firmed in this course by the contradictions and impieties of the vulgar belief and of the mythological traditions collected by the poets and theologians §§ 191-194 (cf. N. D. III 42, 53—60). It is evident from the above analysis that Cicero and Sextus must have had the same book of Clitomachus before them, but that both must have used much freedom in omitting and abbreviating, as indeed Sextus avows $ 1, 190. Even in the paragraphs distinctly cited by both as taken from Carneades, viz. that on the necessary mortality of all animal nature (N. D. 111 29—34, Sext. §§ 137-147) and the Carneadean sorites (N. D. 111 43—52, Sext. § 182-190), there are great divergences; e.g. as to the sorites respecting Jupiter and his brothers, Cicero gives us his reductio ad absurdum through Orcus, Sextus his through Poseidon, both no doubt included in the original. A comparison of the argument, in Cicero and Sextus respectively, proving that virtue is incompatible with the divine. nature, shows what liberty the former allowed himself in cutting down his original. The difficulty is to understand on what principle he acted sometimes, as here and at the end of the second book, he omits what is interesting and important, or gives it in such a condensed form as to make it barely intelligible, while at another time he wearies out the patience of the reader with the futility of the mythological section. It is worthy of note that the two arguments for which alone Cicero cites the name Carneades are just the two for which he is also named by Sextus. At first sight this would suggest that the remaining arguments in both must have been taken from some other source than Clitomachus; but it seems more probable that the latter, and perhaps Carneades himself in his lectures, brought together sceptical arguments from all quarters, assigning each to its original author, as for instance Alexinus is cited by Sextus § 108; so that all I should infer from the above coincidence is that Carneades claimed these two arguments as his own special property. There is another treatise, besides that of Sextus, which in certain points strongly resembles this book of Cicero's, and that is his own treatise De Divinatione written immediately after it. From my notes on § 14 it will be seen that the argument on the groundlessness and uselessness of divination is almost exactly the same in both treatises, but the name of Carneades is prefixed to the corresponding portion of the latter treatise (Div. 11 9, cf. ib. 15-25). Clitomachus is further cited by name Div. 11 87, and Hartfelder detects his pen in the reference to Punic soothsayers, Div. 11 28, with which may be compared the references to Carthage in our treatise ш 42, 91. May we then assume that the whole of our treatise is taken from Clitomachus? Schwencke notices a difference in the mode of referring to the Stoic doctrines, which he would use as a clue to distinguish between what is taken without alteration from Clitomachus and what is added or modified by Cicero. In §§ 6-28 we have the Imperfects dicebas, commemorabas, videbatur, with evident reference to the former book; in §§ 29-38 we have dicitis, dicere soletis, vobis videtur, placet, referring to the doctrines of the Stoics generally. But I think we can only gather from this, that Cicero began his 3rd book with the idea of meeting the Posidonian argument of the 2nd book with detailed criticism borrowed from Clitomachus and supplemented by himself; that, on finding this to be irksome or impracticable, inasmuch as the work of Clitomachus was written in reference to the elder Stoicism and was not adapted to the exposition of Stoical doctrine subsequently put forward by Posidonius, he in §§ 17 and 18 abandons the intention announced in 6, 7, 10, of following the exact order of the previous book, and proposes to defer the chief part of the discussion on the divine existence to the section on Providence. As he thus breaks loose from the order of the second book, adopting instead the independent arrangement of his authority, it is natural that he should gradually discontinue the Imperfect of reference, especially where the argument borrowed from Clitomachus is altogether irrespective of anything urged by Posidonius, e.g. in 29-34, 70 foll. Towards the end of the book the 2nd person plural of the present is used indifferently, whether the argument discussed had or had not been employed by Posidonius, see notes on sic enim dicitis § 86, and haec tecum § 93. At times the Academic criticism is obscure as being directed against arguments or illustrations which do not appear in the second book, cf. notes on Hipponax and Critolaus § 91; at times doctrines are attributed to the Stoics which are in flat contradiction with the doctrine put forward in that book, cf. $93. Turning now to the earlier part of the book, there can be little doubt that § 1-13 with their light bantering tone and illustrations from Roman history are purely Ciceronian. The argument against divination in § 14 we have seen to be probably taken from Carneades, and the illustration from medicine and the use of the word σTρаrmua suggest a Greek original for the following para graph. It is strange that, after announcing his intention of postponing the arguments of Cleanthes, Chrysippus and Zeno to the 3rd head of his discussion, Cicero in § 20, 21 merely commences his reply to the 2nd head (11 45, 46) and then falls back on the arguments of Zeno and Chrysippus, dealing with the same point. Schwencke proposes an ingenious explanation of Cicero's change of plan. He thinks that the title of Clitomachus' treatise was repì πрovoías; and that, when Cicero, feeling himself unable to carry out his original intention of answering each argument of Posidonius in its proper order, spoke of deferring certain arguments to the section on Providence, his real meaning was to set aside altogether the Posidonian order and follow that of Clitomachus instead. Further he supposes Clitomachus to have commenced his treatise with a preliminary argument on the divine existence, just as Posidonius commences his own defence of the belief in Providence (11 75) by showing that it follows necessarily from our conception of God. Hence it might well include the Carneadean argument for the mortality of all animal nature (III 29— 34) as well as the criticism of the above-mentioned arguments of Zeno and Chrysippus. There can be little doubt that Cicero has borrowed the criticism of these in § 21--26 from his Greek original; the argument in § 23 is, as we have seen, cited by Sextus as from Alexinus. It may be asked why the argument of the Xenophontic Socrates is discussed out of chronological order in §§ 27, 28, though it was not mentioned along with the others in § 18. But so it is also in II 18. In both it comes in as an appendage to the argument from Chrysippus: it is probable therefore that it was cited by Chrysippus and criticized as a part of his argument by Clitomachus. Schwencke finds a confirmation of his surmise as to the title of Clitomachus' work in III 65, where Cicero, at the commencement of the section on Providential Government, uses the words de quibus accuratius disserendum puto. So far I am disposed to agree with him, but I see no reason for doubting the Carneadean origin of $$ 39-65 because of occasional allusions to the former book. It is not pretended that any of the topics treated of are unsuited to Carneades, and however careless Cicero may have been, he was surely capable of remembering whether the same topic had been touched on in the previous book, and, if so, of adding to the verisimilitude of the dialogue by making a reference to it. Nor can I agree with Schwencke when he says that it would be hazardous to assume the pure Carneadean origin of any portion which is not supported by a parallel in Sextus. Sextus being a professed philosopher was far less likely than Cicero to be tied to one authority; and we have already seen that, where Sextus and Cicero are both copying Carneades, Cicero occasionally supplies details which are wanting in Sextus. I have myself little doubt that the whole argumentation of the 3rd book is taken from Clito machus. A further question may be asked as to the original author of the mythological section, which I presume to have been included in the treatise of Clitomachus. In the Appendix on that section it is suggested that it may have come from Mnaseas. Clemens Alexandrinus, quoted under Apollo, names Aristotle as his authority, but this is supposed by Rose (Arist. Pseudepigraphus p. 615 foll.) to be a mistake for Aristocles, a contemporary of Strabo. One can scarcely imagine that any philosopher would take the trouble to make out such a catalogue of mythological inanities, but it would be an appropriate work for an erudite Alexandrian Euhemerist, such as Mnaseas, and might then be seized upon for polemical purposes by the Academics, whom Timon condemns for πλατυρημοσύνην ἀνάλιστον 'their saltless prolixity' (Diog. IV 67). Supposing this to be so, are we to assume that Cicero himself translated it? We might rather gather from what he tells us in his letters, as to his method of composition, that in subordinate details of this kind he was accustomed to make use of the services of others. Thus for the 3rd book of his De officiis he writes to Athenodorus Calvus to send him an abstract of the treatise of Posidonius on the same subject (Att. XVI 11), and he tells us of Tiro that he was most useful to him in his studies; see my notes on N.D. 11 40 sane multi videntur, and 42 ut jam docebo. EDITIONS AND ILLUSTRATIVE WORKS. As regards the text, the Orelli-Baiter edition of 1862 renders all that precedes obsolete; but an editor is bound to remember with gratitude the names of those who contributed most to raise the text from the state in which it was left by Ascensius in 1511 to that in which it now appears. If we take the 1st edition of Davies (Camb. 1718) as our dividing line, Victorius, Paulus Manutius, Lambinus, Ursinus and Gulielmius (the last in Gruter's ed. of 1619) may be named, among the earlier editors, as those who did most to clear away the corruptions of the first printed text. The earliest edition known to me, in which the dislocation of Bk II is rectified, is that of Hervagius (Basil 1534), but Marsus in the collection of 'Annotations on the Philosophical Treatises of Cicero', published at Basil in 1544, claims to have done the same in his edition of 1508, which I have been unable to meet with. There were also commentaries by Marsus and Betuleius (Basil 1550) chiefly confined to historical and mythological allusions, and in 1660 Lescaloperius brought out his Humanitas Theologica, a commentary filling 737 folio pages. This being written for the edification of the Jesuit students, more than one half of it is occupied with panegyrics of the Virgin and other extraneous matters, but it has the virtue of being a labour of love and may be reckoned among the few editions which show real research and an intelligent interest in the argument. Davies and Olivet speak contemptuously of Lescaloperius, the latter especially in the words 'si ce qui lui vient de ses prédécesseurs étoit revendiqué, et qu'en même temps on ne laissât, dans ce qui est de lui, rien de superflu ni de puérile, son in-folio seroit réduit, ce me semble, à un volume très portatif'. (Entretiens de Cicero sur la nature des dieux p. xvi, ed. 1721.) Bouhier gives a fairer judgment (ib. vol. II p. 212), 'quoique je sois bien éloigné d'approuver en tout l'énorme et monstrueux commentaire du P. Lescalopier, il faut néanmoins convenir qu'il a assez bien discuté et medité ce que ces Entretiens contiennent de philosophique... Cela méritoit donc bien qu'on eût quelque égard pour lui et qu'on ne le traitât pas à tout propos avec tant d'indignité'. The advance made by Davies, president of Queens' College, Cambridge (edd. 1718, -23, -33, -44, reprinted Oxf. 1807, and by Rath and Schuetz, Halle 1819), consisted, beyond the collection of the notes of earlier editors, in three points, chiefly in the illustrations supplied from his wide classical reading, 2ndly in the collations of his six мss, none of which however seem to have been of any great value, and 3rdly in the emendations, partly by himself and still more by John Walker, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, many of which have been incorporated into the accepted text. Shortly after followed the French translation by Joseph Olivet with notes by himself and the President Bouhier (1721, -32, -49 &c.). Both were men of sense, and some of the emendations of the latter have found their way into the accepted text. Editions of Cicero cum notis variorum were also brought out by Olivet 1746 (notes reprinted separately Lond. 1819, Oxf. 1824) and Verburgius, |