Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thomas de Quincey
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Pierre
May 6, 2012, 4:25:34 PM5/6/12
to
The following paragraph is taken from the introduction to "Confessions from an opium-eater".
Infirmity and misery do not of necessity imply guilt. They approach or recede from shades of that dark alliance, in proportion to the probable motives and prospects of the offender, and the palliations, known or secret, of the offence; in proportion as the temptations to it were potent from the first, and the resistance to it, in act or in effort, was earnest to the last.
In the second sentence, I have trouble understanding what is hidden under "They" and under "that dark alliance". And as a result, I'm unsure of the meaning of the whole paragraph.
I'm gratefully accepting any insight.
Cheers.
Infirmity and misery do not of necessity imply guilt. They approach or recede from shades of that dark alliance, in proportion to the probable motives and prospects of the offender, and the palliations, known or secret, of the offence; in proportion as the temptations to it were potent from the first, and the resistance to it, in act or in effort, was earnest to the last.
In the second sentence, I have trouble understanding what is hidden under "They" and under "that dark alliance". And as a result, I'm unsure of the meaning of the whole paragraph.
I'm gratefully accepting any insight.
Cheers.
Bill McCray
May 6, 2012, 4:40:03 PM5/6/12
to
alliance" to refer to the combination of infirmity and misery.
Bill in Kentucky
Odysseus
May 8, 2012, 5:05:17 AM5/8/12
to
In article <jo6nj4$o0j$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> I would take "that dark alliance" to refer to the combination of
> infirmity and misery.
I read it as their association with guilt; in this metaphor the darkness
is shaded according to the strength of that association, as elaborated
in what follows.
--
Odysseus
Bill McCray <billm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/2012 4:25 PM, Pierre wrote:
> > The following paragraph is taken from the introduction to
> > "Confessions from an opium-eater".
> >
> > Infirmity and misery do not of necessity imply guilt. They approach
> > or recede from shades of that dark alliance, in proportion to the
> > probable motives and prospects of the offender, and the palliations,
> > known or secret, of the offence; in proportion as the temptations to
> > it were potent from the first, and the resistance to it, in act or
> > in effort, was earnest to the last.
> >
> > In the second sentence, I have trouble understanding what is hidden
> > under "They" and under "that dark alliance". And as a result, I'm
> > unsure of the meaning of the whole paragraph.
>
> "They" must refer to "infirmity and misery".
I agree.
> On 5/6/2012 4:25 PM, Pierre wrote:
> > The following paragraph is taken from the introduction to
> > "Confessions from an opium-eater".
> >
> > Infirmity and misery do not of necessity imply guilt. They approach
> > or recede from shades of that dark alliance, in proportion to the
> > probable motives and prospects of the offender, and the palliations,
> > known or secret, of the offence; in proportion as the temptations to
> > it were potent from the first, and the resistance to it, in act or
> > in effort, was earnest to the last.
> >
> > In the second sentence, I have trouble understanding what is hidden
> > under "They" and under "that dark alliance". And as a result, I'm
> > unsure of the meaning of the whole paragraph.
>
> "They" must refer to "infirmity and misery".
> I would take "that dark alliance" to refer to the combination of
> infirmity and misery.
is shaded according to the strength of that association, as elaborated
in what follows.
--
Odysseus
Pierre
May 18, 2012, 3:25:21 AM5/18/12
to
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:05:17 AM UTC+2, Odysseus wrote:
> > I would take "that dark alliance" to refer to the combination of
> > infirmity and misery.
>
> I read it as their association with guilt; in this metaphor the darkness
> is shaded according to the strength of that association, as elaborated
> in what follows.
I really like your take on that sentence. It's probably the right one. I didn't think of an alliance between all three elements, but it's the only explanation that makes any sort of sense.
> > I would take "that dark alliance" to refer to the combination of
> > infirmity and misery.
>
> I read it as their association with guilt; in this metaphor the darkness
> is shaded according to the strength of that association, as elaborated
> in what follows.
Thanks.
alien8er
May 18, 2012, 9:25:34 PM5/18/12
to
I concur with the other respondents in that "they" are infirmity and
misery. The subtext I get first is that infirmity and misery are being
considered as *evidence* of guilt; that an infirm/miserable person is
causally suffering "them" for doing whatever it is they are guilty
*of*.
It is then averred that "they" are displayed in some proportion to
motive, degree of temptation and resistance, etc.
de Quincy seems to be offering a sort of explanatory apology (aka
"excuse") for his behavior.
Mark L. Fergerson
0 new messages