Academica · Marcus Tullius Cicero
BOOK I.
25, 3, the two words even occur without any other word to separate them. For _oratorum_ Pearce conj. _rhetorum_. _Rhetor_, however is not thus used in Cic.'s phil. works. _Utramque vim virtutem_: strange that Baiter (esp. after Halm's note) should take Manutius' far-fetched conj. _unam_ for _virtutem_. Any power or faculty (vis, δυναμις) may be called in Gk. αρετη, in Lat _virtus_. Two passages, _D.F._ III. 72, _De Or._ III. 65, will remove all suspicion from the text. _Verbis quoque novis_: MSS. have _quanquam_ which however is impossible in such a place in Cic. (cf. _M.D.F._ V. 68). _Ne a nobis quidem_: so all the MSS., but Orelli (after Ernesti) thinking the phrase "_arrogantius dictum_" places _quidem_ after _accipient_. The text is quite right, _ne quidem_, as Halm remarks, implies no more than the Germ. _auch nicht_, cf. also Gk. ουδε. _Suscipiatur labor_: MSS. om. the noun, but it is added by a later hand in G.
Madv. (_Em._ p. 108) made a forced defence of _quoniam_, as marking a rapid transition from one subject to another (here from physics to ethics) like the Gk. επει, only one parallel instance, however, was adduced (_T.D._ III. 14) and the usage probably is not Latin. _Adducere?_: The note of interrogation is Halm's; thus the whole sentence, so far, explains the difficulty of setting forth the true system of physics. If _quoniam_ is read and no break made at _adducere_, all after _quoniam_ will refer to ethics, in that case there will be a strange change of subject in passing from _quisquam_ to _haec ipsa_, both which expressions will be nominatives to _poterit_, further, there will be the almost impossible ellipse of _ars_, _scientia_, or something of the kind after _haec ipsa_. On every ground the reading of Madv. is insupportable. _Quid, haec ipsa_: I have added _quid_ to fill up the lacuna left by Halm, who supposes much more to have fallen out. [The technical philosophical terms contained in this section will be elucidated later. For the Epicurean ignorance of geometry see note on II. 123] _Illi enim simpliciter_: "frankly," cf. _Ad Fam._ VIII. 6, 1 _Pecudis et hominis_: note on II. 139.
1, 155. Notice _negat ... ne suspicari quidem_ without _se_, which however Baiter inserts, in spite of the numerous passages produced from Cic. by Madv. (_Em._ 111), in which not only _se_, but _me_, _nos_, and other accusatives of pronouns are omitted before the infinitive, after verbs like _negat_. Cf. also the omission of _sibi_ in _Paradoxa_ 40. _Si vero_: this, following _sive enim_ above, is a departure from Cic.'s rule which is to write _sive--sive_ or _si--sin_, but not _si--sive_ or _sive--si_. This and two or three other similar passages in Cic. are explained as anacolutha by Madv. in a most important and exhaustive excursus to his _D.F._ (p. 785, ed. 2), and are connected with other instances of broken sequence. There is no need therefore to read _sive_ here, as did Turn. Lamb. Dav. and others. _Quam nos ... probamus_: cf. Introd. p. 62. _Erit explicanda_: for the separation of these words by other words interposed, which is characteristic of Cic., see 11, 17. I am surprised that Halm and Baiter both follow Ernesti in his hypercritical objection to the phrase _explicare Academiam_, and read _erunt_ against the MSS., making _illa_ plural. If _erunt_ is read, _erit_ must be supplied from it to go with _disserendum_, which is harsh. _Quam argute, quam obscure_: at first sight an oxymoron, but _argute_ need not only imply _clearness_, it means merely "acutely". _Quantum possum_: some MSS. have _quantam_, which is scarcely Latin, since in Cic. an accusative only follows _nequeo_, _volo_, _malo_, _possum_, and such verbs when an infinitive can be readily supplied to govern it. For _velle_ see a good instance in _D.F._ III. 68, where consult Madv. _Constantiam_: the notions of firmness, consistency, and clearness of mind are bound up in this word, cf. II. 53. _Apud Platonem_: _Timaeus_, 47 B, often quoted or imitated by Cic., cf. _De Leg._ I. 58, _Laelius_ 20, 47, _T.D._ I. 64.
Biogr._ Considerable fragments of Varro's Menippean Satires remain, and have often been edited--most recently by Riese (published by Teubner). _Imitati non interpretati_: Cic. _D.F._ I. 7, gives his opinion as to the right use to be made of Greek models. _†Quae quo_: these words are evidently wrong. Halm after Faber ejects _quae_, and is followed by Baiter. Varro is thus made to say that he stated many things dialectically, _in order that_ the populace might be enticed to read. To my mind the fault lies in the word _quo_, for which I should prefer to read _cum_ (=_quom_, which would be written _quō_ in the MSS.) The general sense would then be "Having introduced philosophy into that kind of literature which the unlearned read, I proceeded to introduce it into that which the learned read." _Laudationibus_: λογοις επιταφιοις, cf. _Ad Att._ XIII. 48 where Varro's are mentioned. _†Philosophe scribere_: the MSS. all give _philosophie_. Klotz has _philosophiam_, which is demonstrably wrong, _physica_, _musica_ etc. _scribere_ may be said, but not _physicam_, _musicam_ etc. _scribere_. The one passage formerly quoted to justify the phrase _philosophiam scribere_ is now altered in the best texts (_T.D._ V. 121, where see Tischer). Goer. reads _philosophiae scribere_; his explanation is, as Orelli gently says, "vix Latina."
I can scarcely think Halm's _philosophe_ to be right, the word occurs nowhere else, and Cic. almost condemns it by his use of the Greek φιλοσοφως (_Ad Att._ XIII. 20). In older Greek the adverb does not appear, nor is φιλοσοφος used as an adjective much, yet Cic. uses _philosophus_ adjectivally in _T.D._ V. 121, _Cat. Mai._ 22, _N.D._ III. 23, just as he uses _tyrannus_ (_De Rep._ III. 45), and _anapaestus_ (_T.D._ III. 57) Might we not read _philosophis_, in the dative, which only requires the alteration of a single letter from the MSS. reading? The meaning would then be "to write _for_ philosophers," which would agree with my emendation _cum_ for _quo_ above. _Philosophice_ would be a tempting alteration, but that the word φιλοσοφικος is not Greek, nor do _philosophicus_, _philosophice_ occur till very late Latin times. _Si modo id consecuti sumus_: cf. _Brut._ 316.
70. Nothing is commoner in the MSS. than the substitution of the imp. subj. for the pres. ind. of verbs of the first conjug. and _vice versa_. _In libris_: see II. 11. _Duas Academias_: for the various modes of dividing the Academy refer to R. and P. 404. _Contra ea Philonis_: MSS. have _contra Philonis_ merely, exc. Halm's V., which gives _Philonem_, as does the ed. Rom. (1471). I have added _ea_. Orelli quotes _Ad Att._ XII. 23, 2, _ex Apollodori_. Possibly the MSS. may be right, and _libros_ may be supplied from _libris_ above, so in _Ad Att._ XIII. 32, 2, _Dicaearchi_ περι ψυχης _utrosque_, the word _libros_ has to be supplied from the preceding letter, cf. a similar ellipse of _bona_ in 19, 22. Madvig's _Philonia_ is improbable from its non-appearance elsewhere, while the companion adjective _Antiochius_ is frequent. Halm inserts _sententiam_, a heroic remedy. To make _contra_ an adv. and construe _Philonis Antiochus_ together, supplying _auditor_, as is done by some unknown commentators who probably only exist in Goerenz's note, is wild, and cannot be justified by _D.F._ V. 13.
1) which confines _nomen_ to proper nouns, _vocabulum_ to common nouns, though he would not use _vocabulum_ as Tac. does, for the name of a person (_Annals_ XII. 66, etc.). _Quasi heredem ... duos autem_: the conj. of Ciaconus "_ex asse heredem, secundos autem_" is as acute as it is absurd. _Duos_: it is difficult to decide whether this or _duo_ is right in Cic., he can scarcely have been so inconsistent as the MSS. and edd. make him (cf. Baiter and Halm's ed., _Ac._ II. 11, 13 with _De Div._ I. 6). The older inscr. in the _Corpus_ vol. I. have _duo_, but only in _duoviros_, two near the time of Cic. (_C.I._ vol. I. nos. 571 and 1007) give _duos_, which Cic. probably wrote. _Duo_ is in old Latin poets and Virgil. _Chalcedonium_: not _Calchedonium_ as Klotz, cf. Gk. Χαλκηδονιον. _Praestantissimos_: Halm wrongly, cf. _Brut._ 125. _Stagiritem_: not _Stagiritam_ as Lamb., for Cic., exc. in a few nouns like _Persa_, _pirata_, etc., which came down from antiquity, did not make Greek nouns in -ης into Latin nouns in _-a_. See _M.D.F._ II.
94. _Coetus ... soliti_: cf. 10. _Platonis ubertate_: cf. Quintilian's "_illa Livii lactea ubertas_." _Plenum ac refertam_: n. on 11. _Dubitationem_: Halm with one MS., G, gives _dubitantem_, Baiter _dubitanter_, Why alter? _Ars quaedam philosophiae_: before these words all Halm's MSS., exc G, insert _disserendi_, probably from the line above, Lipsius keeps it and ejects _philosophiae_, while Lamb., Day read _philosophia_ in the nom. Varro, however, would never say that philosophy became entirely dialectical in the hands of the old Academics and Peripatetics. _Ars_ = τεχνη, a set of definite rules, so Varro in Aug. (as above) speaks of the _certa dogmata_ of this old school as opposed to the incertitude of the New Academy. _Descriptio_: so Halm here, but often _discriptio_. The _Corp. Inscr._, vol. I. nos. 198 and 200, has thrice _discriptos_ or _discriptum_, the other spelling never.
22, 91. Notice the double translations of the Greek terms, _de vita et moribus_ for ηθικη, etc. This is very characteristic of Cic., as we shall see later. _Ac primum_: many MSS. and edd. _primam_, cf. 23, 30. _A natura petebant_: how Antiochus could have found this in Plato and Aristotle is difficult to see; that he did so, however, is indubitable; see _D.F._ V. 24--27, which should be closely compared with our passage, and Varro in Aug. XIX. 3. The root of Plato's system is the ιδεα of the Good, while so far is Aristotle from founding his system on the abstract φυσις, that he scarcely appeals even incidentally to φυσις in his ethical works. The abstract conception of nature in relation to ethics is first strongly apparent in Polemo, from whom it passed into Stoic hands and then into those of Antiochus. _Adeptum esse omnia_: put rather differently in _D.F._ V. 24, 26, cf. also _D.F._ II. 33, 34, _Ac._ II. 131. _Et animo et corpore et vita_: this is the τριας or τριλογια των αγαθων, which belongs in this form to late Peripateticism (cf. _M.D.F._ III. 43), the third division is a development from the βιος τελειος of Aristotle. The τριας in this distinct shape is foreign both to Plato and Arist, though Stobaeus, _Ethica_ II.
6, 4, tries hard to point it out in Plato; Varro seems to merge the two last divisions into one in Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XIX 3. This agrees better with _D.F._ V. 34--36, cf. also Aug. VIII. 8. On the Antiochean _finis_ see more in note on 22. _Corporis alia_: for ellipse of _bona_, see n. on 13. _Ponebant esse_: n. on 36. _In toto in partibus_: the same distinction is in Stob. _Eth._ II. 6, 7; cf. also _D.F._ V. 35. _Pulchritudinem_: Cic. _Orator_ 160, puts the spelling _pulcher_ beyond a doubt; it often appears in inscr. of the Republic. On the other hand only _pulcrai_, _pulcrum_, etc., occur in inscr., exc. _pulchre_, which is found once (_Corp. Inscr._ I. no 1019). _Sepulchrum_, however, is frequent at an early time. On the tendency to aspirate even native Latin words see Boscher in Curtius' _Studien_ II. 1, p. 145. In the case of _pulcher_ the false derivation from πολυχροος may have aided the corruption. Similarly in modern times J.C. Scaliger derived it from πολυ χειρ (Curtius' _Grundz_ ed. 3, p. 8) For _valetudinem viris pulchritudinem_, cf. the ‛υγιεια ισχυς καλλος of Stob. _Eth_. II. 6, 7, and _T.D._ V. 22. _Sensus integros_ ευαισθησια in Stob., cf. also _D.F._ V. 36 (_in sensibus est sua cuiusque virtus_). _Celeritatem_: so ποδωκεια in Stob., _bene currere_ in Aug. XIX. 3. _Claritatem in voce_: cf. _De Off._ I. 133. _Impressionem_: al. _expressionem_. For the former cf. _De Or._ III. 185, which will show the meaning to be the distinct marking of each sound; for the latter _De Or._ III. 41, which will disprove Klotz's remark "_imprimit lingua voces, non exprimit_." See also _De Off._ I. 133. One old ed. has _pressionem_, which, though not itself Ciceronian, recalls _presse loqui_, and _N.D._ II. 149. Pliny, _Panegyric_, c. 64, has _expressit explanavitque verba_; he and Quintilian often so use _exprimere_.
Even the _inexplicabilis perversitas_ of which Madv. complains (p. 821) is traceable to Antiochus, who, as will be seen from Augustine XIX. 1, 3, included even _virtus_ among the _prima naturae_. A little reflection will show that in no other way could Antiochus have maintained the practical identity of the Stoic and Peripatetic views of the _finis_. I regret that my space does not allow me to pursue this difficult subject farther. For the Stoic πρωτα κατα φυσιν see Zeller, chap XI. _Ipsa per sese expetenda_: Gk. ‛αιρετα, which is applied to all things contained within the _summum bonum_. As the Stoic _finis_ was αρετη only, that alone to them was ‛αιρετον, their πρωτα κατα φυσιν were not ‛αιρετα, (cf. _D.F._ III. 21). Antiochus' _prima naturae_ were ‛αιρετα to him, cf. Aug. XIX. 3, _prima illa naturae propter se ipsa existimat expetenda_ so Stob., II. 6, 7, demonstrates each branch of the τριλογια to be καθ' ‛αυτο ‛αιρετον. _Aut omnia aut maxima_: so frequently in Cic., e.g. _D.F._ IV. 27, so Stob. II. 6, 8, τα πλειστα και κυριωτατα. _Ea sunt maxima_: so Stob., Varro in Aug. _passim_. _Sensit_: much misunderstood by edd., here = _iudicavit_ not _animadvertit_ cf. _M.D.F._ II. 6. _Reperiebatur_: for change of constr. cf. _D.F._ IV. 26 _Nec tamen beatissimam_: the question whether αρετη was αυταρκες προς ευδαιμονιαν was one of the most important to the late Greek philosophy. As to Antiochus, consult _M.D.F._ V. 67.
(Cf. τοδε, τουτο, Plato _Tim._ 49 E, 50 A, also Arist. _Metaph_ H, 1, R. and P. 270--274). A figurative description of the process is given in _Timaeus_, 50 D. _In eo quod efficeret ... materiam quandam_: Cic. is hampered by the _patrii sermonis egestas_, which compels him to render simple Greek terms by laboured periphrases. _Id quod efficit_ is not distinct from, but _equivalent_ to _vis_, _id quod efficitur_ to _materia_. _Materiam quandam_: it is extraordinary how edd. (esp Goer.) could have so stumbled over _quandam_ and _quasi_ used in this fashion. Both words (which are joined below) simply mark the unfamiliarity of the Latin word in its philosophical use, in the Greek ‛υλη the strangeness had had time to wear off. _In utroque_: for _in eo quod ex utroque_ (sc. _vi et materia_) _fit_, the meaning is clearly given by the next clause, viz. that Force and Matter cannot actually exist apart, but only in the compound of the two, the formed entity, which doctrine is quite Aristotelian. See the reff. given above. _Nihil enim est quod non alicubi esse cogatur_: the meaning of this is clear, that nothing can _exist_ except in space _(alicubi)_, it is more difficult to see why it should be introduced here.
Unless _est_ be taken of merely phenomenal existence (the only existence the Stoics and Antiochus would allow), the sentence does not represent the belief of Aristotle and Plato. The ιδεαι for instance, though to Plato in the highest sense existent, do not exist in space. (Aristotle explicitly says this, _Phys._ III. 4). Aristotle also recognised much as existent which did not exist in space, as in _Phys._ IV. 5 (qu. R. and P. 289). Cic. perhaps translates here from _Tim._ 52 B, φαμεν αναγκαιον ειναι που το ‛ον ‛απαν εν τινι τοπω. For ancient theories about space the student must be referred to the histories of philosophy. A fair summary is given by Stob. _Phys._ περι κενου και τοπου και χωρας, ch. XVIII. 1. _Corpus et quasi qualitatem_: note that _corpus_ is _formed_, as contrasted with _materia_, _unformed_ matter. _Qualitas_ is here wrongly used for _quale_; it ought to be used of Force only, not of the product of Force and Matter, cf. 28. The Greeks themselves sometimes confuse ποιοτης and ποιον, the confusion is aided by the ambiguity of the phrase το ποιον in Greek, which may either denote the τοδε τι as ποιον, or the Force which makes it ποιον, hence Arist. calls one of his categories το ποιον and ποιοτης indifferently For the Stoic view of ποιοτης, see Zeller, 96--103, with footnotes.
The Greeks would call the four elements στοιχεια but _not_ αρχαι, which term would be reserved for the primary Matter and Force. _Aër et ignis_: this is Stoic but _not_ Aristotelian. Aristot., starting with the four necessary properties of matter, viz. heat, cold, dryness, moisture, marks the two former as active, the two latter as passive. He then assigns _two_ of these properties, _one_ active and _one_ passive, to each of the four elements; each therefore is to him _both_ active and passive. The Stoics assign only _one_ property to each element; heat to fire, cold to air (cf. _N.D._ II. 26), moisture to water, dryness to earth. The doctrine of the text follows at once. Cf. Zeller, pp. 155, 187 sq., with footnotes, R. and P. 297 sq. _Accipiendi ... patiendi_: δεχεσθαι often comes in Plat. _Tim._ _Quintum genus_: the note on this, referred to in Introd. p. 16, is postponed to 39. _Dissimile ... quoddam_: so MSS.; one would expect _quiddam_, which Orelli gives. _Rebatur_: an old poetical word revived by Cic. _De Or._ III. 153; cf. Quintil. _Inst. Or._ VIII. 3, 26.
I cannot here point out the difference between Plato's ‛υλη and that of Aristotle. _Eoque interire_: so MSS.; Halm after Dav. _eaque_. Faber was right in supposing that Cic. has said loosely of the _materia_ what he ought to have said of the _qualia_. Of course the προτε ‛υλη, whether Platonic or Aristotelian, is imperishable (cf. _Tim._ 52 A. φθοραν ου προσδεχομενον). _Non in nihilum_: this is aimed at the Atomists, who maintained that infinite subdivision logically led to the passing of things into nothing and their reparation out of nothing again. See Lucr. I. 215--264, and elsewhere. _Infinite secari_: through the authority of Aristotle, the doctrine of the infinite subdivisibility of matter had become so thoroughly the orthodox one that the Atom was scouted as a silly absurdity. Cf. _D.F._ I. 20 _ne illud quidem physici credere esse minimum_, Arist. _Physica_, I. 1 ουκ εστιν ελαχιστον μεγεθος. The history of ancient opinion on this subject is important, but does not lie close enough to our author for comment. The student should at least learn Plato's opinions from _Tim._ 35 A sq. It is notable that Xenocrates, tripping over the old αντιφασις of the One and the Many, denied παν μεγεθος διαιρετον ειναι και μερος εχειν (R. and P. 245).
Chrysippus followed Aristotle very closely (R. and P. 377, 378). _Intervallis moveri_: this is the theory of motion without void which Lucr. I. 370 sq. disproves, where see Munro. Cf. also Sext. Emp. _Adv. Math._ VII. 214. Aristotle denied the existence of void either within or without the universe, Strato allowed its possibility within, while denying its existence without (Stob. I. 18, 1), the Stoics did the exact opposite affirming its existence without, and denying it within the universe (Zeller 186, with footnotes). _Quae intervalla ... possint_: there is no ultimate space atom, just as there is no matter atom. As regards space, the Stoics and Antiochus closely followed Aristotle, whose ideas may be gathered from R. and P. 288, 9, and especially from M. Saint Hilaire's explanation of the _Physica_.
42. If _in utroque_ be read above, _in omni natura_ will form an exact contrast, substance as a whole being opposed to the individual _quale_. _Cohaerente et continuata_: the Stoics made the universe much more of a unity than any other school, the expressions here and the striking parallels in _N.D._ II. 19, 84, 119, _De Div._ II. 33, _De Leg._ fragm. 1. (at the end of Bait. and Halm's ed.) all come ultimately from Stoic sources, even if they be got at second hand through Antiochus. Cf. Zeller 137, Stob. I. 22, 3. The _partes mundi_ are spoken of in most of the passages just quoted, also in _N.D._ II. 22, 28, 30, 32, 75, 86, 115, 116, all from Stoic sources. _Effectum esse mundum_: Halm adds _unum_ from his favourite MS. (G). _Natura sentiente_: a clumsy trans. of αισθητη ουσια = substance which can affect the senses. The same expression is in _N.D._ II. 75. It should not be forgotten, however, that to the Stoics the universe was itself sentient, cf. _N.D._ II. 22, 47, 87. _Teneantur_: for _contineantur_; cf. _N.D._ II. 29 with II. 31 _In qua ratio perfecta insit_: this is thorough going Stoicism. Reason, God, Matter, Universe, are interchangeable terms with the Stoics.
See Zeller 145--150 By an inevitable inconsistency, while believing that Reason _is_ the Universe, they sometimes speak of it as being _in_ the Universe, as here (cf. Diog. Laert. VII. 138, _N.D._ II. 34) In a curious passage (_N.D._ I. 33), Cic. charges Aristotle with the same inconsistency. For the Pantheistic idea cf. Pope "lives through all life, extends through all extent". _Sempiterna_: Aristotle held this: see II. 119 and _N.D._ II. 118, Stob. I. 21, 6. The Stoics while believing that our world would be destroyed by fire (Diog. Laert. VII. 141, R. and P. 378, Stob. I. 20, 1) regarded the destruction as merely an absorption into the Universal World God, who will recreate the world out of himself, since he is beyond the reach of harm (Diog. Laert. VII. 147, R. and P. 386, Zeller 159) Some Stoics however denied the εκπυρωσις. _Nihil enim valentius_: this is an argument often urged, as in _N.D._ II. 31 (_quid potest esse mundo valentius?_), Boethus quoted in Zeller 159. _A quo intereat_: _interire_ here replaces the passive of _perdere_ cf. αναστηναι, εκπιπτειν ‛υπο τινος.
This is merely the World God apprehended as regulating the orderly sequence of cause upon cause. When the World God is called Fortune, all that is expressed is human inability to see this orderly sequence. Τυχη therefore is defined as αιτια αδηλος ανθρωπινωι λογισμωι (Stob. I. 7, 9, where the same definition is ascribed to Anaxagoras--see also _Topica_, 58--66). This identification of Fate with Fortune (which sadly puzzles Faber and excites his wrath) seems to have first been brought prominently forward by Heraclitus, if we may trust Stob. I. 5, 15. _Nihil aliter possit_: on _posse_ for _posse fieri_ see _M.D.F._ IV. 48, also _Ac._ II. 121. For the sense of Cleanthes' hymn to Zeus (i.e. the Stoic World-God), ουδε τι γιγνεται εργον επι χθονι σου διχα δαιμον. _Inter quasi fatalem_: a trans. of the Gk. κατηναγκασμενον. I see no reason for suspecting _inter_, as Halm does. _Ignorationemque causarum_: the same words in _De Div._ II. 49; cf. also August. _Contra Academicos_ I. 1. In addition to studying the reff. given above, the student might with advantage read Aristotle's _Physica_ II. ch. 4--6, with M. Saint Hilaire's explanation, for the views of Aristotle about τυχη and το αυτοματον, also ch. 8--9 for αναγκη. Plato's doctrine of αναγκη, which is diametrically opposed to that of the Stoics, is to be found in _Timaeus_ p. 47, 48, Grote's _Plato_, III. 249--59.
129. _Illi_ ιδεαν, etc.: there is more than one difficulty here. The words _iam a Platone ita nom_ seem to exclude Plato from the supposed old Academico-Peripatetic school. This may be an oversight, but to say first that the school (_illi_, cf. _sic tractabatur ab utrisque_) which included Aristotle held the doctrine of ιδεαι, and next, in 33, that Aristotle crushed the same doctrine, appears very absurd. We may reflect, however, that the difference between Plato's ιδεαι and Aristotle's τα καθαλου would naturally seem microscopic to Antiochus. Both theories were practically as dead in his time as those of Thales or Anaxagoras. The confusion must not be laid at Cicero's door, for Antiochus in reconciling his own dialectics with Plato's must have been driven to desperate shifts. Cicero's very knowledge of Plato has, however, probably led him to intensify what inconsistency there was in Antiochus, who would have glided over Plato's opinions with a much more cautious step.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.