« PreviousContinue »
tect, must have had some material to work on, and that this material must have had properties of its own; similarly we may assume that, when he made plants and animals, he must have had, as his material, the four elements of which they are compounded'. Lactantius distinctly denies the first assumption (II 8 § 8), nemo quaerat ex quibus ista materiis tam magna, tam mirifica opera Deus fecerit. Omnia enim fecit ex nihilo; nec audiendi sunt poetae qui aiunt chaos in principio fuisse... postea vero Deum instruxisse mundum; then, after citing this passage to show that the philosophers are no wiser than the poets, he goes on to argue that “if God did not make matter, he must be inferior to the maker of matter, which is equivalent to saying that the maker of matter is the real God! Or, if it be said that it exists by nature, then nature must be rational, but a rational and creative nature is only another name for God. Cicero's comparison ignores the difference between God and man, nam si est aliquid ante illum, si factum est quidquam non ab illo, jam potestatem Dei et nomen amittet. If it be said that matter is eternal, there must be two contending eternals, which is impossible, or God must be derived from matter, the rational and voluntary agent from that which is without will and consciousness &c.” Cf. Theodoret p. 64 (η γραφή) δημιουργήσαι τα ξύμπαντα έφησε τον θεόν, ου καθάπερ οικοδόμοι και ναυπηγοί και χαλκοτύποι και χρυσοχόοι...και οι άλλοι τεχνίται τάς ύλας ερανιζόμενοι ταύτας ειδοποιούσί τε και διαγλύφουσι, και τα όργανα παρ' αλλήλων αντιλαμβάνοντες, άλλ' άμα βουληθήναι τε και τα μηδαμή μηδαμώς όντα παραγαγείν. 'Απροσδεής γάρ ο τών όλων θεός, αι δε ανθρώπιναι τέχναι αλλήλων προσδέονται.... ο δε του παντός ποιητής ούτε ópyávwv oőre ülns Dedéntal, also Euseb. Pr. Ev. vii 19–22. Besides the analogy of the human artificer, Aristotle uses the analogy of generation to prove that creation out of nothing is impossible, Phys. 17 § 6 otc dè kai ai ουσίαι και όσα άλλα απλώς όντα εξ υποκειμένου τινός γίνεται, επισκοπούντι γένοιτ' αν φανερόν: αεί γάρ εστί τι ο υποκείται, εξ ου γίνεται το γιγνόμενον, οίον τα φυτά και τα ζώα εκ σπέρματος.
faber: see n. on fabrica II 35. cera : sc. utitur.
3. This is taken from Scaurus, a Virgilian commentator of the time of Hadrian, who in his note on Aen. V 95, where Aeneas is represented as doubtful what to think of the snake which issued from his father's tomb (incertus Geniumne loci famulumne parentis esse putet), writes as follows: erudite ; nam ait ex medullis corporum angues nasci. He then cites Persius pinge duos angues, and, after a short hiatus, refers to the story of Cleomenes, the reforming king of Lacedaemon, as told by Cicero. There can be no doubt that the allusion is to what is recorded in Plut. Cleom. 39 p. 823, of the snake which wound itself round the head of Cleomenes, as he hung on the cross, and guarded it from obscene birds. This was taken as a sign that Cl. was beloved by the gods and was himself a hero and demigod; but the wiser sort explained it by a theory ws uelittas uèv Bóes, σφήκας δε ίπποι κατασαπέντες εξανθούσι, κάνθαροι δε όνων το αυτό παθόντων
ζωογονούνται, τα δε ανθρώπινα σώματα, των περί τον μυελών ιχώρων συρροήν τινα και σύστασιν εν εαυτοίς λαβόντων, όφεις αναδίδωσι. Και τούτο κατιδόντες οι παλαιοί μάλιστα των ζώων τον δράκοντα τοις ηρωσι συνωκείωσαν. At first sight one is tempted to suppose that Cotta must have adduced the case of Cleomenes as a parallel to that of Metellus and of Drusus (N. D. III 81), good men abandoned to the malice of their enemies during their life and only tardily vindicated after their deaths. But the fragment in all probability belongs to the lost section C; and the remark with which Scaurus introduces his comment (erudite, nam ait ex medullis &c.) suggests that his quotation from Cicero must have been made for the purpose of illustrating the theory noticed by Plutarch. We have already met with allusions to spontaneous generation in II 26 (n. on ipsa ex se generata), and Lucretius uses this as a proof that no creator is needed (II 865 ex insensilibus omnia principiis constare, the opposite to Balbus' ab animantibus principiis eam (naturam) esse generatam, see l. 871 quippe videre licet vivos exsistere vermes stercore de taetro &c. and v 783 foll.). We may conclude therefore that Cotta's reference to Cleomenes formed a part of the argument by which he endeavoured to disprove the doctrine of an intelligent first cause.
4. There seems no reason why this fragment should have been bracketed by Mu. It is true that much the same words are found in Off. 1 105, but the providential care of man is the subject of section D (cf. III 65), so that Cotta could scarcely help saying something of the kind.
5. For the Magnus Annus see II 51 n. This is probably a piece of carelessness on the part of Servius. We nowhere else read that it consisted of 3000 years. In the Hortensius, as recorded both by Serv. on Aen. I 269 and 111 284, and by Tac. Or. 16, it was reckoned at 12954. Servius however (1. c.) notices the inconsistency of the two estimates of Cicero in the words (magnum annum) de quo varia dicuntur a Metone et ab Eudoxo et a Ptolemaeo et ab ipso Tullio.
6. The words of Servius are "spirabile'...est sermo Ciceronis, quamquam ille 'spiritale' (so Thilo and Hagen with one ms C against the majority of the better Mss) dixerit in libris de deorum natura. Spiritalem is the reading of B in N. D. II 18, and though the form spiritualis is more regular, yet we find the former in Vitr. x 1, and possibly we ought to read it in Cicero. As for spiritabilem, it is read by N and Red. in 11 18 (for spirabilem of other mss) and by the Paris codex of the 9th century in Tusc. I 40, but there can be no doubt that this is merely a corruption, like animabilis, naturabilis, morabilis, aequabilis compared by Mu. on Tusc. I. c.
7. We naturally look to Book II 142 foll. for this description of the eyes, but nothing of the kind is said there. We only read that the ears have duros et quasi corneolos introitus, but this has no reference to the resistance of cold. Possibly Cotta may have examined in detail the Stoic panegyric on the wisdom shown in the structure of the body, and in doing so remarked on this supposed use of the cornea.
Baiter, following Davies, gives two other fragments, one from Nonius p. 96 on the use of the word dulcitudo, but the reference in Non. should be Orat. I11 97; the other from Arnobius III 6, which gives an interesting account of the feeling of the Pagans towards Cicero's dialogue, but contains no quotation from it. Creuzer refers to a Codex Scorialensis, bearing the title Ciceronis Fragmenta de natura deorum et divinatione, which is mentioned in Büsching's Magazin für die neueste Historie und Geographie vol. v p. 123.
APPENDIX ON THE MYTHOLOGICAL SECTION. (&$ 41–60.)
The mythological summary given by Cicero diverges in many particulars from the ordinary tradition, but is in remarkable agreement with what we find in four later writings, the Protrepticon of Clemens Alexandrinus (A. 200 A. D.), the Liber Memorialis of Ampelius (fl. 250 A. D.?), the Disputationes adversus Gentes of Arnobius (A1. 300 A. D.), the De Mensibus of Laurentius Lydus (b. 490 A. D.). Are we to suppose that these writers borrowed from Cicero or from Cicero's authority Clitomachus, or was there some earlier common source? There is no sign that Clemens was acquainted with the works of Cicero or even that he had any knowledge of Latin literature; moreover he cites as his authorities, under the head of Apollo, Aristotle and Didymus, and adds particulars which we do not find in Cicero, e.g. that the 4th Apollo was son of Silenus, that some writers made a 5th and 6th Apollo, that the 4th Minerva was called Coryphasia and that the mother of the 5th was Titanis. On the other hand it is probable that the remaining three had some knowledge of Cicero. Lydus quotes from his Verrine orations and had a fair acquaintance with Latin literature, especially with the writings of Varro; but he too cites other authorities, e.g. Terpander for the l'st Dionysus, 'the poets' for the others, Melias, Crates, Eratosthenes, Eumelus, under Zeus. Again in many respects he diverges from Cicero; thus, besides assigning a different parentage for the 3rd, 4th and 5th Hercules, he names a 7th, son of Zeus and Maia. Moreover his references to mythology are scattered up and down his book, which is on the model of Ovid's Fasti, and can hardly have been picked out from this section of Cicero. Arnobius probably copied from Cicero, as he often quotes from the
APPENDIX ON THE MYTHOLOGICAL SECTION.
N. D. and agrees with Cic. in each case as to the number of synonymous deities, in fact only departs from him in making Hyperiona the mother of Sol, and in his description of the 3rd and 4th Minerva, making the 3rd the inventress of arms and daughter of Saturn (instead of Jupiter), and the 4th the Coryphasia of the Messenians instead of Coria the inventress of chariots. In the account of Sol the divergence may be explained by simple carelessness, in that of Minerva he has followed the Protrepticon of Clemens, which seems to have been one of the chief sources of his book. It must be observed however that in another passage (111 37 cited in the note on Musae § 54) he refers to Mnaseas, Ephorus, Myrtilus and Crates as authorities. Lastly Ampelius, whose treatise is an epitome of the poorest type, follows on the whole the order of Cicero, but has the most extraordinary divergences, introducing such names as Granicus, Joab, Crio, Joppe, which can hardly be explained away by the corrupt state of the text: and there are besides signs that he follows a Greek original. Thus the names Cronus Cronia are plainly Greek, and the phrase Jovis Aetheris filius seems to be a mistranslation of Alos Tou Aidépos. He also adds further details, e.g. that Hercules founded the Olympian games (cf. Diodorus quoted on Idaeis Digitis § 42 n.), that he taught Atlas, that the mother of the 5th Minerva was Titanis; and even brings in a deity, omitted by Cicero, viz. Mars. Also in common with the other parallel writers he is silent as to Pan being the child of Penelope and Mercury (8 56), and as to the names of the Muses and Dioscuri (SS 53, 54).
From the above considerations it would seem that the four parallel writers must have had access to some other authority besides Cicero : was this authority Clitomachus? I think we may say this is impossible in the case of all but Clemens, and not very probable even in his case. If however we compare certain other authors who are to some extent in agreement with Cicero, where he departs from the ordinary tradition, I think we shall find indications of an earlier common source from which the tradition was derived both by Clitomachus and by the later epitomists. Among these authors are Servius, the Virgilian commentator, and Lactantius Placidus, the scholiast on Statius, in regard to three out of Cicero's five Mercuries. The latter names a certain Corvilius as his authority. Athenaeus (quoted on § 42 Asteriae) names Eudoxus as authority for the statement that Hercules was son of Jupiter and Asteria. The contest between Apollo and Jupiter (S 57) is said by Fulgentius to have been narrated by Mnaseas in the 3rd book of his Europa. Harpocration cites Mnaseas for the statement that Minerva, daughter of Coryphe, daughter of Oceanus, was the inventress of chariots. Tzetzes and Firmicus agree in the story of Minerva slaying her father Pallas. The Orphic hymns illustrate the names Eubuleus, Tritopatreus, Anactes. As Mnaseas is mentioned by three different writers, Arnobius, Harpocration and Fulgentius, as the source from whom they have borrowed, and as he is a noted Euhemerist of the Alexandrian school, the evidence, so far as it goes, seems to point to him as the mythologist followed by Clitomachus, i.e. by Carneades.
As regards Cicero's summary, it is evidently very incomplete. He omits from his list the names Juno, Ceres, Neptunus, Mars, Pluto, Hecate, Pan, Rhea, Proserpina. He sometimes passes over the common tradition, as that which makes Dionysus son of Semele: he omits to note real differences, such as that between his three Cupids and the primaeval Eros, or between the Greek and the Ephesian Diana ; aud makes distinctions where there are none, as in the case of Aesculapius, Mercurius and Minerva. The frequent references to Egypt, the paternity of Nilus in the case of five deities, the names Theuth and Phthas and the ineffable name of Mercurius would seem to indicate an Alexandrine origin, while the references to mystic rites suggest a connexion with the Orphic theology.
In the comparative view, which follows, square brackets denote that the statement made is not given in that particular place by Cicero, but supplied from another part of his summary.