| Aemelianus' case was centered on this alone: that I am a
magician. So I'd like to inquire of his most learned representatives:
|
quae quidem omnis Aemiliano fuit in isto uno destinata, me magum esse,
et ideo mihi libet quaerere ab eruditissimis eius aduocatis, |
| what is a magician? |
quid sit magus. |
| For if, as I read in so many authors, the magician in the
language of the Persians is what the priest is in ours, what crime is
there then in being a priest with solemn knowledge, skill and practice of
the laws of the religious ceremonies, the dictates of the rites, and the
order of the divine services, especially if magic is as Plato interprets
it, when he recalls the education that the Persians provide for the youth
among them destined to rule. I remember the exact words of the divine man;
consider them, Maximus, along with me: |
Nam si, quod ego apud plurimos lego, Persarum lingua magus est qui
nostra sacerdos, quod tandem est crimen, sacerdotem esse et rite nosse
atque scire atque callere leges cerimoniarum, fas sacrorum, ius
religionum, si quidem magia id est quod Plato interpretatur, cum
commemorat, quibusnam disciplinis puerum regno adulescentem Persae imbuant
-- uerba ipsa diuini uiri memini, quae tu mecum, Maxime, recognosce:
|
| Those whom they call royal tutors take over the
education of the child when he has reached the age of fourteen years.
These are the select four of the Persians deemed to be the best in their
generation, one the most wise, one the most just, one the most balanced,
and one the most manly. One teaches the magic of Zoraster, the son of
Oromazus: this is the service of the gods. He also teaches the ways of
royalty. |
DI\S E(PTA\ DE\ GENO/MENON E)TW=N TO\N PAI=DA PARALAMBAN/NOUSIN OU(\S
E)KEI=NOI BASILEI/OUS PAIDAGWGOU\S O)NOMA/ZOUSIN: EI)SI\N DE\
E)CEILEGME/NOI *PERSW=N OI( A)/RISTOI DO/CANTES E)N H(LIKI/A| TE/TTARES,
O(/ TE SOFW/TATOS KAI\ O( DIKAIO/TATOS KAI\ O( SWFRONE/STATOS KAI\ O(
A)NDREIO/TATOS. W(=N O( ME\N MAGEI/AN TE DIDA/SKEI TH\N *ZWROA/STROU TOU=
*W)ROMA/ZOU: E)/STI DE\ TOU=TO QEW=N QERAPEI/A: DIDA/SKEI DE\ KAI\ TA\
BASILIKA/. |
| [26] Did you hear
that word magic, you who heedlessly make an accusation of it? Did you hear
that it is an art sanctioned by the immortal gods, the instruction in
their reverence and worship, a pious art knowing of matters divine, noble
in descent from its authors Zoraster and Oromazus, MAGIC, the very
priestess of the heavens? Actually, this instruction takes place only
among the ranks of royalty, and it is no more likely for any random
Persian to be made a magician than it is for him to be made king. In
another of Plato's dialogues about a certain Zalmoxis, a man of the
Thracian race but of the same skill as Zoroaster, he wrote: |
[26] auditisne magiam, qui eam temere
accusatis, artem esse dis immortalibus acceptam, colendi eos ac uenerandi
pergnaram, piam scilicet et diuini scientem, iam inde a Zoroastre et
Oromaze auctoribus suis nobilem, caelitum antistitam, quippe qui inter
prima regalia docetur nec ulli temere inter Persas concessum est magum
esse, haud magis quam regnare. idem Plato in alia sermocinatione de
Zalmoxi quodam Thraci generis, sed eiusdem artis uiro ita scriptum
reliquit: |
| "Incantations are pretty words." |
TA\S DE\ E)PW|DA\S EI)=NAI TOU\S LO/GOUS TOU\S KALOU/S. |
| Such being the case, why am I not allowed to study the good
words of Zalmoxis or the priestly craft of Zoroaster? |
quod si ita est, cur mihi nosse non liceat uel Zalmoxi bona uerba uel
Zoroastri sacerdotia? |
| But if in fact these men understand 'magician' according to
the vulgar usage, as a man who is able, through a communing with the
immortal gods, to cause any miracle he wants with a special power of
incantation, then I am amazed that they aren't afraid to accuse a man who,
by their own admission, is capable of such a fearsome thing. For it isn't
possible to guard against such a secret and supernatural power as it is
against other things. The man who brings a murderer to trial comes
accompanied by a guard; he who accuses the poisoner is careful when he
eats; he who charges the thief looks out for his belongings. And yet what
guard, what caution, what watchfulness against unforeseen and inevitable
ruin is there for the man who brings to trial on a capital charge a
magician of the type these men describe? None, of course; and thus a
charge of this type is never made in good faith. |
sin uero more uulgari eum isti proprie magum existimant, qui
communione loquendi cum deis immortalibus ad omnia quae uelit
incredibili[a] quadam ui cantaminum polleat, oppido miror, cur accusare
non timuerint quem posse tantum fatentur. neque enim tam occulta et diuina
potentia caueri potest itidem ut cetera. sicarium qui in iudicium uocat,
comitatus uenit; qui uenenarium accusat, scrupulosius cibatur; qui furem
arguit, sua custodit. enimuero qui magum qualem isti dicunt in discrimen
capitis deducit, quibus comitibus, quibus scrupulis, quibus custodibus
perniciem caecam et ineuitabilem prohibeat? nullis scilicet; et ideo id
genus crimen non est eius accusare, qui credit. |
| [27] But men
generally raise these charges against the philosophers--a common error of
the ignorant. They think some philosophers are irreligious and they say
philosophers don't respect the gods because they investigate the plain and
simple causes of the physical world, like, for example, Anaxagoras,
Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus and the rest of the enthusiasts of the
Nature of Things. They call others magicians in the vulgar manner, because
of their devoted researches into foreknowledge of the world and lavish
celebration of the gods, like Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras and Ostanes.
And in the same way, the purification rites of Empedocles have been
suspect, as also the Daemon of Socrates and Plato's notion of The Good
. |
[27] uerum haec ferme communi quodam errore
imperitorum philosophis obiectantur, ut partim eorum qui corporum causas
meras et simplicis rimantur irreligiosos putent eoque aiant deos abnuere,
ut Anaxagoram et Leucippum et Democritum et Epicurum ceterosque rerum
naturae patronos, partim autem, qui prouidentiam mundi curiosius uestigant
et impensius deos celebrant, eos uero uulgo magos nominent, quasi facere
etiam sciant quae sciant fieri, ut olim fuere Epimenides et Orpheus et
Pythagoras et Ostanes, ac dein similiter suspectata Empedocli catharmoe,
Socrati daemonion, Platonis $TO\ A)GAQO/N&. |
| I congratulate myself, that I am in such good company.
|
gratulor igitur mihi, cum et ego tot ac tantis uiris adnumeror. |
| And yet, I still fear the empty and patently false charges
which they have made up as evidence of a crime, because you might think
there were crimes simply because there are accusations. |
Ceterum ea quae ab illis ad ostendendum crimen obiecta sunt uana et
inepta simpliciter uereor, ne ideo tantum crimina putes, quod obiecta
sunt. |
| "Why," he asks, "did you seek out certain species of
fish?" (As if the philosopher weren't allowed to do for knowledge what the
rich man does for his gut.) "Why did the woman marry you after thirteen
years of being a widow?" (As if it weren't more amazing that she didn't
marry for so many years.) |
'cur' inquit 'piscium quaedam genera quaesisti?' quasi id cognitionis
gratia philosopho facere non liceat, quod luxurioso gulae causa liceret.
'cur mulier libera tibi nupsit post annos XIII uiduitatis?' quasi non
magis mirandum sit quod tot annis non nubserit. |
"Why did she see fit to write something in a letter before
she married you?"
(As if it were my job to account for someone else's
sentiment.) |
'cur prius, quam tibi nuberet, scripsit nescio quid in epistula quod
sibi uidebatur?' quasi quisquam debeat causas alienae sententiae reddere.
|
| "And actually, she's older than he is and despises his
youth." (This itself is proof that there is no need for magic, when a
woman wants to marry a man, a widow a bachelor, an elder her junior.)
|
'at enim maior natu non est iuuenem aspernata.' igitur hoc ipsum
argumentum est nihil opus magia fuisse, ut nubere uellet mulier uiro,
uidua caelibi, maior iuniori. |
| And there was more in the same vein: "And Apuleius has a
certain something at home that he worships religiously." (As if it were
not more of a crime to worship nothing at all.) |
iam et illa similia: 'habet quiddam Apuleius domi quod sancte colit':
quasi non id potius crimen sit, quod colas non habere. |
| "The boy fell down in Apuleius' presence." But what does
it matter if a youth, or even a old man, should take a tumble with me
nearby, whether because of an infirmity of the body, or because he slipped
on some mud? Do you accept these as evidence of magic, that a boy falls, a
woman marries and some fish are purchased? |
'cecidit praesente Apuleio puer.' quid enim, si iuuenis, quid, si
etiam senex adsistente me corruisset uel morbo corporis impeditus uel
lubrico soli prolapsus? hiscine argumentis magian probatis, casu pueruli
et matrimonio mulieris et obsonio piscium? |
 |
|
| [28] I could, of
course, be satisfied with what I've said so far and, at no great risk,
deliver my summation. Since, however, the water-clock is still abundantly
full due to the length of the accusation, I'll forge ahead--if it's
appropriate--so let's go through it point for point. And I'll deny none of
the accusations, whether true or false. Instead, I'll grant them, as if
they were based on fact. That way, this whole crowd--which has gathered
here in such great numbers and from so many places, in order to
listen--may clearly understand: nothing is said truly or invented
deceitfully against philosophers, that, although they could deny it, they
would not prefer to challenge, due to faith in their own innocence.
|
[28] Possem equidem bono periculo uel his
dictis contentus perorare: quoniam mihi pro accusationis longitudine
largiter aquae superest, cedo, si uidetur, singula consideremus. atque ego
omnia obiecta, seu uera seu falsa sunt, non negabo, sed perinde atque si
facta sint fatebor, ut omnis ista multitudo, quae plurima undique ad
audiendum conuenit, aperte intellegat nihil in philosophos non modo uere
dici, sed ne falso quidem posse confingi, quod non ex innocentiae fiducia,
quamuis liceat negare, tamen potius habeant defendere. |
| First, therefore, I will expose their arguments and
disprove that these pertain to magic matters in any way. From there I will
show that even if I were the greatest of magicians, they had neither cause
nor opportunity to try me for any wrongdoing. Then I will also argue about
their duplicitous envy and my wife's letters, so basely read out and even
more basely interpreted, and also about my marriage to Pudentilla, showing
that I entered into this more out of a sense of duty than for the sake of
profit. |
primum igitur argumenta eorum conuincam ac refutabo nihil ea ad magian
pertinere; dein etsi maxime magus forem, tamen ostendam neque causam ullam
neque occasionem fuisse, ut me in aliquo maleficio experirentur. ibi etiam
de falsa inuidia deque epistulis mulieris perperam lectis et nequius
interpretatis deque matrimonio meo ac Pudentillae disputabo, idque a me
susceptum officii gratia quam lucri causa docebo. |
| The fact was, for Aemilianus here, our marriage was a
source of immense anguish and great vexation. From this has arisen all the
anger, rage and, finally, the insanity of his filing this suit. |
quod quidem matrimonium nostrum Aemiliano huic immane quanto angori
quantaeque diuidiae fuit; inde omnis huiusce accusationis obeundae ira et
rabies et denique insania exorta est. |
| Once I have proved all of this, openly and clearly, then,
and only then, Claudius Maximus, will I call upon you and all who are
present, as witnesses: this young man, Sicinius Pudens, my stepson, under
whose cover and at whose behest his uncle accuses me, who only recently
was snatched from my custody after the passing of his brother Pontianus
(his senior in years and better in morals), and who has spoken so
shamelessly against me and his mother--through no fault of mine, having
now abandoned his education and refusing all form of instruction, Pudens
will, on the basis of this vicious accusation, turn out to be more like
his uncle Aemilianus than like his brother Pontianus. |
quae si omnia palam et dilucide ostendero, tunc denique te, Claudi
Maxime, et omnis qui adsunt contestabor puerum illum Sicinium Pudentem
priuignum meum, cuius obtentu et uoluntate a patruo eius accusor,
nuperrime curae meae ereptum, postquam frater eius Pontianus et natu maior
et moribus melior diem suum obiit, atque ita in me ac matrem suam nefarie
efferatum, non mea culpa, desertis liberalibus studiis ac repudiata omni
disciplina, scelestis accusationis huius rudimentis patruo Aemiliano
potius quam fratri Pontiano similem futurum. |
| [29] And now, as I indicated, I
will take up all the nonsense of Aemilianus here, beginning with what you
noticed he mentioned first as the strongest grounds for suspicion of
magic: that I sought to obtain several types of fish from certain
fishermen . . . for a price! |
[29] Nunc, ut institui, proficiscar ad
omnia Aemiliani huiusce deliramenta orsus ab eo, quod ad suspicionem
magiae quasi ualidissimum in principio dici animaduertisti, nonnulla me
piscium genera per quosdam piscatores pretio quaesisse. |
| Is there anything in this to justify a suspicion of magic?
That fishers fished for me? Maybe I should've avoided this slander and
given the job to some folks who embroiderer for a living or maybe to some
carpenters and had them all switch professions, ending up with the
carpenter netting me fish and the fisherman doing the woodworking. |
utrum igitur horum ad suspectandam magian ualet? quodne piscatores
mihi piscem quaesierunt? (scilicet ergo phrygionibus aut fabris negotium
istud dandum fuisse atque ita opera cuiusque artis permutanda, si uellem
calumniis uestris uitare, ut faber mihi piscem euerreret, ut piscator
mutuo lignum dedolaret.) |
| Is the problem that they were paid for? Is that what makes
you think that I wanted the poor little fish for evil purposes? (So,
I'd have gotten them for nothing if I'd wanted them for a dinner
party?) Then why don't you censure me for other things, as well - and
man, there's a heap of them! Often, I've paid money for wine, and
vegetables, and fruit, and bread. By your reasoning, you would condemn all
caterers to starvation. Who'd dare let them prepare their feasts if it's
decreed that if you actually pay for something you can eat, it's needed
for magic, not dinner? |
an ex eo intellexistis maleficio quaeri pisciculos, quod pretio
quaerebantur? (credo, si conuiuio uellem, gratis quaesissem.) quin igitur
etiam ex aliis plerisque me arguitis? nam saepe numero et uinum et holus
et pomum et panem pretio mutaui. eo pacto cuppedinariis omnibus famem
decernis; quis enim ab illis obsonare audebit, si quidem statuitur omnia
edulia quae depenso para[n]tur non cenae, sed magiae desiderari? |
| So then, if nothing suspicious remains, not in offering to
pay fishermen to do what it is they do, (that would be, to catch fish) --
I might add that none of these were produced as witnesses, for the
simple reason that there were none -- and not in the actual price of
the merchandise -- not that they named the amount, of course; by giving
too low a price they'd be ridiculed; by giving too high a price they
wouldn't be believed -- anyhow, if there's nothing suspicious in all
this, Aemilianus might answer me, please: what unmistakeable signal sent
him to this accusation of magic? |
quod si nihil remanet suspicionis, neque in piscatoribus mercede
inuitatis ad quod solent, ad piscem capiundum, (quos tamen nullos ad
testimonium produxere, quippe qui nulli fuerunt), neque in ipso pretio rei
uenalis (cuius tamen quantitatem nullam taxauere, ne, si mediocre pretium
dixissent, contemneretur, si plurimum, non crederetur) -- si in his, ut
dico, nulla suspicio est: respondeat mihi Aemilianus, quo proximo signo ad
accusationem magiae sit inductus. |
| |
|
| [30] "Fish!" he
says. "You buy fish!" I don't deny it. |
'Pisces' inquit 'quaeris'. nolo negare. |
| But I ask you, is everyone who buys fish a magician? I
don't think so. And what if I were buying rabbits? Or boars? Or pheasant?
Is it only fish that have something about them that's hidden to others but
known to magicians? If you know what it is, then by golly, you're a
magician yourself! And if you don't, then you've got to admit that you're
making accusations which you yourself don't understand. Are you so
completely illiterate, ignorant of all folktales even, that you couldn't
make these things sound a bit more believable? How could something that
low on the food chain, like a fish or anything else taken from the sea, be
suited for fanning the flames of fancy? Or were you drawn into these lies
by the story of Venus having risen from the sea? |
sed, oro te, qui pisces quaerit, magus est? equidem non magis arbitror
quam si lepores quaererem uel apros uel altilia. an soli pisces habent
aliquit occultum aliis, sed magis cognitum? hoc si scis quid sit, magus es
profecto; sin nescis, confitearis necesse est id te accusare quod nescis.
tam rudis uos esse omnium litterarum, omnium denique uulgi fabularum, ut
ne fingere quidem possitis ista uerisimiliter? quid enim competit ad
amoris ardorem accendendum piscis brutus et frigidus aut omnino res pelago
quaesita? nisi forte hoc uos ad mendacium induxit, quod Venus dicitur
pelago exorta. |
| Listen to me, Tannonius Pudens, and hear just how ignorant
you are -- you, who settled for an accusation of magic based on fish. If
you had read Vergil you'd know that other things are generally sought for
this sort of thing. As far as I recall, he mentions "soft fillets," "lush
foliage" and "male frankincense"; "varicolored threads" and "brittle
bay-leaf"; "mud to be hardened," "wax to be melted," and also what he
wrote in his serious work: |
audi sis, Tannoni Pudens, quam multa nescieris, qui de piscibus
argumentum magiae recepisti. at si Virgilium legisses, profecto scisses
alia quaeri ad hanc rem solere; ille enim, quantum scio, enumerat uittas
mollis et uerbenas pinguis et tura mascula et licia discolora, praeterea
laurum fragilem, limum durabilem, ceram liquabilem, nec minus quae iam in
opere serio scripsit: |
Sought by moonlight, cut with brazen sickles,
Are grasses
oozing with milk of black poison;
Sought, too, is the charm ripped
from the brow of
A new-born foal, love stolen from its mother.
|
falcibus et messae ad lunam quaeruntur aenis
pubentes
herbae nigri cum lacte ueneni.
quaeritur et nascentis equi de fronte
reuulsus
et matri praereptus amor. |
| But you, you fish-accuser, put far different instruments
into magicians' hands: charms not rubbed from tender brows but scraped
from ridged spines, not plucked from the ground but extracted from the
depths, not reaped with sickles but caught with hooks. To sum it all up:
for evil-doing, Vergil recommends poison, you a sandwich spread; he, herbs
and shoots, you scales and bones. He gathers what he needs in the meadows,
you go diving instead. |
at tu piscium insimulator longe diuersa instrumenta magis attribuis,
non frontibus teneris detergenda, sed dorsis squalentibus excidenda, nec
fundo reuellenda, sed profundo extrahenda, nec falcibus metenda, sed hamis
inuncanda. postremo in maleficio ille uenenum nominat, tu pulmentum, ille
herbas et surculos, tu squamas et ossa, ille pratum decerpit, tu fluctum
scrutaris. |
| I'd also remind you of similar things in Theocritus and of
others Homeric or, particularly, Orphic; I could also repeat a bunch of
things from the Greek comedies, tragedies and histories, if I hadn't
already pointed out your inability to read Pudentilla's letter in Greek.
So I'll add just one more Latin poet, whose verses anyone who's read
Laevius will recognize: |
memorassem tibi etiam Theocriti paria et alia Homeri et Orphei
plurima, et ex comoediis et tragoediis Graecis et ex historiis multa
repetissem, ni te dudum animaduertissem Graecam Pudentillae epistulam
legere nequiuisse. igitur unum etiam poetam Latinum attingam, uersus
ipsos, quos agnoscent qui Laeuium legere: |
They pull love-potions everywhere,
There, a charm against
pain is sought:
Pellets, ribbons, and fingernails,
Small roots,
grasses, and tender sprouts,
Two-tailed lizard serves as a
lure,
And the neigh-sayers' charms as well. |
philtra omnia undique eruunt:
antipathes illud quaeritur,
trochiscili, ung[u]es, taeniae,
radiculae, herbae, surculi,
saurae inlices bicodulae,
hinnientium dulcedines.
|
| [31] Now, if you'd
had me looking for these sorts of things rather than fish, your lying
would have been more believable -- popular beliefs might've lent you some
credibility -- if you'd had any kind of education. Really, what's a caught
fish good for except being cooked for a banquet? On the other hand, as far
as magic is concerned, it doesn't strike me as being of any use at all.
Here's where I get that: there are a lot of people who believe that
Pythagoras was a follower of Zoroaster and also an expert in magic;
nevertheless, they record that near Metapontum -- on the shores of his
Italy, which he turned into a small patch of Greece -- when he noticed a
sweep-net being carried by some fishermen, he paid for what they would
catch with that casting. When he'd paid the price, he immediately gave
orders for the captive fish to be released and thrown back into the water.
I really don't think he'd have let them out of his hands if he'd found
them at all useful for magic. No, being an eminently learned man and a
zealous imitator of the ancients, he thought back to Homer instead, that
knowledgeable and most experienced poet, who'd named the land, not the
sea, as the source of all remedies when he described a certain sorceress
in these terms: |
[31] haec et alia quaesisse me potius quam
pisces longe uerisimilius confinxisses (his etenim fortasse per famam
peruulgatam fides fuisset), si tibi ulla eruditio adfuisset; enimuero
piscis ad quam rem facit captus nisi ad epulas coctus? ceterum ad magian
nihil quicquam uidetur mihi adiutare. dicam unde id coniectem. Pythagoram
plerique Zoroastri sectatorem similiterque magiae peritum arbitrati tamen
memoriae prodiderunt, cum animaduertisset proxime Metapontum in litore
Italiae suae, quam subsiciuam Graeciam fecerat, a quibusdam piscatoribus
euerriculum trahi, fortunam iactus eius emisse et pretio dato iussisse
ilico piscis eos, qui capti tenebantur, solui retibus et reddi profundo;
quos scilicet eum de manibus amissurum non fuisse[t], si quid[em] in his
utile ad magian comperisset. sed enim uir egregie doctus et ueterum
aemulator meminerat Homerum, poetam multiscium uel potius cunctarum rerum
adprime peritum, uim omnem medicaminum non mari, sed terrae
[a]scripsisse[t], cum de quadam saga ad hunc modum memorauit: |
"she knew as many remedies as the wide earth nurtures." |
H(\ TO/SA FA/RMAKA H)/|DH, O(/SA TRE/FEI EU)REI=A XQW/N.
|
| Or, elsewhere in his poems, something similar: |
itemque alibi carminum similiter: |
"To her the fruitful earth bears an abundance of
remedies, many excellent when they have been mixed, but many harmful."
|
TH=| PLEI=STA FE/REI ZEI/DWROS A)/ROURA
FA/RMAKA, POLLA\
ME\N E)SQLA\ MEMIGME/NA, POLLA\ DE\ LUGRA/. |
| Indeed, no one in his work has ever treated anything with
the catch of the day -- not Prometheus, his form, not Ulysses, his trench,
not Aeolus, his bellows, not Helen, her mixing-bowl, not Circe, her cup,
not Venus, her girdle. |
cum tamen numquam apud eum marino aliquo et piscolento medicauit nec
Prot[h]eus faciem nec Vlixes scrobem nec Aeolus follem nec Helena
creterram nec Circe poculum nec Venus cingulum. |
| Since the dawn of time, only you have managed to dredge up
nature -- you've taken the power of herbs and roots and sprouts and stones
and transported it from the highest mountains down to the sea and sewn it
into the bellies of fish. |
at uos soli reperti estis ex omni memoria, qui uim [h]erbarum et
radicum et surculorum et lapillorum quasi quadam colluuione naturae de
summis montibus in mare transferatis et penitus piscium uentribus
insuatis. |
| And so, in the past it was customary at magical ceremonies
to summon up Mercury, who brings song, Venus, who seduces souls, Luna,
privy to the night, Trivia, potentate of the shades, under your direction.
Now, Neptune, along with Salcia, Portunus, and the entire chorus of
Nereids will be transported from the undulating sea to the undulations of
lust. |
igitur ut solebat ad magorum cerimonias aduocari Mercurius carminum
uector et illex animi Venus et Luna noctium conscia et manium potens
Triuia, uobis auctoribus posthac Neptunus cum Salacia et Portuno et omni
choro Nerei ab aestibus fretorum ad aestus amorum transferentur. |
| [32] I've given my
opinion as to why I don't think magic and fish have anything to do with
each other. But if it please the court, let's take Aemilianus's word for
it that fish, too, can increase magical powers. Does that mean then, that
anyone who buys them is a magician? By this reasoning, anyone who buys a
sloop would have to be a pirate, anyone with a crow-bar a house-breaker,
and anyone with a sword a murderer. |
[32] Dixi, cur non arbitrer quicquam
negotii esse magis et piscibus. nunc, si uidetur, credamus Aemiliano
solere pisces etiam ad magicas potestates adiutare. num ergo propterea
quicumque quaerit et ipse magus est? eo quidem pacto et qui myoparonem
quaesierit pirata erit et qui uectem perfossor et qui gladium sicarius.
|
| You can't say that there's anything in the world so
harmless that it can never be used to do harm, or anything so delightful
that nothing sad can be found in it. And yet, that's no reason for
throwing nasty suspicion on everything -- as if frankincense, mezereon and
myrrh and other fragrances of this type could only be bought for a
funeral, even though they can also be used as remedies and for sacrifices.
|
nihil in rebus omnibus tam innoxium dices, quin id possit aliquid
aliqua obesse, nec tam laetum, quin possit ad tristitudinem intellegi. nec
tamen omnia idcirco ad nequiorem suspicionem trahuntur, ut si tus et
casiam et myrram ceterosque id genus odores funeri tantum emptos
arbitreris, cum et medicamento parentur et sacrificio. |
| Again, with the same fishful thinking, you'll be claiming
that even Menelaus's companions were magicians, since the greatest poet
says that before the island of Pharos they put curved hooks to use to ward
off their hunger. Even gulls, dolphins, and sea-leaks you'd indict, and
all gluttons, who buy far more from the fishermen, and even the fishermen
themselves, who collect all kinds of fish in a day's work. |
ceterum eodem piscium argumento etiam Menelai socios putabis magos
fuisse, quos ait poeta praecipuus flexis hamulis apud Pharum insulam famem
propulsasse; etiam mergos et delfinos et scillam tu eodem referes, etiam
gulones omnes, qui inpendio a piscatoribus mercantur, etiam ipsos
piscatores, qui omnium generum piscis arte adquirunt. |
| "So why do you want them?" |
'cur ergo tu quaeris?' |
| I don't think you need to know. |
nolo equidem nec necessarium habeo tibi dicere, |
| It's up to you, if you can, to prove that I bought them
for a certain reason. It's as if I bought hellebore or hemlock or poppy
juice or some such thing, which is good to use in moderation, but
poisonous in mixtures or large amounts. Who would let you bring me to
court for these drugs, just because a person could be killed with
them? |
sed per te, si potes, ad hoc quaesisse me argue; ut si elleborum uel
cicutam uel sucum papaueris emissem, item alia eiusdem modi quorum
moderatus usus salutaris, sed commixtio uel quantitas noxia est, quis
aequo animo pateretur, si me per haec ueneficii arcesseres, quod ex illis
potest homo occidi? |
| [33] But let's look
at the kinds of fish that it was so necessary to have, and that are so
rarely found that it was worth offering a reward to get them. They've
named three all together, mistaking one and lying about two. They were
mistaken when they called one a sea-hare, which our servant Themison -- no
idiot in matters medicinal, as you've heard from him -- has brought here
on his own initiative for your inspection. It must have been a completely
different fish, for, it seems, he still has not found a sea-hare. But I
confess, I'm looking for this and other kinds, and have given not only
fishermen but also my friends this assignment: that whoever sees a
little-known kind of fish should either describe or show it to me --
alive, or, if that's impossible, dead. I'll tell you soon why I bother.
|
[33] Videamus tamen, quae fuerint piscium
genera tam necessaria ad habendum tamque rara ad repperiendum, ut merito
statuto praemio quaererentur. tria omnino nominauerunt, unum falsi, duo
mentiti; falsi, quod leporem marinum fuisse dixerunt qui alius omnino
piscis fuit, quem mihi Themis[c]on seruus noster medicinae non ignarus, ut
ex ipso audisti, ultro attulit ad inspiciundum; nam quidem leporem nondum
etiam inuenit. sed profiteor me quaerere et cetera, non piscatoribus modo,
uerum etiam amicis meis negotio dato, quicumque minus cogniti generis
piscis inciderit, ut eius mihi aut formam commemorent aut ipsum uiuum, si
id nequierint, uel mortuum ostendant. |
| Where they lied, on the other hand, was when my accusers -
who think themselves quite cunning -- made up, for the sake of the
slandering me, that I had tried to obtain two obscenely named
sea-creatures. Tannonius thought he recognized in them words referring to
the genitals of either sex, but, due to his lack of eloquence -- the great
pleader! -- he couldn't pronounce them. Then finally, after much
hesitation, he beat around the bush and still managed to be vulgar and
disgusting in naming the male fish; as for the female, for all his efforts
he found no elegant way of putting it, so he took refuge in my writings
and read from one of my books: "that she might conceal the area between
her thighs by putting one leg forward and covering herself with her hand."
|
quam ob rem id faciam, mox docebo. mentiti autem sunt callidissimi
accusatores mei, ut sibi uidentur, cum me ad finem calumniae confinxerunt
duas res marinas impudicis uocabulis quaesisse, quas Tannonius ille cum
utriusque sexus genitalia intellegi uellet, sed eloqui propter infantiam
causidicus summus nequiret, multum ac diu haesitato tandem uirile marinum
nescio qua circumlocutione male ac sordide nominauit, sed enim feminal
nullo pacto repperiens munditer dicere ad mea scripta confugit et quodam
libro meo legit: 'interfeminium tegat et femoris obiectu et palmae
uelamento.' |
| [34] This too, in
his great sternness, he makes into a fault of mine: that I'm not
embarrassed to speak with decency of even more degrading things. I think
I'm more justified in censuring him, a man who publicly claims to be a
defender of eloquence, and then blathers nastily, even about things which
can be spoken of decently, and often stutters or loses his tongue entirely
over things that aren't in the least difficult. Come now, if I hadn't said
anything about the statue of Venus and hadn't mentioned her crotch, how
would you have formulated the accusation -- given the bounds of your
stupidity and your language? Is there anything more stupid than to assume
that because things have similar sounding names they also have similar
properties? |
[34] Hic etiam pro sua grauitate uitio mihi
uortebat, quod me nec sordidiora dicere honeste pigeret. at ego illi
contra iustius exprobrarim, quod qui eloquentiae patrocinium uulgo
profiteatur etiam honesta dictu sordide blateret ac saepe in rebus
nequaquam difficilibus fringultiat uel omnino commutescat. cedo enim, si
ego de Veneris statua nihil dixissem neque interfeminium nominassem,
quibus tandem uerbis accusasses crimen illud tam stultitiae quam linguae
tuae congruens? an quicquam stultius quam ex nominum propinquitate uim
similem rerum coniectam? |
| Or maybe you figured that you'd very cleverly doped out
how to claim formally that I'd sought these two sea creatures, the
cockfish and seacunt, for magical charms. In fact, learn the Latin names
for the things which I've named so you can accuse me again, using
proper information. But don't forget that the argument that the
smutty sea creatures were sought for erotic practices will be as
ridiculous as if you should say that a seabrush was sought in order to
comb hair or a hawkfish in order to catch birds or a boarfish in order to
hunt boar or a seaskull in order to raise the dead. |
et fortasse an peracute repperisse uobis uidebamini, ut quaesisse me
fingeretis ad illecebras magicas duo haec marina, ueretillam et uirginal;
disce enim nomina rerum Latina, quae propterea uarie nominaui, ut denuo
instructus accuses. memento tamen tam ridiculum argumentum fore desiderata
ad res uenerias marina obscena, quam si dicas marinum pectinem comendo
capillo quaesitum uel aucupandis uolantibus piscem accipitrem aut uenandis
apris piscem apriculam aut eliciendis mortuis marina caluaria. |
| Ask a stupid question, get a dopey answer. I did not seek
these maritime trifles and lowtide nonsense for a price, and I did not
seek them for free. |
respondeo igitur ad hunc uestrum locum non minus insulse quam absurde
commentum, me hasce nugas marinas et quiscilias litoralis neque pretio
neque gratis quaesisse. |
| [35] And I'll
respond to yet another point: you don't know a thing about the stuff you
pretend I was looking for. For the bulk of these trifles that you've named
are found on every beach in clumps and heaps, and without anyon e's effort
they're thrown up on the shore when the waves come in only lightly. So why
don't you also say that, at the same time, I paid the price and, with the
help of many fishermen, sought a conch with a striated shell, a smoothly
worn stone, and on top of that, crab-claws, urchin shells, cuttlefish
tentacles, and to top it off, splinters, a rod of manumission, pieces of
rope, and worm-eaten oyster shells, and finally, slime and algae, all the
other refuse of the sea which is cast up all over the beaches by winds,
spat out by the ocean, churned up by storm, and left behind by the calm
weather? |
Illud etiam praeterea respondeo, nescisse uos, quid a me quaesitum
fingeretis. haec enim friuola quae nominastis pleraque in litoribus
omnibus congestim et aceruatim iacent et sine ullius opera quamlibet
leuiter motis flucticulis ultro foras euoluuntur. quin ergo dicitis me
eadem opera pretio impenso per plurim[is]os piscatoris quaesisse de litore
conchulam striatam testam habentem, calculum teretem, praeterea cancrorum
furcas, echin[or]um caliculos, lolliginum ligulas, postremo assulas,
festucas, resticulas et ostracoderma Pergami uermiculata, denique muscum
et algam, cetera maris eiectamenta, quae ubique litorum uentis
expelluntur, salo expuuntur, tempestate reciprocantur, tranquillo
deseruntur? |
| For suspicions can no less easily be matched to the items
I mentioned based on the connotations of the words. You claim that the
clam and sea cucumber can be taken from the sea for erotic purposes on
account of the double entendre of their names: how much less could a stone
from the same shore be related to gallstones, a pot to probate, a crab to
cancer, sea growths to warts? |
neque enim minus istis quae commemoraui accommodari possunt similiter
ex uocabulo suspiciones. posse dicitis ad res uenerias sumpta de mari
spuria et fascina propter nominum similitudinem: qui minus possit ex eodem
litore calculus ad uesicam, testa ad testamentum, cancer ad ulcera, alga
ad quercerum? |
| You, Claudius Maximus, are truly an amazingly patient man
of incredibly admirable courtesy, considering that you've endured, by
Hercules, the loooooooong arguments of these men here. As for me, I was
laughing at their stupidity and at the same time admiring your patience
while those men where stating these things as if they were serious and
convincing. |
ne tu, Claudi Maxime, nimis patiens uir es et oppido proxima
humanitate, qui hasce eorum argumentationes diu hercle perpessus sis;
equidem, cum haec ab illis quasi grauia et uincibilia dicerentur, illorum
stultitiam ridebam, tuam patientiam mirabar. |
| [36] But let
Aemilianus learn why I know about so many fish, and why I don't want to be
ignorant of these still, since he's shown such concern for my affairs.
Although he's already in the waning years of advanced old age,
nevertheless, if it makes sense, let him learn a new trick at this late
date. Let him read the works of the old philosophers so he finally can see
that I'm not the first to have investigated these things. My ancestors did
quite some time ago, meaning Aristotle, Theophrastus, Eudemus, Lyco, and
the rest of Plato's lesser followers, who have left behind lots of books
about the reproduction of animals, their manner of living, their parts,
and every difference. |
Ceterum quam ob rem plurimos iam piscis cognouerim, quorundam adhuc
nescius esse nolim, discat Aemilianus, quoniam usque adeo rebus meis
curat; quanquam est iam praecipiti aeuo et occidua senectute, tamen, si
uidetur, accipiat doctrinam seram plane et postumam; legat ueterum
philosophorum monumenta, tandem ut intellegat non me primum haec
requisisse, sed iam pridem maiores meos, Aristotelen dico et
Theop[h]rastum et [t]Eudemum et Lyconem ceterosque Platonis minores, qui
plurimos libros de genitu animalium deque uictu deque particulis deque
omni differentia reliquerunt. |
| It's a good thing this case is being prosecuted in your
court, Maximus, since a man of your learning has obviously read
Aristotle's On the Generation of Animals ;
On the Anatomy of Animals ; On the Science
of Animals (multi-volumed tomes), and beyond that, the
countless "Problems" of the same author, and of the other exponents of the
same school who considered various things of the sort. Now, if writing
about these matters which they researched with such care brought glory and
honor to those men, why would it be shameful for us to do research,
especially when I strive to write out more elegantly and concisely these
same things in Greek and Latin, and in every case either to find out
what's been left out or expand on what was inadequate? |
bene quod apud te, Maxime, causa agitur, qui pro tua eruditione
legisti profecto Aristotelis $PERI\ ZW/|WN GENE/SEWS, PERI\ ZW/|WN
A)NATOMH=S, PERI\ ZW/|WN I(STORI/AS multiiuga uolumina, praeterea
problemata innumera eiusdem, tum ex eadem secta ceterorum, in quibus id
genus uaria tractantur. quae tanta cura conquisita si honestum et
gloriosum illis fuit scribere, cur turpe sit nobis experiri, praesertim
cum ordinatius et cohibilius eadem Graece et Latine adnitar conscribere et
in omnibus aut omissa adquirere aut defecta supplere? |
If it's worthwhile, allow a few things to be read from my
so-called works on magic so that Aemilianus may know that I research and
carefully investigate more than he thinks. Please take one of my books in
Greek, which my friends and supporters just happen to have here -- one on
natural history -- and particularly the part where the topic focuses most
on the species of fish.
While someone looks for the passage, I shall
tell a relevant anecdote. |
permittite, si operaest, quaedam legi de magicis meis, ut sciat me
Aemilianus plura quam putat quaerere et sedulo explorare. prome tu librum
e Graecis meis, quos forte hic amici habuere sedulique, naturalium
quaestionum, atque eum maxime, in quo plura de piscium genere tractata
sunt.
interea, dum hic quaerit, ego exemplum rei competens dixero.
|
| [37] The poet
Sophocles was Euripides' competitor and outlived him, for he lived to
extreme old age. When his own son accused him of senility, as if he were
already losing his mind because of his age, it is said that he offered as
evidence his "Colonus," the most outstanding of tragedies, which he
happened to be writing at that time, and that he read it to the judges and
didn't add anything else to his defense, except that they should
confidently judge him guilty of senility, if the old man's poetry
displeased them. In that situation I take it that all the judges stood up
for such a poet and complimented him with wonderful praise on account of
the brilliance of his defense and the tragedy of such eloquence, and they
were not at all far from finding the accuser guilty of senility instead!
|
[37] Sophocles poeta Euripidi aemulus et
superstes, uixit enim ad extremam senectam, cum igitur accusaretur a filio
suomet dementiae, quasi iam per aetatem desiperet, protulisse dicitur
Coloneum suam, peregregiam tragoediarum, quam forte tum in eo tempore
conscribebat, eam iudicibus legisse nec quicquam amplius pro defensione
sua addidisse, nisi ut audacter dementiae condemnarent, si carmina senis
displicerent. ibi ego comperior om[a]nis iudices tanto poetae
adsurrexisse, miris laudibus eum tulisse ob argumenti sollertiam et
coturnum facundiae, nec ita multum omnis afuisse quin accusatorem potius
dementiae condemnarent. |
| Have you found the book? Thank you. Give it here and let's
see whether my work can be of use to me in the courtroom, too. Read a bit
from the beginning and then some about fish. But you, while he's reading,
stop the clock. |
Inuenisti tu librum? beasti. cedo enim experiamur, an et mihi possint
in iudicio litterae meae prodesse. lege pauca de principio, dein quaedam
de piscibus. at tu interea, dum legit, [t]aquam[quam] sustine. -- |
******** ***** **** ********* ********* **********
****
**** ******* ********** ********* **** ****** ********* |
________ _____ ____ _________ __________ __________ ____
____
_______ ___________ __________ _____ _______ ________ |
| [38] Most of what
you have heard, Maximus, you had surely read in the old philosophers. And
remember that I wrote these books just about fish: which of them reproduce
through intercourse, which are born from the mud, how often and at what
time of year the females and males of each species are in heat, what
organs and forces nature uses to distinguish those which give live birth
and those which produce eggs - for that's how I refer in Latin to what the
Greeks call ZW|OTO/KA and W)|OTO/KA. |
[38] Audisti, Maxime, quorum pleraque
scilicet legeras apud antiquos philosophorum. et memento de solis piscibus
haec uolumina a me conscripta, qui eorum coitu progignantur, qui ex limo
coalescant, quotiens et quid anni cuiusque eorum generis feminae
subent[ant], mares suriant, quibus membris et causis discrerit natura
uiuiparos eorum et ouiparos -- ita enim Latine appello quae Graeci
ZW|OTO/KA& et $W)|OTO/KA -- |
| I shouldn't get too sidetracked by the reproduction of
animals, concerning the difference and manner of living and limbs and life
cycles and all the other many things. While they're certainly important to
know, they're inappropriate in a courtroom. I will order a few things from
my Latin works to be read which are relevant to this same field of
science, in which you'll notice that I have not only compiled things that
are infrequently known, but even names that are most obscure to Romans and
totally unknown until today as far as I know; but even so, through my
effort and interest, these names have arrived from the Greeks
counterstruck as Roman currency. |
et, ne [o]perose animalium genitum pergam, deinde de differentia et
uictu et membris et aetatibus ceterisque plurimis scitu quidem
necessariis, sed in iudicio alienis. pauca etiam de Latinis scribtis meis
ad eandem peritiam pertinentibus legi iubebo, in quibus animaduertes cum
me[morabiles res et] cognitu raras, tum nomina etiam Romanis inusitata et
in hodiernum quod sciam infecta, ea tamen nomina labore meo et studio ita
de Graecis prouenire, ut tamen Latina moneta percussa sint. |
| So, Aemilianus, have your supporters tell us where they
have read these words that have been uttered in Latin. I'll just talk
about sea creatures and not other animals unless I should touch upon
interspecies differences that are common across genera. So listen to what
I'm going to say. Soon you'll shout that I'm reciting magical names in the
Egyptian or Babylonian rite: |
uel dicant nobis, Aemiliane, patroni tui, ubi legerint Latine haec
pronuntiata uocabula. de solis aquatilibus dicam nec cetera animalia nisi
in communibus differentis attingam. ausculta igitur quae dicam. iam me
clamabis magica nomina Aegyptio uel Babylonico ritu percensere: |
"shark-fish, soft-fish, soft-shell-fish,
lumpy-spiny-fish, shell-skin-fish, sharp-tooth-fish, ____,
leather-eye-fish, covered-foot-fish, stationary-fish, the
not-to-be-laughed-at-fish ..." |
SELA/XEIA, MALA/KEIA, MALAKO/STRAKA, XONDRA/KANQA,
O)STRAKO/DERMA, KARXARO/DONTA, A)MFI/BIA, LEPIDWTA/, FOLIDWTA/,
DERMO/PTERA, STEGANO/PODA, MONH/RH, SUNAGELASTIKA/ |
| - I could go on. But it's important not to waste the day
on these things, so that I'll have time to move on to other matters.
Meanwhile, repeat just a few of the words I've said that I expressed in
Latin. ____________ ________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_______ |
possum etiam pergere; sed non est operae in istis diem terere, ut sit
mihi tempus adgredi ad cetera. haec interim quae dixi pauca recita Latine
a me enuntiata. -- |
| [39] So what do you think about
a philosopher who isn't unrefined or ignorant with the abandon of the
Cynic but who is mindful of belonging to the Platonic school? Do you think
that it's shameful for him to know those things or not? To overlook them
or focus on them? To know how much natural order is in those things or to
believe mommy and daddy about the immortal gods? |
[39] Vtrum igitur putas philosopho non
secundum Cynicam temeritatem rudi et indocto, sed qui se Platonicae scolae
meminerit, utrum ei putas turpe scire ista an nescire, neglegere an
curare, nosse quanta sit etiam in istis prouidentiae ratio an [de] diis
immortalibus matri et patri credere? |
| Quintus Ennius wrote the Good Eats in verse. He
took account of countless types of fish which he obviously knew
intimately. I remember a few verses, let me say them: |
Q. Ennius hedyphagetica [a] uersibus scribsit; innumerabilia genera
piscium enumerat, quae scilicet curiose cognorat. paucos uersus memini,
eos dicam: |
The burbot is best of all Clipean fish;
For mussels of
Aenus one hardly could wish.
To Abydos for oysters, let's take to a
gallop
And stop on the way for some Mytylene scallop.
(They're
good at Charadrus, that's found on the border
Of Ambracia -- get
some, and yes, that's an order.)
If you ask me, at Brundisium, I
would advise
Getting the sargus, if it's a nice size.
The boar
fish is best at Tarentum, but then
If you're at Surrentum, it's
sargus again.
At Cumae, the blue shark is really a find,
But wait!
I forget! (Am I out of my mind?)
The parrot-wrasse can't be forgot
--
Is Jupiter's brain better? Not.
(I might add that the very best
are
Ones found in the land of Nestor.)
And, of course, I've never
seen a
Nicer fish than the umbrina,
Melanura, wrasse. And hire
a
Mode of transport to Corcyra:
The octopus is best there, but
Let's not forget the shellfish, what?
Bluefish, bass, and no more
searchin' --
Just finish up with some sweet urchin.
|
Omnibus ut Clipea praestat mustela marina,
mures sunt
Aeni, asp[e]ra ostrea plurima Abydi[mus].
Mytilenae est pecten
C[h]aradrumque apud Ambraciae sus.
Brundisii sargus bonus est; hunc,
magnus si erit, sume.
apriculum piscem scito primum esse Tarenti;
Surrenti t[u] elopem fac emas, glaucumque aput Cumas.
quid
scarum praeterii cerebrum Iouis paene sup[p]remi
(Nestoris ad
patriam hic capitur magnusque bonusque)
melanurum, turdum,
merulamque umbramque marinam.
polypus Corcyrae, caluaria pinguia
[a]carnae,
purpura[m], mu[r]riculi, mures, dulces quoque echini.
|
| He elaborated on still others in many verses and where on
earth each of them was, how they best taste when roasted or stewed, but he
isn't attacked by educated men, so I shouldn't be attacked either, I who
use Greek and Latin with appropriate and elegant vocabulary to write down
things few people know. |
alios etiam multis uersibus decorauit, et ubi gentium quisque eorum,
qualiter assus aut iurulentus optime sapiat, nec tamen ab eruditis
reprehenditur, ne ego reprehendar, qui res paucissimis cognitas Graece et
Latine propriis et elegantibus uocabulis conscribo. |
| [40] I've addressed this point
sufficiently, so consider something else. So what, if I am neither
uninterested in nor ignorant of medicine and I look for some medicine in a
fish? Just as lots of remedies have obviously been seeded and sewn in
everything else by the same gift of nature, so there are even a few to be
found among fish. Do you think knowing remedies and searching for them is
more the business of the magician than of the doctor? Or, to take it a
step further, more than of the philosopher, who will use them not for
profit but for good? Ancient doctors knew spells as cures for wounds, as
Homer, the most reliable source for all antiquity, states, when he
portrays blood flowing from Ulysses' wound as stopping because of a spell.
For nothing that is done to bring about good health is criminal. |
[40] cum hoc satis dixi, tum aliud accipe.
quid enim tandem, si medicinae neque instudiosus neque imperitus quaepiam
remedia ex piscibus quaero? ut sane sunt plurima cum in aliis omnibus
rebus eodem naturae munere interspersa atque interseminata, tum etiam
nonnulla in piscibus. an remedia nosse et ea conquirere magi potius esse
quam medici, quam denique philosophi putas, qui illis non ad quaestum, sed
ad suppetias usurust? ueteres quidem medici etiam carmina remedia uulnerum
norant,ut omnis uetustatis certissimus auctor Homerus docet, qui facit
Vlixi de uulnere sanguinem profluentem sisti cantamine. nihil enim, quo d
salutis ferendae gratia fit, criminosum est. |
| "But why," he says, "did you dissect the fish that
Themison, your slave, brought to you -- if not for evil purposes?" |
'at enim' inquit 'piscem cui rei nisi malae proscidisti, quem tibi
Themis[c]on seruus attulit?' |
| As if I hadn't just said that I write about the anatomy of
all animals, about their manner, number, and cause, and that I carefully
research Aristotle's books A)NATOMW=N Of Anatomy and make
them more complete. And I am absolutely amazed that you know
that I examined one minuscule fish, considering that I've examined lots of
them in the same way, wherever they happened to be available. I am
especially amazed because I did none of this the least bit secretly but
entirely in the open so that anyone, even an outsider, could be an
eyewitness. This was the technique and practice of my own teachers, who
said that a free and high-class citizen ought to show his mind with his
face wherever he goes. I even showed this little fish (that you've called
a sea hare) to the many people who were there. |
quasi uero non paulo prius dixerim me de particulis omnium animalium,
de situ earum de[ni]que numero de[ni]que causa conscribere ac libros
$A)NATOMW=N& Aristoteli et explorare studio et augere. atque adeo
summe miror quod unum a me pisciculum inspectum sciatis, cum iam plurimos,
ubicumque locorum oblati sunt, aeque inspexerim, praesertim quod nihil ego
clanculo, sed omnia in propatulo ago, ut quiuis uel extrarius arbiter
adsistat, more hoc et instituto magistrorum meorum, qui aiunt hominem
liberum et magnificum debere, si qu[o] eat, in primori fronte animum
gestare. hunc adeo pisciculum, quem uos leporem marinum nominatis,
plurimis qui aderant ostendi; |
| And I can't yet decide what they would call it, unless I
investigate the matter a bit more carefully, because I find no description
of this fish among the old philosophers, though it is the rarest of all
fish and, by Hercules, must be recorded. In fact, that fish is unique , as
far as I know, since it was in every other respect boneless, yet it had
twelve bones shaped like the knuckle bones of a pig conjoined and
connected in its belly. It goes without saying that Aristotle would never
have failed to commit this to writing, since he recorded as an important
fact that the heart of the hake, alone of all fish, is located in the
middle of its stomach. |
necdum etiam decerno quid uocent, nisi quaeram sane accuratius, quod
nec apud ueteres philosophos proprietatem eius piscis reperio, quanquam
sit omnium rarissima et hercule memoranda; quippe solus ille, quantum
sciam, cum sit cetera exossis, duodecim numero ossa ad similitudinem
talorum suillorum in uentre eius conexa et catenata sunt. quod Aristoteles
si [scisset, n]umquam profecto omisisset scribto prodere, qui aselli
piscis solius omnium in medio aluo corculum situm pro maximo memorauit.
|
| [41] The accuser
says: "You dissected a fish." Who'd say that this is a charge against a
philosopher, when it has not been one against a butcher or a cook? |
[41] 'piscem' inquit 'proscidisti'. hoc
quis ferat philosopho crimen esse, quod lanio uel coquo non fuisset?
|
| "You dissected a fish." Is it because it was uncooked? Is
that your complaint? If I cooked it and I made a close search of its
stomach and prepared its liver, just as this little boy Sicinius Pudens
learns with his own meals at your house, you wouldn't think it necessary
to make an accusation of this; yet, it's a greater crime for a philosopher
to eat his fish rather than dissect it. Is it acceptable for seers to
closely examine livers, but not for a philosopher to contemplate them,
though he knows that he is a diviner of all animals, a priest of all gods?
Or is this your accusation against me? The fact that Maximus and I hold
Aristotle in esteem? Well, unless you purge the libraries of his books and
wrench them from the hands of scholars, you can't accuse me of anything.
But I have almost said more than I ought to on this matter. |
'piscem proscidisti'. quod crudum, id accusas? si cocto uentrem
rusparer, hepatia suffoderem, ita ut apud te puerulus ille Sicinius Pudens
suomet obson[i]o discit, eam rem non putares accusandam; atqui maius
crimen est philosopho comesse piscis quam inspicere. an hariolis licet
iocinera rimari, philosopho contemplari non licebit, qui se sciat omnium
animalium haruspicem, omnium deum sacerdotem? hoc in me accusas, quod ego
et Maximus in Aristotele miramur? cuius nisi libros bibliothecis exegeris
et studiosorum manibus extorseris, accusare me non potes. sed de hoc paene
plura quam debui. |
| Now consider elsewhere how they contradict themselves.
They claim that my wife was obtained through magic arts and sea charms at
that very time that I was - and they won't contradict me - in the
Mediterranean mountains of Gaetulia, where fish are found thanks to
Deucalion's flood waters. But I'm thankful that they don't know I've read
Theophrastus's On Beasts That Bite and Sting and
Nicander's Bites of Wild Animals . Otherwise they
would've accused me of poisoning, too! But seriously, I discovered this
occupation through reading and imitating Aristotle and through my Plato's
advice, who said that the man who tracks down such things "plays like a
child at sport not to be regretted in (this) life." |
Nunc praeterea uide, quam ipsi sese reuincant; aiunt mulierem magicis
artibus, marinis illecebris a me petitam eo in tempore, quo me non
negabunt in Gaetuliae mediterran[e]is montibus fuisse, ubi pisces per
Deucalionis diluuia repperientur. quod ego gratulor nescire istos legisse
me Theophrasti quoque $PERI\ DAKE/TWN KAI\
BLHT&[$IK&]$W=N& et Nicandri $QHRIAKA/&;
ceterum me etiam ueneficii reum postularent; at quidem hoc negotium ex
lectione et aemulatione Aristoteli nactus sum, nonnihil et Platone meo
adhortante, qui ait eum, qui ista uestiget, $A)METAME/LHTON PAIDIA\N E)N
BI/W| $PAI/ZEIN&. |