| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 4437
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[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.
[4443] Pubi.
[4444] Orpheus, under whose name there was current in the time of Arnobius an immense mass of literature freely used, and it is probable sometimes supplemented, by Christian writers. Cf. c. 19.
[4445] Lit, “put forth with Greek mouth.”
[4446] Lit., “tossing.”
[4447] It may be well to observe that Arnobius differs from the Greek versions of these lines found in Clem. Alex. (vol. ii. p. 177) and Eusebius (Præpar. Evang. ii. 3), omitting all mention of Iacchus, who is made very prominent by them; and that he does not adhere strictly to metrical rules, probably, as Heraldus pointed out, because, like the poets of that age, he paid little heed to questions of quantity. Whether Arnobius has merely paraphrased the original as found in Clement and Eusebius, or had a different version of them before him, is a question which can only be discussed by means of a careful comparison between the Greek and Latin forms of the verses with the context in both cases.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page