6

I would like to know how to understand unde in the last sentence:

SCHOLIUM II: Non dubito quin omnibus qui de rebus confuse judicant nec res per primas suas causas noscere consueverunt, difficile sit demonstrationem propositionis concipere; nimirum quia non distinguunt inter modificationes substantiarum et ipsas substantias neque sciunt quomodo res producuntur. Unde fit ut principium quod res naturales habere vident, substantiis affingant.

It is taken from Spinoza's Ethics and the translation by R.H.M. Elwes is the following:

...hence they may attribute to substances the beginning which they observe in natural objects.

So:

  • ut principium substantiis affingant = "they may attribute the beginning"
  • quod res naturales habere vident = "which they observe in natural objects"

Unde, adv.
1. from which place, whence
2. it replaces sometimes connection of a, de, ex with relative pronoun (taken from my dictionary)

Does it mean in that sentence "hence" or does it has some other meaning?

fit (facio) - I am not sure where it should belong in that sentence, either, perhaps it belongs to "principium" ? So "fit principium" would be "made beginning"?

8

A very literal translation:

Whence it comes that the beginning which they see natural things possess, they attach to substances.

A more natural translation:

This is why they ascribe to substances the same beginning that they see natural things possess.

Notes:

  1. Unde is strictly speaking a relative meaning "whence, from which place". But Latin often begins sentences with relative pronouns that are really just a way of connecting back to the previous sentence. Such relatives are usually better translated as if they were demonstratives: in this case, "hence / from here".

  2. fit ut is a common expression meaning "it happens that, it comes to be the case that". The clause following the ut in such cases is called a "substantive ut-clause", since it fulfills the role of a noun in the sentence -- here, it's as if the entire clause beginning ut is the subject of fit (since it describes what "becomes" or comes to be the case). Substantive ut-clauses take a subjunctive verb, which explains the form of affingant.

1

I strongly suggest you to read English translations of William White and Samuel Shirley. These are more precise than Elwes translation.

White:

I fully expect that those who judge things confusedly, and who have not been accustomed to cognise things through their first causes, will find it difficult to comprehend the demonstration of the 7th Proposition, since they do not distinguish between the modifications of substances and substances themselves, and are ignorant of the manner in which things are produced. Hence it comes to pass that they erroneously ascribe to substances a beginning like that which they see belongs to natural things.

Shirley:

I do not doubt that for those who judge things confusedly and are not accustomed to know things through their primary causes it is difficult to grasp the proof of Proposition 7. Surely, this is because they neither distinguish between the modification of substances and substances themselves, nor do they know how things are produced. And so it comes about that they ascribe to substances a beginning which they see natural things as having.

  • Welcome to the site! Can you add the White and Shirley translation of the passage to your answer? That would make the case much stronger. – Joonas Ilmavirta Apr 9 at 13:40
  • White: I fully expect that those who judge things confusedly, and who have not been accustomed to cognise things through their first causes, will find it difficult to comprehend the demonstration of the 7th Proposition, since they do not distinguish between the modifications of substances and substances themselves, and are ignorant of the manner in which things are produced. Hence it comes to pass that they erroneously ascribe to substances a beginning like that which they see belongs to natural things – Ali Nikzad Apr 24 at 7:09
  • Shirley: I do not doubt that for those who judge things confusedly and are not accustomed to know things through their primary causes it is difficult to grasp the proof of Proposition 7. Surely, this is because they neither distinguish between the modification of substances and substances themselves, nor do they know how things are produced. And so it comes about that they ascribe to substances a beginning which they see natural things as having – Ali Nikzad Apr 24 at 7:09
  • Thanks! I edited your answer to include those. You can always edit your own answers and questions to add or fix something. – Joonas Ilmavirta Apr 24 at 15:32

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.