BOOK I CH. XV § 39. 131

Oadarrns Moceda. Kai rods addous b€ Geods ayixous, ws Kal TovTOUS, cvVoL- Ketot’ Kat TOY HALOv Kal THY GEANYNY Kal Tovs GAdous aoTépas Deods oleTaL Kat Tov vopor" Kal dvOparous eis Oeovs hyor peraBarrew. e€v O€ TO Sevrép@ Ta Te eis "Oppéa kat Movoaioy dvapepdpeva kai ra rap ‘Ounp@ Kat ‘Hoidd@ kai ’Evpimidn Kat motais Gddos, ws Kal KdeavOns, weiparat ovvotkeodyv tais dogas adray’ Gravra r’ eat aidyp, 6 adtos dv Kal marip Kat vids, ds Kav TO TpOTe@ pH payerOa Td THy “Peay Kal pytépa ToD Ards eivae Kai Ovyarépa. ras d€ adras moveira ouvoiketdoets Kav TH Tept Xapiray. kal tov Ala vdpov now eivar Kat tas Xdpiras Tas nuetépas KaTapyas Kat Tas avtaroddcets TOY evepyeoiov. ta mapatAjowa Sé Kav Tots Tept picews ypadet, pel av eirapev kai Tov ‘HpakXetrov ouvorxerov" [kat pyv!] kav tO mpet@ Thy Nv«ra Oeav now evar rpariorny’ ev 6€ TO Tpit@ Tov Kiopov eva TaY Hpovipay, cuVTOX- Tevopevoy Oeois Kai avOpwro.s, Kai Tov Todepov Kal Tov Ala Tov avroy eivat, kadrep kal tov “Hpdxdetrov deyew" ev d€ TO TéunT@ Kal Aoyous emijKrat mavras* Tov Kdopov (gov eivat Kal AoytKov Kai ppovody Kat Oeov, Kav Trois rept mpovoias pévroe Tas avtas exriOnow cuvoiken@oes TH Wuxi) TOU TavTos Kal Ta tov Gedy dvopata epapporte, tis Spemtrnros (C. vaferrimus, cf. Wytten- bach ad Plut. Rect. Aud. Rat. p. 48) adwodatwv dxomidras. I have given the whole passage as an illustration of the connexion between Philodemus and the V.D. The points of agreement to be marked are (1) the citations. In both, Chrysippus’ 1st book, z. Gedy, is referred to for the general statement of his theology, and the 2nd book for his explanation of the old poets. (2) Asto the subject-matter, all that C. says is contained in the quotation except the contemptuous comments, and the fuller definition of law. On the other hand Phil. goes into greater detail on most points, especially as to the mythological names, e.g. the Charites, the difference of sex among the Gods, and the reference to Euripides and Heraclitus.
cogitatione depingere: ‘to imagine’, The same phrase occurs Ac. 11 48, cf. WV. D. 111 47 cogitatione fingere.
ejus animi fusionem universam: ‘abstr. for concr.=¢jus animum ubique fusum’, Sch. Ejus i.e. mundi, cf. § 29 imagines earumque circuitus ; and for fusio 11 28. Probably this represents some words which have been been lost in Philod. I do not think it can stand for d:ayeioGar suggested by Petersen and Sauppe, as that would rather mean ‘crumbling away’ than ‘pervading’. Compare on the ‘universal intermingling’ kpaous 80 odror, Zeller Stozcs tr. p. 131.
principatum =nyeporexoy II 29.
universitatemque: Heind.’s emendation for the universam atque of the Mss.
fatalem—futurarum: a rounded phrase for Philod.’s eiuappévny kat
1 So Sauppe fills the gap left by Gomperz. :
2 So I propose to read, Gomperz has Adyous épwrd rept tov Tov, Sauppe and Biicheler &ppwrat roy tov, but nothing can be plainer than wdyras in the facsimile: érdyecOat is used in the sense of ‘ adduce’ with wapripa, Xen. Symp.
8, 34, with wifous and ddgas, Plut. 11 975 un. For the use of rdvras cf. rdcas mpopdces mpopacijerde Plato Rep. v 475.
9—2
132 BOOK I cy. xv § 39.
dvdyxnv. On the reading see Sch. Opuse, 11 362: Swainson (Jowrnal of Philology, vol. v p. 152,) follows Heind. in reading veritatem for the umbram of the mss, and would transpose the words so as to assimilate the clause to that in § 40. It is scarcely conceivable that this senseless repe- tition is due to C. himself, who could surely have found some less clumsy way of ridiculing the verbosity of his original. I should be inclined to omit both tum fatalem...futurarum and universitatemque—continerentur, if one could suggest any explanation of their insertion. If they are really genuine it is a strong evidence in favour of Miiller’s thesis Libris de V. D. non extremam manu accessisse, (Bromberg 1839). Creuzer’s ingenious emendation libram for umbram (in allusion to the scales of destiny) cannot be maintained, now that we know there was no such allusion in the original. Mady. suggests normam; Allen thinks wmbram may have arisen from a misreading of the Greek eipappérmy, added as a gloss from § 55; moeram (poipav) is nearer than any of these. [I think Sch.’s vm for umbram is right. The scribe probably wrote naturam by error from the line above, then made the correction vim over it, thus umbram would easily arise. J.S. R.]
fluerent atque manarent: when the Present is used in quotations, it may be followed either by the Pres. Subj. as in qui versetur above, or the Imperf. as in appellarent just below : see Mady, § 382 obs. 4, and exx. in n. on § 61. [Many exx. of the Imperf. are given by Motschmann De temporum consecutione ap. Ciceronem, p. 11 (Jena 1875). J.S. RJ The doctrine of the perpetual change or flux of the elements came to the Stoics from Heraclitus, cf. VW. D. 111 84, Cleomedes Cycl. Th. 1.1 (yn ovcia) yeopévn xara ras dpvoikas éavtis petaBodds, Gddore pev eis mUP XEouEvN, GAXoTE SE Kal emt Koopoyoviay oppoca, and Stob. Lcl. 1 10. 16 76 d€ wip Kar’ eoxnv ororyetov héyeoOar Sia 7d CE adtod mpdrov ra AowTa GvictacHat Kata peraBod}y Kal eis avtd €oxatov ravra xedpevra SiarvecOat,...7adkw S€ amd radtns (yijs) Siadvoperns Kai diaxeopérns mpatn pev ylyverar xvors els Vdwp, Sevrépa dé e& Udatos eis dépa, Tpitn S€ Kai ecyxarn eis mip. The last clause shows that there is no reason to put terram after sidera (with Heind.) on the ground that the flux was confined to aguam et aera. Krische thinks that