The text is from the 1591 edition. I updated the orthography, but maintained the old punctuation.
Pater: Ego germani patris officium secutus, parvulum hunc, quem cernis, filium meum honestissimis doctrinarum studiis, et virtuti a primordio aetatis deditum esse nimium quantum cupio.
What would “germanus pater“ mean?
Magister: Laudabilis, et iustissimo atque praeclarissimo desiderio incensa voluntas: quam primum enim, et quam diutissime discendum sapientes praedicant, quod nunquam perdiscitur, et proficit in perpetuum. Praeterea multum refert, quibus odoribus testa recens imbuatur.
Is there an elipsis of “esse“ after “discendum“, and the sense is “The wise say that one must learn as much and as early as possible“? Those two verbs, “perdiscitur“ and “proficit“, are they used here impersonally? Is that “quod“ the same as “quia“, as it were “for one never learns everything, and he who thus studies will always make progress“? That “refert“, is there an elipsis of “ut“, here it being used for an infinitive, as it were “Multum refert quibus odoribus testam recentem imbui“? And that “quibus odoribus“, can one normally repeat the antecedent of the relative, as in “quam ob rem“, “qua de causa“, “quem ad modum”? (It seems to me that he is comparing the studies with perfume, and to teach a young boy with putting perfume on a never used pot.)
Pater: Tua institutione ac disciplina probitatem et intelligentam rerum (quanta quidem in istam teneritudem cadit) adipiscatur.
Are not “institutio” and “disciplina“ the same thing: instruction? Is there some subtly between both?
Magister: Certe quidem haud repugnanter in album discipulorum ipsum retulero, si, ut est in more positum, ingeniolum eius atque progressum, quem in litteris hactenus effecit, periclitatus ante fuero.
Why is it written “periclitatus fuero“ instead of “periclitatus ero“? And why “retulero“ instead of “referam“, if the act of writing is not anterior to any other, and posterior to the examination of the boy (expressed by the perfect future)?
Magister: Quid? rudimenta Grammaticae num docte calles?
“Callere“ seems to mean “to know“, “to have experience with“. Why is “docte“ here used? He is speaking with a boy who only learned the rudiments of Latin grammar, not with an erudite.
Pater: Diligentiam quidem pueri in spe optima ponat magister. Ego item quominus illi cessare, et socordia atque desidia bonum otium conterere sit integrum, curabo sedulo.
The only things I understood here is that “curabo“ and “quominus“ are related and that “quominus“ governs “sit“; I simply cannot understand the rest (what is that “integrum“ concording with? With “bonum otium“? And what is the object of “conterere“?). In the first sentence, is it optative? What does “quidem“ mean here?
Magister: Macte indole, sic facies, mi Iacobe, et cras postquam luxerit, cum libellis tuis, armisque scholasticis ad sextam in ludum hunc meum itare, Divis bene iuvantibus, occipies.
I did not understand that “Macte indole, sic facies, mi Iacobe“. In the former sentence the boy says “Ignarus non ero“; is the teacher saying that he will do well (“macte indole” seems to be the same as “macte animo“: “that’s right!”, “go on!”, “well done!“) doing so?
(Still his line.) Tu interim filium reduces domum; quem propter ingenii bonitatem, et, quam facile perspicio, naturae praestantiam multo commendatissimum nobis, carissimumque fore credas velim.
Why “velim“ instead of “volo“?
Pater: Liberalis ista, et humanitatis plena pollicitatio, vir doctissime, omnibus necessitudinibus me tibi obstringit. Bene vale.
Is that “omnibus necessitudinibus“ a ablative of time (“Your offering obliges me to help you in all your needs”)?
Bene valete!
-John