C. returns to the first reason in §$ 81—85, only introducing the 3rd in

§ 87 mixed up there with another argument from experience. As to the 2nd objection, there is no doubt a slight awkwardness in separating st from mzrum, but this is certainly not a fatal objection to the correctness of the sentence. Or it might be possible to take si as depending on mirum, and then to suppose the construction broken, eam esse causam being in- troduced as a sort of epexegetic clause, also dependent on mirum. Such a change of construction might be compared with that after facit § 31 facit Soc. disputantem eundemque dicere, after dicemus § 75 illud non est ...sve rem esse, after docere § 76. Thirdly the tense of putaremus is attracted to praescripsit, as in Lael. 2 meministi...quanta esset querela, where the tense is attracted to an intermediate Imperf., see Draeg. § 151 5 c, and Roby § 1517. For the attraction of the pronoun (eam for td) see § 67 and Roby § 1068.
Ch. xxvim1 § 78. quid censes...non tributuras fuisse? An abbre- viated expression for guid censes? nonne censes? cf. § 82 quid igitur censes ? Apim &c., Zumpt § 769, Beier on Of. 11 25. On the thought cf. Xenophanes (Zeller 1* p. 490) GAN’ elroe xeipas y’ etyov Boes re Aéovres, | i} ypayrat xeipecat Kal epya redeiv dmrep Gvdpes, | kai xe Gedy idéas &ypadoy Kat oapar’ éroiouy | Towa oiov wep Kavror Sépnas ecyoy Sporov, | immor pev O immroice Boes S€ re Bovoly opoias. In the Herculanean treatise De Senstonibus ascribed to Metrodorus (H. V. vi pt. 2 col. xiii) we find the same objection
12—2
180 BOOK I CH. XXVIII § 78.
referred to, ‘a lion has courage, God has courage, therefore God should be in the shape of a lion.” [Quasque is used not quamgque, because id is equivalent to quodque genus. R.]
at mehercule: ef would be more suitable here ; if we retain a¢ it must refer back to the last sentence but one.
taurus—Europam. This was the subject of a statue by Pythagoras the sculptor, see Varro LZ. LZ. v 351 and Miiller Ancient Art § 351. A painting of the same is described by Achilles Tatius at the beginning of the Leucippe.
ingeniis—orationibus : the plural of the concrete is often used for the abstract, see Nigelsb. Sti/. § 12, and compare Div. 11 55 conjectura ingeniis diducitur ‘by man’s ingenuity’, Arch. 17 celeritatem ingeniorum (of Ros- cius). I suppose orat. here to mean the faculty of speech, but I cannot cite a parallel. [Mr Roby would prefer to translate it ‘by our intellects or modes of articulation’. But the general tenor of the passage requires that the comparison should lie between man, on the one side, and all other animals, on the other; whereas, if we give the ordinary force to the plural, it seems to me that the use of the word nostr’s here draws our attention to differences existing amongst men themselves. Also the following singu- lars specie figuraque suggest a singular force for the preceding plurals. ]
quodsi—velimus. (wuod is connective not adversative, Madv. § 449, ‘and then if we choose to (go further and) invent and combine forms for ourselves’,
natantibus invehens beluis. Triton was represented with a human body ending in a fish’s tail ; sometimes the legs are replaced by two fish- like bodies, between or upon which the man appears to ride, as in the beautiful painting at Herculaneum (Roux Ainé Recueil Général vol. v 36,