BOOK I

.

§§1--14. Summary. Cic., Varro and Atticus meet at Cumae (1). Cic., after adroitly reminding Varro that the promised dedication of the _De Lingua Latina_ is too long delayed, turns the conversation towards philosophy, by asking Varro why he leaves this subject untouched (2, 3). Varro thinks philosophy written in Latin can serve no useful purpose, and points to the failures of the Roman Epicureans (4--6). He greatly believes in philosophy, but prefers to send his friends to Greece for it, while he devotes himself to subjects which the Greeks have not treated (7, 8). Cic. lauds this devotion, but demurs to the theory that philosophy written in Latin is useless. Latins may surely imitate Greek philosophers as well as Greek poets and orators. He gives reasons why he should himself make the attempt, and instancing the success of Brutus, again begs Varro to write on philosophy (9--12). Varro putting the request on one side charges Cic. with deserting the Old Academy for the New. Cic. defends himself, and appeals to Philo for the statement that the New Academy is in harmony with the Old. Varro refers to Antiochus as an authority on the other side. This leads to a proposal on the part of Cic. to discuss thoroughly the difference between Antiochus and Philo. Varro agrees, and promises an exposition of the principles of Antiochus (13, 14).

§1. _Noster_: our common friend. Varro was much more the friend of Atticus than of Cic., see Introd. p. 37. _Nuntiatum_: the spelling _nunciatum_ is a mistake, cf. Corssen, _Ausspr._ I. p. 51. _A M. Varrone_: _from M. Varro's house_ news came. _Audissemus_: Cic. uses the contracted forms of such subjunctives, as well as the full forms, but not intermediate forms like _audiissemus_. _Confestim_: note how artfully Cic. uses the dramatic form of the dialogue in order to magnify his attachment for Varro. _Ab eius villa_: the prep is absent from the MSS., but Wesenberg (_Em. M.T. Cic. Epistolarum_, p. 62) shows that it must be inserted. Cic. writes _abesse Roma_ (_Ad Fam._ V. 15, 4), _patria_ (_T.D._ V. 106) etc., but not _abesse officio_ (_De Off._ I. 43, where Wes. alters it) or the like. _Satis eum longo intervallo_: so all the MSS.; but Halm, after Davies, reads _se visentum_ for _satis eum_, quoting _Ad Att._ I. 4, Madv. _tum_ for _eum_ (Baiter and Halm's ed. of 1861, p. 854). The text is sound; the repetition of pronouns (_illum_, _eum_) is quite Ciceronian. The emphatic _ille_ is often repeated by the unemphatic _is_, cf. _T.D._ III. 71, and _M.D.F._ V. 22. I may note that the separation of _satis_ from _longo_ by the word _eum_ is quite in Cicero's style (see my note on 25 _quanta id magis_). Some editors stumble (Goerenz miserably) by taking _intervallo_ of distance in space, instead of duration in time, while others wrongly press _satis_, which only means "tolerably," to mean "sufficiently." The words _satis longo intervallo_ simply = "after a tolerably long halt." For the clause _ut mos_, etc., cf. _De Or._ II. 13.

§2. _Hic pauca primo_: for the omission of _locuti_, cf. the very similar passages in _D.F._ I. 14, III. 8, also my note on 14. _Atque ea_: Halm brackets _ea_, quite needlessly, for its insertion is like Cic. _Ecquid forte Roma novi_: _Roma_ is the ablative, and some verb like _attulisset_ is omitted. (So Turnebus.) To take it as nom., understanding _faciat_, is clearly wrong. _Percontari_: the spelling _percunctari_ rests on false derivation (Corss. I. 36). _Ecquid ipse novi_: cf. _De Or._ II. 13. The MSS. have _et si quid_, bad Latin altered by Manutius. _Istum_: some edd. _ipsum_, but Cic. often makes a speaker use _iste_ of a person who is present. Goer. qu. _Brut._ 125, _De Or._ II. 228. _Velit_: Walker reads _velis_ with St Jerome. For _quod velit_ = _quod quis velit_, cf. _De Or._ I. 30. _In manibus_: so often, cf. _Cat. Mai._ 38. _Idque_: MSS. have in the place of this _quod_ with variants _que_, _quae_, _qui_, _quo_. Dav. gave _quia_, which was the vulgate reading down to Halm, who reads _idque_, after Christ. _Ad hunc enim ipsum_: MSS. have _eum_ for _enim_ (exc. Halm's G). Such a combination of pronouns is vainly defended by Goer.; for expressions like _me illum ipsum_ (_Ad Att._ II. 1, 11) are not in point. Of course if _quia_ be read above, _eum_ must be ejected altogether. _Quaedam institui_: the _De Lingua Latina_; see _Ad. Att_ XIII. 12.

§3. _E Libone_: the father-in-law of Sext. Pompeius; see Cæsar _B. Civ._ III. 5, 16, 24. _Nihil enim eius modi_ again all MSS. except Halm's G. have _eum_ for _enim_. Christ conj. _enim eum_; so Baiter. _Illud ... requirere_: i.e. the question which follows; cf. _requiris_ in 4. _Tecum simul_: Halm's G om. _tecum_; but cf. _De Or._ III. 330. _Mandare monumentis--letteris illustrare_: common phrases in Cic., e.g. _D.F._ I. 1, _T.D._ I. 1, _De Div._ II. 4. _Monumentis_: this, and not _monimentis_ (Halm) or _monementis_, is probably the right spelling; cf. Corss. II. 314. _Ortam a_: Cic. _always_ writes the prep. after _ortus_; cf. _M.D.F._ V. 69. _Genus_: regularly used by Cic. as _opus_ by Quintilian to mean "department of literature." _Ea res_: one of Halm's MSS. followed by Baiter has _ars_; on the other hand Bentley (if the _amicus_ so often quoted in Davies' notes be really he) reads _artibus_ for _rebus_ below. The slight variation, however, from _res_ to _artibus_ is such as Cic. loves. _Ceteris_: the spelling _caeteris_ (Klotz) is absolutely wrong, cf. Corss. I. 325. _Antecedat_: some MSS. give _antecellat_. a frequent variant, cf. _De Off._ I. 105

§4. _Deliberatam--agitatam_: Cic. as usual exaggerates the knowledge possessed by the _personae_ of the dialogue; cf. Introd. p. 38, _De Or._ II. 1. _In promptu_: so II. 10. _Quod ista ipsa ... cogitavi_: Goer., who half a page back had made merry over the gloss hunters, here himself scented a miserable gloss; Schutz, Goerenz's echo expels the words. Yet they are thoroughly like Cic. (cf. _De Div._ II. 1, _Cat. Mai._ 38), and moreover nothing is more Ciceronian than the repetition of words and clauses in slightly altered forms. The reason here is partly the intense desire to flatter Varro. _Si qui ... si essent_: the first _si_ has really no conditional force, _si qui_ like ειτινες merely means "all who," for a strong instance see _Ad Fam._ I. 9, 13, ed Nobbe, _si accusandi sunt, si qui pertimuerunt_. _Ea nolui scribere_, etc.: very similar expressions occur in the prologue to _D.F._ I., which should be compared with this prologue throughout.

§5. _Vides ... didicisti_: MSS. have _vides autem eadem ipse didicisti enim_. My reading is that of Dav. followed by Baiter. Halm, after Christ, has _vides autem ipse--didicisti enim eadem--non posse_, etc. _Similis_: Halm, in deference to MSS., makes Cic. write _i_ and _e_ indiscriminately in the acc. plur. of i stems. I shall write _i_ everywhere, we shall thus, I believe, be far nearer Cicero's real writing. Though I do not presume to say that his usage did not vary, he must in the vast majority of instances have written _i_, see Corss. I. 738--744. _Amafinii aut Rabirii_: cf. Introd. p. 26. _Definiunt ... partiuntur_: n. on 32. _Interrogatione_: Faber saw this to be right, but a number of later scholars alter it, e.g. Bentl. _argumentatione_, Ernesti _ratione_. But the word as it stands has exactly the meaning these alterations are intended to secure. _Interrogatio_ is merely the _conclusio_ or syllogism put as a series of questions. Cf. _Paradoxa_ 2, with _T.D._ II. 42 which will show that _interrogatiuncula_ and _conclusiuncula_ are almost convertible terms. See also _M.D.F._ I. 39. _Nec dicendi nec disserendi_: Cic.'s constant mode of denoting the Greek ‛ρητορικη and διαλεκτικη; note on 32. _Et oratorum etiam_: Man., Lamb. om. _etiam_, needlessly. In _Ad Fam._ IX. 25, 3, the two words even occur without any other word to separate them. For _oratorum_ Pearce conj. _rhetorum_. _Rhetor_, however is not thus used in Cic.'s phil. works. _Utramque vim virtutem_: strange that Baiter (esp. after Halm's note) should take Manutius' far-fetched conj. _unam_ for _virtutem_. Any power or faculty (vis, δυναμις) may be called in Gk. αρετη, in Lat _virtus_. Two passages, _D.F._ III. 72, _De Or._ III. 65, will remove all suspicion from the text. _Verbis quoque novis_: MSS. have _quanquam_ which however is impossible in such a place in Cic. (cf. _M.D.F._ V. 68). _Ne a nobis quidem_: so all the MSS., but Orelli (after Ernesti) thinking the phrase "_arrogantius dictum_" places _quidem_ after _accipient_. The text is quite right, _ne quidem_, as Halm remarks, implies no more than the Germ. _auch nicht_, cf. also Gk. ουδε. _Suscipiatur labor_: MSS. om. the noun, but it is added by a later hand in G.

§6. _Epicurum, id est si Democritum_: for the charge see _D.F._ I. 17, IV. 13, _N.D._ I. 73. _Id est_ often introduces in Cic. a clause which intensifies and does not merely explain the first clause, exx. in _M.D.F._ I. 33. _Cum causas rerum efficientium sustuleris_: cf. _D.F._ I. 18, the same charge is brought by Aristotle against the Atomists, _Met._ A, 2. Many editors from Lamb. to Halm and Baiter read _efficientis_, which would then govern _rerum_ (cf. _D.F._ V. 81, _De Fato_, 33, also Gk. ποιητικος). But the genitive is merely one of definition, the _causae_ are the _res efficientes_, for which cf. 24 and _Topica_, 58, _proximus locus est rerum efficientium, quae causae appellantur_. So Faber, though less fully. _Appellat_: i.e. Amafinius, who first so translated ατομος. _Quae cum contineantur_: this reading has far the best MSS. authority, it must be kept, and _adhibenda etiam_ begins the _apodosis_. Madvig (_Emendationes ad Ciceronis Libros Philosophicos_, Hauniae, 1825, p. 108) tacitly reads _continentur_ without _cum_, so Orelli and Klotz. Goer. absurdly tries to prop up the subj. without _cum_. _Quam quibusnam_: Durand's em. for _quoniam quibusnam_ of the MSS., given by Halm and also Baiter. Madv. (_Em._ p. 108) made a forced defence of _quoniam_, as marking a rapid transition from one subject to another (here from physics to ethics) like the Gk. επει, only one parallel instance, however, was adduced (_T.D._ III. 14) and the usage probably is not Latin. _Adducere?_: The note of interrogation is Halm's; thus the whole sentence, so far, explains the difficulty of setting forth the true system of physics. If _quoniam_ is read and no break made at _adducere_, all after _quoniam_ will refer to ethics, in that case there will be a strange change of subject in passing from _quisquam_ to _haec ipsa_, both which expressions will be nominatives to _poterit_, further, there will be the almost impossible ellipse of _ars_, _scientia_, or something of the kind after _haec ipsa_. On every ground the reading of Madv. is insupportable. _Quid, haec ipsa_: I have added _quid_ to fill up the lacuna left by Halm, who supposes much more to have fallen out. [The technical philosophical terms contained in this section will be elucidated later. For the Epicurean ignorance of geometry see note on II. 123] _Illi enim simpliciter_: "frankly," cf. _Ad Fam._ VIII. 6, 1 _Pecudis et hominis_: note on II. 139.

§7. _Sive sequare ... magnum est_: for the constr. cf. II. 140. _Magnum est_: cf. _quid est magnum_, 6. _Verum et simplex bonum_: cf. 35. _Quod bonum ... ne suspicari quidem_ an opinion often denounced by Cic., see esp _T.D._ III. 41, where Cic.'s Latin agrees very closely with the Greek preserved by Diog. Laert. X. 6 (qu. Zeller, 451), and less accurately by Athenaeus, VII. 279 (qu. R. and P. 353). _Ne suspicari quidem_: for this MSS. give _nec suspicari_, but Madv. (_D.F._, Excursus III.) has conclusively shown that _nec_ for _ne ... quidem_ is post Augustan Latin. Christ supposes some thing like _sentire_ to have fallen out before _nec suspicari_; that this is wrong is clear from the fact that in _D.F._ II. 20, 30, _T.D._ III. 46, _N.D._ I. 111, where the same opinion of Epicurus is dealt with, we have either _ne suspicari quidem_ or _ne intellegere quidem_ (cf. also _In Pisonem_ 69). Further, _ne ... quidem_ is esp frequent with _suspicari_ (_D.F._ II. 20), and verbs of the kind (_cogitari_ II. 82), and especially, as Durand remarked, at the end of sentences eg _Verr._ II. 1, 155. Notice _negat ... ne suspicari quidem_ without _se_, which however Baiter inserts, in spite of the numerous passages produced from Cic. by Madv. (_Em._ 111), in which not only _se_, but _me_, _nos_, and other accusatives of pronouns are omitted before the infinitive, after verbs like _negat_. Cf. also the omission of _sibi_ in _Paradoxa_ 40. _Si vero_: this, following _sive enim_ above, is a departure from Cic.'s rule which is to write _sive--sive_ or _si--sin_, but not _si--sive_ or _sive--si_. This and two or three other similar passages in Cic. are explained as anacolutha by Madv. in a most important and exhaustive excursus to his _D.F._ (p. 785, ed. 2), and are connected with other instances of broken sequence. There is no need therefore to read _sive_ here, as did Turn. Lamb. Dav. and others. _Quam nos ... probamus_: cf. Introd. p. 62. _Erit explicanda_: for the separation of these words by other words interposed, which is characteristic of Cic., see 11, 17. I am surprised that Halm and Baiter both follow Ernesti in his hypercritical objection to the phrase _explicare Academiam_, and read _erunt_ against the MSS., making _illa_ plural. If _erunt_ is read, _erit_ must be supplied from it to go with _disserendum_, which is harsh. _Quam argute, quam obscure_: at first sight an oxymoron, but _argute_ need not only imply _clearness_, it means merely "acutely". _Quantum possum_: some MSS. have _quantam_, which is scarcely Latin, since in Cic. an accusative only follows _nequeo_, _volo_, _malo_, _possum_, and such verbs when an infinitive can be readily supplied to govern it. For _velle_ see a good instance in _D.F._ III. 68, where consult Madv. _Constantiam_: the notions of firmness, consistency, and clearness of mind are bound up in this word, cf. II. 53. _Apud Platonem_: _Timaeus_, 47 B, often quoted or imitated by Cic., cf. _De Leg._ I. 58, _Laelius_ 20, 47, _T.D._ I. 64.

§8. _Id est ... jubeo_: these words have been naturally supposed a gloss. But Cicero is nothing if not tautological; he is fond of placing slight variations in phrase side by side. See some remarkable instances of slightly varied phrases connected by _id est_ in _D.F._ I. 72, II. 6, 90. I therefore hold Halm and Baiter to be wrong in bracketing the words. _Ea a_: Lamb., objecting to the sound (which is indeed not like Cic.), would read _e_ for _a_, which Halm would also prefer. _De_, _ab_, and _ex_ follow _haurire_ indifferently in Cic. _Rivulos consectentur_: so Wordsworth, "to hunt the waterfalls". The metaphor involved in _fontibus--rivulos_ is often applied by Cic. to philosophy, see esp. a sarcastic passage about Epicurus in _N.D._ I. 120. _Nihil enim magno opere_: _magno opere_ should be written in two words, not as _magnopere_, cf. the phrases _maximo opere_, _nimio opere_, the same holds good of _tanto opere_, _quanto opere_. _L. Aelii_: MSS. _Laelii_. The person meant is L. Aelius Stilo or Praeconinus, the master of Varro, and the earliest systematic grammarian of Rome. See Quintil. _Inst. Or._ X. 1, 99, Gellius X. 21, Sueton. _Gramm._ 3. _Occasum_: an unusual metaphor. _Menippum_: a Cynic satirist, see _Dict. Biogr._ Considerable fragments of Varro's Menippean Satires remain, and have often been edited--most recently by Riese (published by Teubner). _Imitati non interpretati_: Cic. _D.F._ I. 7, gives his opinion as to the right use to be made of Greek models. _†Quae quo_: these words are evidently wrong. Halm after Faber ejects _quae_, and is followed by Baiter. Varro is thus made to say that he stated many things dialectically, _in order that_ the populace might be enticed to read. To my mind the fault lies in the word _quo_, for which I should prefer to read _cum_ (=_quom_, which would be written _quō_ in the MSS.) The general sense would then be "Having introduced philosophy into that kind of literature which the unlearned read, I proceeded to introduce it into that which the learned read." _Laudationibus_: λογοις επιταφιοις, cf. _Ad Att._ XIII. 48 where Varro's are mentioned. _†Philosophe scribere_: the MSS. all give _philosophie_. Klotz has _philosophiam_, which is demonstrably wrong, _physica_, _musica_ etc. _scribere_ may be said, but not _physicam_, _musicam_ etc. _scribere_. The one passage formerly quoted to justify the phrase _philosophiam scribere_ is now altered in the best texts (_T.D._ V. 121, where see Tischer). Goer. reads _philosophiae scribere_; his explanation is, as Orelli gently says, "vix Latina." I can scarcely think Halm's _philosophe_ to be right, the word occurs nowhere else, and Cic. almost condemns it by his use of the Greek φιλοσοφως (_Ad Att._ XIII. 20). In older Greek the adverb does not appear, nor is φιλοσοφος used as an adjective much, yet Cic. uses _philosophus_ adjectivally in _T.D._ V. 121, _Cat. Mai._ 22, _N.D._ III. 23, just as he uses _tyrannus_ (_De Rep._ III. 45), and _anapaestus_ (_T.D._ III. 57) Might we not read _philosophis_, in the dative, which only requires the alteration of a single letter from the MSS. reading? The meaning would then be "to write _for_ philosophers," which would agree with my emendation _cum_ for _quo_ above. _Philosophice_ would be a tempting alteration, but that the word φιλοσοφικος is not Greek, nor do _philosophicus_, _philosophice_ occur till very late Latin times. _Si modo id consecuti sumus_: cf. _Brut._ 316.

§9. _Sunt ista_: = εστι ταυτα, so often, e.g. _Lael._ 6. Some edd. have _sint_, which is unlikely to be right. _Nos in nostra_: Augustine (_De Civ. Dei_ VI. 2) quotes this with the reading _reduxerunt_ for _deduxerunt_, which is taken by Baiter and by Halm; who quotes with approval Durand's remark, "_deducimus honoris causa sed errantes reducimus humanitatis_." The words, however, are almost convertible; see _Cat. Mai._ 63. In _Lael._ 12, _Brut._ 86, we have _reducere_, where Durand's rule requires _deducere_, on the other hand cf. _Ad Herennium_ IV. 64, _hospites domum deducere. Aetatem patriae_ etc., August. (_De Civ. Dei_ VI. 3) describes Varro's "_Libri Antiquitatum_" (referred to in 8), in which most of the subjects here mentioned were treated of. _Descriptiones temporum_: lists of dates, so χρονοι is technically used for dates, Thuc. V. 20, etc. _Tu sacerdotum_: after this Lamb. inserts _munera_ to keep the balance of the clauses. Cic. however is quite as fond of variety as of formal accuracy. _Domesticam--bellicam_: opposed like _domi bellique_, cf. _Brut._ 49, _De Off._ I. 74. Augustine's reading _publicam_ shows him to have been quoting from memory. _Sedem_: so the best MSS. of Aug., some edd. here give _sedium_. The argument for _sedem_ is the awkwardness of making the three genitives, _sedium_, _regionum_, _locorum_, dependent on the accusatives, _nomina_, _genera_, _officia_, _causas_. Cic. is fond of using _sedes_, _locus_, _regio_ together, see _Pro Murena_, 85, _Pro Cluentio_, 171, quoted by Goer. _Omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum_: from the frequent references of Aug. it appears that the "_Libri Antiquitatum_" were divided into two parts, one treating of _res humanae_, the other of _res divinae_ (_De Civ. Dei_, IV. 1, 27, VI. 3). _Et litteris luminis_: for _luminis_, cf. _T.D._ I. 5. _Et verbis_: Manut. reads _rebus_ from 26. Varro's researches into the Latin tongue are meant. _Multis locis incohasti_: Varro's book "_De Philosophia_" had apparently not yet been written.

§10. _Causa_: = προφασις. _Probabilem_: = specious. _Nesciunt_: Halm with his one MS. G, which is the work of a clever emendator, gives _nescient_ to suit _malent_ above, and is followed by Baiter. It is not necessary to force on Cic. this formally accurate sequence of tenses, which Halm himself allows to be broken in two similar passages, II. 20, 105. _Sed da mihi nunc, satisne probas?_: So all MSS. except G, which has the evident conj. _sed ea (eam) mihi non sane probas_. This last Baiter gives, while Halm after Durand reads _sed eam mihi non satis probas_, which is too far from the MSS. to please me. The text as it stands is not intolerable, though _da mihi_ for _dic mihi_ is certainly poetic. _Da te mihi_ (Manut., Goer., Orelli) is far too strong for the passage, and cannot be supported by 12, _Brut._ 306, _Ad Fam._ II. 8, or such like passages. _Attius_: the old spelling _Accius_ is wrong. _Si qui ... imitati_: note the collocation, and cf. 17. Halm needlessly writes _sint_ for MSS. _sunt_. For this section throughout cf. the prologues to _D.F._ I., _T.D._ I. and II.

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

§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_: = σου διχα. _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 passage which used to be compared, _Pro Cluentio_ 16, Classen 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 illustrate 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 substitution 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_ περι ψυχης _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 cum 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 cum 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 illustrated 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 passive 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 passages 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 passages 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 repetition of pronouns 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 passages 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 passages 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 ... cum_, _tum ... tum_. His proofs of this new Latin may be sampled by _Ac._ II. 1, 43. _Ad virtutis studium cohortandis_: this broad assertion 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 ιδεαι, 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 asse 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. Χαλκηδονιον. _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 -ης 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_ = τεχνη, a set of definite rules, so Varro in Aug. (as above) speaks of the _certa dogmata_ of this old school as opposed to the incertitude 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 pronoun, see _M.D.F._ IV. 43, cf. also I. 71, III. 28, _Opusc._ I. 406. _Expetendarum fugiendarumque_: ‛αιρετων και φευκτων, 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 _Præc. 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.