si paenitet, haud nocet error.

      I found the discussion of repentance very interesting in light of our discussion on Tuesday concerning the battle as a representation of Prudentius' struggle to make sense of the conflicting emotions within himself (the struggle of his own vices and virtues). When Sobriety chastises the soldiers led astray by luxury, she tells that that should they repent they will cause no harm and bring no shame, that it is "nec sors lacrimabilis illa est". I at first saw this statement as Prudentius attempting to reconcile the fact that good people can do bad things. But his example of Jonathan is interesting because Jonathan didn't break an oath from god, but rather from his father. Jonathan also did not repent, but chastised his father for creating the command to no eat on a day of battle with the Philistines. God did not answer Saul when he asked if he should kill Jonathan and Jonathan is ultimately saved by the men in the army while he (Jonathan) is essentially on the firing line. The allusion sets the fleeing soldiers on par with Jonathan, who actually brought the battle to the Philistines and helped win the day. Sobriety seems to be using an ill-fitting allusion for the circumstance. Also the reference to not shaming his father is laughable because Saul brings heaps of shame upon himself in not following the orders of God. I don't know if I have an overarching point with this, but the allusion just seems so out of place. There is also no discussion of forgiveness, just one sided repentance. Prudentius seems to uses the allusion to Jonathan in a very tounge in cheek manner, Jonathans "sin" was actually a good thing overall and he did not repent and there was no evil caused.