BOOK I CH. XXIV § 66. 163

12 d0r fort Kat Sudkpiois Kai avyKptots GAN’ ovr’ eis Gropa Kai e€ aropor, roAda yap ta addvvara: and (2) denying the existence of vacuum, Phys. Iv 6—9 (where the conclusion is given in the words ovr’ dmokexpipévov Kevor €or, v8 dnhas, ovr’ év TO para, ore Svvaper, i.e. void does not exist either separately or inclosed in bodies as a cause of rarefaction), see also Cleomedes 11, The Stoics held that the world was a plenum, but that outside of it there was an infinite vacuum Diog. vir 140, Zeller Stozcs tr. p. 185—192. Dr Whewell (Scientific Ideas 11 48—63) while allowing the value of the molecular hypothesis as an instrument of discovery, points out many diffi- culties which stand in the way of our accepting it ‘as a philosophical truth respecting the constitution of the universe’; cf. also Veitch Lucretius and the Atomie Theory and Clerk Maxwell’s Art. on ‘Atom’ in the Encyc. Brit. As to the existence of vacuum the results of modern science are thus stated, ‘the undulatory theory of light supposes the whole of the celestial spaces to be filled with the luminiferous ether. The astronomical argument therefore in favour of absolute vacuum has fallen ; but the views of the constitution of matter which have grown with the rise of the molecular sciences of chemistry, light, heat, electricity, &c., have supplied its place with much more effect. The inference to which the modern philosophy would give the greatest probability is that all space is occupied by particles of matter with vacuous interstices, showing all degrees of density’. English Cyclo- paedia under Vacuum.
vera an falsa nescio. In the Introduction reasons are given for believing that Cotta’s speech is borrowed from a Stoic source, but C. adds clauses like this to impart to it an Academic colouring.
flagitia : ‘atrocities’; so just below and mr 91, cf. the use of monstra, portenta, &c. § 18 n.: one may excuse such scurrilities in the mouth of the Dogmatists, but they are scarcely appropriate for an Academic. The con- struction is resumed in hane opinionem.
sive etiam ante Leucippi. C. expresses himself doubtfully because Epicurus denied that Leucippus had ever existed, Diog. L. x 13, Hirzel p. 184.
corpuscula—adunca. Lucretius 11 333 foll. shows how the qualities of bodies are derived from the various shapes of the constituent atoms, some levia and rotunda, some aspera and hamata, mucronibus unca or angellis prostantibus ; cf. Theoph. Caus. Plant. v1 6 (quoted in Mullach’s Democritus p- 217) Anpoxpiros b€ oxfjpwa mepiribels Exdot@ yAuKdy per TOY oTpoyyAov Kai evpeyeOn mrovet, orpupvoy dé Tov peyadooxnpoy Tpaxvy Te Kat woAVy@rLOY Kal amepipeph, d€dv dé rov dfiv tO Gyx@ Kal yovoerdy kal KaywvAov k.7-d. ; Cic. Ac. 11 121) fr. 28 (where wncinatus answers to aduncus here), Lactant. De Ira x. In Pseudo-Plut. Plac. Phil. 1 28 p. 877 it is denied that the atoms were dyxiorpoetd pre Tprarvoerdy pnte Kpikoedy, TadTa yap Ta oXjpaTa eVOpavora eivat, ai S€ Growor anabeis Gbpavoror ; but Aristotle (Frag. 202 p. 1514) distinctly says that, according to Democritus, the atoms were ra pev oxadnva, Ta S€ dykiatpwdq, Ta S€ Koida, Ta O€ KupTa, Ta Sé GAXas avapidpous
11—2
164 BOOK I CH. XXIV § 66.
éyovra Siadhopas, a point in which he differed from Epic. who made the atoms infinite in number, but limited the variety of shapes, see Lucr. l.c. The text here is extremely doubtful. Heind., who re-writes the sentence, pertinently asks what is the force of guas¢ before a simple word such as adunca. Ang. and pyr. are both dm. dey.
quaedam—alia—partim—quaedam : cf. § 103 Tuse. v 38. Similarly we have modo and tum irregularly combined for the sake of variety in § 34. [I think it is necessary to insert another alia before levia. Quaedam merely marks the unfamiliarity of corpusculum to translate dropos (so first used by Amafinius, see Ac. I 5). Also the pause seems to come after gquaedam. J.S. R.]
nulla cogente natura, sed concursu quodam fortuito. This is a cor- rect statement of the theory of Epicurus, but is inapplicable to Democritus, who spoke of chance as the fiction of human inconsiderateness (avOperot tv- xns elSwdov €xAacarto rpopacw idins dBovdins Mullach p. 167) and said that, nothing was made at random (ovdev xpFya parny ylyverat, adda Tavta ek Aéyou Te kal Um’ dvayxns Mullach p. 226). So Arist. Gen. An. V 8 Anpoxpiros d€, TO ov Evexa adels A€yetv, mavra dvaye eis avaykny ols ypyrat 7 pvows, and 116; though he elsewhere censures him for naming no cause, Phys. vut | ad fin. dws S€ To vopitew dpxny etvar ta’tnv ixavyy, Ste det 7) Cot ovTas ty yiyverat, ovK dpOds exer vrodaBeiv, ef’ 6 Any. dvayer Tas rept hiceas airias, Gs oUT@ kal TO MpOTeEpoy eyivero, Which (in Phys. 1 4 and 5) he treats as equi- valent to making rd avroparov the cause. While C. uses the word fortuitus of the atoms of Democritus in Tusc. I 22, 42, Ac. 16, as well as here; in the De Fato 23 and 39, he more correctly connects the universal perpendicular movement of the atoms with the doctrine of fate, id Democritus accipere maluit, necessitate omnia fieri, quam a corporibus individuis naturales motus avellere, cf. § 69 below.
hanc tu. So in Div. 1 73 the apodosis commences with hoe tu aus- picium.
priusque te quis—dejecerit. The indefinite quzs is rarely found ex- cept in connexion with conjunctions or relative pronouns or with the verb dixerit, see Zumpt § 708, Draeg. § 44. [It is not easy to say whether dejecerit should be classed as Subj. or Ind., see Gr. §§ 1540, 1541. I am inclined to take it as Ind. ef. Liv. vir 40 vos prius in me strinxeritis ferrum quam in vos ego, Verr. Iv 59 dies me citius defecerit quam nomina, Plane. 79 sed me dius fidius multo citius meam salutem pro te abjecero quam Cn. Plancii salutem tradidero contentioni tuae. The comparative adverb is frequent in these sentences. R.]
vitae statu: a common phrase in C., e.g. Ver. 11 10 ‘the lamenta- tions of the Sicilians made me abandon my rule of never taking part in a prosecution’ (de vitae meae statu deducerent ut ego istum accusarem). Dejicere de statu (Orator 129) is a metaphor borrowed from the ring ‘to knock a man out of his attitude’. ‘It would be easier to make you change your whole posture of life than to stop you from following his teaching’.