Munio on Lucr. II. 51 _fulgor ab auro_. _Possit_: for the om. of _esse_ cf.

n. on I. 29.

--42. _Proposita_: cf. p??tase?? _pa.s.sim_ in s.e.xt. _In sensus_: = _in ea, quae ad sensus pertinent_ cf. I. 20. _Omni consuetudine_: "general experience" epe???a, cf. _N.D._ I. 83. _Quam obscurari volunt_: cf. I. 33.

_quod explanari volebant_; the em. of Dav. _obscurare_ is against Cic.'s usage, that of Christ _quam observari nolunt_ is wanton without being ingenious. _De reliquis_: i.e. _iis quae a sensibus duc.u.n.tur_. _In singulisque rebus_: the word _rebus_ must mean _subjects_, not _things_, to which the words _in minima dispertiunt_ would hardly apply. _Adiuncta_: s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII. 164 (R. and P. 410) pas?? t? d????s?? a???e? ?a?esta?a?

e???s?eta? t?? apa?a??a?t?? ?e?d??, also VII. 438, etc.

----43--45. Summary. The sceptics ought not to _define_, for (1) a definition cannot be a definition of two things, (2) if the definition is applicable only to one thing, that thing must be capable of being thoroughly known and distinguished from others (43). For the purposes of reasoning their _probabile_ is not enough. Reasoning can only proceed upon _certain_ premisses. Again to say that there are false sensations is to say that there are true ones; you acknowledge therefore a difference, then you contradict yourselves and say there is none (44). Let us discuss the matter farther. The innate clearness of _visa_, aided by reason, can lead to knowledge (45).

--43. _Horum_: Lamb. _harum_; the text however is quite right, cf. Madv.

_Gram._ 214 b. _Luminibus_: cf. 101. _Nihilo magis_: = ??de? a????, which was constantly in the mouths of sceptics, see e.g. s.e.xt. _P.H._ I. 14. _Num illa definitio ... transferri_: I need hardly point out that the ????? of the Academics was merely founded on probability, just as their "truth" was (cf. n. on 29). An Academic would say in reply to the question, "probably it cannot, but I will not affirm it." _Vel illa vera_: these words seem to me genuine, though nearly all editors attack them. _Vel_ = "even" i.e. if _even_ the definition is firmly known, the thing, which is more important, must also be known. In _illa vera_ we have a pointed mocking repet.i.tion like that of _veri et falsi_ in 33. _In falsum_: note that _falsum_ = _aliam rem_ above. For the sense cf. s.e.xt. _P.H._ II. 209 ???????? ??????

e??a? t??? pe??e???ta? t? t?? ? p??s??t?? t??? ????st???, and the schoolmen's maxim _definitio non debet latior esse definito suo_. _Minime volunt_: cf. 18. _Partibus_: Orelli after Goer. ejected this, but _omnibus_ hardly ever stands for _omn. rebus_, therefore C.F. Hermann reads _pariter rebus_ for _partibus_. A little closer attention to the subject matter would have shown emendation to be unnecessary, cf. 42 _dividunt in partis_, _T.D._ III. 24, where _genus_ = division, _pars_ = subdivision.

--44. _Impediri ... fatebuntur_: essentially the same argument as in 33 at the end. _Occurretur_: not an imitation of e?a?t???s?a? as Goer. says, but of apa?ta?, which occurs very frequently in s.e.xt. _Sumpta_: the two premisses are in Gk. called together ??ata, separately ??a and p??s????? (_sumptio et adsumptio_ _De Div_ II. 108). _Orationis_: as Faber points out, Cic. does sometimes use this word like _ratio_ (s??????s??), cf. _De Leg._ I. 48 _conclusa oratio_. Fab. refers to Gell. XV. 26.

_Profiteatur_: so ??p?s??e?s?a? is often used by s.e.xt. e.g. _A.M._ VIII.

283. _Patefacturum_: n. on 26, e??a??pte??, e??a??pt????, d???t???? (the last in s.e.xt. _A.M._ VIII. 277) often recur in Greek. _Primum esse ...

nihil interesse_: there is no inconsistency. Carneades allowed that _visa_, _in themselves_, might be true or false, but affirmed that human faculties were incapable of distinguishing those _visa_ which proceed from real things and give a correct representation of the things, from those which either are mere phantoms or, having a real source, do not correctly represent it. Lucullus confuses _essential_ with _apparent_ difference.

_Non iungitur_: a supposed case of d?a?t?s??, which is opposed to s??a?t?s?? and explained in s.e.xt. _A.M._ VIII. 430.

--45. _a.s.sentati_: here simply = _a.s.sensi_. _Praeteritis_: here used in the strong participial sense, "in the cla.s.s of things pa.s.sed over," cf. _in remissis_ _Orat._ 59. _Primum igitur ... sed tamen_: for the slight anacoluthia cf. Madv. _Gram._ 480. _Iis qui videntur_: Goer. _is qui videtur_, which is severely criticised by Madv. _Em._ 150. For Epicurus'

view of sensation see n. on 79, 80.

----46--48. Summary. The refusal of people to a.s.sent to the innate clearness of some phenomena (e?a??e?a) is due to two causes, (1) they do not make a serious endeavour to see the light by which these phenomena are surrounded, (2) their faith is shaken by sceptic paradoxes (46). The sceptics argue thus: you allow that mere phantom sensations are often seen in dreams, why then do you not allow what is easier, that two sensations caused by two really existing things may be mistaken the one for the other? (47). Further, they urge that a phantom sensation produces very often the same effect as a real one. The dogmatists say they admit that mere phantom sensations _do_ command a.s.sent. Why should they not admit that they command a.s.sent when they so closely resemble real ones as to be indistinguishable from them? (48)

--46. _Circ.u.mfusa sint_: Goer. retains the MSS. _sunt_ on the ground that the clause _quanta sint_ is inserted pa?e??et????! Orelli actually follows him. For the phrase cf. 122 _circ.u.mfusa tenebris_. _Interrogationibus_: cf.

I. 5 where I showed that the words _interrogatio_ and _conclusio_ are convertible. I may add that in s.e.xtus pure syllogisms are very frequently called e??t?se??, and that he often introduces a new argument by e??tata?

?a? t??t?, when there is nothing interrogatory about the argument at all.

_Dissolvere_: ap???es?a? in s.e.xt. _Occurrere_: cf. 44.

--47. _Confuse loqui_: the mark of a bad dialectician, affirmed of Epicurus in _D.F._ II. 27. _Nulla sunt_: on the use of _nullus_ for _non_ in Cic.

cf. Madv. _Gram._ 455 obs. 5. The usage is mostly colloquial and is very common in Plaut. and Terence, while in Cic. it occurs mostly in the Letters. _Inaniter_: cf. 34. There are two ways in which a sensation may be false, (1) it may come from one really existent thing, but be supposed by the person who feels it to be caused by a totally different thing, (2) it may be a mere fa?tasa or a?ap?asa t?? d?a???a?, a phantom behind which there is no reality at all. _Quae in somnis videantur_: for the support given by Stoics to all forms of divination see Zeller 166, _De Div._ I. 7, etc. _Quaerunt_: a slight anacoluthon from _dicatis_ above. _Quonam modo ... nihil sit omnino_: this difficult pa.s.sage can only be properly explained in connection with 50 and with the general plan of the Academics expounded in 41. After long consideration I elucidate it as follows. The whole is an attempt to prove the proposition announced in 41 and 42 viz.

_omnibus veris visis adiuncta esse falsa_. The criticism in 50 shows that the argument is meant to be based on the a.s.sumption known to be Stoic, _omnia deum posse_. If the G.o.d can manufacture (_efficere_) sensations which are false, but probable (as the Stoics say he does in dreams), why can he not manufacture false sensations which are so probable as to closely resemble true ones, or to be only with difficulty distinguishable from the true, or finally to be utterly indistinguishable from the true (this meaning of _inter quae nihil sit omnino_ is fixed by 40, where see n.)?

_Probabilia_, then, denotes false sensations such as have only a slight degree of resemblance to the true, by the three succeeding stages the resemblance is made complete. The word _probabilia_ is a sort of tertiary predicate after _efficere_ ("to manufacture so as to be probable"). It _must not be repeated_ after the second _efficere_, or the whole sense will be inverted and this section placed out of harmony with 50. _Plane proxime_: = _quam proxime_ of 36.

--48. _Ipsa per sese_: simply = _inaniter_ as in 34, 47, i.e. without the approach of any external object. _Cogitatione_: the only word in Latin, as d?a???a is in Greek, to express our "imagination." _Non numquam_: so Madv.

for MSS. _non inquam_. Goer. after Manut. wrote _non inquiunt_ with an interrogation at _omnino_. _Veri simile est_: so Madv. _D.F._ III. 58 for _sit_. The argument has the same purpose as that in the last section, viz to show that phantom sensations may produce the same effect on the mind as those which proceed from realities. _Ut si qui_: the _ut_ here is merely "as," "for instance," cf. n. on 33. _Nihil ut esset_: the _ut_ here is a repet.i.tion of the _ut_ used several times in the early part of the sentence, all of them alike depend on _sic_. Lamb. expunged _ut_ before _esset_ and before _quicquam_. _Intestinum et oblatum_: cf. s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII. 241 ?t?? t?? e?t?? ? t?? e? ???? pa???, and the two cla.s.ses of _falsa visa_ mentioned in n. on 47. _Sin autem sunt_, etc.: if there _are_ false sensations which are probable (as the Stoics allow), why should there not be false sensations so probable as to be with difficulty distinguishable from the true? The rest exactly as in 47.

----49--53. Antiochus attacked these arguments as _soritae_, and therefore faulty (49). The admission of a certain amount of similarity between true and false sensations does not logically lead to the impossibility of distinguishing between the true and the false (50). We contend that these phantom sensations lack that self evidence which we require before giving a.s.sent. When we have wakened from the dream, we make light of the sensations we had while in it (51). But, say our opponents, while they last our dreaming sensations are as vivid as our waking ones. This we deny (52). "But," say they, "you allow that the wise man in madness withholds his a.s.sent." This proves nothing, for he will do so in many other circ.u.mstances in life. All this talk about dreamers, madmen and drunkards is unworthy our attention (53).

--49. _Antiochus_: s.e.xt. often quotes him in the discussion of this and similar subjects. _Ipsa capita_: a?ta ta ?efa?a?a. _Interrogationis_: the _sorites_ was always in the form of a series of questions, cf. _De Div._ II. 11 (where Cic. says the Greek word was already naturalised, so that his proposed trans. _acervalis_ is unnecessary), _Hortens._ fragm. 47, and n.

on 92. _Hoc vocant_: i.e. _hoc genus_, cf. _D.F._ III. 70 _ex eo genere, quae prosunt_. _Vitiosum_: cf. _D.F._ IV. 50 _ille sorites, quo nihil putatis_ (Stoici) _vitiosius_. Most edd. read _hos_, which indeed in 136 is a necessary em. for MSS. _hoc_. _Tale visum_: i.e. _falsum_. _Dormienti_: sc. t???. _Ut probabile sit_, etc.: cf. 47, 48 and notes. _Primum quidque_: not _quodque_ as Klotz; cf. _M.D.F._ II. 105, to whose exx. add _De Div._ II. 112, and an instance of _proximus quisque_ in _De Off._ II. 75.

_Vitium_: cf. _vitiosum_ above.

--50. _Omnia deum posse_: this was a principle generally admitted among Stoics at least, see _De Div._ II. 86. For the line of argument here cf.

_De Div._ II. 106 _fac dare deos, quod absurdum est_. _Eadem_: this does not mean that the two sensations are merged into one, but merely that when one of them is present, it cannot be distinguished from the other; see n.

on 40. _Similes_: after this _sunt_ was added by Madv. _In suo genere essent_: subst.i.tute _esse viderentur_ for _essent_, and you get the real view of the Academic, who would allow that _things in their essence_ are divisible into sharply-defined _genera_, but would deny that the _sensations_ which proceed from or are caused by the _things_, are so divisible.

--51. _Una depulsio_: cf. 128 (_omnium rerum una est definitio comprehendendi_), _De Div._ II. 136 (_omnium somniorum una ratio est_). _In quiete_: = _in somno_, a rather poetical usage. _Narravit_: Goer., Orelli, Klotz alter into _narrat_, most wantonly. _Visus Homerus_, etc.: this famous dream of Ennius, recorded in his _Annals_, is referred to by Lucr.

I. 124, Cic. _De Rep._ VI. 10 (_Somn. Scip._ c. 1), Hor. _Epist._ II. 1, 50. _Simul ut_: rare in Cic., see Madv. _D.F._ II. 33, who, however, unduly restricts the usage. In three out of the five pa.s.sages where he allows it to stand, the _ut_ precedes a vowel; Cic. therefore used it to avoid writing _ac_ before a vowel, so that in _D.F._ II. 33 _ut_ should probably be written (with Manut. and others) for _et_ which Madv. ejects.

--52. _Eorumque_: MSS. om. _que_. Dav. wrote _ac_ before _eorum_, this however is as impossible in Cic. as the c before a guttural condemned in n.

on 34. For the argument see n. on 80 _quasi vero quaeratur quid sit non quid videatur_. _Primum interest_: for om. of _deinde_ cf. 45, 46.

_Imbecillius_: cf. I. 41. _Edormiverunt_: "have slept _off_ the effects,"

cf. ap????e?? in Homer. _Relaxentur_: cf. a??e?a? t?? ????? 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_: epe?e?; see on 94. _Aliquando sustinere_: the point of the Academic remark lay in the fact that in the state of madness the ep??? 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, s.e.xt. _A.M._ VIII. 56 (s???e??s? ta p?a?ata), _ib._ VIII. 157 (s???e?e? t?? ???), VIII. 372 (????? s???ee? t??

f???s?f?? ??t?s??), Plut. _De Communi Not.i.t. adv. Stoicos_ p. 1077 (???

pa?ta p?a?ata s???e??s?). _Utimur_: "we have to put up with," so ???s?a?

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 pa.s.sages 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 e? ?a?, etc., and even without e?) 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 cla.s.ses 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 ep??? 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. s.e.xtus _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 pat.i.tur_: 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 subst.i.tution of which here would perhaps make the sentence clearer. The words are a trans. of the common Gk. term apa?a??a?t?? (s.e.xt. _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_ (??de ??pa??e? ep????

apa?a??a?t??). This opinion is negatived by _non pat.i.tur 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 ep???? or ep????a t?? fa?tas??? supplies s.e.xt. with one of the sceptic t??p??, see _Pyrrh. Hyp._ I. 124.

--55. _Irridentur_: the contradictions of physical philosophers were the constant sport of the sceptics, cf. s.e.xt. _A.M._ IX. 1. _Absolute ita paris_: Halm as well as Bait. after Christ, brackets _ita_; if any change be needed, it would be better to place it before _undique_. For this opinion of Democr. see R. and P. 45. _Et eo quidem innumerabilis_: this is the quite untenable reading of the MSS., for which no satisfactory em. has yet been proposed, cf. 125. _Nihil differat, nihil intersit_: these two verbs often appear together in Cic., e.g._D.F._ III. 25.

--56. _Potiusque_: this adversative use of _que_ is common with _potius_, e.g._D.F._ I. 51. Cf. _T.D._ II. 55 _ingemescere nonnum quam viro concessum est, idque raro_, also _ac potius_, _Ad Att._ I. 10, etc. _Proprietates_: the ?d??t?te? or ?d??ata of s.e.xtus, 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_: te????, a set of rules. _In proverbio_: so _venire in proverbium_, _in proverbii usum venire_, _proverbii loc.u.m 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 ent.i.tled, ?? s??p?a (egg investigation) ? pe??

s?f?ste?a? p??? ??ad?a?????, 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 a.s.sertion about the eggs." _Adsentiri_: for the pa.s.sive use of this verb cf. 39. _Par est_: so Dav. for _per_, which most MSS. have. The older edd.

and Orelli have _potest_, with one MS. _Quasi_: the em. of Madv. for the _quam si_ of the MSS. _Transversum digitum_: cf. 116. _Ne confundam omnia_: cf. 53, 110. _Natura tolletur_: this of course the sceptics would deny.

They refused to discuss the nature of _things in themselves_, and kept to _phenomena_. _Intersit_: i.e. _inter visa_. _In animos_: Orelli with one MS. reads _animis_; if the MSS. are correct the a.s.sertion 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_: e?d? ?a? ?e??, _quasdam_ marks the fact that _formas_ is a trans. I have met with no other pa.s.sage where any such doctrine is a.s.signed 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 pa.s.sage 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 p.r.o.noun. _Impediamini_: cf. n. on 33. _A veris_: if _visis_ be supplied the statement corresponds tolerably with the Academic belief, if _rebus_ be meant, it is wide of the mark. _Id est ...

retentio_: supposed to be a gloss by Man., Lamb., see however nn. on I. 6, 8. _Const.i.tit_: from _consto_, not from _consisto_ cf. 63 _qui tibi constares_. _Si vera sunt_: cf. 67, 78, 112, 148. The _nonnulli_ are Philo and Metrodorus, see 78. _Tollendus est adsensus_: i.e. even that qualified a.s.sent which the Academics gave to probable phenomena. _Adprobare_: this word is ambiguous, meaning either qualified or unqualified a.s.sent. Cf. n.

on 104. _Id est peccaturum_: "which is equivalent to sinning," cf. I. 42.

_Iam nimium etiam_: note _iam_ and _etiam_ in the same clause.

--60. _Pro omnibus_: note _omnibus_ for _omnibus rebus_. _Ista mysteria_: Aug. _Contra Ac._ III. 37, 38 speaks of various doctrines, which were _servata et pro mysteriis custodita_ by the New Academics. The notion that the Academic scepticism was merely external and polemically used, while they had an esoteric dogmatic doctrine, must have originated in the reactionary period of Metrodorus (of Stratonice), Philo, and Antiochus, and may perhaps from a pa.s.sage 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 a.s.sent, cf.