similar, it is enough that human faculties cannot distinguish between them.  How about the impressions of signet rings? (85) Can you find a ring merchant to rival your chicken rearer of Delos?  But, you say, art aids the senses.  So we cannot see or hear without art, which so few can have!  What an idea this gives us of the art with which nature has constructed the senses! (86) But about physics I will speak afterwards.  I am going now to advance against the senses arguments drawn from Chrysippus himself (87).  You said that the sensations of dreamers, drunkards and madmen were feebler than those of the waking, the sober and the sane.  The cases of Ennius and his Alcmaeon, of your own relative Tuditanus, of the Hercules of Euripides disprove your point (88, 89).  In their case at least ’mind and eyes agreed.  It is no good to talk about the saner moments of such people; the question is, what was the nature of their sensations at the time they were affected? (90)

Sec.79. Communi loco:  [Greek:  topo], that of blinking facts which cannot be disproved, see 19. Quod ne [id]:  I have bracketed id with most edd. since Manut.  If, however, quod be taken as the conjunction, and not as the pronoun, id is not altogether insupportable. Heri:  cf.  Introd. 55. Infracto remo:  n. on 19.  Tennyson seems to allude to this in his “Higher Pantheism”—­“all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool”. Manent illa omnia, iacet:  this is my correction of the reading of most MSS. maneant ... lacerat.  Madv. Em. 176 in combating the conj. of Goer. si maneant ... laceratis istam causam, approves maneant ... iaceat, a reading with some MSS. support, adopted by Orelli.  I think the whole confusion of the passage arises from the mania of the copyists for turning indicatives into subjunctives, of which in critical editions of Cic. exx. occur every few pages.  If iacet were by error turned into iaceret the reading lacerat would arise at once.  The nom. to dicit is, I may observe, not Epicurus, as Orelli takes it, but Lucullus.  Trans. “all my arguments remain untouched; your case is overthrown, yet his senses are true quotha!” (For this use of dicit cf. inquit in 101, 109, 115).  Hermann approves the odd reading of the ed.  Cratandriana of 1528 latrat.  Dav. conjectured comically blaterat iste tamen et, Halm lacera est ista causa. Habes:  as two good MSS. have habes et eum, Madv. Em. 176 conj. habet.  The change of person, however, (from dicit to habes) occurs also in 101. Epicurus:  n. on 19.