fyxmll Uttivmitg Jibt^tg 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 .b.MXJUy,nir\^L- lLvrvUVOTJaJM..-V(VV.Silcna/>:^^ 
 
 A3,3.'15.qA arlMlDl 
 
 6896-2 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PA 2043.R36 
 
 Studies in the philosophical terminoloi 
 
 3 1924 021 611 276 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tlnis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 924021 61 1 276 
 
Colutnfrta WMUjtvsitT^ 
 
 STUDIES Iir CLASSICAL PEILOLOOT 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHICAL TERMINOLOGY 
 
 OP 
 
 LUCRETIUS AND CICERO 
 
STUDIES IN THE 
 
 PHILOSOPHICAL TERMINOLOGY 
 
 OF 
 
 LUCRETIUS AND CICERO 
 
 BT 
 
 KATHARINE C. EEILEY 
 
 DISSERTATION 
 Submitted ik Partial Fulfilment op the Bequibe- 
 
 MENTS FOR THE DbGREE OF DoCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 IN TiiE Faculty of Philosophy, Columbia 
 University 
 
 NEW YORK 
 1909 
 
COPTBISHT, 1909, 
 
 Bt the COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PEE88. 
 
 Set up and electrotyped. Published June, 1909. 
 
 J. S. Gashing Co. — Berwick Sc Smith Co. 
 Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. 
 
Co 
 
 THE MEMORY OF 
 MY FATHER 
 
 DEWITT TENBROECK REILEY 
 
PEEFATOEY NOTE. 
 
 This monograph contains a valuable account 
 of the philosophical terminology with which 
 Cicero and Lucretius respectively enriched the 
 Latin language. Dr. Reiley has examined the 
 prevailing theories regarding certain technical 
 terms that belong to the materialistic philoso- 
 phy of Greece and Rome, and by an acute 
 examination of the evidence, both ancient and 
 modern, has arrived at conclusions which con- 
 stitute a distinct contribution to knowledge. 
 HARRY THURSTON PECK. 
 
 Columbia Uniyersitt, 
 May 15, 1909. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 OENERAL VIEW. 
 OHAram FAsa 
 
 Intkoduction . ...... 1 
 
 I. The Employment of Greek Words . . 7 
 
 II. Probe and Poetic Diction ... 25 
 
 III. Prose and Metrical Form ... 27 
 
 IV. Temperamental and Scholastic Influ- 
 
 ences 29 
 
 PART 11. 
 
 STUDIES OF SPECIAL GROUPS OF TERMS. 
 
 I. The Atoms 35 
 
 II. Void and Space 67 
 
 III. The Universe. The Infinity of Matter, 
 
 OF Void and of Space .... 113 
 
 Bibliography 127 
 
 Index 129 
 
LUCKETIUS AND CICEEO. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 Cicero and Lucretius created a philosophical 
 terminology for the Latin language. They 
 found their native tongue a clear and vigorous 
 medium for the expression of the energies of 
 a practical and objective people. They left it 
 a fine instrument for the discussions of abstract 
 and speculative philosophy.* In the hands of 
 the Christian Fathers and later of the School- 
 men, this terminology was further enlarged 
 and defined. And finally, through various 
 
 ' We know that the credit for this literary feat was 
 accorded to Cicero by his contemporaries. Anon. 
 Gudianus Cod. 278, Cornelius Nepos in libro de historicis 
 Latinis de laude Ciceronis: . . . quippe qui . . . philo- 
 sophiam ante eum incomptam Latinam sua conformant 
 oratione. 
 
 B 1 
 
2 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 learned and literary channels, it has passed 
 down into many of the cultured tongues of the 
 modem world, one of the priceless heritages 
 of classical antiquity. 
 
 Seldom in the history of thought and of 
 language is found such an interesting parallel 
 as appears in this aspect of the work of Cicero 
 and Lucretius. We see two of the keenest 
 intellects of a brilliant age, each struggling 
 independently of the other with the enormous 
 difficulties of informing a concrete and objective 
 language with the subtle and abstract ideas 
 of an alien philosophy. The scope of the com- 
 parison is narrower than we could wish, for 
 Lucretius concerned himself chiefly with the 
 mechanical and physical side of Epicureanism, 
 while Cicero, whose philosophical interests 
 were largely ethical, passed over these elements 
 of the system in rapid summary. When, 
 however, the interests of the two thinkers 
 touched, we see in full view, just as in the pro- 
 cesses of a laboratory, their terminology in the 
 very making. A study of the causes and in- 
 fluences operating to determine their choice 
 of identical or different terms to express the 
 same idea, should be full of informing interest 
 
General View 3 
 
 alike for the philosopher, the linguist and the 
 psychologist. 
 
 Both the value and interest, however, of a 
 comparison of the two terminologies are de- 
 pendent upon the fact of their mutual inde- 
 pendence. For, should it appear that either 
 writer drew for his terms upon the other, or 
 that both drew from a common Latin source, 
 there would be little attraction or profit in the 
 task of comparison. The death of Lucretius 
 before the composition of Cicero's philosophi- 
 cal works establishes the independence of the 
 former beyond question. In the case of Cicero, 
 however, there are slight traces in his work of 
 a certain literary influence exercised by Lucre- 
 tius.* The question of Cicero's editorship of 
 
 ' Compare, e.g., the periphrastic use of vis: viz. vis 
 atomonun, N.D. I 54; v. serpentium, id. I 101; v. caloris, 
 id. II 25; v. marmoris, id. II 98; v. auri, Tusc. V 91; 
 T. ranunculorum, Fam. VII 18; v. lacrimarum, Rep. VI 
 14; and v. violenta leonum, Lucr. Ill 296; fortis equi 
 v., Ill 8; permissa canum v., IV 681; v. animai, 638. 
 The same use of natura appears in both authors. Com- 
 pare natura animi, N.D. I 23; caloris naturam, id. II 24; 
 alvi natura, id. II 136; naturam hominis, Fin. V 33; with 
 aquae natura, Lucr. I 281; II 232; natura deum, V 148; 
 II 646; rerum naturas, 1 710; sensus natura, I 962; natura 
 animantum, I 194; naturam corporis, I 606; animai na- 
 
4 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 the poem of Lucretius is, moreover, still an 
 open one. Nevertheless, Cicero has given us 
 such repeated evidence of his belief in the 
 absolute originality of his own nomenclature 
 that we may at least assume the fact as an 
 hypothesis of our investigation. The possi- 
 bility of either writer drawing his terms from 
 the contemporary Latin Epicurean prose liter- 
 ature is equally remote. Granting for the 
 moment what is uncertain, the existence of 
 this literature before the death of Lucretius, 
 we have the sincere and explicit statement 
 of the poet that the work of creating a 
 Latin terminology lay before him difficult and 
 untried. 
 
 turam, III 456, etc. Mayor, however, on N.D. II 136, 
 quotes similar periphrases from the Greek, viz. Plat. Tim. 
 45, riiv Tuv p\e^dpu>v ij)i<ri,v; 74, t^k tuv neipuv <j>i(riv. Phaedr. 
 44, ^ TOW irrepov tjiiais. Arist. Part. An. Ill 1, ^ tux dSivruv 
 <t>iais. For vis, too, cf. II. T 105, H/jMiyuow piiiv; B 658, §Lti 
 'B.pa.K\rjetTi, etc. Compare also Cic. N.D. II 49, larga luce 
 compleverit, with Lucr. II 806, larga cum luce repleta est; 
 V 281, largus item liquid! fons luminis. Also N.D. II 96, 
 impetum caeli moveri, with Lucr. V 200, quantum caeli 
 tegit impetum ingens. And further, N.D. II 26, nive 
 pruinaque concresceret, with Lucr. Ill 20, nix concreta 
 pruina. Finally Ac. II 122, radicibus suis haereat, with 
 Lucr. Ill 325; V 654. 
 
General View 5 
 
 " nee me animi fallit Graiorum obscura reperta 
 difficile inlustrare Latinis versibus esse, 
 multa novis verbis praesertim cum sit agendum 
 propter egestatem linguae et rerum novitatem."' 
 
 As for Cicero, it would be passing strange to 
 find him, with all his hate and contempt for 
 the Roman Epicureans, resorting to them for 
 assistance in turning his Greek. He has noth- 
 ing too bad to say both of their subject-matter 
 and of their style.^ So far from depending upon 
 them for his terminology, he has not even read 
 their miserable handbooks.' 
 
 The spirit in which the two writers attacked 
 the task of translation reveals the strongest 
 contrasts. Cicero believed thoroughly in the 
 richness and the capacity of the Latin and in 
 
 ' Lucr. I 136-139. With this passage compare also 
 Lucr. I 830-833; III 258-261; I 925-929; II 1022-1025. 
 
 =i Ac. I 6; Tusc. IV 6, 7; II 7; III 33; Fin. Ill 40; 
 Fam. XV 19, 2. Cf. Reid, Acad. Introd. p. 21. 
 
 ' Tusc. II 7, Est enim quoddam genus eorum, qui 
 se philosophos appellari volunt, quorum dicuntur esse 
 Latini sane multi libri: quos non contemno equidem, 
 quippe quos numquam legerim : sed quia profitentur 
 ipsi illi, qui eos scribunt, se neque distincte neque dis- 
 tribute neque eleganter neque ornate scribere, lectionem 
 sine ulla delectatione neglego. 
 
6 IjUCBetius and uiceeo 
 
 its entire adequacy and even superiority in ren- 
 dering the Greek ideas. He says, multoque 
 melius haec notata sunt verbis Latinis quam Grae- 
 cis, quod aliis quoque multis locis reperietur.' 
 This same conviction he has also expressed else- 
 where: Et quoniam saepe dizimus, et quidem 
 cum aliqua querella non Graecorum modo, sed 
 eorum etiam, qui se Graecos magis quam nostros 
 haberi volunt, nos non modo non vinci a Graecis 
 verborum copia, sed esse in ea etiam superiores, 
 elaborandum est ut hoc non in nostris soliun 
 artibus, sed etiam in illorum ipsorum assequa- 
 mur.^ The idea occurs also in De Natura 
 Deorum: Quo in genere tantum profecisse 
 videmur, ut a Graecis ne verborum quidem copia 
 vinceremur.' Lucretius shows a spirit quite 
 the opposite of that of Cicero. His complaints 
 of the patrii sermonis egestas ring so often 
 in our ears that the reiterated suggestion has 
 created a distinct sentiment of sympathy for 
 him in his dreary labors with his so-called in- 
 digent native tongue. We consequently enter 
 upon our study with the expectation that the 
 terminology of Lucretius may compare un- 
 
 » Tusc. Ill 10. » Fin. Ill 5. » N.D. I 8. 
 
General View 7 
 
 favorably with that of the patriotic and opti- 
 mistic Cicero. It should be said, however, that 
 any reader who passes from the great Latin 
 prose of the late Republic to a struggle with the 
 obscure and decadent dialect of Epicurus, will 
 hesitate to accord to Lucretius the consideration 
 that he claims. Fine clay lay ready to the hands 
 of a potter with the art to mold it. 
 
 It is the object of our investigation to ex- 
 amine, as far as the necessary limitations of 
 so large an inquiry may permit, the degree of 
 success attained by each philosopher in the 
 creation of a terminology and the manner in 
 which he achieved it. 
 
 The Employment of Greek Words. 
 
 A characteristic difference between the two 
 terminologies lies in the employment of Greek 
 words. Lucretius has made no statement as 
 to the conditions on which he will admit them 
 in his text. His obvious resolve is to employ 
 all available resources for the exclusive use of 
 Latin in his technical terminology. Cicero, 
 on the contrary, has laid down certain rules 
 
8 JjUCKJfiTlUH AJNU KjlfJUMU 
 
 for himself. They are briefly as follows. He 
 will use the Latin wherever possible. If the 
 Latin is not available, he may employ the nat- 
 uralized Greek. If this in turn fails him, he 
 will permit himself the use of the foreign Greek. 
 Dicam, si potero, Latine; scis enim me Graece 
 loqui in Latino sermone non plus solere quam 
 in Graeco Latine^ Tusc. I 15. Ut enim sermone 
 eo debemus uti, qui iimatus est nobis, ne, ut 
 quidam Graeca verba inculcantes, iure optimo 
 rideamur, sic, etc., De Off. I 111. Quin etiam 
 Graecis licebit utare, cum voles, si te Latina forte 
 deficient: . . . sed enitar ut Latine loquar, nisi 
 in huiusce modi verbis, ut philosophiam aut 
 rhetoricam aut dialecticam appellem, quibus, ut 
 aliis multis, consuetudo iam utitur pro Latinis, 
 Ac. I 25. 
 
 In the light of these declarations the statis- 
 tics of the occurrence of Greek words in Cicero 
 and Lucretius are surprising. In the philo- 
 sophical works of the former I find 99 Greek 
 words used in a philosophical sense.* In Lucre- 
 
 • Included in this list are all words carrying what 
 might be construed as a scientific, psychological, ethical, 
 or metaphysical meaning Excluded therefore are the 
 following : iiavxitem, Ac. II 93; (TKoreH^i, Fin. II 15 (Lucr. 
 
General View 9 
 
 tius I find but 2.' It must be remembered, 
 however, that the range of Epicurean inquiry 
 was in itself comparatively narrow and that 
 Lucretius limited this contracted scope still 
 further by exploiting chiefly its mechanical and 
 physical features. Therefore his need of a rich 
 terminology was not so great as that of Cicero. 
 Fewer words are needed to describe a physical 
 system than one of psychology or of ethics.* 
 The inquiries of Lucretius in psychology went 
 no farther than a demonstration of the material 
 nature of mind and the explanation of the 
 phenomena of sensation and perception through 
 the atomic efflux from the external object. He 
 cared nothing for the abstractions of ratiocina- 
 tion which presented necessarily the greatest 
 
 " obscurus ") ; iy^XcurTos, Fin. V 92; iiroKapTepwv, Tusc. I 84; 
 dfcpoirTtx'i, Div. II 111; <f>i\nnrl(ap,id.JI 118; iroipB^yiuiTay 
 De Off. I 104; OeTtKus, Para. 6; Salimvat, Tim. XI; kkvU^ 
 
 vcKUonavTtM, Tusc. I 37. 
 
 ' Excluded from this list are Greek words used for 
 manifestly literary device. Cf., e.g., Lucr. II 412, 505; 
 V 334; IV 1140-1190. Aer and aether are also ex- 
 cluded, being already naturalized in the Latin. 
 
 ' It is for this reason that the influence exercised by 
 Lucretius on the formation of a Latin philosophical 
 terminology must be conceded to be weaker than that 
 of Cicero. 
 
10 Lucretius and Uicero 
 
 diflSculties to a translator. Ethics, too, he 
 scarcely mentioned. Cicero, on the contrary, 
 in his many treatises and translations touched 
 upon almost every phase of Greek speculative 
 thought. He himself felt his disadvantage in 
 philosophical composition as compared with the 
 Epicureans. lam veto physica, si Epicurum, 
 id est, si Democritum probarem, possem scribere 
 ita plane, ut Amafinius. Quid est enim magnum, 
 cum caussas rerum efficientium sustuleris, de 
 corpusculorum — ita enim appellat atomos — 
 concursione fortuita loqui ? Ac. I 6. To make, 
 therefore, a just comparison between the two 
 writers we must eliminate from the list of 
 Greek words occurring in Cicero, all terms that 
 do not have some counterpart in Lucretius. 
 
 The Greek terms excluded from the comparison 
 on these grounds are 72 in number. They afford 
 an interesting illustration of the inherent in- 
 firmity of the Latin in forming compounds. 
 The Greek list broke nearly in half; 38 of the 
 terms were compoimd, 34 were simple. Of the 
 34 simple Greek words, Cicero turned with ease 
 26 into single, concise and adequate Latin 
 terms. The remaining 8 of this group were 
 turned by various devices, namely, by one or 
 
General View 11 
 
 more approximate equivalents, by a phrase or 
 by a definition. Of the Greek compounds, 
 however, Cicero succeeded in turning only 
 15 by single Latin terms, but he translated 23 
 by the various devices mentioned, or not at all. 
 The list follows, assembled according to the 
 preceding groups : 
 
 1. Simple Geeek Terms in Cicero.' 
 a. Rendered by Single Latin Terms. 
 
 a^ia, aestimatio, Fin. Ill 20, 34. a/370?' \6fo<s, 
 ignava ratio, Fa. 28. ^Xd/ifiara, detrimenta. Fin. 
 Ill 69. Soyfia, decretum, Ac. II 27, 29. elpa- 
 vela, dissimulatio, Ac. II 15. fjOo^, mores, Fa. 1. 
 detopijfjiaTa, percepta. Fa. 11. 0vfi,a><ri<i, ezcandes- 
 centia, Tusc. IV 21. ISea, species, Ac. I 30; 
 Tusc. I 58. KaOfjKov,^ officium, Fin. Ill 20. «a- 
 Kia, vitium, Fin. Ill 39 ; vitiositas, Tusc. IV 34. 
 Xrifi/ia, sumptio, Div. II 108. Xvwr), aegritudo, 
 Tusc. Ill 61. luivia, insania, Tusc. Ill 11. fiav- 
 riKTi, divinatio, N.D. I 55; Div. I 1. iietrorrjTes, 
 medietates, Tim. VII. vdOoi, perturbatio, Tusc. 
 
 " This list excludes all terms having a counterpart in 
 Lucretius. ' Essentially simple. 
 
12 LucEExros AND Cicero 
 
 IV 10. iroioTr]i, qualitas (coined), Ac. I 25. 
 are^dvr), corona, N.D. I 28 (corona occurs in 
 Lucr. but not descriptive of the conceit of 
 Pannenides). a-capei-rifs, acerualis, Div. II 11 
 (Cicero claimed that the word was naturalized). 
 tftavraa-ia, visum, Ac. II 18; I 40 (cf. visio, Ac. 
 II 33). ■sfrevSofievo';, mentiens, Div. II 11. 
 ^povrjam, prudentia, De Off. I 153. xpriaiii,o<;, 
 frugi, Tusc. Ill 16. d><f)e\r)/jia, emolumentum, 
 Fin. Ill 33, 69. 
 
 b. Rendered by Various Devices. 
 
 a^iatfia, ftmdamenttun dialecticae, Ac. II 95. 
 Keinpov, quasi functi instar, Tusc. I 40. oiKelov, 
 quod acconunodatum ad naturam adparet, Ac. 
 
 II 38. opi^ovrei, illi orbes qui caelum quasi 
 medium dividunt et aspecttun nostrum definiunt, 
 Div. II 92. 6pp.i^, appetitio, appetitus animi, 
 Ac. II 24; Fin. Ill 23 (cf. Fin. Ill 21, conciUa- 
 tio). •n-oKiriicov, quasi civile atque populare, Fin. 
 IV 5, V 66. reXiKci, [bona] ad illud ultimum 
 pertinentia. Fin. Ill 55. atotftpoawrj, temper- 
 antia, moderatio, modestia, frugalitas, Tusc. 
 
 III 16. 
 
General View 13 
 
 2. Compound Gbeek Terms in Cicero. 
 a. Rendered by Single Latin Terms. 
 
 aSriXa, incerta, Ac. II 54. a^Xd^eia, inno- 
 centia, Tusc. Ill 16. appaumjfiaTa, aegrotatio- 
 nes, Tusc. IV 23. Svar)^pr]a-T'qiJ,aTa, incommoda, 
 Fin. Ill 69. evdpyeia, perspictiitas, evidentia, 
 Ac. II 17 (either term is adequate), emaipia, 
 opportunitas, Fin. Ill 45; occasio, De Off. I 
 142. evxprja-T'^naTa, commoda, Fin. Ill 69. ?ij- 
 \orviria, obtrectatio, Tusc. IV 18. KaTaXtiirrov, 
 comprehendibile, Ac. I 41. KardXijyjni, compre- 
 hensio, Ac. II 17, 31, 145. p,eKayxo\,la, furor, 
 Tusc. Ill 11 (Cicero turns fiavia by the same 
 word), nia-dudpayn-o^ has the quality of inhospi- 
 talitas, Tusc. IV 25. ofioXoyia, convenientia, 
 Fin. Ill 21. irpoaXij-t^K, adsumptio, Div. II 
 108. <f>i\o'yvvia, mulierositas, Tusc. IV 25. 
 
 b. Rendered by Varioixs Devices. 
 
 aSia^opia, neutram in partem moveri, Ac. II 
 130 (cf. however, aBid<f)opov = indi£ferens. Fin. 
 Ill 53). aOan^ia, animus terrore liber, Fin. 
 V 87. aKard\r)7rTo<i, quod comprehendi non 
 potest, Ac. II 18. avaXoyia, comparatio propor- 
 
14 LucaaETius and CiCEato 
 
 tiove, Tim. IV. hvrv)fiav, Tusc. I 68 (untrans- 
 lated). airoS&^K, conclusio argtunenti, Ac. 
 
 II 26. aTToirpoirYiteva, remota, reiecta, Fin. Ill 
 51, 52. evheXexeia, quasi quaedam continuata 
 motio et perennis, Tusc. I 22. i^anepiieov, popu- 
 laiiter scriptum, Fin. V 12. hn^ewtjiumKov, 
 postenun quodam modo et consequens, Fin. 
 
 III 32. evoxv, adsensionis retentio, Ac. 11 59 
 (in Ac. II 148 Cicero does not attempt a trans- 
 lation). ervftoTcoyia, Terborum ezplicatio, Ac. I 
 32 (veriloquium, Top. 35, rejected for notatio). 
 evSo^ia, bona fama, Fin. HI 57. evdvfiia, Fm. V 
 87 (imtranslated). elrra^ia, ordinis conserratio, 
 De Off. I 142. Karrryop^fuiTa, Tusc. IV 21 (un- 
 translated). KaTopdaita, rectum aut recte fac- 
 tum, Fin. m 24, 45; iUud rectum, Fin. IV 15; 
 perf ectum officium, rectum, De Off. I 8. Karop- 
 OaxTK, recta effectio, Fin. HI 45. futroytmK, 
 [babens] odium mulierum, Tusc. IV 25. irapd- 
 So^a, admirabilia contraque opinionem, Fin. IV 
 74. TrpoTiyiieva, promota, producta, praeposita, 
 praecipua, Fin. Ill 51, 52; IV 72. ovyicaTiiffeaK, 
 assensio, approbatio, Ac. II 37. ffvpurdBeia,^ iste 
 quasi consensus, N.D. Ill 28; ^ud] ex coniunc- 
 
 ' For possible Lucretian corFespondence, see under 
 ipiiorla, p. 20. 
 
Generai. View 15 
 
 tione naturae et quasi concentu atque consensu, 
 Div. II 34; continuatio coniunctioque naturae, 
 Div. n 142. 
 
 In addition to this particular demonstration 
 of a comparative w^kness of aflonity in Latin 
 words to react upon each other in the formation 
 of stable compounds, we may note several points 
 in passing with reference to the special work 
 of Cicero. We see the fine conscience of the 
 scholar in his feeling for the right word, the 
 stubborn clinching of the man with his problem, 
 the meticulous hesitation of the open-minded 
 Academic in the absolute acceptance of any 
 precise term. Note his oft-repeated quasi and 
 quidam. He has not, however, in every case 
 spoken Latin when he could, that is to say, 
 when the Latin alone would have carried the 
 idea exactly. And, further, when we see the 
 results in the aggregate, his work looks a bit 
 like a glossary rather than an effort to free the 
 Roman reading public from the Greek.' 
 
 We may now turn to the group of Greek words 
 occurring in Cicero having also their counter- 
 
 I Hagnificum illnd etiam Romanisque hominibus 
 glariosum, nt Graeds de philosophis Utteiis non egeant, 
 Div. U 5. 
 
16 LUCKETIUS AND CiCERO 
 
 parts in Lucretius.' This group falls naturally 
 into subdvisions similar to those of the group 
 previously discussed, namely: (1) Greek terms 
 turned by Cicero with a single Latin equiva- 
 lent, (2) Greek terms turned by Cicero with 
 various devices. The list follows of the Greek 
 terms in Cicero appearing in translation in 
 Lucretius also. 
 
 1. Turned by Cicero with Single Latin 
 Equivalent. 
 
 The number in this group is 16.^ In every 
 case Lucretius also has succeeded in turning his 
 Greek by a single Latin term.' 
 
 direipia, infinitio, Fin. I 21; infinitas, N.D. 
 I 73; Lucr. infinitus, (adj.) I 616, for metrical 
 reasons. 
 
 > By " counterpart " I mean only such words, phrases, 
 etc., as It is possible to suppose that Lucretius may have 
 offered as equivalents to the Greek. 
 
 ' ouriifuiToy, N.D. I 30, is omitted, as it rests under 
 the suspicion of interpolation. 
 
 ' In two cases, iireipla and vpivoia, the idea in Lucre- 
 tius appears through a different part of speech. In the 
 case of Toluptas and voluntas, his reference to the Greek 
 is not certain. 
 
General View 17 
 
 iiTO|jLos, see Part II, p. 35, for full discussion. 
 
 PoaiXT](ris, voluntas, Tusc. IV 12. Lucr. uses 
 voluntas frequently, e.g., II 258, 261. It is not 
 certain that he was thinking of the Greek, 
 
 etSoXa, imagines, Fin. I 21 ; spectra, Fam. XV 
 16; similia, N.D. I 105; fluentes visiones, N.D. I 
 109. Simulacra et imagines, N.D. II 76, implies 
 no distinction in meaning between the terms. 
 The usage illustrates Cicero's keen instinct for 
 variety. Lucretius uses for etSca\a and twttoi 
 imagines and simulacra, according to the de- 
 mands of the metre. Cf. Munro, Lucr. IV 30 
 ad loc. Imago does not appear in the gen. 
 plur. Simulacra occurs only in the nom. and 
 ace. plur., with 3 exceptions, viz. simulacrum, 
 II 112; IV 149; simulacris (dat.), IV 334. 
 The other synonyms of Lucretius are, species, 
 IV 602; formae, IV 104, 135; effigiae, IV 85, 
 105. Lucretius renders the atomic efflux as 
 aestus, IV 219; VI 925. Cicero uses transitio, 
 N.D. I 109; accessio, N.D. I 105, translating, 
 with Lucretius, air6ppoiai, Diog. L. X 46. Aestus 
 is nearer than transitio or accessio to airoppoiai, 
 suggesting the motion of water. 
 
 IXdxwrrov, minimum. Fa. 22. Lucr. id. II 
 244. The reference is to the nature of the 
 
18 Lucretius and Ciceko 
 
 declinatio or clinamen, not to the eKaxurrov 
 or minima pars of the atom. 
 2woia, Ac. II 22, 30; Tusc. I 57. See below 
 
 under irpoXrjsjrK. 
 
 i\ye^ov\,K6v, principatus, N.D. II 29. Lucr. 
 regimen, III 95, consilium vitae regimenque. 
 
 f,6oxnj, voluptas, Fin. II 12. Lucr. uses volup- 
 tas, but his reference to the Greek is uncertain, 
 e.g., II 3. He must have had Epicurus' defini- 
 tion of ijSoi/ij in mind when he wrote II 18, 
 19, [natura] mente fruatur | iucundo sensu cura 
 semota metuque. Cf. Diog. Laert. X 128, eVl 
 TTjv Tov <r<ofuiro<; vyCetav Kal rrjv rrji ylrvj(r}f 
 itrapa^lav, iireX tovto tov ftaKapUtx; ^rjv itm, 
 Te'Xo? . . . rriv ^Sov^p apxv" **^ reXoi \eyofiev 
 flvai TOV fiuKapion ^rjv. 
 
 Kdo-|ios, mundus, Tim. X. Lucr. id., I 1054; 
 II 181. The Stoic and Epicurean mundus 
 formed two distinct concepts. The fieraKoa-fua. 
 where the gods dwell, whence flow the imagines, 
 is translated by Lucretius with the phrase, 
 sedes sanctas in mundi partibus ullis, V 147. 
 Cicero turns neatly by intermundia. Fin. II 75, 
 N.D. I 18. 
 
 vo(nr)|jLaTa, morbi, Tusc. IV 23. Morbus is 
 also the term of Lucretius in a discussion pre- 
 
Genebal View 19 
 
 liminary to a description of the plague at Athens, 
 VI 1090. He may have been thinkmg therefore 
 of the Greek, though certainly not io the Stoic 
 sense. 
 
 irp6XTi\|/is, notitia, notio, Ac. II 30; N.D. I 43, 
 44, 45; anticipatio quaedam deorum, N.D. I 43 
 antecepta animo rei quaedam infonnatio, id. 
 insitae vel potius innatae cognitiones, id. 44 
 praenotio deorum id.; primae notiones, id. 46 
 informatae deonmi, notiones, id. II 13; con- 
 formatio animi, id. 1 105; cf. Top. 27; praesensio 
 notioque, N.D. II 45. These terms and phrases 
 seem to render both ewoiai and irpoXi^^ei^ 
 with no practical distinction. Etymologically, 
 however, irpoXi^^jren may be recognized in prae- 
 notio, praesensio, anticipatio. evvoiai appears 
 in infonnatio, conformatio, notitia. Lucretius 
 renders wpiKry^K by notities when speaking of 
 the conception of the gods produced in the mind 
 by the efflux of the eihwXa, V 182, 1047. 
 
 irpdvoia, prudentia, providentia, N.D. I 18; 
 II 58, 73. Lucretius gives the same idea by the 
 adv. divinitus, I 116, 150, 736; II 180, V i98. 
 
 o'0(|>ia, sapientia, De Off. I 153. Lucr. id. 
 V 10. 
 
 o-o<j>ds, sapiens, Fin. II 24. Lucr. id. II 8. 
 
20 Lucretius and (Jiceeo 
 
 a(|>atpa (certain reading), globus, N.D. II 47. 
 Lucr. id. V 69, 472, 665. 
 
 (r<|>aipociS^s, globostun, Tim. VI. Lucr. id. II 
 469. 
 
 2. Turned by Cicero with Various Devices. 
 
 The number in this group is 11. Here again 
 the honors are fairly divided. 
 
 dvTiuous, qui adversis vestigiis stent contra 
 nostra vestigia, Ac. II 123. Lucr. also resorts 
 to description, I 1052-1067. 
 
 diraOeia, Pyrrho autem ea ne sentire quidem 
 sapientem, quae d-iraOeia nominatur, Ac. II 130 ; 
 Lucr. VI 24 £f. He is describing the arapa^ia 
 of Epicurus, Diog. Laert. X 82, Us. p. 30. 
 
 dp|iovia, concentio, Tim. VIII 24. Cicero's 
 use of the term shows etymological careless- 
 ness; cf., e.g., Div. II 34, 142; N.D. Ill 18; 
 where the various terms seem equivalent to 
 ap/iovia or avfi-rrddeia indiscriminately. Note 
 also N.D. Ill 28; Div. II 124. Lucretius is 
 completely defeated, and, although laughing at 
 the term, takes the Greek word over without 
 translation. III 100, 118, 130-134; IV 1248. 
 His habitum (e|(f) quendam vitalem corporis. 
 
General View 21 
 
 III 99, is a definition rather than a translation. 
 There is no occasion for the poet's apology. 
 Harmonia is a musical word and admirable in 
 the hexameter. Cicero also uses the single 
 Greek term, N.D. Ill 27.' 
 
 cljiapiievn, ilia fatalis necessitas, N.D. I 55. 
 Lucr. necessum (adj.), II 289, 468, 710. 
 
 ^(oSiaKds, orbis signifer, Div. II 89. Lucr. 
 id., V 691. Cicero in his Aratea uses the Greek 
 term as already naturaUzed, 317-318. Lucretius 
 therefore deliberately rejects a term occurring 
 in one of his poetical models, showing a decidedly 
 superior taste. Cicero's use of the word in 
 Div. II 89 and Aratea 317-318 is due to an 
 instinct for learned display. 
 
 laovoiiia, aeqtiabilis tributio, N.D. I 50; 
 aequilibritas, 109. Lucr. attempts no trans- 
 lation. He states the doctrine II 569-580; 
 VI 542. 
 
 kvkXos, circulus aut orbis, N.D. II 47. Lucr. 
 orbis, V 510. 
 
 irepl SuvaTuv, de eo quod possit fieri aut non 
 possit, Fa. 1. Lucr. quid possit oriri | quid 
 
 • Lucretius refers to the haxmony of the body, Cicero 
 to that of the universe. 
 
22 LUCKETIUS AND UICERO 
 
 nequeat, finita potestas denique cuique | quanam 
 sit ratione atque alte terminus haerens, I 75-77. 
 <rTcpc|xvia. Epicurus used the Greek term to 
 indicate the solid realities, perceptible objects, 
 in distinction from forms of matter imper- 
 ceptible to the senses, more especially as opposed 
 to the streaming etScoXa. Their essential quality 
 Cicero denotes by firmitas, soliditas, N.D. I 49. 
 To the same intent he uses the phrases nihil 
 concreti, nihil solidi, nihil ezpressi, nihil eminentis, 
 N.D. I 75, opposing them to species pura, levis, 
 perlucida, id. The same idea occurs in his habitu 
 solido, N.D. I 123, viscenim soliditatem, N.D. 
 II 18. Soliditas is metrically impossible in 
 Lucretius. The idea, however, appears in 
 various forms. Note condense corpore, VI 102 ; 
 contezta magis condensaque, IV 57 ; in medio ut 
 propulsa sue condensa coiret, V 486; condensa 
 queant apparere, VI 466. Solidus in the singular, 
 without exception, is used by Lucretius to denote 
 the perfect impenetrability of the atom. Soli- 
 dissima also appears I 565, 951. In only two 
 instances does Lucretius use solidus in the sense 
 of solid (tTTepeftvia) as opposed to lighter forms 
 of matter, IV 570, V 927. Cicero alsq employs 
 solidus in the sense of the absolute solidity of 
 
General View 23 
 
 the atoms, N.D. II 93, showing in his technical 
 uses of the word a contamination of the two 
 ideas. See Part II, p. 47. 
 
 T^Xos, vel summum vel ultimum vel ex- 
 tremtun bonorum, Fin. I 42; III 26. Lucr. 
 summum bonum, VI 26. 
 
 <|>va-ioXoYCa, naturae ratio, Div. I 90; II 37; 
 N.D., I 20. Lucr. id. I 148. 
 
 The task of examining the Greek terms in 
 Lucretius will be much briefer than in the case 
 of Cicero, for but two are found, namely dp|jiov£a 
 and ofLOiopLcpcia. The latter proves too much 
 for the powers of Lucretius and he frankly 
 admits it, I 830-834. The honors are decidedly 
 with Cicero. He shuns altogether the sesqui- 
 pedale verbum and turns the doctrine neatly 
 with the phrase, particulas, similes inter se, 
 minutas, Ac. II 118. This instance, however, 
 is the only case where Cicero uses only the 
 Latin and Lucretius is forced to adopt the 
 Greek. 
 
 The results so far obtained justify the follow- 
 ing conclusions. Cicero shows in general a 
 greater wealth and facility of expression than 
 Lucretius. In spite of this facility he has not 
 in all cases "spoken Latin when he could." 
 
24 Lucretius AND Cicero 
 
 He shows scrupulous and occasionally pedantic 
 efforts to keep faithfully to his Greek. His 
 familiar hesitation between several terms has 
 marred the technical rigor of his terminology. 
 Lucretius, on the other hand, has shown him- 
 self to be his own best argument in disproof of 
 the patrii sermonis egestas, since with simple 
 Latin he has succeeded, in the main, as well as 
 Cicero in turning the Greek ideas. His ter- 
 minology shows a simplicity, fimmess and 
 rigor not so marked in Cicero. 
 
 The causes producing this wide differentiation 
 of terminology do not in all cases submit to the 
 processes of generalization. To attempt to 
 force all cases of divergence under the exact 
 operation of well-defined laws would be to yield 
 to a common but premature tendency of our lat- 
 ter day to classify all the phenomena of human 
 consciousness and activity under specific rules 
 o' thumb. There are, notwithstanding, certain 
 large influences controlling the choice of terms 
 by Cicero and Lucretius and a brief considera- 
 tion of these is offered. 
 
General View 25 
 
 n. 
 
 Prose and Poetic Diction. 
 
 The modifications of the terminology of the 
 two writers, through the nature of their diction, 
 are too easily recognized to require here large 
 amplification. The demands of a poetic diction 
 caused the simplicity of the Lucretian ter- 
 minology. Cicero's prose, on the other hand, 
 permitted his elaborate complexity. It was 
 the task of Lucretius to clothe the exact and 
 detailed exposition of his jejune philosophy 
 in the language of a lofty poetry. Through this 
 necessity his habit was formed of choosing 
 simple, familiar words to carry his technical 
 meanings. Res and concilium are familiar 
 illustrations of this manner. The prose form 
 of Cicero, however, gave him the utmost free- 
 dom to use any word he chose, provided that it 
 was clear and accurate. 
 
 Nothing illustrates more clearly the operation 
 of this respective limitation and hcense than a 
 comparison of the words occurring for the first 
 time in the two writers, and which in many 
 cases may have been coined by them. 
 
26 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 A coined term in Lucretius would be, as a 
 rule, for his poetic diction an uncouth barbarity. 
 Accordingly, with a few exceptions, his new 
 words are used for various literary devices. 
 Archaisms appear, also the ritualistic fourth 
 declension, crashing Aeschylean words and 
 those that for some peculiar strangeness of their 
 own are useful to the poet's art. Thus among 
 the words found only in Lucretius and his imita- 
 tors we have augmen, adaugmen, momen, 
 vezamen, circtimcaesura, variantia, aegror, 
 mazimitas, pestilitas, dispositura, di£feritas, re- 
 futatus, emissus, commutatus, opinatus, for- 
 matura, contages, adhaesus, vivata, dementit, 
 tardescit, ezos, perfluctuat, intactile, repetentia, 
 torrescere, disiectus, transpectum, transpiciuntur, 
 nizatur, articulat, contrectabiliter, adopinamur, 
 frustramen, praemetuenter, interfodiunt, inter- 
 datus, interfugere, vitaliter, diffusilis, aborisci, 
 interstinguere, auziliatum, summattun, con- 
 ftilta, egigni, stinguere, primigenum, adiectus, 
 auctus, formamentum. Only nine, distinctively 
 philosophical words must be added to the list ; 
 namely, glomeramen, clinamen, sensiferos, sen- 
 tiscere, conciliatu, repetentia, retinentia, sensilis, 
 propritim. 
 
General View 27 
 
 The coined words of Cicero all appear in the 
 interest of his philosophical terminology. With 
 such a license the vocabulary of the latter would 
 naturally show greater wealth and diversity 
 than that of the poet Lucretius. As typical 
 of the words occurring for the first time in 
 his philosophical writings, we have, probably, 
 effectio, efScientia, patibilis, impetibilis, qualitas, 
 individuum, beatitas, beatudo, moralis, compre- 
 hendibilis, perspicientia, convenientia, infinitio. 
 
 III. 
 
 Prose and Metrical Form. 
 
 Lucretius was further hampered in the choice 
 of words by his verse structure. To this 
 demand of his hexameters are undoubtedly due 
 some of the words in the preceding list, although 
 they belong none the less to that group on the 
 ground of the imusual effect their strangeness 
 must have had on the Roman ear. Among 
 the words whose counterparts in Cicero were 
 metrically impossible in hexameter verse, we 
 find in Lucretius differitas, compositura, dis- 
 positura, maximitas, satias, variantia, aegror, 
 pestilitas, sensilis, regimen, for the more usual 
 
28 LUCBETIUS AND CiCEBO 
 
 forms found in Cicero respectively, namely, 
 differentia, compositio, dispositio (rhet. tenn), 
 magnitudo, satietas, varietas, aegritudo, pesti- 
 lentia, sentiens, principatus. To positura, the 
 corresponding form positio does not seem to 
 occur in Cicero. To this list may be added 
 some of the many words in Cicero which, though 
 metrically possible for Lucretius in the nomina- 
 tive singular, could not be used in the oblique 
 cases. Thus Lucretius has clinamen, vexamen, 
 refutatus, emissus, commutatus, opinatus, con- 
 tages, contagium, adhaesus, concursus, visus, 
 titillare, concilium, mobilitas, for the forms 
 which appear in Cicero respectively, declinatio 
 and inclinatio, vezatio, refutatio, emissio, com- 
 mutatio, opinatio, contagio, adhaesio, concursio, 
 visio, titillatio, concretio, velocitas, celeritas. 
 The archaic and ritualistic fourth declension 
 affected by Lucretius contrasts strongly with 
 Cicero's staccato prose forms in -io. The unusual 
 effect of the ending -amen also attracted Lu- 
 cretius. In his choice of concilium he probably 
 liked its simplicity and found it suited to the 
 nature of his thought. With this group may 
 be classed the Lucretian gen. animanttmi for 
 Cicero's animantium, also his omne and use of 
 
General View 29 
 
 the adjective infinitus where Cicero uses in- 
 finitas (aveipia). With the preceding use may 
 be compared the aeternus and aetemitas of 
 Cicero, and the archaic necessum of the former 
 with the necessitas of the latter. Likewise for 
 Cicero's famihar phrase fortuita concursione, 
 we have in Lucretius, sua sponte, forte, temere 
 II 1059. Compare also the rare abl. impete, 
 of Lucretius, with the regular form, impetu. 
 A similar instance occurs in his use of the 
 gen. and dat. plur., principionun and principiis, 
 for his regular term, primordia, metrically im- 
 possible in those cases. Going farther afield 
 on the literary side, we might extend this hst 
 indefinitely. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Temperamental and Scholastic Influences. 
 
 The individual temperament of each man as 
 affected by the peculiar attitude of his particular 
 philosophical school, had, without doubt, great 
 influence on the tenacity with which each seized 
 and held a term. 
 
 We see in Lucretius the ardent adherent of 
 Epicurus, the master whose last command to his 
 
30 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 votaries was, r&v Soy/tdrmv fiefivrja-ffai} His 
 disciples stored their minds with the literal 
 words of his Kvpuu Bo^ai ^ through the rote itera- 
 tion of his doctrines. The absolute belief in 
 the literal truth of the words of Epicurus may 
 be paralleled in later history only by the Prot- 
 estant tenet of the literal inspiration of the 
 sacred canon. This claim of Epicurus for the 
 absolute acceptance of the very letter of his 
 teachings was acknowledged by Lucretius, a 
 man in every fiber of his mind and imagination 
 the potential bigot. One smgle idea controlled 
 his mind, one single purpose dominated his life. 
 We see him working day and night to reveal to 
 men his own possession, the absolute, the whole 
 and perfect truth. He looks down with intense 
 compassion upon others wandering and lost 
 in their ignorance. Nor is this attitude char- 
 acteristic of Lucretius alone, although probably 
 greatly exaggerated in him by the passionate 
 intensity of his personal quality. It was no- 
 toriously characteristic of the whole Epicurean 
 clan. Cicero's irritation at their supreme con- 
 
 - Diog. Laert. X 35, 83, 139-154. 
 ' Diog. Laert. X 16 ; Eckman, " Controversial Ele- 
 ments in Lucretius," p. 15. 
 
General View 31 
 
 fidence is abundantly plain in the dry humor 
 with which he marks the interlocutor Velleius : 
 Turn Velleius fidenter sane, ut solent isti, nihil 
 tam verens, quam ne dubitare aliqua de re 
 videretur, tamquam modo ex deorum consilio 
 et ex Epicuri intermundiis descendisset, N.D. 
 118. 
 
 Both the character and philosophical tenets 
 of Cicero when compared with those of Lucretius, 
 present the strongest contrast. We see Cicero 
 hesitating and uncertain in his political attach- 
 ments, fluctuating in his personal friendships, 
 a sensitive medium for every fresh impression. 
 He had, more than any other Roman of his day, 
 the open rationalistic temperament of the fourth- 
 century Greek. His mind had furthermore 
 received a very subtle and severe training in 
 its critical and judicial faculties. As a result 
 he was the most Academic of the Academics. 
 The tenet of the impossibility of the absolute 
 perception of any form of truth was alike a 
 necessity of his temperament and the product 
 of his training and career. 
 
 These fundamental and opposing traits of 
 character of the two men are clearly reflected 
 in their style, and, what is here our only concern, 
 
32 LUCKETIUS AND CiCEBO 
 
 in their tenninologies. The clear and simple 
 rigor of Lucretius stands in strong relief against 
 the rich, resourceful, elaborate, yet for all that, 
 somewhat indefinitive terminology of Cicero. 
 The quasi and quidam of the latter, his habit 
 of double translation, his qualifications, alter- 
 natives, frequent shifts of meaning, all betray 
 the timorous translation of the Academic. 
 Titillare sensus,' says Lucretius quite simply 
 and confidently for Epicurus' yapyaXi^eiv, but 
 Cicero gropes after his word with the Academic 
 quasi, or uses a phrase to carry the Greek, 
 throwing the responsibility at the same time 
 upon Epicurus: has leviores dicis voluptates 
 quibus quasi titillatio (Epicuri enim hoc verbum 
 est) adhibetur sensibus.^ And again, si ea sola 
 voluptas esset quasi titillaret sensus.^ 
 
 As ia the broader manifestations of literary 
 form and expression, so too even within the 
 narrower limits of the choice of a technical 
 terminology, we see the operations of the uni- 
 versal law, le style c'est I'homme. 
 
 > II 429. » N.D, I 113. » Fin. I 39. 
 
PART n. 
 
 STUDIES OF SPECIAL GROUPS OF 
 TERMS. 
 
 Ant special and intensive study of the choice 
 and employment of Latin terms by Lucretius 
 and Cicero in the exposition of Epicureanism 
 should be approached through an effort to 
 understand the exact use made by Epicurus of 
 the Greek originals. We know that he saw the 
 importance of a precise system of nomen- 
 clature and that he intended to adopt one and 
 hold to it with accuracy.' The discovery, so 
 far as existing sources will permit, of the extent 
 to which he succeeded in this resolution must 
 form an important element in the following 
 studies of special groups of terms occurring 
 in our Roman philosophers. 
 
 • Diog. Laert. X 37, 38. 
 D 33 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Atoms. 
 I. 
 
 THE ATOMS OF EPICURUS. 
 
 1. "Ato|ios is the special and particular term 
 of Epicurus for the ultimate unit of matter 
 characteristic of his physical system. Explicit 
 statements are made by the ancients to this effect, 
 Scholiasta Dionysii Thr. p. 660, 25 Bekk., Us. 
 p. 129; Aetius I 3, 18, p. 285 sq. D. (Stob. eel. 
 ph. 10, 14 Plut. I 3, 25), Us. p. 191 ; Hippolytus 
 philos. 22, p. 572, 3 D., Us. p. 191 ; Achilles isag. 
 3, p. 125" Pet., Us. p. 191 ; Simplicius in Arist. 
 phys. Z i init. f. 216', Us. p. 192. Important 
 evidence is offered that aro/to? was the term 
 of Epicurus Kaj i^oxvv by the record in 
 Diogenes Laertius of the title that Epicurus 
 gave to his treatise on the elements of his 
 physical system, vepl aTOfiav kuI ksvov, X 27. 
 35 
 
36 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 The term is used to express all the various 
 phases and relations of ultimate matter, con- 
 sidered per se in reference to its own properties 
 of size, weight, shape, indivisibility, as bodily 
 existence contrasted with void, as the element 
 composing and begetting the perceptible res, 
 etc. Epicurus uses it with greater frequency 
 than any other term to denote his atoms and 
 devotes it exclusively to that end. 
 
 Epicurus did not invent the term, but adapted 
 it from Leucippus and Democritus.* In addition 
 to the testimony of the fragments, it is good 
 corroborative evidence that later commentators, 
 in setting forth the systems of Leucippus and 
 Democritus, tacitly ascribe to the latter the use 
 of the term.' Gassendi ascribed its invention 
 to Epicurus,' but this position is untenable. 
 
 The feminine gender of the term is probably 
 due to its original agreement with <j)v<n<i, not 
 ovvla, which is a peripatetic not an Epicurean 
 
 • Diels, Frag, der Vorsokrat., Leucippus B 1 ; De- 
 mocritus B 9, 117, 125. 
 
 ' Diels, Democritus A 37, 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49 (B 
 125), 50, 55, 82, 124. 
 
 ' Gassendi, animadvers. in lib. X, Diog. Laert. pp. 
 179 ff. 
 
Studies of Special Geoups of Terms 37 
 
 term. The combination is actually found in 
 Diog. Laert. X 41. The name of the contrast- 
 ing element, ij ava^t ^wt?, also favors this 
 assumption. 
 
 The term arofioi appears frequently in ad- 
 jective form also and occasionally as a neuter 
 substantive in partitive agreement, Diog. Laert. 
 X42. 
 
 The question naturally arises why Epicurus 
 chose, as his special and particular term for the 
 atoms, a word which seems to represent but one 
 phase of the atom and but one element of its 
 constitution, namely indivisibility. Bindseil ' 
 thinks that Lucretius rejected the term because 
 of this limitation in the nomenclature of Epi- 
 curus. Quite the contrary is true, as the ab- 
 solute indivisibility of the atom is the crux of 
 the Epicurean physical system. This hypothe- 
 sis is essential to the doctrine of the indestructi- 
 bility of matter, the dualism of void and matter, 
 and hence, too, an essential postulate of Epi- 
 curean kinetics. It serves as an explanation 
 of the permanence of species, the rotation of 
 birth, growth, decay, death and regeneration. 
 
 ' Bindseil, Ad Librum Primum Lucreti, p. 11. 
 
38 LUCKETIUS AND CiCERO 
 
 In a word, upon the simple solidity of the atom 
 depends the whole physical system of Epicurus. 
 It is for this reason that Epicurus adopted oro/io? 
 as his special and particular term. 
 
 2. 2co|jiaTa occurs with the greatest frequency 
 after aTo/io<; to denote the atom. Like the 
 latter, it appears in all the phases and relations 
 of ultimate matter. Special preference is shown 
 for acofiara to indicate bodily existence con- 
 trasted with the void.* The term does not show 
 the exclusive technical use of aTOfto<i, for Epi- 
 curus uses it freely in various different senses; 
 such as the perceptible res, the physical organ- 
 ism of man, body as opposed to its attributes, 
 and as a general term. It does not appear that 
 Epicurus felt any obscurity resulting from such 
 a varied use. Bindseil seems to infer the con- 
 trary, as he makes the statement that Epicurus 
 occasionally uses the expression t^ m-p&ra o-tu- 
 Hara? I have searched the documents carefully 
 and do not find this expression anywhere in the 
 
 » Diog. Laert. X 86, Us. p. 36; Schol. Ep. ep. I 39, 
 Us. p. 99; Plut. adv. Col. 13, p. 1114", Us. p. 124; Sext. 
 €mp. adv. dogm. Ill (Math. IX) 333, Us. p. 125; Plut. 
 adv. Col. 11, p. 1112', Us. p. 125. 
 
 'Ad Lib. Prim. p. 12. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 39 
 
 fragments of Epicurus.* Did Bindseil turn cor- 
 pora prima back into the Greek ? Dr. Merrill,^ 
 though evidently following Bindseil, states 
 with greater accuracy that "the Epicureans" 
 used the expression. For this statement there 
 is authority, as the phrase occasionally ap- 
 pears in later commentators on the Epicurean 
 system.* 
 
 latfiaTa does not occur in Epicurus and his 
 commentators in the singular with the meaning 
 of atom. The singular is uniformly aro/tos. 
 
 3. 2-ircpiiaTa. — The word wherever occurring 
 in the letters of Epicurus has always the mean- 
 ing of the atoms, Diog. Laert. X 38, 74, 89. 
 It is a curious fact that no statement of the 
 occurrence of a-irepfiara as a synonym for the 
 atoms is made by modern editors in commenting 
 on the semina of Lucretius, although they must 
 
 ' But cf. Diels, Frag, der Vorsokrat., Democritus A 
 47, A>;;itA(cpiTos t4 wpUri ^i)<ri (riinara kt\., also Diog. Laert. 
 X 69 which may constitute an occurrence in Epicurus. 
 
 ' Merrill, Lucr. I 55 ad loc. 
 
 » Aetius I 12, 5, p. 311 D. (Plut. I 12, 3 Stob. eel. ph. 
 14, 1), Us. p. 195; Plut. adv. Col. 8, p. 1111«, Us. p. 204; 
 Galen, de element, sec. Hippocr. I 2 t. I, p. 418 K, Us. 
 p. 205. Cf. also Dem. and Leucipp., Simp, in Arist. phys. 
 Z 1 init. f. 216', Us. p. 192. 
 
40 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 have been entirely aware of the correspondence 
 of the terms. 
 
 4. "Oykos. — The opinions of scholars are very- 
 diverse in regard to the use made by Epicu- 
 rus of this word. Bindseil ' does not include 
 it among his list of terms for the atom. Polle,^ 
 on the other hand, admits the term and Munro ' 
 concurs. Giussani * stands for the use of SyKoi 
 in the sense of molecule. Brieger finds Syicoi 
 in Diog. Laert. X 69, used clearly of the atom, 
 but criticises Epicurus for his loose use of the 
 term elsewhere in the sense of the minimae 
 partes of the atom. Giussani' stands against 
 Brieger on this point. He claims that e\dxt<rrov 
 is the term used by Epicurus for the minima 
 pars of the atom, while oyKo^, he says, is the 
 minima pars of the perceptible res, or in other 
 words, 07K09 is the molecule. The truth of the 
 matter seems far, as yet, from demonstration; 
 but a glance at the few passages in which the 
 word occurs may be worth while. 
 
 • Ad Lib. Prim. p. 12. 
 
 ' De Art. Vocab. p. 14. 
 ' Munro, Lucr. I 55 ad loo. 
 
 * Studi Lucreziani, p. 58 ff. 
 
 ' Studi Lucreziani, p. 78, App. II, note on p. 58. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 41 
 
 "O7K09 first appears in Diog. Laert. X 52, 
 53. The problem of sensation is under dis- 
 cussion. The o7Kot of the passage may be 
 considered as a form of e'SooXa, and, as they 
 are clearly indicated to be of like character 
 to the substance from which they have ema- 
 nated, they are, in the modern sense at least, 
 of a molecular constitution. Whether Epicurus 
 intended by the use of the word oyKoi to 
 describe them as of a molecular constitution, 
 is another question. The occurrence in Id. X 
 54 has no technical significance. The next 
 occurrence is in Id. X 56, 57. The question 
 at issue in the passage is whether tto// fieyeOot 
 may be predicated of the atoms and resolves 
 itself into the question of the infinite divisibility 
 of matter. Giussani's criticism of Brieger seems 
 just, that the latter in calling the 07/cot of 
 this passage the minimae partes of the atom 
 must take, against the meaning and usage of 
 the Greek, the ireTrepaaiievov aatfia to indicate 
 the atom. Giussani's own conclusion, how- 
 ever, that the Syicoi are molecules, is somewhat 
 dogmatic and not entirely convincing.' The 
 
 ' Studi Lucrezlani, p. 78, App. II, note on p. 58. 
 
42 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 aireipoi oyxoi are surely not the cacumina of 
 the atom, as the oyxoi are clearly conceived as 
 separable magnitudes composing the congeries 
 of the res. I see no imperative reason, on the 
 other hand, for the conclusion of Giussani, nor is 
 it clear why the atom would not fill the require- 
 ments of the sense as well or even better than 
 the molecule. The word occurs again in Id. 
 X 69. Here Giussani fairly joins issue with 
 Brieger, as the latter calls the 07*01 atoms, 
 the former molecules. The expressions d0poiafj,a 
 avtrry and fiep&p perhaps help along Giussani's 
 notion, as they hint at a homogeneous substance 
 implying a molecular constitution. Judgment 
 on the passage must be suspended. The passage 
 from Id. X 101, 102 still leaves the matter in 
 doubt, as the meaning of either atoms or of 
 molecules for Syxoi would make what meaning 
 the passage contains. Other occurrences of 
 07K0? in quotations from Epicurus or in state- 
 ments regarding the philosophy of the Epicu- 
 reans contribute nothing to a clearing up of 
 the difficulty. 
 
 It may be said, by way of summary, that it 
 is not possible to determine the precise use of 
 oyKoi in Epicurus, until it be decided whether 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 43 
 
 Epicurus did or did not grasp the concept of 
 the molecule. If it be granted that Epicurus 
 did have this concept, the evidence is slightly on 
 the side of Giussani that 07*09 appears in the 
 fragments with the meaning of the molecule. 
 
 5. 'Apxai. — PoUe believes contrary to most 
 authorities ' that apxai in the language of 
 Epicurus did not mean the atoms; but in 
 several passages of good authority the word ap- 
 parently has this sense, namely, Diog. Laert. X 
 41; Aetius I 3, 18, pp. 285 sq. D. (Stob. eel. 
 ph. 10, 14 Plut. I 3, 25), Us. p. 191 ; Achilles 
 isag. 3, p. 125* Pet., Us. p. 191; Alexander 
 Aphr. quaestt. I 13, p. 52 Speng: Us. p. 206. 
 It is to be noted, however, that the word occurs 
 with this meaning of the atoms only when the 
 statement of identification with the atoms is 
 specifically made. This fact may indicate a 
 consciousness in the mind of Epicurus of the 
 already well-established use of the word in 
 the sense of the original substance or the 
 primal essence, first so used by the Ionic 
 cosmologists and often found in Aristotle 
 
 'Bindseil, Ad. Lib. Prim. p. 12; also Lucr. I 55, 
 Munro, Giussani, Merrill ad loc. 
 
44 Lucretius and Ciceeo 
 
 and Plato, especially in the plural. It is 
 possible that Democritus himself used the 
 term in this way, as we find in the later ex- 
 positions of his system certain statements to 
 the effect that he included in his ap'xai both 
 body and void.' In Epicurus the term, used 
 philosophically, always designates body opposed 
 to void. These facts may explain the rare 
 occurrence of the term in Epicurus and the 
 further fact that it never appears in the sense 
 of the atoms without definition. We should 
 look for a much more frequent use as it is the 
 only term, except possibly aroixelop, that in- 
 dicates through its own root meaning the 
 formative substance. The rare use of the term 
 apxv, as well as that of aroixeiov, indicates the 
 tendency of Epicurus to exclude from his ter- 
 minology such words as had been previously 
 devoted to a philosophical use by his predecessors 
 or by his contemporaries. 
 
 6. Sroixetov. — The discussion of aroixeiov 
 as a term in Epicurus for the atom is natu- 
 rally associated with that of apxv, since similar 
 questions obtain in regard to it. Polle is again 
 
 ' Dlels, Frag, der Vorsokrat., Democritus A 38, 44. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 45 
 
 arrayed against the same authorities with the 
 exception of Giussani, who seems to have said 
 nothing on the subject. The former declares 
 that vToixelov was not a technical term for 
 the atom in Epicurus, as another meaning was 
 assigned to it. What the other meaning was 
 he does not seem to state. 
 
 'S.Toi'xuov appears first as a philosophical 
 term in Plato.^ The meaning of the word as 
 found there is that of the component parts of 
 matter, the original elements. Back of this 
 philosophical sense lay the root meaning of the 
 word signifying a series or the component parts 
 of anything. In language it s6ems to have been 
 an elementary sound as expressed by a letter 
 (ypd/ifia) .^ From the time of Aristotle the 
 word came to be applied particularly, though 
 not exclusively, to the four elements of Emped- 
 ocles, — earth, air, fire and water.' The term 
 would, therefore, if used rigidly in this sense, 
 be strictly equivalent to apxai only among 
 the Empedocleans. To the Atomists and 
 Stoics these elements are secondary and to the 
 
 •Tim. 48 B; Polit. 278 C; Theaet. 201 E, 20 D. 
 = Arist. Poet. 20, 2 ; Plat. Crat. 424 D ; Theaet. 202 E. 
 'Ac. I 26; Reidadloc. 
 
46 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 Peripatetics tertiary. At no period, however, 
 of Greek philosophy was the distinction be- 
 tween apj(ri and oToixelov rigidly observed, and 
 Aristotle himself frequently employed the terms 
 with inconsistency.* The term was therefore 
 not preempted exclusively by any philosophical 
 school before the time of Epicurus. 
 
 The test of a-roixelov as a term for the atoms 
 of Epicurus must be the same as that applied 
 to apxai; namely, whether the word appears 
 alone in that sense, without specific definition. 
 This proof is not found. In the single instance 
 of its use denoting material substance in the 
 letters of Epicurus the text is defective, Diog. 
 Laert. X 86. 
 
 Mimro's note on Lucr. I 55 is puzzling. He 
 says, " Lucretius does not here mention elementa 
 which is frequently found in his poem and 
 answers to one of the commonest Greek words, 
 aroixela." The pertinence of Munro's comment 
 would lie in the frequent occurrence of a-roixela 
 in Epicurus, but the term in the latter is con- 
 spicuously rare. 
 
 7. Zx^K'O'- — The word deserves mention, as 
 
 I Ac. I 26; Reid ad loc. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 47 
 
 it suggests itself as the probable prototype of 
 the Lucretian figura or foima, which occa- 
 sionally appear as synonyms for the atom. 
 'S,j(Tiiui, however, never occurs in this sense in 
 the fragments of Epicurus. I do not find, 
 furthermore, either ctSos or liea. The origin 
 of the Lucretian use must therefore be sought 
 elsewhere. 
 
 8. Td (rrcpc|ivia. — The word is to be noted 
 under a discussion of the terminology of the 
 atom, only because of the curious error of Polle/ 
 who classes it with the synonyms of arofiot. 
 He quotes Diog. Laert. X 46 as an illustration 
 of the use of the word. A glance at the passage 
 shows that the word is used in quite a diflFerent 
 sense. To inepefivia are the perceptible, soUd 
 bodies, to. ^uuvofteva, from which flows the 
 atomic efflux of the etSaXa. Note also Diog. 
 Laert. X 48, 50; Sextus emp. adv. dogmat. 
 I (Math. Vn) 207, Us. 180; id. II (Math. Vm) 
 63 sq., Us. p. 187. Were the evidence of 
 the Greek insufficient, Cicero's use of the term 
 which he ascribes to Epicurus would give the 
 meaning beyond dispute, N.D. I 49. Professor 
 
 » De Art. Vocab. p. 14. 
 
48 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 Merrill ' has taken over from Polle without ques- 
 tion or verification the statement of the former 
 that TO, ffTfpe'fivia is a synonym of the atoms. 
 
 9. 'YXti calls for special comment. It is given 
 by a number of the editors of Lucretius as the 
 Greek original of Epicurus for the materies 
 and materia of Lucretius. A careful and re- 
 peated search of the original Epicurean docu- 
 ments ^ has not brought to light any occurrence 
 of the term used as a prototype of the Lucretian 
 materies.^ The word is not found in the frag- 
 ments of Leucippus and Democritus.* The 
 appearance of v\r) in a philosophical sense ° 
 occurs first in Aristotle as one of the four 
 causes of his ovaia ; namely, vXtj, etSo?, to kivovv, 
 TO reXo?. From the time of Aristotle the term 
 occurs frequently in philosophical terminology. 
 
 ■ Merrill, Lucr. I 55 ad loc. 
 
 ' Usener's Epicurea, Lipsiae, 1887. 
 
 " The only occurrences that I find are Diog. Laert. 
 X, 93, 112; Simp, in Arist. phys. A 4 (p. 211" 7), t 133', 
 Us. p. 194. 
 
 * Diels, Frag, der Vorsokrat., Berlin, 1906. 
 
 ' rh inroKtliuvov ytvi<reas Kal (pBopit ScKTiKbv, Gen. et Corr, 
 1. 4, 7; t4 (!| oB ylyytrai, Metaph. 6. 7, 2. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Teems 49 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Only three words in the known Greek of 
 Epicurus occur absolutely in the undoubted 
 sense of atoms, namely, dTo/j,o^, atofiara, 
 ffvepfiara. The meaning of 07/to? is as yet unde- 
 termined. 'Apxat and aroixela designate the 
 atoms only when specifically defined. l,xvi^aTa, 
 TO, arepe/jivia and v\i) are not found in this 
 sense. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE ATOMS OF LUCRETIUS. 
 
 PoUe states that Lucretius deliberately spumed 
 the terms at uTOfioi and tA a-repefivia} As we 
 have already seen, the Greek term ra arepe'fivia 
 never signified the atoms. It is hard to under- 
 stand the source of Polle's amazing blunder and 
 still more puzzling to account for Professor 
 Merrill's acceptance of his statement. The 
 failure of Lucretius to naturalize or translate 
 drofio^, Polle accounts for by the freedom of 
 Lucretius from the verbal constraints of his 
 
 ' De Art. Vocab. p. 14. 
 
50 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 Greek originals and by the admirable flexi- 
 bility of the Latin in developing a native 
 philosophical idiom. Bindseil offers the in- 
 genious explanation, previously mentioned, that 
 Lucretius rejected aro/to? and chose primor- 
 dia as his technical term because the term 
 primordia suggested more clearly atomic func- 
 tion, namely, to be the begetting elements 
 of the res. Both explanations are inadequate. 
 Investigation shows that Lucretius, when per- 
 mitted by his poetical and metrical form, fol- 
 lows his Greek with faithfulness. Bindseil's 
 explanation is also open to question, since 
 it will be shown imder the special treatment 
 of the term primordia, that it is at times 
 used absolutely and without apparent refer- 
 ence to its function as the formative element. 
 The true explanation has already been sug- 
 gested in the discussion of the methods of Lu- 
 cretius and Cicero in the employment of Greek 
 words. The former carefully avoids all Greek 
 scientific words imless forced to their use by 
 the patrii sermonis egestas. This avoidance 
 is due of course to the exigencies of a poetical 
 form. 
 
 1. Primordia is the distinctive and particular 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 51 
 
 term of Lucretius for the atoms. Its use is 
 confined to this meaning/ and it expresses all 
 the relations and functions of ultimate matter. 
 The method of Lucretius is clearly seen in the 
 development of this word as a technical term. 
 "Aro/io? was not available for his poetical 
 form. He therefore fell back upon the trans- 
 lation of apxaC which appeared, though quali- 
 fied, in Epicurus and was the established 
 term of other philosophers for ultimate sub- 
 stance. To avoid, however, the lack of dis- 
 tinction present in apxaC, Lucretius chose not 
 principia, which would involve the same ob- 
 scurity as the Greek, but primordia, using the 
 genitive, dative and ablative of principia for 
 purely metrical reasons. He reserves prin- 
 cipium for the designation of other philosoph- 
 ical systems.^ The case in point is a nice 
 illustration of the difficulties of Lucretius 
 in creating a philosophical nomenclature and 
 of his mastery of those difficulties. Poetical 
 form and patriotic pride in his native tongue 
 rebelled against the adoption of arofioi. The 
 
 ' With the exception of I 712, 753, 765. 
 ' I 707, 740. 
 
52 Lucretius and Ciceko 
 
 scientist and philosopher could not endure 
 the promiscuous principia, good enough as a 
 variant but of insufficient precision for the 
 distinctive and proper term. Primordia was 
 the compromise which satisfied poet, patriot 
 and scientist. Primordia may therefore be re- 
 garded as the Lucretian counterpart of the 
 apxai of Epicurus ; but Lucretius has stamped 
 the word with a technical intensity prob- 
 ably, though not certainly, lacking in the apxaC 
 of Epicurus. Primordia never occurs in the 
 • singular. 
 
 Lucretius was evidently conscious of the com- 
 ponent elements of primordia. This fact is seen 
 by the resolution ordia prima, IV 28. Exordia 
 is another indication, though in this case the 
 meaning of atoms seems to be carried only by 
 the whole periphrasis cunctarum exordia rerum, 
 or exordia prima.' Exordia alone never means 
 the atoms.^ 
 
 2. Principium. — The important facts in re- 
 gard to the use of principium have already been 
 noted under primordia. The term was used 
 
 ■II 333; III 31; IV 114; III 380; V 677. 
 ^ II 1062; V 430, 471. Also, from the figure of weav- 
 ing, I 149, V 331. 
 
Stitdies of Special Gkoups of Teems 53 
 
 by Lucretius merdy as an expedient for the 
 unmetrical oblique cases of primordia. In I 
 707, 740 Lucretius, with scholarly discrimina- 
 tion, uses the term in the general philosophical 
 sense of a.pj(ri and apj^at, for the trroixeia of Em- 
 pedocles.* Bindseil and PoUe must be reversed 
 in giving principia as occurring in Lucretius. 
 The term occurs only in the genitive, dative and 
 ablative. 
 
 3. Corpora bears almost a complete corre- 
 spondence to aatfjMTa. The term occurs with 
 great frequency in the meaning of atoms, but 
 must not be considered for that reason the 
 proper term of Lucretius. The frequent oc- 
 currence is rather due to its adaptabihty to the 
 verse form. Like amfjuna, corpora expresses all 
 the phases and relations of ultimate matter, 
 but unhke amfuira, does duty, since aTo/j.o<: 
 is barred in Lucretius, in denoting the single 
 atom.* Corpus occurs in the poem in such 
 varied "lay" uses that Lucretius evidently 
 
 * It must be admitted that in the same passage 
 Lucretius uses primordia very loosely, I 712, 753. 
 
 ' I 600; II 484, 487. PoIIe must be reversed in claim- 
 ing exact correspondence of corpora with o-ci/joTo, for 
 this reason. 
 
54 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 at times felt the ambiguity and qualified the 
 term: thus, corpora prima, I 61, 171, 510, 538; 
 corpora certa, I 521, 526; certissima corpora, I 
 675; genitalia' corpora, I 167; II 548; genitalia 
 materia! corpora, II 62. ' The appearance of 
 prima in the sense of the atoms is due to the 
 momentum of the phrase corpora prima, II 
 313 ; IV 186. Lucretius usually employs corpus 
 like the a5>na of Epicurus to indicate the oppo- 
 site of void and immateriality, I 420, 443, 482. 
 The rare adjective corporeus is developed on 
 this meaning. 
 
 4. Corpuscula appears, though very rarely,' 
 as a term for the atoms in Lucretius. The term 
 
 ' Genitalia is a poetical and post-Augustan word 
 ■whose counterpart I cannot find in the Greek of Epi- 
 curus. The word seems to hark back to certain pre- 
 Socratic cosmologists who explained nature as a sort 
 of physiological generation by a series of births and 
 deaths. The word seems out of place when dealing with 
 the mechanical and chemical combinations of the 
 Atomists. Cf. Professor Woodbridge on the Earliest 
 Gk. Philosophy, Phil. Rev. Vol. X, No. 4, July, 1901. 
 Cf . Lucr. I 203. Also ezitialis, II 569. In the expression 
 genitalia material corpore, the root meaning of materia 
 is suggestive. 
 
 ' I have found the word five times : II 153, 529; 
 IV 199, 899; VI 1063. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 55 
 
 is an admirable one, differentiated as it is by 
 its diminutive form from corpora and in con- 
 sequence free from the ambiguities of the latter. 
 It is difficult to understand why Lucretius has 
 not employed the word with greater frequency. 
 His scant liking for it may possibly be due to the 
 inferiority of Amafinius as a philosophical ex- 
 positor, for this Roman Epicurean seems to have 
 been regarded as the proprietor of the term.' 
 Again, Lucretius may have been doubtful of 
 the poetical value of the word owing to its comic 
 use, Plaut. Cas. 4, 4, 23. I find no corre- 
 sponding word for corpuscula in Epicurus. This 
 fact, too, may have had its influence upon 
 Lucretius. 
 
 5. Semina needs little comment, as it is in 
 all respects the exact counterpart of trirepfiaTa. 
 It is the only term for the atoms that has a 
 complete correspondence with its Greek original. 
 The greater frequency with which it appears over 
 the Greek term is probably due, in the case of 
 Lucretius, to its poetical availability. The use 
 
 ■ Cic. Ac. I 6. The Epicurean prose literature may 
 have been published before or after the death of Lu- 
 cretius. Primus cum primis, V 336, may refer to poetry 
 without reference to prose expositions. 
 
56 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 of the term suggests a reminiscence of the no- 
 tion held by the old cosmologists of a physical 
 origin of the universe. Lucretius uses semina 
 only as the forming element. 
 
 6. Elementa appears in literary Latin for the 
 first time in Lucretius. The meanings in which 
 it occurs are "beginnings," "letters of the 
 alphabet" and finally "atoms." The old deri- 
 vation of the word from el em en seems to have 
 stronger grounds for support than other theories, 
 and brings the word closer to the meaning of 
 its prototype trrotx'^la} The immediate ques- 
 tion in regard to the technical use of elementa 
 is from what philosopher or school Lucretius 
 took over aroixela into Latin in the form of 
 elementa. Professor Merrill's statement that 
 "the expression <rToi.j(elov does not occur in the 
 genuine -fragments of Epicurus" may be re- 
 versed by Diog. Laert. X 86. But perhaps 
 Professor Merrill does not consider these letters 
 genuine. Polle infers that the term was taken 
 over from Empedocles by Lucretius. This 
 theory is not tenable for two reasons. First, 
 
 > J. B. Greenough, Harvard Studies, Vol. I, 1890; 
 Diels, Elementum; Quint. 3, 3, 13; Cic. Ac. I 7; Sen. 
 Ira II 18. 
 
Studies of Special Gkoups of Terms 57 
 
 if true, we should reasonably expect Lucretius 
 to use the term elementa when describing the 
 Empedoclean system I 705 ff. He does not 
 do so but uses instead principixim and pri- 
 mordia. Secondly, oToiyjdov does not occur in 
 the genuine fragments of Empedocles. The 
 term we do find there is pi^mfiara} This fact 
 does not of course prove that Empedocles did 
 not employ the expression arot-xelov;^ but it is 
 sufficient evidence to show the weakness of 
 Polle's assumption. 
 
 It is, on the whole, a reasonable view to hold 
 that Lucretius took over the term a-roixelov 
 through the Latin elementum from Democritus, 
 possibly through Epicurus, in the original sense 
 of the Greek, namely "letters." The word 
 aroixelov appears in the genuine fragments of 
 Democritus only in this sense.' Lucretius uses 
 the word elementum, as Greenough shows, 
 with this significance in the earlier occurrences 
 
 ' Diels, Frag, der Vorsokrat., Empedocles B 6. Cf. 
 Lucr. II 103, radices. 
 
 ' The evidence for Empedocles' use of ctoix^Tov is 
 derived from secondary sources. Diels, Frag, der Vor- 
 sokrat., Emp. B 7, 8, 10, 96, 109, 135, 159. 
 
 ' Diels, Frag, der Vorsokrat., Democritus B 19; 20. 
 
58 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 in the poem. Not until the third book * does 
 he use the word in the technical sense of " atoms." 
 The development of the word as a term for 
 the atoms may have been therefore due to the 
 unconscious influence of his own simile, 1 196 ff. 
 "The idea," says Mr. Greenough, "of calling 
 his atoms elementa after the Greek had ap- 
 parently not occurred to him until after his 
 imconscious figure of the A, B, C's had ac- 
 customed his mind to that conception." It 
 remains possible that in the lost works of the 
 Atomists the word aroixela may have oc- 
 curred in the specific and unqualified sense of 
 the "atoms," and that Lucretius translated the 
 word directly with that meaning. 
 
 7. Figurae appears occasionally in the plural 
 equivalent to the atoms, although usually in- 
 dicating their form. It would be reasonable to 
 expect figurae to be a translation of the ax^' 
 fiara of Epicurus, but a-xv/^^ra in Epicurus 
 does not mean the atoms. Democritus uses 
 occasionally ISe'a, and elSos' for the atoms, 
 
 ' III 244. In II 981 he refers to " the component 
 parts of the atoms, as existing under a supposition that 
 he rejects." 
 
 ' Diels, Frag, der Vorsokrat., Democritus B 141, 167. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 59 
 
 words stamped later by peculiarly Platonic 
 and Aristotelian meanings. These forms, as 
 used in Democritus, may be assumed as the 
 prototypes of the Lucretian use of figurae for 
 the atoms. It is just possible, however, that 
 we may have here a transfer of thought Dlus- 
 trating the effect of a certain psychological 
 momentum. Figtirae occurs in the sense of 
 atoms only after a recent use of figura or forma 
 applied in their proper senses to the constitu- 
 tion of the atom, or in the later books where 
 the meaning of figura in the sense of atom has 
 become established. 
 
 8. Particula is a term certainly appearing^ 
 for the atoms in Lucr. IV 776 and perhaps 
 in III 708 and IV 261. It is used in a differ- 
 ent sense in II 833 and III 665. I have 
 not found a corresponding word for it in the 
 Greek. 
 
 9. Materia, Materies. — The words appear first 
 in Lucretius in a philosophical sense. The 
 original meaning of materia is the same as that 
 of vXt), namely material, especially the timber 
 of a tree. The explicit statement or tacit as- 
 sumption of a number of Lucretian editors is 
 that Lucretius is translating vXri from Epi- 
 
60 LircRETius and Cicero 
 
 curus.* There is no direct evidence for such 
 an assumption, as vkr) is not found as a S)mo- 
 nym for the atoms in the genuine fragments 
 of Epicurus. This fact does not prove that 
 Lucretius did not take his word from Epicurean 
 sources, for vXrj may have occurred in the lost 
 vepi <j>vaea}'; or in the fieyaXj] iiriTOfj,'^ of Epicu- 
 rus. It does call into question, nevertheless, 
 the accuracy and care with which certain of 
 the editors of Lucretius have handled their 
 Greek sources. It is also entirely possible 
 thait Lucretius used the term through his own 
 reminiscence of the Peripatetic nomenclature 
 or that he adopted it from some Academic 
 enchiridion. 
 
 With materia in Lucretius occurs the variant 
 taateries in the nominative and accusative cases. 
 The nominative of materia does not occur, 
 probably because of metrical inconvenience. 
 The terms are used in Lucretius as collective 
 expressions for the atoms or as the formative 
 element (cf. mater) of matter without, neces- 
 sarily, any implication as to its constitution. 
 
 • Bindseil makes the explicit statement and Munro 
 implies it. Merrill assigns SXi) to "the Epicureans." 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 61 
 
 Tohte's criticism* that Lucretius has violated 
 a strict terminology in I 503-634 is based on the 
 assumption of the strict use of the term as the 
 forming element, the matter of things. Other 
 terms, however, have been found to interchange 
 somewhat in their application. For example, 
 primordia occurs in I 1110 as body opposed 
 to the void, and corpora rebus, I 579, appears 
 for the regular primordia rerum. In the same 
 way materies may be used of the atoms as op- 
 posed to the void, by a shift quite in the man- 
 ner of Lucretius. Giussani's justification ^ of the 
 usage in this passage is therefore hardly neces- 
 sary. He notes the use of material concilium 
 for corporis or corporum concilium which, he 
 states, is not used by Lucretius. The reason 
 for the non-occurrence of the phrase is probably 
 a metrical one. The Latin phrase is a trans- 
 lation of the technical <7vyKpi(rt<! of Epicurus, 
 and, as such, the Latin words should be written 
 together. Materiai concilium needs no other 
 explanation. 
 
 > Tohte, Lucr. I 483-598. 1889. 
 ' Studi Lucreziani, p. 42. 
 
62 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Eleven terms in Lucretius are found with 
 the sense of "atoms," namely, primordia, ordia 
 prima, prima, principiorum (is), corpora, cor- 
 puscula, semina, elementa, figurae, particulae, 
 materia. Of these, corpora and semina alone 
 correspond to their Greek prototypes, a-wfiara 
 and a-irep/iara. Primordia, ordia prima, prima, 
 principiorum (is), are scientific terms developed 
 out of the still nascent technicahty of apxai. 
 The same thing is probably true of elementa 
 in relation to trroixeia. Corpuscula and par- 
 ticulae have no known Greek originals. Figurae 
 has a shadowy antecedent in elSo<i. Materia 
 is probably taken from alien philosophical 
 sources. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE ATOMS OF CICERO. 
 
 Cicero in choosing terms for the atoms keeps 
 closer than Lucretius in his Latin version to 
 the known Greek of Epicurus, but appears in- 
 ferior to him in invention. The complaints of 
 Lucretius of the patrii sermonis egestas and 
 the beUef of Cicero in the resources of the Latin 
 
Studies of Special Ghoups of Teems 63 
 
 language would lead us to expect something 
 quite different. We should also expect an Epi- 
 curean to keep more closely to the Greek of 
 his master than did the freebooting Academic. 
 The causes which operated in the few cases noted 
 where Lucretius swerved from his Greek models, 
 were his poetical language and metrical form. 
 To these may be added the desirabiUty of a 
 diversity of terms to vary and relieve the monot- 
 ony of the long and tedious verse treatment. 
 None of these conditions affected Cicero. 
 
 1. Atomus, as in Epicurus, is the special and 
 particular term of Cicero for the ultimate unit 
 of matter. Cicero naturalized the word in the 
 Latin, through which it has passed into mod- 
 ern scientific nomenclature. He defined the term 
 atomos id est corpora individua propter solidi- 
 tatem, Fin. 1 17. The use of the term is entirely 
 identical with that of Epicurus. 
 
 2. Individuiun appears first in literary Latin 
 in Cicero and was probably coined by him to 
 translate the Greek aroiiot. It is used for 
 the single atom, N.D. I 65, as weU as in the 
 plural N.D. I 49; Ac. II 55. It appears as 
 a substantive or in agreement with corpora, 
 N.D. I 71, 110; II 93; Fa. 22; and corpuscula, 
 
64 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 N.D. I 67. It is strange that Cicero with such 
 a term available should have felt the need of 
 atomus at all, especially when the use of the 
 latter violated the law he laid down for himself : 
 Dicam, si potero, Latine, Tusc. I 15, and again, . 
 sermone eo debemus uti, qui innatus est nobis, 
 De Off. I 111. Lucretius seems here to have 
 lacked invention. He surely needed a term 
 for his atoms that would in itself denote their 
 indivisible constitution. Whether individuum in 
 verse would have been tolerable to a Roman ear, 
 there is no way to tell. We cannot know, 
 therefore, whether Lucretius failed in ingenuity 
 or whether he deliberately rejected the term. 
 
 3. Corpuscula. — Cicero derides the term as 
 used by Amafinius Ac. I 6. He resorts to it, 
 for all that, four times without apology, N.D. 
 I 66, 67 ; II 94 ; Tusc. I 22. As in Lucretius the 
 plural only is found. 
 
 4. Corpora. — Three points may be noticed 
 differentiating slightly the Ciceronian from the 
 Lucretian use of this term, (o) Corpus does not 
 occur in Cicero as the single atom. The natu- 
 ralization of atomus makes this use unnecessary. 
 (6) The term corpora is frequently qualified by 
 individua, not occurring in Lucretius, (c) The 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Teems 65 
 
 singular of corpus regularly indicates matter 
 organized in contradistinction to the idea of 
 matter unformed and ultimate indicated by 
 materia. The use of corpora is otherwise iden- 
 tical with that of Lucretius. 
 
 5. Materia is the term of Cicero for original 
 and unformed matter. Corpus is usually his 
 term for matter organized. The origin of his 
 use of the word materia is undoubtedly to be 
 found in the Aristotelian vXt/, which was prob- 
 ably of common occurrence in the handbooks of 
 the New Academy. The term materia cannot 
 be regarded as a synonym of the atoms. It oc- 
 curs but once in a discussion of the Epicurean 
 system, Fin. I 18. The reference in the passage 
 is to the original forming substance without 
 necessary implication of its atomic constitution. 
 
 The form materies is not used in the philo- 
 sophical treatises of Cicero. On the other hand, 
 materia occurs but twice in the orations, namely, 
 Phil. II 42; XI 21. Materies is used instead, 
 as Staff, Gelegenheit. 
 
 Dr. Reid's note on Ac. I 24, 6 is difficult. He 
 says : " We have in the present passage what is 
 probably the earliest use of materia to render 
 the physical sense of v\r). [The word does 
 
66 LucBBTTcrs and Ciceeo 
 
 not seem to occur at all before Cicero's time 
 in any but the literal sense of 'building ma- 
 terial.']" 
 
 Has Dr. Reid forgotten Lucretius? The De 
 Rerum Natura was probably written nearly a 
 decade before the Academica. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Four words in the Latin of Cicero occur with 
 the meaning of "atoms," namely, atom!, in- 
 dividua, corpora, corpuscula. 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Void and Space. 
 I- 
 
 USAGE OF THE GREEK TERMS BY EPICURUS. 
 
 Three views may be presented of the use made 
 by Epiciu-us of the Greek terms ova^^? ^wrt?, 
 xevov, TOTToi, and ;^<a/ja. Stated in their simplest 
 form, these views are as follows: — 
 
 A. Epicurus gave to each term a distinct 
 technical sense and held to these distinctions 
 with consistency. 
 
 B. Epicurus used the terms synonjnnously, 
 sine ullo discrimine. 
 
 C. Epicurus, by his use of the terms, dis- 
 tinguished between the ideas of void and space. 
 His application of the terms is occasionally 
 inaccxirate, but the general distinction is clear. 
 This third view is, linguistically considered, a 
 middle course between the first and the second. 
 
 67 
 
68 LUCKETIUS AND CiCERO 
 
 Let us examine these opinions briefly in the 
 order of their statement. 
 
 Epicurus gave to each of the terms ava<fi^i 
 ^vaK, leevov, roiroi and x<»/Ba a distinct techni- 
 cal sense, and held to these distinctions with 
 consistency. 
 
 There is evidence that this view was more 
 or less current in antiquity. We have a passage 
 from the doxographus Aetius pointing this way, 
 viz. : Plut. Epit. I 20, Diels, Doxographi Graeci, 
 p. 317, ol "S-TtoiKol Koi 'EiriKovpov SccKJyepeiv icevbv 
 Toirov j(<opav • koI to ficp icevov elvai iprjfiiav 
 acafiaroi, tov Be tottov to i'^oftevov inro cfofiaTOf, 
 TT)V Se y((opav to sk /lepovt e^6fievov, atrnrep eirl 
 T»7? TOV oXvov ■jriOaKvrji. There is, however, an 
 objection to the acceptance of the passage as 
 bearing upon the immediate question, inasmuch 
 as Stobaeus, in quoting the same, omits the 
 name of Epicurus. Aetius, Stob. eel. I, 18, 4, 
 Diels, Doxographi Graeci, p. 317 (Z'qvaiv koI ol 
 air' avTov) hia^ipav kt\. This omission raises 
 'the question whether Aetius attributed these 
 distinctions to Epicurus. It is answered in the 
 negative, I think, by the statement of Aetius, 
 
Studies op Special Groups of Terms 69 
 
 quoted a little later by Stobaeus, Eel. I, 18, 4, 
 Diels, Doxographi Graeci, p. 318, 'E7rt«oupo? 
 ovofiaaiv TrapaWdrreiv kcvop tottov y^ojpav. Since 
 the attribution of the definitions to Epicurus is 
 so doubtful, it is not necessary to examine them 
 here. 
 
 A passage of much greater importance is 
 found in Sextus emp. adv. Math. X (dogmat. IV) 
 2, Us. p. 350, Kara top '^iriKovpov t^? ava<})oiK 
 KaXov/xeviji ^vo-ecu? ro fiiv ri ovofid^erai xevov, to 
 Be TOTTOi, TO Se "xy'pa,, (JXTaXaii^avoixevav koto, 
 Bca<f)6pov<; cTrtySoXa? twi' ovofidrcov, iirei irep f) airrrj 
 ^V(Ti<; ep-qp.o<; /lev KaOeaTTjKvla travTcK acofiaTov 
 Kevbv Trpoaayopeverai, KaTaXafi^avofievt) Be vrro 
 <7<!)fiaTo<i TOTTOf KoXetrat, 'xapovvrav Be Bi' outtj? 
 aeofiaTOiv ^mpa yiverai. koivSk fievroi ^va-Li avatf>^<i- 
 eiprjTai irapa t^ 'EiriKovpo) Bia to iareprjadai, ttj? 
 KUT avTi^aaiv a<j>r}is. The passage is of much 
 moment in our invfestigation, as upon its evi- 
 dence the advocates of the view now under con- 
 sideration build their argument.* Let us then 
 examine the statement more closely. 'Ava^^s- 
 (jtvaii, whatever it may be, has three phases and 
 changes its name in accordance with its change 
 
 > a. PoUe, De Art. Vocab. p. 17. 
 
70 Lucretius and Ciceho 
 
 from one phase to another. Thus, this same 
 nature when devoid of all body, is Kev6v; when 
 occupied by body, is toVo?; when bodies are 
 passing through it, is x^P**- What then is 
 this mysterious chameleon ava^tft ^wit ? Ob- 
 viously, void is intended, considered in its widest 
 sense, the second element of the universe. If 
 we use the term with this meaning, we have 
 it explicitly stated that void, when it is 
 occupied by body, or when it is not-void, is 
 ToVos. Again, void, when bodies are passing 
 through it, or when it is partly void and partly 
 not-void is x'^P"- ^^^ ^^^1^ * system of defi- 
 nition seems sheer nonsense. We must retrace 
 our steps, therefore, and find some meaning for 
 ava^r)<i (j>va-i'i that will appear as a positive, 
 permanent characteristic in all three of its 
 so-called phases. Now the only permanent, 
 immanent quality common to Kev6v, to'tto?, and 
 X'^p», using the term as defined by Sextus, is 
 cubic extension. Can ava^if: ^vai<! bear this 
 meaning? Clearly not, for its determining 
 quality, as indicated by its name and further 
 described by Sextus, is intangibility;' but the 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 71 
 
 characteristic of cubic extension is capacity, 
 TO •irepU'Xpv. Taken in the latter sense, ava- 
 ^<s ^vffii becomes a misnomer. Taken in the 
 former sense, it involves a contradiction. For 
 these reasons, a priori, we should not expect to 
 find these four Greek terms used by Epicurus 
 with the distinctions of meaning stated by 
 Sextus. 
 
 Sufficient has come down to us of the writings 
 of Epicurus to furnish additional evidence of 
 the extreme improbability of his use of these 
 distinctions. A passage including all the terms 
 in close collocation occurs in Ad Herod. 40, 
 Us. p. 6, roTTOf hi el fii) fjV, hv xevov /cat 
 j^dipav Kal ava(l)rj ^vaiv ovofid^ofiev, ovk av ei^^e 
 ra aatfiaTa ottov tjv ovBe Bi oi> eKivelro, Kaddirep 
 (fyaiverat Kivovfieva. Here we have a jumble of 
 terms thrown together with the utmost care- 
 lessness. TOTTo? appears as the primary form, 
 while ava^Tji (f>v<n<i is ranked among its own 
 narrower phases. Again, the supposed function 
 of ToVo?, namely, ret a-etfiara oirov rfv, and the 
 supposed fimction of x*"/"*" namely, St* ov e/ei- 
 vdro, seem to be predicated of the whole list. 
 
 A study of the individual terms leads us to 
 the same conclusion. 
 
72 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 'Ava(j>Tis <|>i(ris, with the exception of the 
 passage previously quoted, seems to be used 
 by Epicurus in the sense ascribed to it by Sex- 
 tus emp. Ad Pjd;h. 86, Us. p. 36, to irav <rco- 
 fiara koX ava<f)fii ^vo-k evrCv. Note also Schol. 
 Dionys. Thr. p. 660, 25 Bekk., Us. p. 129, 
 Kev6v iari tftva-ii avatjUT^, rovr^a-riv at^rfKa^riTO's. 
 The adjective appears without the substantive 
 ^i5crt9 in the two following passages: Plut. 
 adv. Col. 13, p. 1114*, Us. p. 125, wofid^erai 
 Bk v(f>' v/i&u ava<f)e9 xal Kevov xal aa-dy/iaTOV. 
 Plut. adv. Col. 16, p. 1116*, Us. p. 345, 
 TO avai^h xevov. These are the only occur- 
 rences of the term that I find in the frag- 
 ments of Epicurus. Setting aside, then, the 
 passage occurring in Ad Herod. 40, the use 
 of ova^^? (/iwff-t? agrees with the definition of 
 Sextus. We should not look, however, for 
 a divergence in this term, which would nat- 
 urally bear the meaning that Sextus as- 
 signed. 
 
 Kevdv does not agree with the definition 
 of Sextus. The word occurs 17 times in the 
 fragments of Epicurus, that is to say, in passages 
 where the quotation is probably literal. In 10 
 of these instances kcv6v is used in the larger 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 73 
 
 sense of ava(}>rii ^wk} I do not find it ex- 
 plicitly in the narrower sense, eprjfiov o-w/iaro?, 
 although the two ideas are very similar and 
 may well be identified. In 5 of the remaining 
 instances xevop appears in what Sextus would 
 call the x^P"" phase,^ and once in the sense of 
 to'tto?.' The remaining instance occurs in the 
 careless jumble of Ad Herod. 40, previously 
 mentioned. 
 
 The inference is just that in the use of /eewV 
 Epicurus did not hold closely to the definition 
 of Sextus emp. This fact should be noted 
 especially in the case of kbvov, where the "lay 
 
 ' Kev6v = im^iis ipitris. Ad Herod. 42, Us. p. 7, rif 
 /ieyiSei roB xeraO j ib. rd Kenbv iireipon ; Ad Herod. 44, TJs. p. 8, 
 ^ re yi-p rod KevoO tpiiris\ ib. dASLiav tuv irifioiv oiauv Kai rov 
 Kevav; also, Ad Pyth. 89, Us. p. 37; Sext. emp. adv. 
 dogm. Ill (Math. IX) 333, Us. p. 125; Plut. adv. Col. 
 11, p. 1112«, Us. p. 125; Schol. Dionys. Thr. p. 660, 
 25 Bekk., Us. p. 129; Sextus emp. adv. dogm. I (Math. 
 VII) 213, Us. p. 181; Aetius I 3, 18, p. 285 sq. D. (Stob. 
 Eel. ph. 10, 14 Plut. I 3, 25), Us. p. 191; Sextus emp. adv. 
 dogm. II (Math. VIII) 329, Us. p. 193. 
 
 2 Htviv = x<'P'*> -A-d Herod. 42, Us. p. 7, ttptptra Kari, rb 
 (Lirapov Kevbv; ib. 46, Us. p. 10; ib. 61, Us. p. 18; ib.67,Us. 
 ■p.22, rb Kevbv . . . KtniffiviibmtiSi iavToOToTsriiiuuriwapixf- 
 Tat; also Ad Pyth. 90, Us. p. 38. 
 
 ' Kevbr = rbiro!, Ad Herod. 42, Us. p. 7, et re rb Kevbv ^v 
 iipiriiivov, oix Slv c7x^ '''^ Hireipa aiipuiTa, Srov Marr). 
 
74 Lucretius and oiceko 
 
 meaning " of the word would naturally suggest 
 the technical intensity with which it should be 
 used. 
 
 Tdiros offers the best test of the definitions 
 of Sextus, for it occurs with greater frequency 
 than x'^P"' ^^d ^^^ *^® latter term would not 
 indicate by its ordinary meaning the technical 
 intensity which Sextus said it possessed. If 
 Epicurus, then, used this term as ava<f>Tj<i <j)v<ri<i 
 KaraX.afifiavofiei'r] vtto tratiiaro^, he would do it 
 with conscious deliberation. With the question 
 so stated, the evidence of the fragments of Epi- 
 curus is emphatically against the statement of 
 Sextus. ToVo? appears 6 times with a technical 
 sense in the probably literal quotations from 
 Epicurus. Of these 6 passages, I find but one in 
 "which the word may be said to be used with the 
 meaning attributed to it by Sextus.* Further- 
 more, this passage is the one whose literal quo- 
 tation is most open to doubt. In the remaining 
 passages ' the meaning is equivalent to void or 
 
 » Sextus emp. adv. dogm. I (Math. VII) 213, Us. p. 182. 
 
 » Ad Herod. 40, Us. p. 6; Ad. Pyth. 89, Us. p. 37, ir 
 n-oXuK^Fqi riirv; Ad Pyth. 114, Us. p. 53; Plut. adv. 
 Col. 11, p. 1112«, Us. p. 125; Schol. Epic. ep. I 40, Us. 
 p. 125. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 75 
 
 space or both. The specific meaning of the 
 word in these passages will be discussed later. 
 The determination of its sense is not essential 
 to the present argument, for it is abundantly 
 plain that it is not what Sextus meant by to'tto?. 
 Xcopa. — The sole evidence for this term is 
 found in Ad Herod. 39, from which a deter- 
 mination of its precise meaning is impossible. 
 Since xevov has already appeared five times 
 as void with matter moving about in it, 
 the conjecture is reasonable that the origin 
 of the definitions of Sextus was in the opera- 
 tions of his own imagination. We met, at the 
 outset of our study, another quite different 
 attempt to dispose of x*"P*)' * word that 
 seems to have been left at loose ends. Per- 
 haps Sextus, with his classifying activity, 
 wished to dispose of the unassigned function 
 mentioned Ad Herod. 40, Si o5 eKiveiro. x'^P"' 
 may have suggested X'^P^'") ^^d out of that may 
 have grown the idea of combining the odd 
 function and the odd term. So x<"P* appears. 
 X<opovvTa>v Be Bt avTrji trmfidratv X'^P"' fiverai. 
 
 ' See Plut. Epit. I 20, Diels, Doxographi Graeci, 
 p. 317. 
 
76 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 In any case, the explanation seems to be in 
 no way more fanciful than the definition. 
 
 These results of the examination of the frag- 
 ments of Epicurus, confirming as they do the 
 inherent improbability of Sextus' definitions, 
 justify us in rejecting Polle's view that Epicurus 
 observed the distinctions of meaning assigned 
 by Sextus to the terms ava<f>^<i ^wk, ksvov, 
 ToVo? and ;^»/>a. 
 
 B. 
 
 Epicurus used the terms synonjmiously, sine 
 ullo discrimine. 
 
 If Epicurus felt no fundamental distinction 
 between the ideas of void and space, he could 
 have conceived of no fundamental difference 
 between the several forms ava^<s ^v<tk, kcvov, 
 TOTTo? and x**/"*- Giussani meets the issue 
 squarely by the statement that to Epicurus 
 the ideas of void and space were really iden- 
 tical.* He shows very subtly and truly that 
 the nature of Stoic and Epicurean polemics 
 tended to confuse the two ideas of void and 
 space. As the question was stated between 
 
 * Giussani, Studi Lucreziani, 21-26. 
 
Studies of Special Gboups of Terms 77 
 
 the two schools, the demonstration of the ab- 
 solute existence of extension, apart from that 
 of body, was dependent upon the demonstration 
 of the existence of void, inane purum. The 
 proof of the one being identified with the proof 
 of the other, the two concepts became confused, 
 and the two ideas naturally overlapping in the 
 argument produced confusion in the terminol- 
 ogy. Had Giussani stopped in his exposition 
 just at this point, he would have offered an 
 interesting and welcome explanation of some of 
 the obscurities in Epicurus and Lucretius. But 
 he goes still further and says:' "E cioS da badare 
 che, mentre noi modemi concepiamo lo spazio 
 essenzialmente come estensione — la quale si 
 continua naturalmente (nel nostro spirito) sia 
 per regioni immaginate vuote sia per corpi, e 
 non pensiamo quindi punto a un altemare di 
 spazio e materia — quegli antichi, al contrario, 
 pensando spazio non pensavano estensione, ma 
 pensavano vuoto. Di qui viene che quando 
 Epicuro concepisce il vuoto come una entity 
 reals, pur ammettendo in un certo senso, ossia 
 per astrazione, 1' esistenza di esso anche 1^ dove 
 
 * Giussani, Studi Lucreziani, p. 24. 
 
78 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 esso 6 occupato da materia, lo pensava per6 in 
 qu^ti casi come vm vuoto in potenza, un vuoto 
 la cui realta era, per dir cosi, transitoriamente 
 sospesa: etc." 
 
 Tliis ingenious theory has produced much 
 consternation among Lucretian scholars. "Cio 
 equivarrebbe a dire che Epicuro e Lucrezio 
 concepiavano per astrazione tutto il mondo 
 come vuoto!" exclaims Pascal,' and, again, 
 styles the theory "sottili logomachie." Brieger 
 is equally emphatic. "Besser kann di^e 
 Ansicht ofifenbar gar nicht ad absurdum ge- 
 fiihrt werden, denn 'vuoto vuoto' ist ein 
 Pleonasmus und 'vuoto occupato' eine contra- 
 dictio in adjecto." * 
 
 It would seem as though Giussani were ex- 
 plaining away, if he reaUy explains at all, a few 
 obscurities in Lucretius at a very great cost, 
 namely, the claim that a little more than twenty 
 centuries have changed one of the fundamental 
 modes of human thought. 
 
 It is not, however, any part of my task to 
 determine here the abstract possibihty of such 
 
 > Studii Critici sul Poema di Lucrezio, p. 31. 
 ' A. Briber, Philologus, 1901, p. 510. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Teems 79 
 
 a general concept. The present investigation is 
 concerned only with the actual use of the tech- 
 nical terminology. Its object will be attained 
 if two questions are answered: first, whether 
 there is evidence in the original Epicurean 
 documents of a distinction in thought between 
 void and space, and if so, in what manner 
 Epicurus indicated such a distinction by his 
 terminology. 
 
 Manifestly, both questions do not admit the 
 same kind of evidence, for in attempting to 
 answer the first, we may allow ourselves greater 
 latitude than hitherto, inasmuch as we are 
 now dealing with Epicurean thought and not 
 exclusively with the vocabulary of Epicurus 
 himself. We may admit, then, not only later 
 testimonia to the views of Epicurus, but may 
 also appeal to Democritus and Leucippus in 
 cases where their opinions are not known to 
 have diverged from those of Epicurus. 
 
 The arrangement that Usener * has made of 
 this class of evidence suggests a further division 
 of the subject, viz. (a), the discussion of space 
 as a whole {Gesamtraum) and (6), the discus- 
 
 « Usener's Epicurea, Leipdc, 1887, pp. 193 S. 
 
80 LUCBETIUS AND CiCERO 
 
 sion of space in the sense of limited extension 
 (Raumtheilen).^ 
 
 a. Simplicius, in Arist. phys. A 5 extr. (p. 
 213», 10) f. 140°, Aid. p. 379^ 24 Brand., Us. p. 
 193, lareov ovv on r&v irepl tottov ri ypa-^jrdvrmv 
 ot fikv ff&fia Tov TOTTOV ot Bk aadtfiaTov inre- 
 6evT0 . . .' Kal Tovreov oi fiev irdvTtj aZtdi^opov 
 Kal TTore koI dvev aiafiaro'} fievov, 0)9 0( irepl 
 ArjfioKpiTov Kal '^TTiKovpov. . . . Here we have a 
 homogeneous entity extending without interrup- 
 tion through matter and void. It is designated 
 as TOTTos and must mean "space" or "exten- 
 sion." lb., f. 144", Us. p. 193, irdXiv Bk ai tS,v 
 TO .Kevov avTO TiOep^veov ot fiev direipov eivai 
 <^a(Ti Koi inrep^dWov wireipCa rh, cafiara Kal 
 Sia TOVTO dWo iv dWoii avrov fiepeat KaTa- 
 Be'xpp.evov, ws av erwxov, ei irep p-eprj Xeyeiv iirl 
 TOV aireipov ksvov BvvaTov. Toiavrrjv Be irepl 
 avrov Bo^av eayrfKevai BoKOvaiv ot irepl A17- 
 fWKpirov apyaloi (fivacoXoyoi. The concept of 
 this K€v6v is essentially the same as the to'tto? 
 in the preceding passage. It is infinite exten- 
 sion, the frame of the universe, which contains 
 within itself the bodies of matter. The name 
 
 •Cf. A. Brieger, Philologus, 1901, pp. 511 S. 
 
aruDiEs OF Special Groups op Tebms 81 
 
 applied to it is Kevov, but the meaning is clearly 
 space. 
 
 6. The next passage, cited by Usener, deals 
 with TOTTo? in its narrower sense {Raurrv- 
 thdlen). Simplicius, in Arist. phys. A 4 (p. 211", 
 7) f. 133', Us. p. 194, declares that the followers 
 of Democritus and Epicurus considered that 
 TOTTOS was TO hidffTrfna to fiera^v t&v i(T')(aTmv tov 
 Treptej^owos, and he adds later, to Be Bida-Tr]fia 
 TovTo ol /lev irepX AT}fi6KpiT0v koI '^iriicovpov kevov 
 elvai Xeyovaiv ovran wtrre wore fiev irKqpovadai 
 adafiaTOi;, iroT^ Be icevov airoXeiireffOai. We have 
 here a clear-cut concept of extension, although 
 the term Kev6v is still applied. Extension is 
 here regarded abstractly as the interval between 
 the superficies of the bounding bodies. It is 
 sometimes void of body and sometimes full, but 
 always absolutely self-existent, pure extension. 
 But if any doubt chngs to the intent of the 
 preceding passage, the idea is abundantly plain 
 from the following ; Themistius paraphr. Arist. 
 phys. A 4 (p. 214^ 14) f . 38", Aid. p. 268, 23 
 Speng., Us. p. 194, \ei7reTat Toiwv vfuv, Sri firjBe 
 TO Bido'TrjiJia 6 roiro'} iariv, cnroBel^cu. Sid- 
 a-Tr)fia Sk rb fiera^v voovixevov rStv irepdrav tov 
 •7repiej^ovT0<!, olov to fieTa^i) t^? KoiXr)^ eTri^aveuK 
 
 Q 
 
82 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 Tov KciSov. vaXaca fiev ovv t] So^a xal rot? to 
 Kevop ri6efievoK irpoariKovira, '^KoXovOr/a-ev Se ofiayi 
 aiiTy Kal 6 irepl l^piffiirirov X^P^ ''"■^ 'E7riKovpo<! 
 varepov, elairoLovai Se Tcve^ kuI tov TlXartava ra> 
 Soyfiari. rjpTrjTai Se €K ircdavrji fieu alTla<;, t^ev- 
 Zovi; hi iKavSn, iireiBr) yap eli iirivoiav jjXOofiev 
 o\a)? TOV TOTTOV £K T'^? avTifieTcurTciffeayi t5)V 
 acofiaTtov koX tov yivevBai ervpex^Mi SXXoTe dXXa 
 
 iv Tft) aVTO) TOTTftJ, BlO, TOVTO aVToll 6 TOTTOV eSo^€P 
 
 elvai TO BidaTrjfia to fiera^v, 8 TavTO fievov inre- 
 Xdfi^avop inroSexeo'dai tA avTifiedia-Tci/iepa aa>- 
 fiaTa KexfopKTfiepov eKaoTOV tovtcov tS)p elatoPTtav 
 atofidTtop, ePTjye Se aiiToin «t? Tavrr]V fidXiaTa 
 TTjv vvovoiav Th ayyela ' i-rreiBr} yap tjj? cwt^a- 
 ve(av iv tw Kepafiioa ttJ? KOiXtji fiepovar]<: Ttj'i 
 aiiTrjv Kal TrepiyeypapLfievrft IBioK irepaaip ttotc 
 fiev vBeop iyyiveTai, iroTe Be af/p ep Ta aKevei, Bi^ 
 TOVTO elvai to iiera^i) Trif koiXtjv iiri^aveiat Bid- 
 aTrifia vrrevorjaav, o TaiiTo /levop xal t&v atafidrcov 
 Ke)(a>pLtr fievov, warrep Kal ff etri^dveia tov ayyeCov, 
 Se'^etrOai ava /le'poi to. votfiaTa. aXlC ovk eim 
 TOVTO vyiei. el fiep ocop re ^p Kevov awfiaTov 
 yeve'aOai iroTe to ayyelov, i<ra)<i av e^capdOrj Ka6' 
 eavTO TO Xeyofiepop tovto BidaTTjfia' pvp Be afia 
 eK\elTcu TO vScop Kal 6 ar/p apTeiffepxeTai. ko-p- 
 TcO^o' fj TrXdpij • iirel yap a&fia trap fieTo, Bicu- 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 83 
 
 <rT»;^aT09, fiera^epova-iv to r&v aafiaTtop Sid- 
 ffTTjfia iirl Tov tottov, ovk evvoovvre: ori Sia rovro 
 ael BidiTTrifid eariv iv tottca, eTreiSi) xal aSt/xa 
 aet' BrjXot Se ra v"'^''^ *'** trreyavh •jravraj^offev 
 ayyela ' oi yap av eKp'vaeiev to vSa>p, el p^r) j(o>pav 
 {el'i) eXapvaiv o ar)p \d.fioi, ipevaKi^et Be avToiit 
 ical TO p,eveiv ael a(Tvyy(yTov kuI t^v icoiXrjv evi- 
 <j)dveiav t&v ayyeitov, an ei ye avpeiriiTTev e^aipov- 
 p,evov TOV vhaTOii wairep eirl Totv aaKiotv, ovk av 
 opoitoi e^rjTraT&vro. 
 
 It is explicitly stated in the preceding quota- 
 tion that Epicurus regarded tottoi! as BidoT'qpa. 
 A definition of Bidarrjpa follows which is in 
 all respects quite identical with the modern 
 notion of extension and quite distinct and 
 separate from the idea of void. It remains as 
 simple extension whether occupied by body 
 or absolutely void. It exists independently, 
 per se, and is in no sense an immanent quality 
 of body. The existence of xevov is necessary, 
 as Giussani says,' to the existence of extension 
 per se. That, however, Epicurus and the 
 Atomists at any time identified the two things, 
 void and extension, as one and the same thing, 
 
 ' Giussani, Studi Lucreziaoi, p. 24 B. 
 
84 Lucretius ajnjj \-/ii;j!in.ij 
 
 is very difficult of acceptance. The evidence 
 of the Greek seems to be a sufficient refutation 
 of Giussani's position. 
 
 Since the passages previously cited are not 
 literal quotations from the Atomists, it is not 
 permissible to make the Greek the basis of a dis- 
 cussion of terminology, and, for the same reason, 
 we are relieved of the necessity, at this point, 
 of explaining the evident confusion of terms. 
 
 It remains to show that in the fragments of 
 the writings of Epicurus there are evidences of 
 an actual distinction in terminology correspond- 
 ing to the distinction in thought between void 
 and space. Such a demonstration is in place 
 here, since it would conclude the immediate 
 investigation and justify the rejection of the 
 theory that all the terms were used synonymously. 
 Inasmuch, however, as this demonstration would 
 be constructive in character, it may properly 
 be treated under the third view. 
 
 Epicurus, by his use of the terms, distinguished 
 between the ideas of void and space. His 
 application of terms is occasionally inaccurate, 
 but the general distinction is clear. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 85 
 
 It may be said, although the statement 
 should be controlled by some qualifications and 
 exceptions, that ava<f)rj^ <f>vaK and ksvop mean 
 void. TOTTo? usually carries the meaning of 
 space, either in its universal aspect (Gesamt- 
 raum) or in its narrower phase (Jtaumtheilen) . 
 There is no evidence that x'^P"' ^^s used in 
 any rigorous technical sense. The exceptions 
 to this general usage and their causes will be 
 discussed under the analysis of the individual 
 terms. 
 
 ' Ava<t>i]S <f ^"■'■S- — This term has already been 
 treated. The results obtained are in accord 
 with our present view. 
 
 Kevdv. — This is the regular term used by 
 Epicurus to denote the second element of the 
 universe, void. The word also occurs in the 
 sense of space. The passages in which the 
 word appears with each meaning have already 
 been classified. It is necessary to, discuss here 
 only the exception to its use in the meaning of 
 void. It should be noted carefully that this 
 transfer of meaning occurs when associated 
 with the idea of motion, in what Sextus would 
 call the x<i>pa phase. Though the usage is not 
 strictly accurate, the meaning is clear, and it 
 
86 Lucretius and UiCero 
 
 is not difficult to account for the source of the 
 confusion. Motion, to Epicurus, proved the 
 existence of void,' and void made possible 
 motion. The controversial attitude of Epicurus 
 toward the school of Parmenides, on this point, 
 brought the associated ideas into high relief 
 and importance. The result is shown in the 
 careless use made by Epicurus of Kevov, in 
 allowing it to creep over and usurp the mean- 
 ing of TOTTK. The sole instance in which Epi- 
 curus seems to use Kevov in the sense which 
 Sextus gave to rovoi, namely void occupied by 
 body, occurs in Ad Herod. 42, ei re rb Kevov 
 fjv iapia/ievov, ovk av et^e to. UTreipa aco/j,aTa ottov 
 ive'cTTj]. This use of Kevov, however, is probably 
 due to the momentum of the previous sentence, 
 €t T€ yap fjV TO Kevov aireipov, ra Se tranara 
 i>pi<r/Jteva, ovhafiov av efieve ra acifiara, aXV 
 e^epero Kark to direipov Kevov Sieairapfieva, kt\. 
 Tdiros is the word used by Epicurus to desig- 
 nate space, room, extension. He uses the 
 term in this sense. Ad Pyth. 69, iv iroXv- 
 Kevai TOTTtp Kal ovk iv fieyoKo) eikiKpivei Kai Kevqi. 
 
 ' Sextus emp. adv. dogmat. II (Math. VIII) 329, 314, 
 Us. p. 193. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 87 
 
 Here roTro'i is contrasted with xevov as the 
 whole with the part, tottoi is space containing 
 many void parts, ksvov is a portion of space 
 absolutely devoid of body. Again, Ad Herod. 
 40, TOTTO? Be el firj ^v, ov Kevov koX ^mpav 
 Kol ava^ ^vaiv ovofid^ofiev, ovk av el^e ra 
 ffdifiara ottov ^v oxihe Bt oi) eKiveiro, KaOdirep 
 <j)a{veTai Kivovfieva.^ The function of totto? is 
 here stated to be, as it were, the frame of the 
 universe for the position and operation of 
 matter. This is clearly space. A passage in 
 Sextus emp., if it may be regarded as a literal 
 quotation, seems to show a sensitiveness on 
 the part of Epicurus to the value of the terms 
 TOTTO? and Kevop. Sextus emp. adv. dogmat. I 
 (Math. VII) 213, Us. p. 181, oloi; o 'Eiri'Kovpoi 
 \eyiav elvai Kevov, o wep iariv aBrjXov, truTTovrai 
 Bi ivapyovi irpdyfiaTO^ tovto, Trji Kivrjaewi • fiij 
 
 ' The relative clause is an excellent illustration of the 
 carelessness and crudity of Epicurus as a scientific 
 writer. It may be that Epicurus intended ir . . . 6ro- 
 /idj^o/iey to mean about what Cicero intends when he 
 uses quasi with a confessedly inadequate word. An 
 explicit statement of identity would be phrased dif- 
 ferently, perhaps something like this : Sy xal Ktviv x'^P"' 
 dva^ij tj>i<riv dm/td^oiiev, or, i Kal laTi. rairi Kcv$ X'^P9 <l>'o^e? 
 
 <tiiita. Either of these phrases would be unequivocal. 
 
88 Lucretius and uicero 
 
 oino<! yap Kevov ovBe K(vrftTK w<f)ei\ev elvai, tottov 
 fii] e'xpvTo^ Tov Kivov/ievov aotfiarm €t? hv irepi- 
 ffTJjffeTat hia to nrdvra irKripi) elveu xal vaoTa.. 
 
 On the other hand we find the statement 
 in Plut. adv. Col. 11, p. 1112^ Us. p. 125, ^ t&v 
 ovTOiv (fyvaK atofiard ioTi koI tottov. It is true 
 that he makes the statement with more scien- 
 tific accuracy a little later. Plut. adv. Col. 13, 
 p. 1114*, Us. p. 124, iv ap')(ri he ri}? irpaffiaTela^ 
 vireCTTobv ttjv t&v ovTtav ^vatv atofiaTa elvai Koi 
 Kevov. . . . The occurrence of such a dis- 
 crepancy, however, does not afford suflicient 
 ground for the alteration of the former passage. 
 Furthermore, the text of Ad Herod. 39, 
 seems to resist all reconstruction but to ttuv 
 ia-Ti (aatnaTa Kal to^tos).* We are forced, there- 
 fore, to hold either that Epicurus uses toVo? 
 and Kevov with full deliberation as perfect S5mo- 
 nyms, or that he uses the phrase cotfiaTa Kal 
 TOTTOV carelessly and inaccurately. For if tottov 
 usually means space, and the Epicureans clearly 
 distinguished between void and space, we must 
 admit that Epicurus is expressing himself with 
 
 ' Pascal, Studii Critici, p. 29 (Note). A. Brieger, 
 PhUologus, 1901, p. 612. Usener's Epicurea, p. 6 ad loc. 
 
Studies op Special Groups of Tekms 89 
 
 scientific inexactness. It is as though he said, 
 "The All is composed of bodies and space 
 that contains the bodies and the void." The 
 amount of extension possessed by the bodies 
 of matter is doubled in the formula am/jLara 
 Kal ToVo?, as the bodies, per se, have their own 
 extension ; whereas tottik includes the extension 
 not only of the void but also of the bodies that 
 are in it.* Thus, in our phrase, the two ele- 
 ments are not mutually exclusive, as they 
 would be if the reading a-oi/iara xal Kevov might 
 be adopted. We are forced, therefore, either 
 to take roiro'i here in the sense of k€v6v, 
 which will practically identify in the Epicurean 
 thought the concept of void and space and in- 
 volve us in the mazes of void void and occupied 
 void, or, keeping the meaning of toVo? in the 
 sense of space, frankly to admit that Epicurus 
 is careless and inexact in his choice of terms. 
 The error, however, is more apparent than 
 real and the meaning is quite clear. In speak- 
 ing generally, we use the phrase "matter and 
 space," as though the substances were mutually 
 
 ' Cf. Simplicius in Arist. phys. A 5 extr. (p. 213', 10) 
 f. imy, Aid. p. 3790, 24 Brand., Us. p. 193. 
 
90 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 exclusive, without stopping to, realize that 
 space when occupied by matter is properly a 
 quality of the latter in the form of extension. 
 Thus, in general reflections on the infinite 
 expanse of empty room, infinitely greater than 
 even the infinite amount of matter,* the idea 
 of space comes to mean for us, unless corrected 
 by clear thinking, empty space. And this is 
 the way in which, I think, Epicurus uses a-a>- 
 fxara koX tottw. In view of the disorder and 
 carelessness with which his three letters are 
 thrown together, it seems reasonable to admit 
 error and carelessness in his use of terms. The 
 general character of his philosophical writings, 
 if it is fair to judge of them from the few frag- 
 ments that remain, hardly deserves the efforts 
 of Giussani to develop a theory that will clear 
 away from them, in this one particular, the ob- 
 scurities and contradictions. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 The evidences of the use made by Epicurus 
 of the terms ava^ry; (fyvaii, Kevov, r67ro<! and 
 
 ' So also the Epicureans. Cf. Simp, in Arist. phys. 
 A 5 extr. f. 144", Us. p. 193. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Teems 91 
 
 Xiopa justify, I conclude, the rejection of the 
 view that Epicurus gave to each of these 
 terms a definite technical sense and held to 
 these definitions consistently. We are also jus- 
 tified in rejecting the view that the terms were 
 used synonymously without distinction. Scanty 
 as the evidence is, it points to a distinction in 
 meaning between roiroi and Kevov or ava<}>r}f 
 <f>vai<i. The former means space, the latter 
 void. x^P"' shows no technical meaning. The 
 meanings of r6Tro<! and Kevov occasionally over- 
 lap, owing to the carelessness of Epicurus as 
 a writer and thinker and also to a natural 
 confusion of the ideas of void and space in the 
 treatment of motion. 
 
 II. 
 
 USAGE of the latin TERMS BY LUCRETIUS. 
 
 A priori, we should expect Lucretius to adopt 
 the nomenclature of his master, so far as a 
 poetical form and the peculiarities of the Latin 
 language would permit. Such an assumption 
 will be of value as a working hypothesis. For, 
 if applied to the three theories previously dis- 
 cussed, this assumption will test, to a certain 
 
92 Lucretius and Ciceeo 
 
 degree, the truth of our conclusion in regard 
 to Epicurus and at once organize the method 
 of investigation in Lucretius. 
 
 A. 
 
 Does Lucretius offer any support to the state- 
 ment of Sextus, accepted by PoUe ? 
 
 Obviously, if true, ksvov would be trans- 
 lated by inane or vacuum, totto? by locus, 
 j(ol>pa by spatium and ava^<i <})vtri<! by intac- 
 tilis natura or rather by the metrically possible 
 natura intactilis. But this hypothetical usage 
 breaks down imder an examination of the terms 
 in Lucretius. Nor does any redistribution of 
 the Latin terms help the matter. I submit the 
 results of an examination of the poem. 
 
 1. 'Ava<|>Tis <|)v<ris, K€V<5v, The term ava<f)r}9 
 i^vaii appears with certainty nowhere in Lucre- 
 tius.' A reminiscence of it occurs in I 363, 437, 
 and V 357. Lucretius apparently felt no need 
 to distinguish with his terms between void in the 
 wider and void in the narrower sense. The 
 Greek terms are rendered by Lucretius as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 * The reading of I 334; I 454, has not yet been entirely 
 established against Lachmann's grounds for deletion. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Teems 93 
 
 a. Inane, unqualified, I 223 (inania), 330, 
 342, 356 (inania), 363, 365, 369, 382, 386, 396, 
 399, 431, 445, 480, 507, 510, 511, 514, 517, 524, 
 527, 532, 536, 538, 569, 655, 660, 742, 745, 843, 
 1009, 1010, 1078 (perhaps), 1079 (perhaps) ; V 
 365, 366, VI 941. 
 
 Inane, qualified, I 444, inane vacansque; 
 439, 509, 523,* vacuum inane; 658, inane purum; 
 520, quod inane vocaret; II 236, inane vacuum; 
 y 357, sicut inanest quod manet intactum. 
 
 6. Vacuum, I 367, 393, 394; VI 1014, 1019. 
 
 c. Spatium, I 389, 507, vacat spatium quod 
 inane vocamus; 527, 1110. 
 
 2. yi&f<i. The following equivalents of the 
 ySpa of Sextus are found in Lucretius : 
 
 a. Inane, e.g., I 420, equivalent to both x^P"" 
 and TOTTo? ; 954, -xiotpa and tottos ; 1018, mag- 
 num per inane; II 122, in magno inani; 83, 
 per inane; I 1108, per inane profundimi; II 
 202, vacuum per inane; 217, rectum per inane; 
 II 238, per inane quietum; III 17, totum per 
 inane ; etc. 
 
 h. Locus is equivalent to X'^P"' i° V 359, 
 
 ' For reading cf . Brieger and Giuss. Mr. and Bailey 
 hold with Lach. and Bern. 
 
94 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 V 370, to both x'^P"' ^'^^ tottos in I 482,' 
 505. In I 426 ff. the two functions are men- 
 tioned in connection with locus and spatium. 
 As, however, both functions of void are 
 elsewhere assigned to locus alone, I 482, it does 
 not seem sound to distribute them in this 
 sentence and to say that locus affords position 
 to body and spatium a medium of movement. 
 Furthermore, in I 472 and 954, both functions, 
 that of x^P"- ^^d of Toirm, are assigned to 
 locus and spatium jointly. In analyzing I 
 426 ff., therefore, we have not sufficient 
 grounds for the conclusion that the phrase 
 haut usquam sita corpora possent refers to 
 locus and the phrase esse neque omnino quo- 
 quam diversa meare refers to spatium. 
 
 c. Spatium. It is possible that spatium, 
 the term to be expected a priori, is used in the 
 sense of x'^P"- iri I 426, although, as pre- 
 viously argued, this use is far from certain. 
 In other cases where spatium is associated with 
 locus in the phrases that are equivalent to 
 j(a>pa (I 472, 954), the special function of 
 each term is not mentioned. No instance 
 
 ' Gerantur implies both positioa and movement. 
 "Move and have their being." 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 95 
 
 occurs where spatium is used as a single term 
 in the undoubted sense of x*"/"*- Spatium 
 sine fine modoque II 92, is probably infinite 
 extension. The same is true of the much dis- 
 puted spatiiun of I 523, an indefinite term 
 probably not defined with absolute clarity even 
 in the mind of Lucretius. 
 
 3. Ttfiros. No single term occurs in Lucretius 
 carrying beyond question the meaning assigned 
 to TOTTo? by Sextus emp. 
 
 The results of this examination of the De 
 Rerum Natura lead us to the conclusion that 
 Lucretius did not use the terms inane, vacuum, 
 locus and spatium, on the basis of any such dis- 
 tinctions in meaning as claimed by Sextus for 
 the Greek terms, and confirm us further in the 
 belief that the definitions of Sextus were er- 
 roneous. Indeed, unless he had suggested the 
 distinctions, it is inconceivable that they ever 
 would have occurred to any modem scholar. 
 
 B. 
 
 Does Lucretius use the terms inane, vacuum, 
 locus, spatiiun, sine uUo discrimine ? ' 
 
 ' Woltjer, Lucreti Philosophia cum Fontibus Com- 
 parata, p. 18, note 5. 
 
96 LUCHETIUS AND CiCEBO 
 
 The ultimate grounds upon which this notion 
 must be held, namely, that the Epicureans 
 identified the ideas of space and void, have 
 already been presented under the similar view 
 of the use of the terms by Epicurus. Reasons 
 for the rejection of this view were found both 
 in the results of a general examination of the 
 thought of the Atomists and also in an examina- 
 tion of the evidences in the existing fragments 
 of Epicurus of a distinction in his nomenclature. 
 Since, therefore, we have found good groimds 
 for believing that Epicurus distinguished be- 
 tween the two ideas, we may omit the same 
 inquiry in the case of the Epicurean disciple, 
 Lucretius, and proceed at once to consider 
 what distinctions, if any, appear in his termi- 
 nology. This demonstration, since it is con- 
 structive in theory, should properly be discussed, 
 as in the case of the similar treatment of Epi- 
 curus, under the third view. 
 
 C. 
 
 Lucretius used the Latin terms with certain 
 distinctions, although some confusion is ap- 
 parent in their application. 'Awo^^? ^va-t^ and 
 Kevov are represented in Lucretius by inane, 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 97 
 
 which is used both in the wider and narrower 
 sense. Vacuum, both adjective and substan- 
 tive, is used as a variant (subst.) or intensive 
 (adj.) of inane, tottos, usually in its wider 
 sense of Gesamiraum, is represented by locus. 
 Spatium appears as a variant of locus, although 
 generally used without any clear-cut technical 
 meaning. The exceptions to these uses and 
 their causes will be discussed under the analysis 
 of individual terms. 
 
 1. Inane. The word occurs 76 times in the 
 De Rerum Natura. I 334 has been deleted. 
 In I 639; III 116, 982, 998; IV 995; VI 834, 
 the word is not used technically. 69 occurrences 
 remain.' Of these terms 45 are used in the 
 sense of ava^r)'} <^w<rt9 or Kevov? 22 instances 
 remain in which Lucretius uses the word in 
 a different sense. These 22 exceptions may 
 be subdivided into two groups, a. The in- 
 stances in which inane, as a single term, oc- 
 curs in the X'*/"* phase of Sextus emp., i.e. 
 space with matter moving about in it. 19 in- 
 stances occur of this use. h. The instances 
 
 ' I 1074 is excluded, though a certain reconstruction. 
 Locus inanis, VI 832, is discussed p. 106. 
 ' See p. 93 for complete list of inane = Kev&v. 
 
 H 
 
98 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 in which inane appears in a periphrasis of which 
 the meaning seems to be space. 
 
 a. The use of inane, in this group,* is in all 
 respects like one of the uses of kcvov, pre- 
 viously noted. It is apparent that the shift 
 of meaning from inane purum to space with 
 matter moving about in it, is made in Lucretius 
 under the same conditions as the similar shift 
 in Epicurus. In all of these passages there is 
 represented the operation of motion. Now, 
 to the Atomist, motion implied void.* A body 
 could move in space only if the space before it, 
 around it and behind it were void, for the moving 
 body must have room into which to move, must 
 not be wedged by flanking bodies, and must 
 necessarily leave, at least for an instant, the 
 
 > 1 1018, magnum per inane; 1 103, magnum per inane; 
 llOS, per inane profundum; II 65, magnum per inane; 
 83, per inane; 96, per inane profundum; 105, magnum 
 per inane; 109, magnum per inane; 116, per inane (a 
 loose use); 122, in magno iactari semper inani ; 151, 158, 
 per inane vacuum (1. 151 may be classified here, although, 
 speaking with precision, the sunlight does pass through 
 X<^/>ii); 202, vacuum per inane; 217, rectum per inane; 
 226, rectum per inane; 238, per inane quietum; III 17, 
 totum per inane; 27, quaecumque infra per inane 
 gerunttir; VI 838 (a curious use). 
 
 ' Sext. emp. adv. dogm. II (Math. VIII) 329, Us. p. 193. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 99 
 
 space behind it void. Hence, in Epicurus, the 
 philosophic treatment of motion developed a 
 preference for Kevov,^ although it must have 
 been evident to him that the whole area trav- 
 ersed by the moving body was not void, but 
 space coextensive with full and void. 
 
 In the case of Lucretius, moreover, another 
 cause operated to develop the phrase. It was 
 in itself, especially when used with magnum 
 or profundum, of high poetic intensity, of a 
 quality to kindle the imagination when met 
 even in the dead levels of Lucretian didactics. 
 The poetic quality lies not only in the sonorous 
 sound but also in the idea of the sweep through 
 awful infinite emptiness. It is to heighten 
 this effect that the poet uses magnum, quietum, 
 profundum, and the phrase becoming stereo- 
 typed carries, curiously enough, even the ad- 
 jective vacuum.' It is open to controversy 
 whether the word inane in these phrases is used 
 technically at all.' 
 
 > Brieger, PhUologus, 1901, p. 510. ' II 202. 
 
 ' Cf . Tennyson, " Lucretius," 
 
 . . . "and I saw the flaring atom-streams 
 And torrents of her mjrriad universe. 
 Ruining along the illimitable inane." 
 
100 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 6. The three instances in which inane occurs 
 in a periphrasis with a meaning other than void, 
 should be quoted in their context. 
 I 418-429. 
 
 "Sed nunc ut repetam coeptmn pertexere dictis, 
 omnis ut est igitur per se natura duabus 
 constitit in rebus ; nam corpora sunt et inane, 
 haec in quo sita sunt et qua diversa moventur. 
 corpus enim per se communis dedicat esse 
 sensus ; cui nisi prima fides fundata valebit, 
 haut erit occultis de rebus quo referentes 
 confirmare animi quicquam ratione queamus. 
 tum porro locus ac spatium, quod inane vocamus,' 
 si nullum foret, haut usquam sita corpora possent 
 esse neque omnino quoquam '' diversa meare ; 
 id quod iam supera tibi paulo ostendimus ante." 
 
 I 951-957. 
 
 " Sed quoniam docui solidissima material 
 corpora peipetuo volitare invicta per aevom. 
 nunc age, summai quaedam sit finis eorum 
 necne sit, evolvamus ; item quod inane repertumst 
 seu locus ac spatium, res in quo quaeque gerantur, - 
 pervideamus utrum finitum funditus omne 
 constet an immensum pateat vasteque profundum." 
 
 ■Cf. I 1074. 
 
 ' Reading with Mr. and Giuss. The reference is 
 clearly to I 370 and the argument from motion. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 101 
 
 It is evident that the inane of these passages, 
 if we give the word the meaning of the entire 
 periphrasis, is not that second element of the 
 universe which is absolutely devoid of body; 
 for it is expressly stated that body is in it and 
 there carries on its operations. The contra- 
 diction is most distinct in 420 ff. It is stated, 
 in 418-420, that bodies and void are two ab- 
 solutely independent existences. In 421, how- 
 ever, they are mixed. The deletion of 421 
 would bring but temporary relief, as the trouble 
 comes up again in 426-7 and again in 954, where 
 it is quite impossible to apply the surgical 
 method. The inane, then, in these passages, 
 as defined by the relative clause, is something 
 quite different from the inane purum ' of the 
 earlier references. Indeed it is no longer void 
 at all, but the x^P"- of Sextus, void with matter 
 moving about in it. The same contradiction in 
 logic was found in Epicurus. 
 
 The explanation of the difficulty must ulti- 
 mately depend on our conception of Lucretius 
 as a thinker and writer. To those unwilling 
 
 ' Hoerschelmann, Observationes Lucretianae Alterae, 
 p. 3. De inani puro. 
 
102 LUCRKTIUS AND UICEKO 
 
 to admit carelessness in his thought or com- 
 position, Giussani offers his ingenious theory. If 
 Lucretius identified the two concepts, there can 
 be no contradiction in his interchange of tenns. 
 But the resulting confusion of thought with 
 its void void and occupied void seems too high 
 a price to pay for the verbal consistency. We 
 often speak of a field as green although it may 
 really be dotted all over with daisies and butter- 
 cups. We call it green because it really is 
 nearly all green and gives the general impression 
 of green. We would not, however, offer to any 
 champion of precision, who might chance to 
 correct us for the inaccuracy of the expression, 
 the argument that we are quite right, for we 
 hold it in mental reservation that where the 
 yellow and white blossoms are, there is green- 
 potential, but where the field is really green 
 there is green-actual, going on to develop a 
 color scheme of green-green, yellow-green, white- 
 green, or any other combination, limited solely 
 by the flora of the country. 
 
 It is more reasonable to believe that Lucretius, 
 when he said nam corpora sunt et inane, I 420, 
 really thought and meant inane, but, in adding 
 the clause haec in quo sita sunt et qua di- 
 
SxaDiEs OF Special Groups of Terms 103 
 
 versa moventur, extended the inane, by a sort 
 of philosophical synecdoche, to include the 
 greater whole of space with bodies moving in 
 it, in the lesser concept of inane. There are 
 indications that Lucretius felt the inaccuracy 
 himself; for the inane, I 439, is qualified by 
 the intensive vacuum. Note also, I 444, inane 
 vacansque; 507, vacat spatium, quod inane voca- 
 mus; 509, vacuum inane. After reestablishing, 
 in this way, his technical use of the word, he 
 reverts again to the simple term. The reason 
 for the shift of meaning has been met before. 
 Lucretius has just said, "The nature of the 
 Omne, as it exists by itself, has been founded on 
 two things: for bodies and void exist," I 419, 
 420. Communis sensus attests the existence of 
 corpus, motion attests the existence of void. 
 The proof of the existence of body is given in a 
 separate statement; but the proof of void is 
 thrown into a relative attribute that so modifies 
 the idea of inane as to alter the concept from 
 void to space. This confusion, however, is more 
 apparent than real, for in speaking roughly, as 
 in the case of the green field, we often refer to 
 a thing as homogeneous although we know that 
 the homogeneity is actually interrupted. The 
 
104 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 idea of space gaining ascendency through the 
 nature of the proof of void, the momentum of 
 the idea carries line 426, where the periphrasis 
 for space proper appears in the stereotyped 
 formula of Epicurus, Txun porro locus ac spa- 
 tium, quod inane vocamus, together with its 
 function in which is involved the proof of void. 
 Si nullum foret, haut usquam sita corpora pos- 
 sent I esse neque omnino quoquam di versa meare. 
 
 The same confusion of inane with locus 
 through the nature of the proof of void appears 
 in I 954, item quod inane repertumst | seu locus 
 ac spatium, res in quo quaeque gerantur. Re- 
 pertumst here links the term inane with the 
 thought of proof, and gerantur includes the two 
 functions, movement and position. 
 
 Both passages must be admitted to show 
 carelessness and obscurity. The explanation, 
 however, should not be sought in such an inter- 
 pretation of the metaphysical concepts of Lucre- 
 tius as would involve the identification of void 
 and space. It has been shown that every case 
 of this tjrpe of confusion occurs in connection 
 with the idea of motion. 
 
 2. Vacuum occurs 6 times in the De Rerum 
 Natura as a substantive in the sense of inane 
 
Studies of Special Groups op Terms 105 
 
 and Kevov, namely, I 367, 393, 394, 439; 
 VI 1014, 1019. It also appears in adjective 
 form intensifying the same idea, namely, I 
 509, 523, 526; II 151, 158, 202, 236.* Variants 
 containing the root are vacans, I 444; qua- 
 cumque vacat spatitun, I 507; locus vacua tus, 
 VI 1025=«ei'oi'; spatium vacat, VI 1030. No 
 controversial elements are involved in the 
 Lucretian use of vacuum. 
 
 3. Locus. The word appears 101 times in 
 the De Rerum Natura. I 334 is deleted. Over 
 against the 6 non-technical uses of inane, we 
 find 82 non-technical uses of locus. There 
 remain 19 philosophical uses of the latter 
 against 69 of inane. Such a great disparity in 
 the ordinary use of the words would lead us to 
 expect a greater latitude in the technical use of 
 locus than in the technical use of inane. In its 
 strict technical use locus represents totto';, 
 usually in its wider sense of Gesamtraum. 
 Modifications of this use, however, occur. The 
 19 instances of the technical occurrence of 
 locus may be divided into two groups: (a) Cases 
 in which the word is used as a single term, 
 
 > Cf. Hoerschelmann, Obs. Alt. p. 35. 
 
106 Lucretius and Cicebo 
 
 (b) occurrences in a periphrasis representing a 
 single term. 
 
 a. Locus is used as a single term in philo- 
 sophical passages, 13 times.' In these passages 
 locus unquestionably means space. Here belong 
 the expressions natura loci spatiumque pro- 
 fundi, I 1002, and sununa loci sit infinita, II 
 1044. The passage occurring V 351-372 should 
 be noted, as it shows a marked and careful 
 distinction between locus and inane. In VI 
 832 the phrase prope inanis locus is illuminating. 
 The expression means Kevov, but locus is 
 clearly a piece, as it were, of space, Raumtheil. 
 A similar expression is found in VI 1006, in- 
 aniter spatium multusque vacefit { in medio locus, 
 and also in VI 1025, factus inanitusque locus 
 magis ac vacuatus.* In this group belongs the 
 use of locus in II 1068, 
 
 "Praeterea cum materies est multa parata, 
 cum locus est praesto nee res nee causa moratur 
 ulla, geri debent nimirum et confieri res." 
 
 Here locus again means space. The passage 
 does not necessarily call for the mutual ex- 
 
 »I 373, 444, 522, 1002; II 1044, 1068; IV 207; 
 V 351-372; VI 832, 1006, 1025. 
 
 ' Cf . {y roKvKfvif riirif, Diog. Laert. X 89. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 107 
 
 elusion of void and matter, and locus, taken in 
 this sense, provides room for the position and 
 movement of the bodies of matter. Here, too, 
 may be placed the loose phrase multiplex loci 
 spatium, IV 207. 
 
 In I 373 the expression quia loca pisces, etc., 
 occurs in the argument of an opponent and is 
 therefore not properly available as evidence. 
 The term, however, is used in the sense of 
 Raumtheilen. So also are used the occurrences 
 of locus in I 444, 522. 
 
 The use, therefore, of locus as a single term 
 shows unmistakably the meaning of space both 
 in the larger and narrower sense. 
 
 b. Locus occurring in periphrases expressing 
 the idea of space. The first occurrence in the 
 phrase locus ac spatium quod inane vocamus, 
 1 426, has been already discussed. Note in con- 
 nection with this passage I 1074. The phrase 
 recurs with the same meaning in I 472, nee 
 locus ac spatium, res in quo quaeque gerantur. 
 Gerere represents the phrases in quo sita sunt 
 et qua diversa moventur,* where matter has its 
 
 ' It is extremely unlikely that in quo sita sunt means 
 that the given space is entirely occupied by body. 
 
108 LucBETros AND Cicero 
 
 position and moves. I 955 has already been 
 discussed, seu locus ac spatium, res in quo quae- 
 que gerantur. The meaning here also is space. 
 It should be noted that the formula omits 
 spatium in two instances, but the meaning 
 of locus remains space, I 482, 505. In all of 
 these expressions locus means not void but 
 space, as the qualifying phrases clearly show in 
 every case. The inaccuracy of statement on 
 the part of Lucretius which results from this 
 interpretation must be admitted. The source 
 of the confusion is the same as already ex- 
 plained under a similar use of totto?. 
 
 4. Spatium. The term is used as a variant 
 of locus in the sense of space. Aside from this 
 usage I have not discovered any clear-cut techni- 
 cal use for spatium. 
 
 which seems to be the meaning naturally attached to 
 il air^ <j>itra KaraXa/i/Saro/i^ini inrb aii/iaTos (Sext. emp.). 
 It translates rather the ftrou Jj" of Epicurus, and means 
 rather that void is all around body. Pascal's interpre- 
 tation helps us to understand the thought of Lucretius, 
 although it does not remove the contradiction and 
 inaccuracy. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 109 
 in. 
 
 USAGE OF THE LATIN TERMS BY CICERO. 
 
 Cicero devotes very much less attention 
 to the discussion of space and void than 
 Lucretius. Indeed the subject seems hardly 
 to be treated at all for its own sake, unless in 
 Ac. II 125. He mentions void and space only 
 cursorily in the discussion of the Epicurean 
 philosophy. On the whole Cicero uses with 
 accuracy the word inane, deviating from the 
 strict meaning of the term only under the con- 
 ditions observed in Epicurus and Lucretius. 
 Unlike Lucretius, furthermore, he never resorts 
 to vacuum to estabhsh the technical intensity 
 of his term. Inane occurs chiefly in Cicero as 
 ava<f>rii <f>xiiTK and Kevov. It is to be observed 
 that the shift of the word to the meaning 
 of TOTTo? or x<^/»a, according to the definitions 
 of Sextus emp., is more frequent, in proportion 
 to the number of occurrences of the word, in 
 Cicero than in Lucretius. In the terms and ex- 
 pressions treating of space is seen conspicuously 
 Cicero's failure to develop a rigorous and defini- 
 tive terminology. 
 
110 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 1. Inane. 
 
 a. Inane = avatf)^ ^vo-k (Gesamtrautn). 
 
 (1) Ac. II 118, plenum et inane. Here Cicero 
 seems to regard inane as the positive element 
 and plenum as its negative. The only passage 
 like it in Lucretius is I 525-6. 
 
 (2) N.D. I 73, Dicit eadem, atomos, inane, 
 imagines, infinitatem locorum, etc. The state- 
 ment is inaccurate, as the atoms and void alone 
 are primary substances, all else being derived 
 from them. 
 
 (3) N.D. II 82, omnium, quae sint, naturam 
 esse corpora et inane quaeque his accidant. 
 The same inaccuracy occurs as in the preced- 
 ing passage. The avfi^e^rjKora are secondary 
 and derivative. 
 
 (4) Fin. I 21, Atomi, inane, imagines. Note 
 the same error. 
 
 h. Inane = Kevov (RaumtheH). 
 
 (1) Ac. II 125, Tune aut inane quicquam putes 
 esse, cum ita completa et conferta sint omnia, 
 ut quidquid movebitur corporeum cedat et qua 
 quidque asserit aliud ilico subsequatur. Cf. 
 Arist. Phys, 4, 7, 214» 24 sq.; Lucr. I 370. 
 
 (2) N.D. I 65, ita nullum inane, nihil esse in- 
 dividuum potest. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 111 
 
 (3) Ac. II 121, interiecto inani. This expres- 
 sion is much neater than the Lucretian inane 
 genetis in rebus. 
 
 (4) N.D. I 54, interiecto inani. 
 
 c. Inane = totto? ix'^P"' according to 
 Sextus). 
 
 (1) Fa. 24, cum per inane moveatur gravitate 
 et pondere. 
 
 (2) Fin. I 17, lUe atomos . . . censet in in- 
 finito inani. Cf. Diog. Laert. X 42, av . . . 
 i<f>epeTo KUTci direipov kcvov. No literal transla- 
 tion appears in Lucretius. 
 
 (3) Fa. 47, in illo inani, per quod f eratur atomus. 
 
 (4) Fa. 18, Cum duo individua per inanita- 
 tem ferantur. Inanitas is one of Cicero's charac- 
 teristic abstractions metrically impossible in 
 Lucretius. 
 
 2. Vacuum. 
 
 The word does not occur either as substantive 
 or adjective with a technical sense in Cicero. 
 Nor do vacare, vacans, vacuitas appear in any 
 such connection. 
 
 3. Locus. 
 
 The occurrence of locus as a philosophical 
 term in Cicero is very rare. When it appears 
 it is equivalent to space, tottos. 
 
112 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 (1) N.D. II 42, Sidera autem aetherium locum 
 obtinent. The example is not strictly technical. 
 The meaning, however, seems to be space. 
 
 (2) N.D. I 73, atomos, inane, imagines, in- 
 finitatem locorum. Infinitas locorum is space, 
 extension, room, for the motion and operations 
 of matter. 
 
 Other occurrences of the term show merely 
 the ordinary uses of the word. 
 
 4. Spatitmi. 
 
 No clear-cut, technical meaning attaches itself 
 to spatium. It seems to divide loosely with 
 locus the idea of space, N.D. I 21, 22. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Universe. The Infinitt of Matter, 
 OF Void and of Space. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE TERMINOLOGY OF EPICURUS. 
 
 The evidence of the Greek is exceedingly- 
 meager. Indeed, in the large controversial 
 literature concerning the subject in Lucretius, 
 I find this side of the subject scarcely con- 
 sidered. Even Brieger, who of all Lucretian 
 critics appeals most frequently to the Greek, 
 seems to find the sources on this point too 
 slender for serious consideration as contributory 
 to Lucretian interpretation. A r^sum6 of the 
 available Greek is therefore in point, if merely 
 to show the limitations of the subject. 
 
 1. t6 -rrdv. The term occurs first in Diog. 
 
 Laert. X, 39, 40. The text of the passage is 
 
 defective. Usener's reading seems most logical. 
 
 The definition of to vav, to judge from the latter 
 
 I 113 
 
114 Lucretius and Cicebo 
 
 part of the passage, which resolves to vav into 
 its elements, must be understood as including 
 the whole sum of matter and space. This mean- 
 ing is further confirmed by Id. 86, olov to irav 
 atonara Kal ava<f)^<i ^vaK earlv ktK, The text 
 is here also imcertain. Nevertheless the read- 
 ing of either a-m/ia or aa/iara (Us.) would in- 
 volve the essential sense of to trav claimed for 
 it in the previous passage. The question of 
 the reading involves merely that of a reference 
 to the atomic constitution of matter (a&fia or 
 crta/jLara) . To the evidence of these passages 
 may be added that of a quotation preserved in 
 Sextus emp. adv. dogm. Ill (Math. IX) 333, Us. 
 p. 125. The term occurs again in Plut. adv. Col. 
 13, p. 1114", Us. p. 211. Here the meaning is 
 not defined. It might be the whole of space 
 or the whole of matter or of both together. 
 The same is true of Plut. adv. Col. 11, p. 1112*, 
 Us. p. 125. 
 
 We conclude that where the meaning of to 
 irav is clearly defined it means the whole sum 
 of matter and space, i.e. the universe. 
 
 2. TO (lircipov. The meaning of this term 
 when used as a substantive is loose and in- 
 definitive. In Diog. Laert. X, 60, the meaning 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Tekms 115 
 
 is that of infinite space. Again, in Id. 73, the 
 sense seems to be that of the infinite store of 
 matter. And still again, in Id. 143, the mean- 
 ing is the universe, the infinite store of matter 
 and space or ro irav. Compare also the passage 
 Diog. Laert. X, 88. Lastly, in a citation from 
 Aetius, the term again appears in the sense of 
 infinite space, Aet. II 1, 3, p. 327 D. (Plut. II 1, 
 1 Stob. eel. ph. 22, 3), Us. p. 213. 
 
 3. direipia. The evidence of the fragments 
 of Epicurus is not sufficient to determine the 
 use of the term. The meaning seems to be that 
 of abstract infinity of number in Diog. Laert. X, 
 45. It is infinity of space in Id. Ad pyth. 116. 
 
 4. t6 irepiexov appears as a loose term for 
 space in its extensive sense. Cf. Diog. Laert. 
 X, 46, 48. The term can scarcely be regarded 
 as a technical one. I find no counterpart for it 
 in Cicero or Lucretius. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE terminology OF LUCRETIUS. 
 
 The magnificent Epicurean conception of the 
 infinity of space, matter and worlds in being, 
 produced in the poem of Lucretius a wealth of 
 
116 ^ Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 terms and phrases for the whole of void, the uni- 
 verse of matter and space, the whole sum of things 
 in being, and this system of ours distinguished 
 from the countless worlds of outer space. 
 
 For the infinite space we find such expres- 
 sions as the following:' summa loci, II 1044; 
 natura loci spatiumque profundi, I 1002; quod 
 inane repertumst seu locus ac spatium, res in 
 quo quaeque gerantur, I 954, etc. ; loci copia, V 
 359 ; omne quod est spatium, I 523, 969 ; spatium 
 summai totius omne, I 984; spatium sine fine 
 modoque est, II 92; spatium vacet infinitum, II 
 1053; desertum spatium, I 1110; siunma pro- 
 fundi, VI 485, II 1095; natura profundi, II 
 1051; totum inane. III 17. 
 
 The frequent occurrence of spatium in these 
 expressions does not shake our position that 
 locus (Toiroii) is the term of Lucretius for 
 space, room, considered absolutely. It is true 
 that spatium appears frequently when the idea 
 of infinity is added to the meaning of space; 
 but, in that case, with the exception of II 92, 
 the word is further qualified either by adjective 
 or phrase. We have not, for instance, spati 
 
 ' Cf. Hoerschelmann, Obs. Alt. p. 37. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Terms 117 
 
 copia or summa spati, either of which would be 
 metrically possible through separation. 
 
 The infinite sum of matter is designated in 
 Lucretius by summanun summa, V 361 ; in- 
 finita vis materiai, 1 1051 ; materies rerum, I 705 ; 
 summa materiai, II 527 ; summa, I 436 ; return 
 summa, 1 1008. 
 
 For the universe of matter and space, Lucretius 
 has omne, II 305 ; summa omnis, I 621 ; summa 
 summai totius omnis, VI 679; summa summa- 
 rum, V 361 ; omnia, 1 1011 ; summa tota, Yl 650 ; 
 summa, I 963 ; I 1053 ; omne quod est, I 958. 
 
 The large controversial literature that has 
 arisen over the interpretation and order of the 
 difficult passage I 958-1051 is of interest to us 
 only in that it has brought into question the 
 precise meaning of omne. The controversy 
 began actively with Goebel' and for over fifty 
 years has been the battle-ground of the most 
 acute logomachy of the Lucretian critics. The 
 text has not yet been securely constituted.* 
 
 ' Observ. Lucr. 1854. 
 
 ' See Brieger's last word, Philologus, 1901, pp. 510 ff. 
 He finally abandons an attempt to settle the order and 
 groups the various proofs according to the guidance 
 of the Leitworter in their generally accepted meaning. 
 
118 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 I will touch upon the question, in this inquiry, 
 only so far as it is necessary in order to deter- 
 mine, if possible, the meaning of omne. 
 
 Three meanings are advanced for the term. 
 1. Omne is equivalent to omne quod est spatium. 
 It signifies the whole of space.* 2. Omne 
 signifies the whole of matter. It includes, not 
 the idea of universal space, but only so much as 
 forms the necessary medium for the existence 
 and operations of matter,^ inane repertumst | 
 seu locus ac spatium, res in quo quaeque geran- 
 tur.' 3. Omne means the whole sum of matter 
 and space. This is the view of the majority of 
 Lucretian scholars. Let us consider briefly 
 these three suppositions. 
 
 1. Omne is a shorter expression for omne 
 quod est spatium. As I have not seen the dis- 
 cussion of Stiirenburg, but know it only through 
 mention by Hoerschelmann, Gneisse and Brie- 
 ger, it is sufficient and appropriate to quote 
 
 ' Cf. H. Stiirenburg, Acta Soc. Lips. II s. 413, who 
 admits, however, that in I 958 fif. omne = the universe. 
 In other passages he claims for it the meaning omne 
 quod est spatiimi. 
 
 'C. Gneisse, Neue Jahrbticher, 1880, No. 114. Der 
 Begriff des omne bei Lucretius. ' Lucr. I 954-5. 
 
Studies of Special Groups of Teems 119 
 
 the adequate refutation of Hoerschelmann.* 
 "Postremo Stuerenburgio contradicendum est, 
 qui p. 413 Lucretium pro omni spatio brevius 
 omne dixisse arbitratur. Hoc enim aliter ex- 
 plicandum est. Omne et spatium universiun 
 cum eodem ambitu sint, non semper referre, 
 de utro dicas, manifestum est: ac primum si 
 de magnitudine alterutrius agitur, utrumque 
 aptum esse exposui; turn si de eis, quae intra 
 utrumque geruntur, disputatur, non aliter rem 
 comparatam esse elucet, cum intra et omne 
 et spatium omne fieri, quaecumque fiunt, per 
 se appareat. Quare quod I 1024 legimus 
 multa modis multis mutata per omne vexari, 
 II 547 corpora unius genitalia rei per omne 
 iactari, V 530 motus astrorum per omne, II 305 
 genus ullum material effugere ex omni, denique 
 II 1108 mundo creato postea esse addita semina, 
 quae magnum iaculando contulit omne, haec 
 aptissime dicta sunt, etiamsi sensu proprio omne 
 adhibitum esse statueris; id autem, quod 
 ultimo loco posui, ne potest quidem ad spatium 
 referri, nisi omni ratione Lucretii et doctrina 
 turbata. Brieger, however, takes reasonable 
 
 » Oba. Alt. pp. 39, 40. 
 
120 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 exception to the ejctreme view of the latter part 
 of the statement." ' Hoerschelmann's claim for 
 the absolute interchangeability of the terms 
 brings him dangerously near to the identifica- 
 tion of omne with omne quod est spatium, 
 which he is refuting. 
 
 2. Omne means the whole sum of matter. It 
 includes, not the idea of universal space, but only 
 so much as forms the necessary medium for 
 the existence and operations of matter. "From 
 a comparison of the passages in which Lucretius 
 uses omne C. Gneisse ^ concludes that the com- 
 mon interpretation of this word as meaning 
 the universe, i.e. the sum of all existence and of 
 all space, is incorrect; that Lucretius does not 
 include in that term omne quod est spatium, 
 but that where he intends to include space in 
 his conception of the universe he uses summa 
 summarum or summa tota." ' I find four 
 grounds of objection to Gneisse's arguments for 
 this interpretation. 
 
 a. The argument from an assumption of the 
 
 • Philologus, 1901, p. 527. 
 
 'C. Gneisse, Neue Jahr. fur PhU. 1880, Der BegrifiF 
 des omne bei Lucretius. 
 
 ' Report on preceding article in A. J. P. VII 533. 
 
Stttdies op Special Groups of Terms 121 
 
 accustomed order of Lucretian proof from mat- 
 ter to void, and hence in this case from all 
 matter to all space, is imsomid. Gneisse has 
 insufficient ground for the induction. 
 
 b. Gneisse is under the necessity of claiming, 
 in order to prove the mutual exclusion of omne 
 and omne quod est spatium, that Lucretius 
 concludes the infinity of omne in spite of the 
 postulated finiteness of space, I 968-983, 
 
 " Praeterea si iam finitum constituatur 
 Omne quod est spatium, si quis procurrat ad 
 oras," etc. 
 
 He concludes that therefore Lucretius did not 
 ascribe the same extension to both. If he had 
 done so, the assumption of the finiteness of one 
 would involve the finiteness of the other. But 
 such a distinction in extension seems to me to 
 be absolutely unthinkable. The intent of the 
 argument, 968-983, is quite different. We have 
 here a negative form of proof. The conclusion 
 drawn from the assumption in turn negates 
 the hjrpothesis and establishes the fact, in- 
 finitum igitur est omne quod est spatium. The 
 proof of this truth demonstrates in turn the in- 
 finity of the omne, 
 
122 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 "omne 
 cogit ut exempta concedas fine patere." 
 
 The essential link in the proof is that omne 
 and omne quod est spatium are coterminous.* 
 c. Gneisse's definition of omne includes inane, 
 res in quo quaeque geruntur. It is difficult to 
 see how this definition does not practically 
 include the whole universe of matter and space. 
 For if matter is infinite in its mass and if all 
 the atoms and things in being have as the con- 
 dition of their being that inane shall be in them 
 in the case of res and about them in the case 
 •of both res and primordia, it is an irresistible 
 conclusion that the substance inane res in quo 
 quaeque geruntur, since it is coextensive with 
 infinite matter, should be itself infinite in its 
 ■extension. It is also in point, just here, to ex- 
 press some surprise that Gneisse found no 
 enlightenment in the Greek of Epicurus on this 
 matter. He has accepted the reading to irav 
 iari crSifia. tcl fiev yhp adtfiara in eoTiv ktX. 
 Diog. Laert. X 39. His conjecture, Kal Kevov, 
 gives the same basis essentially for argument 
 
 • Hoerschelmann, Obs. Alt. 39, 40. 
 
Studies of Special Geoups op Terms 123 
 
 on this point as that of Usener, 'A\Xo iirjv Kal 
 ro irav eari {amfiara koI totto?) ata/iaTa fiev yap 
 CD'S earcv ktX. Now Gneisse admits that the 
 omne of Lucretius, nowhere specifically defined, 
 corresponds with the to irdv of Epicurus, which 
 Gneisse himself constructs as equivalent to 
 (r&fia Kal icevov. The infinity stated in to irav 
 requires for the truth of the equation the infin- 
 ity of at least one of the elements constituting 
 its sum. Gneisse acknowledges the infinity of 
 a&iia. As we have seen, the conditioning cir- 
 cumstance of the existence and operations of 
 aSifia require that inane be admitted into the 
 scope of the term to irav. Once admitted, it is 
 the irresistible conclusion that it must be ad- 
 mitted in its universal aspect or, in other words, 
 TO trav ian ra aveipa adt/jLara Kal to direipov 
 Kevov. 
 
 d. Gneisse regards as the soundest proof for 
 his interpretation of omne, the fact that his 
 definition supplies the best sense in the pas- 
 sages in which the term occurs. This assump- 
 tion is not supported by the facts. Notably 
 in V 526 ff . the term omne in the sense of the 
 universe alone satisfies the demands of the con- 
 text. It is only through a violent contortion of 
 
124 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 the sjTithesis, taking causas with per omne, 
 that Gneisse creates any probability for his 
 definition. 
 
 3. Omne signifies the universe, that is to 
 say, the whole sum of matter and space. I 
 stand therefore decidedly with Brieger, Munro, 
 Giussani, Hoerschelmann and the majority of 
 Lucretian scholars, for the accepted meaning 
 of the Lucretian omne in the sense of the uni- 
 verse of matter and space. The grounds of 
 this decision have already been suggested in 
 the course of the preceding discussion. They 
 are, namely, the authority of the Greek of Epi- 
 curus and the adaptability of this meaning to 
 the passages in which the term occurs.* 
 
 For the sum of things in being we have summa 
 rerum, I 333, 619, 756; II 75; natura rerum, I 
 25, 950; summa omnis, I 1042; summa, I 636; 
 II 71, 310, 1077; copia rerum, I 757. 
 
 Finally, for this world of ours occur haec 
 rerum summa, I 235, 1028; hie mimdus, V 
 526; rerum summa, VI 606 (= haec rerum 
 summa). 
 
 » Hoersch. Obs. Alt. 39, 41. Cf. Lucr. I 74, 419, 521, 
 958, 975, 987, 1011 (omnia), 1024; II 305, 547, 1108; 
 V 530. 
 
Studies of Special Groups op Terms 125 
 III. 
 
 the terminology of CICERO. 
 
 The careful analysis of Lucretius in his use 
 of terms in this group does not appear to the 
 same degree in Cicero. The latter's references to 
 the subject are in the nature of brief allusions, 
 not formal expositions. In Lucretius we find 
 a threefold infinity, of matter, of space, and 
 of the universe. The terminology of Cicero 
 falls into two groups, neither of which is de- 
 fined with perfect precision. These groups are 
 the infinity of space and the infinity of matter 
 and space, i.e. the universe. 
 
 To the former group, the infinity of space, 
 belongs the sonorous phrase, haec itninensitas 
 latitudinum, longitudinum, altitudiniun, N.D. 
 I 54; also infinitas loconun, N.D. I 73; and 
 again infinitio ipsa quam aireipCav vocant, Fin. 
 I 21. 
 
 As rough equivalents for the universe of mat- 
 ter and space we may choose universitas rerum, 
 universum, universus mundus, N.D. 1 120, omnis 
 mundus. Id. II 16 ; mundus. Id. II 19, 21 ; natura 
 rerum omnis. Id. I 27 ; omnis natura, Id. II 35 ; 
 
126 Lucretius and Cicero 
 
 universa natura, Id. II 35 ; res universae, Ac. II 
 87; infinitas naturae, Ac. II 118. 
 
 Cicero's term for this system or world of ours 
 is hie mundus, Ac. II 119. Mundus was the 
 Epicurean term for the earth, moon and heavenly- 
 bodies visible, as opposed to the other systems 
 and worlds of the omne inferred by reason. 
 The Stoics used mundus in the general sense 
 of the universe. Thus as Lucretius converts 
 his general term for the universe, summa rerum, 
 into haec summa rerum to denote our visible 
 world, in the same way Cicero treats the finite, 
 Stoic mundus. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 
 
 Bailey, C. 
 
 Lucreti de rerum natura libri sex. Oxford, 1899. 
 Bernays, J. 
 
 Lucreti de rerum natura librl sex. Leipzig, 1852 
 (1885). 
 Bindseil, J. 
 
 Nonnulla ad Lucreti de rerum natura carminis librum 
 primum et secundum qui sunt de atomis. Halle, 1865. 
 Brieger, A. 
 
 Lucreti de rerum natura libri sex. Leipzig, 1899. 
 
 Epikurs Lebre vom Eaum, vom Leeren und vom All. 
 Philologus, 1901. • 
 Diels, H. 
 
 Die Pragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin, 1906. 
 
 Doxographi Graeci. Berlin, 1877. 
 
 Elementum. Berlin, 1899. 
 Eckman, 6. P. 
 
 Controversial Elements in Lucretius. New York, 1899. 
 Gassendi, P. 
 
 Animadversiones in decimum librum Diogenis Laertii. 
 Lyons, 1649. 
 
 I Tbis list is in no sense a complete bibliography of the 
 books consulted in examining the subject. It is intended 
 merely to contain the titles of the works to which special 
 reference is made in this volume. 
 127 
 
128 Bibliography 
 
 Giussani, C. 
 
 T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura libri sex. Turin, 1896- 
 1898. 
 Gneisse, C. 
 
 Der Begriff des Omne bei Lucretius. Neue Jahrbuoher, 
 1880. 
 Gbbel, P. E. 
 
 Observationes Luoretianae. Bonn, 1854. 
 Greenough, J. B. 
 
 Elementum. In Harvard Studies. "Vol. I, 1890. 
 Hoerschelmann, W. 
 
 Observationes Lucretianae Alterae. Leipzig, 1877. 
 Lachmann, C. 
 
 T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura, C. L. reoensuit et 
 emendavit. Berlin, 1850 (*1871). 
 Merrill, "W. A. 
 
 T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura libri sex. New York, 
 1907. 
 Munro, H. A. J. 
 
 T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura libri sex. 4tli revised 
 edition, 1886. 
 Pascal, C. 
 
 Studii critici sul poema di Lucrezio. Borne, 1903. 
 PoUe, K. F. 
 
 De artis vocabulis quibusdam Luoretianis. Dresden, 
 1866. 
 Eeid, J. S. 
 
 M. Tulli Ciceronis Academica. London, 1885. 
 TJsener, H. 
 
 Epicurea. Leipzig, 1887. 
 Woltjer, J. 
 
 Lucreti philosophia cum fontibus oomparata. Gronin- 
 gen, 1877. 
 
INDICES OF WORDS 
 
 I. GEEEK INDEX 
 
 d/3X(£|8eio 13. 
 AStjXos 13. 
 ddiaipopla 13. 
 dStdtpopos 13. 
 iBaix^la 13. 
 d/cardXr^TTTOs 13. 
 dvaXoyia 13. 
 inTtirovs 20. 
 dprix^f^v 14. 
 d^/a 11. 
 d^lu/jM 12. 
 iirdSeia 20. 
 dveipla 16, 115. 
 dTTCtpo;', rd 114. 
 d7r65ei^ts 14. 
 diroT potty liivoi 14. 
 dvSppoia 17. 
 dpjw^'fa 20, 23. 
 
 dppttKTTTlpLa 13. 
 
 d/)XTj 43—53. 
 drapa^la 20. 
 droMos 35-39, 49, 51. 
 
 ;3\d|U/ua 11. 
 j3oi)Xi;(ris 17. 
 
 diypxi. 11. 
 
 SvparSv, irepl 21. 
 Svaxp^ffT-Qpa 13. 
 
 elSos 58. 
 
 rfSwXop 17, 19, 22, 41, 47. 
 
 elfiapfj^VTj 21. 
 
 elptoveia 11. 
 
 AdxKTTOs 17, 18, 40. 
 
 ivdpyeia 13. 
 
 ivde\4xfia 14. 
 
 ?n/oia 18, 19. 
 
 ?|is 20. 
 
 i^o>TepiK6s 14. 
 
 iTiyeviiri/MTiK6s 14. 
 
 iirox'fl 14. 
 
 ^TUjuoXoY^a 14. 
 
 eA5o|fa 14. 
 
 ei6vp,ia 14. 
 
 e^Kaipia 13. 
 
 eiJTa^ia 14. 
 
 eixp'^icrit/ia 13. 
 
 ^T/XoTUTT^a 13. 
 
 ^wSiaK^s 21. 
 
 T]y€fWVtK6s 18. 
 
 ijSovii 18. 
 i5eos 11. 
 129 
 
130 
 
 Indices of Words 
 
 Bedprj/m 11. 
 
 ipAwi 12. 
 
 Si/iiaa-is 11. 
 
 oi5(r/a 36. 
 
 iSia 11, 58. 
 
 irdSos 11. 
 
 Iffovofila 21. 
 
 Trai/, t6 113, 123. 
 
 
 iropdSola, rd 113, 123. 
 
 KaerjKov., t6 11. 
 
 repUxov, t6 115. 
 
 Kaxta 11. 
 
 9roi6T7)s 12. 
 
 KaTdXTJTTTOS 13. 
 
 TOXlTtKbs 12. 
 
 KardXij^is 13. 
 
 irpotiy/iivos 14. 
 
 KaTTjydpTifM, 14. 
 
 7rp4X»)^is 19. 
 
 KarbfiBaiw, 14. 
 
 7rp6pota 19. 
 
 KaT6p6o3tm 14. 
 
 irpba'Kifj/ii 13. 
 
 Kei'6.', t6 67-97, 105-110, 123. 
 
 
 KivTpov 12. 
 
 ^i^oj/j.a 57. 
 
 K6triws 18. 
 
 
 KiixXos 21. 
 
 <7o0ia 19. 
 
 
 cro06s 19. 
 
 XfliUMa 11. 
 
 ffir^p/ia 39, 49, 55. 
 
 X670S, d(576s 11. 
 
 ffTepifivta, rd 22, 47, 48. 
 
 XiiTT; 11. 
 
 ffrecpdvTj 12. 
 
 
 ffToixeroj 44-46, 49, 56-58. 
 
 yuoi/ia 11, 13. 
 
 (ru7KaTd0eff« 14. 
 
 liavTiKij 11. 
 
 trviiiriSeM 14, 20. 
 
 fiMKa/yxoKla, 13. 
 
 ff^atpa 20. 
 
 fxetrdTfis 11. 
 
 a0a£/)OEtS^S 20. 
 
 jueTo/ciiTjiua, tA 18. 
 
 Gxrjfia 46-49, 58. 
 
 fiiffdvOpojiros 13. 
 
 fl-oJMa 38, 39, 49, 53, 54, 123 
 
 /iKr67i/vo! 14. 
 
 (TupelTris 12. 
 
 
 au<ppo<Fivri 12. 
 
 vbatijm 18. 
 
 
 
 TeXiKis 12. 
 
 «7(tos 40-42, 49. 
 
 tAos 23. 
 
 o^Ketop, t6 12. 
 
 tAttos 67-97, 105-111, 116. 
 
 bimwuipem 23. 
 
 TlijTOS 17. 
 
 6iio\oyla 13. 
 
 
 opifwc, 6 12. 
 
 v\v 48, 49, 59, 60, 65. 
 
Indices of Words 
 
 131 
 
 <l>aiv6fi,eva, tA 47. 
 ipavTaala 12. 
 fpiKoyvvla 13. 
 <l>pbvT)ais 12. 
 ipvaio'Koyla 2.3. 
 ^i)o-is, ii dva<piis 37, 67-76, I 
 90-92, 96, 97, 109-110. 
 
 Xty^<rifms 12. 
 
 X<ipa 67-76, 85, 87, 91-97, 
 101, 109, 111. 
 
 ypevSdfievQS 12. 
 
 di<pi\7iiia 12, 
 
 II. LATIN INDEX 
 
 acerualis 12. 
 accesslo 17. 
 adsensio 14. 
 adsumptio 13. 
 aegritudo 11. 
 aegiotatio 13. 
 aestimatio 11. 
 aestus 17. 
 anticipatio 19. 
 appetitio 12. 
 appetitus animi 12. 
 approbatio 14. 
 atomus 63, 66. 
 
 beatitas 27. 
 beatudo 27. 
 bonum, summum 23. 
 
 circulus 21. 
 clinamen 17, 26, 28. 
 commodum 13. 
 comprehendibilis 13, 27. 
 comprehensio 13. 
 eoncentio 20. 
 concentus 15. 
 
 conciliatio 12. 
 conciliatus 26. 
 concilium 25, 28, 61. 
 conclusio 14. 
 concretio 28. 
 conformatio 19. 
 consensus 14, 15. 
 conservatio ordinis 14. 
 convenientia 13, 27. 
 corona 12. 
 
 corpus 39, 53-55, 62-65. 
 corpuscula 54, 55, 62-64. 
 
 declinatio 18, 28. 
 deoretum 11. 
 detrimentum 11. 
 dissimulatio 11. 
 divinatio 11. 
 
 effectio 14, 27. 
 efBoientia 27. 
 effigiae 17. 
 
 elementum 46, 56-58, 62. 
 emolumentum 12. 
 evidentia 13. 
 
132 
 
 Indices of Words 
 
 excandescentia 11. 
 explicatlo verborum 14. 
 
 fama, bona 14. 
 
 figura 47, 58, 59, 62. 
 
 flrmitas 22. 
 
 forma 17, 47, 69, 62. 
 
 frugalitas 12. 
 
 frugi 12. 
 
 fundamentum dialecticae 12. 
 
 furor 13. 
 
 genetalia 54. 
 globosus 20. 
 globus 20. 
 glomeramen 26. 
 
 habitus 20. 
 
 imagines 17. 
 impetibilis 27. 
 inane 77, 92-119. 
 inanitas 111. 
 incertum 13. 
 inclinatio 28. 
 incommodum 13. 
 indifferens 13. 
 individuum 27, 63, 66. 
 infinitas 16, 29, 112, 125, 126. 
 infinitio 16, 27, 125. 
 inflnitus 16, 29. 
 informatio 19. 
 inhospitalitas 13. 
 innocentia 13. 
 insania 11. 
 intermundia 18. 
 
 locus 92-97, 104-118. 
 
 materia, materies 48, 69, 60- 
 
 65. 
 medietas 11. 
 mentieus 12. 
 minimus 17, 40, 41. 
 moderatio 12. 
 modestia 12. 
 moralis 27. 
 morbus 18. 
 mores 11. 
 mulierositas 13. 
 mundus 18, 124-126. 
 
 natura 116, 124-126. 
 necessitas 21. 
 necessus 21. 
 notatio 14. 
 notio 19. 
 notitia 19. 
 
 obtreotatio 13. 
 ocoasio 13. 
 ofSoium 11. 
 omne 117-124. 
 opportunitas 13. 
 orbis 21. 
 
 partioula 23, 59, 62. 
 patibilis 27. 
 perceptum 11. 
 perspioientia 27. 
 perspicuitas 13. 
 perturbatio 11. 
 praecipuum 14. 
 praenotio 19. 
 praepositum 14. 
 praesensio 19. 
 
Indices of Words 
 
 133 
 
 primordia 29, 50-53, 57, 61, 
 
 62. 
 principatus 18, 28. 
 prlncipium 29, 51-53, 57, 62. 
 prodnctum 14. 
 promotum 14. 
 propritim 26. 
 providentia, pmdentia 12, 
 
 19. 
 
 qualitas 12, 27. 
 
 ratio 11, 23. 
 
 rectum 14. 
 
 regimen 18, 27. 
 
 reiectum 14. 
 
 remotnm 14. 
 
 repetentia 26. 
 
 res 25. 
 
 retentio adsensionis 14. 
 
 retinentia 26. 
 
 sapiens 19. 
 sapientia 19. 
 semen 39, 55, 62. 
 sensifer 26. 
 sensilis 26. 
 sentiens 28. 
 
 sentiscere 26. 
 
 simHia 17. 
 
 sunulacnun 17. 
 
 soliditajs 22. 
 
 solidns 22. 
 
 spatium 92-95, 102-120. 
 
 species 11, 17. 
 
 spectrum 17. 
 
 smnma 116, 117, 120, 124, 
 
 126. 
 sumptio 11. 
 
 temperantia 12. 
 transitio 17. 
 tributio aeqnabilis 21. 
 
 universitas 125. 
 universum 125. 
 
 vacuum 92-97, 102-105, 109, 
 
 111. 
 veriloqnium 14. 
 visio 12, 17. 
 visum 12. 
 vitiositas 11. 
 vitium 11. 
 voluntas 17. 
 voluptas 18. 
 
THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 Columbia University in the City of New York 
 
 The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the pub- 
 lication of the results of original research. It is a private 
 corporation, related directly to Columbia University by the 
 provisions that its Trustees shall be officers of the University 
 and that the President of Columbia University shall be Presi- 
 dent of the Press. 
 
 The publications of the Columbia University Press include 
 works on Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, 
 Linguistics, and Literature, and the following series : 
 
 Columbia University Biological Series. 
 
 Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology. 
 
 Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature. 
 
 Columbia University Studies in English. 
 
 Columbia University Geological Series. 
 
 Columbia University Germanic Studies. 
 
 Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series. 
 
 Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History 
 
 and Philology. 
 Columbia University Oriental Studies. 
 Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and 
 
 Literature. 
 Blumenthal Lectures. Hewitt Lectures. 
 
 Carpentier Lectures. Jesup Lectures. 
 
 Catalogues will be sent free on application. 
 
 The Macmillan Company, Agents 
 
 64-66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
 
THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 Columbia University in the City of New^ York 
 
 Boohs published at -okX prices are sold by booksellers everywhere at 
 the advertised net prices. When delivered /rofn the publishers^ 
 carriage^ either postage or expressage^ is an extra charge. 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN 
 CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 
 
 Edited by 
 Harry Thurston Peck and Edward Deiavan Perry 
 
 THE SATIBE OF SENECA OR THE APOTHEOSIS OF 
 CLAUDIUS, COmnONLY CALLED THE AnOKOAO- 
 KTNTfl2I2. A Study. By Allan Perley Ball, 
 Ph.D. l2mo, cloth, pp. vii + 256. Price, $1.25 net. 
 
 STRESS ACCENT IN LATIN POETRY. By Elizabeth 
 Hickman duBois, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. v + 96. 
 Price, $1.25 net. 
 
 DE mFIHITIVI FINALIS VEL CONSECUTIVI CON- 
 STRUCTIONE APUD PRISCOS POETAS 6RAEC0S. 
 By Charles Jones Ogden, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. 60. 
 Price, jtl.oo net, 
 
 STUDIES or THE PHILOSOPHICAL TERffllNOLOGY OF 
 LUCRETIUS AND CICERO. By Katharine C. 
 Reiley, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth. Price, $1.25 net. 
 
 COSTUME IN ROMAN COMEDY. By Catharine Saun- 
 ders, Ph.D. l2mo, cloth. Price, $1.25 «rf. 
 
 The Macmillan Company, Agents 
 
 64-66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORE