old scheme (36, 37).  Though the terms right action and sin belong only to virtue and vice, he thought there was an appropriate action (officium) and an inappropriate, which concerned things preferred and things rejected (37).  He made all virtue reside in the reason, and considered not the practice but the mere possession of virtue to be the important thing, although the possession could not but lead to the practice (38).  All emotion he regarded as unnatural and immoral (38, 39).  In physics he discarded the fifth element, and believed fire to be the universal substance, while he would not allow the existence of anything incorporeal (39).  In dialectic he analysed sensation into two parts, an impulse from without, and a succeeding judgment of the mind, in passing which the will was entirely free (40).  Sensations (visa) he divided into the true and the untrue; if the examination gone through by the mind proved irrefragably the truth of a sensation he called it Knowledge, if otherwise, Ignorance (41). Perception, thus defined, he regarded as morally neither right nor wrong but as the sole ultimate basis of truth.  Rashness in giving assent to phenomena, and all other defects in the application to them of the reason he thought could not coexist with virtue and perfect wisdom (42).

Sec.33. Haec erat illis forma:  so Madv. Em. 118 for MSS. prima, comparing formulam in 17, also D.F. IV. 19, V. 9, T.D. III. 38, to which add Ac. I. 23.  See other em. in Halm.  Goer. proposes to keep the MSS. reading and supply pars, as usual.  His power of supplying is unlimited.  There is a curious similarity between the difficulties involved in the MSS. readings in 6, 15, 32 and here. Immutationes:  so Dav. for disputationes, approved by Madv. Em. 119 who remarks that the phrase disputationes philosophiae would not be Latin.  The em. is rendered almost certain by mutavit in 40, commutatio in 42, and De Leg. I. 38.  Halm’s odd em. dissupationes, so much admired by his reviewer in Schneidewin’s Philologus, needs support, which it certainly does not receive from the one passage Halm quotes, De Or. III. 207. Et recte:  for the et cf. et merito, which begins one of Propertius’ elegies. Auctoritas:  “system”. Inquit:  sc.  Atticus of course.  Goer., on account of the omission of igitur after Aristoteles, supposes Varro’s speech to begin here.  To the objection that Varro (who in 8 says nihil enim meorum magno opere miror) would not eulogise himself quite so unblushingly, Goer. feebly replies that the eulogy is meant for Antiochus, whom Varro is copying. Aristoteles:  after this the copyist of Halm’s G. alone, and evidently on his own conjecture, inserts igitur, which H. adopts.  Varro’s resumption of his exposition