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.
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.
_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.
like γλαυκ' εσ' Αθηνας and "coals to Newcastle," see Lorenz on Plaut.
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.
50, 54, 56. _Nullum esse pilum_, etc.: a strong expression of this belief is found in Seneca _Ep._. 113, 13, qu. R. and P. 380. Note the word _Stoicum_; Lucullus is of course not Stoic, but Antiochean. _Nihil interest_: the same opinion is expressed in 40, where see my note. _Visa res_: Halm writes _res a re_, it is not necessary, however, either in Gk.
or Lat. to express _both_ of two related things when a word is inserted like _differat_ here, which shows that they _are_ related. Cf. the elliptic constructions in Gk. with ‛ομοιον, μεταξυ, μεσος, and such words. _Eodem caelo atque_: a difficult passage. MSS. have _aqua_, an error easy, as Halm notes, to a scribe who understood _caelum_ to be the heaven, and not γλυφειον, a graving tool. Faber and other old edd. defend the MSS. reading, adducing passages to show that sky and water were important in the making of statues. For _aqua_ Orelli conj. _acu_ = _schraffirnadel_, C.F. Hermann _caelatura_, which does not seem to be a Ciceronian word. Halm's _aeque_ introduces a construction with _ceteris omnibus_ which is not only not Ciceronian, but not Latin at all. I read _atque_, taking _ceteris omnibus_ to be the abl. neut. "all the other implements." Formerly I conj. _ascra_, or _atque in_, which last leading would make _omnibus_ = _om. statuis_.
_Alexandros_: Lysippus alone was privileged to make statues of Alexander, as Apelles alone was allowed to paint the conqueror, cf. _Ad Fam._ V. 12, 7.
_pauci enim atque admodum pauci_. _Praeclara_: evidently a fem. adj.
agreeing with _natura_. Dav. and Ern. made the adj. neuter, and understanding _sunt_ interpreted "these arguments I am going to urge are grand, viz. _quanto art_. etc."
probably neut. _Contra sensus_: he wrote both for and against συνηθεια; cf.
Carneades in reading the arguments of Chrysippus against the senses, quoted the address of Andromache to Hector: δαιμονιε φθισει σε το σον μενος. From Diog. IV. 62 we learn that he thus parodied the line qu. in n. on 75, ει μη γαρ ην Χρυσιππος ουκ αν ην εγω.
siccorum_. _Madere_ is common with the meaning "to be drunk," as in Plaut.
_Mostellaria_ I. 4, 6. _Non diceret_: Orelli was induced by Goer. to omit the verb, with one MS., cf. 15 and I. 13. The omission of a verb in the subjunctive is, Madv. says on _D.F._ I. 9, impossible; for other ellipses of the verb see _M.D.F._ V. 63. _Alcmaeo autem_: i.e. Ennius' own Alcmaeon; cf. 52. _Somnia reri_: the best MSS. have _somniare_. Goer. reads _somnia_, supplying _non fuisse vera_. I have already remarked on his extraordinary power of _supplying_. Halm conj. _somnia reprobare_, forgetting that the verb _reprobare_ belongs to third century Latinity, also _sua visa putare_, which Bait. adopts. Thinking this too large a departure from the MSS., I read _reri_, which verb occurred in I. 26, 39. Possibly _putare_, a little farther on, has got misplaced. _Non id agitur_: these difficulties supply Sextus with one of his τροποι, i.e. ‛ο περι τας περιστασεις; cf. _P.H._ I.
100, also for the treatment of dreams, _ib._ I. 104. _Si modo_, etc.: "if only he dreamed it," i.e. "merely because he dreamed it." _Aeque ac vigilanti_: = _aeque ac si vigilaret_. Dav. missing the sense, and pointing out that _when awake_ Ennius did not assent to his sensations at all, conj.
_vigilantis_. Two participles used in very different ways not unfrequently occur together, see Madv. _Em. Liv._ p. 442. _Ita credit_: MSS. have _illa_, which Dav. altered. Halm would prefer _credidit_. _Itera dum_, etc.: from the _Iliona_ of Pacuvius; a favourite quotation with Cic.; see §89. _Quisquam_: for the use of this pronoun in interrogative sentences cf.
Virg. _Aen._ I. 48 with the Notes of Wagner and Conington. _Tam certa putat_: so Sextus _A.M._ VII. 61 points out that Protagoras must in accordance with his doctrine παντων μετρον ανθρωπος hold that the μεμηνως is the κριτηριον των εν μανιαι φαινομενων. _Video, video te_: evidently from a tragedy whose subject was Αιας μαινομενος, see Ribbeck _Trag. Lat.
rel._ p. 205. Cic. in _De Or._ III. 162 thus continues the quotation, "_oculis postremum lumen radiatum rape_." So in Soph. _Aiax_ 100 the hero, after killing, as he thinks, the Atridae, keeps Odysseus alive awhile in order to torture him. _Hercules_: cf. Eur. _Herc. Fur._ 921--1015. The mad visions of this hero, like those of Orestes, are often referred to for a similar purpose by Sext., e.g. _A.M._ VII. 405 ‛ο γουν ‛Ερακλης μανεις και λαβων φαντασιαν απο των ιδιων παιδων ‛ως Ευρυσθεος, την ακολουθον πραξιν ταυτηι τη φαντασιαι συνηψεν. ακολουθον δε ην το τους του εχθρου παιδας ανελειν, ‛οπερ και εποιησεν. Cf. also _A.M._ VII. 249. _Moveretur_: imperf.
for plup. as in 90. _Alcmaeo tuus_: cf. 52. _Incitato furore_: Dav. reads _incitatus_. Halm qu. from Wesenberg _Observ. Crit. ad Or. p. Sestio_ p. 51 this explanation, "_cum furor eius initio remissior paulatim incitatior et vehementior factus esset_," he also refers to Wopkens _Lect. Tull._ p. 55 ed. Hand. _Incedunt_ etc.: the MSS. have _incede_, which Lamb. corrected.
The subject of the verb is evidently _Furiae_. _Adsunt_: is only given once by MSS., while Ribbeck repeats it thrice, on Halm's suggestion I have written it twice. _Caerulea...angui_: _anguis_ fem is not uncommon in the old poetry. MSS. here have _igni_. _Crinitus_: ακερσεκομης, "never shorn," as Milton translates it. _Luna innixus_: the separate mention in the next line of _Diana_, usually identified with the moon, has led edd. to emend this line. Some old edd. have _lunat_, while Lamb. reads _genu_ for _luna_, cf. Ov. _Am._ I. 1, 25 (qu. by Goer.) _lunavitque genu sinuosum fortiter arcum_. Wakefield on Lucr. III. 1013 puts a stop at _auratum_, and goes on with _Luna innixans_. Taber strangely explains _luna_ as = _arcu ipso lunato_, Dav. says we ought not to expect the passage to make sense, as it is the utterance of a maniac. For my part, I do not see why the poet should not regard _luna_ and _Diana_ as distinct.
§90. _Illa falsa_: sc. _visa_, which governs the two genitives. Goer.
perversely insists on taking _somniantium recordatione ipsorum_ closely together. _Non enim id quaeritur_: cf. 80 n. Sext. very often uses very similar language, as in _P.H._ I. 22, qu. in n. on 40. _Tum cum movebantur_: so Halm for MSS. _tum commovebantur_, the em. is supported by 88.
§§91--98. Summary: Dialectic cannot lead to stable knowledge, its processes are not applicable to a large number of philosophical questions (91). You value the art, but remember that it gave rise to fallacies like the _sorites_, which you say is faulty (92). If it is so, refute it. The plan of Chrysippus to refrain from answering, will avail you nothing (93). If you refrain because you _cannot_ answer, your knowledge fails you, if you _can_ answer and yet refrain, you are unfair (94). The art you admire really undoes itself, as Penelope did her web, witness the _Mentiens_, (95). You assent to arguments which are identical in form with the _Mentiens_, and yet refuse to assent to it Why so? (96) You demand that these sophisms should be made exceptions to the rules of Dialectic. You must go to a tribune for that exception. I just remind you that Epicurus would not allow the very first postulate of your Dialectic (97). In my opinion, and I learned Dialectic from Antiochus, the _Mentiens_ and the arguments identical with it in form must stand or fall together (98).
the special function of Dialectic cf. the inquiry about Rhetoric in Plato φυσικη, not for διαλεκτικη. _Quod sit summum bonum_: not διαλεκτικη but ηθικη must decide this. _Quae coniunctio_: etc. so Sext. often opposes συμπλοκη or συνημμενον to διεζευγμενον, cf. esp _P.H._ II. 201, and Zeller 109 sq. with footnotes. An instance of a _coniunctio_ (hypothetical judgment) is "_si lucet, lucet_" below, of a _disiunctio_ (disjunctive judgment) "_aut vivet cras Hermarchus aut non vivet_". _Ambigue dictum_: αμφιβολον, on which see _P.H._ II. 256, Diog VII. 62. _Quid sequatur_: το _ipsa_, according to Cic.'s usage, is nom. and not abl. Petrus Valentia (p.
301, ed Orelli) justly remarks that an art is not to be condemned as useless merely because it is unable to solve every problem presented to it.
He quotes Plato's remarks (in _Rep._ II.) that the Expert is the man who knows exactly what his art can do and what it cannot. Very similar arguments to this of Cic. occur in Sext., cf. esp. _P.H._ II. 175 and the words εαυτου εσται εκκαλυπτικον. For the mode in which Carneades dealt with Dialectic cf. Zeller 510, 511. The true ground of attack is that Logic always _assumes_ the truth of phenomena, and cannot _prove_ it. This was clearly seen by Aristotle alone of the ancients; see Grote's essay on the Origin of Knowledge, now reprinted in Vol II. of his _Aristotle_.
§92. _Nata sit_: cf. 28, 59. _Loquendi_: the Stoic λογικη, it must be remembered, included ‛ρητορικη. _Concludendi_: του συμπεραινειν or συλλογιζεσθαι. _Locum_: τοπον in the philosophical sense. _Vitiosum_: 49, n. _Num nostra culpa est_: cf. 32. _Finium_: absolute limits; the fallacy of the _sorites_ and other such sophisms lies entirely in the treatment of purely _relative_ terms as though they were _absolute_. _Quatenus_: the same ellipse occurs in _Orator_ 73. _In acervo tritici_: this is the false _sorites_, which may be briefly described thus: A asks B whether one grain makes a heap, B answers "No." A goes on asking whether two, three, four, etc. grains make a heap. B cannot always reply "No." When he begins to answer "Yes," there will be a difference of one grain between heap and no heap. One grain therefore _does_ make a heap. The true _sorites_ or chain inference is still treated in books on logic, cf. Thomson's _Laws of Thought_, pp 201--203, ed 8. _Minutatim_: cf. Heindorf's note on κατα σμικρον in _Sophistes_ 217 D. _Interrogati_: cf. 104. In 94 we have _interroganti_, which some edd. read here. _Dives pauper_, etc.: it will be easily seen that the process of questioning above described can be applied to any relative term such as these are. For the omission of any connecting particle between the members of each pair, cf. 29, 125, _T.D._ I. 64, V.
73, 114, Zumpt _Gram._ 782. _Quanto addito aut dempto_: after this there is a strange ellipse of some such words as _id efficiatur, quod interrogatur_.
[_Non_] _habemus_: I bracket _non_ in deference to Halm, Madv. however (_Opusc._ I. 508) treats it as a superabundance of negation arising from a sort of anacoluthon, comparing _In Vatin._ 3, _Ad Fam._ XII. 24. The scribes insert and omit negatives very recklessly, so that the point may remain doubtful.
§93. _Frangite_: in later Gk. generally απολυειν. _Erunt...cavetis_: this form of the conditional sentence is illustrated in Madv. _D.F._ III. 70, _quot incommoda tibi in hac re capies nisi caves_, cf. also 127, 140 of this book. The present is of course required by the instantaneous nature of the action. _Chrysippo_: he spent so much time in trying to solve the sophism that it is called peculiarly his by Persius VI. 80. _inventus, Chrysippe, tui finitor acervi_. The titles of numerous distinct works of his on the _Sorites_ and _Mentiens_ are given by Diog. _Tria pauca sint_: cf. the instances in Sext. _A.M._ VII. 418 τα πεντηκοντα ολιγα εστιν, τα μυρια ολιγα εστιν, also Diog. VII. 82 ‛ησυχαζειν the advice is quoted in Sext. _P.H._ II. 253 (δειν ‛ιστασθαι και επεχειν), _A.M._ VII. 416 (‛ο σοφος στησεται και ‛ησυχασει). The same terms seem to have been used by the Cynics, see Sext. _P.H._ II. 244, III. 66. _Stertas_: imitated by Aug.
_Contra Ac._ III. 25 _ter terna novem esse...vel genere humano stertente verum sit_, also _ib._ III. 22. _Proficit_: Dav. _proficis_, but Madv.
rightly understands το ‛ησυχαζειν (_Em._ 184), cf. _N.D._ II. 58. _Ultimum...respondere_: "to put in as your answer" cf. the use of _defendere_ with an accus. "to put in as a plea". Kayser suggests _paucorum quid sit_.
§94. _Ut agitator_: see the amusing letter to Atticus XIII. 21, in which Cic. discusses different translations for the word επεχειν, and quotes a line of Lucilius _sustineat currum ut bonu' saepe agitator equosque_, adding _semperque Carneades_ προβολην _pugilis et retentionem aurigae similem facit_ εποχη. Aug. _Contra Ac._ trans. εποχη by _refrenatio_ cf.
also _Lael._ 63. _Superbus es_: I have thus corrected the MSS. _responde superbe_; Halm writes _facis superbe_, Orelli _superbis_, which verb is hardly found in prose. The phrase _superbe resistere_ in Aug. _Contra Ac._ III. 14 may be a reminiscence. _Illustribus_: Bait. with some probability adds _in_, comparing _in decimo_ below, and 107, cf. however Munro on Lucr.
in the same way. _Augentis nec minuentis_: so Halm for MSS. _augendi nec minuendi_, which Bait. retains. I cannot believe the phrase _primum augendi_ to be Latin.
extremum pollicetur prolaturum qui se ipse comest quod efficit dialecticorum ratio_. _Vestra an nostra_: Bait. after Christ needlessly writes _nostra an vestra_. αξιωμα: "a judgment expressed in language"; cf.
Zeller 107, who gives the Stoic refinements on this subject. _Effatum_: Halm gives the spelling _ecfatum_. It is probable that this spelling was antique in Cic.'s time and only used in connection with religious and legal 155 For the word cf. Sen. _Ep._ 117 _enuntiativum quiddam de corpore quod alii effatum vocant, alii enuntiatum, alii edictum_, in _T.D._ I. 14 _pronuntiatum_ is found, in _De Fato_ 26 _pronuntiatio_, in Gellius XVI. 8 (from Varro) _prologium_. _Aut verum esse aut falsum_: the constant Stoic definition of αξιωμα, see Diog. VII. 65 and other passages in Zeller 107.
_Mentiris an verum dicis_: the _an_ was added by Schutz on a comparison of Gellius XVIII. 10 _cum mentior et mentiri me dico, mentior an verum dico?_ The sophism is given in a more formally complete shape in _De Div._ II. 11 where the following words are added, _dicis autem te mentiri verumque dicis, mentiris igitur_. The fallacy is thus hit by Petrus Valentia (p.
301, ed Orelli), _quis unquam dixit "ego mentior" quum hoc ipsum pronuntiatum falsum vellet declarare?_ _Inexplicabilia_: απορα in the Greek writers. _Odiosius_: this adj. has not the strong meaning of the Eng.
"hateful," but simply means "tiresome," "annoying." _Non comprehensa_: as in 99, the opposite of _comprehendibilia_ III. 1, 41. The past partic. in Cic. often has the same meaning as an adj. in _-bilis_. Faber points out that in the _Timaeus_ Cic. translates αλυτος by _indissolutus_ and _indissolubilis_ indifferently. _Imperceptus_, which one would expect, is found in Ovid.
§96. _Si dicis_: etc. the words in italics are needed, and were given by Manut. with the exception of _nunc_ which was added by Dav. The idea of Orelli, that Cic. clipped these trite sophisms as he does verses from the comic writers is untenable. _In docendo_: _docere_ is not to _expound_ but to _prove_, cf. n. on 121. _Primum...modum_: the word _modus_ is technical in this sense cf. _Top._ 57. The προτος λογος αναποδεικτος of the Stoic logic ran thus ει ‛ημερα εστι, φως εστιν...αλλα μην ‛ημερα εστιν φως αρα εστιν (Sext. _P.H._ II. 157, and other passages qu. Zeller 114).
This bears a semblance of inference and is not so utterly tautological as Cic.'s translation, which merges φως and ‛ημερα into one word, or that of Zeller (114, note). These arguments are called μονολημματοι (involving only one premise) in Sext. _P.H._ I. 152, 159, II. 167. _Si dicis te mentiri_, etc.: it is absurd to assume, as this sophism does, that when a man _truly_ states that he _has_ told a lie, he establishes against himself not merely that he _has_ told a lie, but also that he _is_ telling a lie at the moment when he makes the _true_ statement. The root of the sophism lies in the confusion of past and present time in the one infinitive _mentiri_.
_Eiusdem generis_: the phrase _te mentiri_ had been substituted for _nunc see n. on 27. _Cederet_: some edd. _crederet_, but the word is a trans. of Gk. εικειν; n. on 66. _Conexi_: = συνημμενον, cf. Zeller 109. This was the proper term for the hypothetical judgment. _Superius_: the συνημμενον consists of two parts, the hypothetical part and the affirmative--called in Greek ‛ηγουμενον and ληγον; if one is admitted the other follows of course.
§97. _Excipiantur_: the legal _formula_ of the Romans generally directed the _iudex_ to condemn the defendant if certain facts were proved, unless certain other facts were proved; the latter portion went by the name of cf. 13. The MSS. have _videant_ or _adeant_; Halm conj. _adhibeant_, comparing 86 and _Pro Rabirio_ 20. _Contemnit_: the usual trans. "to despise" for _contemnere_ is too strong; it means, like ολιγωρειν, merely to neglect or pass by. _Effabimur_; cf. _effatum_ above. _Hermarchus_: not _Hermachus_, as most edd.; see _M.D.F._ II. 96. _Diiunctum_: διεζευγμενον, for which see Zeller 112. _Necessarium_: the reason why Epicurus refused to admit this is given in _De Fato_ 21 _Epicurus veretur ne si hoc concesserit, concedendum sit fato fieri quaecumque fiant_. The context of that passage should be carefully read, along with _N.D._ I. 69, 70. Aug.
_Contra Ac._ III. 29 lays great stress on the necessary truth of disjunctive propositions. _Catus_: so Lamb. for MSS. _cautus_. _Tardum_: _De Div._ II. 103 _Epicurum quem hebetem et rudem dicere solent Stoici_; cf. also _ib._ II. 116, and the frequent use of βραδυς in Sext., e.g.
_A.M._ VII. 325. _Cum hoc igitur_: the word _igitur_, as usual, picks up the broken thread of the sentence. _Id est_: n. on I. 8. _Evertit_: for the Epicurean view of Dialectic see R. and P. 343. Zeller 399 sq., _M.D.F._ I.
22. _E contrariis diiunctio_: = διεζευγμενον εξ εναντιων.
§98. _Sequor_: as in 95, 96, where the _Dialectici_ refused to allow the consequences of their own principles, according to Cic. _Ludere_: this reminds one of the famous controversy between Corax and Tisias, for which see Cope in the old _Journal of Philology_. No. 7. _Iudicem...non iudicem_: this construction, which in Greek would be marked by μεν and δε, has been a great crux of edd.; Dav. here wished to insert _cum_ before _iudicem_, but is conclusively refuted by Madv. _Em._ 31. The same construction occurs in 103. _Esse conexum_: with great probability Christ supposes the infinitive to be an addition of the copyists.
§§98--105. Summary. In order to overthrow at once the case of Antiochus, I proceed to explain, after Clitomachus, the whole of Carneades' system (98). Carneades laid down two divisions of _visa_, one into those capable of being perceived and those not so capable, the other into probable and improbable. Arguments aimed at the senses concern the first division only; the sapiens will follow probability, as in many instances the Stoic sapiens confessedly does (99, 100). Our sapiens is not made of stone; many things _seem_ to him true; yet he always feels that there is a possibility of their being false. The Stoics themselves admit that the senses are often deceived. Put this admission together with the tenet of Epicurus, and perception becomes impossible (101). It is strange that our _Probables_ do not seem sufficient to you. Hear the account given by Clitomachus (102). He condemns those who say that sensation is swept away by the Academy; nothing is swept away but its _necessary_ certainty (103). There are two modes of withholding assent; withholding it absolutely and withholding it merely so far as to deny the _certainty_ of phenomena.
The latter mode leaves all that is required for ordinary life (104).
§98. _Tortuosum_: similar expressions are in _T.D._ II. 42, III. 22, _D.F._ IV. 7. _Ut Poenus_: "as might be expected from a Carthaginian;" cf. _D.F._ IV. 56, _tuus ille Poenulus, homo acutus_. A different meaning is given by the _ut_ in passages like _De Div._ II. 30 _Democritus non inscite nugatur, ut physicus, quo genere nihil arrogantius_; "for a physical philosopher."
§99. _Genera_: here = classifications of, modes of dividing _visa_. This way of taking the passage will defend Cic. against the strong censure of Madv. (Pref. to _D.F._ p. lxiii.) who holds him convicted of ignorance, for representing Carneades as dividing _visa_ into those which can be perceived and those which cannot. Is it possible that any one should read the _Academica_ up to this point, and still believe that Cic. is capable of supposing, even for a moment, that Carneades in any way upheld καταληψις?
Halm and also Bait. follow Christ in reading _est, probabile nihil esse_.
_Commemorabas_: in 53, 58. _Eversio_: cf. _D.F._ III. 50 (the same words), Plat. _Gorg_. 481 C ‛ημων ‛ο βιος ανατετραμμενος αν ειη, Sext. _A.M._ VIII.
157 συγχεομεν τον βιον. _Et sensibus_: no second _et_ corresponds to this; on 96.
§100. _Si iam_: "if, for example;" so _iam_ is often used in Lucretius.
_Probo...bono_: it would have seemed more natural to transpose these epithets. _Facilior...ut probet_: the usual construction is with _ad_ and the gerund; cf. _De Div._ II. 107, _Brut_. 180. _Anaxagoras_: he made no ‛ομοιομερειαι of snow, but only of water, which, when pure and deep, is dark in colour. _Concreta_: so Manut. for MSS. _congregata_. In 121 the MSS. give _concreta_ without variation, as in _N.D._ II. 101, _De Div._ I.
est_: Cic. in the vast majority of cases writes _est enim_, the two words falling under one accent like _sed enim, et enim_ (cf. Corss. _Ausspr._ II.
851); Beier on _De Off._ I. p. 157 (qu. by Halm) wishes therefore to read _est enim_, but the MSS. both of the _Lucullus_ and of Nonius agree in the other form, which Madv. allows to stand in _D.F._ I. 43, and many other places (see his note). Cf. fragm. 22 of the _Acad. Post_. _E robore_: so Nonius, but the MSS. of Cic. give here _ebore_. _Dolatus_: an evident imitation of Hom. _Od._ T 163 ου γαρ απο δριος εσσι παλαιφατου ουδ' απο πετρης. _Neque tamen habere_: i.e. _se putat_. For the sudden change from της συγκταθεσεως in Sext. _P.H._ I. 191. For the use of the gerund cf. n.
on 26, with Madv. _Gram._ 418, Munro on Lucr. I. 313; for _propriam_ 34.