Augustine: Confessiones
- Thread starter Callaina
- Start date
One thing I don't get in here:
horum ego puer morum in limine iacebam miser, et huius harenae palaestra erat illa, ubi magis timebam barbarismum facere quam cavebam, si facerem, non facientibus invidere. dico haec et confiteor tibi, deus meus, in quibus laudabar ab eis quibus placere tunc mihi erat honeste vivere. non enim videbam voraginem turpitudinis in quam proiectus eram ab oculis tuis. nam in illis iam quid me foedius fuit, ubi etiam talibus displicebam fallendo innumerabilibus mendaciis et paedagogum et magistros et parentes amore ludendi, studio spectandi nugatoria et imitandi ludicra inquietudine? furta etiam faciebam de cellario parentum et de mensa, vel gula imperitante vel ut haberem quod darem pueris ludum suum mihi quo pariter utique delectabantur tamen vendentibus. in quo etiam ludo fraudulentas victorias ipse vana excellentiae cupiditate victus saepe aucupabar.
"I committed thefts from my parents' pantry and from the table, either at the command of my stomach or so that I might have that which I might give [or, "gave"] to the (other) boys..."
And then I'm stuck; the rest of the sentence just doesn't seem to cohere. Help appreciated.
horum ego puer morum in limine iacebam miser, et huius harenae palaestra erat illa, ubi magis timebam barbarismum facere quam cavebam, si facerem, non facientibus invidere. dico haec et confiteor tibi, deus meus, in quibus laudabar ab eis quibus placere tunc mihi erat honeste vivere. non enim videbam voraginem turpitudinis in quam proiectus eram ab oculis tuis. nam in illis iam quid me foedius fuit, ubi etiam talibus displicebam fallendo innumerabilibus mendaciis et paedagogum et magistros et parentes amore ludendi, studio spectandi nugatoria et imitandi ludicra inquietudine? furta etiam faciebam de cellario parentum et de mensa, vel gula imperitante vel ut haberem quod darem pueris ludum suum mihi quo pariter utique delectabantur tamen vendentibus. in quo etiam ludo fraudulentas victorias ipse vana excellentiae cupiditate victus saepe aucupabar.
"I committed thefts from my parents' pantry and from the table, either at the command of my stomach or so that I might have that which I might give [or, "gave"] to the (other) boys..."
And then I'm stuck; the rest of the sentence just doesn't seem to cohere. Help appreciated.
Thanks, but I'm still sort of confused -- like, literally, a game one plays? How does one sell that exactly? (I suppose one can sell the ball or whatever one uses to play it, but it's in the imperfect, so it implies he did it repeatedly...)
Was he really that unpopular? LOL.
But then the final part doesn't make much sense, because (unless Augustine was just terrible at games) they would still be able to take delight in it even when he was playing.
I think he means that they had him pay to play as if they were doing him a favor deserving payment, whereas they took as much pleasure as he did in having someone to play with.
Btw, the imperfect has nothing to do with that. He could have bought toys repeatedly as well. (It isn't the case because ludus can't mean a toy concretely, as far as I know at any rate, but I'm just saying the imperfect alone wouldn't suffice to rule out that option.)
Right, I suppose that makes sense.
I guess I was expecting "toys" to be in the plural, then (but I know Latin is sometimes different from English when it comes to pluralizing things.)
Ah, yes. I think even in Latin the plural would be more likely in that case.
CongratsBy the way, I'm done Book 1!
 banana.gif "(1) Banana :banana:")
Is this that Canadian expression you were talking about?
The 'I'm done' thing
I'm going to take over Callaina's old thread (which, by the way, has been extremely useful to read!) to ask about two lines in the Confessions I've been puzzling over for a few days and still haven't figured out. I highly doubt they will be on my exam tomorrow, but I've spent so long on them now that I just really have to know where I'm going wrong.
I'm particularly confused about the first one. I have looked a lot of translations, but they all seem to go for a very idiomatic formulation in English and I just want to understand it literally. I can't find any notes on this line (although the James O'Donnell commentary never seems to be helpful anyway). I understand the sense is that the student who could best perform the emotions of the characters was most applauded, but I can't make sense of the word order. I had a similar situation with the highlighted section in the second sentence. Any help in understanding these two would be much appreciated as always!!
Exhibit 1 (Confessions 1.17.27):
et ille dicebat laudabilius in quo pro dignitate adumbratae personae irae ac doloris similior affectus eminebat, verbis sententias congruenter vestientibus.
And the most applauded was speaking in which according to the dignity of the shadowy person of anger and sadness similar to the emotion he excelled, sentiments aptly in clothed words.
Exhibit 2 (Confessions 1.18.28):
quid autem mirum, quod in vanitates ita ferebar et a te, deus meus, ibam foras, quando mihi imitandi proponebantur homines qui aliqua facta sua non mala, si cum barbarismo aut soloecismo enuntiarent, reprehensi confundebantur, si autem libidines suas integris et rite consequentibus verbis copiose ornateque narrarent, laudati gloriabantur?
But no wonder that I was thus carried into vanities and away from you, my god, I was going forth, when men were held up for me to imitate who having rebuked some deeds of his — not bad ones — were confused, if they were articulated with barbarism and solecism, yet if they were to narrate their lusts in full and duly logical word verbosely and ornately, they were to be glorified with praise?
I highly doubt they will be on my exam tomorrow, but I've spent so long on them now that I just really have to know where I'm going wrong.I'm particularly confused about the first one. I have looked a lot of translations, but they all seem to go for a very idiomatic formulation in English and I just want to understand it literally. I can't find any notes on this line (although the James O'Donnell commentary never seems to be helpful anyway). I understand the sense is that the student who could best perform the emotions of the characters was most applauded, but I can't make sense of the word order. I had a similar situation with the highlighted section in the second sentence. Any help in understanding these two would be much appreciated as always!!
Exhibit 1 (Confessions 1.17.27):
et ille dicebat laudabilius in quo pro dignitate adumbratae personae irae ac doloris similior affectus eminebat, verbis sententias congruenter vestientibus.
And the most applauded was speaking in which according to the dignity of the shadowy person of anger and sadness similar to the emotion he excelled, sentiments aptly in clothed words.
Exhibit 2 (Confessions 1.18.28):
quid autem mirum, quod in vanitates ita ferebar et a te, deus meus, ibam foras, quando mihi imitandi proponebantur homines qui aliqua facta sua non mala, si cum barbarismo aut soloecismo enuntiarent, reprehensi confundebantur, si autem libidines suas integris et rite consequentibus verbis copiose ornateque narrarent, laudati gloriabantur?
But no wonder that I was thus carried into vanities and away from you, my god, I was going forth, when men were held up for me to imitate who having rebuked some deeds of his — not bad ones — were confused, if they were articulated with barbarism and solecism, yet if they were to narrate their lusts in full and duly logical word verbosely and ornately, they were to be glorified with praise?
Here are literal translations:
et ille dicebat laudabilius in quo pro dignitate adumbratae personae irae ac doloris similior affectus eminebat, verbis sententias congruenter vestientibus.
"and he was speaking more praiseworthily in whom, for/according to the dignity of the represented character, a more similar emotion of anger and pain stood out/was visible, with words suitably clothing/adorning the meanings."
quando mihi imitandi proponebantur homines qui aliqua facta sua non mala, si cum barbarismo aut soloecismo enuntiarent, reprehensi confundebantur
"when men were set forth/given me to imitate who, if they expressed some not-bad deeds of theirs with a barbarism or solecism, [were] rebuked, [and] were ashamed."
I think the first comma threw you here, as it did me for a few seconds. It's badly placed.
et ille dicebat laudabilius in quo pro dignitate adumbratae personae irae ac doloris similior affectus eminebat, verbis sententias congruenter vestientibus.
"and he was speaking more praiseworthily in whom, for/according to the dignity of the represented character, a more similar emotion of anger and pain stood out/was visible, with words suitably clothing/adorning the meanings."
quando mihi imitandi proponebantur homines qui aliqua facta sua non mala, si cum barbarismo aut soloecismo enuntiarent, reprehensi confundebantur
"when men were set forth/given me to imitate who, if they expressed some not-bad deeds of theirs with a barbarism or solecism, [were] rebuked, [and] were ashamed."
I think the first comma threw you here, as it did me for a few seconds. It's badly placed.
Thank you so much! That was really helpful.