Saturday, December 28, 2024

Answering Netanyahu


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Answering Netanyahu · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Moral Clarity: Two Wrongs Don't Make One Right · Countering Kisin

1:53 but I'd actually start with the original 1:55 Moses the Jewish people uh have lived in 1:58 the land of Israel what is now the the2:01 state of Israel uh have lived here and 2:03 have been attached to this place for 2:05 about 2:06 3,500 2:08 years three and a half Millennia now for 2:11 the first two Millennia roughly of that 2:13 time uh we were living in what is 2:16 described in a text commonly known as 2:19 the Bible so the Bible describes how the 2:21 Jewish people lived on this land were 2:24 attached to this land fought off 2:26 conquerors sometimes were conquered but 2:28 stayed on their land and that uh 2:30 continued uh for a very long time until 2:33 roughly the sixth 7th Century actually 2:36 uh after the birth of Christ okay for 2:39 for roughly for 2,000 years uh we were 2:43 conquered by the Romans we were 2:44 conquered by the Byzantines they did a 2:46 lot of bad things to us but they didn't 2:49 really Exile us contrary to what people 2:51 think okay the ones the the loss of our 2:55 land actually occurred when the Arab 2:58 Conquest took place in the 7th Cent 2:59 Century the Arabs burst out from Arabia 3:02 and they did something that no other 3:04 conqueror not the Romans not the 3:06 Byzantines not the Greeks before them 3:07 not Alexander the Great nobody did 3:10 before they actually started taking over 3:13 the land of the Jewish Farmer they 3:15 brought in military colonies that took 3:17 over the land and gradually over the 3:19 next two Century the Jews became a 3:22 minority in our land so it is under the 3:25 Arab Conquest that the Jews lost their 3:28 Homeland the Arab were the Colonials the 3:31 Jews were the natives dispossessed


Netanyahu Makes Peterson Go QUIET with PROOF that Israel Belongs To The Jewish People
Rabbi Dovid Vigler | 27 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLwtExVA7Zk


Netanyahu is here baiting and switching between Ethnic Israelites (irrespective of confession) and people of Jewish Confession (in principle irrespective of ancestry, but concretely mostly, and vastly so, Ethnic Israelites).

After AD 70, ethnic Israelites were divided between Christians and Jews and Samarians. After Constantine, there were massive conversions from Judaism to Christianity. So a farmer's ancestors in 350 AD was likely to have lived there since the return from Babylon if not more, but he was likely to be a Christian. These are the ancestors of the Ethnicity now known as Christian Palestinians.

There was a reversal under Chosroes II. When he invaded, many Christians became Jews and started persecuting those who remained Christians. When Heraclius expelled Chosroes, this reversed again. Many who had been Jewish under Chosroes preferring going to Persia over living under Heraclius. Those remaining after that can be described as Mitsrahi Jews, those of the Jewish confession.

So, when "the Arabs" came (this is somewhat of a weazel word in the context), those who got their land confiscated were people remaining Christians and Jews, and even then not all of them, meaning, a new ethnicity emerged, Muslim Palestinians. Please note, calling them Muslim Palestinians or the other groups Mitsrahi or Christian Palestinians isn't about being faithful to what they were called back then, it's a retronym. Like calling a telephone a landline, like calling music not recorded in a studio to be played later live music, even if it referred to a time when live music was all there was, like speaking of Richard Cœur de Lion as living in the Middle Ages, like speaking of Alexander the Great as dying in 323 BC. Or like calling a Romanus or Rhomaios with Constantinople as capital a Byzantine, which Netanyahu had no problem with.

The point is, while the Muslims in the Holy Land over the last centuries Netanyahu mentions got their religion from the invaders, they got their ancestry to a large part from people who had been living there since Moses. In other words, the Muslim Palestinians may have started out as 10 % Ishmaelites from the Arabian Peninsula and 90 % Israelites, both Mitsrahi and Christian Palestinian, to use the retronyms. The telltale is that Arab authorities don't classify the Muslim population of the Holy Land (vilayet Al Quds, later on), but as Mustariba, just as with the Muslim populations of Jordan or Lebanon or Syria, to use other basically retronyms. Mustariba means Arab-ised. I don't think this applies to the Arab Beduins of the Negev, by the way, but I could be wrong.

The names back then would have been Muslim, Naṣrānī or Masīḥī, Yahudi. The point is, the Muslimin back then were not simply invaders, they were also, more and more, indigenous people siding with the invader. This is why I claim, the Muslim Palestinians as an ethnicity go back to Moses. Sure, Moses was no Muslim. He was also no Druz. But Muslims of the area, as well as Druz of the area and of Lebanon just North of it, descend from people who came with Moses. Because, it is also highly probable that the Palestinian population has not been replaced since the arrival of Omar.

Zionists often like to cite the people arriving to the mandate from Jordan or Egypt or Syria. But I would venture, this whole area already became the Greater Israel prophecied in Isaiah 11 c. 2000 years ago, through Christians, mainly, but in parallel, through Jews. Why are the Jews indigenous to the Holy Land called Mitsrahi? Are you telling me they never came to the Holy Land from Egypt after a family had been away for some generations? I would say they did. And I would imagine that Muslims and Christians coming to the Mandate would have been in a similar position. They were doing a kind of Aliyah, though not that of your state.

the Jews were 3:35 dispossessed we were flung to the Far 3:38 Corners of the earth uh suffered 3:41 unimaginable suffering because we had no 3:43 Homeland but we didn't disappear


Lots of this dispersal had started way earlier. I'm very sure St. Athanasius met Jews in Trier, when he was exiled there, banishment pronounced in 335, because his Quicumque vult contains a reply to the Shema. Some would claim Jewish presence in India goes back to the time of King Solomon. Jewish presence in Persia, well, some stayed in the exile, and some more went there with Chosroes as mentioned.

Here Netanyahu is identifying "Jews" with exiles, not just to the exclusion of Christian and Muslim Palestinians, but to the exclusion or at least forgetful omission of Mitsrahi Jews.

the Arabs who had 4:06 conquered the land best basically left 4:09 it Barren they never made it their own 4:11 it was a Barren land it really had 4:13 practically it was an empty land


It was not as peopled as recently by artificial irrigation that's sapping the Jordan and the lake Kinnereth, but "barren"? Nordisk Familjebok has 4 editions, I'm going back to the first, and to 1888.

12. Nådemedlen - Pontifikat (1888)
Palestina, äfven kalladt Heliga landet l. Förlofvade landet - 605-606, 607-608, 609-610, 611-612


The article is signed H. Almkvist, e. o. Professor, shortened H.A. in the text.

Om Jordandalen se Jordan. Östjordanlandet, en ännu skogrik och fruktbar högslätt af 600 m. medelhöjd med enskilda bergstoppar till nära 1,200 m., reser sig från den djupa dalen i v. som en väldig, i några branta afsatser delad mur, hvilken blott på två ställen genombrytes af större floddalar, nämligen Jarmûk och Jabbôk (nu Wâdi-Sérka). Äfven i ö. höjer sig platån, ehuru i betydligt mindre grad, öfver den tämligen högt belägna syriska öcknen. Vestjordanlandet, som egentligen afses vid tal om P., genomskäres i hela sin längd från n. till s. af en bred landrygg på sådant sätt, att ungef. 3/4 af landets bredd falla i v. och 1/4 ö. derom. Denna ås, som i allmänhet är högst i Galiléen och lägst i Samarien. har en medelhöjd af 450 m., men äfven enstaka toppar till 1,200 m. I öfre Galiléen (n. om udden Ras-en-nakûra) gå åsens sluttningar i v. ända ned till hafvet, lemnande en strandremsa af knappt 1 km. bredd, men i nedre Galiléen vidgar sig låglandet vid kusten till 5 à 10 km. bredd. I ö. och s. ö. sammanhänger detta lågland med de stora, bördiga och historiskt ryktbara slätterna Sebulûn (nu Battôf) i n. och Megiddo- l. Jezreelslätten (nu Merdj-ibn-Amîr) i s., hvilka med en höjd af 60 till 120 m. utgöra den enda beqväma vägen från kusten till Jordandalen. Söder om Karmel utsträcker sig kustslätten, ständigt vidgande sig mot s., ända ned till P:s södra gräns med vexlande bredd af 12 till 20 km. Denna stora och bördiga slätt, som genomskäres af några små kustfloder, har numera icke något gemensamt namn, men på judarnas tid bar den norra delen, mellan floderna Nahr-Sérka i n. och Nahr-Rubîn (s. om Jafa) i s., det ryktbara namnet Sarôn (»slätt»), medan den södra delen hette Sjefelâ (»låglandet»). Mot ö. nedfaller landryggen i brantare sluttningar mot Jordandalen med smärre vattendrag (Nahr Djalûd och Wâdi el-Fâria i Samarien) och smalare, tämligen fruktbara dalgångar inom Galiléen och Samarien, medan deremot i Judéen åsen utbreder sig åt ö. till ett vildt, kalt, vattenlöst bergland, den fruktade »Juda öcken», som når ända fram till Döda hafvets strand. Söder om det egentliga Judéen, d. v. s. söder om den linie, som går från Medelhafvets sydöstra hörn öfver Beêr-Saba till Döda hafvets sydspets, öfvergå den palestinska landåsen och Juda öcken i det likaledes bergiga och öckenlika »sydlandet» (Nédjeb l. Darôma).


I'll translate ... but first, the text has 11 sentences, of a length varying between 4 and 55 words, with a medium of 35~36 words. The text is from before 1906 and 1950, so, invervocalic V sound in Swedish words is still spelled FV (Äfven), post-vocalic V sound is still spelled F (afsatser), verbs still have plural forms (3/4 = tre fjerdedelar ... falla, hvilka ... utgöra, öfvergå den palestinska landåsen och Juda öcken), and despite it being after the 1870's, the short "ä-ljud" (or open E) is still spelled E, not Ä, in at least "vexlande" and "Vestjordanlandet" ... this is the Swedish I'm being regularly heckled for, as if I were dyslexic, had a severe trauma pushing out my language capacities, were trying to sound "old" with no specific reference (indeed the opposite, you don't often find "ehuru" / "albeit" in my texts), when in fact I am simply boycotting spelling reforms, just like an American could boycott the Webster spelling and go for British "colour labelled axe" as opposed to "color labeled ax" (pronounced exactly identical, except perhaps the R). Or a Frenchman insisting on using passé simple despite a school system promoting passé composé.

About the Jordan Valley, see Jordan. The East Jordan Land, a still forested and fertile high plain of 600 m (1968.5 feet) medium height and some mountain tops to near 1200 m (3937 feet) rises from the deep vallet in the West like an enormous wall, partitioned into some steep cliffs, which only in two places is broken through by bigger river valleys, namely Jarmûk and Jabbôk (now Wâdi-Sérka). In the East too, the plateau rises, though to a clearly lesser degree, above the rather highly located Syrian desert. The West Jordan Land, which is the essential meaning when speaking of Palestine, is in all its length from North to South cut through by a broad land ridge in such a way that about 3/4 or the width fall in the West and 1/4 in the East thereof. This ridge, which generally is highest in Galilee and lowest in Samaria has a mean height of 450 m (1476 feet), but also single peaks to 1200 m (3937 feet). In Upper Galilee (North of the cape Ras-en-nakûra) the slopes of the ridge in the West reach all the way to the sea, leaving a beach strip of hardly 1 km (0.62 miles) width, but in Lower Galilee, the lowland at the coast widens to a width of 5 to 10 km (3.1 to 6.2 miles). To the East and South-East, this lowland connects to the large, fertil and historically famed plains of Sebulûn (now Battôf) in the North and that of Megiddo or Jezreel (now Merdj-ibn-Amir) in the South, which, with a height of 60 to 120 m (200 to 390 feet), constitute the only comfortable way from the Coast to the Jordan Valley. South of Carmel the coastal plain stretches, always widening to the South, all the way to the South frontier of Palestine, with a varying width of 12 to 20 km (7.45 to 12.43 miles). This large and fertile plain, which is cut through by a few small coastal rivers, now has no common name, but in the time of the Jews, the North part, between the rivers Nahr-Sérka in the North and Nahr-Rubîn (South of Jaffa) in the South, the famed name Sarôn ("plain") while the Southern part was called Shefelâ ("the lowland"). To the East the land ridge falls in steeper slopes to the Jordan valley, with smaller watercourses (Nahr Djalûd and Wâdi el-Fâria in Samaria) and narrower, fairly fertile valleys within Galileee and Samaria, while by contrast in Judaea the ridge extends to the East in a wild, bare, dry mountain land, the feared "Desert of Judah", which extends all the way to the shore of the Dead Sea. South of Judaea proper, i. e. South of the line which goes from the South East corner of the Mediterranean, over Beêr-Saba to the South tip of the Dead Sea, the Palestinian land ridge and the Desert of Judah transit into the likewise mountainous and desertlike "South Land" (Nédjeb or Darôma).


So, according to a source of 1888, it was not in fact all of the Holy Land that was left barren, it was a specific area, the Judean Desert and the South Land. Was this by any negligence of the Arabs, was this fertile in Biblical times?

Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry
Matthew 4:1-2


Desert clearly named.

And David said to Saul: Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, or a bear, and took a ram out of the midst of the flock And I pursued after them, and struck them, and delivered it out of their mouth: and they rose up against me, and I caught them by the throat, and I strangled and killed them For I thy servant have killed both a lion and a bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be also as one of them. I will go now, and take away the reproach of the people: for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, who hath dared to curse the army of the living God
1 Kings 17:34-36*


Lions have a certain preference for dry land, don't they? So, desert implied with at least probability. Or, even the law:

And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert,
Leviticus 16:22


How can an all-knowing God make a law intended for not just the desert wandering, but also the soujourn in the Holy Land over 1500 or so years after those forty, up to the Cross, name "desert" in the law if the Holy Land had no desert?**

The land was only "empty" where it had already been empty in the times that Netanyahu looks back to. The idea of a "land without people" is a lie, at best a misunderstanding. It's like saying Nevada is a land without people or Utah ... naturally dry places tend to have large empty areas. Plus confusing the "Nevada" part of Palestine with the whole of it. Netanyahu is sloppy or dishonest.

  • His religious case "Moses brought us here" is equally true of Christian and even Muslim Palestinians;
  • his "Arabs displaced us" doesn't work, as a secular claim, one doesn't reconquer land one lost 1300 years earlier;
  • his "people without a land for a land without a people" is untrue (as a secular claim, if it's not a disguise for the religious claim, where it's even more untrue), since the Judean Desert and the South Land weren't meant to be very peopled and since other parts of Palestine very much were cultivated in Turkish times.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Holy Innocents
28.XII.2024

In Bethlehem Judae natalis sanctorum Innocentium Martyrum, qui pro Christo ab Herode Rege interfecti sunt.

* Some would call the book "1 Samuel" and what they would call "1 Kings" is what we call "3 Kings". ** Given the fertility of Samaria, I think it's obvious that the law foresaw Jerusalem and not Mount Gerasim as the place of worship.

Friday, December 27, 2024

Je trouvai une partie de la traduction française de Narnia


Je pourrais spéculer pourquoi, et il semble assez apparent pourquoi la plupart des pages manquaient. Il s'agit de "Le Lion et la Sorcière blanche, traduit par Mme E.-R. Blanchet" et donc vous pouvez déjà deviner.

a) Il n'y a pas de Noël dedans.
b) Il n'y a pas non plus le sacrifice et la résurrection d'Aslan.

On sait qu'il y a deux religions non chrétiennes qui trouvent de l'horreur dans l'Incarnation et la Mort et Résurrection de Dieu.

Mais je dois dire que la traduction laisse parfois à souhaiter.

Pour ceux qui ont lu cette traduction, et connaissent l'original, quand Edmund décide de "let down" Lucy, la bonne traduction n'est pas qu'Edmond "abandonna" Lucie, mais qu'il la "déçut" ou "laissa tomber" ou "lui fit faux bond" ... il n'était pas juste un soutien qui se rétirait, il était un témoin qui la lâcha par un mensonge.

Ou le professeur "était veuf" quand en l'original il simplement "had no wife" ... pour ceux qui ont lu Le Neveu du Magicien c'est un peu mystérieux pourquoi Digory Kirke n'épousa jamais Polly Plumber. C'est sûr à partir de La Dernière Bataille Polly, comme lui-même, était toujours vivante jusqu'à l'accident de train. Pourtant, "he had no wife" ...

Comme vous avez peut-être pu deviner, les finesses philosophiques ne sont pas non plus au rendez-vous dans la traduction.

— Enfin, monsieur, quand une chose existe... elle existe !
— Vous croyez ?


Le Professeur semble ici mettre en doute la stabilité de la substance, position philosophique horripilante.

En anglais il y a une autre chose:

"Well, Sir, if things are real, they're there all the time."
"Are they?" said the Professor


Il y a deux traductions possibles, qui entre les deux mettent en valeur la confusion conceptuelle de Pierre :

— Enfin, monsieur, si des choses sont réelles, elles sont toujours au-rendez-vous
ou
— Enfin, monsieur, si des choses sont réelles, elles existent toujours


Sur quoi le professeur répond "vous croyez ?"

La première me paraît la plus apte.

Par les romans ou d'autres œuvres du fantastique traitant de ce que l'anglais appelle "portals" / "portails" ... des conduites surnaturelles ou quasiment entre deux mondes ou entre deux plans de la réalité, surtout hormis deux périodes historiques ... la Narniade est quasi la grande référence pour le côté philosophique. Narnia ne cesse pas d'exister juste parce que le portail entre notre monde et Narnia ne reste pas ouvert tout le temps. Tel est le concept.

Pour les niponisants, le genre de "portal fantasy" est assez proche de ce qu'en Japon on appelle Isekai ten'i. Les isekai moderne, donc à part le folklore japonais, commencent avec un Haruka Takachiho qui est né l'année après la parution de ce premier roman de la Narniade.

Émile-R. Blanchet, selon le site Amazon, s'est démarquée en tant que traductrice de Somerset Maugham, un auteur très différent de C. S. Lewis, et il y a aussi des articles ou histoires par elle, si c'est bien la même, dans L'Écho des Alpes. Espérons que les traductions par Anne-Marie Dalmais soient meilleurs.

Pour noter les différences entre les auteurs, quand une loi ou loi envisagé fit de chaque personne né sur le sol français un citoyen, donc apte à servir dans l'armée française, Robert Ormond Maugham arrangea pour que sa femme accouche dans une maternité de l'Ambassade française à Paris. Dans la Grande Guerre, William Somerset Maugham était trop vieux pour s'enroler, mais fit brancardier pour la Croix Rouge. C. S. Lewis, aussi fils d'avocat, s'enrôla dans l'OTC (Officers' Training Corps) en 1917, avant d'être enrôlé comme quasiment Cadet de la défense, et s'en aller en Somerset Light Infantry comme sous-lieutenant. Ou dans le fait que le seul roman que j'ai lu de Somerset Maugham impliquait un mélange entre sorcier et hypnotiste très abusif, sa victime féminine, et l'amoureux (ex-fiancé) de celle-ci. Un intrigue que C. S. Lewis orait écarté comme donnant occasions à l'impureté, comme trop sombre aussi. Y compris pour ses romans pour adultes.

Ou encore, parmi les 100 meilleurs romans du 20e siècle, un jury élitiste place Somerset Maugham à la place 66. Les 100 meilleurs romans de tous les temps par The Guardian place, non C. S. Lewis, mais bien son ami Tolkien, à la place 64. Les deux listes omettent celui de l'autre liste et les deux listes omettent C. S. Lewis, ce que certains anglophones prennent mal. Genre comme les suécophones ont mal aimé les décisions des Prix Nobel, jamais à notre Astrid Lindgren.

Reste que la génération qui aurait dû bâtir en France la réputation de C. S. Lewis n'ait pas eu un excellent accès. La Bibliothèque du Chat perché fait paraître quatre des sept entre 1980 et 1984. Seuls deux en avaient été traduits pour l'Idéal-Bibliothèque. En 1952 et 1953. La série complète n'est pas parue en français qu'en 2001. S'il y a des incultes qui prétendent que le Monde de Narnia soit une niaiserie pour enfants, ils devraient être sur-représentés parmi les francophones non anglisants. À titre de comparaison, en suédois les parutions sont entre 1958 (débutant avec Le neveu du magicien) et 1976. Et en allemand entre 1957 et 1981. La génération de ma mère en Suède y a eu accès, la génération d'Alain Sanders en France, non.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Jean Apôtre
27.XII.2024

Apud Ephesum natalis sancti Joannis, Apostoli et Evangelistae, qui, post Evangelii scriptionem, post exsilii relegationem et Apocalypsim divinam, usque ad Trajani Principis tempora perseverans, totius Asiae fundavit rexitque Ecclesias, ac tandem, confectus senio, sexagesimo octavo post passionem Domini anno mortuus est, et juxta eamdem urbem sepultus.

Monday, December 23, 2024

Anyone Notice a First Letter Thing About Luther's Cities?


ויטנברג Wittenberg
וורמס Worms
וארטבורג Wartburg


PS, given what Luther became, it is perhaps hard to some to realise what he was. Thesis 71 among the 95. German (the original) says:

Wer gegen die Wahrheit des apostolischen Ablasses spricht, der sei verworfen und verflucht.


Who speaks against the truth of the Apostolic (= Papal) indulgence, may he be rejected and accursed.

I'm citing this from

Die 95 Thesen
https://www.luther.de/leben/anschlag/95thesen.html


Now, the people running the site are Lutherans and don't believe in Indulgences. They tend to idolise Luther for rejecting them, which at this point he did not yet do.

So, they mistranslate like this:

Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.


Now, "the truth concerning papal indulgences" wouldn't be "die Wahrheit des apost/päpstl. Ablasses" but "die Wahrheit über den apost./päpbstl. Ablass" ...

The site owners think he was on his own authority in 1517 anathematising those who disagreed with him about his "truth about" the indulgences. In fact he obediently, with a minimal but extant obedience, condemned the rejection of indulgences. When he came back to Wittenberg after Worms and Wartburg, that had changed, but in 1517 it was still so. He was not yet a Lutheran, he was still more like a Jansenist./HGL

PPS, hat tip to Voice of Reason who appeared with Ruslan on this video:

The Truth About Martin Luther that Protestants Never Knew ‪@VoiceOfReason_‬
Ruslan KD | 19 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsJSC-Y-Kyc


PPPS, Voice of Reason is getting the history somewhat wrong, the 45 theses that the Catholic Church eventually accepted were not immediately put into practise until the Council of Trent (and he died the year after it started). He's also overdoing the abuse of indulgences going on. Money could replace certain acts, like going on a Crusade or carrying stones to the rebuilding of St. Peter (the indulgence this was about), but were absolutely not required to get an indulgence for saying Hail Mary or to get a plenary indulgence for saying the Rosary on All Saints' Day. Not even in Germany./HGL

Saturday, December 14, 2024

"War-Torn Angola"


In an obituary about Anthony Paul Duncan, who died 30 years ago, there is a mention of this country in this state:

Anthony had been part of a Frontline Fellowship mission team that had successfully delivered desperately needed medicines and Bibles into war-torn Angola


30 years ago? That was 1994. Way after Angola was liberated ... if that's the word ... from the Portuguese. 11 November 1975, right?

Whom was someone fighting now that the Portuguese were gone?

There was a time when I used to use Lumumba as a curse word. In Sweden, there are lots of people who use euphemisms for the Devil as curse words, and I considered a name like that of Patrice Lumumba was not far off.

The "war of independence" was 1961 to 1975. 14 years, right? Or 14 and a half.*

Now, how long did the next "War in Angola" last?

The Angolan Civil War (Portuguese: Guerra Civil Angolana) was a civil war in Angola, beginning in 1975 and continuing, with interludes, until 2002.


The English wiki doesn't tell us what the exact belligerents were, but the French does:

République populaire d'Angola (1975-1992)
République d'Angola (1992-2002)
Cuba
Organisation du peuple du Sud-Ouest africain (SWAPO)

Soutenus par

Union soviétique
Allemagne de l'Est
République fédérative socialiste de Yougoslavie
Corée du Nord
Bulgarie
Brésil
Mexique
 Union nationale pour l'indépendance totale de l'Angola (UNITA)
Afrique du Sud
Zaïre
Front national de libération de l'Angola (FNLA)
Front pour la Libération de l'enclave de Cabinda (FLEC)
Mercenaires

Soutenus par

États-Unis
France
Chine


1 million dead
land mines that still kill ...

Not from the Portuguese army, in the war of independence the casualties were 25,000 on Lumumba's side, killed, and on Salazar's somewhat over 10,000, taking the killed and the disabled together.

And 30,000—50,000 civilians killed. Not 100,000 taken together, the Civil war was 10 times as lethal ... even if it wasn't even twice as long.

Maybe Salazar had a point?/HGL

* Seems that the fighting ceased in 1974 ...

See also:

ANTHONY DUNCAN DIED IN THE SERVICE OF CHRIST
https://www.frontlinemissionsa.org/news/anthony-duncan-died-in-the-service-of-christ


Guerre civile angolaise
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerre_civile_angolaise

Monday, December 9, 2024

How Do Fascist Régimes Fall?


Why not give an overview?

  • 1920, the Italian Regency of Carnaro capitulated to Italy;
  • 1938, the Austro-Fascist régime fell, agressed by Hitler in the Anschluss;
  • 1939, the Sanacja régime (Poland) fell, agressed by Hitler in the outbreak of WW-II;
  • 1942, the Free Zone of Vichy France was put under German military administration;
  • 1943, the Mussolini era of the Kingdom of Italy ended, Mussolini being arrested by the King, in connection with the Allied Invasion;
  • 1944, the Horthy era ends by National Socialist invasion;
  • 1944, the Pétain era ends by Allied Invasion;
  • 1945, the Salò Republic (also under Mussolini, liberated by the Germans and in a sense their puppet) ended, by Allied Invasion;
  • 1974, four years after the death of Salazar, the Carnation Revolution ended the dictatorial forms of power, not the least because officers were tired of the war in Angola;
  • 1975 to 1977, Francoism fell by La transición, Juan Carlos implementing a return to regional and multiparty liberties after Franco's death.


So, the main cause is, the states were small and open to foreign invasion, from Hitler or Allies or both. In the very first case, from pre-Fascist Italy.

The two surviving Fascist régimes after 1945, the leaders die, and after that:

  • the successor is less popular, which turns to impopular due to war fatigue;
  • the successor is not interested in continuing Fascism.


That a country falls prey to invasion, is hardly a question of its régime, but more of the ambitions of the invaders.

Is Peronism a Fascism? A certain Finchelstein, cited on the wiki of Peronism, denies it in these terms:

The core differences that Finchelstein noted between Peronism and fascism were: "While fascism mobilized the middle classes, Peronism rallied the working class. While fascism gave war, imperialism, and racism to Europe and the world, Peronism never provoked war." He also argued that "In contrast to fascism, which used democracy to destroy itself and establish a dictatorship, Peronism originated in a military dictatorship, but established a populist authoritarian democracy. Fascism sustained itself in the ideal of violence and war as sublime values of nationality and the leader’s persona. In military terms, it mobilized the masses but tended to demobilize them in social terms. Peronism inverted the terms of the fascist equation."


Look what Fascisms Finchelstein just reclassified as Peronism!

"While fascism mobilized the middle classes, Peronism rallied the working class."


José Antonio. ¡Presente!

"While fascism gave war, imperialism, and racism to Europe and the world, Peronism never provoked war."


Hoch Dollfuss!

"In contrast to fascism, which used democracy to destroy itself and establish a dictatorship,"


Is Finchelstein thinking of Nazism? Some, including me, would not classify it as a Fascism.

"Peronism originated in a military dictatorship, but established a populist authoritarian democracy."


Spain 1939 to 1977.

Ireland from the War of Independence to the long rule of Éamon de Valera with others.

Poland in the early days of Pilsudski.

"Fascism sustained itself in the ideal of violence and war as sublime values of nationality and the leader’s persona. In military terms, it mobilized the masses but tended to demobilize them in social terms"


Finchelstein again is confusing it with National Socialism.

"Peronism inverted the terms of the fascist equation."


Or better, some Fascisms, including Peronism, inverted the terms of the Nazi equation. Though admittedly, Gentile and at times Mussolini did express themselves in terms lending to this confusion of Fascism with Nazism.

Éamon would be somewhat like Juan insofar as it is hard to know when the régime ended, since it was not a dictatorship. Or if it has ended. However, overdoing immigration, apparently, to judge from the news, and legalising abortion and gay marriage, in recent years, that would count as the spirit of de Valera at least taking a huge nap.

I have not included the Argentine Junta, which I classify as Stalinism with Capitalism and some sense of Catholicism, just as at present Red China (which is lots worse) is allowing Capitalism. I have also not counted Pinochet, whom I like better than the Junta, since his economic policies were Capitalist with not much even trace of Corporatism. Mussolini would have been adverse to his view of workers. So would, obviously, Perón or de Valera.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Immaculate Conception of the BVM
9.XII.2024

Wednesday, November 27, 2024

To Be Clear, I Am NOT Recommending Protestantism


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: The Netherlands, a Few Years Later, Were Among the Reforming Episcopates at Vatican II · To Be Clear, I Am NOT Recommending Protestantism · New blog on the kid: At the Victory of Trump, Some Non-Christians Show Very Open Enmity for Christianity

Why was Henk Heithuis castrated?

Well, one reason is, some Catholic clergy, who were not denounced by their superiors, wanted their school kept under those clergy. They wanted to avoid "a scandal." By committing yet another atrocity.

So far, so good, some Catholic clergy are clearly to blame. Some of them then signed documents in Vatican II. Bekkers' politics of a secret archive seems to echo the politics or perhaps even precede the politics not perhaps so much by "John XXIII" in Crimen Sollicitationis as in its reception.

The text actually said sth about the secret trial possibly, if leading to a conviction, leading to public penalties for the priest. But first an investigation.

The result of the investigation could vary:

  • if the accusation appeared to be unfounded, this was stated in the record and the documents containing the accusation were destroyed;
  • if only vague evidence emerged, the case was filed away for use if fresh evidence appeared;
  • if the evidence was strong but insufficient for arraigning the accused, he was given an admonition and the records were preserved with a view to any further developments;
  • if the evidence was strong enough, the accused person was summoned and a canonical trial took place.


Quoting canon 2368 §1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, then in force, Crimen sollicitationis, 61 indicated the penalties that could be imposed after conviction. These penalties, such as suspension a divinis, deprivation of an office or rank, and reduction to the lay state, were of public character, even if the trial itself had been conducted with all due secrecy. The same part of the document laid down that, in addition to those penalties, penances should be imposed on guilty priests, and those in danger of repeating their crime should be subjected to particular vigilance (64).


Well, it seems Bekkers was of a school of thought to which case after case appeared as "only vague evidence emerged" ...

We don't really know how much his predecessor knew, he could have stepped back after finding evidence that was damning in the Heithuis affair ...

So, is the castration that ruined his life the fault of the Catholic Church? Or rather its faulty representatives in the Netherlands?

Not only. The Catholic establishment took advantage of a system already in place, in a Netherlands where the Catholics certainly not did have a majority of their own. By 1860, the Protestants clearly dominated the Netherlands. By 1960, Catholics and Protestants were on par. Heithuis was castrated in 1955. The procedure was routine since some decades, presumably.

Castratie van mensen komt in de westerse samenleving bijna alleen nog voor wanneer er zeer dringende medische redenen zijn. Tot in de jaren 1960 werd in Nederland ook bij bepaalde homoseksuelen en pedoseksuelen in het kader van een TBS-behandeling castratie toegepast.

Terbeschikkingstelling, afgekort tbs (voor 1988: terbeschikkingstelling van de regering, afgekort tbr), is in het Nederlandse strafrecht een maatregel die de rechter kan opleggen aan een verdachte van een misdrijf, waar minimaal vier jaar gevangenisstraf op staat of van enkele specifiek genoemde delicten (bijvoorbeeld bedreiging en stalking). Voorwaarde is dat de rechter ervan overtuigd is dat de verdachte ten tijde van het delict lijdende was aan een gebrekkige ontwikkeling of ziekelijke stoornis van de geestvermogens.


The two article quotes would translate:

Castration of people in the Western society nearly only still occurs when there is an extreme medical urgency. Up to the 1960's, castration was also inflicted in the Netherlands on ascertained homosexuals and pedosexuals in the framwork of TBS treatment. (The article does not state which Dutch régime began this system. It's certainly posterior to 1860. And pretty certainly anterior to 1955.)

Terbeschikkenstelling, shortened TBS (before 1988 terbeschikkenstelling van de regering, shortened TBR), is in the Dutch penal law a measure that a judge can impose on a suspect of a crime, where minimally four years of prison is due to each single crime (for instance true threats or stalking) on the condition that he's convinced that the suspect at the time of the crime was suffering from insufficient mental development or pathologic trouble in the mental faculties.

So, arguably, the Catholic clergy involved certainly did not just take the legal system as it was and abuse it, but they were pro-active, acted as if Heithuis had been guilty of sodomy and sentenced by a judge to TBS. However, they could probably not have gotten away with the solution for a Catholic school's reputation, if such processes did not actually happen, on a regular basis. If sodomy had just been punishable, but not actually treated as "symptom of homosexuality" (back then seriously meant as a diagnosis), it would have been much harder for Heithuis' persecutors to simply hand him over to a medical doctor. Heithuis would have had due process. I think there may also have been a certain culture in which medical doctors could take "responsable" decisions pro-actively before a judge was involved. In other words, the Netherlands, where Protestants and Secularists together would have outnumbered the Catholics, were a medical dictatorship, like the Nordic countries or Nazi Germany. This culture existed independently of these Catholics abusing the system (in criminal ways, that the system legally speaking did not support).

There was another aspect to Catholic life in the Netherlands. There was a thing called pillarisation. Or in Dutch, verzuiling. Each major political and religious player, well, they took care of a section of society that supported the convictions, like in the Netherlands, Protestant, Catholic and Social Democrat. This was intact up to the World War, and while it began to losen up from 1946, it was still pretty much the rule in South Netherlands. Part of it was simply the right to chose your school according to your convictions, a good thing, but it went far beyond that. Each of the three pillars had a reputation to look after, and Catholics were not the most well seen of the three.

The man responsible for this was to some degree Abraham Kuyper (according to wikipedians), a Calvinist.

And psychiatry is so to speak a secularised Calvinism, not the least in the case of what Dutch calls TBS and Sweden "vårddom" ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Virgil of Salzburg
27.XI.2024

Salisburgi, in Norico, sancti Virgilii, Episcopi et Carinthiorum Apostoli, qui a Gregorio Nono, Pontifice Maximo, in Sanctorum numerum adscriptus est.

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

The Netherlands, a Few Years Later, Were Among the Reforming Episcopates at Vatican II


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: The Netherlands, a Few Years Later, Were Among the Reforming Episcopates at Vatican II · To Be Clear, I Am NOT Recommending Protestantism · New blog on the kid: At the Victory of Trump, Some Non-Christians Show Very Open Enmity for Christianity

You know The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber by Wiltgen?

According to the book, the Episcopates of Italy and South America lost. The Episcopates of the "Rhine alliance" won ... that being BeNeLux, France, Germany, Austria, I think too.

The Ne in BeNeLux stands for Netherlands.

Now, take a look at Henk Heithuis. This happened under a bishop who, in fact, was not at Vatican II as such.

Willem Pieter Adriaan Maria Mutsaerts (18 Mar 1943 Succeeded - 27 Jun 1960 Resigned)
Wilhelmus Marinus Bekkers (27 Jun 1960 Succeeded - 9 May 1966 Died)

The Dutch wiki on Bekkers mentions:

Bekkers stopte informatie over geestelijken die seksuele vergrijpen hadden begaan in een geheim archief.


Bekkers put informations on clergy who had committed sexual abuses into a secret archive. Footnote one of the article goes to:

Ook in Nederland hielden bisschoppen en kardinalen misbruik in stand. NRC, 14 september 2018

The article is reserved for subscribers to NRC, I'm not that, but the title means "In the Netherlands too, bishops and cardinals enabled abuses" ...

I would say, that was not totally untypical of the Rhine alliance at Vatican II. Not untypical at all.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Abbot Sylvester
26.XI.2024

Apud Fabrianum, in Piceno, beati Silvestri Abbatis, Institutoris Congregationis Monachorum Silvestrinorum.

Is there a place in the Apocalypse which mentions "every unclean and hateful bird"? I think so. Get out of the Rhine Alliance. Get out of Vatican II.

Sunday, November 10, 2024

First Intermediate Period, During the Soujourn


The First Intermediate Period, described as a 'dark period' in ancient Egyptian history,[1] spanned approximately 125 years, c. 2181–2055 BC, after the end of the Old Kingdom.[2] It comprises the Seventh (although this is mostly considered spurious by Egyptologists), Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and part of the Eleventh Dynasties. The concept of a "First Intermediate Period" was coined in 1926 by Egyptologists Georg Steindorff and Henri Frankfort.[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt

What was it like? An archaeology channel made a whole video on the topic, not limited to, but including, Egypt.

The First Bronze Age Collapse and the Intermediate Bronze Age
Dig. | 4 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ7cMwKwCYA


When was it really?*

"2181" was just after 1633:

1633 av. J.-Chr.
93,3283 pcm, donc daté à 2203 av. J.-Chr.


"2055" was some time before 1610:

1610 av. J.-Chr.
95,2011 pcm, donc daté à 2020 av. J.-Chr.


If instead of 125 years, it was less than 23 years, that kind of explains why there is so little monumental, let alone other evidence from the period.

If (as the video suggests), Egypt was in some kind of Civil War, this means that the unification was ultimately bad for the Israelites, this verse could describe the victory of a faction which had not favoured them over one which had, or a reaction when a victorious faction which had done so tries to mollify the opposition.

In the mean time there arose a new king over Egypt, that knew not Joseph
[Exodus 1:8]

For comparison, I use a Biblical chronology in which Moses is born in 1590 BC. So, twenty years after the end of the First Intermediate Period./HGL

* See: Mes plus récentes tables de carbone 14

Friday, November 8, 2024

Galileo Understood the Then Standard View, But Misunderstood its Application to Joshua 10


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately? · Galileo Understood the Then Standard View, But Misunderstood its Application to Joshua 10 · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Where exactly do we know from that the man who had said the famous quote "not how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" was Cardinal Baronius? Do we even know it?

Letter to Benedetto Castelli
Galileo Galilei | 1613, December 21
https://inters.org/Galilei-Benedetto-Castelli


On the view expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas and shared since Ptolemy, the angel of the Sun is moving the Sun East around Earth along the Zodiac each year. Meanwhile, God moves all of the heavens from East to West each day, from the Primum Mobile (that is, the sphere of the fixed stars) down to the Oceanic Currents around the Equator.

Here is what Galileo had to say in one of these arguments for Heliocentrism:

I first ask the opponent whether he knows with how many motions the sun moves. If he knows, he must answer that is moves with two motions, namely with the annual motion from west to east and with the diurnal motion in the opposite direction from east to west.

Then, secondly, I ask him whether these two motions, so different and almost contrary to each other, belong to the sun and are its own to an equal extent. The answer must be No, but that only one is specifically its own, namely the annual motion, whereas the other is not but belongs to the highest heaven, I mean the Prime Mobile; the latter carries along with it the sun as well as the other planets and the stellar sphere, forcing them to make a revolution around the earth in twenty-four hours, with a motion, as I said, almost contrary to their own natural motion.

Coming to the third question, I ask him with which of these two motions the sun produces night and day, that is, whether with its own motion or else with that of the Prime Mobile. The answer must be that night and day are effects of the motion of the Prime Mobile and that what depends on the sun's own motion is not night or day but the various seasons and the year itself.

Now, if the day derives not from the sun's motion but from that of the Prime Mobile, who does not see that to lengthen the day one must stop the Prime Mobile and not the sun? Indeed, is there anyone who understands these first elements of astronomy and does not know that, if God had stopped the sun's motion, He would have cut and shortened the day instead fo lengthening it? For, the sun's motion being contrary to the diurnal turning, the more the sun moves toward the east the more its progression toward the west is slowed down, whereas by its motion being diminished or annihilated the sun would set that much sooner; this phenomenon is observed in the moon, whose diurnal revolutions are slower than those of the sun inasmuch as is own motion is faster than that of the sun. It follows that it is absolutely impossible to stop the sun and lengthen the day in the system of Ptolemy and Aristotle, and therefore either the motions must not be arranged as Ptolemy says or we must modify the meaning of the words of the Scripture; we would have to claim that, when it says that God stopped the sun, it meant to say that He stopped the Prime Mobile, and that is said the contrary of what it would have said if speaking to educated men in order to adapt itself to the capacity of those who are barely able to understand the rising and setting of the sun.


The answer is, both movements stopped. God stopped His own moving of the Prime Mobile, which lengthened the day, which is noted in Joshua 10:14, here:

There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel
[Josue (Joshua) 10:14]

But the Sun and Moon themselves also stopped:

The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 3:11]

Why? Because Joshua had spoken to them.

Imagine a man who was holy passed by a man sick in AIDS and in a cold. Imagine he stated "God cures your cold" and God then cured BOTH the AIDS and ALSO the cold. That would be befitting, since God would be giving authority to the words of the miracle worker, he would only go beyond them to fix a deeper problem as well.

This is about what happens when God in defending the authority of Joshua's words, decree that Sun and Moon stop, within orbits that normally run Eastward, but that are dragged Westward by the Prime Mobile. AND God on top of that stops Himself the Prime Mobile.

However, we cannot imagine God just curing the AIDS but leaving the cold as it was, since in that case He would not be giving authority to the words of the holy man.

For that reason, we cannot imagine that God stopped Earth from rotating instead of stopping the heavens from rotating around it. Which is how Fundamentalists who are Heliocentrics, not the ideal combination, now tend to take this passage.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of All Saints
8.XI.2024

PS, I obviously agree with Cardinal Bellarmine in his letter to Fr. Foscarini. Something may be missing at [?]

Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in the heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. ... Now, suppose you say that Solomon speaks in accordance with appearances, since it seems to us that the sun moves (while the earth does so), just as to someone who moves away from the seashore on a ship it looks like the shore is moving, I shall answer that when someone moves away from the shore, although it appears to him that the shore is moving away from him, nevertheless he knows that it is an error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the shore; but in regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man has any need to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that the eye is not in error when it judges that the [?] it also is not in error when it judges that the stars move.

Thursday, November 7, 2024

Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately?


Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately? · Galileo Understood the Then Standard View, But Misunderstood its Application to Joshua 10 · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Where exactly do we know from that the man who had said the famous quote "not how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" was Cardinal Baronius? Do we even know it?

I'll start out with a reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/QuotesPorn/comments/9iry1x/the_bible_teaches_us_how_to_go_to_heaven_not_how/?rdt=33695

r/QuotesPorn
[deleted]
"The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." -Cardinal Caesar Baronius [1872×1102 pixels]

[Désolé, cette publication a été supprimée par son auteur.]

tydugusa
I thought this was Galileo’s quote.. at least that’s what Neil Degrasse Tyson has said multiple times.

oxymoronic_oxygen
From what I found online, it’s often attributed to Galileo, but he was referring to an argument that he had heard from Baronius. Apparently, he had said it behind closed doors and Galileo thought it was a cool saying and wrote it down, citing Baronius as the original author.

tydugusa
Oh, Galileo you cheeky bastard.

Time_Machine_lV
So Galileo is like the Columbus of this quote.

ArabInTheWest
Ya i was just thinking the same thing, he says it in like every interview...

nickstreet36
According to Wikipedia:

"He is also known for saying, in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This remark, which Baronius probably made in conversation with Galileo, was cited by the latter in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615). "


Is this what the wiki says?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Baronius

I found the words as given:

He is also known for saying, in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[11] This remark, which Baronio probably made in conversation with Galileo, was cited by the latter in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615).


Footnote 11
Cerrato, Edoardo Aldo.

"How to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go"


I then changed the words, as I should, to the following:

He is also considered as saying, cited in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[11] This remark, which probably Baronio (according to some) made in conversation with Galileo, before the controversy, as he died before it, was cited by the latter (without precise attribution) in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615).


This corresponds better to what Edoardo Aldo Cerrato actually said. Here I'll give two longish quotes, from an even longer work:

After citing a long quotation from St. Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram about the Holy Spirit’s intent in inspiring the Bible – which culminates in the statement: Spiritus Dei noluisse ista docere homines nulli saluti profutura (“The Spirit of God did not want to teach people things that would be of no help to their salvation”) – Galileo writes: “It is clear from a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position that the Holy Spirit’s intention is to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go”2.

It is commonly held that Cesare Baronio is the person from whom Galileo directly heard the words just quoted, and he wanted people to know this. If this cannot be proven through documentary evidence, the attribution is nevertheless unanimously accepted3 and is in complete agreement with the thought of this wellknown member of the Oratory.

...

The biblical question in relation to Copernicus’ opinions had already been posed by Luther in 1539 – even before the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543)18 – with a clear condemnation of the astronomer. Luther called him “that madman [who] wants to throw the art of astronomy into confusion”, while going on to say, “as Sacred Scripture proves, Joshua told the sun, and not the earth, to remain still”19.

On the Catholic side, the question of compatibility with Scripture emerged more seriously when the Copernican hypothesis began to be defined more clearly. The position of the Church and of various religious orders was extremely diverse. The Dominican Order – at least one part of it – had immediately looked suspiciously upon Galileo’s Copernican struggle. Other religious orders and other illustrious3 churchmen were, however, less firmly bound to Thomistic Aristotelianism, and were closer to the Augustinian tradition. Among these stood out the Oratorians and Baronio, whose positions opened the way to an analysis of Scripture that would go beyond a literal interpretation. There were also the Jesuits; well aware of the crisis in the Aristotelian method, they, too, were interested in Galileo’s discoveries and his researching new solutions. But they maintained a cautious attitude, being more favorable toward the model proposed by Tycho Brahe20 who, with regard to that Ptolemaic scholar, agreed to better astronomical calculations and permitted ‘preserving’ the immovability and centrality of the Earth and the movement of the Sun, in conformity with the scriptural text.

_________________________

3 Cf. M. TORRINI, Prima recognizione della fortuna del Baronio tra critica e erudizione in R. DE MAIO – L. GULIA – A. MAZZACANE (editors), Baronio storico e la Controriforma, Sora, 1982, pp. 738-739. Antonio Nardia was a friend of Galileo, and in his Scene he acknowledged Baronio’s critical honesty regarding “exact and true information about ancient times and ecclesiastical rites”. Baronio went to ‘historical museums’ with Galileo and Copernicus; for example, G. GHILINI’s Teatro d’huomini letterati, Venezia, 1647. Among more recent publications concerning the attribution of Baronio to the celebrated statement, see: R. DE MAIO, Galileo e la competenza dei teologi, in “Il Centauro”, 2 (1981), p. 4; C. M. MARTINI, Gli esegeti al tempo di Galileo, in “Vita e Pensiero”, Milano, 1966, pp. 115-124; A. POPPI, Ricerche sulla teologia e la scienza nella Scuola padovana del Cinque e Seicento, Rubbettino Ed., 2001, p. 196; P. STEFANI, Le radici bibliche della cultura occidentale, Milano, 2004, p. 191.

18 This work, dedicated to Pope Paul III, was divided into six books that contained a generalvision of the heliocentric theory, astronomical principles of spheres, a list of stars, the apparentmovements of the Sun and related phenomena, a description of the Moon and its orbital movements,and finally a concrete exposition of the new system.

19 Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Tischenreden I, Weimar 1912, 419; Weimar, 1916, pp. 412 ff.

20 Brahe was born in 1546 at Schloss Knutstorp, today in the Kingdom of Denmark. He understood that astronomy’s progress as a science would happen only if it were subject to systematic and rigorous criticism, and by the use of instruments that were as accurate as possible. His measurements of the planetary parallax by the naked eye, accurate to the minute, became the possession of Kepler, his very famous assistant, who tried without success to persuade Brahe to adopt the heliocentric model of the solar system. Brahe believed in a geocentric model, which then became called the Tychonic (or Tychonian) system. In 1599 he moved to Prague where, sponsored by Rudolph II of Hapsburg, he built a new observatory in Benátky and worked there until his death (1601). PIERRE GASSENDI: Tychonis Brahei, equitis DAni, Astronomorum Coryphaei, vitae Accessit Nicolai Copernici, Georgii Peurbachii, & Joannis Regiomontani, Astronomorum celebrium, Vita. Hagae Comitum (Den Haag), Vlacq, 1655; KITTY FERGUSON, L’uomo dal naso d’oro. Tycho Brahe e Giovanni Keplero: la strana coppia che rivoluzionò la scienza, Milano, Longanesi, 2003.


I posed the question on Quora and got a preliminary e-bot answer, because similar things seem to have been already asked elsewhere:
Q
Galileo in his Letter to Grandduchess Christina said a highly promoted Church man had said "The Bible does not teach us how the heavens go, etc" and I wonder, since back when has that man been identified with Baronius?
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Galileo-in-his-Letter-to-Grandduchess-Christina-said-a-highly-promoted-Church-man-had-said-The-Bible-does-not-teach-us-how-the-heavens-go-etc-and-I-wonder-since-back-when-has-that-man-been-identified-with-Baronius


Importé
Assistant
https://poe.com/chat/3r7h4i9e2evrsw4czmz


Poe
The statement you’re referring to from Galileo's Letter to Grand Duchess Christina is often attributed to Cardinal Cesare Baronius, a prominent figure in the Catholic Church during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Baronius is known for his work in ecclesiastical history and was a strong supporter of the Church.

The identification of this unnamed churchman with Baronius has been made by scholars over time, particularly as Baronius had expressed similar sentiments regarding the interpretation of Scripture and science. However, the exact attribution is somewhat debated, as Galileo does not name him directly in his letter.

This connection likely became more prominent in the 19th century as historians began to delve deeper into the context of Galileo's conflicts with the Church and the figures involved in those debates. The phrase encapsulates the broader tension between scientific inquiry and religious doctrine that characterized that era.

Follow up
Can you provide sources that support the Baronius attribution?

Assistant
Poe
The attribution of the statement "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go" to Cardinal Cesare Baronius in Galileo's Letter to Grand Duchess Christina has been supported by various scholarly sources. Here are some key points and sources that discuss this attribution:

Historical Context: Baronius was a significant figure in the Catholic Church during Galileo's time, known for his ecclesiastical history and theological writings. His views on the relationship between Scripture and natural philosophy align with the sentiment expressed in Galileo's letter, which argues against a literal interpretation of the Bible in matters of science [3].
Scholarly Consensus: Many historians and scholars have identified Baronius as the churchman referred to by Galileo. This identification has been reinforced by the examination of Baronius's writings and his role in the Church, which emphasized the need for a proper understanding of Scripture in light of scientific discoveries [2].
Galileo's Argument: In his letter, Galileo uses Baronius's statement to argue that the Bible should not be used as a scientific textbook. He emphasizes that the primary purpose of Scripture is spiritual guidance, not to provide detailed accounts of the physical universe. This argument reflects Baronius's perspective on the interpretation of biblical texts [3].
Modern Interpretations: Contemporary scholars continue to reference Baronius in discussions about Galileo's work and the Church's stance on science. For instance, Maurice Finocchiaro and others have noted the importance of Baronius's views in understanding the historical context of Galileo's arguments [3].
These points illustrate the scholarly support for attributing the statement to Cardinal Baronius, highlighting its significance in the discourse between science and religion during Galileo's time.

Learn more:
Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany | Inters.org
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina Summary and Study Guide | SuperSummary
Galileo’s Letter to Grand Duchess Christina

Follow up
Can you provide specific quotes from Baronius's writings supporting this?

Assistant
Poe
Certainly! While Cardinal Cesare Baronius does not explicitly use the exact phrase attributed to him in Galileo's Letter to Grand Duchess Christina, his writings reflect similar sentiments regarding the relationship between Scripture and science. Here are a few relevant quotes and ideas from Baronius that align with this perspective:

From Annales Ecclesiastici: In his comprehensive work on church history, Baronius emphasizes the idea that Scripture should be interpreted in a way that aligns with reason and observable reality:

“The sacred writers had no intention to teach us the nature of the heavens, but rather to lead us to the knowledge of God and our salvation.”


On the Role of Scripture: Baronius argues that Scripture's purpose is spiritual, which implies that it should not be read as a scientific manual:

“It is not the office of the Holy Scriptures to teach us the natural sciences, but rather to instruct us in divine truths.”


Contextual Interpretation: He advocates for a contextual reading of the Bible, which can be interpreted as a call to separate scientific inquiry from theological doctrine:

“When the Scriptures speak of natural phenomena, the language is often metaphorical, and one must not take it literally in matters where science may provide a different understanding.”


These quotes illustrate Baronius's inclination toward a non-literal interpretation of Scripture regarding natural philosophy, supporting the broader argument that Galileo was making in his correspondence. For precise citations, it’s best to refer to Baronius's Annales Ecclesiastici or other theological writings where he discusses the nature and purpose of Scripture.


The problem is, no specific pagewise or bookwise quotes from any work was given. "On the Role of Scripture" and "Conceptual interpretation" are not titles of any works of his that I could find.

For the first of the quotes provided, I googled and found nothing in Annales ecclesiastici or Galileo, google directed me to St. Augustine.

For the second, the first hit, imprecise match, was for the Letter to Cristina, where we precisely do NOT find an attribution to specifically Baronius.

For the third, I find "the book of nature, the book of scripture" and I do still not find any page linked to Baronius.

For the quote purportedly from Annales ecclesiastici, no page citation was provided to an edition, nor any citation of book and chapter.

Let's be precise, the assistant Poe is not an intelligent being, it's an AI, and this means, it cannot understand the question. It can however scoure and plagiarise in seconds all that seems to match all or most of the words and chose what is most often repeated.

Let's also be precise, while St. Augustine does mention metaphor, it is not in this context in:

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine: Preface/Book I
https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/ddc1.html


Nor, when you scroll down and click to Book II and so on ...

So, what was Cerrato, Edoardo Aldo saying again?

Baronio went to ‘historical museums’ with Galileo and Copernicus; for example, G. GHILINI’s Teatro d’huomini letterati, Venezia, 1647.


Obviously, in English this is a kind of wooden translation of the Italian phrase. I suspect "historical museums" means their textual equivalent, texts and text collections about historical people. 1647 is 5 years after Galileo died, 40 years after Baronius died, 104 years after Copernicus died. G. Ghilini is Girolamo Ghilini. A nobleman and a priest.

Nel 1647, la pubblicazione veneziana del Teatro d'huomini letterati presso la tipografia Guerigli, successiva a una precedente edizione milanese non datata, probabilmente del 1635, segnò un passo importante nella sua carriera letteraria. L'opera, raccolta enciclopedica di biografie di scrittori italiani e stranieri, fu ripubblicata a Milano in una versione invariata, probabilmente nel 1684.

In 1647, the Venetian publication of Teatro d'huomini letterati printed in Guerigli's printers office, succeeding a previous Milanese and undated edition, probably from 1635, meant an impportant step in his litterary carreere. The work, an encyclopedic collection of biographies of Italian and non-Italian writers, was republished in Milan in an invariate version, probably in 1684.


Fortunately, it is in Google Books. Teatro d'Huomini Letterati, Venezia, per li Guerigli, 1647. It so happens, despite my not so very brilliant Italian, I could make out that both the article on Baronius and the one on Galileo were too short to involve such a thing. Galileo was praised for the multitude of his writings and the height of his talent and Baronius for only sleeping 4 hours per night and praying. Heliocentrism and Geocentrism is only alluded to in one of Galileo's titles, namely Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo tolemaico e copernicano. Ghilini never states what that means.

So, 1647 is not the terminus a quo we can consider the quote as sticking to Baronius. I think the terminus a quo is later, and I suspect it is 19th C. in attempts to "make Catholicism look good" to people who were fanatic Heliocentrics and not very Catholic. Unless the volume II actually gave more detail on each, since the google book was just up to what the index calls Il fine della Tauola del Primo Volume. But a volume II could have been instead even more writers, or it could have been planned and never executed.

How about someone did some double-checking on the earliest identification of the quote source with Baronius? My own hunch is, it's rather from another Cardinal, still alive when Galileo wrote, who later became ... Pope Urban. I think Pope Urban or rather Cardinal Barberini at this time, prior to becoming Pope, really thought this well through, and part time leaned somewhat favourably to Galileo's side. But not sufficiently to make us suspect he ever was a Heliocentric. He did end up solidly Geocentric at the thought of "God was free to create the world anyway He wanted, and make it appear to us anyway He wanted."

Meanwhile, though the reddit status remains visible, it is marked as deleted. Maybe the reddit user came to find the evidence for the Baronius-attribution too weak, or as I suppose, even suspicious.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Engelbert of Cologne
7.XI.2024

Apud Swelmensem civitatem, in Germania, passio sancti Engelberti, Episcopi Coloniensis, qui, cum illuc ex oppido Sosatio ad templum dedicandum pergeret, a sicariis interceptus in via multisque vulneribus caesus, gloriosum pro defensione ecclesiasticae libertatis et Romanse Ecclesiae obedientia martyrium subiit.

Thursday, October 31, 2024

I Love Hoods, Not Hoodies


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Swiss Guards · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Not Female Clothing · So, Women Don't Wear Those Breeches in Austria? · I Love Hoods, Not Hoodies

The front pocket of a hoody was how I lost a passport once or twice. It's useless for valuable things.

The hoody is too hot to wear under a jacket.

Wearing a jacket under a hoody involves pulling up the hoody to reach the pocket. That would mean losing any less valuable things kept in the front pocket.

The hood poses none of these problems.

It does give you the advantage of a hoody. A hood, that is a kind of cap, covering the ears too, and the lower neck as well, so it's kind of a scarf too. And when it's too hot to wear it, you simply fold it back behind your neck. The shoulder piece is a welcome addition to the warmth of the shoulder region. Or, in summer, I actually do wear hoods in strings, like the cape version of my jackets (miming Hungarian mentes), but most of the year, wearing the hood is not too warm for the shoulders and at night it is, even outside, very sensibly contributing to warmth of the head.

Some people have a problem allowing me to be me ...

A hood is not a masquerade costume. Sure, there are masquerade costumes that are hoods, like there are masquerade costumes that are imitating any historic garb in much lighter materials. But a hood in itself is garb, a garment to be worn and used. As the hoody I left to the side had an US flag, I mean no disrespect to the country West of the Atlantic, where I started learning English and Christianity. But I prefer hoods. They were in use when Quartier Latin was as yet only recently a University student area. Certainly within 100 years of the founding of the Medieval Collegium Sorbonense. Calling these days all of the university "la Sorbonne" strikes a note like calling all of Oxford "Magdalen" after Magdalen College. A flag on a garment is anyway not as solemn as an actual flag. Garments do get torn or dirtied, so into situations where the flag part would need to be exposed to a rejection that if it happened to an actual flag would be suable.

I do prefer some other countries, like Ireland, but there is a change in both US en Eire that makes some states of the Union more pro-life than Eire is now. Varadkar was a disaster. Plus, US has more respect for C. S. Lewis, as he was an Anglo-Irish, a class not very popular with Irish Nationalists ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
All Saint, After First Vespers
31.X/1.XI.2024

PS, if someone feels generous or good at sewing:

Medieval Mans Hood made from a Wool Mix
https://gdfb.co.uk/medieval-mans-hood-made-from-a-wool-mix-1482-p.asp


How to Sew a Medieval Men's Hood! (Last piece of the Carpenter Outfit!)
Morgan Donner | 28 July 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFBW_aGnxyE


Easy MEDIEVAL HOOD MAKING !
L' Atelier de Ledold | 10 Nov. 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_IOLb3KMHE

Friday, October 25, 2024

Signor Cerquiglini, sans les Anglais, le français aurait été un latin fautif


Ce sont, entre 597 et vers 800, les Anglais qui le mieux cultivent le latin en tant que langue étrangère.

Entretemps, les sujets des rois francs cultivent le latin en tant que langue maternelle, et ils le changent, et le plus français des régistres aurait été le moins correct et le moins prestigieux.

Quand pour la liturgie, Alcuin impose à Tours le latin des Anglais comme prononciation, il libère le latin des Tourangeaux à se développer sans référence à une langue écrite 1000 ans plus vieille, et cette autre langue latine, illico renommé "lingua romana rustica" est ce qui devient la base du français.

Ce n'est pas juste le latin médiéval (proprement dit) ou latin ecclésiastique qui prend son origine en Angleterre, mais il semble que la séquence de Ste Eulalie aurait été écrit dans un des dialectes qui plus tard croisèrent la Manche avec Guillaume de la Falaise ou qui en étaient proches. Après ça uniquement, et après un texte du Chanson de Roland qui se trouve à Oxford, l'Angleterre nous donne aussi l'anglais. Vous savez, l'anglais moderne qui est un peu plus français et un peu moins néerlandais .../HGL

Genesis 22:14 and Exodus 6:3


Michael Lofton proposed to deal with it by an alternative reading of Exodus 6:3

Bible-Splaining: Did Abraham Know God's Name?
Reason & Theology | 9 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0N7KWrCfI


Now, it would seem that the alternative reading "did I not make my name known to them?" is in conflict with LXX and Vulgate, two old translations.

καὶ ὤφθην πρὸς ῾Αβραὰμ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακώβ, Θεὸς ὢν αὐτῶν, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου Κύριος οὐκ ἐδήλωσα αὐτοῖς·

qui apparui Abraham, Isaac et Jacob in Deo omnipotente : et nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis.


The translations to English are a modern one of the LXX, and Challoner's revision of Douay Rheims:

And I appeared to Abraam and Isaac and Jacob, being their God, but I did not manifest to them my name Lord.

That appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; and my name ADONAI I did not shew them.


So, can we reconcile "Abraham knew the name Adonai" and "God did not show Abraham the name Adonai"? Yes, we can.

But to Seth also was born a son, whom he called Enos; this man began to call upon the name of the Lord
[Genesis 4:26]


So, Abraham knew the name Adonai, not because Adonai revealed it to him, but because he knew it from tradition from earlier on. A tradition that Abraham trusted, even without direct confirmation by God revealing things from him.

Why is this important? Well, some have pretended "we cannot accept the idea that Genesis 3 and so on were facts known to Abraham by tradition, since Abraham was born in a pagan and idolatrous household, where every tradition was tainted" ...

This is particularly popular among some French people who refuse to take the traditional view of the Genesis portion 1 to 11 and most especially of its chronology.

I have at least once, probably twice, told some Novus Ordo Catholic in France the idea* of Father Haydock:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)


And I have at least once, probably twice, been told "can't be, Abraham was born in a Pagan household" ...

The latter is obviously based on:

And he spoke thus to the people: Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: Your fathers dwelt of old on the other side of the river, Thare the father of Abraham, and Nachor: and they served strange gods
[Josue (Joshua) 24:2]


First, it does not say which Nachor did so, but suppose it were both, both the brother and the grandfather.

Second, it does not say when they started to do so.

But third, on a LXX chronology (with or without the second Cainan, but imperatively without the edition error** of putting Abraham's birth 1170 rather than 1070 after the Flood in case Cainan is retained, Sarug was alive for 50 years from Abraham's birth to his own death. And Sarug was not an idolater. Hence, Genesis 3 was known to Abraham by tradition. As confirmation: so was the name Adonai./HGL

Footnotes:

* GENESIS - Chapter 3
https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id329.html


** Looking up the exact nature of the error:

Some English versions mistakenly translate Nahor’s age at Terah’s birth as 179 years old, but the Greek manuscripts read 79.


The biblical minimum and maximum age of the earth
Chris Hardy and Robert Carter
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_2/j28_2_89-96.pdf

Thursday, October 24, 2024

Il y avait un temps, un péplum était Ben Hur ou Spartacus


Christianisme ou Socialisme ou, à la limite, un sens de justice social qui préfigure à la fois Christianisme et Socialisme.

Aujourd'hui, un péplum sortira dans le mois suivant, c'est Gladiator II.

Que disait St. Augustin de la volonté de regarder les gladiateurs ?

Est-il marqué quelque part en Cité de Dieu ?

Et "tu as un rage en toi qui te rendra grand" n'est pas forcément un message très correct ou très moral./HGL

Friday, October 18, 2024

Encore en arrière (derrière les Monégasques) ?


Ancêtres de Louis II de Monaco · Encore en arrière (derrière les Monégasques) ?

Oui. On peut les tracer, en partie (bon, pas les Beauharnais, mais, bon ...). Comme le dit C. S. Lewis (qui était d'une mère noble, une Hamilton, donc apparentée aux ancêtres de Louis II), en traduction libre "le truc avec la noblesse n'est pas d'avoir une lignée, on a tous une lignée qui remonte à Adam et Ève, le truc est de la pouvoir tracer loin en arrière" ... le post avant, j'avais oublié de démarquer les parties directement citées de la wikipédie, ici je corrige et les mets en deux carrées, dedans tout, sauf [ce qui est entre crochets], est cité de la wikipédie. Bon, j'ai aussi donné alerte pour un franc-maçon, avec (!) autour de la citation pertinente.


Jacques Goyon de Matignon, comte de Torigni, né le 21 novembre 1689 à Torigni et mort le 23 avril 1751 à Paris, est prince souverain de Monaco sous le nom de Jacques Ier du 29 décembre 1731 au 7 novembre 1733.

Louise-Hippolyte (monégasque : Luisa Ipo̍lita1 ; italien : Luisa Ippolita), née le 10 novembre 1697 et morte le 29 décembre 1731 à Monaco, fut princesse souveraine de Monaco — la seule de l'histoire de la principauté2. Elle mourut prématurément en 1731 après onze mois de règne.

Après l'échec de la proposition d'union avec le chevalier Grimaldi d'Antibes3, elle épouse le 20 octobre 1715 Jacques de Goyon de Matignon, comte de Torigni (1689-1751).

Giuseppe Maria Brignole Sale, francisé en Joseph Marie de Brignole Sale (né le 18 février 1703 et mort le 6 janvier 1769) est un noble italien du XVIIIe siècle.

[apparemment, il épousa Maria Anna Balbi suite à la mort prématurée de son frère Gian Giacomo Brignole Sale (1696-1734), donc en 1734]

Louis-Marie-Augustin d'Aumont de Rochebaron, né le 28 août 1709, mort à Paris, en son hôtel de la place Louis XV, le 15 avril 1782, 5e duc d'Aumont, pair de France, Premier gentilhomme de la Chambre du Roi, lieutenant-général des armées du Roi, chevalier de ses ordres, gouverneur de Boulogne et du pays Boulonnois, gouverneur et grand bailli de la ville de Chauny, etc.

(!) Il a été le vénérable de la loge de Bussy-Aumont16. Cette loge aurait commencé à exister dès 1732, mais elle a demandé des constitutions à la Grande Loge que présidait J. H. MacLean. Derwentwater17. qui avait remplacé MacLean et les officiers de la Grande Loge installèrent la loge chez Landelle « à l'Hôtel rue de Bussy ». La loge de Bussy est considérée comme régulière à partir du 29 novembre 1736. Le 7 février 1737, elle a comme vénérable maître à sa fondation Louis Collins, peintre du roi. Une délégation de la loge a reçu de Derwentwater une patente constitutive le 14 février 1737 en remplacement de la patente provisoire. Le duc d'Aumont est maître dans cette loge dès avril 1737 et il a dû être vénérable peu de temps après sa réception. On ne sait pas à quelle date la loge de Bussy a pris le nom de Bussy-Aumont. Le duc d'Antin a été élu grand maître en 1738. Louis de Bourbon-Condé (1709-1771) lui a succédé comme « Grand Maître de toutes les loges régulières de France » en 1743. (!)

Il épouse le 23 avril 1727 Victoire Félicité de Durfort Duras (1706-1753), fille de Jean-Baptiste de Durfort, duc de Duras, maréchal de France, et de Angélique Victoire de Bournonville. Elle était veuve en premières noces, sans enfant, de Jacques de Fitz-James, deuxième duc de Fitz-James. [Il meurt quand elle a 15, qui est donc l'âge maximale de ses premières noces]

Emmanuel-Félicité de Durfort, duc de Duras (19 septembre 1715 - 6 septembre 1789 à Versailles), est un militaire, homme politique et diplomate français, pair et maréchal de France.

Il se marie, une première fois, en mai 1733, avec Charlotte Antoinette de La Porte Mazarin (1719 - 1735), fille unique du duc de Mazarin : d'où Louise-Jeanne, qui épouse le duc Louis-Marie d'Aumont ; parents de Louise d'Aumont épouse d'Honoré IV de Monaco.

James Hamilton, 4e duc de Hamilton et 1er duc de Brandon (11 avril 1658- 15 novembre 1712) est un noble écossais, le premier pair de l’Écosse, et garde du Palais de Holyrood. Il est maître de la grande garde-robe, maître général de l'ordre, ambassadeur et Colonel en chef de son régiment1. Il est un investisseur majeur dans le Projet Darién , qui a coûté leur fortune à de nombreux membres de la classe dirigeante écossaise, et il joue un rôle de premier plan dans les événements qui conduisent à l'acte d'Union de 1707. Il meurt le 15 novembre 1712, à l'issue d'un duel célèbre à Hyde Park avec Charles Mohun (4e baron Mohun), pour un héritage litigieux.

En 1686, Hamilton épouse Anne Spencer, fille de Robert Spencer (2e comte de Sunderland). Ils ont deux filles, mais aucune n'a survécu à l'enfance. Anne est décédée peu de temps après la naissance de la deuxième fille en 1690.

Hamilton épouse en secondes noces Elizabeth Gerard, fille de Digby Gerard, 5e baron Gerard en 1698, et ils ont sept enfants ...

Frédéric de Bade-Durlach, né le 7 octobre 1703 et décédé le 26 mars 1732 à Karlsruhe, fut prince héritier de Bade-Durlach.

Frédéric de Bade-Durlach épouse en 1727 Anne-Charlotte-Amélie d'Orange-Nassau (1710 – 1777), fille du stathouder Jean-Guillaume-Friso d'Orange, comte de Nassau-Dietz et prince d'Orange, et de Marie-Louise de Hesse-Cassel.

La princesse Anne-Charlotte-Amélie de Nassau-Dietz (23 octobre 1710 à Leuvarde – 18 septembre 1777 à Durlach) est l'épouse de Frédéric de Bade-Durlach, et mère de Charles Ier de Bade, le premier grand-duc de Bade.

Louis VIII de Hesse-Darmstadt (en allemand Ludwig VIII von Hessen-Darmstadt), né le 5 avril 1691 à Darmstadt et mort le 17 octobre 1768 dans cette même ville, est landgrave de Hesse-Darmstadt de 1739 à sa mort.

Louis VIII se marie le 5 avril 1717 au château de Philippsruhe avec Charlotte (1700 – 1726), fille du comte Jean-René III de Hanau-Lichtenberg.

Charlotte de Hanau-Lichtenberg, de son nom complet Comtesse Charlotte Christine Magdalene Johanna de Hanau-Lichtenberg, est née le 2 mai 1700 à Bouxwiller (Bas-Rhin) et décédée le 1er juillet 1726 à Darmstadt. Elle fut l'épouse du landgrave Louis VIII de Hesse-Darmstadt.


La génération avant:


Antoine Ier, né le 25 janvier 1661 à Paris et mort le 20 janvier 1731 à Monaco, succède à son père Louis Ier en 1701 et devient le 3e prince souverain de Monaco.

Marié le 14 juin 1688 avec Marie de Lorraine (1674-1724), fille de Louis de Lorraine, comte d'Armagnac, fils du comte d'Harcourt, et de Catherine de Neuville.

Marie de Lorraine (Paris, 12 août 1674 – Monaco, 30 octobre 1724) est l’épouse du prince souverain Antoine Ier de Monaco (1661-1731).

Anton Giulio II Brignole Sale marchese di Groppoli (Genova, 1673 – Genova, 1710) è stato un ambasciatore italiano, al servizio della Repubblica di Genova.

Parents de Louis-Marie-Augustin d'Aumont de Rochebaron : Louis Marie d'Aumont (1691-1723), Catherine de Guiscard (1687-1723)

Jean-Baptiste de Durfort, duc de Duras, maréchal de France, fils de Jacques Henri de Durfort, né le 28 janvier 1684, mort le 8 juillet 1770 à Paris.

Er heiratete am 6. Januar 1706 Marie Angélique Victoire de Bournonville (* 23. Januar 1686; † 29. September 1764), Tochter von Alexandre-Albert-François-Barthelemy, Duc et Prince de Bournonville, Comte de Henin, und Charlotte-Victoire d’Albert de Luynes.

William Douglas-Hamilton, duc de Hamilton, (24 décembre 1634 - 18 avril 1694), également connu sous les noms de Lord William Douglas et de comte de Selkirk, est un noble et un homme politique écossais1. Il est le fils aîné de William Douglas (1er marquis de Douglas) de sa deuxième épouse, Mary Gordon, fille de George Gordon (1er marquis de Huntly) (en)2.

Le 29 avril 1656, il épouse Anne Hamilton, duchesse de Hamilton. Elle appartient à une dynastie résolument royaliste. Oliver Cromwell a confisqué leurs terres après les activités de son père et de son oncle dans les Guerres des Trois Royaumes. Son père, James Hamilton (1er duc d'Hamilton), est exécuté par les Anglais en 1649 à la fin de la deuxième guerre civile anglaise5 et son oncle, William Hamilton, est décédé après la bataille de Worcester en 16514

Anne Hamilton, 3e duchesse de Hamilton (6 janvier 1632 1 - 17 octobre 1716) est une pair écossaise.

Charles III Guillaume, né le 17 janvier 1679 à Durlach et mort le 12 mai 1738 à Karlsruhe, est margrave de Bade-Durlach de 1709 à 1738.

Charles III Guillaume de Bade-Durlach épouse le 27 juin 1697 Madeleine-Wilhelmine de Wurtemberg (1677 – 1742, fille de Guillaume-Louis de Wurtemberg).

Madeleine-Wilhelmine de Wurtemberg (7 novembre 1677, Stuttgart – 30 octobre 1742, château de Karlsburg, Durlach) est une margravine de Bade. Elle est régente pendant la minorité de son petit-fils de 1738 à 1742.

Jean-Guillaume-Friso de Nassau-Dietz (en allemand Johann Wilhelm Friso von Nassau-Dietz), né le 4 août 1687 à Dessau et mort noyé le 14 juillet 1711 à Moerdijk, fut prince de Nassau-Dietz, stathouder de Frise de 1696 à 1711, prince d'Orange de 1702 à 1711, stathouder de Groningue de 1708 à 1711.

En 1709, Jean-Guillaume-Friso de Nassau-Dietz épouse Marie-Louise de Hesse-Cassel (1688-1765), fille du landgrave Charles Ier.

Marie-Louise de Hesse-Cassel (Cassel, 7 février 1688 - Leeuwarden, 9 avril 1765), est une fille du landgrave Charles Ier de Hesse-Cassel et d'Amélie de Courlande. Elle est la sœur du roi Frédéric Ier de Suède, du Landgrave Guillaume VIII de Hesse-Cassel et de Sophie-Charlotte de Hesse-Cassel, duchesse de Mecklembourg-Schwerin. Apparentée aux maisons souveraines européennes, elle est notamment une cousine germaine du roi Frédéric IV de Danemark et une cousine issue de germain du régent de France Philippe d'Orléans (1674-1723).

Ernest-Louis, né le 15 décembre 1667 au château de Friedenstein à Gotha et mort le 12 septembre 1739 au château de Jägersburg près d'Einhausen, est landgrave de Hesse-Darmstadt de 1678 à sa mort.

Ernest-Louis se marie le 1er décembre 1687 avec Dorothée-Charlotte de Brandebourg-Ansbach (1661-1705), fille du margrave Albert II de Brandebourg-Ansbach

Dorothée-Charlotte de Brandebourg-Ansbach (28 novembre 1661, Ansbach 15 novembre 1705, Darmstadt) est une noble allemande devenue par son mariage avec Ernest Louis de Hesse-Darmstadt, Landgravine consort de Hesse-Darmstadt.

Jean-Reinhard III comte de Hanau-Lichtenberg, né le 31 juillet 1665 et mort le 28 mars 1736, est le dernier comte de Hanau-Lichtenberg. Fils du comte Jean-Reinhard II de Hanau-Lichtenberg et d'Anne de Birkenfeld-Bischweiler.

Il épousa en 1699 Dorothée-Frédérique fille de Jean-Frédéric margrave de Brandebourg-Ansbach et de Jeanne-Élisabeth de Bade-Durlach (cette dernière fille du margrave Frédéric VI de Bade-Durlach, gendre de Catherine Vasa et de Jean-Casimir de Deux-Ponts-Cleebourg).

Leur fille Charlotte épousa Louis VIII margrave de Hesse-Darmstadt, d'où la succession des Hesse-Darmstadt, comtes de Hanau-Lichtenberg ; et par mariage : descendance dans les Bavière-Wittelsbach, Habsbourg-Lorraine, Danemark, Bade, Suède, Monaco, Belgique, Roumanie, Prusse-Hohenzollern, Pays-Bas-Nassau, Russie...

Dorothée Frédérique de Brandebourg-Ansbach (12 août 1676, Ansbach – 13 mars 1731, Hanau) est la fille du margrave Jean-Frédéric de Brandebourg-Ansbach (1654 – 1686) et de sa première épouse, Jeanne Élisabeth de Bade-Durlach (1651–1680). Elle est une demi-sœur de la reine Caroline de Grande-Bretagne, l'épouse du roi George II.


Et le résultat statistique ?

Mort à l'âge
23 28 32 37 54 59 59 61 65 69 70 71 72 73 77 86
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
16 26 34 36 43 50 54 64 66 77 78 84
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12


Marié (mariée première fois) à l'âge
16 17 18 19 21 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 31 34
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 16 17 19 19 21 23 24 26
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12


Les hommes meurent entre 23 et 86, autour de 61/65. Les femmes entre 16 et 84, autour de 50/54.

Les hommes se marient entre 16 et 34, autour de 22/23. Les femmes se marient (en premières noces) entre 13 et 26, autour de 17/19.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Luc Évangéliste
18.X.2024

In Bithynia natalis beati Lucae Evangelistae, qui, multa passus pro Christi nomine, obiit Spiritu Sancto plenus. Ipsius autem ossa postea Constantinopolim translata sunt, et inde Patavium delata.