But it is well known he had been a pupil of Nausiphanes, the follower of Democritus; and since he could not deny it, he loaded him with insults in abundance.

If he never heard a lecture on these Democritean principles, what lectures did he ever hear?
What is there in Epicurus's physics that is not taken from Democritus?
For though he altered some things, as what I mentioned before of the oblique motions of the atoms, yet most of his doctrines are the same; his atoms--his vacuum--his images--infinity of space--innumerable worlds, their rise and decay--and almost every part of natural learning that he treats of.
Now, do you understand what is meant by quasi-body and quasi-blood?
For I not only acknowledge that you are a better judge of it than I am, but I can bear it without envy.

If any sentiments, indeed, are communicated without obscurity, what is there that Velleius can understand and Cotta not?
I know what body is, and what blood is; but I cannot possibly find out the meaning of quasi-body and quasi-blood.

Not that you intentionally conceal your principles from me, as Pythagoras did his from those who were not his disciples; or that you are intentionally obscure, like Heraclitus.

But the truth is (which I may venture to say in this company), you do not understand them yourself.
XXVII.