FIRM. LACTANTII LIB. DE OPIFICIO DEI.

if anyone wishes to look through a hemlock stalk, he would certainly see no more than the capacity of the hemlock stalk itself could contain. Therefore, for seeing, it was necessary for the limbs to be gathered into a globe, so that the sight could be spread wide and so that those things which adhere to the front part could freely behold everything. Therefore, the ineffable virtue of divine providence made two most similar orbs, and bound them in such a way that they could not be turned in their entirety, but could nevertheless be moved and turned with measure. Moreover, He willed that the orbs themselves be full of pure and liquid humor, in the middle part of which sparks of light were held enclosed, which we call pupils, in which the sense and reason of seeing are contained in pure and subtle form. Through these orbs, therefore, the mind stretches itself to see, and by a wonderful design, the sight of both lights is mixed and joined into one.

CHAPTER IX.

It is pleasing in this place to reprehend the vanity of those who, while they wish to show that the senses are false, collect many things in which the eyes are deceived; among which is also that fact that to the delirious and the drunken, all things appear double: as if indeed the cause of that error were obscure. It happens because there are two eyes. But hear how this occurs. The sight consists in the intention of the mind. And so, since the mind (as was said above) uses the eyes as if they were windows, this happens not only to the drunk or in-

sane, but also to the healthy and the sober. For if A [an object] is brought too close, it will appear double; for there is an interval and a space where the gaze of the eyes meets. Likewise, if you call back the mind to thinking, and you relax the intention of the mind, the gaze of each eye is spread apart, and then they begin to [see] separately.

If you direct the mind again, and the gaze [is gathered], whatever appeared double is joined into one. What wonder is it if the mind, poisoned and overcome by the power of wine, cannot direct itself to seeing, just as it cannot even to walking, with the nerves becoming numb? Or if the force of frenzy, raging in the brain, tears asunder the eyes? This is so true B that it can happen that something appears double. Therefore, if a reason appears why the eyes are deceived, it is certain that the senses are not false; they are either not false if they are pure and whole, or if they are deceived, the mind is not deceived, which knows their error.

CHAPTER X.

But let us return to the works of God. Therefore, so that they might be more protected from injury, He hid them with the covering of the eyelids; from which, according to Varro, the eyes were named. For the eyelids themselves, to which movement—trembling—gives the name, are lined with hair in order...

---

C Correctly according to Thomasius. In 2 revisions and 33 printed copies, for vision. Follows, everywhere, it is possible. Francius suspects it should be read it can be fashioned.

If anyone wishes to look through a hemlock stalk... see. I have restored wishes (velit) from almost all mss., which coheres better with see than would wish (vellet), which is in all editors and 2 Reg. and Em., in the latter of which is would perceive (cerneret). But hemlock stalk (cicuta), which according to Servius is properly the space between the nodes of reeds or pipes, is here taken for the pipe itself, or rather for the holes of the pipe. For Virgil had said in Eclogue 2:

I have a pipe joined by seven unequal
Hemlock stalks.

Therefore, for seeing, it was necessary for the limbs to be gathered into a globe, etc. Yet not into a perfect circle, because an exactly spherical figure did not fit, as Galen teaches in book 10, ch. 6.

And so that those things which adhere to the front part, etc. Because one sees through the direct path, Arist. 11 On Parts, ch. 10.

Most similar. But in the Bov. ms. [it is] similar.

Orbs. Hence the eyes are elegantly called thus. Compare above and shortly. Other examples are given by Savaro to Sidonius Apollinaris, book 1, ep. 2, and Barthius to Statius, Theb. 1, 53. In a similar manner, among Sophocles, OEd. v. 1294, the orbs of the eyes are called circles (κύκλοι). See Spanhem. to Callimachus, Pallad. v. 87. BUN.

Reprehend the vanity of those. For those (illorum), in only the older Bologna codex is read Arcesilaus.

That the senses are false. As Lucretius [says in] book iv. Hence that saying of some, faith is not to be had in the senses, about which see Descartes discussing it.

That to the delirious and the drunken all things appear double. Regarding which, Arist. Problems 11, 17 and 18.

And. Thus in the Bov. and Sangerm. mss.; in others also.

Will appear double. Among Virgil, Aen. iv, 470, "demens Pentheus videt":

And [he sees] the sun doubled, and double Thebes showing itself;

to which place Taubmannus should be consulted. BUN.

Then the gaze of the eye. I restored "then" (tum) from almost all. In the revision of 2 Reg. and 1 Colb. it is with (cum), as it is in 13. In Marm. [it is] nevertheless (tamen).

Is spread apart. Mss. 2 Bonon. and Brun. [read] deducit erroneously. — Is spread apart (Diducitur). The first Venetian edition erroneously [has] ducit, 1493, 97, worse, dicitur; in Sparkius he omits the verb erroneously. But the correct word is diducitur. See n ch. 3, diduci. To spread apart (diducere) here is the same as to separate. BUN.

Then separately. Thus in the printed copies and many mss. [it is] "then"; in 2 Bonon. and Tax. [it is] and.

In no way. Thus I restored from the old Roman edition, Cellar., and all mss., except 1 Reg. revision; as also in 14 common editions, it is by no means.

Why the eyes are deceived. Thus I corrected from the old Regio-Put. 2 Bonon., Cauc., Tax., Pent., Sa, and the Cellar. edition, with the approval of Francius, and the support of D 6 Colb., Baluz., Marm., Clarom., Brun., and the old Roman edition in which is why the eyes are deceived (cur oculi falluntur); in 1 revision and 14 common editions, why they are deceived.

Which are. According to Buneman, because (quia) are. Thus I edit and thus it seemed to Heumann. Printed, which (qui). Indeed, they are those which. BUN.

Are. Thus the Sangerm. and Bov. mss.; others read Those (Eos). It is absent from the English ms.

Hid. Only the Bov. ms. [has] covers (opernit).

From which, according to Varro, the eyes were named, etc. The rest of the Grammarians follow, while meanwhile the reason of letters and quantity contradicts it. For the eye (oculus) has a short o; but to hide (occulere) produces the same with the position of cc. BETUL.

Trembling, etc. That is, by trembling, according to the interpreter, who however does not derive it from palpando, that is, from touching. Moreover, the eyelids are the tunics which cover [the eye].

In order. Thus the Sangerm. ms., thus Virgil [in] E...