Note 32 — Chapter XVII · THE EPICUREAN VIEWS ON NATURE.

Cic. N. D. i. 19, 49: (Epicurus) docet eam esse vim et naturam Deorum ut primum non sensu sed mente cernatur: nec soliditate quadam nec ad numerum, ut ea, quæ ille propter firmitatem στερέμνια appellat, sed imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis: cum infinita simillimarum imaginum species ex innumerabilibus individuis exsistat et ad Deos (probably instead of Deos, which gives no sense, we should read nos. See the commentators in the editions of Moser and Kreuzer) affluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam infixamque nostram intelligentiam capere quæ sit et beata natura et æterna. The meaning of these words appears to be, that ideas of the Gods are not formed in the same way as the ideas of other solid bodies, by a number of similar pictures from the same object striking our senses (nec soliditate nec ad numerum, Diog. x. 95), but by single pictures emanating from innumerable divine individuals, all so much alike that they leave behind them the impressions of perfect happiness and immortality. The passage of Diog. x. 139, ought probably to be corrected by that in Cicero. It runs: ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι, τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητοὺς εἶναι· οὓς μὲν κατ’ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ κατὰ ὁμοειδίαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιῤῥύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένους ἀνθρωποειδῶς. The similarity of most of the expressions leaves no doubt that Diogenes followed the same authority as Cicero (probably the same as Plut. Plac. i. 7, 18 followed), but in the words οὓς μὲν κ.τ.λ., it asserts the very opposite of this and the Epicurean teaching. There must, therefore, be some error here, either due to Diogenes or a copyist. This error does not apparently belong to the words κατ’ ἀριθμὸν, which Cicero renders ad numerum, so that Steinhart’s suggestion, p. 477, καθ’ ἁρμὸν or καθ’ ἁρμοὺς, is clearly wrong. It is more probably to be found in the words οὓς μὲν—οὓς δὲ. We might suggest for οὓς μὲν, οὐ μέντοι. ↑