Arnobius

Footnotes

^[3354] According to Rigaltius the ms. reads ista promiserunt in immensum—“have put forth (i.e., exaggerated) these things to an immense degree falsely, small matters and trivial affairs have magnified,” etc.; while by a later hand has been superscribed over in immensum, in ink of a different colour, extulere—“have extolled.”

^[3355] So the ms., 1st ed., and Hildebrand, while all others read atqu-i—“but.”

^[3356] So LB., reading quo for the ms. quod.

^[3357] So most edd., reading intercip-erefor the ms. intercipi—“it is that the progress be obstructed,” etc.

Chapter LIX

^[3358] So Orelli and Hildebrand, reading glabre from a conjecture of Grotius, for the ms. grave.

^[3359] i.e., that the one should be masculine, the other feminine.

^[3360] i.e., does not one of you make the plural of uter masc., another neut.? [Note the opponent’s witness to the text of the Gospels.]

Chapter LXII

^[3361] So the ms., followed by Hildebrand and Oehler, reads and punctuates quis mortuus? homo, for which all edd. read mortuus est? “Who died?”

^[3362] Here, as in the whole discussion in the second book on the origin and nature of the soul, the opinions expressed are Gnostic, Cerinthus saying more precisely that Christ having descended from heaven in the form of a dove, dwelt in the body of Jesus during His life, but removed from it before the crucifixion.

^[3363] So the ms. by changing a single letter, with LB. and others, similitudine proxim-a (ms. o) constitutum; while the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, Orelli, and others, read -dini proxime—“settled very closely to analogy.”

^[3364] In the original latronibus; here, as in the next chapter, used loosely to denote lawless men.

^[3365] So emended by Mercerus for the ms. vatis.

^[3366] So read in the ms.—not -tius, as in LB. and Orelli.

^[3367] Lit., “the ways of things”—vias rerum.

^[3368] The ms. reads unintelligibly assumpti-o which was, however, retained in both Roman edd., although Ursinus suggested the dropping of the o, which has been done by all later edd.

^[3369] The ms. reads, quam nec ipsam perpeti succubuisset vis—“would his might,” i.e., “would He with His great power have stooped.” Orelli simply omits vis as Canterus, and seemingly the other later edd. do.

^[3370] The ms. and 1st ed. read sati-s, which has clearly arisen from f being confounded with the old form of s.

Chapter LXIII

^[3371] The construction is a little involved, quæ nulli nec homines scire nec ipsi qui appellantur dii mundi queunt—“which none, neither men can know, nor those…of the world can reach, except those whom,” etc.

^[3372] In the Latin, vel potestate inversa, which according to Oehler is the ms. reading, while Orelli speaks of it as an emendation of LB. (where it is certainty found, but without any indication of its source), and with most edd. reads universa—“by His universal power.”

^[3373] So the ms. according to Hildebrand, reading præcipi=bat. Most edd., however, following Gelenius, read faciebat—“made them lame.”

^[3374] Lit., “to bind fast the motions of the members,” adopting the reading of most edd., motus alligare membrorum (ms. c-al-igare).

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0321 times.

Contents