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 men 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 kata\ parakolou/qhsin. “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 lead 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.”
1. Quem in modum responderit Chrysippus adversum eos qui providentiam consistere negaverunt. QUIBUS non videtur mundus dei et hominum causa institutus neque res humanae providentia gubernari, gravi se argumento uti putant cum ita dicunt: “Si esset providentia, nulla essent mala.” Nihil enim minus aiunt providentiae congruere, quam in eo mundo quem propter homines fecisse dicatur tantam vim esse aerumnarum et malorum. Adversus ea Chrysippus cum in libro Περὶ Προνοίας quarto dissereret, “Nihil est prorsus istis,” inquit, “insubidius, qui opinantur bona esse potuisse,” “si non essent ibidem mala. Nam cum bona malis contraria sint, utraque necessum est opposita inter sese et quasi mutuo adversoque fulta nisu consistere; nullum adeo contrarium est sine contrario altero.” “Quo enim pacto iustitiae sensus esse posset, nisi essent iniuriae? aut quid aliud iustitia est quam iniustitiae privatio? Quid item fortitudo intellegi posset, nisi ex ignaviae adpositione? Quid continentia, nisi ex intemperantiae? Quo item modo prudentia esset, nisi foret contra inprudentia?” “Proinde,” inquit, “homines stulti cur non hoc etiam desiderant, ut veritas sit et non sit mendacium? Namque itidem sunt bona et mala, felicitas et infortunitas, dolor et voluptas.” “Alterum enim ex altero, sicuti Plato ait, verticibus inter se contrariis deligatum est; si tuleris unum, abstuleris utrumque.” Idem Chrysippus in eodem libro tractat consideratque dignumque esse id quaeri putat, εἰ αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων νόσοι κατὰ φύσιν γίνονται, id est, si natura ipsa rerum vel providentia, quae compagem hanc mundi et genus hominum fecit, morbos quoque et debilitates et aegritudines corporum, quas patiuntur homines, fecerit. Existimat autem non fuisse hoc principale naturae consilium, ut faceret homines morbis obnoxios, numquam enim hoc convenisse naturae auctori parentique omnium rerum bonarum. “Sed cum multa,” inquit, “atque magna gigneret pareretque aptissima et utilissima, alia quoque simul adgnata sunt incommoda his ipsis quae faciebat cohaerentia”; eaque non per naturam, sed per sequellas quasdam necessarias facta dicit, quod ipse appellat κατὰ παρακολούθησιν. “Sicut,” inquit, “cum corpora hominum natura fingeret, ratio subtilior et utilitas ipsa operis postulavit ut tenuissimis minutisque ossiculis caput compingeret.” “Sed hanc utilitatem rei maiorem alia quaedam incommoditas extrinsecus consecuta est, ut fieret caput tenuiter munitum et ictibus offensionibusque parvis fragile.” “Proinde morbi quoque et aegritudines partae sunt, dum salus paritur.” “Sicut hercle,” inquit, “dum virtus hominibus per consilium naturae gignitur, vitia ibidem per adfinitatem contraria nata sunt.”
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 ei(marme/nh, 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 ei(marme/nh 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 it 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 themselvesBring 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 themselvesBy 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 labour, is perplexed how to explain that everything is ruled by fate, but that we nevertheless have some control over our conduct.”
2. Quo itidem modo et vim necessitatemque fati constituerit et esse tamen in nobis consilii iudiciique nostri arbitrium confirmaverit. FATUM, quod εἱμαρμένην Graeci vocant, ad hanc ferme sententiam Chrysippus, Stoicae princeps philosophiae, definit: “Fatum est,” inquit, “sempiterna quaedam et indeclinabilis series rerum et catena, volvens semetipsa sese et inplicans per aeternos consequentiae ordines, ex quibus apta nexaque est.” Ipsa autem verba Chrysippi, quantum valui memoria, ascripsi, ut, si cui meum istud interpretamentum videbitur esse obscurius, ad ipsius verba animadvertat. In libro enim Περὶ Προνοίας quarto εἱμαρμένην esse dicit φυσικήν τινα σύνταξιν τῶν ὅλων ἐξ ἀϊδίου τῶν ἑτέρων τοῖς ἑτέροις ἐπακολουθούντων καὶ μεταπολουμένων ἀπαραβάτου οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιπλοκῆς. Aliarum autem opinionum disciplinarumque auctores huic definitioni ita obstrepunt: “Si Chrysippus,” inquiunt, “fato putat omnia moveri et regi nec declinari transcendique posse agmina fati et volumina, peccata quoque hominum et delicta non suscensenda neque inducenda sunt ipsis voluntatibusque eorum, sed necessitati cuidam et instantiae, quae oritur ex fato,” omnium quae sit rerum domina et arbitra, per quam necesse sit fieri quicquid futurumfiturum est; et propterea nocentium poenas legibus inique constitutas, si homines ad maleficia non sponte veniunt, sed fato trahuntur. Contra ea Chrysippus tenuiter multa et argute disserit; sed omnium fere quae super ea re scripsit huiuscemodi sententia est: “Quamquam ita sit,” inquit, “ut ratione quadam necessaria et principali coacta atque conexa sint fato omnia, ingenia tamen ipsa mentium nostrarum proinde sunt fato obnoxia, ut proprietas eorum est ipsa et qualitas.” “Nam si sunt per naturam primitus salubriter utiliterque ficta, omnem illam vim, quae de fato extrinsecus ingruit, inoffensius tractabiliusque transmittunt. Sin vero sunt aspera et inscita et rudia nullisque artium bonarum adminiculis fulta, etiamsi parvo sive nullo fatalis incommodi conflictu urgeantur, sua tamen scaevitate et voluntario impetu in assidua delicta et in errores se ruunt.” “Idque ipsum ut ea ratione fiat, naturalis illa et necessaria rerum consequentia efficit, quae ‘fatum’ vocatur.” “Est enim genere ipso quasi fatale et consequens, ut mala ingenia peccatis et erroribus non vacent.” Huius deinde fere rei exemplo non hercle nimis alieno neque inlepido utitur. “Sicut,” inquit, “lapidem cylindrum si per spatia terrae prona atque derupta iacias, causam quidem ei et initium praecipitantiae feceris, mox tamen ille praeceps volvitur, non quia tu id etiam facis, sed quoniam ita sese modus eius et formae volubilitas habet; sic ordo et ratio et necessitas fati genera ipsa et principia causarum movet, impetus vero consiliorum mentiumque nostrarum actionesque ipsas voluntas cuiusque propria et animorum ingenia moderantur.” Infert deinde verba haec, his quae dixi congruentia: Διὸ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Πυθαγορείων εἴρηται.Γνώσει δʼ ἀνθρώπους αὐθαίρετα πήματʼ ἔχοντας,ὡς τῶν βλαβῶν ἑκάστοις παρʼ αὐτοῖς γινομένων καὶ καθʼ ὁρμὴν αὐτῶν ἁμαρτανόντων τε καὶ βλαπτομένων καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὐτῶν διάνοιαν καὶ θέσιν. Propterea negat oportere ferri audirique homines aut nequam aut ignavos et nocentes et audaces, qui, cum in culpa et in maleficio revicti sunt, perfugiunt ad fati necessitatem, tamquam in aliquod fani asylum et, quae pessime fecerunt, ea non suae temeritati, sed fato esse attribuenda dicunt. Primus autem hoc sapientissimus ille et antiquissimus poetarum dixit hisce versibus:Ὢ πόποι, οἷον δή νυ θεοὺς βροτοὶ αἰτιόωνται.Ἐξ ἡμέων γάρ φασι κάκʼ ἔμμεναι· οἱ δὲ καὶ αὐτοίΣφῇσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ὑπὲρ μόρον ἄλγεʼ ἔχουσιν. Itaque M. Cicero, in libro quem De Fato conscripsit, cum quaestionem istam diceret obscurissimam esse et inplicatissimam, Chrysippum quoque philosophum non expedisse se in ea ait his verbis: “Chrysippus aestuans laboransque quonam hoc modo explicet, et fato omnia fieri et esse aliquid in nobis, intricatur.”
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.
3. Historia sumpta ex libris Tuberonis de serpente invisitatae longitudinis. TUBERO in Historiis scriptum reliquit, bello primo Poenico Atilium Regulum consulem in Africa, castris apud Bagradam flumen positis, proelium grande atque acre fecisse adversus unum serpentem in illis locis stabulantem invisitatae inmanitatis, eumque magna totius exercitus conflictione balistis atque catapultis diu oppugnatum, eiusque interfecti corium longum pedes centum et viginti Romam missum esse.
4. A new account, written by the above-mentioned Tubero, of the capture of Regulus by the Carthaginians; and also 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.” 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.
4. Quid idem Tubero novae historiae de Atilio Regulo a Carthaginiensibus capto litteris mandaverit; quid etiam Tuditanus super eodem Regulo scripserit. QUOD satis celebre est de Atilio Regulo, id nuperrime legimus scriptum in Tuditani libris: Regulum captum ad ea quae in senatu Romae dixit, suadens ne captivi cum Carthaginiensibus permutarentur, id quoque addidisse, venenum sibi Carthaginienses dedisse, non praesentarium, sed eiusmodi quod mortem in diem proferret, eo consilio, ut viveret quidem tantisper quoad fieret permutatio, post autem grassante sensim veneno contabesceret. Eundem Regulum Tubero in Historiis redisse Carthaginem novisque exemplorum modis excruciatum a Poenis dicit: “In atras,” inquit, “et profundas tenebras eum claudebant ac diu post, ubi erat visus sol ardentissimus, repente educebant et adversus ictus solis oppositum continebant atque intendere in caelum oculos cogebant. Palpebras quoque eius, ne conivere posset, sursum ac deorsum diductas insuebant.” Tuditanus autem somno diu prohibitum atque ita vita privatum refert, idque ubi Romae cognitum est, nobilissimos Poenorum captivos liberis Reguli a senatu deditos et ab his in armario muricibus praefixo destitutos eademque insomnia cruciatos interisse.
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 for novus (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 with 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 Di\s Pai=des oi( Ge/rontes, or Old Men are Children for a Second Time.
5. Quod Alfenus iureconsultus in verbis veteribus interpretandis erravit. ALFENUS iureconsultus, Servii Sulpicii discipulus rerumque antiquarum non incuriosus, in libro Digestorum tricesimo et quarto, Coniectaneorum autem secundo: “In foedere,” inquit, “quod inter populum Romanum et Carthaginienses factum est, scriptum invenitur ut Carthaginienses quotannis populo Romano darent certum pondus ‘argenti puri puti,’ quaesitumque est quid esset ‘purum putum.’ Respondi,” inquit, “ego ‘putum’ esse ‘valde purum,’ sicut novum ‘novicium’ dicimus et proprium ‘propicium,’ augere atque intendere volentes ‘novi’ et ‘proprii’ significationem.” Hoc ubi legimus, mirabamur eandem adfinitatem visam esse Alfeno “puri” et “puti,” quae sit “novicii” et “novi”; nam, si esset “puricium,” tum sane videretur dici quasi “novicium.” Id etiam mirum fuit, quod “novicium” per augendi figuram dictum existimavit, cum sit “novicium” non quod magis novum sit, sed quod a “novo” dictum sit inclinatumque. His igitur assentimus, qui “putum” esse dicunt a “putando” dictum et ob eam causam prima syllaba brevi pronuntiant, non longa, ut existimasse Alfenus videtur, qui a “puro” id esse factum scripsit. “Putare” autem veteres dixerunt vacantia ex quaque re ac non necessaria aut etiam obstantia et aliena auferre et excidere, et quod esse utile ac sine vitio videretur relinquere. Sic namque arbores et vites et sic rationes etiam “putari” dictum. Verbum quoque ipsum “puto,” quod declarandae sententiae nostrae causa dicimus, non significat profecto aliud quam id agere nos in re dubia obscuraque, ut decisis amputatisque falsis opinionibus, quod videatur esse verum et integrum et incorruptum retineamus. Argentum ergo in Carthaginiensi foedere “putum” dictum est quasi exputatum excoctumque omnique aliena materia carens omnibusque ex eo vitiis detractis emaculatum et candefactum. Scriptum est autem “purum putum,” non in Carthaginiensi solum foedere, sed cum in multis aliis veterum libris, tum in Q. quoque Ennii tragoedia quae inscribitur Alexander, et in satira M. Varronis quae inscripta est Δὶς Παῖδες οἱ Γέροντες.
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 DaedalusOn 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 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 tanupte/ruges, 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.
6. Temere inepteque reprehensum esse a Iulio Hygino Vergilium, quod “praepetes” Daedali pennas dixit; atque inibi quid sint “aves praepetes” et quid illae sint aves quas Nigidius “inferas” appellavit.DAEDALUS, ut fama est, fugiens Minoia regna,Praepetibus pennis ausus se credere caelo. In his Vergilii versibus reprehendit Iulius Hyginus “pennis praepetibus” quasi inproprie et inscite dictum. “Nam‘praepetes,’” inquit, “aves ab auguribus appellantur, quae aut opportune praevolant aut idoneas sedes capiunt.” Non apte igitur usum verbo augurali existimavit in Daedali volatu, nihil ad augurum disciplinam pertinente. Sed Hyginus nimis hercle ineptus fuit, cum quid “praepetes” essent se scire ratus est, Vergilium autem et Cn. Matium, doctum virum, ignorasse, qui in secundo Iliadis Victoriam volucrem “praepetem” appellavit in hoc versu:Dum dat vincendi praepes Victoria palmam. Cur autem non Q. quoque Ennium reprehendit, qui in Annalibus non pennas Daedali, sed longe diversius:Brundisium (inquit) pulcro praecinctum praepete portu? Set si vim potius naturamque verbi considerasset neque id solum quod augures dicerent inspexisset, veniam prorsus poetis daret similitudine ac translatione verborum, non significatione propria utentibus. Nam quoniam non ipsae tantum aves quae prosperius praevolant, sed etiam loci quos capiunt, quod idonei felicesque sunt, “praepetes” appellantur, idcirco Daedali pennas “praepetes” dixit, quoniam ex locis in quibus periculum metuebat in loca tutiora pervenerat. Locos porro “praepetes” et augures appellant et Ennius in Annalium primo dixit:praepetibus sese pulcrisque locis dant. Avibus autem “praepetibus” contrarias aves “inferas” appellari, Nigidius Figulus in libro primo Augurii Privati ita dicit: “Discrepat dextra sinistrae, praepes inferae.” Ex quo est coniectare “praepetes” appellatas quae altius sublimiusque volitent, cum differre a “praepetibus” Nigidius “inferas” dixerit. Adulescens ego Romae, cum etiamtum ad grammaticos itarem, audivi Apollinarem Sulpicium, quem inprimis sectabar, cum de iure augurio quaereretur et mentio “praepetum avium” facta esset, Erucio Claro praefecto urbi dicere, “praepetes” sibi videri esse alites, quas Homerus τανυπτέρυγας appellaverit, quoniam istas potissimum augures spectarent quae ingentibus alis patulae atque porrectae praevolarent. Atque ibi hos Homeri versus dixit:Τύνη δʼ οἰωνοῖσι τανυπτερύγεσσι κελεύειςΠείθεσθαι, τῶν οὔ τι μετατρέπομʼ οὐδʼ ἀλεγίζω.
7. On Acca Larentia 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. De Acca Larentia et Gaia Taracia; deque origine sacerdotii fratrumFratruin Arvalium. ACCAE Larentiae et Gaiae Taraciae, sive illa Fufetia est, nomina in antiquis annalibus celebria sunt. Earum alterae post mortem, Taraciae autem vivae, amplissimi honores a populo Romano habiti. Et Taraciam quidem virginem Vestae fuisse lex Horatia testis est quae super ea ad populum lata. Qua lege ei plurimi honores fiunt, inter quos ius quoque testimonii dicendi tribuitur, “testabilis” que una omnium feminarum ut sit datur. Id verbum est legis ipsius Horatiae; contrarium est in Duodecim Tabulis scriptum: “Inprobus intestabilisque esto.” Praeterea si quadraginta annos nata sacerdotio abire ac nubere voluisset, ius ei potestasque exaugurandi atque nubendi facta est munificentiae et beneficii gratia, quod campum Tiberinum sive Martium populo condonasset. Sed Acca Larentia corpus in vulgus dabat pecuniamque emeruerat ex eo quaestu uberem. Ea testamento, ut in Antiatis Historia scriptum est, Romulum regem, ut quidam autem alii tradiderunt, populum Romanum bonis suis heredem fecit. Ob id meritum a flamine Quirinali sacrificium ei publice fit et dies e nomine eius in fastos additus. Sed Sabinus Masurius in primo Memorialium, secutus quosdam historiae scriptores, Accam Larentiam Romuli nutricem fuisse dicit. “Ea,” inquit, “mulier ex duodecim filiis maribus unum morte amisit. In illius locum Romulus Accae sese filium dedit seque et ceteros eius filios ‘fratres Arvales’ appellavit. Ex eo tempore collegium mansit fratrum Arvalium numero duodecim, cuius sacerdotii insigne est spicea corona et albae infulae.”
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 whomThe nations bow, his father once led home,Clad in a single garment, from his love. I think it was by these verses that Valerius Antias 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.
8. Notata quaedam de rege Alexandro et de P. Scipione memoratu digna. Ἀπίων, Graecus homo, qui Πλειστονείκης appellatus est, facili atque alacri facundia fuit. Is cum de Alexandri regis laudibus scriberet: “Victi,” inquit, “hostis uxorem, facie incluta mulierem, vetuit in conspectum suum deduci, ut eam ne oculis quidem suis contingeret.” Lepide igitur agitari potest, utrum videri continentiorem par sit, Publiumne Africanum superiorem, qui, Carthagine ampla civitate in Hispania expugnata, virginem tempestivam, forma egregia, nobilis viri Hispani filiam captam perductamque ad se patri inviolatam reddidit, an regem Alexandrum, qui Darii regis uxorem eandemque eiusdem sororem, proelio magno captain, quam esse audiebat exuperanti forma, videre noluit perducique ad sese prohibuit. Sed hanc utramque declamatiunculam super Alexandro et Scipione celebraverint, quibus abunde et ingenii et otii et verborum est; nos satis habebimus, quod ex historia est, id dicere: Scipionem istum, verone an falso incertum, fama tamen, cum esset adulescens, haud sincera fuisse et propemodum constitisse, hosce versus a Cn. Naevio poeta in eum scriptos esse:Etiám qui res magnás manu saepe géssit glorióse,Cuius fácta viva núnc vigent, qui apud géntes solus praéstat,Eum súus pater cum pállio uno domum ab amíca abduxit. His ego versibus credo adductum Valerium Antiatem adversus ceteros omnis scriptores de Scipionis moribus sensisse et eam puellam captivam non redditam patri scripsisse, contra quam nos supra diximus, sed retentam a Scipione atque in deliciis amoribusque ab eo usurpatamusurlpatam.