eam versuti in disserendo sunt nec qui 3 contra dicunt causam difficilem repellunt. Ipse etiam dicit Epicurus ne argumentandum quidem esse de voluptate, quod sit positum iudicium eius in sensibus, ut commoneri nos satis sit, nihil attineat doceri. Quare illa nobis simplex fuit in utramque partem disputatio. Nec enim in Torquati sermone quidquam implicatum aut tortuosum fuit, nostraque, ut mihi videtur, dilucida oratio. Stoicorum autem non ignoras quam sit subtile vel spinosum potius disserendi genus, idque cum Graecis, tum magis nobis quibus etiam verba parienda sunt imponendaque nova rebus novis nomina. Quod quidem nemo mediocriter doctus mirabitur, cogitans in omni arte cuius usus vulgaris communisque non sit multam novitatem nominum esse cum constituantur earum rerum vocabula quae in quaque arte versentur. 4 Itaque et dialectici et physici verbis utuntur iis quae ipsi Graeciae nota non sint,1 geometrae vero et musici, grammatici etiam, more quodam loquuntur suo; ipsae rhetorum artes, quae sunt totae forenses atque populares, verbis tamen in docendo quasi privatis utuntur ac suis.
II. Atque ut omittam has artes elegantes et ingenuas, ne opifices quidem tueri sua artificia possent nisi vocabulis uterentur nobis incognitis, usitatis sibi. Quin etiam agri cultura, quae abhorret ab omni politiore elegantia, tamen eas res in quibus versatur
dialectic, and their adversaries have no difficult case to 3 refute. In fact Epicurus himself declares that there is no occasion to argue about pleasure at all: its criterion resides in the senses, so that proof is entirely superfluous; a reminder of the facts is all that is needed. Therefore our preceding debate consisted of a simple statement of the case on either side. There was nothing abstruse or intricate in the discourse of Torquatus, and my own exposition was, I believe, as clear as daylight. But the Stoics, as you are aware, affect an exceedingly subtle or rather crabbed style of argument; and if the Greeks find it so, still more must we, who have actually to create a vocabulary, and to invent new terms to convey new ideas. This necessity will cause no surprise to anyone of moderate learning, when he reflects that in every branch of science lying outside the range of common everyday practice there must always be a large degree of novelty in the vocabulary, when it comes to fixing a terminology to denote the conceptions with which 4 the science in question deals. Thus Logic and Natural Philosophy alike make use of terms unfamiliar even to Greece; Geometry, Music, Grammar also, have an idiom of their own. Even the manuals of Rhetoric, which belong entirely to the practical sphere and to the life of the world, nevertheless employ for purposes of instruction a sort of private and peculiar phraseology.
II. And to leave out of account these liberal artsApology for coining new words in Latin. and accomplishments, even artisans would be unable to preserve the tradition of their crafts if they did not make use of words unknown to us though familiar to themselves. Nay, agriculture itself, a subject entirely unsusceptible of literary refinement, has