4. But you will perhaps say that the king was a diviner. Could he be more so than Jupiter himself? But for a mortal’s anticipating1062 Lit., “unless a mortal anticipated”—præsumeret, the ms. reading. So the margin of Ursinus, Elm., LB., and Orelli, with Meursius, reading audiamini for the ms.audiamur—“we are heard,” which does not harmonize with the next clause. what Jupiter—whom1063 So Oehler, supplying quem. Lit., “for the purpose of coming to know the thing.” he overreached—was going to say, could the god not know in what ways a man was preparing to overreach him? Is it not, then, clear and manifest that these are puerile and fanciful inventions, by which, while a lively wit is assigned1064 Lit., “liveliness of heart is procured.” Lit., “if there are any others.” to Numa, the greatest want of foresight is imputed to Jupiter? For what shows so little foresight as to confess that you have been ensnared by the subtlety of a man’s intellect, and while you are vexed at being deceived, to give way to the wishes of him who has overcome you, and to lay aside the means which you had proposed? For if there was reason and some natural fitness that1065 Lit., “why.” So the ms., reading c-ogitare, corrected r-—“to beg,” in the margin of Ursinus and Elm. For the preceding words the ms. reads, poscantque de numine. The edd. omit que as above, except Oehler, who reads quæ—“what hope will there be, what, pray, to all,” etc. expiatory sacrifice for that which was struck with lightning should have been made with a man’s head, I do not see why the proposal of an onion’s was made by the king; but if it could be performed with an onion also, there was a greedy lust for human blood. And both parts are made to contradict themselves: so that, on the one hand, Numa is shown not to have wished to know what he did wish; and, on the other, Jupiter is shown to have been merciless, because he said that he wished expiation to be made with the heads of men, which could have been done by Numa with an onion’s head
IV. Nisi forte dicetis regem fuisse divinum: numquid ipso poterat esse Jove divinior? Nisi homo praesumens, quid dicturus esset Jupiter, circumscripsit; Deus scire non poterat, quibus modis pararet circumscribere se homo. Ita non in promptu est, et apparet 1088A puerilium esse ingeniola fictionum; quibus cum acquiritur cordis Numae vivacitas, imprudentia maxima importatur Jovi. Quid enim tam imprudens, quam confiteri te captum argutia cordis humani, et cum deceptum te doleas, in victoris concedere voluntatem, et medicinam quam obtuleras, ponere? Nam si fuit ratio, et quaedam convenientia naturalis, cur humano capite procuratio debuerit suscipi fulguriti, non video cur ab rege relatio sit facta coepitii; sin autem poterat et coepitio transigi, libidinose hominis inhiatum est cruori. Atque ita in contrarium pars utraque traducitur, ut nec Numam monstretur voluisse scire, quod voluit, et crudelis Jupiter fuisse doceatur, qui quod a Numa potuit et coepitio suscipi, voluisse dixerit humanis capitibus expiari.