On Mar 14, 7:47 pm, "B. T. Raven" <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> jsqua...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > Spinoza uses this phrase extensively, and I find
> > it translated and interpreted in a variety of ways.
> > Apparently "species" is the acc. plural of the
> > 5th declension. (I believe that, strictly speaking,
> > there is no acc. pl for "species", but that Spinoza
> > means the acc. pl anyway in his usages)
> > That means that "sub" should
> > only have the meanings which syntactically
> > call for the accusative case. That should be a clue
> > in figuring out which of the many, many meanings
> > of "species" Spinoza meant to be using.
>
> > A straight forward translation would be
>
> > "under the forms of Eternity"
>
> > but, altho that is correct in terms of the Latin
> > per se, I don't really like it in terms of the rest
> > of what Spinoza seems to be up to. I am
> > inclined more toward those meanings which
> > are cognate to "aspect", "looking", etc.
>
> > So....
>
> > does anyone have something to say as to
> > what Spinoza meant with his uses of the
> > phrase "sub species aeternitatis"?
>
> I think it should be "sub specie ..." (ablative sing.). For some reason
> Google doesn't honor the space in (quoted) "sub species" so that that
> you get more hits than for "sub specie" but most refer to the taxonomic
> term subspecies. CL may not have used acc. plural but it should be
> acceptable in neo-Latin and thus in universal Latin. You can have a kind
> of trees and kinds of trees.
> Sub specie aeternitatis is "under the aspect (from the coign of vantage)
> of timelessness."
>
> Eduardus
Right you are! I have checked the actual Latin text.
Those who write about Spinoza commonly
use "sub species aeternitatis" as tho it is
exactly the phrase Spinoza used. DeLeuze, for
example, does this.
I find the meanings of "species" which go with the ablative case
fit better with what Spinoza seems to be getting at
than do those which go with the accusative.
Thanks for straightening me out.
|
