BOOK I CH. XXxIII § 92. 199

I 1 paddAov & eoti rd 0d evexa kal TO Kaddv ev Tois ris Piaews epyois 4H €v Tois Ths Téxyns, and is never weary of repeating that nature ovOev rovet repiepyov ovde parnv. Not unlike is Bacon’s famous aphorism (Wov. Org. 1 10), subtilitas naturae subtilitatem sensus et intellectus multis partibus superat.
habebit igitur—loquetur: but in the treatise by Philodemus zepi rijs Tov Gedy evotoxovperns Staywyis kata Zyvwva (Here. vol. v1, Naples, 1839) we read that the gods Aéyovrat pr odd Stahepovoats Kata tas apbpocets xpjaba devais, kai povoy otdapev yeyovéras Oeods “ENAnvide yAw@rtn xpope- vous, quoted in Zeller Stoics tr. p. 442. From the fact that the author here followed by C. takes for granted that the gods are not endued with the faculty of speech, and that Carneades (ap. Sext. Emp. 1x 178) introduces the idea of their speaking either the Greek, or any other language, as an absurd consequence which would flow from the assumption of their having such a faculty!, Hirzel (p. 172) argues that the dogma reported by Philodemus must have been a late development in the Epicurean school, and that it may possibly have been suggested to Zeno by the very argu- ment which Carneades directed against the attribution of speech to the gods.
§ 93. istisne—dixerunt: ‘Was it in such dreams as these that they put their faith when they spoke against Pythagoras &c.?’ For somnia cf. §§ 39, 42.
Metrodorus: the most distinguished of the disciples of Epic. d. B.c. 277. His fragments have been collected by Duening (‘Feub. 1870), cf.
113. : Hermarchus: of Mytilene, the successor of Ep., cf. Madv. Fin. 11 96. Diog. L. mentions writings of his wept "Ewmedoxdéous, mpos TAdrwva and mpos AptotoreAnv. ‘Porphyry (Abstin. I 26) speaks of a treatise in which he controverted the vegetarianism of the Pythagoreans’. Sch.
Leontium. ‘Opponents charged the Epicureans with gross impro- priety because they admitted not only women, but women of loose morality into the philosophic circle’, Zeller Stoics tr. p. 384. To judge this matter fairly we must remember (1) the strict seclusion imposed upon Athenian matrons, (2) the esteem in which such a man as Socrates held the Hetaerae Aspasia and Diotima, (3) the slanderous pens of controversialists and anecdote-mongers, which left no philosophic reputation unassailed, and
1 His words are ef @wvaév éore (6 Beds), Pury xpyrac kal exer Pwvyrika dpyava, Kabarep mvevpova Kal rpaxelay aprnplav yAwoody Te kal oroua. ToT dé droroy Kal éyyus THs’ Emcxovpou uv0oroylas. rtolvuv pyréov un vrdpxew tov Oedv. Kal yap 51 el pura xpHTat, opsre?’ ef 5¢ Oude, TavTws KaTd Tiva GiddeKTov Outre? el Oe ToUTO, tl uadrov TH EANAnvioOn 4 TH BapBapw xpyrat yAwoon; Kal ef TH “EdNqridi, Th waddov TH lade 7 7H Alodld. # Tut Tay GAdwr ; It is strange that Hirzel can have read the argument of Carneades, as given in the 9th book of Sext. Emp., and yet have believed that Cicero’s critique on the Epicurean theology was borrowed from him. Carn. is impartially destructive; his opponent is welcome to choose any view, and he will show that on that view, whateyer it may be, the existence of a deity is impossible: Cic. on the contrary is fundamentally Stoical with a slight Academic varnish,
200 BOOK I CH. XXXIII § 93.
which, if we may believe Diog. x 3, were especially venomous in the case of Epicurus. Among the female members of the school were Themista, wife of the Epicurean Leonteus, to whom C. jestingly alludes as a sort of female Solon in his speech against Piso, licet Themista sapientior sis, and Leontium, the mistress of Epicurus, here mentioned. Her attack on Theophrastus is noticed by Plin. WV. ZH. praef. 23, who also mentions two portraits of her by distinguished artists (Xxxv 36 36 and 40 19).
scito illa—sed tamen: ‘in neat Attic style it is true, but still’ (mere- tricula contra Theophrastum, what a piece ofimpertinence !) Cf. the ellipse with dpyas d€ Plato Parm. 137 A, GAN dpas Arist. Ach. 956.
tantum—licentiae: ‘such was the freedom of speech in which the Garden indulged’: tantum often sums up, or gives the moral, like adeo in Juvenal.
et soletis queri: ‘and then (after abusing others so freely) you complain (if you are attacked yourselves) ’, cf: § 91 n. on et nune.
litigabat: Demetrius Magnes, a contemporary of C. (who alludes to his writings Aét. Iv 11, vir 11) stated in his treatise Hept ‘Ovevrtpov that Zeno was successful in prosecuting Theotimus, who had attacked Epic., Ccoripos d€ 0 ypawas Ta Kar ’Emtkovpov Bi/3Xia trd Zynvevos eEatnGeis (cf. Eur. Or. 1657) avnpé6n, Athen. x11 p. 611. It is supposed that ‘ Diotimus’ should be read for ‘Theotimus’, as we are told that a Stoic of the former name fathered spurious letters on Ep. with the view of discrediting his moral character, Diog. L. x 3. For Zeno see § 59 n.
Albucius: praetor in Sardinia B.c. 105, condemned on a charge re- petundarum in B.C. 103, after which he retired to Athens, where he had been educated, and devoted himself to philosophy. His name often occurs in C.’s writings, e.g. Brut. 131 doctus etiam Graecis T. Alb. vel potius paene Graccus...fuit autem Athenis adolescens, gerfectus Epicureus evaserat ; Prov. Cons. 15 where he is called Graecus homo ac levis; Tuse. v 108 7. Alb. nonne animo aequissimo Athenis exul philosophabatur? His Greek tastes were satirized by Lucilius, who makes Scaevola address him as follows Graecum te, Albuct, quam Romanum atque Sabinum | ...maluisti dict; Graece ergo praetor Athenis, | id quod maluisti, te, quom ad me adcedis, saluto: | xaipe, trnquam, Tite ; lictores, turma oimnis cohorsque: | xaipe, Tite ! hine hostis mi Albuctus, hine tinimicus | (quoted in Fin. I 9); also his affected style Orator 149.
nam Phaedro—sed stomachabatur: ‘then as to Phacdrus, though nothing could be more refined or courteous, still he used to lose his temper’. Cf. Ac. 11 11 Antiochus, homo natura lenissimus, stomachari tamen coepit. On nam, as a particle of transition, see § 27 n. ; on the attachment to the first clause, of a particle which properly belongs to the second, § 85 ctaque n.; on coordination of contrasted clauses § 20n.
Phaedrus: president of the Epicurean school, d. B.c. 70 ; C. says of him Fam. xut1 nobis cum pueri essemus, antequam Philonem cognovimus, valde ut philosophus, postea tamen ut vir bonus et suavis et officiosus probabatur.