The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen.…
The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen.
42. You worship, says my opponent , one who was born a mere But the He exhibited
16. But, they say , while we are moving swiftly down towards our mortal bodies, to be all even
35. But, say my opponents , if souls are mortal and One than we anything must who is if into
45. But let this monstrous and impious fancy be put far from us
74. And why, my opponent says , did God, the Ruler and Lord of the universe you ask
25. Unxia, my opponent says , presides over the anointing of door-posts
34. Some of your learned men —men, too, who do not chatter merely
12. But let them be true, as you maintain, yet will you have us also believe deity who are
32. But you err, says my opponent , and are mistaken, and show, even in criticising these gratify
7. But why do I speak of the body story in men’s minds which is of all
36. You say that some of them cause excite and these things these to be
38. If the immortal gods cannot be angry, says my opponent is the meaning of had they if
48. But some one will perhaps say that the care of such a god has been denied being to the city
52. And yet, lest you should suppose that none but yourselves can make use of conjectures and surmises, we too are able to bring them forward as well,522 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. as your question is appropriate to either side.523 i.e., may be retorted upon you. Whence, you say, are men; and what or whence are the souls of these men? Whence, we will ask, are elephants, bulls, stags, mules,524 Here, as elsewhere, instead of muli, the ms. reads milvi—“kites.” asses? Whence lions, horses, dogs, wolves, panthers; and what or whence are the souls of these creatures? For it is not credible that from that Platonic cup,525 Cf. Plato, Timæus, st. p. 41, already referred to. which Timæus prepares and mixes, either their souls came, or that the locust,526 Or, perhaps, “cray-fish,” locusta. mouse, shrew, cockroach, frog, centipede, should be believed to have been quickened and to live, because527 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. they have a cause and origin of birth in528 Lit., “from.” the elements themselves, if there are in these secret and very little known means529 Rationes. for producing the creatures which live in each of them. For we see that some of the wise say that the earth is mother of men, that others join with it water,530 Cf. chs. 9 and 10 [p. 416, supra.]. that others add to these breath of air, but that some say that the sun is their framer, and that, having been quickened by his rays, they are filled with the stir of life.531 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. What if it is not these, and is something else, another cause, another method, another power, in fine, unheard of and unknown to us by name, which may have fashioned the human race, and connected it with things as established;532 Lit., “the constitutions of things.” may it not be that men sprang up in this way, and that the cause of their birth does not go back to the Supreme God? For what reason do we suppose that the great Plato had—a man reverent and scrupulous in his wisdom—when he withdrew the fashioning of man from the highest God, and transferred it to some lesser deities, and when he would not have the souls of men formed533 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 Timæus, 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. of that pure mixture of which he had made the soul of the universe, except that he thought the forming of man unworthy of God, and the fashioning of a feeble being not beseeming His greatness and excellence?
LII. Ac ne tamen vobis tantummodo censeatis conjecturis uti ac suspicionibus licere, et nos idem possumus: quoniam commune est, quod interrogatis expromere. Unde, inquitis, homines, et ipsorum hominum quid, aut unde sunt animae? Unde sunt elephanti, tauri, cervi, muli, asini, Unde leones, equi, canes, lupi, pantherae, eorumque quae vivunt, quid aut unde sunt animae? neque enim fidem 0893A res habet, ut Platonico ex illo cratere, quem conficit miscetque Timaeus, aut horum animae venerint, aut locusta, mus, sorex, blatta, rana, centipeda, animata esse credantur, et vivere, quia ex elementis ipsis causa est illis, atque origo nascendi: si ad animalia gignenda, quae in singulis his degunt, insunt abditae atque obscurissimae rationes. (Nam et videmus alios ex sapientibus dicere, tellurem esse hominum matrem, aquam cum ea alios, aerium spiritum his alios jungere, solem vero nonnullos esse horum opificem, et ex ignibus animatos ejus vitali agitatione motari.) Quid si et haec non sunt, et est aliqua res 0894A alia, alia causa, alia ratio, potestas alia denique inaudita nobis atque incogniti nominis genus quae hominum finxerit, et rerum constitutionibus applicarit, nonne fieri potis est, ut exorti homines ita sint, nec ad Deum primum nativitatis eorum referatur auctoritas? Quid enim putamus habuisse rationis Platonem illum magnum, pie sancteque sapientem, cum hominis fictionem Deo removit a maximo, et ad minores nescio quos transtulit: cumque ejusdem noluit sinceritatis esse mixturae humani animas generis, cujus animam fecerat universitatis istius: quam quod hominis fabricam indignam esse rebatur Deo, nec rei 0895A flaccidae fictionem magnitudini ejus et eminentiae convenire?