the world was formed.”  For the in cf. N.D. II. 35, in omni natura necesse est absolvi aliquid, also a similar use ib. II. 80, and Ac. II. 42.  If in utroque be read above, in omni natura will form an exact contrast, substance as a whole being opposed to the individual quale. Cohaerente et continuata:  the Stoics made the universe much more of a unity than any other school, the expressions here and the striking parallels in N.D. II. 19, 84, 119, De Div. II. 33, De Leg. fragm. 1. (at the end of Bait. and Halm’s ed.) all come ultimately from Stoic sources, even if they be got at second hand through Antiochus.  Cf.  Zeller 137, Stob.  I. 22, 3.  The partes mundi are spoken of in most of the passages just quoted, also in N.D. II. 22, 28, 30, 32, 75, 86, 115, 116, all from Stoic sources. Effectum esse mundum:  Halm adds unum from his favourite MS. (G). Natura sentiente:  a clumsy trans. of [Greek:  aisthete ousia] = substance which can affect the senses.  The same expression is in N.D. II. 75.  It should not be forgotten, however, that to the Stoics the universe was itself sentient, cf. N.D. II. 22, 47, 87. Teneantur:  for contineantur; cf. N.D. II. 29 with II. 31 In qua ratio perfecta insit:  this is thorough going Stoicism.  Reason, God, Matter, Universe, are interchangeable terms with the Stoics.  See Zeller 145—­150 By an inevitable inconsistency, while believing that Reason is the Universe, they sometimes speak of it as being in the Universe, as here (cf.  Diog.  Laert.  VII. 138, N.D. II. 34) In a curious passage (N.D. I. 33), Cic. charges Aristotle with the same inconsistency.  For the Pantheistic idea cf.  Pope “lives through all life, extends through all extent”. Sempiterna:  Aristotle held this:  see II. 119 and N.D. II. 118, Stob.  I. 21, 6.  The Stoics while believing that our world would be destroyed by fire (Diog.  Laert.  VII. 141, R. and P. 378, Stob.  I. 20, 1) regarded the destruction as merely an absorption into the Universal World God, who will recreate the world out of himself, since he is beyond the reach of harm (Diog.  Laert.  VII. 147, R. and P. 386, Zeller 159) Some Stoics however denied the [Greek:  ekpyrosis]. Nihil enim valentius:  this is an argument often urged, as in N.D. II. 31 (quid potest esse mundo valentius?), Boethus quoted in Zeller 159. A quo intereat:  interire here replaces the passive of perdere cf. [Greek:  anastenai, ekpiptein hypo tinos].