_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. are explained as anacolutha by Madv. in a most important and
exhaustive excursus to his _D.F._ (p. 785, ed. 2), and are connected with
other instances of broken sequence. There is no need therefore to read
_sive_ here, as did Turn. Lamb. Dav. and others. _Quam nos ... probamus_:
cf. Introd. p. 62. _Erit explicanda_: for the separation of these words by
other words interposed, which is characteristic of Cic., see 11, 17. I am
surprised that Halm and Baiter both follow Ernesti in his hypercritical
objection to the phrase _explicare Academiam_, and read _erunt_ against the
MSS., making _illa_ plural. If _erunt_ is read, _erit_ must be supplied
from it to go with _disserendum_, which is harsh. _Quam argute, quam
obscure_: at first sight a