M. C. d

xl INTRODUCTION.
valde volet (Att. xtv 1). It is not to be wondered at that Cicero found such a personality to be rather oppressive at times. In a letter to Atticus v1 1 §7 he complains that Brutus etiam cum royat aliquid, contumaciter, arroganter, axowwvytws solet scribere. A list of his works is given in Orelli’s Onomasticon.
§ 4. ON THE SOURCES OF THE FIRST BOOK OF THE DE NATURA DEORUM},
Ir is now generally recognized that Cicero’s philosophical trea- tises are not to be regarded as original works, but are, as he himself calls them, ‘adaptations from the Greek’; azoypada suit, minore la- bore fiunt, verba tantum affero quibus abundo, Att. x11 52. Hence it has been the endeavour of later editors to identify the writers from whom Cicero has borrowed in each case; and careful monographs have been written on the fontes of different treatises, as of the Z'us- culans by Heine 1863, and Zietzschmann 1868; of the De Divina- tione by Schiche 1875, and by Hartfelder 1878; and K. F. Hermann (De interpretatione Timaci, Gott, 1842,) has given reasons for believ- ing that the translation of the Zimaews was intended to be incor- porated in a larger work treating of the origin of the world. Not of course that Cicero was always equally dependent upon his authori- ties. He naturally moves with more freedom when he is treating of moral and social questions, as in the De Offciis, than when he touches on abstruse points of metaphysics, as in the Academica or De Fini- bus. We should therefore be justified in supposing with regard to our present treatise, that Cicero had not himself read all the different books referred to in $§ 25—43, probably also that he had not read the Epicurean books referred to in §§ 43, 45, 49; even if this a priori conclusion had not been confirmed by the fortunate discovery, among the Herculanean mss, of a treatise which is generally held to be the original of a considerable portion of the Epicurean argument con-
1 Compare on this subject Hirzel Untersuchungen zu Cicero’s Philosophischen Schriften pp. 4—45, Schwencke in the Jahrb. j. class. philol. 1879 pp. 49—66, and Diels’ Doxographi Graeci p. 121 foll., a work which has appeared since my own remarks were written; also Spengel Philodemus wepi evoeBetas, Munich 1863; Sauppe Philodemi De Pietate, Gottingen 1864; Nauck Ueber Philodemus rept evoeBetas (in Mélanges Gr. Rom., St Petersburgh 1864); Gomperaz Herkulanische Studien vol. 2, Leipzig 1866.
SOURCES OF BOOK I. xh
tained in the first book of the ¥. D. I will begin with giving a short account of this treatise, proceeding then to point out the more striking resemblances between it and the present work, and will finally examine more in detail the relations of the two to each other.
In the year 1752 great curiosity was excited by the discovery of a library at Herculaneum in the house which has been called after Piso the father-in-law of Caesar’, from the fact that ‘its site agrees with Cicero’s statement that the residence of the Pisos was visible from his own villa at Puteoli’ (Hayter’s Report on the Herculaneum MSS, London 1811, p. 31); and also from the fact that most of the Mss found there contained treatises by writers belonging to the Epicurean school, of which Piso was an adherent, and that many of them bore the name of Philodemus, who is known (from Cicero’s speech in Pisonem) to have been the intimate friend and instructor of Piso. The difficulty of unrolling the charred papyri was very great, and it was not till the year 1793 that the Ist Vol. of Herculanensia (containing the treatise of Philodemus zepi povorxys) appeared at Naples. At the instigation of the English Ambassador, Sir W. Hamilton, the Prince of Wales undertook to supply the necessary funds for carrying on the work more actively, and also sent his librarian, the Rev. John Hayter, to assist in opening and copying the mss; in which he succeeded so well that, in the four years from 1802 to 1806, more than 200 were unrolled. In the latter year the work had to be abandoned in consequence of the French occupation of Naples, but copies of 94 mss, after remaining for a while at Palermo, were ultimately sent to England and pre- sented to the Bodleian together with four unopened papyri’; and in
1 Comparetti, in his paper La Villa di Pisone in Ercolano, Nap. 1879, maintains that two of the busts found there represent Piso and his colleague Gabinius; and certainly they agree remarkably well with Cicero’s description of the pair in his speech Pro Sezt. 18.
2 Among the unpublished facsimiles at Oxford there is one of considerable interest to students of the N.D. It appears as No. 26 in the catalogue of Her- culanean rolls given in the Preface to the Oxford Herculanensia Vol. 1, 1824, and is there entitled @iAodjuou repli Oetwv. Through the kindness of the Sublibrarian, Mr Bywater, I have been enabled to examine this, and find that the real title is mepl Gedy, the title-page consisting of four longitudinal strips which have been wrongly pasted together, so as to make a portion of a broken letter look like an « following @e. There are several pages which are fairly legible, but I did not in the short time at my disposal discover anything which would serve to illustrate the Epicurean argument in Cicero.
d 2
xliv INTRODUCTION.
the year 1810 a volume of //erculanensia, edited by Drummond and Walpole, was published in London, This contained an anonymous fragment, twelve columns in length, entitled by the editors wept tav Gedv. The fragment excited considerable interest owing to the resem- blances it presented to parts of the speech of Velleius in the first book of the V. D., and it was ably reviewed in the Quarterly’ and Edinburgh during the course of the year. Hayter wrote a reply to the former in the same year, speaking of the book as @aidpov rept @esv. The same authorship had been already claimed for it by Miirr, in a German translation of Philodemus wept povoixns (Berlin, 1806), in which he announced that among the forthcoming Herculanean publications there was a treatise entitled Baidpov repi picews Gear, which had been made use of by Cicero for his own work on the same subject. Hayter allows that the name Philodemus would naturally suggest itself, but he says the space does not admit of reading so many letters. An improved text with notes was brought out in 1833 by Petersen at Hamburg, under the title Phaedra Epicuret, vulgo anonymi LHerculanensis, de Natura Deorum. He uses the following arguments to show that Phaedrus must be the author. Since Cicero’s chief instructors in the doctrines of Epicurus were Zeno and Phaedrus, both of whom are prominently mentioned in the NV. D., it is natural to suppose that he must have borrowed from one or the other. And as Phaedrus is spoken of in terms of warmer praise (see § 93) he seems the more likely of the two; besides Zeno (§ 94) is said to have attacked his own contemporaries, whereas the latest writer criticized in the speech of Velleius is Diogenes of Babylon, who died not later than 150 B.c. The strongest argument however in favour of Phaedrus is, that in a letter to Atticus (xu 43), written about the time of the composition of the WV. D., Cicero asks to have his treatises rept Gedv et wept IladAados® sent to him; just as in x1 8 he asks for Panaetius wept zpovocus, which we know to have been used by him in M D. 11 118, De Divin. 1 6, 12, 1 88;
1 See n. on § 39 under Chrysippus.
2 The older reading is Patdpov mepiccuy et ‘EX\ddos, which was supposed to refer to two books of Dicaearchus, C. having asked for other writings of his in earlier letters. It was suggested that the former treatise might be a criticism of the Phaedrus of Plato, which D. is known to have condemned as too ornate; while the latter was identified with the Bios ‘E\Xddos of which some fragments still remain.
SOURCES OF BOOK I. xlv
and in xr 32 for Dicaearchus, used in Div. 1 5, 113, 11 105, Tuse,t 245171.
The question of authorship was thus supposed to be settled, and for several years the fragment was generally referred to as the wepi gvoews of Phaedrus’; but in 1862 it appeared in the 2nd. vol. of the new series of [Herculanensia published at Naples, as a portion of a much larger whole (12 columns out of 147) bearing the name ®.do- dyjpov IEpe edoeBetas of which the three capital letters alone are now legible. Whether the remainder were restored from faint traces or on conjecture merely, is not stated; the fact that the volume is found in a collection containing many writings which are undoubtedly by Philodemus, and the marked resemblance of style between those writings and the present’ make it at all events highly probable that it is rightly attributed to him®*, What then do we know of this Philodemus beyond the fact of his connexion with Piso? Cicero speaks of him as a man of elegance and taste, distinguished in litera- ture no less than in philosophy, non philosophia solum, sed etiam litteris, quod fere ceteros Epicureos neglegere dicunt, perpolitus (In Pis. 70); and in the de Finibus 11 119 Torquatus, the Epicurean speaker, mentions him as an authority to whom difficult questions may be referred. ‘That he had studied the history of philosophy is shown by an allusion in Diog. L. x 3 to the 13th book ris tav priocdguv cuvtagews written by him. Zeller states (Stoics tr. p. 390), that not less than 36 treatises by him have been discovered at Hercu- laneum*. He was much influenced by Zeno, whose disciple he was, see his wept onpetwy p. 24 Gomp. nuiv pev ovv diadeyopevos 0 Ziyvev kat Ndyous THv avridogalovTwv Tods Exkelpwevous mpoEpepEeTO Kal ToLAvTaLs aravtnceat Mpos adrovs éypyto, also p. 26, and cf. the reference to Z.’s lectures in the wept evoeBeias p. 118 Gomp. [at] Zyvov yevopevar cuvaywyat Suacapotow; some of his treatises are professedly based upon those of Zeno, e.g. Petersen p. 8, mentions one under the Latin title De moribus ac vitiis, opus ex libro Zenonis contractum,; the Herculanean vol. v1, Naples 1839, contains another entitled zepi ris tov Oedv evoroxouperys Siaywyns Kata Zyveva; and in the preface to
1 It had been however already claimed for Philodemus in 1818, by Blomfield on Aisch. Ag. 1. 362, and in the Italian Bullet. Archeolog. for 1835 p. 46.
2 See Sauppe p. 4, Nauck p. 589.
3 Gomperz has stated all that is known on this point in a letter printed by Diels, Doxographi p. 529.
4 Comparetti (J. c. p. 5) has more recently fixed the number at 26.
xlvi INTRODUCTION.
the Oxford Herculanensia, vol. 1 p. v, the words Zyvwves cyoddv occur in the mutilated title of the Philodemian treatise numbered 1389. This is of importance in regard to the question whether the resemblances between Cicero and Philodemus are to be explained by direct copying on the part of the former, or whether both writers may not have borrowed from Zeno.
I proceed now to point out what is the nature of these resem- blances, and I think it will be seen that they cannot be simply set aside by such remarks as Schimann’s (Introd. p. 18) ‘ahnliche Angaben und Urtheile, wie dort, kamen ohne allen Zweifel in gar manchen anderen epikureischen Schriften ebenfalls vor.’ General arguments no doubt might be a part of the common Epicurean tradi- tion, but it is most improbable that this should be the case with regard to minute points of criticism and to particular citations from the writings of opponents, some of them misinterpreted, and likely therefore to have been exposed by hostile criticism, if they were in common use. Such references are those to Xenophon’s ’Azo- prnpovevpara (Phil. p. 71, VW. D. 31); to the Pvorkos of Antisthenes (Phil. p. 72, . D. 32), in support of a proposition of which we have no information from other sources; to the 3rd book of Aristotle’s rept dirtoovdias (Phil. p. 72; VW. D. 33); to Chrysippus wept Oeav bk 1 (Phil. p. 77, NY. D. 41), treating of the Stoic theology in general, bk mt (Phil. p. 80, WY. D. 41) containing his explanation of the mytho- logy of Orpheus, Musaeus, Homer and Hesiod; to the zepi 7s "AGnvas of Diogenes of Babylon (Phil. p. 82, .V. D. 41).
Assuming then, as we may, that there is an undoubted connexion between the two treatises, the next point is to determine its nature and extent. If we compare them broadly together, we find the Epicurean argument in the Ist book of the ¥. ). made up of three parts, (1) a preliminary polemic against the Platonic and Stoic views of the origin of the world and the nature of God (§§ 18—24); (2) a critical review of earlier philosophers from Thales to Diogenes of Babylon, followed by a brief notice of the popular mythology in Greece and elsewhere (§§ 25—43); (3) an exposition of the Epicurean theo- logy. Similarly the Philodemian treatise, as we have it, is made up of three parts (1) a criticism of the popular mythology (pp. 5—61); (2) a criticism of older philosophers (pp. 65—89); (3) an exposition of the Epicurean theology (pp. 93—151). The resemblances noticed above belong to the second, or historical section, which we will
now examine more closely. Cicero’s list of philosophers is as fol-
SOURCES OF BOOK I. xlvii
lows': (1) Thales, (2) Anaximander, (3) Anaximenes, (4) Anaxagoras, (5) Alemaeon, (6) Pythagoras, (7) Xenophanes, (8) Parmenides, (9) Lm- pedocles, (10) Protagoras, (11) Democritus, (12) Diogenes of Appollo- nia, (13) Plato, (14) Xenophon, (15) Antisthenes, (16) Speusippus, (17) Aristotle, (18) Xenocrates, (19) Heraclides, (20) Theophrastus, (21) Strato, (22) Zeno, (23) Ariston, (24) Cleanthes, (25) Persaeus, (26) Chrysippus, (27) Diogenes of Babylon. The first name which we meet with in the Philodemian fragment is Pythagoras p. 66, but there are clear allusions to Anaximenes (1) in p. 65, to Anaxagoras (2) p. 66 (see nn, on the corresponding passages in the NV. D.): there is no reference to Alemaeon or Xenophanes, but after Pythagoras (3) follows Parmenides (4) in p. 67, then Democritus (5) p. 69, Heracli- tus (6) p. 70; Diogenes of Apollonia (7) p. 70; Prodicus, alluded to but not named, (8) p. 71, cf p. 76; Xenophon (9) p. 71; Antisthenes (10) p. 72; Aristotle (11) p. 72; Theophrastus (12) possibly alluded to in p. 73, see n. on NV. D. 1 35; Persaeus (13) p. 75; Chrysippus (14) pp. 77—82; Diogenes of Babylon (15) p. 82; Cleanthes (16) is incidentally alluded to in p. 80, and Zeno (17) in p. 84.
Considering the very fragmentary state of the Philodemian trea- tise from p. 65 to 75 (i.e. till we reach Persaeus), it is remarkable that more than half of Cicero’s list should be found in it almost in the same order*; that in both Aristippus should be omitted; lastly that both should end with Diogenes, making no mention of his suc- cessors Antipater and Panaetius, the latter of whom exercised a far greater influence over the Romans than any other Stoic’. It appears strange however that Heraclitus and Prodicus are not included in Cicero’s list. Hirzel thinks this is because Philodemus identifies the teaching of Persaeus with that of Prodicus p. 76, and the teaching of Heraclitus with that of Chrysippus p. 81; to which Schwencke objects that Philod. gives the doctrines of Prodicus and Heraclitus by them- selves in the first instance, and only mentions their agreement with
1 The names which appears only in one list are printed in italics. Diels has facilitated the comparison of Cicero and Philodemus by priuting them in parallel columns (Doxog. pp. 531—550).
2 The order is sometimes hardly what we should expect, e.g. the Xeno- phontic Socrates comes after Plato and before Antisthenes.
3 This is especially remarkable in a writer like Philodemus, who, as we know from the anonymous treatise published by Comparetti, Turin 1875, had touched on these later Stoics in other writings.
xlvut INTRODUCTION.
the Stoics in a later page, and that Cicero wrote in too great a hurry either to foresee this, or to correct what he had already written. Perhaps this is going too far, It is plain that Cicero felt the neces- sity for compressing very much the historical review, and a simple means of doing this was to omit repetitions. He was also about to speak of Prodicus in Cotta’s reply (VW. ).1 118), and he alludes to Heraclitus as the forerunner of the Stoics in 111 35, stating that, as he chose to be unintelligible, it was useless to discuss his opinions.
So far there appears to be no improbability in Cicero’s having borrowed directly from Philodemus, but it becomes more diflicult to suppose this, when we compare the two writings more minutely. Thus, while both criticize Anaximenes, Ph. has nothing in common with C., but merely speaks of air as without sensation; while there is a fair agreement as to the doctrines of Anaxagoras, there is no criticism in Ph.; on Pythagoras and Democritus Ph. is too frag- mentary to allow of comparison; on Parmenides there is hardly any agreement; on Diogenes they agree to a certain extent, but Ph. is much fuller; on Xenophon Ph. quotes correctly, as far as the frag- ment is legible, but gives no criticism, while C. is wrong throughout; on Antisthenes they agree, but Ph. has no criticism; on Aristotle there is nothing legible in Ph. beyond the actual reference; on Theo- phrastus Ph. has merely a reference to a treatise not mentioned by C.; on Persaeus there is substantial agreement, but Ph. is much fuller, he does not however give anything of the criticism we find in C.; between Theophrastus and Persaeus C. has some 32 lines on Strato, Zeno, and Cleanthes, to which there was probably something corresponding in pp. 73—75 of Ph., where we can trace broken allusions to the universal reason and the power that holds all things together, but the names are lost; while there is general agreement on Chrysippus (see my n. on W. D. 1 39), Ph. is much fuller, except where C. dilates on the Stoic idea of the Divine Law; so on Diogenes of Bal »ylon,
This slight sketch will show that, if C. has borrowed from Ph. he has used him with the utmost freedom, omitting without scruple, and, if we may weigh the evidence of the fragments according to the ordinary law of chances, one would say, adding not unfrequently from other sources. It is true that the absence of criticism after each name in Philedemus, may be explained by the fact that he veserves it all for the end (pp. 8f—89). But then when we examine this later criticism, we find nothing in common between it and that
SOURCES OF BOOK I. xlix
in C., as will be seen from the following summary of Ph.’s remarks. ‘The Stoics in general are far more opposed to the established religion than we Epicureans; if they grant the existence of a deity, which they do not all do, they at any rate acknowledge no more than one God, while they impose on the multitude with their names and allegories. They are worse atheists, with their ethers and elements, than Diagoras, who confessed the existence and power of the Gods. By asserting that God cannot be the author of evil they do away with religious sanctions, which we retain; they call the Gods mortal, we assert their eternity. Even if they allowed punishment in word, who could fear these senseless elements? None would regard Gods incapable of motion or of sense; or pay any heed to the moral teach- ing of those who are in doubt whether there are Gods or what is their nature, or who plainly deny them: men might even be encou- raged to sin by those who speak of endless strife among the Gods. Thus the philosophers are reducing men to the state of brutes, for they remove the check of religion and also of public opinion, which are the best helps for restraining injustice.’ It is plain that there is more of serious thought and of a real interest in religion and morality here, than there is in the flippant sarcasms put into the mouth of Velleius.
We go on to the other sections of Philodemus. The first, dealing with the popular mythology, is made by C. a mere appendix to the section we have just been considering; and while it occupies some 60 pp. in Ph. it is condensed into a dozen lines by C. It will be seen from my nn. on §§ 42, 43 that most of the points touched by C. are fully treated by Ph., but there is no allusion to the Magians in the extant fragments of the latter. In the 3rd section, as far as we can judge from broken phrases (see n. on § 49 docet eam esse vim), Ph. seems to have treated of the divine nature in a manner not unlike C.: he speaks of the Gods as free from anger and favour and absolutely perfect and blessed, and he is equally strong against superstitious fears; but he makes religion a much more practical thing (see the passages quoted on § 44 quod beatum esset). Thus ‘piety is productive of innocence and harmlessness (p. 95); by innocence man may imitate the blessedness of the Gods (p. 148); Epicurus honoured his parents, loved his brothers, observed all religious duties (p. 118), and charged his disciples to do the same in obedience to the laws (p. 126), but not for that reason only, but also because prayer is natural when we think of beings surpassing in power and excellence (p. 128); while
] INTRODUCTION.
other philosophers have dissembled their views as to the immorality of parts of the popular religion, Epicurus laid down the plain rule that we must conform except where impiety is commanded (p. 120); God is friendly to the good, estranged from the bad (124); if Epi- curus had been a hypocrite he would never have taken such pains in writing on the subject of religion (p. 134). Hirzel p. 15 foll. calls attention to the fact that certain points e.g. the isovopia and the quast corpus mentioned by C. are not referred to Epicurus by Diog. L. and may probably be considered later developments of Epicurean doctrine.
There is still the first section of Cicero to consider, which has nothing corresponding to it in the fragments of Philodemus. It is a preliminary criticism of the Platonic and Stoic theories of the origin of the world, turning chiefly on the difficulties involved in the idea of creation at any given moment. The argument is similar to that contained in Luer. v. 110—234, and Plut. 7. Phil. p. 881, but given more fully than in either. We find no allusion to it in the following sections of the VW. D. To this is joined an argument (repeated in the later sections) against a mundane deity, as inconsistent with the divine attributes of rationality and blessedness. Such a preliminary criticism comes naturally enough to prepare the way for the positive statements of the Epicurean theology, as there was no body of belief which could be upheld against the latter, except such as was derived either from Plato or the Stoics.
When we try to determine the connexion between this and the historical section which follows, there is much to suggest the con- clusion of Krische (p. 23) and Hirzel, that the latter section was inserted as an afterthought. Thus in § 36 we find wt jam ad vestros Lalbe veniam, though the Stoics, whom Balbus represents, had been already treated of in the earlier section; similarly in regard to Plato (§ 30 compared with § 18); and the inconsistency is still more manifest in § 25, if we insert alia with most editors, reading haec quidem vestra, qualia vero alia sint ab ultimo repetam (see my notes on these passages). It is further objected that there are no subse- quent allusions to the historical section either by Cotta or Balbus; but Cotta does allude to it three times, §§ 63, 91, 94, and, even if he had not done so, there would be nothing surprising in it, since Cicero, as Schwencke remarks p. 56, is not likely to have had any Greek treatise at hand in which the historical errors of the Epicureans were pointed out; and there was no occasion for Balbus to recur to an
SOURCES OF BOOK I. li
exposition which had been already dealt with by Cotta. His allu- sions to the remainder of the speech of Velleius are very scanty (11 47 and 73). On the whole I think the framework of the book requires some such review of previous philosophers to justify the frequent references to the diversity of opinion on the subject of theo- logy, e.g. in $1 and $13 ponam in medio sententias philosophorum, and then si consenserint omnes, in § 14 doctissimorum hominum tanta dissensio; in § 42 exposui non philosophorum judicia, sed delirantium somnia, compared with § 94; expressions which would, I think, be less appropriate, if Cicero confined himself strictly to the three schools represented by the disputants. The repetitions complained of are scarcely to be called repetitions, for they leave out the main point in the previous argument against Plato and the Stoics, viz. the ques- tion as to a creation in time; but as far as they are such, they may be explained by the haste and carelessness which characterize the whole treatise, and of which we shall see instances in the latter half of the 1st book; the special difficulty of § 25 is, I think, removed by the explanation given in my note.
There is one other point which is likely to strike the reader, and which calls for a few remarks, and that is the inferiority of the his- torical section to the other two. In the Ist section there is the usual Epicurean arrogance of manner, but the objections stated are in themselves of interest and importance; and so as regards the argu- ments of the 3rd section; but in the 2nd section we meet with little besides misrepresentation and abuse. Is this a mark of a different authority having been used, or has C. wished to give us a sample of the way in which Epicureans, such as Colotes, composed their his- tories of philosophy, and at the same time to illustrate the charge he has himself brought against the Epicureans, vestra solum legitis, ceteros causa incognita condemnatis, N.D. 11 73%
What then is the general conclusion to which we are led by this comparison of the two treatises? The impression left upon my own mind is that as far as the historical section extends cer- tainly, and possibly for the expository section also, both have copied a common original, most likely Zeno, the teacher of both Philodemus and Cicero; whom Cotta calls the spokesman (coryphaeus) of the school, and of whom he makes the suggestive remark, that he at- tended his lectures at the request of Philo the Academician, in order that he might the better understand how well the latter had suc-
- ceeded in refuting him, while he also compares his style of arguing to
lh INTRODUCTION.
that of Velleius (§ 59). It would further seem that Cicero has pre- served Zeno’s sharp sayings, which were softened down by the gentler Philodemus, who may also have added a good deal of his own in the later section’. But then why does the historical review stop at the middle of the 2nd century B.c.? It seems as if we must go back a step further and trace Zeno’s criticisms to Apollodorus 6 kyorv- pavvos, the predecessor of Zeno in the chair of Epicurus, who flou- rished towards the end of the 2nd century B.c. and is said to have written more than 400 books (Zeller Stoies tr. p. 389).
With regard to the sources of the other two sections I do not think we are yet able to arrive at any positive conclusion. It is possible that Zeno wrote a treatise wept Gedy in four books, the Ist disproving what might be considered the orthodox theology of Plato and the Stoics, the 2nd giving a history of the traditional beliefs, the 3rd a history of philosophical speculation on the same subject, the 4th containing the views of the most advanced Epicureans; but it is equally possible that Phaedrus (as suggested by the letter to Atticus) may have been the authority copied by Cicero for his first and last sections; on the other hand it is quite possible that C. may have found his treatise unsuited to his purpose.
We proceed now to inquire what is the original source of the criticism of Epicurus which is put in the mouth of Cotta. It is natural at first sight to suppose that this, as well as the criticism of the Stoical doctrines assigned to Cotta in the third book, is derived from Clitomachus, the editor of the writings of the great Academic critic, Carneades. But further consideration shows that there are many difficulties in the way of this identification. Carneades is quoted by name in bk. rir 29, 41, but never in bk. 1, where, on the contrary, we find Posidonius referred to as the authority from whom a part of the argument is borrowed ($123); and Schwencke has pointed out the strong vein of Stoicism which runs through the speech. Compare for instance the jest at the expense of the Academy in § 80, the definitions of sanctitus and pietas in § 115, the view of wisdom as a bond of union not only between man and man, but between man and God § 121, the idea of virtue as an active principle
1 Hirzel assigns the historical section to Philodemus, as the author, and the earlier and later sections to Zeno. Schwencke would give all to Zeno (pp. 56,57). Diels (p. 126) is inclined to make Philodemus copy from Phaedrus, which does not seem to me probable.
SOURCES OF BOOK I. hii
§ 110, the approving mention, slightly veiled it is true under an Academic form, of the Stoic doctrine of the divinity of the universe § 95, and of the teleological argument §100. Schwencke carries the argument further than this. He notices certain marks which indicate a more or less close following of his authority on the part of Cicero, such as the introduction of quotations from Latin authors, allusions to Roman customs, to other writings of his own, &c.; and in reference to this particular section, which professes to be a reply to what has gone before, he remarks that it is very unlikely that