_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 Klotz alter into _narrat_, most wantonly. _Visus Homerus_, etc.: this famous dream of Ennius, recorded in his _Annals_, is referred to by Lucr.
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 _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 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 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 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, 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.
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 latter see n. on 81). As _aliquis_ is substantival, _aliqui_ adjectival, _aliquis_ must not be written with impersonal nouns like _terror_ (_T.D._ Off._ III. 33). In the case of personal nouns the best edd. vary, e.g.
(_In Verr._ IV. 146). With a proper name belonging to a real person _aliquis_ ought to be written (_Myrmecides_ in 120, see my n.).
Div._ II. 81, _verum dispicere_. _Iis vinculis_, etc. this may throw light on fragm. 15 of the _Acad. Post._, which see.
verbal noun like πραξις, cf. _De Off._ I. 83, and expressions like _actio 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.
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_.
_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 §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.
_Iurarem_: Cic. was thinking of his own famous oath at the end of his consulship.
judgment based on insufficient grounds. _Sed quaerimus de sapiente_: cf.
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 the best MSS. om. _ad_, which Orelli places before _Helicen_. _Elimatas_: the MSS. are divided between this and _limatas_. _Elimare_, though a very maximam_: so _summum munus_ is applied to the same course of action in 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_, §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 _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_.
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 _Voluptatem_ etc.: for the conversion of Dionysius (called ‛ο μεταθεμενος) from Stoicism to Epicureanism cf. _T.D._ II. 60, Diog. Laert. VII. 166--7.
_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.
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, _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 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_ 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_: 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.
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 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_: _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._ by Krebs and Allgayer. The conj. of Dav. _exposuerat_ is therefore needless. _Fortasse_: "we may suppose". _Nec percipere_, etc.: cf. 68, n.
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 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.
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 §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