parallel instance, however, was adduced (T.D. III. 14) and the usage probably is not Latin. Adducere?:  The note of interrogation is Halm’s; thus the whole sentence, so far, explains the difficulty of setting forth the true system of physics.  If quoniam is read and no break made at adducere, all after quoniam will refer to ethics, in that case there will be a strange change of subject in passing from quisquam to haec ipsa, both which expressions will be nominatives to poterit, further, there will be the almost impossible ellipse of ars, scientia, or something of the kind after haec ipsa.  On every ground the reading of Madv. is insupportable. Quid, haec ipsa:  I have added quid to fill up the lacuna left by Halm, who supposes much more to have fallen out. [The technical philosophical terms contained in this section will be elucidated later.  For the Epicurean ignorance of geometry see note on II. 123] Illi enim simpliciter:  “frankly,” cf. Ad Fam. VIII. 6, 1 Pecudis et hominis:  note on II. 139.

Sec.7. Sive sequare ... magnum est:  for the constr. cf.  II. 140. Magnum est:  cf. quid est magnum, 6. Verum et simplex bonum:  cf. 35. Quod bonum ... ne suspicari quidem an opinion often denounced by Cic., see esp T.D. III. 41, where Cic.’s Latin agrees very closely with the Greek preserved by Diog.  Laert.  X. 6 (qu.  Zeller, 451), and less accurately by Athenaeus, VII. 279 (qu.  R. and P. 353). Ne suspicari quidem:  for this MSS. give nec suspicari, but Madv. (D.F., Excursus III.) has conclusively shown that nec for ne ... quidem is post Augustan Latin.  Christ supposes some thing like sentire to have fallen out before nec suspicari; that this is wrong is clear from the fact that in D.F. II. 20, 30, T.D. III. 46, N.D. I. 111, where the same opinion of Epicurus is dealt with, we have either ne suspicari quidem or ne intellegere quidem (cf. also In Pisonem 69).  Further, ne ... quidem is esp frequent with suspicari (D.F. II. 20), and verbs of the kind (cogitari II. 82), and especially, as Durand remarked, at the end of sentences eg Verr. II. 1, 155.  Notice negat ... ne suspicari quidem without se, which however Baiter inserts, in spite of the numerous passages produced from Cic. by Madv. (Em. 111), in which not only se, but me, nos, and other accusatives of pronouns are omitted before the infinitive, after verbs like negat.  Cf. also the omission of sibi in Paradoxa 40. Si vero:  this, following sive enim above, is a departure from Cic.’s rule which is to write sive—­sive or si—­sin, but not si—­sive or sive—­si.  This and two or three other similar passages in Cic.