Chapter 9

de verbo_, which Goer. asserts to be the usual form. _Comprehensio_: cf. I. 41. _Ut Graeci_: for the ellipse of the verb cf. I. 44 _ut Democritus_. _Evidentiam_: other translations proposed by Cic. were _illustratio_ (Quint. VI. 2, 32) and _perspicientia_ (_De Off._ I. 15). _Fabricemur_: cf. 87, 119, 121. _Me appellabat_: Cic. was the great advocate for the Latinisation of Greek terms (_D.F._ III. 15). _Sed tamen_: this often resumes the interrupted narrative, see Madv. _Gram._ 480. _Ipsa evidentia_: note that the verb _evidere_ is not Latin.

§18. _Sustinere_: cf. 70. _Pertinaciam_: the exact meaning of this may be seen from _D.F._ II. 107, III. 1. It denotes the character which cannot recognise a defeat in argument and refuses to see the force of an opponent's reasoning. For the application of the term to the Academics, cf. n. on 14, 66, also I. 44 and _D.F._ V. 94, _N.D._ I. 13, in the last of which passages the Academy is called _procax_. _Mentitur_: cf. 12. _Ita negaret_: this _ita_ corresponds to _si_ below,--a common sequence of particles in Cic., cf. 19. Ακαταληπτον: the conj. of Turnebus καταληπτον is unnecessary, on account of the negative contained in _negaret_. _Visum_: cf. I. 40. _Trivimus_: cf. I. 27. _Visum igitur_: the Greek of this definition will be found in Zeller 86. The words _impressum effictumque_ are equivalent to εναπεσφραγισμενη και εναπομεμαγμενη in the Gk. It must not be forgotten that the Stoics held a sensation to be a real alteration (‛ετεροιωσις) of the material substance of the soul through the action of some external thing, which impresses its image on the soul as a seal does on wax, cf. Zeller 76 and 77 with footnotes. _Ex eo unde esset ... unde non esset_: this translation corresponds closely to the definition given by Sextus in four out of the six passages referred to by Zeller (in _Adv. Math._ VIII. 86 _Pyrrh. Hypotyp._ III. 242, the definition is clipt), and in Diog. Laert. VII. 50 (in 46 he gives a clipt form like that of Sextus in the two passages just referred to). It is worth remarking (as Petrus Valentia did, p. 290 of Orelli's reprint of his _Academica_) that Cic. omits to represent the words κατ' αυτο το ‛υπαρχον. Sextus _Adv. Math._ VII. 249 considers them essential to the definition and instances Orestes who looking at Electra, mistook her for an Erinys. The φαντασια therefore which he had although απο ‛υπαρχοντος (proceeding from an actually existent thing) was not κατα το ‛υπαρχον, i.e. did not truly represent that existent thing. Aug. _Cont. Acad._ II. 11 quotes Cicero's definition and condenses it thus; _his signis verum posse comprehendi quae signa non potest habere quod falsum est_. _Iudicium_: κριτηριον, a test to distinguish between the unknown and the known. _Eo, quo minime volt_: several things are clear, (1) that Philo headed a reaction towards dogmatism, (2) that he based the possibility of knowledge on a ground quite different from the καταληπτικη φαντασια, which he pronounced impossible, (3) that he distorted the views of Carneades to suit his own. As to (1) all ancient testimony is clear, cf. 11, Sextus _Pyrr. Hyp._ I. 235, who tells us that while the Carneadeans believed all things to be ακαταληπτα, Philo held them to be καταληπτα, and Numenius in Euseb. _Praep. Ev._ XIV. 8, p. 739, who treats him throughout his notice as a renegade. (2) is evident from the _Academica_ and from Sextus as quoted above. The foundation for knowledge which he substituted is more difficult to comprehend. Sextus indeed tells us that he held things to be _in their own nature_ καταληπτα (‛οσον δε επι τη φυσει των πραγματων αυτων καταλ.). But Arcesilas and Carneades would not have attempted to disprove this; they never tried to show that things _in themselves_ were incognisable, _but_ that human faculties do not avail to give information about them. Unless therefore Philo deluded himself with words, there was nothing new to him about such a doctrine. The Stoics by their καταληπτικη φαντασια professed to be able to get at _the thing in itself_, in its real being, if then Philo did away with the καταλ. φαντ. and substituted no other mode of curing the defects alleged by Arcesilas and Carneades to reside in sense, he was fairly open to the retort of Antiochus given in the text. Numenius treats his polemic against the καταλ. φαντ. as a mere feint intended to cover his retreat towards dogmatism. A glimpse of his position is afforded in 112 of this book, where we may suppose Cic. to be expressing the views of Philo, and not those of Clitomachus as he usually does. It would seem from that passage that he defined the cognisable to be "_quod impressum esset e vero_" (φαντασια απο ‛υπαρχοντος εναπομεμαγμενη), refusing to add "_quo modo imprimi non posset a falso_ (‛οια ουκ αν γενοιτο απο μη ‛υπαρχοντος), cf. my n. on the passage. Thus defined, he most likely tried to show that the cognisable was equivalent to the δηλον or πιθανον of Carneades, hence he eagerly pressed the doubtful statement of the latter that the wise man would "opine," that is, would pronounce definite judgments on phenomena. (See 78 of this book.) The scarcity of references to Philo in ancient authorities does not allow of a more exact view of his doctrine. Modern inquiry has been able to add little or nothing to the elucidation given in 1596 by Petrus Valentia in his book entitled _Academica_ (pp. 313--316 of the reprint by Orelli). With regard to (3), it it not difficult to see wherein Philo's "lie" consisted. He denied the popular view of Arcesilas and Carneades, that they were apostles of doubt, to be correct (12). I may add that from the mention of Philo's ethical works at the outset of Stobaeus' _Ethica_, he would appear to have afterwards left dialectic and devoted himself to ethics. What is important for us is, that Cic. never seems to have made himself the defender of the new Philonian dialectic. By him the dialectic of Carneades is treated as genuinely Academic. _Revolvitur_: cf. _De Div._ II. 13, also 148 of this book. _Eam definitionem_: it is noteworthy that the whole war between the sceptics and the dogmatists was waged over the definition of the single sensation. Knowledge, it was thought, was a homogeneous compound of these sense atoms, if I may so call them, on all hands it was allowed that _all_ knowledge ultimately rests on sense; therefore its possibility depends on the truth of the individual perception of sense.

§§19--29. Summary. If the senses are healthy and unimpaired, they give perfectly true information about external things. Not that I maintain the truth of _every_ sensation, Epicurus must see to that. Things which impede the action of the senses must always be removed, in practice we always do remove them where we can (19). What power the cultivated senses of painters and musicians have! How keen is the sense of touch! (20). After the perceptions of sense come the equally clear perceptions of the mind, which are in a certain way perceptions of sense, since they come through sense, these rise in complexity till we arrive at definitions and ideas (21). If these ideas may possibly be false, logic memory, and all kinds of arts are at once rendered impossible (22). That true perception is possible, is seen from moral action. Who would act, if the things on which he takes action might prove to be false? (23) How can wisdom be wisdom if she has nothing certain to guide her? There must he some ground on which action can proceed (24). Credence must be given to the thing which impels us to action, otherwise action is impossible (25). The doctrines of the New Academy would put an end to all processes of reasoning. The fleeting and uncertain can never be discovered. Rational proof requires that something, once veiled, should be brought to light (26). Syllogisms are rendered useless, philosophy too cannot exist unless her dogmas have a sure basis (27). Hence the Academics have been urged to allow their _dogma_ that perception is impossible, to be a certain perception of their minds. This, Carneades said, would be inconsistent, since the very dogma excludes the supposition that there can be _any_ true perception (28). Antiochus declared that the Academics could not be held to be philosophers if they had not even confidence in their one dogma (29).

§19. _Sensibus_: it is important to observe that the word _sensus_ like αισθησις means two things, (1) one of the _five_ senses, (2) an individual act of sensation. _Deus_: for the supposed god cf. _T.D._ II. 67. _Non videam_: this strong statement is ridiculed in 80. _De remo inflexo et de collo columbae_: cf. 79, 82. The κωπη εναλος κεκλασμενη and περιστερας τραχηλος are frequently mentioned, along with numerous other instances of the deceptiveness of sense, by Sext. Emp., e.g. _Pyrrhon. Hypot._ I. 119-121, _Adv. Math._ VII. 244, 414. Cicero, in his speech of the day before, had probably added other examples, cf. Aug. _Cont. Ac._ III. 27. _Epicurus hoc viderit_: see 79, 80. Epic. held all sensation, _per se_, to be infallible. The chief authorities for this are given in R. and P. 343, 344, Zeller 403, footnote. _Lumen mutari_: cf. _Brut._ 261. _Intervalla ... diducimus_: for this cf. Sext. _Pyrrh_. I. 118 πεμπτος εστι λογος (i.e. the 5th sceptic τροπος for showing sense to be untrustworthy) ‛ο παρα τας θεσεις (_situs_) και τα διαστηματα (_intervalla_) και τους τοπους. _Multaque facimus usque eo_: Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 258 παντα ποιει μεχρις αν τρανην και πληκτικην σπαση φαντασιαν. _Sui iudicii_: see for the gen. _M.D.F._ II. 27; there is an extraordinary instance in Plaut. _Persa_ V. 2, 8, quoted by Goer. _Sui cuiusque_: for this use of _suus quisque_ as a single word see _M.D.F._ V. 46.

§20. _Ut oculi ... cantibus_: Halm after Dav. treats this as a gloss: on the other hand I think it appropriate and almost necessary. _Quis est quin cernat_: read Madvig's strong remarks on Goerenz's note here (_D.F._ II. 27). _Umbris ... eminentia_: Pliny (see Forc.) often uses _umbra_ and _lumen_, to denote background and foreground, so in Gk. σκια and σκιασμα are opposed to λαμπρα; cf. also σκιαγραφειν, _adumbrare_, and Aesch. _Agam_. 1328. Cic. often applies metaphorically to oratory the two words here used, e.g. _De Or._ III. 101, and after him Quintilian, e.g. II. 17, 21. _Inflatu_: cf. 86 (where an answer is given) and αναβολη. _Antiopam_: of Pacuvius. _Andromacham_: of Ennius, often quoted by Cic., as _De Div._ I. 23. _Interiorem_: see R. and P. 165 and Zeller's _Socrates and the Socratic Schools_, 296. _Quia sentiatur_: αισθησις being their only κριτηριον. Madv. (without necessity, as a study of the passages referred to in R. and P. and Zeller will show) conj. _cui adsentiatur_, comparing 39, 58; cf. also 76. _Inter eum ... et inter_: for the repetition of _inter_ cf. _T.D._ IV. 32 and Madv. _Gram._ 470. _Nihil interesse_: if the doctrine of the Academics were true, a man might really be in pain when he fancied himself in pleasure, and _vice versa_; thus the distinction between pleasure and pain would be obscured. _Sentiet ... insaniat_: For the sequence cf. _D.F._ I. 62 and Wesenberg's fine note on _T.D._ V. 102.

§21. _Illud est album_: these are αξιωματα, judgments of the mind, in which alone truth and falsehood reside; see Zeller 107 sq. There is a passage in Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 344, 345 which closely resembles ours; it is too long to quote entire: αισθησεσι μεν ουν μοναις λαβειν ταληθες (which resides only in the αξιωμα) ου δυναται ανθρωπος. ... φυσει γαρ εισιν αλογοι ... δει δε εις φαντασιαν αχθηναι του τοιουτου πραγματος "τουτο λευκον εστι και τουτο γλυκυ εστιν." τωι δε τοιουτωι πραγματι ουκετι της αισθησεως εργον εστιν επιβαλλειν ... συνεσεως τε δει και μνημης. _Ille deinceps_: _deinceps_ is really out of place; cf. 24 _quomodo primum_ for _pr. quom._ _Ille equus est_: Cic. seems to consider that the αξιωμα, which affirms the existence of an abstract quality, is prior to that which affirms the existence of a concrete individual. I can quote no parallel to this from the Greek texts. _Expletam comprehensionem_: full knowledge. Here we rise to a definition. This one often appears in Sextus: e.g. _Adv. Math._ VII. ανθρωπος εστι ζωον λογικον θνητον, νου και επιστημης δεκτικον. The Stoic ‛οροι, and this among them, are amusingly ridiculed, _Pyrrh. Hyp._ II. 208--211. _Notitiae_: this Cic. uses as a translation both of προληψις and εννοια, for which see Zeller 79, 89. In I. 40 _notiones rerum_ is given. _Sine quibus_: δια γαρ των εννοιων τα πραγματα λαμβανεται Diog. VII. 42.

§22. _Igitur_: for the anacoluthia cf. Madv. _Gram._ 480. _Consentaneum_: so Sextus constantly uses ακολουθον. _Repugnaret_: cf. I. 19 and n. _Memoriae certe_: n. on 106. _Continet_: cf. _contineant_ in 40. _Quae potest esse_: Cic. nearly always writes _putat esse_, _potest esse_ and the like, not _esse putat_ etc., which form is especially rare at the end of a clause. _Memoria falsorum_: this difficulty is discussed in Plato _Sophist._ 238--239. _Ex multis animi perceptionibus_: the same definition of an art occurs in _N.D._ II. 148, _D.F._ III. 18 (see Madv.), Quint, II. 17, 41, Sext. _Pyrrh. Hyp._ III. 188 τεχνην ειναι συστημα εκ καταληψεον συγγεγυμνασμενων _ib._ III. 250. _Quam_: for the change from plural to singular (_perceptio in universum_) cf. n. on I. 38, Madv. _D.F._ II. 61, _Em._ 139. _Qui distingues_: Sext. _Adv. Math._ VIII. 280 ου διοισει της ατεχνιας ‛η τεχνη. Sextus often comments on similar complaints of the Stoics. _Aliud eiusmodi genus sit_: this distinction is as old as Plato and Arist., and is of constant occurrence in the late philosophy. Cf. Sext. _Adv. Math._ XI. 197 who adds a third class of τεχναι called αποτελεσματικαι to the usual θεωρητικαι and πρακτικαι, also Quint. II. 18, 1 and 2, where ποιητικη corresponds to the αποτ. of Sext. _Continget_: "will be the natural consequence." The notion that the verb _contingit_ denotes necessarily _good_ fortune is quite unfounded; see Tischer on _T.D._ III. 4. _Tractabit_: μελλει μεταχειριζεσθαι.

§23. _Cognitio_: like Germ. _lehre_, the branch of learning which concerns the virtues. Goer. is quite wrong in taking it to be a trans. of καταληψις here. _In quibus_: the antecedent is not _virtutum_, as Petrus Valentia (p. 292 ed. Orelli) supposes and gets into difficulty thereby, but _multa_. This is shown by _etiam_; not _merely_ the virtues but _also_ all επιστημη depends on καταληψεις; cf. I. 40, 41, with notes, Zeller 88, R. and P. 367. _Stabilem_: βεβαιον και αμεταπτωτου. _Artem vivendi_: "_tralaticium hoc apud omnes philosophos_" _M.D.F._ I. 42. Sextus constantly talks about ‛η ονειροπολουμενη περι τον βιον τεχνη (_Pyrrh. Hyp._ III. 250) the existence of which he disproves to his own satisfaction (_Adv. Math._ XI. 168 sq). _Ille vir bonus_: in all ancient systems, even the Epicurean, the happiness of the _sapiens_ must be proof against the rack; cf. esp. _D.F._ III. 29, 75, _T.D._ V. 73, Zeller 450, and the similar description of the σοφος in Plato's _Gorgias_. _Potius quam aut_: Lamb. _ut_; but I think C.F. Hermann is right in asserting after Wopkens that Cic. _never_ inserts _ut_ after _potius quam_ with the subj. Tischer on _T.D._ II. 52 affirms that _ut_ is frequently found, but gives no exx. For the meaning cf. _De Off._ I. 86, Aug. _Cont. Ac._ II. 12 who says the _sapiens_ of the Academy must be _desertor officiorum omnium_. _Comprehensi ... constituti_: cf. the famous _abiit, evasit, excessit, crupit_. _Iis rebus_: note the assumption that the _sensation_ corresponds to the _thing_ which causes it. _Adsensus sit ... possint_: nearly all edd. before Halm read _possunt_, but the subj. expresses the possibility as present to the mind of the supposed _vir bonus_. Cf. Madv. _Gram._ 368.

§24. _Primum_: out of place, see on 21. _Agere_: the dogmatist always held that the sceptic must, if consistent, be ανενεργητος εν βιωι (Sext. _Pyrrh. Hyp._ I. 23). _Extremum_: similar attempts to translate τελος are made in D.F. I. 11, 29, V. 17. _Cum quid agere_: cf. I. 23 for the phrase _Naturae accommodatum_. a purely Stoic expression, ‛ωμοιωμενον τη φυσει; cf. 38 and _D.F._ V. 17, also III. 16, Zeller 227, footnote, R. and P. 390. _Impellimur_: κινουμεθα, Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 391, as often.

§25. _Oportet videri_: "ought to be seen." For this use cf. 39, 81 and 122 of this book. _Videri_ at the end of this section has the weak sense, "to seem." Lucretius often passes rapidly from the one use to the other; cf. I. 262 with I. 270, and Munro's n., also _M.D.F._ II. 52, _Em. Liv._ p. 42. _Non poterit_: as the Academics allege. _Naturae ... alienum_: Cic. uses this adjective with the dat, and also with the ablative preceded by _ab_; I doubt whether the phrase _maiestate alienum_ (without the preposition) can be right in _De Div._ II. 102, where the best texts still keep it. _Non occurrit ... aget_: occurrit is probably the perfect. Cf. n. on 127.

§26. _Quid quod si_: Goer., outrageously reads _quid quod si, si_. _Tollitur_: the verb _tollere_ occurs as frequently in this sense as αναιρειν does in Sextus. _Lux lumenque_: Bentl. _dux_ The expression _dux vitae_ is of course frequent (cf. _N.D._ I. 40, _T.D._ V. 5 and Lucretius), but there is no need to alter. _Lux_ is properly natural light, _lumen_ artificial, cf. _Ad Att._ XVI. 13, 1. _lumina dimiseramus, nec satis lucebat_, D.F. III. 45 _solis luce ... lumen lucernae_. There is the same difference between φως and φεγγος, the latter is used for the former (φεγγος ‛ηλιου) just as _lumen_ is for _lux_ (_si te secundo lumine his offendere_--_Ad Att._ VII. 26, 1) but not often _vice versa_. Trans. "the luminary and the lamp of life," and cf. Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 269 where the φαντασια is called φεγγος. _Finis_: so in the beginning of the _Nicom. Eth._ Aristot. assumes that the actual existence of human exertion is a sufficient proof that there is a τελος. _Aperta_: a reminiscence of the frequently recurring Greek terms εκκαλυπτειν, εκκαλυπτικος etc., cf. Sextus _passim_, and _D.F._ I. 30. _Initium ... exitus_ = αρχη ... τελος. _Tenetur_: MSS. _tenet_, the nom. to which Guietus thought to be _ratio_ above. Αποδειξις: cf. the definition very often given by Sext. e.g. _Pyrrh. Hyp._ II. 143 λογος δι' ‛ομολογουμενων λημματων (premisses) κατα συναγωγην επιφοραν (conclusion) εκκαλυπτων αδηλον, also Diog. VII. 45, λογον δια των μαλλον καταλαμβανομενων το ‛ηττον καταλαμβανομενον περαινοντα (if the reading be right).

§27. _Notio_: another trans. of εννοια. _Conclusisse_: although the Greeks used συμπερασμα instead of επιφορα sometimes for the conclusion of the syllogism, they did not use the verb συμπεραινειν which has been supposed to correspond to _concludere_. It is more likely to be a trans. of συναγειν, and _conclusum argumentum_ of συνακτικος λογος, which terms are of frequent occurrence. _Rationibus progredi_: to a similar question Sextus answers, ουκ εστιν αναγκαιον τας εκεινον (the dogmatists) δογματολογιας προβαινειν, πλασματωδεις ‛υπαρχουσας (_Adv. Math._ VIII. 367). _Sapientiae ... futurum est_: for the dat. with _facio_ and _fio_ see Madv. _Gram._ 241, obs. 5, _Opusc._ I. 370, _D.F._ II. 79, and cf. 96 of this book. _Lex veri rectique_: cf. 29; the _constitutio veri_ and the determination of what is _rectum_ in morals are the two main tasks of philosophy. _Sapientique satis non sit_: so Manut. for the _sapientisque sit_ of the MSS. Halm after Dav. reads _sapientis, neque satis sit_, which I think is wrong, for if the ellipse be supplied the construction will run _neque dubitari potest quin satis sit_, which gives the exact opposite of the sense required. _Ratum_: cf. 141.

§28. _Perceptum_: thoroughly known and grasped. Similar arguments are very frequent in Sextus, e.g. _Adv. Math._ VIII. 281, where the dogmatist argues that if proof be impossible, as the sceptic says, there must be a proof to show it impossible; the sceptic doctrine must be _provable_. Cf. 109 of this book. _Postulanti_: making it a necessity for the discussion; cf. _De Leg._ I. 21. _Consentaneum esse_: ακολουθον ειναι. _Ut alia_: _although_ others. _Tantum abest ut--ut_: cf. Madv. _Gram._ 440 a.

§29. _Pressius_: cf. _De Fato_ 31, 33, _N.D._ II. 20, _T.D._ IV. 14, _Hortensius_ fragm. 46 ed. Nobbe. The word is mocked in 109. _Decretum_: of course the Academics would say they did not hold this δογμα as _stabile fixum ratum_ but only as _probabile_. Sextus however _Pyrrh. Hyp._ I. 226 (and elsewhere) accuses them of making it in reality what in words they professed it not to be, a fixed dogma. _Sentitis enim_: cf. _sentis_ in _D.F._ III. 26. _Fluctuare_: "to be at sea," Halm _fluctuari_, but the deponent verb is not elsewhere found in Cic. _Summa_: cf. _summa philosophiae_ _D.F._ II. 86. _Veri falsi_: cf. n. on 92. _Quae visa_: so Halm for MSS. _quaevis_, which edd. had changed to _quae a quovis_. _Repudiari_: the selection depended on the _probabile_ of course, with the Academics. _Veri falsique_: these words were used in different senses by the dogmatist and the sceptic, the former meant by them "the undestructibly true and false." This being so, the statements in the text are in no sense arguments, they are mere assertions, as Sext. says, ψιλη φασει ισον φερεται ψιλη φασις (_A.M._ VII. 315), φασει μεν φασις επισχεθησεται (_ib._ 337). _Cognoscendi initium_: cf. 26, "This I have," the Academic would reply, "in my _probabile_." _Extremum expetendi_: a rather unusual phrase for the ethical _finis_. _Ut moveri non possint_: so κινεισθαι is perpetually used in Sext. _Est ut opinor_: so Halm after Ernesti for _sit_ of the MSS. I think it very likely that the MSS. reading is right, and that the whole expression is an imitation of the Greek ‛ικανος ειοησθω and the like. The subj. is supported by _D.F._ III. 20, _De Off._ I. 8, _Ad Att._ XIII. 14, 3, where _ut opinor_ is thrown in as here, and by _Ac._ II. 17, _D.F._ III. 21, 24, _N.D._ I. 109, where _si placet_ is appended in a similar way.

§§30--36. Summary. With respect to physical science, we might urge that nature has constructed man with great art. His mind is naturally formed for the attainment of knowledge (30). For this purpose the mind uses the senses, and so gradually arrives at virtue, which is the perfection of the reason. Those then who deny that any certainty can be attained through the senses, throw the whole of life into confusion (31). Some sceptics say "we cannot help it." Others distinguish between the absolute absence of certainty, and the denial of its absolute presence. Let us deal with these rather than with the former (32). Now they on the one hand profess to distinguish between true and false, and on the other hold that no absolutely certain method for distinguishing between true and false is possible (33). This is absurd, a thing cannot be known at all unless by such marks as can appertain to no other thing. How can a thing be said to be "evidently white," if the possibility remains that it may be really black? Again, how can a thing be "evident" at all if it may be after all a mere phantom (34)? There is no definite mark, say the sceptics, by which a thing may be known. Their "probability" then is mere random guess work (35). Even if they only profess to decide after careful pondering of the circumstances, we reply that a decision which is still possibly false is useless (36).

§30. _Physicis_: neuter not masc.; cf. I. 6. _Libertatem et licentiam_: _et_ = "and even." _Libertas_ = παρρησια as often in Tacitus. _Abditis rebus et obscuris_: cf. n. on I. 15, and the word συνεσκιασμενος Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 26. _Lucem eripere_: like _tollere_ (n. on 26), cf. 38, 103 and _N.D._ I. 6. For the sense see n. on 16, also 61. _Artificio_: this word is used in Cic. as equivalent to _ars_ in all its senses, cf. 114 and _De Or._ II. 83. _Fabricata esset_: the expression is sneered at in 87. _Quem ad modum primum_: so Halm rightly for MSS. _prima_ or _primo_, which latter is not often followed by _deinde_ in Cicero. _Primum_ is out of position, as in 24. _Appetitio pulsa_: = _mota_, set in motion. For ‛ορμη see 24. _Intenderemus_: as in the exx. given in 20. _Fons_: "reservoir," rather than "source" here. It will be noted that συγκαταθεσις must take place before the ‛ορμη is roused. _Ipse sensus est_: an approach to this theory is made in Plat. _Theaet._ 185, 191. Cf. especially Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 350 και ‛οι μεν διαφερειν αυτην των αισθησεων, ‛ως ‛οι πλειους, ‛οι δε αυτην ειναι τας αισθησεις ... ‛ης στασεως ηρξε Στρατον. All powers of sensation with the Stoics, who are perhaps imitated here, were included in the ‛ηγεμονικον, cf. n. on I. 38. _Alia quasi_: so Faber for _aliqua_. "_In vera et aperta partitione nec Cicero nec alius quisquam aliquis--alius dixit, multo minus alius--aliquis_," _M.D.F._ III. 63. Goer. on the other hand says he can produce 50 exx. of the usage, he forbears however, to produce them. _Recondit_: so the εννοιαι are called αποκειμεναι νοησεις (Plut. _De Sto. Repug._ p. 1057 a). In Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 373 μνημη is called θησαυρισμος φαντασιων. _Similitudinibus_: καθ' ‛ομοιωσιν Sext. _Pyrr. Hyp._ II. 75. Cic. uses this word as including all processes by which the mind gets to know things not immediately perceived by sense. In _D.F._ III. 33 it receives its proper meaning, for which see Madv. there, and the passages he quotes, "analogies" will here best translate the word, which, is used in the same wide sense in _N.D._ II. 22 38. _Construit_: so MSS. Orelli gave _constituit_. _Notitiae_: cf. 22. Cic. fails to distinguish between the φυσικαι εννοιαι or κοιναι which are the προληψεις, and those εννοιαι which are the conscious product of the reason, in the Stoic system. Cf. _M.D.F._ III. 21, V. 60, for this and other inaccuracies of Cic. in treating of the same subject, also Zeller 79. _Rerumque_: "facts". _Perfecta_: _sapientia_, _virtus_, _perfecta ratio_, are almost convertible terms in the expositions of Antiocheanism found in Cic. Cf. I. 20.

§31. _Vitaeque constantiam_: which philosophy brings, see 23. _Cognitionem_: επιστημην. _Cognitio_ is used to translate καταληψις in _D.F._ II. 16, III. 17, cf. n. on I. 41. _Ut dixi ... dicemus_: For the repetition cf. 135, 146, and _M.D.F._ I. 41. The future tense is odd and unlike Cic. Lamb. wrote _dicimus_, I would rather read _dicamus_; cf. n. on 29. _Per se_: καθ' αυτην, there is no need to read _propter_, as Lamb. _Ut virtutem efficiat_: note that virtue is throughout this exposition treated as the result of the exercise of the _reason_. _Evertunt_: cf. _eversio_ in 99. _Animal ... animo_: Cic. allows _animus_ to all animals, not merely _anima_; see Madv. _D.F._ V. 38. The rule given by Forc. s.v. _animans_ is therefore wrong. _Temeritate_: προπετεια, which occurs _passim_ in Sext. The word, which is constantly hurled at the dogmatists by the sceptics, is here put by way of retort. So in Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 260, the sceptic is called εμβροντητος for rejecting the καταληπτικη φαντασια.

§32. _Incerta_: αδηλα. _Democritus_: cf. I. 44. _Quae ... abstruserit_: "_because_ she has hidden." _Alii autem_: note the ellipse of the verb, and cf. I. 2. _Etiam queruntur_: "actually complain;" "go so far as to complain." _Inter incertum_: cf. Numenius in Euseb. _Pr. Ev._ XIV. 7, 12, διαφοραν ειναι αδηλου και ακαταληπτου, και παντα μεν ειναι ακαταληπτα ου παντα δε αδηλα (quoted as from Carneades), also 54 of this book. _Docere_: "to prove," cf. n. on 121. _Qui haec distinguunt_: the followers of Carneades rather than those of Arcesilas; cf. n. on I. 45. _Stellarum numerus_: this typical uncertainty is constantly referred to in Sext. e.g. _P.H_. II. 90, 98, _A.M_. VII. 243, VIII. 147, 317; where it is reckoned among things αιωνιον εχοντα αγνωσιαν. So in the Psalms, God only "telleth the number of the stars;" cf. 110. _Aliquos_: contemptuous; απονενοημενους τινας. Cf. _Parad._ 33 _agrestis aliquos_. _Moveri_: this probably refers to the speech of Catulus; see Introd. p. 51. Aug. _Cont. Ac._ III. 15 refers to this passage, which must have been preserved in the second edition.

§33. _Veri et falsi_: these words Lamb. considered spurious in the first clause, and Halm brackets; but surely their repetition is pointed and appropriate. "You talk about a rule for distinguishing between the true and the false while you do away with the notion of true and false altogether." The discussion here really turns on the use of terms. If it is fair to use the term "true" to denote the _probably true_, the Academics are not open to the criticism here attempted; cf. 111 _tam vera quam falsa cernimus_. _Ut inter rectum et pravum_: the sceptic would no more allow the absolute certainty of this distinction than of the other. _Communis_: the απαραλλακτος of Sextus; "in whose vision true and false are confused." Cf. κοινη φαντασια αληθους και ψευδους Sext. _A.M._ VII. 164 (R. and P. 410), also 175. _Notam_: the σημειον of Sextus; cf. esp. _P.H_. II. 97 sq. _Eodem modo falsum_: Sext. _A.M._ VII. 164 (R. and P. 410) ουδεμια εστιν αληθης φαντασια ‛οια ουκ αν γενοιτο ψευδης. _Ut si quis_: Madv. in an important n. on _D.F._ IV. 30 explains this thus; _ista ratione si quis ... privaverit, possit dicere_. I do not think our passage at all analogous to those he quotes, and still prefer to construe _quem_ as a strong relative, making a pause between _quis_ and _quem_. _Visionem_: Simply another trans. of φαντασια. _Ut Carneades_: see Sext. _A.M._ VII. 166 την τε πιθανην φαντασιαν και την πιθανην ‛αμα και απερισπαστον και διεξωδευμενην (R. and P. 411). As the trans. of the latter phrase in Zeller 524 "probable undisputed and tested" is imperfect, I will give Sextus' own explanation. The merely πιθανη is that sensation which at first sight, without any further inquiry, seems probably true (Sext. _A.M._ VII. 167--175). Now no sensation is perceived _alone_; the percipient subject has always other synchronous sensations which are able to turn him aside (περισπαν, περιελκειν) from the one which is the immediate object of his attention. This last is only called απερισπαστος when examination has shown all the concomitant sensations to be in harmony with it. (Sext. as above 175--181.) The word "undisputed," therefore, is a misleading trans. of the term. The διεξωδευμενη ("thoroughly explored") requires more than a mere apparent agreement of the concomitant sensations with the principal one. Circumstances quite external to the sensations themselves must be examined; the time at which they occur, or during which they continue; the condition of the space within which they occur, and the apparent intervals between the person and the objects; the state of the air; the disposition of the person's mind, and the soundness or unsoundness of his eyes (Sext. 181--189).

§34. _Communitas_: απαραλλαξια or επιμιξια των φαντασιων; Sext. _A.M._ VII. 403, _P.H._ I. 127. _Proprium_: so Sext. often uses ιδιομα, e.g. _A. M._ IX. 410. _Signo notari_: _signo_ for _nota_, merely from love of variety. The _in_ before _communi_, though bracketed by Halm after Manut., Lamb. is perfectly sound; it means "within the limits of," and is so used after _notare_ in _De Or._, III. 186. _Convicio_: so Madv. _Em._ 143 corrected the corrupt MSS. readings, comparing _Orator_ 160, _Ad Fam._ XV. 18. A.W. Zumpt on _Pro Murena_ 13 rightly defines the Ciceronian use of the word, "_Non unum maledictum appellatur convicium sed multorum verborum quasi vociferatio_." He is wrong however in thinking that Cic. only uses the word _once_ in the plural (_Ad Att._ II. 18, 1), for it occurs _N.D._ II. 20, and elsewhere. _Perspicua_: εναργη, a term used with varying signification by all the later Greek schools. _Verum illud quidem_: "which is indeed what _they_ call 'true'." _Impressum_: n. on 18. _Percipi atque comprehendi_: Halm retains the barbarous _ac_ of the MSS. before the guttural. It is quite impossible that Cic. could have written it. The two verbs are both trans. of καταλαμβανεσθαι; Cic. proceeds as usual on the principle thus described in _D.F._ III. 14 _erit notius quale sit, pluribus notatum vocabulis idem declarantibus_. _Subtiliter_: Cic.'s constant trans. of ακριβως or κατ' ακριβειαν (_passim_ in Sext. e.g. _P.H._ II. 123). _Inaniterne moveatur_: MSS. agree in _ve_ for _ne_, on which see _M.D.F._ IV. 76. _Inaniter_ = κενως = ψευδως. Cf. n. on I. 35, also II. 47, _D.F._ V. 3 (_inaniter moveri_), _T.D._ IV. 13, _De Div._ II. 120, 126, 140 (_per se moveri_), Greek κενοπαθειν (Sext. _P.H._ II. 49), κενοπαθεια (= _inanis motus_, Sext. _A.M._ VIII. 184), κενοπαθηματα και αναπλασματα της διανοιας (_ib._ VIII. 354), διακενος ‛ελκυσμος (_ib._ VII. 241), διακενος φαντασια (_ib._ VIII. 67), and the frequent phrase κινημα της διανοιας. For the meaning see n. on 47. _Relinquitur_: so in Sext. απολειπειν is constantly used as the opposite of αναιρειν (_tollere_).

§35. _Neminem_ etc.: they are content to make strong statements without any mark of certainty. _Primo quasi adspectu_: the _merely_ πιθανη φαντασια is here meant; see 33.

§36. _Ex circumspectione_, etc.: the διεξωδευμενη; see n. on 33. _Primum quia ... deinde_: for the slight anacoluthia, cf. _M.D.F_ ed. II. p. 796. _Iis visis_, etc.: i.e. if you have a number of _things_, emitting a number of _appearances_, and you cannot be sure of uniting each _appearance_ to the _thing_ from which it proceeds, then you can have no faith in any _appearance_ even if you have gone through the process required by Carneades' rules. _Ad verum ipsum_: cf. 40. _Quam proxime_: cf. 47, and also 7. _Insigne_: σημειον, the same as _nota_ and _signum_ above. _Quo obscurato_: so Lamb. for MSS. _obscuro_ which Halm keeps. Cf. _quam obscurari volunt_ in 42 and _quo sublato_ in 33. _Argumentum_: Cic. seems to be thinking of the word τεκμηριον, which, however, the Stoics hardly use. _Id quod significatur_: το σημειωντον in Sext.

§§37--40. Summary The distinction of an animal is to act. You must either therefore deprive it of sensation, or allow it to assent to phenomena (37). Mind, memory, the arts and virtue itself, require a firm assent to be given to some phenomena, he therefore who does away with assent does away with all action in life (38, 39).

§37. _Explicabamus_: 19--21 and 30 (_quae vis esset in sensibus_). _Inanimum_: not _inanimatum_, cf. _M.D.F_. IV. 36. _Agit aliquid_: I. 23. _Quae est in nostra_: Walker's insertion of _non_ before _est_ is needless, cf. n. on I. 40. It is the impact of the sensation from without, not the assent given to it, that is involuntary (Sext. _A.M._ VIII. 397 το μεν γαρ φαντασιωθηναι αβουλητον ην). For _in potestate_ cf. _De Fato_ 9, _N.D._ I. 69

§38. _Eripitur_: cf. 30. _Neque sentire_: Christ om. _neque_; but the sceptics throughout are supposed to rob people of their senses. _Cedere_: cf. εικειν, ειξις in Sext. _P.H._ I. 193, 230, Diog. VII. 51, των δε αισθητικων μετα ειξεως και συγκαταθεσεως γινονται [‛αι φαντασια]; also 66 of this book. Οικειον: cf. 34. _Adsentitur statim_: this really contradicts a good deal that has gone before, esp. 20. _Memoriam_: cf. 22. _In nostra potestate_: this may throw light on fragm. 15 of the _Ac. Post._, which see.

§39. _Virtus_: even the Stoics, who were fatalists as a rule, made moral action depend on the freedom of the will; see n. on I. 40. _Ante videri aliquid_ for the doctrine cf. 25, for the passive use of _videri_, n. on 25. _Adsentiatur_: the passive use is illustrated by Madv. _Em._ 131, the change of construction from infin. to subj. after _necesse est_ on _D.F._ V. 25. _Tollit e vita_: so _De Fato_ 29.

§§40--42. Summary. The Academics have a regular method. They first give a general definition of sensation, and then lay down the different classes of sensations. Then they put forward their two strong arguments, (1) _things_ which produce _sensations_ such as might have been produced in the same form by other _things_, cannot be partly capable of being perceived, partly not capable, (2) _sensations_ must be assumed to be of the same form if our faculties do not enable us to distinguish between them. Then they proceed. Sensations are partly true, partly false, the false cannot of course be real _perceptions_, while the true are always of a form which the false _may_ assume. Now sensations which are indistinguishable from false cannot be partly perceptions, partly not. There is therefore no sensation which is also a perception (40). Two admissions, they say, are universally made, (1) false sensations cannot be perceptions, (2) sensations which are indistinguishable from false, cannot be partly perceptions, partly not. The following two assertions they strive to prove, (1) sensations are partly true, partly false, (2) every sensation which proceeds from a reality, has a form which it might have if it proceeded from an unreality (41). To prove these propositions, they divide perceptions into those which are sensations, and those which are deduced from sensations; after which they show that credit cannot be given to either class (42). [The word "perception" is used to mean "a certainly known sensation."]

§40. _Quasi fundamenta_: a trans. probably of θεμελιος or the like; cf. ‛ωσπερ θεμελιος in Sext. _A.M._ V. 50. _Artem_: method, like τεχνη, cf. _M.D.F._ III. 4, Mayor on Iuv. VII. 177. _Vim_: the general character which attaches to all φαντασιαι; _genera_ the different classes of φαντασιαι. _Totidem verbis_: of course with a view to showing that nothing really corresponded to the definition. Carneades largely used the _reductio ad absurdum_ method. _Contineant ... quaestionem_: cf. 22 and _T.D._ IV. 65 _una res videtur causam continere_. _Quae ita_: it is essential throughout this passage to distinguish clearly the _sensation_ (_visum_) from the _thing_ which causes it. Here the _things_ are meant; two _things_ are supposed to cause two _sensations_ so similar that the person who has one of the _sensations_ cannot tell from which of the two _things_ it comes. Under these circumstances the sceptics urge that it is absurd to divide _things_ into those which can be perceived (known with certainty) and those which cannot. _Nihil interesse autem_: the sceptic is not concerned to prove the absolute similarity of the two sensations which come from the two dissimilar things, it is enough if he can show that human faculties are not perfect enough to discern whatever difference may exist, cf. 85. _Alia vera sunt_: Numenius in Euseb. _Pr. Ev._ XIV. 8, 4 says Carneades allowed that truth and falsehood (or reality and unreality) could be affirmed of _things_, though not of _sensations_. If we could only pierce _through_ a sensation and arrive at its source, we should be able to tell whether to believe the sensation or not. As we cannot do this, it is wrong to assume that _sensation_ and _thing_ correspond. Cf. Sext. _P.H._ I. 22 περι μεν του φαισθαι τοιον η τοιον το ‛υποκειμενον (i.e. the thing from which the appearance proceeds) ουδεις ισως αμφισβητει, περι δε του ει τοιουτον εστιν ‛οποιον φαινεται ζητειται. Neither Carneades nor Arcesilas ever denied, as some modern sceptics have done, the actual existence of things which cause sensations, they simply maintained that, granting the existence of the things, our sensations do not give us correct information about them. _Eiusdem modi_: cf. 33 _eodem modo_. _Non posse accidere_: this is a very remarkable, and, as Madv. (_D.F._ I. 30) thinks, impossible, change from _recta oratio to obliqua_. Halm with Manut. reads _potest_. Cf. 101.

§41. _Neque enim_: a remark of Lucullus' merely. _Quod sit a vero_: cf. Munio on Lucr. II. 51 _fulgor ab auro_. _Possit_: for the om. of _esse_ cf. n. on I. 29.

§42. _Proposita_: cf. προτασεις _passim_ in Sext. _In sensus_: = _in ea, quae ad sensus pertinent_ cf. I. 20. _Omni consuetudine_: "general experience" εμπειρια, cf. _N.D._ I. 83. _Quam obscurari volunt_: cf. I. 33. _quod explanari volebant_; the em. of Dav. _obscurare_ is against Cic.'s usage, that of Christ _quam observari nolunt_ is wanton without being ingenious. _De reliquis_: i.e. _iis quae a sensibus ducuntur_. _In singulisque rebus_: the word _rebus_ must mean _subjects_, not _things_, to which the words _in minima dispertiunt_ would hardly apply. _Adiuncta_: Sext. _A.M._ VII. 164 (R. and P. 410) πασηι τη δοκουσηι αληθει καθεσταναι ευρισκεται τις απαραλλακτος ψευδης, also VII. 438, etc.

§§43--45. Summary. The sceptics ought not to _define_, for (1) a definition cannot be a definition of two things, (2) if the definition is applicable only to one thing, that thing must be capable of being thoroughly known and distinguished from others (43). For the purposes of reasoning their _probabile_ is not enough. Reasoning can only proceed upon _certain_ premisses. Again to say that there are false sensations is to say that there are true ones; you acknowledge therefore a difference, then you contradict yourselves and say there is none (44). Let us discuss the matter farther. The innate clearness of _visa_, aided by reason, can lead to knowledge (45).

§43. _Horum_: Lamb. _harum_; the text however is quite right, cf. Madv. _Gram._ 214 b. _Luminibus_: cf. 101. _Nihilo magis_: = ουδεν μαλλον, which was constantly in the mouths of sceptics, see e.g. Sext. _P.H._ I. 14. _Num illa definitio ... transferri_: I need hardly point out that the ‛ορος of the Academics was merely founded on probability, just as their "truth" was (cf. n. on 29). An Academic would say in reply to the question, "probably it cannot, but I will not affirm it." _Vel illa vera_: these words seem to me genuine, though nearly all editors attack them. _Vel_ = "even" i.e. if _even_ the definition is firmly known, the thing, which is more important, must also be known. In _illa vera_ we have a pointed mocking repetition like that of _veri et falsi_ in 33. _In falsum_: note that _falsum_ = _aliam rem_ above. For the sense cf. Sext. _P.H._ II. 209 μοχθηρους ‛ορους ειναι τους περιεχοντας τι των μη προσοντων τοις ‛οριστοις, and the schoolmen's maxim _definitio non debet latior esse definito suo_. _Minime volunt_: cf. 18. _Partibus_: Orelli after Goer. ejected this, but _omnibus_ hardly ever stands for _omn. rebus_, therefore C.F. Hermann reads _pariter rebus_ for _partibus_. A little closer attention to the subject matter would have shown emendation to be unnecessary, cf. 42 _dividunt in partis_, _T.D._ III. 24, where _genus_ = division, _pars_ = subdivision.

§44. _Impediri ... fatebuntur_: essentially the same argument as in 33 at the end. _Occurretur_: not an imitation of εναντιουσθαι as Goer. says, but of απανταν, which occurs very frequently in Sext. _Sumpta_: the two premisses are in Gk. called together λημματα, separately λημμα and προσληψις (_sumptio et adsumptio_ _De Div_ II. 108). _Orationis_: as Faber points out, Cic. does sometimes use this word like _ratio_ (συλλογισμος), cf. _De Leg._ I. 48 _conclusa oratio_. Fab. refers to Gell. XV. 26. _Profiteatur_: so ‛υπισχνεισθαι is often used by Sext. e.g. _A.M._ VIII. 283. _Patefacturum_: n. on 26, εκκαλυπτειν, εκκαλυπτικος, δηλωτικος (the last in Sext. _A.M._ VIII. 277) often recur in Greek. _Primum esse ... nihil interesse_: there is no inconsistency. Carneades allowed that _visa_, _in themselves_, might be true or false, but affirmed that human faculties were incapable of distinguishing those _visa_ which proceed from real things and give a correct representation of the things, from those which either are mere phantoms or, having a real source, do not correctly represent it. Lucullus confuses _essential_ with _apparent_ difference. _Non iungitur_: a supposed case of διαρτησις, which is opposed to συναρτησις and explained in Sext. _A.M._ VIII. 430.

§45. _Assentati_: here simply = _assensi_. _Praeteritis_: here used in the strong participial sense, "in the class of things passed over," cf. _in remissis_ _Orat._ 59. _Primum igitur ... sed tamen_: for the slight anacoluthia cf. Madv. _Gram._ 480. _Iis qui videntur_: Goer. _is qui videtur_, which is severely criticised by Madv. _Em._ 150. For Epicurus' view of sensation see n. on 79, 80.

§§46--48. Summary. The refusal of people to assent to the innate clearness of some phenomena (εναργεια) is due to two causes, (1) they do not make a serious endeavour to see the light by which these phenomena are surrounded, (2) their faith is shaken by sceptic paradoxes (46). The sceptics argue thus: you allow that mere phantom sensations are often seen in dreams, why then do you not allow what is easier, that two sensations caused by two really existing things may be mistaken the one for the other? (47). Further, they urge that a phantom sensation produces very often the same effect as a real one. The dogmatists say they admit that mere phantom sensations _do_ command assent. Why should they not admit that they command assent when they so closely resemble real ones as to be indistinguishable from them? (48)

§46. _Circumfusa sint_: Goer. retains the MSS. _sunt_ on the ground that the clause _quanta sint_ is inserted παρενθετικως! Orelli actually follows him. For the phrase cf. 122 _circumfusa tenebris_. _Interrogationibus_: cf. I. 5 where I showed that the words _interrogatio_ and _conclusio_ are convertible. I may add that in Sextus pure syllogisms are very frequently called ερωτησεις, and that he often introduces a new argument by ερωταται και τουτο, when there is nothing interrogatory about the argument at all. _Dissolvere_: απολυεσθαι in Sext. _Occurrere_: cf. 44.

§47. _Confuse loqui_: the mark of a bad dialectician, affirmed of Epicurus in _D.F._ II. 27. _Nulla sunt_: on the use of _nullus_ for _non_ in Cic. cf. Madv. _Gram._ 455 obs. 5. The usage is mostly colloquial and is very common in Plaut. and Terence, while in Cic. it occurs mostly in the Letters. _Inaniter_: cf. 34. There are two ways in which a sensation may be false, (1) it may come from one really existent thing, but be supposed by the person who feels it to be caused by a totally different thing, (2) it may be a mere φαντασμα or αναπλασμα της διανοιας, a phantom behind which there is no reality at all. _Quae in somnis videantur_: for the support given by Stoics to all forms of divination see Zeller 166, _De Div._ I. 7, etc. _Quaerunt_: a slight anacoluthon from _dicatis_ above. _Quonam modo ... nihil sit omnino_: this difficult passage can only be properly explained in connection with 50 and with the general plan of the Academics expounded in 41. After long consideration I elucidate it as follows. The whole is an attempt to prove the proposition announced in 41 and 42 viz. _omnibus veris visis adiuncta esse falsa_. The criticism in 50 shows that the argument is meant to be based on the assumption known to be Stoic, _omnia deum posse_. If the god can manufacture (_efficere_) sensations which are false, but probable (as the Stoics say he does in dreams), why can he not manufacture false sensations which are so probable as to closely resemble true ones, or to be only with difficulty distinguishable from the true, or finally to be utterly indistinguishable from the true (this meaning of _inter quae nihil sit omnino_ is fixed by 40, where see n.)? _Probabilia_, then, denotes false sensations such as have only a slight degree of resemblance to the true, by the three succeeding stages the resemblance is made complete. The word _probabilia_ is a sort of tertiary predicate after _efficere_ ("to manufacture so as to be probable"). It _must not be repeated_ after the second _efficere_, or the whole sense will be inverted and this section placed out of harmony with 50. _Plane proxime_: = _quam proxime_ of 36.

§48. _Ipsa per sese_: simply = _inaniter_ as in 34, 47, i.e. without the approach of any external object. _Cogitatione_: the only word in Latin, as διανοια is in Greek, to express our "imagination." _Non numquam_: so Madv. for MSS. _non inquam_. Goer. after Manut. wrote _non inquiunt_ with an interrogation at _omnino_. _Veri simile est_: so Madv. _D.F._ III. 58 for _sit_. The argument has the same purpose as that in the last section, viz to show that phantom sensations may produce the same effect on the mind as those which proceed from realities. _Ut si qui_: the _ut_ here is merely "as," "for instance," cf. n. on 33. _Nihil ut esset_: the _ut_ here is a repetition of the _ut_ used several times in the early part of the sentence, all of them alike depend on _sic_. Lamb. expunged _ut_ before _esset_ and before _quicquam_. _Intestinum et oblatum_: cf. Sext. _A.M._ VII. 241 ητοι των εκτος η των εν ‛ημιν παθων, and the two classes of _falsa visa_ mentioned in n. on 47. _Sin autem sunt_, etc.: if there _are_ false sensations which are probable (as the Stoics allow), why should there not be false sensations so probable as to be with difficulty distinguishable from the true? The rest exactly as in 47.

§§49--53. Antiochus attacked these arguments as _soritae_, and therefore faulty (49). The admission of a certain amount of similarity between true and false sensations does not logically lead to the impossibility of distinguishing between the true and the false (50). We contend that these phantom sensations lack that self evidence which we require before giving assent. When we have wakened from the dream, we make light of the sensations we had while in it (51). But, say our opponents, while they last our dreaming sensations are as vivid as our waking ones. This we deny (52). "But," say they, "you allow that the wise man in madness withholds his assent." This proves nothing, for he will do so in many other circumstances in life. All this talk about dreamers, madmen and drunkards is unworthy our attention (53).

§49. _Antiochus_: Sext. often quotes him in the discussion of this and similar subjects. _Ipsa capita_: αυτα τα κεφαλαια. _Interrogationis_: the _sorites_ was always in the form of a series of questions, cf. _De Div._ II. 11 (where Cic. says the Greek word was already naturalised, so that his proposed trans. _acervalis_ is unnecessary), _Hortens._ fragm. 47, and n. on 92. _Hoc vocant_: i.e. _hoc genus_, cf. _D.F._ III. 70 _ex eo genere, quae prosunt_. _Vitiosum_: cf. _D.F._ IV. 50 _ille sorites, quo nihil putatis_ (Stoici) _vitiosius_. Most edd. read _hos_, which indeed in 136 is a necessary em. for MSS. _hoc_. _Tale visum_: i.e. _falsum_. _Dormienti_: sc. τινι. _Ut probabile sit_, etc.: cf. 47, 48 and notes. _Primum quidque_: not _quodque_ as Klotz; cf. _M.D.F._ II. 105, to whose exx. add _De Div._ II. 112, and an instance of _proximus quisque_ in _De Off._ II. 75. _Vitium_: cf. _vitiosum_ above.

§50. _Omnia deum posse_: this was a principle generally admitted among Stoics at least, see _De Div._ II. 86. For the line of argument here cf. _De Div._ II. 106 _fac dare deos, quod absurdum est_. _Eadem_: this does not mean that the two sensations are merged into one, but merely that when one of them is present, it cannot be distinguished from the other; see n. on 40. _Similes_: after this _sunt_ was added by Madv. _In suo genere essent_: substitute _esse viderentur_ for _essent_, and you get the real view of the Academic, who would allow that _things in their essence_ are divisible into sharply-defined _genera_, but would deny that the _sensations_ which proceed from or are caused by the _things_, are so divisible.

§51. _Una depulsio_: cf. 128 (_omnium rerum una est definitio comprehendendi_), _De Div._ II. 136 (_omnium somniorum una ratio est_). _In quiete_: = _in somno_, a rather poetical usage. _Narravit_: Goer., Orelli, Klotz alter into _narrat_, most wantonly. _Visus Homerus_, etc.: this famous dream of Ennius, recorded in his _Annals_, is referred to by Lucr. I. 124, Cic. _De Rep._ VI. 10 (_Somn. Scip._ c. 1), Hor. _Epist._ II. 1, 50. _Simul ut_: rare in Cic., see Madv. _D.F._ II. 33, who, however, unduly restricts the usage. In three out of the five passages where he allows it to stand, the _ut_ precedes a vowel; Cic. therefore used it to avoid writing _ac_ before a vowel, so that in _D.F._ II. 33 _ut_ should probably be written (with Manut. and others) for _et_ which Madv. ejects.

§52. _Eorumque_: MSS. om. _que_. Dav. wrote _ac_ before _eorum_, this however is as impossible in Cic. as the c before a guttural condemned in n. on 34. For the argument see n. on 80 _quasi vero quaeratur quid sit non quid videatur_. _Primum interest_: for om. of _deinde_ cf. 45, 46. _Imbecillius_: cf. I. 41. _Edormiverunt_: "have slept _off_ the effects," cf. αποβριζειν in Homer. _Relaxentur_: cf. ανιεναι της οργης Aristoph. _Ran._ 700, _relaxare_ is used in the neut. sense in _D.F._ II. 94. _Alcmaeonis_: the Alcmaeon of Ennius is often quoted by Cic., e.g. _D.F._ IV. 62.

§53. _Sustinet_: επεχει; see on 94. _Aliquando sustinere_: the point of the Academic remark lay in the fact that in the state of madness the εποχη of the _sapiens_ becomes _habitual_; he gives up the attempt to distinguish between true and false _visa_. Lucullus answers that, did no distinction exist, he would give up the attempt to draw it, even in the sane condition. _Confundere_: so 58, 110, Sext. _A.M._ VIII. 56 (συγχεουσι τα πραγματα), _ib._ VIII. 157 (συγχεομεν τον βιον), VIII. 372 (‛ολην συγχεει την φιλοσοφον ζητησιν), Plut. _De Communi Notit. adv. Stoicos_ p. 1077 (‛ως παντα πραγματα συγχεουσι). _Utimur_: "we have to put up with," so χρησθαι is used in Gk. _Ebriosorum_: "habitual drunkards," more invidious than _vinolenti_ above. _Illud attendimus_: Goer., and Orelli write _num illud_, but the emphatic _ille_ is often thus introduced by itself in questions, a good ex. occurs in 136. _Proferremus_: this must apparently be added to the exx. qu. by Madv. on _D.F._ II. 35 of the subj. used to denote "_non id quod fieret factumve esset, sed quod fieri debuerit_." As such passages are often misunderstood, I note that they can be most rationally explained as elliptic constructions in which a _condition_ is expressed without its _consequence_. We have an exact parallel in English, e.g. "_tu dictis Albane maneres_" may fairly be translated, "hadst thou but kept to thy word, Alban!" Here the condition "_if_ thou hadst kept, etc." stands without the consequence "thou wouldst not have died," or something of the kind. Such a condition may be expressed without _si_, just as in Eng. without "_if_," cf. Iuv. III. 78 and Mayor's n. The use of the Greek optative to express a wish (with ει γαρ, etc., and even without ει) is susceptible of the same explanation. The Latin subj. has many such points of similarity with the Gk. optative, having absorbed most of the functions of the lost Lat. optative. [Madv. on _D.F._ II. 35 seems to imply that he prefers the hypothesis of a suppressed protasis, but as in his _Gram._ 351 _b_, obs. 4 he attempts no elucidation, I cannot be certain.]

§§54--63. Summary. The Academics fail to see that such doctrines do away with all probability even. Their talk about twins and seals is childish (54). They press into their service the old physical philosophers, though ordinarily none are so much ridiculed by them (55). Democritus may say that innumerable worlds exist in every particular similar to ours, but I appeal to more cultivated physicists, who maintain that each thing has its own peculiar marks (55, 56). The Servilii were distinguished from one another by their friends, and Delian breeders of fowls could tell from the appearance of an egg which hen had laid it (56, 57). We however, do not much care whether we are able to distinguish eggs from one another or not. Another thing that they say is absurd, viz. that there may be distinction between individual sensations, but not between classes of sensations (58). Equally absurd are those "probable and undisturbed" sensations they profess to follow. The doctrine that true and false sensations are indistinguishable logically leads to the unqualified εποχη of Arcesilas (59). What nonsense they talk about inquiring after the truth, and about the bad influence of authority! (60). Can you, Cicero, the panegyrist of philosophy, plunge us into more than Cimmerian darkness? (61) By holding that knowledge is impossible you weaken the force of your famous oath that you "knew all about" Catiline. Thus ended Lucullus, amid the continued wonder of Hortensius (62, 63). Then Catulus said that he should not be surprised if the speech of Lucullus were to induce me to change my view (63).

§54. _Ne hoc quidem_: the common trans. "not even" for "_ne quidem_" is often inappropriate. Trans. here "they do not see this _either_," cf. n. on I. 5. _Habeant_: the slight alteration _habeat_ introduced by Goer. and Orelli quite destroys the point of the sentence. _Quod nolunt_: cf. 44. _An sano_: Lamb. _an ut sano_, which Halm approves, and Baiter reads. _Similitudines_: cf. 84--86. The impossibility of distinguishing between twins, eggs, the impressions of seals, etc. was a favourite theme with the sceptics, while the Stoics contended that no two things were absolutely alike. Aristo the Chian, who maintained the Stoic view, was practically refuted by his fellow pupil Persaeus, who took two twins, and made one deposit money with Aristo, while the other after a time asked for the money back and received it. On this subject cf. Sextus _A.M._ VII. 408--410. _Negat esse_: in phrases like this Cic. nearly always places _esse_ second, especially at the end of a clause. _Cur eo non estis contenti_: Lucullus here ignores the question at issue, which concerned the _amount_ of similarity. The dogmatists maintained that the similarity between two phenomena could never be great enough to render it impossible to guard against mistaking the one for the other, the sceptics argued that it could. _Quod rerum natura non patitur_: again Lucullus confounds _essential_ with _phenomenal_ difference, and so misses his mark; cf. n. on 50. _Nulla re differens_: cf. the _nihil differens_ of 99, the substitution of which here would perhaps make the sentence clearer. The words are a trans. of the common Gk. term απαραλλακτος (Sext. _A.M._ VII. 252, etc.). _Ulla communitas_: I am astonished to find Bait. returning to the reading of Lamb. _nulla_ after the fine note of Madv. (_Em._ 154), approved by Halm and other recent edd. The opinion maintained by the Stoics may be stated thus _suo quidque genere est tale, quale est, nec est in duobus aut pluribus nulla re differens ulla communitas_ (ουδε ‛υπαρχει επιμιγη απαραλλακτος). This opinion is negatived by _non patitur ut_ and it will be evident at a glance that the only change required is to put the two verbs (_est_) into the subjunctive. The change of _ulla_ into _nulla_ is in no way needed. _Ut_ [_sibi_] _sint_: _sibi_ is clearly wrong here. Madv., in a note communicated privately to Halm and printed by the latter on p. 854 of Bait. and Halm's ed of the philosophical works, proposed to read _nulla re differens communitas visi? Sint et ova_ etc. omitting _ulla_ and _ut_ and changing _visi_ into _sibi_ (cf. Faber's em. _novas_ for _bonas_ in 72). This ingenious but, as I think, improbable conj. Madv. has just repeated in the second vol. of his _Adversaria_. Lamb. reads _at tibi sint_, Dav. _at si vis, sint_, Christ _ut tibi sint_, Bait. _ut si sint_ after C.F.W. Muller, I should prefer _sui_ for _sibi_ (SVI for SIBI). B is very frequently written for V in the MSS., and I would easily slip in. _Eosdem_: once more we have Lucullus' chronic and perhaps intentional misconception of the sceptic position; see n. on 50. Before leaving this section, I may point out that the επιμιγη or επιμιξια των φαντασιων supplies Sext. with one of the sceptic τροποι, see _Pyrrh. Hyp._ I. 124.

§55. _Irridentur_: the contradictions of physical philosophers were the constant sport of the sceptics, cf. Sext. _A.M._ IX. 1. _Absolute ita paris_: Halm as well as Bait. after Christ, brackets _ita_; if any change be needed, it would be better to place it before _undique_. For this opinion of Democr. see R. and P. 45. _Et eo quidem innumerabilis_: this is the quite untenable reading of the MSS., for which no satisfactory em. has yet been proposed, cf. 125. _Nihil differat, nihil intersit_: these two verbs often appear together in Cic., e.g._D.F._ III. 25.

§56. _Potiusque_: this adversative use of _que_ is common with _potius_, e.g._D.F._ I. 51. Cf. _T.D._ II. 55 _ingemescere nonnum quam viro concessum est, idque raro_, also _ac potius_, _Ad Att._ I. 10, etc. _Proprietates_: the ιδιοτητες or ιδιωματα of Sextus, the doctrine of course involves the whole question at issue between dogmatism and scepticism. _Cognoscebantur_: Dav. _dignoscebantur_, Walker _internoscebantur_. The MSS. reading is right, cf. 86. _Consuetudine_: cf. 42, "experience". _Minimum_: an adverb like _summum_.

§57. _Dinotatas_: so the MSS., probably correctly, though Forc. does not recognise the word. Most edd. change it into _denotatas_. _Artem_: τεχνην, a set of rules. _In proverbio_: so _venire in proverbium_, _in proverbii usum venire_, _proverbii locum obtinere_, _proverbii loco dici_ are all used. _Salvis rebus_: not an uncommon phrase, e.g. _Ad Fam._ IV. 1. _Gallinas_: cf. fragm. 19 of the _Acad. Post._ The similarity of eggs was discussed _ad nauseam_ by the sceptics and dogmatists. Hermagoras the Stoic actually wrote a book entitled, ωι σκοπια (egg investigation) η περι σοφιστειας προς Ακαδημαικους, mentioned by Suidas.

§58. _Contra nos_: the sense requires _nos_, but all Halm's MSS. except one read _vos_. _Non internoscere_: this is the reading of all the MSS., and is correct, though Orelli omits _non_. The sense is, "we are quite content not to be able to distinguish between the eggs, we shall not on that account be led into a mistake for our rule will prevent us from making any positive assertion about the eggs." _Adsentiri_: for the passive use of this verb cf. 39. _Par est_: so Dav. for _per_, which most MSS. have. The older edd. and Orelli have _potest_, with one MS. _Quasi_: the em. of Madv. for the _quam si_ of the MSS. _Transversum digitum_: cf. 116. _Ne confundam omnia_: cf. 53, 110. _Natura tolletur_: this of course the sceptics would deny. They refused to discuss the nature of _things in themselves_, and kept to _phenomena_. _Intersit_: i.e. _inter visa_. _In animos_: Orelli with one MS. reads _animis_; if the MSS. are correct the assertion of Krebs and Allgayer (_Antibarbarus_, ed. 4) "_imprimere_ wird klas sisch verbunden _in aliqua re_, nicht _in aliquam rem_," will require modification. _Species et quasdam formas_: ειδη και γενη, _quasdam_ marks the fact that _formas_ is a trans. I have met with no other passage where any such doctrine is assigned to a sceptic. As it stands in the text the doctrine is absurd, for surely it must always be easier to distinguish between two _genera_ than between two individuals. If the _non_ before _vos_ were removed a better sense would be given. It has often been inserted by copyists when _sed_, _tamen_, or some such word, comes in the following clause, as in the famous passage of Cic _Ad Quintum Fratrem_, II. 11, discussed by Munro, Lucr. p. 313, ed. 3.

§59. _Illud vero perabsurdum_: note the omission of _est_, which often takes place after the emphatic pronoun. _Impediamini_: cf. n. on 33. _A veris_: if _visis_ be supplied the statement corresponds tolerably with the Academic belief, if _rebus_ be meant, it is wide of the mark. _Id est ... retentio_: supposed to be a gloss by Man., Lamb., see however nn. on I. 6, 8. _Constitit_: from _consto_, not from _consisto_ cf. 63 _qui tibi constares_. _Si vera sunt_: cf. 67, 78, 112, 148. The _nonnulli_ are Philo and Metrodorus, see 78. _Tollendus est adsensus_: i.e. even that qualified assent which the Academics gave to probable phenomena. _Adprobare_: this word is ambiguous, meaning either qualified or unqualified assent. Cf. n. on 104. _Id est peccaturum_: "which is equivalent to sinning," cf. I. 42. _Iam nimium etiam_: note _iam_ and _etiam_ in the same clause.

§60. _Pro omnibus_: note _omnibus_ for _omnibus rebus_. _Ista mysteria_: Aug. _Contra Ac._ III. 37, 38 speaks of various doctrines, which were _servata et pro mysteriis custodita_ by the New Academics. The notion that the Academic scepticism was merely external and polemically used, while they had an esoteric dogmatic doctrine, must have originated in the reactionary period of Metrodorus (of Stratonice), Philo, and Antiochus, and may perhaps from a passage of Augustine, _C. Ac._ III. 41 (whose authority must have been Cicero), be attributed to the first of the three (cf. Zeller 534, n.). The idea is ridiculed by Petrus Valentia (Orelli's reprint, p. 279), and all succeeding inquirers. _Auctoritate_: cf. 8, 9. _Utroque_: this neuter, referring to two fem. nouns, is noticeable, see exx. in Madv. _Gram._ 214 c.

§61. _Amicissimum_: "_because_ you are my dear friend". _Commoveris_: a military term, cf. _De Div._ II. 26 and Forc., also Introd. p. 53. _Sequere_: either this is future, as in 109, or _sequeris_, the constant form in Cic. of the pres., must be read. _Approbatione omni_: the word _omni_ is emphatic, and includes both qualified and unqualified assent, cf. 59. _Orbat sensibus_: cf. 74, and _D.F._ I. 64, where Madv. is wrong in reproving Torquatus for using the phrase _sensus tolli_, on the ground that the Academics swept away not _sensus_ but _iudicium sensuum Cimmeriis_. Goer. qu. Plin. _N.H._ III. 5, Sil. Ital. XII. 131, Festus, s.v. _Cimmerii_, to show that the town or village of Cimmerium lay close to Bauli, and probably induced this mention of the legendary people. _Deus aliquis_: so the best edd. without comment, although they write _deus aliqui_ in 19. It is difficult to distinguish between _aliquis_ and _aliqui_, _nescio quis_ and _nescio qui_, _si quis_ and _si qui_ (for the latter see n. on 81). As _aliquis_ is substantival, _aliqui_ adjectival, _aliquis_ must not be written with impersonal nouns like _terror_ (_T.D._ IV. 35, V. 62), _dolor_ (_T.D._ I. 82, _Ad Fam._ VII. 1, 1), _casus_ (_De Off._ III. 33). In the case of personal nouns the best edd. vary, e.g. _deus aliqui_ (_T.D._ I. 23, IV. 35), _deus aliquis_ (_Lael._ 87, _Ad Fam._ XIV. 7, 1), _anularius aliqui_ (86 of this book), _magistratus aliquis_ (_In Verr._ IV. 146). With a proper name belonging to a real person _aliquis_ ought to be written (_Myrmecides_ in 120, see my n.). _Dispiciendum_: not _despiciendum_, cf. _M.D.F._ II. 97, IV. 64, also _De Div._ II. 81, _verum dispicere_. _Iis vinculis_, etc. this may throw light on fragm. 15 of the _Acad. Post._, which see.

§62. _Motum animorum_: n. on 34. _Actio rerum_: here _actio_ is a pure verbal noun like πραξις, cf. _De Off._ I. 83, and expressions like _actio vitae_ (_N.D._ I. 2), _actio ullius rei_ (108 of this book), and the similar use of _actus_ in Quintilian (_Inst. Or._ X. 1, 31, with Mayor's n.) _Iuratusque_: Bait. possibly by a mere misprint reads _iratus_. _Comperisse_: this expression of Cic., used in the senate in reference to Catiline's conspiracy, had become a cant phrase at Rome, with which Cic. was often taunted. See _Ad Fam._ V. 5, 2, _Ad Att._ I. 14, 5. _Licebat_: this is the reading of the best MSS., not _liquebat_, which Goer., Kl., Or. have. For the support accorded by Lucullus to Cic. during the conspiracy see 3, and the passages quoted in Introd. p. 46 with respect to Catulus, in most of which Lucullus is also mentioned.

§63. _Quod ... fecerat, ut_: different from the constr. treated by Madv. _Gram._ 481 b. _Quod_ refers simply to the fact of Lucullus' admiration, which the clause introduced by _ut_ defines, "which admiration he had shown ... to such an extent that, etc." _Iocansne an_: this use of _ne ... an_ implies, Madv. says (on _D.F._ V. 87), more doubt than the use of _ne_ alone as in _vero falsone_. _Memoriter_: nearly all edd. before Madv. make this mean _e memoria_ as opposed to _de scripto_; he says, "_laudem habet bonae et copiosae memoriae_" (on _D.F._ I. 34). See Krebs and Allgayer in the _Antibarbarus_, ed. 4. _Censuerim_: more modest than _censeo_, see Madv. _Gram._ 380. _Tantum enim non te modo monuit_: edd. before Madv., seeing no way of taking _modo_ exc. with _non_, ejected it. Madv. (_Em._ 160) retains it, making it mean _paulo ante_. On the other hand, Halm after Christ asserts that _tantum non_ = μονον ου occurs nowhere else in Cic. Bait. therefore ejects _non_, taking _tantum_ as _hoc tantum, nihil praeterea_. Livy certainly has the suspected use of _tantum non_. _Tribunus_: a retort comes in 97, 144. _Antiochum_: cf. I. 13. _Destitisse_: on the difference between _memini_ followed by the pres. and by the perf. inf. consult Madv. _Gram._ 408 _b_, obs. 2.

§§64--71. Summary. Cic. much moved thus begins. The strength of Lucullus argument has affected me much, yet I feel that it can be answered. First, however, I must speak something that concerns my character (64). I protest my entire sincerity in all that I say, and would confirm it by an oath, were that proper (65). I am a passionate inquirer after truth, and on that very account hold it disgraceful to assent to what is false. I do not deny that I make slips, but we must deal with the _sapiens_, whose characteristic it is never to err in giving his assent (66). Hear Arcesilas' argument: if the _sapiens_ ever gives his assent he will be obliged to _opine_, but he never will _opine_ therefore he never will give his assent. The Stoics and Antiochus deny the first of these statements, on the ground that it is possible to distinguish between true and false (67). Even if it be so the mere habit of assenting is full of peril. Still, our whole argument must tend to show that _perception_ in the Stoic sense is impossible (68). However, a few words first with Antiochus. When he was converted, what proof had he of the doctrine he had so long denied? (69) Some think he wished to found a school called by his own name. It is more probable that he could no longer bear the opposition of all other schools to the Academy (70). His conversion gave a splendid opening for an _argumentum ad hominem_ (71).

§64. _Quadam oratione_: so Halm, also Bait. after the best MSS., not _quandam orationem_ as Lamb., Orelli. _De ipsa re_: cf. _de causa ipsa_ above. _Respondere posse_: for the om. of _me_ before the infin, which has wrongly caused many edd. either to read _respondere_ (as Dav., Bait.) or to insert _me_ (as Lamb.), see n. on I. 7.

§65. _Studio certandi_: = φιλονεικια. _Pertinacia ... calumnia_: n. on 14. _Iurarem_: Cic. was thinking of his own famous oath at the end of his consulship.

§66. _Turpissimum_: cf. I. 45, _N.D._ I. 1. _Opiner_: _opinio_ or δοξα is judgment based on insufficient grounds. _Sed quaerimus de sapiente_: cf. 115, _T.D._ IV. 55, 59 also _De Or._ III. 75 _non quid ego sed quid orator_. _Magnus ... opinator_: Aug. _Contra Acad._ III. 31 qu. this passage wrongly as from the _Hortensius_. He imitates it, _ibid._ I. 15 _magnus definitor_. _Qua fidunt_, etc.: these lines are part of Cic.'s _Aratea_, and are quoted in _N.D._ II. 105, 106. _Phoenices_: the same fact is mentioned by Ovid, _Fasti_ III. 107, _Tristia_ IV. 3, 1. _Sed Helicen_: the best MSS. om. _ad_, which Orelli places before _Helicen_. _Elimatas_: the MSS. are divided between this and _limatas_. _Elimare_, though a very rare word occurs _Ad Att._ XVI. 7, 3. _Visis cedo_: cf. n. on 38. _Vim maximam_: so _summum munus_ is applied to the same course of action in _D.F._ III. 31. _Cogitatione_: "idea". _Temeritate_: cf. I. 42, _De Div._ I. 7, and the charge of προπετεια constantly brought against the dogmatists by Sext. _Praepostere_: in a disorderly fashion, taking the wrong thing first.

§67. _Aliquando ... opinabitur_: this of course is only true if you grant the Academic doctrine, _nihil posse percipi_. _Secundum illud ... etiam opinari_: it seems at first sight as though _adsentiri_ and _opinari_ ought to change places in this passage, as Manut. proposes. The difficulty lies in the words _secundum illud_, which, it has been supposed, must refer back to the second premiss of Arcesilas' argument. But if the passage be translated thus, "Carneades sometimes granted _as a second premiss_ the following statement, that the wise man sometimes does opine" the difficulty vanishes. The argument of Carneades would then run thus, (1) _Si ulli rei_, etc. as above, (2) _adsentietur autem aliquando_, (3) _opinabitur igitur_.

§68. _Adsentiri quicquam_: only with neuter pronouns like this could _adsentiri_ be followed by an accusative case. _Sustinenda est_: εφεκτεον. _Iis quae possunt_: these words MSS. om. _Tam in praecipiti_: for the position of _in_ cf. n. on I. 25. The best MSS. have here _tamen in_. Madv. altered _tamen_ to _tam_ in n. on _D.F._ V. 26. The two words are often confused, as in _T.D._ IV. 7, cf. also n. on I. 16. _Sin autem_, etc.: cf. the passage of Lactantius _De Falsa Sapientia_ III. 3, qu. by P. Valentia (p. 278 of Orelli's reprint) _si neque sciri quicquam potest, ut Socrates docuit, neque opinari, oportet, ut Zeno, tota philosophia sublata est_. _Nitamur ... percipi_: "let us struggle to prove the proposition, etc." The construction is, I believe, unexampled so that I suspect _hoc_, or some such word, to have fallen out between _igitur_ and _nihil_.

§69. _Non acrius_: one of the early editions omits _non_ while Goer. reads _acutius_ and puts a note of interrogation at _defensitaverat_. M. _Em._ 161 points out the absurdity of making Cic. say that the old arguments of Antiochus in favour of Academicism were weaker than his new arguments against it. _Quis enim_: so Lamb. for MSS. _quisquam enim_. _Excogitavit_: on interrogations not introduced by a particle of any kind see Madv. _Gram._ 450. _Eadem dicit_: on the subject in hand, of course. Taken without this limitation the proposition is not strictly true, see n. on 132. _Sensisse_: = _iudicasse_, n. on I. 22. _Mnesarchi ... Dardani_: see _Dict. Biogr._

§70. _Revocata est_: Manut. here wished to read _renovata_, cf. n. on I. 14. _Nominis dignitatem_, etc.: hence Aug. _Contra Acad._ III. 41 calls him _foeneus ille Platonicus Antiochus_ (that _tulchan_ Platonist). _Gloriae causa_: cf. Aug. _ibid._ II. 15 _Antiochus gloriae cupidior quam veritatis_. _Facere dicerent_: so Camerarius for the MSS. _facerent_. _Sustinere_: cf. 115 _sustinuero Epicureos_. _Sub Novis_: Faber's brilliant em. for the MSS. _sub nubes_. The _Novae Tabernae_ were in the forum, and are often mentioned by Cic. and Livy. In _De Or._ II. 266 a story is told of Caesar, who, while speaking _sub Veteribus_, points to a "_tabula_" which hangs _sub Novis_. The excellence of Faber's em. may be felt by comparing that of Manut. _sub nube_, and that of Lamb. _nisi sub nube_. I have before remarked that _b_ is frequently written in MSS. for _v_. _Maenianorum_: projecting eaves, according to Festus s.v. They were probably named from their inventor like _Vitelliana_, _Vatinia_ etc.

§71. _Quoque ... argumento_: the sentence is anacoluthic, the broken thread is picked up by _quod argumentum_ near the end. _Utrum_: the neuter pronoun, not the so called conjunction, the two alternatives are marked by _ne_ and _an_. The same usage is found in _D.F._ II. 60, _T.D._ IV. 9, and must be carefully distinguished from the use of _utrum ... ne ... an_, which occurs not unfrequently in Cic., e g _De Invent._ II. 115 _utrum copiane sit agri an penuria consideratur_. On this point cf. M. _Em._ 163, _Gram._ 452, obs. 1, 2, Zumpt on Cic. _Verr._ IV. 73. _Honesti inane nomen esse_: a modern would be inclined to write _honestum_, in apposition to _nomen_, cf. _D.F._ V. 18 _voluptatis alii putant primum appetitum_. _Voluptatem_ etc.: for the conversion of Dionysius (called ‛ο μεταθεμενος) from Stoicism to Epicureanism cf. _T.D._ II. 60, Diog. Laert. VII. 166--7. _A vero_: "coming from a reality," cf. 41, n. _Is curavit_: Goer. reads _his_, "_solet V. D. in hoc pronomen saevire_," says Madv. The scribes often prefix _h_ to parts of the pronoun _is_, and Goer. generally patronises their vulgar error.

§§72--78. Summary. You accuse me of appealing to ancient names like a revolutionist, yet Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Metrodorus, philosophers of the highest position, protest against the truth of sense knowledge, and deny the possibility of knowledge altogether (72, 73). Empedocles, Xenophanes, and Parmenides all declaim against sense knowledge. You said that Socrates and Plato must not be classed with these. Why? Socrates said he knew nothing but his own ignorance, while Plato pursued the same theme in all his works (74). Now do you see that I do not merely name, but take for my models famous men? Even Chrysippus stated many difficulties concerning the senses and general experience. You say he solved them, even if he did, which I do not believe, he admitted that it was not easy to escape being ensnared by them (75). The Cyrenaics too held that they knew nothing about things external to themselves. The sincerity of Arcesilas may be seen thus (76). Zeno held strongly that the wise man ought to keep clear from _opinion_. Arcesilas agreed but this without _knowledge_ was impossible. _Knowledge_ consists of _perceptions_. Arcesilas therefore demanded a definition of _perception_. This definition Arcesilas combated. This is the controversy which has lasted to our time. Do away with _opinion_ and _perception_, and the εποχη of Arcesilas follows at once (77, 78).

§72. _De antiquis philosophis_: on account of the somewhat awkward constr. Lamb. read _antiquos philosophos_. _Popularis_: cf. 13. _Res non bonas_: MSS. om. _non_, which Or. added with two very early editions. Faber ingeniously supposed the true reading to be _novas_, which would be written _nobas_, and then pass into _bonas_. _Nivem nigram_: this deliverance of Anaxagoras is very often referred to by Sextus. In _P.H._ I. 33 he quotes it as an instance of the refutation of φαινομενα by means of νοουμενα, "Αναξαγορας τωι λευκην ειναι την χιονα, ανετιθει ‛οτι χιων εστιν ‛υδορ πεπηγος το δε ‛υδορ εστι μελαν και ‛η χιων αρα μελαινα." There is an obscure joke on this in _Ad Qu. Fratrem_ II. 13, 1 _risi nivem atram ... teque hilari animo esse et prompto ad iocandum valde me iuvat_. _Sophistes_: here treated as the demagogue of philosophy. _Ostentationis_: = επιδειξεος.

§73. _Democrito_: Cic., as Madv. remarks on _D.F._ I. 20, always exaggerates the merits of Democr. in order to depreciate the Epicureans, cf. _T.D._ I. 22, _De Div._ I. 5, II. 139, _N.D._ I. 120, _De Or._ I. 42. _Quintae classis_: a metaphor from the Roman military order. _Qui veri esse aliquid_, etc.: cf. _N.D._ I. 12 _non enim sumus ii quibus nihil verum esse videatur, sed ii qui omnibus veris falsa quaedam adiuncta dicamus_. _Non obscuros sed tenebricosos_: "not merely dim but darkened." There is a reference here to the σκοτιη γνωσις of Democr., by which he meant that knowledge which stops at the superficial appearances of things as shown by sense. He was, however, by no means a sceptic, for he also held a γνησιη γνωσις, dealing with the realities of material existence, the atoms and the void, which exist ετεηι and not merely νομωι as appearances do. See R. and P. 51.

§74. _Furere_: cf. 14. _Orbat sensibus_: cf. 61, and for the belief of Empedocles about the possibility of επιστημη see the remarks of Sextus _A.M._ VII. 123--4 qu. R. and P. 107, who say "_patet errare eos qui scepticis adnumerandum Empedoclem putabant_." _Sonum fundere_: similar expressions occur in _T.D._ III. 42, V. 73, _D.F._ II. 48. _Parmenides, Xenophanes_: these are the last men who ought to be charged with scepticism. They advanced indeed arguments against sense-knowledge, but held that real knowledge was attainable by the reason. Cf. Grote, _Plato_ I. 54, Zeller 501, R. and P. on Xenophanes and Parmenides. _Minus bonis_: Dav. qu. Plut. _De Audit._ 45 A, μεμψαιτο δ' αν τις Παρμενιδου την στιχοποιιαν. _Quamquam_: on the proper use of _quamquam_ in clauses where the verb is not expressed see _M.D.F._ V. 68 and cf. I. 5. _Quasi irati_: for the use of _quasi_ = almost cf. _In Verr. Act._ I. 22, _Orat._ 41. _Aiebas removendum_: for om. of _esse_ see n. on I. 43. _Perscripti sunt_: cf. n. on I. 16. _Scire se nihil se scire_: cf. I. 16, 44. The words referred to are in Plat. _Apol._ 21 εοικα γουν τουτου σμικρωι τινι αυτωι τουτωι σοφωτερος ειναι, ‛οτι α μη οιδα ουδε οιομαι ειδεναι, a very different statement from the _nihil sciri posse_ by which Cic. interprets it (cf. R. and P. 148). That επιστημη in the strict sense is impossible, is a doctrine which Socrates would have left to the Sophists. _De Platone_: the doctrine above mentioned is an absurd one to foist upon Plato. The dialogues of search as they are called, while exposing sham knowledge, all assume that the real επιστημη is attainable. _Ironiam_: the word was given in its Greek form in 15. _Nulla fuit ratio persequi_: n. on 17.

§75. _Videorne_: = _nonne videor_, as _videsne_ = _nonne vides_. _Imitari numquam nisi_: a strange expression for which Manut. conj. _imitari? num quem_, etc., Halm _nullum unquam_ in place of _numquam_. Bait. prints the reading of Man., which I think harsher than that of the MSS. _Minutos_: for the word cf. _Orat._ 94, also _De Div._ I. 62 _minuti philosophi_, _Brut._ 256 _minuti imperatores_. _Stilponem_, etc.: Megarians, see R. and P. 177--182. σοφισματα: Cic. in the second edition probably introduced here the translation _cavillationes_, to which Seneca _Ep._ 116 refers, cf. Krische, p. 65. _Fulcire porticum_: "to be the pillar of the Stoic porch". Cf. the anonymous line ει μη γαρ ην Χρυσιππος, ουκ αν ην Στοα. _Quae in consuetudine probantur_: n. on 87. _Nisi videret_: for the tense of the verb, see Madv. _Gram._ 347 _b_, obs. 2.

§76. _Quid ... philosophi_: my reading is that of Durand approved by Madv. and followed by Bait. It is strange that Halm does not mention this reading, which only requires the alteration of _Cyrenaei_ into _Cyrenaici_ (now made by all edd. on the ground that _Cyrenaeus_ is a citizen of Cyreno, _Cyrenaicus_ a follower of Aristippus) and the insertion of _tibi_. I see no difficulty in the _qui_ before _negant_, at which so many edd. take offence. _Tactu intimo_: the word ‛αφη I believe does not occur in ancient authorities as a term of the Cyrenaic school; their great word was παθος. From 143 (_permotiones intimas_) it might appear that Cic. is translating either παθος or κινησις. For a clear account of the school see Zeller's _Socrates_, for the illustration of the present passage pp 293--300 with the footnotes. Cf. also R. and P. 162 sq. _Quo quid colore_: cf. Sext. _A.M._ VII. 191 (qu. Zeller _Socrates_ 297, R. and P. 165). _Adfici se_: = πασχειν. _Quaesieras_: note the plup. where Eng. idiom requires the perfect or aorist. _Tot saeculis_: cf. the same words in 15. _Tot ingeniis tantisque studiis_: cf. _summis ingeniis, maximis studiis_ in 15. _Obtrectandi_: this invidious word had been used by Lucullus in 16; cf. also I. 44.

§77. _Expresserat_: "had put into distinct shape". Cf. 7 and I. 19. _Exprimere_ and _dicere_ are always sharply distinguished by Cic., the latter merely implying the mechanic exercise of utterance, the former the moulding and shaping of the utterance by conscious effort; cf. esp. _Orat._ 3, 69, and _Ad Att._ VIII. 11, 1; also _De Or._ I. 32, _De Div._ I. 79, qu. by Krebs and Allgayer. The conj. of Dav. _exposuerat_ is therefore needless. _Fortasse_: "we may suppose". _Nec percipere_, etc.: cf. 68, n. _Tum illum_: a change from _ille, credo_ (sc. _respondit_), the _credo_ being now repeated to govern the infin. For the constr. after _ita definisse_ cf. _M.D.F._ II. 13 (who quotes exx.); also the construction with _ita iudico_ in 113. _Ex eo, quod esset_: cf. 18, n. _Effictum_: so Manut. for MSS. _effectum_, cf. 18. _Ab eo, quod non est_: the words _non est_ include the two meanings "is non existent," and "is different from what it seems to be"--the two meanings of _falsum_ indeed, see n. on 47. _Eiusdem modi_: cf. 40, 84. MSS. have _eius modi_, altered by Dav. _Recte ... additum_: the semicolon at _Arcesilas_ was added by Manutius, who is followed by all edd. This involves taking _additum_ = _additum est_, an ellipse of excessive rarity in Cic., see Madv. _Opusc._ I. 448, _D.F._ I. 43, _Gram._ 479 a. I think it quite possible that _recte consensit additum_ should be construed together, "agreed that the addition had been rightly made." For the omission of _esse_ in that case cf. Madv. _Gram._ 406, and such expressions as _dicere solebat perturbatum_ in 111, also _ita scribenti exanclatum_ in 108. _Recte_, which with the ordinary stopping expresses Cic.'s needless approval of Arcesilas' conduct would thus gain in point. Qy, should _concessit_ be read, as in 118 _concessisse_ is now read for MSS. _consensisse_? _A vero_: cf. 41.

§78. _Quae adhuc permanserit_: note the subj., "which is of such a nature as to have lasted". _Nam illud ... pertinebat_: by _illud_ is meant the argument in defence of εποχη given in 67; by _nihil ... pertinebat_ nothing more is intended than that there was no _immediate_ or _close_ connection. Cf. the use of _pertinere_ in _D.F._ III. 55. _Clitomacho_: cf. n. on 59.

§§79--90. Summary You are wrong, Lucullus, in upholding your cause in spite of my arguments yesterday against the senses. You are thus acting like the Epicureans, who say that the inference only from the sensation can be false, not the sensation itself (79, 80). I wish the god of whom you spoke would ask me whether I wanted anything more than sound senses. He would have a bad time with me. For even granting that our vision is correct how marvellously circumscribed it is! But say you, _we_ desire no more. No I answer, you are like the mole who desires not the light because he is blind. Yet I would not so much reproach the god because my vision is narrow, as because it deceives me (80, 81). If you want something greater than the bent oar, what can be greater than the sun? Still he seems to us a foot broad, and Epicurus thinks he may be a little broader or narrower than he seems. With all his enormous speed, too, he appears to us to stand still (82). The whole question lies in a nutshell; of four propositions which prove my point only one is disputed viz. that every true sensation has side by side with it a false one indistinguishable from it (83). A man who has mistaken P. for Q. Geminus could have no infallible mode of recognising Cotta. You say that no such indistinguishable resemblances _exist_. Never mind, they _seem_ to exist and that is enough. One mistaken sensation will throw all the others into uncertainty (84). You say everything belongs to its own _genus_ this I will not contest. I am not concerned to show that two sensations _are_ absolutely similar, it is enough that human faculties cannot distinguish between them. How about the impressions of signet rings? (85) Can you find a ring merchant to rival your chicken rearer of Delos? But, you say, art aids the senses. So we cannot see or hear without art, which so few can have! What an idea this gives us of the art with which nature has constructed the senses! (86) But about physics I will speak afterwards. I am going now to advance against the senses arguments drawn from Chrysippus himself (87). You said that the sensations of dreamers, drunkards and madmen were feebler than those of the waking, the sober and the sane. The cases of Ennius and his Alcmaeon, of your own relative Tuditanus, of the Hercules of Euripides disprove your point (88, 89). In their case at least 'mind and eyes agreed. It is no good to talk about the saner moments of such people; the question is, what was the nature of their sensations at the time they were affected? (90)

§79. _Communi loco_: τοπω, that of blinking facts which cannot be disproved, see 19. _Quod ne_ [_id_]: I have bracketed _id_ with most edd. since Manut. If, however, _quod_ be taken as the conjunction, and not as the pronoun, _id_ is not altogether insupportable. _Heri_: cf. Introd. 55. _Infracto remo_: n. on 19. Tennyson seems to allude to this in his "Higher Pantheism"--"all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool". _Manent illa omnia, iacet_: this is my correction of the reading of most MSS. _maneant ... lacerat_. Madv. _Em._ 176 in combating the conj. of Goer. _si maneant ... laceratis istam causam_, approves _maneant ... iaceat_, a reading with some MSS. support, adopted by Orelli. I think the whole confusion of the passage arises from the mania of the copyists for turning indicatives into subjunctives, of which in critical editions of Cic. exx. occur every few pages. If _iacet_ were by error turned into _iaceret_ the reading _lacerat_ would arise at once. The nom. to _dicit_ is, I may observe, not Epicurus, as Orelli takes it, but Lucullus. Trans. "all my arguments remain untouched; your case is overthrown, yet his senses are true quotha!" (For this use of _dicit_ cf. _inquit_ in 101, 109, 115). Hermann approves the odd reading of the ed. Cratandriana of 1528 _latrat_. Dav. conjectured comically _blaterat iste tamen et_, Halm _lacera est ista causa_. _Habes_: as two good MSS. have _habes et eum_, Madv. _Em._ 176 conj. _habet_. The change of person, however, (from _dicit_ to _habes_) occurs also in 101. _Epicurus_: n. on 19.

§80. _Hoc est verum esse_: Madv. _Em._ 177 took _verum_ as meaning fair, candid, in this explanation I concur. Madv., however, in his critical epistle to Orelli p. 139 abandoned it and proposed _virum esse_, a very strange em. Halm's conj. _certum esse_ is weak and improbable. _Importune_: this is in one good MS. but the rest have _importata_, a good em. is needed, as _importune_ does not suit the sense of the passage. _Negat ... torsisset_: for the tenses cf. 104 _exposuisset, adiungit_. _Cum oculum torsisset_: i.e. by placing the finger beneath the eye and pressing upwards or sideways. Cf. Aristot. _Eth. Eud._ VII. 13 (qu. by Dav.) οφθαλμους διαστρεψαντα ‛ωστε δυο το ‛εν φανηναι. Faber qu. Arist. _Problemata_ XVII. 31 δια τι εις το πλαγιον κινουσι τον οφθαλμον ου (?) φαινεται δυο το ‛εν. Also _ib._ XXXI. 3 inquiring the reason why drunkards see double he says ταυτο τουτο γιγνεται και εαν τις κατωθεν πιεση τον οφθαλμον. Sextus refers to the same thing _P.H._ I. 47, _A.M._ VII. 192 (‛ο παραπιεσας τον οφθαλμον) so Cic. _De Div._ II. 120. Lucretius gives the same answer as Timagoras, _propter opinatus animi_ (IV. 465), as does Sext. _A.M._ VII. 210 on behalf of Epicurus. _Sed hic_: Bait. _sit hic_. _Maiorum_: cf. 143. _Quasi quaeratur_: Carneades refused to discuss about things in themselves but merely dealt with the appearances they present, το γαρ αληθες και το ψευδες εν τοις πραγμασι συνεχωρει (Numen in Euseb. _Pr. Eu._ XIV. 8). Cf. also Sext. _P.H._ I. 78, 87, 144, II. 75. _Domi nascuntur_: a proverb used like γλαυκ' εσ' Αθηνας and "coals to Newcastle," see Lorenz on Plaut. _Miles_ II. 2, 38, and cf. _Ad Att._ X. 14, 2, _Ad Fam._ IX. 3. _Deus_: cf. 19. _Audiret ... ageret_: MSS. have _audies ... agerent_. As the insertion of _n_ in the imp. subj. is so common in MSS. I read _ageret_ and alter _audies_ to suit it. Halm has _audiret ... ageretur_ with Dav., Bait. _audiet, egerit_. _Ex hoc loco video ... cerno_: MSS. have _loco cerno regionem video Pompeianum non cerno_ whence Lipsius conj. _ex hoc loco e regione video_. Halm ejects the words _regionem video_, I prefer to eject _cerno regionem_. We are thus left with the slight change from _video_ to _cerno_, which is very often found in Cic., e.g. _Orat._ 18. Cic. sometimes however joins the two verbs as in _De Or._ III. 161. _O praeclarum prospectum_: the view was a favourite one with Cic., see _Ad Att._ I. 13, 5.

§81. _Nescio qui_: Goer. is quite wrong in saying that _nescio quis_ implies contempt, while _nescio qui_ does not, cf. _Div. in qu. Caec._ 47, where _nescio qui_ would contradict his rule. It is as difficult to define the uses of the two expressions as to define those of _aliquis_ and _aliqui_, on which see 61 n. In _Paradoxa_ 12 the best MSS. have _si qui_ and _si quis_ almost in the same line with identically the same meaning Dav. quotes Solinus and Plin. _N.H._ VII. 21, to show that the man mentioned here was called Strabo--a misnomer surely. _Octingenta_: so the best MSS., not _octoginta_, which however agrees better with Pliny. _Quod abesset_: "_whatever_ might be 1800 stadia distant," _aberat_ would have implied that Cic. had some _particular_ thing in mind, cf. Madv. _Gram._ 364, obs. 1. _Acrius_: οξυτερον, Lamb. without need read _acutius_ as Goer. did in 69. _Illos pisces_: so some MSS., but the best have _ullos_, whence Klotz conj. _multos_, Orelli _multos illos_, omitting _pisces_. For the allusion to the fish, cf. _Acad. Post._ fragm. 13. _Videntur_: n. on 25. _Amplius_: cf. 19 _non video cur quaerat amplius_. _Desideramus_: Halm, failing to understand the passage, follows Christ in reading _desiderant_ (i.e. _pisces_). To paraphrase the sense is this "But say my opponents, the Stoics and Antiocheans, we desire no better senses than we have." Well you are like the mole, which does not yearn for the light because it does not know what light is. Of course all the ancients thought the mole blind. A glance will show the insipidity of the sense given by Halm's reading. _Quererer cum deo_: would enter into an altercation with the god. The phrase, like λοιδορεσθαι τινι as opposed to λοιδορειν τινα implies mutual recrimination, cf. _Pro Deiotaro_ 9 _querellae cum Deiotaro_. The reading _tam quererer_ for the _tamen quaereretur_ of the MSS. is due to Manut. _Navem_: Sextus often uses the same illustration, as in _P.H._ I. 107, _A.M._ VII. 414. _Non tu verum testem_, etc.: cf. 105. For the om. of _te_ before _habere_, which has strangely troubled edd. and induced them to alter the text, see n. on I. 6.

§82. _Quid ego_: Bait. has _sed quid_ after Ernesti. _Nave_: so the best MSS., not _navi_, cf. Madv. _Gram._ 42. _Duodeviginti_: so in 128. Goer. and Roeper qu. by Halm wished to read _duodetriginta_. The reff. of Goer. at least do not prove his point that the ancients commonly estimated the sun at 28 times the size of the earth. _Quasi pedalis_: cf. _D.F._ I. 20 _pedalis fortasse_. For _quasi_ = _circiter_ cf. note on 74. Madv. on _D.F._ I. 20 quotes Diog. Laert. X. 91, who preserves the very words of Epicurus, in which however no mention of a foot occurs, also Lucr. V. 590, who copies Epicurus, and Seneca _Quaest. Nat._ I. 3, 10 (_solem sapientes viri pedalem esse contenderunt_). Madv. points out from Plut. _De Plac. Phil._ II. 21, p. 890 E, that Heraclitus asserted the sun to be a foot wide, he does not however quote Stob. _Phys._ I. 24, 1 ‛ηλιον μεγεθος εχειν ευρος ποδος ανθρωπειου, which is affirmed to be the opinion of Heraclitus and Hecataeus. _Ne maiorem quidem_: so the MSS., but Goer. and Orelli read _nec_ for _ne_, incurring the reprehension of Madv. _D.F._ p. 814, ed 2. _Nihil aut non multum_: so in _D.F._ V. 59, the correction of Orelli, therefore, _aut non multum mentiantur aut nihil_, is rash. _Semel_: see 79. _Qui ne nunc quidem_: sc. _mentiri sensus putat_. Halm prints _quin_, and is followed by Baiter, neither has observed that _quin ne ... quidem_ is bad Latin (see _M.D.F._ V. 56). Nor can _quin ne_ go together even without _quidem_, cf. Krebs and Allgayer, _Antibarbarus_ ed. 4 on _quin_.

§83. _In parvo lis sit_: Durand's em. for the _in parvulis sitis_ of the MSS., which Goer. alone defends. _Quattuor capita_: these were given in 40 by Lucullus, cf. also 77. _Epicurus_: as above in 19, 79 etc.

§84. _Geminum_: cf. 56. _Nota_: cf. 58 and the speech of Lucullus _passim_. _Ne sit ... potest_: cf. 80 _quasi quaeratur quid sit, non quid videatur. Si ipse erit_ for _ipse_ apparently = _is ipse_ cf. _M.D.F._ II. 93.

§85. _Quod non est_: = _qu. n. e. id quod esse videtur_. _Sui generis_: cf. 50, 54, 56. _Nullum esse pilum_, etc.: a strong expression of this belief is found in Seneca _Ep._. 113, 13, qu. R. and P. 380. Note the word _Stoicum_; Lucullus is of course not Stoic, but Antiochean. _Nihil interest_: the same opinion is expressed in 40, where see my note. _Visa res_: Halm writes _res a re_, it is not necessary, however, either in Gk. or Lat. to express _both_ of two related things when a word is inserted like _differat_ here, which shows that they _are_ related. Cf. the elliptic constructions in Gk. with ‛ομοιον, μεταξυ, μεσος, and such words. _Eodem caelo atque_: a difficult passage. MSS. have _aqua_, an error easy, as Halm notes, to a scribe who understood _caelum_ to be the heaven, and not γλυφειον, a graving tool. Faber and other old edd. defend the MSS. reading, adducing passages to show that sky and water were important in the making of statues. For _aqua_ Orelli conj. _acu_ = _schraffirnadel_, C.F. Hermann _caelatura_, which does not seem to be a Ciceronian word. Halm's _aeque_ introduces a construction with _ceteris omnibus_ which is not only not Ciceronian, but not Latin at all. I read _atque_, taking _ceteris omnibus_ to be the abl. neut. "all the other implements." Formerly I conj. _ascra_, or _atque in_, which last leading would make _omnibus_ = _om. statuis_. _Alexandros_: Lysippus alone was privileged to make statues of Alexander, as Apelles alone was allowed to paint the conqueror, cf. _Ad Fam._ V. 12, 7.

§86. _Anulo_: cf. 54. _Aliqui_: n. on 61. _Gallinarium_: cf. 57. _Adhibes artem_: cf. 20 _adhibita arte_. _Pictor ... tibicen_: so in 20. _Simul inflavit_: note _simul_ for _simul atque_, cf. _T.D._ IV. 12. _Nostri quidem_: i.e. _Romani_. _Admodum_: i.e. _adm. pauci_ cf. _De Leg._ III. 32 _pauci enim atque admodum pauci_. _Praeclara_: evidently a fem. adj. agreeing with _natura_. Dav. and Ern. made the adj. neuter, and understanding _sunt_ interpreted "these arguments I am going to urge are grand, viz. _quanto art_. etc."

§87. _Scilicet_: Germ. "natürlich." _Fabricata sit_: cf. 30, 119, 121 and N.D. I. 19. _Ne modo_: for _modo ne_, a noticeable use. _Physicis_: probably neut. _Contra sensus_: he wrote both for and against συνηθεια; cf. R. and P. 360 and 368. _Carneadem_: Plut. _Sto. Rep_. 1036 B relates that Carneades in reading the arguments of Chrysippus against the senses, quoted the address of Andromache to Hector: δαιμονιε φθισει σε το σον μενος. From Diog. IV. 62 we learn that he thus parodied the line qu. in n. on 75, ει μη γαρ ην Χρυσιππος ουκ αν ην εγω.

§88. _Diligentissime_: in 48--53. _Dicebas_: in 52 _imbecillius adsentiuntur_. _Siccorum_: cf. Cic. _Contra Rullum_ I. 1 _consilia siccorum_. _Madere_ is common with the meaning "to be drunk," as in Plaut. _Mostellaria_ I. 4, 6. _Non diceret_: Orelli was induced by Goer. to omit the verb, with one MS., cf. 15 and I. 13. The omission of a verb in the subjunctive is, Madv. says on _D.F._ I. 9, impossible; for other ellipses of the verb see _M.D.F._ V. 63. _Alcmaeo autem_: i.e. Ennius' own Alcmaeon; cf. 52. _Somnia reri_: the best MSS. have _somniare_. Goer. reads _somnia_, supplying _non fuisse vera_. I have already remarked on his extraordinary power of _supplying_. Halm conj. _somnia reprobare_, forgetting that the verb _reprobare_ belongs to third century Latinity, also _sua visa putare_, which Bait. adopts. Thinking this too large a departure from the MSS., I read _reri_, which verb occurred in I. 26, 39. Possibly _putare_, a little farther on, has got misplaced. _Non id agitur_: these difficulties supply Sextus with one of his τροποι, i.e. ‛ο περι τας περιστασεις; cf. _P.H._ I. 100, also for the treatment of dreams, _ib._ I. 104. _Si modo_, etc.: "if only he dreamed it," i.e. "merely because he dreamed it." _Aeque ac vigilanti_: = _aeque ac si vigilaret_. Dav. missing the sense, and pointing out that _when awake_ Ennius did not assent to his sensations at all, conj. _vigilantis_. Two participles used in very different ways not unfrequently occur together, see Madv. _Em. Liv._ p. 442. _Ita credit_: MSS. have _illa_, which Dav. altered. Halm would prefer _credidit_. _Itera dum_, etc.: from the _Iliona_ of Pacuvius; a favourite quotation with Cic.; see _Ad Att._ XIV. 14, and _T.D._ II. 44.

§89. _Quisquam_: for the use of this pronoun in interrogative sentences cf. Virg. _Aen._ I. 48 with the Notes of Wagner and Conington. _Tam certa putat_: so Sextus _A.M._ VII. 61 points out that Protagoras must in accordance with his doctrine παντων μετρον ανθρωπος hold that the μεμηνως is the κριτηριον των εν μανιαι φαινομενων. _Video, video te_: evidently from a tragedy whose subject was Αιας μαινομενος, see Ribbeck _Trag. Lat. rel._ p. 205. Cic. in _De Or._ III. 162 thus continues the quotation, "_oculis postremum lumen radiatum rape_." So in Soph. _Aiax_ 100 the hero, after killing, as he thinks, the Atridae, keeps Odysseus alive awhile in order to torture him. _Hercules_: cf. Eur. _Herc. Fur._ 921--1015. The mad visions of this hero, like those of Orestes, are often referred to for a similar purpose by Sext., e.g. _A.M._ VII. 405 ‛ο γουν ‛Ερακλης μανεις και λαβων φαντασιαν απο των ιδιων παιδων ‛ως Ευρυσθεος, την ακολουθον πραξιν ταυτηι τη φαντασιαι συνηψεν. ακολουθον δε ην το τους του εχθρου παιδας ανελειν, ‛οπερ και εποιησεν. Cf. also _A.M._ VII. 249. _Moveretur_: imperf. for plup. as in 90. _Alcmaeo tuus_: cf. 52. _Incitato furore_: Dav. reads _incitatus_. Halm qu. from Wesenberg _Observ. Crit. ad Or. p. Sestio_ p. 51 this explanation, "_cum furor eius initio remissior paulatim incitatior et vehementior factus esset_," he also refers to Wopkens _Lect. Tull._ p. 55 ed. Hand. _Incedunt_ etc.: the MSS. have _incede_, which Lamb. corrected. The subject of the verb is evidently _Furiae_. _Adsunt_: is only given once by MSS., while Ribbeck repeats it thrice, on Halm's suggestion I have written it twice. _Caerulea ... angui_: _anguis_ fem is not uncommon in the old poetry. MSS. here have _igni_. _Crinitus_: ακερσεκομης, "never shorn," as Milton translates it. _Luna innixus_: the separate mention in the next line of _Diana_, usually identified with the moon, has led edd. to emend this line. Some old edd. have _lunat_, while Lamb. reads _genu_ for _luna_, cf. Ov. _Am._ I. 1, 25 (qu. by Goer.) _lunavitque genu sinuosum fortiter arcum_. Wakefield on Lucr. III. 1013 puts a stop at _auratum_, and goes on with _Luna innixans_. Taber strangely explains _luna_ as = _arcu ipso lunato_, Dav. says we ought not to expect the passage to make sense, as it is the utterance of a maniac. For my part, I do not see why the poet should not regard _luna_ and _Diana_ as distinct.

§90. _Illa falsa_: sc. _visa_, which governs the two genitives. Goer. perversely insists on taking _somniantium recordatione ipsorum_ closely together. _Non enim id quaeritur_: cf. 80 n. Sext. very often uses very similar language, as in _P.H._ I. 22, qu. in n. on 40. _Tum cum movebantur_: so Halm for MSS. _tum commovebantur_, the em. is supported by 88.

§§91--98. Summary: Dialectic cannot lead to stable knowledge, its processes are not applicable to a large number of philosophical questions (91). You value the art, but remember that it gave rise to fallacies like the _sorites_, which you say is faulty (92). If it is so, refute it. The plan of Chrysippus to refrain from answering, will avail you nothing (93). If you refrain because you _cannot_ answer, your knowledge fails you, if you _can_ answer and yet refrain, you are unfair (94). The art you admire really undoes itself, as Penelope did her web, witness the _Mentiens_, (95). You assent to arguments which are identical in form with the _Mentiens_, and yet refuse to assent to it Why so? (96) You demand that these sophisms should be made exceptions to the rules of Dialectic. You must go to a tribune for that exception. I just remind you that Epicurus would not allow the very first postulate of your Dialectic (97). In my opinion, and I learned Dialectic from Antiochus, the _Mentiens_ and the arguments identical with it in form must stand or fall together (98).

§91. _Inventam esse_: cf. 26, 27. _In geometriane_: with this inquiry into the special function of Dialectic cf. the inquiry about Rhetoric in Plato _Gorg._ 453 D, 454 C. _Sol quantus sit_: this of course is a problem for φυσικη, not for διαλεκτικη. _Quod sit summum bonum_: not διαλεκτικη but ηθικη must decide this. _Quae coniunctio_: etc. so Sext. often opposes συμπλοκη or συνημμενον to διεζευγμενον, cf. esp _P.H._ II. 201, and Zeller 109 sq. with footnotes. An instance of a _coniunctio_ (hypothetical judgment) is "_si lucet, lucet_" below, of a _disiunctio_ (disjunctive judgment) "_aut vivet cras Hermarchus aut non vivet_". _Ambigue dictum_: αμφιβολον, on which see _P.H._ II. 256, Diog VII. 62. _Quid sequatur_: το ακολουθον, cf. I. 19 n. _Quid repugnet_: cf. I. 19, n. _De se ipsa_: the _ipsa_, according to Cic.'s usage, is nom. and not abl. Petrus Valentia (p. 301, ed Orelli) justly remarks that an art is not to be condemned as useless merely because it is unable to solve every problem presented to it. He quotes Plato's remarks (in _Rep._ II.) that the Expert is the man who knows exactly what his art can do and what it cannot. Very similar arguments to this of Cic. occur in Sext., cf. esp. _P.H._ II. 175 and the words εαυτου εσται εκκαλυπτικον. For the mode in which Carneades dealt with Dialectic cf. Zeller 510, 511. The true ground of attack is that Logic always _assumes_ the truth of phenomena, and cannot _prove_ it. This was clearly seen by Aristotle alone of the ancients; see Grote's essay on the Origin of Knowledge, now reprinted in Vol II. of his _Aristotle_.

§92. _Nata sit_: cf. 28, 59. _Loquendi_: the Stoic λογικη, it must be remembered, included ‛ρητορικη. _Concludendi_: του συμπεραινειν or συλλογιζεσθαι. _Locum_: τοπον in the philosophical sense. _Vitiosum_: 49, n. _Num nostra culpa est_: cf. 32. _Finium_: absolute limits; the fallacy of the _sorites_ and other such sophisms lies entirely in the treatment of purely _relative_ terms as though they were _absolute_. _Quatenus_: the same ellipse occurs in _Orator_ 73. _In acervo tritici_: this is the false _sorites_, which may be briefly described thus: A asks B whether one grain makes a heap, B answers "No." A goes on asking whether two, three, four, etc. grains make a heap. B cannot always reply "No." When he begins to answer "Yes," there will be a difference of one grain between heap and no heap. One grain therefore _does_ make a heap. The true _sorites_ or chain inference is still treated in books on logic, cf. Thomson's _Laws of Thought_, pp 201--203, ed 8. _Minutatim_: cf. Heindorf's note on κατα σμικρον in _Sophistes_ 217 D. _Interrogati_: cf. 104. In 94 we have _interroganti_, which some edd. read here. _Dives pauper_, etc.: it will be easily seen that the process of questioning above described can be applied to any relative term such as these are. For the omission of any connecting particle between the members of each pair, cf. 29, 125, _T.D._ I. 64, V. 73, 114, Zumpt _Gram._ 782. _Quanto addito aut dempto_: after this there is a strange ellipse of some such words as _id efficiatur, quod interrogatur_. [_Non_] _habemus_: I bracket _non_ in deference to Halm, Madv. however (_Opusc._ I. 508) treats it as a superabundance of negation arising from a sort of anacoluthon, comparing _In Vatin._ 3, _Ad Fam._ XII. 24. The scribes insert and omit negatives very recklessly, so that the point may remain doubtful.

§93. _Frangite_: in later Gk. generally απολυειν. _Erunt ... cavetis_: this form of the conditional sentence is illustrated in Madv. _D.F._ III. 70, _Em. Liv._ p. 422, _Gram._ 340, obs. 1. Goer. qu. Terence _Heaut._ V. 1, 59 _quot incommoda tibi in hac re capies nisi caves_, cf. also 127, 140 of this book. The present is of course required by the instantaneous nature of the action. _Chrysippo_: he spent so much time in trying to solve the sophism that it is called peculiarly his by Persius VI. 80. _inventus, Chrysippe, tui finitor acervi_. The titles of numerous distinct works of his on the _Sorites_ and _Mentiens_ are given by Diog. _Tria pauca sint_: cf. the instances in Sext. _A.M._ VII. 418 τα πεντηκοντα ολιγα εστιν, τα μυρια ολιγα εστιν, also Diog. VII. 82 ‛ησυχαζειν the advice is quoted in Sext. _P.H._ II. 253 (δειν ‛ιστασθαι και επεχειν), _A.M._ VII. 416 (‛ο σοφος στησεται και ‛ησυχασει). The same terms seem to have been used by the Cynics, see Sext. _P.H._ II. 244, III. 66. _Stertas_: imitated by Aug. _Contra Ac._ III. 25 _ter terna novem esse ... vel genere humano stertente verum sit_, also _ib._ III. 22. _Proficit_: Dav. _proficis_, but Madv. rightly understands το ‛ησυχαζειν (_Em._ 184), cf. _N.D._ II. 58. _Ultimum ... respondere_: "to put in as your answer" cf. the use of _defendere_ with an accus. "to put in as a plea". Kayser suggests _paucorum quid sit_.

§94. _Ut agitator_: see the amusing letter to Atticus XIII. 21, in which Cic. discusses different translations for the word επεχειν, and quotes a line of Lucilius _sustineat currum ut bonu' saepe agitator equosque_, adding _semperque Carneades_ προβολην _pugilis et retentionem aurigae similem facit_ εποχη. Aug. _Contra Ac._ trans. εποχη by _refrenatio_ cf. also _Lael._ 63. _Superbus es_: I have thus corrected the MSS. _responde superbe_; Halm writes _facis superbe_, Orelli _superbis_, which verb is hardly found in prose. The phrase _superbe resistere_ in Aug. _Contra Ac._ III. 14 may be a reminiscence. _Illustribus_: Bait. with some probability adds _in_, comparing _in decimo_ below, and 107, cf. however Munro on Lucr. I. 420. _Irretiat_: parallel expressions occur in _T.D._ V. 76, _De Or._ I. 43, _De Fato_ 7. _Facere non sinis_: Sext. _P.H._ II. 253 points the moral in the same way. _Augentis nec minuentis_: so Halm for MSS. _augendi nec minuendi_, which Bait. retains. I cannot believe the phrase _primum augendi_ to be Latin.

§95. _Tollit ... superiora_: cf. _Hortensius_ fragm. 19 (Orelli) _sed ad extremum pollicetur prolaturum qui se ipse comest quod efficit dialecticorum ratio_. _Vestra an nostra_: Bait. after Christ needlessly writes _nostra an vestra_. αξιωμα: "a judgment expressed in language"; cf. Zeller 107, who gives the Stoic refinements on this subject. _Effatum_: Halm gives the spelling _ecfatum_. It is probable that this spelling was antique in Cic.'s time and only used in connection with religious and legal formulae as in _De Div._ I. 81, _De Leg._ II. 20, see Corss. _Ausspr._ I. 155 For the word cf. Sen. _Ep._ 117 _enuntiativum quiddam de corpore quod alii effatum vocant, alii enuntiatum, alii edictum_, in _T.D._ I. 14 _pronuntiatum_ is found, in _De Fato_ 26 _pronuntiatio_, in Gellius XVI. 8 (from Varro) _prologium_. _Aut verum esse aut falsum_: the constant Stoic definition of αξιωμα, see Diog. VII. 65 and other passages in Zeller 107. _Mentiris an verum dicis_: the _an_ was added by Schutz on a comparison of Gellius XVIII. 10 _cum mentior et mentiri me dico, mentior an verum dico?_ The sophism is given in a more formally complete shape in _De Div._ II. 11 where the following words are added, _dicis autem te mentiri verumque dicis, mentiris igitur_. The fallacy is thus hit by Petrus Valentia (p. 301, ed Orelli), _quis unquam dixit "ego mentior" quum hoc ipsum pronuntiatum falsum vellet declarare?_ _Inexplicabilia_: απορα in the Greek writers. _Odiosius_: this adj. has not the strong meaning of the Eng. "hateful," but simply means "tiresome," "annoying." _Non comprehensa_: as in 99, the opposite of _comprehendibilia_ III. 1, 41. The past partic. in Cic. often has the same meaning as an adj. in _-bilis_. Faber points out that in the _Timaeus_ Cic. translates αλυτος by _indissolutus_ and _indissolubilis_ indifferently. _Imperceptus_, which one would expect, is found in Ovid.

§96. _Si dicis_: etc. the words in italics are needed, and were given by Manut. with the exception of _nunc_ which was added by Dav. The idea of Orelli, that Cic. clipped these trite sophisms as he does verses from the comic writers is untenable. _In docendo_: _docere_ is not to _expound_ but to _prove_, cf. n. on 121. _Primum ... modum_: the word _modus_ is technical in this sense cf. _Top._ 57. The προτος λογος αναποδεικτος of the Stoic logic ran thus ει ‛ημερα εστι, φως εστιν ... αλλα μην ‛ημερα εστιν φως αρα εστιν (Sext. _P.H._ II. 157, and other passages qu. Zeller 114). This bears a semblance of inference and is not so utterly tautological as Cic.'s translation, which merges φως and ‛ημερα into one word, or that of Zeller (114, note). These arguments are called μονολημματοι (involving only one premise) in Sext. _P.H._ I. 152, 159, II. 167. _Si dicis te mentiri_, etc.: it is absurd to assume, as this sophism does, that when a man _truly_ states that he _has_ told a lie, he establishes against himself not merely that he _has_ told a lie, but also that he _is_ telling a lie at the moment when he makes the _true_ statement. The root of the sophism lies in the confusion of past and present time in the one infinitive _mentiri_. _Eiusdem generis_: the phrase _te mentiri_ had been substituted for _nunc lucere_. _Chrysippea_: n. on 93. _Conclusioni_: on _facere_ with the dat. see n. on 27. _Cederet_: some edd. _crederet_, but the word is a trans. of Gk. εικειν; n. on 66. _Conexi_: = συνημμενον, cf. Zeller 109. This was the proper term for the hypothetical judgment. _Superius_: the συνημμενον consists of two parts, the hypothetical part and the affirmative--called in Greek ‛ηγουμενον and ληγον; if one is admitted the other follows of course.

§97. _Excipiantur_: the legal _formula_ of the Romans generally directed the _iudex_ to condemn the defendant if certain facts were proved, unless certain other facts were proved; the latter portion went by the name of _exceptio_. See _Dict. Ant_. _Tribunum ... adeant_: a retort upon Lucullus; cf. 13. The MSS. have _videant_ or _adeant_; Halm conj. _adhibeant_, comparing 86 and _Pro Rabirio_ 20. _Contemnit_: the usual trans. "to despise" for _contemnere_ is too strong; it means, like ολιγωρειν, merely to neglect or pass by. _Effabimur_; cf. _effatum_ above. _Hermarchus_: not _Hermachus_, as most edd.; see _M.D.F._ II. 96. _Diiunctum_: διεζευγμενον, for which see Zeller 112. _Necessarium_: the reason why Epicurus refused to admit this is given in _De Fato_ 21 _Epicurus veretur ne si hoc concesserit, concedendum sit fato fieri quaecumque fiant_. The context of that passage should be carefully read, along with _N.D._ I. 69, 70. Aug. _Contra Ac._ III. 29 lays great stress on the necessary truth of disjunctive propositions. _Catus_: so Lamb. for MSS. _cautus_. _Tardum_: _De Div._ II. 103 _Epicurum quem hebetem et rudem dicere solent Stoici_; cf. also _ib._ II. 116, and the frequent use of βραδυς in Sext., e.g. _A.M._ VII. 325. _Cum hoc igitur_: the word _igitur_, as usual, picks up the broken thread of the sentence. _Id est_: n. on I. 8. _Evertit_: for the Epicurean view of Dialectic see R. and P. 343. Zeller 399 sq., _M.D.F._ I. 22. _E contrariis diiunctio_: = διεζευγμενον εξ εναντιων.

§98. _Sequor_: as in 95, 96, where the _Dialectici_ refused to allow the consequences of their own principles, according to Cic. _Ludere_: this reminds one of the famous controversy between Corax and Tisias, for which see Cope in the old _Journal of Philology_. No. 7. _Iudicem ... non iudicem_: this construction, which in Greek would be marked by μεν and δε, has been a great crux of edd.; Dav. here wished to insert _cum_ before _iudicem_, but is conclusively refuted by Madv. _Em._ 31. The same construction occurs in 103. _Esse conexum_: with great probability Christ supposes the infinitive to be an addition of the copyists.

§§98--105. Summary. In order to overthrow at once the case of Antiochus, I proceed to explain, after Clitomachus, the whole of Carneades' system (98). Carneades laid down two divisions of _visa_, one into those capable of being perceived and those not so capable, the other into probable and improbable. Arguments aimed at the senses concern the first division only; the sapiens will follow probability, as in many instances the Stoic sapiens confessedly does (99, 100). Our sapiens is not made of stone; many things _seem_ to him true; yet he always feels that there is a possibility of their being false. The Stoics themselves admit that the senses are often deceived. Put this admission together with the tenet of Epicurus, and perception becomes impossible (101). It is strange that our _Probables_ do not seem sufficient to you. Hear the account given by Clitomachus (102). He condemns those who say that sensation is swept away by the Academy; nothing is swept away but its _necessary_ certainty (103). There are two modes of withholding assent; withholding it absolutely and withholding it merely so far as to deny the _certainty_ of phenomena. The latter mode leaves all that is required for ordinary life (104).

§98. _Tortuosum_: similar expressions are in _T.D._ II. 42, III. 22, _D.F._ IV. 7. _Ut Poenus_: "as might be expected from a Carthaginian;" cf. _D.F._ IV. 56, _tuus ille Poenulus, homo acutus_. A different meaning is given by the _ut_ in passages like _De Div._ II. 30 _Democritus non inscite nugatur, ut physicus, quo genere nihil arrogantius_; "for a physical philosopher."

§99. _Genera_: here = classifications of, modes of dividing _visa_. This way of taking the passage will defend Cic. against the strong censure of Madv. (Pref. to _D.F._ p. lxiii.) who holds him convicted of ignorance, for representing Carneades as dividing _visa_ into those which can be perceived and those which cannot. Is it possible that any one should read the _Academica_ up to this point, and still believe that Cic. is capable of supposing, even for a moment, that Carneades in any way upheld καταληψις? _Dicantur_: i.e. _ab Academicis_. _Si probabile_: the _si_ is not in MSS. Halm and also Bait. follow Christ in reading _est, probabile nihil esse_. _Commemorabas_: in 53, 58. _Eversio_: cf. _D.F._ III. 50 (the same words), Plat. _Gorg_. 481 C ‛ημων ‛ο βιος ανατετραμμενος αν ειη, Sext. _A.M._ VIII. 157 συγχεομεν τον βιον. _Et sensibus_: no second _et_ corresponds to this; _sic_ below replaces it. See Madv. _D.F._ p. 790, ed. 2. _Quicquam tale_ etc.: cf. 40, 41. _Nihil ab eo differens_: n. on 54. _Non comprehensa_: n. on 96.

§100. _Si iam_: "if, for example;" so _iam_ is often used in Lucretius. _Probo ... bono_: it would have seemed more natural to transpose these epithets. _Facilior ... ut probet_: the usual construction is with _ad_ and the gerund; cf. _De Div._ II. 107, _Brut_. 180. _Anaxagoras_: he made no ‛ομοιομερειαι of snow, but only of water, which, when pure and deep, is dark in colour. _Concreta_: so Manut. for MSS. _congregata_. In 121 the MSS. give _concreta_ without variation, as in _N.D._ II. 101, _De Div._ I. 130, _T.D._ I. 66, 71.

§101. _Impeditum_: cf. 33, n. _Movebitur_: cf. _moveri_ in 24. _Non enim est_: Cic. in the vast majority of cases writes _est enim_, the two words falling under one accent like _sed enim, et enim_ (cf. Corss. _Ausspr._ II. 851); Beier on _De Off._ I. p. 157 (qu. by Halm) wishes therefore to read _est enim_, but the MSS. both of the _Lucullus_ and of Nonius agree in the other form, which Madv. allows to stand in _D.F._ I. 43, and many other places (see his note). Cf. fragm. 22 of the _Acad. Post_. _E robore_: so Nonius, but the MSS. of Cic. give here _ebore_. _Dolatus_: an evident imitation of Hom. _Od._ T 163 ου γαρ απο δριος εσσι παλαιφατου ουδ' απο πετρης. _Neque tamen habere_: i.e. _se putat_. For the sudden change from _oratio recta_ to _obliqua_ cf. 40 with n. _Percipiendi notam_: = χαρακτηρα της συγκταθεσεως in Sext. _P.H._ I. 191. For the use of the gerund cf. n. on 26, with Madv. _Gram._ 418, Munro on Lucr. I. 313; for _propriam_ 34. _Exsistere_. cf. 36. _Qui neget_: see 79. _Caput_: a legal term. _Conclusio loquitur_: cf. _historiae loquantur_ (5), _consuetudo loquitur_ (_D.F._ II. 48), _hominis institutio si loqueretur_ (_ib._ IV. 41), _vites si loqui possint_ (_ib._ V. 39), _patria loquitur_ (_In Cat._ I. 18, 27); the last use Cic. condemns himself in _Orat._ 85. _Inquit_: "quotha," indefinitely, as in 109, 115; cf. also _dicit_ in 79.

§102. _Reprehensio est ... satis esse vobis_: Bait. follows Madv. in placing a comma after _est_, and a full stop at _probabilia_. _Tamen_ ought in that case to follow _dicimus_, and it is noteworthy that in his communication to Halm (printed on p. 854 of Bait., and Hahn's ed. of the philosophical works, 1861) Madv. omits the word _tamen_ altogether, nor does Bait. in adopting the suggestion notice the omission. _Ista diceret_: "stated the opinions you asked for." _Poetam_: this both Halm and Bait. treat as a gloss.

§103. For this section cf. Lucullus' speech, passim, and Sext. _P.H._ I. 227 sq. _Academia ... quibus_: a number of exx. of this change from sing. to plural are given by Madv. on _D.F._ V. 16. _Nullum_: on the favourite Ciceronian use of _nullus_ for _non_ see 47, 141, and Madv. _Gram._ 455, obs. 5. _Illud sit disputatum_: for the construction cf. 98; _autem_ is omitted with the same constr. in _D.F._ V. 79, 80. _Nusquam alibi_: cf. 50.

§104. _Exposuisset adiungit_: Madv. on _D.F._ III. 67 notices a certain looseness in the use of tenses, which Cic. displays in narrating the opinions of philosophers, but no ex. so strong as this is produced. _Ut aut approbet quid aut improbet_: this Halm rejects. I have noticed among recent editors of Cic. a strong tendency to reject explanatory clauses introduced by _ut_. Halm brackets a similar clause in 20, and is followed in both instances by Bait. Kayser, who is perhaps the most extensive _bracketer_ of modern times, rejects very many clauses of the kind in the Oratorical works. In our passage, the difficulty vanishes when we reflect that _approbare_ and _improbare_ may mean either to render an _absolute_ approval or disapproval, or to render an approval or disapproval merely based on _probability_. For example, in 29 the words have the first meaning, in 66 the second. The same is the case with _nego_ and _aio_. I trace the whole difficulty of the passage to the absence of terms to express distinctly the difference between the two kinds of assent. The general sense will be as follows. "There are two kinds of εποχη, one which prevents a man from expressing any assent or disagreement (in either of the two senses above noticed), another which does not prevent him from giving an answer to questions, provided his answer be not taken to imply absolute approval or absolute disapproval; the result of which will be that he will neither absolutely deny nor absolutely affirm anything, but will merely give a qualified 'yes' or 'no,' dependent on probability." My defence of the clause impugned is substantially the same as that of Hermann in the _Philologus_ (vol. VII.), which I had not read when this note was first written. _Alterum placere ... alterum tenere_: "the one is his formal dogma, the other is his actual practice." For the force of this see my note on _non probans_ in 148, which passage is very similar to this. _Neget ... aiat_: cf. 97. _Nec ut placeat_: this, the MSS. reading, gives exactly the wrong sense, for Clitomachus _did_ allow such _visa_ to stand as were sufficient to serve as a basis for action. Hermann's _neu cui_ labours under the same defect. Various emendations are _nam cum_ (Lamb., accepted by Zeller 522), _hic ut_ (Manut.), _et cum_ (Dav. followed by Bait.), _sed cum_ (Halm). The most probable of these seems to me that of Manut. I should prefer _sic ut_, taking _ut_ in the sense of "although." _Respondere_: "to put in as an answer," as in 93 and often. _Approbari_: sc. _putavit_. Such changes of construction are common in Cic., and I cannot follow Halm in altering the reading to _approbavit_.

§105. _Lucem eripimus_: cf. 30.

§§105--111. Summary. You must see, Lucullus, by this time, that your defence of dogmatism is overthrown (105). You asked how memory was possible on my principles. Why, did not Siron remember the dogmas of Epicurus? If nothing can be remembered which is not absolutely true, then these will be true (106). Probability is quite sufficient basis for the arts. One strong point of yours is that nature compels us to _assent_. But Panaetius doubted even some of the Stoic dogmas, and you yourself refuse assent to the _sorites_, why then should not the Academic doubt about other things? (107) Your other strong point is that without assent action is impossible (108). But surely many actions of the dogmatist proceed upon mere probability. Nor do you gain by the use of the hackneyed argument of Antiochus (109). Where probability is, there the Academic has all the knowledge he wants (110). The argument of Antiochus that the Academics first admit that there are true and false _visa_ and then contradict themselves by denying that there is any difference between true and false, is absurd. We do not deny that the difference _exists_; we do deny that human faculties are capable of perceiving the difference (111).

§105. _Inducto ... prob._: so Aug. _Cont Ac._ II. 12 _Soluto, libero_: cf. n. on 8. _Implicato_: = _impedito_ cf. 101. _Iacere_: cf. 79. _Isdem oculis_: an answer to the question _nihil cernis?_ in 102. _Purpureum_: cf. fragm. 7 of the _Acad. Post_. _Modo caeruleum ... sole_: Nonius (cf. fragm. 23) quotes _tum caeruleum tum lavum_ (the MSS. in our passage have _flavum_) _videtur, quodque nunc a sole_. C.F. Hermann would place _mane ravum_ after _quodque_ and take _quod_ as a proper relative pronoun, not as = "because." This transposition certainly gives increased clearness. Hermann further wishes to remove _a_, quoting exx. of _collucere_ without the prep., which are not at all parallel, i.e. _Verr._ I. 58, IV. 71. _Vibrat_: with the ανηριθμον γελασμα of Aeschylus. _Dissimileque_: Halm, followed by Bait., om. _que_. _Proximo et_: MSS. have _ei_, rightly altered by Lamb., cf. e.g. _De Fato_ 44. _Non possis ... defendere_: a similar line is taken in 81.

§106. _Memoria_: cf. 22. _Polyaenus_: named _D.F._ I. 20, Diog. X. 18, as one of the chief friends of Epicurus. _Falsum quod est_: Greek and Latin do not distinguish accurately between the _true_ and the _existent_, the _false_ and the _non existent_, hence the present difficulty; in Plato the confusion is frequent, notably in the _Sophistes_ and _Theaetetus_. _Si igitur_: "if then recollection is recollection only of things perceived and known." The dogmatist theory of μνημη and νοησις is dealt with in exactly the same way by Sext. _P.H._ II. 5, 10 and elsewhere, cf. also Plat _Theaet._ 191 sq. _Siron_: thus Madv. on _D.F._ II. 119 writes the name, not _Sciron_, as Halm. _Fateare_: the em. of Dav. for _facile_, _facere_, _facias_ of MSS. Christ defends _facere_, thinking that the constr. is varied from the subj. to the inf. after _oportet_, as after _necesse est_ in 39. For _facere_ followed by an inf. cf. _M.D.F._ IV. 8. _Nulla_: for _non_, cf. 47, 103.

§107. _Fiet artibus_: n. on 27 for the constr., for the matter see 22. _Lumina_: "strong points." Bentl. boldly read _columina_, while Dav. proposed _vimina_ or _vincula_. That an em. is not needed may be seen from _D.F._ II. 70. _negat Epicurus (hoc enim vestrum lumen est)_ _N.D._ I. 79, and 43 of this book. _Responsa_: added by Ernesti. Faber supplies _haruspicia_, Orelli after Ern. _haruspicinam_, but, as Halm says, some noun in the plur. is needed. _Quod is non potest_: this is the MSS. reading, but most edd. read _si is_, to cure a wrong punctuation, by which a colon is placed at _perspicuum est_ above, and a full stop at _sustineat_. Halm restored the passage. _Habuerint_: the subj. seems due to the attraction exercised by _sustineat_. Bait. after Kayser has _habuerunt_. _Positum_: "when laid down" or "assumed."

§108. _Alterum est quod_: this is substituted for _deinde_, which ought to correspond to _primum_ above. _Actio ullius rei_: n. on _actio rerum_ in 62, cf. also 148. _Adsensu comprobet_: almost the same phrase often occurs in Livy, Sueton., etc. see Forc. _Sit etiam_: the _etiam_ is a little strange and was thought spurious by Ernesti. It seems to have the force of Eng. "indeed", "in what indeed assent consists." _Sensus ipsos adsensus_: so in I. 41 _sensus_ is defined to be _id quod est sensu comprehensum_, i.e. καταληψις, cf. also Stobaeus I. 41, 25 αισθητικη γαρ φαντασια συγκαταθεσις εστι. _Appetitio_: for all this cf. 30. _Et dicta ... multa_: Manut. ejected these words as a gloss, after _multa_ the MSS. curiously add _vide superiora_. _Lubricos sustinere_: cf. 68 and 94. _Ita scribenti ... exanclatum_: for the om. of _esse_ cf. 77, 113 with notes. _Herculi_: for this form of the gen. cf. Madv. on _D.F._ I. 14, who doubts whether Cic. ever wrote _-is_ in the gen. of the Greek names in _-es_. When we consider how difficult it was for copyists _not_ to change the rarer form into the commoner, also that even Priscian (see _M.D.F._ V. 12) made gross blunders about them, the supposition of Madv. becomes almost irresistible. _Temeritatem_: προπετειαν, εικαιοτητα.

§109. _In navigando_: cf. 100. _In conserendo_: Guretus interprets "εν τω φυτυεσθαι τον αγρον," and is followed by most commentators, though it seems at least possible that _manum_ is to be understood. For the suppressed accus. _agrum_ cf. n. on _tollendum_ in 148. _Sequere_: the fut. not the pres. ind., cf. 61. _Pressius_: cf. 28. _Reprehensum_: sc. _narrasti_. _Id ipsum_: = _nihil posse comprehendi_. _Saltem_: so in 29. _Pingue_: cf. _Pro Archia_ 10. _Sibi ipsum_: note that Cic. does not generally make _ipse_ agree in case with the reflexive, but writes _se ipse_, etc. _Convenienter_: "consistently". _Esse possit_: Bait. _posset_ on the suggestion of Halm, but Cic. states the doctrine as a living one, not throwing it back to Antiochus time and to this particular speech of Ant. _Ut hoc ipsum_: the _ut_ follows on _illo modo urguendum_ above. _Decretum quod_: Halm followed by Bait. gives _quo_, referring to _altero quo neget_ in 111, which however does not justify the reading. The best MSS. have _qui_. _Et sine decretis_: Lamb. gave _nec_ for _et_, but Dav. correctly explains, "_multa decreta habent Academici, non tamen percepta sed tantum probabilia._"

§110. _Ut illa_: i.e. the _decreta_ implied in the last sentence. Some MSS. have _ille_, while Dav. without necessity gives _alia_. _Sic hoc ipsum_: Sext. then is wrong is saying (_P.H._ I. 226) that the Academics διαβεβαιουνται τα πραγματα ειναι ακαταληπτα, i.e. state the doctrine dogmatically, while the sceptics do not. _Cognitionis notam_: like _nota percipiendi_, _veri et falsi_, etc. which we have already had. _Ne confundere omnia_: a mocking repetition of Lucullus phrase, cf. 58. _Incerta reddere_: cf. 54. _Stellarum numerus_: another echo of Lucullus; see 32. _Quem ad modum ... item_: see Madv. on _D.F._ III. 48, who quotes an exact parallel from _Topica_ 46, and _sicut ... item_ from _N.D._ I. 3, noting at the same time that in such exx. neither _ita_ nor _idem_, which MSS. sometimes give for _item_, is correct.

§111. _Dicere ... perturbatum_: for om. of _esse_ cf. 108, etc. _Antiochus_: this Bait. brackets. _Unum ... alterum_: cf. 44. _Esse quaedam in visis_: it was not the _esse_ but the _videri_, not the actual existence of a difference, but the possibility of that difference being infallibly perceived by human sense, that the Academic denied. _Cernimus_: i.e. the _probably_ true and false. _Probandi species_: a phenomenal appearance which belongs to, or properly leads to qualified approval.

§§112--115. Summary. If I had to deal with a Peripatetic, whose definitions are not so exacting, my course would be easier; I should not much oppose him even if he maintained that the wise man sometimes _opines_ (112). The definitions of the real Old Academy are more reasonable than those of Antiochus. How, holding the opinions he does, can he profess to belong to the Old Academy? (113) I cannot tolerate your assumption that it is possible to keep an elaborate dogmatic system like yours free from mistakes (114). You wish me to join your school. What am I to do then with my dear friend Diodotus, who thinks so poorly of Antiochus? Let us consider however what system not I, but the _sapiens_ is to adopt (115).

§112. _Campis ... exsultare ... oratio_: expressions like this are common in Cic., e.g. _D.F._ I. 54, _De Off._ I. 61, _Orat._ 26; cf. also Aug. _Cont. Ac._ III. 5 _ne in quaestionis campis tua eqitaret oratio_. _Cum Peripatetico_: nothing that Cic. states here is at discord with what is known of the tenets of the later Peripatetics; cf. esp. Sext. _A.M._ VII. 216--226. All that Cic. says is that he could accept the Peripatetic formula, putting upon it his own meaning of course. Doubtless a Peripatetic would have wondered how a sceptic _could_ accept his formulae; but the spectacle of men of the most irreconcilable opinions clinging on to the same formulae is common enough to prevent us from being surprised at Cicero's acceptance. I have already suggested (n. on 18) that we have here a trace of Philo's teaching, as distinct from that of Carneades. I see absolutely no reason for the very severe remarks of Madvig on _D.F._ V. 76, a passage which very closely resembles ours. _Dumeta_: same use in _N.D._ I. 68, Aug. _Cont. Ac._ II. 6; the _spinae_ of the Stoics are often mentioned, e.g. _D.F._ IV. 6. _E vero ... a falso_: note the change of prep. _Adhiberet_: the MSS. are confused here, and go Halm reads _adderet_, and Bait. follows, while Kayser proposes _adhaereret_, which is indeed nearer the MSS.; cf. however I. 39 _adhiberet_. _Accessionem_: for this cf. 18 and 77. _Simpliciter_: the opposite of _subtiliter_; cf. _simpliciter--subtilitas_ in I. 6. _Ne Carneade quidem_: cf. 59, 67, 78, 148.

§113. _Sed qui his minor est_: given by Halm as the em. of Io. Clericus for MSS. _sed mihi minores_. Guietus gave _sed his minores_, Durand _sed minutior_, while Halm suggests _sed minutiores_. I conj. _nimio minares_, which would be much nearer the MSS.; cf. Lucr. I. 734 _inferiores partibus egregie multis multoque minores_. _Tale verum_: _visum_ omitted as in _D.F._ V. 76. _Incognito_: cf. 133. _Amavi hominem_: cf. Introd. p. 6. _Ita iudico, politissimum_; it is a mistake to suppose this sentence incomplete, like Halm, who wishes to add _eum esse_, or like Bait., who with Kayser prints _esse_ after _politissimum_. Cf. 108 _ita scribenti, exanclatum_, and the examples given from Cic. by Madv. on _D.F._ II. 13. _Horum neutrum_: cf. 77 _nemo_. _Utrumque verum_: Cic. of course only accepts the propositions as Arcesilas did; see 77.

§114. _Illud ferre_: cf. 136. _Constituas_: this verb is often used in connection with the ethical _finis_; cf. 129 and I. 19. _Idemque etiam_: Krebs and Allgayer (_Antibarbarus_, ed. 4) deny that the expression _idem etiam_ is Latin. One good MS. here has _atque etiam_, which Dav. reads; cf. however _Orat._ 117. _Artificium_: = _ars_, as in 30. _Nusquam labar_: cf. 138 _ne labar_. _Subadroganter_: cf. 126.

§115. _Qui sibi cum oratoribus ... rexisse_: so Cic. vary often speaks of the Peripatetics, as in _D.F._ IV. 5, V. 7. _Sustinuero_: cf. 70. _Tam bonos_: Cic. often speaks of them and of Epicurus in this patronising way; see e.g. _T.D._ II. 44, III. 50, _D.F._ I. 25, II. 81. For the Epicurean friendships cf. esp. _D.F._ I. 65. _Diodoto_: cf. Introd. p. 2. _Nolumus_: Halm and Bait., give _nolimus_; so fine a line divides the subjunctive from the indicative in clauses like these that the choice often depends on mere individual taste. _De sapiente loquamur_: n. on 66.

§§116--128. Summary. Of the three parts of philosophy take Physics first. Would your _sapiens_ swear to the truth of any geometrical result whatever? (116) Let us see which one of actual physical systems the _sapiens_ we are seeking will select (117). He must choose _one_ teacher from among the conflicting schools of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenos, Anaxagoras, Xenophanes, Leucippus, Democritus, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Melissus, Plato and Pythagoras. The remaining teachers, great men though they be, he must reject (118). Whatever system he selects he must know absolutely; if the Stoic, he must believe as strongly in the Stoic theology as he does in the sunlight. If he holds this, Aristotle will pronounce him mad; you, however, Lucullus, must defend the Stoics and spurn Aristotle from you, while you will not allow me even to doubt (119). How much better to be free, as I am and not compelled to find an answer to all the riddles of the universe! (120) Nothing can exist, say you, apart from the deity. Strato, however, says he does not need the deity to construct the universe. His mode of construction again differs from that of Democritus. I see some good in Strato, yet I will not assent absolutely either to his system or to yours (121). All these matters lie far beyond our ken. We know nothing of our bodies, which we can dissect, while we have not the advantage of being able to dissect the constitution of things or of the earth to see whether she is firmly fixed or hovers in mid air (122). Xenophanes, Hicetas, Plato and Epicurus tell strange things of the heavenly bodies. How much better to side with Socrates and Aristo, who hold that nothing can be known about them! (123) Who knows the nature of mind? Numberless opinions clash, as do those of Dicaearchus, Plato and Xenocrates. Our _sapiens_ will be unable to decide (124). If you say it is better to choose any system rather than none, I choose Democritus. You at once upbraid me for believing such monstrous falsehoods (125). The Stoics differ among themselves about physical subjects, why will they not allow me to differ from them? (126) Not that I deprecate the study of Physics, for moral good results from it (127). Our _sapiens_ will be delighted if he attains to anything which seems to resemble truth. Before I proceed to Ethics, I note your weakness in placing all perceptions on the same level. You must be prepared to asseverate no less strongly that the sun is eighteen times as large as the earth, than that yon statue is six feet high. When you admit that all things can be perceived no more and no less clearly than the size of the sun, I am almost content (128).

§116. _Tres partes_: cf. I. 19. _Et a vobismet_: "and especially by you". The threefold division was peculiarly Stoic, though used by other schools, cf. Sext. _P.H._ II. 13 (on the same subject) ‛οι Στωικοι και αλλοι τινες. For other modes of dividing philosophy see Sext. _A.M._ VII. 2. _At illud ante_: this is my em. for the MSS. _velut illud ante_, which probably arose from a marginal variant "_vel ut_" taking the place of _at_; cf. a similar break in 40 _sed prius_, also in 128 _at paulum ante_. Such breaks often occur in Cic., as in _Orator_ 87 _sed nunc aliud_, also _T.D._ IV. 47 _repenam fortasse, sed illud ante._ For _velut_ Halm writes _vel_ (which Bait. takes), Dav. _verum_. _Inflatus tumore_: cf. _De Off._ I. 91 _inflati opinionibus._ Bentl. read _errore_. _Cogere_: this word like αναγκαζειν and βιαζεσθαι often means simply to argue irresistibly. _Initia_: as in 118, bases of proof, themselves naturally incapable of proof, so αρχαι in Gk. _Digitum_: cf. 58, 143. _Punctum esse_ etc.: σημειον εστιν ου μερος ουθεν (Sext. _P.H._ III. 39), στιγμη = το αμερες (_A.M._ IX. 283, 377). _Extremitatem_: = επιφανειαν. _Libramentum_: so this word is used by Pliny (see Forc.) for the slope of a hill. _Nulla crassitudo_: in Sext. the επιφανεια is usually described not negatively as here, but positively as μηκος μετα πλατους (_P.H._ III. 39), περας (_extremitas_) σοματος δυο εχον διαστασεις, μηκος και πλατος (_A.M._ III. 77). _Liniamentum ... carentem_: a difficult passage. Note (1) that the line is defined in Greek as μηκος απλατες. (Sext. as above), (2) that Cic. has by preference described the point and surface negatively. This latter fact seems to me strong against the introduction of _longitudinem_ which Ursinus, Dav., Orelli, Baiter and others propose by conjecture. If anything is to be introduced, I would rather add _et crassitudine_ before _carentem_, comparing I. 27 _sine ulla specie et carentem omni illa qualitate_. I have merely bracketed _carentem_, though I feel Halm's remark that a verb is wanted in this clause as in the other two, he suggests _quod sit sine_. Hermann takes _esse_ after _punctum_ as strongly predicative ("there _is_ a point," etc.), then adds _similiter_ after _liniamentum_ and ejects _sine ulla_. Observe the awkwardness of having the _line_ treated of after the _superficies_, which has induced some edd. to transpose. For _liniamentum_ = _lineam_ cf. _De Or._ I. 187. _Si adigam_: the fine em. of Manut. for _si adiiciamus_ of MSS. The construction _adigere aliquem ius iurandum_ will be found in Caes. _Bell. Civ._ I. 76, II. 18, qu. by Dav., cf. also Virg. _Aen._ III. 56 _quid non mortalia pectora cogis auri sacra fames?_ _Sapientem nec prius_: this is the "_egregia lectio_" of three of Halm's MSS. Before Halm _sapientemne_ was read, thus was destroyed the whole point of the sentence, which is _not_ that the _sapiens_ will swear to the size of the sun after he has seen Archimedes go through his calculations, _but_ that the _sapiens_, however true he admits the bases of proof to be which Archimedes uses, will _not_ swear to the truth of the elaborate conclusions which that geometer rears upon them. Cicero is arguing as in 128 against the absurdity of attaching one and the same degree of certainty to the simplest and the most complex truths, and tries to condemn the Stoic _sapiens_ out of his own mouth, cf. esp. _nec ille iurare posset_ in 123. _Multis partibus_: for this expression see Munro on Lucr. I. 734, for the sense cf. 82, 123, 126, 128. _Deum_: see 126.

§117. _Vim_: = αναγκην, cf. _cogere_ in 116. _Ne ille_: this asseverative _ne_ is thus always closely joined with pronouns in Cic. _Sententiam eliget et_: MSS. have (by _dittographia_ of _m_, _eli_) added _melius_ after _sententiam_, and have also dropped _et_. Dav. wished to read _elegerit_, comparing the beginning of 119. _Insipiens eliget_: cf. 115 _quale est a non sapiente explicari sapientiam?_ and 9 _statuere qui sit sapiens vel maxime videtur esse sapientis_. _Infinitae quaestiones_: θεσεις, general propositions, opposed to _finitae quaestiones_, limited propositions, Gk. ‛υποθεσεις. Quintal III. 5, 5 gives as an ex. of the former _An uxor ducenda_, of the latter _An Catoni ducenda_. These _quaestiones_ are very often alluded to by Cic. as in _D.F._ I. 12, IV. 6, _De Or._ I. 138, II. 65--67, _Topica_ 79, _Orat._ 46, cf. also Quint. X. 5, II. _E quibus omnia constant_: this sounds like Lucretius, _omnia_ = το παν.

§118. For these _physici_ the student must in general be referred to R. and P., Schwegler, and Grote's _Plato_ Vol. I. A more complete enumeration of schools will be found in Sext. _P.H._ III. 30 sq. Our passage is imitated by Aug _De Civ. Dei_ XVIII. 37. _Concessisse primas_: Cic. always considers Thales to be _sapientissimus e septem_ (_De Leg._ II. 26). Hence Markland on Cic. _Ad Brutum_ II. 15, 3 argued that that letter cannot be genuine, since in it the supremacy among the seven is assigned to Solon. _Infinitatem naturae_: το απειρον, _naturae_ here = ουσιας. _Definita_: this is opposed to _infinita_ in _Topica_ 79, so _definire_ is used for _finire_ in _Orat._ 65, where Jahn qu. _Verr._ IV. 115. _Similis inter se_: an attempt to translate ‛ομοιομερειας. _Eas primum_, etc.: cf. the exordium of Anaxagoras given from Diog. II. 6 in R. and P. 29 παντα χρηματα ην ‛ομου ειτα νους ελθων αυτα διεκοσμησε. _Xenophanes ... deum_: Eleaticism was in the hands of Xenoph. mainly theological. _Neque natum unquam_: cf. _neque ortum unquam_ in 119. _Parmenides ignem_: cf. Arist. _Met. A._ 5 qu. R. and P. 94. He only hypothetically allowed the existence of the phenomenal world, after which he made two αρχαι, θερμον και ψυχρον τουτων δε το μεν κατα μεν το ‛ον θερμον ταττει, θατερον δε κατα το μη ον. _Heraclitus_: n. on I. 39. _Melissus_: see Simplicius qu. R. and P. 101, and esp. το εον αιει αρα ην τε και εσται. _Plato_: n. on I. 27. _Discedent_: a word often used of those vanquished in a fight, cf. Hor. _Sat._ I. 7, 17.

§119. _Sic animo ... sensibus_: knowledge according to the Stoics was homogeneous throughout, no one thing could be more or less known than another. _Nunc lucere_: cf. 98, also 128 _non enim magis adsentiuntur_, etc. _Mundum sapientem_: for this Stoic doctrine see _N.D._ I. 84, II. 32, etc. _Fabricata sit_: see 87 n. _Solem_: 126. _Animalis intellegentia_: reason is the essence of the universe with the Stoics, cf. Zeller 138--9, also 28, 29 of Book I. _Permanet_: the deity is to the Stoic πνευμα ενδιηκον δι ‛ολου του κοσμου (Plut. _De Plac. Phil._ I. 7 qu. R. and P. 375), _spiritus per omnia maxima ac minima aequali intentione diffusus._ (Seneca, _Consol. ad Helvid._ 8, 3 qu. Zeller 147). _Deflagret_: the Stoics considered the κοσμος φθαρτος, cf. Diog. VII. 141, Zeller 156--7. _Fateri_: cf. _tam vera quam falsa cernimus_ in 111. _Flumen aureum_: Plut. _Vita Cic._ 24 alludes to this (‛οτι χρυσιου ποταμος ειη ρεοντος). This is the constant judgment of Cic. about Aristotle's style. Grote, _Aristot._ Vol I. p. 43, quotes _Topica_ 3, _De Or._ I. 49, _Brut._ 121, _N.D._ II. 93, _De Inv._ II. 6, _D.F._ I. 14, _Ad Att._ II. 1, and discusses the difficulty of applying this criticism to the works of Aristotle which we possess. _Nulla vis_: cf. I. 28. _Exsistere_: Walker conj. _efficere_, "_recte ut videtur_" says Halm. Bait. adopts it. _Ornatus_: = κοσμος.

§120. _Libertas ... non esse_: a remarkable construction. For the Academic liberty see Introd. p. 18. _Quod tibi est_: after these words Halm puts merely a comma, and inserting _respondere_ makes _cur deus_, etc. part of the same sentence. Bait. follows. _Nostra causa_: Cic. always writes _mea, tua, vestra, nostra causa_, not _mei, tui, nostri, vestri_, just as he writes _sua sponte_, but not _sponte alicuius_. For the Stoic opinion that men are the chief care of Providence, see _N.D._ I. 23, II. 37, _D.F._ III. 67, _Ac._ I. 29 etc., also Zeller. The difficulties surrounding the opinion are treated of in Zeller 175, _N.D._ II. 91--127. They supply in Sext. _P.H._ I. 32, III. 9--12 an example of the refutation of νοουμενα by means of νοουμενα. _Tam multa ac_: MSS. om. _ac_, which I insert. Lactantius qu. the passage without _perniciosa_. _Myrmecides_: an actual Athenian artist, famed for minute work in ivory, and especially for a chariot which a fly covered with its wings, and a ship which the wings of a bee concealed. See Plin. _Nat. Hist._ VII. 21, XXXVI. 5.

§121. _Posse_: n. on I. 29. _Strato_: R. and P. 331. _Sed cum_: _sed_ often marks a very slight contrast, there is no need to read _et_, as Halm. _Asperis ... corporibus_: cf. fragm. 28 of the _Ac. Post._, also _N.D._ I. 66. _Somnia_: so _N.D._ I. 18 _miracula non disserentium philosophorum sed somniantium_, _ib._ I. 42 _non philosophorum iudicia sed delirantium somnia_, also _ib._ I. 66 _flagitia Democriti_. _Docentis_: giving _proof_. _Optantis_: Guietus humorously conj. _potantis,_ Durand _oscitantis_ (cf. _N.D._ I. 72), others _opinantis_. That the text is sound however may be seen from _T.D._ II. 30 _optare hoc quidem est non docere_, _De Fato_ 46, _N.D._ I. 19 _optata magis quam inventa_, _ib._ III. 12 _doceas oportet nec proferas_; cf. also _Orat._ 59 _vocis bonitas optanda est, non est enim in nobis_, i.e. a good voice is a thing to be prayed for, and not to be got by exertion. There is a similar Greek proverb, ευχη μαλλον η αληθεια, in Sext. _P.H._ VIII. 353. _Magno opere_: Hermann wishes to read _onere_. The phrase _magnum onus_ is indeed common (cf. _De Or._ I. 116), but _magnum opus_, in the sense of "a great task," is equally so, cf. _T.D._ III. 79, 84, _Orat._ 75. _Modo hoc modo illud_: 134.

§122. _Latent ista_: see n. on fragm. 29 of the _Ac. Post._; for _latent_ cf. I. 45. Aug. _Cont. Ac._ II. 12, III. 1 imitates this passage. _Circumfusa_: cf. I. 44, and 46 of this book. _Medici_: cf. _T.D._ I. 46 _Viderentur_: a genuine passive, cf. 25, 39, 81. _Empirici_: a school of physicians so called. _Ut ... mutentur_: exactly the same answer was made recently to Prof. Huxley's speculations on protoplasm; he was said to have assumed that the living protoplasm would have the same properties as the dead. _Media pendeat_: cf. _N.D._ II. 98, _De Or._ III. 178.

§123. _Habitari ait_: for this edd. qu. Lactant. _Inst._ III. 23, 12. _Portenta_: "monstrosities these," cf. _D.F._ IV. 70. _Iurare_: cf. 116. _Neque ego_, etc.: see fragm. 30 of _Ac. Post._ Αντιποδας: this doctrine appears in Philolaus (see Plut. _Plac. Phil._ III. 11 qu. R. and P. 75), who give the name of αντιχθων to the opposite side of the world. Diog. VIII. 26 (with which passage cf. Stob. _Phys._ XV. 7) mentions the theory as Pythagorean, but in another passage (III. 24) says that Plato first invented the name. The word αντιπους seems to occur first in Plat. _Tim._ 63 A. The existence of αντιποδες; was of course bound up with the doctrine that the universe or the world is a globe (which is held by Plat. in the _Tim._ and by the Stoics, see Stob. _Phys._ XV. 6, Diog. VII. 140), hence the early Christian writers attack the two ideas together as unscriptural. Cf. esp Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XVI. 9. _Hicetas_: he was followed by Heraclides Ponticus and some Pythagoreans. Sext. _A.M._ X. 174 speaks of the followers of Aristarchus the mathematician as holding the same doctrine. It seems also to be found in Philolaus, see R. and P. 75. _Theophrastus_: who wrote much on the history of philosophy, see R. and P. 328. _Platonem_: the words of Plato (_Tim._ 40 B) are γην δε τροφον μεν ‛ημετεραν, ειλλομενην δε περι τον δια παντος πολον τεταμενον. _Quid tu, Epicure_: the connection is that Cic., having given the crotchets of other philosophers about φυσικη, proceeds to give the peculiar crotchet of Epic. _Putas solem ... tantum_: a hard passage. _Egone? ne bis_ is the em. of Lamb. for MSS. _egone vobis_, and is approved by Madv., who thus explains it (_Em._ 185) "_cum interrogatum esset num tantulum (quasi pedalem 82) solem esse putaret, Epic. non praecise definit (tantum enim esse censebat quantus videretur vel paulo aut maiorem aut minorem) sed latius circumscribit, ne bis quidem tantum esse, sed inter pedalem magnitudinem et bipedalem_". (_D.F._ I. 20) This explanation though not quite satisfactory is the best yet given. Epicurus' absurdity is by Cic. brought into strong relief by stating the outside limit to which Epic. was prepared to go in estimating the sun's size, i.e. twice the apparent size. _Ne ... quidem_ may possibly appear strange, cf. however _ne maiorem quidem_ in 82. _Aristo Chius_: for this doctrine of his see R. and P. 358.

§124. _Quid sit animus_: an enumeration of the different ancient theories is given in _T.D._ I. 18--22, and by Sext. _A.M._ VII. 113, who also speaks in _P.H._ II. 31 of the πολλη και ανηνυτος μαχη concerning the soul. In _P.H._ II. 57 he says Γοργιας ουδε διανοιαν ειναι φησι. _Dicaearcho_: _T.D._ I. 21. _Tres partis_: in Plato's _Republic_. _Ignis_: Zeno's opinion, _T.D._ I. 19. _Animam_: _ib._ I. 19. _Sanguis_: Empodocles, as in _T.D._ I. 19 where his famous line ‛αιμα γαρ ανθρωποις περικαρδιον εστι νοημα is translated, see R. and P. 124. _Ut Xenocrates_: some edd. read _Xenocrati_, but cf. I. 44, _D.F._ II. 18, _T.D._ III. 76. _Numerus_: so Bentl. for _mens_ of MSS., cf. I. 39, _T.D._ I. 20, 41. An explanation of this Pythagorean doctrine of Xenocrates is given in R. and P. 244. _Quod intellegi_ etc.: so in _T.D._ I. 41 _quod subtiliter magis quam dilucide dicitur_. _Momenta_ n. on I. 45.

§125. _Verecundius_: cf. 114 _subadroganter_. _Vincam animum_: a common phrase in Cic., cf. _Philipp._ XII. 21. _Queru potissimum? quem?_: In repeated questions of this kind Cic. usually puts the corresponding case of _quisnam_, not _quis_, in the second question, as in _Verr._ IV. 5. The mutation of Augustine _Contra Ac._ III. 33 makes it probable that _quemnam_ was the original reading here. Zumpt on _Verr._ qu. Quint. IX. 2, 61, Plin. _Epist._ I. 20, who both mention this trick of style, and laud it for its likeness to impromptu. _Nobilitatis_: this is to be explained by referring to 73--75 (_imitari numquam nisi clarum, nisi nobilem_), where Cic. protests against being compared to a demagogue, and claims to follow the aristocracy of philosophy. The attempts of the commentators to show that Democr. was literally an aristocrat have failed. _Convicio_: cf. 34. _Completa et conferta_: n. on I. 27. _Quod movebitur ... cedat_: this is the theory of motion disproved by Lucr. I. 370 sq., cf. also _N.D._ II. 83. Halm writes _quo quid_ for _quod_ (with Christ), and inserts _corpus_ before _cedat_, Baiter following him. The text is sound. Trans. "whatever body is pushed, gives way." _Tam sit mirabilis_: n. on I. 25. _Innumerabilis_: 55. _Supra infra_: n. on 92. _Ut nos nunc simus_, etc.: n. on fragm. 13 of _Ac. Post._ _Disputantis_: 55. _Animo videre_: cf. 22. _Imagines_: ειδωλα, which Catius translated (_Ad Fam._ XV. 16) by _spectra_, Zeller 432. _Tu vero_: etc. this is all part of the personal _convicium_ supposed to be directly addressed to Cic. by the Antiocheans, and beginning at _Tune aut inane_ above. _Commenticiis_: a favourite word of Cic., cf. _De Div._ II. 113.

§126. _Quae tu_: elliptic for _ut comprobem quae tu comprobas_ cf. 125. _Impudenter_: 115. _Atque haud scio_: _atque_ here = καιτοι, "and yet," n. on 5 _ac vereor_. _Invidiam_: cf. 144. _Cum his_: i.e. _aliis cum his_. _Summus deus_: "the highest form of the deity" who was of course one in the Stoic system. Ether is the finest fire, and πυρ τεχνικον is one of the definitions of the Stoic deity, cf. I. 29, Zeller 161 sq. _Solem_: as of course being the chief seat of fire. _Solis autem ... nego credere_: Faber first gave _ac monet_ for MSS. _admonens_, which Halm retains, Manut. then restored to its place _permensi refertis_, which MSS. have after _nego_. _Hic_, which MSS. have after _decempeda_, Madv. turns into _hunc_, while _hoc_, which stands immediately after _nego_, he ejects (_Em._ 187). _Ergo_ after _vos_ is of course analeptic. Halm departs somewhat from this arrangement. _Leniter_: Halm and Hermann _leviter_; the former reads _inverecundior_ after Morgenstern, for what reason it is difficult to see.

§127. _Pabulum_: similar language in _D.F._ II. 46. _Consideratio contemplatioque_: Cic. is fond of this combination, as _De Off._ I. 153; cf. Wesenberg on _T.D._ V. 9, who qu. similar combinations from _D.F._ V. 11, 58. _Elatiores_: MSS. mostly have _latiores_. Halm with Lamb. reads _altiores_, in support of which reading Dav. qu. _D.F._ II. 51, Val. Flaccus _Argon._ II. 547, add Virg. _Aen._ VI. 49, Cic. _Orat._ 119. _Exigua et minima_: σμικρα και ελαχιστα. Madv. on _D.F._ V. 78 notes that except here Cic. always writes _exigua et paene minima_ or something of the kind. _Occultissimarum_: n. on I. 15. _Occurit ... completur_: MSS. have _occuret_ mostly, if that is retained _complebitur_ must be read. Madv. _Opusc._ II. 282 takes _occurit_, explaining it as a perfect, and giving numerous exx. of this sequence of tenses, cf. also Wesenb. on _T.D._ IV. 35.

§128. _Agi secum_: cf. _nobiscum ageret_ in 80. _Simile veri_: cf. 66. _Notionem_: = _cognitionem_, επιστημην. _At paulum_: MSS. _et_ Halm _sed._; cf. _at illud ante_ in 116. _Si quae_: Halm and many edd. have _se, quae_. But the _se_ comes in very awkwardly, and is not needed before the infinitive. Madv. indeed (_Em._ 114), after producing many exx. of the reflexive pronoun omitted, says that he doubts about this passage because _considero_ does not belong to the class of verbs with which this usage is found, but he produces many instances with _puto_, which surely stands on the same level. _Non magis_: so in 119 _nec magis approbabit nunc lucere_, etc. The sunlight was the stock example of a most completely cognisable phenomenon; hence the Academics showed their hostility to absolute knowledge by refusing τον ‛ηλιον ‛ομολογειν ειναι καταληπτον (Galen _De Opt. Gen. Dicendi_ 497 B qu. P. Valentia 304 ed. Or.). _Cornix_: for the Stoic belief in divination see Zeller 349--358. _Signum illud_: the _xystus_ (9) was adorned with statues; edd. qu. Plin. _Nat. Hist._ XXXIV. 8. _Duodeviginti_: 82, I just note that _octodecim_ is not used by Cic. _Sol quantus sit_: 91. _Omnium rerum ... comprehendendi_: not a case of a plural noun with a singular gerund like _spe rerum potiendi_, etc., but of two genitives depending in different ways on the same word (_definitio_). M. _Em._ 197 qu. Plat. _Leg._ 648 E την παντων ‛ητταν φοβουμενος ανθρωπον τοι πωματος, _Brut._ 163 _Scaevolae dicendi elegantia_, _De Or._ III. 156. Other exx. in _M.D.F._ I. 14. For the turn of expression cf. _T.D._ IV. 62 _omnium philosophorum una est ratio medendi_, _Lael._ 78 _omnium horum vitiorum una cautio est_, also 51 of this book.

§§129--141. Summary. What contention is there among philosophers about the ethical standard! I pass by many abandoned systems like that of Herillus but consider the discrepancies between Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Euclides, Menedemus, Aristo, Pyrrho, Aristippus, Epicurus, Callipho, Hieronymus, Diodorus, Polemo, Antiochus, Carneades (129-131). If I desire to follow the Stoics, Antiochus will not allow me, while if I follow Polemo, the Stoics are irate (132). I must be careful not to assent to the unknown, which is a dogma common to both you, Lucullus, and myself (133). Zeno thinks virtue gives happiness. "Yes," says Antiochus, "but not the greatest possible." How am I to choose among such conflicting theories? (134) Nor can I accept those points in which Antiochus and Zeno agree. For instance, they regard emotion as harmful, which the ancients thought natural and useful (135). How absurd are the Stoic Paradoxes! (136) Albinus joking said to Carneades "You do not think me a praetor because I am not a _sapiens_." "That," said Carneades, "is Diogenes' view, not mine" (137). Chrysippus thinks only three ethical systems can with plausibility be defended (138). I gravitate then towards one of them, that of pleasure. Virtue calls me back, nor will she even allow me to join pleasure to herself (139). When I hear the several pleadings of pleasure and virtue, I cannot avoid being moved by both, and so I find it impossible to choose (141, 142).

§129. _Quod coeperam_: in 128 at _veniamus nunc ad boni maique notionem_. _Constituendi_: n. on 114. _Bonorum summa_: cf. _D.F._ V. 21 and Madv. _Est igitur_: so in _De Div._ II. 8, _igitur_ comes fourth word in the clause; this is not uncommon in Cic., as in Lucretius. _Omitto_: MSS. _et omitto_, but cf. Madv. _Em._ 201 _certe contra Ciceronis usum est 'et omitto' pro simplici 'omitto,' in initio huius modi orationis ubi universae sententiae exempla subiciuntur per figuram omissionis_. _Relicta_: cf. 130 _abiectos_. Cic. generally classes Herillus (or Erillus as Madv. on _D.F._ II. 35 spells the name), Pyrrho and Aristo together as authors of exploded systems, cf. _D.F._ II. 43, _De Off._ I. 6, _T.D._ V. 85. _Ut Herillum_. MSS. have either _Erillum_ or _et illum_, one would expect _ut Herilli_. _Cognitione et scientia_: double translation of επιστημη. For the _finis_ of Herillus see Madv. on _D.F._ II. 43. _Megaricorum_: _Xenophanes_. Cic considers the Eleatic and Megarian schools to be so closely related as to have, like the schools of Democritus and Epicurus, a continuous history. The Megarian system was indeed an ethical development of Eleatic doctrine. Zeller, _Socrates_ 211. _Unum et simile_: for this see Zell. _Socr._ 222 sq, with footnotes, R. and P. 174 sq. _Simile_ ought perhaps to be _sui simile_ as in _Tim._ c. 7, already quoted on I. 30, see my note there and cf. I. 35. _Menedemo_: see Zeller _Socr._ 238, R. and P. 182. The _Erctrian_ school was closely connected with the Megarian. _Fuit_: = _natus est_, as often. _Herilli_: so Madv. for _ulli_ of MSS.

§130. _Aristonem_: this is Aristo of Chios, not Aristo of Ceos, who was a Peripatetic; for the difference see R. and P. 332, and for the doctrines of Aristo the Chian _ib._ 358, Zeller 58 sq. _In mediis_: cf. I. 36, 37. _Momenta_ = _aestimationes_, αξιαι in 36, where _momenti_ is used in a different way. _Pyrrho autem_: one would expect Pyrrhoni as Dav. conj., but in 124 there is just the same change from _Pyrrhoni_ to _Xenocrates_. Απαθεια: Diog. IX. 108 affirms this as well as πραιοτης to be a name for the sceptic τελος, but the name scarcely occurs if at all in Sext. who generally uses αταραξια, but occasionally μετριοπαθεια; cf. Zeller 496, R. and P. 338. Απαθεια was also a Stoic term. _Diu multumque_: n. on I. 4.

§131. _Nec tamen consentiens_: cf. R. and P. 352 where the differences between the two schools are clearly drawn out, also Zeller 447, 448. _Callipho_: as the genitive is _Calliphontis_, Cic. ought according to rule to write _Calliphon_ in the nom; for this see Madv. on _D.F._ II. 19, who also gives the chief authorities concerning this philosopher. _Hieronymus_: mentioned _D.F._ II. 19, 35, 41, V. 14, in which last place Cic. says of him _quem iam cur Peripateticum appellem nescio_. _Diodorus_: see Madv. on _D.F._ II. 19. _Honeste vivere_, etc.: in _D.F._ IV. 14 the _finis_ of Polemo is stated to be _secundum naturam vivere_, and three Stoic interpretations of it are given, the last of which resembles the present passage--_omnibus aut maximis rebus iis quae secundum naturam sint fruentem vivere_. This interpretation Antiochus adopted, and from him it is attributed to the _vetus Academia_ in I. 22, where the words _aut omnia aut maxima_, seem to correspond to words used by Polemo; cf. Clemens Alex. qu. by Madv. on _D.F._ IV. 15. See n. below on Carneades. _Antiochus probat_: the germs of many Stoic and Antiochean doctrines were to be found in Polemo; see I. 34, n. _Eiusque amici_: Bentl. _aemuli_, but Halm refers to _D.F._ II. 44. The later Peripatetics were to a great degree Stoicised. _Nunc_: Halm _huc_ after Jo. Scala. _Carneades_: this _finis_ is given in _D.F._ II. 35 (_frui principiis naturalibus_), II. 42 (_Carneadeum illud quod is non tam ut probaret protulit, quam ut Stoicis quibuscum bellum gerebat opponeret_), V. 20 (_fruendi rebus iis, quas primas secundum naturam esse diximus, Carneades non ille quidem auctor sed defensor disserendi causa fuit_), _T.D._ V. 84 (_naturae primus aut omnibus aut maximis frui, ut Carneades contra Stoicos disserebat_). The _finis_ therefore, thus stated, is not different from that of Polemo, but it is clear that Carneades intended it to be different, as he did not include _virtus_ in it (see _D.F._ II. 38, 42, V. 22) while Polemo did (I. 22). See more on 139. _Zeno_: cf. _D.F._ IV. 15 _Inventor et princeps_: same expression in _T.D._ I. 48, _De Or._ I. 91, _De Inv._ II. 6; _inv._ = οικιστης.

§132. _Quemlibet_: cf. 125, 126. _Prope singularem_: cf. _T.D._ I. 22 _Aristoteles longe omnibus--Platonem semper excipio--praestans_; also _D.F._ V. 7, _De Leg._ I. 15. _Per ipsum Antiochum_: a similar line of argument is taken in Sext. _P.H._ I. 88, II. 32, etc. _Terminis ... possessione_: there is a similar play on the legal words _finis terminus possessio_ in _De Leg._ I. 55, 56, a noteworthy passage. _Omnis ratio_ etc.: this is the constant language of the later Greek philosophy; cf. Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XIX. 1 _neque enim existimat_ (Varro) _ullam philosophiae sectam esse dicendam, quae non eo distat a ceteris, quod diversos habeat fines bonorum et malorum_, etc. _Si Polemoneus_: i.e. _sapiens fuerit_. _Peccat_: a Stoic term turned on the Stoics, see I. 37. _Academicos et_: MSS. om. _et_ as in I. 16, and _que_ in 52 of this book. _Dicenda_: for the omission of the verb with the gerundive (which occurs chiefly in emphatic clauses) cf. I. 7, and Madv. on _D.F._ I. 43, who how ever unduly limits the usage. _Hic igitur ... prudentior_: MSS. generally have _assentiens_, but one good one (Halm's E) has _assentientes_. I venture to read _adsentietur_, thinking that the last two letters were first dropt, as in 26 (_tenetur_) and that then _adsentiet_, under the attraction of the _s_ following, passed into _adsentiens_, as in 147 _intellegat se_ passed into _intelligentes_. _N_, I may remark, is frequently inserted in MSS. (as in I. 7 _appellant_, 16 _disputant_, 24 _efficerentur_), and all the changes involved in my conj. are of frequent occurrence. I also read _sin, inquam_ (_sc. adsentietur_) for _si numquam_ of MSS. The question _uter est prudentior_ is intended to press home the dilemma in which Cicero has placed the supposed _sapiens_. All the other emendations I have seen are too unsatisfactory to be enumerated.

§133. _Non posse ... esse_: this seems to me sound; Bait. however reads _non esse illa probanda sap._ after Lamb., who also conj. _non posse illa probata esse_. _Paria_: _D.F._ III. 48, _Paradoxa_ 20 sq., Zeller 250. _Praecide_: συντομος or συνελων ειπε, cf. _Cat. Mai._ 57, _Ad Att._ VIII. 4, X. 16. _Inquit_: n. on 79. _Quid quod quae_: so Guietus with the approval of Madv. (_Em._ 203) reads for MSS. _quid quae_ or _quid quaeque_, Halm and Bait., follow Moser in writing _Quid? si quae_ removing the stop at _paria_, and make _in utramque partem_ follow _dicantur_, on Orelli's suggestion. When several relative pronouns come together the MSS. often omit one. _Dicebas_: in 27. _Incognito_: 133.

§134. _Etiam_: = "yes," Madv. _Gram._ 454. _Non beatissimam_: I. 22, n. _Deus ille_: i.e. more than man (of Aristotle's η θεος η θηριον), if he can do without other advantages. For the omission of _est_ after the emphatic _ille_ cf. 59, n. _Theophrasto_, etc.: n. on I. 33, 35. _Dicente_: before this Halm after Lamb., followed by Bait., inserts _contra_, the need for which I fail to see. _Et hic_: i.e. Antiochus. _Ne sibi constet_: Cic. argues in _T.D._ V. that there cannot be degrees in happiness. _Tum hoc ... tum illud_: cf. 121. _Iacere_: 79. _In his discrepant_: I. 42 _in his constitit_.

§135. _Moveri_: κινεισθαι, 29. _Laetitia efferri_: I. 38. _Probabilia_: the removal of passion and delight is easier than that of fear and pain. _Sapiensne ... deleta sit_: see Madv. _D.F._ p. 806, ed. 2, who is severe upon the reading of Orelli (still kept by Klotz), _non timeat? nec si patria deleatur? non doleat? nec, si deleta sit?_ which involves the use of _nec_ for _ne ... quidem_. I have followed the reading of Madv. in his _Em._, not the one he gives (after Davies) in _D.F._ _ne patria deleatur_, which Halm takes, as does Baiter. Mine is rather nearer the MSS. _Decreta_: some MSS. _durata_; Halm conj. _dictata_. _Mediocritates_: μεσοπετες, as in Aristotle; cf. _T.D._ III. 11, 22, 74. _Permotione_: κινεσει. _Naturalem ... modum_: so _T.D._ III. 74. _Crantoris_: sc. _librum_, for the omission of which see n. on I. 13; add Quint. IX. 4, 18, where Spalding wished to read _in Herodoti_, supplying _libro_. _Aureolus ... libellus_: it is not often that two diminutives come together in Cic., and the usage is rather colloquial; cf. _T.D._ III. 2, _N.D._ III. 43, also for _aureolus_ 119 _flumen aureum_. _Panaetius_: he had addressed to Tubero a work _de dolore_; see _D.F._ IV. 23. _Cotem_: _T.D._ IV. 43, 48, Seneca _De Ira_ III. 3, where the saying is attributed to Aristotle (_iram calcar esse virtutis_). _Dicebant_: for the repetition of this word cf. 146, I. 33.

§136. _Sunt enim Socratica_: the Socratic origin of the Stoic paradoxes is affirmed in _Parad._ 4, _T.D._ III. 10. _Mirabilia_: Cic. generally translates παραδοξα by _admirabilia_ as in _D.F._ IV. 74, or _admiranda_, under which title he seems to have published a work different from the _Paradoxa_, which we possess: see Bait., and Halm's ed. of the Phil. works (1861), p. 994. _Quasi_: = almost, ‛ως επος ειπειν. _Voltis_: cf. the Antiochean opinion in I. 18, 22. _Solos reges_: for all this see Zeller 253 sq. _Solos divites_: ‛οτι μονος ‛ο σοφος πλουσιος, _Parad._ VI. _Liberum_: _Parad._ V. ‛οτι μονος ‛ο σοφος ελευθερος και πας αφρον δουλος. _Furiosus_: _Parad._ IV. ‛οτι πας αφρον μαινεται.

§137. _Tam sunt defendenda_: cf. 8, 120. _Bono modo_: a colloquial and Plautine expression; see Forc. _Ad senatum starent_: "were in waiting on the senate;" cf. such phrases as _stare ad cyathum_, etc. _Carneade_: the vocative is _Carneades_ in _De Div._ I. 23. _Huic Stoico_: i.e. _Diogeni_; cf. _D.F._ II. 24. Halm brackets _Stoico_, and after him Bait. _Sequi volebat_: "professed to follow;" cf. _D.F._ V. 13 _Strato physicum se voluit_ "gave himself out to be a physical philosopher:" also Madv. on _D.F._ II. 102. _Ille noster_: Dav. _vester_, as in 143 _noster Antiochus_. But in both places Cic. speaks as a friend of Antiochus; cf. 113. _Balbutiens_: "giving an uncertain sound;" cf. _De Div._ I. 5, _T.D._ V. 75.

§138. _Mihi veremini_: cf. Caes. _Bell. Gall_. V. 9 _veritus navibus_. Halm and Bait. follow Christ's conj. _verenti_, removing the stop at _voltis_. _Opinationem_: the οιησιν of Sext., e.g. _P.H._ III. 280. _Quod minime voltis_: cf. I. 18. _De finibus_: not "concerning," but "from among" the different _fines_; otherwise _fine_ would have been written. Cf. I. 4 _si qui de nostris._ _Circumcidit et amputat_: these two verbs often come together, as in _D.F._ I. 44; cf. also _D.F._ III. 31. _Si vacemus omni molestia_: which Epicurus held to be the highest pleasure. _Cum honestate_: Callipho in 131. _Prima naturae commoda_: Cic. here as in _D.F._ IV. 59, V. 58 confuses the Stoic πρωτα κατα φυσιν with τα του σωματος αγαθα και τα εκτος of the Peripatetics, for which see I. 19. More on the subject in Madvig's fourth Excursus to the _D.F._ _Relinquit_: Orelli _relinqui_ against the MSS.

§139. _Polemonis ... finibus_: all these were composite _fines_. _Adhuc_: I need scarcely point out that this goes with _habeo_ and not with _probabilius_; _adhuc_ for _etiam_ with the comparative does not occur till the silver writers. _Labor eo_: cf. Horace's _nunc in Aristippi furtim praecepta relabor_, also _D.F._ V. 6 _rapior illuc: revocat autem Antiochus_. _Reprehendit manu_: _M.D.F._ II. 3. _Pecudum_: I. 6, _Parad._ 14 _voluptatem esse summum bonum, quae mihi vox pecudum videtur esse non hominum_; similar expressions occur with a reference to Epicurus in _De Off._ I. 105, _Lael._ 20, 32. _T.D._ V. 73, _D.F._ II. 18; cf. also Aristoph. _Plut._ 922 προβατιου βιον λεγεις and βοσκηματων βιος in Aristotle. The meaning of _pecus_ is well shown in _T.D._ I. 69. _Iungit deo_: Zeller 176 sq. _Animum solum_: the same criticism is applied to Zeno's _finis_ in _D.F._ IV. 17, 25. _Ut ... sequar_: for the repeated _ut_ see _D.F._ V. 10, Madv. _Gram._ 480, obs. 2. Bait. brackets the second _ut_ with Lamb. _Carneades ... defensitabat_: this is quite a different view from that in 131; yet another of Carneades is given in _T.D._ V. 83. _Istum finem_: MSS. _ipsum_; the two words are often confused, as in I. 2. _Ipsa veritas_: MSS. _severitas_, a frequent error; cf. _In Verr. Act._ I. 3, III. 162, _De Leg._ I. 4, also Madv. on _D.F._ IV. 55. _Obversetur_: Halm takes the conj. of Lamb., _adversetur_. The MSS. reading gives excellent sense; cf. _T.D._ II. 52 _obversentur honestae species viro_. Bait. follows Halm. _Tu ... copulabis_: this is the feigned expostulation of _veritas_ (cf. 34 _convicio veritatis_), for which style see 125.

§140. _Voluptas cum honestate_: this whole expression is in apposition to _par_, so that _cum_ must not be taken closely with _depugnet_; cf. Hor. _Sat._ I. 7, 19 _Rupili et Persi par pugnat uti non compositum melius_ (sc. _par_) _cum Bitho Bacchius_. _Si sequare, ruunt_: for constr. cf. I. 7. _Communitas_: for Stoic philanthropy see Zeller 297. _Nulla potest nisi erit_: Madv. _D.F._ III. 70 "_in hac coniunctione--hoc fieri non potest nisi--fere semper coniunctivus subicitur praesentis--futuri et perfecti indicativus ponitur_." _Gratuita_: "disinterested." _Ne intellegi quidem_: n. on I. 7, cf. also _T.D._ V. 73, 119. _Gloriosum in vulgus_: cf. _D.F._ II. 44 _populus cum illis facit_ (i.e. _Epicureis_). _Normam ... regulam_: n. on _Ac. Post._ fragm. 8. _Praescriptionem_: I. 23, n.

§141. _Adquiescis_: MSS. are confused here, Halm reads _adsciscis_, comparing 138. Add _D.F._ I. 23 (_sciscat et probet_), III. 17 (_adsciscendas esse_), III. 70 (_adscisci et probari_) Bait. follows Halm. _Ratum ... fixum_: cf. 27 and n. on _Ac. Post._ fragm. 17. _Falso_: like _incognito_ in 133. _Nullo discrimine_: for this see the explanation of _nihil interesse_ in 40, n. _Iudicia_: κριτηρια as usual.

§§142--146. Summary. To pass to Dialectic, note how Protagoras, the Cyrenaics, Epicurus, and Plato disagree (142). Does Antiochus follow any of these? Why, he never even follows the _vetus Academia_, and never stirs a step from Chrysippus. Dialecticians themselves cannot agree about the very elements of their art (143). Why then, Lucullus, do you rouse the mob against me like a seditious tribune by telling them I do away with the arts altogether? When you have got the crowd together, I will point out to them that according to Zeno all of them are slaves, exiles, and lunatics, and that you yourself, not being _sapiens_, know nothing whatever (144). This last point Zeno used to illustrate by action Yet his whole school cannot point to any actual _sapiens_ (145). Now as there is no knowledge there can be no art. How would Zeuxis and Polycletus like this conclusion? They would prefer mine, to which our ancestors bear testimony.

§142. _Venio iam_: Dialectic had been already dealt with in 91--98 here it is merely considered with a view to the choice of the supposed _sapiens_, as was Ethical Science in 129--141 and Physics in 116--128. With the enumeration of conflicting schools here given compare the one Sextus gives in _A.M._ VII. 48 sq. _Protagorae_: R. and P. 132 sq. _Qui putet_: so MSS., Halm and Bait. _putat_ after Lamb. Trans. "inasmuch as he thinks". _Permotiones intimas_: cf. 20 _tactus interior_, also 76. _Epicuri_: nn. on 19, 79, 80. _Iudicium_: κριτηριον as usual. _Rerum notitiis_: προληψεσι, Zeller 403 sq. _Constituit_: note the constr. with _in_, like _ponere in_. _Cogitationis_: cf. I. 30. Several MSS. have _cognitionis_, the two words are frequently confused. See Wesenberg _Fm._ to _T.D._ III. p. 17, who says, _multo tamen saepius "cogitatio" pro "cognitio" substituitur quam contra_, also _M.D.F_ III. 21.

§143. _Ne maiorum quidem suorum_: sc. _aliquid probat_. For _maiorum_ cf. 80. Here Plato is almost excluded from the so-called _vetus Academia_, cf. I. 33. _Libri_: titles of some are preserved in Diog. Laert. IV. 11--14. _Nihil politius_: cf. 119, n. _Pedem nusquam_: for the ellipse cf. 58, 116, _Pro Deiot._ 42 and _pedem latum_ in Plaut. _Abutimur_: this verb in the rhetorical writers means to use words in metaphorical or unnatural senses, see Quint. X. 1, 12. This is probably the meaning here; "do we use the name Academic in a non natural fashion?" _Si dies est lucet_: a better trans of ει φως εστιν, ‛ημερα εστιν than was given in 96, where see n. _Aliter Philoni_: not Philo of Larissa, but a noted dialectician, pupil of Diodorus the Megarian, mentioned also in 75. The dispute between Diodorus and Philo is mentioned in Sext. _A.M._ VIII. 115--117 with the same purpose as here, see also Zeller 39. _Antipater_: the Stoic of Tarsus, who succeeded Diogenes Babylonius in the headship of the school. _Archidemus_: several times mentioned with Antipater in Diog., as VII. 68, 84. _Opiniosissimi_: so the MSS. I cannot think that the word is wrong, though all edd. condemn it. Halm is certainly mistaken in saying that a laudatory epithet such as _ingeniosissimi_ is necessary. I believe that the word _opiniosissimi_ (an adj. not elsewhere used by Cic.) was manufactured on the spur of the moment, in order to ridicule these two philosophers, who are playfully described as men full of _opinio_ or δοξα--just the imputation which, as Stoics, they would most repel. Hermann's _spinosissimi_ is ingenious, and if an em. were needed, would not be so utterly improbable as Halm thinks.

§144. _In contionem vocas_: a retort, having reference to 14, cf. also 63, 72. For these _contiones_ see Lange, _Romische Alterthumer_ II. 663, ed 2. They were called by and held under the presidency of magistrates, all of whom had the right to summon them, the right of the tribune being under fewer restrictions than the right of the others. _Occludi tabernas_ in order of course that the artisans might all be at the meeting, for this see Liv. III. 27, IV. 31, IX. 7, and compare the cry "to your tents, O Israel" in the Bible. _Artificia_: n. on 30. _Tolli_: n. on 26. _Ut opifices concitentur_: cf. _Pro Flacc._ 18 _opifices et tabernarios quid neqoti est concitare?_ _Expromam_: Cic. was probably thinking of the use to which he himself had put these Stoic paradoxes in _Pro Murena_ 61, a use of which he half confesses himself ashamed in _D.F._ IV. 74. _Exsules_ etc.: 136.

§145. _Scire negatis_: cf. Sext. _A.M._ VII. 153, who says that even καταληψις when it arises in the mind of a φαυλος is mere δοξα and not επιστημη; also _P.H._ II. 83, where it is said that the φαυλος is capable of το αληθες but not of αληθεια, which the σοφος alone has. _Visum ... adsensus_: the Stoics as we saw (II. 38, etc.) analysed sensations into two parts; with the Academic and other schools each sensation was an ultimate unanalysable unit, a ψιλον παθος. For this symbolic action of Zeno cf. _D.F._ II. 18, _Orat._ 113, Sextus _A.M._ II. 7, Quint. II. 20, 7, Zeller 84. _Contraxerat_: so Halm who qu. Plin. _Nat. Hist._ XI. 26, 94 _digitum contrahens aut remittens_; Orelli _construxerat_; MSS. mostly _contexerat_. _Quod ante non fuerat_: καταλαμβανειν however is frequent in Plato in the sense "to seize firmly with the mind." _Adverterat_: the best MSS. give merely _adverat_, but on the margin _admoverat_ which Halm takes, and after him Bait.; one good MS. has _adverterat_. _Ne ipsi quidem_: even Socrates, Antisthenes and Diogenes were not σοφοι according to the Stoics, but merely were εν προκοπηι; see Diog. VII. 91, Zeller 257, and cf. Plut. _Sto. Rep._ 1056 (qu. by P. Valentia p. 295, ed Orelli) εστι δε ουτος (i.e. ‛ο σοφος) ουδαμου γης ουδε γεγονε. _Nec tu_: sc. _scis_; Goer. has a strange note here.

§146. _Illa_: cf. _illa invidiosa_ above (144). _Dicebas_: in 22. _Refero_: "retort," as in Ovid. _Metam._ I. 758 _pudet haec opprobria nobis Et dici potuisse et non potuisse referri_; cf. also _par pari referre dicto_. _Ne nobis quidem_: "_nor_ would they be angry;" cf. n. on. I. 5. _Arbitrari_: the original meaning of this was "to be a bystander," or "to be an eye-witness," see Corssen I. 238. _Ea non ut_: MSS. have _ut ea non aut_. Halm reads _ut ea non_ merely, but I prefer the reading I have given because of Cicero's fondness for making the _ut_ follow closely on the negative: for this see Madv. _Gram._ 465 _b_, obs.

§147. _Obscuritate_: cf. I. 44, n. on I. 15. _Plus uno_: 115. _Iacere_: cf. 79. _Plagas_: cf. n. on 112.

§148. _Ad patris revolvor sententiam_: for this see Introd. 50, and for the expression 18. _Opinaturum_: see 59, 67, 78, 112. _Intellegat se_: MSS. _intellegentes_, cf. n. on 132. _Qua re_: so Manut. for _per_ of MSS. Εποχην _illam omnium rerum_: an odd expression; cf. _actio rerum_ in 62. _Non probans_: so Madv. _Em._ 204 for MSS. _comprobans_. Dav. conj. _improbans_ and is followed by Bait. I am not sure that the MSS. reading is wrong. The difficulty is essentially the same as that involved in 104, which should be closely compared. A contrast is drawn between a theoretical dogma and a practical belief. The dogma is that _assent_ (meaning absolute assent) is not to be given to phenomena. This dogma Catulus might well describe himself as formally approving (_comprobans_). The _practice_ is to give assent (meaning modified assent). There is the same contrast in 104 between _placere_ and _tenere_. I may note that the word _alteri_ (cf. _altero_ in 104) need not imply that the dogma and the practice are irreconcilable; a misconception on this point has considerably confirmed edd. in their introduction of the negative. _Nec eam admodum_: cf. _non repugnarem_ in 112. _Tollendum_: many edd. have gone far astray in interpreting this passage. The word is used with a double reference to _adsensus_ and _ancora_; in the first way we have had _tollere_ used a score of times in this book; with regard to the second meaning, cf. Caes. _Bell. Gall._ IV. 23, _Bell. Civ._ I. 31, where _tollere_ is used of weighing anchor, and Varro _De Re Rust._ III. 17, 1, where it occurs in the sense "to get on," "to proceed," without any reference to the sea. (The exx. are from Forc.) This passage I believe and this alone is referred to in _Ad Att._ XIII. 21, 3. If my conjecture is correct, Cic. tried at first to manage a joke by using the word _inhibendum_, which had also a nautical signification, but finding that he had mistaken the meaning of the word, substituted _tollendum_.

[1] _De Leg._ II. §3.

[2] Cf. _De Or._ II. §1 with II. §5.

[3] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1, Phaedrus nobis,... cum pueri essemus, valde ut philosophus probabatur.

[4] _N.D._ I. §93, Phaedro nihil elegantius, nihil humanius.

[5] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1.

[6] _Brutus_, §309.

[7] _Ad Att._ II. 20, §6.

[8] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 16. _T.D._ V. §113. _Acad._ II. §115.

[9] _Brutus_, §306.

[10] _Ibid._

[11] _Rep._ I. §7. _T.D._ V. §5. _De Off._ II. §§3,4. _De Fato_, §2.

[12] Cf. _Brutus_, §§312, 322.

[13] Cf. _Brutus_, §§312, 314, 316.

[14] _Brutus_, §315.

[15] _N.D._ I. §59.

[16] VII. I. §35.

[17] Cf. _N.D._ I. §93 with _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1, §1.

[18] _Ac._ I. §46.

[19] _D.F._ V. §3.

[20] _D.F._ I. §16.

[21] _D.F._ V. §6, etc.

[22] _D.F._ V. §8.

[23] _Ac._ II. §4.

[24] _Ib._ §69.

[25] _Ad Att._ XIII. 19, §5.

[26] _Ac._ II. §113.

[27] _Ac._ II. §113. _De Leg._ I. §54.

[28] II. §12.

[29] _Brutus_, §316.

[30] _Hortensius_, fragm. 18, ed. Nobbe.

[31] _T.D._ II. §61.

[32] _De Div._ I. §130.

[33] _D.F._ I. §6.

[34] _Ad Att._ I. 10 and 11.

[35] _Ibid._ II. 1, §3. _N.D._ I. §6.

[36] _Ad Att._ II. 2.

[37] _Ibid._ I. 20. Cf. II. 1, §12.

[38] II. 6.

[39] _Ad Att._ II. 7 and 16.

[40] _Ibid._ II. 6, §2.

[41] Cf. _Ad Att._ IV. 11 with IV. 8 a.

[42] _Ibid._ IV. 10.

[43] _Ibid._ IV. 16, §2.

[44] _Ibid._ IV. 16 c, §10, ed. Nobbe.

[45] _Ad Qu. Fr._ II. 14.

[46] _Ad Qu. Fr._ III. 5 and 6.

[47] §332.

[48] _Ad Fam._ XIII. 1. _Ad Att._ V. 11, §6.

[49] _Ad Att._ V. 10, §5.

[50] _De Off._ I. §1.

[51] _Tim._ c. 1.

[52] Cf. _Tim._ c. 1 with _De Div._ I. §5. _Brutus_, §250.

[53] _Ad Att._ VI. 1, §26.

[54] _Ibid._ VI. 2, §3.

[55] _Ibid._ VI. 6, §2.

[56] _Ibid._ VI. 7, §2. _Ad Fam._ II. 17, §1.

[57] _T.D._ V. §22.

[58] _Ad Att._ VII. 1, §1.

[59] _Ibid._ VII. 3, VIII. 11.

[60] _Ad Att._ X. 8, §6.

[61] _Ibid._ VIII. 2, §4.

[62] περι ‛ομονοιας, _Ad Att._ IX. 9, §2, etc.

[63] _Ibid._ IX. 4, §2; 9, §1.

[64] _Ibid._ IX. 10, §2.

[65] _Ad Fam._ IX. 1.

[66] _Ibid._ IX. 3.

[67] _Ibid._ IV. 3 and 4.

[68] _De Rep._ I. §7. _T.D._ V. §5, etc.

[69] Cf. _N.D._ I. §6.

[70] Esp. I. §§26, 37.

[71] Cf. _Ac._ II. §29.

[72] _Ac._ II. §70.

[73] _De Div._ II. §1. _Ac._ I. §45, etc.

[74] _N.D._ I. §1.

[75] Cf. esp. _N.D._ I. §5. _T.D._ II. §5.

[76] _De Div._ II. §1. _N.D._ I. §7, etc.

[77] _T.D._ II. §4.

[78] _N.D._ I. §10.

[79] Cf. _Ac._ II. §8. _N.D._ I. §§10, 66.

[80] _T.D._ II. §9.

[81] _N.D._ I. §10.

[82] _Ibid._ I. §17. _Ac._ II. §§120, 137.

[83] _T.D._ V. §33.

[84] _Ac._ II. §121.

[85] _T.D._ V. §82, _libas ex omnibus_.

[86] _Ac._ II. §143.

[87] _T.D._ V. §11.

[88] _Ac._ II. §10.

[89] _N.D._ I. §12.

[90] _Parad._ §2. _De Fato_, §3. _T.D._ I. §7. _De Off._ I. §3.

[91] _D.F._ IV. §5.

[92] _Paradoxa_, §2.

[93] _T.D._ I. §55. _De Div._ II. §62.

[94] _T.D._ V. §11. _D.F._ II. §§1 and 2, etc.

[95] §13.

[96] Cf. esp. _N.D._ i. §6. _Ac._ ii. §§11 and 17.

[97] _De Leg._ I. §39.

[98] _Ibid._ I. §§55, 56.

[99] _N.D._ I. §4.

[100] _T.D._ IV. §53.

[101] Cf. _De Off._ III. §20.

[102] _T.D._ V. §§21-31, esp. §23.

[103] _Ibid._ V. §75.

[104] _De Off._ II. §35.

[105] _T.D._ V. §34.

[106] _Ac._ I. §16.

[107] _Paradoxa_, §4. _Ac._ II. §§136, 137. _T.D._ III. §10.

[108] _Ac._ II. §135.

[109] See esp. _N.D._ I. §§3, 4.

[110] _Ibid._, also _T.D._ V. §83.

[111] Grote's _Aristotle_, vol. I. ch. 11.

[112] _T.D._ IV. §9. _D.F._ III. §41.

[113] I. §6.

[114] _T.D._ IV. §7.

[115] _Ibid._ IV. §7. Cf. _D.F._ II. §44, _populus cum illis facit_.

[116] _Ac._ I. §6. _T.D._ IV. 6, 7; II. §7; III. §33. _D.F._ III. §40.

[117] _T.D._ IV. §3.

[118] _D.F._ I. §§4-6. _Ac._ I. §10. _D.F._ III. §5.

[119] _De Div._ I. §§4, 5.

[120] _D.F._ III. §5. _N.D._ I. §8. _T.D._ III. §§10, 16.

[121] _T.D._ I. §5.

[122] _T.D._ II. §5.

[123] _De Div._ II. §1. _De Off._ II. §4.

[124] _De Div._ II. §6. _De Off._ II. §2.

[125] See esp. _De Consolatione_, fragm. 7, ed. Nobbe. _T.D._ V. §5. _Ac._ I. §11.

[126] _N.D._ I. §6.

[127] _T.D._ II. §§1, 4. _De Off._ II. §3. _D.F._ I. §1.

[128] _T.D._ II. §1. _D.F._ I. §§1, 3.

[129] _D.F._ I. §§1, 11.

[130] _De Div._ II. §5. _De Off._ II. §2. _T.D._ IV. §1.

[131] _De Div._ II. §4.

[132] _N.D._ I. §9. _T.D._ II. §1.

[133] _De Div._ II. §4.

[134] _Ad Att._ XII. 19, §1.

[135] _Ibid._ XII. 14, §3.

[136] _Ibid._ XII. 15, 16.

[137] _Ibid._ XII. 21, §5.

[138] _Ibid._ XII. 23, §2.

[139] _Ut scias me ita dolere ut non iaceam._

[140] _De Or._ III. §109.

[141] _Ad Att._ XII. 28, §2.

[142] Cf. esp. _Ad Att._ XII. 40, §2 with 38, §3.

[143] _Ibid._ XII. 40, §2.

[144] _Ibid._ XII. 40, §5.

[145] _Ibid._ XIII. 26.

[146] _Ibid._ XII. 41, §1, also 42, 43; XIII. 26.

[147] _Ibid._ XII. 46.

[148] _Ad Att._ XII. 45, §1.

[149] _Über Cicero's Akademika_, p. 4.

[150] Cf. _Ad Att._ XII. 12, §2, where there is a distinct mention of the first two books.

[151] _Ibid._ XIII. 12, §3.

[152] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §4.

[153] _Ibid._ XIII. 21, §§4, 5; 22, §3.

[154] II. §2.

[155] _De Fin._ Praef. p. lvii. ed. 2.

[156] _Ad Att._ XIII. 12, §3; 16, §1.

[157] _Ibid._ XVI. 3, §1.

[158] _Ibid._ XVI. 6, §4.

[159] _Ac._ II. §61.

[160] _D.F._ I. §2.

[161] _T.D._ II. §4. _De Div._ II. §1.

[162] Cf. Krische, p. 5.

[163] _Ac._ II. §61.

[164] _Ad Att._ XIII. 5, §1.

[165] _Ibid._ XIII. 32, §3.

[166] _Ad Att._ XIII. 33, §4.

[167] _Ibid_. XIII. II. §1.

[168] _Ibid_. XII. 42.

[169] _Ibid_. XIII. 16, §1.

[170] _Ibid_. XIII. 12, §3.

[171] _Ibid_. IV. 16a, §2.

[172] _Ibid_. XIII. 12, §3; also IV. 16a, §2.

[173] _Ad Att._ XIII. 12, §3.

[174] _Ibid_. XIII. 19, §4.

[175] _Ibid_. XIII. 12, §3.

[176] _Ibid_. XIII. 19, §4.

[177] _Ibid_. XIII. 12, §3; 19, §4; 16, §1.

[178] _Ibid_. XIII. 19, §3.

[179] _Ad Att._ XIII. 22, §1.

[180] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §5.

[181] Cf. _Ibid._ XIII. 14, §3; 16, §2; 18; 19, §5.

[182] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §5.

[183] _Ibid._ XIII. 25, §3.

[184] _Ad Att._ XIII. 24.

[185] _Ibid._ XIII. 13, §1; 18.

[186] _Ibid._ XIII. 13, §1; 18; 19, §4.

[187] _Ibid._ XIII. 12, §3. I may here remark on the absurdity of the dates Schütz assigns to these letters. He makes Cicero execute the second edition of the _Academica_ in a single day. Cf. XIII. 12 with 13.

[188] _Ad Att._ XIII. 13, §1.

[189] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §5.

[190] _Ibid._ XIII. 19, §3.

[191] _Ibid._ XIII. 25, §3.

[192] _Ibid._ XIII. 25, §3.

[193] _Ibid._ XIII. 21, §4.

[194] _Ibid._ XIII. 21, §5.

[195] _Ad Att._ XIII. 22, §3.

[196] _Ibid._ XIII. 24.

[197] _Ibid._ XIII. 35, 36, §2.

[198] _Ibid._ XIII. 38, §1.

[199] _Ibid._ XIII. 21, §§3, 4.

[200] _T.D._ II. §4. Cf. Quintil. _Inst. Or._ III. 6, §64.

[201] _Ad Att._ XVI. 6, §4. _N.D._ I. §11. _De Div._ II. §1.

[202] _De Off._ II. §8, _Timæus_, c. 1. _Ad Att._ XIII. 13, §1; 19, §5.

[203] _Ad Att._ XIII. 12; 16; 13; 19.

[204] _Ibid._ XVI. 6, §4. _T.D._ II. §4. _N.D._ I. §11. _De Div._ II. §1.

[205] _Nat. Hist._ XXXI. c. 2.

[206] _Inst. Or._ III. 6, §64.

[207] Plut. _Lucullus_, c. 42.

[208] §§12, 18, 148.

[209] Cf. _Att._ XIII. 19, §4.

[210] _Lucullus_, §12.

[211] _Ad Att._ XIII. 16, §1.

[212] Lactant. _Inst._ VI 2.

[213] Cf. esp. _De Off._ I. §133 with _Brutus_, §§133, 134.

[214] Esp. _Pro Lege Manilia_, §51.

[215] _Brutus_, §222.

[216] _In Verrem_, II. 3, §210.

[217] _Pro Lege Manilia_, §59.

[218] _Pro Sestio_, §122.

[219] _Pro Sestio_, §101.

[220] _Philipp._ II. §12.

[221] _Ad Att._ II. 24, §4.

[222] _Pis._ §6. _Pro Sestio_, §121. _Pro Domo_, §113. _Post Reditum in Senatu_, §9. _Philipp._ II. §12.

[223] _Ad Fam._ IX. 15, §3.

[224] Cf. _Post Reditum in Senatu_, §9. _Pro Domo_, §113.

[225] _Pro Archia_, §§6, 28.

[226] Cf. _Ac._ II. §9 with §80.

[227] §62.

[228] _Pro Plancio_, §12. _Pro Murena_, §36. _Pro Rabirio_, §26. _Pro Cornelia_ II. fragm. 4, ed. Nobbe.

[229] _T.D._ V. §56. Cf. _De Or._ III. §9. _N.D._ III. §80.

[230] Cf. esp. III. §173.

[231] _Ibid._ II. §28.

[232] _Ibid._ II. §§13, 20, 21.

[233] _Ibid._ II. §51.

[234] Cf. _ibid._ II. §74 with III. §127.

[235] Cf. II. §152 with III. §187.

[236] _Ibid._ II. §154.

[237] _Brutus_, §§132, 133, 134, 259. _De Or._ III. §29.

[238] _Brutus_, §132.

[239] _De Or._ II. §244. _N.D._ I. §79. Cf. Gellius, XIX. 9.

[240] _De Or._ II. §155.

[241] _Ibid._ III. §194.

[242] Cf. _De Or._ II. §68 with III. §§182, 187.

[243] _De Or._ I. §82 sq.; II. §360.

[244] _Ibid._ I. §45; II. §365; III. §§68, 75.

[245] §12, _commemoravit a patre suo dicta Philoni_.

[246] Cf. _De Or._ III. §110.

[247] _Ac._ II. §148.

[248] Cf. _Ac._ II. §11.

[249] _Ibid._

[250] _Ibid._ §§12, 18, with my notes.

[251] _Ac._ II. §12: _ista quae heri defensa sunt_ compared with the words _ad Arcesilam Carneademque veniamus_.

[252] See below.

[253] _Ac._ II. §§33--36 inclusive; §54.

[254] _Ac._ II. §28.

[255] Cf. _Ac._ II. §§59, 67, 78, 112, 148, with my notes.

[256] _Ibid._ II. §10.

[257] _Ibid._ II. §28.

[258] Cf. II. §61 with the fragments of the _Hortensius_; also _T.D._ II. §4; III. §6; _D.F._ I. §2.

[259] Lactant. III. 16.

[260] Cf. _Ac._ II. §10.

[261] _Ib._ II. §61.

[262] §§44--46.

[263] §13.

[264] Cf. II. §14 with I. §44, and II. §§55, 56.

[265] II. §§17, 18, 22.

[266] Cf. II. §31 with I. §45.

[267] II. §§17, 24, 26, 27, 29, 38, 54, 59.

[268] II. §79.

[269] Cf. the words _tam multa_ in II. §79.

[270] See II. §42, where there is a reference to the "_hesternus sermo_."

[271] II. §10.

[272] Cf. II. §10: _id quod quaerebatur paene explicatum est, ut tota fere quaestio tractata videatur_.

[273] What these were will appear from my notes on the _Lucullus_.

[274] II. §12.

[275] _Ad Fam._ IX. 8.

[276] Cf. _Ad Att._ XIII. 25, §3: _Ad Brutum transeamus_.

[277] This is not, as Krische supposes, the villa Cicero wished to buy after Hortensius' death. That lay at Puteoli: see _Ad Att._ VII. 3, §9.

[278] II. §9.

[279] Cf. II. §61.

[280] II. §80: _O praeclarum prospectum_!

[281] Cf. II. §9 with §128 (_signum illud_), also §§80, 81, 100, 105, 125.

[282] II. §115.

[283] II. §63.

[284] II. §§147, 148.

[285] II. §135.

[286] Cf. II. §§11, 12 with the words _quae erant contra_ ακαταληψιαν _praeclare collecta ab Antiocho_: _Ad Att._ XIII. 19, §3.

[287] Varro, _De Re Rust._ III. 17.

[288] II. §11.

[289] _Paradoxa_, §1. _D.F._ III. §8. _Brutus_, §119.

[290] _Ac._ I. §12. _D.F._ V. §8.

[291] Cf. II. §80.

[292] Cf. Aug. _Adv. Acad._ III. §35. Nonius, sub v. _exultare_.

[293] Cf. the word _nuper_ in §1.

[294] §11.

[295] §§3, 18.

[296] _Ad Fam._ IX. 8, §1.

[297] _Ad Att._ II. 25, §1.

[298] _Ibid_. III. 8, §3.

[299] _Ibid_. III. 15, §3; 18, §1.

[300] _Ad Fam._ IX. 1--8. They are the only letters from Cicero to Varro preserved in our collections.

[301] Above, pp. xxxvii--xlii.

[302] _De Civ. Dei_, XIX. cc. 1--3.

[303] See Madvig, _De Fin._ ed. 2, p. 824; also Krische, pp. 49, 50. Brückner, _Leben des Cicero_, I. p. 655, follows Müller.

[304] Cf. Krische, p. 58.