BOOK I CH. XI § 28. 113

dpaov (the fine element of fire) riy Sé ek tod muxvod (the gross element, earth,) puxtras d€ addus ék horos kat oxdrovs petakd Toitwv’ Kal TO TEpLéxov d€ macas teiyous Sixny, orepedy vrapxew, Up G mupedyns aredavyn’ kai Td pecaitatoy macay (is solid also) rept ov waduv mupadns’ Tay d€ gumpeyay THY peoaratny (the fiery ring just mentioned which lies in the middle of all the composite rings) dmacats Ttoxéa maons Kuwyoews Kal yevéoews vrap- xew, Wvrwa Kal Saipova kat KuBépynti Kai KAnSovxov dvondter, Sikny Te Kat dvayxnv. From this it is plain that C. is mistaken in ascribing divinity to the orbem qui cingit caelum. It is the innermost fiery circle surrounding the dark globe of the earth which is divine according to P. Probably C. in his haste confused this with the ninth all-embracing sphere of the Somn. Scip. 4 summus ipse deus, arcens et continens ceteros, in quo infixt sunt uli qui volvuntur stellarum cursus sempiternt. In Ac. 11 118 we read that P.’s first principle was zgnem qui moveat terram quae ab eo formetur, which agrees fairly with Theophrastus quoted in Zeller? 1 p. 522 Svo srovet Tas apyas wip Kal ynv, TO pev ws DAnv, TO S€ ws aitiov Kat moody. Colotes, one of the leading disciples of Epic., wrote against Parm. as we learn from Plut. Jf. p. 1113 foll., but there is no resemblance between the criticisms which we find there, and those contained in this passage.
nam : see n. on § 27.
commenticium : see § 18. It suggests the more fanciful character of the tenets here discussed in contrast to the preceding. For efficit we should rather have expected efingit, unless we retain the old reading s7n- litudine (preferred by Sch. Opusc. 111 360) in the sense ‘he makes out a fanciful sort of thing by the help of the similitude of a crown’.
continente—orbem : ‘a shining ring of unbroken fire’, i.e. not com- posite.
qui cingat. The later editors have followed Ernesti and Heind. in reading cingat required by the or. ob/. instead of the cingit of the Mss. Sch. Opusc. 111 807 gives many exx. of the interchange of the moods in Mss.
in quo—potest. Epicurean polemic: this offends against our assump- tion as to the human form of the Gods and the impossibility of sensation except through the medium of bodily senses.
multaque—monstra : modi is inserted after ejusdem by most edd. and no doubt the omission would be easy before monstra, which in that case would be the Acc. governed by eficit. The monstra however which follow (bellum, &e.) are hardly ejusdem generis with the oredavn; and the recur- rence of the phrase immediately below inclines me to adhere to the Mss, Fjusdem will then refer to P. and form part of a new sentence, of which monstra will be the subject. On portenta cf. § 18 n.
quippe qui—delentur. This is distinctly stated with regard to cupi- ditas by Aristotle Met. 1 4, where he says that some approach to the recognition of a final cause was made by those who assigned as a first principle ¢pwra i émOupiary, oiov cai Il. from whose poem rept icews he then quotes the line mpwriarov pev "Epwota Ocayv pnticato mdavtwy.
MiG: 8
114 BOOK I CH. XI § 28.
Though the contrary principle be/7um did not play so important a part in P.’s system as in that of Empedocles, yet it may easily have been introduced in the description of the mingling of Light and Darkness, Male and Female, of which the following lines are preserved to us (R. & P. § 151, Mullach Frag. 1 p. 127) ev 6€ péom tovtav Saipwv n ravta kuBepra. | ravtn yap otvyepoio ToKov Kal pisos apxn | wéumove” appevte OnrAV pueynvat, evartia & ad&is | dpoev Onduvtépo. A fragment of Philodemus probably refers to this part of P.’s doctrine, as the name Iappeveidns occurs just before (p. 65), tov re mpatov Oedv avvxov Toteiv, TOUS TE yevv@pevous UO TOUTOU TA pev avra tois mabeaw Tots rept avOp@mouvs. From this we may explain the Epicurean polemic in the text: ‘if P. deified human passions our experience shows that these are liable to be affected by disease, sleep, old age, &e’.
cetera: e.g. Sikn and avayxn mentioned in Stob. I. c.
ad deum revocet: ‘brings them under the head of deity’, i.e. makes them divine, ef. § 119 ad rationem revocatis, Div. 1 66 ostenta ad conjee- turam revocuntur. The later edd. have corrected the Ind. of the Mss in accordance with Ciceronian usage, see Draeger § 491, Sch. Opuse. 111 308.
eademque—omittantur. Parm. is said to have written largely epi adotpev but we are not told elsewhere that he attributed divinity to them. On the omission of dicit (with eadem) cf. §$17n. The reference is to ad deum revocet. In alio i.e. in the case of Alemaeon.
ch. x1r § 29. Empedocles: see Krische 116—130. The fragments are collected and explained by Karsten (very full notes), Mullach and others. Lucretius 1 716—733 speaks in a very different tone of ‘the glory of Sicily whose inspired verses set forth his discoveries in such wise ut viv humana videatur stirpe creatus’, but we learn from iV, ). 193 that Epicurus and some of his disciples wrote against him. In de. 11 74 C. says of him dignissimum rebus tis de quibus loquitur sonum fundere videtur. The numerous fragments of E.’s poem wept dicews show how capriciously the authority, whom C. follows, selected his facts. In addition to the four elements, deified under the names of Zevs or “Hdacoros (fire), "Hpn (air), Niors (water), Aidwrevs (earth) E. treats as divine the active principles Neixos and ®.Adrns (also called "Adpodirn), the all-including Sphere Sqaipos (6 evdatpoveotaros Peds Arist. Met. 111 4), the supreme Law (Avayxn), the gods and daemons of the popular religion, the souls of good men. The criticism is equally careless.
peccans : ‘among other blunders’, cf. § 31.
deorum opinio: obj. gen. ‘in his religious belief’, so opin. ejus below, divinationis opin. ‘belief in divination’ Div. 175; but op. de dis NV. D. mt 11, cf. Draeg. § 203, Roby § 1318.
naturas : cf. § 22 n.
quas et nasci—perspicuum est. Lucretius, who gives what is on the whole a fair criticism of the systein of Empedocles in 1 752—802, urges the same objection, but E. himself distinctly asserts the opposite, dicts oddevds