| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 3435
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[3425] Lit., “on chance encounters.”
[3426] Rationes cognitas. There is some difficulty as to the meaning of these words, but it seems best to refer them to the argumenta credendi (beginning of chapter, “do not even these proofs”), and render as above. Hildebrand, however, reads tortiones, “they accept the tortures which they know will befall them.”
[3427] The ms. reads et non omnium, “and by a love not of all the virtues,” changed in most edd. as above into atque omnium, while Oehler proposes et novo omnium, “and by fresh love of all,” etc. It will be remembered that the transposition of leaves in the ms. (note on ii. 1) occurs here, and this seems to account for the arbitrary reading of Gelenius, which has no ms. authority whatever, but was added by himself when transposing these chapters to the first book (cf. p. 432, n. 14), atque nectare ebrii cuncta contemnant—“As if intoxicated with a certain sweetness and nectar, they despise all things.” The same circumstance has made the restoration of the passage by Canterus a connecting of fragments of widely separated sentences and arguments.
[3428] Lit., “all the things of the world.” Here the argument breaks off, and passes into a new phase, but Orelli includes the next sentence also in the fifth chapter.
[3429] Lit., “to the assent of that credulity.”
[3430] So the ms., reading conditi vi mera, for which Orelli would read with Oudendorp, conditæ—“by the pure force of recondite wisdom.” The ms., however, is supported by the similar phrase in the beginning of chap. 8, where tincti is used.
[3431] So the ms., reading aliud, for which Stewechius, adopting a suggestion of Canterus, conjectures, altius et profundius—“something deeper and more profound.” Others propose readings further removed from the text; while Obbarius, retaining the ms. reading, explains it as “not common.”
[3432] Lit., “because you are,” etc.
[3433] Lit., “either yourselves to utter,” etc.
[3434] Incomptus, for which Heraldus would read inconditus, as in opposition to “harmonious.” This is, however, unnecessary, as the clause is evidently opposed to the whole of the preceding one.
[3435] No trace of either of these works has come down to us, and therefore, though there has been abundance of conjecture, we can reach no satisfactory conclusion about them. It seems most natural to suppose the former to be probably part of the lost satires of Lucilius, which had dealt with obscene matters, and the author of the latter to be the Atellane poet of Bononia. As to this there has been some discussion; but, in our utter ignorance of the work itself, it is as well to allow that we must remain ignorant of its author also. The scope of both works is suggested clearly enough by their titles—the statue of Marsyas in the forum overlooking nightly licentious orgies; and their mention seems intended to suggest a covert argument against the heathen, in the implied indecency of the knowledge on which they prided themselves. For Fornicem Lucilianum (ms. Lucialinum) Meursius reads Cæcilianum.
[3436] Lit., “Has that thing published never struck,” etc. There is clearly a reference to 1 Cor. iii. 19, “the wisdom of this world.” The argument breaks off here, and is taken up from a different point in the next sentence, which is included, however, in this chapter by Orelli.
[3437] So Gelenius, followed by Canterus and Orelli, reading primum et ipsi, by rejecting one word of the ms. (et quæ). Canterus plausibly combines both words into itaque—“therefore.” LB. reads ecquid—“do you at all,” etc., with which Orelli so far agrees, that he makes the whole sentence interrogative.
[3438] So restored by Stewechius; in the first ed. perspiciam (instead of am-us) “if I perceive the truth,” etc.
[3439] So the ms. very intelligibly and forcibly, res…invida, but the common reading is invid-i-a—“whom something…with envy.” The train of thought which is merely started here is pursued at some length a little later.
[3440] The ms. gives fedro, but all editions, except the first, Hildebrand, and Oehler, read Phædone, referring, however, to a passage in the first Alcibiades (st. p. 129), which is manifestly absurd, as in it, while Alcibiades “cannot tell what man is,” Socrates at once proceeds to lead him to the required knowledge by the usual dialectic. Nourry thinks that there is a general reference to Phædr., st. p. 230,—a passage in which Socrates says that he disregards mythological questions that he may study himself. [P. 447, note 2, infra.]
[3441] Lit., “changed with the rottenness of some moisture.” The reference is probably to the statement by Socrates (Phædo, st. p. 96) of the questions with regard to the origin of life, its progress and development, which interested him as a young man.
[3442] So the ms., LB., and Oehler, but the other edd. make the verb plural, and thus break the connection.
[3443] Lit., “established in the common senses.”
[3444] Arnobius overstates the fact here. In the passage referred to (Th., st. p. 158), Socrates is represented as developing the Protagorean theory from its author’s standpoint, not as stating his own opinions.
[3445] Lit., “by the stretching out of rays and of light.” This, the doctrine of the Stoics, is naturally contrasted in the next clause with that of Epicurus.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page