BOOK I CH. XIx § 49. 145

be explained from the fuller expression in the parallel passage neque eandem ad numerum permanere, and this again, as Hirzel shows p. 55, is a translation of the Greek ravrév kar’ dpiOpov dcapever ‘remains numerically and identically the same’, év or ravrov kar’ dovOpov being distinguished from éy or ravrov kar’ efSos ‘the same in kind’, see Arist. Met. Iv p. 1016b, II p. 999 b, Categ. 1 2 with Waitz’s n., Themist. ad Vat. Quaest. Iv 9, and Whately’s Logic App. (on the ambiguity of the word ‘same’). But will car’ dpiOynov carry this meaning by itself? For proof of this Hirzel refers to Bonitz’s Index Aristotelicus s.v. apiOuos, See particularly Anal. Post. 1c. 5, p. 74 where the phrase car’ dpcOudv is used of argument which applies only to a single individual triangle, as opposed to proper geometrical reasoning which deals with the triangle, gua triangle, universally. Similarly we have kar’ apiOuov vdeotaras in the passage already quoted from Diog. L. It is impossible however to suppose that ad numerum standing alone could convey this meaning to a Roman; and though it is conceivable that C. may have put an unmeaning phrase into the mouth of the Epicurean advo- cate, it seems hardly credible that he should, without remark, have supplied the interpretation afterwards through the mouth of the Academic critic. I believe therefore that eadem has been lost between neque and ad, and that the true reading is neque eadem ad numerum sit. I postpone to the end of the paragraph the question, how we are to conceive of Gods not possessed of personal identity or individual existence}. [Soliditate cannot possibly be an abl. of quality. Soliditate gquadam might be taken as such with esse or a substantive, but not with a verb like cernatur. Why not treat it as abl. of cause, (cf. § 105 similitudine cernatur) translating ‘so that it is not perceived by sense or by mind, nor in consequence of any sort of solidity which it possesses, nor numerically, i.e. individually’? A causal abl. gives indirectly what is wanted, a description of the object which is the source of the cause. R.]
sed—intellegentiam capere: the construction is made to depend im- mediately upon docet instead of being subordinated to wt. Sed contrasts the following positive with the previous negative description of the divine nature.
imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis: the sense must be ascertained by a comparison of the parallel passages, § 105 eamque esse ejus visionem ut similitudine et transitione cernatur, § 109 fluentium fre- quenter transitio fit visionum ut e multis una videatur, and shortly after innumerabilitas suppeditat atomorum; Diog. L. 1.c. ods dé (Sc. Beovs) ka” dpo- evdiay éx THs TuvExXoUS emippYTEws TOV Opolwv eiddAwY Ent TO AUTO aroTeTEET- pevov dvOpwroedas ; Lucr. V 1175 (men attributed to the Gods) aeternam vitam quia semper eorum | suppeditabatur facies et forma manebat |. Com-
1 A. Becker (Comm. Crit. 1865) gives a careful analysis of the passage and strongly condemns Sch.’s interpretation. He proposes to add permanere (of
fe he thinks primum a corruption) after numerum. Few will follow him in this.