As to the Muses, there were at first four, Thelxiope, Acde, Arche, and Melete, daughters of the second Jupiter; after- wards, there were nine, daughters of the third Jupiter and Mnemosyne; there were also nine others, having the same appellations, born of Pierus and Antiopa, by the poots usually called Pierides and Pierize. Though Sol (the sun) is so called, you say, because he is solus, single; yet how many suns do theologists mention? ‘There is one, the son of Jupiter, and grandson of Aither; another, the son of Hyperion; a third, who, the Egyptians say, was of the city Heliopolis, sprung from Vulcan, the son of Nilus; a fourth is said to have been born at Rhodes of Acantho, in the times of the heroes, and was the grandfather of Jalysus, Camirus, and Lindus; a fifth, of whom, it is pretended, Aretes and Circe were born at- Colchis.
XXII. There are likewise several Vulcans. The first, (who had of Minerva that Apollo, whom the ancient historians call the tutelary God of Athens,) was the son of Calus; the second, whom the Egyptians call Opas,* and whom they looked upon as the protector of Egypt, is the son of Nilus; the third, who is said to have been the master of the forges at Lemnos, was the son of the third Jupiter and of Juno; the fourth, who possessed the islands near Sicily, called Vul- canize,> was the son of Menalius. One Mercury had Ceelus 1 Cotta’s intent here, as well as in other places, is to show how un- ‘philosophical their civil theology was, and with what confusions it was embarrassed; which design of the Academic the reader should carefully keep in View, or he will lose the chain of argument.
2 Anactes, “Avaxres, was a general name for all kings, as we find in the oldest Greek writers, and particularly in Homer.
3 The common reading is Aleo; but we follow Lambinus and Davis, who had the authority of the best manuscript copies.
4 Some prefer Phthas to Opas. See Dr. Davis’s edition; but Opas is Ahe generally received reading. 5 The Lipari tales.
OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS.’ TQ.
for his father, and Dies for his mother; another, who is said to dwell in a cavern, and is the same as Trophonius, is the son of Valens and Phoronis. A third, of whom, and of Pene- lope, Pan was the offspring, is the son of the third Jupiter and Maia. <A fourth, whom the Egyptians think it a crime to name, is the son of Nilus. A fifth, whom we call, in their language, Thoth, as with them the first month of the year is called, is he whom the people of Pheneum!' worship, and who is said to have killed Argus, to have fled for it into Egypt, and to have given laws and learning to the Egyptians. The first of the Aisculapii, the God of Arcadia, who is said to have invented the probe and to have been the first person who taught men to use bandages for wounds, is the son of Apollo. The second, who was killed with thunder, and is said to be buried in Cynosura,’ is the brother of the second Mercury. The third, who is said to have found out the art of purging the stomach, and of drawing teeth, is the son of Arsippus and Arsinoe; and in Arcadia there is shown his tomb, and the wood which is consecrated to him, near the river Lusium.; XXIII. I have already spoken of the most ancient of the Apollos, who is the son of Vulcan, and tutelar God of Athens. There is another, son of Corybas, and native of Crete, for which island he is said to have contended with Jupiter him- self. A third, who came from the regions of the Hyperborei* to Delphi, is the son of the third Jupiter and of Latona. A fourth was of Arcadia, whom the Arcadians called Nomio,* because they regarded him as their legislator. There are likewise many Dianas. The first, who is thought to be the mother of the winged Cupid, is the daughter of Jupiter and Proserpine. The second, who is more known, is daughter of the third Jupiter and of Latona. The third, whom the Greeks often call by her father’s name, is the daughter of Upis®.and Glauce. There are many also of the Dionysi. The first was the son of Jupiter and Proserpine. The second, who: is said to have killed Nysa, was the son of Nilus. The third, who reigned in Asia, and for whom the Sabazia® were insti-_ 1 A town in Arcadia. 2 In Arcadia. 3 A northern people.
4 So called from the Greek word véyos, lex, a law.
5 He is called *Ams in some old Greek fragments, and Otms by Calli- machus in his hymn on Diana.
6 YaPdfios, Sabazius, is one of the names used for Bacchus.
126 OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS.
tuted, was the son of Caprius.. The fourth, for whom they celebrate the Orphic festivals, sprung from J upiter and Luna. The fifth, who is supposed to have instituted the Trieterides, was the son of Nysus and Thyone.
The first Venus, who has'a temple at Elis, was the daughter of Ceelus and Dies. The second arose out of the froth of the sea, and became, by Mercury, the mother of the «second Cupid. The third, the daughter of Jupiter and Diana, was married to Vulcan, but is said to have had Anteros by Mars. The fourth was a Syrian, born of Tyro, who is called Astarte, and is said to have been married to Adonis. I have already mentioned one Minerva, mother of Apollo. Another, who is worshipped at Sais, a city in Egypt, sprung from Nilus. The third, whom I have also mentioned, was daughter of Jupiter. The fourth, sprung from Jupiter and Coryphe, the daughter of the Ocean; the Arcadians call her Coria, and make her the inventress of chariots..A fifth, whom they paint with wings at her heels, was daughter of Pallas, and is said to have killed her father, for endeavouring to violate her chas- tity. The first Cupid is said to be the son of Mercury and the first Diana; the second, of Mercury and the second Venus; the third, who is the same as Anteros, of Mars and the third Venus.
Ail these opinions arise from old stories, that were spread in Greece; the belief in which, Balbus, you well know, ought to be stopped, lest religion should suffer. But you Stoics, so far from refuting them, even give them authority, by the mysterious sense which you pretend to find in them. Can you then think, after this plain refutation, that there is need to employ more subtle reasonings? But to return from this digression.
XXIV. We see that the mind, faith, hope, virtue, honour, victory, health, concord, and things of such kind, are purely natural, and have nothing of divinity in them; for either they are inherent in us, as the mind, faith, hope, virtue, and concord are; or else they are to be desired, as honour, health, and victory. I know indeed that they are useful. to us, and see that statues have been religiously erected for them; but as to their divinity, 1 shall begin to believe it when you have proved it for certain. Of ‘this kind I may particularly men- tion Fortune, which is allowed to be ever inseparable from OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS. Yat: inconstancy and temerity, which are certainly qualities un- worthy of a divine being.
But what delight do you take in the explication of fables, and in the etymology of names!—that Coelus was castrated by his son, and that Saturn was bound in chains by his son! By your defence of these and such like fictions, you would make the authors of them appear not only not to be mad- men, but to have been even very wise. But the pains which you take with your etymologies deserve our pity. That Saturn is so called, because se saturat annis, he is full of years; Mavors, Mars, because magna vortit, he brings about mighty changes; Minerva, because mznwit, she diminishes, or because minatur, she threatens; Venus, because venit ad omnia, she comes to all; Ceres, a gerendo, from bearing. How dangerous is this method! for there are many names would puzzle you. From what would you derive Vejupiter and Vulcan? Though, indeed, if you can derive Neptune a nando, from swimming, in which you seem to me to flounder about yourself more than Neptune, you may easily find the origin of all names, since it is founded only upon the conformity of some one letter. Zeno first, and after him Cleanthes and Chrysippus, are put to the unnecessary trouble of explaining mere fables, and giving reasons for the several appellations of every deity; which is really owning that those whom we call Gods are not the representations of deities, but natural things, and that to judge otherwise is an error.
- XXV. Yet this error has so much prevailed, that even pernicious things have not only the title of divinity ascribed to them, but have also sacrifices offered to them; for Fever has a temple on the Palatine hill, and Orbona another near that of the Lares, and we see on the Esquiline hill an altar consecrated to Ill-Fortune. Let all such errors be banished from philosophy, if we would advance, in our dispute con- cerning the immortal Gods, nothing unworthy of immortal beings. I know myself what I ought to believe; which is far different from what you have said. You take Neptune for an intelligence pervading the sea. You have the same opinion of Ceres with regard to the earth. I cannot, I own, find out, or in the least conjecture, what that intelligence of the sea or _ the earth is. To learn, therefore, the existence of. the Gods, 128 OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS.
and of what description and character they are, I must apply elsewhere, not to the Stoies.
Let us proceed to the two other parts of our dispute: first, “whether there is a divine providence which governs the world;” and lastly, “ whether that providence particularly regards mankind;” for these are the remaining propositions of your discourse; and I think that, if you approve of it, we should examine these more accurately. With all my heart, says Velleius, for I readily agree to what you have hitherto said, and expect still greater things from you.
I am unwilling to interrupt you, says Balbus to Cotta, but we shall take another opportunity; and I shall effectually convince you. But XXVI. Shall I adore, and bend the suppliant knee, Who scorn their power, and doubt their deity? Does not Niobe here seem to reason, and by that reasoning to bring all her misfortunes upon herself? But what a subtle. expression is the following!— On strength of will alone depends success; a maxim capable of leading us into all that is bad. Though I’m confined, his malice yet is vain, His tortured heart shall answer pain for pain; His ruin soothe my soul with soft content, Lighten my chains, and welcome banishment!
This now is reason; that reason, which you say the divine goodness has denied to the brute creation, kindly to bestow it on men alone. How great, how immense the favour! Observe the same Medea flying from her father and her country:— “he guilty wretch from her pursucr flies.
By her own hands the young Absyrtus slain, His mangled limbs she scatters o’er the plain; That the fond sire might sink beneath his woe, And she to parricide her safety owe.
Reflection, as well as wickedness, must have been neces- sary to the preparation of such a fact; and did he too, who prepared that fatal repast for his brother, do it without reflection!— Revenge, as great as Atreus’ injury, Shall sink his soul and crown his misery.
1 Here is a wide chasm in the original. What is lost probably may have contained great part of Cotta’s arguments against the providence of the Stoics.
OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS, 129 XXVII. Did not Thyestes himself, not content with having defiled his brother’s bed, (of which Atreus with great justice thus complains,— : When faithless comforts in the lewd embrace, With vile adultery stain a royal race, The blood thus mixed in fouler currents flows, Taints the rich soil, and breeds unnumber’d woes;) did he not, I say, by that adultery, aim at the possession of the crown? Atreus thus continues:— | A lamb, fair gift of heaven, with golden fleece, Promised in vain to fix my crown in peace; But base Thyestes, eager for the prey, Crept to my bed, and stole the gem away.
Do you not perceive that Thyestes must have had a share of reason proportionable to the greatness of his crimes; such crimes as are not only represented to us on the stage, but such as we see committed, nay often exceeded, in the common course of life? The private houses of individual citizens, the public courts, the senate, the camp, our allies, our provinces, all agree that reason is the author of all the ill, as well as of all the good which is done; that it makes few act well, and that but seldom, but many act ill, and that frequently;.and that, in short, the Gods would have shown greater beneyo- jence in denying us any reason at all, than in sending us that © which is accompanied with so much mischief; for as wine is seldom wholesome, but often hurtful in diseases, we think it more prudent to deny it to the patient, than to run the risk of so uncertain a remedy; so I do not know whether it would not be better for mankind to be deprived of wit, thought, and penetration, or what we call reason, since it is a thing perni- cious to many and very useful to few, than to have it bestowed upon them with so much liberality, and in such abundance. But if the divine will has really consulted the good of man in this gift of reason, the good of those men only was consulted on whom a well-regulated one is bestowed; how few those are, if any, is very apparent. We cannot admit, therefore, that the Gods consulted the good of a few only; the conclusion must be that they consulted the good of none.
XXVIII. You answer that the ill use which a great part of mankind make of reason, no more takes away the good- ness of the Gods, who bestow it as a present of the greatest benefit to them, than the ill use which children make of their ‘DE NAT. ETC, K 130: OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS.
patrimony, Jiuiieicee the obligation which they have to their parents for it. We grant you this; but where is the simili- tude? It was far from Deianira’s desion to injure Hercules, when she made him a present of the shirt dipped in the blood of the Centaurs. Nor was it a regard to the welfare of Jason of Phere, that influenced the man who with his sword opened his imposthume, which the physicians had in vain attempted to cure. For it has often happened that people have served a man whom they intended to injure, and have injured one whom they designed to serve; so that the effect of the gift is by no means always a proof of the intention of the giver; neither does the benefit which may accrue from it prove that it came from the hands of a benefactor. For, in short, what debauchery, what avarice, what crime amongst men is there which does not owe its birth to thought and reflection, that is, to reason? For all opinion is reason; right reason, if men’s thoughts are conformable to truth; wrong reason, if they are not. The Gods only give us the mere faculty of reason, if we have any; the use or abuse of it depends entirely upon ourselves; so that the comparison is not just between the present of reason given us by the Gods, and a patrimony left to a son by his father; for after all, if the injury of mankind had been the end proposed by the Gods, what. could they have given them more pernicious than reason; for what seed could there be of injustice, intemper- ance and cowardice, if reason were not laid as the foundation of these vices.
XXIX. I mentioned just now Medea and Atreus, persons celebrated in heroic poems, who had used this reason only for the contrivance and practice of the most flagitious crimes; but even the trifling characters which appear in comedies, supply us with the like instances of this reasoning faculty; for example, does not he, in the Eunuch, reason with some subtilty,— What then must I resolve upon?—— She turn’d me out of doors; she sends for me back again; Shall I go? no, not if she were to beg it of me.
Another in the Twins, making no scruple of opposing a received maxim, after the manner of the Academics, asserts, that when a man is in love and in want, it is pleasant To have a father covetous, crabb’d, and passionate, Who has no love or affection for his children.
OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS. ‘131 This unaccountable opinion he strengthens thus,— You may defraud him of his profits, or furge letters in his name, Or fright him by your servant into compliance; And what you take from such an old hunks, How much more pleasantly do you spend it!
On the contrary, he says that an easy, generous father, is an inconvenience to a son in love; for, says he,— I can’t tell how to abuse so good, so prudent a parent, Who always foreruns my desires, and meets me purse in hand, 'o support me in my pleasures; this easy goodness and generosity Quite defeat all my frauds, tricks, and stratagems..
What are these frauds, tricks, and stratagems, but the effects of reason? O excellent gift of the Gods! Without this Phormio could not have said, —_ Find me out the old man; I have something hatching for him in my head.
XXX. But let us pass from the stage to the bar. The preetor’ takes his seat. To judge whom? The man who set fire to our archives. How secretly was that villainy con- ducted? Q. Sosius, an illustrious Roman knight, of the Picene field,® confessed the fact. Who else is to be tried? He who forged the public registers; Alenus, an artful fellow, who counterfeited the handwriting of the six officers. Let us call to mind other trials; that on the subject of the gold of Tolosa, or the conspiracy ‘of J ugurtha. Let us trace back the informations laid against Tubulus for bribery in his judi- cial office; and since that, the proceedings of the tribune Peduceus concerning the incest of the vestals. Let us reflect upon the trials which daily happen for assassinations, poison- ings, embezzlement of public money, frauds in wills, against 1 Here is one expression in the quotation from Cecilius that is not commonly met with, which is prestigias prestrinzit; Lambinus gives prestinxit, for the sake, I suppose, of playing on words; because it might then be translated, ‘“‘he has deluded my delusions, or stratagems;” but prestrinxit is certainly the right reading.
2 The ancient Romans had a judicial as well as a military preetor; and he sat, with inferior judges attending him, like one of our chief- justices. Sessum it pretor, which I doubt not is the right reading, Lambinus restored from an old copy. The common reading was sesswm ate precor.; ' § Picenum was a region of Italy.
4 The sex primi were general receivers of all taxes and tributes; and they were obliged to make good, out of their own hoe wihy whatever deficiencies were in the public treasury.
_ EZ 132 OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS.
which we have a new law; then that action against the advisers or assisters of any theft; the many laws concerning frauds in guardianship, breaches of trust in partnerships and commissions in trade, and other violations of faith in buying, selling, borrowing, or lending; the public decree on a private ‘affair by the Leetorian law;' and lastly, that scourge of all dishonesty, the law against fraud, proposed by our friend Aguillius; that sort of fraud, he says, by which one thing is pretended, and another done, Can we then think that this plentiful fountain of evil sprang from the immortal Gods? If they have given reason to man, they have likewise given him subtilty, for subtilty is only a deceitful manner of apply- ing reason to do mischief. To them likewise we must owe deceit, and every other crime, which, without the help of reason, would neither have been thought of nor committed. As the old woman wished,— That to the fir, which on Mount Pelion grew, The axe had ne’er been laid——* so we should wish that the Gods had never bestowed this ability on man; the abuse of which is so general, that the small number of those who make a good use of it are often oppressed by those who make a bad use of it; so that it seems to be given rather to help vice, than to promote virtue amongst us.
XXXI. This, you insist on it, is the fault of man, and not of the Gods. But should we not laugh at a physician or pilot, though they are weak mortals, if they were to lay the blame of their ill success on the violence of the disease, or the fury of the tempest? Had there not been danger, we should say, who would have applied to you? This reasoning has still greater force against the Deity. The fault, you say, is in man, if he commits crimes. But why was not man endued with a reason incapable of producing any crimes?
1 The Leetorian law was a security for those under age against extortioners, &c. By this law all debts contracted under twenty-five years of age were void. 2 This is from Ennius— Utinam ne in nemore Pelio securibus _ Ceesa cecidisset abiegna ad terram trabes. Translated from the beginning of the Medea of Euripides— Mfo éy vdraot TInAtov mecety Tote Tundeion wevKn.
OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS. 133 How could the Gods err? When we leave our effects to our children, it is in hopes that they may be well bestowed; in which we may be deceived; but how can the Deity be deceived? As Phoebus, when he trusted his chariot to his son Phaéthon, or as Neptune, when he indulged his son Theseus in granting him three wishes, the consequence of which was the destruction of Hippolitus? These are poetical fictions. But truth and not fables ought to proceed from philosophers. Yet, if those poetical Deities had foreseen that their indul- gence would have proved fatal to their sons, they must have been thought blameable for it.
Aristo of Chios used often to say, that the philosophers do hurt to such of their disciples as take their good doctrine in a wrong sense; thus the lectures of Aristippus might produce debauchees, and those of Zeno pedants. If this be true, it were better that philosophers should be silent, than that their disciples should be corrupted by a misapprehension of their master’s meaning; so if reason, which was bestowed on mankind by the Gods with a good design, tends only to make men more subtle and fraudulent, it had been better for them: never to have received it. There could be no excuse for a physician, who prescribes wine to a patient, knowing that he will drink it, and immediately expire. Your Providence is no Jess blameable in giving reason to man, who, it foresaw, would make a bad use of it. Will you say that it did not foresee it? Nothing could please me more than such an acknowledgment. But you dare not. 1 know what a sublime idea you entertain of her., XXXII. But to conclude. If folly, by the unanimous . consent of philosophers, is allowed to be the greatest of all — evils, and if no one ever attained to true wisdom, we, whom they say the immortal Gods take care of, are consequently in a state of the utmost misery, For that nobody is well, or that nobody can be well, is in effect the same thing; and, in my opinion, that no man is truly wise, or that no man can be truly wise, is likewise the same thing. But I will insist no farther on so self-evident a point. ‘Telamon in one verse decides the question. If, says he, there is a Divine Pro- vidence,— | | Good men would be happy, bad men miserable.
But it is not so. If the Gods had regarded mankind, they al 134 OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS.
should have made them all virtuous. But if they did not regard the welfare of all mankind, at least they ought to have provided for the happiness of the virtuous. Why, therefore, was the Carthaginian in Spain suffered to destroy those best and bravest men, the two Scipios? Why did Maximus! lose his son the consul? Why did Hannibal kill Marcellus? Why did Cannze deprive us of Paulus? Why was the body of Regulus delivered up to the cruelty of the Carthaginians? Why was not Africanus protected from violence in his own house? To these, and many more ancient instances, let us add some of later date. Why is Rutilius, my uncle, a man of the greatest virtue and learning, now in banishment? Why was my own friend and companion Drusus assassinated in his own house? Why was Sceevola the high-priest, that pattern of moderation and prudence, massacred before the statue of Vesta? Why, before that, were so many illustrious citizens put to death by Cinna? Why had Marius, the most perfidious of men, the power to cause the death of Catulus, a man of the greatest dignity? But there would be no end of enumerating examples of good men made miserable, and wicked men prosperous. Why did that Marius live to an old age, and die so happily at his own house, in his seventh consulship? Why was that inhuman wretch Cinna permitted to enjoy so long a reign? | XXXIII. He indeed met with deserved punishment at last. But would it not have been better that these inhumanities had been prevented, than that the author of them should be punished afterwards? Varius, a most impious wretch, was tortured and put to death. If this was his punishment — ‘for the murdering Drusus by the sword, and Metellus by poison, would it not have been better to have preserved their lives, than to have their deaths avenged on Varius? Diony- sius was thir ty-eight years a tyrant over the most opulent and flourishing city; and, before him, how many years did Pisistratus tyrannize in the very flower of Greece! " Phalaris and Apollodorus met with the fate they deserved; but not till after they had tortured and put to death multitudes, Many robbers have been executed; but the number of those who have suffered for their crimes is short of those whom.
‘ Q. Fabius Maximus, insane Cdactator OF THE NATURE OF THE Gops. 135° they have robbed and murdered. Anaxarchus,’ a scholar of Democritus, was cut to pieces by command of the tyrant of Cyprus; and Zeno of Elea’ ended his life in tortures.. What shall I say of Socrates,’ whose death, as often as I read of it in Plato, draws fresh tears from my eyes? If, therefore, the Gods really see everything that happens to men, you must acknowledge they make no distinction between the good and the bad.
XXXIV. Diogenes the Cynic used to say of Harpalus, one of the most fortunate villains of his time, that the con- stant prosperity of such a man was a kind of witness against the Gods. Dionysius, of whom we have before spoken, after the had pillaged the temple of Proserpme at Locris, set sail for Syracuse, and, having a fair wind during his voyage, said, with a smile, ‘ See, my friends, what favourable winds the immortal Gods bestow upon church-robbers.” Encouraged by this prosperous event, he proceeded in his impiety. When he landed at Peloponnesus, he went into the temple of Jupiter Olympius, and disrobed his statue of a golden mantle of great weight, an ornament which the tyrant Gelo* had given out of the spoils of the Carthaginians, and at the same time, in a jesting manner, he said, “that a golden mantle was too heavy in summer, and too cold in winter;” and then, throwing a woollen cloak over the statue, added, “ this will serve for all seasons.” At another time, he ordered the golden beard of fEsculapius of Epidarus to be taken away, saying that “ it was absurd for the son to have a beard, when his father had none.” He likewise robbed the temples of the silver tables, which, according to the ancient custom of Greece, bore this inscription, “ To the good Gods,” saying, “ he was willing to make use of their goodness;” and, without the least scruple, took away the little golden emblems of victory, the cups and coronets, which were in the stretched out hands of the statues, saying, “he did not take, but receive them; for it would be folly not to accept good things from the Gods, to whom we 1 Diogenes Laertius says he was pounded to death in a stone mortar, by command of Ni icocreon, tyrant of Cyprus.
_? Elea, a city of Lucania, i in Italy. The manner in whieh Zeno was put to death, is, according to Diogenes Laertius, uncertain.!
$ This great and good man was accused of destroying the divinity of ‘the gods of his country; he was condemned, and died by drinking a glass of poison. em Tyrant of Sicily.
136 ‘OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS, are constantly praying for favours, when they stretch out their hands towards us.” And last of all, all the things which he had thus pillaged from the temples were, by his order, brought to the market-place, and sold by the common crier; and after he had received the money for them, he commanded every purchaser to restore what he had bought, within a limited time, to the temples from whence they came. Thus to his impiety towards the Gods, he added injustice to man.
XXXV. Yet neither did Olympian Jove strike him with his thunder, nor did Ausculapius cause him to die by tedious - diseases and a lingering death. He died in his bed, had funeral honours! paid to him, and left his power, which he had wickedly obtained, as a just and lawful inheritance to his son. | It is not without concern that I maintain a doctrine which seems to authorize evil, and which might probably give a sanction to it, if conscience, without any Divine assistance, did not point out, in the clearest manner, the difference between virtue and vice. Without conscience man is con- temptible. For as no family or state can be supposed to be formed with any reason or discipline, if there are no rewards for good actions, nor punishments for crimes, so we cannot believe that a Divine Providence regulates the world, if there is no distinction between the honest and the wicked.
But the Gods, you say, neglect trifling things; the little fields or vineyards of particular men are not worthy their attention; and if blasts or hail destroy their product, Jupiter does not regard it, nor do kings extend their care to the lower offices of government. This argument might have some weight, if, in bringing Rutilius as an instance, I had only complained of the loss of his farm at Formie; but I spoke of a personal misfortune, his banishment.’
1 The common reading is, in tympanidis rogum inlatus est. This passage has been the occasion of as many different opinions, concerning both the reading and the sense, as any passage in the whole treatise. Tympanum is used for a timbrel or drum, tympanidia a diminutive of it. Lambinus says tympana “were sticks with which the tyrant used to beat the condemned.” P. Victorius substitutes tyrannidis for tympanidis.
2 The original is de amissa salute; which means the sentence of banishment amongst the Romans, in which was contained the loss of goods and estate, and the privileges of a Roman; and in this sense L’Abbé d’Olivet translates it.
s OF THE NATURE OF THE GODS, 137