rite theme with the
sceptics, while the Stoics contended that no two things were absolutely
alike. Aristo the Chian, who maintained the Stoic view, was practically
refuted by his fellow pupil Persaeus, who took two twins, and made one
deposit money with Aristo, while the other after a time asked for the money
back and received it. On this subject cf. Sextus _A.M._ VII. 408--410.
_Negat esse_: in phrases like this Cic. nearly always places _esse_ second,
especially at the end of a clause. _Cur eo non estis contenti_: Lucullus
here ignores the question at issue, which concerned the _amount_ of
similarity. The dogmatists maintained that the similarity between two
phenomena could never be great enough to render it impossible to guard
against mistaking the one for the other, the sceptics argued that it could.
_Quod rerum natura non patitur_: again Lucullus confounds _essential_ with
_phenomenal_ difference, and so misses his mark; cf. n. on 50. _Nulla re
differens_: cf. the _nihil differens_ of 99, the substitution of which here
would perhaps make the sentence clearer. The words are a trans. of the
common Gk. term [Greek: aparallaktos] (Sext. _A.M._ VII. 252, etc.). _Ulla
communitas_: I am astonished to find Bait. returning to the reading of
Lamb. _nulla_ after the fine note of Madv. (_Em._ 154), approved by Halm
and other recent edd. The opinion maintained by the Stoics may be stated
thus _suo quidque genere est tale, quale est, nec est in duobus aut
pluribus nulla re differens ulla communitas_ ([Greek: oude hyparchei
epimige aparallaktos]). This opinion is negatived by _non patitur ut_ and
it will be evident at a glance that the only change required is to put the
two verbs (_est_) into the subjunctive. The change of _ulla_ into _nulla_
is in no way needed. _Ut_ [_sibi_] _sint_: _sibi_ is clearly wrong here.
Madv., in a note communicated privately to Halm and printed by the latter
on p. 854 of Bait. and Halm's ed of the philosophical works, proposed to
read _nulla re differens communitas visi? Sint et ova_ etc. omitting _ulla_
and _ut_ and changing _visi_ into _sibi_ (cf. Faber's em. _novas_ for
_bonas_ in 72). This ingenious but, as I think, improbable conj. Madv. has
just repeated in the second vol. of his _Adversaria_. Lamb. reads _at tibi
sint_, Dav. _at si vis, sint_, Christ _ut tibi sint_, Bait. _ut si sint_
after C.F.W. Muller, I should prefer _sui_ for _sibi_ (SVI for SIBI). B is
very frequently written for V in the MS