ut see D.F. V. 10, Madv. Gram. 480, obs. 2.  Bait. brackets the second ut with Lamb. Carneades ... defensitabat:  this is quite a different view from that in 131; yet another of Carneades is given in T.D. V. 83. Istum finem:  MSS. ipsum; the two words are often confused, as in I. 2. Ipsa veritas:  MSS. severitas, a frequent error; cf. In Verr.  Act. I. 3, III. 162, De Leg. I. 4, also Madv. on D.F. IV. 55. Obversetur:  Halm takes the conj. of Lamb., adversetur.  The MSS. reading gives excellent sense; cf. T.D. II. 52 obversentur honestae species viro.  Bait. follows Halm. Tu ... copulabis:  this is the feigned expostulation of veritas (cf. 34 convicio veritatis), for which style see 125.

Sec.140. Voluptas cum honestate:  this whole expression is in apposition to par, so that cum must not be taken closely with depugnet; cf.  Hor. Sat. I. 7, 19 Rupili et Persi par pugnat uti non compositum melius (sc. par) cum Bitho Bacchius. Si sequare, ruunt:  for constr. cf.  I. 7. Communitas:  for Stoic philanthropy see Zeller 297. Nulla potest nisi erit:  Madv. D.F. III. 70 “in hac coniunctione—­hoc fieri non potest nisi—­fere semper coniunctivus subicitur praesentis—­futuri et perfecti indicativus ponitur.” Gratuita:  “disinterested.” Ne intellegi quidem:  n. on I. 7, cf. also T.D. V. 73, 119. Gloriosum in vulgus:  cf. D.F. II. 44 populus cum illis facit (i.e. Epicureis). Normam ... regulam:  n. on Ac.  Post. fragm. 8. Praescriptionem:  I. 23, n.

Sec.141. Adquiescis:  MSS. are confused here, Halm reads adsciscis, comparing 138.  Add D.F. I. 23 (sciscat et probet), III. 17 (adsciscendas esse), III. 70 (adscisci et probari) Bait. follows Halm. Ratum ... fixum:  cf. 27 and n. on Ac.  Post. fragm. 17. Falso:  like incognito in 133. Nullo discrimine:  for this see the explanation of nihil interesse in 40, n. Iudicia:  [Greek:  kriteria] as usual.

Sec.Sec.142—­146.  Summary.  To pass to Dialectic, note how Protagoras, the Cyrenaics, Epicurus, and Plato disagree (142).  Does Antiochus follow any of these?  Why, he never even follows the vetus Academia, and never stirs a step from Chrysippus.  Dialecticians themselves cannot agree about the very elements of their art (143).  Why then, Lucullus, do you rouse the mob against me like a seditious tribune by telling them I do away with the arts altogether?  When you have got the crowd together, I will point out to them that according to Zeno all of them are slaves, exiles, and lunatics, and that you yourself, not being sapiens, know nothing whatever (144).  This last point Zeno used to illustrate by action