§27. _Subiectam ... materiam_: the ‛υποκειμενη ‛υλη of Aristotle, from which our word subject-matter is descended. _Sine ulla specie_: _species_ here = _forma_ above, the ειδος or μορφη of Arist. _Omnibus_ without _rebus_ is rare. The ambiguity is sometimes avoided by the immediate succession of a neuter relative pronoun, as in 21 in _quibusdam_, _quae_. _Expressa_: chiselled as by a sculptor (cf. _expressa effigies_ _De Off_. III. 69); _efficta_, moulded as by a potter (see II. 77); the word was given by Turnebus for MSS. _effecta_. So Matter is called an εκμαγειον in Plat. _Tim._ _Quae tota omnia_: these words have given rise to needless doubts; Bentl., Dav., Halm suspect them. _Tota_ is feminine sing.; cf. _materiam totam ipsam_ in 28; "which matter throughout its whole extent can suffer all changes." For the word _omnia_ cf. II. 118, and Plat. _Tim._ 50 B (δεχεται γαρ ηι τα παντα), 51 A (ειδος πανδεχες). The word πανδεχες is also quoted from Okellus in Stob. I. 20, 3. Binder is certainly wrong in taking _tota_ and _omnia_ both as neut.--"_alles und jedes_." Cic. knew the _Tim._ well and imitated it here. The student should read Grote's comments on the passages referred to. I cannot here point out the difference between Plato's ‛υλη and that of Aristotle. _Eoque interire_: so MSS.; Halm after Dav. _eaque_. Faber was right in supposing that Cic. has said loosely of the _materia_ what he ought to have said of the _qualia_. Of course the προτε ‛υλη, whether Platonic or Aristotelian, is imperishable (cf. _Tim._ 52 A. φθοραν ου προσδεχομενον). _Non in nihilum_: this is aimed at the Atomists, who maintained that infinite subdivision logically led to the passing of things into nothing and their reparation out of nothing again. See Lucr. I. 215--264, and elsewhere. _Infinite secari_: through the authority of Aristotle, the doctrine of the infinite subdivisibility of matter had become so thoroughly the orthodox one that the Atom was scouted as a silly absurdity. Cf. _D.F._ I. 20 _ne illud quidem physici credere esse minimum_, Arist. _Physica_, I. 1 ουκ εστιν ελαχιστον μεγεθος. The history of ancient opinion on this subject is important, but does not lie close enough to our author for comment. The student should at least learn Plato's opinions from _Tim._ 35 A sq. It is notable that Xenocrates, tripping over the old αντιφασις of the One and the Many, denied παν μεγεθος διαιρετον ειναι και μερος εχειν (R. and P. 245). Chrysippus followed Aristotle very closely (R. and P. 377, 378). _Intervallis moveri_: this is the theory of motion without void which Lucr. I. 370 sq. disproves, where see Munro. Cf. also Sext. Emp. _Adv. Math._ VII. 214. Aristotle denied the existence of void either within or without the universe, Strato allowed its possibility within, while denying its existence without (Stob. I. 18, 1), the Stoics did the exact opposite affirming its existence without, and denying it within the universe (Zeller 186, with footnotes). _Quae