| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 3519
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[3509] i.e., neither immortal nor necessarily mortal.
[3510] So Gelenius emended the unintelligible ms. reading se-mina by merely adding s, followed by all edd., although Ursinus in the margin suggests se mîam, i.e., mi-sericordiam—“pity;” and Heraldus conjectures munia—“gifts.”
[3511] So almost all edd., from a conjecture of Gelenius, supplying ut, which is wanting in the ms., first ed., and Oehler.
[3512] It is worth while to contrast Augustine’s words: “The death which men fear is the separation of the soul from the body. The true death, which men do not fear, is the separation of the soul from God” (Aug. in Ps. xlviii., quoted by Elmenhorst).
[3513] In the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, and Orelli, both verbs are made present, but all other edd. follow the ms. as above.
[3514] In the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, and Orelli, both verbs are made present, but all other edd. follow the ms. as above.
[3515] Lit., “and unknown.” Here Arnobius shows himself ignorant of Jewish teaching, as in iii. 12.
[3516] So the ms. and LB., followed by Oehler; in the edd. id is omitted.
[3517] The ms. reading is a no-b-is quibusdam, for which LB. reads nobis a qu.—“to us,” and Hild. a notis—“by certain known;” but all others, as above, from a conjecture of Gelenius, a no-v-is, although Orelli shows his critical sagacity by preferring an emendation in the margin of Ursinus, a bonis—“by certain good men,” in which he sees a happy irony!
[3518] Lit., “not touchable by any contact of body,” neque ulla corporis attrectatione contiguas.
[3519] Arnobius considers the reductio ad absurdum so very plain that he does not trouble himself to state his argument more directly.
[3520] There has been much confusion as to the meaning of Arnobius throughout this discussion, which would have been obviated if it had been remembered that his main purpose in it is to show how unsatisfactory and unstable are the theories of the philosophers, and that he is not therefore to be identified with the views brought forward, but rather with the objections raised to them.
[3521] Cf. c. 28, p. 440, note 2.
[3522] So the ms., followed by Orelli and others reading institutum superciliumque—“habit and arrogance,” for the first word of which LB. reads istum typhum—“that pride of yours;” Meursius, isti typhum—“Lay aside pride, O ye.”
[3523] So the edd., reading in totidem sexus for the ms. sexu—“into so many kinds in sex.”
[3524] Lit., “in so great occupations of life.”
[3525] Cf. Plato, Phædo, st. p. 81.
[3526] So, by a later writer in the margin of the ms., who gives artificiosa-s novitates, adopted by Stewechius and Oehler, the s being omitted in the text of the ms. itself, as in the edd., which drop the final s in the next word also—“would raise and with unknown art strike out lofty buildings.”
[3527] Lit., “born.”
[3528] Throughout this discussion, Arnobius generally uses the plural, animæ—“souls.”
[3529] So Elmenhorst, Oberthür, and Orelli, reading par-a-v-it sibi et for the ms. parv-as et, “from continual failure has wrought out indeed slight smattering of the arts,” etc., which is retained in both Roman edd., LB., and Hild.; while Gelenius and Canterus merely substitute sibi for et, “wrought out for itself slight,” etc.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page