Arnobius

Footnotes

^[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).

^[3375] The ms. reads nervorum duritia-m, for which Ursinus, with most edd., reads as above, merely dropping m; Hildebrand and Oehler insert in, and read, from a conjecture of Ursinus adopted by Elmenhorst, c-ol-ligare—“to bind into stiffness.”

^[3376] Ursinus suggested di-, “most terrible,” for the ms. durissimis.

^[3377] So the ms. reading, multa mala de illarum contra insinuator (mala is perhaps in the abl., agreeing with a lost word), which has been regarded by Heraldus and Stewechius, followed by Orelli, as mutilated, and is so read in the first ed., and by Ursinus and LB. The passage is in all cases left obscure and doubtful, and we may therefore be excused discussing its meaning here.

^[3378] Lit., “to the ends of fitting duties.”

^[3379] In the original, seminaria abscidit,—the former word used of nurseries for plants, while the latter may be either as above (from abscindo), or may mean “cut off ” (from abscido); but in both cases the general meaning is the same, and the metaphor is in either slightly confused.

^[3380] Lit., “familiar to be accosted,”—the supine, as in the preceding clause.

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0321 times.

Contents