The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

By setting one enemy of god his church against the other to impair the same Options
alibey1917
Posted: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:02:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 235
Neurons: 5,250
According to Harborne the Spanish were prepared to pay the Venetians 160,000 ducats ‘to break off our intercourse and expel us’ from Constantinople, as well as encouraging the bailo to use his influence over Murad’s imperial harem to conclude a non‑ aggression treaty that would free Philip II to concentrate on attacking England. It was now clear to Harborne that... he needed to use what influence he had to ‘restrain the Venetians from entering the cursed league’ with Spain. Harborne maintained that his strategy drew on his reformed religious beliefs. ‘I performed my utmost endeavour’, he wrote, ‘by setting one enemy of god his church against the other to impair the same.’ (Jerry Brotton, This Orient Isle- Elizabethan England and the Islamic World)

What does the emphasized phrase mean?
thar
Posted: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:26:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 22,259
Neurons: 90,283
He did not want Spain and Venice to become allies.
If that agreement happened, Spain would manage to both damage English interests and possibly also to form a non-aggression pact with the Ottomans, which would free them up for war in the west.

Each was an enemy of 'god his church' = God's Church. Protestantism, presumably. Under constant threat from Catholic states like Spain. As such, they were both natural enemies of England.
He wanted to set them against each other, to cause them to become hostile to each other.

by setting one enemy of god his church (Venice) against the other (Spain) to impair the same (Spain).’

'the same' is used as a pronoun to refer to the preceding noun. Like 'it'.

Prevent an agreement between Spain and Venice. Instead set Venice against Spain, which would distract Spain, keep it occupied with threats from the east, and damage its ability to invade England at that time.

( I am not entirely sure which one 'the same' refers back to, grammatically. I think it is the one immediately before it. It is possible 'the same' might be the first one. ie Spain, Venice, same (Spain). But the resultant meaning is identical. Since he was working on the Venetians, though, I think my first version makes more sense. He set Venice against Spain.








alibey1917
Posted: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 8:01:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 235
Neurons: 5,250
thar yazdı:
He did not want Spain and Venice to become allies.
If that agreement happened, Spain would manage to both damage English interests and possibly also to form a non-aggression pact with the Ottomans, which would free them up for war in the west.

Each was an enemy of 'god his church' = God's Church. Protestantism, presumably. Under constant threat from Catholic states like Spain. As such, they were both natural enemies of England.
He wanted to set them against each other, to cause them to become hostile to each other.

by setting one enemy of god his church (Venice) against the other (Spain) to impair the same (Spain).’

'the same' is used as a pronoun to refer to the preceding noun. Like 'it'.

Prevent an agreement between Spain and Venice. Instead set Venice against Spain, which would distract Spain, keep it occupied with threats from the east, and damage its ability to invade England at that time.

( I am not entirely sure which one 'the same' refers back to, grammatically. I think it is the one immediately before it. It is possible 'the same' might be the first one. ie Spain, Venice, same (Spain). But the resultant meaning is identical. Since he was working on the Venetians, though, I think my first version makes more sense. He set Venice against Spain.

Thank you very much, thar, I always learn new things (for me) from your answers






thar
Posted: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 9:48:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 22,259
Neurons: 90,283
thanks

I was a bit confused as to how the Venetians could expel the English from Constantinople if it was under Ottoman control by then. But I guess they had some economic monopoly as the sort of holder of the 'foreign' quarter of the port, that the English would have to work through?

And they don't think much of Murad, do they, if they assume the way to get international treaties agreed is to go through his harem!
alibey1917
Posted: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:31:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 235
Neurons: 5,250
thar yazdı:
thanks

I was a bit confused as to how the Venetians could expel the English from Constantinople if it was under Ottoman control by then. But I guess they had some economic monopoly as the sort of holder of the 'foreign' quarter of the port, that the English would have to work through?

And they don't think much of Murad, do they, if they assume the way to get international treaties agreed is to go through his harem!


No, they don't. They were right because Murad had been under the influence of his mother and then his wife, well, actually one of his wives (Safiye Sultan).
tautophile
Posted: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:26:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/14/2018
Posts: 779
Neurons: 12,661
From Byzantine times down through the early or mid 1700s, the Most Serene Republic of Venice (politically) and merchants from that city (economically) had privileged positions in Constantinople under both the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ottoman sultanate. Venetian traders dominated commerce with the western Mediterranean. As such, English merchants wanting to trade with the Ottoman Empire would have to deal with Venetians in Constantinople. So would Spanish merchants.

By the way, in the 16th and early 17th century it was not uncommon for a personal genitive or possessive form--which to us these days is usually "'s" or "s'"--to be written as "-- his -- ", as, e.g., "the King of Spain his fleet" instead of "the King of Spain's fleet". (The two expressions would be pronounced almost exactly the same: probably /Spainiz/ and /Spainz/.) Hence the reference to "god his church", meaning, of course, "God's church".
alibey1917
Posted: Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:29:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2018
Posts: 235
Neurons: 5,250
tautophile yazdı:
From Byzantine times down through the early or mid 1700s, the Most Serene Republic of Venice (politically) and merchants from that city (economically) had privileged positions in Constantinople under both the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ottoman sultanate. Venetian traders dominated commerce with the western Mediterranean. As such, English merchants wanting to trade with the Ottoman Empire would have to deal with Venetians in Constantinople. So would Spanish merchants.

By the way, in the 16th and early 17th century it was not uncommon for a personal genitive or possessive form--which to us these days is usually "'s" or "s'"--to be written as "-- his -- ", as, e.g., "the King of Spain his fleet" instead of "the King of Spain's fleet". (The two expressions would be pronounced almost exactly the same: probably /Spainiz/ and /Spainz/.) Hence the reference to "god his church", meaning, of course, "God's church".


Thank you, tautophile, I got it.
tautophile
Posted: Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:09:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/14/2018
Posts: 779
Neurons: 12,661
For further information about the "his genitive" as in "God his house" in this discussion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_genitive.
Romany
Posted: Friday, June 5, 2020 11:21:42 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,315
Neurons: 55,607
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Tauto,

As a kid, I used to spend all my pocket money on second-hand books from Fetes and fairs and things.Many of them dated from the late 19thC to the early 20thC. On the fly-leaves of many of them would be the persons name written still in that way:- "Jane Smith - her book."

I don't know if this usage survived anywhere in spoken English dialects, but I find it interesting that the convention at least survived in this way right into the 20thC.
tautophile
Posted: Friday, June 5, 2020 11:56:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/14/2018
Posts: 779
Neurons: 12,661
Romany, the "his genitive" usage did in fact remain in dialect usage in England and elsewhere into the 19th century at least (see the Wikipedia article I mention), though it dropped out of general use by the late 17th century, IIRC. I'm not sure that an inscription on the flyleaf of a book such as "Jane Smith -- her book" or "John Smith -- his book" would qualify as an example of the "his genitive", but such flyleaf inscriptions, common in the past, were rather old-fashioned by the late 19th century, and may have been more traditional than anything else, the same way that the salutation ("Dear Sir") and complimentary close ("I beg leave to remain, Sir, your most humble obedient servant,..." or (these days) "Sincerely yours") of a letter is a relic of centuries-old courtesy.
Romany
Posted: Friday, June 5, 2020 12:10:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,315
Neurons: 55,607
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Oh, I didn't put it forward as a furtherance to any theory: I just generally find it interesting that though text-books and articles definitively try to categorise and date and explain language, Language itself is completely unaware of all these attempts to rigidify her, goes her own way and resists being compartmentalised or conforming to what is expected of her!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.