Tertulliani De spectaculis

Katarina

Member
Hi everyone!

I am translating Tertulliani De spectaculis. Here you can find the latin text.

tanta est enim voluptatum vis, ut et ignorantiam protelet in occasionem et conscientiam corrumpat in dissimulationem. [3] ad utrumque adhuc forsan alicui opiniones ethnicorum blandiantur, qui in ista causa adversus nos ita argumentari consuerunt: nihil obstrepere religioni in animo et in conscientia tanta solacia extrinsecus oculorum vel aurium nec vero deum offendi oblectatione hominis, qua salvo erga deum metu et honore suo in tempore et suo in loco frui scelus non sit.

I am not sure how to understand the ad utrumque. I susspect that one of this two is ignorantiam protelet in occasionem and another conscientiam corrumpat in dissimulationem. I have no other idea where to put this. And also I don't know why ad + acc.

The underlined part I understand as: _______? perhaps the opinions of pagans are still pleasing to some people.
 

Agrippa

Civis Illustris
blandiri ad utrumque > blandiendo persuadere ad ... (to persuade by flattery to ..., cf. L&S s. v. blandior II B 2). Correct interpretation of ad utrumque; adhuc = praeterea (moreover).
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris
I wonder if it could be this meaning, as written in the L&S dictionary:
2. Pregn., to persuade or impel by flattery ( = blandiendo persuadeo or compello—very rare). a. With subj. : (ipsa voluptas) res per Veneris blanditur saecla propagent ( = sic blanditur ut propagent), Lucr. 2, 173 Lachm.— b. With ab and ad : cum etiam saepe blandiatur gratia conviviorum a veris indiciis ad falsam probationem, Vitr. 3 praef.—

You see it also reports an usage with ab or ad.
 

Katarina

Member
Hm, you think that ad goes with blandiri?
I was researching a bit more and found meaning of the word at as:
D. In the manifold relations of one object to another.
1. That in respect of or in regard to which a thing avails, happens, or is true or important, with regard to, in respect of, in relation to, as to, to, in.
So I thought it could mean "in respect of both statements".
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris
Hm, you think that ad goes with blandiri?
I was researching a bit more and found meaning of the word at as:
D. In the manifold relations of one object to another.
1. That in respect of or in regard to which a thing avails, happens, or is true or important, with regard to, in respect of, in relation to, as to, to, in.
So I thought it could mean "in respect of both statements".
That was my first thought too but I liked the other more. I don't know, I suppose both the interpretations could be right.
 

Katarina

Member
I am also a bit struggling with his last part, especially gramatticaly:

nec vero deum offendi oblectatione hominis, qua salvo erga deum metu et honore suo in tempore et suo in loco frui scelus non sit.

I have put it in nicer order like this:

scelus non sit qua [oblectio] frui suo in tempore et suo in loco, salvo erga deum meto et honore.

Is that the ablative absolute? Or how to understand that part?
 

Katarina

Member
I am also a bit struggling with his last part, especially gramatticaly:

nec vero deum offendi oblectatione hominis, qua salvo erga deum metu et honore suo in tempore et suo in loco frui scelus non sit.

I have put it in nicer order like this:

scelus non sit qua [oblectio] frui suo in tempore et suo in loco, salvo erga deum metu et honore.

Is that the ablative absolute? Or how to understand that part?
I think I found the anwser right now. It is abl. absol. salvo metu et honore (erga deum) and it means that this is something that must be done, like: that things don't offend god if the fear of god and honoring him are kept ... Right?
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
nec vero deum offendi oblectatione hominis is an AcI depending on argumentari and is more or less the main clause of the indirect statement.
qua ... frui scelus non sit is a relative clause depending on oblectatione.
salvo metu et honore is an instrumental.

(They usually argue: bla bla,) nor (as they argue) does God get offended by the delight of man (man enjoying himself), which it is no crime to enjoy with decent (untainted/righteous) fear and honour towards God in the proper time and the proper place.
 

Katarina

Member
nec vero deum offendi oblectatione hominis is an AcI depending on argumentari and is more or less the main clause of the indirect statement.
qua ... frui scelus non sit is a relative clause depending on oblectatione.
salvo metu et honore is an instrumental.

(They usually argue: bla bla,) nor (as they argue) does God get offended by the delight of man (man enjoying himself), which it is no crime to enjoy with decent (untainted/righteous) fear and honour towards God in the proper time and the proper place.
That is a nice interpretation. From L-Sh and my own Slovene dictionary I didn't come to meaning of sanus in that way though one could form it like a distant meaning ... So I tried to use this:

B. Freq. with a noun in the abl. absol., without violation of, saving: salvā lege, Cic. Rep. 3, 10, 17; cf.: hoc videmur esse consecuti, ut ne quid agi cum populo aut salvis auspiciis aut salvis legibus aut denique sine vi possit,id. Fam. 1, 2, 4: salvis auspiciis, id. Prov. Cons. 19, 45: salvo officio, id. Rosc. Am. 1, 4: salvo jure nostrae veteris amicitiae, id. Fam. 13, 77, 1: cupio tibi aliquā ex parte, quod salvā fide possim, parcere, id. Rosc. Am. 34, 95: quae salvā fide facere possit, id. Off. 3, 10, 44: pietate salvā, Ov. M. 15, 109: salvo pudore, id. P. 1, 2, 68: salvā virginitate, id. H. 16, 160: tuā re salvā, Plaut. Trin. 2, 2, 95; so, salvā causae ratione, Quint. 4, 2, 75: salvāconscientiā, Sen. Ep. 117, 1: salvā tractatione causae, Quint. 12, 10, 46: salvo poëtae sensu, id. 1, 9, 2: salva innocentia, id. 7, 2, 37: salva gratia, id. 11, 1, 71: salvo ordine, Stat. S. 5, 1, 181: ut salvo jam et composito diepossis ibi manere, an unbroken day, Plin. Ep. 2, 17, 2: salvo eo, ut, etc., with this reservation or proviso, that, etc., Dig. 16, 3, 1, § 40.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Well, untainted (which I suggested in brackets) basically means "without violation".

But I suppose your comment was about the ablative absolute. You can call it that as well. It comes down to the same thing and the same translation.
 

Katarina

Member
sunt qui existimant Christianos, expeditum morti genus, ad hanc obstinationem abdicatione voluptatum erudiri, quo facilius vitam contemnant amputatis quasi retinaculis eius nec desiderent, quam iam supervacuam sibi fecerint, ut hoc consilio potius et humano prospectu, non divino praescripto definitum existimetur.

Would you call this ablativus causae or modi? (Or something else?)
 

Katarina

Member
quamquam, etsi ita esset, tam apto consilio tantae obstinatio disciplinae debebat obsequium.

I am a bit confused. Why is debebat in imperfect? I am also not sure how to understand this sentence.

Anyhow, even if it were so, .....? Stubbornness owed obedience to such a fitting plan of such discipline. ? I am not sure what it means that stubbornness owe something ...
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris
quamquam, etsi ita esset, tam apto consilio tantae obstinatio disciplinae debebat obsequium.

I am a bit confused. Why is debebat in imperfect? I am also not sure how to understand this sentence.

Anyhow, even if it were so, .....? Stubbornness owed obedience to such a fitting plan of such discipline. ? I am not sure what it means that stubbornness owe something ...
It refers to the context of the previous sentence you left you, I think that is also why the verb is in the past. Perhaps this helps in understanding the sentence.
sunt qui existimant Christianos, expeditum morti genus, ad hanc obstinationem abdicatione voluptatum erudiri, quo facilius vitam contemnant amputatis quasi retinaculis eius nec desiderent, quam iam supervacuam sibi fecerint, ut hoc consilio potius et humano prospectu, non divino praescripto definitum existimetur.

Would you call this ablativus causae or modi? (Or something else?)
I think of means? Not an ace in these things though.
 

Katarina

Member
It refers to the context of the previous sentence you left you, I think that is also why the verb is in the past. Perhaps this helps in understanding the sentence.
Yes, that I know. But my logic tells me that tam apto consilio tantae obstinatio disciplinae debebat obsequium should be part of the if-clause. Like: That what are saying is not true. But even if it were true, the stubbornness should owe obedience to such a fitting plan of such discipline. So I would expect subjunctive and not indicative here ...

I am still not sure what he is trying to say. My logic tells me that he should be saying that even if this was only a human's plan, a christian should follow it.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
The indicative is okay with verbs of possibility (i.e. posse) or obligation (e.g. debere, oportere). debebat can mean both "he/she/it had to" and "he/she/it should have had to".
 

Katarina

Member
Iam vero nemo est, qui non hoc quoque praetendat: omnia a deo instituta et homini attributa, sicut praedicamus, et utique bona omnia, ut boni auctoris; inter haec deputari universa ista, ex quibus spectacula instruuntur, equum verbi gratia et leonem et vires corporis et vocis suavitates; igitur neque alienum videri posse neque inimicum deo quod de conditione constet ipsius, neque cultoribus dei deputandum, quod ei non sit inimicum, quia nec alienum.

I wonder why is here accusative ...
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
They are the accusative subjects of the AcI.
 
Top