Sec.63. Quod ... fecerat, ut:  different from the constr. treated by Madv. Gram. 481 b. Quod refers simply to the fact of Lucullus’ admiration, which the clause introduced by ut defines, “which admiration he had shown ... to such an extent that, etc.” Iocansne an:  this use of ne ... an implies, Madv. says (on D.F. V. 87), more doubt than the use of ne alone as in vero falsone. Memoriter:  nearly all edd. before Madv. make this mean e memoria as opposed to de scripto; he says, “laudem habet bonae et copiosae memoriae” (on D.F. I. 34).  See Krebs and Allgayer in the Antibarbarus, ed. 4. Censuerim:  more modest than censeo, see Madv. Gram. 380. Tantum enim non te modo monuit:  edd. before Madv., seeing no way of taking modo exc. with non, ejected it.  Madv. (Em. 160) retains it, making it mean paulo ante.  On the other hand, Halm after Christ asserts that tantum non = [Greek:  monon ou] occurs nowhere else in Cic.  Bait. therefore ejects non, taking tantum as hoc tantum, nihil praeterea.  Livy certainly has the suspected use of tantum non. Tribunus:  a retort comes in 97, 144. Antiochum:  cf.  I. 13. Destitisse:  on the difference between memini followed by the pres. and by the perf. inf. consult Madv. Gram. 408 b, obs. 2.

Sec.Sec.64—­71.  Summary.  Cic. much moved thus begins.  The strength of Lucullus argument has affected me much, yet I feel that it can be answered.  First, however, I must speak something that concerns my character (64).  I protest my entire sincerity in all that I say, and would confirm it by an oath, were that proper (65).  I am a passionate inquirer after truth, and on that very account hold it disgraceful to assent to what is false.  I do not deny that I make slips, but we must deal with the sapiens, whose characteristic it is never to err in giving his assent (66).  Hear Arcesilas’ argument:  if the sapiens ever gives his assent he will be obliged to opine, but he never will opine therefore he never will give his assent.  The Stoics and Antiochus deny the first of these statements, on the ground that it is possible to distinguish between true and false (67).  Even if it be so the mere habit of assenting is full of peril.  Still, our whole argument must tend to show that perception in the Stoic sense is impossible (68).  However, a few words first with Antiochus.  When he was converted, what proof had he of the doctrine he had so long denied? (69) Some think he wished to found a school called by his own name.  It is more probable that he could no longer bear the opposition of all other schools to the Academy (70).  His conversion gave a splendid opening for an argumentum ad hominem (71).

Sec.64. Quadam oratione:  so Halm, also Bait. after the best MSS., not quandam orationem as Lamb., Orelli. De ipsa re:  cf. de causa ipsa above. Respondere posse:  for the om. of me before the infin, which has wrongly caused many edd. either to read respondere (as Dav., Bait.) or to insert me (as Lamb.), see n. on I. 7.