BOOK I CH. XXVI $73. 75

istue quasi corpus—quid intellegis: ‘What do you understand by this phrase?’ For the construction see exx. in n. on spatio tamen § 21 ; and Fin. 11 50 quid intellegit honestum? Parad. 42 quem intellegimus divitem, quoted in Sch.’s n. here.
§ 74. cum quidem semel dicta sunt. A continuation of the previous abrupt and disjointed style. There seems no reason for Heindorf’s suppo- sition that the text is corrupt.
quid est, quod Velleius intellegere possit, Cotta non possit ? ‘Once spoken, what reason is there why one should understand them better than another?’ For the asyndeton cf. § 20 cujus principium n., and for the particular opposition (possit-——non possit) Plin. Ep. 11 16 § 1 potestis enim efficere ut male moriar, ut non moriar non potestis and Corte on Lucan 1 200; for quid quod § 3n. and § 117; for the thought, Fin. 11 12 hoe fre- guenter dict solet a vobis, non intellegere nos quam dicat Ep. voluptatem... egone non intellegam quid sit nSovn Graece, Latine ‘ voluptas’? utram tandem linguam nescio? Deinde qui fit ut ego nesciam, sciant omnes quicunque Epicuret esse voluerunt ? also § 15 and § 21.
tu me celas, ut Pythagoras: a reference to the mystical and esoteric character of the teaching of P.; see Diog. \. vit 16 with the nn.
consulto tamquam Heraclitus. The same assertion is made mt 35, Fin. 11 15 vide ne, si ego non intellegam quid Ep. loquatur, sit aliqua culpa ejus qui ita loquatur ut non intellegatur. Quod duobus modis sine reprehen- stone fit, si aut de industria facias, ut Her. cognomento qui oxorewis per- hibetur, quia de natura nimis obscure memoravit, aut, &c., Diog. 1x 1 § 6 emitnoevoas aoapéarepov ypayya Gras of Suvdpevoe mpociorey avT@ Kal 17) ek Tod Snpwdous evxatappovntroy 7, Lobeck Agi. p. 160 foll. The real cause cf his obscurity is the difficulty experienced by all early writers in attempt- ing to give an outward form to philosophical ideas before the formation of a philosophical language, and the special idiosyncrasy of Her., his depth and fulness of thought, his strong imagination, his love of pro- verbial, enigmatic and metaphorical expressions.
quod inter nos liceat: ‘let us use this freedom towards each other’ cf. Ter. Haut. v 2 20 here licetne? and Liv. vit 13 s¢ licet (for scilicet, Madv. emend.); the fuller phrase liceat dicere occurs § 80 and Att. 114. Klotz Adn. Crit. 1 8 points out the error of Hand’s interpretation ‘entre nous’, and defends the Ms reading léqgueat, which he explains to mean qua de re inter me et te nulla dubitatio sit. We had a similar apologetic phrase § 59 bona venia me audies. [I incline to liqueat as contrasting with the pre- ceding celas and occulte. J.S. R.]
Ch. xxvit § 75. illud pugnare ut: ‘the point you fight for is’, ‘your contention is this’: so Fam. 1 10 dlud pugna et enitere, Rose. Am. 8 hoe solum pugnatur ut, and (without an object-clause) WV. D. ur 1 videtur Epicurus de dis immortalibus non magno opere pugnare. In this sense it is used with an Inf. by the poets. We have had it used in an opposite sense
176 BOOK I CH, XXVIL § 75.
in § 62. Cf. the similar metaphorical use of vénco and repugno. For the Acc. of Extent (dud) see Roby § 1094.
species ut sit: an abbreviation for ut probes esse speciem, cf. Madv. Fin. 114 allud quidem adduct vix possum ut videantur and N. D. 1 95 reti- nendum hoc esse deus ut beatus sit, Draeg. § 408.
nihil concreti—eminentis: ‘Nothing compact or firm, nothing that stands out in prominent relief’, cf. Of. 11 69 justitiae solidam et expressam effigiem nullam tenemus: umbra et imaginibus utimur, Tusc. UI 3 consec- tatur nullam eminentem effigiem virtutis sed adumbratam imaginem gloriae. Est enim gloria solida quaedam res et expressa, non adumbrata. The use of the Gen. eminentis is allowable, as it is joined with adjectives of the 2nd declension, see Roby § 1299, Niigelsb. § 21.
conc. properly used of that which has grown together, crystallized ; so water is said concrescere pruina U1 26; expr. of that which has had a pattern stamped upon it, as opposed to a flat surface; so Quint. vu Pref. 19 speaks of corpora lacertis expressa (cf. Tennyson ‘arms on which the stand- ing muscle sloped, as slopes a wild brook o’er a little stone’) ; em. of any protuberance which breaks an even line, as the circle is said to have nihil eminens 1147. [So eminentia is used to express the foreground in a picture, as opposed to umbra, Ac. U 20; cf. the Gr. eigoxai and éfoyai. J. 5. R.]
sitque perlucida : ‘but free from gross admixture, volatile, transparent’, so in Div. 11 40 the Gods are called perlucidos et perflabiles. For the adversative force of que see Draeg. § 314 10.
dicemus—quod in Venere: cf. Orat. 11 248 zdem in bono servo dict solet, Roby § 1978, and Nigelsb. Sz. § 123 3. For the ellipsis of dicimus cf. Draeg. § 119 3 b8. The following sentence (corpus—similitudo) is in apposition to guod.
Venere Coa: the ’Adpodirn dvadvopeyn painted by Apelles for the temple of Aesculapius at Cos, afterwards removed by Augustus to Rome and placed in the temple of Divus Julius. Apelles left unfinished a second Venus Coa, which was intended to surpass the first. Allusion is made to it in Of. 111 10, where see Beier’s n. The masterpiece of Apelles is mentioned here, of course, only as a typical painting, as in Div. I 23; cf. in ceris above.
non res—esse: ‘nothing real but only a semblance of reality’. The change from the direct to the indirect construction after dicemus marks the difference between the actual and the supposed description.
adumbratorum: ‘shadow-deities’: so oxtaypadia ‘a silhouette’, see Cope on Arist. Athet. 1 12 and quotations under xzhil conereti above.
C.d. Weakness of the argument in favour of anthropomor phism. Tf the Gods only present themselves to our minds in human form, that is because our ancestors, whether from superstition or policy, established that belief amonyst us: elsewhere the case is different. If that form
i