# Jure hominem dubitat te vaga taeda sophi



## Regulus Michaelus

I am fairly confused about two lines of a 17th century religious poem. They are:

Principium & finem insolito si foedere jungis,
Jure hominem dubitat te vaga taeda sophi.

The poem seems clearly to be addressed to God. My best guess at the translation of these lines is:

Beginning and End, which rarely unite, you join together,
The uncertain torch of wisdom doubts Man by Your Law.

The first line seems plausible, but the second is both awkward and a bit nonsensical in English. However, I don't see any other way to account for the connection between nominative taeda / "torch," accusative hominem / "Man," ablative Jure / "Law," and 3rd person verb dubitat / "doubt" or "consider" (or various other definitions, none of which seem especially convincing).


----------



## wandle

Regulus Michaelus said:


> the second is both awkward and a bit nonsensical in English.


Your have grasped the structure of that line. I would like more context for the overall sense, which is not clear, but the couplet is a conditional sentence. 

As a working version:  'If you join beginning and end in unaccustomed compact, then by right the philosopher's fitful light doubts man'.


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete omnes!

Like wandle, I would be keen to have more contextual information, and something about the author if possible. But for the moment, I think that the second line means:

'...then rightly, the philosopher's flickering lantern doubts that you are a human being  [i.e. a mortal man]'.​
I'm guessing now, but provisionally, I would paraphrase the whole along these lines:

'You, O God, encompass the Beginning and the End of all things; and this is a Mystery beyond the wit of Mankind, however intellectually sophisticated, to fathom, so you must indeed be God'.

Does this make any sense?

Σ


----------



## wandle

Regulus Michaelus said:


> hominem dubitat te


Re-reading, I see I omitted _te_ in my literal rendering: so it should be, as *Scholiast* says, 'doubts that you are a mortal man'.

On this basis, it seems to represent one of those heretical Christian beliefs which denied that Christ was really human, such as the Sabellians, the Docetists and the Cathars (some information here).

So I would guess that it is addressed to Christ, explaining that if he is truly Alpha and Omega, then by the logic of that claim the philosopher, however feeble his light, is entitled to doubt that Christ is man.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again


wandle said:


> ... it seems to represent one of those heretical Christian beliefs which denied that Christ was really human, such as the Sabellians, the Docetists and the Cathars


Indeed, this might be going back to the Arianist and Athanasian controversies which so sundered the church in patristic times. We need to know more of the author, the context and the doctrinal affiliations he espoused.

Σ


----------



## fdb

The book is here: Actus Humani
A doctoral disputation at the Theology faculty in Salzburg, doubtless unsullied by any suspicion of heresy.


----------



## Regulus Michaelus

Thanks very much to all! Scholiast's translation seems correct to me in context.

I can see that my main obstacles were in not noticing the conditionality of the "si," and taking "Jure" too literally (as "by Law" rather than "Rightly" or "Justifiably"). 

Yes, fdb's link is indeed the source in which the poem appears, and that does seem to suggest orthodoxy. Though perhaps it subtly signals some kind of latent Arianist sympathies?

In fact, my original interest was not so much in the religious doctrinal aspects as in finding Early Modern instances of "Man" being "doubted," in connection with Cartesian philosophy and his ideas of Man as a "res cogitans" / "res dubitans." That undoubtedly predisposed me to want to read into the poem "a torch that doubts Man (as such)." Understanding more, though, it now seems a bit wide of the mark!


----------



## wandle

Regulus Michaelus said:


> it now seems a bit wide of the mark!


It appears to be simply a literary device used as a way of expressing praise for the doctoral candidate.
*fdb's* link shows us that this couplet is from one of a series of congratulatory verses prefaced to the text of the thesis by fellow monks and others. Several of these make allusions to its subject: Human Actions. These verses are all addressed to its author, Quirinus  Milo. So he is the person meant by _te_ and _hominem_ is a pun on the title of his thesis.

If we include the first two lines, we have:

Sacra tuum quid bella moves de fine laborum,
Dum _Primo_ studium ponis in ENTE tuum?
_Principium_ et _finem_ insolito si foedere iungis,
Iure _hominem_ dubitat te vaga taeda sophi.

'Why do you wage holy war over the end of your labours, while you are devoting your studies to the Prime Being?
If you join the beginning and the end in unfamiliar union, then the philosopher by his fitful lights is entitled to doubt that you are a man.'

Several of the other verse compositions speak of Milo's struggle and fighting, which must refer to the disputation which is the final step in achieving the doctor's degree. One poem describes this fight as ridiculously easy for him, after having passed the earlier tests already. This suggests either that the disputation was normally just a formality, or that in his case he had passed the earlier tests so convincingly that the result was now a foregone conclusion.

In this light, I interpret the above lines as follows:
Why do you engage in this disputation over the conclusion of your thesis, being, as you are, a devoted student of the First Cause (i.e. God)?
If you join first and last things together in this unusual way, then my feeble lights as a philosopher make me doubt that you are a mere mortal.

So the writer is not denying the humanity of Christ, but suggesting that Milo's achievement is such that a philosopher (employing only the unaided light of human reason) would conclude that he was more than human.


----------



## Scholiast

Good evening, all

Well, by heavens, wandle (# 8) has certainly done his homework here, and I am now firmly persuaded that his interpretation is on the right lines.

Σ


----------

