and P. 338. ?pa?e?a was also a Stoic term. _Diu multumque_: n. on I. 4.
--131. _Nec tamen consentiens_: cf. R. and P. 352 where the differences between the two schools are clearly drawn out, also Zeller 447, 448.
_Callipho_: as the genitive is _Calliphontis_, Cic. ought according to rule to write _Calliphon_ in the nom; for this see Madv. on _D.F._ II. 19, who also gives the chief authorities concerning this philosopher. _Hieronymus_: mentioned _D.F._ II. 19, 35, 41, V. 14, in which last place Cic. says of him _quem iam cur Peripatetic.u.m appellem nescio_. _Diodorus_: see Madv. on _D.F._ II. 19. _Honeste vivere_, etc.: in _D.F._ IV. 14 the _finis_ of Polemo is stated to be _secundum naturam vivere_, and three Stoic interpretations of it are given, the last of which resembles the present pa.s.sage--_omnibus aut maximis rebus iis quae secundum naturam sint fruentem vivere_. This interpretation Antiochus adopted, and from him it is attributed to the _vetus Academia_ in I. 22, where the words _aut omnia aut maxima_, seem to correspond to words used by Polemo; cf. Clemens Alex. qu.
by Madv. on _D.F._ IV. 15. See n. below on Carneades. _Antiochus probat_: the germs of many Stoic and Antiochean doctrines were to be found in Polemo; see I. 34, n. _Eiusque amici_: Bentl. _aemuli_, but Halm refers to _D.F._ II. 44. The later Peripatetics were to a great degree Stoicised.
_Nunc_: Halm _huc_ after Jo. Scala. _Carneades_: this _finis_ is given in _D.F._ II. 35 (_frui principiis naturalibus_), II. 42 (_Carneadeum illud quod is non tam ut probaret protulit, quam ut Stoicis quibusc.u.m bellum gerebat opponeret_), V. 20 (_fruendi rebus iis, quas primas secundum naturam esse diximus, Carneades non ille quidem auctor sed defensor disserendi causa fuit_), _T.D._ V. 84 (_naturae primus aut omnibus aut maximis frui, ut Carneades contra Stoicos disserebat_). The _finis_ therefore, thus stated, is not different from that of Polemo, but it is clear that Carneades intended it to be different, as he did not include _virtus_ in it (see _D.F._ II. 38, 42, V. 22) while Polemo did (I. 22). See more on 139. _Zeno_: cf. _D.F._ IV. 15 _Inventor et princeps_: same expression in _T.D._ I. 48, _De Or._ I. 91, _De Inv._ II. 6; _inv._ = ????st??.
--132. _Quemlibet_: cf. 125, 126. _Prope singularem_: cf. _T.D._ I. 22 _Aristoteles longe omnibus--Platonem semper excipio--praestans_; also _D.F._ V. 7, _De Leg._ I. 15. _Per ipsum Antiochum_: a similar line of argument is taken in s.e.xt. _P.H._ I. 88, II. 32, etc. _Terminis ...
possessione_: there is a similar play on the legal words _finis terminus possessio_ in _De Leg._ I. 55, 56, a noteworthy pa.s.sage. _Omnis ratio_ etc.: this is the constant language of the later Greek philosophy; cf. Aug.
_De Civ. Dei_ XIX. 1 _neque enim existimat_ (Varro) _ullam philosophiae sectam esse dicendam, quae non eo distat a ceteris, quod diversos habeat fines bonorum et malorum_, etc. _Si Polemoneus_: i.e. _sapiens fuerit_.
_Peccat_: a Stoic term turned on the Stoics, see I. 37. _Academicos et_: MSS. om. _et_ as in I. 16, and _que_ in 52 of this book. _Dicenda_: for the omission of the verb with the gerundive (which occurs chiefly in emphatic clauses) cf. I. 7, and Madv. on _D.F._ I. 43, who how ever unduly limits the usage. _Hic igitur ... prudentior_: MSS. generally have _a.s.sentiens_, but one good one (Halm"s E) has _a.s.sentientes_. I venture to read _adsentietur_, thinking that the last two letters were first dropt, as in 26 (_tenetur_) and that then _adsentiet_, under the attraction of the _s_ following, pa.s.sed into _adsentiens_, as in 147 _intellegat se_ pa.s.sed into _intelligentes_. _N_, I may remark, is frequently inserted in MSS. (as in I. 7 _appellant_, 16 _disputant_, 24 _efficerentur_), and all the changes involved in my conj. are of frequent occurrence. I also read _sin, inquam_ (_sc. adsentietur_) for _si numquam_ of MSS. The question _uter est prudentior_ is intended to press home the dilemma in which Cicero has placed the supposed _sapiens_. All the other emendations I have seen are too unsatisfactory to be enumerated.
--133. _Non posse ... esse_: this seems to me sound; Bait. however reads _non esse illa probanda sap._ after Lamb., who also conj. _non posse illa probata esse_. _Paria_: _D.F._ III. 48, _Paradoxa_ 20 sq., Zeller 250.
_Praecide_: s??t??? or s??e??? e?pe, cf. _Cat. Mai._ 57, _Ad Att._ VIII.
4, X. 16. _Inquit_: n. on 79. _Quid quod quae_: so Guietus with the approval of Madv. (_Em._ 203) reads for MSS. _quid quae_ or _quid quaeque_, Halm and Bait., follow Moser in writing _Quid? si quae_ removing the stop at _paria_, and make _in utramque partem_ follow _dicantur_, on Orelli"s suggestion. When several relative p.r.o.nouns come together the MSS. often omit one. _Dicebas_: in 27. _Incognito_: 133.
--134. _Etiam_: = "yes," Madv. _Gram._ 454. _Non beatissimam_: I. 22, n.
_Deus ille_: i.e. more than man (of Aristotle"s ? ?e?? ? ??????), if he can do without other advantages. For the omission of _est_ after the emphatic _ille_ cf. 59, n. _Theophrasto_, etc.: n. on I. 33, 35. _Dicente_: before this Halm after Lamb., followed by Bait., inserts _contra_, the need for which I fail to see. _Et hic_: i.e. Antiochus. _Ne sibi constet_: Cic.
argues in _T.D._ V. that there cannot be degrees in happiness. _Tum hoc ...
tum illud_: cf. 121. _Iacere_: 79. _In his discrepant_: I. 42 _in his const.i.tit_.
--135. _Moveri_: ???e?s?a?, 29. _Laet.i.tia efferri_: I. 38. _Probabilia_: the removal of pa.s.sion and delight is easier than that of fear and pain.
_Sapiensne ... deleta sit_: see Madv. _D.F._ p. 806, ed. 2, who is severe upon the reading of Orelli (still kept by Klotz), _non timeat? nec si patria deleatur? non doleat? nec, si deleta sit?_ which involves the use of _nec_ for _ne ... quidem_. I have followed the reading of Madv. in his _Em._, not the one he gives (after Davies) in _D.F._ _ne patria deleatur_, which Halm takes, as does Baiter. Mine is rather nearer the MSS. _Decreta_: some MSS. _durata_; Halm conj. _dictata_. _Mediocritates_: es?pete?, as in Aristotle; cf. _T.D._ III. 11, 22, 74. _Permotione_: ???ese?. _Naturalem ... modum_: so _T.D._ III. 74. _Crantoris_: sc. _librum_, for the omission of which see n. on I. 13; add Quint. IX. 4, 18, where Spalding wished to read _in Herodoti_, supplying _libro_. _Aureolus ... libellus_: it is not often that two diminutives come together in Cic., and the usage is rather colloquial; cf. _T.D._ III. 2, _N.D._ III. 43, also for _aureolus_ 119 _flumen aureum_. _Panaetius_: he had addressed to Tubero a work _de dolore_; see _D.F._ IV. 23. _Cotem_: _T.D._ IV. 43, 48, Seneca _De Ira_ III. 3, where the saying is attributed to Aristotle (_iram calcar esse virtutis_). _Dicebant_: for the repet.i.tion of this word cf. 146, I. 33.
--136. _Sunt enim Socratica_: the Socratic origin of the Stoic paradoxes is affirmed in _Parad._ 4, _T.D._ III. 10. _Mirabilia_: Cic. generally translates pa?ad??a by _admirabilia_ as in _D.F._ IV. 74, or _admiranda_, under which t.i.tle he seems to have published a work different from the _Paradoxa_, which we possess: see Bait., and Halm"s ed. of the Phil. works (1861), p. 994. _Quasi_: = almost, ??? ep?? e?pe??. _Voltis_: cf. the Antiochean opinion in I. 18, 22. _Solos reges_: for all this see Zeller 253 sq. _Solos divites_: ??t? ???? ?? s?f?? p???s???, _Parad._ VI. _Liberum_: _Parad._ V. ??t? ???? ?? s?f?? e?e??e??? ?a? pa? af??? d?????. _Furiosus_: _Parad._ IV. ??t? pa? af??? a??eta?.
--137. _Tam sunt defendenda_: cf. 8, 120. _Bono modo_: a colloquial and Plautine expression; see Forc. _Ad senatum starent_: "were in waiting on the senate;" cf. such phrases as _stare ad cyathum_, etc. _Carneade_: the vocative is _Carneades_ in _De Div._ I. 23. _Huic Stoico_: i.e. _Diogeni_; cf. _D.F._ II. 24. Halm brackets _Stoico_, and after him Bait. _Sequi volebat_: "professed to follow;" cf. _D.F._ V. 13 _Strato physic.u.m se voluit_ "gave himself out to be a physical philosopher:" also Madv. on _D.F._ II. 102. _Ille noster_: Dav. _vester_, as in 143 _noster Antiochus_.
But in both places Cic. speaks as a friend of Antiochus; cf. 113.
_Balbutiens_: "giving an uncertain sound;" cf. _De Div._ I. 5, _T.D._ V.
75.
--138. _Mihi veremini_: cf. Caes. _Bell. Gall_. V. 9 _veritus navibus_. Halm and Bait. follow Christ"s conj. _verenti_, removing the stop at _voltis_.
_Opinationem_: the ???s?? of s.e.xt., e.g. _P.H._ III. 280. _Quod minime voltis_: cf. I. 18. _De finibus_: not "concerning," but "from among" the different _fines_; otherwise _fine_ would have been written. Cf. I. 4 _si qui de nostris._ _Circ.u.mcidit et amputat_: these two verbs often come together, as in _D.F._ I. 44; cf. also _D.F._ III. 31. _Si vacemus omni molestia_: which Epicurus held to be the highest pleasure. _c.u.m honestate_: Callipho in 131. _Prima naturae commoda_: Cic. here as in _D.F._ IV. 59, V.
58 confuses the Stoic p??ta ?ata f?s?? with ta t?? s?at?? a?a?a ?a? ta e?t?? of the Peripatetics, for which see I. 19. More on the subject in Madvig"s fourth Excursus to the _D.F._ _Relinquit_: Orelli _relinqui_ against the MSS.
--139. _Polemonis ... finibus_: all these were composite _fines_. _Adhuc_: I need scarcely point out that this goes with _habeo_ and not with _probabilius_; _adhuc_ for _etiam_ with the comparative does not occur till the silver writers. _Labor eo_: cf. Horace"s _nunc in Aristippi furtim praecepta relabor_, also _D.F._ V. 6 _rapior illuc: revocat autem Antiochus_. _Reprehendit manu_: _M.D.F._ II. 3. _Pecudum_: I. 6, _Parad._ 14 _voluptatem esse summum bonum, quae mihi vox pecudum videtur esse non hominum_; similar expressions occur with a reference to Epicurus in _De Off._ I. 105, _Lael._ 20, 32. _T.D._ V. 73, _D.F._ II. 18; cf. also Aristoph. _Plut._ 922 p??at??? ??? ?e?e?? and ?s??at?? ??? in Aristotle. The meaning of _pecus_ is well shown in _T.D._ I. 69. _Iungit deo_: Zeller 176 sq. _Animum solum_: the same criticism is applied to Zeno"s _finis_ in _D.F._ IV. 17, 25. _Ut ... sequar_: for the repeated _ut_ see _D.F._ V. 10, Madv. _Gram._ 480, obs. 2. Bait. brackets the second _ut_ with Lamb. _Carneades ... defensitabat_: this is quite a different view from that in 131; yet another of Carneades is given in _T.D._ V. 83. _Istum finem_: MSS. _ipsum_; the two words are often confused, as in I. 2. _Ipsa veritas_: MSS. _severitas_, a frequent error; cf. _In Verr. Act._ I. 3, III. 162, _De Leg._ I. 4, also Madv. on _D.F._ IV. 55. _Obversetur_: Halm takes the conj. of Lamb., _adversetur_. The MSS. reading gives excellent sense; cf. _T.D._ II. 52 _obversentur honestae species viro_. Bait. follows Halm. _Tu ... copulabis_: this is the feigned expostulation of _veritas_ (cf. 34 _convicio veritatis_), for which style see 125.
--140. _Voluptas c.u.m honestate_: this whole expression is in apposition to _par_, so that _c.u.m_ must not be taken closely with _depugnet_; cf. Hor.
_Sat._ I. 7, 19 _Rupili et Persi par pugnat uti non compositum melius_ (sc.
_par_) _c.u.m Bitho Bacchius_. _Si sequare, ruunt_: for constr. cf. I. 7.
_Communitas_: for Stoic philanthropy see Zeller 297. _Nulla potest nisi erit_: Madv. _D.F._ III. 70 "_in hac coniunctione--hoc fieri non potest nisi--fere semper coniunctivus subicitur praesentis--futuri et perfecti indicativus ponitur_." _Gratuita_: "disinterested." _Ne intellegi quidem_: n. on I. 7, cf. also _T.D._ V. 73, 119. _Gloriosum in vulgus_: cf. _D.F._ II. 44 _populus c.u.m illis facit_ (i.e. _Epicureis_). _Normam ... regulam_: n. on _Ac. Post._ fragm. 8. _Praescriptionem_: I. 23, n.
--141. _Adquiescis_: MSS. are confused here, Halm reads _adsciscis_, comparing 138. Add _D.F._ I. 23 (_sciscat et probet_), III. 17 (_adsciscendas esse_), III. 70 (_adscisci et probari_) Bait. follows Halm.
_Ratum ... fixum_: cf. 27 and n. on _Ac. Post._ fragm. 17. _Falso_: like _incognito_ in 133. _Nullo discrimine_: for this see the explanation of _nihil interesse_ in 40, n. _Iudicia_: ???t???a as usual.
----142--146. Summary. To pa.s.s to Dialectic, note how Protagoras, the Cyrenaics, Epicurus, and Plato disagree (142). Does Antiochus follow any of these? Why, he never even follows the _vetus Academia_, and never stirs a step from Chrysippus. Dialecticians themselves cannot agree about the very elements of their art (143). Why then, Lucullus, do you rouse the mob against me like a seditious tribune by telling them I do away with the arts altogether? When you have got the crowd together, I will point out to them that according to Zeno all of them are slaves, exiles, and lunatics, and that you yourself, not being _sapiens_, know nothing whatever (144). This last point Zeno used to ill.u.s.trate by action Yet his whole school cannot point to any actual _sapiens_ (145). Now as there is no knowledge there can be no art. How would Zeuxis and Polycletus like this conclusion? They would prefer mine, to which our ancestors bear testimony.
--142. _Venio iam_: Dialectic had been already dealt with in 91--98 here it is merely considered with a view to the choice of the supposed _sapiens_, as was Ethical Science in 129--141 and Physics in 116--128. With the enumeration of conflicting schools here given compare the one s.e.xtus gives in _A.M._ VII. 48 sq. _Protagorae_: R. and P. 132 sq. _Qui putet_: so MSS., Halm and Bait. _putat_ after Lamb. Trans. "inasmuch as he thinks".
_Permotiones intimas_: cf. 20 _tactus interior_, also 76. _Epicuri_: nn. on 19, 79, 80. _Iudicium_: ???t????? as usual. _Rerum not.i.tiis_: p?????es?, Zeller 403 sq. _Const.i.tuit_: note the constr. with _in_, like _ponere in_.
_Cogitationis_: cf. I. 30. Several MSS. have _cognitionis_, the two words are frequently confused. See Wesenberg _Fm._ to _T.D._ III. p. 17, who says, _multo tamen saepius "cogitatio" pro "cognitio" subst.i.tuitur quam contra_, also _M.D.F_ III. 21.
--143. _Ne maiorum quidem suorum_: sc. _aliquid probat_. For _maiorum_ cf.
80. Here Plato is almost excluded from the so-called _vetus Academia_, cf.
I. 33. _Libri_: t.i.tles of some are preserved in Diog. Laert. IV. 11--14.
_Nihil politius_: cf. 119, n. _Pedem nusquam_: for the ellipse cf. 58, 116, _Pro Deiot._ 42 and _pedem latum_ in Plaut. _Abutimur_: this verb in the rhetorical writers means to use words in metaphorical or unnatural senses, see Quint. X. 1, 12. This is probably the meaning here; "do we use the name Academic in a non natural fashion?" _Si dies est lucet_: a better trans of e? f?? est??, ??e?a est?? than was given in 96, where see n. _Aliter Philoni_: not Philo of Larissa, but a noted dialectician, pupil of Diodorus the Megarian, mentioned also in 75. The dispute between Diodorus and Philo is mentioned in s.e.xt. _A.M._ VIII. 115--117 with the same purpose as here, see also Zeller 39. _Antipater_: the Stoic of Tarsus, who succeeded Diogenes Babylonius in the headship of the school. _Archidemus_: several times mentioned with Antipater in Diog., as VII. 68, 84. _Opiniosissimi_: so the MSS. I cannot think that the word is wrong, though all edd. condemn it. Halm is certainly mistaken in saying that a laudatory epithet such as _ingeniosissimi_ is necessary. I believe that the word _opiniosissimi_ (an adj. not elsewhere used by Cic.) was manufactured on the spur of the moment, in order to ridicule these two philosophers, who are playfully described as men full of _opinio_ or d??a--just the imputation which, as Stoics, they would most repel. Hermann"s _spinosissimi_ is ingenious, and if an em. were needed, would not be so utterly improbable as Halm thinks.
--144. _In contionem vocas_: a retort, having reference to 14, cf. also 63, 72. For these _contiones_ see Lange, _Romische Alterthumer_ II. 663, ed 2.
They were called by and held under the presidency of magistrates, all of whom had the right to summon them, the right of the tribune being under fewer restrictions than the right of the others. _Occludi tabernas_ in order of course that the artisans might all be at the meeting, for this see Liv. III. 27, IV. 31, IX. 7, and compare the cry "to your tents, O Israel"
in the Bible. _Artificia_: n. on 30. _Tolli_: n. on 26. _Ut opifices concitentur_: cf. _Pro Flacc._ 18 _opifices et tabernarios quid neqoti est concitare?_ _Expromam_: Cic. was probably thinking of the use to which he himself had put these Stoic paradoxes in _Pro Murena_ 61, a use of which he half confesses himself ashamed in _D.F._ IV. 74. _Exsules_ etc.: 136.
--145. _Scire negatis_: cf. s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII. 153, who says that even ?ata????? when it arises in the mind of a fa???? is mere d??a and not ep?st??; also _P.H._ II. 83, where it is said that the fa???? is capable of t? a???e? but not of a???e?a, which the s?f?? alone has. _Visum ...
adsensus_: the Stoics as we saw (II. 38, etc.) a.n.a.lysed sensations into two parts; with the Academic and other schools each sensation was an ultimate una.n.a.lysable unit, a ????? pa???. For this symbolic action of Zeno cf.
_D.F._ II. 18, _Orat._ 113, s.e.xtus _A.M._ II. 7, Quint. II. 20, 7, Zeller 84. _Contraxerat_: so Halm who qu. Plin. _Nat. Hist._ XI. 26, 94 _digitum contrahens aut remittens_; Orelli _construxerat_; MSS. mostly _contexerat_.
_Quod ante non fuerat_: ?ata?aa?e?? however is frequent in Plato in the sense "to seize firmly with the mind." _Adverterat_: the best MSS. give merely _adverat_, but on the margin _admoverat_ which Halm takes, and after him Bait.; one good MS. has _adverterat_. _Ne ipsi quidem_: even Socrates, Antisthenes and Diogenes were not s?f?? according to the Stoics, but merely were e? p????p??; see Diog. VII. 91, Zeller 257, and cf. Plut. _Sto. Rep._ 1056 (qu. by P. Valentia p. 295, ed Orelli) est? de ??t?? (i.e. ?? s?f??) ??da?? ??? ??de ?e???e. _Nec tu_: sc. _scis_; Goer. has a strange note here.
--146. _Illa_: cf. _illa invidiosa_ above (144). _Dicebas_: in 22. _Refero_: "retort," as in Ovid. _Metam._ I. 758 _pudet haec opprobria n.o.bis Et dici potuisse et non potuisse referri_; cf. also _par pari referre dicto_. _Ne n.o.bis quidem_: "_nor_ would they be angry;" cf. n. on. I. 5. _Arbitrari_: the original meaning of this was "to be a bystander," or "to be an eye-witness," see Corssen I. 238. _Ea non ut_: MSS. have _ut ea non aut_.
Halm reads _ut ea non_ merely, but I prefer the reading I have given because of Cicero"s fondness for making the _ut_ follow closely on the negative: for this see Madv. _Gram._ 465 _b_, obs.
--147. _Obscuritate_: cf. I. 44, n. on I. 15. _Plus uno_: 115. _Iacere_: cf.
79. _Plagas_: cf. n. on 112.
--148. _Ad patris revolvor sententiam_: for this see Introd. 50, and for the expression 18. _Opinaturum_: see 59, 67, 78, 112. _Intellegat se_: MSS.
_intellegentes_, cf. n. on 132. _Qua re_: so Manut. for _per_ of MSS.
?p???? _illam omnium rerum_: an odd expression; cf. _actio rerum_ in 62.
_Non probans_: so Madv. _Em._ 204 for MSS. _comprobans_. Dav. conj.
_improbans_ and is followed by Bait. I am not sure that the MSS. reading is wrong. The difficulty is essentially the same as that involved in 104, which should be closely compared. A contrast is drawn between a theoretical dogma and a practical belief. The dogma is that _a.s.sent_ (meaning absolute a.s.sent) is not to be given to phenomena. This dogma Catulus might well describe himself as formally approving (_comprobans_). The _practice_ is to give a.s.sent (meaning modified a.s.sent). There is the same contrast in 104 between _placere_ and _tenere_. I may note that the word _alteri_ (cf.
_altero_ in 104) need not imply that the dogma and the practice are irreconcilable; a misconception on this point has considerably confirmed edd. in their introduction of the negative. _Nec eam admodum_: cf. _non repugnarem_ in 112. _Tollendum_: many edd. have gone far astray in interpreting this pa.s.sage. The word is used with a double reference to _adsensus_ and _ancora_; in the first way we have had _tollere_ used a score of times in this book; with regard to the second meaning, cf. Caes.
_Bell. Gall._ IV. 23, _Bell. Civ._ I. 31, where _tollere_ is used of weighing anchor, and Varro _De Re Rust._ III. 17, 1, where it occurs in the sense "to get on," "to proceed," without any reference to the sea. (The exx. are from Forc.) This pa.s.sage I believe and this alone is referred to in _Ad Att._ XIII. 21, 3. If my conjecture is correct, Cic. tried at first to manage a joke by using the word _inhibendum_, which had also a nautical signification, but finding that he had mistaken the meaning of the word, subst.i.tuted _tollendum_.
[1] _De Leg._ II. --3.
[2] Cf. _De Or._ II. --1 with II. --5.
[3] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1, Phaedrus n.o.bis,... c.u.m pueri essemus, valde ut philosophus probabatur.
[4] _N.D._ I. --93, Phaedro nihil elegantius, nihil humanius.
[5] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1.
[6] _Brutus_, --309.
[7] _Ad Att._ II. 20, --6.
[8] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 16. _T.D._ V. --113. _Acad._ II. --115.
[9] _Brutus_, --306.
[10] _Ibid._
[11] _Rep._ I. --7. _T.D._ V. --5. _De Off._ II. ----3,4. _De Fato_, --2.