niir=Jlir^Mr^iir^ir^J|EJ|[:^|L:i||L=U|La|L=U|L=U|L=J|U=J|l=J|U=J|t=JH B CLASSICAL LIBRARY ; Compkte list of Locb titlcs can he Jound at thc end ofeach vohime PLINY the Elder, Gaius Plinius Secundus (A.D. 23-79), a Roman oi equestrian rank of Transpadane Gaul (N. ItaK ), was iincle of Pliny the letter writer. He pur- sued a career partlv miiitary in Germany, jiartlv administrative in Gaul and Spain under the emperor Vespasian, became prefect of the fleet at Misenum, and died in the eruption of Vesuvius when he went to get a closer view and to rescue friends. Tireless worker, reader, and writer, he was author of works nov, lost, but his S^reat haturaJis Hiswria in 37 books with its vast collection of facts (and alleged facts) survives-a mine ot intormation despite its uncritical character. Book 1 : table of contents of the cjthers and ol authorities ; 2 : mathematical and metro- logical survev ot the universe; 3-6: geographv and ethnoaraphv of the known world; 7: anthropolojjv and the phvsio- logy of man ; 8-1 i : zooloav; 12-19: botanv, agriculture and horticulture 20-27 : plantproductsasusedinmedicine; 28-32 medical zoologv; 33-37: minerals (and medicine), the hne arts and gem- stones. LIER THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY FOUNDED BY JAME3 LOEB, LL.D. EDITED BY tT. E. PAGE, C.H., LITT.D. tE. CAPPS. PH.D., LL.D. tW. H. D. ROUSE, litt.d. L. A. POST, L.H.D. E. H. WARMINGTON, m.a., f.r.hist.soc. PLINY NATURAL HISTORY VII LIBRI XXIV-XXVII 393 PLINY NATURAL HISTORY WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION IN TEN VOLUMES VOLUME VII LIBRI XXIV-XXVII BT W. H. S. JONES, LiTT.D., F.B.A., IIONORAHY PEIAOW, ST. CATHAK1NE'S LOLLEGE, OAMBRIDQE CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD MCMLXVI First pTinted 1956 Reprinted 1966 Printed in Great Britain CONTENTS P&QK PREFACE Vii INTRODUCTION ix BOOK XSIV 1 BOOK XXV 135 BooK XXVI 263 BOOK xxvn 387 ADDITIONAL NOTES 482 INDEX OF PLANTS 485 LIST OF DISBASES AND AFFECTIONS 647 INDEX OF NAMES 555 PREFACE I wiSH to thank Professor A. C. Andrews of the University of Miami for the great help he has been in the preparation of this volume. I sometimes refer to him as A.C.A. Expert botanical knowledge is essential for the sokition of many problems that have arisen, esj^ecially in the compilation of the Index of Plants. My rough draft of this he revised, making many additions : these amount to several pages. For the errors that inevitably remain in my work I alone am responsible. My thanks are also due to the stafF of the Cam- bridge School of Botany and to Professor C. O. Brink of the same University. INTRODUCTION The Manuscripts ov these Books (Chiefly from Mayhoff) N Nonantulanus (Sessorianus) 5th or 6th century, a palimpsest, now in Rome, once in a Benedictine Monastery at Nonantula, near Modena. Later Manuscripts Ist fa^nily V Leidensis Vossianus, llth century or earlier. R codex Florentinus Riccardianus, about 1100 A.D. d codex Parisinus latinus, 6797, 13th century. F codex Leidensis, llth century. T codex Toletanus, 13th century. X the better parts of X, ex exemplari prioris familiae (MayhofF). 2ndfamily E codex Parisinus latinus 6795, lOth or llth century. r coiTCctions from an unknown MS. noted in R. a codex Vindobonensis CCXXXIV. X codex Luxemburgensis, the parts not included in X. Codd." in the apparatus criticus is usually the same as Mayhoffs //., i.e., a consensus of VR(r)dE, some- ix INTRODUCTION times only a consensus of several MSS. of the more reliable kind. Vulg. = the textus receptus of the early " editions. Of FTx MayhofF says : lectiones ita tantum adnotatae sunt, ut e silentio nihil co)icludendum sit." The edition of Dalecamp (1587) has in the margin : (1) readings of a lost MS. ; (2) readings of a lost edition or conjectures of an miknown scholar. " In the critical notes (1) is called cod. Dal." and " (2) vet. Dal." As to the value of these MSS., I have generally followed Mayhoff. The method adopted in fixing the text has been to accept as correct the parts where Detlefsen and MayhofF agree, except in a few places where internal evidence or the text of Dioscorides pointed to another reading. Where these two editors differ I have tried to choose the HkeHer of the two readings. If I felt that neither alternative could be accepted, I have sometimes ventured on an emendation suggested by a fViend or thought out by myself, but never, I hope, where a reasonable reading is found in at least one MS. of fair authority. Such a method as this would be unsafe were it not for the fact that Mayhoffs apparatus criticus is both full and trustworthy. Although one who has not collated, or at least personally examined,the MSS.in Mayhoffs apparatus, cannot claim to appreciate fully their relative im- portance, yet he must acquire, as he studies their various readings, some conception of the weight to be attached to them. Such a critic, however, should exercise even greater caution than the critic fully equipped for his task. For his judgment, however gi-eat his knowledge is of PHnian usage, of the parallel passages in Theophrastus and Dioscorides, INTRODUCTION and of the principles of textual criticism, is certain to be influenced unduly by the subjective element in his reasoning. A translator, however, although he would prefer to spend all his tirae and care on his proper task of translating, is sometimes compelled to defend a new reading or suggest an emendation, because in his opinion such a course is required by the sense of the passage. But the extra caution neces- sary in these cases has made me refrain from mention- ing some emendations of my own that I thought possible or even hkely. It is, moreover, often for- gotten that an ancient author—and this perhaps appHes especially to PHny—may himself have made mistakes, even bad ones, that escaped the notice of his corrector, if he had one. SOME DlFFICULT WoRDS IN PlINY. THE ADJECTIVE PINOUIS APPLIED TO LEAVES There are in PUny few words more perplexing than pinguis when applied to leaves. ForcelUni says " pinguia folia: crassa et veluti carnosa." PHny, however, uses it to translate Xnrapog, which is very common in Dioscorides, and is rendered by Hort " glossy " (leaves) in his edition of Theophrastus. " It is therefore tempting to use " glossy to trans- late PHny's pinguis (and the Xnrapog of Dioscorides) on all occasions, but there are difficulties. The latter " " has (IV 170) : KXcova? Xnrapovg, and glossy twigs seems unUkely ; while PHny in XXV § 124 speaks of radicibus pinguibus, which is surely " juicy roots." It " would appear that " juicy is at least a possible translation of pinguis, especially as PHny often speaks of leaves having a sucus. Examples are : sucus ; INTRODUCTION foUorum (XXIV §§ 47 and 131) ; foliis exprimitur sucus (XXIV § 70) ; fit etfoliis sucus (XXIV § 109) ; sucus e fronde (XXV § 68). The claims of " fleshy " have to be considered. On the face of it, perhaps, it is a more natural epithet for leaves than either " glossy " or " juicy," and it is the only meaning given by ForcelUni. Against the rendering must be put the frequent use of aapKcohrjg by our Greek authorities in this sense, often in close conjunction wath XLTrapog. In Phny XXV § 161 occurs a phrase which seems at flrst sight to settle the matter. He speaks of folia . carnosa, pinguia^ larga suco. Does this mean " fleshy, glossy, juicy leaves "? The last two epithets, however, may be connected, which would give the sense: " rich with copious juice." This is perhaps unlikely, but cannot be ruled out as im- possible. The parallel passage in Dioscorides (IV 88, 89) does not help in deciding the question. Hort may be right in translating Xnrapog by " glossy," but what did PUny take it to mean when apphed to leaves ? A consideration of all the per- " tinent passages suggests a combination of " glossy " and " fleshy," i.e., not necessarily large, but sleek and plump." Perhaps, if a single word must be chosen to render pijiguis whenever it occurs, " rich gets as near to Phny's idea of the meaning as the Enghsh language will permit. But unfortunately modern botanists are opposed to this rendering. It may seem that the best course would be to identify the leaf referred to, and to vary the trans- lation to suit the actual facts. Botanists, however, ^ Littre translates pinguia (into the French) " grasses " Bostock and Rilej " unctuous." xii ; INTRODUCTION point out (1) that identification is often uncertain (2) that we may know the genus, but not the species of the plant mentioned, and (3) that a leaf is often both fleshy and glossy. " " On the whole, perhaps fleshy is the best trans- lation, except in cases where another rendering is obviously desirable. Words signifying colours are very troublesome in the botanical parts of Phny ; niger, candidus, alhus, purpureus, bewilder the translator nearly every time they occur. " " " " I have used black and white unless there is something in the context that makes " dark " and " " hght more appropriate ; the comparative ?iigrior, for instance, is more hkely to be " darker " than " blacker " when apphed to leaves or stalks. Phny has quite a long section (IX, 124-141) deaUng vvith purpura. It is plain from this that the colour referred to was usually a deep red tinged with more or less blue, our " purple " in fact, the most esteemed variety being hke clotted blood.