| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 4144
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[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.]
[4136] Meursius is of opinion that some words have slipped out of the text here, and that some arguments had been introduced about augury and divination.
[4137] Contendis, not found in the ms.
[4138] i.e., the predictions.
[4139] Lit., “will you make the same belief.”
[4140] Lit., “adapt themselves to the significations of the things which.”
[4141] Lit., “brothers of.”
[4142] i.e., demons.
[4143] Perhaps “abilities”—materiis.
[4144] The ms. reads cum—“with similar reason we may believe,” instead of cur, as above.
[4145] Lit., “novelty of the thing.”
[4146] Lit., “of places and divisions,” i.e., places separated from each other.
[4147] Lit., “affords to you the appearance of.”
[4148] Lit., “a severity of stern manner”—moris for the ms. mares.
[4149] Orelli here introduces the sentence, “For it cannot be,” etc., with which this book is concluded in the ms. Cf. ch. 37, n. 4, infra.
[4150] There can be no doubt that Arnobius here refers to Clemens Alexandrinus (Λόγος Προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς ῾Ελλῆνας), and Cicero (de Nat. Deor.), from whom he borrows most freely in the following chapters, quoting them at times very closely. We shall not indicate particular references without some special reason, as it must be understood these references would be required with every statement. [Compare Clement, vol. ii. pp. 305–13, and Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 34.]
[4151] Lit., “given to us an abridging,” i.e., an opportunity of abridging.
[4152] Lit., “committed to sepulture and born in,” etc.
[4153] Arnobius repeats this statement in ch. 22, or the name would have been regarded as corrupt, no other author making mention of such a goddess; while Cicero speaks of one Sun as born of Hyperion. It would appear, therefore, to be very probable that Arnobius, in writing from memory or otherwise, has been here in some confusion as to what Cicero did say, and thus wrote the name as we have it. It has also been proposed to read “born of Regina” (or, with Gelenius, Rhea), “and his father Hyperion,” because Cybele is termed βασίλεια; for which reading there seems no good reason.—Immediately below, Ialysus is made the son, instead of, as in Cicero, the grandson of the fourth; and again, Circe is said to be mother, while Cicero speaks of her as the daughter of the fifth Sun. These variations, viewed along with the general adherence to Cicero’s statements (de N. D., iii. 21 sqq.), seem to give good grounds for adopting the explanation given above.
[4154] i.e., in Proserpinam genitalibus adhinnivisse subrectis.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page