1. Why Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in the nineteenth book of his Annals, wrote that missiles hit their mark more accurately and surely if they are hurled from below, than if they are hurled from above. When Quintus Claudius, in the nineteenth book of his Annals, was describing an attack upon a town by the proconsul Metellus, and its defence against him by the townspeople from the top of the walls, he wrote these words: “The archers and slingers on both sides showered their weapons with the utmost vigour and courage. But there is this difference between shooting an arrow or a stone downward or upward; for neither missile can be discharged accurately downward, but both upwards with excellent effect. Therefore the soldiers of Metellus suffered far fewer wounds, and, what was of the greatest importance, they very easily drove the enemy back from the battlements by means of their slingers.” I asked Antonius Julianus, the rhetorician, why what Quadrigarius had said was so; namely, that the shots of missiles are closer and more accurate if you discharge a stone or an arrow upwards rather than downwards, in spite of the fact that a throw from above downward is swifter and easier than one in the opposite direction. Then Julianus, after commending the character of the question, said: “His statement about an arrow and a stone may be made about almost any missile weapon. But, as you have said, throwing is easier if you throw downwards, provided you wish only to throw, and not to hit a mark. But when the direction and force of the throw must be regulated and guided, then, if you are throwing downwards, tile control and command of the marksman are impaired by the downward impulse itself, such as it is, and by the weight of the falling missile. But if you throw your weapon upwards, and direct hand and eye to hitting something above you, the missile which you have hurled will go to the spot to which the impulse which you have given bears it.” It was to this general effect that Julianus chatted with us about those words of Quintus Claudius. With regard to the remark of the same Claudius, “they very easily drove the enemy from the battlements,” it must be observed that he used the word defendebant, not in the sense which it commonly has, but yet quite properly and in accordance with good Latin usage. For defendere and offendere are opposed to each other, the latter meaning e)mpodw\n e)/xein, that is, “to run against something and fall upon it,” the former, e)kpodw\n poiei=n, that is, “to avert and drive away”; and the latter is Claudius' meaning in this passage.
1. Quamobrem Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, in undevicesimo Annali, scripserit rectiores certioresque ictus fieri, si sursum quid mittas quam si deorsum. QUINTUS CLAUDIUS in undevicesimo Annali, cum oppidum a Metello proconsule oppugnari, contra ab oppidanis desuper e muris propugnari describeret, ita scripsit: “Sagittarius cum funditore utrimque summo studio spargunt fortissime. Sed sagittam atque lapidem deorsum an sursum mittas, hoc interest; nam neutrum potest deorsum versum recte mitti, sed sursum utrumque optime. Quare milites Metelli sauciabantur multo minus et, quod maxime opus erat, a pinnis hostis defendebant facillime finditorePercontabar.” Percontabar ego Antonium Iulianumluhanum rhetorem, cur hoc ita usu veniret quod Quadrigarius dixisset, ut contigui magis directioresque ictus fiant, si vel lapidem vel sagittam sursum versus iacias quam deorsum, cum proclivior faciliorque iactus sit ex supernis in infima quam ex infimis in superna. Tum Iulianus, comprobato genere quaestionis, “Quod de sagitta,” inquit, “et lapide dixit, hoc de omni fere missili telo dici potest.” “Facilior autem iactus est, sicuti dixisti, si desuper iacias, si quid iacere tantum velis, non ferire.” “Sed cum modus et impetus iactus temperandus derigendusque est, tum, si in prona iacias, moderatio atque ratio inittentisquemittentis praecipitantia qualicumque ipsa et pondere cadentis teli corrumpitur.” “At si in editiora mittas et ad percutiendum superne aliquid manum et oculos conlinies, quo motus a te datus tulerit, eo telum ibit quod ieceris.” Ad hanc ferme sententiam Iulianus super istis Q. Claudii verbis nobiscum sermocinatus est. Quod ait idem Q. Claudius: “a pinnis hostis defendebant facillime,” animadvertendum est usum esse eum verbo “defendebant,” non ex vulgari consuetudine, sed admodum proprie et Latine. Nam “defendere” et “offendere” inter sese adversa sunt, quorum alterum significat ἐμποδὼν ἔχειν, id est incurrere in aliquid et incidere, alterum ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖν, id est avertere atque depellere, quod hoc in loco Claudio dicitur.
2. In what terms Herodes Atticus reproved a man who in appearance and dress falsely laid claim to the title and character of philosopher. To Herodes Atticus, the ex-consul, renowned for his personal charm and his Grecian eloquence, there once came, when I was present, a man in a cloak, with long hair and a beard that reached almost to his waist, and asked that money be given him ei)s a)/rtous, that is, “for bread.” Then Herodes asked him who on earth he was, and the man, with anger in his voice and expression, replied that he was a philosopher, adding that he wondered why Herodes thought it necessary to ask what was obvious. “I see,” said Herodes, “a beard and a cloak; the philosopher I do not yet see. Now, I pray you, be so good as to tell me by what evidence you think we may recognize you as a philosopher.” Meanwhile some of Herodes' companions told him that the fellow was a vagabond of worthless character, who frequented foul dives and was in the habit of being shamefully abusive if he did not get what he demanded. Thereupon Herodes said: “Let us give him some money, whatever his character may be, not because he is a man, but because we are men,” and he ordered enough money to be given him to buy bread for thirty days. Then, turning to those of us who were with him, he said: “Musonius ordered a thousand sesterces to be given to a fakir of this sort who posed as a philosopher, and when several told him that the fellow was a rascal and knave and deserving of nothing good, Musonius, they say, replied with a smile: a)/cios ou)=n e)sti\n a)rguri/ou, 'then he deserves money.' But,” said Herodes, “it is rather this that causes me resentment and vexation, that foul and evil beasts of this sort usurp a most sacred name and call themselves philosophers. Now, my ancestors the Athenians by public decree made it unlawful for slaves ever to be given the names of those valiant youths Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who to restore liberty tried to slay the tyrant Hippias; for they thought it impious for the names of men who had sacrificed themselves for their country's freedom to be disgraced by contact with slavery. Why then do we allow the glorious title of philosopher to be defiled in the person of the basest of men? Moreover,” said he, “I hear that the early Romans, setting a similar example in a case of the opposite nature, voted that the forenames of certain patricians who had deserved ill of their country and for that reason had been condemned to death should never be given to any patrician of the same clan, in order that their very names might seem to be dishonoured and done to death, as well as the malefactors themselves.”
2. Qualibus verbis notarit Herodes Atticus falso quempiam cultu amictuque nomen habitumque philosophi ementientem. AD Herodem Atticum, consularem virum ingenioque amoeno et Graeca facundia celebrem, adiit nobis praesentibus palliatus quispiam et crinitus barbaque prope ad pubem usque porrecta ac petit aes sibi dari εἰς ἄρτους. Tum Herodes interrogat quisnam esset. Atque ille, vultu sonituque vocis obiurgatorio, philosophum sese esse dicit et mirari quoque addit cur quaerendum putasset quod videret. “Video,” inquit Herodes, “barbam et pallium, philosophum nondum video.” “Quaeso autem te, cum bona venia dicas mihi quibus nos uti posse argumentis existimas, ut esse te philosophum noscitemus?” Interim aliquot ex his qui cum Herode erant erraticum esse hominem dicere et nulli rei incolamque esse sordentium ganearum, nisi accipiat quod petat convicio turpi solitum incessere; atque ibi Herodes “Demus,” inquit, “huic aliquid aeris, cuicuimodi est,” “tamquam homines, non tamquam homini,” et iussit dari pretium panis triginta dierum. Tum nos aspiciens qui eum sectabamur, “Musonius,” inquit, “aeruscanti cuipiam id genus et philosophum sese ostentanti dari iussit mille nummum, et cum plerique dicerent nebulonem esse hominem malum et malitiosum et nulla re bona dignum, tum Musonium subridentem dixisse aiunt: ἄξιος οὖν ἐστὶν ἀργυρίον.” “Sed hoc potius,” inquit, “dolori mihi et aegritudini est, quod istiusmodi animalia spurca atque probra nomen usurpant sanctissimumsanetissimum et philosophi appellantur.” “Maiores autem mei Athenienses nomina iuvenum fortissimorum Harmodii et Aristogitonis, qui libertatis recuperandae gratia Hippiam tyrannum interficere adorsi erant, ne umquam servis indere liceret decreto publico sanxerunt, quoniam nefas ducerent nomina libertati patriae devota servili contagio pollui.” “Cur ergo nos patimur nomen philosophiae inlustrissimum in hominibus deterrimis exsordescereexordescere? Simili autem,” inquit, “exemplo ex contraria specie antiquos Romanorum audio praenomina patriciorum quorundam male de republica meritorum et ob eamearn causam capite damnatorum censuisse, ne cui eiusdem gentis patricio inderentur, ut vocabula quoque eorum defamata atque demortua cum ipsis viderentur.”
3. A letter of king Philip to the philosopher Aristotle with regard to the recent birth of his son Alexander. PHILIP, son of Amyntas, was king of the land of Macedonia. Through his valour and energy the Macedonians had greatly increased and enriched their kingdom, and had begun to extend their power over many nations and peoples, so that Demosthenes, in those famous orations and addresses, insists that his power and arms are to be feared and dreaded by all Greece. This Philip, although almost constantly busied and distracted by the labours and triumphs of war, yet never was a stranger to the Muse of the liberal arts and the pursuit of culture, but his acts and words never lacked charm and refinement. In fact collections of his letters are in circulation, which abound in elegance, grace, and wisdom, as for example, the one in which he announced to the philosopher Aristotle the birth of his son Alexander. Since this letter is an encouragement to care and attention in the education of children, I thought that it ought to be quoted in full, as an admonition to parents. It may be translated, then, about as follows: Philip to Aristotle, Greeting. Know that a son is born to me. For this indeed I thank the gods, not so much because he is born, as because it is his good fortune to be born during your lifetime. For I hope that as a result of your training and instruction he will prove worthy of us and of succeeding to our kingdom. But Philip's own words are these: Fi/lippos )Aristote/lei xai/rein. )/Isqi moi gegono/ta ui(o/n. pollh\n ou)=n toi=s qeoi=s e)/xw xa/rin, ou)x ou(/tws e)pi\ th=| gene/sei tou= paido/s, w(s e)pi\ tw=| kata\ th\n sh\n h(liki/an au)to\n gegone/nai: e)lpi/zw ga/r au)to\n u(po\ sou= trafe/nta kai\ paideuqe/nta a)/cion e)/sesqai kai\ h(mw=n kai\ th=s tw=n pragma/twn diadoxh=s.
3. Epistula Philippi regis ad Aristotelem philosophum super Alexandro recens nato. PHILIPPUS, Amyntae filius, terrae Macedoniae rex, cuius virtute industriaque Macetae locupletissimo imperio aucti gentium nationumquenationunique multarummultarur potiri coeperant et cuius vim atque arma toti Graeciae cavenda metuendaque inclitae illae Demosthenis orationes contionesque vocificant— is Philippus, cum in omni fere tempore negotiis belli victoriisque adfectus exercitusque esset, a liberali tamen Musa et a studiis humanitatis numquam afuit, quin lepide comiterque pleraque et faceret et diceret. Feruntur adeo libri epistularum eius, munditiae et venustatis et prudentiae plenarum, velut sunt illae litterae quibus Aristoteli philosopho natum esse sibi Alexandrum nuntiavit. Ea epistula, quoniam curae diligentiaeque in liberorum disciplinas hortamentum est, exscribenda visa est ad commonendos parentum animos. Exponenda est igitur ad hanc ferme sententiam: Philippus Aristoteli salutem dicit. Filium mihi genitum scito. Quod equidem dis habeo gratiam, non proinde quia natus est, quam pro eo, quod nasci contigit temporibus vitae tuae. Spero enim fore ut eductus eruditusque a te, dignus existat et nobis et rerum nostrarum susceptione. Ipsius autem Philippi verba haec sunt: Φίλιππος Ἀριστοτέλει χαίρειν. Ἴσθι μοι γεγονότα υἱόν. πολλὴν οὖν τοῖς θεοῖς ἔχω χάριν, οὐχ οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ γενέσει τοῦ παιδός, ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ κατὰ τὴν σὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτὸν γεγονέναι· ἐλπίζω γάρ αὐτὸν ὑπὸ σοῦ τραφέντα καὶ παιδευθέντα ἄξιον ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων διαδοχῆς.
4. On some extraordinary marvels found among barbarian peoples; and on awful and deadly spells; and also on the sudden change of women into men. WHEN I was returning from Greece to Italy and had come to Brundisium, after disembarking I was strolling about in that famous port, which Quintus Ennius called praepes, or “propitious,” using an epithet that is somewhat far-fetched, but altogether apt. There I saw some bundles of books exposed for sale, and I at once eagerly hurried to them. Now, all those books were in Greek, filled with marvellous tales, things unheard of, incredible; but the writers were ancient and of no mean authority: Aristeas of Proconnesus, Isigonus of Nicaea, Ctesias and Onesicritus, Philostephanus and Hegesias. The volumes themselves, however, were filthy from long neglect, in bad condition and unsightly. Nevertheless, I drew near and asked their price; then, attracted by their extraordinary and unexpected cheapness, 1 bought a large number of them for a small sum, and ran through all of them hastily in the course of the next two nights. As I read, I culled from them, and noted down, some things that were remarkable and for the most part unmentioned by our native writers; these I have inserted here and there in these notes, so that whoever shall read them may not be found to be wholly ignorant and a)nh/koos, or “uninstructed,” when hearing tales of that kind. Those books, then, contained matter of the following sort: that the most remote of the Scythians, who pass their life in the far north, eat human flesh and subsist on the nourishment of that food, and are called a)nqrwpofa/goi, or “cannibals.” Also that there are men in the same latitude having one eye in the middle of the forehead and called Arimaspi, who are of the appearance that the poets give the Cyclopes. That there are also in the same region other men, of marvellous swiftness, whose feet are turned backwards and do not point forward, as in the rest of mankind. Further, that it was handed down by tradition that in a distant land called Albania men are born whose hair turns white in childhood and who see better by night than in the daytime. That it was also a matter of assured belief that the Sauromatae, who dwell far away beyond the river Borysthenes, take food only every other day and fast on the intervening day. In those same books I ran upon this statement too, which I later read also in the seventh book of the Natural History of Plinius Secundus, that in the land of Africa there are families of persons who work spells by voice and tongue; for if they should chance to have bestowed extravagant praise upon beautiful trees, plentiful crops, charming children, fine horses, flocks that are well fed and in good condition, suddenly, for no other cause than this, all these would die. That with the eyes too a deadly spell is cast, is written in those same books, and it is said that there are persons among the Illyrians who by their gaze kill those at whom they have looked for some time in anger; and that those persons themselves, both men and women, who possess this power of harmful gaze, have two pupils in each eye. Also that in the mountains of the land of India there are men who have the heads of dogs, and bark, and that they feed upon birds and wild animals which they have taken in the chase. That in the remotest lands of the east too there are other marvellous men called monocoli, or “one-legged,” who run by hopping with their single leg and are of a most lively swiftness. And that there are also some others who are without necks and have eyes in their shoulders. But all bounds of wonder are passed by the statement of those same writers, that there is a tribe in farthest India with bodies that are rough and covered with feathers like birds, who eat no food but live by inhaling the perfume of flowers. And that not far from these people is the land of Pygmies, the tallest of whom are not more than two feet and a quarter in height. These and many other stories of the kind I read; but when writing them down, I was seized with disgust for such worthless writings, which contribute nothing to the enrichment or profit of life. Nevertheless, the fancy took me to add to this collection of marvels a thing which Plinius Secundus, a man of high authority in his day and generation by reason of his talent and his position, recorded in the seventh book of his Natural History, not as something that he had heard or read, but that he knew to be true and had himself seen. The words therefore which I have quoted below are his own, taken from that book, and they certainly make us hesitate to reject or ridicule that familiar yarn of the poets of old about Caenis and Caeneus. He says that the change of women into men is not a fiction. “We find,” says he, “in the annals that in the consulship of Quintus Licinius Crassus and Gains Cassius Longinus a girl at Casinum was changed into a boy in the house of her parents and by direction of the diviners was deported to a desert island. Licinius Mucianus has stated that he saw at Argos one Arescontes, whose name had been Arescusa; that she had even been married, but presently grew a beard, became a man, and had taken a wife: and that at Smyrna also he had seen a boy who had experienced the same change. I myself in Africa saw Lucius Cossutius, a citizen of Thysdrus, who had been changed into a man on his wedding day and was still living when I wrote this.” Pliny also wrote this in the same book: “There are persons who from birth are bisexual, whom we call 'hermaphrodites'; they were formerly termed androgyni and regarded as prodigies, but now are instruments of pleasure.”
4. De barbararum gentium prodigiosis miraculis; deque diris et exitiosis effascinationibus; atque inibi de feminis repente versis in mares. CUM e Graecia in Italiam rediremus et Brundisium iremus egressique e navi in terram in portu illo inclito spatiaremur, quem Q. Ennius remotiore paulum, sed admodum scito vocabulo “praepetem” appellavit, fasces librorum venalium expositos vidimus. Atque ego avide statim pergo ad libros. Erant autem isti omnes libri Graeci miraculorum fabularumque pleni, res inauditae, incredulae, scriptores veteres non parvae auctoritatis: Aristeas Proconnesius et Isigonus Nicaeensis et Ctesias et Onesicritus et Philostephanus et Hegesias; ipsa autem volumina ex diutino situ squalebant et habitu aspectuque taetro erant. Accessi tamen percontatusque pretium sum et, adductus mira atque insperata vilitate, libros plurimos aere pauco emo eosque omnis duabus proximis noctibus cursim transeo; atque in legendo carpsi exinde quaedam et notavi mirabilia et scriptoribus fere nostris intemptata eaque his commentariis aspersi, ut qui eos lectitarit ne rudis omnino et ἀνήκοος inter istiusmodi rerum auditiones reperiatur. Erant igitur in illis libris scripta huiuscemodi: Scythas illos penitissimospenitissiimos, qui sub ipsis septentrionibus aetatem agunt, corporibus hominum vesci eiusque victus alimento vitam ducere et ἀνθρωποφάγους nominari; item esse homines sub eadem regione caeli unum oculum in frontis medio habentes, qui appellantur Arimaspi, qua fuisse facie Cyclopas poetae ferunt; alios item esse homines apud eandem caeli plagam singulariae velocitatis, vestigia pedum habentes retro porrecta, non, ut ceterorum hominum, prosum spectantia; praeterea traditum esse memoratumque in ultima quadam terra, quae “Albania” dicitur, gigni homines, qui in pueritia canescant et plus cernant oculis per noctem quam interdiu; item esse compertum et creditum, Sauromatas, qui ultra Borysthenen fluvium longe colunt, cibum capere semper diebus tertiis, medio abstinere. Id etiam in isdem libris scriptum offendimus, quod postea in libro quoque Plinii Secundi Naturalis Historiae septimo legi, esse quasdam in terra Africa hominum familias voce atque lingua effascinantium, qui si impensius forte laudaverint pulchras arbores, segetes laetiores, infantes amoeniores, egregios equos, pecudes pastu atque cultu opimas, emoriantur repente haec omnia, nulli aliae causae obnoxia. Oculis quoque exitialem fascinationem fieri in isdem libris scriptum est traditurque esse homines in Illyriis qui interimant videndo quos diutius irati viderint, eosque ipsos mares feminasque, qui visu ita nocenti sunt, pupillas in singulis oculis binas habere. Item esse in montibus terrae Indiae homines caninis capitibus et latrantibus eosque vesci avium et ferarum venatibus; atque esse item alia aput ultimas orientis terras miracula homines, qui “monocoli” appellentur, singulis cruribus saltatim currentes, vivacissimae pernicitatis; quosdam etiam esse nullis cervicibus, oculos in humeris habentes. Iam vero hoc egreditur omnem modum admirationis, quod idem illi scriptores gentem esse aiunt aput extrema Indiae, corporibus hirtis et avium ritu plumantibusplumnantibus, nullo cibatu vescentem, sed spiritu florum naribus hausto victitantem; Pygmaeos quoque haut longe ab his nasci, quorum qui longissimi sint, non longiores esse quam pedes duo et quadrantem. Haec atque alia istiusmodi plura legimus, sed cum ea scriberemus, tenuit nos non idoneae scripturae taedium, nihil ad ornandum iuvandumque usum vitae pertinentis. Libitum tamen est in loco hoc miraculorum notare id etiam, quod Plinius Secundus, vir in temporibus aetatis suae ingenii dignitatisque gratia auctoritate magna praeditus, non audisse neque legisse, sed scire sese atque vidisse in libro Naturalis Historiae septimo scripsit. Verba igitur haec, quae infra posui, ipsius sunt, ex eo libro sumpta, quae profecto faciunt ut neque respuenda neque ridenda sit notissima illa veterum poetarum de Caenide et Caeneo cantilena. Ex feminis, inquit, mutari in mares, non esse fabulosum. “Invenimus in annalibus, Q. Licinio Crasso, C. Cassio Longino consulibus, Casini puerum factum ex virgine sub parentibus iussuque haruspicum deportatum in insulam desertam. Licinius Mucianus prodidit visum esse a se Argis Arescontem, cui nomen Arescusae fuisset, nupsisse etiam, mox barbam et virilitatem provenisse uxoremque duxisse; eiusdem sortis et Zmyrnae puerum a se visum. Ipse in Africa vidi mutatum in marem die nuptiarum L. Cossitium civem Thysdritanum, vivebatque cum proderem haec.” Idem Plinius in eodem libro verba haec scripsit: “Gignuntur homines utriusque sexus, quos ‘hermaphroditos’ vocamus, olim ‘androgynos’ vocatos et in prodigiis habitos, nuncnune vero in deliciis.”
5. Diverse views of eminent philosophers as to the nature and character of pleasure; and the words in which the philosopher Hierocles attacked the principles of Epicurus. As to pleasure the philosophers of old expressed varying opinions. Epicurus makes pleasure the highest good, but defines it as sarko\s eu)staqe\s kata/sthma, or “a well-balanced condition of body.” Antisthenes the Socratic calls it the greatest evil; for this is the expression he uses: manei/hn ma=llon h)\ h(sqei/hn; that is to say, “may I go mad rather than feel pleasure.” Speusippus and all the old Academy declare that pleasure and pain are two evils opposed to each other, but that what lay midway between the two was the good. Zeno thought that pleasure was indifferent, that is neutral, neither good nor evil, that, namely, which he himself called by the Greek term a)dia/foron. Critolaus the Peripatetic declares that pleasure is an evil and gives birth to many other evils: injustice, sloth, forgetfulness, and cowardice. Earlier than all these, Plato discoursed in so many and varied ways about pleasure, that all those opinions which I have set forth may seem to have flowed from the founts of his discourses; for he makes use of each one of them according to the suggestion offered by the nature of pleasure itself, which is manifold, and according to the demands made by the character of the topics which he is treating and of the effect that he wishes to produce. But our countryman Taurus, whenever mention was made of Epicurus, always had on his lips and tongue these words of Hierocles the Stoic, a man of righteousness and dignity: “Pleasure an end, a harlot's creed; there is no Providence, not even a harlot's creed.”
5. Diversae nobilium philosophorum sententiae de genere ac natura voluptatis; verbaque Hieroclis philosophi quibus decreta Epicuri insectatus est. DE voluptate veteres philosophi diversas sententias dixerunt. Epicurus voluptatem summum bonum esse ponit, eam tamen ita definit: σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς κατάστημα. Antisthenes Socraticus summum malum dicit; eius namque hoc verbum est: μανείην μᾶλλον ἢ ἡσθείην. Speusippus vetusque omnis Academia voluptatem et dolorem duo mala esse dicunt opposita inter sese, bonum tamen esse quod utriusque medium foret. Zeno censuit voluptatem esse indifferens, id est neutrum, neque bonum neque malum, quod ipse Graeco vocabulo ἀδιάφορον appellavit. Critolaus Peripateticus et malum esse voluptatem ait et multa alia mala parere ex sese, iniurias, desidias, obliviones, ignavias. Plato ante hos omnis ita varie et multiformitermultiobrmiter de voluptate disseruit, ut cunctae istae sententiae quas exposui videantur ex sermonum eius fontibus profluxisse; nam proinde unaquaque utitur, ut et ipsius voluptatis natura fert, quae est multiplex, et causarum quas tractat, rerumque quas efficere vult ratio desiderat. Taurus autem noster, quotiens facta mentio Epicuri erat, in ore atque in lingua habebat verba haec Hieroclis Stoici, viri sancti et gravis, ἡδονὴ τέλος, πόρνης δόγμα· οὐκ ἔστιν πρόνοια, οὐδὲ πόρνης δόγμα.
6. With what quantity the first syllable of the frequentative verb from ago should be pronounced. FROM ago and egi are derived the verbs actito and actitavi, which the grammarians call “frequentatives.” These verbs I have heard some men, and those not without learning, pronounce with a shortening of the first syllable, and give as their reason that the first letter of the primitive ago is pronounced short. Why then do we make the first vowel long in the frequentative forms esito and unctito, which are derived from edo and ungo, in which the first letter is short; and, on the contrary, pronounce the first vowel short in dictito from dīco? Accordingly, should not actito and actitavi rather be lengthened? For the first syllable of almost all frequentatives is pronounced in the same way as the same syllable of the past participle of the verbs from which they are formed: for example, lego lēctus makes lēctito; ungo ūnctus, ūnctito; scrībo scrīptus, scrīptito; moveo mōtus, mōtito; pendeo pēnsus, pēnsito; edo ēsus, ēsito; but dīco dīctus forms dictito; gĕro gĕstus, gĕstito; vĕho vĕctus, vĕctito; răpio răptus, răptito; căpio căptus, căptito; făcio făctus, făctito. So then ăctito should be pronounced with the first syllable long, since it is from ago and ăctus.
6. Verbum quod est ab “ago” frequentativum, in syllaba prima quonam sit modulo pronuntiandum. An eo quod est “ago” et “egi,” verba sunt quae appellant grammatici “frequentativa,” “actito” et “actitavi.” Haec quosdam non sane indoctos viros audio ita pronuntiare, ut primam in his litteram corripiant, rationemque dicunt, quoniam in verbo principali, quod est “ago,” prima littera breviter pronuntiatur. Cur igitur ab eo quod est “edo” et “ungo,” in quibus verbis prima littera breviter dicitur, “esito” et “unctito,” quae sunt eorum frequentativa, prima littera longa promimus et contra “dictito,” ab eo verbo quod est “dico,” correpte dicimus? Num ergo potius “actito” et “actitavi” producenda sunt? quoniam frequentativa ferme omnia eodem modo in prima syllaba dicuntur, quo participia praeteriti temporis ex his verbis unde ea profecta sunt in eadem syllaba pronuntiantur, sicuti “lego lectus” facit “lectito”; “ungo unctus,” “unctito”; “scribo scriptus,” “scriptito”; “moveo motus,” “motito”; “pendeo pensus,” “pensito”; “edo esus,” “esito”; “dico” autem “dictus” “dictito” facit; “gero gestus,” “gestito”; “veho vectus,” “vectito”; “rapio raptus,” “raptito”; “capio captus,” “captito”; “facio factus,” “factito.” Sic igitur “actito” producte in prima syllaba pronuntiandum, quoniam ex eo fit quod est “ago” et “actus.”
7. That the leaves of the olive tree turn over at the summer and the winter solstice, and that the lyre at that same season produces sounds from other strings than those that are struck. IT is commonly both written and believed that at the winter and the summer solstice the leaves of olive trees turn over, and that the side which had been underneath and hidden becomes uppermost and is exposed to sight and to the sun. And 1 myself was led to test this statement more than once, and found it to be almost exactly true. But about the lyre there is an assertion that is less often made and is even more remarkable. And this both other learned men and also Suetonius Tranquillus, in the first book of his History of the Games, declare to have been fully investigated and to be generally accepted; namely, that when some strings of the lyre are struck with the fingers at the time of the winter solstice, other strings give out sound.
7. De conversione foliorum in arbore olea brumali et solstitiali die; deque fidibus id temporis ictu alieno sonantibus. VolgoVULGO et scriptum et creditum est, folia olearum arborum brumali et solstitiali die converti et quae pars eorum fuerit inferior atque occultior, eam supra fieri atque exponi ad oculos et ad solem. Quod nobis quoque semel atque iterum experiri volentibus ita esse propemodumpropeinodum visum est. Sed de fidibus rarius dictu et mirabilius est; quam rem et alii docti viri et Suetonius etiam Tranquillus, in libro Ludicrae Historiae primo, satis compertam esse satisque super ea constare adfirmat: nervias in fidibus brumali die alias digitis pelli, alias sonare.
8. That it is inevitable that one who has much should need much, with a brief and graceful aphorism of the philosopher Favorinus on that subject. THAT is certainly true which wise men have said as the result of observation and experience, that he who has much is in need of much, and that great want arises from great abundance and not from great lack; for many things are wanted to maintain the many things that you have. Whoever then, having much, desires to provide and take precaution that nothing may fail or be lacking, needs to lose, not gain, and must have less in order to want less. I recall that Favorinus once, amid loud and general applause, rounded off this thought, putting it into the fewest possible words: “It is not possible for one who wants fifteen thousand cloaks not to want more things; for if I want more than I possess, by taking away from what I have I shall be contented with what remains.”
8. Necessum esse qui multa habeat multis indigere; deque ea re Favorini philosophi cum brevitate eleganti sententia. VERUM est profecto quod observato rerum usu sapientes viri dixere, multis egere qui multa habeat, magnamque indigentiam nasci non ex inopia magna, sed ex magna copia; multa enim desiderari ad multa quae habeas tuenda. Quisquis igitur, multa habens, cavere atque prospicere velit ne quid egeat neve quid desit, iactura opus esse, non quaestu, et minus habendum esse, ut minus desit. Hanc sententiam memini a Favorino inter ingentes omnium clamoresclarnores detornatam inclusamque verbis his paucissimis: Τὸν γὰρ μυρίων καὶ πεντακισχιλίων χλαμύδων δεόμενον οὐκ ἔστι μὴ πλειόνων δεῖσθαι· οἷς γὰρ ἔχω προσδεόμενος, ἀφελὼν ὧν ἔχω, ἀρκοῦμαι οἷς ἔχω.
9. What method should be followed in translating Greek expressions; and on those verses of Homer which Virgil is thought to have translated either well and happily or unsuccessfully. WHENEVER striking expressions from the Greek poets are to be translated and imitated, they say that we should not always strive to render every single word with exact literalness. For many things lose their charm if they are transplanted too forcibly— unwillingly, as it were, and reluctantly. Virgil therefore showed skill and good judgment in omitting some things and rendering others, when he was dealing with passages of Homer or Hesiod or Apollonius or Parthenius or Callimachus or Theocritus, or some other poet. For example, when very recently the Bucolics of Theocritus and Virgil were being read together at table, we perceived that Virgil had omitted something that in the Greek is, to be sure, wonderfully pleasing, but neither could nor ought to have been translated. But what he has substituted for that omission is almost more charming and graceful. Theocritus writes:But when her goatherd boy goes by you should see my CleäristFling apples, and her pretty lips call pouting to be kissed.Virgil has:My Phyllis me with pelted apples plies,Then tripping to the woods the wanton hies,And wishes to be seen before she flies.Also in another place I notice that what was very sweet in the Greek was prudently omitted. Theocritus writes:O Tityrus, well-belovéd, feed my goats,And lead them to the fount, good Tityrus;But 'ware yon buck-goat yellow, lest he butt.But how could Virgil reproduce to\ kalo\n pefilhme/ne (“well-beloved”), words that, by Heaven! defy translation, but have a certain native charm? He therefore omitted that expression and translated the rest very cleverly, except in using caper for Theocritus' e)no/rxas; for, according to Marcus Varro, a goat is called caper in Latin only after he has been castrated. Virgil's version is:Till I return—not long—feed thou my goats;Then, Tityrus, give them drink, but as you go,Avoid the buck-goat's horn—the fellow butts' And since I am speaking on the subject of translation, I recall hearing from pupils of Valerius Probus, a learned man and well trained in reading and estimating the ancient writings, that he used to say that Virgil had never translated Homer less successfully than in these delightful lines which Homer wrote about Nausicaa:As when o'er Erymanth Diana roves,Or wide Taÿgetus' resounding groves,A silver train the huntress queen surrounds,Her rattling quiver from her shoulder sounds;Fierce in the sport, along the mountain's browThey bay the boar or chase the bounding roe;High o'er the lawn, with more majestic pace,Above the nymphs she treads with stately grace;Distinguished excellence the goddess proves,Exults Latona as the virgin moves:With equal grace Nausicaa trod the plain,And shone transcendent o'er the beauteous train.This passage Virgil renders thus:As on Eurotas' banks or Cynthus' heightsDiana guides her dancing bands, whose trainA thousand Oreads follow, right and left;A quiver bears she on her shoulder fair,And as she treads, the goddesses o'ertops;Joys thrill Latona's silent breast.First of all, they said that Probus thought that in Homer the maiden Nausicaa, playing among her girl companions in solitary places, was consistently and properly compared with Diana hunting on the mountain heights among the rural goddesses; but that Virgil had made a comparison that was by no means suitable, since Dido, walking with dignified dress and gait in the midst of a city, and surrounded by the Tyrian chiefs, “pressing on the work of her rising kingdom,” as he himself says, can have no points of similarity corresponding with the sports and hunts of Diana. Then secondly, that Homer mentions plainly and directly Diana's interest and pleasure in the chase, while Virgil, not having said a word about the goddess' hunting, merely pictures her as carrying a quiver on her shoulder, as if it were a burden or a pack. And they said that Probus was particularly surprised at this feature of Virgil's version, that while Homer's Leto rejoices with a joy that is unaffected, deep, and springing from the very depths of her heart and soul—for the words ge/ghqe de/ te fre/na Lhtw/, or “Leto rejoiced in heart,” mean nothing else—Virgil, on the other hand, in his attempt to imitate this, has depicted a joy that is passive, mild, slow, and as it were floating on the surface of the heart; for Probus said that he did not know what else the word pertemptant could mean. Besides all this, Virgil seemed to have left out the flower of the whole passage, by giving only a faint shadow of this verse of Homer's:And shone transcendent o'er the beauteous train.For no greater or more complete praise of beauty can be expressed than that she alone excelled where all were beautiful, that she alone was easily distinguished from all the rest.
9. Quis modus sit vertendi verba in GraecisGraeeis sententiis; deque his Homeri versibus quos Vergilius vertisse aut bene apteque aut inprospere existimatus est. QUANDO ex poematis Graecis vertendae imitandaeque sunt insignes sententiae, non semper aiunt enitendum ut omnia omnino verba in eum in quem dicta sunt modum vertamus. Perdunt enim gratiam pleraque, si quasi invita et recusantia violentius transferantur. Scite ergo et considerate Vergilius, cum aut Homeri aut Hesiodi aut Apollonii aut Parthenii aut Callimachi aut Theocriti aut quorundam aliorum locos effingeret, partim reliquit, alia expressit. Sicuti nuperrime, aput mensam cum legerentur utraque simul Bucolica Theocriti et Vergilii, animadvertimus reliquisse Vergilium quod Graecum quidem mire quam suave est, verti autem neque debuit neque potuit. Sed enim quod substituit pro eo, quod omiserat, non abest quin iucundius lepidiusque sit:Βάλλει καὶ μάλοισι τὸν αἰπόλον ἁ ΚλεαρίσταΤὰς αἶγας παρελᾶντα καὶ ἁδύ τι ποππυλιάζει. Malo me Galatea petit, lasciva puella,Et fugit ad salices et se cupit ante videri. Illud quoque alio in loco animadvertimus caute omissum, quod est in Graeco versu dulcissimumΤίτυρʼ, ἐμὶν τὸ καλὸν πεφιλημένε, Βόσκε τὰς αἶγαςΚαὶ ποτὶ τὰν κράναν ἄγε, Τίτυρε· καὶ τὸν ἐνόρχανΤὸν Λιβυκὸν κνάκωνα φυλάσσεο, μή τυ κορύξῃ.Quo enim pacto diceret: τὸ καλὸν πεφιλημένετὸ καλὸν πεφιλημένε, verba hercle non translaticia, sed cuiusdam nativae dulcedinis? Hoc igitur reliquit et cetera vertit non infestiviter, nisi quod “caprum” dixit, quem Theocritus ἐνόρχαν appellavit— auctore enim M. Varrone is demum Latine “caper” dicitur, qui excastratus est: — Tityre, dum redeo, brevis est via, pasce capellasEt potum pastas age, Tityre, et inter agendumOccursare capro, cornu ferit ille, caveto. Et quoniam de transferendis sententiis loquor, memini audisse me ex Valerii Probi discipulis, docti hominis et in legendis pensitandisque veteribus scriptis bene callidi, solitum eum dicere, nihil quicquam tam inprospere Vergilium ex Homero vertisse quam versus hos amoenissimos, quos de Nausicaa Homerus fecit:Οἵη δʼ Ἄρτεμις εἶσι κατʼ οὔρεος ἰοχέαιρα,Ἢ κατὰ Τηΰγετον περιμήκετον ἢ ἘρύμανθονΤερπομένη κάπροισι καὶ ὠκείῃς ἐλάφοισιν·Τῇ δέ θʼ ἅμα νύμφαι, κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο,Ἀγρονόμοι παίζουσι· γέγηθε δέ τε φρένα Λητώ·Πασάων δʼ ὕπερ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα,Ῥεῖα δʼ ἀριγνώτη πέλεται, καλαὶ δέ τε πᾶσαι,— Qualis in Eurotae ripis aut per iuga CynthiExercet Diana choroschores, quam mille secutaeHinc atque hinc glomerantur Oriades. Illa pharetramFert humero gradiensque deas supereminet omnis.Latonae tacitum pertemptant gaudia pectus. Primum omnium id visum esse dicebant Probo, quod aput Homerum quidem virgo Nausicaa, ludibunda inter familiares puellas in locis solis, recte atque commode confertur cum Diana venante in iugis montium inter agrestes deas, nequaquam autem conveniens Vergilium fecisse, quoniam Dido in urbe media ingrediens inter Tyrios principes cultu atque incessu serio, “instans operi,” sicut ipse ait, “regnisque futuris,” nihil eius similitudinis capere possit, quae lusibus atque venatibus Dianae congruat; tum postea, quod Homerus studia atque oblectamenta in venando Dianae honeste aperteque dicit, Vergilius autem, cum de venatu deae nihil dixisset, pharetram tantum facit eam ferre in humero, tamquam sit onus et sarcina; atque illud impense Probum esse demiratum in Vergilio dicebant, quod Homerica quidem Λητώ gaudium gaudeat genuinum et intimum atque in ipso penetrali cordis et animae vigens, siquidem non aliud est: γέγηθε δέ τε φρένα Λητώ, ipse autem, imitari ea volens, gaudia fecerit pigra et levia et cunctantia et quasi in summo pectore supernantia: nescire enim sese, quid significaret aliud “pertemptant”; praeter ista omnia florem ipsius totius loci Vergilium videri omisisse, quod hunc Homeri versum exigue secutus sït:Ῥεῖα δʼ ἀριγνώτη πέλεται, καλαὶ δέ τε πᾶσαι, quando nulla maior cumulatiorque pulcritudinis laus dici potuerit, quam quod una inter omnis pulcras excelleret, una facile et ex omnibus nosceretur.