§104. _Exposuisset adiungit_: Madv. on _D.F._ III. 67 notices a certain looseness in the use of tenses, which Cic. displays in narrating the opinions of philosophers, but no ex. so strong as this is produced. _Ut aut approbet quid aut improbet_: this Halm rejects. I have noticed among recent editors of Cic. a strong tendency to reject explanatory clauses introduced by _ut_. Halm brackets a similar clause in 20, and is followed in both instances by Bait. Kayser, who is perhaps the most extensive _bracketer_ of modern times, rejects very many clauses of the kind in the Oratorical works. In our passage, the difficulty vanishes when we reflect that _approbare_ and _improbare_ may mean either to render an _absolute_ approval or disapproval, or to render an approval or disapproval merely based on _probability_. For example, in 29 the words have the first meaning, in 66 the second. The same is the case with _nego_ and _aio_. I trace the whole difficulty of the passage to the absence of terms to express distinctly the difference between the two kinds of assent. The general sense will be as follows. "There are two kinds of εποχη, one which prevents a man from expressing any assent or disagreement (in either of the two senses above noticed), another which does not prevent him from giving an answer to questions, provided his answer be not taken to imply absolute approval or absolute disapproval; the result of which will be that he will neither absolutely deny nor absolutely affirm anything, but will merely give a qualified 'yes' or 'no,' dependent on probability." My defence of the clause impugned is substantially the same as that of Hermann in the _Philologus_ (vol. VII.), which I had not read when this note was first written. _Alterum placere ... alterum tenere_: "the one is his formal dogma, the other is his actual practice." For the force of this see my note on _non probans_ in 148, which passage is very similar to this. _Neget ... aiat_: cf. 97. _Nec ut placeat_: this, the MSS. reading, gives exactly the wrong sense, for Clitomachus _did_ allow such _visa_ to stand as were sufficient to serve as a basis for action. Hermann's _neu cui_ labours under the same defect. Various emendations are _nam cum_ (Lamb., accepted by Zeller 522), _hic ut_ (Manut.), _et cum_ (Dav. followed by Bait.), _sed cum_ (Halm). The most probable of these seems to me that of Manut. I should prefer _sic ut_, taking _ut_ in the sense of "although." _Respondere_: "to put in as an answer," as in 93 and often. _Approbari_: sc. _putavit_. Such changes of construction are common in Cic., and I cannot follow Halm in altering the reading to _approbavit_. §105. _Lucem eripimus_: cf. 30.