7. How Favorinus treated a man who made an unseasonable inquiry about words of ambiguous meaning; and in that connection the different meanings of the word contio. DOMITIUS was a learned and famous grammarian in the city of Rome, who was given the surname Insanus, or “The Madman,” because he was by nature rather difficult and churlish. When our friend Favorinus, in my company, chanced to have met this Domitius at the temple of Carmentis, Favorinus said: “I pray you, master, tell me whether I was in error in saying contiones, when I wanted to turn dhmhgori/ai into Latin; for I am in doubt and should be glad to be informed whether any of the men of old who spoke with special elegance used contio of words and of a speech.” Then Domitius, with excited voice and expression, replied: “There is absolutely no hope left of anything good, when even you distinguished philosophers care for nothing save words and the authority for words. But I will send you a book, in which you will find what you ask. For I, a grammarian, am inquiring into the conduct of life and manners, while you philosophers are nothing but mortualia, or 'winding sheets,' as Marcus Cato says: for you collect glossaries and word-lists, filthy, foolish, trifling things, like the dirges of female hired mourners. And I could wish,” said he, “that all we mortals were dumb! for then dishonesty would lack its chief instrumentiinstrument.” When we had left him, Favorinus said: “We approached this man at an unseasonable time. For he seems to me to be clearly mad. Know, however,” said he, “that the disorder which is called melagxoli/a, or 'melancholia,' does not attack small or contemptible minds, but it is in a way a kind of heroic affliction and its victims often speak the truth boldly, but without regard to time or moderation. For example, what think you of this which he just said of philosophers? If Antisthenes or Diogenes had said it, would it not have seemed worthy of remembrance?” But a little later Domitius sent Favorinus the book which he had promised—I think it was one by Verrius Flaccus—in which the following was written with regard to questions of that kind: that senatus (senate) was used both of a place and of persons; civitas (state) of a situation and a town, also of the rights of a community, and of a body of men; further that tribus (tribes) and decuriae (decuries) designated places, privileges and persons, and that contio had three meanings: the place and tribunal from which speaking was done, as Marcus Tullius in his speech, In Reply to the Address of Quintus Metelius, says: “I mounted the tribunal (contionem); the people assembled.” It also signifies an assembly of the people gathered together, since the same Marcus Tullius says in his Orator: “I have often heard audiences (contiones) cry out, when words ended in a proper rhythm; for the ears expect the thought to be expressed in harmonious words.” It likewise designated the speech itself which was made to the people. Examples of these uses were not given in that book. But afterwards I found and showed to Favorinus at his request instances of all these meanings in Cicero, as I remarked above, and in the most elegant of the early writers; but that which he especially desired, an example of contio used for words and of a speech, I pointed out in the title of a book by Cicero, which he had called In Reply to the Address of Quintus Metellus; for there Contionem surely means nothing else than the speech itself which was delivered by Metellus.
7. Quem in modum Favorinus tractaverit intempestivum quendam de verborum ambiguitatibus quaerentem; atque ibi, quot significationes capiat “contio.” DOMITIO, homini docto celebrique in urbe Roma grammatico, cui cognomentum “Insano” factum est, quoniam erat natura intractabilior et morosior, ei Domitio Favorinus noster cum forte apud fanum Carmentis obviam venisset atque ego cum Favorino essem, “Quaeso,” inquit, “te, magister, dicas mili num erravi quod, cum vellem δηυμγορίας Latine dicere, ‘contiones’ dixi? Dubito quippe et requiro an veterum eorum qui electius locuti sunt pro verbis et oratione dixerit quis ‘contionem.’” Tum Domitius voce atque vultu atrociore “Nulla,” inquit, “prorsus bonae salutis spes reliqua est, cum vos quoque, philosophorum inlustrissimi, nihil iam aliud quam verba auctoritatesque verborum cordi habetis. Mittam autem librum tibi, in quo id reperias quod quaeris. Ego enim grammaticus vitae iam atque morum disciplinas quaero, vos philosophiphilosophy mera estis, ut M. Cato ait, ‘mortualia’; glossariaglosaria namquenamique conligitis et lexidia, res taetras et inanes et frivolas, tamquam mulierum voces praeficarum. Atque utinam,” inquit, “muti omnes homines essemus! minus improbitasinmprobitas instrumentiinstrument haberet.” Cumque digressi essemus, “Non tempestive,” inquit Favorinus, “hunc hominem accessimus. Videtur enim mihi ἐπισήμως μαίνεσθαι. Scitote,” inquit, “tamen intemperiem istam quae μελαγχολία dicitur, non parvis nec abiectis ingeniis accidere, ἀλλὰ εἶναι σχεδόν τι τὸ πάθος ἡρωϊκόν et veritates plerumqueplerumique fortiter dicere, sed respectum non habere μήτε καιροῦ σχεδόν μήτε μέτρου. Vel ipsumipsurm hoc quale existimatis quod nunc de philosophis dixit? Nonne, si id Antisthenes aut Diogenes dixisset, dignum memoria visum esset?” Misit autem paulo post Favorino librum quem promiserat—Verri, opinor, Flacci erat—, in quo scriptascript ad hoc genus quaestionis pertinentia haec fuerunt: “senatum” dici et pro loco et pro hominibus, “civitatem” et pro loco et oppido et pro iure quoque omnium et pro hominum multitudine, “tribus” quoque et “decurias” dici et pro loco et pro iure et pro hominibus, “contionem” autem tria significare: locum suggestumque unde verba fierent, sicut M. Tullius in oratione quae inscripta est Contra Contionem Q. Metelli: “Escendi,” inquit, “in contionem;” “concursus est populi factus”; item significare coetum populi adsistentis, sicuti idem M. Tullius in Oratore ait: “Contiones saepe exclamare vidi, cum apte verba cecidissent. Etenim expectant aures, ut verbis conligetur sententia”; item orationem ipsam quae ad populum diceretur. Exempla in eo libro scripta non erant. Sed nos postea Favorino desideranti harum omnium significationum monumenta apud Ciceronem, sicut supra scripsi, et apud elegantissimos veterum reperta exhibuimus; id autem quod potissimum expetebat, “contionem” esse dictam pro verbis et oratione, docui titulo Tulliani libri, qui a M. Cicerone inscriptus est Contra Contionem Q. Metelli, quo nihil profecto significatur aliud quam ipsa quae a Metello dicta est oratio.
8. That o(moiote/leuta, o(moio/ptwta, and other devices of the kind which are considered ornaments of style, are silly and uerile, is indicated, among other places, in some verses of Lucilius. LUCILIUS in the fifth book of his Satires shows, and indeed most wittily, how silly, useless, and puerile are o(moiote/leuta, or “words of the same ending,” i)sokata/lhkta, or “words of the same sound,” pa/risa, or “words exactly balanced,” o(moio/ptwta, or “words of the same case,” and other niceties of that kind which those foolish pedants who wish to appear to be followers of Isocrates use in their compositions without moderation or taste. For having complained to a friend because he did not come to see him when he was ill, he adds these merry words:Although you do not ask me how I am,I'll tell you, since with those I still abideWho of all mortals are the lesser part...You are the slacker friend who'd wish him deadWhom you'd not visit though it was your debit.But if you chide this “visit” joined with “debit”('Twas writ by chance), if you detest it all,This silly, puerile, Isocratic stuff,I'll waste no time on you, since such you are.
8. Ὁμοιοτέλευτα et ὁμοιόπτωτα atque alia id genus quae ornamenta orationis putantur inepta esse et puerilia, Lucili quoque versibus declarari. Ὁμοιοτέλευτα et ἰσοκατάληκτα et πάρισα et ὁμοιόπτωτα ceteraque huiusmodi scitamenta, quae isti apirocali qui se Isocratios videri volunt in conlocandis verbis immodice faciunt et rancide, quam sint insubida et inertia et puerilia facetissime hercle significat in quinto Saturarum LuciliusIucilius. Nam ubi est cum amico conquestus, quod ad se aegrotum non viseret, haec ibidem addit festiviter:Quo me habeam pacto, tametsi non quaeris, docebo,Quando in eo numero mansi quo in maxima non estPars hominum …Ut perisse velis quem visere nolueris, cumDebueris. Hoc “nolueris” et “debueris” teSi minus delectat (quod atechnon) et Isocratium hocσκληρῶδες que simul totum ac si συμμειρακιῶδες,Non operam perdo, si tu hic.
9. The meaning of the word insecenda in Marcus Cato; and that insecenda ought to be read rather than insequenda, which many prefer. IN an old book, containing the speech of Marcus Cato On Ptolemy against Thermus, were these words: “But if he did everything craftily, everything for the sake of avarice and pelf, such abominable crimes as we have never heard of or read of, he ought to suffer punishment for his acts...” The question was raised what insecenda meant. Of those who were present at the time there was one who was a dabbler in literature and another who was versed in it; that is to say, one was teaching the subject, the other was learned in it. These two disagreed with each other, the grammarian maintaining that insequenda ought to be written: “For,” said he,insequenda should be written, not insecenda, since insequens means... and inseque has come down to us in the sense of 'proceed to say,' and accordingly insequor was written by Ennius in the following verses:Proceed, O Muse, when Rome with Philip warred,To tell the valorous deeds our leaders wrought. But the other, more learned, man declared that there was no mistake, but that it was written correctly and properly, and that we ought to trust Velius Longus, a man not without learning, who wrote in the commentary which he composed On the Use of Archaic Terms, that inseque should not be read in Ennius, but insece; and that therefore the early writers called what we term narrationes, or “tales,” insectiones; that Varro also explained this verse from the Menaechmi of Plautus:Nihilo minus esse videtur sectius quam somnia,as follows: “they seem to me no more worth telling than if they were dreams.” Such was their discussion. I think that both Marcus Cato and Quintus Ennius wrote insecenda and insece without u. For in the library at Patrae I found a manuscript of Livius Andronicus of undoubted antiquity, entitled )Odu/sseia, in which the first line contained this word without the letter u:Tell me (insece), O Muse, about the crafty man,translated from this line of Homer:)/Andra moi e)/nnepe, Mou=sa, polu/tropon. On that point then I trust a book of great age and authority. For the fact that the line of Plautus has sectius quam somnia lends no weight to the opposite opinion. However, even if the men of old did say insece and not inseque, I suppose because it was lighter and smoother, yet the two words seem to have the same meaning. For sequo and sequor and likewise secta and sectio differ in the manner of their use, but anyone who examines them closely will find that their derivation and meaning are the same. The teachers also and interpreters of Greek words think that ina)/ndra moi e)/nnepe, Mou=sa,ande)/spete nu=n moi, Mou=sai,e)/nnepe, and e)/spete are expressed by the Latin word inseque; for they say that in one word the n is doubled, in the other changed to s. And they also say that the word e)/ph, which means “words” or “verses,” can he derived only a)po\ tou= e(/pesqai kai\ tou= ei)pei=n, that is from “follow” and “say.” Therefore for the same reason our forefathers called narrations and discourses insectiones.
9. Quid significet apud M. Catonem verbum “insecenda” quodque “insecenda” potius legendum sit quam, quod plerique existimat, “insequenda.” IN libro vetere, in quo erat oratio M. Catonis De Ptolemaeo contra Thermum, sic scriptum fuit: “Sed si omnia dolo fecit, omnia avaritiae atque pecuniae causa fecit, eiusmodi scelera nefaria, quae neque fando neque legendo audivimus, supplicium pro factis dare oportet.” … “Insecenda” quid esset quaeri coeptum. tumTurn ex his qui aderant alter litterator fuit, alter litteras sciens, id est alter docens, doctus alter. Hi duo inter sese dissentiebant. Et grammaticus quidem contendebat, “insequenda” scribendum esse; “‘insequenda’ enim scribi,” inquit, “debet, non ‘insecenda,’ quoniam ‘insequens’ significat traditumque esse ‘inseque’ quasi ‘perge dicere’ et ‘insequere’ itaque ab Ennio scriptum in his versibus:Inseque, Musa, manu Romanorum induperatorQuod quisque in bello gessit cum rege Philippo.” Alter autem ille eruditior, nihil mendum, sed recte atque integre scriptum esse perseverabat et Velio Longo, non homini indocto, fidem esse habendam, qui in commentario quod fecisset De Usu Antiquae Lectionis scripserit non “inseque” apud Ennium legendum, sed “insece”; ideoque a veteribus, quas “narrationes” dicimus, “insectiones” esse appellatas; Varronem quoque versum hunc Plauti de Menaechmis:Nihilo minus esse videtur sectius quam sómnia,sic enarrasse: “nihilo magis narranda esse quam si ea essent somnia.” Haec illi inter se certabant. Ego arbitror et a M. Catone “insecenda” et a Q. Ennio “insece” scriptum sine u littera. Offendi enim in bibliotheca Patrensi librum verae vetustatis Livii Andronici, qui inscriptus est Ὀδύσσεια in quo erat versus primus cum hoc verbo sine u littera:Virum mihi, Camena, insece versutum,cactus ex illo Homeri versu:Ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, πολύτεοπον.Illic igitur aetatis et fidei magnae libro credo. Nam, quod in versu Plautino est: “sectius quam somnia,” nihil in alteras partes argumenti habet. Etiamsi veteres autem non “inseque,” sed “insece” dixerunt, credo, quia erat lenius leviusque, tamen eiusdem sententiae verbum videtur. Nam et “sequo” et “sequor” et item “secta” et “sectio” consuetudine loquendi differunt; sed qui penitus inspexerit, origo et ratio utriusque una est. Doctores quoque et interpretes vocum Graecarum: Ἄνδρα μοι “ἔννεπε,” Μοῦσα et: “Ἔσπετε” νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι, dictum putant, quod Latine “inseque” dicitur; namque in altero ν geminum, in altero ς esse tralatum dicunt. Sed etiam ipsum illud “ἔπη,” quod significant verba aut versus, non aliunde esse dictum tradunt quam “ἀπὸ τοῦ ἕπεσθαι καὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν.” Eadem ergo ratione antiqui nostri narrationes sermonesque “insectiones” appellitaverunt.
10. That those persons are in error who think that in testing for fever the pulse of the veins is felt, and not that of the arteries. IN the midst of the summer's heat I had withdrawn to the country house of Herodes, a man of senatorial rank, at a place in the territory of Attica which is called Cephisia, abounding in clear waters and groves. There I was confined to my bed by an attack of diarrhoea, accompanied by a high fever. When the philosopher Calvisius Taurus, and some others who were disciples of his, had come there from Athens to visit me, the physician who had been found there and who was sitting by me at the time, began to tell Taurus what discomfort I suffered and with what variations and intervals the fever came and went. Then in the course of the conversation remarking that I was now getting better, he said to Taurus: “You too may satisfy yourself of this, e)a\n a(/yh| au)tou= th=s flebo/s, which in our language certainly leans: si attigeris venam illius; that is, 'if you will put your finger on his vein.'” The learned men who accompanied Taurus were shocked by this careless language in calling an artery a vein, and looking on him as a physician of little value, showed their opinion by their murmurs and expression. Whereupon Taurus, very mildly, as was his way, said: “We feel sure, my good sir, that you are not unaware of the difference between veins and arteries; that the veins have no power of motion and are examined only for the purpose of drawing off blood, but that the arteries by their motion and pulsation show the condition and degree of fever. But, as I see, you spoke rather in common parlance than through ignorance; for I have heard others, as well as you, erroneously use the term 'vein' for 'artery.' Let us then find that you are more skilled in curing diseases than in the use of language, and with the favour of the gods restore this man to us by your art, sound and well, as soon as possible.” Afterwards when I recalled this criticism of the physician, I thought that it was shameful, not only for a physician, but for all cultivated and liberally educated men, not to know even such facts pertaining to the knowledge of our bodies as are not deep and recondite, but which nature, for the purpose of maintaining our health, has allowed to be evident and obvious. Therefore I devoted such spare time as I had to dipping into those books on the art of medicine which I thought were suited to instruct me, and from them I seem to have learned, not only many other things which have to do with human experience, but also concerning veins and arteries what I may express as follows: A “vein” is a receptacle, or a)ggei=on, as the physicians call it, for blood mingled and combined with vital breath, in which the blood predominates and the breath is less. An “artery” is a receptacle for the vital breath mingled and combined with blood, in which there is more breath and less blood. Sfugmo/s (pulsation) is the natural and involuntary expansion and contraction in the heart and in the artery. But the ancient Greek physicians defined it thus: “An involuntary dilation or contraction of the pulse and of the heart.”
10. Errare istos qui in exploranda febri venarum pulsus pertemptariperteniptari putant, non arteriarum. IN Herodis, C. V., villam, quae est in agro Attico, loco qui appellatur Cephisiae, aquis lucidis et nemoribus frequentem, aestu anni medio concesseram. Ibi alvo mihi cita et accedente febri rapida decubueram. Eo Calvisius Taurus philosophus et alii quidam sectatores eius cum Athenis visendi mei gratia venissent, medicus, qui tum in his locis repertus adsidebat mihi, narrare Tauro coeperat quid incommodi paterer et quibus modulis quibusque intervallis accederet febris decederetque. Tum in eo sermone, cum iam me sinceriore corpusculo factum diceret, “Potes,” inquit Tauro, “tu quoque id ipsum comprehendere, ἐὰν ἅψῃ αὐτοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς φλεβός quod nostris verbi profectoprotect ita dicitur: ‘si attigeris venam illius.’” Hanc loquendi imperitiam, quod venam pro arteria dixisset, cum in eo docti homines qui cum Tauro erant, tamquam in minime utili medico offendissent atque id murmure et vultu ostenderent, tum ibi Taurus, ut mos eius fuit, satis leniter: “Certi,” inquit, “sumus, vir bone. non ignorare te quid ‘vena’ appelletur et quid ‘arteria,’ quod venae quidem suapte vi inmobiles sint et sanguinis tantum demittendidenmittendi gratia explorentur, arteriae autem motu atque pulsu suo habitum et modum febrium demonstrent;” “sed, ut video, pervulgate magis quam inscite locutus es; non enim te solum, sed alios quoque itidem errantis audivi venam pro arteria dicere.” “Fac igitur ut experiamur elegantiorem esse te in medendo quam in dicendo. et cum dis bene volentibus opera tua sistas hunc nobis sanum atque validum quam citissime.” Hoc ego postea cum in medico reprehensum esse meminissem, existimavi non medico soli, sed omnibus quoque hominibus liberis liberaliterque institutis, turpe esse ne ea quidem cognovisse ad notitiam corporis nostri pertinentia, quae non altius occultiusque remota sunt et quae natura nobis tuendae valitudinis causa et in promptu esse et in propatulo voluerit; ac propterea, quantum habui temporis subsicivi, medicinae quoque disciplinae libros attigi, quos arbitrabar esse idoneos ad docendum, et ex his cum alia pleraque ab isto humanitatis usu non aliena, tum de venis quoque et arteriis didicisse videor ad hunc ferme modum: “Vena” est conceptaculum sanguinis, quod ἀγγεῖον medici vocant, mixti confusique cum spiritu naturali, in quo plus sanguinis est, minus spiritus; “arteria” est conceptaculum spiritus naturalis mixti confusique cum sanguine, in quo plus spiritus est, minus sanguinis; σφυγμός autem est intentio motus et remissio in corde et in arteria naturalis, non arbitraria. Medicis autem veteribus oratione Graeca ita definitus est: “Σφυγμός ἐστιν διαστολή τε καὶ συστολὴ ἀπροαίρετος ἀρτηρίας καὶ καρδίας.”
11. Words from the poems of Furius of Antium which were ignorantly criticised by Caesellius Vindex; a quotation of the very verses which include the words in question. I CERTAINLY do not agree with Caesellius Vindex, the grammarian, though in my opinion he is by no means without learning. But yet this was a hasty and ignorant statement of his, that the ancient poet Furius of Antium had degraded the Latin language by forming words of a kind which to me did not seem inconsistent with a poet's license nor to be vulgar or unpleasant to speak and utter, as are some others which have been harshly and tastelessly fashioned by distinguished poets. The expressions of Furius which Caesellius censures are these: that he uses lutescere of earth which has turned into mud, noctescere of darkness that has arisen like that of night, virescere of recovering former strength, describes the wind curling the blue sea and making it shine by purpurat, and uses opulescere for becoming rich. I have added the very lines from the poems of Furius in which these words occur:Blood floods the world, the deep earth turns to mud (lutescit),All becomes night (noctescunt) with darkness of black gloom.Their courage grows, valour 's renewed (virescit) by wounds.The fleet, like sea-bird, lightly skims the deep,The East Wind's breath empurples (purpurat) the green surge.That on their native plains they may grow rich (opulescere).
11. Verba ex carminibus Furi Antiatis inscite a Cãesellio Vindice reprehensa; versusque ipsi in quibus ea verba sunt subscripti. non hercle idem sentio cum Caesellio Vindice, grammatico, ut mea opinio est, hautquaquam inerudito. Verum hoc tamen petulanter insciteque, quod Furium, veterem poetam, dedecorasse linguam Latinam scripsit huiuscemodi vocum fictionibustictionibus quae mihi quidem neque abhorrere a poetica facultate visae sunt neque dictu profatuque ipso taetrae aut insuaves esse, sicuti sunt quaedam alia ab inlustribus poetis ficta dure et rancide. Quae reprehendit autem Caesellius Furiana haec sunt: quod terram in lutum versam “lutescere” dixerit et tenebras in noctis modum factas “noctescere” et pristinas reciperare vires “virescere,” et quod ventus si mare caerulum crispicans nitefacit “purpurat” dixerit, et opulentum fieri “opulescere.” Versus autem ipsos ex poematis Furianis, in quibus verba haec sunt, subdidi:Sanguine diluitur tellus, cava terra lutescit.Omnia noctescunt tenebris caliginis atrae.Increscunt animi, virescit volnere virtus.Sicut fulica levis volitat super aequora classis,Spiritus Eurorum viridis cum purpurat undas.Quo magis in patriis possint opulescere campis.
12. That our forefathers had the custom of changing passive verbs and turning them into active. THIS also used to be regarded as a kind of elegance in composition, to use active verbs in place of those which had a passive form and then in turn to substitute the former for the latter. Thus Juventius in a comedy says:I care not if my cloak resplendent be, or spot. Is not this far more graceful and pleasing than if he said maculetur, “if it be spotted”? Plautus also says in a similar way:What's wrong?—This cloak doth wrinkle (rugat), I'm ill clad.Also Plautus uses pulveret, not of making dusty, but of being dusty:Go, sprinkle, slave; I'd have this entrance neat.My Venus comes, don't let the place show dust (pulveret).In the Asinaria he uses contemples for contempleris: Observe (contemples) my head, if you'd your interest heed. Gnaeus Gellius in his Annals writes: “After the storm quieted (sedavit) Adherbal sacrificed a bull”; Marcus Cato in his Origins: “Many strangers came to that same place from the country. Therefore their wealth waxed (auxit).” Varro in the books which he wrote On Latin Diction, dedicated to Marcellus, said: “In the former word the accents that were grave remain so. The others change,” where mutant, “change,” is a very elegant expression for mutantur, “are changed.” The same expression too seems to be used by Varro in the seventh book of his Divine Antiquities: “What a difference (quid mutet) there is between princesses may be seen in Antigone and Tullia.” But passive verbs instead of active are found in the writings of almost all the men of the olden time. A few of these, which I recall now, are the following: muneror te, or “I reward you,” for munero; significor, or “I indicate,” for significo; assentior, or “I assent,” for assentio; sacrificor, or “I sacrifice,” for sacrifice; faeneror, or “I practise usury,” for faenero; pigneror, or “I take as a pledge,” for pignero, and many others of the same kind, which will be noted as I meet them in reading.
12. Morem istum veteribus nostris fuisse verba patiendi mutare ac vetere in agendi nodum. ID quoque habitum est in oratione facienda elegantiae genus, ut pro verbis habentibus patiendi figuram agentia ponerent ac deinde haec vice inter sese mutua verterent. Iuventius in comoedia:pallium (inquit) flocci non facio ut splendeat an maculet. Nonne hoc inpendio venustius gratiusque est quam si diceret “maculetur”? Plautus etiam non dissimiliter:Quid ést?—Hoc rugat pallium, amictus non sum Cómmode. Itidem Plautus “pulveret” dicit, quod non pulvere impleat, set ipsum pulveris plenum sit:Exi tu, Dave, age, spárge; mundum hoc ésse Vestibuliúm volo.Venús ventura est nóstra, non hoc púlveret. In Asinaria quoque “contemples” dicit pro “contempleris”:Meúm caput contémples, si quidem é re consultás tua.Cn. Gellius in Annalibus: “Postquam tempestas sedavit, Atherbal taurum immolavit.” M. Cato in Originibus:“Eodem convenae conplures ex agro accessitavere.” “Eo res eorum auxit.” Varro libris quos ad Marcellum De Lingua LatinaLaiina fecit: “In priore verbo graves prosodiae, quae fuerunt, manent, reliquae mutant,” “mutant” inquit elegantissime pro “mutantur.” Potest etiam id quoque ab eodem Varrone in septimo Divinarum similiter dictum videri: “Inter duas filias regum quid mutet, inter Antigonam et Tulliam, est animadvertere.” Verba autem patiendi pro agentibus in omnibus ferme modum veterum scriptis reperiuntur. Ex quibus sunt pauca ista, quaequake nuncnune meminimus: “muneror te” pro “munero” et “significor” pro “significo” et “sacrificor” pro “sacrifico” et “adsentior” pro “adsentio” et “faeneror” pro “faenero” et “pigneror” pro “pignero” et alia istiusmodi pleraque, quae, proinde ut in legendo fuerint obvia, notabuntur.
13. The retort which the philosopher Diogenes made, when he was challenged by a logician with an impudent sophistry. AT Athens during the Saturnalia we engaged in a pleasant and improving diversion of this kind: when a number of us who were interested in the same study had met at the time of the bath, we discussed the catch questions which are called “sophisms,” and each one of us cast them before the company in his turn, like knuckle-bones or dice. The prize for solving a problem, or the penalty for failing to understand it, was a single sestertius. From the money thus collected, as if it had been won at dice, a little dinner was provided for all of us who had taken part in the game. Now the sophisms were somewhat as follows, although they cannot be expressed very elegantly in Latin, or even without clumsiness: “What snow is, that hail is not; but snow is white, therefore hail is not white.” A somewhat similar one is this: “What man is, that a horse is not; man is an animal, therefore a horse is not an animal.” The one who was called upon by the throw of the dice to solve and refute the sophistry was expected to tell in what part of the proposition and in what word the fallacy consisted, and what ought not to be granted and conceded; if he did not succeed, he was fined one sestertius. The fine contributed to the dinner. I must tell you how wittily Diogenes paid back a sophism of that kind which I have mentioned above, proposed with insulting intent by a logician of the Platonic school. For when the logician had asked: “You are not what I am, are you?” and Diogenes had admitted it, he added: “But I am a man.” And when Diogenes had assented to that also and the logician had concluded: “Then you are not a man,” Diogenes retorted: “That is a lie, but if you want it to be true, begin your proposition with me.”
13. Quali talione Diogenes philosophus usus sit, pertemptatus a dialectico quodamquodain sophismatiosophisinatio inpudentiitpudenti. SATURNALIBUS Athenis alea quadam festiva et honesta lusitabamus huiuscemodi: ubi conveneramus conplusculi eiusdem studii homines ad lavandi tempus, captiones quae “sophismata” appellantur mente agitabamus easque, quasi talos aut tesserulas, in medium vice sua quisque iaciebamus. Captionis solutae aut parum intellectae praemium poenave erat nummus unus sestertius. Hoc aere conlecto, quasi manuario, cenula curabatur omnibus qui eum lusum luseramus. Erant autem captiones ad hoc fere exemplum, tametsi Latina oratione non satis scite ac paene etiam inlepide exponuntur: “Quod nix est, hoc grando non est; nix autem alba est: grando igitur alba non est.” Item aliud non dissimile: “Quod homo est, non est hoc equus; homo autem animal est: equus igitur animal non est.” Dicere ergo debebat qui ad sophisma diluendum ac refellendum ritu aleatorio vocatus erat, in qua parte quoque in verbo captio foret, quid dari concedique non oporteret; nisi dixerat, nummo singulo multabatur. Ea multa cenam iuvabat. Libet autem dicere quam facete Diogenes sophisma id genus, quod supra dixi, a quodam dialectico ex Platonis diatriba per contumeliam propositum, remuneratus sit. Nam cum ita rogasset dialecticus: “Quod ego sum, id tu non es?” et Diogenes adnuisset, atque ille addidisset: “Homo autem ego sum,” cum id quoque adsensus esset, contra dialecticus ita conclusisset: “Homo igitur tu non es,” “Hoc quidem,” inquit Diogenes, “falsum est, et si verum fieri vis, a me incipe.”
14. What the number is which is called hemiolios and what epitritos; and that our countrymen have not rashly ventured to translate those words into Latin. CERTAIN numerical figures which the Greeks call by definite terms have no corresponding names in Latin. But those who have written in Latin about numbers have used the Greek expressions and have hesitated to make up Latin equivalents, since that would be absurd. For what name could one give to a number which is said to be hemiolios or epitritos? But hemiolios is a number which contains in itself some other whole number and its half, as three compared with two, fifteen with ten, thirty with twenty; epitritos is a number which contains another whole number and its third part, as four compared with three, twelve with nine, forty with thirty. It does not seem out of place to note and to remember these numerical terms; for unless they are understood, some of the most subtle calculations recorded in the writings of the philosophers cannot be comprehended.
14. Quid sit numerus “hemiolios,” quid “epitritos”; et quod vocabula ista non facile nostri ausi sunt convertere in linguam Latinam. FIGURAE quaedam numerorum, quas Graeci certis nominibus appellant, vocabula in lingua Latina non habent. Sed qui de numeris Latine scripserunt Graeca ipsa dixerunt, fingere autem nostra, quoniam id absurde futurum erat, noluerunt. Quale enim fieri nomen posset “hemiolio” numero aut “epitrito”? Est autem “hemiolios” qui numerum aliquem totum in sese habet dimidiumque eius, ut tres ad duo, quindecim ad decem, triginta ad viginti; “epitritos” est qui habet totum aliquem numerum et eiusdem partem tertiam, ut quattuor ad tres, duodecim ad novem, quadraginta ad triginta. Haec autem notare meminisseque non esse abs re visum est, quoniam vocabula ista numerorum nisi intelleguntur, rationes quaedam subtilissimae in libris philosophorum scriptae percipi non queunt.
15. That Marcus Varro in heroic verse noted a matter demanding very minute and careful observation. IN the long lines called hexameters, and likewise in senarii, students of metric have observed that the first two feet, and also the last two, may consist each of a single part of speech, but that those between may not, but are always formed of words which are either divided, or combined and run together. Varro in his book On the Arts wrote that he had observed in hexameter verse that the fifth half-foot always ends a word, and that the first five half-feet are of equally great importance in making a verse with the following seven; and he argues that this happens in accordance with a certain geometrical ratio.
15. Quod M. Varro in herois versibus observaverit rem nimis anxiae et curiosae observationis. IN longis versibus qui “hexametri” vocantur, item in senariis, animadverterunt metrici primos duos pedes, item extremos duos, habere singulos posse integras partes orationis, medios haut umquam posse, sed constare eos semper ex verbis aut divisis aut mixtis atque confusis. M. etiam Varro in libris disciplinarumDisciplinarurm scripsit, observasse sese in versu hexametro, quod omnimodo quintus semipes verbum finiret et quod priores quinque semipedes aeque magnam vim haberent in efficiendo versu atque alii posteriores septem, idque ipsum ratione quadam geometrica fieri disserit.