PL 6 · cols. 251–254
Analysis libri secundi Divinarum Institutionum Lactantii, qui inscribitur De origine erroris
Editors' preface
Migne Reading Room
PL 6 · cols. 251–254
Editors' preface
<!-- The Analysis libri secundi (lower part of the page, below the heading) carries no footnotes: (none). Above the heading, the page foot carries the Variorum notae to the preceding text (Div. Inst. I). The left foot column is whole in the column images; of the right foot column only the left edge (column images) and the last two lines (foot image) are visible: what is cut off is NOT set. --> (Trecentis viginti duobus annis) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 251 or 252 (above the image) Trecentis viginti duobus annis. Thalli lapsum, quem secutus est Theophilus, et deinde Lactantius, ostendit luculenter Pererius in comm. ad Daniel, lib. XVI, c. 14, et lib. II Disp. de LXX septim., part. I, quaest. 2. Quamvis autem in hac supputatione mire varient chronologi, omnium tamen expensis sententiis, haud minus, quam octingentis vel nongentis circiter annis Belum Trojano excidio antiquiorem fuisse constat. Isaeus. — Nil tamen de hoc certi definiri potest, propter varios Babyloniorum et Assyriorum Belos, qui his nationibus diversis imperarunt temporibus.
Three hundred and twenty-two years. The error of Thallus, whom Theophilus followed, and after him Lactantius, Pererius shows clearly in his commentary on Daniel, book XVI, ch. 14, and in book II of the Disputation on the seventy weeks, part I, question 2. However much the chronologers vary in this reckoning, yet when all their opinions have been weighed, it is agreed that Belus was older than the fall of Troy by no less than about eight hundred or nine hundred years. Isaeus. — Nothing certain, however, can be determined about this, because of the various Beluses of the Babylonians and Assyrians who ruled over these nations at different times.
(Itaque) ‹anchor: Itaque› · call in col 251 or 252 (above the image) Itaque. Haec vox manuscriptorum codicum est, et veterum [… the rest, in the right foot column, is cut off at the image edge …]
Itaque ["and so"]. This word is the reading of the manuscript codices, and of the old [… cut off …]
(Si co…) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 251 or 252 (above the image) Si co[…] recenti[…] logi ve[…] tempor[…] [… cut off at the image edge …]
[Lemma beginning "Si co…": the note is cut off at the image edge.]
(Ante…) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 251 or 252 (above the image) Ante[…] lus. A[…] duo mi[…] intercessisse scribit prope finem lib. II. Isaeus.
[Lemma beginning "Ante…": the note is cut off at the image edge] … writes that [it] intervened, near the end of book II. Isaeus.
(Ne modum excedat) ‹anchor: modum excedat› · call in col 251 or 252 (above the image) Ne modum excedat. Mss. rec. 2 Reg., Vict., Nav., [?] Colb., Gat., Brun. addunt oratio; sed perperam.
Ne modum excedat ["lest it exceed measure"]. The recent manuscripts, 2 Regii, Victorinus, Navarrensis, [?] Colbertinus, Gatianus, Brunensis, add oratio ["the discourse"]; but wrongly.
(printed under page 129)
<!-- VARIORUM NOTAE: notes keyed by lemma, not by call letters. --> (Gestio enim) ‹anchor: Gestio enim, Constantine Imperator› · call in col 254 Gestio enim, Constantine Imperator. Haec duo postrema verba sunt in antiquissimo 900 annorum codice Regio, in alio item Reg., 7 Vaticanis, 2 Lipsiensibus, Balliol., Marm. et in editis Soubron., Fasitel. 1545, Gymn. 1555, Betul., Tornes., 2 Paris., Thomas., Thys., Gall., Spark., Cellar., Walch. At in Rhoanneo et Sangerm., Soubron., 2 Paris. multis, desunt. Regio-Puteanus habet in titulo ad Constantinum Imperatorem.
"For I am eager, Constantine Emperor." These last two words are in the most ancient Regius codex, 900 years old, likewise in another Regius, in 7 Vatican manuscripts, 2 Leipzig ones, the Balliol and Marmoutier manuscripts, and in the editions of Soubron, Fasitelius 1545, Gymnicus 1555, Betuleius, Tornaesius, 2 Paris editions, Thomasius, Thysius, Gallaeus, Sparke, Cellarius, Walch. But in the Rhoanneus and Sangermanensis, in Soubron, and in many Paris copies, they are missing. The Regio-Puteanus has in the title "to the Emperor Constantine".
(Convictis inanibus) ‹anchor: convictis inanibus› · call in col 254 Convictis inanibus. Ita reposui ex mss. 6 Reg., quorum duo sunt veterrimi, 1 Lips., Em., Gat., Marm. et Vict. in marg., edit. Rom., 1470, Gymnic., Fasit., Torn., Thom., Is., Thys., Cellar., Walch., et sic legere malo cum eruditis viris Jo. Clerico in Arte Critic. P. III, S. I. c. 4, p. 44, Cellario et Walchio. Plane enim mihi persuasi pro in positum fuisse m; quod amanuensibus saepe contigisse notum est. Nam legendum omnino videtur inanibus, nempe diis, qui rectius opponuntur singulari Deo, quam manes. 1 Clarom. habet, convictis diis inanibus; 1 Colb. prave, conjunctis inanibus; in 16 aliis mss. recent. et 5 editis est convictis manibus. Vide infra, l. III, c. 30 convictis philosophiae disciplinis, etc.
"The empty ones having been refuted." So I have restored it from 6 Regii manuscripts, two of them very old, 1 Leipzig, the Emmanuel, Gatianus, Marmoutier, and the Victorinus in the margin, the Rome edition of 1470, Gymnicus, Fasitelius, Tornaesius, Thomasius, Isaeus, Thysius, Cellarius, Walch; and I prefer to read it so with the learned men Jean Le Clerc in his Ars Critica, Part III, Section I, ch. 4, p. 44, Cellarius and Walch. For I am fully persuaded that m was put for in, which is known to have happened often to copyists. For "inanibus" seems by all means the reading, namely the gods, who are more fittingly set against the one God than "manes" are. 1 Claromontanus has "convictis diis inanibus" ("the empty gods having been refuted"); 1 Colbertinus wrongly "conjunctis inanibus"; in 16 other recent manuscripts and 5 editions it is "convictis manibus" ("the shades having been refuted"). See below, book III, ch. 30: "convictis philosophiae disciplinis", etc.
(Vanitate detecta) ‹anchor: impia vanitate detecta› · call in col 254 Vanitate detecta. Non male Goth. vanitate dejecta. Bun.
"Their vanity laid bare." Not badly, the Gothanus has "vanitate dejecta" ("their vanity cast down"). Bünemann.
(Suscipiens) ‹anchor: majestatem, suscipiens› · call in col 254 Suscipiens. Quaedam editiones habent suspicans, quod idem est.
"Taking up." Some editions have "suspicans", which is the same.
(Quidam philosophi) ‹anchor: ut quidam philosophi› · call in col 254 Quidam philosophi. Hic perstringit Lactantius Epicureos.
"Certain philosophers." Here Lactantius is censuring the Epicureans.
(Et nihil, et frustra) ‹anchor: et nihil, et frustra› · call in col 254 Et nihil, et frustra. Ita restituimus ex mss. 7 Reg., quorum duo sunt vetustissimi, 4 Colbert., Goth., Ult., Bonon. minus antiq., Em., Cantabrig., Brun., edit. Egnat., Paris. 1525, Fasit., Graph. In recentioribus, 2 Reg., 3 Lips., Cauc., Pen., Rostoch., Pal., 2 Clarom., Christ., 1 Colb., edit. Rom. 1470, Gymn., Betul., Tornes., Cellar., est, et nihil; quod abest a ms. 1 Bon. antiq. et editis quinque rec. In 1 Colb. et ad nihil, et frustra. Alicubi legitur nihili pro nihil, in quem locum notam habet sequentem Bunemannus. — Et nihili. Merito Cellarius ex Lips. tribus et Betul. recepit: habent et mss. C. C. C. Reimm., Ultr., Cauc., Pal. et Tornes. Prius confirmo ex Lact., l. I, c. 11: Qui sit et mortalis, et imbecillus, et nihili; et l. VI, c. 22: Insipiens, et ineptus, et nihili est. Bun.
"And nothing, and in vain." So we have restored it from 7 Regii manuscripts, two of them very old, 4 Colbertini, the Gothanus, the Ultrajectinus, the less ancient Bononiensis, the Emmanuel, the Cantabrigiensis, the Brunensis, the editions of Egnatius, Paris 1525, Fasitelius, Gryphius. In the more recent, 2 Regii, 3 Leipzig, Caucius, Pen., Rostochiensis, Palatinus, 2 Claromontani, Christinae, 1 Colbertinus, the Rome edition of 1470, Gymnicus, Betuleius, Tornaesius, Cellarius, it is "et nihil" ("and nothing"); which is lacking in the one ancient Bononiensis manuscript and in five recent editions. In 1 Colbertinus, "et ad nihil, et frustra" ("and for nothing, and in vain"). Somewhere "nihili" is read for "nihil", on which place Bünemann has the following note. — "Et nihili" ("and worthless"). Cellarius rightly adopted it from three Leipzig manuscripts and Betuleius; the manuscripts of Corpus Christi College, Reimmann, Ultrajectinus, Caucius, Palatinus and Tornaesius also have it. I confirm the former from Lactantius, book I, ch. 11: "Who is both mortal, and weak, and worthless"; and book VI, ch. 22: "He is foolish, and inept, and worthless." Bünemann.
(Nulli Deo) ‹anchor: nulli Deo nos esse curae› · call in col 254 Nulli Deo. De hoc etiam in prioribus primi libri capitibus dictum est, ac rursus dicetur in opere de Ira Dei. Nulli refertur ad Curae.
"To no God." This has been spoken of also in the earlier chapters of the first book, and will be spoken of again in the work On the Anger of God. "Nulli" refers to "curae".
(printed under page 130)