Part II

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

§19. _Ratio triplex_: Plato has not this division, either consciously or unconsciously, though it was generally attributed to him in Cicero's time, so by Varro himself (from Antiochus) in Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ VIII. 4, and by Diog. Laert. III. 56 (see R. and P., p. 195). The division itself cannot be traced farther back than Xenocrates and the post-Aristotelian Peripatetics, to whom it is assigned by Sext. Emp. _Adv. Math._ VII. 16. It was probably first brought into strong prominence by the Stoics, whom it enabled more sharply and decisively to subordinate to Ethics all else in philosophy. Cf. esp. _M.D.F._ IV. 3. _Quid verum ... repugnans iudicando_: MSS. exc. G have _et_ before _quid falsum_, whence Klotz conj. _sit_ in order to obviate the awkwardness of _repugnet_ which MSS. have for _repugnans_. Krische wishes to read _consequens_ for _consentiens_, comparing _Orator_ 115, _T.D._ V. 68, _De Div._ II. 150, to which add _T.D._ V. 21 On the other hand cf. II. 22, 91. Notice the double translations of the Greek terms, _de vita et moribus_ for ηθικη, etc. This is very characteristic of Cic., as we shall see later. _Ac primum_: many MSS. and edd. _primam_, cf. 23, 30. _A natura petebant_: how Antiochus could have found this in Plato and Aristotle is difficult to see; that he did so, however, is indubitable; see _D.F._ V. 24--27, which should be closely compared with our passage, and Varro in Aug. XIX. 3. The root of Plato's system is the ιδεα of the Good, while so far is Aristotle from founding his system on the abstract φυσις, that he scarcely appeals even incidentally to φυσις in his ethical works. The abstract conception of nature in relation to ethics is first strongly apparent in Polemo, from whom it passed into Stoic hands and then into those of Antiochus. _Adeptum esse omnia_: put rather differently in _D.F._ V. 24, 26, cf. also _D.F._ II. 33, 34, _Ac._ II. 131. _Et animo et corpore et vita_: this is the τριας or τριλογια των αγαθων, which belongs in this form to late Peripateticism (cf. _M.D.F._ III. 43), the third division is a development from the βιος τελειος of Aristotle. The τριας in this distinct shape is foreign both to Plato and Arist, though Stobaeus, _Ethica_ II. 6, 4, tries hard to point it out in Plato; Varro seems to merge the two last divisions into one in Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XIX 3. This agrees better with _D.F._ V. 34--36, cf. also Aug. VIII. 8. On the Antiochean _finis_ see more in note on 22. _Corporis alia_: for ellipse of _bona_, see n. on 13. _Ponebant esse_: n. on 36. _In toto in partibus_: the same distinction is in Stob. _Eth._ II. 6, 7; cf. also _D.F._ V. 35. _Pulchritudinem_: Cic. _Orator_ 160, puts the spelling _pulcher_ beyond a doubt; it often appears in inscr. of the Republic. On the other hand only _pulcrai_, _pulcrum_, etc., occur in inscr., exc. _pulchre_, which is found once (_Corp. Inscr._ I. no 1019). _Sepulchrum_, however, is frequent at an early time. On the tendency to aspirate even native Latin words see Boscher in Curtius' _Studien_ II. 1, p. 145. In the case of _pulcher_ the false derivation from πολυχροος may have aided the corruption. Similarly in modern times J.C. Scaliger derived it from πολυ χειρ (Curtius' _Grundz_ ed. 3, p. 8) For _valetudinem viris pulchritudinem_, cf. the ‛υγιεια ισχυς καλλος of Stob. _Eth_. II. 6, 7, and _T.D._ V. 22. _Sensus integros_ ευαισθησια in Stob., cf. also _D.F._ V. 36 (_in sensibus est sua cuiusque virtus_). _Celeritatem_: so ποδωκεια in Stob., _bene currere_ in Aug. XIX. 3. _Claritatem in voce_: cf. _De Off._ I. 133. _Impressionem_: al. _expressionem_. For the former cf. _De Or._ III. 185, which will show the meaning to be the distinct marking of each sound; for the latter _De Or._ III. 41, which will disprove Klotz's remark "_imprimit lingua voces, non exprimit_." See also _De Off._ I. 133. One old ed. has _pressionem_, which, though not itself Ciceronian, recalls _presse loqui_, and _N.D._ II. 149. Pliny, _Panegyric_, c. 64, has _expressit explanavitque verba_; he and Quintilian often so use _exprimere_.

§20. _Ingeniis_: rejected by many (so Halm), but cf. _T.D._ III. 2, and _animis_ below and in _N.D._ II. 58. _In naturam et mores_: for _in ea quae natura et moribus fiunt_. A similar inaccuracy of expression is found in II. 42. The division is practically Aristotle's, who severs αρεται into διανοητικαι and ηθικαι (_Nic. Eth._ I. c. 13, _Magna Mor._ I. c. 5). In _D.F._ V. 38 the διανοητικαι are called _non voluntariae_, the ηθικαι _voluntariae_. _Celeritatem ad discendum et memoriam_: cf. the ευμαθεια, μνημη of Arist. (who adds αγχινοια σοφια φρονησις), and the _docilitas, memoria_ of _D.F._ V. 36. _Quasi consuetudinem_: the _quasi_ marks a translation from the Greek, as frequently, here probably of εθισμος (_Nic. Eth._ II. c. 1). _Partim ratione formabant_: the relation which reason bears to virtue is set forth in _Nic. Eth._ VI. c. 2. _In quibus_: i.e. _in moribus_. All the late schools held that ethics formed the sole ultimate aim of philosophy. _Erat_: note the change from _oratio obliqua_ to _recta_, and cf. the opposite change in II. 40. _Progressio_: this, like the whole of the sentence in which it stands, is intensely Stoic. For the Stoic προκορη, προκοπτειν εις αρετην, cf. _M.D.F._ IV. 64, 66, R. and P. 392, sq., Zeller, _Stoics_ 258, 276. The phrases are sometimes said to be Peripatetic, if so, they must belong only to the late Stoicised Peripateticism of which we find so much in Stobaeus. _Perfectio naturae_: cf. esp. _De Leg._ I. 25. More Stoic still is the definition of virtue as the perfection of the _reason_, cf. II. 26, _D.F._ IV. 35, V. 38, and Madvig's note on _D.F._ II. 88. Faber quotes Galen _De Decr. Hipp. et Plat._ c. 5, ‛η αρετη τελειοτης εστι της ‛εκαστου φυσεος. _Una res optima_: the supremacy of virtue is also asserted by Varro in Aug. XIX. 3, cf. also _D.F._ V. 36, 38.

§21. _Virtutis usum_: so the Stoics speak of their αδιαφορα as the practising ground for virtue (_D.F._ III. 50), cf. _virtutis usum_ in Aug. XIX. 1. _Nam virtus_: most MSS. have _iam_, which is out of place here. _Animi bonis et corporis cernitur et in quibusdam_: MSS. omit _et_ between _cernitur_ and _in_, exc. Halm's G which has _in_ before _animi_ and also before _corporis_. These last insertions are not necessary, as may be seen from _Topica_ 80, _causa certis personis locis temporibus actionibus negotiis cernitur aut_ in _omnibus aut_ in _plerisque_, also _T.D._ V. 22. In Stob. II. 6, 8, the τελος of the Peripatetics is stated to be το κατ' αρετην ζην εν τοις περι σωμα και τοις εξωθεν αγαθοις, here _quibusdam quae_ etc., denote the εξωθεν or εκτος αγαθα, the third class in 19. _Hominem ... societate_: all this is strongly Stoic, though also attributed to the Peripatetics by Stob. II. 6, 7 (κοινη φιλανθρωπια), etc., doubtless the humanitarianism of the Stoics readily united with the φυσει ανθρωπος πολιτικον ζωον theory of Aristotle. For Cic. cf. _D.F._ III. 66, _De Leg._ I. 23, for the Stoics, Zeller 293--296. The repetitions _hominem_, _humani_, _hominibus_, _humana_ are striking. For the last, Bentley (i.e. Davies' anonymous friend) proposed _mundana_ from _T.D._ V. 108, Varro, however, has _humana societas_ in Aug. XIX. 3. _Cetera autem_: what are these _cetera?_ They form portion of the εκτος αγαθα, and although not strictly contained within the _summum bonum_ are necessary to enrich it and preserve it. Of the things enumerated in Stob. II. 6, 8, 13, φιλια, φιλοι would belong to the _quaedam_ of Cicero, while πλουτος αρχη ευτυχια ευγενεια δυναστεια would be included in _cetera_. The same distinction is drawn in Aug. VIII. 8. _Tuendum_: most MSS. _tenendum_, but _tuendum_ corresponds best with the division of αγαθα into ποιητικα and φυλακτικα, Stob. II. 6, 13. For the word _pertinere_ see _M.D.F._ III. 54.

§22. _Plerique_: Antiochus believes it also Academic. _Qui tum appellarentur_: MSS. _dum_, the subj. is strange, and was felt to be so by the writer of Halm's G, which has _appellantur_. _Videbatur_: Goer. and Orelli stumble over this, not perceiving that it has the strong meaning of the Gr. εδοκει, "it was their dogma," so often. _Adipisci_: cf. _adeptum esse_, 19. _Quae essent prima natura_: MSS. have _in natura_. For the various modes of denoting the πρωτα κατα φυσιν in Latin see Madvig's _Fourth Excursus to the D.F._, which the student of Cic.'s philosophy ought to know by heart. The phrase _prima natura_ (abl.) could not stand alone, for τα πρωτα τη φυσει is one of Goerenz's numerous forgeries. The ablative is always conditioned by some verb, see Madv. A comparison of this statement of the ethical _finis_ with that in 19 and the passages quoted in my note there, will show that Cic. drew little distinction between the Stoic τα πρωτα κατα φυσιν and the Peripatetic τριλογια. That this is historically absurd Madvig shows in his _Excursus_, but he does not sufficiently recognise the fact that Cicero has perfectly correctly reported Antiochus. At all events, Varro's report (Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XIX. 3) coincides with Cic.'s in every particular. Even the _inexplicabilis perversitas_ of which Madv. complains (p. 821) is traceable to Antiochus, who, as will be seen from Augustine XIX. 1, 3, included even _virtus_ among the _prima naturae_. A little reflection will show that in no other way could Antiochus have maintained the practical identity of the Stoic and Peripatetic views of the _finis_. I regret that my space does not allow me to pursue this difficult subject farther. For the Stoic πρωτα κατα φυσιν see Zeller, chap XI. _Ipsa per sese expetenda_: Gk. ‛αιρετα, which is applied to all things contained within the _summum bonum_. As the Stoic _finis_ was αρετη only, that alone to them was ‛αιρετον, their πρωτα κατα φυσιν were not ‛αιρετα, (cf. _D.F._ III. 21). Antiochus' _prima naturae_ were ‛αιρετα to him, cf. Aug. XIX. 3, _prima illa naturae propter se ipsa existimat expetenda_ so Stob., II. 6, 7, demonstrates each branch of the τριλογια to be καθ' ‛αυτο ‛αιρετον. _Aut omnia aut maxima_: so frequently in Cic., e.g. _D.F._ IV. 27, so Stob. II. 6, 8, τα πλειστα και κυριωτατα. _Ea sunt maxima_: so Stob., Varro in Aug. _passim_. _Sensit_: much misunderstood by edd., here = _iudicavit_ not _animadvertit_ cf. _M.D.F._ II. 6. _Reperiebatur_: for change of constr. cf. _D.F._ IV. 26 _Nec tamen beatissimam_: the question whether αρετη was αυταρκες προς ευδαιμονιαν was one of the most important to the late Greek philosophy. As to Antiochus, consult _M.D.F._ V. 67.

§23. _Agendi aliquid_: Gk. πραξεως, the usual translation, cf. II. 24, 37. _Officii ipsius initium_: του καθηκοντος αρχην, Stob. II. 6, 7. This sentence is covertly aimed at the New Academics, whose scepticism, according to the dogmatists, cut away the ground from action and duty, see II. 24. _Recti honestique_: these words are redolent of the Stoa. _Earum rerum_: Halm thinks something like _appetitio_ has fallen out, _susceptio_ however, above, is quite enough for both clauses; a similar use of it is found in _D.F._ III. 32. _Descriptione naturae_: Halm with one MS. (G) gives _praescriptione_, which is in II. 140, cf. also _praescriberet_ above. The phrase is Antiochean; cf. _prima constitutio naturae_ in _D.F._ IV. 15. _Aequitas_: not in the Roman legal sense, but as a translation of επιεικεια. _Eaeque_: so Halm for MSS. _haeque_, _haecque_. Of course _haecque_, like _hicque_, _sicque_, would be un-Ciceronian. _Voluptatibus_: a side blow at the Epicureans. _Forma_ see n. on 33.

§§24--29.