but the number and size of the portions will have some influence on our decision.” The philosopher Favorinus too, somewhat loosening and inclining the delicate balance of justice to suit the occasion, thus defined such an indulgence in favour: “That which among men is called favour is the relaxing of strictness in time of need.”
FavorinusFavoriinus quoque philosophusphilosophlus huiuscemodihuiuscemlodi indulgentiam gratiae, tempestive laxato paulum remissoque subtili iustitiae examine, his verbis definivit: Ἡ καλουμέιν χάρις παρὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, τοῦτο ἔστιν ὕφεσις ἀκριβείας ἐν δέοντι.
Later on Theophrastus again expressed himself to about this effect: “The relative importance and insignificance of things, and all these considerations of duty, are sometimes directed, controlled, and as it were steered by other external influences and other additional factors, so to say, arising from individuals, conditions and exigencies, as well as by the requirements of existing circumstances; and these influences, which it is difficult to reduce to rules, make them appear now justifiable and now unjustifiable.”
Post deinde idem Theophrastus ad hanc ferme sententiam disseruit: “Has tamentarnen,” inquit, “parvitates rerum et magnitudinesmiagnitudines atqueatquc has omnes officiorum aestimationes alia nonnumquam momenta extrinsecus atque aliae quasi appendices personarum et causarum et temporum et circumstantiae ipsius necessitates, quas includere in praecepta difficilest, moderantur et regunt et quasi gubernant et nunc ratas efficiunt, nunc inritas.”
On these and similar topics Theophrastus wrote very discreetly, scrupulously and conscientiously, yet with more attention to analysis and discussion than with the intention or hope of arriving at a decision, since undoubtedly the variations in circumstances and exigencies, and the minute distinctions and differences, do not admit of a definite and universal rule that can be applied to individual cases;
Haec taliaque Theophrastus satis caute et sollicite et religiose, cum discernendi magis disceptandique diligentia quam cum decernendi sententia atque fiducia scripsit, quoniam profecto causarum ac temporum varietates discriminumque ac differentiarum tenuitates derectum atque perpetuum distinctumque in rebus singulis praeceptum, quod ego nos in prima tractatus istius parte desiderare dixeram, non capiunt.
and it is such a rule, as I said at the beginning of this essay, of which we are in search. Now this Chilo, with whom I began this little discussion, is the author not only of some other wise and salutary precepts, but also of the following, which has been found particularly helpful, since it confines within due limits those two most ungovernable passions, love and hatred. “So love,” said he, “as if you were possibly destined to hate;
Eius autem Chilonis, a quo disputatiunculae huius initium fecimus, cum alia quaedam sunt monita utilia atque prudentia, tum id maxime exploratae utilitatis est, quod duas ferocissimas adfectiones amoris atque odii intra modum cautum coercuit. “Hac,” inquit, “fini ames, tamquam forte fortuna et osurus; hac itidem tenus oderis, tamquam fortasse post amaturus.”
and in the same way, hate as if you might perhaps afterwards love.” Of this same Chilo the philosopher Plutarch, in the first book of his treatise On the Soul, wrote as follows: “Chilo of old, having heard a man say that he had no enemy, asked him if he had no friend, believing that enmities necessarily followed and were involved in friendships.”
Super hoc eodem Chilone Plutarchus philosophus, in libro Περὶ Ψυχῆς primo, verbis his ita scripsit: Χείλων ὁ παλαιός, ἀκούσας τινὸς λέγοντος, μηδένα ἔχειν ἐχθρόν, ἠρώτησεν, εἰ μηδένα δίλον ἔχει, νομίζων ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐπακολουθεῖν καὶ συνεμπλέκεσθαι ταῖς φιλίαις ἀπεχθείας.
4. The care and fine taste with which Antonius Julianus examined the artful substitution of one word for another by Marcus Cicero in one of his orations. THE rhetorician Antonius Julianus had an exceedingly noble and winning personality. He also possessed learning of a delightful and helpful sort, devoting great attention to the refinements of the writers of old and readily recalling them. Moreover, he inspected all the earlier literature with such care, weighing its merits and ferreting out its defects, that you might say that his judgment was perfect. This Julianus expressed the following opinion of the syllogism which is found in the speech of Marcus Tullius spoken In Defence of Gnaeus Plancius —but first I will quote the exact words on which he passed judgment: "And yet, a debt of money is a different thing from a debt of gratitude. For he who discharges a debt in money ceases forthwith to have that which he has paid, while one who continues in debt keeps what belongs to another. But in the case of a debt of gratitude, he who returns it has it; and he who has it returns it by the mere fact of having it. In the present instance I shall not cease to be Plancius' debtor if I pay this debt, nor should I be paying him any the less simply by feeling goodwill, if the present unfortunate situation had not occurred" Here, said Julianus, “is to be sure a fine artistry in the way the words are marshalled, something well-rounded that charms tile ear by its mere music; but it must be read with the privilege of a slight change in the meaning of one word in order to preserve the truth of the proposition. Now the comparison of a debt of gratitude with a pecuniary debt demands the use of the word 'debt' in both instances. For a debt of money and a debt of gratitude will seem to be properly compared, if we may say that both money and gratitude are owed; but let us consider what happens in the owing or paying of money, and on the other hand in the owing and paying of a debt of gratitude, if we retain the word 'debt' in both instances. Now Cicero,” continued Julianus, “having said that a debt of money was a different thing from a debt of gratitude, in giving his reason for that statement applies the word 'owe' to money, but in the case of gratitude substitutes ' has' (i.e. 'feels') for ' owes'; for this is what he says: ' But in the case of a debt of gratitude, he who returns it has it; and he who has it returns it by the mere fact of having it.' But that word 'has' does not exactly fit the proposed comparison. For it is the owing, and not the having, of gratitude that is compared with money, and therefore it would have been more consistent to say: 'He who owes pays by the mere fact of owing.' But it would be absurd and quite too forced if a debt of gratitude that was not yet paid should be said to be paid by the mere fact that it was owed. Therefore,” said Julianus, “Cicero made a change and substituted a similar word for one which he had dropped, in order to seem to have kept the idea of a comparison of debts, and at the same time retained the careful balance of his period.” Thus it was that Julianus elucidated and criticized passages in the earlier literature, which a select group of young men read under his guidance.
4. Quam tenuiter curioseque exploraverit Antonius Iulianus in oratione M. Tullii verbi ab eo mutati argutiam. ANTONIUS Iulianuslulianus rhetor perquam fuit honesti atque amoeni ingeni. Doctrina quoque iste utiliore ac delectabili veterumque elegantiarum cura et memoria multa fuit; ad hoc scriptascript omnia antiquiora tam curiose spectabat et aut virtutes pensitabat aut vitia rimabatur, ut iudicium esse factum ad amussim diceres. Is Iulianus super eo enthymemate, quod est in oratione M. Tullii, quam Pro Cn. Plancio dixit, ita existimavit—sed verba prius, de quibus iudicium ab eo factum est, ipsa ponam: “Quamquam dissimilis est pecuniae debitio et gratiae. Nam qui pecuniam dissolvit, statim non habet id quod reddidit, qui autem debetdlebet, is retinet alienun; gratiam autem et qui refert habet, et qui habet in eo ipso quod habet refert. Neque ego nunc Plancio desinam debere, si hochioc solvero, nec minus ei redderem voluntate ipsa, si hoc molestiae non accidisset” — “Crispum sane,” inquit, “agmen orationis rotundumque ac modulo ipso numerorum venustum, sed quod cum venia legendum sit verbi paulum ideo inmutati, ut sententiae fides salva esset.” “Namque debitio gratiae et pecuniae conlata verbum utrubique servari postulat. Ita enim recte opposita inter sese gratiae pecuniaeque debitio videbitur, si et pecunia quidem deberi dicatur et gratia, sed quid eveniat in pecunia debita solutave, quid contra in gratia debita redditave, debitionis verbo utrimque servato disseratur.” “Cicero autem,” inquit, “cum gratiae pecuniaeque debitionem dissimilem esse dixisset eiusque sententiae rationem redderet, verbum ‘debet’ in pecunia ponit, in gratia ‘habet’ subicit pro debet; ita enim dicit: ‘gratiam autem et qui refert habet, et qui habet in eo ipso quod habet refert.’” “Sed id verbum ‘habet’ cum proposita comparatione non satis convenit. Debitio enim gratiae, non habitio, cum pecunia confertur, atque ideo consequens quidem fuerat sic dicere: ‘et qui debet in eo ipso quod debet refert’; sed absurdum et nimis coactum foret, si nondum redditam gratiam eo ipso redditam diceret, quia debetur.” “Inmutavit ergo,” inquit, “et subdidit verbum ei verbo, quod omiserat, finitimum, ut videretur et sensum debitionis conlatae non reliquisse et concinnitatem sententiae retinuisse.” Ad hunc modum Iulianus enodabat diiudicabatque veterum scriptorum sententias, quae aput eum adulescentes delecti lectitabant.
5. That the orator Demosthenes was criticized because of his care for his person and attire, and taunted with foppishness; and that the orator Hortensius also, because of similar foppishness and the use of theatrical gestures when he spoke, was nicknamed Dionysia the dancing-girl. IT is said that Demosthenes in his dress and other personal habits was excessively spruce, elegant and studied. It was for that reason that he was taunted by his rivals and opponents with his “exquisite, pretty mantles” and “soft, pretty tunics”; for that reason, too, that they did not refrain from applying to him foul and shameful epithets, alleging that he was no mall and was even guilty of unnatural vice. In like manner Quintus Hortensius, quite the most renowned orator of his time with the exception of Marcus Tullius, because he dressed with extreme foppishness, arranged the folds of his toga with great care and exactness, and in speaking used his hands to excess in lively gestures, was assailed with gibes and shameful charges; and many taunts were hurled at him, even while he was pleading in court, for appearing like an actor. But when Sulla was on trial, and Lucius Torquatus, a man of somewhat boorish and uncouth nature, with great violence and bitterness did not stop with calling Hortensius an actor in the presence of the assembled jurors, but said that he was a posturer and a Dionysia—which was the name of a notorious dancing-girl—then Hortensius replied in a soft and gentle tone: “I would rather be a Dionysia, Torquatus, yes, a Dionysia, than like you, a stranger to the Muses, to Venus and to Dionysus.”
5. Quod Demosthenes rhetor cultu corporis atque vestitu probris obnoxio infamique munditia fuit; quodque item Hortensius orator, ob eiusmodi munditias gestumque in agendo histrionicum, Dionysiae saltatriculae cognomento compellatus est. DEMOSTHENEN traditum est vestitu ceteroque cultu corporis nitido venustoque nimisque accurato fuisse. Et hinc ei τὰ κομψὰ illa χλανίσκια et μαλακοὶ χιτωνίσκοι ab aemulis adversariisque probro data, hinc etiam turpibus indignisque in eum verbis non temperatum, quin parum vir et ore quoque polluto diceretur. Ad eundem modum Q. Hortensius omnibus ferme oratoribus aetatis suae, nisi M. Tullio, clarior, quod multa munditia et circumspecte compositeque indutus et amictus esset manusque eius inter agendum forent argutae admodum et gestuosae, maledictis compellationibusque probris iactatus est multaque in eum, quasi in histrionem, in ipsis causis atque iudiciis dicta sunt. Sed cum L. Torquatus, subagresti homo ingenio et infestivo, gravius acerbiusqueacerliusque apud consilium iudicum, cum de causa Sullae quaereretur, non iam histrionem eum esse diceret, sed gesticulariam Dionysiamque eum notissimae saltatriculae nomine appellaret, tum voce molli atqueatoue demissa Hortensius “Dionysia,” inquit, “Dionysia malo equidem esse quam quod tu, Torquate, ἄμουσος, ἀναφρόδιτος, ἀπροσδιόνυσος.”
6. An extract from the speech delivered to the people by Metellus Numidicus when he was censor, urging them to marry; why that speech has been criticized and how on the contrary it has been defended. A number of learned men were listening to the reading of the speech which Metellus Numidicus, an earnest and eloquent man, delivered to the people when he was censor, On Marriage, urging them to be ready to undertake its obligations. In that speech these words were written: “If we could get on without a wife, Romans, we would all avoid that annoyance; but since nature has ordained that we can neither live very comfortably with them nor at all without them, we must take thought for our lasting well-being rather than for the pleasure of the moment.” It seemed to some of the company that Quintus Metellus, whose purpose as censor was to encourage the people to take wives, ought not to have admitted the annoyance and constant inconveniences of the married state; that to do this was not so much to encourage, as to dissuade and deter them. But they said that his speech ought rather to have taken just the opposite tone, insisting that as a rule there were no annoyances in matrimony, and if after all they seemed sometimes to arise, they were slight, insignificant and easily endured, and were completely forgotten in its greater pleasures and advantages; furthermore, that even these annoyances did not fall to the lot of all or from any fault natural to matrimony, but as the result of the misconduct and injustice of some husbands and wives. Titus Castricius, however, thought that Metellus had spoken properly and as was altogether worthy of his position. “A censor,” said he, “ought to speak in one way, an advocate in another. It is the orator's privilege to make statements that are untrue, daring, crafty, deceptive and sophistical, provided they have some semblance of truth and can by any artifice be made to insinuate themselves into the minds of the persons who are to be influenced. Furthermore,” he said, “it is disgraceful for an advocate, even though his case be a bad one, to leave anything unnoticed or undefended. But for a Metellus, a blameless man, with a reputation for dignity and sense of honour, addressing the Roman people with the prestige of such a life and course of honours, it was not becoming to say anything which was not accepted as true by himself and by all men, especially when speaking on a subject which was a matter of everyday knowledge and formed a part of the common and habitual experience of life. Accordingly, having admitted the existence of annoyances notorious with all men, and having thus established confidence in his sincerity and truthfulness, he then found it no difficult or uphill work to convince them of what was the soundest and truest of principles, that the State cannot survive without numerous marriages.” This other passage also from the same address of Metellus in my opinion deserves constant reading, not less by Heaven! than the writings of the greatest philosophers. His words are these: “The immortal gods have mighty power, but they are not expected to be more indulgent to us than our parents. But parents, if their children persist in wrong-doing, disinherit them. What different application of justice then are we to look for from the immortal gods, unless we put an end to our evil ways? Those alone may fairly claim the favour of the gods who are not their own worst enemies. The immortal gods ought to support, not supply, virtue.”
6. Verba ex oratione Metelli Numidici quam dixit in censura ad populum, cum eum ad uxores ducendas adhortaretur; eaque oratio quam ob causam reprehensa et quo contra modo defensa sit. MULTIS et eruditis viris audientibus legebatur oratio Metelli Numidici, gravis ac diserti viri, quam in censura dixit ad populum de ducendis uxoribus, cum eum ad matrimonia capessenda hortaretur. In ea oratione ita scriptum fuit: “Si sine uxore pati possemus, Quirites, omnes ea molestia careremus; set quoniam ita natura tradidit, ut nec cum illis satis commode, nec sine illis ullo modo vivi possit, saluti perpetuae potius quam brevi voluptati consulendum est.” Videbatur quibusdam, Q. Metellum censorem, cui consilium esset ad uxores ducendas populum hortari, non oportuisse de molestia incommodisque perpetuis rei uxoriae confiteri, neque id hortari magis esse quam dissuadere absterrereque; set contra in id potius orationem debuisse sumi dicebant, ut et nullas plerumque esse in matrimoniis molestias adseveraret et, si quae tamen accidere nonnumquam viderentur, parvas et leves facilesque esse toleratu diceret maioribusque eas emolumentis et voluptatibus oblitterari easdemque ipsas neque omnibus neque naturae vitio, set quorundam maritorum culpa et iniustitia evenire. Titus autem Castricius recte atque condigne Metellum esse locutum existimabat. “Aliter,” inquit, “censor loqui debet, aliter rhetor. rhetori concessum est, sententiis uti falsis, audacibus, versutis, subdolis, captiosis, si veri modo similes sint et possint movendos hominumn animos qualicunque astu inrepere.” Praeterea turpe esse ait rhetori, si quid in mala causa destitutum atque inpropugnatum relinquat. “Sed enim Metellum,” inquit, “sanctum virum, illa gravitate et fide praeditum cum tanta honorum atque vitae dignitate aput populum Romanum loquentem, nihil decuit aliud dicere quam quod verum esse sibi atque omnibus videbatur, praesertim cum super ea re diceret quae cotidiana intellegentia et communi pervolgatoque vitae usu comprenderetur.” “De molestia igitur cunctis hominibus notissima confessus, fidem sedulitatis veritatisque commeritus, tum denique facile et procliviter, quod fuit rerum omnium validissimum atque verissimumvelissimum i, persuasit civitatem salvam esse sine matrimoniorum frequentia non posse.” HocHoe quoque aliut ex eadem oratione Q. Metelli dignum esse existimavimus adsidua lectione non hercle minus quam quae a gravissimis philosophis scripta sunt. Verba Metelli haec sunt: “Di immortales plurimum possunt; sed non plus velle nobis debent quam parentes. At parentes, si pergunt liberi errare, bonis exheredant. Quid ergo nos ab immortalibus dissimile ius expectemus, nisi malis rationibus finem faciamus? Is demum deos propitios esse aecum est, qui sibi adversarii non sunt. Dii immortales virtutem adprobare, non adhibere debent.”
7. In these words of Cicero, from his fifth oration Against Verres, hanc sibi rem praesidio sperant futurum, there is no error in writing or grammar but those are wrong who do violence to good copies by writing futuram; and in that connection mention is also made of another word of Cicero's which, though correct, is wrongly changed; with a few incidental remarks on the melody and cadence of periods for which Cicero earnestly strove. IN the fifth oration of Cicero Against Verres, in a copy of unimpeachable fidelity, since it was the result of Tiro's careful scholarship, is this passage: “Men of low degree and humble birth sail the seas; they come to places which they had never before visited. They are neither known to those to whom they have come nor can they always find acquaintances to vouch for them, yet because of this mere faith in their citizenship they believe that they will be safe, not only before our magistrates, who are constrained by fear of the laws and public opinion, and not only among Roman citizens, who are united by the common bond of language, rights, and many interests, but wherever they may come, they hope that this possession will protect them.” It seemed to many that there was an error in the last word. For they thought that futuram should be written instead of futurum, and they were sure that the book ought to be corrected, lest like the adulterer in the comedy of Plautus —for so they jested about the error which they thought they had found—this solecism in an oration of Cicero's should be “caught in the act.” There chanced to be present there a friend of mine, who had become an expert from wide reading and to whom almost all the older literature had been the object of study, meditation and wakeful nights. He, on examining the book, declared that there was no mistake in writing or grammar in that word, but that Cicero had written correctly and in accordance with early usage. “For futurum is not,” said he, " to be taken with rem, as hasty and careless readers think, nor is it used as a participle. It is an infinitive, the kind of word which the Greeks call a)pare/mfatos or 'indeterminate,' affected neither by number nor gender, but altogether free and independent, such a word as Gaius Gracchus used in the speech entitled On Publius Popilius, delivered in the places of assembly, in which we read: 'I suppose that my enemies will say this.' He said dicturum, not dicturos; and is it not clear that dicturum in Gracchus is used according to the same principle as futurum in Cicero? Just as in the Greek language, without any suspicion of error, words such as e)rei=n, poih/sein, e)/sesqai, and the like, are used in all genders and all numbers without distinction." He added that in the third book of the Annals of Claudius Quadrigarius are these words: “While they were being cut to pieces, the forces of the enemy would be busy there (copias... futurum)”; and at the beginning of the eighteenth book of the same Quadrigarius: “If you enjoy health proportionate to your own merit and our good-will, we have reason to hope that the gods will bless the good (deos... facturum)”; that similarly Valerius Antias also in his twenty-fourth book wrote: “If those religious rites should be performed, and the omens should be wholly favourable, the soothsayers declared that everything would proceed as they desired (omnia...processurum esse).” “Plautus also in the Casina, speaking of a girl, used occisurum, not occisuram in the following passage: Has Casina a sword?—Yes, two of them.— Why two?—With one she'd fain the bailiff slay, With t'other you. So too Laberius in The Twins wrote: I thought not she would do (facturum) it. Now, all those men were not unaware of the nature of a solecism, but Gracchus used dicturum, Quadrigarius futurum and facturum, Antias processurum, Plautus occisurum and Laberius facturum, in the infinitive mood, a mood which is not inflected for mood or number or person or tense or gender, but expresses them all by one and the same form, just as Marcus Cicero did not use fiturum in the masculine or neuter gender—for that would clearly be a solecism—but employed a form which is independent of any influence of gender.” Furthermore, that same friend of mine used to say that in the oration of that same Marcus Tullius On Pompey's Military Command Cicero wrote the following, and so my friend always read it: “Since you know that your harbours, and those harbours from which you draw the breath of life, were in tile power of the pirates.” And he declared that in potestatem fuisse was not a solecism, as the half-educated vulgar think, but he maintained that it was used in accordance with a definite and correct principle, one which the Greeks also followed; and Plautus, who is most choice in his Latinity, said in the Amphitruo:Número mihi in mentém fuit,not in mente, as we commonly say. But besides Plautus, whom my friend used as an example in this instance, I myself have come upon a great abundance of such expressions in the early writers, and I have jotted them down here and there in these notes of mine. But quite apart from that rule and those authorities, the very sound and order of the words make it quite clear that it is more in accordance with the careful attention to diction and the rhythmical style of Marcus Tullius that, either being good Latin, he should prefer to say potestatem rather than potestate. For the former construction is more agreeable to the ear and better rounded, the latter harsher and less finished, provided always that a man has an ear attuned to such distinctions, not one that is dull and sluggish; it is for the same reason indeed that he preferred to say explicavit rather than explicuit, which was already coming to be the commoner form. These are his own words from the speech which he delivered On Pomnpey's Military Command: “Sicily is a witness, which, begirt on all sides by many dangers, he freed (explicavit), not by the threat of war, but by his promptness in decision.” But if lie had said explicuit, the sentence would halt with weak and imperfect rhythm.
7. In hisce verbis Ciceronis ex oratione quinta in Verrem “hanc sibi rem praesidio sperant futurum,” neque mendum esse neque vitium, errareque istos qui bonos libros violant et “futuram” scribunt; atque ibi de quodam alio Ciceronis verbo dictum, quod probe scriptum perperam mutatur; et aspersa pauca de modulis numerisque orationis, quos Cicero avide sectatus est. IN oratione Ciceronis quinta In Verrem, libro spectatae fidei, Tironiana cura atque disciplina facto, ita scriptum fuit: Homines tenues, obscuro loco nati, navigant; adeunt ad ea loca quae numquam antea adierant. Neque noti esse iis quo venerunt neque semper cum cognitoribus esse possunt, hac una tamen fiducia civitatis, non modo apud nostros magistratus, qui et legum et existimationis periculo continentur, neque apud cives solum Romanos, qui et sermonis et iuris et multarum rerum societate iuncti sunt, fore se tutos arbitrantur, sed quocumque venerint, hanc sibi rem praesidio sperant futurum. Videbatur compluribus in extremo verbo menda esse. Debuisse enim scribi putabant non “futurum,” sed “futuram,” neque dubitabant quin liber emendandus esset, ne, ut in Plauti comoedia moechus, sic enim mendae suae inludiabant, ita in Ciceronis oratione soloecismus esset “manifestarius.” Aderat forte ibi amicus noster, homo lectione multa exercitus, cui pleraque omnia veterum litterarum quaesita, meditata evigilataque erant. Is, libro inspecto, ait nullum esse in eo verbo neque mendum neque vitium et Ciceronem probe ac vetuste locutum. “Nam futurum,” inquit, “non refertur ad rem, sicut legentibus temere et incuriose videtur, neque pro participio positum est, set verbum est indefinitum, quod Graeci appellant ἀπαρέμφατον, neque numeris neque generibus praeserviens,” “set liberum undique et impromiscum, quali C. Gracchus verbo usus est in oratione cuius titulus est De P. Popilio circum Conciliabula, in qua ita scriptumscripturm est: ‘Credo ego inimicos meos hoc dicturum.’ ‘Inimicos dicturum,’ inquit, non ‘dicturos’; videturne ea ratione positum esse aput Gracchum ‘dicturum,’ ” “qua est aput Ciceronem ‘futurum’? Sicut in Graeca oratione sine ulla vitii suspicione omnibus numeris generibusque sine discrimine tribuuntur huiuscemodi verba: ἐρεῖν, ποιήσειν, ἔσεσθαι et similia.” In Claudi quoque Quadrigarii tertio Annali verba haec esse dixit: “I dum conciderentur, hostium copias ibi occupatas futurum”; in duodevicesimo Annali eiusdem Quadrigarii principium libri sic scriptum: “Si pro tua bonitate et nostra voluntate tibi valitudo subpetit, est quod speremus deos bonis benefacturum”; item in Valerii Antiatis libro quarto vicesimo simili modo scriptum esse: “Si eae res divinae factae recteque perlitatae essent, haruspices dixerunt omnia ex sententia processurum esse.” “Plautus etiam in Casina,” “cum de puella loqueretur, ‘occisurum’ dixit, non ‘occisuram,’ his verbis:Etiamne habet Casina gladium?Habét, sed duós.—Quid duós? —Alteró teOccísurum aít, alteró vilicum.” “Item Laberius in Gemellis:Nón putavi (inquit) hoc eám facturum.” “Non ergo isti omnes soloecismus quid esset ignorarunt, sed et Gracchus ‘dicturum’ et Quadrigarius ‘futurumfuturunm’ et ‘facturum’ et Antias ‘processurum’ et Plautus ‘occisurum’ et Laberius ‘facturum’ indefinito modo dixerunt,” “qui modus neque in numeros neque in personas neque in tempora neque in genera distrahitur, sed omnia istaec una eademque declinatione complectitur,” “sicuti M. Cicero ‘futurum’ dixit non virili genere neque neutro, soloecismus enim plane foret, sed verbo usus est ab omni necessitate generum absoluto.” Idem autem ille amicus noster in eiusdem M. Tullii oratione, quae est De imperio Cn. Pompei, ita scriptum esse a Cicerone dicebat atque ipse ita lectitabat: “Cum vestros portus, atque eos portus quibus vitam ac spiritum ducitis, in praedonum fuisse potestatem sciatis,” neque soloecismum esse aiebat “in potestatem fuisse,” ut vulgus semidoctum putat, sed ratione dictum certa et proba contendebat, qua et Graeci ita uterentur; et Plautus, verborum Latinorum elegantissimus, in Amphitruone dixit:número mihi in mentemmentdm fuit,non, ut dici solitum est, “in mente.” Sed enim praeter Plautum, cuius ille in praesens exemplo usus est, multam nos quoque apud veteres scriptores locutionum talium copiam offendimus atque his vulgo adnotamentis inspersimus. Ut et rationem autem istam missam facias et auctoritates, sonus tamen et positura ipsa verborum satis declarat id potius ἐπιμελείᾳ τῶν λέξεων modulamentisque orationis M. Tullii convenisse, ut, quoniam utrumvis dici Latine posset, “potestatem” dicere mallet, non “potestate.” Illud enim sic compositum iucundius ad aurem completiusque, insuavius hoc imperfectiusque est, si modo ita explorata aure homo sit, non surda nec iacenti; sicuti est hercle quod “explicavit” dicere maluit quam “explicuit,” quod esse iam usitatius coeperat. Verba sunt haec ipsius ex oratione, quam De inperio Cn. Pompei habuit: “Testis est Sicilia, quam, multis undique cinctam periculis, non terrore belli, sed consilii celeritate explicavit.” At si “explicuit” diceret, inperfecto et debili numero verborum sonus clauderet.
8. An anecdote found in the works of the philosopher Sotion about the courtesan Lais and the orator Demosthenes. SOTION was a man of the Peripatetic school, far from unknown. He wrote a book filled with wide and varied information and called it Ke/ras )Amalqei/as, which is about equivalent to The Horn of Plenty. In that book is found the following anecdote about the orator Demosthenes and the courtesan Lais: “Lais of Corinth,” he says, “used to gain a great deal of money by the grace and charm of her beauty, and was frequently visited by wealthy men from all over Greece; but no one was received who did not give what she demanded, and her demands were extravagant enough.” He says that this was the origin of the proverb common among the Greeks:Not every man may fare to Corinth town,for in vain would any man go to Corinth to visit Lais who could not pay her price. “The great Demosthenes approached her secretly and asked for her favours. But Lais demanded ten thousand drachmas” —a sum equivalent in our money to ten thousand denarii. “Amazed and shocked at the woman's great impudence and the vast sum of money demanded, Demosthenes turned away, remarking as he left her: 'I will not buy regret at such a price.'” But the Greek words which he is said to have used are neater; he said: Ou)k w)nou=mai muri/wn draxmw=n metame/leian..
8. Historia in libris Sotionis philosophi reperta super Laide meretrice et Demosthene rhetore. SOTION ex peripatetica disciplina haut sane ignobilis vir fuit. Is librum multae variaeque historiae refertum composuit eumque inscripsit Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας. Ea vox hoc ferme valet, tamquam si dicas “Cornum Copiae.” In eo libro super Demosthene rhetore et Laide meretrice historia haec scripta est: “Lais,” inquit, “Corinthia ob elegantiam venustatemque formae grandem pecuniam demerebat conventusque ad eam ditiorum hominum ex omni Graecia celebres erant, neque admittebatur nisi qui dabat quod poposcerat; poscebat autem illa nimium quantum.” Hinc ait natum esse illud frequens apud Graecos adagium:Οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐς Κόρινθον ἔσθʼ ὁ πλοῦς,quod frustra iret Corinthum ad Laidem qui non quiret dare quod posceretur. “Ad hanc ille Demosthenes clanculum adit et ut sibi copiam sui faceret petit. At Lais μυρίας δραχμὰς poposcit—” hoc facit nummi nostratis denarium decem milia. “Tali petulantia mulieris atque pecuniae magnitudine ictus expavidusque Demosthenes avertitur et discedens ‘ego,’ inquit, ‘paenitere tanti non emo.’” Sed Graeca ipsa, quae fertur dixisse, lepidiora sunt: οὐκ ὠνοῦμαι, inquit, μυρίων δραχμῶν μεταμέλειαν.
9. What the method and what the order of the Pythagorean training was, and the amount of time which was prescribed and accepted as the period for learning and at the same time keeping silence. IT is said that the order and method followed by Pythagoras, and afterwards by his school and his successors, in admitting and training their pupils were as follows: At the very outset he “physiognomized” the young men who presented themselves for instruction. That word means to inquire into the character and dispositions of men by an inference drawn from their facial appearance and expression, and from the form and bearing of their whole body. Then, when he had thus examined a man and found him suitable, he at once gave orders that he should be admitted to the school and should keep silence for a fixed period of time; this was not the same for all, but differed according to his estimate of the man's capacity for learning quickly. But the one who kept silent listened to what was said by others; he was, however, religiously forbidden to ask questions, if he had not fully understood, or to remark upon what he had heard. Now, no one kept silence for less than two years, and during the entire period of silent listening they were called a)koustikoi/ or “auditors.” But when they had learned what is of all things the most difficult, to keep quiet and listen, and had finally begun to be adepts in that silence which is called e)xemuqi/a or “continence in words,” they were then allowed to speak, to ask questions, and to write down what they had heard, and to express their own opinions. During this stage they were called maqhmatikoi/ or “students of science,” evidently from those branches of knowledge which they had now begun to learn and practise; for the ancient Greeks called geometry, gnomonics, music and other higher studies maqh/mata or “sciences”; but the common people apply the term mathematici to those who ought to be called by their ethnic name, Chaldaeans. Finally, equipped with this scientific training, they advanced to the investigation of the phenomena of the universe and the laws of nature, and then, and not till then, they were called fusikoi/ or “natural philosophers.” Having thus expressed himself about Pythagoras, my friend Taurus continued: "But nowadays these fellows who turn to philosophy on a sudden with unwashed feet, not content with being wholly 'without purpose, without learning, and without scientific training,' even lay down the law as to how they are to be taught philosophy. One says, 'first teach me this,' another chimes in,' I want to learn this, I don't want to learn that'; one is eager to begin with the Symposiumn of Plato because of the revel of Alcibiades, another with the Phaedrus on account of the speech of Lysias. By Jupiter!" said he, “one man actually asks to read Plato, not in order to better his life, but to deck out his diction and style, not to gain in discretion, but in prettiness.” That is what Taurus used to say, in comparing the modern students of philosophy with the Pythagoreans of old. But I must not omit this fact either—that all of them, as soon as they had been admitted by Pythagoras into that band of disciples, at once devoted to the common use whatever estate and property they had, and an inseparable fellowship was formed, like the old-time association which in Roman legal parlance was termed an “undivided inheritance.”
9. Quis modus fuerit, quis ordo disciplinae Pythagoricae, quantumque temporis imperatum observatumque sit discendi simul ac tacendi. ordo atque ratio Pythagorae, ac deinceps familiae et successionis eius, recipiendi instituendique discipulos huiuscemodi fuisse traditur: Iamlam a principio adulescentes qui sese ad discendum obtulerant εφυ- σιογνωμόνει. Id verbum significat, mores naturasque hominum coniectatione quadam de oris et vultus ingenio deque totius corporis filo atque habitu sciscitari. tumTurn qui exploratus ab eo idoneusque inventus fuerat recipi in disciplinam statim iubebat et tempus certum tacere; non omnes idem, sed alios aliud tempus pro aestimato captu sollertiae. Is autem qui tacebat quae dicebantur ab aliis audiebat, neque percontari, si parum intellexerat, commentari quae audierat fas erat; sed non minus quisquam tacuit quam biennium: hi prorsus appellabantur intra tempus tacendi audiendique ἀκουστικοί. Ast ubi res didicerant rerum omnium difficillimas, tacere audireque, atque esse iam coeperant silentio eruditi cui erat nomen ἐχεμυθία, tum verba facere et quaerere, quaeque audissent scribere, et quae ipsi opinarentur expromere potestas erat; hi dicebantur in eo tempore μαθηματικοί, ab his scilicet artibus quas iam discere atque meditari inceptaverant: quoniam geometriam, gnomonicam, musicam ceterasque item disciplinas altiores μαθήματα veteres Graeci appellabant; vulgus autem, quos gentilicio vocabulo “Chaldaeos” dicere oportet, “mathematicos” dicit. Exinde, his scientiae studiis ornati, ad perspicienda mundi opera et principia naturae procedebant ac tunc denique nominabantur φυσικοί. Haec eadem super Pythagora noster Taurus cum dixisset: “Nunc autem,” inquit, “isti qui repente pedibus inlotisinotis ad philosophos devertunt, non est hoc satis quod sunt omnino ἀθεώρητοι, ἄμουσοι, ἀγεωμέτρητοι, sed legem etiam dant qua philosophari discant.” “Alius ait ‘hoc me primum doce,’ item alius ‘hoc volo,’ inquit, ‘discere, istud nolo’; hic a Symposio Platonis incipere gestit propter Alcibiadae comisationem, ille a Phaedro propter Lysiae orationem.” “Est etiam,” inquit, “pro Iuppiter! qui Platonem legere postulet non vitae ornandae, sed linguae orationisque comendae gratia, nec ut modestior fiat, sed ut lepidior.” Haec Taurus dicere solitus, novicios philosophorumphilosoplorum sectatores cum veteribus Pythagoricis pensitans. Sed id quoque non Praetereundum est, quod omnes, simul atque a Pythagora in cohortem illam disciplinarum recepti erant, quod quisque familiae, pecuniae habebat in medium dabat et coibatur societas inseparabilis, tamquamtamquanla illud fuit anticum consortium, quod iure atque verbo Romano appellabatur “ercto non cito.”
10. In what terms the philosopher Favorinus rebuked a young man who used language that was too old-fashioned and archaic. THE philosopher Favorinus thus addressed a young man who was very fond of old words and made a display in his ordinary, everyday conversation of many expressions that were quite too unfamiliar and archaic: “Curius,” said he, “and Fabricius and Coruncanius, men of the olden days, and of a still earlier time than these those famous triplets, the Horatii, talked clearly and intelligibly with their fellows, using the language of their own day, not that of the Aurunci, the Sicani, or the Pelasgi, who are said to have been the earliest inhabitants of Italy. You, on the contrary, just as if you were talking to-day with Evander's mother, use words that have already been obsolete for many years, because you want no one to know and comprehend what you are saying. Why not accomplish your purpose more fully, foolish fellow, and say nothing at all? But you assert that you love the olden time, because it is honest, sterling, sober and temperate. Live by all means according to the manners of the past, but speak in the language of the present, and always remember and take to heart what Gaius Caesar, a man of surpassing talent and wisdom, wrote in the first book of his treatise On Analogy: 'Avoid, as you would a rock, a strange and unfamiliar word.'”
10. Quibus verbis compellaverit Favorinus philosophus adulescentem casce nimis et prisce loquentem. FAVORINUS philosophus adulescenti veterum verborum cupidissimo et plerasque voces nimis priscas et ignotas in cotidianis communibusque sermonibus expromenti: “Curius,” inquit, “et Fabricius et Coruncanius, antiquissimi viri, et his antiquiores Horatii illi trigemini, plane ac dilucide cum suis fabulati sunt neque Auruncorum aut Sicanorum aut Pelasgorum, qui primi coluisse Italiam dicuntur, sed aetatis suae verbis locuti sunt;” “tu autem, proinde quasi cum matre Euandri nunc loquare, sermone abhinc multis annis iam desito uteris, quod scire atque intellegere neminem vis quae dicas. Nonne, homo inepte, ut quod vis abunde consequaris, taces?” “Sed antiquitatem tibi placere ais, quod honesta et bona et sobria et modesta sit.” “Vive ergo moribus praeteritis, loquere verbis praesentibus atque id, quod a C. Caesare, excellentis ingenii ac prudentiae viro, in primo De Analogia libro scriptum est, habe semper in memoriamemorial atque in pectore, ut tamquam scopulum, sic fugias inauditum atque insolens verbum.”
11. The statement of the celebrated writer Thucydides, that the Lacedaemonians in battle used pipes and not trumpets, with a citation of his words on that subject; and the remark of Herodotus that king Alyattes had female lyre-players as part of his military equipment; and finally, some notes on the pipe used by Gracchus when addressing assemblies. THUCYDIDES, the most authoritative of Greek historians, tells us that the Lacedaemonians, greatest of warriors, made use in battle, not of signals by horns or trumpets, but of the music of pipes, certainly not in conformity with any religious usage or from any ceremonial reason, nor yet that their courage might be roused and stimulated, which is the purpose of horns and trumpets; but on the contrary that they might be calmer and advance in better order, because the effect of the flute-player's notes is to restrain impetuosity. So firmly were they convinced that in meeting the enemy and beginning battle nothing contributed more to valour and confidence than to be soothed by gentler sounds and keep their feelings under control. Accordingly, when the army was drawn up, and began to advance in battle-array against the foe, pipers stationed in the ranks began to play. Thereupon, by this quiet, pleasant, and even solemn prelude the fierce impetuosity of the soldiers was checked, in conformity with a kind of discipline of military music, so to speak, so that they might not rush forth in straggling disorder. But I should like to quote the very words of that outstanding writer, which have greater distinction and credibility than my own: “And after this the attack began. The Argives and their allies rushed forward eagerly and in a rage, but the Lacedaemonians advanced slowly to the music of many flute-players stationed at regular intervals; this not for any religious reason, but in order that they might make the attack while marching together rhythmically, and that their ranks might not be broken, which commonly happens to great armies when they advance to the attack.” Tradition has it that the Cretans also commonly entered battle with the lyre playing before them and regulating their step. Futhermore, Alyattes, king of the land of Lydia, a man of barbaric manners and luxury, when he made war on the Milesians, as Herodotus tells us in his History, had in his army and his battle-array orchestras of pipe and lyre-players, and even female flute-players, such as are the delight of wanton banqueters. Homer, however, says that the Achaeans entered battle, relying, not on the music of lyres and pipes, but on silent harmony and unanimity of spirit:In silence came the Achaeans, breathing rage,Resolved in mind on one another's aid. What then is the meaning of that soul-stirring shout of the Roman soldiers which, as the annalists have told us, was regularly raised when charging the foe? Was that done contrary to so generally accepted a rule of old-time discipline? Or are a quiet advance and silence needful when an army is marching against an enemy that is far off and visible from a distance, but when they have almost come to blows, then must the foe, already at close quarters, be driven back by a violent assault and terrified by shouting? But, look you, the Laconian pipe-playing reminds me also of that oratorical pipe, which they say was played for Gaius Gracchus when he addressed the people, and gave him the proper pitch. But it is not at all true, as is commonly stated, that a musician always stood behind him as he spoke, playing the pipe, and by varying the pitch now restrained and now animated his feelings and his delivery. For what could be more absurd than that a piper should play measures, notes, and a kind of series of changing melodies for Gracchus when addressing an assembly, as if for a dancing mountebank? But more reliable authorities declare that the musician took his place unobserved in the audience and at intervals sounded on a short pipe a deeper note, to restrain and calm the exuberant energy of the orator's delivery. And that in my opinion is the correct view, for it is unthinkable that Gracchus' well-known natural vehemence needed any incitement or impulse from without. Yet Marcus Cicero thinks that the piper was employed by Gracchus for both purposes, in order that with notes now soft, now shrill, he might animate his oratory when it was becoming weak and feeble, or check it when too violent and passionate. I quote Cicero's own words: “And so this same Gracchus, Catulus, as you may hear from your client Licinius, an educated man, who was at that time Gracchus' slave and amanuensis, used to have a skilful musician stand behind him in concealment when he addressed an audience, who could quickly breathe a note to arouse the speaker if languid, or recall him from undue vehemence.” Finally, Aristotle wrote in his volume of Problems that the custom of the Lacedaemonians which I have mentioned, of entering battle to the music of pipers, was adopted in order to make the fearlessness and ardour of the soldiers more evident and indubitable. “For,” said he, “distrust and fear are not at all consistent with an advance of that kind, and such an intrepid and rhythmical advance cannot be made by the faint-hearted and despondent.” I have added a few of Aristotle's own words on the subject: “Why, when on the point of encountering danger, did they advance to music of the pipe? In order to detect the cowards by their failure to keep time.” * * * AT what age, from what kind of family, by what rites, ceremonies and observances, and under what title a Vestal virgin is “taken” by the chief pontiff; what legal privileges she has immediately upon being chosen; also that, according to Labeo, she is lawfully neither heir of an intestate person, nor is anyone her heir, in case she dies without a will.
11. Quod Thucydides, scriptor inclitus, Lacedaemonios in acie non tuba, sed tibiis esse usos dicit verbaque eius super ea re posita; quodque Herodotus Alyattem regem fidicinas in procinctuprocinct habuissehalbuisse tradit; atque inibi quaedam notata de Gracchi fistula contionaria. AUCTOR historiae Graecae gravissimus Thucydides, Lacedaemonios, summos bellatores, non cornuum tubarumve signis, sed tibiarum modulis in proeliis esse usos refert, non prorsus ex aliquo ritu religionum neque rei divinae gratia neque autem ut excitarentur atque evibrarentur animi, quod cornua et litui moliuntur; sed contra, ut moderatiores modulatioresque fierent, quod tibicinis numeris vis temperatur. Nihil adeo in congrediendis hostibus atque in principiis proeliorum ad salutem virtutemque aptius rati, quam si permultipermulcti sonis mitioribus non inmodice ferocirent. Cum procinctae igitur classes erant et instructa acies coeptumquecoeptunique in hostem progredi tibicines inter exercitum positi canere inceptabant. Ea ibi praecentione tranquilla et delectabili atque adeo venerabili ad quandam quasi militaris musicae disciplinam vis et impetus militum, ne sparsi dispalatique proruerent, cohibebatur. Sed ipsius illius egregii scriptoris uti verbis libet, quae et dignitate et fide graviora sunt: Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἡ ξύνοδος ἦν· Ἀργεῖοι μὲν καὶ οἱ σύμμαχοι ἐντόνως καὶ ὀργῇ χωροῦντες, Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ βραδέως καὶ ὑπὸ αὐλητῶν πολλῶν, νόμου ἐγκαθεστώτων, οὐ τοῦ θείου χάριν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα ὁμαλῶς μετὰ ῥυθμοῦ βαίνοντες προσέλθοιεν καὶ μὴ διασπασθείη αὐτοῖς ἡ τάξις, ὅπερ φιλεῖ τὰ μεγάλα στρατόπεδα ἐν ταῖς προσόδοις ποιεῖν Cretenses quoque proelia ingredi solitos memoriae datum est praecinente ac praemoderante cithara gressibus; Alyattes autem, rex terrae Lydiae, more atque luxu barbarico praeditus, cum bellum Milesiis faceret, ut Herodotus in Historiis tradit, concinentes habuit fistulatores et fidicines atque feminas etiam tibicinas in exercitu atque in procinctu habuit, lascivientium delicias conviviorum. Sed enim Achaeos Homerus pugnam indipisci ait non fidicularum tibiarumque, sed mentium animorumque concentu conspiratuque tacito nitibundos:Οἱ δ᾽ ἄρʼ ἴσαν σιγῇ μένεα πνείοντες Ἀχαιοί,Ἐν θυμῷ μεμαῶτες ἀλεξέμεν ἀλλήλοισιν Quid ille vult ardentissimus clamor militum Romanorum, quem in congressibus proeliorum fieri solitum scriptores annalium memoravere? Contrane institutum fiebat antiquae disciplinae tam probabile? An tum et gradu clementi et silentio est opus, cum ad hostem itur in conspectu longinquo procul distantem, cum vero prope ad manus ventum est tum iam e propinquo hostis et impetu propulsandus et clamore terrendus est? Ecce autem per tibicinia Laconica tibiae quoque illius contionariae in mentem venit, quam C. Graccho cum populo agente praeisse ac praeministrassepraerinistrasse modulos ferunt. Sed nequaquamneuquaquam sic est, ut a vulgo dicitur, canere tibia solitum qui pone eum loquentem staret, et variis modis tum demulcere animum actionemque eius, tum intendere. Quid enim foret ista re ineptius, si, ut planipedi saltanti, ita Graccho contionanti numeros et modos et frequentamenta quaedam varia tibicen incineret? Sed qui hoc compertius memoriae tradiderunt, stetisse in circumstantibus dicunt occultius, qui fistula brevi sensim graviusculum sonum inspiraret ad reprimendum sedandumque inpetus vocis eius effervescentes; namque inpulsu et instinctu extraneo naturalis illa Gracchi vehementia indiguisse, non, opinor, existimanda est. M. tamen Cicero fistulatorem istum utrique rei adhibitumadhibituim esse a Graccho putat, ut sonis tum placidis tum citatis aut demissam iacentemque orationem eius erigeret aut ferocientem saevientemque cohiberet. Verba ipsius Ciceronis apposui: “Itaque idem Gracchus, quod potes audire, Catule, ex Licinio cliente tuo, litterato homine, quem servum sibi habuit ad manum, cum eburnea solitus est habere fistula, qui staret occulte post ipsum cum contionaretur, peritum hominem, qui inflaret celeriter eum sonum, qui illum aut remissum excitaret aut a contentione revocaret.” Morem autem illum ingrediendi ad tibicinum modulos proelii institutum esse a Lacedaemonis, Aristoteles in libris Problematon scripsit, quo manifestior fieret exploratiorque militum securitas et alacritas. “Nam diffidentiae,” inquit, “et timori cum ingressione huiuscemodi minime convenit et maesti atque formidantes ab hac tam intrepida ac tam decora incedendi modulatione alieni sunt.” Verba pauca Aristotelis super ea re apposui: Διὰ τί, ἐπειδὰν κινδυνεύειν μέλλωσιν, πρὸς αὐλὸν ἐμβαίνουσιν; ἵνα τοὺς δειλοὺς ἀσχημονοῦντας γινώσκωσιν. … Virgo Vestae quid aetatis et ex quali familia et quo ritu quibusque caerimoniis et religionibus ac quo nomine a pontifice maximo capiatur, et quo statim iure esse incipiat simul atque capta est;