| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 3764
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[3754] So the ms. and first four edd., Orelli (who, however, seems to have meant to give the other reading), and Oehler, reading corri-p-i, for which the others read -igi—“corrected,” except Hildebrand, who without due reason gives -rumpi—“corrupted.”
[3755] In the ms. imperfectum is marked as a gloss, but is retained in all edd., while improbabilem is omitted, except in LB., when im is omitted, and probabilem joined to the next clause—“however he may strive to be acceptable,” in order to provide an object for “strive;” and with a similar purpose Orelli thrusts in contrarium, although it is quite clear that the verb refers to the preceding clause, “struggles to amend.”
[3756] The ms. reads se esse, without meaning, from which LB., followed by Hildebrand, and Oehler derived se ex se—“himself of himself.” The rest simply omit esse as above.
[3757] Lit., “hold.”
[3758] Lit., “hold.”
[3759] Lit., “set in the.”
[3760] Lit., “utter the same (conjectures),” easdem, the reading of LB. and Hildebrand, who says that it is so in the ms.; while Crusius asserts that the ms. has idem, which, with Orelli’s punctuation, gives—“we have the same power; since it is common (i.e., a general right) to bring forth what you ask,” i.e., to put similar questions.
[3761] i.e., may be retorted upon you.
[3762] Here, as elsewhere, instead of muli, the ms. reads milvi—“kites.”
[3763] Cf. Plato, Timæus, st. p. 41, already referred to.
[3764] Or, perhaps, “cray-fish,” locusta.
[3765] The ms. reads quidem—“indeed,” retained by the first four edd., but changed into quia—“because,” by Elmenhorst, LB., and Orelli, while Oehler suggests very happily si quidem—“if indeed,” i.e., because.
[3766] Lit., “from.”
[3767] Rationes.
[3768] Cf. chs. 9 and 10 [p. 416, supra.].
[3769] Orelli, retaining this as a distinct sentence, would yet enclose it in brackets, for what purpose does not appear; more especially as the next sentence follows directly from this in logical sequence.
[3770] Lit., “the constitutions of things.”
[3771] Lit., “did not choose the souls of the human race to be mixtures of the same purity,” noluit, received from the margin of Ursinus by all except the first four edd., which retain the ms. voluit—“did choose,” which is absurd. Arnobius here refers again to the passage in the Timæus, p. 41 sq., but to a different part, with a different purpose. He now refers to the conclusion of the speech of the Supreme God, the first part of which is noticed in ch. 36 (cf. p. 447, n. 20). There the Creator assures the gods He has made of immortality through His grace; now His further invitation that they in turn should form men is alluded to. That they might accomplish this task, the dregs still left in the cup, in which had been mixed the elements of the world’s soul, are diluted and given to form the souls of men, to which they attach mortal bodies.
[3772] Lit., “things not principal.” Orelli here quotes from Tertullian, de Anim., xxiii., a brief summary of Gnostic doctrines on these points, which he considers Arnobius to have followed throughout this discussion.
[3773] Siwas first inserted in LB., not being found in the ms., though demanded by the context.
[3774] Lit., “have begun to leave.”
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page