For the force of this see my note on non probans in 148, which passage is very similar to this. Neget ... aiat:  cf. 97. Nec ut placeat:  this, the MSS. reading, gives exactly the wrong sense, for Clitomachus did allow such visa to stand as were sufficient to serve as a basis for action.  Hermann’s neu cui labours under the same defect.  Various emendations are nam cum (Lamb., accepted by Zeller 522), hic ut (Manut.), et cum (Dav. followed by Bait.), sed cum (Halm).  The most probable of these seems to me that of Manut.  I should prefer sic ut, taking ut in the sense of “although.” Respondere:  “to put in as an answer,” as in 93 and often. Approbari:  sc. putavit.  Such changes of construction are common in Cic., and I cannot follow Halm in altering the reading to approbavit.

Sec.105. Lucem eripimus:  cf. 30.

Sec.Sec.105—­111.  Summary.  You must see, Lucullus, by this time, that your defence of dogmatism is overthrown (105).  You asked how memory was possible on my principles.  Why, did not Siron remember the dogmas of Epicurus?  If nothing can be remembered which is not absolutely true, then these will be true (106).  Probability is quite sufficient basis for the arts.  One strong point of yours is that nature compels us to assent.  But Panaetius doubted even some of the Stoic dogmas, and you yourself refuse assent to the sorites, why then should not the Academic doubt about other things? (107) Your other strong point is that without assent action is impossible (108).  But surely many actions of the dogmatist proceed upon mere probability.  Nor do you gain by the use of the hackneyed argument of Antiochus (109).  Where probability is, there the Academic has all the knowledge he wants (110).  The argument of Antiochus that the Academics first admit that there are true and false visa and then contradict themselves by denying that there is any difference between true and false, is absurd.  We do not deny that the difference exists; we do deny that human faculties are capable of perceiving the difference (111).

Sec.105. Inducto ... prob.:  so Aug. Cont Ac. II. 12 Soluto, libero:  cf. n. on 8. Implicato:  = impedito cf. 101. Iacere:  cf. 79. Isdem oculis:  an answer to the question nihil cernis? in 102. Purpureum:  cf. fragm. 7 of the Acad.  Post. Modo caeruleum ... sole:  Nonius (cf. fragm. 23) quotes tum caeruleum tum lavum (the MSS. in our passage have flavum) videtur, quodque nunc a sole.  C.F.  Hermann would place mane ravum after quodque and take quod as a proper relative pronoun, not as = “because.”  This transposition certainly gives increased clearness.  Hermann further wishes to remove a, quoting exx. of collucere without the prep., which are not at all parallel, i.e. Verr. I. 58, IV. 71. Vibrat:  with the [Greek:  anerithmon gelasma] of Aeschylus. Dissimileque:  Halm, followed by Bait., om. que. Proximo et:  MSS. have ei, rightly altered by Lamb., cf. e.g. De Fato 44. Non possis ... defendere:  a similar line is taken in 81.