_Eiusdem generis_: the phrase _te mentiri_ had been subst.i.tuted for _nunc lucere_. _Chrysippea_: n. on 93. _Conclusioni_: on _facere_ with the dat.

see n. on 27. _Cederet_: some edd. _crederet_, but the word is a trans. of Gk. e??e??; n. on 66. _Conexi_: = s???e???, cf. Zeller 109. This was the proper term for the hypothetical judgment. _Superius_: the s???e???

consists of two parts, the hypothetical part and the affirmative--called in Greek ?????e??? and ?????; 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 _exceptio_. See _Dict. Ant_. _Tribunum ... adeant_: a retort upon Lucullus; 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 ??????e??, merely to neglect or pa.s.s by. _Effabimur_; cf. _effatum_ above. _Hermarchus_: not _Hermachus_, as most edd.; see _M.D.F._ II. 96. _Diiunctum_: d?e?e??e???, 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 quaec.u.mque fiant_. The context of that pa.s.sage 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 ?ad?? in s.e.xt., e.g.

_A.M._ VII. 325. _c.u.m hoc igitur_: the word _igitur_, as usual, picks up the broken thread of the sentence. _Id est_: n. on I. 8. _Evert.i.t_: for the Epicurean view of Dialectic see R. and P. 343. Zeller 399 sq., _M.D.F._ I.

22. _E contrariis diiunctio_: = d?e?e??e??? e? e?a?t???.

--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 e? and de, has been a great crux of edd.; Dav. here wished to insert _c.u.m_ 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 c.l.i.tomachus, 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 c.l.i.tomachus (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 a.s.sent; 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, h.o.m.o acutus_. A different meaning is given by the _ut_ in pa.s.sages like _De Div._ II. 30 _Democritus non inscite nugatur, ut physicus, quo genere nihil arrogantius_; "for a physical philosopher."

--99. _Genera_: here = cla.s.sifications of, modes of dividing _visa_. This way of taking the pa.s.sage 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 ?ata??????

_Dicantur_: i.e. _ab Academicis_. _Si probabile_: the _si_ is not in MSS.

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 ???? ?? ??? a?atet?ae??? a? e??, s.e.xt. _A.M._ VIII.

157 s???e?e? t?? ???. _Et sensibus_: no second _et_ corresponds to this; _sic_ below replaces it. See Madv. _D.F._ p. 790, ed. 2. _Quicquam tale_ etc.: cf. 40, 41. _Nihil ab eo differens_: n. on 54. _Non comprehensa_: n.

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 ?????e?e?a? 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.

130, _T.D._ I. 66, 71.

--101. _Impeditum_: cf. 33, n. _Movebitur_: cf. _moveri_ in 24. _Non enim 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 ?? ?a? ap? d???? ess? pa?a?fat?? ??d' ap?

pet???. _Neque tamen habere_: i.e. _se putat_. For the sudden change from _oratio recta_ to _obliqua_ cf. 40 with n. _Percipiendi notam_: = ?a?a?t??a t?? s???ta?ese?? in s.e.xt. _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.

_Exsistere_. cf. 36. _Qui neget_: see 79. _Caput_: a legal term. _Conclusio loquitur_: cf. _historiae loquantur_ (5), _consuetudo loquitur_ (_D.F._ II.

48), _hominis inst.i.tutio si loqueretur_ (_ib._ IV. 41), _vites si loqui possint_ (_ib._ V. 39), _patria loquitur_ (_In Cat._ I. 18, 27); the last use Cic. condemns himself in _Orat._ 85. _Inquit_: "quotha," indefinitely, as in 109, 115; cf. also _dicit_ in 79.

--102. _Reprehensio est ... satis esse vobis_: Bait. follows Madv. in placing a comma after _est_, and a full stop at _probabilia_. _Tamen_ ought in that case to follow _dicimus_, and it is noteworthy that in his communication to Halm (printed on p. 854 of Bait., and Hahn's ed. of the philosophical works, 1861) Madv. omits the word _tamen_ altogether, nor does Bait. in adopting the suggestion notice the omission. _Ista diceret_: "stated the opinions you asked for." _Poetam_: this both Halm and Bait.

treat as a gloss.

--103. For this section cf. Lucullus' speech, pa.s.sim, and s.e.xt. _P.H._ I.

227 sq. _Academia ... quibus_: a number of exx. of this change from sing.

to plural are given by Madv. on _D.F._ V. 16. _Nullum_: on the favourite Ciceronian use of _nullus_ for _non_ see 47, 141, and Madv. _Gram._ 455, obs. 5. _Illud sit disputatum_: for the construction cf. 98; _autem_ is omitted with the same constr. in _D.F._ V. 79, 80. _Nusquam alibi_: cf. 50.

--104. _Exposuisset adiungit_: Madv. on _D.F._ III. 67 notices a certain looseness in the use of tenses, which Cic. displays in narrating the opinions of philosophers, but no ex. so strong as this is produced. _Ut aut approbet quid aut improbet_: this Halm rejects. I have noticed among recent editors of Cic. a strong tendency to reject explanatory clauses introduced by _ut_. Halm brackets a similar clause in 20, and is followed in both instances by Bait. Kayser, who is perhaps the most extensive _bracketer_ of modern times, rejects very many clauses of the kind in the Oratorical works. In our pa.s.sage, the difficulty vanishes when we reflect that _approbare_ and _improbare_ may mean either to render an _absolute_ approval or disapproval, or to render an approval or disapproval merely based on _probability_. For example, in 29 the words have the first meaning, in 66 the second. The same is the case with _nego_ and _aio_. I trace the whole difficulty of the pa.s.sage to the absence of terms to express distinctly the difference between the two kinds of a.s.sent. The general sense will be as follows. "There are two kinds of ep???, one which prevents a man from expressing any a.s.sent or disagreement (in either of the two senses above noticed), another which does not prevent him from giving an answer to questions, provided his answer be not taken to imply absolute approval or absolute disapproval; the result of which will be that he will neither absolutely deny nor absolutely affirm anything, but will merely give a qualified 'yes' or 'no,' dependent on probability." My defence of the clause impugned is substantially the same as that of Hermann in the _Philologus_ (vol. VII.), which I had not read when this note was first written. _Alterum placere ... alterum tenere_: "the one is his formal dogma, the other is his actual practice." For the force of this see my note on _non probans_ in 148, which pa.s.sage is very similar to this. _Neget ...

aiat_: cf. 97. _Nec ut placeat_: this, the MSS. reading, gives exactly the wrong sense, for c.l.i.tomachus _did_ allow such _visa_ to stand as were sufficient to serve as a basis for action. Hermann's _neu cui_ labours under the same defect. Various emendations are _nam c.u.m_ (Lamb., accepted by Zeller 522), _hic ut_ (Manut.), _et c.u.m_ (Dav. followed by Bait.), _sed c.u.m_ (Halm). The most probable of these seems to me that of Manut. I should prefer _sic ut_, taking _ut_ in the sense of "although." _Respondere_: "to put in as an answer," as in 93 and often. _Approbari_: sc. _putavit_. Such changes of construction are common in Cic., and I cannot follow Halm in altering the reading to _approbavit_.

--105. _Lucem eripimus_: cf. 30.

----105--111. Summary. You must see, Lucullus, by this time, that your defence of dogmatism is overthrown (105). You asked how memory was possible on my principles. Why, did not Siron remember the dogmas of Epicurus? If nothing can be remembered which is not absolutely true, then these will be true (106). Probability is quite sufficient basis for the arts. One strong point of yours is that nature compels us to _a.s.sent_. But Panaetius doubted even some of the Stoic dogmas, and you yourself refuse a.s.sent to the _sorites_, why then should not the Academic doubt about other things? (107) Your other strong point is that without a.s.sent action is impossible (108). But surely many actions of the dogmatist proceed upon mere probability. Nor do you gain by the use of the hackneyed argument of Antiochus (109). Where probability is, there the Academic has all the knowledge he wants (110). The argument of Antiochus that the Academics first admit that there are true and false _visa_ and then contradict themselves by denying that there is any difference between true and false, is absurd. We do not deny that the difference _exists_; we do deny that human faculties are capable of perceiving the difference (111).

--105. _Inducto ... prob._: so Aug. _Cont Ac._ II. 12 _Soluto, libero_: cf.

n. on 8. _Implicato_: = _impedito_ cf. 101. _Iacere_: cf. 79. _Isdem oculis_: an answer to the question _nihil cernis?_ in 102. _Purpureum_: cf.

fragm. 7 of the _Acad. Post_. _Modo caeruleum ... sole_: Nonius (cf. fragm.

23) quotes _tum caeruleum tum lavum_ (the MSS. in our pa.s.sage have _flavum_) _videtur, quodque nunc a sole_. C.F. Hermann would place _mane ravum_ after _quodque_ and take _quod_ as a proper relative p.r.o.noun, not as = "because." This transposition certainly gives increased clearness.

Hermann further wishes to remove _a_, quoting exx. of _collucere_ without the prep., which are not at all parallel, i.e. _Verr._ I. 58, IV. 71.

_Vibrat_: with the a??????? ?e?asa of Aeschylus. _Dissimileque_: Halm, followed by Bait., om. _que_. _Proximo et_: MSS. have _ei_, rightly altered by Lamb., cf. e.g. _De Fato_ 44. _Non possis ... defendere_: a similar line is taken in 81.

--106. _Memoria_: cf. 22. _Polyaenus_: named _D.F._ I. 20, Diog. X. 18, as one of the chief friends of Epicurus. _Falsum quod est_: Greek and Latin do not distinguish accurately between the _true_ and the _existent_, the _false_ and the _non existent_, hence the present difficulty; in Plato the confusion is frequent, notably in the _Sophistes_ and _Theaetetus_. _Si igitur_: "if then recollection is recollection only of things perceived and known." The dogmatist theory of ??? and ???s?? is dealt with in exactly the same way by s.e.xt. _P.H._ II. 5, 10 and elsewhere, cf. also Plat _Theaet._ 191 sq. _Siron_: thus Madv. on _D.F._ II. 119 writes the name, not _Sciron_, as Halm. _Fateare_: the em. of Dav. for _facile_, _facere_, _facias_ of MSS. Christ defends _facere_, thinking that the constr. is varied from the subj. to the inf. after _oportet_, as after _necesse est_ in 39. For _facere_ followed by an inf. cf. _M.D.F._ IV. 8. _Nulla_: for _non_, cf. 47, 103.

--107. _Fiet artibus_: n. on 27 for the constr., for the matter see 22.

_Lumina_: "strong points." Bentl. boldly read _columina_, while Dav.

proposed _vimina_ or _vincula_. That an em. is not needed may be seen from _D.F._ II. 70. _negat Epicurus (hoc enim vestrum lumen est)_ _N.D._ I. 79, and 43 of this book. _Responsa_: added by Ernesti. Faber supplies _haruspicia_, Orelli after Ern. _haruspicinam_, but, as Halm says, some noun in the plur. is needed. _Quod is non potest_: this is the MSS.

reading, but most edd. read _si is_, to cure a wrong punctuation, by which a colon is placed at _perspicuum est_ above, and a full stop at _sustineat_. Halm restored the pa.s.sage. _Habuerint_: the subj. seems due to the attraction exercised by _sustineat_. Bait. after Kayser has _habuerunt_. _Positum_: "when laid down" or "a.s.sumed."

--108. _Alterum est quod_: this is subst.i.tuted for _deinde_, which ought to correspond to _primum_ above. _Actio ullius rei_: n. on _actio rerum_ in 62, cf. also 148. _Adsensu comprobet_: almost the same phrase often occurs in Livy, Sueton., etc. see Forc. _Sit etiam_: the _etiam_ is a little strange and was thought spurious by Ernesti. It seems to have the force of Eng. "indeed", "in what indeed a.s.sent consists." _Sensus ipsos adsensus_: so in I. 41 _sensus_ is defined to be _id quod est sensu comprehensum_, i.e. ?ata?????, cf. also Stobaeus I. 41, 25 a?s??t??? ?a? fa?tas?a s???ata?es?? est?. _Appet.i.tio_: for all this cf. 30. _Et dicta ... multa_: Manut. ejected these words as a gloss, after _multa_ the MSS. curiously add _vide superiora_. _Lubricos sustinere_: cf. 68 and 94. _Ita scribenti ...

exanclatum_: for the om. of _esse_ cf. 77, 113 with notes. _Herculi_: for this form of the gen. cf. Madv. on _D.F._ I. 14, who doubts whether Cic.

ever wrote _-is_ in the gen. of the Greek names in _-es_. When we consider how difficult it was for copyists _not_ to change the rarer form into the commoner, also that even Priscian (see _M.D.F._ V. 12) made gross blunders about them, the supposition of Madv. becomes almost irresistible.

_Temeritatem_: p??pete?a?, e??a??t?ta.

--109. _In navigando_: cf. 100. _In conserendo_: Guretus interprets "e? t?

f?t?es?a? t?? a????," and is followed by most commentators, though it seems at least possible that _manum_ is to be understood. For the suppressed accus. _agrum_ cf. n. on _tollendum_ in 148. _Sequere_: the fut. not the pres. ind., cf. 61. _Pressius_: cf. 28. _Reprehensum_: sc. _narrasti_. _Id ipsum_: = _nihil posse comprehendi_. _Saltem_: so in 29. _Pingue_: cf. _Pro Archia_ 10. _Sibi ipsum_: note that Cic. does not generally make _ipse_ agree in case with the reflexive, but writes _se ipse_, etc.

_Convenienter_: "consistently". _Esse possit_: Bait. _posset_ on the suggestion of Halm, but Cic. states the doctrine as a living one, not throwing it back to Antiochus time and to this particular speech of Ant.

_Ut hoc ipsum_: the _ut_ follows on _illo modo urguendum_ above. _Decretum quod_: Halm followed by Bait. gives _quo_, referring to _altero quo neget_ in 111, which however does not justify the reading. The best MSS. have _qui_. _Et sine decretis_: Lamb. gave _nec_ for _et_, but Dav. correctly explains, "_multa decreta habent Academici, non tamen percepta sed tantum probabilia._"

--110. _Ut illa_: i.e. the _decreta_ implied in the last sentence. Some MSS.

have _ille_, while Dav. without necessity gives _alia_. _Sic hoc ipsum_: s.e.xt. then is wrong is saying (_P.H._ I. 226) that the Academics d?aea????ta? ta p?a?ata e??a? a?ata??pta, i.e. state the doctrine dogmatically, while the sceptics do not. _Cognitionis notam_: like _nota percipiendi_, _veri et falsi_, etc. which we have already had. _Ne confundere omnia_: a mocking repet.i.tion of Lucullus phrase, cf. 58.

_Incerta reddere_: cf. 54. _Stellarum numerus_: another echo of Lucullus; see 32. _Quem ad modum ... item_: see Madv. on _D.F._ III. 48, who quotes an exact parallel from _Topica_ 46, and _sicut ... item_ from _N.D._ I. 3, noting at the same time that in such exx. neither _ita_ nor _idem_, which MSS. sometimes give for _item_, is correct.

--111. _Dicere ... perturbatum_: for om. of _esse_ cf. 108, etc.

_Antiochus_: this Bait. brackets. _Unum ... alterum_: cf. 44. _Esse quaedam in visis_: it was not the _esse_ but the _videri_, not the actual existence of a difference, but the possibility of that difference being infallibly perceived by human sense, that the Academic denied. _Cernimus_: i.e. the _probably_ true and false. _Probandi species_: a phenomenal appearance which belongs to, or properly leads to qualified approval.

----112--115. Summary. If I had to deal with a Peripatetic, whose definitions are not so exacting, my course would be easier; I should not much oppose him even if he maintained that the wise man sometimes _opines_ (112). The definitions of the real Old Academy are more reasonable than those of Antiochus. How, holding the opinions he does, can he profess to belong to the Old Academy? (113) I cannot tolerate your a.s.sumption that it is possible to keep an elaborate dogmatic system like yours free from mistakes (114). You wish me to join your school. What am I to do then with my dear friend Diodotus, who thinks so poorly of Antiochus? Let us consider however what system not I, but the _sapiens_ is to adopt (115).

--112. _Campis ... exsultare ... oratio_: expressions like this are common in Cic., e.g. _D.F._ I. 54, _De Off._ I. 61, _Orat._ 26; cf. also Aug.

_Cont. Ac._ III. 5 _ne in quaestionis campis tua eqitaret oratio_. _c.u.m Peripatetico_: nothing that Cic. states here is at discord with what is known of the tenets of the later Peripatetics; cf. esp. s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII.

216--226. All that Cic. says is that he could accept the Peripatetic formula, putting upon it his own meaning of course. Doubtless a Peripatetic would have wondered how a sceptic _could_ accept his formulae; but the spectacle of men of the most irreconcilable opinions clinging on to the same formulae is common enough to prevent us from being surprised at Cicero's acceptance. I have already suggested (n. on 18) that we have here a trace of Philo's teaching, as distinct from that of Carneades. I see absolutely no reason for the very severe remarks of Madvig on _D.F._ V. 76, a pa.s.sage which very closely resembles ours. _Dumeta_: same use in _N.D._ I. 68, Aug. _Cont. Ac._ II. 6; the _spinae_ of the Stoics are often mentioned, e.g. _D.F._ IV. 6. _E vero ... a falso_: note the change of prep. _Adhiberet_: the MSS. are confused here, and go Halm reads _adderet_, and Bait. follows, while Kayser proposes _adhaereret_, which is indeed nearer the MSS.; cf. however I. 39 _adhiberet_. _Accessionem_: for this cf.

18 and 77. _Simpliciter_: the opposite of _subtiliter_; cf.

_simpliciter--subtilitas_ in I. 6. _Ne Carneade quidem_: cf. 59, 67, 78, 148.

--113. _Sed qui his minor est_: given by Halm as the em. of Io. Clericus for MSS. _sed mihi minores_. Guietus gave _sed his minores_, Durand _sed minutior_, while Halm suggests _sed minutiores_. I conj. _nimio minares_, which would be much nearer the MSS.; cf. Lucr. I. 734 _inferiores partibus egregie multis multoque minores_. _Tale verum_: _visum_ omitted as in _D.F._ V. 76. _Incognito_: cf. 133. _Amavi hominem_: cf. Introd. p. 6. _Ita iudico, politissimum_; it is a mistake to suppose this sentence incomplete, like Halm, who wishes to add _eum esse_, or like Bait., who with Kayser prints _esse_ after _politissimum_. Cf. 108 _ita scribenti, exanclatum_, and the examples given from Cic. by Madv. on _D.F._ II. 13. _Horum neutrum_: cf. 77 _nemo_. _Utrumque verum_: Cic. of course only accepts the propositions as Arcesilas did; see 77.

--114. _Illud ferre_: cf. 136. _Const.i.tuas_: this verb is often used in connection with the ethical _finis_; cf. 129 and I. 19. _Idemque etiam_: Krebs and Allgayer (_Antibarbarus_, ed. 4) deny that the expression _idem etiam_ is Latin. One good MS. here has _atque etiam_, which Dav. reads; cf.

however _Orat._ 117. _Artificium_: = _ars_, as in 30. _Nusquam labar_: cf.

138 _ne labar_. _Subadroganter_: cf. 126.

--115. _Qui sibi c.u.m oratoribus ... rexisse_: so Cic. vary often speaks of the Peripatetics, as in _D.F._ IV. 5, V. 7. _Sustinuero_: cf. 70. _Tam bonos_: Cic. often speaks of them and of Epicurus in this patronising way; see e.g. _T.D._ II. 44, III. 50, _D.F._ I. 25, II. 81. For the Epicurean friendships cf. esp. _D.F._ I. 65. _Diodoto_: cf. Introd. p. 2. _Nolumus_: Halm and Bait., give _nolimus_; so fine a line divides the subjunctive from the indicative in clauses like these that the choice often depends on mere individual taste. _De sapiente loquamur_: n. on 66.

----116--128. Summary. Of the three parts of philosophy take Physics first. Would your _sapiens_ swear to the truth of any geometrical result whatever? (116) Let us see which one of actual physical systems the _sapiens_ we are seeking will select (117). He must choose _one_ teacher from among the conflicting schools of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenos, Anaxagoras, Xenophanes, Leucippus, Democritus, Empedocles, Herac.l.i.tus, Melissus, Plato and Pythagoras. The remaining teachers, great men though they be, he must reject (118). Whatever system he selects he must know absolutely; if the Stoic, he must believe as strongly in the Stoic theology as he does in the sunlight. If he holds this, Aristotle will p.r.o.nounce him mad; you, however, Lucullus, must defend the Stoics and spurn Aristotle from you, while you will not allow me even to doubt (119). How much better to be free, as I am and not compelled to find an answer to all the riddles of the universe!

(120) Nothing can exist, say you, apart from the deity. Strato, however, says he does not need the deity to construct the universe. His mode of construction again differs from that of Democritus. I see some good in Strato, yet I will not a.s.sent absolutely either to his system or to yours (121). All these matters lie far beyond our ken. We know nothing of our bodies, which we can dissect, while we have not the advantage of being able to dissect the const.i.tution of things or of the earth to see whether she is firmly fixed or hovers in mid air (122).

Xenophanes, Hicetas, Plato and Epicurus tell strange things of the heavenly bodies. How much better to side with Socrates and Aristo, who hold that nothing can be known about them! (123) Who knows the nature of mind? Numberless opinions clash, as do those of Dicaearchus, Plato and Xenocrates. Our _sapiens_ will be unable to decide (124). If you say it is better to choose any system rather than none, I choose Democritus. You at once upbraid me for believing such monstrous falsehoods (125). The Stoics differ among themselves about physical subjects, why will they not allow me to differ from them? (126) Not that I deprecate the study of Physics, for moral good results from it (127). Our _sapiens_ will be delighted if he attains to anything which seems to resemble truth. Before I proceed to Ethics, I note your weakness in placing all perceptions on the same level. You must be prepared to a.s.severate no less strongly that the sun is eighteen times as large as the earth, than that yon statue is six feet high. When you admit that all things can be perceived no more and no less clearly than the size of the sun, I am almost content (128).

--116. _Tres partes_: cf. I. 19. _Et a vobismet_: "and especially by you".