Vir uxorem corrigit, ratio sensualitatem.

COPLAND 3

Member
What would be the best way to translate this short phrase?

Vir uxorem corrigit, ratio sensualitatem.

It concerns Tobit 2:21 "And when her husband heard it bleating, he said: Take heed, lest perhaps it be stolen: restore ye it to its owners, for it is not lawful for us either to eat or to touch any thing that cometh by theft." Specifically "Take heed, lest perhaps it be stolen" Videte ne furtivus sit

Thank you!
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I'm not 100% sure in what sense sensualitatem is used here.

The husband corrects the wife, reason corrects sensuality = the feelings of the senses/the temptation of the senses, maybe. (Like your senses are misleading you...)

Wait for someone maybe more knowledgable in Christian vocabualry than I am to say what they think about my interpretation.
 

COPLAND 3

Member
I'm not 100% sure in what sense sensualitatem is used here.

The husband corrects the wife, reason corrects sensuality = the feelings of the senses/the temptation of the senses, maybe.

Wait for someone maybe more knowledgable in Christian vocabualry than I am to say what they think about my interpretation. Seems to make sense, but...
I come up with about the same, but I just wanted to see if I was on track. Thank you!
 

Aurifex

Aedilis
Staff member
The husband corrects the wife, reason corrects sensuality = the feelings of the senses/the temptation of the senses, maybe. (Like your senses are misleading you...)
Yes, and the equating of vir with ratio and uxorem with sensualitatem is in keeping with the age-old misogynistic view that woman is in essence a sensual being incapable of reason.
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus
Not to sound misogynistic or anything, and not that women are incapable of reason, but isn't that view partly based on facts? Or is it just a man-made bullshit story to elevate man above woman?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Or is it just a man-made bullshit story to elevate man above woman?
Yes, it is. The only thing that may be true is that women, in general, are maybe more inclined to show their emotions (emotions = "unrational stuff"). But I don't think it means they have more of them. I can't tell for sure of course, I can't know what's happening in all women's and all men's minds, but that's what I tend to think.
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
Yes, it is. The only thing that may be true is that women, in general, are maybe more inclined to show their emotions (emotions = "unrational stuff"). But I don't think it means they have more of them. I can't tell for sure of course, I can't know what's happening in all women's and all men's minds, but that's what I tend to think.
sensualitas doesn't occur in the Vulgate that I can find.
I think what it is referring to is the Mediaeval meme of woman being a seductress, ruled by her passions, following from Eve's temptation of Adam in the Garden. It isn't something that we would recognise in a modern concept of showing emotions.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I suppose not, and that's better (except for a few extremists of one kind or another...)! My post was about Matthaeus' general question rather than about the translation.
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
I suppose not, and that's better (except for a few extremists of one kind or another...)! My post was about Matthaeus' general question rather than about the translation.
I don't know that it is better ;) It was very mysoginistic, but it was a commonly expressed Mediaeval opinion.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I know! By "that's better" I meant this
It isn't something that we would recognise in a modern concept of showing emotions.
Things are a little better nowadays! (If we except some people who still have some of those medieval beliefs, for there are some... But still much fewer, thank god.)
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus
Compertum habeatis me in eorum numero minime esse!
 

Manus Correctrix

QVAE CORRIGIT
Correctrix autem virum et uxorem et rationem et sensualitem corregit. ;)

Not to sound misogynistic or anything, and not that women are incapable of reason, but isn't that view partly based on facts? Or is it just a man-made bullshit story to elevate man above woman?
As someone who has been on both sides of the fence, I can tell you that androgens and œstrogens each make different sorts of emotions more overwhelming or less overwhelming.
 

Arca Defectionis

Civis Illustris
I think women are more disposed to display their emotions because of the role society has ascribed to them for hundreds of years. It does seem as though they are traditionally perceived as the more emotional sex in most cultures around the world, which makes you wonder if man's biological need for toughness to compete for mates has something to do with his need to show less weakness, or if the mother's duty to care for young at a very young age makes her more emotional. It could be a social construct, but perhaps one grounded in biology. Even so, it seems silly to keep such conventions going at a time when males no longer duke it out to win mates and both sexes are expected to contribute both to parenting and to breadwinning, as it were. I think the main reason for women to be more open with their emotions nowadays has to be because of social expectations and traditions. We're way past any biological need for this now.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
There may be on the one hand some biological factors, and even if, as you say, nowaday's life no longer requires such things for the reasons you say, it's well known that our DNA takes longer to change than the actual needs do - think, do we really still need toes? No, but what used to be useful fingers and ceased to be so when we began to walk started undergoing a long process of disappearance (btw, I feel this expression looks weird, but right now I don't know how to put it better) not yet completed. And what about the appendix? - So a little of this I guess, and on the other hand social conditionment - that have found its origin in that very age of cavemen you're talking about and then gone on - reflected in education (e.g. parents repeatedly telling their sons "boys don't cry!").
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus
Humans were also equipped with a tail at some point in prehistory, and we still have a "tailbone", but that's just a bit of trivia.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Humans were also equipped with a tail at some point in prehistory
I think that was before they became humans properly speaking :D (australopitheci already no longer had a tail).
 

Manus Correctrix

QVAE CORRIGIT
Top