Chapter XVI: Book II: Entitled Lucullus (3)

§74. _Furere_: cf. 14. _Orbat sensibus_: cf. 61, and for the belief of Empedocles about the possibility of [Greek: epistêmê] 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, [Greek: mempsaito d' an tis Parmenidou tên stichopoiian]. _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 [Greek: eoika goun toutou smikrôi tini autôi toutôi sophôteros einai, hoti a mê oida oude oiomai eidenai], a very different statement from the _nihil sciri posse_ by which Cic. interprets it (cf. R. and P. 148). That [Greek: epistêmê] 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 [Greek: epistêmê] 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. [Greek: sophismata]: 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 [Greek: ei mê gar ên Chrysippos, ouk an ên Stoa]. _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 [Greek: haphê] I believe does not occur in ancient authorities as a term of the Cyrenaic school; their great word was [Greek: pathos]. From 143 (_permotiones intimas_) it might appear that Cic. is translating either [Greek: pathos] or [Greek: kinêsis]. 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_: = [Greek: paschein]. _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 [Greek: epochê] 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_: [Greek: topô], 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.) [Greek: ophthalmous diastrepsanta hôste duo to hen phanênai]. Faber qu. Arist. _Problemata_ XVII. 31 [Greek: dia ti eis to plagion kinousi ton ophthalmon ou (?) phainetai duo to hen]. Also _ib._ XXXI. 3 inquiring the reason why drunkards see double he says [Greek: tauto touto gignetai kai ean tis katôthen piesê ton ophthalmon]. Sextus refers to the same thing _P.H._ I. 47, _A.M._ VII. 192 ([Greek: ho parapiesas ton ophthalmon]) 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, [Greek: to gar alêthes kai to pseudes en tois pragmasi synechôrei] (Numen in Euseb. _Pr. Eu._ XIV. 8). Cf. also Sext. _P.H._ I. 78, 87, 144, II. 75. _Domi nascuntur_: a proverb used like [Greek: glauk' es' Athênas] 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_: [Greek: oxyteron], 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 [Greek: loidoresthai tini] as opposed to [Greek: loidorein tina] 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 [Greek: hêlion megethos echein euros podos anthrôpeiou], 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 [Greek: homoion, metaxy, mesos], 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 [Greek: glypheion], 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 [Greek: synêtheia]; 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: [Greek: daimonie phthisei se to son menos]. From Diog. IV. 62 we learn that he thus parodied the line qu. in n. on 75, [Greek: ei mê gar ên Chrysippos ouk an ên egô].

§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 [Greek: tropoi], i.e. [Greek: ho peri tas peristaseis]; 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 [Greek: pantôn metron anthrôpos] hold that the [Greek: memênôs] is the [Greek: kritêrion tôn en maniai phainomenôn]. _Video, video te_: evidently from a tragedy whose subject was [Greek: Aias mainomenos], 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 [Greek: ho goun Heraklês maneis kai labôn phantasian apo tôn idiôn paidôn hôs Eurystheos, tên akolouthon praxin tautêi tê phantasiai synêpsen. akolouthon de ên to tous tou echthrou paidas anelein, hoper kai epoiêsen.] 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_: [Greek: akersekomês], "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 [Greek: physikê], not for [Greek: dialektikê]. _Quod sit summum bonum_: not [Greek: dialektikê] but [Greek: êthikê] must decide this. _Quae coniunctio_: etc. so Sext. often opposes [Greek: symplokê] or [Greek: synêmmenon] to [Greek: diezeugmenon], 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_: [Greek: amphibolon], on which see _P.H._ II. 256, Diog VII. 62. _Quid sequatur_: [Greek: to akolouthon], 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 [Greek: eautou estai ekkalyptikon]. 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 [Greek: logikê], it must be remembered, included [Greek: rhêtorikê]. _Concludendi_: [Greek: tou symperainein] or [Greek: syllogizesthai]. _Locum_: [Greek: topon] 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 [Greek: kata smikron] 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 [Greek: apolyein]. _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 [Greek: ta pentêkonta oliga estin, ta myria oliga estin], also Diog. VII. 82 [Greek: hêsychazein] the advice is quoted in Sext. _P.H._ II. 253 ([Greek: dein histasthai kai epechein]), _A.M._ VII. 416 ([Greek: ho sophos stêsetai kai hêsychasei]). 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 [Greek: to hêsychazein] (_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 [Greek: epechein], and quotes a line of Lucilius _sustineat currum ut bonu' saepe agitator equosque_, adding _semperque Carneades_ [Greek: probolên] _pugilis et retentionem aurigae similem facit_ [Greek: epochê]. Aug. _Contra Ac._ trans. [Greek: epochê] 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_. [Greek: axiôma]: "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 [Greek: axiôma], 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_: [Greek: apora] 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 [Greek: alytos] 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 [Greek: protos logos anapodeiktos] of the Stoic logic ran thus [Greek: ei hêmera esti, phôs estin ... alla mên hêmera estin phôs ara estin] (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 [Greek: phôs] and [Greek: hêmera] into one word, or that of Zeller (114, note). These arguments are called [Greek: monolêmmatoi] (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. [Greek: eikein]; n. on 66. _Conexi_: = [Greek: synêmmenon], cf. Zeller 109. This was the proper term for the hypothetical judgment. _Superius_: the [Greek: synêmmenon] consists of two parts, the hypothetical part and the affirmative--called in Greek [Greek: hêgoumenon] and [Greek: lêgon]; 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 [Greek: oligôrein], merely to neglect or pass by. _Effabimur_; cf. _effatum_ above. _Hermarchus_: not _Hermachus_, as most edd.; see _M.D.F._ II. 96. _Diiunctum_: [Greek: diezeugmenon], 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 [Greek: bradys] 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_: = [Greek: diezeugmenon ex enantiôn].

§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 [Greek: men] and [Greek: de], 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 [Greek: katalêpsis]? _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 [Greek: hêmôn ho bios anatetrammenos an eiê], Sext. _A.M._ VIII. 157 [Greek: syncheomen ton bion]. _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 [Greek: homoiomereiai] 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 [Greek: ou gar apo drios essi palaiphatou oud' apo petrês]. _Neque tamen habere_: i.e. _se putat_. For the sudden change from _oratio recta_ to _obliqua_ cf. 40 with n. _Percipiendi notam_: = [Greek: charaktêra tês synktatheseôs] 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 [Greek: epochê], 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 [Greek: anêrithmon gelasma] 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 [Greek: mnêmê] and [Greek: noêsis] 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. [Greek: katalêpsis], cf. also Stobaeus I. 41, 25 [Greek: aisthêtikê gar phantasia synkatathesis esti]. _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_: [Greek: propeteian, eikaiotêta].

§109. _In navigando_: cf. 100. _In conserendo_: Guretus interprets "[Greek: en tô phytyesthai ton agron]," 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 [Greek: diabebaiountai ta pragmata einai akatalêpta], 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.