BOOK I CH. Xxx § 82. 187

there was any single type known under the name of Juno Romana; C. probably refers to the general difference between the Greek Hera and her Roman counterpart ; cf. Miiller A. A. § 120.
Ch. xxx § 83. physicum: see § 77 n. and Wilkins on Orat. I 217, where the Gk. form is used.
venatorem: cf. the metaphorical use of @npevew in Plato, and espe- cially the ‘ view-hollo’ on the discovery of justice, Rep. Iv 482 c; so Hume ‘there cannot be two passions more nearly resembling each other than bunting and philosophy’, Huxley’s Hume p. 141.
consuetudine imbutis: Bacon’s zdola tribus. See WV. D. 1 45.
laudamus Athenis Vulcanum: ‘yes, and at Athens we admire’ i.e. ‘there is a statue of V. at Athens’; cf. Mayor on Juv. v 42 praeclara illic laudatur taspis who quotes Fin. ut 63 illa quae in concha patula pinna dicitur, and compares (index s. v.) the poetical construction with xadeiodas =eiva, as in Soph. Zrach. 639.
Alcamenes: a pupil of Phidias and one of the greatest of Greek sculptors. A list of his works is given in Sillig’s Dictionary of Artists. Some of these have been lately discovered at Olympia, casts of which may be seen in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge. The Vulcan is thus described by Val. Max. vimt 11 tenet visentes Athenis Vulcanus Alcamenis manibus fabricatus. Praeter cetera enim perfectissimae artis in eo prae- currentia indicia etiam llud mirantur, quod stat dissimulatae claudicationis sub veste leviter vestigium repraesentans, ut non exprobans tamquam vitium, ita tamen certam propriamque det notam decore significans.
age et his—facimus: passing on to the names of the Gods, ‘do we suppose (are we such fools as to suppose? cf. n. on arbitramur § 80) that they have also the same names as those by which they are known to us’? The first Abl. is that of Description (Roby § 1232) the second that of Man- ner (Roby § 1234). On age Orelli quotes from Madv. Op. Ac. 11 40 ‘de “age” interrogation praeposito, cf. 1 120 Tuse. 111 49 Phil. v 28’; see Roby § 1609. On the adverbial use of et see § 72 n.,and Hand 11 513, 517, Kiihner on Tusc. mr 28 referred to by Sch. Many exx. are given by Dumesnil on Leg. 1 33. The argument as to names is added as a sort of corollary to the previous argument on the appearance of the Gods. That was a fair enough criticism on the prolepsis, and this, though, at first sight, a mere reductio ad absurdum, is to some extent justified by the Epicu- rean doctrine that names existed uges ov Oécet.
§ 84. quot hominum linguae: sc. sunt; ut tu Velleius: sc. eris; cf. §§ 68, 90, and Draeg. § 116.
idem Vulcanus: ‘ you are always Velleius, but Vulcan (i.e. the God of fire) does not bear the same name in Italy as in Africa or Spain’. Four different Vulcans are distinguished in 111 55, one of whom is the Egyptian Phthas, but we have no information as to a Spanish Vulcan, though it is natural to suppose that there may have been a god of mining in a country so rich in metals.
188 BOOK I CH. XXx § 84.
in pontificiis, sc. 7/dris, cf. the similar ellipse with annaies. The pon- tiftcal records included nine different kinds of books, according to Mar- quardt //b. d. Ltém. Alt. VI p. 287: one of these consisted of tndigitamenta, forms of prayer, of which Augustine says C. D. Iv 8 nomina deorum aut dearum, quae wli grandibus voluminibus vix comprehendere potuerunt, sin- gulis rebus propria dispertientes officia numinum. Sch. quotes Serv. ad Georg. 1 21 nomina haee numinum in Indigitamentis inveniuntur, id est in libris pontificalibus ; qui et nomina deorum et rationem ipsorum nominum continent (e.g. Occator, Sarritor, Sterculinius).
innumerabilis: i.e. in the Epicurean view, cf. $$ 49, 50 and 53. So Philod. p. 84 ‘The Epicureans believe that the gods ov pdvov daous daciv of IlavéAAnves GAAG Kal melovas eivat.’
istud—ita: Sch. quotes Div. 11 21 quod certe vobis ita dicendum est. and refers to Hand. 7urs. 11 485. See also Madv. Fin. 117 and quod ita just below. J/¢a is not merely pleonastic but adds precision ; indeed in this place I should prefer to give it a more distinct force ‘that doctrine of yours (wna facies § 80) requires such a corollary (sine nominibus), for what is the good of a multitude of names, where there is but one form’? [We sometimes find eodem modo used as ta is here, e.g. § 77, Div. 1 29; so isto modo Tusc. V 23; cf. Plato Phileb. 20 B ered) rot otras eires. J.S. R.]
quam bellum erat: ‘how much prettier it would have been’, see n. on longum est § 19.
confiteri nescire: ‘If the subject in an Acc. with Inf. is a personal or reflexive pronoun referring to the subject of the principal verb, this pronoun is sometimes left out with verba declarandi et putandi esp. when one Inf. is dependent upon another having the same subject’ Madv. § 401, cf. Roby § 1346 Krueger Unters. 111 337 foll. who quotes W. D.1109 puderet me dicere non tntellegere; the same construction is found with conjfiteor, Rose. Am. 61.
[mescire, quod nescires: cf. Ac. 11 126 licetne per vos nescire quod nescio? J.S. R.] use. 1 60 nec me pudet, ut istos futert me nescire quod mesciam.
nauseare: Forcellini and Freund take this to mean ‘to utter’: the former compares Phil. Vv 20 orationem ore impurissimo evomuit, and Fam. x11 25 vinolentum furorem effunderet. As both passages refer to Antony, (of whom nauseo is also used in its literal sense 2 PAzl. 84, and Fam. le. quem ego ructantem et nauseantem conjeci in Octaviani plagas), there is some excuse for violence of language there: here, in a quiet discussion with a friend, such a use of the term (even if possible elsewhere, which I doubt,) seems almost beyond Roman bad taste. May it not mean ‘ to feel disgust at having to utter such nonsense’ as Epicurus puts in your mouth? So IIcind. takes it, and would even omit the following words as a gloss. Phaedrus Iv 6 25 has si gui stulte nauseant of over-critical readers who are disgusted with everything, which Lewis and Short wrongly translate ‘ to cause disgust’; (the reading is however doubtful).
sibi displicere : the change to the 8rd person is allowable, as the use of