Clement of Alexandria

Footnotes

Introductory Note to Clement of Alexandria

^[3713] Comments, i.e., Adumbrationes. Cassiodorus says that he had in his translation corrected what he considered erroneous in the original. So Fell states: and he is also inclined to believe that these fragments are from Clement’s lost work, the Ὑποτυπώσεις, of which he believes The Adumbrationes of Cassiodorus to be a translation.

^[3714] “Utramque” is the reading, which is plainly corrupt. We have conjectured “animam.” The rest of the sentence is so ungrammatical and impracticable as it stands, that it is only by taking considerable liberties with it that it is translateable at all.

^[3715] The text here has like a drag-net or (sicut sagena vel), which we have omitted, being utterly incapable of divining any conceivable resemblance or analogy which a drag-net can afford for the re-union of the soul and body. “Sagena” is either a blunder for something else which we cannot conjecture, or the sentence is here, as elsewhere, mutilated. But it is possible that it may have been the union of the blessed to each other, and their conjunction with one another according to their affinities, which was the point handled in the original sentences, of which we have only these obscure and confusing remains. [A very good conjecture, on the strength of which the text might have been let as it stood.]

^[3716] 1 Pet. 2:5

^[3717] “Cœli,” plainly a mistake for “cœlo” or “cœlis.” There is apparently a hiatus here. “The angelic abode, guarded in heaven,” most probably is the explanation of “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, reserved in heaven.”

^[3720] Ibid.

^[3722] Ibid.

^[3729] Sic.