BOOK I CH. XII § 33. 123

nature than man, as most evidently those é& dv 6 Kdopos cuvéatynker’, and in Phys. 11 4 they are called ra @edtata rév havepdv. Taking it thus as a collective expression (simplex ex dispersis membris as is said of Xenocrates) we might find in it an explanation for ¢o¢ di immediately below, but see n. there.
celeritate: ‘like a dancing dervish making himself giddy by his rota- tions’ Lescaloperius in loc. See on § 24.
ubi tot di: Heind. (followed by Sch. Opusc. m1 311) thinks that, as tot cannot apply to the four above mentioned (which in reality are only two, the kwoov and kivovpevov), something must have been lost from the text; and as Arist. is said non dissentire from his master, he suggests that the lost clause may have corresponded with § 30 quos majorum institutis accepimus. But why may we not give the same meaning to w/t tot viz. ‘all those many Gods of the popular religion’, without supposing an omission? (So Allen.) The Epicurean objection would then be that ‘these gods are supposed to exist in heaven, but if heaven itself is God, how can one god live in another’? If we accept Sch.’s conjecture that the lost clause referred to the stars, the objection would merely be a repetition of caelum mundi esse partem: ‘they are already included in caelwm, how can they be separate and independent Gods’?
numeramus: similarly 11 40, 43.
semper se movens: these words are in direct opposition to Aristotle’s kivet dkivnros, Which is further explained (Cael. 11 12) goue 7 pev dpiora éxovte Unapxew TO ev dvev mpakews...€aTe yap avtT@ TO ov évexa. The Epi- curean views of incorporeal substance (sensu privat) have been sufficiently illustrated already.
§ 34 Xenocrates: cf. Krische 311—324 WV. D.172. C. alludes more than once to the compliment paid to Xenocrates by his countrymen in accepting his word in lieu of the customary oath Balb. 12, Att. 116; he reports his answer as to the aim of his teaching, wt id sua sponte facerent quod coge- rentur facere legibus Rep.1 3; and describes his psychology in the words animi figuram et quasi corpus negavit esse, verum numerum dixit esse; cujus vis, ut jam ante Pythagorae visum erat, in natura maxima esset. Tusc. 1 20. The account given in the text omits all that is characteristic in his philo- sophy: see Stob. Lel. 1 p. 62 Zev. rhv povada kai tiv dvdda Oeods (dredyvaro) THY pev OS Appeva watpis ~xovaay rakw ev ovpavs Bacirevovaay, Hvtwa mpooayopever kat Ziva kal mépirroy Kai votv, dois eotilv aita mparos beds’ Tv d€ &s Ondelav, pytpos Oedv Sikny (Zeller notices that Philolaus also gave the name of Rhea to the dyad) ris dé rov ovpavov Ankews ryoupevny (‘presiding over the middle region or province’) Oedv dé etvar Kat tov ovpavoy, Kal rovs dotépas mupadets ’OAvprrious Oeovs, kal érépovs UmooeAHvous, Saipovas dopdrous. Some of these last were of a malignant character, pices €v To Tepiexovte peyadas pev kat ioxupas, dvatporous b€ Kal ¢xvOpwmas (Plut. Js. e¢ Os. ch. 26 p- 361) whose wrath had to be propitiated by sacrifices. Xen. also gave
12+ BOOK I CH, XUL § 34.
the name of Poseidon, Demeter, &c. to the divine power pervading each element.
nulla species divina: ‘no divine form’ i.e. no anthropomorphic God.
in stellis nominantur: ‘which we name in naming the stars.’
qui ex omnibus—deus: ‘whom he would have us believe to be a single uncompounded God made up of all the fixed stars, as of dissevered limbs’, Zeller suspects an allusion in the original to the Orphic myth of Zagreus, which was interpreted by later philosophers of the anima mundi pervading the universe (Plut. Jf 389 B). Simplex is an ironical substitu- tion for coneretus, to which it is opposed in ur 34; cf. also 11 11, where it is opposed to cum alio juncta atque conexa. The phrase mundi membra occurs again § 100.
Heraclides : a native of Heraclea in Pontus, pupil of Plato and Speu- sippus and afterwards of Aristotle (Krische 324—336). In the letters to Atticus there are many allusions to the Dialogues of Her. which were distinguished from those of Aristotle by the fact that in the former (as in the .V. D.) the author was made a kwddv mpdcerov, while in the latter he was the principal interlocutor (as in the Z'usculuns). C. speaks of him with respect as vir doctus in primis (Tuse. v. 8), and quotes from him Div, 1 46 and 130. The views here ascribed to him are common to the Platonic school. We are further told that he held with Ecphantus, the Pythagorean, that all material objects were compounded of atoms, and that the apparent movement of the heavens was caused by the rotation of the earth.
puerilibus fabulis: Plutarch (Cami//. c. 22) describes Her. as pvéaddy kat wAaopariay, and the names of the treatises preserved by Diog. L. v 6, 87 are suggestive of a predilection for the marvellous. Like Empedocles, he is said to have been ambitious of being worshipped as a god after his death, Diog. L. v 90.
modo mundum tum mentem: cf. § 31 modo unum tum autem plures, and Sch. App. p. 263, who refers to Hand. 7's. 111 649.
sensu—vult: a criticism interposed; ‘neither pure mind, nor gross matter, such as the stars are composed of, is separately capable of feeling : and to suppose that the moon and planets with their changing phases are divine, is to deny the immutability of the divine nature’, cf. Plato Rep. 1 381, St James 117 rod warpos trav hdrav, rap @ ovK eve Tapadday? 7) TpomAs aTooKlag pa.
refert in deos: cf. n. on § 29.
§ 35 Theophrasti: see Krische 337—349, Bernays 7h. Ueber From- miykeit, Cic. Fin. Vv 9 foll. He appears to have carried further his master’s investigations upon particular points without diverging from his general principles. C. charges him with assigning too much weight to fortune as an element of happiness, Ac. I 34 and elsewhere. Gomperz thinks that the words éykopio tov Gedy, found in a fragment of Philodemus p. 73, refer to a treatise of Theoph.’s mentioned by Diog. L. v 47.
inconstantia : the charge previously brought against Plato.