Tertulliani De spectaculis

Katarina

Member
plane et ipsae extructiones locorum, quod saxa, quod caementa, quod marmora, quod columnae dei res sunt, qui ea ad instrumentum terrae dedit; sed et ipsi actus sub caelo dei transiguntur.

I can't find a reason for these quod's here. Any help?
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
It looks to me like this sentence expands on the previous sentence's idea and that the quods are causal subordinate clauses (parallel to the previous sentence).

--> plane et ipsae extructiones locorum [nec alienae nec Deo inimicae videri possunt]
quod (=quia) saxa, caementa, marmora, columnae dei res sunt.​
Clearly, also the erection of places itself (I changed it to the singular here because the plural seems awkward in English) cannot seem foreign or hostile to God, because the stones, cement, marbles and columns are God's things (i.e. made by God).
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I'm not entirely sure there, but I see no other explanation. It looks like crappy writing to me.
 

Katarina

Member
I am thinking about the meaning of this sentence: quid non dei est quod deum offendit?

It's contexts is explaining that eventhough God made everything one can not use these things properly - like using wood for idolatry. Then comes this sentence. Then he says that at the moment when a thing become offensive to God is not his anymore and when it is not his, it is already offending him.

So I am thinking about:
- Quid? Non Dei est, quod Deum offendit? - So do you think that what offended God isn't his?
- Quid non Dei est, quod Deum offendit? - What is (exist) that isn't God's, that offends God? --> also how to understand the quod ... part - as a consecutive sentence (so that offends God) or causative sentence (because it offends God) or maybe just relative clause (which offends God)
Any other ideas? What do you think?
 

Katarina

Member
By the way. I was also thinking why the sentences are sometimes in perfect ... And found no real answer. Present would seem more logical to me.
 

Katarina

Member
generaliter dictum intellegamus, cum quid aliter, etiam specialiter interpretari capit.

I am not sure how to understand the marked words.
cum - by sense I would take it as cum concessivum but no subjunctive follows. Do you think it could be something else or it is just a ''bad Latin''?

I don't know which meaning of capio I could take that I could combine it with interpretari ...

Any help?
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
So I am thinking about:
- Quid? Non Dei est, quod Deum offendit? - So do you think that what offended God isn't his?
- Quid non Dei est, quod Deum offendit? - What is (exist) that isn't God's, that offends God?
The first reading or interpunctuation would make more sense if it said nonne.

I suppose this rhetorical question simply says that all things, even those that offend God, belong to him or are made by him – but that the moment they offend Him, they fall from his favour.

--> also how to understand the quod ... part - as a consecutive sentence (so that offends God) or causative sentence (because it offends God) or maybe just relative clause (which offends God)
Any other ideas? What do you think?
It's just a relative clause.

By the way. I was also thinking why the sentences are sometimes in perfect ... And found no real answer. Present would seem more logical to me.
Which ones?
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
generaliter dictum intellegamus, cum quid aliter, etiam specialiter interpretari capit.

I am not sure how to understand the marked words.
capit can apparently mean "to be possible, to be allowed" in ecclesiastical Latin.

cum - by sense I would take it as cum concessivum but no subjunctive follows. Do you think it could be something else or it is just a ''bad Latin''?
I don't think his Latin can be that bad, although a concessive cum would also have been my first thought.

Looking at the next sentence, I would take it as "Let us consider something a general saying, even when it can be interpreted in a special/peculiar way. (Because some things pronounced/ said in a special way/ with special intent, make sense in a broader/ general way.)"
 

Katarina

Member
Looking at the next sentence, I would take it as "Let us consider something a general saying, even when it can be interpreted in a special/peculiar way. (Because some things pronounced/ said in a special way/ with special intent, make sense in a broader/ general way.)"
Maybe it's because of my English - but isn't "even when" cum concessivum?
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I guess it's close, but I think there's a difference between saying "even in special situations, in which" (i.e. even then) and "even though, altough."
 

Katarina

Member
Libero enim a rusticis primo fiebant ob beneficium quod ei adscribunt demonstrati gratia vini.
Libero enim a rusticis primo fiebant ob beneficium quod ei adscribunt demonstrata gratia vini.


I found these two versions of the text. For the first one I would translate it as ''because of showing them vine". The other one I would take demonstrata gratia as an ablative but I don't know wich. abl. causae? abl. of respect or limitationis? I understand gratia vini here as sweetness of the vine.
 

Katarina

Member
Here comes another dillema: quamquam et Consualia Romulo defendunt

I wonder about the meaning of Dative of word Romulo. Dativus commodi?
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris
Idk I guess in a way both could work but I've looked up a 9th century manuscript and it says demonstrata.

About the second one, I think it may mean "they claim the Consualia for Romulus", meaning that he was the one who established them. Or perhaps you could say "they mantain Romulus' authorship" (they mantain the Consulia for Romulus), but I like my first attempt more.
 
Last edited:
Top