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 _aliqui_, _nescio quis_ and _nescio qui_, _si quis_ and _si qui_ (for the latter see n. on 81). As _aliquis_ is substantival, _aliqui_ adjectival, _aliquis_ must not be written with impersonal nouns like _terror_ (_T.D._ IV. 35, V. 62), _dolor_ (_T.D._ I. 82, _Ad Fam._ VII. 1, 1), _casus_ (_De Off._ III. 33). In the case of personal nouns the best edd. vary, e.g.

_deus aliqui_ (_T.D._ I. 23, IV. 35), _deus aliquis_ (_Lael._ 87, _Ad Fam._ XIV. 7, 1), _anularius aliqui_ (86 of this book), _magistratus aliquis_ (_In Verr._ IV. 146). With a proper name belonging to a real person _aliquis_ ought to be written (_Myrmecides_ in 120, see my n.).

_Dispiciendum_: not _despiciendum_, cf. _M.D.F._ II. 97, IV. 64, also _De Div._ II. 81, _verum dispicere_. _Iis vinculis_, etc. this may throw light on fragm. 15 of the _Acad. Post._, which see.

--62. _Motum animorum_: n. on 34. _Actio rerum_: here _actio_ is a pure verbal noun like p?a???, cf. _De Off._ I. 83, and expressions like _actio vitae_ (_N.D._ I. 2), _actio ullius rei_ (108 of this book), and the similar use of _actus_ in Quintilian (_Inst. Or._ X. 1, 31, with Mayor's 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.

was often taunted. See _Ad Fam._ V. 5, 2, _Ad Att._ I. 14, 5. _Licebat_: 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 pa.s.sages 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 a.s.serts that _tantum non_ = ???? ?? 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_.

_Tribunus_: a retort comes in 97, 144. _Antiochum_: cf. I. 13.

_Dest.i.tisse_: 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 pa.s.sionate inquirer after truth, and on that very account hold it disgraceful to a.s.sent 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 a.s.sent (66). Hear Arcesilas' argument: if the _sapiens_ ever gives his a.s.sent he will be obliged to _opine_, but he never will _opine_ therefore he never will give his a.s.sent. 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 a.s.senting 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 an _argumentum ad hominem_ (71).

--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.

--65. _Studio certandi_: = f????e???a. _Pertinacia ... calumnia_: n. on 14.

_Iurarem_: Cic. was thinking of his own famous oath at the end of his consulship.

--66. _Turp.i.s.simum_: cf. I. 45, _N.D._ I. 1. _Opiner_: _opinio_ or d??a is judgment based on insufficient grounds. _Sed quaerimus de sapiente_: cf.

115, _T.D._ IV. 55, 59 also _De Or._ III. 75 _non quid ego sed quid orator_. _Magnus ... opinator_: Aug. _Contra Acad._ III. 31 qu. this pa.s.sage 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 is mentioned by Ovid, _Fasti_ III. 107, _Tristia_ IV. 3, 1. _Sed Helicen_: the best MSS. om. _ad_, which Orelli places before _Helicen_. _Elimatas_: the MSS. are divided between this and _limatas_. _Elimare_, though a very rare word occurs _Ad Att._ XVI. 7, 3. _Visis cedo_: cf. n. on 38. _Vim maximam_: so _summum munus_ is applied to the same course of action in _D.F._ III. 31. _Cogitatione_: "idea". _Temeritate_: cf. I. 42, _De Div._ I. 7, and the charge of p??pete?a constantly brought against the dogmatists by s.e.xt. _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 pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage 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_, etc. as above, (2) _adsentietur autem aliquando_, (3) _opinabitur igitur_.

--68. _Adsentiri quicquam_: only with neuter p.r.o.nouns like this could _adsentiri_ be followed by an accusative case. _Sustinenda est_: efe?te??.

_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 pa.s.sage 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 132. _Sensisse_: = _iudica.s.se_, n. on I. 22. _Mnesarchi ... Dardani_: see _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_.

_Sustinere_: cf. 115 _sustinuero Epicureos_. _Sub Novis_: Faber's brilliant 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 p.r.o.noun, 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 _nomen_, cf. _D.F._ V. 18 _voluptatis alii putant primum appet.i.tum_.

_Voluptatem_ etc.: for the conversion of Dionysius (called ?? eta?ee???) from Stoicism to Epicureanism cf. _T.D._ II. 60, Diog. Laert. VII. 166--7.

_A vero_: "coming from a reality," cf. 41, n. _Is curavit_: Goer. reads _his_, "_solet V. D. in hoc p.r.o.nomen saevire_," says Madv. The scribes often prefix _h_ to parts of the p.r.o.noun _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 cla.s.sed 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 ep??? of Arcesilas follows at once (77, 78).

--72. _De antiquis philosophis_: on account of the somewhat awkward constr.

Lamb. read _antiquos philosophos_. _Popularis_: cf. 13. _Res non bonas_: MSS. om. _non_, which Or. added with two very early editions. Faber ingeniously supposed the true reading to be _novas_, which would be written _n.o.bas_, and then pa.s.s into _bonas_. _Nivem nigram_: this deliverance of Anaxagoras is very often referred to by s.e.xtus. In _P.H._ I. 33 he quotes it as an instance of the refutation of fa???e?a by means of ????e?a, "??a?a???a? t?? ?e???? e??a? t?? ????a, a?et??e? ??t? ???? est?? ??d??

pep???? t? de ??d?? est? e?a? ?a? ?? ???? a?a e?a??a." 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_: = ep?de??e??.

--73. _Democrito_: Cic., as Madv. remarks on _D.F._ I. 20, always exaggerates the merits of Democr. in order to depreciate the Epicureans, cf. _T.D._ I. 22, _De Div._ I. 5, II. 139, _N.D._ I. 120, _De Or._ I. 42.

_Quintae cla.s.sis_: 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 s??t?? ???s?? 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 ???s??

???s??, dealing with the realities of material existence, the atoms and the void, which exist ete?? and not merely ???? 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 ep?st?? see the remarks of s.e.xtus _A.M._ VII. 123--4 qu. R. and P. 107, who say "_patet errare eos qui scepticis adnumerandum Empedoclem putabant_." _Sonum fundere_: similar expressions occur in _T.D._ III. 42, V. 73, _D.F._ II. 48. _Parmenides, 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_ I. 54, Zeller 501, R. and P. on Xenophanes and Parmenides. _Minus bonis_: Dav. qu. Plut. _De Audit._ 45 A, e?a?t? d' a? t?? ?a?e??d?? t??

st???p???a?. _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_: for the use of _quasi_ = almost cf. _In Verr. Act._ I. 22, _Orat._ 41.

_Aiebas removendum_: for om. of _esse_ see n. on I. 43. _Perscripti sunt_: cf. n. on I. 16. _Scire se nihil se scire_: cf. I. 16, 44. The words referred to are in Plat. _Apol._ 21 e???a ???? t??t?? s????? t??? a?t??

t??t?? s?f?te??? e??a?, ??t? a ? ??da ??de ???a? e?de?a?, a very different statement from the _nihil sciri posse_ by which Cic. interprets it (cf. R. and P. 148). That ep?st?? 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 a.s.sume that the real ep?st?? is attainable. _Ironiam_: the word was given in its Greek form in 15. _Nulla fuit ratio persequi_: n. on 17.

--75. _Videorne_: = _nonne videor_, as _videsne_ = _nonne vides_. _Imitari 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 the word cf. _Orat._ 94, also _De Div._ I. 62 _minuti philosophi_, _Brut._ 256 _minuti imperatores_. _Stilponem_, etc.: Megarians, see R. and P.

177--182. s?f?sata: Cic. in the second edition probably introduced here the translation _cavillationes_, to which Seneca _Ep._ 116 refers, cf.

Krische, p. 65. _Fulcire portic.u.m_: "to be the pillar of the Stoic porch".

Cf. the anonymous line e? ? ?a? ?? ???s?pp??, ??? a? ?? St?a. _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 ?af? I believe does not occur in ancient authorities as a term of the Cyrenaic school; their great word was pa???. From 143 (_permotiones intimas_) it might appear that Cic. is translating either pa??? or ????s??. For a clear account of the school see Zeller's _Socrates_, for the ill.u.s.tration of the present pa.s.sage pp 293--300 with the footnotes. Cf. also R. and P. 162 sq. _Quo quid colore_: cf. s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII. 191 (qu. Zeller _Socrates_ 297, R. and P. 165).

_Adfici se_: = pas?e??. _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._ 3, 69, and _Ad Att._ VIII. 11, 1; also _De Or._ I. 32, _De Div._ I. 79, qu.

by Krebs and Allgayer. The conj. of Dav. _exposuerat_ is therefore needless. _Forta.s.se_: "we may suppose". _Nec percipere_, etc.: cf. 68, n.

_Tum illum_: a change from _ille, credo_ (sc. _respondit_), the _credo_ 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 with _ita iudico_ in 113. _Ex eo, quod esset_: cf. 18, n. _Effictum_: so 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.

43, _Gram._ 479 a. I think it quite possible that _recte consensit additum_ 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 for MSS. _consensisse_? _A vero_: cf. 41.

--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 ep??? 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. _c.l.i.tomacho_: 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 like the Epicureans, who say that the inference only from the sensation can be false, not the sensation itself (79, 80). I wish the G.o.d 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 circ.u.mscribed 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 G.o.d 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 nutsh.e.l.l; 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 Tudita.n.u.s, 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_: t?p?, 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 p.r.o.noun, _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.

_si maneant ... laceratis istam causam_, approves _maneant ... iaceat_, a reading with some MSS. support, adopted by Orelli. I think the whole confusion of the pa.s.sage arises from the mania of the copyists for turning indicatives into subjunctives, of which in critical editions of Cic. exx.