FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179  
180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   >>   >|  
nfixae_) and in Pliny _Nat. Hist._ XXXIV. 14 _navis fixa malleo_. _Adfixa_ therefore in this passage must have agreed with some lost noun either in the neut. plur. or fem. sing. 18. This and fragm. 19 evidently hang very closely together. As Krische notes, the Stoic [Greek: enargeia] had evidently been translated earlier in the book by _perspicuitas_ as in _Luc._ 17. 19. See on _Luc._ 57. BOOK IV. Further information on all these passages will be found in my notes on the parallel passages of the _Lucullus_. 21. _Viam_ evidently a mistake for the _umbram_ of _Luc._ 70. 23. The best MS. of Nonius points to _flavum_ for _ravum_ (_Luc._ 105). Most likely an alteration was made in the second edition, as Krische supposes, p. 64. 28. _Corpusculis_: _Luc._ 121 has _corporibus_. Krische's opinion that this latter word was in the second edition changed into the former may be supported from I. 6, which he does not notice. The conj. is confirmed by Aug. _Contr. Ac._ III. 23. 29. _Magnis obscurata_: in _Luc._ 122 it is _crassis occultata_, so that we have another alteration, see Krische, p. 64. 30. Only slight differences appear in the MSS. of the _Luc._ 123, viz. _contraria_, for _in c._, _ad vestigia_ for _contra v._ 31. _Luc._ 137 has _dixi_ for _dictus_. As Cic. does not often leave out _est_ with the passive verb, Nonius has probably quoted wrongly. It will be noted that the fragments of Book III. correspond to the first half of the _Luc._, those of Book IV. to the second half. Cic. therefore divided the _Luc._ into two portions at or about 63. UNCERTAIN BOOKS. 32. I have already said that this most likely belonged to the preliminary assault on the senses made by Cic. in the second book. 33. In the Introd. p. 55 I have given my opinion that the substance of Catulus' speech which unfolded the doctrine of the _probabile_ was incorporated with Cicero's speech in the second book of this edition. To that part this fragment must probably be referred. 34. This important fragment clearly belongs to Book II., and is a jocular application of the Carneadean _probabile_, as may be seen from the words _probabiliter posse confici_. 35. Krische assigns this to the end of Varro's speech in the third Book. With this opinion I find it quite impossible to agree. A passage in the _Lucullus_ (60) proves to demonstration that in the first edition this allusion to the esoteric teaching of the Academy could only have o
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179  
180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Krische

 

edition

 

opinion

 

evidently

 

speech

 

Lucullus

 

passages

 

probabile

 
fragment
 
Nonius

alteration

 

passage

 
UNCERTAIN
 

Introd

 

belonged

 

preliminary

 

senses

 
portions
 

assault

 
divided

passive

 
dictus
 

quoted

 

correspond

 

wrongly

 

fragments

 

unfolded

 

impossible

 

confici

 

assigns


Academy
 

teaching

 
esoteric
 

proves

 

demonstration

 

allusion

 

probabiliter

 

Cicero

 

nfixae

 

incorporated


Catulus

 

doctrine

 

referred

 

application

 

Carneadean

 

jocular

 
important
 

belongs

 

substance

 

contraria