constructions in which a condition is expressed without its consequence.  We have an exact parallel in English, e.g. “tu dictis Albane maneres” may fairly be translated, “hadst thou but kept to thy word, Alban!” Here the condition “if thou hadst kept, etc.” stands without the consequence “thou wouldst not have died,” or something of the kind.  Such a condition may be expressed without si, just as in Eng. without “if,” cf.  Iuv.  III. 78 and Mayor’s n.  The use of the Greek optative to express a wish (with [Greek:  ei gar], etc., and even without [Greek:  ei]) is susceptible of the same explanation.  The Latin subj. has many such points of similarity with the Gk. optative, having absorbed most of the functions of the lost Lat. optative. [Madv. on D.F. II. 35 seems to imply that he prefers the hypothesis of a suppressed protasis, but as in his Gram. 351 b, obs. 4 he attempts no elucidation, I cannot be certain.]

Sec.Sec.54—­63.  Summary.  The Academics fail to see that such doctrines do away with all probability even.  Their talk about twins and seals is childish (54).  They press into their service the old physical philosophers, though ordinarily none are so much ridiculed by them (55).  Democritus may say that innumerable worlds exist in every particular similar to ours, but I appeal to more cultivated physicists, who maintain that each thing has its own peculiar marks (55, 56).  The Servilii were distinguished from one another by their friends, and Delian breeders of fowls could tell from the appearance of an egg which hen had laid it (56, 57).  We however, do not much care whether we are able to distinguish eggs from one another or not.  Another thing that they say is absurd, viz. that there may be distinction between individual sensations, but not between classes of sensations (58).  Equally absurd are those “probable and undisturbed” sensations they profess to follow.  The doctrine that true and false sensations are indistinguishable logically leads to the unqualified [Greek:  epoche] of Arcesilas (59).  What nonsense they talk about inquiring after the truth, and about the bad influence of authority! (60).  Can you, Cicero, the panegyrist of philosophy, plunge us into more than Cimmerian darkness? (61) By holding that knowledge is impossible you weaken the force of your famous oath that you “knew all about” Catiline.  Thus ended Lucullus, amid the continued wonder of Hortensius (62, 63).  Then Catulus said that he should not be surprised if the speech of Lucullus were to induce me to change my view (63).

Sec.54. Ne hoc quidem:  the common trans. “not even” for “ne quidem” is often inappropriate.  Trans. here “they do not see this either,” cf. n. on I. 5. Habeant:  the slight alteration habeat introduced by Goer. and Orelli quite destroys the point of the sentence. Quod nolunt:  cf.