| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1654
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[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.
[1653] The text gives simply, sicut enim hæc. Routh suggests hæ.
[1654] Reading illæsis oculis for the illius oculis of Codex Casinensis.
[1656] The text gives et jam quidem for the etiam quidem of the Cod. Casin.
[1658] Apprehensus est hoc ingenio. For hoc here, Routh suggests hic in reference to the leo so that the sense might be = But by this plan the lion was caught, and hereafter He will save the soul.
[1659] The text is, “Quando enim pastor, nonne David de ore leonis,” etc. We adopt the amended reading, “Quando enim pastor hoc fecit? Nonne David,” etc.
[1660] Routh would put this interrogatively = Can he bring out of the mouth or the belly of the lion what it has once devoured?
[1661] This seems to be the sense intended. The text in the Codex Casinensis runs thus: “Cur igitur quod possit non illud potius asseris quod poterit propria virtute vincere leonem, si et pura Dei potentia,” etc. For si et pura we may read sive pura, or si est pura, etc.
[1662] Routh takes it as a direct assertion = It follows, then, that these two objects are of one substance, etc.
[1663] The text runs, “sed aliud alio longe differre ignorantiam pastori ascribimus;” for which we adopt the emendation, “sed alium ab alio longe differre si dicamus, ignorantiam pastori ascribimus.”
[1664] Migne reads irrueret. Routh gives irruerat, had made an assault.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page