Quippe+quod (Early Modern period)

Question

Looking at other posts on quippe+relatives (particularly, at this link:1), there seems to be a consensus that it will usually show up with qui... but not with quod, but I'm currently looking at a Latin text, "Non enim utiliter exposueris ascensum Christi in coelum et sessionem eius ad dexteram Dei patris sui, nisi antea incarnationem seu unionem personalem recte et pie intellexeris, quippe quod ex huius cognitione illa omnino pendeant," from the Early Modern period that seems to go against previous comments.

I had this in my head as "The ascension of Christ to heaven and his sitting at the right hand of God his father is not usefully explained, unless beforehand the Incarnation or personal union is rightly understood, because out of/on this understanding they depend completely" but that doesn't seem quite right... thoughts?

Answer 1

As Figulus has noted, the neuter singular accusative/nominative form of the relative pronoun quod can definitely be used after quippe; any form of the relative pronoun can, really.

However, that isn't what you have. In your passage, quod is functioning as the conjunction that means 'because.' You know this, because the verb in the relative clause (pendeant) is plural and intransitive; so there's no way to fit a nominative or accusative singular pronoun into the clause.

Together, quippe and quod basically still mean just 'because' (though Oxford Latin dictionary gives the more refined translations 'as is natural when' and 'insasmuch as'). One occasionally also finds quippe paired with other causal conjunctions (quoniam, cum) in a similar way.

My rough translation:

For you will not effectively explain the ascension of Christ into Heaven and his having a seat at the right hand of God his father, unless you first correctly and piously understand the incarnation or personal union, inasmuch as those other concepts [ascension, seat at the right hand of God] depend entirely on comprehension of this one [incarnation/personal union].

Answer 2

A quick look at the corpus reveals 9 instances of quippe+quod per Reference 1, most with the subjunctive (as in your example) but some with the indicative. Indeed it would be odd if quippe qui were attested but quippe quod were not, since quod is merely the neuter of masculine qui.

• I also notice that Lewis and Short explicitly mention quod along with qui and quae for use with quippe. See Reference 2, where Cicero is demonstrated using quod with a subjunctive (but his quote is wrongly listed with examples of the indicative).

Strike the above bulleted paragraph. Lewis and Short not only got the mood of the verb wrong, but they also bobbled the quote. Cicero actually said quippe qui, and not quippe quod.