all else in philosophy.  Cf. esp. M.D.F. IV. 3. Quid verum ... repugnans iudicando:  MSS. exc.  G have et before quid falsum, whence Klotz conj. sit in order to obviate the awkwardness of repugnet which MSS. have for repugnans.  Krische wishes to read consequens for consentiens, comparing Orator 115, T.D. V. 68, De Div. II. 150, to which add T.D. V. 21 On the other hand cf.  II. 22, 91.  Notice the double translations of the Greek terms, de vita et moribus for [Greek:  ethike], etc.  This is very characteristic of Cic., as we shall see later. Ac primum:  many MSS. and edd. primam, cf. 23, 30. A natura petebant:  how Antiochus could have found this in Plato and Aristotle is difficult to see; that he did so, however, is indubitable; see D.F. V. 24—­27, which should be closely compared with our passage, and Varro in Aug.  XIX. 3.  The root of Plato’s system is the [Greek:  idea] of the Good, while so far is Aristotle from founding his system on the abstract [Greek:  physis], that he scarcely appeals even incidentally to [Greek:  physis] in his ethical works.  The abstract conception of nature in relation to ethics is first strongly apparent in Polemo, from whom it passed into Stoic hands and then into those of Antiochus. Adeptum esse omnia:  put rather differently in D.F. V. 24, 26, cf. also D.F. II. 33, 34, Ac. II. 131. Et animo et corpore et vita:  this is the [Greek:  trias] or [Greek:  trilogia ton agathon], which belongs in this form to late Peripateticism (cf. M.D.F. III. 43), the third division is a development from the [Greek:  bios teleios] of Aristotle.  The [Greek:  trias] in this distinct shape is foreign both to Plato and Arist, though Stobaeus, Ethica II. 6, 4, tries hard to point it out in Plato; Varro seems to merge the two last divisions into one in Aug. De Civ.  Dei XIX 3.  This agrees better with D.F. V. 34—­36, cf. also Aug.  VIII. 8.  On the Antiochean finis see more in note on 22. Corporis alia:  for ellipse of bona, see n. on 13. Ponebant esse:  n. on 36. In toto in partibus:  the same distinction is in Stob. Eth. II. 6, 7; cf. also D.F. V. 35. Pulchritudinem:  Cic. Orator 160, puts the spelling pulcher beyond a doubt; it often appears in inscr. of the Republic.  On the other hand only pulcrai, pulcrum, etc., occur in inscr., exc. pulchre, which is found once (Corp.  Inscr. I. no 1019). Sepulchrum, however, is frequent at an early time.  On the tendency to aspirate even native Latin words see Boscher in Curtius’ Studien II. 1, p. 145.  In the case of pulcher the false derivation from [Greek:  polychroos] may have aided the corruption.  Similarly in modern times J.C.  Scaliger derived it from [Greek:  poly cheir] (Curtius’ Grundz ed. 3, p.