What is the source of this numbering anomaly in Ambrose's De Officiis?

score:8

Accepted answer

CCEL's text comes straight from the 1896 publication of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 10. In fact, they host an image of the page that was transcribed, and the same page is also on Google Books.

You'll notice that there's no explanation given in the text. Neither is any given in the introduction. So let's turn now to a modern translation of this work.

An edition edited by Ivor J. Davidson and published in 2001 includes paragraphs numbered 190–199, but a close examination of them indicates that they have the same content as the paragraphs in the Schaff version: the numbers of Schaff are simply offset. Due to limited availability of the work on Google Books, this may be difficult for some to confirm, but the relevant section begins on page 228. A few screenshots will suffice for those unable to read these pages.

First, page 228, in Latin:

enter image description here

Note the similarity, for example, in the beginning of §191 above, and the second §200 in Schaff:

In his igitur duobus illa est animi excellentia
In these two points, then, consists the excellency of the soul

From this point forward, the number systems diverge by nine: Schaff's §201 corresponds with Davidson's §192. We see this in Davidson's §197:

enter image description here

It corresponds very closely to Schaff's §206:

First, I will speak of the people of our fathers. They were ready to fight for the temple of God and for their rights, and when attacked on the Sabbath day by the craft of the enemy, willingly allowed wounds to be inflicted on their unprotected bodies, rather than to join in the fight, so that they might not defile the Sabbath.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, it seems pretty clear that the issue in Schaff's text, and by extension, CCEL's, is merely a typographical numbering mistake, not a matter of missing content. Strictly speaking, then, the paragraph numbering of Schaff's edition here is not accurate and should be treated accordingly. However it's worth noting that its handling of chapters matches that of Davidson's edition.

More post

Search Posts

Related post