§9. _Ut potuerint, potuerunt_: thus Lamb. corrected the MSS. reading which was simply _ut potuerunt_, "granting that they had the ability, they gained it by hearing all things, now as a matter of fact they _did_ decide on a single hearing," etc. _Iudicaverunt autem_: so Lamb. for MSS. _aut_. Muretus, by what Dav. calls an "_arguta hariolatio_," read _an_ for _aut_ and put a note of interrogation at _contulerunt_. C.F. Hermann (Schneidewin's _Philologus_ VII. 466) introduces by conj. a sad confusion into the text, but no other good critic since Madvig's remarks in _Em._ 125 has impugned Lambinus' reading. Goerenz indeed, followed by the faithful Schutz, kept the MSS. reading with the insertion of _aut_ between _sed_ and _ut_ at the beginning; of this Madv. says "_non solum Latina non est, sed sanae menti repugnat_." For the proceeding which Cic. deprecates, cf. _N.D._ I. 10, _De Leg._ I. 36. _Quam adamaverunt_: "which they have learned to love;" the _ad_ has the same force as προ in προμανθανειν, which means "to learn _on and on_, to learn by degrees" (cf. προυμαθον στεργειν κακοις), not, as the lexica absurdly say, "to learn beforehand, i.e. to learn thoroughly." _Constantissime_: "most consistently". _Quae est ad Baulos_: cf. Introd. p. 57. _In spatio_: this _xystus_ was a colonnade with one side open to the sea, called ξυστος from its polished floor and pillars. _Consedimus_: n. on I. 14. §10. _Servatam oportuit_: a construction very characteristic of Terence, found, but rarely, in Cic. and Livy. _In promptu ... reconditiora_: cf. _in promptu ... interiora_ in _De Div._ II. 124, also _Ac._ I. 4. _Quae dico_: Goer. is exceedingly troubled by the pres. tense and wishes to read _dixero_. But the substitution of the pres. for the future is common enough in all languages cf. Iuv. IV. 130 with Mayor's copious note. _Si non fuerint_: so all Halm's best MSS. Two, however, of Davies' have _si vera_ etc. In support of the text, see I. 9 (_sunt ista_) and note. _Labefactata_: this is only found as an alteration in the best MSS. and in _Ed. Rom._ (1471); the others have _labefacta_. Orelli's statement (note to his separate text of the _Academica_ 1827) that Cic. commonly uses the perfect _labefeci_ and the part, _labefactus_ is quite wrong. The former is indeed the vulg. reading in _Pro Sestio_ 101, the latter in _De Haruspicum Responsis_ 60, but the last of these two passages is doubtful. Cic. as a rule prefers long forms like _sustentatus_, which occurs with _labefactatus_ in _Cat. Mai._ 20. For the perfect _labefactavit_ cf. I. 33. _Agam igitur_: Cic. rather overdoes the attempt to force on his readers a belief in the learning of Lucullus.