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. " 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.
9. Locus exemptus ex Annalibus L. Pisonis historiae et orationis lepidissimae. QUOD res videbatur memoratu digna, quam fecisse Cn. Flavium, Anni filium, aedilem curulem, L. Piso in tertio Annali scripsit, eaque res perquam pure et venuste narrata a Pisone, locum istum totum huc ex Pisonis Annali transposuimus. “Cn.,” inquit, “Flavius, patre libertino natus, scriptum faciebat, isque in eo tempore aedili curuli apparebat, quo tempore aediles subrogantur, eumque pro tribu aedilem curulem renuntiaverunt.” “Aedilem qui comitia habebat negat accipere, neque sibi placere, qui scriptum faceret, eum aedilem fieri.” “Cn. Flavius, Anni filius, dicitur tabulas posuisse, scriptu sese abdicasse, isque aedilis curulis factus est.” “Idem Cn. Flavius, Anni filius, dicitur ad collegam venisse visere aegrotum. Eo in conclave postquam introivit, adulescentes ibi complures nobiles sedebant. Hi contemnentes eum, assurgere ei nemo voluit.” “Cn. Flavius, Anni filius, aedilis, id arrisit, sellam curulem iussit sibi afferri, eam in limine apposuit, ne quis illorum exire posset utique hi omnes inviti viderent sese in sella curuli sedentem.”
10. 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 both 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.”
10. Historia super Euclida Socratico, cuius exemplo Taurus philosophus hortari adulescentes suos solitus ad philosophiam naviter sectandam. PHILOSOPHUS TAURUS, vir memoria nostra in disciplina Platonica celebratus, cum aliis bonis multis salubribusque exemplis hortabatur ad philosophiam capessendam, tum vel maxime ista re iuvenum animos expergebat, Euclidem quam dicebat Socraticum factitavisse. “Decreto,” inquit, “suo Athenienses caverant, ut qui Megaris civis esset, si intulisse Athenas pedem prensus esset, ut ea res ei homini capitalis esset;” “tanto Athenienses,” inquit, “odio flagrabant finitimorum hominum Megarensium.” “Tum Euclides, qui indidem Megaris erat quique ante id decretum et esse Athenis et audire Socratem consueverat, postquam id decretum sanxerunt, sub noctem, cum advesperasceret, tunica longa muliebri indutus et pallio versicolore amictus et caput rica velatus, e domo sua Megaris Athenas ad Socratem commeabat, ut vel noctis aliquo tempore consiliorum sermonumque eius fieret particeps, rursusque sub lucem milia passuum paulo amplius viginti eadem veste illa tectus redibat.” “At nunc,” inquit, “videre est philosophos ultro currere, ut doceant, ad fores iuvenum divitum eosque ibi sedere atque opperiri prope ad meridiem, donec discipuli nocturnum omne vinum edormiant.”
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 wicked, since you become 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 well 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.”
11. verba ex oratione Q. Metelli Numidici, quae libuit meminisse, ad officium gravitatis dignitatisque vitae ducentia. CUM inquinatissimis hominibus non esse convicio decertandum neque in maledictis adversum inpudentes et inprobos velitandum, quia tantisper similis et compar eorum fias, dum paria et consimilia dicas atque audis, non minus ex oratione Q. Metelli Numidici, sapientis viri, cognosci potest quam ex libris et disciplinis philosophorum. Verba haec sunt Metelli Adversus C. Manlium, tribunum plebis, a quo apud populum in contione lacessitus iactatusque fuerat dictis petulantibus: “Nunc quod ad ilium attinet, Quirites, quoniam se ampliorem putat esse, si se mihi inimicum dictitarit, quem ego mihi neque amicum recipio neque inimicum respicio, in eum ego non sum plura dicturus. Nam cum indignissimum arbitror cui a viris bonis benedicatur, tum ne idoneum quidem cui a probis maledicatur. Nam si in eo tempore huiusmodi homunculum nomines, in quo punire non possis, maiore honore quam contumelia adficias.”
12. That neither testamentum, as Servius Sulpicius thought, nor sacellum, as Gaius Trebatus 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? Are we to call all these also compounds? 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 clamber.'” 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?
12. Quod neque “testamentum,” sicuti Servius Sulpicius existimavit, neque “sacellum.” sicuti C. Trebatius, duplicia verba sunt, sed a “testatione” productum alterum, alterum a “sacro” imminutum. SERVIUS SULPICIUS iureconsultus, vir aetatis suae doctissimus, in libro De Sacris Detestandis secundo, qua ratione adductus “testamentum” verbum esse duplex scripserit, non reperio; nam compositum esse dixit a “mentis contestatione.” Quid igitur “calciamentum,” quid “paludamentum,” quid “pavimentum,” quid “vestimentum,” quid alia mille per huiuscemodi formam producta, etiamne ista omnia composita dicemus? Obrepsisse autem videtur Servio, vel si quis est qui id prior dixit, falsa quidem, sed non abhorrens neque inconcinna quasi mentis quaedam in hoc vocabulo significatio, sicut hercleherele C. quoque Trebatio eadem concinnitas obrepsit. Nam in libro De Religionibus secundo: “‘Sacellum.’ est,” inquit, “locus parvus deo sacratus cuin ara.” Deinde addit verba haec: “‘Sacellum’ ex duobus verbis arbitror compositum ‘sacri’ et ‘cellae,’ quasi ‘sacra cella.’” Hoc quidem scripsit Trebatius; set quis ignorat, “sacellum” et simplex verbum esse et non ex “sacro” et “cella” copulatum, sed ex “sacro” deminutum?
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 e)nqumhma/tia, or problems, which would pique a mind enlivened with wine; for instance, the examples of 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 the 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 h( e)cai/fnhs fu/sis, 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 traghma/tia or “sweetmeats” of our desserts.
13. De quaestiunculis apud Taurum philosophum in convivio agitatis, quae “sympoticae” vocantur. FACTITATUM observatumque hoc Athenis est ab his qui erant philosophophilosophy Tauro iunctiores; cum domum suam nos vocaret, ne omnino, ut dicitur, immunes et asymboli veniremus, coniectabamus ad cenulam non cuppedias ciborum, sed argutias quaestionum. Unusquisque igitur nostrum commentus paratusque ibat quod quaereret, eratque initium loquendi edundi finis. Quaerebantur autem non gravia nec reverenda, sed ἐνθυμημάτια quaedam lepida et minuta et florentem vino animum lacessentia, quale hoc ferme est subtilitatis ludicrae, quod dicam. Quaesitum est quando moriens moreretur? cum iam in morte esset, an cum etiamtum in vita foret; et quando surgens surgeret? cum iam staret, an cum etiamtum sederet; et qui artem disceret, quando artifex fieret? cum iam esset, an cum etiamtum non esset. Utrum enim horum dices, absurde atque ridicule dixeris, multoque absurdius videbitur, si aut utrumque esse dicas aut neutrum. Sed ea omnia cum captiones esse quidam futtiles atque inanes dicerent, “Nolite,” inquit Taurus, “haec quasi nugarum aliquem ludum aspernari.” “Gravissimi philosophorum super hac re serio quaesiverunt; et alii moriendi verbum atque momentum manente adhuc vita dici atque fieri putaverunt, alii nihil in eo tempore vitae reliquerunt totumque illud, quod mori dicitur, morti vindicaverunt;” “item de ceteris similibus in diversa tempora et in contrarias sententias discesserunt.” “Sed Plato,” inquit, “noster neque vitae id tempus neque morti dedit, idemque in omni consimilium rerum disceptatione fecit.” “Vidit quippe utrumque esse pugnans neque posse ex duobus contrariis, altero manente, alterum constitui quaestionemque fieri per diversorum inter se finium mortis et vitae cohaerentiam, et idcirco peperit ipse expressitque aliud quoddam novum in confinio tempus, quod verbis propriis atque integris τὴν ἐξαίφνης φύσιν appellavit idque ipsum ita, uti dico,” inquit, “in libro, cui Parmenides titulus est, scriptum ab eo reperietis.” Tales aput Taurum symbolae taliaque erant mensarum secundarum, ut ipse dicere solitus erat, τραγημάτια.
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 ko/lasis or nouqesi/a, 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 timwri/a 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 (timh/). A third reason for punishment is that which is called by the Greeks para/deigma, 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 can 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 which 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 timwri/a, not in the sense that 1 said above is given it 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.
14. Poeniendis peccatis tres esse rationes a philosophis attributas; et quamobrem Plato duarum ex his meminerit, non trium. POENIENDIS peccatis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Una est causa, quae Graece vel κόλασις vel νουθεσία dicitur, cum poena adhibetur casti gandi atque emendandi gratia, ut is qui fortuito delinquit attentior fiat correctiorque. Altera est, quam hi qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt τιμωρίαν appellant. Ea causa animadvertendi est, cum dignitas auctoritasque eius in quem est peccatum tuenda est, ne praetermissa animadversio contemptum eius pariat et honorem levet; idcircoque id ei vocabulum a conservatione honoris factum putant. Tertia ratio vindicandi est quae παράδειγμα a Graecis nominatur cum poenitio propter exemplum necessaria est, ut ceteri a similibus peccatis, quae prohiberi publicitus interest, metu cognitae poenae deterreantur. Idcirco veteres quoque nostri “exempla” pro maximis gravissimisque poenis dicebant. Quando igitur aut spes magna est ut is qui peccavit citra poenam ipse sese ultro corrigat, aut spes contra nulla est emendari eum posse et corrigi, aut iacturam dignitatis, in quem peccatum est, metui non necessum est, aut non id peccatum est cuius exemplum necessario metu sanciendum sit: tum, quicquid ita delictum est non sane dignum esse imponendi poenae studium visum est. Has tris ulciscendi rationes et philosophi alii plurifariam et noster Taurus in primo commentariorumCommentartorum, quos in Gorgian Platonis composuit, scriptas reliquit. Plato autem ipse verbis apertis duas solas esse poeniendi causas dicit: unam, quam primo in loco propter corrigendum, alteram, quam in tertio propter exempli metum posuimus. Verba haec sunt Platonis in Gorgia: Προσήκει δὲ παντὶ τῷ ἐν τιμωρίᾳ ὄντι ὑπʼ ἄλλου ὀρθῶς τιμωρουμένῳ ἢ βελτίονι γίγνεσθαι καὶ ὀνίνασθαι, ἢ παραδείγματι ἄλλοις γίγνεσθαι, ἵνα ἄλλοι οἱ ὁρῶντες πάσχοντα φοβούμενοι βελτίους γίγνωνται. In hisce verbis facile intellegas τιμωρίαν Platonem dixisse, non ut supra scripsi quosdam dicere, sed ita ut promiscepromisee dici solet pro omni punitione. Anne autem quasi omnino parvam et contemptu dignam praeterierit poenae sumendae causam propter tuendam laesi hominis auctoritatem, an magis quasi ei quam dicebat rei non necessariam praetermiserit, cum de poenis, non in vita neque inter homines, sed post vitae tempus capiendis scriberet, ego in medium relinquo.
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 in 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.
15. De verbo “quiesco,” an e littera corripi an produci debeat. AMicus noster, homo multi studii atque in bonarum disciplinarum opere frequens, verbum “quiescit” usitate e littera correpta dixit. Alter item amicus, homo in doctrinis, quasi in praestigiis, mirificus communiumque vocum respuens nimis et fastidiens, barbare eum dixisse opinatus est, quoniam producere debuisset, non corripere. Nam “quiescit” ita oportere dici praedicavit, ut “calescit, nitescit, stupescit” et alia huiuscemodi multa. Id etiam addebat, quod “quies” e producto, non brevi diceretur. Noster autem, qua est rerum omnium verecunda mediocritate, ne si Aelii quidem, Cincii et Santrae dicendum ita censuissent, obsecuturum se fuisse ait contra perpetuam Latinae linguae consuetudinem, neque se tam insignite locuturum, ut absona inauditaque diceret; litteras tamen super hac re fecit inter exercitia quaedam ludicra et “quiesco” non esse his simile quae supra posui, nec a “quiete” dictum, sed ab eo quietemquieterm, “Graecaeque vocis et modum et originem verbum istud habere demonstravit, rationibusque haut sane frigidis docuit quiesco” e littera longa dici non convenire.
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 meAnd ceases 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 Erectheus, not differing greatly from Catullus, says:Who now win freedom by my own distressFor 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 paraitei=sqai. 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.
16. Verbum “deprecor” a poeta Catullo inusitate quidem, sed apte positum et proprie; deque ratione eius verbi exemplisque veterum scriptorum. EIUSMODI quispiam qui tumultuariis et inconditis linguae exercitationibus ad famam sese facundiae promiseratproniiserat neque orationis Latinae usurpationes rationesve ullas didicerat, cum in Lycio forte vespera ambularemus, ludo ibi et voluptati fuit. Nam cum esset verbum “deprecor” doctiuscule positum in Catulli carmine, quia id ignorabat, frigidissimos versus esse dicebat omnium quidem iudicio venustissimos, quos subscripsi:Lesbia mi dicit semper male nec tacet umquamDe me; Lesbia me dispeream nisi amat.Quo signo? quia sunt totidem mea; deprecor illamAssidue, verum dispeream nisi amo. “Deprecor” hoc in loco vir bonus ita esse dictum putabat, ut plerumque a vulgo dicitur, quod significat “valde precor” et “oro” et “supplico,” in quo “de” praepositio ad augendum et cumulandum valet. Quod si ita esset, frigidi sane versus forent. Nunc enim contra omnino est; nam “de” praepositio, quoniam est anceps, in uno eodemque verbo duplicem vim capit. Sic enim “deprecor” a Catullo dictum est, quasi “detestor” vel “exsecror” vel “depello” vel “abominor”; contra autem valet, cum Cicero Pro P. Sulla ita dicit: “Quam multorum hic vitamst a Sulla deprecatus.” Item in dissuasione legis agrariae: “Si quid deliquero, nullae sunt imagines, quae me a vobis deprecentur.” Sed neque solus Catullus ita isto verbo usus est. Pleni sunt adeo libri similis in hoc verbo significationis, ex quibus unum et alterum, quae subpetierant, apposui. Q. Ennius in Erectheo non longe secus dixit quam CatullusCattullus:Qui núnc (inquit) aerumna meá libertatém paro,Quibus sérvitutem meá miseria déprecor;signat “abigo” et “amolior,” vel prece adhibita vel quo alio modo. Item Ennius in Cresphonte:Ego cum meae vitae parcam, létum inimico déprecer. Cicero in libro sexto De RepublIca ita scripsit: “Quod quidem eo fuit maius, quia, cum causa pari collegae essent, non modo invidia pari non erant, sed etiam Claudi invidiam Gracchi caritas deprecabatur”; hic quoque item non est “valde precabatur,” sed quasi propulsabat invidiam et defensabat invidiam, quod Graeci propinqua significatione παραιτεῖσθαι dicunt. Item Pro Aulo Caecina consimiliter Cicero verbo isto utitur. “Quid,” inquit, “huic homini facias? Nonne concedas interdum ut excusatione summae stultitiae summae improbitatis odium deprecetur?” Item In Verrem actionis secundae primo: “Nunc vero quid faciat Hortensius? Avaritiaene crimina frugalitatis laudibus deprecetur? At hominem flagitiosissimum, libidinosissimum nequissimumque defendit.” Sic igitur Catullus eadem se facere dicit quae Lesbiam, quod et malediceret ei palam respueretque et recusaret detestareturque assidue et tamen eam penitus deperiret.
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 Nicanor, 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.
17. Quis omnium primus libros publice praebuerit legendos; quantusque numerusnumerous fuerit Athenis ante clades Persicas librorum in bibliothecis publicorum. LIBROS Athenis disciplinarum liberalium publice ad legendum praebendos primus posuisse dicitur Pisistratus tyrannus. Deinceps studiosius accuratiusque ipsi Athenienses auxerunt; sed omnem illam postea librorum copiam Xerxes, Athenarum potitus, urbe ipsa praeter arcem incensa, abstulit asportavitque in Persas. Eos porro libros universos multis post tempestatibus Seleucus rex, qui Nicanor appellatus est, referendos Athenas curavit. Ingens postea numerus librorum in Aegypto ab Ptolemaeis regibus vel conquisitus vel confectus est ad milia ferme voluminum septingenta; sed ea omnia bello priore Alexandrino, dum diripitur ea civitas, non sponte neque opera consulta, sed a militibus forte auxiliaris incensa sunt.