larvatus | Entries tagged with latin

First they came for Gilbert Gottfried
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a shrill comedian
Then they came for Catullus
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Latin poet
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Римські історики записали, що полководці (адже їм лише б загарбувати) радили першому імператорові Августові війною колонізувати нашу державу Велику Україну, брати зерно та інші товари безкоштовно. Будуть і податки. Він заперечував: не хоче більше втратити, ніж скористати, бо українська нація особлива, не знае рабовласництва, не була ще ніким поневолена. Підкорити її важко. Крім того, війна знищить землеробство, і зерна все одно не буде.
Почалася 300-літня “легка колонізація” наших морських портів Римом. Були і війни, бо імператори після Августа посилали полководців чи й самі вели легіони колонізувати українську землю і націю, але нація завжди, хоч і з великими матеріальними і людськими втратами, відбивалася від могутнього Риму. Нація не підкорилася наймогутнішому колонізаторові античності. Українська нація не скорена!
Цей урок з античної історії нам потрібно вивчити, запам’ятати і взяти до уваги.

— Микола Галичанець, Українська нація: Походження і життя української нації з найдавніших часів до ХІ століття, Мандрівець, 2005

Roman historians recorded that the generals (who think of nothing but conquests) advised the first emperor Augustus to wage war in order to colonize our country, the Great Ukraine, to confiscate her grain and other goods. There would be taxes, too. He demurred, not wanting to lose more than he would gain; for the Ukrainian nation is like no other: it does not suffer slavery, it never has been dominated by anyone else. It would be hard to conquer. Besides, warfare would destroy agriculture, and grain could not be had anyway.
Thus began the 300-year long “light colonization” of our seaports by Rome. There were wars, because emperors that followed Augustus sent their generals or themselves went to command legions to colonize the Ukrainian land and nation; but our nation always, albeit at great material and human costs, repulsed the mighty Rome. Our nation defied the most powerful colonizers of antiquity. Ukrainian nation is unconquered!
We must learn, memorize, and heed this lesson from ancient history.

— Mykola Halychanets, The Ukrainian nation: The Origin and Life of the Ukrainian Nation From the Ancient Times to the Eleventh Century, Mandrivets, 2005

I am thinking about a good way of saying “Time Judged All” in Latin. Curiously, the literal formulation appears not to be attested in literature until its late 18th century use by August Ludwig von Schlözer: “Judex rerum omnium tempus, diligensque Tuorum ministrorum inquisitio, multa inopinata, quae adhuc latent, modo Deus intersit, nobis aperient.” The traditional way of expressing the underlying thought is the Greek “Χρόνος τὰ κρυπτὰ πάντα πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἄγει”, time brings to light all hidden things, of Menandri Sententiae 592, or the more concise “πάντ' ἀναπτύσσει χρόνος”, time reveals all, of Sophocles’ Fragment 301. In Latin, this thought is rendered by Aulus Gellius in Attic Nights, XII.11, as “Veritas temporis filia”, truth is the daughter of time. Erasmus cites a paraphrase of this thought, “Tempus omnia revelat”, time reveals all things, as Adagia II.iv.17. Francis Bacon amplifies the formulation of Aulus Gellius as “Recte enim Veritas Temporis filia dicitur, non Authoritatis”, truth is rightly called the daughter of time, not of authority, in Novum Organum I.84. Thomas Nashe paraphrases it in English: “Veritas temporis filia, it is only time that revealeth all things.” Shakespeare is more prolix in The Rape of Lucrece 990-1010:

Time’s glory is to calm contending kings,
To unmask falsehood and bring truth to light,
To stamp the seal of time in aged things,
To wake the morn of sentinel the night,
To wrong the wronger till he render right,
To ruinate proud buildings with thy hour
And smear with dust their glittering golden towers;

To fill with worm-holes stately monuments,
To feed oblivion with decay of things,
To blot old books and alter their contents,
To pluck the quills from ancient ravens’ wings,
To dry the old oak’s sap and cherish springs,
To spoil antiquities of hammer’d steel,
And turn the giddy round of Fortune’s wheel;

To show the beldam daughters of her daughter,
To make the child a man, the man a child,
To slay the tiger that doth live by slaughter,
To tame the unicorn and lion wild,
To mock the subtle in themselves beguiled,
To cheer the ploughman with increaseful crops,
And waste huge stones with little water drops.

Few mortal judges enjoy such abounding authority.

A more ominous sense of judging is captured by Ovid in Metamorphoses XV.234-236:

Tempus edax rerum, tuque, invidiosa vetustas,
omnia destruitis, vitiataque dentibus aevi
paulatim lenta consumitis omnia morte.

As rendered by Arthur Golding in 1567:

Thou tyme the eater up of things, and age of spyghtfull teene,
Destroy all things. And when that long continuance hath them bit,
You leysurely by lingring death consume them every whit.

“Tempus edax rerum” is proverbial, e.g. as employed in the slogan “le temps détruit tout” at the portentous ending of the movie Irreversible by Gaspar Noé.

λέγει που Ἡράκλειτος ὅτι “πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει,” καὶ ποταμοῦ ῥοῇ ἀπεικάζων τὰ ὄντα λέγει ὡς “δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης.”

Though you cannot step twice in the same river, no force of nature debars you from pissing in the same sewer time after time.
Likewise the ease of rekindling an old hatred contrasts with the difficulty of renewing an old friendship.
In this regard, love affairs are more akin to sewers than rivers.

Some time ago, touristic extravagances of the POTUS elicited a great deal of waggish hand-wringing:

Obama arrives in India at the start of a ten-day tour of Asia. At the heart of the White House caravan is ‘The Beast’, a gigantic, ‘pimped-up’ General Motors Cadillac which security experts say is, short of an actual battle tank, probably the safest road vehicle on the planet.
    But an outlandish car is only the start. Mr Obama will fly, of course, on Air Force One, the presidential private jumbo jet, which, boasting double beds and suites, is fitted out more like a luxury yacht. Some reports suggest it costs around $50,000 (£31,000) an hour to operate.
    Of course threats can come from any direction, so a squadron of U.S. naval ships will patrol offshore. Some reports have claimed that 34 ships, including two aircraft carriers, will be involved (not far off the size of the Royal Navy’s entire Surface Fleet) but the White House has denied this.
    On land, as well as The Beast, Mr Obama’s entourage will travel in a fleet of 45 U.S.-built armoured limousines, half of which will be decoys. He will also travel with 30 elite sniffer dogs, mostly German Shepherds.
    The White House has, according to some reports, booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, the city’s most luxurious. It is not uncommon for the grander heads of state to reserve a floor or two, but a whole hotel is unprecedented. This hotel was the main target of the 2008 attacks by Pakistani militants which left 166 dead.
    As to the cost of all this, the White House will not reveal details – which has allowed Mr Obama’s political foes to bandy about sums including a widely-quoted $200million (£123million) a day. Whatever the figure, it makes the costs associated with the Royal Train and the late Royal Yacht Britannia seem like small change.
    It is also reported that a bomb-proof tunnel will be erected for Mr Obama ahead of his visit to Mani Bhavan—the Gandhi museum—on Saturday.
    According to Daily News & Analysis, U.S. secret service agents visited the museum on Monday to plan Mr Obama’s security during his tour.
    They were accompanied by Mumbai Police officers and civic officials of the D ward where Mani Bhavan is located.
    While they were inspecting the route and the buildings lining the path to the museum, U.S. security officers noticed a nearby skyscraper in the highly populated area that could pose a threat.
    To the amazement of the Indians accompanying the U.S. agents, it was apparently decided to erect a bomb-proof over-ground tunnel, which will be installed by U.S. military engineers in just an hour.
    The kilometre-long tunnel will measure 12ft by 12ft and will have air-conditioning, close-circuit television cameras, and will be heavily guarded at every point.
    It’s being built so it is large enough for Mr Obama’s cavalcade to pass through and will be manned at its entry and exit points.
    The material that the tunnel would be made of has not been released but officials said that the structure would be dismantled immediately after Mr Obama and his party leaves the area.
—The Daily Mail, 6 November 2010

Two weeks earlier, Obama’s storied subaltern opined: “If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar.” Strangely enough, the potentate so anointed evaded on this occasion another favorable comparison to his illustrious predecessor:

Germanico bello confecto multis de causis Caesar statuit sibi Rhenum esse transeundum; quarum illa fuit iustissima quod, cum videret Germanos tam facile impelli ut in Galliam venirent, suis quoque rebus eos timere voluit, cum intellegerent et posse et audere populi Romani exercitum Rhenum transire. […]
    Caesar his de causis quas commemoravi Rhenum transire decreverat; sed navibus transire neque satis tutum esse arbitrabatur neque suae neque populi Romani dignitatis esse statuebat. Itaque, etsi summa difficultas faciendi pontis proponebatur propter latitudinem, rapiditatem altitudinemque fluminis, tamen id sibi contendendum aut aliter non traducendum exercitum existimabat. […]
    Diebus X, quibus materia coepta erat comportari, omni opere effecto exercitus traducitur. […]
    Caesar paucos dies in eorum finibus moratus, omnibus vicis aedificiisque incensis frumentisque succisis, se in fines Ubiorum recepit atque his auxilium suum pollicitus, si a Suebis premerentur, haec ab iis cognovit: Suebos, postea quam per exploratores pontem fieri comperissent, more suo concilio habito nuntios in omnes partes dimisisse, uti de oppidis demigrarent, liberos, uxores suaque omnia in silvis deponerent atque omnes qui arma ferre possent unum in locum convenirent. Hunc esse delectum medium fere regionum earum quas Suebi obtinerent; hic Romanorum adventum expectare atque ibi decertare constituisse. Quod ubi Caesar comperit, omnibus iis rebus confectis, quarum rerum causa exercitum traducere constituerat, ut Germanis metum iniceret, ut Sugambros ulcisceretur, ut Ubios obsidione liberaret, diebus omnino XVIII trans Rhenum consumptis, satis et ad laudem et ad utilitatem profectum arbitratus se in Galliam recepitpontemque rescidit.

The German war being finished, Caesar thought it expedient for him to cross the Rhine , for many reasons; of which this was the most weighty, that, since he saw the Germans were so easily urged to go into Gaul, he desired they should have their fears for their own territories, when they discovered that the army of the Roman people both could and dared pass the Rhine. […]
    Caesar, for those reasons which I have mentioned, had resolved to cross the Rhine; but to cross by ships he neither deemed to be sufficiently safe, nor considered consistent with his own dignity or that of the Roman people. Therefore, although the greatest difficulty in forming a bridge was presented to him, on account of the breadth, rapidity, and depth of the river, he nevertheless considered that it ought to be attempted by him, or that his army ought not otherwise to be led over. […]
    Within ten days after the timber began to be collected, the whole work was completed, and the whole army led over. […]
    Caesar, having remained in their territories a few days, and burned all their villages and houses, and cut down their corn, proceeded into the territories of the Ubii; and having promised them his assistance, if they were ever harassed by the Suevi, he learned from them these particulars: that the Suevi, after they had by means of their scouts found that the bridge was being built, had called a council, according to their custom, and sent orders to all parts of their state to remove from the towns and convey their children, wives, and all their possessions into the woods, and that all who could bear arms should assemble in one place; that the place thus chosen was nearly the centre of those regions which the Suevi possessed; that in this spot they had resolved to await the arrival of the Romans, and give them battle there. When Caesar discovered this, having already accomplished all these things on account of which he had resolved to lead his army over, namely, to strike fear into the Germans, take vengeance on the Sigambri, and free the Ubii from the invasion of the Suevi, having spent altogether eighteen days beyond the Rhine, and thinking he had advanced far enough to serve both honor and interest, he returned into Gaul, and cut down the bridge.

—C. Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico, IV, 16, 17, 18, 19, translated by T. Rice Holmes

John Soane, Caesar’s Rhine Bridge, 1814It is hard to do justice to the moral and political superiority of the tunnel conveying Obama to the shrine of non-violence, over the bridge bearing Caesar to the next occasion of belligerency. Perhaps the most effective contrast obtains in juxtaposing prudential concerns of our 44th President with vulgarian bluster of Number 36:

During a private conversation with some reporters who pressed him to explain why we were in Vietnam, Johnson lost his patience. According to Arthur Goldberg, “LBJ unzipped his fly, drew out his substantial organ and declared, ‘This is why!’”
—Robert Dallek, Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President

Lyndon Baines Johnson and Senator Richard RussellBy supplanting LBJ’s phallophoric aggressiveness with troglodytic pussyfooting, Barack Obama has established and exposed himself as the first Vaginal President of the United States.

larvatus:
Не удивительно, конечно, но никогда не лишнее получить подтверждение догадкам, что публика — дура.
А мы зато стоим, все в белом.

sguez:
    очень жаль, что нельзя продемонстроровать, как мой второй американский босс парировал вопросы, знает ли он то, что он очевидно не знал:
    Он слегка выдвигал подбородок, вздергивал брови, слегка вылупливал глаза и позволял им остекленеть:
    — Нет, а что!?
    Так и я:
    — Да, а что!?

larvatus:
Однако, белое в крапинку.

larvatus:
Попробуем иначе.
Я вот представил себе, что некто стоит передо мной и разглагольствует о том, что всякому пожилому человеку, всё ещё усердно работающему на своего второго (или же третьего, четвёртого, пятого, и т.д.) американского босса, надо быть жидовской мордой без страха и упрёка, пидором, выкованным из чистой стали с головы до пят. Представил себе и свою словесную и телесную реакцию на подобную тираду, никак не зависящую от моего исконного и последовательного утверждения и соблюдения её содержательной составляющей. Поскольку в предполагаемый момент я по умолчанию причисляю себя к публике-дуре, в отличие от предполагаемой референтной группы докладчика, подразумеваемой латинскими местоимениями типа “nos alteros”, “vos alteros” и “illos alteros”.

sguez:
    Мысленновместе.
    Дорогой мой. Я понимаю ваш пафос демократического централизма, и осмеливаюсь возражать только чтобы не осрамиться перед тенью полководца Суворова, который говорил “Смелость города берет”.
    Видите ли, говоря “публика дура”, я могу причислять себя к ней, или нет, - утверждение остается в силе. Мы же термодинамики с вами. В чем тогда состоит моя ошибка, сахиб?

larvatus:
Сила Вашего первоначального утверждения, в отличие от значения его истинности, зависит от области его применимости. Дабы не выставить себя на чужое посмешище своим «odi profanum vulgus et arceo», требуется быть если не Квинтом Горацием, то по крайней мере Жорой Байроном или Осей Бродским. В Живом же Журнале подобных ораторов пока не наблюдается.

sguez:
    Знание - сила.
    Знать бы в чем значение, пересилил бы любую область применимости.
    Думал я запираться и тушеваться — типа, я такая же дура, как и публика, мы с ней два сапога пара. И вообще я ее часть, даже не лучшая. Но вы уже потратили столько усилий, чтобы доказать мне, что я поставил себя над ней, одевшись в нарядное белье, что я вынужден соответствовать:
    Да, я не принадлежу к “публике”. Я из другого теста.
    Ну выставьте же меня на посмешище, чтобы другим неповадно было.
    Что же до бытия Квинтом ли Терцием ли, нет, я не Байрон, я другой, и что — уже и в туалет по большому не сходить?

larvatus:
Ну и прекрасно, что Вы не принадлежите к “публике”, и что Вы из другого теста. Выставлять же я Вас никуда не стану, ибо сказано “iussisti enim et sic est, ut poena sua sibi sit omnis inordinatus animus.”

No wonder that Frank reacted as he did at the Albert Hall, with a rejoinder that found its way onto Burnt Weeny Sandwich and into Zappa folklore. When attendants hustled fans invading the stage at the end of the performance back to their seats, bovine voices from the back of the hall shouted, amongst other things, “Get the uniforms off the stage, Frank!” His reply, “Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform and don’t kid yourself,” drew applause but didn’t silence the lowing cattle.
—Neil Slaven, Electric Don Quixote: The Definitive Story of Frank Zappa, Omnibus Press, 2003, p. 138

А про вписание в квадрат прогрессивной общественности всё написано здесь.

sguez:
    Вы не можете не признать (даже без моей голодовки), что я спорю с вами скорее для роскоши человеческого общения.
    Давайте же оставим в покое мою географию по отношению к народу — или не оставим:
    Мне предстаявляется, что отношения с народом у личности складываются на нескольких уровнях. Про биологический, этнический, социальный, экономический, политический говорить особенно не нужно — это все нюансы массовой психики, взгляд на отношения с точки зрения народа. Иное дело психология этого отношения, взгляд со стороны личности. Здесь ничего не усредняется и не взвешивается. И на мой взгляд, если личность начинает взвешивать свои психические особенности, подгонять их под народные, то потеряет в результате народ.
    Что на эту тему думает Св.Августин?

larvatus:
Взвешивать свои особенности—ещё не значит, что должно или можно подгонять их под народные. В этом вопросе народ разберётся намного раньше и лучше личности. А в личном плане, даже если не всякому офицеру мундир к лицу, отнекивание от подразумеваемого обмундирования не освобождает служащего от бремени очевидной подобострастности. В противном случае, народ потеряет больше всего в результате прихода к власти голимой матери-героини в порядке массового противодействия политике личной особенности.

Agreeing with John Rawls to define civil disobedience as “a public, nonviolent conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government” is not self-interested and is always performed in public, nowise implies that smashing a fleeing intruder’s head cannot qualify as such. If and when the man accused of taking the law into his own hands comes forward to face the consequences of his actions in a court of law, its public proceedings suffice to ground the common interest in the effective means of self-defense, vested in his ~~ostensible infringement of~~ refusal to defer to the state monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

( Sesquipedalian persiflage ahead! )

As disabled 37-year-old Megan Mariah Barnes was shaving her pubes for the benefit of her new boyfriend in the driver’s seat of her 1995 Ford Thunderbird, her ex-husband Charles Judy took the steering wheel while riding bitch. Thus conjoined in harmonious operation of her automobile across the Florida Keys, they slammed into the back of a 2006 Chevrolet pickup driven by David Schoff. Barnes was charged with the misdemeanor second offense of driving with a revoked license and the felony of leaving the scene of a crash involving injuries. Judy, who had switched seats with his ex-wife in a futile attempt to claim responsibility for her offense, was not charged: “iussisti enim et sic est, ut poena sua sibi sit omnis inordinatus animus.” For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every inordinate affection should be its own punishment.

Elaborating on his fascination with Che’s will, Soderbergh explained: “His ability to sustain outrage is what is remarkable to me. We all get outraged about stuff, but to sustain it to the point of putting your ass on the line to change what outrages you, to do it consistently year after year, and to twice walk away from everything and everybody to do it—it’s not normal.”

Soderbergh’s treatment explains the cult of Che Guevara for me. Its grounds are not to be found in the fighter’s altruism looking out for the victims of oppression contrary to their will welcoming its violation. Neither is the would-be liberator morally disqualified by the resistance of his potential beneficiaries; for what good is his intelligence, if not to warrant his authority to speak and act on their benighted behalves? Be it due to sacrificial selflessness or intellectual vanity, Che’s capacity for staying pissed off makes him stand out.

Anticipating his own political martyrdom, Cicero commented on an earlier occasion of noble failure: “ut aegroto, dum anima est, spes esse dicitur”. (Letters to Atticus 9.10.3.) To the sick, while there is life there is hope. Proverbial wisdom condensed Ciceronian dicta to expand their purview: “dum spiro spero”; while I breathe I hope. But to the truly outraged, hope is beside the point. Suffice unto them to spew forth. Dum spiro sputo.

“Relocating bears is illegal in California, and a permit to execute a bear can only be issued to a homeowner if the animal has attacked people or livestock.”

ursi me comedant

Anarchist, Symbolist, insubordinate dreyfusard, man about town, Octave Mirbeau is an indispensable maître mineur of the Third Republic. His most popular work, Le Journal d’une femme de chambre, merited film treatment by the greatest Latin directors of all times, Luis Buñuel and Jean Renoir. His most scandalous novel remains unfilmable. In Le Jardin des supplices, which appeared in 1899, at the height of the Dreyfus Affair, Mirbeau targeted fear and hatred, the twin foundations of bourgeois society, in a narrative arc traversing the terrain of desire and disgust to culminate in a strange sexual obsession. ( And what about the rats? ) As a rodent, the rat is both taxonomically and etymologically dedicated to gnawing, rodere. Its intelligence and tenacity culminate in omnivoracity tending towards the extreme forms of cannibalism, qualifying this potentially docile and easily trained animal as an exemplary consumer in the wild. Since its inception 110 years ago, Mirbeau’s conjuration of rodential ass torture has gnawed and wriggled its way through the margins of respectable culture. ( For example… )
In our own time, we find a more extroverted way of flaunting deceased rodents in a male posterior: ( TransRatFashion alert! )
…which after all, is only a contrapositive to the popular practice of not giving a rat’s ass.

Crossposted to

larvatus and

strange_tears.

Some time ago I wondered, what Aristotle might have meant by claiming in the Rhetoric 2.24, at 1401a22, that to be without a dog is most dishonorable. My solution arrived ( Read more... ) Crossposted to

larvatus,

linguaphiles,

ancient_philo,

classicalgreek, and

classics.

In his account of youthful character, Aristotle attributes all its errors to excess and vehemence in love, hate, and everything else. At their peril, the young neglect of the maxim of Chilon: Μηδὲν ἄγαν, Ne quid nimis, “Never go to extremes”. (Rhetoric 1389b4-5; Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum I.41.) And as he turns to the flaccid dispositions of old men, Aristotle observes that neither their love nor their hatred is strong; but, according to the precept of Bias, καὶ φιλοῦσιν ὡς μισήσοντες καὶ μισοῦσιν ὡς φιλήσοντες—“they love as if they would one day hate, and hate as if they would one day love”. (Rhetoric 1389b21-25; DL I.87.) Prudential anticipation of reversals in love and hatred emerged as an early modern adage. Thus Erasmus commends it in commenting upon “Ne quid nimis” in Adagia I.vi.96. Likewise, Juan Luis Vives writes on behalf of the “Anima Senis”: odi ut amatura et amo ut osura—“I hate as if one day I should love, and love as if one day I should hate”. More recently, Tancredo Neves, the hero of Brazilian Democratic Movement, is said to always have remembered the motto of Getúlio Vargas, his former patron, role model, and predecessor in election to the Brazilian Presidency: “I have never made an enemy whom I could not approach or a friend from whom I could not separate.”—“Não tenho inimigo de quem não possa me aproximar nem amigo de quem não possa me distanciar.” (Ronaldo Costa Couto, História indiscreta da ditadura e da abertura: Brasil: 1964-1985, Editora Record, 1999, p. 322.) Striving to dislodge a military dictatorship, Neves boasted during his Presidential campaign, that if he got 500 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency. He got the votes and was due to be sworn into office on the Ides of March in 1985. But a day before taking his Presidential oath, Neves fell gravely ill with a gastric tumor. Seven surgical bouts only served to aggravate his suffering. Neves died on 21 April 1985, the 193rd anniversary of execution and dismemberment of Tiradentes, the hero of Brazilian independence. Thus Tancredo Neves came to God after having slighted His will.

God’s will has swayed the fortunes of Jerusalem since 1095. A nominally secular state, Israel was founded upon the promise made by God to the descendants of Abraham. This promise is countermanded by the founding charter and ongoing policy of Hamas, which calls for the elimination of the Jewish state and worldwide extermination of Jews. And just as the Zionist project emerged in response to the political leverage of antisemitism, so Palestinian nationalism feeds off Jewish hegemony in the Holy Land. In more generic terms, Carl Schmitt cast the essence of the political as resting on the distinction between friend and enemy:

Der politische Feind nicht der Konkurrent oder der Gegner im allgemeinen. Feind ist auch nicht der private Gegner, den man unter Antipathiegefühlen haßt. Feind ist nur eine wenigstens eventuell, d.h. der realen Möglichkeit nach kämpfende Gesamtheit von Menschen, die einer ebensolchen Gesamtheit gegenübersteht. Feind ist nur der öffentliche Feind, weil alles, was auf eine solche Gesamtheit von Menschen, insbesondere auf ein ganzes Volk Bezug hat, dadurch öffentlich wird. Feind ist hostis, nicht inimicus im weiteren Sinne; πολέμιος, nicht ἐχθρός.
—Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen: Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei Corollarien, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1963, p. 29

The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. He is also not the private adversary whom one hates. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the public enemy, because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of men, particularly to a whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a relationship. The enemy is hostis, not inimicus in the broader sense; πολέμιος, not ἐχθρός.
—Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, translated by George Schwab, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996, p. 28

While Jewish nationalism emerged from the 1896 publication of Der Judenstaat by Theodor Herzl, its Palestinian counterpart originates in the 1948 dispossession of the Arab natives of the newborn Jewish state. In Aristotelian terms, their political predicament is rooted in the ardor of youth. Tancredo Neves was able to define his political mission in the terms of contingent animosities ungrounded in essential hostilities. No such definition is available to Israeli and Palestinian politicians, who continue to group their nations according to the friend and enemy antithesis. Thus the prospects of peace in the Middle East are foredoomed, as long as its neighboring and intermingled adversaries continue to regard each other as public enemies. There is as yet no basis for them to hate as if one day they should love. And for want of this basis, well-meaning Christian powers will meddle in vain.

Crossposted to

larvatus and

history.

ὀψέ θεῶν ἀλέουσι μύλοι, ἀλέουσι δὲ λεπτά
—Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos I, 287 ≈ Oracula Sibyllina VIII, 14 ≈ Plutarch, Moralia, “De sera numinis vindicta” 549d ≈ Parœmiographi Græci, C396

Gottes Mühlen mahlen langsam, mahlen aber trefflich klein;
Ob auß Langmuth er sich seumet, bringt mit Schärff er alles ein.
—Friedrich von Logau, „Göttliche Rache“, Sinngedichte III, ii, 24, circa 1654

Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all.
—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “Retribution”, Poems, Boston: Fields, Osgood, & Co., 1869, Vol. I, p. 292

Quid mihi si fueras miseros laesurus amores,
Foedera per divos, clam violanda, dabas?
A miser, et siquis primo periuria celat,
Sera tamen tacitis Poena venit pedibus.
—Tibullus, Elegiae I, ix, 1-4 and commentary

dixerat, et tandem cunctante modestior ira
ille refert: ‘equidem non uos ad moenia Thebes
rebar et hostiles huc aduenisse cateruas.
pergite in excidium socii, si tanta uoluptas,
sanguinis, imbuite arma domi, atque haec inrita dudum
templa Iouis (quid enim haud licitum?) ferat impius ignis,
si uilem, tanti premerent cum pectora luctus,
in famulam ius esse ratus dominoque ducique.
sed uidet haec, uidet ille deum regnator, et ausis,
sera quidem, manet ira tamen.’ sic fatus, et arces
respicit.
—Statius, Thebaid V 680-690

ut sit magna, tamen certe lenta ira deorum est
—Juvenal, Satura XIII 100

Itaque dii pedes lanatos habent, quia nos religiosi non sumus.
—Petronius, Satyricon XLIV,18

Et dum pro se quisque deos tandem esse et non neglegere humana fremunt et superbiae crudelitatique etsi seras, non leues tamen uenire poenas—prouocare qui prouocationem sustulisset, et implorare praesidium populi qui omnia iura populi obtrisset, rapique in uincla egentem iure libertatis qui liberum corpus in seruitutem addixisset,—ipsius Appi inter contionis murmur fidem populi Romani implorantis uox audiebatur.
—And while the people muttered, each man to himself, that there were gods after all, who did not neglect the affairs of men; and that pride and cruelty were receiving their punishment, which though late was nevertheless not light—that he was appealing who had nullified appeal; that he was imploring the protection of the people who had trodden all the rights of the people under foot; that he was being carried off to prison, deprived of his right to liberty, who had condemned the person of a free citizen to slavery—the voice of Appius himself was heard amidst the murmurs of the assembly, beseeching the Roman People to protect him.
—Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 3, 56, 7, translated by Benjamin Oliver Foster

La parole des dieux n’est point vaine et trompeuse ;
Leurs desseins sont couverts d’une nuit ténébreuse ;
La peine suit le crime : elle arrive à pas lents.
—Voltaire, Oreste, I, ii

Courage, if carried to daring, leads to death; courage, if not carried to daring, leads to life. Either of these two things is sometimes beneficial, sometimes harmful.

“Why ’t is by heaven rejected,
Who has the reason detected?”

    Therefore the holy man also regards it as difficult.
    The Heavenly Reason strives not, but it is sure to conquer. It speaks not, but it is sure to respond. It summons not, but it comes of itself. It works patiently but is sure in its designs.
    Heaven’s net is vast, so vast. It is wide-meshed, but it loses nothing.
—Lao-Tze’s Tao-Teh-King, translated by Paul Carus, 73, “Daring To Act”

Из комментариев к изданию Иммануила Канта, Сочинения в шести томах, том 4, часть 2, Академия Наук СССР, Институт философии, Издательство социально-экономической литературы «Мысль», Москва, 1965, стр. 454: aliud lingua promptum, aliud pectore inclusum gerere — одно дело действовать открыто, другое — с замкнутым сердцем.

Саллюстий отдыхает.

God: Sum id quod sum.
Descartes: Cogito ergo sum.
Popeye: Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum.
Eminem: Et sum id quod legis esse me, si non, cur legam esse. ( Read more... )

In honor of the winter solstice marking

larvatus’ first anniversary on LiveJournal, your host offers this valediction to all literary consumers:

amat qui scribit, pedicatur qui legit,
qui auscultat prurit, pathicus est qui praeterit.
ursi me comedant et ego verpam qui lego.

― Corpus Inscriptionem Latinarum 4.2360

Who writes loves, who reads is reamed,
who listens itches, who walks by is a catcher.
May bears gobble me, and I who read, a boner.

― translated by MZ

Profile

larvatus

Subrah Iyar Appreciation Society

2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S

Syndicate

Page Summary

pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo
a nation like no other
tempus judex rerum
odi et amo
troglodytic pussyfooting
мы зато все в белом
the right to arms
the idea of order at key west
dum spiro sputo
desperately seeking gypsies and nose rings
l’homme aux rats
doggy stylings
odi ut amatura et amo ut osura
old klingon proverb
латынь из моды вышла ныне
devolving identity
may bears gobble me

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 02:07 pm

larvatus prodeo

HIC LOCUS EST UBI MORS GAUDET SUCCURRERE VITAE

Entries tagged with latin

pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo

a nation like no other

tempus judex rerum

odi et amo

troglodytic pussyfooting

мы зато все в белом

the right to arms

the idea of order at key west

dum spiro sputo

desperately seeking gypsies and nose rings

l’homme aux rats

doggy stylings

odi ut amatura et amo ut osura

old klingon proverb

латынь из моды вышла ныне

devolving identity

may bears gobble me