ricardienne: (augustine)
I am so amused )

First day over. Latin was good, so much so that I'm almost not dreading FYSEM tomorrow (note I said almost!) I should probably go and brush up on Hobsbawm, but I really don't want to. The professor seems to think that I have a St. Augustine obsession, based, it appears, on my one comment last semester that he's an author I'd like to read in the original. When I mentioned today that my ultimate goal was to be able to read Latin somewhat easily, if I never can get to the point where I can just 'pick something up and read it,' he asked me if I was referencing St. Augustine's tolle et lege moment in the garden. I definitely wasn't, but should have been. Argh! Oh well.

Medieval Lit was okay. It started out bad, because it's a *huge class, and about half of them are lit majors who are really only taking it so they can moderate, and are primarily interested in "the development of the modern novel and modern author," but it got better. And I am looking forward to most of the readings.
*huge=~25 people

I practiced three hours today. Yay, but I'm sure it won't last, once I start having more work.
ricardienne: (augustine)
Insert usual disclaimer involving Measure for Measure here )

Today was a good day for laughing in class. In Heroic Age, the professor told us that we could all go and practice our Skarphedin moves on the iced-over path from the Campus Center. He promised extra credit to anyone who could, after stopping to tie his (her) shoe, slide along the ice and knock someone's molars out.

Come to think of it, today was a good day for random extra-credit offers, as well. In Latin, he told us that it would be an automatic "A" for anyone who turned in a paper carved into stone. (This was during of a 20 minute digression on Wikipedia, copyright law, and the preservability of various forms of media, which ended in his warning us that sooner or later the world would descend anew into a period where learning was the provenance of only a very select few (!!!) and that he hoped for our sakes that it was either after our times, or that we were among that elite.) I still haven't decided whether or not to sign up for his FYSEM section next semester. It would probably be really interesting, but he made it sound like it will be really rigorous and unorthodox…
ricardienne: (Default)

a.d. III Ides Oct.




I skipped French Table today. I'm going to lose it all, and it's going to be horrible, but I really didn't want to go.

The sun hasn't been out in at least a week. It's cold and rainy and depressing. Good weather for sitting in a cozy setting and reading, or for putting Mozart of Haydn quartets on and baking cookies1. Of course --

--So, one of the morons in my dorm made the fire alarm go off. He decided to spray the fire extinguisher "just to see what would happen." IDIOT!!!!!! I didn't turn my music off, and it went from the beginning of "Se a caso madama la notte ti chiama" to the very end of "Se vuol ballare, signor Contino," which, granted, is only six minutes or so.

Anyway, I was browsing in the library after the Latin midterm today (I swear that we had never seen maneo, manere before, and the fourth sentence was just plain icky) and I got a new biography of St. Augustine by James J. O'Donnell. It's quite interesting. I am really getting quite fond of this early-Christian, late-Roman period. Perhaps I should start taking Greek and be a Classics major. But it really is fascinating, how much I don't know about this kind of early Christianity, about the various competing sects, even about how misleading a lot of what one reads is. The term Bishop, for example, actually corresponds more closely to what we would call a parish priest: there were about 700 of them in North Africa alone in Augustine's time.

The one thing that gives me pause, however, is how O'Donnell tends to give examples from modern slang and pop culture to get his points across. In particular, I wonder about his translations. Are they too free? Or is it that scholarly translation tends to be too free to conform to a certain standard of appropriate gravitas?

Take this, for example, from Romans 13.13:
no orgies and drunkenness, nothing about bedrooms and horniness, no wrangling and rivalry -- just put on the master Jesus Christ and don't go on looking after the flesh and its hankerins.

From the official Vatican Website:

let us conduct ourselves properly as in the day, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in promiscuity and licentiousness, not in rivalry and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the desires of the flesh.

Okay, so it isn't that different.

Here's the Latin, from the same site:

Sicut in die honeste ambulemus: non in comissationibus et ebrietatibus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, non in contentione et aemulatione; sed induite Dominum Iesum Christum et carnis curam ne feceritis in concupiscentiis.

My half-literal, half-guessed-at translation of the above, with the help of The Perseus Project dictionaries because, for some strange reason, we haven't learnt all the words for 'immodesty' and 'drunkeness' yet.

Let us walk honorably, as in the day: not in Bacchanales and drunkenness, not in beds and immodesty, not in struggle and competition; but dress yourself in the Lord Jesus Christ and do not concern yourself for the flesh in its desires.

So, okay, he's pretty accurate. Which makes me really want to read Augustine in the original. Hm.



1. When I think about chamber music in its original context of music that would have been played for the private enjoyment of, say, Prince Esterhazy in the comfort of his own estate, I wonder what it would have been like to be a servant in such a household. Because the music would have filtered through the walls, right? So if you were scrubbing the floors in another room, or polishing silver, you still would have heard it. For this reason I like to listen to Mozart and Haydn when I bake.
ricardienne: (Default)
I have just written the most inane conclusion of my career. No, really, I think that I have never done one this bad, this stupid, this blatantly "I-have-know-idea-what-this-paper-is-doing-so-I'm-going-to-restate-my-thesis-and-throw-out-a-few-unsupported-generalities-and-hope-that-no-one-notices."

It's embarrassing. I need to rewrite. But, unfortunately, I don't really know where my paper is going. The first two thirds are a compare-contrast of Mozi and Kongzi's differing views of human nature. The last third is pretty much a hypothetical dialogue between my dad and the two philosophers. No, you did read that correctly. And so, I have absolutely no idea how to conclude.

Also, Scott and I were discussing the Latin quiz after class today, and it was revealed that I quite likely screwed up one of the translations. And then I was thinking about it some more, and I realised that the professor doesn't put macrons over the letters. So it's quite possible that I mixed up the nominative and ablative at some point. Noooo! Because if I don't get a perfect good score, that means that I don't understand it… right?

Profile

ricardienne: (Default)
sigaloenta

October 2023

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 15th, 2025 06:33 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios