BOOK I CH. XII § 29. 115

€or aravrov | Oyntay ovd€é tis ovAopevou Bavaroto TeevTy’ | GAAG povoy wikis te duaddakis Te pryevtav’ | ék Tod yap py edvros aunxavoy éote yeverOat, | To ? eov €€dd\Avo Oa avyjvucrov Kai Apyktov | 98—108 Mullach.
sensu carere: the same argument as before: there can be no sen- sation without a sensuous organism.
Protagoras : see Krische 130—142. The theological views of P. are stated again in §§ 63 and 117, but without the words qualesve sint, which are also omitted by Diog. L. 1x 51 mepi pev Gedy ovk exw cidevar ovVM ds eiolv ovh ws ovK elgiv’ moAAa yap Ta KwAvorra eideva, } re adndoTns Kai Bpayds av 6 Bios tov avOpérov. The first writer who gives the fuller form is Timon the Sillograph (B.c. 279) quoted by Sext. Emp. 1x 57 Il. Oeovs xaréypa’ ov? eidevac ovte SvvacOat | émmoiol twes eiot Kai otrwes abpnoacba. It is probable that Philodemus reported the doctrine in this form, for though there is no direct mention of Prot. in the existing fragments, yet in the summary at the end of the controversial portion of his treatise, allusion is made to rods dyvworov ei tiwes eiot Oeot Aéyovras, 7 moioi Ties eiow, p- 89, which can only refer to him.
habere quod liqueat: ‘to be able to make up his mind’. Cf. 13 sz haberem aliquid quod liqueret, Ac. 11 94, and the legal WV. L. (Cluent. § 76).
quicquam suspicari: ‘to have the faintest idea’.
Democritus : see Krische 142—163, and nn. on WV. D. 1 120 where his theology is more fully discussed. Epic. is charged with ingratitude towards him § 93. Lucretius though often dissenting from him in points of detail always speaks with respect of that Democriti quod sancta viri sententia
_ ponit.
imagines earumque circuitus = imag. circumeuntes. On the use of hendiadys cf. Zumpt § 741, Seyffert Lael: pp. 191, 198, Draeger § 311, 9. It is a figure often employed by C. in translating from the Greek, and not unfrequently we find a complex idea misinterpreted by being thus broken up into its component parts, see nn. on § 25 (the mentem et aquam of Thales) § 28 (mentem et omne of Xenophanes). Here it is intended to have a burlesque effect.
in deorum numero refert. Heind. followed by Klotz (Adn. Crit. 1 5) reads numerum against the Mss, as we have ref. in deos § 34, repono in deos § 38; but the Abl. is the more common construction after repono, e.g. in vestigio reponere § 37, sidera in deorum numero reponere 11 54, so III 47, 51, cf. Zumpt § 490 on the compounds of pono, Draeger §298c. We might make a distinction between the meanings of refero as it was followed by Acc. or Abl. translating the former ‘to put him on the list of the Gods’, the latter ‘to return his name in the list of the Gods’.
scientiam intellegentiamque nostram: again hendiadys=animum nostrum scientem et intellegentem, Sch. :
neget esse quicquam sempiternum: i.e. any compound. Atoms and void are of course eternal to D. as to Epicurus, but the former had not thought of saving his Gods from wasting and disturbing influences by
8—2
116 HOOK 1 CH. AM +S 2).
placing them in the ¢rtermundia. They are therefore mortal, ddad6apra Hev, ovk apOapra dé (Sext. Emp. 1X 558) and cannot pass the Epicurean test.
Diogenes (Krische 163—177) distinctly attributed reason to the air, making it the principle of life and understanding in man, and the sovereign of the universe ; in his own words quoted by Simplicius (R. and P. § 63
foll.) avOparos kal ta Gdda (Ga avarvéeovta (Het TH dept” Kai ToUTO avToise kat Wuyn é€oTe kat vonows :...kal poor Ooxeee UO TovTov Tavta KuBeprvac@at. We also learn from Theophrastus that he attributed sensation to air (R. and P. § 66) damep ro Cy Kal TO ppoveiv TO dept kai ras aicOnoes dvanret, and spoke of 6 éevros anp (the breath or spirit of man) as puxpov popiov tod Beod. In the Philodemian fragment p. 70 he is referred to in the following terms, A. éxaivet Tov ”Opnpoy ws ov puOicas GAN adnOas i7mEp tov Oeiov dterteypevov’ Tov aépa yap avrov Alia vopitew now ereidy wav eid€vat Tov Aia Neyer; With which Nauck on Philodemus, in Mélanges G'réco- Romains, St Petersburg, 1864, compares the interesting passage in the comic poet Philemon (Meineke p. 391) ov ovdé eis A€AnOev ovVSE ev Tovar | ovd av romowv, ovdé meromnkas Tada! ote Oeds, oUt avOpwros, otTos ei eya | Anp, Ov av tis dvopacee Kai Aia.
quem sensum—dei: reiteration of the old polemic, see under Em- pedocles, Parmenides, Anaximenes for senswm, under Parmenides an l Anaximenes for figuram.
§ 30. jam: a transitional particle like nam, which some read here : lit. ‘by this time’ ‘next’ we come to Plato.
Plato: Krische 181—204. The fact that we have, in this 2nd criti- cism of Plato, no reference to the former contained in §§ 18—24 is one of the arguments alleged to show that this whole section was inserted as an afterthought. The charge against Plato is (1) inconsistency: at one time he denies the possibility of naming God and forbids us to inquire into his nature, at another he tells us that the heaven, the stars, the souls &c. are Gods; (2) these assertions are not only inconsistent but false in themselves ; (3) particularly the assertion that God is incorporeal. With the exception of Sch. all the edd. seem content to understand dicon- stantia of the first two assertions, that God cannot be named and that he ought not to be made the subject of investigation; but as these are evidently quite consistent, Sch. holds that the opposition lies between them on the one hand and the assertion of the incorporeal nature of God (quod vero—dooparov) on the other. He allows that the grammatical connexion of the two sentences is very different from what we should have expecte.l if they were intended to have this relation to one another, but offers no explanation or suggestion. It seems to me plain that, as the latter stands, it is impossible to suppose them thus related ; and no less plain that the sentence beginning with tem (a word constantly employed to mark the coexistence of two apparently inconsistent facts) refers back to the qui in Timaco of the first sentence. The opposition between