11 § 16, n. on incognita. In Plin. n. h. 10, 120 condita is prob. a corruption of cognita. § 21, p. 200. In the first line of the first column of the nn., for § 96 read § 95. § 23, n. on quibus solis. Hirzel 3, 277 bases an argument on the notion that quibus uirtutibus. = ,, n. on artem uiuendi. Hirzel, 3, 279 n. implies that this definition was distinctively Antiochean, which is not the case. § 27, n. on proditur. In the last line, for libri read uiri; see § 101, n. on Epicuri capite. § 29 duo haec maxima. Hirzel 3, 277 argues that Antiochus must have differed from the Stoics in giving puσin a position subordinate to ethics. Surely the later Stoics, at least, agreed herein with Ant. § 30, n. on lucem eripere. At the beginning of the n. insert 'so § 105,' and in the 4th line for § 109 read § 103. § 31, n. on dicemus. In the seventh line from the bottom, for 1, 46 n. read 1, 44 n. § 35. Hirzel 3, 254 n. proposes to eject as gloss all from ex hoc to nota, on the ground that the argument is disturbed. But he forces ex hoc to mean as a logical inference from this' which is quite unnecessary, and he fails to see that the words sed... nota imply (though they do not state) that the sceptic regards probability as his justification for making statements (cf. § 32). Hence the question quod est etc. is quite natural. § 39, cr. nn. For 14 read 15 and in n. on 1. 19, for B. read Bait. 1. 14. For quas perhaps we should read quasi; cf. § 32 probabile et quasi ueri simile, and many other things of the kind. Hirzel 3, 256 sq., 264 raises many difficulties (imaginary, as they seem to me) regarding the development of the argument. Some of them rest on a misconception of contra, which does not mean 'in answer to ' but on the opposite side' (cf. 1 § 13). § 40. § 43, n. on subtilitatem. For 1, 6 read 1, 7. § 47 Hirzel 3, 260 n. has a long mistaken argument, based on a misunderstanding of the phrase falsa uisa, which merely means 'impressions not proceeding from solid realities' and not 'impressions portending untruly' (with reference to μavτiký etc.). § 50, p. 238. In 1. 7 of the first column of the nn., for § 133 read read § 132. § 71 cum quaereret: iterative subj.; hence the change of mood from placebat. § 92 festiue. Pluygers, Mnemosyne Ix conj. festinanter, needlessly. Cf. Diu. 2, 35 quam festiue dissoluitur (of a logical difficulty); ib. 107 festiue et breuiter (of an argumentative statement). § 96. I think it highly probable that Cic. wrote inuidiosius; cf. 2 S$ 144, 146. 11 § 102, 1. 9. Hoc quiuis is an error for haec q. and the cr. n. should run 'haec quiuis: hoc q. H etc.' § 102, 1. 9 poetam. Cf. Cornif. 2, 20 Lucilium poetam. § 110 uersatus. § 112 huic loco. The MSS reading uersatur is very possibly right. Almost certainly a corruption of hoc loco; cf. § 14. § 114, last line on the p. For 1, 46 read 1, 45. § 121 magni quidem muneris. Possibly a corruption of magni prouidendi m.; the error being due to the contraction for pro, viz, with a bar across the lower part of the down stroke. INTRODUCTION. § 1. Cicero as man of letters and student of philosophy. IT would seem that Cicero's love for literature was inherited from his father, who, being of infirm health, lived constantly at Arpinum, and spent the greater part of his time in study'. From him was probably derived that strong love for the old Latin dramatic and epic poetry which his son throughout his writings displays. He too, we may conjecture, led the young Cicero to feel the importance of a study of philosophy to serve as a corrective for the somewhat narrow rhetorical discipline of the time3. Cicero's first systematic lessons in philosophy were given him by the Epicurean Phaedrus, then at Rome because of the unsettled state of Athens. His lectures Cicero attended at a very early age, even before he had assumed the toga virilis. The pupil seems to have been converted at once to the tenets of the master". Phaedrus remained to the end of his life a friend of Cicero, who speaks warmly in praise of his teacher's amiable disposition and refined style. He is the only Epicurean, with, perhaps, the exception of Lucretius, whom the orator ever allows to possess any literary power. Cicero soon abandoned Epicureanism, but his schoolfellow, T. Pomponius Atticus, received more lasting impressions from the teaching of Phaedrus. It was probably at this period of their lives that Atticus and his friend became acquainted with Patro, who succeeded Phaedrus as head of the Epicurean school". 1 De Leg. 11. § 3. Cf. De Or. II. § 1 with II. § 5. Ad Fam. XIII. 1, 2, Phaedrus nobis, ...cum pueri essemus, antequam Philonem cognouimus, ualde ut philosophus, postea tamen ut uir bonus et suauis et officiosus probabatur. N. D. 1. § 93, Phaedro nihil elegantius, nihil humanius. For Phaedrus, cf. also Fin. 1. 16; ib. v. 3 (which shews R. C. 1.4 that Ph. was at Athens in 78); Leg. 1. I At this time (i.e. before 88 B. C.) Cicero also heard the lectures of Diodotus the Stoic, with whom he studied chiefly, though not exclusively, the art of dialectic'. This art, which Cicero deems so important to the orator that he calls it 'abbreviated eloquence,' was then almost the monopoly of the Stoic school. For some time Cicero spent all his days with Diodotus in the severest study, but he seems not to have been much attracted by the general Stoic teaching. Still, the friendship between the two lasted till the death of Diodotus, who, according to a fashion set by the Roman Stoic circle of the time of Scipio and Laelius, became an inmate of Cicero's house, where he died in B. C. 59, leaving his pupil heir to a not inconsiderable property. He seems to have been one of the most accomplished men of his time, and Cicero's feelings towards him were those of gratitude, esteem, and admiration". In the year 88 B.C. the celebrated Philo of Larissa, then head of the Academic School, came to Rome, one of a number of eminent Greeks who fled from Athens on the approach of its siege during the Mithridatic war. Philo, like Diodotus, was a man of versatile genius: unlike the Stoic philosopher, he was a perfect master of both the theory and the practice of oratory. Cicero had scarcely heard him before all inclination for Epicureanism was swept from his mind, and he surrendered himself wholly, as he tells us, to the brilliant Academic1. Smitten with a marvellous enthusiasm he abandoned all other studies for philosophy. His zeal was quickened by the conviction that the old judicial system of Rome was overthrown for ever, and that the great career once open to an orator was now barred3. We thus see that before Cicero was twenty years of age, he had been brought into intimate connexion with at least three of the most eminent philosophers of the day, who represented the three most vigorous and important Greek schools. It is fair to conclude that he must have become thoroughly acquainted with their spirit, and with the main tenets of each. His own statements, after every deduction necessitated by his egotism has been made, leave no doubt about his diligence as a student. In his later works he often dwells on his youthful devotion to philosophy. It would be unwise to lay too 1 Brutus, § 309. 2 Ad Att. II. 20, § 6. 3 Ad Fam. XIII. 16, 4. T. D. v. § 113. Acad. 11. § 115. Fam. IX. 4. N. D. 1.6. Brutus, § 306. In N. D. 1. 6, Cic. mentions, as his four principal teachers, Diodotus, Philo, Antiochus, Posidonius. For Philo's teaching, cf. N. D. I. 17; 6 Rep. 1. § 7. De Off . much stress on the close relation which subsisted between the rhetorical and the ethical teaching of the Greeks; but there can be little doubt that from the great rhetorician Molo, at this time Rhodian ambassador at Rome, Cicero gained valuable information concerning the ethical part of the Greek philosophy. During the years 88-81 B. C. Cicero employed himself incessantly with the pursuit of philosophy, law, rhetoric, and belles lettres. Many ambitious works in the two departments last mentioned were written by him at this period. On Sulla's return to the city after his conquest of the Marian party in Italy, judicial affairs once more took their regular course, and Cicero appeared as a pleader in the courts, the one philosophic orator of Rome, as he not unjustly boasts'. For two years he was busily engaged, and then suddenly left Rome for a tour in Eastern Hellas. It is usually supposed that he came into collision with Sulla through the freedman Chrysogonus, who was implicated in the case of Roscius. The silence of Cicero is enough to condemn this theory, which rests on no better evidence than that of Plutarch. Cicero himself, even when mentioning his speech in defence of Roscius, never assigns any other cause for his departure than his health, which was being undermined by his passionate style of oratory. The whole two years 79-77 B. C. were spent in the society of Greek philosophers and rhetoricians. The first six months were passed at Athens, and were almost entirely devoted to philosophy, since, with the exception of Demetrius Syrus, there were no eminent rhetorical teachers at that time resident in the city. Probably by the advice of Philo himself, Cicero attended the lectures of that clear thinker and writer, as Diogenes Laertius calls him3, Zeno of Sidon, now the coryphaeus (so Philo entitled him) of the Epicurean school. In Cicero's later works there are several references to his teaching. He was biting and sarcastic in speech, and spiteful in spirit, hence in striking contrast to Patro and Phaedrus. It is curious to find that Zeno is numbered by Cicero among those pupils and admirers of Carneades whom he had known'. Phaedrus was now at Athens, and along with Atticus, who loved Phaedrus beyond all other philosophers, Cicero spent much time in listening to his instruction, which was eagerly discussed by the two pupils". Patro was probably in Athens at the same time, but this is nowhere 1 Cf. Brutus, §§ 312, 322, 323. 2 Cf. Brutus, §§ 312, 314, 316. 3 Brutus, § 315. 4 Cf. N. D. 1. § 59, where the advice is described as having been given to Cotta. 5 VII. 1, § 35. 6 Cf. N. D. 1. § 93 with Tusc. III. 38. 7 Ac. I. § 46. 8 D. F. V. § 3. 9 D. F. 1. § 16. |