Sec.98. Sequor:  as in 95, 96, where the Dialectici refused to allow the consequences of their own principles, according to Cic. Ludere:  this reminds one of the famous controversy between Corax and Tisias, for which see Cope in the old Journal of Philology.  No. 7. Iudicem ... non iudicem:  this construction, which in Greek would be marked by [Greek:  men] and [Greek:  de], has been a great crux of edd.; Dav. here wished to insert cum before iudicem, but is conclusively refuted by Madv. Em. 31.  The same construction occurs in 103. Esse conexum:  with great probability Christ supposes the infinitive to be an addition of the copyists.

Sec.Sec.98—­105.  Summary.  In order to overthrow at once the case of Antiochus, I proceed to explain, after Clitomachus, the whole of Carneades’ system (98).  Carneades laid down two divisions of visa, one into those capable of being perceived and those not so capable, the other into probable and improbable.  Arguments aimed at the senses concern the first division only; the sapiens will follow probability, as in many instances the Stoic sapiens confessedly does (99, 100).  Our sapiens is not made of stone; many things seem to him true; yet he always feels that there is a possibility of their being false.  The Stoics themselves admit that the senses are often deceived.  Put this admission together with the tenet of Epicurus, and perception becomes impossible (101).  It is strange that our Probables do not seem sufficient to you.  Hear the account given by Clitomachus (102).  He condemns those who say that sensation is swept away by the Academy; nothing is swept away but its necessary certainty (103).  There are two modes of withholding assent; withholding it absolutely and withholding it merely so far as to deny the certainty of phenomena.  The latter mode leaves all that is required for ordinary life (104).

Sec.98. Tortuosum:  similar expressions are in T.D. II. 42, III. 22, D.F. IV. 7. Ut Poenus:  “as might be expected from a Carthaginian;” cf. D.F. IV. 56, tuus ille Poenulus, homo acutus.  A different meaning is given by the ut in passages like De Div. II. 30 Democritus non inscite nugatur, ut physicus, quo genere nihil arrogantius; “for a physical philosopher.”

Sec.99. Genera:  here = classifications of, modes of dividing visa.  This way of taking the passage will defend Cic. against the strong censure of Madv. (Pref. to D.F. p. lxiii.) who holds him convicted of ignorance, for representing Carneades as dividing visa into those which can be perceived and those which cannot.  Is it possible that any one should read the Academica up to this point, and still believe that Cic. is capable of supposing, even for a moment, that Carneades in any way upheld [Greek:  katalepsis]? Dicantur: