8. In conversation at the table of the philosopher Taurus questions of this kind were proposed and discussed: “why oil congeals often and readily, wine seldom, vinegar hardly ever,” and “that the waters of rivers and springs freeze, while the sea does not.” THE philosopher Taurus at Athens usually entertained us at dinner at the time of day when evening had already come on; for there that is the time for dining. The entire basis and foundation of the meal usually consisted of one pot of Egyptian beans, to which were added gourds cut in small pieces. One day when this dish had been brought and placed upon the table, and we were ready and awaiting the meal, Taurus ordered a slave-boy to pour some oil into the pot. The slave was a boy of Attic birth, at most eight years old, overflowing with the merry wit characteristic of his race and his time of life. He brought an empty Samian flask, from oversight, as he said, supposing there was oil in it, turned it up and, as he usually did, passed it with his hand over all parts of the pot; but no oil came out. The boy, in anger, looked savagely at the flask, shook it violently, and again turned it over the pot; and when we were all quietly and furtively laughing at his actions, he said in Greek, and excellent Attic Greek at that: “Don't laugh; there's oil in it; but don't you know how cold it was this morning; it's congealed.” “You rascal,” said Taurus with a laugh, “run and fetch some oil.” But when the boy had gone out to buy oil, Taurus, not at all put out by the delay, said: “The pot needs oil, and, as I see, is intolerably hot; let us withhold our hands and meanwhile, since the slave has just told us that oil is in the habit of congealing, let us consider why oil congeals often and readily, but wine rarely.” And he looked at me and bade me give my opinion. Then I replied that I inferred that wine congealed less quickly because it had in it certain seeds of heat and was naturally more fiery, and that was why Homer called it ai)/qoy, and not, as some supposed, on account of its colour. “It is indeed,” says Taurus, “as you say. For it is well known that wine, when we drink it, warms the body. But oil is equally calorific and has no less power of warming the body. Besides, if those things which are warmer are frozen with greater difficulty, it follows that those which are colder freeze more readily. But vinegar is the most cooling of all things and yet it never freezes. Is the reason then for the quicker freezing of oil to be found in its lightness? For those things seem to congeal more readily which are lighter and smoother.” Taurus says besides that it is also worth inquiring why the waters of rivers and streams freeze, while all the sea is incapable of freezing. “Although Herodotus,” said he, “the writer of history, contrary to the opinion of almost all who have investigated these matters, writes that the Bosphoric sea, which is called Cimmerian, and all that part of the sea which is termed Scythian, is bound fast by the cold and brought to a standstill.” While Taurus was thus speaking, the boy had returned, the pot had cooled off, and the time had come to eat and hold our peace.
8. In sermonibus apud mensam Tauri philosophi quaeri agitarique eiusmodi solita: “cur oleum saepe et facile, vina rarius congelascant, acetum haut fere umquam” et “quod aquae fluviorum fontiumque durentur, mare gelu non duretur.” PHILOSOPHUS TAURUS accipiebat nos Athenis cena plerumque ad id diei ubi iam vesperaverat; id enim est tempus istic cenandi. Frequens eius cenae fundus et firmamentum omne erat aula una lentis Aegyptiae et cucurbitae inibi minutim caesae. Ea quodam die ubi paratis et expectantibus nobis adlata atque inposita mensae est, puerum iubet Taurus oleum in aulam indere. Erat is puer genere Atticus, ad annos maxime natus octo, festivissimis aetatis et gentis argutiis scatens. Gutum Samium ore tenus inprudens inanem, tamquam si inesset oleum, adfert convertitque eum et, ut solitum est, circumegit per omnem partem aulae manum: nullum inde ibat oleum. Aspicit puer gutum atrocibus oculis stomachabundus et concussum vehementius iterum in aulam vertit; idque cum omnes sensim atque summissim rideremus, tum puer Graece, et id quidem perquam Attice “μὴ γελᾶτε,” inquit, “ἔνι τοὔλαιον· ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἴστε, οἷα φρίκη περὶ τὸν ὄρθρον γέγονε τήμερον; κεκρυστάλλωται.” “Verbero,” inquit ridens Taurus, “nonne is curriculo atque oleum petis?” Sed cum puer foras emptum isset, nihil ipse ista mora offensior: “Aula,” inquit, “oleo indiget et, ut video, intolerandum fervit; cohibeamus manus atque interea, quoniam puer nunc admonuit solere oleum congelascere, consideremus cur oleum quidem saepe et facile, set vina rarenter congelascant?” Atque aspicit me et iubet quid sentiam dicere. Tum ego respondi coniectare me vinum idcirco minus cito congelascere, quod semina quaedam caldoris in sese haberet essetque natura ignitius, ob eamque rem dictum esse ab Homero αἴθοπα οἶνον, non, ut alii putarent, propter colorem. “Est quidem,” inquit Taurus, “ita ut dicis; nam ferme convenit vinum, ubi potum est, calefacere corpora.” “Sed non secus oleum quoque calorificum est neque minorem vim in corporibus calefaciendis habet.” “Ad hoc, si istaec quae calidiora sunt difficilius gelu coguntur, congruens est ut quae frigidiora sunt facile cogantur.” “Acetum autem omnium maxime frigorificum est atque id numquam tamen concrescit.” “Num igitur magis causa oleo coaguli celerioris in levitate est? Faciliora enim ad coeundum videntur quae levatiora levioraque sunt.” Praeterea id quoque ait quaeri dignum, cur fluviorum et fontium aquae gelu durentur, mare omne incongelabile sit. “Tametsi Herodotus,” inquit, “historiae scriptor, contra omnium ferme qui haec quaesiverunt opinionem, scribit mare Bosporicum, quod ‘Cimmerium’ appellatur, earumque partium mare omne quod ‘Scythicum’ dicitur, gelu stringi et consistere.” Dum haec Taurus, interea puer venerat et aula deferbuerat tempusque esse coeperat edendi et tacendi.
9. Of the cypher letters which are found in the epistles of Gains Caesar, and of other secret forms of writing taken from ancient history; and what the Laconian skuta/lh is. THERE are volumes of letters of Gaius Caesar addressed to Gaius Oppius and Cornelius Balbus, who had charge of his affairs in his absence. In certain parts of these letters there are found individual characters which are not connected to form syllables, but apparently are written at random; for no word can be formed from those letters. But a secret agreement had been made between the correspondents about a change in the position of the letters, so that, in writing, one name and position was given to one letter and another to another, but in reading its own place and force was restored to each of them. But which letter was written for which was, as I have already said, agreed upon by those who devised this secret code. There is in fact a commentary of the grammarian Probus, On the Secret meaning of the Letters appearing in the Epistles of Gains Caesar, which is a very careful piece of work. But the ancient Lacedaemonians, when they wanted to conceal and disguise the public dispatches sent to their generals, in order that, in case they were intercepted by the enemy, their plans might not be known, used to send letters written in the following manner. There were two thin, cylindrical wands of the same thickness and length, smoothed and prepared so as to be exactly alike. One of these was given to the general when he went to war, the other the magistrates kept at home under their control and seal. When the need of more secret communication arose, they bound about the staff a thong of moderate thickness, but long enough for the purpose, in a simple spiral, in such a way that the edges of the thong which was twined around the stick met and were joined throughout. Then they wrote the dispatch on that thong across the connected edges of the joints, with the lines running from the top to the bottom. When the letter had been written in this way, the thong was unrolled from the wand and sent to the general, who was familiar with the device. But the unrolling of the thong made the letters imperfect and broken, and their parts and strokes were divided and separated. Therefore, if the thong fell into the hands of the enemy, nothing at all could be made out from the writing; but when the one to whom the letter was sent had received it, he wound it around the corresponding staff, which he had, from the top to the bottom, just as he knew that it ought to be done, and thus the letters, united by encircling a similar staff, came together again, rendering the dispatch entire and undamaged, and easy to read. This kind of letter the Lacedaemonians called skuta/lh. I also read this in an ancient history of Carthage, that a certain famous man of that country —whether it was Hasdrubal or another I do not recall—disguised a letter written about secret matters in the following way: he took new tablets, not yet provided with wax, and cut the letters into the wood. Afterwards he covered the tablet with wax in the usual way and sent it, apparently without writing, to one to whom he had previously told his plan. The recipient then scraped off the wax, found the letters safe and sound inscribed upon the wood, and read them. There is also in the records of Grecian history another profound and difficult method of concealment, devised by a barbarian's cunning. He was called Histiaeus and was born in the land of Asia in no mean station. At that time king Darius held sway in Asia. This Histiaeus, being in Persia with Darius, wished to send a confidential message to a certain Aristagoras in a secret manner. He devised this remarkable method of concealing a letter. He shaved all the hair from the head of a slave of his who had long suffered from weak eyes, as if for the purpose of treatment. Then he tattooed the forms of the letters on his smooth head. When in this way he had written what he wished, he kept the man at home for a time, until his hair grew out. When this happened, he ordered him to go to Aristagoras, adding: “When you come to him, say that I told him to shave your head, as I did a little while ago.” The slave, as he was bidden, came to Aristagoras and delivered his master's order. Aristagoras, thinking that the command must have some reason, did as he was directed. And thus the letter reached its destination.
9. De notis litterarum quae in C. Caesaris epistulis reperiuntur; deque aliis clandestinis litteris ex vetere historia petitis; et quid σκυτάλη sit Laconica. LIBRI sunt epistularum C. Caesaris ad C. Oppium et Balbum Cornelium, qui rebus eius absentis curabant. In his epistulis quibusdam in locis inveniuntur litterae singulariae sine coagmentis syllabarum, quas tu putes positas incondite; nam verba ex his litteris confici nulla possunt. Erat autem conventum inter eos clandestinum de commutando situ litterarum, ut in scripto quidem alia aliae locum et nomen teneret, sed in legendo locus cuique suus et potestas restitueretur; quaenam vero littera pro qua scriberetur, ante is, sicuti dixi, conplacebat qui hanc scribendi latebram parabant. Est adeo Probi grammatici commentarius satis curiose factus De Occulta Litterarum Significatione in Epistularum C. Caesaris Scriptura. Lacedaemonii autem veteres, cum dissimulare et occultare litteras publice ad imperatores suos missas volebant, ne, si ab hostibus eae captae forent, consilia sua noscerentur, epistulas id genus factas mittebant. Surculi duo erant teretes, oblonguli, pari crassamento eiusdemque longitudinis, derasi atque ornati consimiliter; unus imperatori in bellum proficiscenti dabatur, alterum domi magistratus cum iure atque cum signo habebant. Quando usus venerat litterarum secretiorum, circum eum surculum lorum modicae tenuitatis, longum autem quantum rei satis erat, conplicabant, volumine rotundo et simplici, ita uti orae adiunctae undique et cohaerentes lori, quod plicabatur, coirent. Litteras deinde in eo loro per transversas iuncturarum oras versibus a summo ad imum proficiscentibus inscribebant; id lorum litteris ita perscriptis revolutum ex surculo imperatori commenti istius conscio mittebant; resolutio autem lori litteras truncas atque mutilas reddebat membraque earum et apices in partis diversissimas spargebat; propterea, si id lorum in manus hostium inciderat, nihil quicquam coniectari ex eo scripto quibat; sed ubi ille ad quem erat missum acceperat, surculo conpari, quem habebat, a capite ad finem, proinde ut debere fieri sciebat, circumplicabat, atque ita litterae per eundem ambitum surculi coalescentes rursum coibant integramque et incorruptam epistulam et facilem legi praestabant. Hoc genus epistulae Lacedaemonii σκυτάλην appellant. Legebamus id quoque in vetere historia rerum Poenicarum, virum indidem quempiam inlustrem—sive ille Hasdrubal sive quis alius est non retineo—epistulam scriptam super rebus arcanis hoc modo abscondisse: pugillaria nova, nondum etiam cera inlita, accepisse, litteras in lignum incidisse, postea tabulas, uti solitum est, cera conlevisse easque tabulas, tamquam non scriptas, cui facturum id praedixerat misisse; eum deinde ceram derasisse litterasque incolumes ligno incisas legisse. Est et alia in monumentis rerum Graecarum profunda quaedam et inopinabilis latebra, barbarico astu excogitata. Histiaeus nomine fuit, loco natus in terra Asia non ignobili. Asiam tunc tenebat imperio rex Darius. Is Histiaeus, cum in Persis apud Darium esset, Aristagorae cuipiam res quasdam occultas nuntiare furtivo scripto volebat. Comminiscitur opertum hoc litterarum admirandum. Servo suo diu oculos aegros habenti capillum ex capite omni tamquam medendi gratia deradit caputque eius leve in litterarum formas conpungit. His litteris quae voluerat perscripsit, hominem postea quoad capillus adolesceret domo continuit. Ubi id factum est, ire ad Aristagoran iubet et “Cum ad eum,” inquit, “veneris, mandasse me dicito ut caput tuum, sicut nuper egomet feci, deradat.” Servus, ut imperatum erat, ad Aristagoran venit mandatumque domini adfert. Atque ille id non esse frustra ratus, quod erat mandatum fecit. Ita litterae perlatae sunt.
10. What Favorinus thought of the verses of Virgil in which he imitated the poet Pindar in his description of an eruption of Mount Aetna; his comparison and evaluation of the verses of the two poets on the same theme. I REMEMBER that the philosopher Favorinus, when he had gone during the hot season to the villa of a friend of his at Antium, and I had come from Rome to see him, discoursed in about the following manner about the poets Pindar and Virgil. “The friends and intimates of Publius Vergilius,” said he, “in the accounts which they have left us of his talents and his character, say that he used to declare that he produced verses after the manner and fashion of a bear. For he said that as that beast brought forth her young formless and misshapen, and afterwards by licking the young cub gave it form and shape, just so the fresh products of his mind were rude in form and imperfect, but afterwards by working over them and polishing them he gave them a definite form and expression. That this was honestly and truly said by that man of fine taste,” said he, "is shown by the result. For the parts that he left perfected and polished, to which his judgment and approval had applied the final hand, enjoy the highest praise for poetical beauty; but those parts which he postponed, with the intention of revising them later, but was unable to finish because he was overtaken by death, are in no way worthy of the fame and taste of the most elegant of poets. It was for that reason, when he was laid low by disease and saw that death was near, that he begged and earnestly besought his best friends to burn the Aeneid, which he had not yet sufficiently revised. “Now among the passages,” said Favorinus, “which particularly seem to have needed revision and correction is the one which was composed about Mount Aetna. For wishing to rival the poem which the earlier poet Pindar composed about the nature and eruption of that mountain, he has heaped up such words and expressions that in this passage at least he is more extravagant and bombastic even than Pindar himself, who was thought to have too rich and luxuriant a style. And in order that you yourselves,” said he, "may be judges of what I say, I will repeat Pindar's poem about Mount Aetna, so far as I can remember it:Mount Aetna, from whose inmost caves burst forthThe purest fount of unapproachable fire.By day her rivers roll a lurid streamOf smoke, while 'mid the gloom of night red flame,On sweeping, whirleth rocks with crashing dinFar down to the deep sea. And high aloftThat monster flingeth fearful founts of fire,A marvel to behold or e'en to hearFrom close at hand.Now hear the verses of Virgil, which I may more truly say that he began than finished:There lies a port, safe from the winds' approach,Spacious itself, but Aetna close at handThunders with crashes dire, and now hurls forthSkyward a dusky cloud with eddies blackAnd glowing ash, and uplifts balls of flameAnd licks the stars; now spews forth rocks,The mountain's entrails torn, hurls molten cragsGroaning to heaven, and seethes from depths profound.“Now in the first place,” said Favorinus, “Pindar has more closely followed the truth and has given a realistic description of what actually happened there, and what he saw with his own eyes; namely, that Aetna in the daytime sends forth smoke and at night fire; but Virgil, labouring to find grand and sonorous words, confuses the two periods of time and makes no distinction between them. Then the Greek has vividly pictured the streams of fire belched from the depths and the flowing rivers of smoke, and the rushing of lurid and spiral volumes of flame into the waters of the sea, like so many fiery serpents; but our poet, attempting to render r(o/on kapnou= ai)/qwna, 'a lurid stream of smoke,' has clumsily and diffusely piled up the words atram nubem turbine piceo et favilla fomented, 'a dusky cloud smoking with eddies black and glowing ash,' and what Pindar called krounoi/, or 'founts,' he has harshly and inaccurately rendered by 'balls of flame.' Likewise when he says sidearm lamb it, 'it licks the stars,' this also,” he says, “is a useless and foolish elaboration. And this too is inexplicable and almost incomprehensible, when he speaks of a 'black cloud smoking with eddies black and glowing ash.' For things which glow,” said Favorinus, “do not usually smoke nor are they black; unless candenti ('glowing') is used vulgarly and inaccurately for hot ashes, instead of those which are fiery and gleaming. For candens, of course, is connected with candor, or 'whiteness,' not with calor ('heat'). But when he says saxa et scopulos eructari et erigi, 'that rocks and crags are spewed forth and whirled skyward,' and that these same crags at once liquefieri et gemere atque glomerari ad auras, 'are molten and groan and are whirled to heaven,' this,” he said, “is what Pindar never wrote and what was never spoken by anyone; and it is the most monstrous of all monstrous descriptions.”
10. Quid de versibus Vergilii Favorinus existumarit, quibus in describenda flagrantia montis Aetnae Pindarum poetam secutus est; conlataque ab eo super eadem re utriusque carmina et diiudicata. FAVORINUM philosophum, cum in hospitis sui Antiatem villam aestu anni concessisset nosque ad eum videndum Roma venissemus, memini super Pindaro poeta et Vergilio in hunc ferme modum disserere: “Amici,” inquit, “familiaresque P. Vergilii, in his quae de ingenio moribusque eius memoriae tradiderunt, dicere eum solitum ferunt parere se versus more atque ritu ursino.” “Namque ut illa bestia fetum ederet ineffigiatum informemque lambendoque id postea quod ita edidisset conformaret et fingeret, proinde ingenii quoque sui partus recentes rudi esse facie et inperfecta, sed deinceps tractando colendoque reddere iis se oris et vultus liniamenta.” “Hoc virum iudicii subtilissimi ingenue atque vere dixisse, res,” inquit, “indicium facit.” “Nam quae reliquit perfecta expolitaque quibusque inposuit census atque dilectus sui supremam manum,” “omni poeticae venustatis laude florent; sed quae procrastinata sunt ab eo, ut post recenserentur, et absolvi, quoniam mors praeverterat, nequiverunt, nequaquam poetarum elegantissimi nomine atque iudicio digna sunt.” “Itaque cum morbo obpressus adventare mortem viderat, petivit oravitque a suis amicissimis inpense, ut Aeneida, quam nondum satis elimavisset, adolerent.” “In his autem,” inquit, “quae videntur retractari et corrigi debuisse, is maxime locus est qui de monte Aetna factus est. Nam cum Pindari, veteris poetae, carmen quod de natura atque flagrantia montis eius compositum est, aemulari vellet, eiusmodi sententias et verba molitus est, ut Pindaro quoque ipso, qui nimis opima pinguique esse facundia existimatus est, insolentior hoc quidem in loco tumidiorque sit.” “Atque uti vosmet ipsos,” inquit, “eius quod dico arbitros faciam, carmen Pindari quod est super monte Aetna, quantulum est mihi memoriae, dicam:Τᾶς ἐρεύγονται μὲν ἀπλάτου πυρὸς ἁγνόταταιἘκ μυχῶν παγαί· ποταμοὶ δʼ ἁμέροισιν μὲν προχέοντιμυχῶν παγαί· ποταμοὶ δʼ ἁμέροισιν μὲν προχέοντι ῥόον καπνοῦΑἴθωνʼ· ἀλλʼ ἐν ὄρφναισιν πέτραςΦοίνισσα κυλινδομένα φλὸξ ἐς βαθεῖαν φέρει πόντου πλάκα σὺν πατάγῳ.Κεῖνο δʼ Ἀφαίστοιο κρουνοὺς ἑρπετὸνΔεινοτάτους ἀναπέμπει· τέρας μὲν θαυμάσιον προσιδέσθαι, θαῦμα δὲ καὶ παρεόντων ἀκοῦσαι.” “Audite nunc,” inquit, “Vergilii versus, quos inchoasse eum verius dixerim, quam fecisse:Portus ab accessu ventorum inmotus et ingensIpse, sed horrificis iuxta tonat Aetna ruinisInterdumque atram prorumpit ad aethera nubem,Turbine fumantem piceo et candente favilla,Adtollitque globos flammarum et sidera lambit;Interdum scopulos avulsaque viscera montisErigit eructans liquefactaque saxa sub aurasCum gemitu glomerat fundoque exaestuat imo.” “Iam principio,” inquit, “Pindarus, veritati magis obsecutus, id dixit quod res erat quodque istic usu veniebat quodque oculis videbaturvidelatur, interdius fumare Aetnam, noctu flammigare;” “Vergilius autem, dum in strepitu sonituque verborum conquirendo laborat, utrumque tempus, nulla discretione facta, confudit.” “Atque ille Graecus quidem fontes imitus ignis eructari et fluere amnes fumi et flammarum fulva et tortuosa volumina in plagas maris ferre, quasi quosdam igneos angues, luculente dixit;” “at hic noster ‘atram nubem turbine piceo et favilla fumantem’ ῥόον καπνοῦ αἴθωνα interpretari volens, crasse et inmodice congessit,” “‘globos’ quoque ‘flammarumflammmarum,’ quod ille κρουνούς dixerat, duriter et ἀκύρως transtulit.” “Item quod ait: ‘sidera lambit,’ vacanter hoc etiam,” inquit, “accumulavit et inaniter.” Neque non id quoque inenarrabile esse ait et propemodum insensibile, quod “nubem atram fumare” dixit “turbine piceo et favilla candente.” “Non enim fumare,” inquit, “solent neque atra esse quae sunt candentia; nisi si ‘candenti’ dixit pervulgate et inproprie pro ferventi favilla, non pro ignea et relucenti. Nam ‘candens’ scilicet a candore dictum, non a calore.” “Quod ‘saxa’ autem ‘et scopulos eructari et erigi’ eosdemque ipsos statim ‘liquefieri et gemere atque glomerari sub auras’ dixit, hoc,” inquit, “nec a Pindaro scriptum nec umquam fando auditum et omnium, quae monstra dicuntur, monstruosissimum est.”
11. That Plutarch in his Symposiacs defended the opinion of Plato about the structure and nature of the stomach, and of the tube which is called traxei=a, against the physician Erasistratus, urging the authority of the ancient physician Hippocrates. BOTH Plutarch and certain other learned men have written that Plato was criticized by the famous physician Erasistratus, because he said that drink went to the lungs and having sufficiently moistened them, flowed through them, since they are somewhat porous, and from there passed into the bladder. They declared that the originator of that error was Alcaeus, who wrote in his poems:Wet now the lungs with wine; the dog-star shines,but that Erasistratus himself declared that there were two little canals, so to speak, or pipes, and that they extended downward from the throat; that through one of these all food and drink passed and went into the stomach, and from there were carried into the belly, which the Greeks call h( ka/tw koili/a. That there it is reduced and digested and then the drier excrement passes into the bowels, which the Greeks call ko/lon, and the moisture through the kidneys into the bladder. But through the other tube, which the Greeks call the traxei=a a)rthri/a, or “rough windpipe,” the breath passes from the lips into the lungs, and from there goes back into the mouth and nostrils, and along this same road a passage for the voice also is made; and lest drink or drier food, which ought to pass into the stomach, should fall from the mouth and slip into that tube through which the breath goes back and forth, and by such an accident the path of the breath should be cut off, there has been placed at these two openings by a kind of helpful device of nature, a sort of movable valve which is called the “epiglottis,” which alternately shuts and opens. This epiglottis, while we are eating and drinking, covers and protects “the rough windpipe,” in order that no particle of food or drink may fall into that path, so to speak, of the rising and falling breath; and on that account no moisture passes into the lungs, since the opening of the windpipe itself is well protected. These are the views of the physician Erasistratus, as opposed to Plato. But Plutarch, in his Symposiacs, says that the originator of Plato's opinion was Hippocrates, and that the same opinion was held by Philistion of Locris and Dioxippus the pupil of Hippocrates, famous physicians of the olden time; also that the epiglottis, of which Erasistratus spoke, was not placed where it is to prevent anything that we drank from flowing into the windpipe; for fluid seems necessary and serviceable for refreshing and moistening the lungs; but it was placed there as a kind of controller and arbiter, to exclude or admit whatever was necessary for the health of the body; to keep away all foods from the windpipe and turn them to the stomach, but to divide what is drunk between the stomach and the lungs. And that part which ought to be admitted into the lungs through the windpipe the epiglottis does not let through rapidly and all at once, but when it has been checked and held back, as it were by a kind of dam, it allows it to pass gradually and little by little, and turns aside all the remainder into the other tube leading to the stomach.
11. Quod Plutarchus in libris Symposiacis opinionem Platonis de habitu atque natura stomachi, fistulaeque eius quae τραχεῖα dicitur, adversum Erasistratum medicum tutatus est, auctoritate adhibita antiqui medici Hippocratis. ET Plutarchus et alii quidam docti viri reprehensum esse ab Erasistrato, nobili medico, PlatonemPlatonern scripsere, quod potum dixit defluere ad pulmonem eoque satis humectato demanare per eum, quia sit rimosior, et confluere inde in vesicam, errorisque istius fuisse Alcaeum ducem, qui in poematis suis scriberet:Τέγγε πνεύμονα οἴνῳ· τὸ γὰρ ἄστρον περιτέλλεται, ipsum autem Erasistratum dicere duas esse quasi canaliculas quasdam vel fistulas easque ab oris faucibus proficisci deorsum, per earumque alteram deduci delabique in stomachum esculenta omnia et posculenta ex eoque ferri in ventriculum, quae Graece appellatur; ἡ κάτω κοιλία, atque ibi subigi digerique, ac deinde aridiora ex his recrementa in alvum convenire, quod Graece κόλον dicitur, humidiora per renes in vesicam. Per alteram autem fistulam, quae Graece nominatur τραχεῖα ἀρτηρία, spiritum a summo ore in pulmonem atque inde rursum in os et in nares commeare, perque eandem viam vocis quoque fieri meatum ac, ne potus cibusve aridior, quem oporteret in stomachum ire, procideret ex ore labereturque in eam fistulam per quam spiritus reciprocatur, eaque offensione intercluderetur animae via, inpositam esse arte quadam et ope naturae inde apud duo ista foramina, quae dicitur ἐπιγλωττίς, quasi claustra quaedam mobilia, coniventia vicissim et resurgentia, eamque ἐπιγλωττίδα inter edendum bibendumque operire atque protegere τὴν τραχεῖαν ἀρτηρίαν, ne quid ex esca potuve incideret in illud quasi aestuantis animae iter; ac propterea nihil humoris influere in pulmonem ore ipso arteriae communito. Haec Erasistratus medicus adversum Platonem. Sed Plutarchus in libro Symposiacorum auctorem Platonis sententiae Hippocraten dicit fuisse idemque esse opinatos et Philistiona Locrum et Dioxippum Hippocraticum, veteres medicos et nobiles; atque illam, de qua Erasistratus dixerat, ἐπιγλωττίδα non idcirco eo in loco constitutam, ne quid ex potu influeret in arteriam; nam pulmoni quoque fovendo rigandoque utiles necessariosque humores videri, set adpositam quasi moderatricem quandam et arbitram prohibendi admittendive quod ex salutis usu foret, uti edulia quidem omnia defenderet ab arteria depelleretque in stomachum, potum autem partiretur inter stomachum et pulmonem et quod ex eo admitti in pulmonem per arteriam deberet, non rapidum id neque universum, sed quadam quasi obice sustenta tum ac repressum sensim paulatimque tramitteret atque omne reliquum in alteram stomachi fistulam derivaret.
12. Of ignoble subjects, called by the Greeks a)/docoi, or “unexpected,” argued by Favorinus for the sake of practice. NOT only the sophists of old, but the philosophers as well, took up ignoble subjects, or if you prefer, unexpected ones, a)/docoi u(poqe/seis, as the Greeks call them; and our friend Favorinus took a great deal of pleasure in descending to such subjects, either thinking them suitable for stimulating his thoughts or exercising his cleverness or overcoming difficulties by practice. For example, when he attempted to praise Thersites and pronounced a eulogy upon the quartan ague, he said many clever and ingenious things on both topics, which he has left written in his works. But in his eulogy of fever he even produced Plato as a witness, declaring that the philosopher wrote that one who after suffering from quartan ague got well and recovered his full strength, would afterwards enjoy surer and more constant health. And in that same eulogy he made this quip, which, of a truth, is not ungraceful: “The following lines,” he says,have met with the approval of many generations of men:Sometimes a day is like a stepmother,And sometimes like a mother.The meaning of the verses is that a man cannot fare well every day, but fares well on one day and ill on another. Since it is true,he says, “that in human affairs things are in turn, now good, now bad, how much more fortunate is this fever which has an interval of two days, since it has only one stepmother, but two mothers!”
12. De materiis infamibus, quas Graeci ἀδόξους appellant, a Favorino exercendi gratia disputatis. INFAMES materias, sive quis mavult dicere “inopinabiles,” quas Graeci ἀδόξους ὑποθέσεις appellant, et veteres adorti sunt, non sophistae solum, sed philosophi quoque, et noster Favorinus oppido quam libens in eas materias se deiciebat, vel ingenio expergificando ratus idoneas vel exercendis argutiis vel edomandis usu difficultatibus; sicuti, cum Thersitae laudes quaesivit et cum febrim quartis diebus recurrentem laudavit, lepida sane multa et non facilia inventu in utramque causam dixit eaque scripta in libris reliquit. Sed in febris laudibus testemtested etiam Platonem produxit, quem scripsisse ait qui quartanam passus convaluerit viresque integras recuperaverit, fidelius constantiusque postea valiturum. Atque inibi in isdem laudibus non hercle hac sententiola invenuste lusit: “Versus,” inquit, “est longo hominum aevo probatus:Ἄλλοτε μητρυιὴ πέλει ἡμέρη, ἄλλοτε μήτηρ.Eo versu significatur, non omni die bene esse posse, sed isto bene atque alio male.” “Quod cum ita sit,” inquit, “ut in rebus humanis bene aut male vice alterna sit, haec biduo medio intervallata febris quanto est fortunatior, in qua est μία μητρυιά, δύο μητέρες!”
13. How many and what varieties of meaning the particle quin has, and that it is often obscure in the earlier literature. THE particle quin, which the grammarians call a conjunction, seems to connect sentences in various ways and with divers meanings. For it seems to have one meaning when we say, as if chiding or questioning or exhorting, quin venis? “Why don't you come?” quin legis? “Why don't you read?” or quin fugis? “Why don't you flee?”; but it has a different meaning when we affirm, for example, that “there is no doubt but that (quin) Marcus Tullius is the most eloquent of all men,” and still a third, when we add something which seems contradictory to a former statement: “Isocrates did not plead causes, not but that he thought it useful and honourable so to do.” In the last of these sentences the meaning is not very different from that which is found in the third book of Marcus Cato's Origins: “these I describe last, not but that they are good and valiant peoples.” Also in the second book of the Origins Marcus Cato has used this particle in a very similar manner: “He did not consider it enough to have slandered him privately, without openly defaming his character.” I have noted, besides, that Quadrigarius in the eighth book of his Annals has used that particle in a very obscure manner. I quote his exact words: “He came to Rome; he barely succeeds in having a triumph voted.” Also in the sixth book of the same writer's Annals are these words: “It lacked little but that (quin) they should leave their camp and yield to the enemy.” Now I am quite well aware that someone may say off-hand that there is no difficulty in these words; for quin in both passages is used for ut, and the meaning is perfectly plain if you say: “He came to Rome; he with difficulty brought it about that a triumph should be voted”; and also in the other passage, “It almost happened that they left their camp and yielded to the enemy.” Let those who are so ready find refuge in changing words which they do not understand, but let them do so with more modesty, when the occasion permits. Only one who has learned that this particle of which we are speaking is a compound and formed of two parts, and that it does not merely have the function of a connective but has a definite meaning of its own, will ever understand its variations in meaning. But because an explanation of these would require a long dissertation, he who has leisure may find it in the Commentaries of Publius Nigidius which he entitled Grammatical.
13. “Quin” particula quot qualesque varietates significationis habeat et quam saepe in veterum scriptis obscura sit. “QUIN” particula, quam grammatici coniunctionem appellant, variis modis sententiisque conectere orationem videtur. Aliter enim dici putatur, cum quasi increpantes vel interrogantes vel exhortantes dicimus “quin venis?” “quin legis?” “quin fugis?” aliter, cum ita confirmamus: “non dubium est, quin M. Tullius omnium sit eloquentissimus,” aliter autem, cum sic componimus, quod quasi prior videtur contrarium: “non idcirco causas Isocrates non defendit, quin id utile esse et honestum existumarit”; a quo illa significatio non abhorret, quae est in tertia Origine M. Catonis. “Haut eos,” inquit, “eo postremum scribo, quin populi et boni et strenui sient.” In secunda quoque Origine M. Cato non longe secus hac particula usus est: “Neque satis,” inquit, “habuit quod eum in occulto vitiaverat, quin eius famam prostitueret.” Praeterea animadvertimus Quadrigarium in octavo Annalium particula ista usum esse obscurissime. Verba ipsius posuimus: “Romam venit; vix superat quin triumphus decernatur.” Item in sexto Annali eiusdem verba haec sunt: “Paene factum est quin castra relinquerent atque cederent hosti.” Non me autem praeterit dicere aliquem posse de summo pectore nil esse in his verbis negotii; nam “quin” utrobique positum pro “ut” planissimumque esse, si ita dicas: “Romam venit; vix superat, ut triumphus decernatur”; item alio in loco: “Paene factum est, ut castra relinquerent atque cederent hosti.” Sed utantur sane, qui tam expediti sunt, perfugiis commutationum in verbis quae non intelleguntur, utantur tamen, ubi id facere poterunt, verecundius. Hanc particulam de qua dicimus, nisi si quis didicerit compositam copulatamque esse neque vim tantum coniungendi habere, sed certa quadam significatione factam, numquam profecto rationes ac varietates istius comprehensurus est. Quod quia longioris dissertationis est, poterit, cui otium est, reperire hoc in P. Nigidii Commentariis, quos Grammaticos inscripsit.
14. Neat sayings selected from the Mimes of Publilius. PUBLILIUS wrote mimes. He was thought worthy of being rated about equal to Laberius. But the scurrility and the arrogance of Laberius so offended Gaius Caesar, that he declared that he was better pleased with the mimes of Publilius than with those of Laberius. Many sayings of this Publilius are current, which are neat and well adapted to the use of ordinary conversation. Among these are the following, consisting of a single line each, which I have indeed taken pleasure in quoting:Bad is the plan which cannot bear a change.He gains by giving who has given to worth.Endure and don't deplore what can't be helped.Who's given too much, will want more than's allowed.A witty colmrade at vour side,To walk's as easy as to ride.Frugality is misery in disguise.Heirs' tears are laughter underneath a mask.Patience too oft provoked is turned to rage.He wrongly Neptune blames, who suffers shipwreck twice.Regard a friend as one who may be foe.By bearing old wrongs new ones you provoke.With danger ever danger's overcome.'Mid too much wrangling truth is often lost.Who courteously declines, grants half your suit.
14. Sententiae ex Publili mimisMiminis selectae lepidiores. PUBLILIUS mimos scriptitavit. Dignus habitus est qui subpar Laberio iudicaretur. C. autem Caesarem ita Laberii maledicentia et adrogantia offendebat, ut acceptiores sibi esse Publili quam Laberii mimos praedicaret. Huius Publili sententiae feruntur pleraeque lepidae et ad communem sermonum usum commendatissimae, ex quibus sunt istae singulis versibus circumscriptae, quas libitum hercle est adscribere:Malum est consilium quód mutari nón potest.Beneficium dando accépit, qui dignó dedit.Ferás, non culpes, quód vitari nón potest.Cui plús licet, quam pár est, plus vult, quám licet.Comés facundus in via pro véhiculo est.Frugálitas miséria est rumorís boni.Herédis fletus súb persona risus est.Furór fit laesa saépius patiéntia.Inprobe Neptúnum accusat, qui iterum naufragiúm facit.Ita amicumamicumi habeas pésse ut facile fieri hunc inimicúm putes.Veterém ferendo iniúriam invités novam.Numquám periclum síne periclo vincitur.Nimium áltercando veritas amíttitur.Pars bénefici est, quod pétitur si bellé neges.