I have really heard these Tolkien names with the wrong stress

You will get the complete list at the end, here we get started with correcting it.

You recall the rules. In words of three or more syllables, the length of last or third last syllable are immaterial, the important thing is the length of the second last syllable - stressed if long, following the stress if short.

A long syllable is one which a) has a long vowel, including a diphthong, or b) has a vowel followed by two consonants, including double consonant, excluding muta cum liquida.

Muta cum liquida are P, T, K (C), B, D, G or even F followed by (and not following) R or L.

Mórinehtar. HT = German ach-Laut plus T (or ich-Laut plus T).

This means the second to last syllable has the vowel E followed by TWO consonants, namely HT. They are not muta cum liquida, so the stress is on the second syllable.

Elessar. SS = long S, counts as two consonants, so, the second E is followed by two consonants that are not muta cum liquida. Hence, if you look for a rhyme on Elessar, try "lesser".

Isildur and Imladris. Their stress patterns get reversed.

With Isil and dur as two consecutive words, the stress would arguably be on the first and last syllable, but* when they are put together as one word, a name, the second I is followed by LD, two consonants, and they are not muta cum liquida, but on the contrary, liquida cum muta. So, Isildur would rhyme (very roughly) with Tilda.

In Imladris on the other hand, DR are precisely muta cum liquida, so, the second syllable is unstressed. This gives the first syllable the main stress - and the last a subsidiary one. If you want to rhyme on Imladris, try "kiss" or "miss" - though it's a bit sloppy to end a line in English with just a subsidiary stress where a main stress should be.

If the A had been long in itself, it would have had an accent (á, like the ó in Mórinehtar). So, the A is short in itself, it is followed by muta cum liquida which kind of counts as one consonant, because the muta adds so little to the liquida, so, it is unstressed as said.

If you want external confirmation, take the line:

In Imladris it dwells;

It should be pronounced, in exaggerated scanning, as:

in IM la DRIS it DWELLS

because all the other lines have three stresses. Here is a correct scan of the entire** poem:

SEEK for the SWORD that was BRO-ken;
in IM la DRIS it DWELLS;
THERE shall COUN-cils be TA-ken;
STRONG-er than MOR-gul-SPELLS.
THERE shall be SHOWN a TO-ken
that DOOM is NEAR at HAND,
for i-SIL-dur's BANE shall WA-ken,
and the HALF-ling FORTH shall STAND.

It doesn't help for Isildur, the wrong pronunciation would still be metrical, the line would either way have three stressed syllables, but you can see that the second line of the first half has the same rhythm as the second line of the second half, namely:

in IM la DRIS it DWELLS
confer
that DOOM is NEAR at HAND

None of the lines has just two stressed syllables, so the wrong pronunciation of Imladris is atrocious to the metre.

Mórinehtar, Elessar, Isildur and Imladris - next time you read them, you know how to pronounce them. Incidentally, in the English original, Tolkien is a great poet.***

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
All Hallows' Eve
31.X.2022

It seems the separate word for finishing -dur or -ndur in Quenya is actually núro - servant. Nothing with d- in Quenya. Original d- become l- and original nd- become n- - but get the d back in median position, either with or without n, -nd- after vowel or -d- after r or l./HGL

PPS - two more, but this is not about placing of the stress accent. Uinen and Cuivénen involve the diphthong UI - it is not meant to be WEE, but OOY, please!/HGL

* Consider in English how "insight" has stress on IN, but (in US or parts of) "insightful" has stress on SIGHT.
** The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum : Faramir's (and Boromir's) Dream
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12756
*** This is not the case for all translations!

Wine-Dark Sea in Homer

I had a university teacher of the grade known in German and Scandinavian universities as Lector, in Greek, who taught us Greek poetry and Homer.

He used to say Homer was using "wine dark" because he was giving us some kind of ... psychedelic expressionist description.

There is an actually far simpler answer than Staffan Fogelmark's.

I spilled some red wine on some of my papers, and now the stains are no more red but blue.

Red wines take their color from grape skin pigments called anthocyanins, ... Anthocyanins are also nature’s litmus test: Their color can be reflective of the pH of whatever they come into contact with. When anthocyanins are in an acidic environment (like wine), they're red, but if you introduce them to an alkaline solution (like water with a slightly elevated pH, or if cleaning products are added into the mix) they turn blue.

ASK DR. VINNY : What causes the blue tinge when I clean red wine out of my wineglass?
Nov 8, 2019
https://www.winespectator.com/articles/what-causes-the-blue-tinge-when-i-clean-red-wine-out-of-my-wineglass

So, presumably the phrase was fairly standard one for describing red wine stains on the Greek tunics known as χιτωνες. Any stain is darker than the white linen. The darkness or stain from wine after a while became blue in the washing process. As Dr. Vinny puts it:

You might also notice this phenomenon if you are trying to clean a wine spill out of your carpet or shirt: The stain might turn blue before (or instead of) disappearing.

Problem solved, next question!/HGL

PS, seems "dark" is only part of the translation ... but wine is there in the original./HGL

From Ratzinger's New Letter

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: From Ratzinger's New Letter · New blog on the kid: Is Nostra Aetate Saying Buddhists Can Actually Achieve Complete Liberation?

Ratzinger, two quotes:

For the first time, the question of a theology of religions had shown itself in its radicality. The same is true for the relationship between faith and the world of mere reason. Both topics had not been foreseen in this way before.
...
Of course, the Civitas Dei is not simply identical with the institution of the Church. In this respect, the medieval Augustine was indeed a fatal error, which today, fortunately, has been finally overcome.

This essay will be dealing with the first quote:

For the first time, the question of a theology of religions had shown itself in its radicality.

Let's check with some authors clearly before Vatican II, shall we?

St. Augustine:

When Saphrus reigned as the fourteenth king of Assyria, and Orthopolis as the twelfth of Sicyon, and Criasus as the fifth of Argos, Moses was born in Egypt, by whom the people of God were liberated from the Egyptian slavery, in which they behooved to be thus tried that they might desire the help of their Creator. Some have thought that Prometheus lived during the reign of the kings now named. He is reported to have formed men out of clay, because he was esteemed the best teacher of wisdom; yet it does not appear what wise men there were in his days. His brother Atlas is said to have been a great astrologer; and this gave occasion for the fable that he held up the sky, although the vulgar opinion about his holding up the sky appears rather to have been suggested by a high mountain named after him. Indeed, from those times many other fabulous things began to be invented in Greece; yet, down to Cecrops king of Athens, in whose reign that city received its name, and in whose reign God brought His people out of Egypt by Moses, only a few dead heroes are reported to have been deified according to the vain superstition of the Greeks. Among these were Melantomice, the wife of king Criasus, and Phorbas their son, who succeeded his father as sixth king of the Argives, and Iasus, son of Triopas, their seventh king, and their ninth king, Sthenelas, or Stheneleus, or Sthenelus — for his name is given differently by different authors. In those times also, Mercury, the grandson of Atlas by his daughter Maia, is said to have lived, according to the common report in books. He was famous for his skill in many arts, and taught them to men, for which they resolved to make him, and even believed that he deserved to be, a god after death. Hercules is said to have been later, yet belonging to the same period; although some, whom I think mistaken, assign him an earlier date than Mercury.

Paul the Deacon:

9. Certum tamen est, Langobardos ab intactae ferro barbae longitudine, cum primitus Winili dicti fuerint, ita postmodum appellatos. Nam iuxta illorum linguam lang longam, bard barbam significat. Wotan sane, quem adiecta littera Godan dixerunt, ipse est qui apud Romanos Mercurius dicitur et ab universis Germaniae gentibus ut deus adoratur; qui non circa haec tempora, sed longe anterius, nec in Germania, sed in Grecia fuisse perhibetur.

My translation:

But it is certain, that Langobards (Longbeards), who at first had been called Winiles, were so called after a while from the length of beards not touched by iron. For according to their language, "lang" means long and "bard" beard. But Wotan, whom they called Godan with an added letter, is the same as who among Romans is called Mercurius and is adored as a god by all peoples of Germania; he is not presented as having lived these times, but long before, not in Germania, but in Greece.

Saxo:

At this time there was one Odin, who was credited over all Europe with the honour, which was false, of godhead, but used more continually to sojourn at Upsala; and in this spot, either from the sloth of the inhabitants or from its own pleasantness, he vouchsafed to dwell with somewhat especial constancy. The kings of the North, desiring more zealously to worship his deity, embounded his likeness in a golden image; and this statue, which betokened their homage, they transmitted with much show of worship to Byzantium, fettering even the effigied arms with a serried mass of bracelets.

I think the ancients and medievals had more of a theology of religions than Ratzinger has! Back to him:

The same is true for the relationship between faith and the world of mere reason.

Presumably, Ratzinger considers evolution and heliocentrism to be attainable as theorems by mere reason - and the natural theology attainable by it according to the Vatican Council of 1869 to be "over the top" ...

Both topics had not been foreseen in this way before.

Perhaps they had been foreseen or provided for in better ways.

And that means, "Vatican II" provided for them in worse ways.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude
27.X.2022

Proselytism and Evangelisation - Michael Lofton encouraged Fact-Checking - and I Did That.

Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Proselytism and Evangelisation - Michael Lofton encouraged Fact-Checking - and I Did That. · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Anti-Proselytism Bergoglio Again Defended by Michael Lofton

Michael Lofton pretends what people condemning the 2016 quote about proselytism being a venom, are doing is taking things out of context, applying a Hermeneutic of Suspicion.

Michael Lofton gives examples on how a Hermeneutic of Suspicion could be used against the Bible.

Mt 24:36, "proving" Jesus is not omniscient;
1st Cor 15:42-44, "proving" the resurrection is not bodily;
Prov [8] 22-23, "proving" the Wisdom of God to be created.

Of the last Michael Lofton says it is the one used by Arius. In fact, none of these examples are properly speaking a Hermeneutic of Suspicion.

For each of these points, there are religious groups saying this is what the Bible says, and that it's right.

In order for a Hermeneutic of Suspicion to exist, one needs to state "this is what X says, and it's obviously wrong" ... and that is not what Arius or the other religious groups are actually doing.

Mt 24:30-34, "proving" Jesus made an unfulfilled prophecy.

Here at last we would have one item of Hermeneutic of Suspicion. Possibly. Or one could say, it is legitimately a difficult passage, and one on which those not otherwise convinced are likely to go wrong, since, unless you had other reasons to believe Christ to be God, the answers we have to this one can seem farfetched.

The answers to all of above are:

Mt 24:36 - "does not know means does not make known"
1st Cor 15:42-44, a close reading makes clear : a) it is the same body; b) material is not among the predicates denied of the resurrected body
Prov [8] 22-23 has this Haydock comment:

Ver. 22. Possessed. As Christ was with God, equal to him in eternity. Jo. i. Sept. "created," which many of the Fathers explain of the word incarnate, (see Corn. a Lapide. Bossuet) or he hath "placed me," (S. Athan. iii. con. Arian. Euseb.) a pattern of all virtues. The Sept. generally render kana, "possessed," as Aquila does here. C.

Ver. 23. Up. Heb. "anointed." Sept. "he founded." Christ was appointed to be the foundation, on which we must be built. S. Athan. iii. Orat.

So, while Christ as God the Son already was existing, He was made into the incarnate Christ Who was going to be Crucified. So, a parallel to "the lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world"

Mt 24:30-34 - "this generation" = the generation of the just, the generation called "the Church" (and the Catholic Church is still standing).

But, I can get it, someone who has no other reasons to believe Christ omniscient and a prophet will obviously say this is us explaining away.

Now, in the 2016 context, the adressees of "Pope Francis" were Lutheran Pilgrims. And Michael Lofton gives 2019 as an example of what "he really meant" ...

I would say, in 2016, "Pope Francis" was encouraging Lutherans to demonise or pathologise Catholics who try to make converts.

There are more than one of the things in 2019 that actually underline this:

Two important articles in Civiltà Cattolica have been published in this regard. I recommend them to you. They were written by Father Spadaro and the Argentinean Presbyterian pastor, Marcelo Figueroa. The first article spoke of the “ecumenism of hatred.” The second was on the “theology of prosperity.”[3] Reading them you will see that there are sects that cannot really be defined as Christian. They preach Christ, yes, but their message is not Christian. It has nothing to do with the preaching of a Lutheran or any other serious evangelical Christianity. These so-called “evangelicals” preach prosperity. They promise a Gospel that does not know poverty, but simply seeks to make proselytes. This is exactly what Jesus condemns in the Pharisees of his time. I’ve said it many times: proselytism is not Christian.

Note, "PF" recommended an article co-written by a Presbyterian. By a Calvinist.

The following seems to indicate "PF" doesn't want Anglicans to meet Catholics eager to convert them:

Today I felt a certain bitterness after a meeting with young people. A woman approached me with a young man and a young woman. I was told they were part of a slightly fundamentalist movement. She said to me in perfect Spanish: “Your Holiness, I am from South Africa. This boy was a Hindu and converted to Catholicism. This girl was Anglican and converted to Catholicism.” But she told me in a triumphant way, as though she was showing off a hunting trophy. I felt uncomfortable and said to her, “Madam, evangelization yes, proselytism no.”

The following makes it look as if "PF" had a shrink's look on people:

Evangelizers never violate the conscience: they announce, sow and help to grow. They help. Whoever proselytizes, on the other hand, violates people’s conscience: this does not make them free, it makes them dependent. Evangelization gives you a dependence, that is, it makes you free and able to grow. Proselytizing gives you a servile dependence at the level of the conscience and the society. The dependence of the evangelized person, the “paternal” dependence, is the memory of the grace that God has given you. The proselyte instead depends not as a child, but as a slave, who in the end does not know what to do unless he or she is told.

Excuse me, but is this analysis something he has from the proselyte? Or is it one he imposes on the spectacle of the proselyte, a bit like a shrink could impose the analysis "denial of reality" on a Fundamentalist, if he were inclined to presuppose all and any of the sciences as practised in the major universities as "reality" rather than attempts at formulating it, that could be (and to the Fundamentalist are) failed attempts? I think it is.

I am reminded how people started asking me "are you well?" or hinting at someone being "under undue influence of someone" in 2014 ... after "PF" took over. Or after Aupetit took over in Paris. Wait, in 2014, he became Auxiliar bishop in Paris, no that was 2013, in 2014 he became Bishop of Nanterre, where I was often too. And He's a doctor, some of those are unduly interested in shrinkish ideas about other people.

And the idea of "proselytism" and defining it this way, as an abuse, has been dear to Modernist Orthodox, since Communism imposed it on them. If a shrink tells a Christian he is wrong because he believes miracles happen, the shrink is doing his job to help him out of disease - but if a Christian tells someone he's wrong, he's proselytising.

St. Francis of Assisi told his friars: “Go out to the world, evangelize. And, if necessary, use words, too.” Evangelization is essentially witness. Proselytizing is convincing, but it is all about membership and takes your freedom away.

First, this idea of evangelisation essentially being "witness" - that is witnessing with ones life - rather than "convincing" (with arguments) is also very dear to such "Orthodox" who subject themselves to Communism in accepting this.

Second, it seems St. Francis of Assisi never said such a thing.

FactChecker: Misquoting Francis of Assisi
JULY 10, 2012 | GLENN STANTON
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-misquoting-francis-of-assisi/

Our good Francis never said such a thing. None of his disciples, early or later biographers have these words coming from his mouth. It doesn’t show up in any of his writings. Not even close really. The closest comes from his Rule of 1221, Chapter XII on how the Franciscans should practice their preaching:

No brother should preach contrary to the form and regulations of the holy Church nor unless he has been permitted by his minister … All the Friars … should preach by their deeds.

But, there is a little irony in seeing the 2019 text after finding Michael Lofton's video - and searching Catholic Answers.

The Errors of Sedevacantism
JIMMY AKIN • 8/5/2020
https://www.catholic.com/video/the-errors-of-sedevacantism

The term “great apostasy” does appear in scripture, but it’s used in more than one context. And some of the uses refer to events that are already in our past, but—or actually, “great tribulation” is the term I’m thinking of there. The term “great apostasy” is really a theological term that’s based on some passages that indicate there will be a great falling-away from the faith towards the end of the world. And that’s something the Catholic Church accepts and recognizes, and it’s mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But what I find problematic with a lot of these sedevacantist claims is they don’t understand what an apostasy is. Apostasy is defined as—and you can read this in the Code of Canon Law, including the 1917 Code of Canon Law, if I recall correctly, it’s certainly in the 83 Code and it’s in the Catechism—apostasy is defined as the total repudiation of the Christian faith. So in order to be an apostate, you have to say “I was a Christian and I’m not anymore.”

So if you’re a schismatic that has left full communion with the Church, you’re not an apostate. You have not committed apostasy. If you’re a heretic that has denied some dogma of the faith, you’re not an apostate. In order to be an apostate, you have to say “I am not a Christian any more.” And that is not what’s happening in terms of the claims sedevacantists are making with regard to the bishops of the Church.

So, according to Jimmy Akin, one cannot be an apostate as long as one at least claims to be a Christian.

Well, duh, that's not how his own "pope" views the hotchpotch he makes in his mind of mixing Joel Osteen with Brenda Weltner or Ken Ham with Kenneth Copeland. I wrote an essay on the latter confusion:

Creation vs. Evolution : Just in Case ANYONE Confuses Young Earth Creationism with Megachurches
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/07/just-in-case-anyone-confuses-young.html

Long story short : the "PF" type of Catholicism collaborates with Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, some Evangelicals. It doesn't like Catholics to tell these people they should convert. But when it comes to some - usually Evangelicals - who do any of these things (the two others assimilated to the first), namely:

• tell people they will get a better life if they meet Christ
• tell people to shun the Ecumenic movement (and "PF" style or any Catholicism)
• tell people that the Bible is right and Modern Scientists are wrong where they seem to contradict and actually do contradict

when a group does this, suddenly it is not just wrong, but not even Christian anymore. Take that in. Not even Christian. That means, "PF" and Father Spadaro are basically calling people who seriously and freely adher to them apostates. While it is very clear that they do state they are Christians. So much for what Jimmy Akin said to Trent Horn. His "PF" doesn't feel bound by canon law in defining Apostasy. Indeed, the canon law meant to deal with individuals committing it as a crime of apostasy - not with creeping apostasy in groups that are not Catholic.

I have certainly seen Evangelicals I'd consider as less Christian than I thought - people who do argue seriously (and pretend to do so in deference to 1st Cor 15!) that Our Lord's risen body was some other thing than what had been born of Mary and Crucified, and could not have a second miraculous location in the Eucharist because it couldn't have a primary location even in Heaven, location being too carnal ... and they were anti-Catholic. But is "PF" all that sure that all the Evangelicals he and the Presbyterian consider as "serious" are not making the exact same error?

Back to the Lutheran Pilgrims in 2016. Supposing I had back then been where I was 1986 or 87, when visiting Lutherans in Ystad. The Franciscans had suffered horribly during the Reformation precisely there, I was asking the Lutherans if they wouldn't turn away from that impious thing the Reformation, and I was told that "we and the Catholics get along pretty well, actually" - they simply would, if so, have added "and your own Pope said ...." - today they couldn't tell me that. I'd answer "No, 'PF' is not my Pope" and that takes away their argument.

My impression as a young and sensitive convert to Catholicism of the Novus Ordo type, was: the thing I had concluded was the Church of Christ for some reason was better off with Lutherans and Social Democrats than with me. Any conflict where some of those guys found me too Catholic was one where the "Catholic Church" would take their side. Saying what Tolkien or Chesterton had said about the Reformation or about Socialism was for some reason "not very Christlike" or "a blunder" or whatever. I hate slavery too, and I certainly did not want to stay what "PF" calls a "proselyte" to a sect that actually punishes Catholicism - or Fundamentalism. That's how I went from Novus Ordo to various shades of Trad. And up to and including Sedevacantism and Conclavism. And seeing some things by Pope Michael, I have wondered "is he going Puritan Protestant?" - but I have given him the benefit of the doubt.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Evarist
26.X.2022

Quand commence la crise moderniste ? Peut-être en 1812

C'est alors que Giuseppe Settele prête le serment de loyauté à Napoléon I, pour pouvoir enseigner à Rome.

De toute manière, la sémence est faite en 1823, quand il obtint son imprimatur pour le manuel en physique qui enseigne l'héliocentrisme ou plutôt hélio-focalisme relatif. Ce ne serait pas condamné en 1633 ? Attention ... Giordano Bruno enseignait l'héliocentrisme relatif. C'est vrai qu'il fut brûlé plutôt pour son panthéisme, mais quand même ... dans cette âme de dominicain, l'héliocentrisme relatif, la pluralité des "mondes" ou comme le dirait Settele "systèmes solaires" avait conduit à nier que Dieu tourne l'Univers, quasi "ab extra" autour de la Terre, pour dire plutôt qu'Il tournât la Terre (pourquoi pas quasi "ab intra" ?) autour d'elle-même, et que Dieu serait donc imminent, et en plus, vu qu'on pouvait attendre des exoplanètes, en plus pluriel ?

De toute manière, il y avait un passage de la Bible, un consensus patristique et donc une importance théologique pour les juges de 1633, confirmés par le pape Urbain VIII, qui n'avait pas lui-même siégé comme juge.

Le géocentrisme a au minimum une apparence à première vue de faire partie de la tradition.

Le verdict de 1823 est pris comme "on peut croire l'hélio-focalisme relatif sans de se damner" un peu comme Humani Generis sera pris comme "on peut croire qu'Adam avait d'ancêtres biologiques sans de se damner" .... bien que ni l'un, ni l'autre de ces deux documents ne le dit.

Quelle serait l'importance entre héliocentrisme absolu et héliofocalisme relatif, quand les deux changent le mouvement diurne qui pour tant de siècles de géocentriques à été la preuve de l'existence de Dieu la plus éclatante dans l'univers naturel est observable ? Et quand les deux demandent de lire Josué 10 autrement que selon les Pères de l'Église et moins directement ?

Prenons d'abord la preuve de Dieu* :

I. Primo autem ponemus rationes quibus Aristoteles procedit ad probandum Deum esse. Qui hoc probare intendit ex parte motus duabus viis.

1. Quarum prima talis est: omne quod movetur, ab alio movetur. Patet autem sensu aliquid moveri, utputa solem. Ergo alio movente movetur. Aut ergo illud movens movetur, aut non. Si non movetur, ergo habemus propositum, quod necesse est ponere aliquod movens immobile. Et hoc dicimus Deum. Si autem movetur, ergo ab alio movente movetur. Aut ergo est procedere in infinitum: aut est devenire ad aliquod movens immobile. Sed non est procedere in infinitum. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquod primum movens immobile.

Je traduis** :

I. En premier nous posons les raisons par lesquels Aristote procède à prouver que Dieu existe. Et il entend de le prouver de la part de la mation en deux manières.

1. Dont la première est ainsi : tout ce qui bouge / est mu est mis en motion / est mu par autre chose que lui-même. Mais il est apparent au sens que quelque-chose bouge, par exemple le soleil. Donc il bouge parce que autre chose le met en motion. Donc, soit ce mettant en motion bouge, soit non. S'il ne bouge pas, nous avons le propos, qu'il est nécessaire de poser un mettant en motion lui-même immobile. Et ceci nous appelons Dieu. Mais s'il est mis en motion alors par un autre mettant en motion. Donc il faudra soit procéder [de même manière] dans l'infini - soit arriver à quelque mettant en motion immobile. Mais on n'a pas à procéder dans l'infini. Donc il faut poser un premier mettant en motion immobile.

Sans que l'univers soit compris dans une seule motion, celui des astres autour de la terre, on peut philosophiquement s'égarer (comme le prouve Bruno) en pluralité de dieux, parce que pluralité de motions.

Changer héliocentrisme absolu pour héliocentrisme (ou héliofocalisme) relatif, avec d'autres systèmes pareils ailleurs, ne fait qu'aggraver le problème.

Changer le mettant en motion divin pour un mettant en motion purement physical, à effet physical répond donc seule une cause physicale, rend la preuve de Dieu caduque. Pas toute preuve de Dieu, bien entendu, mais celle-ci - celle que Saint Thomas jugeait dans l'autre version, en I, Q2, A3, comme "la première est la plus apparente" - loin que ce serait une lubie personnelle de ma part de voire dans la Prima Via une preuve de Dieu par géocentrisme, Riccioli était d'accord : puisqu'il jugeait qu'il n'y avait pas une motion commune de tout l'univers, du ciel, mais juste des motions au pluriel, chaque étoile ou planète mu par son propre ange vers l'Ouest*** et il renonce à la preuve de St. Thomas. Il y préfère, je pense, celui de Décartes.

Ensuite, l'enjeu biblique, Josué 10 :

11 Comme ils fuyaient devant Israël, à la descente de Béthoron, Yahweh fit tomber du ciel sur eux de grosses pierres jusqu'à Azéca, et ils moururent ; ceux qui moururent par les pierres de grêle furent plus nombreux que ceux qui furent tués par l'épée des enfants d'Israël. 12 Alors Josué parla à Yahweh, le jour où Yahweh livra les Amorrhéens aux enfants d'Israël, et il dit à la vue d'Israël : Soleil, arrête-toi sur Gabaon, et toi, lune, sur la vallée d'Ajalon ! 13 Et le soleil s'arrêta, et la lune se tint immobile, jusqu'à ce que la nation se fut vengée de ses ennemis. Cela n'est-il pas écrit dans le livre du Juste ? Et le soleil s'arrêta au milieu du ciel, et ne se hâta point de se coucher, presque un jour entier. 14 Il n'y eut pas, ni avant ni après, de jour comme celui-là, où Yahweh obéit à la voix d'un homme ; car Yahweh combattait pour Israël.

On a, à satiété, élaboré que le verset 13, où c'est dit que "le soleil s'arrêta" pourrait être un mode de parler phénoménologique : si la Terre cessait de sa rotation diurne, que les héliocentriques de tous les bords lui attribuent, alors ça serait vu comme quoi c'est le soleil qui cesse de bouger.

Mais à part le fait qu'il n'y a pas un seul Père de l'Église qui expose Josué 10 ainsi, à part le fait que ceci donne une lecture moins directe de la Sainte Bible, c'est aussi oublier le verset 12.

Analysons. Ce n'est pas dit que Josué priait à Dieu à haute voix en Lui demandant de faire demeurer le soleil. Alors, certains diraient, Dieu aurait pu exaucer la prière même si elle contenait une erreur scientifique, Dieu sachant bien entendu ce qu'Il fit réellement s'arrêter. Est-ce que ceci vaut aussi quand l'exaucement est un miracle, c'est à dire un signe, c'est à dire une vérité ? Je ne pense pas.

Mais ce qui est dit est autre chose. D'abord, Josué prie en silence. Ensuite, devant Israël, il commande au soleil et à la lune.° Les mots de Josué que nous avons ne sont pas une prière, c'est la commande d'un thaumaturge, d'un faiseur de miracle. Dieu l'a donné l'autorité de dire ce qui se passera, il le fait, donc, il parle au nom de Dieu, et ceci à soleil et à lune.

L'enjeu biblique est que, quand un thaumaturge parle, il s'adresse à ce qui doit changer comportement. Ceci vaut pour l'autre Josué, Jésus de Nazareth, aussi, Celui qui est Dieu de Dieu et Vrai Dieu de Vrai Dieu. Pour un lèpre ou pour un lépreux, Il pourrait s'adresser à l'un ou l'autre, la lèpre doit cesser d'exister, le lépreux doit devenir pur. Pour l'orage, il s'adresse pas au bateau de se tenir stable, il s'adresse aux orage qui l'instabilisent.

Et pour les démons expulsés ? Les Luthériens suédois du 19. S. ont connu (pas tous partagé) une théorie dite d'accomodation. Dieu accomoderait Ses expressions même à des erreurs culturelles. Ces démoniaques auraient été des malades mentaux, il n'aurait pas eu de démons à qui s'adresser, et Jésus se serait adressé aux démons quand même, tout en sachant qu'ils n'existassent pas, en les expulsant d'hommes, pour s'accomoder à une erreur culturelle importée des Babyloniens. Exit donc l'exorcisme (superstition de ces "papistes" qui ont les sept ordres mineurs, dont "exorciste"), et le psychiatre s'en occupera dans le futur.

À ceci, on doit s'opposer en disant : non, les démons existent, et parfois Dieu tolère qu'ils fassent une possession, et Jésus en a fini quelques ravages comme ça. Autant donc dire, Josué aussi s'est adressé aux entités qui devaient changer le comportement pour l'occasion. C'est à dire, verset 12 exclut toute lecture hormis le géocentrisme pur.

On n'a pas eu ces discussions, pas en profondeur approprié, on s'était accomodé à des discussions plutôt centrées sur l'éthique, le pape a permis qu'on lise Settele, plus tard un autre va tolérer qu'on lise Galilée, deux autres vont faire allusion à la question, sans de se prononcer pour l'héliocentrisme (Benoît XV lui accorde un peut-être dans le subjonctif dans une subordonnée dans un document dont le thème n'est pas astronomique ou biblique mais littéraire, Léon XIII ne l'a même pas mentionné directement). Mais tous ces papes, Pie VII, Grégoire XVI, Léon XIII, Benoît XV, s'ils n'ont pas subverti la condamnation de 1633, se comportent au moins vers le public comme si elle ne serait plus intéressante.

Comme dit, vers 1820 ... 1920, à Paris, l'article Hexaméron, dans Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, VI-II, Ghezzi - Hizler, 1920 (un des éditeurs, Mangenot, était aussi l'auteur de l'article), on cesse de prendre Genèse 1 comme de vraie histoire, avec l'imprimatur de l'archevêque sans doute, et 2021 un Sébastien Antoni, censé être Assomptionniste, se considère dispensé de Trente Session V parce qu'il a rélégué l'existence individuelle d'Adam et d'Ève aux mêmes phantomes de musée que le géocentrisme.

Si j'ai quitté le Luthéranisme en me convertissant au Catholicisme, ce n'était pas pour avoir quelque chose encore plus moderne que la théorie d'accomodation.°° C'était pour me débarasser de cette modernité. Avec en prime les modernités du 16. S.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Luc Évangéliste
18.X.2022

* Summa contra Gentiles, lib. 1, cap. 13
https://musicasacra.forumfree.it/?t=9761763

** Je sais que certaines formulations sont enfantines, parce que non techniques. C'est voulu. Le terminus technicus d'un scholastique est assez souvent un substantif ou verbe ou participe de verbe tellement commun qu'on l'apprend quand on est petit. C'est la discussion, pas la terminologie, qui est avancée. Et elle est avancée parce que soutenue, parce que non interrompu par des modernes "mais bien-sûr faudra pas dire ça" ou "bien entendu ça ne veut pas dire ça" ...

*** Chez St. Thomas, le soleil est mu par son ange vers l'Est, autour du Zodiac, et par Dieu, avec le Zodiac, 365 1/4 fois plus vite vers l'Ouest, par Dieu.

° Il y a deux qui obéissent pour chaque astre : Dieu en faisant cesser le mouvement de l'Est vers l'ouest, l'ange propre en arrêtant le mouvement de l'Ouest vers l'Est à travers le Zodiac. Dieu est mentionné ici, verset 14, l'ange propre est mentionné (nommé comme l'astre) en Habacuc 3:11.

°° Exemple plus récent : Jésus n'a pas pris d'apôtres féminins parmi les douze ou les 70, donc les femmes ne sont pas clergé. Subverti par l'idée qu'Il se serait juste accomodée à la misogynie de l'époque.

Middle Ages : Europe Before Racism (featuring Olivette Otele)

I have said it before, racism only* came after colonialism and slave trade, and here is a welcome example of someone else's research on this:

The Guardian : African Europeans by Olivette Otele review – when race mattered less
Fara Dabhoiwala @fdabhoi Wed 4 Nov 2020 12.00 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/04/african-europeans-by-olivette-otele-review-when-race-mattered-less

African Europeans: An Untold History
Relié – Grands caractères, 29 octobre 2020, Édition en Anglais de Olivette Otele (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/African-Europeans-History-Olivette-Otele/dp/1787381919

* Or prevalent racism did so, some degree of "racism" is arguably inevitable and not necessarily even bad. If it doesn't affect that people who have the same rights otherwise should not have them reduced because of racial difference.

La Suède rurale que je n'ai pas vécue

Par Holger.Ellgaard - Eget arbete*, CC BY-SA 4.0, Länk

Et pourtant, je l'ai vécue, car j'ai vue cette cabane à Torekällberget [touréchyelleberyette] et j'en raffole l'odeur de goudron ... ou si c'était une autre cabane à côté.

Torekällberget - que pour le public français je peux abréger comme TKB - est un écomusée à Södertelge [seudeurtelyé] que j'ai connue tour à tour avec Vienne, mes premiers années. Ma mère était à Vienne pour les cours à la fac et les vacances universitaires à Södertelge. Je suis né en cours de fac./HGL

* son propre travail.

Easter Eggs Will Not Replicate a Style

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Easter Eggs Will Not Replicate a Style · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: A Tintin Fan who cannot accept Hergé's work was admired by Degrelle

There is a video channel that offers breakdowns of the Episodes.

What Episodes? Well, those of The Rings of Power of course.

There is more than one, but the one I am right now looking at, (no, not watching) gives on the caption a count of how many "easter eggs" there are in an episode. 91 for episode 7, it seems.

Even so, quite a lot of fans are claiming "this is so not Tolkien" - and admitted, from what I have seen (not on Netflix itself), the writing is pretty different, way eerier.

Those who, like myself, enjoy both Tolkien's Middle-earth and Narnia will know that these while closer to each other than either is to Netflix, in style, they are pretty different.

Tom Bombadil could make company with Bacchus and Silenus, at a pinch, but the Ring-Bearer and his hobbit friends could not do so with the Pevensies of Prince Caspian.

There is a big difference in moral universe between being involved in a deal with the devil and trying to escape it (like the ring-bearer and like Krabat) and having a vocation to save a king from an usurper (like St. Joan).

Middle-earth is so much closer to That Hideous Strength, if you want a moral or style-wise parallel in C. S. Lewis. I am not speaking of style of prose (that's lost anyway in a film adaptation or TV series except for dialogue), but style of action.

And nevertheless, on a day back in Malmö, when I had re-read LotR (much easier in an apartment with less noise) and Narnia (I have managed even here in the streets of Paris), I could drew up a list of 40 "easter eggs" between the two, not deciding which ones were original to the author and which ones were borrowed from the other.

Ettinsmoor and Etten Moors is one of the examples, the quiet of Fangorn and of the Wood between the Worlds another, and I think that back then I missed the one that Jadis is basically a hypothesis on "Galadriel took the ring" ... I think even her hight matches that of the elves. But her morals doesn't. Galadriel refused to see subjects as just tools for her own enhancement, refused to do anything like saying the Deplorable word and so on. And if Jadis is Galadriel as a baddy, Puddleglum is Gollum as a goody.

The idea that a fan fic (and the Netflix franchise is one, only one contracted with the rights holder of the author) should totally replicate the style of the original is not really realistic. Write a sequel or a prequel to a story, that someone else wrote - you are bound to differ. My (incomplete) Chronicle of Susan Pevensie is different from anything in the Seven Chronicles of Narnia, and it should be. Jean de Meung did not continue Guillaume de Lorris as same style, and George Chapman did not write Christopher Marlowe - at least as far as C. S. Lewis' views on Roman de la Rose and Hero and Leander are concerned.

So, why would writing a prequel be different? The question is, for each who decides to view The Rings of Power - is the gain worth the shock of seeing Tolkien material treated in a non-Tolkien way?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Bridget of Vadstena
8.X.2022

23 Julii Romae natalis sanctae Birgittae Viduae, quae, post multas sanctarum locorum peregrinationes, divino afflata Spiritu, quievit. Ipsius autem festivitas octavo Idus Octobris celebratur.
7 Octobris In Suecia Translatio corporis sanctae Birgittae Viduae.
8 Octobris Sanctae Birgittae Viduae, cujus dies natalis decimo Kalendas Augusti, ac Translatio Nonis Octobris recensetur.

Was God's Motive Ethic or Aesthetic When Creating?

1) Can a Christian Author be indebted to an Anti-Christian one? , 2) What does Subcreator Mean?, 3) Was God's Motive Ethic or Aesthetic When Creating?

Big spoiler, my position is, it was both. Generosity is both an ethic and an aesthetic motive.

I was just watching, yesterday, John Bowen for BBC programme Bookstand (1962) interviewing Tolkien. And one of the things they seemed to disagree on was this.

J.R.R Tolkien 1962 interview (subtitles)
7th of Jan. 2022 | Sîdh Aníron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi8q1Eopk2U

At 4:01 Tolkien says that as sub-creator (his highest comment on being an artist, doesn't mean being a magician) - because he is NOT the Creator - he rearranges the primary material into a "form that pleases, which maybe isn't necessarily a moral pleasing, it's partly an aesthetic pleasing."

Bowen, at 4:11 says "God, we may assume, made a moral rather than an aesthetic choice."

We are only, says Tolkien by 4:25 "looking at facets of one whole, but certainly an aesthetic whole"

So, Bowen tries to make it out that Tolkien is somehow in disagreement with how God created. Tolkien says he isn't, as far as he knows.

Let's take three books. God's of Pegana, by Lord Dunsany has definitely a very large overweight of the aesthetic over the ethic. Lord Dunsany was in fact an Atheist, and as such, the only function he ascribed to gods of mythologies would be an aesthetic one. Look Back in Anger has a high overweight for the ethic. It's one big exploration of how to be angry when being angry becomes unavoidable, by John Osborne (I had to read it in school). And Lord of the Rings, or Silmarillion, has a double edged blade on this issue, and so has The Hobbit.

If we assume that the best of these three authors, namely Tolkien, is more like God than the other two, we must imagine God's choice in creating as being both aesthetic and ethic. Generosity is the quality that is high in both of these domains.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
17th Lord's Day after Pentecost
2.X.2022