§1.42sed inter scientiam et inscientiam comprehensionem illam quam dixi collocabat, eamque neque in rectis neque in pravis numerabat, sed soli credendum esse dicebat.
But between knowledge and ignorance he placed that comprehension which I spoke of, and he numbered it neither among right actions nor among crooked ones, but said that credit should be given to it alone.
E quo sensibus etiam fidem tribuebat, quod ut supra dixi comprehensio facta sensibus et vera esse illi et fidelis videbatur, non quod omnia quae essent in re comprehenderet, sed quia nihil quod cadere in eam posset relinqueret, quodque natura quasi normam scientiae et principium sui dedisset unde postea notiones rerum in animis imprimerentur; e quibus non principia solum sed latiores quaedam ad rationem inveniendam viae reperiuntur.
From this he also attributed credit to the senses, because, as I said above, comprehension made by the senses seemed to him both true and faithful, not because it comprehended everything that was in the thing, but because it left behind nothing that could fall within its scope, and because nature had given as it were a norm of knowledge and a principle of itself, from which afterwards notions of things would be imprinted in minds; from which not only principles but certain broader pathways for finding reason are discovered.
errorem autem et temeritatem et ignorantiam et opinationem et suspicionem et uno nomine omnia quae essent aliena firmae et constantis assensionis a virtute sapientiaque removebat.
But error, rashness, ignorance, opinion, suspicion, and, in one word, everything that was foreign to a firm and constant assent, he removed from virtue and wisdom.
Atque in his fere commutatio constitit omnis dissensioque Zenonis a superioribus. ” §1.43Quae cum dixisset,
"Breviter sane minimeque obscure exposita est"
inquam
"a te Varro et veteris Academiae ratio et Stoicorum.
And in these things, mostly, consisted the entire change and disagreement of Zeno from his predecessors.” When he had said these things, I said, "The system of both the old Academy and the Stoics has indeed been explained by you, Varro, briefly and by no means obscurely.
horum esse autem arbitror, ut Antiocho nostro familiari placebat, correctionem veteris Academiae potius quam aliquam novam disciplinam putandam. "
Tum Varro
"Tuae sunt nunc partes"
inquit
"qui ab antiquorum ratione desciscis et ea quae ab Arcesila novata sunt probas, docere quod et qua de causa discidium factum sit, ut videamus satisne ista sit iusta defectio. " §1.44Tum ego
"Cum Zenone"
inquam “ut accepimus Arcesilas sibi omne certamen instituit, non pertinacia aut studio vincendi ut quidem mihi videtur, sed earum rerum obscuritate, quae ad confessionem ignorationis adduxerant Socratem et iam ante Socratem Democritum Anaxagoram Empedoclem omnes paene veteres, qui nihil cognosci nihil percipi nihil sciri posse dixerunt, angustos sensus imbecillos animos brevia curricula vitae et ut Democritus in profundo veritatem esse demersam, opinionibus et institutis omnia teneri, nihil veritati relinqui, deinceps omnia tenebris circumfusa esse dixerunt.
But I think that the system of the latter, as our friend Antiochus liked to think, should be considered a correction of the old Academy rather than some new discipline." Then Varro said, "It is your turn now, you who depart from the system of the ancients and approve of those things which were innovated by Arcesilas, to teach what and for what reason the split was made, so that we may see whether that defection of yours is sufficiently justified." Then I said, "As we have received, Arcesilas instituted his entire struggle against Zeno, not from obstinacy or a desire for victory, as it indeed seems to me, but because of the obscurity of those things which had led Socrates, and even before Socrates, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and almost all the ancients, to the confession of ignorance; who said that nothing could be recognized, nothing perceived, nothing known; they said that the senses were narrow, minds weak, the courses of life short, and, as Democritus said, that truth was submerged in the deep, that everything was held by opinions and institutions, nothing left to truth, and finally that all things were surrounded by darkness.
§1.45itaque Arcesilas negabat esse quicquam quod sciri posset, ne illud quidem ipsum quod Socrates sibi reliquisset, ut nihil scire se sciret; sic omnia latere censebat in occulto neque esse quicquam quod cerni aut intellegi posset; quibus de causis nihil oportere neque profiteri neque affirmare quemquam neque assensione approbare, cohibereque semper et ab omni lapsu continere temeritatem, quae tum esset insignis cum aut falsa aut incognita res approbaretur, neque hoc quicquam esse turpius quam cognitioni et perceptioni assensionem approbationemque praecurrere.
Therefore Arcesilas denied that there was anything that could be known, not even that very thing which Socrates had left for himself, namely, that he knew that he knew nothing; thus he judged that all things lay hidden in secret and that there was nothing which could be perceived or understood; for which reasons he held that no one ought to profess or affirm anything, or approve it with assent, but should always restrain rashness and hold it back from every slip, which would be especially conspicuous when either a false or an unknown thing was approved, and that nothing was baser than for assent and approval to precede cognition and perception.
huic rationi quod erat consentaneum faciebat, ut contra omnium sententias disserens de sua plerosque deduceret, ut cum in eadem re paria contrariis in partibus momenta rationum invenirentur facilius ab utraque parte assensio sustineretur.
He did what was consistent with this system, so that by arguing against the opinions of everyone he might lead most people away from their own, in order that, when equal weights of reasons were found on opposite sides in the same matter, assent might more easily be withheld from both sides.
§1.46Hanc Academiam novam appellant, quae mihi vetus videtur, si quidem Platonem ex illa vetere numeramus, cuius in libris nihil affirmatur et in utramque partem multa disseruntur, de omnibus quaeritur nihil certi dicitur—sed tamen illa quam exposuisti vetus, haec nova nominetur.
They call this the New Academy, which seems to me to be the Old, if indeed we number Plato among that Old Academy, in whose books nothing is affirmed and many things are argued on both sides, all things are inquired into and nothing is said as certain—but nevertheless let that one which you explained be named the Old, and this one the New.
quae usque ad Carneadem perducta, qui quartus ab Arcesila fuit, in eadem Arcesilae ratione permansit.
This, having been carried down as far as Carneades, who was the fourth from Arcesilas, remained in the same system of Arcesilas.
Carneades autem nullius philosophiae partis ignarus et, ut cognovi ex is qui illum audierant maximeque ex Epicureo Zenone, qui cum ab eo plurimum dissentiret unum tamen praeter ceteros mirabatur, incredibili quadam fuit facultate et to” quid autem stomachatur Mnesarchus, quid Antipater digladiatur cum Carneade tot voluminibus? *
But Carneades, ignorant of no part of philosophy and, as I learned from those who had heard him, and especially from Zeno the Epicurean—who, although he disagreed with him most, yet admired him alone above all others—was of a certain incredible ability and to ""but why is Mnesarchus angry, why does Antipater fight with Carneades in so many volumes?"