BOOK IV.

Further information on all these passages will be found in my notes on the

parallel passages of the _Lucullus_.

21. _Viam_ evidently a mistake for the _umbram_ of _Luc._ 70.

23. The best MS. of Nonius points to _flavum_ for _ravum_ (_Luc._ 105).

Most likely an alteration was made in the second edition, as Krische

supposes, p. 64.

28. _Corpusculis_: _Luc._ 121 has _corporibus_. Krische's opinion that this

latter word was in the second edition changed into the former may be

supported from I. 6, which he does not notice. The conj. is confirmed by

Aug. _Contr. Ac._ III. 23.

29. _Magnis obscurata_: in _Luc._ 122 it is _crassis occultata_, so that we

have another alteration, see Krische, p. 64.

30. Only slight differences appear in the MSS. of the _Luc._ 123, viz.

_contraria_, for _in c._, _ad vestigia_ for _contra v._

31. _Luc._ 137 has _dixi_ for _dictus_. As Cic. does not often leave out

_est_ with the passive verb, Nonius has probably quoted wrongly. It will be

noted that the fragments of Book III. correspond to the first half of the

_Luc._, those of Book IV. to the second half. Cic. therefore divided the

_Luc._ into two portions at or about 63.

UNCERTAIN BOOKS.

32. I have already said that this most likely belonged to the preliminary

assault on the senses made by Cic. in the second book.

33. In the Introd. p. 55 I have given my opinion that the substance of

Catulus' speech which unfolded the doctrine of the _probabile_ was

incorporated with Cicero's speech in the second book of this edition. To

that part this fragment must probably be referred.

34. This important fragment clearly belongs to Book II., and is a jocular

application of the Carneadean _probabile_, as may be seen from the words

_probabiliter posse confici_.

35. Krische assigns this to the end of Varro's speech in the third Book.

With this opinion I find it quite impossible to agree. A passage in the

_Lucullus_ (60) proves to demonstration that in the first edition this

allusion to the esoteric teaching of the Academy could only have occurred

either in the speech of Catulus or in that of Cicero. As no reason whatever

appears to account for its transference to Varro I prefer to regard it as

belonging to Cic.'s exposition of the positive side of Academic doctrine in

the second book. Cic. repeatedly insists that the Academic school must not

be supposed to have no truths to maintain, see _Luc._ 119, also 66 and

_N.D._ I. 12. Also Aug. _Contra. Ac._ II. 29.

36. It is difficult to see where this passage could have been included if

not in that prooemium to the third book which is mentioned _Ad. Att._ XVI.

6, 4. I may here add that Krische seems to me wrong in holding that the

whole four books formed one discussion, finished within the limits of a

single day. Why interrupt the discussion by the insertion of a prologue of

so general a nature as to be taken from a stock which Cic. kept on hand

ready made? (Cf. _Ad Att._ as above.)

* * * * *

Besides the actual fragments of the second edition, many indications of its

contents are preserved in the work of Augustine entitled _Contra

Academicos_, which, though written in support of dogmatic opinions,

imitated throughout the second edition of the _Academica_ of Cic. No

writings of the Classical period had so great an influence on the culture

and opinions of Augustine as the _Academica_ and the lost _Hortensius_. I

give, partly from Krische, the scattered indications of the contents of the

former which are to be gathered from the bishop's works. In Aug. _Contr.

Ac._ II. 14, 15, we have what appears to be a summary of the lost part of

Book I. to the following effect. The New Academy must not be regarded as

having revolted against the Old, all that it did was to discuss that new

doctrine of καταληψις advanced by Zeno. The doctrine of ακαταληψια though

present to the minds of the ancients had never taken distinct shape,

because it had met with no opposition. The Old Academy was rather enriched

than attacked by the New. Antiochus, in adopting Stoicism under the name of

the Old Academy, made it appear that there was a strife between it and the

New. With Antiochus the historical exposition of Cic. must have ended. From

this portion of the first book, Aug. derived his opinion (_Contra. Ac._ II.

1) that New Academicism was excusable from the necessities of the age in

which it appeared. Indications of Book II. in Aug. are scarce, but to it I

refer _Contra. Ac._ I. 7 _placuit Ciceroni nostro beatum esse qui verum

investigat etiam si ad eius inventionem non valeat pervenire_, also _ibid._

III. 10 _illis (Academicis) placuit esse posse hominem sapientem, et tamen

in hominem scientiam cadere non posse_. These I refer to Cicero's

development of the _probabile_ in Book II., although I ought to say that

Krische, p. 65, maintains that the substance of Catulus' exposition in the

_Ac. Priora_ transferred to Book IV. of the _Ac. Posteriora_. As this would

leave very meagre material for Book II., nothing indeed excepting the

provisional proof of the deceptiveness of the senses, I cannot accede to

his arrangement; mine, I may remark, involves a much smaller departure from

the first edition. Allusions in Aug. to the attack on the senses by Cic. in

Book II. are difficult to fix, as they apply equally well to the later

attack in Book IV. As to Books III. and IV., I do not think it necessary

here to prove from Aug. the points of agreement between them and the

_Lucullus_, which will find a better place in my notes on the latter, but

merely give the divergences which appear from other sources. These are the

translation of σοφισματα by _cavillationes_ in _Luc._ 75 (Seneca _Ep._

III.), and the insertion in 118 of _essentia_ as a translation of ουσια.

BOOK II.

ENTITLED _LUCULLUS_.

§§1--12. Summary. Lucullus, though an able and cultivated man, was

absent from Rome on public service too long during his earlier years to

attain to glory in the forum (1). He unexpectedly proved a great

general. This was due to his untiring study and his marvellous memory

(2). He had to wait long for the reward of his merits as a commander

and civil administrator, and was allowed no triumph till just before my

consulship. What I owed to him in those troublous times I cannot now

tell (3). He was not merely a general; he was also a philosopher,

having learned much from Antiochus and read much for himself (4). Those

enemies of Greek culture who think a Roman noble ought not to know

philosophy, must be referred to the examples of Cato and Africanus (5).

Others think that famous men should not be introduced into dialogues of

the kind. Are they then, when they meet, to be silent or to talk about

trifles? I, in applying myself to philosophy, have neglected no public

duty, nor do I think the fame of illustrious citizens diminished, but

enriched, by a reputation for philosophical knowledge (6). Those who

hold that the interlocutors in these dialogues had no such knowledge

show that they can make their envy reach beyond the grave. Some critics

do not approve the particular philosophy which I follow--the Academic.

This is natural, but they must know that Academicism puts no stop to

inquiry (7). My school is free from the fetters of dogma; other schools

are enslaved to authority (8). The dogmatists say they bow to the

authority of the wise man. How can they find out the wise man without

hearing all opinions? This subject was discussed by myself, Catulus,

Lucullus, and Hortensius, the day after the discussion reported in the

_Catulus_ (9). Catulus called on Lucullus to defend the doctrines of

Antiochus. This Lucullus believed himself able to do, although the

doctrines had suffered in the discussion of the day before (10). He

spoke thus: At Alexandria I heard discussions between Heraclitus Tyrius

the pupil of Clitomachus and Philo, and Antiochus. At that very time

the books mentioned by Catulus yesterday came into the hands of

Antiochus, who was so angry that he wrote a book against his old

teacher (11 and 12). I will now give the substance of the disputes

between Heraclitus and Antiochus, omitting the remarks made by the

latter against Philo (12).

§1. _Luculli_: see Introd. p. 58, and _Dict. Biog._ _Digna homini nobili_:

a good deal of learning would have been considered _unworthy_ of a man like

Lucullus, see Introd. p. 30. _Percepta_: "gained," "won;" cf. _percipere

fruges_, "to reap," _Cat. Mai._ 24. _Caruit_: "was cut off from;" _carere_

comes from a root _skar_ meaning to divide, see Corss. I. 403. For the

three nouns with a singular verb see Madv. _Gram._ 213 A, who confines the

usage to nouns denoting things and impersonal ideas. If the common reading

_dissensit_ in _De Or._ III. 68 is right, the restriction does not hold.

_Admodum_: "to a degree." _Fratre_: this brother was adopted by a M.

Terentius Varro, and was a man of distinction also; see _Dict. Biog._

_Magna cum gloria_: a ref. to _Dict. Biog._ will show that the whole affair

was discreditable to the father; to our notions, the sons would have gained

greater glory by letting it drop. _Quaestor_: to Sulla, who employed him

chiefly in the civil administration of Asia. _Continuo_: without any

interval. _Legis praemio_: this seems to mean "by the favour of a special

law," passed of course by Sulla, who had restored the old _lex annalis_ in

all its rigour, and yet excepted his own officers from its operation.

_Prooemio_, which has been proposed, would not be Latin, see _De Leg._ II.

16. _Consulatum_: he seems to have been absent during the years 84--74, in

the East. _Superiorum_: scarcely that of Sulla.

§2. _Laus_: "merit," as often, so _praemium_, Virg. _Aen._ XII. 437, means

a deed worthy of reward. _Non admodum exspectabatur_: Cic. forgets that

Luc. had served with distinction in the Social War and the first

Mithridatic war. _In Asia pace_: three good MSS. have _Asiae_; Baiter

ejects _Asia_; Guilelmus read _in Asia in pace_ (which Davies conjectures,

though he prints _Asiae_). _Consumere_ followed by an ablative without _in_

is excessively rare in Cic. Madv. _D.F._ V. 53 denies the use altogether.

In addition, however, to our passage, I note _hoc loco consumitur_ in

_T.D._ IV. 23, where Baiter's two texts (1861 and 1863) give no variants.

_Pace_ here perhaps ought to be taken adverbially, like _tranqullo_.

_Indocilem_: this is simply passive, = "untaught," as in Prop. I. 2, 12,

Ov. _Fast._ III. 119 (the last qu. by Dav.). Forc. s.v. is wrong in making

it active. _Factus_: = _perfectus_; cf. Hor. _Sat._ I. 5, 33 _homo factus

ad unguem_, Cic. _De Or._ III. 184, _In Verr._ IV. 126. So _effectus_ in

silver Latin. _Rebus gestis_: military history, so often. _Divinam quandam

memoriam_: the same phrase in _De Or._ II. 360. _Rerum, verborum_: same

distinction in _De Or._ II. 359. _Oblivisci se malle_: the same story is

told _D.F._ II. 104, _De Or._ II. 299. The ancient art of memory was begun

by Simonides (who is the person denoted here by _cuidam_) and completed by

Metrodorus of Scepsis, for whom see _De Or._ II. 360. _Consignamus_: cf.

_consignatae in animis notiones_ in _T.D._ I. 57. _litteris_ must be an

ablative of the instrument. _Mandare monum._: cf. I. 3. _Insculptas_: rare

in the metaphorical use, cf. _N.D._ I. 45.

§3. _Genere_: "department" cf. I. 3. _Navalibus pugnis_: ναυμαχιαις.

_Instrumento et adparatu_: κατασκευη και παρασκευη. _Rex_: Mithridates.

_Quos legisset_: = _de quibus l._; cf. the use of the passive verb so

common in Ovid, e.g. _Trist._ IV. 4, 14. I take of course _rex_ to be nom.

to _legisset_, the suggestion of a friend that Lucullus is nom. and that

_quos legisset_ = _quorum commentarios legisset_ I think improbable.

_Hodie_: Drakenborch on Livy V. 27 wants to read _hodieque_, which however,

is not Ciceronian. In passages like _De Or._ I. 103 and _Verr._ V. 64, the

_que_ connects clauses and does not modify _hodie_. On this subject see

Madv. _Opuscula_ I. 390. _Etsi_: _M.D.F._ V. 68, shows that in Cic. a

parenthetic clause with _etsi_ always has a common verb with its principal

clause; a rule not observed by the silver writers. The same holds of

_quamquam_, see n. on I. 5. _Calumnia_: properly a fraudulent use of

litigation, συκοφαντια. The chief enemy was the infamous Memmius who

prosecuted him. _In urbem_: until his triumph Luc. would remain outside the

city. _Profuisset_: this ought properly to be _profuerit_, but the

conditional _dicerem_ changes it. _Potius ... quam ... communicem_: n. on

23.

§4. _Sunt ... celebrata_: cf. I. 11, 17 for the collocation of the words.

_Externa ... interiora_: cf. _De Div._ II. 124 _sed haec quoque in promptu,

nunc interiora videamus_. _Pro quaestore_: for this Faber wrote _quaestor_,

arguing that as Luc. was Sulla's _quaestor_ and Sulla sent him to Egypt, he

could not be _pro quaestor_. But surely after the first year he would be

_pro quaestor_. Dav. reads _quaestor_ here and 11, saying "_veterem

lectionem iugulavit Faber_". _Ea memoria ... quam_: Bentl., Halm, Baiter

give _qua_, Halm refers to Bentl. on Hor. _Sat._ I. 6, 15. A passage like

ours is _D.F._ I. 29, _ista sis aequitate, quam ostendis_, where one MS.

has _qua_. Read Madvig's lucid note there. _De quibus audiebat_: Madv.

_Em._ 121 makes this equivalent to _de eis rebus de quibus_, the necessity

of which explanation, though approved by Halm, I fail to see. The form of

expression is very common in Cic., and the relative always refers to an

actually expressed antecedent, cf. e.g. _Cat. Mai._ 83. I take _quibus_ as

simply = _libris_.

§5. _Ac_: strong, as often, = και μην. _Personarum_: public characters,

προσωπων πολεως (_Ad. Fam._ XV. 17, 2), so _personas_ 6. _Multi ...

plures_: cf. Introd. p. 30. _Reliqui_: many MSS. insert _qui_ by

_dittographia_, as I think, though Halm, as well as Bait., retains it. On

the retention or omission of this _qui_ will depend the choice of _putant_

or _putent_ below. _Earum rerum disputationem_: for _disp._ followed by

genitive see n. on I. 33. _Non ita decoram_: for this feeling see Introd.

p. 30. For _non ita_ cf. the Lowland Scottish "no just sae". _Historiae

loquantur_: _hist._ means in Cic. rather "memoirs" than "history," which is

better expressed by _res gestae_. Note that the verb _loqui_ not _dicere_

is used, and cf. n. on 101. _Legatione_: to the kings in Egypt and the East

in alliance with Rome. The censorship was in 199 B.C. About the embassy see

_Dict. Biogr._ art. 'Panactius'. _Auctorem_: one would think this simple

and sound enough, Bentl. however read _fautorem_, Dav. _auditorem_.

§6. _Illigari_: "entangled" as though in something bad. For this use Forc.

qu. Liv. XXXIII. 21, Tac. _Ann._ XIII. 40. _Aut ludicros sermones_: = _aut

clar. vir. serm. ludic. esse oporteat_. _Rerum leviorum_: a similar

argument in _D.F._ I. 12. _Quodam in libro_: the _Hortensius_. _Gradu_: so

the word "degree" was once used, e.g. "a squire of low degree" in the

ballad. _De opera publica detrahamus_: the dative often follows this verb,

as in _D.F._ III. 7 _nihil operae reipublicae detrahens_, a passage often

wrongly taken. _Operae_ is the dat. after the verb, not the gen. after

_nihil_, _reip._ the gen. after _operae_, like _opera publica_ here, not

the dat. after _detrahens_. _Nisi forensem_: the early oratorical works may

fairly be said to have this character; scarcely, however, the _De

Republica_ or the _De Leg._ both of which fall within the period spoken of.

_Ut plurimis prosimus_: cf. Introd. p. 29. _Non modo non minui, sed_:

notice _non modo ... sed_ thrice over in two sentences.

§7. _Sunt ... qui negent_: and truly, see Introd. p. 38. In _Cat. Mai._ §3

Cic. actually apologises for making Cato more learned than he really was.

_Mortuis_: Catulus died in 60, Lucullus about 57, Hortensius 50. _Contra

omnis dicere quae videntur_: MSS. mostly insert _qui_ between _dicere_ and

_quae_, one of the best however has _dicere quae aliis_ as a correction,

while another has the marginal reading _qui scire sibi videntur_. The

omission of _qui_, which I conjectured, but now see occurs in a MS. (Pal.

2) referred to by Halm, gives admirable sense. _Verum invenire_: cf. 60.

_Contentione_: = φιλονεικια as usual. _In ... rebus obscuritas_: cf. I. 44

_rerum obscuritate_. _Infirmitas_: cf. I. 44 _imbecillos animos_.

_Antiquissimi et doctissimi_: on the other hand _recentissima quaeque sunt

correcta et emendata maxime_ I. 13. _Diffisi_: one of the best MSS. has

_diffissi_, which reminds one of the spelling _divisssiones_, asserted to

be Ciceronian in Quint. _Inst. Or_. I. 7, 20. _In utramque partem_: επ'

αμφοτερα, cf. I. 45. _Exprimant_: "embody," cf. n. on I. 19.

§8. _Probabilia_: πιθανα, for which see 33. _Sequi_: "act upon," cf.

99-101. _Liberiores et solutiores_: these two words frequently occur

together in Cic. and illustrate his love for petty variations; see 105,

also _T.D._ V. 43, _De Div._ I. 4, _De Rep._ IV. 4, _N.D._ I. 56, _Orat._

64. _Integra_: "untrammelled," cf. the phrase "_non mihi integrum est_"--"I

have committed my self." _Et quasi_: MSS. have _et quibus et quasi_.

_Cogimur_: for this Academic freedom see Introd. p. 18. _Amico cuidam_:

Orelli after Lamb. _cuipiam;_ for the difference see Madv. _Gram._ 493 _b_,

c.

§9. _Ut potuerint, potuerunt_: thus Lamb. corrected the MSS. reading which

was simply _ut potuerunt_, "granting that they had the ability, they gained

it by hearing all things, now as a matter of fact they _did_ decide on a

single hearing," etc. _Iudicaverunt autem_: so Lamb. for MSS. _aut_.

Muretus, by what Dav. calls an "_arguta hariolatio_," read _an_ for _aut_

and put a note of interrogation at _contulerunt_. C.F. Hermann

(Schneidewin's _Philologus_ VII. 466) introduces by conj. a sad confusion

into the text, but no other good critic since Madvig's remarks in _Em._ 125

has impugned Lambinus' reading. Goerenz indeed, followed by the faithful

Schutz, kept the MSS. reading with the insertion of _aut_ between _sed_ and

_ut_ at the beginning; of this Madv. says "_non solum Latina non est, sed

sanae menti repugnat_." For the proceeding which Cic. deprecates, cf.

_N.D._ I. 10, _De Leg._ I. 36. _Quam adamaverunt_: "which they have learned

to love;" the _ad_ has the same force as προ in προμανθανειν, which means

"to learn _on and on_, to learn by degrees" (cf. προυμαθον στεργειν

κακοις), not, as the lexica absurdly say, "to learn beforehand, i.e. to

learn thoroughly." _Constantissime_: "most consistently". _Quae est ad

Baulos_: cf. Introd. p. 57. _In spatio_: this _xystus_ was a colonnade with

one side open to the sea, called ξυστος from its polished floor and

pillars. _Consedimus_: n. on I. 14.

§10. _Servatam oportuit_: a construction very characteristic of Terence,

found, but rarely, in Cic. and Livy. _In promptu ... reconditiora_: cf. _in

promptu ... interiora_ in _De Div._ II. 124, also _Ac._ I. 4. _Quae dico_:

Goer. is exceedingly troubled by the pres. tense and wishes to read

_dixero_. But the substitution of the pres. for the future is common enough

in all languages cf. Iuv. IV. 130 with Mayor's copious note. _Si non

fuerint_: so all Halm's best MSS. Two, however, of Davies' have _si vera_

etc. In support of the text, see I. 9 (_sunt ista_) and note.

_Labefactata_: this is only found as an alteration in the best MSS. and in

_Ed. Rom._ (1471); the others have _labefacta_. Orelli's statement (note to

his separate text of the _Academica_ 1827) that Cic. commonly uses the

perfect _labefeci_ and the part, _labefactus_ is quite wrong. The former is

indeed the vulg. reading in _Pro Sestio_ 101, the latter in _De Haruspicum

Responsis_ 60, but the last of these two passages is doubtful. Cic. as a

rule prefers long forms like _sustentatus_, which occurs with

_labefactatus_ in _Cat. Mai._ 20. For the perfect _labefactavit_ cf. I. 33.

_Agam igitur_: Cic. rather overdoes the attempt to force on his readers a

belief in the learning of Lucullus.

§11. _Pro quaestore_: cf. 4. _Essem_: MSS. _issem_, whence Goer. conj.

_Alexandriam issem_. _Heraclitus Tyrius_: scarcely known except from this

passage. _Clitomachum_: for this philosopher see Zeller 532. _Quae nunc

prope dimissa revocatur_: sc. _a Cicerone_. Philo's only notable pupils had

combined to form the so called "Old Academy," and when Cic. wrote the

_Academica_ the New Academic dialectic had been without a representative

for many years. Cf. Introd. p. 21. _Libri duo_: cf. I. 13. _Heri_ for this

indication of the contents of the lost _Catulus_, see Introd. p. 50.

_Implorans_: "appealing to," the true meaning being "to appeal to with

tears," see Corss. I. 361. _Philonis_: sc. _esse_. _Scriptum agnoscebat_:

i.e. it was an actual work of Ph. _Tetrilius_: some MSS. are said to have

Tetrinius, and the name _Tertinius_ is found on Inscr. One good MS. has

_Tretilius_, which may be a mistake for _Tertilius_, a name formed like

_Pompilius_, _Quintilius_, _Sextilius_. Qy, should _Petrilius_, a

derivative from the word for four, be read? _Petrilius_ and _Pompilius_

would then agree like _Petronius_ and _Pomponius_, _Petreius_ and

_Pompeius_. For the formation of these names see Corss. I. 116. _Rogus_: an

ill omened and unknown name. _Rocus_, as Ursinus pointed out, occurs on

_denarii_ of the _gens Creperia_. _De Philone ... ab eo ipso_: note the

change of prep. "from Philo's lips," "from his copy." _De_ and _ex_ are

common in Cic. after _audire_, while _ab_ is rather rarer. See _M.D.F._ I.

39, and for _describere ab aliquo_ cf. _a te_ in _Ad Att._ XIII. 22, 3.

§12. _Dicta Philoni_: for this see Introd. p. 50. It cannot mean what Goer.

makes it mean, "_coram Philone_." I think it probable that _Philoni_ is a

marginal explanation foisted on the text. As to the statements of Catulus

the elder, they are made clear by 18. _Academicos_: i.e. _novos_, who are

here treated as the true Academics, though Antiochus himself claimed the

title. _Aristo_: see Introd. p. 11. _Aristone_: Diog. VII. 164 mentions an

Aristo of Alexandria, a Peripatetic, who may be the same. Dio seems

unknown. _Negat_: see n. on 18. _Lenior_: some MSS. _levior_, as is usual

with these two words. In 11 one of the earliest editions has _leviter_ for

_leniter_.

§§13--18. Summary. Cicero seems to me to have acted like a seditious

tribune, in appealing to famous old philosophers as supporters of

scepticism (13), Those very philosophers, with the exception of

Empedocles, seem to me, if anything, too dogmatic (14). Even if they

were often in doubt, do you suppose that no advance has been made

during so many centuries by the investigations of so many men of

ability? Arcesilas was a rebel against a good philosophy, just as Ti.

Gracchus was a rebel against a good government (15). Has nothing really

been learned since the time of Arcesilas? His opinions have had scanty,

though brilliant support (16). Now many dogmatists think that no

argument ought to be held with a sceptic, since argument can add

nothing to the innate clearness of true sensations (17). Most however

do allow of discussion with sceptics. Philo in his innovations was

induced to state falsehoods, and incurred all the evils he wished to

avoid, his rejection of Zeno's definition of the καταληπτικη φαντασια

really led him back to that utter scepticism from which he was fleeing.

We then must either maintain Zeno's definition or give in to the

sceptics (18).

§13. _Rursus exorsus est_: cf. _exorsus_ in 10. _Popularis_: δημοτικους.

_Ii a_: so Dav. for MSS. _iam_. _Tum ad hos_: so MSS., Dav. _aut hos_. The

omission of the verb _venire_ is very common in Cic.'s letters. _C.

Flaminium_: the general at lake Trasimene. _Aliquot annis_: one good MS.

has _annos_, cf. _T.D._ I. 4, where all the best MSS. have _annos_. The

ablative is always used to express point of time, and indeed it may be

doubted whether the best writers _ever_ use any accusative in that sense,

though they do occasionally use the ablative to express duration (cf. Prop.

I. 6, 7 and Madv. _Gram._ 235, 2). _L. Cassium_: this is L. Cassius

Longinus Ravilla, a man of good family, who carried a ballot bill (_De

Leg._ III. 35), he was the author of the _cui bono_ principle and so severe

a judge as to be called _scopulus reorum_. Pompeium: apparently the man who

made the disgraceful treaty with Numantia repudiated by home in 139 B.C.

_P. Africanum_: i.e. the younger, who supported the ballot bill of Cassius,

but seems to have done nothing else for the democrats. _Fratres_: Lamb.

_viros_, but cf. _Brut._ 98. _P. Scaevolam_: the pontifex, consul in the

year Tib. Gracchus was killed, when he refused to use violence against the

tribunes. The only connection these brothers had with the schemes of

Gracchus seems to be that they were consulted by him as lawyers, about the

legal effect the bills would have. _Ut videmus ... ut suspicantur_: Halm

with Gruter brackets these words on the ground that the statement about

Marius implies that the demagogues lie about all but him. Those words need

not imply so much, and if they did, Cic. may be allowed the inconsistency.

§14. _Similiter_: it is noticeable that five MSS. of Halm have _simile_.

_Xenophanem_: so Victorius for the MSS. _Xenoplatonem_. _Ed. Rom._ (1471)

has _Cenonem_, which would point to _Zenonem_, but Cic. does not often name

Zeno of Elea. _Saturninus_: of the question why he was an enemy of

Lucullus, Goer. says _frustra quaeritur_. Saturninus was the persistent

enemy of Metellus Numidicus, who was the uncle of Lucullus by marriage.

_Arcesilae calumnia_: this was a common charge, cf. _Academicorum calumnia_

in _N.D._ II. 20 and _calumnia_ in 18 and 65 of this book. So August.

_Contra Acad._ II. 1 speaks of _Academicorum vel calumnia vel pertinacia

vel pericacia_. _Democriti verecundia_: Cic. always has a kind of

tenderness for Democritus, as Madv. on _D.F._ I. 20 remarks, cf. _De Div._

II. 30 where Democr. is made an exception to the general _arrogantia_ of

the _physici_. _Empedocles quidem ... videatur_: cf. 74. The exordium of

his poem is meant, though there is nothing in it so strong as the words of

the text, see R. and P. 108. _Quale sit_: the emphasis is on _sit_, the

sceptic regards only phenomenal, not essential existence. _Quasi modo

nascentes_: Ciacconus thought this spurious, cf. however _T.D._ II. 5 _ut

oratorum laus ... senescat ... , philosophia nascatur_.

§15. _haesitaverunt_: Goer. cf. _De Or._ I. 40. _Constitutam_: so in 14.

_Delitisceret_: this is the right spelling, not _delitesceret_, which one

good MS. has here, see Corssen II. 285. _Negavissent_: "had denied, as they

said." _Tollendus est_: a statement which is criticised in 74. _Nominibus

differentis ... dissenserunt_: genuine Antiochean opinions, see the

_Academica Posteriora_ 17, 43. _De se ipse_: very frequent in Cic. (cf.

Madv. _Gram._ 487 _b_). _Diceret_: this is omitted by the MSS., but one has

_agnosceret_ on the margin; see n. on 88. _Fannius_: in his "Annals." The

same statement is quoted in _De Or._ II. 270, _Brutus_ 299. Brutus had

written an epitome of this work of Fannius (_Ad Att._ XII. 5, 3).

§16. _Veteribus_: Bentley's em. of MSS. _vetera_: C.F. Hermann (Schneid

_Philol._ VII. 457), thinking the departure from the MSS. too great, keeps

_vetera_ and changes _incognita_ into _incondita_, comparing _De Or._ I.

197, III. 173. A glance, however, at the exx. in Forc. will show that the

word always means merely "disordered, confused" in Cic. The difference here

is not one between order and no order, but between knowledge and no

knowledge, so that _incognita_ is far better. I am not at all certain that

the MSS. reading needs alteration. If kept the sense would be: "but let us

suppose, for sake of argument, that the doctrines of the ancients were not

_knowledge_, but mere _opinion_." The conj. of Kayser _veri nota_ for

_vetera_ (cf. 76) and _investigatum_ below, is fanciful and improbable.

_Quod investigata sunt_: "in that an investigation was made." Herm. again

disturbs the text which since Madv. _Em._ 127 supported it (quoting _T.D._

V. 15, Liv. XXXV. 16) had been settled. Holding that _illa_ in the former

sentence cannot be the subj. of the verb, he rashly ejects _nihilne est

igitur actum_ as a dittographia (!) from 15 _nihilne explicatum_, and reads

_quot_ for _quod_ with Bentl. For the meaning cf. _T.D._ III. 69 and Arist.

on the progress of philosophy as there quoted. _Arcesilas Zenoni ...

obtrectans_: see n. on I. 34. These charges were brought by each school

against the other. In Plutarch _Adv. Colotem_ p. 1121 F, want of novelty is

charged against Arcesilas, and the charge is at once joyfully accepted by

Plut. The scepticism of Arcesilas was often excused by the provocation Zeno

gave, see Aug. _Contra Acad._ II. 14, 15 and notes on fragm. 2 and 35 of

the _Academica Posteriora_. _Immutatione verborum_: n. on I. 33. This

phrase has also technical meanings; it translates the Greek τροποι (_Brut._

69) and αλληγορια in _De Or._ II. 261, where an ex. is given.

_Definitiones_: n. on 18. _Tenebras obducere_: such expressions abound in

Cic. where the New Academy is mentioned, cf. 30 (_lucem eripere_), _N.D._

I. 6 (_noctem obfundere_) Aug. _Contra Ac._ III. 14 (_quasdam nebulas

obfundere_), also the joke of Aug. II. 29 _tenebrae quae patronae

Academicorum solent esse_. _Non admodum probata_: cf. the passage of

Polybius qu. by Zeller 533. _Lacyde_: the most important passages in

ancient authorities concerning him are quoted by Zeller 506. It is

important to note that Arcesilas left no writings so that Lacydes became

the source of information about his teacher's doctrines. _Tenuit_: cf. the

use of _obtinere_ in _De Or._ I. 45. _In Aeschine_: so Dav. for the

confused MSS. reading. For this philosopher see Zeller 533. As two MSS.

have _hac nonne_ Christ conj. _Hagnone_ which Halm, as well as Baiter

takes; Zeller 533 seems to adopt this and at once confuses the supposed

philosopher with one Agnon just mentioned in Quint. II. 17, 15. There is

not the slightest reason for this, Agnon and Hagnon being known, if known

at all, from these two passages only.

§17. _Patrocinium_: for the word cf. _N.D._ I. 6. _Non defuit_: such

patronage _was_ wanting in the time of Arcesilas (16). _Faciendum omnino

non putabant_: "Epictetus (Arrian, _Diss._ I. 27, 15) quietly suppresses a

sceptic by saying ουκ αγω σχολην προς ταυτα" (Zeller 85, n.). In another

passage (Arrian, I. 5) Epict. says it is no more use arguing with a sceptic

than with a corpse. _Ullam rationem disputare_: the same constr. occurs in

74 and _Pro Caecina_ 15, _Verr. Act._ I. 24. _Antipatrum_: cf. fragm. 1 of

Book I. _Verbum e verbo_: so 31, _D.F._ III. 15, _T.D._ III. 7, not _verbum

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.