§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 an oxymoron, but _argute_ need not only imply _clearness_, it means merely "acutely". _Quantum possum_: some MSS. have _quantam_, which is scarcely Latin, since in Cic. an accusative only follows _nequeo_, _volo_, _malo_, _possum_, and such verbs when an infinitive can be readily supplied to govern it. For _velle_ see a good instance in _D.F._ III. 68, where consult Madv. _Constantiam_: the notions of firmness, consistency, and clearness of mind are bound up in this word, cf. II. 53. _Apud Platonem_: _Timaeus_, 47 B, often quoted or imitated by Cic., cf. _De Leg._ I.