|
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&.
|