I. 1, 25 (qu. by Goer.) lunavitque genu sinuosum fortiter arcum.  Wakefield on Lucr.  III. 1013 puts a stop at auratum, and goes on with Luna innixans.  Taber strangely explains luna as = arcu ipso lunato, Dav. says we ought not to expect the passage to make sense, as it is the utterance of a maniac.  For my part, I do not see why the poet should not regard luna and Diana as distinct.

Sec.90. Illa falsa:  sc. visa, which governs the two genitives.  Goer. perversely insists on taking somniantium recordatione ipsorum closely together. Non enim id quaeritur:  cf. 80 n.  Sext. very often uses very similar language, as in P.H. I. 22, qu. in n. on 40. Tum cum movebantur:  so Halm for MSS. tum commovebantur, the em. is supported by 88.

Sec.Sec.91—­98.  Summary:  Dialectic cannot lead to stable knowledge, its processes are not applicable to a large number of philosophical questions (91).  You value the art, but remember that it gave rise to fallacies like the sorites, which you say is faulty (92).  If it is so, refute it.  The plan of Chrysippus to refrain from answering, will avail you nothing (93).  If you refrain because you cannot answer, your knowledge fails you, if you can answer and yet refrain, you are unfair (94).  The art you admire really undoes itself, as Penelope did her web, witness the Mentiens, (95).  You assent to arguments which are identical in form with the Mentiens, and yet refuse to assent to it Why so? (96) You demand that these sophisms should be made exceptions to the rules of Dialectic.  You must go to a tribune for that exception.  I just remind you that Epicurus would not allow the very first postulate of your Dialectic (97).  In my opinion, and I learned Dialectic from Antiochus, the Mentiens and the arguments identical with it in form must stand or fall together (98).

Sec.91. Inventam esse:  cf. 26, 27. In geometriane:  with this inquiry into the special function of Dialectic cf. the inquiry about Rhetoric in Plato Gorg. 453 D, 454 C. Sol quantus sit:  this of course is a problem for [Greek:  physike], not for [Greek:  dialektike]. Quod sit summum bonum:  not [Greek:  dialektike] but [Greek:  ethike] must decide this. Quae coniunctio:  etc. so Sext. often opposes [Greek:  symploke] or [Greek:  synemmenon] to [Greek:  diezeugmenon], cf. esp P.H. II. 201, and Zeller 109 sq. with footnotes.  An instance of a coniunctio (hypothetical judgment) is “si lucet, lucet” below, of a disiunctio (disjunctive judgment) “aut vivet cras Hermarchus aut non vivet”. Ambigue dictum:  [Greek:  amphibolon], on which see P.H. II. 256, Diog VII. 62. Quid sequatur:  [Greek:  to akolouthon], cf.  I. 19 n. Quid repugnet:  cf.  I. 19, n. De se ipsa: