cf. 68 and 94. Ita scribenti ... exanclatum:  for the om. of esse cf. 77, 113 with notes. Herculi:  for this form of the gen. cf.  Madv. on D.F. I. 14, who doubts whether Cic. ever wrote _-is_ in the gen. of the Greek names in _-es_.  When we consider how difficult it was for copyists not to change the rarer form into the commoner, also that even Priscian (see M.D.F. V. 12) made gross blunders about them, the supposition of Madv. becomes almost irresistible. Temeritatem:  [Greek:  propeteian, eikaioteta].

Sec.109. In navigando:  cf. 100. In conserendo:  Guretus interprets “[Greek:  en to phytyesthai ton agron],” and is followed by most commentators, though it seems at least possible that manum is to be understood.  For the suppressed accus. agrum cf. n. on tollendum in 148. Sequere:  the fut. not the pres. ind., cf. 61. Pressius:  cf. 28. Reprehensum:  sc. narrasti. Id ipsum:  = nihil posse comprehendi. Saltem:  so in 29. Pingue:  cf. Pro Archia 10. Sibi ipsum:  note that Cic. does not generally make ipse agree in case with the reflexive, but writes se ipse, etc. Convenienter:  “consistently”. Esse possit:  Bait. posset on the suggestion of Halm, but Cic. states the doctrine as a living one, not throwing it back to Antiochus time and to this particular speech of Ant. Ut hoc ipsum:  the ut follows on illo modo urguendum above. Decretum quod:  Halm followed by Bait. gives quo, referring to altero quo neget in 111, which however does not justify the reading.  The best MSS. have qui. Et sine decretis:  Lamb. gave nec for et, but Dav. correctly explains, “multa decreta habent Academici, non tamen percepta sed tantum probabilia.”

Sec.110. Ut illa:  i.e. the decreta implied in the last sentence.  Some MSS. have ille, while Dav. without necessity gives alia. Sic hoc ipsum:  Sext. then is wrong is saying (P.H. I. 226) that the Academics [Greek:  diabebaiountai ta pragmata einai akatalepta], i.e. state the doctrine dogmatically, while the sceptics do not. Cognitionis notam:  like nota percipiendi, veri et falsi, etc. which we have already had. Ne confundere omnia:  a mocking repetition of Lucullus phrase, cf. 58. Incerta reddere:  cf. 54. Stellarum numerus:  another echo of Lucullus; see 32. Quem ad modum ... item:  see Madv. on D.F. III. 48, who quotes an exact parallel from Topica 46, and sicut ... item from N.D. I. 3, noting at the same time that in such exx. neither ita nor idem, which MSS. sometimes give for item, is correct.