{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn71.htm","path":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn71.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn71.htm","text":"395 Lit., \"hidden and enwrapt in darkness of nature,\" abdita et caligine involuta naturae,-the reading of all edd. except Hild. and Oehler, who follow the ms. abditae cal.-\"enwrapt in darkness of hidden nature.\"\n396 This has been supposed to refer to Heraclitus, as quoted by Clem. Alex., Stromata, v. p. 469 B., where his words are, \"Neither God nor man made the world; but there was always, and is, and will be, an undying flame laying hold of its limits, and destroying them;\" on which cf. p. 437. n. 8, supra. Here, of course, fire does not mean that perceived by the senses, but a subtle, all-penetrating energy.\n398 Lit., \"by ordinary necessity.\" The Stoics (Diog. Laert., vii. 134) said that the world was made by God working on uncreated matter, and that it was perishable (\u00a7 141), because made through that of which perception could take cognizance. Cf. ch. 31, n. 9, p. 446.\n399 Orelli thinks that there is here a confusion of the parts of the world with its elements, because he can nowhere find that any philosopher has fixed the number of the elements either above or below four. The Stoics, however (Diog. Laert., vii. 134), said \"that the elements (a0rxa/j of the world are two-the active and passive;\" while, of course, the cosmic theories of the early philosophers affirm that the world sprang from one, and it seems clear enough that Arnobius here uses the word \"element\" in this sense.\n401 A conjecture of Meursius adopted by Oehler, merely dropping u from aut-\"or,\" which is read in the ms. and edd.\n402 Lit., \"refute falsities placed.\"\n403 Cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deor., i. 1, 12, 19, 23, etc.\n404 Lit., \"something is given to them to life.\" So the Stoics taught, although Chrysippus (cf. n. 9, ch. 31, p. 446) held that only the souls of the wise remained at all after death.\n405 The ms., first four edd., and Oehler read et rerum contrarietatibus dissonare-\"and that they disagree from the oppositions of things.\" Hild. reads dissonora, a word not met with elsewhere, while the other edd. merely drop the last two letters, -re, as above; a reading suggested in the margin of Ursinus.\n406 Lit., \"a most vain thing,\" etc.\n407 So the ms., LB., Elmenh., Hild., and Oehler, reading conjectamus, the other edd. reading commetamur or -imur-\"measure,\" except Gelenius and Canterus, who read commentamur-\"muse upon.\"\n409 Lit., \"world which holds us.\"\n410 The first five edd. insert the mark of interrogation after \"hollow:\" \"Whether does a solid axis,\" etc.\n411 So the edd. except. Hild., who retains the ms. reading in scientissime-\"most unskilfully\" (the others omitting in-), and Oehler, who changes e into i-\"and being most witless show,\" etc.\n413 So the later edd., reading from the margin of Ursinus figi ? cur alia, for the ms. figuralia, except LB., which reads figurari-\"be formed.\"\n414 So the ms.; but all edd. except Hild. and Oehler omit nobis.\n415 So the ms., reading , followed by LB.\n416 Salsa, corrected from the ms. sola.\n417 Alites et volucres; i.e., according to Orelli, the birds from whose flight auguries were drawn, as opposed to the others.\n418 So Heraldus, whose punctuation also is here followed, omitting id est sapor-\"that is, taste,\" which Meursius and LB., followed by Orelli, amend, ut est-\"as taste is\" in each thing.\n419 Vel is here inserted in all edd., most of which read, as above, oloris, which is found in the ms., in later writing, for the original, coloris-\"colour,\" retained by Ursinus, LB., and Oehler.\n420 Lit., \"that the nature of man is.\"\n421 So the ms., according to Crusius, reading nec pro suis; while, according to Hild., the reading is prorsus-\"and are utterly without hesitation,\" adopted in the edd. with the substitution of et for nec-\"and that they altogether hesitate,\" which, besides departing from the ms. runs counter to the sense.\n422 Lit., \"transfer to Him the undecided conversions of the breast.\"\n423 Lit., \"He can be formed by no imagination.\"\n424 Lit., \"which the obscurity of sacred divinity contains;\" which Orelli interprets, \"the most exalted being holds concealed from mortals.\"\n425 Lit., \"and being fixed on.\"\n427 As Heraclitus is reported to have said.\n428 The ms., first five edd., and Oehler read supernatum, for which the other edd. read, as above, semper natum, from the margin of Ursinus. The soul is referred to.\n429 So the later edd., following Elmenhorst, who emended dico for the ms. dici, omitted by the first four edd.\n430 So most edd., reading sciolis, from the emendation of Gelenius; but the ms., first five edd,, Hild., and Oehler read scholis-\"by some schools, and (these) arrogating very much to themselves.\"\n431 Cf. ch. 13, p. 439; Plato, Rep., ii. st. p. 364, where Glaucon speaks of certain fortune-telling vagrant seers, who persuade the rich that they have power with the gods, by means of charms and sacrifices, to cleanse from guilt; and also Origen, contra Cels., i. 69, where the Magi are spoken of as being on familiar terms with evil powers, and thus able to accomplish whatever is within these spirits' power.\n432 Mentioned by Servius (on Aen., viii. 399) as composed by Tages, cap. 69 [p. 460, supra], and seemingly containing directions as to expiatory sacrifices.\n434 Lit., \"a spirit of perpetuity.\"\n435 i.e., than the Supreme God.\n439 The ms. reads fuisse me risui, which has no meaning; corrected, fuisse irrisui in most edd., and derisui by Meursius, Hild., and Oehler,-the sense being in either case as above.\n440 Lit., \"when it begins to approach to the feeling,\" cum ad sensum; so read by Gelenius for the unintelligible ms. cum absens cum.\n441 So the edd., reading quid sit cum eis animis actum for the ms. cum ejus nimis.\n442 Lit., \"of ancient and very old men.\"\n443 So the ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler, reading vinctionis; the other edd. junctionis- \"union.\"\n444 Lit., \"unknown questions.\"\n447 So the ms. and Oehler, reading ut, which is omitted in all other edd.; in this case, the words in italics are unnecessary.\n448 So Orelli, reading cur (quur in most edd.) for the ms. quos. Instead of non-\"not,\" which follows, the ms., according to Oehler, reads nos, and he therefore changes quos into quaeso- \"I ask, does He free all of us altogether?\"\n449 There is clearly no reference here to a particular passage of Scripture, but to the general tone of Christ's teaching: \"Him that cometh unto me, I will in nowise cast out.\" Orelli, however with his usual infelicity, wishes to see a direct reference, either to Christ's words to the woman of Samaria (John iv. 13-15), or, which is rather extraordinary, to John vi. 35-37: \"I am the bread of life,\" etc. Cf. n. 9, p. 459.\n450 Lit., \"the right of drinking.\"\n452 Lit., \"what waits He for, inviting,\" quid invitans expectat; the reading of the ms., both Roman edd. and Oehler. Gelenius, followed by Canterus and Elmenhorst, changed the last word into peccat-\"in what does He sin,\" adopted by the other edd., with the addition of in te-\"against you.\"\n453 Lit., \"exposes under decision of your own right.\"\n454 Cf. Plato, Rep., ii. st. p. 379: \"of a few things God would be the cause, but of many He would not;\" and x. st. p. 617 fin.\n455 So LB., Orelli, Oehler, adopting the emendation of Ursinus, tu te muneris commoditate privaveris, for the unintelligible reading of the ms., tuti m. c. probaveris.\n456 i.e., immortal, deos, so corrected by Gelenius for the ms. deus-\"if either God made us.\"\n457 So most edd., reading inanis for the ms. animi; retained, though not very intelligible, in LB., while Hild. reads anilis-\"foolish.\"\n458 So the ms. now reads verti; but this word, according to Pithoeus, is in a later handwriting, and some letters have been erased.\n459 So the edd., reading tibi desit? opem desideras tibi, except Hild. and Oehler, who retain the ms. reading, t. d. o. desideranti-\"as though He failed you desiring Him to bring help.\"\n460 So Ursinus, reading in ania cognomines for the ms. in alia, which Orelli would interpret, \"call the reverse of the truth.\"\n461 Lit., \"For the parts of bringing...has enjoined and given over,\" partes...injunctum habet et traditum, where it will be important to notice that Arnobius, writing rapidly, had carried with him only the general idea, and forgotten the mode in which this was expressed.\n463 Here, too, according to Pithoeus, there are signs of erasure.\n465 This passage at once suggests John x. 9 and xiv. 6, and it is therefore the more necessary to notice the way in which Arnobius speaks (\"so to say\"), which is certainly not the tone of one quoting a passage with which he is well acquainted. [Elucidation I.]\n468 Lit., \"crops being invented.\"\n469 So the later edd., reading constiterit from the margin of Ursinus; but in the ms. and first four edd. the reading is constituerit-\"has established,\" for which there is no subject.\n470 So the later edd., reading aversionem ex (LB., and preceding edd. a) religione for the ms. et religionem-\"against us the hatred and religion of past ages.\"\n471 Lit,, \"with the condemnation of.\"\n472 This shows that the division of the people into classes was obsolete in the time of Arnobius.\n473 Turnebus has explained this as merely another way of saying the comitia centuriata, curiata and tributa.\n474 So the edd. reading cum paratis bella (Oehler reads reparantes) for the ms. reparatis.\n475 i.e., per clarigationem, the solemn declaration of war, if restitution was not made within thirty-three days.\n476 This seems the most natural way to deal with the clause et ex acuminibus auspicatis, looking on the last word as an adjective, not a verb, as most edd. seem to hold it. There is great diversity of opinion as to what this omen was.\n477 The ms. reads in penetralibus et coliginis. LB., followed by Orelli, merely omits et, as above while the first five edd. read in pen. Vestae ignis- \"do you maintain the hearths of Vesta's fire.\" Many other readings and many explanations of the passage are also proposed.\n478 i.e. Servius Tullius. The first four edd. read Tullo, i.e., Tullus Hostilius.\n480 The ms. reads edi in filosophia; the first four edd., Philos.; Elmenh. and Orelli, Etenim phil.-\"For were phil.;\" LB., Ede an phil.-\"say whether phil.,\" which is, however faulty in construction, as the indicative follows. Rigaltius, followed by Oehler, emended as above, Medicina phil.","title":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn71.htm","type":"page"}