1. Whether one ought to say tertium consul or tertio; and how Gnaeus Pompeius, when he would inscribe his honours on the theatre which he was about to dedicate, by Cicero's advice evaded the difficulty as to the form of that word. I SENT a letter from Athens to a friend of mine in Rome. In it I said that I had now written him for the third time (tertium). In his reply he asked me to give my reason for having written tertium and not tertio. He added that he hoped I would at the same time inform him what I thought about the question whether one should say tertium consul, meaning “consul for the third time,” and quartum, or tertio and quarto; since he had heard a learned man at Rome say tertio and quarto consul, not tertium and quartum; also, that Coelius had so written at the beginning of his third book and that Quintus Claudius in his eleventh book said that Marius was chosen consul for the seventh time, using septimo. In reply to these questions, to decide both matters about which he had written to me, I contented myself with quoting Marcus Varro, a more learned man in my opinion than Coelius and Claudius together. For Varro has made it quite plain what ought to be said, and I did not wish, when at a distance, to enter into a dispute with a man who had the name of being learned. Marcus Varro's words, in the fifth book of his Disciplinae, are as follows:It is one thing to be made praetor quarto, and another quartum; for quarto refers to order and indicates that three were elected before him; quartum refers to time and indicates that he had been made praetor three times before. Accordingly Ennius was right when he wrote:Quintus, his sire, a fourth time (quartum) consul is,and Pompeius was timid when, in order to avoid writing consul tertium or tertio on his theatre, he did not write the final letters. What Varro briefly and somewhat obscurely hinted at concerning Pompey, Tullius Tiro, Cicero's freedman, wrote at greater length in one of his letters, substantially as follows: “When Pompey was preparing to consecrate the temple of Victory, the steps of which formed his theatre, and to inscribe upon it his name and honours, the question arose whether consul tertium should be written, or tertio. Pompey took great pains to refer this question to the most learned men of Rome, and when there was difference of opinion, some maintaining that tertio ought to be written, others tertium, Pompey asked Cicero,” says Varro, “to decide upon what seemed to him the more correct form.” Then Cicero was reluctant to pass judgment upon learned men, lest he might seem to have censured the men themselves in criticizing their opinion. “He accordingly advised Pompey to write neither tertium nor tertio, but to inscribe the first four letters only, so that the meaning was shown without writing the whole word, but yet the doubt as to the form of the word was concealed.” But that of which Varro and Tiro spoke is not now written in that way on this same theatre. For when, many years later, the back wall of the stage had fallen and was restored, the number of the third consulship was indicated, not as before, by the first four letters, but merely by three incised lines. However, in the fourth book of Marcus Cato's Origines we find: “The Carthaginians broke the treaty for the sixth time (sextum).” This word indicates that they had violated the treaty five times before, and that this was the sixth time. The Greeks too in distinguishing numbers of this kind use tri/ton kai\ te/tarton, which corresponds to the Latin words tertium quartumque.
1. “Tertium”ne consul an “tertio” dici oporteat; et quonam modo Cn. Pompeius, cum in theatro, quod erat dedicaturus, honores suos scriberet, quaestionem ancipitem istius verbi de consilio Ciceronis vitaverit. FAMILIARI meo cuipiam litteras Athenis Romam misi. In his scriptum fuit me illi iam “tertium” scripsisse. Is ad me rescripsit petivitque ut rationem dicerem cur “tertium” ac non “tertio” scripsissem. Id etiam adscripsit, ut eadem, quid super illo quoque mihi videretur, facerem se certiorem, “tertium” ne “consul” et “quartum” an “tertio” et “quarto” dicendum esset, quoniam Romae doctum virum dicere audisset “tertio” et “quarto consul,” non “tertium quartum” que; idque in principio libri III. Coelium scripsisse et Quintum Claudium in libro undevicesimo C. Marium creatum “septimo” consulem dixisse. Ad haec ego rescripsi nihil amplius quam verba M. Varronis, hominis, opinor, quam fuit Claudius cum Coelio doctioris, quibus verbis utrumque de quo ad me scripserat decideretur; nam et Varro satis aperte quid dici oporteret edocuit et ego adversus eum qui doctus esse dicebatur litem meam facere absens nolui. Verba M. Varronis ex libro Disciplinarum quinto haechace sunt: “Aliud est ‘quarto’ praetorem fieri et ‘quartum’; quod ‘quarto’ locum adsignificat ac tres ante factos, ‘quartum’ tempus adsignificat et ter ante factum. Igitur Ennius recte, quod scripsit:Quintus pater quartum fit consul,et Pompeius timide, quod in theatro, ne adscriberet ‘consul tertium’ aut ‘tertio,’ extremas litteras non scripsit.” Quod de Pompeio Varro breviter et subobscure dixit, Tiro Tullius, Ciceronis libertus, in epistula quadam enarratius scripsit ad hunc ferme modum: “Cum Pompeius,” inquit, “aedem Victoriae dedicaturus foret, cuius gradus vicem theatri essent, nomenque eius et honores scriberentur, quaeri coeptum est, utrum ‘consul tertio’ inscribendum esset an ‘tertium.’ Eam rem Pompeius exquisitissime rettulit ad doctissimos civitatis, cumque dissentiretur et pars ‘tertio,’ alii ‘tertium’ scribendum contenderent, rogavit,” inquit, “Ciceronem Pompeius, ut quod ei rectius videretur scribi iuberet.” Tum Ciceronem iudicare de viris doctis veritum esse, ne, quorum opinionem inprobasset, ipsos videretur inprobasse. “Persuasit igitur Pompeio, ut neque ‘tertium.’ neque ‘tertio’ scriberetur, sed ad secundum usque t fierent litterae, ut verbo non perscripto res quidem demonstraretur, sed dictio tamen ambigua verbi lateret.” Id autem, quod et Varro et Tiro dixerunt, in eodem nunc theatro non est ita scriptum. Nam cum multis annis postea scaena, quae prociderat, refecta esset, numerus tertii consulatus non uti initio primoribus litteris, sed tribus tantum lineolisliniolis incisis significatus est. In M. autem Catonis quarta Origine ita perscriptum est: “Carthaginienses sextum de foedere decessere.” Id verbum significat quinquiens ante eos fecisse contra foedus et tum sextum. Graeci quoque in significandis huiuscemodi rerum numeris τρίτον καὶ τέταρτον dicunt, quod congruit cum eo quod Latine dicitur: “tertium quartumque.”
2. What Aristotle has recorded about the number of children born at one time. THE philosopher Aristotle has recorded that a woman in Egypt bore five children at one birth; this, he said, was the limit of human multiple parturition; more children than that had never been known to be born at one time, and even that number was very rare. But in the reign of the deified Augustus the historians of the time say that a maid servant of Caesar Augustus in the region of Laurentum brought forth five children, and that they lived for a few days; that their mother died not long after she had been delivered, whereupon a monument was erected to her by order of Augustus on the via Laurentina, and on it was inscribed the number of her children, as I have given it.
2. Quid Aristoteles de numero puerperii memoriae mandaverit. ARISTOTELES philosophus memoriae tradidit, mulierem in Aegypto uno partu quinque pueros enixam, eumque esse finem dixit multiiugae hominum partionis neque plures umquam simul genitos compertum, hunc autem numerum ait esse rarissimum. Sed et divo Augusto imperante qui temporum eius historiam scripserunt ancillam Caesaris Augusti in agro Laurente peperisse quinque pueros dicunt eosque pauculos dies vixisse; matrem quoque eorum, non multo postquam peperit, mortuam monumentumque ei factum iussu Augusti in via Laurentina inque eo scriptum esse numerum puerperii eius, de quo diximus.
3. A collection of famous passages from the speeches of Gaius Gracchus, Marcus Cicero and Marcus Cato, and a comparison of them.
3. Locorum quorundam inlustrium conlatio contentioque facta ex orationibus C. Gracchi et M. Ciceronis et M. Catonis.
GAIUS GRACCHUS is regarded as a powerful and vigorous speaker. No one disputes this. But how can one tolerate the opinion of some, that he was more impressive, more spirited and more fluent than Marcus Tullius?
FORTIS ac vehemens orator existimatur esse C. Gracchus. Nemo id negat. Sed quod nonnullis videtur severior, acrior ampliorque esse M. Tullio, ferri id qui potest?
Indeed, I lately read the speech of Gaius Gracchus On the Promulgation of Laws, in which, with all the indignation of which he is master, he complains that Marcus Marius and other distinguished men of the Italian free-towns were unlawfully beaten with rods by magistrates of the Roman people.
Legebamus adeo nuper orationem Gracchi De Legibus Promulgatis, in qua M. Marium et quosdam ex municipiismuiicipiis Italicis honestos viros virgis per iniuriam caesos a magistratibus populi Romani quanta maxima invidia potest conqueritur.
His words on the subject are as follows: “The consul lately came to Teanum Sidicinum. His wife said that she wished to bathe in the men's baths. Marcus Marius, the quaestor of Sidicinum, was instructed to send away the bathers from the baths. The wife tells her husband that the baths were not given up to her soon enough and that they were not sufficiently clean. Therefore a stake was planted in the forum and Marcus Marius, the most illustrious man of his city, was led to it. His clothing was stripped off, he was whipped with rods. The people of Cales, when they heard of this, passed a decree that no one should think of using the public baths when a Roman magistrate was in town. At Ferentinum, for the same reason, our praetor ordered the quaestors to be arrested; one threw himself from the wall, the other was caught and beaten with rods.”
Verba haec sunt quae super ea re fecit: “Nuper Teanum Sidicinum consul venit. Uxor eius dixit se in balneis virilibus lavari velle. Quaestori Sidicino M. Mario datum est negotium, uti balneis exigerentur qui lavabantur. Uxor renuntiat viro parum cito sibi balneas traditas esse et parum lautas fuisse. Idcirco palus destitutus est in foro eoque adductus suae civitatis nobilissimus homo M. Marius. Vestimenta detracta sunt, virgis caesus est. Caleni, ubi id audierunt, edixerunt ne quis in balneis lavisse vellet, cum magistratus Romanus ibi esset. Ferentini ob eandem causam praetor noster quaestores arripi iussit; alter se de muro deiecit, alter prensus et virgis caesus est.”
In speaking of such an atrocious action, in so lamentable and distressing a manifestation of public injustice, has he said anything either fluent or brilliant, or in such a way as to arouse tears and pity; is there anything that shows an outpouring of indignation and solemn and impressive remonstrance?
In tam atroci re ac tam misera atque maesta iniuriae publicae contestatione, ecquid est quod aut ampliter insigniterque aut lacrimose atque miseranter aut multa copiosaque invidia gravique et penetrabili querimonia dixerit? Brevitas sane et venustas et mundities orationis est, qualis haberi ferme in comoediarum festivitatibus solet.
Brevity there is, to be sure, grace, and a simple purity of expression, such as we sometimes have in the more refined of the comedies. Gracchus also in another place speaks as follows: “I will give you a single example of the lawlessness of our young men, and of their entire lack of self-control. Within the last few years a young man who had not yet held a magisterial office was sent as an envoy from Asia. He was carried in a litter. A herdsman, one of the peasants of Venusia, met him, and not knowing whom they were bearing, asked in jest if they were carrying a corpse. Upon hearing this, the young man ordered that the litter be set down and that the peasant be beaten to death with the thongs by which it was fastened.”
Item Gracchus alio in loco ita dicit: “Quanta libido quantaque intemperantia sit hominum adulescentium, unum exemplum vobis ostendam. His annis paucis ex Asia missus est qui per id tempus magistratum non ceperat, homo adulescens pro legato. Is in lectica ferebatur. Ei obviam bubulcus de plebe Venusina advenit et per iocum, cum ignoraret qui ferretur, rogavit num mortuum ferrent. Ubi id audivit, lecticam iussit deponi, struppis, quibus lectica deligata erat, usque adeo verberari iussit, dum animam efflavit.”
Now these words about so lawless and cruel an outrage do not differ in the least from those of ordinary conversation.
Haec quidem oratio super tam violento atque crudeli facinore nihil profecto abest a cotidianis sermonibus.
But in Marcus Tullius, when in a similar case Roman citizens, innocent men, are beaten with rods contrary to justice and contrary to the laws, or tortured to death, what pity is then aroused! What complaints does he utter! How he brings the whole scene before our eyes! What a mighty surge of indignation and bitterness comes seething forth!
At cum in simili causa aput M. Tullium cives Romani, innocentes viri, contra ius contraque leges virgis caeduntur aut supplicio extremo necantur, quae ibi tunc miseratio! quae comploratio! quae totius rei sub oculos subiectio! quod et quale invidiae atque acerbitatis fretum effervescit!
By Heaven! when I read those words of Cicero's, my mind is possessed with the sight and sound of blows, cries and lamentation.
Animum hercle meum, cum illa M. Ciceronis lego, imago quaedam et sonus verberum et vocum et eiulationum circumplectitur;
For example, the words which he speaks about Gaius Verres, which I have quoted so far as my memory went, which was all that I could do at present: “The man himself came into the forum, blazing with wickedness and frenzy. His eyes burned, every feature of his face displayed cruelty. All were waiting to see to what ends he would go, or what he would do, when on a sudden he gave orders that the man be dragged forth, that he be stripped in the middle of the forum and bound, and that rods be brought.”
velut sunt ista quae de C. Verre dicit, quae nos, ut in praesens potuimus, quantum memoria subpeditabat, adscripsimus: “Ipse inflammatus scelere et furore in forum venit. Ardebant oculi, toto ex ore crudelitas eminebat. Expectabant omnes quo tandem progressurus aut quidnam acturus esset, cum repente hominemhorminem proripi atque in foro medio nudari ac deligari et virgas expediri iubet.”
Now, so help me! the mere words “he ordered that he be stripped and bound, and rods brought” arouse such emotion and horror that you do not seem to hear the act described, but to see it acted before your face.
iamlam haec medius fidius sola verba: “nudari ac deligari et virgas expediri iubet” tanti motus horrorisque sunt, ut non narrari quae gesta sunt, sed rem geri prosus videas.
But Gracchus plays the part, not of one who complains or implores, but of a mere narrator: “A stake,” he says, “was planted in the forum, his clothing was stripped off, he was beaten with rods.”
Gracchus autem non querentis neque implorantis, sed nuntiantis vicem: “Palus,” inquit, “in foro destitutus est, vestimenta detracta sunt, virgis caesus est.”
But Marcus Cicero, finely representing the idea of continued action, says, not “he was beaten,” but “a citizen of Rome was being beaten with rods in the middle of the forum at Messana, while in the meantime no groan, no sound was heard from that wretched man amid his torture and the resounding blows except these words, 'I am a Roman citizen.' By thus calling to mind his citizenship he hoped to avert all their stripes and free his body from torture.”
Sed enim M. Cicero praeclare cum diutina repraesentatione, non “caesus est,” sed “caedebatur,” inquit, “virgis in medio foro Messanae civis Romanus, cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla vox illius miseri inter dolorem strepitumque plagarum audiebatur, nisi haec: ‘civis Romanus sum!’ Hac commemoratione civitatis omnia verbera depulsurum cruciatumque a corpore deiecturum arbitrabatur.”
Then Cicero with vigour, spirit and fiery indignation complains of so cruel an outrage and inspires the Romans with hatred and detestation of Verres by these words: “O beloved name of liberty! O eminent justice of our country! O Porcian and Sempronian laws! O authority of the tribunes, earnestly desired and finally restored to the Roman commons! Pray, have all these blessings fallen to this estate, that a Roman citizen, in a province of the Roman people, in a town of our allies, should be bound and flogged in the forum by one who derived the emblems of his power from the favour of the Roman people? What! when fire and hot irons and other tortures were applied, although your victim's bitter lamentation and piteous outcries did not affect you, were you not moved by the tears and loud groans even of the Roman citizens who were then present?”
Complorationem deinde tam acerbae rei et odium in Verrem detestationemque aput civis Romanos inpense atque acriter atque inflammanter facit, cum haec dicit: “O nomen dulce libertatis! O ius eximium nostrae civitatis! O lex Porcia legesque Semproniae! O graviter desiderata et aliquando reddita plebi Romanae tribunicia potestas! Hucine tandem haec omnia reciderunt, ut civis Romanus in provincia populi Romani, in oppido foederatorum, ab eo qui beneficio populi Romani fasces ac secures haberet, deligatus in foro virgis caederetur? Quid? cum ignes ardentesque laminae ceterique cruciatus admovebantur, si te illius acerba imploratio et vox miserabilis non leniebat, ne civium quidem Romanorum, qui tum aderant, fletu gemituque maximo commovebare?”
These outrages Marcus Tullius bewailed bitterly and solemnly, in appropriate and eloquent terms.
Haec M. Tullius atrociter, graviter, apte copioseque miseratus est.
But if anyone has so rustic and so dull an ear that this brilliant and delightful speech and the harmonious arrangement of Cicero's words do not give him pleasure; if he prefers the earlier oration because it is unadorned, concise and unstudied, yet has a certain native charm, and because it has, so to say, a shade and colour of misty antiquity—let such a one, if he has any judgment at all, study the address in a similar case of Marcus Cato, a man of a still earlier time, to whose vigour and flow of language Gracchus could never hope to attain.
Sed si quis est tam agresti aure ac tam hispida, quem lux ista et amoenitas orationis verborumque modificatio parum delectat, amat autem priora idcirco, quod incompta et brevia et non operosa, sed nativa quadam suavitate sunt quodque in his umbra et color quasi opacae vetustatis est, is, si quid iudicii habet, consideret in causa pari M. Catonis, antiquioris hominis, orationem, ad cuius vim et copiam Gracchus nec adspiravit.
He will realize, I think, that Cato was not content with the eloquence of his own time, but aspired to do even then what Cicero later accomplished.
Intelleget, opinor, Catonem contentum eloquentia aetatis suae non fuisse et id iam tum facere voluisse quod Cicero postea perfecit.
For in the speech which is entitled On Sham Battles he thus made complaint of Quintus Thermus: “He said that his provisions had not been satisfactorily attended to by the decemvirs. He ordered them to be stripped and scourged. The Bruttiani scourged the decemvirs, many men saw it done. Who could endure such an insult, such tyranny, such slavery? No king has ever dared to act thus; shall such outrages be inflicted upon good men, born of a good family, and of good intentions? Where is the protection of our allies? Where is the honour of our forefathers? To think that you have dared to inflict signal wrongs, blows, lashes, stripes, these pains and tortures, accompanied with disgrace and extreme ignominy, since their fellow citizens and many other men looked on! But amid how great grief, what groans, what tears, what lamentations have I heard that this was done! Even slaves bitterly resent injustice; what feeling do you think that such men, sprung from good families, endowed with high character, had and will have so long as they live?”
In eo namque libro qui De Falsis Pugnis inscriptus est ita de Q. Thermo conquestus est: “Dixit a decemviris parum bene sibi cibaria curata esse. iussitlussit vestimenta detrahi atque flagro caedi. Decemviros Bruttiani verberavere, videre multi mortales. Quis hanc contumeliam, quis hoc imperium, quis hanc servitutem ferre potest? Nemo hoc rex ausus est facere; eane fieri bonis, bono genere gnatis, boni consultis? Ubi societas? ubi fides maiorum? Insignitas iniurias, plagas, verbera, vibices, eos dolores atque carnificinas per dedecus atque maximam contumeliam, inspectantibus popularibus suis atque multis mortalibus, te facere ausum esse? Set quantum luctum, quantum gemitum, quid lacrimarum, quantum fletum factum audivi! Servi iniurias nimis aegre ferunt; quid illos, bono genere natos, magna virtute praeditos, opinamini animi habuisse atque habituros, dum vivent?”Quod Cato dixit: “Bruttiani verberavere,” ne qui fortasse de “Bruttianis” requirat,
When Cato said “the Bruttiani scourged them,” lest haply anyone should inquire the meaning of Bruttiani, it is this: When Hannibal the Carthaginian was in Italy with his army, and the Romans had suffered several defeats, the Bruttii were the first people of all Italy to revolt to Hannibal. Angered at this, the Romans, after Hannibal left Italy and the Carthaginians were defeated, by way of ignominious punishment refused to enrol the Bruttii as soldiers or treat them as allies, but commanded them to serve the magistrates when they went to their provinces, and to perform the duties of slaves. Accordingly, they accompanied the magistrates in the capacity of those who are called “floggers” in the plays, and bound or scourged those whom they were ordered. And because they came from the land of the Bruttii, they were called Bruttiani.
id significat: Cum Hannibal Poenus cum exercitu in Italia esset et aliquot pugnas populus Romanus adversas pugnavisset, primi totius Italiae Bruttii ad Hannibalem desciverunt. Id Romani aegre passi, postquam Hannibal Italia decessit superatique Poeni sunt, Bruttios ignominiae causa non milites scribebant nec pro sociis habebant, sed magistratibus in provincias euntibus parere et praeministrare servorum vicem iusserunt. Itaque hi sequebantur magistratus, tamquam in scaenicis fabulis qui dicebantur “lorarii,” et quos erant iussi vinciebant aut verberabant; quod autem ex Bruttiis erant, appellati sunt “Bruttiani.”
4. How Publius Nigidius with great cleverness showed that words are not arbitrary, but natural. PUBLIUS NIGIDIUS in his Grammatical Notes shows that nouns and verbs were formed, not by a chance use, but by a certain power and design of nature, a subject very popular in the discussions of the philosophers; for they used to inquire whether words originate by “nature” or are man-made. Nigidius employs many arguments to this end, to show that words appear to be natural rather than arbitrary. Among these the following seems particularly neat and ingenious: “When we say vos, or 'you,'” says Nigidius, “we make a movement of the mouth suitable to the meaning of the word; for we gradually protrude the tips of our lips and direct the impulse of the breath towards those with whom we are speaking. But on the other hand, when we say nos, or 'us,' we do not pronounce the word with a powerful forward impulse of the voice, nor with the lips protruded, but we restrain our breath and our lips, so to speak, within ourselves. The same thing happens in the words tu or 'thou,' ego or ' I,' tibi ' to thee,' and mihi 'to me.' For just as when we assent or dissent, a movement of the head or eyes corresponds with the nature of the expression, so too in the pronunciation of these words there is a kind of natural gesture made with the mouth and breath. The same principle that we have noted in our own speech applies also to Greek words.”
4. Quod P. Nigidius argutissime docuit nomina non positive esse, sed naturalia. NOMINA verbaque non positu fortuito, sed quadam vi et ratione naturae facta esse, P. Nigidius in Grammaticis Commentariis docet, rem sane in philosophiae disceptationibus celebrem. Quaeri enim solitum aput philosophos, φύσει τὰ ὀνόματα sint ἢ θέσει. In eam rem multa argumenta dicit, cur videri possint verba esse naturalia magis quam arbitraria. Ex quibus hoc visum est lepidum et festivum: “‘Vos,’” inquit, “cum dicimus, motu quodam oris conveniente cum ipsius verbi demonstratione utimur et labeas sensim primores emovemus ac spiritum atque animam porro versum et ad eos quibuscum sermocinamur intendimus. At contra cum dicimus ‘nos,’ neque profuso intentoque flatu vocis neque proiectis labris pronuntiamus, sed et spiritum et labeas quasi intra nosmet ipsos coercemus. Hoc idem fit et in eo, quod dicimus ‘tu,’ ‘ego’ et ‘tibi’ et ‘mihi.’ Nam sicuti, cum adnuimus et abnuimus, motus quidam ille vel capitis vel oculorum a natura rei quam significat non abhorret, ita in his vocibus quasi gestus quidam oris et spiritus naturalis est. Eadem ratio est in Graecis quoque vocibus, quam esse in nostris animadvertimus.”
5. Whether avarus is a simple word or, as it appears to Publius Nigidius, a compound, made up of two parts. PUBLIUS NIGIDIUS, in the twenty-ninth book of his Commentaries, declares that avarus is not a simple word, but is compounded of two parts: “For that man,” he says, “is called avarus, or 'covetous,' who is avidus aeris, or 'eager for money;' but in the compound the letter e is lost.” He also says that a man is called by the compound term locuples, or “rich,” when he holds pleraque loca, that is to say, “many possessions.” But his statement about locuples is the stronger and more probable. As to avarus there is doubt; for why may it not seem to be derived from one single word, namely aveo, and formed in the same way as amarus, about which there is general agreement that it is not a compound?
5. “Avarus” simplexne vocabulum sit, an compositum et duplex, sicut P. Nigidio videtur. “AVARUS” non simplex vocabulum, sed iunctum copulatumque esse P. Nigidius dicit in commentariorumCommenatariorum undetricesimo. “‘Avarus’ enim,” inquit, “appellatur, qui ‘avidus aeris’ est. Sed in ea copula e littera,” inquit, “detrita est.” Item “locupletem” dictum ait ex conpositis vocibus, qui “pleraque loca,” hoc est qui multas possessiones teneret. Sed probabilius id firmiusque est, quod de “locuplete” dixit. Nam de “avaro” ambigitur; cur enim non videri possit ab uno solum verbo inclinatum, quod est “aveo,” eademque esse fictura qua est “amarus,” de quo nihilnhil dici potest quin duplex non sit?
6. That a fine was imposed by the plebeian aediles on the daughter of Appius Caecus, a woman of rank, because she spoke too arrogantly. PUBLIC punishment was formerly inflicted, not only upon crimes, but even upon arrogant language; so necessary did men think it to maintain the dignity of Roman conduct inviolable. For the daughter of the celebrated Appius Caecus, when leaving the plays of which she had been a spectator, was jostled by the crowd of people that surrounded her, flocking together from all sides. When she had extricated herself, complaining that she had been roughly handled, she added: “What, pray, would have become of me, and how much more should I have been crowded and pressed upon, had not my brother Publius Claudius lost his fleet in the sea-fight and with it a vast number of citizens? Surely I should have lost my life, overwhelmed by a still greater mass of people. How I wish,” said she, “that my brother might come to life again, take another fleet to Sicily, and destroy that crowd which has just knocked poor me about.” Because of such wicked and arrogant words, Gaius Fundanius and Tiberius Sempronius, the plebeian aediles, imposed a fine upon the woman of twenty-five thousand pounds of full-weight bronze. Ateius Capito, in his commentary On Public Trials, says that this happened in the first Punic war, in the consulship of Fabius Licinus and Otacilius Crassus.
6. Multam dictam esse ab aedilibus plebei Appi Caeci filiae, mulieri nobili, quod locuta esset petulantius. NON in facta modo, sed in voces etiam petulantiores publice vindicatum est; ita enim debere esse visa est Romanae disciplinae dignitas inviolabilis. Appi namque illius Caeci filia, a ludis quos spectaverat exiens, turba undique confluentis fluctuantisque populi iactata est. Atque inde egressa, cum se male habitam doleret: “Quid me nunc factum esset,” inquit, “quantoque artius pressiusque conflictata essem, si P. Claudius, frater meus, navali proelio classem navium cum ingenti civium numero non perdidisset? Certe quidem maiore nunc copia populi oppressa intercidissem. Sed utinam,” inquit, “reviviscat frater aliamque classem in Siciliam ducat atque istam multitudinem perditum eat, quae me nunc male miseram convexavit!” Ob haec mulieris verba tam inproba ac tam incivilia C. Fundanius et Tiberius Sempronius, aediles plebei, multam dixerunt ei aeris gravis viginti quinque milia. Id factum esse dicit Capito Ateius in commentario De Iudiciis Publicis bello Poenico primo, Fabio Licino et Otacilio Crasso consulibus.
7. Marcus Varro, I remember, writes that of the rivers which flow outside the limits of the Roman empire the Nile is first in size, the Danube second, and next the Rhone. OF all the rivers which flow into the seas included within the Roman empire, which the Greeks call “the inner sea,” it is agreed that the Nile is the greatest. Sallust wrote that the Danube is next in size; but Varro, when he discussed the part of the earth which is called Europe, placed the Rhone among the first three rivers of that quarter of the earth, by which he seems to make it a rival of the Danube; for the Danube also is in Europe.
7. Fluminum, quae ultra imperium Romanum fluunt, prima magnitudine esse Nilum, secunda Histrum, proxima Rodanum, sicuti M. Varronem memini scribere. OMNIUM fluminum quae in maria qua imperium Romanum est fluunt, quam Graeci τὴν εἴσω θάλασσαν appellant, maximum esse Nilum consentitur. Proxima magnitudine esse Histrum scripsit Sallustius. Varro autem cum de parte orbis quae Europa dicitur dissereret, in tribus primis eius terrae fluminibus Rodanum esse ponit, per quod videtur eum facere Histro aemulum. Histros enim quoque in Europa fluit.
8. That among the ignominious punishments which were inflicted upon soldiers was the letting of blood; and what seems to be the reason for such a penalty. THIS also was a military punishment in old times, to disgrace a soldier by ordering a vein to be opened, and letting blood. There is no reason assigned for this in the old records, so far as I could find; but I infer that it was first done to soldiers whose minds were affected and who were not in a normal condition, so that it appears to have been not so much a punishment as a medical treatment. But afterwards I suppose that the same penalty was customarily inflicted for many other offences, on the ground that all who sinned were not of sound mind.
8. Inter ignominias militares quibus milites exercebantur, fuisse sanguinis dimissionem; et quaenam esse videatur causa huiuscemodi castigationis. FUIT haec quoque antiquitus militaris animadversio, iubere ignominiae causa militi venam solvi et sanguinem dimitti. Cuius rei ratio in litteris veteribus, quas equidem invenire potui, non extat; sed opinor factum hoc primitus in militibus stupentis animi et a naturali habitu declinatis, ut non tam poena quam medicina videretur. Postea tamen ob pleraque alia delicta idem factitatum esse credo per consuetudinem, quasi minus sani viderentur omnes qui delinquerent.
9. In what way and in what form the Roman army is commonly drawn up, and the names of the formations. THERE are military terms which are applied to an army drawn up in a certain manner: “the front,” “reserves,” “wedge,” “ring,” “mass,” “shears,” “saw,” “wings,” “towers.” These and some other terms you may find in the books of those who have written about military affairs. However, they are taken from the things themselves to which the names are strictly applied, and in drawing up an army the forms of the objects designated by each of these words is represented.
9. Quibus modis quoqueqnoque habitu acies Romana instrui solita sit, quaeque earum instructionum sint vocabula. VOCABULA sunt militaria, quibus instructa certo modo acies appellari solet: “frons,” “subsidia,” “cuneus,” “orbis,” “globus,” “forfices,” “serra,” “alae,” “turres.” Haec et quaedam item alia invenire est in libris eorum qui de militari disciplina scripserunt. Tralata autem sunt ab ipsis rebus quae ita proprie nominantur, earumque rerum in acie instruenda sui cuiusque vocabuli imagines ostenduntur.
10. The reason why the ancient Greeks and Romans wore a ring on the next to the little finger of the left hand. I HAVE heard that the ancient Greeks wore a ring on the finger of the left hand which is next to the little finger. They say, too, that the Roman men commonly wore their rings in that way. Apion in his Egyptian History says that the reason for this practice is, that upon cutting into and opening human bodies, a custom in Egypt which the Greeks call a)natomai/, or “dissection,” it was found that a very fine nerve proceeded from that finger alone of which we have spoken, and made its way to the human heart; that it therefore seemed quite reasonable that this finger in particular should be honoured with such an ornament, since it seems to be joined, and as it were united, with that supreme organ, the heart.
10. Quae eius rei causa sit, quod et Graeci veteres et Romani anulum hoc digito gestaverint qui est in manu sinistra minimo proximus. VETERES GRAECOS anulum habuisse in digito accepimus sinistrae manus qui minimo est proximus. Romanos quoque homines aiunt sic plerumque anulis usitatos. Causam esse huius rei Apion in libris Aegyptiacis hanc dicit, quod insectis apertisque humanis corporibus, ut mos in Aegypto fuit, quas Graeci ἀνατομάς appellant, repertum est nervum quendam tenuissimum ab eo uno digito de quo diximus, ad cor hominis pergere ac pervenire; propterea non inscitum visum esse eum potissimum digitum tali honore decorandum, qui continens et quasi conexus esse cum principatu cordis videretur.
11. The derivation and meaning of the word mature, and that it is generally used improperly; and also that the genitive of praecox is praecocis and not praecoquis. MATURE in present usage signifies “hastily” and “quickly,” contrary to the true force of the word; for mature means quite a different thing. Therefore Publius Nigidius, a man eminent in the pursuit of all the liberal arts, says: “Mature means neither 'too soon' nor 'too late,' but something between the two and intermediate.” Publius Nigidius has spoken well and properly. For of grain and fruits those are called matura, or “mature,” which are neither unripe and hard, nor falling and decayed, but full-grown and ripened in their proper time. But since that which was not done negligently was said to be done mature, the force of the word has been greatly extended, and an act is now said to be done mature which is done with some haste, and not one which is done without negligence; whereas such things as are immoderately hastened are more properly called inmatura, or “untimely.” That limitation of the word, and of the action itself, which was made by Nigidius was very elegantly expressed by the deified Augustus with two Greek words; for we are told that he used to say in conversation, and write in his letters, speu=de brade/ws, that is, “make haste slowly,” by which he recommended that to accomplish a result we should use at once the promptness of energy and the delay of carefulness, and it is from these two opposite qualities that maturitas springs. Virgil also, to one who is observant, has skilfully distinguished the two words properare and maturare as clearly opposite, in these verses:Whenever winter's rains the hind confine,Much is there that at leisure may be done (maturare),Which in fair weather he must hurry on (properanda).Most elegantly has he distinguished between those two words; for in rural life the preparations during rainy weather may be made at leisure, since one has time for them; but in fine weather, since time presses, one must hasten. But when we wish to indicate that anything has been done under too great pressure and too hurriedly, then it is more properly said to have been done praemature, or “prematurely,” than mature. Thus Afranius in his Italian play called The Title says:With madness premature (praemature) you seek a hasty power.In this verse it is to be observed that he says praecocem and not praecoquem; for the nominative case is not praecoquis, but praecox.
11. Verbum “mature” quid significet quaeque vocis eius ratio sit; et quod eo verbo volgus hominum inproprie utitur; atque inibi, quod “praecox” declinatum “praecocis” facit, non “praecoquis.” “MATURE” nunc significat “propere” et “cito” contra ipsius verbi sententiam; aliud enim est “mature” quam dicitur. Propterea P. Nigidius, homo in omnium bonarum artium disciplinis egregius: “‘Mature,’” inquit, “est, quod neque citius est neque serius, sed medium quiddam et temperatum est.” Bene atque proprie P. Nigidius. Nam et in frugibus et in pomis “matura” dicuntur, quae neque cruda et inmitia sunt neque caduca et decocta, sed tempore suo adulta maturataque. Quoniam autem id quod non segniter fiebat, “mature” fieri dicebatur, progressa plurimum verbi significatione, non iam, quod non segnius, sed quod festinantius fit, id fieri “mature” dicitur, quando ea quae praeter sui temporis modum properata sunt “inmatura” verius dicantur. Illud vero Nigidianum rei atque verbi temperamentum divos Augustus duobus Graecis verbis elegantissime exprimebat. Nam et dicere in sermonibus et scribere in epistulis solitum esse aiunt σπεῦδε βραδέως, per quod monebat ut ad rem agendam simul adhiberetur et industriae celeritas et diligentiae tarditas, ex quibus duobus contrariis fit “maturitas.” Vergilius quoque, si quis animum adtendat, duo ista verba “properare” et “maturare” tamquam plane contraria scitissime separavit in hisce versibus:Frigidus agricolam si quando continet imber,Multa, forent quae mox caelo properanda sereno,Maturare datur.Elegantissime duo verba ista divisit; namque in praeparatu rei rusticae per tempestates pluvias, quoniam otium est, “maturari” potest; per serenas, quoniam tempus instat, “properari” necessum est. Cum significandum autem est coactius quid factum et festinantius, tum rectius “praemature” factum id dicitur quam “mature,” sicuti Afranius dixit in togata, cui TitulusTitluls nomen est:Adpetis dominátum demens praémature praécocem, in quo versu animadvertendum est quod “praecocem” inquit, non “praecoquempraecocluem”; est enim casus eius rectus non “praecoquis,” sed “praecox.”