bold = Main text
   Liber, Caput     grey = Comment text

 1      II,   XXXVI|           omnis haec quaestio est.~116. In tres igitur partis et
 2     Not,       1|      Schools, Eng. Trans., pp. 112—116 [I dissent from his view
 3     Not,       1|           28, 30, 32, 75, 86, 115, 116, all from Stoic sources.
 4     Not,       1|             Sextus Adv. Math. VII. 116), and by Empedocles in his
 5     Not,       2|          these names see Corss. I. 116. Rogus: an ill omened and
 6     Not,       2|           Transversum digitum: cf. 116. Ne confundam omnia: cf.
 7     Not,       2| cavillationes, to which Seneca Ep. 116 refers, cf. Krische, p.
 8     Not,       2|           Stoici; cf. also ib. II. 116, and the frequent use of
 9     Not,       2|     sapiente loquamur: n. on 66.~§§116—128. Summary. Of the three
10     Not,       2|      geometrical result whatever? (116) Let us see which one of
11     Not,       2|          am almost content (128).~§116. Tres partes: cf. I. 19.
12     Not,       2|             αναγκην, cf. cogere in 116. Ne ille: this asseverative
13     Not,       2|       indeed common (cf. De Or. I. 116), but magnum opus, in the
14     Not,       2|           D.F. IV. 70. Iurare: cf. 116. Neque ego, etc.: see fragm.
15     Not,       2|         sed.; cf. at illud ante in 116. Si quae: Halm and many
16     Not,       2|          in 129—141 and Physics in 116—128. With the enumeration
17     Not,       2|            for the ellipse cf. 58, 116, Pro Deiot. 42 and pedem