Serenity Prayer

[Dennis]

I'd like a translation of the Serenity Prayer into Latin. The English
original, usually attributed to the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr,
is:

God, Grant me the serenity
To accept The things I cannot change,
The courage To change the things I can,
And the wisdom To know the difference.

French Wikipedia quotes this Latin version:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pri%C3%A8re_de_la_S%C3%A9r%C3%A9nit%C3%A9

"Deus,
dona mihi serenitatem accipere res quae non possum,
fortitudinem mutare res quae possum,
atque sapientiam differentiam cognoscere"

(from the back pocket of the album "Re-ac-tor" by Neil Young)

However, I don't know if that's the correct form of the vocative for
'deus'. I suspect that the work order ought to be different, since Latin
is SOV. Finally, a jussive subjunctive might sound better than an
imperative (?more respectful of the Deity?) It also leaves out the first
'change'.

If so, how about this? Are there other problems I haven't seen?

Di, mihi
serenitatem accipere res quae non possum mutare,
fortitudinem mutare res quae possum,
atque sapientiam differentiam cognoscere,
des.

-- Dennis

[Ed Cryer]

It's very normal in Christian Latin to use the imperative when
addressing God; dona eis requiem, accipe has preces etc.

Deus is also the regular vocative used.

The construction of "serenitatem accipere" (and other subsequent such)
isn't the Latin way. For "serenity to change" it would use "serenitas ut
mutem" or "serenitas sufficiens ad res mutandas".

The Wikipedia version has some more bad Latin. It should be "mutare res
quas possum".

Ed

[Johannes Patruus]

Niebuhr himself is said to have doubted his own authorship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_prayer

Google reveals a number of attempts at its Latinization, of which the
following is by several orders of magnitude the coolest:

Concede nobis, Domine,
serenitatem necessariam ea quae mutare non possumus accipiendi,
fortitudinem ea quae possumus mutandi,
sapientiam utrasque discernendi.

http://www.entresembater.netvyrtua.com/informacoes-do-gorobo/view.asp?id=1

Patruus

[Ed Cryer]

That is beautiful, classical Latin.

I'm always torn between two horns of a dilemma with "Christian Latin".
On the one hand there's the Vulgate with its patent appeal to
"unadorned" sentences and Greek grammar & syntax; on the other there's
the Latin we'd like to propagate, that of the great classical age of Rome.

I've come to a working solution. If it's a matter of translating
something into Latin, I'll go for the higher Latin. And if it's
specifically concerned with early Christianity, or the Vulgate itself,
I'll try to imitate the latter style.

Ed

[Johannes Patruus]

For an appreciation of how good Christian Latin can be, see Sr Haessly's
book "Rhetoric in the Sunday Collects of the Roman Missal" -
http://bit.ly/eCCxyX (As I write, this link is temporarily kyboshed by a
server outage on SkyDrive.)

As to the Vulgate, why put up with Jerome's quod-ridden clunkiness, as in:
"Audiens autem quod Archelaus regnaret in Judaea pro Herode patre suo ..."
when you can have Sebastian Castellio's (google him!) reworking:
"Sed audiens Archelaum in Judaea Herodi patri suo in regnum seccessisse
..." (Matt. 2:22)?

Patruus

[Ed Cryer]

I'd never heard of him until now. He appears to be one of those great
forgotten scholars that you're always championing. The Wiki article says
that Montaigne (born in the same year) recognised his great talent.

One small point; nonne "sUccessisse"?

Ed

[Johannes Patruus]

Forgotten, but not uncommemorated -
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0754630196

> One small point; nonne "sUccessisse"?

Yes, sorry, my transcription error. I recall previously having looked for
a ready-made transcription but no one seems to have bothered.

> Ed

Patruus

[Dennis]

Ed Cryer wrote:

>> Google reveals a number of attempts at its Latinization, of which the
>> following is by several orders of magnitude the coolest:
>>
>> Concede nobis, Domine,
>> serenitatem necessariam ea quae mutare non possumus accipiendi,
>> fortitudinem ea quae possumus mutandi,
>> sapientiam utrasque discernendi.
>>
>> http://www.entresembater.netvyrtua.com/informacoes-do-gorobo/view.asp?
>> id=1
>>
>> Patruus
>
> That is beautiful, classical Latin.
>
> I'm always torn between two horns of a dilemma with "Christian Latin".
> On the one hand there's the Vulgate with its patent appeal to
> "unadorned" sentences and Greek grammar & syntax; on the other there's
> the Latin we'd like to propagate, that of the great classical age of
> Rome.
>
> I've come to a working solution. If it's a matter of translating
> something into Latin, I'll go for the higher Latin. And if it's
> specifically concerned with early Christianity, or the Vulgate itself,
> I'll try to imitate the latter style.

So the version just quoted by Johannes Patruus is the one you'd recommend?
My Latin is very limited.

Dennis

[Ed Cryer]

On 29/08/2011 21:09, Dennis wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
>
>>> Google reveals a number of attempts at its Latinization, of which the
>>> following is by several orders of magnitude the coolest:
>>>
>>> Concede nobis, Domine,
>>> serenitatem necessariam ea quae mutare non possumus accipiendi,
>>> fortitudinem ea quae possumus mutandi,
>>> sapientiam utrasque discernendi.
>>>
>>> http://www.entresembater.netvyrtua.com/informacoes-do-gorobo/view.asp?
>>> id=1
>>>
>>> Patruus
>>
>> That is beautiful, classical Latin.
>>
>> I'm always torn between two horns of a dilemma with "Christian Latin".
>> On the one hand there's the Vulgate with its patent appeal to

>> "unadorned" sentences and Greek grammar& syntax; on the other there's

>> the Latin we'd like to propagate, that of the great classical age of
>> Rome.
>>
>> I've come to a working solution. If it's a matter of translating
>> something into Latin, I'll go for the higher Latin. And if it's
>> specifically concerned with early Christianity, or the Vulgate itself,
>> I'll try to imitate the latter style.
>
> So the version just quoted by Johannes Patruus is the one you'd recommend?
> My Latin is very limited.
>
>
> Dennis

Yes. It's perfect classical Latin; and if God has an ear for balance and
phraseology then He'll answer the request.

Ed

[Dennis]

Ed Cryer wrote:

> On 29/08/2011 21:09, Dennis wrote:
>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>
>>>> Google reveals a number of attempts at its Latinization, of which
>>>> the following is by several orders of magnitude the coolest:
>>>>
>>>> Concede nobis, Domine,
>>>> serenitatem necessariam ea quae mutare non possumus accipiendi,
>>>> fortitudinem ea quae possumus mutandi,
>>>> sapientiam utrasque discernendi.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.entresembater.netvyrtua.com/informacoes-do-gorobo/view.as

>>>> p? id=1

>>>>
>>>> Patruus
>>>
>>> That is beautiful, classical Latin.
>>>
>>> I'm always torn between two horns of a dilemma with "Christian
>>> Latin". On the one hand there's the Vulgate with its patent appeal
>>> to "unadorned" sentences and Greek grammar& syntax; on the other
>>> there's the Latin we'd like to propagate, that of the great
>>> classical age of Rome.
>>>
>>> I've come to a working solution. If it's a matter of translating
>>> something into Latin, I'll go for the higher Latin. And if it's
>>> specifically concerned with early Christianity, or the Vulgate
>>> itself, I'll try to imitate the latter style.
>>
>> So the version just quoted by Johannes Patruus is the one you'd
>> recommend? My Latin is very limited.
>

> Yes. It's perfect classical Latin; and if God has an ear for balance
> and phraseology then He'll answer the request.

Thank you! And thank you Johannes Patruus too!

Dennis