so utterly misunderstand one of the cardinal and best known doctrines of Stoicism, as to think even for a moment that the [Greek:  apoproegmena] formed a branch of the [Greek:  lepta].  This view of Madvig’s is strongly opposed to the fact that Cic. in 36 had explained with perfect correctness the Stoic theory of the [Greek:  adiaphora], nor is there anywhere in the numerous passages where he touches on the theory any trace of the same error.  My explanation is that Cic. began with the intention to speak of the sumenda only and then rapidly extended his thought so as to embrace the whole class of [Greek:  adiaphora], which he accordingly dealt with in the latter part of the same sentence and in the succeeding sentence. (The remainder has its own difficulties, which I defer for the present.) Cic. therefore is chargeable not with ignorance of Stoicism but with careless writing.  A striking parallel occurs in D.F. III. 52, quae secundum locum obtinent, [Greek:  proegmena] id est producta nominentur, quae vel ita appellemus, vel promota et remota.  If this language be closely pressed, the [Greek:  apoproegmena] are made of a subdivision of the [Greek:  proegmena], though no sensible reader would suppose Cic. to have had that intention.  So if his words in D.F. V. 90 be pressed, the sumenda are made to include both producta and reducta, in D.F. III. 16 appeterent includes fugerent, ibid. II. 86 the opposite of beata vita is abruptly introduced.  So D.F. II. 88 frui dolore must be construed together, and ibid. II. 73 pudor modestia pudicitia are said coerceri, the writer’s thoughts having drifted on rapidly to the vices which are opposite to these virtues.

I now pass on to a second class of difficulties.  Supposing that by ex iis Cic. means mediis, and not sumendis, about which he had intended to talk when he began the sentence; I believe that pluris aestimanda and minoris aestimanda simply indicate the [Greek:  axia] and [Greek:  apaxia] of the Greek, not different degrees of [Greek:  axia] (positive value).  That minor aestimatio should mean [Greek:  apaxia] need not surprise us when we reflect (1) on the excessive difficulty there was in expressing this [Greek:  apaxia] or negative value in Latin, a difficulty I have already observed on 36; (2) on the strong negative meaning which minor bears in Latin, e.g. sin minus in Cic. means “but if not.”  Even the Greeks fall victims to the task of expressing [Greek:  apaxia].  Stobaeus, in a passage closely resembling ours makes [Greek:  elatton axia] equivalent to [Greek:  polle apaxia] (II. 6, 6), while Sext.  Emp. after rightly defining [Greek:  apoproegmena] as [Greek:  ta hikanen apaxian echonta] (Adv.  Math. XI. 62—­64) again speaks of them as [Greek:  ta me hikanen echonta axian] (Pyrrhon.  Hypot. III. 191)