BOOK I CH, XXXIV § 93. 203

Chrysippam. The nickname was probably pointed at the verbosity and prolixity of his innumerable treatises, see Galen Plac. Hipp. 111 p. 339, ‘Chrys. himself confessed that some of his writings might seem to be the compositions ypapypatictod twos 7 ypads adodecxovons’, Zeller Stoics tr. p. 47, and cf. the phrase ypauparix) ypaodoyia Sext. Emp. Math. 1 141; so Zeno is styled Acyvdypavs by Timon ap. Diog. L. vir 15.
§ 94. tamquam senatum—recitares : ‘like the censor when he reads out the list of the senate, cf. Liv. xxi 23, xx1x 37, Pro Domo 84’. Sch. [Recitatio, the roll-call, is to be distinguished from Jectio, the act of selec- tion, which was the proper duty of the censor, ef. Liv. 1x. 30. J. 8S. R.] Here C. returns from his digression to the point touched on in § 91.
ista—commenticia: reverting to § 93 istis somnitis.
lucubratione anicularum: ‘hardly fit to amuse old women at their evening work’. Wytt. quotes Liv. 1 57 (Lucretiam) inter lucubrantes an- cillas sedentem invenit ; cf. § 55 n.
suscipienda: ‘must be admitted’; so in § 98 and Fat. 18.
omnis cultus—oratio repeats what had been said in § 92. We have a similar list in Of. 1128 status, incessus, sessio, accubitio...manuum motus. These objections are noticed in the Herculanean De Sensionibus (H. V. v1 pt. 2, col. XII) gaol yap ds ef dia Td Aopiopov Exew avOpwrdpophos eat, kal Tis CwoTnTos KoWhs ovons CvvanT@pev avT@ kal mods Gddas Kowdrnras pophar, aotrep Kal ypeias Kal Saravas, and col. xiv ‘if God has the eyes of a man he will be liable to the diseases of the eye’, The same objections are urged by Arnobius, bk 11, esp. c. 12 foll.
§ 95. retinendum hoc esse—ut. See § 75 pugnare ut sit, and Leg. II 11 assentior ut sit with Dumesnil’s n.
beatitas—beatitudo: cited by Quintil. vir 3, and 15. Sch. gives exx. of similar double forms which continued in use, necessitas, necessitudo, claritas, claritudo, and others in Gell. xm 3. Of the two forms offered by C. the latter won the day, beatitas being only found in Macrob. Somn. Scip. 1 8, and Apul. Dog. Plat. 11 10, but both writers take care to use the preferable form within a few lines of the other; see Niigels. St. § 33 n. In § 100 we have beatum used to express the same idea. [Beata vita is C.’s usual equivalent for evSaovia. J.S. R.]
omnino—sed: see § 12 n.
{usu mollienda: cf. Ac. 1118 wisum—jam enim hoc pro davracig ver- bum satis hesterno usu trivimus. J.8. R.]
verum: resumptive after parenthesis, Madv. § 480.
quaecumque est: ‘however you like to call it’.
in solem—cadere: ‘why is it incongruous with yonder sun?’ Cf. § 19 n. The Stoic origin of Cotta’s speech betrays itself here, as in § 87. ;
§ 96. sescenta. It is supposed that this numeral came to be used for a round number generally, in consequence of the cohort having origi- nally consisted of 600 men. ;
204 BOOK I CH. XxxIv § 96.
innumerabilia: cf. §§ 53, 67.
quae sola divina natura est: ‘for this blessed and eternal nature alone possesses the attributes of deity’, Cf § 49 quae sit beata natura. Sch. in loc. (and opuse. p. 319) strangely takes guae as a neuter plural predicate, and sola divinu natura as feminine singular subject. Can there be a doubt that guae is Nom. Sing., referring to the preceding beata et aeterna natura, and forming the subject to the divina natura following, which is also Nom. ?
ut vincamur—sic vinci: in Orat. Rect. ut immortalitate vincimur, sic animi praestantia vincimur.
ut animi, item corporis. So Xenophanes (R. and P. § 133) eis Oeds év te Oeotat kat avOperoiot péytotos, | ov te S€uas Ovnroiow cpoitos ovde vonpa.
accedebat. The Imperf. refers back to the time marked by ratio docuit above, cf. Draeg. § 136, similarly videbas § 98, habebam § 100.
virtus quam figura. So Leg. 1 25 virtus eadem in homine ac deo est,... est autem virtus nihil aliud nisi perfecta et ad summum perducta natura. Est igitur homini cum deo similitudo. This was a Stoic doctrine contested by the Academics and Peripatetics, see 111 38 n. So Origen against Celsus vi 63 ‘if man resembles God, it cannot be in the inferior part of his compound nature (i.e. the body) nor in both parts, for then God too would be compound, but in the inner man seduk’re yiyverOat kart’ eikova Tod kricavtos, according to the words pupnral rov Oeod yiverOe’.
Ch. xxxv. § 97. ipsa vero—similitudo: ‘how little to the point is even the argument from likeness of which you make so much’; ipsa con- trasts the general theory with the special instance in dispute, viz. the resemblance between man and God. I understand here a reference to the Epicurean logic of induction, cf. nn. on 70, 87, 89.
simia quam similis: cf. Plin. V. 7. x1 100, Arist. Z/st. An. 1 8, and Top. 111 2 where A. discusses the Topic of Comparison (one ground of preference between two things compared is the degree of resemblance to a third object surpassing both of them ; to which it is objected that the resemblance may be of the nature of caricature, as the ape is nearer to man than the horse, but is not therefore more beautiful), also Heracl. fr. XCVIII, XCIX Byw. wiOjxwov 6 Kaddcotos aicypos GAA@ yéver oUEBarreLW... avOparav 6 coparatos mpos Gedy TiOnkos chaveirat kat codia Kal KadXeu Kat rois GAXos maow. [And Pindar Pyth. 111381 Kados ro. ridwv rapa macy, aici kados. J.S. BR.)
vastior: ‘ungainly’, ‘clumsy’, cf. De Orat. 1 115 (of awkward speakers) sunt quidam ita vultu motuque corporis vasti atque agrestes ; 117 vastum hominem ; Orator 153 vester § Avilla’ ‘ Ala’ factus est fuga litterae vastioris (the awkward 2).
§ 98. moribus paribus. I think Klotz’s suggestion paribus is better than similimis, which is usually supplied, not only because it would be