BOOK I CH. Xxxvill § 107. 213

therefore there can be no resemblance’. As the actual Epicurean view is that the image exactly resembles the reality, cf. § 81 foll., Zeller Zpic. tr. p. 432, Lucr. Iv 51, I was at one time disposed to read et quidem ea for nec ex of MSS ; to the same effect is Mr Reid’s emendation given in the note below. Mr Roby thinks the ex forma of Mss may be retained in the sense ‘not cast by the form’}.
quo modo illi ergo: sc. ¢nciderunt, ‘how then (if there is no resem- blance between the images and their originals) did the originals come into my head?’
et quorum imagines. Allen considers the passage corrupt, as it has been already stated that the images are those of Homer &c. I think it may be defended as asking for a nearer definition of the omniuwm above, and so preparing the way for the question which follows : ‘when you say omnium do you include, not only men now dead such as Plato, but imagi- nary characters such as Orpheus, or impossibilities such as the Chimaera ?’ [Perhaps better as Mr Roby takes it: ‘Cicero says, if images which you say are Homer’s &c. come, but are not like Homer's real form, then two questions arise, Ist how do the originals come to you at all? 2nd whose are the images which do come? They are copied from some real form, whose was that form ?’]
Orpheum—fuisse. Cf. § 33 n., Bernays’ Dialoge d. Arist. p. 95, Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 339. The reference is to the lost De philosophia, but it is quite in accordance with the manner in which Arist. elsewhere alludes to the Orphic poems, e.g. ra kadovpeva ’Ophéws ern An. 15 15 with Tren- delenburg’s n. ; in commenting on which passage Philoponus says that A. speaks doubtfully as to the authorship of the poems, ws kal avrés év trois rept pirocodias Neyer avrov pev yap clot Ta Odypara’ Tavita O€ pyow ’Ovopua- kptrov ev reat karareivat. This differs from C.’s account, in recognizing the existence of Orpheus and attributing certain doctrines to him, but there seems no reason to doubt that C. is here correct,
hoc Orphicum carmen—Cercopis. Philop., as we have seen, names Onomacritus, but, if Bernays is right in supposing that the 1st book of the Ilept S:Acoopias contained a general examination of the Orphic theology, it
1 [Accepting quam I would read omnino for omnium (a very common corrup- tion). Then the ex of mss is evidently a mere doubling of the ec in nec. For nec ex I would read nedum, which is very frequently written necdum in mss. The meaning would be ‘what is more improbable than that phantoms of Homer etc. should strike on my senses at all, to say nothing of their retaining just the shape those persons had when alive?’ Then for illi I should read illae, referring on to Orpheus Scylla, ete. The e would be easily dropped before ergo, and the unin- telligible illa would be altered to illi which the scribes referred to Homer etc. wrongly. Thus the argument rises from one stage of difficulty to another, ‘putting aside the cases of Homer etc. all of whom we admit to have once existed, what have you to say about persons and places which never existed at all?’ It is quite in Cicero’s style to break the continuity of the argument by the insertion of quid quod—tuum. The De Finibus contains many things of this kind, J. 8. R.]
214 BOOK I CH. XXXvuI § 107.
is probable that different treatises may have been cited in it, some of which were attributed to Onom. as the Xpnopoi and Tederai, and some to Cercops as the ‘Iepds Adyos and (Oncéws) KkaTaBaors eis adov, see Clem. Strom. 1397 and Suidas quoted in Lobeck 1. c. On the Orphie doctrines generally, and on the connexion between the Orphic school and the Pytha- goreans, compare Lobeck l.c. Zeller 1 p. 71 foll. Dollinger Gentile and Jew t bk. 3, p. 125, tr. Herod. m1 81 (on the prohibition of woollen garments) Oporoyéovat S€ Tatra Totoe Opdixotoe Kadeopevots kat Bakytxoiar, €ovor oe Alyvmtiows Kai Wvéayopeiourt. The mass of what has come down to us under the name of ‘Orphica’ is probably later than the Christian era, but some fragments may be as old as Onomacritus, see Hermann’s ed. Cicero’s friend, Nigidius, the Pythagorean, referred to the Orphic theogony in his treatise De dis (Serv. ad Verg. “el. Iv 10).
hoc Orphicum carmen: cf. hujus § 79 n. and Krische p. 20.
§ 108. quid, quod ejusdem—Chimaerae : cf. 11 5, and Div. 11 138 tstae imagines ita nobis cdicto audientes sunt, ut, simul atque velimus, accurrant ? etiamne earum rerum quae nullae sunt? quae est enim forma tam invisitata, tam nulla, quam non sibi ipse fingere animus possit? ut, quae numquam vidimus, ea tamen informata habeamus, oppidorum situs, hominum figuras ? num igitur cum aut muros Babylonis aut Homeri fuciem cogito, imago illo- rum me aliqua pellit? omnia igitur, quae volumus, nota nobis esse possunt. Lucretius Iv 732 meets these and similar arguments. Centawros itaque ct Scyllarum membra videmus | Cerbereasque canum facies simulacraque eorum | quorum morte obita tellus amplectitur ossa: | omne genus quoniam passim simulacra feruntur, | partim sponte sua quae fiunt aere in tpso, | partim quae variis ab rebus cumque recedunt, | et quae confiunt ex horum facta Jiguris, | as the Centaurs from the mingling of human and equine images.
quas numquam vidimus: this argument, of which Sch. failed to see the force, is more fully stated at the end of the passage from the De Div. given above.
simul ac mihi collibitum est. So Lucr. 1v 779 quaeritur in primis quare, quod cuique libido | venerit, extemplo mens cogitet ejus id ipsum. | to which he answers that quovis in tempore quaeque | praesto sint simulacra locis in quisque parata. | but because they are so fine, the mind can only see those which it strains itself to see, 802; cf. Fam. xv 16.
ad dormientem : Lucr. Iv 757.
invocatae : a compound of the negative zz and vocatus, occurs also Nep. Cim. 4 quos invocatos vidisset, omnes devocaret, Ter. Hun. Vv 8 29, Plaut. Capt. 1 1 2 (with a play on the double sense of the word); compare the similar case of immutatus, infectus, indictus, and even indicens: the verb ignosco forms an exception to the rule that the negative cv is only com- pounded with adjectives, adverbs and participles. [It is probably dma€ eipnueévoy in C. though it occurs in a letter of Caclius, “am. vit 8. J.S. R.]
nugatoria : ‘it is a piece of humbug from beginning to end’; so nuga- tur means fa humbug’, in the sense of playing upon other people.