Complete Works of Lactantius, Vol. I

The following lines are reconstructions of the cut-off text based on the context of the argument:
[If he has conducted himself in one way, but has poured forth man in such a way, indeed infirm, and needing every assistance, he would have nothing, other than his own condition of fragility to lament: namely, how much of his life remains to pass through evils. Those who, as they say, are believed to be vehemently wise, because each one inconsiderately is concerned with his own condition: I, however, never deem them so foolish, as when they speak these things. Considering the condition of things, I understand that nothing is done in vain, to say nothing of the fact that it could not have been otherwise, because God is the author of all; but it is necessary that that most provident majesty has effected what was better and more correct. It is therefore permitted to ask these censors of divine works, what they believe to be lacking in man, because he is weak? Do they grow up any less because of this, or do they fail to reach the full strength of their age, or does their weakness or their growth hinder their safety? Since, as for those things which are lacking, reason supplies them. The education of man, they say, consists of the greatest difficulties: the condition of animals, they claim, is better, since all of them, when they have brought forth their young, do not carry them, unless they are already nourished; from which it happens that, with udders distended, they provide the nourishment of milk to their young, and by the compulsion of nature, without the solicitude of the mothers, they are nourished. What of the birds, whose situation is different,

do they not undertake the greatest labors in educating their young? So that sometimes they seem to possess some measure of human intelligence: for they build their nests either with mud or construct them with twigs and foliage; and they incubate their eggs, devoid of food; and because it has not been given to them to nourish their offspring from their own bodies, they gather food and spend whole days in such wandering, while by night they defend, warm, and protect them. What more can men do? Except perhaps for this one thing, that they do not expel their adults, but keep them attached by a perpetual bond of affection and relationship. What of the fact that the offspring of birds is much more fragile than that of man: because they do not produce the animal from the maternal body, but that which, having been warmed by the incubation and heat of the maternal body, creates the animal, which, however, when it has been animated with breath, B is featherless and tender, and lacks not only the use of flying, but also of walking. Therefore, would one not be most foolish if he thought that nature had dealt badly with birds, first because they are born twice; then, because they are so weak that they must be fed by their parents with food sought through labor? But they choose the stronger ones and pass over the weaker.

I ask, therefore, of those who prefer the condition of animals to their own, what they would choose, if God offered them the option: whether they would prefer human wisdom with weakness, or the strength of animals with their nature? Surely, they are not so much animals that they would not prefer either [the frag-]

He conducted himself. The word se is absent from the manuscripts of the King’s Library [Reg.], Claromontanus, Christ Church, Merton, and the Roman editions.
...is absent from the manuscripts, according to Heumann. It is also absent from... which seems more correct.
...so foolish. I restored this from the 4th Royal manuscript, and [manuscripts of] the Colbert collection of good quality, and Baluze. And that (as it is the reading of Lactantius, who uses tam with the verb more than once. See Divine Institutes, chapter 7: Tam [so] not much from many animals...).
...Innocent. After this word, I have expunged quam factum, a useless gloss, which is absent from the better manuscripts, the Roman editions, Graphaeus, and Cellarius.
*...should have been otherwise... because God is able... Whether God could have done anything better, and whether He could have made the world better... theologians dispute this, in the Sentences, distinction 44, where St. Thomas, quest. 1 and 2; St. Bonaventure, quest. 1 and 5; Richard; Albert the Great, quest. 77, memb. 3; Alensis, quest. 26, memb. 3. Isaeus.
...that most provident majesty. I have restored this from the better and superior manuscripts. In the Pithou manuscript it is that; in the 7th it is that which, which words are transposed in the 5th. In the Bov. manuscript, they will be brought forward.
...So the 5th Royal manuscript, Gotha, Tornesius, Colomesius, Cambridge, 4th Colbert, Lipsius, Claromontanus, Brunsvicensis. [In the edition of] 1470, Crato in the margin, and Graphaeus, it is that is, which is in the Royal-Puteanus, or "compensates," as in... In the 3rd Royal, 2nd Colbert, Baluze, and in nine... reprehendit [blames], erroneously: reprehendit, even worse... when they have produced. As below, Lipsius third, Reimmann, have said. Arnobius book II, p. 54: We are sent forth from the wombs of our mothers. Buneman.
...In the Bov. manuscript: "they bear."
...without the solicitude of the mothers. So the Royal manuscripts read, and others... and almost all printed editions. Matrum [mothers] is absent from ten recent manuscripts and the Roman edition of 1470.

C And of foods. In the Bov. manuscript: Even of foods.
Wandering [discursatione]. I have restored this from almost all manuscript codices and the old Roman, Gymnasius, Graphaeus, Tornesius, Betuleius editions, as well as Cellarius and Walch. And rightly, I think. See below at the end of this chapter: the free wandering of birds through the air. In one recent Colbert manuscript and nine editions, it is discursione; in one Royal, conlatione.
Because not from the maternal body. These last two words are absent from the 1st Bononiensis, Caucensis, and five common editions: they exist, however, in the greatest number of others, both manuscripts and printed.
But that which. Buneman has but it, which, and presents the following note: — But it, which. Venetian, 1443, 97, Parisian, Aldine, Crato, Fasitel, Gryphius, Tornesius, Betuleius, Thomas, and the following: but which. Seven English [editions] are fuller: Gotha, Lipsius, Reimmann, Subiaco, Rostock, Venetian 1471, 72, both of 78, Parisian, Erasmus, Froben 1529, Gymnasius, but it which. Heumann, from it which, shapes it into "egg." Bun.
By incubation [fotu]. In some recent manuscripts and common editions it is fœtu [offspring/fetus], corruptly.
D That indeed featherless and tender. These words seem to Heumann to be a gloss; and rightly.
Therefore not. So the 3rd Royal, 4th Colbert, Baluze, Marmoutier, Claromontanus, Lipsius, Brunsvicensis, Bov., Roman edition 1470, 1474, Graphaeus, Cellarius, Walch. In 1 recent Colbert and nine editions it is Therefore [Num ergo].
So weak. Add born.
Therefore. In the Bov. manuscript: then; and almost always, where in the printed editions it is therefore [igitur], the Bov. manuscript reads then [ergo].
Whether they would prefer human wisdom. So the old printed editions and manuscripts except 1 Bononiensis and 1 Colbert and the recent editions, in which it is human wisdom [humanamne sapientiam].
With their nature. Irrational, clearly. In 6 recent manuscripts and 2 Roman editions it is their [illorum]; in 1 Colbert, theirs [eorum]. I have expunged four spurious words, What do they want, what do they choose? which are absent from 26 manuscripts and the old editions. But they exist in one Bononiensis and 3 recent common ones.
Truly [Scilicet]. Here taken as "certainly."