18. How Marcus Varro, in the fourteenth book of his Antiquities of Man, criticizes his master Lucius Aelius for a false etymology; and how Varro in his turn, in the same book, gives a false origin for fur. IN the fourteenth book of his Divine Antiquities Marcus Varro shows that Lucius Aelius, the most learned Roman of his time, went astray and followed a false etymological principle in separating an old Greek word which had been taken over into the Roman language into two Latin words, just as if it were of Latin origin. I quote Varro's own words on the subject: “In this regard our countryman Lucius Aelius, the most gifted man of letters within my memory, was sometimes misled. For he gave false derivations of several early Greek words, under the impression that they were native to our tongue. We do not use the word lepus ('hare') because the animal is levipes ('light-footed'), as he asserts, but because it is an old Greek word. Many of the early words of that people are unfamiliar, because to-day the Greeks use other words in their place; and it may not be generally known that among these are Graecus, for which they now use (/Ellhn, puteus ('well') which they call fre/ar, and lepus, which they call lagwo/s. But as to this, far from disparaging Aelius' ability, I commend his diligence; for it is good fortune that brings success, endeavour that deserves praise.” Tis is what Varro wrote in the first part of his book, with great skill in the explanation of words, with wide knowledge of the usage of both languages, and marked kindliness towards Aelius himself. But in the latter part of the same book he says that fur is so called because the early Romans used furvus for ater (“black” ), and thieves steal most easily in the night, which is black. Is it not clear that Varro made the same mistake about fur that Aelius did about lepus. For what the Greeks now call kle/pths, or “thief,” in the earlier Greek language was called fw/r. Hence, owing to the similarity in sound, he who in Greek is fw/r, in Latin is fur. But whether that fact escaped Varro's memory at the time, or on the other hand he thought that fur was more appropriately and consistently named from furvus, that is, “black,” as to that question it is not for me to pass judgment on a man of such surpassing learning.
18. Quod M. Varro in quarto decimo Humanarum L. Aelium magistrum suum in ἐτμολογίᾳ falsa reprehendit; quodque idem Varro in eodem libro falsum furis ἔτυμον dicit. IN XIV. Rerum Divinarum libro M. Varro doctissimum tunc civitatis hominem L. Aelium errasse ostendit, quod vocabulum Graecum vetus traductum in linguam Romanam, proinde atque si primitus Latine fictum esset, resolverit in voces Latinas ratione etymologica falsa. Verba ipsa super ea re Varronis posuimus: “In quo L. Aelius noster, litteris ornatissimus memoria nostra, erravit aliquotiens. Nam aliquot verborum Graecorum antiquiorum, proinde atque essent propria nostra, reddidit causas falsas. Non ‘leporem’ dicimus, ut ait, quod est levipes, sed quod est vocabulum anticum Graecum. Multa vetera illorum ignorantur, quod pro his aliis nunc vocabulis utuntur; et illorum esse plerique ignorent ‘Graecum,’ quod nunc nominant Ἕλληνα, ‘puteum,’ quod vocant φρέαρ ‘leporem,’ quod λαγωὸν dicunt. In quo non modo Aelii ingenium non reprehendo, sed industriam laudo; successum enim fert fortuna, experientiam laus sequitur.” HaecIaec Varro in primore libro scripsit, de ratione vocabulorum scitissimescitissirne, de usu utriusque linguae peritissime, de ipso Aelio clementissime. Sed in posteriore eiusdem libri parte “furem” dicit ex eo dictum, quod veteres Romani “furuumfurvurm” atrum appellaverintappellavcrint et fures per noctem, quae atra sit, facilius furentur. Nonne sic videtur Varro de fure, tamquam Aelius de lepore? Nam quod a Graecis nunc κλέπτης dicitur, antiquiore Graeca lingua φὼρ dictum est. Hinc per adfinitatem litterarum, qui φὼρ Graece, est Latine “fur.” Sed ea res fugeritne tunc Varronis memoriammemioriamr, an contra aptius et cohaerentiuscolaerentius putarit, “furem” a “furvo,” id est nigro, appellari, in hac re de viro tam excellentis doctrinae non meum iudicium est.
19. The story of king Tarquin the Proud and the Sibylline Books. IN ancient annals we find this tradition about the Sibylline Books. An old woman, a perfect stranger, came to king Tarquin the Proud, bringing nine books; she declared that they were oracles of the gods and that she wished to sell them. Tarquin inquired the price; the woman demanded an immense and exorbitant sum: the king laughed her to scorn, believing her to be in her dotage. Then she placed a lighted brazier before him, burned three of the books to ashes, and asked whether he would buy the remaining six at the same price. But at this Tarquin laughed all the more and said that there was now no doubt that the old woman was crazy. Upon that the woman at once burned up three more books and again calmly made the same request, that he would buy the remaining three at the original figure. Tarquin now became serious and more thoughtful, and realising that such persistence and confidence were not to be treated lightly, he bought the three books that were left at as high a price as had been asked for all nine. Now it is a fact that after then leaving Tarquin, that woman was never seen again anywhere. The three books were deposited in a shrine and called “Sibylline”; to them the Fifteen resort whenever tile immortal gods are to be consulted as to the welfare of the State.
19. Historia super libris Sibyllinis ac de Tarquinio Superbo rege. IN antiquis annalibus memoria super libris Sibyllinis haec prodita est: Anus hospita atque incognita ad Tarquinium Superbum regem adiit, novemnovein libros ferens, quos esse divinadiceebat divina oracula: eos velle venundare. Tarquinius pretium percontatus est. Mulier nimium atque inmensum poposcit; rex, quasi anus aetate desiperet, derisit. tumTurn illa foculum coram cum igni apponit, tris libros ex novem deurit et ecquid reliquos sex eodem pretio emere vellet regem interrogavit. Sed enim Tarquinius id multo risit magis dixitque anum iam procul dubio delirare. Mulier ibidem statim tris alios libros exussit atque id ipsum denuo placide rogat, ut tris reliquos eodemmodern illo pretio emat. Tarquinius ore iam serio atque attentiore animo fit, eamearn constantiam confidentiamque non insuper habendam intellegit, libros tris reliquos mercatur nihilo minore pretio quam quod erat petitum pro omnibus. Sed eamearn mulierem tunc a Tarquinio digressam postea nusquam loci visam constitit. Libri tres, in sacrarium conditi, “Sibyllini” appellati; ad eos quasi ad oraculum quindecimuiriquindeciimviri adeunt, cum di immortales publicepublic consulendi sunt.
20. On what the geometers call e)pi/pedos, stereo/s, ku/bos and grammh/, with the Latin equivalents for all these terms. OF the figures which the geometers call sxh/mata there are two kinds, “plane” and “solid.” These the Greeks themselves call respectively e)pi/pedos and stereo/s. A “plane” figure is one that has all its lines in two dimensions only, breadth and length; for example, triangles and squares, which are drawn on a flat surface without height. We have a “solid” figure, when its several lines do not produce merely length and breadth in a plane, but are raised so as to produce height also; such are in general the triangular columns which they call “pyramids,” or those which are bounded on all sides by squares, such as the Greeks call ku/boi, and we quadrantalia. For the ku/bos is a figure which is square on all its sides, “like the dice,” says Marcus Varro, “with which we play on a gaming-board, for which reason the dice themselves are called ku/boi” Similarly in numbers too the term ku/bos is used, when every factor consisting of the same number is equally resolved into the cube number itself, as is the case when three is taken three times and the resulting number itself is then trebled. Pythagoras declared that the cube of the number three controls the course of the moon, since the moon passes through its orbit in twenty-seven days, and the ternio, or “triad,” which the Greeks call tria/s, when cubed makes twenty-seven. Furthermore, our geometers apply the term linea, or “line,” to what the Greeks call grammh/. This is defined by Marcus Varro as follows: “A line,” says he, “is length without breadth or height.” But Euclid says more tersely, omitting “height”: “A line is mh=kos a)plate/s, or 'breadthless length.'” )Aplate/s cannot be expressed in Latin by a single word, unless you should venture to coin the term inlatabile.
20. Quid geometrae dicant ἐπίπεδον, quid στερεόν, quid κύβον quid γραμμήν; quibusque ista omnia Latinis vocabulis appellentur. FIGURARUM quae σχήματα geometrae appellant, genera sunt duo, “planum” et “solidum.” Haec ipsi vocant ἐπίπεδον καὶ στερεόν. “Planum” est quod in duas partis solum lineas habet, qua latum est et qua longum; qualia sunt triquetra et quadrata, quae in area fiunt, sine altitudine. “Solidum” est quando non longitudines modo et latitudines planasplans numeri linearum efficiunt, sed etiam extollunt altitudines, quales sunt ferme metae triangulae quas “pyramidas” appellant, vel qualia sunt quadrata undique, quae, κύβους illi, nos “quadrantalia” dicimus. Κύβος enim est figura ex omni latere quadrate, “quales sunt,” inquit M. Varro, “tesserae quibus in alveolo luditur,” “ex quo ipsae quoque appellatae κύβοι” In numeris etiam similiter κύβος dicitur, cum omne latus eiusdem numeri aequabiliter in sese solvitur, sicuti fit cum ter terna ducuntur atque ipse numerus terplicatur. Huius numeri cubum Pythagoras vim habere lunaris circuli dixit, quod et luna orbem suum lustret septem et viginti diebus et numerus ternio, qui τριὰς Graece dicitur, tantundemtatutndem efficiat in cubo. “Linea” autem a nostris dicitur, quam γραμμὴν Graeci nominant. Eam M. Varro ita definit: “Linea est,” inquit, “longitudo quaedam sine latitudine et altitudine.” Εὐκλείδης autem brevius, praetermissa altitudine: γραμμὴ, inquit, est μῆκος ἀπλατές, quod exprimere uno Latino verbo non queas, nisi audeas dicere “inlatabile.”
21. The positive assertion of Julius Hyginus that he had read a manuscript of Virgil from the poet's own household, in which there was written et ora tristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror and not the usual reading, sensu torquebit amaro. NEARLY everyone reads these lines from the Georgics of Virgi in this way:At sapor indicium faciet manifestus et oraTristia temptantum sensu torquebit amaro.Hyginus, however, on my word no obscure grammarian, in the Commentaries which he wrote on Virgil, declares and insists that it was not this that Virgil left, but what he himself found in a copy which had come from the home and family of the poet:et oraTristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror,and this reading has commended itself, not to Hyginus alone, but also to some other learned men, because it seems absurd to say “the taste will distort with its bitter sensation.” “Since,” they say, “taste itself is a sensation, it cannot have another sensation in itself, but it is exactly as if one should say, 'the sensation will distort with a bitter sensation.'” Moreover, when I had read Hyginus' note to Favorinus, and the strangeness and harshness of the phrase “sensu torquebit amaro” at once had displeased him, he said with a laugh: “I am ready to swear by Jupiter and the stone, which is considered the most sacred of oaths, that Virgil never wrote that, but I believe that Hyginus is right. For Virgil was not the first to coin that word arbitrarily, but he found it in the poems of Lucretius and made use of it, not disdaining to follow the authority of a poet who excelled in talent and power of expression.” The passage, from the fourth book of Lucretius, reads as follows:dilutaque contraCum tuimur misceri absinthia, tangit amaror.And in fact we see that Virgil imitated, not only single words of Lucretius, but often almost whole lines and passages.
21. Quod Iulius Hyginus affirmatissime contendit, legisse se librum P. Vergilii domesticum, ubi scriptum esset “et ora Tristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror,” non quod vulgus legeret “sensu torquebit amaro.” VERSUS istos ex Georgicis Vergilii plerique omnes sic legunt:At sapor indicium faciet manifestus et oraTristia temptantum sensu torquebit amaro. Hyginus autem, non hercle ignobilis grammaticus, in Coninmientariiscommentariis quae in Vergilium fecit, confirmat et perseverat, non hoc a Vergilio relictum, sed quod ipse invenerit in libro qui fuerit ex domo atque ex familia Vergilii:et oraTristia temptantum sensus torquebit amaror,neque id soli Hygino, sed doctis quibusdam etiam viris complacitum, quoniam videtur absurde dici “sapor sensu amaro torquet.” “Cum ipse,” inquiunt, “sapor sensus sit, non alium in semet ipso sensum habeat ac proinde sit quasi dicatur ‘sensus sensu amaro torquet.’” Sed enim cum Favorino Hygini commentariumcoommentarium legissem atque ei statimstatic displicita esset insolentia et insuavitas illius “sensu torquebit amaro,” risit et: “Iovem lapidem,” inquit, “quod sanctissimum iusiurandum habitum est, paratus ego iurare sum Vergilium hoc numquam scripsisse, sed Hyginum ego verum dicere arbitror.” “Non enimenin primus finxit hoc verbum Vergilius insolenter, sed in carminibuscarnminibus Lucreti invento usus est, non aspernatus auctoritatem poetae ingenio et facundia praecellentis.” Verba ex IV. Lucreti haec sunt:dilutaque contraCum tuimur misceri absinthia, tangit amaror. Non verba autem sola, sed versus prope totos et locos quoque Lucreti plurimos sectatum esse Vergilium videmus.
22. Whether it is correct Latin for counsel for the defence to say superesse se, “that he is appearing for” those whom he is defending; and the proper meaning of superesse. AN incorrect and improper meaning of a word has been established by long usage, in that we use the expression hic illi superest when we wish to say that anyone appears as another's advocate and pleads his cause. And this is not merely the language of the streets and of the common people, but is used in the forum, the comitium and the courts. Those, however, who have spoken language undefiled have for the most part used superesse in the sense of “to overflow, be superfluous, or exceed the required amount.” Thus Marcus Varro, in the satire entitled “You know not what evening may bring,” uses superfuisse in the sense of having exceeded the amount proper for the occasion. These are his words: “Not everything should be read at a dinner party, but preferably such works as are at the same time improving and diverting, so that this feature of the entertainment also may seem not to have been neglected, rather than overdone.” I remember happening to be present in the court of a praetor who was a man of learning, and that on that occasion an advocate of some repute pleaded in such fashion that he wandered from the subject and did not touch upon the point at issue. Thereupon the praetor said to the man whose case was before him: “You have no counsel.” And when the pleader protested, saying “I am present (supersum) for the honourable gentleman,” the praetor wittily retorted: “You surely present too much, but you do not represent your client.” Marcus Cicero, too, in his book entitled On Reducing the Civil Law to a System wrote these words: “Indeed Quintus Aelius Tubero did not fall short of his predecessors in knowledge of the law, in learning he even outstripped them.” In this passage superfuit seems to mean “he went beyond, surpassed and excelled his predecessors in his learning, which, however, was excessive and overabundant”; for Tubero was thoroughly versed in Stoic dialectics. Cicero's use of the word in the second book of the Republic also deserves attention. This is the passage in question: “I should not object, Laelius, if I did not think that these friends wished, and if I myself did not desire, that you should take some part in this discussion of ours, especially since you yourself said yesterday that you would give us even more than enough (te superfuturum). But that indeed is impossible: we all ask you not to give us less than enough (ne desis).” Now Julius Paulus, the most learned man within my recollection, used to say witll keenness and understanding that superesse and its Greek equivalent had more than one meaning: for he declared that the Greeks used perisso/n both ways, either of what was superfluous and unnecessary or of what was too abundant, overflowing and excessive; that in the same way our earlier writers also employed superesse sometimes of what was superfluous, idle and not wholly necessary, a sense which we have just cited from Varro, and sometimes, as in Cicero, of that which indeed surpassed other things in copiousness and plentifulness, yet was immoderate and too extensive, and gushed forth more abundantly than was sufficient. Therefore one who says superesse se with reference to a man whom he is defending tries to convey none of these meanings, but uses superesse in a sense that is unknown and not in use. And he will not be able to appeal even to the authority of Virgil, who in his Georgics wrote as follows:I will be first to bear, so but my life still last (supersit),Home to my native land...For in this place Virgil seems to have used that word somewhat irregularly in giving supersit the sense of “be present for a longer or more extended period,” but on the contrary his use of the word in the following line is more nearly the accepted one:They cut him tender grass,Give corn and much fresh water, that his strengthBe more than equal to (superesse) the pleasing toil.for here superesse means to be more than equal to the task and not to be crushed by it. I also used to raise the question whether the ancients used superesse in the sense of “to be left and be lacking for the completion of an act.” For to express that idea Sallust says, not superesse, but superare. These are his words in the Jugurtha: “This man was in the habit of exercising a command independently of the king, and of attending to all business which had been left undone (superaverant) by Jugurtha when he was weary or engaged in more important affairs.” But we find in the third book of Ennius' Annals:Then he declares one task's left over (super esse) for him,that is, is left and remains undone; but there superesse must be divided and read as if it were not one part of speech, but two, as in fact it is. Cicero, however, in his second Oration against Antony expresses “what is left” by restare, not by superesse. Besides these uses we find superesse with the meaning “survive.” For it is so employed in the book of letters of Marcus Cicero to Lucius Plancus, as well as in a letter of Marcus Asinius Pollio to Cicero, as follows: “For I wish neither to fail the commonwealth nor to survive it (superesse),” meaning that if the commonwealth should be destroyed and perish, he does not wish to live. Again in the Asinaria of Plautus that same force is still more evident in these, the first verses of that comedy:As you would hope to have your only sonSurvive (superesse) you and be ever sound and hale. Thus we have to avoid, not merely an improper use of the word, but also the evil omene, in case an older man, acting as advocate for a youth, should say that he “survives” him.
22. An qui causas defendit recte Latineque dicat “superesse se” is quos defendit; et “superesse” proprie quid sit. INROBORAVIT inveteravitque falsa atque aliena verbi significatio, quod dicitur “hic illi superest,” cum dicendum est advocatum esse quem cuipiam causamque eius defendere. Atque id dicitur non in compitiscoinpitis tantum neque in plebe vulgaria, sed in foro, in comitio, apud tribunalia. Qui integre autem locuti sunt magnamnagnam partem “superesse” ita dixerunt, ut eo verbo significarent superfluere et supervacare atque esse supra necessarium modum. Itaque M. Varro, in satura quae inscripta est Nescis Quid Vesper Vehat, “superfuisse” dicit immodice et intempestive fuisse. Verba ex eo libro haec sunt: “In convivio legi nec omnia debent et ea potissimum, quae simul sint βιωφελῆ et delectent, potius ut id quoque videatur non defuisse quam superfuisse.” Memini ego praetoris, docti hominis, tribunali me forte assistere atque ibi advocatum non incelebrem sic postulare, ut extra causam diceret remque quae agebatur non attingeret. Tunc praetorem ei cuia res erat dixisse advocatum eum non habere, et cum is qui verba faciebat reclamasset “ego illi V. C. supersum,” respondisse praetorem festiviter “tu plane superes, non ades.” M. autem Cicero, in libro qui inscriptus est De iurelure Civili in Artem Redigendo, verba haec posuit: “Nec vero scientia iuris maioribus suis Q. Aelius Tubero defuit, doctrina etiam superfuit.” In quo loco “superfuit” significare videtur “supra fuit et praestitit superavitque maiores suos doctrina sua, superfluenti tamen et nimis abundanti,” disciplinas enim Tubero stoicas et dialecticas percalluerat. In libro quoque De Republica secundo id ipsum verbum Cicero ponit non temere transeundum. Verba ex eo libro haec sunt: “Non gravarer, Laeli, nisi et hos velle putarem et ipse cuperem te quoque aliquam partem huius nostri sermonis attingere, praesertim cum heri ipse dixeris te nobis etiam superfuturum. Verum id quidem fieri non potest; ne desis omnes te rogamus.” Exquisite igitur et comperte Iulius Paulus dicebat, homo in nostra memoria doctissimus, “superesse” non simplici ratione dici tam Latine quam Graece; Graecos enim περισσὸν in utramque partemparteni ponere, vel quod supervacaneum esset ac non necessarium, vel quod abundans nimis et afluens et exuberans; sic nostros quoque veteres “superesse” alias dixisse pro superfluenti et vacivo neque admodum necessario, ita ut supra posuimus Varronem dicere, alias ita ut Cicero dixit, pro eo quod copia quidem et facultate ceteris anteiret, super modum tamen et largius prolixiusque flueret quam esset satis. Qui dicit ergo “superesse se” ei quem defendit, nihil istorum vult dicere sed nescio quid 12 aliud indictum inscitumque dicitlicit ac ne Vergilii quidem poterit auctoritate uti, qui in Georgicis ita scripsit·Primus ego in patriam mecum, modo vita supersit …Hoc enim in loco Vergilius ἀκυρότερον eo verbo usus videtur, quod “supersit” dixit pro “longinquius diutiusque adsit,” illudque contra eiusdem Vergili aliquanto est probabilius:Florentisque secant herbas fluviosque ministrantFarraque, ne blando nequeat superesse labori;significat enim supra laborem esse neque opprimi a labore. An autem “superesse” dixerint veteres pro “restare et perficiendae rei deesse,” quaerebamus. Nam Sallustius in significatione ista non “superesse,” sed “superare” dicit. Verba eius in Iugurtha haec sunt: “Is plerumque seorsum a rege exercitum ductare et omnis res exequi solitus erat, quae Iugurthae fesso aut maioribus astricto superaverant.” Sed invenimus in tertio Enni Annalium in hoc versu:Inde sibi memorat unum super esse laborem,id est relicum esse et restare, quod, quia id est, divise pronuntiandum est, ut non una pars orationis esse videatur, sed duae. Cicero autem in secunda Antonianarum, quod est relicum, non “superesse,” sed “restare” dicit. Praeter haec “superesse” invenimus dictum pro “superstitem esse.” Ita enim scriptum est in libro epistularum M. Ciceronis ad L. Plancum, et in epistula M. Asini Pollionis ad Ciceronem, verbis his: “Nam neque deesse reipublicae volo neque superesse,” per quod significant, si respublica emoriatur et pereat, nolle se vivere. In Plauti autem Asinaria manifestius id ipsum scriptumscrituin est in his versibus, qui sunt eius comoediaeconoediae primiprinii:Sicút tuum vis únicum gnatúm tuaeSuperésse vitae sóspitem et supérstitem. Cavenda igitur est non inproprietasimnproprietas sola verbi, sed etiam pravitas ominis, si quis senior advocatus adulescenti “superesse se” dicat.
23. Who Papirius Praetextatus was; the reason for that surname; and the whole of the entertaining story about that same Papirius. THE story of Papirius Praetextatus was told and committed to writing in the speech which Marcus Cato made To the soldiers against Galba, with great charm, brilliance and elegance of diction. I should have included Cato's own words in this very commentary, if I had had access to the book at the time when I dictated this extract. But if you would like to hear the bare tale, without the noble and dignified language, the incident was about as follows: It was formerly the custom at Rome for senators to enter the House with their sons under age. In those days, when a matter of considerable importance had been discussed and was postponed to the following day, it was voted that no one should mention the subject of the debate until the matter was decided. The mother of the young Papirius, who had been in the House with his father, asked her son what the Fathers had taken up in the senate. The boy replied that it was a secret and that he could not tell. The woman became all the more eager to hear about it; the secrecy of the matter and the boy's silence piqued her curiosity; she therefore questioned him more pressingly and urgently. Then the boy, because of his mother's insistence, resorted to a witty and amusing falsehood. He said that the senate had discussed the question whether it seemed more expedient, and to the advantage of the State, for one man to have two wives or one woman to have two husbands. On hearing this, she is panic-stricken, rushes excitedly from the house, and carries the news to the other matrons. Next day a crowd of matrons came to the senate, imploring with tears and entreaties that one woman might have two husbands rather than one man two wives. The senators, as they entered the House, were wondering at this strange madness of the women and the meaning of such a demand, when young Papirius, stepping forward to the middle of the House, told in detail what his mother had insisted on hearing, what he himself had said to her, in fact, the whole story exactly as it had happened. The senate paid homage to the boy's cleverness and loyalty, but voted that thereafter boys should not enter the House with their fathers, save only this Papirius; and the boy was henceforth honoured with the surname Praetextatus, because of his discretion in keeping silent and in speaking, while he was still young enough to wear the purple-bordered gown.
23. Quis fuerit Papirius Praetextatus; quae istius causa cognomenti sit; historiaque ista omnis super eodem Papirio cognitu iucunda. HISTORIA de Papirio Praetextato dicta scriptaque est a M. Catone in oratione qua usus est Ad Milites contra Galbam, cum multa quidem venustate atque luce atque munditia verborum. Ea Catonis verba huic prorsus commentario indidissem, si libri copia fuisset id temporis, cum haec dictavi. Quod si non virtutes dignitatesque verborum, sed rem ipsam scire quaeris, res ferme ad hunc modum est: Mos antea senatoribus Romae fuit in curiam cum praetextatis filiis introire. Tum, cum in senatu res maior quaepiam consultata eaque in diem posterum prolata est placuitque ut eamearn rem super qua tractavissent ne quis enuntiaret priusquam decreta esset, mater Papirii pueri, qui cumcuim parente suo in curia fuerat, percontata est filium quidnam in senatu patres egissent. Puer respondit tacendum esse neque id dici licere. Mulier fit audiendi cupidior; secretum rei et silentium pueri animum eius ad inquirendum everberat; quaerit igitur compressius violentiusque. tumTurn puer, matre urgente, lepidi atque festivi mendacii consilium capit. Actum in senatu dixit, utrum videretur utilius exque republica esse unusne ut duas uxores haberet, an ut una apud duos nupta esset. Hoc illa ubi audivit, animus compavescit, domo trepidans egreditur, ad ceteras matronas perfert. Venit ad senatum postridie matrum familias caterva. Lacrimantes atque obsecrantes orant una potius ut duobus nupta fieret quam ut uni duae. Senatores, ingredientes in curiam, quae illa mulierum intemperies et quid sibi postulatio istaec vellet, mirabantur. Puer Papirius in medium curiae progressus, quid mater audire institisset, quid ipse matri dixisset, rem, sicut fuerat, denarrat. Senatus fidem atque ingenium pueri exosculatur, consultum facit uti posthac pueri cum patribus in curiam ne introeant, praeter ille unus Papirius, atque puero postea cognomentum honoris gratia inditum “Praetextatus” ob tacendi loquendique in aetate praetextae prudentiam.
24. Three epitaphs of three early poets, Naevius, Plautus and Pacuvius, composed by themselves and inscribed upon their tombs. THERE are three epitaphs of famous poets, Gnaeus Naevius, Plautus and Marcus Pacuvius, composed by themselves and left to be inscribed upon their tombs, which I have thought ought to be included among these notes, because of their distinction and charm. The epitaph of Naevius, although full of Campanian arrogance, might have been regarded as a just estimate, if he had not written it himself:If that immortals might for mortals weep,Then would divine Camenae weep for Naevius.For after he to Orcus as treasure was consigned,The Romans straight forgot to speak the Latin tongue. We should be inclined to doubt whether the epitaph of Plautus was really by his own hand, if it had not been quoted by Marcus Varro in the first book of his work On Poets:Since Plautus has met death, Comedy mourns,Deserted is the stage; then Laughter, Sport and Wit,And Music's countless numbers all together wept. Pacuvius' epitaph is the most modest and simple, worthy of his dignity and good taste:Young man, although you haste, this little stoneEntreats thee to regard it, then to read its tale.Here lie the bones of Marcus, hight Pacuvius.Of this I would not have you unaware. Good-bye.
24. Tria epigrammata trium veterum poetarum, Naevii, Plauti, Pacuvii, quae facta ab ipsis sepulcris eorum incisa sunt. TRIUM poetarum inlustrium epigrammata, Cn. Naevii, Plauti, M. Pacuvii, quae ipsi fecerunt et incidenda sepulcro suo reliquerunt, nobilitatis eorum gratia et venustatis scribenda in his commentariis esse duxi. Epigramma Naevi plenum superbiae Campanae, quod testimonium esse iustum potuisset, nisi ab ipso dictum esset:Inmórtalés mortáles si forét fas flére,Flerént divaé Caménae Naéviúm poétam.Itáque póstquam est ÓOrchorcho tráditús thesaúro,Oblíti súnt Romaé loquiér linguá Latína. Epigramma Plauti, quod dubitassemus an Plauti foret, nisi a M. Varrone positum esset in libro De Poetis primo:Postquam est mortem aptus Plautus, Comoedia luget,Scaena est deserta, dein Risus, Ludus IocusqueEt Numeri innumeri simul omnes conlacrimarunt. Epigramma Pacuvii verecundissimum et purissimum dignumque eius elegantissima gravitate:Adulescens, tametsi próperas, hoc te saxúlum rogat,Ut sése aspicias, deínde quod scriptum ést legas.Hic súnt poetae Pácuvi Marcí sitaOssa. Hóc volebam néscius ne essés. Vale.
25. Marcus Varro's definition of the word “indutiae”; to which is added a somewhat careful investigation of the derivation of that word. MARCUS VARRO, in that book of his Antiquities of Man which treats Of War and Peace, defines indutiae (a truce) in two ways. “A truce,” he says, “is peace for a few days in camp;” and again in another place, “A truce is a holiday in war.” But each of these definitions seems to be wittily and happily concise rather than clear or satisfactory. For a truce is not a peace—since war continues, although fighting ceases—nor is it restricted to a camp or to a few days only. For what are we to say if a truce is made for some months, and the troops withdraw from camp into the towns? Have we not then also a truce? Again, if a truce is to be defined as only lasting for a few days, what are we to say of the fact, recorded by Quadrigarius in the first book of his Annals, that Gaius Pontius the Samnite asked the Roman dictator for a truce of six hours? The definition “a holiday in war,” too, is rather happy than clear or precise. Now the Greeks, more significantly and more pointedly, have called such an agreement to cease from fighting e)kexeiri/a, or “a staying of hands,” substituting for one letter of harsher sound a smoother one. For since there is no fighting at such a time and their hands are withheld, they called it e)kexeiri/a. But it surely was not Varro's task to define a truce too scrupulously, and to observe all the laws and canons of definition; for he thought it sufficient to give an explanation of the kind which the Greeks call tu/poi (“typical” ) and u(pografai/ (“outline” ), rather than o(rismoi/ (“exact definition” ). I have for a long time been inquiring into the derivation of indutiae, but of the many explanations which I have either heard or read this which I am going to mention seems most reasonable. I believe that indutiae is made up of inde uti iam (“that from then on” ). The stipulation of a truce is to this effect, that there shall be no fighting and no trouble up to a fixed time, but that after that time all the laws of war shall again be in force. Therefore, since a definite date is set and an agreement is made that before that date there shall be no fighting but when that time comes, “that from then on,” fighting shall be resumed: by uniting (as it were) and combining those words which I have mentioned the term indutiae is formed. But Aurelius Opilius, in the first book of his work entitled The Muses, says: “It is called a truce when enemies pass back and forth from one side to another safely and without strife; from this the name seems to be formed, as if it were initiae, that is, an approach and entrance.” I have not omitted this note of Aurelius, for fear that it might appear to some rival of these Nights a more elegant etymology, merely because he thought that it had escaped my notice when I was investigating the origin of the word.
25. Quibus verbis M. Varro indutias definierit; quaesitumque inibi curiosiuscnriosius, quaenam ratio sit vocabuli indutiarum. DUOBUS modis M. Varro in libro Humanarum, qui est De Bello et Pace, “indutiae” quid sint, definit. “Indutiae sunt,” inquit, “pax castrensis paucorum dierum”; item alio in loco, “indutiae sunt,” inquit, “belli feriae.” Sed lepidae magis atque iucundae brevitatis utraque definitio quam plana aut proba esse videtur. Nam neque pax est indutiae— bellum enim manet, pugna cessat—neque in solis castris neque paucorum tantum dierum indutiae sunt. Quid enim dicemus, si indutiis mensum aliquot factis in oppida castris concedatur? Nonne tum quoque indutiae sunt? Aut rursus quid esse id dicemus quod in primo Annalium Quadrigarii scriptum est, C. Pontium Samnitem a dictatore Romano sex horarum indutias postulasse, si indutiae paucorum tantum dierum appellandae sunt? “Belli” autem “ferias” festive magis dixit quam aperte atque definite. Graeci autem significantius consignatiusque cessationem istam pugnae pacticiam ἐκεχειρίαν dixerunt, exempta littera una sonitus vastioris et subdita lenioris. Nam quod eo tempore non pugnetur et manus cohibeantur, ἐκεχειρίαν appellarunt. Sed profecto non id fuit Varroni negotium, ut indutias superstitiose definiret et legibus rationibusque omnibus definitionum inserviret. Satis enim visumvistum est, eiusmodi facere demonstrationemn, quod genus Graeci τύπους magis et ὑπογραφὰς quam ὁρισμοὺς vocant. “Indutiarum” autem vocabulum qua sit ratione factum, iam diu est, cum quaerimus. Sed ex multis, quae vel audimus vel legimus, probabilius id, quod dicam, videtur. “Indutias” sic dictas arbitramurarbitramu, quasi tu dicas “inde uti iam.” Pactum indutiarum eiusmodi est, ut in diem certum non pugnetur nihilqueiihilque incommodetur, sed ex eo die postea uti iam omnia belli iure agantur. Quod igitur dies certus praefinitur pactumque fit, ut ante eum diem ne pugnetur atque is dies ubi venit “inde uti iam” pugnetur, idcirco ex his quibus dixi vocibus, quasi per quendam coitum et copulam nomen indutiarum conexumconexuni est. Aurelius autem Opilius in primo librorum, quos Musarum inscripsit, “indutiae,” inquit, “dicuntur, cum hostes inter sese utrimque utroque alteri ad alteros impune et sine pugna ineunt; inde adeo inquit nomen factum videtur, quasi initiae, hoc est initus atque introitus.” Hoc ab Aurelio scriptum propterea non praeterii, ne cui harum Noctium aemulo eo tantum nomine elegantius id videretur, tamquam id nos originem verbi requirentes fugisset.
26. The answer of the philosopher Taurus, when I asked him whether a wise man ever got angry. I ONCE asked Taurus in his lecture-room whether a wise man got angry. For after his daily discourses he often gave everyone the opportunity of asking whatever questions he wished. On this occasion he first discussed the disease or passion of anger seriously and at length, setting forth what is to be fund in the books of the ancients and in his own commentaries; then, turning to me who had asked the question, he said: “This is what I think about getting angry, but it will not be out of place for you to hear also the opinion of my master Plutarch, a man of great learning and wisdom. Plutarch,” said he, “once gave orders that one of his slaves, a worthless and insolent fellow, but one whose ears had been filled with the teachings and arguments of philosophy, should be stripped of his tunic for some offence or other and flogged. They had begun to beat him, and the slave kept protesting that he did not deserve the flogging; that he was guilty of no wrong, no crime. Finally, while the lashing still went on, he began to shout, no longer uttering complaints or shrieks and groans, but serious reproaches. Plutarch's conduct, he said, was unworthy of a philosopher; to be angry was shameful: his master had often descanted on the evil of anger and had even written an excellent treatise Peri\ )Aorghsi/as; it was in no way consistent with all that was written in that book that its author should fall into a fit of violent rage and punish his slave with many stripes. Then Plutarch calmly and mildly made answer: ' What makes you think, scoundrel, that I am now angry with you. Is it from my expression, my voice, my colour, or even my words, that you believe me to be in the grasp of anger? In my opinion my eyes are not fierce, my expression is not disturbed, I am neither shouting madly nor foaming at the mouth and getting red in the face; I am saying nothing to cause me shame or regret; I am not trembling at all from anger or making violent gestures. For all these actions, if you did but know it, are the usual signs of angry passions.' And with these words, turning to the man who was plying the lash, he said: 'In the meantime, while this fellow and I are arguing, do you keep at it.'” Now the sum and substance of Taurus' whole disquisition was this: he did not believe that a)orghsi/a or “freedom from anger,” and a)nalghsi/a, or “lack of sensibility,” were identical; but that a mind not prone to anger was one thing, a spirit a)na/lghtos and a)nai/sqhtos, that is, callous and unfeeling, quite another. For as of all the rest of the emotions which the Latin philosophers call affects or affectiones, and the Greeks pa/qh, so of the one which, when it becomes a cruel desire for vengeance, is called “anger,” he did not recommend as expedient a total lack, ste/rhsis as the Greeks say, but a moderate amount, which they call metrio/ths.
26. Quem in modum mihi Taurus philosophus responderit percontanti an sapiens irasceretur. INTERROGAVI in diatriba Taurum, an sapiens irasceretur. Dabat enim saepe post cotidianas lectiones quaerendi quod quis vellet potestatem. Is cum graviter, copiose de morbo affectuve irae disseruisset, quae et in veterum libris et in ipsius commentariis exposita sunt, convertit ad me, qui interrogaveram, et “haec ego,” inquit, “super irascendo sentio;” “sed, quid et Plutarchus noster, vir doctissimus ac prudentissimus, senserit, non ab re est ut id quoque audias.” “Plutarchus,” inquit, “servo suo, nequam homini et contumaci, sed libris disputationibusque philosophiae aures inbutasinbuftas habenti, tunicam detrahidetrahli ob nescio quod delictum caedique eum loro iussit.” “Coeperat verberari et obloquebaturobloquebatum non meruisse ut vapulet, nihil mali, nihil sceleris admisisse. Postremo vociferari inter vapulandum incipit,” “neque iam querimonias aut gemitus eiulatusque facere, sed verba seria et obiurgatoria: non ita esse Plutarchum, ut philosophum deceret; irasci turpe esse: saepe eum de malo irae dissertavisse, librum quoque Περὶ Ἀοργησίας pulcherrimum conscripsisse; his omnibus quae in eo libro scripta sint nequaquam convenire, quod provolutus effususqueefususque in iram plurimis se plagis multaret.” “tumTurn Plutarchus lente et leniter ‘quid autem,’ inquit, ‘verbero, nunc ego tibi irasci videor? Ex vultune meo an ex voce an ex colore an etiam ex verbis correptum esse me ira intellegis? Mihi quidem neque oculi, opinor, truces sunt neque os turbidum neque inmaniter clamo neque in spumam ruborenve effervesco neque pudenda dico aut paenitenda neque omnino trepido ira et gestio.’” “‘Haec enim omnia, si ignoras, signa esse irarum solent.’ Et simul ad eum qui caedebat conversus, ‘interim,’ inquit, ‘dum ego atque hic disputamus, tu hoc age.’” Summa autem totius sententiae Tauri haec fuit: Non idem esse existimavit ἀοργησίαν et ἀναλγησίαν aliudque esse non iracundum animum, aliud ἀνάλγητον et ἀναίσθητον, id est hebetem et stupentem. Nam sicut aliorum omnium, quos Latini philosophi “affectus” vel “affectiones,” Graeci πάθη appellant, ita huius quoque motus animi, qui cum est ulciscendi causa saevior “ira” dicitur, non privationem esse utilem censuit, quam Graeci στέρησιν dicunt, sed mediocritatem, quam μετριότητα illi appellant.