which I, having no means of making a fire, dried in the noonday sun and ate. But," said he, "after I had finally grown tired of that wild life, I left the cave when the lion had gone off to hunt, and after travelling nearly three days, I was seen and caught by some soldiers and taken from Africa to Rome to my master. He at once had me condemned to death by being thrown to the wild beasts. But," said he, "I perceive that this lion was also captured, after I left him, and that he is now requiting me for my kindness and my cure of him." Apion records that Androclus told this story, and that when it had been made known to the people by being written out in full on a tablet and carried about the Circus, at the request of all Androclus was freed, acquitted and presented with the lion by vote of the people. "Afterwards," said he, "we used to see Androclus with the lion, attached to a slender leash, making the rounds of the shops throughout the city; Androclus was given money, the lion was sprinkled with flowers, and everyone who met them anywhere exclaimed: 'This is the lion that was a man's friend, this is the man who was physician to a lion.'"

§ 5.15  That it is a disputed question among philosophers whether voice is corporeal or incorporeal. A question that has been argued long and continuously by the most famous philosophers is whether voice has body or is incorporeal. for the word incorporeus has been coined by some of them, corresponding exactly to the Greek ἀσώματος. Now a body is that which is either active or passive: this in Greek is defined as τὸ ἤτοι ποιοῦν ἢ πάσχον, or "that which either acts or is acted upon." Wishing to reproduce this definition the poet Lucretius wrote: Naught save a body can be touched or touch. The Greeks also define body in another way, as τὸ τριχῆ διάστατον, or "that which has three dimensions." But the Stoics maintain that voice is a body, and say that it is air which has been struck. Plato, however, thinks that voice is not corporeal: "for," says he, "not the air which is struck, but the stroke and the blow themselves are voice." Democritus, and following him Epicurus, declare that voice consists of individual particles, and they call it, to use their own words, ῥευμα ἀτόμων, or "a stream of atoms." When I heard of these and other sophistries, the result of a self-satisfied cleverness combined with lack of employment, and saw in these subtleties no real advantage affecting the conduct of life, and no end to the inquiry, I agreed with Ennius' Neoptolemus, who rightly says: Philosophizing there must be, but by the few; Since for all men it's not to be desired.

§ 5.16  On the function of the eye and the process of vision. I have observed that the philosophers have varying opinions about the method of seeing and the nature of vision. The Stoics say that the causes of sight are the emission of rays from the eyes to those objects which can be seen, and the simultaneous expansion of the air. Epicurus believes that there is a constant flow from all bodies of images of those bodies themselves, and that these impinge upon the eyes and hence the sensation of seeing arises. Plato is of the opinion that a kind of fire or light issues from the eyes, and that this, being united and joined either with the light of the sun or with that of some other fire, by means of its own and the external force makes us see whatever it has struck and illumined. But here too we must not dally longer, but follow the advice of that Neoptolemus in Ennius, of whom I have just written, who advises having a "taste" of philosophy, but not "gorging oneself with it."

§ 5.17  Why the first days after the Kalends, Nones and Ides are considered unlucky; and why many avoid also the fourth day before the Kalends, Nones or Ides, on the ground that it is ill-omened. Verrius Flaccus, in the fourth book of his work On the Meaning of Words, writes that the days immediately following the Kalends, Nones and Ides, which the common people ignorantly call "holidays," are properly called, and considered, "ill-omened," for this reason:. "When the city," he says, "had been recovered from the Senonian Gauls, Lucius Atilius stated in the senate that Quintus Sulpicius, tribune of the soldiers, when on the eve of fighting against the Gauls at the Allia, offered sacrifice in anticipation of that battle on the day after the Ides; that the army of the Roman people was thereupon cut to pieces, and three days later the whole city, except the Capitol, was taken. Also many other senators said that they remembered that whenever with a view to waging war a magistrate of the Roman people had sacrificed on the day after the Kalends, Nones or Ides, in the very next battle of that war the State had suffered disaster. Then the senate referred the matter to the pontiffs, that they might take what action they saw fit. The pontiffs decreed that no offering would properly be made on those days." Many also avoid the fourth day before the Kalends, Nones and Ides, as ill-omened. It is often inquired whether any religious reason for that observance is recorded. I myself have found nothing in literature pertaining to that matter, except that Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in the fifth book of his Annals, says that the prodigious slaughter of the battle of Cannae occurred on the fourth day before the Nones of August.

§ 5.18  In what respect, and how far, history differs from annals; and a quotation on that subject from the first book of the Histories of Sempronius Asellio. Some think that history differs from annals in this particular, that while each is a narrative of events, yet history is properly an account of events in which the narrator took part. and that this is the opinion of some men is stated by Verrius Flaccus in the fourth book of his treatise On the Meaning of Words. He adds that he for his part has doubts about the matter, but he thinks that the view may have some appearance of reason, since ἱστορία in Greek means a knowledge of current events. But we often hear it said that annals are exactly the same as histories. but that histories are not exactly the same as annals. just as a man is necessarily an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a man. Thus they say that history is the setting forth of events or their description, or whatever term may be used; but that annals set down the events of many years successively, with observance of the chronological order. When, however, events are recorded, not year by year, but day by day, such a history is called in Greek ἐφημερίς, or "a diary," a term of which the Latin interpretation is found in the first book of Sempronius Asellio. I have quoted a passage of some length from that book, in order at the same time to show what his opinion is of the difference between history and chronicle. "But between those," he says, "who have desired to leave us annals, and those who have tried to write the history of the Roman people, there was this essential difference. The books of annals merely made known what happened and in what year it happened, which is like writing a diary, which the Greeks call ἐφημερίς. For my part, I realize that it is not enough to make known what has been done, but that one should also show with what purpose and for what reason things were done." A little later in the same book Asellio writes: "For annals cannot in any way make men more eager to defend their country, or more reluctant to do wrong. Furthermore, to write over and over again in whose consulship a war was begun and ended, and who in consequence entered the city in a triumph, and in that book not to state what happened in the course of the war, what decrees the senate made during that time, or what law or bill was passed, and with what motives these things were done — that is to tell stories to children, not to write history."

§ 5.19  The meaning of adoptatio and also of adrogatio, and how they differ; and the formula used by the official who, when children are adopted, brings the business before the people. When outsiders are taken into another's family and given the relationship of children, it is done either through a praetor or through the people. If done by a praetor, the process is called adoptatio; if through the people, arrogatio." Now, we have adoptatio, when those who are adopted are surrendered in court through a thrice repeated sale by the father under whose control they are, and are claimed by the one who adopts them in the presence of the official before whom the legal action takes place. The process is called adrogatio, when persons who are their own masters deliver themselves into the control of another, and are themselves responsible for the act. But arrogations are not made without due consideration and investigation. for the so-called comitia curiata are summoned under the authority of the pontiffs, and it is inquired whether the age of the one who wishes to adopt is not rather suited to begetting children of his own; precaution is taken that the property of the one who is being adopted is not being sought under false pretences; and an oath is administered which is said to have been formulated for use in that ceremony by Quintus Mucius, when he was pontifex maximus. But no one may be adopted by adrogatio who is not yet ready to assume the gown of manhood. The name adrogatio is due to the fact that this kind of transfer to another's family is accomplished through a rogatio or "request," put to the people. The language of this request is as follows: "Express your desire and ordain that Lucius Valerius be the son of Lucius Titius as justly and lawfully as if he had been born of that father and the mother of his family, and that Titius have the power of life and death over Valerius which a father has over a son. This, just as I have stated it, I thus ask of you, fellow Romans." Neither a ward nor a woman who is not under the control of her father may be adopted by adrogatio; since women have no part in the comitia, and it is not right that guardians should have so much authority and power over their wards as to be able to subject to the control of another a free person who has been committed to their protection. Freedmen, however, may legally be adopted in that way by freeborn citizens, according to Masurius Sabinus. But he adds that it is not allowed, that men of the condition of freedmen should by process of adoption usurp the privileges of the freeborn. "Furthermore," says he, if that ancient law be maintained, even a slave may be surrendered by his master for adoption through the agency of a praetor." And he declares that several authorities on ancient law have written that this can be done. I have observed in a speech of Publius Scipio On Morals, which he made to the people in his censorship, that among the things that he criticized, on the ground that they were done contrary to the usage of our forefathers, he also found fault with this, that an adopted son was of profit to his adoptive father in gaining the rewards for paternity. The passage in that speech is as follows: "A father votes in one tribe, the son in another, an adopted son is of as much advantage as if one had a son of his own; orders are given to take the census of absentees, and hence it is not necessary for anyone to appear in person at the census."

§ 5.20  The Latin word coined by Sinnius Capito for "solecism," and what the early writers of Latin called that same fault; and also Sinnius Capito's definition of a solecism. A solecism, which by Sinnius Capito and other men of his time was called in Latin inparilitas, or "inequality," the earlier Latin writers termed stribiligo, evidently meaning the improper use of an inverted form of expression, a sort of twist as it were. This kind of fault is thus defined by Sinnius Capito, in a letter which he wrote to Clodius Tuscus: "A solecism," he says, "is an irregular and incongruous joining together of the parts of speech." Since "soloecismus" is a Greek word, the question is often asked, whether it was used by the men of Attica who spoke most elegantly. But I have as yet found neither soloecismus nor barbarismus in good Greek writers. for just as they used βάρβαρος, so they used σόλοικος. So too our earlier writers used soloecus regularly, soloecismus never, I think. But if that be so, soloecismus is proper usage neither in Greek nor in Latin.

§ 5.21  One who says pluria, compluria and compluriens speaks good Latin, and not incorrectly. An extremely learned man, a friend of mine, chanced in the course of conversation to use the word pluria, not at all with a desire to show off, or because he thought that plura ought not to be used. For he is a man of serious scholarship and devoted to the duties of life, and not at all meticulous in the use of words. But, I think, from constant perusal of the early writers a word which he had often met in books had become second nature to his tongue. There was present when he said this a very audacious critic of language, who had read very little and that of the most ordinary sort; this fellow had some trifling instruction in the art of grammar, which was partly ill-digested and confused and partly false, and this he used to cast like dust into the eyes of any with whom he had entered into discussion. Thus on that occasion he said to my friend: "You were incorrect in saying plura; for that form has neither justification nor authorities." Thereupon that friend of mine rejoiced with a smile: "My good sir, since I now have leisure from more serious affairs, I wish you would please explain to me why pluria and compluria — for they do not differ — are used barbarously and incorrectly by Marcus Cato, Quintus Claudius, Valerius Antias, Lucius Aelius, Publius Nigidius, and Marcus Varro, whom we have as endorsers and sanctioners of this form, to say nothing of a great number of the early poets and orators." And the fellow answered with excessive arrogance: "You are welcome to those authorities of yours, dug up from the age of the Fauns and Aborigines, but what is your answer to this rule. No neuter comparative in the nominative plural has an i before its final a; for example, meliora, maiora, graviora. Accordingly, then, it is proper to say plura, not pluria, in order that there be no i before final a in a comparative, contrary to the invariable rule." Then that friend of mine, thinking that the self-confident fellow deserved a few words, said: "There are numerous letters of Sinnius Capito, a very learned man, collected in a single volume and deposited, I think, in the Temple of Peace. The first letter is addressed to Pacuvius Labeo, and it is prefixed by the title, 'Pluria, not plura, should be used." In that letter he has collected the grammatical rules to show that pluria, and not plura, is good Latin. Therefore I refer you to Capito. From him you will learn at the same time, provided you can comprehend what is written in that letter. that pluria, or plura, is the positive and simple form, not, as it seems to you, a comparative." It also confirms that view of Sinnius, that when we say complures or "several," we are not using a comparative. Moreover, from the word compluria is derived the adverb compluriens, "often." Since this is not a common word, I have added a verse of Plautus, from the comedy entitled The Persian: What do you fear? — By Heaven! I am afraid; I've had the feeling many a time and oft (compluriens). Marcus Cato too, in the fourth book of his Origins, has used this word three times in the same passage: "Often (compluriens) did their mercenary soldiers kill one another in large numbers in the camp; often (compluriens) did many together desert to the enemy; often (compluriens) did they attack their general."

§ 6.1  Some remarkable stories about the elder Publius Africanus, drawn from the annals. The tale which in Grecian history is told of Olympias, wife of king Philip and mother of Alexander, is also recorded of the mother of that Publius Scipio who was the first to be called Africanus. For both Gaius Oppius and Julius Hyginus, as well as others who have written of the life and deeds of Africanus, declare that his mother was for a long time thought to be barren, and that Publius Scipio, her husband, had also given up hope of offspring. that afterwards, in her own room and bed, when she was lying alone in the absence of her husband and had fallen asleep, of a sudden a huge serpent was seen lying by her side; and that when those who had seen it were frightened and cried out, the snake glided away and could not be found. It is said that Publius Scipio himself consulted soothsayers about the occurrence; that they, after offering sacrifice, declared that he would have children. and not many days after that serpent had been seen in her bed, the woman began to experience the indications and sensation of conception. Afterwards, in the tenth month, she gave birth to that Publius Scipio who conquered Hannibal and the Carthaginians in Africa in the second Punic war. But it was far more because of his exploits than because of that prodigy that he too was believed to be a man of godlike excellence. This too I venture to relate, which the same writers that I mentioned before have put on record: This Scipio Africanus used often to go to the Capitolium in the latter part of the night, before the break of day, give orders that the shrine of Jupiter be opened, and remain there a long time alone, apparently consulting Jupiter about matters of state; and the guardians of the temple were often amazed that on his coming to the Capitolium alone at such an hour the dogs, that flew at all other intruders, neither barked at him nor molested him. These popular beliefs about Scipio seemed to be confirmed and attested by many remarkable actions and sayings of his. Of these the following is a single example. He was engaged in the siege of a town in Spain, which was strongly fortified and defended, protected by its position, and also well provisioned; and there was no prospect of taking it. One day he sat holding court in his camp, at a point from which there was a distant view of the town. Then one of his soldiers who were on trial before him asked in the usual way on what day and in what place he bade them give bail for their appearance. Then Scipio, stretching forth his hand towards the very citadel of the town he was besieging, said: "Appear the day after tomorrow in yonder place." And so it happened; on the third day, the town was captured, and on that same day he held court in the citadel of the place.

§ 6.2  Of a disgraceful blunder of Caesellius Vindex, which we find in his work entitled Archaic Terms. In those highly celebrated notes of Caesellius Vindex On Archaic Terms we find a shameful oversight, although in fact the man is seldom caught napping. This error has escaped the notice of many, in spite of their diligent search for opportunities to find fault with Caesellius, even through misrepresentation. Now, Caesellius wrote that Quintus Ennius, in the thirteenth book of his Annals, used cor in the masculine gender. I add Caesellius' own words: "Ennius used cor, like many other words, in the masculine gender; for in Annals XIII he wrote quem cor." He then quoted two verses of Ennius: While Hannibal, of bold breast, did me exhort Not to make war, what heart thought he was mine? The speaker is Antiochus, king of Asia. He is surprised and indignant that Hannibal, the Carthaginian, discourages his desire to make war on the people of Rome. Now, Caesellius understands the lines to mean that Antiochus says: "Hannibal dissuades me from making war. In so doing, what kind of heart does he think I have, and how foolish does he believe me to be, when he gives me such advice?. So Caesellius; but Ennius' meaning was quite different. For there are three verses, not two, which belong to this utterance of the poet's, and Caesellius overlooked the third verse: Through valour war's great advocate and friend. The meaning and arrangement of these three verses I believe to be this: "Hannibal, that boldest and most valiant of men, who I believed (for that is the meaning of cor meum credidit, exactly as if he had said "who I, foolish man, believed") would strongly advise war, discourages and dissuades me from making war." Caesellius, however, somewhat carelessly misled as to the connection of the words, assumed that Ennius said quem cor, reading quem with an acute accent, as if it belonged with cor and not with Hannibal. But I am well aware that one might, if anyone should have so little understanding, defend Caesellius' masculine cor by maintaining that the third verse should be read apart from the others, as if Antiochus had exclaimed in broken and abrupt language "a mighty adviser!" But those who would argue thus do not deserve a reply.

§ 6.3  What Tullius Tiro, Cicero's freedman, criticized in the speech which Marcus Cato delivered in the senate in defence of the Rhodians; and our answer to his strictures. The State of Rhodes is famed for the happy situation of the island, its celebrated works of art, its skill in seamanship and its naval victories. Although a friend and ally of the Roman people, that State was on cordial terms with Perses, son of Philip and king of Macedon, with whom the Romans were at war; accordingly, the Rhodians often sent envoys to Rome and tried to reconcile the contending parties. But when their attempts at peace-making failed, many of the Rhodians harangued the people in their assemblies, agreeing that if peace were not made, the Rhodians should aid the king in his contest with the people of Rome. but as to that question no official action was taken. When, however, Perses was defeated and taken prisoner, the Rhodians were in great fear because of what had been said and done on many occasions in the popular assemblies; and they sent envoys to Rome, to apologize for the hastiness of some of their fellow-citizens and vindicate their loyalty as a community. When the envoys reached Rome and were admitted to the senate, after having humbly pleaded their cause they left the House, and the senators were called upon for their opinions. When some of the members complained of the Rhodians, declaring that they had been disloyal, and recommended that war be declared upon them, then Marcus Cato arose. He endeavoured to defend and save our very good and faithful allies, to whom many of the most distinguished senators were hostile through a desire to plunder and possess their wealth; and he delivered that famous speech entitled For the Rhodians, which is included in the fifth book of his Origins and is also in circulation as a separate publication. Now Tullius Tiro, Marcus Cicero's freedman, was unquestionably a man of refined taste and by no means unacquainted with our early history and literature. He had been liberally educated from his earliest years, and Cicero found in him an assistant, and in a sense a partner, in his literary work. But surely Tiro showed more presumption than can be tolerated or excused. For he wrote a letter to Quintus Axius, a friend of his patron, with excessive assurance and warmth, in which, as he imagined, he criticized that speech For the Rhodians with keen and fine judgment. It chanced to take my fancy to touch upon certain of the animadversions which he makes in that letter, and I shall doubtless be the more readily pardoned for finding fault with Tiro, because he took Cato to task. His first charge was that Cato, "ignorantly and absurdly," to use Tiro's own language, made use of a preamble which was excessively severe and fault-finding, in which he declared that he feared lest the fathers, having their minds upset by joy and exultation at their success, might act unwisely and be in no state of mind for understanding and deliberating aright. Tiro says: "Advocates who are pleading for clients ought in their opening remarks to win over and propitiate the jurors with complimentary and respectful language; they ought, while their minds, as they wait to hear the case, are still in suspense and cool, to render them complacent, and not to arouse contradiction by insults and arrogant threats." Then he has given us Cato's own preamble, which runs as follows: "I am aware that in happy, successful and prosperous times the minds of most men are wont to be puffed up, and their arrogance and self-confidence to wax and swell. Therefore I am now gravely concerned, since this enterprise has gone on so successfully, lest something adverse may happen in our deliberations, to bring to naught our good fortune, and lest this joy of ours become too extravagant. Adversity subdues and shows what ought to be done; prosperity, since it inspires joy, commonly turns men aside from wise counsel and right understanding. Therefore it is with the greater emphasis that I advise and urge that this matter be put off for a few days, until we regain our self-command after so great rejoicing." "Then what Cato says next," continues Tiro, "amounts to a confession rather than a defence; for it does not contain a refutation or shifting of the charge, but the sharing of it with many others, which of course amounts to nothing in the way of excuse. Moreover," says Tiro, "he also acknowledges that the Rhodians, who were accused of favouring the king's cause against the Roman people and wishing him success, did so from motives of self-interest, for fear that the Romans, already proud and self-confident, with the addition of a victory over king Perses might become immoderately insolent." And he gives Cato's own words, as follows: "And I really think that the Rhodians did not wish us to end the war as we did, with a victory over king Perses. But it was not the Rhodians alone who had that feeling, but I believe that many peoples and many nations agreed with them. And I am inclined to think that some of them did not wish us success, not in order that we might be disgraced, but because they feared that if there were no one of whom we stood in dread, we would do whatever we chose. I think, then, that it was with an eye to their own freedom that they held that opinion, in order not to be under our sole dominion and enslaved to us. But for all that, the Rhodians never publicly aided Perses. Reflect how much more cautiously we deal with one another as individuals. For each one of us, if he thinks that anything is being done contrary to his interests, strives with might and main to prevent it; but they in spite of all permitted this very thing to happen." Now as to his criticism of Cato's introduction, Tiro ought to have known that although Cato defended the Rhodians, he did so as a senator who had been consul and censor and was recommending what he thought was best for the public welfare, not as an advocate pleading the cause of the accused. For one kind of introduction is appropriate for a man who is defending clients before jurors and striving in every way to excite pity and compassion; quite another for a man of eminent authority, when the senate is asked for its opinion on a matter of State, and when, indignant at the highly unjust opinions of some of the members, he gives plain and emphatic expression at once to his indignation and his sorrow, speaking in behalf of the public welfare and the safety of our allies.

§ 6.3.2  Indeed, it is a proper and salutary rule of the schools of rhetoric, that jurors who are to pass judgment on the person of a stranger and on a case which does not personally concern them (so that apart from the duty of acting as jurors no danger or emolument will come to them) ought to be conciliated and induced by mild and soothing language to have regard for the reputation and safety of the prisoner at the bar. But when the common prestige, honour and advantage of all are involved, and therefore one must advise what is to be done, or what must be put off that has already been begun, then one who busies himself with an introduction designed to make his hearers friendly and kindly disposed towards himself wastes his efforts in needless talk. For the common interests and dangers have themselves already disposed the jurors to listen to advice, and it is rather they themselves that demand good-will on the part of their counsellor. But when Tiro says that Cato admitted that the Rhodians did not wish the Romans to fight as successfully as they did, and king Perses to be conquered by the Roman people, and when he asserts that he declared that not the Rhodians alone, but many other nations too, had the same feeling, but that this availed nothing in excuse or extenuation of their fault — in this very first point Tiro is guilty of a shameless lie. He quotes Cato's words, yet misrepresents him by giving them a false interpretation. For Cato does not admit that the Rhodians did not wish the Roman people to be victorious, but said that he thought they did not; and this was unquestionably an expression of his own opinion, not a concession of the guilt of the Rhodians. On this point, in my judgment at least, Cato is not only free from reproach, but is even deserving of praise and admiration. For he apparently expressed a frank and conscientious opinion adverse to the Rhodians; but then, having established confidence in his candour, he so changed and shifted that very statement which seemed to militate against them, that on that account alone it seemed right that they should be more highly esteemed and beloved by the people of Rome; inasmuch as they took no steps to aid the king, although they wished him to succeed and although his success would have been to their advantage. Later on, Tiro quotes the following words from the same speech: "Shall we, then, of a sudden abandon these great services given and received and this strong friendship? Shall we be the first to do what we say they merely wished to do?. "This," says Tiro, "is a worthless and faulty argument. For it might be replied: 'Certainly we shall anticipate them, for if we do not, we shall be caught unawares and must fall into the snares against which we failed to guard in advance." Lucilius," he says, "justly criticizes the poet Euripides for this reason, that when king Polyphontes declared that he had killed his brother, because his brother had previously planned to slay him, Meropa, his brother's wife, confuted the king with these words: If, as you say, my husband planned your death, You too should only plan, till that time came. But that," says Tiro, "is altogether full of absurdity, to wish to do something, and yet have the design and purpose of never doing what you wish to do." But, as a matter of fact, Tiro failed to observe that the reason for taking precautions is not the same in all cases, and that the occupations and actions of human life, and the obligations of anticipation or postponement or even of taking vengeance or precautions, are not like a combat of gladiators. For to a gladiator ready to fight the fortune of battle offers the alternative, either to kill, if he should conquer, or to die, if he should yield. But the life of men in general is not restricted by such unfair or inevitable necessities that one must be first to commit an injury in order to avoid suffering injury. In fact, such conduct was so alien to the humanity of the Roman people that they often forbore to avenge the wrongs inflicted upon them. Then Tiro says that later in that same speech Cato used arguments that were disingenuous and excessively audacious, not suited to the character which Cato showed at other times, but cunning and deceitful, resembling the subtleties of the Greek sophists. "For although," says he, "he charged the Rhodians with having wished to make war on the Roman people, he declared that they did not deserve punishment, because they had not made war in spite of their strong desire to do so." He says that Cato introduced what the logicians call an ἐπαγωγή, a most treacherous and sophistical device, designed not so much for the truth as for cavil, since by deceptive examples he tried to establish and prove that no one who wished to do wrong deserved to be punished, unless he actually accomplished his desire.

§ 6.3.3  Now Cato's words in that speech are as follows: "He who uses the strongest language against them says that they wished to be our enemies. Pray is there any one of you who, so far as he is concerned, would think it fair to suffer punishment because he is accused of having wished to do wrong? No one, I think; for so far as I am concerned, I should not." Then a little farther on he says: "What? Is there any law so severe as to provide that if anyone wish to do so and so, he be fined a thousand sesterces, provided that be less than half his property; if anyone shall desire to have more than five hundred acres, let the fine be so much; if anyone shall wish to have a greater number of cattle, let the fine be thus and so. In fact, we all wish to have more, and we do so with impunity." Later he continues: "But if it is not right for honour to be conferred because anyone says that he wished to do well, but yet did not do so, shall the Rhodians suffer, not because they did wrong, but because they are said to have wished to do wrong?. With such arguments Tullius Tiro says that Marcus Cato strove to show that the Rhodians also ought not to be punished, because although they had wished to be enemies of the Roman people, they had actually not been such. Furthermore, he says that it cannot be denied that to wish to have more than five hundred acres, which was forbidden by Stolo's bill, is not exactly the same thing as to wish to make an unjust and unrighteous war upon the Roman people; also that it could not be denied that rewards and punishments belong to different categories. "For services," he says, "that are promised should be awaited, and not rewarded until they are performed; but in the case of threatening injuries, it is fair to guard against them rather than wait for them. For it is an admission of the greatest folly," he declares, "not to go to meet wickedness that is planned, but to await and expect it, and then, when it has been committed and accomplished, at last to inflict punishment, when what is done cannot be undone." These are the criticisms which Tiro passed upon Cato, not altogether pointless or wholly unreasonable. but as a matter of fact, Cato did not leave this ἐπαγωγή bare, isolated and unsupported, but he propped it up in various ways and clothed it with many other arguments. Furthermore, since he had an eye as much to the interests of the State as to those of the Rhodians, he regarded nothing that he said or did in that matter as discreditable, provided he strove by every kind of argument to save our allies. And first of all, he very cleverly sought to find actions which are prohibited, not by natural or by international law, but by statutes passed to remedy some evil or meet an emergency; such for example as the one which limited the number of cattle or the amount of land. In such cases that which is forbidden cannot lawfully be done; but to wish to do it, and if it should be allowed, is not dishonourable. And then he gradually compared and connected such actions as these with that which in itself it is neither lawful to do nor to wish to do. Then finally, in order that the impropriety of the comparison may not become evident, he defends it by numerous bulwarks, not laying great stress on those trivial and ideal censures of unlawful desires, such as form the arguments of philosophers in their leisure moments, but striving with might and main for one single end, namely, that the cause of the Rhodians, whose friendship it was to the interests of the commonwealth to retain, should be shown either to be just, or in any event, at least pardonable. Accordingly, he now affirms that the Rhodians did not make war and did not desire to do so; but again he declares that only acts should be considered and judged, and that mere empty wishes are liable neither to laws nor punishment; sometimes, however, as if admitting their guilt, he asks that they be pardoned and shows that forgiveness is expedient in human relations, arousing fear of popular outbreaks, if pardon is not granted, and on the other hand showing that if they forgive, the greatness of the Roman people will be maintained. The charge of arrogance too, which in particular was brought against the Rhodians in the senate at that time, he evaded and eluded by a brilliant and all but inspired mode of reply. I shall give Cato's very words, since Tiro has passed them by. "They say that the Rhodians are arrogant, bringing a charge against them which I should on no account wish to have brought against me and my children. Suppose they are arrogant. What is that to us? Are you to be angry merely because someone is more arrogant than we are?. Absolutely nothing could be said with greater force or weight than this apostrophe against men proud of their deeds, loving pride in themselves, but condemning it in others.

§ 6.3.4  It is further to be observed that throughout that speech of Cato's recourse is had to every weapon and device of the art rhetorical; but we are not conscious of their use, as we are in mock combats or in battles feigned for the sake of entertainment. For the case was not pleaded, I say, with an excess of refinement, elegance and observance of rule, but just as in a doubtful battle, when the troops are scattered, the contest rages in many parts of the field with uncertain outcome, so in that case at that time, when the notorious arrogance of the Rhodians had aroused the hatred and hostility of many men, Cato used every method of protection and defence without discrimination, at one time commending the Rhodians as of the highest merit, again exculpating them and declaring them blameless, yet again demanding that their property and riches should not be coveted, now asking for their pardon as if they were in the wrong, now pointing out their friendship to the commonwealth, appealing now to clemency, now to the mercy shown by our forefathers, now to the public interest. All this might perhaps have been said in a more orderly and euphonic style, yet I do not believe that it could have been said with greater vigour and vividness. It was therefore unfair of Tullius Tiro to single out from all the qualities of so rich a speech, apt in their connection with one another, a small and bare part to criticize, by asserting that it was not worthy of Marcus Cato to maintain that the mere desire for delinquencies that were not actually committed did not merit punishment. But one will form a juster and more candid opinion of these words of mine, spoken in reply to Tullius Tiro, and judge accordingly, if one will take in hand Cato's own speech in its entirety, and will also take the trouble to look up and read the letter of Tiro to Axius. For then he will be able either to correct or confirm what I have said more truthfully and after fuller examination.

§ 6.4  What sort of slaves Caelius Sabinus, the writer on civil law, said were commonly sold with caps on their heads, and why; and what chattels were sold under a crown in the days of our forefathers; and the meaning of that same expression "under a crown." Caelius Sabinus, the jurist, has written that it was usual, when selling slaves, to put caps on those for whom the seller assumed no responsibility. He says that the reason for that custom was, that the law required that slaves of that kind be marked when offered for sale, in order that buyers might not err and be deceived; that it might not be necessary to wait for the bill of sale, but might be obvious at once what kind of slaves they were. "Just so," he says, "in ancient times slaves taken by right of conquest were sold wearing garlands, and hence were said to be sold 'under a crown.' For as the crown was a sign that those who were being sold were captives, so a cap upon the head indicated that slaves were being sold for whom the seller gave the buyer no guarantee." There is, however, another explanation of the reason for the common saying that captives were sold "under a crown" namely, because a guard of soldiers stood around the bands of prisoners that were offered for sale, and such a ring of soldiers was called corona. But that the reason which I first gave is the more probable one is made clear by Marcus Cato in the book which he wrote On Military Science. Cato's words are as follows: "That the people may rather crown themselves and go to offer thanks for success gained through their own efforts than be crowned and sold because of ill-success."

§ 6.5  A noteworthy story about the actor Polus. There was in the land of Greece an actor of wide reputation, who excelled all others in his clear delivery and graceful action. They say that his name was Polus, and he often acted the tragedies of famous poets with intelligence and dignity. This Polus lost by death a son whom he dearly loved. After he felt that he had indulged his grief sufficiently, he returned to the practice of his profession. At that time he was to act the Electra of Sophocles at Athens, and it was his part to carry an urn which was supposed to contain the ashes of Orestes. The plot of the play requires that Electra, who is represented as carrying her brother's remains, should lament and bewail the fate that she believed had overtaken him. Accordingly Polus, clad in the mourning garb of Electra, took from the tomb the ashes and urn of his son, embraced them as if they were those of Orestes, and filled the whole place, not with the appearance and imitation of sorrow, but with genuine grief and unfeigned lamentation. Therefore, while it seemed that a play was being acted, it was in fact real grief that was enacted.

§ 6.6  What Aristotle wrote of the congenital absence of some of the senses. Nature has given five senses to living beings; sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell, called by the Greeks αἰσθήσεις. Of these some animals lack one and some another, being born into the world blind, or without the sense of smell or hearing. But Aristotle asserts that no animal is born without sense of taste or of touch. His own words, from the book which he wrote On Memory, are as follows: "Except for some imperfect animals, all have taste or touch."

§ 6.7  Whether affatim, like admodum, should be pronounced with an acute accent on the first syllable; with some painstaking observations on the accents of other words. The poet Annianus, in addition to his charming personality, was highly skilled in ancient literature and literary criticism, and conversed with remarkable grace and learning. He pronounced affatim, as he did admodum, with an acute accent on the first, and not on the medial, syllable; and he believed that the ancients so pronounced the word. He adds that in his hearing the grammarian Probus thus read the following lines of the Cistellaria of Plautus: Canst do a valiant deed? — Enough (affatim) there be Who can. I've no desire to be called brave. and he said that the reason for that accent was that affatim was not two parts of speech, but was made up of two parts that had united to form a single word; just as also in the word which we call exadversum he thought that the second syllable should have the acute accent, because the word was one part of speech, and not two. Accordingly, he maintained that the two following verses of Terence ought to be read thus: Over against (exadversum) the school to which she went A barber had his shop. He added besides that the preposition ad was commonly accented when it indicated ἐπίτασις, or as we say, "emphasis," as in adfabre, admodum, and adprobe. In all else, indeed, Annianus spoke aptly enough. But if he supposed that this particle was always accented when it denoted emphasis, that rule is obviously not without exceptions. for when we say adpotus, adprimus, and adprime, emphasis is evident in all those words, yet it is not at all proper to pronounce the particle ad with the acute accent. I must admit, however, that adprobus, which means "highly approved," ought to be accented on the first syllable. Caecilius uses that word in his comedy entitled The Triumph: Hierocles, my friend, is a most worthy (adprobus) youth. In those words, then, which we say do not have the acute accent, is not this the reason — that the following syllable is longer by nature, and a long penult does not as a rule permit the accenting of the preceding syllable in words of more than two syllables. But Lucius Livius in his Odyssey uses adprimus in the sense of "by far the first" in the following line: And then the mighty hero, foremost of all (adprimus), Patroclus. Livius in his Odyssey too pronounces praemodum like admodum; he says parcentes praemodum, which means "beyond measure merciful," and praemodum is equivalent to praeter modum. And in this word, of course, the first syllable will have to have the acute accent.

§ 6.8  An incredible story about a dolphin which loved a boy. That dolphins are affectionate and amorous is shown, not only by ancient history, but also by tales of recent date. For in the sea of Puteoli, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, as Apion has written, and some centuries before at Naupactus, as Theophrastus tells us, dolphins are positively known to have been ardently in love. And they did not love those of their own kind, but had an extraordinary passion, like that of human beings, for boys of handsome figure, whom they chanced to have seen in boats or in the shoal waters near the shore. I have appended the words of that learned man Apion, from the fifth book of his Egyptian History, in which he tells of an amorous dolphin and a boy who did not reject its advances, of their intimacy and play with each other, the dolphin carrying the boy and the boy bestriding the fish; and Apion declares that of all this he himself and many others were eye-witnesses. "Now I myself," he writes, "near Dicaearchia saw a dolphin that fell in love with a boy called Hyacinthus. For the fish with passionate eagerness came at his call, and drawing in his fins, to avoid wounding the delicate skin of the object of his affection, carried him as if mounted upon a horse for a distance of two hundred stadia. Rome and all Italy turned out to see a fish that was under the sway of Aphrodite." To this he adds a detail that is no less wonderful. "Afterwards," he says, "that same boy who was beloved by the dolphin fell sick and died. But the lover, when he had often come to the familiar shore, and the boy, who used to await his coming at the edge of the shoal water, was nowhere to be seen, pined away from longing and died. He was found lying on the shore by those who knew the story and was buried in the same tomb with his favourite."

§ 6.9  That many early writers used peposci, memordi, pepugi, spepondi and cecurri, and not, as was afterwards customary, forms with o or u in the first syllable, and that in so doing said that they followed Greek usage; that it has further been observed that men who were neither unlearned nor obscure made from the verb descendo, not descendi, but descendidi. Poposci, momordi, pupugi and cucurri seem to be the approved forms, and today they are used by almost all better-educated men. But Quintus Ennius in his Satires wrote memorderit with an e, and not momorderit, as follows: 'Tis not my way, as if a dog had bit me (memorderit). So too Laberius in the Galli: Now from my whole estate A hundred thousand have I bitten off (memordi). The same Laberius too in his Colorator: And when, o'er slow fire cooked, I came beneath her teeth, Twice, thrice she bit (memordit). Also Publius Nigidius in his second book On Animals: "As when a serpent bites (memordit) one, a hen is split and placed upon the wound." Likewise Plautus in the Aulularia: How he the man did fleece (admemordit). But Plautus again, in the Trigemini, said neither praememordisse nor praemomordisse, but praemorsisse, in the following line: Had I not fled into your midst, Methinks he'd bitten me (praemorsisset). Atta too in the Conciliatrix says: A bear, he says, bit him (memordisse). Valerius Antias too, in the forty-fifth book of his Annals, has left on record peposci, not poposci in this passage: "Finally Licinius, tribune of the commons, charged him with high treason and asked (peposcit) from the praetor Marcus Marcius a day for holding the comitia." In the same way Atta in the Aedilicia says: But he will be afraid, if I do prick him (pepugero). Probus has noted that Aelius Tubero also, in his work dedicated to Gaius Ippius, wrote occecurrit, and he has quoted him as follows: "If the general form should present itself (occecurrerit)." Probus also observed that Valerius Antias in the twenty-second book of his Histories wrote speponderant, and he quotes his words as follows: "Tiberius Gracchus, who had been quaestor to Gaius Mancinus in Spain, and the others who had guaranteed (speponderant) peace." Now the explanation of these forms might seem to be this: since the Greeks in one form of the past tense, which they call παρακείμενον, or "perfect," commonly change the second letter of the verb to e, as φράφω γέγραφα, ποιῶ πεποίηκα, λαλῶ λελάληκα,κρατῶ κεκράτηκα, λούω λέλουκα, so accordingly mordeo makes memordi. posco peposci, tendo tetendi, tango tetigi, pungo pepugi, curro cecurri, tollo tetuli, and spondeo spepondi. Thus Marcus Tullius and Gaius Caesar used mordeo memordi, pungo pepugi, spondeo spepondi. I find besides that from the verb scindo in the same way was made, not sciderat, but sciciderat. Lucius Accius in the first book of his Sotadici writes sciciderat. These are his words: And had the eagle then, as these declare, His bosom rent (sciciderat). Ennius too in his Melanippa says: When the rock he shall split (sciciderit). Valerius Antias in the seventy-fifth book of his Histories wrote these words: "Then, having arranged for the funeral, he went down (descendidit) to the Forum." Laberius too in the Catularius wrote thus: I wondered how my breasts had fallen low (descendiderant).

§ 6.10  As ususcapio is treated as a compound noun in the nominative case, so pignoriscapio is taken together as one word in the same case. As ususcapio is treated as a compound word, in which the letter a is pronounced long, just so pignoriscapio was pronounced as one word with a long a. These are the words of Cato in the first book of his Epistolary Questions: "Pignoriscapio, resorted to because of military pay which a soldier ought to receive from the public paymaster, is a word by itself." From this it is perfectly clear that one may say capio as if it were captio, in connection with both usus and pignus.

§ 6.11  That neither levitas nor nequitia has the meaning that is given to those words in ordinary conversation. I observe that levitas is now generally used to denote inconsistency and changeableness, and nequitia, in the sense of craftiness and cunning. But those of the men of early days who spoke properly and purely applied the term leves to those whom we now commonly call worthless and meriting no esteem. That is, they used levitas with precisely the force of vilitas, and applied the term nequam to a man of no importance nor worth, the sort of man that the Greeks usually call ἄσωτος (beyond recovery) or ἀκόλαστος (incorrigible). One who desires examples of these words need not resort to books that are very inaccessible, but he will find them in Marcus Tullius' second Oration against Antony. For when Cicero wished to indicate a kind of extreme sordidness in the life and conduct of Marcus Antonius, that he lurked in a tavern, that he drank deep until evening, and that he travelled with his face covered, so as not to be recognized — when he wished to give expression to these and similar charges against him, he said: "Just see the worthlessness (levitatem) of the man," as if by that reproach he branded him with all those various marks of infamy which I have mentioned. But afterwards, when he had heaped upon the same Antony other scornful and opprobrious charges, he finally added "O man of no worth (nequam)! for there is no term that I can use more fittingly." But from that passage of Marcus Tullius I should like to add a somewhat longer extract: "Just see the worthlessness of the man! Having come to Saxa Rubra at about the tenth hour of the day, he lurked in a certain low tavern, and shutting himself up there drank deep until evening. Then riding swiftly to the city in a cab, he came to his home with covered face. The doorkeeper asked: 'Who are you?' 'The bearer of a letter from Marcus,' was the reply. He was at once taken to the lady on whose account he had come, and handed her the letter. While she read it with tears — for it was written in amorous terms and its main point was this: that hereafter he would have nothing to do with that actress, that he had cast aside all his love for her and transferred it to the reader — when the woman wept still more copiously, the compassionate man could not endure it; he uncovered his face and threw himself on her neck. O man of no worth! — for I can use no more fitting term; was it, then, that your wife might unexpectedly see you, when you had surprised her by appearing as her lover, that you upset the city with terror by night and Italy with dread for many days?. In a very similar way Quintus Claudius too, in the first book of his Annals, called a prodigal and wasteful life of luxury nequitia, using these words: "They persuade a young man from Lucania, who was born in a most exalted station, but had squandered great wealth in luxury and prodigality (nequitia)." Marcus Varro in his work On the Latin Language says: "Just as from non and volo we have nolo, so from ne and quicquam is formed nequam, with the loss of the medial syllable." Publius Africanus, speaking In his own Defence against Tiberius Asellus in the matter of a fine, thus addressed the people: "All the evils, shameful deeds, and crimes that men commit come from two things, malice and profligacy (nequitia). Against which charge do you defend yourself, that of malice or profligacy, or both together? If you wish to defend yourself against the charge of profligacy, well and good; if you have squandered more money on one harlot than you reported for the census as the value of all the equipment of your Sabine estate; if this is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces? If you have wasted more than a third of your patrimony and spent it on your vices; if that is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces? You do not care to defend yourself against the charge of profligacy; at least refute the charge of malice. If you have sworn falsely in set terms knowingly and deliberately; if this is so, who pledges a thousand sesterces?"

§ 6.12  Of the tunics called chiridotae; that Publius Africanus reproved Sulpicius Gallus for wearing them. For a man to wear tunics coming below the arms and as far as the wrists, and almost to the fingers, was considered unbecoming in Rome and in all Latium. Such tunics our countrymen called by the Greek name chiridotae (long-sleeved), and they thought that a long and full-flowing garment was not unbecoming for women only, to hide their arms and legs from sight. But Roman men at first wore the toga alone without tunics; later, they had close, short tunics ending below the shoulders, the kind which the Greeks call ἐξωμίδες (sleeveless). Habituated to this older fashion, Publius Africanus, son of Paulus, a man gifted with all worthy arts and every virtue, among many other things with which he reproached Publius Sulpicius Gallus, an effeminate man, included this also, that he wore tunics which covered his whole hands. Scipio's words are these: "For one who daily perfumes himself and dresses before a mirror, whose eyebrows are trimmed, who walks abroad with beard plucked out and thighs made smooth, who at banquets, though a young man, has reclined in a long-sleeved tunic on the inner side of the couch with a lover, who is fond not only of wine but of men — does anyone doubt that he does what wantons commonly do?. Virgil too attacks tunics of this kind as effeminate and shameful, saying: Sleeves have their tunics, and their turbans, ribbons. Quintus Ennius also seems to have spoken not without scorn of "the tunic-clad men" of the Carthaginians.

§ 6.13  Whom Marcus Cato calls classici or "belonging to a class," and whom infra classem or "below class." Not all those men who were enrolled in the five classes were called classici, but only the men of the first class, who were rated at a hundred and twenty-five thousand asses or more. But those of the second class and of all the other classes, who were rated ata smaller sum than that which I just mentioned, were called infra classem. I have briefly noted this, because in connection with the speech of Marcus Cato In Support of the Voconian Law the question is often raised, what is meant by classicus and what byinfra classem.

§ 6.14  Of the three literary styles; and of the three philosophers who were sent as envoys by the Athenians to the senate at Rome. Both in verse and in prose there are three approved styles, which the Greeks call χαρακτῆρες and to which they have given the names of ἁδρός, ἰσχνός and μέσος. We also call the one which I put first "grand," the second "plain," and the third "middle." The grand style possesses dignity and richness, the plain, grace and elegance; the middle lies on the border line and partakes of the qualities of both. To each of these excellent styles there are related an equal number of faulty ones, arising from unsuccessful attempts to imitate their manner and character. Thus very often pompous and bombastic speakers lay claim to the grand style, the mean and bald to the plain, and the unclear and ambiguous to the middle. But true and genuine Latin examples of these styles are said by Marcus Varro to be: Pacuvius of the grand style, Lucilius of the plain, and Terence of the middle. But in early days these same three styles of speaking were exemplified in three men by Homer: the grand and rich in Ulysses, the elegant and restrained in Menelaus, the middle and moderate in Nestor. This threefold variety is also to be observed in the three philosophers whom the Athenians sent as envoys to the senate at Rome, to persuade the senators to remit the fine which they had imposed upon the Athenians because of the sack of Oropos; and the fine amounted to nearly five hundred talents. The philosophers in question were Carneades of the Academy, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic. When they were admitted to the House, they made use of Gaius Acilius, one of the senators, as interpreter; but beforehand each one of them separately, for the purpose of exhibiting his eloquence, lectured to a large company. Rutilius and Polybius declare that all three aroused admiration for their oratory, each in his own style. "Carneades," they say, "spoke with a vehemence that carried you away, Critolaus with art and polish, Diogenes with restraint and sobriety." Each of these styles, as I have said, is more brilliant when it is chastely and moderately adorned; when it is rouged and bepowdered, it becomes mere jugglery.

§ 6.15  How severely thieves were punished by the laws of our forefathers; and what Mucius Scaevola wrote about that which is given or entrusted to anyone's care. Labeo, in his second book On the Twelve Tables, wrote that cruel and severe judgments were passed upon theft in early times, and that Brutus used to say that a man was pronounced guilty of theft who had merely led an animal to another place than the one where he had been given the privilege of using it, as well as one who had driven it farther than he had bargained to do. Accordingly, Quintus Scaevola, in the sixteenth book of his work On the Civil Law, wrote these words: "If anyone has used something that was entrusted to his care, or having borrowed anything to use, has applied it to another purpose than that for which he borrowed, he is liable for theft."

§ 6.16  A passage about foreign varieties of food, copied from the satire of Marcus Varro entitled Περὶ Ἐδεσμάτων, or On Edibles; and with it some verses of Euripides, in which he assails the extravagant gluttony of luxurious men. Marcus Varro, in the satire which he entitled Περὶ Ἐδεσμάτων, in verses written with great charm and cleverness, treats of exquisite elegance in banquets and viands. For he has set forth and described in senarii the greater number of things of that kind which such gluttons seek out on land and sea. As for the verses themselves, he who has leisure may find and read them in the book which I have mentioned. So far as my memory goes, these are the varieties and names of the foods surpassing all others, which a bottomless gullet has hunted out and which Varro has assailed in his satire, with the places where they are found. a peacock from Samos, a woodcock from Phrygia, cranes of Media, a kid from Ambracia, a young tunny from Chalcedon, a lamprey from Tartessus, codfish from Pessinus, oysters from Tarentum, cockles from Sicily, a swordfish from Rhodes, pike from Cilicia, nuts from Thasos, dates from Egypt, acorns from Spain. But this tireless gluttony, which is ever wandering about and seeking for flavours, and this eager quest for dainties from all quarters, we shall consider deserving of the greater detestation, if we recall the verses of Euripides of which the philosopher Chrysippus made frequent use, to the effect that gastronomic delicacies were contrived, not because of the necessary uses of life, but because of a spirit of luxury that disdains what is easily attainable because of the immoderate wantonness that springs from satiety. I have thought that I ought to append the verses of Euripides: What things do mortals need, save two alone, The fruits of Ceres and the cooling spring, Which are at hand and made to nourish us? With this abundance we are not content, But hunt out other foods through luxury.

§ 6.17  A conversation held with a grammarian, who was full of insolence and ignorance, as to the meaning of the word obnoxius; and of the origin of that word. I inquired at Rome of a certain grammarian who had the highest repute as a teacher, not indeed for the sake of trying or testing him, but rather from an eager desire for knowledge, what obnoxius meant and what was the origin and the history of the word. And he, looking at me and ridiculing what he considered the insignificance and unfitness of the query, said: "Truly a difficult question is this that you ask, one demanding very many sleepless nights of investigation. Who, pray, is so ignorant of the Latin tongue as not to know that one is called obnoxius who can be inconvenienced or injured by another, to whom he is said to be obnoxius because the other is conscious of his noxa, that is to say, of his guilt? Why not rather," said he, "drop these trifles and put questions worthy of study and discussion?. Then indeed I was angry, but thinking that I ought to dissemble, since I was dealing with a fool, I said: "If, most learned sir, I need to learn and to know other things that are more abstruse and more important, when the occasion arises I shall inquire and learn them from you; but inasmuch as I have often used the word obnoxius without knowing what I was saying, I have learned from you and am now beginning to understand what not I alone, as you seem to think, was ignorant of; for as a matter of fact, Plautus too, though a man of the first rank in his use of the Latin language and in elegance of diction, did not know the meaning of obnoxius. For there is a passage of his in the Stichus which reads as follows: By heaven! I now am utterly undone, Not only partly so (non obnoxie). This does not in the least agree with what you have taught me; for Plautus contrasted plane and obnoxie as two opposites, which is far removed from your meaning." But that grammarian retorted foolishly enough, as if obnoxius and obnoxie differed, not merely in form, but in their substance and meaning: "I gave a definition of obnoxius, not obnoxie." But then I, amazed at the ignorance of the presumptuous fellow, answered, "Let us, as you wish, disregard the fact that Plautus said obnoxie, if you think that too far-fetched. and let us also say nothing of the passage in Sallust's Catiline: 'Also to threaten her with his sword, if she would not be submissive (obnoxia) to him'. but explain to me this example, which is certainly more recent and more familiar. For the following lines of Virgil's are very well known: For now the stars' bright sheen is seen undimmed. The rising Moon owes naught (nec . . . obnoxia) to brother's rays. but you say that it means 'conscious of her guilt.' In another place too Virgil uses this word with a meaning different from yours, in these lines: What joy the fields to view That owe no debt (non obnoxia) to hoe or care of man. For care is generally a benefit to fields, not an injury, as it would be according to your definition of obnoxius. Furthermore, how can what Quintus Ennius writes in the following verses from the Phoenix agree with you: 'Tis meet a man should live inspired by courage true, In conscious innocence should boldly challenge foes. True freedom his who bears a pure and steadfast heart, All else less import has (obnoxiosae) and lurks in gloomy night". But our grammarian, with open mouth as if in a dream, said: "Just now I have no time to spare. When I have leisure, come to see me and learn what Virgil, Plautus, Sallust and Ennius meant by that word." So saying that fool made off; but in case anyone should wish to investigate, not only the origin of this word, but also its variety of meaning, in order that he may take into consideration this Plautine use also, I have quoted the following lines from the Asinaria: He'll join with me and hatch the biggest jubilee, Stuff'd with most joy, for son and father too. For life they both shall be in debt (obnoxii) to both of us, By our services fast bound. Now, in the definition which that grammarian gave, he seems in a word of such manifold content to have noted only one of its uses — a use, it is true, which agrees with that of Caecilius in these verses of the Chrysium: Although I come to you attracted by your pay, Don't think that I for that am subject to your will (tibi . . . obnoxium); If you speak ill of me, you'll hear a like reply.

§ 6.18  On the strict observance by the Romans of the sanctity of an oath; and also the story of the ten prisoners whom Hannibal sent to Rome under oath. An oath was regarded and kept by the Romans as something inviolable and sacred. This is evident from many of their customs and laws, and this tale which I shall tell may be regarded as no slight support of the truth of the statement. After the battle of Cannae Hannibal, commander of the Carthaginians, selected ten Roman prisoners and sent them to the city, instructing them and agreeing that, if it seemed good to the Roman people, there should be an exchange of prisoners, and that for each captive that one side should receive in excess of the other side, there should be paid a pound and a half of silver. Before they left, he compelled them to take oath that they would return to the Punic camp, if the Romans would not agree to an exchange. The ten captives come to Rome. They deliver the message of the Punic commander in the senate. The senate refused an exchange. The parents, kinsfolk and connexions of the prisoners amid embraces declared that they had returned to their native land in accordance with the law of postliminium, and that their condition of independence was complete and inviolate; they therefore besought them not to think of returning to the enemy. Then eight of their number rejoined that they had no just right of postliminium, since they were bound by an oath, and they at once went back to Hannibal, as they had sworn to do. The other two remained in Rome, declaring that they had been released and freed from their obligation because, after leaving the enemy's camp, they had returned to it as if for some chance reason, but really with intent to deceive, and having thus kept the letter of the oath, they had come away again unsworn. This dishonourable cleverness of theirs was considered so shameful, that they were generally despised and reprobated; and later the censors punished them with all possible fines and marks of disgrace, on the ground that they had not done what they had sworn to do. Furthermore Cornelius Nepos, in the fifth book of his Examples, has recorded also that many of the senators recommended that those who refused to return should be sent to Hannibal under guard, but that the motion was defeated by a majority of dissentients. He adds that, in spite of this, those who had not returned to Hannibal were so infamous and hated that they became tired of life and committed suicide.

§ 6.19  A story, taken from the annals, about Tiberius Gracchus, tribune of the commons and father of the Gracchi; and also an exact quotation of the decrees of the tribunes. A fine, noble and generous action of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus is recorded in the Examples. It runs as follows: Gaius Minucius Augurinus, tribune of the commons, imposed a fine on Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, brother of Scipio Africanus the elder, and demanded that he should give security for its payment. Scipio Africanus appealed to the college of tribunes on behalf of his brother, asking them to defend against the violent measures of their colleague a man who had been consul and had celebrated a triumph. Having heard the case, eight of the tribunes rendered a decision. The words of their decree, which I have quoted, are taken from the records of the annals: "Whereas Publius Scipio Africanus has asked us to protect his brother, Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, against the violent measures of one of our colleagues, in that, contrary to the laws and the customs of our forefathers, that tribune of the commons, having illegally convened an assembly without consulting the auspices, pronounced sentence upon him and imposed an unprecedented fine, and compels him to furnish security for its payment, or if he does not do so, orders that he be imprisoned; and whereas, on the other hand, our colleague has demanded that we should not interfere with him in the exercise of his legal authority — our unanimous decision in this matter is as follows: If Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus will furnish security in accordance with the decision of our colleague, we will forbid our colleague to take him to prison; but if he shall not furnish the securities in accordance with our colleague's decision, we will not interfere with our colleague in the exercise of his lawful authority." After this decree, Lucius Scipio refused to give security and the tribune Augurinus ordered him to be arrested and taken to prison. Thereupon Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, one of the tribunes of the commons and father of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, although he was a bitter personal enemy of Publius Scipio Africanus because of numerous disagreements on political questions, publicly made oath that he had not been reconciled with Publius Africanus nor become his friend, and then read a decree which he had written out. That decree ran as follows: "Whereas Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, during the celebration of a triumph, cast the leaders of the enemy into prison, it seems contrary to the dignity of our country that the Roman people's commander should be consigned to the same place to which he had committed the leaders of the enemy; therefore I forbid my colleague to take violent measures towards Lucius Scipio Asiaticus." But Valerius Antias, contradicting this record of the decrees and the testimony of the ancient annals, has said that it was after the death of Africanus that Tiberius Gracchus interposed that veto in behalf of Scipio Asiaticus; also that Scipio was not fined, but that being convicted of embezzlement of the money taken from Antiochus and refusing to give bail, was just being taken to prison when he was saved by this veto of Gracchus.

§ 6.20  That Virgil removed Nola from one of his lines and substituted ora because the inhabitants of Nola had refused him water; and also some additional notes on the agreeable euphony of vowels. I have found it noted in a certain commentary that the following lines were first read and published by Virgil in this form: Such is the soil that wealthy Capua ploughs And Nola near Vesuvius' height. That afterwards Virgil asked the people of Nola to allow him to run their city water into his estate, which was near by, but that they refused to grant the favour which he asked; that thereupon the offended poet erased the name of their city from his poem, as if consigning it to oblivion, changing from Nola to ora (region) and leaving the phrase in this form: The region near Vesuvius' height. With the truth or falsity of this note I am not concerned; but there is no doubt that ora has a more agreeable and musical sound than Nola. For the last vowel in the first line and the first vowel in the following line being the same, the sound is prolonged by an hiatus that is at the same time melodious and pleasing. Indeed, it is possible to find in famous poets many instances of such melody, which appears to be the result of art rather than accident; but in Homer they are more frequent than in all other poets. In fact, in one single passage he introduces a number of sounds of such a nature, and with such an hiatus, in a series of successive words; for example: The other fountain e'en in summer flows, Like upon hail, chill snow, or crystal ice, and similarly in another place: Up to the top he pushed (ἄνω ὤθεσκε) the stone. Catullus too, the most graceful of poets, in the following verses, Boy, who servest old Falernian, Pour out stronger cups for me, Following queen Postumia's mandate, Tipsier she than tipsy grape, although he might have said ebrio, and used acinum in the neuter gender, as was more usual, nevertheless through love of the melody of that Homeric hiatus he said ebria, because it blended with the following a. But those who think that Catullus wrote ebriosa or ebrioso — for that incorrect reading is also found — have unquestionably happened upon editions copied from corrupt texts.

§ 6.21  Why it is that the phrases quoad vivet and quoad morietur indicate the very same time, although based upon opposite things. When the expressions quoad vivet, or "so long as he shall live," and quoad morietur, or "until he shall die," are used, two opposite things really seem to be said, but the two expressions indicate one and the same time. Also when we say "as long as the senate shall be in session," and "until the senate shall adjourn," although "be in session" and "adjourn" are opposites, yet one and the same idea is expressed by both phrases. For when two periods of time are opposed to each other and yet are so connected that the end of one coincides with the beginning of the other, it makes no difference whether the exact point of their meeting is designated by the end of the first period or the beginning of the second.

§ 6.22  On the custom of the censors of taking their horse from corpulent and excessively fat knights; and the question whether such action also involved degradation or left them their rank as knights. The censors used to take his horse from a man who was too fat and corpulent, evidently because they thought that so heavy a person was unfit to perform the duties of a knight. For this was not a punishment, as some think, but the knight was relieved of duty without loss of rank. Yet Cato, in the speech which he wrote On Neglecting Sacrifice, makes such an occurrence a somewhat serious charge, thus apparently indicating that it was attended with disgrace. If you understand that to have been the case, you must certainly assume that it was because a man was not looked upon as wholly free from the reproach of slothfulness, if his body had bulked and swollen to such unwieldy dimensions.

§ 7.1  How Chrysippus replied to those who denied the existence of Providence. Those who do not believe that the world was created for God and mankind, or that human affairs are ruled by Providence, think that they are using a strong argument when they say: "If there were a Providence, there would be no evils." For they declare that nothing is less consistent with Providence than the existence of such a quantity of troubles and evils in a world which He is said to have made for the sake of man. Chrysippus, arguing against such views in the fourth book of his treatise On Providence, says: "There is absolutely nothing more foolish than those me. who think that good could exist, if there were at the same time no evil. For since good is the opposite of evil, it necessarily follows that both must exist in opposition to each other, supported as it were by mutual adverse forces; since as a matter of fact no opposite is conceivable without something to oppose it. For how could there be an idea of justice if there were no acts of injustice? or what else is justice than the absence of injustice? How too can courage be understood except by contrast with cowardice? Or temperance except by contrast with intemperance? How also could there be wisdom, if folly did not exist as its opposite. Therefore," said he, "why do not the fools also wish that there may be truth, but no falsehood? For it is in the same way that good and evil exist, happiness and unhappiness, pain and pleasure. For, as Plato says, they are bound one to the other by their opposing extremes; if you take away one, you will have removed both." In the same book Chrysippus also considers and discusses this question, which he thinks worth investigating: whether men's diseases come by nature; that is, whether nature herself, or Providence, if you will, which created this structure of the universe and the human race, also created the diseases, weakness, and bodily infirmities from which mankind suffers. He, however, does not think that it was nature's original intention to make men subject to disease; for that would never have been consistent with nature as the source and mother of all things good. "But," said he, "when she was creating and bringing forth many great things which were highly suitable and useful, there were also produced at the same time troubles closely connected with those good things that she was creating"; and he declared that these were not due to nature, but to certain inevitable consequences, a process that he himself calls κατὰ παρακολούθησιν. "Exactly as," he says, "when nature fashioned men's bodies, a higher reason and the actual usefulness of what she was creating demanded that the head be made of very delicate and small bones. But this greater usefulness of one part was attended with an external disadvantage; namely, that the head was but slightly protected and could be damaged by slight blows and shocks. In the same way diseases too and illness were created at the same time with health. Exactly, by Heaven!" said he, "as vices, through their relationship to the opposite quality, are produced at the same time that virtue is created for mankind by nature's design."

§ 7.2  How Chrysippus also maintained the power and inevitable nature of fate, but at the same time declared that we had control over our plans and decisions. Chrysippus, the leader of the Stoic philosophy, defined fate, which the Greeks call εἱμαρμένη, in about the following terms: "Fate," he says, "is an eternal and unalterable series of circumstances, and a chain rolling and entangling itself through an unbroken series of consequences, from which it is fashioned and made up." But I have copied Chrysippus' very words, as exactly as I could recall them, in order that, if my interpretation should seem too obscure to anyone, he may turn his attention to the philosopher's own language. For in the fourth book of his work On Providence, he says that εἱμαρμένη is "an orderly series, established by nature, of all events, following one another and joined together from eternity, and their unalterable interdependence." But the authors of other views and of other schools of philosophy openly criticize this definition as follows. "If Chrysippus," they say, "believes that all things are set in motion and directed by fate, and that the course of fate and its coils cannot be turned aside or evaded, then the sins and faults of men too ought not to cause anger or be attributed to themselves and their inclinations, but to a certain unavoidable impulse which arises from fate," which is the mistress and arbiter of all things, and through which everything that will happen must happen; and that therefore the establishing of penalties for the guilty by law is unjust, if men do not voluntarily commit crimes, but are led into them by fate. Against these criticisms Chrysippus argues at length, subtilely and cleverly, but the purport of all that he has written on that subject is about this. "Although it is a fact," he says, "that all things are subject to an inevitable and fundamental law and are closely linked to fate, yet the peculiar properties of our minds are subject to fate only according to their individuality and quality. For if in the beginning they are fashioned by nature for health and usefulness, they will avoid with little opposition and little difficulty all that force with which fate threatens them from without. But if they are rough, ignorant, crude, and without any support from education, through their own perversity and voluntary impulse they plunge into continual faults and sin, even though the assault of some inconvenience due to fate be slight or non-existent. And that this very thing should happen in this way is due to that natural and inevitable connection of events which is called 'fate." For it is in the nature of things, so to speak, fated and inevitable that evil characters should not be free from sins and faults." A little later he uses an illustration of this statement of his, which is in truth quite neat and appropriate: "For instance," he says, "if you roll a cylindrical stone over a sloping, steep piece of ground, you do indeed furnish the beginning and cause of its rapid descent, yet soon its speeds onward, not because you make it do so, but because of its peculiar form and natural tendency to roll; just so the order, the law, and the inevitable quality of fate set in motion the various classes of things and the beginnings of causes, but the carrying out of our designs and thoughts, and even our actions, are regulated by each individual's own will and the characteristics of his mind." Then he adds these words, in harmony with what I have said: "Therefore it is said by the Pythagoreans also: You'll learn that men have ills which they themselves Bring on themselves, for harm comes to each of them through themselves, and they go astray through their own impulse and are harmed by their own purpose and determination." Therefore he says that wicked, slothful, sinful and reckless men ought not to be endured or listened to, who, when they are caught fast in guilt and sin, take refuge in the inevitable nature of fate, as if in the asylum of some shrine, declaring that their outrageous actions must be charged, not to their own heedlessness, but to fate. The first to express this thought was the oldest and wisest of the poets, in these verses: Alas! how wrongly mortals blame the gods! From us, they say, comes evil; they themselves By their own folly woes unfated bear. Therefore Marcus Cicero, in the book which he wrote On Fate after first remarking that this question is highly obscure and involved, declares that even the philosopher Chrysippus was unable to extricate himself from its difficulties, using these words: "Chrysippus, in spite of all efforts and labor, is perplexed how to explain that everything is ruled by fate, but that we nevertheless have some control over our conduct."

§ 7.3  An account, taken from the works of Tubero, of a serpent of unprecedented length. Tubero in his Histories has recorded that in the first Punic war the consul Atilius Regulus, when encamped at the Bagradas river in Africa, fought a stubborn and fierce battle with a single serpent of extraordinary size, which had its lair in that region; that in a mighty struggle with the entire army the reptile was attacked for a long time with hurling engines and catapults; and that when it was finally killed, its skin, a hundred and twenty feet long, was sent to Rome.

§ 7.4  A new account, written by the above-mentioned Tubero, of the capture of Regulus by the Carthaginians; and always what Tuditanus wrote about that same Regulus. I recently read in the works of Tuditanus the well-known story about Atilius Regulus: That Regulus, when a prisoner, in addition to the advice which he gave in the senate at Rome against making an exchange of prisoners with the Carthaginians, also declared that the Carthaginians had given him a poison, not of immediate effect, but such as to delay his death for a season; that their design was that he should live for a time, until the exchange was accomplished, but afterwards should waste away as the drug gradually took effect. Tubero in his Histories says that this Regulus returned to Carthage and was put to death by the Carthaginians with tortures of a novel kind. "They confined him," he says, "in a dark and deep dungeon, and a long time afterwards suddenly brought him out, when the sun was shining most brightly, and exposed him to its direct rays, holding him and forcing him to fix his gaze upon the sky. They even drew his eyelids apart upward and downward and sewed them fast, so that he could not close his eyes."4 Tuditanus, however, reports that Regulus was for a long time deprived of sleep and so killed, and that when this became known at Rome, Carthaginian captives of the highest rank were handed over by the senate to his sons, who shut them in a chest studded within with spikes; and that they too were tortured to death by lack of sleep.

§ 7.5  An error of the jurist Alfenus in the interpretation of early words. The jurist Alfenus, a pupil of Servius Sulpicius and a man greatly interested in matters antiquarian, in the thirty-fourth book of his Digests and the second of his Miscellanies, says: "In a treaty which was made between the Roman people and the Carthaginians the provision is found, that the Carthaginians should pay each year to the Roman people a certain weight of argenti puri puti, and the meaning of puri puti was asked. I replied," he says, "that putus meant 'very pure,' just as we say novicius fornovus (new) and propicius for proprius (proper), when we wish to augment and amplify the meaning of novus and proprius." Upon reading this, I was surprised that Alfenus should think that the relation of purus and putus was the same as that of novicius and novus. for if the word were puricius, then it would indeed appear to be formed like novicius. It was also surprising that he thought that novicius was used to imply amplification, since in fact novicius does not mean "more new," but is merely a derivative and variant of novus. Accordingly I agree with those who think that putus is derived from puto and therefore pronounce the word with the first syllable short, not long as Alfenus seems to have thought it, since he wrote that putus came from purus. Moreover, the earlier writers used putare of removing and pruning away from anything whatever was superfluous and unnecessary, or even injurious and foreign, leaving only what seemed useful and without blemish. For that was the meaning of putare, "to prune," as applied to trees and vines, and so too as used of accounts. The verb puto itself also, which we use for the purpose of stating our opinion, certainly means nothing else than that in an obscure and difficult matter we do our best, by cutting away and lopping off false views, to retain what seems true and pure and sound. Therefore in the treaty which Carthage silver was called putum, as having been thoroughly purified and refined, as free from all foreign matter, and as spotless and whitened by the removal from it of all impurities. But the expression purum putum occurs, not only in the treaty with Carthage, but also in many other early writings, including the tragedy of Quintus Ennius entitled Alexander, and the satire of Marcus Varro called Δὶς Παῖδες οἱ Γέροντες, or Old Men are Children for a Second Time.

§ 7.6  That Julius Hyginus was hasty and foolish in his criticism of Virgil for calling the wings of Daedalus praepetes; also a note on the meaning of aves praepetes and of those birds which Nigidius called inferae. From Minos' realms in flight brave Daedalus On pinion swift (praepetibus), 'tis said, did dare the sky. In these lines of Virgil Julius Hyginus criticizes the use of pennis praepetibus as an improper and ignorant expression. "For," says he, "those birds are called praepetes by the augurs which either fly onward auspiciously or alight in suitable places. Therefore he thought it inappropriate in Virgil to use an augural term in speaking of the flight of Daedalus, which had nothing to do with the science of the augurs. But of a truth it was Hyginus who was altogether foolish in supposing that the meaning of praepetes was known to him, but unknown to Virgil and to Gnaeus Matius, a learned man, who in the second book of his Iliad called winged Victory praepes in the following line: While Victory swift (praepes) the victor's palm bestows. Furthermore, why does he not find fault also with Quintus Ennius, who in his Annals uses praepes, not of the wings of Daedalus, but of something very different, in the following line: Brundisium girt with fair, propitious (praepete) port. But if Hyginus had regarded the force and origin of the word rather than merely noting the meaning given to it by the augurs, he would certainly pardon the poets for using words in a figurative and metaphorical sense rather than literally. For since not only the birds themselves which fly auspiciously, but also the places which they take, since these are suitable and propitious, are called praepetes, therefore Virgil called the wings of Daedalus praepetes, since he had come from places in which he feared danger into safer regions. Furthermore, the augurs call places praepetes, and Ennius in the first book of his Annals said: In fair, propitious (praepetibus) places they alight. But birds that are the opposite of praepetes are called inferae, or "low," according to Nigidius Figulus, who says in the first book of his Private Augury: "The right is opposed to the left, praepes to infera." From this we may infer that birds were called praepetes which have a higher and loftier flight, since Nigidius said that the praepetes were contrasted with the inferae. In my youth in Rome, when I was still in attendance on the grammarians, I gave special attention to Sulpicius Apollinaris. Once when there was a discussion about augural law and mention had been made of praepetes aves, I heard him say to Erucius Clarus, the city prefect, that in his opinion praepetes was equivalent to Homer's τανυπτέρυγες, or "wide-winged," since the augurs had special regard to those birds whose flight was broad and wide because of their great wings. And then he quoted these verses of Homer: You bid me trust the flight of wide-winged birds, But I regard them not, nor think of them.

§ 7.7  On Acca Laurentia and Gaia Taracia; and on the origin of the priesthood of the Arval Brethren. The names of Acca Larentia and Gaia Taracia, or Fufetia as she is sometimes called, are frequent in the early annals. To the former of these after her death, but to Taracia while she still lived, the Roman people paid distinguished honours. And that Taracia, at any rate, was a Vestal virgin is proved by the Horatian law which was laid before the people with regard to her. By this law very many honours are bestowed upon her and among them the right of giving testimony is granted her, and that privilege is given to no other woman in the State. The word testabilis is used in the Horatian law itself. and its opposite occurs in the Twelve Tables: "Let him be infamous and intestabilis, or 'forbidden to testify.' . Besides, if at the age of forty she should wish to leave the priesthood and marry, the right and privilege of withdrawing from the order and marrying were allowed her, in gratitude for her generosity and kindness in presenting to the people the campus Tiberinus or Martius. But Acca Larentia was a public prostitute and by that trade had earned a great deal of money. In her will she made king Romulus heir to her property, according to Antias' History; according to some others, the Roman people. Because of that favour public sacrifice was offered to her by the priest of Quirinus and a day was consecrated to her memory in the Calendar. But Masurius Sabinus, in the first book of his Memorialia, following certain historians, asserts that Acca Larentia was Romulus' nurse. His words are: "This woman, who had twelve sons, lost one of them by death. In his place Romulus gave himself to Acca as a son, and called himself and her other sons 'Arval Brethren.' Since that time there has always been a college of Arval Brethren, twelve in number, and the insignia of the priesthood are a garland of wheat ears and white fillets."

§ 7.8  Some noteworthy anecdotes of King Alexander and of Publius Scipio. Apion, a Greek, called Pleistoneices, possessed a fluent and lively style. Writing in praise of king Alexander, he says: "He forbade the wife of his vanquished foe, a woman of surpassing loveliness, to be brought into his presence, in order that he might not touch her even with his eyes." We have then the subject for a pleasant discussion — which of the two shall justly be considered the more continent: Publius Africanus the elder, who after he had stormed Carthage, a powerful city in Spain, and a marriageable girl of wonderful beauty, the daughter of a noble Spaniard, had been taken prisoner and brought to him, restored her unharmed to her father; or king Alexander, who refused even to see the wife of king Darius, who was also his sister, when he had taken her captive in a great battle and had heard that she was of extreme beauty, but forbade her to be brought before him. But those who have an abundance of talent, leisure and eloquence may use this material for a pair of little declamations on Alexander and Scipio. I shall be satisfied with relating this, which is a matter of historical record: Whether it be false or true is uncertain, but at any rate the story goes that your Scipio in his youth did not have an unblemished reputation, and that it was all but generally believed that it was at him that the following verses were aimed by the poet Gnaeus Naevius: E'en he who oft times mighty deeds hath done, Whose glory and exploits still live, to whom The nations bow, his father once led home, Clad in a single garment, from his love. I think it was by these verses that Valerius Antius was led to hold an opinion opposed to that of all other writers about Scipio's character, and to write, contrary to what I said above, that the captured maiden was not returned to her father, but was kept by Scipio and possessed by him in amorous dalliance.

§ 7.9  A passage taken from the Annals of Lucius Piso, highly diverting in content and graceful in style. Because the action of Gnaeus Flavius, the curule aedile, son of Annius, which Lucius Piso described in the third book of his Annals, seemed worthy of record, and because the story is told by Piso in a very pure and charming style, I have quoted the entire passage from Piso's Annals. "Gnaeus Flavius, the son of a freedman," he says, "was a scribe by profession and was in the service of a curule aedile at the time of the election of the succeeding aediles. The assembly of the tribes named Flavius curule aedile, but the magistrate who presided at the election refused to accept him as an aedile, not thinking it right that one who followed the profession of scribe should be made an aedile. Gnaeus Flavius, son of Annius, is said to have laid aside his tablets and resigned his clerkship, and he was then made a curule aedile. "This same Gnaeus Flavius, son of Annius, is said to have come to call upon a sick colleague. When he arrived and entered the room, several young nobles were seated there. They treated Flavius with contempt and none of them was willing to rise in his presence. Gnaeus Flavius, son of Annius, the aedile, laughed at this rudeness; then he ordered his curule chair to be brought and placed it on the threshold, in order that none of them might be able to go out, and that all of them against their will might see him sitting on his chair of state."

§ 7.10  A story about Euclides, the Socratic, by whose example the philosopher Taurus used to urge his pupils to be diligent in the pursuit of philosophy. The philosopher Taurus, a celebrated Platonist of my time, used to urge the study of philosophy by many other good and wholesome examples and in particular stimulated the minds of the young by what he said that Euclides the Socratic used to do. "The Athenians," said he, "had provided in one of their decrees that any citizen of Megara who should be found to have set foot in Athens should for that suffer death. so great," says he, "was the hatred of the neighbouring men of Megara with which the Athenians were inflamed. Then Euclides, who was from that very town of Megara and before the passage of that decree had been accustomed to come to Athens and to listen to Socrates, after the enactment of that measure, at nightfall, as darkness was coming on, clad in a woman's long tunic, wrapped in a parti-coloured mantle, and with veiled head, used to walk from his home in Megara to Athens, to visit Socrates, in order that he might at least for some part of the night share in the master's teaching and discourse. And just before dawn he went back again, a distance of somewhat over twenty miles, disguised in that same garb. But nowadays," said Taurus, "we may see the philosophers themselves running to the doors of rich young men, to give them instruction, and there they sit and wait until nearly noonday, for their pupils to sleep off all last night's wine."

§ 7.11  A passage from a speech of Quintus Metellus Numidicus, which it was my pleasure to recall, since it draws attention to the obligation of self-respect and dignity in the conduct of life. One should not vie in abusive language with the basest of men or wrangle with foul words with the shameless and the wicked, since you because like them and their exact mate so long as you say things which match and are exactly like what you hear. This truth may be learned no less from an address of Quintus Metellus Numidicus, a man of wisdom, than from the books and the teachings of the philosophers. These are the words of Metellus from his speech Against Gaius Manlius, Tribune of the Commons, by whom he had been assailed and taunted in spiteful terms in a speech delivered before the people. "Now, fellow citizens, so far as Manlius is concerned, since he thinks that he will appear a greater man, if he keeps calling me his enemy, who neither count him as my friend nor take account of him as an enemy, I do not propose to say another word. For I consider him not only wholly unworthy to be spoken of by good men, but unfit even to be reproached by the upright. For if you name an insignificant fellow of his kind at a time when you cannot punish him, you confer honour upon him rather than ignominy."

§ 7.12  That neither testamentum, as Servius Sulpicius thought, nor sacellum, as Gaius Trebatius believed, is a compound, but the former is an extended form of testatio, the latter a diminutive of sacrum. I do not understand what reason led Servius Sulpicius the jurist, the most learned man of his time, to write in the second book of his work On the Annulling of Sacred Rites that testamentum is a compound word. for he declared that it was made up of mentis contestatio, or "an attesting of the mind." What then are we to say about calciamentum (shoe), paludamentum (cloak), pavimentum (pavement), vestimentum (clothing), and thousands of other words that have been extended by a suffix of that kind? As a matter of fact, Servius, or whoever it was who first made the statement, was evidently misled by a notion of the presence of mens in testamentum, an idea that is to be sure false, but neither inappropriate nor unattractive, just as indeed Gaius Trebatius too was misled into a similar attractive combination. For he says in the second book of his work On Religions: "A sacellum, or 'shrine,' is a small place consecrated to a god and containing an altar." Then he adds these words: "Sacellum, I think, is made up of the two words sacer and cella, as if it were sacra cella, or 'a sacred chamber.' . This indeed is what Trebatius wrote, but who does not know both that sacellum is not a compound, and that it is not made up of sacer and cella, but is the diminutive of sacrum?

§ 7.13  On the brief topics discussed at the table of the philosopher Taurus and called Sympoticae, or Table Talk. This custom was practised and observed at Athens by those who were on intimate terms with the philosopher Taurus. when he invited us to his home, in order that we might not come wholly tax-free, as the saying is, and without a contribution, we brought to the simple meal, not dainty foods, but ingenious topics for discussion. Accordingly, each one of us came with a question which he had thought up and prepared, and when the eating ended, conversation began. The questions, however, were neither weighty nor serious, but certain neat but trifling ἐνθυμημάτια, or problems, which would pique a mind enlivened with wine; for instance, the examples of a playful subtlety which I shall quote. The question was asked, when a dying man died — when he was already in the grasp of death, or while he still lived? And when did a rising man rise — when he was already standing, or while he was still seated? And when did one who was learning an art become an artist — when he already was one, or when he was still learning. For whichever answer you make, your statement will be absurd and laughable, and it will seem much more absurd, if you say that it is in either case, or in neither. But when some declared that all these questions were pointless and idle sophisms, Taurus said: "Do not despise such problems, as if they were mere trifling amusements. The most earnest of philosophers have seriously debated this question. Some have thought that the term 'die' was properly used, and that the moment of death came, while life still remained; others have left no life in that moment, but have claimed for death all that period which is termed 'dying." Also in regard to other similar problems they have argued for different times and maintained opposite opinions. But our master Plato," said he, "assigned that time neither to life nor to death, and took the same position in every discussion of similar questions. For he saw that the alternatives were mutually contrary, that one of the two opposites could not be maintained while the other existed, and that the question arose from the juxtaposition of two opposing extremes, namely life and death. Therefore he himself devised, and gave a name to, a new period of time, lying on the boundary between the two, which he called in appropriate and exact language ἡ ἐξαίφνης φύσις, or 'the moment of sudden separation.' And this very term, as I have given it," said he, "you will find used by him in the dialogue entitled Parmenides." Of such a kind were our "contributions" at Taurus' house, and such were, as he himself used to put it, the τραγημάτια or "sweetmeats" of our desserts.

§ 7.14  The three reasons given by the philosophers for punishing crimes; and why Plato mentions only two of these, and not three. It has been thought that there should be three reasons for punishing crimes. One of these, which the Greeks call either κόλασις or νουθεσία, is the infliction of punishment for the purpose of correction and reformation, in order that one who has done wrong thoughtlessly may become more careful and scrupulous. The second is called τιμωρία by those who have made a more exact differentiation between terms of this kind. That reason for punishment exists when the dignity and the prestige of the one who is sinned against must be maintained, lest the omission of punishment bring him into contempt and diminish the esteem in which he is held; and therefore they think that it was given a name derived from the preservation of honour (τιμή). A third reason for punishment is that which is called by the Greeks παράδειγμα, when punishment is necessary for the sake of example, in order that others through fear of a recognized penalty may be kept from similar sins, which it is to the common interest to prevent. Therefore our forefathers also used the word exempla, or "examples," for the severest and heaviest penalties. Accordingly, when there is either strong hope that the culprit will voluntarily correct himself without punishment, or on the other hand when there is no hope that he could be reformed and corrected; or when there is no need to fear loss of prestige in the one who has been sinned against; or if the sin is not of such a sort that punishment must be inflicted in order that it may inspire a necessary feeling of fear — then in the case of all such sins the desire to inflict punishment does not seem to be at all fitting. Other philosophers have discussed these three reasons for punishment in various places, and so too had our countryman Taurus in the first book of the Commentaries when he wrote On the Gorgias of Plato. But Plato himself says in plain terms that there are only two reasons for punishment: one being that which I put first — for the sake of correction; the second, that which I gave in the third place — as an example to inspire fear. These are Plato's own words in the Gorgias: "It is fitting that everyone who suffers punishment, when justly punished by another, either be made better and profit thereby, or serve as an example to others, in order that they, seeing his punishment, may be reformed through fear." In these words you may readily understand that Plato used τιμωρία, not in the sense that I said above is given by some, but with the general meaning of any punishment. But whether he omitted the maintenance of the prestige of an injured person as a reason for inflicting punishment, on the ground that it was altogether insignificant and worthy of contempt, or rather passed over it as something not germane to his subject, since he was writing about punishments to be inflicted after this life and not during life and among men, this question I leave undecided.

§ 7.15  On the verb quiesco whether it should be pronounced with a long or a short e. A friend of mine, a man of much learning and devoted to the liberal arts, pronounced the verb quiescit ("be quiet") in the usual manner, with a short e. Another man, also a friend of mine, marvellous in the use of grammatical rules as jugglers' tricks, so to say, and excessively fastidious in rejecting common words, thought that the first man had been guilty of a barbarism, maintaining that he ought to have lengthened the e, rather than shortened it. For he asserted that quiescit ought to be pronounced like calescit, nitescit, stupescit and many other words of that kind. He also added the statement that quies (quiet) is pronounced with the e long, not short. But my first-named friend, with the unassuming modesty which was characteristic of him in all matters, said that not even if the Aelii, the Cincii and the Santrae had decided that the word ought to be so pronounced, would he follow their ruling against the universal usage of the Latin language, nor would he speak it such an eccentric fashion as to be discordant and strange in his diction. Nevertheless he wrote a letter on the subject, among some exercises for his own amusement, in which he tried to prove that quiesco is not like those words which I have quoted above; that it is not derived from quies but rather quies from quiesco. He also maintained that quiesco has the form and derivation of a Greek word, and he tried to show, by reasons that were by no means without force, that the word should not be pronounced with a long e.

§ 7.16  On a use by the poet Catullus of the word deprecor, which is unusual, it is true, but appropriate and correct; and on the origin of that word, with examples from early writers. As we chanced to be strolling one evening in the Lyceum, we were furnished with sport and amusement by a certain man, of the kind that lays claim to a reputation for eloquence by a superficial and ill-regulated use of language, without having learned any of the usages and principles of the Latin tongue. For while Catullus in one of his poems had used the word deprecor rather cleverly, that fellow, unable to appreciate this, declared that the following verses which I have quoted were very flat, although in the judgment of all men they are most charming: My Lesbia constantly speaks ill of me And cease not. By Jove! she cares for me! How do I know? 'Tis just the same with me; I rail at, but by Jove! I worship, her. Our good man thought that deprecor in this passage was used in the sense that is commonly given the word by the vulgar; that is, "I pray earnestly," "I beseech," "I entreat," where the preposition de is used intensively and emphatically. And if that were so, the verses would indeed be flat. But as a matter of fact the sense is exactly the opposite; for the preposition de, since it has a double force, contains two meanings in one and the same word. For deprecor is used by Catullus in the sense of "denounce, execrate, drive away," or "avert by prayers". but it also has the opposite meaning, when Cicero In Defence of Publius Sulla speaks as follows: "How many men's lives did he beg off (est deprecatus) from Sulla." Similarly in his speech Against the Agrarian Law Cicero says: "If I do any wrong, there are no masks of ancestors to intercede (deprecentur, "beg off") for me with you by their prayers." But Catullus was not alone in using this word with that meaning. Indeed, the books are full of cases of its occurrence in the same sense, and of these I have quoted one or two which had come to mind. Quintus Ennius in the Erechtheus, not differing greatly from Catullus, says: Who now win freedom by my own distress For those whose slavery I by woe avert (deprecor). He means "I drive away" and "remove," either by resort to prayer or in some other way. Similarly in the Chresphontes Ennius writes: When I my own life spare, may I avert (deprecer) Death from mine enemy. Cicero, in the sixth book of his Republic, wrote: "Which indeed was so much the more remarkable, because, while the colleagues were in the same case, they not only did not incur the same hatred, but the affection felt for Gracchus even averted (deprecabatur) the unpopularity of Claudius." Here too the meaning is not "earnestly entreated," but "warded off" unpopularity, so to speak, and defended him against it, a meaning which the Greeks express by the parallel word παραιτεῖσθαι. Cicero also uses the word in the same way in his Defence of Aulus Caecina, saying: "What can you do for a man like this? Can you not sometimes permit one to avert (deprecetur) the odium of the greatest wickedness by the excuse of the most abysmal folly?. Also in the first book of his second Arraignment of Verres: "Now what can Hortensius do? Will he try to avert (deprecetur) the charge of avarice by the praise of economy? But he is defending a man who is utterly disgraced and sunk in lust and crime." So then Catullus means that he is doing the same as Lesbia, in publicly speaking ill of her, scorning and rejecting her, and constantly praying to be rid of her, and yet loving her to madness.

§ 7.17  Who was the first of all to establish a public library; and how many books there were in the public libraries at Athens before the Persian invasions. The tyrant Pisistratus is said to have been the first to establish at Athens a public library of books relating to the liberal arts. Then the Athenians themselves added to this collection with considerable diligence and care; but later Xerxes, when he got possession of Athens and burned the entire city except the citadel, removed that whole collection of books and carried them off to Persia. Finally, a long time afterwards, king Seleucus, who was surnamed Nicator, had all those books taken back to Athens. At a later time an enormous quantity of books, nearly seven hundred thousand volumes, was either acquired or written in Egypt under the kings known as Ptolemies; but these were all burned during the sack of the city in our first war with Alexandria, not intentionally or by anyone's order, but accidentally by the auxiliary soldiers.

§ 8.1  Whether the expression hesterna nocte, for "last night," is right or wrong, and what the grammarians have said about those words; also that the decemvirs in the Twelve Tables used nox for noctu, meaning "by night."

§ 8.2  Ten words pointed out to me by Favorinus which, although in use by the Greeks, are of foreign origin and barbarous; also the same number given him me which, though of general and common use by those who speak Latin, are by no means Latin and are not to be found in the early literature.

§ 8.3  In what terms and how severely the philosopher Peregrinus in my hearing rebuked a young Roman of equestrian rank, who stood before him inattentive and constantly yawning. . . . and saw him continually yawning and noticed the degenerate dreaminess expressed in his attitude of mind and body.

§ 8.4  That Herodotus, that most famous writer of history, was wrong in saying that the pine alone of all trees never puts forth new shoots from the same roots, after being cut down; and that he stated as an established fact about rainwater and snow a thing which had not been sufficiently investigated.

§ 8.5  On the meaning of Virgil's expression caelum stare pulvere and of Lucilius' pecus sentibus stare.

§ 8.6  That when a reconciliation takes place after trifling offences, mutual complaints are useless; and Taurus' discourse on that subject, with a quotation from the treatise of Theophrastus; and what Marcus Cicero also thought about the love arising from friendship, added in his own words.

§ 8.7  What we have learned and know of the nature and character of memory from Aristotle's work entitled Περὶ Μνήμης or On Memory; and also some other examples, of which we have heard or read, about extraordinary powers of memory or its total loss.

§ 8.8  My experience in trying to interpret and, as it were, to reproduce in Latin certain passages of Plato.

§ 8.9  How Theophrastus, the most eloquent philosopher of his entire generation, when on the point of making a brief speech to the people of Athens, was overcome by bashfulness and kept silence; and how Demosthenes had a similar experience when speaking before king Philip.

§ 8.10  A discussion that I had in the town of Eleusis with a conceited grammarian who, although ignorant of the tenses of verbs and the exercises of schoolboys, ostentatiously proposed abstruse questions of a hazy and formidable character, to impress the minds of the unlearned. Would wish a lying scoundrel.

§ 8.11  The witty reply of Socrates to his wife Xanthippe, when she asked that they might spend more money for their dinners during the Dionysiac festival.

§ 8.12  On the meaning of plerique omnes, or "almost all," in the early literature; and on the probable Greek origin of that expression.

§ 8.13  That eupsones, a word used by the people of Africa, is not Phoenician, but Greek.

§ 8.14  A highly entertaining discussion of the philosopher Favorinus with a tiresome person who held forth on the double meaning of certain words; also some unusual expressions from the poet Naevius and from Gnaeus Gellius; and further, some investigations of the derivation of words by Publius Nigidius.

§ 8.15  How the poet Laberius was ignominiously treated by Gaius Caesar, with a quotation of Laberius' own words on that subject. A pleasant and remarkable story from the books of Heracleides of Pontus.

§ 9.1  Why Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in the nineteenth book of his Annals, wrote that missiles hit their mark more accurately and surely if they are hurled from below, than if they are hurled from above. When Quintus Claudius, in the nineteenth book of his Annals, was describing an attack upon a town by the proconsul Metellus, and its defence against him by the townspeople from the top of the walls, he wrote these words: "The archers and slingers on both sides showered their weapons with the utmost vigour and courage. But there is this difference between shooting an arrow or a stone downward or upward; for neither missile can be discharged accurately downward, but both upwards with excellent effect. Therefore the soldiers of Metellus suffered far fewer wounds, and, what was of the greatest importance, they very easily drove the enemy back from the battlements by means of their slingers." I asked Antonius Julianus, the rhetorician, why what Quadrigarius had said was so; namely, that the shots of missiles are closer and more accurate if you discharge a stone or an arrow upwards rather than downwards, in spite of the fact that a throw from above downward is swifter and easier than one in the opposite direction. Then Julianus, after commending the character of the question, said: "His statement about an arrow and a stone may be made about almost any missile weapon. But, as you have said, throwing is easier if you throw downwards, provided you wish only to throw, and not to hit a mark. But when the direction and force of the throw must be regulated and guided, then, if you are throwing downwards, the control and command of the marksman are impaired by the downward impulse itself, such as it is, and by the weight of the falling missile. But if you throw your weapon upwards, and direct hand and eye to hitting something above you, the missile which you have hurled will go to the spot to which the impulse which you have given bears it." It was to this general effect that Julianus chatted with us about those words of Quintus Claudius. With regard to the remark of the same Claudius, "they very easily drove the enemy from the battlements," it must be observed that he used the word defendebant, not in the sense which it commonly has, but yet quite properly and in accordance with good Latin usage. For defendere and offendere are opposed to each other, the latter meaning ἐμποδὼν ἔχειν, that is, "to run against something and fall upon it," the former, ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖν, that is, "to avert and drive away"; and the latter is Claudius' meaning in this passage.

§ 9.2  In what terms Herodes Atticus reproved a man who in appearance and dress falsely laid claim to the title and character of philosopher. To Herodes Atticus, the ex-consul, renowned for his personal charm and his Grecian eloquence, there once came, when I was present, a man in a cloak, with long hair and a beard that reached almost to his waist, and asked that money be given him εἰς ἄρτους, that is, "for bread." Then Herodes asked him who on earth he was. and the man, with anger in his voice and expression, replied that he was a philosopher, adding that he wondered why Herodes thought it necessary to ask what was obvious. "I see," said Herodes, "a beard and a cloak; the philosopher I do not yet see. Now, I pray you, be so good as to tell me by what evidence you think we may recognize you as a philosopher." Meanwhile some of Herodes' companions told him that the fellow was a vagabond of worthless character, who frequented foul dives and was in the habit of being shamefully abusive if he did not get what he demanded. Thereupon Herodes said: "Let us give him some money, whatever his character may be, not because he is a man, but because we are men," and he ordered enough money to be given him to buy bread for thirty days. Then, turning to those of us who were with him, he said: "Musonius ordered a thousand sesterces to be given to a fakir of this sort who posed as a philosopher, and when several told him that the fellow was a rascal and knave and deserving of nothing good, Musonius, they say, replied with a smile: ἄξιος οὖν ἐστὶν ἀργυρίου, 'then he deserves money." But," said Herodes, "it is rather this that causes me resentment and vexation, that foul and evil beasts of this sort usurp a most sacred name and call themselves philosophers. Now, my ancestors the Athenians by public decree made it unlawful for slaves ever to be given the names of those valiant youths Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who to restore liberty tried to slay the tyrant Hippias; for they thought it impious for the names of men who had sacrificed themselves for their country's freedom to be disgraced by contact with slavery. Why then do we allow the glorious title of philosopher to be defiled in the person of the basest of men? Moreover," said he, "I hear that the early Romans, setting a similar example in a case of the opposite nature, voted that the forenames of certain patricians who had deserved ill of their country and for that reason had been condemned to death should never be given to any patrician of the same clan, in order that their very names might seem to be dishonoured and done to death, as well as the malefactors themselves."

§ 9.3  A letter of king Philip to the philosopher Aristotle with regard to the recent birth of his son Alexander. Philip, son of Amyntas, was king of the land of Macedonia. Through his valour and energy the Macedonians had greatly increased and enriched their kingdom, and had begun to extend their power over many nations and peoples, so that Demosthenes, in those famous orations and addresses, insists that his power and arms are to be feared and dreaded by all Greece. This Philip, although most constantly busied and distracted by the labours and triumphs of war, yet never was a stranger to the Muse of the liberal arts and the pursuit of culture, but his acts and words never lacked charm and refinement. In fact collections of his letters are in circulation, which abound in elegance, grace, and wisdom, as for example, the one in which he announced to the philosopher Aristotle the birth of his son Alexander. Since this letter is an encouragement to care and attention in the education of children, I thought that it ought to be quoted in full, as an admonition to parents. It may be translated, then, about as follows: "Philip to Aristotle, Greeting. "Know that a son is born to me. For this indeed I thank the gods, not so much because he is born, as because it is his good fortune to be born during your lifetime. For I hope that as a result of your training and instruction he will prove worthy of us and of succeeding to our kingdom." But Philip's own words are these: Φίλιππος Ἀριστοτέλει χαίρειν. Ἴσθι μοι γεγονότα υἱόν. πολλὴν οὖν τοῖς θεοῖς ἔχω χάριν, οὐχ οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ γενέσει τοῦ παιδός, ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ κατὰ σὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτὸν γεγονέναι ἐλπίζω γάρ αὐτὸν ὑπὸ σοῦ τραφέντα καὶ παιδευθέντα ἄξιον ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων διαδοχῆς.

§ 9.4  On some extraordinary marvels found among barbarian peoples; and on awful and deadly spells; and also on the sudden change of women into men. When I was returning from Greece to Italy and had come to Brundisium, after disembarking I was strolling about in that famous port, which Quintus Ennius called praepes, or "propitious," using an epithet that is somewhat far-fetched, but altogether apt. There I saw some bundles of books exposed for sale. and I at once eagerly hurried to them. Now, all those books were in Greek, filled with marvellous tales, things unheard of, incredible; but the writers were ancient and of no mean authority: Aristeas of Proconnesus, Isigonus of Nicaea, Ctesias and Onesicritus, Philostephanus and Hegesias. The volumes themselves, however, were filthy from long neglect, in bad condition and unsightly. Nevertheless, I drew near and asked their price; then, attracted by their extraordinary and unexpected cheapness, I bought a large number of them for a small sum, and ran through all of them hastily in the course of the next two nights. As I read, I culled from them, and noted down, some things that were remarkable and for the most part unmentioned by our native writers; these I have inserted here and there in these notes, so that whoever shall read them may not be found to be wholly ignorant and ἀνήκοος, or "uninstructed," when hearing tales of that kind. Those books, then, contained matter of the following sort: that the most remote of the Scythians, who pass their life in the far north, eat human flesh and subsist on the nourishment of that food, and are called ἀνθρωποφάγοι, or "cannibals." Also that there are men in the same latitude having one eye in the middle of the forehead and called Arimaspi, who are of the appearance that the poets give the Cyclopes. That there are also in the same region other men, of marvellous swiftness, whose feet are turned backwards and do not point forward, as in the rest of mankind. Further, that it was handed down by tradition that in a distant land called Albania men are born whose hair turns white in childhood and who see better by night than in the daytime. That it was also a matter of assured belief that the Sauromatae, who dwell far away beyond the river Borysthenes, take food only every other day and fast on the intervening day. In those same books I ran upon this statement too, which I later read also in the seventh book of the Natural History of Plinius Secundus, that in the land of Africa there are families of persons who work spells by voice and tongue. for if they should chance to have bestowed extravagant praise upon beautiful trees, plentiful crops, charming children, fine horses, flocks that are well fed and in good condition, suddenly, for no other cause than this, all these would die. That with the eyes too a deadly spell is cast, is written in those same books, and it is said that there are persons among the Illyrians who by their gaze kill those at whom they have looked for some time in anger; and that those persons themselves, both men and women, who possess this power of harmful gaze, have two pupils in each eye. Also that in the mountains of the land of India there are men who have the heads of dogs, and bark, and that they feed upon birds and wild animals which they have taken in the chase. That in the remotest lands of the east too there are other marvellous men called monocoli, or "one-legged," who run by hopping with their single leg and are of a most lively swiftness. And that there are also some others who are without necks and have eyes in their shoulders. But all bounds of wonder are passed by the statement of those same writers, that there is a tribe in farthest India with bodies that are rough and covered with feathers like birds, who eat no food but live by inhaling the perfume of flowers. And that not far from these people is the land of Pygmies, the tallest of whom are not more than two feet and a quarter in height. These and many other stories of the kind I read; but when writing them down, I was seized with disgust for such worthless writings, which contribute nothing to the enrichment or profit of life. Nevertheless, the fancy took me to add to this collection of marvels a thing which Plinius Secundus, a man of high authority in his day and generation by reason of his talent and his position, recorded in the seventh book of his Natural History, not as something that he had heard or read, but that he knew to be true and had himself seen. The words therefore which I have quoted below are his own, taken from that book, and they certainly make us hesitate to reject or ridicule that familiar yarn of the poets of old about Caenis and Caeneus. He says that the change of women into men is not a fiction. "We find," says he, "in the annals that in the consulship of Quintus Licinius Crassus and Gaius Cassius Longinus a girl at Casinum was changed into a boy in the house of her parents and by direction of the diviners was deported to a desert island. Licinius Mucianus has stated that he saw at Argos one Arescontes, whose name had been Arescusa; that she had even been married, but presently grew a beard, became a man, and had taken a wife: and that at Smyrna also he had seen a boy who had experienced the same change. I myself in Africa saw Lucius Cossutius, a citizen of Thysdrus, who had been changed into a man on his wedding day and was still living when I wrote this." Pliny also wrote this in the same book: 'There are persons who from birth are bisexual, whom we call 'hermaphrodites'; they were formerly termed androgyni and regarded as prodigies, but now are instruments of pleasure."

§ 9.5  Diverse views of eminent philosophers as to the nature and character of pleasure; and the words in which the philosopher Hierocles attacked the principles of Epicurus. As to pleasure the philosophers of old expressed varying opinions. Epicurus makes pleasure the highest good, but defines it as σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς κατάστημα, or "a well-balanced condition of body." Antisthenes the Socratic calls it the greatest evil; for this is the expression he uses: μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην; that is to say, "may I go mad rather than feel pleasure." Speusippus and all the old Academy declare that pleasure and pain are two evils opposed to each other, but that what lay midway between the two was the good. Zeno thought that pleasure was indifferent, that is neutral, neither good nor evil, that, namely, which he called by the Greek term ἀδιάφορον. Critolaus the Peripatetic declares that pleasure is an evil and gives birth to many other evils: injustice, sloth, forgetfulness, and cowardice. Earlier than all these Plato discoursed in so many and varied ways about pleasure, that all those opinions which I have set forth may seem to have flowed from the founts of his discourses; for he makes use of each one of them according to the suggestion offered by the nature of pleasure itself, which is manifold, and according to the demands made by the character of the topics which he is treating and of the effect that he wishes to produce. But our countryman Taurus, whenever mention was made of Epicurus, always had on his lips and tongue these words of Hierocles the Stoic, a man of righteousness and dignity: "Pleasure an end, a harlot's creed; there is no Providence, not even a harlot's creed."

§ 9.6  With what quantity the first syllable of the frequentative verb from ago should be pronounced. From ago and egi are derived the verbs actito and actitavi, which the grammarians call "frequentatives." These verbs I have heard some men, and those not without learning, pronounce with a shortening of the first syllable, and give as their reason that the first letter of the primitive ago is pronounced short. Why then do we make the first vowel long in the frequentative forms esito and unctito, which are derived from edo and ungo, in which the first letter is short; and on the contrary, pronounce the first vowel short in dictito from dīco? Accordingly, should not actito and actitavi rather be lengthened? For the first syllable of almost all frequentatives is pronounced in the same way as the same syllable of the past participle of the verbs from which they are formed: for example, lego lectus makes lectito; ungo unctus, unctito; scribo scriptus, scriptito; moveo motus, motito; pendeo pensus, pensito; edo esus, esito; but dico dictus forms dictito; gero gestus, gestito; veho vectus, vectito; rapio raptus, raptito; capio captus, căptito; facio factus, factito. So then actito should be pronounced with the first syllable long, since it is from ago and actus.

§ 9.7  That the leaves of the olive tree turn over at the summer and the winter solstice, and that the lyre at that same season produces sounds from other strings than those that are struck. It is commonly both written and believed that at the winter and the summer solstice the leaves of olive trees turn over, and that the side which had been underneath and hidden becomes uppermost and is exposed to sight and to the sun. And I myself was led to test this statement more than once, and found it to be almost exactly true. But about the lyre there is an assertion that is less often made and is even more remarkable. And this both other learned men and also Suetonius Tranquillus, in the first book of his History of the Games, declare to have been fully investigated and to be generally accepted; namely, that when some strings of the lyre are struck with the fingers at the time of the winter solstice, other strings give out sound.

§ 9.8  That it is inevitable that one has much should need much, with a brief and graceful aphorism of the philosopher Favorinus on that subject. That is certainly true which wise men have said as the result of observation and experience, that he who has much is in need of much, and that great want arises from great abundance and not from great lack; for many things are wanted to maintain the many things that you have. Whoever then, having much, desires to provide and take precaution that nothing may fail or be lacking, needs to lose, not gain, and must have less in order to want less. I recall that Favorinus once, amid loud and general applause, rounded off this thought, putting it into the fewest possible words: "It is not possible for one who wants fifteen thousand cloaks to want more things; for if I want more than I possess, by taking away from what I have I shall be contented with what remains."

§ 9.9  What method should be followed in translating Greek expressions; and on those verses of Homer which Virgil is thought to have translated either well and happily or unsuccessfully. Whenever striking expressions from the Greek poets are to be translated and imitated, they say that we should not always strive to render every single word with exact literalness. For many things lose their charm if they are transplanted too forcibly — unwillingly, as it were, and reluctantly. Virgil therefore showed skill and good judgment in omitting some things and rendering others, when he was dealing with passages of Homer or Hesiod or Apollonius or Parthenius or Callimachus or Theocritus, or some other poet. For example, when very recently the Bucolics of Theocritus and Virgil were being read together at table, we perceived that Virgil had omitted something that in the Greek is, to be sure, wonderfully pleasing, but neither could nor ought to have been translated. But what he has substituted for that omission is almost more charming and graceful. Theocritus writes: But when her goatherd boy goes by you should see my Clearist Fling apples, and her pretty lips call pouting to be kissed. Virgil has. My Phyllis me with pelted apples plies, Then tripping to the woods the wanton hies, And wishes to be seen before she flies. Also in another place I notice that what was very sweet in the Greek was prudently omitted. Theocritus writes: O Tityrus, well-beloved, feed my goats, And lead them to the front, good Tityrus; But 'ware yon buck-goat yellow, lest he butt. But how could Virgil reproduce τὸ καλὸν πεφιλημένε ("well-beloved"), words that, by Heaven! defy translation, but have a certain native charm. He therefore omitted that expression and translated the rest very cleverly, except in using caper for Theocritus'ἐνόρχας. for, according to Marcus Varro, a goat is called caper in Latin only after he has been castrated. Virgil's version is. Till I return — not long — feed thou my goats; Then, Tityrus, give them a drink, but as you go, Avoid the buck-goat's horn — the fellow butts. And since I am speaking on the subject of translation, I recall hearing from pupils of Valerius Probus, a learned man and well trained in reading and estimating the ancient writings, that he used to say that Virgil had never translated Homer less successfully than in these delightful lines which Homer wrote about Nausicaa: As when o'er Erymanth Diana roves, Or wide Taygetus' resounding groves, A silver train the huntress queen surrounds, Her rattling quiver from her shoulder sounds; Fierce in the sport, along the mountain's brow They bay the boar or chase the bounding roe; High o'er the lawn, with more majestic pace, Above the nymphs she treads with stately grace; Distinguished excellence the goddess proves, Exults Latona as the virgin moves: With equal grace Nausicaa trod the plain, And shone transcendent o'er the beauteous train. This passage Virgil renders thus. As on Eurotas' banks or Cynthus' heights Diana guides her dancing bands, whose train A thousand Oreads follow, right and left; A quiver bears she on her shoulder fair, And as she treads, the goddesses o'ertops; Joys thrill Latona's silent breast. First of all, they said that Probus thought that in Homer the maiden Nausicaa, playing among her girl companions in solitary places, was consistently and properly compared with Diana hunting on the mountain heights among the rural goddesses; but that Virgil had made a comparison that was by no means suitable, since Dido, walking with dignified dress and gait in the midst of a city, and surrounded by the Tyrian chiefs, "pressing on the work of her rising kingdom," as he himself says, can have no points of similarity corresponding with the sports and hunts of Diana. Then secondly, that Homer mentions plainly and directly Diana's interest and pleasure in the chase, while Virgil, not having said a word about the goddess' hunting, merely pictures her as carrying a quiver on her shoulder, as if it were a burden or a pack. And they said that Probus was particularly surprised at this feature of Virgil's version, that while Homer's Leto rejoices with a joy that is unaffected, deep, and springing from the very depths of her heart and soul — for the words γέγηθε δέ τε φρένα Λητώ, or "Leto rejoiced in heart," mean nothing else — Virgil, on the other hand, in his attempt to imitate this, had depicted a joy that is passive, mild, slow, and as it were floating on the surface of the heart. for Probus said that he did not know what else the word pertemptant could mean. Besides all this, Virgil seemed to have left out the flower of the whole passage, by giving only a faint shadow of this verse of Homer's: And shone transcendent o'er the beauteous train. For no greater or more complete praise of beauty can be expressed than that she alone excelled where all were beautiful, that she alone was easily distinguished from all the rest.

§ 9.10  The low and odious criticism with which Annaeus Cornutus befouled the lines of Virgil in which the poet with chaste reserve spoke of the intercourse of Venus and Vulcan. The poet Annianus, and with him many other devotees of the same Muse, extolled with high and constant praise the verses of Virgil in which, while depicting and describing the conjugal union of Vulcan and Venus, an act that nature's law bids us conceal, he veiled it with a modest paraphrase. For thus he wrote: So speaking, the desired embrace he gave, And sinking on the bosom of his spouse, Calm slumber then he wooed in every limb. But they thought it less difficult, in speaking of such a subject, to use one or two words that suggest it by a slight and delicate hint, such as Homer's παρθενίη ζώνη, or "maiden girdle"; λέκτροιο θεσμόν, "the right of the couch"; and ἔργα φιλοτήσια, "love's labours". that no other than Virgil has ever spoken of those sacred mysteries of chaste intercourse in so many and such plain words, which yet were not licentious, but pure and honourable. But Annaeus Cornutus, a man in many other respects, to be sure, lacking neither in learning nor taste, nevertheless, in the second book of the work which he compiled On Figurative Language, defamed the high praise of all that modesty by an utterly silly and odious criticism. For after expressing approval of that kind of figurative language, and observing that the lines were composed with due circumspection, he added: "Virgil nevertheless was somewhat indiscreet in using the word membra."

§ 9.11  Of Valerius Corvinus and the origin of his surname. There is not one of the well-known historians who has varied in telling the story of Valerius Maximus, who was called Corvinus because of the help and defence rendered him by a raven. That truly remarkable event is in fact thus related in the annals. In the consulship of Lucius Furius and Appius Claudius, a young man of such a family was appointed tribune of the soldiers. And at that time vast forces of Gauls had encamped in the Pomptine district, and the Roman army was being drawn up in order of battle by the consuls, who were not a little disquieted by the strength and number of the enemy. Meanwhile the leader of the Gauls, a man of enormous size and stature, his armour gleaming with gold, advanced with long strides and flourishing his spear, at the same time casting haughty and contemptuous glances in all directions. Filled with scorn for all that he saw, he challenged anyone from the entire Roman army to come out and meet him, if he dared. Thereupon, while all were wavering between fear and shame, the tribune Valerius, first obtaining the consuls' permission to fight with the Gaul who was boasting so vainly, advanced to meet him, boldly yet modestly. They meet, they halt, they were already engaging in combat. And at that moment a divine power is manifest. a raven, hitherto unseen, suddenly flies to the spot, perches on the tribune's helmet, and from there begins an attack on the face and the eyes of his adversary. It flew at the Gaul, harassed him, tore his hand with its claws, obstructed his sight with its wings, and after venting its rage flew back to the tribune's helmet. Thus the tribune, before the eyes of both armies, relying on his own valour and defended by the help of the bird, conquered and killed the arrogant leader of the enemy, and thus won the surname Corvinus. This happened four hundred and five years after the founding of Rome. To that Corvinus the deified Augustus caused a statue to be erected in his Forum. On the head of this statue is the figure of a raven, a reminder of the event and of the combat which I have described.

§ 9.12  On words which are used with two opposite meanings, both active and passive. As the adjective formidulosus may be used both of one who fears and of one who is feared, invidiosus of one who envies and of one who is envied, suspiciosus of one who suspects and of one who is suspected, ambitiosus of one who courts favour and one who is courted, gratiosus also of one who gives, and of one who receives, thanks, laboriosus of one who toils and of one who causes toil — as many other words of this kind are used in both ways, so infestus too has a double meaning. For he is called infestus who inflicts injury on anyone, and on the other hand he who is threatened with injury from another source is also said to be infestus. But the meaning which I gave first surely needs no illustration, so many are there who use infestus in the sense of hostile and adverse; but that second meaning is less familiar and more obscure. For who of the common run would readily call a man infestusto whom another is hostile? However, not only did many of the earlier writers speak in that way, but Marcus Tullius also gave the word that meaning in the speech which he wrote In Defence of Gnaeus Plancius, saying. "I were grieved, gentlemen of the jury, and keenly distressed, if this man's safety should be more endangered (infestior) for the very reason that he had protected my life and safety by his own kindliness, protection and watchfulness." Accordingly, I inquired into the origin and meaning of the word and found this statement in the writings of Nigidius: "Infestus is derived from festinare," says he, "for one who threatens anyone, and is in hasten to attack him, and hurries eagerly to crush him; or on the other hand one whose peril and ruin are being hastened — both of these are called infestus from the urgent imminence of the injury which one is either about to inflict on someone, or to suffer." Now, that no one may have to search for an example of suspiciosus, which I mentioned above, and of formidulosus in its less usual sense, Marcus Cato, On the Property of Florius, used suspiciosus as follows: "But except in the case of one who practised public prostitution, or had hired himself out to a procurer, even though he had been ill-famed and suspected (suspiciosus), they decided that it was unlawful to use force against the person of a freeman." For in this passage Cato uses suspiciosus in the sense of "suspected," not that of "suspecting." Sallust too in the Catiline uses formidulosus of one who is feared, in this passage: "To such men consequently no labour was unfamiliar, no region too rough or too steep, no armed foeman to be dreaded (formidulosus)." Gaius Calvus also in his poems uses laboriosus, not in the ordinary sense of "one who toils," but of that on which labour is spent, saying: The hard and toilsome (laboriosum) country he will shun. In the same way Laberius also in the Sister says: By Castor! sleepy (somniculosum) wine. and Cinna in his poems: As Punic Psyllus doth the sleepy (somniculosam) asp. Metus also and iniuria, and some other words of the kind, may be used in this double sense; for metus hostium, "fear of the enemy," is a correct expression both when the enemy fear and when they are feared. Thus Sallust in the first book of his History speaks of "the fear of Pompey," not implying that Pompey was afraid, which is the more common meaning, but that he was feared. These are Sallust's words: "That war was aroused by the fear of the victorious Pompey, who was restoring Hiempsal to his kingdom." Also in another passage: "After the fear of the Carthaginians had been dispelled and there was leisure to engage in dissensions." In the same way we speak of the "injuries," as well as of those who inflict them as of those who suffer them, and illustrations of that usage are readily found. The following passage from Virgil affords a similar instance of this kind of double meaning; he says: Slow from Ulysses' wound, using vulnus, not of a wound that Ulysses had suffered, but of one that he had inflicted. Nescius also is used as well of one who is unknown as of one who does not know. but its use in the sense of one who does not know is common, while it is rarely used of that which is unknown. Ignarus has the same double application, not only to one who is ignorant, but also to one who is not known. Thus Plautus in the Rudens says: In unknown (nesciis) realms are we where hope knows naught (nescia). And Sallust: "With the natural desire of mankind to visit unknown (ignara) places." And Virgil: Unknown (ignarum) the Laurentine shore doth Mimas hold.

§ 9.13  A passage from the history of Claudius Quadrigarius, in which he pictured the combat of Manlius Torquatus, a young noble, with a hostile Gaul, who challenged the whole Roman army. Titus Manlius was a man of the highest birth and of exalted rank. This Manlius was given the surname Torquatus. The reason for the surname, we are told, was that he wore as a decoration a golden neck-chain, a trophy taken from an enemy whom he had slain. But who the enemy was, and what his nationality, how formidable his huge size, how insolent his challenge, and how the battle was fought — all this Quintus Claudius has described in the first book of his Annals with words of the utmost purity and clearness, and with the simple and unaffected charm of the old-time style. When the philosopher Favorinus read this passage from that work, he used to say that his mind was stirred and affected by no less emotion and excitement than if he were himself an eye-witness of their contest. I have added the words of Quintus Claudius in which that battle is pictured. "In the meantime a Gaul came forward, who was naked except for a shield and two swords and the ornament of a neck-chain and bracelets; in strength and size, in youthful vigour and in courage as well, he excelled all the rest. In the very height of the battle, when the two armies were fighting with the utmost ardour, he began to make signs with his hand to both sides, to cease fighting. The combat ceased. As soon as silence was secured, he called out in a mighty voice that if anyone wished to engage him in single combat, he should come forward. This no one dared do, because of his huge size and savage aspect. Then the Gaul began to laugh at them and to stick out his tongue. This at once roused the great indignation of one Titus Manlius, a youth of the highest birth, that such an insult should be offered his country, and that no one from so great an army should accept the challenge. He, as I say, stepped forth, and would not suffer Roman valour to be shamefully tarnished by a Gaul. Armed with a foot-soldier's shield and a Spanish sword, he confronted the Gaul. Their meeting took place on the very bridge, in the presence of both armies, amid great apprehension. Thus they confronted each other, as I said before: the Gaul, according to his method of fighting, with shield advanced and awaiting an attack; Manlius, relying on courage rather than skill, struck shield against shield, and threw the Gaul off his balance. While the Gaul was trying to regain the same position, Manlius again struck shield against shield, and again forced the man to change his ground. In this fashion he slipped in under the Gaul's sword and stabbed him in the breast with his Spanish blade. Then at once with the same mode of attack he struck his adversary's right shoulder, and he did not give ground at all until he overthrew him, without giving the Gaul a chance to strike a blow. After he had overthrown him, he cut off his head, tore off his neck-chain, and put it, covered with blood as it was, around his own neck. Because of this act, he himself and his descendants had the surname Torquatus." From this Titus Manlius, whose battle Quadrigarius described above, all harsh and cruel commands are called "Manlian"; for at a later time, when he was consul in a war against the Latins, Manlius caused his own son to be beheaded, because he had been sent by his father on a scouting expedition with orders not to fight, and disregarding the command, had killed one of the enemy who had challenged him.

§ 9.14  That Quadrigarius also, with correct Latinity, used facies as a genitive; and some other observations on the inflection of similar words. The expression that I quoted above from Quintus Claudius, "On account of his great size and savage aspect (facies)," I have inquired into by examining several old manuscripts, and have found it to be as I wrote it. For it was in that way, as a rule, that the early writers declined the word — facies facies — whereas the rule of grammar now requires faciei as the genitive. But I did find some corrupt manuscripts in which faciei was written, with erasure of the former reading. I remember too having found both facies and facii written in the same manuscript of Claudius in the library at Tibur. But facies was written in the text and facii, with double i, in the margin opposite. nor did I regard that as inconsistent with a certain early usage; for from the nominative dies they used both dies and dii as the genitive, and from fames, both famis and fami. Quintus Ennius, in the sixteenth book of his Annals, wrote dies for diei in the following verse: Caused by the distant time of the last day (dies). Caesellius asserts that Cicero also wrote dies for diei in his oration For Publius Sestius, and after sparing no pains and inspecting several old manuscripts, I found Caesellius to be right. These are the words of Marcus Tullius: "But the knights shall pay the penalty for that day (dies)." As a result, I readily believe those who have stated that they saw a manuscript from Virgil's own hand, in which it was written: When Libra shall make like the hours of day (dies) and sleep, where dies is used for diei. But just as in this place Virgil evidently wrote dies, so there is no doubt that he wrote dii for diei in the following line: As gifts for that day's (dii) merriment, where the less learned read dei, doubtless shrinking from the use of so uncommon a form. But the older writers declined dies dii, as they did fames fami, pernicies pernicii, progenies progenii, luxuries luxuri, acies acii. For Marcus Cato in his oration On the Punic War wrote as follows: "The women and children were driven out because of the famine (fami causa)." Lucilius in his twelfth book has: Wrinkled and full of hunger (fami). Sisenna in the sixth book of his History writes: "That the Romans came for the purpose of dealing destruction (pernicii)." Pacuvius in the Paulus says: O sire supreme of our own race's (progenii) sire. Gnaeus Matius in the twenty-first book of his Iliad: The army's (acii) other part the river's wave had shunned. Again Matius in Book XXIII writes: Or bides in death some semblance of a form (specii) Of those who speak no more. Gaius Gracchus, On the Publishing of the Laws has: "They say that those measures were taken because of luxury (luxurii causa),. and farther on in the same speech we find: "What is necessarily provided to sustain life is not luxury (luxuries),. which shows that he used luxurii as the genitive of luxuries. Marcus Tullius also has left pernicii on record, in the speech in which he defended Sextus Roscius. These are his words: "We think that none of these things was produced by divine will for the purpose of dealing destruction (pernicii), but by the very force and greatness of Nature." We must therefore suppose that Quadrigarius wrote either facies or facii as the genitive; but I have not found the reading facie in any ancient manuscript. But in the dative case those who spoke the best Latin did not use the form faciei, which is now current, but facie. For example, Lucilius in his Satires: Which first is joined to a fair face And youth. And in his seventh book: Who loves you, and who to your youth and charms (facie), Plays courtier, promising to be your friend. However, there are not a few who read facii in both these passages of Lucilius. But Gaius Caesar, in the second book of his treatise On Analogy, thinks that we should use die and specie as genitive forms. I have also found die in the genitive case in a manuscript of Sallust's Jugurtha of the utmost trustworthiness and of venerable age. These were the words: "when scarcely a tenth part of the day (die) was left." For I do not think we ought to accept such a quibble as the assertion that die is used for ex die.

§ 9.15  On the kind of debate which the Greeks call ἄπορος. With the rhetorician Antonius Julianus I had withdrawn to Naples during the season of the summer holidays, wishing to escape the heat of Rome. And there was there at the time a young man of the richer class studying with tutors in both languages, and trying to gain a command of Latin eloquence in order to plead at the bar in Rome; and he begged Julianus to hear one of his declamations. Julianus went to hear him and I went along with him. The young fellow entered the room, made some preliminary remarks in a more arrogant and presumptuous style than became his years, and then asked that subjects for debate be given him. There was present there with us a pupil of Julianus, a man of ready speech and good ability, who was already offended that in the hearing of man like Julianus the fellow should show such rashness and should dare to test himself in extempore speaking. Therefore, to try him, he proposed a topic for debate that was not logically constructed, of the kind which the Greeks call ἄπορος, and in Latin might with some propriety be termed inexplicabile, that is, "unsolvable." The subject was of this kind: "Seven judges are to hear the case of a defendant, and judgment is to be passed in accordance with the decision of a majority of their number. When the seven judges had heard the case, two decided that the defendant ought to be punished with exile; two, that he ought to be fined; the remaining three, that he should be put to death. The execution of the accused is demanded according to the decision of the three judges, but he appeals." As soon as the young man had heard this, without any reflection and without waiting for other subjects to be proposed, he began at once with incredible speed to reel off all sorts of principles and apply them to that same question, pouring out floods of confused and meaningless words and a torrent of verbiage. All the other members of his company, who were in the habit of listening to him, showed their delight by loud applause, but Julianus blushed and sweat from shame and embarrassment. But when after many thousand lines of drivel the fellow at last came to an end and we went out, his friends and comrades followed Julianus and asked him for his opinion. Whereupon Julianus very wittily replied "Don't ask me what I think; without controversy this young man is eloquent."

§ 9.16  How Plinius Secundus, although not without learning, failed to observe and detect the fallacy in an argument of the kind that the Greeks call ἀντιστρέφον. Plinius Secundus was considered the most learned man of his time. He left a work, entitled For Students of Oratory, which is by no manner of means to be lightly regarded. In that work he introduces much varied material that will delight the ears of the learned. He also quotes a number of arguments that he regards as cleverly and skilfully urged in the course of debates. For instance, he cites this argument from such a debate: "'A brave man shall be given the reward which he desires. A man who had done a brave deed asked for the wife of another in marriage, and received her. Then the man whose wife she had been did a brave deed. He demands the return of his wife, but is refused." On the part of the second brave man, who demanded the return of his wife," says Pliny, "this elegant and plausible argument was presented: 'If the law is valid, return her to me; if it is not valid, return her.' . But it escaped Pliny's notice that this bit of reasoning, which he thought very acute, was not without the fallacy which the Greeks call ἀντιστρέφον, or "a convertible proposition." And that is a deceptive fallacy, which lies concealed under a false appearance of truth; for that very argument may just as easily be turned about and used against the same man, and might, for example, be put thus by that former husband: "If the law is valid, I do not return her; if it is not valid, I do not return her."

§ 10.1  Whether one ought to say tertium consul or tertio; and how Gnaeus Pompeius, when he would inscribe his honours on the theatre which he was about to dedicate, by Cicero's advice evaded the difficulty as to the form of that word. I sent a letter from Athens to a friend of mine in Rome. In it I said that I had now written him for the third time (tertium). In his reply he asked employ to give my reason for having written tertium and not tertio. He added that he hoped that I would at the same time inform him what I thought about the question whether one should say tertium consul, meaning "consul for the third time," and quartum, or tertio and quarto; since he had heard a learned man at Rome say tertio and quarto consul, not tertium and quartum; also, that Coelius had so written at the beginning of his third book and that Quintus Claudius in his eleventh book said that Marius was chosen consul for the seventh time, using septimo. In reply to these questions, to decide both matters about which he had written to me, I contented myself with quoting Marcus Varro, a more learned man in my opinion than Coelius and Claudius together. For Varro has made it quite plain what ought to be said, and I did not wish, when at a distance, to enter into a dispute with a man who had the name of being learned. Marcus Varro's words, in the fifth book of his Disciplinae, are as follows: "It is one thing to be made praetor quarto, and another quartum; for quarto refers to order and indicates that three were elected before him; quartum refers to time and indicates that he had been made praetor three times before. Accordingly Ennius was right when he wrote: Quintus, his sire, a fourth time (quartum) consul is, and Pompeius was timid when, in order to avoid writing consul tertium or tertio on his theatre, he did not write the final letters." What Varro briefly and somewhat obscurely hinted at concerning Pompey, Tullius Tiro, Cicero's freedman, wrote at greater length in one of his letters, substantially as follows: "When Pompey was preparing to consecrate the temple of Victory, the steps of which formed his theatre, and to inscribe upon it his name and honours, the question arose whether consul tertium should be written, or tertio. Pompey took great pains to refer this question to the most learned men of Rome, and when there was difference of opinion, some maintaining that tertio ought to be written, others tertium, Pompey asked Cicero," says Varro, "to decide upon what seemed to him the more correct form." Then Cicero was reluctant to pass judgment upon learned men, lest he might seem to have censured the men themselves in criticizing their opinion. "He accordingly advised Pompey to write neither tertium nor tertio, but to inscribe the first four letters only, so that the meaning was shown without writing the whole word, but yet the doubt as to the form of the word was concealed." But that of which Varro and Tiro spoke is not now written in that way on this same theatre. For when, many years later, the back wall of the stage had fallen and was restored, the number of the third consulship was indicated, not as before, by the first four letters, but merely by three incised lines. However, in the fourth book of Marcus Cato's Origines we find: "The Carthaginians broke the treaty for the sixth time (sextum)." This word indicates that they had violated the treaty five times before, and that this was the sixth time. The Greeks too in distinguishing numbers of this kind use τρίτον καὶ τέταρτον, which corresponds to the Latin words tertium quartumque.

§ 10.2  What Aristotle has recorded about the number of children born at one time. The philosopher Aristotle has recorded that a woman in Egypt bore five children at one birth; this, he said, was the limit of human multiple parturition; more children than that had never known to be born at one time, and even that number was very rare. But in the reign of the deified Augustus the historians of the time say that a maid servant of Caesar Augustus in the region of Laurentum brought forth five children, and that they lived for a few days; that their mother died not long after she had been delivered, whereupon a monument was erected to her by order of Augustus on the via Laurentina, and on it was inscribed the number of her children, as I have given it.

§ 10.3  A collection of famous passages from the speeches of Gaius Gracchus, Marcus Cicero and Marcus Cato, and a comparison of them. Gaius Gracchus is regarded as a powerful and vigorous speaker. No one disputes this. But how can one tolerate the opinion of some, that he was more impressive, more spirited and more fluent than Marcus Tullius. Indeed, I lately read the speech of Gaius Gracchus On the Promulgation of Laws, in which, with all the indignation of which he is master, he complains that Marcus Marius and other distinguished men of the Italian free-towns were unlawfully beaten with rods by magistrates of the Roman people. His words on the subject are as follows: "The consul lately came to Teanum Sidicinum. His wife said that she wished to bathe in the men's baths. Marcus Marius, the quaestor of Sidicinum, was instructed to send away the bathers from the baths. The wife tells her husband that the baths were not given up to her soon enough and that they were not sufficiently clean. Therefore a stake was planted in the forum and Marcus Marius, the most illustrious man of his city, was led to it. His clothing was stripped off, he was whipped with rods. The people of Cales, when they heard of this, passed a decree that no one should think of using the public baths when a Roman magistrate was in town. At Ferentinum, for the same reason, our praetor ordered the quaestors to be arrested; one threw himself from the wall, the other was caught and beaten with rods." In speaking of such an atrocious action, in so lamentable and distressing a manifestation of public injustice, has he said anything either fluent or brilliant, or in such a way as to arouse tears and pity; is there anything that shows an outpouring of indignation and solemn and impressive remonstrance? Brevity there is, to be sure, grace, and a simple purity of expression, such as we sometimes have in the more refined of the comedies. Gracchus also in another place speaks as follows: "I will give you a single example of the lawlessness of our young men, and of their entire lack of self-control. Within the last few years a young man who had not yet held a magisterial office was sent as an envoy from Asia. He was carried in a litter. A herdsman, one of the peasants of Venusia, met him, and not knowing whom they were bearing, asked in jest if they were carrying a corpse. Upon hearing this, the young man ordered that the litter be set down and that the peasant be beaten to death with the thongs by which it was fastened." Now these words about so lawless and cruel an outrage do not differ in the least from those of ordinary conversation. But in Marcus Tullius, when in a similar case Roman citizens, innocent men, are beaten with rods contrary to justice and contrary to the laws, or tortured to death, what pity is then aroused! What complaints does he utter! How he brings the whole scene before our eyes! What a mighty surge of indignation and bitterness comes seething forth. By Heaven! when I read those words of Cicero's, my mind is possessed with the sight and sound of blows, cries and lamentation. For example, the words which he speaks about Gaius Verres, which I have quoted so far as my memory went, which was all that I could do at present: "The man himself came into the forum, blazing with wickedness and frenzy. His eyes burned, every feature of his face displayed cruelty. All were waiting to see to what ends he would go, or what he would do, when on a sudden he gave orders that the man be dragged forth, that he be stripped in the middle of the forum and bound, and that rods be brought." Now, so help me! the mere words "he ordered that he be stripped and bound, and rods brought" arouse such emotion and horror that you do not seem to hear the act described, but to see it acted before your face. But Gracchus plays the part, not of one who complains or implores, but of a mere narrator: "A stake," he says, "was planted in the forum, his clothing was stripped off, he was beaten with rods." But Marcus Cicero, finely representing the idea of continued action, says, not "he was beaten," but "a citizen of Rome was being beaten with rods in the middle of the forum at Messana, while in the meantime no groan, no sound was heard from that wretched man amid his torture and the resounding blows except these words, 'I am a Roman citizen.' By thus calling to mind his citizenship he hoped to avert all their stripes and free his body from torture." Then Cicero with vigour, spirit and fiery indignation complains of so cruel an outrage and inspires the Romans with hatred and detestation of Verres by these words: "O beloved name of liberty! O eminent justice of our country! O Porcian and Sempronian laws! O authority of the tribunes, earnestly desired and finally restored to the Roman commons! Pray, have all these blessings fallen to this estate, that a Roman citizen, in a province of the Roman people, in a town of our allies, should be bound and flogged in the forum by one who derived the emblems of his power from the favour of the Roman people? What! when fire and hot irons and other tortures were applied, although your victim's bitter lamentation and piteous outcries did not affect you, were you not moved by the tears and loud groans even of the Roman citizens who were then present?. These outrages Marcus Tullius bewailed bitterly and solemnly, in appropriate and eloquent terms. But if anyone has so rustic and so dull an ear that this brilliant and delightful speech and the harmonious arrangement of Cicero's words do not give him pleasure; if he prefers the earlier oration because it is unadorned, concise and unstudied, yet has a certain native charm, and because it has, so to say, a shade and colour of misty antiquity — let such a one, if he has any judgment at all, study the address in a similar case of Marcus Cato, a man of a still earlier time, to whose vigour and flow of language Gracchus could never hope to attain. He will realize, I think, that Cato was not content with the eloquence of his own time, but aspired to do even then what Cicero later accomplished. For in the speech which is entitled On Sham Battles he thus made complaint of Quintus Thermus: "He said that his provisions had not been satisfactorily attended to by the decemvirs. He ordered them to be stripped and scourged. The Bruttiani scourged the decemvirs, many men saw it done. Who could endure such an insult, such tyranny, such slavery? No king has ever dared to act thus; shall such outrages be inflicted upon good men, born of a good family, and of good intentions? Where is the protection of our allies? Where is the honour of our forefathers? To think that you have dared to inflict signal wrongs, blows, lashes, stripes, these pains and tortures, accompanied with disgrace and extreme ignominy, since their fellow citizens and many other men looked on! But amid how great grief, what groans, what tears, what lamentations have I heard that this was done? Even slaves bitterly resent injustice; what feeling do you think that such men, sprung from good families, endowed with high character, had and will have so long as they live. When Cato said "the Bruttiani scourged them," lest haply anyone should inquire the meaning of Bruttiani, it is this. When Hannibal the Carthaginian was in Italy with his army, and the Romans had suffered several defeats, the Bruttii were the first people of all Italy to revolt to Hannibal. Angered at this, the Romans, after Hannibal left Italy and the Carthaginians were defeated, by way of ignominious punishment refused to enrol the Bruttii as soldiers or treat them as allies, but commanded them to serve the magistrates when they went to their provinces, and to perform the duties of slaves. Accordingly, they accompanied the magistrates in the capacity of those who are called "floggers" in the plays, and bound or scourged those whom they were ordered. And because they came from the land of the Bruttii, they were called Bruttiani.

§ 10.4  How Publius Nigidius with great cleverness showed that words are not arbitrary, but natural. Publius Nigidius in his Grammatical Notes shows that nouns and verbs were formed, not by a chance use, but by a certain power and design of nature, a subject very popular in the discussions of the philosophers. for they used to inquire whether words originate by "nature" or are man-made. Nigidius employs many arguments to this end, to shown that words appear to be natural rather than arbitrary. Among these the following seems particularly neat and ingenious. "When we say vos, or 'you,'" says Nigidius, "we make a movement of the mouth suitable to the meaning of the word; for we gradually protrude the tips of our lips and direct the impulse of the breath towards those with whom we are speaking. But on the other hand, when we say nos, or 'us,' we do not pronounce the word with a powerful forward impulse of the voice, nor with the lips protruded, but we restrain our breath and our lips, so to speak, within ourselves. The same thing happens in the words tu or 'thou,' ego or 'I,' tibi 'to thee,' and mihi 'to me.' For just as when we assent or dissent, a movement of the head or eyes corresponds with the nature of the expression, so too in the pronunciation of these words there is a kind of natural gesture made with the mouth and breath. The same principle that we have noted in our own speech applies also to Greek words."

§ 10.5  Whether avarus is a simple word or, as it appears to Publius Nigidius, a compound, made up of two parts. Publius Nigidius, in the twenty-ninth book of his Commentaries, declares that avarus is not a simple word, but is compounded of two parts: "For that man," he says, "is called avarus, or 'covetous,' who is avidus aeris, or 'eager for money;' but in the compound the letter e is lost." He also says that a man is called by the compound term locuples, or "rich" when he holds pleraque loca, that is to say, "many possessions." But his statement about locuples is the stronger and more probable. As to avarus there is doubt; for why may it not seem to be derived from one single word, namely aveo, and formed in the same way as amarus, about which there is general agreement that it is not a compound?

§ 10.6  That a fine was imposed by the plebeian aediles on the daughter of Appius Caecus, a woman of rank, because she spoke too arrogantly. Public punishment was formerly inflicted, not only upon crimes, but even upon arrogant language; so necessary did men think it to maintain the dignity of Roman conduct inviolable. For the daughter of the celebrated Appius Caecus, when leaving the plays of which she had been a spectator, was jostled by the crowd of people that surrounded her, flocking together from all sides. When she had extricated herself, complaining that she had been roughly handled, she added: "What, pray, would have become of me, and how much more should I have been crowded and pressed upon, had not my brother Publius Claudius lost his fleet in the sea-fight and with it a vast number of citizens? Surely I should have lost my life, overwhelmed by a still greater mass of people. How I wish," said she, "that my brother might come to life again, take another fleet to Sicily, and destroy that crowd which has just knocked poor me about." Because of such wicked and arrogant words, Gaius Fundanius and Tiberius Sempronius, the plebeian aediles, imposed a fine upon the woman of twenty five thousand pounds of full-weight bronze. Ateius Capito, in his commentary On Public Trials, says that this happened in the first Punic war, in the consulship of Fabius Licinus and Otacilius Crassus.

§ 10.7  Marcus Varro, I remember, writes that of the rivers which flow outside the limits of the Roman empire the Nile is first in size, the Danube second, and next the Rhone. Of all the rivers which flow into the seas included within the Roman empire, which the Greeks call "the inner sea," it is agreed that the Nile is the greatest. Sallust wrote that the Danube is next in size. but Varro, when he discussed the part of the earth which is called Europe, placed the Rhone among the first three rivers of that quarter of the earth, by which he seems to make it a rival of the Danube; for the Danube also is in Europe.

§ 10.8  That among the ignominious punishments which were inflicted upon soldiers was the letting of blood; and what seems to be the reason for such a penalty. This also was a military punishment in old times, to disgrace a soldier by ordering a vein to be opened, and letting blood. There is no reason assigned for this in the old records, so far as I could find; but I infer that it was first done to soldiers whose minds were affected and who were not in a normal condition, so that it appears to have been not so much a punishment as a medical treatment. But afterwards I suppose that the same penalty was customarily inflicted for many other offences, on the ground that all who sinned were not of sound mind.

§ 10.9  In what way and in what form the Roman army is commonly drawn up, and the names of the formations. There are military terms which are applied to an army drawn up in a certain manner: "the front," "reserves," "wedge," "ring," "mass," "shears," "saw," "wings," "towers." These and some other terms you may find in the books of those who have written about military affairs. However, they are taken from the things themselves to which the names are strictly applied, and in drawing up an army the forms of the objects designated by each of these words is represented.

§ 10.10  The reason why the ancient Greeks and Romans wore a ring on the next to the little finger of the left hand. I have heard that the ancient Greeks wore a ring on the finger of the left hand which is next to the little finger. They say, too, that the Roman men commonly wore their rings in that way. Apion in his Egyptian History says that the reason for this practice is, that upon cutting into and opening human bodies, a custom in Egypt which the Greeks call ἀνατομαί, or "dissection," it was found that a very fine nerve proceeded from that finger alone of which we have spoken, and made its way to the human heart; that it therefore seemed quite reasonable that this finger in particular should be honoured with such an ornament, since it seems to be joined, and as it were united, with that supreme organ, the heart.

§ 10.11  The derivation and meaning of the word mature, and that it is generally used improperly; and also that the genitive of praecox is praecocis and not praecoquis. Mature in present usage signifies "hastily" and "quickly," contrary to the true force of the word; for mature means quite a different thing. Therefore Publius Nigidius, a man eminent in the pursuit of all the liberal arts, says: "Mature means neither 'too soon' nor 'too late,' but something between the two and intermediate." Publius Nigidius has spoken well and properly. For of grain and fruits those are called matura, or "mature," which are neither unripe and hard, nor falling and decayed, but full-grown and ripened in their proper time. But since that which was not done negligently was said to be done mature, the force of the word has been greatly extended, and an act is now said to be done mature which is done with some haste, and not one which is done without negligence; whereas such things are immoderately hastened are more properly called inmatura, or "untimely." That limitation of the word, and of the action itself, which was made by Nigidius was very elegantly expressed by the deified Augustus with two Greek words; for we are told that he used to say in conversation, and write in his letters, σπεῦδε βραδέως, that is, "make haste slowly," by which he recommended that to accomplish a result we should use at once the promptness of energy and the delay of carefulness, and it is from these two opposite qualities that maturitas springs. Virgil also, to one who is observant, has skilfully distinguished the two words properare and maturare as clearly opposite, in these verses: Whenever winter's rains the hind confine, Much is there that at leisure may be done (maturare), Which in fair weather he must hurry on (properanda). Most elegantly has he distinguished between those two words; for in rural life the preparations during rainy weather may be made at leisure, since one has time for them; but in fine weather, since time presses, one must hasten. But when we wish to indicate that anything has been done under too great pressure and too hurriedly, then it is more properly said to have been done praemature, or "prematurely," than mature. Thus Afranius in his Italian play called The Title says: With madness praemature you seek a hasty power. In this verse it is to be observed that he says praecocem and not praecoquem; for the nominative case is not praecoquis, but praecox.

§ 10.12  Of extravagant tales which Plinius Secundus most unjustly ascribes to the philosopher Democritus; and also about the flying image of a dove. Pliny the Elder, in the twenty-eighth book of his Natural History asserts that there is a book of that most famous philosopher Democritus On the Power and Nature of the Chameleon, and that he had read it; and then he transmits to us many foolish and intolerable absurdities, alleging that they were written by Democritus. Of these unwillingly, since they disgust me, I recall a few, as follows. that the hawk, the swiftest of all birds, if it chance to fly over a chameleon which is crawling on the ground, is dragged down and falls through some force to the earth, and offers and gives itself up of its own accord to be torn to pieces by the other birds. Another statement too is past human belief, namely, that if the head and neck of the chameleon be burned by means of the wood which is called oak, rain and thunder are suddenly produced, and that this same thing is experienced if the liver of that animal is burned upon the roof of a house. There is also another story, which by heaven! I hesitated about putting down, so preposterous is it; but I have made it a rule that we ought to speak our mind about the fallacious seduction of marvels of that kind, by which the keenest minds are often deceived and led to their ruin, and in particular those which are especially eager for knowledge. But I return to Pliny. He says that the left foot of the chameleon is roasted with an iron heated in the fire, along with an herb called by the same name, "chameleon"; both are mixed in an ointment, formed into a paste, and put in a wooden vessel. He who carries the vessel, even if he go openly amid a throng, can be seen by no one. I think that these marvellous and false stories written by Plinius Secundus are not worthy of the name of Democritus. the same is true of what the same Pliny, in his tenth book, asserts that Democritus wrote; namely, that there were certain birds with a language of their own, and that by mixing the blood of those birds a serpent was produced; that whoso ate it would understand the language of birds and their conversation. Many fictions of this kind seem to have been attached to the name of Democritus by ignorant men, who sheltered themselves under his reputation and authority. But that which Archytas the Pythagorean is said to have devised and accomplished ought to seem no less marvellous, but yet not wholly absurd. For not only many eminent Greeks, but also the philosopher Favorinus, a most diligent searcher of ancient records, have stated most positively that Archytas made a wooden model of a dove with such mechanical ingenuity and art that it flew; so nicely balanced was it, you see, with weights and moved by a current of air enclosed and hidden within it. About so improbable a story I prefer to give Favorinus' own words: "Archytas the Tarentine, being in other lines also a mechanician, made a flying dove out of wood. Whenever it lit, it did not rise again. For until this . . . ."

§ 10.13  On what principle the ancients aid cum partim hominum. Partim hominum venerunt is a common expression, meaning "a part of the men came," that is, "some men." For partim is here an adverb and is not declined by cases. Hence we may say cum partim hominum, that is, "with some men" or "with a certain part of the men." Marcus Cato, in his speech On the Property of Florius has written as follows: "There she acted like a harlot, she went from the banquet straight to the couch and with a part of them (cum partim illorum) she often conducted herself in the same manner." The less educated, however, read cum parti, as if partim were declined as a noun, not used as an adverb. But Quintus Claudius, in the twenty-first book of his Annals, has used this figure in a somewhat less usual manner; he says: "For with the part of the forces (cum partim copiis) of young men that was pleasing to him." Also in the twenty-third book of the Annals of Claudius are these words: "But that I therefore acted thus, but whether to say that it happened from the negligence of a part of the magistrates (neglegentia partim magistratum), from avarice, or from the calamity of the Roman people, I know not."

§ 10.14  In what connection Cato said iniuria mihi factum itur. I hear the phrase illi iniuriam factum iri, or "injury will be done to him," I hear contumeliam dictum iri, or "insult will be offered," commonly so used everywhere, and I notice that this form of expression is a general one; I therefore refrain from citing examples. But contumelia illi or iniuria factum itur, "injury or insult is going to be offered him," is somewhat less common, and therefore I shall give an example of that. Marcus Cato, speaking For Himself against Gaius Cassius, says: "And so it happened, fellow citizens, that in this insult which is going to be put upon me (quae mihi factum itur) by the insolence of this man I also, fellow citizens (so help me!), pity our country." But just as contumeliam factam iri means "to go to inflict an injury," that is, to take pains that it be inflicted, just so contumelia mihi factum itur expresses the same idea, merely with a change of case.

§ 10.15  Of the ceremonies of the priest and priestess of Jupiter and words quoted from the praetor's edict, in which he declares that he will not compel either the Vestal virgins or the priest of Jupiter to take oath. Ceremonies in great number are imposed upon the priest of Jupiter and also many abstentions, of which we read in the books written On the Public Priests; and they are also recorded in the first book of Fabius Pictor. Of these the following are in general what I remember. It is unlawful for the priest of Jupiter to ride upon a horse. it is also unlawful for him to see the "classes arrayed" outside the pomerium, that is, the army in battle array; hence the priest of Jupiter is rarely made consul, since wars were entrusted to the consuls. also it is always unlawful for the priest to take an oath. likewise to wear a ring, unless it be perforated and without a gem. It is against the law for fire to be taken from the flaminia, that is, from the home of the Flamen Dialis, except for a sacred rite. if a person in fetters enter his house, he must be loosed, the bonds must be drawn up through the impluvium to the roof and from there let down into the street. He has no knot in his head-dress, girdle, or any other part of his dress. if anyone is being taken to be flogged at his feet as a suppliant, it is unlawful for the man to be flogged on that day. Only a free man may cut the hair of the Dialis. It is not customary for the Dialis to touch, or even name, a she-goat, raw flesh, ivy, and beans. The priest of Jupiter must not pass under an arbour of vines. The feet of the couch on which he sleeps must be smeared with a thin coating of clay, and he must not sleep away from this bed for three nights in succession, and no other person must sleep in that bed. At the foot of this bed there should be a box with sacrificial cakes. The cuttings of the nails and hair of the Dialis must be buried in the earth under a fruitful tree. Every day is a holy day for the Dialis. He must not be in the open air without his cap; that he might go without it in the house has only recently been decided by the pontiffs, so Masurius Sabinus wrote. and it is said that some other ceremonies have been remitted and he has been excused from observing them. "The priest of Jupiter" must not touch any bread fermented with yeast. He does not lay off his inner tunic except under cover, in order that he may not be naked in the open air, as it were under the eye of Jupiter. No other has a place at table above the flamen Dialis, except the rex sacrificulus. If the Dialis has lost his wife he abdicates his office. The marriage of the priest cannot be dissolved except by death. He never enters a place of burial, he never touches a dead body. but he is not forbidden to attend a funeral. The ceremonies of the priestess of Jupiter are about the same. they say that she observes other separate ones; for example, that she wears a dyed robe. that she has a twig from a fruitful tree in her head-dress. that it is forbidden for her to go up more than three rounds of a ladder, except the so-called Greek ladders. also, when she goes to the Argei, that she neither combs her head nor dresses her hair. I have added the words of the praetor in his standing edict concerning the flamen Dialis and the priestess of Vesta: "In the whole of my jurisdiction I will not compel the flamen of Jupiter or a priestess of Vesta to take an oath." The words of Marcus Varro about the flamen Dialis, in the second book of his Divine Antiquities, are as follows: "He alone has a white cap, either because he is the greatest of priests, or because a white victim should be sacrificed to Jupiter."

§ 10.16  Errors in Roman History which Julius Hyginus noted in Virgil's sixth book. Hyginus criticizes a passage in Virgil's sixth book and thinks that he would have corrected it. Palinurus is in the Lower World, begging Aeneas to take care that his body be found and buried. His words are: O save me from these ills, unconquered one; Or through thou earth upon me, for you can, And to the port of Velia return. "How," said he, "could either Palinurus know and name 'the porta of Velia,' or Aeneas find the place from that name, when the town of Velia, from which he has called the harbour in that place 'Veline' was founded in the Lucanian district and called by that name when Servius Tullius was reigning in Rome, more than six hundred years after Aeneas came to Italy. For of those," he adds, "who were driven from the land of Phocis [sic] by Harpalus, prefect of king Cyrus, some founded Velia, and others Massilia. Most absurdly, then, does Palinurus ask Aeneas to seek out the Veline port, when at that time no such name existed anywhere. Nor ought that to be considered a similar error," said he, "which occurs in the first book: Exiled by fate, to Italy fared and to Lavinian strand. and similarly in the sixth book: At last stood lightly poised on the Chalcidian height. since it is usually allowed the poet himself to mention, κατὰ πρόληψιν, 'by anticipation,' in his own person some historical facts which took place later and of which he himself could know; just as Virgil knew the town of Lavinium and the colony from Chalcis. But how could Palinurus," he said, "know of events that occurred six hundred years later, unless anyone believes that in the Lower World he had the power of divination, as in fact the souls of the deceased commonly do. But even if you understand it in that way, although nothing of the kind is said, yet how could Aeneas, who did not have the power of divination, seek out the Veline port, the name of which at that time, as we have said before, was not in existence anywhere?. He also censures the following passage in the same book, and thinks that Virgil would have corrected it, had not death prevented. "For," says he, "when he had named Theseus among those who had visited the Lower World and returned, and had said: But why name Theseus? why Alcides great? And my race too is from almighty Jove, he nevertheless adds afterwards: Unhappy Theseus sits, will sit for aye. But how," says he, "could it happen that one should sit for ever in the Lower World whom the poet mentions before among those who went down there and returned again, especially when the story of Theseus says that Hercules tore him from the rock and led him to the light of the Upper World?. He also says that Virgil erred in these lines: He Argos and Mycenae shall uproot, City of Agamemnon, and the heir Of Aeacus himself, from war-renowned Achilles sprung, his ancestors of Troy Avenging and Minerva's spotless shrine. "He has confounded," says Hyginus, "different persons and times. For the wars with the Achaeans and with Pyrrus were not waged at the same time nor by the same men. For Pyrrus, whom he calls a descendant of Aeacus, having crossed over from Epirus into Italy, waged war with the Romans against Manius Curius, who was their leader in that war. But the Argive, that is, the Achaean war, was carried on many years after under the lead of Lucius Mummius. The middle verse, therefore, about Pyrrus," says he, "may be omitted, since it was inserted inopportunely; and Virgil," he said, "undoubtedly would have struck it out."

§ 10.17  Why and how the philosopher Democritus deprived himself of his eye-sight; and the very fine and elegant verses of Laberius on that subject. It is written in the records of Grecian story that the philosopher Democritus, a man worthy of reverence beyond all others and of the highest authority, of his own accord deprived himself of eye-sight, because he believed that the thoughts and meditations of his mind in examining nature's laws would be more vivid and exact, if he should free them from the allurements of sight and the distractions offered by the eyes. This act of his, and the manner too in which he easily blinded himself by a most ingenious device, the poet Laberius has described, in a farce called The Ropemaker, in very elegant and finished verses; but he has imagined another reason for voluntary blindness and applied it with no little neatness to his own subject. For the character who speaks these lines in Laberius is a rich and stingy miser, lamenting in vigorous terms the excessive extravagance and dissipation of his young son. These are the verses of Laberius: Democritus, Abdera's scientist, Set up a shield to face Hyperion's rise, That sight he might destroy by blaze of brass, Thus by the sun's rays he destroyed his eyes, Lest he should see bad citizens' good luck; So I with blaze and splendour of my gold, Would render sightless my concluding years, Lest I should see my spendthrift son's good luck.

§ 10.18  The story of Artemisia; and of the contest at the tomb of Mausolus in which celebrated writers took part. Artemisia is said to have loved her husband with a love surpassing all the tales of passion and beyond one's conception of human affection. Now Mausolus, as Marcus Tullius tells us, was king of the land of Caria; according to some Greek historians he was governor of a province, the official whom the Greeks term a satrap. When this Mausolus had met his end amid the lamentations and in the arms of his wife, and had been buried with a magnificent funeral, Artemisia, inflamed with grief and with longing for her spouse, mingled his bones and ashes with spices, ground them into the form of a powder, put them in water, and drank them; and she is said to have given many other proofs of the violence of her passion. For perpetuating the memory of her husband, she also erected, with great expenditure of labour, that highly celebrated tomb, among the seven wonders of the world. When Artemisia dedicated this monument, consecrated to the deified shades of Mausolus, she instituted an agon, that is to say, a contest in celebrating his praises, offering magnificent prizes of money and other valuables. Three men distinguished for their eminent talent and eloquence are said to have come to contend in this eulogy, Theopompus, Theodectes and Naucrates; some have even written that Isocrates himself entered the lists with them. But Theopompus was adjudged the victory in that contest. He was a pupil of Isocrates. The tragedy of Theodectes, entitled Mausolus, is still extant today; and that in it Theodectes was more pleasing than in his prose writings is the opinion of Hyginus in his Examples.

§ 10.19  That a sin is not removed or lessened by citing in excuse similar sins which others have committed; with a passage from a speech of Demosthenes on that subject. The philosopher Taurus once reproved a young man with severe and vigorous censure because he had turned from the rhetoricians and the study of eloquence to the pursuit of philosophy, declaring that he had done something dishonourable and shameful. Now the young man did not deny the allegation, but urged in his defence that it was commonly done and tried to justify the baseness of the fault by citing examples and by the excuse of custom. And then Taurus, being the more irritated by the very nature of his defence, said: "Foolish and worthless fellow, if the authority and rules of philosophy do not deter you from following bad examples, does not even the saying of your own celebrated Demosthenes occur to you? For since it is couched in a polished and graceful form of words, it might, like a sort of rhetorical catch, the more easily remain fixed in your memory. For," said he, "if I do not forget what among I read in my early youth, these are the words of Demosthenes, spoken against one who, as you now do, tried to justify and excuse his own sin by those of others: 'Say not, Sir, that this has often been done, but that it ought to be so done; for if anything was ever done contrary to the laws, and you followed that example, you would not for that reason justly escape punishment, but you would suffer much more severely. For just as, if anyone had suffered a penalty for it, you would not have proposed this, so if you suffer punishment now, no one else will propose it.' . Thus did Taurus, by the use of every kind of persuasion and admonition, incline his disciples to the principles of a virtuous and blameless manner of life.

§ 10.20  The meaning of rogatio, lex, plebisscitum and privilegium, and to what extent all those terms differ. I hear it asked what the meaning is of lex, plebisscitum, rogatio, and privilegium. Ateius Capito, a man highly skilled in public and private law, did the meaning of lex in these words: "A law," said he, "is a general decree of the people, or of the commons, answering an appeal made to them by a magistrate." If this definition is correct, neither the appeal for Pompey's military command, nor about the recall of Cicero, nor as to the murder of Clodius, nor any similar decrees of the people of commons, can be called laws. For they are not general decrees, and they are framed with regard, not to the whole body of citizens, but to individuals. Hence they ought rather to be called privilegia, or "privileges," since the ancients used priva where we now use singula (private or individual). This word Lucilius used in the first book of his Satires: I'll give them, when they come, each his own (priva) piece Of tunny belly and acarne heads. Capito, however, in the same definition divided the plebes, or "commons," from the populus, or "people," since in the term "people" are embraced every part of the state and all its orders, but "commons" is properly applied to that part in which the patrician families of the citizens are not included. Therefore, according to Capito, a plebisscitum is a law which the commons, and not the people, adopt. But the head itself, the origin, and as it were the fount of this whole process of law is the rogatio, whether the appeal (rogatio) is to the people or to the commons, on a matter relating to all or to individuals. For all the words under discussion are understood and included in the fundamental principle and name of rogatio; for unless the people or commons be appealed to (rogetur), no decree of the people or commons can be passed. But although all this is true, yet in the old records we observe that no great distinction is made among the words in question. For the common term lex is used both of decrees of the commons and of "privileges,. and all are called by the indiscriminate and inexact name rogatio. Even Sallust, who is most observant of propriety in the use of words, has yielded to custom and applied the term "law" to the "privilege" which was passed with reference to the return of Gaius Pompeius. The passage, from the second book of his Histories, reads as follows: "For when Sulla, as consul, proposed a law (legem) touching his return, the tribune of the commons, Gaius Herennius, had vetoed it by previous arrangement."

§ 10.21  Why Marcus Cicero very scrupulously avoided any use of the words novissime and novissimus. It is clear that Marcus Cicero was unwilling to use many a word which is now in general circulation, and was so in his time, because he did not approve of them; for instance, novissimus and novissime. For although both Marcus Cato and Sallust, as well as others also of the same period, have used that word generally, and although many men besides who were not without learning wrote it in their books, yet he seems to have abstained from it, on the ground that it was not good Latin, since Lucius Aelius Stilo, who was the most learned man of his time, had avoided its use, as that of a novel and improper word. Moreover, what Marcus Varro too thought of that word I have deemed it fitting to show from his own words in the sixth book of his De Lingua Latina, dedicated to Cicero: "What used to be called extremum or 'last,'" says he, "is beginning to be called generally novissimum, a word which within my own memory both Aelius and several old men avoided as too new a term; as to its origin, just as from vetus we have vetustior and veterrimus, so from novus we get novior and novissimus."

§ 10.22  A passage taken from Plato's book entitled Gorgias, on the abuses of false philosophy, with which those who are ignorant of the rewards of true philosophy assail philosophers without reason. Plato, a man most devoted to the truth and most ready to point it out to all, has said truly and nobly, though not from the mouth of a dignified or suitable character, all that in general may be said against those idle and worthless fellows, who, sheltered under the name of philosophy, follow profitless idleness and darkness of speech and life. For although Callicles, whom he makes his speaker, being ignorant of true philosophy, heaps dishonourable and undeserved abuse upon philosophers, yet what he says is to be taken in such a way that we may gradually come to understand it as a warning to ourselves not to deserve such reproofs, and not by idle and foolish sloth to feign the pursuit and cultivation of philosophy. I have written down Plato's own words on this subject from the book called Gorgias, not attempting to translate them, because no Latinity, much less my own, can emulate their qualities. "Philosophy, Socrates, is indeed a nice thing, if one pursue it in youth with moderation; but if one occupy oneself with it longer than is proper, it is a corrupter of men. For even if a man be well endowed by nature and follow philosophy when past his youth, he must necessarily be ignorant of all those things in which a man ought to be versed if he is to be honourable, good and of high repute. For such men are ignorant both of the laws relating to the city, and of the language which it is necessary to use in the intercourse of human society, both privately and publicly, and of the pleasures and desires of human life; in brief, they are wholly unacquainted with manners. Accordingly, when they engage in any private or public business, they become a laughing-stock. just exactly as statesmen, I suppose, become ridiculous when they enter into your debates and discussions." A little later he adds the following: "But I think it best to take part in both. It is good to pursue philosophy merely as a matter of education, and to be a philosopher is not dishonourable when one is young; but when one who is already older persists in the business, the thing becomes laughable, Socrates. and I for my part feel the same towards those who philosophize as towards those who lisp and play. Whenever I see a little boy, to whom it is fitting to speak thus, lisping and playing, I am pleased, and it seems to me becoming and liberal and suited to the age of childhood. but when I hear a small boy speaking with precision, it seems to me to be a disagreeable thing; it wounds my ears and appears to be something befitting a slave. When, however, one hear a man lisping, or sees him playing, it appears ridiculous, unmanly and deserving of stripes. I feel just the same way towards the philosophers. When I see philosophy in a young man, I rejoice; it seems to me fitting, and I think that the young man in question is ingenuous; that he who does not study philosophy is not ingenuous and will never himself be worthy of anything noble or generous. But when I see an older man still philosophizing and not giving it up, such a man, Socrates, seems to me to deserve stripes. For, as I have just said, it is possible for such a man, even though naturally well endowed, to become unmanly, avoiding the business of the city and the market-place, where, as the poet says, men become "most eminent," and living the rest of his life in hiding with young men, whispering in a corner with three or four of them, but never accomplishing anything liberal, great or satisfactory. These sentiments, as I have said, Plato put into the mouth of a man of no great worth indeed, yet possessing a reputation for common sense and understanding and a kind of uncompromising frankness. He does not, of course, refer to that philosophy which is the teacher of all the virtues, which excels in the discharge of public and private duties alike, and which, if nothing prevents, governs cities and the State with firmness, courage and wisdom; but rather to that futile and childish attention to trifles which contributes nothing to the conduct and guidance of life, but in which people of that kind grow old in "ill-timed playmaking," regarded as philosophers by the vulgar, as they were by him from whose lips the words that I have quoted come.

§ 10.23  A passage from a speech of Marcus Cato on the mode of life and manners of women of the olden time; and also that the husband had the right to kill his wife, if she were taken in adultery. Those who have written about the life and civilization of the Roman people say that the women of Rome and Latium "lived an abstemious life"; that is, that they abstained altogether from wine, which in the early language was called temetum; that it was an established custom for them to kiss their kinsfolk for the purpose of detection, so that, if they had been drinking, the odour might betray them. But they say that the women were accustomed to drink the second brewing, raisin wine, spiced wine and other sweet-tasting drinks of that kind. And these things are indeed made known in those books which I have mentioned. but Marcus Cato declares that women were not only censured but also punished by a judge no less severely if they had drunk wine than if they had disgraced themselves by adultery. I have copied Marcus Cato's words from the oration entitled On the Dowry, in which it is also stated that husbands had the right to kill wives taken in adultery: "When a husband puts away his wife," says he, "he judges the woman as a censor would, and has full powers if she has been guilty of any wrong or shameful act; she is severely punished if she has drunk wine; if she has done wrong with another man, she is condemned to death." Further, as to the right to put her to death it was thus written: "If you should take your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death without a trial; but if you should commit adultery or indecency, she must not presume to lay a finger on you, nor does the law allow it."

§ 10.24  That the most elegant speakers used the expressions die pristini, die crastini, die quarti, and die quinti, not those which are current now. I hear die quarto and die quinto, which the Greeks express by εἰς τετάρτην καὶ εἰς πέμπτην, used nowadays even by learned men, and one who speaks otherwise is looked down upon as crude and illiterate. But in the time of Marcus Tullius, and earlier, they did not, I think, speak in that way; for they used diequinte and diequinti as a compound adverb, with the second syllable of the word shortened. The deified Augustus, too, who was well versed in the Latin tongue and an imitator of his father's elegance in discourse, has often in his letters used that means of designating the days. But it will be sufficient to show the undeviating usage of the men of old, if I quote the regular formula of the praetor, in which, according to the usage of our forefathers, he is accustomed to proclaim the festival known as the Compitalia. His words are as follows: "On the ninth day the Roman people, the Quirites, will celebrate the Compitalia; when they shall have begun, legal business ceases." The praetor says dienoni, not die nono. And not the praetor alone, but almost all antiquity, spoke in that way. Look you, this passage of the well-known poet Pomponius comes to my mind, from the Atellan farce entitled Mevia: For six days now I've done no stroke of work; The fourth day (diequarte) I, poor wretch, shall starve to death. There is also the following passage from Coelius in the second book of his Histories: "If you are willing to give me the cavalry and follow me yourself with the rest of the army, on the fifth day (diequinti) I will have your dinner ready for you in the Capitol at Rome." But Coelius took both the story itself and the word from the fourth book of Marcus Cato's Origines, where we find the following: 'Then the master of the horse thus advised the Carthaginian dictator: 'Send me to Rome with the cavalry; on the fifth day (diequinti) your dinner shall be ready for you in the Capitol.' . The final syllable of that word I find written sometimes with e and sometimes with i; for it was usual with those men of olden times very often to use those letters without distinction, saying praefiscine and praefiscini, proclivi and proclive, and using many other words of that kind with either ending; in the same way too they said die pristini, that is, "the day before," which is commonly expressed by pridie, changing the order of the words in the compound, as if it were pristino die. Also by a similar usage they said die crastini, meaning crastino die or "tomorrow." The priests of the Roman people, too, when they make a proclamation for the third day, say diem perendini. But just as very many people said di pristini, so Marcus Cato in his oration Against Furius said die proximi or "the next day"; and Gnaeus Matius, an exceedingly learned man, in his Mimiambi, instead of our nudius quartus, or "four days ago," has die quarto, in these lines: Of late, four days ago (die quarto), as I recall, The only pitcher in the house he broke. Therefore the distinction will be found to be, that we use die quarto of the past, but die quarte of the future.

§ 10.25  The names of certain weapons, darts and swords, and also of boats and ships, which are found in the books of the early writers. Once upon a time, when I was riding in a carriage, to keep my mind from being dull and unoccupied and a prey to worthless trifles, it chanced to occur to me to try to recall the names of weapons, darts and swords which are found in the early histories, and also the various kinds of boats and their names. Those, then, of the former that came to mind at the time are the following: spear, pike, fire-pike, half-pike, iron bolt, Gallic spear, lance, hunting-darts, javelins, long bolts, barbed-javelins, German spears, thonged-javelin, Gallic bolt, broadswords, poisoned arrows, Illyrian hunting-spears, cimeters, darts, swords, daggers, broadswords, double-edged swords, small-swords, poniards, cleavers. Of the lingula, or "little tongue," since it is less common, I think I ought to say that the ancients applied that term to an oblong small-sword, made in the form of a tongue; it is mentioned by Naevius in his tragedy Hesione. I quote the line: Pray let me seem to please you with my tongue, But with my little tongue (lingula). The rumpia too is a kind of weapon of the Thracian people, and the word occurs in the fourteenth book of the Annals of Quintus Ennius. The names of ships which I recalled at the time are these: merchant-ships, cargo-carriers, skiffs, warships, cavalry-transports, cutters, fast cruisers, or, as the Greeks call them, κέλητες, barques, smacks, sailing-skiffs, light galleys, which the Greeks call ἱστιοκόποι or ἐπακτρίδες, scouting-boats, galliots, tenders, flat-boats, vetutiae moediae, yachts, pinnaces, long-galliots, scullers' boats, caupuli, arks, fair-weather craft, pinks, lighters, spy-boats.

§ 10.26  That Asinius Pollio showed ignorance in criticizing Sallust because he used transgressus (crossing) for transfretatio (crossing the sea) and transgressi (those who had crossed) for qui transfretaverant (those who had crossed the sea). Asinius Pollio, in a letter which he addressed to Plancus, and certain others who were unfriendly to Gaius Sallustius, thought that Sallust deserved censure because in the first book of his Histories he called the crossing of the sea and a passage made in ships transgressus, using transgressi of those who had crossed the sea, for which the usual term is transfretare. I give Sallust's own words: "Accordingly Sertorius, having left a small garrison in Mauretania and taking advantage of a dark night and a favourable tide, tried either by secrecy or speed to avoid a battle while crossing (in transgressu)." Then later he wrote: "When they had crossed (transgressos), a mountain which had been seized in advance by the Lusitanians gave them all shelter." This, they say, is an improper and careless usage, supported by no adequate authority. "For transgressus, says Pollio, "comes from transgredi, 'to step across,' and this word itself refers to walking and stepping with the feet." Therefore Pollio thought that the verb transgredi did not apply to those who fly or creep or sail, but only to those who walk and measure the way with their feet. Hence they say that in no good writer can transgressus be found applied to ships, or as the equivalent of transfretatio. But, since cursus, or "running," is often correctly used of ships, I ask why it is that ships may not be said to make a transgressus, especially since the small extent of the narrow strait which flows between Spain and the Afric land is most elegantly described by the word transgressio, as being a distance of only a few steps. But as to those who ask for authority and assert that ingredi or transgredi is not used of sailing, I should like them to tell me how much difference they think there is between ingredi, or "march," and ambulare, or "walk." Yet Cato in his book On Farming says: "A farm should be chosen in a situation where there is a large town near by and the sea, or a river where ships pass (ambulant)." Moreover Lucretius, by the use of this same expression, bears testimony that such figures are intentional and are regarded as ornaments of diction. For in his fourth book he speaks of a shout as "marching" (gradientem) through the windpipe and jaws, which is much bolder than the Sallustian expression about the ships. The lines of Lucretius are as follows: The voice besides doth often scrape the throat; A shout before marching (gradiens) doth make the windpipe rough. Accordingly, Sallust, in the same book, uses progressus, not only of those who sailed in ships, but also of floating skiffs. I have added his own words about the skiffs: "Some of them, after going (progressae) but a little way, the load being excessive and unstable, when panic had thrown the passengers into disorder, began to sink."

§ 10.27  A story of the Roman and the Carthaginian people, showing that they were rivals of nearly equal strength. It is stated in ancient records that the strength, the spirit and the numbers of the Roman and the Carthaginian people were once equal. And this opinion was not without foundation. With other nations the contest was for the independence of one or the other state, with the Carthaginians it was for the rule of the world. An indication of this is found in the following word and act of each of the two peoples: Quintus Fabius, a Roman general, delivered a letter to the Carthaginians, in which it was written that the Roman people had sent them a spear and a herald's staff, signs respectively of war and peace; they might choose whichever they pleased and regard the one which they should choose as sent them by the Roman people. The Carthaginians replied that they chose neither one; those who had brought them might leave whichever they liked; that whatever should be left them they would consider that they themselves had chosen. Marcus Varro, however, says that neither the spear itself nor the staff was sent, but two tokens, on one of which was engraved the representation of a staff; on the other that of a spear.

§ 10.28  About the limits of the periods of boyhood, manhood and old age, taken from the History of Tubero. Tubero, in the first book of his History, has written that King Servius Tullius, when he divided the Roman people into those five classes of older and younger men for the purpose of making the enrolment, regarded as pueri, or "boys," those who were less than seventeen years old; then, from the seventeenth year, when they were thought to be fit for service, he enrolled them as soldiers, calling them up to the age of forty-six iuniores or "younger men," and beyond that age, seniores, or "elders." I have made a note of this fact, in order that from the rating of Servius Tullius, that most sagacious king, the distinctions between boyhood, manhood, and old age might be known, as they were established by the judgment, and according to the usage, of our forefathers.

§ 10.29  That the particle atque is not only conjunctive, but has many and varied meanings. The particle atque is said by the grammarians to be a copulative conjunction. And as a matter of fact, it very often joins and connects words; but sometimes it has certain other powers, which are not sufficiently observed, except by those engaged in a diligent examination of the early literature. For it has the force of an adverb when we say "I have acted otherwise than (atque) you," for it is equivalent to aliter quam tu;' and if it is doubled, it amplifies and emphasizes a statement, as we note in the Annals of Quintus Ennius, unless my memory of this verse is at fault: And quickly (atque atque) to the walls the Roman manhood came. The opposite of this meaning is expressed by deque, also found in the early writers. Atque is said to have been used besides for another adverb also, namely statim, as is thought to be the case in these lines of Virgil, where that particle is employed obscurely and irregularly: Thus, by Fate's law, all speeds towards the worse, And giving way, falls back; e'en as if one Whose oars can barely force his skiff upstream Should chance to slack his arms and cease to drive; Then straightway (atque) down the flood he's swept away.

§ 11.1  On the origin of the term terra Italia, or "the land of Italy"; of that fine which is called "supreme"; concerning the reason for the name and on the Aternian law; and in what words the "smallest" fine used to be pronounced in ancient days. Timaeus, in the History which he composed in the Greek language about the affairs of the Roman people, and Marcus Varro in his Human Antiquities, wrote that the land of Italy derived its name from a Greek word, oxen in the old Greek tongue being called ἰταλοί; for in Italy there was a great abundance of cattle, and in that land pastures are numerous and grazing is a frequent employment. Furthermore, we may infer that it was for the same reason — namely, since Italy at that time so abounded in cattle — that the fine was established which is called "supreme," consisting of two sheep and thirty oxen each day, obviously proportionate to the abundance of oxen and scarcity of sheep. But when a fine of that sort, consisting of cattle and sheep, was pronounced by a magistrate, oxen and sheep were brought, now of small, again of greater value; and this made the penalty of the fine unequal. Therefore later, by the Aternian law, the value of a sheep was fixed at ten pieces of brass, of the cattle at a hundred apiece. Now the "smallest" fine is that of one sheep. The "supreme" fine is of that number which we have mentioned, beyond which it is not lawful to impose a fine for a period of successive days; and for that reason it is called "supreme," that is, greatest and heaviest. When therefore even now, according to ancient usage, either the "smallest" or the "supreme" fine is pronounced by Roman magistrates, it is regularly observed that oves ("sheep") be given the masculine gender; and Marcus Varro has thus recorded the words of the law by which the smallest fine was pronounced: "Against Marcus Terentius, since, though summoned, he has neither appeared nor been excused, I pronounce a fine of one sheep (unum ovem);" and they declared that the fine did not appear to be legal unless that gender was used. Furthermore, Marcus Varro, in the twenty-first book of his Human Antiquities, also says that the word for fine (multa) is itself not Latin, but Sabine, and he remarks that it endured even to within his own memory in the speech of the Samnites, who are sprung from the Sabines. But the upstart herd of grammarians have asserted that this word, like some others, is used on the principle of opposites. Furthermore, since it is a usage and custom in language for us to say even now, as the greater number of the early men did, multam dixit and multa dicta est, I have thought it not out of place to note that Marcus Cato spoke otherwise. For in the fourth book of his Origins are these words: "Our commander, if anyone has gone to battle out of order, imposes (facit) a fine upon him." But it may seem that Cato changed the word with an eye to propriety, since the fine was imposed in camp and in the army, not pronounced in the comitium or in the presence of the people.

§ 11.2  That the word elegantia in earlier days was not used of a more refined nature, but of excessive fastidiousness in dress and mode of life, and was a term of reproach. It was not customary to call a man elegans, or "elegant," by way of praise, but up to the time of Marcus Cato that word as a rule was a reproach, not a compliment. And this we may observe both in some other writers, and also in the work of Cato entitled Carmen de Moribus. In this book is the following passage: "They thought that avarice included all the vices; whoever was considered extravagant, ambitious, elegant, vicious or good-for-nothing received praise." It is evident from these words that in days of old the "elegant" man was so called, not because of refinement of character, but because he was excessively particular and extravagant in his attire and mode of life. Later, the "elegant" man ceased indeed to be reproached, but he was deemed worthy of no commendation, unless his elegance was very moderate. Thus Marcus Tullius commended Lucius Crassus and Quintus Scaevola, not for mere elegance, but for elegance combined with great frugality. "Crassus," he says, "was the most frugal of elegant men; Scaevola the most elegant of the frugal." Besides this, in the same work of Cato, I recall also these scattered and cursory remarks: "It was the custom," says he, "to dress becomingly in the forum, at home to cover their nakedness. They paid more for horses than for cooks. The poetic art was not esteemed. If anyone devoted himself to it, or frequented banquets, he was called a 'ruffian.' . This sentiment too, of conspicuous truthfulness, is to be found in the same work: "Indeed, human life is very like iron. If you use it, it wears out; if you do not, it is nevertheless consumed by rust. In the same way we see men worn out by toil; if you toil not, sluggishness and torpor are more injurious than toil."

§ 11.3  The nature and degree of the variety of usage in the particle pro; and some examples of the differences. When I have leisure from legal business, and walk or ride for the sake of bodily exercise, I have the habit sometimes of silently meditating upon questions that are trifling indeed and insignificant, even negligible in the eyes of the uneducated, but are nevertheless highly necessary for a thorough understanding of the early writers and a knowledge of the Latin language. For example, lately in the retirement of Praeneste, as I was taking my evening walk alone, I began to consider the nature and degree of variety in the use of certain particles in the Latin language; for instance, in the preposition pro. For I saw that we had one use in "the priests passed a decree in the name of their order," and another in "that a witness who had been called in said by way oftestimony"; that Marcus Cato used it in still another way in the fourth book of his Origins: "The battle was fought and ended before the camp," and also in the fifth book: "That all the islands and cities were in favour of the Illyrian land." Also "before the temple of Castor" is one form of expression, "on the Rostra" another, "before, or on, the tribunal" another, "in presence of the assembly" another, and "the tribune of the commons interposed a veto in view of his authority" still another. Now, I thought that anyone who imagined that all these expressions were wholly alike and equal, or were entirely different, was in error; for I was of the opinion that this variety came from the same origin and source, but yet that its end was not the same. And this surely anyone will easily understand, if he attentively considers the question and has a somewhat extensive use and knowledge of the early language.

§ 11.4  How Quintus Ennius rivalled certain verses of Euripides. In the Hecuba of Euripides there are some verses remarkable and brilliant in their diction, their thought and their terseness. Hecuba is speaking to Ulysses: Thine high repute, how ill soe'er though speak'st, Shall sway them; for the same speech carrieth not Like weight from men contemned and men revered. These verses Quintus Ennius, when he translated that tragedy, rivalled with no little success. The verses of Ennius are the same in number, as follows: Though thou speak'st ill, thou wilt the Achivi sway; The selfsame words and speech have other weight When spoken by the great and by the obscure. Ennius, as I have said, did well; but yet ignobiles and opulenti do not seem to express the full force of ἀδοξούντων and δοκούντων; for not all who are obscure are contemned, nor are the great all revered.

§ 11.5  Some brief notes about the Pyrronian philosophers and the Academics; and of the difference between them. Those whom we call the Pyrronian philosophers are designated by the Greek name σκεπτικοί, or "sceptics,. which means about the same as "inquirers" and "investigators." For they decide nothing and determine nothing, but are always engaged in inquiring and considering what there is in all nature concerning which it is possible to decide and determine. And moreover they believe that they do not see or hear anything clearly, but that they undergo and experience something like seeing and hearing; but they are in doubt as of that nature and character of those very things which cause them those experiences, and they deliberate about them; and they declare that in everything assurance and absolute truth seem so beyond our grasp, owing to the mingling and confusing of the indications of truth and falsehood, that any man who is not rash and precipitate in his judgment ought to use the language which they say was used by Pyrro, the founder of that philosophy: "Does not this matter stand so, rather than so, or is it neither?" For they deny that proofs of anything and its real qualities can be known and understood, and they try in many ways to point this out and demonstrate it. On this subject Favorinus too with great keenness and subtlety has composed ten books, which he entitled Πυρρωνεῖοι Τρόποι, or The Pyrronian Principles. It is besides a question of long standing, which has been discussed by many Greek writers, whether the Pyrronian and Academic philosophers differ at all, and to what extent. For both are called "sceptics, inquirers and doubters," since both affirm nothing and believe that nothing is understood. But they say that appearances, which they call φαντασίαι, are produced from all objects, not according to the nature of the objects themselves, but according to the condition of mind or body of those to whom these appearances come. Therefore they call absolutely all things that affect men's sense τὰ πρός τι. This expression means that there is nothing at all that is self-dependent or which has its own power and nature, but that absolutely all things have "reference to something else" and seem to be such as their is appearance is while they are seen, and such as they are formed by our senses, to whom they come, not by the things themselves, from which they have proceeded. But although the Pyrronians and the Academics express themselves very much alike about these matters, yet they are thought to differ from each other both in certain other respects and especially for this reason — because the Academics do, as it were, "comprehend" the very fact that nothing can be comprehended, while the Pyrronians assert that not even that can by any means be regarded as true, because nothing is regarded as true.

§ 11.6  That at Rome women did not swear by Hercules nor men by Castor. In our early writings neither do Roman women swear by Hercules nor the men by Castor. But why the women did not swear by Hercules is evident, since they abstain from sacrificing to Hercules. On the other hand, why the men did not name Castor in oaths is not easy to say. Nowhere, then, is it possible to find an instance, among good writers, either of a woman saying "by Hercules" or a man, "by Castor". but edepol, which is an oath by Pollux, is common to both man and woman. Marcus Varro, however, asserts that the earliest men were wont to swear neither by Castor nor by Pollux, but that this oath was used by women alone and was taken from the Eleusinian initiations. that gradually, however, through ignorance of ancient usage, men began to say edepol, and thus it became a customary expression; but that the use of "by Castor" by a man appears in no ancient writing.

§ 11.7  That very old words which have become antiquated and obsolete ought not to be used. To use words that are too antiquated and worn out, or those which are unusual and of a harsh and unpleasant novelty, seems to be equally faulty. But for my own part I think it more offensive and censurable to use words that are new, unknown and unheard of, than words that are trite and mean. Furthermore, I maintain that those words also seem new which are out of use and obsolete, even though they are of ancient date. In fact, it is a common fault of lately acquired learning, or ὀψιμαθία as the Greeks call it, to make a great point anywhere and everywhere, and in connection with any subject whatever, to talk about what you have never learned and of which you were long ignorant, when at last you have begun to know something about it. For instance, at Rome in my presence a man of experience and celebrated as a pleader, who had acquired a sudden and, so to speak, haphazard kind of education, was speaking before the prefect of the city and wished to say that a certain man lived upon poor and wretched food, ate bread made from bran, and drank flat and spoiled wine: "This Roman knight," said he, "eats apluda and drinks flocces." All who were present looked at one another, at first somewhat seriously, with a disturbed and inquiring aspect, wondering what in the world the two words meant; then presently they all burst into a laugh, as if he had said something in Etruscan or Gallic. Now that man had read that farmers of ancient days called the chaff of grain apluda, and that the word was used by Plautus in the comedy entitled Astraba, if that play be the work of Plautus. He had also heard that flocces in the early language meant the lees of wine pressed from the skins of grapes, corresponding to the dregs of oil from olives. This he had read in the Polumeni of Caecilius, and he had saved up those two words as ornaments for his speeches. Another Einfaltspinsel also, after some little reading of that kind, when his opponent requested that a case be postponed, said: "I pray you, praetor, help me, aid me! How long, pray, shall this bovinator delay me?" And he bawled it out three or four times in a loud voice: "He is a bovinator." A murmur began to arise from many of those who were present, as if in wonder at this monster of a word. But he, waving his arms and gesticulating, cried: "What, haven't you read Lucilius, who calls a shuffler bovinator?" And, in fact, this verse occurs in Lucilius' eleventh book: If trifling shuffler (bovinator) with abusive tongue.

§ 11.8  What Marcus Cato thought and said of Albinus, who, though a Roman, wrote a history of Rome in the Greek language, having first asked indulgence for his lack of skill in that tongue. Marcus Cato is said to have rebuked Aulus Albinus with great justice and neatness. Albinus, who had been consul with Lucius Lucullus, composed a Roman History in the Greek language. In the introduction to his work he wrote to this effect: that no one ought to blame him if he had written anything then in those books that was incorrect or inelegant; "for," he continues, "I am a Roman, born in Latium, and the Greek language is quite foreign to me"; and accordingly he asked indulgence and freedom from adverse criticism in case he had made any errors. When Marcus Cato had read this, "Surely, Aulus," said he, "you are a great trifler in preferring to apologize for a fault rather than avoid it. For we usually ask pardon either when we have erred through inadvertence or done wrong under compulsion. But tell me, I pray you," said he, "who compelled you to do that for which you ask pardon before doing it." This is told in the thirteenth book of Cornelius Nepos' work On Famous Men.

§ 11.9  The story of the Milesian envoys and the orator Demosthenes, found in the works of Critolaus. Critolaus has written that envoys came from Miletus to Athens on public business, perhaps for the purpose of asking aid. Then they engaged such advocates as they chose, to speak for them, and the advocates, according to their instructions, addressed the people in behalf of the Milesians. Demosthenes vigorously opposed the demands of the Milesians, maintaining that the Milesians did not deserve aid, nor was it to the interest of the State to grant it. The matter was postponed to the next day. The envoys came to Demosthenes and begged him earnestly not to speak against them; he asked for money, and received the amount which he demanded. On the following day, when the case was taken up again, Demosthenes, with his neck and shoulders wrapped in thick wool, came forward before the people and said that he was suffering from quinsy and hence could not speak against the Milesians. Then one of the populace cried out that it was, not quinsy, but "silverinsy" from which Demosthenes was suffering. Demosthenes himself too, as Critolaus also relates, did not afterwards conceal that matter, but actually made a boast of it. For when he had asked Aristodemus, the player, what sum he had received for acting, and Aristodemus had replied, "a talent," Demosthenes rejoined: "Why, I got more than that for holding my tongue."

§ 11.10  That Gaius Gracchus in a speech of his applied the story related above to the orator Demades, and not to Demosthenes; and a quotation of Gracchus' words. The story which in the preceding chapter we said was told by Critolaus about Demosthenes, Gaius Gracchus, in the speech Against the Aufeian Law, applied to Demades in the following words. "For you, fellow citizens, if you wish to be wise and honest, and if you inquire into the matter, will find that none of us comes forward here without pay. All of us who address you are after something, and no one appears before you for any purpose except to carry something away. I myself, who am now recommending you to increase your taxes, in order that you may the more easily serve your own advantage and administer the government, do not come here for nothing; but I ask of you, not money, but honour and your good opinion. Those who come forward to persuade you not to accept this law, do not seek honour from you, but money from Nicomedes; those also who advise you to accept it are not seeking a good opinion from you, but from Mithridates a reward and an increase of their possessions; those, however, of the same rank and order who are silent are your very bitterest enemies, since they take money from all and are false to all. You, thinking that they are innocent of such conduct, give them your esteem. but the embassies from the kings, thinking it is for their sake that they are silent, give them great gifts and rewards. So in the land of Greece, when a Greek tragic actor boasted that he had received a whole talent for one play, Demades, the most eloquent man of his country, is said to have replied to him: 'Does it seem wonderful to you that you have gained a talent by speaking? I was paid ten talents by the king for holding my tongue.' Just so, these men now receive a very high price for holding their tongues."

§ 11.11  The words of Publius Nigidius, in which he says that there is a difference between "lying" and "telling a falsehood." These are the very words of Publius Nigidius, a man of great eminence in the pursuit of the liberal arts, whom Marcus Cicero highly respected because of his talent and learning: "There is a difference between telling a falsehood and lying. One who lies is not himself deceived, but tries to deceive another; he who tells a falsehood is himself deceived." He also adds this: "One who lies deceives, so far as he is able; but one who tells a falsehood does not himself deceive, any more than he can help." He also had this on the same subject: "A good man," says he, "ought to take pains not to lie, a wise man, not to tell what is false; the former affects the man himself, the latter does not." With variety, by Heaven! and neatness has Nigidius distinguished so many opinions relating to the same thing, as if he were constantly saying something new.

§ 11.12  That the philosopher Chrysippus says that every word is ambiguous and of doubtful meaning, while Diodorus, on the contrary, thinks that no word is ambiguous. Chrysippus asserts that every word is by nature ambiguous, since two or more things may be understood from the same word. But Diodorus, surnamed Cronus, says: "No word is ambiguous, and no one speaks or receives a word in two senses; and it ought not to seem to be said in any other sense than that which the speaker feels that he is giving it. But when I," said he, "meant one thing and you have understood another, it may seem that I have spoken obscurely rather than ambiguously; for the nature of an ambiguous word should be such that he who speaks it expresses two or more meanings. But no man expresses two meanings who has felt that he is expressing but one."

§ 11.13  What Titus Castricius thought about the wording of a sentence of Gaius Gracchus; and that he showed that it contributed nothing to the effectiveness of the sentence. The speech of Gaius Gracchus Against Publius Popilius was read before Titus Castricius, a teacher of the art of rhetoric and a man of sound and solid judgment. At the beginning of that speech the sentences were constructed with more care and regard for rhythm than was customary with the early orators. The words, arranged as I have said, are as follows: "If you now reject rashly the things which all these years you have earnestly sought and longed for, it must be said either that you formerly sought them earnestly, or now have rejected them without consideration." Well then, the flow and rhythm of this well-rounded and smooth-flowing sentence pleased us to a remarkable and unparalleled degree, and still more the evidence that composition of that kind appealed even in those early days to Gaius Gracchus, a man of distinction and dignity. But when those very same words were read again and again at our request, we were admonished by Castricius to consider what the force and value of the thought was, and not to allow our ears to be charmed by the rhythm of a well-turned sentence and through mere pleasure to confuse our judgment as well. And when by this admonition he had made us more alert, "Look deeply," said he, "into the meaning of these words, and tell me pray, some of you, whether there is any weight or elegance in this sentence: 'If you now reject rashly the things which all these years you have earnestly sought and longed for, it must be said either that you formerly sought them earnestly, or now have rejected them without consideration." For to whom of all men does it not occur, that it is certainly natural that you should be said earnestly to have sought what you earnestly sought, and to have rejected without consideration what you rejected without consideration. But I think," said he, "if it had been written thus: 'If you now reject what you have sought and longed for these many years, it must be said that you formerly sought it earnestly or that you now reject it without consideration'. if," said he, "it were spoken thus, the sentence would be weightier and more solid and would arouse some reasonable expectation in the hearer. but as it is, these words 'earnestly' and 'without consideration,' on which the whole effect of the sentence rests, are not only spoken at the end of the sentence, but are also put earlier where they are not needed, so that what ought to arise and spring from the very conception of the subject is spoken wholly before the subject demands it. For one who says: 'If you do this, you will be said to have done it earnestly,' says something that is composed and arranged with some regard to sense; but one who says: 'If you do it earnestly, you will be said to have done it earnestly,' speaks in much the same way as if he should say: 'If you do it earnestly, you will do it earnestly." I have warned you of this," said he, "not with the idea of censuring Gaius Gracchus — may the gods give me a wiser mind! for if any fault or error can be mentioned in a man of such powerful eloquence, it is wholly excused by his authority and overlooked in view of his antiquity — but in order that you might be on your guard lest the rhythmic sound of any flowing eloquence should easily dazzle you, and that you might first balance the actual weight of the substance against the high quality of the diction; so that if any sentence was uttered that was weighty, honest and sound, then, if you thought best, you might praise also the mere flower of the language and the delivery; that if, on the contrary, thoughts that were cold, trifling and futile should be conveyed in words neatly and rhythmically arranged, they might have the same effect upon you as when men conspicuous for their deformity and their ludicrous appearance imitate actors and play the buffoon."

§ 11.14  The discreet and admirable reply of King Romulus as to his use of wine. Lucius Piso Frugi has shown an elegant simplicity of diction and thought in the first book of his Annals, when writing of the life and habits of King Romulus. His words are as follows: "They say also of Romulus, that being invited to dinner, he drank but little there, giving the reason that he had business for the following day. They answer: 'If all men were like you, Romulus, wine would be cheaper.' 'Nay, dear,' answered Romulus, 'if each man drank as much as he wished; for I drank as much as I wished.'"

§ 11.15  On ludibundus and errabundus and the suffix in words of that kind; that Laberius used amorabunda in the same way as ludibunda and errabunda; also that Sisenna in the case of a word of that sort made a new form. Laberius in his Lake Avernus spoke of a woman in love as amorabunda, coining a word in a somewhat unusual manner. Caesellius Vindex in his Commentary on Archaic Words said that this word was used on the same principle that ludibunda, ridibunda and errabunda are used for ludens, ridens and errans. But Terentius Scaurus, a highly distinguished grammarian of the time of the deified Hadrian, among other things which he wrote On the Mistakes of Caesellius, declared that about this word also he was wrong in thinking that ludens and ludibunda, ridens and ridibunda, errans and errabunda were identical. "For ludibunda, ridibunda, and errabunda," he says, "are applied of the one who plays the part of, or imitates, one who plays, laughs or wanders." But why Scaurus was led to censure Caesellius on the spot, I certainly could not understand. For there is no doubt that these words, each after its own kind, have the same meaning that is indicated by the words from which they are derived. But I should prefer to seem not to understand the meaning of "act the laugher" or "imitate the laugher" rather than charge Scaurus himself with lack of knowledge. But Scaurus ought rather, in censuring the commentaries of Caesellius, to have taken him to task for what he left unsaid; namely, whether ludibundus, ridibundus and errabundus differ at all from ludens, ridens and errans, and to what extent, and so with other words of the same kind; whether they differ only in some slight degree from their primitives, and what is the general force of the suffix which is added to words of that kind. For in examining a phenomenon of that nature that were a more pertinent inquiry, just as in vinulentus, lutulentus and turbulentus it is usual to ask whether that suffix is superfluous and without meaning, παραγωγή, as the Greeks say, or whether the suffix has some special force of its own. However, in noting this criticism of Scaurus it occurred to me that Sisenna, in the fourth book of his Histories, used a word of the same form. He says: "He came to the town, laying waste the fields (populabundus)," which of course means "while he was laying waste the fields," not, as Sisenna says of similar words, "when he played the part of, or imitated, one laying waste." But when I was inquiring about the signification and origin of such forms as populabundus, errabundus, laetabundus, ludibundus, and many other words of that kind, our friend Apollinaris — very appositely by Heaven! remarked that it seemed to him that the final syllable of such words indicated force and abundance, and as it were, an excess of the quality belonging to the primitive word. Thus laetabundus is used of one who is excessively joyful, and errabundus of one who has wandered long and far, and he showed that all other words of that form are so used that this addition and ending indicates a great and overflowing force and abundance.

§ 11.16  That the translation of certain Greek words into the Latin language is very difficult, for example, that which in Greek is called πολυπραγμοσύνη. We have frequently observed not a few names of things which we cannot express in Latin by single words, as in Greek; and even if we use very many words, those ideas cannot be expressed in Latin so aptly and so clearly as the Greeks express them by single terms. Lately, when a book of Plutarch had been brought to me, and I had read its title, which was Περὶ Πολυπραγμοσύνης, a man who was unacquainted with Greek letters and words asked who the author was and what the book was about. The name of the writer I gave him at once, but I hesitated when on the point of naming the subject of the work. At first indeed, since it did not seem to me that it would be a very apt interpretation if I said that it was written De Negotiositate or "On Busyness," I began to rack my brains for something else which would render the title word for word, as the saying is. But there was absolutely nothing that I remembered to have read, or even that I could invent, that was not to a degree harsh and absurd, if I fashioned a single word out of multitudo, or "multitude," and negotium, or "business," in the same way that we say multiiugus ("manifold"), multicolorus ("multicoloured") and multiformius ("multiform"). But it would be no less uncouth an expression than if you should try to translate by one word πολυφιλία (abundance of friends), πολυτροπία (versatility), or πολυσαρκία (fleshiness). Therefore, after spending a brief time in silent thought, I finally answered that in my opinion the idea could not be expressed by a single word, and accordingly I was preparing to indicate the meaning of that Greek word by a phrase. "Well then," said I, "undertaking many things and busying oneself with them all is called in Greek πολυπραγμοσύνη, and the title shows that this is the subject of our book." Then that illiterate fellow, misled by my unfinished, rough-and-ready language and believing that πολυπραγμοσύνη was a virtue, said: "Doubtless this Plutarch, whoever he is, urges us to engage in business and to undertake very many enterprises with energy and dispatch, and properly enough he has written as the title of the book itself the name of this virtue about which, as you say, he is intending to speak." "Not at all," said I; "for that is by no means a virtue which, expressed by a Greek term, serves to indicate the subject of this book; and neither does Plutarch do what you suppose, nor do I intend to say that he did. For, as a matter of fact, it is in this book that he tries to dissuade us, so far as he can, from the haphazard, promiscuous and unnecessary planning and pursuit of such a multitude of things. But," said I, "I realize that this mistake of yours is due to my imperfect command of language, since even in so many words I could not express otherwise than very obscurely what in Greek is expressed with perfect elegance and clearness by a single term."

§ 11.17  The meaning of the expression, found in the old praetorian edicts: "those who have undertaken public contracts for clearing the rivers of nets." As I chanced to be sitting in the library of Trajan's temple, looking for something else, the edicts of the early praetors fell into my hands, and I thought it worth while to read and become acquainted with them. Then I found this, written in one of the earlier edicts: "If anyone of those who have taken public contracts for clearing the rivers of nets shall be brought before me, and shall be accused of not having done that which by the terms of his contract he was bound to do." Thereupon the question arose what "clearing of nets" meant. Then a friend of mine who was sitting with us said that he had read in the seventh book of Gavius On the Origin of Words that those trees which either projected from the banks of rivers, or were found in their beds, were called retae, and that they got their name from nets, because they impeded the course of ships and, so to speak, netted them. Therefore he thought that the custom was to farm out the rivers to be "cleaned of nets," that is to say, cleaned out, in order that vessels meeting such branches might suffer neither delay nor danger.

§ 11.18  The punishment which Draco the Athenian, in the laws which he made for his fellow-citizens, inflicted upon thieves; that of Solon later; and that of our own decemvirs, who compiled the Twelve Tables; to which it is added, that among the Egyptians thefts were permitted and lawful, while among the Lacedemonians they were even strongly encouraged and commended as a useful exercise; also a memorable utterance of Marcus Cato about the punishment of theft. Draco the attention was considered a good man and of great wisdom, and he was skilled in law, human and divine. This Draco was the first of all to make laws for the use of the Athenians. In those laws he decreed and enacted that one guilty of any theft whatsoever should be punished with death, and added many other statutes that were excessively severe. Therefore his laws, since they seemed very much too harsh, were abolished, not by order and decree, but by the tacit, unwritten consent of the Athenians. After that, they made use of other, milder laws, compiled by Solon. This Solon was one of the famous wise men. He thought proper by his law to punish thieves, not with death, as Draco had formerly done, but by a fine of twice the value of the stolen goods. But our decemvirs, who after the expulsion of the kings compiled laws on Twelve Tables for the use of the Romans, did not show equal severity in punishing thieves of every kind, nor yet too lax leniency. For they permitted a thief who was caught in the act to be put to death, only if it was night when he committed the theft, or if in the daytime he defended himself with a weapon when taken. But other thieves taken in the act, if they were freemen, the decemvirs ordered to be scourged and handed over to the one from whom the theft had been made, provided they had committed the theft in daylight and had not defended themselves with a weapon. Slaves taken in the act were to be scourged and hurled from the rock, but they decided that boys under age should be flogged at the discretion of the praetor and the damage which they had done made good. Those thefts also which were detected by the girdle and mask, they punished as if the culprit had been caught in the act. But today we have departed from that law of the decemvirs; for if anyone wishes to try a case of manifest theft by process of law, action is brought for four times the value. But "manifest theft," says Masurius, "is one which is detected while it is being committed. The act is completed when the stolen object is carried to its destination." When stolen goods are found in possession of the thief (concepti) or in that of another (oblati), the penalty is threefold. But one who wishes to learn what oblatum means, and conceptum, and many other particulars of the same kind taken from the admirable customs of our forefathers, and both useful and agreeable to know, will consult the book of Sabinus entitled On Thefts. In this book there is also written a thing that is not commonly known, that thefts are committed, not only of men and movable objects which can be purloined and carried off secretly, but also of an estate and of houses; also that a farmer was found guilty of theft, because he had sold the farm which he had rented and deprived the owner of its possession. And Sabinus tells this also, which is still more surprising, that one person was convicted of having stolen a man, who, when a runaway slave chanced to pass within sight of his master, held out his gown as if he were putting it on, and so prevented the slave from being seen by his master. Then upon all other thefts, which were called "not manifest," they imposed a two-fold penalty. I recall also that I read in the work of the jurist Aristo, a man of no slight learning, that among the ancient Egyptians, a race of men known to have been ingenious in inventions and keen in getting at the bottom of things, thefts of all kinds were lawful and went unpunished. Among the Lacedemonians too, those serious and vigorous men (a matter for which the evidence is not so remote as in the case of the Egyptians) many famous writers, who have composed records of their laws and customs, affirm that thieving was lawful and customary, and that it was practised by their young men, not for base gain or to furnish the means for indulgence of amassing wealth, but as an exercise and training in the art of war; for dexterity and practice in thieving made the minds of the youth keen and strong for clever ambuscades, and for endurance in watching, and for the swiftness of surprise. Marcus Cato, however, in the speech which he wrote On Dividing Spoils among the Soldiers, complains in strong and choice language about unpunished thievery and lawlessness. I have quoted his words, since they pleased me greatly: "Those who commit private theft pass their lives in confinement and fetters; plunderers of the public, in purple and gold." But I think I ought not to pass over the highly ethical and strict definition of theft made by the wisest men, lest anyone should consider him only a thief who privately purloins anything or secretly carries it off. The words are those of Sabinus in his second book On Civil Law: "He is guilty of theft who has touched anything belonging to another, when he has reason to know that he does so against the owner's will." Also in another chapter: 'He who silently carries off another's property for the sake of gain is guilty of theft, whether he knows to whether the object belongs or not." Thus has Sabinus written, in the book which I just now mentioned, about handling things for the purpose of stealing them. But we ought to remember, according to what I have written above, that a theft may be committed even without touching anything, when the mind alone and the thoughts desire that a theft be committed. Therefore Sabinus says that he has no doubt that a master should be convicted of theft who has ordered a slave of his to steal something.

§ 12.1  A discourse of the philosopher Favorinus, in which he urged a lady of rank to feed with her own milk, and with that of other nurses, the children whom she had borne. Word was once brought in my presence to the philosopher Favorinus that the wife of an auditor and disciple of his had been brought to bed a short time before, and that his pupil's family had been increased by the birth of a son. "Let us go," said he, "both to see the child and to congratulate the father." The father was of senatorial rank and of a family of high nobility. We who were present at the time went with Favorinus, attended him to the house to which he was bound, and entered it with him. Then the philosopher, having embraced and congratulated the father immediately upon entering, sat down. And when he had asked how long the labour had been and how difficult, and had learned that the young woman, overcome with fatigue and wakefulness, was sleeping, he began to talk at greater length and said: "I have no doubt she will suckle her son herself!. But when the young woman's mother said to him that she must spare her daughter and provide nurses for the child, in order that to the pains which she had suffered in childbirth they might not be added the wearisome and difficult task of nursing, he said: "I beg you, madam, let her be wholly and entirely the mother of her own child. For what kind of unnatural, imperfect and half-motherhood is it to bear a child and at once send it away from her? to have nourished in her womb with her own blood something which she could not see, and not to feed with her own milk what she sees, now alive, now human, now calling for a mother's care. Or do you too perhaps think," said he, "that nature gave women nipples as a kind of beauty-spot, not for the purpose of nourishing their children, but as an adornment of their breast. For it is for that reason (though such a thing is of course far from your thoughts) that many of those unnatural women try to dry up and check that sacred fount of the body, the nourisher of mankind, regardless of the danger of diverting and spoiling the milk, because they think it disfigures the charms of their beauty. In so doing they show the same madness as those who strive by evil devices to cause abortion of the fetus itself which they have conceived, in order that their beauty may not be spoiled by the labour of parturition. But since it is an act worthy of public detestation and general abhorrence to destroy a human being in its inception, while it is being fashioned and given life and is still in the hands of Dame Nature, how far does it differ from this to deprive a child, already perfect, of the nourishment of its own familiar and kindred blood. "'But it makes no difference,' for so they say, 'provided it be nourished and live, by whose milk that is effected." Why then does not he who affirms this, if he is so dull in comprehending natural feeling, think that it also makes no difference in whose body and from whose blood a human being is formed and fashioned. Is the blood which is now in the breasts not the same that it was in the womb, merely because it has become white from abundant air and width. Is not wisdom of nature evident also in this, that as soon as the blood, the artificer, has fashioned the whole human body within its secret precautions, when the time for birth comes, it rises into the upper parts, is ready to cherish the first beginnings of life and of light, and supplies the newborn children with the familiar and accustomed food. Therefore it is believed not without reason that, just as the power and nature of the seed are able to form likenesses of body and mind, so the qualities and properties of the milk have the same effect. And this is observed not only in human beings, but in beasts also; for if kids are fed on the milk of ewes, and lambs on that of goats, it is a fact that as a rule the wool is harsher in the former and the hair softer in the latter. In trees too and grain the power and strength of the water and earth which nourish them have more effect in retarding or promoting their growth than have those of the seed itself which is sown; and you often see a strong and flourishing tree, with transplanted to another spot, die from the effect of an inferior soil. What the mischief, then, is the reason for corrupting the nobility of body and mind of a newly born human being, formed from gifted seeds, by the alien and degenerate nourishment of another's milk? Especially if she whom you employ to furnish the milk is either a slave or of servile origin and, as usually happens, of a foreign and barbarous nation, if she is dishonest, ugly, unchaste and a wine-bibber; for as a rule anyone who has milk at the time is employed and no distinction made. "Shall we then allow this child of ours to be infected with some dangerous contagion and to draw a spirit into its mind and body from a body and mind of the worst character. This, by Heaven! is the very reason for what often excites our surprise, that some children of chaste women turn out to be like their parents neither in body nor in mind. Wisely then and skilfully did our Maro make use of these lines of Homer: The horseman Peleus never was thy sire, Nor Thetis gave thee birth; but the gray sea Begat thee, and the hard and flinty rocks; So savage is thy mind. For he bases his charge, not upon birth alone, as did his model, but on fierce and savage nurture, for his next verse reads: And fierce Hyrcanian tigers gave thee suck. And there is no doubt that in forming character the disposition of the nurse and the quality of the milk play a great part; for the milk, although imbued from the beginning with the material of the father's seed, forms the infant offspring from the body and mind of the mother as well. "And in addition to all this, who can neglect or despise this consideration also, that those who desert their offspring, drive them from them, and give them to others to nurse, do sever, or at any rate loosen and relax, that bond and cementing of the mind and of affection with which nature attaches parents to their children. For when the child is given to another and removed from its mother's sight, the strength of maternal ardour is gradually and little by little extinguished, every call of impatient anxiety is silenced, and a child which has been given over to another to nurse is almost as completely forgotten as if it had been lost by death. Moreover, the child's own feelings of affection, fondness, and intimacy are centred wholly in the one by whom it is nursed, and therefore, just as happens in the case of those who are exposed at birth, it has no feeling for the mother who bore it and no regret for her loss. Therefore, when the foundations of natural affection have been destroyed and removed, however much children thus reared may seem to love their father and mother, that affection is in a great measure not natural but merely courteous and conventional." I heard Favorinus make this address in the Greek language. I have reproduced his sentiments, so far as I was able, for the sake of their general utility, but the elegance, copiousness and richness of his words hardly any power of Latin eloquence could equal, least of all my humble attainments.

§ 12.2  That the judgment passed by Annaeus Seneca on Quintus Ennius and Marcus Cicero was trifling and futile. Some think of Annaeus Seneca as a writer of little value, whose works are not worth taking up, since his style seems commonplace and ordinary, while the matter and the thought are characterized, now by a foolish and empty vehemence, now by an empty and affected cleverness; and because his learning is common and plebeian, gaining neither charm nor distinction from familiarity with the earlier writers. Others, on the contrary, while not denying that his diction lacks elegance, declare that he is not without learning and a knowledge of the subjects which he treats, and that he censures the vices of the times with a seriousness and dignity which are not wanting in charm. I myself do not feel called upon to criticize and pass judgment upon his talents in general, or upon his writings as a whole; but I shall select for consideration the nature of the opinions which he has expressed about Marcus Cicero, Quintus Ennius and Publius Vergilius. For in the twenty-second book of his Moral Epistles, which he addressed to Lucilius, he says that the following verses which Quintus Ennius wrote about Cethegus, a man of the olden time, are absurd: He by his fellow citizens was called, By every man who lived and flourished then, The people's chosen flower, Persuasion's marrow. He then wrote the following about these lines: "I am surprised that men of great eloquence, devoted to Ennius, have praised those absurd verses as his best. Cicero, at any rate, includes them among examples of his good verses." He then goes on to say of Cicero: "I am not surprised that there existed a man who could write such verses, when there existed a man who could praise them; unless haply Cicero, that great orator, was pleading his own cause and wished his own verse to appear excellent." Later he adds this very stupid remark: "In Cicero himself too you will find, even in his prose writings, some things which will show that he did not lose his labour when he read Ennius." Then he cites passages from Cicero which he criticizes as taken from Ennius; for example, when Cicero wrote as follows in his Republic: "As Menelaus, the Laconian, had a kind of sweet-speaking charm," and said in another place: "he cultivates brevity of speech in his oratory." And then that trifler apologizes for what he considers Cicero's errors, saying: "This was not the fault of Cicero, but of the times; it was necessary to say such things when such verses were read." Then he adds that Cicero inserted these very things in order to escape the charge of being too diffuse and ornamental in his style. In the same place Seneca writes the following about Virgil also: "Our Virgil too admitted some verses which are harsh, irregular and somewhat beyond the proper length, with no other motive than that those who were devoted to Ennius might find a flavour of antiquity in the new poem." But I am already weary of quoting Seneca; yet I shall not pass by these jokes of that foolish and tasteless man: "There are some thoughts in Quintus Ennius," says he, "that are of such lofty tone that though written among the unwashed, they nevertheless can give pleasure among the anointed"; and, after censuring the verses about Cethegus which I have quoted above, he said: "It would be clear to you that those who love verses of this kind admire even the couches of Sotericus." Worthy indeed would Seneca appear of the reading and study of the young, a man who has compared the dignity and beauty of early Latin with the couches of Sotericus, implying forsooth that they possessed no charm and were already obsolete and despised. Yet listen to the relation and mention of a few things which that same Seneca has well said, for example what he said of a man who was avaricious, covetous and thirsting for money: "Why, what difference does it make how much you have? There is much more which you do not have." Is not that well put? Excellently well; but the character of the young is not so much benefited by what is well said, as it is injured by what is very badly put; all the more so, if the bad predominates, and if a part of the bad is uttered, not as an argument about some slight and trivial affair, but as advice in a matter requiring decision.

§ 12.3  The meaning and origin of the word lictor and the varying opinions of Valgius Rufus and Tullius Tiro on that subject. Valgius Rufus, in the second of the books which he entitled On Matters Investigated by Letter, says that the lictor was so called from ligando or "binding," because when the magistrates of the Roman people had given orders that anyone should be beaten with rods, his legs and arms were always fastened and bound by an attendant, and therefore that the member of the college of attendants who had the duty of binding him was called a lictor. And he quotes as evidence on this subject Marcus Tullius, citing these words from the speech entitled In Defence of Gaius Rabirius: "Lictor, bind his hands." This is what Valgius says. Now, I for my part agree with him; but Tullius Tiro, the freedman of Marcus Cicero, wrote that the lictor got his name from limus or licium. "For," says he, "those men who were in attendance upon the magistrates were girt across with a kind of girdle called limus." But if there is anyone who thinks that what Tiro said is more probable, because the first syllable in lictor is long like that of licium, but in the word ligo is short, that has nothing to do with the case. For in lictor from ligando, lector from legendo, vitor from viendo, tutor from tuendo, and structor from struendo, the vowels, which were originally short, are lengthened.

§ 12.4  Lines taken from the seventh book of the Annals of Ennius, in which the courteous bearing of an inferior towards a friend of higher rank is described and defined. Quintus Ennius in the seventh book of his Annals describes and defines very vividly and skilfully in his sketch of Geminus Servilius, a man of rank, the tact, courtesy, modesty, fidelity, restraint and propriety in speech, knowledge of ancient history and of customs old and new, scrupulousness in keeping and guarding a secret; in short, the various remedies and methods of relief and solace for guarding against the annoyances of life, which the friend of a man who is his superior in rank and fortune ought to have. Those verses in my opinion are no less worthy of frequent, attentive perusal than the rules of the philosophers about duties. Besides this, there is such a venerable flavour of antiquity in these verses, such a sweetness, so unmixed and so removed from all affectation, that in my opinion they ought to be observed, remembered and cherished as old and sacred laws of friendship. Therefore I thought them worthy of quotation, in case there should be anyone who desired to see them at once: So saying, on a friend he called, with whom He oft times gladly shared both board and speech And courteously informed of his affairs, On coming wearied from the sacred House Or Forum broad, where he all day had toiled, Directing great affairs with wisdom; one with whom He freely spoke of matters great and small, Confiding to him thoughts approved or not, If he so wished, and found him trustworthy; With whom he took much pleasure openly Or privily; a man to whom no thought Suggested heedlessness or ill intent, A cultured, loyal and a winsome man, Contented, happy, learned, eloquent, Speaking but little and that fittingly, Obliging, knowing well all ancient lore, All customs old and new, the laws of man And the gods, who with due prudence told What he had heard, or kept it to himself: Him 'mid the strife Servilius thus accosts. They say that Lucius Aelius Stilo used to declare that Quintus Ennius wrote these words about none other than himself, and that this was a description of Quintus Ennius' own character and disposition.

§ 12.5  A discourse of the philosopher Taurus on the manner and method of enduring pain, according to the principles of the Stoics. When the philosopher Taurus was on his way to Delphi, to see the Pythian games and the throng that gathered there from almost all Greece, I was his companion. And when, in the course of the journey, we had come to Lebadia, which is an ancient town in the land of Boeotia, word was brought to Taurus there that a friend of his, an eminent philosopher of the Stoic sect, had been seized with illness and had taken to his bed. Then interrupting our journey, which otherwise would have called for haste, and leaving the carriages, he hastened to visit his friend, and I followed, as I usually did wherever he went. When we came to the house in which the sick man was, which were saw that he was suffering anguish from pains in the stomach, such as the Greeks call κόλος, or "colic," and at the same time from a high fever. The stifled groans that burst from him, and the heavy sighs that escaped his panting breast, revealed his suffering, and no less his struggle to overcome it. Later, when Taurus had sent for physicians and discussed with them the means of cure, and had encouraged the patient to keep up his endurance by commending the fortitude which he was showing, we left the house. And as we were returning to the carriages, and our companions, Taurus said: "You were witness of no very pleasant sight, it is true, but one which was, nevertheless, a profitable experience, in beholding the encounter and contest of a philosopher with pain. The violent character of the disorder, for its part, produced anguish and torture of body; reason and the spiritual nature, on the other hand, similarly played their part, supporting and restraining within reasonable bounds the violence of well-nigh ungovernable pain. He uttered no shrieks, no complaints, not even any unseemly outcries; yet, as you saw, there were obvious signs of a battle between soul and body for the man's possession." Then one of the disciples of Taurus, a young man not untrained in philosophy, said: "If the bitterness of pain is such that it struggles against the will and judgment, forcing a man to groan involuntarily and confess the evil of his violent disorder, why is it said among the Stoics that pain is a thing indifferent and not an evil? Furthermore, why can a Stoic be compelled to do anything, or how can pain compel him, when the Stoics say that pain exerts no compulsion, and that a wise man cannot be forced to anything?. To this Taurus, with a face that was now somewhat more cheerful, for he seemed pleased at being lured into a discussion, replied as follows: "If this friend of ours were now in better health, he would have defended such unavoidable groans against reproach and, I dare say, would have answered your question; but you know that I am no great friend of the Stoics, or rather, of the Stoa; for it is often inconsistent with itself and with us, as is shown in the book which I have written on that subject. But to oblige you, I will say 'unlearnedly and clearly,' as the adage has it, what I imagine that any Stoic now present would have said more intricately and cleverly. For you know, I suppose that old and familiar proverb: Less eruditely speak and clearer, please." And with that preamble he discoursed as follows about the pain and groans of the ailing Stoic. "Nature," said he, "who produced us, implanted in us and incorporated in the very elements from which we sprang a love and affection for ourselves, to such a degree that nothing whatever is dearer or of more importance to us than ourselves. And this, she thought, would be the underlying principle for assuring the perpetuation of the human race, if each one of us, as soon as he saw the light, should have a knowledge and understanding first of all of those things which the philosophers of old have called τὰ πρῶτα κατὰ φύσιν, or 'the first principles of nature'; that is, that he might delight in all that was agreeable to his body and shrink from everything disagreeable. Later, with increasing years, reason developed from the first elements, and reflection in taking counsel, and the consideration of honour and true expediency, and a wiser and more careful choice of advantages as opposed to disadvantages; and in this way the dignity of virtue and honour became so pre-eminent and so superior, that any disadvantage from without which prevented our holding and retaining this quality was despised. Nothing was considered truly and wholly good unless it was honourable, and nothing evil unless it is dishonourable. All other things which lay between, and were neither honourable nor dishonourable, were decided to be neither good nor evil. But productiones and relationes, which the philosophers call προηγμένα, or 'things desirable,' and ἀποπροηγμένα, or 'things undesirable,' are distinguished and set apart each by their own qualities. Therefore pleasure also and pain, so far as the end of living well and happily is concerned, are regarded as indifferent and classed neither with good nor with evil. But since the newly-born child is endowed with these first sensations of pain and pleasure before the appearance of judgment and reason, and is attracted to pleasure by nature, but averted and alienated from pain, as if from some bitter enemy — therefore reason, which is given to him later, is hardly able to uproot and destroy those inclinations which were originally and deeply implanted in him. Yet he constantly struggles with them, checks and tramples them under foot when they are excessive, and compels them to obey and submit to him. Hence you saw the philosopher, relying upon the efficacy of his system, wrestling with the insolent violence of disease and pain, yielding nothing, admitting nothing; not, as sufferers commonly do, shrieking, lamenting and calling himself wretched and unhappy, but giving vent only to panting breathing and deep sighs, which are signs and indications, not that he is overcome or subdued by pain, but that he is struggling to overcome and subdue it. "But very likely," said he, "because of the mere fact that he struggles and groans, someone may ask, if pain is not an evil, why is it necessary to groan and struggle? It is because all things which are not evil are not also wholly lacking in annoyance, but there are very many things which, though free from any great harm or baneful effect, as not being base, are none the less opposed to the gentleness and mercy of nature through a certain inexplicable and inevitable law of nature herself. These, then, a wise man can endure and put up with, but he cannot exclude them altogether from his consciousness; for ἀναλγησία, or 'insensibility,' and ἀπάθεια, or 'lack of feeling,' not only in my judgment," said he, "but also in that of some of the wise men of that same school (such as Panaetius, a serious and learned man) are disapproved and rejected. But why is a Stoic philosopher, upon whom they say no compulsion can be exerted, compelled to utter groans against his will? It is true that no compulsion can be exerted upon a wise man when he has the opportunity of using his reason; but when nature compels, then reason also, the gift of nature, is compelled. Inquire also, if you please, why a man involuntarily winks when someone's hand is suddenly directed against his eyes, why when the sky is lit up by a flash of lightning he involuntarily drops his head and closes his eyes, why as the thunder grows louder he gradually becomes terrified, why he is shaken by sneezing, why he sweats in the heat of the sun or grows cold amid severe frosts. For these and many other things are not under the control of the will, the judgment, or the reason, but are decrees of nature and of necessity. "Moreover, that is not fortitude which, like a giant, struggles against nature and goes beyond her bounds, either through insensibility of spirit, or savage pride, or some unhappy and compulsory practice in bearing pain — such as we heard of in a certain savage gladiator of Caesar's school, who used to laugh when his wounds were probed by doctors — but that is true and noble fortitude which our forefathers called a knowledge of what is endurable and unendurable. From this it is evident that there are some insupportable trials, from the undergoing or endurance of which brave men may shrink." When Taurus had said this and seemed to intend to say even more, we reached our carriages and entered them.

§ 12.6  On the Enigma. The kind of composition which the Greeks call "enigmas," some of our early writers called scirpi, or "rushes." An example is the enigma composed of three iambic trimeters which I recently found — very old, by Jove! and very neat. I have left it unanswered, in order to excite the ingenuity of my readers in seeking for an answer. The three verses are these: I know not if he's minus once or twice, Or both of these, who would not give his place, As I once heard it said, to Jove himself. He who does not wish to puzzle himself too long will find the answer in the second book of Varro's Latin Language, addressed to Marcellus.

§ 12.7  Why Gnaeus Dolabella, the proconsul, referred to the court of the Areopagus the case of a woman charged with poisoning and admitting the fact. When Gnaeus Dolabella was governing the province of Asia with proconsular authority, a woman of Smyrna was brought before him. This woman had killed her husband and her son at the same time by secretly giving them poison. She confessed the crime, and said that she had reason for it, since her husband and son had treacherously done to death another son of hers by a former husband, an excellent and blameless youth; and there was no dispute about the truth of this statement. Dolabella referred the matter to his council. No member of the council ventured to render a decision in so difficult a case, since the confession of the poisoning which had resulted in the death of the husband and son seemed to call for punishment, while at the same time a just penalty had thereby been inflicted upon two wicked men. Dolabella referred the question to the Areopagites at Athens, as judges of greater authority and experience. The Areopagites, after having heard the case, summoned the woman and her accuser to appear after a hundred years. Thus the woman's crime was not condoned, for the laws did not permit that, nor, though guilty, was she condemned and punished for a pardonable offence. The story is told in the ninth book of Valerius Maximus' work on Memorable Occurrences and Sayings.

§ 12.8  Noteworthy reconciliations between famous men. Publius Africanus the elder and Tiberius Gracchus, father of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, men illustrious for their great exploits, the high offices which they held, and the uprightness of their lives, often disagreed about public questions, and for that reason, or some other, were not friends. When this hostility had lasted for a long time. the feast was offered to Jupiter on the appointed day, and on the occasion of that ceremony the senate banqueted in the Capitol. It chanced that the two men were placed side by side at the same table, and immediately, as if the immortal gods, acting as arbiters at the feast of Jupiter, Greatest and Best of Gods, had joined their hands. they became the best of friends. And not only did friendship spring up between them, but at the same time their families were united by a marriage. for Publius Scipio, having a daughter that was unwedded and marriageable at the time, thereupon on the spot betrothed her to Tiberius Gracchus, whom he had chosen and approved at a time when judgment is most strict; that is, while he was his personal enemy. Aemilius Lepidus, too, and Fulvius Flaccus, men of noble birth, who had held the highest offices, and occupied an exalted place in public life, were opposed to each other in a bitter hatred and enmity of long standing. Later, the people chose them censors at the same time. Then they, as soon as their election was proclaimed by the herald, in the Campus Martius itself, before the assembly was dispersed, both voluntarily and with equal joy, immediately joined hands and embraced each other, and from that day, both during their censorship and afterwards, they lived in continual harmony as loyal and devoted friends.

§ 12.9  What is meant by "ambiguous" words; and that even honos was such a word. One may very often see and notice in the early writings many words which at present in ordinary conversation have one fixed meaning, but which then were so indifferent and general, that they could signify and include two opposite things. Some of these are well known, such as tempestas (weather), valitudo (health), facinus (act), dolus (device), gratia (favour), industria (activity). For it is well-nigh a matter of general knowledge that these are ambiguous and can be used either in a good or in a bad sense. That periculum (trial), too, and venenum (drug) and contagium (contagion) were not used, as they now are, only in a bad sense, you may learn from many examples of that usage. But the use of honor as an indifferent word, so that people even spoke of "bad honour," signifying "wrong" or "injury," is indeed very rare. However, Quintus Metellus Numidicus, in a speech which he delivered On his Triumph, used these words: "In this affair, by as much as the whole of you are more important than my single self, by so much he inflicts upon you greater insult and injury than on me; and by as much as honest men are more willing to suffer wrong than to do wrong to another, by so much has he shown worse honour (peiorem honorem) to you than to me; for he wishes me to suffer injustice, Romans, and you to inflict it, so that I may be left with cause for complaint, and you may be open to reproach." He says, "he has shown worse honour to you than to me,. and the meaning of the expression is the same as when he himself says, just before that, "he has inflicted a greater injury and insult on you than on me." In addition to the citation of this word, I thought I ought to quote the following saying from the speech of Quintus Metellus, in order to point out that it is a precept of Socrates; the saying in question is: "It is worse to be unjust than to suffer injustice."

§ 12.10  That aeditumus is a Latin word. Aeditimus is a Latin word and an old one at that, formed in the same way as finitimus and legitimus. In place of it many today say aedituus by a new and false usage, as if it were derived from guarding the temples. This ought to be enough to say as a warning . . . because of certain rude and persistent disputants, who are not to be restrained except by the citation of authorities. Marcus Varro, in the second book of his Latin Language addressed to Marcellus, thinks that we ought to use aeditumus rather than aedituus, because the latter is made up by a late invention, while the former is pure and of ancient origin. Laevius too, in the Protesilaodamia I think, used claustritumum of one who had charge of the fastenings of a door, evidently using the same formation by which he saw that aeditumus, or "one who guards the temples," is made. In the most reliable copies of Marcus Tullius' Fourth Oration against Verres I find it written: "The custodians (aeditumi) and guards quickly perceive it," but in the ordinary copies aeditui is read. There is an Atellan face of Pomponius' entitled Aeditumus. In it is this line: As soon as I attend you and keep your temple-door (aeditumor). Titus Lucretius too in his poem speaks of aedituentes, instead of aeditui.

§ 12.11  That those are deceived who sin in the confident hope of being undetected, since there is no permanent concealment of wrongdoing; and on that subject a discourse of the philosopher Peregrinus and a saying of the poet Sophocles. When I was at Athens, I met a philosopher named Peregrinus, who was later surnamed Proteus, a man of dignity and fortitude, living in a hut outside the city. And visiting him frequently, I heard him say many things that were in truth helpful and noble. Among these I particularly recall the following. He used to say that a wise man would not commit a sin, even if he knew that neither gods nor men would know it; for he thought that one ought to refrain from sin, not through fear of punishment or disgrace, but from love of justice and honesty and from a sense of duty. If, however, there were any who were neither so endowed by nature nor so well disciplined that they could easily keep themselves from sinning by their own will power, he thought that such men would all be more inclined to sin whenever they thought that their guilt could be concealed and when they had hope of impunity because of such concealment. "But," said he, "if men know that nothing at all can be hidden for very long, they will sin more reluctantly and more secretly." Therefore he said that one should have on his lips these verses of Sophocles, the wisest of poets: See to it lest you try aught to conceal; Time sees and hears all, and will all reveal. Another one of the old poets, whose name has escaped my memory at present, called Truth the daughter of Time.

§ 12.12  A witty reply of Marcus Cicero, in which he strives to refute the charge of a direct falsehood. This also is part of a rhetorical training, cunningly and cleverly to admit charges not attended with danger, so that if something base is thrown up to you which cannot be denied, you may turn it off by a jocular reply, making the thing seem deserving of laughter rather than censure. This we read that Cicero did, when by a witty and clever remark he put aside what could not be denied. For when he wished to buy a house on the Palatine, and did not have the ready money, he received a loan of 2,000,000 sesterces privately from Publius Sulla, who was at the time under accusation. But before he bought the house, the transaction became known and reached the ears of the people, and he was charged with having received money from an accused man for the purpose of buying a house. Then Cicero, disturbed by the unexpected reproach, said that he had not received the money and also declared that he had no intention of buying a house, adding: "Therefore, if I buy the house, let it be considered that I did receive the money." But when later he had bought the house and was twitted in the senate with this falsehood by friends, he laughed heartily, saying as he did so: "You are men devoid of common sense, if you do than know that it is the part of a prudent and careful head of a family to get rid of rival purchasers by declaring that he does not intend to buy something that he wishes to purchase."

§ 12.13  What is meant by the expression "within the Kalends," whether it signifies "before the Kalends" or "on the Kalends," or both; also the meaning of "within the Ocean" and "within Mount Taurus" in a speech of Marcus Tullius, and of "within the limit" in one of his letters. When I had been named by the consuls a judge extraordinary at Rome, and ordered to give judgment "within the Kalends," I asked Sulpicius Apollinaris, a learned man, whether the phrase "within the Kalends" included the Kalends themselves; and I told him that I had been duly appointed, that the Kalends had been set as the limit, and that I was to give judgment "within" that day. "Why," said he, "do you make this inquiry of me rather than of some one of those who are students of the law and learned in it, whom you are accustomed to take into your counsel when about to act as judge?" Then I answered him as follows. "If I needed information about some ancient point of law that had been established, one that was contested and ambiguous, or one that was newly ratified, I should naturally have gone to inquire of those whom you mention. But when the meaning, use and nature of Latin words is to be investigated, I should indeed be stupid and mentally blind, if, having the opportunity of consulting you, I had gone to another rather than to you." "Hear then," said he, "my opinion about the meaning of the word, but be it understood that you will not act according to what I shall say about its nature, but according to what you shall learn to be the interpretation agreed upon by all, or by very many, men; for not only are the true and proper signification so common words changed by long usage, but even the provisions of the laws themselves become a dead letter by tacit consent." Then he proceeded to discourse, in my hearing and that of several others, in about this fashion: "When the time," said he, "is so defined that the judge is to render a decision 'within the Kalends,' everyone at once jumps to the conclusion that there is no doubt that the verdict may be lawfully be rendered before the Kalends, and I observe that the only question is the one which you raise, namely, whether the decision may lawfully be rendered also on the Kalends. But undoubtedly the word itself is of such origin and such a nature that when the expression 'within the Kalends' is used, no other day ought to be meant than the Kalends alone. For those three words intra, citra, ultra (within, this side, beyond), by which definite boundaries of places are indicated, among the early writers were expressed by monosyllables, in, cis, uls. Then, since these particles had a somewhat obscure utterance because of their brief and slight sound, the same syllable was added to all three words, and what was formerly cis Tiberim (on this side of the Tiber) and uls Tiberim (beyond the Tiber) began to be called citra Tiberim and ultra Tiberim; and in also became intra by the addition of the same syllable. Therefore all these expressions are, so to speak, related, being united by common terminations: intra oppidum, ultra oppidum, citra oppidum, of which intra, as I have said, is equivalent to in. For one who says intra oppidum, intra cubiculum, intra ferias means nothing else than in oppido (in the town), in cubiculo (in the room), in feriis (during the festival). 'Within the Kalends,' then, is not 'before the Kalends,' but 'on the Kalends'; that is, on the very day on which the Kalends fall. Therefore, according to the meaning of the word itself, one who is ordered to give judgment within the Kalends,' unless he do so on the Kalends, acts contrary to the order contained in the phrase. for if he does so earlier, he renders a decision not 'within' but 'before the Kalends." But somehow or other the utterly absurd interpretation has been generally adopted, that 'within the Kalends' evidently means also 'on this side of the Kalends' or 'before the Kalends'; for these are nearly the same thing. And, besides, it is doubted whether a decision may be rendered on the Kalends also, since it must be rendered neither beyond nor before that date, but 'within the Kalends,' a time which lies between these. that is to say, 'on the Kalends.' But no doubt usage has gained the victory, the mistress not only of all things, but particularly of language." After this very learned and clear discussion of the subject by Apollinaris, I then spoke as follows: "It occurred to me," said I, "before coming to you, to inquire and investigate how our ancestors used the particle in question. Accordingly, I found that Tullius in his Third Oration against Verres wrote thus: 'There is no place within the ocean (intra oceanum) either so distant or so hidden, that the licentiousness and injustice of our countrymen has not penetrated it." He uses 'within the ocean' contrary to your reasoning; for he does not, I think, wish to say 'in the ocean,' but he indicates all the lands which are surrounded by the ocean and to which our countrymen have access; and these are 'this side the ocean, not 'in the ocean.' For he cannot be supposed to mean some islands or other, which are spoken of as far within the waters of the ocean itself." Then with a smile Sulpicius Apollinaris replied: "Keenly and cleverly, by Heaven! have you confronted me with this Ciceronian passage; but Cicero said 'within the ocean,' not, as you interpret it, 'this side ocean." What pray can be said to be 'on this side of the ocean,' when the ocean surrounds and encircles all lands on every side? For that which is 'on this side' of a thing, is outside of that thing; but how can that be said to be 'within' which is without? But if the ocean were only on one side of the world, then the land in that part might be said to be 'this side the ocean,' or 'before the ocean.' But since the ocean surrounds all lands completely and everywhere, nothing is on this side of it, but, all lands being walled in by the embrace of its waters, everything which is included within its shore is in its midst, just as in truth the sun moves, not on this side of the heavens, but within and in them." At the time, what Sulpicius Apollinaris said seemed to be learned and acute. But later, in a volume of Letters to Servius Sulpicius by Marcus Tullius, I found "within moderation" (intra modum) used in the same sense that those give to "within the Kalends" who mean to say "this side of the Kalends." These are the words of Cicero, which I quote: "But yet since I have avoided the displeasure of Caesar, who would perhaps think that I did not regard the present government as constitutional if I kept silence altogether, I shall do this moderately, or even less than moderately (intra modum), so as to consult both his wishes and my own desires." He first said "I shall do this moderately," that is, to a fair and temperate degree. then, as if this expression did not please him and he wished to correct it, he added "or even within moderation," thus indicating that he would do it to a less extent than might be considered moderate; that is, not up to the very limit, but somewhat short of, or "on this side of" the limit. Also in the speech which he wrote In Defence of Publius Sestius Cicero says "within Mount Taurus" in such a way as to mean, not "on Mount Taurus," but "as far as the mountain and including the mountain itself." These Cicero's own words in the speech which I have mentioned: "Our forbears, having overcome Antiochus the Great after a mighty struggle on land and sea, ordered him to confine his realm 'within Mount Taurus.' Asia, which they had taken from him, they gave to Attalus, to be his kingdom." Cicero says: "They ordered him to confine his realm within Mount Taurus," which is not the same as when we say "within the room," unless "within the mountain" may appear to mean what is within the regions which are separated by the interposition of Mount Taurus. For just as one who is "within a room" is not in the walls of the room, but is within the walls by which the room is enclosed, just so one who rules "within Mount Taurus," not only rules on Mount Taurus but also in those regions which are bounded by Mount Taurus. According therefore to the analogy of the words of Marcus Tullius may not one who is bidden to make a decision "within the Kalends" lawfully make it before the Kalends and on the Kalends themselves? And this results, not from a sort of privilege conceded to ignorant usage, but from an accurate regard for reason, since all time which is embraced by the day of the Kalends is correctly said to be "within the Kalends."

§ 12.14  The meaning and origin of the particle saltem. We were inquiring what the original meaning of the particle saltem (at least) was, and what was the derivation of the word. for it seems to have been so formed from the first that it does not appear, like some aids to expression, to have been adopted inconsiderately and irregularly. And there was one man who said that he had read in the Grammatical Notes of Publius Nigidius that saltem was derived from si aliter, and that this itself was an elliptical expression, since the complete sentence was si aliter non potest, "if otherwise, it cannot be." But I myself have nowhere come upon that statement in those Notes of Publius Nigidius, although I have read them, I think, with some care. However, that phrase si aliter non potest does not seem at variance with the meaning of the word under discussion. But yet to condense so many words into a very few letters shows a kind of misplaced subtlety. There was also another man, devoted to books and letters, who said that saltem seemed to him to be formed by the syncope of a medial u, saying that what we call saltem was originally salutem. "For when some other things have been requested and refused, then," said he, "we are accustomed, as if about to make a final request which ought by no means to be denied, to say 'this at least (saltem) ought to be done or given,' as if at last seeking safety (salutem), which it is surely most just to grant and to obtain." But this also, though ingeniously contrived, seems too far-fetched. I thought therefore that further investigation was necessary.

§ 12.15  That Sisenna in his Histories has frequently used adverbs of the type of celatim, vellicatim and saltuatim. While diligently reading the History of Sisenna, I observed that he used adverbs of this form: cursim (rapidly), properatim (hastily), celatim, vellicatim, saltuatim. Of these the first two, since they are more common, do not require illustration. The rest are to be found in the sixth book of the Histories in these passages: "He arranged his men in ambush as secretly (celatim) as he could." Also in another place: "I have written of the events of one summer in Asia and Greece in a consecutive form, that I might not by writing piecemeal or in disconnected fashion (vellicatim aut saltuatim) confuse the minds of my readers."

§ 13.1  A somewhat careful inquiry into these words of Marcus Tullius in his first Oration against Antony: "But many things seem to threaten contrary even to nature and to fate"; and a discussion of the question whether the words "fate" and "nature" mean the same thing or something different. Marcus Cicero, in his first Oration against Antony, has left us these words: "I hastened then to follow him whom those present did not follow; not that I might be of any service, for I had no hope of that nor could I promise it, but in order that if anything to which human nature is liable should happen to me (and many things seem to threaten contrary even to nature and contrary to fate) I might leave what I have said today as a witness to my country of my constant devotion to its interests." Cicero says "contrary to nature and contrary to fate." Whether he intended both words, "fate" and "nature," to have the same meaning and has used two words to designate one thing, or whether he so divided and separated them that nature seems to bring some casualties and fate others, I think ought to be investigated; and this question ought especially to be asked — how is it that he has said that many things to which humanity is liable can happen contrary to fate, when the plan and order and a kind of unconquerable necessity of fate are so ordained that all things must be included within the decrees of fate; unless perhaps he has followed Homer's saying: Lest, spite of fate, you enter Hades' home. But there is no doubt that Cicero referred to a violent and sudden death, which may properly seem to happen contrary to nature. But why he has put just that kind of death outside the decrees of fate it is not the part of this work to investigate, nor is this the time. The point, however, must not be passed by, that Virgil too had that same opinion about fate which Cicero had, when in his fourth book he said of Elissa, who inflicted a violent death upon herself: For since she perished not by fate's decree, Nor earned her death; just as if, in making an end to life, those deaths which are violent do not seem to come by fate's decree. Cicero, however, seems to have followed the words of Demosthenes, a man gifted with equal wisdom and eloquence, which express about the same idea concerning nature and fate. For Demosthenes in that splendid oration entitled On the Crown wrote as follows: "He who thinks that he was born only for his parents, awaits the death appointed by fate, the natural death; but he who thinks that he was born also for his country, will be ready to die that he may not see his country enslaved." What Cicero seems to have called "fate" and "nature," Demosthenes long before termed "fate" and "the natural death." For "a natural death" is one which comes in the course of fate and nature, as it were, and is caused by no force from without.

§ 13.2  About an intimate talk of the poets Pacuvius and Accius in the town of Tarentum. Those who have had leisure and inclination to inquire into the life and times of learned men and hand them down to memory, have related the following anecdote of the tragic poets Marcus Pacuvius and Lucius Accius. "Pacuvius," they say, "when already enfeebled by advanced age and constant bodily illness, had withdrawn from Rome to Tarentum. Then Accius, who was a much younger man, coming to Tarentum on his way to Asia, visited Pacuvius, and being hospitably received and detained by him for several days, at his request read from his tragedy entitled Atreus." Then they say that Pacuvius remarked that what he had written seemed sonorous and full of dignity, but that nevertheless it appeared to him somewhat harsh and rugged. "What you say is true," replied Accius, "and I do not greatly regret it; for it gives me hope that what I write hereafter will be better. For they say it is with the mind as it is with fruits; those which are at first harsh and bitter, later become mild and sweet; but those which at once grow mellow and soft, and are juicy in the beginning, presently become, not ripe, but decayed. Accordingly, it has seemed to me that something should be left in the products of the intellect for time and age to mellow."

§ 13.3  Whether the words necessitudo and necessitas differ from each other in meaning. It is a circumstance decidedly calling for laughter and ridicule, when many grammarians assert that necessitudo and necessitas are unlike and different, in that necessitas is an urgent and compelling force, but necessitudo is a certain right and binding claim of consecrated intimacy, and that this is its only meaning. But just as it makes no difference at all whether you say suavitudo or suavitas (sweetness), acerbitudo or acerbitas (bitterness), acritudo or acritas (sharpness), as Accius wrote in his Neoptolemus, in the same way no reason can be assigned for separating necessitudo and necessitas. Accordingly, in the books of the early writers you may often find necessitudo used of that which is necessary. but necessitas certainly is seldom applied to the law and duty of respect and relationship, in spite of the fact that those who are united by that very law and duty of relationship and intimacy are called necessarii (kinsfolk). However, in a speech of Gaius Caesar, In Support of the Plautian Law, I found necessitas used for necessitudo, that is for the bond of relationship. His words are as follows: "To me indeed it seems that, as our kinship (necessitas) demanded, I have failed neither in labour, in pains, nor in industry." I have written this with regard to the lack of distinction between these two words as the result of reading the fourth book of the History of Sempronius Asellio, an early writer, in which he wrote as follows about Publius Africanus, the son of Paulus: "For he had heard his father, Lucius Aemilius Paulus, say that a really able general never engaged in a pitched battle, unless the utmost necessity (necessitudo) demanded, or the most favourable opportunity offered."

§ 13.4  Copy of a letter of Alexander to his mother Olympias; and Olympias' witty reply. In many of the records of Alexander's deeds, and not long ago in the book of Marcus Varro entitled Orestes or On Madness, I have read that Olympias, the wife of Philip, wrote a very witty reply to her son Alexander. For he had addressed his mother as follows: "King Alexander, son of Jupiter Hammon, greets his mother Olympias." Olympias replied to this effect: "Pray, my son," said she, "be silent, and do not slander me or accuse me before Juno; undoubtedly she will take cruel vengeance on me, if you admit in your letters that I am her husband's paramour." This courteous reply of a wise and prudent woman to her arrogant son seemed to warn him in a mild and polite fashion to give up the foolish idea which he had formed from his great victories, from the flattery of his courtiers, and from his incredible success — that he was the son of Jupiter.

§ 13.5  On the philosophers Aristotle, Theophrastus and Eudemus; and of the graceful tact of Aristotle in selecting a successor as head of his school. The philosopher Aristotle, being already nearly sixty-two years of age, was sickly and weak of body and had slender hope of life. Then the whole band of his disciples came to him, begging and entreating that he should himself choose a successor to his position and his office, to whom, as to himself, they might apply after his last day, to complete and perfect their knowledge of the studies into which he had initiated them. There were at the time in his school many good men, but two were conspicuous, Theophrastus and Eudemus, who excelled the rest in talent and learning. The former was from the island of Lesbos, but Eudemus from Rhodes. Aristotle replied that he would do what they asked, so soon as the opportunity came. A little later, in the presence of the same men who had asked him to appoint a master, he said that the wine he was then drinking did not suit his health, but was unwholesome and harsh; that therefore they ought to look for a foreign wine, something either from Rhodes or from Lesbos. He asked them to procure both kinds for him, and said that he would use the one which he liked the better. They went, sought, found, brought. Then Aristotle asked for the Rhodian and tasting it said: "This is truly a sound and pleasant wine." Then he called for the Lesbian. Tasting that also, he remarked: "Both are very good indeed, but the Lesbian is the sweeter." When he said this, no one doubted that gracefully, and at the same time tactfully, he had by those words chosen his successor, not his wine. This was Theophrastus, from Lesbos, a man equally noted for the fineness of his eloquence and of his life. And when, not long after this, Aristotle died, they accordingly all became followers of Theophrastus.

§ 13.6  The term which the early Latins used for the Greek word προσῳδίαι; also that the term barbarismus was used neither by the early Romans nor by the people of Attica. What the Greeks call προσῳδίαι, or "tones," our early scholars called now notae vocum, or "marks of tone," now moderamenta, or "guides,. now accenticulae, or "accents," and now voculationes, or "intonations." But the fault which we designate when we say now that anyone speaks barbare, or "outlandishly," they did not call "outlandish" but "rustic," and he said that those speaking with that fault spoke "in a countrified manner" (rustice). Publius Nigidius, in his Grammatical Notes, says: "Speech becomes rustic, if you misplace the aspirates." Whether therefore those who before the time of the deified Augustus expressed themselves purely and properly used the word barbarismus (outlandishness), which is now common, I for my part have not yet been able to discover.

§ 13.7  That Homer in his poems and Herodotus in his Histories spoke differently of the nature of the lion. Herodotus, in the third book of his Histories, has left the statement that lionesses give birth but once during their whole life, and at that one birth that they never produce more than one cub. His words in that book are as follows: "But the lioness, although a strong and most courageous animal, gives birth once only in her lifetime to one cub; for in giving birth she discharges her womb with the whelp;. Homer, however, says that lions (for so he calls the females also, using the masculine or "common" (epicene) gender, as the grammarians call it) produce and rear many whelps. The verses in which he plainly says this are these: He stood, like to a lion before its young, Beset by hunters in a gloomy wood And leading them away. In another passage also he indicates the same thing: With many a groan, like lion of strong beard, From which a hunter stole away its young Amid dense woods. Since this disagreement and difference between the most famous of poets and the most eminent of historians troubled me, I thought best to consult that very thorough treatise which the philosopher Aristotle wrote On Animals. And what I find that he has written there upon this subject I shall include in these notes, in Aristotle's own language.

§ 13.8  That the poet Afranius wisely and prettily called Wisdom the daughter of Experience and Memory. That was a fine and true thought of the poet Afranius about the birth of Wisdom and the means of acquiring it, when he said that she was the daughter of Experience and Memory. For in that way he shows that one who wishes to be wise in human affairs does not need books alone or instruction in rhetoric and dialectics, but ought also to occupy and train himself in becoming intimately acquainted with and testing real life, and in firmly fixing in his memory all such acts and events; and accordingly he must learn wisdom and judgment from the teaching of actual experience, not from what books only, or masters, through vain words and fantasies, have foolishly represented as though in a farce or a dream. The verses of Afranius are in a Roman comedy called The Chair: My sire Experience was, me Memory bore, In Greece called Sophia, Wisdom in Rome. There is also a line of Pacuvius to about the same purport, which the philosopher Macedo, a good man and my intimate friend, thought ought to be written over the doors of all temples: I hate base men who preach philosophy. For he said that nothing could be more shameful or insufferable than that idle, lazy folk, disguised with beard and cloak, should change the character and advantages of philosophy into tricks of the tongue and of words, and, themselves saturated with vices, should eloquently assail vice.

§ 13.9  What Tullius Tiro wrote in his commentaries about the Suculae, or "little Pigs," and the Hyades, which are the names of constellations. Tullius Tiro was the pupil and freedman of Marcus Cicero and an assistant in his literary work. He wrote several books on the usage and theory of the Latin language and on miscellaneous questions of various kinds. Pre-eminent among these appear to be those to which he gave the Greek title Πανδέκται, implying that they included every kind of science and fact. In these he wrote the following about the stars which are called the Suculae, or "Little Pigs": "The early Romans," says he, "were so ignorant of Grecian literature and so unfamiliar with the Greek language, that they called those stars which are in the head of the Bull Suculae, or 'The Little Pigs,' because the Greeks call them ὑάδες; for they supposed that Latin word to be a translation of the Greek name because ὕες in Greek is sues in Latin. But the ὑάδες," says he, "are so called, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑῶν (that is, not from pigs), as our rude forefathers believed, but from the word ὕειν; for both when they rise and when they set they cause rainstorms and heavy showers. And pluere, (to rain) is expressed in the Greek tongue by ὕειν." So, indeed, Tiro in his Pandects. But, as a matter of fact, our early writers were not such boors and clowns as to give to the stars called hyades the name of suculae, or "little pigs," because ὕες are called sues in Latin; but just as what the Greeks call ὑπέρ we callsuper, what they call ὕπτιος we call supinus, what they call ὑφορβός we call subulcus, and finally, what they call ὕπνος we call first sypnus, and then, because of the kinship of the Greek letter y and the Latin o, somnus — just so, what they call ὑάδες were called by us, first syades, and then suculae. But the stars in question are not in the head of the Bull, as Tiro says, for except for those stars the Bull has no head; but they are so situated and arranged in the circle that is called the "zodiac," that from their position they seem to present the appearance and semblance of a bull's head, just as the other parts, and the rest of the figure of the Bull, are formed and, as it were, pictured by the place and location of those stars which the Greeks call Πλειάδες and we, Vergiliae.

§ 13.10  The derivation of soror, according to Antistius Labeo, and that of frater, according to Publius Nigidius. Antistius Labeo cultivated the study of civil law with special interest, and gave advice publicly to those who consulted him on legal questions; he was also not unacquainted with the other liberal arts, and he had delved deep into grammar and dialectics, as well as into the earlier and more recondite literature. He had also become versed in the origin and formation of Latin words, and applied that knowledge in particular to solving many knotty points of law. In fact, after his death works of his were published, which are entitled Posteriores, of which three successive books, the thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth and fortieth, are full of information of that kind, tending to explain and illustrate the Latin language. Moreover, in the books which he wrote on the Praetor's Edict, he has included many observations, some of which are graceful and clever. Of such a kind is this, which we find written in the fourth book On the Edict: "A soror, or 'sister,'" he says, "is so called because she is, as it were, born seorsum, or 'outside,' and is separated from that home in which she was born, and transferred to another family." Moreover, Publius Nigidius, a man of prodigious learning, explains the word frater, or "brother," by a no less clever and ingenious derivation: "A frater," he says, "is so called because he is, as it were, fere alter, that is, 'almost another self.' .

§ 13.11  Marcus Varro's opinion of the just and proper number of banqueters; his views about the dessert and about sweetmeats. That is a very charming book of Marcus Varro's, one of his Menippean Satires, entitled You know not what the Late Evening may Bring, in which he descants upon the proper number of guests at a dinner, and about the order and arrangement of the entertainment itself. Now he says that the number of the guests ought to begin with that of the Graces and end with that of the Muses; that is, it should begin with three and stop at nine, so that when the guests are fewest, they should not be less than three, when they are most numerous, not more than nine. "For it is disagreeable to have a great number, since a crowd is generally disorderly, and at Rome it stands, at Athens it sits, but nowhere does it recline. Now, the banquet itself," he continues, "has four features, and then only is it complete in all its parts: if a nice little group has been got together, if the place is well chosen, the time fit, and due preparation not neglected. Moreover, one should not," he says, "invite either too talkative or too silent guests, since eloquence is appropriate to the Forum and the courts, but silence to the bedchamber and not to a dinner." He thinks, then, that the conversation at such a time ought not to be about anxious and perplexing affairs, but diverting and cheerful, combining profit with a certain interest and pleasure, such conversation as tends to make our character more refined and agreeable. "This will surely follow," he says, "if we talk about matters which relate to the common experience of life, which we have no leisure to discuss in the Forum and amid the press of business. Furthermore, the host," he says, "ought rather to be free from meanness than over-elegant," and, he adds: "At a banquet not everything should be read, but such things as are at once edifying and enjoyable." And he does not omit to tell what the nature of the dessert should be. For he uses these words: "Those sweetmeats (bellaria) are sweetest which are not sweet; for harmony between delicacies and digestion is not to be counted upon." That no one may be puzzled by the word bellaria which Varro uses in this passage, let me say that it means all kinds of dessert. For what the Greeks call πέμματα or τραγήματα, our forefathers called bellaria. In the earlier comedies one may find this term applied also to the sweeter wines, which are called Liberi bellaria, or "sweetmeats of Bacchus."

§ 13.12  That the tribunes of the commons have the right to arrest, but not to summon. In one of the letters of Ateius Capito we read that Antistius Labeo was exceedingly learned in the laws and customs of the Roman people and in civil law. "But," he adds, "an excessive and mad love of freedom possessed the man, to such a degree that, although the deified Augustus was then emperor and was ruling the State, Labeo looked upon nothing as lawful and accepted nothing, unless he had found it ordered and sanctioned by the old Roman law." He then goes on to relate the reply of this same Labeo, when he was summoned by the messenger of a tribune of the commons. He says: "When the tribunes of the commons had been appealed to by a woman against Labeo and had sent to him at the Gallianum bidding him come and answer the woman's charge, he ordered the messenger to return and say to the tribunes that they had the right to summon neither him nor anyone else, since according to the usage of our forefathers the tribunes of the commons had the power of arrest, but not of summons; that they might therefore come and order his arrest, but they did not have the right to summon him when absent." Having read this in that letter of Capito's, I later found the same statement made more fully in the twenty-first book of Varro's Human Antiquities, and I have added Varro's own words on the subject. "In a magistracy," says he, "some have the power of summons, others of arrest, others neither; summoning, for example, belongs to the consuls and others possessing the imperium; arrest, to the tribunes of the commons and the rest who are attended by a messenger; neither summoning nor arrest to the quaestors and others who have neither a lictor nor a messenger. Those who have the power of summons may also arrest, detail, and lead off to prison, all this whether those whom they summon are present or sent for by their order. The tribunes of the commons have no power of summons, nevertheless many of them in ignorance have used that power, as if they were entitled to it; for some of them have ordered, not only private persons, but even a consul to be summoned before the Rostra. I myself, when a triumvir, on being summoned by Porcius, tribune of the commons, did not appear, following the authority of our leading men, but I held to the old law. Similarly, when I was a tribune, I ordered no one to be summoned, and required no one who was summoned by one of my colleagues to obey, unless he wished." I think that Labeo, being a private citizen at the time, showed unjustified confidence in that law of which Marcus Varro has written, in not appearing when summoned by the tribunes. For how the mischief was it reasonable to refuse to obey those whom you admit to have the power of arrest? For one who can lawfully be arrested may also be taken to prison. But since we are inquiring why the tribunes, who had full power of coercion, did not have the right to summon . . . because the tribunes of the commons seem to have been elected in early times, not for administering justice, nor for taking cognizance of suits and complaints when the party were absent, but for using their veto-power when there was immediate need, in order to prevent injustice from being done before their eyes; and for that reason the right of leaving the city at night was denied them, since their constant presence and personal oversight were needed to prevent acts of violence.

§ 13.13  That it is stated in Marcus Varro's books on Human Antiquities that the aediles and quaestors of the Roman people might be cited before a praetor by a private citizen. When from the secluded retreat of books and masters I had come forth among men and into the light of the forum, I remember that it was the subject of inquiry in many of the quarters frequented by those who gave public instruction in law, or offered counsel, whether a quaestor of the Roman people could be cited by a praetor. Moreover, this was not discussed merely as an academic question, but an actual instance of the kind had chanced to arise, in which a quaestor was to be called into court. Now, not a few men thought that the praetor did not have the right to summon him, since he was beyond question a magistrate of the Roman people and could neither be summoned, nor if he refused to appear could he be taken and arrested without impairing the dignity of the office itself which he held. But since at the time I was immersed in the books of Marcus Varro, as soon as I found that this matter was the subject of doubt and inquiry, I took down the twenty-first book of his Human Antiquities, in which the following is written: "It is lawful for those magistrates who have the power neither of summoning the people as individuals nor of arrest, even to be called into court by a private citizen. Marcus Laevinus, a curule aedile, was cited before a praetor by a private citizen; today, surrounded as they are by public servants, aediles not only may not be arrested, but even presume to disperse the people." This is what Varro says in the part of his work which concerns the aediles, but in an earlier part of the same book he says that quaestors have the right neither to summon nor to arrest. Accordingly, when both parts of the book had been read, all came over to Varro's opinion, and the quaestor was summoned before the praetor.

§ 13.14  The meaning of pomerium. The augurs of the Roman people who wrote books On the Auspices have defined the meaning of pomerium in the following terms: "The pomerium is the space within the rural district designated by the augurs along the whole circuit of the city without the walls, marked off by fixed bounds and forming the limit of the city auspices." Now, the most ancient pomerium, which was established by Romulus, was bounded by the foot of the Palatine hill. But that pomerium, as the republic grew, was extended several times and included many lofty hills. Moreover, whoever had increased the domain of the Roman people by land taken from an enemy had the right to enlarge the pomerium. Therefore it has been, and even now continues to be, inquired why it is that when the other six of the seven hills of the city are within the pomerium, the Aventine alone, which is neither a remote nor an unfrequented district, should be outside the pomerium; and why neither king Servius Tullius nor Sulla, who demanded the honour of extending the pomerium, nor later the deified Julius, when he enlarged the pomerium, included this within the designated limits of the city. Messala wrote that there seemed to be several reasons for this, but above them all he himself approved one, namely, because on that hill Remus took the auspices with regard to founding the city, but found the birds unpropitious and was less successful in his augury than Romulus. "Therefore," says he, "all those who extend the pomerium excluded that hill, on the ground that it was made ill-omened by inauspicious birds." But speaking of the Aventine hill, I thought I ought not to omit something which I ran across recently in the Commentary of Elys, an early grammarian. In this it was written that in earlier times the Aventine was, as we have said, excluded from the pomerium, but afterwards by the authority of the deified Claudius it was admitted and honoured with a place within the limits of the pomerium.

§ 13.15  A passage from the book of the augur Messala, in which he shows who the minor magistrates are and that the consul and the praetor are colleagues; and certain observations besides on the auspices. In the edict of the consuls by which they appoint the day for the centuriate assembly it is written in accordance with an old established form: "Let no minor magistrate presume to watch the skies." Accordingly, the question is often asked who the minor magistrates are. On this subject there is no need for words of mine, since by good fortune the first book of the augur Messala On Auspices is at hand, when I am writing this. Therefore I quote from that book Messala's own words: "The auspices of the patricians are divided into two classes. The greatest are those of the consuls, praetors and censors. Yet the auspices of all these are not the same or of equal rank, for the reason that the censors are not colleagues of the consuls or praetors, while the praetors are colleagues of the consuls. Therefore neither do the consuls or the praetors interrupt or hinder the auspices of the censors, nor the censors those of the praetors and consuls; but the censors may vitiate and hinder each other's auspices and again the praetors and consuls those of one another. The praetor, although he is a colleague of the consul, cannot lawfully elect either a praetor or a consul, as indeed we have learned from our forefathers, or from what has been observed in the past, and as is shown in the thirteenth book of the Commentaries of Gaius Tuditanus; for the praetor has inferior authority and the consul superior, and a higher authority cannot be elected by a lower, or a superior colleague by an inferior. At the present time, when a praetor elects the praetors, I have followed the authority of the men of old and have not taken part in the auspices at such elections. Also the censors are not chosen under the same auspices as the consuls and praetors. The lesser auspices belong to the other magistrates. Therefore these are called 'lesser' and the others 'greater' magistrates. When the lesser magistrates are elected, their office is conferred upon them by the assembly of the tribes, but full powers by a law of the assembly of the curiae; the higher magistrates are chosen by the assembly of the centuries." For this whole passage of Messala it becomes clear both who the lesser magistrates are and why they are so called. But he also shows that the praetor is a colleague of the consul, because they are chosen under the same auspices. Moreover, they are said to possess the greater auspices, because their auspices are esteemed more highly than those of the others.

§ 13.16  Another passage from the same Messala, in which he argues that to address the people and to treat with the people are two different things; and what magistrates may call away the people when in assembly, and from whom. The same Messala in the same book has written as follows about the lesser magistrates: "A consul may call away the people from all magistrates, when they are assembled for the elections or for another purpose. A praetor may at any time call away the people when assembled for the elections or for another purpose, except from a consul. Lesser magistrates may never call away the people when assembled for the elections or another purpose. Hence, whoever of them first summons the people to an election has the law on his side, because it is unlawful to take the same action twice with the people (bifariam cum populo agi), nor can one minor magistrate call away an assembly from another. But if they wish to address the people (contionem habere) without laying any measure before them, it is lawful for any number of magistrates to hold a meeting (contionem habere) at the same time." From these words of Messala it is clear that cum populo agere, "to treat with the people," differs from contionem habere, "to address the people." For the former means to ask something of the people which they by their votes are to order or forbid; the latter, to speak to the people without laying any measure before them.

§ 13.17  That humanitas does not mean what the common people think, but those who have spoken pure Latin have given the word a more restricted meaning. Those who have spoken Latin and have used the language correctly do not give to the word humanitas the meaning which it is commonly thought to have, namely, what the Greeks call φιλανθρωπία, signifying a kind of friendly spirit and good-feeling towards all men without distinction; but they gave to humanitas about the force of the Greek παιδεία; that is, what we call eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes, or "education and training in the liberal arts." Those who earnestly desire and seek after these are most highly humanized. For the pursuit of that kind of knowledge, and the training given by it, have been granted to man alone of all the animals, and for that reason it is termed humanitas, or "humanity." That it is in this sense that our earlier writers have used the word, and in particular Marcus Varro and Marcus Tullius, almost all the literature shows. Therefore I have thought it sufficient for the present to give one single example. I have accordingly quoted the words of Varro from the first book of his Human Antiquities, beginning as follows: "Praxiteles, who, because of his surpassing art, is unknown to no one of any liberal culture (humaniori)." He does not use humanior in its usual sense of "good-natured, amiable, and kindly," although without knowledge of letters, for this meaning does not at all suit his thought; but in that of a man of "some cultivation and education," who knew about Praxiteles both from books and from story.

§ 13.18  The meaning of Marcus Cato's phrase "betwixt mouth and morsel." There is a speech by Marcus Cato Censorius On the Improper Election of Aediles. In that oration is this passage: "Nowadays they say that the standing-grain, still in the blade, is a good harvest. Do not count too much upon it. I have often heard that many things may come inter os atque offam, or 'between the mouth and the morsel'; but there certainly is a long distance between a morsel and the blade." Erucius Clarus, who was prefect of the city and twice consul, a man deeply interested in the customs and literature of early days, wrote to Sulpicius Apollinaris, the most learned man within my memory, begging and entreating that he would write him the meaning of those words. Then, in my presence, for at that time I was a young man in Rome and was in attendance upon him for purposes of instruction, Apollinaris replied to Clarus very briefly, as was natural when writing to a man of learning, that "between mouth and morsel" was an old proverb, meaning the same as the poetic Greek adage: 'Twixt cup and lip there's many a slip.

§ 13.19  That Plato attributes a line of Sophocles to Euripides; and some other matters of the same kind. There is an iambic trimeter verse of notorious antiquity: By converse with the wise wax tyrants wise. This verse Plato in his Theaetetus attributes to Euripides. I am very much surprised at this; for I have met it in the tragedy of Sophocles entitled Ajax the Locrian, and Sophocles was born before Euripides. But the following line is equally well known: I who am old shall lead you, also old. And this is found both in a tragedy of Sophocles, of which the title is Phthiotides, and in the Bacchae of Euripides. I have further observed that in the Fire-bringing Prometheus of Aeschylus and in the tragedy of Euripides entitled Ino an identical verse occurs, except for a few syllables. In Aeschylus it runs thus: When proper, keeping silent, and saying what is fit. In Euripides thus: When proper, keeping silent, speaking when 'tis safe. But Aeschylus was considerably the earlier writer.

§ 13.20  Of the lineage and names of the Porcian family. When Sulpicius Apollinaris and I, with some others who were friends of his or mine, were sitting in the library of the Palace of Tiberius, it chanced that a book was brought to us bearing the name of Marcus Cato Nepos. We at once began to inquire who this Marcus Cato Nepos was. And thereupon a young man, not unacquainted with letters, so far as I could judge from his language, said: "This Marcus Cato is called Nepos, not as a surname, but because he was the grandson of Marcus Cato Censorius through his son, and father of Marcus Cato the ex-praetor, who slew himself with his own sword at Utica during the civil war. There is a book of Marcus Cicero's about the life of the last-named, entitled Laus Catonis, or A Eulogy of Cato, in which Cicero saysthat he was the great-grandson of Marcus Cato Censorius. Therefore the father of the man whom Cicero eulogized was this Marcus Cato, whose orations are circulated under the name of Marcus Cato Nepos." Then Apollinaris, very quietly and mildly, as was passing his custom when passing criticism, said: "I congratulate you, my son, that at your age you have been able to favour us with a little lecture on the family of Cato, even though you do not know who this Marcus Cato was, about whom we are now inquiring. For the famous Marcus Cato Censorius had not one, but several grandsons, although not all were sprung from the same father. For the famous Marcus Cato, who was both an orator and a censor, had two sons, born of different mothers and of very different ages. since, when one of them was a young man, his mother died and his father, who was already well on in years, married the maiden daughter of his client Salonius, from whom was born to him Marcus Cato Salonianus, a surname which he derived from Salonius, his mother's father. But from Cato's elder son, who died when praetor-elect, while his father was still living, and left some admirable works on The Science of Law, there was born the man about whom we are inquiring, Marcus Cato, son of Marcus, and grandson of Marcus. He was an orator of some power and left many speeches written in the manner of his grandfather; he was consul with Quintus Marcius Rex, and during his consulship went to Africa and died in that province. But he was not, as you said he was, the father of Marcus Cato the ex-praetor, who killed himself at Utica and whom Cicero eulogized; nor because he was the grandson of Cato the censor and Cato of Utica was the censor's great-grandson does it necessarily follow that the former was the father of the latter. For this grandson whose speech was just brought to us did, it is true, have a son called Marcus Cato, but he was not the Cato who died at Utica, but the one who, after being curule aedile and praetor, went to Gallia Narbonensis and there ended his life. But by that other son of Censorius, a far younger man, who, as I said, was surnamed Salonianus, two sons were begotten: Lucius and Marcus Cato. That Marcus Cato was tribune of the commons and died when a candidate for the praetorship; he begot Marcus Cato the ex-praetor, who committed suicide at Utica during the civil war, and when Marcus Tullius wrote the latter's life and panegyric he said that he was the great-grandson of Cato the censor. You see therefore that the branch of the family which is descended from Cato's younger son differs not only in its pedigree, but in its dates as well; for because that Salonianus was born near the end of his father's life, as I said, his descendants were considerably later than those of his elder brother. This difference in dates you will readily perceive from that speech itself, when you read it." Thus spoke Sulpicius Apollinaris in my hearing. Later we found that what he had said was so, when we read the Funeral Eulogies and the Genealogy of the Porcian Family.

§ 13.21  That the most elegant writers pay more attention to the pleasing sound of words and phrases (what the Greeks call εὐφωνία, or "euphony") than to the rules and precepts devised by the grammarians. Valerius Probus was once asked, as I learned from one of his friends, whether one ought to say has urbis or has urbes and hanc turrem or hanc turrim. "If," he replied, "you are either composing verse or writing prose and have to use those words, pay no attention to the musty, fusty rules of the grammarians, but consult your own ear as to what is to be said in any given place. What it favours will surely be the best." Then the one who had asked the question said: "What do you mean by 'consult my ear'?"3 and he told me that Probus answered: "Just as Vergil did his, when in different passages he has used urbis and urbes, following the taste and judgment of his ear. For in the first Georgic, which," said he, "I have read in a copy corrected by the poet's own hand, he wrote urbis with an i. These are the words of the verses: O'er cities (urbis) if you choose to watch, and rule Our lands, O Caesar great. But turn and change it so as to read urbes, and somehow you will make it duller and heavier. On the other hand, in the third Aeneid he wrote urbes with an e: An hundred mighty cities (urbes) they inhabit. Change this too so as to read urbis and the word will be too slender and colourless, so great indeed is the different effect of combination in the harmony of neighbouring sounds. Moreover, Vergil also said turrim, not turrem, and securim, not securem: A turret (turrim) on sheer edge standing, and Has shaken from his neck the ill-aimed axe (securim). These words have, I think, a more agreeable lightness than if you should use the form in e in both places." But the one who had asked the question, a boorish fellow surely and with untrained ear, said "I just don't understand why you say that one form is better and more correct in one place and the other in the other." Then Probus, now somewhat impatient, retorted: "Don't trouble then to inquire whether you ought to say urbis or urbes. For since you are the kind of man that I see you are and err without detriment to yourself, you will lose nothing whichever you say." With these words then and this conclusion Probus dismissed the man, somewhat rudely, as was his way with stupid folk. But I afterwards found another similar instance of double spelling by Vergil. For he has used tres and tris in the same passage with such fineness of taste, that if you should read differently and change one for the other, and have any ear at all, you would perceive that the sweetness of the sound is spoiled. These are the lines, from the tenth book of the Aeneid: Three (tres) Thracians too from Boreas' distant race, And three (tris) whom Idas sent from Ismarus' land. In one place he has tres, in the other tris; weigh and ponder both, and you will find that each sounds most suitable in its own place. But also in this line of Vergil, This end (haec finis) to Priam's fortunes then, if you change haec and say hic finis, it will be hard and unrhythmical and your ears will shrink from the change. Just as, on the contrary, you would make the following verse of Vergil less sweet, if you were to change it: What end (quem finem) of labours, great king, dost thou grant? For if you should say quam das finem, you would somehow make the sound of the words harsh and somewhat weak. Ennius too spoke of rectos cupressos, or "straight cypresses," contrary to the accepted gender of that word, in the following verse: On cliffs the nodding pine and cypress straight. The sound of the word, I think, seemed to him stronger and more vigorous, if he said rectos cupressos rather than rectas. But, on the other hand, this same Ennius in the eighteenth book of his Annals said aere fulva instead of fulvo, not merely because Homer said ἠέρα βαθεῖα, but because this sound, I think, seemed more sonorous and agreeable. In the same way Marcus Cicero also thought it smoother and more polished to write, in his fifth Oration against Verres, fretu rather than freto. He says "divided by a narrow strait (fretu)"; for it would have been heavier and more archaic to say perangusto freto. Also in his second Oration against Verres, making use of a like rhythm, he said "by an evident sin," using peccatu instead of peccato; for I find this written in one or two of Tiro's copies, of very trustworthy antiquity. These are Cicero's words: "No one lived in such a way that no part of his life was free from extreme disgrace, no one was detected in such manifest sin (peccatu) that while he had been shameless in committing it, he would seem even more shameless if he denied it." Not only is the sound of this word more elegant in this passage, but the reason for using the word is definite and sound. For hic peccatus, equivalent to peccatio, is correct and good Latin, just as many of the early writers used incestus (criminal), not of the one who committed the crime, but of the crime itself, and tributus, where we say tributum (tribute). Adlegatus (instigation) too and arbitratus (judgment) are used for adlegatio and arbitratio, and preserving these forms we say arbitratu and adlegatu meo. So then Cicero said in manifesto peccatu, as the early writers said in manifesto incestu, not that it was not good Latin to say peccato, but because in that context the use of peccatu was finer and smoother to the ear. With equal regard for our ears Lucretius made funis feminine in these verses: No golden rope (aurea funis), methinks, let down from heaven The race of mortals to this earth of ours, although with equally good rhythm he might have used the more common aureus funis and written: Aureus e caelo demisit funis in arva. Marcus Cicero calls even priests by a feminine term, antistitae, instead of antistites, which is demanded by the grammarians' rule. For while he usually avoided the obsolete words used by the earlier writers, yet in this passage, pleased with the sound of the word, he said: "The priests of Ceres and the guardians (antistitae) of her shrine." To such a degree have writers in some cases followed neither reason nor usage in choosing a word, but only the ear, which weighs words according to its own standards. "And as for those who do not feel this," says Marcus Cicero himself, when speaking about appropriate and rhythmical language, "I know not what ears they have, or what there is in them resembling a man." But the early grammarians have noted this feature in Homer above all, that when he had said in one place κολοιούς τε ψηράς τε, "both crows and starlings," in another place he did not use ψηρῶν τε, but ψαρῶν: As lights a cloud of starlings (ψαρῶν) or of daws, not conforming to general usage, but seeking the pleasing effect peculiar to the word in each of the two positions; for if you change one of these for the other, you will give both a harsh sound.

§ 13.22  The words of Titus Castricius to his young pupils on unbecoming clothes and shoes. Titus Castricius, a teacher of the art of rhetoric, who held the first rank at Rome as a declaimer and an instructor, a man of the greatest influence and dignity, was highly regarded also by the deified Hadrian for his character and his learning. Once when I happened to be with him (for I attended him as my master) and he had seen some pupils of his who were senators wearing tunics and cloaks on a holiday, and with sandals on their feet, he said: "For my part, I should have preferred to see you in your togas, or if that was too much trouble, at least with girdles and mantles. But if this present attire of yours is now pardonable from long custom, yet it is not at all seemly for you, who are senators of the Roman people, to go through the streets of the city in sandals, nor by Jove! is this less criminal in you than it was in one whom Marcus Tullius once reproved for such attire." This, and some other things to the same purport, Castricius said in my hearing with true Roman austerity. But several of those who had heard him asked why he had said soleatos, or "in sandals," of those who were gallicae, or "Gallic slippers," and notsoleae. But Castricius certainly spoke purely and properly. for in general all kinds of foot-gear which cover only the bottom of the soles, leaving the rest almost bare, and are bound on by slender thongs, are called soleae, or sometimes by the Greek word crepidulae. But gallicae, I think, is a new word, which came into use not long before the time of Marcus Cicero. In fact, he himself uses it in his second Oration against Antony: "You ran about," says he, "in slippers (gallicis) and cloak." Nor do I find this word with that meaning in any other writer — a writer of high authority, that is; but, as I have said, they called that kind of shoe crepidae and crepidulae shortening the first syllable of the Greek word κρηπῖδες, and the makers of such shoes they termed crepidarii. Sempronius Asellio in the fourteenth book of his Histories says: "He asked for a cobbler's knife from a maker of slippers (crepidarius sutor)."

§ 13.23  Of the Nerio of Mars in ancient prayers. Prayers to the immortal gods, which are offered according to the Roman ritual, are set forth in the books of the priests of the Roman people, as well as in many early books of prayers. In these we find: "Lua, of Saturn; Salacia, of Neptune; Hora, of Quirinus; the Virites of Quirinus; Maia of Vulcan; Heries of Juno; Moles of Mars, and Nerio of Mars." Of these I hear most people pronounce the one which I have put last with a long initial syllable, as the Greeks pronounce Νηρεΐδες ("Nereids"). But those who have spoken correctly made the first syllable short and lengthened the third. For the nominative case of the word, as it is written in the books of early writers, is Nerio, although Marcus Varro, in his Menippean Satire entitled Σκιομαχία, or "Battle of the Shadows," uses in the vocative Nerienes, not Nero, in the following verses: Thee, Anna and Peranna, Panda Cela, Pales, Nerienes and Minerva, Fortune and likewise Ceres. From which it necessarily follows that the nominative case is the same. But Nerio was declined by our forefathers like Anio; for, as they said Anienem with the third syllable long. so they did Nerienem. Furthermore, that word, whether it be Nerio or Nerienes. is Sabine and signifies valour and courage. Hence among the Claudii, who we are told sprang from the Sabines, whoever was of eminent and surpassing courage was called Nero. But the Sabines seem to have derived this word from the Greeks, who call the sinews and ligaments of the limbs νεῦρα, whence we also in Latin call them nervi. Therefore Nerio designates the strength and power of Mars and a certain majesty of the War-god. Plautus, however, in the Truculentus says that Nerio is the wife of Mars, and puts the statement into the mouth of a soldier, in the following line: Mars, coming home, greets his wife Nerio. About this line I once heard a man of some repute say that Plautus, with too great an eye to comic effect, attributed this strange and false idea, of thinking that Nerio was the wife of Mars, to an ignorant and rude soldier. But whoever will read the third book of the Annals of Gnaeus Gellius will find that passage shows learning, rather than a comic spirit; for there it is written that Hersilia, when she pleaded before Titus Tatius and begged for peace, prayed in these words: "Neria of Mars, I beseech thee, give us peace; I beseech thee that it be permitted us to enjoy lasting and happy marriages, since it was by thy lord's advice that in like manner they carried off us maidens, that from us they might raise up children for themselves and their people, and descendants for their country." She says "by thy lord's advice," of course meaning her husband, Mars; and from this it is plain that Plautus made use of no poetic fiction, but that there was also a tradition according to which Nerio was said by some to be the wife of Mars. But it must be noticed besides that Gellius writes Neria with an a, not Nerio nor Nerienes. In addition to Plautus too, and Gellius, Licinius Imbrex, an early writer of comedies, in the play entitled Neaera, wrote as follows: Neaera I'd not wish to have thee called; Neriene rather, since thou art wife to Mars. Moreover, the metre of this verse is such that the third syllable in that name must be made short, contrary to what was said above. But how greatly the quantity of this syllable varied among the early writers is so well known that I need not waste many words on the subject. Ennius also, in this verse from the first book of his Annals, Neriene of Mars and Here, if, as is not always the case, he has preserved the metre, has lengthened the first syllable and shortened the third. And I do not think that I ought to pass by this either, whatever it amounts to, which I find written in the Commentary of Servius Claudius, that Nerio is equivalent to Neirio, meaning without anger (ne ira) and with calmness, so that in using that name we pray that Mars may become mild and calm; for the particle se, as it is among the Greeks, is frequently privative in the Latin language also.

§ 13.24  Remarks of Marcus Cato, who declared that he lacked many things, yet desired nothing. Marcus Cato, ex-consul and ex-censor, says that when the State and private individuals were abounding in wealth, his country-seats were plain and unadorned, and not even whitewashed, up to the seventieth year of his age. And later he uses these words on the subject: "I have no building, utensil or garment bought with a great price, no costly slave or maidservant. If I have anything to use," he says, "I use it; if not, I do without. So far as I am concerned, everyone may use and enjoy what he has." Then he goes on to say: "They find fault with me, because I lack many things; but I with them, because they cannot do without them." This simple frankness of the man of Tusculum, who says that he lacks many things, yet desires nothing, truly has more effect in inducing thrift and contentment with small means than the Greek sophistries of those who profess to be philosophers and invent vain shadows of words, declaring that they have nothing and yet lack nothing and desire nothing, while all the time they are fevered with having, with lacking, and with desiring.

§ 13.25  The meaning of manubiae is asked and discussed; with some observations as to the propriety of using several words of the same meaning. All along the roof of the colonnades of Trajan's forum there are placed gilded statues of horses and representations of military standards, and underneath is written Ex manubiis. Favorinus inquired, when he was walking in the court of the forum, waiting for his friend the consul, who was hearing cases from the tribunal — and I at the same time was in attendance on him — he asked, I say, what that inscription manubiae seemed to us really to mean. Then one of those who were with him. a man of a great and wide-spread reputation for his devotion to learned pursuits, said: "Ex manubiis is the same as ex praeda; for manubiae is the term for booty which is taken manu, that is 'by hand.'" Then Favorinus rejoined. "Although my principal and almost my entire attention has been given to the literature and art of Greece, I am nevertheless not so inattentive to the Latin language, to which I devote occasional or desultory study, as to be unaware of this common interpretation of manubiae, which makes it a synonym ofpraeda. But I raise the question, whether Marcus Tullius, a man most careful in his diction, in the speech which he delivered against Rullus on the first of January On the Agrarian Law, joined manubiae and praeda by an idle and inelegant repetition, if it be true that these two words have the same meaning and do not differ in any respect at all." And then, such was Favorinus' marvellous and almost miraculous memory. he at once added Cicero's own words. These I have appended: "The decemvirs will sell the booty (praedam), the proceeds of the spoils (manubias), the goods reserved for public auction, in fact Gnaeus Pompeius' camp, while the general sits looking on"; and just below he again used these two words in conjunction: "From the booty (ex praeda), from the proceeds of the spoils (ex manubiis), from the crown-money." Then, turning to the man who had said that manubiae was the same as praeda, Favorinus said, "Does it seem to you that in both these passages Marcus Cicero weakly and frigidly used two words which, as you think, mean the same thing, thus showing himself deserving of the ridicule with which in Aristophanes, the wittiest of comic writers, Euripides assailed Aeschylus, saying: Wise Aeschylus has said the same thing twice; 'I come into the land,' says he, 'and enter it.' But 'enter' and 'come into' are the same. By Heaven, yes! It is just as if one said To a neighbour: 'Use the pot, or else the pan'. "But by no means," said he, "do Cicero's words seem like such repetitions as μάκτρα, pot, and κάρδοπος, pan, which are used either by our own poets or orators and those of the Greeks, for the purpose of giving weight or adornment to their subject by the use of two or more words of the same meaning." "Pray," said Favorinus, "what force has this repetition and recapitulation of the same thing under another name in manubiae and praeda? It does not adorn the sentence, does it, as is sometimes the case? It does not make it more exact or more melodious, does it? Does it make an effective cumulation of words designed to strengthen the accusation or brand the crime? As, for example, in the speech of the same Marcus Tullius On the Appointment of an Accuser one and the same thing is expressed in several words with force and severity: 'All Sicily, if it could speak with one voice, would say this: "Whatever gold, whatever silver, whatever jewels I had in my cities, abodes and shrines." For having once mentioned the cities as a whole, he added 'abodes' and 'shrines,' which are themselves a part of the cities. Also in the same oration he says in a similar manner. 'During three years Gaius Verres is said to have plundered the province of Sicily, devastated the cities of the Sicilians, emptied their homes, pillaged their shrines." Does he not seem to you, when he had mentioned the province of Sicily and had besides added the cities as well, to have included the houses also and the shrines, which he later mentioned? So too do not those many and varied words, 'plundered, devastated, emptied, pillaged,' have one and the same force? They surely do. But since the mention of them all adds to the dignity of the speech and the impressive copiousness of its diction, although they are nearly the same and spring from a single idea, yet they appear to contain more meaning because they strike the ears and mind more frequently. "This kind of adornment, by heaping up in a single charge a great number of severe terms, was frequently used even in early days by our most ancient orator, the famous Marcus Cato, in his speeches; for example in the one entitled On the Ten, when he accused Thermus because he had put to death ten freeborn men at the same time, he used the following words of the same meaning, which, as they are brilliant flashes of Latin eloquence, which was just then coming into being, I have thought fit to call into mind: 'You seek to cover up your abominable crime with a still worse crime, you slaughter men like swine, you commit frightful bloodshed, you cause ten deaths, slay ten freemen, take life from ten men, untried, unjudged, uncondemned." So too Marcus Cato, at the beginning of the speech which he delivered in the senate, In Defence of the Rhodians, wishing to describe too great prosperity, used three words which mean the same thing. His language is as follows: 'I know that most men in favourable, happy and prosperous circumstances are wont to be puffed up in spirit and to increase in arrogance and haughtiness." In the seventh book of his Origins too, in the speech which he spoke Against Servius Galba, Cato used several words to express the same thing: 'Many things have dissuaded me from appearing here, my years, my time of life, my voice, my strength, my old age; but nevertheless, when I reflected that so important a matter was being discussed. . . ." "But above all in Homer there is a brilliant heaping up of the same idea and thought, in these lines: Zeus from the weapons, from the dust and blood, From carnage, from the tumult Hector bore. Also in another verse: Engagements, battles, carnage, deaths of men. For although all those numerous synonymous terms mean nothing more than 'battle,' yet the varied aspects of this concept are elegantly and charmingly depicted by the use of several different words. And in the same poet this one thought is repeated with admirable effect by the use of two words; for Idaeus, when he interrupted the armed contest of Hector and Ajax, addressed them thus: No longer fight, dear youths, nor still contend. and in this verse it ought not to be supposed that the second word, meaning the same as the first, was added and lugged in without reason, merely to fill out the metre; for that is utterly silly and false. But while he gently and calmly chided the obstinate fierceness and love of battle in two youths burning with a desire for glory, he emphasized and impressed upon them the atrocity of the act and the sin of their insistence by adding one word to another; and that double form of address made his admonition more impressive. Nor ought the following repetition of the same thought to seem any more weak and cold: With death the suitors threatened, and with fate, Telemachus, because he said the same thing twice in θάνατον (death) and μόρον (fate); for the heinousness of attempting so cruel and unjust a murder is deplored by the admirable repetition of the word meaning 'death." Who too is of so dull a mind as not to understand that in Away, begone, dire dream, and Away, begone, swift Iris, two words of the same meaning are not used to no purpose, ἐκ παραλλήλων, 'as the repetition of two similar words,' as some think, but are a vigorous exhortation to the swiftness which is enjoined. "Also those thrice repeated words in the speech of Marcus Cicero Against Lucius Piso, although displeasing to men of less sensitive ears, did not merely aim at elegance, but buffeted Piso's assumed expression of countenance by the rhythmical accumulation of several words. Cicero says: 'Finally, your whole countenance, which is, so to speak, the silent voice of the mind, this it was that incited men to crime, this deceived, tricked, cheated those to whom it was not familiar." Well then," continued Favorinus, "is the use of praeda and manubiae in the same writer similar to this? Truly, not at all. For by the addition of manubiae the sentence does not become more ornate, more forcible, or more euphonious. but manubiae means one thing, as we learn from the books on antiquities and on the early Latin, praeda quite another. For praeda is used of the actual objects making up the booty, but manubiae designates the money collected by the quaestor from the sale of the booty. Therefore Marcus Tullius, in order to rouse greater hatred of the decemvirs, said that they would carry off and appropriate the two: both the booty which had not yet been sold and the money which had been received from the sale of the booty. "Therefore this inscription which you see, ex manubiis, does not designate the objects and the mass of booty itself, for none of these was taken from the enemy by Trajan, but it declares that these statues were made and procured 'from the manubiae', that is, with the money derived from the sale of the booty. For manubiae means, as I have already said, not booty, but money collected from the sale of the booty by a quaestor of the Roman people. But when I said 'by the quaestor,' one ought now to understand that the praefect of the treasury is meant. For the charge of the treasury has been transferred from the quaestors to praefects. However, it is possible to find instances in which writers of no little fame have written in such a way as to use praeda formanubiae or manubiae for praeda, either from carelessness or indifference; or by some metaphorical figure they have interchanged the words, which is allowable when done with judgment and skill. But those who have spoken properly and accurately, as did Marcus Tullius in that passage, have used manubiae of money."

§ 13.26  A passage of Publius Nigidius in which he says that in Valeri, the vocative case of the name Valerius, the first syllable should have an acute accent; with other remarks of the same writer on correct writing. These are the words of Publius Nigidius, a man pre-eminent for his knowledge of all the sciences, from the twenty-fourth book of his Grammatical Notes: "How then can the accent be correctly used, if in names like Valeri we do not know whether they are genitive or vocative? For the second syllable of the genitive has a higher pitch than the first, and on the last syllable the pitch falls again; but in the vocative case the first syllable has the highest pitch, and then there is a gradual descent." Thus indeed Nigidius bids us speak. But if anyone nowadays, calling to Valerius, accents the first syllable of the vocative according to the direction of Nigidius, he will not escape being laughed at. Furthermore, Nigidius calls the acute accent "the highest pitch," and what we call accentus, or "accent," he calls voculatio, or "tone," and the case which we now call genetivus, or "genitive," he calls casus interrogandi, "the case of asking." This too I notice in the same book of Nigidius: "If you write the genitive case of amicus, he says, "or of magnus, end the word with a single i; but if you write the nominative plural, you must write magnei and amicei, with an e followed by i, and so with similar words. Also if you write terra in the genitive, let it end with the letter i, as terrai; but in the dative with e, as terrae. Also one who writes mei in the genitive case, as when we say mei studiosus, or 'devoted to me,' let him write it with i only (mei), not with e (meei); but when he writes mehei, it must be written with e and i, since it is the dative case." Led by the authority of a most learned man, I thought that I ought not to pass by these statements, for the sake of those who desire a knowledge of such matters.

§ 13.27  Of verses of Homer and Parthenius, which Virgil seems to have followed. There is a verse of the poet Parthenius: To Glaucus, Nereus and sea-dwelling Melicertes. This verse Virgil has emulated, and has made it equal to the original by a graceful change of two words: To Glaucus, Panopea, and Ino's son Melicertes. But the following verse of Homer he has not indeed equalled, nor approached. For that of Homer seems to be simpler and more natural, that of Virgil more modern and daubed over with a kind of stucco, as it were: Homer: A bull to Alpheus, to Poseidon one. Virgil: A bull to Neptune, and to you, Apollo fair.

§ 13.28  Of an opinion of the philosopher Panaetius, which he expressed in his second book On duties, where he urges men to be alert and prepared to guard against injuries on all occasions. The second book of the philosopher Panaetius On Duties was being read to us, being one of those three celebrated books which Marcus Tullius emulated with great care and very great labour. In it there was written, in addition to many other incentives to virtue, one especially which ought to be kept fixed in the mind. And it is to this general purport: "The life of men," he says, "who pass their time in the midst of affairs, and who wish to be helpful to themselves and to others, is exposed to constant and almost daily troubles and sudden dangers. To guard against and avoid these one needs a mind that is always ready and alert, such as the athletes have who are called 'pancratists." For just as they, when called to the contest, stand with their arms raised and stretched out, and protect their head and face by opposing their hands as a rampart; and as all their limbs, before the battle has begun, are ready to avoid or to deal blows — so the spirit and mind of the wise man, on the watch everywhere and at all times against violence and wanton injuries, ought to be alert, ready, strongly protected, prepared in time of trouble, never flagging in attention, never relaxing its watchfulness, opposing judgment and forethought like arms and hands to the strokes of fortune and the snares of the wicked, lest in any way a hostile and sudden onslaught be made upon us when we are unprepared and unprotected."

§ 13.29  That Quadrigarius used the expression cum multis mortalibus; whether it would have made any difference if he had said cum multis hominibus, and how great a difference. The following is a passage of Claudius Quadrigarius from the thirteenth book of his Annals: "When the assembly had been dismissed, Metellus came to the Capitol with many mortals (cum mortalibus multis); from there he went home attended by the entire city." When this book and this passage were read to Marcus Fronto, as I was sitting with him in company with some others, it seemed to one of those present, a man not without learning, that the use of mortalibus multis for hominibus multis in a work of history was foolish and frigid, and savoured too much of poetry. Then Fronto said to the man who expressed this opinion: "Do you, a man of most refined taste in other matters, say that mortalibus multis seems to you foolish and frigid, and do you think there is no reason why a man whose language is chaste, pure and almost conversational, preferred to say mortalibus rather than hominibus? And do you think that he would have described a multitude in the same way if he said cum multis hominibus and not cum multis mortalibus. For my part," continued Fronto, "unless my regard and veneration for this writer, and for all early Latin, blinds my judgment, I think that it is far, far fuller, richer and more comprehensive in describing almost the whole population of the city to have said mortales rather than homines. For the expression 'many men' may be confined and limited to even a moderate number, but 'many mortals' somehow in some indefinable manner includes almost all the people in the city, of every rank, age and sex; so you see Quadrigarius, wishing to describe the crowd as vast and mixed, as in fact it was, said that Metellus came into the Capitol 'with many mortals, speaking with more force than if he had said 'with many men.' . When we, as was fitting, had expressed, not only approval, but admiration of all this that we had heard from Fronto, he said: "Take care, however, not to think that mortales multi is to be used always and everywhere in place of multi homines, lest that Greek proverb, τὸ ἐπὶ τῇ φακῇ μύρον, or 'myrrh on lentils,' which is found in one of Varro's Satires, be applied to you." This judgment of Fronto's, though relating to trifling and unimportant words, I thought I ought not to pass by, lest the somewhat subtle distinction between words of this kind should escape and elude us.

§ 13.30  That facies has a wider application than is commonly supposed. We may observe that many Latin words have departed from their original signification and passed into one that is either far different or near akin, and that such a departure is due to the usage of those ignorant people who carelessly use words of which they have not learned the meaning. As, for example, some think that facies, applied to a man, means only the face, eyes and cheeks, that which the Greeks call πρόσωπον; whereas facies really designates the whole form, dimensions and, as it were, the make-up of the entire body, being formed from facio as species is from aspectus and figura from fingere. Accordingly Pacuvius, in the tragedy entitled Niptra, used facies for the height of a man's body in these lines: A man in prime of life, of spirit bold, Of stature (facie) tall. But facies is applied, not only to the bodies of men, but also to the appearance of other things of every kind. For facies may be said properly, if the application be seasonable, of a mountain, the heavens and the sea. The words of Sallust in the second book of his Histories are: "Sardinia, in the African Sea, having the appearance (facies) of a human foot, projects farther on the eastern than on the western side." And, by the way, it has also occurred to me that Plautus too, in the Poenulus, said facies, meaning the appearance of the whole body and complexion. These are his words: But tell me, pray, how looks (qua sit facie) that nurse of yours? — Not very tall, complexion dark. — 'Tis she! — A comely wench, with pretty mouth, black eyes — By Jove! a picture of her limned in words. Besides, I remember that Quadrigarius in his nineteenth book used facies for stature and the form of the whole body.

§ 13.31  The meaning of caninum prandium in Marcus Varro's satire. Lately a foolish, boastful fellow, sitting in a bookseller's shop, was praising and advertising himself, asserting that he was the only one under all heaven who could interpret the Satires of Marcus Varro, which by some are called Cynical, by others Menippean. And then he displayed some passages of no great difficulty, which he said no one could presume to explain. At the time I chanced to have with me a book of those Satires, entitled Ὑδροκύων, or The Water Dog. I therefore went up to him and said: "Master, of course you know that old Greek saying, that music, if it be hidden, is of no account. I beg you therefore to read these few lines and tell me the meaning of the proverb contained in them." "Do you rather," he replied, "read me what you do not understand, in order that I may interpret it for you." "How on earth can I read," I replied, "what I cannot understand? Surely my reading will be indistinct and confused, and will even distract your attention." Then, as many others who were there present agreed with me and made the same request, I handed him an ancient copy of the satire, of tested correctness and clearly written. But he took it with a most disturbed and worried expression. But what shall I say followed? I really do not dare to ask you to believe me. Ignorant schoolboys, if they had taken up that book, could not have read more laughably, so wretchedly did he pronounce the words and murder the thought. Then, since many were beginning to laugh, he returned the book to me, saying, "You see that my eyes are weak and almost ruined by constant night work; I could barely make out even the forms of the letters. When my eyes have recovered, come to me and I will read the whole of that book to you." "Master," said I, "I hope your eyes may improve; but I pray you, tell me this, for which you have no need of your eyes; what does caninum prandium mean in the passage which you read?. And that egregious blockhead, as if alarmed by the difficulty of the question, at once got up and made off, saying: "You ask no small matter; I do not give such instruction for nothing." The words of the passage in which that proverb is found are as follows: "Do you not know that Mnesitheus writes that there are three kinds of wine, dark, light and medium, which the Greeks call κιρρός or 'tawny'; and new, old and medium? And that the dark gives virility, the light increases the urine, and the medium helps digestion? That the new cools, the old heats, and the medium is a dinner for a dog (caninum prandium)?. The meaning of "a dinner for a dog," though a slight matter, I have investigated long and anxiously. Now an abstemious meal, at which there is no drinking, is called "a dog's meal," since the dog has no need of wine. Therefore when Mnesitheus named a medium wine, which was neither new nor old — and many men speak as if all wine was either new or old — he meant that the medium wine had the power neither of the old nor of the new, and was therefore not to be considered wine at all, because it neither cooled nor heated. By refrigerare (to cool), he means the same as the Greek ψύχειν.

§ 14.1  A discourse of the philosopher Favorinus directed against those who are called Chaldaeans, and who profess to tell men's fortunes from the conjunction and movements of the stars and constellations. AGAINST those who call themselves "Chaldaeans" or "astrologers," and profess from the movements and position of the stars to be able to read the future, I once at Rome heard the philosopher Favorinus discourse in Greek in admirable and brilliant language. But whether it was for the purpose of exercising, not vaunting, his talent, or because he seriously and sincerely believed what he said, I am unable to tell; but I promptly jotted down the heads of the topics and of the arguments which he used, so far as I could recall them immediately after leaving the meeting, and they were about to this effect: That this science of the Chaldaeans was not of so great antiquity as they would have it appear; that the founders and authors of it were not those whom they themselves name, but that tricks and delusions of that kind were devised by jugglers and men who made a living and profit from their lies. And since they saw that some terrestrial phenomena known to men were caused by the influence and control of the heavenly bodies, as for example the ocean, as though a companion of the moon, grows old and resumes its youth along with her — from this, forsooth, they derived an argument for persuading us to believe that all human affairs, both the greatest and the least, as though bound to the stars and constellations, are influenced and governed by them. But Favorinus said that it was utterly foolish and absurd to suppose, because the tide of the ocean corresponds with the course of the moon, that a suit at law which one happens to have about an aqueduct with his neighbours, or with the man next door about a party wall, is also bound to heaven as if by a kind of chain and is decided by the stars. But even if by some divine power and purpose this could happen, yet he thought that it could by no means be grasped and understood in such a brief and scant span of life as ours by any human intellect, but he believed that some few things were conjectured παχυμερέστερον, (to use his own term), that is, "somewhat roughly," with no sure foundation of knowledge, but in a loose, random and arbitrary manner, just as when we look at objects far away with eyes blinded by their remoteness from us. For the greatest difference between men and gods was removed, if man also had the power of foreknowing all future events. Furthermore, he thought that even the observation of the stars and constellations, which they declared to be the foundation of their knowledge, was by no means a matter of certainty. "For if the original Chaldaeans," said he, "who dwelt in the open plains, watched the movements and orbits of the stars their separations and conjunctions, and observed their effects, let this art continue to be practised, but let it be only under the same inclination of the heavens as that under which the Chaldaeans then were. For the system of observation of the Chaldaeans cannot remain valid, if anyone should wish to apply it to different regions of the sky. For who does not see," said he, "how great is the diversity of the zones and circles of the heavens caused by the inclination and convexity of the earth? Why then should not those same stars, by which they maintain that all human and divine affairs are affected, just as they do not everywhere arouse cold and heat, but change and vary the weather, at the same time causing calm in one place and storm in another — why should they not, I say, produce one series of affairs and events in the land of the Chaldaeans, another among the Gaetulians, another on the Danube, and still another on the Nile? But," said he, "it is utterly inconsistent to suppose that the mass and the condition of this vast height of air does not remain the same under one or another region of the heavens, but that in human affairs those stars always indicate the same thing from whatever part of the earth you may observe them." Besides, he expressed his surprise that anyone considered it a certainty that those stars which they say were observed by the Chaldaeans and Babylonians, or by the Egyptians, which many call erraticae, or "wandering," but Nigidius called errones, or "the wanderers," are not more numerous than is commonly assumed; for he thought it might possibly be the case that there were some other planets of equal power, without which a correct and final observation could not be completed, but that men could not see them because of their remarkable brilliance or altitude. ' For,' said he, "some stars are visible from certain lands and are known to the men of those lands; but those same stars are not visible from every other land and are wholly unknown to other men. And granting," said he, "both that only these stars ought to be observed, and that too from one part of the earth, what possible end was there to such observation, and what periods of time seemed sufficient for understanding what the conjunction or the orbits or the transits of the stars foretold? For if an observation was made in the beginning in such a manner that it was calculated under what aspect, arrangement and position of the stars anyone was born, and if thereafter his fortune from the beginning of his life, his character, his disposition, the circumstances of his affairs and activities, and finally also the end of his life were noted, and all these things as they had actually happened were committed to writing, and long afterwards, when the same stars were in the same aspect and position, it was supposed that those same things would happen to others who had been born at that same time; if the first observations were made in that way," said he, "and from such observations a kind of science was formed, it can by no means be a success. For let them tell me in how many years, pray, or rather in how many ages, the cycle of the observations could be completed." For he said that it was agreed among astrologers that those stars which they call "wandering," which are supposed to determine the fate of all things, beginning their course together, return to the same place from which they set out only after an innumerable and almost infinite number of years, so that there could be no continuity of observation, and no literary record could endure for so long an epoch. And he thought that this point also ought to be taken into consideration, that one constellation presided at the time when a man was first conceived in his mother's womb, and another one ten months later when he came into the world, and he asked how it was consistent for a different indication to be made about the same person, if, as they themselves thought, a different position and order of the same stars gave different fortunes. But also at the time of marriage, from which children were expected, and at the very union of the husband and wife, he said that it ought to be indicated by a fixed and inevitable position of the stars, with what character and fortune men would be born; and, indeed, long before that, when the father and mother were themselves born, it ought to be foretold even then from their horoscope what offspring they would produce; and far, far back of that, even to infinity, so that, if that science rested on any foundation of truth, a hundred years ago, or rather at the beginning of heaven and earth, and then on in an unbroken series of predictions as long as generation followed generation, those stars ought to have foretold what character and fortune anyone would have who is born today. "But how," said he, "can it be believed that the fate and fortune foretold by the form and position of any one of the stars are fixed and attached to one particular individual, and that the same position of the stars is restored only after a long series of years, if the indications of the same man's life and fortunes in such short intervals, through the single degrees of his forefathers and through an infinite order of successions, are so often and so frequently pointed out as the same, although the position of the stars is not the same? But if this can happen, and if this contradiction and variation be admitted through all the epochs of antiquity in foretelling the origin of those men who are to be born afterwards, this inequality confounds the observation and the whole theory of the science falls to the ground." Moreover, he thought that the most intolerable thing was their belief that not only occurrences and events of an external nature, but even men's very deliberations, their purposes, their various pleasures, their likes and dislikes, the chance and sudden attractions and aversions of their feelings on trifling matters, were excited and influenced from heaven above; for example, if you happened to wish to go to the baths, and then should change your mind, and again should decide to go, that all this happens, not from some shifting and variable state of mind, but from a fateful ebb and flow of the planets. Thus men would clearly be seen to be, not λογικὰ ζῶα or "reasoning beings," as they are called, but a species of ludicrous and ridiculous puppets, if it be true that they do nothing of their own volition or their own will, but are led and driven by the stars. "And if," said he, "they affirm that it could have been foretold whether king Pyrrhus or Manius Curius was to be victorious in the battle, why, pray, do they not dare also to predict which of the players with dice or counters on a board will win? Or, forsooth, do they know important things, but not those which are unimportant; and are unimportant things more difficult to understand than the important? But if they claim knowledge of great matters and say that they are plainer and easier to be understood, I should like," said he, "to have them tell me, in this observation of the whole world, in comparison with such mighty works of nature, what they regard as great in the trifling and brief fortunes and affairs of men. And I should like to have them answer this question also," said he: "if the instant in which man at birth is allotted his destiny is so brief and fleeting, that at that same moment not more than one can be born with the same conjunction under the same circle of the heavens, and if therefore even twins have different lots in life, since they are not born at the same instant — I ask them to tell me," said he, "how and by what plan they are able to overtake the course of that fleeting moment, which can scarcely be grasped by one's thoughts, or to detain and examine it, when in the swift revolution of days and nights even the briefest moments, as they say, cause great changes?" Then, finally, he asked what answer could be made to this argument, that human beings of both sexes, of all ages, born into the world under different positions of the stars and in regions widely separated, nevertheless sometimes all perished together by the same kind of death and at the same moment, either from an earthquake, or a falling building, or the sack of a town, or the wreck of the same ship. "This," said he, "of course would never happen, if the natal influence assigned to the birth of each of them had its own peculiar conditions. But if," he said, "they answer that even in the life and death of men who are born at different times certain events may happen which are alike and similar, through some similar conjunction of the stars at a later time, why may not sometimes everything become equal, so that through such agreement and similarity of the stars many a Socrates and Antisthenes and Plato may appear, equal in birth, in person, in talent, in character, in their whole life and in their death? But this," said he, "can by no means whatever happen. Therefore they cannot properly use this argument against the inequality of men's births and the similarity of their death." He added that he excused them from this further inquiry: namely, if the time, the manner and the cause of men's life and death, and of all human affairs, were in heaven and with the stars, what would they say of flies, worms, sea urchins, and many other minute animals of land and sea? Were they too born and destroyed under the same laws as men? so that to frogs also and gnats either the same fates are assigned at birth by the movements of the constellations, or, if they do not believe that, there seemed to be no reason why that power of the stars should be effective with men and ineffectual with the other animals. These remarks I have touched upon in a dry, unadorned, and almost jejune style. But Favorinus, such was the man's talent, and such is at once the copiousness and the charm of Greek eloquence, delivered them at greater length and with more charm, brilliance and readiness, and from time to time he warned us to take care lest in any way those sycophants should worm their way into our confidence by sometimes seeming to stumble upon, and give utterance to, something true. "For they do not," said he, "say anything that is tangible, definite or comprehensible, but depending upon slippery and roundabout conjecture, groping with cautious steps between truth and falsehood, as if walking in the dark, they go their way. And after making many attempts they either happen suddenly on the truth without knowing it, or led by the great credulity of those who consult them, they get hold by cunning of something true, and therefore obviously find it easier to come somewhere near the truth in past events than in those to come. Yet all the true things which they say through accident or cunning," said he, "are not a thousandth part of the falsehoods which they utter." But besides these remarks which I heard Favorinus make, I recall many testimonies of the ancient poets, by which delusive fallacies of this kind are refuted. Among these is the following saying of Pacuvius: Could men divine the future, they'd match Jove. Also this from Accius, who writes: I trust the augurs not, who with mere words Enrich men's ears, to load themselves with gold. Favorinus too, wishing to deter and turn away young men from such calculators of nativities and from certain others of that kind, who profess to reveal all the future by means of magic arts, concluded with arguments of this sort, to show that they ought by no means to be resorted to and consulted. "They predict," said he, "either adverse or prosperous events. If they foretell prosperity and deceive you, you will be made wretched by vain expectations; if they foretell adversity and lie, you will be made wretched by useless fears. But if they predict truly and the events are unhappy, you will thereby be made wretched by anticipation, before you are fated to be so; if on the contrary they promise prosperity and it conies to pass, then there will clearly be two disadvantages: the anticipation of your hopes will wear you out with suspense, and hope will in advance have reaped the fruit of your approaching happiness. Therefore there is every reason why you should not resort to men of that kind, who profess knowledge of the future."

§ 14.1  How Favorinus discoursed when I consulted hint about the duty of a judge. AT the time when I was first chosen by the praetors to be one of the judges in charge of the suits which are called "private," I hunted up books written in both languages on the duty of a judge, in order that, being a young man, called from poets' tales and orators' perorations to preside in court, I might from lack of the "living voice," as they say, gain legal lore from so-called "mute counsellors." And with regard to postponements and delays and some other legal principles I was advised and helped by the Julian Law itself and by the commentaries of Masurius Sabinus and some other jurists. But in those complicated cases which often come up, and in the perplexity arising from conflicting opinions, such books gave me no aid at all. For although the opinions of judges ought to be formed from the conditions of the cases before them, yet there are certain general principles and precepts by which, before hearing a case, the judge ought to guard and prepare himself against the uncertain event of future difficulties; as, for example, an inexplicable perplexity in coming to an opinion once befell me. A sum of money was claimed before me, which was said to have been paid and counted out; but the claimant did not show this by documents or witnesses, but relied upon very slender argumentis. It was clear, however, that he was a thoroughly good man, of well-known and tested integrity and of blameless life, and many striking instances of his probity and honesty were presented. On the other hand, the man upon whom the claim was made was shown to be of no substance, of base and evil life, often convicted of lying, and full of treachery and fraud. Yet lie, along with his numerous advocates, noisily protested that the payment of the money ought to be shown in the usual way, by a "receipt for payment," by a "book of accounts," by "producing a signature," by "a sealed deed," or by the "testimony of witnesses"; and if it could be shown in none of these ways, that he ought surely to be dismissed at once and his accuser found guilty of blackmail. He maintained that the testimony relating to the life and conduct of the two parties was irrelevant; for this was a case of claiming money before a private judge, not a question of morals inquired into by the censors. Thereupon some friends of mine, whom I had asked to aid me with their advice, experienced men with a reputation gained in acting as advocates and in the business of the forum, who were always inclined to act in haste because of the suits everywhere demanding attention, declared there was no need of sitting longer and that there was no doubt that the defendant ought to be acquitted, since it could not be shown in any of the usual ways that he had received the money. But when I contemplated the men, one abounding in honesty, the other in baseness and of a most shameful and degraded life, I could not by any means be argued into an acquittal. I therefore ordered a postponement and from the bench I proceeded to go to the philosopher Favorinus, with whom I associated a great deal at Rome at that time. I told him the whole story of the suit and of the men, as it had been related to me, begging that with regard both to the matter about which I was then in doubt, as well as to others which I should have to consider in my position as judge, he should make me a man of greater wisdom in such affairs. Then Favorinus, after commending my scrupulous hesitation and my conscientiousness said: "The question which you are now considering may seem to be of a trifling and insignificant character. But if you wish me to instruct you as to the full duties of a judge, this is by no means a fit place or time; for such a discussion involves many intricate questions and requires long and anxious attention and consideration. For-to touch at once upon a few leading questions for your benefit-the first query relating to the duty of a judge is this. If a judge chance to have knowledge of a matter which is brought to trial before him, and the matter is clearly known and demonstrated to him alone from some external circumstance or event, before it has begun to be argued or brought into court, but nevertheless the same thing is not proved in the course of the trial, ought he to decide in accordance with what he knew beforehand, or according to the evidence in the case? This question also," said he, "is often raised, whether it is fitting and proper for a judge, after a case has been heard, if there seems to be an opportunity for compromising the dispute, to postpone the duty of a judge for a time and take the part of a common friend and peace-maker, as it were. And I know that this further is a matter of doubt and inquiry, whether a judge, when hearing a suit, ought to mention and ask about the things which it is for the interest of one of the parties to the suit to mention and inquire, even if the party in question neither mentions nor calls for them. For they say that this is in fact to play the part of an advocate, not of a judge. "Besides these questions, there is disagreement also on this point, whether it is consistent with the Practice and office of a judge by his occasional remarks so to explain and set forth the matter and he case which is being tried, that before the time of his decision, as the result of statements which at he time are made before him in a confused and doubtful form, he gives signs and indications of the motions and feelings by which he is affected on each occasion and at every time. For those judges who give the impression of being keen and quick think that the matter in dispute cannot be examined and understood, unless the judge by frequent questions and necessary interruptions makes his own opinion clear and grasps that of the litigants. But, on the other hand, those who have a reputation for calmness and dignity maintain that the judge ought not, before giving his decision and while the case is being pleaded by both parties, to indicate his opinion whenever he is influenced by some argument that is brought forward. For they say that the result will be, since one emotion of the mind after another must be excited by the variety of points and arguments, that such judges will seem to feel and speak differently about the same case and almost at the same time. "But," said he, "about these and other similar discussions as to the duty of a judge I shall attempt to give you my views later, when we have leisure, and I will repeat the precepts of Aelius Tubero on the subject, which I have read very recently. But so far as concerns the money which you said was claimed before your tribunal, I advise you, by Heaven! to follow the counsel of that shrewdest of men, Marcus Cato; for he, in the speech which he delivered For Lucius Turius against Gnaeus Gellius, said that this custom had been handed down and observed by our forefathers, that if a question at issue between two men could not be proved either by documents or witnesses, then the question should be raised before the judge who was trying the case which of the two was the better man, and if they were either equally good or equally bad, that then the one upon whom the claim was made should be believed and the verdict should be given in his favour. But in this case about which you are in doubt the claimant is a person of the highest character and the one on whom the claim is made is the worst of men, and there are no witnesses to the transaction between the two. So then go and give credit to the claimant and condemn the one on whom the claim is made, since, as you say, the two are not equal and the claimant is the better man. This was the advice which Favorinus gave me at that time, as became a philosopher. But I thought that I should show more importance and presumption than became my youth and humble merit, if I appeared to sit in judgment on and condemn a man from the characters of the disputants rather than from the evidence in the case; yet I could not make up my mind to acquit the defendant, and accordingly I took oath that the matter was not clear to me and in that way I was relieved from rendering a decision. The words of the speech of Marcus Cato which Favorinus mentioned are these: "And I have learnt this from the tradition of our ancestors: if anyone claim anything from another, and both are equally either good or bad, provided there are no witnesses to the transaction between the two, the one from whom the claim is made ought rather to be credited. Now, if Gellius had made a wager with Turio on the issue, ' Provided Gellius were not a better man than Turio,' no one, I think, would be so mad as to decide that Gellius is better than Turio; if Gellius is not better than Turio, the one from whom the claim is made ought preferably to be credited."

§ 14.3  Whether Plato and Xenophon were rivals and not on good terms with each other. THOSE who have written most carefully and thoroughly about the life and character of Xenophon and Plato have expressed the belief that they were not free from certain secret and concealed feelings of enmity and rivalry of each other, and they have set forth some conjectural evidence of this, drawn from their writings. These are in fact of this sort: that Plato in his great number of works nowhere makes mention of Xenophon, nor, on the other hand, does Xenophon mention Plato in his writings, although both men, and in particular Plato in the dialogues which he wrote, mention many followers of Socrates. This too they thought was an indication of no sincerely friendly feeling: that Xenophon in opposition to that celebrated work of Plato, which he wrote on the best form of constitution and of governing a city-state, having barely read the two books of Plato's work which were first made public, proposed a different mode of government (to wit, a monarchy) in the work entitled παιδείας κύρου, or The Education of Cyrus. They say that Plato was so disturbed by that conduct and book of his, that having made mention of king Cyrus in one of his own books, in order to criticize and belittle Xenophon's work he said that Cyrus was indeed a strong and active man, but "had by no means had a fitting education"; for these are Plato's words about Cyrus. Moreover, they think that this also is added to what I have already said: that Xenophon, in the book which he wrote as records of the sayings and doings of Socrates, asserts that Socrates never discussed the causes and laws of the heavens and of nature, and that he never touched upon or approved the other sciences, called by the Greeks μαθήματα which did not contribute to a good and happy life; accordingly, he says that those who have attributed discourses of that kind to Socrates are guilty of a base falsehood. "But when Xenophon wrote this," they say, "The of course refers to Plato, in whose works Socrates discourses on physics, music and geometry." But if anything of this kind was to be believed, or even suspected, in noble and dignified men, I do not believe that the motive was hostility or envy, or a contest for gaining greater glory; for such considerations are wholly alien to the character of philosophers, among whom those two were in all men's judgment pre-eminent. What then is the reason for that opinion? Undoubtedly this: the mere equality and likeness of kindred talents, even though the desire and inclination of contention be absent, nevertheless create an appearance of rivalry. For when two or more men of great intellectual gifts, who have gained distinction in the same pursuit, are of equal or nearly equal fame, then there arises among their various partisans emulation in expressing an estimate of their efforts and merit. Then later, from the contention of others, the contagion of rivalry spreads to the men themselves, and while they are pressing on to the same goal of honour, the race is so even, or almost even, that it comes imperceptibly under a suspicion of rivalry, not from any purpose of their own, but from the zeal of their partisans. So then Xenophon and Plato, two stars of Socrates' charming philosophy, were believed to contend with and rival each other, because others strove to show that one or the other was the superior, and because two eminent characters, when they are labouring side by side for a lofty aim, beget a kind of appearance of rivalry and competition.

§ 14.4  That Chrysippus skilfully and vividly represented the likeness of Justice in melodious and picturesque language. MOST worthily, by Heaven! and most elegantly did Chrysippus, in the first book of his work entitled On Beauty and Pleasure, depict the face and eyes of Justice, and her aspect, with austere and noble word-painting. For he represents the figure of Justice, and says that it was usually represented by the painters and orators of old in about the following manner: "Of maidenly form and bearing, with a stern and fearsome countenance, a keen glance of the eye, and a dignity and solemnity which was neither mean nor cruel, but awe-inspiring." From the spirit of this representation he wished it to be understood that the judge, who is the priest of Justice, ought to be dignified, holy, austere, incorruptible, not susceptible to flattery, pitiless and inexorable towards the wicked and guilty, vigorous, lofty, and powerful, terrible by reason of the force and majesty of equity and truth. Chrysippus' own words about Justice are as follows: "She has the title of virgin as a symbol of her purity and an indication that she has never given way to evil-doers, that she has never yielded to soothing words, to prayers and entreaties, to flattery, nor to anything of that kind. Therefore she is properly represented too as stern and dignified, with a serious expression and a keen, steadfast glance, in order that she may inspire fear in the wicked and courage in the good; to the latter, as her friends, she presents a friendly aspect, to the former a stern face." I thought it the more necessary to quote these words of Chrysippus, in order that they might be before us for consideration and judgment, since, on hearing me read them, some philosophers who are more sentimental in their views called that a representation of Cruelty rather than of Justice.

§ 14.5  The strife and contention of two eminent grammarians at Rome as to the vocative case of egregius. ONCE upon a time, wearied with constant writing, I was walking in the park of Agrippa for the purpose of relieving and resting my mind. And there, as it chanced, I saw two grammarians of no small repute in the city of Rome, and was a witness of a violent dispute between them, one maintaining that vir egregi was the proper form of the vocative case, the other vir egregie. The argument of the one who thought that we should say egregi was of this sort: "Whatever nouns or words," said he, "end in the nominative singular in the syllable us preceded by i, in the vocative case terminate in the letter i, as Caelius Caeli, modius modi, tertius terti, Accius Acci, Titius Titi, and the like; so then egregious, since it ends in the syllable us in the nominative and the letter i precedes that syllable, must in the vocative singular have i for the final letter, and therefore it is correct to say egregi, not egregie. For divus and rivus and clivus do not end in the syllable us, but in that which ought to be written with two us, and in order to indicate that sound a new letter was devised, which was called the digamma." When the other heard this, he said: O egrege grammatice, or if you prefer, egregissime, tell me, I pray you, what is the vocative case of, inscius, impius, sobrius, ebrius, proprius, propitious, anxius, and contrarius, which end in the syllable us and have the letter i before the final syllable? For shame and modesty prevent me from pronouncing them according to your rule." Now the other, overcome by the accumulation of so many words against him, remained silent for a time; but then he nevertheless rallied, and upheld and defended that same rule which he had laid down, maintaining that proprius, propitius, anxius and contrarius ought to have the same form in the vocative case as adversarius and extrarius; that inscius also and impius and ebrius and sobrius were somewhat less commonly, nevertheless more correctly, made to end in that same case in the letter i rather than e. But as this contest of theirs was likely to be continued for some time, I did not think it worth while to listen to those same arguments any longer, and I left them shouting and wrangling.

§ 14.6  Of what kind are the things which have the appearance of learning, but are neither entertaining nor useful; and also of changes in the names of several cities and regions. A FRIEND of mine, a man not without fame as a student of literature, who had passed a great part of his life among books, said to me: "I should like to aid and adorn your Nights," at the same time presenting me with a book of great bulk, overflowing, as he himself put it, with learning of every kind. He said that he had compiled it as the result of wide, varied and abstruse reading, and he invited me to take from it as much as I liked and thought worthy of record. I took the book eagerly and gladly, as if I had got possession of the horn of plenty, and shut myself up in order to read it without interruption. But what was written there was, by Jove! merely a list of curiosities: the name of the man who was first called a "grammarian"; the number of famous men named Pythagoras and Hippocrates; Homer's description of the λαυρή, or "narrow passage," in the house of Ulysses; why Telemachus did not touch Pisistratus, who was lying beside him, with his hand, but awakened him by a kick; with what kind of bolt Euryclia shut in Telemachus; and why the same poet did not know the rose, but did know oil made from roses. It also contained the names of the companions of Ulysses who were seized and torn to pieces by Scylla; whether the wanderings of Ulysses were in the inner sea, as Aristarchus believed, or in the outer sea, according to Crates. There was also a list of the isopsephic verses in Homer; what names in the same writer are given in the form of an acrostic; what verse it is in which each word is a syllable longer than the preceding word; by what rule each head of cattle produces three offspring each year; of the five layers with which the shield of Achilles was strengthened, whether the one made of gold was on top or in the middle; and besides what regions and cities had had a change of name, as Boeotia was formerly called Aonia, Egypt Aeria, Crete by the same name Aeria, Attica Acte, Corinth Ephyre, Macedonia Emathia, Thessaly Haemonia, Tyre Sarra, Thrace Sithonia, Paestum Poseidonia. These things and many others of the same kind were included in that book. Hastening to return it to him at once, I said: "I congratulate you, most learned sir, on this display of encyclopaedic erudition; but take back this precious volume, which does not have the slightest connection with my humble writings. For my Nights, which you wish to assist and adorn, base their inquiries especially on that one verse of Homer which Socrates said was above all other things always dear to him, "Whate'er of good and ill has come to you at home."

§ 14.7  That Marcus Varro presented Gnaeus Pompeius, when he was consul elect for the first time, with a commentary, which Varro himself called εἰσαγωγικός, on the method of conducting meetings of the senate. GNAEUS POMPIEIUS was elected consul for the first time with Marcus Crassus. When he was on the point of entering upon the office, because of his long military service he was unacquainted with the method of convening and consulting the senate, and of city affairs in general. He therefore asked his friend Marcus Varro to make him a book of instructions (εἰσαγωγικός, as Varro himself termed it), from which he might learn what he ought to say and do when he brought a measure before the House. Varro in letters which he wrote to Op pianus, contained in the fourth book of his Investigations in Epistolary Form, says that this notebook which he made for Pompey on that subject was lost; and since what he had previously written was no longer in existence, he repeats in those letters a good deal bearing upon the same subject. First of all, he tells us there by what magistrates the senate was commonly convened according to the usage of our forefathers, naming these: "the dictator, consuls, praetors, tribunes of the commons, interrex, and prefect of the city." No other except these, he said, had the right to pass a decree of the senate, and whenever it happened that all those magistrates were in Rome at the same time, then he says that the first in the order of the list which I have just quoted had the prior right of bringing a matter before the senate; next, by an exceptional privilege, the military tribunes also who had acted as consuls, and likewise the decemvirs, who in their day had consular authority, and the triumvirs appointed to reorganize the State, had the privilege of bringing measures before the House. Afterwards he wrote about vetoes, and said that the right to veto a decree of the senate belonged only to those who had the same authority as those who wished to pass the decree, or greater power. He then added a list of the places in which a decree of the senate might lawfully be made, and he showed and maintained that this was regular only in a place which had been appointed by an augur, and called a "temple." Therefore in the Hostilian Senate House and the Pompeian, and later in the Julian, since those were unconsecrated places, "temples" were established by the augurs, in order that in those places lawful decrees of the senate might be made according to the usage of our forefathers. In connection with which he also wrote this, that not all sacred edifices are temples, and that not even the shrine of Vesta was a temple. After this he goes on to say that a decree of the senate made before sunrise or after sunset was not valid, and that those through whom a decree of the senate was made at that time were thought to have committed an act deserving censure. Then he gives much instruction on the same lines: on what days it was not lawful to hold a meeting of the senate; that one who was about to hold a meeting of the senate should first offer up a victim and take the auspices; that questions relating to the gods ought to be presented to the senate before those affecting men; then further that resolutions should be presented indefinitely, as affecting the general welfare, or definitely on specific cases; that a decree of the senate was made in two ways: either by division if there was general agreement, or if the matter was disputed, by calling for the opinion of each senator; furthermore the senators ought to have been built by Numa, and was certainly very ancient. It was burned and rebuilt several times, the last restoration being in A.D. by Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus. be asked their opinions in order, beginning with the grade of consul. And in that grade in former times the one to be called upon first was always the one who had first been enrolled in the senate; but at the time when he was writing he said that a new custom had become current, through partiality and a desire to curry favour, of asking first for the opinion of the one whom the presiding officer wished to call upon, provided however that he was of consular rank. Besides this he discoursed about seizure of goods and the imposing of a fine upon a senator who was not present when it was his duty to attend a meeting. These and certain other matters of that kind, first published in the book of which I spoke above, Marcus Varro treated in a letter written to Oppianus. But when he says that a decree of the senate is commonly made in two ways, either by calling for opinions or by division, that does not seem to agree with what Ateius Capito has written in his Miscellanies. For in Book VIIII Capito says that Tubero asserts that no decree of the senate could be made without a division, since in all decrees of the senate, even in those which are made by calling for opinions, a division was necessary, and Capito himself declares that this is true. But I recall writing on this whole matter more fully and exactly in another place.

§ 14.8  Inquiry and difference of opinion as to whether the praefect appointed for the Latin Festival has the right of convening and consulting the senate. JUNIUS declares that the praefect left in charge of the city because of the Latin Festival may not hold a meeting of the senate, since he is neither a senator nor has he the right of expressing his opinion, because he is made praefect at an age when he is not eligible to the senate. But Marcus Varro in the fourth book of his Investigations in Epistolary Form and Ateius Capito in the ninth of his Miscellanies assert that the praefect has the right to convene the senate, and Capito declares that Varro agrees on this point with Tubero, contrary to the view of Junius: "For the tribunes of the commons also," says Capito, "had the right of convening the senate although before the bill of Atinius they were not senators."

§ 15.1  That it is written in the Annals of Quintus Claudius that wood smeared with alum does not burn. THE rhetorician Antonius Julianus, besides holding forth on many other occasions, had once declaimed with marvellous charm and felicity. For such scholastic declamations generally show the characteristics of the same man and the same eloquence, but nevertheless are not every day equally happy. We friends of his therefore thronged about him on all sides and were escorting him home, when, as we were on our way up the Cispian Hill, we saw that a block of houses, built high with many stories, had caught fire, and that now all the neighbouring buildings were burning in a mighty conflagration. Then some one of Julianus' companions said: "The income from city property is great, but the dangers are far greater. But if some remedy could be devised to prevent houses in Rome from so constantly catching fire, by Jove! I would sell my country property and buy in the city." And Julianus replied to him in his usual happy and graceful style: "If you had read the nineteenth book of the Annals of Quintus Claudius, that excellent and faithful writer, you would surely have learned from Archelaus, a praefect of king Mithridates, by what method and by what skill you might prevent fires, so that no wooden building of yours would burn, even though caught and penetrated by the flames." I inquired what this marvel of Quadrigarius was. He rejoined: "In that book then I found it recorded, that when Lucius Sulla attacked the Piraeus in the land of Attica, and Archelaus, praefect of king Mithridates, was defending it against him, Sulla was unable to burn a wooden tower constructed for purposes of defence, although it had been surrounded with fire on every side, because Archelaus had smeared it with alum." The words of Quadrigarius in that book are as follows: "When Sulla had exerted himself for a long time, he led out his troops in order to set fire to a single wooden tower which Archelaus had interposed. He came, he drew near, he put wood under it, he beat off the Greeks, he applied fire; though they tried for a considerable time, they were never able to set it on fire, so thoroughly had Archelaus covered all the wood with alum. Sulla and his soldiers were amazed at this, and failing in his attempt, the general led back his troops."

§ 15.2  That Plato in the work which he wrote On the Laws expressed the opinion that inducements to drink more abundantly and more merrily at feasts were not without benefit. A MAN from the island of Crete, who was living in Athens, gave out that he was a Platonic philosopher and desired to pass as one. He was, however, a man of no worth, a trifler, boastful of his command of Grecian eloquence, besides having a passion for wine which fairly made him a laughing stock. At the entertainments which it was the custom of us young men to hold at Athens at the beginning of each week, as soon as we had finished eating and an instructive and pleasant conversation had begun, this fellow, having called for silence that he might be heard, began to speak, and using a cheap and disordered rabble of words after his usual fashion, urged all to drink; and this he declared that he did in accordance with the injunction of Plato, maintaining that Plato in his work On the Laws had written most eloquently in praise of drunkenness, and had decided that it was beneficial to good and strong men. And at the same time, while he was thus speaking, he drenched such wits as he had with frequent and huge beakers, saying that it was a kind of touchwood and tinder to the intellect and the faculties, if mind and body were inflamed with wine. However, Plato in the first and second books of his work On the Laws did not, as that fool thought, praise that shameful intoxication which is wont to undermine and weaken men's minds, although he did not disapprove of that somewhat more generous and cheerful inspiration of wine which is regulated by some temperate arbiters, so to speak, and presidents of banquets. For he thought that by the proper and moderate relaxation of drinking the mind was refreshed and renewed for resuming the duties of sobriety, and that men were gradually rendered happier and became readier to repeat their efforts. At the same time, if there were deep in their hearts any errors of inclination or desire, which a kind of reverential shame concealed, he thought that by the frankness engendered by wine all these were disclosed without great danger and became more amenable to correction and cure. And in the same place Plato says this also: that exercises of this kind for the purpose of resisting the violence of wine, are not to be avoided and shunned, and that no one ever appeared to be altogether selfrestrained and temperate whose life and habits had not been tested amid the very dangers of error and in the midst of the enticements of pleasures. For when all the license and attractions of banquets are unknown, and a man is wholly unfamiliar with them, if haply inclination has led him, or chance has induced him, or necessity has compelled him, to take part in pleasures of that kind, then he is as a rule seduced and taken captive, his mind and soul fail to meet the test, but give way, as if attacked by some strange power. Therefore he thought that we ought to meet the issue and contend hand to hand, as in a kind of battle, with pleasure and indulgence in wine, in order that we may not be safe against them by flight or absence, but that by vigour of spirit, by presence of mind, and by moderate use, we may preserve our temperance and self-restraint, and at the same time by warming and refreshing the mind we may free it of whatever frigid austerity or dull bashfulness it may contain.

§ 15.3  What Marcus Cicero thought and wrote about the prefix in the verbs aufugio and aufero; and whether this same preposition is to be seen in the verb autumo. I READ a book of Marcus Cicero's entitled The Orator. In that book when Cicero had said that the verbs aufugio and aufero were indeed formed of the preposition ab and the verbs fugio and fero, but that the preposition, in order that the word might be smoother in pronunciation and sound, was changed and altered into the syllable au, and aufulgio and aufero began to be used for abfugio and abfero; when he had said this, I say, he afterwards in the same work wrote as follows of the same particle: "This preposition," he says, "will be found in no other verb save these two only." But I have found in the Commentary of Nigidius that the verb autumo is formed from the preposition ab and the verb aestumo (estimate) and that autumo is a contracted form of abaestumo, signifying totum aestumo, on the analogy of abnumero. But, be it said with great respect for Publius Nigidius, a most learned man, this seems to be rather bold and clever than true. For autumo does not only mean "I think," but also "I say," "I am of the opinion," and "I consider," with which verbs that preposition has no connection either in the composition of the word or in the expression of its meaning. Besides, Marcus Tullius, a man of unwearied industry in the pursuit of letters, would not have said that these were the only two verbs containing au, if any third example could be found. But the following point is more worthy of examination and investigation, whether the preposition ab is altered and changed into the syllable au for the sake of making the pronunciation smoother, or whether more properly the particle au has its own origin, and just as many other prepositions were taken from the Greeks, so this one also is derived from that source. As in that verse of Homer: First bent them back (αὐέρυσαν), then slew and flayed the beasts; and: Loud-shouting (αὐίαχοι), noisy.

§ 15.4  The story of Ventidius Bassus, a man of obscure birth, who is reported to have been the first to celebrate a triumph over the Parthians. It was lately remarked in the conversation of certain old and learned men that in ancient times many persons of most obscure birth, who were previously held in great contempt, had risen to the highest grade of dignity. Nothing that was said about anyone, however, excited so much wonder as the story recorded of Ventidius Bassus. He was born in Picenum in a humble station, and with his mother was taken prisoner by Pompeius Strabo, father of Pompey the Great, in the Social War, in the course of which Strabo subdued the Aesculani. Afterwards, when Pompeius Strabo triumphed, the boy also was carried in his mother's arms amid the rest of the captives before the general's chariot. Later, when he had grown up, he worked hard to gain a livelihood, resorting to the humble calling of a buyer of mules and carriages, which he had contracted with the State to furnish to the magistrates who had been allotted provinces. In that occupation he made the acquaintance of Gaius Caesar and went with him to the Gallic provinces. Then, because he had shown commendable energy in that province, and later during the civil war had executed numerous commissions with promptness and vigour, he not only gained Caesar's friendship, but because of it rose even to the highest rank. Afterwards he was also made tribune of the commons, and then praetor, and at that time he was declared a public enemy by the senate along with Mark Antony. Afterwards, however, when the parties were united, he not only recovered his former rank, but gained first the pontificate and then the consulship. At this the Roman people, who remembered that Ventidius Bassus had made a living by taking care of mules, were so indignant that these verses were posted everywhere about the streets of the city: Assemble, soothsayers and augurs all! A portent strange has taken place of late; For he who curried mules is consul now. Suetonius Tranquillus writes that this same Bassus was put in charge of the eastern provinces by Mark Antony, and that when the Parthians invaded Syria he routed them in three battles; that he was the first of all to celebrate a triumph over the Parthians, and was honoured when he died with a public funeral.

§ 15.5  That the verb profligo is used by many improperly and ignorantly. JUST as many other words, through the ignorance and stupidity of those who speak badly what they do not understand, are diverted and turned aside from their proper and usual meaning, so too has the signification of the verb profligo been changed and perverted. For while it is taken over and derived from adfligo, in the sense of "bring to ruin and destruction," and while all who have been careful in their diction have always used the word to express "waste" and "destroy," calling things that were cast down and destroyed res profligatae, I now hear that buildings, temples, and many other things that are almost complete and finished are said to be in profligato and the things themselves profligata. Therefore that was a very witty reply, as Sulpicius Apollinaris has recorded in one of his Letters, which a praetor, a man not without learning, made to a simpleton among a crowd of advocates. "For," said he, "when that impudent prater had made a request in these terms: 'All the business, renowned sir, about which you said that you would take cognizance today, because of your diligence and promptness is done (profligata sunt); one matter only remains, to which I beg you to give attention.' Then the praetor wittily enough replied: 'Whether the affairs of which you say that I have taken cognizance are done (profligata), I do not know; but this business which has fallen into your hands is undoubtedly done for (profligatum est), whether I hear it or not.'" But to indicate what those wish to express who use profligatum in the sense of "nearly done," those who have spoken good Latin used, not profligatum, but adfectum, as for example Marcus Cicero, in the speech which he delivered About the Consular Provinces. His words are as follows: "We see the war nearing its end (adfectum) and, to tell the truth, all but finished." Also further on: "For why should Caesar himself wish to remain longer in that province, except that he may turn over to the State, completed, the tasks which he has nearly finished (acfecta sunt)?" Cicero also says in the Oeconomicus: "When indeed, as summer is already well nigh ended (adfecta), it is time for the grapes to ripen in the sun."

§ 15.6  An evident mistake in the second book of Cicero On Glory, in the place where he has written about Hector and Ajax. IN Cicero's second book On Glory there is an evident mistake, of no great importance-a mistake which it does not require a man of learning to detect, but merely one who has read the seventh book of Homer. Therefore I am not so much surprised that Marcus Tullius erred in that matter, as that it was not noticed later and corrected either by Cicero himself or by Tiro, his freedman, a most careful man, who gave great attention to his patron's books. Now, in that book the following passage occurs: "The same poet says that Ajax, when about to engage with Hector in combat, arranges for his burial in case he should chance to be defeated, declaring that he wishes that those who pass his tomb even after many ages should thus speak: Here lies a man of life's light long bereft, Who slain by Hector's sword fell long ago. This, one shall say; my glory ne'er shall die." But the verses to this purport, which Cicero has turned into the Latin tongue, Ajax does not utter in Homer, nor is it Ajax who plans his burial, but Hector speaks the lines and arranges for burial, before he knows whether Ajax will meet him in combat.

§ 15.7  It has been observed of old men, that the sixty-third year of their life is marked as a rule by troubles, by death, or by some disaster; and an example apropos of this observation is taken from a letter from the deified Augustus to his son Gaius. IT has been observed during a long period of human recollection, and found to be true, that for almost all old men the sixty-third year of their age Both were adopted by Augustus, and on the death of the young Marcellus were madeprincipes iuventutis, and thus designated as the successors of Augustus. is attended with danger, and with some disaster involving either serious bodily illness, or loss of life, or mental suffering. Therefore those who are engaged in the study of matters and terms of that kind call that period of life the "climacteric." Night before last, too, when I was reading a volume of letters of the deified Augustus, written to his grandson Gaius, and was led on by the elegance of the style, which was easy and simple, by Heaven without mannerisms or effort, in one of the letters I ran upon a reference to this very belief about that same year. I give a copy of the letter: "The ninth day before the Kalends of October. "Greeting, my dear Gaius, my dearest little donkey, whom, so help me! constantly miss whenever you are away from me. But especially on such days as today my eyes are eager for my Gaius, and wherever you have been today, I hope you have celebrated my sixty-fourth birthday in health and happiness. For, as you see, I have passed the climacteric common to all old men, the sixty-third year. And I pray the gods that whatever time is left to me I may pass with you safe and well, with our country in a flourishing condition, while you are playing the man and preparing to succeed to my position."

§ 15.8  A passage from a speech of Favonius, an early orator, containing an attack which he made on luxurious entertainments, when he was advocating the Licinian law for lessening extravagance. WHEN I was reading an old speech of Favonius, a man of no little eloquence, in which . . . I learned the whole of it by heart, in order to be able to remember that such extravagant living is truly hateful. These words which I have added are those of Favonius: "The leaders in gluttony and luxury declare that an entertainment is not elegant, unless, when you are eating with the greatest relish, your plate is removed and a better, richer dainty comes from the reserves. This today is thought the very flower of a feast among those with whom extravagance and fastidiousness take the place of elegance; who say that the whole of no bird ought to be eaten except a fig-pecker; who think that a dinner is mean and stingy unless so many of the other birds and fatted fowl are provided, that the guests may be satisfied with the rumps and hinder parts; who believe that those who eat the upper parts of such birds and fowl have no refinement of taste. If luxury continues to increase in its present proportion, what remains but that men should bid someone to eat their dinners for them, in order that they may not fatigue themselves by feeding, when the couch is more profusely adorned with gold, silver and purple for a few mortals than for the immortal gods?"

§ 15.9  That the poet Caecilius used frons in the masculine gender, not by poetic license, but properly and by analogy. CORRECTLY and elegantly did Caecilius write this in his Changeling: The worst of foes are these, of aspect gay (fronte hilaro), Gloomy of heart, whom we can neither grasp Nor yet let go. I chanced to quote these lines in a company of well educated young men, when we were speaking of a man of that kind. Thereupon one of a throng of grammarians who stood there with us, a man of no little repute, said: "What license and boldness Caecilius showed here in saying, fronte hilaro and not fronte hilara, and in not shrinking from so dreadful a solecism." "Nay," said I, "it is rather we who are as bold and free as possible in improperly and ignorantly failing to use frons in the masculine gender, when both the principle of regularity which is called analogy and the authority of earlier writers indicate that we ought to say, not hanc frontem, but hunc frontem. Indeed, Marcus Cato in the first book of his Origins wrote as follows: 'On the following day in open combat, with straight front (aequo fronte) we fought with the enemy's legions with foot, horse and wings.' Also Cato again says recto fronte in the same book." But that half-educated grammarian said: "Away with your authorities, which I think you may perhaps have, but give me a reason, which you do not have." Then I, somewhat irritated by those words of his, as was natural at my time of life: "Listen," said I, "my dear sir, to a reason that may be false, but which you cannot prove to be false. All words," said I, "ending in the three letters in which frons ends are of the masculine gender, if they end in the same syllable in the genitive case also, as mons, fons, pons, frons." But he replied with a laugh: "Hear, young scholar, several other similar words which are not of the masculine gender." Then all begged him at once to name just one. But when the man was screwing up his face, could not open his lips, and changed colour, then I broke in, saying: "Go now and take thirty days to hunt one up; when you have found it, meet us again." And thus we sent off this worthless fellow to hunt up a word with which to break down the rule which I had made.

§ 15.10  About the strange suicides of the maids of Miletus. PLUTARCH in the first book of his work On the Soul, discussing disorders which affect the human mind, has told us that almost all the maidens of the Milesian nation suddenly without any apparent cause conceived a desire to die, and thereupon many of them hanged themselves. When this happened more frequently every day, and no remedy had any effect on their resolve to die, the Milesians passed a decree that all those maidens who committed suicide by hanging should be carried to the grave naked, along with the same rope by which they had destroyed themselves. After that decree the maidens ceased to seek a voluntary death, deterred by the mere shame of so disgraceful a burial.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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."

§ 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."

§ 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).

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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 field of Mars, and the army to be summoned there for purposes of defence while the people were busy casting their votes."

§ 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 Cicero was born on the third day before the Nones of January, to Marcus Tullius and Gnaeus Dolabella, in whose consulate 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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 Hermundulam 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, 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."

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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: Goat-traversed heights, Aetnas, rough Athoses.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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."

§ 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."

§ 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 Methyma, 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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!"

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 17.18  The statement of Marcus Vairo 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.

§ 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)."

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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).

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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."

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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 Aurorapudoricolor, 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."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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.

§ 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 siticinesused. 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.

§ 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.

§ 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."

§ 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)."

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 20.8  Of things which seem to have συμπτωσία, or "coincidence," with the waning and waxing moon. THE poet Annianus owned an estate in the Faliscan territory, where he used to celebrate the vintage season with mirth and jollity. On one occasion he invited me, along with some other friends. As we were dining there one day, a large quantity of oysters were sent from Rome. When they were set before us and proved to be indeed numerous, but neither rich nor very plump, Annianus said: "Of course the moon is waning just now; therefore the oyster also, like some other things, is thin and juiceless." When we asked what other things wasted away with the waning moon, he answered: "Don't you remember that our Lucilius says: The moon makes oysters fat, sea-urchins full, And bulk and substance to the mussels adds? Furthermore, those same things which grow as the moon waxes grow less as it wanes. The eyes of cats also become larger or smaller according to the same changes of the moon. This too," said he, "is much more greatly to be wondered at, which I read in the fourth book of Plutarch's Commentary on Hesiod: ' The onion grows and buds as the moon wanes, but, on the contrary, dries up while the moon waxes. The Egyptian priests say that this is the reason why the people of Pelusium do not eat the onion, because it is the only one of all vegetables which has an interchange of increase and decrease contrary to the waxing and waning of the moon.'"

§ 20.9  A passage in the Mimiambi of Gnaeus Matius, in which Antonius Iulianus used to delight; and the meaning of Marcus Cato in the speech which he wrote on his own uprightness, when he said: "I have never asked the people for garments." ANTONIUS JULIANUS used to say that his ears were soothed and charmed by the newly-coined words of Gnaeus Matius, a man of learning, such as the following, which he said were written by Matius in his Mimiambi: Revive your cold love in your warm embrace, Close joining lip to lip like amorous dove (columbulatim). And this also he declared to be charmingly and neatly devised: The shorn rugs now are drunken with the dye With which the shell has drenched and coloured them. . .

§ 20.10  The meaning of the phrase ex iure manum consertum. Ex iure manum consertum, or "lay on hands according to law," is a phrase taken from ancient cases at law, and commonly used today when a case is tried before the praetor and claims are made. I asked a Roman grammarian, a man of wide reputation and great name, what the meaning of these words was. But he, looking scornfully at me, said: "Either you are making a mistake, youngster, or you are jesting; for I teach grammar and do not give legal advice. If you want to know anything connected with Virgil, Plautus or Ennius, you may ask me." "It is a question from Ennius then, master," said I, "that I am asking. For it was Ennius who used those words." And when the grammarian said in great surprise that the words were unsuited to poetry and that they were not to be found anywhere in the poems of Ennius, I quoted from memory the following lines from the eighth book of the Annals; for it chanced that I remembered them because of their particularly striking character: Wisdom is driven forth and force prevails; They scorn the speaker good, the rude soldier love. Contending not with learning nor abuse, They join in strife, not laying claim by law, But, seeking with the sword both wealth and power, With force resistless rush. When I had recited these verses from Ennius, the grammarian rejoined: "Now I believe you. But I would have you believe me, when I say that Quintus Ennius learned this, not from his reading of the poets, but from someone learned in the law. Do you too then go and learn from the same source as Ennius." I followed the advice of this teacher, when he referred me to another from whom I could learn what he ought to have taught me himself: And I thought that I ought to include in these notes of mine what I have learned from jurists and their writings, since those who are living in the midst of affairs and among men ought not to be ignorant of the commoner legal expressions. Manum conserere, "to lay on hands." . . . For with one's opponent to lay hold of and claim in the prescribed formula anything about which there is a dispute, whether it be a field or something else, is called vindicia, or "a claim." A seizing with the hand of the thing or place in question took place in the presence of the praetor according to the Twelve Tables, in which it was written 'If any lay on hands in the presence of the magistrate." But when the boundaries of Italy were extended and the praetors were greatly occupied with legal business, they found it hard to go to distant places to settle claims. Therefore it became usual by silent consent, though contrary to the Twelve Tables, for the litigants not to lay on hands in court in the presence of the praetor, but to call for "a laying on of hands according to law"; that is, that the one litigant should summon the other to the object in question, to lay hands on it according to law, and that they should go together to the field under dispute and bring some earth from it to the city to the praetor's court, for example one clod, and should lay claim to that clod, as if it were the whole field. Accordingly Ennius, wishing to describe such action, said that restitution was demanded, not by legal processes, such as are carried on before a praetor, nor by a laying on of hands according to law, but by war and the sword, and by genuine and resistless violence; and he seems to have expressed this by comparing that civil and symbolic power which is exercised in name only and not actually, with warlike and sanguinary violence.

§ 20.11  The meaning of the word sculna, used by Marcus Varro. PUBLIUS LAVINIUS is the author of a carefully written book, entitled On Vulgar Words. In it he wrote that sculna was a colloquial form for seculna, "for which," says he, "more elegant speakers use sequester, or 'arbiter.'" Each of these words is derived from sequor, because both parties "follow" the decision of the arbiter who is chosen. Lavinius reminds us in the same book that sculna was written in the division of Marcus Varro's Logistorica entitled Caius. But that which was deposited with the arbiter they spoke of as sequestro positum, "deposited for arbitration," using the adverb sequestro. Cato, in his speech On Ptolemy, against Thermus, says: "By the immortal gods, do not. . . ."