Academica Part 7

--12. _Brutus_: the same praise often recurs in _D.F._ and the _Brutus Graecia desideret_ so all Halm's MSS., except G, which has _Graeca_. Halm (and after him Baiter) adopts the conj. of Aldus the younger, _Graeca desideres_. A reviewer of Halm, in Schneidewin's _Philologus_ XXIV. 483, approves the reading on the curious ground that Brutus was not anxious to satisfy Greek requirements, but rather to render it unnecessary for Romans to have recourse to Greece for philosophy. I keep the MSS. reading, for Greece with Cicero is the supreme arbiter of performance in philosophy, if she is satisfied the philosophic world is tranquil. Cf. _Ad Att._ I. 20, 6, _D.F._ I. 8, _Ad Qu. Fr._ II. 16, 5. I just note the em. of Turnebus, _a Graecia desideres_, and that of Dav. _Graecia desideretur_. _Eandem sententiam_: cf. Introd. p. 56. _Aristum_: cf. II. 11, and _M.D.F._ V. 8.

--13. _Sine te_: = s?? d??a. _Relictam_: Cic. very rarely omits _esse_, see note on II. 77, for Cicero's supposed conversion see Introd. p. 20.

_Veterem illam_: MSS. have _iam_ for _illam_. The position of _iam_ would be strange, in the pa.s.sage which used to be compared, _Pro Cluentio_ 16, Cla.s.sen and Baiter now om. the word. Further, _vetus_ and _nova_ can scarcely be so barely used to denote the Old and the New Academy. The reading _illam_ is from Madv. (_Em._ 115), and is supported by _illam veterem_ (18), _illa antiqua_ (22), _istius veteris_ (_D.F._ V. 8), and similar uses. Bentl. (followed by Halm and Bait.) thinks _iam_ comprises the last two syllables of _Academiam_, which he reads. _Correcta et emendata_: a fine sentiment to come from a conservative like Cic. The words often occur together and ill.u.s.trate Cic.'s love for small diversities of expression, cf. _De Leg._ III. 30, _D.F._ IV. 21, also Tac. _Hist._ I. 37.

_Negat_: MSS. have _negaret_, but Cic. never writes the subj. after _quamquam_ in _oratio recta_, as Tac. does, unless there is some conditional or potential force in the sentence; see _M.D.F._ III. 70.

Nothing is commoner in the MSS. than the subst.i.tution of the imp. subj. for the pres. ind. of verbs of the first conjug. and _vice versa_. _In libris_: see II. 11. _Duas Academias_: for the various modes of dividing the Academy refer to R. and P. 404. _Contra ea Philonis_: MSS. have _contra Philonis_ merely, exc. Halm's V., which gives _Philonem_, as does the ed. Rom.

(1471). I have added _ea_. Orelli quotes _Ad Att._ XII. 23, 2, _ex Apollodori_. Possibly the MSS. may be right, and _libros_ may be supplied from _libris_ above, so in _Ad Att._ XIII. 32, 2, _Dicaearchi_ pe?? ?????

_utrosque_, the word _libros_ has to be supplied from the preceding letter, cf. a similar ellipse of _bona_ in 19, 22. Madvig's _Philonia_ is improbable from its non-appearance elsewhere, while the companion adjective _Antiochius_ is frequent. Halm inserts _sententiam_, a heroic remedy. To make _contra_ an adv. and construe _Philonis Antiochus_ together, supplying _auditor_, as is done by some unknown commentators who probably only exist in Goerenz's note, is wild, and cannot be justified by _D.F._ V. 13.

--14. _A qua absum iam diu_: MSS. have strangely _aqua absumtam diu_, changed by Manut. _Renovari_: the vulg. _revocari_ is a curious instance of oversight. It crept into the text of Goer. by mistake, for in his note he gave _renovari_. Orelli--who speaks of Goerenz's "_praestantissima recensio_," and founds his own text upon it two years after Madvig's crushing exposure in his _Em._ often quoted by me--not only reads _revocari_, but quotes _renovari_ as an em. of the ed. Victoriana of 1536.

From Orelli, Klotz, whose text has no independent value, took it.

_Renovare_ in Cic. often means "to refresh the memory," e.g. 11, _Brut._ 315. _Nisi molestum est_: like _nisi alienum putas_, a variation on the common _si placet, si videtur_. _Adsidamus_: some MSS. have _adsideamus_, which would be wrong here. _Sane istud_: Halm _istuc_ from G. _Inquit_: for the late position of this word, which is often caused by its affinity for _quoniam_, _quidem_, etc., cf. _M.D.F._ III. 20 _Quae c.u.m essent dicta, in conspectu consedimus (omnes)_: most edd. since Gulielmus print this without _essent_ as a hexameter, and suppose it a quotation. But firstly, a verse so commonplace, if familiar, would occur elsewhere in Cic. as others do, if not familiar, would not be given without the name of its author. Secondly, most MSS. have _sint_ or _essent_ before _dicta_. It is more probable therefore that _omnes_ was added from an involuntary desire to make up the hexameter rhythm. Phrases like _quae c.u.m essent dicta consedimus_ often occur in similar places in Cic.'s dialogues cf. _De Div._ II. 150, and Augustine, the imitator of Cic., _Contra Academicos_, I. 25, also _consedimus_ at the end of a clause in _Brut._ 24, and _considitur_ in _De Or._ III. 18. _Mihi vero_: the omission of _inquit_, which is strange to Goer., is well ill.u.s.trated in _M.D.F._ I. 9. There is an odd ellipse of _laudasti_ in _D.F._ V. 81.

----15--42. Antiochus' view of the history of Philosophy. First part of Varro's Exposition, 15--18. Summary. Socrates rejected physics and made ethics supreme in philosophy (15). He had no fixed tenets, his one doctrine being that wisdom consists in a consciousness of ignorance.

Moral exhortation was his task (16). Plato added to and enriched the teaching of his master, from him sprang two schools which abandoned the negative position of Socrates and adopted definite tenets, yet remained in essential agreement with one another--the Peripatetic and the Academic (17, 18).

--15. _A rebus ... involutis_: physical phenomena are often spoken of in these words by Cic., cf. 19, _Timaeus_ c. 1, _D.F._ I. 64, IV. 18, V. 10, _N.D._ I. 49. Ursinus rejected _ab_ here, but the insertion or omission of _ab_ after the pa.s.sive verb depends on the degree to which _natura_ is personified, if 28 be compared with _Tim._ c. 1, this will be clear.

_Involutis_ = veiled; cf. _involucrum_. Cic. shows his feeling of the metaphor by adding _quasi_ in II. 26, and often. _Avocavisse philosophiam_: this, the Xenophontic view of Socrates, was the popular one in Cicero's time, cf. II. 123, _T.D._ V. 10, _D.F._ V. 87, 88, also Varro in Aug. _De Civ. Dei_, VIII. 3. Objections to it, however occurred to Cic., and were curiously answered in _De Rep._ I. 16 (cf. also Varro in Aug. _De Civ.

Dei_, VIII. 4). The same view is supposed to be found in Aristotle, see the pa.s.sages quoted by R. and P. 141. To form an opinion on this difficult question the student should read Schleiermacher's _Essay on the Worth of Socrates as a Philosopher_ (trans. by Thirlwall), and Zeller's _Socrates and the Socratic Schools_, Eng. Trans., pp. 112--116 [I dissent from his view of Aristotle's evidence], also Schwegler's _Handbook_, so far as it relates to Socrates and Plato. _Nihil tamen ad bene vivendum valere_: _valere_ is absent from MSS., and is inserted by Halm, its use in 21 makes it more probable than _conferre_, which is in ed. Rom. (1471). Gronovius vainly tries to justify the MSS. reading by such pa.s.sages as _D.F._ I. 39, _T.D._ I. 70. The strangest ellipse with _nihil ad_ elsewhere in Cic. is in _De Leg._ I. 6.

--16. _Hic ... illum_: for this repet.i.tion of p.r.o.nouns see _M.D.F._ IV. 43.

_Varie et copiose_: MSS. omit _et_, but it may be doubted whether Cic.

would let two _adverbs_ stand together without _et_, though three may (cf.

II. 63), and though with pairs of _nouns_ and _adjectives, et_ often is left out, as in the pa.s.sages quoted here by Manut. _Ad Att._ IV. 3, 3, _Ad Fam._ XIII. 24, XIII. 28, cf. also the learned note of Wesenberg, reprinted in Baiter and Halm's edition, of Cic.'s philosophical works (1861), on _T.D._ III. 6. _Varie et copiose_ is also in _De Or._ II. 240. Cf. the omission of _que_ in 23, also II. 63. _Perscripti_: Cic. like Aristotle often speaks of Plato's dialogues as though they were authentic reports of Socratic conversations, cf. II. 74. _Nihil adfirmet_: so _T.D._ I. 99.

"_Eoque praestare ceteris_" this is evidently from Plato _Apol._ p. 21, as to the proper understanding of which see note on II. 74. _Ab Apolline_, Plato _Apol._ 21 A, _Omnium_: Dav. conj. _hominum_ needlessly. _Dictum_: Lamb., followed by Schutz, reads _iudicatum_, it is remarkable that in four pa.s.sages where Cic. speaks of this very oracle (_Cato Mai._ 78, _Lael._ 7, 9, 13) he uses the verb _iudicare_. _Una omnis_: Lamb. _hominis_, Baiter also. _Omnis eius oratio tamen_: _notwithstanding_ his negative dialectic he gave positive teaching in morals. _Tamen_: for MSS. _tam_ or _tum_ is due to Gruter, Halm has _tantum_. _Tam_, _tum_ and _tamen_ are often confused in MSS., e.g. _In Veri_ (_Act_ II.) I. 3, 65, II. 55, 112, V. 78, where see Zumpt. Goer. abuses edd. for not knowing that _tum ... et_, _tum ... que_, _et ... tum_, correspond in Cic. like _tum ... c.u.m_, _tum ...

tum_. His proofs of this new Latin may be sampled by _Ac._ II. 1, 43. _Ad virtutis studium cohortandis_: this broad a.s.sertion is distinctly untrue; see Zeller's _Socrates_ 88, with footnote.

--17. _Varius et multiplex, et copiosus_: these characteristics are named to account for the branching off from Plato of the later schools. For _multiplex_ "many sided," cf. _T.D._ V. 11. _Una et consentiens_: this is an opinion of Antiochus often adopted by Cic. in his own person, as in _D.F._ IV. 5 _De Leg._ I. 38, _De Or._ III. 67. Five ancient philosophers are generally included in this supposed harmonious Academico-Peripatetic school, viz. Aristotle, Theophrastus, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemo (cf.

_D.F._ IV. 2), sometimes Crantor is added. The harmony was supposed to have been first broken by Polemo's pupils; so Varro says (from Antiochus) in Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XIX. 1, cf. also 34. Antiochus doubtless rested his theory almost entirely on the ethical resemblances of the two schools. In _D.F._ V. 21, which is taken direct from Antiochus, this appears, as also in Varro (in Aug. as above) who often spoke as though ethics were the whole of philosophy (cf. also _De Off._ III. 20). Antiochus probably made light of such dialectical controversies between the two schools as that about ?dea?, which had long ceased. Krische _Uber Cicero's Akademika_ p. 51, has some good remarks. _Nominibus_: the same as _vocabulis_ above. Cic. does not observe Varro's distinction (_De L. L._ IX. 1) which confines _nomen_ to proper nouns, _vocabulum_ to common nouns, though he would not use _vocabulum_ as Tac. does, for the name of a person (_Annals_ XII. 66, etc.). _Quasi heredem ... duos autem_: the conj. of Ciaconus "_ex a.s.se heredem, secundos autem_" is as acute as it is absurd. _Duos_: it is difficult to decide whether this or _duo_ is right in Cic., he can scarcely have been so inconsistent as the MSS. and edd. make him (cf. Baiter and Halm's ed., _Ac._ II. 11, 13 with _De Div._ I. 6). The older inscr. in the _Corpus_ vol. I. have _duo_, but only in _duoviros_, two near the time of Cic. (_C.I._ vol. I. nos. 571 and 1007) give _duos_, which Cic. probably wrote. _Duo_ is in old Latin poets and Virgil. _Chalcedonium_: not _Calchedonium_ as Klotz, cf. Gk. ?a???d?????. _Praestantissimos_: Halm wrongly, cf. _Brut._ 125. _Stagiritem_: not _Stagiritam_ as Lamb., for Cic., exc. in a few nouns like _Persa_, _pirata_, etc., which came down from antiquity, did not make Greek nouns in -?? into Latin nouns in _-a_.

See _M.D.F._ II. 94. _Coetus ... soliti_: cf. 10. _Platonis ubertate_: cf.

Quintilian's "_illa Livii lactea ubertas_." _Plenum ac refertam_: n. on 11.

_Dubitationem_: Halm with one MS., G, gives _dubitantem_, Baiter _dubitanter_, Why alter? _Ars quaedam philosophiae_: before these words all Halm's MSS., exc G, insert _disserendi_, probably from the line above, Lipsius keeps it and ejects _philosophiae_, while Lamb., Day read _philosophia_ in the nom. Varro, however, would never say that philosophy became entirely dialectical in the hands of the old Academics and Peripatetics. _Ars_ = te???, a set of definite rules, so Varro in Aug. (as above) speaks of the _certa dogmata_ of this old school as opposed to the incert.i.tude of the New Academy. _Descriptio_: so Halm here, but often _discriptio_. The _Corp. Inscr._, vol. I. nos. 198 and 200, has thrice _discriptos_ or _discriptum_, the other spelling never.

--18. _Ut mihi quidem videtur_: MSS. transpose _quidem_ and _videtur_, as in 44. _Quidem_, however nearly always comes closely after the p.r.o.noun, see _M.D.F._ IV. 43, cf. also I. 71, III. 28, _Opusc._ I. 406. _Expetendarum fugiendarumque_: ?a??et?? ?a? fe??t??, about which more in n. on 36. The Platonic and Aristotelian ethics have indeed an external resemblance, but the ultimate bases of the two are quite different. In rejecting the Idea of the Good, Aristotle did away with what Plato would have considered most valuable in his system. The ideal theory, however, was practically defunct in the time of Antiochus, so that the similarity between the two schools seemed much greater than it was. _Non sus Minervam_: a Greek proverb, cf.

Theocr. _Id._ V. 23, _De Or._ II. 233, _Ad Fam._ IX. 18, 3. Binder, in his German translation of the _Academica_, also quotes Plutarch _Praec. Polit._ 7. _Inepte ... docet_: elliptic for _inepte docet, quisquis docet_. _Nostra atque nostros_: few of the editors have understood this. Atticus affects everything Athenian, and speaks as though he were one of them; in Cic.'s letters to him the words "_tui cives_," meaning the Athenians, often occur.

_Quid me putas_: i.e. _velle_. _Exhibiturum_: Halm inserts _me_ before this from his one MS. G, evidently emended here by its copyist. For the omission of _me_, cf. note on 7.

----19--23. Part II. of Varro's Exposition: Antiochus' _Ethics_. Summary.

The threefold division of philosophy into ?????, f?s???, d?a?e?t???.

Goodness means obedience to nature, happiness the acquisition of natural advantages. These are of three kinds, mental, bodily, and external. The bodily are described (19); then the mental, which fall into two cla.s.ses, congenital and acquired, virtue being the chief of the acquired (20), then the external, which form with the bodily advantages a kind of exercise-ground for virtue (21). The ethical standard is then succinctly stated, in which virtue has chief part, and is capable in itself of producing happiness, though not the greatest happiness possible, which requires the possession of all three cla.s.ses of advantages (22). With this ethical standard, it is possible to give an intelligent account of action and duty (23).

--19. _Ratio triplex_: Plato has not this division, either consciously or unconsciously, though it was generally attributed to him in Cicero's time, so by Varro himself (from Antiochus) in Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ VIII. 4, and by Diog. Laert. III. 56 (see R. and P., p. 195). The division itself cannot be traced farther back than Xenocrates and the post-Aristotelian Peripatetics, to whom it is a.s.signed by s.e.xt. Emp. _Adv. Math._ VII. 16. It was probably first brought into strong prominence by the Stoics, whom it enabled more sharply and decisively to subordinate to Ethics all else in philosophy. Cf.

esp. _M.D.F._ IV. 3. _Quid verum ... repugnans iudicando_: MSS. exc. G have _et_ before _quid falsum_, whence Klotz conj. _sit_ in order to obviate the awkwardness of _repugnet_ which MSS. have for _repugnans_. Krische wishes to read _consequens_ for _consentiens_, comparing _Orator_ 115, _T.D._ V.

68, _De Div._ II. 150, to which add _T.D._ V. 21 On the other hand cf. II.

22, 91. Notice the double translations of the Greek terms, _de vita et moribus_ for ?????, etc. This is very characteristic of Cic., as we shall see later. _Ac primum_: many MSS. and edd. _primam_, cf. 23, 30. _A natura petebant_: how Antiochus could have found this in Plato and Aristotle is difficult to see; that he did so, however, is indubitable; see _D.F._ V.

24--27, which should be closely compared with our pa.s.sage, and Varro in Aug. XIX. 3. The root of Plato's system is the ?dea of the Good, while so far is Aristotle from founding his system on the abstract f?s??, that he scarcely appeals even incidentally to f?s?? in his ethical works. The abstract conception of nature in relation to ethics is first strongly apparent in Polemo, from whom it pa.s.sed into Stoic hands and then into those of Antiochus. _Adeptum esse omnia_: put rather differently in _D.F._ V. 24, 26, cf. also _D.F._ II. 33, 34, _Ac._ II. 131. _Et animo et corpore et vita_: this is the t??a? or t??????a t?? a?a???, which belongs in this form to late Peripateticism (cf. _M.D.F._ III. 43), the third division is a development from the ??? te?e??? of Aristotle. The t??a? in this distinct shape is foreign both to Plato and Arist, though Stobaeus, _Ethica_ II. 6, 4, tries hard to point it out in Plato; Varro seems to merge the two last divisions into one in Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XIX 3. This agrees better with _D.F._ V. 34--36, cf. also Aug. VIII. 8. On the Antiochean _finis_ see more in note on 22. _Corporis alia_: for ellipse of _bona_, see n. on 13.

_Ponebant esse_: n. on 36. _In toto in partibus_: the same distinction is in Stob. _Eth._ II. 6, 7; cf. also _D.F._ V. 35. _Pulchritudinem_: Cic.

_Orator_ 160, puts the spelling _pulcher_ beyond a doubt; it often appears in inscr. of the Republic. On the other hand only _pulcrai_, _pulcrum_, etc., occur in inscr., exc. _pulchre_, which is found once (_Corp. Inscr._ I. no 1019). _Sepulchrum_, however, is frequent at an early time. On the tendency to aspirate even native Latin words see Boscher in Curtius'

_Studien_ II. 1, p. 145. In the case of _pulcher_ the false derivation from p???????? may have aided the corruption. Similarly in modern times J.C.

Scaliger derived it from p??? ?e?? (Curtius' _Grundz_ ed. 3, p. 8) For _valetudinem viris pulchritudinem_, cf. the ????e?a ?s??? ?a???? of Stob.

_Eth_. II. 6, 7, and _T.D._ V. 22. _Sensus integros_ e?a?s??s?a in Stob., cf. also _D.F._ V. 36 (_in sensibus est sua cuiusque virtus_).

_Celeritatem_: so p?d??e?a in Stob., _bene currere_ in Aug. XIX. 3.

_Claritatem in voce_: cf. _De Off._ I. 133. _Impressionem_: al.

_expressionem_. For the former cf. _De Or._ III. 185, which will show the meaning to be the distinct marking of each sound; for the latter _De Or._ III. 41, which will disprove Klotz's remark "_imprimit lingua voces, non exprimit_." See also _De Off._ I. 133. One old ed. has _pressionem_, which, though not itself Ciceronian, recalls _presse loqui_, and _N.D._ II. 149.

Pliny, _Panegyric_, c. 64, has _expressit explanavitque verba_; he and Quintilian often so use _exprimere_.

--20. _Ingeniis_: rejected by many (so Halm), but cf. _T.D._ III. 2, and _animis_ below and in _N.D._ II. 58. _In naturam et mores_: for _in ea quae natura et moribus fiunt_. A similar inaccuracy of expression is found in II. 42. The division is practically Aristotle's, who severs a?eta? into d?a???t??a? and ????a? (_Nic. Eth._ I. c. 13, _Magna Mor._ I. c. 5). In _D.F._ V. 38 the d?a???t??a? are called _non voluntariae_, the ????a?

_voluntariae_. _Celeritatem ad discendum et memoriam_: cf. the e?a?e?a, ??? of Arist. (who adds a??????a s?f?a f????s??), and the _docilitas, memoria_ of _D.F._ V. 36. _Quasi consuetudinem_: the _quasi_ marks a translation from the Greek, as frequently, here probably of e??s?? (_Nic.

Eth._ II. c. 1). _Partim ratione formabant_: the relation which reason bears to virtue is set forth in _Nic. Eth._ VI. c. 2. _In quibus_: i.e. _in moribus_. All the late schools held that ethics formed the sole ultimate aim of philosophy. _Erat_: note the change from _oratio obliqua_ to _recta_, and cf. the opposite change in II. 40. _Progressio_: this, like the whole of the sentence in which it stands, is intensely Stoic. For the Stoic p??????, p????pte?? e?? a?et??, cf. _M.D.F._ IV. 64, 66, R. and P.

392, sq., Zeller, _Stoics_ 258, 276. The phrases are sometimes said to be Peripatetic, if so, they must belong only to the late Stoicised Peripateticism of which we find so much in Stobaeus. _Perfectio naturae_: cf. esp. _De Leg._ I. 25. More Stoic still is the definition of virtue as the perfection of the _reason_, cf. II. 26, _D.F._ IV. 35, V. 38, and Madvig's note on _D.F._ II. 88. Faber quotes Galen _De Decr. Hipp. et Plat._ c. 5, ?? a?et? te?e??t?? est? t?? ?e?ast?? f?se??. _Una res optima_: the supremacy of virtue is also a.s.serted by Varro in Aug. XIX. 3, cf. also _D.F._ V. 36, 38.

--21. _Virtutis usum_: so the Stoics speak of their ad?af??a as the practising ground for virtue (_D.F._ III. 50), cf. _virtutis usum_ in Aug.

XIX. 1. _Nam virtus_: most MSS. have _iam_, which is out of place here.

_Animi bonis et corporis cernitur et in quibusdam_: MSS. omit _et_ between _cernitur_ and _in_, exc. Halm's G which has _in_ before _animi_ and also before _corporis_. These last insertions are not necessary, as may be seen from _Topica_ 80, _causa certis personis locis temporibus actionibus negotiis cernitur aut_ in _omnibus aut_ in _plerisque_, also _T.D._ V. 22.

In Stob. II. 6, 8, the te??? of the Peripatetics is stated to be t? ?at'

a?et?? ??? e? t??? pe?? s?a ?a? t??? e???e? a?a????, here _quibusdam quae_ etc., denote the e???e? or e?t?? a?a?a, the third cla.s.s in 19. _Hominem ...

societate_: all this is strongly Stoic, though also attributed to the Peripatetics by Stob. II. 6, 7 (????? f??a????p?a), etc., doubtless the humanitarianism of the Stoics readily united with the f?se? a????p??

p???t???? ???? theory of Aristotle. For Cic. cf. _D.F._ III. 66, _De Leg._ I. 23, for the Stoics, Zeller 293--296. The repet.i.tions _hominem_, _humani_, _hominibus_, _humana_ are striking. For the last, Bentley (i.e.

Davies' anonymous friend) proposed _mundana_ from _T.D._ V. 108, Varro, however, has _humana societas_ in Aug. XIX. 3. _Cetera autem_: what are these _cetera?_ They form portion of the e?t?? a?a?a, and although not strictly contained within the _summum bonum_ are necessary to enrich it and preserve it. Of the things enumerated in Stob. II. 6, 8, 13, f???a, f????

would belong to the _quaedam_ of Cicero, while p???t?? a??? e?t???a e??e?e?a d??aste?a would be included in _cetera_. The same distinction is drawn in Aug. VIII. 8. _Tuendum_: most MSS. _tenendum_, but _tuendum_ corresponds best with the division of a?a?a into p???t??a and f??a?t??a, Stob. II. 6, 13. For the word _pertinere_ see _M.D.F._ III. 54.

--22. _Plerique_: Antiochus believes it also Academic. _Qui tum appellarentur_: MSS. _dum_, the subj. is strange, and was felt to be so by the writer of Halm's G, which has _appellantur_. _Videbatur_: Goer. and Orelli stumble over this, not perceiving that it has the strong meaning of the Gr. ed??e?, "it was their dogma," so often. _Adipisci_: cf. _adeptum esse_, 19. _Quae essent prima natura_: MSS. have _in natura_. For the various modes of denoting the p??ta ?ata f?s?? in Latin see Madvig's _Fourth Excursus to the D.F._, which the student of Cic.'s philosophy ought to know by heart. The phrase _prima natura_ (abl.) could not stand alone, for ta p??ta t? f?se? is one of Goerenz's numerous forgeries. The ablative is always conditioned by some verb, see Madv. A comparison of this statement of the ethical _finis_ with that in 19 and the pa.s.sages quoted in my note there, will show that Cic. drew little distinction between the Stoic ta p??ta ?ata f?s?? and the Peripatetic t??????a. That this is historically absurd Madvig shows in his _Excursus_, but he does not sufficiently recognise the fact that Cicero has perfectly correctly reported Antiochus. At all events, Varro's report (Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XIX.

3) coincides with Cic.'s in every particular. Even the _inexplicabilis perversitas_ of which Madv. complains (p. 821) is traceable to Antiochus, who, as will be seen from Augustine XIX. 1, 3, included even _virtus_ among the _prima naturae_. A little reflection will show that in no other way could Antiochus have maintained the practical ident.i.ty of the Stoic and Peripatetic views of the _finis_. I regret that my s.p.a.ce does not allow me to pursue this difficult subject farther. For the Stoic p??ta ?ata f?s??

see Zeller, chap XI. _Ipsa per sese expetenda_: Gk. ?a??eta, which is applied to all things contained within the _summum bonum_. As the Stoic _finis_ was a?et? only, that alone to them was ?a??et??, their p??ta ?ata f?s?? were not ?a??eta, (cf. _D.F._ III. 21). Antiochus' _prima naturae_ were ?a??eta to him, cf. Aug. XIX. 3, _prima illa naturae propter se ipsa existimat expetenda_ so Stob., II. 6, 7, demonstrates each branch of the t??????a to be ?a?' ?a?t? ?a??et??. _Aut omnia aut maxima_: so frequently in Cic., e.g. _D.F._ IV. 27, so Stob. II. 6, 8, ta p?e?sta ?a? ?????tata.

_Ea sunt maxima_: so Stob., Varro in Aug. _pa.s.sim_. _Sensit_: much misunderstood by edd., here = _iudicavit_ not _animadvert.i.t_ cf. _M.D.F._ II. 6. _Reperiebatur_: for change of constr. cf. _D.F._ IV. 26 _Nec tamen beatissimam_: the question whether a?et? was a?ta??e? p??? e?da????a? was one of the most important to the late Greek philosophy. As to Antiochus, consult _M.D.F._ V. 67.

--23. _Agendi aliquid_: Gk. p?a?e??, the usual translation, cf. II. 24, 37.

_Officii ipsius initium_: t?? ?a?????t?? a????, Stob. II. 6, 7. This sentence is covertly aimed at the New Academics, whose scepticism, according to the dogmatists, cut away the ground from action and duty, see II. 24. _Recti honestique_: these words are redolent of the Stoa. _Earum rerum_: Halm thinks something like _appet.i.tio_ has fallen out, _susceptio_ however, above, is quite enough for both clauses; a similar use of it is found in _D.F._ III. 32. _Descriptione naturae_: Halm with one MS. (G) gives _praescriptione_, which is in II. 140, cf. also _praescriberet_ above. The phrase is Antiochean; cf. _prima const.i.tutio naturae_ in _D.F._ IV. 15. _Aequitas_: not in the Roman legal sense, but as a translation of ep?e??e?a. _Eaeque_: so Halm for MSS. _haeque_, _haecque_. Of course _haecque_, like _hicque_, _sicque_, would be un-Ciceronian. _Voluptatibus_: a side blow at the Epicureans. _Forma_ see n. on 33.

----24--29. Part III of Varro's Exposition. Antiochus' _Physics_.

Summary. All that is consists of force and matter, which are never actually found apart, though they are thought of as separate. When force impresses form on the formless matter, it becomes a formed ent.i.ty (p???? t? or _quale_)--(24). These formed ent.i.ties are either _primary_ or _secondary_. Air, fire, water, earth are primary, the two first having an active, the two last a pa.s.sive function. Aristotle added a fifth (26). Underlying all formed ent.i.ties is the formless matter, matter and s.p.a.ce are infinitely subdivisible (27). Force or form acts on the formless matter and so produces the ordered universe, outside which no matter exists. Reason permeates the universe and makes it eternal. This Reason has various names--Soul of the Universe, Mind, Wisdom, Providence, Fate, Fortune are only different t.i.tles for the same thing (28, 29).

--24. _Natura_: this word, it is important to observe, has to serve as a translation both of f?s?? and ??s?a. Here it is ??s?a in the broadest sense, all that exists. _In res duas_: the distinction between Force and Matter, the active and pa.s.sive agencies in the universe, is of course Aristotelian and Platonic. Antiochus however probably apprehended the distinction as modified by the Stoics, for this read carefully Zeller, 135 sq., with the footnotes. The clearest view of Aristotle's doctrine is to be got from Schwegler, _Handbook_, pp 99--105. R. and P. 273 sq. should be consulted for the important coincidence of Force with logical _genus_ (e?d??), and of Matter (????) with logical _differentia_ (d?af??a). For the _duae res_, cf. _D.F._ I. 18. _Efficiens ... huic se praebens_: an attempt to translate t? p????? and t? pas??? of the _Theaetetus_, t? ??e? and t?

de??e??? of the _Timaeus_ (50 D). Cic. in _Tim._ has _efficere_ and _pati_, Lucretius I. 440 _facere_ and _fungi_. _Ea quae_: so Gruter, Halm for MSS. _eaque._ The meaning is this; pa.s.sive matter when worked upon by an active generative form results in an _aliquid_, a t?de t? as Aristotle calls it. Pa.s.sive matter ???? is only potentially t?de t?, pa.s.sing into actual t?de t?, when affected by the form. (Cf. t?de, t??t?, Plato _Tim._ 49 E, 50 A, also Arist. _Metaph_ H, 1, R. and P. 270--274). A figurative description of the process is given in _Timaeus_, 50 D. _In eo quod efficeret ... materiam quandam_: Cic. is hampered by the _patrii sermonis egestas_, which compels him to render simple Greek terms by laboured periphrases. _Id quod efficit_ is not distinct from, but _equivalent_ to _vis_, _id quod efficitur_ to _materia_. _Materiam quandam_: it is extraordinary how edd. (esp Goer.) could have so stumbled over _quandam_ and _quasi_ used in this fashion. Both words (which are joined below) simply mark the unfamiliarity of the Latin word in its philosophical use, in the Greek ???? the strangeness had had time to wear off. _In utroque_: for _in eo quod ex utroque_ (sc. _vi et materia_) _fit_, the meaning is clearly given by the next clause, viz. that Force and Matter cannot actually exist apart, but only in the compound of the two, the formed ent.i.ty, which doctrine is quite Aristotelian. See the reff. given above.

_Nihil enim est quod non alicubi esse cogatur_: the meaning of this is clear, that nothing can _exist_ except in s.p.a.ce _(alicubi)_, it is more difficult to see why it should be introduced here. Unless _est_ be taken of merely phenomenal existence (the only existence the Stoics and Antiochus would allow), the sentence does not represent the belief of Aristotle and Plato. The ?dea? for instance, though to Plato in the highest sense existent, do not exist in s.p.a.ce. (Aristotle explicitly says this, _Phys._ III. 4). Aristotle also recognised much as existent which did not exist in s.p.a.ce, as in _Phys._ IV. 5 (qu. R. and P. 289). Cic. perhaps translates here from _Tim._ 52 B, fae? a?a??a??? e??a? p?? t? ??? ?apa? e? t??? t?p?.

For ancient theories about s.p.a.ce the student must be referred to the histories of philosophy. A fair summary is given by Stob. _Phys._ pe??

?e??? ?a? t?p?? ?a? ???a?, ch. XVIII. 1. _Corpus et quasi qualitatem_: note that _corpus_ is _formed_, as contrasted with _materia_, _unformed_ matter.

_Qualitas_ is here wrongly used for _quale_; it ought to be used of Force only, not of the product of Force and Matter, cf. 28. The Greeks themselves sometimes confuse p???t?? and p????, the confusion is aided by the ambiguity of the phrase t? p???? in Greek, which may either denote the t?de t? as p????, or the Force which makes it p????, hence Arist. calls one of his categories t? p???? and p???t?? indifferently For the Stoic view of p???t??, see Zeller, 96--103, with footnotes.

--25. _Bene facis_: _pa.s.sim_ in comedy, whence Cic. takes it; cf. _D.F._ III. 16, a pa.s.sage in other respects exceedingly like this. _Rhetoricam_: Hulsemann conj. _ethicam_, which however is _not_ Latin. The words have no philosophical significance here, but are simply specimens of words once foreign, now naturalised. _D.F._ III. 5 is very similar. Cic.'s words make it clear that these nouns ought to be treated as Latin first declension nouns; the MSS. often give, however, a Gk. accus. in _en_. _Non est vulgi verb.u.m_: it first appears in _Theaet._ 182 A, where it is called a?????t??

???a. _Nova ... facienda_: = _imponenda_ in _D.F._ III. 5. _Suis utuntur_: so _D.F._ III. 4. _Transferenda_: _transferre_ = etafe?e??, which is technically used as early as Isocrates. See Cic. on metaphor, _De Or._ III.

153 sq., where _necessitas_ is a.s.signed as one cause of it (159) just as here; cf. also _De Or._ III. 149. _Saecula_: the spelling _secula_ is wrong; Corss. I. 325, 377. The diphthong bars the old derivations from _secare_, and _sequi_. _Quanto id magis_: Cic. is exceedingly fond of separating _tam quam ita tantus quantus_, etc., from the words with which they are syntactically connected, by just one small word, e.g. _Lael._ 53 _quam id recte_, _Acad._ II. 125 _tam sit mirabilis_, II. 68 _tam in praecipitem_; also _D.F._ III. 5 _quanto id n.o.bis magis est concedendum qui ea nunc primum audemus attingere_.

--26. _Non modo rerum sed verborum_: cf. 9. _Igitur_ picks up the broken thread of the exposition; so 35, and frequently. _Principes ... ex his ortae_: the Greek terms are ?ap?a and s???eta, see Arist. _De Coelo_, I. 2 (R. and P. 294). The distinction puzzled Plutarch (quoted in R. and P.

382). It was both Aristotelian and Stoic. The Stoics (Zeller, 187 sq.) followed partly Herac.l.i.tus, and cast aside many refinements of Aristotle which will be found in R. and P. 297. _Quasi multiformes_: evidently a trans. of p???e?de??, which is opposed to ?ap???? in Plat. _Phaedr._ 238 A, and often. Plato uses also ???e?d?? for _unius modi_; cf. Cic. _Tim._ ch.

VII., a transl. of Plat. _Tim._ 35 A. _Prima sunt_: _primae_ (sc.

_qualitates_) is the needless em. of Walker, followed by Halm. _Formae_ = _genera_, e?d?. The word is applied to the four elements themselves, _N.D._ I. 19; cf. also _quintum genus_ below, and _Topica_, 11--13. A good view of the history of the doctrine of the four elements may be gained from the section of Stob. _Phys._, ent.i.tled pe?? a???? ?a? st???e??? ?a? t?? pa?t??.

It will be there seen that Cic. is wrong in making _initia_ and _elementa_ here and in 39 (a??a? and st???e?a) convertible terms. The Greeks would call the four elements st???e?a but _not_ a??a?, which term would be reserved for the primary Matter and Force. _Aer et ignis_: this is Stoic but _not_ Aristotelian. Aristot., starting with the four necessary properties of matter, viz. heat, cold, dryness, moisture, marks the two former as active, the two latter as pa.s.sive. He then a.s.signs _two_ of these properties, _one_ active and _one_ pa.s.sive, to each of the four elements; each therefore is to him _both_ active and pa.s.sive. The Stoics a.s.sign only _one_ property to each element; heat to fire, cold to air (cf. _N.D._ II.

26), moisture to water, dryness to earth. The doctrine of the text follows at once. Cf. Zeller, pp. 155, 187 sq., with footnotes, R. and P. 297 sq.

_Accipiendi ... patiendi_: de?es?a? often comes in Plat. _Tim._ _Quintum genus_: the note on this, referred to in Introd. p. 16, is postponed to 39.