| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1641
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[1632] The text gives a quo si, etc. Routh suggests atqui si, etc.
[1633] Medietas.
[1634] Reading objectu…creaturarum, instead of obtectu, etc., in Codex Casinensis.
[1635] The text of this sentence stands thus in Migne and Routh: “cui enim non fiat manifestum, solem istum visibilem, cum ab oriente fuerit exortus, et tetenderit iter suum ad occidentem, cum sub terram ierit, et interior effectus fuerit ea quæ apud Græcos sphæra vocatur, quod tunc objectu corporum obumbratus non appareat?” The Codex Casinensis reads quod nunc oblectu, etc. We should add that it was held by Anaximander and others that there was a species of globe or sphere (σφαῖρα) which surrounded the universe. [Vol. ii. p. 136. n. 2.]
[1636] Reading ex suimet ipsius umbra for exuet ipsius umbra, which is given in the Codex Casinensis.
[1637] Plagam.
[1638] Ministrante.
[1639] The text is “Sicut autem ante,” etc. Routh suggests, Sole adeunte, etc.
[1640] Reading “ex æquo et justo, solis fulgore,” etc. The Codex Casinensis has “ex ea quo solis fulgure.”
[1641] The text is altogether corrupt—sed non intui hunc fieri ratus sum; so that the sense can only be guessed at. Routh suggests istud for intui.
[1642] Codex Casinensis gives “omni nisi,” for which we adopt “omni nisu.”
[1643] Reading utriusque majus. The Codex Casinensis has utrunque majus.
[1644] The text is dicit, for which dicitur may be adopted.
[1646] Reading “patefaceret” for the “partum faceret” of Codex Casinensis.
[1647] The text gives sine hoc uno. But perhaps Routh is right in suggesting muro for uno = without this wall.
[1648] Some suppose that Archelaus refers here to the taking of Charræ by the Persians in the time of Valerianus Augustus, or to its recapture and restoration to the Roman power by the Eastern king Odenathus during the empire of Gallienus.
[1649] The ballista was a large engine fitted with cords somewhat like a bow, by which large masses of stone and other missiles were hurled to a great distance.
[1650] The sense is obscure here. The text gives, “non substantia id est proposito adversarius quis dejecit,” etc. Migne edits the sentence without an interrogation. We adopt the interrogative form with Routh. The idea perhaps is, Did no adversary with materials such as the kings of earth use, and that is as much as to say also with a determinate plan, overthrow, etc.?
[1651] The Codex Casinensis has “nec mirum putandum est consortio,” etc. We read with Routh and others, si ejus consortio, or quod ejus consortio, etc.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page