Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4



der folgenden Elegie 3.10, ferner auch in Tib. 1.2.27 f., bei Prop. 3.16.11-20 und in der Horaz-Ode 1.22 zum Ausdruck kommt. 5) Die Wortfolge wr mirs vergnnt, mit dir, Cerinthus entspricht genau der Wortfolge ut liceat tecum, Cerinthe. 6) Siehe hierzu: Bernays (2000: 181 V.). 7) So Holzberg (2001). 8) Eine auVallende bereinstimmung besteht z.B. zwischen den Versen Tib. 1.3.60 und Ov. Am. 1.13.8 (dulce sonant tenui gutture carmen aveset liquidum tenui gutture cantat avis), hnlich auch zwischen Tib 1.1.63 f. und Ov. Am. 1.11.9nicht zu reden vom eigentlichen Zitat von Tib. 1.1.60 in Ov. Am. 3.9.58. 9) Der klar begrndeten, aber durch verschiedene eher vage Spekulationen verdrngten AuVassung Gruppes hat sich Holzberg (1990) halbwegs angenhert, indem er es fr denkbar hlt, dass der sich Lygdamus nennende Autor den Eindruck erwecken wollte, es handle sich bei seinen Elegien um Werke des jungen Ovid. 10) Die von Gruppe dem Sulpicia-Zyklus als Schlussgedicht zugerechnete Elegie Tib. 2.2 passt in ihrer formalen Anlage, ihrem Textumfang und ihrem ganzen Charakter weit besser in die Reihe der Elegien Tib. 3.8-12 als in eines der beiden ersten Bcher Tibulls. Sie scheint ferner mehrfach an Motive des SulpiciaZyklus anzuknpfen und insbesondere mit dessen Anfangsgedicht 3.8 im Sinne einer Ringkomposition verbunden zu sein. Dass in dieser Elegie der Name Cerinthus lediglich in jngeren Handschriften zu lesen ist, whrend in lteren Codices stattdessen Cornutus (oVenbar die lateinische Form des gleichen Namens oder Pseudonyms) steht, besagt wenig. Bezglich dieser Elegie sind die jngeren Handschriften eher zuverlssiger als die lteren, in denen z.B. Vers 5 in der metrisch fehlerhaften Form ipse suos Genius adsit visurus honores statt mit der zweifellos korrekten Wortfolge adsit Genius der jngeren Handschriften berliefert ist. BIBLIOGRAPHIE L. Bernays, Ars poetica (Frankfurt 2000). O.F. Gruppe, Die rmische Elegie (Leipzig 1838). N. Holzberg, Die rmische Liebeselegie, 1. Au . (Darmstadt 1990). , Die rmische 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 have human form, Velleius, Ciceros Epicurean spokesman in De natura deorum, adds the following: Nec tamen ea species corpus est, sed quasi corpus, nec habet sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem (N.D. 1.49). Among English translators, H. Rackham (1933: 49, 67) oVers corporeal for the rst occurrence of corpus in this passage, bodily substance for the second, and simply body for those in the repetition of Velleiuss 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 Also available online

Mnemosyne, Vol. LVII, Fasc. 2



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. Inwood and L.P. Gerson (1997: 51).1) These are all, I suggest, if not exactly mistranslations, then at the very least potentially misleading ones.2) The danger they pose is perfectly illustrated by the comments with which J. Purinton (2001: 181) begins a recent article on Epicurean theology:
Epicurus says that the gods exist. But he also says that nothing exists except bodies and void. Are the gods bodies, then, according to Epicurus? No, says Velleius, the proponent of the Epicurean view of the nature of the gods in Ciceros 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 has it blood, but quasi-blood. Butby the very gods whose nature is at issue!what is that supposed to mean?3)

The answer is not particularly mysterious. Epicurus did indeed maintain that bodies (smata) and void comprise everything there is.4) But, pace Purinton, by claiming that the gods appearance is not corpus Velleius does not intend to deny that they themselves are smata in the sense employed by Epicurus in Ep. ad Her. or elsewhere.5) The larger context makes this clear. I oVer here both the Latin text and my own proposed translation of 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 animans est, ea gura profecto est quae pulcherrima est omnium, quoniamque deos beatissimos esse constat, beatus autem esse sine virtute nemo potest nec virtus 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 god is a living thing, he surely possesses that form which is the most beautiful of all. And since it is certain that the gods are most blessed, and no one can be blessed without possessing virtue, and virtue cannot exist apart from rationality, and rationality is present only in the human form, we must acknowledge that the gods have a human appearance. Nevertheless, this appearance is not esh, but something analogous to esh, nor has it blood, but something analogous to blood.

Velleius point is simple and straightforward: while the gods have a human appearancethat is, while they look like human beings (with a head, neck, torso, two arms and legs, etc.)their bodies are composed of material other than esh and blood.6) The use of corpus to mean esh is well-attested.7) That it is also the sense 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 presumably his own words. In the fragment numbered 6 in H. Diels edition of the text, Philodemus quotes from the lost On Holiness of Epicurus:



n ti Per [|si]thtow po fainomnou t ye n mte | [srk] non ena 9 [m] t nalogan . xon ti|[. . . . . . . . (.)] tn gr [ ]nalog[an . . .] (fr. 6.4-7) )

In his On Holines s, Epicurus makes the claim that the divine is neither eshy nor possesses something resembling . . .

The restoration [srk]inon in line 6 is supported by the appearance of t srkin[on] again in line 8 and by a neighboring fragment, which provides the apparent rationale behind Epicurus claim that the gods do not possess esh:
diastlletai d k(a) | [pe]r totvn Epkourow n ti Per ye|n: diper k(a) n ow t srkinon fyor w | enai dektikn lgei . . . (fr. 8.5-8)10)

And regarding these things too Epicurus makes clear distinctions in his On the Gods; for which reason he also says there that esh is susceptible to destruction . . .

Whether the proximate source for the exposition of Epicurean theology in the rst book of De natura deorum is Philodemus himself, Zeno of Sidon, or Zenos successor as scholarch, Phaedrus,11) Ciceros use of corpus at N.D. 1.49 (and the corresponding passage at 1.68) almost certainly re ects a similar occurrence of the Greek noun srj or one of its cognates.12) If esh is inherently perishable, but the divine, as Epicurus himself elsewhere pronounces, is fyarton,13) it follows that the gods are not composed of esh. More than this one should not read into the words Cicero puts in the mouth of his Epicurean spokesman at N.D. 1.48-9. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Department of Classics K.R. Sanders

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: cet aspect nest pas un corps mais une quivalence de corps, ainsi il na pas du sang mais une quivalence de sang. W. Gerlach and K. Bayer (1987: 57) render the same passage thus: Diese Gestalt ist jedoch nicht Krper, sondern nur einem Krper hnlich, und sie hat kein wirkliches Blut, sondern nur etwas, was dem Blute hnelt. 3) Emphasis in original. 4) Epicur. Ep. ad Her. 39. Under smata 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 smata but with stermnia, Epicurus preferred term for solid bodies perceptible by the senses. The gods are perceived, according to Velleius, not by the senses but by the mind (non sensu sed mente cernantur). 6) The Epicurean author of the work partially preserved in PHerc. 1055 similarly emphasizes both the formal resemblance between man and god and diVerences in their respective material composition. See Santoro (2000). 7) See, e.g., Plin. Nat. 22.154 and Quint. Inst. Cf. Lucr. 1.1039, 1.810, and 4.535. H.A.J. Munro (1893: 113) cites parallels in Cicero and Ovid.



8) The only complete edition to date of this treatise (= PHerc. 152/157) can be found 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 between N.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, though not 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 ti Per [|si ]thtow pofainomnou t ye[o]n mte | [srki]non ena[i ka]t nalogan [x]on ti | [sm per] ai [ ]nalog[. . .], and G. Arrighetti (1973: 172) reproduces this without alteration as fr. 19.1 in his edition of Epicurus works. But in l. 7, for example, the correct reading of P is not . ai [ ]nalog[. . . .] but rather tn gr [ ]nalog[an]. (The Neapolitan disegno of fr. 6 itself has .HNGAI(.).NALOG . . .) In place of Diels ena[i ka]t nalogan [x]on ti [sm per] . ai [ ]nalog [. . . .], I propose ena [m] t nalogan xon ti[n amati] tn gr [ ]nalog[an] . . . Syntactically, this alternative avoids the awkward asyndeton in Diels text; semantically, 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 P revealed 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); and Walsh (1997: xxviii). 12) Little survives from the surrounding fragments of Phld. D. 3, but srj or its cognates also occur in fr. 5a (l. 1: [s ]arknhw), fr. 7 (l. 7: kptei sar ), and fr. 9 (l. 2: sark ti kurvw legomn[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), 193264 G. Del Mastro, Secondo supplemento al Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi , CErc 30 (2000), 157-242 H. Diels, Philodemus ber die Gtter, Drittes Buch, I (Berlin 1917) W. Gerlach and K. Bayer, M. Tullius Cicero: Vom Wesen der Gtter (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 Gtterlehre in Ciceros erstem Buche de natura deorum, SO 19 (1939), 15-40 J. Purinton, Epicurus on the Nature of the Gods, OSAP 21 (2001), 181-231 H. 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, Cicron: De natura deorum, I (Brussels 1970) P.G. Walsh, Cicero: The Nature of the Gods (Oxford 1997)