13. Krische believes that this fragment formed part of an attempt to show that the senses were trustworthy, in the course of which the clearness with which the fishes were seen leaping from the water was brought up as evidence. (In _Luc._ 81, on the other hand, Cic. drew an argument hostile to the senses from the consideration of the fish.) The explanation seems to me very improbable. The words bear such a striking resemblance to those in _Luc._ 125 (_ut nos nunc simus ad Baulos Puteolosque videmus, sic innumerabilis paribus in locis esse isdem de rebus disputantis_) that I am inclined to think that the reference in Nonius ought to be to Book IV. and not Book III., and that Cic., when he changed the scene from Bauli to the Lucrine lake, also changed _Puteolosque_ into _pisciculosque exultantes_ for the sufficient reason that Puteoli was not visible from Varro's villa on the Lucrine. 14. The passion for knowledge in the human heart was doubtless used by Varro as an argument in favour of assuming absolute knowledge to be attainable. The same line is taken in _Luc._ 31, _D.F._ III. 17, and elsewhere. 15. It is so much easier to find parallels to this in Cicero's speech than in that of Lucullus in the _Academica Priora_ that I think the reference in Nonius must be wrong. The talk about freedom suits a sceptic better than a dogmatist (see _Luc._ 105, 120, and Cic.'s words in 8 of the same). If my conjecture is right this fragment belongs to Book IV. Krische gives a different opinion, but very hesitatingly, p. 63. 16. This may well have formed part of Varro's explanation of the καταληψις, _temeritas_ being as much deprecated by the Antiocheans and Stoics as by the Academics cf. I. 42. 17. I conjecture _malleo_ (a hammer) for the corrupt _malcho_, and think that in the second ed. some comparison from building operations to illustrate the fixity of knowledge gained through the καταληψεις was added to a passage which would correspond in substance with 27 of the _Lucullus_. I note in Vitruvius, quoted by Forc. s.v. _malleolus_, a similar expression (_naves malleolis confixae_) and in Pliny _Nat. Hist._ XXXIV. 14 _navis fixa malleo_. _Adfixa_ therefore in this passage must have agreed with some lost noun either in the neut. plur. or fem. sing. 18. This and fragm. 19 evidently hang very closely together. As Krische notes, the Stoic εναργεια had evidently been translated earlier in the book by _perspicuitas_ as in _Luc._ 17. 19. See on _Luc._ 57. BOOK IV. Further information on all these passages will be found in my notes on the parallel passages of the _Lucullus_. 21. _Viam_ evidently a mistake for the _umbram_ of _Luc._ 70. 23. The best MS. of Nonius points to _flavum_ for _ravum_ (_Luc._ 105). Most likely an alteration was made in the second edition, as Krische supposes, p. 64.