{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn67.htm","path":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn67.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn67.htm","text":"47 Arnobius overstates the fact here. In the passage referred to (Th., st. p. 158), Socrates is represented as developing the Protagorean theory from its author's standpoint, not as stating his own opinions.\n48 Lit., \"by the stretching out of rays and of light.\" This, the doctrine of the Stoics, is naturally contrasted in the next clause with that of Epicurus.\n49 Lit., \"oil refuses to suffer immersion into itself,\" i.e., of other fluids.\n50 So LB., followed by Orelli, reading impenetrabil-em, for the ms. impenetrabil-is, which is corrected in both Roman edd. by Gelenius, Canterus, and Elmenhorst -e, to agree with the subject oleum-\"being impenetrable is ever,\" etc.\n52 So the edd., generally reading fatua for the ms. futura, which is clearly corrupt. Hildebrand turns the three adjectives into corresponding verbs, and Heinsius emends deliret (ms. -ra) et fatue et insane-\"dotes both sillily and crazily.\" Arnobius here follows Lucr., iii. 445 sqq.\n53 Lit., \"something of truth.\"\n54 The ms. has a t-tor-o-s, corrected by a later writer a-c-tor-e-s, which is received in LB. and by Meursius and Orelli.\n55 Lit., \"unite marriage partnerships.\"\n57 Or, \"in successive battles\"-praeliorum successionibus.\n58 Lit., \"with ocular inspection, and held touched.\"\n59 \"Fire\" is wanting in the ms.\n60 Arnobius here allows himself to be misled by Cicero (Tusc., i. 10), who explains e0ntele/xeia as a kind of perpetual motion, evidently confusing it with e0ndele/xeia (cf. Donaldson, New Crat., \u00a7 339 sqq.), and represents Aristotle as making it a fifth primary cause. The word has no such meaning, and Aristotle invariably enumerates only four primary causes: the material from which, the form in which, the power by which, and the end for which anything exists (Physics, ii. 3; Metaph., iv. 2, etc.).\n61 I.it., \"with indivisible bodies.\"\n63 So the ms., LB., and Hildebrand, reading Archesilae, while the others read Archesilao, forgetting that Arcesilas is the regular Latin form, although Archesilaus is found.\n64 Sententiarum is read in the first ed. by Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus, and seems from Crusius to be the ms. reading. The other edd., however, have received from the margin of Ursinus the reading of the text, sectarum.\n65 In the first ed., and that of Ursinus, the reading is, nonne apud ea, \"in those things which they say, do they not say,\" etc., which Gelenius emended as in the text, nonne ipsa ea.\n66 Cf. Diog. Laert. ix. 9, where Heraclitus is said to have taught that fire-the first principle-condensing becomes water, water earth, and conversely; and on Thales, Arist., Met., A, 3, where, however, as in other places, Thales is merely said to have referred the generation and maintenance of all things to moisture, although by others he is represented as teaching the doctrine ascribed to him above. Cf. Cic., de Nat. Deor., i. 10, and Heraclides, Alleg. Hom., c. 22, where water evaporating is said to become air, and settling, to become mud.\n67 There is some difficulty as to the reading: the ms., first ed., and Ursinus give numero s-c-ire, explained by Canterus as meaning \"that numbers have understanding,\" i.e., so as to be the cause of all. Gelenius, followed by Canterus, reads -os scit-\"does Pyth. know numbers,\" which is absurdly out of place. Heraldus approved of a reading in the margin of Ursinus (merely inserting o after c), \"that numbers unite,\" which seems very plausible. The text follows an emendation of Gronovius adopted by Orelli, -o ex-ire.\n68 So the ms., reading ut; but Orelli, and all edd. before him, aut-\"or do they.\"\n69 i.e., that truth knowable by man exists.\n70 So the ms. reading nostra in-credulitate, for which Ursinus, followed by Stewechius, reads nostra cum. Heraldus conjectured vestra, i.e., \"in your readiness of belief,\" you are just as much exposed to such ridicule.\n71 Heraldus has well suggested that plurimum is a gloss arising out of its being met with in the next clause.\n72 So the ms. and edd., reading Platoni; but Ursinus suggested Plotino, which Heraldus thinks most probably correct. There is, indeed, an evident suitableness in introducing here the later rather than the earlier philosopher, which has great weight in dialog with the next name, and should therefore, perhaps, have some in this case also.\n73 The ms. and both Roman edd. give Crotonio, rejected by the others because no Crotonius is known (it has been referred, however, to Pythagoras, on the ground of his having taught in Croton). In the margin of Ursinus Cronius was suggested, received by LB. and Orelli, who is mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., vi. 19, 3) with Numenius and others as an eminent Pythagorean, and by Porphyry (de Ant. Nymph., xxi. ), as a friend ot Numenius, and one of those who treated the Homeric poems as allegories. Gelenius substitutes Plotinus, followed by most edd.\n74 [Thus everywhere he writes as a Christian.]\n75 Stemus, the admirable correction of Gelenius for the ms. tem-p-us.\n76 Orelli, following Stewechius, would omit ita.\n77 Hildebrand thinks compescere here a gloss, but it must be remembered that redundancy is a characteristic of Arnobius.\n78 The superlative is here, as elsewhere, used by Arnobius instead of the comparative.\n79 i.e., so as to show the relations existing between them.\n80 Perhaps \"axioms and postulates.\"\n81 According to Crusius, non is not found in the ms..\n82 White and Riddle translate candidule, \"sincerely,\" but give no other instance of its use, and here the reference is plainly to the previous statement of the literary excellence of the philosophers. Heraldus suggests callidule, \"cunningly,\" of which Orelli approves; but by referring the adv. to this well-known meaning of its primitive, all necessity for emendation is obviated.\n83 Lit., \"subtleties of suspicions.\" This passage is certainly doubtful. The reading translated, et suspicionum argutias profertis, is that of LB., Orelli, and the later edd. generally; while the ms. reads -atis-\"Bring forward arguments to us, and\" (for which Heraldus conjectures very plausibly, nec, \"and not\") \"subtleties,\" etc., which, by changing a single letter, reads in the earlier edd. pro-fer-etis-\"Will you,\" or, \"You will bring forward,\" etc.\n84 Meursius conjectures in- (for ms. ju-) dicare-\"pointed out,\" of which Orelli approves.\n85 So the ms. and both Roman edd., supported by Heraldus, reading solidae facilitatis, changed by the edd. into stolidae-\"stupid.\"\n86 So all the edd. except Oehler; but as the first verb is plural in the ms., while the second is singular, it is at least as probable that the second was plural originally also, and that therefore the relative should be made to refer both to \"virtues\" and \"power.\"\n87 Orelli notes that by India is here meant Ethiopia. If so, it may be well to remember that Lucan (x. 29 sq.) makes the Seres neighbours of the Ethiopians, and dwellers at the sources of the Nile.\n88 Instead of sint, Stewechius would read essent-\"were.\"\n89 Instead of the ms. reading, Numae regis artibus et antiquis superstitionibus, Stewechius, followed by Heraldus, would read ritibus-\"with the rites of Numa,\" etc.\n90 So the ms., reading res patrias, for which Heraldus, ritus patrios-\"rites.\"\n91 So the ms., although the first five edd., by changing r into s, read cur-s-um-\"course.\" This story is of frequent occurrence in the later Fathers, but is never referred to by the earlier, or by any except Christian writers, and is derived solely from the Apostolic Constitutions. In the Greek version of the Apost. Const. the sixth book opens with a dissertation on schisms and heresies in which the story of Simon and others is told; but that this was interpolated by some compiler seems clear from the arguments brought forward by Bunsen (Hippolytus and his Age, more particularly vol. ii. pt. 2, \u00a7 2, and the second appendix).\n92 Brunda or Brenda, i.e., Brundisium.\n93 Hermes Trismegistus. See index.\n94 So the ms. Elmenh., LB., Hildebrand, and Oehler, reading quod, for which the other edd. read qui-\"who.\"\n95 This seems to be the reading intended by the ms., which according to Hild. gives dom, i.e., probably dominum, which Oehler adopts, but all other edd. read deum-\"god.\"\n96 Arnobius rather exaggerates the force of the passage referred to (st. p. 173), which occurs in the beautiful digression on philosophers. Plato there says that only the philosopher's body is here on earth, while his mind, holding politics and the ordinary business and amusements of life unworthy of attention, is occupied with what is above and beneath the earth, just as Thales, when he fell into a ditch, was looking at the stars, and not at his steps.\n97 In cardinem vergere qui orientis est solis seems to be the reading of all edd.; but according to Crusius the ms. reads vertere-\"to turn.\" Hildebrand, on the contrary, affirms that instead of t, the ms. gives c.\n99 So most edd., reading desituros, for which Stewechius suggests desulturos-\"leap down;\" LB. exituros-\"go out.\"\n100 Reference is here made to one of the most extraordinary of the Platonic myths (Pol., 269-274), in which the world is represented as not merely material, but as being further possessed of intelligence. It is ever in motion, but not always in the same way. For at one time its motion is directed by a divine governor (tou\\ panto\\j o9 me\\n kubernh/thj); but this does not continue, for he withdraws from his task, and thereupon the world loses, or rather gives up its previous bias, and begins to revolve in the opposite direction, causing among other results a reverse development of the phenomena which occurred before, such as Arnobius describes. Arnobius, however, gives too much weight to the myth, as in the introduction it is more than hinted that it may be addressed to the young Socrates, as boys like such stories, and he is not much more than a boy. With it should be contrasted the \"great year\" of the Stoics, in which the universe fulfilled its course, and then began afresh to pass through the same experience as before (Nemesius, de Nat. Hom., c. 38).\n101 LB. makes these words interrogative, but the above arrangement is clearly vindicated by the tenor of the argument: You laugh at our care for our souls' salvation; and truly you do not see to their safety by such precautions as a virtuous life, but do you not seek that which you think salvation by mystic rites?\n102 Lit., \"fastened with beam\" (i.e., large and strong) \"nails.\"\n103 Cf. on the intercessory prayers of the Magi, c. 62, infra.\n104 Pl. Cf. Milman's note on Gibbon, vol. 2, c. xi. p. 7.\n106 Plato, in the passage referred to (Phaedo, st. p. 113, \u00a7 61), speaks of the Styx not as a river, but as the lake into which the Cocytus falls. The fourth river which he mentions in addition to the Acheron, Pyriphlegethon, and Cocytus, which he calls Stygian, is the Ocean stream.\n107 So the ms., according to Hild., reading parvae; but acc. to Rigaltius and Crusius, it gives pravae-\"of no mean.\"\n108 So LB., Hild., and Oehler, reading doloris afficiat sensu, by merely dropping m from the ms. sensu-m; while all the other edd. read doloribus sensuum-\"affects with the pains of the senses.\"\n109 i.e., not compounded of soul and body.\n110 Or, \"not unsuitably,\" absone.\n111 Lit., \"in the failure (or `disappointment0') of,\" etc.\n112 i.e., neither immortal nor necessarily mortal.\n113 So Gelenius emended the unintelligible ms. reading se-mina by merely adding s, followed by all edd., although Ursinus in the margin suggests se m\u00eeam, i.e., mi-sericordiam-\"pity;\" and Heraldus conjectures munia-\"gifts.\"\n114 So almost all edd., from a conjecture of Gelenius, supplying ut, which is wanting in the ms.., first ed., and Oehler.\n115 It is worth while to contrast Augustine's words: \"The death which men fear is the separation of the soul from the body. The true death, which men do not fear, is the separation of the soul from God\" (Aug. in Ps. xlviii., quoted by Elmenhorst).\n116 In the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, and Orelli, both verbs are made present, but all other edd. follow the ms. as above.\n117 In the first ed., Gelenius, Canterus, Ursinus, and Orelli, both verbs are made present, but all other edd. follow the ms. as above.\n118 Lit., \"and unknown.\" Here Arnobius shows himself ignorant of Jewish teaching, as in iii. 12.\n119 So the ms. and LB., followed by Oehler; in the edd. id is omitted.\n120 The ms. reading is a no-b-is quibusdam, for which LB. reads nobis a qu.-\"to us,\" and Hild. a notis- \"by certain known;\" but all others, as above, from a conjecture of Gelenius, a no-v-is, although Orelli shows his critical sagacity by preferring an emendation in the margin of Ursinus, a bonis-\"by certain good men,\" in which he sees a happy irony!\n121 Lit., \"not touchable by any contact of body,\" neque ulla corporis attrectatione contiguas.\n122 Arnobius considers the reductio ad absurdum so very plain that he does not trouble himself to state his argument more directly.\n123 There has been much confusion as to the meaning of Arnobius throughout this discussion, which would have been obviated if it had been remembered that his main purpose in it is to show how unsatisfactory and unstable are the theories of the philosophers, and that he is not therefore to be identified with the views brought forward, but rather with the objections raised to them.\n124 Cf. c. 28, p. 440, note 2.\n125 So the ms., followed by Orelli and others reading institutum superciliumque-\"habit and arrogance,\" for the first word of which LB. reads istum typhum-\"that pride of yours;\" Meursius, isti typhum-\"Lay aside pride, O ye.\"\n126 So the edd., reading in totidem sexus for the ms. sexu-\"into so many kinds in sex.\"\n127 Lit., \"in so great occupations of life.\"\n128 Cf. Plato, Phaedo, st. p. 81.\n129 So, by a later writer in the margin of the ms., who gives artificiosa-s novitates, adopted by Stewechius and Oehler, the s being omitted in the text of the ms. itself, as in the edd., which drop the final s in the next word also-\"would raise and with unknown art strike out lofty buildings.\"\n131 Throughout this discussion, Arnobius generally uses the plural, animae-\"souls.\"\n132 So Elmenhorst, Oberth\u00fcr, and Orelli, reading par-a-v-it sibi et for the ms. parv-as et, \"from continual failure has wrought out indeed slight smattering of the arts,\" etc., which is retained in both Roman edd., LB., and Hild.; while Gelenius and Canterus merely substitute sibi for et, \"wrought out for itself slight,\" etc.\n133 Lit., \"or received understanding of God by the breath of any suspicion.\"\n134 The ms. gives c-etera-que, \"'and the rest,\" which is retained in both Roman edd., and by Gelenius and Canterus, though rather out of place, as the enumeration goes on.","title":"Fn67","type":"page"}