24. On the ancient frugality; and on early sumptuary laws. FRUGALITY among the early Romans, and moderation in food and entertainments were secured not only by observance and training at home, but also by public penalties and the inviolable provisions of numerous laws. Only recently I read in the Miscellanies of Ateius Capito an old decree of the senate, passed in the consulship of Gaius Fannius and Marcus Valerius Messala, which provides that the leading citizens, who according to ancient usage “interchanged” at the Melagesian games (that is, acted as host to one another in rotation), should take oath before the consuls in set terms, that they would not spend on each dinner more than one hundred and twenty asses in addition to vegetables, bread and wine; that they would not serve foreign, but only native, wine, nor use at table more than one hundred pounds' weight of silverware. But subsequent to that decree of the senate the law of Fannius was passed, which allowed the expenditure of one hundred asses a day at the Roman and the plebeian games, at the Saturnalia, and on certain other days; of thirty asses on ten additional days each month; but on all other days of only ten. This is the law to which the poet Lucilius alludes when he says:The paltry hundred pence of Fannius.In regard to this some of the commentators on Lucilius have been mistaken in thinking that Fannius' law authorized a regular expenditure of a hundred asses on every kind of day. For, as I have stated above, Fannius authorized one hundred asses on certain holidays which he expressly named, but for all other days he limited the daily outlay to thirty asses for some days and to ten for others. Next the Licinian law was passed which, while allowing the outlay of one hundred asses on designated days, as did the law of Fannius, conceded two hundred asses for weddings and set a limit of thirty for other days; however, after naming a fixed weight of dried meat and salted provisions for each day, it granted the indiscriminate and unlimited use of the products of the earth, vine and orchard. This law the poet Laevius mentions in his Erotopaegnia. These are the words of Laevius, by which he means that a kid that had been brought for a feast was sent away and the dinner served with fruit and vegetables, as the Licinian law had provided:The Licinian law is introduced,The liquid light to the kid restored.Lucilius also has the said law in mind in these words:Let us evade the law of Licinius. Afterwards, when these laws were illegible from the rust of age and forgotten, when many men of abundant means were gormandizing, and recklessly pouring their family and fortune into an abyss of dinners and banquets, Lucius Sulla in his dictatorship proposed a law to the people, which provided that on the Kalends, Ides and Nones, on days of games, and on certain regular festivals, it should be proper and lawful to spend three hundred sesterces on a dinner, but on all other days no more than thirty. Besides these laws we find also an Aemilian law, setting a limit not on the expense of dinners, but on the kind and quantity of food. Then the law of Antius, besides curtailing outlay, contained the additional provision, that no magistrate or magistrate elect should dine out anywhere, except at the house of stipulated persons. Lastly, the Julian law came before the people during the principate of Caesar Augustus, by which on working days two hundred sesterces is the limit, on the Kalends, Ides and Nones and some other holidays, three hundred, but at weddings and the banquets following them, a thousand. Ateius Capito says that there is still another Edict—but whether of the deified Augustus or of Tiberius Caesar I do not exactly remember—by which the outlay for dinners on various festal days was increased from three hundred sesterces to two thousand, to the end that the rising tide of luxury night be restrained at least within those limits.
24. De vetere parsimonia; deque antiquis legibus sumptuariis. Parsimonia apud veteres Romanos et victus atque cenarum tenuitas non domestica solum observatione ac disciplina, sed publicapublic quoque animadversione legumque complurium sanctionibus custodita est. Legi adeo nuper in Capitonis Atei Coniectaneis senatus decretum vetus C. Fannio et M. Valerio Messalla consulibusconsulilus factum, in quo iubentur principes civitatis, qui ludis Megalensibus antiquo ritu “mutitarent,” id est mutua inter sese dominia agitarent, iurare apud consules verbis conceptis, non amplius in singulas cenas sumptus se esse facturos quam centenos vicenosque aeris praeter olus et far et vinum, neque vino alienigena, sed patriae usuros, neque argenti in convivio plus pondo quam libras centum inlaturos. Sed post id senatus consultum lex Fannia lata est, quae ludis Romanis, item ludis plebeis et Saturnalibus et aliis quibusdam diebus, in singulos dies centenos aeris insumi concessit decemque aliis diebus in singulis mensibus tricenos, ceteris autem diebus omnibus denos. Hanc Lucilius poeta legem significat, cum dicit:Fanni centussis misellus. In quo erraverunt quidam commentariorum in Lucilium scriptores, quod putaverunt Fannia lege perpetuos in omne dierum genus centenos aeris statutos. Centum enim aeris Fannius constituit, sicuti supra dixi, festis quibusdam diebus eosque ipsos dies nominavit, aliorum autem dierum omnium in singulos dies sumptum inclusit intra aeris alias tricenos, alias denos. Lex deinde Licinia rogata est, quae cum certis diebus, sicuti Fannia, centenos aeris inpendi permisisset, nuptiis ducenos indulsit ceterisque diebus statuit aeris tricenos; cum et carnis aridae et salsamenti certa pondera in singulos dies constituisset, quidquid esset natum e terra, vite, arbore, promiscepromise atque indefinite largita est. Huius legis Laevius poeta meminit in Erotopaegniis. Verba Laevii haec sunt, quibus significat haedum, qui ad epulas fuerat adlatus, dimissum cenamque ita ut lex Licinia sanxisset, pomis oleribusque instructam;Lex Licinia (inquit) introducitur,Lux liquida haedo redditur. Lucilius quoque legis istius meminit in his verbis:Legem vitemus Licini. Postea L. Sulla dictator, cum, legibus istis situ atque senio oblitteratis, plerique in patrimoniis amplis elluarentur et familiam pecuniamque suam prandiorum conviviorumque gurgitibus proluissent, legem ad populum tulit qua cautum est ut Kalendis, Idibus, Nonis diebusque ludorum et feriis quibusdam sollemnibus sestertios trecenos in cenam insumere ius potestasque esset, ceteris autem diebus omnibus non amplius tricenos. Praeter has leges Aemiliam quoque legem invenimus, qua lege non sumptus cenarum, sed ciborum genus et modus praefinitus est. Lex deinde Antia praeter sumptum aeris id etiam sanxit, ut qui magistratus esset magistratumve capturus esset, ne quo ad cenam, nisi ad certas personas, itaret. Postrema lex Iulialulia ad populum pervenit Caesare Augusto imperante, qua profestis quidem diebus ducenti finiuntur, Kalendis, Idibus, Nonis et aliis quibusdam festis trecenti, nuptiis autem et repotiis sestertii mille. Esse etiam dicit Capito Ateius edictum—divine vero Augusti an Tiberii Caesaris non satis commemini—quo edicto per dierum varias sollemnitates a trecentis sestertiis adusque duo sestertia sumptus cenarum propagatus est, ut his saltemsalter finibus luxuriae effervescentis aestus coerceretur.
25. What the Greeks understand by a)nalogi/a, and, on the contrary, by a)nwmali/a. IN the Latin language, just as in Greek, some have thought that the principle of a)nalogi/a should be followed, others that of a)nwmali/a. is the similar inflection of similar words, which some call in Latin proportio, or “regularity.” )Anwmali/a is irregularity in inflection, following usage. Now two distinguished Greek grammarians, Aristarchus and Crates, defended with the utmost vigour, the one analogy, the other anomaly. The eighth book of Marcus Varro's treatise On the Latin Language, dedicated to Cicero, maintains that no regard is paid to regularity, and points out that in almost all words usage rules. “As when we decline,” says he, “lpus lupi, probus probi, but lepus leporis; again, paro paravi and lavo lavi, pungo pupugi, tundo tutudi and pingo pinxi. And although,” he continues, "from ceno and prandeo and poto we form cenatus sum, pransus sum and potus sum, yet from destringor and extergeor and lavor we make destrinxi and extersi and lavi. Furthermore, although from Oscus, Tuscus and Graecus we derive the adverbs Osce, Tusce and Graece, yet from Gallus and Maurus we have Gallice and Maurice; also from probus probe, from doctus docte, but from rarus there is no adverb rare, but some say raro, others rarenter." In the same book Varro goes on to say: “No one uses senior and that form by itself is naught, but almost everyone says adsentior. Sisenna alone used to say adsentio (I agree) in the senate, but later many followed his example, yet could not prevail over usage.” But Varro himself in other books wrote a good deal in defence of analogy. Therefore his utterances on the subject are, as it were, common-places, to cite now against analogy and again also in its favour.
25. Quid Graeci ἀναλογίαν quid contra ἀνωμαλίαν vocent. In Latino sermone, sicut in Graeco, alii ἀνα- λογίαν sequendam putaverunt, alii ἀνωμαλίαν. Ἀναλογία est similium similis declinatio, quam quidam Latine “proportionem” vocant. Ἀνωμαλία est inaequalitas declinationum, consuetudinem sequens. Duo autem Graeci grammatici illustres, Aristarchus et Crates, summa ope ille ἀναλογίαν, hic ἀνωμαλίαν defensitavit. M. Varronis liber ad Ciceronem De Lingua Latina octavus nullam esse observationem similium docet inque omnibus paene verbis consuetudinem dominari ostendit: “Sicuti cum dicimus,” inquit, “‘lupus lupi,’ ‘probus probi’ et ‘lepus leporis,’ item ‘paro paravi’ et ‘lavo lavi,’ ‘pungo pupugi,’ ‘tundo tutudi’ et ‘pingo pinxi.’” “Cumque,” inquit, “a ‘ceno’ et ‘prandeo’ et ‘poto,’ et ‘cenatus sum’ et ‘pransus sum’ et ‘potus sum’ dicamus, a ‘destringor’ tamen et ‘extergeor’ et ‘lavor,’ ‘destrinxi’ et ‘extersi’ et ‘lavi’ dicimus.” “Item cum dicamus ab ‘Osco,’ ‘Tusco,’ ‘Graeco,’ ‘Osce,’ ‘Tusce,’ ‘Graece,’ a ‘Gallo’ tamen et ‘Mauro’ ‘Gallice’ et ‘Maurice’ dicimus; item a ‘probus.’ ‘probe,’ a ‘doctus’ ‘docte,’ sed a ‘rarus’ non dicitur ‘rare,’ sed alii ‘raro’ dicunt, alii ‘rarenter.’” Idem M. Varro in eodem libro: “Sentior,” inquit, “nemo dicit et id per se nihil est, ‘adsentior’ tamen fere omnes dicunt. Sisenna unus ‘adsentio’ in senatu dicebat et eum postea multi secuti, neque tamen vincere consuetudinem potuerunt.” Sed idem Varro in aliis libris multa pro ἀναλογίᾳ tuenda scribit. Sunt igitur ii tamquam loci quidam communes, contra ἀναλογίαν dicere et item rursum pro ἀναλογίᾳ.
26. Discourses of Marcus Fronto and the philosopher Favorinus on the varieties of colours and their Greek and Latin names: and incidentally, the nature of the colour spadix. WHEN the philosopher Favorinus was on his way to visit the exconsul Marcus Fronto, who was ill with the gout, he wished me also to go with him. And when there at Fronto's, where a number of learned men were present, a discussion took place about colours and their names, to the effect that the shades of colours are manifold, but the names for them are few and indefinite, Favorinus said: "More distinctions of colour are detected by the eye than are expressed by words and terms. For leaving out of account other incongruities, your simple colours, red (rufus) and green viridiss), have single names, but many different shades. And that poverty in names I find more pronounced in Latin than in Greek. For the colour red Rufuss) does in fact get its name from redness, but although fire is one kind of red, blood another, purple another, saffron another, and gold still another, yet the Latin tongue does not indicate these special varieties of red by separate and individual words, but includes them all under the one term rubor, except in so far as it borrows names from the things themselves, and calls anything ' fiery,' ' flaming,' 'blood-red,' 'saffron' 'purple' and 'golden.' For russus and rubber are no doubt derived from rufus, and do not indicate all its special varieties, but canqo/s and e)ruqro/s and purro/s and kirro/s and foi=nic seem to mark certain differences in the colour red, either intensifying it or making it lighter, or qualifying it by the admixture of some shade." Then Fronto, replying to Favorinus, said: "I do not deny that the Greek language, which you seem to prefer, is richer and more copious than ours; but nevertheless in naming these colours of which you have just spoken we are not quite so badly off as you think. For russus and ruber, which you have just mentioned, are not the only words that denote the colour red, but we have others also, more numerous than those which you have quoted from the Greek. For fihlvus, flavus, rubidus, poeniceus, rutilus, luteus and spadix are names of the colour red, which either brighten it (making it fiery, as it were), or combine it with green, or darken it with black, or make it luminous by a slight addition of gleaming white. For poeniceus, which you call foi=nic in Greek, belongs to our language, and rutilus and spadix, a synonym of poeniceus which is taken over into Latin from the Greek, indicate a rich, gleaming shade of red like that of the fruit of the palm-tree when it is not fully ripened by the sun. And from this spadix and poeniceus get their name; for spadix in Doric is applied to a branch torn from a palm-tree along with its fruit. But the colour fulvus seems to be a mixture of red and green, in which sometimes green predominates, sometimes red. Thus the poet who was most careful in his choice of words applies fulvus to an eagle, to jasper, to fur caps, to gold, to sand, and to a lion; and so Ennius in his Annals uses fulvus of air. Flavus on the other hand seems to be compounded of green and red and white; thus Virgil speaks of golden hair as flava and applies that adjective also to the leaves of the olive, which I see surprises some; and thus, much earlier, Pacuvius called water flava and dust fulvus. I am glad to quote his verses, for they are most charming:Give me thy foot, that with the same soft handsWith which oft times I did Ulysses sootheI may with golden (flavis) waters wash awayThe tawny (fulvum) dust and heal thy weariness." “Now, rubidus is a darker red and with a larger admixture of black; luteus, on the other hand, is a more diluted red, and from this dilution its name too seems to be derived. Therefore, my dear Favorinus,” said he, "the shades of red have no more names in Greek than with us. But neither is the colour green expressed by more terms in your language, and Virgil, when he wished to indicate the green colour of a horse, could perfectly well have called the horse caerulus rather than glaucus, but he preferred to use a familiar Greek word, rather than one which was unusual in Latin. Moreover, our earlier writers used caesia as the equivalent of the Greek glaukw=pis, as Nigidius says, from the colour of the sky, as if it were originally caelia." After Fronto had said this, Favorinus, enchanted with his exhaustive knowledge of the subject and his elegant diction, said:Were it not for you, and perhaps for you alone, the Greek language would surely have come out far ahead; but you, my deal Fronto, exemplify Homer's line:Thou would'st either have won or made the result indecisive.But not only have I listened with pleasure to all your learned remarks, but in particular in describing the diversity of the colour flavus you have made me understand these beautiful lines from the fourteenth book of Ennius' Annalns which before I did not in the least comprehend:The calm sea's golden marble now they skim;Ploughed by the thronging craft, the green seas foam;for 'the green seas' did not seem to correspond with 'golden marble.' But since, as you have said, flavus is a colour containing an admixture of green and white, Ennius with the utmost elegance called the foam of the green sea 'golden marble.'
26. Sermones M. Frontonis et Favorini philosophi de generibus colorum vocabulisque eorumeorurn Graecis et Latinis; atqueatquc inibi color spadix cuiusmodi sit. Favorinus philosophus cum ad M. Frontonem consularem pedibus aegrum visum iret, voluit me quoque ad eum secum ire. Ac deinde, cum ibi aput Frontonem plerisque viris doctis praesentibus sermones de coloribus vocabulisque eorum agitarentur, quod multiplex colorum facies, appellationes autem incertae et exiguae forent, “plura,” inquit “sunt” Favorinus, “in sensibus oculorum quam in verbis vocibusque colorum discrimina.” “Nam, ut alias eorum inconcinnitates omittamus, simplices isti rufus et viridis colores singula quidem vocabula, multas autem species differentis habent.” “Atque eamearn vocum inopiam in lingua magis Latina video quam in Graeca. Quippe qui ‘rufus’ color a rubore quidem appellatus est, sed cum aliter rubeat ignis, aliter sanguis, aliter ostrum, aliter crocum, aliter aurum, has singulas rufi varietates Latina oratio singulis propriisque vocabulis non demonstrat omniaque ista significat una ‘ruboris’ appellatione, nisi cum ex ipsis rebus vocabula colorum mutuatur et ‘igneum’ aliquid dicit et ‘flammeum’ et ‘sanguineum’ et ‘croceum’ et ‘ostrinum’ et ‘aureum.’” “‘Russus’ enim color et ‘ruber’ nimirum a vocabulo ‘rufi’ dicuntur neque proprietates eius omnes declarant, ξανθός autem et ἐρυθρός et πυρρός et κιρρός et φοῖνιξ habere quasdam distantias coloris rufi videntur, vel augentes eum vel remittentes vel mixta quadam specie temperantes.” Tum Fronto ad Favorinum, “Non infitias,” inquit, “imus quin lingua Graeca, quam tu videre elegisse, prolixior fusiorque sit quam nostra; sed in his tamen coloribus quibus modo dixisti denominandis, non proinde inopes sumus ut tibi videmur.” “Non enim haec sunt sola vocabula rufum colorem demonstrantia, quae tu modo dixisti, ‘russus’ et ‘ruber,’ sed alia quoque habemus plura quam quae dicta abs te Graeca sunt; ‘fulvus’ ‘enim et flavus’ et ‘rubidus’ et ‘poeniceus’ et ‘rutilus’ et ‘luteus’ et ‘spadix’ appellationes sunt rufi coloris, aut acuentes eum, quasi incendentes, aut cum colore viridi miscentes aut nigro infuscantes aut virenti sensim albo illuminantes.” “Nam ‘poeniceus,’ quem tu GraeceGraecc φοίνικα dixisti, noster est et ‘rutilus’ et ‘spadix,’ poenicei συνώνυμος, qui factus e Graeco noster est, exuberantiam splendoremque significant ruboris, quales sunt fructus palmae arboris non admodum sole incocti, unde spadici et poeniceo nomen est;” “enim Dorice vocant avulsum e palma termitem cum fructu.” “‘Fulvus’ autem videtur de rufo atque viridi mixtus in aliis plus viridis, in aliis plus rufi habere. Sic poeta verborum diligentissimus ‘fuluamfulvarm’ aquilam dicit et iaspidem, ‘fulvos’ galeros et ‘fulvum’ aurum et arenam ‘fulvam’ et ‘fulvum’ leonem, sicque Ennius in Annalibus ‘aere fulvo’ dixit.” “‘Flavus’ contra videtur e viridi et rufo et albo concretus; sic ‘flaventes comae’ et, quod mirari quosdam video,” “frondes olearum a Vergilio ‘flavae’ dicuntur, sic multo ante Pacuvius aquam ‘flavam’ dixit et ‘fulvum’ pulverem. Cuius versus, quoniam sunt iucundissimi, libens commemini:Cédo tuum pedém mi, lymphis flávis fulvum ut PúlveremMánibus isdem, quíbus Ulixi sáepe permulsi, ábluam,Lássitudinémque minuam mánuum mollitúdine.” “‘Rubidus’ autem est rufus atrior et nigrore multo inustus, ‘luteus’ contra rufus color est dilutior;” “inde ei nomen quoque esse factum videtur.” “Non igitur,” inquit, “mi Favorine, species rufi coloriscolors plures aput Graecos quam aput nos nominantur.” “Sed ne viridis quidem color pluribus a vobis vocabulis dicitur,” “neque non potuit Vergilius, colorem equi significare viridem volens, ‘caerulum’ magis dicere ecum quam ‘glaucum,’ sed maluit verbo uti notiore Graeco quam inusitato Latino.” “Nostris autem veteribus ‘caesia’ dicta est, quae a Graecis γλαυκ- ῶπις, ut Nigidius ait, de colore caeli, quasi caelia.” Postquam haec Fronto dixit, tum Favorinus scientiam rerum uberem verborumque eius elegantiam exosculatus, “Absque te,” inquit, “uno forsitan lingua profecto Graeca longe anteisset, sed tu, mi Fronto, quod in versu Homerico est, id facis:Καί νύ κεν ἢ παρέλασσας ἢ ἀμφήριστον ἔθηκας.” “Sed cum omnia libens audivi quae peritissime dixisti, tum maxime quod varietatem flavi coloriscolors enarrasti fecistique ut intellegerem verba illa ex Annali quarto decimodecino Ennii amoenissima, quae minime intellegebam:Verrunt extemplo placide mare marmore flavoCaeruleum, spumat sale conferta rate pulsum;” “non enim videbatur ‘caeruleum’ mare cum ‘marmore flavo’ convenire.” “Sed cum sit, ita ut dixisti, flavus color e viridi et albo mixtus, pulcherrime prorsus spumas virentis maris ‘flavom marmor’ appellavit.”
27. The criticism of Titus Castricius passed upon passages from Sallust and Demosthenes, in which the one described Philip, the other Sertorius. THIS is Demosthenes' striking and brilliant description of king Philip: “I saw that Philip himself, with whom we were struggling, had in his desire for empire and absolute power had one eye knocked out, his collar-bone broken, his hand and leg maimed, and was ready to resign any part of his body that fortune chose to take from him, provided that with what remained he might live in honour and glory.” Sallust, desiring to rival this description, in his Histories thus wrote of the leader Sertorius: “He won great glory in Spain, while military tribune under the command of Titus Didius, rendered valuable service in the Marsic war in providing troops and arms; but he got no credit for much that was then done under his direction and orders, at first because of his low birth and afterwards through unfriendly historians; but during his lifetime his appearance bore testimony to these deeds, in many scars on his breast, and in the loss of an eye. Indeed, he rejoiced greatly in his bodily disfigurement, caring nothing for what he had lost, because he kept the rest with greater glory.” In his estimate of these words of the two writers Titus Castricius said: “Is it not beyond the range of human capability to rejoice in bodily disfigurement? For rejoicing is a certain exaltation of spirit, delighting in the realization of something greatly desired. How much truer, more natural, and more in accordance with human limitations is this: ' Giving up whatever part of his body fortune chose to take.' In these words,” said he, “Philip is shown, not like Sertorius, rejoicing in bodily disfigurement, which,” he said, “is unheard of and extravagant, but as a scorner of bodily losses and injuries in his thirst for honour and glory, who in exchange for the fame which he coveted would sacrifice his limbs one by one to the attacks of fortune.”
27. Quid T. Castricius existimarit super Sallustii verbis et Demosthenis, quibus alter Philippum descripsit, alter Sertorium. VERBA sunt haec gravia atque illustria de rege Philippo Demosthenis: Ἑώρων δʼ αὐτὸν τὸν Φίλιππον, πρὸς ὃν ἦν ἡμῖν ὁ ἀγών, ὑπὲρ ἀρχῆς καὶ δυναστείας τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἐκκεκομμένον, τὴν κλεῖν κατεαγότα, τὴν χεῖρα, τὸ σκέλος πεπηρωμένον, πᾶν ὅτι βουληθείη μέρος ἡ τύχη τοῦ σώματος παρελέσθαι, τοῦτο προϊέμενον, ὥστε τῷ λοιπῷ μετὰ τιμῆς καὶ δόξης ζῆν. Haec aemulari volens Sallustius de Sertorio duce in Historiis ita scripsit: “Magna gloria tribunus militum in Hispania T. Didio imperante, magno usui bello Marsico paratu militum et armorum fuit, multaque tum ductu eius iussuque patrata primo per ignobilitatem, deinde per invidiam scriptorum incelebrata sunt, quae vivus facie sua ostentabat aliquot adversis cicatricibus et effosso oculo. Quin ille dehonestamento corporis maxime laetabatur, neque illis anxius, quia reliqua gloriosius retinebat.” De utriusque his verbis T. Castricius cum iudicaret, “Nonne,” inquit, “ultra naturae humanae modum est, dehonestamento corporis laetari? Siquidem laetitia dicitur exultatio quaedam animi gaudio efferventior eventu rerum expetitarum.” “Quanto illud sincerius veriusque et humanis magis condicionibus conveniens: πᾶν ὅτι ἂν βουληθείη μέρος ἡ τύχη τοῦ σώματος παρελέσθαι, τοῦτο ποϊέμε- νον.” “Quibus verbis,” inquit, “ostenditur Philippus, non, ut Sertorius, corporis dehonestamento laetus, quod est,” inquit, “insolens et inmodicum, sed prae studio laudis et honoris iacturarum damnorumque corporis contemptor, qui singulos artus suos fortunae prodigendos daret quaestu atque compendio gloriarum.”
28. That it is uncertain to which deity sacrifices ought to be offered when there is an earthquake. WHAT is to be regarded as the cause of earthquakes is not only not obvious to the ordinary understanding and thought of mankind, but it is not agreed even among the natural philosophers whether they are due to the mighty winds that gather in the caverns and hollow places of the earth, or to the ebb and flow of subterranean waters in its hollows, as seems to have been the view of the earliest Greeks, who called Neptune “the Earth Shaker”; or whether they are the result of something else or due to the divine power of some other god—all this, I say, is not yet a matter of certain knowledge. For that reason the Romans of old, who were not only exceedingly scrupulous and careful in discharging all the other obligations of life, but also in fulfilling religious duties and venerating the immortal gods, whenever they felt an earthquake or received report of one, decreed a holy day on that account, but forbore to declare and specify in the decree, as is commonly done, the name of the god in whose honour the holy day was to be observed; for fear that by naming one god instead of another they might involve the people in a false observance. If anyone had desecrated that festival, and expiation was therefore necessary, they used to offer a victim “to either the god or goddess,” and Marcus Varro tells us that this usage was established by a decree of the pontiffs, since it was uncertain what force, and which of the gods or goddesses, had caused the earthquake. But in the case of eclipses of the sun or moon they concerned themselves no less with trying to discover the causes of that phenomenon. However, Marcus Cato, although a man with a great interest in investigation, nevertheless on this point expressed himself indecisively and superficially. His words in the fourth book of his Origins are as follows: “I do not care to write what appears on the tablet of the high priest: how often grain was dear, how often darkness, or something else, obscured the light of sun or moon.” Of so little importance did he consider it either to know or to tell the true causes of eclipses of the sun and moon.
28. Non esse compertumcompertnm cui deo rem divinam fieri oporteat, cum terra movet. QUAENAM esse causa videatur quamobrem terrae tremores fiant, non modo his communibus hominum sensibus opinionibusque incompertum, sed ne inter physicas quidem philosophias satis constitit ventorumne vi accidant specus hiatusque terrae subeuntium an aquarum subter in terrarum cavis undantium pulsibus fluctibusque, ita uti videntur existimasse antiquissimi Graecorum, qui Neptunum σεισίχθονα appellaverunt, an cuius aliae rei causa alteriusve dei vi ac numine, nondum etiam, sicuti diximus, pro certo creditum. Propterea veteres Romani, cum in omnibus aliis vitae officiisoficiis, tum in constituendis religionibus atque in dis inmortalibus animadvertendis castissimi cautissimiquecautissirnique, ubi terrain movisse senserant nuntiatumve erat, ferias eius rei causa edicto imperabant, sed dei nomen, ita uti solet, cui servari ferias oporteret, statuere et edicere quiescebant, ne alium pro alio nominando falsa religione populum alligarent. Eas ferias si quis polluisset piaculoque ob hanc rem opus esset, hostiam “si deo, si deae” immolabant, idque ita ex decreto pontificum observatum esse M. Varro dicit, quoniam et qua vi et per quem deorum dearumve terra tremeret incertum esset. Sed de lunae solisque defectionibus, non minus in eius rei causa reperienda sese exercuerunt. Quippe M. Cato, vir in cognoscendis rebus multi studii, incerta tamen et incuriose super ea re opinatus est. Verba Catonis ex Originum quarto haec sunt: “Non lubet scribere quod in tabula apud pontificem maximum est, quotiens annona cara, quotiens lunae aut solis lumine caligo aut quid obstiterit.” Usque adeo parvi fecit rationes veras solis et lunae deficientium vel scire vel dicere.
29. A fable of the Phrygian Aesop, which is well worth telling. AESOP, the well-known fabulist from Phrygia, has justly been regarded as a wise man, since he taught what it was salutary to call to mind and to recommend, not in an austere and dictatorial manner, as is the way of philosophers, but by inventing witty and entertaining fables he put into men's minds and hearts ideas that were wholesome and carefully considered, while at the same time he enticed their attention. For example, this fable of his about the little nest of a birdlet with delightful humour warns us that in the case of things which one can do, hope and confidence should never be placed in another, but in one's own self. “There is a little bird,” he says, “it is called the lark. It lives in the grain-fields, and generally builds its nest at such a time that the harvest is at hand exactly when the young birds are ready to be fledged. Such a lark chanced to have built her nest in a field which had been sown rather early in the year; therefore when the grain was turning yellow, the fledglings were still unable to fly. Accordingly, when the mother went off in search of food for her young, she warned them to notice whether anything unusual was said or done there, and to tell it to her on her return. A little later the owner of that grain-field calls his young son and says: ' Do you not see that this is ripe and already calls for hands? To-morrow then, as soon as it is light, see that you go to our friends and ask them to come and exchange work with us, and help us with this harvest.' So saying, he at once went away. And when the lark returned, the chicks, frightened and trembling, twittered about their mother and implored her to make haste and at once carry them off to some other place; 'for,' said they, 'the master has sent to ask his friends to come at daybreak and reap.' The mother bids them be easy in mind. ' For if the master,' said she, ' has turned the harvesting over to his friends, the field will not be reaped to-morrow, and I need not take you away to-day.' On the following day the mother flies off to get food. The master waits for those whom he had summoned. The sun grows hot and nothing is done. The day advances and no friends come. Then he says again to his son: 'Those friends of ours are a lot of slackers. why not rather go and ask our relatives and kinsfolk to come to reap early tomorrow?' This, too, the frightened chicks tell their mother. She urges them once again to be without fear and without worry, saying that hardly any relatives and kinsfolk are so obliging as to undertake labour without any delay and to obey a summons at once. 'But do you,' she said, 'observe whether anything more is said.' Next day at dawn the bird left to forage. The relatives and kinsfolk neglected the work which they were asked to do. So finally the owner said to his son: ' Enough of friends and relatives. Bring two scythes at daybreak; I myself will take one and you yourself the other, and tomorrow we ourselves will reap the grain with our own hands.' When the mother heard from her brood that the farmer had said this, she cried: ' It is time to get out and be off; for this time what he said surely will be done. For now it depends on the very man whose business it is, not on another who is asked to do it.' And so the lark moved her nest, the owner harvested his crop.” This then is Aesop's fable, showing that trust in friends and relatives is usually idle and vain. But what different warning do the more highly revered books of the philosophers give us, than that we should rely on ourselves alone, and regard everything else that is outside us and beyond our control as helpful neither to our affairs nor to ourselves? This parable of Aesop has been rendered in tetrameter verse by Quintus Ennius in his Saturae most cleverly and gracefully. The following are the last two lines of that version, and I surely think it is worth while to remember them and take them to heart:This adage ever have in readiness;Ask not of friends what you yourself can do.
29. Apologus Aesopi Phrygis memoratu non inutilis AESOPUS ille e Phrygia fabulator haut immerito sapiens existimatus est, cum quae utilia monitu suasuque erant, non severe neque imperiose praecepit et censuit, ut philosophis mos est, sed festivos delectabilesque apologos commentus, res salubriter ac prospicienter animadversas in mentes animosque hominum cum audiendi quadam inlecebra induit. Velut haec eius fabula de aviculae nidulo lepide atque iucunde promonet, spem fiduciamque rerum quas efficere quis possit haut umquam in alio, sed in semetipso habendam. “Avicula,” inquit, “est parva, nomen est cassita.” “Habitat nidulaturque in segetibus, id ferme temporis, ut appetat messis pullis iam iam plumantibus.” “Ea cassita in sementes forte congesserat tempestiviores; propterea frumentis flavescentibus pulli etiam tunc involucres erant.” “Dum igitur ipsa iret cibum pullis quaesitum, monet eos ut, si quid ibi rei novae fieret dicereturve, animadverterent idque uti sibi, ubi redisset, nuntiarent.” “Dominus postea segetum illarum filium adulescentem vocat et ‘Videsne,’ inquit, ‘haec ematuruisse et manus iam postulare? Idcirco die crastini, ubi primum diluculabit, fac amicos eas et roges veniant operamque mutuam dent et messim hanc nobis adiuvent.’” “Haec ubi ille dixit, et discessit. Atque ubi redit cassita, pulli tremibundi, trepiduli circumstrepere orareque matrem ut iam statim properet inque alium locum sese asportet; ‘nam dominus,’ inquiunt, ‘misit qui amicos roget uti luce oriente veniant et metant.’” “Mater iubet eos otioso animo esse: ‘Si enim dominus,’ inquit, ‘messim ad amicos reicit, crastino seges non metetur neque necessum est hodie uti vos auferam.’” “Die,” inquit, “postero mater in pabulum volat. Dominus quos rogaverat opperitur. Sol fervit, et fit nihil; it dies, et amici nulli eunt.” “tumTurn ille rursum ad filium ‘amici isti magnam partem,’ inquit, ‘cessatores sunt. Quin potius imus et cognatos adfinesque nostros oramus ut assint eras tempori ad metendum?’” “Itidem hoc pulli pavefacti matri nuntiant. Mater hortatur ut tum quoque sine metu ac sine cura sint, cognatoscognates adfinesque nullos ferme tam esse obsequibiles ait, ut ad laborem capessendum nihil cunctentur et statimstatic dicto oboediant: ‘Vos modo,’ inquit, ‘advertite, si modo quid denuo dicetur.’” “Alia luce orta avis in pastum profecta est. Cognati et adfines opera, quam dare rogati sunt supersederunt.” “Ad postremum igitur dominus filio: ‘Valeant,’ inquit, ‘amici cum propinquis. Afferes primo luci falces duas; unam egomet mihi et tu tibi capies alteram et frumentum nosmetipsi manibus nostris eras metemus.’” “Id ubi ex pullis dixisse dominum mater audivit, ‘Tempus,’ inquit, ‘est cedendi et abeundi; fiet nunc dubio procul quod futurum dixit. In ipso enim iam vertitur cuia res est, non in alio, unde petitur.’” “Atque ita cassita nidum migravit, seges a domino demessa est.” Haec quidem est Aesopi fabula de amicorum et propinquorum levi plerumque et inani fiducia. Sed quid aliud sanctiores libri philosophorum monent quam ut in nobis tantum ipsis nitamur, alia autem omnia quae extra nos extraque nostrum animum sunt neque pro nostris neque pro nobis ducamus? Hunc Aesopi apologum Q. Ennius in Satiris scite admodum et venuste versibus quadratis composuit. Quorum duo postremi isti sunt, quos habere cordi et memoriae operae pretium esse hercle puto:Hóc erit tibi árgumentum sémper in promptú situm:Né quid expectés amicos, quód tute agere póssies.
30. An observation on the waves of the sea, which take one form when the wind is from the south, and another when it is from the north. IT has often been observed in the motion of the waves caused by the north winds or by any current of air from that quarter of the heaven [that it is different from that caused by] the south and southwest winds. For the waves raised by the blowing of the north wind are very high and follow hard upon one another, but as soon as the wind has ceased, they flatten out and subside, and soon there are no waves at all. But it is not the same when the wind blows from the south or southwest; for although these have wholly ceased to blow, still the waves that they have caused continue to swell, and though they have long been undisturbed by wind, yet the sea keeps continually surging. The reason of this is inferred to be, that the winds from the north, falling upon the sea from a higher part of the sky, are borne straight down, as it were headlong, into the depths of ocean, making waves that are not driven forward, but are set in motion from within; and these, being turned up from beneath, roll only so long as the force of that wind which blows in from above continues. The south and southwest winds, on the contrary, forced down to the southern zone and the lowest part of the heavens, are lower and flatter, and as they blow over the surface of the sea, they push forward the waves rather than raise them up. Therefore the waters are not struck from above but are forced forward, and even after the wind has fallen they retain for some time the motion given by the original impulse. Moreover, this very suggestion of mine may be supported by the following lines of Homer, if one reads them carefully. For he wrote thus of the blasts of the south wind:Then Notus drives huge waves against the western cliff,but on the other hand he speaks in a different way of boreas, which we call aquilo:And Boreas aetherborn, uprolling a great wave.For he means that the waves stirred up by the north winds, which are high and blow from above, are so to speak rolled downward, but that by the south winds, which are lower than these, they are driven forward in an upward direction by a somewhat greater force and pushed up. For that is the meaning of the verb w)qei=, as also in another passage:The stone toward the hilltop pushed he up. This also has been observed by the most learned investigators of nature, that when the south winds blow, the sea becomes blue and bright, but, under the north winds, darker and more gloomy. I noted the cause of this when I was making excerpts from the Problems of Aristotle.
30. Quid observatum sit in undarum motibus, quae in mari alio atque alio modo fiunt austris flantibus aquilonibusque. Hoc saepenumero in undarum motu, quas aquilones venti quique ex eadem caeli regione aer fluit, faciunt … in mari austri atque Africi. Nam fluctus, qui flante aquilone maximi et creberrimi excitantur, simul ac ventus posuit, sternuntur et conflaccescunt et mox fluctus esse desinunt. At non idem fit flante austro vel Africo; quibus iam nihil spirantibus undae tamen factae diutius tument et a vento quidem iamdudum tranquillae sunt, sed mare est etiam atque etiam undabundum. Eius rei causa esse haec coniectatur, quod venti a septentrionibus, ex altiore caeli parte in mare incidentes, deorsum in aquarum profunda quasi praecipites deferuntur undasque faciunt non prorsus inpulsas, sed imitus commotas, quae tantisper erutae volvuntur, dum illius infusi desuper spiritus vis manet. Austri vero et Africi, ad meridianum orbis circulum et ad partem axis infimam depressi, inferiores et humiles, per supreme aequoris euntes protrudunt magis fluctus quam eruunt, et idcirco non desuper laesae, sed propulsae in adversum aquae, etiam desistente flatu, retinent aliquantisper de pristino pulsu impetum. Id autem ipsum quod dicimus ex illis quoque Homericis versibus, si quis non incuriose legat, adminiculari potest. Nam de austri flatibus ita scripsit:Ἔνθα νότος μέγα κῦμα ποτὶ σκαιὸν ῥίον ὠθεῖ,contra autem de boreaborca, quem “aquilonem” nos appellamus, alio dicit modo:Καὶ βορέης αἰθρηγενέτης μέγα κῦμα κυλίνδων. Ab aquilonibus enim, qui alti supernique sunt, fluctus excitatos quasi per prona volvi dicit, ab austris autem, his qui humiliores sunt, maiore vi quadam propelli sursum atque subici. Id enim significat verbum ὠθεῖ,, sicut alio in loco:Λᾶαν ἄνω ὤθεσκε ποτὶ λόφον. Id quoque a peritissimis rerum philosophis observatum est, austris spirantibus mare fieri glaucum et caeruleum, aquilonibus obscurius atriusque. Cuius rei causam, cum Aristotelis libros Problematorum praecerperemus, notavi.