{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn70.htm","path":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn70.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn70.htm","text":"310 Sambuca, not corresponding to the modern triangle, but a stringed instrument of that shape. Its notes were shrill and disagreeable, and those who played on it of indifferent character.\n311 So the ms. and first four edd., reading virilitatem sui populo publicarent. Meursius emended utilitatem-\"made common the use,\" etc.; and Orelli, from the margin of Ursinus, vilitatem-\"their vileness.\"\n312 The ms. reads in fornicibus obvi-t-ae, which, dropping t, is the reading translated, and was received by Elmenhorst, LB., and Hildebrand, from the margin of Ursinus. The other edd. insert nc before t-\"bound.\"\n313 The translation does not attempt to bring out the force of the words ad oris stuprum paratae, which are read by Orelli after Ursinus and Gelenius. The text is so corrupt, and the subject so obscene, that a bare reference to the practice nay be sufficient.\n314 The ms. reads, habitare atque habitare juss-e-r-unt. All edd. omit the first two words, the first ed. without further change; but the active verb is clearly out of place, and therefore all other edd. read jussae sunt, as above. Oehler, however, from habitare omitted by the others, would emend aditare, \"to approach,\"-a conjecture with very little to recommend it.\n315 These are all substantives in the original.\n316 So the ms., reading non missione-\"not by the sending;\" but, unaccountably enough, all edd. except Hildebrand and Oehler read, jussione-\"not by the command.\"\n320 The ms. and both Roman edd. read abscondere-\"to hide,\" for which the other edd. read, as above, abscedere, from the margin of Ursinus.\n322 By Hildebrand and Oehler, procreator is with reason regarded as a gloss.\n323 The ms., both Roman edd., and Hildebrand read jussisset; but this would throw the sentence into confusion, and the other edd. therefore drop t.\n324 LB., Hildebrand, and Oehler read quorum indu-c-tae c?rceribus-\"led into the prisons of which,\" all other edd. omitting c as above. According to Oehler, the ms. has the former reading.\n325 The ms. and both Roman edd. read in-f-ernarum paterentut aliae laniatus muscularum, which has no meaning, and is little improved by Galenius changing ut into ur, as no one knows what \"infernal flies\" are. LB. and Orelli, adopting a reading in the margin of Ursinus, change intern. into ferarum, and join musc. with the words which follow as above. Another reading, also suggested by Ursinus, seems preferable, however, internorum...musculorum-\"suffer rendings (i.e., spasms) of the inner muscles.\"\n328 Lit., \"again and more frequently.\"\n331 Lit., \"things perfect, and preserving the measure of their completeness;\" i.e., continuing so.\n332 So the ms., LB., Oberth\u00fcr and Oehler, reading claudum et quod minus esset a recto. All other edd. read eminus-\"at a distance from the right.\"\n335 Lit., \"some power latent and cruelty.\"\n336 So the ms. and all edd.; but Orelli would change item into iterum, not seeing that the reference is to the indicated preference of his opponents for the simple truth.\n337 Nescire Hildebrand, with good reason, considers a gloss.\n338 Nihil for the ms. mihi which makes nonsense of the sentence.\n339 This somewhat wide-spread opinion found an amusing counterpart in the doctrines of Rorarius (mentioned by Bayle, Dict. Phil.), who affirmed that the lower animals are gifted with reason and speech, as we are.\n341 Lit., \"tending to no reasons.\"\n342 Omni vero verissimum est certoque certissimum-the superlative for the comparative.\n343 Lit., \"finished with the perfection of.\"\n344 Lit., \"by perversity\"-s-c-aevitate, the reading of the ms., LB., Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, all others omitting c-\"by the rage;\" except Stewechius, who reads servitute-\"slavery.\"\n345 Or, perhaps, \"the goodness of the Supreme planted\"-generositas eos adsereret principalis.\n346 Lit., \"opposition;\"i.e., \"the setting of one party against the other.\"\n347 Lit., \"weighed with balancing of equality.\"\n348 Lit., \"bounded by the comprehensions of names;\" i.e., possibly, \"the good are certainly few enough to be numbered, perhaps even to be named.\"\n349 So LB., reading ex cruciatibus for the ms. scruc.\n351 Lit., \"admiration is sought for by the putting together\"-congregatione.\n352 Lit., \"a comparison of the worst may effect that we,\" etc.\n353 So all edd. except Hildebrand, who gives as the reading of the ms., gui-d-\"what! do they assert.\"\n354 Lit., \"by the force of,\" vi,-an emendation of Heraldus for the ms. in.\n355 So most edd., reading pertinaci for the ms. -ium-\"by the opposition of persistent virtues,\" which is retained in both Roman edd., Gelenius, Canterus, Hildebrand, and Oehler.\n356 So Stewechius and later edd., reading ut...auferant, except Hildebrand, who gives as the ms. reading, et...-unt-\"shun...and remove,\" etc. The first four edd. read ne...afferant-\"that they may not bring upon themselves,\" etc.\n357 So the ms. and first four edd., Orelli (who, however, seems to have meant to give the other reading), and Oehler, reading corri-p-i, for which the others read -igi-\"corrected,\" except Hildebrand, who without due reason gives -rumpi-\"corrupted.\"\n358 In the ms. imperfectum is marked as a gloss, but is retained in all edd., while improbabilem is omitted, except in LB., when im is omitted, and probabilem joined to the next clause-\"however he may strive to be acceptable,\" in order to provide an object for \"strive;\" and with a similar purpose Orelli thrusts in contrarium, although it is quite clear that the verb refers to the preceding clause, \"struggles to amend.\"\n359 The ms. reads se esse, without meaning, from which LB., followed by Hildebrand, and Oehler derived se ex se-\"himself of himself.\" The rest simply omit esse as above.\n363 Lit., \"utter the same (conjectures),\" easdem, the reading of LB. and Hildebrand, who says that it is so in the ms.; while Crusius asserts that the ms. has idem, which, with Orelli's punctuation, gives-\"we have the same power; since it is common (i.e., a general right) to bring forth what you ask,\" i.e., to put similar questions.\n364 i.e., may be retorted upon you.\n365 Here, as elsewhere, instead of muli, the ms. reads milvi-\"kites.\"\n366 Cf. Plato, Timaeus, st. p. 41, already referred to.\n367 Or, perhaps, \"cray-fish,\" locusta.\n368 The ms. reads quidem-\"indeed,\" retained by the first four edd., but changed into quia-\"because,\" by Elmenhorst, LB., and Orelli, while Oehler suggests very happily si quidem-\"if indeed,\" i.e., because.\n371 Cf. chs. 9 and 10 [p 416, supra].\n372 Orelli, retaining this as a distinct sentence, would yet enclose it in brackets, for what purpose does not appear; more especially as the next sentence follows directly from this in logical sequence.\n373 Lit., \"the constitutions of things.\"\n374 Lit., \"did not choose the souls of the human race to be mixtures of the same purity,\" noluit, received from the margin of Ursinus by all except the first four edd., which retain the ms. voluit-\"did choose,\" which is absurd. Arnobius here refers again to the passage in the Timaeus, p. 41 sq., but to a different part, with a different purpose. He now refers to the conclusion of the speech of the Supreme God, the first part of which is noticed in ch. 36 (cf. p. 447, n. 20). There the Creator assures the gods He has made of immortality through His grace; now His further invitation that they in turn should form men is alluded to. That they might accomplish this task, the dregs still left in the cup, in which had been mixed the elements of the world's soul, are diluted and given to form the souls of men, to which they attach mortal bodies.\n375 Lit., \"things not principal.\" Orelli here quotes from Tertullian, de Anim., xxiii., a brief summary of Gnostic doctrines on these points, which he considers Arnobius to have followed throughout this discussion.\n376 Si was first inserted in LB., not being found in the ms., though demanded by the context.\n377 Lit., \"have begun to leave.\"\n378 The ms. and first three edd., read vobis-\"you,\" corrected nobis, as above, by Ursinus.\n379 So the ms.; but most edd., following the Brussels transcript, read dominum-\"Lord.\"\n380 Ut is omitted in the ms., first four edd., and Hild.\n381 So LB., reading p-uncta for the ms. c-uncta.\n382 So the ms., Hild., and Oehler, reading imman-ior; LB., from the margin of Ursinus, major-\"greater;\" the rest, inanior-\"more foolish.\"\n383 The difficulty felt by Arnobius as to the origin of evil perplexed others also; and, as Elmenhorst has observed, some of the Fathers attempted to get rid of it by a distinction between the evil of guilt and of punishment,-God being author of the latter, the devil of the former (Tertullian, adv. Marcionem, ii. 14). It would have been simpler and truer to have distinguished deeds, which can be done only if God will, from wickedness, which is in the sinful purpose of man s heart.\n385 Lit., \"with all the ages, in steady continuance.\"\n386 The ms., followed by Oehler alone, reads ducetis-\"and you will think;\" while all the other edd. read, as above, ducentes.\n387 Here, too, there has been much unnecessary labour. These words-per voluntatem-as they immediately follow sine deo dicere nihil fieri-\"to say that without God nothing is made\"-were connected with the preceding clause. To get rid of the nonsense thus created, LB. emended dei...voluntate-\"without God's will;\" while Heraldus regards them as an explanation of sine deo, and therefore interprets the sentence much as LB. Orelli gets rid of the difficulty by calling them a gloss, and bracketing them. They are, however, perfectly in place, as will be seen above.\n389 It would not be easy to understand why Orelli omitted these words, if we did not know that they had been accidentally omitted by Oberth\u00fcr also.\n390 Lit., \"that apart from these it is pernicious.\"\n391 It must be observed that this sentence is very closely connected with the last words of the preceding chapter, or the meaning may be obscured. The connection may be shown thus: This one thing- that God is author of no evil-we are assured of; but as for all other questions, we neither know, nor care to know, about them.\n392 This seems the most natural arrangement; but the edd. punctuate thus: \"have been connected and associated with us for that which we desire.\" The last part of the sentence is decidedly obscure; but the meaning may perhaps be, that the circumstances of man's life which absorb so much attention and cause such strife, have no bearing, after all, upon his salvation.\n393 So the ms., reading labefactare dissolvere; the latter word, however, being marked as spurious.","title":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn70.htm","type":"page"}