Spinoza Tractatus Politicus §5/4
Civitas, cujus subditi metu territi arma non capiunt, potius dicenda est, quod sine bello sit, quam quod pacem habeat. Pax enim non belli privatio, sed virtus est, quae ex animi fortitudine oritur: est namque obsequium (per art. 19 cap. II) constans voluntas id exequendi, quod ex communi civitatis decreto fieri debet. Illa praeterea civitas, cujus pax a subditorum inertia pendet, qui scilicet veluti pecora ducuntur ut tantum servire discant, rectius solitudo quam civitas dici potest
A commonwealth whose subjects don’t take up arms because they are terrified by fear can better be said to not be at war than to be enjoying peace. For peace is not just the absence of war, but a virtue which arises from strength of mind [animi fortitudine]; for obedience (Section 19, Chapter 2) is the steadfast will to carry out orders enjoined by the general decree of the commonwealth. Moreover, a commonwealth whose peace depends on the sluggish spirit of its subjects who are led like sheep, so that they learn only to be slaves, can more properly be called a desert [solitudo] than a commonwealth.
The question is whether we can know by the Latin whether “ut tantum servire discant” is meant as the result of “ducuntur” or the purpose for it.
Are they led like sheep for the purpose that they learn to be slaves, or with the result that?
On the punctuation: the classic edition (Gebhardt) has
Illa praeterea civitas, cujus pax a subditorum inertia pendet, qui scilicet veluti pecora ducuntur ut tantum servire discant, rectius solitudo quam civitas dici potest
A recent (and very respectable) edition by Proietti has (note the extra comma)
Illa praeterea civitas, cujus pax a subditorum inertia pendet, qui scilicet veluti pecora ducuntur, ut tantum servire discant, rectius solitudo quam civitas dici potest.
The classic English translation (Shirley) has
“subjects who are led like sheep to learn simply to be slaves”
How would you understand this version? Purpose / result?
The latest French translation by Ramond has
« conduits comme du betail pour n’apprendre rien que l’esclavage”
French speakers, does this latter translation with "pour" translate it as purpose?
I see it as result, but can we know?
Edit:
I just remembered that I also have the German edition by Bartuschat (using Proietti’s Latin edition), which reads:
... von der Trägheit der Untertanen abhängt, die man wie eine Herde führt, um sie lediglich zu Sklaven abzurichten...
He sees it as purpose (unless my German is wrong):
... depends on sluggishness of subjects which one leads like a herd [of sheep] in order to train them into [being] slaves...
Civitas, cujus subditi metu territi arma non capiunt, potius dicenda est, quod sine bello sit, quam quod pacem habeat. Pax enim non belli privatio, sed virtus est, quae ex animi fortitudine oritur: est namque obsequium (per art. 19 cap. II) constans voluntas id exequendi, quod ex communi civitatis decreto fieri debet. Illa praeterea civitas, cujus pax a subditorum inertia pendet, qui scilicet veluti pecora ducuntur ut tantum servire discant, rectius solitudo quam civitas dici potest
A commonwealth whose subjects don’t take up arms because they are terrified by fear can better be said to not be at war than to be enjoying peace. For peace is not just the absence of war, but a virtue which arises from strength of mind [animi fortitudine]; for obedience (Section 19, Chapter 2) is the steadfast will to carry out orders enjoined by the general decree of the commonwealth. Moreover, a commonwealth whose peace depends on the sluggish spirit of its subjects who are led like sheep, so that they learn only to be slaves, can more properly be called a desert [solitudo] than a commonwealth.
The question is whether we can know by the Latin whether “ut tantum servire discant” is meant as the result of “ducuntur” or the purpose for it.
Are they led like sheep for the purpose that they learn to be slaves, or with the result that?
On the punctuation: the classic edition (Gebhardt) has
Illa praeterea civitas, cujus pax a subditorum inertia pendet, qui scilicet veluti pecora ducuntur ut tantum servire discant, rectius solitudo quam civitas dici potest
A recent (and very respectable) edition by Proietti has (note the extra comma)
Illa praeterea civitas, cujus pax a subditorum inertia pendet, qui scilicet veluti pecora ducuntur, ut tantum servire discant, rectius solitudo quam civitas dici potest.
The classic English translation (Shirley) has
“subjects who are led like sheep to learn simply to be slaves”
How would you understand this version? Purpose / result?
The latest French translation by Ramond has
« conduits comme du betail pour n’apprendre rien que l’esclavage”
French speakers, does this latter translation with "pour" translate it as purpose?
I see it as result, but can we know?
Edit:
I just remembered that I also have the German edition by Bartuschat (using Proietti’s Latin edition), which reads:
... von der Trägheit der Untertanen abhängt, die man wie eine Herde führt, um sie lediglich zu Sklaven abzurichten...
He sees it as purpose (unless my German is wrong):
... depends on sluggishness of subjects which one leads like a herd [of sheep] in order to train them into [being] slaves...