| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 4125
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[4115] The first five edd. read Mutunus. Cf. ch. 11. [I think it a mistake to make Mutubus = Priapus. Their horrible deformities are diverse, as I have noted in European collections of antiquities. The specialty of Mutunus is noted by our author, and is unspeakably abominable. All this illustrates, therefore, the Christian scruples about marriage-feasts, of which see vol. v. note 1, p. 435.]
[4116] Lit., the “fancies” or “imaginations” of false gods. Meursius proposed to transpose the whole of this sentence to the end of the chapter, which would give a more strictly logical arrangement; but it must be remembered that Arnobius allows himself much liberty in this respect.
[4117] Of these three deities no other mention is made.
[4118] The ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler read qui—“who brings;” the other edd., as above, quia.
[4119] So the ms. (cf. ch. 11), first five edd., Oberth., Hild., and Oehler; the other edd. read Nodutim Ter.
[4120] So the ms., both Roman edd., and Oehler; the other edd. reading Vibilia, except Hild., Viabilia.
[4121] The ms. reads nam—“for,” followed by all edd. except Orelli, who reads jam as above, and Oehler, who reads etiam—“also.”
[4122] Orelli omits non, following Oberthür.
[4123] Both in this and the preceding chapter the ms. reads Melonia.
[4124] Lit., “obtained by lot the wardships.”
[4125] Lit., “signs.”
[4126] So the ms., both Roman edd., Hild., and Oehler; the others reading Liburnum, except Elm., who reads -am, while Meursius conjectured Liberum—“Bacchus.”
[4127] Lit., “shameful impurity seeks after;” expetit read by Gelenius, Canterus, and Oberthür, for the unintelligible ms. reading expeditur, retained in both Roman edd.; the others reading experitur—“tries.”
[4128] The ms. reads Lemons; Hild. and Oehler, Limones; the others, Limos, as above.
[4129] The ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler read Murcidam; the others, Murciam, as above.
[4130] i.e., equestrian rank.
[4131] The ms. reading is quid si haberet in sedibus suos, retained by the first five edd., with the change of -ret into -rent—“what if in their seats the bones had their own peculiar guardians;” Ursinus in the margin, followed by Hild. and Oehler, reads in se divos suos—“if for themselves the bones had gods as their own peculiar,” etc.; the other edd. reading, as above, si habere insistitis suos.
[4132] i.e., deities. So LB. and Orelli, reading quid potestatum?—“what, O fathers of powers.” The ms. gives qui—“what say you, O fathers of new religions, who cry out, and complain that gods of powers are indecently dishonoured by us, and neglected with impious contempt,” etc. Heraldus emends thus: “…fathers of great religions and powers? Do you, then, cry out,” etc. “Fathers,” i.e., those who discovered, and introduced, unknown deities and forms of worship.
[4133] The ms. reads pertus quæ- (marked as spurious) dam; and, according to Hild., naeniam is written over the latter word.
[4134] So the ms. Cf. ch. 7 [note 10, p. 478, supra].
[4135] The ms. is here very corrupt and imperfect,—supplices hoc est uno procumbimus atque est utuno (Orelli omits ut-), emended by Gelenius, with most edd., supp. Mut-uno proc. atque Tutuno, as above; Elm. and LB. merely insert humi—“on the ground,” after supp. [See p. 478, note 6, supra.]
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page