words of Epicurus, in which however no mention of a foot occurs, also Lucr.  V. 590, who copies Epicurus, and Seneca Quaest.  Nat. I. 3, 10 (solem sapientes viri pedalem esse contenderunt).  Madv. points out from Plut. De Plac.  Phil. II. 21, p. 890 E, that Heraclitus asserted the sun to be a foot wide, he does not however quote Stob. Phys. I. 24, 1 [Greek:  helion megethos echein euros podos anthropeiou], which is affirmed to be the opinion of Heraclitus and Hecataeus. Ne maiorem quidem:  so the MSS., but Goer. and Orelli read nec for ne, incurring the reprehension of Madv. D.F. p. 814, ed 2. Nihil aut non multum:  so in D.F. V. 59, the correction of Orelli, therefore, aut non multum mentiantur aut nihil, is rash. Semel:  see 79. Qui ne nunc quidem:  sc. mentiri sensus putat.  Halm prints quin, and is followed by Baiter, neither has observed that quin ne ... quidem is bad Latin (see M.D.F. V. 56).  Nor can quin ne go together even without quidem, cf.  Krebs and Allgayer, Antibarbarus ed. 4 on quin.

Sec.83. In parvo lis sit:  Durand’s em. for the in parvulis sitis of the MSS., which Goer. alone defends. Quattuor capita:  these were given in 40 by Lucullus, cf. also 77. Epicurus:  as above in 19, 79 etc.

Sec.84. Geminum:  cf. 56. Nota:  cf. 58 and the speech of Lucullus passim. Ne sit ... potest:  cf. 80 quasi quaeratur quid sit, non quid videatur.  Si ipse erit for ipse apparently = is ipse cf. M.D.F. II. 93.

Sec.85. Quod non est:  = qu. n. e. id quod esse videtur. Sui generis:  cf. 50, 54, 56. Nullum esse pilum, etc.:  a strong expression of this belief is found in Seneca Ep.. 113, 13, qu.  R. and P. 380.  Note the word Stoicum; Lucullus is of course not Stoic, but Antiochean. Nihil interest:  the same opinion is expressed in 40, where see my note. Visa res:  Halm writes res a re, it is not necessary, however, either in Gk. or Lat. to express both of two related things when a word is inserted like differat here, which shows that they are related.  Cf. the elliptic constructions in Gk. with [Greek:  homoion, metaxy, mesos], and such words. Eodem caelo atque:  a difficult passage.  MSS. have aqua, an error easy, as Halm notes, to a scribe who understood caelum to be the heaven, and not [Greek:  glypheion], a graving tool.  Faber and other old edd. defend the MSS. reading, adducing passages to show that sky and water were important in the making of statues.  For aqua Orelli conj. acu = schraffirnadel, C.F.  Hermann caelatura, which does not seem to be a Ciceronian word.  Halm’s aeque introduces a construction with ceteris omnibus which is not only not