M. C. ibs

194 BOOK T CH, XXXE § $9:
higher value on logic and on literary culture generally than Epicurus did ; he thinks these are referred to by Diog. L. x 25, when he speaks of those disciples obs of yvjovoe ’Emcxovpecot codiaras dmokxadovow. It is certain that C. (Fin. 1 30 foll.) contrasts the procedure of Ep. himself, who held that his doctrine of pleasure was self-evident and needed no proof (negat opus esse ratione neque disputatione, quamobrem voluptas expetenda, fugi- endus dolor sit: sentirt hoc putat ut calere ignem), and that of some of his followers who, having regard to the criticisms of other schools, non ex- zstimant oportere nimium nos causae confidere, sed et argumentandum et accurate disserendum et rationibus conquisitis de voluptate et dolore dispu- tandum putant.
quae agrees with the neuter dialectica, implied in the preceding masculine. The neuter is also found Of. 119 al. : elsewhere we have the feminine, both in a Gr. form, dialectice, and in the Latin, see /%n. 11 17 dialecticam pugni similem esse dicebat, 111 41 &c. Sch. illustrates the con- struction from Juse. 1 4 in Graecia musict floruerunt discebantque id omnes, cf. also 2b. Iv 48 gladiatorium id quidem ; quamquam in wis ipsis videmus saepe constantiam, NV. D. 1 80 ecquos silos—quae, Brut. 112 ad senatoriam sententiam, cujus (se. senatus) erat ile princeps, (aptum videbatur), Fin. 1 17 Democritia dicit...ille, Vv 16 Carneadia divisio est—alle (where see Madv.), and a remarkable instance in Sall. Cat. 18 antea conjuravere pauci: in quibus Catilina fuit ; de qua dicam, where see Dietsch. [Perhaps however it is better, as Mr Roby suggests, to refer quae to argumentis, translating ‘and you V., deviating from the custom of your school, have logically stated your opinion in arguments of the Dialecticians, totally unknown to your tribe’; though it must be confessed there is some harshness in the position of the relative. ]
gens vestra, non novit: cf. § 70 nn., Ac. 1 97, Zeller Stoics tr. p. 399.