BOOK I CH. XIV § 36. 127

attribute ; nor is this disproved by the passages quoted by Klotz Adn. Cr. Iv 4, e.g. Tuse. Vv 81, optima quisque valetudine affectus potest vidert natura ad aliquem morbum proclivior, May it not be used here with an inten- tional impropriety to suggest the impossibility of reason possessing the attribute of divinity ?
astris: cf. 11 39 foll.
annis—mutationibus: see Zeller Stoves tr. p. 121 foll. who mentions, among other extravagant conclusions drawn from the Stoic axiom ‘all that exists is material’, the statement attributed to Chrysippus that the voice was a body, that qualities are bodies, nay rational creatures (Plut. Comm. Not. 45), that diseases, vices and virtues are bodies (Seneca Epp. 106, 117, and especially 113 animal constat animum esse. Virtus autem nihil aliud est quam animus quodam modo se habens: ergo animal est). He quotes also the words of Chrysippus (ap. Plut. 7. ¢.) in which it is distinctly asserted that night and day, the month and the year, summer and autumn, &c., are bodies, adding that ‘by these unfortunate expressions Chrys. appears to have meant little more than that the realities corresponding to these names depend on material conditions, e.g. by summer is meant the air heated by the sun’,
Geoyoviav—interpretatur. The device of allegorical interpretation is naturally resorted to when it is desired to retain old forms which are felt to be inconsistent with new beliefs. As Philo allegorized the Jewish Scriptures in order to bring them into harmony with his own Platonism, so the Stoics allegorized the Hellenic Scriptures (Homer and Hesiod) with the view of hiding the divergence between their own philosophy and the popular religion, cf. Heraclides Al/. Hom. proem.”Ounpos jjoe8noev ef pr HrAnyopy Ter, Orig. c. Cels. 1 17, Iv 48 (where Cels. says the more respectable Jews and Christians take refuge in allegory, being ashamed of the literal sense of their sacred books, to which Or. replies in the following chapters), Lobech Agl. pp. 133, 155 foll., Zeller Stozcs tr. ch. 13, p. 334 foll. Plato alludes to the allegorizing process as already rife in his time, Rep. 11 378, Phaedrus 329. For Stoic exx. see below § 41 seg. 11 63 seq.
usitatas perceptasque: ‘the ordinary well-understood notions of gods’=usu perceptas 11 91, Fin. Vv 3. See Sch. Opuse. m1 314 who defends this reading against Lambinus’ emendation insitas perceptasque.
neque enim—appelletur: ‘neither (the actual) Jupiter nor any one who is addressed in that way, i.e. as a person’, [or ‘who bears a name of such a kind, i.e. a proper name’. R.] Davies, followed by Heindorf and Schémann, reads appellatur against the best mss. I understand the Subj. in its ‘limiting force’, cf. Madv. § 364 obs. 2, Roby § 1692.
significatio=vmdvora, Plato Rep. 11 378, a figure of speech quae plus in suspicione relinguit quam positum est in oratione, Herenn. tv 53, ‘where more is meant than meets the ear.’
quandam: ‘a sort of’, Zumpt § 707. [Often used to mark a translation from the Greek. J. 8. R.]
128 BOOK I CH. XIV § 87.
§ 37 Aristo: of Chios (Krische 404—415) represents a Cynic reac- tion in the Stoic school ; he confined himself exclusively to ethics on the ground that logic was a spider’s web, curious but useless, and that physics were beyond our faculties : Stob. /Voril. 80, 7 mpos nuas pev eivae ta nOcKa, pr) pos nas Ta StadexTika’ pr yap cupBadrrea Oat mrpds eravdpbwawy lov’ Ure) nuas d€ ta hvaotkd’ advvata yap eyvdabat Kal odd€ mapéxew ypeiav. It is therefore probably correct, though we have no actual confirmation from other sources, that he denied the possibility of our knowing anything about God. The particular form given to the denial is of course due to the Epicurean reporter.
Cleanthes: Krische 415—435. He is referred to VW. D. 1 13, m1 16 (the four grounds of religious belief) 1 24 and 40 (all-pervading heat) 11 63, ur 63 (allegorical interpretation). Cleanthes is more distinguished for moral strength and religious earnestness than for any speculative advance : none of the doctrines here mentioned are peculiar to him: one in fact is wrongly ascribed to him. While holding with the rest of his school that the universe was divine in virtue of the aetherial soul by which it was animated, he placed the source and seat of aether in the sun, and not as the others (agreeing with Aristotle) in the furthest heaven, cf. Ac. 1 126 Zenoni et reliquis fere Stoicis aether videtur summus deus, mente praeditus qua omnia regantur; Cleanthes, qui quasi majorum est gentium Stoicus, solem dominari et rerum potiri putat; Stob. cl. 1 21 KX. ev prio epnoev €ivat TO HYEMOVLKOY TOU KdgpOV.
extremum: to be taken predicatively with e*ngentem, ‘inclosing on the outside.’
qui—nominetur. Heind. prefers the Ind. considering that this is an addition of the reporter’s, and not a part of the speech reported ; but the Subj. is an exact translation of such a speech as we find Diog. L. vit 137 Aeyet Zyv@v dvatarw pev eivat TO Top, 0 by aidepa Kadeiaba, ev & mpeTny THY Tov azavav odaipay yervacba, eira THY THY TAaV@pEVoV. C.’s OWN View IS nearly the same Lep. VI 17 novem tibi orbibus conexa sunt omnia, quoruin unus est caelestis, extimus qui reliquos omnes complectitur, summus tpse deus arcens et continens ceteros.
quasi delirans—voluptatem. The word de/. is properly used of dotage, as in Senect. 11 tsta senilis stultitia quae deliratio appellari solet : so anus delira Div. 1 141, Tusc. 1 48. For the tropical use see § 42. Vell. waxes vehement as he thinks of the attack made upon the Epicureans in Cle.’s treatise mepi ndovys Diog. L. vit 37, 175.
fingit formam quandam: this probably refers to the anthropomorphic languaze used by Cle. in speaking of God, as in the grand hymn to Zeus, Totov €xets vrdepyov aukynrus evi xepalv | audyxn, mupdevta, detCwovra kepavvov. In such words Cle. gives, as it were (quandam, cf. n. on quadam § 33) a human form (ef. nulla species § 84) to Zeus.
divinitatem omnem: ‘complete divinity’; omnds qualitative, not quantitative.