samedi 3 mars 2012
Happy Feast of St Katherine Drexel!
Apart from all that is said in article, Drexel Hill in Pennsylvania is under her patronage, and that is where Lloyd Alexander grew up.
jeudi 1 mars 2012
Hannibal de Rivarol Obscurantiste
| La série: | ||
| À l'essai: | ||
par Hans-Georg Lundahl, jeudi 1 mars 2012, 13:43 ·
Quand Rivarol et PRÉSENT sont les média de droite sur papier, et quand en plus ils mettent en garde contre FB, ou autrement contre Internet (Hannibal se rejoint avec Marie Piloquet), alors il devient un peu difficile pour les droitistes qui sont adeptes d'eux de le comprendre. De l'autre côté, un gauchiste qui est suffisemment branché ès Choses Internet ou Viandes, d'abord s'il le notait, ne serait point écouté par la droite, ensuite il ne serait quand même pas là pour le noter.
Édito: Une excuse est due à Hannibal de Rivarol
Un site avait été répéré comme produit par une certaine adresse IP grace à FB? Technicalement c'est impossible, sauf à condition que le concerné s'annonce régulièrement sur FB comme auteur du site, quel que soit son pseudo. Car les IP répérables par FB sont ceux desquelles on s'inscrit dans les sessions. Il m'est arrivé, déplacé dans une autre ville, de ne pas me pouvoir connecter puisque l'adresse IP était une autre qu'habituellement. Un site peut répérer les IP avec lesquelles on l'utilise, pas tellement avec lesquelles on utilise d'autres sites.
Édito: Une excuse est due à Hannibal de Rivarol
C'est même dommage que les adresses IP se trouvent souvent répérés comme la seule preuve du fait que telle personne ait écrit telle chose sur la toile. Moi, je n'ai pas d'adresse IP fixe, ne possédant pas un ordi à moi-même, mais je signe mes articles, et la police à reçu des URL vers plus d'un blog par moi (j'en ai une trentaine, plus ou moins généraux et ensuite spécialisés sur certaines critères, de langue, de contenu ou d'époque).
Car, si telle ou telle chose écrite par moi serait inculpable comme criminelle, d'abord ça ne saurait pas être la totalité ou quasi généralité de mes blogs, ensuite apparaître dans un procès pourrait, juste éventuellement, dissiper certains malentendus plus ou moins volontaires qui m'empêchent d'avoir des lecteurs, mais surtout des ré-éditeurs, imprimeurs, vendeurs, des musiciens-artistes pour faire connaître et valoriser mes blogs. Le fait d'écrire n'est pas criminel. Le fait de composer n'est pas criminel. Criminaliser mes partis pris et annoncés dans certaines questions pourrait donner de publicité pour mes causes. Je ne cherche nullement la discrétion, non plus que la pauvreté évangélique.
Marie Piloquet dit que tel bloggueur de l'Arabie Séoudite a été menacé de mort après ses blogs. Et supprimer la possibilité lui sauverait la vie? Elle dit que les Arabes - qui n'aiment pas la parole trop libre (sur certaines choses), elle omet de l'exprimer - investissent massivement en internet. Quelle surprise! Et par là il s'ensuivrait que l'internet ne soit pas en train de servir réellement la liberté de la parole?
Passons aux viandes. Le Halal n'est pas viande étourdie. Le Cacher n'est pas viande étourdie. Le chassé n'est pas viande étourdie non plus. On veut quelque chose de sain sans se gâver en même temps avec des produits d'étourdissement? Alors, Halal, Cacher ou chassé.
Je n'ai rien contre la Rosette de Lyon. Mais quand l'abattoir est industriel, soit on étourdie, soit on stresse les animaux. Ni produits d'étourdissement, ni hormones de stresse sont idéaux pour accompagner la consommation humaine de viande. La campagne comme actuellement menée par Marine LePen fait les chiffres d'affaires des industries pharmaceutiques vétérinaires.
Le fond des choses, révélé, si exacte, par Libération (oui, je suis bobo, et après les journaux droitistes je lis Libération aussi, faut aimer sa classe sans détester les autres quoi), n'est pas touché par la campagne de Marine. L'abattage rituel, donc Halal et Cacher à la fois, constitue belle et bien en quatre abattoirs la quasi-totalité de la production de viande en Île-de-France, mais juste 2% de la consommation en Île de France. Pourquoi? Parce qu'Île de France importe la plupart de sa viande d'ailleurs, par exemple de Lyon. Il y a donc, par capitalisme un peu poussé, à l'instar de Chicago, un industrialisme des grands abattoirs.
Auparavant, l'abattoir était un coin de la boucherie. L'animal était abattu avant d'être dépécé dans la même boucherie. Comme ça, qu'il était étourdi par un coup de marteau (méthode des bouchers occidentaux, certains arrivaient à une force qu'ils pouvaient étourdir avec un coup de poing, sans marteau) ou juste avait à souffrir la gorge tranchée comme ça (il y a un dicton de la campagne suédois: hurler comme un porc à gorge perçue - "skrika som en stucken gris" - et la période d'abattage des porcs était juste avant Noël), il ne souffrait pas le stresse de voir ses congénères abattus droit devant lui-même. L'animal en train d'être étourdi peut souffrir du stresse, l'éliminer avec l'étourdissement neutralise certes les hormones de stresse dans leur effet, mais n'élimine pas les hormones de l'organisme. Par contre, ça arrête peut-être un peu leur production.
Pour les Musulman, s'ils veulent mon avis, autrefois ce n'était qu'autour de Aïdh el Kabir que les animaux étaient égorgés l'un devant l'autre, les autres périodes l'abattage individuel était la règle, mais aujourd'hui on produit des hormones de stresse de grand abattoir toute l'année.
Pour pénicilline, vaccination ou hormones de croissance, il doit y avoir quelques semaines entre la médication ou manipulation de l'animal et ça parce qu'on veut que le produit chimique puisse quitter l'organisme complètement. Par les voies naturelles. Si le produit d'étourdissement avait quitté l'organisme de l'animal avant l'abattage, il ne servirait plus a rien, strictement, uniquement à avoir malmené l'animal avec une cuite involontaire quelques semaines avant son abattage. Et après l'abattage, les voies naturelles ne sont plus capables de nettoyer le sang ou les muscles ou le gras ou - si on pense au produit d'étourdissement - les nerfs. Item biensûr pour les hormones de stresse.
Vous voulez, à présent, manger très gaulois et très sain? Suivez l'exemple d'Obélix, chassez le sanglier, alors! Ou demandez les amitiés des gens des Pyrénées.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Musicale des Halles
1-III-2012
dimanche 19 février 2012
Human Rights Watch fait le malin avec Hongrie ...
par Hans-Georg Lundahl, samedi 28 janvier 2012, 10:51
source des deux citations:
La Hongrie défie les critiques de sa nouvelle législation sur la famille
Par Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/french/9316/la-hongrie-d%C3%A9fie-les-critiques-de-sa-nouvelle-l%C3%A9gislation-sur-la-famille.html
Ce n'est pas contraire au standard divin ni au standard historique humain d'interdire aux paires d'un même sexe de se faire prendre pour couples mariés. Un traité qui érigérait des standards selon lesquels ça serait contraire, se trouvant en infraction flagrant des droits et de Dieu, et des pénitents qui voudraient sortir illico d'une situation de péché mortel, ne peut obliger à quoi que ce soit.
Ajoutez donc une loi précisant qu'une diagnose d'homosexualité n'exclut pas du mariage (avec une personne du sexe opposé, biensûr) et qu'une diagnose de transsexualité n'exclut pas du droit et du devoir de garder le sexe avec lequel on a été créé.
Plus sérieux: Jobbik est parfois décrit comme l'aile droite de Fidesz, et Jobbik est antitsigan. Mon conseil au Tsigans de Hongrie: a) demandez à György comment-s'appelle-t-il? de mettre en scène La Princesse de Czardas et d'autres pièces qui tendent à valoriser les Tsigans, ne fut-ce qu'à tître de colorit folklorique, b) fondez une partie, dont le programme serait autant pro-vie et pro-famille que Fidesz, mais qui compte des points supplémentaires pour la protection des Tsigans, notemment contre l'obligation scolaire, contre les ordonnances antimendicité et antispectacle, et contre les indignités faites en certains pays (ma pauvre Suède en a fait beaucoup entre 1935 et les années 70) dans le cadre des DDASS et de la psychiatrie contre les vagabonds. C'est un conseil, ils sont libres vis-à-vis moi, je ne leur ai pas à dire ce qu'ils doivent faire, je dis juste que s'ils font ça, ils font le juste.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux, Paris
28-I-2012
source des deux citations:
La Hongrie défie les critiques de sa nouvelle législation sur la famille
Par Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/french/9316/la-hongrie-d%C3%A9fie-les-critiques-de-sa-nouvelle-l%C3%A9gislation-sur-la-famille.html
Le groupe prétend que l'article définissant le mariage « pourrait ouvrir la voie à la mise en œuvre de législations interdisant explicitement le mariage homosexuel, ce qui est contraire aux standards internationaux et européens qui interdisent la discrimination… protégés par l'article 23 du PIDCP [Pacte international des droits civils et politiques]. »
Ce n'est pas contraire au standard divin ni au standard historique humain d'interdire aux paires d'un même sexe de se faire prendre pour couples mariés. Un traité qui érigérait des standards selon lesquels ça serait contraire, se trouvant en infraction flagrant des droits et de Dieu, et des pénitents qui voudraient sortir illico d'une situation de péché mortel, ne peut obliger à quoi que ce soit.
Human Rights Watch a aussi invoqué les traités de l'ONU protégeant les droits de l'homme dans une lettre demandant au président hongrois d' « amender la constitution pour assurer le respect des droits procréatifs des femmes ». Le Goliath des droits de l'homme a exprimé son inquiétude du fait que la clause de non-discrimination pour raison « de race, de couleur, de sexe, de langue, de religion, d'opinion politique ou de toute autre opinion, d'origine nationale ou sociale, de fortune, de naissance ou de toute autre situation » ne contient aucune référence à l'orientation sexuelle ou l'identité de genre, qui seraient pourtant, selon eux, protégées par le Pacte.
Ajoutez donc une loi précisant qu'une diagnose d'homosexualité n'exclut pas du mariage (avec une personne du sexe opposé, biensûr) et qu'une diagnose de transsexualité n'exclut pas du droit et du devoir de garder le sexe avec lequel on a été créé.
Plus sérieux: Jobbik est parfois décrit comme l'aile droite de Fidesz, et Jobbik est antitsigan. Mon conseil au Tsigans de Hongrie: a) demandez à György comment-s'appelle-t-il? de mettre en scène La Princesse de Czardas et d'autres pièces qui tendent à valoriser les Tsigans, ne fut-ce qu'à tître de colorit folklorique, b) fondez une partie, dont le programme serait autant pro-vie et pro-famille que Fidesz, mais qui compte des points supplémentaires pour la protection des Tsigans, notemment contre l'obligation scolaire, contre les ordonnances antimendicité et antispectacle, et contre les indignités faites en certains pays (ma pauvre Suède en a fait beaucoup entre 1935 et les années 70) dans le cadre des DDASS et de la psychiatrie contre les vagabonds. C'est un conseil, ils sont libres vis-à-vis moi, je ne leur ai pas à dire ce qu'ils doivent faire, je dis juste que s'ils font ça, ils font le juste.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux, Paris
28-I-2012
mardi 24 janvier 2012
Jonah and Mieszko
Καθολικός διάκονος : When we compare Jonah's mission with Jesus' mission we can see that Jesus did not have the kind of overwhelming response Jonah elicited.
Καθολικός διάκονος: Repent: Jonah & Jesus!
http://scottdodge.blogspot.com/2012/01/repent-jonah-jesus.html
A S R (our common friend) : You make Jonah seem like such a dark story, when it's probably the funniest one in the whole Bible!
o Καθολικός διάκονος : It is hilarious and Jonah is an utterly ridiculous figure. It's hard to find light even in a fictional character who is unhappy with a God who seeks to save even those whom we hate. I absolutely love the Veggie Tales Jonah movie because it shows how ridiculous Jonah is. I have shown it to adult groups. Plus, keeping it short today.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl (ego) : If Jonah is fictional, whence come the Jewry and later Christendom of Northern Iraq? Like: if Ruth is fictional, whence comes King David and how come God permitted St Matthew to say a lie in the genealogy?
o Καθολικός διάκονος : I think we can chalk it up to immigration, as with the ancient Jewish communities that were rather far flung throughout the ancient Near East, probably most specifically the Babylonian captivity.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Ah, but how come they remembered it otherwise, as beginning with the prophet Jonah? Are you doubting US began with Founding Fathers and Poland Lithuania with marriage of Hedwig and Jogailo too?*
Catholicus Diaconus seems here to have deleted a post which I give the answer to:
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Of course it remains the same. My problem is not with typology, but with not taking the story literally. Human fiction writers are able to make typology in made up characters, but God is able to make them in real persons.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : I'm not really sure where you are coming from with your questions (i.e., whether you are being serious or sarcastic). I think memories of the Babylonian captivity are well-documented in the Hebrew Scriptures. But if you are asking me whether I believe that Jonah is an historical account, my answer is simple, No. In fact, I think the truth of the book is lost by reading it in such a flat way. Either way, it is an inspired text, that is, scriptural.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl Check list:
Applicable to Jonah too, and I cannot see any flatness in believing both historic fact and typologic dimension. And anyone denying historicity of purported origin of a community, is worthy to be asked if he doubts US had a George Washington too. Just to make things very, very clear, about first post on your blog:
Καθολικός διάκονος: Science & Theology
http://scottdodge.blogspot.com/2005/08/science-theology.html
I do not agree with your naive belief in so called consensus, especially if it is modern, and neither did Sts Stephen and Isidore
o Καθολικός διάκονος : That is all fine and well, but let's stick with the text at hand and not multiply instances, thus complicating matters and being, if unintentionally, sophistic. It is not a question of Alexandria or Antioch, but a matter of dealing the text at hand and applying the appropriate exegesis. If you take the trouble to read my post you will see what I mean.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Well, appropriate exegesis is Hippo rather than Antioch or Alexandria. Speaking of typology, noticed St Paul in his story? Tarshish, unwilling witness, enemy of those he preaches to ... except there is a serialism in St Paul that differs in detail of course
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Feel free to believe in the historicity of the story of Jonah, many fine Christian people do. I won't get into name-calling and needlessly multiplying instances and confusing categories to make my point. My belief may be many things, but it is not naive. While my first post was a quite a few years ago now, I stand by it. There are certainly historical parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, which are to be treated and evaluated in a different way. Again, what I posted on Jonah does not preclude those, like you, who want to read it more literally.
o A S R : No, there wasn't. Neither were the writers of Jonah not aware they themselves were writing fiction.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : "My belief may be many things, but it is not naive." - Your belief in the Bible, like CSL's is not naive enough. Your belief in scholarly consensus is, until you prove it otherwise, too naive. So where is the tradition from these purported colleagues of Tolkien writing Farmer Giles? I see none, I see a tradition that it was regarded as historical.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Jonah is the Israelite who believes Israel's chosen-ness is something just for them, not a responsibility to make God known among the nations. Hence, he is ridiculous and foolish, but God will not be thwarted by the petty and small-minded.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I believe that too - and that he existed.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Anyway, a blessed Sunday to you both.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : You want to exonerate Israelites from producing him and his likes?
o Καθολικός διάκονος : At least those who did not view their chosen-ness in that narrow way, among whom one must number the author of this short text. Since I am not sure where this is headed, I will warn up-front that anything I even perceive as being anti-Semitic will be deleted.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : What if the author was Jonah - after a conversion similar to that of St Paul? Including of course two stages, the storm and whale's belly and the bush that went down under the hot sun. (wondering if this is going to be deleted)
o Καθολικός διάκονος : A conversion like that of St Paul would not have been possible for the author of Jonah because the Christ had not yet come, let alone been killed and resurrected. Who knows how the author of Jonah came to see the responsibility of chosen-ness? It just matters that he did and that he wrote about it in an inspired way, a way that is highly relevant for those who, by virtue of Jesus Christ, came share in the covenant.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I consider the recorded two step conversion of Jonah as a conversion like that of St Paul.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Except for the small matter, which is essential to the story, that Jonah is never converted.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : As far as I can see, he is at least converted when writing this autobiography. (third person does not rule out autobiography, so did Moses and Caesar) If not at heart, at least in words and deeds. Here is anyway ...
...Haydock:
http://kjbibleonline.com/jonah-4/
Afterthought: It seems possible that a diaspora could have takena fictional precursor, in the mere light of human evidence of this one matter. But the Ninevites converted under Jonah were not the first precursors, it seems, there was rather before them the Assyrian officer who was cured from leprosy by a bath in the Jordan. And that first recorded pious man in Nineve after Nimrod is too well attested to be dismissed as a mythicalised precursor of people who were really first, because his story is quite well known from Palestine./HGL
o *A S R : Poland actually began in 966 with the conversion of Mieszko. Or actually, that's a useful fiction, because there was no such thing as Poles until very late in the game.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : There was a Poland before Poles, just as their was a Francia before anyone spoke French - I have no trouble with Poland beginning with Mieszko. Saying there was no Poland before Poles is ethnocentric. There are instances of political unities harbouring more than one ethnicity or starting with only part of it.
o A S R : No, there were no Poles of whatever ethnicity before Poland.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I did not say there were Poles before Poland. I said there was a Poland, founded by Mieszko, before Poles were united as a nation. @A S R- Mieszko I of Poland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieszko_I_of_Poland:
Of course I do not agree about the theories ruling out he was blind.
Siemowit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemowit:
Piast - Siemowit - Lestek - Siemomysl - Mieszko - as far as I can tell they all existed.
Afterthought: Piast was of course contemporary of Popiel. And Popiel was eaten to death by persecuting mice. About as horrible as Jonah is funny (along with the Gepetto and Pinocchio story and the Sindbad story, which are obviously indebted to Jonah.) Logically, if you call Popiel mythical it is difficult to say Piast was historical. Ultimately people calling Popiel and Piast, Jonah and the Whale fictions, are people not believing either God or the devil capable of altering the zoologically recorded behaviour of animals./HGL
A S R (our common friend) : You make Jonah seem like such a dark story, when it's probably the funniest one in the whole Bible!
o Καθολικός διάκονος : It is hilarious and Jonah is an utterly ridiculous figure. It's hard to find light even in a fictional character who is unhappy with a God who seeks to save even those whom we hate. I absolutely love the Veggie Tales Jonah movie because it shows how ridiculous Jonah is. I have shown it to adult groups. Plus, keeping it short today.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl (ego) : If Jonah is fictional, whence come the Jewry and later Christendom of Northern Iraq? Like: if Ruth is fictional, whence comes King David and how come God permitted St Matthew to say a lie in the genealogy?
o Καθολικός διάκονος : I think we can chalk it up to immigration, as with the ancient Jewish communities that were rather far flung throughout the ancient Near East, probably most specifically the Babylonian captivity.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Ah, but how come they remembered it otherwise, as beginning with the prophet Jonah? Are you doubting US began with Founding Fathers and Poland Lithuania with marriage of Hedwig and Jogailo too?*
Catholicus Diaconus seems here to have deleted a post which I give the answer to:
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Of course it remains the same. My problem is not with typology, but with not taking the story literally. Human fiction writers are able to make typology in made up characters, but God is able to make them in real persons.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : I'm not really sure where you are coming from with your questions (i.e., whether you are being serious or sarcastic). I think memories of the Babylonian captivity are well-documented in the Hebrew Scriptures. But if you are asking me whether I believe that Jonah is an historical account, my answer is simple, No. In fact, I think the truth of the book is lost by reading it in such a flat way. Either way, it is an inspired text, that is, scriptural.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl Check list:
- Origen believes in typology but not reality of Flood/Arc of Noah
- Theodorus of Mopsuestia believes in historic reality of Flood/Arc of Noah, but not typology
- Saint Augustine states one must believe in both.
Applicable to Jonah too, and I cannot see any flatness in believing both historic fact and typologic dimension. And anyone denying historicity of purported origin of a community, is worthy to be asked if he doubts US had a George Washington too. Just to make things very, very clear, about first post on your blog:
I do not agree with your naive belief in so called consensus, especially if it is modern, and neither did Sts Stephen and Isidore
o Καθολικός διάκονος : That is all fine and well, but let's stick with the text at hand and not multiply instances, thus complicating matters and being, if unintentionally, sophistic. It is not a question of Alexandria or Antioch, but a matter of dealing the text at hand and applying the appropriate exegesis. If you take the trouble to read my post you will see what I mean.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Well, appropriate exegesis is Hippo rather than Antioch or Alexandria. Speaking of typology, noticed St Paul in his story? Tarshish, unwilling witness, enemy of those he preaches to ... except there is a serialism in St Paul that differs in detail of course
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Feel free to believe in the historicity of the story of Jonah, many fine Christian people do. I won't get into name-calling and needlessly multiplying instances and confusing categories to make my point. My belief may be many things, but it is not naive. While my first post was a quite a few years ago now, I stand by it. There are certainly historical parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, which are to be treated and evaluated in a different way. Again, what I posted on Jonah does not preclude those, like you, who want to read it more literally.
o A S R : No, there wasn't. Neither were the writers of Jonah not aware they themselves were writing fiction.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : "My belief may be many things, but it is not naive." - Your belief in the Bible, like CSL's is not naive enough. Your belief in scholarly consensus is, until you prove it otherwise, too naive. So where is the tradition from these purported colleagues of Tolkien writing Farmer Giles? I see none, I see a tradition that it was regarded as historical.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Jonah is the Israelite who believes Israel's chosen-ness is something just for them, not a responsibility to make God known among the nations. Hence, he is ridiculous and foolish, but God will not be thwarted by the petty and small-minded.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I believe that too - and that he existed.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Anyway, a blessed Sunday to you both.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : You want to exonerate Israelites from producing him and his likes?
o Καθολικός διάκονος : At least those who did not view their chosen-ness in that narrow way, among whom one must number the author of this short text. Since I am not sure where this is headed, I will warn up-front that anything I even perceive as being anti-Semitic will be deleted.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : What if the author was Jonah - after a conversion similar to that of St Paul? Including of course two stages, the storm and whale's belly and the bush that went down under the hot sun. (wondering if this is going to be deleted)
o Καθολικός διάκονος : A conversion like that of St Paul would not have been possible for the author of Jonah because the Christ had not yet come, let alone been killed and resurrected. Who knows how the author of Jonah came to see the responsibility of chosen-ness? It just matters that he did and that he wrote about it in an inspired way, a way that is highly relevant for those who, by virtue of Jesus Christ, came share in the covenant.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I consider the recorded two step conversion of Jonah as a conversion like that of St Paul.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Except for the small matter, which is essential to the story, that Jonah is never converted.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : As far as I can see, he is at least converted when writing this autobiography. (third person does not rule out autobiography, so did Moses and Caesar) If not at heart, at least in words and deeds. Here is anyway ...
Afterthought: It seems possible that a diaspora could have takena fictional precursor, in the mere light of human evidence of this one matter. But the Ninevites converted under Jonah were not the first precursors, it seems, there was rather before them the Assyrian officer who was cured from leprosy by a bath in the Jordan. And that first recorded pious man in Nineve after Nimrod is too well attested to be dismissed as a mythicalised precursor of people who were really first, because his story is quite well known from Palestine./HGL
o *A S R : Poland actually began in 966 with the conversion of Mieszko. Or actually, that's a useful fiction, because there was no such thing as Poles until very late in the game.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : There was a Poland before Poles, just as their was a Francia before anyone spoke French - I have no trouble with Poland beginning with Mieszko. Saying there was no Poland before Poles is ethnocentric. There are instances of political unities harbouring more than one ethnicity or starting with only part of it.
o A S R : No, there were no Poles of whatever ethnicity before Poland.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I did not say there were Poles before Poland. I said there was a Poland, founded by Mieszko, before Poles were united as a nation. @A S R
Mieszko I (ca. 930 – 25 May 992),[2] was a Duke of the Polans[3] from about 960 until his death. A member of the Piast dynasty, he was son of Siemomysł; grandchild of Lestek; father of Bolesław I the Brave, the first crowned King of Poland; likely father of Świętosława (Sigrid), a Nordic Queen; and ....
Of course I do not agree about the theories ruling out he was blind.
Siemowit (also Ziemowit) was, according to the chronicles of Gallus Anonymus, the son of Piast the Wheelwright and Rzepicha. He was considered one of the four legendary Piast princes, but is now considered as a ruler who existed as a historical person.[1]
Piast - Siemowit - Lestek - Siemomysl - Mieszko - as far as I can tell they all existed.
Afterthought: Piast was of course contemporary of Popiel. And Popiel was eaten to death by persecuting mice. About as horrible as Jonah is funny (along with the Gepetto and Pinocchio story and the Sindbad story, which are obviously indebted to Jonah.) Logically, if you call Popiel mythical it is difficult to say Piast was historical. Ultimately people calling Popiel and Piast, Jonah and the Whale fictions, are people not believing either God or the devil capable of altering the zoologically recorded behaviour of animals./HGL
lundi 16 janvier 2012
Pecia system, history and using my blogs in analogous manner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript_culture#Pecia_system :
Via wiki from: - note [5] -Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. Manuscripts and Their Makers : Commercial Book Producers in Medieval Paris, 1200-1500. 2 vols, Illiterati Et Uxorati. Turnhout, Belgium: Harvey Miller, 2000. p.85.
What was it anyway?
A stationer divided his books into pecie. Each pecia was rented out and copied. Then returned and rented out and copied by the next one on the list. And so on till every copier had made a full copy of the book in question. Does this mean that the books were copied faster? Not for each one copying - except insofar as a certain sloppiness may have been subtly encouraged - but their work was more simultaneous, hence more compressed in time in relation to the exemplar. So, whatever work it was could get copied in many copies at once, from just one exemplar.
Say that one work like a Bible book takes twelve hours of work to copy. One copier would need it twelve hours and intersperse it with other hours of rest or prayer and so on. He would take, say:
Wow!
BUT, divide text into pecie of 12, and twelve scribes can be working on it in parallel - twelve copies in same time. And of course, that could not happen till after book production became commercial, right? Of course, by then a man would hire the pecia for a day, make two or three copies, or four if he was quick, next pecia next day, same number of copies:
... which multiplied by two weeks means that in two weeks twelve men had made 36 copies if they average on 3 copies per day and pecia. And the monks were of course too stupid to do that? That is of course why monks' Bibles cost a fortune and nearly nobody could afford them?
Not quite. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. The pecia system started in Italian University cities c. 1200 and came to Paris by 1250. And before 1200? Do we have studies proving the monks did not use a similar system to make cheaper copies? No. Pecie are known to modern academics since: L. Destrez, La Pecia dans les manuscrits universitaires du XIIIe et du XIVe siècle, Paris, J. Vautrain, 1935 But the proofs imply not just this production as such but also the commercial relation between stationer owning exemplar and students serving as book copiers. Each pecia had a pecia mark. The student had a signature, a pecia number was added, with attestation of correction. Just as colophons on whole books, pecia marks on each pecia of a book served to register the fact it had been corrected - but pecia numbers were also a way of tracing copies to copiers - and making sure they had not overcopied for gain. Stationer records "five pecie for p" and if after that an example is found with the sixth pecia or two different with the 3d pecia for p, maybe p was not trusted next time? And that system, which to us proves the actual use of pecie is of course absent from monastic work. For the simple reason that monks do not have individual gain, excepting the possibility to be a little lazy now and then. An individual monk could sell nothing to noone.
So, above scheme for book copying in a monastery might have been varied if there were six or twelve monks in the scriptorium. If each put the pecia copies on his table, pecie might have been exchanged between them - and we cannot know for certain, since only after the pecie are put together do the monks add a colophon to the book.
Of course, we do have one kind of semi-indication that pecie were not used: chapters use Anfangs that start after end of previous chapter, middle of a page. Would not an organisation in pecia stop such a method? Not quite. Say an Anfang was written as starting the word on a line middle of the page, first the letter for the Anfang was written as a small letter, and only later expanded to a large capital letter. And Anfangs fit neatly under last lines of previous writing. Pecie? Yes, there could be nifty ways of getting the pecie to fit into the space allotted precisely by these Anfangs. Vary line numbers for diverse sections, and you vary the place for the next Anfang. A last pecia could start middle of first page with the small letter for adding the Anfang, then be written as a whole until finished, then add previous pecia with last lines going on to the last one, and then writen Anfang on last one. And so on. Even so, the colophon would not be written until all of the pecie were assembled in a book, if written in a monastery.
So, actually, I think varying prices for vellum had more to do with cheapness of cheapest copies available than pecia system being only invented before 1200 in Italy. But I may be wrong. My take is: an old manuscript in a monastery falling apart and monks wanting a better reuse of it than just - sorry to say this - toilet paper. The falling apart of folia or duplos or quartos making up a volume would be a handy way to start new copies being made from it. At the same time, this procedure would, if starting with pecie from oldest manuscript in monastery, have guaranteed copies from as old a text as possible. It would have made sense, even if not the particular kind of commercial sense envisaged by the stationers and the students. That is my only argument so far for saying this happened. Plus one more: stationers and students might be too hurried to invent such a thing themselves without the aid of calmer monks.
Unless, of course, the pecia system was in use among the slaves of a bibliopola under antiquity: in that case it might simply be inherited. Except that papyrus rolls were less easy to divide in pecia, perhaps?
There is another argument against monks having used the pecia system: the high value of known copies, like the book of Kells. So? They were free to vary their procedure as they thought fit, as long as they delivered a product of the desired quality!
So far my historic argument. Now for the proposition I am making. I actually am not just writing my blogs as blogs for free as simple as that, but that too. I am giving them a double function. My authorisation at:
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/de-retour.html#furtherusenote
... means that beside the normal function, there is also the function of your online page being offered as pecia for your small scale commercial printing. Printing, not handcopying, unless you realy want to do that for fun. If you are very poor, just take it. If you are a little better off or manage to become so by my offer, do use the account on the link "donativo" for remunerating me. Oh, big publishers are also entitled to the offer, in their case I count on them giving about royalty. Only it would have been complicated to state that as a separate condition. So, I trust, first to God, next to your generosity, honesty and plain sense of fair play and fun.*
That it is technically possible can be seen by my examples.**
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Duras, Paris
13 Jan, Octave of Epiphany, 2012
*I am basically repeating this offer:
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/09/be-my-unwin-or-hooper-if-you-like.html
** http://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/il-aurait-du-rester-peintre-1-8/
- I handwrote, so that I could prove I was writing these things. First essay contrasts behaviour of Hitler and Chesterton after being no longer painters. If Hitler was the better painter of them, in a technical sense at least, Chesterton was clearly the better no-longer-a-painter of these.
The pecia system was developed in Italian university cities by the beginning of the thirteenth century and became a regulated procedure at the University of Paris in the second half of the century.[5]
Via wiki from: - note [5] -Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. Manuscripts and Their Makers : Commercial Book Producers in Medieval Paris, 1200-1500. 2 vols, Illiterati Et Uxorati. Turnhout, Belgium: Harvey Miller, 2000. p.85.
What was it anyway?
A stationer divided his books into pecie. Each pecia was rented out and copied. Then returned and rented out and copied by the next one on the list. And so on till every copier had made a full copy of the book in question. Does this mean that the books were copied faster? Not for each one copying - except insofar as a certain sloppiness may have been subtly encouraged - but their work was more simultaneous, hence more compressed in time in relation to the exemplar. So, whatever work it was could get copied in many copies at once, from just one exemplar.
Say that one work like a Bible book takes twelve hours of work to copy. One copier would need it twelve hours and intersperse it with other hours of rest or prayer and so on. He would take, say:
| - Monday: Assignment after hora nona, 15:15, start real work after 30 minutes preparation at 15:45, write on to 18:00 call for Vespers. 2:15 of 12, 9:45 to go. Hold it! He had to take a pause for praying the Rosary during 15 minutes, because he was getting stiff: only 2 of 12, 10 to go. | |
| - Starting Tuesday:
- Vesper, Meal time, Compline, Sleep, Matins, Lectio Divina, Lauds, Prime at 7 - 7:20. - 3/4 of an hour's work 7:25 to 8:10, prepare for Low Mass. 9:15 to go. - Low Mass with Communion 8:15 - 8:45, no time for work but for a Rosary before Tierce at 9:00-9:15, High Mass 9:15 - 10. - Return to work after a graciously permitted snack at 10 to work at 10:10, stays at work to 11:55. 1:45 less, from 9:15, leaves 7:30 to go. - Sexta hora at 12, lunch at 12:15-13:00. Repose 13:00-14:55. - 15, hora nona. - 15:15 there is no need to prepare, so work proceeds directly, 15:15 - 18 = 2:45, but this time two pauses for Rosary, leaves 2:15 effective work. 5:15 to go. | - Starting Wednesday:
- Vesper, Meal time, Compline, Sleep, Matins, Lectio Divina, Lauds, Prime at 7 - 7:20. - It might have been breakfast if he was not on daily communion. But not on a Wednesday, a fast day. However, that leaves him extra time for spiritual reading up to Low Mass, since work schedual is lower. - Low Mass (with Communion?) 8:15 - 8:45, no time for work but for a Rosary before Tierce at 9:00-9:15, High Mass 9:15 - 10. - No snack, directly to work at 10:05. Up to 11:55 leaves 1:50, but counts as a slow version of 1:30, since he is fasting. 3:45 to go. - 12:00 Sext up to 12:15. - Back to work 12:20, no lunch yet! 12:20 - 14:55 = 2:35, minus a Rosary Break, 2:20, counts as slow version of 2. 1:45 to go. - 15:00 - 15:15, Nona Hora. - 15:20, lighter lunch up to 15:40. - 15:45 - 18 - finishes book! Triumphant Colophon written on last page! No, not quite. |
| Only then can book be handed to next scribe, but that cannot happen until after
- Starting Thursday: - Vesper, Meal time, Compline, Sleep, Matins, Lectio Divina, Lauds, Prime at 7 - 7:20. - Correction time! I will not calculate that one. - Only then can colophon be written and only then can the book be handed on to next scribe. | |
Wow!
BUT, divide text into pecie of 12, and twelve scribes can be working on it in parallel - twelve copies in same time. And of course, that could not happen till after book production became commercial, right? Of course, by then a man would hire the pecia for a day, make two or three copies, or four if he was quick, next pecia next day, same number of copies:
monday - tuesday, tuesday - wednesday, wednesday - thursday thursday - friday, friday - saturday, saturday - monday (no work on sunday)
... which multiplied by two weeks means that in two weeks twelve men had made 36 copies if they average on 3 copies per day and pecia. And the monks were of course too stupid to do that? That is of course why monks' Bibles cost a fortune and nearly nobody could afford them?
Not quite. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. The pecia system started in Italian University cities c. 1200 and came to Paris by 1250. And before 1200? Do we have studies proving the monks did not use a similar system to make cheaper copies? No. Pecie are known to modern academics since: L. Destrez, La Pecia dans les manuscrits universitaires du XIIIe et du XIVe siècle, Paris, J. Vautrain, 1935 But the proofs imply not just this production as such but also the commercial relation between stationer owning exemplar and students serving as book copiers. Each pecia had a pecia mark. The student had a signature, a pecia number was added, with attestation of correction. Just as colophons on whole books, pecia marks on each pecia of a book served to register the fact it had been corrected - but pecia numbers were also a way of tracing copies to copiers - and making sure they had not overcopied for gain. Stationer records "five pecie for p" and if after that an example is found with the sixth pecia or two different with the 3d pecia for p, maybe p was not trusted next time? And that system, which to us proves the actual use of pecie is of course absent from monastic work. For the simple reason that monks do not have individual gain, excepting the possibility to be a little lazy now and then. An individual monk could sell nothing to noone.
So, above scheme for book copying in a monastery might have been varied if there were six or twelve monks in the scriptorium. If each put the pecia copies on his table, pecie might have been exchanged between them - and we cannot know for certain, since only after the pecie are put together do the monks add a colophon to the book.
Of course, we do have one kind of semi-indication that pecie were not used: chapters use Anfangs that start after end of previous chapter, middle of a page. Would not an organisation in pecia stop such a method? Not quite. Say an Anfang was written as starting the word on a line middle of the page, first the letter for the Anfang was written as a small letter, and only later expanded to a large capital letter. And Anfangs fit neatly under last lines of previous writing. Pecie? Yes, there could be nifty ways of getting the pecie to fit into the space allotted precisely by these Anfangs. Vary line numbers for diverse sections, and you vary the place for the next Anfang. A last pecia could start middle of first page with the small letter for adding the Anfang, then be written as a whole until finished, then add previous pecia with last lines going on to the last one, and then writen Anfang on last one. And so on. Even so, the colophon would not be written until all of the pecie were assembled in a book, if written in a monastery.
So, actually, I think varying prices for vellum had more to do with cheapness of cheapest copies available than pecia system being only invented before 1200 in Italy. But I may be wrong. My take is: an old manuscript in a monastery falling apart and monks wanting a better reuse of it than just - sorry to say this - toilet paper. The falling apart of folia or duplos or quartos making up a volume would be a handy way to start new copies being made from it. At the same time, this procedure would, if starting with pecie from oldest manuscript in monastery, have guaranteed copies from as old a text as possible. It would have made sense, even if not the particular kind of commercial sense envisaged by the stationers and the students. That is my only argument so far for saying this happened. Plus one more: stationers and students might be too hurried to invent such a thing themselves without the aid of calmer monks.
Unless, of course, the pecia system was in use among the slaves of a bibliopola under antiquity: in that case it might simply be inherited. Except that papyrus rolls were less easy to divide in pecia, perhaps?
There is another argument against monks having used the pecia system: the high value of known copies, like the book of Kells. So? They were free to vary their procedure as they thought fit, as long as they delivered a product of the desired quality!
So far my historic argument. Now for the proposition I am making. I actually am not just writing my blogs as blogs for free as simple as that, but that too. I am giving them a double function. My authorisation at:
That it is technically possible can be seen by my examples.**
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Duras, Paris
13 Jan, Octave of Epiphany, 2012
*I am basically repeating this offer:
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/09/be-my-unwin-or-hooper-if-you-like.html
** http://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/il-aurait-du-rester-peintre-1-8/
- I handwrote, so that I could prove I was writing these things. First essay contrasts behaviour of Hitler and Chesterton after being no longer painters. If Hitler was the better painter of them, in a technical sense at least, Chesterton was clearly the better no-longer-a-painter of these.
lundi 9 janvier 2012
On St Maria Goretti and Alessandro Serenelli
Link:
The Catholic Defender: St. Maria Goretti
My comment (whether it be published or not):
Have you noted that even St Maria G. and her woer Alessandro S. lived under an attack on family?
She was a bit less than 12. Under Papal State administration - which ended 1870 - they could have married a few months later.
Under the new rules of "Kingdom" of Italy ("King" excommunicated and voting in Italy was at the time a mortal sin), the only way she could get out of waiting six years, till she was 18, was getting pregnant. That was basically what Alessandro proposed and she rejected.
If you do not believe me, check a historian you do believe for my facts.
The Catholic Defender: St. Maria Goretti
My comment (whether it be published or not):
Have you noted that even St Maria G. and her woer Alessandro S. lived under an attack on family?
She was a bit less than 12. Under Papal State administration - which ended 1870 - they could have married a few months later.
Under the new rules of "Kingdom" of Italy ("King" excommunicated and voting in Italy was at the time a mortal sin), the only way she could get out of waiting six years, till she was 18, was getting pregnant. That was basically what Alessandro proposed and she rejected.
If you do not believe me, check a historian you do believe for my facts.
mercredi 30 novembre 2011
More on obedience - and its limits (debate)
Between myself and one FSSPX faithful. His screen name is anonymous. It is about the matter already alluded to in comments section of previous post.And he is one of the two faithful I answered in it. His attitude was such that I found it indicated to ask him about a French connexion of his, named as on FB in our correspondence, but here referred to as NN:
If NN is in St Nicolas du Chardonnet (I seem to recognise the face), you may ask her for confirmation about what the priests there say about me and about my blogs.
"obey them in all that is not sinful" - should be taken as:
see thereon Summa Theologica, II-II, whatever the Question is that is about Obedience [I found it and added:]
http://newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5*
=============================
(a parallel is adduced for illustration in beginning of corpus, read it if you like):
=============================
Now, will or won't you ask her? I am not ordering it as your superior, for if so, I would have nothing to back that up with, I am just asking it, as a personal favour from you to someone who feels wronged and may be so. Not that all charity is absent in every respect - indeed I was given a larger sum of money today - but that does not make the kind of backbiting I suspect any less wrong if it occurs. And if not, I find it a bit funny no one has been printing my blogs and paying me a voluntary sum for it.
I do want to hear, from other parishioners, via you, if these priests have been holy or if they have been slandering me and my blogs.
So, do ask her.
Thank you very much. Then it is up to God who is proud in St Nicolas du Chardonnet, if anyone is ... I still want to know if your friend is a parishioner there and what has been being said about me, if that is the case. That I am proud, perhaps?
Wonderful. A beautiful story. But what I ask of St Nicolas du Chardonnet is not praise, it is cooperation with my project for my life and - in case of my blogs - livelihood. When young Marcel Lefèbvre met a watchmaker out of work, he did not tell the watchmaker "you are proud if you want to remain a watchmaker, why don't you offer your services to Swatch, they might have a cleaning job and if you do it well they might even let you advance to something related to watchmaking" - instead, he made sure that people of Tourcoing who needed watches repaired got his adress so he got his livelihood made through mending and maybe amking watches on his own again. Now, when it comes to this writer - yes WRITER - up to yesterday I have not been very much encouraged to find readers. And for this composer I have not had my pieces played. And for this prospective family man, girls who might have been in love with me and whom I was in love with have been turned away from meeting me, one after another. That is not warning a man against pride, it is ruining a man by pride.
Oh, one more thing: my writing IS not an apostolate. It INCLUDES Apologetics. As did CSL's, as did Chesterton's. It includes phlilogy, as did CSL's, it includes citizenship in face of tyrannous abuses of public power, as did Chesterton's. I am more than fed up with being measured in this respect by standards of pure spirituality, as if I had renounced all earthly things and had no earthly or rational motive for what I am doing.
And if they happen to think my Apologetics bad, I can see why they would not want to help me get that printed, but hardly why they would also want to stop me from getting my guitar sonatas (really guitar sonatinas, but "sonatina" is not Latin) played for money!
Or my string Quartet. Or my poems printed. Or ... do you get the point?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mansionibus
St Andrew's Day of
the Y o o L 2011
*SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Obedience (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 104) is being quoted, not my correspondent, between the lines of = signs.
If NN is in St Nicolas du Chardonnet (I seem to recognise the face), you may ask her for confirmation about what the priests there say about me and about my blogs.
Taken from the Catechism of St. Pius X:1 Q: What does the Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother, command?
A: The Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother, commands us to respect our parents, obey them in all that is not sinful, and assist them in their temporal and spiritual needs.
2 Q: What does the Fourth Commandment forbid?
A: The Fourth Commandment forbids us to offend our parents by word or by deed or in any other way.
3 Q: What other persons does this Commandment include under the names of father and mother?
A: Under the names of father and mother this Commandment also includes all our superiors, both ecclesiastical and lay, whom we must consequently obey and respect. Pax Christi Regis.
"obey them in all that is not sinful" - should be taken as:
- all that is neither
sinful for oneself to do - nor
sinful for them to ask
see thereon Summa Theologica, II-II, whatever the Question is that is about Obedience [I found it and added:]
http://newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5*
=============================
(a parallel is adduced for illustration in beginning of corpus, read it if you like):
On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, "They that resist [Vulgate: 'He that resisteth'] the power, resist the ordinance of God" (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God." Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): "It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted." His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.
=============================
Now, will or won't you ask her? I am not ordering it as your superior, for if so, I would have nothing to back that up with, I am just asking it, as a personal favour from you to someone who feels wronged and may be so. Not that all charity is absent in every respect - indeed I was given a larger sum of money today - but that does not make the kind of backbiting I suspect any less wrong if it occurs. And if not, I find it a bit funny no one has been printing my blogs and paying me a voluntary sum for it.
I do not want to hear any slanderous talk against holy priests.
I do want to hear, from other parishioners, via you, if these priests have been holy or if they have been slandering me and my blogs.
So, do ask her.
Pride is a denial of God, an invention of the devil, contempt for men. It is the mother of condemnation, the offspring of praise, a sign of barrenness. It is a flight from God's help, the precursor of madness, the cause of downfall. It is the cause of satanic possession, the source of anger, the gateway of hypocrisy. It is the fortress of demons, the guardian of sins, the source of hardheartedness. It is the denial of compassion, a bitter Pharisee, a cruel judge. It is the foe of God. It is the root of blasphemy. Pax Christi Regis.
Thank you very much. Then it is up to God who is proud in St Nicolas du Chardonnet, if anyone is ... I still want to know if your friend is a parishioner there and what has been being said about me, if that is the case. That I am proud, perhaps?
Demons once heaped praise on one of the most discerning of the brothers. They even appeared to him in visible form. But this very wise man spoke to them as follows, "If you cease to praise me by way of the thoughts of my heart, I shall consider myself to be great and outstanding because of the fact that you have left me. But if you continue to praise me, I must deduce from such praise that I am very impure indeed, since every proudhearted man is unclean before the Lord (cf. Prov. 16:5). So leave me, and I shall become great, or else praise me, and with your help I shall earn more humility." Struck by this dilemma, they vanished. Pax Christi Regis.
Wonderful. A beautiful story. But what I ask of St Nicolas du Chardonnet is not praise, it is cooperation with my project for my life and - in case of my blogs - livelihood. When young Marcel Lefèbvre met a watchmaker out of work, he did not tell the watchmaker "you are proud if you want to remain a watchmaker, why don't you offer your services to Swatch, they might have a cleaning job and if you do it well they might even let you advance to something related to watchmaking" - instead, he made sure that people of Tourcoing who needed watches repaired got his adress so he got his livelihood made through mending and maybe amking watches on his own again. Now, when it comes to this writer - yes WRITER - up to yesterday I have not been very much encouraged to find readers. And for this composer I have not had my pieces played. And for this prospective family man, girls who might have been in love with me and whom I was in love with have been turned away from meeting me, one after another. That is not warning a man against pride, it is ruining a man by pride.
Oh, one more thing: my writing IS not an apostolate. It INCLUDES Apologetics. As did CSL's, as did Chesterton's. It includes phlilogy, as did CSL's, it includes citizenship in face of tyrannous abuses of public power, as did Chesterton's. I am more than fed up with being measured in this respect by standards of pure spirituality, as if I had renounced all earthly things and had no earthly or rational motive for what I am doing.
And if they happen to think my Apologetics bad, I can see why they would not want to help me get that printed, but hardly why they would also want to stop me from getting my guitar sonatas (really guitar sonatinas, but "sonatina" is not Latin) played for money!
Or my string Quartet. Or my poems printed. Or ... do you get the point?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mansionibus
St Andrew's Day of
the Y o o L 2011
*SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Obedience (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 104) is being quoted, not my correspondent, between the lines of = signs.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
