Plus est quod de prospectu lacrimabilis uitae quidam augurem incommodorum uocem illam flebilem interpretantur, quod etiam praesciens habenda sit ab ingressu natiuitatis, nedum intellegens. Exinde et matrem spiritu probat et nutricem spiritu examinat et gerulam spiritu agnoscit, fugiens extranea ubera et recusans ignota cubilia , neminem appetens nisi ex usu.
I am unsure about the first sentence.
+I am stuck with “augurem” being unable to see it as a noun in this sentence. So I took “augurem” as “auguralem”.
+And maybe I’m having difficulty with the use of “interpretor”. I took it as “interpretantur auguralem vocem quod…”.
So I read this sentence like this:
And there is more of the evidence, that, some people from their experience of sad life interpret the augur’s that sad voice announcing misfortunes that the augur even knew in advance the things to happen since the beginning of his birth, and yes also knew them in his intellectuality.
Salve care Junya,
I searched up the sentence before this one from Tertullian for some context:
Mentior, si non statim infans, ut uitam uagitu salutauit, hoc ipsum se testatur sensisse atque intellexisse quod natus est, omnes simul ibidem dedicans sensus, et luce uisum et sono auditum et umore gustum et aere odoratum et terra tactum. > Ita prima illa uox de primis sensuum motibus et de primis intellectuum pulsibus cogitur. Plus est quod de prospectu lacrimabilis uitae quidam augurem incommodorum uocem illam flebilem interpretantur, quod etiam praesciens habenda sit ab ingressu natiuitatis, nedum intellegens. Exinde et matrem spiritu probat et nutricem spiritu examinat et gerulam spiritu agnoscit, fugiens extranea ubera et recusans ignota cubilia , neminem appetens nisi ex usu.
“I lie, if the infant, as she hails life with a wail, does not immediately testify that she had perceived this very thing and understood that she was born, at once and at that very instant applying all the senses, sight with light and hearing with sound and smelling with air and touch with the earth. Thus that first voice is forced from the first movements of the senses and from the first pulses of the intellect. It is more, what certain [philosophers] interpret about the sight of a mournful life, that that weeping voice is a prophet of [future] harms, which the child is even held to be aware of, [if] not yet understanding. Thence [the child] approves of [its] mother with [its] spirit, examines the nurse with [its] spirit, and recognizes the porter with [its] spirit, fleeing foreign breasts and refusing unknown beds, desiring nobody whom it hasn’t first experienced.”
This was a very difficult passage for me to translate. To answer your questions, a noun CAN be used by an adjective if it is put in apposition to another noun. For example, “Cicero consul saepe declamabat,” “Cicero, the consul, often made speeches,” (consul is in apposition with Cicero) and “Amo Lesbiam, puellam meam,” “I love Lesbia, my girl,” (puellam meam is in apposition with Lesbiam). So in the passage I think voice and augur are put in apposition, to equate them. Some say that the voice IS an augur/prophet of harms. “philosophi vocem esse augurem incommodorum interpretantur.” Tricky.
I think “plus est quod,” should be “Plus est, quod…” with the first two words being something like “moreover.” You might be able to rewrite the sentence like this: “Plus est quod quidam philosophi interpretantur de prospectu lacrimabilis vitae, augurem incommodorum vocem illam flebilem esse, quod [infans?] etiam praesciens habenda sit ab ingressu nativitatis, nedum intellegens.”
This is all in the context of the baby who was just born and is now crying. Tertullian seems to be discussing why it’s crying. Some say that it’s because the baby has sensed (on an unconscious level) that it is being born to a life of suffering and future evils. Quite a tragic interpretation. However, the baby only knows what it experiences (ex usu), so it desires its mom, accustomed location and attendants.
