Ancient Latin Agricultural Writers, Vol. I

sends the reader back to the sources themselves. It is certain enough, even from our own authors, that he wrote a book on agriculture, not to mention Cicero and Plutarch. But whether the one we possess today, in its current state, truly has Cato as its author, is not easy to declare. It is indeed apparent that what Varro, Columella, Pliny, and Palladius praise is read here with almost no, or very little, alteration. Most of it retains that gravity of antiquity, that brevity similar to an oracle, and that grace and sweetness shining through the unrefined austerity, all of which make it impossible to doubt that what is given here is indeed Catonian.

However, no one will easily persuade me that the book we have today—which is edited by us after many efforts by many people—was handed down to his friends by its author in this state, that is, in this order and with these exact words (not to mention anything regarding the orthography 1. Pontedera wrote learnedly about this in the beginning of his notes in the Addenda.). First, if we trust Servius On Virgil, Georgics 2, 412., Cato wrote books for his son on agriculture. I will not argue now that Servius calls them "books" rather than a "book," for Cicero also calls it a "book" in De Senectute ch. 15. But if Cato wrote to his son, he would have addressed him at the beginning of the book or at the end, as we see done by Tullius Cicero, by Varro, and by everyone who dedicated their books to others. But today, there is neither a trace nor a sign of this to be found. Furthermore, either Tullius described Cato’s character and style poorly in that very passage we just praised, or Cato wrote a little more differently and more abundantly about the nature and principles of fields, crops, vineyards, and trees.