# Ipsius enim gratia duplicata est mna



## KsSp

Hello. 
There are 7 confusing sentences from Origen's _Homilies on Luke _left, and if the rules of the forum allow it, there will be 4 questions today and 3 tomorrow, if you don't mind. This way, the threads about Origen won't look _that_ omnipresent  
So here is a sentence from Homily 39. 
'Ipsius enim gratia duplicata est mna, et dignis quibusque plus datum est quam sperabant.'
And here is an attempt to translate it:
'As the grace itself is a double mina, which is a greater gift for the worthy than they hoped for.'
The context is the following: Origen is talking about the parable of the minas, and it seems like he is saying that the 'extra' mina that is given to the one who multiplied the mina that had been given to him is 'an even greater gift' for him, because, being truly worthy of it, he did not hope for it. But is it really what the Latin text says?
Thank you.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici!

First, _Ipsius_ is genitive, and must refer to the Lord. Secondly, are KsSp sure about the reading of _dignis_? I think it ought to be _digna_, in apposition to _mna_. Perhaps they could double-check this.

My suggestion: 'For His grace is a doubled mina, and [if my supposition about _digna_ is right] worthy/deserving for those to whom more has been granted than they hoped for'.

Σ


----------



## KsSp

Hello, Scholiast! In Sources Chr., it is 'dignis', and in PG it is 'dignus'. We don't have 'digna' in either.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de nouo KsSp!

In that case, I must revise my proposed version. I think it must indeed be _dignis_, and then mean '...and to all those [_quibusque_] deserving, more has been given than they were hoping for'.

Does this make better sense in the context?

Σ


----------



## bearded

Hello Scholiast
I think that your interpretation in #4 is quite correct. However, the function of ''quibusque'' appears obscure to me. On the one hand, I find it is a superfluous word (_et dignis plus datum est quam sperabant _would work without it), and on the other hand it is a relative pronoun, and the double conjunction _et…-que _ looks strange. Is it possible that some words are missing after 'quibusque', like ''more than they were hoping for has been given to the ''worthy'' ones _and to those who_…(+missing words)''?     
Many thanks in advance for letting me/us know your valuable opinion.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

I am construing _quibusque_ as dat. plur. of _quisque_, so 'to each (every) deserving person(s)'. That obviates the _et...-que_ problem.

Σ


----------



## bearded

Scholiast said:


> I am construing _quibusque_ as dat. plur. of _quisque_


Oh yes, thank you: I should have thought of that.


----------



## KsSp

Thank you!


----------

