C. AcapEMic CRITICISM OF THE EPICUREAN THEOLOGY,

Ch. xx1 § 57—Ch. xuiv § 124,
a. Preface. Cotta, while expressing his belief in the existence of the Gods, refuses to make any positive assertion as_to their nature, but altogether dissents from the Epicurean view. §§ 57—61.
atqui: ‘nay’.
nisi dixisses—potuisses: quoted in P. S. Gr.4 p. 472 as an ex. of the Subj. of possum in apodosis where the ability to perform the action is strictly conditioned, and cannot be viewed absolutely, as in the passages cited in my n. on § 19 longum est. [There is a good ex. of the Subj. in Quintil. v 11 § 29. R.]
roges—respondeam: ‘should you ask me, I should reply’. On the use of the hypothetical protasis without relative or conjunction see Roby § 1552. So just below guaeras—dicam, roges—utar.
aggrediar ad ea: so in 1117 agg. ad disputationem.
§ 58. familiari illo tuo. Some mss insert Z. Crasso, but Madvy. (Fin. 14) points out that a Roman orator (who in De Orat. 111 77 foll. is made to disclaim any special knowledge of philosophy) would be out of place here, and that it would have been unnecessary to qualify one so well known by the addition fam. 7. t. He further mentions that one Ms gives the alterna- tive de Lucilio, de Crasso. There can be little doubt therefore that he is right in considering ZL. Crasso a gloss taken from De Orat. 111 78, where the speaker Crassus alludes to Velleius as meus familiaris. The person here referred to is, acc. to Madv. Phaedrus, whom C. had heard in Rome, cum pueri essemus Fam. x11 1, but the conjecture is chiefly founded on the supposed fact of Phaedrus being the author of the treatise now attributed to Philodemus. As the latter appears to have resided in Italy for a longer time than the former, some might prefer to explain the allusion of him. I doubt however whether C. would have given such a vague reference to either, and think it more likely that a name has been lost from the text. Whoever he was, he must probably have been one who held the same position in the house of Vell. which Diodotus held for more than 20 years in the house of C., Antiochus in that of Lucullus, Philodemus in that of Piso.
togatis: does not necessarily imply a Greek speaker (as Madv. J. ¢.). In the fep. 1 36 Scipio speaks of himself as wnwm e togatis.
videor audisse: ‘if I am not mistaken I often heard’. On the omis- sion of mihi after vid. see Zumpt § 380 and Sch. here.
cum te—anteferret=anteferente. For the apparently intransitive use of audio cf. De Orat. 11 22 ex socero audivi cum diceret, Parad. 45 multi ex te audierunt cum diceres ; for the use of de, Brut. 100 audivi de majoribus, and .Draeg. § 286. 2; for the postponement of the cum- clause, see Roby