BOOK I CH. vill § 18. 85

words intervene between wt and ve, as in this instance. Cf. Zumpt § 347, Madvig § 456 and Fin. 1 15 n.
me intuens: ‘with a glance at me’. Sch. refers to m 104, Brut. 253.
nihil scire: referring to the Academic doctrine of human nescience, dxaraAnia. So Fin. v 76, ‘would you send a youth to receive instruction in doctrines quae cum plane perdidicerit nihil sciat ?’
Cotta viderit : ‘that is Cotta’s business’, lit. ‘he will have looked (must look) to that’, i.e. [leave it to him to show whether we have learnt anything or not. Cf. 11 9 quam simile istud sit tu videris, Fin. 1 35 quae fuerit causa mox videro, Liberius in Gell. xvi 7 duas uxores? hoe hercle plus negoti est, ingquit cocio ; sed aediles viderint, ‘it is their look-out’. Some scholars, as Seyffert ad Lael. 10, have maintained that the mood is Ind. in the Ist and Subj. in the 2nd and 8rd persons, but see Madv. Opuse. 11 pp. 92, 96, Roby §§ 1593 and 1595 (where exx. of the simple Fut. similarly used are given) and Pref. cv. foll., cf. also Mayor Sec. Phil. p. 158.
nolo—auditorem. Both the Romans and Greeks preferred to negative the principal verb where we should join the negative particle with the Inf. as in the well-known instances of nego, od dni: so here nolo—adjutorem instead of volo—non adjutorem. If the subordinate sentence is composed of two members, one negative, the other affirmative, the negative verb is still retained, the fee are affirmative being suggested in thought before the second clause, as here nolo suggests volo before auditorem (sc. existimes me venisse). See Heind. here and on Hor. Sat. 11 3, and Madv. § 462.
adjutorem—auditorem. The antithesis is pointed by the paronomasia (opovdrrorov) cf. Herenn. Iv c. 20, Orat. c. 12, Brut. 38 suavis quam gravis, Mayor Sec. Phil. ind. s. v. annominatio. [A curious ex. is Div. 1 34 con- centu atque consensu. J.S. R.]
et quidem=xai raira ‘and that too’, see § 78 n.
libero judicio: the constant boast of the Academics, Ac. 1 8, Tuse. 11 8, Off. 11 20. On the contrary the Epicureans are charged with a slavish adherence to their master’s teaching, §§ 66 and 72, Fin. 11 20 quis enim vestrum non edidicit Epicuri xvpias 8o€as? Seneca Lp. 33, contrasting Stoic freedom with Epicurean subjection to authority, non sumus sub rege: sibi quisque se vindicat. Omnia quae quisquam in illo contubernio locutus est unius ductu et auspiciis dicta sunt ; (quoted by Zeller, Stozcs tr. p. 394 foll.) [But C. does not spare the Stoics either, cf. Ac. 11 120, Tuse. v33. J.S. RB]
velim nolim: ‘will I nill I’, ‘should I wish it or should I not’, On the omission of the conjunction in short antithetical phrases see Zumpt § 782.
B, EpicureAN ARGUMENT. vit 18—xx 56. (C. commences with the Epicureans as being the easiest to deal with, so as to leave the ground clear for the more serious struggle between the Porch
S6 300K I CH. VIE § 18.
and the Academy. Cf. Fin. 1 3 ut autem a fucillimis ordiamur, prima veniet in medium Epicuri ratio.)
a. Polemic of Velleius against the Plutonic and Stoic views of Creation. S§ 18—24.
fidenter ut solent: cf. Diog. L. x 121, (Epicurus affirmed that the sage Soyparteiv kat ovK dmopnoew.) Self-confidence is the natural charac- teristic of the materialistic or anti-spiritualist philosophers, a Hobbes, a 3entham, a Comte, who see clearly because their field of view is limited. Those who have had a deeper feeling of the littleness of man in contrast with the vastness of the universe have been fain to take refuge in a docta ignorantia, professing with Socrates that they know nothing, or with Plato seeking to find the best of human reasonings and use it as a raft for the voyage of life, e¢ yn rus Svvaito dodadéorepov Kat axivduvdrepov ent BeBaorépov oxnpatos, Adyou Oeiov tivos, StatropevOqvae (Phaedo 85). Compare the manner in which the latter enters upon the discussion of this subject in the 7imaeus as translated by C. (c. 3) si forte de deorum natura ortuque mundi disserentes minus id quod avemus consequemur, haud sane erit mirum, contentique esse debebitis st probabilia dicentur, Aequum est enim meminisse et me qui disseram hominem esse et vos qui judicetis, It is probable that in his representation of Velleius C. had in his eye the sophists of the Platonic Dialogues, such as Thrasymachus, and intended to exhibit him rather as the butt of the company ; but the arrogant, bantering tone, and the misrepresentation of opponents, are quite in accordance with what we are told elsewhere of the Epicureans : cf. what is said of Zeno and others § 93, and Hirzel p. 28 foll, On C.’s own position with regard to Epicureanism see /ntroduction. ex deorum concilio: sce n. on § 43 venerart Epicurum. It is curious that C. was attacked for using the same phrase of himself, probably in his poem on his Consulship, see Quintil. x1 1 24 Jovem lum a quo in con- cilium deorum advocatur foll. intermundia = peraxoomia, the empty spaces between the innumerable worlds of Ep. (§ 53) where he supposed the Gods to have their habitation, apart from all cares and dangers (Diog. L. x 89). It is the Homeric Olympus, rationalized by Aristotle, and adapted, or rather forced into the Epicurean scheme, cf. Arist. Cue/. 1 1. The word occurs again Fin. wu 75, and is referred to Div. 1 40 deos ipsos jocandi causa induxit Lpicurus perlucidos et perflabiles et habitantes, tanquam inter duos lucos (the famous asylum of Romulus), ste cater duos mundos propter metum ruinarum. Compare an interesting passage of Seneca, DBenef. iv 19 tu denique, Epicure, deum inermem facis: omnia ili tela, omnem detraxisti potentiam, et ne cuiquam metuendus esset, projecisti illum extra mundum. Hune igitur tnsaeptum tngenti quodam et tnexplicabili muro, divisumque a contactu et a conspectu mortalium, non habes quare verearis: nulla Uli nec tribuendi nee nocends materia est. In medio intervallo hujus et alterius