Book I

. _Permanet_: the deity is to the Stoic πνευμα ενδιηκον δι ‛ολου του κοσμου (Plut. _De Plac. Phil._ I. 7 qu. R. and P. 375), _spiritus per omnia maxima ac minima aequali intentione diffusus._ (Seneca, _Consol. ad Helvid._ 8, 3 qu. Zeller 147). _Deflagret_: the Stoics considered the κοσμος φθαρτος, cf. Diog. VII. 141, Zeller 156--7. _Fateri_: cf. _tam vera quam falsa cernimus_ in 111. _Flumen aureum_: Plut. _Vita Cic._ 24 alludes to this (‛οτι χρυσιου ποταμος ειη ρεοντος). This is the constant judgment of Cic. about Aristotle's style. Grote, _Aristot._ Vol I. p. 43, quotes _Topica_ 3, _De Or._ I. 49, _Brut._ 121, _N.D._ II. 93, _De Inv._ II. 6, _D.F._ I. 14, _Ad Att._ II. 1, and discusses the difficulty of applying this criticism to the works of Aristotle which we possess. _Nulla vis_: cf. I. 28. _Exsistere_: Walker conj. _efficere_, "_recte ut videtur_" says Halm. Bait. adopts it. _Ornatus_: = κοσμος.

§120. _Libertas ... non esse_: a remarkable construction. For the Academic liberty see Introd. p. 18. _Quod tibi est_: after these words Halm puts merely a comma, and inserting _respondere_ makes _cur deus_, etc. part of the same sentence. Bait. follows. _Nostra causa_: Cic. always writes _mea, tua, vestra, nostra causa_, not _mei, tui, nostri, vestri_, just as he writes _sua sponte_, but not _sponte alicuius_. For the Stoic opinion that men are the chief care of Providence, see _N.D._ I. 23, II. 37, _D.F._ III. 67, _Ac._ I. 29 etc., also Zeller. The difficulties surrounding the opinion are treated of in Zeller 175, _N.D._ II. 91--127. They supply in Sext. _P.H._ I. 32, III. 9--12 an example of the refutation of νοουμενα by means of νοουμενα. _Tam multa ac_: MSS. om. _ac_, which I insert. Lactantius qu. the passage without _perniciosa_. _Myrmecides_: an actual Athenian artist, famed for minute work in ivory, and especially for a chariot which a fly covered with its wings, and a ship which the wings of a bee concealed. See Plin. _Nat. Hist._ VII. 21, XXXVI. 5.

§121. _Posse_: n. on I. 29. _Strato_: R. and P. 331. _Sed cum_: _sed_ often marks a very slight contrast, there is no need to read _et_, as Halm. _Asperis ... corporibus_: cf. fragm. 28 of the _Ac. Post._, also _N.D._ I. 66. _Somnia_: so _N.D._ I. 18 _miracula non disserentium philosophorum sed somniantium_, _ib._ I. 42 _non philosophorum iudicia sed delirantium somnia_, also _ib._ I. 66 _flagitia Democriti_. _Docentis_: giving _proof_. _Optantis_: Guietus humorously conj. _potantis,_ Durand _oscitantis_ (cf. _N.D._ I. 72), others _opinantis_. That the text is sound however may be seen from _T.D._ II. 30 _optare hoc quidem est non docere_, _De Fato_ 46, _N.D._ I. 19 _optata magis quam inventa_, _ib._ III. 12 _doceas oportet nec proferas_; cf. also _Orat._ 59 _vocis bonitas optanda est, non est enim in nobis_, i.e. a good voice is a thing to be prayed for, and not to be got by exertion. There is a similar Greek proverb, ευχη μαλλον η αληθεια, in Sext. _P.H._ VIII. 353. _Magno opere_: Hermann wishes to read _onere_. The phrase _magnum onus_ is indeed common (cf. _De Or._ I. 116), but _magnum opus_, in the sense of "a great task," is equally so, cf. _T.D._ III. 79, 84, _Orat._ 75. _Modo hoc modo illud_: 134.

§122. _Latent ista_: see n. on fragm. 29 of the _Ac. Post._; for _latent_ cf. I. 45. Aug. _Cont. Ac._ II. 12, III. 1 imitates this passage. _Circumfusa_: cf. I. 44, and 46 of this book. _Medici_: cf. _T.D._ I. 46 _Viderentur_: a genuine passive, cf. 25, 39, 81. _Empirici_: a school of physicians so called. _Ut ... mutentur_: exactly the same answer was made recently to Prof. Huxley's speculations on protoplasm; he was said to have assumed that the living protoplasm would have the same properties as the dead. _Media pendeat_: cf. _N.D._ II. 98, _De Or._ III. 178.

§123. _Habitari ait_: for this edd. qu. Lactant. _Inst._ III. 23, 12. _Portenta_: "monstrosities these," cf. _D.F._ IV. 70. _Iurare_: cf. 116. _Neque ego_, etc.: see fragm. 30 of _Ac. Post._ Αντιποδας: this doctrine appears in Philolaus (see Plut. _Plac. Phil._ III. 11 qu. R. and P. 75), who give the name of αντιχθων to the opposite side of the world. Diog. VIII. 26 (with which passage cf. Stob. _Phys._ XV. 7) mentions the theory as Pythagorean, but in another passage (III. 24) says that Plato first invented the name. The word αντιπους seems to occur first in Plat. _Tim._ 63 A. The existence of αντιποδες; was of course bound up with the doctrine that the universe or the world is a globe (which is held by Plat. in the _Tim._ and by the Stoics, see Stob. _Phys._ XV. 6, Diog. VII. 140), hence the early Christian writers attack the two ideas together as unscriptural. Cf. esp Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XVI. 9. _Hicetas_: he was followed by Heraclides Ponticus and some Pythagoreans. Sext. _A.M._ X. 174 speaks of the followers of Aristarchus the mathematician as holding the same doctrine. It seems also to be found in Philolaus, see R. and P. 75. _Theophrastus_: who wrote much on the history of philosophy, see R. and P. 328. _Platonem_: the words of Plato (_Tim._ 40 B) are γην δε τροφον μεν ‛ημετεραν, ειλλομενην δε περι τον δια παντος πολον τεταμενον. _Quid tu, Epicure_: the connection is that Cic., having given the crotchets of other philosophers about φυσικη, proceeds to give the peculiar crotchet of Epic. _Putas solem ... tantum_: a hard passage. _Egone? ne bis_ is the em. of Lamb. for MSS. _egone vobis_, and is approved by Madv., who thus explains it (_Em._ 185) "_cum interrogatum esset num tantulum (quasi pedalem 82) solem esse putaret, Epic. non praecise definit (tantum enim esse censebat quantus videretur vel paulo aut maiorem aut minorem) sed latius circumscribit, ne bis quidem tantum esse, sed inter pedalem magnitudinem et bipedalem_". (_D.F._ I. 20) This explanation though not quite satisfactory is the best yet given. Epicurus' absurdity is by Cic. brought into strong relief by stating the outside limit to which Epic. was prepared to go in estimating the sun's size, i.e. twice the apparent size. _Ne ... quidem_ may possibly appear strange, cf. however _ne maiorem quidem_ in 82. _Aristo Chius_: for this doctrine of his see R. and P. 358.

§124. _Quid sit animus_: an enumeration of the different ancient theories is given in _T.D._ I. 18--22, and by Sext. _A.M._ VII. 113, who also speaks in _P.H._ II. 31 of the πολλη και ανηνυτος μαχη concerning the soul. In _P.H._ II. 57 he says Γοργιας ουδε διανοιαν ειναι φησι. _Dicaearcho_: _T.D._ I. 21. _Tres partis_: in Plato's _Republic_. _Ignis_: Zeno's opinion, _T.D._ I. 19. _Animam_: _ib._ I. 19. _Sanguis_: Empodocles, as in _T.D._ I. 19 where his famous line ‛αιμα γαρ ανθρωποις περικαρδιον εστι νοημα is translated, see R. and P. 124. _Ut Xenocrates_: some edd. read _Xenocrati_, but cf. I. 44, _D.F._ II. 18, _T.D._ III. 76. _Numerus_: so Bentl. for _mens_ of MSS., cf. I. 39, _T.D._ I. 20, 41. An explanation of this Pythagorean doctrine of Xenocrates is given in R. and P. 244. _Quod intellegi_ etc.: so in _T.D._ I. 41 _quod subtiliter magis quam dilucide dicitur_. _Momenta_ n. on I. 45.

§125. _Verecundius_: cf. 114 _subadroganter_. _Vincam animum_: a common phrase in Cic., cf. _Philipp._ XII. 21. _Queru potissimum? quem?_: In repeated questions of this kind Cic. usually puts the corresponding case of _quisnam_, not _quis_, in the second question, as in _Verr._ IV. 5. The mutation of Augustine _Contra Ac._ III. 33 makes it probable that _quemnam_ was the original reading here. Zumpt on _Verr._ qu. Quint. IX. 2, 61, Plin. _Epist._ I. 20, who both mention this trick of style, and laud it for its likeness to impromptu. _Nobilitatis_: this is to be explained by referring to 73--75 (_imitari numquam nisi clarum, nisi nobilem_), where Cic. protests against being compared to a demagogue, and claims to follow the aristocracy of philosophy. The attempts of the commentators to show that Democr. was literally an aristocrat have failed. _Convicio_: cf. 34. _Completa et conferta_: n. on I. 27. _Quod movebitur ... cedat_: this is the theory of motion disproved by Lucr. I. 370 sq., cf. also _N.D._ II. 83. Halm writes _quo quid_ for _quod_ (with Christ), and inserts _corpus_ before _cedat_, Baiter following him. The text is sound. Trans. "whatever body is pushed, gives way." _Tam sit mirabilis_: n. on I. 25. _Innumerabilis_: 55. _Supra infra_: n. on 92. _Ut nos nunc simus_, etc.: n. on fragm. 13 of _Ac. Post._ _Disputantis_: 55. _Animo videre_: cf. 22. _Imagines_: ειδωλα, which Catius translated (_Ad Fam._ XV. 16) by _spectra_, Zeller 432. _Tu vero_: etc. this is all part of the personal _convicium_ supposed to be directly addressed to Cic. by the Antiocheans, and beginning at _Tune aut inane_ above. _Commenticiis_: a favourite word of Cic., cf. _De Div._ II. 113.

§126. _Quae tu_: elliptic for _ut comprobem quae tu comprobas_ cf. 125. _Impudenter_: 115. _Atque haud scio_: _atque_ here = καιτοι, "and yet," n. on 5 _ac vereor_. _Invidiam_: cf. 144. _Cum his_: i.e. _aliis cum his_. _Summus deus_: "the highest form of the deity" who was of course one in the Stoic system. Ether is the finest fire, and πυρ τεχνικον is one of the definitions of the Stoic deity, cf. I. 29, Zeller 161 sq. _Solem_: as of course being the chief seat of fire. _Solis autem ... nego credere_: Faber first gave _ac monet_ for MSS. _admonens_, which Halm retains, Manut. then restored to its place _permensi refertis_, which MSS. have after _nego_. _Hic_, which MSS. have after _decempeda_, Madv. turns into _hunc_, while _hoc_, which stands immediately after _nego_, he ejects (_Em._ 187). _Ergo_ after _vos_ is of course analeptic. Halm departs somewhat from this arrangement. _Leniter_: Halm and Hermann _leviter_; the former reads _inverecundior_ after Morgenstern, for what reason it is difficult to see.

§127. _Pabulum_: similar language in _D.F._ II. 46. _Consideratio contemplatioque_: Cic. is fond of this combination, as _De Off._ I. 153; cf. Wesenberg on _T.D._ V. 9, who qu. similar combinations from _D.F._ V. 11, 58. _Elatiores_: MSS. mostly have _latiores_. Halm with Lamb. reads _altiores_, in support of which reading Dav. qu. _D.F._ II. 51, Val. Flaccus _Argon._ II. 547, add Virg. _Aen._ VI. 49, Cic. _Orat._ 119. _Exigua et minima_: σμικρα και ελαχιστα. Madv. on _D.F._ V. 78 notes that except here Cic. always writes _exigua et paene minima_ or something of the kind. _Occultissimarum_: n. on I. 15. _Occurit ... completur_: MSS. have _occuret_ mostly, if that is retained _complebitur_ must be read. Madv. _Opusc._ II. 282 takes _occurit_, explaining it as a perfect, and giving numerous exx. of this sequence of tenses, cf. also Wesenb. on _T.D._ IV. 35.

§128. _Agi secum_: cf. _nobiscum ageret_ in 80. _Simile veri_: cf. 66. _Notionem_: = _cognitionem_, επιστημην. _At paulum_: MSS. _et_ Halm _sed._; cf. _at illud ante_ in 116. _Si quae_: Halm and many edd. have _se, quae_. But the _se_ comes in very awkwardly, and is not needed before the infinitive. Madv. indeed (_Em._ 114), after producing many exx. of the reflexive pronoun omitted, says that he doubts about this passage because _considero_ does not belong to the class of verbs with which this usage is found, but he produces many instances with _puto_, which surely stands on the same level. _Non magis_: so in 119 _nec magis approbabit nunc lucere_, etc. The sunlight was the stock example of a most completely cognisable phenomenon; hence the Academics showed their hostility to absolute knowledge by refusing τον ‛ηλιον ‛ομολογειν ειναι καταληπτον (Galen _De Opt. Gen. Dicendi_ 497 B qu. P. Valentia 304 ed. Or.). _Cornix_: for the Stoic belief in divination see Zeller 349--358. _Signum illud_: the _xystus_ (9) was adorned with statues; edd. qu. Plin. _Nat. Hist._ XXXIV. 8. _Duodeviginti_: 82, I just note that _octodecim_ is not used by Cic. _Sol quantus sit_: 91. _Omnium rerum ... comprehendendi_: not a case of a plural noun with a singular gerund like _spe rerum potiendi_, etc., but of two genitives depending in different ways on the same word (_definitio_). M. _Em._ 197 qu. Plat. _Leg._ 648 E την παντων ‛ητταν φοβουμενος ανθρωπον τοι πωματος, _Brut._ 163 _Scaevolae dicendi elegantia_, _De Or._ III. 156. Other exx. in _M.D.F._ I. 14. For the turn of expression cf. _T.D._ IV. 62 _omnium philosophorum una est ratio medendi_, _Lael._ 78 _omnium horum vitiorum una cautio est_, also 51 of this book.

§§129--141. Summary. What contention is there among philosophers about the ethical standard! I pass by many abandoned systems like that of Herillus but consider the discrepancies between Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Euclides, Menedemus, Aristo, Pyrrho, Aristippus, Epicurus, Callipho, Hieronymus, Diodorus, Polemo, Antiochus, Carneades (129-131). If I desire to follow the Stoics, Antiochus will not allow me, while if I follow Polemo, the Stoics are irate (132). I must be careful not to assent to the unknown, which is a dogma common to both you, Lucullus, and myself (133). Zeno thinks virtue gives happiness. "Yes," says Antiochus, "but not the greatest possible." How am I to choose among such conflicting theories? (134) Nor can I accept those points in which Antiochus and Zeno agree. For instance, they regard emotion as harmful, which the ancients thought natural and useful (135). How absurd are the Stoic Paradoxes! (136) Albinus joking said to Carneades "You do not think me a praetor because I am not a _sapiens_." "That," said Carneades, "is Diogenes' view, not mine" (137). Chrysippus thinks only three ethical systems can with plausibility be defended (138). I gravitate then towards one of them, that of pleasure. Virtue calls me back, nor will she even allow me to join pleasure to herself (139). When I hear the several pleadings of pleasure and virtue, I cannot avoid being moved by both, and so I find it impossible to choose (141, 142).

§129. _Quod coeperam_: in 128 at _veniamus nunc ad boni maique notionem_. _Constituendi_: n. on 114. _Bonorum summa_: cf. _D.F._ V. 21 and Madv. _Est igitur_: so in _De Div._ II. 8, _igitur_ comes fourth word in the clause; this is not uncommon in Cic., as in Lucretius. _Omitto_: MSS. _et omitto_, but cf. Madv. _Em._ 201 _certe contra Ciceronis usum est 'et omitto' pro simplici 'omitto,' in initio huius modi orationis ubi universae sententiae exempla subiciuntur per figuram omissionis_. _Relicta_: cf. 130 _abiectos_. Cic. generally classes Herillus (or Erillus as Madv. on _D.F._ II. 35 spells the name), Pyrrho and Aristo together as authors of exploded systems, cf. _D.F._ II. 43, _De Off._ I. 6, _T.D._ V. 85. _Ut Herillum_. MSS. have either _Erillum_ or _et illum_, one would expect _ut Herilli_. _Cognitione et scientia_: double translation of επιστημη. For the _finis_ of Herillus see Madv. on _D.F._ II. 43. _Megaricorum_: _Xenophanes_. Cic considers the Eleatic and Megarian schools to be so closely related as to have, like the schools of Democritus and Epicurus, a continuous history. The Megarian system was indeed an ethical development of Eleatic doctrine. Zeller, _Socrates_ 211. _Unum et simile_: for this see Zell. _Socr._ 222 sq, with footnotes, R. and P. 174 sq. _Simile_ ought perhaps to be _sui simile_ as in _Tim._ c. 7, already quoted on I. 30, see my note there and cf. I. 35. _Menedemo_: see Zeller _Socr._ 238, R. and P. 182. The _Erctrian_ school was closely connected with the Megarian. _Fuit_: = _natus est_, as often. _Herilli_: so Madv. for _ulli_ of MSS.

§130. _Aristonem_: this is Aristo of Chios, not Aristo of Ceos, who was a Peripatetic; for the difference see R. and P. 332, and for the doctrines of Aristo the Chian _ib._ 358, Zeller 58 sq. _In mediis_: cf. I. 36, 37. _Momenta_ = _aestimationes_, αξιαι in 36, where _momenti_ is used in a different way. _Pyrrho autem_: one would expect Pyrrhoni as Dav. conj., but in 124 there is just the same change from _Pyrrhoni_ to _Xenocrates_. Απαθεια: Diog. IX. 108 affirms this as well as πραιοτης to be a name for the sceptic τελος, but the name scarcely occurs if at all in Sext. who generally uses αταραξια, but occasionally μετριοπαθεια; cf. Zeller 496, R. and P. 338. Απαθεια 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 Peripateticum 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 passage--_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 quibuscum 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._ = οικιστης.

§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 Sext. _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 passage. _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 _assentiens_, but one good one (Halm's E) has _assentientes_. 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, passed into _adsentiens_, as in 147 _intellegat se_ passed 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_: συντομος or συνελων ειπε, 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 pronouns 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 η θεος η θηριον), 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 constitit_.

§135. _Moveri_: κινεισθαι, 29. _Laetitia efferri_: I. 38. _Probabilia_: the removal of passion 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_: μεσοπετες, as in Aristotle; cf. _T.D._ III. 11, 22, 74. _Permotione_: κινεσει. _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 repetition 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 παραδοξα by _admirabilia_ as in _D.F._ IV. 74, or _admiranda_, under which title 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, ‛ως επος ειπειν. _Voltis_: cf. the Antiochean opinion in I. 18, 22. _Solos reges_: for all this see Zeller 253 sq. _Solos divites_: ‛οτι μονος ‛ο σοφος πλουσιος, _Parad._ VI. _Liberum_: _Parad._ V. ‛οτι μονος ‛ο σοφος ελευθερος και πας αφρον δουλος. _Furiosus_: _Parad._ IV. ‛οτι πας αφρον μαινεται.

§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 physicum 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 οιησιν of Sext., 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._ _Circumcidit 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. _Cum honestate_: Callipho in 131. _Prima naturae commoda_: Cic. here as in _D.F._ IV. 59, V. 58 confuses the Stoic πρωτα κατα φυσιν with τα του σωματος αγαθα και τα εκτος 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 προβατιου βιον λεγεις and βοσκηματων βιος 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 cum honestate_: this whole expression is in apposition to _par_, so that _cum_ must not be taken closely with _depugnet_; cf. Hor. _Sat._ I. 7, 19 _Rupili et Persi par pugnat uti non compositum melius_ (sc. _par_) _cum 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 cum 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_: κριτηρια as usual.

§§142--146. Summary. To pass 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 illustrate 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 Sextus 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_: κριτηριον as usual. _Rerum notitiis_: προληψεσι, Zeller 403 sq. _Constituit_: 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" substituitur 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_: titles 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 ει φως εστιν, ‛ημερα εστιν 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 Sext. _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 δοξα--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. Sext. _A.M._ VII. 153, who says that even καταληψις when it arises in the mind of a φαυλος is mere δοξα and not επιστημη; also _P.H._ II. 83, where it is said that the φαυλος is capable of το αληθες but not of αληθεια, which the σοφος alone has. _Visum ... adsensus_: the Stoics as we saw (II. 38, etc.) analysed sensations into two parts; with the Academic and other schools each sensation was an ultimate unanalysable unit, a ψιλον παθος. For this symbolic action of Zeno cf. _D.F._ II. 18, _Orat._ 113, Sextus _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_: καταλαμβανειν 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 σοφοι according to the Stoics, but merely were εν προκοπηι; see Diog. VII. 91, Zeller 257, and cf. Plut. _Sto. Rep._ 1056 (qu. by P. Valentia p. 295, ed Orelli) εστι δε ουτος (i.e. ‛ο σοφος) ουδαμου γης ουδε γεγονε. _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 nobis Et dici potuisse et non potuisse referri_; cf. also _par pari referre dicto_. _Ne nobis 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. Εποχην _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 _assent_ (meaning absolute assent) is not to be given to phenomena. This dogma Catulus might well describe himself as formally approving (_comprobans_). The _practice_ is to give assent (meaning modified assent). 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 passage. 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 passage 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, substituted _tollendum_.

[1] _De Leg._ II. §3.

[2] Cf. _De Or._ II. §1 with II. §5.

[3] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1, Phaedrus nobis,... cum 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.

[12] Cf. _Brutus_, §§312, 322.

[13] Cf. _Brutus_, §§312, 314, 316.

[14] _Brutus_, §315.

[15] _N.D._ I. §59.

[16] VII. I. §35.

[17] Cf. _N.D._ I. §93 with _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1, §1.

[18] _Ac._ I. §46.

[19] _D.F._ V. §3.

[20] _D.F._ I. §16.

[21] _D.F._ V. §6, etc.

[22] _D.F._ V. §8.

[23] _Ac._ II. §4.

[24] _Ib._ §69.

[25] _Ad Att._ XIII. 19, §5.

[26] _Ac._ II. §113.

[27] _Ac._ II. §113. _De Leg._ I. §54.

[28] II. §12.

[29] _Brutus_, §316.

[30] _Hortensius_, fragm. 18, ed. Nobbe.

[31] _T.D._ II. §61.

[32] _De Div._ I. §130.

[33] _D.F._ I. §6.

[34] _Ad Att._ I. 10 and 11.

[35] _Ibid._ II. 1, §3. _N.D._ I. §6.

[36] _Ad Att._ II. 2.

[37] _Ibid._ I. 20. Cf. II. 1, §12.

[38] II. 6.

[39] _Ad Att._ II. 7 and 16.

[40] _Ibid._ II. 6, §2.

[41] Cf. _Ad Att._ IV. 11 with IV. 8 a.

[42] _Ibid._ IV. 10.

[43] _Ibid._ IV. 16, §2.

[44] _Ibid._ IV. 16 c, §10, ed. Nobbe.

[45] _Ad Qu. Fr._ II. 14.

[46] _Ad Qu. Fr._ III. 5 and 6.

[47] §332.

[48] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1. _Ad Att._ V. 11, §6.

[49] _Ad Att._ V. 10, §5.

[50] _De Off._ I. §1.

[51] _Tim._ c. 1.

[52] Cf. _Tim._ c. 1 with _De Div._ I. §5. _Brutus_, §250.

[53] _Ad Att._ VI. 1, §26.

[54] _Ibid._ VI. 2, §3.

[55] _Ibid._ VI. 6, §2.

[56] _Ibid._ VI. 7, §2. _Ad Fam._ II. 17, §1.

[57] _T.D._ V. §22.

[58] _Ad Att._ VII. 1, §1.

[59] _Ibid._ VII. 3, VIII. 11.

[60] _Ad Att._ X. 8, §6.

[61] _Ibid._ VIII. 2, §4.

[62] περι ‛ομονοιας, _Ad Att._ IX. 9, §2, etc.

[63] _Ibid._ IX. 4, §2; 9, §1.

[64] _Ibid._ IX. 10, §2.

[65] _Ad Fam._ IX. 1.

[66] _Ibid._ IX. 3.

[67] _Ibid._ IV. 3 and 4.

[68] _De Rep._ I. §7. _T.D._ V. §5, etc.

[69] Cf. _N.D._ I. §6.

[70] Esp. I. §§26, 37.

[71] Cf. _Ac._ II. §29.

[72] _Ac._ II. §70.

[73] _De Div._ II. §1. _Ac._ I. §45, etc.

[74] _N.D._ I. §1.

[75] Cf. esp. _N.D._ I. §5. _T.D._ II. §5.

[76] _De Div._ II. §1. _N.D._ I. §7, etc.

[77] _T.D._ II. §4.

[78] _N.D._ I. §10.

[79] Cf. _Ac._ II. §8. _N.D._ I. §§10, 66.

[80] _T.D._ II. §9.

[81] _N.D._ I. §10.

[82] _Ibid._ I. §17. _Ac._ II. §§120, 137.

[83] _T.D._ V. §33.

[84] _Ac._ II. §121.

[85] _T.D._ V. §82, _libas ex omnibus_.

[86] _Ac._ II. §143.

[87] _T.D._ V. §11.

[88] _Ac._ II. §10.

[89] _N.D._ I. §12.

[90] _Parad._ §2. _De Fato_, §3. _T.D._ I. §7. _De Off._ I. §3.

[91] _D.F._ IV. §5.

[92] _Paradoxa_, §2.

[93] _T.D._ I. §55. _De Div._ II. §62.

[94] _T.D._ V. §11. _D.F._ II. §§1 and 2, etc.

[95] §13.

[96] Cf. esp. _N.D._ i. §6. _Ac._ ii. §§11 and 17.

[97] _De Leg._ I. §39.

[98] _Ibid._ I. §§55, 56.

[99] _N.D._ I. §4.

[100] _T.D._ IV. §53.

[101] Cf. _De Off._ III. §20.

[102] _T.D._ V. §§21-31, esp. §23.

[103] _Ibid._ V. §75.

[104] _De Off._ II. §35.

[105] _T.D._ V. §34.

[106] _Ac._ I. §16.

[107] _Paradoxa_, §4. _Ac._ II. §§136, 137. _T.D._ III. §10.

[108] _Ac._ II. §135.

[109] See esp. _N.D._ I. §§3, 4.

[110] _Ibid._, also _T.D._ V. §83.

[111] Grote's _Aristotle_, vol. I. ch. 11.

[112] _T.D._ IV. §9. _D.F._ III. §41.

[113] I. §6.

[114] _T.D._ IV. §7.

[115] _Ibid._ IV. §7. Cf. _D.F._ II. §44, _populus cum illis facit_.

[116] _Ac._ I. §6. _T.D._ IV. 6, 7; II. §7; III. §33. _D.F._ III. §40.

[117] _T.D._ IV. §3.

[118] _D.F._ I. §§4-6. _Ac._ I. §10. _D.F._ III. §5.

[119] _De Div._ I. §§4, 5.

[120] _D.F._ III. §5. _N.D._ I. §8. _T.D._ III. §§10, 16.

[121] _T.D._ I. §5.

[122] _T.D._ II. §5.

[123] _De Div._ II. §1. _De Off._ II. §4.

[124] _De Div._ II. §6. _De Off._ II. §2.

[125] See esp. _De Consolatione_, fragm. 7, ed. Nobbe. _T.D._ V. §5. _Ac._ I. §11.

[126] _N.D._ I. §6.

[127] _T.D._ II. §§1, 4. _De Off._ II. §3. _D.F._ I. §1.

[128] _T.D._ II. §1. _D.F._ I. §§1, 3.

[129] _D.F._ I. §§1, 11.

[130] _De Div._ II. §5. _De Off._ II. §2. _T.D._ IV. §1.

[131] _De Div._ II. §4.

[132] _N.D._ I. §9. _T.D._ II. §1.

[133] _De Div._ II. §4.

[134] _Ad Att._ XII. 19, §1.

[135] _Ibid._ XII. 14, §3.

[136] _Ibid._ XII. 15, 16.

[137] _Ibid._ XII. 21, §5.

[138] _Ibid._ XII. 23, §2.

[139] _Ut scias me ita dolere ut non iaceam._

[140] _De Or._ III. §109.

[141] _Ad Att._ XII. 28, §2.

[142] Cf. esp. _Ad Att._ XII. 40, §2 with 38, §3.

[143] _Ibid._ XII. 40, §2.

[144] _Ibid._ XII. 40, §5.

[145] _Ibid._ XIII. 26.

[146] _Ibid._ XII. 41, §1, also 42, 43; XIII. 26.

[147] _Ibid._ XII. 46.

[148] _Ad Att._ XII. 45, §1.

[149] _Über Cicero's Akademika_, p. 4.

[150] Cf. _Ad Att._ XII. 12, §2, where there is a distinct mention of the first two books.

[151] _Ibid._ XIII. 12, §3.

[152] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §4.

[153] _Ibid._ XIII. 21, §§4, 5; 22, §3.

[154] II. §2.

[155] _De Fin._ Praef. p. lvii. ed. 2.

[156] _Ad Att._ XIII. 12, §3; 16, §1.

[157] _Ibid._ XVI. 3, §1.

[158] _Ibid._ XVI. 6, §4.

[159] _Ac._ II. §61.

[160] _D.F._ I. §2.

[161] _T.D._ II. §4. _De Div._ II. §1.

[162] Cf. Krische, p. 5.

[163] _Ac._ II. §61.

[164] _Ad Att._ XIII. 5, §1.

[165] _Ibid._ XIII. 32, §3.

[166] _Ad Att._ XIII. 33, §4.

[167] _Ibid_. XIII. II. §1.

[168] _Ibid_. XII. 42.

[169] _Ibid_. XIII. 16, §1.

[170] _Ibid_. XIII. 12, §3.

[171] _Ibid_. IV. 16a, §2.

[172] _Ibid_. XIII. 12, §3; also IV. 16a, §2.

[173] _Ad Att._ XIII. 12, §3.

[174] _Ibid_. XIII. 19, §4.

[175] _Ibid_. XIII. 12, §3.

[176] _Ibid_. XIII. 19, §4.

[177] _Ibid_. XIII. 12, §3; 19, §4; 16, §1.

[178] _Ibid_. XIII. 19, §3.

[179] _Ad Att._ XIII. 22, §1.

[180] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §5.

[181] Cf. _Ibid._ XIII. 14, §3; 16, §2; 18; 19, §5.

[182] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §5.

[183] _Ibid._ XIII. 25, §3.

[184] _Ad Att._ XIII. 24.

[185] _Ibid._ XIII. 13, §1; 18.

[186] _Ibid._ XIII. 13, §1; 18; 19, §4.

[187] _Ibid._ XIII. 12, §3. I may here remark on the absurdity of the dates Schütz assigns to these letters. He makes Cicero execute the second edition of the _Academica_ in a single day. Cf. XIII. 12 with 13.

[188] _Ad Att._ XIII. 13, §1.

[189] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §5.

[190] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §3.

[191] _Ibid._ XIII. 25, §3.

[192] _Ibid._ XIII. 25, §3.

[193] _Ibid._ XIII. 21, §4.

[194] _Ibid._ XIII. 21, §5.

[195] _Ad Att._ XIII. 22, §3.

[196] _Ibid._ XIII. 24.

[197] _Ibid._ XIII. 35, 36, §2.

[198] _Ibid._ XIII. 38, §1.

[199] _Ibid._ XIII. 21, §§3, 4.

[200] _T.D._ II. §4. Cf. Quintil. _Inst. Or._ III. 6, §64.

[201] _Ad Att._ XVI. 6, §4. _N.D._ I. §11. _De Div._ II. §1.

[202] _De Off._ II. §8, _Timæus_, c. 1. _Ad Att._ XIII. 13, §1; 19, §5.

[203] _Ad Att._ XIII. 12; 16; 13; 19.

[204] _Ibid._ XVI. 6, §4. _T.D._ II. §4. _N.D._ I. §11. _De Div._ II. §1.

[205] _Nat. Hist._ XXXI. c. 2.

[206] _Inst. Or._ III. 6, §64.

[207] Plut. _Lucullus_, c. 42.

[208] §§12, 18, 148.

[209] Cf. _Att._ XIII. 19, §4.

[210] _Lucullus_, §12.

[211] _Ad Att._ XIII. 16, §1.

[212] Lactant. _Inst._ VI 2.

[213] Cf. esp. _De Off._ I. §133 with _Brutus_, §§133, 134.

[214] Esp. _Pro Lege Manilia_, §51.

[215] _Brutus_, §222.

[216] _In Verrem_, II. 3, §210.

[217] _Pro Lege Manilia_, §59.

[218] _Pro Sestio_, §122.

[219] _Pro Sestio_, §101.

[220] _Philipp._ II. §12.

[221] _Ad Att._ II. 24, §4.

[222] _Pis._ §6. _Pro Sestio_, §121. _Pro Domo_, §113. _Post Reditum in Senatu_, §9. _Philipp._ II. §12.

[223] _Ad Fam._ IX. 15, §3.

[224] Cf. _Post Reditum in Senatu_, §9. _Pro Domo_, §113.

[225] _Pro Archia_, §§6, 28.

[226] Cf. _Ac._ II. §9 with §80.

[227] §62.

[228] _Pro Plancio_, §12. _Pro Murena_, §36. _Pro Rabirio_, §26. _Pro Cornelia_ II. fragm. 4, ed. Nobbe.

[229] _T.D._ V. §56. Cf. _De Or._ III. §9. _N.D._ III. §80.

[230] Cf. esp. III. §173.

[231] _Ibid._ II. §28.

[232] _Ibid._ II. §§13, 20, 21.

[233] _Ibid._ II. §51.

[234] Cf. _ibid._ II. §74 with III. §127.

[235] Cf. II. §152 with III. §187.

[236] _Ibid._ II. §154.

[237] _Brutus_, §§132, 133, 134, 259. _De Or._ III. §29.

[238] _Brutus_, §132.

[239] _De Or._ II. §244. _N.D._ I. §79. Cf. Gellius, XIX. 9.

[240] _De Or._ II. §155.

[241] _Ibid._ III. §194.

[242] Cf. _De Or._ II. §68 with III. §§182, 187.

[243] _De Or._ I. §82 sq.; II. §360.

[244] _Ibid._ I. §45; II. §365; III. §§68, 75.

[245] §12, _commemoravit a patre suo dicta Philoni_.

[246] Cf. _De Or._ III. §110.

[247] _Ac._ II. §148.

[248] Cf. _Ac._ II. §11.

[249] _Ibid._

[250] _Ibid._ §§12, 18, with my notes.

[251] _Ac._ II. §12: _ista quae heri defensa sunt_ compared with the words _ad Arcesilam Carneademque veniamus_.

[252] See below.

[253] _Ac._ II. §§33--36 inclusive; §54.

[254] _Ac._ II. §28.

[255] Cf. _Ac._ II. §§59, 67, 78, 112, 148, with my notes.

[256] _Ibid._ II. §10.

[257] _Ibid._ II. §28.

[258] Cf. II. §61 with the fragments of the _Hortensius_; also _T.D._ II. §4; III. §6; _D.F._ I. §2.

[259] Lactant. III. 16.

[260] Cf. _Ac._ II. §10.

[261] _Ib._ II. §61.

[262] §§44--46.

[263] §13.

[264] Cf. II. §14 with I. §44, and II. §§55, 56.

[265] II. §§17, 18, 22.

[266] Cf. II. §31 with I. §45.

[267] II. §§17, 24, 26, 27, 29, 38, 54, 59.

[268] II. §79.

[269] Cf. the words _tam multa_ in II. §79.

[270] See II. §42, where there is a reference to the "_hesternus sermo_."

[271] II. §10.

[272] Cf. II. §10: _id quod quaerebatur paene explicatum est, ut tota fere quaestio tractata videatur_.

[273] What these were will appear from my notes on the _Lucullus_.

[274] II. §12.

[275] _Ad Fam._ IX. 8.

[276] Cf. _Ad Att._ XIII. 25, §3: _Ad Brutum transeamus_.

[277] This is not, as Krische supposes, the villa Cicero wished to buy after Hortensius' death. That lay at Puteoli: see _Ad Att._ VII. 3, §9.

[278] II. §9.

[279] Cf. II. §61.

[280] II. §80: _O praeclarum prospectum_!

[281] Cf. II. §9 with §128 (_signum illud_), also §§80, 81, 100, 105, 125.

[282] II. §115.

[283] II. §63.

[284] II. §§147, 148.

[285] II. §135.

[286] Cf. II. §§11, 12 with the words _quae erant contra_ ακαταληψιαν _praeclare collecta ab Antiocho_: _Ad Att._ XIII. 19, §3.

[287] Varro, _De Re Rust._ III. 17.

[288] II. §11.

[289] _Paradoxa_, §1. _D.F._ III. §8. _Brutus_, §119.

[290] _Ac._ I. §12. _D.F._ V. §8.

[291] Cf. II. §80.

[292] Cf. Aug. _Adv. Acad._ III. §35. Nonius, sub v. _exultare_.

[293] Cf. the word _nuper_ in §1.

[294] §11.

[295] §§3, 18.

[296] _Ad Fam._ IX. 8, §1.

[297] _Ad Att._ II. 25, §1.

[298] _Ibid_. III. 8, §3.

[299] _Ibid_. III. 15, §3; 18, §1.

[300] _Ad Fam._ IX. 1--8. They are the only letters from Cicero to Varro preserved in our collections.

[301] Above, pp. xxxvii--xlii.

[302] _De Civ. Dei_, XIX. cc. 1--3.

[303] See Madvig, _De Fin._ ed. 2, p. 824; also Krische, pp. 49, 50. Brückner, _Leben des Cicero_, I. p. 655, follows Müller.

[304] Cf. Krische, p. 58.