Academica Part 15

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 pa.s.sage. _Negat ...

torsisset_: for the tenses cf. 104 _exposuisset, adiungit_. _c.u.m 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.) ?f?a????

d?ast?e?a?ta ??ste d?? t? ?e? fa???a?. Faber qu. Arist. _Problemata_ XVII.

31 d?a t? e?? t? p?a???? ?????s? t?? ?f?a??? ?? (?) fa??eta? d?? t? ?e?.

Also _ib._ x.x.xI. 3 inquiring the reason why drunkards see double he says ta?t? t??t? ????eta? ?a? ea? t?? ?at??e? p?es? t?? ?f?a???. s.e.xtus refers to the same thing _P.H._ I. 47, _A.M._ VII. 192 (?? pa?ap?esa? t??

?f?a???) so Cic. _De Div._ II. 120. Lucretius gives the same answer as Timagoras, _propter opinatus animi_ (IV. 465), as does s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII.

210 on behalf of Epicurus. _Sed hic_: Bait. _sit hic_. _Maiorum_: cf. 143.

_Quasi quaeratur_: Carneades refused to discuss about things in themselves but merely dealt with the appearances they present, t? ?a? a???e? ?a? t?

?e?de? e? t??? p?a?as? s??e???e? (Numen in Euseb. _Pr. Eu._ XIV. 8). Cf.

also s.e.xt. _P.H._ I. 78, 87, 144, II. 75. _Domi nasc.u.n.tur_: a proverb used like ??a??' es' ????a? and "coals to Newcastle," see Lorenz on Plaut.

_Miles_ II. 2, 38, and cf. _Ad Att._ X. 14, 2, _Ad Fam._ IX. 3. _Deus_: cf.

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_: ???te???, 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 pa.s.sage, 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 c.u.m deo_: would enter into an altercation with the G.o.d. The phrase, like ???d??es?a? t??? as opposed to ???d??e?? t??a implies mutual recrimination, cf. _Pro Deiotaro_ 9 _querellae c.u.m Deiotaro_. The reading _tam quererer_ for the _tamen quaereretur_ of the MSS. is due to Manut.

_Navem_: s.e.xtus often uses the same ill.u.s.tration, 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 forta.s.se_. 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 Herac.l.i.tus a.s.serted the sun to be a foot wide, he does not however quote Stob. _Phys._ I. 24, 1 ?????? e?e??? e?e??

e???? p?d?? a????pe???, which is affirmed to be the opinion of Herac.l.i.tus 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 _pa.s.sim_.

_Ne sit ... potest_: cf. 80 _quasi quaeratur quid sit, non quid videatur.

Si ipse erit_ for _ipse_ apparently = _is ipse_ cf. _M.D.F._ II. 93.

--85. _Quod non est_: = _qu. n. e. id quod esse videtur_. _Sui generis_: cf.

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 _Stoic.u.m_; 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 ??????, eta??, es??, and such words. _Eodem caelo atque_: a difficult pa.s.sage. MSS. have _aqua_, an error easy, as Halm notes, to a scribe who understood _caelum_ to be the heaven, and not ???fe???, a graving tool. Faber and other old edd. defend the MSS. reading, adducing pa.s.sages 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.

--86. _Anulo_: cf. 54. _Aliqui_: n. on 61. _Gallinarium_: cf. 57. _Adhibes artem_: cf. 20 _adhibita arte_. _Pictor ... tibicen_: so in 20. _Simul inflavit_: note _simul_ for _simul atque_, cf. _T.D._ IV. 12. _Nostri quidem_: i.e. _Romani_. _Admodum_: i.e. _adm. pauci_ cf. _De Leg._ III. 32 _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."

--87. _Scilicet_: Germ. "naturlich." _Fabricata sit_: cf. 30, 119, 121 and N.D. I. 19. _Ne modo_: for _modo ne_, a noticeable use. _Physicis_: probably neut. _Contra sensus_: he wrote both for and against s????e?a; cf.

R. and P. 360 and 368. _Carneadem_: Plut. _Sto. Rep_. 1036 B relates that Carneades in reading the arguments of Chrysippus against the senses, quoted the address of Andromache to Hector: da????e f??se? se t? s?? e???. From Diog. IV. 62 we learn that he thus parodied the line qu. in n. on 75, e? ?

?a? ?? ???s?pp?? ??? a? ?? e??.

--88. _Diligentissime_: in 48--53. _Dicebas_: in 52 _imbecillius adsentiuntur_. _Siccorum_: cf. Cic. _Contra Rullum_ I. 1 _consilia 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 s.e.xtus with one of his t??p??, i.e. ?? pe?? ta? pe??stase??; 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 a.s.sent 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 _Ad Att._ XIV. 14, and _T.D._ II. 44.

--89. _Quisquam_: for the use of this p.r.o.noun in interrogative sentences cf.

Virg. _Aen._ I. 48 with the FileOutputStreams of Wagner and Conington. _Tam certa putat_: so s.e.xtus _A.M._ VII. 61 points out that Protagoras must in accordance with his doctrine pa?t?? et??? a????p?? hold that the e????

is the ???t????? t?? e? a??a? fa???e???. _Video, video te_: evidently from a tragedy whose subject was ??a? a???e???, 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 s.e.xt., e.g. _A.M._ VII. 405 ?? ???? ???a???? a?e?? ?a?

?a?? fa?tas?a? ap? t?? ?d??? pa?d?? ??? ????s?e??, t?? a???????? p?a???

ta?t?? t? fa?tas?a? s????e?. a???????? de ?? t? t??? t?? e????? pa?da?

a?e?e??, ??pe? ?a? ep???se?. 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, "_c.u.m 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_: a?e?se????, "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 fort.i.ter arc.u.m_. 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 pa.s.sage 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. s.e.xt. very often uses very similar language, as in _P.H._ I. 22, qu. in n. on 40. _Tum c.u.m 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 a.s.sent to arguments which are identical in form with the _Mentiens_, and yet refuse to a.s.sent 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).

--91. _Inventam esse_: cf. 26, 27. _In geometriane_: with this inquiry into the special function of Dialectic cf. the inquiry about Rhetoric in Plato _Gorg._ 453 D, 454 C. _Sol quantus sit_: this of course is a problem for f?s???, not for d?a?e?t???. _Quod sit summum bonum_: not d?a?e?t??? but ????? must decide this. _Quae coniunctio_: etc. so s.e.xt. often opposes s?p???? or s???e??? to d?e?e??e???, 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_: af?????, on which see _P.H._ II. 256, Diog VII. 62. _Quid sequatur_: t?

a????????, cf. I. 19 n. _Quid repugnet_: cf. I. 19, n. _De se ipsa_: the _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 s.e.xt., cf. esp. _P.H._ II. 175 and the words ea?t?? esta? e??a??pt????. For the mode in which Carneades dealt with Dialectic cf. Zeller 510, 511. The true ground of attack is that Logic always _a.s.sumes_ 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 ??????, it must be remembered, included ???t?????. _Concludendi_: t?? s?pe?a??e?? or s???????es?a?. _Loc.u.m_: t?p?? 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 ?ata s????? 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 ap???e??. _Erunt ... cavetis_: this form of the conditional sentence is ill.u.s.trated in Madv. _D.F._ III. 70, _Em. Liv._ p. 422, _Gram._ 340, obs. 1. Goer. qu. Terence _Heaut._ V. 1, 59 _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 t.i.tles of numerous distinct works of his on the _Sorites_ and _Mentiens_ are given by Diog. _Tria pauca sint_: cf. the instances in s.e.xt. _A.M._ VII. 418 ta pe?t????ta ????a est??, ta ???a ????a est??, also Diog. VII. 82 ??s??a?e?? the advice is quoted in s.e.xt. _P.H._ II. 253 (de?? ??stas?a? ?a? epe?e??), _A.M._ VII. 416 (??

s?f?? st?seta? ?a? ??s??ase?). The same terms seem to have been used by the Cynics, see s.e.xt. _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 t? ??s??a?e?? (_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 epe?e??, and quotes a line of Lucilius _sustineat currum ut bonu' saepe agitator equosque_, adding _semperque Carneades_ p?????? _pugilis et retentionem aurigae similem facit_ ep???. Aug. _Contra Ac._ trans. ep??? 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. _Ill.u.s.tribus_: Bait. with some probability adds _in_, comparing _in decimo_ below, and 107, cf. however Munro on Lucr.

I. 420. _Irretiat_: parallel expressions occur in _T.D._ V. 76, _De Or._ I.

43, _De Fato_ 7. _Facere non sinis_: s.e.xt. _P.H._ II. 253 points the moral 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.

--95. _Tollit ... superiora_: cf. _Hortensius_ fragm. 19 (Orelli) _sed ad extremum pollicetur prolaturum qui se ipse comest quod efficit dialecticorum ratio_. _Vestra an nostra_: Bait. after Christ needlessly writes _nostra an vestra_. a???a: "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 formulae as in _De Div._ I. 81, _De Leg._ II. 20, see Corss. _Ausspr._ I.

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 _p.r.o.nuntiatum_ is found, in _De Fato_ 26 _p.r.o.nuntiatio_, in Gellius XVI. 8 (from Varro) _prologium_. _Aut verum esse aut falsum_: the constant Stoic definition of a???a, see Diog. VII. 65 and other pa.s.sages in Zeller 107.

_Mentiris an verum dicis_: the _an_ was added by Schutz on a comparison of Gellius XVIII. 10 _c.u.m 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. .h.i.t by Petrus Valentia (p.

301, ed Orelli), _quis unquam dixit "ego mentior" quum hoc ipsum p.r.o.nuntiatum falsum vellet declarare?_ _Inexplicabilia_: ap??a 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 a??t?? 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 p??t?? ????? a?ap?de??t?? of the Stoic logic ran thus e? ??e?a est?, f?? est?? ... a??a ?? ??e?a est??

f?? a?a est?? (s.e.xt. _P.H._ II. 157, and other pa.s.sages qu. Zeller 114).

This bears a semblance of inference and is not so utterly tautological as Cic.'s translation, which merges f?? and ??e?a into one word, or that of Zeller (114, note). These arguments are called ?????at?? (involving only one premise) in s.e.xt. _P.H._ I. 152, 159, II. 167. _Si dicis te mentiri_, etc.: it is absurd to a.s.sume, 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_.