Omitto illa, quae relicta iam videntur, ut Herillum, qui in cognitione et scientia summum bonum ponit: qui c.u.m Zenonis auditor esset, vides quantum ab eo dissenserit et quam non multum a Platone. Megaricorum fuit n.o.bilis disciplina, cuius, ut scriptum video, princeps Xenophanes, quem modo nominavi, deinde eum secuti Parmenides et Zeno, itaque ab his Eleatici philosophi nominabantur. Post Euclides, Socratis discipulus, Megareus, a quo iidem illi Megarici dicti, qui id bonum solum esse dicebant, quod esset unum et simile et idem semper. Hic quoque multa a Platone. A Menedemo autem, quod is Eretria fuit, Eretriaci appellati, quorum omne bonum in mente positum et mentis acie, qua verum cerneretur, Herilli similia, sed, opinor, explicata uberius et ornatius. 130. Hos si contemnimus et iam abiectos putamus, illos certe minus despicere debemus, Aristonem, qui c.u.m Zenonis fuisset auditor, re probavit ea quae ille verbis, nihil esse bonum nisi virtutem, nec malum nisi quod virtuti esset contrarium: in mediis ea momenta, quae Zeno voluit, nulla esse censuit. Huic summum bonum est in his rebus neutram in partem moveri, quae ad?af???a ab ipso dicitur. Pyrrho autem ea ne sentire quidem sapientem, quae apa?e?a nominatur. Has igitur tot sententias ut omittamus, haec nunc videamus, quae diu multumque defensa sunt. 131. Alii voluptatem finem esse voluerunt: quorum princeps Aristippus, qui Socratem audierat, unde Cyrenaici. Post Epicurus, cuius est disciplina nunc notior, neque tamen c.u.m Cyrenaicis de ipsa voluptate consentiens. Voluptatem autem et honestatem finem esse Callipho censuit: vacare omni molestia Hieronymus: hoc idem c.u.m honestate Diodorus: ambo hi Peripatetici. Honeste autem vivere fruentem rebus iis, quas primas homini natura conciliet, et vetus Academia censuit, ut indicant scripta Polemonis, quem Antiochus probat maxime, et Aristoteles eiusque amici nunc proxime videntur accedere. Introducebat etiam Carneades, non quo probaret, sed ut opponeret Stoicis, summum bonum esse frui rebus iis, quas primas natura conciliavisset. Honeste autem vivere, quod ducatur a conciliatione naturae, Zeno statuit finem esse bonorum, qui inventor et princeps Stoicorum fuit.

XLIII. 132. Iam illud perspicuum est, omnibus iis finibus bonorum, quos exposui, malorum finis esse contrarios. Ad vos nunc refero quem sequar: modo ne quis illud tam ineruditum absurdumque respondeat: 'Quemlibet, modo aliquem.' Nihil potest dici inconsideratius. Cupio sequi Stoicos.

Licetne--omitto per Aristotelem, meo iudicio in philosophia prope singularem--per ipsum Antiochum? qui appellabatur Academicus, erat quidem, si perpauca mutavisset, germanissimus Stoicus. Erit igitur res iam in discrimine. Nam aut Stoicus const.i.tuatur sapiens aut veteris Academiae.

Utrumque non potest. Est enim inter eos non de terminis, sed de tota possessione contentio. Nam omnis ratio vitae definitione summi boni continetur, de qua qui dissident, de omni vitae ratione dissident. Non potest igitur uterque sapiens esse, quoniam tanto opere dissentiunt, sed alter. Si Polemoneus, peccat Stoicus, rei falsae adsentiens--nam vos quidem nihil esse dicitis a sapiente tam alienum--: sin vera sunt Zenonis, eadem in veteres Academicos _et_ Peripateticos dicenda. Hic igitur neutri adsentietur? Sin, inquam, uter est prudentior? 133. Quid? c.u.m ipse Antiochus dissent.i.t quibusdam in rebus ab his, quos amat, Stoicis, nonne indicat non posse illa probanda esse sapienti? Placet Stoicis omnia peccata esse paria. At hoc Antiocho vehementissime displicet. Liceat tandem mihi considerare utram sententiam sequar. Praecide, inquit: statue aliquando quidlibet. Quid, quod quae dic.u.n.tur et acuta mihi videntur in utramque partem et paria? nonne caveam ne scelus faciam? Scelus enim dicebas esse, Luculle, dogma prodere. Contineo igitur me, ne incognito a.s.sentiar: quod mihi tec.u.m est dogma commune. 134. Ecce multo maior etiam dissensio. Zeno in una virtute positam beatam vitam putat. Quid Antiochus? Etiam, inquit, beatam, sed non beatissimam. Deus ille, qui nihil censuit deesse virtuti, homuncio hic, qui multa putat praeter virtutem homini partim cara esse, partim etiam necessaria. Sed ille vereor ne virtuti plus tribuat quam natura patiatur, praesertim Theophrasto multa diserte copioseque dicente.

Et hic metuo ne vix sibi constet, qui c.u.m dicat esse quaedam et corporis et fortunae mala, tamen eum, qui in his omnibus sit, beatum fore censeat, si sapiens sit. Distrahor: tum hoc mihi probabilius, tum illud videtur, et tamen, nisi alterutrum sit, virtutem iacere plane puto. Verum in his discrepant.

XLIV. 135. Quid? illa, in quibus consentiunt, num pro veris probare possumus? Sapientis animum numquam nec cupiditate moveri nec laet.i.tia efferri. Age, haec probabilia sane sint: num etiam illa, numquam timere, numquam dolere? Sapiensne non timeat, si patria deleatur? non doleat, si deleta sit? Durum, sed Zenoni necessarium, cui praeter honestum nihil est in bonis, tibi vero, Antioche, minime, cui praeter honestatem multa bona, praeter turpitudinem multa mala videntur, quae et venientia metuat sapiens necesse est et venisse doleat. Sed quaero quando ista fuerint _ab_ Academia vetere decreta, ut animum sapientis commoveri et conturbari negarent?

Mediocritates illi probabant et in omni permotione naturalem volebant esse quendam modum. Legimus omnes Crantoris veteris Academici de luctu. Est enim non magnus, verum aureolus et, ut Tuberoni Panaetius praecipit, ad verb.u.m ediscendus libellus. Atque illi quidem etiam utiliter a natura dicebant permotiones istas animis nostris datas: metum cavendi causa, misericordiam aegritudinemque clementiae, ipsam iracundiam fort.i.tudinis quasi cotem esse dicebant, recte secusne alias viderimus. 136. Atrocitas quidem ista tua quo modo in veterem Academiam irruperit nescio: illa vero ferre non possum, non quo mihi displiceant: sunt enim Socratica pleraque mirabilia Stoicorum, quae pa?ad??a nominantur, sed ubi Xenocrates, ubi Aristoteles ista tetigit?

hos enim quasi eosdem esse voltis. Illi umquam dicerent sapientis solos reges, solos divites, solos formosos? omnia, quae ubique essent, sapientis esse? neminem consulem, praetorem, imperatorem, nescio an ne quinquevirum quidem quemquam nisi sapientem? postremo, solum civem, solum liberum?

insipientis omnis peregrinos, exsules, servos, furiosos? denique scripta Lycurgi, Solonis, duodecim tabulas nostras non esse leges? ne urbis quidem aut civitatis, nisi quae essent sapientium? 137. Haec tibi, Luculle, si es adsensus Antiocho, familiari tuo, tam sunt defendenda quam moenia: mihi autem bono modo, tantum quantum videbitur.

XLV. Legi apud c.l.i.tomachum, c.u.m Carneades et Stoicus Diogenes ad senatum in Capitolio starent, A. Albinum, qui tum P. Scipione et M. Marcello coss.

praetor esset, eum, qui c.u.m avo tuo, Luculle, consul fuit, doctum sane hominem, ut indicat ipsius historia scripta Graece, iocantem dixisse Carneadi: 'Ego tibi, Carneade, praetor esse non videor, quia sapiens non sum: nec haec urbs nec in ea civitas.' Tum ille: 'Huic Stoico non videris.'

Aristoteles aut Xenocrates, quos Antiochus sequi volebat, non dubitavisset quin et praetor ille esset et Roma urbs et eam civitas incoleret. Sed ille noster est plane, ut supra dixi, Stoicus, perpauca balbutiens. 138. Vos autem mihi veremini ne labar ad opinionem et aliquid asciscam et comprobem incognitum, quod minime voltis. Quid consilii datis? Testatur saepe Chrysippus tres solas esse sententias, quae defendi possint, de finibus bonorum: circ.u.mcidit et amputat mult.i.tudinem: aut enim honestatem esse finem aut voluptatem aut utrumque: nam qui summum bonum dicant id esse, si vacemus omni molestia, eos invidiosum nomen voluptatis fugere, sed in vicinitate versari, quod facere eos etiam, qui illud idem c.u.m honestate coniungerent, nec multo secus eos, qui ad honestatem prima naturae commoda adiungerent: ita tres relinquit sententias, quas putat probabiliter posse defendi. 139. Sit sane ita--quamquam a Polemonis et Peripateticorum et Antiochi finibus non facile divellor, nec quicquam habeo adhuc probabilius--, verum tamen video quam suaviter voluptas sensibus nostris blandiatur. Labor eo, ut adsentiar Epicuro aut Aristippo. Revocat virtus vel potius reprehendit manu: pecudum illos motus esse dicit, hominem iungit deo. Possum esse medius, ut, quoniam Aristippus, quasi animum nullum habeamus, corpus solum tuetur, Zeno, quasi corporis simus expertes, animum solum complect.i.tur, ut Calliphontem sequar, cuius quidem sententiam Carneades ita studiose defensitabat, ut eam probare etiam videretur.

Quamquam c.l.i.tomachus adfirmabat numquam se intellegere potuisse quid Carneadi probaretur. Sed, si istum finem velim sequi, nonne ipsa veritas et gravis et recta ratio mihi obversetur? Tu, c.u.m honestas in voluptate contemnenda consistat, honestatem c.u.m voluptate tamquam hominem c.u.m belua copulabis?

XLVI. 140. Unum igitur par quod depugnet reliquum est, voluptas c.u.m honestate. De quo Chrysippo fuit, quantum ego sentio, non magna contentio.

Alteram si sequare, multa ruunt et maxime communitas c.u.m hominum genere, caritas, amicitia, iust.i.tia, reliquae virtutes: quarum esse nulla potest, nisi erit gratuita. Nam quae voluptate quasi mercede aliqua ad officium impellitur, ea non est virtus, sed fallax imitatio simulatioque virtutis.

Audi contra illos, qui nomen honestatis a se ne intellegi quidem dicant, nisi forte, quod gloriosum sit in volgus, id honestum velimus dicere: fontem omnium bonorum in corpore esse, hanc normam, hanc regulam, hanc praescriptionem esse naturae, a qua qui aberravisset, eum numquam quid in vita sequeretur habiturum. 141. Nihil igitur me putatis, haec et alia innumerabilia c.u.m audiam, moveri? Tam moveor quam tu, Luculle, neque me minus hominem quam te putaveris. Tantum interest, quod tu, c.u.m es commotus, adquiescis, adsentiris, approbas, verum illud certum, comprehensum, perceptum, ratum, firmum, fixum esse vis, deque eo nulla ratione neque pelli neque moveri potes: ego nihil eius modi esse arbitror, cui si adsensus sim, non adsentiar saepe falso, quoniam vera a falsis nullo discrimine separantur, praesertim c.u.m iudicia ista dialecticae nulla sint.

142. Venio enim iam ad tertiam partem philosophiae. Aliud iudicium Protagorae est, qui putet id cuique verum esse, quod cuique videatur: aliud Cyrenaicorum, qui praeter permotiones intimas nihil putant esse iudicii: aliud Epicuri, qui omne iudicium in sensibus et in rerum not.i.tiis et in voluptate const.i.tuit. Plato autem omne iudicium veritatis veritatemque ipsam abductam ab opinionibus et a sensibus cogitationis ipsius et mentis esse voluit. 143. Num quid horum probat noster Antiochus? Ille vero ne maiorum quidem suorum. Ubi enim aut Xenocratem sequitur, cuius libri sunt de ratione loquendi multi et multum probati, aut ipsum Aristotelem, quo profecto nihil est acutius, nihil politius? A Chrysippo pedem nusquam.

XLVII. Quid ergo Academici appellamur? an abutimur gloria nominis? aut cur cogimur eos sequi, qui inter se dissident? In hoc ipso, quod in elementis dialectici docent, quo modo iudicare oporteat verum falsumne sit, si quid ita conexum est, ut hoc, 'si dies est, lucet,' quanta contentio est! Aliter Diodoro, aliter Philoni, Chrysippo aliter placet. Quid? c.u.m Cleanthe doctore suo quam multis rebus Chrysippus dissidet! quid? duo vel principes dialecticorum, Antipater et Archidemus, opiniosissimi homines, nonne multis in rebus dissentiunt? 144. Quid me igitur, Luculle, in invidiam et tamquam in contionem vocas? et quidem, ut seditiosi tribuni solent, occludi tabernas iubes? quo enim spectat illud, c.u.m artificia tolli quereris a n.o.bis, nisi ut opifices concitentur? qui si undique omnes convenerint, facile contra vos incitabuntur. Expromam primum illa invidiosa, quod eos omnis, qui in contione stabunt, exsules, servos, insanos esse dicatis: deinde ad illa veniam, quae iam non ad mult.i.tudinem, sed ad vosmet ipsos, qui adestis, pertinent. Negat enim vos Zeno, negat Antiochus scire quicquam. Quo modo? inquies: nos enim defendimus etiam insipientem multa comprehendere. 145. At scire negatis quemquam rem ullam nisi sapientem. Et hoc quidem Zeno gestu conficiebat. Nam, c.u.m extensis digitis adversam manum ostenderat, 'visum,' inquiebat, 'huius modi est.' Deinde, c.u.m paulum digitos contraxerat, 'adsensus huius modi.' Tum c.u.m plane compresserat pugnumque fecerat, comprehensionem illam esse dicebat: qua ex similitudine etiam nomen ei rei, quod ante non fuerat, ?ata????? imposuit. c.u.m autem laevam manum adverterat et illum pugnum arte vehementerque compresserat, scientiam talem esse dicebat, cuius compotem nisi sapientem esse neminem.

Sed qui sapientes sint aut fuerint ne ipsi quidem solent dicere. Ita tu nunc, Catule, lucere nescis nec tu, Hortensi, in tua villa nos esse. 146.

Num minus haec invidiose dic.u.n.tur? nec tamen nimis eleganter: illa subtilius. Sed quo modo tu, si nihil comprehendi posset, artificia concidere dicebas neque mihi dabas id, quod probabile esset, satis magnam vim habere ad artis, sic ego nunc tibi refero artem sine scientia esse non posse. An pateretur hoc Zeuxis aut Phidias aut Polyc.l.i.tus, nihil se scire, c.u.m in iis esset tanta sollertia? Quod si eos docuisset aliquis quam vim habere diceretur scientia, desinerent irasci: ne n.o.bis quidem suscenserent, c.u.m didicissent id tollere nos, quod nusquam esset, quod autem satis esset ipsis relinquere. Quam rationem maiorum etiam comprobat diligentia, qui primum iurare 'ex sui animi sententia' quemque voluerunt, deinde ita teneri 'si sciens falleret,' quod inscientia multa versaretur in vita, tum, qui testimonium diceret, ut 'arbitrari' se diceret etiam quod ipse vidisset, quaeque iurati iudices cognovissent, ea non ut esse facta, sed ut 'videri'

p.r.o.nuntiarentur.

XLVIII. 147. Verum, quoniam non solum nauta significat, sed etiam Favonius ipse insusurrat navigandi n.o.bis, Luculle, tempus esse et quoniam satis multa dixi, est mihi perorandum. Posthac tamen, c.u.m haec quaeremus, potius de dissensionibus tantis summorum virorum disseramus, de obscuritate naturae deque errore tot philosophorum, qui de bonis contrariisque rebus tanto opere discrepant, ut, c.u.m plus uno verum esse non possit, iacere necesse sit tot tam n.o.bilis disciplinas, quam de oculorum sensuumque reliquorum mendaciis et de sorite aut pseudomeno, quas plagas ipsi contra se Stoici texuerunt. 148. Tum Lucullus: Non moleste, inquit, fero nos haec contulisse. Saepius enim congredientes nos, et maxime in Tusculanis nostris, si quae videbuntur, requiremus. Optime, inquam, sed quid Catulus sent.i.t? quid Hortensius? Tum Catulus: Egone? inquit, ad patris revolvor sententiam, quam quidem ille Carneadeam esse dicebat, ut percipi nihil putem posse, adsensurum autem non percepto, id est, opinaturum sapientem existimem, sed ita, ut intellegat se opinari sciatque nihil esse quod comprehendi et percipi possit: qua re ep???? illam omnium rerum non probans, illi alteri sententiae, nihil esse quod percipi possit, vehementer adsentior. Habeo, inquam, sententiam tuam nec eam admodum aspernor. Sed tibi quid tandem videtur, Hortensi? Tum ille ridens: Tollendum. Teneo te, inquam: nam ista Academiae est propria sententia. Ita sermone confecto Catulus remansit: nos ad naviculas nostras descendimus.

NOTES.

BOOK I.

----1--14. Summary. Cic., Varro and Atticus meet at c.u.mae (1). Cic., after adroitly reminding Varro that the promised dedication of the _De Lingua Latina_ is too long delayed, turns the conversation towards philosophy, by asking Varro why he leaves this subject untouched (2, 3). Varro thinks philosophy written in Latin can serve no useful purpose, and points to the failures of the Roman Epicureans (4--6). He greatly believes in philosophy, but prefers to send his friends to Greece for it, while he devotes himself to subjects which the Greeks have not treated (7, 8). Cic. lauds this devotion, but demurs to the theory that philosophy written in Latin is useless. Latins may surely imitate Greek philosophers as well as Greek poets and orators. He gives reasons why he should himself make the attempt, and instancing the success of Brutus, again begs Varro to write on philosophy (9--12).

Varro putting the request on one side charges Cic. with deserting the Old Academy for the New. Cic. defends himself, and appeals to Philo for the statement that the New Academy is in harmony with the Old. Varro refers to Antiochus as an authority on the other side. This leads to a proposal on the part of Cic. to discuss thoroughly the difference between Antiochus and Philo. Varro agrees, and promises an exposition of the principles of Antiochus (13, 14).

--1. _Noster_: our common friend. Varro was much more the friend of Atticus than of Cic., see Introd. p. 37. _Nuntiatum_: the spelling _nunciatum_ is a mistake, cf. Corssen, _Ausspr._ I. p. 51. _A M. Varrone_: _from M. Varro's house_ news came. _Audissemus_: Cic. uses the contracted forms of such subjunctives, as well as the full forms, but not intermediate forms like _audiissemus_. _Confestim_: note how artfully Cic. uses the dramatic form of the dialogue in order to magnify his attachment for Varro. _Ab eius villa_: the prep is absent from the MSS., but Wesenberg (_Em. M.T. Cic.

Epistolarum_, p. 62) shows that it must be inserted. Cic. writes _abesse Roma_ (_Ad Fam._ V. 15, 4), _patria_ (_T.D._ V. 106) etc., but not _abesse officio_ (_De Off._ I. 43, where Wes. alters it) or the like. _Satis eum longo intervallo_: so all the MSS.; but Halm, after Davies, reads _se visentum_ for _satis eum_, quoting _Ad Att._ I. 4, Madv. _tum_ for _eum_ (Baiter and Halm's ed. of 1861, p. 854). The text is sound; the repet.i.tion of p.r.o.nouns (_illum_, _eum_) is quite Ciceronian. The emphatic _ille_ is often repeated by the unemphatic _is_, cf. _T.D._ III. 71, and _M.D.F._ V.

22. I may note that the separation of _satis_ from _longo_ by the word _eum_ is quite in Cicero's style (see my note on 25 _quanta id magis_).

Some editors stumble (Goerenz miserably) by taking _intervallo_ of distance in s.p.a.ce, instead of duration in time, while others wrongly press _satis_, which only means "tolerably," to mean "sufficiently." The words _satis longo intervallo_ simply = "after a tolerably long halt." For the clause _ut mos_, etc., cf. _De Or._ II. 13.

--2. _Hic pauca primo_: for the omission of _locuti_, cf. the very similar pa.s.sages in _D.F._ I. 14, III. 8, also my note on 14. _Atque ea_: Halm brackets _ea_, quite needlessly, for its insertion is like Cic. _Ecquid forte Roma novi_: _Roma_ is the ablative, and some verb like _attulisset_ is omitted. (So Turnebus.) To take it as nom., understanding _faciat_, is clearly wrong. _Percontari_: the spelling _percunctari_ rests on false derivation (Corss. I. 36). _Ecquid ipse novi_: cf. _De Or._ II. 13. The MSS. have _et si quid_, bad Latin altered by Manutius. _Istum_: some edd.

_ipsum_, but Cic. often makes a speaker use _iste_ of a person who is present. Goer. qu. _Brut._ 125, _De Or._ II. 228. _Velit_: Walker reads _velis_ with St Jerome. For _quod velit_ = _quod quis velit_, cf. _De Or._ I. 30. _In manibus_: so often, cf. _Cat. Mai._ 38. _Idque_: MSS. have in the place of this _quod_ with variants _que_, _quae_, _qui_, _quo_. Dav.

gave _quia_, which was the vulgate reading down to Halm, who reads _idque_, after Christ. _Ad hunc enim ipsum_: MSS. have _eum_ for _enim_ (exc. Halm's G). Such a combination of p.r.o.nouns is vainly defended by Goer.; for expressions like _me illum ipsum_ (_Ad Att._ II. 1, 11) are not in point.

Of course if _quia_ be read above, _eum_ must be ejected altogether.

_Quaedam inst.i.tui_: the _De Lingua Latina_; see _Ad. Att_ XIII. 12.

--3. _E Libone_: the father-in-law of s.e.xt. Pompeius; see Caesar _B. Civ._ III. 5, 16, 24. _Nihil enim eius modi_ again all MSS. except Halm's G. have _eum_ for _enim_. Christ conj. _enim eum_; so Baiter. _Illud ...

requirere_: i.e. the question which follows; cf. _requiris_ in 4. _Tec.u.m simul_: Halm's G om. _tec.u.m_; but cf. _De Or._ III. 330. _Mandare monumentis--letteris ill.u.s.trare_: common phrases in Cic., e.g. _D.F._ I. 1, _T.D._ I. 1, _De Div._ II. 4. _Monumentis_: this, and not _monimentis_ (Halm) or _monementis_, is probably the right spelling; cf. Corss. II. 314.

_Ortam a_: Cic. _always_ writes the prep. after _ortus_; cf. _M.D.F._ V.

69. _Genus_: regularly used by Cic. as _opus_ by Quintilian to mean "department of literature." _Ea res_: one of Halm's MSS. followed by Baiter has _ars_; on the other hand Bentley (if the _amicus_ so often quoted in Davies' notes be really he) reads _artibus_ for _rebus_ below. The slight variation, however, from _res_ to _artibus_ is such as Cic. loves.

_Ceteris_: the spelling _caeteris_ (Klotz) is absolutely wrong, cf. Corss.

I. 325. _Antecedat_: some MSS. give _antecellat_. a frequent variant, cf.

_De Off._ I. 105

--4. _Deliberatam--agitatam_: Cic. as usual exaggerates the knowledge possessed by the _personae_ of the dialogue; cf. Introd. p. 38, _De Or._ II. 1. _In promptu_: so II. 10. _Quod ista ipsa ... cogitavi_: Goer., who half a page back had made merry over the gloss hunters, here himself scented a miserable gloss; Schutz, Goerenz's echo expels the words. Yet they are thoroughly like Cic. (cf. _De Div._ II. 1, _Cat. Mai._ 38), and moreover nothing is more Ciceronian than the repet.i.tion of words and clauses in slightly altered forms. The reason here is partly the intense desire to flatter Varro. _Si qui ... si essent_: the first _si_ has really no conditional force, _si qui_ like e?t??e? merely means "all who," for a strong instance see _Ad Fam._ I. 9, 13, ed n.o.bbe, _si accusandi sunt, si qui pertimuerunt_. _Ea nolui scribere_, etc.: very similar expressions occur in the prologue to _D.F._ I., which should be compared with this prologue throughout.

--5. _Vides ... didicisti_: MSS. have _vides autem eadem ipse didicisti enim_. My reading is that of Dav. followed by Baiter. Halm, after Christ, has _vides autem ipse--didicisti enim eadem--non posse_, etc. _Similis_: Halm, in deference to MSS., makes Cic. write _i_ and _e_ indiscriminately in the acc. plur. of i stems. I shall write _i_ everywhere, we shall thus, I believe, be far nearer Cicero's real writing. Though I do not presume to say that his usage did not vary, he must in the vast majority of instances have written _i_, see Corss. I. 738--744. _Amafinii aut Rabirii_: cf.

Introd. p. 26. _Definiunt ... partiuntur_: n. on 32. _Interrogatione_: Faber saw this to be right, but a number of later scholars alter it, e.g.

Bentl. _argumentatione_, Ernesti _ratione_. But the word as it stands has exactly the meaning these alterations are intended to secure.

_Interrogatio_ is merely the _conclusio_ or syllogism put as a series of questions. Cf. _Paradoxa_ 2, with _T.D._ II. 42 which will show that _interrogatiuncula_ and _conclusiuncula_ are almost convertible terms. See also _M.D.F._ I. 39. _Nec dicendi nec disserendi_: Cic.'s constant mode of denoting the Greek ???t????? and d?a?e?t???; note on 32. _Et oratorum etiam_: Man., Lamb. om. _etiam_, needlessly. In _Ad Fam._ IX. 25, 3, the two words even occur without any other word to separate them. For _oratorum_ Pearce conj. _rhetorum_. _Rhetor_, however is not thus used in Cic.'s phil. works. _Utramque vim virtutem_: strange that Baiter (esp.

after Halm's note) should take Manutius' far-fetched conj. _unam_ for _virtutem_. Any power or faculty (vis, d??a??) may be called in Gk. a?et?, in Lat _virtus_. Two pa.s.sages, _D.F._ III. 72, _De Or._ III. 65, will remove all suspicion from the text. _Verbis quoque novis_: MSS. have _quanquam_ which however is impossible in such a place in Cic. (cf.

_M.D.F._ V. 68). _Ne a n.o.bis quidem_: so all the MSS., but Orelli (after Ernesti) thinking the phrase "_arrogantius dictum_" places _quidem_ after _accipient_. The text is quite right, _ne quidem_, as Halm remarks, implies no more than the Germ. _auch nicht_, cf. also Gk. ??de. _Suscipiatur labor_: MSS. om. the noun, but it is added by a later hand in G.

--6. _Epicurum, id est si Democritum_: for the charge see _D.F._ I. 17, IV.

13, _N.D._ I. 73. _Id est_ often introduces in Cic. a clause which intensifies and does not merely explain the first clause, exx. in _M.D.F._ I. 33. _c.u.m causas rerum efficientium sustuleris_: cf. _D.F._ I. 18, the same charge is brought by Aristotle against the Atomists, _Met._ A, 2. Many editors from Lamb. to Halm and Baiter read _efficientis_, which would then govern _rerum_ (cf. _D.F._ V. 81, _De Fato_, 33, also Gk. p???t????). But the genitive is merely one of definition, the _causae_ are the _res efficientes_, for which cf. 24 and _Topica_, 58, _proximus locus est rerum efficientium, quae causae appellantur_. So Faber, though less fully.

_Appellat_: i.e. Amafinius, who first so translated at???. _Quae c.u.m contineantur_: this reading has far the best MSS. authority, it must be kept, and _adhibenda etiam_ begins the _apodosis_. Madvig (_Emendationes ad Ciceronis Libros Philosophicos_, Hauniae, 1825, p. 108) tacitly reads _continentur_ without _c.u.m_, so Orelli and Klotz. Goer. absurdly tries to prop up the subj. without _c.u.m_. _Quam quibusnam_: Durand's em. for _quoniam quibusnam_ of the MSS., given by Halm and also Baiter. Madv.

(_Em._ p. 108) made a forced defence of _quoniam_, as marking a rapid transition from one subject to another (here from physics to ethics) like the Gk. epe?, only one parallel instance, however, was adduced (_T.D._ III.

14) and the usage probably is not Latin. _Adducere?_: The note of interrogation is Halm's; thus the whole sentence, so far, explains the difficulty of setting forth the true system of physics. If _quoniam_ is read and no break made at _adducere_, all after _quoniam_ will refer to ethics, in that case there will be a strange change of subject in pa.s.sing from _quisquam_ to _haec ipsa_, both which expressions will be nominatives to _poterit_, further, there will be the almost impossible ellipse of _ars_, _scientia_, or something of the kind after _haec ipsa_. On every ground the reading of Madv. is insupportable. _Quid, haec ipsa_: I have added _quid_ to fill up the lacuna left by Halm, who supposes much more to have fallen out. [The technical philosophical terms contained in this section will be elucidated later. For the Epicurean ignorance of geometry see note on II. 123] _Illi enim simpliciter_: "frankly," cf. _Ad Fam._ VIII. 6, 1 _Pecudis et hominis_: note on II. 139.

--7. _Sive sequare ... magnum est_: for the constr. cf. II. 140. _Magnum est_: cf. _quid est magnum_, 6. _Verum et simplex bonum_: cf. 35. _Quod bonum ... ne suspicari quidem_ an opinion often denounced by Cic., see esp _T.D._ III. 41, where Cic.'s Latin agrees very closely with the Greek preserved by Diog. Laert. X. 6 (qu. Zeller, 451), and less accurately by Athenaeus, VII. 279 (qu. R. and P. 353). _Ne suspicari quidem_: for this MSS. give _nec suspicari_, but Madv. (_D.F._, Excursus III.) has conclusively shown that _nec_ for _ne ... quidem_ is post Augustan Latin.

Christ supposes some thing like _sentire_ to have fallen out before _nec suspicari_; that this is wrong is clear from the fact that in _D.F._ II.

20, 30, _T.D._ III. 46, _N.D._ I. 111, where the same opinion of Epicurus is dealt with, we have either _ne suspicari quidem_ or _ne intellegere quidem_ (cf. also _In Pisonem_ 69). Further, _ne ... quidem_ is esp frequent with _suspicari_ (_D.F._ II. 20), and verbs of the kind (_cogitari_ II. 82), and especially, as Durand remarked, at the end of sentences eg _Verr._ II. 1, 155. Notice _negat ... ne suspicari quidem_ without _se_, which however Baiter inserts, in spite of the numerous pa.s.sages produced from Cic. by Madv. (_Em._ 111), in which not only _se_, but _me_, _nos_, and other accusatives of p.r.o.nouns are omitted before the infinitive, after verbs like _negat_. Cf. also the omission of _sibi_ in _Paradoxa_ 40. _Si vero_: this, following _sive enim_ above, is a departure from Cic.'s rule which is to write _sive--sive_ or _si--sin_, but not _si--sive_ or _sive--si_. This and two or three other similar pa.s.sages in Cic. are explained as anacolutha by Madv. in a most important and exhaustive excursus to his _D.F._ (p. 785, ed. 2), and are connected with other instances of broken sequence. There is no need therefore to read _sive_ here, as did Turn. Lamb. Dav. and others. _Quam nos ... probamus_: cf. Introd. p. 62. _Erit explicanda_: for the separation of these words by other words interposed, which is characteristic of Cic., see 11, 17. I am surprised that Halm and Baiter both follow Ernesti in his hypercritical objection to the phrase _explicare Academiam_, and read _erunt_ against the MSS., making _illa_ plural. If _erunt_ is read, _erit_ must be supplied from it to go with _disserendum_, which is harsh. _Quam argute, quam obscure_: at first sight an oxymoron, but _argute_ need not only imply _clearness_, it means merely "acutely". _Quantum possum_: some MSS. have _quantam_, which is scarcely Latin, since in Cic. an accusative only follows _nequeo_, _volo_, _malo_, _possum_, and such verbs when an infinitive can be readily supplied to govern it. For _velle_ see a good instance in _D.F._ III. 68, where consult Madv. _Constantiam_: the notions of firmness, consistency, and clearness of mind are bound up in this word, cf. II. 53. _Apud Platonem_: _Timaeus_, 47 B, often quoted or imitated by Cic., cf. _De Leg._ I. 58, _Laelius_ 20, 47, _T.D._ I. 64.

--8. _Id est ... jubeo_: these words have been naturally supposed a gloss.

But Cicero is nothing if not tautological; he is fond of placing slight variations in phrase side by side. See some remarkable instances of slightly varied phrases connected by _id est_ in _D.F._ I. 72, II. 6, 90. I therefore hold Halm and Baiter to be wrong in bracketing the words. _Ea a_: Lamb., objecting to the sound (which is indeed not like Cic.), would read _e_ for _a_, which Halm would also prefer. _De_, _ab_, and _ex_ follow _haurire_ indifferently in Cic. _Rivulos consectentur_: so Wordsworth, "to hunt the waterfalls". The metaphor involved in _fontibus--rivulos_ is often applied by Cic. to philosophy, see esp. a sarcastic pa.s.sage about Epicurus in _N.D._ I. 120. _Nihil enim magno opere_: _magno opere_ should be written in two words, not as _magnopere_, cf. the phrases _maximo opere_, _nimio opere_, the same holds good of _tanto opere_, _quanto opere_. _L. Aelii_: MSS. _Laelii_. The person meant is L. Aelius Stilo or Praeconinus, the master of Varro, and the earliest systematic grammarian of Rome. See Quintil. _Inst. Or._ X. 1, 99, Gellius X. 21, Sueton. _Gramm._ 3.

_Occasum_: an unusual metaphor. _Menippum_: a Cynic satirist, see _Dict.

Biogr._ Considerable fragments of Varro's Menippean Satires remain, and have often been edited--most recently by Riese (published by Teubner).

_Imitati non interpretati_: Cic. _D.F._ I. 7, gives his opinion as to the right use to be made of Greek models. _Quae quo_: these words are evidently wrong. Halm after Faber ejects _quae_, and is followed by Baiter.

Varro is thus made to say that he stated many things dialectically, _in order that_ the populace might be enticed to read. To my mind the fault lies in the word _quo_, for which I should prefer to read _c.u.m_ (=_quom_, which would be written _quo_ in the MSS.) The general sense would then be "Having introduced philosophy into that kind of literature which the unlearned read, I proceeded to introduce it into that which the learned read." _Laudationibus_: ?????? ep?taf????, cf. _Ad Att._ XIII. 48 where Varro's are mentioned. _Philosophe scribere_: the MSS. all give _philosophie_. Klotz has _philosophiam_, which is demonstrably wrong, _physica_, _musica_ etc. _scribere_ may be said, but not _physicam_, _musicam_ etc. _scribere_. The one pa.s.sage formerly quoted to justify the phrase _philosophiam scribere_ is now altered in the best texts (_T.D._ V.

121, where see Tischer). Goer. reads _philosophiae scribere_; his explanation is, as Orelli gently says, "vix Latina." I can scarcely think Halm's _philosophe_ to be right, the word occurs nowhere else, and Cic.

almost condemns it by his use of the Greek f???s?f?? (_Ad Att._ XIII. 20).

In older Greek the adverb does not appear, nor is f???s?f?? used as an adjective much, yet Cic. uses _philosophus_ adjectivally in _T.D._ V. 121, _Cat. Mai._ 22, _N.D._ III. 23, just as he uses _tyrannus_ (_De Rep._ III.

45), and _anapaestus_ (_T.D._ III. 57) Might we not read _philosophis_, in the dative, which only requires the alteration of a single letter from the MSS. reading? The meaning would then be "to write _for_ philosophers,"

which would agree with my emendation _c.u.m_ for _quo_ above. _Philosophice_ would be a tempting alteration, but that the word f???s?f???? is not Greek, nor do _philosophicus_, _philosophice_ occur till very late Latin times.

_Si modo id consecuti sumus_: cf. _Brut._ 316.

--9. _Sunt ista_: = est? ta?ta, so often, e.g. _Lael._ 6. Some edd. have _sint_, which is unlikely to be right. _Nos in nostra_: Augustine (_De Civ.

Dei_ VI. 2) quotes this with the reading _reduxerunt_ for _deduxerunt_, which is taken by Baiter and by Halm; who quotes with approval Durand's remark, "_deducimus honoris causa sed errantes reducimus humanitatis_." The words, however, are almost convertible; see _Cat. Mai._ 63. In _Lael._ 12, _Brut._ 86, we have _reducere_, where Durand's rule requires _deducere_, on the other hand cf. _Ad Herennium_ IV. 64, _hospites domum deducere. Aetatem patriae_ etc., August. (_De Civ. Dei_ VI. 3) describes Varro's "_Libri Antiquitatum_" (referred to in 8), in which most of the subjects here mentioned were treated of. _Descriptiones temporum_: lists of dates, so ?????? is technically used for dates, Thuc. V. 20, etc. _Tu sacerdotum_: after this Lamb. inserts _munera_ to keep the balance of the clauses. Cic.

however is quite as fond of variety as of formal accuracy.

_Domesticam--bellicam_: opposed like _domi bellique_, cf. _Brut._ 49, _De Off._ I. 74. Augustine's reading _publicam_ shows him to have been quoting from memory. _Sedem_: so the best MSS. of Aug., some edd. here give _sedium_. The argument for _sedem_ is the awkwardness of making the three genitives, _sedium_, _regionum_, _locorum_, dependent on the accusatives, _nomina_, _genera_, _officia_, _causas_. Cic. is fond of using _sedes_, _locus_, _regio_ together, see _Pro Murena_, 85, _Pro Cluentio_, 171, quoted by Goer. _Omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum_: from the frequent references of Aug. it appears that the "_Libri Antiquitatum_" were divided into two parts, one treating of _res humanae_, the other of _res divinae_ (_De Civ. Dei_, IV. 1, 27, VI. 3). _Et litteris luminis_: for _luminis_, cf. _T.D._ I. 5. _Et verbis_: Manut. reads _rebus_ from 26. Varro's researches into the Latin tongue are meant. _Multis locis incohasti_: Varro's book "_De Philosophia_" had apparently not yet been written.

--10. _Causa_: = p??fas??. _Probabilem_: = specious. _Nesciunt_: Halm with his one MS. G, which is the work of a clever emendator, gives _nescient_ to suit _malent_ above, and is followed by Baiter. It is not necessary to force on Cic. this formally accurate sequence of tenses, which Halm himself allows to be broken in two similar pa.s.sages, II. 20, 105. _Sed da mihi nunc, satisne probas?_: So all MSS. except G, which has the evident conj.

_sed ea (eam) mihi non sane probas_. This last Baiter gives, while Halm after Durand reads _sed eam mihi non satis probas_, which is too far from the MSS. to please me. The text as it stands is not intolerable, though _da mihi_ for _dic mihi_ is certainly poetic. _Da te mihi_ (Manut., Goer., Orelli) is far too strong for the pa.s.sage, and cannot be supported by 12, _Brut._ 306, _Ad Fam._ II. 8, or such like pa.s.sages. _Attius_: the old spelling _Accius_ is wrong. _Si qui ... imitati_: note the collocation, and cf. 17. Halm needlessly writes _sint_ for MSS. _sunt_. For this section throughout cf. the prologues to _D.F._ I., _T.D._ I. and II.

--11. _Procuratio_: for the proper meaning of _procurator_ and _procuratio_ see Jordan on _Pro Caecina_ 55. _Implacatum et constrictum_: the conjunction introduces the intenser word, as usual; cf. 17 _plenam ac refertam_, II. 127 _exigua et minima_, so ?a? in Greek. _Inclusa habebam_: cf. _T.D._ I. 1. _Obsolescerent_, used of _individual_ memory, is noteworthy. _Percussus volnere_: many edd. give the frequent variant _perculsus_. The _volnus_, which Goer. finds so mysterious, is the death of Tullia, cf. _N.D._ I. 9, _De Consolatione_, fragment 7, ed. n.o.bbe, and Introd. p. 32. _Aut ... aut ... aut ... aut_: This casting about for an excuse shows how low philosophy stood in public estimation at Rome. See Introd. p. 29. The same elaborate apologies often recur, cf. esp the exordium of _N.D._ I.