Delphi Complete Works of Varro

by Marcus Terentius Varro

  Compounds of -fex and derivatives: pontufex v. 83, pontufces v. 83 (F for pontifces); artufces ix. 12; sacruficiis v. 98, 124. Cf pontifces v. 23, vi. 54, etc.; artifex v. 98, ix. Ill, etc.; sacrifcium vii. 88, etc.

  Miscellaneous words: — monumentum v. 148, but monimentum etc v. 41, vi. 49 his; mancupis v. 40, but mancipium etc v. 163, vi. 74, 85; quadrupes v. 34, but quadripedem etc vii. 39 his, quadriplex etc x. 46 etc., quadripertita etc v. 12 etc.

  7. LUBET and LIBET: Varro probably wrote lubet, lubido, etc., but the orthography varies, and thç manuscript tradition is kept in our text: — lubere lubendo vi. 47, lubenter vii. 89, lubitum ix. 34, lubidine x. 56; and libido vi. 47, x. 60, libidinosus Libentina Libitina vi. 47, libidine x. 61.

  8. H: Whether Varro used the initial H according to the standard practice at Rome, is uncertain. In the country it was likely to be dropped in pronunciation; and the manuscript shows variation in its use. We have restored the H in our text according to the usual orthography, except that irpices, v. 136 his, has been left because of the attendant text. Examples of its omission are Arpocrates v. 57; Ypsicrates v. 88; aedus ircus v. 97; olus olera v. 108, x. 50; olitorium v. 146; olitores vi. 20; ortis v. 103, ortorum v. 146 his, orti vi. 20; aruspex vii. 88. These are normalized in our text, along with certain other related spellings: sepulchrum vii. 24 is made to conform to the usual sepulcrum, and the almost invariable nichil and nichili have been changed to nihil and nihili.

  9. X and CS: There are traces of a writing CS for X, which has in these instances been kept in the text: arcs vii. “ (ares F); acsitiosae (ac sitiose F), acsitinsa (ac sitio a- F) vi. 66; ducs (duces F) x. 57.

  10. DOUBLED CONSONANTS: Varro’s practice in this matter is uncertain, in some words. F regularly has littera (only Uteris v. 3 has one T), but obliterata (ix. 16, -atae ix. 21, -amt v. 52), and these spellings are kept in our text. Communis has been made regular, though F usually has one M; casus is invariable, except for de cassu in cassum viii. 39, which has been retained as probably coming from Varro himself. Iupiter, with one P, is retained, because invariable in F; the only exception is Iuppitri viii. 33 (iuppiti F), which has also been kept. Numo vi. 61, for nummo, has been kept as perhaps an archaic spelling. Decusis ix. 81 has for the same reason been kept in the citation from Lucilius. In a few words the normal orthography has been introduced in the text: grallator vii. 69 his for gralator, grabatis viii. 32 for gr a battis. For combinations resulting from prefixes see the next paragraph.

  11. CONSONANTS OF PREFIXES: Varro’s usage here is quite uncertain, whether he kept the unassimilated consonants in the compounds. Apparently in some groups he made the assimilations, in others he did not. The evidence is as follows, the variant orthography being retained in our text:

  Ad-c-: always acc-, except possibly adeensos vii. 58 (F, for acensos F).

  Ad-f-: always aff-, except adfuerit vi. 40.

  Ad-l-: always all-, except adlocutum vi. 57, adlucet vi. 79, adlatis (ablatis F) ix. 21.

  Ad-m-: always adm-, except ammonendum v. 6, amministrat vi. 78, amminicula vii. 2, amminister vii. 34 (F, for adm- F).

  Ad-s-: regularly ass-, but also adserere vi. 64, adsiet vi. 92, adsimus vii. 99, adsequi viii. 8, x. 95 od- significare often (always except assignificant vii. 80), adsumi viii. 69, adsumat ix. 42, adsumere x. 58.

  Ad-sc-, ad-sp-, ad-st-: always with loss of the D, as in ascendere, ascribere, ascriptos (vii. 57), ascriptivi (vii. 56), aspicere, aspectus, astans.

  Ad-t-: — always ait-, except adtributa v. 48, and possibly adtinuit (F, but att- F) ix. 59-

  Con-l-, con-b-, con-m-, con-r-: — always coll-, comb-, comm,-, corr-.

  Con-p-: always comp-, except conpernis ix. 10.

  Ex-f-: always eff-, except exfluit v. 29.

  Ex-s-: exsolveret v. 176, exsuperet vi. 50, but exuperantum vii. 18 (normalized in our text to ex su per ant uni).

  Ex-sc-: exculpserant v. 143.

  Ex-sp-: always expecto etc vi. 82, x. 40, etc.

  Ex-sq-: regularly Esquiliis; but Exquilias v. 25, Exquiliis v. 159 (Fv), normalized to Esq- in our text.

  Ex-st: extat v. 3, vi. 78; but exstat v. 3, normalized to extat in our text.

  In-l-: usually ill-, but indicium vi. 88 his, 93 (illici- turn F), 94, 95, inliceret vi. 90, inliciatur vi. 94; the variation is kept in our text:

  In-m-: always imm-, except in {in)mutatis vi. 38, where the restored addition is unassimilated to indicate the negative prefix and not the local in.

  In-p-: always imp-, except inpos v. 4 his (once ineos F), inpotem v. 4 (inpoientem F), inplorat vi. 68.

  Ob-c-, ob-f-, ob-p-: always occ-, off-, opp-.

  Ob-t-: always opt-, as in optineo etc vii. 17, 91 J x. 19, optemperare ix. 6.

  Per-l-: pellexit vi. 94, but perlucent v. 140. xxii Sub-c-, sub-f-, sub-p-: always suce-, suff-, supp-, except subeidit v. 116.

  Sub-s- and subs- + consonant: regularly sus- + consonant, except subscribunt vii. 107.

  Sub-t-: only in suptilius x. 40.

  Trans-l-: in tralutum vi. 77, vii. 23, 103, x. 71; tralaticio vi. 55 (trmilatio Fv) and trajislaticio v. 32, vi. — 64 (traiislatio F, tranlatio Fv), translaticiis vi. 78.

  Trans-v-: in travolat v. 118, and transversus vii. 81, x. 22, 23, 43.

  Trans-d-: in traducere.

  12. DE and DI: The manuscript has been followed in the orthography of the following: directo vii. 15, dirigi viii. 26, derecti x. 22 his, derigimtur derectorum x. 22, derecta directis x. 43, directas x. 44, derigitur x. 74; deiunctum x. 45, deiunctae x. 47.

  13. SECOND DECLENSION: Nom sing, and acc sing, in -uom and -uum, see 5.

  Gen sing, of nouns in -lus: Varro used the form ending in a single I (cf viii. 36), and a few such forms stand in the manuscript: Muci v. 5 (tnuti F); Pacui v. 7, vi. 6, vii. 22; Mani vi. 90; Quinti vi. 92, Ephesi viii. — 22 (ephesis F), Plauti et Marci viii. 36, dispendi ix. — 54 (quoted, metrical; alongside dispendii ix. 54). The gen in II is much commoner; both forms are kept in our text.

  Norn, pi., written by Varro with El (cf ix. 80); examples are given in 1, above.

  Gen pi.: The older form in -um for certain words (denarium, centumvirum, etc.) is upheld viii. 71, ix. 82, 85, and occurs occasionally elsewhere:

  Velabrum v. 44, Querquetulanum v. 49, Sabinum v. 74, etc.

  Dat.-abl pi., written by Varro with EIS (cf ix. 80); examples are given in 1, above, but the manuscript regularly has IS.

  Dat.-abl pi of nouns ending in -ius, -ia, -ium, are almost always written IIS; there are a few for which the manuscript has IS, which we have normalized to IIS: Gabis v. 33, (Es)quilis v. 50, hostis v. 98, Publicis v. — 158, Faleris v. 162, praeverbis vi. 82 (cf praeverbiis vi. — 38 his), my si er is vii. 31 (cf mysteriis vii. 19), miliaris ix. 85 (militari s F).

  Deus shows the following variations: Norn pi de(e)i viii. 70, dei v. 57, 58 his, 66, 71, vii. 36, ix. 59, dii v. 58, 144’, vii. 16; dat.-abl pi dels v. 122, vii. 45, diis v. 69, 71, 182, vi. 24, 34, vii. 34.

  14. THIRD DECLENSION: — The abl sing, varies between E and I: supellectile viii. 30, 32, ix. 46, and supelleciili ix. 20 {-lis F); cf also vesperi (uespert- F) and vespere ix. 73.

  Norn, pi., where ending in IS in the manuscript, is altered to ES; the examples are mediocris v. 5; partis v. — 21, 56; ambonis v. 115; urbis v. 143; aedis v. 160; compluris vi. 15; Novendialis vi. 26; auris vi. 83; dis- parilis viii. 67; lends ix. 31; ornnis ix. 81; dissimtlis ix. 92.

  Gen pi in UM and IUM, see viii. 67. In view of dentum viii. 67, expressly championed by Varro, Veientum v. 30 (uenientum F), caelestum vi. 53, Quiritum vi. — 68 have been kept in our text.

  Acc pi in ES and IS, see viii. 67. Varro’s distribution of the two endings seems to have been purely empirical and arbitrary, and the manuscript readings have been retained in our text.

  15. FOURTH DECLENSION: — Gen sing.: — Gellius, Nodes Atticae iv. 16. 1, tells us that Varro always used UIS in this form. Nonius Marcellus 483-494 M. cites eleven such forms from Varro, but also sumpti. The De Lingua Latina
gives the following partial examples of this ending: usuis ix. 4 (suis F), x. 73 (usui F), casuis x. 50 (casuum F), x. 62 (casus his F). Examples of this form ending in US are kept in our text: fructus v. — 34, 134, senatus v. 87, exercitus v. 88, panus v. 105, domus v. 162, census v. 181, motus vi. 3, sonitus vi. 67 sensus vi. 80, uSUS viii. 28, 30 his, — ix. 76, manus ix. 80.

  Gen pi.: For the variation between UUM and UOM see 4, above. The form with one U is found in tribum v. 56, ortum v. 66, manum vi. 64 (manu F), magistratum viii. 83 (-tus F), declinatum x. 54; these have been normalized in our text to UUM (except manum, in an archaic formula). Note the following forms in the manuscript: cornuum v. 117, declinatuum vi. — 36 (-tiuum Fu), x. 31, 32, 54, sensuum vi. 80; tribuum vi.86; fructuum ix. 27; casuum ix.77, x. 14,23, manuum ix. 80, nominatuom (-tiuom F) ix. 95, x. 30, nomination x. 19.

  16. HETEROCLITES: There are the following: gen sing, plebei v. 40, 81,158, vi. 87, and plebis vi. 91; nom sing, elephans and acc pi elepkantos vii. 39; abl sing. Titano vii. 16; abl pi vasis v. 121, poematis vii. 2, 36, viii. 14, and poematibus vii. 34.

  17. GREEK FORMS: There are the following: acc sing, analogian ix. 1, 26, 33, 34, 15, 49, 76, 79, 105, 113, 114, but also analogiam ix. 90, 100, no, x. 2, and analogia(m) ix. 95, 111. Acc sing. Aeihiopa viii. 38 (ethiopam F). Norn pi. Aeolis v. 25, 101, 102, 175, Athenaiis viii. 35.

  18. FORMS OF IS AND IDEM: The forms in the manuscript are kept in our text; there are the following to be noted:

  Nom sing masc.: idem often; also eidem vii. 17 (eadem F), x. 10.

  Nom pl.: ii v. 26, ix. 2; iei ix. 2, 35; idem ix. 19.

  Dat.-abl pl.: eis vi. 18, vii. 102, ix. 4, x. 8; ieis viii. — 51 (his F, but assured by context), ix. 5; is vii. 5 (dis F); iisdem vi. 38; isdem vii. 8 (hisdem F), viii. 35 his (hisdem F).

  19. QUOM and CUM etc.: Varro wrote quom, quor, quoins, quoi, and not cum, cur, cuius, cm, though the latter spellings are much commoner in the manuscripts, the readings of which are kept in our text. Quom is not infrequent, being found vi. 42, 56, vii. 4, 105, viii. 1, x. 6, and in other passages where slight emendation is necessary. Quor is found only corrected to cur, viii. 68, 71, and hidden under quorum corrected to quod, viii. 78. Quoins is written viii. 44, ix. — 43, x. 3, and in other passages where emendation is necessary. Quoi nowhere appears, unless it should be read for qui vi. 72, and quoique for quoque ix. 34, adopted in our text.

  Both qui and quo are used for the abl sing, of the relative, and quis and quibus for the dat.-abl pl., and similar forms for quidam, hi quo is used with a plural antecedent of any gender: v. 108, vi. 2, 55, 82, vii. 26, viii. 83, ix. 1, x. 8, 41.

  20. ALTER and NEUTER: Gen alii ix. 67 is found as well as allerius ix. 91 5 neutri ix. 62, neutraie) x. — 73, as well as neutrius ix. 1; dat fern, aliae x. 15.

  21. CONTRACTED PERFECTS: Only the contracted perfects arc found, such as appellarunt v. 22 etc., declinarit v. 7, aberraro v. 13, appelassent ix. 69, curasse vii. — 38, consuerunt consuessent ix. 68, consuerit ix. 14 his; exceptions, norissent vi. 60, auspicaverit vi. 86 (quoted), nuncupavero vii. 8 (quoted), vitaverunt x. 9-

  INTRODUCTION

  Similarly, the V is omitted after I, as in praeteru ix. 7, prodierunt v. 13, expediero viii. 24, etc.; exception, quivero v. 5 (F, for quiero F).

  22. PONO in Perfect: The text always has posui and its forms, except twice, which we have standardized: imposiverunt viii. 8, imposierint ix. 34.

  23. GERUNDIVES: Varro used the old form of the gerundive and gerund with UND in the third and fourth conjugations, but the forms have mostly been replaced by those with END. The remaining examples of the older form areferundo v. %, ferundum vi. 9Q,faciundo vii. 9, qnaerundae vii. 35, reprehendiindi ix. 12, reprehendundus ix. 93.

  24. VERSUS: The older forms vorto, vorti, tor sus are not found in the manuscript. The adverbial compounds of versus have (with one exception) been retained in our text as they appear in the manuscript: susus versus v. 158, susum versus ix. 65; deorsum, susum v. 161; rursus vi. 46, 49, ix. 86; deosum versus ix. 86; prosus and rusus (rostts F) x. 52.

  MARCUS TERENTIUS VARRO by F. H. Belvoir

  MARCUS TERENTIUS VARRO (B.C. 116-28) whom Quintilian called “the most learned of the Romans,” and Petrarch “il terzo gran lume Romano,” ranking him with Cicero and Virgil, probably studied agriculture before he studied any thing else, for he was born on a Sabine farm, and although of a well to do family, was bred in the habits of simplicity and rural industry with which the poets have made that name synonymous. All his life he amused the leisure snatched from his studies with intelligent supervision of the farming of his several estates: and he wrote his treatise Rerum Rusticarum in his eightieth year.

  He had his share of active life, but it was as a scholar that he distinguished himself. Belonging to the aristocratic party, he became a friend and supporter of Pompey, and, after holding a naval command under him in the war against the Pirates in B.C. 67, was his legatus in Spain at the beginning of the civil wars and there surrendered to Caesar. He was again on the losing side at the battle of Pharsalia, but was pardoned by Caesar, who selected him to be librarian of the public library he proposed to establish at Rome. From this time Varro eschewed politics and devoted himself to letters, although his troubles were not yet at an end: after the death of Caesar, the ruthless Antony despoiled his villa at Casinum (where Varro had built the aviary described in book Three), and like Cicero he was included in the proscriptions which followed the compact of the triumvirs, but in the end unlike Cicero he escaped and spent his last years peacefully at his villas at Cumae and Tusculum.

  His literary activity was astonishing: he wrote at least six hundred books covering a wide range of antiquarian research. St. Augustine, who dearly loved to turn a balanced phrase, says that Varro had read so much that it is difficult to understand when he found time to write, while on the other hand he wrote so much that one can scarcely read all his books. Cicero, who claimed him as an intimate friend, describes (Acad. Ill) what Varro had written before B.C. 46, but he went on producing to the end of his long life, eighteen years later: “For,” says Cicero, “while we are sojourners, so to speak, in our own city and wandering about like strangers, your books have conducted us, as it were, home again, so as to enable us at last to recognize who and whence we are. You have discussed the antiquities of our country and the variety of dates and chronology relating to it. You have explained the laws which regulate sacrifices and priests: you have unfolded the customs of the city both in war and peace: you have described the various quarters and districts: you have omitted mentioning none of the names, or kinds, or functions, or causes of divine or human things: you have thrown a flood of light on our poets and altogether on Latin literature and the Latin language: you have yourself composed a poem of varied beauties and elegant in almost every part: and you have in many places touched upon philosophy in a manner sufficient to excite our curiosity, though inadequate to instruct us.”

  Of Varro’s works, beside the Rerum Rusticarum, there have survived only fragments, including a considerable portion of the treatise on the Latin language: the story is that most of his books were deliberately destroyed at the procurement of the Church (something not impossible, as witness the Emperor Theodosius in Corpus Juris Civilis. Cod. Lib. I, tit. I, ca, § I) to conceal St. Augustine’s plagiarism from them; yet the De Civitate Dei, which is largely devoted to refuting Varro’s pagan theology, is a perennial monument to his fame. St. Augustine says (VI, 2): “Although his elocution has less charm, he is so full of learning and philosophy that … he instructs the student of facts as much as Cicero delights the student of style.”

  Varro’s treatise on farm management is the best practical book on the subject which has come down to us from antiquity. It has not the spontaneous originality of Cato, nor the detail and suave elegance of Columella. Walter Harte in his Essays on Husbandry (1764) says that Cato writes like an English squire and Varro like a French academician. This is just comment on Cato but it is at once too much and too
little to say of Varro: a French academician might be proud of his antiquarian learning, but would balk at his awkward and homely Latin, as indeed one French academician, M. Boissier, has since done. The real merit of Varro’s book is that it is the well digested system of an experienced and successful farmer who has seen and practised all that he records.

  The authority from which Virgil drew the practical farming lore, for which he has been extolled in all ages, was Varro: indeed, as a farm manual the Georgics go astray only when they depart from Varro. It is worth while to elaborate this point, which Professor Sellar, in his argument for the originality of Virgil, only suggests.

  After Philippi the times were ripe for books on agriculture. The Roman world had been divided between Octavian and Antony and there was peace in Italy: men were turning “back to the land.”

  An agricultural regeneration of Italy was impending, chiefly in viticulture, as Ferrero has pointed out. With far sighted appreciation of the economic advantages of this, Octavian determined to promote the movement, which became one of the completed glories of the Augustan Age, when Horace sang

  Tua, Caesar, aetas

  Fruges et agris rettulit uberes.

  Varro’s book appeared in B.C. 37 and during that year Maecenas commissioned Virgil to put into verse the spirit of the times; just as, under similar circumstances, Cromwell pensioned Samuel Hartlib. Such is the co-incidence of the dates that it is not impossible that the Rerum Rusticarum suggested the subject of the Georgics, either to Virgil or to Maecenas.

  There is no evidence in the Bucolics that Virgil ever had any practical knowledge of agriculture before he undertook to write the Georgics. His father was, it is true, a farmer, but apparently in a small way and unsuccessful, for he had to eke out a frugal livelihood by keeping bees and serving as the hireling deputy of a viator or constable. This type of farmer persists and may be recognized in any rural community: but the agricultural colleges do not enlist such men into their faculties. So it is possible that Virgil owed little agricultural knowledge to his father’s precepts or example. Virgil perhaps had tended his father’s flock, as he pictures himself doing under the guise of Tityrus; certainly he spent many hours of youth “patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi” steeping his Celtic soul with the beauty and the melancholy poetry of the Lombard landscape: and so he came to know and to love bird and flower and the external aspects of