§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. 5. There is nothing distinctive about this which might enable us to determine its connection with the dialogue. Probably Zeno is the person who _serius adamavit honores_. 6. The changing aspects of the same thing are pointed to here as invalidating the evidence of the senses. 7. This passage has the same aim as the last and closely resembles _Lucullus_ 105.