BOOK I CH. VIII § 20. 91

Democriti non docentis sed optantis; Fat. 46 optare hoc quidem est non disputare, Tusc. 11 30, Lael. 18. Cf. the use of evyn as in the phrase evxais Guora Plato ep. vi 499.
§ 20. sed illa palmaria: ‘but the prize for absurdity is due to what we have still to notice’, Pal. has the same ironical force in the only other passage in which it is used by C. sed dla statua palmaris, Phil. v1 15. It has been vainly sought to defend the ms reading palmaris by a reference to the sententias of § 18. On the use of the plural where only one proposition follows, we may say with Sch. that it may be intended to imply Plato’s expression of the same thought under various forms (e.g. Zim. 32 ¢, 33 A, 41 A), or we may be satisfied with the more general explanation given by Mady. (in Orelli), ‘ala Cicero posuit tanquam plura eadem orationis figura enumeraturus. Vid, Opuse. Acad. 1 360 not. et illis quae ibi collegi add. N. D. 11 147 quanta vero dla sunt quod et sensibus....Phil. V17 an alla non gravissimis ignominiis sunt notanda quod...’. See also Ac. 11 86 jam illa praeclara quanto artificio esset sensus nostro fabricata natura, a sarcastic reference to the remarks of Lucullus in § 30. [For omission of sunt cf. NV. D. 1 25 haec quidem vestra; 11 80 sed haec vetera; Of. 1119 haec ergo rariora; Ut 47 ila praedara ; 11 69 quam ila aurea &. J.S. R.]
quod qui introduxerit is dixerit: Heind. followed by C. F. Miiller Pref. tv objects to the Subj. dzxertt which Draeger explains (§ 151 5b) as an attraction to the preceding introduxerit. I should be disposed to regard it as an instance of the ordinary confusion by which the verb of saying is put in Subj. instead of the thing said (Roby §§ 1742, 1746). Omitting dixerit we should necessarily have had sempiternus futurus sit to show that this was a supposition of Plato’s.
manu paene factum: see n. on § 4 fabricati paene.
primis labris gustasse: ‘to have the slightest taste of’, lit. ‘with the surface of the lips’, primus being used in a sort of restrictive apposition to express not the first of a number of similar things, but the foremost part of one thing, as Fam. 11 6 prima provincia ‘the nearest part of the province’, Catull. 1 3 primus digitus ‘the tip of the finger’, The more common form in this use is primoris, cf. De Orat. 1 87 primoribus labris attingere. Simi- larly we find emus mons, media urbs, &. Roby § 1295. Cf. the Gr. da’ akpov xelidous hirocodeiv.
physiologiam : ‘natural philosophy’ including theology, according to the Stoics and Epicureans, but distinguished from it by Aristotle. Heind. following Manutius omitted the explanatory clause (nat. rat.) as a gloss, but Klotz (Adn. Crit. tv 5) successfully defends it by a large induction of passages, e.g. the explanation of the same word Div. 1 90, of mpoAnyis WV. D. § 43, of ivovopia §§ 50 and 109, of eivappévn and partir § 55, again of the latter Div. 11, of physicus N. D. 1 83, of kiprar 6a § 85 and Fin. 11 20.
quod ortum—aeternum. So 7Zusc.1 79 vult enim, quod nemo negat, quicquid natum sit interire. This principle is often asserted by Plato, as in Rep. vit 546 a, Phaedrus 245 cD (translated by C. T'use. 153), where it is
92 BOOK I CH. VIII § 20.
~_
distinctly stated that that alone is eternal which has in itself the principle of self-movement, dre ov« dmoXeimov €avtd, While that which is moved by another (life being regarded as a species of movement) ceases to live when it ceases to be moved, and is therefore in itself mortal. What is com- pounded is especially liable to this law, see 7¢m. 41 A rd SeOév wav duroy, and Phaedo 78 © ro péev EvvOerS dvte Hioet mpoonjket rovito racyew, SiarpeOjvac travtn amep EvveréOn’ ei SE te Tuyxaver dv akvvOerov rovre pove mpoorjKet 1) macxetv TodTo. How then does the universe being com- pounded and receiving its principle of movement from without, and there- fore essentially mortal, escape dissolution? Because the First-Mover and Compounder eternally wills to keep it together as a living unity, and his will is stronger than any band, 7m. 32 c, 33.4,414AB. This Platonic principle is of course the only ground for the Christian belief in the con- tinuance of any created existence. Bp. Butler, it is true, in defending the doctrine of Immortality against the Materialists (Anal. ch. 1) makes use of the argument from indiscerptibility ; but this is only to show that, even supposing the soul material, it need not necessarily perish in death, of which the only known effect is to dissolve what is dissoluble: he is far from maintaining, as some have done, that each individual soul possesses an inherent immortality a priori, so as to render its extinction impossible even to the Almighty. The argument here used by Velleius is taken from Aristotle De Caelo 1 10 where he maintains the eternity of the universe in opposition to the Platonic doctrine of creation. [Cf. for the whole passage Ac. 11 119 and Bernays’ Die Dial. d. Arist. 99—114. J. 8S. R.]
cujus principium aliquod sit, nihil sit extremum: ‘such as to have a beginning without having an end’, Anexample of adversative asyndeton equivalent to the opposition of clauses by the use of wey and $€ in Greek; see just below sapientes leniant, stulti nec vitare possint. In both instances the first clause is introductory to the second and would be unmeaning without it. For other examples of coordinate propositions, where we should have expected one proposition to be subordinated to the other, see § 23, Roby § 1027, Niigels. § 160, Madv. § 438, and his Gr. Gr. § 189 b, also indices (under Coord.) to Mayor’s edd. of Juvenal and the Second Phi- lippic of C. Logically such clauses would come under the head conjunc- tionum negantia Cic. Top. 57, Fat. 15, cf. Heidt. 1c. 34 foll. On the repetition of sit cf. Tusc. 176 vereor ne homini nihil sit non malum aliud, certe sit nihil bonum potius, Tusc. Iv 50 vereor ne fortitudo minime sit rabiosa, sitque iracundia tota levitatis.
si est eadem: ‘if your Pronoea is the same, then I want to know all I asked about before, the agents, engines, &c.’ There does not seem to be any need to insert a second eadem, to be the object of reguiro, as most of the recent edd. have done (see Sch. Opuse. 111 283). Klotz, on the other hand, retaining the Ms reading, makes vestra predicative, which gives no meaning, for there has been no allusion to any but the Stoic Pronoea, who is here compared with the Platonic Demiurgus. The difference between