1. The reply of a certain philosopher, when he was asked why he turned pale in a storm at sea. WE were sailing from Cassiopa to Brundisium over the Ionian sea, violent, vast and storm-tossed. During almost the whole of the night which followed our first day a fierce side-wind blew, which had filled our ship with water. Then afterwards, while we were all still lamenting, and working hard at the pumps, day at last dawned. But there was no less danger and no slackening of the violence of the wind; on the contrary, more frequent whirlwinds, a black sky, masses of fog, and a kind of fearful cloud-forms, which they called typhones, or “typhoons,” seemed to hang over and threaten us, ready to overwhelm the ship. In our company was an eminent philosopher of the Stoic sect, whom I had known at Athens as a man of no slight importance, holding the young men who were his pupils under very good control. In the midst of the great dangers of that time and that tumult of sea and sky I looked for him, desiring to know in what state of mind he was and whether he was unterrified and courageous. And then I beheld the man frightened and ghastly pale, not indeed uttering any lamentations, as all the rest were doing, nor any outcries of that kind, but in his loss of colour and distracted expression not differing much from the others. But when the sky cleared, the sea grew calm, and the heat of danger cooled, then the Stoic was approached by a rich Greek from Asia, a man of elegant apparel, as we saw, and with an abundance of baggage and many attendants, while he himself showed signs of a luxurious person and disposition. This man, in a bantering tone, said: “What does this mean, Sir philosopher, that when we were in danger you were afraid and turned pale, while I neither feared nor changed colour?” And the philosopher, after hesitating for a moment about the propriety of answering him, said: “If in such a terrible storm I did show a little fear, you are not worthy to be told the reason for it. But, if you please, the famous Aristippus, the pupil of Socrates, shall answer for me, who on being asked on a similar occasion by a man much like you why he feared, though a philosopher, while his questioner on the contrary had no fear, replied that they had not the same motives, for his questioner need not be very anxious about the life of a worthless coxcomb, but he himself feared for the life of an Aristippus.” With these words then the Stoic rid himself of the rich Asiatic. But later, when we were approaching Brundisium and sea and sky were calm, I asked him what the reason for his fear was, which he had refused to reveal to the man who had improperly addressed him. And he quietly and courteously replied: “Since you are desirous of knowing, hear what our forefathers, the founders of the Stoic sect, thought about that brief but inevitable and natural fear, or rather,” said he, “read it, for if you read it, you will be the more ready to believe it and you will remember it better.” Thereupon before my eyes he drew from his little bag the fifth book of the Discourses of the philosopher Epictetus, which, as arranged by Arrian, undoubtedly agree with the writings of Zeno and Chrysippus. In that book I read this statement, which of course was written in Greek: “The mental visions, which the philosophers call fantasi/ai or 'phantasies,' by which the mind of man on the very first appearance of an object is impelled to the perception of the object, are neither voluntary nor controlled by the will, but through a certain power of their own they force their recognition upon men; but the expressions of assent, which they call sugkataqe/seis, by which these visions are recognized, are voluntary and subject to man's will. Therefore when some terrifying sound, either from heaven or from a falling building or as a sudden announcement of some danger, or anything else of that kind occurs, even the mind of a wise man must necessarily be disturbed, must shrink and feel alarm, not from a preconceived idea of any danger, but from certain swift and unexpected attacks which forestall the power of the mind and of reason. Presently, however, the wise man does not approve ' such phantasies,' that is to say, such terrifying mental visions (to quote the Greek, 'he does not consent to them nor confirm them'), but he rejects and scorns them, nor does he see in them anything that ought to excite fear. And they say that there is this difference between the mind of a foolish man and that of a wise man, that the foolish man thinks that such ' visions ' are in fact as dreadful and terrifying as they appear at the original impact of them on his mind, and by his assent he approves of such ideas as if they were rightly to be feared, and 'confirms' them; for prosepidoca/zei is the word which the Stoics use in their discourses on the subject. But the wise man, after being affected for a short time and slightly in his colour and expression, 'does not assent,' but retains the steadfastness and strength of the opinion which he has always had about visions of this kind, namely that they are in no wise to be feared but excite terror by a false appearance and vain alarms.” That these were the opinions and utterances of Epictetus the philosopher in accordance with the beliefs of the Stoics I read in that book which I have mentioned, and I thought that they ought to be recorded for this reason, that when things of the kind which I have named chance to occur, we may not think that to fear for a time and, as it were, turn white is the mark of a foolish and weak man, but in that brief but natural impulse we yield rather to human weakness than because we believe that those things are what they seem.
1. Responsio cuiusdam philosophi, interrogati quam ob causam maris tempestate palluerit. NAVIGABAMUS a Cassiopa Brundisium mare Ionium violentum et vastum et iactabundum. Nox deinde quae diem primum secuta est, in ea fere tota ventus a latere saeviens navem undis compleverat. Tum postea, complorantibus nostris omnibus atque in sentina satis agentibus, dies quidem tandem inluxit. Sed nihil de periculo neque de saevitia venti remissum, quin turbines etiam crebriores et caelum atrum et fumigantes globi et figurae quaedam nubium metuendae quos “typhonas” vocabant, inpendere inminereque ac depressurae navem videbantur. In eadem fuit philosophus in disciplina Stoica celebratus, quem ego A the nis cognoveram non parva virum auctoritate satisque attente discipulos iuvenes continentem. Eum tunc in tantis periculis inque illo tumultu caeli marisque requirebam oculis, scire cupiens quonam statu animi et an interritus intrepidusque esset. Atque ibi hominem conspicimus pavidum et expallidum, ploratus quidem nullos, sicuti ceteri omnes, nec ullas eiusmodihuiusmodi voces cientem, sed coloris et voltus turbatione non multum a ceteris differenten. At ubi caelum enituit et deferbuit mare et ardor ille periculi deflagravit, accedit ad Stoicum Graecus quispiam dives ex Asia, magno, ut videbamus, cultu paratuque rerum et familiae, atque ipse erat multis corporis animique deliciis affluens. Is quasi inludens: “Quid hoc,” inquit, “est, o philosophe, quod, cum in periculis essemus, timuisti tu et palluisti? Ego neque timui neque pallui.” Et philosophus aliquantum cunctatus an respondere ei conveniret, “Si quid ego,” inquit. “in tanta violentia tempestatum videor paulum pavefactus, non tu istius rei ratione audienda dignus es.” “Set tibi sane Aristippus, ille Socratis discipulus, pro me responderit, qui in simili tempore a simillimo tui homine interrogatus quare philosophus timeret, cum ille contra nihil metueret, non eandem esse causam sibi atque illi respondit, quoniam is quidem esset non magnopere sollicitus pro anima nequissimi nebulonis, ipsum autem pro Aristippi anima timere.” His tunc verbis Stoicus divitem ilium Asiaticum a sese molitus est. Sed postea, cum Brundisium adventaremus malaciaque esset venti ac maris, percontatus eum sum quaenam illa ratio esset pavoris sui, quam dicere ei supersedisset a quo fuerat non satis digne compellatus? Atque ille mihi placide et comiter: “Quoniam,” inquit, “audiendi cupidus es, audi quid super isto brevi quidem, sed necessario et naturali pavore maiores nostri, conditores sectae Stoicae, senserint, vel potius,” inquit, “lege; nam et facilius credideris, si legas, et memineris magis.” Atque ibi coram ex sarcinula sua librum protulit Epicteti philosophi quintum Διαλέξεων, quas ab Arriano digestas congruere scriptis ζήνωνος et Chrysippi non dubium est. In eo libro Graeca scilicet oratione scriptam hanc sententiam legimus: “Visa animi, quas φαντασίας philosophi appellant, quibus mens hominis prima statim specie accidentis ad animum rei pellitur, non voluntatis sunt neque arbitrariae, sed vi quadam sua inferunt sese hominibus noscitanda;” “probationes autem, quas συγκαταφέσεις vocant, quibus eadem visa noscuntur, voluntariae sunt fiuntque hominum arbitratu.” “Propterea cum sonus aliquis formidabilis aut caelo aut ex ruina aut repentinus nescio cuius periculi nuntius vel quid aliud est eiusmodi factum, sapientis quoque animum paulisper moveri et contrahi et pallescere necessum est, non opinione alicuius mali praecepta, sed quibusdam motibus rapidis et inconsultis, officium mentis atque rationis praevertentibus.” “Mox tamen ille sapiens ibidem τὰς τοιαύτας φαντασίας id est visa istaec animi sui terrifica, non adprobat, hoc est οὐ συγκαττατιθεται οὐδὲ προσεπιδοξάζει, sed abicit respuitque nec ei metuendum esse in his quicquam videtur.” “Atque hoc inter insipientis sapientisque animum differre dicunt, quod insipiens, qualia sibi esse primo animi sui pulsu visa sunt saeva et aspera, talia esse vero putat et eadem incepta, tamquam si iure metuenda sint, sua quoque adsensione adprobat καὶ προσεπιδοξάζει hoc enim verbo Stoici, cum super istaistare disserunt, utuntur.” “Sapiens autem, cum breviter et strictim colore atque vultu motus est, οὐ συγκατατίθεαι, sed statum vigoremque sententiae suae retinet quam de huiuscemodi visis semper habuit, ut de minime metuendis, sed fronte falsa et formidineformidinie inani territantibus.” Haec Epictetum philosophum ex decretis Stoicorum sensisse atque dixisse, in eo quo dixi libro legimus adnotandaque esse idcirco existimavimus, ut rebus forte id genus quibus dixi obortis pavescere sensim et quasi albescere, non insipientis esse hominis neque ignavi putemus et in eo tamen brevi motu naturali magis infirmitati cedamus quam quod esse ea qualia visa sunt censeamus.
2. That of the five senses of the body two in particular we share with beasts; and that pleasure which comes from hearing, sight and smell is base and reprehensible, but that which comes from taste and touch is the most shameful of all, since the last two are felt also by beasts, the others only by mankind. MEN have five senses, which the Greeks call ai)sqh/seis, by which mental or bodily pleasure is evidently sought: taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing. From all of these the enjoyment of any immoderate pleasure is regarded as base and reprehensible. But excessive pleasure from taste or touch in the opinion of philosophers is the basest of all things, and those in particular who have given themselves up to those two animal pleasures the Greeks call by terms of the gravest reproach either a)kratei=s or a)ko/lastoi; we call them either incontinences (incontinent) or intemperantes (intemperate); for if you should desire to have a closer translation of a)ko/lastoi, the equivalent will be too unusual. But those two pleasures of taste and touch, namely, gluttony and venery, are the only ones common to man with the lower animals, and therefore whoever is enslaved to these beastly pleasures is regarded as in the number of brutes and beasts; the remaining pleasures proceeding from the other three senses seem to be peculiar to man alone. I have added the words of Aristotle the philosopher on this subject, in order that the authority of that renowned and illustrious man might turn us from such shameful pleasures: “Why are they called incontinent who indulge to excess in the pleasures of taste and touch? For both those who are immoderate in venery and those who are immoderate in the enjoyment of food are such. But of the latter, some find this gratification in the tongue and others in the throat, and it was for that reason that Philoxenos prayed to have the throat of a crane. Is it because the pleasures derived from such sources are common to us with the other animals? And being thus common they are the most dishonourable and more than the other pleasures, or alone, objects of reproach, so that we censure a man who is addicted to them and call him incontinent and incorrigible because he is enslaved to the meanest of pleasures. Now, there being five senses, the other animals are gratified by the two which have been mentioned only, but from the others they either enjoy no pleasure at all, or they merely experience it incidentally.” Who, then, having any human modesty, would take pleasure in those two delights of venery and gluttony, which are common to man with the hog and the ass? Socrates indeed used to say that many men wish to live in order to eat and drink, but that he ate and drank in order to live. Hippocrates, moreover, a man of divine wisdom, believed of venery that it was a part of the horrible disease which our countrymen call comitialis, or “the election disease”; for these are his very words as they have come down to us: “that coition is a brief epilepsy.”
2. Ex quinque corporis sensibus duos esse cum beluis maxiem communes; quodque turpis et improba est voluptas quae ex auditu, visu odoratuque procedit, quae vero ex gustu tactuque est, rerum omium foedissima est, cum hae duae bestiarum etiam sint, reliquae hominum tantum. QUINQUE sunt hominum sensus, quos Graeci αἰσθήσεις appellant, per quos voluptas animo aut corpori quaeri videtur: gustus, tactus, odoratus, visus, auditus. Ex his omnibus quae inmodice voluptas capitur, ea turpis atque inprobainiproba existimatur. Sed enim quae nimia ex gustu atque tactu est, ea voluptas, sicuti sapientes viri censuerunt, omnium rerum foedissima est, eosque maxime qui duabus istis beluinis voluptatibus sese dediderunt, gravissimi vitii vocabulis Graeci appellant vel ἀκρατεῖς vel ἀκολάστους; nos eos vel “incontinentes” dicimus vel “intemperantes”: ἀκολάστους enim, si interpretari coactius velis, nimis id verbum insolens erit. Istae autem voluptates duae gustus atque tactus, id est libidines in cibos atque in Venerem prodigae, solae sunt hominibus communes cum beluis et idcirco in pecudum ferorumque animalium numero habetur, quisquis est his ferinis voluptatibus praevinctus; ceterae ex tribus aliis sensibus proficiscentes hominum esse tantum propriae videntur. Verba super hac re Aristotelis philosophi adscripsi, ut vel auctoritas clari atque incluti viri tam infamibus nos voluptatibus deterreret: Διὰ τί οἱ κατὰ τὴν τῆς ἁφῆς ἢ γεύσεως ἡδονὴν γιγνομένην, ἂν ὑπερβάλλωσιν, ἀκρατεῖς λέγονται; οἵ τε γὰρ περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια ἀκόλαστοι τοιοῦτοι, οἵ τε περὶ τὰς τῆς τροφῆς ἀπολαύσεις· τῶν δὲ κατὰ τὴν τροφήν, ἀπʼ ἐνίων μὲν ἐν τῇ γλώττῃ τὸ ἡδύ, ἀπʼ ἐνίων δὲ ἐν τῷ λάρυγγι, διὸ καὶ Φιλόξενος γεράνου λάρυγγα εὔχετο ἔχειν· ἢ διὰ τὸ τὰς ἀπὸ τούτων γιγνομένας ἡδονὰς κοινὰς εἶναι ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζώοις; ἅτε οὐσῶν κοινῶν, ἀτιμόταταί εἰσι καὶ μάλιστα ἢ μόναι ἐπονείδιστοι, ὡς τὸν ὑπὸ τούτων ἡττώ- μενον ψέγομεν καὶ ἀκρατῆ καὶ ἀκόλαστον λέγομεν διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν χειρίστων ἡδονῶν ἡττᾶσθαι. οὐσῶν δὲ τῶν αἰσθήσεων πέντε, τὰ ἄλλα ζῶα ἀπὸ τῶν δύο μόνων τῶν προειρημένων ἥδεται, κατὰ δὲ τὰς ἄλλας ἢ ὅλως οὐχ ἥδεται ἢ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς τοῦτο πάσχει. Quis igitur habens aliquid humani pudoris voluptatibus istis duabus coeundi atque comedendi, quae sunt homini cum sue atque asino communes, gaudeat? Socrates quidem dicebat multos homines propterea velle vivere, ut ederent et biberent, se bibere atque esse, ut viveret. Hippocrates autem, divina vir scientia, de coitu venerio ita existimabat, partem esse quandam morbi taeterrimi, quem nostri “comitialem” dixerunt; namque ipsius verba haec traduntur: τὴν συνουσίαν εἶναι μικρὰν ἐπιληψίαν.
3. That it is more disgraceful to be praised coldly than to be accused bitterly. FAVORINUS the philosopher used to say that it was more shameful to be praised faintly and coldly than to be censured violently and severely: “For,” said he, “the man who reviles and censures you is regarded as unjust and hostile towards you in proportion to the bitterness of his invective, and therefore he is usually not believed. But one who praises grudgingly and faintly seems to lack a theme; he is regarded as the friend of a man whom he would like to praise but as unable to find anything in him which he can justly commend.”
3. Quod turpius est frigide laudari quam acerbius vituperari. TURPIUS esse dicebat Favorinus philosophus exigue atque frigide laudari quam insectanter et graviter vituperari: “Quoniam,” inquit, “qui maledicit et vituperat, quanto id acerbius facit, tam maximo ille pro inimico et iniquo ducitur et plerumque propterea fidem non capit. Sed qui infecunde atque ieiune laudat destitui a causa videtur et amicus quidem creditur eius quem laudare vult, sed nihil posse reperire quod iurelure laudet.”
4. Why the bowels are loosened by sudden terror; also why fire provokes urine. THERE is a work of Aristotle, entitled Physical Questions, which is most delightful, and filled with choice knowledge of all kinds. In this book he inquires why it happens that those who are seized with sudden fear of some great catastrophe commonly suffer at once from looseness of the bowels. He also inquires why it happens that one who has stood for some time before a fire is overtaken with a desire to make water. And he says that the cause of the loosening and discharge of the bowels because of fear is due to the fact that all terror is cold producing, or yuxropoio/s, as he calls it, and that by the effect of that cold it drives and expels all the blood and heat from the surface of the skin and at the same time causes those who fear to grow pale, because the blood leaves the face. “Now this blood and heat,” he says, “being driven inwards, usually moves the bowels and stimulates them.” For the frequent urinating caused by nearness to a fire he gave this reason: “The fire dissolves the solid matter, as the sun does snow.”
4. Quamobrem venter repentino timore effluat; quare etiam ignis urinam lacessat. ARISTOTELIS libri sunt, qui Problemata Physica inscribuntur, lepidissimi et elegantiarum omnigenus referti. In his quaerit quam ob causam eveniat ut quibus invasit repentinus rei magnae timor, plerumque alvo statim cita fiant. Item quaerit cur accidat ut eum qui propter ignem diutius stetit libido urinae lacessat. Ac de alvo quidem inter timendum prona atque praecipiti causam esse dicit quod timor omnis sit algificus, quem ille appellat ψυχροποιόν, eaque vi frigoris sanguine caldoremque omnem de summa corporis cute cogat penitus et depellat faciatque simul ut qui timent, sanguine ex ore decedente, pallescant. “Is autem,” inquit, “sanguis et caldor in intuma coactus movet plerumque alvum et incitat.” De urina celebri, ex igni proximo facta, verba haec posuit: Τὸ δὲ πῦρ διαχαλᾷ τὸ πεπηγός, ὥσπρ ἥλιος τὴν χιόνα.
5. A statement from the works of Aristotle, that snow-water is a very bad thing to drink; and that ice is formed from snow. IN the hottest season of the year with some companions and friends of mine who were students of eloquence or of philosophy, I had withdrawn to the country-place of a rich friend at Tibur. There was with us a good man of the Peripatetic school, well trained and especially devoted to Aristotle. When we drank a good deal of water made of melted snow, he tried to restrain us and rather severely scolded us. He cited us the authority of famous physicians and in particular of the philosopher Aristotle, a man skilled in all human knowledge, who declared that snow-water was indeed helpful to grain and trees, but was a very unwholesome drink for human beings, and that it gradually produced wasting diseases in the body, which made their appearance only after a long time. This counsel he gave us repeatedly in a spirit of prudence and goodwill. But when the drinking of snow-water went on without interruption, from the library of Tibur, which at that time was in the temple of Hercules and was well supplied with books, he drew out a volume of Aristotle and brought it to us, saying: “At least believe the words of this wisest of men and cease to ruin your health.” In that book it was written that water from snow was very bad to drink, as was also that water which was more solidly and completely congealed, which the Greeks call kru/stallos, or “clear ice”; and the following reason was there given for this: “That when water is hardened by the cold air and congeals, it necessarily follows that evaporation takes place and that a kind of very thin vapour, so to speak, is forced from it and comes out of it. But its lightest part,” he said, “is that which is evaporated; what remains is heavier and less clean and wholesome, and this part, beaten upon by the throbbing of the air, takes on the form and colour of white foam. But that some more wholesome part is forced out and evaporated from the snow is shown by the fact that it becomes less than it was before it congealed.” I have taken a few of Aristotle's own words from that book, and I quote them: “Why is the water made from snow or ice unwholesome? Because from all water that is frozen the lightest and thinnest part evaporates. And the proof of this is that when it melts after being frozen, its volume is less than before. But since the most wholesome part is gone, it necessarily follows that what is left is less wholesome.” After I read this, we decided to pay honour to the learned Aristotle. And so I for my part immediately declared war upon snow and swore hatred against it,1 while the others made truces with it on various terms.
5. Ex Aristotelis libris sumptum quod nivis aqua potui pessima sit; et quod ex nive crystallus concreatur. IN Tiburte rus concesseramus hominis amici divitis aestate anni flagrantissima ego et quidam alii aequales et familiares mei, eloquentiae aut philosophiae sectatores. Erat nobiscum vir bonus ex peripatetica disciplina, bene doctus et Aristotelis unice studiosissimus. Is nos aquam multam ex diluta nive bibentes coercebat severiusque increpabat. Adhibebat nobis auctoritates nobilium medicorum et cumprimis Aristotelis philosophi, rei omnis humanae peritissimi, qui aquam nivalem frugibus sane et arboribus fecundam diceret, sed hominibus potu nimio insalubrem esse tabemque et morbos sensim atque in diem longam visceribus inseminare. Haec quidem ille ad nos prudenter et benivole et adsidue dictitabat. Sed cum bibendae nivis pausa fieret nulla, profit e bibliotheca Tiburti, quae tunc in Herculis templo satis commode instructa libris erat, Aristotelis librum eumque ad nos adfert et “Huius saltem,” inquit, “sapientissimi viri verbis credite ac desinite valitudinem vestram profligare.” In eo libro scriptum fuit deterrimam esse potu aquam e nive itemque solidius latiusque concretam esse eam, quam κρύσταλλον Graeci appellant; causaque ibi adscripta est huiuscemodi: “Quoniam, cum aqua frigore aeris duratur et coit, necessum est fieri evaporationem et quandam quasi auram tenuissimam exprimi ex ea et emanare.” “Id autem,” inquit, “in ea levissimum est quod evaporatur; manet autem quod est gravius et sordidius et insalubrius, atque id, pulsu aeris verberatum, in modum coloremque spumae candidae oritur.” “Sed aliquantum quod est salubrius difflari atque evaporari ex nive indicium illud est, quod minor fit illo, quod ante fuerat quam concresceret.” Verba ipsa Aristotelis ex eo libro pauca sumpsi et adscripsi: Διὰ τί τὰ ἀπὸ χιόνος καὶ κρυστάλλων ὕδατα φαὐλά ἐστιν; ὅτι παντὸς ὕδατος πηγνυμένου τὸ λεπτότατον καὶ κουφότατον ἐξατμίζει. σημεῖον δέ, ὅτι ἔλαττον γίνεται ἢ πρότερον, ὅταν τακῇ παγέν. ἀπεληλυθότος οὖν τοῦ ὑγιεινοτάτου, ἀνάγκη ἀεί, τὸ καταλειμόμενον χεῖρον εἶναι. Hoc ubi legimus, placuit honorem doctissimo viro haberi Aristoteli. Atque ita postea ego bellum et odium nivi indixi, alii indutias cum ea varie factitabant.
6. That shame drives the blood outward, while fear checks it. IN the Problems of the philosopher Aristotle is the following passage: “Why do men who are ashamed turn red and those who fear grow pale; although these emotions are similar? Because the blood of those who feel shame flows from the heart to all parts of the body, and therefore comes to the surface; but the blood of those who fear rushes to the heart, and consequently leaves all the other parts of the body.” When I had read this at Athens with our friend Taurus and had asked him what he thought about that reason which had been assigned, he answered: “He has told us properly and truly what happens when the blood is diffused or concentrated, but he has not told us why this takes place. For the question may still be asked why it is that shame diffuses the blood and fear contracts it, when shame is a kind of fear and is defined by the philosophers as 'the fear of just censure.' For they say: ai)sxu/nh e)sti\n fo/bos dikai/ou yo/gou.”
6. Quod pudor sanguinem ad extera diffundit, timor vero contrahit. In Problematis Aristotelis philosophi ita scriptum est: Διὰ τί οἱ μὲν αἰσχυνόμενοι ἐρυθριῶσιν, οἱ δὲ φοβούμενοι ὠχριῶσιν, παραπλησίων τῶν παθῶν ὄντων; ὅτι τῶν μὲν αἰσχυνομένων διαχεῖται τὸ αἷμα ἐκ τῆς καρδίας εἰς ἅπαντα τὰ μέρη τοῦ σώματος, ὥστε ἐπιπολάζειν· τοῖς δὲ φοβηθεῖσιν συντρέχει εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ὥστε ἐκλείπειν ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων μερῶν. Hoc ego Athenis cum Tauro nostro legissem percontatusque essem quid de ratione ista reddita sentiret, “Dixit quidem,” inquit, “probe et vere quid accideret diffuso sanguine aut contracto, sed cur ita fieret non dixit.” “Adhuc enim quaeri potest quam ob causam pudor sanguinem diffundat, timor contrahat, cum sit pudor species timoris atque ita definiatur: ‘timor iustae reprehensionis.’ Ita enim philosophi definiunt: αἰσχύνη ἐστὶν φόβος δικαίου ψόγου.”
7. The meaning of obesus and of some other early words. THE poet Julius Paulus, a worthy man, very learned in early history and letters, inherited a small estate in the Vatican district. He often invited us there to visit him and entertained us very pleasantly and generously with vegetables and fruits. And so one mild day in autumn, when Julius Celsinus and I had dined with him, and after hearing the Alcestis of Laevius read at his table were returning to the city just before sunset, we were ruminating on the rhetorical figures and the new or striking use of words in that poem of Laevius', and as each word occurred that was worthy of notice with reference to its future use by ourselves, we committed it to memory. Now the passages which then came to mind were of this sort:Of chest and body wasted (obeso) everywhere,Of mind devoid of sense and slow of pace,With age o'ercome.Here we noticed that obesus is used, rather in its proper than in its common signification, to mean slender and lean; for the vulgar use obesus, a)ku/rws (improperly), or kata\ a)nti/frasin (by contraries), for uber (bulky) and pinguis (fat). We also observed that he spoke of an extinct race as oblittera instead of oblitterata, and that he characterized enemies who broke treaties as foedifragi, not foederifragi; that he called the blushing Aurora pudoricolor, or “shame-coloured” and Memnon, nocticolor, or “night-coloured”; also that he used forte for “hesitatingly,” and said silenta loca, or “silent places,” from the verb sileo; further, that he used pulverulenta for “dusty” and pestilenta for “pestilent,” the genitive case instead of the ablative with careo; magno impete, or “mighty onset,” instead of impetu; that he used fortescere for fortem fieri, or “become brave,” dolentia for dolor, or “sorrow,” avens for libens, or “desirous”; that he spoke of curae intolerantes, or “unendurable cares,” instead of intolerandae, manciolae tenellae, or “tender hands,” instead of manus, and quis tam siliceo for “who is of so flinty a heart?” He also says fiere inpendio infit, meaningfieri inpense incipit, or “the expense begins to be great,” and he used accipetret for laceret, or “rends.” We entertained ourselves on our way with these notes on Laevius' diction. But others we passed over as too poetic and unsuited to use in prose; for example, when he calls Nestor trisaeclisenex, or “an old man who had lived three generations” and dulciorelocus isle, or “that sweet-mouthed speaker,” when he calls great swelling waves multigruma, or “great-hillocked,” and says that rivers congealed by the cold have an onychinum tegimen, or “an onyx covering”; also his many humorous multiple compounds, as when he calls his detractors subductisupercilicarptores, or “carpers with raised eye-brows.”
7. Quid sit “obesum”; nonnullaque alia prisca vocabula. IN agro Vaticano Iulius Paulus poeta, vir bonus et rerum litterarumque veterum inpense doctus, herediolum tenue possidebat. Eo saepe nos ad sese vocabat et olusculis pomisque satis comiter copioseque invitabat. Atque ita molli quodam tempestatis autumnae die ego et Iulius Celsinus, cum ad eum cenassemus et apud mensam eius audissemus legi Laevi Alcestin rediremusque in urbem sole iam fere occiduo, figuras habitusque verborum nove aut insigniter dictorum in Laeviano illo carmine ruminabamur et, ut quaeque vox indidem digna animadverti subvenerat, qua nos quoque possemus uti, memoriae mandabamus. Erant autem verba quae tunc suppetebant, huiuscemodi:Corpore (inquit) pectoreque undique obeso acMente exsensa tardigenucloSenio obpressum. “Obesum” hic notavimus proprie magis, quam usitate dictum pro exili atque gracilento; vulgus enim ἀκύρως vel κατὰ ἀντίφρασιν “obesum” pro “uberi” atque “pingui” dicit. Item notavimusnotavimnus quod “oblitteram” gentem pro “oblitterata” dixit; item quod hostis qui foedera frangerent, “foedifragos,” non “foederifragos” dixit; item, quod rubentem auroram “pudoricolorem” appellavit et Memnonem “nocticolorem”; item, quod “forte” dubitanter et ab eo quod est “sileo,” “silenta loca” dixit et “pulverulenta” et “pestilenta” et quod “carendum tui est” pro “te” quodque “magno impete” pro “impetu”; item quod “fortescere” posuit pro “fortem fieri” quodque “dolentiam” pro “dolore” et “avens” pro “libens”; item “curis intolerantibus” pro “intolerandis,” quodque “manciolis,” inquit, “tenellis” pro “manibus” et “quis tam siliceo?” Item “fiere,” inquit, “inpendio infit,” id est “fieri inpense incipit”; quodque “accipitret” posuit pro “laceret.” His nos inter viam verborum Laevianorum adnotatiunculis oblectabamus. Cetera enim, quae videbantur nimium poetica, ex prosae orationis usu alieniora praetermisimus; veluti fuit quod de Nestore ait “trisaeclisenex” et “dulciorelocus iste,” quod de tumidis magnisque fluctibus inquit “multigrumis” et flumina gelu concreta “tegimine” esse “onychino” dixit, et quae multiplica ludens conposuit, quale illud est, quod vituperones suos “subductisupercilicarptores” appellavit.
8. An inquiry whether harena, caelum and triticum are found in the plural; also whether quadrigae, inimicitiae, and some other words, occur in the singular. WHEN I was a young man at Rome, before I went to Athens, I often paid a visit to Cornelius Fronto, when I had leisure from my masters and my lectures, and enjoyed his refined conversations, which abounded besides in excellent information. Whenever I saw him and heard him speak, I almost never failed to come away improved and better informed. An example is the following little talk of his, held one day on a trivial subject, it is true, but yet not without importance for the study of the Latin language. For when an intimate friend of his, a learned man and an eminent poet of the day, said that he had been cured of dropsy by the use of hot sand (calentes harenae), thereupon Fronto in jesting fashion said: "You are indeed freed of your complaint, but not of the complaint of improper language. For Gaius Caesar, the famous life-dictator and father-in-law of Gnaeus Pompeius, from whom the family and the name of the Caesars are derived, a man of wonderful talent, surpassing all others of his time in the purity of his diction, in the work On Analogy, which he dedicated to Marcus Cicero, wrote that harenae is an improper term, since harena ought never to be used in the plural, any more than caelum (heaven) and triticum (wheat). But on the other hand he thinks that quadrigae, even though it be a single chariot, that is, one team of four horses yoked together, ought always to be used in the plural number, like arma (arms), moenia (walls), comitia (election) and inimicitiae (hostility)—unless, my finest of poets, you have anything to say in reply, to excuse yourself and show that you have not made an error." “With regard to caelum,” said the poet,and triticum I do not deny that they ought always to be used in the singular, nor with regard to arma, moenia and comitia, that their use ought to be confined to the plural; but we will inquire rather about inimicitiae and quadigae. And perhaps in the case of quadrigae I shall yield to the authority of the early writers: but what reason is there why Caesar should think that inimicitia was not used by the ancients, as were inscientia (ignorance) and impotentia (impotence) and iniuria (injury), and ought not to be used by us, when Plautus, that glory of the Latin tongue, even used delicia in the singular number instead of deliciae? For he says:O my delight, my darling (delicia).Furthermore Quintus Ennius, in that most famous book of his, said:Such is my habit; plain upon my browFriendship I bear and enmity (inmicitiam) to see.But pray, who else has written or said that harenae is not good Latin? And therefore I beg of you, if Gaius Caesar's book is accessible, that you have it brought, in order that you may judge with how much confidence he makes this statement. At the time, the first book On Analogy being brought, I committed to memory these few words from it; for, first asserting that neither caelum, triticum, nor harena admitted a plural meaning, Caesar said: “Do you not think that it happens from the nature of these things that we say ' one land' and 'several lands,' 'city' and 'cities,' 'command' and 'commands,' and that we cannot convert quadrigae into the form of a singular noun or harena into a plural?” When these words had been read, Fronto said to the poet: “Does it not seem to you that Gaius Caesar has decided against you as to the status of this word with sufficient clearness and force?” Thereupon the poet, greatly impressed by the authority of the book, said: “If it were lawful to appeal from Caesar, I would now appeal from this book of his. But since he has neglected to give the reason for his opinion, I now ask you to tell on what ground you think it an error to say quadriga and harenae.” Then Fronto replied as follows: “Quadrigae is always confined to the plural number, even though there be only one horse, since four horses yoked together are called quadrigae, from quadriugae, and certainly a term which designates many horses ought not to be included under the oneness expressed by the singular number. The same reasoning must be applied to harena, but in a different form; for since harena, though used in the singular number, nevertheless indicates the multiplicity and abundance of the minute parts of which it consists, harenae seems to be an ignorant and improper usage, as if the word needed a plural form,. when its collective nature makes it natural for it to be used in the singular. But,” said he, “I have said this, not in order to give my authority and signature to this opinion and rule, but that I might not leave the view of that learned man, Caesar, unsupported. For while caelum, or 'sky,' is always used in the singular, but mare, or 'sea,' and terra, or 'land,' not always, and pulvis, or 'dust,' ventus, or 'wind,' and fumus, or 'smoke,' not always, why did the early writers sometimes use indutiae, or 'truce,' and caerimoniae, or 'ceremony,' in the singular, but never feriae, or 'holiday,' nundinae, or 'market day,' inferiae, or 'offering to the dead,' and exsequiae, or ' obsequies'? Why may mel, or 'honey,' and vinum, or 'wine,' and other words of that kind, be used in the plural, but not lacte (milk)? All these questions, I say, cannot be investigated, unravelled, and thrashed out by men of affairs in so busy a city; indeed, I see that you have been delayed even by these matters of which I have spoken, being intent, I suppose, on some business. So go now and inquire, when you chance to have leisure, whether any orator or poet, provided he be of that earlier band—that is to say, any classical or authoritative writer, not one of the common herd—has used quadriga or harenae.” Now Fronto asked us to look up these words, I think, not because he thought that they were to be found in any books of the early writers, but to rouse in us an interest in reading for the purpose of hunting down rare words. The one, then, which seemed the rarest, quadriga, I found used in the singular number in that book of Marcus Varro's Satires which is entitled Ecdemeticus. But I sought with less interest for an example of the plural harenae, because, except Gaius Caesar, no one among learned men has used that form, so far as I can recall.
8. Quaestio an “harena.” “caelum,” “triticum” pluralia inveniantur; atque inibi de “quadrigis,” “inimicitiis,” nonnullis praeterea vocabulis, an singulari numero comperiantur. ADULESCENTULUS Romae, priusquam Athenas concederern, quando erat a magistris auditionibusque obeundis otium, ad Frontonem Cornelium visendi gratia pergebampergelam sermonibusque eius purissimis bonarumque doctrinarum plenis fruebar. Nec umquam factum est, quotiens eum vidimus loquentemque audivimus, quin rediremus fere cultiores doctioresque. Veluti fuit illa quodam die sermocinatio illius, levi quidem de re, sed a Latinae tamen linguae studio non abhorrens. Nam, cum quispiam familiaris eius, bene eruditus homo et tum poeta inlustris, liberatum esse se aquae intercutis morbo diceret, quod “harenis calentibus” esset usus, tum adludens Fronto: “Morbo quidem,” inquit, “cares, sed verbi vitio non cares. Gaius enim Caesar, ille perpetuus dictator, Cn. Pompei socer, a quo familia et appellatio Caesarum deinceps propagata est, vir ingenii praecellentis, sermonis praeter alios suae aetatis castissimi, in libris, quos ad M. Ciceronem De Analogia conscripsit, ‘harenas’ vitiose dici existimat, quod ‘harena’ numquam multitudinis numero appellanda sit, sicuti neque ‘caelum’ neque ‘triticum’;” “contra autem ‘quadrigas,’ etiamsi currus unus, equorum quattuor iunctorum agmen unum sit, plurativo semper numero dicendas putat, sicut ‘armaarina’ et ‘moenia’ et ‘comitia’ et ‘inimicitias’—nisi quid contra ea dicis, poetarum pulcherrime, quo et te purges et non esse id vitium demonstres.” “De ‘caelo,’” inquit ille, “et ‘tritico’ non infitias eo, quin singulo semper numero dicenda sint, neque de ‘armis’ et ‘moenibus’ et ‘comitiis,’ quin figurafigure multitudinis perpetua censeantur;” “videbimus autem potius de ‘inimicitiis’ et ‘quadrigis.’ Ac fortassean de ‘quadrigis’ veterum auctoritati concessero, ‘inimicitiam’ tamen, sicuti ‘inscientiam’ et ‘inpotentiam’ et ‘iniuriam,’ quae ratio est quamobrem C. Caesar vel dictam esse a veteribus vel dicendam a nobis non putat, quando Plautus, linguae Latinae decus, ‘deliciam.’ quoque ἐνικῶς dixerit pro ‘deliciis’?Méa (inquit) voluptas, méa delicia.‘Inimicitiam’ autem Q. Ennius in illo memoratissimo libro dixit:Eo ego (inquit) ingenio natus sum;Amicitiam atque inimicitiaminimicitiamr in frontem promptam gero.Sed enim ‘harenas’ parum Latine dici, quis, oro te, alius aut scripsit aut dixit? Ac propterea peto ut, si Gai Caesaris liber prae manibus est, promi iubeas, ut quam confidenter hoc indicat aestimari a te possit.” Tunc, prolato libro De Analogia primo, verba haec ex eo pauca memoriae mandavi. Nam, cum supra dixisset, neque “caelum” neque “triticum” neque “harenamlarenam” multitudinis significationem pati, “Num tu,” inquit, “harum rerum natura accidere arbitraris quod ‘unam terram’ ac ‘plures terras’ et ‘urbem’ et ‘urbes’ et ‘imperium’ et ‘imperia’ dicamus, neque ‘quadrigas’ in unam nominis figuram redigere neque ‘harenam’ multitudinis appellatione convertere possimus?” His deinde verbis lectis ibi Fronto ad illum poetam: “Videturne tibi,” inquit, “C. Caesar de statu verbi contra te satis aperte satisque constanter pronuntiasse?” Tunc permotus auctoritate libri poeta: “Si a Caesare,” inquit, “ius provocandi foret, ego nunc ab hoc Caesaris libro provocassem. Sed quoniam ipse rationem sententiae suae reddere supersedit, nos te nunc rogamus ut dicas quam esse causam vitii putes et in ‘quadriga’ dicenda et in ‘harenis.’” Tum Fronto ita respondit: “‘Quadrigae’ semper, etsi multiiugae non sunt, multitudinis tamen numero tenentur, quoniam quattuor simul equi iuncti ‘quadrigae,’ quasi ‘quadriiugae,’ vocantur, neque debet prorsus appellatio equorum plurium includi in singularis numeri unitatem.” “Eandemque rationem ‘harenae’ habendam, sed in specie dispari; nam cum ‘harena’ singulari in numero dicta multitudinem tamen et copiam significet minimarum, ex quibus constat, partium, indocte et inscite ‘harenae’ dici videntur, tamquam id vocabulum indigeat numeri amplitudine, cum ei singulariter dicto ingenita sit naturalis sui multitudo. Sed haec ego,” inquit, “dixi, non ut huius sententiae legisque fundus subscriptorque fierem, sed ut ne Caesaris, viri docti, opinionem ἀπαραμύθητον destituerem. Nam cum ‘caelum’ semper ἑνικῶς dicatur,” “‘mare’ et ‘terra’ non semper, et ‘pulvis,’ ‘ventus’ et ‘fumus.’ non semper, cur‘indutias’ et ‘caerimonias’ scriptores veteres nonnumquam singulari numero appellaverunt, ‘ferias’ et ‘nundinas.’ et ‘inferias.’ et ‘exequias’ numquam? Cur ‘mel’ et ‘vinum’ atque id genus cetera numerum multitudinis capiunt, ‘lacte’ non capiat?” “Quaeri, inquam, ista omnia et enucleari et extundi ab hominibus negotiosis in civitate tam occupata non queunt. Quin his quoque ipsis quae iam dixi demoratos vos esse video, alicui, opinor, negotio destinatos.” “Ite ergo nunc et, quando forte erit otium, quaerite an ‘quadrigam’ et ‘harenas’ dixerit e cohorte illa dumtaxat antiquiore vel oratorum aliquis vel poetarum, id est classicus adsiduusque aliquis scriptor, non proletarius.” Haec quidem Fronto requirere nos iussit vocabula non ea re, opinor, quod scripta esse in ullis veterum libris existumaret, sed ut nobis studium lectitandi in quaerendis rarioribus verbis exerceret. Quod unum ergo rarissimum videbatur, invenimus “quadrigam” numero singulari dictam in libro Saturarum M. Varronis, qui inscriptus est Ecdemeticus. “Harenas” autem πληθυντικῶς dictas minore studio quaerimus, quia praeter C. Caesarem, quod equidem meminerim, nemo id doctorum hominum dedit.