9. The very neat reply of Antonius Julianus to certain Greeks at a banquet. A YOUNG man of equestrian rank from the land of Asia, gifted by nature, well off in manners and fortune, with a taste and talent for music, was celebrating the anniversary of the day on which he began life by giving a dinner to his friends and teachers in a little country place near the city. There had come with us then to that dinner the rhetorician Antonius Julianus, a public teacher of young men, who spoke in the Spanish manner, but was very eloquent, besides being well acquainted with our early literature. When there was an end of eating and drinking, and the time came for conversation, Julianus asked that the singers and lyre-players be produced, the most skilful of both sexes, whom he knew that the young man had at hand. And when the boys and girls were brought in, they sang in a most charming way several odes of Anacreon and Sappho, as well as some erotic elegies of more recent poets that were sweet and graceful. But we were especially pleased with some delightful verses of Anacreon, written in his old age, which I noted down, in order that sometimes the toil and worry of this task of mine might find relief in the sweetness of poetical compositions:Shaping the silver, Hephaestus,Make me no panoply, pray;What do I care for war's combats?Make me a drinking cup rather,Deep as you ever can make it;Carve on it no stars and no wains;What care I, pray, for the Pleiads,What for the star of Bootes?Make vines, and clusters upon them,Treading them Love and Bathyllus,Made of pure gold, with Lyaeus. Then several Greeks who were present at that dinner, men of refinement and not without considerable acquaintance also with our literature, began to attack and assail Julianus the rhetorician as altogether barbarous and rustic, since he was sprung from the land of Spain, was a mere ranter of violent and noisy speech, and taught exercises in a tongue which had no charm and no sweetness of Venus and the Muse; and they asked him more than once what he thought of Anacreon and the other poets of that kind, and whether any of our bards had written such smooth-flowing and delightful poems; “except,” said they, “perhaps a few of Catullus and also possibly a few of Calvus; for the compositions of Laevius were involved, those of Hortensius without elegance, of Cinna harsh, of Memmius rude, and in short those of all the poets without polish or melody.” Then Julianus, filled with anger and indignation, spoke as follows in behalf of his mother tongue, as if for his altars and his fires: “I must indeed grant you that in such licentiousness and baseness you would outdo Alcinus and that as you outstrip us in the pleasures of adornment and of food, so you do also in the wantonness of your ditties. But lest you should condemn us, that is, the Latin race, as lacking in Aphrodite's charm, just as if we were barbarous and ignorant, allow me, I pray, to cover my head with my cloak (as they say Socrates did when making somewhat indelicate remarks), and hear and learn that our forefathers also were lovers and devoted to Venus before those poets whom you have named.” Then lying upon his back with veiled head, he chanted in exceedingly sweet tones some verses of Valerius Aedituus, an early poet, and also of Porcius Licinus and Quintus Catulus; and I think that nothing can be found neater, more graceful, more polished and more terse than those verses, either in Greek or in Latin: The verses of Aedituus are as follows:When, Pamphila, I try to tell my love,What shall I ask of you? Words fail my lips,A sudden sweat o'erflows my ardent breast;Thus fond and silent, I refrain and die.And he also added other verses of the same poet,no less sweet than the former ones:O Phileros, why a torch, that we need not?Just as we are we'll go, our hearts aflame.That flame no wild wind's blast can ever quench,Or rain that falls torrential from the skies;Venus herself alone can quell her fire,No other force there is that has such power.He also recited the following verses of Porcius Licinus:O shepherds of the lambs, the ewes' young brood,Seek ye for fire? Come hither; man is fire.Touch I the wood with finger-tip, it burns;Your flock's a flame, all I behold is fire.The verses of Quintus Catulus were these:My soul has left me; it has fled, methinks,To Theotimus; he its refuge is.But what if I should beg that he refuseThe truant to admit, but cast it out?I'll go to him; but what if I be caught?What shall I do? Queen Venus, lend me aid.
9. AntoniiAdulescens Iuliani in convivio ad quosdam Graecos lepidissima responsio. ADULESCENS e terra Asia de equestri loco, laetae indolis moribusque et fortuna bene ornatus et ad rem musicam facili ingenio ac lubenti, cenam dabat amicis ac magistris sub urbe in rusculo celebrandae lucis annuae, quam principem sibi vitae habuerat. Venerat tum nobiscum ad eandem cenam Antonius Iulianus rhetor, docendis publice iuvenibus magister, Hispano ore florentisque homo facundiae et rerum litterarumque veterum peritus. Is, ubi eduliis finis et poculis mox sermonibusque tempus fuit, desideravit exhiberi, quos habere eum adulescentem sciebat, scitissimos utriusque sexus, qui canerent voce et qui psallerent. Ac posteaquam introducti pueri puellaeque sunt, iucundum in modum Ἀνακρεόντεια pleraque et Sapphica et poetarum quoque recentium ἐλεγεῖα quaedam erotica dulcia et venusta cecinerunt. Oblectati autem sumus praeter multa alia versiculis lepidissimis Anacreontis senis, quos equidem scripsi, ut interea labor hic vigiliarum et inquies suavitate paulisper vocum atque modulorum adquiesceret: Τὸν ἄργυρον τορεύσας,Ἥφαιστέ, μοι ποίησονΠανοπλίας μὲν οὐχί,Τί γὰρ μάχαισι κἀμοί;Ποτήριον δὲ κοῖλονὍσον δύνῃ βάθυνον,Καὶ μὴ ποίει κατʼ αὐτὸΜήτʼ ἄστρα μήτʼ ἀμάξας:Τίδʼ ἀστέρος Βοώτεω;Ποίησον ἀμπέλους μοιΚαὶ βότρυας κατʼ αὐτῶνΚαὶ χρυσέους πατοῦνταςὉμοῦ καλῷ ΛυαίῳἜρωτα καὶ Βάθυλλον. Tum Graeci plusculi qui in eo convivio erant, homines amoeni et nostras quoque litteras haut incuriose docti, Iulianumlulianum rhetorem lacessere insectarique adorti sunt tamquam prorsus barbarum et agrestem, qui ortus terra Hispania foret clamatorque tantum et facundia rabida iurgiosaque esset eiusque linguae exercitationes doceret quae nullas voluptates nullamque mulcedinem Veneris atque Musae haberet; saepeque eum percontabantur quid de Anacreonte ceterisque id genus poetis sentiret et ecquis nostrorum poetarum tam fluentes carminum delicias fecisset. “Nisi Catullus,” inquiunt, “forte pauca et Calvus itidem pauca. Nam Laevius inplicata et Hortensius invenusta et Cinna inlepida et Memmius dura ac deinceps omnes rudia fecerunt atque absona.” Tum ille pro lingua patria, tamquam pro aris et focis, animo inritato indignabundus: “Cedere equidem,” inquit, “vobis debui, ut in tali asotia atque nequitia AlcinoumAlcinum vinceretis et sicut in voluptatibus cultus atque victus, ita in cantilenarum quoque mollitiis anteiretis.” “Sed ne nos, id est nomen Latinum, tamquam profecto vastos quosdam et insubidos, ἀναφροδισίας condemnetis, permittite mihi, quaeso, operire pallio caput, quod in quadam parum pudica oratione Socraten fecisse aiunt, et audite ac discite nostros quoque antiquiores ante eos quos nominastis poetas amasios ac venerios fuisse.” Tum resupinus, capite convelato, voce admodum quam suavi, versus cecinit Valeri Aeditui, veteris poetae, item Porcii Licini et Q. Catuli, quibus mundius, venustius, limatius, tersius, Graecum Latinumve nihil quicquam reperiri puto. Aeditui versus:Dicere cum conor curam tibi, Pamphila, cordis,Quid mi abs te quaeram? verba labris abeunt,Per pectus manat subito subido mihi sudor:Sic tacitus, subidus, dum pudeo, pereo. Atque item alios versus eiusdem addidit, non hercle minus dulces quam priores:Qui faculam praefers, Phileros, quae nil opus nobis?Ibimus sic, lucet pectore flamma satis.Istam nam potis est vis saeva extinguere ventiAut imber caelo candidus praecipitans,At contra hunc ignem Veneris, nisi si Venus ipsa,Nullast quae possit vis alia opprimere. Item dixit versus Porcii Licini hosce:Custodes ovium tenerae propaginis, agnum,Quaeritis ignem? ite huchue; quaeritis? ignis homosthomrost.Si digito attigero, incendam silvam simul omnem;Omne pecus flammast, omnia quae video.Quinti Catuli versus illi fuerunt: Aufugit mi animus; credo, ut solet, ad TheotimumDevenit. Sic est: perfugium illud habet.Qui, si non interdixem, ne illunc fugitivumMitteret ad se intro, sed magis eiceret?Ibimus quaesitum. Verum, ne ipsi teneamur,Formido. Quid ago? Da Venus consilium.
10. That the words praeter propter, which are in common use, were found also in Ennius. I REMEMBER that I once went with Julius Celsinus the Numidian to visit Cornelius Fronto, who was then seriously ill with the gout. When we arrived and were admitted, we found him lying on a Greek couch, and sitting around him a large number of men famous for learning, birth or fortune. By his side stood several builders, who had been summoned to construct some new baths and were exhibiting different plans for baths, drawn on little pieces of parchment. When he had selected one plan and specimen of their work, he inquired what the expense would be of completing that entire project. And when the architect had said that it would probably require about three hundred thousand sesterces, one of Fronto's friends said, “And another fifty thousand, more or less (praeterpropter).” Then Fronto, interrupting the conversation which he had begun to hold about the expense of the baths, and looking at the friend who had said that another fifty thousand would be needed praeterpropter, asked him what that word meant. And the friend replied: 'That word is not my own, for you may hear many men using it; but what the word means you must ask from a grammarian, not from me; and at the same time he pointed out a grammarian of no little fame as a teacher at Rome, who was sitting there with them. Then the grammarian, surprised by the uncertainty about a familiar and much used word, said: “We inquire about something which does not at all deserve the honour of investigation, for this is some utterly plebeian expression or other, better known in the talk of mechanics than in that of cultivated men.” But Fronto, raising his voice and with a more earnest expression, said: “Sir, does this word seem to you so degraded and utterly faulty, when Marcus Cato and Marcus Varro, and the early writers in general, have used it as necessary and as good Latin?” And thereupon Julius Celsinus reminded him that also in the tragedy of Ennius entitled Iphigeina the very word about which we were inquiring was found, and that it was more frequently corrupted by the grammarians than explained. Consequently, he at once asked that the Iphigenia of Quintus Ennius be brought and in a chorus of that tragedy we read these lines:That man in truth who knows not leisure's useMore trouble has than one by tasks pursued;For he who has a task must be performed,Devotes himself to that with heart and soul;The idle mind knows not what 'tis it wants.With us it is the same; for not at homeAre we nor in the field; from place to placeWe haste; and once arrived, we would be gone.Aimless we drift, we live but more or less(praeterpropter). When this had been read there, then Fronto said to the grammarian, who was already wavering:Have you heard, most worthy master, that your Ennius used praeterpropter, and that too in an expression of opinion resembling the austerest diatribes of the philosophers? We beg you then to tell us, since we are now investigating a word used by Ennius, what the hidden meaning is in this line:Aimless we drift, we live but more or less. And the grammarian, in a profuse sweat and blushing deeply, since many of the company were laughing long and loud at this, got up, saying as he left: “I will tell you at a later time, when we are alone, Fronto, in order that ignorant folk may not hear and learn.” And so we all rose, leaving the consideration of the word at that point.
10. Verba haec, “praeter propter,” in usu vulgi protrita, etiam Ennii fuisse. MEMINI me quondam et Celsinum Iulium Numidam ad Frontonem Cornelium, pedes tunc graviter aegrum, ire et visere. Atque ubi introducti sumus, offendimus eum cubantem in scimpodio Graeciensi, circumundique sedentibus multis doctrina aut genere aut fortuna nobilibus viris. Adsistebant fabri aedium complures, balneis novis moliendis adhibiti, ostendebantque depictas in membranulis varias species balnearum. Ex quibus cum elegisset unam formam speciemque operis, interrogavit quantus esset pecuniae sumptus ad id totum opus absolvendum. Cumque architectus dixisset necessaria videri esse sestertia ferme trecenta, unus ex amicis Frontonis: “Et praeterpropter,” inquit, “alia quinquaginta.” Tum Fronto, dilatis sermonibus quos habere de balnearum sumptu institerat, aspiciens ad eum amicum qui dixerat quinquaginta esse alia praeterpropter necessaria, eum interrogavit quid significaret verbum “praeterpropter.” Atque ille amicus: “Non meummeutm,” inquit, “hoc verbum est, sed multorum hominumhominurm quos loquentis id audias;” “quid autem id verbum significet, non ex me, sed ex grammatico quaerundum est,” ac simul digito demonstrat grammaticum, haud incelebri nomine Romae docentem unaque ibi sedentem. Tum grammaticus usitati pervulgatique verbi obscuritate motus: “Quaerimus,” inquit, “quod honore quaestionis minime dignum est.” “Nam nescio quid hoc praenimis plebeium est et in opificum sermonibus quam in hominum doctorum notius.” At enim Fronto, iam voce atque vultu intentiore: “Itane,” inquit, “magister, dehonestum tibi deculpatumque hoc verbum videtur, quo et M. Cato et M. Varro et pleraque aetas superior ut necessario et Latino usi sunt?” Atque ibi Iulius Celsinus admonuit, in tragoedia quoque Enni quae Iphigenia inscripta est, id ipsum de quo quaerebatur scriptum esse et a grammaticis contaminari magis solitum quam enarrari. Quocirca statim proferri Iphigeniam Q. Enni iubet. In eius tragoediae choro inscriptos esse hos versus legimus:Óotiotio qui néscit utiPlús negoti habét quam cum est negótium in negótio.Nám cui quod agat ínstitutumst, nil nisi negótium,Íd agit, id studét, ibi mentem atque ánimum delectát suum,Óotiosotioso in ótio animus néscit quid velit.Hóc idem est; em néque domi nunc nós nec militiaé sumussumlus,Ímus huchue, hinc illuc, cum illuc véntum est, ire illínc lubet,Íincertencerte errat ánimus, praeterprópter vitam vívitur. Hoc ibi lectum est, tum deinde Fronto ad grammaticum iam labentem: “Audistine,” inquit, “magister optime, Ennium tuum dixisse ‘praeterpropter’ et cum sententia quidem tali, quali severissimae philosophorum esse obiurgationes solent? Petimus igitur dicas, quoniam de Enniano iam verbo quaeritur, qu sit remotus huiusce versus sensus:Íincertencerte errat ánimus, praeterprópter vitam vívitur.” Et grammaticus sudans multum ac rubens multum, cum id plerique prolixius riderent, exsurgitexurgit et abiens: “Tibi,” inquit, “Fronto, postea uni dicam, ne inscitiores audiant ac discant.” Atque ita omnes, relicta ibi quaestione verbi, consurreximus.
11. He gives some amatory verses of Plato, with which the philosopher amused himself when he was a very young man and was contending for the tragic prize. HERE are two Greek verses that are famous and deemed worthy of remembrance by many learned men because of their charm and graceful terseness. There are in fact not a few ancient writers who declare that they are the work of the philosopher Plato, with which he amused himself in his youth, while at the same time he was beginning his literary career by writing tragedies. My soul, when I kissed Agathon, did pass My lips; as though, poor soul, 'would leap across. This distich a friend of mine, a young man no stranger to the Muses, has paraphrased somewhat boldly and freely in a number of lines. And since they seemed to me not undeserving of remembrance, I have added them here:When with my parted lips my love I kiss,And quaff the breath's sweet balm from open mouth,Smitten with love my soul mounts to my lips,And through my love's soft mouth its way would take,Passing the open gateway of the lips.But if our kiss, delayed, had been prolonged,By love's fire swayed my soul that way had ta'en,And left me. Faith, a wondrous thing it were,If I should die, but live within my love.
11. Ponit versus Platonis amatorios quos admodum iuvenis lusit, dum tragoediis contendit. CELEBRANTUR duo isti Graeci versiculi multorumque doctorum hominum memoria dignantur, quod sint lepidissimi et venustissimae brevitatis. Neque adeo pauci sunt veteres scriptores, qui quidem eos Platonis esse philosophi adfirmant, quibus ille adulescens luserit, cum tragoediis quoque eodem tempore faciendis praeluderet:Τὴν ψυχὴν Ἀγάθωνα φιλῶν ἐπὶ χείλεσιν ἔσχονἬλθε γὰρ ἡ τλήμων ὡς διαβησομένη. Hoc δίστιχον amicus meus, οὐκ ἄμουσος adulescens, in plures versiculos licentius liberiusque vertit. Qui quoniam mihi quidem visi sunt non esse memoratu indigni, subdidi: Cum semihiulco savioMeo puellum saviorDulcemque florem spiritusDuco ex aperto tramite,Anima male aegra et sauciaCucurrit ad labeas mihimilli,Rictuinque in oris perviumEt labra pueri mollia,Rimata itineri transitus,Ut transiliret, nititur.Tum si morae quid plusculaeplusculacFuisset in coetu osculi,Amoris igni percitaTransisset et me linqueretEt mira prorsum res foret,Ut fierem ad me mortuus,Ad puerum ut intus viverem.
12. A discourse of Herodes Atticus on the power and nature of pain, and a confirmation of his view by the example of an ignorant countryman who cut down fruit-trees along with thorns. I ONCE heard Herodes Atticus, the ex-consul, holding forth at Athens in the Greek language, in which he far surpassed almost all the men of our time in distinction, fluency, and elegance of diction. He was speaking at the time against the a)pa/qeia, or “lack of feeling” of the Stoics, in consequence of having been assailed by one of that sect, who alleged that he did not endure the grief which he felt at the death of a beloved boy with sufficient wisdom and fortitude. The sense of the discourse, so far as I remember, was as follows: that no man, who felt and thought normally, could be wholly exempt and free from those emotions of the mind, which he called pa/qh, caused by sorrow, desire, fear, anger and pleasure; and even if he could so resist them as to be free from them altogether, he would not be better off, since his mind would grow weak and sluggish, being deprived of the support of certain emotions, as of a highly necessary stimulus. For he declared that those feelings and impulses of the mind, though they become faults when excessive, are connected and involved in certain powers and activities of the intellect; and therefore, if we should in our ignorance eradicate them altogether, there would be danger lest we lose also the good and useful qualities of the mind which are connected with them. Therefore he thought that they ought to be regulated, and pruned skilfully and carefully, so that those only should be removed which are unsuitable and unnatural, lest in fact that should happen which once (according to the story) befell an ignorant and rude Thracian in cultivating a field which he had bought. “When a man of Thrace,” said he, “from a remote and barbarous land, and unskilled in agriculture, had moved into a more civilized country, in order to lead a less wild life, he bought a farm planted with olives and vines. Knowing nothing at all about the care of vines or trees, he chanced to see a neighbour cutting down the thorns which had sprung up high and wide, pruning his ash-trees almost to their tops, pulling up the suckers of his vines which had spread over the earth from the main roots, and cutting off the tall straight shoots on his fruit and olive trees. He drew near and asked why the other was making such havoc of his wood and leaves. The neighbour answered; 'In order to make the field clean and neat and the trees and vines more productive.' The Thracian left his neighbour with thanks, rejoicing that he had gained some knowledge of farming. Then he took his sickle and axe; and thereupon in his pitiful ignorance the fellow cuts down all his vines and olives, lopping off the richest branches of the trees and the most fruitful shoots of the vines, and, with the idea of clearing up his place, he pulls up all the shrubs and shoots fit for bearing fruits and crops, along with the brambles and thorns, having learnt assurance at a ruinous price and acquired boldness in error through faulty imitation. Thus it is,” said Herodes, “that those disciples of insensibility, wishing to be thought calm, courageous and steadfast because of showing neither desire nor grief, neither wrath nor joy, root out all the more vigorous emotions of the mind, and grow old in the torpor of a sluggish and, as it were, nerveless life.”
12. Dissertatio Herodis Attici super vi et natura doloris suaeque opinionis affirmatio per exemplum indocti rustici, qui cum rubis fructiferas arbores praecidit. HERODEM ATTICUM, consularem virum, Athenis disserentem audivi Graeca oratione, in qua fere omnes memoriae nostrae universos gravitate atque copia et elegantia vocum longe praestitit. Disseruit autem contra ἀπάθειαν Stoicorum, lacessitus a quodam Stoico, tamquam minus sapienter et parum viriliter dolorem ferret ex morte pueri quem amaverat. In ea dissertione, quantulum memini, huiuscemodi sensus est: quod nullus usquam homo, qui secundum naturam sentiret et saperet, adfectionibus istis animi, quas πάθη appellabat, aegritudinis, cupiditatis, timoris, irae, voluptatis, carere et vacare totis posset, atque, si posset etiam obniti ut totis careret, non fore id melius, quoniam langueret animus et torperet, adfectionum quarundam adminiculis, ut necessaria plurimum temperie privatus. Dicebat enim sensus istos motusque animi, qui cum inmoderatiores sunt vitia fiunt, innexos inplicatosque esse vigoribus quibusdam mentium et alacritatibus, ac propterea, si omnino omnis eos inperitius convellamus, periculum esse ne eis adhaerentes bonas quoque et utiles animi indoles amittamus. Moderandos esse igitur et scite considerateque purgandos censebat, ut ea tantum quae aliena sunt contraque naturam videntur et cum pernicie adgnata sunt detrahantur, ne profecto id accidat quod cuipiam Thraco insipienti et rudi in agro quem emerat procurando venisse usu fabulast. “Homo Thracus,” inquit, “ex ultima barbaria, ruris colendi insolens, cum in terras cultiores humanioris vitae cupidine commigrasset, fundum mercatus est oleo atque vino consitum. Qui cum nihil admodum super vite aut arbore colenda sciret, videt forte vicinum rubos alte atque late obortas excidentem, fraxinos ad summum prope verticem deputantem, suboles vitium e radicibus caudicum super terrain fusas revellentem, stolones in pomis aut in oleis proceros atque derectos amputantem, acceditque prope et cur tantam ligni atque frondium caedem faceret percontatus est.” “Et vicinus ita respondit: ‘Ut ager,’ inquit, ‘mundus purusque fiat, eius arbor atque vitis fecundior.’” “Discedit ille a vicino gratias agens et laetus, tamquam adeptus rei rusticae disciplinam. Tum falcem ibi ac securim capit: atque ibi homo misere inperitus vites suas sibi omnis et oleas detruncat comasque arborum laetissimas uberrimosque vitium palmites decidit et frutecta atque virgulta simul omnia, pomis frugibusque gignendis felicia, cum sentibus et rubis purificandi agri gratia convellit, mala mercede doctus audaciam fiduciamque peccandi imitatione falsa eruditus.” “Sic,” inquit, “isti apathiae sectatores, qui videri se esse tranquillos et intrepidos et inmobiles volunt, dum nihil cupiunt, nihil dolent, nihil irascuntur, nihil gaudent, omnibus vehementioris animi officiis amputatis, in torpore ignavae et quasi enervatae vitae consenescunt.”
13. That what we call pumiliones the Greeks term na/noi. CORNELIUS FRONTO, Festus Postumius, and Sulpicius Apollinaris chanced to be standing and talking together in the vestibule of the Palace; and I, being near by with some companions, eagerly listened to their conversations on literary subjects. Then said Fronto to Apollinaris: “I pray you, Sir, inform me whether I was right in forbearing to call men of excessively small stature nam and in preferring the term pumiliones; for I remembered that the latter word appears in the books of early writers, while I thought that nam was vulgar and barbarous.” “It is true,” replied Apollinaris, that the word nam is frequent in the language of the ignorant vulgar; yet it is not barbarous, but is thought to be of Greek origin; for the Greeks called men of short and low stature, rising but little above the ground, na/noi, or 'dwarfs,' using that word by the application of a certain etymological principle corresponding with its meaning, and if my memory is not at fault, “said he,”it occurs in the comedy of Aristophanes entitled (Olka/des, or The Cargo Boats. "But this word would have been given citizenship by you, or established in a Latin colony, if you had deigned to use it, and it would be very much more acceptable than the low and vulgar words which Laberius introduced into the Latin language." Thereupon Postumius Festus said to a Latin grammarian, a friend of Fronto's: “Apollinaris has told us that nam is a Greek word; do you inform us whether it is good Latin, when it is used, as it commonly is, of small mules or ponies, and in what author it is found.” And that grammarian, a man very well versed in knowledge of the early literature, said: “If I am not committing sacrilege in giving my opinion of any Greek or Latin word in the presence of Apollinaris, I venture to reply to your inquiry, Festus, that the word is Latin and is found in the poems of Helvius Cinna, a poet neither obscure nor without learning” And he gave the verses themselves, which I have added, since I chanced to remember them:But now through Genunanian willow grovesthe wagon hurries me with dwarf steeds (bigis nanis) twain.
13. Quos “pumiliones” dicimus, Graece νάνους appellari. STABANT forte una in vestibulo Palatii fabulantestabulantes Fronto Cornelius et Festus Postumius et Apollinaris Sulpicius, atque ego ibi adsistens cum quibusdam aliis sermones eorum, quos de litterarum disciplinis habebant, curiosius captabam. Tum Fronto Apollinari: “Fac me,” inquit, “oro, magister, ut sim certus an recte supersederim ‘nanos’ dicere parva nimisnimtis statura homines maluerimque eos ‘pumiliones’ appellare, quoniam hoc scriptum esse in libris veterum memineram, ‘nanos’ autem sordidum esse verbum et barbarum credebam?” “Est quidem,” inquit, “hoc” Apollinaris, “in consuetudine inperiti vulgi frequens, sed barbarum non est censeturque linguae Graecae origine; νάνους enim Graeci vocaverunt brevi atque humili corpore homines paulum supra terrain extantes idque ita dixerunt adhibita quadam ratione etymologiae cum sententia vocabuli competente et, si memoria,” inquit, “mihi non labat scriptun hoc est in comoedia Aristophanis, cui nomen est Ὁλκάδες. Fuisset autem verbum hoc a te civitate donatum aut in Latinam coloniamcolonial deductum, si tu eo uti dignatus fores, essetque id inpendio probabilius quam quae a Laberio ignobilia nimis et sordentia in usum linguae Latinae intromissa sunt.” Tum Festus Postumius grammatico cuipiam Latino, Frontonis familiari: “Docuit,” inquit, “nos Apollinaris, ‘nanos’ verbum Graecum esse, tu nos doce, quoniam de mulis aut eculeis humilioribus vulgo dicitur, anne Latinum sit et aput quem scriptum reperiatur?” Atque ille grammaticus, homo sane perquam in noscendis veteribus scriptis exercitus: “Si piaculumpiaculunm,” inquit, “non committiturcomniittitur, praesente Apollinare, quid de voce ulla Graeca Latinave sentiam dicere, audeo tibi, Feste, quaerenti respondere esse hoc verbum Latinum scriptumque inveniri in poematispoeinatis Helvi Cinnae, non ignobilis neque indocti poetae,” versusque eius ipsos dixit, quos, quoniam memoriae mihi forte aderant, adscripsi: At nunc me Genumana per salicta Bigis raeda rapit citata nanis.
14. That Marcus Varro and Publius Nigidius, the most learned Romans of their time, were contemporaries of Caesar and Cicero, and that the commentaries of Nigidius, because of their obscurity and subtlety, did not become popular. THE time of Marcus Cicero and Gaius Caesar had few men of surpassing eloquence, but in encyclopaedic learning and in the varied sciences by which humanity is enobled it possesses two towering figures in Marcus Varro and Publius Nigidius. Now the records of knowledge and learning left in written form by Varro are familiar and in general use, the observations of Nigidius, however, are not so widely known, but their obscurity and subtlety have caused them to be neglected, as of little practical value. As a specimen I may cite what I read a short time ago in his work entitled Grammatical Notes; from this book I have made a few extracts, as an example of the nature of his writings. When discussing the nature and order of the letters which the grammarians call vocales, or “vowels,” he wrote the following, which I leave unexplained, in order to test my readers' powers of application: “A and o,” he says, “always stand first in diphthongs, i and u always second, e both follows and precedes; it precedes in Euripus, follows in Aemilius. If anyone supposes that u precedes in the words Valeriuis, Vannonis, and Volusius, or that i precedes in iampridem (long ago), iecur (liver), iocis (joke), and iucundus (agreeable), he will be wrong, for when these letters precede, they are in fact not vowels.” These words also are from the same book: “Between the letters n and g another element is introduced, as in the words aguis (snake), angari, ancora (anchor), increpat (chides), incurrit (runs upon), and ingenuus (free-born). In all these we have, not a true n, but a so-called n adullerinum. For the tongue shows that it is not an ordinary n; since if it were that sound, the tongue would touch the palate in making it.” Then in another place we find this: “I do not charge those Greeks with so great ignorance in writing ou (-ū) with o and v, as I do those who wrote ei (=ī) with e and i; for the former the Greeks lid from necessity, in the latter case there was no compulsion.”
14. Contemporaneos fuisse Caesari et Ciceroni M. Varronem et P. Nigidium, aetatis suae doctissimos Ronanos; et quod Nigidii commentationes propter earum obscuritatem subtilitatemque in vulgus non exeunt. AETAS M. Ciceronis et C. Caesaris praestanti facundia paucos habuit, doctrinarum autem multiformium variarumque artium quibus humanitas erudita est columina habuit M. Varronem et P. Nigidium. Sed Varronis quidem monumenta rerum ac disciplinarum, quae per litteras condidit, in propatulo frequentique usu feruntur, Nigidianae autem commentationes non proinde in volgus exeunt et obscuritas subtilitasque earum tamquam parum utilis derelicta est. Sicuti sunt quae paulo ante legimus in Commentariis eius, quos Grammaticos inscripsit, ex quibus quaedam ad demonstrandum scripturaeseripturae genus exempli gratia sumpsisunpsi. Nam, cum de natura atque ordine litterarum dissereret quas grammatici “vocales” appellant, verba haec scripsit, quae reliquimus inenarrata ad exercendam legentium intentionem: “A et o semper principes sunt, i et u semper subditae, e et subit et praeit; praeit in ‘Euripo,’ subit in ‘Aemilio.’ Si quis putat praeire u in his verbis: ‘Valerius,’ ‘Vennonius,’ ‘Volusius,’ aut i in his: ‘iampridemianpridem,’ ‘iecur,’ ‘iocus,’ ‘iucundum,’ errabit, quod hae litterae, cum praeeunt, ne vocales quidem sunt.” Item ex eodem libro verba haec sunt: “Inter litteram n et g est alia vis, ut in nomine ‘anguis’ et ‘angarianrari’ et ‘ancorae’ et ‘increpat’ et ‘incurrit’ et ‘ingenuusingeluus.’ In omnibus his non verum n, sed adulterinum ponitur. Nam n non esse lingua indicio est; nam si ea littera esset, lingua palatum tangeret.” Alio deinde in loco ita scriptum: “Graecos non tantae inscitiae arcesso, qui ou ex o et u scripserunt, quantae qui ei ex e et i; illud enim inopia fecerunt, hoc nulla re subacti.”