M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum libri III, vol. I & II (two in one)

Μ. TVLLI CICERONIS DE NATVRA DEORVM LIBRI III

M. TVLLI CICERONIS DE NATVRA DEORVM LIBER PRIMVS

EDITED BY ARTHUR STANLEY PEASE

BIMILLENNIAL EDITION

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1955

DISTRIBUTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY

Geoffrey Cumberkge OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 56-7217

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS BY E. J. BRILL, LEIDEN

CONIVGIS CARISSIMAE MEMORIAE

PREFACE SrNCE completing an edition of Cicero's De Divinatione l I have contem plated a similar treatment of the more significant De Natura Deorum, the two thousandth anniversary of which falls in this year 1955. To the useful edition by J. B. Mayor 2 many additions may be made and much subsequent scholarly publication calls for appraisal and use. From 1935 to 1942 my leisure was largely devoted to collecting materials,3 and since 1942 to sifting and arranging them. This process has followed the method already used in editing the De Divinatione and Virgil's Fourth Aeneidy with the citation of many passages in extenso, and such arrange­ ment of them that, by reading them as they stand, the user may reach for himself a logical conclusion, without needless editorial verbiage.* Certain reviewers of the editions mentioned have objected that the editor's own views were not at all times clearly revealed, but they may be reminded of Cicero's own words in N.D. 1, 10: qui autem requirunt quid quaque de re ipsi sentiamus curtonus id faciunt quam necesse est; non enim tarn auctoritalis in disputando quam rationis momenta quaerenda sunt. The present volume contains a general introduction to the three books, followed by text, apparatus, and notes for Book I. The second volume is to contain text, apparatus, and notes for Books II-III (already completed), and an index to both volumes. It is hoped that this may follow after not too long an interval, and that it may be possible to include the more important addenda which have come to my notice since the manuscript went to press. Though this edition owes much to those of Plasberg and Λχ, it does not follow their texts throughout. 5 I have, moreover, constantly verified readings in the published facsimiles of codices Α β and Η 7 or in photostats, which, through the generosity of the Humanities Fund of Harvard University and the kindly cooperation of the Harvard College 1 1920-1923. « 1880-1885. ' By a method well described by W*. Hcadlam, Herodas (1922), ix: "There is only o n e way: learn your author by heart—every word, and then set to work t o read. Many dull authors must be dredged," etc. 4 T h i s purpose has apparently escaped

the critical scent of most reviewers, save only the late S. G. Owen in Tin Yearns Work in Classical Studies, 29 (1936), 16. * F..g., in the first three sections of Book I at eleven points it diverges from Plasberg's readings. • Published by O. Plasberg in 1915. 7 Published by O. Plasberg in 1912.

PREFACE

Vlll x

Library and of the authorities of several European libraries,2 have been available for codd. DPVNOTBFM* To scholars who have directly assisted or by helpful suggestions stimulated and encouraged me I am also deeply indebted, particularly to my colleagues, Professors H. Bloch, S. Dow, J. P. Elder, W. C. Greene, M. Hammond, W. H. P. Hatch, K. H. Jackson, W. W. Jaeger, f G. F. Moore, A. D. Nock, f Ε. Κ. Rand, and J. Whatmough, and to several former students, notably Messrs. W. D. Anderson, R. A. Brooks, M. L. Colker, J. K. Downing, L. H. Feldman, N. M. Getty, A. G. Gillingham, J. R. Grant, K. K. Hulley, P. Levine, P. L. McKendrick, A. E. Millward, H. E. Petersen, E. A. Robinson, S. Sinnreich, Z. Stewart, A. F. Stocker, A. H. Travis, F. R. Walton, and L. E. Woodbury. Bibliographical help has been furnished by Mr. E. W. Norris; Professors f C. H. Beeson and R. M. Grant of the University of Chicago, Dr. H. A. Thompson of the Institute for Advanced Studies, and Professor Brooks Otis of Hobart College have given me useful references; and Professor J. P. Christopher of the Catholic University of America, Professor N. W. DeWitt of the University of Toronto, and Dr. E. A. Philippson of the University o f Michigan have helped me to secure materials not easy of access. The Rev. A. J. Festugiere of Paris and Professor J. H. Waszink of Leiden have given valued advice about publication. To the members of the Harvard Religions Club, whose wide learning and sympathetic patience have been often tested by me, and rarely in vain, I offer my grateful tribute—Ο noctts cenaeque deuml To the staff of the Harvard University Press, particularly Mr. T. J . Wilson, Director, Mr. W. W. Smith, Associate Director, Mrs. L. J . Kewer, and Mrs. M. L. Hawkes (for editorial help), and to that of t h e firm of E. J. Brill in Leiden I am repeatedly indebted. Finally, without the generous support of the Bollingen Foundation and its Vice President, Mr. J. D. Barrett, the publication of this volume would hardly have been possible. Harvard University

ARTHUR STANLEY PEASE

January 1955 1 To Miss Gertrude M. Sullivan of the Harvard College Library I am especi­ ally indebted for her efficient aid in securing these photostats; to Mr. R. H. Hayncs for helpful bibliographical as­ sistance. ■ The Vatican Library in Vatican City, the Laurcntian Library in Florence, the National Library in Vienna, the univer­ sity libraries of Leiden and Munich, the

Bibhothequc Nationale in Paris, t h e British Museum in London, the library of Mcrton College, Oxford, and t h e library of the University of E d i n b u r g h , to all which deep gratitude is here e x ­ pressed. s These photostats will ultimately b e deposited in the Harvard College l i ­ brary.

INTRODUCTION

CONTENTS OF THE

INTRODUCTION

1. Cicero's philosophic corpus 2. The place of the De Natura Deorum in this plan 3. The Roman religious background 4. Religious speculation in Gcero's day 5. Epicureans and Stoics 6. Cicero as a mediator 7. His philosophic qualifications 8. The date of composition of this work 9. The dedication 10. The type of dialogue 11. The scene 12. The dramatic date 13. Defects of composition 14. Characters in the dialogue 15. Prooemium 16. Doxographic summary 17. Epicurean doctrine and its criticism in Book I 18. Books II and III 19. Omissions 20. Conclusion of Book III 2 1 . Sources: general 2 2 . Sources of the Prooemium 2 3 . Sources of the Doxography 2 4 . Sources of the Epicurean doctrine 2 5 . Sources of Cotta's criticism of the Epicureans 26-28. Sources of Book II 29-30. Sources of Book III 3 1 . Cicero's own contributions 3 2 . Results of the work 3 3 . Publication 3 4 . Subsequent influence 3 5 . Manuscripts 3 6 . Catalogue of manuscripts 3 7 . Combinations with other works 3 8 . Relation of the manuscripts

5 8 9 12 13 14 16 20 22 22 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 32 33 36 38 39 42 43 45 48 49 50 51 52 61 62 82 83

4

39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

CONTENTS OF THE INTRODUCTION

Testimonia Orthography Apparatus criticus Editions Translations

86 86 87 88 103

INTRODUCTION CICERO'S PHILOSOPHIC CORPUS 1. The formation * in Latin of an encyclopaedic system of philosophical writings, including and extending the range of isolated works written by Gcero starting as early as the De Republica (begun in May, 54),

2

was clearly in his mind in 44 B.C., when he composed the famous catalogue of his theoretical writings which appears in the second book of the De Divinatione* H o w much earlier he had conceived an "archi­ tectonic awareness of the general plan" 4 is not entirely clear,

6

though

in 45, in his picture of the manifold literary activity of Varro,· he had ascribed to that scholar a somewhat similar design of wide scope (though perhaps inadequate depth), 7 intended especially for readers who knew no Greek. 8 The interrelation of the parts of philosophy—epistemology, logic,

physics, ethics, politics, and even

rhetoric 9 —Cicero

clearly

recognizes, 10 and it may well be that his exposition, when completed, would have found place for certain other subdivisions of the field which his extant works lack.11 Throughout the whole series his emphasis is 1 In this introduction I have drawn in parts upon that in my edition of the De Divinatione, 1 (1920), 9-28—a work long out of print and difficult to obtain. 1 Q. /■>. 2, 1 2 , 1 ; M. Schanz-C Hosius, Gescb. d. rom. Ut. V (1927), 494495. * Div. 2, 1-4, especially 2, 4 : adhuc haec erant; ad reliqua aiacri tendebamus ammo, sic parati ut nisi quae causa gravior obstitisset nullum pbilosopbiae locum esse pateremur qui non Latinis litteris inlustratus pateret. * T o use the phrase of \X*. Jaeger, Paideia, 2 (Engl, tr., 1943), 96. * Cf. 1, 9, n. (totarn philosuphiam), below. S. Hafner, Die lit. Plane Ciceros (1928), 100-102, collects passages to s h o w his plan taking shape as early as 4 6 B.C.; cf. M. Pohlcnz in Philotogus, 9 3 (1938). 118. R. Philippson in P.-W. 7 A (1939), 1123, similarly puts the date just before or just after the Orator

(46 B . C ) ; cf. Drat. 118. O. Plasbcrg (Cic. in sein. Werken u. Brie fen (1926), 158-160) thinks it followed the death of Tullia. J. S. Reid, cd. of the Academica (1886), 47, thinks our work is foreshad­ owed in Ac. 2, 147. • Ac. 1, 3 ; 1, 8. 7 Cf. Ac. 1, 9: pbilosopbiamque multis locis incohasti, ad impellendum satis, ad edocendum parum. " Ac. 1, 4-5; cf. N.D. 1, 7-8; J. S. Rcid, cd. of Academica (1885), 20. • Div. 2, 4. ,0 N.D. 1, 9: omnes autem eius partes atque omnia membra turn fact Hume noscuntur cum totae quaestiones scribendo explicantur; est enim admtrabilis quaedam continuatio seriesque return, ut alia nexa et omnes inter se apta* conligataeque videantur. 11 M.g.y metaphysics, perhaps to the Roman mind the least fruitful field of philosophy, fitted only for Greeks. Aesthetics was too undeveloped as yet to have been expected in the system,

6

INTRODUCTION

upon the patriotic service which he is rendering by making the results of Greek thought available to his countrymen,1 particularly since all the teachings of philosophy bear some relation to actual life.1 In his philosophic activity after the death of his beloved daughter Tullia, in February, 45 B.C.,3 he not only consoled his own mind 4 by intensive writing, 5 but also reached a circle of readers who to some extent com­ pensated for those hearers whom he had orally influenced during his public career.· As a highly practical man—not so much the scholar in politics as the public man in philosophy 7 —he was primarily attracted to those fields of thought which attempt to guide men in their human relationships, individual, social, and political, and which were classed by Greek writers under the heads of ethics (ηθική) and politics (πολιτική). The great field of natural science (φυσική) as a whole had less interest for Qcero, yet within it the Greeks had included also theology, and he was quick to recognize the important effects upon men's relations to one another and upon their loyalty to the state which might result from right or mistaken theories concerning the existence, the form, and the functions of the gods. 8 A few years before Cicero wrote the and psychology, though given no sep­ great human interests of death, future arate work, is treated to some extent life, prophecy, duty, and deity as at both in the second book of our work no other time save ten years before (in the and in the Academica. Logic might De Republica) in another period of re­ perhaps have claimed a larger place than covery from misfortune and depression. Cicero gives it, especially in view of its P. Boyance (Rev. des et. lat. 14 (1936), practical applications to rhetoric, yet it 296) observes that Cicero and Seneca is not unnoticed in the Topica. each philosophized, as a consolation, at 1 E.g., N.D. 1, 7: ipsius rei publicae the end of their lives. 4 causa phiiosophiam nostris bominibus exAit. 12, 14, 3: quin etiam si feci quod plicandam putavi, magni exist/mans interesse profecto ante me nemo, ut ipse me per litterai ad decus et ad laudem civitatis res tarn gravis consolarer. tamque praeclaras Latinis etiam litteris • Cf. Att. 12, 40, 2: legere isti laeti qui contineri (where sec the note below on me reprelmtdunt tarn multa non posstatt rei publicae causa); Tusc. 1, 5: pbilosopbia quam ego scripsi; 13, 26, 2: equidem credibiU iacuit usque ad banc aetatem nee ullum non est quantum scribam. quin etiam noctibtes ; babuit lumen It tierarum Latinarum; quae nibil enim somni. inlustranda et excitanda nobis est, ut si • N.D. 1, 6; Dip. 2, 7: in libris enim occupati profuimus aliquid civibus nostrist sententiam dictbamus, contionabamur, pbi­ prosimus etiam\ si possimus, otiosi; Plut. losopbia m nobis pro rei publicae procuratiotu Cic. 40, 2: αύτω δ' ίργον μέν ήν τό substitutam putabamus. 7 τους φιλοσόφους συντκλχΐν διάλογους και In more modern times such figures μιταφράζειν. as W. E. Gladstone and A. J. Balfour * N.D. 1, 7: // omnia pbilosopbiae prae- may be recalled. ctpta referuntur ad vitam. • Cf. N.D. 1, 1; 1, 3-4, concluding: 1 Ac. \t\\;N.DAt9;Fam. 12,14,3; baut scio an pietate adversus deos sub/a/a Plut. Cic. 41, 5. W. W. Fowler (Rom. fides etiam et societas generis bumani et una Ideas of Deity (1914), 4) remarks that excellentissuma virtus iustitia tollatur. W. W . Cicero brings his mind to bear on the Fowler (Rom. Ideas of Deity (1914), 3 )

INTRODUCTION

7

1

De Natura Deorum, Lucretius in his deeply thoughtful poem, had recognized the human misery arising from incorrect concepts of deity, and had undertaken to remove these by a polemic in the characteristically dogmatic style of the Epicurean school. Now Gccro, with an equally distinctive Academic rejection of dogmatism 2—especially upon such difficult and controversial questions as theology—, tried to set forth, in a judicial as well as a descriptive spirit,3 the views, not of a single philosophical sect, but of selected diverse schools, 4 for he believed it the function of philosophy to confront men, not with the voice of per­ is mistaken in supposing that Cicero did not believe this subject to be of vital interest to the state. For a like connection among the Greeks of piety and civic and political life cf. >X*. Jaeger, Paideia, 2 (Engl. tr. 1943), 95. Somewhat similar problems arise today in connection with oaths sworn by avowed atheists or agnostics. On the necessity of theology as a basis for Cicero's philosophic ency­ clopaedia cf. F. Gugliclmino in Religio, 10 (1934), 121. 1 The date of Lucrctius's poem seems to fall after 60 B.C. (cf. M. Schanz-C. Hosius, Gescb. d. rbm. Lit. 1« (1927), 274-275) and probably before 54 (cf. Q.Fr. 2, 9, 3). On the possible use of Lucretius by Cicero sec the parallels collected by J. B. Mayor, cd. of N.D. 3 (1885), x-xiii; some of his likenesses seem exaggerated. * Cf. Cotta's words in N.D. 1,60: omnibus fere in rebus; sed mast me in physicis, quod non sit cititts quant quid sit diserim. I believe this distinction between the t w o works is fairer than that of E. Cocchia, Saggi filologici, 5 (1915), 317, who contrasts Lucretius as a destroyer with Cicero as a restorer of belief in the gods. J. B. Mayor, cd. of N.D. 3 (1885), x, thinks that our work was written with distinct reference to Lucretius. His chief parallels, however, arc not between the De Natura Deorum and Lucretius but between Lucretius and the De Divinatione and other works of Cicero. After making all due allowance for natural coincidences in the expression of com­ monplaces (cf. Mayor, op. cit., 3, xi-xii) between t w o writers discussing in parts the same theme, I find no very notable

indication of the influence of Lucrctian ideas upon our work, unless perhaps at 1, 86, where sec my note on ea quae timenda esse negaret timeret. Again, while Cicero approves of the eradication of superstition and the establishment of a rational religion as a proper mean be­ tween the extremes of atheism and super­ stition, I doubt if these considerations arc here his primary purpose, as Mayor (3, xiii) supposed, because the whole tone of the work is descriptive and scientific rather than sectarian and proselytizing (cf. A. S. Pease in Trans. Am. philol. Assoc. 44 (1913), 33; and section 20 below), its conclusion (3, 94-95)emphasizing the possible diversities of opinion and the resultant justification of honest doubt rather than the existence of only one right opinion which is to be dogmatically propagated. O. Plasberg {Cic. in seinen W^erken u. Brief en (1926), 159-160) considers that Lucretius had too much on nature and not enough on ethics (i.e., on man) to appeal to Cicero. Might wc compare the distinction between the Prcsocratics and Socrates? 3 Cf. N.D. 1, 17: libera iudicio, nulla eiusmodi adstrictum necessitate, ut mibi velim nolim sit certa quaedam tuenda sententia; Τ use. 5, 82: te nulla vinculo impediunt ullius certae disciplinae, libasque ex omnibus, quodcumqtu te maxime specie veritatis movet. On his didactic rather than polemic purpose cf. R. Hirzcl, Der Dialog, 1 (1895), 533. 4 Cf. 1, 11: si singulas disciplinas percipere magnum est quanto mains omnis; quod facere Us necesse est quibus propositum est veri reperiendi causa et contra omnes philosopbos et pro omnibus dicere.

8

INTRODUCTION l

sonal authority or with conveniently formulated creeds, like the κύριαι δόξαι of Epicurus,1 but with the impulse to repeated and ceaseless search for the probable.3 There had already been many polemic works on the gods, setting forth the views of one school and lacking the ad­ vantages of a comparative study, and there were doxographic works, comparative in their nature but without the necessary element of criticism. Gcero in the present work attempts to combine the two principles, and here produces our earliest extant work on the comparative study of the philosophy of religion. 4 THE PLACE OF THE *DE NATURA DEORUM* IN THIS PLAN

2. Within the theological group of Qcero's writings fall three 6 works: the De Natura Deorumy in three books, and its two pendants, the De Divinatione^ in two books, and the De Fato in one.· To have included the two latter works in the De Natura Deorum, in which the subjects of divination and fate are superficially touched upon,7 would have required disproportionate space; in fact the Stoics themselves seem commonly to have treated these questions in separate works. 8 Further, since one may logically believe in gods without accepting either di­ vination · or a Stoic type of fatalism, it was in the interest of clear thinking to segregate these questions, and Cicero has deliberately 1 Cf. 1, 10: nan enim tarn aiutoritatis in disputando quant rationis momenta quatrenda sunt. • For criticism of this creed cf. 1, 85-86; on the blind acceptance of Epi­ curean dogmas 1, 66; 1, 113. 3 Cf. 3, 95: ad veritatis simi/itudinem . . . esse propensior. Μ. Υ. Henry {Relation of Dogmatism and Scepticism in the pbilos. Tractates of Cic.) 1925), 36) well describes this work as "a study in speculative philosophy, where no absolute certainty is attainable by the path of dialectic." « Cf. W. Jaeger, Tbeol. of the early Gr. Philosophers (1947), 192, n. 5: "The com­ bination in it [the N.D.] of voluntaristic authoritarianism and metaphysical ag­ nosticism is even more Roman than the patriotic conflict in Varro's heart." • A fourth, the De Auguriist is by some scholars (e.g., M. Schanz-C. Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Lit. \* (1927), 526), on the strength of a supposed promise in Div. 2, 75: de hoc loco plura in altis, considered to have been an appendix to the De Divina-

tione. The scanty fragments, however (in vol. 4, part 3, 312 of Muller's edition), taken with Cicero's own pride in h i s augurship, suggest that it was rather a technical or antiquarian than a theoreti­ cal work; cf. R. Hirzel, Der Dialog, 1 (1895), 537, n. 3; Pease, ed. of Div. 1 (1920), 10, n. 13. β This has survived only in a m u c h damaged form. 7 E.g., 2, 7-12; 3, 14-15, for divina­ tion; 1, 55; 3, 14; 3, 19, for fate. ■ Cf. 3, 19: de divinatione, de fato, qui bus de quaestionibus tu quidem strictim, nostri autem multa solent dicere, sed ah hoc ea quaesttone quae nunc in mambus est separantur\ Div. 1 , 9 : sed quod praetermissum est in illis lihris (i.e., the N.D.), credo quia commodius arbitratus es separatim id qtiaeri deque eo dissert, id est de divinatione .. . id% si placet, videamus; Pease, ed. of Div. \ (1920), 10, n. 8. ■ Though the Stoics attempted to i n ­ volve inextricably divination and a b e l i e f in the gods; cf. Div. 1, 82-83; 2 , 1 0 1 - 1 0 6 .

9

INTRODUCTION

emphasized the separateness of the two latter treatises from the De Natura Deorum and from one another by giving to each its own scene and speakers. In the De Natura Deorum, which has been called "perhaps the most important contribution to theological thought which we have from classical antiquity," l may be seen a further step toward an histo­ rical and objective treatment, in that, by setting the dialogue back into the period of his youth and by making himself appear in a very minor role,2 he clearly differentiates opinions expressed by the principal dis­ putants from his own personal beliefs.3 Again, in the introduction, speaking in his own character, he deplores the vulgar curiosity of readers about the author's individual views. 4 Accordingly I am convinced that the puzzling last sentence of the whole work,5 in which the Academic Cicero casts his vote, so to speak, on the opposite side of the question from the Academic Cotta, indicates that the dialogue is intended to exemplify Academic methods of inquiry rather than Academic dogma, and to illustrate the freedom of the Academy from dogmatic bonds and the possibility of using such individual liberty for the acceptance of any practical working principle.· THE ROMAN RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

3. Though Cicero is concerned with the opinions of philosophers about religion (i.e., with the philosophy of religion) rather than with the beliefs or cults of different religions themselves,7 it is not inapprop­ riate to glance briefly at the background of the Roman religion against which his treatise must be interpreted.8 The established religion of the 1 J. B. Mayor, cd. of N.D. 3 (1885), xviii, who remarks that though less inspired than Plato Cicero is wider in his range. > Though it should be noted that in the few words which he puts into his own mouth (1, 17; cf. 3, 95) he stoutly defends his freedom from the restrictions of any creed and his right to make his decisions on the basis of probability. On this descriptive aim cf. A. S. Pease in Trans. Am. phiiol. Assoc. 44 (1913), 33. ' But cf. n. 1, p. 34, below. 4 ι * , in TL i- u u 1, 6; 1, 10. Though he perhaps makes a shy concession to public curiosity by indicating in 3, 95, his support of the more probable views of Balbus; cf. R. Hirzcl, Der Dialog, 1 (1895), 533. • 3, 95. • Cf. A. S. Pease, op. cit.y 44 (1913),

36-37; also n. 2, p. 34, below, 7 Cf. C. Thiaucourt, Essai sur les traiies philos. de Cic. (1885), 250; W. w". Fowler, Rom. Ideas of Deity (1914), 10, who remarks that Cicero was hardly able to B** back from theology to religion, and "— and against him W. Thcilcr in Problemata, 1 (1930), 79, n. 3; 104; M. Pohlenz in Gotting. gel. Αηχ. 192 (1930), 138-156 (Book 2); A. Lorchcr in Burs. Jahresb. 235 (1932), 39-53 (Book 2); L. Edclstcin in Studi ital. di β/ο/, cl. N.S. 11 (1934), 131-183 (Book 2); M. Pohlenz, Ant. Fuhrertum (1934), 95, n. 1 (Book 1); id., in Gotting. Nacbricbien, N.F. 1 (1934), 22, n. 1 (Book 3); E. von Ivanka in ligyetemes pbilol. Koxlony, 59 (1935), 10-21^ (Book 2); P. Boyancc in Rev. des

et. lat. 14 (1936), 288-295; J. Hausslcitcr in Burs. Jahresb. 255 (1937), 24 (Books 2-3); M. van den Bruwaenc, La tbiologit de Cic. (1937), passim, R. Philippson in P.-V7. 19 (1938), 2462 (Book 1); 7A (1939), 1153-1154 (Book 1); 1154-1155 (Book 2); 1155-1156 (Book 3); id., in Symb. Osloenses, 19 (1939), 15-40 (Book 1); 20 (1940). 21-44 (Book 1); W. Ax in Gotting. gel. Arrr. 1939, n. 1, 41 (Book 2); F. Solmscn in Cl. Pbilol. 39 (1944), 46 (Book 3); R. Philippson in Symb. Osloen­ ses, 24 (1945), 16-47; C. Vicol in Epbtm. Dacoromana, 10 (1945), csp. 249-250; 265-266; A. J. Fcstugicrc, La Ret>le. d'Heresm Trism. 2 (1949), 366, n. 1; A. di Girolamo in Giorn. ital. di filol. 4 (1951), 43-58. 1 1, 1-17. 1 nn. 6-9, p. 29; 1-4, p. 30, above. » 1, 18-24. • 1, 25-41. • Cf. R. Hirzcl, op. est., 1 (1877), 17-19; P. Schwcnkc, op. cit., 49; C. Thiaucourt, op. cit., 210. R. Philippson in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1153, thinks that if Cicero here used Philodemus it was a different pan of his work from that which parallels our section C. • 1, 30; independent of the account in 1, 18-20. 7 1, 36-41. • Op. cit., 22. • 5, 110-234. 10 Cf. 1, 21-22, with Lucr. 5. 165-175; 1, 23, with Lucr. 5, 156-167. Hirzcl,

INTRODUCTION

39

part adopted this assumption, without insisting, however, upon Lucre­ tius as a source. Thiaucourt l would assume Phacdrus, for whose books on the gods Gcero asked Atticus on 5 August, 45, 2 but there has been a greater inclination among modern scholars 3 to find the source in Zeno of Sidon, whom Gcero knew and considered the leading Epicurean of his age,4 to whom Cotta compares Vclleius, 5 and whose violently pug­ nacious habits of debate fit much better than the milder manners of Phacdrus β with the contemptuous character of section B.7 Others, perhaps more cautiously, would be contented to assume some unspecified Epicurean writer.8 SOURCES OF THE DOXOGRΑΡΗ Υ 23. In part C · there is a doxographic account of the theological op. cit., 1, 9-10 refutes the view that Cicero here borrows from Lucretius; R. Philippson (in Got ting. gel. Απ%. 1937, 473; id., in Sjmb. Osloenses, 19 (1939), 18; id., in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1153) thinks that Lucretius, Actius, Plac. 1, 7, 5-10 (Doxogr. Gr* 299-301), and Cicero probably all derive from the same ulti­ mate source, viz. Epicurus, De Natura, Book 12 (fr. 82-87 Uscncr), but perhaps under the influence of criticisms by Carncadcs. » Op. cit., 7. 1 Op. cit., 213. While there may possibly have been reason for so sup­ posing when it was thought that the work περί ευσέβειας was by Phacdrus (sec J. Haytcr's view, as explained by J. B. Mayor, cd. of N.D. 1 (1880), xliii-xlvi; H. Dicls, Doxogr. Gr* (1929), 530), there seems little when that work is ascribed to Philodcmus (cf. R. Hirzcl, op. cit., 1, 26-27). 1 Att. 13, 39, 2. But R. Philippson (Sjmb. Oslotnses, 19 (1939), 15) remarks that in a letter of 4 August, 45 (Att. 13, 38, 1) he was already writing contra Bpicureos, and so had already passed to part Ε of our book. Further, just before the reference to Phacdrus in Att. 13, 39, 2, Cicero says: libros mihi de quibus ad te antea scripsi velim mittas, which Phi­ lippson (in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1153) thinks may have been theological works of Philo­ dcmus, since Atticus stood in intimate

relations with all the Epicureans in Italy. 3 E.g., C. Petersen, ed. of Phacdrus Epicureus (1833), 45; Hirzcl, op. cit. 1, 27-32; Schwcnkc, op. cit., 56-57; Thiau­ court, op. cit., 214, who thinks Zcno was the source of both Philodcmus and Cicero, the latter retaining the pugnacious quality of his original and the more polished Philodcmus omitting it. 4 1, 59: Zenonem, quern Philo noster coryphaeum appellare Izpicureorum solebat, cum A them's essem audiebam frequenter (Cotta speaks, but apparently tells of Cicero's experience); Tusc. 3, 38: hoc Hit acriculus me audiente Atfjenis senex Zeno, is torurn acutissimus, contendere et magna voce dicere solebat. » 1, 59. • 1, 93; cf. Hirzcl, op. cit. 1, 29. 7 In which sarcasm and a dozen or more indignant rhetorical questions are prominent. R. Hoycr (in Rhein. Μus. 53 (1898), 52) remarks that there arc about 200 questions in this book, and points out their unsuitability for sceptical doctrine, and Mayor, ed. of N.D. 3 (1885), xvi, observes that the answers to them may often be distinctly given in the words of the treatise criticized. • R. Philippson (Sjmb. Oslotnses, 19 (1939), 17) thinks perhaps from some Epicurean work on the origin of the world, this being the subject especially discussed in 1, 18-24. • 1, 25-41.

40

INTRODUCTION

beliefs of philosophers from Thales to Diogenes of Babylon.1 That this is not compiled by Gcero himself but borrowed from some Greek source is universally admitted, and many scholars 2 have remarked upon its striking resemblances to Philodemus, De Pietate? the apposite parts of which are conveniently printed, in parallel columns with N.D. 1, 25-41, by H. Diels in his Doxographi Craed.* While the fragmentary condition of the papyrus of Philodemus accounts for his not mentioning several philosophers in Cicero's list,6 and there are some slight divergences of order in the names of those who are selected,· yet the parallels in some of the philosophers 7 are noteworthy, as is the fact that the same works arc often cited. 9 The omission by Gcero of Heraclitus and Prodicus, who appear in Philodemus, is explained by Diels · as due to the likeness of their views to those of the Stoics and Persacus, respectively.10 Other differences between Cicero and Philodemus are also enumerated by Schwenke.11 Philodemus may seem more courteous in tone than 1 Which Krischc,0/>.r/7.,24; Lengnick, op. cit., 4-5; Hirzcl, op. cit., 1, 22-23; Thiaucourt, op. cit., 209-213; and Gianola, op. cit., 8, consider to be an after­ thought on Cicero's part, intruded be­ tween 1, 24 and 1, 42 (or possibly the second sentence of 1, 43); but cf. L. Rcinhardt, op. cit., 5-6. Indeed in 1, 2, the words ut eorum infinitum sit enumerare sententias might suggest that when writing them Cicero did not intend to furnish a long doxography, and if 1, 25-41 were deleted the sense would continue un­ broken. Yet, as pointed out by J. B. Mayor {CI. Rtv. 3 (1889), 357) the histo­ rical summary is prepared for byphrases found in 1, 1; 1, 2; 1, 3; and it is clear that 1, 63; 1, 91-92; and 1F 94 regard part C as an essential portion of the whole work, while exposui (1, 42) naturally refers to part C, though Hirzcl (p. 22) would relate it to 1, 24. The list is very similar, in form and content, to that in Ac. 2, 118, though each list has its own specialities. For a comparison of the two see A. J. Fcstugicrc, La Rail. d'Hermes Trism. 2 (1949), 366. 1 On the development of this fact cf. H. Sauppc, Ausgew. Scbr. (1896), 387-389 (reprinting a programme of 1864); R. Hirzcl, op. at., 1, 4-5 (refuting doubts of G. F. Schocmann); H. Diels, Doxogr. Gr.% (1929), 121-122.

a

Pp. 65-84 Gomperz. 2 cd. (1929), 531-550. On the rela­ tions of the two works sec also B. Leng­ nick, op. cit., passim; J. B. Mayor, cd. of N.D. 1, xlvi-1. • Thales, Anaximandcr, Alcmacon, Empedoclcs, Plato, Xcnocrates, Hcraclides Ponticus, Thcophrastus, Strato, Ariston. • E. g., Protagoras. 7 H. Diels, op. cit., 122, cites as especial­ ly convincing those dealing with Aris­ totle, Persacus, Chrysippus, and Dioge­ nes of Babylon. Elscwhcxc (p. 126) he discusses Cicero's amplification of some passages. § So R. Hirzcl, op. cit., 1, 5 (followed by C. Thiaucourt, op. cit., 206) calls attention to Antisthenes, Pbysicus (1, 32), the third book of Aristotle's De PAi/osopbia (1, 33), the first book of Chrysip­ pus, De Diis (not named in 1, 39, as it is in Philodemus, yet clearly used), and Diogenes, De Minerva (1, 41). Both also* draw from Xcnophon, Memorabilia 0.31). • Op. cit., 125-126. 10 Heraclides is alluded to by Cicero in 1, 74 and 3, 35; Prodicus in 1, 118— all these, of course, outside the limits of the present passage. " Op. cit., 50-51. 4

INTRODUCTION

41

Gccro in part C,1 and expresses rather little of criticism, 2 whereas the non-historical parts are strongly anti-Stoic, 3 but Philippson 4 suggests that Cicero has perhaps somewhat exaggerated the vituperative character of his source in order to make it appear more typically Epicurean. 6 T o explain both the likenesses and the divergences of Cicero and Philodemus various theories have been advanced. Given the friendly relations known to have existed between the two, it is very improbable (1) that Philodemus copied Cicero; β possible (2) that Cicero copied Philodemus's De Pietate? in which case there are a few discrepancies to be explained; 8 not unlikely (3), as Philippson β supposes, in view of Cicero's brevity, that he used an epitome of Philodemus, prepared for him cither by an assistant (to whom some of the errors might then be ascribed) 10 or by Philodemus himself; ,x and entirely possible (4) that Cicero, Philodemus, and perhaps others, 12 derive from some common source. This archetype 1 H. Dicls, Doxogr. Gr* 122-123. (L'scncr, Epicurea, 356, no. 385a) refers Yet cf. the impressive list of vituperative to Philominus . . . in epitomis suis, where expressions collected by Philippson editors have emended to Philodemus. {Symb. Osloenses, 19 (1939), 28-30) from For Cicero's use of such epitomes the writings of Philodemus. Philippson (p. 36) compares H. Usencr, 1 Epicurea (1887), Ixv. Cf. A Lorchcr in Cf. H. Dicls, op. cit., 123; A. LorBurs Jahresb. 200, 2 (1924), 124; 134. chcr, op. cit., 137. 10 • Hirzcl, op. cit., 1, 24. I.. Rcinhardt, op. cit., 19; cf. Mayor, • In P.-W. 7A (1939), 1153. cd. of N.D. 3 (1885), lxx. 11 • Cf. 1, 18; 1, 93-94; 2, 73: vestra enim R. Philippson in Symb. Osloenses, 19 solum legitis, vestra amatis, ceteros causa incog­(1939), 37. Considerations of anachro­ nita condemnatis; also Dicls, σ/>. r/V., 123. nism prevented citing Philodemus di­ rectly as a source {id., 40). • Cf. Thiaucourt, op. cit., 209; also 11 R. Philippson in P.-W. 19 (1938), Cf. J. B. Mayor in CI. Rev 3 (1889), 2445-2446; P. H. and E. A. DcLacy, 357; R. Philippson in Hermes, 55 cd. of Philodemus, De Si gnu — Philol. (1920), 230 (citing J. Dictze in Jahrb. f. Monographs, 10 (1941), 4-5, citing Fin. ct. Philol. 153 (1896), 223) for a common Epicurean source for these two works, 2, 119; also Ascon. in Pison. 68: Philodemum significat, qui fut't Epicureus ilia the Epicurean Damon in Lucian, tup. aetate nobilissimus. There would be no Trag., and various Christian apologists, particularly Clement's Protrepticus. This obvious motive for Philodemus to source would have fallen in the second borrow from Cicero, and if he did we century, and may have had two parts: should still have to explain cither how (a) poets, mythologists, and the populace, Cicero was able in his hasty composition and (b) the philosophers, this being the to compile such a doxography or from what other source he borrowed it. order in Philodemus, De Piet. pp. 5-65 7 Cf. R. Philippson in Symb. Osloenses Gomperz, which corresponds to N.D. 1, 42-43. The apologists, like Vcllcius in 19 (1939), 31. Cicero, object to the views of the philos­ • Cf. n. 1, p. 41, above. • In Hermes, 51 (1916), 568; Berl. ophers as being inconsistent with one pbilol. Wocb. 36 (1916), 109; Symb. another and in some cases with them­ selves, and to the opinions of the poets Osloenses, 19 (1939), 36-40; at 38-39 he gives the text of a fragment {Pap. Here. (Homer, Hcsiod, ct al.) as unbecoming and leading men to vice under the pre­ 168) which he attempts to identify with this epitome. Ambros. Ep. 63, 13 text of imitating the gods.

42

INTRODUCTION

would be dated later than Diogenes of Babylon, the latest name in the doxography, who died about 150 B.C.,1 and Dicls * suggested that it might well be Phaedrus's περί θεών, while Schwenke s and Cronert 4 hold to Zeno of Sidon.5 Mayor,· with good reason, inquires why the historical review stops at the middle of the second century B.C., and suggests that we may trace Zeno's criticisms back to his predecessor, Apollodorus, ό κηποτύραννος, who flourished in the late second century and was a voluminous writer; yet this is somewhat conjectural.7 It is noteworthy, however, that this Epicurean source does not take the opportunity to criticize the theological arguments of that doughty opponent, Carneades. The theory of Gianola 8 that an Academic rather than an Epicurean source was used for both parts C and D is more ingenious than convincing. SOURCES OF THE EPICUREAN

DOCTRINE

9

24. Part D, the brief but abstruse exposition of positive Epicurean theological views, has been traced to quite diverse sources. Krische 10 and Lorcher n think it made up by Gcero from his general knowledge of Epicurean tenets, Hoyer 12 further remarking that it contains only generalities for which no special source need be sought. 13 On the other 1 M. Wcllmann in P.-W. 5 (1905), 774. » Doxogr. Gr.* 126-127. Mayor (cd. of N.D. 1, lii, n. 1) dissents. • Op. cit., 56-57; so also Thiaucourt, op. cit., 214-216. 4 Op. cit., 176, who thinks that Phacdrus, Philodcmus, and Cicero derive from Zeno, the first two directly, Cicero through Phacdrus. • In whose time Philippson (op. cit. (1939), 27) would place it. He was a hearer of Carncadcs (Ac. 1, 46), with whom Diogenes, the last in the list, was contemporary;cf. Fcstugicrc,op. cit., 366. • Ed. of N.D. 1 (1880), lii. 7 Cf. Thiaucourt, op. tit., 215, n. 0. ■ Op. cit., 6-13. On p. 6 he holds that in 1, 29, an I Epicurean would have been more respectful toward Dcmocritus (yet cf. 1, 93); that in 1, 37, the ex­ pression deus tile quern mtnte nosctmus is inappropriate in the mouth of an Rpicurcan (yet cf. 1, 49: mtnte cernatur). • 1, 43-56. " Op. cit., 33.

11 In Burs. Jabresb. 200, 2 (1924), 135136, who thinks that Cicero arranged the material as in Book 2 and took it from Epicurus himself rather than from a later Epicurean. » Op. cit., 50. I$ It is hard to sec how 1, 49-50, which at their best may be a reasonably correct rendering of a highly technical passage and at their worst a complete misunder­ standing by Cicero of the Epicurean position, can be thus explained, Hirzel (op. cit., 1, 12) remarks that Cicero must have studied Epicurus deeply in order to have been able to quote directly from three of his books (1, 43; 1, 45; 1, 49), which conflicts with his statement in Τ use. 2 , 8 : Hpicurum auttm et Metrodorum non fere praettr suos quisquam in man us sumit. Uri (op. cit., 86-88) thinks the unity of part D—which is superior to that of part Ε—is an indication that it is not from Cicero himself but from a Greek source.

43

INTRODUCTION 1

2

3

δ

hand Hirzel, Schwenke, Thiaucourt, L. Reinhardt,* and Uri support Zeno of Sidon as the original, wh'lc Philippson β has gradually developed the likely theory that, while the doctrine in 1, 50-56 is all teaching of Epicurus, yet it is also to be found in the writings of his followers, and most of it in Philodemus, so that although it is not probable that part D was from Philodemus's De Pietate it may well have come from his περί θεών or its supplementary books περί θεών διαγωγής, perhaps used by Cicero in the form of epitomes (such as Pap. Here. 168?). SOURCES OF C O T T A ' S CRITICISM OF THE EPICUREANS

25. The final section (E), 7 with Cotta's disproportionately long re­ futation of Epicurean views, despite Schoemann's opinion H that it is, like Book 3, all from Clitomachus, contains, as almost all students now recognize, an admixture of elements from the Academy (Clitomachus reproducing the doctrines of Carneadcs) with others from Posidonius.· Certain scholars l0 assume a single sectarian source, with infiltrations from Gccro's own reading; others would discover two distinct sources. 1

Op. cit., 25-32. Op. cit., 56-57. a Op. cit., 214-216. • Op. cit.% 42-56. • Op. cit., 84-89. So apparently also Mayor, cd. of N.D. 1, li-lii. • First in his dissertation De Philodemi Libra . . . περί σημείων. . . et Epicureorum Doctrina logica (1881), 71; cf. id., in Hermes, 51 (1916), 607-608; id. in Bert, pbihl. Woch., 36 (1916), 110; id., in Symb. Osloemes, 19 (1939), 34-36; id., in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1153-1154.

the gods for men; cosmopolitanism of the sapientes). And even back in 1, 80, there is a jesting reference to the Aca­ demy, which, though not impossible for an Academic, comes more naturally from one of another school. Heincmann {op. cit., 2, 147-148) argues that in 1, 4, Carneadcs is called the opponent of the Stoics, so probably the criticism of the Epicureans is by someone else, like Philo; cf. 1, 17; 1, 59; 1, 113. 10 Heincmann {op. at., 2, 147, n. 1) notes that Hirzel {op. cit., 1, 32-45) and 7 Gocdcckcmcycr {op. at., 67, n. 2) found 1 , 57-124. ■ Ed. 4 of N.D. (1876), 18. Carneadcs the source in Clitomachus (cf. also H. is, to be sure, named in 3, 29 and 3, 44, von Arnim in P.-W. 10 (1917), 1971; P.-U". 11 (1922), 659, for Clitomachus), but never in part E. while Schwenkc {op. n't., 57-66), Thiau­ • L'ri {op. n't., 89) remarks: sic bccourt {op. cit., 219-220; 227), and ginnt echt akadcmisch, und dcr Schluss Schmckel {op. cit., 85-104) decide upon sicht ganz stoisch aus. Among the Stoic Posidonius. Also P. Wendland {Berl. elements arc: 1, 87 (the wonders of the universe); 1, 92 (traces of teleology pbihl. Woch. 12 (1892), 841-842) favors in nihil supervactuxnturn; 1, 95-96 (the uni­ Posidonius, as docs C. H. Vick {op. cit., 228-232, who points out likenesses verse possibly divine); 1, 100 (a tcleobetween Cicero and Sextus Kmpiricus, logical passage, suggesting those in 2 , 95; 2, 98-99); 1, 103 {aetheriis ignibus, Adv. Pbys. 1 (discussed also by R. Philipp­ cf. 2, 101); 1, 104 {naturae accommodatum); son in Symb. Osloenses, 20 (1940), 26-32), 1, 110 {virtus autem actuosa); 1, 116 (pietas which Vick believes derive from Posido­ nius. and sanctitas defined); 1, 121 (care of 1

44

INTRODUCTION

Thus L. Reinhardt * assigns to Clitomachus 1, 57-102 2 and to Posidonius 1, 103-124; 3 Cropp 4 thinks that 1, 57-114 are by a Stoicizing Academic, 5 the remainder by Posidonius; Uri · that Qccro used mainly materials from a Stoic source,7 probably one used by him in Book 2, 8 with a few distinctly Academic arguments taken from the source of Book 3 (Clitomachus), all of which material he attempted to work over, from his Academic standpoint, to answer the Epicurean doctrines set forth in part D, with some Academic phraseology added; · Hcinemann,10 maintaining that Gcero knew of no published Academic criticism specifically directed against Epicurean theology, and therefore fused together pieces from Philo's critique of the Epicurean system in general and a polemic by Posidonius against atomistic views on theology; and Philippson n that most is from Academic sources, but 1, 123-124 from Posidonius. An obstacle to the acceptance of a single source is the contradiction between 1, 85-86 (where sec the notes on nonnullis vidert and deos esse putat)12 and 1, 123, for in the one case Epicurus is called a believer in gods—in fact, a very superstitious believer—, in the other, on the authority of the fifth book of Posidonius's work on the gods, he figures as an atheist under the garb of religious conformity. These can hardly derive from the same source,13 though in Sextus Empiricus, who presents some parallels to our first book, a similar contradiction has been pointed out.14 So varied and so inconsistent arc 1 Op. cit., 20-33. • With 1, 63-64 (on atheists) intcrpolated by Cicero from elsewhere; cf. Uri, op. cit., 109. • With 1, 106-108 (Roman and other illustrations) and 1, 117-120 (condemnation of apotheosis) similarly interpolatcd by Cicero from a source other than Posidonius. • Op. cf/., 22-23. 1 So Hover (op. cit., 54) thought Ε derived from Antiochus, who wrote περί ϋεών (Plut. Lucull. 28, 7); but sec the doubts of Gianola (pp. (it., 10-13), who prefers to believe Philo the source; cf. 1, 17; 1, 59; 1, 113; Fam. 9, 8, 1, on Philo as an adversary of the Rpicurcans; also Cropp, op. cit., 20-23; Hcinemann, op. cit., 2, 147-153; and Philippson in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1154. Hcinemann (op. cit., 151-153) observes that the whole Epicurean system is here attacked, while Book 3 criticizes only the theology of the Stoics.

· Op. cit., 89-113. 7 Cf. 1, 100, n. (tot vituperabas), below, * At pp. 100-101 he compares 1, 77102 with 2, 45-72. Sec also the views of Hirzcl {pp. at., 1, 33-34) and Philippson (op. cit., 39-41; 44). · E.g., 1, 66; 1, 84; 1, 94. ,0 Op. cit., 2, 153-162 (especially 161162). » In Symb. Osloenses, 20 (1940), 25-26; 31; cf. P.-W. 7A (1939), 1154; C. Vicol in Rphtm. Dacorom. 10 (1945), 265-266, who stresses the correspondence, point by point, of sections D and LI, as against the separatist view of Uri. » Also Schmckcl, op. cit., 101-102. " Cf. Hirzel, op. at., 1,35-36; Philippson, op. cit., 43. u Cf. Adv. Phys. 1, 58: xsl 'Επίκουρο; δέ κατ' ίνίους ώς μέν προς τους πολλο·>; απολείπει Οεόν. ώς δέ προς τήν φύσιν των πραγμάτων ουδαμώς;; 1, 64: τάχχ δ* οι άπό των κήπων, ώς αϊ ρΊηταΙ του 'Επικού· ρουλέζειο μαρτυροϋσι, θεόν άπολείπουσιν.

45

INTRODUCTION

the opinions of scholars on this question—to quote Cicero's own re­ marks l—that it seems prudent to adopt a certain Academic suspense of judgment concerning them. One additional consideration, however, has been especially developed by R. Philippson,2 who observes that the original views of Epicurus were attacked by Carneades; then, to meet these criticisms, some modifications were made by Xcno and other later Epicureans, and these appear in Philodemus. For the positive Epicurean doctrine in part D Cicero has used this later material, but for the refutation of it by Cotta in part Ε he has employed, at least in considerable measure, an earlier argumentation deriving from Carneades, though perhaps through Philo, the pupil of Clitomachus.3 Hence the vulnerable points in D are not very effectively attacked in E, while Ε tries to refute arguments not advanced in D. 4 This inconcinnity between exposition and rebuttal may be paralleled in the De Divinationey where the defense of divination in Book 1 is based on Posidonius and is more up-to-date in its arguments than the rebuttal in Book 2, which derives from earlier polemics of Carneades against the Stoic views. 6 SOURCES OF BOOK II

26. In studying the probable sources of Book 2 wc may first segregate certain sections which are certainly or probably the work or the insertion of Cicero himself, such as the dialogue-framework (2, 1-3; 2, 168), the Roman illustrations and the conclusions drawn therefrom (2, 6-12; 2, 165; in 2, 8, Coelius is cited, doubtless through Brutus's epitome; cf. Att. 13, 8 (8 June, 45): epitomen Bruti Coelianorum velim mihi mittas et a Philoxeno Παναιτίου περί προνοίας). Ciceronian are probably the statements introduced by ut t patre audivi (2, 11; 2, 14); quotations from Accius (2, 89-90), Pacuvius (2, 91-92), and the reference to the 21 letters of the Roman alphabet and the Annates of Ennius (2, 93-94); above all, the lengthy quotations from his own Aratea (2, 104-115). No Greek source would have included any of this matter, which amounts to about 30 of the 168 sections of the book. Though Cicero had read and studied many Greek authors, yet, considering the speed with which the present work was composed, it R. Philippson in P. W. 7 A (1939), 1154. That Carneades at times used the arguments of one dogmatic school to refute those of another is well recognized; cf. W. C. Greene, Moira (1944), 348, n. 96. 1 pj.D. 1, 1. 1 In A V . 7A (1939), 1154, and more particularly in Symb. Ot/oenses, 20 (1940).

31-41. 3 Q^ ^f

41

* Philippson (op. «/.. 41) cites as an '""«ration 1. 113. See also 1, 77, n. (Ρ"'"), below. · Cf. Pease, ed. of Div. 1 (1920), 22-23; 28-29.

46

INTRODUCTION

is likely that he employed few rather than many sources,1 and that allusions to Plato and Aristotle (from the latter of whom many of the biological data cited ultimately derive) as well as to Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus (all of whom are cited, the last named being often recognizable by the very syllogistic character of his argument) were made through the medium of a few later writers. P. Schwenke (Jabrb.f. Pbiiol. 119 (1879), 129-140, especially 139-140), followed by P. Wendland (Arch. J. Gesch. d. Phil. 1 (1886), 206), J. B. Mayor (edition, 2 (1883), xvi-xxiii), A. Goethe (edition (1887), 17), H. Diels, Elementum (1889), 2; and C. Giambelli (RJv. di β/ο/. 31 (1903), 450-463), would assert a single source for essentially the whole book, namely, Posidonius, περί θεών, a work in five books, to the first four of which Schwenke would relate the four-fold division in 2, 3. Especially favoring Posidonian authorship is K. Reinhardt, Poseidonios (1921), 224-239; id., Kosmos u. Sympathie (1926), 161-177, who ascribes to Posidonius rather than to Panaetius 2, 115-153 (but cf. I. Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphys. Schriftent 2 (1928), 207-209). Arguments adduced in this connection include the admiration of Posidonius for Plato (2, 32), which is attested by Galen, Hipp, et Piat. Plac. 4, 7 (V, 421 K.), and for Aristotle (2, 42-44; 2, 95), which is noted by Strabo, 2, 3, 8—in each case in contrast with most other Stoics, so that allusions to these two philosophers may well come through Posidonius rather than directly (a point urged by I. Bywater \s\Joum. of Phihi. 7 (1877), 76). Again, Posidonius is named in 2, 88 (though as inventor rather than as author), and many other passages in the second book agree with views ascribed to him by other writers; e.g., the vitalistic passage in 2, 82-85, for which cf. M. Pohlenz in Gotting. gel. An^. 192 (1930), 145; W. Ax in the same, 201 (1939), 41-42; note also the allusion to Rhodes in 2, 165. A variant form of the belief in a single source is that of R. Philippson (in Philol. Woch. 54 (1934), 190; id.y P.-W. 7A (1939), 1155), who, be­ cause of likenesses to Scxtus Empiricus, Diogenes Lacrtius, Aetius, Theon, and Arius Didymus, argues that Cicero here used a Stoic hand­ book which included materials from Panaetius and Posidonius, and therefore must have been by a contemporary of Cicero. M. Pohlenz (Gnomon* 21 (1949), 116) believes this view possible yet not necessarily exclusive of a direct use of Panaetius also. L. Edclstein {Stud. ital. di filol. cl. 11 (1934), 131-183) thinks inconsistencies and inconcinnity are due to Cicero himself and do not permit us to assume differing sources in this book. 1 For which reason 1 find it difficult to accept the mosaic of sources main-

taincd by P. Finger in Rh. St us. 80 (1931). 151-200; 310-320.

INTRODUCTION

47

27. Other scholars would detect in the Second Book more than one source. Its four main topical divisions (outlined in 2, 3) arc: (A) 2, 3-44 (esse deos); (B) 2, 45-72 (quales sin/); (C) 2, 73-153 (mundum ab his administrari); (D) 2, 153-167 (consulere eos rebus humanis), but I. Heinemann, op. cit.t 2, 167, points out that much in the book ill corresponds to these four headings. R. Hirzcl (Untersuchungen %. Cic. phiI, Schr. 1 (1877), 191-244, especially 224) assigns A and D to Posidonius, περί θεών, Β to Apollodorus, περί θεών, and C to Panaetius, περί προνοίας, allowing for casual reference by Cicero to other works. H. Uscner, Tipicurea (1887), lxvii, thinks that for A Cicero stupidly mixed up excerpts from Poseidonius with remains of an Academic handbook of Carncadean tone, which he had perhaps used when a young student at Athens. Against this view cf. L. Reinhardt (in Bresl. philol. Abh. 3, 2 (1888), 54-55), who himself believes that A and Β derive from Chrysippus, C from Panaetius, and D from Posidonius. P. Finger (Rh. Mus. 80 (1931), 151-200; 310320) divides into much smaller units drawn from Posidonius, Panaetius, and Antiochus. Again, part C may be divided into parts, and M. Pohlcnz (Go/ting, gel. An^. 184(1922), 168-170; 188 (1926), 279-288 (against K. Reinhardt's Kosmos u.Symp atbie); 192 (1930), 144-145; id., in Gnomon, 21 (1949), 116; W. Theiler in Gnomon, 23 (1951), 224, and I. Heinemann, op. at., 2 (1928), 208-209) recognize 2, 115-153 as derived from Panaetius, περί προνοίας. Supporting this ascription are such arguments as: (1) Cicero's request for the loan of Panaetius's book (Att. 13, 18, quoted above); (2) the interest shown in comets, etc. (cf. Sen. N.Q. 7, 30, 2); (3) praise of the etesian winds (2, 31; cf. Anon, in Arat. p. 97 Maass); (4) belief in the permanence of the world and doubt about the orthodox Stoic view of a world-conflagration (much hinges upon whether nihil ut fere intereat aut admodum paultdum (2, 118) represents a single, unified thought, as maintained by K. Reinhardt (Kosmos u. Sympathie (1926), 164, n. 1; cf. R. Philippson in Philol. Woch. 54 (1934), 189-190) or op­ p o s i n g alternatives of Panaetius on the one hand and the orthodox Stoics on the other, as argued by M. Pohlcnz (Gotting. gel. An%. 188 (1926), 279-280; cf. I. Heinemann, op. at., 2, 206); (5) likenesses between 2, 147-153 and Off. 2, 9-20 (from Panaetius; cf. Heinemann, op. at., 2, 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 ) ; (6) the derivation of the physiological matter beginning in 2, 135 from Erasistratus as an ultimate source, rather than from Praxagoras whom Posidonius followed (cf. M. Pohlcnz in Gbtting. gel. An^. 188 (1926), 282-283). So also 2, 98-103 show Panactian traits; cf. M. Pohlcnz in Gotting. gel. An^. 192 (1930), 145). The objections of K. Reinhardt (Kosmos u. Sjmpathie (1926), 161-177)

48

INTRODUCTION

seem less convincing than the arguments of Pohlenz and Heinemann. 28. Whether Book 3 should be (more logically) arranged to match the divisions in Book 2 or Book 2 so arranged as to be more conveniently refuted in Book 3 is the dilemma which apparently confronted Cicero; cf. 1. Heinemann, op. cit.t 2, 163-164; 219-220 (but see, in opposition, P. Fingerin Rh. Mus. 80 (1931), 318-319; also 2,153 ,n. (quid, etc.), below). As the books stand, the arrangement, save for Gceronian intrusions, like 2, 104-114, and the material in 3, 53-60, is essentially the same (cf. Heinemann, op. cit., 2, 220).

SOURCES OF BOOK III

29. In Book 3 we may ascribe to Cicero himself the frame-work of the dialogue(3, 1-15; 3, 94-95), allusions to deified Roman heroes (3, 39) and abstracts (3, 63), to the capedunculae of Numa (3, 43), to Furina (3, 46), Circe and Circeii (3, 48), and to Roman tax-collectors (3, 49); also a personal observation at Athens (3, 49), the types of cases in Roman law-courts (3, 74), and the unmerited sufferings of certain Romans (3, 80-81; 3, 86). Obviously inserted by Cicero are quotations from Ennius (3, 24; 3, 40; 3, 65-67; 3, 75; 3, 79), Pacuvius (3,48), Caecilius (3, 72-73), Terence (3, 72), and Accius (3, 41; 3, 68; 3, 90). Some passages may contain his own independent and usually obvious answers to argu­ ments advanced in Book 2, yet for the larger part of the rebuttal of Stoic arguments we may probably assume Carneades as an ultimate source, directly cited in 3, 29-34 and 3, 44-50, and often recalled by the likeness of Cicero's reasoning to that in Scxt. Emp. Adv. Phys. 1; cf. in detail, Mayor's ed., 3 (1885), lxi-lxx; C Vick in Hermes, 37 (1902), 228-248. This use of Carneades is recognized by most scholars; e.g., R. Hirzel, Untersuch. ^ Cic. phil. Schr. 1 (1877), 243; P. Schwenke {Jahrb.f. cl. Philol. 119 (1879), 140); J. B. Mayor, I.e.; L. Reinhardt (Bresl. philol. Abh. 3, 2 (1888), 56-68); D. Heeringa, Quaest. ad Cic. de Div. Ub. (1906), 37-38; M. Schanz-C. Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Lit. I 4 (1927), 511; R. Philippson in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1155-1156; yet cf. also P. Cropp, De Auct. quos secutus Cic. . . Acad. Nov. Theol. reddidit (1909), 26-36. But since Carneades left no writings of his own (Diog. L. 4, 65) Cicero may have employed his arguments through the medium of his pupil, the Carthaginian Hasdrubal (commonly known as Clitomachus), to whom we may perhaps ascribe the allusion to Carthage in 3, 9 1 . Yet, since Clitomachus seems to have attacked dogmatism generally rather than single philosophic schools, R. Philippson (P.-W. 7A (1939), 1155-1156) would derive his arguments from his pupil (Cicero's teacher),

INTRODUCTION

49

Philo, whom Cicero names in 1, 6; 1, 17; 1, 59; 1, 113; cf. 3, 29, n. (Carneades\ below. (In Ac. 2, 78, however, Cicero considers Clitomachus a better authority for the views of Carneades than cither Philo or Mctrodorus.) 30. Λη exception to Carneadean authorship is pretty certainly found in the sections on homonymous gods (3, 42; 3, 53-60), which are not paralleled in Sextus Empiricus and seem to form an intrusion in the discussion of Book 3; cf. 3, 60: sed eo iam inde hue digressi sumus revertamur. That this material derives from some Alexandrian compilation (cf. 3, 60: ex vetere Graeciae Jama colkcta sunt) is the view of L. Reinhardt, op. cit., 62-63; 68; cf. R. Hirzcl, Ber. d. sdebs. Ges. d. Wiss. 48 (1896), 303-304; W. Michaelis, De Orig. Indicts Deorum eognominum (1898), 4, who supposes the source to be a Rhodian Peripatetic of the second century, B.C.; W. Bobeth, De Indicibus Deorum (1904), 24, who believes Varro the source. CICKRO'S OWN CONTRIBUTIONS

31. That, whatever his sources at any particular point of the work, and however he may have compressed or expanded his original,1 Cicero made additions of his own 2 is undeniable. As noted by Schanz,3 these occur especially in the form of moral commonplaces or of illustrative mythological or historical exemp/a.* The latter arc found in all three books, though perhaps most frequently, like the poetic quotations, in 1 and its culture arc more cogent than On his methods of translating sec what he says in Fin. 1, 6: quod si nos non those drawn from a distant time or place, and II. V. Canter {CI. Journ. 32 interpretum fungimur murine, sed tuemur ea quae dicta stmt ab eis quos probamus, (1936), 39-41), on Cicero's use of mytho­ eisque nostrum iudicium et nostrum scribendilogy, finds in him few myths about ordinem adiungimus; Off. 1, 6: seqttemur gods, more about heroes, used for il­ . . . Stoicos non ut interpretes sed, ut soiemus,lustration rather than for embellishment. e fontibus eorum iudicio arbitrioque nostro, They occur to some extent in the N.D., quantum quoque modo videbitur, haurremus. but most commonly in the Tuscu/ans a The programme of C. Cromc, Quid (1 should also add the De Divinatione; Graecis Cic. in Pbi/os., quid nbi debuerit, cf. Pease, cd. of Div. 1 (1920), 26-28; 135-136). On Cicero's use of historical I have not seen. 3 M. Schanz-C. Hosius, Gescb. d. rom. exempla cf. H. Schocnbcrgcr, Beispiele aus dtr Gescb. in Cic. Reden (1910); Ut. I 4 (1927), 528. 4 O. Plasberg, Cic. in seinen Werken u. H. W. Litchfield in Harv. Stud, in cl. Pbilol. 25 (1914), 6; 27; 36-38; R. Helm Brie/en (1926), 161, remarks upon Cicero's in Hermes, 74 (1939), 133; also for the c u s t o m of replacing Greek exempJa by borrowing of such from Cicero by R o m a n in his philosophical works. The Valerius Maximus sec M. Schanz-C. customary division of books of exempla, Hosius, op. cit.t 1*, 590. In 2, 8 certainly l i k e Valerius Maximus, into domestica (and possibly throughout 2, 6-14) Cicero a n d externa is doubtless an indication makes use of Coclius, and in Att. 13, 8 that illustrations from one's own country

4

50

INTRODUCTION

Book 3, and lend a more distinctly Roman color to the whole work.1 Typical instances are those drawn from the Gracchi,2 from Roman priests and theologians, 3 the canon ot Roman heroes and villains,4 Roman legal cases,5 and distinctively Roman cults.· Also added from Cicero's own experience are illustrations from his travels in Greek lands,7 where his own observations corroborate statements made on the authority of others. If some of these illustrations at times seem to in­ terrupt rather than forward the discussion, they at least help to maintain the atmosphere of a slightly rambling and reminiscent conversation as distinguished from a more systematic and formal treatise. His quo­ tation of passages from the old Roman poets is quite in accordance with his practice in his other philosophical works,8 and usually is fairly apposite,9 though thclong passage from his Aratea™ suggesting the large intrusion from the De Consulate in the De Divinatione*1 must be considered as an artistic and a logical blemish. Again, the mythological section 12 is far too factual, not to say pedantic, to be in keeping with a dialogue such as this. RESULTS OF THE WORK

32. Altogether, then, irrespective of all attempts of scholars to discover (8 June, 45 B.C.) says: epitomtn Bruti Cotlianorum vtlim mihi mittas. Might the use of this epitome in our work be a delicate compliment to Brutus, to whom the N.D. is dedicated? 1 Cf. R. Philippson in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1190. 1 1, 106; 2, 10-11; 2, 165. 1 1,71; 1, 115; 1, 122; 3, 5; 3, 14-15; 3, 43. 4 2, 7-11 (where Greek instances are followed by Roman); 2, 165; 3, 11; 3, 80-81 (Roman cases followed by Greek in 3, 82-84); 3, 86 (Rutilius). • 3, 74. • E.g., 1, 82; 1, 84; 2, 7-11; 2, 14; 2, 61-62; 2, 66-68; 3, 11; 3, 13; 3, 46-48; 3, 52; 3, 62; 3, 63; 3, 88. 7 E.g., 1, 59: cum Athenis essem; 3, 49: cuius Atlmtis et delubrum vidimus', 3, 50 (Alabanda); also Pease, ed. of Div. 1 (1920), 28, n. 147, for similar cases. • Cf. Pease, ed. of Div. 1 (1920), 28, n. 148; also E. Schollmcycr, Quid Cic. de Pottis Rom. iudicavtrit (1884); W. Zillingcr, Cic. u. d. altrbm. Dichter (1911); M. Schanz-C. Hosius, Gesch. d. rbm. Lit. 1«, 538; H. Hagcndahl in Eranos, 45

(1947), 114-122. • Among the cases may be mentioned 1, 13 (Caecilius); 1, 63 (Lucilius); 1. 79 (Lutatius); 1, 97 (Ennius); 1, 119 (Ennius and lines from an uncertain author); 2, 4 (Ennius); 2, 49 (Ennius); 2, 64-65 (Ennius; Euripides translated); 2, 89 (Accius); 2, 91 (Pacuvius); 2, 159 (Cicero's Aratea); 3, 10 (Ennius); 3, 24 (Ennius); 3, 40 (Ennius); 3, 41 (Accius)| 3, 65-68 (Ennius; an unknown poet; Accius); 3, 72-73 (Terence; Caecilius; Terence); 3, 75 (Ennius); 3, 79 (Ennius); 3,90 (Accius). A reference to Ennius also occurs in 2, 93. 10 2, 104-114. 11 1, 17-22; this passage is a little more successfully integrated with its context. Each of these quotations is put in the mouth of another speaker and is intro­ duced by a fulsome compliment to Cicero the poet—a considerable portion of whose poetic fragments we owe to his having taken the precaution of embed­ ding sections in the form of quotations in his prose works; cf. Pease on Div. 1, 17, n. {quo potius utar). 11 3, 42-60.

INTRODUCTION

51

feu· or many sources, the present work contains within it, at first or second-hand, ideas derived from a wide range of thinkers, and perhaps with more reason than any other extant work of Greek or Latin literature may claim attention from those modern students who approach the philosophy of religion by historical and comparative methods. The problems of the work, though perplexing and often exasperating, arc seldom unworthy of the study which has been (and may yet be) devoted to them by keen minds, and the exposition, in spite of careless and hasty composition, raises philosophical writing from the dull level into which it seems to have fallen among the Greeks * to a literary form which may well arouse the admiration and challenge the imitation of modern popularizcrs in this field. PUBLICATION

33. For the publication of the De Natura Deorum the following facts are fundamental: (1) that in his famous catalogue of his own philosophical writings, 2 after mentioning the Hortensius, the four books of Academica, the De Finibus, and the Tuseulan Disputations, Cicero remarks: quibus rebus editis tres libri perfecti sunt de natura deorum, in quibus omnis eius loci quaesho contine tur. quae ut plane esset cumulateque perfecta, de divinatione ingressi sumus his libris scribere; quibus, ut est in animo, defato si adiunxerimus erit abunde satis factum toti huic quaestioni; (2) that in Book 1 of the De Divinatione 3 Gccro makes his brother Quintus say: perlegi, inquit, tuum paulo ante tertium de natura deorum; (3) that in Book 2 of the same work 4 he remarks: quod et in iis libris dictum est qui sunt de natura deorum et hac disputatione id maxime egimus; (4) that near the beginning of the extant part of the De Fato * he writes: quod autem in aliis libris feci, qui sunt de natura deorum, itemque in iis quos de divinatione edidi. J. B. Mayor · raised the question whether our work was published during Gccro's lifetime, emphasizing the traces of hasty and unrevised composition,7 and trying to distinguish between the words editis and perfecti in the first and between feci and edidi in the fourth. He thinks that editi means actually "published," perfecti and feci being used of works merely prepared for 1 Cf. R. Philippson in P.-U?. 7A (1939), 1188. 1 Div. 2, 3. » 1, 8 (and Pease's n. on/>«-/ 1 (1908), 101, finds 45 references to or bor­ rowings from our work, especially in 2, 12. Fran501s Rabelais in his Pantagruel uses a passage from Cicero on the parentage of Pan; l 2 passages from our work and others were compounded into a spurious set of fragments of Galen published in 1562; 13 John Calvin u singles out for quotation a small but characteristic phrase which he would hardly have picked up save by his own reading of the De Natura Deorum\ similarly 1 Op. maius, 1, 2 (N.D. 1, %3);Quaest. found especially in De siu ipsius et aliorum supra primum Metapbys. Aristot. fol. 57 Ignorantia. b2, p. 185 Steele (ND. 2, 87); Metapby» A. Hortis, op. at., 73; 81-82. net, 8, fol. 109 a2, p. 294 Steele {N.D. 2, · N.D. 1, 107; cf. H. Baron, Leonardo 32); also De Viciis contract, in Stud. BruniAre/ino,humanist.-philos.Schr.(\92A), Tbeol. fol. 26 b 1, p. 21 Steele: recurrendum 133, n. 1. 7 est ad morales philosophos et libros torurn ; M. R. James, Twoanc. English Scholars ut ad libros De Offiais . . . in libra (1931), 21- 22; sec Cod. Cantabr. Dd. Divinacionum, in libris de Natura Dearurn, XIII, 2. β Id., 24-25. in Tbimaeo Ciceronis. » Ep. de Reb. Jam. 24, 4 (which E. · Cf.C. Lynn in Speculum, 6 (\93\), 131. 10 Nordcn, Die ant. Kunstprosa, 2" (1909), Preface to the fourth volume of 710, n. 0, considers a statement true Jerome (cf. J. Jortin, Life of Erasmus, 3 for all the Middle Ages). (1808), 235), citing N.D. 1, 107. > Petrarque et rbumanisme, 1» (1907), » Werke, 62 (1854 cd.), 341. 156; 183, n. 7; 233, n. 1; 238-244 (241, '« Pantagruel, 4, 28 (N.D. 3, 56). w n. 1, quotes Petrarch on Cicero's use H. O. Schroedcr, Caleni in Plat. Tim. of Balhus as a mouthpiece: t>ere autem Comm. Frag. (1934), append. 1 (cf. W. tuum sit quod, Platonicum secutus morem, A. Hcidcl in Am. fount, of Pbiloi. 56 alteri tribuere tuasque sententias proferre (1935), 424). H ficto alterius ore matueris); 2 (1907), 102, In Evang. Ioann. 15, 1 (Opera, 47, n. 3; 183; 185; 294. 339), quoting from N.D. 3, 86: sicuti 4 Λ/. 7". Cic. nelle opere del Petrarca e del quum Cicero pauperum agellos et viticulas Boccaccio (1878), 46; 83-88; citations arc coniitngit.

60

INTRODUCTION

Francis Bacon in the Advancement of1jeaming^ at several points, is familiar with N.D. 1, 18; 1, 22; 2, 62; and 3, 89; and Milton in his Areopagttica quotes N.D. 1, 63. More and more, however, the work came to be the special pasture for philosophic writers, including such diverse names as Ralph Cudworth,1 Benedict de Spinoza,2 Sir Thomas Stanley,3 Pierre Bayle,4 Viscount Bolingbroke, 5 Anthony Collins,6 and other English deists,7 David Hume, especially in his Dialogues concerning natural Reli­ gion 8 but also in other works.· Voltaire speaks in high terms of this treatise of Cicero.10 Hegel occasionally ll cites it, though he speaks of Cicero's superficiality as a philosopher.12 Many later users of the work I need not here enumerate, save to mention the curious fact that in 1811 P. Seraphinus (a pseudonym for Hermann Heimark Cludius) published at Bologna a fourth book of the De Natura Deorumy purporting to be drawn from a very old ms, in which not only is anachronistic quotation made of the famous line primus inorbedeos fecit timor™ but various doc­ trines of Judaism and Catholicism are discussed.14 Here this hasty and incomplete summary may close. Many more 1 True inteli. Syst. of the Universe, 2 de mepriser Ciceron"; id., 19 (1879 cd.), (1845 cd.), 121-129, and in many other 142: "son livrc de la Nature des dieux, lc places there are quotations from the mcilleure liurc peut-etrc dc toutc l'antiN.D. quite, si cc n' est eclui des devoirs dc 1 Sec various parallels cited by H. A. rhomme, appcle les Offices"; cf. R. Wolfson, Tbe Philos. of Spinoza, 2 (1934), Philippson in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1192, 196. for Voltaire and Frederick the Great. 1 11 In his History of Pbilos.; cf. T. F. E.g., Werke, 16 (1928 ed.), 401 (on Mayo, Epicurus in England (1934), 52. Cicero's references to consensus gentium); 4 Dictionnair», passim, e.g., s.v. Leu17, 45 (on the doxography in Book 1); cippe. 17, 225 (N.D. 1, 25). » E.g., Works (1809 cd.), 3, 72 (N.D. 18 "Das schonc Latcin des Cicero kann 2, 5); 4, 191 (N.D. 1, 77); 5, 270 (N.D. sich nicht in ticfe Spckulation einlasscn." 1, 29); 5, 405, n. (N.D. 2, 62). » Pctron. fr. 27, 1; Stat. Tbeb. 3, 661. • T. Ziclinski, Cic. im Wandel d. fahr14 Cf. also T. F. Dibdin, Intr. to tbe bunderte* (1908), 276-280. Knowl. of Edd. of tlje Classics, 1« (1827), 7 Id., 260-287; A. S. Pease in Han. 462; J. W. Moss, Man. of cl. Bibliogr. I 1 theol. Rev. 34 (1941), 198-199. • E.g., Works, 2 (1854 cd.), 460 (N.D. (1837), 343; J. A. Farrcr, Literary For­ 1, 19); cf. A. C. Clark, Engl. Lit. and geries (1907), 10-12. In a different cate­ gory belongs the four-book division the Classics (1912), 140. • E.g., Works, 4, 241 (N.D. 1, 116); 4, of the work made cither by designating Div. 1, 1-106 as N.D. A (as in Cod. 469 (N.D. 1, 82). 10 Mcrmn. 311; cf. Pease, ed. of Div. 2 Diet, pbilos. 18 (1879 cd.), 181: ,4si (1923), 607) or by dividing N.D. 1 vous faitcs reflexion que e'est la cc meme into two books (1, 1-65, and 1, 65-124) Romain qui lc premier introduisit la philosophic dans Rome, que scs Tuscula- as in the Fcrrara Cod. 386; cf. F. Crcunes ct son livrc de la Nature des dieux sont zcr's cd. (1818), 93, n. 53, rin.; the nature of the four books in the sixteenthles deux plus beaux ouvrages qu'ait jamais cents la sagesse qui η'est qu'hucentury Rimini Cod. II, 11 I have not maine . . . il sera encore plus malaise ascertained.

INTRODUCTION

61

illustrations might be adduced, yet from the data already presented we may fairly conclude, with /lielinski,1 that the period of the rise and spread of Christianity viewed Cicero primarily as a philosopher, and extracted from his philosophic works positive arguments, like the classic ideological discussions of Book 2, in support of Christian beliefs; that the Renaissance saw Cicero especially as an individual personality, most clearly portrayed in his lMters% and possessing a style to be admir­ ingly imitated; and that the Age of Enlightenment adopted particularly the negative and sceptical elements in his writing—for example Book 3 of the De Natura Deorum—, as well as interesting itself in his political achievements, as shown in his orations and his political tractates. At all periods, however, the work might be used for other incidental purposes, lexicographical, grammatical, historical, or otherwise illustrative. MANUSCRIPTS

35. Further testimony to the presence, if not to the use, of the De Xatura Deorum during the Middle Ages is found in the existence of mss written in that era and in mediaeval library-catalogues listing copies which in many cases are no longer extant. Many data relating to these catalogues have been conveniently compiled by Max Manitius,2 whose treatment, with a few additions, I shall here follow. In Italy, at Monte Cassino, a ms of the N.D. is attested in the eleventh century, and one of it and the De Divinatione in the fifteenth; 3 at Pavia, in 1426, * five different mss contained it, in one case alone, in the others combined with two or more additional works. At Urbino, before 1482,* there were two copies, probably both identifiable with two Vrbinates now in the Vatican; at Fiesole, in the fifteenth century, one; β while the libraries of Petrarch in 1337 7 and Eugene IV in 1445 8 each contained one, the library of Cosimo de'Medici (S. XV) four,9 and that of Sixtus IV, in 1471, two. 10 1 Op. cit., 315. (repeated by Manitius, op. cit., 34-35, * Gt$ch. d. /at. Ut. d. Mittela/fers, 1 who gives the date as 1431); p. lxiν states (1911), 480-481; but especially id., that alter the defeat of Ludovico Sforza Handschrijten ant. Autoren in mittelalt. at Novara most of the mss in this Bibliotfxkskatalogen (=-67 Beibtft ^. catalogue were taken to Paris, where Ztntralbl. f. Bibliotbtkswtsen (1935), the some, at least, arc probably now in the part dealing with Cicero being pp. Bibliothcquc Nationale. 19-39. * Manitius, op. cit., 37-38. 1 Manitius, op. ci/., 33; also the note · Id., 38. 7 on Codex / / . below. Id., 34. * Cf. the Indagini . . . sulla Lrbreria * Id., 35-36. I 'iscontto-sfor^esca del Casttllo di Pavia · Id., 36-37. 10 (1875), nos. 191, 206, 604, 617, 625 Id., 37.

62

INTRODUCTION

In France the books given by Philip, Bishop of Bayeux, to the church at Bee, in the twelfth century, contained * this work. The Biblionomia of Richard de Fournival (ca. 1250) mentions a codex of the De Natura Deorum alone,2 and another was in the Sorbonne in 1290,3 two at Avignon in 1311,4 and one at Reims in the fifteenth century.5 In Spain a fire at the Escorial in 1671 destroyed a ms containing this and several other philosophical treatises and orations.6 In Germany the De Natura Deorum appears in catalogues of libraries at Luttich in the eleventh century,7 Neumunster near Wiirzburg in 1233,8 Hamerslevcn in the thirteenth century,· Amclungsborn in 1412,10 Chur in 1457,11 and Fulda in the six­ teenth century,1* as well as two codices in a list by Amplonius of Ratinck in 1412.13 In England it is found in lists from Canterbury in the fifteenth century,14 and from the nunnery of Syon at Isleworth in Middlesex in the sixteenth century.16 In general, before the period of the Italian humanists the preservation of the work was more noteworthy in France and Ger­ many than in Italy, Spain, or England. 1 · Identification of mss named in these catalogues with codices now extant is complicated by the fact that rather seldom has a library continued to exist on the same spot from the Middle Ages until the present,17 or has a large part of a mediaeval library been incorporated in a neighboring modern one. 18 In the following list of mss, then, such identifications must be made with some reserve. CATALOGUE OF MANUSCRIPTS

36. The following list of mss, similar in arrangement to that in my edition of the De Divinatione> 2 (1923), 604-619—upon which, with some additions and corrections, 1 have here drawn—, is intended not so much for the foundation of a primarily critical edition as for a continuation 1 Id., 27; also J. G. Baiter, Cic. Op. 11 (1869), 56. • /ns. Ixiii) preferring the spelling "which is L. A. Constans, in his edition of Cicero's lease of a novelty to F.nglish readers" is Bpp. 1 (1934), 43, well remarks: "La artlessly frank ! notion d'une regie rigidc de Portho1 graphic est unc notion modcrnc." 375-376 Marx (393-395 Warmings ton). Cic. Orat. 158 testifies to the use On this subject cf. W. Nicschmidt, of both assimilated and unassimilated Qiuxtenus in Scripture Romam Litteris forms; the Lex Iulia Municipalis of 45 Graecis usi sunt (1913). 4 B.C. (C.I.L. I, 206 -= Dessau 6085) P. Salmon, La revision de la Vulgate shows such collocations as commutatat (1937), 14, states that the Biblical conrectaeque, and tutndam and tuemdam in revisers have found as many as 29 ms spellings for a single proper name! the same line, yet, in general, prefers unassimilated forms, e.g., adtributiontm.

88

If^TRODUCTION

by Ο. Plasberg, the others in photostats secured through a grant from the Humanities Fund of Harvard University, and eventually to be de­ posited in the Harvard College Library. Though copies naturally do not permit such detailed discrimination of different hands as is attempted by Plasberg after his scrutiny of the actual mss, this loss is offset, to some degree, by their greater availability for repeated consultation and verification, and it has in this way been possible to correct various omissions and errors in the apparatuses of Plasberg and Ax and in the collations of other scholars. That additional errors, however, have not during the process crept into my own apparatus is more than human pride has a right to expect. A noteworthy collation of ABFHMPV has been made by P. Schwenke,1 and one of the British mss—mostly late, but including D and Ο—by J. H. Swainson. 2 Other late mss may, of course, derive from originals earlier than those listed above, and almost as exciting as the discovery of a lost decade of Livy would be that of a codex with authentic material from the great lacuna in N.D. 3, 65· Till such is found, however, the mss just noted will necessarily form the basis of our texts,3 and philologists* next step is to trace their probable relations to one another and to their archetype. EDITIONS

42. The difficulties in compiling an accurate list of editions and trans­ lations of the De Natura Deorum are considerable, since it usually appears, either in editions of the complete works or, less often, with one or more of the other philosophical works, and in the case of complete editions our various bibliographical helps 4 are often incomplete and frequently 1 Class. Ret'. 4 (1890), 347-355; 401404; 454-457; 5 (1891), 12-17; 143-146; 200-205; 302-305; 408-412; 458-461. ■ In the three volumes of Mayor's edition (1880-1885); 1, 49-64; 2, 293319; 3, 41-58. * O. Plasberg (ed. min. (1917), xi) statcs that he has examined a large part of the mss of S. XI1I-XV, and has learned of others from editors. 4 There may be here noted—to be cited hereinafter merely by the names of thc authors—E. Harwood, A I'iew of the various Bdd. of the Cr. and Rom. Classics9 (1790); L. F. T. Hain, Repertorium bibliograpbicum (1826-1838); T. F. Dibdin, Intr. to the Knowl. of Edd. of the Classics4 (1827); J. W. Moss, Man. of cl.

Bibliogr. 1» (1837); J. C. Brunei, Man. du librairet 2· (1861); W. Engclmann-E. Prcuss, Bib/. Scrip/. r/.e (1880-1882); M. Pcllcchct, Cat. gin. des incunab. dts bib/. ptM. dc France (1897-1909); R. Proctor, Index to the early printed Books in the Brit. Mus. (1898) and suppl. (18991902); W. A. Copinger, Suppl. to Hains Repertorium bibliogr. (1895-1902); R. Klussmann, Bibl. Script, cl. (1903-1913); Cat. of Books printed in the XV Cent, now in the Brit. Mus. (1908-1935); Cesamtkat. d. Wiegendrucke (1925-1938); A. C. Klcbs, Incunab. scient. et med. (1938); Μ. Β. Stillwcll, Incunab. in Am. Libraries (1940). More specifically devoted to Ciccro is P. Deschamps, Essai bibl. sur Μ. Τ. Cic. (1863)—a careless and exasperating

INTRODUCTION

89

conflicting in statements, especially in regard to dates and to the number of volumes. 1 The following catalogue, therefore, can by no means be considered as proof against error. Editions here cited without qualification are to be understood as containing the complete works. Mere chrcstomathies are disregarded. Editions and translations marked with an asterisk (*) I have used or inspected. 1471. Rome. Conrad Swcynhcym and Arnold Pannartz. Folio. 2 v. (sometimes bound as one), vol. 1 of 27 April, vol. 2 of 20 Sept. The editto princeps of the whole body of Cicero's philosophical works. The De Natura Deorum is in 2, ff. l r -48\ Cf. Hain, 5231; Dibdin, l 4 , 447; Moss, 1", 335-336; Brunet, 2·, 14; Pcllcchct, 3766; Proctor, 3320; Brit. Mas. Cat. 4, 13; Gesamtkat. 6883; Stillwell, 144. 1471. Venice. Vindclinus dc Spira. Published by Gaignat and Due dc la Valicrc (according to Harwood, 212). Quarto. One vol. 186 folia. Contains the De Natura Deorum (ff. 5r-65'), De Divinatione, De Fato, De Leg/bus, Academica; Lactus, De Re milt tart; and a life of Cicero. Additions by Raphael lovcnzonius. P. Dcschamps, Essai bibliogr. 95-96, says: "Cc fut sur les manuscrits rctrouves et transcrits par Nicolas Niccoli qu'cllc fut exicutcc par Timprimcur allcmand, sous la direction de Raphael Jovenzonius, et non pas, comme on aurait pu le supposcr, d'apres l'edition collective des Opera phiiosophicat imprimec a Rome la mime annic." Hain, 5334; Moss, 1 \ 336-337; Brunet, 2*, 24; Copingcr, Suppl. 1, 5334; Klcbs, 276, 1; Pellechet, 3671; Proctor, 4030; Brit. Mus. Cat. 5, 138; Gesamtkat. 6902; Stillwell, 147. (Cf. 1499). 1475? Without indication of place, printer, or date, but supposed 1475 (Dibdin, 1 \ 451, n.). 144 folia. Listed by Hain (1, 5230) Academica, De Legibus, De Officiis, De Senectute, De Amies tia, Finibus, Tusculans, De Natura Deorum; De Divinatione, De Fato, Pbaenom.

to date about as containing Paradoxa, De Timaeus; Arati,

1490. Milan. Folio. A collection of the rhetorical and philosophical works, ac­ cording to Hain (1, 5095), who does not make clear whether our work is included. 1494 (18 Mar.). Venice. Cristofcr dc Pcnsis de Mandello (Cristoforo Pincio). Folio. De Legibui, Academica, De Divinatione, De Natura Deorum (ff. 57r-86*), De Finibus, De Petit/one ConsuJatus, De Fato, Timaeus, Somnium Scipionis. Hain, 5340; Pellechet, 3791; Brit. Mus. Cat. 5, 469; Gesamtkat. 6904; Stillwell, 147. work; also the bibliography repeated by the Delphin edition (1819-1830) from the Bipontine edition of 1780-1787 (vol. 1 (1780), pp. bexxi-ci enlarged from J. A. Fabricius, Bib/. La/., as revised by J. A. Fjnesti in 1773, and listing 83 previous editions). Various library catalogues and numerous European lists of second­ hand books have also been scrutinized, as well as the bibliographies in the Bibliotbeca philol. class., and J. Marouzcau's L'ann/f pbilologiqut. The bibliography in

my edition of the De Divinatione, 2 (1923), 620-634, has been closely fol­ lowed at many points. 1 Peculiar methods of binding have often gained an apparent but fictitious bibliographic importance. Further, the dates of reprints, especially of stereotyped editions, arc subject to great irregularity, since the different volumes of a set, because of varying demands for different parts, pass out of print (and so require reprinting) at very unequal intervals.

90

INTRODUCTION

♦1494 (10 Dec). Bologna. At the press of Bencdictus Hector (Faelli) of Bologna. Folio. De Natttra Deorum (fT. 5'-38»), De Finibus, De Legibus. Hain. 5335; Pellcchet, 3672; Proctor, 6628; Copingcr, 5335; Brit. Mus. Cat. 6, 842; Gtsamtkat. 6906; Stillwell, 147. A handsomely printed edition. 1495. Reggio d'Emilia. Bazalerius de Bazaleriis. Folio. De Natura Deorum. Hain, 5332. (Cf. 1498). 14% (18 Sept.). Venice. Per Symonem Papiensem dictum Biuilaqua. FolioContains De Finibus, De Natttra Deorum (ff. 101Μ 30»), De Divination*, De Lepbus, Academica, De Fato, Timaeus, Somnium Scipionis. Hain, 1, 5232; Proctor, 5399; Copinger. 5232; Brit. Mus. Cat. 5, 521; Gtsamtkat. 6905; St ill well, 147. •1498. Reggio d'Emilia. Bazalerius de Bazaleriis (also spelled Bazelcrius de bazelcriis), of Bologna. Folio. Part 1 with the N.D. (fT. 3r-32*—not numbered) in 1498; other parts with De Divinatione, De Fato, De Legibus, Academica, De Disciplina mtlitan, in 1499; Part 5, with the De Finibuj, etc., by Caligula de Bazaleriis at Bologna, 1499. Hain, 5336; Proctor, 7258 A; 6619 A; Brit. Mus. Cat. 6, 837; 7, 1092; Gtsamtkat. 6903; Klebs, 276, 2; Stillwell, 148. (Cf. 1495). 1498-1499. Milan. Alexander Manutianus. Folio. 4 vols. The editio princeps of Cice­ ro's complete works. Vol. 4, containing the philosophical works and the frag­ ments, appeared in 1499, with 8 + 172 folia. Harwood, 161; Hain, 5056; Dibdin, 1*, 389-391; Moss, 1 \ 285-288; Brunct, 2», 6; Deschamps, 49; Cat. gen. des inam. des bib/, pub/, dt France, 2 (1905), 3583. (1521-1525). 1499. Place, editor, and publisher not stated. Folio. Contains De Natura Deorum, De Divinatione, De Fato, De Legibus, De Disciplina miit tan. Perhaps a reprint of the 1471 Venice edition? Or of 1498? Hain, 5336. ♦(After 1500? Magdeburg?). Folio. 61 folia. De Natura Deorum only. Black letter, with occasional variants printed in the margin. One word (άσοματον (sic) in 1, 30) in Greek letters, possibly inserted by hand. Title-page with arms of Pfalz-Sachscn on shield quartered with arms of Sachscn, Thuringcn, Pfalz-Sachsen, and Meissen. *1502-1503. Venice. Aldus. Octavo. 9 vols. The philosophical works occupy vols. 8-9, and date from 1523. After the death of Aldus in 1515, when only the libri oratorii had been completed, the remainder was published by his father-in-law, Franciscus Asulanus, who employed Andreas Naugcrius to superintend a great part of it. Contains De Natura Deorum (vol. 9, fT. 2r-79»—Aug., 1523), De Divina­ tione, De Fato, Somnium Scipionis, De Legibus, Timaeus, Dt Petitione Consulatus. Dibdin, 1 \ 392; Moss, \ \ 289; Brunct, 2\ 16. (Cf. 1523; 1540-1546). 1507. Paris. Io. Badius Asccnsius. Octavo. The Cat. of Books concerning the Gr. and Lai. Classics in the centra/ pub. librarits, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1912), 99, cites this edition of the complete works, cum explanation* J. Badii Ascensii. (Cf. 1510-1511). 1508. Venice. Petrus Marsus. Printed by Lazarus Soardus. Folio. De Natura Deo­ rum and De Divinatione. Plasbcrg and Ax date this 1507; Orelli and the cat. 50 of R. Atkinson (1922) date it 1508. 1510-1511. Paris. In. Badius Asccnsius. Folio. 4 vols, the philosophical works in vol. 4, dating 1511. It seems to reproduce the 1498-1499 Milan edition (Moss, 1», 288; Brunct, 2 s , 6; Deschamps, 50). Dibdin (1·, 391), in dating this 15111522, apparently confuses the Ascensiana prima and Ascensiana secunaa; the New­ castle-upon-Tyne catalogue cites a 1507 octavo edition. (1507; 1521-1525). 1520. Leipzig. Jacobus Thanncr. De Natura Deorum. Moscr and Crcuzcr's edition of N.D. (1818), xvii. 1521-1525. Paris. Io. Badius Asccnsius. Published by Jchan Petit. Folio. 4 vols. The volume containing the philosophical works and based on the Aldine editions dates from 1521 (according to Moscr's cd. of De Div., xxiii, and the cat. of R. C. Macmahon (1920), no. 56). Moss, 1", 288-289; Brunct, 2», 6. (1507; 1510-1511).

INTRODUCTION

91

•1523. See 1502-1523. 1528. Basel. Michael Be η tin us. Published by Λ. Cratandcr. Folio. 3 vols. Dibdin, 1*. 393; Moss, 1», 289-290; Deschamps, 51. 1534. Basel. J. Camcrarius. Published by Johann Herwagcn (Herwagius). Folio. 2 vols. (Moss, 1*, 290) or 4 torn, in 2 vols. (Bipont. index), or 4 vols. (Dibdin, 1*. 393). (1540). •1534-1537. Venice. Petrus Victorius (Vcttori). Published by L. A. Junta. Folio. 4 vols., the De Natura Deorum in 4 (1536), pp. 235-307. In S. XVI several times reprinted (Deschamps, 51). The orations arc in the recension of Naugerius, the other three volumes by Victorius. Gracvius said that Cicero owed more to Victorius than to all later editors combined. Dibdin, l 4 , 394, n.; Brunct, 2', 6. (Cf. 1538-1539; 1540; 1541; 1543-1544; 1546-1551; 1550; 1555; 1559; 1570 ff.; 1578; 1585-1587). •1538-1539. Paris. Petrus Victorius. Published by R. Stephanus (£tiennc). Folio. 4 vols, (the De Natura Deorum in 4 (1538), pp. 184-240); also in 6 torn, in 2 vols. (Brunct, 2·, 7), 4 torn, in 2 vols. (Deschamps, 51), and 3 vols. (Cat. 118 of Hocpli (1898), no. 1560). A copy of the Juntinc edition of 1534-1537. (Cf. 1534-1537; 1543-1544). •1540. Basel. J. Camcrarius. Published by Johann Hcrwagen (Herwagius). Folio. 4 vols. (Moss, 1", 290) or 5 vols, in 2 (the University of Illinois copy). (Cf. 1534). 1540. Lyons. J. M. Brutus. Published by S. Gryphius (Grciff). Octavo. 9 vols. Reproduces the edition of Victorius (1534-1537). Frequently reprinted; cf. 1546-1551; 1550; 1555; 1559; 1570 fT.; 1574; 1585-1587. Dibdin, 1 \ 395. •1540-1546. Venice. P. Manutius. Octavo. 10 vols. The two volumes of philoso­ phical works (the De Natura Deorum in vol. 2, ff. 2f-79») were published in 1541, and (according to Brunct, 2», 16) republished in 1546, 1552, 1555-1556, 1562, 1565, each time in 2 vols, octavo, with the De Natura Deorum in vol. 2. Dibdin (l 4 , 396) also mentions a reprint of the entire work in 1569-1570. The text re­ produces that of the Aldinc edition of 1502-1523. (Cf. 1578-1583; 1582). 1541. Strassburg. Johann Sturm. Published by Wendclin. Octavo. ? vols. Vol. 2 contains the De Natura Deorumy De Divinatione, De Fato, Somnium Scipio/us, De Legibus, Timaeus, De Petitione Consulatus. Based on the edition of Victorius (15341537). Utcr reprints in 1548, 1557, 1571, 1574, and 1578. 1543-1544. Paris. R. Stephanus (llticnnc). Octavo, 9 vols, or 13 vols. (Brunct, 2*. 7, and Deschamps, 50), or 12mo, 8 vols. (Dibdin, 1 \ 397; Moss, 1". 292; Deschamps, 50). A copy of the 1538-1539 reproduction of the Juntinc edition (1534-1537). The first work in which Stephanus used the Italic letter (Dibdin, /.. Published by Orcll, Gessncr, Fussli, & Co. Octavo. German translation of the De Natura Deorum. Pp. vi -f 272. 1802. Vienna. Text and German translation of the complete works. 16 vols. Engclmann-Prcuss, 127. 1806. Frankfurt. J. F. von Meyer. Published by J. C. Hermann. German trans­ lation of the De Natura Deorum, with notes. Octavo. (1832).

104

INTRODUCTION

1816-1818. Paris. Published by Fournicr. Octavo. 29 vols. (Moss, 1", 361, says 26 vols., 1818; A. Yon, cd. of De Fato (1933), lxiii, says 31 vols.). Text and French translation. Engclmann-Preuss, 128. 1821-1825. Paris. J. V. LcClcrc. Published by Lcfcvrc. Octavo. 30 vols. Text and French translation by various hands. Dcschamps, 106; Engclmann-Preuss, 128; A. Yon, ed. of De Fato (1933), lxiii. (1823-1825; 1823-1827). 1823-1825. Paris. J. V. LeClerc and J. A. Amar. Published by Lefcvrc. 12mo. 18 vols. Text and French translation of the complete works. (1821-1825.) 1823-1827. Paris. LcClcrc translation of the complete works, reprinted by Lequicn. 12mo. 35 vols, in 36. (1821-1825). 1826 fT. Milan. Published by Bcttoni. Octavo. 40 vols. Latin text and Italian trans­ lation. Engclmann-Preuss, 128. 1827-1830. Prenzlau. E. W. Eckermann ct al. Published by Ragorczy. 12mo. 18 vols. German translation of the complete works, that of the De Natura Deorum by E. W. Eckermann. ♦1827-1843. Stuttgart. Published by J. B. Metzler. 16mo. 19 vols, in 79 fascicles. German translation of the complete works, that of the De Natura Deorum, G. H. Moser, in vol. 1 (1829), 1418-1727. (1855). ♦1829. London. Thomas Francklin, D.D. Published by William Pickering. Octavo. De Natura Dtorum. (1741). 1829. Munich. C. F. Michaclis. 12mo. Translation of the De Natura Deorum. With notes. 1830-1837. Paris. Panckouckc scries. Octavo. 36 vols. Text and French translation of the complete works by several hands. (1840). M832. Frankfurt. J. F. von Meyer. Published by F. Barrcntrapp. Octavo. German translation of the De Natura Deorum, with notes. (1806). Pp. viii -)- 238. 1840-1841. Leipzig. Edited by R. Klotz. Octavo. 2 vols, in 6 parts. German trans­ lation of the philosophical works, the De Natura Deorum by J. F. Schrocder being in vol. 1 (1839). J. B. Mayor, cd. of ND. 3 (1885), lxxiii, who dates it 1841. 1840-1841. Paris. D. Nisard scries. Dubochet & Cic. (Didot) Octavo. 5 vols. Text and French translation of complete works; by various hands. (1852; 1859). 1848-1863. Venice. Antonclli. Quarto. Text and Italian translation of the complete works (cat. 421 of Fock, no. 2293). Note also the octavo 2-volumc translation of the philosophical works by several hands published at Venice by Antonclli in 1856-1857 (A. P. Pagliaini, Cat. gen. dtlla libreria ital. 1 (1901), 550). 1852. Paris. D. Nisard scries. Octavo. 5 vols. Text and French translation. (18401841). •1853. London. C. D. Yonge (and F. Barham). H. G. Bohn. Octavo. English trans­ lation of the De Natura Deorum (pp. 1-140), De Divinatione, De Fato, De Rtpublica, De Legibus, and De Petitione Consulatut. The De Natura Deorum a revision of Francklin's translation (1741). (1872; 1878; 1887; 1907). 1855. Stuttgart. Published by J. B. Mculcr. 16mo. 4 vols. German translation of the complete works, the De Natura Deorum by G. H. Moser in vol. 4, pp. 323531. (1827-1843). 1859. Paris. D. Nisard scries. Didot. Octavo. Text and French translation of the complete works. (1840-1841). 1863. Naples. Octavo. Text and Italian translation of the complete works (A. P. Pagliaini, op. cit. 1 (1901), 550).

INTRODUCTION

105

1863. Stuttgart. See 1868. 1863. Berlin. R. Kiihncr. I.angenschcidt scries. German translation of the De Na­ tura Deorum (sec 1868). •1864-1882. Paris. D. Nisard scries. Octavo. 5 vols. Text and French translation of all Cicero, by various hands {De Nature Deorum in 4 (1875), 79-178). (18401841). •1866-1874. Paris. Published by Gamier frercs. 12mo. 20 vols. {De Natura Deorum in 18, pp. 277-518). Text with French translation by various hands. Several reprints, e.g., 1891 (revised by J. V. LeClerc and L. Crousle). 1868. Stuttgart. Published by C. Hoffmann. 16mo. German translation of Cicero, the De Natura Deorum by R. Kiihncr in fascicles 53-58. Possibly also at Stuttgart in 1863. 1869. Stuttgart. Published by J. B. Mctzlcr. 16mo. 19 vols. German translation of the complete works; the De Natura Deorum bv G. H. Moscr in fascicles 12-13. (1827-1843). •1872. London. C. D. Yongc. Published by G. Bell. Octavo. English translation of the De Natura Deorum (pp. 1-140), De Divinatione, De Fato, De Rtpublico, De Leg/bus, and De Petition* Consulatus. (1853). 1872-1892. Paris. Gamier edition. 12mo. 20 vols. The complete works. Text with French translation by various hands {De Natura Deorum in vol. 18 (1891), pp 279-518, by J. Olivctus, revised by J. V. LeClerc and L. Crousle). (1866-1874)] Ί874. Poznin. E. Rykaczcwski. Published by Nakladcm Bibliotcki Kornickicj. Octavo. Polish translation of Cicero {De Natura Deorum in vol. 7 (1874), pp. 487-630). A few footnotes. *1874. Leipzig. J. H. von Kirchmann. Published by Diirr. German translation of the De Natura Deorum. In the Philos. Bibliothck, vol. 23, pp. xxii 4- 240. Bib/. pbilol. cl. 1 (1874), 117; J. B. Mayor, cd. of N.D. 3 (1885), lxxiii, who calls it very ignorant and unscholarly. 1875. Sec 1864-1882. •1878. London. C. D. Yongc translation (sec 1853). G. Bell & Sons. 1881. Paris. D. Nisard scries. Didot. Octavo. 5 vols. {De Natura Deorum in vol. 4, pp. 79-178). Text and translation by various hands. (1840-1841). 1884 (?) London. H. Owgan. Published by Cornish. 12mo. English translation of the De Natura Deorum. 1885. Paris. E. Maillct. Published by Bclin. 12mo. French translation of Book 2 of the De Natura Deorum. Bib/, pbilol. cl. 14 (1887), 57. 1886. Paris. L'Abbe Rodillon. Published by Poussiclgue. 18mo. French translation of Book 2 of the De Natura Deorum. 1887. Boston. C. D. Yongc translation (sec 1853). Published by Little, Brown dc Co. Octavo. 1890 (?) Naples. T. C. Malvczzi. Published by Chiurazzi. 16mo. Italian translation of the De Natura Deorum. Bibl. pbilol. cl. 17 (1890), 180. •1891. Sec 1866-1874. French translation and Ijtin text in vol. 18, pp. 277-503. M896. London, F. Brooks. Ntcthucn & Co. Octavo. English translation of the De Natura Deorum. •1907. London. C. D. Yongc translation. G. Bell Ac Son. Octavo. (1853). 1908. Berlin. R. Kuhncr. Published bv Langcnschcidt. Fascicle 56 of the complete works, pp. 177-224. German translation. Bibl. pbilol. cl. 35 (1908), 104. (1868).

106

INTRODUCTION

*1933. London and New York. H. Rackham. Loeb d. Library. Octavo. Text and English translation of the De Natura Dtorurn (pp. vii-xix; 1-396) and Acadtmica. 1935. Milan. A. Dc Zuccoli. Published by Signorclli. lulian translation of the De Natura Deorum, Book 1, with introduction and notes. *(1935). Paris. C. Appuhn. Gamier frercs. Octavo. Text and French translation of the De Natura Deorum, with notes. ♦1950. Chicago. Η. Μ. Potcat. University of Chicago Press. Octavo. English trans­ lation of the Brutus^ De Natura Deorum (pp. 175-333), De Divination*, and De Officiis.

BOOK ONE Ei δέ έστιν, ώσπερ δή καΐ έστι, το θεΐον απάντων τιμιώτατον, ομοίως και ή θεολογική τών άλλων εστί τιμιωτάτη επιστημών, περί τ6 θεΐον γένος Ισται ή τιμιωτάτη περί το τιμιώτατον. Alex. Aphrod. in Mttapb. 5,2, p. 447, 5-7 Hayduck.

SIGLA codicum qui ad librum primum recenscndum adhibcntur A (s. ix-x) Leidensis Vossianus 84 ι D (s. xi) Londinicnsis Harleianus 2622 {deficit r j· mir I post prius nee (1, 114))

C = consensus iodicum DHG

H

^

χ^

^ ^ ,

Heinsunus

118

I G (s. xiii ex.) Londinicnsis Burncianus 148 Ρ (s. x) Vaticanus Palatinus 1519 {deficit usque ad ccnsuit (1, 27) tt post species ( l f 75) [V (s. ix) Vindobonensis 189 {deficit usque ad dcum (2, 16)] Ν (s. xii) Parisinus Nostradamensis 17812 Ο (s. xii) Oxonicnsis Mcrtonianus 311 Τ (s. xii-xiii) Turoncnsis 688 Β (s. x) Leidensis Vossianus 86 F (s. x) Florcntinus Marcianus 257 Μ (s. xi) Monaccnsis 528 dett. — deteriorts Had. — Hadoardi execrpta

EDITIONVM SIGLA Ald(ina) 1523 Asccns(iana) 1507, 1511 Dav(ics) 1718 Ern(esti) 1737

Hcind(orf) 1815 Lam(binus) 1565-1566 Man(utius) 1541 Mar(sus) 1508

Pl(asberg) 1911, 1917 Rom(ana) 1471 Vcn(eta) 1471 Vict(orius) 1538-1539

Μ. TVLLI CICERONIS DE NATVRA DEORVMl LIbER PRIMVS

1 1 CVM multac res in philosophia nequacjuam satis adhuc 1 dc natura dcorum P(m. rec.) NO et Cicero ipse, e.g. Dip. 1, 7; 1, 8; 2, 3 ; 2, 148; Fat. 1, de dcorum natura ADHBFM et testimonia p/eraque.

1. D E N A T V R A DEORVM: should the title appear in this form, or as De Deorum Natura? In favor of d.n. is the common practice of placing the genitive first, as in Lucretius, De Rerun Natura, Cato, De Agri Cultura, and Cicero, De Haruspicum Responsis; yet contrast De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum and De optimo Genere Oratorum. Supporting n.d. is euphony, which avoids the repetition di di- (although T. Birt {Kritik u. Mermen. (1913), 154; id., Berl. pbilol. Woch. 38 (1918), 545-546) thinks euphony is not always sought in titles). The more important evidence may be summarized as follows: (1) Among the best mss ADFGH read d.n., BlMx have d.n., though page-headings and in Β ζ later initial title read n.d.; V in the explicits of Books 2 and 3 has d.n.; PO (ap­ parently by later h a n d s ) ^ read n.d. The best ms evidence, then, is strongly for d.n. (2) Earlier citations, especially S. IV-V: Nonius 17 times (sec Lindsay's ed., 3, 935), all d.n.; Charisius twice (pp. 117; 137 K.), both d.n.; Diomcdcs (p. 313 K.), d.n.; Lactantius once (Inst. 1, 11, 48) d.n., but 6 times (Inst. 1, 5, 24; t, 12, 3; 1, 15, 5; 2, 8, 10; 4, 28, 3 ; De Opif. 1, 13) n.d.; Scrvius 7 times (Aen. 1, 270; 1, 297; 3, 284; 3, 600; 4, 379; 4, 577; 6, 893) all d.n.; Probus in Bel. 6, 31 (pp 334; 339-342 Hagcn) d.n.; Schol. Vcron. Aen. 5, 95, n.d.; Augustine, CD. 5, 9, d.n.; Priscian 4 times (Inst. 3, p. 105 K.; 7, p. 299; 8, p. 432; 9. p. 456) n.d., but in Inst.

6, p. 259, d.n. These citations, then, favor d.n. by about three to one. (3) If we pass to Cicero's own use of the phrase, outside the title of this work— disregarding the case of natura, the presence or absence of prepositions, and those instances, as in N.D. 1, 17, where the two words arc separated by others— we find the following situation (the figures based on H. Mcrguct, Lex. Z- d. philos. Schr. 1 (1887), 668-669) for combinations of natura and deorum'. d.n., 6 cases {N.D. 1, 45; 1, 63; 1, 9 1 ; 2, 12; 2, 33; Tim. 8); n.d., 23 cases (1, 1; 1, 13; 1, 29; 1, 32; 1, 34—of the work of Xcnocratcs—; 1, 49; 1, 57; 1, 6 1 ; 1, 7 1 ; 1, 94; 1, 120; 1, 122; 2, 60; 2, 77 (bis); 2, 168; 3, 93; 3, 95; Div. 1, 5; 1, 110; 1, 117; Tusc. 5, 70; Off. 3, 52; cf. also De Or. 2, 71). Cicero evidently preferred, for reasons of eupho­ ny or emphasis or both, the order n.d. (cf. J. Tolkichn in Berl. pbilol. Woch. 42 (1922), 479). (4) Most convincing of all arc Cicero's own citations of titles. The works of Chrysippus (N.D. 1, 41) and Posidonius (1, 123) περί θεών are rendered by him de natura deorum, and in the 5 places (in Div. 1, 7; 1, 8; 2,3; 2, 148; Fat. 1) in which he alludes to his own recently written work he con­ sistently calls it de natura deorum. No other evidence, however impressive, can stand against the testimony of the author, though it must be granted that the order d.n. in the title of this work probably stood in the archetype of our mss, and

110

1,1

was well established as early as our fourth-century testimonia. On the whole question see J. Vahlcn in Ztitscbr. f. us/. Gymn. 24 (1873), 241-242, n. ( = Ges. pbiloL Scbr. 1 (1911), 566, η.); Τ. Birt, ll.ee, W. KroU in Glotta, 11 (1921), 137; 13 (1924), 160, who notes that the clausula produced by n.d. is better than that with d.n.\ J. Tolkichn in Btrl. pbilol. Wocb. 42 (1922), 477-479; M. Schanz, Gescb. d. rom. Lit. 1« (1927), 510; H. Diels, Doxogr. Gr* (1929), 121, n. 3; R. Philippson in P.-W. 7A (1939), 1152. D E : common in the pattern of Cice­ ro's titles, especially for the ethical and theological works: De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, De Officii*, De Senectute, De Amicitia, De Gloria, De Virtuiibus, De Divinatione, De Fato, De Auguriis. NATVRA DEORVM: Greek writ­ ers usually entitled works of this sort simply περί θεών ; e.g., Protagoras, Clcanthcs, Pcrsacus, Chrysippus, Metrodorus (cf. A. Kortc in fabrb. f. Pbilol. Supplb. 17 (1890), 541), Thcodorus of Cyrcnc (Diog. L. 2, 97), Apollodorus, the Athenian grammarian (Macrob. 1, 17, 19), Antiochus (Plut. Lucull. 28, 7), Phacdrus (Att. 13, 39, 2), Nicolaus of Damascus (Simplic. Pbys. 1, 4, p. 151, 21, 22 Diels), and Posidonius (yet cf. F. A. Wolf, Kl. Scbr. 1 (1869), 500). The title of Cornutus is given by codd. GW as θεωρία περί της των θεών φύσεως, but that is not the best attested form. Such a title, for which De D(e)is would be the natural Latin equivalent, gave little clue to the contents, and might logically, though not in general practice, include (1) a thcogony, like Hcsiod's— but despite the etymology of natura and passages like N.D. 3, 42; 3, 53-63 Cicero's work is not that; (2) a mytho­ logical account of deeds of the gods, as in the Homeric Hymns—but our work has almost nothing of that sort; (3) an explanation of cults and ceremo­ nies, like Ovid's Fasti—these, again, arc scarcely noticed; or (4) theories as to the divine existence, form, and characteristics (cf. N.D. 1, 2; 1, 46; 1, 50; 2, 3 ; etc.). This last is what

Cicero undertakes to treat, and what he regards (1, 3) as the primary inquiry of theology. In the catalogue of 66 uses of φύσις and natura by A. O. Lovejoy and G. Boas, Primitivism and related Ideas in Antiquity (1935), 447-456, the following categories (pp. 447-448) seem to approximate the meaning intended by this title: (3) "any distinguishing characteristic of anyone or anything"; (8) "the permanent and fundamental character (of a person), in contrast with transient manifestations or superficial appearances"; (9) " . . .the intrinsic and permanent quality . . . of (physical) things, 'what things really arc' ". Mart. Cap. 5, 512, says: catacbresim etiam Graeci, quant nos abusionem, ut cum perbibemus 'naturam deorum* pro % substantia ; cf. Act. Plac. 1, 6 (S.V.F. 2, 1009—a passage thought by Von Arnim to derive from Posidonius): ορίζονται δέ την του θεού ούσίαν ol ΣτωΙχοΙ ούτως, κτλ. Allowing for this meaning it is true that the phrase at times fades into a peri­ phrasis for di, so that M. van den Bruwacne. La tbiologie de Cic. (1937), 179, citing as an example N.D. 2, 77, where natura deorum and deus seem synonymous, would make this equation: dei — deus natura deorum — natura. It should be observed that a similar fading of natura occurs in the phrases mundi . . . natura (N.D. 2, 58), animi natura (N.D. 1, 23). and especially bominis natura, which occurs 26 times in the philosophical works (Mcrguct, op. cit. 2 (1892), 173), apposite passages being N.D. 1, 112; locupfetior . . . hominum natura ad beatt vivendum quam deorum; 2, 14; 2, 39; 2. 153: docuisse videor lw minis natura quantο omnis anteiret animantes', cf. Off. 1, 96; 1,105, and especially Fin. 5, 33: hoc intelle· gant, si quando naturam bominis dicam, bom in em dicere me; nihil enim IJOC differt. The view of E. V. Arnold, Rom. Stoicism (1911), 218, that "the 'gods,' according to the Stoics, form a natura, a department of the universe, a category including one or more individuals, hence the title of Cicero's work de natura deorum, that is, 'of the class of beings called gods,' seems unlikely. c u m multae: Cicero speaks (Att. 16,

1,1

111

cxplicatae sint,1 turn perdifficilis, Brute, quod tu minime ignoras, et perobscura quaestio est de natura deorum, quae ct ad 2 cogni1

sunt DN

* ad om. AlMl

6, 4; July, 44) of having a volumen I'usc. 5, 113; Off. 3, 5. With the phraseo­ prootmiorum. ex to eligtre ιο/eo cum aliquid logy especially cf. Off. 1, 4: cum multa σύγγραμμα institui, and says that he had sint in pbilosophia . . . accurate copioseque just carelessly used for the De Gloria a phiΊοsophis disputata. the same proocmium as for Academica 3. pbilosophia: freely used in this It is tempting to assign to this volumen treatise, without the apology thought some general material in the present necessary in Dt Ot. 1, 9: earn, quam introduction, e.g., the second and third φιλοσοφίαν Graeci vocant; cf. N. Stang sentences of this section and especially in Symb. Os/otnsts, 11 (1932), 82-93, for l t 5 (beginning at qua quidem)-\,\2. Cicero's use of pbilosophia and philosopbus. Further, the likeness between the present nequaquam satis adhuc: the heaping introduction (especially 1,5-1,12) and up of adverbs is noteworthy. With that of Dt Officiis 2 is striking; e.g., satis . . . txplicatae cf. Off. 2, 1. satis explicatae (1, 1) cf. Off. 2, 1, libris perdifficilis . . . et perobscura: cf. nostris quos compluris (1,6) cf. Off. 2, 2; Fin. 3, 36: perfacilis tt perexpedita; Div. non modo discendi std etiam scribtndi studia 2, 40: perlucidos tt perflabilis; Rtp. 1, 18: (1, 8) cf. Off. 2, 2; admirantium unde hoc periucundus tt ptrgratus. With perobscura pbilosopbandi studium extitisset (1, 6) cf. cf. 1, 17. Off. 2, 2; cum otio langueremus (1, 7) cf. Brute: for M. lunius Brutus Cicero Off. 2, 2; unius consilio atque euro gubtrnarihad named his dialogue the Brutus, and (1, 7) cf. Off. 2, 2; a primo tempore aetatis to him he dedicated the Orator, the (1,6) cf. Off. 2, 4; ut bate tarn sero litteris Paradoxa Stoicorum, the Dt Finibus, and mandaremus (1, 7) cf. Off. 2, 5; ad banc the Tusculans. Brutus, a man well pottsnmum confugissem (1, 9) cf. Off. educated in philosophy (cf. Plut. Brut. 2 , 6 ; admirantur nos banc potissimum disci- 24, 1) and of serious theoretical interests plinam secutos (1, 11) cf. Off. 2, 7; nee (cf. H. Gclzcr in A-IP. 10 (1919). 974; tamen fitri pottst ut nihil babeani quod Plut. Brut. 40, 1), had dedicated to Cicero sequentur (1, 12) cf. Off. 2, 7; probabilta, a treatise De I 'irtute {Fin. 1, 8; Tusc. etc. (1, 12) cf. Off. 2, 7-8; ttmeritatt (1, 1) 5, 1). For his literary influence on Cicero cf. Off. 2, 8; contra omnts pbilojophos tt cf. I). M. Schullian, External .Stimuli to pro omnibus dictrt (1, 11) cf. Off. 2, 8; literary Production in Rome (1932), 49. bis quattuor Acadtmicis libris satis rtspon- On such dedications cf. R. Graefcnhain, mm videtur (1, 11) cf. Off. 2, 8; cf. A. G. De More Libros dedicandi apud Scriptores Gillingham, 77* Prooemia in Cicero's Graecos et Romanos obvio (1892), especially Works on Philosophy, Politics, and Rhet. 42-44; W. W. Jaeger, Aristotle (Fngl. tr., (unpubl. Harvard doctoral dissertation 1934), 56: "The dedication of dialogues (1949), 71-77). See also 1, 5, n. {qua and treatises belongs to the literary quidtm, etc.); introd. 15. custom of Hellenistic courtesy; no such J. S. Rcid (in Mayor's cd. ad loc.) artificial usage was known to the better period. With Aristotle [Protrepticus] the remarks that "in nearly all the passages address to a particular person is still where cum .. . turn is used by Cicero the living expression of the mood of there is a contrast between a general earnest ethical exhortation. It is organic statement and a particular case, whether the clause with cum contains an indicative to the prntrcptic style as such." ad cognitionem animi: the less well (as in Div. 1, 7) or a subjunctive" (as attested variant agnitionem, though ac­ here). For the subjunctive in such clauses cf. Fin. 1, 19 (and Madvig's n.); cepted by various editors and defended

112

1,1

tionem * animi pulcherrima est et ad moderandam religionem 1

agnitioncm

A*DHNOM

by G. F. Schocmann (Opusc. acad. 3 (1858), 292-294), occurs nowhere else in Cicero, and, in this meaning ( = cognitiomm, though Schocmann dissents; often confused in mss with cognitionem, according to F. A. Wolf, Litter. Analekten, 1 (1817), 280), not before Quintil.

baberemus; Aristot. fr. 10 Rose (ap. Scxt. Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 21): ύπενόησαν ol Ανθρωποι είναί τε θείον, τό καθ' εαυτό έοικός τη ψυχή; Sail. Cat. 1, 2; Min. Fel. 17, 2: ut nisi dignitatis rationem diligenter excusseris, nescias bumani tatis; Hippol. Pbilosopbum. 10. 34; Mclet. De Inst, 1, 1, 25 (cf. Tbti. Ling. Ut. 1 Nat. Horn. (Cramer, Anted. Oxon. 3, (1900), 1351), whereas cognitio is not only 143); J. Calvin, Inst. 1, 1; and many frequent in Cicero (cf. Merguct, op. cit. other passages cited by Pease on Diw. 1 (1887), 440-441; A. Pittct, Vocab. pbihs. 1, 110; also Μ. Υ. Henry, Rel. of Dogma­ deSenkque, 1 (1937), 183-184, who quotes tism and Scepticism in tbe pbilos. Treatists of Ciceronian passages neatly equating it Cic. (1925), 9, who remarks that our with κατάληψις), but is also used by passage implies a divine quality in the him with animi (Fin. 4, 36; Tusc. 1, 71). soul, cither as being divinae particula T. Bin's explanation {Bert, phiI. Vocb. 38 aurae (Stoic) or in the Platonic όμοίωσις τω θεω, capability of attaining likeness (1918), 547) of animi as a subjective genitive seems improbable. Plasbcrg (cd. to God. maior.) suggests emending to ad cognosWith the construction ad cognitiomm cendam [or agnoscendam; cf. 1, 91: deorumcf. 2, 87: ad speciem pulcbriores; also 1, 97: cognationem agnoscerem] cognationem [or adfiguram quae vasttor; 2, 151: ad ornatum agnationem; cf. Legg. 1, 23: ut homines decoras; 2, 155: nulla .. . ad rationem . .. deorum agnatione et genie teneantur; 1, 24:praestamtior; Tbes. Ling. Lat. 1 (1900), agnatio nobis cum caelestibus]. Though this541-543. With the thought cf. Top. 8 1 : idea is appropriate enough for Cicero, quaestionum ... duo genera sunt; unum it seems unnecessary to emend cognitiocognitionis, alterum actionss (the latter here rum. For the thought cf. Fin. 2, 114; corresponding to ad moderandam religio­ 5, 57; Tusc. 1, 65: animus ... divinus est nem); also De Or. 3, 111. ... si deus out anima aut ignis est, idem est pulcherrima: cf. Aristot. Metapb. 10, animus bominis; 1, 70: ut dtum adgnoscis ex 1064 b 1: τρία γένη των θεωρητικών επι­ operibus eius, sic ex memoria rerum et στημών έστι, φυσική, μαθηματική, θεο­ inventione et ce/eritate motus omnique pul- λογική, βέλτιστον μέν ούν τό των θεω­ cbritudine virtutis vim divinam mentis ρητικών επιστημών γένος, τούτων 8* adgnoscito; 5, 38: bumanus autem animus αυτών ή τελευταία λεχθεΐσα· περί το decerptus ex mente divina cum alio nullo τιμιώτιχτον γάρ έστι τών βντων; id., De nisi cum ipso deo, si hoc fas est dictu, corn- An. 1, 402 a 3: τήν της ψυχής Ιστορίαν parari potest; 5, 70: ut ipse se mens agnoscat ευλόγως άν έν πρώτοις τιθείημεν. δοκεΐ coniunctamque cum divina mente se sentiat; δέ καΙ προς άλήθειαν άπασαν ή γνώστς Rep. 6, 26: deum te igitur scito esse . .. et αυτής μεγάλα συμβάλλεσθαι, μάλιστα δέ ut mundum ex quadam parte mortalem ipse προς τήν φύσιν; 1, 402 b 16; Alex. deus aeternus, sic fragile corpus animus sem- Aphrod. in Metapb. 5, 2, p. 447, 5-7 piternus movet; Legg. 1, 24: generis bumani, Hayduck (quoted above as the motto quod sparsum in terras atque satum divino for this book); also the Christian view auctum sit animorum munere .. . animum of theology as the "queen of sciences." esse ingeneratum a deo\ Div. 1, 110: natu- On pulrber (at other than physical beauty ram deorum, a qua, ut doctisnmis sapien- cf. R. Fischer, De Usu Vocab. ap. Cic. et tissimisque placuit, Ijaustos animos et libatos Senecam (1914), 11-12. In Ac. 2, 66 and babemus; 2, 26: ex divinitate unde omnes Off. 1, 18 it is offset to turpis. animos baustos aut acceptos aut libatos moderandam religionem: since it is

1,1

113

necessaria. De qua tarn * variae sunt 2 doctissimorum hominum 1

quod tarn NO, < c u m > tarn Bait.

1

sint AG IP NOB Μ

f r o m cognitio deorum that pittas a n d its p . 7 ) : διοίσουσιν (sc. φιλόσοφοι) άλλήits connected virtues arc derived; cf. 2 , 153. 53. λν τε καΐ εαυτών νυν ή νυν . . .; T r u e knowledge of the gods permits lits Philo, De Ebriet. 199-205; Diod. 2, 29, a p r o p e r mean between neglect o r con­ on6 ; Sen. Ep. 88, 45-46; Quintil. Dec/. t e m p t and superstition; cf. 1, 4 5 ; 1, 777; 7 ; min. 268, p. 94 Rittcr; Sext. L m p . 1, 117; 2, 6 3 ; 2, 7 1 ; Dip. 2, 149. Religio igio Pyrrbon. 1, 8 7 : el δέ τα αυτά διαφόρως seems here used in the meaning of κινεί παρά τήν διαφοράν των ανθρώπων, " a t t e n t i o n t o religious observances."' είσάγοιτ' αν εΐκότως και κατά τοϋτο ή necesearia: Lucian, De Hist, conscr. tcr. ε π ο χ ή ; 1, 8 8 : καΐ ούτως άνεπικρίτως 63, speaks of the importance of concili­ iliστασιάζοντες αύθις ήμδς εις τήν έκοχήν ating t h e listener by explaining t h e size, zc, περιστήσουσιν; 3, 3 ; 3, 3 0 : Οτι τοίνυν necessity, appropriateness, o r utility of αεταί είσιν ακατάληπτοι ράδιον συνιδεϊν the subject t o be treated; cf. Inv. 1, 223: 3: έκ της περί αυτών γεγενημένης διαφωή demonstrabimus ea quae dicturi erimus nus νίας παρά τοις δογματικοϊς; Adv. Phys. magna, nova, incredibilia esse . . . aut ad 1. 2 9 ; 1, 191-192: έφ* οίς ή τών σκεπdeos immor talis aut ad sum mum rei pubiicae cae τικών εποχή συνεισάγεται, και μάλιστα pert mere; De Or. 1, 3 0 ; Brut. 2 5 . προσγενομένης αΰτοΐς και της από τοΰ d e q u a : might grammatically refer fcr κοινοΰ βίου περί θεών ανωμαλίας, κτλ.; cither t o quaestio, natura deorum, cogttiρ»/Adv. Math. 9; Lucian, /up. Trag. 42: tionem, o r re/igionem; S c h o e m a n n a nndd συνίδοι τις αν ώς ουδέν βέβαιον ό περί Mayor think quaestio, but as g o o d a case asc θεών λόγος Ιχει, κτλ.; /carom. 5; Diog. c o u l d be made for natura deorum, since ice L. 7, 129; Ccnsorin. 19, 4; Tat. Ad Gr. that phrase is more significant than tan 3; Just. Mart. Col>ort. ad Gr. 5 ct al.; quaestio, and is the subject of the "whole ole 2 Apol. 13; Tert. De An. 2; Arnob. w o r k ; Goethe explains it as quaestio de 2, 10; 3, 3 7 ; Lact. /nst. 1, 1, 18; 3, 4, 3 : natura deorum. in multas sectas philosophia divisa est et tarn variae eunt: so DH%B*\ the :he omnes varia sentiunt. in qua ponimus veritabetter attested subjunctive seems difficult ult tern? in omnibus certe non potest', 3, 15, 2; w i t h o u t the addition made by Baiter of 5, 3, 1; Ambr. Exam. 1, 1, 4; Euscb. cum (which might also soften the omission on Pr. Ev. 14, 16, 11; Firm. Math. 1, 1, 3 ; o f ut before magno argumento), t h o u g h T T.. Alex. Aphrod. De Fato, 2; Aug. Ep. Birt {Berl. philol. Woch. 3 8 ( 1 9 1 5 ) . 5 4H>) 6) 118, 1 1 : non opus est ei cognitione dialogorum tries t o justify it as in a causal relative ive Ciceronis, et collectione emendicatarum disclause. But sint may have arisen t h r o u gh gh cordantium sententiarum a/ienarum procuthe influence of sint in the previous >us rari audi tores', 118, 16: reperies Epicureos sentence, and if cum be added here, then icn et Stoicos inter se acerrime dimicantes; eorum the first t w o sentences begin a little tic vero litem conantes diiudicare Pla/onicos, monotonously with cum . . . sint. T 'he he occultantes sententiam veritatis, et illorum vo­ emendation by M. L. Earlc {CI. Papers mers nam in fa/sitaie fiduciam convincentes et rtd(1912), 203) to tarn variae iae arguentes; CD. 18, 4 1 ; loan. Chrys. sunt seems unnecessary, as d o t h e con­ >nHorn. 3 in Rom. 3 {Patr. Gr. 6 0 , 4 1 4 ) ; jectures of R. Philippson {Philol. Woch. scientiam—a supplction which he wisely did not print in his text; T. Bin (Berl. pbil. Wocb. 38 (1918), 546-547) emends: esse dubitationem cattsam et principium pbilosopbiae, baud scientiam. I somewhat hesitantly read [causam id est] principium pbilosopbiae esse [or pos­ sibly pbilosopbiae adhuc esse] scien­ tiam, prudenterque Academicos, translating: "On this matter so varied and so irre­ concilable arc the views of the most learned men, it should probably (debeat) be an important argument that the very foundation of philosophy is (up to the present) only uncertainty, and that the Academics have wisely refrained from assent to things which are uncertain." This explanation fits neatly with the first part of the sentence, the lack of a generally accepted doctrine being due to the uncertainty of the premisses upon which such might rest. The stages of corruption of the text may have been (1) causa as a gloss on principium; (2) causa principium; (3) causa et principium (in B* ) and causa id est principium (in M). Academicos: the keynote of the

116

1,1

Quid est enim temeritate turpius l aut quid tarn temerarium 1

turpius Η (m. rtc. in mg.)t Imtinat forcius BF, fortius Μ

whole work is here suggested in its ex his ilia nuessario nata est εποχή, id first paragraph, and the vote taken at its est adsensionis retentio; cf. Plut. Cic. 40, 2: end (3, 95), with Academics on two εκείνος γάρ έστιν . . . ό καΐ τήν φαντασίαν . . . καΐ τήν έποχήν καΐ τήν κα· sides of the question, indicates that the τάληψιν . . . ά^λα τε πολλά των τοιού­ antidogmatic principles of that school των έςονομάσας πρώτος ή μάλιστα 'Ρωhave been well maintained. μαίοις; Lact. Inst. 3, 29,7: is qui dicit rebus incerti·: cf. Div. 2, 43: quid igitur minus a pbysicis did debet quam adsensus esse retinendos, quod stulti sit bominis rebus incognitis temere assentire. For qw'cquam certi significari rebut incertis; the idea cf. Att. 6, 6, 3 (έπέχειν, εποχή) Sen. 68: quid enim est stu/tius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro peris? M. 6, 9, 3 (έπέχειν, εποχή); 13, 21, 3 (εποχή); 15, 21, 2 (εποχή); Fin. 3, 3 1 : summum Aurcl. 8, 7: φύσις δέ λογική εύοδεΐ, έν munus sapientis obsistere visisadsensusque/irme μέν φαντασίαις μήτε ψευδεΐ μήτε άδήλω συγκατατιΟεμένη; Aug. C. Acad. 1, 7: sustinere; Ac. 1, 45: neque adsensione apsi incertis rebus esset assensus (cf. Plasberg'sprobare . . . ab utraque parte adsensio cd. of Cic. Ac. (1908), p. 59); 2, 11: sustineretur; 2 48:, sustinere se ab ornni ex quo confici ut nuJ/i etiam res sapiens adsensu; 2, 53; 2, 57: retenturum adsensum assentiatur; erret enim necesse est, quod neque umquam ulli viso adsenswum; 2, 62: sublata ... adsensione; 2, 68: sustinenda est sapienti nefas est, si assentiatur rebus inpotius omnis adsensio; 2, 78: omnium adcertis. sensionum retentio; 2, 94: cobibes adsensum; adsenetonem cohibuisec: the term 2, 98: quattuor eius [sc. C/itomachi) libri εποχή, for Academic suspension of sunt de sustinendis adsensionibus; 2, 104: judgment, was apparently introduced from the scepticism of Socrates {Tusc. 1, duplies ter did adsensus sustinere sapient em \ 2, 108; 2, 148: έποχήν Warn omnium 99; a/.) by Pyrrho; cf. Diog. L. 9, 61: δθεν γενναιότητα δοκεΐ φιλοσοφήσαι, το rerum comprobans; Div. 2, 150; Philo, De Ebriet. 205: άσφαλέστατον τό έπέ­ της άκαταληψίας καΐ εποχής είδος είσχειν elvai; Sen. Ep. 108, 21: iudidum αγαγών (sec Suid. s.vv. εποχή, ΙΙυρqmdem bonum sustinere; J. S. Rcid on ρώνειοι); 9, 76: ή δέ "παντί λόγω" καΐ Ac. 2, 59; P. Couissin, Uorigine et αυτή συνάγει την έποχήν των μέν γαρ πραγμάτων διαφωνούντων, των δέ λό­ revolution de Γ ΕΠΟΧΗ (in Rev. des it. gr. 42 (1929), 373-397); A. Pittct, γων ΙσοσΟενούντων άγνωσία της αλη­ Vocab. phitos. de Sonique, 1 (1937), 119; θείας επακολουθεί (sec Scxt. Emp. R. Philippson in Symb. Os/oenses, 20 Pyrrhon. 1, 10; Adv. Math. 6; Adv. (1940), 35 (for later Epicurean attacks Phys. 1, 29: τό γαρ πολύτροπον της αποφάσεως την άγνωσίαν του [παντός] on εποχή). άληΟοΰς επισφραγίζεται, πολλών μέν adseneionem: cf. Ac. 2, 37: nunc de δυναμένων είναι τρόπων της τοΰ Οεοΰ adsensione atque adprobatione, quam Graeνοήσεως, τοΰ δέ έν αύτοϊς άληΟοϋς μή ci συνκατάΟεσιν vacant (and Rcid ad καταλαμβανόμενου; Phot. Bib/, p. 169 loc). Bckk.], and continued by Arccsilas temeritate turpius: turpius is the (Scxt. limp. Pyrrhon. 1, 232, says he reading only of certain deteriores and of asserted τέλος μέν είναι τήν έποχήν). the Juntine cd., while Β reads forcius. Important for the origins of scepsis is Emendations arc various. Nearest palaeoR. Hirzcl, Untersuch. ξ. Cicero's pbilos. graphically is fortius, which F. A. Wolf Schr. 3 (1883), 22-39. The idea occurs in (A7. Schr. 1 (1869), 504-505) very unChrysippus (S. 1 \F. 2, 36, 29; 2, 39, 3), convincingly defends; cf. G. F. Schocand various later writers (e.g., Arr. mann, Opusc. acad. 3 (1858), 296-297, Epict. 1, 4, 11; Galen, 1, 40 K.), and is Next closest seems foedius of P. Manutius, in Latin first defined by Cic. Ac. 2, 59: followed by Lambinus, and wc may cite

1,1

117

tamque indignum sapientis gravitate atque constantia quam aut as parallels Τ use. 4, 35: quid attttm est non γοΰν οΰσης καΐ της περί Οεοΰ άγνοιας, miserius solum sed foedius etiam et deformius ίντος δέ μεγίστου κακού καΐ τοϋ μή «Iqttam aegritudine quis adflictus, debilitatus, δέναι τόν τρόπον της του θεού θερα­ iacens; 4, 52: quid Acbille Homerico foedius, πείας καΐ της είς αυτόν εύσεβείας; quid Agamemnon* in iurgio; 5, 80: quid enim A mob. 2, 57: inanissima igitur res est . . . ea [sc. vita beata] foedius, quid deformius aeceptare pro vero id quod forsitan non sit; sola relic la \ Legg. 1, 51: quid enim foedius Aug. De Trin 10, 11: erroris dedecus. Of these various readings foedius is avaritia; Off. 1, 159; 3, 36: quibus nihil net taetrius nee foedius excogitari potest'; attractive, but, as Schocmann (op. eit., 3, 115: fiagitiosa, foeda, turpia. C. G. 3, 358) remarks, unduly strong, while Schuctz (Opusc. (1830), 227) emends turpius has so evident an affinity for the to futilius, with which may be compared faults of ignorance and temeritas that Ac. 2, 59: quid enim est tarn futtile quam the chances seem to favor it here. quicquam adprobare non cognitum? H. Temeritas (and the adverb temere) are Dciter (Pbilol. 58 (1899), 303) suggests frequently used by Cicero of rash, un­ tefertius, comparing 2 Verr. 3, 202: considered action, especially of youths, iam refertius erit aerarium — no close as opposed to mature prudentia (Sen. 20) parallel. F. Walter (Wien. Stud. 48 (1930), or sapientia (Off. 2, 8). 3, 61 infra associa­ 77-78) proposes <de>formius, and cites tes it with inconstantia; for other cases cf. Tusc. 4, 35 (sec above; and add 5, 80); Ac. 1, 42; 2, 66 (and n. of Reid, who Rep. 1, 51: nee ulla deformior species est equates it with προπέτεια); 2, 68; 2, 108; atntatts. T. Birt (Berl. phil. Woeb. 38 2, 120; Fin. 3, 72; Tusc. 4, 80; Off. 1, 18; (1918), 547) emends: importunius. Q. Cic. Comm. Petit. 39: Έπιχάρμειον The favorite reading with editors illud teneto, nervos atque artus sapientiae has been turpius, conjectured by Lambinon temere credere [for the Greek of nus and later found in several deteriores, this cf. Att. 1, 19, 8]; Sen. N.Q. 7, 30, 1; for this adjective is often used by Cicero Galen, III, 74 Κ.: δια προπετη συνκατάin such connections; e.g., 1, 70: hoc Οεσιν. In Off. 1, 94, Cicero remarks: falls, dicere turpius est quam, etc, Ac. 1, 45: errare, labi, decipi tarn dedeeet quam delirare neque hoc quidquam esse turpius quam cogni­ et mente esse cap turn; in Ac. 2, 29, he says tions et perceptions adsensionem adprobatio-that one of the two chief matters in nemque praecurrere; 2, 66: pro veris probare philosophy is iudicium veri. falsa turpissimum est; 2, 114: cum me in­ sapientis gravitate: cf. Off. 1, 67: ut cognito adsentiri vetes idque turpissimum esse nihil . . . discedas . . . a dignitate sapientis dieas et plenissimum temeritatis; Dip. 1,7: robusti animi est magnaeque constaniiae; Ac. temeritas in adsentiendo errorque turpis est; 2, 66: nihil est ab ea cogitatione quam habeOff. 1, 18: labi aut em, errare, nescire, mus de gravitate sapientis, errore, levitate, decipi et malum et turpe ducimus; Inv. 2, 9: temeritate diiunctius. Cicero frequently in parum cognito stulte et diu perseverasse couples gravitas and constantia (e.g., turpe est; Orat. 120: quid est enim turpius Fin. 3, 1; Tusc. 4, 57; 4, 60; 5, 13; quam .. . controversiarum patroeinia suscipere Ac. 2, 53; Off. 1, 72; 1, 112; Mortens. cum sis legum et civilis iuris ignarus; Phil. 7,9; fr. 64 Mullcr), and, though appropriate other examples in Mcrguct, Lex. ?. d. for all Romans, these qualities especially pbilos. Sebr. 3 (1894), 715-716. Turpis befit the philosopher; cf. Ac. 2, 53; Fin. is in the ethical works constantly con­ 2, 100; 5, 13: ea quae desideratur a magno trasted by Cicero with bonestus, and philosopho gravitas; 5, 14; Tusc. 5, 46; Plato (Pbaedr. 277 d-c) describes igno­ Π. Rcmy, Ije concept etc. de la xgravitas? rance as a disgrace (cf. Theaet. 194c: in Nova et Vetera, 1 (1921), 5-14; W. τύ 8έ ψεύδεσθαι αίσχρόν) while in the Kroll, Die Kultur d. etc. Zeit, 1 (1933), Minos, 318c, the impiety of wrong 27 (who considers gravitas nearly syn­ notions of the gods is stressed; cf. Ijegg. onymous with constantia and opposed 10, 888b; Orig. C. Cels. 4, 65: έν κακοϊς to the levitas Graecorum); M. Hadas in

118

1,2

falsum scntire aut quod non satis explorate perceptum sit ct cognitum sine ulla dubitatione dcfcndere? 2 Velut in hac quaestione plerique, quod maxime veri simile est et quo omnes [sese] l 1

sese del. Λί\ om. Η (m. rec. in mg.)

CI. foum. 31 (1935), 17-24; H. Wagen- evertere, cum alii deos <non> esse dicani voort. Imperium (1941), 103-125 (on [N.D. 1, 2), alii esse quidem sed nihil procurare definiant [N.D. 1, 2-3], alii et esse gravitas and maiestat). falsum: assent should be withheld et rerum nostrarum curam procurationtmqm from falsa and incognita (non satis cognita); susapere, et tanta sint bi omnes in varietate cf. Div. 1, 7; Ac. 1, 45; 2, 29; 2, 59; et dissensione versati (N.D. 1, 2J ut longum el alienum sit [N.D. 1, 2] . . . nngulorum 2, 68; Fin. 3, 72. explorate: cf. Fam. 6, 1, 5: exploratius enumerare sententias [N.D. 1, 2J. nam alii .. . promtttere; 10, 8, 6: explorate iudicare. et figuras bis pro arbitrio suo Iribuunt, et loca adsignant [N.D. 1, 2], sedes etiam 16, 8, 1;J2- FT. 2, 14, 3; Att. 14, 14, 6. Mayor (ad toe.) thinks the adverb here constituent et multa de actibus eorum vi toque has a half-technical sense, and compares describunt [N.D. 1, 2J et omnia quae facta et constituta sunt [N.D. 1, 2] ipsorum Ac. 2, 129. Such phrases as babtre exploratum (1, 51; Div. 2, 60; Off 3, 75; arbitrio regigubemarique pronuntiant [N.D. Parad. 17; Am. 97) and esse exploratum 1, 2); alii nihil moliri, nihil curare [N.D. 1, 2] et ab ornni administrations cura (Ac. 2, 54; Sen. 67; Fin. 2, 92; Tusc. 2, 17; Div. 1, 117) arc favorites with vacuos esse dixerunt [N.D. 1, 2]. Others Cicero; cf. also 2, 64: explorata ratio divided believers into two classes, those who recognized divine intervention in (as in 2 Verr. 1, 15). See A. Cuny in the world and those who, like the Mil. offerts ά L. Havet (1909). 85-106, Epicureans, did not; cf. 2, 3; 2, 164-165. especially 90-91. plerique: Cicero as an Academic perceptum . . . et cognitum: else­ makes a more modest claim than the where coupled; e.g. Ac. 2, 18; 2, 23; dogmatist Vclleius (1, 43: in omnium 2, 103; 2, 109; Fin. 5, 76; Legg. 1, 60. sine ulla dubitatione: cf. Tusc. 3, 5; animis eorum [sc. deorum] notionem imFam. 1, 5b, 2; Att. 14, 13b, 5; 16, 7, 1; pressisset ipsa natura, etc.; 1, 44; 1, 46; answered by Cotta in 1, 62, who himself 16, 16a, 6; 16, 16b, 9; also Augustine's uses the softened phrase omnibus fere) ridicule (CD. 6, 2) of Cicero's descrip­ and the dogmatist Balbus (2, 4: adsensu tion (Ac. (1932 cd.) p. 25, 9 Plasberg) of Varro as sine ulla dubitatione doctissimo, omnium-, 2, 12: omnibus enim innatum though writing in the Academica, ubi est . . . esse deos; cf. Cotta's objections in 3, 8; 3, 11, 3, 17; also Div. 2, 106: cuncta dubitanda esse contendit. 2 velut: often employed in passing adsumunt "sunt autem di" quod ipsum non from a general statement to a particular ab omnibus conceditur), both of whom rely upon an assumed consensus gentium illustration; e.g., 1, 69; 1, 101; 2, 73; (a method of argument found in Plat. 2, 124; Tusc. 5, 28; 5, 34; Legg. 2, 47. On the following three-fold division Legg. 10, 886a; cf. L. Gueuning in Nova of believers, agnostics, and atheists cf. et Vetera, 7 (1925), 326, n. 7; H. Pinard dc la Boullayc, LVt. comp. des relig. 1· Sext. Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 50: των ούν (1929). 20), for which sec Pease on περί υπάρξεως θεοΰ σχεψαμένων ol μέν Div. 1, 1. Cicero, like his fellow Aca­ εΤναί φασι θεόν, ol δέ μή είναι, ol δέ μή demic Cotta and like Sextus Empiricus μάλλον είναι ή μή είναι; Firm. Math. 1, (Adv. Pbys. 1, 50-51: είναι μέν [sc. θ«6ν] 1, 3-4 (a passage strongly recalling the present: cum sciamus inter ipsos quanta ol πλείους των δογματικών καΐ ή κοινή sit <de> ipsa deorum natura dissensio τοΰ βίου κρόληψις, κτλ.), makes asser­ [N.D. 1, 2] quantisque disputationum tions, not about all men, but only argumentis vim totam divinitatis conantur about the majority. Just below, (quo

1,2

119

duce natura venimus, deos esse dixerunt, dubitare se Protagoras, omnti .. . venimus), however, he speaks more boldly; cf. 'fuse. 1, 30: nemo omnium tarn sit inmanis cuius menttm non imbuerit dtorum opinio . .. omnes tamen esse vim et naturam divinam arbitrantur; Lt&&- 1» 24: in hominibus nulla gens est tarn mansueta tuque tarn /era quae non% etiamsi ignoret qua/em habere deum deeeat, tamen habendum sciat; cf. Aristot. De Caelot 1, 3, 270 b 5: πάντες γαρ άνθρωποι περί θεών εχουσιν ύπόληψιν. In De Div. per Somn. 1, 462 b 14 Aristotle uses a modified form of the argument from consensus: το μέν γάρ πάντας ή πολλούς υπολαμβάνειν Ιχειν τι σημειώδες τα ενύπνια, κτλ. Gucuning (op. cit.% 327) suggests that Cicero here seems to admit that one might, to gain an idea of the origins of religion, study the religious state of foreign (especially primitive) peoples, and thinks that Plato (Legg. 10, 886a) was the first to grasp the importance of this and build upon it the doctrine of consensus. veri simile: it is appropriate that this work, strongly illustrative of Aca­ demic method, should start with re­ cognition of the probability of the exist­ ence of the gods, just as in its last sen­ tence (3, 95) Cicero considers the Stoic defence of them as ad veritatis sim'litudinem . . . propensior. omnes: BFM1 read omnes sese (sese deleted by Λ/1), and Plasbcrg (ed. motor) suggests emending cither to omnes sese , or, better, omnes fere [cf. 1, 44: fere constat inter omnes; 1, 62: ptacet enim omnibus fere . . . deos esse]. In the philosophical wrorks fere 3 ! times modifies omnis (26 times in the order ornnit fere); further, the confusion in half-uncials or minuscules between r and / is by no means impossible. T. Birt (Berl. phii. Woeb. 38 (1918), 547) supports this emendation. M. Atzert (Gotting. gel. Anz. 197 (1935), 277), comparing Fin. 5, 41, would emend sese to sensim. A. C. Clark (The Descent of Manuscripts (1918), 356-357) assumes, however, that sese may be a variant for esse, and thinks the ancestor of Β may have read quo omnes j due* natura venimus deos esse [in

marg. sese] / dixerunt (assuming narrow columns with about 25 letters to the line). The gloss sese is inappropriate as a variant for esse, but Clark has not noticed that it is very apt as a variant for st in the line below those which he quotes (cf. R. Philippson in Pbilol. Wocb. 54 (1934), 188), and if written marginally half-way between the two lines its proximity to a terminal esse might easily have suggested to a copyist that it was a correction for that word of somewhat similar sound. Its mere pre­ sence in the margin is insufficient evidence for considering it superior to se, but since it appears merely a variant on that word we may delete it. duce natura: a favorite phrase, cither in the ablative absolute as here (cf. 2, 128; Fin. 1, 7 1 ; 2, 32; 2, 109; 5, 69; Tusc. 1, 30; 3, 2; Legg. 1, 20 (bis); Off. 1, 129; 2, 73; Pro Rab. Post. 4; Varr. L.L. 8, 10; Fcst. p. 372 M. (510 L.); Plin. N.H. 10, 155; Apul. De Plat. 2, 2; De Μundo, 28; Arnob. 1, 33; lul. Sever. Praecept. 5 (Rhet. Lat. 357 Halm): natura duce .. . pervenitur) or with the two words otherwise combined (Fin. 4, 10; 5, 42; Off. 1, 22; 1, 100; Am. 19; Sen. 5; Brut. 204; Orat. 58; Varr. L.L·. 6, 3; Sen. Phaedr. 481; Dial. 7, 8, 1; possibly Ep. 90, 4; Stat. Theb. 12, 645; Quintil. Inst. 4, 5, 3). The words duce natura probably render φύσει, since there seems no common Greek phrase which is translated by duce, though ακολούθως τη φύσει (secundum naturam) occurs. H. Lciscgang (Phil. Woch. 58 (1938), 1309) finds in this and similar expressions a strongly monistic meta­ physics, like that of Panaetius, Antiochus, and Posidonius; man, if he docs not resist, is led by nature to his destiny. On natura duce cf. M. van den Bruwacne, La tljeol. de Cic. (1937), 222-230. With the thought cf. also Tert. De Sped. 2: nemo negat, quia nemo ignorat, quod ultro na­ tura suggerit, deum esse universitatis conditorem. venimus: we need not prefer vehimur (with the figure of a ship) of the deteriores or trabimur of C. G. Cobet (Var. Lect.

120

1,2

cults; a charge made by pagans against (1873), 460), who compares Off. 1, 18. Jews, as in Piol. Tetrab. 2, 3, and more The tense is probably present, of a often against Christians; e.g., Julian. general truth. Ep. 22, 429d—though Julian was him­ esse, etc.: cf. Scrv. Aen. 4, 379: Cicero in libris de deorum natura tripiicem self considered by the Christians as an de diis dicit esse opinionem: deos non esse .. . ;atheist: Suid. s.vv. Ιουλιανός, Μάρις —; esse et nihil curare, ut Ε pi curd ; esse et curare, Athenag. Suppl. pro Christ. 3; Just. Martyr, 1 Apol. 5-6; 2 Apol. 3; Eus. ut Stoici. H.E. 4, 15, 19; 4, 16, 3 ; 5, 1, 9; Arnob. dubitare: cf. Philo, De Opt/. Mundi, 1, 29; A. Harnack in Texte u. Untersucb. 170: πρώτον μεν δτι ϊστι τό θείον καΐ N.F. 13, 4 (1905), 8-16 (important for υπάρχει, δια τους άθεους, ων ol μέν the first three centuries); (3) denial ένεδοίασαν έπαμφοτερίσαντες περί της of the accepted gods as morally un­ υπάρξεως αύτοΰ, ol δέ τολμηρότεροι καΐ worthy of worship (1, 42-43) and the κατεθρασύναντο φάμενοι μηδ' δλως είναι; substitution of purer conceptions, such Scxt. Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 59: ού μάλλον as of aniconic for anthropomorphic δέ είναι ή μή είναι θεούς δια τήν των gods, of monotheism for polytheism, αντικειμένων λόγων Ισοσθένειαν Ελεζαν and of spiritual for material deities ol άπό της σκέψεως. (cf. Eus. Pr. Et: 10, 4, 32; Clem. Protr. Protagoras: these three philosophers are again cited by Cotta in 1, 63 to dis­ 2, 24, 2, who says that clear-minded men, prove consensus of belief in the gods. like Euhcmcrus, Nicanor, Diagoras, Hippo, and Theodorus, were charged The selection of one agnostic and two with atheism because they realized atheists out of a larger number who popular errors about the gods, whereas might have been named may be due to the real atheists are those ignorant of the two considerations: (1) that these are true god (id., 2, 23, 1; cf. Just. Martyr, stock examples of the two types; and 2 Apol. 3)); (4) as an inaccurate slogan, (2) that Cicero thus secures a rhetorical appearing as early as Eur. Hel. 1148, group of three illustrations (sec Pease raised against any who differed from the on Dip. 1, 3). Compare the triads of atheists in Philodem. De Pie/, p. 112 accuser, and among the Christians applied with freedom both to pagans Gompcrz — Usencr, Epicurea, 127, 27 (Harnack, op. cit., 3-7) and to heretics (Prodicus, Diagoras, Critias); Plut. De (##/., 7-8; also Greg. Naz. Or. 2, 37 comm. Notit. 31 (Theodoms, Diagoras, (Sabellius); Hier. C. loan. Hieros. 9; Hippo); Ρlac. Pbilos. 1, 7 — Doxogr. Suid. s.v. Άέτιος (Aetius)). Atheism Gr.% 297, repeated by Thcodorct, Gr. as a criminal offence in the eyes of the Aff. Cur. 2, 112; 3, 4 (Diagoras, Theo­ law seems limited to Athens (cf. E. doms, Euhcmcrus); [Galen,) De Phil. Dcrcnnc, Let proch d'impir'te (1930), Hist. 8 (Proragoras, Theodorus, Euhe265) from about the beginning of the mcrus); Acl. Hist. An. 6, 40 (Hippo, Pcloponncsian War to the close of the Diagoras, Herostratus); Min. Fcl. 8, fourth century B.C. (Drachmann, op. 2-3 (who copies the three here named by Cicero but in the order Theodorus, cit., 6-7; cf. C. M. Bowra in CI. Phil. 33 Diagoras, Protagoras); loan. Chrys. (1938), 367). Among those philosophers In 1 Cor. Homil. 4, 5 (Protagoras, Dia­ accused, in their own day or later, of denial of the gods Drachmann (op. cit., goras, Theodorus); Li ban. Decl. 1, 153-154 (Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Dia­ 13; cf. T. Thalhcim in P.-W. 2 (1896), goras). 1529; F. Zuckcr in Philol. 64 (1905). 468-469) lists as a canon Xcnophanes, On the history of atheism cf. A. B. Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Hippo Drachmann, Atheism in pagan Antiquity of Rhegium, Protagoras, Prodicus, Critias, (1922). Charges of atheism might be Diagoras of Melos, Socrates, Antisthcncs, based upon various grounds: (1) ab­ Plato, Aristotle, Thcophrastus, Stilpo, solute theoretical denial of the existence Theodorus, Bion, Epicurus, and Eubemerus of any gods; (2) denial of the accepted (those italicized being denoted as £θεοι. popular gods in the interest of foreign

1,2

121

T o these may be added Aeschylus (Acl. auiem qui providentiam mundi curioiius V.H. 5, 19; cf. Drachmann, op. ci/.t 54), vestigant et impensius deos celebrant eos vero pulgo mages nominent. At other times Euripides (Ar. Tbesm. 450-451; Satyr us, religious heretics were accused of Vit. Eurip. in Pap. Oxyrb. 1176, frg 39, col. x. pp. 153; 177; [Galen], De atheism; e.g., Asclep. in Aristot. Metapb. Hist. Pbil. 8; E. Mullcr, Eurip. Deorum p. 285, 18-19 (of the Manichacans). It would appear that Protagoras was pop. Conttmtor (1826)), Leucippus and the first to treat the existence of the Democritus (Apul. Apol. 27), Hcrostragods as a debatable problem which tus (Ael. Hist. An. 6, 40), Ahstarchus might (on purely rational grounds; of Samos (Plut. De Fade, 6), Philippus cf. T. Gomperz, Gr. DenJker, l l (1922), (no. 44 in P.-W.\ Philodem. De Piet. p. 493, quoting C. A. Lobcck) conceivably 86 Gomperz), Damis the Epicurean be solved in the negative (Drachmann, (Lucian, lup. Trag. 4; 17), Nicanor of op. at. 42), but the statement at the Cyprus (Clem. Protr. 2, 24, 2; Arnob. beginning of his περί θεών (1, 63 infra; 4, 29), and miscellaneous Epicureans Euseb. Pr. Ev. 14, 3, 7): περί μεν θεών (Suid. s.v. 'Επίκουρος).). For ancient ούχ Εχω είδέναι ούθ' ως είσίν, ούθ' ως lists sec Acl. I'.H. 2, 31; Scxt. Emp. Pyrrbon. 3, 218; Adv. Pbys. 1, 51-59; ούκ είσίν, οΰθ' όποΐοί τίνες Ιδέαν. πολλά γαρ τα κωλύοντα είδέναι. ή τ* άδηEustath. in Od. 3, 381. Maximus of λότης καΐ βραχύς ων ό βίος τοΰ άνθρωπου Tyre, 11, 5, emphasizes the comparative rarity of atheists. At Rome criminal [cf 14, 19, 10; Diog. L. 9, 51] makes, as Τ. Gomperz {op. cit., I 1 (1922), 371), action against them seems unknown, points out, a clear distinction between because of Roman indifference to theo­ belief and knowledge—note the repeated retical inquiry in cases where established use of είδέναι—, and there is little cults were not disturbed. Among the Jews Joscphus (C. Ap. 2, 180) says evidence that Protagoras failed to con­ form to the externals of the state religion atheists were not found— Ps. 14, 1 (cf. Drachmann, op. cit.t 41-42; Dercnnc. should probably not be urged against him. A few Ethiopian atheists, however, op. cit., 45-46). As our accounts become more distant chronologically from his arc recognized by Diod. 3, 9, 2 (but cf. time and reflect the outcome of his trial Strab. 17, 2, 3); for those in Egypt cf. F. Cumont, L'£gypte des astrologues rather than the evidence presented at it, writers become more severe in condem­ (1937), 135. Accusations of atheism ning his views. On the whole subject were brought especially against philo­ sophers; cf. Inv. 1, 46: buius modi sunt cf. 1, 63 nn.; Plat. Tbeatt. 162d: θεούς . . . ούς έγώ Εκ τε τοΰ λέγειν καΐ τοΰ probabilia . . . eos qui pbilosopbiae dent operant non arbitrari deos esse; also perhaps γράφειν περί αυτών, ως είσίν ή ως ούκ είσίν, εξαιρώ; Eupol. frg. 146 Kock: Dion. Hal. Ant. 2, 68, 2; Just. Martyr, 1 Apol. 4; Arnob. 1, 31: audimus enim Πρωταγόρας . . . / 6ς άλαζονεύεται μέν quosdam pbilosopbandi studio deditos partim άλιτήριος περί τών μετεώρων; Diog. it/lam negare vim use divimm partim an Ocnoand. p. 19 W.: ΙΙρωτχγόρβς δέ 6 Άβδηρείτης τη μέν δυνάμει την αυτήν sit cotidie quaerere. The populace were ήνενκε Διαγόρα δόξαν, ταϊς λέξεσιν δέ prone to accept religious customs with­ έτέραις έχρήσατο. ως τό λείαν Ιταμόν out question, and the physical, often αύτης έκφευξούμενος; Max. Tyr. 11, 5: esoteric, inquiries of the philosophers καν μη είναι φής (sc. τό θεΐον), ώς Δια­ were supposed, by outsiders, to lead to γόρας, κάν άγνοεϊν τι φής, ώς Πρωταγό­ more or less illicit results; cf. Apul. Apol. 27: bate ferme com muni quodam ρας; Philostr. Vit. Sopb. 1, 10: τό δέ errore imperitorum pbilosopbis obiec/antur, άπορεΐν φάσκειν, είτε είσΐ θεοί, εΓτε ούκ ut partim eorum qui corporum causas meras etείσί, δοκεϊ μοι Πρωταγόρας έκ της Περ­ nmplicis rimantur irreligiosos putent toque σικής παιδεύσεως παρανομήσαι; Liban. Decl. 1, 154: Πρωταγόραν έξεκηρύζατ* aiant deos abnuert, ut Anaxagoram et καλώς καΐ προσηκόντως ζητοϋντα περί Leudppum et Democritum et Epicurum ceterosque rerum naturae patronos, partim θεών είτ' είσίν είτ' ούκ είσί; Epiphan.

122

1,2

nullos esse omnino Diagoras Melius et Theodorus Cyrcnaicus Homil. 4. 5 {Pair. Gr. 61, 36); Cyril. Adv. Han. 3, 2, 9 (Doxogr. G'.* 591): Alex. C. Iulian. 6, p. 190 {Pair. Gr. 76, Πρωταγόρας 6 τοΰ Μενάνδρου 'Αβδηρί­ 789); Suid. s.vv. άποπυργίζοντας, Δια­ της Ιφη μή θεούς είναι μηδέ Ολως ύπάρχειν; Lact. Inst. 1, 2, 2: Protagoras qui γόρας, ίακχος, πυργίσκοι, Σωκράτης ό dtos in dubium vocavit et postea Diagoras Μήλιος; Fustath. Comment. 530 (Geogr. qui exclusit et alii nonnulli qui non puta- Gr. man. 2, 320); Apostol. 6, 4 (Paroem. verunt deos esse ; De Ira, 9, 1: cum sentential Gr. 2, 365; but E. Dcrcnne, Les proces pbilosopborum prions temporis de provi- d'impiete (1930), 64, n. 3, does not be­ lieve that the name Diagoras was ever dentia consensissent ... primus omnium used as generic term for "atheist"). Protagoras extitit temporibus Socratis qui Diagoras was a poet (Sext. Emp. Adv. sibi diceret non liquere utrum esset aliqua dsvtnitas necne . . . de cuius sententia non Pbys. 9, 53; Steph. Byz. p. 450 M.; est opus disputare, quia nihil certi pronun- fragments quoted by Philodera. De Piet. p. 85 Gomperz). According to some tiavit; Thcodorct, Gr. Aff. 2, 13: accounts (Aristoxcnus ap. Philodem. περί μέν ούν των Θεών ούχ οίδα ούτε εΐ είσίν, ούθ' ώς ούκ είσίν, οΰθ* όποιοι τίνες I.e.) he was originally a pious believer, but lost his faith in the gods because of τήν Ιδέαν είσίν; 6, 6; Schol. Plat. Rep. 1, the betrayal of a trust by a friend and 600c (p. 273 Greene): είπε γαρ περί θεών ούχ έχω εΐδέναι ούτε ώς είσιν the failure of the gods to punish the perjury (Schol. Ar. Nub. 830; Schol. ούτε ώς ούκ είσιν; Suid. s.v. Πρωταγό­ Clem. Protr. 2, 24, 2; Suid. s.v. Δια­ ρας; P. Dccharmc, La critique des trad, γόρας), wrote a recantation of his reli­ relig. chez les Grecs (1904), 120; Drachmann, op. at., 39-42; Dercnnc, op. at., gious beliefs called the άποπυργίζοντες λόγοι; (Suid. s.vv. άποπυργίζοντας, Δια­ 45-55; W. C. Greene, Moira (1944), 249, γόρας, πυργίσκοι; Ε. Dercnnc, op. cit., who thinks that Protagoras, as a huma­ 59-61), perhaps to be identified with a nist and relativist, did not intend to work called Φρύγιοι λόγοι, mocked deal with theology, and that the omis­ at the mysteries ([Lys.] 6, 17; Joseph. sion of it is not inconsistent with ortho­ C. Ap. 2, 266; Schol. Ar. Aves, 1072; doxy in matters of cult. Tatian, I.e.; Athenag. I.e.; Suid. s.v. nullos esse omnino: cf. 1, 117: Διαγόρας), burned a statue of Heracles omnino dtos esse negabant. for firewood (passages collected by L. Diagoras Melius: more than any Stcrnbach in Wien. Stud. 10 (1888), 236; other proverbial as an atheist; cf. 1, 63; cf. B. Kcil in Hermes, 55 (1920), 63-67), 1, 117; 3, 89; Ar. Ran. 318-320 and was condemned to death for impiety schol.; Aves, 1071-1075 and schol.; Nub. 828-830 and schol.; [Lys.l 6, 17; about 415 B.C. (Diod. 13, 6, 7), and fled from Athens to Pcllcnc, with a price Epic. De Natura, 14, frg. 87 Us. (ap. Philodem. De Piet. p. 112 Gompcrz); on his head (Ar. Apes, 1072-1075 and

Diod. 13, 6, 7; Joseph. C. Ap. 2, 266;

schol.; Joseph. l.c.\ Ammon. Diff. 56;

Plut. Plac. 1, 7, 1 {Doxogr. Gr* 297); De Superst. 13; Ael. V.H. 2, 23; 2, 31; Hist. An. 6, 40; frg. 33 H. (ap. Suid. s.v. Ιρρε); Athen. 13, 611b; Diog. Oenoand. p. 19 W.; Max. Tyr. 11, 5; Aristid. Or. 45, 60; Sext. Emp. Pyrrbon. 3, 218; Adv. Pbys. 1, 51-53; Tatian, Ad Gr. 27; Athenag. Supp/ic. 4; Clem. Protr. 2, 24, 2 and schol.; Lact. Inst. \,2,2, De Ira, 9, 7; 10, 47; Arnob. 4, 29; Aug. C. Litt. Petil. 3, 25; Theodoret, Gr. Aff. Cur. praef. 9; 6, 6; Liban. Decl. 1, 153-154; loan. Chrys. in 1 Cor.

Liban. Decl. 1, 15A). His ακμή, given by Eus. Cbron. Ol. 78 as ca. 466 B . C , is hard to reconcile with the date given by Diodorus, and other parts of the story arc doubted by various scholars. Cf. further T. Munchcnberg, De Diagora Melio (1877), 25-30; U. v. WilamowitzMocllendorfT, Die Textgescb. d. gr. Lyriktr (1900), 80-84 (who on pp. 83-84 reconstructs his life and activities); P. Dccharmc, La critique des trad, relig. che^ I" ^ecs (1904), 131-135; E. WeJlmann in P.-V. 5 (1905), 310-311;

1,2

123

putaverunt. Qui vero deos esse dixerunt tanta sunt in varietate H. W. Smyth, Gr. melic Potts (1906), 345-346; B. Kcil in Hermes, 55 (1920), 63-67 (with an important scholium to Aristidcs bearing on Diagoras); T. Gompcrz, Gr. Denker, 1« (1922), 432; A. B. Drachmann, Atheism in pagan Aniiq. (1922). 31-34; 155-156; E. Dcrenne, Us procis d'impiete (1930), 57-70. For Diagoras's nickname άθεος cf. 1, 63, n. (athtos). Theodorus: of Cyrcnc, to be dis­ tinguished from another Thcodorus of Gyrene, the geometrician (P.~W. 5A (1934), 1811-1825), was chiefly notorious as an atheist; cf. 1, 63; 1, 117; Philo, Quod ornn. Prob. lib. 127: Θ. . . . τδν έπικληθέντα άθεον; Plut. Pboc. 38, 2: θ τω άθέω; De Tranq. 5: θ . . . . δ κληθείς άθεος; [GalenJ, De Phil. Hist. 8 (XIX, 250 K.); Athcn. 13, 611b; Min. Fcl. 8, 2; Clem. Protr. 2, 24, 2; Lact. De Iray 9, 7; 10, 47; Scxt. Emp. Pjrrbon. 3, 218; Adv. Pbys. 1, 51; 1, 55; Diog. L. 2, 85 (listing him as the head of the Thcodorcan branch of the Cyrcnaic school; cf. Suid. s.v. Θεόδωρος); 2, 97-103 (our fullest account); 2, 116; 4, 52; 4, 54; 6, 42; 6, 80 (Diogenes the Cynic wrote a dialogue called Θεόδωρος); 6, 97: Θ. τον έπΐκλην άθεον; Arnob. 4, 29; Hier. Chron. ann. 1697; 1708; Epiphan. Adv. Haer. 3, 2, 9, 24 (Doxogr. Gr.1 591): Θεόδωρος ό άθεος έπικληΟεΙς έςιη ληρον εΤναι τους περί τοΰ θεοΰ λόγους, ώετο γαρ μή είναι θείον καΐ τού­ του ένεκεν προύτρέπετο πάντας κλέπτειν έπιορκεΐν άρπαζε LV καΐ μή ύπεραποθνήσκειν πατρίδος, κτλ.; loan. Chrys. in 1 Cor. hlomil. 4, 5 (Pair. Gr. 61, 36): ό λεγόμενος άθεος. Thcodorus was probably born before 340 (K. v. Fritz in P.-VP. 5A (1934), 1825), was a pupil of Aristippus (Diog. L. 2, 86) and Anniccris (Diog. L. 2, 98), and the teacher of Euhcmerus; left Cyrenc for political reasons (E. Dercnne, Les procis d'impiiti (1930), 206), and came to Athens (Diog. L. 2, 103), but for his religious and moral views (Diog. L. 2, 99: κλίψειν τε καΐ μοιχεύσειν καΐ Ιεροσυλήσειν έν καιρώ [sc. τον σοφόν]· μηδέν γαρ τούτων φύσει αίσχρδν

είναι) was forced to leave Athens (Diog. L. 2, 102; Philo, I.e.—the sutcmcnt of Athcn. 13, 611a that he was executed seems incorrect), and stayed at the court of Ptolemy, by whom he was sent as ambassador to Lysimachus (Diog. L. 2, 102). Stories are told of his bold and outspoken expressions {Tusc. 1, 102; 5, 117; Philo, op. cit., 127-130; Val. Max. 6, 2, cxt. 3; Sen. Dial. 9, 14, 3; Plut. An Vitiositas, 3; De Exil. 16; Stob. 3, 2, 32, p. 185 H.; Gnomol. Vat. 352 (in W'ien. Stud. 11 (1889), 46)). His περί θεών was said to be the source of much of Epicurus's writing on the subject (Diog. L. 2, 97). Sec further P. Dccharmc, La critique des trad, rtlig. cbe^ l*s Grecs (1904), 173-174; A. B. Drachmann, Atheism in pagan Antiq. (1922), 75-76; E. Dcrcnnc, op. at.; 206-214; K. v. Fritz in P.-W. 5A (1934), 1825-1831 (and works cited). Cyrenaicus: three Latin adjectives arc derived from Cjrene: Cyrenaeus, Cyrenai· crir, and Cyrenensis, the first two being borrowed from the Greek. All three arc used by Cicero, but the form here attested by the best mss is that particu­ larly employed—as adjective or sub­ stantive—for members of the philoso­ phic school of Cyrcnc; e.g., DeOr. 3, 62; Off. 3, 116; Ac. 2, 20; 2, 131; 2, 142; Fin. 1, 23; 1, 39; 2, 39; 2, 114; Tusc. 1, 83; 3, 28; 3, 3 1 ; 3, 52; 5, 112. For Cyrenaeus cf. Tusc. 1, 102: Cyrenaeum Tbeodorum; 4, 5 (of Carncades); Ac. 2, 76—respectable evidence but insufficient to lead us to adopt here Cyrenaeus of the deter/ores. in varietate: cf. 1, 29 in maximo errore versatur; 1, 31: sunt isdem in erratis; 1, 37: magno in errore sententia est; 1, 43: in maxima inconstantia . . . versantur; Firm. Math. 1, 1, 3: tanta sunt bi ornnes in varietate et dissensione versafi ut longum . . . sit . . . enumerare sententias. dissensione: the repetition of this word twice below in this section is not without parallel in Cicero's somewhat hasty writing; cf. 2, 98 (repetition of altitudines); Pease on Div. 1, 3; also

124

1,2

et dissensione ut eorum molestum l sit enumerare * sententias. Nam et defigurisdeorum et de locis atque sedibus et de actione * 1 molestum B*H (m. rec. in mg.), turn Bl * enumerare dett. Dav., innumerare Blt dinumcrare B*FH (m. rec. in mg.) * de actione] actione AC NO Μ

d e : the fourfold use of de has been Β. L. Ullman in Am. J. Pbilol. 81 questioned, and AC Ν omit it before (1950), 408-409). molestum: turn of B1 makes no sense, actione. Such an omission, however, but the correction molestum of B* gives would injure the symmetry of a rheto­ a phrase frequent in Cicero (e.g., 1, 17; rical group of three members, each distinct in meaning (locis atque sedibus 1, 24) and sometimes found with a subject infinitive as here: 1, 99; Am. 45: forming a natural unit; cf. 1, 45, n. aliens s nimis implicare molestum esse; (formam, etc.); also the instances in Sen. 47: molestum est carere; Fin. 4, 52: Tbes. Ling. Lat. 2 (1906), 1054, 48 ff., where diversity of conjunctions cor­ asperum esse dolere, molestum, odiosum; 2 Verr. 3, 155: molestum est . . . suadere; responds to a diversity of relations, so that atque may unite two members Imp. Pomp. 46: erat molestum . . . esse missum; Har. Resp. 41; Fam. 2, 1, 1; more closely joined than the others), and would produce two poorly balanced Att. 5, 9, 1; 8, 3. 5; 11, 6, 2; 11, 22, 1. groups: (1) forms; (2) places, abodes, Plasberg's tum (suggested in and activities. H. Sjogren, Comment. the apparatus of his cd. maior and Tullianae (1910), 140, compares the ms adopted in the text of his ed. min.) readings of three analogous cases (Off. finds possible parallels (2 Verr. 3, 53; 2, 56: vet in re quaerenda vel augmda; Pro Cluent. 148; Legg. 2, 18; Fam. 1, 9, 23: quos erat infinitum . .. ornnis nominart), 2 Verr. 4, 1, 1: neque in . . . neque; Q. Fr. 3, 1, 4: neque per . .. neque), and but hardly seems preferable to molestum, favors supporting the mss in each case. especially in view of the occurrence of In the present passage, however, ms infinitum just below. For the meaning of molestum cf. G. Marcsch (Mitt. d. support for the more logical and regular form is not lacking. Vereines kl. Pbilol. in Wien, 5 (1928), 27-28), who suggests a derivation from figurie: cf. 1, 45: formam et vitam et mo/a. Similar in expression is Tusc. 1, actionem mentis; 1, 46 (on the forma or 116: quos enumerare magnum est. species of the gods); 1, 50: quae vita enumerare: innumerare of B* introdu­ deorum sit; 1, 65: unde sint, ubi sint, quaJes ces a verb not known to Cicero or to sint cvrpore, ant mo, vita; 1, 103: quod eius classical Latin; dinumerare of B* occurs est domicilium, quae stats, qui locus, quae twice (and dinumcratio once) in the philo­ deinde actio vitat; 1, 111: quae ergo vita? sophical works, and is defended by locis atque eedibua: combined in G. F. Schoemann (Opusc. acad. 3 (1858), 1, 103; Tusc. 1, 19; 4, 38; Fin. 5, 4. 359), in the sense of "reckoning up in For such partly redundant pairs cf. groups"; adnumerare (cf. Div. 2, 3), L. Laurand, £tude sur le style des discours meaning "reckon along with," seems de Cic. (1907), 337, n. 3, and works inappropriate here; enumerare occurs 13 there cited; E. Norden, Die ant. Kunsttimes (and enumeratio four) in the philo­ prosa, l 1 (1909), 167, n. 1. Of this very sophical works, befitting the sense here characteristic feature of Cicero's style as well as being supported by the the present section shows varietate tt reminiscence in Firmicus Matcrnus quo­ dissensione, locis atque sedibus, rem causamted above (n. on in varietate). A good que, nihil agant, nihil moliantur, curatione parallel is 1, 91: enumerasti .. . pbiloet administration*, facta et const/tuta, and sopborum sententias. regantur atque moveantur. The present ex-

1,3

125

vitae multa dicuntur, deque his summa philosophorum dissensione certatur; quod vero maxime rem causamque continet, utrum nihil agant, nihil moliantur, omni l curatione et administratione rerum vacent, an contra ab iis et a principio omnia facta et constituta sint et ad infinitum tempus regantur atque moveantur in primis [quae] * magna dissensio est, eaque nisi diiudicatur3 in summo errore necesse est homines atque in maximarum rerum ignoratione 4 versari. 2 3 Sunt enim philosophi et fuerunt qui omnino nullam habere censerent rerum humanarum procuratio1

B*F

an ab omni AlF * quae om. dttt. Man., que DHNFM * ignorantia OM, ignorantue A/ 1 / 7

pression may mean "the places of their abode." actione vitac: cf. 1, 45 n. (formam, etc.)\ 1, 103; Rcid on Ac. 2, 62. hie: the least objectionable choice of readings; Plasberg's deque is rests on the first hand of no major ms and in­ troduces an unlikely divergence of form from ab iis just below. For a severe cri­ ticism of Plasberg's varied spellings of // and hie in the dative and ablative plural sec T. Birt in Berl. phi/. Wocb. 38 (1918), 547-548. quod: for de eo quod, depending upon dissenno est. rem causamque: cf. Fam. 2, 6, 5: rem atque causam; 12, 4, 2. Res is the fact, causa the point of dispute; cf. Tusc. 4, 65: una res videtur causam continere; Pro Catc. 11: multa enim quae sunt in re, quia remota sunt a causa, praetermiftam. Curatione et administratione: cf. Rtp. 1, 35; also 1, 3, below. [quae]: this word interrupts the syntax of the clause (despite the attempt of T. Birt in Bert. phi/. Woch. 38 (1918), 548-549 to retain it by changes in punc­ tuation and by understanding in sense a second certatur before utrum), and its presence is plausibly explained by Λ. C. Clark, The Descent of Manuscripts (1918), 357, as a variant for -que added in the margin but intended to apply to eaque just below. magna dissensio: cf. 1, 16; Tusc. 1, 18: magna dissensio est; Fin. 2, 49; 3, 44;

* diiudicetur

5, 16: magna dissensio est; 5, 76; Legg. 2, 32. In Off. 3, 56 the mention of a dissensio is followed by the words quae diudicanda sunt. in summo errore, etc.: cf. 1, 29: non in maximo errore versatur\ 3, 25: in eodem . . . errore versantur\ Ac. 2, 34: simi/i in errore persontur; Tusc. 1, 107; 5, 43; Off. 1, 91; Parad. 50. Error here probably means "uncertainty" rather than "misukc"; cf. 2, 2: non errantem et vagam . . . sententiam; Off. 2, 1: non enim sumus ii quorum vagetur animus errore; Plaut. M.G. 793: erro quam insistas viam\ Liv. 1, 24, 1: nominum error manet, utrius popuii Horatii, utrius Curiatii fuerint; Sen. Agam. 144: ubi animus errat optimum est casum sequi. 3 sunt . . . fuerunt . . . censerent: on the sequence of tenses cf. H. Lievcn, Die Consecutio Temporum des Cic. (1872), 45 (cited by Mayor ad loc. but not seen by me); G. S. Sale in CI. Rev. 3 (1889), 7; F. E. A. Traycs in Greece and Rome, 5 (1936), 99. The imperfect here represents an action partly past, partly continuing. Of such expressions as sunt . . . et fuerunt P. Parzingcr, Beitr. z- Kenntn. d. ciceron. Sti/s (1910), 27, collects many examples. nullam habere: the philosophers here in question would include, of course, all atheists (Dion. Hal. Antiq. 2, 68, 2) and the consistent atomists, but in Cicero's day were chiefly the Epicureans, whose beliefs were based upon the first of Epicurus's κύριαι

126

1,3

ncm deos. Quorum si vera sententia est, quae potest esse pietas,1 quae sanctitas, quae religio? Haec enim omnia pure atque caste 1

pietas] uirtus A

δόξαι (cf. 1, 45; 1, 85; also 1, 51; 1, 56; (1936), 210, who thinks the terms 1, 102; 1, 115-116; 1, 123; 3, 3; 3, 79; almost synonymous, and finds that Dh>. 2, 40 (and Pease ad loc.); Ljtgg. 1, 21; each has an underlying moral content Off. 3, 102; Pro Mil. 83; H. Usener, as well as a religious significance, though Epicurea (1887), 241-257; Virg. Eel. 8,35; these are not easily separable. Μ. Υ. Henry, Rtl. of Dogmatism and Scepticism Aen. 4, 379 (and Scrvius; also Pease ad loc.)\ Lucan, 7, 454-455: mortalia in the philos. Treatises of Cic. (1925), 38, ntdli I sunt curata deo [and schol.]; Quintil. compares 1, 4: fides . . . socittas ... Inst. 5, 6, 3: cum ttiam pbilosopbi qutdam iustitia. sint rtptrti qui deos agere rerum bumanarum PieJos is defined in 1, 116: est enim curam negarent; Tac. Ann. 6, 22, 2 pietas iustitia adversum deos; cf. 1, 117: (contrasting Epicureans and Stoics, as religio nem, quae deorum cultu pio confinetur; here); Acl. frg. 11 H.; [AcroJ in Hor. 2, 153: cogrutionem deorum e qua oritur Carm. 1, 34, 2; 3, 3, 35; Ambros. De pietas; In». 2, 66: pietatem, quae erga Noet 100: pbilosopborum quorundam opini- patriam out parentes aut alios sanguine ones qui negent dium curam habere super coniunctos of fidurn conservare moneat; Top. homines; Oonat. in Aen. prooem. p. 6 90: atquitas tripartita didtur esse: una Gcorgii; Greg. Na2. Or. 4, 44; Hicr. ad supero* deos, altera ad manes, tertia ad In Is. 14, 18, p. 285 Vail.; In Εχ. 3, 9, p. homines pertinere. prima pietas, stcunda 99 Vail.; Tract, de Ps. 93 {Anecd. Mareds. sanctitas, tertia iustitia et aequitas nominatur; 3, 2, 83): qui cum Epicuro ab bumanis rebus Fin. 3, 73: pietas adversus deos; also Dei curam dicitis separatam; Tract, in Is. 6 [Plat.] Definit. 412c: ευσέβεια δικαιοσύνη {Anecd. Mareds. 3, 2, 110); Iul. Vict. περί θεούς; 415a: δσιον θεράπευμα θεούArs rbet. 6 (/?/*/. Lat. 405 Halm); άρεστόν θεώ; Pease on Virg. Aen. 4, 393 id., p. 406: inter Stoicos et Epicureos solet and works there cited. The fundamental rogari providentiane mundus guberrutur; notion seems to be that of devotion, also Stob. Eel. 1, ch. 2. Among the "man's reverent attachment to the sour­ Jews similar beliefs of the Sadducecs ces of his being and the steadying of his are noted by Joseph. Bell. Iud. 2, 164; life by that attachment," as defined by Antiq. 13, 5, 9; Hippol. Pbi/osopbum.9, G. Santayana (The Life of Reason, 3 24. (1928), 179; cf. Aristot. Etb. Nic. 8, 12, procurationem: cf. 1, 2: curattone; 1162 a 4-9; 9, 2, 1165 a 21-24), and it is naturally directed towards parents and 2, 44; 2, 130 (of the analogous care of kinsmen, fatherland, and gods, e.g., man for cultivated plants and domesti­ cated animals). C. Michel, Rec. d'inscr. grecques (1900), quae potest: cf. 1, 123: quae potest esse no. 735, 213-214: τύπον δ*έ ευσέβειας ήν θεοϊς χαΐ προγόνοις είσφέρειν δσιον; sanctitas si dii bumana non curant? pietas . . . sanctitas . . . religio: id., no. 731: προς τε τους θεούς όσίως καΐ εύσς προφέρεται; also id., no. 689 combined in 1, 14 and the first two ( = I.C II, 477 b): ευσέβειας Ενεκα και again discussed in 1, 115-116 (sec M. φιλοτιμίας ήν έχων διατελεί προς τού; Knbbcrt in P.-W. 1A (1920), 574, 16); cf. also 1, 56: pie sancteque; 2, 71; Off. θεούς. 2, 11; Aug. De catecht\. Rudibus, 29. Sanctitas is defined in 1, 116 as sdentia The first two correspond to ευσέβεια colendorum deorum', cf. 2, 5: deorum cultus and όσιότης, and arc often closely religfonumque sanctitas\ also the passages linked, like pietv and holiness today; collected by W. Link in P.-W. 1A cf. J. C. Bolkestein, δσιος en ευσεβής (1920), 2248. In Plat. Euthypbr. 6e

1, 3

127

tribuenda deorum numini ita sunt si animadvcrtuntur ab iis et si est aliquid a deis inmortalibus hominum x generi tributum; sin autem dei neque possunt 2 nos iuvare nee volunt, nee omnino curant, nee quid agamus animadvertunt, nee est quod ab iis ad hominum om. Bl, humano B%

possint A

F.uchyphro attempts to define δσιον as deorum numini: a frequent phrase; what is τοις Οεοϊς προσφιλές, or θεοφιλές. e.g., 2. 7; 2, 95; 3, 92; Div. 2, 29; 2, 35; Cf. also ύ. D. Hadzsits in Trans. Am. 2, 47; 2, 124; Fin. 3, 64; Rep. 1, 12; pbiiol. Assoc. 39 (1908), 82, n. 1; W. W. Legg. 2, 15; Mar. Resp. 19; Phil. 11, 28. Fowler, Re/. Exp. of the Rom. People For the longer form deorum immortalium (1911), 4*3-464; 470, n. 27. numen sec the passages cited by F. Prisicr in P.-W. 17 (1937), 1274, who Re/iffo: on the etymology and use of discusses Cicero's use of the term numen, this word cf. Pease on Div. 2,148, and works there cited. Like the two previous always in the sense of a property of the deities (especially their might) rather words this much discussed term may than of deity itself or of a particular describe both our obligations to the gods and those to our fellows (cf. Fcst. deity. For the word in other authors p. 278 M. {-- 348 L.): religiosus est non sec Poster's treatment; also H. Wagcnmodo deorum sanctitattm magni aesiimans voort, Imperium (1941), 73-85. H. J. sed etiam officiosus adversus homines), and Rose, Prim. Culture in Italy (1926), 7 (cf. id. in Harv. thiol. Rev. 28(1935), 237) 1, 4 infra shows that Cicero is awake has compared numen with the Mclancsian to the unhappy social implications of a general abandonment of thcistic beliefs. mana, which docs not, however, seem to apply closely to the present passage. In view of the allusion in 1, 4 to CarWith the general thought cf. Sisenna, neades and the likeness of this passage fr. 125 Peter (ap. Non. p. 133 M. to the argument in 1, 115, R. Philippson (Symb. Os/oenses, 20 (1940), 24) supposes 192 L.): utrumne divi cultu erga se mortaCicero to have drawn all this informa­ lium lottiscant an superna agentes bumana tion, more or less indirectly, from Car- neglegant. ita sunt si: "only if," as in Off. 1, 28: neades. pure atque caste: cf. Div. 1, 121: hoc ipsum ita iustum est . . . // est volun­ castus animus purusque; frg. IX, 12 tary urn. neque possunt . . . nee volunt: cf. Muller (ap. Lact. Inst. 3, 19, 6): castos autem [animos], puros, integros, incorruptos in the eighth fragment of this work, . . . addeos . . . pervolare; A. Pittct, Vocab. quoted by U c t . De Ira, 13, 20-21, the repeated antithesis of vult and potest-, philos. de Seneque, 1 (1937), 159-160. Cf. L*gg. 2, 24: caste iubet /ex adJre ad also Min. Fel. 12, 2: deus .. . non vult deos, ammo videlicet, in quo sunt omnia. out non potest opitulari suis\ Julian, Orat. 4, 142d: πάντα γάρ απερ βούλεται ταΰτα tribuenda: the reciprocal expression, ίστι καΐ δύναται καΐ ενεργεί- ούτε γάρ emphasizing the contractual relation between gods and men, should be noted: δ μη ίστι βούλεται ο·">τε δ βούλεται δράν ού σΟένει ού0" δ μή δύναται ένερtribuenda deorum numini . . . a deis . . . hominum generi tributum; cf. 1, 115: cur γεϊν έθέλει; Max. Tyr. 38, 6d. The cli­ deos ab homimbus co/endos dicas cum dei .. .max in these five clauses introduced by homines non colon t; G. D. Hadzsits in nee should not be overlooked, the justi­ Trans. Am. pbiiol. Assoc. 39 (1908), 81- fication for man's neglect of the gods 83; L. Gucuning in Nova et Vetera, 1 being in inverse proportion to their attention to him and his interests. (1925), 338, n. 2.

128

1,3

hominum vitam permanare * possit, quid est quod ullos deis inmortalibus cultus, honores, preces adhibeamus? In specie autem fictae simulationis sicut reliquae virtutes item 2 pietas inesse non 1

permanere

AlDGBlt

pcrmanc

Nl

p e r m a n a r e : from the E p i c u r e a n intermundia t o t h e e a r t h , as M a y o r s u g g e s t s . q u i d est q u o d : cf. 1, 1 6 : nihil est quod . . . desideres; 1, 2 2 : quid autem erat quod concupiscent; 1, 115: quid est enim cur; 1, 117: quid est autem quod deos veneremur; 3 , 7: quid est . . . cur. Since primus est deorum cultus deos credere [Sen. Ep. 9 5 , 5 0 ; cf. Hebr. 1 1 , 61, the usclcssncss of w o r s h i p o n t h e part of u n b e l i e v e r s is often s t r e s s e d ; e.g., 1, 116; 1, 1 2 3 ; 1, 1 2 4 ; Legg. 1, 4 3 : a/que si natura confirmatura ius non erit, < virtutes omnes> tollentur; ubi enim liberalitas, ubi patriae caritas, ubi pietas, ubi aut bene merendi de altera aut referendae gratiae voluntas pot erit existere? . . . non solum in homines obsequia sed etiam in deos caerimoniae reliffonesque tolluntur, quas non metu sed ea coniunctione quae est homini cum deo conservandas puto\ Γ am. 7, 12, 2 : quo modo autem tibi placebit Iovem laptdem iurare cum scias Iovem iratum esse nemini posse; Sen. De Ben. 4, 4, 1-3; also Plat. Legg. 10, 8 8 7 b - c ; O v . Ex P. 2, 9, 232 4 : numquid erit quare soli to dignemur honorefnumina si demas veile iurare deos; Arr. E p i c t . 1, 12, 5-6: ct γ α ρ μή είσΐν θεοί, π ώ ς έστι τέλος ί π ε σ θ α ι θ ε ο ϊ ς ; εί δ^εΐσΐν μέν, μηδενός δ' έπιμελούμενοι, και ο*»τως π ώ ς υγιές ϊ σ τ α ι , κ τ λ . ; Μ . A u r c l . 6 , 4 4 : el δ'δρα περί μηδενός βουλεύ­ ονται (πιστεύειν μέν ούχ δσιον), ή μηδέ Ούωμεν, μηδέ εύχώμεθα, μηδέ όμνύωμεν, κ τ λ . ; Hicrocl. Comm. in Aur. Carm. (Fr. Phil. Gr. 1, 442 Mullach): π ώ ς γ α ρ οίον τε ταΐς Ιεραΐς Ικετείαις Οεοπρεπώς χρήσασθαι, μ ή πρόνοιαν καΐ δίκην έφοραν τά ανθρώπινα τιθεμένους; Apul. De Deo Socr. 5: nullus, inquis, deus humanis rebus intervenit; cut igitur preces adlegabo? cut votum nuncupabo? cut victimam caedam? . . . quern denique . . . iuri ittrando arbitrum adhibebo; Lucian, I up. confut. 6: σοφιστών, ot μηδέ προνοεϊν ήμας [sc. θεούς] τ ω ν ανθρώπων φ α σ ί ν εκείνοι

* i t e m (m in ras.) B, ita

Ν

γοΰν τά τοιαύτα έρωτώσιν ύπ* ασεβείας, άποτρέποντες καΐ τους άλλους θύειν καΐ εΰχεσθαι ώ ς είκαΐον 6 ν ; ; lup. Trag. 1 8 : εί δ'ούτοι πεισθεϊεν ή μ η δ έ όλως η μ ά ς (sc. θεούς] είναι ή δντας άπρονοήτους είναι σφών αυτών, άθυτα καΐ α γ έ ­ ραστα και α τ ί μ η τ α ήμΐν ί σ τ α ι τ ά κ γ η ς ; Bis accus. 2; [Clem.] Recogn. 8, 1 2 : quid enim colas eos a quibus promereri nihil possir; Lact. De Ira, 6, 2 : neque bonos ullus deberi potest deo si nihil praestat colenti; 8, 2 : // enim deus nihil euiquam boni trjbuit . . . quid tarn vanum, tarn stultum quam temp/a aedificare, sacrificia facere, dona conferre . . . ut nihil adsequamur . . . quit bonos deberi potest nihil curanti et ingrato; E u s . Pr. Ev. 6, 2, 2 : τί δέ χ ρ ή λοιπόν εύσεβεΐν καΐ τους θεούς προσχυνεΐν καΐ θεραπχύειν, μηδέν οίους τε καθόλου μηδέ έαυτοϊς έπαρκεϊν; 6, 3 , 3 : τί δέ δεΐ λοιβής τε κνίσης τε και τό έκ τού­ τ ω ν γ έ ρ α ς τ ο ι ς μηδέ τ ο ύ τ ω ν άξίοις άπονέμειν, εί κ α τ ' ουδέν η μ ά ς ώ φ ε λ ε ϊ ν δύ­ ν α ν τ α ι ; 14, 27, 9. T h e q u e s t i o n here raised is a n s w e r e d , from the E p i c u r e a n s t a n d p o i n t , in 1, 4 5 ; 1, 116; cf. G . D . Hadzsits in Trans. Am. pbilol. Assoc. 39 (1908), 73-88, especially 82-83. c u l t u s , h o n o r e s , p r e c e s : F . A . Wolf (Kl. Schr. 1 (1869), 508) w o u l d refer these three to sanctitas, reliffo, and pietas respectively, b u t there seems little indi­ c a t i o n that Cicero here i n t e n d e d m o r e t h a n a rhetorical g r o u p of t h r e e . F o r the term preces cf. G. Appcl, De Precationum Romanarum Sermone (1908), 69. L. G u c u n i n g (in Nova et Vetera, 7 (1925), 234, n. 7) s u g g e s t s that cultus ( " r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s " ) is here explained b y honores and preces, as colere in 1, 119, by precari venerarique. s p e c i e . . . f i c t a e s i m u l a t i o n i s : an illogical b u t effective p l e o n a s m , w i t h which cf. Leg. agr. 2, 10: aliud spe ac specie simulationis ostentant; Pro Cat). 14: specie quadam virtutis adsimulatae; Off.

1,3

129

potest *; cum qua simul sanctitatem et religionem tolli neccssc est, quibus sublatis perturbatio vitae sequitur et magna con1

potcrunt A

3, 39: fictam et commtnticiam fabulam; Ac. 2, 140: fallax imitatio simulatioque virtutis\ Ter. Eun. 200: tuque me finxisse fain qmcquam [Oonat. ad loc.: out "dixisse" debuit dicere aut abundat "fa/si"]; Petron. 3, 3 : ficti adulatores [where Buchelcr brackets ficti]', Tac. An». 6, 45, 5: nmulationum . . . falsa; Hcrodian, Hist. 1, 4, 5: κολακείας προσποιητού; [Hier.] Ep. 148, 30, 2: ficta adulatione decipere; Cod. Ϊustin. 5, 12, 30: ficti divortii falsa simulation*·, E. Lofstcdt, Syn tacttea, 2 (1933), 176-177 (comparing Maximinus, C. Ambros. 10: sub specie fa/sae voluntatis); P. Burmann on Quintil. Inst. 8, 2, 10; J. K. Schonbcrgcr in Phil. Woch. 55 (1935), 1242. The attempt of H. Kraffert (Beitr. ζ. Krit. u. Erkl. lat. Autoren, 3 (1883), 123) to delete simulations, and that of [G. H.?J Hcidtmann {Beitr. χ. Krit. u. Int. d. Schr. ... de Nat. D. (1858), 16) to emend to venerations s (comparing 1, 45) arc both unnecessary. With the thought cf. Arr. Fpict. 2, 20, 23: ότι θεοί οϋΥ είσίν, ε( τε καΐ είσίν, ούκ επιμελούνται ανθρώπων ουδέ κοινόν τι ήμΐν έστι προς αυτούς τό τ* ευσεβές τοϋτο καΐ όσιον παρά τοις πολ­ λοίς άνθρώποις λαλούμχνον κατάψευσμά έστιν αλαζόνων ανθρώπων καΐ σο­ φιστών; Scxt. Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 123: εί γχρ μη είσΐ θεοί, ούκ ϊστιν ευσέβεια. In Fam. 1, 4, 2, Cicero refers to a nomen indueturn fictae religionis; in Har. Resp. 8-9 (cf. De Domo 107) he attacks those who pretend to defend a religion whose principles they themselves outrage; cf. L. Gueuning in Nova et Vetera, 7 (1925), 242. In Off. 2, 43, he is similarly opposed to insincerity. Μ. Υ. Henry {op. cit., 38) remarks that Cicero here "detaches himself from his Academic spokesman, Cotta, who later in the dialogue expresses his entire satisfaction with the mere forms of religion." sicut . . . item: for the correlation of ut and item cf. 1, 28; 1, 96; 2, 38; 3, 30;

3, 45; and nine other cases noted by Merguet, Lex. χ. d. pbil. Schr. 2 (1892), 405; for similar phrases cf. Madvig on Fin. 3, 48. reliquac virtutee: cf. Phot. BibI. cod. 243, p. 356a Bckk.: οίχεται μέν αρετή πάσα τοις Επικούρου λογοις καΐ δόγμασιν. quibus sublatis: the phrase quibus . . . confusio might fit well at the end of the sentence, after tollatur, to which position it was transferred by [G. H.?j Hcidtmann {Zur Krit. v. Interp. d. Schr. desCic.de Nat. D. (1858), 16), J. Forchhammcr {Nordisk tidskrift f filologi, N.S. 5 (1880), 37), and M. L. Earlc {Proc. Am. pbilol. Assoc. 33 (1902), lxx = CI. Papers (1912), 203), but this disagrees with the quotation by Lact. De Ira, 8, 6, and hardly improves the sentence as a whole. For the repetition {tolli . . . sublatis . . . sublata . . . tollatur) cf. P. Stamm, De M.T.C. Libr. de Deor. Nat. Interp. (1873), 4; Pease on Dip. 2, 123; with the structure of the sentence cf. Off. 3, 28. perturbatio vitae: cf. Tusc. 3, 73: perturbatio vitae . . . consequatur; Fin. 1, 25: totam rationem evertit si ita res se habeat; 2, 117: quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio; 3, 50: confunderetur omnis vita; 5, 15; 5, 28: vitae est eversio; Ac. 2, 99: sequitur omnis vitae ... eversio [cf. 2, 31]; Legg. 3, 3 ; Plat. Rep. 4, 442b: ζύμπαντα τόν βίον πάντων άνατρέψη; Corg. 481c: άλλο τι ή ημών ό βίος άνατετραμαένος 3ν εΐη τών ανθρώπων; Scxt. Emp. Adv. Log. 1, 369: άνέστραπται τά πράγματα; Diog. L. 9, 104: ol δογματικοί φασιν καΐ τόν βίον αυτής άναιρεϊν; I-act. De Ira, 8, 6: qua sublata [sc. religione] confusio ac perturbatio vitae seqstetur; Aug. CD. 5, 9; L. R. Farncll, Higher Aspects of Gr. Relig. (1912), 107-108. Perturbatio is considered by G. Kilb, Ethische Grmdbegriffe der a/ten Stoa, u.s.w. (1939)—known to me Q

130

1,4

fusio. 4 Atque haut scio an pietate ad versus deos sublata fides etiam et societas generis humani et una excellentissuma virtus only from a review in CI. \Peekly> 34 τόν δρκον, όμνύς κατά τοϋ μή προσέ(1941), 160—as a translation of πάθος. χοντος ώς έπιμελουμένου τών ανθρώ­ πειων πραγμάτων; Quintil. Inst. 5, 6, 3 ; 4 haut: on this form cf. F. Leo, Plant. Forscbungen* (1912), 249-251; R. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 1235: ούτω κατα­ φρονώ τους Ορκους- θεοί γαρ ουκ Kuhncr-F. Holzweissig, Ausf. Gr. i. είσίν; J. C. Bolkestein, όσιος en ευσεβής lat. Spr. 1» (1912) 35; Tbet. Ling. Lat. 6 (1936), 203; Α. J. Fcstugicrc, La Ref­ (1938), 2558. pietate ad versus deos: cf. 1, 115; lation d'Hermis Trism. 2 (1949), 378, who remarks that the falsity of the 1, 116: est enim pie tas iustitia adversum conclusion indicates the falsity of the deos; Fin. 3, 73; Part. oral. 78; L. thesis. Gueuning in Nova et Vetera, 1 (1925), 237, n. 4. societas generis humani: "human sublata: cf. Ait. 7, 2, 4: si baec [i.e., society"; cf. Fin. 3, 62; 4, 4; 5, 6 5 ; Off. 1, 50; 1, 53; 1, 153; 1, 157; 3, 2 1 ; 3. 28 parental affection] non est nulla potest bomini esse ad bominem naturae adiunctio, (where the reasoning is the reverse of that here expressed: if society is over­ qua sublata vitae societas tollitur. fides: cf. 2, 153: cognitionem deorum, thrown the virtues, including justice, e qua oritur pietas, cut coniuncta iustitia est are destroyed, and those who destroy reliquaeque virtutes. The social and political them arc to be judged as impious to­ wards the gods); 3, 118; Tusc. 1, 64; importance of religion as a guarantee Am. 20. See also Aristot. Rbet. 1, 15, of the sacredness of oaths (cf. 1, 14) is 1376 b 11-14, on the importance of law discussed in Legg. 2, 16: utilis esse autem bas opiniones quis neget, cum intellegat (νόμος) and contracts (συνθηκαι), ώστε quam multa firmentur iure iurandoy quantae άκυρων γιγνομένων αναιρείται ή προς saluti sint foederum religiones, quam multos αλλήλους χρεία τών ανθρώπων. divini supplicii metus a scelere revocarit% excellentissuma . . . iustitia: for the quamque sancta sit societas avium inter ipsos praise of justice cf. Off. 1, 20: iustitia, diis inmortalibus interpositis turn iudicibus, in qua virtutis est splendor maximus; 1, 62: turn testibus; cf. Plat. Legg. 10, 885b: nihil enim bonestum esse potest quod iustitia θεούς ηγούμενος είναι κατά νόμους ου­ vacat; 2, 38: iustitia ex qua una virtute viri born appellantur\ 3, 28: baec [sc. δείς πώποτε ούτε έργον άσεβες είργάσατο εκών ούτε λόγον άφήκεν άνομον, iustitia] enim una virtus omnium est domina άλλα έν δή τι των τριών πάσχων, ή τοϋτο et regrna virtutum; Rep. 6, 16; Aristot. δπερ είπον ούχ ηγούμενος, ή τ6 δεύ­ Eth. Nic. 5, 3, 1129 b 25: αύτη μέν ούν τερον όντας ου φροντίζειν ανθρώπων, ή δικαιοσύνη αρετή μέν έστι τελεία . . . ή τρίτον εύποραμυθήτους είναι θυσίαις πολλάκις κρατίστη τών αρετών είναι δο­ « καΐ εύχαΐς παραγόμενους [sec F. Solmκεϊ ή δικαιοσύνη . . . καΐ τελεία μάλιστα scn, Plato's Theology (1942), 28; 132]; αρετή [sc. δικαιοσύνη]; Pol. 3, 13, 1283 a Plut. Adv. Colot. 3 1 : πόλις άν μοι δοκεϊ 38: κοινωνικήν γαρ άρετήν εΓναί φαμεν μάλλον εδάφους χωρίς ή πολιτεία της τήν δικαιοσύνην, ή πάσας άναγκαϊον άκολουθεΐν τάς άλλας. For the danger to περί θεών δόξης ύφαιρεθείσης παντά«ασι σύστασιν λαβείν ή λαβοΰσα τηρήσαι. justice from atheistic views cf. Sext. τούτο μέντοι το συνεκτικόν άπάσης κοι­ Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 126: καΐ μήν είπερ νωνίας καΐ νομοθεσίας έρεισμα καΐ καΐ ή δικαιοσύνη κατά τήν έπιπλοκήν τών ανθρώπων προς τε αλλήλους και βάθρον. προς θεούς είσηκται, εί μή είσΐ θεοί Atheism, however, destroys the foun­ dation of oaths; cf. Philo, De Decologp, ουδέ δικαιοσύνη συστήσεται· Οπερ άτοπον; 1, 131: δεήσει μή Οντων θεών μηδέ 91: εΐ μέν ούν άγνοών, άθεος τις εΤ, πηγή δέ πάντων αδικημάτων άθεότης· δικαι&σύνην ύπαρκτήν είναι, υπαρκτή δέ έσην ή δικαιοσύνη· ^ητέον άρα καΐ προς δέ τώ άΟέω καΐ καταστρατηγείς

1,4

131

iustitia tollatur. Sunt autem alii philosophi, et hi quidem magni atque nobiles, qui deorum mente atque ratione * omnem mundum administrari et regi censeant, neque vero 2 id solum, sed etiam ab isdem hominum vitae consuli et provided; nam et fruges et reliqua quae terra pariat et tempestates3 ac temporum varietates 1

orationc ANOB1

* uerum Bx

•ad. θεούς ΰπάρχειν; Ambros. De Parad. :tus 18: nulla enim abundantiores videtur fructus habere virtus quam aequitas atque iustitia-, tia; A m m . M a r c . 2 0 , 8, 1 1 : excellentissimam ^am virtutum omnium advtrte iustitiam; Hicrocl. >cl. in Aur. Carm. 10 {Frag. Pbilos. Gr. 1, 1, 433 Mullach): δικαιοσύνης . . . τελειό­ :ιοτατης ούσης πασών αρετών και περι­ :ριεκτικής τώνίλλων, ώς οίκείων μερών. Εΰν. T h e phrase una excellentissima virtus may iay be added here for emphasis (J. B. Hofofmann, Lat. Synt. u. Stilistik (1928), 6 118) 8) or to improve the clausula (Ax, appen­ L-ndix, 161). sunt autem alii: the Stoics arc here, xc, as repeatedly by Cicero and others, :rs, contrasted with the Epicureans (1, 33:: sunt enim philosophi)', cf. Pacuv. 3172 72 R i b b . : sunt autem alii philosophi qui, etc. etc. et hi quidem: cf. Off. 1, 43: sunt unt autem mu/ti, et quidem cupidi splendoris . . . qui, etc. magni atque nobiles: cf. Ac. 2, 17: 17: quidam e philosopbis, et it quidem non non mediocre s; 2 , 7 6 : Cyrenaici . . . miniime me contempts philosophi; Div. 2 , 1 5 0 : philoso­ nophi [sc. Stoics] . . . nee ii quidem contempnptissimi; A u g . CD. 1 1 , 5 : isti phiiosophos >bos ceteros nobilitate atque auttoritate uicerimt. mt. On Cicero's regard for the Stoics, whose DSC lofty utterances on morality attracted ted him more than their barren dialectic :tic repelled him, cf. J. S. Rcid, cd. of the Academica (1885), 17. Offset to them arc the philosophers of the non-Socratic itic tradition, whom in Tusc. 1, 55 he calls alls plebeii. ing mente atque ratione: for the coupling of these words (including 1, 98; 1, 104; 34; 2, 38: 2, 46; 2, 88; 2, 115), which in Tusc. 5, 39, seem completely equated, cd, cf. T. Wopkcns, Advers. crii. 1 αζονείαν; Cyril. Alex. Comm. in Is. 32 (Patr. Gr. 70, 708a): inter adversaries quod Pjtbagorae inter disdpulospotest, "ipse dixit"; Ael. I'.H. 4, φασί γοΰν δτι τοις Πυθαγόρου μαθηταΐς λαλοϋσιν ίσθ' δτε ψυχρά τε καί 17; Clem. Strom. 2, 24, 3: τους μέν Πυ­ καταγέλαστα . . . ίθος ήν λέγειν τού­ θαγόρου τοΰ Σαμίου ζηλωτάς των ζη­ το, αυτός ίφατο, τοΰΥ ίστι, σίγα, καί τουμένων τάς αποδείξεις παραιτούμε­ διδοΰ τω τοΰ δόγματος εύρετη καί άβανους το αυτός ίφα πίστιν ήγεϊσθαι σανίστως την πίστιν; Cod. Coislin. 387, καί ταύτη άρκεϊσθαι μόνη τη φωνγ; προς την βεβαίωσιν ών άκηκόασι; Orig. C. 9 (Anecd. Paris. 4, 414 Cramer — Elias, Proleg. Phil. 9, p. 23, 31-33 Bussc): Cels. 1, 7: καί τίνες μέν άκούοντες Πυ­ αλλ' επειδή οΰτε Πυθαγόρας ερωτώ­ θαγόρα ώς αυτός ίφα; Diog. L. 8, 46: μενος αποκρίνεται οϋτε ol μαθηταί τέταρτος . . . έφ' ου καί τό αυτός ίφα αύτοϋ άλλο τι αποκρίνονται ή οτι αυ­ παροιμιακόν είς τόν βίον ήλΟεν; Schol. τός Ιφα, τήν άπόφασιν τοΰ διδασκά­ Aristoph. Nub. 195; Chalcid. in Plat. Tim. 126 (Fr. Phil. Gr. 2, 210): denique λου υπέρ άπόδειξιν ηγούμενοι; Hicrocl. non frustra de Pythagora dictum "ipsum in AUT. Carm. 20 (Fr. Phil. Gr. 1, 464); dicere," proptereaque ultra quaeri non opor- Olympiod. I it. Plat, fin., (p. 387, 62 tere\ Julian, Ep. 20, 452 b ; Iambi. Vit. Wcstcrmann); Bocth. De Xtus. 1, 33: Pyth. 82: £στι δέ ή μέν των άκουσμα- nunc vero quod erat Pythagoricis in morem ut cum quid a magistro Pythagora diceretur, τικών φιλοσοφία ακούσματα άναπόδειhinc nullus rationes petere audebat, sed erat κτα καί άνευ λόγου, δτι ούτως πρακei ratio docentis auctoritas\ Diogcnian. τέον, καί τάλλα δσα παρ' εκείνου έρρέθη. ταϋτα πειρώνται διαφυλάττειν 3, 19 (Paroem. Gr. 1, 216): αυτός ς ουδέ et. lai. 14 (1936), 297, who cites De Or. Ιν, μόνον δέ τάς £λλας έλεγχων αίρέ1, 54-59; Orat. 11-19; 113-114; Part, σεις; Quintil. Inst. 12, 1, 35; Scxt. Emp. orat. 139, but thinks that Cicero was a Pyrrbon. 1, 18; Galen, De opt. Doctr. 1 person philosophically interested, who (1, p. 41 Κ.): τους δλλους τους Ά χ β - engaged in administration and politics, δημιακούς επαινεί [sc. ό Φαβωρϊνος], rather than a politician dabbling in προσαγορεύοντας μέν έκατέρω των αν­ philosophy (therein refuting the view τικειμένων άλλήλαις λόγων, επιτρέ­ of E. Havet in Stances et travaux de Γ Acad, ποντας δέ τοις μαθηταΐς αίρεΐσθαι τους des sc. polit. et morales, 121 (1884), 660-

1, 11

153

aperte iudicandi, profecta a Socrate, repetita ab Arcesila, confirmata a Carneade, usque ad nostram viguit actatem; quam nunc 671); cf. K. Reinhardt, Poseidonios (1921), mant; Fin. 2, 2: qui mos cum a posterioribus 211-212. It may be remarked, however, non esset relentus Arcesilas eum revoPavit that the Academic habit of weighing instituitque ut it qui se audire ve/lent non de se the pros and cons of every question, quaererent sed ipsi dicerent quid sentirent; and of ending in probability rather than quod cum dixissent ille contra [as in Tusc. certainty, was, in Cicero's case, at least, 1, 9]; 5, 10 (quoted on contra omnia an excellent parallel to the lawyer's use disserendi above); 5, 94: Arcesilas tuus, of the same balance of arguments. etsi fuit in disstrendo pertinacior, tamen aperte iudicandi: Mayor takes this noster fuit\ De Or. 3, 80; Acad. Philos. "of speaking frankly, not imitating the Ind. Herculan. p. 72 Mcklcr [of Arcesilas]: Socratic ειρωνεία", and cites several ποφαινός ουδέ Ιν, passages, especially from Aug. C. Acad. μόνον δέ τάς &λλας έλεγχων αΙρέσεις; Plut. Adv. Colot. 24: τους περί Άρκε3, 41-43, to indicate the belief of some σίλαον 'Ακαδημαϊκούς, ούτοι γαρ ήσαν outsiders that the Academics really and οι περί πάντων επέχοντες; Mela, 1, 90: inwardly cherished certain dogmatic Pitanen illam quae Arctsilan tulit, nihil views. In the light of 1, 57, however {mihi enim non tarn facile in mentem venire ad/ir mantis Academiae clarissimum an· tisti/em; [Galen,] De Phil. Hist. 3 (Doxosolet quart verum sit aliquid quam quart fa/sum), I believe that the phrase applies gr. Gr* 599-600): του δε Κράντορος ακουστής ήν Άρκεσίλαος, Ος τήν μέσην to positive, dogmatic statement as ΆκαδημΙαν έπινενόηκεν . . . τούτου δέ opposed to non-committal utterances (εποχή: cf. 1, 1, n. {adsensionem cobibuisse)) Καρνεάδης κατέστη διάδοχος; Diog. L. or qualified and tentative acceptance of 4, 28: Άρκεσίλαος . . . ΙΙιτάνης της probability, as in 3, 95: ad veritatis Λίολίδος. ούτος έστιν ό της μέσης simi/itudinem viderttur esse propensior. Άκαδημείας κατάρξας, πρώτος έπισχών τάς αποφάσεις δια τας έναντιόprofecta . . . repetita . . . confirmata: τητας των λόγων, πρώτος δέ καΐ είς cf. 1 Cor. 3, 6. έκάτερον επεχείρησε; Min. Fel. 13, 3: Socrate: cf. Ac. 1, 16: Socrates . . . in omnibus fere sermonibus . . . ita disputat hoc fonte [i.e., from the ignorance of Socrates] defluxit Arcesihe et multo post ut nihil adfirmet ipse, refellat alios, nihil se scire dicat nisi id ipsum toque praestare Cameadis et Academicorum p'urimorum in ceteris quod illi quae nesciant scire se putent, summis quaestionibus tuta dubitatio, quo ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat; 1, 44; genere philosopbari ei caute indocti possunt Tusc. 1, 8: Socratica ratio contra alterius et docti gloriose; Bus. Pr. Ev. 14, 8, 15: opinionem disserendi-, 1, 99; 5, 11; Div. ό Άρκεσίλαος . . . έπετήδευε τήν είς 2, 150: tenebimus banc consuetudinem a έκάτερα έπιχείρησιν, κα'ι πάντα άνεSocrate tradttam; Min. Fel. Oct. 13, 1-2; σκεύαζε τά ύπ^» των 5λλων λεγόμενα; Lact. Inst. 3, 4, 11: Arcesilas Academiae Plut. Adv. Colot. 26, who says that Arccsilas ascribed the custom of εποχή conditor reprehemus inter se omnium col legit t o Socrates, Plato, Parmcnidcs, and confessiontmque ignorantiae clarorum philo­ Heraclitus; cf. also J. Stcnzel in P.-VP. sopherum armavitque se adversus ornnes [and 3A (1927), 823. 3, 5 of the same is directed against his views]; llicr. Adv. Ruftn. 2, 10, p. 498 Arcesila: of Pitanc in Acolia, who Vail.: Arcesilam aut Carneadem pules, lived from about 316-241 B.C. He was the qui omnia interta pronun/iavit; Aug. CD. founder of the Middle Academy, and 19, 1; H. von Arnim in P.-W. 2 (1896), renewed the Socratic method of refuting 1164-1168, especially 1166. Cicero re­ assertions made by others; cf. Ac. 1, 43; 1, 45-46; 2, 15; 2, 59: ex his ilia necessario gularly uses for him the form Arcesilas ma/a est εποχή id est, adsentationis rttentio, rather than the Attic Arcesilaus (cf. Ac. in qua melius sibi consti tit Arcesilas, si 1, 43; 1. 46; 2, 16; 2, 60; Ugg. 1, 39). Carneade: cf. 1,4, n. (Carneades); De vera sunt quae de Carneade non multi exists·

154

1, 12

prope modum orbam esse in ipsa Graecia intellego. Quod non Academiae vitio sed tarditate hominum arbitror contigisse. Nam si l singulas disciplinas percipere magnum est, quanto maius * omnis; quod facere his 3 necesse est quibus propositum est veri reperiendi causa et contra omnes philosophos et pro omnibus dicere. 12 Cuius rei tantae tamque difficilis facultatem consecutum esse4 me non profiteor, secutum esse prae me fero.* 1 si om. Ο * maius] magis BM * mc pracfcro Η

• is Bx

4

esse . . . secutum om. CO1

Or. 3, 68: bate rectntior Academia . . . in to revive this doctrine in a foreign land, qua exstitit divina quadam ctltntatt ingenii without any strong native tradition in dicendique copia Carneades. As a successor its favor. tarditate hominum: cf. 1, 12; 1, 24; of Arccsilas and an opponent of dogma­ tism (H. von Arnim in P.-UT. 10 (1917), Tusc. 5, 68: tardis enim mentibus virtus 1964-1985), he exhibited his prowess non facile comitatur; Legg. 1, 51: quid in a famous public performance at Rome abiectius tarditate et stultitia did potest; De Or. 1, 127; 2, 117: tardi ingenii; Leg. in 155 B.C., in which he delivered a a r i - 3, 6: tardo ingenio; Quintil Inst. speech, in the presence of Galba and 1, 3. 2; Aug. De Anima, 4, 7; De Pecc. Cato the Censor, in praise of justice, std idem disputationem suam postη die con- Meritis, 3, 16; C. Julian. Pelag. 2, 11; C. lulian. Op. imperf. 1. 71; 6, 9; 6, 16; traria disputatione subvertit, et iustitiam, quam pridie laudaverat, sustulit, non quidem 6, 17; Isid. Etym. 2, 8, 2. Pan of the philosophi gravitate . . . sed quasi oratorio neglect came from those who found it easier to condemn or deride philo­ exercitii genere in utramque partem disserendi; quod ilte facere so/ebat ut alios quid- sophic teachings than to learn them; cf. Pease on Div. 1, 105, n. (disertam negleAbet adserentes posset refutare [Rep. 3, 9, ap. Lact. Inst. 5, 14, 3-4; cf. Quintil. gentiam); Pers. 1, 131-133; Iambi. De Myst. 3, 19; Macrob. Somn. 1, 213; Inst. 12, 1, 35; Hicr. Ep. 50, 2, \\. Fronto, Rutin, prcf. to Orig. De Princip. 3: ita 1, p. 48 Haines, says that his pupil Clitomachus (— Hasdrubal), by whom fit ut res difficiles et obscuras malint homines his ideas were reduced to writing, was per terneritatem et inscientiam condemnore quam per diligentiam et studium discere. anctps in dubium vocare omnia. On the other hand, the case of learning orbam: cf. 1, 6, n. (desertae .. . et the Epicurean doctrines, at least as set relictae). This situation had arisen after forth by C. Amafinius, is mentioned in the death of Philo, about 86/85 n.c. Tusc. 4, 7. (K. v. Fritz in P.-W. 19 (1938), 2536), or some forty years before Cicero was quanto maius omnis: cf. Lact. Inst. writing these words. Cf. Sen. N.Q. 7, 3, 14, 13 [apostrophizing Cicero): stu32, 2: itoque tot familiae pbihsopborum sine duisti nempe phiiosophiae et quidem sic ut successore deficiunt; Academici et veteres nullus umquam diligentiust quippe qui omnes et minores nullum antistitem reliqutrunt; cognoveris disciplinas, sicut ipse gloriari soles, quis est qui tradat praecepta Pyrrbonis? eamque ipsam Latinis litteris inlustraveris. On the metaphor cf. Brut. 330: post veri reperiendi causa: the aim and Hortensii . . . mortem orbae tloquentiae quasi the justification of Academic procedure; Mores relic ti sumus; also the use of cf. Ac. 2, 7. Αρφανός as applied to a doctrine in Plat. 12 rei . . . facultatem: cf. Off. 1, 9: Tbeaet. 164e. facultates rerum; 2, 1: earum rerum ... in ipsa Graecia: it was the more facultatem. striking that Cicero should be attempting coneecutum . . . secutum: for this

1, 12

155

Nee tamen fieri potest ut qui hac ratione philosophentur hi nihil habcant quod sequantur. Dictum est omnino de hac re alio loco diligentius, sed, quia nimis indociles quidam l tardique sunt, admonendi videntur saepius. Non enim sumus ii quibus nihil verum esse videatur sed ii qui omnibus veris falsa quaedam adiuncta esse dicamus tanta similitudine ut in iis nulla insit certa 1

quidem Bl

contrast between attainment and pursuit cf. V a l . C c m . Ep. ad Monacbos (Patr. Lat. 52, 7 5 6 d ) : quern (i.e., Pau/um) sequi cupimus etsi consequi non valemus; t h e case in Fin. 1, 32 is less apt. S u c h differences in m e a n i n g b e t w e e n a simple v e r b a n d its c o m p o u n d arc discussed by J . Mar o u z e a u , Traiti de stylistique (1935), 123124. T h e idea here expressed s u g g e s t s t h e Stoic π ρ ο κ ο π ή o r p r o g r e s s t o w a r d v i r t u e ; cf. 1, 15, n. (progressus); also Pbilipp. 3 , 1 2 : ούχ δτι ήδη ίλαβον ή ή δ η τετελείωμαι, δ ι ώ κ ω δέ εΐ και κ α τ α ­ λ ά β ω . In Off. 1, 3 he r e m a r k s : nos autem quantum in utroque profecerimus aliorum sit judicium, utrumque eerie secttti sumus; cf. Reid o n Ac. 2, 70, for this use of sequor. W h i l e t h e repetition of consecutum a n d secutum m a k e s an effective c o n t r a s t , that b e t w e e n secutum and sequantur ( w i t h a different m e a n i n g ) seems a w k w a r d ; but cf. 1, 1 3 : inventus . . . invenerit; 2, 1 3 5 : depu/sum . . . depellit; 1, 3 4 : Div. 1, 7 8 : fluminaque in contrarias partes fluserint et in amnes mare influserit.

nihil habeant quod sequantur; cf. Off. 2, 7 : non enim sumus ii quorum vagetur animus errore nee habeat umquam quid sequatur; Ac. 2, 6 6 ; 2, 1 0 3 : ait vehementer errare eos qui dieant ab Aeademia sensus eripi, a quibus numquam dictum sit aut colorem aut sapor em aut sonum nullum esse, il/ud sit disputatum non inesse in its proprium, quae ntdiquam alibi esset, veri et certi no tarn; 2, 1 0 9 : proinde quasi nullum sapiens aliitd decretum habeat et sine decretis vitam agere possit; Q u i n t i l . Inst. 12, 1, 3 5 : neque enim Aeademici, cum in utramque disserunt partem, non secundum alteram vivunt; Scxt. F m p . Pyrrbon. 1, 1 3 ; Adv. Log. 1, 3 0 :

Ιδεί τόν ά π ο ρ η τ ι κ ώ ς φίλοσοφοοντα, μ ή εις το παντελές άνενέργητον βντα καΐ έν ταϊς κατά τόν βϊον πράξεσιν άπρακτον, ίχειν τι κριτήριον αίρέσευ ως άμα και φ Υήζ· τουτέστι το φαινόμενον. T h e objection of the o p p o n e n t s of t h e A c a d e m y (in Ac. 2, 24) uses similar p h r a s e o l o g y : quomodo suscipere aliquam rem aut agere fidenter audebit cum certi nihil sit quod sequatur; cf. Ac. 2, 8 ; 2, 3 3 ; 2, 3 6 ; 2, 99. W i t h the use of sequor cf. the G r e e k of Scxt. E m p . Pyrrhon. 1,17: άκολουΟοϋμεν γ ά ρ τινι λ ό γ ω . o m n i n o . . . s e d : for this concessive use of omnino cf. utrumque omnino durum sed; 1, 1 0 7 : a Democrito omnino haec licentia sed; Ac. 2, 8 4 : pugnas omnino sed; Off. 1, 1 2 0 ; 2 , 6 2 ; 2 , 7 1 . E l s e w h e r e we find omnino . . . autem (Am. 98), omnino . . . tamen (Off. 1, 79), a n d omnino . . . verum (Off. 1, 133). a l i o l o c o : in the Aeademica, e.g., 2, 98-111. tardi: cf. 1, 11, n. (tarditate /wminum). n o n e n i m s u m u s i i : cf. Off. 2, 7 ( q u o t e d a b o v e ) ; 3 , 1 2 : quodsi is esset Panaetirtf qui . . . sfd cum sit it qui; Ac. 2, 6 6 : nee tamen ego is sum qui nihil umquam falsi adprobem; Tusc. 3 , 50. Cicero in Div. 2, 1, takes especial satisfaction in e m p h a s i z i n g t h e constantia of t h e Aca­ d e m y , as o p p o s e d t o that confusion of t h o u g h t w h i c h its o p p o n e n t s ascribed t o it; cf. Ι Λ « . Inst. 3 , 6, 10-20. veris falsa . . . a d i u n c t a : t h r e e p r i n ­ cipal attitudes t o w a r d t h o s e sensations u p o n w h i c h s o m u c h of k n o w l e d g e d e p e n d s are represented by E p i c u r e a n s , Stoics, and Sceptics. E p i c u r e a n s c o n ­ sidered all sensations as t r u e (e.g., 1, 7 0 ; Fin. 1, 2 2 ; Ac. 2, 7 9 , and Rcid's n o t e ;

156

1, 12

iudicandi et adsentiendi* nota. Ex quo exsistit2 et 3 illud, multa 1

ct adsentiendi] sentiendi D

* exstitit D, extitit M1

· et om.

ACN

αν γένοιτο ψευδής, άλλα πάση τη δοC. Bailey, The Greek Aiomists and Epi­ κούσγ) άληθεϊ καθεστάναι ευρίσκεται curus (1928), 238-245), errors of man being due not to the sensation but to τις απαράλλακτος ψευδής, γενήσεται τό κριτήριον έν κοινή φαντασία τοΰ τε his misinterpretation of it. The Stoics άληθοϋς καΐ ψεύδους; 1, 252; 1, 415: held some sensations to be true, others deceptive (1, 70), the true (καταληπ- είπερ προσαρμόζεται τη καταληπτική τικαί φαντασίαι, visa comprehendibilia; cf. φαντασία ή ακατάληπτος φαντασία, ούκ Ac. 1, 41; 2, 17; 2, 18; 2, 3 1 ; 2, 145; αν εϊη κριτήριον αληθείας ή καταληπ­ E. V. Arnold, Roman Stoicism (1911), τική φαντασία; 1, 438: διαβάλλοντες τήν καταληπτικήν φαντασίαν Ιφασκον 129-134) being separated from the false μη είναι κριτήριον ταύτην της αλη­ on the basis of clearness of presentation (ενάργεια or perspicujtas, as in Ac. 2, 45). θείας τω καϊ άλλας απαράλλακτους πχρακεϊσθαι αύτη ψευδείς; Galen, De Plot. Sceptics, however, held that while some Hipp, et Plat. 9, 7 (5, 782 K.); Lucian, sensations were probably true, yet, Hermot. 49; Aug. De divers. Quaest. 9: from lack of any means of knowing which these were, all must be rated as illud certe nemo est qui non cogatur fateri nihil esse sensibile quod non habeat simile untrustworthy, and reasonings based upon them as leading, not to truth, but falso ita ut intemosci non possit', C. Acad. merely to probability (Ac. 2, 99). Cf. 3. 23. Ac. 2, 103: Aeadtmicos p/acere esse rerum adsentiendi: = συνκατατίθεσθαι; cf. eius modi dissimilitudines ut aliae probabiles A. Pittct, Vocab. pbilos. de SMqut, 1 videan/ur, aliae contra; id autem non esse (1937), 119; also 1, 1, n. (adsensionem satis cur alia posse per dpi dicas, alia non cohibwsse) above. posse, propterea quod multa falsa prohahilia nota: cf. Ac. 2, 33: // nihil interest sint, nihil autem falsi percepturn et cognitum [sc. inter verum et falsum], nulla regula est, pessit esse. nee potest is, cut est vino veri falsique com­ On the confusion of true and false munis, nil urn habere iudicium out ullam through likeness in their appearance cf. omnino veritatis notam; 2, 34: in eo autem Ac. 2, 36: /// visis inter quae nihil interest si erst com muni tas cum falso, nullum erit aequaliter omnibus abrogatur fides; 2, 42: iudicium, quia proprium com muni signo notari iis omnibus quae visa sint veris adiuncta non potest; 2, 36: ut enim confidant notum esse falsa quae a veris nihil differant; ea its esse debebit insigne veri, quo obscuro et cum taJia sint, non posse comprebendi; 2, 44:oppresso quod tandem verum sibi videbuntur sumunt . . . primum esse quaedam falsa visa attingere; 2, 58: sublata veri et falsi nota; . . . deinde ibidem inter falsa visa et vera 2, 84: eiusmodi visum quod percipi non posset nihil interesse; 2, 58; 2, 83: nullum esse quia nulla verum distinguebaiur a falsa [and visum verum a sensu profectum cut non sec Reid's n.J; 2, 110: si in hoc haberet adpontum nt visum aliud quod ah eo nihil cognitionis notam; 2, 111: sed probands intersit, quodque percipi non possit; Cell. species est, percipiends signum nullum babe11, 5, 4: omniumque rerum fidem verita- mus; Dip. 1, 64: in quibus tamquam intemque mixtis confusisque signis veri atque signitae notae veritatis appareant [and falsi ita inprensibilem videri aiunt ut quisquis Pease's n.]; 2, 128; De Or. 3, 115; homo est non praeceps . . . his uti verbis Sen. De Clem. 1, 3, 1. These technical insigne, and debeat quibus auctorem philosopbiae istius terms (nota, notum ... Pyrrbonem esse usum tradunt: ού μάλλον signum) represent the Greek σημεϊον, which is, however, a word of several ούτως έχει τόδε ή έκείνως ή ούθετέρως; Numcn. ap. Eus. Pr. Εν. 14, 8, philosophic meanings (sec Liddcll-ScottJoncs, s.v.), used by both Stoics (ac­ 6-7; Sext. Emp. Adv. Log. 1, 164: έπεί cording to Diog. L. 7, 14, Zcno wrote ουδεμία εστίν αληθής τοιαύτη οΤα ούκ

1, 12

157

a book περί σημείων) and Epicureans and some editors have accepted the less (cf. its frequent use in Philodem. περί well attested reading tx{s)titit (cf. G. F. σηκειώσεων). Schocmann, Opusc. acad. 3 (1858), 297exeistit . . . rcgeretur: a sentence 298); yet cf. 1, 40: idemque disputat grammatically irregular, yet not so un­ aetbera esse eum quern homines Iovem appel­ paralleled in Cicero as to justify Hcindorf lortnt; Div. 2, 96; Ac. 2, $6: ilia praeclara, (followed by Orelli and Baiter) in deleting quanto artificio esset sensus . .. fabricata it; cf. F. A. Wolf. Kl. Scbr. 1 (1869), 515; natura [and the parallels in Reid's note also the defence of the passage by R. on that passage and on 2, 104J; Fin. 2, Klotz, Adnot. crit. ad Μ. Τ. Cic. Lib. de 21; 2, 34; 2, 42; 3, 67 (and the note of Nat. Deor. primum, 3 (1868), 5-8, and Madvig, who remarks: in quam incon­ P. Stamm, De M. 7. Cic. Ltb. de Nai. stantiom saepissime incidit . . . cum philoDeor. Interpolationibus (1873), 6-9. The sopborum veterum decreta reddit); 4, 20. objections, as summarized by Mayor, So R. Klotz {op, cit., 3 (1868), 7) suggests are these: (1) the shift from the nomi­ that illud here carries the thought back native quae to the ablative his, perhaps to a past time; cf. the case from the in order to use the weaker passive Academica quoted above and one in regeretur instead of the more personal De Or. 1, 63. and vigorous active (cf. P. Mihailcanu, (4) Hcindorf further objected to the De Comprehensionibus relativis apud Cic. use of the masculine visits instead of (1907), 90), the relative in such cases visum, which he thinks is Cicero's being sometimes attracted to the sub­ usual rendering of φαντασία cf. Ac. ordinate clause; e.g., 3, 35, and n. {qui 1, 40; 2, 18 (though Macrob. Somn. Scip. quoniam quid diceret [quod] intellegi noluit); 1, 3, 2, says that Cicero used visum for Fin. 2, 2: qui mos cum a posteriority non φάντασμα). Visus is, in Cicero, a rare esset re tentus Arcesilas eum revocavit. For word, occurring, by emendation only, the careless construction Ax (appendix, in 1, 85, and in a fragment cited by 162) compares Rep. 1, 7: /'/ enim fueram Plin. N.IL 7, 18, though it is found cut cum licertt . . . fructus capere . . . non elsewhere (e.g., Plin. N.ll. 22, 16), dubitaverim. especially of human appearance. F. A. (2) If quae = et ea% and if the clause Wolf {op. cit. 516) cites other pairs of in direct discourse ran mu/ta sunt proba- verbal nouns, such as census and censum, bi/ia, quae . . . percipiuntur . . . habtnt . . . nexus and nexum, event us and even turn, regitur, one might in indirect discourse peccatus and peccatum; cf. also actus and have expected regi. Yet cf. 1,106: ttt autem actum, dictus and dictum, etc. To visio, [sc. diets] . . . imagines remanere quae in Capi- rather than to visum, Plasberg (ed. maior.) tolium cum pervenerint turn ad animum meumwould liken the meaning of iv'/itr, comparireferantur [instead of easque . . . referri]; ing Ac. 2, 33, where both visio and visum 2, 44: Aristote/es .. . censuit .. . moueri . . . occur (for the former sec also 1, 105 omnia; quae autem natura moverentur bate below), and explaining visum quendam . . . out pondere deorsum aut levitate in sublime insignem et inlustrem as meaning ένάργειαν. ferric quorum neutrum astris contingeret; (5) The sentence is not superfluous, Dip. 1, 46: Mercurium . . . sanguinem as Heindorf charged, but essential to visum esse fundere ; qui cum terram aitigisset protect the Academics from the accusa­ refervescere videretur [instead of quern tion that nihil habeant quod sequantur. Cf. Ac. 2, 99: quicquid acciderit specie refentscere]; Madvig on Fin. 1, 30; also other cases collected by Rcid on Ac. 1,41, probabile, si nihil se offeret quod sit probabiliwho remarks that "in relative clauses in tati illi contrarium, utetur eo sapiens ac sic oratio obliqua Cicero allows himself a omnis ratio vitae gubernabitur. Nor is the certain latitude of choice between in­ sentence unduly obscure for Cicero's finitive and subjunctive." explanation of the Academic view, since he is here merely reminding {admonendi (3) The sequence of tenses, by which videntur, as Plasberg emphasizes), not imperfect subjunctives follow exsistit giving a formal exposition. (the reading of the best mss) is irregular,

158

1, 13

esse probabilia, quae, quamquam non perciperentur, tamen, quia visum * quendam haberent insignem et inlustrem, his sapientis * vita regeretur. 6 13 Sed iam, ut omni me invidia liberem,' ponam in medio sentcntias philosophonim de natura deonim. Quo quidem loco convocandi omnes videntur qui quae sit earum vera iudicent; 1

usum Dx

* tapicntibus Ν

■ libcrarcm Bl

The reasons, then, for rejecting the fuiosa . . . sed de illustri et fadIt ... lo­ whole sentence arc inadequate, both on quitur. The adjective seems to represent the Greek εναργής which is also often the ground of contents and on that of rendered by perspicuus (e.g., Ac. 2, 45); expression. cxeietit . . . illud: cf. Fin. 5, 67: ex­ cf. Scxt. Emp. Adv. Log. 1, 161: έν fipa τω άπό της έναργείας πάθει της ψυ­ it s/i/ Mud ut; Fat. 18: ex quo exsistet ut χής ζητητέον εστί το κριτήριον; 1, . . . fiat. 171; 1, 257; Goedcckemeycr, op. cit. 60, probabilia: πιθανά; cf. Off. 2, 7-8: nos autem ut ceteri alia certa alia incerta n. 4. esst dicunt sic ab his dissentientes alia proba­ 13 invidia: the word is used of un­ biliay contra alia dicimus; 3, 20: nobis popularity in general {Tusc. 4, 16: autem nostra Acadtmia magnam licentiam invidia non in eo qui invidet solum dicitur dat ut quodcumque maxime probabile occurratsed etiam in eo cut invidetur), but includes, id nostro iure liceat de/endere; Ac. 2, 99: as here, an odium tbeologfcum or philosoduo placet esse Canuadi genera visorurn, phicum; cf. 1, 123: quae is de deis inmortaliin uno banc divisionem: "alia visa esse quaebus dsxerit invidiae detestandae gratia dipercipi possint, alia quae non possint". in xisse; 3, 3: tanium modo negare deos esst altero autem: "alia visa esse probabilia, non audet, ne quid invidiae subeat aut crimialia non probabilia" . . . tale visum nullum nis; Div. 2, 28: soli sumus; licet verum exesse ut perceptio consequeretur', ut autem quirere sine invidia; Ac. 2, 105 [where probatio multa; 2, 105; Tusc. 5, 11; A. invidiosa is used]; Arnob. 1, 29; 3, 6: Goedcckemeycr, Cescb. d.gr. Sktptt\ismus Ί ullius . .. nullam veritus impietatis in­ (1905), 60-65; also Sext. F.mp. Pyrrbon. vidiam . .. quid . . . sentiret pietate cum maiore monstravit; Aug. C. Acad. 1, 12: 1, 19: δταν δέ ζητώμεν cl τοιούτον έστι τό ύποκείμενον όποιον φαίνεται, το μέν bine ess (the Academics! invidia magna 6τι φαίνεται δίδομεν, ζητοϋμεν δ* ού confiata est; videbatur enim esse constquens περί τοϋ φαινομένου άλλα περί εκείνου ut nihil ageret qui nihil approbaret; Lact. δ λέγεται περί τοϋ φαινομένου. Inst. 3, 6, 17: se ipsum calumniae invidia perciperentur: of sure and accurate liberasset; A. Goedeckemeycr, Gescb. d. gr. Skeptt\ismus (1905), 146, n. 1; comprehension of a thing, like that E. Wistrand in Eranos, 44 (1946), 355produced by the Stoic καταληπτική φαν­ τασία; cf. perceptio in Ac. 2, 99, quoted 369 (on the semasiology of this word); I. Odelsticrna in Upsala Univ. Arsskrift above. (1949), no. 10. ineignem: cf. Ac. 2, 101: movetur ponam in medio: cf. 1, 1, n. (tarn mente% movetur sensibus, ut ei vera mulfa variae stmt). videantttr neque tamen habere insignem Mam omnes: of the reading public, who et propriam percipiendi notam; also 2, 80, arc to judge between the views of con­ below: deos, quorum inngntm vim et in­ flicting schools (as the following line? of lustrem facitm videremus. inlustrem: cf. Ac. 2, 94: etiam a Caecilius would imply), rather than, as certis et inlustrioribus cobibeo adsensum; Schocmann thinks, of all the dogmatists Fin. 2, 15: nee de re obscrtra . . . aut arti- themselves, as opposed to the Acadc-

1, 13

159

turn demum mihi procax Academia videbitur, si aut consenserint* omnes aut erit 2 inventus aliquis qui quid 3 verum sit invenerit. Itaque mihi libet exclamare ut 4 in Synephebis 6: 1 a 4 conscnticrint D ■ aut crit] aucrtit Bl quicquid Bl ter mg. B, 6 ut tcrentius Λ/ insync fcbis A, in sinefcbis DHOBxt insinc plcbis Nt in cphebis B*M

mics, for in that case Cicero would name; cf. Com. Att. Frag. 3 (1888), 131 himself in effect be acting as judge. The Kock, Tusc. 1, 3 1 ; Sen. 24); see E. implication here, as in the doxographic Bcrtrand in Ann. de Tuniv. de Grenoble, 9 sections (1, 25-41), is that the inquiry (1897), 181, n. 1; W. Zillingcr, Cic. u. d. is not limited to the three schools altrbm. Dicbter (1911), 174-175, for (Epicureans, Stoics, and Academics) Cicero's poetical quotations in this more specifically represented in this work. Quintil. Inst. 1, 8, 11, remarks work. upon his use of Ennius, Accius, Pacuvius, procax: used of shameless boldness; Lucilius, Caecilius, and others. One of Varro's Menippean Satires was entitled here of a group which might presume Synepbebus (lines 511-515 Buchelcr); for to set up its negative views against the the frequent occurrence of συνέφηβος positive dogmatisms of the rest of the world; cf. 1, 69: tam inpudenter resistere; in inscriptions cf. Poland in P.-IF. 4A (1932), 1357-1360. The catalectic tro­ Div. 2, 109: at impudentes sumus, qui, cum tam perspicuum sit, non concedamus; Ac. chaic tetrameters include two complete lines (accepting Manutius's doubling of 2, 115: utrum igitur nos impudentts, qui labi nolumus, an Mi adrogantes, qui sibi omnium as replacing a loss by haplopersuaserunt scire se solos omnia; 2. 126; graphy), some phrases with a metrical basis (in civitate . . . capitalia), and a Tert. De An. 17: quid agis, Academia fourth nearly complete line. Of the procacissimaf toturn vitae s tat urn tier tis. various emendations of the last two The last passage, with an apparent lines a few only may be here mentioned. reminiscence of ours, supports the (1) T. Bergk, Opusc. 1 (1884), 384, devel­ reading procax against the emendation oped by O. Ribbcck, Com. Rom. Frag. by J. 5. Rcid (on Ac. 1, 44 and in Mayor's ed., ad loc.) to pervicax—a word not (1898), 81: . . . in civitate fiunt facinora found in Cicero (though pervicacia occurs capitalia: j ab amico amante argenin Tusc. 4, 26). tum accipere meretrix noenu volt —perhaps too archaic in form, and at any rate coneenserint: on philosophical con­ very uncertain; cf. O. S in sensus cf. Pease on Div. 1, 1, n. (con­ Berl. philoi W'och. 18 (1898), 979-980. sensu). (2) J. D. Mayor (ad loc): bic in civitate inventus . . . invenerit: fur the repe­ tition cf. 1,12, n. (constcutum .. . secutum). fiunt facinora capitalia: / abs amico amante meretrix accipere argentum nevolt [nevolt ut in Synephcbie: the insertion after is the emendation of F. A. Wolf, Litt. */ of a proper name, like Ter<en/ius> Anal. 1 (1817), 304 - Λ7. Schr. 1 (1869), of Β or StatiuSy or of the pronoun ille 517]. (3) O. Plasbcrg, cd. maior (1911), (as in 3, 72; Tusc. 3, 67; and, by emen­ dation, Tusc. 1, 31, but awkward here, 206: in civitate fitmt facinora ab amico amante before the words ut queritur i/le), is capitalia, j unnecessary. The quotation is from the argentum accipere meretrix nevolt. (A) T. Birt (Berl. pbilol. W'ocb. 38 (1918), 550): Sjnepbebi of Caecilius (211-214 Ribbcck in civitatefierifacinora capitalia ! f = 201-204 \X'armington), a play several times cited by Cicero (3, 72; De opt. ab amico amante argentum accipere meretrix noluit. For the form of sentence Birt Gen. Or. 18; Fin. 1, 4, which states that compares Plaut. Cure. 694: fwcine pacfo Mcnander wrote a play of the same

160

1, 14

'pro deum, popularium omnium, < o m n i u m > l adulescentium clamo, postulo, obsecro, oro, ploro, atque inploro fidem,' non levissuma de re, ut queritur ille in civitate fieri facinora capitalia: 'ab amico amante argentum accipere meretrix non vult/ (14) sed ut adsint, cognoscant, animadvertant, quid de religione, pietate, sanctitate, caerimoniis, fide, iure iurando, quid de templis, 1

< omnium > add. Man.

men together and to the gods; on this indemnatum atque intestatum me abripi! use of it in appeals for help cf. E. Whatever may have been the reading of Fracnkel in Rh. Mus. 71 (1916), 193-194; Caecilius, it seems unsafe to change R. Heinzc, Vom Geist des Romerturns Cicero's text for the last two lines, for he was probably here giving a free (1938), 42-47; 284. paraphrase rather than a careful quo­ popularium: cf. Tcr. Ad. 155: ob­ tation. secro, Populares, ferte . .. auxilium, where pro deum . . . fidem: for a variety Donatus remarks: popularitas in omnis of similar expressions cf. Plaut. Ampb. rei consortium sumitur; nunc autem lPopu­ 455: di inmortales, obsecro vostram fidem; lares* cives dint. amico amante: on the hiatus cf. 1130: di, obsecro vostram fidem [ = True. T. Birt in Berl. pbilol. \Pocb. 38 (1918), 805]; Capt. 418: di, vostram fidem [ = Trin. 591]; Epid. 580: pro deum atque 550; W. Ax, De Hiatu qui in Frag, hominumfidem[= Cure. 694]; Men. 999: prise. Poesis Rom. invent fur (1917), 38; opsecro vostramfidem\ Most. 77: pro di for the phrase cf. Naev. 90 Ribb.: inmortales, obsecro vostram fidem \— 530; amico amanti arnica. Poen. 967]; Enn. Sat. 18 Vahlcn: pro 14 ut adsint cognoecant animad­ divum fidem; Tcr. Andr. 237: pro deum vertant: clearly not part of the quotation fidem; 246: pro deum atque hominum fidem from Caecilius (as was thought by J. J. Schlueter, De Caecilii Statii Frag. [= Haut. 61]; Phorm. 351: pro deum inmortalium; Eun. 943: pro deum fidem; (1884), 20—a work not accessible to Hec. 198: pro deum fidem atque hominum; me—; refuted by W. Zillinger, op. cit. Ad. 746: pro deorum fidem; Cic. Τ use. 148, n. 3), but resuming Cicero's own 5, 48: pro deorum atque hominum fidem; thought in convocandi omnes above. With Am. 52: pro deorumfidematque hominum; the asyndeton Goethe compares Pro Oecon. fr. 8 Muller: pro deum inmortalium; Quint. 75: adsunt, defendunt; Div. in Pro Font. 4: deorum hominumqut fidem; Caec, 11; adsuntt queruntur; 2 Verr. 1» 3: Pro Q. Rose. 23: pro deum hominumqut adsit, respondeat; also Pro Sull. 4: qui adsunt, qui laborant. fidem [ = 5 0 ; Div. in Caec. 1\; 2 Verr. 1, 25: deum atque hominumfidemimplorabis; religione, pietate, sanctitate: cf. 1, Q. Fr. 2, 10, 3: ne imp/ore/ fidem Iovis; 3, n. {pittas ... sanetitas . . . religio); 1, Sail. Cat. 20, 10: pro deum atque hominum 115: de sanctitate, de pietate. fidem; Li v. 3, 67, 7: pro deumfidem[ = 44, fide: cf. 1. 4, n. {fides). 38, 10]; Quintil. Dee/, motor. 16, 9, 1: templis: cf. 3, 94, n. {templis atque fidem deorum hominumqut; 17, 18: fidem delubris); Varr. L.L·. 7, 6: tempium tribus deorum; 18, 11: fidem hominum deorumque; modis dicitur: ab natura, ab auspicando, a Bocth. in Cic. Top. 2, p. 292 Orelli: similitudine; natura in caelo, ab pro divinam atque humanam fidem. Fides, auspiciis in terra, a similitudine sub terra; as noted by Mayor, is the good faith 7, 8: in terris dictum tempium loeus auguhi or common bond of fellowship uniting aut auspicii causa quibusdam concept/s verbis

1, 15

161

delubris, sacrificiisque sollemnibus, quid de ipsis auspiciis, quibus nos praesumus, existimandum sit, haec enim omnia ad hanc de dis inmortalibus quaestionem referenda sunt. Profecto eos ipsos, qui se aliquid certi* habere arbitrantur, addubitare 2 coget doctissimorum hominum de maxuma re tanta dissensio. 15 Quod cum saepe alias turn maxime animadvert! cum apud 1

cenc Η

" a t dubitare

ADB1

fimtus\ Gell. 14, 7, 7: tmpla csrt ptr form of personal allusion cf. Div. 1 , 2 : augurti consti tuta ut in its senatusconsulta quibus nationibus prae/uimus ipsi. After more majorum iusta fieri possent. inter quae ambitions to enter the augural college id quoque script urn reiiquit [sc. I 'arro) non (Att. 2, 5, 2) and nominated by Pompey omnes aedes sacras temp/a esse ac ne aedem and Hortensius (Phi/. 2, 4; cf. 13, 2), quidem I'estae ttmplum esse; E. Norden, Cicero was coop ted as an augur in 53 Aus a/trom. Prietterbiicbem (1939), 16; B . C , succeeding the younger Crassus 27-31 (on the connection with τέμενος, after his death at Carrhae (Plut. Cic. 36). as something marked off). He not infrequently refers to this office delubris: cf. Schol. Dan. Aen. 2, 225: (e.g., Div. 1, 25; 1, 30; 1, 72; 1, 105; I arro auttm rerum divinarum libro | Λ 7 Λ ' Brut. 1; Phil. 14, 14), and his researches delubrum esse dint aut ubi plura numina sub (Fam. 3, 9, 3) and proficiency in the art itno tecto sunt, ut Capitolium, aut ubi arc attested both by himself (e.g., Fam. praeter aedem area sit adsumpta deum causa, 6, 6, 3-12) and by his friend Nepos ut in Circo F/aminio lovi Statori, aut in (Ncp. Att. 16), as well as by his work quo loco dei dicatum sit simulacrum . . . De Auguriis (the fragments in C. F. W. Masurius Sabinus delubrum, effigies . . . Muller's edition, 4, 3, 312), though this alii delubrum dicunt templum ab eo quod in no way prevented his attack upon all nulli tuncturn aedificio pluvia diluat/a·; Serv. divination, augury included, in the Aen. 2, 225: delubrum dicitur quod uno second book of the De Divinatione. For tecto plura complectitur numina, quia uno the tolerance of Roman priests toward tec to diluitur, ut est Capitolium, in quo sceptical theological discussions cf. 1, est Minerva, luppiter, Juno, alii, ut Cincius, 61, infra. dicunt delubrum esse locum ante templum referenda sunt: cf. 1, 3-4. ubi aqua currit, a diluendo. The earliest aliquid certi: cf. 1, 6, n. {quid ... occurrence seems that in the Argeiorum certi)\ Scxt. F.mp. Pyrrhon. 1, 3: εύρηSatrifida ap. Varr. L.L. 5, 52, where it χέναι μεν βοκοΰσιν ot Ιδίως καλούμενοι appears to mean a portion (a chapel?) δογματικοί. of the temple of Deus Fidius. A. Waldcaddubitare: "to be inclined toward I. B. Hofmann, Lat. etym. Worterb.xt doubt," i.e., to be weakened in their s.v., derive the word from deluo, "wash own dogmatic convictions, as contrasted away" (comparing pollubrum), and think with the Academics, whose attitude it originally was a place with running would be better represented by the water near a shrine, where the necessary simple verb dubitare. ablutions might take place before sacri­ doctissimorum . . . maxuma . . . fices; cf. G. Wissowa in P.-VP. 4 (1901), tanta: a characteristically Ciceronian 2702-2703; id., Rel. u. Kultus d. Romer* expression; cf. Div. 1, 59: magnificen(1912), 469. tissimum . . . optumo et clarissumo .. . sacrificiisque sollemnibus: cf. Τ use. frequentissimo .. . incredibili clamore et I, 113: ad sollemne et statum sacrificium; plausu. dissensio: cf. 1, 1, n. {Jam variae sunt). Legg. 2, 35: sollemni sacrificio ac publico. 15 cum saepe alias: cf. 1, 57: idque quibus nos praesumus: with the

162

1, 15

C . l Cottam familiarem meum accurate sane et diligenter de dis 1

c.)

g

ACNBM

cum saepe turn cum te audirem paulo ante parteien (1920), 312-313, and especially contigit; Dip. 1, 8: quibus de rebus et alias 326-327. He was the nephew of P. saepe et paulo aceuratius nuper; Ac. 2, 9: Rutilius Rufus (3, 80; De Or. 1, 229; quibus de rebus et alias saepe nobis multa cf. Att. 12, 20, 2), and was born about quaesita et disputata sunt et quondam in 120 B.C. {Brut. 301), so that at the time Hortensi villa; Tusc. 4, 7: quod cum saepe of this dialogue he would have been in alias turn nuper in Tusculano egimus; 5, 11:the forties and Cicero about twenty-nine facimus et alias saepe et nuper in Tusculano ; or thirty. He is thought of by Cicero as Am. 2; cum saepe multa, turn mtmini not yet consul (an office he held in 75 domi . .. sedentem; Fat. 2: et saepe alias B.C.; sec the evidence in Klebs, op. at. et quondam liberiore quam solebat et magis 2483), but as already a pontifcx (1, 61; vacuo ab interventoribus die cum ad me tile 2,168; 3, 6; 3, 43; cf. also Veil. 2, 43, 1). ventsset; Off. 3, 86: cum saepe alias; Tim. 1: His official cursus (cf. Klebs, op. cit., multa sunt a nobis et in Academicis con- 2483) need not here concern us; as a lawyer he was often paired with P. scripta contra pbysicos et saepe <cum> P. Nigidio ... disputata; Brut. 144: Sulpicius as one of the most distinguish­ idque cum saepe alias turn a pud centumvirosed of his generation (De Or. 1, 25; 3, 31; ... cognitum est. The sentence makes, as Brut. 183; 201-204; Ascon. p. 13; Veil. in the similar cases cited, an easy tran­ 2, 36, 2), being described by Cicero sition from a general truth to a specific (De Or. 2, 98) as acutissimum et subtilissidiscussion of it by characters in a mum dicendi genus .. . constcuius; cf. De Or. 3, 31: limatus . . . et subtilis, rem dialogue. apud: this might refer either to his explrcans propriis aptisque verbis; baeret in town house or to a villa in the country. causa semper et quid iudici probandum sit In view of the holiday season F. A. acutissime vidit, omisns ceteris in eo mentern Wolf (Kl. Schr. 1 (1869), 519) and orationemque defigit; cf. 3, 9, infra. No Schoemann (cd., p. 21) suggest that this speeches of his were published, though in the fragments of Sallust's Historiae dialogue was probably placed in the country, and the former thinks that an there is one put by Sallust into his mouth. exedra would have been more appropriate Cotta was also given a part in the De Oratore (De Or. 1, 25, and passim.; Att. in the greater space of a country house. 13, 19, 4), and Atticus later hinted The evidence seems hardly adequate to (Att. 13, 19, 5) that Cicero match off determine the question, but the manner Cotta and Varro in the second edition in which Cicero arrives (though by of the Academica; cf. Hirzcl, op. cit.t 532. invitation) in the midst of the discus­ This Cicero rejected for the Academica, sion and that in which the company because it would make the author himself disperses at the end (3, 95: discessimus) seem to favor a town house rather than a κοοφον πρόσωπον—essentially the role which he plays in the De Natura Deorum. anything like a house-party in the As for his philosophical interests, Cicero country; cf. R. Hirzcl, Der Dialog, 1 (De Or. 3, 145) makes him say me qmdem (1895), n. 2. Videmus and vides in 2, 61, in Academiam totum compulisti, and, again, are probably figurative. C. Cottam: C. Aurclius Cotta, M.f., numquam conquiescam neque defatigabor one of three famous brothers, C , L., antequam illorum ancipitis vias rationesque and M.; cf. Ascon. p. 59. For his life et pro omnibus et contra omnia disputandi cf. Mayor, cd. of N.D. 1, xl-xli; E. percepero. Hired (op. cit., 1, 534) well re­ Klebs in P.-W. 2 (1896), 2482-2484; marks that in Cicero's hands Roman for his pedigree and his relationship statesmen tended more and more to to Julius Caesar F. Munrcr, Rom. Adels- turn into philosophizing Greeks.

1, 15

163

inmortalibus disputatum est.1 Nam cum feriis 2 Latinis ad eum ipsius rogatu arcessituque venissem, offendi eum scdcntem in exedra et cum C. 3 Velleio4 senatore disputantem, ad quem turn 1 disputatum sit ACNO&M, AC Ν * ucllclo AH

disputatumst PI.

■ fcris Ax% ferus β1

* C] g

Plaut. Stick. 327; Amm. Marc. 31, 10, 3 ; accurate sane: cf. Div. 1, 8 (quoted above); Fin. 1, 13: accurate anient ... and here), used only in the ablative; defensa est Epicuri sententia de vo/uptate; cf. our expression "by invitation." Off. 1 , 4 : accurate copioseque a pbiJosopbis exedra: this word and its diminutive dispu/ata; 2, 6: accuralius disputari soIent\ exedrium {Fam. 7,23,3) are well discussed 3, 7: Panaetius . . . de officiis accuratissimt by Tyrrell and Purser, cd. of Cic. Up. 2* disputavit. With the meaning of sane (1906), 272-273; and by A. Mau in cf. 1, 18: fidenter sane; 1, 57: nihil sane; P.-W. 6 (1909), 1581-1583, who men­ tions some at Pompeii. It is defined by elsewhere it often has a slightly con­ cessive force; cf. 1, 68; 1, 103; 1, 109; the Tbes. Ling. Laf., s.v., 1318, 73, as 3, 26; M. van den Bruwacnc, La tbeologie an extensive room, especially of semi­ circular shape, provided with scats, de Cic. (1937), 134-135. dis inmortalibus: T. Birt {Deri, which was, for conversations or dis­ pbiiol. Wocb. 38 (1918), 550) thinks the cussions, built in houses beside the portico of the peristyle. Vitruvius adjective is here conveniently inserted mentions it in several passages, es­ by Cicero to avoid juxtaposing cits and pecially 5, 11, 2 [describing, to be sure, disputatum. exedrae in the pa/aesfra): constituantur feriis Latinis: on this movable holiday period, gradually increased to four days autem in tribus porticibus ex/jedrae spatiosae, (Plut. Cam://. 42, 5), which occurred, babentes sedes in quibus pbi/osopbi, rhetores, reliquique qui studiis de/ectantur sedentes coincidently with rites on the Alban dispufare possint. in dup/ici autem porticu Mount, in various parts of the year but con/ocentur fusee membra, ep/jebeum in medio, with a tendency toward May, June, and Julv, cf. C. Werner, De Feriis Latinis hoc autem est exbedra amp/issima cum (1888); F. Samtcr in P.-W. 6 (1909), sedibus, quae tertia parte longior sit quam 2213-2216; Pease on Div. 1, 18, n. lata [on the proportions cf. also Vitr. 6, 3, 8; Inscr. Lat. sel. 4621 Dessau for {Albano in monte). A festival period one 30 X 25 feet]. Cicero elsewhere gave an opportunity for that otium (2, 3) speaks of exedrae in private houses; which busy lawyers and statesmen lacked in their daily life; hence the De Republica cf. De Or. 3, 17: in earn exedram renisse is represented {Rep. 1, 14; 1, 33) as a in qua Crassus post to lectu/o recubuisset; Fin. 5,4 [at Athens]: ego ilia movtor exedra, dialogue taking place during these same modo enim fust Cameadis. As the deri­ holidays (cf. Plato's Republic as laid on a vation shows, these rooms were pri­ holiday; 1, 327a), the De Oratore finds marily for sitting (notice sedentem in this its occasion on the days of the Ludi passage) rather than for reclining, and Romans {De Or. 1, 24), the Octavius of were built out from some main building. Minucius Felix is laid during a harvest Tyrrell and Purser {I.e.) point out that festival {Oct. 2, 3), and the Saturnalia they at times corresponded to university of Macrobius shows by its title (as well class-rooms (citing Strabo, 17, 1, 8; as by 1, 1, 1-3) its supposed occasion. Cod. Theod 15, 1, 53); in fact, T. FranckA discussion of religious or theological lin in his translation of our passage questions on such an occasion seems quaintly renders exedra as "study." particularly appropriate. A bemicyclion might be similarly used for ad eum: cf. apud C. Cottarn above. conversations; cf. Am. 2 (perhaps sugarcessitu: a rare word (only in

164

1, 15

Epicurci l primas ex ■ nostris horoinibus dcferebant. Aderat ctiam Q. · Lucilius 4 Balbus, qui tantos progrcssus habebat in 1

cpicuri ACNBM

■ ex] et

Η

» quintusADHNBM

· lucius Η

gested by Plat. Rep. 1, 328c); Plat. (1906), 58: ot re Στωικοί πάντβς ώς Protag. 317d-e; PoφhyΓ. Vit. Pytb. 9. CIKCIV τα πρωτβΐα της αγωγής άπονεIn Greece έξέδραι might be in the μουσκν αύ>τώι. schools of the philosophers {Acad. nostris hominibus: cf. 1,7, n. {nostris Pbiloi. Ind. Here. 100, col. 29, 41. as bomimbus). Q. Lucilius Balbus: one of two often emended by S. Mekler; cf. pp. 103-104), or, as here, in private houses (Galen, confused Balbi described in De Or. 3, 78 De Antid. 1, 3 (14, 18 K.)). It is perhaps as Roman Stoics. This one was intimate with Posidonius (2, 88), and was either not intentional, yet not altogether in­ appropriate, that a dialogue based so a correspondent of Antiochus or the recipient of a dedication from him largely on Greek doctrines should be given this Greek clement in its scene. (1, 16). Two references to his father ( 2 , 1 1 ; 2,14) tell us little. The assumption C. Velleio: a native of Lanuvium (1, 82: illam vestram Sospitam, who was of C. F. A. Nobbc (ed. of Cic. 10 (1849), there worshipped), was a friend of L. 369, followed by J. G. Baiter and C. Halm (cd. of Cic. 4 (1861), 980) and by Crassus, the orator (1, 58), though him­ R. Hirzcl {Der Dialog, 1 (1895), 499), self not a finished speaker; De Or. 3, 78: hoc dicendi exerei tattone, in qua Velleius that Balbus was a speaker in the Horten­ est rudis [yet cf. 1, 58, below]. F. Prechac sius rests upon a misunderstanding of Aug. C Iuiian. Pelag. 4, 72, as had been {Rev. de pbiloi. 37 (1913), 121-131), by a well shown by A. B. Krischc, Gbtting. variety of evidence, tries to show that it was Velleius who converted C. Tre- Stud. 1, 2 (1845), 128, n. 1. Mayor's batius Testa to Epicureanism {Fam. account is superseded by F. Milnzcr in P.-Vr. 13 (1927), 1640. 7, 12, 2). progrcssus: cf. 1, 12, n. {constcutum turn: at the time of Cicero's writing ... secutum); Ac. 1, 20: progressio quaedam there might have been other claimants ad virtutem [and Reid's n.]; Fin. 3, 6: for this honor, such as Lucretius and several others named as important cum baec ad te scribam qui cum in pbilosopbia Epicureans by P. H. and E. A. De Lacy, turn in optimo genere pbilosopbia* tantum Pbilodemus on Me/bods of Inference (1941), processeris', 3, 48: qui processit aliquantum ad virtutis babitum; 4, 17; 4, 66: babent 4, n. 16. primas . . . deferebant: sc. partes-, ad virtutem progressions aliquantum; 4, 67: cf. Ac. fr. 20 Muller (ap. Aug. C Acad. vestri autem progressionem ad virtutem fieri 3, 15): Academico sapienii ab omnibus aiunt; Tusc. 4, 1; 4, 44: pbilosopbia* deceterarum sectarum, qui sibi sapientes videntur,nique ipsius principes numquam in suit secundas partes dart, cum primas sibi quemque studiir tantos progressus sineflagranticupivindicate necesse sit; Brut. 183: ex bis Cotta ditate facere potuissent; 4, 44; Off. 3, 14: et Su/picius . .. facile primas tu/erunt; progression discendi; 3, 17: si qua ad vir­ Orat. 18: M. Antonius, cut veI prima elo~ tutem est facta progressio; E. V. Arnold, quentiae patrum nostrorum tribuebat aetas\ Rom. Stoicism (1911), 326-327, for the 29: Pericles ... cut primae sine controversia Stoic notion of προκοπή, or progress deferebantur; Div. in Caec. 49: si AJienus toward virtue, though the use of προ­ . . . sibi primas in dicendo partis concesserit; κοπή and προκύπτω also occurs among Aug. CD. 9, 5: Zenonis et Chrysippi, qui the Epicureans; cf. Philodem. De Gratia, col. 16, 5 {Here. Voll. Coll. prior, 10, 31) buius sectae primas babuerunt; cf. the Greek πρωτεία (e.g., Philod. De Stoieis, for προκοπήν ποιεϊν; Gnom. Vat. 408 in W. Croncrt, Kolotes u. Menedemus {Wiener Stud. 11 (1889), 64). For its

1, 16

165

Stoicis ut cum excellentibus in eo genere Graecis compararetur.1 Turn, ut me Cotta vidit, "Peroportune," inquit, "venis; oritur enim mihi magna de re altercatio cum Velleio,2 cui 3 pro tuo studio non est alienum 4 te interesse." 7 16 "Atqui 5 mihi quoque videor," inquam, "venisse, ut dicis, oportune. Tres enim trium disciplinarum principes con1

Ax

comparcrctur Ml/ 1 , comparetur Η * adqui A% atquc

D1HG

appearance among the Peripatetics cf. Suid. s.v. αρετή. excellentibus . . . Graecis: cf. 1, 8, n. {diet posse). With Cicero's fulsome judg­ ment of the philosophical attainments of a friend cf. Dip. 1 , 5 : Cratippus . . . familiaris nosier, quern ego parem jummis Peripateticis iudico. Aug. CD. 4, 30, is less complimentary toward Balbus: istt Balbus velut balbutiens. in Stoicie: probably neuter here and in Brut. 114: prope perfectus in Stoicis; but Rcid (on Fin. 2, 39) would hold our case to be in the masculine. ut me . . . vidit: for the resumption of a dialogue interrupted by a fresh arrival cf. Rep. 1, 17. peroportune: a rather rare adverb, occurring in 2 I'err. 5, 39: cum te peroportune fortuna attulisset; De Or. 2, 15; Liv. 1, 42, 2, and resumed in 1, 16 by the simple oportune. Cf. Macrob. Sat. 1, 2, 16: quos adventsse peroportune vides.

Cicero's late arrival allows the dialogue to start with less of unnecessary prelimi­ nary. altercatio: of a dispute or controversy, and, in law, of the part of the argument immediately before the decision. In the philosophical works it is found only here, but cf. Fam. 1,2, 1; Att. 1, 16, 8; 1, 16, 10; 4, 13, 1; A. Pittet, Vocab. pbtlos. de Se'neque, 1 (1937), 80. Cf. also the phrase in Legg. 1, 55: inter eos de re maxima . . . dissensio. pro tuo studio: cf. 1, 6, n. (a prima tempore aetatis); Cicero was already, in spite of his youth, recognized as one

* ucllclo^A/

a

qu\Bl

4

alunum

who, even if he did not act as the spokes­ man for any philosophic view, yet was interested and intelligent enough to appreciate the discussion. 16 inquam: this verb appears seven times in 1, 15-17, and with comparable frequency in 2, 1-4 and 3, 1-5; cf. also Tusc. 3, 12. For its equivalent in modern quotation marks cf. A. S. Pease in Italica, 15(1938), 129. trium disciplinarum: the addition of the Peripatetics—here omitted to avoid duplication, since Cicero, like Antiochus, probably considered their theological views akin to those of the Stoics (yet cf. R. Hirzcl, Der Dialog, 1 (1895), 543, n. 1)—would furnish the four standard schools, for the time of the dialogue, though by the date of writing the Aca­ demy had declined and the Pythagoreans had gained P. Nigidius Figulus as a notable representative (cf. Tim. 1). For the four cf. Ciris, 14-15: si me iam sum ma sapientia pangeret arce, / quattuor antiquis heredibus edita consors; Sen. Bp. 88, 5; Lucian, Hermot. 16; Greg. Naz. Or. 25, 6 (Patr. Gr. 33, 1205a). Philostr. Vit. Sopb. 566 says that Marcus Aurclius assigned to Herodcs Atticus the selection of four Regius Professors at Athens representing these four schools. principes: prominent representatives, though not formal heads of their schools; cf. 3, 5: quemquam principem Stoicorum; Hobein in P.-W. 4A (1931), 43, 10. In Fin. 5, 7, however, it is used for Plato and Aristotle.

166

1,16

venistis. M.* enim Piso si adesset, nullius * philosophiae, earum3 quidem quae4 in honore6 sunt, vacaret · locus." Turn 7 Cotta: "Si," inquit, "liber Antiochi nostri, qui ab eo 1 m.] g C * nullus Β DH(?) · honorem Bl

· earum] qui earum (qui del.) B, erum A1 · uaret Bx ' tunc Β

* qua

cf. 1„ 6, n. (destrtae . . . */ relie toe). Μ. enim Piso: for the repetition of liber Antiochi: Ac. 2, 12, in speaking enim after its use in the preceding section of Antiochus, says: nee se tenuit qtdn cf. Pro Mil. 12; also the occasional repe­ tition of adversative conjunctions in contra suum doctorem librum etiam ederet qui cuccessive clauses; e.g., Hor. Serm. Sosus insertbitur, and some scholars have tried to identify that with the book 1, 3, 32-33. F. A. Wolf, Lin. Analektent 1 (1817), 307, detects an ellipsis here, here mentioned; thus A. B. Krische in and explains: trium dieo, non omnium Getting. Stud. 1, 2 (1845), 168; E. Zcller, quattuor qui nunc sunt in honore% Λ/. enim Die Pbilos. d. Griechent 3,1· (1923), 619, Piso. With the word-order cf. De Or. n. 2. But that the book here mentioned 1, 40: C. ipsum Carbontm; 2, 263: Servius docs not tit the descriptions of the Sosus has been more convincingly main­ iile Galba. tained by F. A. Wolf, Kl. Scbr. 1 (1869), M. Pupius Piso Frugi, son of a Cal520; R. Hirzcl, Untersuch. χ. Cicero's purnius, and adopted by M. Pupius, at the date of this dialogue had been a pbilos. Scbr. 3 (1883), 273-274 (who thinks the book mentioned in our pas­ quaestor of L. Scipio (consul in 83 B.C.). sage was probably the source used by His other offices and services—praetor, proconsul in Spain, triumphator in 69 Cicero in Books 4-5 of the De Finibus), (In Pis. 62), service against the pirates and A. Locrchcr, De Compos, et Font* Lib. Cic. qui est De Fato (1907), 44, n. 2, and Mithridates, consulship (61)—arc who believes it the source of only briefly discussed by F. Lubkcr-J. Geffckcn-E. Zicbarth, Reafle.xikon d. kl. Alt* Book 4 of the De Finibus. Still another, though less likely, explanation might (1914), 873. Asconius, p. 14, says: fuit . . . Pupius Piso eisdem temporibus quibus identify the books with Antiochus** Cicerot sed tanto aetate motor ut adult scen- itcpl θεών, mentioned by Plut. LuculL tulum Ciceronem pater ad eum deduceret, 28, 7. In that case Antiochus might be maintaining the kinship of the Stoic quod in eo et antiquae vitae similitude et multae erant litterae; orator quoque melt or and Peripatetic theologies, while Balbus would be insisting on the dissimilarity quam frequentior habitus est. Brut. 236 of the Stoic and Peripatetic ethics. gives a full appraisal of his oratorical ability. The Peripatetic Stascas of NcapoAntiochus of Ascalon, founder of the lis lived with and doubtless influenced so-called "Fifth Academy," was born him (De Or. 1, 104), and in the fifth in the latter part of the second century book of the De Finibus Piso (already B.C., and studied at Athens under Philo dead, before that book and the present of I*arisa, whom he followed to Rome were written, as is clear from Att. in 88 B.C. Later he reverted from the 13, 19, 4) is the spokesman for the Peri­ scepticism of Philo to views which patetics (cf. Fin. 4, 73). Cicero appears purported to be those of the Old Aca­ to have forgiven a sharp difference demy (Ac. 2, 11-12), and still later be­ between him and Piso over the lattcr's came the head of the Academic school attitude in his consulship toward Clodius. in Athens, where Cicero for six months attended his lectures in 79-78 (Brut. 315; in honore sunt: with the expression Fin. 5, 1). He died about 68 or 67; cf. cf. Fin. 3, 52; Tusc. 1, 5; 2, 4; Off. 2, 65; Ac. 2» 61: bate Antiochus . . . mu/to etiam F. Klose, Die Btdeutung von honos u. bonestus (1933), 55; 85; with the thought adseverantiust in Syria cum esset meaum.

1, 16

167

nuper ad hunc Balbum missus est, vera loquitur, nihil est quod Pisonem, familiarcm tuum, desideres; Antiocho enim Stoicil cum 1

stoicum D

agreement of Stoics—especially of so pau/o ante quam est mortuus; H. von Arnim in P.-1V. 1 (1894), 2493-2494. who scientifically minded a man as Posidonius—and Peripatetics cf. Fin. 3, 10: remarks that his return to the Old vide, ne magis, inquamt tuum fuerit, cum re Academy is in reality a transition to a dogmatic eclecticism, in which Antio- idem tibi quod mihi videretur, non nova te rebus nomina imponere; 3, 41: Cameades .. . chus sought to combine in a new system Academic, Peripatetic,and Stoic teachings pugnare non destitit in omni hoc quaestione quae de bonis et ma/is appelletur non esse which met his approval. rerum Stoicis cum Peripateticis coni'roverηam ad hunc Balbum: possibly merely of a book sent as a present, but more likely sed nominum; 4, 78: re eadem defendunt [sc. of one addressed or dedicated to Balbus; Stoici] quae Peripatetici, verba tenent morcf. Div. 2, 3: liber is quern ad nostrum dicus; 5, 74: Stoici restant . . . totam ad Atticum de senectute misimus; Sen. 3 : hunc se nostram philosophiam transtu/eruni', atque //brum ad te de senectute misimus; Am. 4: ut reliqui fteres earum rerum quas ceperunt in Catone maiore, qui est scriptus ad te signa commutant, sic illi, ut sententiis nostris de senectute; Ac. 1, 2: babeo opus magnumpro sttis uterentttr, nomina tamquam rerum in manibus . . . ad hunc enim ipsum .. . notas mutaverunt; 5, 75 (where Piso is quaedam institui; Fin. 1, 8: libro quern ad clearly following the view of Antiochus); Tusc. 5, 32: inter Zenonem et Peripateticos me de virtute misisti; Ait. 8, 12, 6: Demetrii Magnetis librum quern ad te misit nihil praeter verborum novitatem inieresse; de concordia; 14, 20, 3 [of the Orator ad 5, 120; Galen, De Libr. propr. 11 (19, M. Hrutum]: scripsissem ad eum de optimo 41 Κ.): μικρά μέν δή πώς έστιν ή παρά τοις Περιπατητικοΐς διαφωνία, μεγάλη genere dicendi. Such a work, attempting δέ παρά τοις Στωικοϊς καΐ Πλατωνιto bridge the gaps between different κοΐς; Julian, Ep. 4, 385d; also Rcid on schools of Socratic derivation, might Ac. 1, 37. For the denial of the likeness well be addressed by a non-sceptical of these two schools sec note on interesse Academic to a Stoic. nihil est quod: cf. 1, 3, n. {quid est plurimum, below. Such likenesses were at times found between Academics and quod). desideres: cf. Ac. 1, 12: sic philoso- Peripatetics (e.g., Ac. 1, 17: Academicorum et Peripateticorum, qui rebus congruentes pbiam Latinis /Uteris persequitur nihil ut eisdem de rebus desideres; Tusc. 1, 24: nominibus differebant; 1, 18; 2, 15; Peri­ pateticos et Academicos, nominibus differenamplius quod desideres nihil erit. tes, re congruentes, a quibus Stoici ipsi Stoici cum Peripatcticie: most of the later schcxils dcri%'cd from Socrates; verbis magis quam sententiis dissenserunt; cf. De Or. 3, 61: proseminatae stmt quasi Fin. 4, 5; Off. 1, 2; 3, 20; Legg. 1, 38; fami/iae dissentientes inter se et multum Clem. Strom. 6, 27, 3 ; Porphyry (Suid. disitmctae et dispares, cum tamen omnes se s.v. Πορφύριος) wrote a book περί τοϋ μίαν είναι την Πλάτωνος και Αριστο­ pbilosopbi Socraticos et diet vellent et esse τέλους αιρεσιν), and between the nonarbitrarentur; Off. 1, 2; Fin. 5, 7. It is sceptical branch of the Academy and not surprising, if one may reason from the Stoa {Ac. 2, 132: per ipsum Antiothe history of religious sects, that at certain times doctrinal lines should be chum, qui appellabatur Academicus, erat sharply drawn, while at other times quidem, si perpauca mutavisset, gcrmanissimus Stoicus; Ijegg. 1, 53-54; also Acnesiand by other philosophers rapproche­ demus ap. Phot. Bib/. 213, p. 170a ments between two or more schools Bekker). should be attempted. On the essential

168

1, 16

Pcripateticis re concinere videntur, verbis discrepare; quo de libro, Balbe, velim scire quid sentias." "Egone," inquit ille, "miror Antiochum, hominem in primis acutum, non vidisse interesse l plurimum inter Stoicos, qui honesta a commodis non nomine sed genere toto diiungerent,* et 1

interesse om. Η

* disiungerent

D*OB*FM

longeque plurimum tribuere bonestati, std re . . . verbis: the ovcrfamiliar Greek tamen et in corpore et extra esse quaedam antithesis of έργψ and λόγψ, rendered bona-, 4, 2: an parum disserui non verbis by Gccro in various ways, e.g., re ... verbo {Tusc. 2, 29; Off. 3, 83; Parad. 7; Stoicos a Peripateticis sed universa re et De Consul, ap. Div. 1, 17; Pbil. 2, 11; tota sententia dissidere; 4, 49; Tusc. 5, 119: 7, 9), re ... verbis (1. 85; Fin. 4 , 2; 4, 60; alii tantam praestantiam in bonis am mi 4, 72; Fat. 22; 44; Legg. i, 54; Fam. esse dscemt ut ab bis corporis et externa 13, 6a, 4; Pro Sest. 86; Manil. 52; cf. obscurentur; alii autem bate ne bona quidem Fin. 4, 78), rebus . .. verbis {Pro Scaur. ducunt, in animo reponunt omnia; Gell. 18, 1, 5; Aug. CD. 9, 4. But it should be 3, 3; cf. Legg. 1, 55), re vera ... verbo observed that the sectarian differences (2 Vert. 1, 72; Pro Ciuent. 54), re .. . fall in the field of ethics rather than in oratione (1, 124; Att. 4, 16, 1), re ... vocabulo (Tusc. 1, 62), re . . . vocabulis that of physics, with which the present (Fin. 4, 5), rebus ... vocabulis (Ac. 1, 37), work is concerned, and Balbus does not re . . . nomen (Div. 1, 28), re ... nominibus here attempt a theological differentiation (Ac. 2,15), rebus ... nominibus (Ac. 1,17; of the two sects. honesta a c o m m o d i s : virtues and cf. Fin. 3, 41), reapse . .. speciem (Div. material goods are, for the stricter 1, 81). For the musical metaphor in concinere ... discrepare sec Rcid, edition Stoics, incommensurablcs, so that no increase in one can produce any increase of the Academica, p. 161, to which add Off. 1, 145: ne forte quid disere pet .. . quo in the other, and they differ, not in motor . . . concentus est; 3, 83: verbo inter degree, as the Peripatetics held, but in se discrepare, re unum sonart [where Holden kind (not magnitudine et quasi gradibus but genere; J. S. Reid ap. Mayor, ad loc. compares Plat. Pbaedo, 92c: ούτος . . . ό λόγος έκείνω πώς ξυνάσεται;]; Fin. notes that similar phrases are found in Fin. 3, 45-50). As opposed to the com­ 4, 60: re concinebatt verbis discrepare. egone: cf. 3, 8; Fin. 3, 11; Legg. 1, 14; mon classification of things into mala, 2, 32. This use of -ne expresses surprise neu/ra, and bona, the Stoics insisted on a five-foLd division into mala (also called at being suddenly asked a question, or at times a reluctance to answer; cf. R. fotda, lurpia, or inbonesta = κακά), mKlihner-C. Stegmann, Ausf. Gram. d. commoda (also called remota or reiecta = άποπροηγμένα), neutra ( = άδιάφορ*), /at. Spr. 2, 2 1 (1914), 508. hominem . . . acutum: cf. 3, 83: commoda (also called producta, promota, homo acutus; and 13 other cases in the praecipeta, prostata, praeposita, or sumenda = προηγμένα), and bona (also called philosophical works (H. Mcrguct, Lex. *. d. pbilos. Scbr. Cic. 1 (1887), 36; pulcbra or bonesta — καλά), of which only the first and the last named have Pbil. 2, 28). moral significance. Yet Diog. L. 7, 103; interesse plurimum: insistence on the differences between these two 7, 128 asserts that Panactius and Posidonius admitted health and wealth among schools occurs in several places; e.g., Fin. 2, 68: pugnant Stoici cum Peripateticis. goods; cf. M. Pohlcnz in Got ting. Nacbr. Phil-hist. Kl., N.F. 1 (1934), 4. alteri negant qw'cquam esse bonum nisi quod For the various terms here used cf. bonestum sit, alteri plurimum se et longe

1, 17

169

Peripateticos, qui honesta commiscerent cum commodis, ut ea inter se magnitudine et quasi gradibus, non genere, differrent. Haec enim est non verborurn parva sed rerum pcrmagna dissensio. 17 Verum hoc alias; nunc quod coepimus, si videtur." "Mihi vero," inquit Cotta, "videtur. Sed ut hie qui intervenit," me intuens, "ne ignoret quae res agatur, de natura agebamus deorum, quae cum mihi videretur l perobscura, ut semper videri 1

u i d e r e n t u r M,

uidctur

DGB1

Fin. 3 , 1 4 ; Rcid o n Ac. 1. 3 6 - 3 7 ; E . V . A r n o l d , Rom. Stoicism (1911), 2 9 0 ; for bomsta in particular M. O . Liscu, (itude SUT la langut de la philos. morale chr^ Cic. (1930), 150-152; F . K l o s c , Die Bedeutung von bonos u. honestus (1933), 1 0 4 - 1 0 8 ; for commoda cf. A. Pittct, I ocab. philos. de Sineque (1937), 196-197. honesta c o m m i s c e r e n t : the emen­ d a t i o n s of H c i n d o r f t o honesta sic, a n d M. L. Earlc (Proc. Am. philol. Assoc. 33 (1902), Ixxi; r e p r i n t e d in his CI. Papers (1912), 204) t o honesta ita arc u n n e c e s ­ sary, for the result-clause may f o l l o w easily after the v e r b w i t h o u t any such preparatory adverb. g r a d i b u s . . . g e n e r e : cf. De opt. Gen. Or. 4 : id fit non genere sed gradu. n o n v e r b o r u r n : cf. A u g . C. Acad. 2, 2 4 : non est ista, inquam, mihi crede, ver­ borurn sed rerum ipsarum magna controversia. T h i s subject is discussed at l e n g t h in B o o k s 3-4 of t h e De Finibus. 17 h o c a l i a s : sc. tractabimus o r s o m e similar v e r b . F o r t h e ellipsis cf. 1, 1 9 : longum est ad omnia; 1, 4 7 : Cotta meus modo hoc modo illud; 1, 121: quant ο Stoici melius', 2, 1: sed ad ista alias; 3, 5: pauca de me; Tusc. 1, 2 3 : nunc, si videtur, hoc, illud alias; 3 , 10: sed id alias, nunc quod ins tat; 3 , 2 5 : sed cetera alias, nunc . . . depellamus; 3 , 7 3 : sed de hoc alias, nunc illud satis est; Div. 2,7: sed bate alias pluribus, nunc . . . revertamur; 2, 19: de quo alias, nunc quod necesse est; 2, 2 0 : si omnia fato, quid mihi divinatio prodest . . . vultis autem omnia fato; Am. 1: sed dt hoc alias, nunc redeo ad augurem; Brut. 2 9 2 : quorsus, inquam, istuc? T h e s e ellipses are especially c o m m o n w i t h such v e r b s as diceret

facere, agere, iudicare, etc.; cf. R. KuhncrC. Stcgmann, Ausf. Gram. d. lat. Spr. 2, 2 · (1914), 551-553. ei v i d e t u r : cf. Ac. 1, 1 4 ; Fin. 4, 2 1 . m i h i v e r o : cf. repetam vero b e l o w ; 2, 4 ; 2, 2 7 ; 3 , 6 5 : mihi vero, inquit I >/leius, valde videtur; Div. 2, 100: mihi vero, inquit, placet; Fat. 3 : tu vero, inquam; Am. 16: mihi vero erit gratum; Ac. 1, 14: mihi vero, ille. i n t e r v e n i t : of a caller or of o n e w h o d r o p s in o n a c o n v e r s a t i o n ; cf. Rep. 1 , 1 8 : intervenit vir prudens . . . SV.Manilius; Att. 16, 4, 1: Libo intervenit; also Fat. 2: vacuo ab interventoribus die. ut . . . n e : in a final clause with w o r d s separating t h e c o n n e c t i v e and negative parts of the c o n j u n c t i o n ; cf. M a d v i g o n Fin. 2, 1 5 ; K u h n c r - S t e g m a n n , op. cit. 2, 2» (1914), 209. m e i n t u e n s : cf. 2, 104: hoc loco me intuens, utar, inquit, carminibus Arateis; Brut. 2 5 3 : cum ad te ipsum, inquit, in me intuens; 3 0 0 : sed tu, inquit, in me intuens. W i t h this type of parenthesis cf. Ac. 1, 2 : me autem dicebat [and parallels in Rcid's n o t e ] ; Isocr. Panathen. 2 1 5 : σΰ μέν πεττοίησαι τους λόγους (έμέ λ έ γ ω ν ) . n e i g n o r e t : cf. M a c r o b . Sat. 1, 2, 1 9 : atqui scias oportet eum inter nos sermonem fuisse. q u a e res a g a t u r : a legal e x p r e s s i o n ; cf. Fin. 2, 3 : praescribere . . . quibusdam in formulis EA RES AGETVR, ut inter quos disseritur convent at quid sit id de quo disseratur; 5, 7 8 : qui acute in causis videre so/eat quae res agatur; Tusc. \, 10. p e r o b s c u r a : cf. 1, 1, n.(perdi/ficilis ... et perobscura); 1, 60.

170

1, 17

solet, Epicuri ex * Velleio sciscitabar * sententiam. Quam ob rem," inquit, "Vellei, nisi 8 molestum est, repete quae eoeperas." "Repetam vero, quamquam non mini sed tibi hie venit adiutor; ambo enim," inquit adridens, "ab eodem Philone nihil scire didicistis." Turn ego *: "Quid didicerimus Cotta viderit *; tu β autem nolo existimes me adiutorem huic venisse sed auditorem,7 et quidem 1 s e Ν * sciscitabor A1 nisi] nihil Ν 7 • tu] turn DG auditorem] adiutorem CBX

nisi molestum eet: a frequent ex­ pression of politeness and of delicacy in intruding one's own interests or re­ quests into the conversation of others; cf. Ac. 1, 14; Fin. 1, 28; 2, 5; Tusc. 1, 26 (cf. 5, 82); Rep. 1, 46; Sen. 6; Pro Cluent. 168; Phil. 2, 4 1 ; Brut. 20: qua ret si tibi est commodum, ede ilia quae eoeperas et Bruto et mihi; also Plaut. Pen. 599; Poen. 50; Rud. 120; Tcr. Ad. 806; C.I.L. X, 5371 ( = Dessau 7734); Arnob. 4, 4; Hier. Vita Pauli, 12. Similar expressions arc si tibi non est molestum (Fat. 4; Fam. 5, 12, 10; cf. Plaut. Epid. 461; Mart. 1, 96, 1), si forte non molestum est (Catull. 55, 1), numquidnam tibi molestumst . . . //' (Plaut. Asin. 830; cf. Hier. In Eph. 2, p. 622 Vail.), ne . . . vobis molestus sim (Fin. 5, 8), ne . . . molestum me . . . putares (Hier. Ep. 49, 1, 1), ubi molestum non erit (Tcr. Eun. 484), nisi forte molesti intervenimus (De Or. 2, 14), si tibi est commodum (Brut. 20), // ita vobis est commodum (De Or. 2, 367), nisi tibist incommodum (Plaut. Most. 807), si grave non est (Att. 13, 42, 1; Hor. Serm. 2, 8, 4), si videtur (see above; Fin. 4, 2), nisi quid . .. videtur secus (Legg. 1, 17), si vacas animo (Div. 1, 10), si forte vacas (Hor. Ep. 2, 2, 95), nisi quid te detinet (Hor. Ep. 1, 2, 5). Similar phrases occur in Greek, e.g., Plat. Tim. 17b: el μή τί σοι χαλεττόν; Phaedo, 96a: έγώ ούν σοι δίειμι . . . έάν βούλη; Prot. 310a: ct μή σέ τι κωλύει; Philostr. Nero, p. 220 Kayser: ct μή τι σπου3άσαι 8ι (O. Plasberg, ed. motor (1911)), do/ore sitt animus sine perturbatio-ne. sollicitetur (H. Bergfeld ap. T. Birt in insistere: often of standing still or Berl. philol. Wocb. 38 (1918), 570), or coming to rest (e.g., 1, 54; 2, 51; 2, 103; sui vitietur (F. Walter in Wien. Stud. 48 Div. 2, 128), and probably so used here (1930), 78). Yet the text can be ade­ (cf. Tusc. 4, 41: animus perturbatus et quately explained as it stands. Significo incitatus nee cobibere se potest nee quo loco has been compared to επισημαίνω, some­ vult insistere), though some editors (e.g.. times used of the symptoms of an on­ Mayor) suppose it to mean "find a coming disease (e.g., Philostr. Gymn. 30) foot-hold"; cf. Cacs. B.C. 4, 26, 1: and again of indications of weather (e.g., neque firmiter insistere neque signa subsequi.Philostr. Heroic. 2, 9; E. Pfeifler in ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ, 2 (1916). 84; 92), and for quodque: if this continues the pre­ the use of significo cf. Div. 1, 2; 1, 130. ceding argument against the concept of a revolving deity, then enim at the be­ Ax (appendix, 164) suggests that signi­ ginning of the next sentence needs ficetur is here in the middle voice, com­ further explanation, since the heaven paring 2, 51: [stellae] occultantur . . . apemoves but the earth is conceived of as riuntur . . . moventur . . . ne moventur fixed. It seems more likely, therefore, quidem; Suet. Aug. 25, 4: ostenderetur; that -que here marks a transition to a new R. Kiihncr-C. Stegmann, Ausf. Gram. d. point in the argument, viz., the annoy­ /at. Spr. 2, 1* (1912), 106-108. We may, ance of the god by heat and cold. For then, perhaps translate: "And why similar cases of -que cf. 2, 69: concinneque\ should <somcthing> which in the case 2, 127: cervaeque; 3, 29: cumque; Fin. 1, 68: of our own bodies, if it were to suggest quaeque; 3, 67: quoniamque; 3, 73: quae- itself in the slightest degree, would be que [and Madvig's n.]; 5,10: disserendique; painful, not likewise be considered pain­ ful in the case of a god?" Legg. 2, 30: discriptioque; Orat. 59:

202

1,24

cur hoc idem non habcatur molestum in deo? Terra enim profecto, quoniam mundi pars * est, pars est etiarn dei; atqui terrae maxumas regiones inhabitabilis atque incultas videmus, quod pars earum 1

pars add. NK)*

is wide-spread. Cicero recognizes them; molestum: R. Reitzenstein ap. Ax e.g., Τ use. 1, 45: et habitabiles regiones et (appendix, 164) compares Pro CatI. 44; Fam. 7, 26, 1; also Catull. 51, 13; Hor. rursum ornni cuitu propter vim frigoris aut caloris vacantis; 1, 69: ceteras partis in­ Ep. 1, 1, 108. para est etiam dei: cf. Aug. CD. 4, cultas, quod aut frigore rigeant aut urantur 11: cum dicunt omnia sidera partes lovis esse. colore; Rep. 6, 21: cernis autem tandem terram quasi quibusdam redimitam et circuminhabitabili·: two adjectives identi­ datam cingulis, e quibus duos maximt inter cal in form have directly opposite mean­ se diversos et cae/i verticibus ipsis ex utraque ings, as with a scries of other compounds of in: inauratus, incoctus, incorporates, in- parte tubnixos obriguisse pruina videst medium cruentatus% indictus, infltxus, in/ractus, in- autem ilium et maximum solis ardore torreri. Climatic conditions limit the concept of frenatus, iniunctus, innatus, innutritus, inquintus, insessus, insuetus, inustus, investi- the οικουμένη (cf. F. Gisingcr in P.-W. 17 (1937), 2128-2129); as sample ex­ gabilis, and invocatus. So one form, derived from inbabito, means "habitable," pressions of this idea at different periods may be cited the views of Anaxagoras the other (used here) is the negative of babitabilis (as in Mela, 1, 11; 3, 7 1 ; (A 67 Dicls = Act. Ρlac. 2, 8, 1 {Doxogr. Gr.* 338): α μέν άοίκητα γένηται Α δέ Plin. N.H. 2, 245; 6, 53 - άοίκητος.) οίκητά μέρη τοΰ κόσμου κατά ψϋξιν καΐ Cf. N. Stang in Sjmb. Osloensest 17 έκπύρωσινκαΐεύκρασίαν; Xen. An. I, 7, (1937), 72; 75 (on Cicero's rendering 6; Cyrop. 8, 6, 2 1 ; Aristot. Meteor. 2, 5, of alpha privative). 362 b 7-9; 2, 5, 362 b 25-27; Ephorus in Mayor considers it an absurd exagge­ Fr. Hist. Gr. 1, 257, no. 78; Polyb. 34, ration to suppose that slight degrees of 1, 10; Lucil. 666 Marx (654 Warmingheat or cold have this effect upon us, ton); Lucr. 5, 204-205: inde duos porro yet admits that "the ancients, in their ignorance of geography, really believed prope partis ftn>idus ardor ( adsiduusque geli that human life was insupportable except casus mortalibus aufert; Virg. G. 1, 233239; Hor. C. 1, 22, 17-22; 3, 3, 55-56; in the temperate zones." Yet \X\ W. 3, 24, 36-40; Diod. 1, 40, 2; 3, 38. 1-2; Tarn (in CI. Quart. 33 (1939), 193) Mela, 1, 4 ; 1, 11; 1, 23; 3, 7 1 ; Hygin. asserts that "the old view that the torrid Astro». 1, proem, p. 20 Buntc; 1, 8, p. 27; zone was uninhabitable had been dis­ Heraclit. Myth, AUeg, Homer. 50, p. 340 pelled once for all by the discoveries of Matranga: αϊ μέν δύο τελέως άοίκητοι the Alexander-expedition and the early δια τό κρύος . . . δμοίως δ' έν αύτοΐς ή Ptolemaic exploration southward διακεκαυμένη καθ' ύπερβολήν της ττυand though the third-century writers on geography are mostly lost, the habita- ρώδους ουσίας ούδενΐ βατή ζώω; Ον. Μ. 1, 49-50; 7>. 3, 4, 5 1 ; Strab. 2, 5, 6; bility of the equatorial belt must have been a commonplace long before Era­ 2, 5, 8; 2, 5, 26; 2, 5, 34; 2, 5, 43; Philo, tosthenes crystallized it for ourselves," Quis Rer. div. Her. 147; De Prov. 2, and he points out (on the basis p. 98 Auchcr; [Tibull.] 3, 7, 151-164; of Clcomcd. 1, 6, pp. 56-58 Zicglcr — Plut. De Is. et Os. 41; De Fac. in Orb. 25; Posidon. fr. 78 Jacoby) that Posidonius Plin. N.H. 4, 88; 5, 15; 6, 53; Tatian, already recognized the tropics as habi­ Or. ad Gr. 20; Clcomcd. 1, 2, p. 22 table; cf. M. Pohlenz in Gotting. gel. Zicglcr (cf. p. 154); Aristid. Or. 48, 14, Ληχ. 198 (1936), 518, η. 1. The theory p. 269 Kcil; [Galen,] Hist. Pbil. XIX, of such uninhabitable zones, however, 269 K. {Doxogr. Gr.* 623, 51); Lucian,

1,25

203

adpulsu * solis exarserit, pars * obriguerit3 nive pruinaque4 longinquo solis abscessu; quae,5 si mundus est deus, quoniam mundi partes sunt, dei membra partim ardentia, partim refrigerata ducenda β sunt.7 25 Atque haec quidem vestra, Lucili; qualia vero * est,8 ab 1 s appulsus B1, pulsu DxNO * parsquc Ο obriguit Η 7 pruinaque ct H* · quae] quo Η · dicenda C sint A X NB (del.), est ut O, alia sint B* {add. sup.) FM

Dt Dipsad. 1; Ampcl. 1, 4; Tcrtull. Ad Nat. 2, 5; Achill. Tat. hag. 29, p. 62 Maass; Chalcid. in Tim. 66; Censorin. fr. 2, 2 Hultsch; Prob. in Virg. G. 1,233, p. 362 Hagen; Procl. in Tim. pi. 38a (p. 122 Dichl; cf. p. 123, citing Orpbica, fr. 94 Kern); Alex. Aphrod. in Ale/tor. 2, 5, p. 101, 7-8 and 25-35 Hayduck; 2, 5, p. 104, 3-11; p. 105, 3; Mart. Cap. 6, 602; Cosmas Indie. 2, p. 89B; 6, p. 324B; Isid. Etym. 3, 44, 1; De Nat. Rer. 10, 1; 10, 3; Phot. Bib/, no. 223, pp. 210 b 39; 211 a 12; also Anon. 1 in Maass, Comm. in Arat. p. 96; Anon. II in the same, pp. 124-125; 132-133 (also p. 317); Anon. Geogr. Expos. 2 (Geog. Gr. min. 2, p. 494). adpulsu: Plasbcrg equates with προσ­ βολή (as in Acl. N.A. 13, 23: ταΐς δέ τοϋ ηλίου προσβολαϊς); cf. 2, 141: ut omnes ictus omnesque nimios et frigoris ef caioris adpu/sus sentire possimus. Rcid's suggestion (on Ac. 2, 105) that we should here read a pulsu seems improbable. exarserit . . . obriguerit: the sub­ junctives arc probably correctly ex­ plained by Mayor as due to the indirect discourse introduced by vidimus. solis abscessu: cf. Plin. N.H. 18,218; Anon. De I'entis, 22 (Poet. Lat. min. p. 384 Bachrcns); Claud. Mam. De Statu Anim. 1, 9 (C.S.E.L. 11, 49). quae, si mundus: on the unusual order of phrases here cf. P. Mihailcanu, De Comprclxnsionibus relat. apud Cic. (1907), 105-106. mundi partes: it is unnecessary with A. du Mcsnil (Erkl. Beitr. z- lat. Scbulscbriftstellem (1896), 12) to emend to dei partes. dei membra: cf. Lact. Inst. 7, 3, 7:n"

* pruna 771, " est AC-

bate omnia quae vidimus dei membra sunt, iam insensibilis ab bis constituitur deus, quoniam membra sensu carent, et mortalis, quoniam videmus membra esse m ortalia; Aug. CD. 4, 13: quid infelicius credi potest quam Dei partem vapulari cum puer vapularet\ Ioann. Damasc. Barlaam et loasapb, 241: ol δέ νομίζοντες την γη ν είναι Οεάν έπλανήθησαν. όρώμεν γάρ αυτήν ύπδ των αν­ θρώπων ύβριζομένην . . . έάν γάρ όπτηΟη γίνεται νεκρά, κτλ., Lact. Inst. 7,3,9, remarks that one cannot plow sine laceratione divini corporis. 25 vestra: probably applies to the Stoic views, though possibly also to those of the Platonists; cf. 1, 19, n. {vester Plato). For the omission of sunt cf. 1, 20, n. (ilia pal maris). R. Philippson (Sjmb. Osloenses, 19 (1939), 16) notes the paral­ lelism between the present phrase and 1, 36 (Zeno autem, ut iam ad testros, Balbe, veniam), and suggests that Cicero is in the two passages following two different sources, each with its own argument; J. B. Mayor, in CI. Ret: 3 (1889), 357, also observed the inconsistency; at vol. 1, p. 1 he notes the view of A. B. Krischc and R. Hirzel that 1, 25-41 was added as an afterthought. qualia, etc.: sections 25-41, placed somewhat like the catalogue of the ships in Iliad 2, contain an elaborate historical summary of the views of 27 Greek philosophers concerning the existence and nature of the gods. Since Cicero wrote no specific work on the history of philosophy as a whole, such rcsumds for particular branches are found in some of his specialized treatises; e.g., Div. 1, 5-6; Ac. 2, 118 (starting, like this, with Thales); cf. introd. 16, above.

204

1,25

So also in later writers (e.g., Plut. Strom. ap. Eus. Pr. EP. 1, 8, 1-12; Scxt.Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 49-74; Min. Fcl. 19, 4-14; Clem. Protr. 5, 64-66; Aug. CD. 8, 2), yet particularly in more specialized works, inspired by Aristotle and by the 18-book δόξαι φυσικών of Theophrastus, and continuing into the Christian litera­ ture. These are gathered by H. Diels in the Doxograpbi Grata* (1929). On pp. 531-550 Diels edits the present passage, in parallel columns with its closest ana­ logue, the De Pietate of Philodcmus. That such a review should be found in the mouth of a Roman (cf. 1, 91), not to say of an Epicurean—one of a sea re­ putedly contemptuous of the opinions of other schools—has occasioned some surprise (2, 73: pestra enim solum legitis, pestra amatis, ceteros causa incognita condemnatis; In Pison. 70; R. Hirzcl, Untersucb. z- Cic. pbilos. Scbr. 1 (1877), 6, n. 1). Yet a comparison with Philodcmus suggests that some later Epicureans used such reviews to attack the doctrines of their opponents, particularly of the Stoics. In fact, Philodcmus had written a large historical work on philosophers (Diog. L. 10, 3; S. Mcklcr, Acad. Pbilos. Ind. Herculan. (1902), xxxii); cf. also L. Edclstein in Trans. Am. philol. Assoc. 71 (1940), 83. In the hands of Peripatetics such doxographic passages arc largely objective and unpartisan (e.g., Aetius), but in the present list most of the views have a sarcastic criticism added, as noted by Diels, who failed, however, to see that these additions arc not original with Cicero but derive from Philodcmus himself (cf. R. Philippson in Symb. Osloensts, 19 (1939), 28-30), of whose work this seems like an epitome (Philippson, op. cit., 28). Placing the criticisms in the mouth of an Epicurean relieves Cicero himself from the odium which might have attached to him had his fellowschoolman Cotta attacked so many distinguished figures, and transfers this odium to the Epicurean spokesman; cf. 1, 94. C. Josscrand (UAntiq. class. 4 (1935), 144, n. 2) thinks that Cicero makes his own the doxography of Vclleius, since he does not give to the criticism of Vclleius by Cotta any state­

ment affecting the exactness of his infor­ mation. For an attempt to disengage the Greek dogmata from possible inaccu­ racies of Cicero or his sources cf. A. B. Krische, Die tbeol. Lebren d. gr. Denker (1840). Though T. Bin {Berl. philol. Vocb. 38 (1918), 572 observes that after Thalcs the next four names begin alphabetically with At yet the catalogue is for the most part chronological rather than topical (thus involving some repetition of ar­ guments and refutations), and includes the chief Presocratics (except Heraclitus and Prodicus, each of whom appears later in our work; cf. R. Hirzcl, op. cit. 1, 7-8), Socrates, and representa­ tives of the schools derived from him. The way is prepared for it by previous allusions (1, 1; 1, 2; 1, 13) to the diver­ sities of opinion among philosophers; cf. J. B. Mayor in CI. Rev. 3 (1889), 357. Ctiticisms are derived chiefly from the two fundamental axioms of Epicurus that the gods must be conceived as eternal and happy (1, 45). Immaterial gods, Vcllcius objects, lack powers of sensation (cf. note on si dei possunt esse sine sensu below), hence cannot experience pleasure and cannot be happy, while gods with material bodies arc liable to destruction and therefore not eternal. Cf. Philod. De Piet. p. 96 Gompcrz: διδ κβΐ μόνο μεγίστην εύσέβειαν έζηλωκέναι φασί δοξίζειν όσιτ»τ* irepl θεών κα τλλων τάναντιχγεινώσκουιν ώς άν ύπεναντί τη προλήψα δογματιζόντων. Further ob­ jections are found to agnostic views (Protagoras in 1, 29) and to the incon­ sistency in assuming gods of heteroge­ neous and incommensurate types (Plato in 1, 30; Xcnophon, 1, 31; Antisthcncs, 1, 32; Aristotle, 1, 33; Xcnocrates, 1, 34; Heraclides Ponticus, 1, 34; Thcophrastus, 1, 35; Zcno, 1, 36; Cleanthes, 1, 37; Persaeus, 1, 38; Chrysippus, 1, 39-41), caused—though Vclleius docs not, of course, recognize the fact—by an attempt to reconcile conflicting deities of quite diverse popular origins. qualia vero . . . est: the lacuna has been treated in various ways. B% to qualia vero first added sint% and then an-

1,25

205

ultimo repetam superiorurn.1 Thales enim Milesius, qui primus * de talibus rebus quaesivit, aquam dixit esse initium rerum, deum 1

superiorurn om. D

* primis Bx

πρώτος σοφός ώνομάσθη άρχοντος Ά θ ή other ancient corrector added alia, making qualia vero alia sin/. But alia seems weak νηd). in the sixtieth Olympiad (540-537). With the views here expressed cf. Stn. 78: Whether these doctrines were expres­ audiebam Pythagoram Pytbagoreosque . . . sed in a work περί θεών (Iambi. Vit. numquam dubitasse quin ex universa mentePyth. 90) or in part of a larger σύγγραμ­ divina delibatos animos haberemus; W. K. C. μα φυσικόν (Diog. L. 8, 6), or, inasmuch Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods (1950), as some held that he left no writings 140, n. 1, compares the phrase φησί γάρ (cf. Philod. De Piet. p. 66 Gompcrz: τήν ψυχήν έκ του δλου ε Ισιε ναι άναπνε- Οαγόρας δ' αύτοϋ γ' ουδέν φασί όντων φερομένην ύπό τών άνεμων in τινε είναι των άναρομένων πα­ Arist. De An. 1, 410 b 28-30 (cf. ///., ρά . . . ; Iambi. Vit. Pyth. 199; Joseph. C. Orpbeus and Gr. Relig. (1935), 94). For Αρ. 1, 163; Plut. Alex. Fort. 1,4; Galen, copies of the present passage cf. Min. In Hipp, de Nat. Horn. 1, 25 (XV, 67-68 Fcl. 19, 6: Pytbagorae deus est animus per K.); Diog. L. 8, 6—who disagrees with universa m rerum naturam commeans et this view), in purely oral form, is intentust ex quo etiam animalium omnium obscure. For Stoic views of a πνεϋμα

218

1, 27

intentum et commeantcm, ex quo nostri animi carperentur,1 non vidit distractione humanorum animorum discerpi et lacerari deum, 1

capcrcntur Ρ

βιήκον δι' δλου cf. Act. Plac. 1, 7, 33; έκ της ήμβτίρας ψυχής εκείθεν ούσης Galen, Medic. 9 (XIV, 698 K.); Alex. αποσπάσματος; also other passages cited Aphrod. De Mixt. p. 216, 14; 223, 25 by A. S. Pease on Dip. 1, 70; 1, 110. For the heavenly origin of the soul and the Bruns. part of the Pythagoreans in establishing animum . . . commeantcm: cf. Scxt. this doctrine see, among others, J. Adam, Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 127: πνεύμα τό δια Cambridge Praelections (1906), 29-67 (Pin­ παντός τοϋ κόσμου διήκον. Ε. Zeller {Die Pbilos. d. Gr. 1, 1* (1892), 416, n. 3; dar to Plato); P. Boyance, Etudes sta­ 417, n. 1) points out that this doctrine le songt de Scipion (1936), 129-133; M. van den Bruwaenc, La theologie de Cic. (1937), is a modincation of exoteric Pythagorean 190, n. 2. views by later Stoic pantheism. Intentum is stretched "like the warp in the fabric" distractione: the first of four objec­ (Mayor); cf. also Plat. Tim. 34b: ψυχήν tions raised by Velleius is that the sepa­ δέ είς τό μέσον αύτου θείς δια παντός ration of human souls from the universal τι {τείνε; A. Dclattc in Mem. de Pacad. soul must cause a tearing and wounding r. de Belgique, Lcttres, etc. 2 scr. 17 of the god. Cf. Arnob. 3, 35: ut enim homo (1922), 125, nn. 2-3. On com meant em unus nequit permanente sui corporis integricf. Reid on Ac. 1, 28. tate in homines multos sands, neque homines carperentur: cf. Sen. 78 (quoted in rursus multi disiunctionis differentia in unius note on Pythagoras, above); Tusc. 5, 38: stnsus f simplicitatemque conflari, si ita humanus autem animus decerptus ex mente munduj unum est animal et unius mentis divina cum alio nullo nisi cum ipso deo, si agitatione motatur, nee in plura potest mthoc fas est dictu, com par art potest [the author mina dissipari nee si eius particulae dii of this view is not named]; Dip. 1, 110: sunt, in unius animantis conscientiam cogi animos bominum quadam ex parte extrin- atque vertier. Further, if our souls arc secus esse tractos et baustos (ex quo intelle- bound up with the divine as integral gitur esse extra divinum animum humanus parts of it, by the doctrine of συμπάθεια unde ducatur)—the view of Cratippus; (cf. Pease on Div. 2, 34) God must per­ 2, 26: ex divinitate unde omnes animos ceive their every motion and action, and baustos aut acceptos aut libatos haberemus; hence at times suffer from so doing, Rep. 6, 15: Usque animus datus est ex Hits according to Arr. Epict. 1, 14, 5-6. sempiternis ignibus quae sidera et Stellas Lact. Inst. 7, 3, 9, introduces a reductio vocatis[on these passages cf. H. Krocger, ad abntrdum: et hoc parum est si membris De Cic. in 'Catone maiore* A uc toribus suis non par at deus, nisi etiam homini liceat (1912). 74, n. 1]; also Legg. 1. 24; Virg. a liquid in dei corpus: maria extruuntur, G. 4, 219-227; Manil. 2, 116; 4, 884-885; monies exciduntur et ad eruendas opes Sen. Ep. 66, 12: ratio autem nihil aliud interiora terrae viscera effodiuntur. quid quod est quam in corpus bumanum pars divini ne arari quidtm sine laceration» divini corporis spiritus mersa; Arr. Epict. 1, 14, 6: al potest? ut iam sce/erati atque impii simus ψυχαΐ . . . συναφείς τω θεω &τζ αύτοϋ μό - qui dei membra violemus. To avoid this ρια ούσα ι xal αποσπάσματα; 2, 8, 11; Μ. difficulty D. Ruhnkcn (followed by Aurcl. 5, 27: ό δαίμων δν έκάστω . . . ό Baiter) for distractione conjectured de­ Ζευς Ιδωκεν, απόσπασμα έαυτοϋ; Scxt. traction», involving separation without Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1,127 (quoted in note on injury. But απόσπασμα (Diog. L. 7, 143; Pythagoras, above); Alex. Polyh. ap. 8, 28, quoted in notes on Pythagoras and Diog. L. 8, 27-28 (quoted in note on carperentur, above), not to speak of Pythagoras); Diog. L. 7,143 [Stoic views]: discerpi et lacerari below, certainly implies Ιμψυχον δέ (sc. τόν κόσμον), ως δήλον a painful or violent separation. Aristotle,

1, 28

219

et cum miseri animi essent, quod plerisque contingeret, turn dei partem esse miseram, quod fieri non potest. 28 Cur autem quicquam ignoraret animus hominis, si esset dcus? Quo modo porro deus iste,1 si nihil esset nisi animus, aut infixus aut infusus esset in 2 mundo? Turn Xenophanes, qui mente adiuncta omne s 1

istc] cssct C

■ in om. D

■ omncm

NBl

Pbys. 3, 5» 204 a 33-34, on more sober, genus et una substantia est? ipsae saltern philosophic, grounds, blames the Pytha­ praeseientes sempiternum vinculum suum goreans, άμα γαρ ούσίαν ποιούσι τό nempe timebant, nempe maerebant% aut ή άπειρον καΐ μερίζουσιν; cf. Epiphan. ipsae boe futurum neseiebant pars dei vestri Adv. Haeres. 1, 1, 5, 1 {Pair. Gr. 41, provide erat, pars improvida. 201 a-b), of the Stoics: . . . φάσκοντες quo modo: the fourth objection: if είναι νουν τ6ν ϋεόν . . . μερίζονκη . . . the god is immaterial animus he could τήν μίαν θεότητα είς ττολλάς μερικάς ου­ neither have been implanted in the σίας, είς ήλιον καΐ σελήνην και άστρα, universe like a solid nor poured into it εις ψυ/ήν και αέρα και τα άλλα . . . μέρος like a liquid. δέ Οεοϋ καΐ άθάνατον τήν ψυχήν ηγούνται. Xenophanes: of Colophon {Div. 1,5; diecerpi: alluding to the simple verb Aristot. De Caelo, 2, 13, 294 a 23-24; carperentur above. Cf. Tusc. 1, 71: nee Plut. Reg. Apopbth. p. 175c; Strom. 4, secerns nee dividi nee ώseer pi nee distrabi ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 1, 8, 4 {Doxogr. Gr* potest [sc. animus]'. Fin. 1, 50: nee divelli 580); Hippol. Pbilosophum. 1, 14, 1 nee distrabi possint. {Doxogr. Gr.1 565); Scxt. Emp. Pyrrbon. contingeret: the second objection— 2, 18; 3, 30; Adv. Log. 1, 14; 1, 48; Adv. the more ethical corollary of the doc­ Gram. 257; 289; Diog. L. 1, 111; 9, 18; trine of sympathy—, that human suf­ Athcn. 2, p. 54c; 9, 368c; 10, 413f; ferings affect the divine happiness (a Ccnsorin. 15, 3 ; Eus. Cbron. Ol. 56; peril against which the Epicureans pro­ Clem. Strom. 1, 14, 64, 2; 5, 14, 109, 1; vided by placing their gods in the Theodoret, Gr. Ajf. 4, 5; Simplic. intermundia, out of touch with things Pbys. 1, 2 p. 22, 27-28 Diels; Olympiod. human), is further enhanced by that De Arte saer. 24 (I 'orsokrat. no. 11 A 36); fundamental Epicurean pessimism which Schol. Hippocr. ad Epid. 1, 13, 3 {Vorsomay be seen so clearly in Lucretius. krat. no. 11 Β 35)—Diog. L. 9, 20, says Contingeret (cf. προσήκειν) refers to the that he wrote a poetic κτίσις of Colo­ occurrence of something, cither good phon). Diog. L. I.e. places his acme in or bad, which is to be expected in the Ol. 60 (540-537), Eus. Cbron. at Ol. 56 natural course of things; e.g., 1, 26; (556-553), Hier. Cbron. in both Ol. 56 2, 44; 3, 87; Div. 1, 34; 1, 113; 1, 129; and Ol. 60, and Scxt. Emp. Adv. Gram. Am. 8; 72; Phil. 14. 24; Fam. 5, 16. 5. 257—perhaps not seriously—in Ol. 40. 28 cur autem: the third objection Ccnsorinus says (15, 3) that he lived to rests upon an assumption by Vcllcius be over a hundred. Banished from his of divine omniscience (cf. also 3, 90, n. native city, he came to Zandc, Catana (inseientiae)). Yet how could an Epicurean (Diog. L. 9, 18), and Elca, where he logically insist upon such omniscience begins the series of Eleatic philosophers if he placed the gods in places like the (Plat. Sopb. 242d; Clem. Strom. 1, 14, intermundia, where they would be quite 64, 2; Theodoret, Gr. Ajf. 4, 5; cf. Aris­ unaffected by a knowledge of mundane tot. Rhet. 2, 23, 1400 b 6). things? C(. Aug. C. Faust. 21, 16: quid, Cicero elsewhere {Ac. 2, 118) says: Mae ipsat animae in globo ligandae nonne Xenophanes* paulo etiam antiquior [i.e., than et ipsae membra dei vestri erant? nonne unum Anaxagoras], unum esse omnia neque id esse

220

1,28

musabiU et id tsst deum neque natum umquamδμοιον είναι πάντη, όράν τε xal axouciv, et sempiternumt conglobatafigura;Div. 2,33: τάς TC άλλος αισθήσεις έχοντα πάντη. . . .pbjiicts, tisqm maxume qui omne quod ει γάρ μη, κρατεϊν αν καΐ κρατεΐσθαι ύπ' tsstt unum esse dixerunt\ De Or. 3, 20: αλλήλων τα μέρη θεού Οντα* Οπερ αδύ­ veteres ills ... qui omnia bate quae supra νατον, πάντη δ* δμοιον Οντα σφαιροειδη et tubter unum esse et una pi atque [una] είναι· ού γάρ τη" μέν τη δ* ού τοιούτον είναι (άλλα πάντη. άίδιον δ' Οντα καΐ consensione naturae constrictae esse dixerunt. ένα καιΐ σφαιροειδη ούτ' άπειρον ούτε Xcnophancs, though in part agnostic (cf. Ac. 2, 74; E. Zeller. Die Pbilos. d. πεπεράσΟαι . . . 18-20: κατά πάντα δέ ούτως έχειν τόν θεόν, άίδιόν τε καΐ Gr. 1» (1892) 548-550, who notes his ένα, δμοιον τε καΐ σφαιροειδη όντα, ού­ contribution to the rise of scepticism; cf. A. B. Drachmann, Atheism in pagan τε άπειρον ούτε πεπερασμένον, ούτε Antiq. (1922), 18-21; W. A. Heidcl in ήρεμεΐν ούτε άκίνητον είναι (in what follows the author refutes the views of Am. Journ. Philol. 64 (1943), 266-277), Xcnophancs, though on quite different centred his attack upon the anthropo­ grounds from those taken by Vcllcius]; morphic polytheism of Homer (cf. [Galen,] Hist. Phil. 7 (Doxogr. Gr.* 604 = Aristot. Poet. 25, 1461 a 1), with the low ethical standards which it ascribed XIX, 234 Κ.): Ξενοφάνην μέν περί πάν­ to its gods (cf. 1, 42, below; W. Jaeger in των ήπορηκότα, δογματίσαντα δέ μόνον A. Schweitzer Jubilee Book (1946), 397- τό είναι πάντα 6ν καΐ τούτο ύπάρχειν 424), proclaiming instead a single deity θεόν πεπερασμένον λογικόν άμετάβλητον; cf. id. 3 (Doxogr. Gr.* 601 = XIX, identical with the whole spherical uni­ 229 Κ.); Plut. Strom, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. verse. The whole, for him, is one; cf. Plat. Soph. 242d [repeated by Eus. Pr. Ev. 1, 8, 4; Timon ap. Scxt. Emp. Pyrrbon. 14, 4, 8]: τό δέ παρ* ήμϊν Έλεατικόν Ιθ1, 224: θεόν έπλάσατ' Ισον άπάντη. / νος, άπό Ξενοφάνους τε καΐ {τι πρόσθεν , άσκηθη, νοερώτερον ήέ νόη­ άρξάμενον, ώς ενός δντος των πάντων μα; Scxt. Emp. Pyrrbon. 3, 218: Ξενοφά­ καλουμένων οΰτω διεζέρχεται τοις μύνης δέ σφαϊραν άπαθη [sc. τόν θεόν θοις; Aristot. Metaph. 1, 5, 986 b 21-24: είναι]; in two passages (Adv. Log. 1, 49; Ξενοφάνης δέ πρώτος τούτων ένίσας 2, 326; cf. Hippol. Pbilosophum. 1, 14, 1 (ό γάρ Παρμενίδης τούτου λέγεται μα­ — Doxogr. Gr* 565) he makes Xcno­ θητής) ούΟέν διεσαφήνισεν . . . άλλ* είς phancs express rather agnostic senti­ τόν δλον ούρανόν άποβλέψας τό εν είναι ments; Hippol. op. cit.y 1, 14, 2 (Doxogr. φησι τόν θεόν; Thcophr. fr. 45 Wimm. Gr* 565): λέγει δέ δτι ουδέν γίνεται (Doxogr. Gr.1 480): μίαν δέ την αρχήν ουδέ φθείρεται [cf. V'orsokrat. no. 11 A ήτοι 6ν τό δν καΐ πάν και ούτε πεπερασ12-13] ουδέ κινείται καΐ δτι έν τό πάν μένον ούτε άπειρον ούτε κινούμενον έστιν ίξω μεταβολής, φησί δέ καΐ τόν ούτε ηρεμούν Ξενοφάνη τόν Κολοφώνιον θεόν είναι άΐδιον καΐ ένα καΐ δμοιον πάν­ τόν ΠαρμενΙδου διδάσκαλον ύποτίθεσθαί τη καΐ πεπερασμένον καΐ σφαιροειδη καΐ φησιν ό Θεόφραστος [for the relation πάσι τοις μορίοις αίσθητικόν; Min. Fel. here between Thcophrastus and his later 19, 7: Xenopbanen no turn est omne infi­ borrowers cf. Dicls, Doxogr. Gr.* 140]; nitum cum mente deum tradere; Clem. [Aristot.] De Me/isso Xenopb. Gorg. 3-4 Strom. 5, 14, 109, 1: . . . διδάσκων δτι [written, according to Dicls, I'orsokrat. εις κα-l ασώματος ό θεός; Thcodoret, no. 11 A 28, by an eclectic Peripatetic Gr. Afi. 2, 10; 4, 5; Cosmas Indie. 2, of the first century after Christ, and very p. 117 A; Simplic. in Pbys. 1, 2. p. 22, important; excerpts only follow]: 977 a 30-31 Diels. On his theology cf. also W. 23-26: εΐ δ' Ιστιν ό θεός απάντων κράJaeger» Tbeol. of the early Gr. Philosophers τιστον ένα φησίν αυτόν προσήκειν είναι, (1947), 38-54; 208-215. He is mentioned εΐ γάρ δύο ή {τι πλείους εΐεν, ούκ άν with Parmcnides and Empcdocles by Ιτι κράτιστον καΐ βέλτιστον αυτόν εί­ Philo De Prov. 2, pp. 74; 76 Aucher. ναι πάντων . . . 34-35: ώστ* είπερ εΓη τε Whether Xcnophancs should be clas­ καΐ τοιούτον εΐη θεός, ίνα μόνον είναι sified as a monothcist or rather as a τόν θεόν . . . 36—977 b 3: ένα δ* βντα pantheist has been disputed; for a sum-

1,28

221

practerea, quod esset infinitum, deum voluit * esse, de ipsa mente item2 reprehendetur3 ut ceten, de infinitate4 autem vehementius, in qua nihil neque sentiens neque coniunctum potest 1 3 noluit Η * ita NO reprehendetur dttt. Ven., rcprchenditur NOB*FM, reprehenderet B1, rcprchcndcretur AC, Ρ propter labem incertum 4 infinite Dx, 1 infirmitateiO^f

praeterea to propterea: "Xenophancs's mary of the opinions of previous scho­ lars (e.g., J. Frcudcnthal, Ober die Theol. God was God just because he had no dcrinitc organs (ούλος όρα, κτλ.) like d. Xenopb. (1886), E. ZcUcr, and H. the anthropomorphic Gods/' under­ Diels), cf. N. Mavrokordatos, Der Monostanding infinitum as rendering άπειρον tbeismus d. Xenopb. (1910) who rinds in the sense of "indefinite." iMinucius, (41-44) a sharp opposition to polytheism however, in his paraphrase of Cicero but a monotheism rather inclined toward pantheism. The views of Xenophancs, (19, 7; quoted above), seems to have though marking a distinct elevation of understood the passage to mean that theological thought, were too alien to the entire intelligent infinite was deity. the current orthodoxy to escape censure, K. von Fritz (in CI. Philol. 40 (1945), and he was accused of ασέβεια; cf. W. 228-230) discusses the meaning of νους Cronert, Kolotes u. Menedemos (1906), in Xenophancs, and rinds God to be the 128, in a much restored passage; also all-seeing, all-hearing, altogether νοών. Cf. also Simplic. Phys. 1, 2, p. 23, 14-16 Suid. s.v. ίρρε φθείρου, where he is Dicls (I 'orsokrat. no. 11 A 31, 8): listed with Diagoras, Hippo, and the Epicureans; A. B. Drachmann, Atheism Νικόλαος δέ ό Δαμασκηνός ως Λίιτειρον in pagan Antiq. (1922), 18 21, who thinks [Cicero's infinitum] καΐ άκίνητον λέγοντος that he was not in antiquity classed αύτοΰ την αρχήν έν τω Περί θεών απο­ among the άθεοι—yet cf. Suidas, above μνημονεύει, Αλέξανδρος δε ώς πεπε—, but believes that he should be techni­ ρασμένον αυτό καΐ σφαιροειδές; R. Λίοηcally so classified. For his attacks upon dolfo, L·infinite nel pensiero dei Greet anthropomorphism (which the Epicu­ (1934), 270. Plasberg (ed. maior.) suggests rean Vclleius prudently passes over in that adiuneta [cf. 1, 25: mentem cur aquae silence but the arguments of which adiunxit; 1, 27: nulla re adiuneta] and Cotta, without naming his source, uses praeterea arc used intentionally, so that in 1, 77) sec his famous fragments 15-16 from these might be clear the great (I'orsokrat. no. 11 Β 15-16); also Diog. error of one who was convinced that L. 9, 19: ούσίαν θεοΰ σφαιροειδή, μηδέν there existed anything except τό παν. With omne quod esset cf. Div. 1, 33. όμοιον Εχουσα» άνΟρώττω. ut ceteri: as Thalcs (1, 25) and Anaxaomne: τό πάν; equivalent to universum; cf. J. B. Hofmann in Mil. J. Ma- goras (1, 26) were blamed for combining mind and infinity and for supposing that rouxeau (1948), 287. the incorporeal could possess sensation. practerea: the traditional punctua­ de infinitate . . . vehementius: as tion, here retained, was changed by Mayor suggests, for the Epicurean Schocmann (Jabrb. f. el. PhiloL 111 (1875), 687) so as to read: omne, praeterea "vacancy is the only infinite, and in this quod esset infinitum, deum voltut esse, under­there can be no feeling and no con­ standing praeterea quod in the (unparal­ nexion [coniunctum] with anything ex­ leled) sense of praeterquam quod, and ex­ ternal (such as mind) since it includes plaining that Xenophancs taught that all things in itself." Coniunctum reechoes the omne, endowed with intelligence, adiuneta above. nihil . . . sentiens: cf. 1, 26: neque was not only infinite but was also God. J. S. Rcid (ap. Mayor, ad loc.) emended senium omnino.

222

1,28

esse. Nam Parmenides quidem commenticium * quiddam: coronae * similem 8 efficit (στεφάνην * appellat) continentem aidorum * 1 commenticium dett. Rom. Ven.t conucnticium ADHPOBFM, conuentium Ν * coroncs Bl * simile Ο Μ \ similitudinem Ρ * stephanen A*DGPt stephanc l A H, istephanen B\ ct stephanen MOt ct stefanen B*Ft stephanium Ν · ardorum Bl, ardorcm cett.

nam: cf. 1, 27, n. {nam). Parmenidee: of Elca (Plut. Strom. 4, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 1, 8, 5 {Doxogr. Gr* 580); Diog. L. 9, 2 1 ; Censorin. 4, 7, 8; Clem. Protr. 5, 64, 2; Strom. 5,14, 138,1; 6, 2, 23, 3 ; Iambi. Vit. Pjth. 166; Procl. in Parm. 1, p. 619, 7 Cousin (Vorsokrat. no. 18 A 4); Alex, in Mttapb. 1, 3, p. 31, 8-9 Hayduck; Phot. Bibl. no. 249, p. 439 a 36-37 Bckk.; Suid. s.v. ΙΙαρμενίδης), a pupil or companion of Xcnophanes (Aristot. Metapb. 1, 5, 986 b 22; Plut. I.e.; Diog. L. I.e.; Theodorct, Gr. Afi. 2, 10; Asclcp. in Metapb. p. 40, 24 Hayduck; p. 41, 27; Simplic. Pbys. 1, 2, p. 22, 27 Dicls; Suid. I.e.), and an older contemporary of Socrates, with whom he appears in Plato's Parmenides. Diog. L. 9, 23 puts his acme in Ol. 69 (504-501), though cf. Hicr. Cbron. ann. Abr. 1561 and 1581. He was the author of a didactic poem περί φύσεως (fragments in Vorso­ krat. no. 18 Β 1-19), in which the views here stated may well have found a place. Philod. De Piet. p. 67 Gompcrz starts as though to parallel the present passage, but stops after the words Παρμενείδης δέ, continuing, after a lacuna [p. 68; I follow the reading of Diels in Doxogr. Gr.* 534]: οική τόν τε πρTtxv θ>εόν 4ψυχον ποκε>ΐν τ τε γεννωμένους ύπό τούτου τά μέν αυτά τοις πάΟεσιν τοις περί ά\τθρω— paralleling discordant, etc., below. commenticium: rather a favorite word with Cicero; cf. 1, 18, n. {commenticias). APB read conventiciumy adopted by Plasberg in his ed. motor\ and favored by R. Philippson {Berl. philol. Woch. 38 (1918), 412), but in Plasbcrg's ed. win. discarded for the present reading of the deteriores and most editors, the adjective appropriately describing the fanciful character of the phenomena here set forth (yet cf. R. Philippson, I.e.).

coronae similem: cf. Aet. Plot. 2, 7,1 {Doxogr. Gr.* 335): Παρμενίδης στεφάνας είναι περιπεπλεγμένος επαλλήλους, τήν μεν έκ τοϋ άραιοϋ [i.e., fire] τήν δέ έκτου πυκνοΰ [i.e., earth], μιχτάς δέ αλ­ λάς έκ φωτός καΐ σκότους μεταξύ τού­ των* καΐ τό περιέχον δέ πάσας τείχους δίκην «ττερεόν ύπάρχειν, ύφ* L πυρώδης στεφάνη- καΐ τό μεσαίτατον πασών περί δ πάλιν πύρωσης· των δε συμμιγών τήν μεσαιτάτην άπάσαις τοκέα πάσης κινή­ σεως χαΐ γενέσεως ύπάρχειν, ήντινα καΐ δαίμονα κυβερνητιν καΐ κληδοϋχον επο­ νομάζει δίκην τε καΐ ανάγκην [Η. Rich­ ardson, in CI. Quart. 20 (1926), 125. thinks this quite consistent with X'orsokrat. no. 18 Β 10, 6-7 and with the view of ανάγκη ascribed by Aet. Plac. 1, 25, 2, to Pythagoras]; [Galen,] Hist. Phil. 50 {Doxogr. Gr.* 622 = XIX, 267 K.): Παρμενίδης στεφάνους είναι πεπλεγμένους προς αλλήλους τόν μεν έκ του άραι­ οϋ τόν δέ έκ τοϋ πυκνοΰ- καΐ τό περιέ­ χον δέ τό πάν στοιχεϊον δίκην στεφά­ νου στέρεου είναι, πρώτον πϋρ, είτα αΐΰέρα, μεθ' δν αέρα, μεθ' &ν ύδωρ. Cf. Η. Dicls, Parmenides (1897), 104-105. who discusses the two types of στεφάναι in the cosmos: (1) those of pure ele­ ments of fire and earth; (2) between the centre and the circumference a second zone with strata not separated but mixed, where are the sun, moon, and planets. T. Heath, Aristarcbus of Samos (1913), who thinks (p. 66) these "wreaths" arc borrowed from Anaximandcr's "hoops," discusses (68-69) their shape, and sug­ gests that they are "not cylinders, but zones of a sphere bisected by a great circle parallel to the bounding circles." As Mayor observes, Cicero seems mis­ taken in making Parmenides ascribe divinity to the orbem qui cinpt caelum; it is rather the innermost fiery circle around the globe of the earth which is divine.

1,28

223

[lucis] l orbem, qui cingit caelum, quern appellat deum; in quo neque figuram divinam neque sensum quisquam suspicari potest. Multaque eiusdem monstra, quippe qui bellum, qui discordiam, qui cupiditatem, ceteraque generis eiusdem 2 ad deum revocat,3 lucis deleft

* cius Dl

a

revocat codd. (P evanidum), rcuocct Orelli

στ€φάνην: cf. H. J. Rose in Jottrn. of (1934), 218; 261, compares the notion HelUn. Stud. 41 (1921), 110, for the use of a θείον περιέχον. of the Greek term; also W. Nieschmidt, cingit: there is no need to assume Quaienus in Scripiura Romani Utttris oratio obliqua and change to cingai, with Graecis usi sint (1913), 40-42. Erncsti and others. quem appellat deum: a view not ardorum [lucis] orbem: ardorum is the l reading of B , ardorem of ACNB*. Da vies otherwise attested for Parmcnidcs, and, emended to contintnte ardort lucis orbem, as Schoemann suggests, perhaps con­ fused with the Stoic theories set forth in which he has been followed by in 1, 37. various editors, including Dicls in % neque sensum: R. Philippson (Symb. Doxogr. Gr. 534 and Mayor, though Ostoenses, 19 (1939), 30) would equate in CI. Rev. 3 (1889), 163, Mayor agrees with this the words εόν ϋψυχον with H. Deiter (Rhein. Mus. 37 (1882), 314) and Goethe in reading continentem ποκοΐν in Philod. De Piet. p. 68 Gomperz (see note on Parmenides, above). ardorum lucis orbem, which is also the eiusdem: referring to Parmcnidcs; reading of Plasbcrg and of Ax, and cf. the use of idem for the authors of translates "an unbroken ring of shining views in 1, 29; 1, 30; 1, 36; 1, 38 (eius­ flames." Rackham renders: "an unbroken ring of glowing lights." That ardor may dem Zenonis); 1, 40. The term emphasizes be used with little or no implication of more strikingly the inconsistency of heat and chief emphasis upon light different tenets held by the same philo­ would appear from Div. 1, 18: concursus- sopher. The emendation by Heindorf of eiusdem <modi>, though accepted by que gravis stellarum ardore micantii . . . claro tremulos ardore come tas \ In Catil. 3, Dicls (Doxogr. Gr.% 534), is needless 18: faces ardoremque caeli; Catull. 62, 29; and makes awkward the following for other cases cf. Thes. Ling. Lot. 2 quippe qui. Moreover, bellum, discordia, (1900), 490, 18-22; id. 482,87-483.48 for and cupidiias, though of the same class corresponding uses of ardere. But since (eiusdem generis) with one another, are not this meaning of light without heat is a in the same category as the corona secondary and much less frequent use described above. than that which involves heat or even monstra: cf. Philod. De Piet. p. 147 combustion, it seems likely that Cicero Gompcrz: 1 δέ μύθους μέν είσηγον wrote merely continentem ardorum orbem, άμέλει και τερατείας. For this use of monstra cf. 3, 44; also 1, 18, n. (portenia and that lucis is a gloss to explain in what et miracula). sense ardorum is used. 1 have therefore bellum . . . discordiam . . . cupidi­ bracketed lucis, rather than accepting tatem: Πόλεμος . . . Νεΐκος . . . "Έρως. Plasbcrg's suggestion (ed. maior.) of referred to in Philodcmus, I.e., as r i μέν ardorum <et> lucis (which involves an awkward shift from the plural to the αυτά τοις πάΟεσιν τοις ττερί 4ίν0ρω. It is tempting to ascribe these views singular), or Dicls's view (Doxogr. Gr.% to Hmpedocles, who is next mentioned 534) that orbem qui cingit caelum is inter­ in our passage and whose well-known polated from 2, 101 (although not there antithesis of Νεΐκος and Φιλία (or Φιso phrased). With the thought R. Mondolfo, L'infinito tut pensiero dti Greet λότης) as describing forces of repulsion

224

1,29

quae vel morbo vel somno vel oblivione vel vetustate delentur; eademque d e l sideribus, quae reprehensa in alio * iam in hoc omittantur.3 12 29 Empedocles autem multa alia peccans in ■ alia Ν

■ omitantur 2Ϊ*, omittatur Plt comi-

and attraction (cf. Vorsokrat. no. 21 Β 16-22; 26-27; 30; 35-36) might seem to suggest these words. Yet Empedocles may have borrowed the idea from Parmenides, whom he had heard (Suid. s.v. 'Εμπε&οκλής) and emulated (Simplic. Pbys. 1, 2, p. 25, 20 Diels = Vorsokrat. no. 21 A 7). And for this doctrine in Parmcnidcs cf. Aristot. Mttapb. 1, 4, 984 b 23-27: ύποπτεύσειε δ' άν τις Ήσίοδον πρώτον ζητήσαι τό τοιούτον, καν cf τις άλλος έρωτα ή έπιΟυμίαν έν τοις ούσιν έθηκεν ώς αρχήν, οίον καΐ Παρμε­ νίδης* ούτος γαρ κατασκευάζων τήν τοΰ παντός γένεσιν, "πρώτιστον μέν," φησιν, "{ρωτά θεών μητίσατο πάντων" (— Vorsokrat. no. 18 Β 13; also ascribed to Parmcnidcs by Plut. Amat. 13, 756 f; Scxt. Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 9; Asdcp. Metapb. p. 29, 12-14 Hayduck; Simplic. Pbys. 1, 2, p. 39, 18 Diels); Cramer, Anted. Paris. 1, 388: Παρμενίδης γάρ φησι τον ίρωτα τόν θεΐον δημιουργήσαι το πάν. That Parmcnidcs in this matter imitates Hcsiod's Tbeogpny is shown by W. Jaeger, Tlxol. of tin early Gr. Pbi/osopbers (1947), 93. cetcraque: Mayor suggests δίκη and ανάγκη, found in passages from Actius quoted in the note on coronae ήmi/em, above. rcvocat: so ACNB (P is here illegible), kept by Plasbcrg in both his editions, but corrected to the more normal revocet by Orclli and most editors, including Mayor, Diels, and Ax.Quippe qui with the indicative occurs in Plautus, Lucretius, Sallust, Ncpos, frequently in Livy, and occasionally elsewhere in the Empire, but in Cicero only here (R. KuhnerC. Stegmann, Ausf. Gram. d. /at. Spr. 2* (1914), 294). The ms evidence, however, and the principle of the lectio difficilior favor retaining the indicative, and Cicero has as much right as other writers to

occasional άπαξ λεγόμενα; cf. W. G. Hale, Die Cum-Konstruktiontn (1891), 133-134, and n. 1. With the phrase ad . . . revocat cf. 1, 119; Div. 2, 66; Fin. 2, 43; Off. 3, 84; De Demo, 15. vel . . . vel: with the fourfold repe­ tition cf. 1, 24; 3, 34; and four other cases in the philosophical works; H. Mcrguct, Lex. ξ. d. pbilos. Scbr. 3 (1894), 738. In Rtp. 1, 6, there is an eightfold occurrence of this conjunction. eademque: sc. dicit; cf. 1, 17, n. (verum hoc alias). The identity would seem to mean that ndera ad dtum revocat, though we have no other indication that he did so. in alio: Alcmeaon (1, 27). 29 Empedocles: of Acragas (Lucr. 1, 716; Act. Plat. 1, 3, 20 (Doxogr. Gr.· 286); Plut. Strom, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 1, 8, 10; Gell. 17, 21, 14; Diog. L. 8, 51; 8, 54; 8, 62-63; 8, 67; 8, 7 2 ; Acl. V.H. 12, 32; Athcn. 1, 3c; Clem. Strom. 6, 3, 30, 1; Iambi. Vit. Pytb. 135; Simplic. Pbys. 1, 2, p. 25, 19 Diels (Doxogr. Gr.* 477); Suid. s.v. Ε μ π ε ­ δοκλής), often called 6 φυσικός (e.g., De Or. 1, 217: Empedocles pbysicus; Lydus, De Mens. 1, 34; Suid. /.r.), was a pupil of Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, or Parmc­ nidcs (Diog. L. 8, 54-56; Simplic. I.e.; Suid. i.e.). For conflicting evidence for his date cf. E. Wcllmann in P.-W. 5 (1905). 2507, 56-2508, 16, who decides on ca. 494-434 B.C. On his traditional death in the crater of Etna cf. A. S. Pease in Harv. Stud, in cl. Pbilol. 53 (1942), 19-20, and nn. 147-155. Of his works that which chiefly here concerns us is the two-book poem περί φύσεως the fragments of which, amounting to over 150 lines—Wcllmann, op. cit. 2508, 56, for some reason estimates ca. 340— arc collected in Vorsokrat. no. 18 Β 1-19.

1 de om. F, e {del.) Μ tantur OB1

1, 29

225

deorum opinione turpissime labitur. Quattuor enim naturas, ex ments and Ionian philosophy appears The accusation of teaching atheism, made against him by Thcophil. Ad Autol. somewhat superficial). Vitruv. 2, 2, 1; 8, pracf. 1; Diog. L. 8, 25; and Hippol. 3, 2, seems unfounded. alia peccane: perhaps referring to Pbilosopbum. 6, 18, claim four for Pytha­ his famous doctrine of the conflicting goras, and Clem. Strom. 6, 2, 17, 3-4, forces of attraction and repulsion (*Έρω? says that Athamas the Pythagorean was in this dextrine imitated by Empcdoclcs. or Φιλότης and Νεΐκος), to which several On the four elements in Egypt cf. R. of his fragments (16-22; 26-27; 30; 35-36 Lcpsius in Abb. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss. Diels) and various tcstimonia allude; Berlin. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1856, 181-234. e.g., Scxt. Emp. Adv. Phys. 1, 10: σύν The Hindus recognized five elements γάρ τοις τέσσαρσι στοιχείοις τό Νεΐκος (O. Bdhtlingk in Ber. sachs. Get. d. κ*1 τήν Φιλίαν καταριθμείται, τ>,ν μέν Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 52 (1900), 149-151; Φιλί αν ως συναγωγόν αίτίαν, τό δέ Νεΐ­ yet for a four-fold Hindu classification κος ώς διαλυτικήν; Diog. L. 8, 76: έδόκει δ' αύ-rtT) τάδε· στοιχεία μέν είναι cf. W. Kranz in Pbilol. 93 (1939), 443τέτταρα, πϋρ, ύδωρ, γην, αέρα· φιλίαν 444), and among the Greeks a fifth, ether, was added by Aristotle; cf. [De 0' ή συγκρίνεται καΐ Νεΐκος ω διακρίνε­ Mundo], 2, 392 a 8-9; 3, 392 b 35; Cic. ται; Hippol. Pbilosopbum. 1, 3, 1. For Tusc. 1, 22; 1, 65; Galen, Introd. 9 the possible relation of that doctrine (XIV, 698 K.); also [Plat.] Epinom. to the teaching of Parmcnidcs cf. 1, 28, n. 981 b-c; Plut. De Ε αρ. Delpb. 11; (bellum . .. discordiam . . . cupidifatem), [Clem.] Recogn. 8, 15; Orig. C. Cels. 4, above. 56; De Print. 3, 6, 6; Achill. Isag. 3, deorum opinione: cf. below, opinionem eius; Div. 2, 75: divinationis opinione; p. 31 Maass; Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 3, 34; 2 I'err. 3, 121: coniecturam to tins provin­ Thcodorct, Gr. Aff. 4, 11; 5, 21; Simplic. in Pbys. 8, 1, p. 1164, 14-15 cial; Pro Catdn. 9: iuris dubitatio. But in Diels; Stob. vol. 1, p. 18 Wachs.; 3, 11, below: opinio de dis. labitur: cf. Off. 1, 18: lain . . . trrare, Olympiod. in Meteor. 1, 1, p, 2, 13-21; 1, 1, p. 14, 25-28 Stiive; W. Jaeger, nescire, decipi; 1, 94: fa//i, errare, labi, Aristoteles (1923), 142, who thinks this decipi \ also the use of peecat in 1, 31. was discussed as early as the De Pbilosoquattuor . . . naturae: naturae here = phia. Beyond these in number lie the ούσίαι; or στοιχεία; cf. 1, 19, n. {illae bomoeomeriae of Anaxagoras and the quinqut formae)\ 1, 22, n. {naturae}; Ac. limitless atoms of the atomists. 1, 26; 1, 40; 1, 42. For the four elements of Empcdocles From the single clement postulated (baec pervolgata et nota quattuor, as Cic. by some Ionian philosophers (1, 25-26, Ac. 2, 118, calls them), cf. fr. 6 Diels above; (Galen.l Hist. Philos. 18 (Doxogr. {Vorsokr. no. 21 Β 6, ap. Act. Plac. Gr.* 610 - XIX, 243 K.)), or the two 1, 3, 20 - Doxogr. Gr.* 286-287; Hippol. elements of Xenophancs, Hippo, and Pbilosopbum. 10, 3; Prob. in Eel. 6, 31): Ocnopidcs ([Galen,] I.e. and Alcrnacon τέσσαρα γάρ πάντων ρΊζώματα πρώτον (Isocr. Antid. 268)), to the three of Ion (Isocr. I.e.; Philop. De Gen. et Corr. p. 207, £κουε· / Ζευς αργής "Ηρη τε φερέσβιος ήδ' Άιδωνεύς / Νηστίς 0', ή δα18 Vitclli), Hcraclitus, and Onomacritus ((Galen,] i.e.), we pass to four (earth, κρύοις τέγγει κρούνωμα βρότειον; Isocr. Antid. 268: Εμπεδοκλής δέ τέτταρα, water, air, and fire) in Fmpcdocles; cf. W. Jaeger, Tbeol. of the early Gr. Philo­ καΐ Νεΐκος καΐ Φιλίαν έν αύτοΐς; Aristot. Top. 1, 14, 105 b 16-17; Pbys. 1, 4, sophers (1947), 137-143. W. A. Hcidcl 187 a 27; De Gen. et Corr. 1, 1, 314 a 16; (Am.Journ. Pbilol. 61 (1940), 2) observes 28-29; 2, 3, 330 a 30; b 19-21; De An. that Diog. L. 8, 19, is incorrect in as­ 1, 2, 404 b 11-15; Metapb. 1, 3, 984 a 8-9; cribing four to Xenophancs. The article of R. I-cnoir in Rev. des et. gr. 40 (1927), 1, 4, 985 a 32; 1, 7, 988 a 27-28; Lucr. 1,714-716; Act. Plac. 1, 3, 20 (see above); 17-50 on the doctrine of the four ele­

226

1, 29

quibus omnia constare censet,1 divinas esse vult; quas et nasci ct extingui a perspicuum est et sensu omni s carere. Nee vero 1

cesset Bl

* quas nasci extinguique Η

1, 7, 28 (Doxogr. Gr.* 303—the name of Empedoclcs has dropped out); 1, 13, 1 {Doxogr. Gr* 312); 2, 6, 3 (Doxogr. Gr* 334); 5, 22, 1 (Doxogr. Gr.* 434); Plut. Quomodo Adulat. 22; Strom. 10, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. (Doxogr. Gr* 582); Hcraclit. Quaes/. Horn. 24; Galen, De Subst. Fac. natural. (IV, 762 K.); De Constit. Art. mtd. 7 (I, 248 K.); 8 (I, 253 K.): «<m ίέ ταϋτα γη καΙ Οθωρ και άήρ καΐ πΰρ, άττερ άπαντες ol μη φεύγοντες άπόδειξιν φι­ λόσοφοι στοιχεία των γεννωμένων τε καΙ φΟειρομένων έφασαν είναι; In Hipp. De Nat. Horn. 1, 2 (XV, 32 Κ.); [Galen,] Hist. Phil. 126 (Doxogr. Gr.* 645 = XIX, 337 K.); Diog. Ocnoand. p. 10 W.; Scxt. Emp. Adv. Pbys. 1, 10; Diog. L. 8, 76 (these two quoted on alia peccans, above) ; Justin, Cohort, ad Gr. 4; [Clem.] Recogn. 8, 15; Hippol. Pbilosopbum. 7, 17; Achill. Isag. 3, p. 31 Maass; Clem. Protr. 5, 64, 2; Chalcid. in Tim. 216 (Fr. Pbii. Gr. 2, 226); 280 (2, 241); Lact. Inst. 2, 12, 4: Empedocies . . . quattuor elementa cons titut t, ignem, aerem, aquam, terram, fortasse Trismegistum secuius, qui nostra corpora ex bis quattuor elementis constituta esse dixit a deo [cf. Stob. vol. 3, p. 437 Hcnse]; Eus. Pr. Ev. 7, 12, 1; Serv. Eel. 6, 3 1 ; Alex. Aphrod. in Metapb. 1, 3, p. 27, 11-12 Hayduck; Thcmist. in Aristot. Pbys. 1, p. 13. 23 Schcnkl; Thcodorct, Gr. Aff. 2, 10; Philop. De Gen. etCorr. p. 207,18 Vitclli; Asclep. in Metapb. p. 25, 21 Hayduck; Simplic. in Pbys. 1, 2, p. 25, 20-22; p. 31, 20-21; 1, 8, p. 239, 33-34; ct al. Diels. After Empedoclcs the notion of four elements becomes more or less common property for all philosophers save the atomists, being especially adopted by the Stoics (e.g., 2, 25-27; 2, 66; 3, 30; 3, 34; 3, 65; Fin. 4, 12; S.V.F. 2, nos. 412-438; L. Stein in Berl. Stud. f. cl. Pbilol. 3, 1 (1886), 29, n. 33), and it becomes associated with the theory of four bodily humors (for which cf. Hippocr. De Nat. Horn. 5

* omni om. Ο

(p. 352 Kiihn) al.; Ammon. in Porphyr. I sag. p . 8, 3-4 Busse; in Anal. pr. 1, proem, p. 5, 19 Wallics; Olympiod. in Categ. 7, p. 108, 37-109, 2 Busse; J. van Wageningen in Mnemosyne, 46 (1918), 374-382), etc.; cf. W. Jaeger, Paideia, 3 (Engl. tr. 1944), 16. o m n i a constare: cf. Τ use. 1, 42: borum quattuor generum, ex quibus omnia constare dicuntur. divinas esse: Empedoclcs, in his deification of the four elements (unless, as Schoemann suggests, this be mere poetic personification, such as Lucretius uses), called fire Zeus or Hephaestus and water Nestis. Whether Hera = air and Aidoncus = earth (as Theophrasrus sup­ posed), or, as Crates of Mallus and others interpreted, Aidoneus = air and Hera — earth, was disputed; cf. Hcraclit.£« quaeri L. Laurand, Ciceron, 1" (1935), 127-129. sunt isdem in erratis: cf. 1, 2: in seems interesting but hardly necessary, sum mo errore . . . versari; 1, 37: magno despite the phraseology in Minucius, in errore sententia est; Ac. 2, 34: simili on which he relies. With the thought cf. Philemon, fr. 166 Kock: τί έστιν ό θεός in errore versantur; also for such phrases with in sec 1 , 2 : tanta sunt in varietate et οΰ θέλει σε μχνθάνειν- / ασεβείς τόν ού dissensione; 1, 36: in optatis\ Madvig on Οέλοντχ μχνθάνειν θέλων. Fin. 2, 47; Rcid on Ac. 2, 45; id., on eundemque: cf. the use of idem in 1, 30, where see the note on quod vero. Fin. 2, 47. quibus: for the omission of in cf. solem et animum: cf. note on Xeno­ 3, 25, n. (quo); Tusc. 1, 94: in eadem prophon, above. m o d o . . . turn: cf. 1,33; 1,34; 1,35; pemodum brevitate qua illae bestiolae re2, 102; E. Wolfflin in Arcb.f /at. Lex. 2 periemur, and many other illustrations in R. Kuhncr-C. Stcgmann, Ausf. Gram, (1885), 240. unum . . . plures deos: in Mem. 4, 3, d. lat. Spr. 2, 1» (1912), 581. dicimus: diximus of certain deteriores 13, Xcnophon speaks of ό τόν δλον κόσwould be a trifle more natural, but μον συντχττων τε καΐ συνεχών, just be­ fore which he had spoken of ol. . . άλλοι dicimus—"those about which we are (sc. θεοί). But the shift of number is speaking" — is well attested by the mss and supported by the principle of the easy (cf. 1, 25), since even by a polythcist lectio difficilior. the singular might be used for the su­ 32 Antisthenes: of Athens (Diog. preme god as contrasted with lesser L. 6, 1; Suid. s.v. Αντισθένη:), a fol­ deities, or also at times for deity in the lower of Socrates (Xcn. Mem. 3, 11, 17; abstract, isolated, for purposes of dis­ Symp. 4, 43-44; 8, 4-5; Diop. L. 6, 2), cussion, from the personalities of parti­

238

1,32

eo libro qui Physicus inscribitur, popularis deos multos, naturastood or as a substantive, i.e., "the and the founder of the Cynic school scientist" (cf. the μαθηματικός of Speu(Diog. L. 6, 2: κατηρξε πρώτος τοϋ κυ­ sippus (Diog. L. 4, 5), the νομοθέτης, νισμού) was mentioned by Plato (P. διδάσκαλος, and μαιευτικός of Hcrillus Natorp in P.-W. 1 (1894), 2543, 22(Diog. L. 7, 156), and Pliny the Elder's 2544, 31), and is alluded to by Cicero (A//. 12, 38a, 2), who had read his Studioa tres (Plin. Ep. 3, 5, 5; Gell. 9, 16, 2)) is not clear; for the work itself Cyrus and other works, and calls him bominis acuti (cf. 1, 16, n. (bominem ... cf. Natorp, op. at. 1, 2543, 11-17. Theo­ logy belonged in the province of τό φυ­ aeutum), above) magis quam eruditi. For σικόν; cf. Plut. De Stoic. Repugn. 9, p. his life and work cf. especially Diog. L. 1035b: των δέ φυσικών έσχατος είναι ό 6, 1-19; 6, 15-18 lists his writings. With περί των Θεών λόγος; Scxt. Emp. Adv. the present passage cf. Philodcm. De % Pitt. p. 72 Gompcre (Doxogr. Gr. 538): Logic. 1, 23: τελευταίαν δέ έπάγειν την φυσική ν ΘεωρΙαν θειοτέρα γάρ έστι; αρ* Άντισθένει δ* έν μέν ώ ΦυVictorin. in Cic. Rbet. 1, 2 (Rbet. Lat. σικώ λέγεται τό κατά νόμον είναι πολ­ min. 160 Halm): pbysica est quae de divinis λούς Θεούς, κατά δε φύσιν ε\κα>; Min. Fel. 19, 7: notum est . . . Antisthenen Popu­ agit, ethica quae de bumanis disserit; yet lares deos multos sed naturalem unum\ Lact. cf. opposing views quoted at 1, 20, n. Inst. 1, 5, 18: Antistbenes multos quidim (pbysio/ogiam), above. Among those called esse Populares deos, unum tamen naturalem,φυσικός were Hcraclitus ([Apoll. Tyan.,] id est, summae totius artificem; Epit. 4, 2: Ep. 18 in Epistologr. Gr. 113 Hcrchcr), Parmenides {Isag. bis excerpta 14, p. 318 Antistbenes unum esse dixit naturalem deum, totius summae gubernatorem; De Ira, Maass), Empedocles (Lyd. De Mens. 1, 11, 14: Antistbenes autem in Pbysico unum 34; Schol. Eur. Pboen. 18), and Archclaus esse naturalem deum dixit, quamvis gentet (Stob. vol. 3, p. 429 Wachsmuth); for more general references cf. Varr. L.L. 10, 55; et urbes suos babent Populares deos. Galen in Hippocr. De Nat. Horn. 1, 9 libro qui . . . inecribitur: with this (XV, 44 K.); De Humor. 1, 1 (XVI, phrase introducing the title of a book cf. 1, 41; Dip. 2,1; Ac. 2,12; Tusc. 1, 57; 37 K.>; 3, 17 (XVI, 423 K.); [Justin Mart.] De Resurr. 6: ol τοϋ κόσμου φυ­ Off. 2, 31; 2, %l\Sen. 13; 59. σικοί σοφοί λεγόμενοι Lyd. De Mens. 4,64; physicus: the title is attested by Philode m us, just quoted, but does not 4, 94; Brev. Exp. in Virg. G. 1, 3%; 1, 498; Isid. Etym. 8, 6, 18: theologi autem appear in this form in the list of the ten rolls of his works in Diog. L. 6, 15-18, idem sunt qui et pbysici. Popularis . . . naturalem: see note on though one of the titles in the second Antistbenes, above. Other philosophers, roll is περί ζώων φύσεως, and two in in their distinction between exoteric and the seventh roll are περί φύσεως α' β' and esoteric doctrines, doubtless stressed ερώτημα περί φύσεως β'. this same point; cf. 1, 61, below. Thus Aristotle (according to Simplic. in Aug. CD. 4, 27: relatum est in litteras Pbys. 3, 4, p. 458, 19-20 Diels; cf. 1, 2, p. 40, 30-41,1) limited the use of φυσικός doctisnmum pontificem Scaevolam disputasse tria genera deorum: unum a poetis, alterum to such men as Thales and Hippo (cf. Themist. in Aristot. De An. 1, p. 8, 4-7 a pbilosophis, tertium a principibus avitatis. As befitted his position he considered Heinze), and Cicero uses the term for a the first type nugatorium, and the second philosopher concerned with the first of the three major divisions of philoso­ either superfluous or subversive. Again, in CD. 6, 5, Augustine quotes Varro as phy (φυσικόν, ηθικόν, λογικόν; cf. 1, making a three-fold division of types 20, n. (pbysiologiam); S.V.F. 2, nos. 35-44), e.g., 1, 35; 1, 66; 1, 77; 1, 83; of philosophy: mytbicon appellant quo 2, 48; 3), 18). But whether in this title of maxime utuntur poetae, pbysicon quo pbiloAntisthenes we are to explain φυσικός sopbi, civile quo populi. The first of these Varro condemns, the second he toleas an adjective modifying λόγος under­

1,32

239

l

lem unum esse dicens tollit vim ct naturam deorum. Nee multo sccus Speusippus, Platonem avunculum subsequens, et vim quandam dicens, qua omnia regantur, eamque animalem, evellere ex 1

unum om. Ο

rates, rtmovit /amen hoc genus a foroy id Platonem avunculum subsequens: es/, a populis; scbolis vero et partetibus cf. Ac. 1, 17: cum Speusippumt sororis clatait. On the whole subject cf. Lact. filium, Plato philosophiae quasi beredem Inst. 1, 11, 37: hoc errore decepti etiam re/iquisset; Diog. L. 3, 4; 4, 1; Ammon. philosophic quod ea quae de love feruntur mi­ 17/. Aristot. (Βιογράφοι, p. 400 Wcstcrnime convenire in deum videbantur, duos mann): μετά δέ τήν τοϋ Πλάτωνος τεloves fecerun/t unum na/ura/em, alterurn λευτήν διαδέχεται τήν τούτου σχολήν fabulosum. That the mysteries further Σπεύσιππος ό άδελφιδοϋς αυτού· υΙος emphasized the difference between exo­ γάρ ήν ούτος Ποτώνης της τούτου αδελ­ teric and esoteric teachings may be φής (cf. Ι //. Aristot. in Rose's frag­ seen in 1, 119, below. ments, pp. 429; 435); Numcnius ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 14, 5, 1: Σπεύσιππον tollit vim: i.e., of the anthropo­ τον ΙΙλάτωνος μέν άδελφιδοϋν; Iambi. morphic gods of Epicurus and of the Tbeologum. Aritbm. p. 82, 10 De Falco; people, as Mayor observes. vim ct naturam: cf. Pease on Div. 1, 1 Suid. s.v. Σπεύσιππος Εύρυμέδοντος · άδελφιδους Ιΐλάτωνος του φιλοσόφου (ad deorum vim). άπό ΙΙοτώνης της αύτοϋ αδελφής, ακου­ nee multo eecus: for the phrase cf. Ac. 2, 138; Fin. 5, 38; Tusc. 5, 85; Legg. στής αΰτοΰ Πλάτωνος καΐ διάδοχος γε­ νόμενος της Άκαδημείας επί της ρή 2, 5; Fam. 4, 9. 2; Att. 9, 9, 3; Q. Fr. Ολυμπιάδος; Anth. Pal. 7, 101, speaks of 1. 1,13. his suicide, in spite of his kinship to Speusippus: of Athens, son of PoPlato. Cf. also Hicr. Cbron. ann. Abr. tonc the sister of Plato (Ac. 1, 17; De 1672 (Ol. 108, 4): Plato moritur, post Or. 3, 67; ct al.), pupil of Plato (Alex. Aphrod. in Aietapb. 6, 2, p. 462, 34 quern Academiam Speusippus tenuit [cf. Hayduck), and, as successor of Plato, ann. Abr. 1621; 1678]. subsequens: of a succeeding head of a the head of the Academy for eight years, school; cf. Div. 1, 6; also consequent in beginning in Ol. 108 (348-344 B.C.), as 1, 41, below. Diog. L. 4, 1, states (sec also the next vim quandam dicens: sc. deum; cf. note). In Fin. 5, 2; 5, 7 (cf. 4, 3 ; Suid. Min. Fcl. 19, 7: Speusippum iam \natus.v. Πλάτων) he is mentioned in the succession to Plato as followed by Xeno- ralem] animalem, qua omnia regantur^ deum noise, Stob. voL 1, p. 35 Wachsmuth states: cratcs, Polcmo, and others. A list of his works is given by Diog. L. 4, 4-5; Σπεύσιππος τον νουν ούτε τω ένΐ ούτε τώ άγαΟώ τόν αυτόν, Ιδιοφυή δέ; and of the titles that which most suggests Aristot. Aietapb. 11, 7, 1072 b 30-34 re­ the doctrines here mentioned is his futes the views of the Pythagoreans and ncpl θεών. Speusippus that supreme beauty and Philodcm. De Piet. p. 72 Gomperz goodness are not present at the begin­ (Doxogr. Gr* 538-539) says of Speusip­ ning, but only at a higher stage of devel­ p u s : ψυχάς των καν γα0ών θείας opment. This might perhaps not leave λέω δυνάμεις, πολύ ταδεεστέρας καΐ έλλεΐ7τούσα, which, a place for a supreme and perfect in­ though δυνάμεις and vim quondam may be telligence, creative from the very outset. But to what extent these allusions can be related, does not seem very close to the connected with our passage is not en­ Latin, and suggests that Philodcmus was tirely clear. a good deal more full in his treatment animalem: here = am man tern, but in than Cicero.

240

1,33

animis conatur cognitioncm deorum. 33 Aristotclesquel in tertio de philosophia libro multa turbat a magistro suo a Platonc 1

que del. Η

■ suo deit. Dap., uno ACPNOBF,

post Platonc Μ

2. 91; 2, 136; 3, 34, it = spirabilem, and and from Book 3 (his own views) N.D. 2, 42; 2, 44; 2, 95; and perhaps 2, 51 has reference to the element of air. cvellere ex animi·: cf. Pro Cluent. 4: and Ac. 2, 119; cf. J. Bernays, Die evellam ex animis bominum /an/am opinio- Dialog* des Aristot. (1863), 95-115; W. Jaeger, An stoicUs (1923), 125-170 nem\ De Domo, 34; Pcrs. 5, 92. (who on p. 129 points out that the dia­ cognitioncm deorum: cf. 1, 36: tut tat as perceptasque cognition** deorum; 1, logue stands midway between the Plato44: eorum [sc. deorum] . .. innatas cogni­ nizing works of his youth and his ma· tion** babem us \ 2, 140: ut deorum cognitio-turer treatises, and that it remained for nem . .. capere possint; 2, 153: animus antiquity, particularly for Stoics and accedit ad cognitiontm deorum; also many Epicureans, a main source for Aristotle's Weltanschauung, even though in an tinpatristic cases in Tbes. Ling. Lot. 3 developed rather than a matured form; (1912), 1484, 79-1485, 34. Of the Cice­ ronian instances E. Nordcn (Agnostos cf. p. 140); E. Bignonc, U Aristotele Tbeos (1923), 93-95) believes that in 1, 36 perduto, 2 (1936), 507 and elsewhere. and 1, 44 cognitio surely corresponds to For the later use of our passage cf. Min. έννοια; whether our instance, along Fcl. \9,9:Aristotelesvariatetadsignat/amen with 2, 140 and 2, 153, translates έννοια unam potestatem ; nam interim mentem, mtator γνώσις is uncertain; For γνώσις dum interim deum dicit, interim mundo deum cf. Epic. Ep. 3 (p. 60, 4-5 Usener); Varr. praeficii; Laa. Inst. 1, 5, 22: Ahstoteles Men. p. 210 Biicheler: Pseudulus Apollo quamvis stcum ipse disndeat ac repugnantia sibi et dicat et senttot, in sum mum tamenunam περί θεών διαγνώσεως; [Apoll. Tyan.J Ep. 52 (Epistolog. Gr. 119 Herchcr): mentem mundo praeesse testatur; De Ira, 11, 15: eadem [i.e., as Antisthenes] fere γνώσιν θεών, ού δόξαν. Aristoteles cum suis Peripateticis. 33 Arietotelee: whom Cicero de­ multa turbat: but E. Bignonc (op. scribes (Tusc. 1, 7) as vir summus ing*niot scientia, copia, and (Tusc. 1,22) longe omnibuscit. 2, 361, n. 0) considers that the con­ tradiction is only apparent, since belief (Platonem semper excipio) praestans et inin a God who is pure intelligence docs genio et diligentia. For other summaries not exclude that in the existence of of the views of Aristotle about the gods cf. Act. Plac. 1, 7, 32 (Doxogr. Gr.* 305); minor gods in the form of stars, as Plato and the Academics thought. He [Galen,] Hist. Phil. 36 (Doxogr. Gr* compares Aristot. fr. 49 Rose (quoted 618 = XIX, 251 K.). tertio dc Philosophia: cf, Philodem. in note on mentis below) and [Plat.] Epinom. 984d-c (for apparent genera De Piet. p. 72 Gomperz (Doxogr. Gr.* 539): παρ* Άριστοτέλει δ" έν τω τρίτω and ranks among the gods). Περί φιλοσοφίας [at which point the frag­ magistro euo Platone: three ques­ ment ends]. What follows in Cicero — tions arise here: (1) should we, with fr. 26 Rose. This lost dialogue contained certain deteriores (such as cod. Rehdigethree books (Diog. L. 5, 22), the frag­ ranus, used by Heindorf), read suo rather ments of which arc collected by V. Rose than the uno of ACPNB; (2) should we (1886), nos. 1-26; also by R. Walzcr, omit Platone as a gloss upon magistro', Aristotelis Dialogorum Frag. (1934) pp. and (3) should we insert non before 92-93. These include, from Book 1 dissentiens? But (1) uno gives no satis­ (on early speculations of the Orient factory sense here (cf. Muretus, Variae and of Greece) N.D. 1, 107; from Lectiones, 2 (1791), 202), while suo as Book 2 (on early Greek philosophy, applied to one's teacher or philosophic including Plato) perhaps Tusc. 3, 69; model is appropriate and idiomatic;

1, 33

241

dissentiens; modo cnim mcnti tribuit omnem divinitatem, modo mundum ipsum deum dicit esse,1 modo alium quendam praeficit2 1

esse dixit Ο

* proncit Bx

cf. 1, 9 3 : Nausipbanem magistrum suum; Tusc. 1, 7 9 : Panattio a Plat one sua dissentitntt. (2) The omission of Ρ latent (by Diels, Doxogr. Gr.% 5 3 9 ; A. J. Fcstugicrc, La Revel. d'Hermis Trism. 2 (1949), 243. n. 1, and Mayor) is unnecessary in view o f certain passages cited by Plasberg: Ac. 2, 143: Cleantbe doctore sue; De Fa/o, 1 4 : Cbrysippo placet dissentten ti a magistro Cleant he \ Tusc. 1, 4 1 : magistro concedat Aristoteli; 1, 79 (quoted a b o v e ) ; Orat. 1 5 1 : magister eius Isocrates\ Ε us. Pr. Ev. 14, 9, 3 : εναντία Φίλωνι τω καθηγητή έφρόνησε. (3) T o insert non w i t h the participle, as P. Manutius conjectured and as was done by Lambinus and many subsequent editors (e.g., Da vies, Hcindorf, Orclli, Baiter, Schocmann, Diels, Mayor, Rose (in the fragments o f Aris­ totle), and Mullcr) appears hazardous, if o n e recalls that the views of the D* Philosopbia, even as here set forth, d o repre­ sent a movement by Aristotle away from strict conformity to Platonic doctrines. T o be sure, Cicero in Ac. 1,17, speaks of Academics and Peripatetics qui rebus congruentes nominibus differebant\ cf. Fin. 4, 5: Peripateticis Academicisque, qui re consentientes vocabulis dijferebant; Legg- 1, 3 8 ; yet Plut. Adv. Colot. 14, p . 1115a-c, attacks Colotes for sug­ g e s t i n g any such identity o f views. Further, in the present passage w e have

not merely to consider Cicero's own v i e w s as elsewhere expressed, but also w h e t h e r his Epicurean source probably a g r e e d with those expressions. Like m a n y modern scholars, then, such as Plasberg and Ax, W. Jaeger (Aristoteles ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 142, n. 2), and E. B i g n o n e (in Ann. d. r. Schola norm. sup. di Pisa, Lett., Stor. c Philos. 2 ser. 2 (1933), 2 8 2 - 2 8 3 ; id., L'Aristotele perduto, 2 (1936), 350, n. 1), 1 should decline t o insert non. m o d o . . . t u r n : cf. 1, 3 1 , n. (modo . . . turn). m e n t t : cf. Aristot. Metaph. 11, 7, 1 0 7 2 b 26-29: ή y i p νοϋ ενέργεια ζωή,

εκείνος [i.c.,o θεός] δέ ή ενέργεια . . . φαμέν δέ τόν Οεόν εΐναι ζώον άΐδιον ά>ιστον; 11, 9, 1074 b 33-35: αυτόν άρα νοεί, είπερ εστί τό κράτιστον, καΐ Ιστιν ή νόησις νοήσεως νόησις [cf. Hippol. Pbilosopbum. 7, 7 ] ; Eth. Eudem. 7, 14, 1248 a 24-27: τό δέ ζητούμενον τοΰτ* εστί, τίς ή της κινήσεως αρχή έν τη ψυ­ χή, δήλον δή, ώσπερ έν τω 6λω θεός, καΐ παν έκείνω. κινεί γάρ πως πάντα τό έν ήμϊν Οεϊον, κτλ.; and, more precisely, fr. 49 Rose (ap. Simplic. in 2 De Caelo, p. 218, 20 Karstcn): ότι γάρ εννοεί τι καΐ υπέρ τόν νουν και τήν οΰσίαν ό 'Αριστο­ τέλης, δηλός έστι προς τοις πέρασι του περί ευχής βιβλίου σαφώς εΙπών ότι 6 θεός ή νους εστίν ή έπέκεινά τι τοϋ νου [cf. Α. Kail in Diss, philol. Vindob. 11 (1913), 88); Cic. Consol. ap. Tusc. 1, 6 6 : nee vero dens qui intellegitur a nobis alio modo intellegi potest nisi mens soluta quaedam et libera, segregata ab omni concretion* morta/i, omnia sentiens et movens ipsaque praedita motn sempiterno; Μ in. Fcl. 19, 9 (quoted on tertio de Philosophia, a b o v e ) ; Clem. Protr. 5, 66, 4 : και 6 γε της αίρέσεως πατήρ [i.e., Aristotle] των όλων ού νοήσας τόν πατέρα, τόν καλούμενον ΰπατον ψυχήν είναι τοϋ παντός οίεται· τουτέστι τοΰ κόσμου τήν ψυχήν θεόν ύπολαμβάνων αυτός αύτώ περιπείρεται. W. Thcilcr, Zur Gesch. d. feleol. Naturbetracbtung bis auf Aristot. (1925), 83,

compares with this allusion to mens that in Plat. Legg. 12, 966c. tribuit . . . d i v i n i t a t e m : for the phrase cf. 1, 3 4 ; 1, 37; 2, 39. m u n d u m i p s u m d e u m : cf. Aristot. De Caelo, 2, 1, 284 a 2-8: καλώς «χει συμπείΟειν εαυτόν τους αρχαίους καΐ μά­ λιστα πατρίους ημών αληθείς είναι λό­ γους, ώς έστιν άΟάνατόν τι καΐ θείον των εχόντων μεν κίνησιν, εχόντων δέ τοιαύτην ώστε μηθέν είναι πέρας αΰτης, άλ­ λα μάλλον ταύτην τών άλλων πέρας· τό τε γάρ πέρας τών περιεχόντων εστί, καΐ αύτη ή κυκλος>ορία τέλειος ούσα περιέ­ χει τάς ατελείς καΐ τάς έχουσας πέρας ι6

242

1, 33

mundo eique eas partis tribuit ut replicatione quadam mundi motum regat atque tucatur, turn caeli ardorcm dcum dicit esse, non xal παϋλαν; 2. 3, 286 a 9-12: θεοϋ 8s ενέργεια αθανασία* τοΰτο δ' εστί ζωή άΐδιος. ώστ' ανάγκη τψ θείω κίνησιν atδιον ύπαρχειν. έπεί 8* ό ουρανός τοιού­ τος (σώμα γάρ τι θεΐον), 8ιά τοΰτο Ιχει τό έγκύκλιον σώμα, 6 φύσει κινείται κύ­ κλω άεί; Mttapb. 11. 8, 1 0 7 4 a 3 8 - b 3 : παρα8έ8οται δέ παρά τών αρχαίων καΐ παμπαλαίων έν μύθου σχήματι καταλελειμμένα τοις ύστερον Οτι θεοί τέ είσιν ούτοι [i.e., the heavenly bodies] καΐ πε­ ριέχει τό θεΐον την δλην φύσιν; Aet. Plac. 5, 20, 1 (Doxogr. Gr* 432): Πλά­ των καΐ 'Αριστοτέλης . . . τα άστρα ζώα λέγεσθαι f τ ο ν κόσμον καΐ τόν f ένθεον, ζώον λογικόν άθάνατον [where Diels emends: τόν κόσμον καύτόν ένθεον]; Clem. Protr. 5,66, 4: τόν κόσμον θεόν ηγούμενος περιτρέπεται, τόν άμοιρον τοϋ θεοϋ θεόν δογματίζων. So [Plat.] Epinom. 977a-b identifies God with the ουρανός. alium . . . praeficit m u n d o : prob­ ably not the ether or fifth element, since that seems to be the caeli ardor of the next clause; possibly, as J. Degenhart (Krit.-exeg. Bemerk. ζ. Cicero's Schr. de Nat. Deor. (1881), 57) and Mayor would hold, the same as the mens just mentioned, viewed as the First Mover; cf. Aristot. Pbys. 8, 5, 256 b 24-27; Mttapb. 11, 7, 1072 b 1-4; also see H. Bonitz, Index Aristottlicus, 390b, s.v. τό πρώτον κινοϋν άκίνητον; Aet. Plot. 1, 7, 32 (Doxogr. Gr.% 305): 'Αριστοτέλης τόν μέν άνωτάτω θεόν είδος , ομοίως Πλάτωνι, έπιβεβηκότα τη σφαίρα τοΰ παντός, ήτις εστίν αίθέριον σώμα, τό πέμπτον ύπ* αύτοϋ καλούμενον. replicatione quadam: quadam, as fre­ quently, apologizes for a word used in an unfamiliar sense, and replicatione here renders άνείλιζις, used by Plat. Polit. 270d; 286b, of the counter-rotation of the κόσμος. For Aristotle cf. Mttapb. 11, 8, 1074 a 2: καθ* Ικαστον τών πλανωμένων ετέρας σφαίρας μι$ έλάττονας είναι τάς άνελιττούσας καΐ είς τό αυτό άποκοθιστάσας τη θέσει τήν πρώτην σφαϊραν άεί. That Cicero had here any

very clear sense of the meaning of this word and of its applicability in the pre­ sent passage seems somewhat doubtful; probably he had found the Greek term in his Epicurean source. That the motion of the cosmos should depend upon this subordinate movement of a part is thought by Mayor absurd; yet cf. J. Degenhart, op. cit. 58; H. von Arnim, Die Entstebung d. Gotteslebre des AhstottIts (1931), 4-7; W. K. C. Guthrie in CI. Quart. 27 (1933), 164-165; II. Bignonc in Ann. d. r. scuola norm. sup. di Pisa% Lett. Stor. e Filos. 2 Scr. 2 (1933), 296; id., VAristotelt perdutot 2 (1936). 378380. See also A. J. Fcstugicrc, La Reve­ lation d'Htrmts Trism. 2 (1949), 245. regat atque tueatur: cf. Sen. 8 1 : pulcbritudintm tutntur et regunt; Legg. 2, 9: tuentis et regentis dei. caeli ardorem: cf. 1, 36, n. {aetbera); 1, 37: Cleantbes . .. undique circumfusum et extremum omnia cingentem atque complexum ardorem qui aether nominetur cer~ tissimum deum iudicat; 2, 41: astra quae oriantur in ardore caelesti qui aether vel caelum nominatur; 2, 64; 2, 91; 2, 92; Ac. 2, 26 and Tusc. 1, 65 [on Aristotle's quinturn genus]. For Aristotle's own view cf. De Caelo, 1, 2, 269 a 30-32: φανερόν ότι πέφυκέ τις ουσία σώματος άλλη παρά τάς ενταύθα συστάσεις, θειοτέρα καΐ πρότερα τούτων απάντων; 1, 3, 270 b 22-25: αίθέρα προσωνόμασαν τόν άνω­ τάτω τόπον, άπό τοΰ θεϊν άεί τόν άΐδιον χρόνον θέμενοί τήν έπωνυμίαν αύτω. 'Αναξαγόρας δέ κατακέχρηται τ φ ονό­ ματι τούτω ού καλώς· ονομάζει γάρ αί­ θέρα αντί πυρός [this view is not infre­ quently found; e.g., Schol. Arat. p. 512 Maass: ό αίθήρ σφόδρα εστί διάπυρος. Οθεν καΐ ώνόμασται παρά τό αΙΟω; Serv. Aen. 4, 201: aether ignis est; Steph. Byz. s.v. αίθήρ* ό υπέρ τόν αέρα πεπυρ ω μέ­ νος τόπος]. In Alex. Aphrod. in Meteor. 1, 3, p. 24-25 Hayduck ether is so called άπό τοϋ αίθειν τε καΐ καίειν, ώς πϋρ αν τόν ουρανό v. Aristotle does not say that the ether is itself God (as Euripides, fr. 941 Nauck, translated in 2, 65, below.

1,33

243

intcllegcns caelum mundi esse partem, quern alio loco ipse designarit* deum. Quo modo autem caeli divinus ille sensus 2 in celeritate tanta conservari potest? Ubi deinde 3 ill! 4 tot 5 dii, si numeramus etiam caelum deum? Cum autem sine corpore idem vult esse deum, omni ilium sensu privat, etiam prudentia. Quo porro 1 designaret Ο * deinde] demum Ο

■ sensus ecleritate conscruari potest ubi * illi om. Ν * tot om. Ρ

deinde

add.

Ν

maintained), but merely that it is divine; mentioned, who arc reducible to the cf. W. Jaeger, Aristotelts (1923), 141, mover and the moved, but the Olym­ who further observes that mundus does pians and other gods of popular belief, not here mean the all-embracing cosmos, localized in the heavens, who would as the Epicurean thinks, but the periphery by the reasoning here refuted become of the heavens, as the Academy had used gods within gods. G. F. Schoemann the term and as it appears in the Epino(Opusc. 3 (1858), 311; also in his edition) mis (but cf. J. Moreau, L'dme du monde would, less plausibly, explain /'///' . . . dii (1939), 117, n. 2). The first publication as the astra within the mundus (cf. J. of Aristotle's fifth element (cf. 1, 29, n. Dcgcnhart, op. cit., 59; also Lact. Inst. (quattuor . .. naturas), above) is probably 2, 5, 39-40, quoted on caelum mundi . . . to be assigned to the De Philosophia partem, above). (Jaeger, op. cit. 141, n. 1). Justin Martyr numeramus: cf. 3, 40; 3, 43; Pro (Cohort, ad Gr. 5; 36) ascribes to Aristotle After. 49; Alt. 7, 1, 3 ; also N.D. 1, 29; the view that God exists, not in fire, but 3, 45: in deorum numero. in the fifth clement; cf. 2, 42, below. cum . . . vult: on αίΟέρι. λόγον τινά . . . διήκοντα; cf. 2, 24: vim Cf. also Eustath. in //. 1, 569. In general . .. per omnem mundum pertinentem; 2, 71: cf. O. Gruppe, Gr. Myth. u. Rel. 2 deus pertinens per naturam cuiusque rei; (1906), 1114, n. 3 ; A. B. Cook, Zeus, 1 Ac. 2, 119; Philodcm. De Piet. p. 74 (1914), 29, and n. 4. Gomperz (Doxogr. Gr.* 542): δεΐ τήν

1,36

253

adfectam l putat. Idem astris hoc idem tribuit, turn annis, mensi1

esse ac perfectam Ο

ύναμιν, ούσαν συνατικήν ο(κεAn. 2, p. 35, 32-33 Hcinzc: τοις άπό ως των μερώ πρόλληλα καΐ έκ—; Ζήνωνος σύμφωνος ή δόξα, δια πάσης ου­ Hcraclit. ap. Act. Plac. 1, 28, 1 (Doxogr. σίας πεφοιτηκέναι τόν θεόν τιΟεμένοις; % Gr. 323): 'Ηράκλειτος ούσίαν είμαρLact. Inst. 4, 9, 2: Zenon rerum naturae μένης άπεφαίνετο λόγον τόν δι* ουσίας dispositorem atque opificem universitaiis του παντός διήκοντα; Virg. G. 4, 221λόγον praedicat; Firm. Mat. Malb. 1, 5, 222: deum namque ire per omnis ( terrasque 10: mens enim ilia divina animusque caelestis irattusque maris caelumque profundum; A en. per omne mundi corpus in modum circuit 6, 724-727; prinnpio caelum ac terram collocatm; Hpiphan. Adv. Hacres. 3, 36 camposque liquentis / lucentemque globum (Doxogr. Gr.* 592) :Ζήνων . . . ίλεγε lunae Titaniaque a sira j spiritus intus alif, δέ πάντα διήκειν τό Οεΐον; L. Stein in totamque in/usa per artus / mens agitat BerL Stud. f. cl. Pbilol. u. Arch. 3, 1 molem et magno se cor pore misee t [cf. Lact. (1886), 35, n. 0; Li. V. Arnold, Rom. De Ira, 11, 5); Sen. Dial. 12, 8, 3: id Stoicism (1911), 71; 219, n. 9; also below, actum est . . . ab illo quisquis Jormator 1, 37, n. (ipsum mundum deum); and John, unit erst fuit, she ille deus est potens omnium\ 1, 1: καί ό λόγος ήν προς τόν θεόν, καί sive incorporalis ratio ingentium operum θεός ήν 6 λόγος. arti/ex, sive divinus spiritus per omnia omnium naturam rerum: certain maxima et minima aequali intentione dif- deteriores and some editors read omnem. fusus; N.Q. 2, 9, 4; Act. Plac. 1, 7, 33 Both expressions occur elsewhere in {Doxogr. Gr.% 306, of the Stoics): xal Cicero, e.g., with omnium-. 2, 36; Ac. πνεϋμα μέν ένδιήκον δι' όλου τοΰ κόσ­ 2, 114; Fin. 1,61; 2, 16; De Or. 2,317; μου; Μ. Aurel. 5, 32: τον δι' βλης της with the adjective modifying natura (in ουσίας διήκοντα λόγον; Μ. Aurel. 8, 54; various orders): 1, 27; 3, 35; Legg. 3, 3. Diog. L. 7, 134 [Zcno's views]: τό μέν For the difference in meaning of the two ούν πάσχον είναι τήν άποιον ούσίαν τήν expressions, one signifying the mundus, ΰλην, τό δέ ποιούν τόν έν αύτη λόγον τόν the other referring to all its parts, cf. βεόν; 7, 138 [Chrysippus and PosidoJ. Bake on Legg. 1, 61, p. 451 (1843); G. nius]: είς άπαν αύτοΟ [sc. τοΰ κόσμου] F. Schocmann, Opusc. acad. 3 (1858), 361. μέρος διήκοντος του νοϋ, καθίπερ έφ' vi divina . . . adfectam: though vi ημών της ψυχής; 7, 140; Athcnag. Leg. is poorly attested (Λ/"(?) and deft.), it pro Christ. 6 (Pair. Gr. 6, 904a): ot δέ seems necessary here. For the phrase από της Στοάς, καν ταϊς προσηγορίαις vis divina cf. 1, 35; 1, 39; 1, 40; 2, 14; 2, κατά τάς παραλλάξεις της ύλης, δί ης 55; and often in Cicero's other works. φασί τό ττνεϋμ* χωρεϊν τοϋ θεού; Tcrt. With this use of adfectam cf, 1, 38: Apol. 21 [after the views of Zcno]: deorum honore adf\cere\ 2, 41: sensuque haec Cleantbes in spiritum congerit, quern adftcit; and other examples in Thes. Ling. permeatorem universitaiis adfirmat; Μ in. Lat. 1 (1900), 1209-1211, which seem to Fcl. 19, 10: interdumque rationem vult dispel the doubts expressed by G. F. omnium esse principium; Hippol. PhilosoSchocmann, op. cit.t 3, 313, of the pbum. 1, 21, 1 [of Chrysippus and Zeno]: propriety of this phrase when used for δια πάντων δέ διήκειν τήν πρόνοι«ν αυτού a natural attribute. (sc. τοϋ θεού]; Clem. Protr. 5, 66, 3: idem astris hoc idem: an awkward ουδέ μην τους άπό της Στοάς τταρελεύrepetition, especially when the same σομαι δια πάσης ύλης, καί δια της ατι­ form is used for both subject and object μότατης, τό θείον διήκειν λέγοντας [cf. of the verb; cf. Pease on Div. 1, 3 {videTatian, Ad Gr. 3]; Scxt. Emp. Pyrrbon. retur); and the excellent treatment by 3, 218: Στωικοί δέ πνεΰμα διήκον καί δια A. B. Cook {Cl. Rev. 16 (1902), 155-156) τών είδεχΟων; Thcmist. in Aristot. De of such repetitions in Cicero.

254

1,36

bus, annorumque mutationibus. Cum vero Hesiodi Theogoniam,1 id est, originem dcorum, interpretatur, tollit omnino usitatas 1

theogeniam Β Μ

δέ ό μήν θεός έστι, καΙ ό ένιαυτός αν είη aitrie: cf. 2, 15; 2, 39-44; Arius Didyθεός. σύστημα γάρ έστιν έκ μηνών ό ένι­ mus ap. Stob. vol. 1, p. 213 Wachsmuth αυτός· ούχΙ δέ γε τούτο· τοίνυν ουδέ ( = S.V.F. 1, no. 120): Ζήνων τόν ήλιόν τό έξ αρχής, σύν τω άτοπον είναι, φασί, φησι χαΐ τήν σελήνην καΐ των άλλων ί σ ­ τήν μλν ήμέραν θεόν είναι λέγειν, τήν δέ τρων έκαστον clvai νοερόν καΙ φρόνιΙω καΙ τήν μεσημβρίαν καΙ τήν δείλην μον; for this view in other Stoics: 1, 37: μηκέτι. Material of this sort for the Cieanibts . .. divinitatem ornnem tribuit astris; 1, 39: Chrysippus ... so/em /imam Hellenistic period is collected by R. ridera [sc. deum did/ esse); Act. Plac. 1,6,11 Reitzenstein, Poimandrts (1904), 257-291. {Doxogr. Gr> 296 = 5\K.F. 2, no. Cf. also Gaiat. 4, 10: ημέρας παρατηρεΐσθε καΙ μήνας καΙ καιρούς και ένιαυ1009): βλέποντες δέ τους αστέρας del τούς [on which see Wctstein's note]; θέοντας αΙτίους Te τοΰ Οεωρεϊν ημάς ήλιον καΐ σελήνην θεούς προσηγόρευσαν; Simplic. CorolL de Tempore, p. 785, 8-9 DicLs: δήλον Οτι ούτος άν είη ό χρόνος 1, 7, 33 {Doxogr. Ο . "306): Στωικοί . . . ό ώς θ€Ος ύπό τε Χαλδαίων καΙ της άλλης θεούς δέ καΙ τόν κόσμον καΙ τους αστέ­ ίερας άγιστεΐας τιμηθείς; ρ. 795, 6; ρας καΐ τήν γήν (cf. [Galen,] Hist. Phil. 35 {Doxogr. Gr* 618 = XIX, 252 Κ.)); 795, 19 (time deified by Proclus); Orig. C. Cels. 5, 7: έπεί το όλον ό κόσ­ W. Drexlcr in W. H. Roschcr, Ausf. μος θεός έστιν ήδη καΐ τά μέρη αύτοϋ Lexikon, 1, 2 (1890), 2742-2743 (on θεια [these μέρη he has just mentioned Horogeneis Tbeoi); F. Boll in P.-W. 7 as the sun, moon, and stars); Achill. (1912), 2571, and works there cited; Isag. 10, p. 39 Maass: αστήρ έστι κατά E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindts (1924), Διόδωρον σώμα θείον ούράνιον [cf. 11, ρ. 31; and, in addition, Lydus, De Mens. 40];Lact. Inst. 2, 5, 38: cum cat leiits ignes 3, 20: δτι δέ τόν ένιαυτόν ώς θεόν άτίμησαν δήλον έξ αυτής της Λυδών βασι­ ceteraque mundi e/emen/a deos esse adfirment. λίδος πόλεως, κτλ. In Philodem. De annis, meneibui, annorumque mu­ tationibus: unnecessary are the conjec­ Pitt. p. 74 Gompcrz {Doxogr. Gr* 542) Dicls would detect a likeness to this tures by which Plasbcrg would read annus sque and R. Rcitzcnstein (in a subject and would read: τήν δ' άναν ήου καΙ κύ ή περίοδ. 1, 52: mutationem temporum \ 2, 49: but von Arnim {S.V.F. 1, no. 168) temporum mutationibus) proposes tempoexplains the passage very differently, rumque. On such deification cf. Plat. with reference to allegoric interpreta­ Legg. 10, 899 b : άστρων δέ δή πέρι πάν­ tions (see the following note). E. Zellcr των καΐ σελήνης ένιαυτών τε καΐ μηνών {Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (Engl, tr.» καΐ πασών ωρών πέρι τίνα Αλλον λόγον 1870), 125-126) sees in this deification έροϋμεν ή τόν αυτόν τοΰτον, ώς επειδή of times and seasons a form of the Stoic ψυχή μέν ή ψυχαΐ πάντων τούτων α(τιαι materialization of concepts usually con­ έφάνησαν, άγαθαΐ δέ πασαν άρετην, θε­ sidered as abstract; cf. Plut. De comm. ούς αύτάς είναι φήσομεν, είτε έν σώμαNotit. 45, p. 1084d [the view of Chryσιν ένοϋσαι, ζώα όντα, κοσμοΰσι πάντα sippus]: ούχ ή μέν νύξ σώμ* έσ-rlv, ή δ* ούρανόν είτε όπη τε και όπως; Sext. εσπέρα καΙ ό Ορθρος καΙ τό μέσον τής Emp. Adv. Phys. 1, 184 [a reductio ad ab- νυκτός σώματ' ούκ Ιστιν ούδ* ή μέν surdum by Carneadcs]: el ό ήλιος θεός ήμερα σώμ' εστίν ουχί δέ καΙ ή νουμηνία σώμα καΙ ή δεκάτη καΙ πεντεχαιδεκάτη έστιν καΙ ή ήμερα αν είη θεός* ού γαρ καΙ ή τριαχάς καΙ ό μήν σώμ' εστί καΙ τό άλλο τι ήν ή ήμερα ή ήλιος υπέρ γης. εΐ θέρος χαΐ τό φθινόπωρον καΙ ό ένιαυτό;. δ' ή ήμερα εστί θεός, καΙ ό μήν Ισται Theogoniam .. . interpretatur: θεός· σύστημα γάρ έστιν έξ ήμερων, εΐ

1,36

255

perceptasque cognitiones deorum; neque enim Iovem nequc Iunonem neque Vestam neque quemquam qui ita appelletur l 1

apclletur 02?, appellatur Η

the morally-minded were scandalized by whether Zcno wrote a commentary specifically upon the Tbeogony has some­ such myths]; 2, 63-70, concluding: vidttimes been doubted (e.g., by A. B. tisne igitur ut a pbysicis rebus bent atque Κ rise he, Forsch. auf d. Gebiete d. alt en utiliter inventis tracta ratio sit ad commenPbilos. (1840), 367; G. F. Schoemann, ticios etfictos deos; Hcraclit. Qttaest. Homer. Opusc. acad. 2 (1857), 529), yet that the 1: πάντα γάρ ήσέβησεν εί μηδέν ήλληexunt scholia to the Tbeogony show a γόρησεν [sc. ό "Ομηρος], This use of allegory is by no means original with very definite Stoic influence is indis­ putable (cf. the abundant material col­ Zcno, for it already appears in the time lected by H. Flach, Glossen u. Scbolien ξ. of Plato (Rep. 2, 377c-378c; Phaedr. besiodiseben TbeogpnJe (1876), 29-96), and229c-d), and was later employed to reconcile the traditions of the Old Zcno is mentioned in them by name at Testament with Platonism (as by Philo) lines 117, 134, and 139, as is Chrysippus or with Christian ethics; cf. Orig. C. Cels. on lines 135 and 459. Von Arnim (SA'.F. 1 (1905), 71) would derive 1, 17, 18; 4, 48-52 (in 48 Celsus charges: these and similar passages from a work ϊίσχυνομένους έπί τούτοις καταφεύγειν entitled υύκ ευξεσΟαι τοις θεο· δωρεάν γάρ 1ηβέν διειλτα περί αυτών έαυτον. In this passage W. Nestle (Pbiiohgus, 67 (1908), 556-558) ukcs πρώτον with the infinitives before it, rather than, as usually explained, with γεγραμμένα, and renders: "It is clear that Pcrsacus did away with the gods when he said in his book On the Gods that not unworthy of credence is the belief expressed by Prodicus that foods and beneficial objects were at first con­ sidered and worshipped as gods (cf. the mctonymic use of names of deities, as in 1. 40; 2, 60; 2, 62, below], but after that those, such as Dcmcter and Diony­ sus, who discovered foods or shelter or the other arts." Cf. Min. Fcl. 21, 2: Prodicus adsumptos in deos loquitur qui trrando (Nestle, op. cit., 558, suggests Dcmetcr, Dionysus, and Heracles] inveniis novis /rug/bus utililati hominum profutrunt. in tandem stntentiam et Persaeus pbi/osophatur et adnectit inventas fruges et frugum ipsarum reper tores isdem nominibus\ ut comicus sermo est, I enerem sine Libero et Cerere frigere (cf. 2, 60, below]. Pro­ dicus, then, would have recognized two stages of religious observance: (1) a fetichistic honor of τά τρέφοντα καΐ ώφελοΰντχ, and (2) the honoring of their inventors and discoverers as divine persons—a stage to which the cult of heroes may have contributed. In 1, 118, below, Cicero ascribes to Prodicus men­ tion of only the former of these stages, but Philodcmus, if more carefully stud­ ied, would credit him with a knowledge

261

of both, so that he would become, not the first author to seek the origin of religion (as did Xcnophanes and others) but the first to observe its evolutionary development. It must be admitted, how­ ever, that the related passages (Scxt. Emp. Adv. Phys. 1, 18; 1, 52; Themist. Or. 30, p. 349a-b JIardouin) collected in Vorsokrat. 2, no. 77 B, 5 do not carry Prodicus beyond the recognition of the first stage; in that event Pcrsacus would seem to be the first to recognize such a religious evolution. The doctrines upheld by Prodicus and Pcrsacus resemble those of the older contemporary of the latter, Euhcmcrus of Mcsscnc, whose Ιερά αναγραφή was written perhaps about 280 B.C:. (F. Jacoby in P.-W. 6 (1909), 953), for which sec 1, 119, n. (Buhemero). Euhemerus held that the gods were deifications of great rulers or political leaders—a view not inappropriate for acceptance by a Stoic like Pcrsacus, who is known to have been a courtier at the capital of Antigonus Gonatas (Hirzcl, op. n't. 2, 76; Dcichgrabcr, op. rit., 19, 927). Such deities may at later times be known by the title of Σωτήρ; for some in the making cf. Virg. Eel. 1, 6-10; Plut. Dion, 46, 1; see also I,act. Inst. 1, 8, 8. The private desire to honor and prolong after death the existence and influence of those held dear, and the communal desire similarly to honor past rulers and benefactors seem to have led to the ascription of immortality, or even, in more meritorious cases, to deification, and reasoning in the reverse order not unnaturally suggested that the cultus of all the gods might have originated in this fashion. The views of Pcrsacus seem not to have been shared by Zeno and Clcanthcs—hence, perhaps, the use of the conjunction at in introducing this section—, but were, to some extent, at least, adopted by Chrysippus (1, 39: eos qui inmortalitatem essent consecuti\ R. Hirzcl, op. cit. 2, 74). Their influence is also to be 5ccn in 2, 60-62; 3, 41; Rep. 6, 26; Ugg. 2,19; 2, 22; 2, 27; Tusc. 1, 28. Mayor compares Cicero's desire to erect a shrine to Tullia after her death (At/. 12, 36, 1); cf. P. Boyancc in Rev. des et. anc. 41 (1939), 93. Lact. Inst. 1, 15. 16,

262

1, 38

auditor, eos esse 1 habitus* deos a 8 quibus aliqua* magna utilitas 1

cm.

eos dicit esse N, dicunt esse Ο ACPN

1

habitatos Β1

· a]e D

* aliqua

ΑΙγύπτιοι . . . θεούς ένόμιζον μέγιστους asserts that Gcero in his Consolatio said deos qui publice colerentur homines fuisse.τους τά προς τήν βιωτικήν χρείαν εύρόντες ή καΐ κατά τι εύ ποιήσαντας τά eos case habitoa deos: with the έθνη, κτλ.; Alex. Rhct. {Rhet. Gr. 3, 6 omission of the main verb of saying Spcngel); Max. Tyr. 2, 1, p. 18 Hobctn; (supplied by Ν and by some editors) cf. 1, 17: turn ego; 1, 28: Parmenides ... Aristcas, Ep. 135-137; Ten. Apol. 1 1 : qtdddam; 1, 85: sapienter id qrndern [and invenisse dicuntur [dei] necessaria ista pitoe, many parallels to this in Ax's appendix, non injtituisse .. . si propterea Liber deus p. 175]; 3, 89: ei qut'dam amicus; Div. 2, 83, quod vitem demonstravit, male cum Lucullo where the names Aemilia and Catcilia actum estt qui primus cerasia ex Ponto introduce indirect discourse; Am. 13: Italiae promulgavit; Arnob. 1, 38; 5, 30: qui ... idem semper; Brut. 2, 5, 4: /'//* me fateor ... mirari audere vos dicere quemquam ex eis atbeum .. . qui deos .. . dies silentio; Att. 15, 13, 1. a quibus . . . utilitas: a thought fre­ homines fuisse contendant et potestatis alicutuc quently found; e.g., 2, 62 (where see n. et merits causa deorum in numerum relates; on beneficiis excellents viros); Aesch. P. V.t Lact. De Ira, 11, 7; [Clem.] Recognit. 4, where, after a recital of the benefits 30; Macrob. Sornn. Scip. 1, 9, 6; 1, 9, 10; Eus. Pr. Ev. 2, 2, 53: έτερους *έ λέconferred by Prometheus upon mankind γουσιν επίγειους γενέσθαι θεούς, δια (445-468; 476-506), concluding πάσαι δέ τας ε(ς ανθρώπους ευεργεσίας αθα­ τέχναι βροτοϊσιν έκ ΙΙρομηθέως, he is νάτου τετευχότας τιμής τε και δόξης, called by Ιο (613) the κοινόν ωφέλημα οίον Ήρακλέα, Διόνυσον, Άρισταΐον, θνητοΐσιν; Polyb. 34, 2, 8: ούτω δέ καΐ καΐ τους άλλους; 2, 5, 5; 7, 2, 2; Theoτων θεών ένα έκαστον των χρησίμων doret, Gr. Aff. 2, 97: θεούς ύπετοπασαν τινός εύρετήν γενόμενον τιμασθαι; often . . . ανθρώπων τους εύ τι πεποιηκότας; in Diodorus, e.g., 1, 13, 1; 1, 90, 3 ; 3, 9,1-2; 3, 56, 5; 3, 63, 4; 4 , 1 , 4; 4 , 1 , 7; 3, 24: χρόνω δέ ύστερον τους εύ τι δεδρακότας ή έν πολέμοις άνδραγαθισα4 , 3 , 5; 4 , 3 0 , 3 ; 4, 81, 3 ; 5, 21, 2; 5,64, 2; μένους ή γεωργίας τινός άρξαντας ή 5, 64, 6; 5, 66, 3 ; 5, 67, 5; 5, 71, 5; Ait. Plac. 1, 6, 2 (Doxogr. Gr* 296): τους σώμασί τισι θεραπείαν προσενηνοχότας θεούς διεΐλον [sc. ot Στωικοί] είς τε τό έθεοποίησάν τε καΐ νεώς τούτοις έδείμαντο; Isid. Etjm. 5, 30, 11; cf. the βλάπτον καΐ τό ώφελοϋν- καΐ τους μέν works on such deification cited by P. ώφελοϋντας Δία "Ηραν Έρμήν Δήμητραν; Hor. C. 3, 3, 9-18; Ερ. 2, 1,5-6: Romulus Boyance, Etudes sur le songe de Scipion et Liber pater et cum Castore Pollux, / post (1936), 144, n. 2; also the fundamental Stoic notion of the beneficence of the ingentia facta deorum in templa recepti; Aristcas, Ep. p. 154 Hadas; Plut. De Is. gods (2, 58; 2, 76-78, below; and Ampater's view (Plut. De Stoic. Repugn. 38 et Os. 66, p. 377c-c; Plin. N.H. 2, 18-19: deus est mortali iuvare mortalem et baec ad p. 1051c) that the gods are εύποιητικοί aetemam gloriam via . .. hie est vetustissimus and φιλάνθρωποι); further, in modern referendi bene merentibus gratiam mos, ut times, the idea underlies the Positivist tales numinibus adscribant. quippe et aliorumCalendar of Augustc Comtc. Many cases nomina deorum et quae supra retuli nderum of beneficence leading to deification ex hominum nata sunt meritis; lovem quidem concern inventions (of which several are aut Μercurium aliterve alios inter se vocari noted in this work; e.g., 3, 45; 3, 53; et esse caelestem nomenclaturam quis non 3, 57; 3, 59) or with the discovery of the interpretation naturae fateatur; Philo Bybl. uses of food-plants, drugs, minerals, etc. ap. Bus. Pr. Ev. 1, 29: οίπαλαίτατοι των Works on inventions (περί ευρημάτων) were written by Aristotle, Thcophrastus, βαρβάρων, έζαιρέτως δέ Φοίνικες τε καΐ

1, 38

263

ad vitae cultum esset inventa, ipsasque res utiles et salutarcs deo­ rum esse vocabulis nuncupatas, ut ne hoc quidem diceret, ilia inventa esse deorum, sed ipsa divina; quo quid l absurdius quam aut res 2 sordidas atque 3 deformis deorum honore adficere aut homines iam morte 4 deletos reponere in deos,6 quorum omnis 1 quo*quid H, quicquid D * aut res] aurcs Λ/1, aut add. Dx quam aut res Ν * morte] lacto (/./. lcto) D * in dcos om. Ο

■ atque]

ree sordidas: if the divine power and and others (cf. Clem. Strom. 1, 16, 77, 1; Schol. //. 1, 449; M. Kremmer, De presence extends through all things it must be present also in the vilest; cf. Catalogs Heurematum (1890)); for in­ Scxt. Emp. Pyrrhon. 3, 218: Στωικοί δέ ventor-gods in aretalogics cf. A. J. ττνεΰμα διήκον καΐ δια των είδεχθών; Fcstugicrc in Harv. tbeol. Rev. 42 (1949), Clem. Protr. 5, 66, 3: καΐ δια της ατιμό­ 229; al. τατης τό θείον διήκειν λέγοντας; Strom. aliqua: omitted by AC Ρ Ν and by many editors; yet cf. Fin. 1, 32: magnam 1, 10, 51, 1. Further, many Roman gods aliqua m . . . voluptatem. were of a trivial or unseemly sort (2, 6 1 ; vitae cultum: "civilization;" cf. Fin. 3, 63; and such as Epona, Venus Cloa5, 53; Ttisc. 1, 62; 3, 11; Off. 1, 25; cina, and many others enumerated by Aug. CD. 6, 9); cf. Plin. N.H. 2, 16: 1, 140; 2, 1. ipsasque rce utiles: cf. 2, 80: tarum gentes vero quaedam animalia et aliqua rerum vim quae inestent in omni mundo cum etiam obscena pro dis babeant ac multa dictu magno usu et com modi tate generis bumani; magis pudenda, per fetidos cibos et alia simiHa Philodcm. p. 71 Gompciz (of Prodicus?): [al. fetidas cepas, allia et si miHa] iurantes. τέ ύπ' [ρ]άνΟρώπων νομιζομέdeformis: but to the Epicurean the νους θεούς ούτ* είναί φησιν οΰτ' είδέναι, praestantissima natura should itself be τους 8έ καρπούς καΐ πάνθ* όλως τά χρή­ pulcberrima (1, 47, below). honore adficere: cf. 1, 36, n. (w σιμα ττ βίον τους άρ άγα . . . ; Doxogr. Cr.% 126, divina . . . adjectam). where Die Is observes that Cicero omits homines iam morte deletos: not on­ mention of Prodicus, as perhaps too ly do pagan authors at times protest similar to Pcrsaeus. Also Μ in. Pel. 21, 2 (e.g., Plin. N.H. 7, 188: deumque faciendo (quoted on Persaeus, above); Mcnand. qui iam etiam bomo esse desierit; and per­ Adelph. fr. 13 K. (ap. Stob. vol. 4, pp. haps the remark of the dying Vespasian, 376-377 Hcnsc) treats this humorously: as recorded by Suet. I 'esp. 23, 4, vae . . . τό yip τρέφον με τουτ* έγώ κρίνω Οεόν. puto deus fio, is a semi jocose protest;

nuncupatas: a word used by Cicero

cf. Min. Fel. 21, 10), but Jewish and

especially in this work (2, 60; 2, 65; 2, 71), according to L. Laurand, Etudes sur le style des di scours de Cic. (1907), 86, because he here had unusual need for words of naming. quo quid absurdius quam: with the double comparison cf. Pease on Div. 1, 87 (hoc turpius quam), to the examples and bibliography of which add: 2 I err. 4, 77; Pro Quinct. 8; Phil. 12, 9; Att. 4, 8a, 2; 8, 9, 3; Uct. Inst. 5, 10, 4. Also, for the phraseology, Div. 2, 98: quo quid diet potest absurdius-, Sen. 66; Fin. 2, 40.

Christian writers continually urge this objection against pagan gods, with the corollaries that idols represent dead men and pagan temples arc the tombs of the dead; e.g., Wisdom of Solomon, 14, 15 (a father makes an image of a dead child, honors him as a god, and estab­ lishes mysteries in his honor); Epistle of Jeremy, 27 (offerings arc set before the gods as if they were dead men]; 2 Clem. 3, 1: ημείς ot ζώντες τοις νεκροΐς Οεοΐς ού Ούομεν; Didacbe, 6, 3 ; Theophil. Ad Autol. 1, 9; Athenag. Leg. pro Cfmst. 28 [Egyptian gods were

264

1, 39

cultus cssct futurus 1

x

in luctu. 39 lam vero Chrysippus, qui

futuris A

men, their temples are sepulchres]; Μ in. saying is ascribed to Heraclitus]; Athenag. Fcl. 8, 4: temp/a ut busta despiciunt; 21, Leg. pro Christ. 14 [of Egyptians]: 10-12; Tert. Apol. 12: de deis vestris τύπτονται γαρ έν τοις Ιεροΐς τά στήθη κατά τάς πανηγύρεις ώς επί τετελευnomina solummodo video, quorundam ptterum mortuorum et fabulas audio et sacra de τηκόσι καΐ Θύουσιν ώς θεοΐς; Clem. fabulis recognosco; Ad Nat. 2, 7; De Protr. 2, 24, 3 : ών ό μέν τις παρεγγυςί Sped. 13; Cypr. De Idol. Vanit. 1; τοις ΑΙγυπτίοις* εί θεούς νομίζετε μή Arnob. 6, 6: patet .. . pro dis immortalibus θρηνείτε αυτούς μήτε κόπτεσθε· εί δέ mortuos vos colere\ [Clem.J Recogn. 10, 25;πενθείτε αυτούς, μηκέτι τούτους ήγεΐσHomil. 5, 23; Lact. Inst. 1, 15, 15; θε είναι θεούς; Min. Fel. 22, 2; Firm. Mat. De Errore, 2, 6; 7, 9; 8, 4: si dii 1, 15, 25-27, concluding: quis enim tarn sunt quos colitis cur eos lugttis? cur eos annuss demens qui consensu et placito imutmerabilium stultorum aperiri caelum mortuis arbitreiur; luctibus planfftis? ή facrimis ac luctu digns 2, 2, 3-4; 2, 17, 6: simulacra ista quae sunt, cur eos divino bonore cumulatis? C.I.L. coluniur effigies sunt hominum mortuorum;VI, 21521 ( = Carm. Lat. epigr. no. 1109 5, 19, 19: mysteria ilia . . . in memoriam Bucheler), 16-18: desine flere deum, / ne mortuorum constituta; Eus. Pr. Ev. 2, 4, 1: pietat ignara superna sede receptum / lugeat άνοσιον είναι καΐ δυσσεβές τη τοΰ θεοΰ et laedat numina tristitia [and other paral­ lels in K. Burcsch, Klaros (1889), 118; σεβάσμια προσηγορία τιμαν τους πάλαι C B. Welles in Harv. theol. Rev. 34 έν νεκροϊς κείμενους 0νητο'!>ς άνδρας; (1941), 91]. Cf. also Cic. Phil. 1, 13: an 2, 5, 3; 3, 3, 15-17; 14, 16, 13; Clem. me censetis . . . decreturum fuisse ut parenProtr. 3, 44, 4: νεώς μέν εύφήμως ονο­ talia cum supplicationibus miscerentur . . . ut μαζόμενους, τάφους δέ γενομένους; 4, 49, 3 ; 10, 91, 1; Firm. Mat. De decemerentur supplicationes mortuof . . . Errore% 6, 1; Hicr. In Is. 18, p. 775 Vail.: adduci tamen non possem ut quernqua m mortuum comungertm cum deorum immortalium eorum deorum qui putantur dii sed mortui sunt. In Matt. 3, p. 123 Vail.; De Vir. ill. religione; ut cuius sepulcrum usquam exstet 22 [citing the deification of Antinous]; ubi parentetur ei publice supp/icetur. Gods and heroes thus worshipped by Aug. De vera Relig. 108: non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum \ Prud. lamentation (the πένθος Ιερόν of Suid. C. Symm. 1, 191-192: quos fabula manes / s.vv. "Αδωνις, πένθος) include Adonis nobilitat nosier populus veneratus adorat; (Tamrnuz; for whom cf. Philodcm. De also 1,42, n. (interitus) below; 3,53, for the Piet. p. 16 Gompcrz), Attis, Bormus, Daphnis, Hippolytus, Hyacinthus, Hytomb of Zeus in Crete. Pagans brought las, Ino (Lcucothca), Linus, Litycrsc?, similar charges against the worship of Jesus and the Christian martyrs; e.g., Mclkart, Orpheus, Osiris, Pan (according Julian, Ep. 41, p. 438c; Adv. Galil. p. to Plut. De Def. Orac. 17, p. 419b-d; unless we accept the suggestion of S. 335c; Hicr. Ep. 109, 1, 1 [reporting the Rcinach in Bull. Corr. Hell. 31 (1907), 5, accusations of Vigilantius]. reponere in deoe: cf. 3, 47: in deorum who emends Πάν ό μέγας τέθνηκε to πανμέγας τέθνηκε, and thus numtrum reponemus. cultue . . . in luctu: cf. Aristot. Rhet. connects the incident with the death of Tammuz rather than with that of 2, 23, 1400b, 5-8: οΐον Ξενοφάνης ΈλεPan), Phacthon, Priolas, Sabazius, Sceάταις έρωτώσιν εΐ θύωσι τη Λευκοθέα καΐ θρηνώσιν ή μη, συνεβούλευεν εί μέν θεόν phrus, and Zagrcus; cf. O. Gruppc, Gr. Myth. u. Relig. 2 (1906), 961-972; M. P. ύπολαμβάνουσι μη θρηνεϊν, ε Ι δ' ίνθρωNilsson, Gr. Feste (1906), 166-167; 436; πον μή Θύειν [several other allusions in Plutarch are collected in Vorsokrat. 1, J. G. Frazcr, Golden Bough, 4" {The dying God, 1914); especially 1-8; H. J. Rose, no. 11 A 13; in 1, no. 12 Β 127 the

1, 39 Handbook of Gr. Mytbol. (1928), 200; A. D. Nock in Am. Journ. of Arch. 47 (1943), 495. and n. 13. L. R. Famcll, Gr. Hero Cults (1921), 25, remarks: "every 'hero' had of course to die, but only to very few was a ritual of ceremonial mourning consecrated." Yet in a number of the above instances—e.g., Attis, Or­ pheus, Osiris, and Sabazius—there seems to have been a ritual-enactment of the death of the god, often associated with mysteries (cf. Ptol. Tetrab. 2, 68) or with seasonal festivals connected with the processes of vegetation. The Roman rites of the Parentalia may also be in­ cluded in the present Epicurean con­ demnation. On the form of condition (esse/ futuTHs) cf. J. Priem in Pbi/o/ogus, 5 Supplbd. (1885), 337. 39 iam vero: marking the impor­ tance of the next philosopher, who is treated at more length than any other in the list. Chryeippua: of Soli, the son of a father from Tarsus (Strab. 14, 8; Diog. L. 7, 179; Paus. 1, 17, 2; Orig. C. Ce/s. 5, 57; Suid. s.v. Χρύσιππος; but also Solin. 38, 9), the third head of the Stoic school at Athens, after 232/1 B.C. succeeding Clcanthes, lived from between 281 and 277 to between 208 and 204 (H. von Arnim in P.-W. 3 (1899), 2502). He was so important in the history of Stoicism that a proverbial verse declared cl μή γάρ ήν Χρύσιππος, ούκ άν ήν στοά (Diog. L. 7, 183); cf. Ac. 2, 75: Cbrysippum, qui fulcire putotur porticum Stoicorum. His writings, as named by Diog. L. 7, 189-202, in a classified list, total about 377 books, and these include only his works on logic and ethics; Suidas {I.e.) says that he wrote over 700 books (cf. the Vita Perm). Books 1 and 2 of his three-book περί θεών are cited in 1, 41, below, our passage being S.WF. 2, no. 1077; for other fragments of this work sec S.WF. 3, p. 197. Other quo­ tations or allusions belonging to his writings and found in our work are in 2. 16; 2, 37-38; 2, 159; 3, 18; 3. 25; cf. 3, 63. The variety and apparent inconsistency of Chrysippus's gods may be in pan

265

explained by his desire to retain, like Zcno, and to reconcile with philoso­ phically defensible beliefs both the po­ pular deities and the speculations of earlier philosophers (cf. P. Dc I^acy in Trans. Am. pbiloi. Assoc. 74 (1943), 171, n. 7, and examples there cited). Yet in his defence it may be not unfairly lemarked that Velleius here ridicules as though quite distinct conceptions cer­ tain expressions which were probably regarded by Chrysippus as synonymous phrases, used—possibly in different works—to describe the same thought, for which no technical theological terms existed. Thus the anima [or animus] mundi seems to be equivalent to (1) vim divinam in ratione . . . post tarn; (2) universae naturae animo atque mente \ (3) eius animi fusionem universam\ and (4) eius ipsius principatum qui in mente et ratione versetur. Again, it is hard to distinguish between ipsum . . . mundum and (1) communem rerum naturam universam atque omnia continentem; (2) universitatemque rerum qua omnia continerentur. Further, very similar are fata/em umbram et necessitatem rerum futurarum and tandem . . . fata/em necessitatem . . . sempiternam rerum futura­ rum reritatem. Finally, ignem . . . aetbera . . . aquam et terram et aera in 1, 39, arc resumed by aetbera . . . aer per maria . . . terram in 1, 40. By such repetitions— which arc hardly to be explained as due to glosses—Chrysippus's fairly numerous gods arc still further exaggerated in number. Similar variations in expression on the part of Chrysippus may be found in his definitions of fate as given hv Act. Plac. 1, 28, 3 (Do.sogr. Gr.* 323), where, as here, they may be due to ex­ cerpts having been made from several different works. A pagan might similarly, by misunderstanding and by hypostatizing of attributive titles, have expanded the Jewish and Christian God into many and inconsistent deities. In 2, 73 Balbus protests against Vcllcius's mis­ understanding of the Stoic Providentia. In the present passage Velleius, to give the impression of disordered thought, has repeated, paraphrased, and confused a few fundamental Stoic concepts: (1) a pantheistic deity, manifested in diverse

266

1, 39

Stoicorum somniorum vafcrrumus l habctur interpres, magnam turbam congregat ignotorum * deorum, atque ita ignotorum ut 1

ucterrimus NO

* ignoratorum Bt ignorum F1

parts of nature; (2) men deified after Pythagoras sommavit; Aug. CD. 11, 5: their deaths; (3) fate; (4) the gods of cum Epicuro sommart. Lucr. 5, 1161-1182, explains the idea of the gods as derived the poets and of popular belief. With the present passage cf. Philodcm. from things seen in dreams; cf. Scxt. Emp. Ash. Pbys. 1, 25. De Pitt. pp. 77-79 Gomperz (Doxogr. Gr.* vafcrrumus . . . interprcs: cf. 2, 16: 545-546): άλαΙ Χρύσππος . . . ν τω πρώτν Δία Cbrysippus . .. quamquam est actrrimo ingenio; 3, 25: Cbrysippus .. . homo sine φην 5παντντα λόγον κ τοΰ όλου ψυχή1 dubio vtrsutus et callidus; Div. 1, 6: τη τούτου μη πάντα . . . acerrumo vir ingtnio, Cbrysippus; Ac. 2, 7 5 ; xal τους λίθους, ιό καΐ Ζήνα καλε· Off. 3, 42: sate Cbrysippus, ut multa; Tusc. 1, 108: Cbrysippus, ui est in ο mm θαι, Δία δ* τι των αϊτος ριο· τόν τε κόσμον Ιμψχον bistoria curiosus; Philodcm. De Piet. p. 82 Gomperz {Doxogr. Cr.% 548; of Chryείναι καΐ θεοαί τό ήκόν sippus): τα των θεών όόματα ές>οφαΙ τήν 6υχν καΐ ιμόττει της δρειμύτατος απολαύων άκοαν (?) όνθαι τόν Δία καΐ τήν κοιπιάτως[and R. Philippson,I.e.]; Ilicr. C νήν πάντων [ρ. 79] φύσιν καΐ είμαρμνην καΐ άνάκην καΐ τήν αυτήν είναι loan. Hier. 4: acutiortm Cbrynppo. For και εύνομίαν και δίκην αΙ όμόνοιαν the adjective vafer cf. 1, 85: bomim κα1ρνην καΐ τό παρπλήσιον minime vafro. The word usually has a bad παν. καΐ μη είναι θεούς άρρενας μηδέ connotation, like "artful" or " s l y " ; cf. Off. 3, 57; Rtp. 3, 26. θηλείας, ώς μηδ πόλεις μηδ* άρτάς, νομάζεσθαι δέ μόνον άρρενικώς turbam . . . deorum: cf. Plut. De xal Οηυώς ταύτα δντα, καθάπερ comm. Notit. 31, p. 1075a-b: άλλα Χρύ­ σελήνην κανα. σιππος καΐ Κλεάνθης, έμπεπληκότες, ώς Stoicorum somniorum: cf. 1, 18 and Ιπος είπεΐν, τω λόγω θεών τόν ούρανον, n. (somniantium); 1, 42: non pbi/osopborum τήν γην, τόν αέρα, τήν θάλατταν; De Def. Orac. 19, p. 420a: θεών όντων το­ iudicia sed dtlirantium somnia; 1, 93: istisne jidentes somniis; Ac. 2, 121: somma σούτων τό πλήθος. ignotorum deorum: cf. Arnob. 4, 3 : ctnset bate tsst Dtmocriti, non docentis std optantis; 3, 95: somnia . .. tarn /ei'ia non nobis catervas ignotorum alias indsuitis deo­ sunt quam est Stoicorum de natura deorum rum. But here not used of conventionally oratio; Rep. 6, 3: somniantium pbi/oso­ obscure deities, like the "Αγνωστος (θεός) of [Lucian,] Pbilop. 9; Acts, 17, pborum ... commenta; Att. 7, 23, 1; Tcr. Andr. 971-972; Lucr. 1, 104-105; 23; and (in the plural) Paus. 1, 1, 4 Varr. Men. 122 Buchelcr: nemo atgrotus (and other passages cited in Frazcr's quicquam somniat / tarn infandum quod non note); E. Nordcn, Agnostos Tbtos (1913), aliqms dicat pbilosopbus; Philodcm. De 56-83; 116 and n. 1, or like various less familiar Roman indigitamenta, or gods of Potm. col. 2, 29, p. 11 Jensen: όνώτων; id., De Pitt. p. 118 Gomperz uncertain sex (sive mas sive ftmina; sive (as restored by R. Philippson in Hermes, dtus sive dea; Aius Locutius; Pales; et 56 (1921). 381; id., Symb. Osloenses, 19 al.), for the beginning of the next sen­ tence indicates that the divine proletariat (1939), 29]: ήβα όνειρωτhere ridiculed consisted of the various ; Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 52; Sen. Rhct. Controv. 2, 1, 33: tantum in Wis abstractions recounted in that and the somniorum est; Pcrs. 3, 83: atgroti veteris following sentences. It will be observed, however, that though Chrysippus col... somnia', Hier. Ep. 60, 4, 2: quod

1, 39

267

eos l ne * coniectura quidem informare possimus, cum mens s nostra quidvis videatur * cogitatione posse * depingere. Ait enim vim divinam in ratione esse positam et in β universae naturae animo atque mente, ipsumque 7 mundum dicit esse et eius animi fusionem 8 universam, turn eius ipsius principatum qui in mente 1 e o s add. Dx • in om. Η

7

· nee AHBF que] qucm Bl

3 4 mens om. Η uidctur Bx * infusioncm B*FM

lected more instances of these than his predecessors, yet none o f them, unless perhaps Fate, differs essentially from g o d s already recognized by other philo­ sophers. As contrasted, h o w e v e r , with the decidedly standardized g o d s o f the Epicureans (cf. 1, 80, b e l o w ) , the panthe­ o n o f Chrysippus appears extremely heterogeneous. n e c o n i e c t u r a q u i d e m : cf. vie. 2, 4 2 : ne ratione quidem et coniectura ulla res percipi point. i n f o r m a r e : cf. 1, 7 6 ; 2, 13. In 1, 45 Vellcius declares: anquiritanimusetfor mam et vitam et actionem mentis atque agitationem in deo. c o g i t a t i o n e p o e e e d e p i n g e r e : cf. 3 , 4 7 : cogitatione nobismet ipsis possumus fingere; Ac. 2, 4 8 : quae cogitatione depingimus\ 2, 5 1 ; cogitatio being here (as in Pro Mi/on. 79) used like "imagination." VC'ith the thought cf. Div. 2, 1 3 8 : quae est enim forma tarn invisitafa, tarn nulla, quam non sibi ipse fingere animus possit [and Pease's n. o n simul atque ve/imus). v i m d i v i n a m in r a t i o n e : cf. the v i e w o f Z e n o in 1, 36 (where sec the passages cited in the note on rationem quondam . . . pertinentem); Philodcm. p. 77 G o m p c r z (quoted in the note o n Chrysippus, above), especially the w o r d s : ν απανττα λόγον; Plut. De Stoic. Repugn. 34, p. 1050d: τούτων οίετχι Χρύσιππος ούτε μικρόν ούτε μέγα περί τόν τοΰ Διός λόγον είναι κχΐ νόμον και δίκην και πρόνοιαν; Min. Fel. 19, 11: eadem fere Chrysippus (i.e., as Z c n o ] : vim divinam, rationalem naturam et mundum interim et fata/em necessitatem deum credidit, Zenonemque interpretation phynologica in Hesiodi, Homeri, Orpbeique car minibus imitatur; Lact. Inst. 1, 5, 2 0 : Chrysippus

* posset

D

naturatem vim divina ratione praeditum, interdum necessitatem deum nuncupat; Epiphan. Adv. Haeres. 1 , 1 , 5, 1: Στωικοί . . . φάσκοντες είναι νουν τόν Otov. u n i v e r s a e naturae a n i m o a t q u e m e n ­ t e : cf. Sen. N.Q. 1, praef. 13: quid est deus? mens universi; also above, 1, 37, n. {totius naturae menti atque animo). i p s u m q u e m u n d u m : cf. the view of Clcanthes (1, 37 and note on ipsum mun­ dum deum); 2, 3 9 : sapiens est igitur [sc. mundus) et propterea deus; Sen. N.Q. 2, 45, 3 ; Arius Didymus ap. Stob. vol. 1, p. 184 Wachsmuth (Doxogr. Gr.* 465): κόσμον δ' είναί φησιν ό Χρύσιππος σύσ­ τημα έζ ουρανού και γης καΐ των έν τούτοις φύσεων. . . . λέγεται δ' έτέρως κόσμος ό θεός, καθ' ον ή διακόσμησις γί­ νεται καΐ τελειοΰται; D i o g . L. 7, 148: ούσίαν δέ θεού Ζήνων μέν φησι τον δλον κόσμον καΐ τόν ούρανόν, ομοίως δέ καΐ Χρύσιππος έν τω προ'ιτω Μερί θεών; loan. Damasc. De Haeres. 1 (S.l'.F. 2, no. 1026): Στωικοί σώμα τό παν δογματίζοντες καΐ αίσΟητόν τούτον τόν κόσμον Οεόν νομίζοντες . . . θεούς δέ καΐ τόν κόσμον και τους αστέρας καΐ τήν γην, τόν δ* ανώτατοι πάντων νουν έν αίθέρι, e i u s : i.e., mundi. a n i m i : Ax compares Tcrt. Apal. 21 (p. 68 Mayor): hunc enim Zeno determinat factitatorem, qui cuncta in disposition formaverit; eundem et fatum vocari et deum et am mum Iovis et necessitatem omnium rerurn; Lact. Inst. 4, 9, 2 : quern [sc. λόγον] et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum Iovis nuncupat [sc. Zenon). f u s i o n e m : cf. 2, 28: igneum . . . in omni fusum esse natura. N o t h i n g in Philodemus corresponds t o this phrase (H. Dicls, Doxogr. Gr.* 126), unless it might underlie p. 77, 19-22 G o m p c r z : κ τοϋ όλου ψυχή1 τη τούτου ριέχον τα περιεχόμενα ώστε έν τι είναι εκείνα; Α. C. Pearson (Joum. of Pbilol. μή (?) πάντα . Rcid (on 30 (1907), 217) compares Galen, De Ac. 1, 29) thinks it represents the Stoic Plenit. 3 (VII, 525 K. = S.l'.F. 2, no. κράσις δι' Ολων. 439): ώς ol Στωικοί, τό μέν συνέχον έτε­ principatum: ηγεμονικών as in Philodem. De Pie/, p. 77 Gompcrz (Doxogr. ρον ποιοϋσι, τό συνεχόμενον δέ άλλοGr.% 545; quoted in note on Chrysippus, τήν μέν γαρ πνευματικήν ούσίαν τό συ­ above); cf. 1, 35; 2, 29; principatum au- νέχον, τήν δέ ύλιχήν τό συνεχόμενον, tem id dico quod Graeci ηγεμονικών vocant; δθεν άίρα μέν καΐ πϋρ συνέχειν φασί, γην δέ καΐ ύδωρ συνέχεσβαι; Cleomed. E. V. Arnold, Rom. Stoicism (1911), 891, 1, ρ. 8 Zicglcr: οΰτ' άν υπό φύσεως 90. Diog. L. 7, 139 gives as a view of Chrysippus: τόν Ολον κόσμον ζφον Οντα οΐόν τε ήν συνέχεσθαι καΐ διοικεΐσΟαι τόν κόσμον; Diog. L. 7, 148: φύσιν δέ καΐ έμψυχον καΐ λογικόν, έχειν ήγεμονιποτέ μέν αποφαίνονται τήν συνέχουσαν κόν μέν τόν αΙθέρα, καθά φησιν 'Αντίπα­ τρος . . . Χρύσιππος δ' έν τω πρώτω τόν κόσμον. If a comma be placed after Περί προνοίας καΐ Ποσειδώνιος έν τω naturam the phrase universam atque omnia Περί θεών τόν ούρανόν φασι το ήγεμονικόν continentem would become an attributive clause, further developing the thought τοϋ κόσμου. of communem rerum naturam by showing communcm . . . rerum naturam uni­ that it has two aspects, the first an versam: Philodcm. I.e. calls it τήν κοινήν πάντων φύσιν; cf. Plut. De Stoic. emphasis upon its. own completeness, Repugn. 34, p. 1050b: ότι δ* ή κοινή φύ­ the second its effect upon all other things: "regarded as a whole and allσις καΐ ό κοινός της φύσεως λόγος εΐμαρμένη καΐ πρόνοια καΐ Ζευς έστιν, ουδέ containing." This punctuation renders unnecessary various attempts to obviate τους αντίποδας λέληθε- πανταχού γαρ ταϋτα θρυλείται ύπ' αυτών και τό "Διός construing both communem and universam as directly modifying naturam; e.g., δ* έτελείετο βουλή," τόν "Ομηρον είuniversum (of Orclli and H. Uscner), ρηκέναι φησΙν ορθώς, επί τήν είμαρμέuniversitatemque (of Heindorf); also the νην αναφερόντα καΐ τήν τών Ολων φύσιν, deletion cither of universam (so P. J. F.lκαθ* ήν πάντα διοικείται. With the venich, cited by Plasbcrg, ad loc., and phrase communem . . . naturam cf. Fin. 5, 25: nihil enim prohibit quaedam esse et A. C. Pearson (Joum. of Pbilol. 30 (1907). inter se animalibus reliquis et cum bestits 217), who on pp. 218-219 suggests bomini communia, quoniam omnium est emending univtrsam, etc. to unitattmqut natura communis'. Sen. Dial. 12, 8, 2: rerum qua omnia continerentur—much too duo . . . pulcherrima . . . natura communis bold a course), or of universam atque omnia continentem, which is deleted by et propria virtus. H. Sauppe {Ind. Scbol. Got ting. 1864, 12 omnia continentem: cf. 2, 31: bomines bestiaeque hoc colore teneantur . . . = Ausgeudhlte Schr. (1896), 397) and H. Dicls {Doxogr. Gr* 545). mundum . . . ardore teneatur; 2, 83: terra eadem vi confinetur arte naturae; Div. 1, 64: fatalem umbram: the ms reading, animus . . . quippe qui deorum cognation* though Davies quotes a Cod. Eliensis teneatur; Ijegg. 1, 23: ut homines deorum (really marginal collations in Bp. Moore's agnatione et gente teneantur; Ac. 1, 28: copy of the edition of Stcphanus; cf. partis autem esse mundi omnia quae insint Mayor's edition, 1 (1891), Ixvii-lxix) as in eo quae natura sentiente teneantur. Plas- reading fatalem vim\ which he and various bcrg compares Aristot. Metaph. 4, 26, subsequent editors have adopted. Phi1023 b 26-28: όλον λέγεται . . . τό πε­ lodemus (sec note on Chrysippus, above)

1, 39 here has εΙμαρμνην καΐ άνακην, f r o m which it would appear that both Jatalem and necessitatem arc required, and that Cicero has merely rounded out the phrase. Attempts have been made, h o w ­ e v e r , t o s h o w that umbram is corrupted from (1) είμαρμένην—in 1, 55 where this w o r d occurs it appears as marmanemy bimarmaenem, himar mane m, bimarmamemt or bymarmanem, and is given as the Greek for fa talis necessitas—as Allen {ad loc), w h o deletes umbram et, T. Birt in Her I. philol. H'och. 38 (1918), 575, and R. Philippson in Symb. Osloenses, 19 (1939), 30, n. 1, would h o l d ; or (2) from moeram (μοϊραν) read as a gloss on jatalem necessitatem (Mayor ad loc.\ but the suggestion was much earlier made by a German re­ viewer cited by Moser in Crcuzcr's edition (1818), 6 7 ) ; or (3) from vim (sec above), which J. S. Rcid (in Mayor's note) tries to explain as due to naturam having been written by error from the line above, then the correction vim having been written over it, the whole c o m p l e x developing into umbram; cf. Rcid, edition o f the Academica, p. 165, for almost the converse confusion o f liam for umbram; or (4) from vim ipsam ( K l o i z ) ; or (5) from vim et naturam (sug­ gested by Plasbcrg in his ed. major); or (6) from normam (Madvig); or (7) from libram (defended by Crcuzcr at great l e n g t h in his edition, pp. 6 7 - 6 8 ) ; or (8) from veritatem (Crcuzer, Pbilosopb. veterum Loci de Providentia divina (1806), 2 6 and Hcindorf), or (9) from orbem ( H . von A r n i m i n S.V.F. 2 (1903), 315); (10) that the whole phrase has been

corrupted from fatalem mcesntatem cf veritatem rerum futurarum (J. H. Swainson in Journ. of Philol. 5 (1873), 152); or (11) that over fatalem necessitatem there were written as a gloss, borrowed from 1, 40, the w o r d s veritatem rerum futurarum (so Diels in Doxogr. Gr* 545). Yet after all these emendations the doubt arises whether fatalem umbram is not satisfactorily defensible (Plasberg retained it in both his editions and M. Atzcrt {Gotting. gel. Αηχ. 197 (1935), 277) defends it, t h o u g h A x has obelized it). Vclleius here speaks o f the Stoic fate in disparaging terms (as in 1, 5 5 :

269

quanti outem bate philosophia aestimanda est cut tamquam aniculis, et bis quidem indoctis, fato fieri videantur omnia), and with this slurring use o f umbra we may c o m ­ pare Fin. 1, 6 1 : //// enim negant esse bonum quicquam nisi nescio quam illam umbram quod appellant bonesturn, non tarn solido quam splendido nomine; Off. 3 , 6 9 : iustitiae soltdam et expressam effigiem nullam tenemus, umbra et imaginibus utimur; Att. 7, 11, 1: qui ne umbram quidem του καλοΰ viderit; In Pison. 57: umbras etiam falsae gioriae consectari; other instances o f this sort may be cited from other authors. In these passages umbra denotes cither a faint semblance o f truth or e v e n an unreality, which is just what an Epicu­ rean might well feel the Stoic fate to be. 1 should, then, retain the phrase fatalem umbram without any assump­ tion of corruption, and render it by some such words as "wraith of destiny." T h o u g h Providentia is explained by Balbus in 2, 73-74 as not being an indi­ vidual deity but a short expression for the providentia deorum, there are passages in which the identity of the Stoic ειμαρ­ μένη and Zeus is declared; e.g., Philodemus. I.e.; Sen. N.Q. 2, 45, 2 ; Arius D i d y m u s ap. Eus. Pr. Bv. 15, 15, 6: διό δή καΐ Ζευς λέγεται ό κόσμος, επειδή τοϋ ζην αίτιος ήμΐν εστί. καθ" όσον δέ είρομένω λόγω πάντα διοικεί άπαραβάτως ές άιδίου προσονομάζεσθαι είμαρ­ μένην; Schol. //. 8, 6 9 : ol Στωικοί δέ φασιν ως ταύτόν ειμαρμένη καΐ Ζευς; D i o g . L. 7, 135: εν τ* είναι θεόν καΙ νουν καΐ είμαρμένην καΐ Δ ί α ; Lact. Inst. 4, 9, 2: Ztnon rerum naturae dispositortm atque opificem universitatis λόγον praedicat, quern et fatum et necessitatem rerum et deum et animum lovis nuncupat; Tzctz. o n Hcs. Op. 4 2 ; cf. Hippol. Philosopbum. 21, 1 {Doxogr. Gr.* 571 - S.l'.F. 1, no. 153): Χρύσιππος καΐ Ζήνων, οι ύπέΟεντο καΐ αυτοί αρχήν μέν θεόν των πάντων . . . δια πάντων δέ διήκειν τήν πρόνοιαν αύτοϋ; and other cases cited by L. Stein, Die tzrkennfnistbeorie d. Stoa (1888), 218, n. 4 6 4 ; E. V. Arnold, Rom. Stoicism (1911), 199-204. For the fragments o f Chrysippus's work περί είμαρμένης cf. S.V.F. 3 , p. 196.

270

1, 39

rcrum futurarum, ignem praeterea ct eum quern ante dixi aethera, turn ea quae natura fluerent* atque manarent," ut et aquam et 1

fucrent A1

* mane rent

HlFl

καΐ γη ν γιγνόμενον όρώμεν, τηκόμβνον ignem: the passage in Philodemus δέ καΐ διακρινόμενον αύ ταύτόν τοΰτο does not mention this. Influenced, per­ πνεύμα και αέρα, ξυγχαυθέντα δέ αέρα haps, by Hcraclitus (cf. 3, 35, below), πυρ, άνάπαλιν δέ πϋρ συγκριθέν καΐ καthe Stoics, from Zeno on, laid great τασβεσθέν ε(ς Ιδέαν τε άπιόν αύθις αέ­ stress upon the significance of fire in its ρος καΐ πάλιν αέρα ξυνιόντα καΐ πυκνούvarious forms; for its divine character, μενον νέφος καΐ όμίχλην, έκ δέ τούτων in the eyes of some Stoics, at least, cf. Act. Plac. 1, 7, 23 {Doxogr. Gr* 303): Ιτι μάλλον ξυμπιλουμένων £έον ύδωρ, έ£ Ζήνων ό Στωικός νουν κόσμου πυρινόν; ύδατος δέ γην και λίθους αύθις (sug­ gesting Philodcm. De Piet. p. 77 Porphyr. ap. Eus. Pr. Εν. 15, 16, 1: Gomperz (Doxogr. Gr.* 545): . . . καΐ τόν δέ 0c6v ούχ όκνοΰσι πυρ vocpov είπόντες άίδιον καταλείπειν; Aug. C. τους λίθους; otherwise this clause in Acad. 3, 17, 38: at deum ipsum igpem Cicero is unrepresented in Philodemus); putabat [sc. Zeno]; loan. Damasc. De Act. Plac. 1, 17,4 (Doxogr. Gr* 315); Arius Didymus ap. Stob. vol. 1, p. 129 Haeres. 7 (S.V.F. 2, no. 1026): τινές δέ Wachsmuth (Doxogr. Gr* 458): πρώτης [sc. των Στωικών] έκ της τοΰ πυρός ουσί­ μέν γιγνομένης της έκ πυρός κατά σύας τήν φύσιν ίχειν αυτόν [sc. θεόν] άπεφήστασιν είς αέρα μεταβολής, δευτέρας ναντο; Ε. V. Arnold, op. cit.t 89. This δ* άπό τούτου είς ύδωρ, τρίτης δ* έτι deification of fire may be considered μάλλον κατά τό άνάλογον συνισταμένου as one part of the pantheistic principle τοΰ ύδατος είς γήν. πάλιν δ* άπό ταύτης by which God permeates all elements, διαλυομένης καΐ διαχεομένης πρώτη μέν even the meanest (our passage enumer­ ates also ether, water, earth, and air), but γίνεται χύσις είς ύδωρ, δευτέρα δ* έζ ύδατος είς αέρα, τρίτη δέ καΐ έσχατη είς to fire was accorded a certain primacy πϋρ; Aet. Plac. 1,9, 2 (Doxogr. Gr* 307): because of its supposed connection with ol Στωικοί τρεπτήν και άλλοιωτήν και μεvital heat; cf. 2, 23-28; 3, 35-37. ταβλητην και £ευστήν δλην δι* όλης την quern ante dixi aethera: cf. the view ύλην; Zeno ap. Stob. vol. 1, p. 152 of Cleanthcs in 1, 37, and n. (uitimum et Wachsmuth ( = Doxogr. Gr* 469-470 = altisstmum); and, for Chrysippus, Philodem. De Piet. p. 77 Gomperz {Doxogr. S. V.F. 1, no. 102); Schol. Pind. Ol. 1 , 1 : Gr.* 545), as emended by H. Usenet: τό ύδωρ παχυνόμενον ποιεί τήν γ η ν λεπτυνόμενον τόν αέρα* πάνυ δέ λεπτυό αΙΘ καΐ τους λίθους νόμενον, τό πϋρ. (cf. Α. Gcrckc in Jabrb.f. Philol. Supplbd. 14 (1885), 707); Arius Didymus ap. With the phrase natura fluerent cf. the Eus. Pr. Ev. 15, 15, 8: Χρυσίππω δέ τόν cases of verbs used with natura (φύσει) αΙΟέρα τόν καθαρώτατον χαΐ είλικρινέ- collected by Rein on Ac. 1, 15. The στατον [sc. τό ήγεμονικόν είναι τοΰ κόσ­ metaphorical use of fluere docs not ne­ μου]; Censorin. fr. 1, 4: cuius [sc. mundi] cessarily imply liquidity or even motion, principalem . . . Cbrysippus aetbera [sc. but sometimes only a change in charac­ putat), cuius motu perentti subiecta teruntur ter, without loss of continuity, through et administrantur. past, present, and future; cf. Die. 1, 125: ea quae natura fluerent: for Hera- ex ornni aeterm'tatefluensVeritas sempiterna; clitus's doctrine of the flux of elements, Tusc. 5, 70: cum rerum causas alias ex cf. 2, 84, n. (ex terra aqua); suffice it here aliis aptas . . . vidett quibus ab aeterno to cite but a few passages: Plat. Tim. 49 temporefluentibusin atternum ratio tamen b-c: πρώτον μέν 6 ση νΰν ύδωρ ώνομάκαmensque moderatur. The verbs fluere and μεν, πηγνύμενον, ως δοκοϋμεν, λίθους manare are also coupled in 2, 50. The

1, 40

271

terram et aera, solem,1 lunam,2 sidera, universitatemque rerum qua omnia continerentur, atque etiam homines eos qui inmortalitatem essent consecuti. 40 Idemque disputat3 aethera esse eum quern homines Iovem appellarent, quique aer per maria 1

ct s o l c m Μ

■ et l u n a m BF

a

shift in tense f r o m the p r i m a r y se­ q u e n c e above (qui . . . vtrsetur) may be easily paralleled; e.g., 3 , 1 0 : cum caelum suspexissemus statim nos inttlltgere esse aliquod numen quo bate regantur; and other Ciceronian examples cited by R. K u h n c r C. Stegmann, Ausf. Gram. d. /at. Spr. 2, 2» (1914), 194-195. t e r r a m : flux b e i n g w h a t the e x a m p l e s in t h e p r e v i o u s n o t e indicate, t h e r e need be n o objection t o terram o n the g r o u n d of its n o t b e i n g a liquid, and h e n c e n o need, with Hcindorf, H . Sauppe (Ind. Scbol. Cot ting. 1864, 12 = Ausgewdblte Scbr. (1896), 397), and A. Bricgcr (Beitr. X.Krit. einiger pbilos. Scbr. d. Cic. (1873), 10), t o r e a r r a n g e in s u c h an o r d e r as ut et aquam et aera, turn terram, solem, lunam. etc. s o l e m , l u n a m , e i d e r a : cf. 2, 3 9 : bat mundi divinitate perspecta, tribuenda est nderibus eadem divinitas; Philodcm. De Piet. p. 80 G o m p c r z (Doxogr. Gr.x 547): καΐ τόν ήλόν καΐ τή σελήνην καΐ τους δλλους άστέας θεούς ο ί ε τ α ι ; A r i u s D i d y m u s a p . S t o b . vol. 1, p . 1 8 5 W a c h s m u t h (Doxogr. Gr* 466): αΙΟέρα . . . έν ω τά &στρα καθίδρυται τά τε απλανή κχΐ τά πλανώμενα, θεία τήν φύσ'.ν δντα και έμψυχα καΐ διοικούμενα κ α τ ά τήν π ρ ό ν ο ι ι ν ; Plut. De Stoic. Re­ pugn. 3 8 , p . 1052a (from C h r y s i p p u s , π ε ρ ί θεών, B o o k I I I ) : ήλιος μέν γ ά ρ και σελήνη καΐ ol άλλοι θεοί παραπλήσιον Ι χ ο ν τ ε ς λόγον γενητοί είσιν, 6 δέ Ζευς ά ί δ ι ό ς έστιν. F o r physical views of C h r y s i p p u s a n d t h e Stoics a b o u t these b o d i e s see S.V.F. 2, n o s . 6 5 0 ; 681-692. u n i v e r e i t a t e m . . . r e r u m : cf. 1, 120: in universitate rerum; 2, 164: universitatem generis humans; the phrase from universi­ tatem t h r o u g h continerentur is u n d u l y s u s p e c t e d by Hcindorf. q u a o m n i a c o n t i n e r e n t u r : cf. omnia continentem, a b o v e [from w h i c h S c h o c -

disputant

Nl

m a n n t h i n k s it was a d d e d at this p o i n t ] ; Wisdom of Solomon, 1, 7 [a Stoic infil­ tration]. i n m o r t a l i t a t e m . . . c o n s e c u t i : as in the d o c t r i n e of Persacus ( 1 , 3 8 ) ; cf. 2 , 6 2 ; P h i l o d c m . De Piet. p . 80 G o m p c r z (Doxogr. Gr.* 547 = S.V.F. 2, n o . 1076): καϋρώπους είς θεος φησι μχαβαλεϊ. 4 0 i d e m q u e d i s p u t a t : cf. P h i l o d c m . De Piet. p p . 79-80 G o m p c r z (Doxogr. Gr* 5 4 6 - 5 4 7 = 5 . 1 / . / · . 2, n o . 1076):