BOOK I CH. V § 12. 79

non enim sumus—nota. ‘The Stoics held that we could distinguish true from false sensations (pavragia, visa) by an infallible criterion (onpeior, nota, also translated signum and insigne Ac. 11 34, 36) termed by Chrysip- pus karaAnmrixy davtacia, visum comprehendibile, a sensation in which the soul grasps reality: this is followed by ovyxardOeows, assensio, a declaration to ourselves that the sensation is true. See Ac. 141, m 17, 18. The Academics denied the existence of such a criterion, but allowed that some sensations were probably true, others the contrary, id autem non esse satis cur alia posse percipt dicas, alia non posse, propterea quod multa falsa probabilia sint, nihil autem falst perceptum et cognitum possit esse (Ae. 11 103, and 32—36); the wise man will be guided by what seems most probable, Ac. 1199. Carneades distinguished three degrees of proba- bility, that which was plausible gavracia wavy (1), that which was also uncontradicted drepionacros (2), that which being both of these was further thoroughly examined dieEwdevpevn (3), Sext. Emp. Math. vit 166—189.
veris falsa adjuncta: see Ac. 11 42.
ex quo exsistit—regeretur: ‘from which fact (viz. the close resem- blance between true and false sensations) follows the conclusion stated in the Academica, that there were many things of a probable nature, such that though not amounting to a full perception, they could nevertheless, since they had a marked and distinct appearance, serve to direct the conduct of a wiseman’. Heind., who is followed by Or. and Ba., proposed to omit this sentence as unsuited tothe context, and un-Ciceronian in language. The first difficulty of construction arises from the change of case in the relative clause (guae—vis) which may probably be explained by the wish to substitute the weaker Pass. for the personifying Act. (regeretur for regerent). It may be said, Why not then begin the clause with the Abl. quibus instead of quae, omitting ws and understanding ea before perciperentur? The answer is that in these complex relative clauses, in which the verbs require different cases, we commonly find the relative attracted to the subordi- nate clause (as guae here to perciperentur for quibus), see Mady. § 445, Zumpt § 804, where this passage is quoted. The case of the second verb is sometimes expressed by the demonstrative as Fin. 11 1, qui mos cum a posterioribus non esset retentus, Arcesilas eum revocavit, sometimes under- stood from the relative, as V.D. 111 35 Heraclitum non omnes interpretantur uno modo, qui quoniam intellegi noluit, omittamus (sc. eum), Sall. J. 102 gui quanquam acciti ibant, tamen placuit (sc. tis) verba facere ; see Dietsch on Sall. J. 93, Nagelsbach S#7. § 164. The second difficulty is the Subj. regerentur: if we take guae to be merely connective=et ea, and suppose the clause in orat. rect. to be multa sunt probabilia, quae...percipiuntur... habent...regitwr, we should have expected regi in orat. obl., cf. Roby § 1781. But the Inf. construction is not always used inthese cases, see § 106 ¢u autem (dicts) imagines remanere quae cum pervenerint tum referantur for eas referri, 11 44 contingeret, Div.1 46 (Heraciides describes a dream) Mercurium e patera sanguinem visum esse fundere, qui cum terram attigisset refervescere
SO BOOK I CH. Vv § 12.
videretur, where we should have expected quem refervescere ; Tac. Agric. 15 the Britons complained that they had now two kings over them e guibus legatus in sanguinem, procurator in bona saeviret instead of legatum saevire, see also quotations in Draeger § 447, 2, Reid on Lael. 45 caput esse ad beate vivendum securitatem qua frui non possit si quasi parturiat for frui non posse ; Mady. Fin. 119 and 30, Ac. 1 28 and 41. In the present sentence however there was a Subj. previous to subordination (multa sunt probabilia quae ha- beant), the relative having a definitive, and not merely a connective force. It is only a certain kind of probabilia, of a very distinct appearance and there- fore leaving on the mind a distinct impression, which can afford practical guidance. Again there is a third difficulty if we read exsistit with the majority of mss. I think Klotz (Ann. Crit. Iv 5) is right in saying that the pronoun (ud) may carry back the thought to a past time (in this case to the writing of the Academica alluded to just before in the words alio loco) and so justify the following Imperf., cf. Ac. 11 86 jam ala praeclara quanto artificio esset sensus fabricata natura, De Orat. 1 63 ilud est probubilius (quod Socrates dicere solebat) omnes in eo quod scirent satis esse eloquentes, cf. Draeger § 152, Madv. Fin. m1 67, also /%n. 1 21, 34, 42, Iv 20, Div. 1196. [The phrase Aine vobis exstitit occurs also § 55 where it is followed by Pres. Subj. ut guicquid accidat id fluxisse dicatis, which how- ever is probably to be explained as an attraction to the parenthetic Pres. (quam dicitis).| Heind. found another stumblingblock in the form visus instead of viswm, C.’s regular equivalent for @avracia : Wolf met the objec- tion by instancing similar double forms, but the fact is that we want here a distinct word for a distinct thing. Véswm is a particular effect of the abstract viésws, which has both the active and passive force of our word ‘look’. ZZabeo could only be used with the latter (cf. hab. venerationem § 45) not with the n. visum. Of course visus has here a wide sense given to it corresponding to the use of viswm for sensation in general. Lastly H. alleges that the clause is superfluous and too technical. KI. rightly answers that without it the thought would be left incomplete. It is not enough to say that true and false impressions are almost indistinguishable : that by itself would confirm the opponent’s charge that the Academics leave themselves no grounds for action: you must go on to affirm the existence of probable impressions marked out from others by their clear- ness, so as to afford sufficient practical guidance to the wise. Compare with the whole the very similar passage Ac. 11 99 quicquid acciderit specie (=visus in WV. D.) probabile, si nihil se offeret quod sit probabilitati uli contrarium, utetur eo sapiens ac sic omnis ratio vitae gubernabitur.
insignem ; ‘marked’, lit. ‘bearing a stamp’. Cf. Ac. 1 101, the Aca- demic sage movetur mente, movetur sensibus, ut et multa vera videantur, neque tamen habere insignem illam et propriam percipiendt inotam, i.e. though they do not answer to the Stoic criterion.
illustrem : ‘clear’ =perspicuum, Ac. 1 34. Cf. Ae. 11 94 etiam a certis et wlustrioribus cohibes assensionem, Fin. 115 Epicurus nec de re obscura, ut