INTRO D UCTION 



supposed that the work was left unfinished at the author s 

 death, but of this we have no proof. 



The language of the Preface to Book III. has been 

 taken by some to imply that this was the opening of the 

 whole work. Whether this is so must remain to some 

 extent matter of opinion. It may, however, be pointed 

 out (a) that the claim of the Preface to Book I. seems at 

 least equally strong, (&} that the language of 4 of the 

 Preface to Book III. (i 10), &quot; how much is unaccomplished 

 of my plan, though not of my life,&quot; seems inapplicable 

 to a work that was not begun or merely beginning. 

 There was a remnant of the work and a remnant of life, 

 but they were disproportionate, the one large, the other 

 small. This was a reminder to hurry on to completion 

 a work with which, ex Jiypothesi, some progress had already 

 been made. 



When all has been said, we must, for practical purposes, 

 accept the book as it has been handed down to us and 

 make what we can of it. The difficulties are not exhausted 

 even when the pristine order is restored. What is true of 

 the work as a whole is true of it also in detail. The text 

 is full of uncertainties and corruptions. The work was 

 popular and was frequently copied, and this naturally 

 gave rise to variations, which, being improved upon by 

 succeeding generations of copyists, in course of time 

 rendered the text in many places very obscure if not 

 unmeaning. The nature of the subject matter, frequently 

 little understood, no doubt facilitated and hastened the 

 process of corruption. Hence the translator has at every 

 turn to decide first what&amp;gt; and then how, he shall translate. 1 



An added difficulty is the form of address to Lucilius. 

 The adoption of the epistolary style, whatever its other 

 advantages, has not, it must be admitted, conduced 

 to the lucidity of the argument. Science does not 

 readily lend itself to exposition by dialogue, and the 



1 Gercke says (Preface, xlvi) that the traditional text of the Q.N. is 

 utterly corrupt and still requires the united efforts of many earnest scholars 

 for its restoration. He writes as recently as two years ago (1907), and has 

 himself probably made the most considerable contribution of all the editors to 

 the correction of the text ; but he modestly calls himself only a pioneer. 



