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 entity (ποιον τι or _quale_)--(24). These formed entities are either _primary_ or _secondary_. Air, fire, water, earth are primary, the two first having an active, the two last a passive function. Aristotle added a fifth (26). Underlying all formed entities is the formless matter, matter and space 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 titles for the same thing (28, 29).

§24. _Natura_: this word, it is important to observe, has to serve as a translation both of φυσις and ουσια. Here it is ουσια in the broadest sense, all that exists. _In res duas_: the distinction between Force and Matter, the active and passive 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_ (ειδος), and of Matter (‛υλη) with logical _differentia_ (διαφορα). For the _duae res_, cf. _D.F._ I. 18. _Efficiens ... huic se praebens_: an attempt to translate το ποιουν and το πασχον of the _Theaetetus_, το οθεν and το δεχομενον 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; passive matter when worked upon by an active generative form results in an _aliquid_, a τοδε τι as Aristotle calls it. Passive matter ‛υλη is only potentially τοδε τι, passing into actual τοδε τι, when affected by the form. (Cf. τοδε, τουτο, 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 ‛υλη 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 entity, 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 space _(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 ιδεαι for instance, though to Plato in the highest sense existent, do not exist in space. (Aristotle explicitly says this, _Phys._ III. 4). Aristotle also recognised much as existent which did not exist in space, as in _Phys._ IV. 5 (qu. R. and P. 289). Cic. perhaps translates here from _Tim._ 52 B, φαμεν αναγκαιον ειναι που το ‛ον ‛απαν εν τινι τοπω. For ancient theories about space the student must be referred to the histories of philosophy. A fair summary is given by Stob. _Phys._ περι κενου και τοπου και χωρας, 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 ποιοτης and ποιον, the confusion is aided by the ambiguity of the phrase το ποιον in Greek, which may either denote the τοδε τι as ποιον, or the Force which makes it ποιον, hence Arist. calls one of his categories το ποιον and ποιοτης indifferently For the Stoic view of ποιοτης, see Zeller, 96--103, with footnotes.

§25. _Bene facis_: _passim_ in comedy, whence Cic. takes it; cf. _D.F._ III. 16, a passage in other respects exceedingly like this. _Rhetoricam_: Hülsemann 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 verbum_: it first appears in _Theaet._ 182 A, where it is called αλλοκοτον ονομα. _Nova ... facienda_: = _imponenda_ in _D.F._ III. 5. _Suis utuntur_: so _D.F._ III. 4. _Transferenda_: _transferre_ = μεταφερειν, which is technically used as early as Isocrates. See Cic. on metaphor, _De Or._ III. 153 sq., where _necessitas_ is assigned 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 nobis 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 ‛απλα and συνθετα, 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 Heraclitus, and cast aside many refinements of Aristotle which will be found in R. and P. 297. _Quasi multiformes_: evidently a trans. of πολυειδεις, which is opposed to ‛απλους in Plat. _Phaedr._ 238 A, and often. Plato uses also μονοειδης 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_, ειδη. 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._, entitled περι αρχων και στοιχειων και του παντος. It will be there seen that Cic. is wrong in making _initia_ and _elementa_ here and in 39 (αρχαι and στοιχεια) convertible terms. The Greeks would call the four elements στοιχεια but _not_ αρχαι, which term would be reserved for the primary Matter and Force. _Aër 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 passive. He then assigns _two_ of these properties, _one_ active and _one_ passive, to each of the four elements; each therefore is to him _both_ active and passive. The Stoics assign 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_: δεχεσθαι often comes in Plat. _Tim._ _Quintum genus_: the note on this, referred to in Introd. p. 16, is postponed to 39. _Dissimile ... quoddam_: so MSS.; one would expect _quiddam_, which Orelli gives. _Rebatur_: an old poetical word revived by Cic. _De Or._ III. 153; cf. Quintil. _Inst. Or._ VIII. 3, 26.

§27. _Subiectam ... materiam_: the ‛υποκειμενη ‛υλη of Aristotle, from which our word subject-matter is descended. _Sine ulla specie_: _species_ here = _forma_ above, the ειδος or μορφη of Arist. _Omnibus_ without _rebus_ is rare. The ambiguity is sometimes avoided by the immediate succession of a neuter relative pronoun, as in 21 in _quibusdam_, _quae_. _Expressa_: chiselled as by a sculptor (cf. _expressa effigies_ _De Off_. III. 69); _efficta_, moulded as by a potter (see II. 77); the word was given by Turnebus for MSS. _effecta_. So Matter is called an εκμαγειον in Plat. _Tim._ _Quae tota omnia_: these words have given rise to needless doubts; Bentl., Dav., Halm suspect them. _Tota_ is feminine sing.; cf. _materiam totam ipsam_ in 28; "which matter throughout its whole extent can suffer all changes." For the word _omnia_ cf. II. 118, and Plat. _Tim._ 50 B (δεχεται γαρ ηι τα παντα), 51 A (ειδος πανδεχες). The word πανδεχες is also quoted from Okellus in Stob. I. 20, 3. Binder is certainly wrong in taking _tota_ and _omnia_ both as neut.--"_alles und jedes_." Cic. knew the _Tim._ well and imitated it here. The student should read Grote's comments on the passages referred to. I cannot here point out the difference between Plato's ‛υλη and that of Aristotle. _Eoque interire_: so MSS.; Halm after Dav. _eaque_. Faber was right in supposing that Cic. has said loosely of the _materia_ what he ought to have said of the _qualia_. Of course the προτε ‛υλη, whether Platonic or Aristotelian, is imperishable (cf. _Tim._ 52 A. φθοραν ου προσδεχομενον). _Non in nihilum_: this is aimed at the Atomists, who maintained that infinite subdivision logically led to the passing of things into nothing and their reparation out of nothing again. See Lucr. I. 215--264, and elsewhere. _Infinite secari_: through the authority of Aristotle, the doctrine of the infinite subdivisibility of matter had become so thoroughly the orthodox one that the Atom was scouted as a silly absurdity. Cf. _D.F._ I. 20 _ne illud quidem physici credere esse minimum_, Arist. _Physica_, I. 1 ουκ εστιν ελαχιστον μεγεθος. The history of ancient opinion on this subject is important, but does not lie close enough to our author for comment. The student should at least learn Plato's opinions from _Tim._ 35 A sq. It is notable that Xenocrates, tripping over the old αντιφασις of the One and the Many, denied παν μεγεθος διαιρετον ειναι και μερος εχειν (R. and P. 245). Chrysippus followed Aristotle very closely (R. and P. 377, 378). _Intervallis moveri_: this is the theory of motion without void which Lucr. I. 370 sq. disproves, where see Munro. Cf. also Sext. Emp. _Adv. Math._ VII. 214. Aristotle denied the existence of void either within or without the universe, Strato allowed its possibility within, while denying its existence without (Stob. I. 18, 1), the Stoics did the exact opposite affirming its existence without, and denying it within the universe (Zeller 186, with footnotes). _Quae intervalla ... possint_: there is no ultimate space atom, just as there is no matter atom. As regards space, the Stoics and Antiochus closely followed Aristotle, whose ideas may be gathered from R. and P. 288, 9, and especially from M. Saint Hilaire's explanation of the _Physica_.

§28. _Ultro citroque_: this is the common reading, but I doubt its correctness. MSS. have _ultro introque_, whence _ed. Rom._ (1471) has _ultro in utroque_. I think that _in utroque_, simply, was the reading, and that _ultro_ is a dittographia from _utro_. The meaning would be "since force plays this part in the compound," _utroque_ being as in 24 for _eo quod ex utroque fit_. If the vulg. is kept, translate "since force has this motion and is ever thus on the move." _Ultro citroque_ is an odd expression to apply to universal Force, Cic. would have qualified it with a _quasi_. Indeed if it is kept I suggest _quasi_ for _cum sic_. The use of _versetur_ is also strange. _E quibus in omni natura_: most edd. since Dav. (Halm included) eject _in_. It is perfectly sound if _natura_ be taken as ουσια = existence substance. The meaning is "out of which _qualia_, themselves existing in (being co-extensive with) universal substance (cf. _totam commutari_ above), which is coherent and continuous, the world was formed." For the _in_ cf. _N.D._ II. 35, _in omni natura necesse est absolvi aliquid_, also a similar use _ib._ II. 80, and _Ac._ II. 42. If _in utroque_ be read above, _in omni natura_ will form an exact contrast, substance as a whole being opposed to the individual _quale_. _Cohaerente et continuata_: the Stoics made the universe much more of a unity than any other school, the expressions here and the striking parallels in _N.D._ II. 19, 84, 119, _De Div._ II. 33, _De Leg._ fragm. 1. (at the end of Bait. and Halm's ed.) all come ultimately from Stoic sources, even if they be got at second hand through Antiochus. Cf. Zeller 137, Stob. I. 22, 3. The _partes mundi_ are spoken of in most of the passages just quoted, also in _N.D._ II. 22, 28, 30, 32, 75, 86, 115, 116, all from Stoic sources. _Effectum esse mundum_: Halm adds _unum_ from his favourite MS. (G). _Natura sentiente_: a clumsy trans. of αισθητη ουσια = substance which can affect the senses. The same expression is in _N.D._ II. 75. It should not be forgotten, however, that to the Stoics the universe was itself sentient, cf. _N.D._ II. 22, 47, 87. _Teneantur_: for _contineantur_; cf. _N.D._ II. 29 with II. 31 _In qua ratio perfecta insit_: this is thorough going Stoicism. Reason, God, Matter, Universe, are interchangeable terms with the Stoics. See Zeller 145--150 By an inevitable inconsistency, while believing that Reason _is_ the Universe, they sometimes speak of it as being _in_ the Universe, as here (cf. Diog. Laert. VII. 138, _N.D._ II. 34) In a curious passage (_N.D._ I. 33), Cic. charges Aristotle with the same inconsistency. For the Pantheistic idea cf. Pope "lives through all life, extends through all extent". _Sempiterna_: Aristotle held this: see II. 119 and _N.D._ II. 118, Stob. I. 21, 6. The Stoics while believing that our world would be destroyed by fire (Diog. Laert. VII. 141, R. and P. 378, Stob. I. 20, 1) regarded the destruction as merely an absorption into the Universal World God, who will recreate the world out of himself, since he is beyond the reach of harm (Diog. Laert. VII. 147, R. and P. 386, Zeller 159) Some Stoics however denied the εκπυρωσις. _Nihil enim valentius_: this is an argument often urged, as in _N.D._ II. 31 (_quid potest esse mundo valentius?_), Boethus quoted in Zeller 159. _A quo intereat_: _interire_ here replaces the passive of _perdere_ cf. αναστηναι, εκπιπτειν ‛υπο τινος.

§29. _Quam vim animum_: there is no need to read _animam_, as some edd. do. The Stoics give their World God, according to his different attributes, the names God, Soul, Reason, Providence, Fate, Fortune, Universal Substance, Fire, Ether, All pervading Air-Current, etc. See Zeller, ch. VI. _passim_. Nearly all these names occur in _N.D._ II. The whole of this section is undilutedly Stoic, one can only marvel how Antiochus contrived to fit it all in with the known opinions of old Academics and Peripatetics. _Sapientiam_: cf. _N.D._ II. 36 with III. 23, in which latter passage the Stoic opinion is severely criticised. _Deum_: Cic. in _N.D._ I. 30 remarks that Plato in his _Timaeus_ had already made the _mundus_ a God. _Quasi prudentium quandam_: the Greek προνοια is translated both by _prudentia_ and _providentia_ in the same passage, _N.D._ II. 58, also in _N.D._ II. 77--80. _Procurantem ... quae pertinent ad homines_: the World God is perfectly beneficent, see _Ac._ II. 120, _N.D._ I. 23, II. 160 (where there is a quaint jest on the subject), Zeller 167 sq. _Necessitatem_: αναγκην, which is ειρμος αιτιων, _causarum series sempiterna_ (_De Fato_ 20, cf. _N.D._ I. 55, _De Div._ I. 125, 127, Diog. VII. 149, and Zeller as before). This is merely the World God apprehended as regulating the orderly sequence of cause upon cause. When the World God is called Fortune, all that is expressed is human inability to see this orderly sequence. Τυχη therefore is defined as αιτια αδηλος ανθρωπινωι λογισμωι (Stob. I. 7, 9, where the same definition is ascribed to Anaxagoras--see also _Topica_, 58--66). This identification of Fate with Fortune (which sadly puzzles Faber and excites his wrath) seems to have first been brought prominently forward by Heraclitus, if we may trust Stob. I. 5, 15. _Nihil aliter possit_: on _posse_ for _posse fieri_ see _M.D.F._ IV. 48, also _Ac._ II. 121. For the sense of Cleanthes' hymn to Zeus (i.e. the Stoic World-God), ουδε τι γιγνεται εργον επι χθονι σου διχα δαιμον. _Inter quasi fatalem_: a trans. of the Gk. κατηναγκασμενον. I see no reason for suspecting _inter_, as Halm does. _Ignorationemque causarum_: the same words in _De Div._ II. 49; cf. also August. _Contra Academicos_ I. 1. In addition to studying the reff. given above, the student might with advantage read Aristotle's _Physica_ II. ch. 4--6, with M. Saint Hilaire's explanation, for the views of Aristotle about τυχη and το αυτοματον, also ch. 8--9 for αναγκη. Plato's doctrine of αναγκη, which is diametrically opposed to that of the Stoics, is to be found in _Timaeus_ p. 47, 48, Grote's _Plato_, III. 249--59.

§§30--32.