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.
Superbiae quoque crimen, quod tunc praeter cetera in senatu Rodiensibus obiectum erat, mirifica et prope divina responsionis figura elusit et eluit.
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.
Verba adeo ipsa ponemus Catonis, quoniam Tiro ea praetermisit:
Suppose they are arrogant. What is that to us? Are you to be angry merely because someone is more arrogant than we are?”
“Rodiensis superbos esse aiunt, id obiectantes quod mihi et liberis meis minime dici velim. Sint sane superbi. Quid id ad nos attinet? Idne irascimini, si quis superbior est quam nos?”
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. 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;
Nihil prorsus hac compellatione dici potest neque gravius neque munitius adversus homines superbissimos facta, qui superbiam in sese amarent, in aliis reprehenderent.
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.
Praeterea animadvertere est, in tota ista Catonis oratione omnia disciplinarum rhetoricarum arma atque subsidia mota esse; sed non proinde ut in decursibus ludicris aut simulacris proeliorum voluptariis fieri videmus. Non enim, inquam, distincte nimis atque compte atque modulate res acta est, sed quasi in ancipiti certamine, cum sparsa acies est, multis locis Marte vario pugnatur, sic in ista tum causa Cato, cum superbia illa Rodiensium famosissima multorum odio atque invidia flagraret, omnibus promisce tuendi atque propugnandi modis usus est, et nunc ut optime meritos commendat, nunc tamquam si innocentes purgat, nunc ne bona divitiaeque eorum expetantur obiurgat, nunc quasi sit erratum deprecatur, nunc ut necessarios reipublicae ostentat, nuncnune clementiae, nunc mansuetudinis maiorum, nunc utilitatis publicae commonefacit.
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.
Eaque omnia distinctius numerosiusque fortassean dici potuerint, fortius atque vividius potuisse dici non videntur.
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.
Inique igitur Tiro Tullius, quod ex omnibus facultatibus tam opulentae orationis, aptis inter sese et cohaerentibus, parvum quippiam nudumque sumpsit, quod obtrectaret tamquam non dignum M. Catone fuerit, quod delictorum non perpetratorum voluntates non censuerit poeniendas.
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.
Commodius autem rectiusque de his meis verbis, quibus Tullio Tironi respondimus, existimabit iudiciumque faciet, qui et orationem ipsam totam Catonis acceperit in manus et epistulam Tironis ad Axium scriptam requirere et legere curaverit. Ita enim nos sincerius exploratiusque vel corrigere poterit vel probare.
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.”
4. Cuiusmodi servos et quam ob causam Caelius Sabinus, iuris civilis auctor, pilleatos vendundarivenundari solitos scripserit; et quae mancipia sub corona more maiorum venierint; atque id ipsum “sub corona” quid sit. PILLEATOS servos venum solitos ire, quorum nomine venditor nihil praestaret, Caelius Sabinus iurisperitus scriptum reliquit. Cuius rei causam esse ait, quod eiusmodi condicionis mancipia insignia esse in vendundo deberent, ut emptores errare et capi non possent, neque lex vendundi opperienda esset, sed oculis iam praeciperent quodnam esset mancipiorum genus; “Sicuti,” inquit, “antiquitus mancipia iure belli capta coronis induta veniebant et idcirco dicebantur ‘sub corona’ venire. Namque ut ea corona signum erat captivorum venalium, ita pilleus impositus demonstrabat eiusmodi servos vendundarivenundari, quorum nomine emptori venditor nihil praestaret.” Est autem alia rationis opinio cur dici solitum sit captivos “sub corona” vendundarivenundari, quod milites custodiae causa captivorum venalium greges circumstarent eaque circumstatio militum “corona” appellata sit. Sed id magis verum esse quod supra dixi, M. Cato in libro quem composuit De Re militariMililari docet. Verba sunt haec Catonis: “Ut populus sua opera potius ob rem bene gestam coronatus supplicatum eat quam re male gesta coronatus veniat.”
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.
5. Historia de Polo histrione memoratu digna. HISTRIO in terra Graecia fuit fama celebri, qui gestus et vocis claritudine et venustate ceteris antistabat; nomen fuisse aiunt Polum, tragoedias poetarum nobilium scite atque asseverate actitavit. Is Polus unice amatum filium morte amisit. Eum luctum quoniam satis visus est eluxisse, rediit ad quaestum artis. In eo tempore Athenis Electram Sophoclis acturus, gestare urnam quasi cum Oresti ossibus debebat. Ita compositum fabulae argumentum est, ut veluti fratris reliquias ferens Electra comploret commisereaturque interitum eius existimatum. Igitur Polus, lugubri habitu Electrae indutus, ossa atque urnam e sepulcro tulit filii et, quasi Oresti amplexus, opplevit omnia non simulacris neque imitamentis, sed luctu atque lamentis veris et spirantibus. Itaque cum agi fabula videretur, dolor actus est.
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 ai)sqh/seis. 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 the 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. Quid de quorundam sensuum naturali defectione Aristoteles scripserit. Ex quinque his sensibus quos animantibus natura tribuit, visu, auditu, gustu, tactu, odoratu, quas Graeci αἰσθήσεις appellant, quaedam animalium alia alio carent et aut caeca natura gignuntur aut inodora inauritave. Nullum autem ullum gigni animal Aristoteles dicit, quod aut gustus sensu careat, aut tactus. Verba ex libro eius, quem Περὶ Μνήμης composuit, haec sunt:Τὴν δὲ ἁφὴν καὶ τὴν γεῦσιν πάντα ἔχει, πλὴν εἴ τι τῶν ζώων ἀτελές.
7. Whether affatim, like admodunm, 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 affalim, 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 (áffatim) there beWho 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 (exádversum) the school to which she wentA barber had his shop.He added besides that the preposition ad was commonly accented when it indicated e)pi/tasis, or as we say, “emphasis,” as in ádfabre, ádmodum, and ádprobe. 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 (ádprobus) 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 ádprimus in the sense of “by far the first” in the following line:And then the mighty hero, foremost of all (ádprimus), 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.
7. An “affatim,” quasi “admodum,” prima acuta pronuntiandum sit; et quaedam itidem non incuriose tractata super aliarum vocum accentibus. ANNIANUS poeta praeter ingenii amoenitates litterarum quoque veterum et rationum in litteris oppido quam peritus fuit et sermocinabatur mira quadam et scita suavitate. Is “affatim,” ut “admodum,” prima acuta, non media, pronuntiabat atque ita veteres locutos censebat. Itaque se audiente Probum grammaticum hos versus in Plauti Cistellaria legisse dicit:Pótine tu homo fácinus facere strénuum?—Aliorum áffatim est.Qui faciant; sane égo me nolo fórtem perhiberi virum,causamque esse huic accentui dicebat, quod “affatim” non essent duae partes orationis, sed utraque pars in unam vocem coaluisset, sicuti in eo quoque quod “exadversum” dicimus secundam syllabam debere acui existimabat, quoniam una, non duae essent partes orationis; atque ita oportere apud Terentium legi dicebat in his versibus:In quo haéc discebat lúdo, exadversúm locoTostrina erat quaedam. Addebat etiam quod “ad” praeverbium tum ferme acueretur, cum significaret ἐπίτασιν, quam “intentionem” nos dicimus, sicut “adfabre” et “admodum” et “adprobe” dicuntur. Cetera quidem satis commode Annianus. Sed si hanc particulam semper, cum intentionem significaret, acui putavit, non id perpetuum videtur; nam et “adpotus” cum dicimus et “adprimus” et “adprime,” intentio in his omnibus demonstratur, neque tamen “ad” particula satis commode accentu acuto pronuntiatur. “Adprobus” tamen, quod significat “valde probus,” non infitias eo quin prima syllaba acui debeat. Caecilius in comoedia quae inscribitur Triumphus vocabulo isto utitur:Hiérocles hospes ést mi adulescens ádprobus. Num igitur in istis vocibus quas non acui diximus, ea causa est, quod syllaba insequitur natura longior, quae non ferme patitur acui priorem in vocabulis syllabarum plurium quam duarum? “Adprimum” autem “longe primum” L. Livius in Odyssia dicit in hoc versu:Ibidemque vir summus adprimus Patroclus. Idem Livius in Odyssia “praemodumpraenmodum” dicit, quasi “admodum”; “parcentes,” inquit, “praemodum,” quod significat “supra modum,” dictumque est quasi “praeter modum”; in quo scilicet prima syllaba acui debebit.
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.”
8. Res ultra fidem tradita super amatore delphino et puero amato. DelphinosDELPIIINOS venerios esse et amasios non modo historiae veteres, sed recentes quoque memoriae declarant. Nam et sub Caesare Augusto in Puteolano mari, ut Apion scriptum reliquit, et aliquot saeculis ante apud Naupactum, ut Theophrastus tradidit, amatores flagrantissimi delphinorum cogniti compertique sunt. Neque hi amaverunt quod sunt ipsi genus, sed pueros forma liberali in naviculis forte aut in vadis litorum conspectos miris et humanis modis arserunt. Verba subscripsi Ἀπίωνος, eruditi viri, ex Aegyptiacorum libro quinto, quibus delphini amantis et pueri non abhorrentis consuetudines, lusus, gestationes, aurigationes refert eaque omnia sese ipsum multosque alios vidisse dicit: Αὐτὸς δʼ περὶ Δικαιαρχίας εἶδον περὶ δικαιαρχίας παιδός —Ὑάκινθος ἐκαλεῖτο—πόθοις ἐπτοημένον δελφῖνα. Προσσαίνει τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν πτερούμενος ἐντὸς τάς τε ἀκάνθας ὑποστέλλων, μή τι τοῦ ποθουμένου χρωτὸς ἀμύξη φειδόμενος, ἱππηδόν τε περιβεβηκότα μέχρι διακοσίων ἀνῆγε σταδίων. ἐξεχεῖτο ἡ Ῥώμη καὶ πᾶσα Ἰταλία τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ξυνορῶντες ἡνιοχούμενον ἰχθύν. Ad hoc adicit rem non minus mirandam. “Postea,” inquit, “idem ille puer δελφι- νερώμενος morbo adfectus obit suum diem. At ille amans,” “ubi saepe ad litus solitum adnavit et puer, qui in primo vado adventum eius opperiri consueverat, nusquam fuit, desiderio tabuit exanimatusque est et in litore iacens inventus ab his qui rem cognoverant, in sui pueri sepulcro humatus est.”
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 to-day 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 estateA 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 (admemordii).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 Oppius, 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 parakei/menon, or “perfect,” commonly change the second letter of the verb to e, as gra/fw ge/grafa, poiw= pepoi/hka, lalw= lela/lhka, kratw= kekra/thka, lou/w le/louka, 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).
9. “Peposci” et “memordi,” “pepugi” et “spepondi” et “cecurri” plerosque veterum dixisse, non, uti postea receptum est dicere, per a aut per u litteram in prima syllaba positam, atque id eos Graecae rationis exemplo dixisse; praeterea notatum quod viri non indocti neque ignobiles a verbo “descendo” non “descendi,” sed “descendidi” dixerunt. “POPOSCI,” “momordi,” “pupugi,” “cucurri” probabiliter dici videtur atque ita nunc omnesones ferme doctiores hisce verbis utuntur. Sed Q. Ennius in Saturis “memorderit” dixit per e litteram, non “momorderit:”Meum (inquit) nón est, ac si mé canis memórderit. Item Laberius in Gallis:De íntegro património meo céntum milia númmumMemórdi. Item idem Laberius in Coloratore:Itáque leni pruná percoctus símul sub dentes MúlierisVeni, bis, ter memórdit. Item P. Nigidius De Animalibus libro II.: “Ut serpens si memordit, gallina diligitur et opponitur.” Item Plautus in Aulularia:Ut ádmemordit hóminem. Sed idem Plautus in Trigeminis neque “praememordisse” neque “praemomordisse” dicit, sed “praemorsisse”:Nisi fugissem (inquit) in médium, credo, praémorsisset. Item Atta in Conciliatrice:Ursum sé memordisse aútumat. “Peposci” quoque, non “poposci,” Valerius Antias libro Annalium XLV. scriptum reliquit: “Denique Licinius tribunus plebi perduellionis ei diem dixit et comitiis diem a M. Marcio praetore peposcit.” “Pepugero” aeque Atta in Aedilicia dicit: Sed sí pepugero, métuet. Aelium quoque Tuberonem libro Ad C. Oppium scripto “occecurrit” dixisse, Probus adnotavit et haec eius verba apposuit: “Si generalis species occecurrerit.” Idem Probus Valerium Antiatem libro Historiarum XXII. “speponderant” scripsisse annotavit verbaque eius haec posuit: “Tiberius Gracchus, qui quaestor C. Mancino in Hispania fuerat, et ceteri qui pacem speponderant.” Ratio autem istarum dictionum haec esse videri potest: quoniam Graeci in quadam specie praeteriti temporis, quod παρακείμενον appellant, secundam verbi litteram in e plerumque vertunt, ut γράφω γέγραφα, ποιῶ πεποίηκα, λαλῶ λελάληκα, κρατῶ κεκράτηκα, λούω λέλουκα, sic igitur mordeo “memordi,” posco “peposci,” tendo “tetendi,” tango “tetigi,” pungo “pepugi,” curro “cecurri,” tollo “tetuli,” spondeo “spepondi” facit. Sic M. Tullius et C. Caesar “mordeo memordi,” “pungo pepugi,” “spondeo spepondi” dixerunt. Praeterea inveni, a verbo “scindo” simili ratione non “sciderat,” sed “sciciderat,” dictum esse. L. Accius in Sotadicorum libro I. “sciciderat” dicit. Verba haec sunt:Num érgo aquila ita, ut hi praedicánt, sciciderat Péctus? Ennius quoque in Melanippa:cum saxum scíciderit.… Valerius Antias in libro Historiarum LXXV. verba haec scripsit: “Deinde funere locato ad forum descendidit.” Laberius quoque in Catulario ita scripsit:égo mirabar, quómodo mammaemammal mihiDéscendiderant … Ut “ususcapio” copulate recto vocabuli casu dicitur, ita “pignoriscapio” coniuncte eadem vocabuli forma dictum esse.
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.
10. UT haec “ususcapio” dicitur copulato vocabulo, a littera in eo tractim pronuntiata, ita “pignoriscapio” iuncte et producte dicebatur. Verba Catonis sunt ex primo Epistolicarum Quaestionum: “Pignoriscapio ob aes militare, quod aes a tribuno aerario miles accipere debebat, vocabulum seorsum fit.” Per quod satis dilucet, hanc “capionem” posse dici, quasi hanc “captionem,” et in “usu” et in “pignore.”
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 a)/swtos (beyond recovery) or a)ko/lastos(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 sundry 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?”
11. Neque “levitatem” neque “nequitiam” ea significatione esse qua in vulgi sermonibus dicuntur. “LEVITATEM” plerumque nunc pro inconstantia et mutabilitate dici audio et “nequitiam” pro sollertia astutiaque. Sed veterum hominum qui proprie atque integre locuti sunt “leves” dixerunt, quos vulgo nunc viles et nullo honore dignos dicimus, et “levitatem” appellaverunt proinde quasi “vilitatem” et “nequam” hominem nihili rei neque frugis bonae, quod genus Graeci fere ἄσωτον vel ἀκόλαστον dicunt. Qui exempla horum verborum requirit, ne in libris nimium remotis quaerat, inveniet ea in M. Tullii secunda Antonianarum. Nam cum genus quoddam sordidissimum vitae atque victus M. Antoni demonstraturus esset, quod in caupona delitisceret, quod ad vesperum perpotaret, quod ore involuto iter faceret ne cognosceretur, haec aliaque eiusdemmodi cum in eum dicturus esset: “Videte,” inquit, “hominis levitatem,” tamquam prorsus ista dedecora hoc convicio in homine notarentur. At postea, cum in eundem Antonium probra quaedam alia ludibriosa et turpia ingessisset, ad extremum hoc addidit: “O hominem nequam! nihil enim magis proprie possum dicere.” Sed ex eo loco M. Tullii verba compluscula libuit ponere: “At videte levitatem hominis! Cum hora diei decima fere ad Saxa Rubra venisset, delituit in quadam cauponula atque ibi se occultans perpotavit ad vesperum; inde cisio celeriter ad urbem advectus, domum venit ore involuto. Ianitor rogat: ‘Quis tu?’ ‘A Marco tabellarius.’ Confestim ad eam cuius causa venerat deducitur eique epistulam tradit. Quam illa cum legeret flens— erat enim scripta amatorie, caput autem litterarum hoc erat: sibi cum illa mima posthac nihil futurum, omnem se amorem abiecisse illim atque in hanc transfudisse— cum mulier fleret uberius, homo misericors ferre non potuit: caput aperuit, in collum invasit. O hominem nequam!—nihil enim magis proprie possum dicere; ergo ut te catamitum nec opinato cum ostendisses, praeter spem mulier aspiceret, idcirco urbem terrore nocturno, Italiam multorum dierum metu perturbasti?” Consimiliter Q. quoque Claudius in primo Annalium “nequitiam” appellavit luxum vitae prodigum effusumque in hisce verbis: “Persuadent i cuidam adulescenti Lucano, qui adprime summo genere gnatus erat, sed luxuria et nequitia pecuniam magnam consumpserat.” M. Varro in libris De Lingua Latina, “Ut ex ‘non’ et ex ‘volo,’” inquit, “‘nolo,’ sic ex ‘ne’ et ‘quicquam,’ media syllaba extrita, compositum est ‘nequam.’” P. Africanus Pro se contra Tiberium Asellum de multa ad populum: “Omnia mala, probra, flagitia, quae homines faciunt, in duabus rebus sunt, malitia atque nequitia. Utrum defendis, malitiam an nequitiam an utrumque simul? Si nequitiam defendere vis, licet; si tu in uno scorto maiorem pecuniam absumpsisti quam quanti omne instrumentum fundi Sabini in censum dedicavisti; si hoc ita est, qui spondet mille nummum? si tu plus tertia parte pecuniae paternae perdidisti atque absumpsisti in flagitiis; si hoc ita est, qui spondet mille nummum? Non vis nequitiam. Age malitiam saltem defende. Si tu verbis conceptis coniuravisti sciens sciente animo tuo; si hoc ita est, qui spondet mille nummum?”
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 e)cwmi/des (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.
12. De tunicis chiridotis; quod earum usum P. Africanus Sulpicio Gallo obiecit TUNICIS uti virum prolixis ultra brachia et usque in primores manus ac prope in digitos, Romae atque in omni Latio indecorum fuit. Eas tunicas Graeco vocabulo nostri “chiridotas” appellaverunt feminisque solis vestem longe lateque diffusam non indecere existimaverunt ad ulnas cruraque adversus oculos protegenda. Viri autem Romani primo quidem sine tunicis toga sola amicti fuerunt; postea substrictas et breves tunicas citra umerum desinentis habebant, quod genus Graeci dicunt ἐξωμίδας. Hac antiquitate indutus P. Africanus, Pauli filius, vir omnibus bonis artibus atque omni virtute praeditus, P. Sulpicio Gallo, homini delicate, inter pleraque alia, quae obiectabat, id quoque probro dedit, quod tunicis uteretur manus totas operientibus. Verba sunt haec Scipionis: “Nam qui cotidie unguentatus adversum speculum ornetur, cuius supercilia radantur, qui barba vulsa feminibusque subvulsis ambulet, qui in conviviis adulescentulus cum amatore, cum chiridota tunica interior accubuerit, qui non modo vinosus, sed virosus quoque sit, eumne quisquam dubitet, quin idem fecerit quod cinaedi facere solent?” Vergilius quoque tunicas huiuscemodi quasi femineas, probrosas criminatur:Et tunicae (inquit) manicas et habent redimicula mitrae. Q. quoque Ennius Carthaginiensium “tunicatam iuventuten” non videtur sine probro dixisse.