involved
in the special difficulties of the _Academica_.

Sec.36. _Cetera_: Stoic [Greek: adiaphora], the presence or absence of which
cannot affect happiness. The Stoics loudly protested against their being
called either _bona_ or _mala_, and this question was one of the great
battle grounds of the later Greek philosophy. _Secundum naturam ...
contraria_: Gr. [Greek: kata physin, para physin]. _His ipsis ...
numerabat_: I see no reason for placing this sentence after the words _quae
minoris_ below (with Christ) or for suspecting its genuineness (with Halm).
The word _media_ is the Gk. [Greek: mesa], which word however is not
usually applied to _things_, but to _actions_. _Sumenda_: Gk. [Greek:
lepta]. _Aestimatione_: [Greek: axia], positive value. _Contraque
contraria_: Cic. here as in _D.F._ III. 50 feels the need of a word to
express [Greek: apaxia] (negative value). (Madv. in his note on that
passage coins the word _inaestimatio._) _Ponebat esse_: cf. 19, _M.D.F._ V.
73.

Sec.37. To cope thoroughly with the extraordinary difficulties of this section
the student must read the whole of the chapters on Stoic ethics in Zeller
and Ritter and Preller. There is no royal road to the knowledge, which it
would be absurd to attempt to convey in these notes. Assuming a general
acquaintance with Stoic ethics, I set out the difficulties thus: Cic.
appears at first sight to have made the [Greek: apoproegmena] a subdivision
of the [Greek: lepta] (_sumenda_), the two being utterly different. I
admit, with Madv. (_D.F._ III. 50), that there is no reason for suspecting
the text to be corrupt, the heroic remedy of Dav., therefore, who reads
_media_ in the place of _sumenda_, must be rejected. Nor can anything be
said for Goerenz's plan, who distorts the Stoic philosophy in order to save
Cicero's consistency. On the other hand, I do not believe that Cic. could
so utterly misunderstand one of the cardinal and best known doctrines of
Stoicism, as to think even for a moment that the [Greek: apoproegmena]
formed a branch of the [Greek: lepta]. This view of Madvig's is strongly
opposed to the fact that Cic. in 36 had explained with perfect correctness
the Stoic theory of the [Greek: adiaphora], nor is there anywhere in the
numerous passages where he touches on the theory any trace of the same
error. My explanation is that Cic. began with the intention to speak of the
_sumenda_ only and then rapidly extended his thought so as to embrace the