Academica Part 17

The threefold division was peculiarly Stoic, though used by other schools, cf. s.e.xt. _P.H._ II. 13 (on the same subject) ??? St????? ?a? a???? t??e?.

For other modes of dividing philosophy see s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII. 2. _At illud ante_: this is my em. for the MSS. _velut illud ante_, which probably arose from a marginal variant "_vel ut_" taking the place of _at_; cf. a similar break in 40 _sed prius_, also in 128 _at paulum ante_. Such breaks often occur in Cic., as in _Orator_ 87 _sed nunc aliud_, also _T.D._ IV. 47 _repenam forta.s.se, sed illud ante._ For _velut_ Halm writes _vel_ (which Bait. takes), Dav. _verum_. _Inflatus tumore_: cf. _De Off._ I. 91 _inflati opinionibus._ Bentl. read _errore_. _Cogere_: this word like a?a??a?e?? and ?a?es?a? often means simply to argue irresistibly. _Initia_: as in 118, bases of proof, themselves naturally incapable of proof, so a??a? in Gk.

_Digitum_: cf. 58, 143. _Punctum esse_ etc.: s?e??? est?? ?? e??? ???e?

(s.e.xt. _P.H._ III. 39), st??? = t? ae?e? (_A.M._ IX. 283, 377).

_Extremitatem_: = ep?fa?e?a?. _Libramentum_: so this word is used by Pliny (see Forc.) for the slope of a hill. _Nulla cra.s.situdo_: in s.e.xt. the ep?fa?e?a is usually described not negatively as here, but positively as ???? eta p?at??? (_P.H._ III. 39), pe?a? (_extremitas_) s?at?? d?? e???

d?astase??, ???? ?a? p?at?? (_A.M._ III. 77). _Liniamentum ... carentem_: a difficult pa.s.sage. Note (1) that the line is defined in Greek as ????

ap?ate?. (s.e.xt. as above), (2) that Cic. has by preference described the point and surface negatively. This latter fact seems to me strong against the introduction of _longitudinem_ which Ursinus, Dav., Orelli, Baiter and others propose by conjecture. If anything is to be introduced, I would rather add _et cra.s.situdine_ before _carentem_, comparing I. 27 _sine ulla specie et carentem omni illa qualitate_. I have merely bracketed _carentem_, though I feel Halm's remark that a verb is wanted in this clause as in the other two, he suggests _quod sit sine_. Hermann takes _esse_ after _punctum_ as strongly predicative ("there _is_ a point,"

etc.), then adds _similiter_ after _liniamentum_ and ejects _sine ulla_.

Observe the awkwardness of having the _line_ treated of after the _superficies_, which has induced some edd. to transpose. For _liniamentum_ = _lineam_ cf. _De Or._ I. 187. _Si adigam_: the fine em. of Manut. for _si adiiciamus_ of MSS. The construction _adigere aliquem ius iurandum_ will be found in Caes. _Bell. Civ._ I. 76, II. 18, qu. by Dav., cf. also Virg.

_Aen._ III. 56 _quid non mortalia pectora cogis auri sacra fames?_ _Sapientem nec prius_: this is the "_egregia lectio_" of three of Halm's MSS. Before Halm _sapientemne_ was read, thus was destroyed the whole point of the sentence, which is _not_ that the _sapiens_ will swear to the size of the sun after he has seen Archimedes go through his calculations, _but_ that the _sapiens_, however true he admits the bases of proof to be which Archimedes uses, will _not_ swear to the truth of the elaborate conclusions which that geometer rears upon them. Cicero is arguing as in 128 against the absurdity of attaching one and the same degree of certainty to the simplest and the most complex truths, and tries to condemn the Stoic _sapiens_ out of his own mouth, cf. esp. _nec ille iurare posset_ in 123.

_Multis partibus_: for this expression see Munro on Lucr. I. 734, for the sense cf. 82, 123, 126, 128. _Deum_: see 126.

--117. _Vim_: = a?a????, cf. _cogere_ in 116. _Ne ille_: this a.s.severative _ne_ is thus always closely joined with p.r.o.nouns in Cic. _Sententiam eliget et_: MSS. have (by _dittographia_ of _m_, _eli_) added _melius_ after _sententiam_, and have also dropped _et_. Dav. wished to read _elegerit_, comparing the beginning of 119. _Insipiens eliget_: cf. 115 _quale est a non sapiente explicari sapientiam?_ and 9 _statuere qui sit sapiens vel maxime videtur esse sapientis_. _Infinitae quaestiones_: ?ese??, general propositions, opposed to _finitae quaestiones_, limited propositions, Gk.

??p??ese??. Quintal III. 5, 5 gives as an ex. of the former _An uxor ducenda_, of the latter _An Catoni ducenda_. These _quaestiones_ are very often alluded to by Cic. as in _D.F._ I. 12, IV. 6, _De Or._ I. 138, II.

65--67, _Topica_ 79, _Orat._ 46, cf. also Quint. X. 5, II. _E quibus omnia constant_: this sounds like Lucretius, _omnia_ = t? pa?.

--118. For these _physici_ the student must in general be referred to R. and P., Schwegler, and Grote's _Plato_ Vol. I. A more complete enumeration of schools will be found in s.e.xt. _P.H._ III. 30 sq. Our pa.s.sage is imitated by Aug _De Civ. Dei_ XVIII. 37. _Concessisse primas_: Cic. always considers Thales to be _sapientissimus e septem_ (_De Leg._ II. 26). Hence Markland on Cic. _Ad Brutum_ II. 15, 3 argued that that letter cannot be genuine, since in it the supremacy among the seven is a.s.signed to Solon.

_Infinitatem naturae_: t? ape????, _naturae_ here = ??s?a?. _Definita_: this is opposed to _infinita_ in _Topica_ 79, so _definire_ is used for _finire_ in _Orat._ 65, where Jahn qu. _Verr._ IV. 115. _Similis inter se_: an attempt to translate ?????e?e?a?. _Eas primum_, etc.: cf. the exordium of Anaxagoras given from Diog. II. 6 in R. and P. 29 pa?ta ???ata ?? ????

e?ta ???? e???? a?ta d?e??s?se. _Xenophanes ... deum_: Eleaticism was in the hands of Xenoph. mainly theological. _Neque natum unquam_: cf. _neque ortum unquam_ in 119. _Parmenides ignem_: cf. Arist. _Met. A._ 5 qu. R. and P. 94. He only hypothetically allowed the existence of the phenomenal world, after which he made two a??a?, ?e??? ?a? ?????? t??t?? de t? e?

?ata e? t? ??? ?e??? tatte?, ?ate??? de ?ata t? ? ??. _Herac.l.i.tus_: n.

on I. 39. _Melissus_: see Simplicius qu. R. and P. 101, and esp. t? e??

a?e? a?a ?? te ?a? esta?. _Plato_: n. on I. 27. _Discedent_: a word often used of those vanquished in a fight, cf. Hor. _Sat._ I. 7, 17.

--119. _Sic animo ... sensibus_: knowledge according to the Stoics was h.o.m.ogeneous throughout, no one thing could be more or less known than another. _Nunc lucere_: cf. 98, also 128 _non enim magis adsentiuntur_, etc. _Mundum sapientem_: for this Stoic doctrine see _N.D._ I. 84, II. 32, etc. _Fabricata sit_: see 87 n. _Solem_: 126. _Animalis intellegentia_: reason is the essence of the universe with the Stoics, cf. Zeller 138--9, also 28, 29 of Book I. _Permanet_: the deity is to the Stoic p?e?a e?d????? d? ????? t?? ??s?? (Plut. _De Plac. Phil._ I. 7 qu. R. and P.

375), _spiritus per omnia maxima ac minima aequali intentione diffusus._ (Seneca, _Consol. ad Helvid._ 8, 3 qu. Zeller 147). _Deflagret_: the Stoics considered the ??s?? f?a?t??, cf. Diog. VII. 141, Zeller 156--7. _Fateri_: cf. _tam vera quam falsa cernimus_ in 111. _Flumen aureum_: Plut. _Vita Cic._ 24 alludes to this (??t? ???s??? p?ta?? e?? ?e??t??). This is the constant judgment of Cic. about Aristotle's style. Grote, _Aristot._ Vol I.

p. 43, quotes _Topica_ 3, _De Or._ I. 49, _Brut._ 121, _N.D._ II. 93, _De Inv._ II. 6, _D.F._ I. 14, _Ad Att._ II. 1, and discusses the difficulty of applying this criticism to the works of Aristotle which we possess. _Nulla vis_: cf. I. 28. _Exsistere_: Walker conj. _efficere_, "_recte ut videtur_"

says Halm. Bait. adopts it. _Ornatus_: = ??s??.

--120. _Libertas ... non esse_: a remarkable construction. For the Academic liberty see Introd. p. 18. _Quod tibi est_: after these words Halm puts merely a comma, and inserting _respondere_ makes _cur deus_, etc. part of the same sentence. Bait. follows. _Nostra causa_: Cic. always writes _mea, tua, vestra, nostra causa_, not _mei, tui, nostri, vestri_, just as he writes _sua sponte_, but not _sponte alicuius_. For the Stoic opinion that men are the chief care of Providence, see _N.D._ I. 23, II. 37, _D.F._ III.

67, _Ac._ I. 29 etc., also Zeller. The difficulties surrounding the opinion are treated of in Zeller 175, _N.D._ II. 91--127. They supply in s.e.xt.

_P.H._ I. 32, III. 9--12 an example of the refutation of ????e?a by means of ????e?a. _Tam multa ac_: MSS. om. _ac_, which I insert. Lactantius qu.

the pa.s.sage without _perniciosa_. _Myrmecides_: an actual Athenian artist, famed for minute work in ivory, and especially for a chariot which a fly covered with its wings, and a ship which the wings of a bee concealed. See Plin. _Nat. Hist._ VII. 21, x.x.xVI. 5.

--121. _Posse_: n. on I. 29. _Strato_: R. and P. 331. _Sed c.u.m_: _sed_ often marks a very slight contrast, there is no need to read _et_, as Halm.

_Asperis ... corporibus_: cf. fragm. 28 of the _Ac. Post._, also _N.D._ I.

66. _Somnia_: so _N.D._ I. 18 _miracula non disserentium philosophorum sed somniantium_, _ib._ I. 42 _non philosophorum iudicia sed delirantium somnia_, also _ib._ I. 66 _flagitia Democriti_. _Docentis_: giving _proof_.

_Optantis_: Guietus humorously conj. _potantis,_ Durand _oscitantis_ (cf.

_N.D._ I. 72), others _opinantis_. That the text is sound however may be seen from _T.D._ II. 30 _optare hoc quidem est non docere_, _De Fato_ 46, _N.D._ I. 19 _optata magis quam inventa_, _ib._ III. 12 _doceas oportet nec proferas_; cf. also _Orat._ 59 _vocis bonitas optanda est, non est enim in n.o.bis_, i.e. a good voice is a thing to be prayed for, and not to be got by exertion. There is a similar Greek proverb, e??? a???? ? a???e?a, in s.e.xt.

_P.H._ VIII. 353. _Magno opere_: Hermann wishes to read _onere_. The phrase _magnum onus_ is indeed common (cf. _De Or._ I. 116), but _magnum opus_, in the sense of "a great task," is equally so, cf. _T.D._ III. 79, 84, _Orat._ 75. _Modo hoc modo illud_: 134.

--122. _Latent ista_: see n. on fragm. 29 of the _Ac. Post._; for _latent_ cf. I. 45. Aug. _Cont. Ac._ II. 12, III. 1 imitates this pa.s.sage.

_Circ.u.mfusa_: cf. I. 44, and 46 of this book. _Medici_: cf. _T.D._ I. 46 _Viderentur_: a genuine pa.s.sive, cf. 25, 39, 81. _Empirici_: a school of physicians so called. _Ut ... mutentur_: exactly the same answer was made recently to Prof. Huxley's speculations on protoplasm; he was said to have a.s.sumed that the living protoplasm would have the same properties as the dead. _Media pendeat_: cf. _N.D._ II. 98, _De Or._ III. 178.

--123. _Habitari ait_: for this edd. qu. Lactant. _Inst._ III. 23, 12.

_Portenta_: "monstrosities these," cf. _D.F._ IV. 70. _Iurare_: cf. 116.

_Neque ego_, etc.: see fragm. 30 of _Ac. Post._ ??t?p?da?: this doctrine appears in Philolaus (see Plut. _Plac. Phil._ III. 11 qu. R. and P. 75), who give the name of a?t????? to the opposite side of the world. Diog.

VIII. 26 (with which pa.s.sage cf. Stob. _Phys._ XV. 7) mentions the theory as Pythagorean, but in another pa.s.sage (III. 24) says that Plato first invented the name. The word a?t?p??? seems to occur first in Plat. _Tim._ 63 A. The existence of a?t?p?de?; was of course bound up with the doctrine that the universe or the world is a globe (which is held by Plat. in the _Tim._ and by the Stoics, see Stob. _Phys._ XV. 6, Diog. VII. 140), hence the early Christian writers attack the two ideas together as unscriptural.

Cf. esp Aug. _De Civ. Dei_ XVI. 9. _Hicetas_: he was followed by Heraclides Ponticus and some Pythagoreans. s.e.xt. _A.M._ X. 174 speaks of the followers of Aristarchus the mathematician as holding the same doctrine. It seems also to be found in Philolaus, see R. and P. 75. _Theophrastus_: who wrote much on the history of philosophy, see R. and P. 328. _Platonem_: the words of Plato (_Tim._ 40 B) are ??? de t??f?? e? ??ete?a?, e????e??? de pe??

t?? d?a pa?t?? p???? tetae???. _Quid tu, Epicure_: the connection is that Cic., having given the crotchets of other philosophers about f?s???, proceeds to give the peculiar crotchet of Epic. _Putas solem ... tantum_: a hard pa.s.sage. _Egone? ne bis_ is the em. of Lamb. for MSS. _egone vobis_, and is approved by Madv., who thus explains it (_Em._ 185) "_c.u.m interrogatum esset num tantulum (quasi pedalem 82) solem esse putaret, Epic. non praecise definit (tantum enim esse censebat quantus videretur vel paulo aut maiorem aut minorem) sed latius circ.u.mscribit, ne bis quidem tantum esse, sed inter pedalem magnitudinem et bipedalem_". (_D.F._ I. 20) This explanation though not quite satisfactory is the best yet given.

Epicurus' absurdity is by Cic. brought into strong relief by stating the outside limit to which Epic. was prepared to go in estimating the sun's size, i.e. twice the apparent size. _Ne ... quidem_ may possibly appear strange, cf. however _ne maiorem quidem_ in 82. _Aristo Chius_: for this doctrine of his see R. and P. 358.

--124. _Quid sit animus_: an enumeration of the different ancient theories is given in _T.D._ I. 18--22, and by s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII. 113, who also speaks in _P.H._ II. 31 of the p???? ?a? a????t?? a?? concerning the soul. In _P.H._ II. 57 he says G????a? ??de d?a???a? e??a? f?s?. _Dicaearcho_: _T.D._ I. 21. _Tres partis_: in Plato's _Republic_. _Ignis_: Zeno's opinion, _T.D._ I. 19. _Animam_: _ib._ I. 19. _Sanguis_: Empodocles, as in _T.D._ I. 19 where his famous line ?a?a ?a? a????p??? pe???a?d??? est?

???a is translated, see R. and P. 124. _Ut Xenocrates_: some edd. read _Xenocrati_, but cf. I. 44, _D.F._ II. 18, _T.D._ III. 76. _Numerus_: so Bentl. for _mens_ of MSS., cf. I. 39, _T.D._ I. 20, 41. An explanation of this Pythagorean doctrine of Xenocrates is given in R. and P. 244. _Quod intellegi_ etc.: so in _T.D._ I. 41 _quod subtiliter magis quam dilucide dicitur_. _Momenta_ n. on I. 45.

--125. _Verecundius_: cf. 114 _subadroganter_. _Vincam animum_: a common phrase in Cic., cf. _Philipp._ XII. 21. _Queru potissimum? quem?_: In repeated questions of this kind Cic. usually puts the corresponding case of _quisnam_, not _quis_, in the second question, as in _Verr._ IV. 5. The mutation of Augustine _Contra Ac._ III. 33 makes it probable that _quemnam_ was the original reading here. Zumpt on _Verr._ qu. Quint. IX. 2, 61, Plin.

_Epist._ I. 20, who both mention this trick of style, and laud it for its likeness to impromptu. _n.o.bilitatis_: this is to be explained by referring to 73--75 (_imitari numquam nisi clarum, nisi n.o.bilem_), where Cic.

protests against being compared to a demagogue, and claims to follow the aristocracy of philosophy. The attempts of the commentators to show that Democr. was literally an aristocrat have failed. _Convicio_: cf. 34.

_Completa et conferta_: n. on I. 27. _Quod movebitur ... cedat_: this is the theory of motion disproved by Lucr. I. 370 sq., cf. also _N.D._ II. 83.

Halm writes _quo quid_ for _quod_ (with Christ), and inserts _corpus_ before _cedat_, Baiter following him. The text is sound. Trans. "whatever body is pushed, gives way." _Tam sit mirabilis_: n. on I. 25.

_Innumerabilis_: 55. _Supra infra_: n. on 92. _Ut nos nunc simus_, etc.: n.

on fragm. 13 of _Ac. Post._ _Disputantis_: 55. _Animo videre_: cf. 22.

_Imagines_: e?d??a, which Catius translated (_Ad Fam._ XV. 16) by _spectra_, Zeller 432. _Tu vero_: etc. this is all part of the personal _convicium_ supposed to be directly addressed to Cic. by the Antiocheans, and beginning at _Tune aut inane_ above. _Commenticiis_: a favourite word of Cic., cf. _De Div._ II. 113.

--126. _Quae tu_: elliptic for _ut comprobem quae tu comprobas_ cf. 125.

_Impudenter_: 115. _Atque haud scio_: _atque_ here = ?a?t??, "and yet," n.

on 5 _ac vereor_. _Invidiam_: cf. 144. _c.u.m his_: i.e. _aliis c.u.m his_.

_Summus deus_: "the highest form of the deity" who was of course one in the Stoic system. Ether is the finest fire, and p?? te?????? is one of the definitions of the Stoic deity, cf. I. 29, Zeller 161 sq. _Solem_: as of course being the chief seat of fire. _Solis autem ... nego credere_: Faber first gave _ac monet_ for MSS. _admonens_, which Halm retains, Manut. then restored to its place _permensi refertis_, which MSS. have after _nego_.

_Hic_, which MSS. have after _decempeda_, Madv. turns into _hunc_, while _hoc_, which stands immediately after _nego_, he ejects (_Em._ 187). _Ergo_ after _vos_ is of course a.n.a.leptic. Halm departs somewhat from this arrangement. _Leniter_: Halm and Hermann _leviter_; the former reads _inverecundior_ after Morgenstern, for what reason it is difficult to see.

--127. _Pabulum_: similar language in _D.F._ II. 46. _Consideratio contemplatioque_: Cic. is fond of this combination, as _De Off._ I. 153; cf. Wesenberg on _T.D._ V. 9, who qu. similar combinations from _D.F._ V.

11, 58. _Elatiores_: MSS. mostly have _latiores_. Halm with Lamb. reads _altiores_, in support of which reading Dav. qu. _D.F._ II. 51, Val.

Flaccus _Argon._ II. 547, add Virg. _Aen._ VI. 49, Cic. _Orat._ 119.

_Exigua et minima_: s???a ?a? e?a??sta. Madv. on _D.F._ V. 78 notes that except here Cic. always writes _exigua et paene minima_ or something of the kind. _Occultissimarum_: n. on I. 15. _Occurit ... completur_: MSS. have _occuret_ mostly, if that is retained _complebitur_ must be read. Madv.

_Opusc._ II. 282 takes _occurit_, explaining it as a perfect, and giving numerous exx. of this sequence of tenses, cf. also Wesenb. on _T.D._ IV.

35.

--128. _Agi sec.u.m_: cf. _n.o.bisc.u.m ageret_ in 80. _Simile veri_: cf. 66.

_Notionem_: = _cognitionem_, ep?st???. _At paulum_: MSS. _et_ Halm _sed._; cf. _at illud ante_ in 116. _Si quae_: Halm and many edd. have _se, quae_.

But the _se_ comes in very awkwardly, and is not needed before the infinitive. Madv. indeed (_Em._ 114), after producing many exx. of the reflexive p.r.o.noun omitted, says that he doubts about this pa.s.sage because _considero_ does not belong to the cla.s.s of verbs with which this usage is found, but he produces many instances with _puto_, which surely stands on the same level. _Non magis_: so in 119 _nec magis approbabit nunc lucere_, etc. The sunlight was the stock example of a most completely cognisable phenomenon; hence the Academics showed their hostility to absolute knowledge by refusing t?? ?????? ??????e?? e??a? ?ata??pt?? (Galen _De Opt. Gen. Dicendi_ 497 B qu. P. Valentia 304 ed. Or.). _Cornix_: for the Stoic belief in divination see Zeller 349--358. _Signum illud_: the _xystus_ (9) was adorned with statues; edd. qu. Plin. _Nat. Hist._ x.x.xIV.

8. _Duodeviginti_: 82, I just note that _octodecim_ is not used by Cic.

_Sol quantus sit_: 91. _Omnium rerum ... comprehendendi_: not a case of a plural noun with a singular gerund like _spe rerum potiendi_, etc., but of two genitives depending in different ways on the same word (_definitio_).

M. _Em._ 197 qu. Plat. _Leg._ 648 E t?? pa?t?? ??tta? f???e??? a????p??

t?? p?at??, _Brut._ 163 _Scaevolae dicendi elegantia_, _De Or._ III. 156.

Other exx. in _M.D.F._ I. 14. For the turn of expression cf. _T.D._ IV. 62 _omnium philosophorum una est ratio medendi_, _Lael._ 78 _omnium horum vitiorum una cautio est_, also 51 of this book.

----129--141. Summary. What contention is there among philosophers about the ethical standard! I pa.s.s by many abandoned systems like that of Herillus but consider the discrepancies between Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Euclides, Menedemus, Aristo, Pyrrho, Aristippus, Epicurus, Callipho, Hieronymus, Diodorus, Polemo, Antiochus, Carneades (129-131). If I desire to follow the Stoics, Antiochus will not allow me, while if I follow Polemo, the Stoics are irate (132). I must be careful not to a.s.sent to the unknown, which is a dogma common to both you, Lucullus, and myself (133). Zeno thinks virtue gives happiness.

"Yes," says Antiochus, "but not the greatest possible." How am I to choose among such conflicting theories? (134) Nor can I accept those points in which Antiochus and Zeno agree. For instance, they regard emotion as harmful, which the ancients thought natural and useful (135). How absurd are the Stoic Paradoxes! (136) Albinus joking said to Carneades "You do not think me a praetor because I am not a _sapiens_."

"That," said Carneades, "is Diogenes' view, not mine" (137). Chrysippus thinks only three ethical systems can with plausibility be defended (138). I gravitate then towards one of them, that of pleasure. Virtue calls me back, nor will she even allow me to join pleasure to herself (139). When I hear the several pleadings of pleasure and virtue, I cannot avoid being moved by both, and so I find it impossible to choose (141, 142).

--129. _Quod coeperam_: in 128 at _veniamus nunc ad boni maique notionem_.

_Const.i.tuendi_: n. on 114. _Bonorum summa_: cf. _D.F._ V. 21 and Madv. _Est igitur_: so in _De Div._ II. 8, _igitur_ comes fourth word in the clause; this is not uncommon in Cic., as in Lucretius. _Omitto_: MSS. _et omitto_, but cf. Madv. _Em._ 201 _certe contra Ciceronis usum est 'et omitto' pro simplici 'omitto,' in initio huius modi orationis ubi universae sententiae exempla subiciuntur per figuram omissionis_. _Relicta_: cf. 130 _abiectos_.

Cic. generally cla.s.ses Herillus (or Erillus as Madv. on _D.F._ II. 35 spells the name), Pyrrho and Aristo together as authors of exploded systems, cf. _D.F._ II. 43, _De Off._ I. 6, _T.D._ V. 85. _Ut Herillum_.

MSS. have either _Erillum_ or _et illum_, one would expect _ut Herilli_.

_Cognitione et scientia_: double translation of ep?st??. For the _finis_ of Herillus see Madv. on _D.F._ II. 43. _Megaricorum_: _Xenophanes_. Cic considers the Eleatic and Megarian schools to be so closely related as to have, like the schools of Democritus and Epicurus, a continuous history.

The Megarian system was indeed an ethical development of Eleatic doctrine.

Zeller, _Socrates_ 211. _Unum et simile_: for this see Zell. _Socr._ 222 sq, with footnotes, R. and P. 174 sq. _Simile_ ought perhaps to be _sui simile_ as in _Tim._ c. 7, already quoted on I. 30, see my note there and cf. I. 35. _Menedemo_: see Zeller _Socr._ 238, R. and P. 182. The _Erctrian_ school was closely connected with the Megarian. _Fuit_: = _natus est_, as often. _Herilli_: so Madv. for _ulli_ of MSS.

--130. _Aristonem_: this is Aristo of Chios, not Aristo of Ceos, who was a Peripatetic; for the difference see R. and P. 332, and for the doctrines of Aristo the Chian _ib._ 358, Zeller 58 sq. _In mediis_: cf. I. 36, 37.

_Momenta_ = _aestimationes_, a??a? in 36, where _momenti_ is used in a different way. _Pyrrho autem_: one would expect Pyrrhoni as Dav. conj., but in 124 there is just the same change from _Pyrrhoni_ to _Xenocrates_.

?pa?e?a: Diog. IX. 108 affirms this as well as p?a??t?? to be a name for the sceptic te???, but the name scarcely occurs if at all in s.e.xt. who generally uses ata?a??a, but occasionally et???pa?e?a; cf. Zeller 496, R.