Spinoza quote-fiddling
Cram
I'm translating a novel from Japanese in which Spinoza is
intentionally misquoted.
The line is this: sedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non
lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere (the entire passage, from
Tractatus Politicus 1.4, is below).
An English translation I found online: I have labored carefully, not
to mock, lament, or execrate, but to understand human actions. (http://
www.spinozacsack.net78.net/Political%20Treatise,%20Benedict%20de%20Spinoza.pdf
- p. 2)
My request: the author of the novel misquotes Spinoza by replacing
"human actions" with "the actions of the Devil." Using the original
Latin in the translation is an option (for atmosphere - it's a
thriller), but I don't know how I would change "humanas actiones" so
as to mean "the actions of the Devil" in that case. "...actiones
Diaboli"? (By analogy with advocatus diaboli.) (I would like to use
whatever word was most commonly used in Latin to mean "Devil" at the
time Spinoza was writing, which might not be "Diabolus.")
I would also like know what capitalization conventions would have been
used by Spinoza, in general as well as specifically for whatever word
is used for "Devil."
Cum igitur animum ad Politicam applicuerim, nihil quod novum vel
inauditum est, sed tantum ea, quae cum praxi optime conveniunt, certa
et indubitate ratione demonstrare, aut ex ipsa humanae naturae
conditione deducere intendi; et ut ea, quae ad hanc scientiam
spectant, eadem animi libertate, qua res Mathematicas solemus,
inquirerem, sedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere,
neque detestari, sed intelligere. (http://books.google.com/books?
id=c_0YrkIL5dEC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22tractatus+politicus%22+spinoza+
%22actiones%22&source=bl&ots=oX-
WmKxEqv&sig=NuV5C734mZPJUhOsE8b2CW2v_10&hl=en&ei=btsPTO33BdeQnwf1pYC5DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=
%22tractatus%20politicus%22%20spinoza%20%22actiones%22&f=false -
couldn't find any other online copies of the Tractatus Politicus in
Latin.)
Johannes Patruus
"actiones diaboli" is attested in a text published in 1733 -
http://bit.ly/bw1iFb
The alternative would be to use an adjective (in analogy with "humanas").
cf. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22actiones%20diabolicas%22
but perhaps that has a different shade of meaning.
As to capitalization, I'm afraid I don't know.
Patruus
Ed Cryer
"Cram" <marc....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290d5ee4-ba61-483e...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
You should be teaching us. You're spot on with your Diabolus.
Spinoza would have known the Vulgate Bible. There's the famous passage
in Matthew 4 where Jesus is tempted by the devil. Here are a couple of
sentences.
Tunc Iesus ductus est in desertum a Spiritu, ut tentaretur a Diabolo.
(Then Jesus was led into a deserted place by the Spirit, to be tempted
by the Devil.
"Vade, Satanas! Scriptum est enim: "Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi
soli servies".
(Go, Satan! For it is written.......)
The words "Diabolus" and "Satanas" are exactly the same in the original
Greek.
Of the other three gospellers Luke and John also use both terms; but
Mark only uses "Satanas".
Ed
Ed Cryer
"Ed Cryer" <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote in message
news:huoru0$oba$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Just a minute, though. Spinoza was a Jew, even though a rather
rebellious one. Maybe he didn't read the Vulgate.
Well, I've searched through Tractatus Politicus and found the word
"diabolus" twice; in adjacent sentences.
CAPUT II. De iure naturali.
6....
At dicunt, eum a diabolo deceptum fuisse. Verum quis ille fuit, qui
ipsum diabolum decepit?
(But they say he was deceived by the devil. Yet who was the one who
deceived the devil himself?)
Ed
Cram
> Well, I've searched through Tractatus Politicus and found the word
> "diabolus" twice; in adjacent sentences.
> CAPUT II. De iure naturali.
> 6....
> At dicunt, eum a diabolo deceptum fuisse. Verum quis ille fuit, qui
> ipsum diabolum decepit?
> (But they say he was deceived by the devil. Yet who was the one who
> deceived the devil himself?)
Thanks to you and Johannes Patruus. Your replies have been very
helpful.
The way the Japanese is formulated, "actions of man" and "actions of
the Devil" are better translations, which leads to a problem. "Human
actions" is basically interchangeable with "actions of man" (to use a
somewhat archaic turn of phrase), but "diabolical actions" is not
interchangeable with "actions of the Devil," since even humans (i.e.,
people who are not the Devil) can engage in diabolical actions. This
means that I have to choose between "actiones Diaboli," which is more
in line with the Japanese, and "actiones diabolicas" which is more
closely aligned with Spinoza's formulation.
Hm. I'll have to think about it.
Thanks again for your help!