C. could have met with an independent treatise, whether Academic

or Stoic, which should just meet and refute the arguments in the Epicurean treatise used by him for the earlier sections; that pre- cise references therefore to the preceding argument are probably additions by C.; and from this he draws the conclusion that the last part of Cotta’s speech, from § 115 to the end, has undergone least manipulation and most faithfully represents the original authority ; and it is precisely here that we find the largest amount of Stoic matter. Again, noticing the remarkable break after § 105, where Cicero after proposing to consider the question of the abode and manner of life of the gods in § 103, suddenly recurs to their nature, leaving the previous question altogether unanswered, he suggests that we have here a fragment of the original, which C. began to translate, but found to be unsuited to his purpose of meeting the speech of Velleius and forgot afterwards to cancel. Here again there are marked indications of a Stoic origin, as I have pointed out in my notes on the bestiae quae igne nasci putentur, and on naturae accommodatum.
There are however some arguments which need consideration in favour of the Academic origin of the section. Thus Hirzel has pointed out the close resemblance between parts of this and the sceptical argument in Sext. Emp. 1x; also the inconsistency between Coita’s statement as to the superstition of Epicurus § 85, and that which is quoted from Posidonius in §123; and lastly the anti-Stoic sentiments which we find interspersed, e.g. the repeated profession of agnosticism § 57, 66, 84, 91, 94, the contempt for the consensus gentium § 62, the objection to the rationalizing and allegorizing of the myths § 119. Swencke replies with considerable force that Sextus has himself borrowed from a Stoic original in such passages as Ix 123 and 131; that we find the opposing views as to the sincerity of Epicurus’ religious belief stated in Sext, Emp. 1x 58 and
liv INTRODUCTION.
64, and may suppose both to have been similarly stated by Posidonius, though he expressed his own assent to the latter; that C.’s motive for maintaining the other view in § 85 was probably the wish to give his own experience on the subject; lastly that the anti-Stoic remarks are no more than were required in order to give the proper colour- ing to a speech put in the mouth of an Academic; that they occur sometimes in purely Stoic passages; that in general the Stoic writers form the store-house from which C. borrows his arguments against Epicurus, whilst he attacks the Stoics themselves with weapons forged by the Academy, as in the De Finibus; that in the present treatise this is foreshadowed hy the language used of the Epicurean doctrines in § 3, of the Stoic in § 4; that Euhemerism is not the same as Stoicism, and that the observations about the mysteries are an interpolation of Cicero’s (see my nn. on § 119). See further, as to the difference between the undoubted criticism of Carneades and that contained in this section, my note on § 92 under habebit igitur.
§ 5. TEXT AND ORTHOGRAPHY.
The text which I have given agrees in the main with that of the latest editor, C. F. W. Miiller, Teubner, 1878, but I have endeavoured throughout to weigh the evidence, internal and ex- ternal, for each reading to the best of my ability; and I have in some instances retained the reading of the MSS, where it had been altered by Miiller in common with all the recent editors, Thus [ have thought it unnecessary to insert a second eadem before requiro in § 21, and I have three times ejected a non which they had inserted, before potest in § 21, before nihil in § 93, before pudeat in§111. Elsewhere I have ventured on transposition of sentences as in §§ 5, 30 and 97; and on emendations of words, as in §§ 26, 49,71. In the critical notes my object has been to put the reader in possession of the requisite data for forming an independent judg- ment on the text. As a foundation I have given the more im- portant of the readings contained in the 2nd ed. of Orelli, brought out under Baiter’s supervision in 1861; but, though the MSS (ABCEP)’ there cited supply the principal material for determining the text of the Ist book of the V.D., they do not seem to me to
1 For a description of the mss see the note prefixed to the text.
TEXT AND ORTHOGRAPHY. lv
possess such a transcendent superiority, either in point of accuracy or of age, as to make it unnecessary to weigh carefully the evidence furnished by other MSS. I have therefore thought it my duty to examine, as far as was in my power to do so, all evidence which could throw a light on the condition of the text up to the end of the 15th century. Thus, besides the critical editions of Orelli, Heindorf and Creuzer, I have had in constant use the Ascensian ed. of 1511, and two MSS (U and Y) most kindly lent to me by S. Allen Esq. of Dublin, whose father’s name will be familiar to students of Cicero under the Latinized form ‘ Alanus.’? I am further indebted to J. H. Swainson, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, for the use of his very careful collation of eight MSS. seven belonging to the British Museum, and one to the Cambridge University Library, as well as of the two earliest printed texts. This collation is given in an abridged form at the end of the volume, Another MS (0), recently purchased by the Trustees of the British Museum, has been collated for me by a member of the staff of the MSS department there: but in this, as in the other cases, I have myself compared the collation with the MS, wherever special im- portance attached to a particular reading. In like manner the readings of four Oxford MSS given at the end of the Oxford 4to edition of 1783 have been tested for me, eou by H. P. Richards, Esq., and y by J. S, Reid, Esq.*. Beside the ms readings, I have also mentioned the differences between my text and those of Schi- mann, Miiller and Baiter, both in his earlier and later editions.
In order to show that the record preserved to us in Orelli’s MSS is at any rate not so complete as to dispense either with emendations or with a careful comparison of other MSS, I have given below, Ist, a list of passages, in which the text is supported exclusively by what are considered the inferior MSS in opposition to all Orelli’s | MSS: in many of these cases the true reading had been indepen- dently restored by conjecture, and it is of course open to question how far the MSS themselves are to be considered as witnessing to a traditional reading or merely giving the scribe’s emendation ; 2nd, a list of passages in which the received text is supported by one only of Orellis MSS; and 3rd a list of passages in which the
2 I may mention as an illustration of the danger of trusting to negative evidence in the case of ms readings, that scarcely one in ten of the inferences which I had drawn ez silentio on the part of the Oxford collator of 1783 was verified on examination of the mss themselves. ’
lvi INTRODUCTION.
received text rests solely on conjecture unsupported by any existing MS. Under each head I have mentioned only those readings which are accepted (except where otherwise stated) by Baiter, Schimann,
and Miiller in common with myself.
1. True reading preserved by inferior MSS in opposition to all Orelli’s MSS. l. inscientiam for scientiam, El. 2. in primis for imprimisque, Cw
CS LH
$16. haec for hoc, Asc. U. § 18. oculis (om. animi), Asc. V (Schimann dissents). £26. continentem for tncontinentem, Asc. UCHMRY. § 28. commenticium for conventicium, Asc. INOV, § 29. earuinque for eorumque, Asc. CMV. scientiam for sententiam, Asc, CHMV, $31. diximus for dictmus, M of Moser. § 36. omnem for omnium, G. Red. Asc. V.
vi divina for ut div., G. 37. ipsum mundum deum tor i.d.m., ML, dicit esse for esse, UH Ase. 39. fatalem vim for f. umbram, El. ( Baiter dissents),
2 Sh Sh Ur eo D
$41. dixerat for dixerit, UYLO. $49. docet for doceat, C.
$53. negatis for negetis, El, GU. $60. ves for spes, UHM Asc. Red.
ceteroqui for ceteroque, Oxf. u Moser’s E and M.
$61. consessw for consensu, Asc. Ry.
$68. quod enim for quia enim, El. Reg. UO. § 70. esse verum for esset v., UYL.
$71. quod vos for quam v., CMNR Asc.
§ 72. nihil ex for nihil ne ex, UHO.
$77, quast sut for quam sui, I of Moser.
§ 81. defendes for defendens, UYL.
§ 82. Aegyptio for Aegypto, Ase.
§ 83. ldaudamus Athenis for 0. esse Ath., I of Moser.
§ 86. aliquid esse for aliquid iste, El. Oxf. e.
$87. lustrationem for tllustrationem, GO El.’ Reg.’ Herv. § 88. diceretur for dicerentur, UYC Asc,
§ 89. quid for quod, YHLMOR.
§ 96. wmaquamne for nuinquamne, R.
§ 97. § 99.
TEXT AND ORTHOGRAPHY. lvii
at figura for ad figuram, UCHLO. (Baiter dissents). ad speciem nec ad usum for speciem nec usum, G. (Baiter
and Miiller read by conjecture specie nec usu.)
§ 103. § 104.
§ 106, § 108. § 109. § 110.
§ 111. S113; § 116.
§ 123.
oportet et for oportet, CN of Moser. ratione for rationis, UYOC El. attigerts for attigerit, C.
tu for tum, Asc.
Suerunt for fuerant, UYOC Ase. Jfaciet for facient, G, Red.
ex individuis for ex divinis, V, Herv.’ se ipsa for se ipse, Asc. CR.
Vellet for velle, UMRV.
nam etiam for nam enim, G.
allicere for elicere, GHRV.
voluptate for voluntate, ULMNORV. homuncult for homunculis, MR Herv.
2. True reading preserved by inferior MSS in opposition to all but one of Orelli’s MSS."
§ 1.
§ 18. § 25. § 26. § 28.
ut before magno argumento, B’ Asc. UILO (Baiter dissents). turpius for fortius, C’ Asc. El. Herv. Pal. 3 y.
descendisset for descendis (or descendens) sed, B Asc. CNMR, si di for sic di, EUCV.
animal for anima, BM Asc.
reprehenditur for reprehenderetur, E (and by correction in
B) CLMN.
§ 34. S37. § 56. § 58, § 65.
ch. § 72. § 78. § 79.
de natura for in natura, BUCV. sententia est qui for sententias qui, A°UCM Asc. metuimus for metuemus, BPUCMV, anteferret et for anteferret, Asc. PBH. doce for doceas, PCHL Asc.
punctis for cunctis, B Asc. U.
corpus aut quasi, om. all but BUYO. olet for floret, BLO,
corport for corpore, CU Asc. exorientem for exoriente, BUM.
at erat for aderat, CK.
1 TI have not thought it necessary here to distinguish, as I have done in the critical notes, between positive evidence and ex silentio inference, as regards the readings of Orelli’s mss.