is used for the whole science of etymology, and not for particular derivations, while Cic. in numerous passages (e.g. D.F. V. 74) describes verba or nomina as rerum notae.  Berkley’s nodis for notis has no support, (enodatio nominum in N.D. III. 62 is quite different).  One more remark, and I conclude this wearisome note.  The quasi marks rerum nota as an unfamiliar trans. of [Greek:  symbolon].  Davies therefore ought not to have placed it before ducibus, which word, strong as the metaphor is, requires no qualification, see a good instance in T.D. I. 27. Itaque tradebatur:  so Halm improves on Madvig’s ita for in qua of the MSS., which cannot be defended.  Orelli’s reference to 30 pars for an antecedent to qua (in ea parte in qua) is violent, while Goerenz’s resort to partem rerum opinabilem is simply silly.  Manut. conj. in quo, Cic. does often use the neut. pronoun, as in Orator 3, but not quite thus.  I have sometimes thought that Cic. wrote haec, inquam (cf. huic below). Dialecticae:  as [Greek:  logike] had not been Latinised, Cic. is obliged to use this word to denote [Greek:  logike], of which [Greek:  dialektike] is really one subdivision with the Stoics and Antiochus, [Greek:  rhetorike] which is mentioned in the next sentence being the other; see Zeller 69, 70. Orationis ratione conclusae:  speech drawn up in a syllogistic form which becomes oratio perpetua under the influence of [Greek:  rhetorike]. Quasi ex altera parte:  a trans. of Aristotle’s [Greek:  antistrophos] in the beginning of the Rhetoric. Oratoria:  Halm brackets this word; cf. however a close parallel in Brut. 261 oratorio ornamenta dicendi.  The construction is simply a variation of Cic.’s favourite double genitive (T.D. III. 39), oratoria being put for oratoris. Ad persuadendum:  [Greek:  to pithanon] is with Arist. and all ancient authorities the one aim of [Greek:  rhetorike].

Sec.Sec.33—­42.  Part v. of Varro’s exposition:  the departures from the old Academico-Peripatetic school.  Summary.  Arist. crushed the [Greek:  ideai] of Plato, Theophrastus weakened the power of virtue (33).  Strato abandoned ethics for physics, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemo, Crates, Crantor faithfully kept the old tradition, to which Zeno and Arcesilas, pupils of Polemo, were both disloyal (34).  Zeno maintained that nothing but virtue could influence happiness, and would allow the name good to nothing else (35).  All other things he divided into three classes, some were in accordance with nature, some at discord with nature, and some were neutral.  To the first class he assigned a positive value, and called them preferred to the second a negative value and called them rejected, to the third no value whatever—­mere verbal alterations on the