| << | Contents | >> |
Arnobius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 5026
Introductory Notice to Arnobius.
[5016] In Orelli.
[5017] Lit., “from the possession of Italy.”
[5018] So all edd. to Orelli, adding -em to the ms. quid. [See, concerning Pessinus, p. 492, supra.]
[5019] Lit., “a face too little expressed with imitation.”
[5020] in Orelli.
[5021] Lit., “did a stone drive,” etc.
[5022] Lit. “moved by.”
[5023] So the ms. and edd.; but, on account of the unnecessary repetition, Ursinus proposed to delete atri. Unger (Anal. Propert., p. 87) has suggested very happily arti—“of confined, i.e., small body.’”
[5024] Vim, suggested by Orelli, and adopted by Hild. and Oehler.
[5025] Lit., “subjected to.”
[5026] So Hild. and Oehler, reading moli for the unintelligible ms. more.
[5027] Lit., “so great assaults of war.”
[5028] So Oehler, adding -o to the ms. est. The word immediately preceding is in the ms. pavorem—“panic,” which is of course utterly out of place, and is therefore corrected, as above, f- in all edd., except 1st, Ursinus, and Hild.
[5029] So—ab Italia—Oehler has admirably emended the ms. habitabilia.
[5030] Lit., “if he is.”
[5031] in Orelli.
[5032] All edd., except Hild. and Oehler, begin a new sentence here, and change the construction, seemingly following the mistake of the 1st ed.
[5033] “To do…to show;” so the edd., dropping -nt from the ms. facere-nt…præbere-nt.
[5034] “To do…to show;” so the edd., dropping -nt from the ms. facere-nt…præbere-nt.
[5035] Lit, “showed.” Ursinus and Heraldus supposed that some paragraphs are now wanting which were originally found here. It should be noticed that in the ms. the usual subscription is found denoting the end of a book. “The seventh book of Arnovius (sic) ends, the eighth (i.e., Octavius of Minucius Felix) begins,” so that the present arrangement is not due to the binder, nor clearly to the copyist who wrote these words. Nothing can be more certain than that we do not have these chapters as Arnobius intended to leave them; but there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he actually left them otherwise than they have come down to us. Remembering this, we may well suppose that we have only the first draught of them. If so, the difficulties vanish, for nothing would be more natural than that, when Arnobius was drawing near the close of his work, the ideas of the conclusion in which the discussion was to be fairly summed up should force themselves upon his attention, and that he should therefore turn aside at once to give them expression roughly, without seeking completeness and elaboration, and should then hastily resume his argument, of course with the intention of afterwards revising and re-arranging the whole. We may infer that the re-arrangement was never effected, as there are sufficient proofs that the revision was never accomplished, whatever may have been the reason.
[5036] This section, which is found in the ms. after the first sentence of ch. 44, was retained in the text of both Roman editions, marked off, however, by asterisks in that of Ursinus, but was rejected by Gelenius and later editors as the useless addition of some copyist. Oehler alone has seen that it is not “a collection of words gathered carelessly and thoughtlessly” (Hildebrand), and maintained that we have in it the corrections of Arnobius himself. If the three paragraphs are read carefully, it will be observed that the first is a transposition and reconstruction of the first two sentences of ch. 39; the second a revision of the interrogations in ch. 41, but with the sentence which there precedes placed after them here, whilst the third is made up of the same sentences in a revised and enlarged form. Now this must be regarded as conclusive evidence against the hypothesis that these sentences were originally scribbled carelessly on the margin, and afterwards accidentally incorporated in the text. Cf. p. 532, n. 10.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0321 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page