academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library

The Project Gutenberg eBook of ...
which Orelli gives. Rebatur: an old poetical word revived by Cic. De Or. III. 153; cf. Quintil.
Inst. Or. VIII. 3, 26.
§27. Subiectam ... materiam: the ??p??e?µe?? ???? of Aristotle, from which our word subjectmatter
is descended. Sine ulla specie: species here = forma above, the e?d?? or µ??f? of Arist.
Omnibus without rebus is rare. The ambiguity is sometimes avoided by the immediate succession
of a neuter relative pronoun, as in 21 in quibusdam, quae. Expressa: chiselled as by a sculptor
(cf. expressa effigies De Off. III. 69); efficta, moulded as by a potter (see II. 77); the word was
given by Turnebus for MSS. effecta. So Matter is called an e?µa?e??? in Plat. Tim. Quae tota
omnia: these words have given rise to needless doubts; Bentl., Dav., Halm suspect them. Tota is
feminine sing.; cf. materiam totam ipsam in 28; "which matter throughout its whole extent can
suffer all changes." For the word omnia cf. II. 118, and Plat. Tim. 50 B (de?eta? ?a? ?? ta pa?ta),
51 A (e?d?? pa?de?e?). The word pa?de?e? is also quoted from Okellus in Stob. I. 20, 3. Binder
is certainly wrong in taking tota and omnia both as neut.—"alles und jedes." Cic. knew the Tim.
well and imitated it here. The student should read Grote's comments on the passages referred to. I
cannot here point out the difference between Plato's ???? and that of Aristotle. Eoque interire: so
MSS.; Halm after Dav. eaque. Faber was right in supposing that Cic. has said loosely of the
materia what he ought to have said of the qualia. Of course the p??te ????, whether Platonic or
Aristotelian, is imperishable (cf. Tim. 52 A. f???a? ?? p??sde??µe???). Non in nihilum: this is
aimed at the Atomists, who maintained that infinite subdivision logically led to the passing of
things into nothing and their reparation out of nothing again. See Lucr. I. 215—264, and
elsewhere. Infinite secari: through the authority of Aristotle, the doctrine of the infinite
subdivisibility of matter had become so thoroughly the orthodox one that the Atom was scouted
as a silly absurdity. Cf. D.F. I. 20 ne illud quidem physici credere esse minimum, Arist. Physica,
I. 1 ??? est?? e?a??st?? µe?e???. The history of ancient opinion on this subject is important, but
does not lie close enough to our author for comment. The student should at least learn Plato's
opinions from Tim. 35 A sq. It is notable that Xenocrates, tripping over the old a?t?fas?? of the
One and the Many, denied pa? µe?e??? d?a??et?? e??a? ?a? µe??? e?e?? (R. and P. 245).
Chrysippus followed Aristotle very closely (R. and P. 377, 378). Intervallis moveri: this is the
theory of motion without void which Lucr. I. 370 sq. disproves, where see Munro. Cf. also Sext.
Emp. Adv. Math. VII. 214. Aristotle denied the existence of void either within or without the
universe, Strato allowed its possibility within, while denying its existence without (Stob. I. 18, 1),
the Stoics did the exact opposite affirming its existence without, and denying it within the
universe (Zeller 186, with footnotes). Quae intervalla ... possint: there is no ultimate space atom,
just as there is no matter atom. As regards space, the Stoics and Antiochus closely followed
Aristotle, whose ideas may be gathered from R. and P. 288, 9, and especially from M. Saint
Hilaire's explanation of the Physica.
§28. Ultro citroque: this is the common reading, but I doubt its correctness. MSS. have ultro
introque, whence ed. Rom. (1471) has ultro in utroque. I think that in utroque, simply, was the
reading, and that ultro is a dittographia from utro. The meaning would be "since force plays this
part in the compound," utroque being as in 24 for eo quod ex utroque fit. If the vulg. is kept,
translate "since force has this motion and is ever thus on the move." Ultro citroque is an odd
expression to apply to universal Force, Cic. would have qualified it with a quasi. Indeed if it is
kept I suggest quasi for cum sic. The use of versetur is also strange. E quibus in omni natura:
most edd. since Dav. (Halm included) eject in. It is perfectly sound if natura be taken as ??s?a =
existence substance. The meaning is "out of which qualia, themselves existing in (being coextensive
with) universal substance (cf. totam commutari above), which is coherent and
continuous, the world was formed." For the in cf. N.D. II. 35, in omni natura necesse est absolvi
aliquid, also a similar use ib. II. 80, and Ac. II. 42. If in utroque be read above, in omni natura
will form an exact contrast, substance as a whole being opposed to the individual quale.
Cohaerente et continuata: the Stoics made the universe much more of a unity than any other
school, the expressions here and the striking parallels in N.D. II. 19, 84, 119, De Div. II. 33, De
Leg. fragm. 1. (at the end of Bait. and Halm's ed.) all come ultimately from Stoic sources, even if
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM]