11. The weak arguments by which Accius in his Didascalica attempts to prove that Hesiod was earlier than Homer. As to the age of Homer and of Hesiod opinions differ. Some, among whom are Philochorus and Xenophanes, have written that Homer was older than Hesiod; others that he was younger, among them Lucius Accius the poet and Euphorus the historian. But Marcus Varro, in the first book of his Portraits, says that it is not at all certain which of the two was born first, but that there is no doubt that they lived partly in the same period of time, and that this is proved by the inscription engraved upon a tripod which Hesiod is said to have set up on Mount Helicon. Accius, on the contrary, in the first book of his Didascalica, makes use of very weak arguments in his attempt to show that Hesiod was the elder: “Because Homer,” he writes, “when he says at the beginning of his poem that Achilles was the son of Peleus, does not inform us who Peleus was; and this he unquestionably would have done, if he did not know that the information had already been given by Hesiod. Again, in the case of Cyclops,” says Accius, “he would not have failed to note such a striking characteristic and to make particular mention of the fact that he was oneeyed, were it not that this was equally well known from the poems of his predecessor Hesiod.” Also as to Homer's native city there is the very greatest divergence of opinion. Some say that he was from Colophon, some from Smyrna; others assert that he was an Athenian, still others, an Egyptian; and Aristotle declares that he was from the island of los. Marcus Varro, in the first book of his Portraits, placed this couplet under the portrait of Homer:This snow-white kid the tomb of Homer marks;For such the Ietae offer to the dead.
11. Quibus et quam frivolis argumentis Accius in Didascalicis utatur, quibus docere nititur Hesiodum esse quam Homerum natu antiquiorem. SUPER aetate Homeri atque Hesiodi non consentitur. Alii Homerum quam Hesiodum maiorem natu fuisse scripserunt, in quis Philochorus et Xenophanes, alii minorem, in quis L. Accius poeta et Ephorus historiae scriptor. M. autem Varro in primo De Imaginibus, uter prior sit natus parum constare dicit, sed non esse dubium quin aliquo tempore eodem vixerint, idque ex epigrammate ostendi quod in tripode scriptum est, qui in monte Helicone ab Hesiodo positus traditur. Accius autem in primo Didascalico levibus admodum argumentis utitur, per quae ostendi putat, Hesiodum natu priorem: “Quod Homerus,” inquit, “cum in principio carminis Achillem esse filium Pelei diceret, quis esset Peleus non addidit; quam rem procul,” inquit, “dubio dixisset, nisi ab Hesiodo iam dictum videret. De Cyclope itidem,” inquit, “vel maxime quod unoculus fuit, rem tam insignem non praeterisset, nisi aeque prioris Hesiodi carminibus invulgatum esset.” De patria quoque Homeri multo maxime dissensum est. Alii Colophonium, alii Smyrnaeum, sunt qui Atheniensem, sunt etiam qui Aegyptium fuisse dicant, Aristoteles tradidit ex insula Io. M. Varro in libro De Imaginibus primo Homeri imagini epigramma hoc apposuit.Capélla Homeri candida haec tumulum índicat,Quod hac Ietaeletae mórtuo faciúnt sacra.
12. That Publius Nigidius, a man of great learning, applied bibosus to one who was given to drinking heavily and greedily, using a new, but hardly rational, word-formation. PUBLIUS NIGIDIUS, in his Grammatical Notes, calls one who is fond of drinking bibax and bibosus. Bibax, like edax, I find used by many others; but as yet I have nowhere found an example of bibosus, except in Laberius, and there is no other word similarly derived. For vinosus, or vitiosus, and other formations of the kind, are not parallel, since they are derived from nouns, not from verbs. Laberius, in the mime entitled Salinator, uses this word thus:Not big of breast, not old, not bibulous, not pert.
12. Largum atque avidum bibendi a P. Nigidio, doctissimo viro, nova et prope absurda vocabuli figura “bibosum” dictum. BIBENDI avidum P. Nigidius in Commentariis grammaticisGranmmaticis “bibacem” et “bibosum” dicit. “Bibacem” ego, ut “edacem,” a plerisque aliis dictum lego; “bibosum” dictum nondum etiam usquam repperi nisi apud Laberium, neque aliud est quod simili inclinatu dicatur. Non enim simile est ut “vinosus” aut “vitiosus” ceteraque quae hoc modo dicuntur, quoniam a vocabulis, non a verbo, inclinata sunt. Laberius in mimo, qui Salinator inscriptus est, verbo hoc ita utitur:Nón mammosa, nón annosa, nón bibosa, nón procax.
13. How Demosthenes, while still young and a pupil of the philosopher Plato, happening to hear the orator Callistratus add ressing the people, deserted Plato and became a follower of Callistratus. HERMIPPUS has written that Demosthenes, when quite young, used to frequent the Academy and listen to Plato. “And this Demosthenes,” says he, “when he had left home and, as usual, was on his way to Plato, saw great throngs of people running to the same place; he inquired the reason of this, and learned that they were hurrying to hear Callistratus. This Callistratus was one of those orators in the Athenian republic that they call dhmagwgoi/, or 'demagogues.' Demosthenes thought it best to turn aside for a moment and find out whether the discourse justified such eager haste. He came,” says Hermippus, “and heard Callistratus delivering that famous speech of his, h( peri\ )Wrwpou= di/kh. He was so moved, so charmed, so captivated, that he became a follower of Callistratus from that moment, deserting Plato and the Academy.”
13. Quod Demosthenes etiamtum adulescens, cum Platonis philosophi discipulus foret, audito forte Callistrato rhetore in contione populi, destitit a Platone et sectatus Callistratum est. HERMIPPUS hoc scriptum reliquit, Demosthenen admodum adulescentem ventitare in Academiam Platonemque audire solitum. “Atque is,” inquit, “Demosthenes domo egressus, ut ei mos erat, cum ad Platonem pergeret complurisque populos concurrentes videret, percontatur eius rei causam cognoscitque currere eos auditum Callistratum.” “Is Callistratus Athenis orator in republica fuit quos illi δημαγωγούς appellant.” “Visum est paulum devertere experirique an digna auditio tanto properantium studio foret.” “Venit,” inquit, “atque audit Callistratum nobilem illam τὴν περὶ Ὠρωποῦ δίκην dicentem, atque ita motus et demultus et captus est ut Callistratum iam inde sectari coeperit Academiam cum Platone reliquerit.”
14. That whoever says dimidium librum legi, or dimidiam fabulam audivi, and uses other expressions of that kind, speaks incorrectly: and that Marcus Varro gives the explanation of that error: and that no early writer has used such phraseology. VARRO believes that dimidium librum legi (“I have read half the book” ), or dimidiam fabulam legi (“I have read half the play” ), or any other expression of that kind, is incorrect and faulty usage. “For,” says he, one ought to say dimidiatum librum ('the halved book'), not dimidium, and dimidiatam fabulam, not dimidiam. But, on the contrary, if from a pint a half-pint has been poured, one should not say that 'a halved pint' has been poured, but a ' half-pint,' and when one has received five hundred sesterces out of a thousand that were owing him, we must say that he has received a half sestertium, not a halved one. But if a silver bowl," he says, “which I own in common with another person, has been divided into two parts, I ought to speak of it as 'halved,' not as 'a half': but my share of the silver of which the bowl is made is a 'half,' not 'halved.'” Thus Varro discusses and analyzes very acutely the difference between dimidium and dimidiatum, and he declares that Quintus Ennius spoke, in his Annals, with understanding in the line:As if one brought a halved cup of wine,and similarly the part that is missing from the cup should be spoken of as “half,” not “halved.” Now the point of all this argument, which Varro sets forth acutely, it is true, but somewhat obscurely, is this: dimidiatum is equivalent to dismediatum, and means “divided into two parts,” and therefore dimidiatum cannot properly be used except of the thing itself that is divided; dimidium, however, is not that which is itself divided, but is one of the parts of what has been divided. Accordingly, when we wish to say that we have read the half part of a book or heard the half part of a play, if we say dimidiam fabulam or dimidium librum, we make a mistake; for in that case you are using dimidium of the whole thing which has been halved and divided. Therefore Lucilius, following this same rule, says:With one eye and two feet, like halved pig,and in another place:why not? To sell his trash the huckster lauds(The rascal!) half a shoe, a strigil split.Again in his twentieth book it is clearer still that Lucilius carefully avoids saying dimidiam horam, but puts dimidium in the place of dimnidiam in the following lines:At its own season and the self-same time,The half an hour and three at least elapsed,At the fourth hour again.For while it was natural and easy to say “three and a half elapsed,” he watchfully and carefully shunned an improper term. From this it is quite clear that not even “half an hour” can properly be said, but we must say either “a halved hour” or “the halt part of an hour.” And so Plautus as well, in the Bacchides, writes “half of the gold,” not “the halved gold,” and in the Aulularia, “half of the provisions,” not “the halved provisions,” in this verse:He bade them give him half of all the meats;But in the Menaechmi he has “the halved day,” not “half,” as follows:Down to the navel now the halved day is dead.Marcus Cato, too, in his work On Farming, writes: “Sow cypress seed thick, just as flax is commonly sown. Over it sift earth from a sieve to the depth of a halved finger. Then smooth it well with a board, with the feet, or with the hands.” He says “a halved finger,” not “a half.” For we ought to say “half of a finger,” but the finger itself should be said to be “halved.” Marcus Cato also wrote this of the Carthaginians: “They buried the men halfway down (dimidiatos) in the ground and built a fire around them; thus they destroyed them.” In fact, no one of all those who have spoken correctly has used these words otherwise than in the way I have described.
14. “Dimidium librum legi” aut “dimidiam fabulam audivi” aliaque huiuscemodi qui dicat, vitiose dicere; eiusque vitii causas reddere M. Varronem; nec quemquam veterem hisce verbis ita usum esse. “DIMIDIUM librum legi” aut “dimidiam fabulam audivi,” vel quid aliud huiuscemodi, male ac vitiose dici existumat Varro. “Oportet enim,” inquit, “dicere ‘dimidiatum librum,’ non ‘dimidium,’ et ‘dimidiatam fabulam,’ non ‘dimidiam.’ Contra autem si ex sextario hemina fusa est, non ‘dimidiatum’ sed ‘dimidium,’ sextarium fusum dicendum est, et qui ex mille nummum, quod ei debebatur, quingentos recepit, non ‘dimidiatum’ recepisse dicemus, sed ‘dimidium.’” “At si scyphusscyplus,” inquit, “argenteus mihi cum alio communis in duas partis disiectus sit,‘dimidiatum’ eum esse dicere scyphum debeo, non ‘dimidium,’ argenti autem, quod in eo scypho inest, ‘dimidium’ meum esse, non ‘dimidiatum’”; disseritque ac dividit subtilissime quid “dimidium” “dimidiato” intersit, et Q. Ennium scienter hoc in Annalibus dixisse ait:Sicuti si quis ferat vas vini dimidiatum,sicuti pars quae deest ei vaso non “dimidiata” dicenda est, sed “dimidia.” Omnis autem disputationis eius, quam subtiliter quidem, sed subobscuresuboscure explicat, summa haec est: “dimidiatum” est quasi “dismediatum” et in partis duas pares divisum, “dimidiatum” ergo nisi ipsum quod divisum est dici haut convenit; “dimidium” vero est, non quod ipsum dimidiatumdiinidiatum est, sed quae ex dimidiato pars altera est. Cum igitur partem dimidiam libri legisse volumus dicere aut partem dimidiam fabulae audisse, si “dimidiam fabulam” aut “dimidium librum” dicimus, peccamus; totum enim ipsum quod dimidiatum atque divisum est “dimidium” dicis. Itaque Lucilius eadem secutus:Uno oculo (inquit) pedibusque duobus dimidiatus Ut porcus,et alio loco:Quidni? et scruta quidem ut vendat scrutarius laudat,Praefractam strigilem, soleam inprobus dimidiatam. Iam in vicesimo manifestius “dimidiam horam” dicere studiose fugit, sed pro “dimidia” “dimidium” ponit in hisce versibus:Tempestate sua atque eodem uno tempore, et horaeDimidio et tribus confectis dumtaxat—eandemAd quartam.Nam cum obvium proximumque esset dicere: “dimidia et tribus confectis,” vigilate atque attente verbum non probum vitavit. Per quod satis apparet ne “horam” quidem “dimidiam” recte dici, sed vel “dimidiatam horam” vel “dimidiam partem horae.” Propterea Plautus quoque in Bacchidibus dimidium auri dicit, non “dimidiatumdiridiatum aurum”; item in Aulularia “dimidium obsoni,” non “dimidiatum obsonium,” in hoc versu:Ei ádeo obsoni hic iússit dimidiúm dari;in MenaechmisMenaeclmis autem “dimidiatum diem,” non “dimidium” in hochoe versu:Diés quidem iam ad úmbilicum dímidiatus mórtuust. M. etiam Cato in libro quem De Agricultura conscripsit: “Semen cupressi serito crebrum, ita uti linum seri solet. Eo cribro terram incernito, dimidiatum digitum. Iam id bene tabula aut pedibus aut manibus complanato.” “Dimidiatum,” inquit, “digitum,” non “dimidium.” Nam “digiti” quidem “dimidium,” digitum autem ipsum “dimidiatum” dici oportet. Item M. Cato de Carthaginiensibus ita scripsit: “Homines defoderunt in terram dimidiatos ignemque circumposuerunt, ita interfecerunt.” Neque quisquam omnium qui probe locuti sunt his verbis sequius quam dixi usus est.
15. That it is recorded in literature and handed down by tradition, that great and unexpected joy has brought sudden death to many, since the breath of life was stifled and could not endure the effects of an unusual and strong emotion. ARISTOTLE the philosopher relates that Polycrita, a woman of high rank in the island of Naxos, on suddenly and unexpectedly hearing joyful news, breathed her last. Philippides too, a comic poet of no little repute, when he had unexpectedly won the prize in a contest of poets at an advanced age, and was rejoicing exceedingly, died suddenly in the midst of his joy. The story also of Diogoras of Rhodes is widely known. This Diogoras had three young sons, one a boxer, the second a pancratist, and the third a wrestler. He saw them all victors and crowned at Olympia on the same day, and when the three young men were embracing him there, and having placed their crowns on their father's head were kissing him, and the people were congratulating him and pelting him from all sides with flowers, there in the very stadium, before the eyes of the people, amid the kisses and embraces of his sons, he passed away. Moreover, I have read in our annals that at the time when the army of the Roman people was cut to pieces at Cannae, an aged mother was overwhelmed with grief and sorrow by a message announcing the death of her son; but that report was false, and when not long afterwards the young man returned from that battle to the city, the aged mother, upon suddenly seeing her son, was overpowered by the flood, the shock, and the crash, so to speak, of unlooked-for joy descending upon her, and gave up the ghost.
15. Extare in litteris perque hominum memorias traditum, quod repente multis mortem attulit gaudium ingens insperatum, interclusa anima et vim magni novique motus non sustinente. cognito repente insperato gaudio expirasse animam refert Aristoteles philosophus Polycritam, nobilem feminam Naxo insula. Philippides quoque, comoediarum poeta haut ignobilis, aetate iam edita cum in certamine poetarum praeter spem vicisset et laetissime gauderet, inter illud gaudium repente mortuus est. De Rodio etiam Diagora celebrata historia est. Is Diagoras tris filios adulescentes habuit, unum pugilem, alterum pancratiasten, tertium luctatorem. Eos omnis vidit vincere coronarique Olympiae eodem die et, cum ibi eum tres adulescentes amplexi coronis suis in caput patris positis saviarentur, cum populus gratulabundus flores undique in eum iaceret, ibidem in stadio inspectante populo in osculis atque in manibus filiorum animam efflavit. Praeterea in nostris annalibus scriptum legimus, qua tempestate apud Cannas exercitus populi Romani caesus est, anum matrem, nuntio de morte filii allato, luctu atque maerore affectam esse; sed is nuntius non verus fuit, utque is adulescens non diu post ex ea pugna in urbem redit, anus repente filio viso copia atque turba et quasi ruina incidentis inopinati gaudii oppressa exanimataque est.
16. The variations in the period of gestation reported by physicians and philosophers; and incidentally the views also of the ancient poets on that subject and many other noteworthy and interesting particulars; and the words of the physician Hippocrates, quoted verbatim from his book entitled Peri\ Trofh=s.
16. Temporis varietas in puerperis mulierum quaenam sit a medicis et a philosophis tradita; atque inibi poetarum quoque veterum super eadem re opiniones multaque alia auditu atque memoratu digna; verbaque ipsa Hippocratis medicinedici ex libro illius sumpta qui inscriptus est Περὶ Τροφῆς.
BOTH physicians and philosophers of distinction have investigated the duration of the period of gestation in man. The general opinion, now accepted as correct, is that after the womb of a woman has conceived the seed, the child is born rarely in the seventh month, never in the eighth, often in the ninth, more often in the tenth in number; and that the end of the tenth month, not its beginning, is the extreme limit of human gestation.
ET medici et philosophi inlustres de tempore humani partus quaesiverunt. Multa opinio est, eaque iam pro vero recepta, postquam mulieris uterum semen conceperit, gigni hominem septimo rarenter, numquam octavo, saepe nono, saepius numero decimo mense, eumque esse hominum gignendi summum finem: decem menses non inceptos, sed exactos. Idque Plautum,
And this we find the ancient poet Plautus saying in his comedy the Cistellaria, in these words:And then the girl whom he did violateBrought forth a daughter when ten months had sped.That same thing is stated by Menander also, a still older poet and exceedingly well informed as to current opinion;
veterem poetam, dicere videmus in comoedia Cistellaria his verbis:tum ílla, quam comprésserat,Decumó post mense exácto hic peperit fíliam.Hoc idem tradit etiam Menander,
I quote his words on that subject from the play called Plocium or The Necklace:The woman is ten months with child...But although our countryman Caecilius wrote a play with the same name and of the same plot, and borrowed extensively from Menander, yet in naming the months of delivery he did not omit the eighth, which Menander had passed by. These are the lines from Caecilius:And may a child in the tenth month be born?—By Pollux! in the ninth, and seventh, and eighth.
poeta vetustior, humanarum opinionum vel peritissimus; versus eius super ea re de fabula Plocio posui:Γυνὴ κυεῖ δέκα μῆνας.4 sed noster Caecilius, cum faceret eodem nomine et eiusdem argumenti comoediam ac pleraque a Menandro sumeret, in mensibus tamen genitalibus nominandis non praetermisit octavum, quem praeterierat Menander. Caecilii versus hiscehice sunt:sóletne mulier décimo mense párere?—Pol nonó quoqueétíam septimo átque octavo.
Marcus Varro leads us to believe that Caecilius did not make this statement thoughtlessly or differ without reason from Menander and from the opinions of many men.
eamEarn rem Caecilium non inconsiderate dixisse neque temere a Menandro atque a multorum opinionibus descivisse, M. Varro uti credamus facit.
For in the fourteenth book of his Divine Antiquities he has left the statement on record that parturition sometimes takes place in the eighth month. In this book he also says that sometimes a child may be born even in the eleventh month, and he cites Aristotle as authority for his statement in regard both to the eighth and the eleventh month.
Nam mense nonnumquam octavo editum esse partum in libro quarto decimo Rerum Divinarum scriptum reliquit; quo in libro etiam undecimo mense aliquando nasci posse hominem dicit, eiusque sententiae tam de octavo quam de undecimo mense Aristotelem auctorem laudat.
Now, the reason for this disagreement as to the eighth month may be found in Hippocrates' work entitled Peri\ Trofh=s, or On Nurture, from which these words are taken “Eighth-month's children exist and do not exist.”
Sed huius de mense octavo dissensionis causa cognosci potest in libro Hippocratis qui inscriptus est Περὶ Τροφῆς, ex quo libro verba haec sunt: Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν τὰ ὀκτάμηνα.
This statement, so obscure, abrupt, and apparently contradictory, is thus explained by the physician Sabinus, who wrote a very helpful commentary on Hippocrates: “They exist, since they appear to live after the miscarriage; but they do not exist, since they die afterwards; they exist and do not exist therefore, since they live for the moment in appearance, but not in reality.”
Id tam obscure atque praecise et tamquam adverse dictum Sabinus medicus, qui Hippocratem commodissime commentatus est, verbis his enarravit: Ἔστιν μέν, φαινόμενα ὡς ζῶα μετὰ τὴν ἔκτρωσιν· οὐκ ἔστιν δέ, θνήσκοντα μετὰ ταῦτα· καὶ ἔστιν οὖν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν, φαντασίᾳ μὲν παραυτίκα ὄντα, δυνάμει δὲ οὐκέτι.
But Varro says that the early Romans did not regard such births as unnatural rarities, but they did believe that a woman was delivered according to nature in the ninth or tenth month, and in no others, and that for this reason they gave to the three Fates names derived from bringing forth, and from the ninth and tenth months.
Antiquos autem Romanos Varro dicit non recepisse huiuscemodi quasi monstruosas raritates, sed nono mense aut decimo, neque praeter hos aliis, partionem mulieris secundum naturam fieri existimasse idcircoque eos nomina Fatis tribus fecisse apariendo et a nono atque decimo mense.
“For Parca,” says he, “is derived from partuis with the change of one letter, and likewise Nona and Decima from the period of timely delivery.”
Nam “‘Parca,’” inquit, “inmutata una littera, a partu nominata, item ‘Nona’ et ‘Decima’ a partus tempestivi tempore.”
But Caesellius Vindex in his Ancient Readings says: ' The names of the Fates are three: “Nona, Decuma, Morta”; and he quotes this verse from the Odyssey of Livius, the earliest of our poets,When will the day be present that Morta has predicted?But Caesellius, though a man not without learning, took Morta as a name, when he ought to have taken it as equivalent to Mocra.
Caesellius autem Vindex in Lectionibus suis Antiquis: “Tria,” inquit, “nomina Parcarum sunt: ‘Nona,’ ‘Decuma,’ ‘Morta,’” et versum hunc Livii, antiquissimi poetae, ponit ex Ὀδυσσείᾳ:Quandó diés advéniet quém profáta Mórta est?Sed homo minime malus Caesellius “Mortam” quasi nomen accepit, cum accipere quasi Moeram deberet.
Furthermore, besides what I have read in books about human gestation, also heard of the following case, which occurred in Rome: A woman of good and honourable character, of undoubted chastity, gave birth to a child in the eleventh month after her husband's death, and because of the reckoning of the time the accusation was made that she had conceived after the death of her husband, since the decemvirs had written that a child is born in ten months and not in the eleventh month. The deified Hadrian, however, having heard the case, decided that birth might also occur in the eleventh month, and I myself have read the actual decree with regard to the matter. In that decree Hadrian declares that he makes his decision after looking up the views of the ancient philosophers and physicians.
Praeterea ego de partu humano, praeterquam quaequac scripta in libris legi, hoc quoque usu venisse Romae comperi: feminam bonis atque honestis moribus, non ambigua pudicitia, in undecimo mense post mariti mortem peperisse factumque esse negotium propter rationem temporis, quasi marito mortuo postea concepisset, quoniam decemviri in decem mensibus gigni hominem, non in undecimo scripsissent; sed divum Hadrianum, causa cognita, decrevisse in undecimoundecino quoque mense partum edi posse; idque ipsum eius rei decretum nos legimus. In eo decreto Hadrianus id statuere se dicit requisitis veterum philosophorum et medicorum sententiis.
This very day I chanced to read these words in a satire of Marcus Varro's entitled The Will: “If one or more sons shall be born to me in ten months, let them be disinherited, if they are asses in music; but if one be born to me in the eleventh month, according to Aristotle, let Attius have the same rights under my will as Tettius.” Just as it used commonly to be said of things that did not differ from each other, “let Attius be as Tettius,” so Varro means by this old proverb that children born in ten months and in eleven are to have the same and equal rights.
Hodie quoque in satura forte M. Varronis legimus, quae inscribitur Testamentum, verba haec: “Si quis mihi filius unus pluresve in decem mensibus gignantur, ii si erunt ὄνοι λύρας, exheredes sunto; quod si quis undecimo mense, Ἀριστοτέλην, natus est, Attio idem, quod Tettio, ius esto apud me.”
But if it is a fact that gestation cannot be prolonged beyond the tenth month, it is pertinent to ask why Homer wrote that Neptune said to a girl whom he had just violated:Rejoice, O woman, in this act of love;
Per hoc vetus proverbium Varro significat, sicuti vulgo dici solitum erat de rebus nihil inter sese distantibus: “idem Atti, quod Tetti,” ita pari eodemque iure esse in decem mensibus natos et in undecim.
A year gone by, fair offspring shall be thine,For not unfruitful is a god's embrace. When I had brought this matter to the attention of several scholars, some of them argued that in Homer's time, as in that of Romulus, the year consisted, not of twelve months, but of ten;
Quod si ita neque ultra decimum mensem fetura mulierum protolli potest, quaeri oportet cur Homerus scripserit, Neptunum dixisse puellae a se recens compressae:Χαῖρε γυνὴ φιλότητι· περιπλομένου δʼ ἐνιαυτοῦΤέξεις ἀγλαὰ τέκνʼ, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἀποφώλιοι εὐναὶἈθανάτων.
others, that it was in accord with Neptune and his majesty that a child by him should develop through a longer period than usual; and others gave other nonsensical reasons. But Favorinus tells me that periplome/nou e)niautou= does not mean “when the year is ended” (confectus), but “when it is nearing its end” (ad fectus.)
Id cum ego ad complures grammaticos attulissem, partim eorum disputabant Homeri quoque aetate, sicuti Romuli, annum fuisse non duodecim mensium, sed decem; alii convenisse Neptuno maiestatique eius dicebant, ut longiori tempore fetus ex eo grandesceret;
In this instance Favorinus did not use the word adfectus in its popular signification (but yet correctly);
alii alia quaedam nugalia. Sed Favorinus mihi ait περιπλομένου ἐνιαυτοῦ non “confecto” esse “anno,” sed “adfecto.”In qua re verbo usus est non vulgariae significationis.
for as it was used by Marcus Cicero and the most polished of the early writers, it was properly applied to things which had advanced, or been carried, not to the very end, but nearly to the end. Cicero gives the word that meaning in the speech On the Consular Provinces.
“Adfecta” enim, sicuti Marcus Cicero et veterum elegantissimi locuti sunt, ea proprie dicebantur quae non ad finem ipsum, sed proxime finem progressa deductave erant. Hoc verbum ad hanc sententiam Cicero in hac fecit, quam dixit De Provinciis Consularibus.
Moreover, Hippocrates, in that book of which I wrote above, when he mentioned the number of days within which the embryo conceived in the womb is given form, and had limited the time of gestation itself to the ninth or tenth month, but had said that this nevertheless was not always of the same duration, but that delivery occurred sometimes more quickly, sometimes later, finally used these words: “In these cases there are longer and shorter periods, both wholly and in part; but the longer are not much longer or the shorter much shorter.” By this he means that whereas a birth sometimes takes place more quickly, yet it occurs not much more quickly, and when later, not much later.
Hippocrates autem in eo libro de quo supra scripsi, cum et numerum dierum quibus conceptum in utero coagulum conformatur, et tempus ipsius partionis nono aut decimo mense definisset neque id tamen semper eadem esse fini dixisset, sed alias ocius fieri, alias serius, hisce ad postremum verbis usus est: Γίνεται δὲ ἐν τούτοις καὶ πλείω καὶ ἐλάσσω καὶ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος· οὐ πολλὸν δὲ καὶ πλείω πλείω καὶ ἐλάσσω ἐλάσσω. Quibus verbis significat, quod aliquando ocius fieret, non multo tamen fieri ocius, neque quod serius, multo serius.
I recall that this question was carefully and thoroughly investigated at Rome, an inquiry demanded by a suit at law of no small moment at the time, whether, namely, a child that had been born alive in the eighth month but had died immediately, satisfied the conditions of the ius trium liberorrum, since it seemed to some that the untimely period of the eighth month made it an abortion and not a birth.
Memini ego Romae accurate hoc atque sollicite quaesitum, negotio non rei tunc parvae postulante, an octavo mense infans ex utero vivus editus et statim mortuus ius trium liberorum supplevisset, cum abortio quibusdam, non partus, videretur mensis octavi intempestivitas.
But since I have told what I have learned about a birth after a year in Homer and about the eleventh month, I think I ought not to omit what I read in the seventh book of the Natural Histoy of Plinius Secundus.
Sed quoniam de Homerico annuo partu ac de undecimo mense diximus quae cognoveramus, visum est non praetereundum quod in Plinii Secundi libro septimo Naturalis Historiae legimus.
But because that story might seem to be beyond belief, I have quoted Pliny's own words: “Masurius makes the statement that the praetor Lucius Papirius, when an heir in the second degree brought suit for the possession of an inheritance, decided against him, although the mother said that she had been pregnant for thirteen months; and the reason for his decision was that it seemed to him that no definite period of gestation had been fixed by law.”
Id autem quia extra fidem esse videri potest, verba ipsius Plinii posuimus: “Masurius auctor est, L. Papirium praetorem, secundo herede lege agente, bonorumbonoruin possessionem contra eum dedisse, cum mater partum se tredecim mensibus tulisse diceret, quoniam nullum certum tempus pariendi statutum ei videretur.”
In the same book of Plinius Secundus are these words: “Yawning during childbirth is fatal, just as to sneeze after coition produces abortion.”
In eodem libro Plini Secundi verba haec scripta sunt: “Oscitatio in nixu letalis est, sicut sternuisse a coitu abortivum.”
17. The statement of men of the highest authority that Plato bought three books of Philolaus the Pythagorean, and that Aristotle purchased a few books of the philosopher Speusippus, at prices beyond belief. THE story goes that the philosopher Plato was a man of very slender means, but that nevertheless he bought three books of Philolaus the Pythagorean for ten thousand denarii.1 That sum, according to some writers, was given him by his friend Dion of Syracuse. Aristotle too, according to report, bought a very few books of the philosopher Speusippus, after the latter's death, for three Attic talents, a sum equivalent in our money to seventy-two thousand sesterces. The bitter satirist Timon wrote a highly abusive work, which he entitled Si/llos. In that book he addresses the philosopher Plato in opprobrious terms, alleging that he had bought a treatise on the Pythagorean philosophy at an extravagant figure, and that from it he had compiled that celebrated dialogue the Timaeus. Here are Timon's lines on the subject:Thou, Plato, since for learning thou didst yearn,A tiny book for a vast sum did'st buy,Which taught thee a Timacus to compose.
17. Id quoque esse a gravissimis viris memoriae mandatum, quod tris libros Plato Philolai Pythagorici et Aristoteles pauculos Speusippi philosophi mercati sunt pretiis fidem non capientibus. MEMORIAE mandatum est Platonem philosophum tenui admodum pecunia familiari fuisse atque eum tamen tris Philolai Pythagorici libros decem milibus denarium mercatum. Id ei pretium donasse quidam scripserunt amicum eius Dionem Syracosium. Aristotelem quoque traditum libros pauculos Speusippi philosophi post mortem eius emisse talentis Atticis tribus; ea summa fit nummi nostri sestertia duo et septuaginta milia. Τίμων amarulentus librum maledicentissimum conscripsit, qui Σίλλος inscribitur. In eo libro Platonem philosophum contumeliose appellat, quod inpenso pretio librum Pythagoricae disciplinae emisset exque eo Timaeum, nobilem illum dialogum, concinnasset. Versus super ea re Τίμωνος hi sunt: Καὶ σύ, Πλάτων, καὶ γάρ σε μαθητείης πόθος ἔσχεν,Πολλῶν δʼ ἀργυρίων ὀλίγην ἠλλάξαο βίβλον,Ἔνθεν ἀπαρχόμενος τιμαιογραφεῖν ἐδιδάχθης.
18. What is meant by pedari senafores, and why they are so called; also the origin of these words in the customary edict of the consuls: “senators and those who are allowed to speak in the senate.” THERE are many who think that those senators were called pedarii who did not express their opinion in words, but agreed with the opinion of others by stepping to their side of the House. How then? Whenever a decree of the senate was passed by division, did not all the senators vote in that manner? Also the following explanation of that word is given, which Gavius Bassus has left recorded in his Commentaries. For he says that in the time of our forefathers senators who had held a curule magistracy used to ride to the House in a chariot, as a mark of honour; that in that chariot there was a seat on which they sat, which for that reason was called curulis; but that those senators who had not yet held a curule magistracy went on foot to the House: and that therefore the senators who had not yet held the higher magistracies were called pedarii. Marcus Varro, however, in the Menippean Satire entitled (Ippoku/wn, says that some knights were called pedarii, and he seems to mean those who, since they had not yet been enrolled in the senate by the censors, were not indeed senators, but because they had held offices by vote of the people, used to come into the senate and had the right of voting. In fact, even those who had filled curule magistracies, if they had not yet been added by the censors to the list of senators, were not senators, and as their names came among the last, they were not asked their opinions, but went to a division on the views given by the leading members. That was the meaning of the traditional proclamation, which even to-day the consuls, for the sake of following precedent, use in summoning the senators to the House. The words of the edict are these: “Senators and those who have the right to express their opinion in the senate.” I have had a line of Laberius copied also, in which that word is used; I read it in a mime entitled Stricturae:The aye-man's vote is but a tongueless head.I have observed that some use a barbarous form of this word; for instead of pedarii they say pedanii.
18. Quid sint “pedari senatores” et quam ob causam ita appellati; quamque habeant originem verba haec ex edicto tralaticio consulum: “senatores quibusque in senatu sententiam dicere licet.” NON pauci sunt qui opinantur “pedarios senatores” appellatos, qui sententiam in senatu non verbis dicerent, sed in alienam sententiam pedibus irent. Quid igitur? cum senatusconsultum per discessionem fiebat, nonne universi senatores sententiam pedibus ferebant? Atque haec etiam vocabuli istius ratio dicitur, quam Gavius Bassus in Commentariis suis scriptam reliquit. Senatores enim dicit in veterum aetate, qui curulem magistratum gessissent, curru solitos honoris gratia in curiam vehi, in quo curru sella esset super quam considerent, quae ob eam causam “curulis” appellaretur; sed eos senatores, qui magistratum curulem nondum ceperant, pedibus itavisse in curiam: propterea senatores nondum maioribus honoribus usos “pedarios” nominatos. M. autem Varro in Satira Menippea, quae Ἱπποκύων inscripta est, equites quosdam dicit “pedarios” appellatos, videturque eos significare qui, nondum a censoribus in senatum lecti, senatores quidem non erant, sed quia honoribus populi usi erant, in senatum veniebant et sententiae ius habebant. Nam et curulibus magistratibus functi, si nondum a censoribus in senatum lecti erant, senatores non erant et, quia in postremis scripti erant, non rogabantur sententias sed, quas principes dixerant, in eas discedebant. Hoc significabat edictum quo nunc quoque consules, cum senatores in curiam vocant, servandae consuetudinis causa tralaticio utuntur. Verba edicti haec sunt: “Senatores quibusque in senatu sententiam dicere licet.” Versum quoque Laberii. in quo id vocabulum positum est, notari iussimus, quem legimus in mimo qui Stricturae inscriptus est:Caput sine lingua pedari sententia est. Hoc vocabulum a plerisque barbare dici animadvertimus; nam pro “pedariis” “pedaneos” appellant.
19. Why, according to Gavius Bassus, a man is called parcus and what he thought to be the explanation of that word; and how, on the contrary, Favorinus made fun of that explanation of his. AT the dinners of the philosopher Favorinus, after the guests had taken their places and the serving of the viands began, a slave commonly stood by his table and began to read something, either from Grecian literature or from our own. For example, one day when I was present the reading was from the treatise of the learned Gavius Bassus On the Origin of Verbs and Substantives. In it this passage occurred: “Parcus is a compound word, made up of par arcae, that is 'like a strong-box;' for just as all valuables are put away in a strong-box and preserved and kept under its protection, just so a man who is close and content to spend little keeps all his property guarded and hidden away, as in a strong-box. For that reason he is called parcus, as if it were par arcus.” Then Favorinus, on hearing these words, said: “That fellow Gavius Bassus has made up and contrived an origin for that word in an unnatural, altogether laboured and repellent manner, rather than explained it. For if it is permissible to draw on one's imagination, why would it not seem more reasonable to believe that a man is called parcus for the reason that he forbids and prevents tile spending of money, as if he were pecuniarcus. Why not rather,” he continued, “adopt an explanation which is simpler and nearer the truth? For parcus is derived neither from arca nor from arceo, but from parum and parvum.”
19. Qua ratione Gavius Bassus scripserit “parcum” hominem appellatum et quam esse eius vocabuli causam putarit; et contra, quem in modum quibusque verbis Favorinus hanc traditionem eius eluserit. APUD cenam Favorini philosophiphilosophy cum discubitum fuerat coeptusque erat apponi cibus, servus assistens mensae eius legere inceptabat aut Graecarum quid litterarum aut nostratium; velut eo die quo ego affui, legebatur Gavii Bassi, eruditi viri, liber De Origine Verborum et Vocabulorum. In quo ita scriptum fuit: “‘Parcus’ composito vocabulo est dictus, quasi ‘par arcae,’ quando, sicut in area omnia reconduntur eiusque custodia servantur et continentur, ita homo tenax parvoque contentus omnia custodita et recondita habet, sicuti area. Quam ob causam ‘parcus’ quasi ‘pararcus’ est nominatus.” Tum Favorinus, ubi haec audivit, “superstitiose,” inquit, “et nimis moleste atque odiose confabricatus commolitusque magis est originem vocabuli Gavius iste Bassus quam enarravit.” “Nam si licet res dicere commenticias, cur non probabilius videatur ut accipiamus ‘parcum’ ob eam causam dictum, quod pecuniam consumi atque impendi arceat et prohibeat, quasi ‘pecuniarcus’?” “Quin potius,” inquit, “quod simplicius veriusque est, id dicimus? ‘Parcus’ enim neque ab area, neque ab arcendo, sed ab eo, quod est ‘parum’ et ‘parvum,’ denominatus est.”