| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 4432
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[4422] So the ms., followed by Hild. and Oehler; the other edd. reading gens for mens.
[4423] Lit., “felt himself to be.”
[4424] Lit., “would the thing not be worthy that angry and roused.”
[4425] i.e., reduce to chaos, in which one thing would not be distinguished from another, but all be mixed up confusedly.
[4426] Lit., “what are your proper things.”
[4427] Every one since Salmasius (ad solinum, p. 750) has supposed Arnobius to have here fallen into a gross error, by confounding the Eleusinian mysteries with the Thesmophoria; an error the less accountable, because they are carefully distinguished by Clemens Alexandrinus, whom Arnobius evidently had before him, as usual. There seems to be no sufficient reason, however, for charging Arnobius with such a blunder, although in the end of ch. 26 he refers to the story just related as showing the base character of the Eleusinia (Eleusiniorum vestrorum notas); as he here speaks of mysteria(i.e., Eleusinia, cf. Nepos, Alc., 3, 16) et illa divina quæ Thesmophoria nominantur a Græcis. It should be remembered also that there was much in common between these mysteries: the story of Ceres’ wanderings was the subject of both; in both there was a season of fasting to recall her sadness; both had indecent allusions to the way in which that sadness was dispelled; and both celebrated with some freedom the recovery of cheerfulness by the goddess, the great distinguishing feature of the Thesmophoria being that only women could take part in its rites. Now, as it is to the points in which the two sets of mysteries were at one that allusion is made in the passage which follows, it was only natural that Arnobius should not be very careful to distinguish the one from the other, seeing that he was concerned not with their differences, but with their coincidence. It seems difficult, therefore, to maintain that Arnobius has here convicted himself of so utter ignorance and so gross carelessness as his critics have imagined. [Vol. ii. p. 176.]
[4428] Lit., “caverns.”
[4429] Lit., “in the whole.”
[4430] The ms. is utterly corrupt—flammis onere pressas etneis, corrected as above by Gelenius from c. 35., f. comprehensas.—Æl.
[4431] Lit., “also.”
[4432] Lit., “(they were) earth-born who inhabited.”
[4433] The ms. wants this name; but it has evidently been omitted by accident, as it occurs in the next line.
[4434] Lit., “of woolly flock.”
[4435] Cecropios et qui.
[4436] i.e. staff-bearers.
[4437] Cinnus, the chief ingredients, according to Hesychius (quoted by Oehler), being wine, honey, water, and spelt or barley. [P. 503, inf.]
[4438] Lit., “offices of humanity.”
[4439] Lit., “common health.” Arnobius is here utterly forgetful of Ceres’ divinity, and subjects her to the invariable requirements of nature, from which the divine might be supposed to be exempt.
[4440] So the conjecture of Livineius, adopted by Oehler, gene-t-ri-cum for the ms. genericum.
[4441] So Stewechius, followed by Oehler, reading redit itafor the ms. redita; the other edd. merely drop a.
[4442] Omnia illa pudoris loca.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page