BOOK I CH. xX § 25. 105

have been identified with God, since we learn from Aristotle (Phys. 11 4) that A. considered this to be rd Oetov and to govern (xueprar) all things. True, the dre.pov was impersonal, but so was vdwp; and therefore Augus- tine (C. D. vit 2) is justified in saying that neither A. nor Thales were theists in the proper sense. It seems however that later writers gave a more mechanical aspect to the physical theory of Anaximander, which they regarded as differing from that of Anaxagoras only in the fact that the latter recognized vods where the former had seen only an did:os xivnots, cf. Ritter and Preller § 18 foll. with the notes from the Aristotelian com- mentators. So Plutarch (Plac. Phil. 1 3, 4) finds fault with Anaximander, but not with Thales, for making no mention of an efficient cause.
nativos—mundos: so Stob. Hel. 1 56 ’Ava&. amedyvaro rods dreipous ovpavovs Geovs, and Plut. Plac. Phil. 1 7 rods dorépas ovpaviovs Oeovs, cf. Zeller 1* 211. The words orientes occidentesque are to be understood of the worlds which are continually being evolved out of the amepoy and again absorbed into it.
deum intellegere : ‘we can only conceive of God as eternal’, any other supposition being opposed to the Epicurean mpoAnyis, cf. § 43, and on this use of intellegere § 21 n.
§ 26. Anaximenes: dépa dreipov &pn thy dpxny elvat, €& ov Ta yivopeva, Ta yeyovora, kal Ta éodpeva, kal Oeovs kal Ocia yiverOa, ta dé Aowra ex Tov tovrov amoyovev, Hippol.17. This agrees with Philodemus p. 65, so far as it is legible (see Lengnick Ad em. lib. de N. D. ex Philodemo p. 15) and with Aug. C.D. vil 2 omnes rerum causas infinito aert dedit, nec deos negavit aut tacuit (in contrast to his predecessors), non tamen ab tpsis aerem factum, sed tpsos ex aere ortos credidit; also Plut. Plac. Phil. 13 €k ToUTov Ta Tmavta yiverOa Kal els avrov madw davadierbat’ olov 7 vy) 1 Mjuetépa, anp ovoa, ovykparet rpuas, Kat OAav Tov KOGpOV TvEdpa Kal ajp meptexe. Stobaeus (Lel. 1 56) further tells us that he gave the name of God to Air, and he adds the explanation that when the elements are thus deified we must understand that divinity is attributed to the power which has its seat in the element. How then are we to account for C’s extra- ordinary assertion that the air from which all things proceed and into which they are absorbed is not itself eternal, but had a beginning in time (gigni)? Kr. p. 55 holds that it arises from a confusion between the divine air and the subordinate Gods who are produced from this air: a more probable suggestion might be that it is a misunderstanding of the Greek, ap mavta yiyvera ‘passes into all forms’. [Mr Reid indeed thinks C. meant gigni to be taken in this sense=éy yevéoe: eivat, but this seems hardly consistent with the following quod ortum sit.] I believe that C. is here giving the view, which is stated more at length by Lucretius v 318, (of the ether) denique jam tuere hoc, circum supraque quod omnem | continet amplexu terram: si procreat ex se | omnia, quod quidam memorant, recipit- que perempta, | totum nativum mortali corpore constat ; | cf. what is said of air 1, 279, haud igitur cessat gigni de rebus et in res | reccidere, assidue
106 BOOK I CH. x § 26.
qguoniam flucre omnia constat. Inthe Acad. 11 118 the doctrine is correctly stated infinitum aera, sed ca quae ex eo orerentur definita: gigni autem terram, aquam, ignem, tum ex his omnia. See Krische pp. 52—60.
immensum et infinitum : two words employed to express the single Gr. dzetpov cf. n. on § 2 perceptum et cognitum. The former brings into prominence the idea of space itself, the latter the boundaries which we seek in vain. They are often joined, as in Div. 11 91, so immensam et inter- minatam V.D. 154, [#t seems to me to introduce the stronger word. To say that a thing has never been measured, is not so strong as to say that it is without end; cf. de. 11 127 exigua et minima, J.S. R.]
semper in motu: kivnow dé Kat ovTos didioy moet Ov Hy Kal Thy peta- Bodny yiverOa, Simpl. in Arist. Phys. 6a (quoted with other passages by Zeller 1 2214).
quasi: Heind. adds vero, but Fértsch cites several passages in which guast by itself has the ironical force, e.g. Verr. v 169, Plane. 62.
cum praesertim: ‘as if formless air could be a God, whereas it is fitting that God should be of the most-perfect shape’. Cf. 11 88 praesertim cum sint ila perfecta quam haec simulata sollertius, and see Mady. (#%n. 11 25) and Mayor (2 Phil. § 60) on this use. Literally it means ‘particularly when we consider that’, but this often refers to a thought unexpressed, as here the logical form of the preceding clause would be ‘as if we could possibly believe air to be a God’.
The criticism on the doctrine of Anaximenes, like that on Anaximander, is nothing more than an assertion of its irreconcileability with the Epicurean assumption of the eternity and human form of the Gods. In this C. copies Philodemus, who charges the Stoics with denying the Gods whom all worship and whom the Epicureans allow, avOpwmoedeis yap od vopicovow, GANG dépas Kal mvevparta Kal aidé€pas (p. 84). For pulcherrima specie see n. on § 23 cn quam figuram; for the arg. that all that is born must die, n. on § 20 quod ortum.
Ch. XI. Anaxagoras: see Krische 60—68, Hirzel 90—97. His frag- ments are collected and explained by Schaubach and others. There is little probability in the tradition (Diog. L. 11 6) which C. here follows, of the connexion between Anaximenes and Anaxagoras. The doctrines of the latter bear a much stronger resemblance to the Sicilian than to the Tonic school.
primus voluit. This is in accordance with the statements of Aristotle and the best authorities, but is in flat contradiction to the account of Thales given above. The doctrine alluded to is summed up in the words Opov mavta xpnpata ny, vois dé adra Scaxpivas Svexoopunoe (Simpl. de cael. f. 145) also in Arist. Jet, A 3, vodv elrev eivat, kabamep ev Tois (wots, Kat ev tT poet Tov airiov Tod Koopov Kat Tis tagews maons. Apparently C. meant to paraphrase dcvexoopnoe by the words discriptionem et modum designari et confici, ‘the order and measure of all things was marked out and effected by the power and the wisdom of the infinite mind’, But