The Colloquies of Erasmus Part 75

_Ca._ If it were fit to intermingle any Thing of graver Studies, I have something to propose.

_Hi._ Yes, if it be not too crabbed.

_Ca._ That it is not. I lately began to read _Seneca's_ Epistles, and stumbled, as they say, at the very Threshold. The Place is in the first Epistle; _And if_, says he, _thou wilt but observe it, great Part of our Life pa.s.ses away while we are doing what is ill; the greatest Part, while we are doing nothing, and the whole of it while we are doing that which is to no Purpose_. In this Sentence, he seems to affect I can't tell what Sort of Witticism, which I do not well understand.

_Le._ I'll guess, if you will.

_Ca._ Do so.

_Le._ No Man offends continually. But, nevertheless, a great Part of one's Life is lost in Excess, l.u.s.t, Ambition, and other Vices; but a much greater Part is lost in doing of nothing. Moreover they are said to do nothing, not who live in Idleness, but they who are busied about frivolous Things which conduce nothing at all to our Happiness: And thence comes the Proverb, _It is better to be idle, than to be doing, but to no Purpose_. But the whole Life is spent in doing another Thing.

He is said, _aliud agere_, who does not mind what he is about. So that the whole of Life is lost: Because when we are vitiously employ'd we are doing what we should not do; when we are employ'd about frivolous Matters we do that we should not do; and when we study Philosophy, in that we do it negligently and carelesly, we do something to no Purpose.

If this Interpretation don't please you, let this Sentence of _Seneca_ be set down among those Things of this Author that _Aulus Gellius_ condemns in this Writer as frivolously witty.

_Hi._ Indeed I like it very well. But in the mean Time, let us fall manfully upon the Hen. I would not have you mistaken, I have no more Provision for you. It agrees with what went before. _That is the basest Loss that comes by Negligence_, and he shews it by this Sentence consisting of three Parts. But methinks I see a Fault a little after: _We foresee not Death, a great Part of it is past already._ It is my Opinion it ought to be read; _We foresee Death._ For we foresee those Things which are a great Way off from us, when Death for the most Part is gone by us.

_Le._ If Philosophers do sometimes give themselves Leave to go aside into the Meadows of the Muses, perhaps it will not be amiss for us, if we, to gratify our Fancy, take a Turn into their Territories.

_Hi._ Why not?

_Le._ As I was lately reading over again _Aristotle_'s Book that he ent.i.tles [Greek: Peri ton elenchon], the Argument of which is for the most Part common both to Rhetoricians and Philosophers, I happen'd to fall upon some egregious Mistakes of the Interpreters. And there is no Doubt but that they that are unskill'd in the _Greek_ have often miss'd it in many Places. For _Aristotle_ proposes a Sort of such Kind of Ambiguity as arises from a Word of a contrary Signification. [Greek: ho ti manthanousin oi epistamenoi ta gar apostomatizomena manthanousin oi grammatikoi to gar manthanein omonymon, to te xunienai chromenon te episteme, kai to lambanein ten epistemen.] And they turn it thus.

_Because intelligent Persons learn; for Grammarians are only tongue-learn'd; for to learn is an equivocal Word, proper both to him that exerciseth and to him that receiveth Knowledge._

_Hi._ Methinks you speak _Hebrew_, and not _English_.

_Le._ Have any of you heard any equivocal Word?

_Hi._ No.

_Le._ What then can be more foolish than to desire to turn that which cannot possibly be turn'd. For although the _Greek_ Word [Greek: manthanein], signifies as much as [Greek: mathein] and [Greek: matheteuein], so among the _Latins_, _discere_, to learn, signifies as much as _doctrinam accipere_, or _doctrinam tradere._ But whether this be true or no I can't tell. I rather think [Greek: manthanein], is of doubtful Signification with the _Greeks_, as _cognoscere_ is among the _Latins._ For he that informs, and the Judge that learns, both of them know the Cause. And so I think among the _Greeks_ the Master is said [Greek: manthanein] whilst he hears his Scholars, as also the Scholars who learn of him. But how gracefully hath he turn'd that [Greek: ta gar apostomatizomena manthanousin oi grammatikoi], _nam secundum os grammatici disc.u.n.t: For the Grammarians are tongue-learn'd_; since it ought to be translated, _Nam grammatici, quae dict.i.tant, docent: Grammarians teach what they dictate_. Here the Interpreters ought to have given another Expression, which might not express the same Words, but the same Kind of Thing. Tho' I am apt to suspect here is some Error in the _Greek_ Copy, and that it ought to be written [Greek: h.o.m.onumon to te xunienai kai to lambanein]. And a little after he subjoins another Example of Ambiguity, which arises not from the Diversity of the Signification of the same Word, but from a different Connection, [Greek: to boulesthai labein me tous polemious], _velleme accipere pugnantes. To be willing that I should receive the fighting Men_: For so he translates it, instead of _velle me capere hostes, to be willing that I take the Enemies;_ and if one should read [Greek: boulesthe], it is more perspicuous. _Vultis ut ego capiam hostes? Will ye that I take the Enemies?_ For the p.r.o.noun may both go before and follow the Verb _capere_. If it go before it, the Sense will be this, _Will ye that I take the Enemies?_ If it follows, then this will be the Sense, _Are ye willing that the Enemies should take me?_ He adds also another Example of the same Kind, [Greek: ara ho tis ginoskei, touto ginoskei]. i.e. _An quod quis novit hoc novit._ The Ambiguity lies in [Greek: touto]. If it should be taken in the accusative Case, the Sense will be this; _Whatsoever it is that any Body knows, that Thing he knows to be._ But if in the nominative Case, the Sense will be this, _That Thing which any Body knows, it knows;_ as though that could not be known that knows not again by Course. Again he adds another Example. [Greek: apa ho tis hora, touto hora; hora de ton kiona hoste hora ho kion]. _That which any one sees, does that Thing see; but he sees a Post, does the Post therefore see?_ The Ambiguity lies again in [Greek: touto], as we shew'd before.

But these Sentences may be render'd into _Latin_ well enough; but that which follows cannot possibly by any Means be render'd, [Greek: Ara ho sy phes einai, touto sy phes einai; phes de lithon einai sy ara phes lithos einai]. Which they thus render, _putas quod tu dicis esse, hoc tu dicis esse: dicis autem lapidem esse, tu ergo lapis dicis esse._ Pray tell me what Sense can be made of these Words? For the Ambiguity lies partly in the Idiom of the _Greek_ Phrase, which is in the major and minor. Although in the major there is another Ambiguity in the two Words [Greek: o] and [Greek: touto], which if they be taken in the nominative Case, the Sense will be, _That which thou sayest thou art, that thou art._ But if in the accusative Case the Sense will be, _Whatsoever thou sayst is, that thou sayst is;_ and to this Sense he subjoins [Greek: lithon phes einai], but to the former Sense he subjoins [Greek: sy ara phes lithos einai]. _Catullus_ once attempted to imitate the Propriety of the _Greek_ Tongue:

_Phaselus iste, quem videtis, hospites, Ait fuisse navium celerrimus.

My Guests, that Gally which you see The most swift of the Navy is, says he._

For so was this Verse in the old Edition. Those who write Commentaries on these Places being ignorant of this, must of Necessity err many Ways.

Neither indeed can that which immediately follows be perspicuous in the _Latin_. [Greek: Kai ara eoti sigonta legein; ditton gar esti to sigonta legein, to te ton legonta sigan, kai to ta legomena.] That they have render'd thus; _Et putas, est tacentem dicere? Duplex enim est, tacentem dicere; et hunc dicere tacentem, et quae dic.u.n.tur._ Are not these Words more obscure than the Books of the _Sibyls_?

_Hi._ I am not satisfy'd with the _Greek_.

_Le._ I'll interpret it as well as I can. _Is it possible for a Man to speak while he is silent?_ This Interrogation has a two-Fold Sense, the one of which is false and absurd, and the other may be true; for it cannot possibly be that he who speaks, should not speak what he does speak; that is that he should be silent while he is speaking; but it is possible, that he who speaks may be silent of him who speaks. Although this Example falls into another Form that he adds a little after. And again, I admire, that a little after, in that kind of Ambiguity that arises from more Words conjoin'd, the _Greeks_ have chang'd the Word _Seculum_ into the Letters, [Greek: epistasthai ta grammata], seeing that the _Latin_ Copies have it, _scire seculum_. For here arises a double Sense, either _that the Age itself might know something_, or _that somebody might know the Age_. But this is an easier Translation of it into [Greek: aiona] or [Greek: kosmon], than into [Greek: grammata].

For it is absurd to say that Letters know any Thing; but it is no absurdity to say, _something is known to our Age_, or _that any one knows his Age_. And a little after, where he propounds an Ambiguity in the Accent, the Translator does not stick to put _Virgil's_ Words instead of _Homer's_, when there was the same Necessity in that Example, _quicquid dicis esse, hoc est_, _What thou sayst is, it is_. _Aristotle_ out of _Homer_ says, [Greek: ou kataputhetai ombro], if [Greek: ou]

should be aspirated and circ.u.mflected, it sounds in _Latin_ thus; _Cujus computrescit pluvia_; _by whose Rain it putrifies_; but if [Greek: ou]

be acuted and exile, it sounds, _Non computrescit pluvia; it does not putrify with Rain_; and this indeed is taken out of the _Iliad_ [Greek: ps]. Another is, [Greek: didomen de oi euchos aresthai]: the Accent being placed upon the last Syllable but one, signifies, _grant to him_; but plac'd upon the first Syllable [Greek: didomen], signifies, _we grant_. But the Poet did not think _Jupiter_ said, _we grant to him_; but commands the Dream itself to grant him, to whom it is sent to obtain his Desire. For [Greek: didomen], is used for [Greek: didonai]. For these two of _Homer_, these two are added out of our Poets; as that out of the Odes of _Horace_.

_Me tuo longas pereunte noctes, Lydia, dormis._

For if the Accent be on _me_ being short, and _tu_ be p.r.o.nounc'd short, it is one Word _metuo_; that is, _timeo, I am afraid_: Although this Ambiguity lies not in the Accent only, but also arises from the Composition.

They have brought another Example out of _Virgil_:

_Heu quia nam tanti cinxerunt aethera nymbi!_

Although here also the Ambiguity lies in the Composition.

_Hi._ _Leonard_, These Things are indeed Niceties, worthy to be known; but in the mean Time, I'm afraid our Entertainment should seem rather a Sophistical one, than a Poetical one: At another Time, if you please, we'll hunt Niceties and Criticisms for a whole Day together.

_Le._ That is as much as to say, we'll hunt for Wood in a Grove, or seek for Water in the Sea.

_Hi._ Where is my Mouse?

_Mou._ Here he is.

_Hi._ Bid _Margaret_ bring up the Sweet-Meats.

_Mus._ I go, Sir.

_Hi._ What! do you come again empty-handed?

_Mus._ She says, she never thought of any Sweet-Meats, and that you have sat long enough already.

_Hi._ I am afraid, if we should philosophize any longer, she'll come and overthrow the Table, as _Xantippe_ did to _Socrates_; therefore it is better for us to take our Sweet-Meats in the Garden; and there we may walk and talk freely; and let every one gather what Fruit he likes best off of the Trees.

_Guests._ We like your Motion very well.

_Hi._ There is a little Spring sweeter than any Wine.

_Ca._ How comes it about, that your Garden is neater than your Hall?

_Hi._ Because I spend most of my Time here. If you like any Thing that is here, don't spare whatever you find. And now if you think you have walk'd enough, what if we should sit down together under this Teil Tree, and rouze up our Muses.

_Pa._ Come on then, let us do so.

_Hi._ The Garden itself will afford us a Theme.

_Pa._ If you lead the Way, we will follow you.

_Hi._ Well, I'll do so. He acts very preposterously, who has a Garden neatly trimm'd up, and furnish'd with various Delicacies, and at the same Time, has a Mind adorn'd with no Sciences nor Virtues.

_Le._ We shall believe the Muses themselves are amongst us, if thou shalt give us the same Sentence in Verse.

_Hi._ That's a great Deal more easy to me to turn Prose into Verse, than it is to turn Silver into Gold.

_Le._ Let us have it then:

_Hi. Cui renidet hortus undiquaque flosculis, Animumque nullis expolitum dotibus Squalere pat.i.tur, is facit praepostere.

Whose Garden is all grac'd with Flowers sweet, His Soul mean While being impolite, Is far from doing what is meet._