- Source
- Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol 1-3. Gummere, Richard Mott, editor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1917-1925.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi1017.phi015.humanitext-lat2:58.1-58.10
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-04
Seneca laments the poverty of the Latin vocabulary, illustrating the difficulty of translating Plato's philosophical terms "ousia" and "to on." To prepare for explaining Plato's sixfold classification of being, he outlines the hierarchical structure of "genus" and "species," tracing concepts back from living things to the primary concept of "body."
Quanta verborum nobis paupertas, immo egestas sit, numquam magis quam hodierno die intellexi. Mille res inciderunt, cum forte de Platone loqueremur, quae nomina desiderarent nec haberent, quaedam vero, quae cum habuissent, fastidio nostro perdidissent.1
How great a poverty, or rather a scarcity, of words we have, I have never understood more than on this very day. A thousand things cropped up, when we happened to be speaking of Plato, which required names and did not have them, and certain things indeed which, although they had possessed them, had lost them through our fastidiousness.
Quis autem ferat in egestate fastidium? Hunc quem Graeci oestron vocant pecora peragentem et totis saltibus dissipantem, asilum nostri vocabant. Hoc Vergilio licet credas: "Est lucum Silari iuxta ilicibusque virentem Plurimus Alburnum volitans, cui nomen asilo Romanum est, oestrum Grai vertere vocantes, Asper, acerba sonans, quo tota exterrita silvis Diffugiunt armenta."
But who would tolerate fastidiousness in the midst of scarcity? This insect which the Greeks call “oestros,” which drives cattle wild and scatters them throughout all the glades, our people used to call “asilus.” You may believe Virgil on this point: “Near the grove of Silarus and Alburnus green with holm-oaks, there flies a multitude of insects, whose Roman name is asilus, but the Greeks have translated it, calling it oestros, rough, and making a harsh sound, by which whole herds, terrified, flee in all directions from the woods.”
Puto intellegi istud verbum interisse.2 Ne te longe differam, quaedam simplicia in usu erant, sicut "cernere ferro inter se "dicebant. Idem Vergilius hoc probabit tibi: "Ingentis genitos diversis partibus orbis Inter se coiisse viros et cernere ferro." Quod nunc decernere dicimus. Simplicis illius verbi usus amissus est.
I think it is understood that that word has perished. Not to keep you waiting long, certain simple words were in use, just as they used to say “to decide with iron between themselves.” The same Virgil will prove this to you: “That mighty men, born in different parts of the world, have come together and decide with iron.” What we now call decernere. The use of that simple word has been lost.
Dicebant antiqui "si iusso," id est iussero. Hoc nolo mihi credas, sed eidem Vergilio: "Cetera, qua iusso, mecum manus inferat arma."
The ancients used to say “si iusso,” that is, iussero. I do not want you to believe me on this, but the same Virgil: “Let the rest of the force, where I shall command, bring arms with me.”
Non id ago nunc hac diligentia, ut ostendam, quantum tempus apud grammaticum perdiderim, sed ut ex hoc intellegas, quantum apud Ennium et Accium verborum situs occupaverit, cum apud hunc quoque, qui cotidie excutitur, aliqua nobis subducta sint.
I am not doing this now with such diligence to show how much time I lost with the grammarian, but so that you may understand from this how much the neglect of words has occupied Ennius and Accius, when even in this author, who is daily examined, some words have been stolen from us.
" Quid sibi," inquis, "ista praeparatio vult? Quo spectat? "Non celabo te; cupio, si fieri potest, propitiis auribus tuis "essentiam "dicere; si minus, dicam et iratis. Ciceronem auctorem huius verbi habeo, puto locupletem. Si recentiorem quaeris, Fabianum, disertum et elegantem, orationis etiam ad nostrum fastidium nitidae. Quid enim fiet, mi Lucili? Quomodo dicetur οὐσία res necessaria, natura continens fundamentum omnium? Rogo itaque permittas mihi hoc verbo uti. Nihilominus dabo operam, ut ius a te datum parcissime exerceam; fortasse contentus ero mihi licere.
”What,” you say, “does that preparation mean? Where does it look?” I will not hide it from you; I desire, if it can be done, with your favorable ears, to say “essentia”; if not, I shall say it even with angry ones. I have Cicero as the author of this word, whom I consider rich in authority. If you look for someone more recent, there is Fabianus, eloquent and elegant, of a style polished even to our fastidious taste. For what will happen, my Lucilius? How will ousia be said, a necessary thing, containing by its nature the foundation of all things? Therefore, I ask that you permit me to use this word. Nevertheless, I will take care to exercise the right given by you very sparingly; perhaps I shall be content that it is allowed to me.
Quid proderit facilitas tua, cum ecce id nullo modo Latine exprimere possim, propter quod linguae nostrae convicium feci? Magis damnabis angustias Romanas, si scieris unam syllabam esse, quam mutare non possum. Quae sit haec, quaeris? τὸ ὄν. Duri tibi videor ingenii; in medio positum, posse sic transferri, ut dicam "quod est.3" Sed multum interesse video; cogor verbum pro vocabulo ponere.
What good will your compliance do, when, behold, I can in no way express in Latin that for which I reproached our language? You will condemn the Roman narrowness even more if you know that there is one syllable which I cannot translate. What is this, you ask? “To on.” You think I am of a dull intellect; it is a thing open to all, that it can be translated so that I may say “that which is.” But I see there is a great difference; I am forced to put a verb in place of a noun.
Sed si ita necesse est, ponam "quod est." Sex modis hoc a Platone dici amicus noster, homo eruditissimus, hodierno die dicebat. Omnes tibi exponam, si ante indicavero esse aliquid genus, esse et speciem. Nunc autem primum illud genus quaerimus, ex quo ceterae species suspensae sunt, a quo nascitur omnis divisio, quo universa conprensa sunt. Invenietur autem, si coeperimus singula retro legere; sic enim perducemur ad primum.
But if it is so necessary, I will put “that which is.” Our friend, a most learned man, was saying today that this is spoken of by Plato in six ways. I will explain all of them to you, if I first indicate that there is a certain genus, and that there is also a species. Now, however, we are seeking that first genus, from which the other species are suspended, from which every division arises, and in which all things are comprised. And it will be found if we begin to read individual things backward; for thus we shall be led back to the first.
Homo species est, ut Aristoteles ait; equus species est; canis species est; ergo commune aliquod quaerendum est his omnibus vinculum, quod illa conplectatur et sub se habeat. Hoc quid est? Animal. Ergo genus esse coepit horum omnium, quae modo rettuli, hominis, equi, canis, animal.
Man is a species, as Aristotle says; horse is a species; dog is a species; therefore, some common bond must be sought for all of them, which comprises them and has them under itself. What is this? Animal. Therefore, the genus of all these things which I have just mentioned—man, horse, dog—begins to be “animal.”
Sed quaedam animam habent nec sunt animalia. Placet enim satis et arbustis animam inesse.4 Itaque et vivere illa et mori dicimus. Ergo animantia superiorem tenebunt locum, quia et animalia in hac forma sunt et sata. Sed quaedam anima carent, ut saxa. Itaque erit aliquid animantibus antiquius, corpus scilicet. Hoc sic dividam, ut dicam corpora omnia aut animantia esse aut inanima.
But some things have a soul/life and are not animals. For it is agreed that crops and shrubs also have a soul/life in them. And so we say that they both live and die. Therefore, living things will hold the higher place, because both animals and crops are in this form. But some things lack a soul/life, like stones. And so there will be something older than living things, namely, body. I will divide this in such a way that I say that all bodies are either animate or inanimate.
- 58.1quaedam vero, quae cum habuissent, fastidio nostro perdidissent
Regarding the subject of the subjunctive pluperfect perdidissent. It can be taken as having quaedam (certain things) as its subject ("certain things lost their names"), or indefinitely as "people lost them due to our fastidiousness." We adopt the former interpretation, treating the things themselves as having lost their names because of our fastidiousness.
- 58.3Puto intellegi istud verbum interisse
Analysis of the double accusative-and-infinitive construction. intellegi (present passive infinitive) serves as the verb of the infinitive clause depending on puto. In turn, the subject of intellegi is the entire accusative-and-infinitive clause istud verbum interisse ("that that word has perished"), forming a nested structure.
- 58.7Duri tibi videor ingenii; in medio positum, posse sic transferri, ut dicam " quod est."
Duri... ingenii is a genitive of quality acting as the predicate complement of videor ("I seem to you to be of a dull intellect"). in medio positum refers to something that is "obvious" or "open to all," modifying or standing in apposition to the infinitive clause posse..., pre-empting the objection that such a simple translation is readily available.
- 58.10Placet enim satis et arbustis animam inesse
The subject of the impersonal verb placet is the infinitive clause animam inesse ("that a soul/life is in..."). satis et arbustis are datives governed by inesse; satis is the dative plural of sata ("crops/planted things"), and arbustis is from arbustum ("shrubs/trees"). It must not be confused with the adverb satis ("enough").