I am trying to translate the following from a work on philosophy:

Manifestabo tibi, quod radii, qui fluunt ab unaquaque substantiarum, non sunt praeter intellectum substantialitatis, etsi sint vires, eo, quod sunt fluentes ab eis.

I am struggling with the 'eo' and how it fits in with the last part of the sentence. Can anyone clarify for me what kind of use is being made of 'eo' here?

  • 1
    Welcome to the site, Kate! Can you edit your question to tell what you have made out of the sentence so far? A preliminary translation would help us help you more efficiently. (Also, consider registering your account and taking a look at our tour, as it makes interacting with your question easier later on. Answers are not always immediate, and it's unfortunate if you lose access before they come.)
    – Joonas Ilmavirta
    Aug 28, 2020 at 13:30
  • Yes thanks I will look at registering! So far I have got something roughly like this: "I will show you that rays, which flow from each and every substance, are not beyond the idea of substantiality, even if they are forces..."
    – Kate
    Aug 28, 2020 at 13:36

1 Answer 1


I would take it as ablative showing cause, so that it just anticipates the causal quod that follows. Therefore, eo, quod means something like 'for this [very] reason, namely because' or simply 'because.'

One classical example of this use of eo quod is found in Cicero, Philippics 13.23:

'<A senatu> iudicatum hostem populi Romani Dolabellam eo quod sicarium occiderit, et videri cariorem rei publicae filium scurrae quam C. Caesarem, patriae parentem, ingemiscendum est.'

'That Dolabella should at this time have been pronounced a public enemy because he has slain an assassin; and that the son of a buffoon should appear dearer to the Roman people than Caius Caesar, the father of his country, are circumstances to be lamented.'

[Translation by C. D. Yonge, from the Perseus website]

  • cnread: Why would Cicero choose a perfect subjunctive (PS), "occiderit", instead of the perfect, "occidit"? Joonas (CHAT: 20/5/20) discussed Cicero's use of the PS to convey "might" e.g. "hoc sine ulla dubitatione confirmaverim" = "I might confirm this without any hesitation." (Brutus 25). But there is no "might" about a killing. Alternatively, Allen & Greenough p.540, section 2: "mea mater irata est quia non rederim" = "My mother is angry because I did not return." The authority is the mother's, not the writer's, therefore the PS is deployed. Here, the authority lies with the killer, Not Cic?
    – tony
    Aug 29, 2020 at 10:47
  • 1
    @tony: Subjunctive is the regular mood in a subordinate clause within indirect statement. It's true, though, that one sometimes finds an indicative in such instances, when the speaker really wants to insist on or emphasize the reality of the statement in the subordinate clause. (As a side note, this choice here isn't actually Cicero's, since he's quoting a letter from M. Antony.)
    – cnread
    Aug 29, 2020 at 18:11
  • 1
    Thank you so much for the help!
    – Kate
    Aug 30, 2020 at 23:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.