Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Note on African Linguistics


On September 8, 1897, Mary Theresa and her first companion professed their final vows as Missionary Sisters of St. Peter Claver.

For the next twenty-five years, the Foundress roamed Europe, enlisting people of all walks of life to help her congregation’s support for evangelization in Africa. Realizing that the missionaries were in urgent need of books in local languages, she expanded her work, producing everything from Bibles and hymnals to dictionaries in local languages.


Missionary Sisters of St Peter Claver of North America
Foundress
Blessed Mary Theresa Ledóchowska


1897 + 25 = 1922.

This means a great deal of African dictionaries were being produced 1897 to 1922./HGL

Story of a Cardinal's Title with Pre-Industrial Demographics


1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35" ; 2) What others have to say about Life Expectancy through history - and my take on that ; 3) Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort ; 4) Tudor Times Demographical Stats ; 5) How Many Hours are we Talking About, and How Heavy? ; 6) New blog on the kid : When "Answers" Paint Middle Ages Black ; 7) Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Provided some Lifespans of the Past ; 8)Other list from CMI of lifespans ; 9) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Medieval and Early Modern Lifespans, Again: Berkeleys and Related ; 10) Story of a Cardinal's Title with Pre-Industrial Demographics

The Church of S. Agnese fuori le mura (a catacomb, later basilica) was established as a titular church for a Cardinal Priest on 5 October 1654 by Pope Innocent X

I have reasoned that the archaeological discovery of house chaplains, 1:st C and 2:nd C AD, far from proving Rome had no monarchic bishop, in fact instead prove house chaplains and cardinals have an old tradition from earliest Christian times.

Here, I am not a Calvinist:
Great Bishop of Geneva! : Defense of Christ's institution of Hierarchy and Petrine Office, and of St Peter's successors being in Rome
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2016/04/defense-of-christs-institution-of.html


I will be citing Italian wiki for why they left the post and when they lived, also when the title was vacant.

  • Baccio Aldobrandini[2] (5 October 1654 – 1 April 1658) Baccio Aldobrandini (Firenze, 20 agosto 1613 – Roma, 21 gennaio 1665, nella basilica Sant'Agnese 5 ottobre 1654 - 1º aprile 1658 nominato cardinale presbitero dei Santi Nereo e Achilleo.
  • Girolamo Farnese (6 May 1658 – 18 February 1668) Girolamo Farnese (6 maggio 1658 - 18 febbraio 1668 deceduto), Girolamo Farnese (Latera, 30 settembre 1599 – Roma, 18 febbraio 1668) è stato un cardinale italiano, duca di Latera.
  • Vitaliano Visconti (18 March 1669 – 7 October 1671) Vitaliano Visconti (18 marzo 1669 - 7 settembre 1671 deceduto), Vitaliano Visconti (Milano, 1618 – Monreale, 7 settembre 1671) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico italiano.
  • Vacante (1671 - 1672)
  • Federico Borromeo (8 August 1672 – 18 February 1673), Federico IV Borromeo (8 agosto 1672 - 18 febbraio 1673 deceduto), Federico Borromeo (Milano, 29 maggio 1617 – Roma, 18 febbraio 1673) è stato un cardinale italiano. Federico Borromeo (indicato anche con il numero progressivo di Federico IV Borromeo come conte d'Arona) ...
  • Vacante (1673 - 1690)
  • Toussaint de Forbin-Janson (10 July 1690 – 28 September 1693), Toussaint de Forbin-Janson (10 luglio 1690 - 28 settembre 1693 nominato cardinale presbitero di San Callisto), Toussaint de Forbin-Janson (Mane, 1º ottobre 1630 – Parigi, 24 marzo 1713) è stato un cardinale e vescovo cattolico francese.
  • Giambattista Spinola (20 February 1696 – 7 April 1698), Giambattista Spinola (20 febbraio 1696 - 7 aprile 1698 nominato cardinale presbitero di Santa Maria in Trastevere), Giambattista Spinola detto il Vecchio (Madrid, 20 settembre 1615 – Roma, 4 gennaio 1704) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico italiano.
  • Vacante (1698 - 1706)
  • Rannuzio Pallavicino (25 June 1706 – 30 June 1712), Rannuzio Pallavicino (25 giugno 1706 - 30 giugno 1712 deceduto),

    Appassionato di scrittura, pubblicò diverse opere, sotto lo pseudonimo di Asterio Sireo; si possono citare: L'intreccio di gigli e perle (1660), un'antologia di poesia, La Scalza di Avila (1661), una biografia di Santa Teresa, Ho Trionfi dell'Architettura (1667), che descrive il palazzo del principe elettore di Baviera, Atalanta (1667), una tragedia ed infine Ritratto di una gran Principessa (Monaco, Luca Straub, 1668), una raccolta di odi dedicate ad Enrichetta Adelaide di Savoia.

  • Vacante (1712 - 1721)
  • Giorgio Spínola (20 January 1721 – 15 December 1734), Giorgio Spinola (20 gennaio 1721 - 15 dicembre 1734 nominato cardinale presbitero di Santa Maria in Trastevere), Giorgio Spinola (Genova, 6 giugno 1667 – Roma, 17 gennaio 1739) è stato un cardinale italiano della Chiesa cattolica.
  • Serafino Cenci (27 June 1735 – 24 June 1740), Serafino Cenci (27 giugno 1735 - 24 giugno 1740 deceduto), Serafino Cenci (Roma, 20 maggio 1676 – Roma, 24 giugno 1740) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico italiano.
  • Filippo Maria De Monti (23 September 1743 – 10 April 1747), Filippo Maria de Monti (23 settembre 1743 - 10 aprile 1747 nominato cardinale presbitero di Santo Stefano al Monte Celio), Filippo Maria de Monti (Bologna, 23 marzo 1675 – Roma, 17 gennaio 1754) è stato un cardinale italiano.

    Il cardinale de Monti è stato Segretario di Propaganda Fide.

    Here some words on that one:

    Founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV's bull Inscrutabili Divinae, the body was charged with fostering the spread of Catholicism and with the regulation of Catholic ecclesiastical affairs in non-Catholic countries. The intrinsic importance of its duties and the extraordinary extent of its authority and of the territory under its jurisdiction caused the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda to be known as the "red pope".

    At the time of its inception, the expansion of colonial administrations was coming to be largely in Dutch and English hands, both Protestant countries intent on spreading these religious doctrines, and Rome perceived the very real threat of Protestantism spreading in the wake of commercial empire. By 1648, with the end of the Thirty Years' War, the official religious balance of established Christianity in Europe was permanently stabilized, but new fields for evangelization were offered by vast regions of Asia, Africa and the Americas then being explored.

    There had already been a less formally instituted cardinal committee concerned with propaganda fide since the time of Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585), who were especially charged with promoting the union with Rome of the long-established eastern Christian communities: Slavs, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, and Abyssinians. This was the traditional direction for the Catholic Church to look for evangelizing. Catechisms were printed in many languages and seminarians sent to places as far as Malabar. The most concrete result was the union with Rome of the Ruthenian Catholic communion, most concentrated in modern-day Ukraine and Belarus; the union was formalized at Brest in 1596.

    The death of Gregory XV the following year did not interrupt the organization, because Cardinal Barberini, one of the original thirteen members of the congregation, became the next pope as Urban VIII (1623–1644). Under Urban VIII, a central seminary (the Collegium Urbanum) was set up for training missionaries. The Congregation also operated the polyglot printing press in Rome, printing catechisms in many languages. Their procurators were especially active in China from 1705, moving between Macau and Canton before finally settling in Hong Kong in 1842.

    In strongly Protestant areas, the operations of the Congregation were considered subversive: the first missionary to be killed was in Grisons, Switzerland, in April 1622, before the papal bull authorizing its creation had been disseminated. In Ireland after Catholic emancipation (1829), while the established church was still the Protestant Church of Ireland, the Irish Catholic church came under the control of the Congregation in 1833, and soon reformed itself with a devotional revolution under Cardinal Cullen.

    These "Cardinals in General Congregation" met weekly, keeping their records in Latin until 1657, then in Italian. The minutes are available in microfilm (filling 84 reels) at large libraries. In the course of their work, the Propaganda fide missionaries accumulated the objects now in the Vatican Museum's Ethnological Missionary Museum.

    Since 1989 the incumbent Prefect is also President of the Interdicasterial Commission for Consecrated Religious.

    In 2014 Sr. Luzia Premoli, superior general of the Combonian Missionary Sisters, was appointed a member of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, thus becoming the first woman to be appointed a member of a Roman curial congregation.

  • Frédéric Jérôme de La Rochefoucauld (15 May 1747 – 29 April 1757), Frédéric-Jérôme de La Rochefoucauld (15 maggio 1747 - 29 aprile 1757 deceduto), Frédéric-Jérôme de La Rochefoucauld de Roye (Versailles, 16 luglio 1701 – Parigi, 29 aprile 1757) è stato un cardinale, arcivescovo cattolico e abate francese, creato cardinale da papa Benedetto XIV.
  • Etienne-René Potier de Gesvres (2 August 1758 – 24 July 1774), Etienne-René Potier de Gesvres (2 agosto 1758 - 24 luglio 1774 deceduto), Étienne-René Potier de Gesvres (Parigi, 2 gennaio 1697 – Parigi, 24 luglio 1774) fu nominato cardinale della Chiesa cattolica da papa Benedetto XIV.

    Some tidbits from French wiki, in my resumé:

    He was also a bishop of Beauvais, he really cared for his diocese, he used the Lettres de cachet (that means Bastille or possibly also similar places) to extirpate Jansenism.

    He cared for the poor.

    I am not sure if the street in Paris named Gesvres is after him or after a relative. There is a police department there.

  • Vacante (1774 - 1778)
  • Luigi Valenti Gonzaga (30 March 1778 – 29 November 1790), Luigi Valenti Gonzaga (30 marzo 1778 - 29 novembre 1790 nominato cardinale presbitero dei Santi Nereo e Achilleo), Luigi Valenti Gonzaga (Roveredo di Guà, 15 ottobre 1725 – Roma, 29 dicembre 1808) è stato un cardinale italiano.

    What! A Gonzaga who lives to over 80!

    Back in the 16th C Gonzagas were dying so early I thought diabetes was hereditary. Perhaps Luigi Valenti lived after the diabetes genes had been lost of the family?

    He cared for the tomb of Dante Alighieri:

    La tomba di Dante Alighieri a Ravenna, fatta restaurare dal Valenti Gonzaga durante il suo periodo come legato pontificio in Romagna. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TombaDante.jpg


    The most famous Gonzaga was of course short lived too:

    "Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, S.J. (Italian: Luigi Gonzaga;[1] March 9, 1568 – June 21, 1591) was an Italian aristocrat who became a member of the Society of Jesus. While still a student at the Roman College, he died as a result of caring for the victims of an epidemic. He was beatified in 1605, and canonized in 1726."

    Caring for the victims of an epidemic, sure, but perhaps his immune system was weakened when doing so? I saw other Gonzagas of Mantua in the ancestry of Marie Antoinette who also died young.

    So, seeing a Gonzaga live long was somewhat of a surprise to me!

  • Vacante (1790 - 1802)
  • Giuseppe Spina (24 May 1802 – 21 February 1820), Giuseppe Maria Spina (24 maggio 1802 - 21 febbraio 1820 nominato cardinale vescovo di Palestrina), Giuseppe Maria Spina (Sarzana, 11 marzo 1756 – Roma, 13 novembre 1828) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico italiano.
  • Dionisio Bardaxí y Azara (27 September 1822 – 3 December 1826), Dionisio Bardaxí y Azara (27 settembre 1822 - 3 dicembre 1826 deceduto), Dionisio Bardaxí y Azara (Puyarruego, 7 ottobre 1760 – Roma, 3 dicembre 1826) è stato un cardinale spagnolo.

    He had to leave Rome to Spain due to invasion by Napoleon.

  • Ignazio Nasalli-Ratti (17 September 1827 – 2 December 1831), Ignazio Nasalli-Ratti (17 settembre 1827 - 2 dicembre 1831 deceduto), Ignazio Nasalli-Ratti (Parma, 7 ottobre 1750 – Roma, 2 dicembre 1831) è stato un cardinale italiano.

    Note the family Ratti include Pope Pius XI (Achille Ratti). Like him before his papacy (in Poland), Ignazio Nasalli-Ratti was a diplomat. Lucerne (where he was also bishop), Netherlands.

  • Vacante (1831 - 1833)
  • Filippo Giudice Caracciolo (30 September 1833 – 29 January 1844), Filippo Giudice Caracciolo, Orat. (30 settembre 1833 - 29 gennaio 1844 deceduto), Filippo Giudice Caracciolo (Napoli, 27 marzo 1785 – Napoli, 29 gennaio 1844) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico italiano.

    Abbreviation "Orat." means he was in the Oratorium of St Philip Neri, like Cardinal Newman.

  • Hugues-Robert-Jean-Charles de la Tour d’Auvergne-Lauraquais (16 April 1846 – 20 July 1851), Hugues-Robert-Jean-Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne-Lauraquais (16 aprile 1846 - 20 luglio 1851 deceduto), Hugues-Robert-Jean-Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne-Lauraquais (Auzeville-Tolosane, 14 agosto 1768 – Arras, 20 luglio 1851) è stato un cardinale francese.

    Was not in time for the conclave which elected Pope Pius IX.

  • Girolamo D’Andrea in commendum (18 March 1852 – 14 May 1868), Girolamo d'Andrea (18 marzo 1852 - 28 settembre 1860 nominato cardinale vescovo di Sabina); in commendam (28 settembre 1860 - 14 maggio 1868 deceduto), Girolamo d'Andrea (Napoli, 12 aprile 1812 – Roma, 14 maggio 1868) è stato un cardinale italiano.

    Since he is born after 1800, I will leave him outside the study of demographics previous to industrial revolution.

    Gerolamo Marquese d' Andrea (1812–1868) was an Italian Cardinal. He was born at Naples, educated at the Collège of La Flèche, France, and was early appointed Archbishop of Mytilene in partibus infidelium.

    In 1852 he was appointed Cardinal-abbot of Subiaco, and Prefect of the Congregation of the Index, and in 1860 Bishop of Sabina.

    He took sides with the Patriotic party in 1859 on the question of the national unity of Italy, and at the same time counseled extensive liberal reforms in Church policy. He was suspended from his diocese and abbacy and threatened with permanent deposition from office. He ultimately submitted, and in 1868 was rehabilitated, without, however, being restored to his diocese and the abbacy of Subiaco.

  • Lorenzo Barili (24 September 1868 – 8 March 1875), Lorenzo Barili (24 settembre 1868 - 8 marzo 1875 deceduto), Lorenzo Barili (Ancona, 1º dicembre 1801 – Roma, 8 marzo 1875) è stato un cardinale italiano, nominato da Papa Pio IX.

  • Pietro Giannelli (31 March 1875 – 5 November 1881), Pietro Gianelli (31 marzo 1875 - 5 novembre 1881 deceduto), Pietro Gianelli (Terni, 11 agosto 1807 – Roma, 5 novembre 1881) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico italiano.

  • Charles-Martial Allemand-Lavigerie (3 July 1882 – 25 November 1892) - the guy who inspired me to look up this list. Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery

  • Georg von Kopp (19 January 1893 – 4 March 1914), Georg von Kopp (19 gennaio 1893 - 4 marzo 1914 deceduto), Georg von Kopp (Duderstadt, 25 luglio 1837 – Troppau, 4 marzo 1914) è stato un cardinale e vescovo cattolico tedesco.

    He was known for his anti-Polish views and pursued Germanization of his Polish parishioners.

    Alas.

    Not all Cardinals are perfect!

  • Károly Hornig (28 May 1914 – 9 February 1917), Károly Hornig (28 maggio 1914 - 9 febbraio 1917 deceduto), Il barone Károly Hornig von Hornburg (Budapest, 10 agosto 1840 – Veszprém, 9 febbraio 1917) è stato un cardinale e vescovo cattolico ungherese.

    On 30 December 1916, he crowned King Károl I and Queen Zita of Hungary.

    These are of course the same as Emperor Karl I and Empress Zita of Austria. And since he was the last Habsburg actual ruler in Austria, so far, he is nicknamed Karl der Letzte - Charles the Last.

  • Adolf Bertram (18 December 1919 – 6 July 1945), Adolf Bertram (18 dicembre 1919 - 6 luglio 1945 deceduto), Adolf Bertram (Hildesheim, 14 marzo 1859 – Javorník, 6 luglio 1945) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico tedesco, nominato cardinale da papa Benedetto XV.

    He avoided openly breaking with Hitler. Racial laws of Nuremberg confronted the sacrament of matrimony, and his protest was secret.

    When Catholics of Jewish origin were deported to camps, his protest was secret.

    He did however openly protest against the state sponsored adultery of Lebensborn.

    Ronald J. Rychlak, a US Historian, denies any charge of ideological closeness with National Socialism, but considers he was a diplomat obeying orders for diplomatic reasons.

    If you want heroism among German bishops, look to the one Bishop of Munster. Clemens August Graf von Galen, nicknamed the Lion of Munster!

  • Samuel Alphonse Stritch (22 February 1946 – 26 May 1958), Samuel Alphonsius Stritch (22 febbraio 1946 - 26 maggio 1958 deceduto), Samuel Alphonsius Stritch (Nashville, 17 agosto 1887 – Roma, 27 maggio 1958) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico statunitense.

    He was an Irish-American from Nashville Tennessee.

    He also was not participating in Vatican II, since he died in 1958, like Pius XII.

    If Pius XII was an apostate and Clement XV true pope from 1950, Samuel Stritch was not recognising that. But he was not involved in less controversial apostates like John XXIII, since he died before Pius XII.

    Entertainer Elaine Stritch was his niece.

  • Carlo Confalonieri (18 December 1958 – 15 March 1972), Carlo Confalonieri (18 dicembre 1958 - 15 marzo 1972 nominato cardinale vescovo di Palestrina), Carlo Confalonieri (Seveso, 25 luglio 1893 – Roma, 1º agosto 1986) è stato un cardinale italiano.

    Alas involved in Vatican II Sect.

    As Dean, he led the funeral Masses for Paul VI as well as Pope John Paul I. Confalonieri was not able to participate in the conclaves of August and October 1978 for he had exceeded the age limit of 80 to be an eligible elector. However, he was the first to suggest the name of Albino Luciani, who was elected John Paul I, during the period before the August conclave.

    On a lighter and brighter note:

    Confalonieri published a moving tribute to Pope Pius XI with numerous valuable anectotes.

    Like his master Pius XI, Confalonieri greatly enjoyed mountain climbing.

  • Louis-Jean Guyot (5 March 1973 – 1 August 1988), Louis-Jean-Frédéric Guyot (5 marzo 1973 - 1º agosto 1988 deceduto), Louis-Jean-Frédéric Guyot (Bordeaux, 7 luglio 1905 – Bordeaux, 1º agosto 1988) è stato un cardinale e arcivescovo cattolico francese.

    Since he is from Bordeaux and died 1988, I think he might have been pretty conservative, still.

    In 1935 Guyot obtained a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum with a dissertation entitled L'incorporation au Christ par les sacrements d'après la doctrine de st. Thomas.

    Back then, he was certainly a Catholic and the men who made him doctor were probably right.

    Since he retired from his bishopric of Toulouse in 1973, it is also probable he was not too badly involved in the Liturgic Disasters of the Seventies.

  • Camillo Ruini (28 June 1991 – Present), Camillo Ruini, dal 28 giugno 1991 ... born 19 February 1931

    Ruini was born in Sassuolo, Emilia-Romagna. Having studied at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, he obtained a licentiate in philosophy and a licentiate in sacred theology.

    He was ordained to the priesthood on 8 December 1954, by Archbishop Luigi Traglia. In 1957 he returned to Reggio Emilia and taught philosophy at the diocesan seminary until 1968. From 1958 to 1966 he served as chaplain to university graduates and from 1966 to 1970 he served as a delegate for Azione Cattolica.

    So he is at least a validly ordained priest, if perhaps not bishop. And his licentiates of philosophy and theology are of course not very contestable, unless dating from after Pius XII fell.


Here are however the years, first chronologically:

20 agosto 1613 – 21 gennaio 1665
30 settembre 1599 – 18 febbraio 1668
1618 – 7 settembre 1671
29 maggio 1617 – 18 febbraio 1673
1º ottobre 1630 – 24 marzo 1713
20 settembre 1615 – 4 gennaio 1704
19 ottobre 1633 – 30 giugno 1712
6 giugno 1667 – 17 gennaio 1739
20 maggio 1676 – 24 giugno 1740
23 marzo 1675 – 17 gennaio 1754
16 luglio 1701 – 29 aprile 1757
2 gennaio 1697 – 24 luglio 1774
15 ottobre 1725 – 29 dicembre 1808
11 marzo 1756 – 13 novembre 1828
7 ottobre 1760 – 3 dicembre 1826
7 ottobre 1750 – 2 dicembre 1831
27 marzo 1785 – 29 gennaio 1844
14 agosto 1768 – 20 luglio 1851

Now arranged in order of magnitude and provided with numbers below, for ease of determining medians and so on:

51 53 55 55 58 64 66 68 71 72 77 78 78 81 83 83 84 88
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Minimum 51, lower quartile 58, median between 71 and 72, higher quartile 81, maximum 88.

All born before 1800, since that is where I finished the stats. So, born before Industrial Revolution occurred on the Continent (which as a century later than in England) did not mean a man was necessarily dying around 30, as some nincompoops have claimed:

I mean BG here:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Continuing with BG, trying to bring in history, getting a few dialogues on moral issues.
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2016/05/continuing-with-bg-trying-to-bring-in.html


He had actually made the same claim previous in same series, as I recall, but he insisted more than once in that one not to get ANY research done by me read by himself.

NOT a great historian. And considering his occupation (see link, if you care for it), I am NOT surprised.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary
31.V.2016

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Beer and Bible


Quoting next essay in this his first essay collection:

"I remember* a pamphlet by that able and sincere secularist, Mr. G. W. Foote, which contained a phrase sharply symbolizing and dividing these two methods. The pamphlet was called "Beer and Bible", those two very noble things, all the nobler for a conjunction which Mr. Foote, in his stern old Puritan way, seemed to think sardonic, but which I confess to thinking appropriate and charming."


And the Holy Writte actually speaks of beer too. Some miss it:

There are two major opinions concerning the literal meaning of verse 1: "Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again." Some believe it refers to maritime commerce, advising to send ships selling grain out to many different ports, for some are bound to gain success. Others believe it refers to casting seed on the shallow areas of a river, with the hope that some will take root. Whatever the literal meaning, the figurative lesson seems to be that a daring, seemingly foolish, distribution of your assets will yield returns in the future.


Scripture Studies forgot the third one. Take a large container of fresh water, throw bread (perhaps old bread even) on it, and after some days you will find liquid bread in the basins : when cereal content of bread has first been dissolved into the water and the liquid then fermented into an oriental (and Russian/East European) type of beer.

In Russian it is called KWAS. In Hebrew it is called Shekor.

Someone missing it may come to wrong conclusions:

First, What does this mean? Try to imagine someone throwing bread upon some water. It could be a pond, pool, or even a lake. At first, it seems innocent enough and even harmless. Maybe the person is feeding some fish or there are some cute ducks nearby and the bread-feeding is a nice picture of serenity and giving. OK, that sounds plausible. We like it. Be nice and throw some bread to the poor fish and birds once in a while. But the rest of the verse says, “and after many days you will find it again.” Now we are confused because when have you ever thrown bread into the water and found it again later on? Or an even more important question would be, why would you want to find it again? I can’t speak for everyone, but bread that comes out of the water is usually pretty wet and soggy and quite unappealing. Have you ever tried eating wet and soggy bread? Yuck! So far this proverb isn’t making too much sense.


When bread is only soggy, that means there are not enough days gone, you have still not found liquid bread in return for the bread which was lost by drying out even before throwing it on the waters.

First bread goes soggy.

Then the remaining crumbs turn to fine flakes and fall to the bottom of the container. The liquid is now no longer clear.

Then the liquid starts to ferment.

Both for taste of final product and for more rapid fermentation, adding fruit is recommended.

  • Classic oriental shekor involves dates. (A shekor or "beer" which is kosher for passover is dates without the bread content).
  • Sometime in Gaul, the shekor seems to have involved apples. The word "cider" is a loan from shekor. It is now a drink made without the bread.
  • Kwas may involve peppermint flavouring ... but I was wrong to suppose it involved dried raisins, unlike Swedish "svagdricka" which according to a recipy I saw does.


"Farbe und Geschmack von Kwas sind mit Malzbier vergleichbar, allerdings ist Kwas nicht so süß. Er besitzt dafür einen leichten Zitronengeschmack, der an Radler erinnert. Der Geruch erinnert an frisches Brot. "


Colour and taste of Kwas are comparable to beer made by malt, though Kwas is less sweet (word means "sour" and might perhaps be comparable to Belgian air fermented beers, like Lambik?). On the other hand, it has a light taste of lemon, reminding of shandy. The smell reminds of fresh bread.

Yes, "the smell reminds of fresh bread". Throw thy bread on the waters, and after many days thou shalt find it again!

The word shekor actually occurs more than once in the Bible - Samson and St John the Baptist had a personal convenant with God forbidding them to drink shekor. As well as wine.

Chesterton said of such, he admired the monk who fasted on water and bread, so others might feast his day with cider and beer, on the other end of the world.

Returning to the advice of King Solomon. Sending grain to diverse places by ship is or was usually not a possibility for the common man. And Proverbs are hardly just advice for kings, inapplicable to commons.

Seeing your bread go dry, perhaps moldy and then reuse it by making bread-beer usually is.

The moral point about generosity is, that what you don't need, giving it away is no more a loss than throwing old bread on water. And getting the return for your generosity, in this life or even better in eternity, on Judgement Day is like finding that fermenting cauldron one fine morning turned to very drinkable kwas.

There is a Christological point too about this. Add normal, but stale bread (perhaps from barley breads, for shekor, or from rye bread for kwas) to water, by a normal process it will turn to one inferior type of wine, namely barley wine, or, in the case of kwas, rye wine (Herodotus calls beer "barley wine", οινος Κριθινος, would probably have described kwas as οινος Σικαλικος), so presumably the best bread in the universe could turn water into the best wine, grape wine? Well, the best bread in the universe is "the bread of angels", and at Cana he used precisely water and obedience to His orders to miraculously make the best wine there is, real οινος Αμπελικος. But now we have gotten into matters I had better leave to the ordained priests, for the rest.

One remaining difficulty, why the word "the waters" is used rather than "water". We would not describe a beaker or cauldron of water as "waters", but either use container name plus "of water" or simply "water", singular. Perhaps a quirk of Hebrew usage I don't know (I am not a Hebraist), perhaps referring to a container in King Solomon's palace where he made his shekor and being so big he called it "the waters", perhaps it was outside the palace and he threw fermented bread on it on the day of preparation, and returned to the pond after Passover, perhaps it describes waters of different tastes (one water with dates, one water with apples, one pure water, one with lemon, one with peppermint ...), perhaps he considered that the state of fermentation reminded him of the possibly unquiet waters described in Genesis 1:2.

Anyway, this point about the literal meaning of the word would obviously be missed by Puritans who are prejudiced against alcohol. I am Catholic, had a grandfather who was a distiller of Swedish vodka (and who would have hated the propaganda useage made of Absolut since his time), and perhaps owe a thing or two to some Jewish converts to Catholicism as well, via Facebook.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XIII
Sunday on Corpus Christi Octave
29.V.2016

* Quoting : 2. On the Negative Spirit
from Heretics, by G. K. Chesterton
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heret12.txt

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Very exact, Chesterton!


"But there are some people*, nevertheless--and I am one of them-- who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy."


The problem is, when generals these days TRY to, they fail.

A Muslim who bombs other people is often supposed to do so because he takes the Qoran literally, takes Puritan measures to extremes (now, bombing people out of Puritanism is extreme, that is true, killing people at café Carillon because they enjoyed wine was that extreme : but there are ways of taking Islamic Puritanism to extremes without bombing).

And after stating things like these generals do state, they conclude that one has to fight Fundamentalism, but consider all non-Fundamentalist versions of Islam as essentially benign.

False on two points. Christian Fundamentalists are not known to bomb (there was a canular about Breivik being one, but he was as little that as Ken Miller was a traditional Catholic). And adapted Muslims are profiting from the bombings, it is often they who get the jobs for the security measures.

Don't get me wrong, they have, since the shootings, often been correct to me. But they do get these jobs. And that should worry people more than a Christian being a Fundie.

And at least in the most general sense, Chesterton himself considered himself a Fundamentalist:

"For these reasons*, and for many more, I for one have come to believe in going back to fundamentals."


In his day, it seems bomb throwers were usually irrelgious (consider a chapter in The Man Who was Thursday).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Augustine of Canterbury
28.V.2016

* Quoting : 1. Introductory Remarks on the Importance of Orthodoxy
from Heretics, by G. K. Chesterton
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heret12.txt

Friday, May 27, 2016

Fr (or otherwise) Ray Blake seems Roman Republican


Here is what he writes about "Expanding Papacy" in his "part 2" on the subject:

I think one of the things that could well develop is a fixed term papacy, an expectation that the Pope will retire after five or six years or when he has reached 80 or 85 he will become a former-Pope. Would it be possible that with two or three pope's emeritus around they develop a particular role, as advisers to the reigning Pope? I rather like the idea of retired Popes Home with popes in vary states decrepitude eager to advise their successor, whilst they scheme and skype friends in the media, some maybe doing an occasional television interview or 'going viral' on the net.

From: Fr Ray Blake's Blog : Expanding Papacy: 2
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2016/05/expanding-papacy-2.html


Senators in Rome used to be:

  • ex-consuls and ex-praetors
  • emeritus on life time
  • giving most of all (at least that is Theodor Mommsen's reading of original intention) advice to any ruling pair of consuls and praetors.


They were very important up to Caesar.

Now, when it comes to Daniel's Fourth Beast, there is little doubt it means Pagan Rome (if any doubt at all), just, is it Rome between Tarquin the Proud and Caesar, the Republic, or is it Rome from Caesar to Constantine, somewhat mis-called Empire (which the Republic was also) and divisible into Dictature, Principate and Dominate, Dictature of Julius Caesar, Principate from Augustus to before Diocletian, and Dominate starting with Diocletian and living on into Christian Rome?

There is a little other question. Can Antioch IV Epiphanes be a preliminary fulfilment about Daniel's Antichrist prophecies or not?

Daniel Mackey of AMAIC had to answer someone saying "Antioch belongs to the third beast, Greece, since he is a Greek". And his answer was that Antioch IV Epiphanes was a client of Republican Rome, had in his youth been brought to Rome as hostage and acknowledged Roman Senators as his kings, basically.

Therefore, despite being himself a Greek, Antioch IV Epiphanes represented the Fourth Beast of Daniel, Rome. Which was already in the time of the Republic a real Empire.

Is it not worrying that a Church claiming to be that of Rome (some would consider her a harlot driving the real Church of Rome into Exile) starts imitating Rome of the time of the Republic, Rome of Antioch IV Epiphanes?

Some might of course say that the Dominate was worse than the Republic - but was it? Especially in Biblical terms?

Daniel says the fourth beast ... I will copy paste from Douay Rheims so as not to misquote him:

Daniel 7 : [7] After this I beheld in the vision of the night, and lo, a fourth beast, terrible and wonderful, and exceeding strong, it had great iron teeth, eating and breaking in pieces, and treading down the rest with its feet: and it was unlike to the other beasts which I had seen before it, and had ten horns.

I was wanting to check if "ten horns" could refer to the Decemviri, like as if Antiochus was taken hostage by one of them.

Not really, but during the Republic, even in Antioch's time, Rome was ruled by the law of twelve tables written by the Decemviri legibus faciundis a few centuries earlier. In that way, "ten horns" does make sense of the Roman Republic, though I am less sure who would be the three displaced or plucked up by Antioch, if that is what next verse tells us:

[8] I considered the horns, and behold another little horn sprung out of the midst of them: and three of the first horns were plucked up at the presence thereof: and behold eyes like the eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.

His captor, the victor of Battle of Magnesia who dictated the Peace Treaty of Apameia, was Lucius Cornelius Scipio, later called Scipio Asiaticus, accompanied by Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (probably already called so). Rome of the Scipios was already in league with Pergamon - where Christ says there was the Seat of Satan in Apocalypse.

There seems to be some controversy whether this seat of Satan was the altar of Zeus or that of Serapis. That of Zeus, which is now in a Museum in Berlin (and where Vladimir Lenin may have worshipped before getting back into the sealed train - yes, a seal could have been opened and then restored - to Russia) we know is from first half of second Century BC, from Eumenes II who received rule from the hands of the (Republican) Romans. That of Serapis, known as Red Hall, we do not know when built, but there is a possibility it is also from ...

The temple's date of construction is not recorded, but from the style of the sculptures and the building techniques a date in the first half of the second century AD has been proposed.


Oh, sorry, AD. In that case a bit later than Apocalypse. And in that case Serapis is out as candidate, Pergamon Altar is it.

However, let's suppose Hadrian was not the one and study these words:

Its use of red brick on a massive scale, unique in Asia Minor but relatively common in Italy at the time, indicates that the architect was not local. The immense size and lavish construction of the complex points to an extremely wealthy patron who sent a Roman architect and brick masons to Pergamon to build the temple. The most likely candidate is the emperor Hadrian himself. He is known to have been an enthusiastic sponsor of the Egyptian gods; he built temples of Isis and Serapis at various places in the Roman world, including at his own villa in Tivoli.


If there were C14 datings indicating earliest foundation is from AD, I would respect it. The stable and present content of C14 seems to have been reached earlier than these times, so datings are already accurate ones, normally.

If there isn't - well, Eumenes II and the Patricians who held Antioch IV hostage in Rome also would count as Roman patrons, able to muster Roman architects.

Red brick temple of maion deities in Rome in Ostia ... probably from the time of Cicero, too late (he was writing fan fiction about the Scipios and their friends, not a contemporary!).

Here is a word from an architect (I am not):

Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts, Or, Practical Aesthetics
By Gottfried Semper, translation/foreword Harry Francis Malgrave, co-translator Michael Robinson


In google books I am reading a passage on or around p. 405, which indicate that red brick temples were indeed very old in Rome and surroundings. One temple in Ardea is cited, red brick, considered by an ancient author as "older than Rome" even if Semper and Francis think he may have overestimated it.

So, unless there are clear C14 indications to the contrary at foundation, saying Red Brick Serapis Temple of Pergamon must be from later than Scipios, it could as well be from their time as from that of Hadrian. Or, perhaps, stylistic, though that is less reliable.

Other fun fact : Serapis was, under Ptolemy Soter (it means "Ptolemy the Saviour"!) introduced as an ecumenical gesture of reconciliation between Greek and Egyptian Paganisms, between Khemetism and post-Homerism, if you like. And ... Ptolemies were rivals to the Seleucides, so, if Rome forced a Serapis temple on Pergamon, Antioch IV would in Jerusalem have been just repeating to the Jews as conquered what his own city had suffered at Roman conquerors. But even if this were not so, even if Serapis Temple in Pergamon was from Hadrian's time, the ecumenical fervour is suspicious.

Wait, I was actually wrong.

The earliest mention of a Serapis occurs in the disputed death scene of Alexander (323 BC).[7] Here, Serapis has a temple at Babylon, and is of such importance that he alone is named as being consulted on behalf of the dying king. The presence of Serapis in Babylon would radically alter perceptions of the mythologies of this era: the unconnected Babylonian god Ea (Enki) was titled Serapsi, meaning "king of the deep", and it is possible this Serapis is the one referred to in the diaries. The significance of this Serapsi in the Hellenic psyche, due to its involvement in Alexander's death, may have also contributed to the choice of Osiris-Apis as the chief Ptolemaic god.

According to Plutarch, Ptolemy stole the cult statue from Sinope in Asia Minor, having been instructed in a dream by the "unknown god" to bring the statue to Alexandria, where the statue was pronounced to be Serapis by two religious experts. One of the experts was of the Eumolpidae, the ancient family from whose members the hierophant of the Eleusinian Mysteries had been chosen since before history, and the other was the scholarly Egyptian priest Manetho, which gave weight to the judgement both for the Egyptians and the Greeks.


Ptolemy "the Saviour" (from the kind of conflict threatening between Greeks and Egyptians ....?) was actually importing a deity from Asia. This means it could have been known by people in Asia Minor too.

Anyway, whether seat of Satan be that of "Zeus" or that of "Serapis" (both have a heavily ecumenical pedigree!) it is also noteworthy that the kingdom of the Seleucides after battle of Magnesia were receiving their power from Rome and its Republic - a bit like Vatican City State in 1929 received its new existence (after defeat in 1870) from Mussolini and Victor Emmanuel III - heir to a "neo-Pagan" ultimate Roman, Victor Emmanuel II and to a similar Umberto I.

I find it worrying that the kings of Vatican City State start imitating the Republican era of Rome. Very worrying indeed. I am already not a fan of Georg Gänsewein. I was already worried after he had revealed what Susana Maiolo had to say - I had thought she was complaining about Catholic clergy supporting psychiatry, which is per se reasonable, though the sacrilage was a very desperate way if so ... no, according to Gänsewein, she was pushing an agenda. Close to that of Sarah Silverman, actually.

One little more tidbit: the list of Decemviri Consulari Imperio Legibus Scribundis (451 B. Chr.) includes two men called Vaticanus. Publius Sestius Capito Vaticanus, and Titus Romilius Rocus Vaticanus. The little horn displacing three horns may refer to displacements in the Vatican.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day after Corpus Christi
27.V.2016

Friday, May 20, 2016

It seems John Ronald was bewildered by Mörkmården for Mirkwood.


I am not sure why Old Swedish has a word marþer meaning wood, while other Germanic languages have a similar word (and Modern Swedish presumably has it from Low German) meaning marten.

I can guess that a hunter saying he was going "after martens" was usually also thereafter walking into woods - whence a misunderstanding of his words as meaning "into the woods".

But I cannot quite confirm my guess.

It could be other way round. It could be words are unrelated. It could be all Germanic languages used the word as Swedish, but German shifted due to influence of Latin and Swedish avoided the shift long enough to get this name of a wood, oldest recorded forms ... see my quote from wiki a little lower.

Anyway, to any Swede, Mörkmården is a very suggestive parallel to Kolmården, a precisely wood with a name with an etymology presumably from Old Swedish marþer in the meaning of wood.

Under tidig medeltid var skogen svårpasserad för resande och istället använde man sjövägen längs Östersjökusten. Namnet Kolmården kommer från fornsvenskans Colmarþ och Kulmarþ, antagligen av ett substantiv marþer, skog; således "kolskogen".


Oh, "in early Middle ages the wood was difficult to pass through and one preferred the sea road along the Baltic coast"?

Well, that makes Kolmården somewhat parallel to Mirkwood in the story, doesn't it?

So, Mirkwood > Mörkmården, a stroke of genius.

As you can guess, if you are a real Tolkien Geek, I had been reading Tolkien's instruction for translators, as included in A Tolkien Compass.

In same source I am very proud to find that when he looks up badger, he does so in a dictionary which gives him "gräfling, gräfsvin". That latter is obsolete, and the -f after vowel pronounced as -v after vowel has officially been spelled "v" since 1906. It is very fitting for a Tolkien fan (more that than Tolkien geek, actually) to have a preference against those unnecessary spelling reforms:

  • Fake nationalism making "boîte" and "famille" into "boett" and "familj" (real Swedish would have been "urlåda" and "lill-ätt", but aren't used), early 19th C.;
  • Long vowels distinguish an open E sound spelled Ä from a closed one spelled E, the default for short open E (there is no short closed E in Swedish) being also E, same as after J - exceptions being etymological, but exception became rule after Danish-German war, in order to make a point against a more German looking orthography;
  • 1906, as mentioned, a bad year for Swedish letters, as Carducci was given the Nobel prize too, V sound was simplified, though the regular shift between v- initially, -f after and -fv- between vowels (L and R before but not after counting quasi as vowels) was only slightly irregular by a shift between initial v- and hv-, while J sound (like English Y, actually one spelling variety in Swedish for "yacht" as it is a loan from English) has more varieties, is more irregular and was NOT simplified.
  • Abolishing (successfully except for me) the plural forms of verbs from written language and (not successfully even outside myself) the subjunctives that were formed of same stem as past plurals - in strong verbs changing -o to -e, in weak ones changing nothing, since laready in -de. 1950, Social Democrat government.


But John Ronald only knew "Grävlingar" with a V from translation of Burroughs, and might have thought the noun was still spelled with F, as "gräfling". I feel at home with him.

I do not feel at home with Carducci, or with Fridtjuv Bergh, the man behind the reform of 1906. Even less of course with other aspects of modernity.*

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Friday of Pentecost Octave, Ember Days
20.V.2016

* Exception : trains, cars, planes, alas also Coke. I just learned what E150d is. It is not quite a traditional caramel colouring.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Four Rivers


I wonder, this morning of Ascension Day as I write this, whether the four rivers of the Greek Netherworld may correspond to the four rivers of the Biblical Paradise.

After the Flood all men were aware of the fact that four rivers had flown from the rivers in Paradise, and all men were or became aware that you could not find a walled garden anymore, where the gates were guarded by Cherubs with flaming swords.

Can Greeks be partial heirs to a speculation that Paradise had been covered and was now in the Netherworld?

Is that where the four rivers of the Netherworld come from?

What if they are right and there is a Netherworld connected to the Earthly Paradise?

But actually I think the four rivers are still there. On the surface.

Euphrates and Tigris are undisputedly two of them. Nile or Blue Nile [Gihon] is one of them. And the fourth, [Pishon], well, the candidates are Ganges, Syr-Daria and Amu-Daria [No, that was Gihon!] and the Danube.

Let's take this fourth river first. Could a river have flown in so bent a fashion that all the candidates could be correct [and the Daria rivers mixed with name of Gihon]? Let's suppose it started somewhere were now is Persia, then flowed Eastward into Nod (if I am right this is India) and part of the course inthe riverbed also known as Ganges (or as part of it) but as India[/Nod] was not yet a triangle jutting into the Sea between two Oceans (or whatever) [actually two parts of one Indian Ocean], instead of Ganges flowing into the [same], the Paradisal river bends "upwards", North, and follows part of what is now Amu-Daria and Syr-Daria into [what is now] Lake Aral, then goes onto some stretch now covered by Black Sea, then flows from Roumania to Switzerland (reverse direction of Danube)...

Coordinates of Switzerland are not exactly on the Sea shore, now. I was tempted to say "in that case, the 'reverse-Danube' must have continued into Rhone or Rhine" but the fact is that parts of what is now Austria ([Nußdorf] across the border from Switzerland [and 707 km East, less than North Spain from Pamplona to Santiago]) shows fossiles like whales [Cetotherium ambiguum] and seals [Praepusa vindobonensis] ("from the Palaeocene" [sorry, Miocene]) not far from Vienna [there are other Nussdorfs too, but the Viennese one is the relevant one]. So it could have been a Sea [and a shore] in pre-Flood times.

During Flood, part of this riverbed is then covered with sediment, some parts also sink into deep seas (like Ganges flows into the Sea now), parts are disrupted by rising mountains: Himalayas now separate Ganges from Persia, and Alps now ensure the Danube is higher at Vienna than at Black Sea shore of Roumania. Finally, Black Sea would have been added as a basin collecting water from Flood so as to allow land to rise and dry.

The reason I thought of the Greeks is that I first thought of "the Hyperborean Era" in Rober E. Howard. In his map for "10,000 B.C." the river "Styx" first flows North like the Nile and then flows West ... we get a "Western Nile" instead of a Mediterranean. And that can have been how the Paradisal river [Gihon] flowed in pre-Flood times.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts Yves and Dunstan
Thursday of Pentecost Octave
19.V.2019

What I put in [square brackets] are my additions or once replacement when writing this on a computer. Some things I could check here, but could not check back in Ascension Day while writing this./HGL

Sunday, May 15, 2016

How Ulysses Signifies Christ


Ulysses was not visible at the side of his wife for twenty years. With Christ and His Church it is about twenty centuries, soon enough.

Ulysses was reunited to a wife who had been faithful. So will the Church who rejoins Christ have been.

Penelope had been put under extreme pressure, so will Christ's Church have been.

Penelope had been harrassed by suitors trying to take her husband's place in her life, mostly not for her sake, but for the sake of the power it meant. This will also have been the case, and has been the case in the past time after time, with the Church. There are many Antichrists.

Among the suitors, one was outstandingly bad and Ulysses reserved killing that bad man himself. His name was Antinous.

There was another Antinous in Antiquity. The loverboy of Hadrianus.

Now, funny or not, Hadrianus also has a name with Antichrist allusion. His name means "from the sea" as much as the fictional Caspian does. However, Hadriatic sea is in Mediterranean, so to speak THE sea of the Hebrews, therefore of St John and of God.

I checked out the names of Hadrianus and Antinous in ASCII Code values, upper case only, neither gave 666, I did also check out the mean value. It was not 666, but 648.

In Ukrainean, Communist could be spelled (probably incorrectly, but understandably) as KOMYNiCT. If KOMYNICT adds up to 616 and is not useable in Cyrillic, KOMYNiCT, with 32 more, is useable in Ukrainean Cyrillics, and it adds up to 648. Lao Gai could also be spelled Lau Kai and that adds up to 599. Numeral 1 has ASCII Code value of 49. 599 and 49 = 648.

And yes, what Penelope and the child "of the Church" (of Penelope), Ulysses, suffered, had some Lao Gai feeling about it too.

Of course, since Ulysses was a Pagan, his life is not all exemplaric, he does not signify Christ in all respects. Christ is no liar or deceiver, for one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
Pentecost Day
15.V.2016

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Is there Allah Akbar in the Bible?


Now, Akbar does not mean "great". It is an elative, which means either comparative or superlative, depending on syntactic context. "akbar al-[+plural noun]" would mean "is greatEST of", but "akbar [Arabic word for than]" would be is "is greatER than".

Now, in fact, there are some places where the Bible does say God is greater than ... :

I) OT:

Job 33:12
Now this is the thing in which thou art not justified: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.

II) NT:

1) 1 John 3:20
For if our heart reprehend us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

2) 1 John 5:9
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son.

3) Luke 7:28
For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

That God is greater than oneself, is obvious. No big deal. That God is greater than man might want to be stressed to a man who is suffering too much, as Job, and who is forgetting Whom he's talking to. That God is greater than one's heart is what people tend to forget, if not actually told. However, Elihu was the one saying this. And when God spoke himself, later in Job, well ... no .... Actually Elihu was not one of the three bad friends.

A certain other books only has "God is greater", and that does not tell us as much as the Bible does! And since it has a Fifth Sura which does not testify of God's Son, it is a testimony of man, not of God, which is greater than that of man.

And certain people say that what difference is there which religion you belong to. But Christ said there is: But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris V
Eve of Pentecost
14.V.2016

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Why was I suspicious of Snow?


I just read an article in The New Statesman where article writers quoted C P Snow (that version of capitals, minuscules, spaces and no points) as saying a very nasty thing.

Brendan Simms and Charlie Laderman signed this article in The New Statesman*, the cover story called "The Longest Hatred", where all anti-Semitism throughout history is described repeatedly as "paranoid". In its conclusion, they say "the only way to deal with a paranoid man is to give him something to be paranoid about" - quoting "C P Snow".

Here is their context:

Moreover, with Dieudonné and his ilk claiming that attacking Jews is the best way to harm the “establishment”, some say that governmental protection only stokes their paranoia. Well, as C P Snow said, the only way to deal with a paranoid man is to give him something to be paranoid about.


I am sorry, but in France it is not just a question of protecting Jews from attacks. And C P Snow said his words in another context.

France is trying to make "paranoid men" (as they are perceived) ponder about what France can make them paranoid about in other ways than just protecting Jews.

And France is doing so in a somewhat paranoid way.

Some here seem to be paranoid about me, to the extend of leaving the reading of my blogs to Russian residents and to oldest generation here.

I gave some details in French on this post:

New blog on the kid : La Russie, surveille-t-elle les autres lecteurs de mes blogs?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/05/la-russie-surveille-t-elle-les-autres.html


Yesterday, a lady was nearly about to note my blog urls, a cardboard like this:

NOV9BLOGG9.
BLOGSPOT.COM


FILOLOHIKA.
BLOGSPOT.COM


CREAVSEVOLU.
BLOGSPOT.COM


A younger man, either son or nephew or whatever or perhaps someone whose guest she was (somewhat darker skin than she), drew her back and told her to hurry up. Taking up a phone and photographing would have taken a second or two. What he really wanted was her not becoming in any way involved in reading my blogs.

Where I most often hang around in Paris, I am dealing with such paranoia.

And some seem paranoid on whether I am German too, as if National Socialism were a question of German national culture.**

When paranoid is the new normal, people not necessarily paranoid can be stamped as such over not sharing the general culture in some set of questions where they live.

Well, I happened to read this article on "the longest hatred" and found its authors somewhat paranoid about antisemitism. Which means, if I have some positions they can label as antisemitic, they might tend to be paranoid about me - and label me as paranoid - and (following Snow!), "give me something to be paranoid about".

How did they react to Dieudonné Mbala Mbala? Sure, he has done some very bad things in one show. But that was not quite what they took up.

"In January, he responded to the killings of Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris by signalling solidarity with the perpetrator, Amedy Coulibaly."


Specifically for the killing? Or for something other, connected to it in his previous existence?

I read one paper (Nouvel Obs, I think) which states his widow has fled to one Islamic country.

The article was very clear that France had been giving Madame Coulibaly hell, well before Monsieur Amedy Coulibaly.

But he had not said even he was feeling like Amedy Coulibaly. He had said, newsstory:

«Je me sens Charlie Coulibaly» : Dieudonné réfute l'apologie de terrorisme
http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/je-me-sens-charlie-coulibaly-dieudonne-refute-l-apologie-de-terrorisme-01-03-2016-5589863.php


He might have compared the own situation to that of Charlie Hebdo, thus comparing those in France trying to silence him to the terrorists trying so with Charlie Hebdo.

And he might have had some inside information on Islamists giving Amedy's wife (now widow) a refuge in return for such an act, and have felt for a man under that kind of pressure from extorsionists. As Amedy was killed, this can neither be confirmed nor infirmed by hearing him.

Or, he might have compared Amedy and Charlie. As I did myself***, both of these, the terrorist and the terrorist victims taking a shot at religious "fundies" in a way which might seem a bit paranoid about them. And which at least is clearly unfair.

But no, to Brendan Simms and Charlie Laderman it is all clear that Dieudonné was simply expressing solidarity with Amedy Coulibaly. To them he is a cold blooded, hearltless antisemite, if not capable of himself killing Jews, at least of applauding one who did. Despite his denial.

En première instance, le 18 mars, le tribunal correctionnel de Paris avait notamment relevé, dans l'association de «Charlie» et «Coulibaly», l'«amalgame provocateur» fait par Dieudonné «entre le symbole de la liberté d'expression qui a coûté la vie à des journalistes et un auteur d'acte terroriste auquel il s'identifie».


A provoking, but not unfounded likening. Both target fundies.

As for calling Charlie Hebdo a "symbol of expression of speech", it seems France prefers expression of speech to be concentrated to such symbols. I think Stalin and Khrushchev also had their symbols of free speech°. But they hardly had free speech.

And in France, as Charlie Hebdo has become a "symbol of free speech", it seems free speech about Charlie Hebdo has been suppressed. But those trusted to provide free thinking for others°° will not get anything which can exonerate Diedonné, and they are perfectly willing to quote someone like C P Snow. A man willing to give paranoid men sth to be paranoid about. Wonder if that was Hitler's rationale about Jews, if he had found them paranoid? And perhaps as unfoundedly, perhaps not, as it is unfoundedly that some people target me as paranoid, even if it may come off so, when I openly list some things they might have given me "to be paranoid about".

Aragorn in LotR had another recipy for Sam. Yes, a brief moment of giving him something to be frightened about, but after that some honest and well meaning and well seeming and beneficent words and acts, to allay it and to reason about it.

Tolkien who wrote the character into fictional being was a wiser man than C P Snow and his two admirers. I noted they were both from Cambridge, and Tolkien's friend C. S. Lewis noted Cambridge both Christian and Atheist are more of a Puritan and a "Paranoid" heritage than Oxford. Even if he did not use that pseudomedical word, he said "brood, more ambiguously than they think, about persecution".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Saints Philip and James, Apostles, Martyrs
11.V.2016

* "Free thinking since 1913" ** In Sudetenland, there was a conflict between two national socialisms, the Czechoslovak and the German one, with the Czechoslovak as more agressive. "Edvard Beneš ... A member of the Czechoslovak National Social Party, he was known as a skilled diplomat," said the wiki I linked to. He did not waste diplomatic skills on Sidet Germans, once he had used them to get Sudentenland under his grip. *** "De ce point de vue, cette caricature par CHURLISH HEBDO était une insulte aux Juifs tués récemment en Hyper Cacher." As I said here:

New blog on the kid : Je suis intégriste aussi ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/01/je-suis-integriste-aussi.html


° Radio Erevan, radio Erevan ... do Red Army soldiers get vacation? "In principle, yes. For instance they got one to Budapest or Warszaw in 1956, to Prague 1968, to Afghanistan ..." That was about as much as free criticism as was allowed about these matters. And Radio Erevan gave that symbolic "free speech" by which they could claim "free speech is not suppressed". °° As distinct from giving others sth to freely think about.

Sauron, Snow and KOMUNIST (Polish spelling)


If Tolkien had gone for a fully Welsh spelling of Sindarin, including when citing Quenya words, he could have changed Sauron to Sawron.

AU in Welsh has another sound. Haul means sun and sounds like German Heil.

As you may know, I have a little "obsession" with checking ASCII Code gematria. So, as it is simplest, block letters first:

S 83 80 3
A 65 140 8
W 87 220 15
R 82 300 17
O 79 370 26
N 78 440 34 = 474

Suppose one used normal capitalisation, S as blockletter, rest un lower case, one would get 474 + 160 (five times 32, one time for each minuscule) = 634.

Suppose one lower cased first letter too, as in email adresses or site url's, or in certain versions of PC printing, one would have 474 + 192 (six times 32 instead of just five times). It would be 666.

C 67
32
P 80
32
S 83
n 78 32
o 79 32
w 87 32

C 67 60 7
(32's added up below)
P 80 140 7
(dito)
S 83 220 10
n 78 290 18 (dito)
o 79 360 27 (dito)
w 87 440 34 = 474 (dito)

32 32 32 32 32 = 160, (C P Snow = Cpsnow, basically).

474
160
_____
634

cpsnow (no spaces, but small letters only, see above) = add 192 instead of 160, 666

K 75 70 5
O 79 140 14
M 77 210 21
U 85 290 26
N 78 360 34
I 73 430 37
S 83 510 40
T 84 590 44 = 634, add one minuscule (as in replacing a block letter with one) or one space, 666.

K 75 70 5
O 79 140 14
M 77 210 21
U 85 290 26
N 78 360 34
I 73 430 37
Z 89 510 46
M 77 580 53 = 633, add one minuscule or one space, 665, neighbour of the beast./HGL

Update, next day:

U 85 80 5
S 83 160 8
U 85 240 13
R 82 320 15
A 65 380 20
R 82 460 22
I 73 530 25
O 79 600 34 = 634

I thought God could not be just anti-Communist without being also anti-Capitalist in some pertinent sense, as in anti-usury. As on KOMUNIST, either one block letter goes lower case or a space is inserted, there you have 666. If the Carlistas were singing a song about killing "rojos" like picking flowers during War of 1936-39, they were in earlier wars singing same tune about killing "guiris". Usurers are pretty typically guiris./HGL

Friday, May 6, 2016

What Cusa Really Said


1) Creation vs. Evolution : In Today's Article on Maxwell, CMI Linked Back to an Oldie · 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What Cusa Really Said · 3) New blog on the kid : Everything a Giant Miracle? Why, Yes!

CMI:

Living almost exactly 100 years after Buridan, Nicholas of Cusa wrote eloquently on the subject:


Cusa, quoted by CMI:

It has already become evident to us that the earth is indeed moved, even though we do not perceive this to be the case. For we apprehend motion only through a certain comparison with something fixed. For example, if someone did not know that a body of water was flowing and did not see the shore while he was on a ship in the middle of the water, how would he recognize that the ship was being moved? And because of the fact that it would always seem to each person (whether he were on the earth, the sun, or another star) that he was at the “immovable” center, so to speak, and that all other things were moved: assuredly, it would always be the case that if he were on the sun, he would fix a set of poles in relation to himself; if on the earth, another set; on the moon, another; on Mars, another; and so on. Hence, the world-machine will have its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere, so to speak; for God, who is everywhere and nowhere, is its circumference and center.


CMI concluding therefrom that Cusa was geokinetic:

It is clear here that he believed the earth moved through space, and he clearly understood the principle of frames of reference (discussed in more detail below).


Now, CMI gave a reference for the Cusa quote, and in it I found also:

Moreover, it is no less false that the center of the world is within the earth than that it is outside the earth; nor does the earth or any other sphere even have a center. For since the center is a point equidistant from the circumference and since there cannot exist a sphere or a circle so completely true that a truer one could not be posited, it is obvious that there cannot be posited a center [which is so true and precise] that a still truer and more precise center could not be posited. Precise equidistance to different things cannot be found except in the case of God, because God alone is Infinite Equality. Therefore, He who is the center of the world, viz., the Blessed God, is also the center of the earth, of all spheres, and of all things in the world. Likewise, He is the infinite circumference of all things.


http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-II-12-2000.pdf

No, it does not seem that Cusa is taking sides between Geokinetism and Geocentrism, he is refuting "absolute Geocentrism" in another sense, namely in saying that Earth as approximate cannot be absolutely a centre or absolutely still or for that matter absolutely moving either, since only God can be absolutely still.

A key phrase is:

Moreover, it is no less false that the center of the world is within the earth than that it is outside the earth;


In other words, is is no more false either. This sentence is a refusal to take sides, not a taking sides for Geokinetism in the popular sense.

And he goes on:

Moreover, in the sky there are not fixed and immovable poles—although the heaven of fixed stars appears to describe by its motion circles of progressively different sizes, colures which are smaller than the equinoctial [colure]. The case is similar for the intermediates. But it is necessary that every part of the sky be moved, even though [the parts are moved] unequally by comparison with the circles described by the motion of the stars. Hence, just as certain stars appear to describe a maximum circle, so certain stars [appear to describe] a minimum [circle]. And there is not a star which fails to describe an [approximate circle]. Therefore, since there is not a fixed pole in the [eighth] sphere, it is evident that we also do not find an exact middle point existing equidistantly, as it were, from the poles. Therefore, in the eighth sphere there is not a star which describes, through its revolution, a maximum circle. (For the star would have to be equidistant from the poles, which do not exist.) And consequently there is not [a star] which describes a minimum circle. Therefore, the poles of the spheres coincide with the center,126 so that the center is not anything except the pole, because the Blessed God [is the center and the pole].


So, very far from saying "Earth is not centre, but Sun is" or "Earth and Sun both revolve around an even more distant centre", he is basically not denying totally that Earth is approximately centre as Geocentrism has it, he is only saying this is inexact, because only God is exact, only God is absolutely centre or absolutely circumference.

That is quite another thing than simply inverting the geometry of the created cosmos as Geokinetism does in terms of humdrum geometry.

And since we can discern motion only in relation to something fixed, viz., either poles or centers, and since we presuppose these [poles or centers] when we measure motions, we find that as we go about conjecturing, we err with regard to all [measurements].


In other words, science is impossible. Unless you go to Einsteinian convolutions of relativity, that is about how Cusa sees science.

And we are surprised when we do not find that the stars are in the right position according to the rules of measurement of the ancients, for we suppose that the ancients rightly conceived of centers and poles and measures.


Ptolemy was inexact. But Cusa is not saying we can be exacter - although his words may have provoked people trying to be, Tycho no less than Copernicus. Cusa is saying the real reason is that everything in creation is somehow inexact, because only God is exact.

From these [foregoing considerations] it is evident that the earth is moved. Now, from the motion of a comet, we learn that the elements of air and of fire are moved; furthermore, [we observe] that the moon [is moved] less from east to west than Mercury or Venus or the sun, and so on progressively. Therefore, the earth is moved even less than all [these] others; but, nevertheless, being a star, it does not describe a minimum circle around a center or a pole. Nor does the eighth sphere describe a maximum [circle], as was just proved.


Key phrase:

Therefore, the earth is moved even less than all [these] others; but, nevertheless, being a star, it does not describe a minimum circle around a center or a pole.


As I know how Cusa has been adulated by the Schiller institute*, I also know that "minimum circle" simply means point, while "maximum circle" means outermost circumference.

He is admitting Earth moves less than any other body in the universe (popularly speaking this equates to Geocentrism and certainly not to Geokinetism), he is just saying Earth cannot be as absolutely still as ... only God is.

Does that make Cusa a Heliocentric? No, of course not!

Therefore, consider carefully the fact that just as in the eighth sphere the stars are [moved] around conjectural poles, so the earth, the moon, and the planets—as stars—are moved at a distance and with a difference around a pole [which] we conjecture to be where the center is believed to be. Hence, although the earth—as star—is nearer to the central pole, nevertheless it is moved and, in its motion, does not describe a minimum circle, as was indicated. Rather (though the matter appears to us to be otherwise), neither the sun nor the moon nor the earth nor any sphere can by its motion describe a true circle, since none of these are moved about a fixed [point]. Moreover, it is not the case that there can be posited a circle so true that a still truer one cannot be posited. And it is never the case that at two different times [a star or a sphere] is moved in precisely equal ways or that [on these two occasions its motion] describes equal approximate-circles—even if the matter does not seem this way to us.


In short : if you want a true circle, you want God and not astronomy, God and not physics. God and not geometry. And so on.

Therefore, if with regard to what has now been said you want truly to understand something about the motion of the universe, you must merge the center and the poles, aiding yourself as best you can by your imagination. For example, if someone were on the earth but beneath the north pole [of the heavens] and someone else were at the north pole [of the heavens], then just as to the one on the earth it would appear that the pole is at the zenith, so to the one at the pole it would appear that the center is at the zenith.127 And just as antipodes have the sky above, as do we, so to those [persons] who are at either pole [of the heavens] the earth would appear to be at the zenith. And at whichever [of these] anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center. Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa.128 Thereupon you will see—through the intellect, to which only learned ignorance is of help—that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended.129 For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere—having its center and circumference nowhere, as was stated.


We cannot have science, we can only have "learned ignorance" about creation, everything that Buddhism has to say about all being relative and each point of view being illusory is quite true - about Creation, just it isn't about its Creator.

That is Cusa for you, and you cannot use that to say "Copernicus had a predecessor". He is no more and no less a predecessor of Copernicus than of Tycho, and he is more of a predecessor of Einstein than of either. Or of C. S. Lewis in the Cosmic Trilogy. Like the passages on the great cosmic dance.

Furthermore, the influence which [the earth] receives is not evidence establishing its imperfection. For being a star, perhaps the earth, too, influences the sun and the solar region, as I said.135 And since we do not experience ourselves in any other way than as being in the center where influences converge, we experience nothing of this counter-influence. For suppose the earth is possibility; and suppose the sun is the soul, or formal actuality, with respect to the possibility; and suppose the moon is the middle link, so that these [three] stars, which are situated within one region, unite their mutual influences (the other stars—viz., Mercury, Venus, and the others—being above, as the ancients and even some moderns said). Then, it is evident that the mutual relationship of influence is such that one influence cannot exist without the other. Therefore, in each alike [viz., earth, sun, moon] the influence will be both one and three in accordance with its [i.e., the influence's] own degrees. Therefore, it is evident that human being cannot know whether with respect to these things [viz., the influences] the region of the earth exists in a less perfect and less noble degree in relation to the regions of the other stars (viz., the sun, the moon, and the others). Nor [can we know this] with respect to space, either. For example, [we cannot rightly claim to know] that our portion of the world is the habitation of men and animals and vegetables which are proportionally less noble [than] the inhabitants in the region of the sun and of the other stars. For although God is the center and circumference of all stellar regions and although natures of different nobility proceed from Him and inhabit each region (lest so many places in the heavens and on the stars be empty and lest only the earth—presumably among the lesser things—be inhabited), nevertheless with regard to the intellectual natures a nobler and more perfect nature cannot, it seems, be given (even if there are inhabitants of another kind on other stars) than the intellectual nature which dwells both here on earth and in its own region. For man does not desire a different nature but only to be perfected in his own nature.


People among Traditional Catholics here in France have been accusing me of this agnosticism or of saying (via Matrix) something rather of Gnosticism. But their accusation points to Nicolas of Cusa, not to me.

I actually disagree.

I think God posed us where we could overview the universe the best so that "from the beginning of Creation, the invisible things of God be known through the visible things" - a Thomistic Aristotelo-Platonism, agreeing with Romans 1:20.

And Cusa is not an intellectual nobody to Catholics. He was the great theological peritus of the Council of Florence. He even was behind the definition of what some have taken as absolute Feeneyism, arguing that as every false religion has a trace of the true Catholic religion, everyone outside it has in his own religion already some reason to convert (at least one step closer) to Catholicism. A principle I also agree on - the question between me and a a Feeneyite only being whether all the steps into reception to the Church are required, or whether someone who lands closer to Catholicism than previously (CSL for instance was in his carreer as a Christian author closer to Catholics than he had been either as an Atheist or in his childhood belief in his Puritan grandpa's religion) might also have some hope (and if he was accused of having Ulsterior Motives for not converting, I have some Inklings of a motive on his behalf for not being absolute Feeneyite, so don't trust me, it is hard for someone to imagine one favourite author damned to Hell).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Parmentier
St John at Latin Porch in Rome
or Miraculous survival of Boiling in Oil
6.V.2016

* Not to be counfounded with Goethe Institute, the Schiller Institute harks to Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche.