academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library

The Project Gutenberg eBook of ...
are clearly drawn out, also Zeller 447, 448. Callipho: as the genitive is Calliphontis, Cic. ought
according to rule to write Calliphon in the nom; for this see Madv. on D.F. II. 19, who also gives
the chief authorities concerning this philosopher. Hieronymus: mentioned D.F. II. 19, 35, 41, V.
14, in which last place Cic. says of him quem iam cur Peripateticum appellem nescio. Diodorus:
see Madv. on D.F. II. 19. Honeste vivere, etc.: in D.F. IV. 14 the finis of Polemo is stated to be
secundum naturam vivere, and three Stoic interpretations of it are given, the last of which
resembles the present passage—omnibus aut maximis rebus iis quae secundum naturam sint
fruentem vivere. This interpretation Antiochus adopted, and from him it is attributed to the vetus
Academia in I. 22, where the words aut omnia aut maxima, seem to correspond to words used by
Polemo; cf. Clemens Alex. qu. by Madv. on D.F. IV. 15. See n. below on Carneades. Antiochus
probat: the germs of many Stoic and Antiochean doctrines were to be found in Polemo; see I. 34,
n. Eiusque amici: Bentl. aemuli, but Halm refers to D.F. II. 44. The later Peripatetics were to a
great degree Stoicised. Nunc: Halm huc after Jo. Scala. Carneades: this finis is given in D.F. II.
35 (frui principiis naturalibus), II. 42 (Carneadeum illud quod is non tam ut probaret protulit,
quam ut Stoicis quibuscum bellum gerebat opponeret), V. 20 (fruendi rebus iis, quas primas
secundum naturam esse diximus, Carneades non ille quidem auctor sed defensor disserendi
causa fuit), T.D. V. 84 (naturae primus aut omnibus aut maximis frui, ut Carneades contra
Stoicos disserebat). The finis therefore, thus stated, is not different from that of Polemo, but it is
clear that Carneades intended it to be different, as he did not include virtus in it (see D.F. II. 38,
42, V. 22) while Polemo did (I. 22). See more on 139. Zeno: cf. D.F. IV. 15 Inventor et princeps:
same expression in T.D. I. 48, De Or. I. 91, De Inv. II. 6; inv. = ????st??.
§132. Quemlibet: cf. 125, 126. Prope singularem: cf. T.D. I. 22 Aristoteles longe omnibus—
Platonem semper excipio—praestans; also D.F. V. 7, De Leg. I. 15. Per ipsum Antiochum: a
similar line of argument is taken in Sext. P.H. I. 88, II. 32, etc. Terminis ... possessione: there is a
similar play on the legal words finis terminus possessio in De Leg. I. 55, 56, a noteworthy
passage. Omnis ratio etc.: this is the constant language of the later Greek philosophy; cf. Aug.
De Civ. Dei XIX. 1 neque enim existimat (Varro) ullam philosophiae sectam esse dicendam, quae
non eo distat a ceteris, quod diversos habeat fines bonorum et malorum, etc. Si Polemoneus: i.e.
sapiens fuerit. Peccat: a Stoic term turned on the Stoics, see I. 37. Academicos et: MSS. om. et as
in I. 16, and que in 52 of this book. Dicenda: for the omission of the verb with the gerundive
(which occurs chiefly in emphatic clauses) cf. I. 7, and Madv. on D.F. I. 43, who how ever
unduly limits the usage. Hic igitur ... prudentior: MSS. generally have assentiens, but one good
one (Halm's E) has assentientes. I venture to read adsentietur, thinking that the last two letters
were first dropt, as in 26 (tenetur) and that then adsentiet, under the attraction of the s following,
passed into adsentiens, as in 147 intellegat se passed into intelligentes. N, I may remark, is
frequently inserted in MSS. (as in I. 7 appellant, 16 disputant, 24 efficerentur), and all the
changes involved in my conj. are of frequent occurrence. I also read sin, inquam (sc. adsentietur)
for si numquam of MSS. The question uter est prudentior is intended to press home the dilemma
in which Cicero has placed the supposed sapiens. All the other emendations I have seen are too
unsatisfactory to be enumerated.
§133. Non posse ... esse: this seems to me sound; Bait. however reads non esse illa probanda
sap. after Lamb., who also conj. non posse illa probata esse. Paria: D.F. III. 48, Paradoxa 20 sq.,
Zeller 250. Praecide: s??t?µ?? or s??e??? e?pe, cf. Cat. Mai. 57, Ad Att. VIII. 4, X. 16. Inquit: n.
on 79. Quid quod quae: so Guietus with the approval of Madv. (Em. 203) reads for MSS. quid
quae or quid quaeque, Halm and Bait., follow Moser in writing Quid? si quae removing the stop
at paria, and make in utramque partem follow dicantur, on Orelli's suggestion. When several
relative pronouns come together the MSS. often omit one. Dicebas: in 27. Incognito: 133.
§134. Etiam: = "yes," Madv. Gram. 454. Non beatissimam: I. 22, n. Deus ille: i.e. more than man
(of Aristotle's ? ?e?? ? ??????), if he can do without other advantages. For the omission of est
after the emphatic ille cf. 59, n. Theophrasto, etc.: n. on I. 33, 35. Dicente: before this Halm after
Lamb., followed by Bait., inserts contra, the need for which I fail to see. Et hic: i.e. Antiochus.
Ne sibi constet: Cic. argues in T.D. V. that there cannot be degrees in happiness. Tum hoc ... tum
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM]