BOOK I CH. IX § 22. 95

of time in itself, are quite beside the mark. No one disputes that this was the view of many philosophers; the question is, what was the Epicurean view? No doubt Vell. just below uses non-Epicurean argu- ments, but that is where he can turn them to his own purpose, and make his adversary’s case destroy itself. Here it is his own case which is weakened by the insertion of what I hold to be a gloss. As regards the language of the gloss itself, ne in cogitationem quidem cadit is equivalent to ne cogitari quidem potest (Ac. 11 82) ‘it is impossible even to imagine how there could have been (lit. was) anything of the nature of time before time existed’ (I prefer to take it thus rather than to make ut fuerit=fuisse with Sch. zz loco and Draeg. § 407). It only remains to account for the gloss, and this seems, like anim after oculis § 19, to be easily explained as a correction of the Epicurean doctrine in the text, made by a follower of Plato or Aristotle, who inserted a non before potest, and gave as his reason for negativing it guod—esset. For the use of intellego=‘conceive’ Heidt. quotes /in. 117 eumque motum atomorum nullo a principio sed ex aeterno tempore intellegi convenire (where see Madyv.’s n.), V. D. 173 stud quast corpus et quasi sanguinem quid intellegis ? 111 38 qualem autem deum intellegere nos possumus nulla virtute praeditum ? 11 54 hance igitur in stellis constantiam non possum intellegere sine mente (sc. odcar).
§ 22. isto spatio. Why the Abl. when we have the Acc. of duration just before, (saecla dorm.)? Because in that case the sleeping is viewed as extending right through the ages, while here the action is viewed as con- fined within this time, not extending over it; so in tempore infinito just below, cf. hoe spatio (in the interval) conclave concidisse (De Orat. 11 353), casus autem innumeris paene saeculis in omnibus plura mirabilia quam in somniorum visis effecit (Div. 11 147). The same difference is found in Gr. between the Acc. of duration and the (inclusive) Gen. of time. Practically of course the two very much overlap, see Roby §§ 1182, 1185. Or we might take spatio as the Abl. of Attendant Circumstances, ‘though there was all that time’, Roby § 1248.
at iste—parerent. Heidt. (p. 38) has called attention to the ap- parent inconsistency of this sentence with the tenets of the speaker. That we cannot connect the idea of toil with our idea of the divine nature is of course of the essence of Epicureanism ; but this is bound up with the idea of the divine inactivity, whereas here it is assumed that the work of creation may be accomplished without toil to the creator owing to the willing co- operation of the elements, a supposition which has been just ridiculed by Vell. § 19. There is however no reason to suppose any corruption of the text, as H. does. The argument throughout is ad hominem as shown by the repeated isto, cste, ista. To this H. opposes the language used by Balbus of the labour of creation 11 133 tantarum rerum molitio, tantum laborasse: the answer to which is that B. there speaks rhetorically in a manner opposed to the general spirit of the’ Stoic philosophy to which Vell. here appeals.
96 BOOK I CH. IX § 22.
attingit: similarly in m1 38. naturae: ‘the elements’, so §§ 29, 103, II 28, 83, Ac. T 39.
ignes, terrae, maria. The singular is more naturally used of the simple elements, as in §19; the plural of the lands and seas which con- stitute our globe. Perhaps the latter is employed here to give a certain inflation to the style suited to the ironical force of the sentence. So in § 100 and Leg. 1 61 it may be explained as poetical hyperbole, ‘all lands, all seas’, or are we to consider it only the expression of the naive view which makes our earth the chief member in the universe? Caelum stands for air, ignes for the aetherit ignes (the stars) of §103. Cf. Draeg. § 4.
quid—quod: see n. on § 3.
signis et luminibus. I think Ernesti right (against Heind.) in sup- posing a play on words here. It suits the jocular tone of the passage and particularly the reference to the aediles. The constellations (cf. § 35, Lucr. I 2, v 691) and luminaries of heaven are compared to the statues and illuminations with which the aediles adorn the public buildings of Rome on festal days. The custom originated according to Livy (1x 46) with the victory of the Samnites B. c. 307, when the buildings in the forum were decorated with the gilded shields and other spoils; ende natum initium fori ornandi ab aedilibus cum tensae ducerentur. So Suetonius tells us (Caes. 10) that Julius Caesar, when aedile, praeter comitium ac forum basilicasque etiam Capitolium ornavit. We learn from Asconius ad Verr. 1 22 that statues and ornaments were borrowed from Greece and elsewhere for these decorations, olim cum in foro ludi populo darentur signis ac tabulis pictis partim ab amicis, partim e Graecia commodatis utebantur ; cf. Pro Domo § 111, Verr. Iv 3, Orator 131 (explaining the metaphorical use of the word dwmen in oratory) reliqua ex collocatione verborum quae sumuntur quasi lumina magnum afferunt ornatum oratori. Sunt enim similia wis quae in amplo ornatu scenae aut fort appellantur insignia; non quod sola ornant, sed quod excellunt. On the illuminations see Friedliinder Stitt. Roms 11 144 ed. 1, who refers among other passages to Lucil. Sat. ur 23 Romanis ludis forus olim ornatu’ lucernis. Nocturnal spectacles were not uncommon, especially at the Floralia, the Saecularia, and the Saturnalia, cf. Ov. Fasti v 361, Dio Cass. vir 19, Suet. Aug. 31, Stat. Silv. 16 85. They were much patronized by Caligula (Suet. Cal. 18), Nero (Tac. Ann. XIv 20) and Domitian (Suet. Dom. 4).
si: sc. ornavit. For similar omissions after s¢ cf. § 99 si, ut immortalis sit, 11 81 si, guia Drusum ferro sustulerat, Div. 11 55 si enim, ut intelle- geremus.
gurgustio: ‘a hovel’, ‘den’, ‘cellar’; used of a low tavern, Piso 13 meministine nescio quo e gurgustio te prodire involuto capite, soleatum? et cum isto ore fetido taeterrimam nobis popinam inhalasses...which is referred to again in 18 tu ex tenebricosa popina extractus ; of a miser’s dwelling, Apul. Met. 171 brevitatem gurgustiolt nostri ne spernas peto; of the poor cottage in which Valerius Cato ended his days, Suet. Gram. 11; of a close bower or