: eudaimonian]. Cic. _N.D._ I. 95 suggests _beatitas_ and _beatitudo_
but does not elsewhere employ them.

Sec.34. _Strato_: see II. 121. The statement in the text is not quite true for
Diog. V. 58, 59 preserves the titles of at least seven ethical works, while
Stob. II. 6, 4 quotes his definition of the [Greek: agathon]. _Diligenter
... tuebantur_: far from true as it stands, Polemo was an inchoate Stoic,
cf. Diog. Laert. IV. 18, _Ac._ II. 131, _D.F._ II. 34, and R. and P.
_Congregati_: "_all_ in the Academic fold," cf. _Lael._ 69, _in nostro, ut
ita dicam, grege_. Of Crates and Crantor little is known. _Polemonem ...
Zeno et Arcesilas_: scarcely true, for Polemo was merely one of Zeno's many
teachers (Diog. VII. 2, 3), while he is not mentioned by Diog. at all among
the teachers of Arcesilas. The fact is that we have a mere theory, which
accounts for the split of Stoicism from Academicism by the rivalry of two
fellow pupils. Cf. Numenius in Euseb. _Praep. Ev._ XIV. 5, [Greek:
symphoitontes para Polemoni ephilo timethesan]. Dates are against the
theory, see Zeller 500.

Sec.35. _Anteiret aetate_: Arcesilas was born about 315, Zeno about 350,
though the dates are uncertain. _Dissereret_: was a deep reasoner. Bentl.
missing the meaning conj. _definiret_. _Peracute moveretur_: Bentl.
_partiretur_; this with _definiret_ above well illustrates his licence in
emendations. Halm ought not to have doubted the soundness of the text, the
words refer not to the emotional, but to the intellectual side of Zeno's
nature. The very expression occurs _Ad Fam._ XV. 21, 4, see other close
parallels in n. on II. 37. _Nervos ... inciderit_: same metaphor in
_Philipp._ XII. 8, cf. also _T.D._ II. 27 _nervos virtutis elidere_, III.
83 _stirpis aegritudinis elidere_. (In both these passages Madv. _Em. Liv._
135 reads _elegere_ for _elidere_, I cannot believe that he is right).
Plato uses [Greek: neura ektemnein] metaphorically. Notice _inciderit_ but
_poneret_. There is no need to alter (as Manut., Lamb., Dav.) for the
sequence is not uncommon in Cic., e.g. _D.F._ III. 33. _Omnia, quae_: MSS.
_quaeque_, which edd. used to take for _quaecunque_. Cf. Goerenz's
statement "_negari omnino nequit hac vi saepius pronomen illud reperiri_"
with Madvig's utter refutation in the sixth Excursus to his _D.F._ _Solum
et unum bonum_: for the Stoic ethics the student must in general consult R.
and P. and Zeller for himself. I can only treat such points as are