Academica Part 11

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

_Alexandriam issem_. _Herac.l.i.tus Tyrius_: scarcely known except from this pa.s.sage. _c.l.i.tomachum_: 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_, _s.e.xtilius_. 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 t.i.tle. _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 ?ata??pt??? fa?tas?a 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_: d??t?????.

_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. Ca.s.sium_: this is L. Ca.s.sius 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 Ca.s.sius, 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. _Const.i.tutam_: 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. x.x.xV. 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 t??p?? (_Brut._ 69) and a???????a 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 pa.s.sage of Polybius qu. by Zeller 533. _Lacyde_: the most important pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages 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 ??? a?? s????? p??? ta?ta" (Zeller 85, n.). In another pa.s.sage (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. _Verb.u.m e verbo_: so 31, _D.F._ III. 15, _T.D._ III. 7, not _verb.u.m de verbo_, which Goer. a.s.serts 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 _ill.u.s.tratio_ (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 pa.s.sages the Academy is called _procax_. _Ment.i.tur_: cf. 12. _Ita negaret_: this _ita_ corresponds to _si_ below,--a common sequence of particles in Cic., cf. 19. ??ata??pt??: the conj. of Turnebus ?ata??pt?? 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 e?apesf?a??se?? ?a? e?ap?ea?e?? in the Gk. It must not be forgotten that the Stoics held a sensation to be a real alteration (?ete????s??) 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 s.e.xtus in four out of the six pa.s.sages 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 s.e.xtus in the two pa.s.sages 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 ?at' a?t? t? ??pa????. s.e.xtus _Adv. Math._ VII. 249 considers them essential to the definition and instances Orestes who looking at Electra, mistook her for an Erinys. The fa?tas?a therefore which he had although ap? ??pa????t?? (proceeding from an actually existent thing) was not ?ata t? ??pa????, 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_: ???t?????, 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 ?ata??pt???

fa?tas?a, which he p.r.o.nounced impossible, (3) that he distorted the views of Carneades to suit his own. As to (1) all ancient testimony is clear, cf.

11, s.e.xtus _Pyrr. Hyp._ I. 235, who tells us that while the Carneadeans believed all things to be a?ata??pta, Philo held them to be ?ata??pta, 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 s.e.xtus as quoted above. The foundation for knowledge which he subst.i.tuted is more difficult to comprehend. s.e.xtus indeed tells us that he held things to be _in their own nature_ ?ata??pta (??s?? de ep? t? f?se? t?? p?a?at??

a?t?? ?ata?.). 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 ?ata??pt???

fa?tas?a professed to be able to get at _the thing in itself_, in its real being, if then Philo did away with the ?ata?. fa?t. and subst.i.tuted 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 ?ata?. fa?t. 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 c.l.i.tomachus as he usually does. It would seem from that pa.s.sage that he defined the cognisable to be "_quod impressum esset e vero_" (fa?tas?a ap? ??pa????t?? e?ap?ea?e??), refusing to add "_quo modo imprimi non posset a falso_ (???a ??? a? ?e???t?

ap? ? ??pa????t??), cf. my n. on the pa.s.sage. Thus defined, he most likely tried to show that the cognisable was equivalent to the d???? or p??a??? of Carneades, hence he eagerly pressed the doubtful statement of the latter that the wise man would "opine," that is, would p.r.o.nounce 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 ent.i.tled _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 h.o.m.ogeneous 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 a?s??s?? means two things, (1) one of the _five_ senses, (2) an individual act of sensation. _Deus_: for the supposed G.o.d 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 ??p? e?a??? ?e??ase?? and pe??ste?a?

t?a????? are frequently mentioned, along with numerous other instances of the deceptiveness of sense, by s.e.xt. 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. s.e.xt. _Pyrrh_. I. 118 pept?? est? ????? (i.e. the 5th sceptic t??p?? for showing sense to be untrustworthy) ?? pa?a ta?

?ese?? (_situs_) ?a? ta d?ast?ata (_intervalla_) ?a? t??? t?p???.

_Multaque facimus usque eo_: s.e.xt. _Adv. Math._ VII. 258 pa?ta p??e? e????

a? t?a??? ?a? p???t???? spas? fa?tas?a?. _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. s??a and s??asa are opposed to ?ap?a; cf. also s??a??afe??, _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 a?a???. _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_: a?s??s?? being their only ???t?????. Madv. (without necessity, as a study of the pa.s.sages 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 repet.i.tion 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 alb.u.m_: these are a???ata, judgments of the mind, in which alone truth and falsehood reside; see Zeller 107 sq. There is a pa.s.sage in s.e.xt. _Adv. Math._ VII. 344, 345 which closely resembles ours; it is too long to quote entire: a?s??ses? e? ??? ??a?? ?ae?? ta???e? (which resides only in the a???a) ?? d??ata? a????p??. ... f?se? ?a? e?s?? a?????

... de? de e?? fa?tas?a? a????a? t?? t????t?? p?a?at?? "t??t? ?e???? est?

?a? t??t? ????? est??." t?? de t????t?? p?a?at? ???et? t?? a?s??se?? e????

est?? ep?a??e?? ... s??ese?? te de? ?a? ????. _Ille deinceps_: _deinceps_ is really out of place; cf. 24 _quomodo primum_ for _pr. quom._ _Ille equus est_: Cic. seems to consider that the a???a, 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 s.e.xtus: e.g. _Adv. Math._ VII.

a????p?? est? ???? ??????? ???t??, ??? ?a? ep?st??? de?t????. The Stoic ?????, and this among them, are amusingly ridiculed, _Pyrrh. Hyp._ II.

208--211. _Not.i.tiae_: this Cic. uses as a translation both of p??????? and e????a, for which see Zeller 79, 89. In I. 40 _notiones rerum_ is given.

_Sine quibus_: d?a ?a? t?? e?????? ta p?a?ata ?aa?eta? Diog. VII. 42.

--22. _Igitur_: for the anacoluthia cf. Madv. _Gram._ 480. _Consentaneum_: so s.e.xtus constantly uses a????????. _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, s.e.xt. _Pyrrh. Hyp._ III. 188 te???? e??a? s?st?a e? ?ata???e??

s???e???ase??? _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_: s.e.xt. _Adv. Math._ VIII. 280 ?? d???se? t??

ate???a? ?? te???. s.e.xtus 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. s.e.xt.

_Adv. Math._ XI. 197 who adds a third cla.s.s of te??a? called ap?te?esat??a? to the usual ?e???t??a? and p?a?t??a?, also Quint. II. 18, 1 and 2, where p???t??? corresponds to the ap?t. of s.e.xt. _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_: e??e? eta?e????es?a?.

--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 ?ata?????

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 ep?st??

depends on ?ata???e??; cf. I. 40, 41, with notes, Zeller 88, R. and P. 367.

_Stabilem_: ea??? ?a? aetapt?t??. _Artem vivendi_: "_tralaticium hoc apud omnes philosophos_" _M.D.F._ I. 42. s.e.xtus constantly talks about ??

??e???p????e?? pe?? t?? ??? te??? (_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 s?f?? in Plato's _Gorgias_. _Potius quam aut_: Lamb. _ut_; but I think C.F. Hermann is right in a.s.serting 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 ... const.i.tuti_: cf. the famous _abiit, evasit, excessit, crupit_. _Iis rebus_: note the a.s.sumption 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 a?e?e???t?? e? ??? (s.e.xt. _Pyrrh.

Hyp._ I. 23). _Extremum_: similar attempts to translate te??? are made in D.F. I. 11, 29, V. 17. _c.u.m quid agere_: cf. I. 23 for the phrase _Naturae accommodatum_. a purely Stoic expression, ?????e??? t? f?se?; cf. 38 and _D.F._ V. 17, also III. 16, Zeller 227, footnote, R. and P. 390.