Ad Fam. XV. 21, 4, see other close parallels in n. on II. 37. Nervos ... inciderit:  same metaphor in Philipp. XII. 8, cf. also T.D. II. 27 nervos virtutis elidere, III. 83 stirpis aegritudinis elidere. (In both these passages Madv. Em.  Liv. 135 reads elegere for elidere, I cannot believe that he is right).  Plato uses [Greek:  neura ektemnein] metaphorically.  Notice inciderit but poneret.  There is no need to alter (as Manut., Lamb., Dav.) for the sequence is not uncommon in Cic., e.g. D.F. III. 33. Omnia, quae:  MSS. quaeque, which edd. used to take for quaecunque.  Cf.  Goerenz’s statement “negari omnino nequit hac vi saepius pronomen illud reperiri” with Madvig’s utter refutation in the sixth Excursus to his D.F. Solum et unum bonum:  for the Stoic ethics the student must in general consult R. and P. and Zeller for himself.  I can only treat such points as are involved in the special difficulties of the Academica.

Sec.36. Cetera:  Stoic [Greek:  adiaphora], the presence or absence of which cannot affect happiness.  The Stoics loudly protested against their being called either bona or mala, and this question was one of the great battle grounds of the later Greek philosophy. Secundum naturam ... contraria:  Gr. [Greek:  kata physin, para physin]. His ipsis ... numerabat:  I see no reason for placing this sentence after the words quae minoris below (with Christ) or for suspecting its genuineness (with Halm).  The word media is the Gk. [Greek:  mesa], which word however is not usually applied to things, but to actions. Sumenda:  Gk. [Greek:  lepta]. Aestimatione:  [Greek:  axia], positive value. Contraque contraria:  Cic. here as in D.F. III. 50 feels the need of a word to express [Greek:  apaxia] (negative value). (Madv. in his note on that passage coins the word inaestimatio.) Ponebat esse:  cf. 19, M.D.F. V. 73.

Sec.37.  To cope thoroughly with the extraordinary difficulties of this section the student must read the whole of the chapters on Stoic ethics in Zeller and Ritter and Preller.  There is no royal road to the knowledge, which it would be absurd to attempt to convey in these notes.  Assuming a general acquaintance with Stoic ethics, I set out the difficulties thus:  Cic. appears at first sight to have made the [Greek:  apoproegmena] a subdivision of the [Greek:  lepta] (sumenda), the two being utterly different.  I admit, with Madv. (D.F. III. 50), that there is no reason for suspecting the text to be corrupt, the heroic remedy of Dav., therefore, who reads media in the place of sumenda, must be rejected.  Nor can anything be said for Goerenz’s plan, who distorts the Stoic philosophy in order to save Cicero’s consistency.  On the other hand, I do not believe that Cic. could