124 Here, as in the whole discussion in the second book on the origin and nature of the soul, the opinions expressed are Gnostic, Cerinthus saying more precisely that Christ having descended from heaven in the form of a dove, dwelt in the body of Jesus during His life, but removed from it before the crucifixion.
125 So the ms. by changing a single letter, with LB. and others, similitudine proxim-a (ms. o) constitutum; while the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, Orelli, and others, read -dini proxime- "settled very closely to analogy."
131 The ms. reads, quam nec ipsam perpeti succubuisset vis-"would his might," i.e., "would He with His great power have stooped." Orelli simply omits vis as Canterus, and seemingly the other later edd. do.
133 The construction is a little involved, quae nulli nec homines scire nec ipsi qui appellantur dii mundi queunt-"which none, neither men can know, nor those...of the world can reach, except those whom," etc.
134 In the Latin, vel potestate inversa, which according to Oehler is the ms. reading, while Orelli speaks of it as an emendation of LB. (where it is certainty found, but without any indication of its source), and with most edd. reads universa- "by His universal power."
137 The ms. reads nervorum duritiam, for which Ursinus, with most edd., reads as above, merely dropping m; Hildebrand and Oehler insert in, and read, from a conjecture of Ursinus adopted by Elmenhorst, c-ol-ligare-"to bind into stiffness."
139 So the ms. reading, multa mala de illarum contra insinuator (mala is perhaps in the abl., agreeing with a lost word), which has been regarded by Heraldus and Stewechius, followed by Orelli, as mutilated, and is so read in the first ed., and by Ursinus and LB. The passage is in all cases left obscure and doubtful, and we may therefore be excused discussing its meaning here.
141 In the original, seminaria abscidit,-the former word used of nurseries for plants, while the latter may be either as above (from abscindo), or may mean "cut off " (from abscido); but in both cases the general meaning is the same, and the metaphor is in either slightly confused.
148 "To posterity evil reports of their own time"-sui temporis posteris notas-so emended by Ursinus, followed by Orelli and Hildebrand, for the ms. in temporis posteri-s, retained by LB., and with the omission of s in the 1st ed.; but this requires our looking on the passage as defective.
150 So Gelenius, LB., and Orelli, reading con-v-ell-e-re for the ms. con-p-ell-a-re, "to accost" or "abuse," which is out of place here. Canterus suggested com-p-il-are, "to plunder," which also occurs in the sense "to cudgel."
152 These words are followed in the edition of Gelenius by ch. 2-5 of the second book, seemingly without any mark to denote transposition; while Ursinus inserted the same chapters-beginning, however, with the last sentence of the first chapter (read as mentioned in the note on it)-but prefixed an asterisk, to mark a departure from the order of the ms. The later editors have not adopted either change.
153 So Ursinus suggested in the margin, followed by LB. and Orelli, reading in privatam perniciem p-a-r-atum for the ms. p-r-iv-atum, which is clearly derived from the preceding privatam, but is, though unintelligible also, retained in the two Roman edd. The conclusion of the sentence is, literally, "obstinacy of spirit."
158 i.e., to friends and foes alike. The ms. reads aequaliter benignus hostibus dicere, which is retained by Orelli, supporting an ellipsis of fuerit, i.e. "He was kind to say," which might be received; but it is more natural to suppose that -t has dropped off, and read diceret as above, with the two Roman editions and LB. Gelenius, followed by Ursinus, emended omnibus docuerit-"with uniform kindness taught to all." It may be well to give here an instance of the very insufficient grounds on which supposed references to Scripture are sometimes based. Orelli considers that Arnobius here refers (videtur respexisse, he says) to Col. i. 21, 22, "You, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death," to which, though the words which follow might indeed be thought to have a very distant resemblance, they can in no way be shown to refer.
1 There has been much confusion in dealing with the first seven chapters of this book, owing to the leaves of the ms. having been arranged in wrong order, as was pointed out at an early period by some one who noted on the margin that there was some transposition. To this circumstance, however, Oehler alone seems to have called attention; but the corruption was so manifest, that the various editors gave themselves full liberty to re-arrange and dispose the text more correctly. The first leaf of the ms. concludes with the words sine ullius personae discriminibus inrogavit, "without any distinction of person," and is followed by one which begins with the words (A, end of c. 5) et non omnium virtutum, "and (not) by an eager longing," and ends tanta experiatur examina, "undergoes such countless ills" (middle of c. 7). The third and fourth leaves begin with the words (B. end of c. 1) utrum in cunctos...amoverit? qui si dignos, "Now if He was not worthy" (see notes), and run on to end of c. 5, quadam dulcedine, "by some charm;" while the fifth (C, middle of c. 7) begins atque ne (or utrumne) illum, "whether the earth," and there is no further difficulty. This order is retained in the first ed., and also by Hildebrand, who supposes three lacunae at A, B, and C, to account for the abruptness and want of connection; but it is at once seen that, on changing the order of the leaves, so that they shall run B A C, the argument and sense are perfectly restored. This arrangement seems to have been first adopted in LB., and is followed by the later editors, with the exception of Hildebrand.
4 So Meursius, reading a- for the ms. o-ptaret, which is retained by LB., Orelli, and others. The ms. reading is explained, along with the next words vota immortalitatis, by Orelli as meaning "sought by His prayers," with reference to John xvii. 24, in which he is clearly mistaken. Heraldus conjectures p-o-r-ta-s a-p-er-taret, "opened paths...and the gates of immortality."
5 The words which follow, ut non in cunctos, etc., have been thus transposed by Heraldus, followed by later editors; but formerly they preceded the rest of the sentence, and, according to Oehler, the ms. gives utrum, thus: "(You ask) whether He has both extended to all...ignorance? who, if He was not," etc. Cf. book i. (this page) note 3, supra
8 This seems the true rationale of the sentence, viewed in relation to the context. Immediately before, Arnobius suggests that the hatred of Christ by the heathen is unjustifiable, because they had suffered nothing at His hands; now an opponent is supposed to rejoin, "But He has deserved our hatred by assailing our religion." The introductory particles at enim fully bear this out, from their being regularly used to introduce a rejoinder. Still, by Orelli and other editors the sentence is regarded as interrogative, and in that case would be, "Has He indeed merited our hatred by driving out," etc., which, however, not merely breaks away from what precedes, but also makes the next sentence somewhat lame. The older editors, too, read it without any mark of interrogation.
10 So the ms., reading perpetuarum pater, fundator conditor rerum, but all the editions pa-ri-ter, "alike," which has helped to lead Orelli astray. He suggests et fons est perpetu us pariter, etc., "perpetual fountain,...of all things alike the founder and framer." It has been also proposed by Oehler (to get rid of the difficulty felt here) to transfer per metathesin, the idea of "enduring," to God; but the reference is surely quite clear, viewed as a distinction between the results of God's working and that of all other beings.
11 So the ms. and almost all edd, reading da verum judicium, for which Heraldus suggested da naturae, or verum animae judicium, "give the judgment of nature," or "the true judgment of the soul," as if appeal were made to the inner sense; but in his later observations he proposed da puerum judicem, "give a boy as judge," which is adopted by Orelli. Meursius, merely transposing d-a, reads much more naturally ad-"at a true judgment."
12 The ms. reading is illum testem d-e-um constituimus improbarum, retained in the edd. with the change of -arum into -orum. Perhaps for deum should be read r-e-r-um, "make him witness of wicked things." With this passage compare iii. 31-33.
18 So the ms., followed by both Roman edd., Hildebrand and Oehler, reading passa, which Cujacius (referring it to patior, as the editors seem to have done generally) would explain as meaning "past," while in all other editions cassa, "vain," is read.
22 i.e., If you believe Christ's promises, your belief makes you lose nothing should it prove groundless; but if you disbelieve them, then the consequences to you will be terrible if they are sure. This would seem too clear to need remark, were it not for the confusion of Orelli in particular as to the meaning of the passage.
24 Redarguat. This sense is not recognised by Riddle and White, and would therefore seem to be, if not unique, at least extremely rare. The derivative redargutio, however, is in late Latin used for "demonstration," and this is evidently the meaning here.
25 Fidem vobis faciunt argumenta credendi. Heraldus, joining the two last words, naturally regards them as a gloss from the margin; but read as above, joining the first and last, there is nothing out of place.
29 Rationes cognitas. There is some difficulty as to the meaning of these words, but it seems best to refer them to the argumenta credendi (beginning of chapter, "do not even these proofs"), and render as above. Hildebrand, however, reads tortiones, "they accept the tortures which they know will befall them."
30 The ms. reads et non omnium, "and by a love not of all the virtues," changed in most edd, as above into atque omnium, while Oehler proposes et novo omnium, "and by fresh love of all," etc. It will be remembered that the transposition of leaves in the ms. (note on ii. 1) occurs here, and this seems to account for the arbitrary reading of Gelenius, which has no ms. authority whatever, but was added by himself when transposing these chapters to the first book (cf. p. 432, n. 14), atque nectare ebrii cuncta contemnant-"As if intoxicated with a certain sweetness and nectar, they despise all things." The same circumstance has made the restoration of the passage by Canterus a connecting of fragments of widely separated sentences and arguments.
33 So the ms., reading conditi vi mera, for which Orelli would read with Oudendorp, conditae-"by the pure force of recondite wisdom." The ms., however, is supported by the similar phrase in the beginning of chap. 8, where tincti is used.
34 So the ms., reading aliud, for which Stewechius, adopting a suggestion of Canterus, conjectures, altius et profundius-"something deeper and more profound." Others propose readings further removed from the text; while Obbarius, retaining the ms. reading, explains it as "not common."
38 No trace of either of these works has come down to us, and therefore, though there has been abundance of conjecture, we can reach no satisfactory conclusion about them. It seems most natural to suppose the former to be probably part of the lost satires of Lucilius, which had dealt with obscene matters, and the author of the latter to be the Atellane poet of Bononia. As to this there has been some discussion; but, in our utter ignorance of the work itself, it is as well to allow that we must remain ignorant of its author also. The scope of both works is suggested clearly enough by their titles-the statue of Marsyas in the forum overlooking nightly licentious orgies; and their mention seems intended to suggest a covert argument against the heathen, in the implied indecency of the knowledge on which they prided themselves. For Fornicem Lucilianum (ms. Lucialinum) Meursius reads Caecilianum.
39 Lit., "Has that thing published never struck," etc. There is clearly a reference to 1 Cor. iii. 19, "the wisdom of this world." The argument breaks off here, and is taken up from a different point in the next sentence, which is included, however, in this chapter by Orelli.
40 So Gelenius, followed by Canterus and Orelli, reading primum et ipsi, by rejecting one word of the ms. (et quae). Canterus plausibly combines both words into itaque-"therefore." LB. reads ecquid-"do you at all," etc., with which Orelli so far agrees, that he makes the whole sentence interrogative.
42 So the ms. very intelligibly and forcibly, res...invida, but the common reading is invid-i-a-"whom something...with envy." The train of thought which is merely started here is pursued at some length a little later.
43 The ms. gives fedro, but all editions, except the first, Hildebrand, and Oehler, read Phaedone, referring, however, to a passage in the first Alcibiades (st. p. 129), which is manifestly absurd, as in it, while Alcibiades "cannot tell what man is," Socrates at once proceeds to lead him to the required knowledge by the usual dialectic. Nourry thinks that there is a general reference to Phaedr., st. p. 230,-a passage in which Socrates says that he disregards mythological questions that he may study himself. [P. 447, note 2, infra.]
44 Lit., "changed with the rottenness of some moisture." The reference is probably to the statement by Socrates (Phaedo, st. p. 96) of the questions with regard to the origin of life, its progress and development, which interested him as a young man.
©st-takla.org : Saint Takla Haymanout Website: General Portal for the Coptic Orthodox Church Faith, Egypt / Contact us at:
Bible | Daily Readings | Agbeya | Books | Lyrics | Gallery | Media | Links | Contact us