BOOK I CH. XXxII § 90. 197

would be decided by the fact of their having been born in the past, cf. § 103 n.
ante igitur—immortales. Bake’s reading eaque, adopted by Baiter, seems to me to give the thought rather awkwardly, as though the human form were something self-existent, and happened to be also an attribute of the gods. If an alteration is needed, I should prefer to insert a second di immortales before humana forma, translating ‘so the gods existed in human form before men existed in that form which belonged to the gods’. With the present reading, humana forma must be Nom.; ea is also so taken by Moser and Seibt, and, if one may judge from the punctuation, by Sché- mann, but this seems to me extremely harsh ; the only possible construc- tion is quam homines ea (forma erant) qua erant forma di.
nostra divina: on the difference between this and the Christian doc-— trine, that man is made in the image of God, see below § 96 virtus quam Sigurd, 0D.
hoc quidem : sc. esto, cf. §§ 68, 84.
ut voletis: cf. PAil. 11 118 with Mayor’s n.
illud : ‘that other point’, used, like éxeivo, of that which follows, Madv. § 485 b.
sed tamen: ‘however, not to dwell on this’. On this resumptive use of the particle after digression see Madv. § 480, and cf. De Orat. 11 365 and Heind. on Hor. Sat. 1 1 27. ;
quis iste tantus casus: ‘what is the nature of this chance which you tell us can produce such results?’ cf. § 88 quae tantae angustiae, n.
§ 91. seminane deorum decidisse: cf. Ov. Met. 1 78 natus homo est, sive hune divino semine fecit | ule opifex rerum, mundi melioris origo, | sive recens tellus, seductaque tuper ab alto | aethere, cognati retinebat semina caeli, | quam satus Iapeto mistam fluvialibus undis | finxit in effigiem mode- rantum cuncta deorum; Leg. 1 24 extitisse quandam maturitatem serendi generis human, quod sparsum in terras atque satum divino auctum sit ant- morum munere, cumgque alia quibus cohaererent homines e mortali genere sumpserint, animum esse ingeneratum a deo, ex quo vere vel agnatio nobis cum caelestibus vel genus vel stirps appellari potest. It is in a different sense that the Epicurean poet says denique caelesti sumus omnes semine oriundi, Lucr. 11991. The enclitic interrogative, when it is not attached to the principal verb, is often expressive of surprise, and suggests a nega- tive answer (Madv. § 451 a), as here seminane, and ommesne below.
putamus: cf. § 80 arbitramur, § 82 facimus n.
_ deorum cognationem agnoscerem: cf. § 1 ad agnitionem animi, n.
et nunc: ‘and after such absurdities as this’, Other examples of this exclamatory, or pathetic, use of e¢ (=eira) are found § 93 et soletis queri, § 100 et vituperabas, Div. 11 121 totas noctes somniamus, et miramur ali- guando id quod somniavimus evadere ? (where Allen cites Liv. 11 38 et hane urbem ducitis, U1 19 et vos prius signa &c.) Div. 1 69 et negant historict, where Allen cites other passages; Z’ull. 42 e¢ miramini (with Beier’s n.),
198 BOOK I CH. Xxx § 91.
Tusc. 1 92 et dubitas, 111 35 et tu oblivisci gubes, Phil. 119 et vos acta Caesaris defenditis, see Draeg. § 311 11.
tam facile vera invenire: see §§ 57, 60 with nn. on guid non sit and Simonides.
Ch. xxxim. etenim commences the refutation, showing how easy it is falsa convincere. Like ttaque in § 85, its force spreads over to the sentences which follow.
memoriter: ‘exactly’=prnporkds in Plato Polit. 257 B, see Rost and Palm’s Lex. Madv. in his n. on Fin. 1 34 shows that this is the only proper use of the word.
admirari liberet: Heind. takes offence at the phrase as implying that wonder was a matter of choice, and Cobet (Var. Lect. p. 461) proposes, with Moser, to read subiret= dar’ euorye Oavpatew erndOev ; but perhaps we may translate ‘I was fain to express my wonder’ (referring to § 58 dilucide, copiose &c.), see n. on admirabor § 24.
§ 92. omnesne—delirare visi: ‘do you mean to say that you thought them all out of their senses?’ Almost the same thing is said in § 94. See above on the usé of ne and cf. astisne § 93. On delirare see § 42 n. and Ae. fr. 34 Orelli, roga nune Stoicum quis sit melior, Lpicurusne, qui delirare alum clamat, an Academicus.
qui—decreverint : ‘for deciding’; even without this causal force, gu7, being indefinite, would naturally be followed by a Subj.
ne hoc quidem vos movet considerantes: ‘when you reflect on the special conveniences and adaptations of the limbs in man, are you still unconvinced (lit. does not even this incline you to judge) that the gods have no need of human limbs?’ //oc is explained by considerantes, the participle here taking the place of an infinitive or noun in apposition. The same thought (deos non egere membris) appears in the Timaeus c. 6, where the formation of the world by the Demiurgus is described, nec enim oculis egebat, quia nihil extra, quod cerni posset, relictum erat, nec auribus, guia ne quod audiretur quidem...nec manus afixit, quoniam nec capiendum quicquam erat, nec repellendum, nec pedes aut alia membra, quibus ingressum corporis sustineret.
ingressu: ‘the act of walking’, so in § 94; cncessus is used Of. 1 128.
discriptione: sce § 26 n.
nihil supervacaneum occurs also in § 99, 1 121; the form superva- cuus is more common in later Latin.
itaque nulla ars—potest: ‘and so (since there is nothing without a reason in nature) no art can approach the cunning of her handywork’. The sentence comes in awkwardly, and Heind. proposed to read ut—possit for ttaque potest: Stamm (De MW. D. interpolationibus, Vratislay, 1873) thinks it is an interpolation from 11 81 (naturam) cujus sollertiam nulla ars, nulla manus, nemo opifex consequi possit imitando ; cf. 142 quis vero opifex: praeter naturam, qua nihil potest esse callidius, tantam sollertiam persequi potuisset in sensibus. So Aristotle contrasts nature with art, Part. Anim.