academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library

The Project Gutenberg eBook of ...
(22). With this ethical standard, it is possible to give an intelligent account of action
and duty (23).
§19. Ratio triplex: Plato has not this division, either consciously or unconsciously, though it was
generally attributed to him in Cicero's time, so by Varro himself (from Antiochus) in Aug. De
Civ. Dei VIII. 4, and by Diog. Laert. III. 56 (see R. and P., p. 195). The division itself cannot be
traced farther back than Xenocrates and the post-Aristotelian Peripatetics, to whom it is assigned
by Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. VII. 16. It was probably first brought into strong prominence by the
Stoics, whom it enabled more sharply and decisively to subordinate to Ethics all else in
philosophy. Cf. esp. M.D.F. IV. 3. Quid verum ... repugnans iudicando: MSS. exc. G have et
before quid falsum, whence Klotz conj. sit in order to obviate the awkwardness of repugnet
which MSS. have for repugnans. Krische wishes to read consequens for consentiens, comparing
Orator 115, T.D. V. 68, De Div. II. 150, to which add T.D. V. 21 On the other hand cf. II. 22, 91.
Notice the double translations of the Greek terms, de vita et moribus for ?????, etc. This is very
characteristic of Cic., as we shall see later. Ac primum: many MSS. and edd. primam, cf. 23, 30.
A natura petebant: how Antiochus could have found this in Plato and Aristotle is difficult to see;
that he did so, however, is indubitable; see D.F. V. 24—27, which should be closely compared
with our passage, and Varro in Aug. XIX. 3. The root of Plato's system is the ?dea of the Good,
while so far is Aristotle from founding his system on the abstract f?s??, that he scarcely appeals
even incidentally to f?s?? in his ethical works. The abstract conception of nature in relation to
ethics is first strongly apparent in Polemo, from whom it passed into Stoic hands and then into
those of Antiochus. Adeptum esse omnia: put rather differently in D.F. V. 24, 26, cf. also D.F. II.
33, 34, Ac. II. 131. Et animo et corpore et vita: this is the t??a? or t??????a t?? a?a???, which
belongs in this form to late Peripateticism (cf. M.D.F. III. 43), the third division is a development
from the ß??? te?e??? of Aristotle. The t??a? in this distinct shape is foreign both to Plato and
Arist, though Stobaeus, Ethica II. 6, 4, tries hard to point it out in Plato; Varro seems to merge the
two last divisions into one in Aug. De Civ. Dei XIX 3. This agrees better with D.F. V. 34—36,
cf. also Aug. VIII. 8. On the Antiochean finis see more in note on 22. Corporis alia: for ellipse of
bona, see n. on 13. Ponebant esse: n. on 36. In toto in partibus: the same distinction is in Stob.
Eth. II. 6, 7; cf. also D.F. V. 35. Pulchritudinem: Cic. Orator 160, puts the spelling pulcher
beyond a doubt; it often appears in inscr. of the Republic. On the other hand only pulcrai,
pulcrum, etc., occur in inscr., exc. pulchre, which is found once (Corp. Inscr. I. no 1019).
Sepulchrum, however, is frequent at an early time. On the tendency to aspirate even native Latin
words see Boscher in Curtius' Studien II. 1, p. 145. In the case of pulcher the false derivation
from p???????? may have aided the corruption. Similarly in modern times J.C. Scaliger derived
it from p??? ?e?? (Curtius' Grundz ed. 3, p. 8) For valetudinem viris pulchritudinem, cf. the ???
?e?a ?s??? ?a???? of Stob. Eth. II. 6, 7, and T.D. V. 22. Sensus integros e?a?s??s?a in Stob., cf.
also D.F. V. 36 (in sensibus est sua cuiusque virtus). Celeritatem: so p?d??e?a in Stob., bene
currere in Aug. XIX. 3. Claritatem in voce: cf. De Off. I. 133. Impressionem: al. expressionem.
For the former cf. De Or. III. 185, which will show the meaning to be the distinct marking of
each sound; for the latter De Or. III. 41, which will disprove Klotz's remark "imprimit lingua
voces, non exprimit." See also De Off. I. 133. One old ed. has pressionem, which, though not
itself Ciceronian, recalls presse loqui, and N.D. II. 149. Pliny, Panegyric, c. 64, has expressit
explanavitque verba; he and Quintilian often so use exprimere.
§20. Ingeniis: rejected by many (so Halm), but cf. T.D. III. 2, and animis below and in N.D. II. 58.
In naturam et mores: for in ea quae natura et moribus fiunt. A similar inaccuracy of expression
is found in II. 42. The division is practically Aristotle's, who severs a?eta? into d?a???t??a? and
????a? (Nic. Eth. I. c. 13, Magna Mor. I. c. 5). In D.F. V. 38 the d?a???t??a? are called non
voluntariae, the ????a? voluntariae. Celeritatem ad discendum et memoriam: cf. the e?µa?e?a,
µ??µ? of Arist. (who adds a??????a s?f?a f????s??), and the docilitas, memoria of D.F. V. 36.
Quasi consuetudinem: the quasi marks a translation from the Greek, as frequently, here probably
of e??sµ?? (Nic. Eth. II. c. 1). Partim ratione formabant: the relation which reason bears to
virtue is set forth in Nic. Eth. VI. c. 2. In quibus: i.e. in moribus. All the late schools held that
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM]