MISCELLANEA 215

der folgenden Elegie 3.10, ferner auch in Tib. 1.2.27 f., bei Prop. 3.16.11-20 undin der Horaz-Ode 1.22 zum Ausdruck kommt.

5) Die Wortfolge ‘wär mir’s vergönnt, mit dir, Cerinthus’ entspricht genau derWortfolge ut liceat tecum, Cerinthe.

6) Siehe hierzu: Bernays (2000: 181 V.).7) So Holzberg (2001).8) Eine auVallende Übereinstimmung besteht z.B. zwischen den Versen Tib.

1.3.60 und Ov. Am. 1.13.8 (dulce sonant tenui gutture carmen aves—et liquidum tenui gut-ture cantat avis), ähnlich auch zwischen Tib 1.1.63 f. und Ov. Am. 1.11.9—nicht zureden vom eigentlichen Zitat von Tib. 1.1.60 in Ov. Am. 3.9.58.

9) Der klar begründeten, aber durch verschiedene eher vage Spekulationenverdrängten AuVassung Gruppes hat sich Holzberg (1990) halbwegs angenähert,indem er es für denkbar hält, dass der sich Lygdamus nennende Autor den Eindruckerwecken wollte, es handle sich bei seinen Elegien um Werke des jungen Ovid.

10) Die von Gruppe dem Sulpicia-Zyklus als Schlussgedicht zugerechnete ElegieTib. 2.2 passt in ihrer formalen Anlage, ihrem Textumfang und ihrem ganzenCharakter weit besser in die Reihe der Elegien Tib. 3.8-12 als in eines der bei-den ersten Bücher Tibulls. Sie scheint ferner mehrfach an Motive des Sulpicia-Zyklus anzuknüpfen und insbesondere mit dessen Anfangsgedicht 3.8 im Sinneeiner Ringkomposition verbunden zu sein. Dass in dieser Elegie der Name Cerinthuslediglich in jüngeren Handschriften zu lesen ist, während in älteren Codicesstattdessen Cornutus (oVenbar die lateinische Form des gleichen Namens oder Pseudo-nyms) steht, besagt wenig. Bezüglich dieser Elegie sind die jüngeren Handschrifteneher zuverlässiger als die älteren, in denen z.B. Vers 5 in der metrisch fehlerhaftenForm ipse suos Genius adsit visurus honores statt mit der zweifellos korrekten Wortfolgeadsit Genius der jüngeren Handschriften überliefert ist.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

L. Bernays, Ars poetica (Frankfurt 2000).O.F. Gruppe, Die römische Elegie (Leipzig 1838).N. Holzberg, Die römische Liebeselegie, 1. Au� . (Darmstadt 1990).——, Die römische Liebeselegie, 2. Au� . (Darmstadt 2001).M. Ponchont, Tibulle, 9. Au� . (Paris 1989).M. Skoie, Reading Sulpicia (Oxford 2002).

CICERO DE NATURA DEORUM 1.48-9: QUASI CORPUS ?

Immediately following an argument to establish that the gods havehuman form, Velleius, Cicero’s Epicurean spokesman in De natura deorum,adds the following: Nec tamen ea species corpus est, sed quasi corpus, nec habetsanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem (N.D. 1.49). Among English translators, H.Rackham (1933: 49, 67) oVers ‘corporeal’ for the � rst occurrence of cor-pus in this passage, ‘bodily substance’ for the second, and simply ‘body’for those in the repetition of Velleius’s claim by Cotta at 1.68. P.G. Walsh(1997: 20, 26) gives ‘corporeal’ for both occurrences in 1.49 and ‘body’

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Mnemosyne, Vol. LVII, Fasc. 2Also available online – www.brill.nl

216 MISCELLANEA

for both in 1.68. A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley (1987: 141-2) opt for ‘body’and ‘quasi-body’ in their translation of the former passage, as do B. Inwoodand L.P. Gerson (1997: 51).1) These are all, I suggest, if not exactly mis-translations, then at the very least potentially misleading ones.2)

The danger they pose is perfectly illustrated by the comments with whichJ. Purinton (2001: 181) begins a recent article on Epicurean theology:

Epicurus says that the gods exist. But he also says that nothing exists exceptbodies and void. Are the gods bodies, then, according to Epicurus? No, saysVelleius, the proponent of the Epicurean view of the nature of the gods inCicero’s dialogue De natura deorum. They do have human form, says Velleius(N.D. 1.49), ‘but this form is not body, but quasi-body [quasi-corpus], nor hasit blood, but quasi-blood’.

But—by the very gods whose nature is at issue!—what is that supposed tomean?3)

The answer is not particularly mysterious. Epicurus did indeed main-tain that bodies (sÅmata) and void comprise everything there is.4) But, pacePurinton, by claiming that the gods’ appearance is not corpus Velleius doesnot intend to deny that they themselves are sÅmata in the sense employedby Epicurus in Ep. ad Her. or elsewhere.5) The larger context makes thisclear. I oVer here both the Latin text and my own proposed translationof N.D. 1.48 in its entirety along with the � rst, crucial sentence of 1.49.

Quodsi omnium animantium formam vincit hominis � gura, deus autem ani-mans est, ea � gura profecto est quae pulcherrima est omnium, quoniamquedeos beatissimos esse constat, beatus autem esse sine virtute nemo potest necvirtus sine ratione constare nec ratio usquam inesse nisi in hominis � gura,hominis esse specie deos con� tendum est. Nec tamen ea species corpus est,sed quasi corpus, nec habet sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem.‘If the human form surpasses the beauty of all other living things, and godis a living thing, he surely possesses that form which is the most beautiful ofall. And since it is certain that the gods are most blessed, and no one canbe blessed without possessing virtue, and virtue cannot exist apart from ratio-nality, and rationality is present only in the human form, we must acknowl-edge that the gods have a human appearance. Nevertheless, this appearanceis not �esh, but something analogous to �esh, nor has it blood, but somethinganalogous to blood’.

Velleius’ point is simple and straightforward: while the gods have ahuman appearance—that is, while they look like human beings (with ahead, neck, torso, two arms and legs, etc.)—their bodies are composed ofmaterial other than � esh and blood.6)

The use of corpus to mean ‘� esh’ is well-attested.7) That it is also thesense intended by Velleius is con� rmed by two parallel passages from Phld.D. 3,8) both of which report not only Epicurus’ views but also presumablyhis own words. In the fragment numbered 6 in H. Diels’ edition of thetext, Philodemus quotes from the lost On Holiness of Epicurus:

MISCELLANEA 217

¤n tÇi PerÜ [õ|siñ]thtow ��po�fainom¡nou tò yeÝ n m®te | [s‹rk] non eäna[m] tƒ �nalogÛan ¦.xon ti|[. . . . . . . . (.)]· t¯n gŒr [�]nalog[Ûan . . .] (fr. 6.4-7)9)‘In his On Holiness, Epicurus makes the claim that the divine is neither � eshynor possesses something resembling . . .’

The restoration [s‹rk]inon in line 6 is supported by the appearance oftò s‹rkin[on] again in line 8 and by a neighboring fragment, which pro-vides the apparent rationale behind Epicurus’ claim that the gods do notpossess � esh:

diast¡lletai d¢ k(aÜ) | [pe]rÜ toætvn õ ƒEpÛkourow ¤n tÇi PerÜ ye|Çn:diñper k(aÜ) ¤n oåw tò s‹rkinon fyor�w | eänai dektikòn l¡gei . . . (fr. 8.5-8)10)‘And regarding these things too Epicurus makes clear distinctions in his On theGods; for which reason he also says there that � esh is susceptible to destruction . . .’

Whether the proximate source for the exposition of Epicurean theologyin the � rst book of De natura deorum is Philodemus himself, Zeno of Sidon,or Zeno’s successor as scholarch, Phaedrus,11) Cicero’s use of corpus at N.D.1.49 (and the corresponding passage at 1.68) almost certainly re� ects asimilar occurrence of the Greek noun s‹rj or one of its cognates.12)

If � esh is inherently perishable, but the divine, as Epicurus himself else-where pronounces, is �fyarton,13) it follows that the gods are not com-posed of � esh. More than this one should not read into the words Ciceroputs in the mouth of his Epicurean spokesman at N.D. 1.48-9.

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey K.R. SandersDepartment of Classicskrsand@rci.rutgers.edu

1) Cf. also the Penguin translation of H.C.P. McGregor (1972: 89).2) Nor is the problem con� ned solely to English translations. M. van den

Bruwaene (1970: 110) translates the � rst sentence of N.D. 1.49 as follows: “cetaspect n’est pas un corps mais une équivalence de corps, ainsi il n’a pas du sangmais une équivalence de sang”. W. Gerlach and K. Bayer (1987: 57) render thesame passage thus: “Diese Gestalt ist jedoch nicht Körper, sondern nur einemKörper ähnlich, und sie hat kein wirkliches Blut, sondern nur etwas, was demBlute ähnelt”.

3) Emphasis in original.4) Epicur. Ep. ad Her. 39. Under sÅmata Epicurus groups both atoms and atomic

compounds (see Ep. ad Her. 40-2).5) Later in N.D. 1.49, Velleius contrasts the gods not with sÅmata but with

ster¡mnia, Epicurus’ preferred term for solid bodies perceptible by the senses. Thegods are perceived, according to Velleius, not by the senses but by the mind (nonsensu sed mente cernantur).

6) The Epicurean author of the work partially preserved in PHerc. 1055 sim-ilarly emphasizes both the formal resemblance between man and god and diVerencesin their respective material composition. See Santoro (2000).

7) See, e.g., Plin. Nat. 22.154 and Quint. Inst. 1.pr.24. Cf. Lucr. 1.1039, 1.810,and 4.535. H.A.J. Munro (1893: 113) cites parallels in Cicero and Ovid.

218 MISCELLANEA

8) The only complete edition to date of this treatise (= PHerc. 152/157) can befound in Diels (1917). For a bibliography, see Gigante (1979: 84-8); Capasso (1989:214); and Del Mastro (2000: 183). Diels himself � rst made the connection betweenN.D. 1.48-9 and fragments from Phld. D. 3 (cf. Philippson, 1939: 34-5). Purinton(2001) quotes and discusses numerous passages from Philodemus’ treatise, thoughnot frr. 6 or 8.

9) This text of the fragment is based upon my own autopsy of the papyrus (P).Diels (1917: 44-5) prints ¤n tÇi PerÜ [õ|siñ]thtow �pofainom¡nou tò yeÝ[o]n m®te |[s‹rki]non eäna[i ka]tƒ �nalogÛan [¦x]on ti | [sÇmƒ ÷per] ² ai [�]nalog[. . .],and G. Arrighetti (1973: 172) reproduces this without alteration as fr. 19.1 in hisedition of Epicurus’ works. But in l. 7, for example, the correct reading of P isnot ² Ý. ai [�]nalog[. . . .] but rather t¯n gŒr [�]nalog[Ûan]. (The Neapolitan di-segno of fr. 6 itself has .HNGAI(.).NALOG . . .)

In place of Diels’ eäna[i ka]tƒ �nalogÛan [¦x]on ti [sÇmƒ ÷per] ² Ý. ai [�]nalog[. . . .], I propose eäna [m] tƒ �nalogÛan xon ti[nŒ aámati]· t¯n gŒr [�]nalog[Ûan] . . .

Syntactically, this alternative avoids the awkward asyndeton in Diels’ text; seman-tically, it accords nicely with Velleius’ testimony in N.D. 1.49.

10) Cf. Diels (1917: 45), Arrighetti (1973: 169 = fr. 17.1). My autopsy of Prevealed no changes to the text of this fragment as given by Diels and Arrighetti.

11) See, e.g., Hirzel (1877: 4-32); Pease (1955: 42-3); Obbink (1996: 96-8); andWalsh (1997: xxviii).

12) Little survives from the surrounding fragments of Phld. D. 3, but s‹rj orits cognates also occur in fr. 5a (l. 1: [s]arkÛnhw), fr. 7 (l. 7: kñptei sar Û), andfr. 9 (l. 2: sarkÜ t°i kurÛvw legom¡n[hi]).

13) Epicur. Ep. ad Men. 123; cf. Sent. 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

G. Arrighetti, Epicuro: Opere (Turin 1973, 2nd ed.)M. Capasso, Primo supplemento al Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi, CErc 19 (1989), 193-

264G. Del Mastro, Secondo supplemento al Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi, CErc 30 (2000),

157-242H. Diels, Philodemus über die Götter, Drittes Buch, I (Berlin 1917)W. Gerlach and K. Bayer, M. Tullius Cicero: Vom Wesen der Götter (Darmstadt 1987,

2nd ed.)M. Gigante, Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi (Naples 1979)R. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften, I (Leipzig 1877)B. Inwood and L.P. Gerson, Hellenistic philosophy: Introductory Readings (Indianapolis

1997, 2nd ed.)A.A. Long and D. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, I (Cambridge 1987)H.C.P. McGregor, Cicero: The Nature of the Gods (Harmondsworth 1972)H.A.J. Munro, T. Lucreti Cari: De rerum natura libri sex, II (Cambridge 1893, 4th ed.)D. Obbink, Philodemus: On Piety, I (Oxford 1996)A.S. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum, I (Cambridge, Mass. 1955)R. Philippson, Die Quelle der epikureischen Götterlehre in Ciceros erstem Buche de natura deo-

rum, SO 19 (1939), 15-40J. Purinton, Epicurus on the Nature of the Gods, OSAP 21 (2001), 181-231H. Rackham, Cicero: De natura deorum, Academica (Cambridge, MA 1933)M. Santoro, [Demetrio Lacone]: [La Forma del Dio] (PHerc. 1055 ) (Naples 2000)M. van den Bruwaene, Cicéron: De natura deorum, I (Brussels 1970)P.G. Walsh, Cicero: The Nature of the Gods (Oxford 1997)