10. The low and odious criticism with which Annaeus Cornutus befouled the lines of Virgil in which the poet with chaste reserve spoke of the intercourse of Venus and Vulcan. THE poet Annianus, and with him many other devotees of the same Muse, extolled with high and constant praise the verses of Virgil in which, while depicting and describing the conjugal union of Vulcan and Venus, an act that nature's law bids us conceal, he veiled it with a modest paraphrase. For thus he wrote:So speaking, the desired embrace he gave,And sinking on the bosom of his spouse,Calm slumber then he wooed in every limb.But they thought it less difficult, in speaking of such a subject, to use one or two words that suggest it by a slight and delicate hint, such as Homer's parqeni/h zw/nh, or “maiden girdle”; le/ktroio qesmo/n, “the right of the couch”; and e)/rga filoth/sia, “love's labours”; that no other than Virgil has ever spoken of those sacred mysteries of chaste intercourse in so many and such plain words, which yet were not licentious, but pure and honourable. But Annaeus Cornutus, a man in many other respects, to be sure, lacking neither in learning nor taste, nevertheless, in the second book of the work which he compiled On Figurative Language, defamed the high praise of all that modesty by an utterly silly and odious criticism. For after expressing approval of that kind of figurative language, and observing that the lines were composed with due circumspection, he added: “Virgil nevertheless was somewhat indiscreet in using the word membra.”
10. Quod Annaeus Cornutus versus Vergilii, quibus Veneris et Vulcani concubitum pudice operteque dixit, reprehensione spurca et odiosa inquinavit. ANNIANUS poeta, et plerique cum eo eiusdem Musae viri, summis adsiduisque laudibus hos Vergilii versus ferebat, quibus Vulcanum et Venerem iunctos mixtosque iure coniugii, rem lege naturae operiendam, verecunda quadam translatione verborum, cum ostenderet demonstraretque, protexit. Sic enim scripsit:Ea verba locutusOptatos dedit amplexus placidumque petivitConiugis infusus gremio per membra soporem. Minus autem difficile esse arbitrabantur, in istiusmodi re dicenda, verbis uti uno atque altero brevi tenuique eam signo demonstrantibus, sicut Homerus dixerit: παρθενίην ζώνην et λέκτροιο θεσμόν et ἔργα φιλοτήσια, tot vero et tam evidentibus ac tamen non praetextatis, sed puris honestisque verbis venerandum illud concubii pudici secretum neminem quemquam alium dixisse. Sed Annaeus Cornutus, homo sane pleraque alia non indoctus neque inprudens, in secundo tamen librorum, quos De Figuris Sententiarum conposuit, egregiam totius istius verecundiae laudem insulsa nimis et odiosa scrutatione violavit. Nam cum genus hoc figurae probasset et satis circumspecte factos esse versus dixisset, “‘Membra’ tamen,” inquit, “paulo incautius nominavit.”
11. Of Valerius Corvinus and the origin of his surname, THERE is not one of the well-known historians who has varied in telling the story of Valerius Maximus, who was called Corvinus because of the help and defence rendered him by a raven. That truly remarkable event is in fact thus related in the annals: In the consulship of Lucius Furius and Appius Claudius, a young man of such a family was appointed tribune of the soldiers. And at that time vast forces of Gauls had encamped in the Pomptine district, and the Roman army was being drawn up in order of battle by the consuls, who were not a little disquieted by the strength and number of the enemy. Meanwhile the leader of the Gauls, a man of enormous size and stature, his armour gleaming with gold, advanced with long strides and flourishing his spear, at the same time casting haughty and contemptuous glances in all directions. Filled with scorn for all that he saw, he challenged anyone from the entire Roman army to come out and meet him, if he dared. Thereupon, while all were wavering between fear and shame, the tribune Valerius, first obtaining the consuls' permission to fight with the Gaul who was boasting so vainly, advanced to meet him, boldly yet modestly. They meet, they halt, they were already engaging in combat. And at that moment a divine power is manifest: a raven, hitherto unseen, suddenly flies to the spot, perches on the tribune's helmet, and from there begins an attack on the face and the eyes of his adversary. It flew at the Gaul, harassed him, tore his hand with its claws, obstructed his sight with its wings, and after venting its rage flew back to the tribune's helmet. Thus the tribune, before the eyes of both armies, relying on his own valour and defended by the help of the bird, conquered and killed the arrogant leader of the enemy, and thus won the surname Corvinus. This happened four hundred and five years after the founding of Rome. To that Corvinus the deified Augustus caused a statue to be erected in his Forum. On the head of this statue is the figure of a raven, a reminder of the event and of the combat which I have described.
11. De Valerio Corvino; et unde Corvinus. DE MAXIMO VALERIO, qui Corvinus appellatus est ob auxilium propugnationemque corvi alitis, haut quisquam est nobilium scriptorum qui secus dixerit. Ea res prorsus miranda sic profecto est in libris annalibus memorata: “Adulescens tali genere editus, L. Furio, Claudio Appio consulibus fit tribunus militaris.” “Atque in eo tempore copiae Gallorum ingentes agrum Pomptinum insederant instruebaturque acies a consulibus, de vi ac multitudine hostium satis agentibus.” “Dux interea Gallorum, vasta et ardua proceritate armisque auro praefulgentibus, grandia ingrediens et manu telum reciprocans incedebat perque contemptum et superbiam circumspicienscircumsliciens despiciensque omnia, venire iubet et congredi, si quis pugnare secum ex omni Romano exercitu auderet.” “Tum Valerius tribunus, ceteris inter metum pudoremque ambiguis, impetrato prius a consulibus ut in Gallum tam inaniter adrogantem pugnare sese permitterent, progreditur intrepide modesteque obviam; et congrediuntur et consistunt et conserebantur iam manus. Atque ibi vis quaedam divina fit:” “corvus repente inprovisus advolat et super galeam tribuni insistit atque inde in adversari os atque oculos pugnare incipit; insilibat, obturbabat et unguibus manum laniabat et prospectum alis arcebat atque, ubi satis saevierat, revolabat in galeam tribuni.” “Sic tribunus, spectante utroque exercitu, et sua virtute nixus et opera alitis propugnatus, ducem hostiumhiostium ferocissimumferocissinmum vicit interfecitque atque ob hanc causam cognomen habuit Corvinus.” “Id factum est annis quadringentis quinque post Romam conditam.” Statuam Corvino isti divus Augustus in foro suo statuendam curavit. In eius statuae capite corvi simulacrum est, rei pugnaeque quamquain diximus monimentum.
12. On words which are used with two opposite meanings, both active and passive. As the adjective formidulosus may be used both of one who fears and of one who is feared, invidiosus of one who envies and of one who is envied, suspiciosus of one who suspects and of one who is suspected, ambitiosus of one who courts favour and of one who is courted, gratiosus also of one who gives, and of one who receives, thanks, laboriosus of one who toils and of one who causes toil—as many other words of this kind are used in both ways, so infestus too has a double meaning. For he is called infestus who inflicts injury on anyone, and on the other hand he who is threatened with injury from another source is also said to be infestus. But the meaning which I gave first surely needs no illustration, so many are there who use infestus in the sense of hostile and adverse; but that second meaning is less familiar and more obscure. For who of the common run would readily call a man infestus to whom another is hostile? However, not only did many of the earlier writers speak in that way, but Marcus Tullius also gave the word that meaning in the speech which he wrote In Defence of Gnaeus Plancius, saying: “I were grieved, gentlemen of the jury, and keenly distressed, if this man's safety should be more endangered (infestior) for the very reason that he had protected my life and safety by his own kindliness, protection and watchfulness.” Accordingly, I inquired into the origin and meaning of the word and found this statement in the writings of Nigidius: “Infestus is derived from festinare,” says he, “for one who threatens anyone, and is in haste to attack him, and hurries eagerly to crush him; or on the other hand one whose peril and ruin are being hastened— both of these are called infestus from the urgent imminence of the injury which one is either about to inflict on someone, or to suffer.” Now, that no one may have to search for an example of suspiciosus, which I mentioned above, and of formidulosus in its less usual sense, Marcus Cato, On the properly of Florius, used suspiciosus as follows: “But except in the case of one who practised public prostitution, or had hired himself out to a procurer, even though he had been ill-famed and suspected suspiciousus, they decided that it was unlawful to use force against the person of a freeman.” For in this passage Cato uses suspicious in the sense of “suspected,” not that of “suspecting.” Sallust too in the (Cailine uses formidulosus of one who is feared, in this passage: “To such men consequently no labour was unfamiliar, no region too rough or too steep, no armed foeman to be dreaded (formidulosus).” Gaius Calvus also in his poems uses laboriosus, not in the ordinary sense of “one who toils,” but of that on which labour is spent, saying:The hard and toilsome (laboriosum) country he willshun.In the same way Laberius also in the Sisters says:By Castor! sleepy (somniculosum) wine!and Cinna in his poems:As Punic Psyllus doth the sleepy (somniculosam) asp. Metus also and iniuria, and some other words of the kind. may be used in this double sense; for metus hostium, “fear of the enemy,” is a correct expression both when the enemy fear and when they are feared. Thus Sallust in the first book of his History speaks of “the fear of Pompey,” not implying that Pompey was afraid, which is the more common meaning, but that he was feared. These are Sallust's words: “That war was aroused by the fear of the victorious Pompey, who was restoring Hiempsal to his kingdom.” Also in another passage: “After the fear of the Carthaginians had been dispelled and there was leisure to engage in dissensions.” In the same way we speak of the “injuries,” as well of those who inflict them as of those who suffer them, and illustrations of that usage are readily found. The following passage from Virgil affords a similar instance of this kind of double meaning; he says:Slow from Ulysses' wound,using vulnus, not of a wound that Ulysses had suffered, but of one that he had inflicted. Nescius also is used as well of one who is unknown as of one who does not know; but its use in the sense of one who does not know is common, while it is rarely used of that which is unknown. Ignarus has the same double application, not only to one who is ignorant, but also to one who is not known. Thus Plautus in the Rudens says:In unknown (nesciis) realms are we where hopeknows naught (nescia).And Sallust: “With the natural desire of mankind to visit unknown (ignara) places.” And Virgil:Unknown (ignarum) the Laurentine shore doth Mimas hold.
12. De verbis quae in utramque partem significatione adversa et reciproca dicuntur. UT “formidulosusformdulosus” dici potest et qui formidat et qui formidatur, ut “invidiosus” et qui invidet et cui invidetur, ut “suspiciosus” et qui suspicatur et qui suspectus est, ut “ambitiosus” et qui ambit et qui ambitur, ut item “gratiosus” et qui adhibet gratias et qui admittit, ut “laboriosus” et qui laborat et qui labori est, ut pleraque alia huiuscemodi in utramque partem dicuntur, ita “infestus” quoque ancipiti significatione est. Nam et is “infestus” appellatur, qui malum infert cuipiam, et contra, cui aliunde impendet malum, is quoque “infestus” dicitur. Sed quod prius posui profecto exemplis non indiget; sic adeo multi locuntur, ut “infestum” dicant inimicum atque adversum; alterum autem illud ignorabilius obscuriusque est. Quis enim e medio facile dixerit “infestum” esse, cui alter infestus est? Sed et veteres plerique ita dixerunt et M. Tullius, in oratione quam Pro Cn. Plancio scripsit, vocabulo hoc sic usus est: “Dolebam,” inquit, “iudices, et acerbe ferebam, si huius salus ob eamearn ipsam causam esset infestior, quod is meam salutem atque vitam sua benivolentia, praesidio custodiaque texisset.” Nos igitur de origine et ratione verbi quaerebamus, atque ita in Nigidianis scriptum invenimus: “‘Infestum’ est a ‘festinando’ dictum; nam qui instat,” inquit, “alicui eumque properans urget opprimereque eum studet festinatque, aut contra de cuius periculo et exitio festinatur, is uterque ‘infestus’ dicitur ab instantia atque imminentia fraudis, quam vel facturus cuipiam vel passurus est.” Ne quis autem de “suspicioso,” quod supra posuimus, et de “formiduloso” in eam partem quae minus usitata est, exemplum requirat, de “suspicioso” aput M. Catonem De Re Floria ita scriptum: “Sed nisi qui palam corpore pecuniam quaereret aut se lenoni locavisset, etsi famosus et suspiciosus fuisset, vim in corpus liberum non aecum censuere adferri.” “Suspiciosum” enim Cato hoc in loco suspectum significat, non suspicantem: “formidulosum” autem, qui formidetur, Sallustius in Catilina ita dicit: “Igitur talibus viris non labor insolitus, non locus ullusulius asper aut arduus erat, non armatus hostis formidulosus.” Item C. Calvus in poematis “laboriosus” dicit, non, ut vulgo dicitur, qui laborat, sed in quo laboratur:Durum (inquit) rus fugit et laboriosum. Eadem ratione Laberius quoque in Sororibus:Ecastor (inquit) mustum somniculosum, et Cinna in poematis:Somniculosam ut Poénus aspidém Psyllus. “Metus” quoque et “iniuria” atque alia quaedam id genus sic utroqueversum dici possunt; nam “metus hostium” recte dicitur et cum timent hostes et cum timentur. Itaque Sallustius in Historia prima “metum Pompei” dixit, non quo Pompeius metueret, quod est usitatius, sed quo metueretur. Verba haec Sallusti sunt: “Id bellum excitabat metus Pompei victoris, Hiempsalem in regnum restituentis.” Item alio in loco: “Postquam remoto metu Punico simultates exercere vacuum fuit.” “Iniurias” itidem dicimus tam illorum qui patiuntur, quam qui faciunt, quarum dictionum exempla sunt facilia. inventu. Illud etiam dictum a Vergilio eandem habet formam communicatae ultro et citro significationis:et vulnere (inquit) tardis Ulixi,cum diceret “vulnus,” non quod accepisset Ulixes, sed quod dedisset. “Nescius” quoque dicitur tam is qui nescitur, quam qui nescit. Sed super eo qui nescit, frequens huius vocabuli usus est, infrequens autem est de eo quod nescitur. “Ignarus” aeque utroqueversum dicitur, non tantum qui ignorat, set et qui ignoratur. Plautus in Rudente:Quae ín locis nésciis néscia spé sumus.Sallustius: More humanae cupidinis ignara visendi. Vergilius:ignarum Laurens habet ora Mimanta.
13. A passage from the history of Claudius Quadrigarius, in which he pictured the combat of Manlius Torquatus, a young noble, with a hostile Gaul, who challenged the whole Roman army. TITUS MANLIUS was a man of the highest birth and of exalted rank. This Manlius was given the surname Torquatus. The reason for the surname, we are told, was that he wore as a decoration a golden neck-chain, a trophy taken from an enemy whom he had slain. But who the enemy was, and what his nationality, how formidable his huge size, how insolent his challenge, and how the battle was fought all this Quintus Claudius has described in the first book of his Annals with words of the utmost purity and clearness, and with the simple and unaffected charm of the old-time style. When the philosopher Favorinus read this passage from that work, he used to say that his mind was stirred and affected by no less emotion and excitement than if he were himself an eye-witness of their contest. I have added the words of Quintus Claudius in which that battle is pictured: “In the meantime a Gaul came forward, who was naked except for a shield and two swords and the ornament of a neck-chain and bracelets; in strength and size, in youthful vigour and in courage as well, he excelled all the rest. In the very height of the battle, when the two armies were fighting with the utmost ardour, he began to make signs with his hand to both sides, to cease fighting. The combat ceased. As soon as silence was secured, he called out in a mighty voice that if anyone wished to engage him in single combat, he should come forward. This no one dared do, because of his great size and savage aspect. Then the Gaul began to laugh at them and to stick out his tongue. This at once roused the great indignation of one Titus Manlius, a youth of the highest birth, that such an insult should be offered his country, and that no one from so great an army should accept the challenge. He, as I say, stepped forth, and would not suffer Roman valour to be shamefully tarnished by a Gaul. Armed with a foot-soldier's shield and a Spanish sword, he confronted the Gaul. Their meeting took place on the very bridge, in the presence of both armies, amid great apprehension. Thus they confronted each other, as I said before: the Gaul, according to his method of fighting, with shield advanced and awaiting an attack; Manlius, relying on courage rather than skill, struck shield against shield, and threw the Gaul off his balance. While the Gaul was trying to regain the same position, Manlius again struck shield against shield, and again forced the man to change his ground. In this fashion he slipped in under the Gaul's sword and stabbed him in the breast with his Spanish blade. Then at once with the same mode of attack he struck his adversary's right shoulder, and he did not give ground at all until he overthrew him, without giving the Gaul a chance to strike a blow. After he had overthrown him, he cut off his head, tore off his neck-chain, and put it, covered with blood as it was, around his own neck. Because of this act, he himself and his descendants had the surname Torquatus.” From this Titus Manlius, whose battle Quadrigarius described above, all harsh and cruel commands are called “Manlian;” for at a later time, when he was consul in a war against the Latins, Manlius caused his own son to be beheaded, because he had been sent by his father on a scouting expedition with orders not to fight, and disregarding the command, had killed one of the enemy who had challenged him.
13. Verba ex historia Claudi Quadrigari, quibus Manli Torquati, nobilis adulescentis, et hostis Galli provocantis pugnam depinxit. TITUS MANLIUS summo loco natus adprimeque nobilis fuit. Ei Manlio cognomentum factum est Torquatus. Causam cognomenti fuisse accepimus torquis ex auro induviasinduvies, quam ex hoste quem occiderat detractam induit. Sed quis hostis et quid genus, quam formidandae vastitatis et quantum insolens provocator et cuimodi fuerit pugna decertatum, Q. Claudius primo Annalium purissime atque inlustrissime simplicique et incompta orationis antiquae suavitate descripsit. Quem locum ex eo libro philosophus Favorinus cum legeret, non minoribus quati adficique animum suum motibus pulsibusque dicebat, quam si ipse coram depugnantes eos spectaret. Verba Q. Claudi, quibus pugna ista depicta est, adscripsi: “Cum interim Gallus quidam nudus praeter scutum et gladios duos torque atque armillis decoratus processit, qui et viribus et magnitudine et adulescentia simulque virtute ceteris antistabat.” “Is maxime proelio commoto atque utrisque summo studio pugnantibus, manu significare coepit utrisque, quiescerent.” “Pugnae facta pausa est.” “Extemplo silentio facto cum voce maxima conclamat, si quis secum depugnare vellet, uti prodiret.” “Nemo audebat propter magnitudinem atque inmanitatem facies.” “Deinde Gallus inridere coepit atque linguam exertare.” “Id subito perdolitum est cuidam Tito Manlio, summo genere gnato, tantum flagitium civitati adcidere, e tanto exercitu neminem prodire.” “Is, ut dico, processit neque passus est virtutem Romanam ab Gallo turpiter spoliari. Scuto pedestri et gladio Hispanico cinctus contra Gallum constitit.” “Metu magno ea congressio in ipso ponti, utroque exercitu inspectante, facta est.” “Ita, ut ante dixi, constiterunt: Gallus sua disciplina scuto proiecto cunctabundus; Manlius, animo magis quam arte confisus, scuto scutum percussit atque statum Galli conturbavit.” “Dum se Gallus iterum eodem pacto constituere studet, Manlius iterum scuto scutum percutit atque de loco hominem iterum deiecit; eo pacto ei sub Gallicum gladium successit atque Hispanico pectus hausit; deinde continuo umerum dextrum eodem successu incidit neque recessit usquam, donec subvertit, ne Gallus impetum in ictu haberet.” “Ubi eum evertit, caput praecidit, torquem detraxit eamque sanguinulentam sibi in collum inponit.” “Quo ex facto ipse posterique eius Torquati sunt cognominati.” Ab hoc Tito Manlio, cuius hanc pugnam Quadrigarius descripsit, imperia et aspera et immitia “ManlianaManlia” dicta sunt, quoniam postea bello adversum Latinos cum esset consul, filium suum securi percussit, qui speculatum ab eo missus,.. interdicto, hostem, a quo provocatus fuerat, occiderat.
14. That Quadrigarius also, with correct Latinity, used facies as a genitive; and some other observations on the inflection of similar words. THE expression that I quoted above from Quintus Claudius, “On account of his great size and savage aspect (facies),” I have inquired into by examining several old manuscripts, and have found it to be as I wrote it. For it was in that way, as a rule, that the early writers declined the word—facies facies— whereas the rule of grammar now requires faciei as the genitive. But I did find some corrupt manuscripts in which faciei was written, with erasure of the former reading. I remember too having found both facies and facii written in the same manuscript of Claudius in the library at Tibur. But facies was written in the text and facii, with double i, in the margin opposite; nor did I regard that as inconsistent with a certain early usage; for from the nominative dies they used both dies and dii as the genitive, and from fames, both famis and fami. Quintus Ennius, in the sixteenth book of his Annals, wrote dies for diei in the following verse:Caused by the distant time of the last day (dies).Caesellius asserts that Cicero also wrote dies for diei in his oration For Publius Sestius, and after sparing no pains and inspecting several old manuscripts, I found Caesellius to be right. These are the words of Marcus Tullius: “But the knights shall pay the penalty for that day (dies).” As a result, I readily believe those who have stated that they saw a manuscript from Virgil's own hand, in which it was written:When Libra shall make like the hours of day (dies) and sleep,where dies is used for diei. But just as in this place Virgil evidently wrote dies, so there is no doubt that he wrote dii for diei in the following line:As gifts for that day's (dii) merriment,where the less learned read dei, doubtless shrinking from the use of so uncommon a form. But the older writers declined dies dii, as they did fames fami, pernicies pernicii, progenies progenii, luxuries luxurii, acies acii. For Marcus Cato in his oration On the Punic War wrote as follows: “The women and children were driven out because of the famine (fami causa).” Lucilius in his twelfth book has:Wrinkled and full of hunger (fami).Sisenna in the sixth book of his History writes: “That the Romans came for the purpose of dealing destruction (pernicii).” Pacuvius in the Paulus says:O sire supreme of our own race's (progenii) sire.Gnaeus Matius in the twenty-first book of his Iliad:The army's (acii) other part the river's wave had shunned.Again Matius in Book xxiii writes:Or bides in death some semblance of a form (specii)Of those who speak no more.Gaius Gracchus, On the Publishing of the Laws has: “They say that those measures were taken because of luxury (luxurii casaa)” and farther on in the same speech we find: “What is necessarily provided to sustain life is not luxury (luxuries),” which shows that he used luxurii as the genitive of luxuries. Marcus Tullius also has left pernicii on record, in the speech in which he defended Sextus Roscius. These are his words: “We think that none of these things was produced by divine will for the purpose of dealing destruction (pernicii), but by the very force and greatness of Nature.” We must therefore suppose that Quadrigarius wrote either facies or facii as the genitive; but I have not found the reading facie in any ancient manuscript. But in the dative case those who spoke the best Latin did not use the form faciei, which is now current, but facie. For example, Lucilius in his Satires:Which first is joined to a fair faceAnd youth.And in his seventh book:Who loves you, and who to your youth and charms (facie),Plays courtier, promising to be your friend.However, there are not a few who read facii in both these passages of Lucilius. But Gaius Caesar, in the second book of his treatise On Analogy, thinks that we should use die and specie as genitive forms. I have also found die in the genitive case in a manuscript of Sallust's Jugurtha of the utmost trustworthiness and of venerable age. These were the words: “when scarcely a tenth part of the day (die) was left.” For I do not think we ought to accept such a quibble as the assertion that die is used for ex die.
14. Quod idem Quadrigarius “huius facies” patrio casu probe et Latine dixit; et quaedam alia adposita de similium vocabulorum declinationibus. quod autem supra scriptum est in Q. Claudi verbis: “Propter magnitudinem atque inmanitatem facies,” id nos aliquot veteribusveteiibus libris inspectis exploravimus atque ita esse, ut scriptum est, comperimus. Sic enim pleraque aetas veterum declinavit: “haec facies, huius facies,” quod nunc propter rationem grammaticam “faciei” dicitur. Corruptos autem quosdam libros repperi, in quibus “faciei” scriptum est, illo quod ante scriptum erat oblitterato. Meminimus etiam in Tiburti bibliotheca invenire nos in eodem Claudii libro scriptum utrumque “facies” et “facii.” Sed “facies” in ordinem scriptum fuit et contra per i geminum “facii,” neque id abesse a quadam consuetudine prisca existimavimus; nam et ab eo quod est “hic dies,” tam “huius dies,” quam “huius dii,” et ab eo quod est “haec fames,” tam “huius famis,” quam “huius fami” dixerunt. Q. Ennius in XVI. Annali “dies” scripsit pro “diei” in hoc versu:Postremae longinqua dies quod fecerit aetas. Ciceronem quoque adfirmat Caesellius in oratione, quam Pro P. Sestio fecit, “dies” scripsisse pro “diei,” quod ego inpensa opera conquisitis veteribus libris plusculis ita, ut Caesellius ait, scriptum inveni. Verba sunt haec M. Tullii: “Equites vero daturos illius dies poenas”; quocirca factum hercle est, ut facile his credam, qui scripserunt, idiographum librum Vergilii se inspexisse, in quo ita scriptum est:Libra dies somnique pares ubi fecerit horas,id est “Libra diei somnique.” Sed sicut hoc in loco “dies” a Vergilio scriptum videtur, ita in illo versu non dubium est, quin “dii” scripserit pro “diei”:Munera laetitiamque dii,quod inperitiores “dei” legunt, ab insolentia scilicet vocis istius abhorrentes. Sic autem “dies, dii” a veteribus declinatum est, ut “fames fami,” “pernicies pernicii,” “progenies progenii,” “luxuries luxurii,” “acies acii.” M. enim Cato in oratione, quam De Bello Carthaginiensi composuit, ita scripsit: “Pueri atque mulieres extrudebantur fami causa.” Lucilius in XII.:Rugosum atque fami plenum.Sisenna in Historiarum libro VI.: Romanos inferendae pernicii causa venisse. Pacuvius in Paulo:Patér supreme nóstrae progenií patris. Cn. Matius in Iliadis XXI.:Altera pars acii vitassent fluminis undas. Idem Matius in XXIII.:An maneat specii simulacrum in morte silentum. C. Gracchus De Legibus Promulgatis: “Ea luxurii causa aiunt institui”; et ibidem infra ita scriptum est: “Non est ea luxuries, quae necessario parentur vitae causa,” per quod apparet eum ab eo quod est “luxuries” “luxurii” patrio casu dixisse. M. quoque Tullius, in oratione qua Sextum Roscium defendit, “pernicii” scriptum reliquit. Verba haec sunt: “Quorum nihil pernicii causa divino consilio, sed vi ipsa et magnitudine rerum factum putamus.” Aut “facies” ergo in casu patrio aut “facii” Quadrigarium scripsisse existimandum est; “facie” autem in nullo veteri libro scriptum repperi. In casu autem dandi qui purissime locuti sunt non “faciei,” uti nuncnune dicitur, sed “facie” dixerunt. Lucilius in Saturis: primum (inquit) facie quod honestae etAetati accedit. Lucilius in libro septimo: Qui te diligat, aetati facieque tuae seFautorem ostendat, fore amicum polliceatur; sunt tamen non pauci qui utrobique “facii” legant. Sed C. Caesar in libro De Analogia secundo “huius die” et “huius specie” dicendum putat. Ego quoque in Iugurtha Sallustii summae fidei et reverendae vetustatis libro “die” casu patrio scriptum inveni. Verba haec ita erant: “Vix decima parte die reliqua.” Non enim puto argutiolam istam recipiendam, ut die dictum quasi “ex die” existimemus.
15. On the kind of debate which the Greeks call a)/poros. WITH the rhetorician Antonius Julianus I had withdrawn to Naples during the season of the summer holidays, wishing to escape the heat of Rome. And there was there at the time a young man of the richer class studying with tutors in both languages, and trying to gain a command of Latin eloquence in order to plead at the bar in Rome; and he begged Julianus to hear one of his declamations. Julianus went to hear him and I went along with him. The young fellow entered the room, made some preliminary remarks in a more arrogant and presumptuous style than became his years, and then asked that subjects for debate be given him. There was present there with us a pupil of Julianus, a man of ready speech and good ability, who was already offended that in the hearing of a man like Julianus the fellow should show such rashness and should dare to test himself in extempore speaking. Therefore, to try him, he proposed a topic for debate that was not logically constructed, of the kind which the Greeks call a)/poros, and in Latin might with some propriety be termed inexplicabile, that is, “unsolvable.” The subject was of this kind: “Seven judges are to hear the case of a defendant, and judgment is to be passed in accordance with the decision of a majority of their number. When the seven judges had heard the case, two decided that the defendant ought to be punished with exile; two, that he ought to be fined; the remaining three, that he should be put to death. The execution of the accused is demanded according to the decision of the three judges, but he appeals.” As soon as the young man had heard this, without any reflection and without waiting for other subjects to be proposed, he began at once with incredible speed to reel off all sorts of principles and apply then to that same question, pouring out floods of confused and meaningless words and a torrent of verbiage. All the other members of his company, who were in the habit of listening to him, showed their delight by loud applause, but Julianus blushed and sweat from shame and embarrassment. But when after many thousand lines of drivel the fellow at last came to an end and we went out, his friends and comrades followed Julianus and asked him for his opinion. Whereupon Julianus very wittily replied “Don't ask me what I think; without controversy this young man is eloquent.”
15. De genere controversiae quod Graece ἄπορον appellatur. CUM Antonio Iuliano rhetore, per feriarum tempus aestivarum decedere ex urbis aestu volentes, Neapolimconcesseramus. Atque ibi erat adulescens tunc quispiam ex ditioribus cum utriusque linguae magistris meditans et exercens ad causas Romae orandas eloquentiae Latinae facultatem; atque is rogat Iulianumlulianum, uti sese audiat declamantem. It auditum Iulianuslulianus imusque nos cum eo simul. Introit adulescens et praefatur arrogantius et elatius quam aetatem eius decebat, ac deinde iubet exponi controversias. Aderat ibi nobiscum Iuliani sectator, iuvenis promptus et proficiens et offendens iam in eo, quod ille aput Iuliani aures in praecipiti stare et subitaria dictione periculum sui facere audebat. Exponit igitur temptamenti gratia controversiam parum consistentemconistentem, quod genus Graeci ἄπορον vocant, Latine autem id non nimis incommode “inexplicabile” dici potest. Ea controversia fuit huiusmodi: “De reo septem iudices cognoscant eaque sententia sit rata, quam plures ex eo numero dixerint. Cum septem iudices cognovissent, duo censuerunt reum exilio multandum, duo alii pecunia, tres reliqui capite puniendum.” “Petitur ad supplicium ex sententia trium iudicum et contradicit.” Hac ille audita nec considerata neque aliis, ut proponerentur, expectatis, incipit statim mira celeritate in eandem hanc controversiam principia nescio quae dicere et involucra sensuum verborumque volumina vocumque turbas fundere, ceteris omnibus ex cohorte eius, qui audire eum soliti erant, clamore magno exsultantibusexultantibus, Iuliano autem male ac misere rubente et sudante. Sed ubi deblateratis versuum multis milibus finem aliquando fecit egressique inde sumus, amici familiaresque eius Iulianum prosecuti, quidnam existimaret, percontati sunt. Atque ibi Iulianus festivissime “Nolite quaerere,” inquit, “quid sentiam; adulescens hic sine controversia disertus est.”
16. How Plinius Secundus, although not without learning, failed to observe and detect the fallacy in an argument of the kind that the Greeks call a)ntistre/fon. PLINIUS SECUNDUS was considered the most learned man of his time. He left a work, entitled For Students of Oratory, which is by no manner of means to be lightly regarded. In that work he introduces much varied material that will delight the ears of the learned. He also quotes a number of arguments that he regards as cleverly and skilfully urged in the course of debates. For instance, he cites this argument from such a debate: 'A brave man shall be given the reward which he desires. A man who had done a brave deed asked for the wife of another in marriage, and received her. Then the man whose wife she had been did a brave deed. He demands the return of his wife, but is refused.' On the part of the second brave man, who demanded the return of his wife, says Pliny, “this elegant and plausible argument was presented: ' If the law is valid, return her to me; if it is not valid, return her.'” But it escaped Pliny's notice that this bit of reasoning, which he thought very acute, was not without the fallacy which the Greeks call a)ntistre/fon, or “a convertible proposition.” And that is a deceptive fallacy, which lies concealed under a false appearance of truth; for that very argument may just as easily be turned about and used against the same man, and might, for example, be put thus by that former husband: “If the law is valid, I do not return her; if it is not valid, I do not return her.”
16. Quod Plinium Secundum, non hominem indoctum, fugerit latueritque vitium argumenti quod ἀντιστρέφον Graeci dicunt. PLINIUS SECUNDUS existimatus est esse aetatis suae doctissimus. Is libros reliquit quos Studiosorum inscripsit, non medius fidius usquequaque aspernandos. In his libris multa varie ad oblectandas eruditorum hominum aures ponit. Refert etiam plerasque sententias quas in declamandis controversiis lepide arguteque dictas putat. Sicuti hanc quoque sententiam ponit ex huiuscemodi controversia: “‘Vir fortis praemio quod optaverit donetur. Qui fortiter fecerat, petit alterius uxorem in matrimonium et accepit. Is deinde cuia uxor fuit fortiter fecit. Repetit eandem; contradicitur.’” “Eleganter,” inquit, “et probabiliter ex parte posterioris viri fortis, uxorem sibi reddi postulantis, hoc dictum est: ‘Si placet lex, redde; si non placet, redde.’” Fugit autem Plinium, sententiolam istam, quam putavit esse argutissimam, vitio non carere quod Graece ἀντιστρέφον dicitur. Et est vitium insidiosum et sub falsa laudis specie latens; nihil enim minus converti ex contrario id ipsum adversus eundem potest, atque ita a priore illo viro forte dici: “Si placet lex, non reddo; si non placet, non reddo.”