academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The Project Gutenberg eBook <strong>of</strong> ...<br />
appellabat: Cic. was the great advocate for the Latinisation <strong>of</strong> Greek terms (D.F. III. 15). Sed<br />
tamen: this <strong>of</strong>ten resumes the interrupted narrative, see Madv. Gram. 480. Ipsa evidentia: note<br />
that the verb evidere is not Latin.<br />
§18. Sustinere: cf. 70. Pertinaciam: the exact meaning <strong>of</strong> this may be seen from D.F. II. 107, III.<br />
1. It denotes the character which cannot recognise a defeat in argument and refuses to see the<br />
force <strong>of</strong> an opponent's reasoning. For the application <strong>of</strong> the term to the Academics, cf. n. on 14,<br />
66, also I. 44 and D.F. V. 94, N.D. I. 13, in the last <strong>of</strong> which passages the Academy is called<br />
procax. Mentitur: cf. 12. Ita negaret: this ita corresponds to si below,—a common sequence <strong>of</strong><br />
particles in Cic., cf. 19. ??ata??pt??: the conj. <strong>of</strong> Turnebus ?ata??pt?? is unnecessary, on<br />
account <strong>of</strong> the negative contained in negaret. Visum: cf. I. 40. Trivimus: cf. I. 27. Visum igitur:<br />
the Greek <strong>of</strong> this definition will be found in Zeller 86. The words impressum effictumque are<br />
equivalent to e?apesf?a??sµe?? ?a? e?ap?µeµa?µe?? in the Gk. It must not be forgotten that<br />
the Stoics held a sensation to be a real alteration (?ete????s??) <strong>of</strong> the material substance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
soul through the action <strong>of</strong> some external thing, which impresses its image on the soul as a seal<br />
does on wax, cf. Zeller 76 and 77 with footnotes. Ex eo unde esset ... unde non esset: this<br />
translation corresponds closely to the definition given by Sextus in four out <strong>of</strong> the six passages<br />
referred to by Zeller (in Adv. Math. VIII. 86 Pyrrh. Hypotyp. III. 242, the definition is clipt), and in<br />
Diog. Laert. VII. 50 (in 46 he gives a clipt form like that <strong>of</strong> Sextus in the two passages just<br />
referred to). It is worth remarking (as Petrus Valentia did, p. 290 <strong>of</strong> Orelli's reprint <strong>of</strong> his<br />
Academica) that Cic. omits to represent the words ?at' a?t? t? ??pa????. Sextus Adv. Math. VII.<br />
249 considers them essential to the definition and instances Orestes who looking at Electra,<br />
mistook her for an Erinys. The fa?tas?a therefore which he had although ap? ??pa????t??<br />
(proceeding from an actually existent thing) was not ?ata t? ??pa????, i.e. did not truly represent<br />
that existent thing. Aug. Cont. Acad. II. 11 quotes Cicero's definition and condenses it thus; his<br />
signis verum posse comprehendi quae signa non potest habere quod falsum est. Iudicium: ???t??<br />
???, a test to distinguish between the unknown and the known. Eo, quo minime volt: several<br />
things are clear, (1) that Philo headed a reaction towards dogmatism, (2) that he based the<br />
possibility <strong>of</strong> knowledge on a ground quite different from the ?ata??pt??? fa?tas?a, which he<br />
pronounced impossible, (3) that he distorted the views <strong>of</strong> Carneades to suit his own. As to (1) all<br />
ancient testimony is clear, cf. 11, Sextus Pyrr. Hyp. I. 235, who tells us that while the<br />
Carneadeans believed all things to be a?ata??pta, Philo held them to be ?ata??pta, and Numenius<br />
in Euseb. Praep. Ev. XIV. 8, p. 739, who treats him throughout his notice as a renegade. (2) is<br />
evident from the Academica and from Sextus as quoted above. The foundation for knowledge<br />
which he substituted is more difficult to comprehend. Sextus indeed tells us that he held things to<br />
be in their own nature ?ata??pta (??s?? de ep? t? f?se? t?? p?a?µat?? a?t?? ?ata?.). But<br />
Arcesilas and Carneades would not have attempted to disprove this; they never tried to show that<br />
things in themselves were incognisable, but that human faculties do not avail to give information<br />
about them. Unless therefore Philo deluded himself with words, there was nothing new to him<br />
about such a doctrine. The Stoics by their ?ata??pt??? fa?tas?a pr<strong>of</strong>essed to be able to get at the<br />
thing in itself, in its real being, if then Philo did away with the ?ata?. fa?t. and substituted no<br />
other mode <strong>of</strong> curing the defects alleged by Arcesilas and Carneades to reside in sense, he was<br />
fairly open to the retort <strong>of</strong> Antiochus given in the text. Numenius treats his polemic against the ?<br />
ata?. fa?t. as a mere feint intended to cover his retreat towards dogmatism. A glimpse <strong>of</strong> his<br />
position is afforded in 112 <strong>of</strong> this book, where we may suppose Cic. to be expressing the views<br />
<strong>of</strong> Philo, and not those <strong>of</strong> Clitomachus as he usually does. It would seem from that passage that<br />
he defined the cognisable to be "quod impressum esset e vero" (fa?tas?a ap? ??pa????t?? e?ap?<br />
µeµa?µe??), refusing to add "quo modo imprimi non posset a falso (???a ??? a? ?e???t? ap? µ?<br />
??pa????t??), cf. my n. on the passage. Thus defined, he most likely tried to show that the<br />
cognisable was equivalent to the d???? or p??a??? <strong>of</strong> Carneades, hence he eagerly pressed the<br />
doubtful statement <strong>of</strong> the latter that the wise man would "opine," that is, would pronounce<br />
definite judgments on phenomena. (See 78 <strong>of</strong> this book.) The scarcity <strong>of</strong> references to Philo in<br />
ancient authorities does not allow <strong>of</strong> a more exact view <strong>of</strong> his doctrine. Modern inquiry has been<br />
able to add little or nothing to the elucidation given in 1596 by Petrus Valentia in his book<br />
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM]