| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 3389
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[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.
[3381] So the edd., reading corporalibus affectos malis, but the ms. inserts after malis the word morbis (“with evil bodily diseases”); but according to Hildebrand this word is marked as spurious.
[3382] So the edd., reading nemo h-om-i-n-um, except Hildebrand and Oehler, who retain the ms. om-n-i-um—“no one of all.”
[3383] John viii. 46: “Which of you convinceth me of sin?”
[3384] So Heraldus and LB., followed by later edd., reading exiliis for the ms. ex-uis, for which Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus read et suis—“and by their slaughters.”
[3385] Here, as frequently in Arnobius, the comparative is used instead of the superlative.
[3386] “To posterity evil reports of their own time”—sui temporis posteris notas—so emended by Ursinus, followed by Orelli and Hildebrand, for the ms. in temporis posteri-s, retained by LB., and with the omission of s in the 1st ed.; but this requires our looking on the passage as defective.
[3387] The reference is clearly to the well-known passage in Plato’s Republic. [See the sickening details, book v. p. 282, Jowett’s trans.]
[3388] So Gelenius, LB., and Orelli, reading con-v-ell-e-refor the ms. con-p-ell-a-re, “to accost” or “abuse,” which is out of place here. Canterus suggested com-p-il-are, “to plunder,” which also occurs in the sense “to cudgel.”
[3389] Supply, “do you pursue Him so fiercely?”
[3390] These words are followed in the edition of Gelenius by ch. 2–5 of the second book, seemingly without any mark to denote transposition; while Ursinus inserted the same chapters—beginning, however, with the last sentence of the first chapter (read as mentioned in the note on it)—but prefixed an asterisk, to mark a departure from the order of the ms. The later editors have not adopted either change.
[3391] So Ursinus suggested in the margin, followed by LB. and Orelli, reading in privatam perniciem p-a-r-atum for the ms. p-r-iv-atum, which is clearly derived from the preceding privatam, but is, though unintelligible also, retained in the two Roman edd. The conclusion of the sentence is, literally, “obstinacy of spirit.”
[3392] In the original, spe salutis proposita atque amore incolumitatis.
[3393] Lit., “is”—est.
[3394] So all the edd., reading fastidi-os-um supercilium, which Crusius says the ms. reads with os omitted, i.e., “pride, scorn.”
[3395] So the edd., reading fatuita-tem, for the ms. fatuita-n-tem, which may, however, point to a verb not found elsewhere.
[3396] i.e., to friends and foes alike. The ms. reads æqualiter benignus hostibus dicere, which is retained by Orelli, supporting an ellipsis of fuerit, i.e., “He was kind to say,” which might be received; but it is more natural to suppose that -t has dropped off, and read diceret as above, with the two Roman editions and LB. Gelenius, followed by Ursinus, emended omnibus docuerit—“with uniform kindness taught to all.” It may be well to give here an instance of the very insufficient grounds on which supposed references to Scripture are sometimes based. Orelli considers that Arnobius here refers (videtur respexisse, he says) to Col. i. 21, 22, “You, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death,” to which, though the words which follow might indeed be thought to have a very distant resemblance, they can in no way be shown to refer.
[3397] i.e., from His resurrection, which showed that death’s power was broken by Him.
[3398] There has been much confusion in dealing with the first seven chapters of this book, owing to the leaves of the ms. having been arranged in wrong order, as was pointed out at an early period by some one who noted on the margin that there was some transposition. To this circumstance, however, Oehler alone seems to have called attention; but the corruption was so manifest, that the various editors gave themselves full liberty to re-arrange and dispose the text more correctly. The first leaf of the ms. concludes with the words sine ullius personæ discriminibus inrogavit, “without any distinction of person,” and is followed by one which begins with the words (A, end of c. 5) et non omnium virtutum, “and (not) by an eager longing,” and ends tanta experiatur examina, “undergoes such countless ills” (middle of c. 7). The third and fourth leaves begin with the words (B. end of c. 1) utrum in cunctos…amoverit? qui si dignos, “Now if He was not worthy” (see notes), and run on to end of c. 5, quadam dulcedine, “by some charm;” while the fifth (C, middle of c. 7) begins atque ne (or utrumne) illum, “whether the earth,” and there is no further difficulty. This order is retained in the first ed., and also by Hildebrand, who supposes three lacunæ at A, B, and C, to account for the abruptness and want of connection; but it is at once seen that, on changing the order of the leaves, so that they shall run B A C, the argument and sense are perfectly restored. This arrangement seems to have been first adopted in LB., and is followed by the later editors, with the exception of Hildebrand.
[3399] Lit., “boil up with the ardours of furious spirits.”
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page