FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222  
223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   >>   >|  
nus_ is applied to the same course of action in _D.F._ III. 31. _Cogitatione_: "idea". _Temeritate_: cf. I. 42, _De Div._ I. 7, and the charge of [Greek: propeteia] constantly brought against the dogmatists by Sext. _Praepostere_: in a disorderly fashion, taking the wrong thing first. Sec.67. _Aliquando ... opinabitur_: this of course is only true if you grant the Academic doctrine, _nihil posse percipi_. _Secundum illud ... etiam opinari_: it seems at first sight as though _adsentiri_ and _opinari_ ought to change places in this passage, as Manut. proposes. The difficulty lies in the words _secundum illud_, which, it has been supposed, must refer back to the second premiss of Arcesilas' argument. But if the passage be translated thus, "Carneades sometimes granted _as a second premiss_ the following statement, that the wise man sometimes does opine" the difficulty vanishes. The argument of Carneades would then run thus, (1) _Si ulli rei_, etc. as above, (2) _adsentietur autem aliquando_, (3) _opinabitur igitur_. Sec.68. _Adsentiri quicquam_: only with neuter pronouns like this could _adsentiri_ be followed by an accusative case. _Sustinenda est_: [Greek: ephekteon]. _Iis quae possunt_: these words MSS. om. _Tam in praecipiti_: for the position of _in_ cf. n. on I. 25. The best MSS. have here _tamen in_. Madv. altered _tamen_ to _tam_ in n. on _D.F._ V. 26. The two words are often confused, as in _T.D._ IV. 7, cf. also n. on I. 16. _Sin autem_, etc.: cf. the passage of Lactantius _De Falsa Sapientia_ III. 3, qu. by P. Valentia (p. 278 of Orelli's reprint) _si neque sciri quicquam potest, ut Socrates docuit, neque opinari, oportet, ut Zeno, tota philosophia sublata est_. _Nitamur ... percipi_: "let us struggle to prove the proposition, etc." The construction is, I believe, unexampled so that I suspect _hoc_, or some such word, to have fallen out between _igitur_ and _nihil_. Sec.69. _Non acrius_: one of the early editions omits _non_ while Goer. reads _acutius_ and puts a note of interrogation at _defensitaverat_. M. _Em._ 161 points out the absurdity of making Cic. say that the old arguments of Antiochus in favour of Academicism were weaker than his new arguments against it. _Quis enim_: so Lamb. for MSS. _quisquam enim_. _Excogitavit_: on interrogations not introduced by a particle of any kind see Madv. _Gram._ 450. _Eadem dicit_: on the subject in hand, of course. Taken without this limitation the proposition is not
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222  
223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

passage

 

opinari

 

adsentiri

 

percipi

 

arguments

 

Carneades

 
argument
 
premiss
 

igitur

 

quicquam


proposition

 

difficulty

 

opinabitur

 

Sapientia

 

suspect

 

Lactantius

 

construction

 

unexampled

 

struggle

 
Orelli

Socrates

 

potest

 

reprint

 

docuit

 

oportet

 

Nitamur

 

sublata

 

philosophia

 
Valentia
 

quisquam


Excogitavit

 

interrogations

 

Academicism

 

favour

 

weaker

 
introduced
 

particle

 

subject

 

limitation

 

Antiochus


editions

 
fallen
 

acrius

 

acutius

 

absurdity

 

points

 
making
 

confused

 

interrogation

 
defensitaverat