[§45]. Ne illud quidem: cf. [16]. Latere censebat Goer. omitted censebat though in most MSS. Orelli and Klotz followed as usual. For the sense II. [122]. Cohibereque: Gk. επεχειν, which we shall have to explain in the Lucullus. Temeritatem ... turpius: for these expressions, see II. [66], note. Praecurrere: as was the case with the dogmatists. Paria momenta: this is undiluted scepticism, and excludes even the possibility of the probabile which Carneades put forward. For the doctrine cf. II. [124], for the expression Euseb. Praep. Evan. XIV. c. 4 (from Numenius) of Arcesilas, ειναι γαρ παντα ακαταληπτα και τους εις εκατερα λογους ισοκρατεις αλληλοις, Sextus Adv. Math. IX. 207 ισοσθενεις λογοι; in the latter writer the word ισοσθενεια very frequently occurs in the same sense, e g Pyrrhon. Hyp. I. 8 (add N.D. I. 10, rationis momenta)
[§46]. Platonem: to his works both dogmatists and sceptics appealed, Sextus Pyrrhon. Hyp. I. 221 τον Πλατωνα οιν ‛οι μεν δογματικον εφασαν ειναι, ‛οι δε απο ητικον, ‛οι δε κατα μεν τι απορητικον, κατα δε τι δογματικον. Stobaeus II. 6, 4 neatly slips out of the difficulty; Πλατων πολυφωνος ων, ουχ ‛ως τινες οιονται πολυδοξος. Exposuisti: Durand's necessary em., approved by Krische, Halm, etc. for MSS. exposui. Zenone: see Introd. p. [5].
NOTES ON THE FRAGMENTS.
BOOK I.
[1]. Mnesarchus: see II. [69], De Or. I. 45, and Dict. Biogr. 'Antipater'; cf. II. [143], De Off. III. 50. Evidently this fragment belongs to that historical justification of the New Academy with which I suppose Cicero to have concluded the first book.
[2]. The word concinere occurs D.F. IV. 60, N.D. I. 16, in both which places it is used of the Stoics, who are said re concinere, verbis discrepare with the other schools. This opinion of Antiochus Cic. had already mentioned [43], and probably repeated in this fragment. Krische remarks that Augustine, Cont. Acad. II. 14, 15, seems to have imitated that part of Cicero's exposition to which this fragment belongs. If so Cic. must have condemned the unwarrantable verbal innovations of Zeno in order to excuse the extreme scepticism of Arcesilas (Krische, p. 58).
BOOK II.
[3]. This fragm. clearly forms part of those anticipatory sceptical arguments which Cic. in the first edition had included in his answer to Hortensius, see Introd. p. [55]. The argument probably ran thus: What seems so level as the sea? Yet it is easy to prove that it is really not level.
[4]. On this I have nothing to remark.