Here's the next bit, if any suggestions:
SI. Phaedrum aut Cliniam
dicebant aut Niceratum; ~nam i tres tum simul~
amabant. "eho quid Pamphilus?" "quid? symbolam
dedit, cenavit." gaudebam. item alio die
quaerebam: comperibam nil ad Pamphilum 90
quicquam attinere. enimvero spectatum satis
putabam et magnum exemplum continentiae;
nam qui cum ingeniis conflictatur ei(u)s modi
neque commovetur animus in ea re tamen,
scias posse habere iam ipsum <suae> vitae modum. 95
quom id mihi placebat tum uno ore omnes omnia
bona dicere et laudare fortunas meas,
qui gnatum haberem tali ingenio praeditum.
SI. They said it was Phaedrus, Clinia or Niceratus; for these three had a love affair with her at the same time. "Hey, what about Pamphilus?" "What? He paid his part, he had dinner." I was rejoicing. The following day I was asking in the same way: I was finding out that nothing had anything to do with Pamphilus. I thought in fact that he was remarkable enough and a great example of moderation; for he who struggles with natural inclinations of that kind but whose mind nonetheless stays unmoved in that matter*, you know that he can already have the right measure of his life. I liked that, as well as hearing everyone saying with the same voice that all was good and praising my good luck to have a son endowed with such a character.
*I'm a little confused by that apparent change of subject there, qui then animus:
nam qui cum ingeniis conflictatur ei(u)s modi
neque commovetur animus in ea re tamen
Should I understand a cuius implied in the second line for "but whose mind...", or on the contrary animus already in the first line "the mind who struggles with..." - but then it would be weird to say "let you know that it (that mind) can have the right measure...", maybe.
SI. Phaedrum aut Cliniam
dicebant aut Niceratum; ~nam i tres tum simul~
amabant. "eho quid Pamphilus?" "quid? symbolam
dedit, cenavit." gaudebam. item alio die
quaerebam: comperibam nil ad Pamphilum 90
quicquam attinere. enimvero spectatum satis
putabam et magnum exemplum continentiae;
nam qui cum ingeniis conflictatur ei(u)s modi
neque commovetur animus in ea re tamen,
scias posse habere iam ipsum <suae> vitae modum. 95
quom id mihi placebat tum uno ore omnes omnia
bona dicere et laudare fortunas meas,
qui gnatum haberem tali ingenio praeditum.
SI. They said it was Phaedrus, Clinia or Niceratus; for these three had a love affair with her at the same time. "Hey, what about Pamphilus?" "What? He paid his part, he had dinner." I was rejoicing. The following day I was asking in the same way: I was finding out that nothing had anything to do with Pamphilus. I thought in fact that he was remarkable enough and a great example of moderation; for he who struggles with natural inclinations of that kind but whose mind nonetheless stays unmoved in that matter*, you know that he can already have the right measure of his life. I liked that, as well as hearing everyone saying with the same voice that all was good and praising my good luck to have a son endowed with such a character.
*I'm a little confused by that apparent change of subject there, qui then animus:
nam qui cum ingeniis conflictatur ei(u)s modi
neque commovetur animus in ea re tamen
Should I understand a cuius implied in the second line for "but whose mind...", or on the contrary animus already in the first line "the mind who struggles with..." - but then it would be weird to say "let you know that it (that mind) can have the right measure...", maybe.