| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 3397
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[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.”
[3400] Lit., “by the heats of.”
[3401] So Meursius, reading a- for the ms. o-ptaret, which is retained by LB., Orelli, and others. The ms. reading is explained, along with the next words vota immortalitatis, by Orelli as meaning “sought by His prayers,” with reference to John xvii. 24, in which he is clearly mistaken. Heraldus conjectures p-o-r-ta-s a-p-er-taret, “opened paths…and the gates of immortality.”
[3402] The words which follow, ut non in cunctos, etc., have been thus transposed by Heraldus, followed by later editors; but formerly they preceded the rest of the sentence, and, according to Oehler, the ms. gives utrum, thus: “(You ask) whether He has both extended to all…ignorance? who, if He was not,” etc. Cf. book i. (this page) note 3, supra.
[3403] So the ms., reading periculum i-g-n-ora-tionis, for which Meursius suggests i-n-teri-tionis—“danger of destruction.”
[3404] Pl.
[3405] This seems the true rationale of the sentence, viewed in relation to the context. Immediately before, Arnobius suggests that the hatred of Christ by the heathen is unjustifiable, because they had suffered nothing at His hands; now an opponent is supposed to rejoin, “But He has deserved our hatred by assailing our religion.” The introductory particles at enim fully bear this out, from their being regularly used to introduce a rejoinder. Still, by Orelli and other editors the sentence is regarded as interrogative, and in that case would be, “Has He indeed merited our hatred by driving out,” etc., which, however, not merely breaks away from what precedes, but also makes the next sentence somewhat lame. The older editors, too, read it without any mark of interrogation.
[3406] i.e., according to Orelli, to the wants of men; but possibly it may here have the subjunctive meaning of “more full of service,” i.e., to God.
[3407] So the ms., reading perpetuarum pater, fundator conditor rerum, but all the editions pa-ri-ter, “alike,” which has helped to lead Orelli astray. He suggests et fons est perpetu-us pariter, etc., “perpetual fountain,…of all things alike the founder and framer.” It has been also proposed by Oehler (to get rid of the difficulty felt here) to transfer per metathesin, the idea of “enduring,” to God; but the reference is surely quite clear, viewed as a distinction between the results of God’s working and that of all other beings.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page