Quantcast
Channel: Akhenaten's Dream In Plato's Mind
Viewing all 107 articles
Browse latest View live

Rüdiger Safranski's Romanticism (Book review)

$
0
0

A German Affair

Wanderer above the Sea of Fog
(cc) Wikimedia Commons
By Hans-Dieter Gelfert
The favourable reception that Safranski’s book met with from critics as well as from the reading public seems to justify his title. Romanticism as he defines it was and is indeed a German affair. Germany’s most characteristic contributions to nineteenth-century world culture, music and speculative philosophy, are so thoroughly romantic that they alone would give the whole movement a German flavour. But in Germany romanticism did not stay within the boundaries of art and philosophy, it gave momentum to political nationalism, to an irrational Lebensphilosophie and to a fatal departure from the path of the Enlightenment. All this, as Safranski narrates in detail, added to the ideological powder-keg that eventually exploded in Hitler’s Germany. Safranski traces the fatal development, but does not condemn the movement as such. On the contrary, he defend its creative energy and arrives at the conclusion that a “romantic excess of unworldliness” is not only desirable, but necessary for counterbalancing the rationality of the modern world.
Scholars of German literature traditionally date the beginnings of Romantik either on the year 1798, when Friedrich Schlegel published his programmatic definition of the new concept, or two years earlier with the publication of Wackenroder’s Herzensergießungen eines kunstliebenden Klosterbruders (Outpourings of an Art-Loving Friar), the first instance of full-fledged romanticism in German literature. Safranski is more generous and traces the beginning back to the year 1769 when Herder embarked on a voyage at sea to France, during which according to Safranski the first truly romantic ideas germinated in his mind.
Like most German scholars, Safranski is blind to the fact that almost all these ideas had already been propounded by English writers in the first half of the eighteenth century. If there is any one person the origin of the movement can be traced back to it is the third earl of Shaftesbury, in whose essays the new view of divinized nature shows through an enlightened dressing. Shaftesbury’s influence on German writers and thinkers was so profound and long-lasting that half a century after the appearance of his famous ‘hymn to Nature’ Herder turned this piece of enthusiastic prose into verse. Safranski, strangely enough, doesn’t even mention this, nor does Shaftesbury’s name appear in his index. All the other English forerunners of romanticism – James Thomson, whose Seasons triggered the new nature poetry; Thomas Gray, whose Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard made the common people a worthy subject of poetry; Edward Young, whose Night Thoughts were hailed all over Europe as the expression of a new irrationality; and MacPherson, whose Ossian-fakes boosted the German craving for sublimity, which lasted throughout the nineteenth century – they all are conspicuously absent from Safranski’s book. He even ignores Bishop Percy, whose Reliques of Ancient English Poetry (1765) gave Herder the idea of collecting folk songs.
This blindness to the early history of the movement is typical of how Germans understand romanticism. They see in it a reaction against the Klassik of Goethe and Schiller. But if these two had died as young as Byron and Keats, there would have been no Klassik, and then, most likely, German scholars would realize that the age of Empfindsamkeit and the Sturm und Drang were equivalent to what in English literature is called ‘preromanticism’ and ‘early romanticism’. They would also realize that long before German philosophers and musicians enriched the world with their creations, England had already delivered a contribution to the movement certainly not less romantic, which in Germany goes by the name Englischer Garten. Of course, the difference between Capability Brown’s landscape gardens and Wagner’s operas is so great that one hesitates to see the two as expressions of one and the same set of ideas and ideals. But the hesitation is due to a shortsighted view of the whole movement. Romanticism was not, as Germans commonly believe, a reaction against the rationality of the Enlightenment, it was from the beginning of the eighteenth century a concurrent ideological alternative to the ideas prevalent at the time.
When, after the Glorious Revolution, the English middle classes began their social and political ascent, they needed an ideologeme that would legitimize their breaking away from the traditional order. The Enlightenment offered them a set of values based on reason. Reason operates on the same principles in every human mind. Thus, it justifies the claim for equality. But reason needs schooling, learning, and cultivation, which only the well-to-do could afford. Therefore, the set of neo-classicist key values such as reason, judgment, learning, taste and beauty would only appeal to the upper middle class. For those who had no access to academia – either for financial or religious reasons – a value system based on nature was far more appealing. Nature gives to each human being individuality, originality, feelings, intuition, imagination, and in exceptional cases, genius. These were the key concepts that began to seep into the intellectual discourse in Britain from 1700 onward, until at last they surfaced as full-fledged romanticism.
The social and economic dynamics that fed the romantic movement are hardly ever mentioned, let alone discussed in Safranski’s book. His is the traditional German approach that used to be called geistesgeschichtlich. Had he gone back to the first dawn of romantic ideas in England he would have been faced with the challenging question why German romanticism went ‘over the top’, as it were, whereas its English counterpart stayed on the ground. The two parted company already in the eighteenth century, when the English refused to opt for either the beautiful or the sublime and instead chose the picturesque for their aesthetic ideal. Picturesque is something that consists of individual elements that are neither fused into a sublime whole nor shaped into beautiful harmony, but are left to please by their disparity. German culture in the nineteenth century opted for awe-inspiring sublimity, which found its most conspicuous expression in speculative philosophy and in the music of Beethoven, Bruckner and Wagner.
The social and political reasons for this are obvious. The English insisted on individual freedom because, as dwellers on a sheltered island “set in the silver sea” and armed with political power, they could afford to do so. The Germans, on the other hand, were yearning for political unity and for a powerful state to protect them. Not individual freedom, but collective security was their first priority. The key concept that haunted the minds not only of their romantic poets, but those of the whole nation, goes by the untranslatable word ‘Geborgenheit’. The word evokes the feeling of a pristine state of complete and utter security. The yearning for metaphysical totality, for political unity and for ethnic wholeness and haleness was the driving force of the development Safranski describes so well without ever discussing the reason why. His book, though fascinating in its own way, exhibits the kind of cultural parochialism that for generations has given German ‘Germanistik’ a peculiarly provincial flavour. On the other hand, it is the combination of provincialism and cosmopolitanism at the expense of an undeveloped urbanity which fascinates foreign observers in German culture and appears to them as an exotic otherness. In this respect, Safranski’s book is an excellent travel guide into Germany’s heart of darkness.
Rüdiger Safranski: Romantik. Eine deutsche Affäre
Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich 2007
ISBN-10 3446209441
ISBN-13 9783446209442
Hardcover, 416 pages, EUR 24.90
Hans-Dieter Gelfert was Professor of English Literature and Culture at the Free University of Berlin until 2000, and, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, is ‘one of the most prolific and most widely read Anglicists in Germany’. His most recent book, on the life and work of Edgar Allan Poe, is published by C.H. Beck (Munich).
- See more at: http://berlinbooks.org/brb/2009/11/a-german-affair/#sthash.beYFDYcI.dpuf

Excelente poema de Manuel Acuña

$
0
0

Manuel Acuña. Ante un cadáver

E2A
M.C. Escher. Límite circular I, xilografía, 1958, diámetro 42 cm.

¡Y bien! Aquí estás ya…, sobre la plancha
donde el gran horizonte de la ciencia
la extensión de sus límites ensancha.




Aquí, donde la rígida experiencia
viene a dictar las leyes superiores
a que está sometida la existencia.



Aquí, donde derrama sus fulgores
ese astro a cuya luz desaparece
la distinción de esclavos y señores.

Aquí, donde la fábula enmudece
y la voz de los hechos se levanta
y la superstición se desvanece.

Aquí, donde la ciencia se adelanta
a leer la solución de ese problema
que solo al anunciarse nos espanta.

Ella, que tiene la razón por lema,
y que en tus labios escuchar ansía
la augusta voz de la verdad suprema.

Aquí está ya… tras de la lucha impía
en que romper al cabo conseguiste
la cárcel que al dolor te retenía.

La luz de tus pupilas ya no existe,
tu máquina vital descansa inerte
y a cumplir con su objeto se resiste.

¡Miseria y nada más!, dirán al verte
los que creen que el imperio de la vida
acaba donde empieza el de la muerte.

Y suponiendo tu misión cumplida
se acercarán a ti, y en su mirada
te mandarán la eterna despedida.

¡Pero no!…, tu misión no está acabada,
que ni es la nada el punto en que nacemos,
ni el punto en que morimos es la nada.

Círculo es la existencia, y mal hacemos
cuando al querer medirla le asignamos
la cuna y el sepulcro por extremos.

La madre es solo el molde en que tomamos
nuestra forma, la forma pasajera
con que la ingrata vida atravesamos.

Pero ni es esa forma la primera
que nuestro ser reviste, ni tampoco
será su última forma cuando muera.

Tú sin aliento ya, dentro de poco
volverás a la tierra y a su seno
que es de la vida universal el foco.

Y allí, a la vida, en apariencia ajeno,
el poder de la lluvia y del verano
fecundará de gérmenes tu cieno.

Y al ascender de la raíz al grano,
irás del vergel a ser testigo
en el laboratorio soberano.

Tal vez para volver cambiado en trigo
al triste hogar, donde la triste esposa,
sin encontrar un pan sueña contigo.

En tanto que las grietas de tu fosa
verán alzarse de su fondo abierto
la larva convertida en mariposa,

que en los ensayos de su vuelo incierto
irá al lecho infeliz de tus amores
a llevarle tus ósculos de muerto.

Y en medio de esos cambios interiores
tu cráneo, lleno de una nueva vida,
en vez de pensamientos dará flores,

en cuyo cáliz brillará escondida
la lágrima tal vez con que tu amada
acompañó el adiós de tu partida.

La tumba es el final de la jornada,
porque en la tumba es donde queda muerta
la llama en nuestro espíritu encerrada.

Pero en esa mansión a cuya puerta
se extingue nuestro aliento, hay otro aliento
que de nuevo a la vida nos despierta.

Allí acaban la fuerza y el talento,
allí acaban los goces y los males
allí acaban la fe y el sentimiento.

Allí acaban los lazos terrenales,
y mezclados el sabio y el idiota
se hunden en la región de los iguales.

Pero allí donde el ánimo se agota
y perece la máquina, allí mismo
el ser que muere es otro ser que brota.

El poderoso y fecundante abismo
del antiguo organismo se apodera
y forma y hace de él otro organismo.

Abandona a la historia justiciera
un nombre sin cuidarse, indiferente,
de que ese nombre se eternice o muera.

Él recoge la masa únicamente,
y cambiando las formas y el objeto
se encarga de que viva eternamente.

La tumba sólo guarda un esqueleto
mas la vida en su bóveda mortuoria
prosigue alimentándose en secreto.

Que al fin de esta existencia transitoria
a la que tanto nuestro afán se adhiere,
la materia, inmortal como la gloria,
cambia de formas; pero nunca muere.
* * *


Manuel Acuña Narro nació en Saltillo, Coahuila, México el 27 de agosto de 1849 y se suicidó bebiendo cianuro de potasio en la Ciudad de México el 6 de diciembre de 1873 en su habitación de la Escuela de Medicina. Tenía 24 años.


Poema Nocturno de Manuel Acuna 

A Rosario

¡Pues bien!, yo necesito decirte que te adoro,
decirte que te quiero con todo el corazón;
que es mucho lo que sufro, que es mucho lo que lloro,
que ya no puedo tanto, y al grito en que te imploro,
te imploro y te hablo en nombre de mi última ilusión.

Yo quiero que tú sepas que ya hace muchos días
estoy enfermo y pálido de tanto no dormir;
que están mis noches negras, tan negras y sombrías,
que ya se han muerto todas las esperanzas mías,
que ya no sé ni dónde se alzaba el porvenir.

De noche, cuando pongo mis sienes en la almohada
y hacia otro mundo quiero mi espíritu volver,
camino mucho, mucho, y al fin de la jornada,
las formas de mi madre se pierden en la nada,
y tú de nuevo vuelves en mi alma a aparecer.

Comprendo que tus besos jamás han de ser míos,
comprendo que en tus ojos no me he de ver jamás;
y te amo y en mis locos y ardientes desvaríos,
bendigo tus desdenes, adoro tus desvíos,
y en vez de amarte menos te quiero mucho más.

A veces pienso en darte mi eterna despedida,
borrarte en mis recuerdos y huir de esta pasión;
mas si es en vano todo y el alma no te olvida,
¿qué quieres tú que yo haga, pedazo de mi vida,
qué quieres tú que yo haga con este corazón?

Y luego que ya estaba concluido el santuario,
tu lámpara encendida, tu velo en el altar,
el sol de la mañana detrás del campanario,
chispeando las antorchas, humeando el incensario,
y abierta allá a lo lejos la puerta del hogar...

¡Qué hermoso hubiera sido vivir bajo aquel techo,
los dos unidos siempre y amándonos los dos;
tú siempre enamorada, yo siempre satisfecho,
los dos una sola alma, los dos un solo pecho,
y en medio de nosotros mi madre como un Dios!

¡Figúrate qué hermosas las horas de esa vida!
¡Qué dulce y bello el viaje por una tierra así!
Y yo soñaba en eso, mi santa prometida;
y al delirar en eso con alma estremecida,
pensaba yo en ser bueno por ti, no más por ti.

Bien sabe Dios que ese era mi más hermoso sueño,
mi afán y mi esperanza, mi dicha y mi placer;
¡bien sabe Dios que en nada cifraba yo mi empeño,
sino en amarte mucho en el hogar risueño
que me envolvió en sus besos cuando me vio nacer!

Esa era mi esperanza... mas ya que a sus fulgores
se opone el hondo abismo que existe entre los dos,
¡adiós por la vez última, amor de mis amores;
la luz de mis tinieblas, la esencia de mis flores;
mi lira de poeta,mi juventud, adiós!



"Contemplé tanto la belleza..." Konstantino Kavafis

$
0
0

Contemplé tanto la belleza, que mi visión le pertenece.

Líneas del cuerpo. Labios rojos. Sensuales miembros.
Cabellos como copiados de las estatuas griegas;
hermosos siempre, incluso despeinados.
y caídos apenas, sobre las blancas sienes.
Rostros del amor, tal como los deseaba
mi poesía... en mis noches juveniles,
en mis noches ocultas, encontradas...

Konstantino Kavafis



Leído en Poesías completas, Versión de José María Álvarez, Libros Hiperión, 1976.

Winston Spencer Churchill

$
0
0



Ninguna persona informada puede negar que Winston S. Churchill fue probablemente el “showman” mas espectacular de la historia de la politica britanica, y con toda seguridad “el gran señor” de la retorica honorifica y patriotica de su pais. Pero cuando se va mas alla en cualquier etapa de su carrera, es facil entrar en el terreno de la polemica. Cualquier estudio cuidadoso de su carrera implica generar serias dudas sobre su integridad personal y politica y sobre el valor de su servicio a Inglaterra.
Su carrera politica ya revela la falta de unos firmes principio politicos e ideologicos. Sus tendencias politicas oscilaron desde el conservadurismo al liberalismo y de vuelta al lado de los conservadores. Pronuncio grandes elogios hacia Hitler y Mussolini después de que sus programas de gobierno autoritario estuvieran completamente establecidos y sus ideas fueran bien conocidas. Llego a decir, que si fuera italiano seria fascista, y todavía en 1938, apenas una año antes del inicio de la guerra, que si Inglaterra se encontrara en un estado de postración como en el que estaba Alemania en 1933, rogaria por que su pais encontrara a su “propio Hitler”. El eminente publicista anglo-americano, Francis Neilson, declaro que el elogio de Churchill a Hitler, fue el mayor pronunciado nunca por un hombre de estado ingles hacia un jefe de gobierno extranjero en toda la historia. Cuando su “gran y buen amigo” de dias pasados, Mussolini, fue asesinado por los partisanos comunistas y su cadáver colgado cabeza abajo en Milan, Churchill se apresuro a dirigirse a una cena a la que estaba invitado con las ultimas noticias, y al llegar exclamo, “Ah, la bestia sanguinaria a muerto”. Durante el transcurso de la 2ª Guerra Mundial declaro que la mas importante mision de su vida era destruir a Adolf Hitler y el Nacionalsocialismo.
Los giros de Churchill respecto al comunismo tambien fueron increíbles. Empezo siendo el mas acido de los criticos del Comunismo y de sus lideres, denunciando su “infecta estupidez”, para pasar, durante la guerra , a dirigir unos halagos a Josef Stalin casi tan generosos como los que habia proporcionado antes a Hitler y Mussolini, y después de la guerra, en 1946, pidio el inicio de una “guerra fria” contra el Comunismo.
No hay ninguna prueba convincente de que nada de lo que Churchill hubiera propuesto o apoyado tuviera como intencion primordial un posible efecto beneficioso en Inglaterra o en el mundo. Aparentemente todas sus decisiones se tomaban pensando en su posible efecto sobre su propia carrera politica. Churchill jamas revelaria el mas minimo sentido de “Nobleza”. Su especialidad, pedir mas privilegios y recompensas para el puesto que ocupara. No es una exageración el decir, que probablemene se trate del personaje mas vanidoso de toda la historia de la politica moderna, y ademas fue una rasgo que mantuvo incluso después de su muerte, planeo con años de antelación todos los detalles de su pomposo y dramatico funeral publico.
La integridad estuvo completamente ausente de su carrera politica. No vacilo a la hora de utilizar las mas flagrantes mentiras cuando fue necesario, para promover su carrera o para ocultar sus errores. Fue capaz de engañar al pueblo britanico en asuntos de gran importancia publica, cuando asi era necesario para su propia proteccion. Posiblemente el mejor de los ejemplos de esto sea su informe a la Camara de los Comunes a su regreso de la desastrosa Conferencia de Yalta, donde fue testigo de la duplicidad de Stalin y sus avariciosas mentiras, tal y como habia pasado antes en Teheran y de la rotura de todas las promesas sovieticas sobre el trato que recibiria Polonia a manos de los sovieticos. Pero ante la Camara de los Comunes dijo lo siguiente, “La impresión que traigo de Crimea es que el Mariscal Stalin y los otros lideres sovieticos desean vivir en honorable amistad y democracia con las democracias occidentales. Y creo que este gobierno debe mantenerse firme en lo que respecta a sus obligaciones para con el gobierno de la Rusia Sovietica”.
Es bueno recordar que la actual “buena reputacion” de Churchill como hombre de estado, descansa enteramente sobre los acontecimientos que tuvieron lugar entre Abril de 1940 y Julio de 1945. En 1933, estaba tan desacreditado, que tanto Baldwin como Chamberlain, en sus respectivos gobiernos, consideraron que darle un puesto en el gabinete seria perjudicial para el prestigio y el futuro de los conservadores. Cuando los problemas domesticos volvieron a ocupar la vida politica en 1945, Churchill sufrio una sonora derrota en las elecciones generales de aquel verano. Como gobernante durante la guerra habia mostrado mas su gran energia, que su genio organizativo o de mando. Se distinguio mas por su tenacidad que por su capacidad como estadista, aunque no cabe duda de que fue capaz de animar a los britanicos a unirse y continuar una guerra que no querian contra Hitler. Pero cabe preguntarse si su irreflexiva resistencia contra Hitler después de Dunquerque fue lo mejor para Inglaterra. La mas habitual y efectiva acusacion contra la capacidad como estadista de Churchill es que gano la guerra contra Alemania pero perdio la paz contra la U.R.S.S. y los EE.UU..
Otra gran mentira se refiere a su supuesto “genio militar”, aunque es posible que ningun otro lider britanico haya amado tanto la guerra o trabajado tan duro, dentro de sus posibilidades, para meter a su pais en una. Churchill fue el responsable del desastre de los Dardanelos en 1915, que fue la mas espectacular derrota britanica en la 1ª Guerra Mundial (Si descontamos sus inútiles intentos de romper las lineas de trincheras alemanas). Se ha dicho que era un buen plan pero que estaba “poco trabajado”, pero un plan militar debe funcionar en la practica y no solo en el papel impreso. Tanto Lord Fisher como Lord Kitchener se mostraron contrarios al plan. Como responsable del desastre Churchill fue obligado a dimitir.
En lo que respecta a la 2ª Guerra Mundial los expertos, tanto americanos como ingleses, han indicado que las “interferencias estrategicas” de Churchill muy a menuda tenian resultados desastrosos. El general Albert C. Wedermeyer llego a decir que tanto Churchill como Roosevelt realmente dirigian las operaciones militares “como un par de jefes indios, dirigiendo un ataque a una diligencia”, sin la mas minima consideración a las ultimas consecuencias, tanto militares como politicas. La constante demanda por parte de Churchill de un ataque contra “el blando bajo vientre de Europa” (Italia), una especie de regreso a la fantasia de los Dardanelos, fue apropiadamente desacreditada por la impresionante manera en la que el general Albert Kesserling defendio la “blanda” peninsula italiana, aun con grandes desventajas a todos los niveles, y cuya derrota se debio principalmente a la rendicion de las tropas SS.
Incluso sus mas moderados admiradores nos dicen que al menos hay que reconocer que Chuchill “salvo” a Inglaterra. Pero esto nos lleva a hacernos una pregunta, ¿De quien o de que salvo a Inglaterra?. Hitler le hizo mas la “pelota” a los ingleses que el propio Kaiser, que era pariente del rey ingles, y la piedra angular de su politica exterior pasaba por el entendimiento con Inglaterra. Incluso después de Dunquerque, donde de forma deliberada permitio a los ingleses huir, ofrecio a los ingleses una paz generosa y le dijo a sus generales que estaba dispuesto a poner a los ejercitos alemanes al servicio de Inglaterra, para garantizar la supervivencia del Imperio Britanico. Un autentico estadista hubiera firmado la paz con Alemania durante Junio de 1941, hubiera dejado que Alemania y Rusia se desangraran mutuamente y de ese modo habria eliminado cualquier amenaza de dictadura, tanto de las derechas como de las izquierdas. Y eso fue lo que personajes como Herbert Hoover o Robert A. Taft, recomendaron en aquel momento. Pero Churchill era solo alegria y emocion, “tenemos demasiada diversión” afirmo. Queria convertirse en un activo lider de guerra y nunca considero la posibilidad de retirarse para una posición de simple observador, incluso aunque esa fuera probablemente la unica manera de asegurar la seguridad de Inglaterra y la preservación del imperio. Condeno a Inglaterra a cuatro años de costosa y brutal guerra, fallo a la hora de proteger el centro y el Este de Europa de Rusia y del Comunismo, y provoco la inevitable liquidación del Imperio Britanico.
Churchill fue lider en la denuncia de las supuestas horribles atrocidades y brutalidades de los Nazis, pero su propio “record”, seguro que es mejor. Rechazo la propuesta de Hitler de prohibir el bombardeo de todo objetivo no militar y lanzo su barbara forma de bombardeo el 11 de Mayo de 1940, con su ataque contra la indefensa ciudad universitaria de Friburgo. Anuncio que no se detendria a la hora de usar cualquier forma de brutalidad y terror para destruir a Hitler e hizo honor a su palabra. Dirigio el terrible bombardeo incendiario de Hamburgo y fue el maximo responsable de la inútil destrucción de la hermosa ciudad de Dresden, la mas despiadada, despreciable e indefendible atrocidad de la 2ª Guerra Mundial y que produjo unas perdidas en vidas y propiedades mayores, incluso, que las causadas por las bombas atomicas en Hiroshima o en Nagasaki. Aprobo y ordeno el Plan Lindemann para el bombardeo de saturación sobre Alemania, el cual, en su cruda brutalidad, tanto de concepción como de aplicación, iguala a cualquiera de las supuestas atrocidades Nazis. El plan se basaba en la concentración de los bombardeos britanicos sobre los hogares de obreros y trabajadores, cuyas casas se agolpaban apretujadamente, de modo que un mayor numero de civiles inocentes pudiera ser asesinado por bomba lanzada.
En su discurso en el funeral por Winston Churchill, el ex-presidente Dwight Eisenhower remarco la condicion de Churchill como “amigo de la Paz”. No seria una exageración decir que esa frase suena igual que decir que Al Capone fue “amigo de la Ley”. Incluso sus admiradores britanicos reconocen el desmesurado amor por la guerra que sintio toda su vida. Ninguna otra figura politica trabajo tanto para que su pais entrara en la 1ª Guerra Mundial, cosa que ha sido admitida en el libro “Twelve Days”, del escritor George Malcolm Thomsom, sobre la crisis de 1914. Y es de conocimiento popular que Churchill fue el lider de la de la faccion pro-guerra en Inglaterra de 1936 en adelante. Fue durante ese año que le comento al general Robert E. Wood, “Alemania se esta volviendo demasiado fuerte; debemos destruirla”. No solo colaboro con la faccion pro-guerra britanica si no que tambien fue un cercano colaborador de Bernard Baruch y de los otros miembros de la faccion pro-guerra estadounidense.
Posiblemente la mejor evalucion de la personalidad de Churchill sea la del distinguido publicista britanico, F.S. Oliver:
“Desde su juventud el sr. Churchill ha amado tres cosas con todo su corazon, con toda su mente y con todas sus fuerzas: la guerra, la politica y a si mismo. Ama la guerra por sus peligros y ama a la politica por la misma razon, y siempre se ha amado a si mismo por que sabe lo peligrosa que es su mente; peligrosa para sus enemigos, para sus amigos y para si mismo. No puedo pensar en ningun otro hombre que yo haya conocido, que haya devorado su propio corazon de forma tan rapida y amarga”.
Y la importancia de su carrera para esta y para las futuras generaciones fue admirablemente resumida por el periodico britanico “The Journal”:
“En terminos de éxito personal no hubo carrera con mas fortuna que la de Winston Churchill. En terminos del sufrimiento de millones de personas y la destrucción del noble edificio de la Humanidad no hubo carrera mas desastrosa. Y en esta triste paradoja radica la tragedia de nuestro tiempo”.

Textos sobre Wagner

Schiller – Freedom’s Hymn

$
0
0

Schiller – Freedom’s Hymn By

blake-job
Freude, schöner Götterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, dein Heiligthum.
Deine Zauber binden wieder,
Was die Mode streng getheilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder,
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.


Chor
 

Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Brüder — überm Sternenzelt
Muß ein lieber Vater wohnen.
Wem der große Wurf gelungen,
Eines Freundes Freund zu sein,
Wer ein holdes Weib errungen,
Mische seinen Jubel ein!
Ja — wer auch nur eine Seele
Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund!
Und wer’s nie gekonnt, der stehle
Weinend sich aus diesem Bund.


Chor
 

Was den großen Ring bewohnet,
Huldige der Sympathie!
Zu den Sternen leitet sie,
Wo der Unbekannte thronet.
Freude trinken alle Wesen
An den Brüsten der Natur;
Alle Guten, alle Bösen
Folgen ihrer Rosenspur.
Küsse gab sie uns und Reben,
Einen Freund, geprüft im Tod;
Wollust ward dem Wurm gegeben,
Und der Cherub steht vor Gott.


Chor
 

Ihr stürzt nieder, Millionen?
Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?
Such’ ihn überm Sternenzelt!
Über Sternen muß er wohnen
Freude heißt die starke Feder
In der ewigen Natur.
Freude, Freude treibt die Räder
In der großen Weltenuhr.
Blumen lockt sie aus den Keimen,
Sonnen aus dem Firmament,
Sphären rollt sie in den Räumen,
Die des Sehers Rohr nicht kennt.


Chor
 

Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen
Durch des Himmel prächt’gen Plan,
Wandelt, Brüder, eure Bahn,
Freudig, wie ein Held zu Siegen.
Aus der Wahrheit Feuerspiegel
Lächelt sie den Forscher an.
Zu der Tugend steilem Hügel
Leitet sie des Dulders Bahn.
Auf des Glaubens Sonnenberge
Sieht man ihre Fahnen wehn,
Durch den Riss gesprengter Särge
Sie im Chor der Engel stehn.


Chor
 

Duldet muthig, Millionen!
Duldet für die bessre Welt!
Droben überm Sternenzelt
Wird ein großer Gott belohnen.
Göttern kann man nicht vergelten;
Schön ist’s, ihnen gleich zu sein.
Gram und Armuth soll sich melden,
Mit den Frohen sich erfreun.
Groll und Rache sei vergessen,
Unserm Todfeind sei verziehn.
Keine Thräne soll ihn pressen,
Keine Reue nage ihn.


Chor
 

Unser Schuldbuch sei vernichtet!
Ausgesöhnt die ganze Welt!
Brüder — überm Sternenzelt
Richtet Gott, wie wir gerichtet.
Freude sprudelt in Pokalen,
In der Traube goldnem Blut
Trinken Sanftmuth Kannibalen,
Die Verzweiflung Heldenmuth –
Brüder, fliegt von euren Sitzen,
Wenn der volle Römer kreist,
Laßt den Schaum zum Himmel spritzen:
Dieses Glas dem guten Geist!


Chor
 

Den der Sterne Wirbel loben,
Den des Seraphs Hymne preist,
Dieses Glas dem guten Geist
Überm Sternenzelt dort oben!
Festen Muth in schwerem Leiden,
Hilfe, wo die Unschuld weint,
Ewigkeit geschwornen Eiden,
Wahrheit gegen Freund und Feind,
Männerstolz vor Königsthronen, –
Brüder, gält’ es Gut und Blut –
Dem Verdienste seine Kronen,
Untergang der Lügenbrut!


Chor
 

Schließt den heil’gen Zirkel dichter,
Schwört bei diesem goldnen Wein,
Dem Gelübde treu zu sein,
Schwört es bei dem Sternenrichter!
Rettung von Tyrannenketten,
Großmut auch dem Bösewicht,
Hoffnung auf den Sterbebetten,
Gnade auf dem Hochgericht!
Auch die Toten sollen leben!
Brüder trinkt und stimmet ein,
Allen Sündern soll vergeben,
Und die Hölle nicht mehr sein.


Chor
 

Eine heitere Abscheidsstunde!
Süßen Schlaf im Leichenruch!
Brüder – einen sanften Spruch
Aus des Totenrichters Munde!




Joy, beautiful spark of Gods,
Daughter of Elysium,
We approach, fueled by fire,
Heavenly, your sanctuary,
Your magical powers unify
What custom harshly parts
All men are made brothers
Where your gentle wing spreads.

Chorus

Be embraced, millions!
This kiss to the entire world!
Brothers – over a canopy of stars
Our loving father must dwell.
Whoever has had the great luck,
To know true friendship,
Whoever has found the love of a devoted wife,
Add this to our greater joy!
Indeed, whoever can call even one soul
His own on this earth!
Yet those who fail must pull
Tearfully away from this circle.

Chorus

Those who dwell in the great circle,
Render homage unto compassion!
It guides us to the stars,
Where the Unknown reigns.
The joy which all creatures drink
From nature’s bosom;
All, Just and Unjust,
Follow her rose-strewn path.
Kisses she gave us, and wine,
A friend, proven in death,
Even the worm was given pleasure,
And the Cherub stands before God.

Chorus

You bow down, millions?
World, can you sense your Creator?
Seek him above the stared canopy.
Above the stars He must dwell.
Joy is called the strong motivation
In eternal nature.
Joy, joy turns the wheels
Of the great celestial mechanics
Flowers are summoned forth from their buds,
Suns from the Firmament,
Spheres it moves far out in Space,
Beyond the grasp of our glass.

Chorus

Joyfully, as His suns spin,
Across the Universe’s grand design,
Run, brothers, run your race,
Joyfully, as a hero going to conquest.
As truth’s fiery reflection
It smiles at the seeker of truth
At virtue’s steep hill
It leads the seeker on.
Atop faith’s lofty summit
Its flags whipped in the wind,
Through the cracks of burst-open coffins,
It stand in the angels’ chorus.

Chorus

Persist with courage, millions!
Stand firm for a better world!
Over the stars
A great God will reward you.
 Gods one can never requite,
Save in the striving to be like them.
Sorrow and Poverty, come forth
And rejoice with the Joyful ones.
Anger and revenge be dispelled,
Our bitterest enemy be forgiven,
Not one tear shall he shed anymore,
No feeling of loss shall pain him.

Chorus

The account of our misdeeds be destroyed!
Reconciled the entire world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
God judges as we judge.
Joy is bubbling in the glasses,
Through the grapes’ golden blood
Let Cannibals drink gentleness,
And despair drinks courage–
Brothers, be lifted from your seats,
As the fully charged chalice is passed around,
Let the foam rise up to heaven:
Let this glass charge our spirits.

Chorus

He whom stars above select,
He whom the Seraphs’ hymn praises,
This glass we raise to Him, the good spirit,
Over the field of stars!
Be resolute and courageous in the face of our plight,
Where the innocent weap, render aid,
Eternally are reckoned all oaths we swear
Truth towards friend and enemy,
Human pride before the thrones of kings–
Brothers, though it cost us life and blood,
Give the crowns to those who earn them,
Defeat to the pack of liars!

Chorus

Close the holy circle tighter,
Swear by this golden wine:
To remain true to the Oath,
Swear it to He who judge above the stars!
Deliver us from tyrants’ chains,
But show generosity also towards the blaggard,
Hope on the deathbeds,
Mercy from the final judge!
Also the dead shall live!
Brothers, drink and join in,
All sinners shall be forgiven,
And hell shall be no more.

Chorus

Our serene hour of farewell!
Sweet rest in the shroud!
Brothers–a mild sentence
From the mouth of the judge of the dead!

Friedrich Schiller, Ode an die Freude (1785) in Sämtliche Werke, vol. 1, pp. 133-36 (H. Göpfert ed. 1980)(S.H. transl.)
Listen to a recitation of Schiller’s poem by Anna Thalbach
Listen to Ludwig van Beethoven’s immortal realization of the poem in the concluding choral movement of his Ninth Symphony in D Minor, here in a performance with Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic

In 1753, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing wrote in the Königlich Privilegierte Berlinische Zeitung a brief announcement of the publication of one of the signal works of the Enlightenment and in the process paused to offer one of his more astonishing observations on the study of man. “We can engage the human at the level of the specific or the general,” he wrote. “But what, pray tell, will we learn from the specific? They are such a gallery of rogues and scoundrels… Yet when we turn to the species as a whole, a different story begins to emerge. Does he not slowly reveal greatness and divine origin? Does he not daily extend the limits of his knowledge, does wisdom not slowly come to prevail in his rulemaking, does his ambition not leave behind towering monuments?” This same quiet confidence in humanity, coupled with a burning desire to overcome the obstacles that human superstitution and suspicion place in the way of the unity of the species, is the touchstone of this, the most famous poem of Friedrich Schiller. It is known as the “Ode to Joy” and it is familiar to all peoples of the world through the music of Ludwig van Beethoven.
Curiously, Schiller was a bit slow to claim his work. He hesitated over its incorporation into his collected works and suggested at points that it was rash, juvenile–not to the standards of his more ponderous philosophical poetry. Surely it is not. But the “Ode to Joy” captured the imagination of Schiller’s contemporaries like no other poetical work, and they associated it with him. News of his fatal illness provoked spontaneous recitations of the poem from Switzerland to Denmark, and in France the great Danton pressed to acclaim Schiller an honorary citizen of the new republic on the strength of this extraordinary poem. But this work is marked by evanescence, by a sort of giddiness–does this suggest lack of seriousness? Could it be simply an occasional piece, an entry in an album for a life-long friend, Christian Gottfried Körner? At one level this certainly was Schiller’s intention. He wrote Körner on August 8, 1787 alluding to the ode and saying “I know no more certain and higher fortune in the world today that the complete enjoyment of our friendship, the wholly indivisible consolidation of our being, our joys and sufferings.”
But this does Schiller no justice. Let us abjure the specific and hold to the general. Schiller’s ode is a salute to humanity’s possibilities, it is giddy, unabashedly so. For Schiller, this euphoria, this insatiable drive for friendship is a saving grace for the species. Reason alone cannot explain it. It is essential if humankind is to overcome its darker moments, including the perilous path that leads to cynicism and nihilism. Friendship is thus an exilir. “For certain humans the power of nature strips away the stupefying limitations of convention,” he tells some friends in Leipzig as he is scribbling on this poem, signaling the refrain that Beethoven will make famous.
But the work is radical and blatantly political in its orientation–it envisions a world without monarchs at a time when the distant colonies of North America alone offered the alternative. It imagines a world whose nations live in peace with one another, embracing the dignity of their species as a fundamental principle, and democracy as the central chord of their organization. Its long appeal to Beethoven lay in just this intensely subversive, revolutionary core. To start with, as Leonard Bernstein reminded his audiences, the poem was originally an “Ode to Freedom” and the word “Joy” (Freude instead of Freiheit, added to the third pillar, Freundschaft) came as a substitute for the more overtly political theme. The transposition is very successful, and it reflects the esthetic theories of Schiller in which humankind’s political aspirations are shown as something ecstatic. The deeper, more political charge of Schiller’s writings appears in the final stanzas, which are not included in the lyrics set by Beethoven–he was at length a court composer, and he lived, wrote and published in a city which, for all its culture and pretension, was a citadel of political repression. Beethoven reckoned, of course, that his audience knew the whole text, just as he knew it, by heart. He was by then a crotchety old man, Beethoven, but he knew the power of a dream, and he inspired millions with it, to the chagrin of his Hapsburg sponsors.
Schiller’s words are perfectly fused with Beethoven’s music. It may indeed be the most successful marriage in the whole shared space of poetry and music. It is a message of striking universality which transcends the boundaries of time and culture. It is well measured in fact to certain turningpoints in the human experience. And one of them occurred in America this week.

Needs translation but sounds pretty good!

$
0
0
Träumt er zur Erde, wen
Sagt mir, wen meint er?
Schwillt ihm die Träne, was,
Götter, was weint er?
Bebt er, ihr Schwestern, was,
Redet, erschrickt ihn?
Jauchzt er, o Himmel, was
Ists, was beglückt ihn?


Heinrich von Kleist

Poemas alemanes para escuchar en alemán aunque no se entiendan!

$
0
0

More Heym

$
0
0

Weirdfictionreview.com’s 101 Weird Writers: #7 – Georg Heym

The Expressionistic Power of Heym and "The Dissection"

This post is part of an ongoing series on 101 weird writers featured inThe Weird compendium, the anthology that serves as the inspiration for this site. There is no ranking system; the order is determined by the schedule of posts.
Georg Heym (1887– 1912) was a German poet and playwright who also wrote one novel. Heym believed in the idea of the “demon city,” which symbolized his repudiation of romanticism in the midst of the rise of industrialism and repressive systems. Still, he lived a wild and passionate life, accompanied by depression and restlessness. In 1910 he dreamed of a death by drowning and two years later fell through the ice while skating.
Gio Clairval, the translator of the version of “The Dissection” featured in The Weird (and also recently featured on this site), has written an appreciation of both Heym and his story, by itself and in relation to the rest of his creative work. Despite his brief life, there is much to learn about Heym and his writing, with both full of the kinds of ideas that can invigorate artistic movements and individual authors, even now, 100 years since Heym’s death.
- Adam Mills, editor of “101 Weird Writers”
***
The Poet Who Dreamed in Light Blue
PARTONE — The Author
Juggler (The Surface and Beneath) by Heather Wilcoxon, Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art
In cities strange and yet weirdly familiar, women watched by monstrous demons give birth to headless infants, vast gods straddle apartment blocks and gaze balefully out on an urban hell, and the savage giant War dances wildly on the mountains while a mighty city sinks into an abyss. (in Georg Heym’s Poems,bilingual edition, translated from the German by Anthony Hasler, 2006, Northwestern University Press.)
Georg Heym’s works are an enthralling mixture of classical German lyricism and arresting visions of urban dysplastic images à la Metropolis. The city of Berlin, under the domination of the City God (Der Gott der Stadt), is the theater of Gothic horrors — visions of war and death where the romantic macabre walks hand in hand with images taken from Greek myths.  Heym is also known for the formal beauty of his sonnets, which place him amongst the greatest poets of the German tradition. Heym was saluted as the first expressionistic poet, a decade before Expressionism became the dominant artistic trend in post-WWI Germany.

I translated the short-short story “Die Dissektion” — in fact a poem of six hundred words packed with images so strong they hurt — for The Weird, and I fell in love with the author.
Two (very different) innovative authors and their similar upbringing
I recently translated one of Gustave Flaubert’s juvenile short stories, “Quidquid volueris“[1]. As I was trying to establish the first publication date, I found an uncanny resemblance between Flaubert and Heym’s formative years. There is no similarity between the two authors’ works in terms of the aesthetic of their writing, but both Flaubert and Heym tackled themes ahead of their times.
Flaubert unleashed a storm of criticism after the publication of his scandalous (for the time) novel Madame Bovary. The public outrage dragged him to court, and the author was condemned for describing the antics of a young housewife in search of evasion. A long, suggestive scene was censored (a case of too much showing instead of telling). As for Heym, his works were less known outside the literary circles, but had the larger public read about his headless infants and monstrous demons, he would have surely been branded unhinged and dangerous.
Heym was born in 1887, a year before Flaubert died; nevertheless, his family context – upper middle class – resembles Flaubert’s, and both authors received a classical education (high school classical teaching remained consistently the same across Europe until the late twentieth century). I wondered whether these ingredients were needed to obtain an individual who would later bring new themes to literature, breaking with the past.
Ernst-Ludwig Kirchner
Recipe for a Modern Poet (or “Bake Your Own Georg Heym”)
Take a well-to-do but sine nobilitate family and mix with lackluster results in school. Add an authoritarian and irascible father and a loving, sentimental mother. Sprinkle with blank, monochord verses later labeled as “juvenilia.” Encourage the subject to marinate in passionless high-education studies, preferably Law.
Your Heym-dough will seek solace in epic deeds (drinking, dueling, whoring and getting kicked out of several schools), and he will chant the fearless protagonists of past revolutions, thus cutting his poetic teeth on grand plays imbued with classical German lyricism.
Despite the stiff theatrical production produced in this early period, it is crucial that you do not skip this step: later on your poet will have to express his internal turmoil in perfectly formed verses.
At some point, your poet-dough may be exposed to the influence of the Nietzsche yeast. He may write in his diary that he longs to realize the Übermensch ideal in his own person (1906). Do not panic and do not take the dough out of the oven; a story will spurt from this idea: “The Madman,” in which madness is depicted as a form of ultimate salvation. Because madmen are above ordinary laws, insanity entails the most perfect form of freedom, as illustrated by the final image: the madman soaring like a bird high above reality.
If the previous procedure is correctly applied, the blooming author, disappointed with his contemporaries, will join a club of think-alike youths (it will be Der Neue Club, The New Club, in Berlin, 1910). Inspiring meetings will simmer in a café that should preferably sport an ironic name (the Neopathetische Cabaret or Neo-Pathetic Music-Hall). If you keep the fire going, the group leader, Kurt Hiller, will salute your artist as an expressionistic poet, which will brand him a true precursor; Expressionism — a creative movement in pre-WWI Germany fostering the idea that art’s purpose is to express the subjective feelings of artists — will be at its zenith during the 20s.
The baking is going well. You should now be satisfied to see the subject’s first poems appear (the same year, 1910) in the radical magazine Der Demokrat, and the first collection, Der ewige Tag (The Eternal Day), will be published in 1911, to be favorably reviewed by the famous poet Ernst Stadler. Given the positive critiques, your lyrical dough will decide to abandon his career in Law.
Meanwhile, let a resonant, clichéd tragedy, Atalanta, find its way into print (1911) and do not despair but look at your creation through the oven glass: the dough is now golden.
Take your poet out of the oven, for he is baked.
Portrait of Georg Heym
And from now on things become very, very serious, albeit for a very short time.
The new poet displays both an exquisite sensibility and a tormented spirit. A few poems, like his tragedies, are inspired by the French Revolution and its Napoleonic aftermath, but with more elegant results; others are haunted by classical myths and Gothic tropes; others still, from his later years, are widely considered some of the finest love poems ever written in the German language.
You have in fact created one of the most characteristic voices of German literature.
Too soon did he go
In contrast with his morbid visions, Georg Heym is known for his exuberant good health and stocky appearance. A friend says Georg makes him think of a butcher boy, and everyone thinks our romantic author a force of nature. But Heym dies young, at twenty-four years of age. In 1910, he had noted down a dream in which he advanced hesitantly across a kind of thin “stone slab,” which turned out to be a sheet of ice  (Hasler, op. cit.). Uncannily, Heym drowns during a skating expedition on the ice of the Havel River, in 1912. At his funeral, friends dance around his casket, declaiming Hölderlin (a major German poet, 1770 – 1843).
I do not know which verses were chosen to bid the young poet adieu, but here is a poem Georg wrote in 1905, in memory of Hölderlin:
To Hölderlin
And you, too, you are dead, son of the springtime
You, whose life only resembled
blazes shining in the night’s basements
where men forever look for
conclusion and liberty.
You are dead. For they have foolishly reached
for your pure flame
to put it out. For these beasts have always
hated the sublime.
And, as the Moirai
plunged into infinite pain
your spirit which faintly trembled,
God wrapped into a cloth of darkness
his virtuous son’s tortured head.
One of Hölderin’s poems that influenced Heym:
From“In Lovely Blue” (In lieblicher Blaue)
Translated by by George Kalogeris
Like the stamen inside a flower
The steeple stands in lovely blue
And the day unfolds around its needle;
The flock of swallows that circles the steeple
Flies there each day through the same blue air
That carries their cries from me to you;
We know how high the sun is now
As long as the roof of the steeple glows,
The roof that’s covered with sheets of tin;
Up there in the wind, where the wind is not
Turning the vane of the weathercock,
The weathercock silently crows in the wind.
Hölderlin’s style is more descriptive, more classical, compared with Heym’s verses, but we can recognize the theme that will find an echo in Heym’s formal sonnet “Reverie in Light Blue,” which you will find below, with the original text and my translation.
A collection of poems, Umbra Vitae, is published posthumously (1912), followed by a collection of short stories, Der Dieb (The Thief, 1913, English translation by Susan Bennet: The Thief and Other Stories, 1994, Libris, first published April 1985), and a collection of sonnets, Marathon (1914).

In 1924, Kurt Wolff publishes the collection of poems compiled by Heym’s literary group Der Neue Club: Umbra Vitae, including forty-seven xylographs by Ernst-Ludwig Kirchner.
After the poet’s untimely death, enthusiastic readers will find echoes of cataclysmic prophecies in his work, as in “Mit weissem Haar in den verrufnen Orten” (With White Hair, on Barren Plains), which foreshadows 1917. The poem describes the suffering of the enslaved working class in the mines of cold Russia. When night comes, the slaves dream of a head perched on top of a pole, riding the agitated waters of a “rebellious sea,” and it is the Czar’s head…

The City’s God
Georg Heym expressed the despair and solitude of urban life.
Fascinated by death, he was obsessed with the modern phenomenon of the metropolis: in his view the triumph of technology was destined to explode and unravel into apocalyptic involution. Nothing will change the city’s fate. Living in the city is unnatural.
In “Der Gott der Stadt” (The God of the City), sprawling cities kneel to Baal, who straddles blocks of buildings, his belly glowing red in the setting sun, and millions cower in the streets, booming their music made of praises and terror, while factory fumes and grime of smokestacks rise in the air towards the giant’s feet. And the elements themselves, perverted by the god, stare at the crushed humanity, sending tempests and seas of fire cracking on the asphalt.
We can read here the influence of a Belgian poet, Emile Verhaeren (1855 – 1916), one of the founders of Symbolism. In “L’âme des Ville” (The City’s Soul, in Les villes tentaculaires, Tentacular Cities, 1895), Verhaeren writes:
Un air de soufre et de naphte s’ exhale,
un soleil trouble et monstrueux s’ étale;
l’ esprit soudainement s’ effare
vers l’ impossible et le bizarre;
crime ou vertu, voit-il encor
ce qui se meut en ces décors,
où, devant lui, sur les places, s’ élève
le dressement tout en brouillards
d’ un pilier d’ or ou d’ un fronton blafard
pour il ne sait quel géant rêve?
An air of sulfur and naphtha exhales,
a hazy and monstrous sun expands;
the mind suddenly staggers
towards the impossible and the weird;
crime or virtue, can one still glimpse
something that moves in this decor,
where, right ahead, in each plaza, soars
the blurred height
of a golden pillar or a bleary pediment
for who knows what gigantic dream.
Fritz Lang’s 1927 German expressionist film Metropolis
Verhaeren’s verses — rhymed in the original French — strike me as overwrought and melodramatic. Still, these images inflamed the imaginations and influenced many artists of the time.
In Heym’s poems, however (and it is the difference between mere imagination and genius), the chill, perfectly stylized form frames and contains the vivid images, distancing the reader. The distance and “monumentality”, in John Holfson’s words, quoted by Hasler (ib.) make, by contrast, the excesses of Heym’s apocalyptic visions even more horrific.
Heym was a unique figure in the pre-war poetic landscape. His aggressive images set him apart as more than a mere harbinger of Expressionism. Georg Heym was the first poet to use the stylistic epitomes that would later become the movement’s most characteristic tropes.
Blood Red and Powdery Blue
On one side, the bleeding images of apocalyptic cities, on the other, soft landscapes of waters blending with the sky. Nature, when left to her own devices, embroiders the world with harmony.
Träumerei in Hellblau (Reverie in Light Blue)
Alle Landschaften haben
Sich mit Blau gefüllt.
Alle Büsche und Bäume des Stromes,
Der weit in den Norden schwillt.
Blaue Länder der Wolken,
Weiße Segel dicht,
Die Gestade des Himmels in Fernen
Zergehen in Wind und Licht.
Wenn die Abende sinken
Und wir schlafen ein,
Gehen die Träume, die schönen,
Mit leichten Füßen herein.
Zymbeln lassen sie klingen
In den Händen licht.
Manche flüstern, und halten
Kerzen vor ihr Gesicht.
Here is my take (as usual, not so literal):
All the expanses of land
Are filled with blue as are
All the bushes and trees of the river
That swells in the north afar.
Blue countries of clouds,
Sails scattered white,
The shore of the sky in the distance
Sprinkled in wind and light.
When the evening falls
And we close our eyes,
Lovely dreams tiptoe
With winged feet inside.
The cymbals they let clink
In their hands that glimmer.
Many whispers, and then shadows
Before your face they flicker.
PARTII: Translating the Untranslatable
The hardest part of doing this translation
German is such a romantic language. Reading German authors like Heym or Rainer Maria Rilke (although the latter was Bohemian-Austrian), I often wonder if Romanticism, and particularly expressionism as a literary style, could only be invented by author who wrote in that particular language of Gothic ascent. In English, at least contemporary English, an ornate style can easily teeter on the banks of the purple sea, but the best romantic style flows so beautifully in German. As I translated “The Dissection,” I faced the difficulty of dealing with a prose that was so formally perfect in the original that the mere idea of “transporting” it into another system of references seemed iconoclastic to me.
Translating is making decisions, and sometimes the text lures the translator into the easy path, which is the most obvious translation of a word with multiple meanings. It is particularly difficult with German, which is a highly polysemous language. Still, the translator should resist the sirens of “first-level” or “most-common” meaning.
The strongest example of the above, and the most difficult translation decision in this text was the passage:
Die Ärzte traten ein. Ein paar freundliche Männer in weißen Kitteln mit Schmissen und goldenen Zwickern.
The most obvious translation is:
The doctors entered. Several amicable men in white gowns with duelling-scars and gold-rimmed pince-nez.[2]
But I wondered, why the duelling-scars ?
The translator explains in the footnote #5: ’”Schmiss”: “duelling-scar”. Traditionally, many male university students belonged to fraternities known as “Studentenverbin– dungen”. The members of a fraternity usually drink together
and engage in duelling. The scars resulting from the wounds received were considered a sign of bravery and boldness.’
This translation is plausible, given that Heym himself engaged in duels during his university years. Moreover, in one of his diary entries, he used “Schmissen” in a figurative way, referring to his heart with dueling scars.
On the other hand, the structure of the phrase in weißen Kitteln mit Schmissen indicates that “Schmissen” may refer back to “Kitteln” (gown, which I rendered with the more modern “coat”). How did the doctors’ white coats sport dueling scars? Did the frat boys carry out their dueling deeds in their surgeons’ gowns? It seemed more logical, and simpler, to me, to use the other meaning of “Schmiss”: rent, a hole in fabric.
I translated the sentence:
The doctors entered. A few friendly men in white coats with rents and gold-rimmed pince-nez.
Suddenly, the passage made more sense, even though the explanation based on duels was more romantic.
And the final version became:
The doctors entered. A few friendly men in frayed white coats and gold-rimmed pince-nez.
Those who have haunted hospitals wearing white, like I have, will recognize the much-washed coats that fray at the cuffs and hems…
But then again, the author may have wanted to imply both meanings: the down-to-earth frayed coats, and the remainders of ancient duels on the faces of the doctors, now older and wiser (because they wear glasses for near vision).
A short-short, a poem in prose
Translating a very short story is more difficult, given the relative weight of the words. Georg Heym was a poet above everything else, and the first expressionistic poet, at that: the use of images, and particularly colors, as vehicles of emotions is the foundation of the story itself. Colors serve to create similitudes and transitions from the gritty reality of the dissection table to the dream that forms in the dead man’s head, as a resonance of the doctors’ hammering on his skull.
Splendid reds and blues” sprout on the dead man’s body. Why “splendid”?  The colors of decomposing flesh announce new life more than decay, and the wonderful colors foreshadow the explosion of reds in the second part of the story, the memory of a past love in summer: poppy fields; the man’s lover “a flower of flames;” and a billowing dress as a “wave of fire in the setting sun.”
The contrast between the doctors, who were “friendly” a minute before, but now resemble “hideous torturers, blood flowing on their hands as they” dig “ever more deeply into the frigid corpse and” pull “out its innards, like white cooks gutting a goose.”
It is a poem, and every word carries a strong meaning.
Repetition as a style
To get across the author’s intent, I had to keep certain repetitions: in a six-hundred-fifty-seven-word story (a little more than two standard-manuscript pages), there are ten occurrences of the word “white.” It is typical of Heym’s style, as you can see in the poem “Reverie in Pale Blue.” In my translation of the poem I did not keep the repeated words as they did not have the same effect in English, the words being in too close proximity. In “The Dissection,” though, repetition could and was used to render as much as possible of the original style.
In Heym’s work, repetition serves two purposes: first, it creates a contrast, as the same word is used in a gruesome and then a lyrical context; second, repeating a word accentuates the rhythm of a sentence with an obsessive insistence.
In other places, in a variation around the sentence structure, the same word is found in a different position. A paragraph begins with Die Ärzte traten ein. And, in the next paragraph, the beginning is Sie traten an den Toten.
The word “traten” is a counter-example, as I made the decision of using two different translations because the repetition added little in English:
Die Ärzte traten ein. (“Traten” means, generically, “to join,” but the meaning changes in different contexts. The most logical translation was “The doctors entered.”)
Sie traten an den Toten (They stepped up to the dead man.)
How this story influenced me personally
The Dissection” influenced my writing directly. It was one of those famous multiple repetitions that inspired me:
In front of the large window, opened a wide sky filled with small white clouds that swam in the light, in the silent afternoon, like small white gods.
I liked the sound of this sentence so much I used a similar repetition as I was largely rewriting a story that was published in the magazine of my high school when I was fourteen (my first published story ever).  And the restyled story, “The Hand,” appeared in the #358 issue of Weird Tales (August 2011), edited by Ann VanderMeer.


[1] For the anthology edited by Rick Claw, The Apes of Wrath, forthcoming in March 2013 from Tachyon Publications.
[2] Arlene Elizabeth Sture, Georg Heym’s Der Dieh: Ein Novellenbuch. Five Short Stories in English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, 1-1-1979, McMasters University

Article 15

habla la Dra. Francesca Stavrakopoulou

$
0
0

¿Estamos programados para creer en un Dios?

  • 3 abril 2015



La religión -la creencia en seres sobrenaturales, incluidos dioses y fantasmas, ángeles y demonios, almas y espíritus- se encuentra a lo largo de la historia y en todas las culturas.
La evidencia de la suposición de la existencia de una vida de ultratumba data de hace al menos 50.000 a 100.000 años atrás.
Cada cultura humana conocida tiene su mito de la creación, con la posible excepción del pueblo amazónico Pirahã, que tampoco cuenta con palabras para los números, colores y jerarquía social.
Es difícil conseguir datos exactos sobre el número de creyentes hoy en día, pero algunas encuestas sugieren que hasta el 84% de la población mundial es miembro de grupos religiosos o dice que la religión es importante en su vida.
Vivimos en una época de acceso sin precedentes al conocimiento científico, que algunos consideran que no concuerda con la fe religiosa. Entonces, ¿por qué la religión es tan omnipresente y persistente?
Psicólogos, filósofos, antropólogos y hasta neurocientíficos han sugerido posibles explicaciones de nuestra predisposición natural a creer, y para el poderoso papel que la religión parece jugar en nuestras vidas emocionales y sociales.

Muerte, cultura y poder

Las actividades religiosas más tempranas aparecieron como respuesta a cambios corporales, físicos o materiales en el ciclo de la vida humana, principalmente la muerte.

Image caption Antiguos círculos de piedra, como éste, eran espacioes en los que los vivos y los muertos se reunían.
Los rituales de duelo son una de las formas más antiguas de experiencia religiosa. Muchos de nuestros ancestros no creían que la muerte era necesariamente el final de la vida. Era una transición. Algunos creían que los difuntos y otros espíritus podían ver lo que pasaba en este mundo y hasta tenían cierta influencia en los eventos que ocurrían.
Esa es una noción verdaderamente poderosa. La idea de que los muertos o hasta los dioses están con nosotros y pueden intervenir en nuestras vidas es reconfortante, pero también nos lleva a ser muy cuidadosos con lo que hacemos.
Los humanos somos esencialmente seres sociales y por ello vivimos en grupos; como grupos sociales tendemos a la jerarquía, y la religión no es una excepción. Cuando hay un sistema jerárquico, hay un sistema de poder, y en un grupo social religioso, esa jerarquía localiza a su miembro más poderoso en la cima: la deidad - Dios.
Es frente a Dios que tenemos que rendir cuentas.
Hoy en día, la religión y el poder siguen conectados.
Estudios recientes muestran que recordar a Dios nos hace más obedientes.
Hasta en sociedades que han tratado de reprimir la fe, surgieron cosas que tomaron su lugar, como el culto a un líder o al Estado. Entre menos estable política y económicamente sea un país, más probable es que la gente busque refugio en la religión. Los grupos religiosos a menudo pueden ofrecer el apoyo que los Estados no proveen a quienes se siente marginalizados.
Así que factores sociales ayudan a desarrollar y reforzar la fe religiosa, así como lo hace la manera en la que nos relacionamos con el mundo y con los demás.

Dioses como otras mentes


Image caption Neptuno era el dios romano del mar. Cuando había una tormenta, se creía que estaba furioso. Era un dios con temperamento humano.
En todas las culturas, los dioses son esencialmente personas, hasta cuando tienen otras formas o carecen de forma física.
En la actualidad, muchos psicólogos piensan que creer en dioses es una extensión de nuestro reconocimiento, como animales sociales, de la existencia de otros, y de nuestra tendencia a ver el mundo en términos humanos.
Proyectamos pensamientos y sentimientos humanos en otros animales y en objetos, e incluso en fuerzas naturales, y esta tendencia es una piedra fundamental de la religión.
Es una idea antigua, que se remonta al filósofo griego Jenófanes, a quien se le cita argumentando que si los animales pudieran pintar, representarían a los dioses con formas animales.
De manera que la creencia religiosa puede estar fundada en nuestros patrones de pensamiento y cultura humana. Algunos científicos, sin embargo, han ido un paso más allá y han escaneado nuestros cerebros en busca del legendario "punto Dios".

Dios en el cerebro

Los neurocientíficos han tratado de comparar los cerebros de creyentes y escépticos, y de observar qué pasa en nuestros cerebros cuando rezamos o meditamos. Se sabe muy poco en este campo pero hay algunas pistas. Haz clic en cada área del cerebro para enterarte.






Nuestros cerebros cambian a lo largo de la vida, a medida que nos desarrollamos y experimentamos cosas nuevas. Virtualmente todas las partes de nuestro cerebro están involucradas en todo lo que hacemos y experimentamos, así que no sólo no existe un "punto Dios", sino que no hay un punto específico del cerebro dedicado a sólo una cosa.
Hay algo que sí sabemos: el cerebro humano es el más avanzado del mundo animal, y el único con una maravillosa capacidad: la de darle sentido a la realidad.

Poniéndole puntuación a la vida

A menudo se habla del cerebro como una máquina de significado. En la medida en la que estamos constantemente buscando patrones, estructuras y relaciones de causa-efecto, la religión puede proveer una variedad de estrategias para dar significado.
Las creencias religiosas le ayudan a los humanos a ordenar y encontrarle el sentido a sus vidas. Y los rituales en particular pueden "darle puntuación" a nuestras vidas, marcando los eventos más cruciales.
Y los rituales son comunes en todos los grupos sociales humanos, incluidos los de ateos.

Image caption Cuando nace un bebé, generalmente hay ya sea un bautizo o una ceremonia para nombrarlo: eso marca la nueva identidad del chico y le da la bienvenida al grupo social.
Aunque ni la neurociencia, ni la antropología y ni siquiera la filosofía tienen la respuesta definitiva a la pregunta "¿Existe Dios?", todas esas disciplinas dan pistas sobre cómo respondemos a nuestras más profundas necesidades humanas.
Quizás no estemos programados para creer en Dios o en un poder sobrenatural, pero somos animales sociales con la necesidad evolutiva de estar conectados con el mundo y con otros.
De pronto las religiones son sencillamente canales para posibilitar tan significativas conexiones.

El hombre que predijo la caída de la industria musical

$
0
0
  • 3 octubre 2015
Image copyrightGetty
Image captionÉste es el hombre: Jacques Attali.
A diferencia de sus predecesores del siglo XX, es improbable que los músicos de hoy en día se vuelvan ricos vendiendo discos... y hubo un hombre que predijo que así sería cuando era impensable que eso pasara.
En 1976, la industria musical parecía indestructible.
ABBA, los Beach Boys y Rod Stewart vendían montañas de discos y las cosas sólo podían mejorar.
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption Con "Ruido", Attali alertó sobre el fin de la era de oro de la industria musical. ¿Qué piensa ahora?
Las ventas crecieron casi sin control hasta 1999, el año más rentable de la historia de la industria.
Pero con el cambio de siglo llegó la web y MP3, y los ingresos colapsaron: un cambio sísmico que nadie había anticipado.
¿Nadie? Bueno, no exactamente.
También en 1976, un erudito francés llamado Jacques Attali escribió un libro que predijo esa crisis con una precisión asombrosa.
Se llamaba "Ruido: la economía política de la música", y en él llamó a la turbulencia que se avecinaba "la crisis de proliferación".
Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Pronto, dijo, vamos a tener tal cantidad de música grabada que cesará de tener valor... y, ponte a pensar, ¿cuándo fue la última vez que pagaste US$15 por un álbum?

Música, poder y dinero

Como soy cantante y compositor, me intrigó que Attali hubiera acertado en todo lo que escribió años antes de que ocurriera, por lo que decidí ir a verlo.
Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image caption Carlomagno hizo cantar a las masas para unir a su reino.
"Fue un libro extraño, sobre un tema extraño", me dijo en su hogar en París. A sus 70 años sigue siendo un pensador y escritor prolífico.
Para entender cómo logró predecir la "crisis de proliferación", uno tiene que entender la teoría que presentó en su libro.
La música, el dinero y el poder están todos estrechamente entrelazados, escribió, e históricamente han tenido una relación díscola.
Los poderosos a menudo han utilizado la música para tratar de controlar a la gente.
En el siglo IX, por ejemplo, el emperador Carlomagno impuso a la fuerza la práctica de cantos gregorianos para "forjar la unión cultural y política de su reino".
Mucho después, el capitalismo y las carteleras de música pop le abrieron a los magnates de la industria la posibilidad de usar la música para extraer grandes cantidades de dinero de la gente.

El lado B de este disco

No obstante, la música también puede usarse para subvertir el poder y socavar el status quo.
El rock'n'roll de los años 50, por ejemplo, ayudó a subvertir un montón de convenciones sociales.
Esa tensión fue lo que llevó a Attali a concluir que los ejecutivos de la industria no podrían controlar la manera en la que adquiríamos la música para siempre.
Cuando nos inundaran con más música de la que podríamos escuchar en la vida, argumentó, el modelo eventualmente colapsaría.
Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image caption Es cuestión de oferta y demanda... escasez y abundancia.
Esa "crisis de proliferación", como sabemos, efectivamente se dio.
Fantástico para los oyentes, algunos dirán, pero difícil para los músicos que solían depender de la venta de la música grabada para vivir.
"Nos estamos ahogando en música", dice George Ergatoudis, director de música de BBC Radio 1. Y ganar lo suficiente en "época de abundancia" es problemático.

El futuro al ritmo de la música

Attali también tuvo otra gran idea.
En su opinión, la música -o la industria musical- forjan un sendero por el que el resto de la economía caminará.
Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image caption La música es un indicador de tendencias.
Lo que le ha pasado y le está pasando a la música ayuda a predecir el futuro.
Cuando los músicos del siglo XVIII -como el compositor Handel- empezaron a vender boletos para sus conciertos, en vez de competir por el patronato real, estaban pisando un terreno económico nuevo, escribió Attali.
Estaban marcando el fin del feudalismo y el principio de un nuevo sistema de capitalismo.
En todos los períodos de la historia, señala Attali, los músicos han estado en la vanguardia del desarrollo económico.
Debido a que la música es muy importante para nosotros pero también muy adaptable, es uno de los primeros lugares en los que podemos ver la aparición de nuevas tendencias.

¿Qué va a pasar entonces?

Si la música realmente predice el futuro del resto de la economía, ¿qué piensa Attali que nos está anticipando?
En opinión del erudito, la manufactura sufrirá una crisis idéntica a la de la industria musical, en este caso causada por la impresión 3D.
"Con la impresión en 3D, la gente podrá imprimir sus propias tazas, muebles...", indica.
"Todos harán sus propios objetos, de la misma manera en la que están haciendo su propia música".
Los prototipos de los objetos pueden ser copiados y compartidos en línea -igual que los archivos de música digital- y luego ser impresos en casa, por un precio módico.
De hecho, eso ya está ocurriendo, y algunos de ellos están en Pirate Bay, el sitio web que se convirtió en el destino favorito de la gente que quería copiar enormes cantidades de música -gran parte ilegal- hace más o menos una década.
"Apenas hay unos pocos cientos de prototipos en Pirate Bay en este momento, desde repuestos para autos hasta pistolas y juguetes", dice el cofundador del sitio Tobias Andersson.
Image copyrightGetty
Image caption Desde armas hasta juguetes se pueden imprimir ya usando prototipos que se consiguen en la red... pero eso es sólo el principio.
"Pero en unos años imprimir y escanear algo será un proceso rápido. Para entonces habrá prototipos de casi todo lo que uno puede visualizar en internet".
"Todas las industrias que distribuyen objetos estará en la misma situación en la que la industria de la música ha estado en los últimos 10 años. No creo que la mayoría de ellas comprende la inmensidad de lo que está por venir... y está viniendo rápido".

¿Alguna tabla de salvación?

Le pregunté a Attali si artistas como yo, tenemos alguna esperanza.
"Lo único escaso es el tiempo", respondió el profeta.
Así me recordó que como el tiempo no se puede copiar, vender experiencias en vivo -como conciertos- deben mantener su valor.
De manera que no tengo que irme a buscar trabajo en un banco... aún quedan esperanzas.
O quizás el amable visionario es demasiado cortés como para decirme otra cosa.
******************************************************

El profeta y el cantante pop

Jacques Attali es un renombrado economista, filósofo y asesor político, autor de más de 60 libros. Fue el arquitecto del ascenso al poder del presidente Francois Mitterrand, organizador de la cumbre del G7 de 1987 y el primer presidente del Banco Europeo para la Reconstrucción y el Desarrollo.
Sam York ha cantado con artistas como Tom Jones, Ed Sheeran, Jessie J, Dave Gilmour, Ronan Keating y Jack Bruce, y ha sido artista residente en el famoso club de jazz Ronnie Scott como guitarrista, pianista y vocalista. Ahora está lanzando su carrera como cantante y compositor.

Richard Dawkins: The God of the Old Testament

$
0
0

Richard Dawkins: The God of the Old Testament

(Repost with Bible verses that support Richard Dawkins' description of the Old Testament God. Let me know if I've left out some good verses -- I started to poop out toward the end.)




The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.  

Richard Dawkins: The God of the Old Testament

Frensh Poetry / Poesía Francesa

$
0
0


Paul Éluard

 

Twenty-Four Poems


 

HOME                                                                           DOWNLOAD

 
Translated by A. S. Kline ©2001 All Rights Reserved
This work may be freely reproduced, stored, and transmitted, electronically or otherwise, for any non-commercial purpose.


Contents




Absence


I speak to you over cities

I speak to you over plains

My mouth is against your ear

The two sides of the walls face
my voice which acknowledges you.

I speak to you of eternity.

O cities memories of cities
cities draped with our desires
cities early and late
cities strong cities intimate
stripped of all their makers
their thinkers their phantoms

Landscape ruled by emerald
live living ever-living
the wheat of the sky on our earth
nourishes my voice I dream and cry
I laugh and dream between the flames
between the clusters of sunlight

And over my body your body extends
the layer of its clear mirror.





Easy


Easy and beautiful under

your eyelids
As the meeting of pleasure
Dance and the rest

I spoke the fever

The best reason for fire
That you might be pale and luminous
A thousand fruitful poses
A thousand ravaged embraces
Repeated move to erase themselves
You grow dark you unveil yourself
A mask you
control it

It deeply resembles you
And you seem nothing but lovelier naked
Naked in shadow and dazzlingly naked
Like a sky shivering with flashes of lightning
You reveal yourself to you
To reveal yourself to others





Talking of Power and Love


Between all my torments between death and self

Between my despair and the reason for living
There is injustice and this evil of men
That I cannot accept there is my anger

There are the blood-coloured fighters of Spain
There are the sky-coloured fighters of Greece
The bread the blood the sky and the right to hope
For all the innocents who hate evil

The light is always close to dying
Life always ready to become earth
But spring is reborn that is never done with
A bud lifts from dark and the warmth settles

And the warmth will have the right of the selfish
Their atrophied senses will not resist
I hear the fire talk lightly of coolness
I hear a man speak what he has not known

You who were my flesh’s sensitive conscience
You I love forever you who made me
You will not tolerate oppression or injury
You’ll sing in dream of earthly happiness
You’ll dream of freedom and I’ll continue you




The Beloved


She is standing on my eyelids

And her hair is wound in mine,
She has the form of my hands,
She has the colour of my eyes,
She is swallowed by my shadow
Like a stone against the sky.

Her eyes are always open
And will not let me sleep.
Her dreams in broad daylight
Make the suns evaporate
Make me laugh, cry and laugh,
Speak with nothing to say.



Max Ernst


In one corner agile incest

Turns round the virginity of a little dress
In one corner sky released
leaves balls of white on the spines of storm.

In one corner bright with all the eyes
One awaits the fish of anguish.
In one corner the car of summer’s greenery
gloriously motionless forever.

In the glow of youth
lamps lit too late.
The first one shows her breasts that kill the insects that are red.




Series


For the splendour of the day of happinesses in the air

To live the taste of colours easily
To enjoy loves so as to laugh
To open eyes at the final moment

She has every willingness.




Obsession


After years of wisdom

During which the world was transparent as a needle
Was it cooing about something else?
After having vied with returned favours squandered treasure
More than a red lip with a red tip
And more than a white leg with a white foot
Where then do we think we are?



Nearer To Us


Run and run towards deliverance

And find and gather everything
Deliverance and riches
Run so quickly the thread breaks
With the sound a great bird makes
A flag always soared beyond



Open Door


Life is truly kind

Come to me, if I go to you it’s a game,
The angels of bouquets grant the flowers a change of hue.



The Immediate Life


What’s become of you why this white hair and pink

Why this forehead these eyes rent apart heart-rending
The great misunderstanding of the marriage of radium
Solitude chases me with its rancour.



Lovely And Lifelike


A face at the end of the day

A cradle in day’s dead leaves
A bouquet of naked rain
Every ray of sun hidden
Every fount of founts in the depths of the water
Every mirror of mirrors broken
A face in the scales of silence
A pebble among other pebbles
For the leaves last glimmers of day
A face like all the forgotten faces.



The Season of Loves


By the road of ways

In the three-part shadow of troubled sleep
I come to you the double the multiple
as like you as the era of deltas.

Your head is as tiny as mine
The nearby sea reigns with spring
Over the summers of your fragile form
And here one burns bundles of ermine.

In the wandering transparency
of your noble face
these floating animals are wonderful
I envy their candour their inexperience
Your inexperience on the bed of waters
Finds the road of love without bowing

By the road of ways
and without the talisman that reveals
your laughter at the crowd of women
and your tears no one wants.



As Far As My Eye Can See In My Body’s Senses


All the trees all their branches all of their leaves

The grass at the foot of the rocks and the houses en masse
Far off the sea that your eye bathes
These images of day after day
The vices the virtues so imperfect
The transparency of men passing among them by chance
And passing women breathed by your elegant obstinacies
Your obsessions in a heart of lead on virgin lips
The vices the virtues so imperfect
The likeness of looks of permission with eyes you conquer
The confusion of bodies wearinesses ardours
The imitation of words attitudes ideas
The vices the virtues so imperfect

Love is man incomplete



Barely Disfigured


Adieu Tristesse

Bonjour Tristesse
Farewell Sadness
Hello Sadness
You are inscribed in the lines on the ceiling
You are inscribed in the eyes that I love
You are not poverty absolutely
Since the poorest of lips denounce you
Ah with a smile
Bonjour Tristesse
Love of kind bodies
Power of love
From which kindness rises
Like a bodiless monster
Unattached head
Sadness beautiful face.

 

 


In A New Night


Woman I’ve lived with

Woman I live with
Woman I’ll live with
Always the same
You need a red cloak
Red gloves a red mask
And dark stockings
The reasons the proofs
Of seeing you quite naked
Nudity pure O ready finery

Breasts O my heart



Fertile Eyes


Fertile Eyes

No one can know me more
More than you know me

Your eyes in which we sleep
The two of them
Have cast a spell on my male orbs
Greater than worldly nights

Your eyes where I voyage
Have given the road-signs
Directions detached from the earth

In your eyes those that show us
Our infinite solitude
Is no more than they think exists

No one can know me more
More than you know me.

I Said It To You


I said it to you for the clouds

I said it to you for the tree of the sea
For each wave for the birds in the leaves
For the pebbles of sound
For familiar hands
For the eye that becomes landscape or face
And sleep returns it the heaven of its colour
For all that night drank
For the network of roads
For the open window for a bare forehead
I said it to you for your thoughts for your words
Every caress every trust survives.

It’s The Sweet Law Of Men


It’s the sweet law of men

They make wine from grapes
They make fire from coal
They make men from kisses

It’s the true law of men
Kept intact despite
the misery and war
despite danger of death

It’s the warm law of men
To change water to light
Dream to reality
Enemies to friends

A law old and new
That perfects itself
From the child’s heart’s depths
To reason’s heights.



The Curve Of Your Eyes


The curve of your eyes embraces my heart

A ring of sweetness and dance
halo of time, sure nocturnal cradle,
And if I no longer know all I have lived through
It’s that your eyes have not always been mine.

Leaves of day and moss of dew,
Reeds of breeze, smiles perfumed,
Wings covering the world of light,
Boats charged with sky and sea,
Hunters of sound and sources of colour

Perfume enclosed by a covey of dawns
that beds forever on the straw of stars,
As the day depends on innocence
The whole world depends on your pure eyes
And all my blood flows under their sight.




Liberty


On my notebooks from school

On my desk and the trees
On the sand on the snow
I write your name

On every page read
On all the white sheets
Stone blood paper or ash
I write your name

On the golden images
On the soldier’s weapons
On the crowns of kings
I write your name

On the jungle the desert
The nests and the bushes
On the echo of childhood
I write your name

On the wonder of nights
On the white bread of days
On the seasons engaged
I write your name

On all my blue rags
On the pond mildewed sun
On the lake living moon
I write your name

On the fields the horizon
The wings of the birds
On the windmill of shadows
I write your name

On each breath of the dawn
On the ships on the sea
On the mountain demented
I write your name

On the foam of the clouds
On the sweat of the storm
On dark insipid rain
I write your name

On the glittering forms
On the bells of colour
On physical truth
I write your name

On the wakened paths
On the opened ways
On the scattered places
I write your name

On the lamp that gives light
On the lamp that is drowned
On my house reunited
I write your name

On the bisected fruit
Of my mirror and room
On my bed’s empty shell
I write your name

On my dog greedy tender
On his listening ears
On his awkward paws
I write your name

On the sill of my door
On familiar things
On the fire’s sacred stream
I write your name

On all flesh that’s in tune
On the brows of my friends
On each hand that extends
I write your name

On the glass of surprises
On lips that attend
High over the silence
I write your name

On my ravaged refuges
On my fallen lighthouses
On the walls of my boredom
I write your name

On passionless absence
On naked solitude
On the marches of death
I write your name

On health that’s regained
On danger that’s past
On hope without memories
I write your name

By the power of the word
I regain my life
I was born to know you
And to name you

LIBERTY

Ring Of Peace


I have passed the doors of coldness

The doors of my bitterness
To come and kiss your lips

City reduced to a room
Where the absurd tide of evil
leaves a reassuring foam

Ring of peace I have only you
You teach me again what it is
To be human when I renounce

Knowing whether I have fellow creatures





Ecstasy


I am in front of this feminine land

Like a child in front of the fire
Smiling vaguely with tears in my eyes
In front of this land where all moves in me
Where mirrors mist where mirrors clear
Reflecting two nude bodies season on season

I’ve so many reasons to lose myself
On this road-less earth under horizon-less skies
Good reasons I ignored yesterday
And I’ll never ever forget
Good keys of gazes keys their own daughters
in front of this land where nature is mine

In front of the fire the first fire
Good mistress reason
Identified star
On earth under sky in and out of my heart
Second bud first green leaf
That the sea covers with sails
And the sun finally coming to us

I am in front of this feminine land
Like a branch in the fire.



Our Life


We’ll not reach the goal one by one but in pairs

We know in pairs we will know all about us
We’ll love everything our children will smile
At the dark history or mourn alone



Uninterrupted Poetry


From the sea to the source

From mountain to plain
Runs the phantom of life
The foul shadow of death
But between us
A dawn of ardent flesh is born
And exact good
that sets the earth in order
We advance with calm step
And nature salutes us
The day embodies our colours
Fire our eyes the sea our union
And all living resemble us
All the living we love
Imaginary the others
Wrong and defined by their birth
But we must struggle against them
They live by dagger blows
They speak like a broken chair
Their lips tremble with joy
At the echo of leaden bells
At the muteness of dark gold
A lone heart not a heart
A lone heart all the hearts
And the bodies every star
In a sky filled with stars
In a career in movement
Of light and of glances
Our weight shines on the earth
Glaze of desire
To sing of human shores
For you the living I love
And for all those that we love
That have no desire but to love
I’ll end truly by barring the road
Afloat with enforced dreams
I’ll end truly by finding myself
We’ll take possession of earth


Index of First Lines



About Beethoven

$
0
0

Picture This

Was the Romantic Beethoven Really a “Radical Evolutionary”?

Of all the standard myths and accepted truths of the life and music of Ludwig van Beethoven, the idea of the “Romantic” Beethoven—the embodiment of Germanic sturm und drang and 19th century revolution—clings the most. In a massive new biography, Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph, Jan Swafford hopes to tear away that and many more myths to rediscover the real man and artist buried beneath. “Beethoven was not a Romantic, and he never called himself a revolutionary,” Swafford asserts. “He based much of what he did on tradition, models, and authorities, and he never intended to overthrow the past. He was an evolutionist more than a revolutionist. Call him a radical evolutionary, one with a unique voice.” Using his own unique voice as biographer of great composers, Swafford traces the life and art of Beethoven in eye-opening, rational detail and gives you a more human, more fascinating portrait of Beethoven the radical evolutionary than even the Beethoven the Romantic of legend.
A composer himself, Swafford’s written weighty and well-received biographies of American composer Charles Ives and German composer (and heir to Beethoven) Johannes Brahms, but neither of those biographies match the task Swafford sets for himself in Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph. A titanic, thousand-page achievement about one of the great titans of music and Western civilization, Swafford’s latest biography recognizes, as he puts it, the “great danger in that kind of ubiquity” Beethoven’s achieved, which results in “[m]any present-day books [that] concern ideas about Beethoven rather than Beethoven himself.” In Swafford’s “composer’s-eye view of a composer,” he purposely avoids “two words that are all too familiar in biographies of artists: genius and masterpiece.” Stripped of those now-meaningless superlatives, Swafford restores the Beethoven of flesh and blood struggling to learn the craft of music and then how to make that craft into something new and his own, all while dealing with the day-to-day desires for love, family, and friendship.
“Music was the one extraordinary thing in a sea of the disappointing and ordinary,” Swafford writes of Beethoven’s early life. “Reared as he was in a relentless discipline, instinctively responsive to music as he was, the boy never truly learned to understand the world outside music.” As much as Beethoven was a “radical evolutionary” in music, in life he never overcame the personal arrested development of his youth. In the first few hundred pages of this biography, we get a sense not just of the failures of Beethoven’s upbringing, but also of how growing up in that time and place set in motion the artist he would become. “Music was everywhere,” Swafford says of late 18th century Bonn, Beethoven’s birthplace. Although only 12,000 people lived in Bonn, it provided a whole universe of musical opportunities, from the folk songs of the commoners, to the professional musicians such as his Kapellmeister namesake grandfather and musician father (who failed to keep the Kappelmeister job and shifted his ambitions to young Ludwig), to rulers such as Max Franz, Beethoven’s first patron and financier of his first trip to Vienna. “If in the larger world Bonn was too much a backwater for a musician to find wide fame,” Swafford writes, “it was still a town as good as any in which to learn the art. Beethoven was not the only virtuoso to emerge from Bonn as if out of nowhere to dazzle the capitals of music.” Swafford swats away Beethovian exceptionalism not to diminish him but instead to explain just how he and his art came to be more clearly and believably than generic “genius” labels can.
Swafford writes with a great warmth and personality of Beethoven’s early years, setting up beautifully many of the conflicts and triumphs to come. Too often dismissed as a mere footnote, Beethoven’s early teacher Christian Gottlob Neefe finds new life in Swafford’s text as one of the great Schwärmers of the period—an enthusiast not just of music, but also of poetry, literature, philosophy, and how all those elements intersected in the politics of the age. One of the “cultish few” in the late 18th century who recognized the mostly forgotten J.S. Bach’s “stature and the importance and the synoptic quality of hisWell-Tempered Clavier,” Neefe brought Beethoven into the cult of Bach as well, resulting in Ludwig becoming not only, as Swafford suggests, one of the first non-Bachs to learn keyboard by practicing The Well-Tempered Clavier, but also a key inheritor of the Bach tradition of composition so as to build upon that foundation in the future. “Teaching the boy the WTC from the age of ten or eleven may have been the single most important thing Neefe did for him,” Swafford concludes.
Aside from Beethoven’s musical development (dependent not only on the influence of Bach, but also that of nearer contemporaries Mozart and Haydn), we get many pictures of Beethoven’s arrested personal development from letters and accounts of friends. “Beethoven craved companionship, love, stimulation intellectual and spiritual, but other than people to play and publish and listen to his music, for most of his life he would never truly need anybody,” Swafford suggests. Throughout, Swafford keeps the psychoanalysis of his subject to a minimum, harking back on his pet peeve of books with ideas about Beethoven rather than about Beethoven himself. When Swafford writes about Beethoven’s raptus—the trance-like state friends remarked upon when he was most lost in his musical world—you feel as if you were there, listening to the improvisations flowing from the virtuoso’s fingers. Likewise, when Swafford gets to the “anguish” promised in the title, he does so with his own verbal virtuosity free of melodrama: “his body became his most virulent, most inescapable enemy. His livelihood, his creativity, his spirit were under siege by a force that did not care about his music, his talent, his wisdom.” When Beethoven’s deafness robs him of his career as a piano virtuoso (and the accompanying income), the reality of his desperation to compose and publish to make money deflates all previous biographies trumpeting the triumphs too loudly.
All the triumphs are here, of course. Swafford hits all the highlights with masterful set pieces on the Third or “Eroica” Symphony, the courage of the Heiligenstadt Testament, Missa solemnis, and the utopian Ninth Symphony.  Thanks to Swafford’s earlier set-up, Beethoven’s admiration of Napoleon as a benevolent dictator akin to those of his youth helps make the “Eroica” more logical to modern minds. But whereas others focus almost exclusively on the politics of the Third Symphony, Swafford shows how the music conveys the journey of a hero, any hero, coming into his or her own. Giving example of developed as well as discarded ideas for the symphony, Swafford takes us inside the mind of Beethoven as his musical essay on being and becoming itself comes into being. For those who cannot read music, Swafford’s published excerpts can look daunting, but with a little work and a good CD collection, anyone can follow Swafford’s journeys through Beethoven’s journeys. The payoff is more than worth it. Writing of the “Ode to Joy” finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, Swafford momentarily (and justifiably) waxes poetic: “There’s something singularly moving when this man—deaf and sick and misanthropic and self-torturing, at the same time one of the most extraordinary and boundlessly generous men our species has produced—greets us person to person, with glass raised, and hails us as friends.” There are many such moments when you’ll want to raise a glass not just to Beethoven, but also to the Beethoven Swafford brings to us.
Whereas early portraits of Beethoven (such as the one above) showed us the dynamic performer and composer in action, later portraits painted after he became a living legend often showed him raising his eyes to heaven as if communicating with the divine. “In fact,” Swafford counters, “it was the characteristic stare of a deaf man straining to hear.” If you’ve ever rolled your eyes at the mythologizing and mischaracterizing of the Beethoven story, Jan Swafford’s Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph will keep your eyes on the prize of a fuller understanding of the humanity of this artist that celebrated humanity as an abstraction while unable to deal with humans as individuals. I found myself wanting to wrap my arms around Beethoven by the end, but mentally stopped short knowing that he never could or would accept any embrace. Today, Beethoven might be labeled a savant or autistic for his low emotional IQ paired with his high musical aptitude, but in his day he faced such emotional trauma on top of his physical pain alone but with grace and courage. Swafford erases the Romantic revolutionary Beethoven for good while giving us an evolutionary Beethoven that invites us to learn and maybe even evolve in our own humanity from his story.
[Image:Joseph Willibrord Mähler. Portrait of Beethoven (detail), 1804-1805.]

David Was a Rapist, Abraham Was a Sex Trafficker

$
0
0
My family and I were driving to the movie theater recently and Game of Thrones came up in our conversation. Having never read the book or seen the HBO show, but figuring reviews and trailers gave me all I needed to know, I pontificated, “Game of Thrones is popular only because it’s about sex and violence.” To which my son Noah responded, “Sex and violence—sounds like your books, Dad.”
The reason I write about sex and violence is that the Bible—especially the Old Testament, where I spend most of my time—talks about sex and violence. A lot. It includes stories of fornicators, adulterers, prostitutes, polygamists, ethnic cleansing, fratricide, infanticide, and other forms of cruel activity.
But the Old Testament is also full of sexual violence. We read of rapists, pimps, and other perpetrators of sexual exploitation. The Bible, then, is not that different from Game of Thrones—or better yet, the news. Every day we seem to hear about sexual assaults on college campuses, in the military, and even in churches. Sadly, many of us are no longer shocked when we hear such horrific news.
This reality makes studying sexual violence in Scripture all the more pressing. Paul said all of Scripture—including what we might consider the R-rated stories of the Old Testament—is God-breathed and can train us in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16–17). It’s not that we skip over such stories, but that we tend to use euphemisms when telling them. We don’t pay close attention to the details, and as a result miss what the biblical authors intended to communicate. Stories not just of prostitutes, adulterers, and fornicators, but also of sexual predators and human traffickers, teach us profound lessons about God and his grace. He came to redeem all people, even those who are sexually violent, as the genealogy of Jesus shows.

Abraham: The Pimping Patriarch

The first story we tend to euphemize is that of Father Abraham. Abraham—the second man mentioned in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ family history—gets off to a great start by obeying God’s call to leave his homeland. But not all was well with the patriarch. We give him due honor for his astounding faith. And sure, we recognize he slept with his wife’s female servant. But when describing how he trafficked his wife, we soften the details.
Shortly after arriving in Canaan, he leaves for Egypt to avoid a famine. Because of Sarah’s beauty—at age 65—he orders her to tell the Egyptians that she is his sister and not his wife. That way no one will kill him in order to marry her (Gen. 12:12–13). Since Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings, the message was half true. But since their prime relationship was that of husband and wife, it was half false.
Upon arrival, the Egyptians praise Sarah for her good looks, just as Abraham had predicted, and Pharaoh takes her into his harem. To thank Abraham for sharing his “sister,” the ruler rewarded him richly with animals and male and female servants. While the text is somewhat vague, the language that Pharaoh “took her” suggests sexual engagement.
God called Abraham to be a blessing to all families of the earth, including his own. But he does the opposite here. He was more concerned about his own safety than his wife’s wellbeing and dignity. (And Abraham repeats this cowardly, selfish act in Genesis 20.) Sarah must have felt betrayed, and Pharaoh suffered because of Abraham’s deception: God sent plagues to punish Pharaoh for taking Sarah as his wife (Gen. 12:17). The only one “blessed” in this scenario is Abraham. He essentially trafficked his wife and profited richly, and it didn’t take long for sexual exploitation to creep up again in his family.
Download Your FREE Advent Calendar

Tamar: The Pious Prostitute

Abraham’s great-grandson Judah had three sons. The oldest son, Er, married a Canaanite woman named Tamar, but he was wicked in God’s eyes, so God killed him (Gen. 38:7). Judah then told his second son, Onan, to “go into” Tamar in order to perpetuate Er’s line. Levirate marriage—in which the oldest brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow—troubles many of us today, but it was common for the ancients and was later codified for God’s people (see Deut. 25:5–6).
Onan did go into her, but whenever he slept with her, he “spilled his semen on the ground” so she wouldn’t get pregnant (Gen. 38:9). The reason? Onan knew the offspring would not be his, but his older brother’s. That meant Onan would not get the firstborn’s inheritance. Onan’s behavior—sexually exploiting Tamar while depriving her of the dignity of motherhood—was wicked in God’s eyes, so God killed him, too.
Noticing a pattern with his sons, Judah decides not to give Tamar to his third son, Shelah. Judah tells her to live as a widow in her father’s household. So when Tamar realizes Judah is doing nothing to continue Er’s line, she schemes a creative plan. Shortly after Judah becomes a widower, Tamar dresses up like a prostitute and sits along a road on which she knows Judah will soon travel. Judah sees her and assumes she’s a prostitute, not his sneaky daughter-in-law, so he approaches her and promises to pay the standard fare (a goat), which he would send later. She agrees, but only if he gives her some collateral now. He hands over the ancient equivalent of his wallet—a signet, cord, and staff—and he “goes into” her. She finally conceives, and Er’s line survives.
However, when Judah discovers that Tamar is pregnant—not knowing that he is the father—he orders for her to be killed. Since Tamar is pregnant with twins, his command will involve the execution of not only his daughter-in-law, but also his own children. It looks bad for Tamar, until she sends a message with Judah’s possessions, saying, “I am pregnant by the man who owns these” (Gen. 38:25). Judah then exclaims that his prostituting daughter-in-law is more righteous than he.
Judah was a deceptive, sexually immoral, and hypocritically judgmental father-in-law. But after this episode, he is a changed man. Later, he offers himself as a slave in place of his youngest brother, Benjamin, to the man in charge of the grain in Egypt—his brother Joseph—whom he had sold to slave traders 22 years earlier (Gen. 44:33). Unlike Judah, Tamar was simply attempting to do what was right—albeit, she did so imperfectly. God killed Er and Onan for their wickedness, but protected and blessed Tamar.

David: The Raping Monarch

The Old Testament includes several rape stories, including the gang rape of the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) and the rape of Tamar—who was probably named in honor of Judah’s daughter-in-law—by her half-brother Amnon, the oldest son of King David (2 Sam. 13). But perhaps the most notable is one that most people don’t associate with rape: David and Bathsheba.
Bonhoeffer. Biology. Big Brother. Try 2 Months Free of Books & Culture
The story is familiar. David is at home in Jerusalem when he should have been off at war with his men and the army of Israel. Walking around on his roof one evening, David notices an attractive woman, Bathsheba, bathing. He summons her, they have sex, and she conceives. When David’s plans to cover up the scandal fail, he has her husband, Uriah, killed in battle.
David messed up—big time. But we soften the story by reducing the affair to consensual adultery. Some say Bathsheba must have known David was watching her, so she could have resisted him. In the 1951 film David and Bathsheba, Bathsheba wants David to be enticed.
But why blame her? She could have been fully clothed and using just a bowl. The text doesn’t say she was naked. And the text doesn’t say she knew she was being watched. Finally, women generally didn’t say no to men—not in ancient societies like theirs. And subjects certainly didn’t say no to kings. While the first half of the story is ambiguous about the extent of her guilt, the second half is pretty clear about who is to blame.
The text and the characters point the finger at David. God blames David. “The thing David had done displeased the Lord” (2 Sam. 11:27). The text doesn’t say the thing “they” or “David and Bathsheba” did. Just David.
The prophet Nathan blames David. Nathan tells a story about a rich man who stole and slaughtered his poor neighbor’s ewe lamb in order to feed a hungry guest (2 Sam. 12:1–4). Blaming Bathsheba, even in part, would be like blaming the ewe for getting eaten.
David blames David. At the end of Nathan’s story, David says the man—who represents him in the parable—deserves to die (2 Sam. 12:5). Based on the huge power differential between the king and his subject, it’s more accurate to call this power rape rather than adultery. Bathsheba couldn’t say no. She didn’t even have a choice.

Coming Clean

Sexual violence was rampant in the ancient world, as it is today. And the biblical authors didn’t ignore stories of sexual violence or euphemize the details. Rather, they narrated the stories of sexual violence and exploitation in depth—so much so that in Tamar’s case, readers wonder, What’s this long interruption about Tamar doing in the middle of the Joseph story? And while the New Testament praises the good deeds of men like Abraham and David, it doesn’t sweep their sin under the rug.
Ancient genealogies often boasted impressive fathers, ignored forgotten mothers, and omitted anything embarrassing. But Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew deviates from the typical formula. It includes four women, which would have been considered weird. But the weirdness gets taken to astronomical levels as we examine who these women were. The first woman mentioned isn’t Eve, Sarah, or Mary, but the pious prostitute Tamar. The second woman, Rahab, is another prostitute. The third is a widow, Ruth—whose act of uncovering Boaz’s feet was gutsy and unconventional, to say the least. And the fourth woman is referred to simply as “the wife of Uriah”—the power rape victim Bathsheba.
Many pastors and authors like to signal out the women in Jesus’ genealogy, all of whom appear to be Gentiles. But we don’t talk about Abraham and David—who were perpetrators, not victims, of sexual sin. When it comes to discussing sex scandals, we apparently feel more comfortable talking about women than men. And we’re skeptical—sometimes even condemnatory—of the victim.
CT eBooks – Theology in Aisle Seve
The Old Testament, however, gave the victim the benefit of the doubt. Deuteronomy 22:25–27, for instance, outlines what should happen if an engaged women is raped in a rural setting. It’s straightforward: If a woman is raped in the countryside, the man deserves to be killed. And the woman’s testimony is good enough to convict the perpetrator. Unlike our legal system, the Mosaic Law assumes the woman’s innocence. The situation isn’t exacerbated by an unjust legal system that exonerates perpetrators.
God instituted laws like this so that his covenant people would protect women. Unfortunately, not every woman is protected, as is evident in our world day to day. Men in power—including some who have faith in God—use their position to sexually exploit or abuse powerless women. Abraham chose to profit by pimping his wife. Judah and his son Onan exploited Tamar; Judah even planned to kill her. And David leveraged his political authority to have what seems like a one-night stand with Bathsheba—even though he already had plenty of wives to satisfy him.
God used his power to intervene on behalf of these powerless women. He sent plagues to seize Pharaoh’s attention, which led to Sarah’s deliverance. He killed Onan and used Tamar to oppose Judah. And he sent Nathan to confront David for taking his neighbor’s “ewe lamb.”
God protected these women from further exploitation, but why didn’t he get involved earlier? Why doesn’t he protect women today who are raped on college campuses, at churches, or at home by their male relatives? I don’t know. As we see in Scripture, divine intervention doesn’t always come. God protected Lot’s daughters from the rapists of Sodom (Gen. 19:1–29), but he didn’t protect Lot from his daughters (Gen. 19:30–38) or the Levite’s concubine from the rapists of Gibeah (Judges 19).
It will always be a mystery to us why God chooses to protect a victim in one situation but not in another. But we do know that God expects his people to act on his behalf whenever we can. One way we can do that is by supporting organizations like International Justice Mission that rescue and protect trafficking victims. Churches can partner with local organizations to fight against sexual abuse. And we need to give victims the benefit of the doubt. They need our love and support.

Discipline or Forgive?

Given the severe consequences of egregious sexual sins like rape, how is it that David got off the hook? He not only survived—remember the Mosaic Law required rapists to be killed—but also remained on the throne. Politicians and pastors today would surely lose their positions for such misconduct.
The short answer is that David repented. After Nathan’s parable, David confessed, “I have sinned” (2 Sam. 12:13). He later wrote a psalm of repentance in which he appealed to God’s grace:
Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. (Ps. 51:1)
David deserved death, but God granted him grace and forgiveness.
But how do we reconcile this with other instances in the Old Testament where a repentant sinner is still put to death? Think of Achan, who was killed even after acknowledging that he had taken booty from the city of Ai, something God specifically forbade (Josh. 7). Perhaps one reason Achan was not spared was that his crime resulted in the loss of more lives (36 Israelite soldiers) than David’s cover-up scheme, which cost the life of Uriah and only a few of his fellow soldiers. Perhaps it was also because David was a man after God’s own heart, who repeatedly risked his life to defend God, God’s glory, and God’s people (1 Sam. 17; 23; 24; 26). However, the text doesn’t clearly explain why God chooses to mete out capital punishment in some instances (Achan; Uzzah in 2 Samuel 6; the stick-gatherer on the Sabbath in Numbers 15:32–36; Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1–11) and to show mercy in others (David; Cain in Genesis 4; the woman caught in adultery in John 8).
Ultimately, we can’t say definitively why God chose not to kill David. The fact that David was spared does not mean, however, that David’s sin had no ramifications. It certainly did. Bloodshed, fratricide, and rebellion marked the later years of his reign (2 Sam. 13–1 Kings 2). Two of his sons, Amnon and Absalom, were also rapists—and both of them were killed, though the text doesn’t explicitly state that God did the killing. But God had told David through the prophet Nathan that judgment would fall upon his house (2 Sam. 12:10). This announcement got David’s attention and likely prevented him from repeating these sins of rape and murder.
The consequences for sexual violence are severe indeed, but God’s mercy toward repentant sinners is even greater. When we talk about sexual violence and help victims, we need to remember that God’s grace is far more powerful that human sin—as egregious and damaging as it can be. Scripture teaches that when humans behave badly, God behaves graciously. He not only forgives repentant sinners, but also gives aid, strength, and healing to victims of abuse. Jesus, the offspring of both victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse, came to redeem not only their lives but ours as well.
The gospel tells us that no one is beyond the reach of God’s redemption. To be sure, the sin of perpetrators of sexual violence needs to be taken seriously. We cannot ignore sexual violence when it arises in our communities. We should acknowledge these tragedies for what they are, and address them appropriately. If a member of a church confesses a crime like rape, for instance, it will need to be reported to the police immediately. But we also need to proclaim to them the message of God’s forgiveness, knowing that God calls us to extend his grace to people taking big risks in confessing their sin. And we are wise to realize that even severe consequences of sin are opportunities to experience God’s grace and redemption (Heb. 12:7–11). God disciplines his children and uses human judgment as a part of his care for them.
Scripture teaches us that God works in and through messed up people—even ones with some of the worst sexual baggage we can imagine. Scripture doesn’t avoid talking about sexual violence. Nor does it use euphemisms to soften the severity of sexual abuse. It presents reality as it is. Sin has tragic consequences. But God works in and through consequences to work out redemption.
David T. Lamb is associate professor of Old Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and author most recently of Prostitutes and Polygamists: A Look at Love, Old Testament Style (Zondervan).

Good poem from a canadian poet!

$
0
0

“Por favor, no más poesía”, de Derek Beaulieu








La poesía es el último refugio de lo poco imaginativo.
La poesía tiene poco que ofrecer
fuera de la poesía misma. Los poetas eligen ser
poetas porque no tienen el impulso
de ser algo mejor.
Los lectores son aforismos de un libro.
Toda la mala poesía surge de sentimientos genuinos.
Ser natural es ser
obvio y ser obvio es ser poco artístico.
La poesía, lamentablemente, sabe que es
poesía,  mientras que la escritura
no siempre sabe que es escritura.
El arte es una conversación, no una oficina de patentes.
Los poetas, en una ignorancia supina
acerca de la capacidad de compartir – al
contrario de acumular – sus textos, están ignorando
potencialmente la innovación
artística más importante del siglo XX: el collage.
¿Qué está en riesgo? Nada excepto
por su propia obsolescencia.
Si no compartes, no existes.
Esperamos de los gásfiter, electricistas, ingenieros y médicos,
que tengan tanto
un vocabulario específico y especializado,            
como también que estén en la
vanguardia de los nuevos avances
en sus respectivos campos,
pero despreciamos a los poetas que hacen lo mismo.
Los poetas son juzgados ahora no por la calidad
de su escritura sino por la
infalibilidad de sus opciones.
No haber sido popular en la educación media
no es razón suficiente para
publicar libros.
Los poetas inmaduros imitan, los poetas maduros roban.
En teoría, no hay diferencia entre teoría y práctica.
Pero, en la práctica, sí la hay.
La reglas son pautas para gente estúpida.
En poesía celebramos la mediocridad e ignoramos la radicalidad.
La poesía tiene más que aprender del diseño gráfico,
la ingeniería, la arquitectura,
la cartografía, el diseño automotriz,
o de cualquier otro tema, que no sea poesía
propiamente tal.
No se le debiera decir a los poetas que escriban
sobre lo que saben. Ellos no saben
nada, por eso son poetas.
La Internet no es algo que desafía quiénes somos
o cómo lo escribimos es quienes
somos y como escribimos.
Los poetas – al ser poetas –
son simplemente los últimos
en darse cuenta de este hecho.
Si escribir un poema es inherentemente trágico,
es porque es difícil creer que el
autor no tiene nada mejor que hacer.
Es inherentemente trágico porque todavía
elegimos una forma anticuada
como medio de argumentación.
Si tuviéramos algo que decir, ¿elegiríamos el poema
–con su audiencia fragmentada
y su falta de diversidad cultural–
como escenario para anunciar esa opinión?
Por favor, no más poesía.



Traducción de Carlos Soto Román



en Seen of the Crime: Essays on Conceptual Writing, 2012


                  Poetry is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
                  Poetry has little to offer outside of poetry itself. Poets chose to be poets because they do not have the drive to become something better.
                  Readers are a book’s aphorisms.                 
                  All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling. To be natural is to be obvious, and to be obvious is to be inartistic. Poetry, sadly, knows it’s poetry, while writing doesn’t always know it’s writing.
                  Art is a conversation, not a patent office.
                  Poets in ostrich-like ignorance of the potential of sharing—as opposed to hoarding—their texts, are ignoring potentially the most important artistic innovation of the 20th century: collage. What’s at stake? Nothing but their own obsolescence. If you don’t share you don’t exist.
                  We expect plumbers, electricians, engineers and doctors to both have a specific and specialized vocabulary and be on the forefront of new advancements in their field, but scorn poets who do the same.
                  Poets are now judged not by the quality of their writing but by the infallibility of their choices.
                  Having been unpopular in high school is not just cause for book publications.
                  Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.
                  In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
                  Rules are guidelines for stupid people.
                  In poetry we celebrate mediocrity and ignore radicality.
                  Poetry has more to learn from graphic design, engineering, architecture, cartography, automotive design, or any other subject, than it does from poetry itself.
                  Poets should not be told to write what they know. They don’t know anything, that’s why they are poets.
                  The Internet is not something that challenges who we are or how we write, it iswho we are and how we write. Poets—being poets—are simply the last to realize the fact.
                  If writing a poem is inherently tragic it is because it is hard to believe that the author had nothing better to do. It is inherently tragic because we still choose an out-dated form as a medium for argumentation.
                  If we had something to say would we choose the poem—with its sliver of audience and lack of cultural cachet—as the arena to announce that opinion?
                  Please, no more poetry.

Baruch Spinoza by Jorge Luis Borges

$
0
0
Bruma de oro, el Occidente alumbra
la ventana. El asiduo manuscrito
aguarda, ya cargado de infinito.
Alguien construye a Dios en la penumbra.
Un hombre engendra Dios. Es un judío
de tristes ojos y de piel cetrina;
lo lleva el tiempo como lleva el río
una hoja en el agua que declina.
No importa. El hechicero insiste y labra
a Dios con geometría delicada,
desde su enfermedad, desde su nada,
sigue erigiendo a Dios con la palabra.
El más pródigo amor le fue otorgado,
el amor que no espera ser amado.


A haze of gold, the Occident lights up
The window. Now, the assiduous manuscript
Is waiting, weighed down with the infinite.
Someone is building God in a dark cup.
A man engenders God. He is a Jew.
With saddened eyes and lemon-colored skin;
Time carries him the way a leaf, dropped in
A river, is borne off by waters to
Its end. No matter. The magician moved
Carves out his God with fine geometry;
From his disease, from nothing, he's begun
To construct God, using the word. No one
Is granted such prodigious love as he:
The love that has no hope of being loved.


SOURCE: Borges, Jorge Luis. "Baruch Spinoza" [from The Unending Rose], translation by Willis Barnstone, in Borges'Selected Poems, edited by Alexander Coleman. (New York: Viking, 1999), p. 383.



SPINOZA

Las traslúcidas manos del judío
labran en la penumbra los cristales
y la tarde que muere es miedo y frío.
(Las tardes a las tardes son iguales.)

Las manos y el espacio de jacinto
que palidece en el confín del Ghetto
casi no existen para el hombre quieto
que está soñando un claro laberinto.

No lo turba la fama, ese reflejo
de sueños en el sueño de otro espejo,
ni el temeroso amor de las doncellas.

Libre de la metáfora y del mito
labra un arduo cristal: el infinito
mapa de Aquel que es todas Sus estrellas. 


SPINOZA



 The Jew's hands, translucent in the dusk,
polish the lenses time and again.
The dying afternoon is fear, is
cold, and all afternoons are the same.
The hands and the hyacinth-blue air
that whitens at the Ghetto edges
do not quite exist for this silent
man who conjures up a clear labyrinth—
undisturbed by fame, that reflection
of dreams in the dream of another
mirror, nor by maidens' timid love.
Free of metaphor and myth, he grinds
a stubborn crystal: the infinite
map of the One who is all His stars.


(translated by Richard Howard, César Rennert)

“There Is No God” by Percy Bysshe Shelley

$
0
0

[This essay is a redaction of Shelley's first pamphlet, The Necessity of Atheism (1811) to serve as a note to the line in Queen Mab, "There is no God" (1813). The Necessity of Atheism is greatly expanded and considerably modified in thought and style. A careful study of the two essays will throw some light on Shelley's developing mind during the two crowded years between them. Locke's influence dominates The Necessity while Hume and Holbach are the important sources of the Note.]
This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co‑eternal with the universe remains unshaken.


A close examination of the validity of the proofs adduced to support any proposition is the only secure way of attaining truth, on the advantages of which it is unnecessary to descant; our knowledge of the existence of a Deity is a subject of such importance that it cannot be too minutely investigated; in consequence of this conviction we proceed briefly and impartially to examine the proofs which have been adduced. It is necessary first to consider the nature of belief.
When a proposition is offered to the mind, it perceives the agreement or disagreement of the ideas of which it is composed. A perception of their agreement is termed belief. Many obstacles frequently prevent this perception from being immediate; these the mind attempts to remove in order that the perception may be distinct. The mind is active in the investigation in order to perfect the state of perception of the relation which the component ideas of the proposition bear to each, which is passive. The investigation being confused with the perception has induced many falsely to imagine that the mind is active in belief—that belief is an act of volition—in consequence of which it may be regulated by the mind. Pursuing, continuing this mistake, they have attached a degree of criminality to disbelief; of which, in its nature, it is incapable; it is equally incapable of merit.
Belief, then, is a passion the strength of which, like every other passion, is in precise proportion to the degrees of excitement.
The degrees of excitement are three:
The senses are the sources of all knowledge to the mind; consequently their evidence claims the strongest assent.
The decision of the mind, founded upon our own experience, derived from these sources, claims the next degree.
The experience of others, which addresses itself to the former one, occupies the lowest degree.
(A graduated scale, on which should be marked the capabilities of propositions to approach to the test of the senses, would be a just barometer of the belief which ought to be attached to them.)
Consequently no testimony can be admitted which is contrary to reason; reason is founded on the evidence of our senses.
Every proof may be referred to one of these three divisions: it is to be considered what arguments we receive from each of them, which should convince us of the existence of a Deity.
lst. The evidence of the senses. If the Deity should appear to us, if He should convince our senses of His existence, this revelation would necessarily command belief. Those to whom the Deity has thus appeared have the strongest possible conviction of His existence. But the God of theologians is incapable of local visibility.
2nd. Reason. It is urged that man knows that whatever is must either have had a beginning, or have existed from all eternity; he also knows that whatever is not eternal must have had a cause. When this reasoning is applied to the universe, it is necessary to prove that it was created—until that is clearly demonstrated we may reasonably suppose that it has endured from all eternity. We must prove design before we can infer a designer. The only idea which we can form of causation is derivable from the constant conjunction of objects, and the consequent inference of one from the other. In a case where two propositions are diametrically opposite, the mind believes that which is least incomprehensible; it is easier to suppose that the universe has existed from all eternity than to conceive a being beyond its limits capable of creating it; if the mind sinks beneath the weight of one, is it an alleviation to increase the intolerability of the burden? [1]
The other argument, which is founded on a man's knowledge of his own existence, stands thus: A man knows not only that he now is, but that once he was not; consequently there must have been a cause. But our idea of causation is alone derivable from the constant conjunction of objects and the consequent inference of one from the other; and, reasoning experimentally, we can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects. But there certainly is a generative power which is effected by certain instruments; we cannot prove that it is inherent in these instruments; nor is the contrary hypothesis capable of demonstration. We admit that the generative power is incomprehensible; but to suppose that the same effect is produced by an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being leaves the cause in the same obscurity, but renders it more incomprehensible.
3rd. Testimony. It is required that testimony should not be contrary to reason. The testimony that the Deity convinces the senses of men of His existence can only be admitted by us if our mind considers it less probable that these men should have been deceived than that the Deity should have appeared to them. Our reason can never admit the testimony of men who not only declare that they were eye‑witnesses of miracles but that the Deity was irrational; for He commanded that He should be believed; He proposed the highest rewards for faith, eternal punishments for disbelief. We can only command voluntary actions; belief is not an act of volition; the mind is even passive, or involuntarily active; from this it is evident that we have no sufficient testimony, or rather that testimony is insufficient, to prove the being of a God. It has been before shown that it cannot be deduced from reason. They alone, then, who have been convinced by the evidence of the senses can believe it.
Hence it is evident that, having no proofs from either of the three sources of conviction, the mind cannot believe the existence of a creative God; it is also evident, that, as belief is a passion of the mind, no degree of criminality is attachable to disbelief; and that they only are reprehensible who neglect to remove the false medium through which their mind views any subject of discussion. Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity.
God is an hypothesis and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist. Sir Isaac Newton says: Hypotheses non fingo, quicquid enim exphaenomenis non deducitur hypothesis vocanda est , et hypothesis vel metaphysicae, vel physicae, vel qualitatum occultarum, son mechanicae, in philosophia locum non habent. [2] To all proofs of the existence of a creative God apply this valuable rule. We see a variety of bodies possessing a variety of powers; we merely know their effects; we are in a state of ignorance with respect to their essences and causes. These Newton calls the phenomena of things; but the pride of philosophy is unwilling to admit its ignorance of their causes. From the phenomena, which are the objects of our senses, we attempt to infer a cause, which we call God, and gratuitously endow it with all negative and contradictory qualities. From this hypothesis we invent this general name to conceal our ignorance of causes and essences. The being called God by no means answers with the conditions prescribed by Newton; it bears every mark of a veil woven by philosophical conceit to hide the ignorance of philosophers even from themselves. They borrow the threads of its texture from the anthropomorphism of the vulgar. Words have been used by sophists for the same purposes, from the occult qualities of the peripatetics to the effluvium of Boyle and crinities or nebulae of Herschel. God is represented as infinite, eternal, incomprehensible; He is contained under every predicate in non that the logic of ignorance could fabricate. Even His worshippers allow that it is impossible to form any idea of Him; they exclaim with the French poet,
Pour dire ce qu'il est, il faut être lui‑même. [3]
Lord Bacon says that atheism leaves to man reason, philosophy, natural piety, laws, reputation, and everything that can serve to conduct him to virtue; but superstition destroys all these, and erects itself into a tyranny over the understandings of men; hence atheism never disturbs the government, but renders man more clear‑sighted, since he sees nothing beyond the boundaries of the present life.
Bacon's Moral Essays [A paraphrase from "Of Superstition."]
La première théologie de l'homme lui fit d'abord craindre et adorer les élémens même, des objets matériels et grossiers; il rendit ensuite ses hommages a des agens présidens aux elémens, à des génies inférieurs, à des héros, ou à des hommes doués de grands qualités. A force de réfléchir il crut simplifier les choses en soumettant la nature entière à un seul agent, a un esprit, à une âme universelle, qui mettoit cette nature et ses parties en mouvement. En remontant des causes en causes, les mortels ont fini par ne rien voir; et c'est dans cette obscurité qu'ils ont place leur Dieu; c'est dans cette obscurité qu'ils ont placé leur Dieu; c'est dans cette abîme ténébreux que leur imagination inquiète travaille toujours à se fabriquer des chimères, qui les affligeront jusqu'à ce que la connoissance de la nature les détrompe des fantômes qu'ils ont toujours si vainement adorés.
Si nous voulons nous rendre compte de nos idées sur la Divinité, nous serons obligés de convenir que, par le mot Dieu, les hommes n'ont jamais pu désigner que la cause la plus cachée, la plus éloignée, la plus inconnue des effets qu'ils voyoient: ils ne font usage de ce mot, que lorsque le jeu des causes naturelles et connues cesse d'être visible pour eux; dès qu'ils perdent le fil de ces causes, ou dès que leur esprit ne peut plus en suivre le chaîne, ils tranchent leur difficulté, et terminent leur recherches en appellant Dieu la dernière des causes, c'est‑à‑dire celle qui est audelà de toutes les causes qu'ils connoissent; ainsi ils ne font qu'assigner une dénomination vague à une cause ignorée, à laquelle leur paresse ou les bornes de leurs connoissances les forcent de s'arrêter. Toutes les fois qu'on nous dit que Dieu est l'auteur de quelque phénomène, cela signifie qu'on ignore comment un tel phénomène a pu s'opérer par le sécours des forces ou des causes que nous connoissons dans la nature. C'est ainsi que le commun des hommes, dont l'ignorance est le partage, attribue à la Divinité non seulement les effets inusités qui les frappent, mais encore les événemens les plus simples, dont les causes sont les plus faciles à connôitre pour quiconque a pu les méditer. En un mot, l'homme a toujours respecté les causes inconnues des effets surprenans, que son ignorance l'empêchoit de démêler. Ce fut sur les débris de la nature que les hommes élevèrent le colosse imaginaire de la Divinité.
Si l'ignorance de la nature donna la naissance aux dieux, la connoissance de la nature est faite pour les detruire. A mésure que l'homme s'instruit, ses forces et ses ressources augmentent avec ses lumières; les sciences, les arts conservateurs, l'industrie, lui fournissent des secours; l'expérience le rassûre, ou lui procure des moyens de résister aux efforts de bien des causes qui cessent de l'alarmer dès qu'il les a connues. En un mot, ses terreurs se dissipent dans la même proportion que son esprit s'éclaire. L'homme instruit cesse d'être superstitieux.
Ce n'est jamais que sur parole que des peuples entiers adorent le Dieu de leurs pères et de leurs prêtres: l'autorité, la confiance, la soumission, et l'habitude leur tiennent lieu de conviction et de preuves; ils se prosternent et prient, parce que leurs pères leur ont appris àse prosterner et à prier: mais pourquoi ceux‑ci se sont‑ils mis à genoux? C'est que dans les temps éloignés leurs legislateurs et leurs guides leur en ont fait un devoir. "Adorez et croyez," ont‑ils dit, "des dieux que vous ne pouvez comprendre; rapportez‑vous en a notre sagesse profonde; nous en savons plus que vous sur la divinité.""Mais pourquoi m'en rapporterai‑je àvous?""C'est que Dieu le veut ainsi; c'est que Dieu vous punira si vous osez résister:""Mais ce Dieu n'est‑il donc pas la chose en question?" Cependant les hommes se sont toujours payés de ce cercle vicieux; la paresse de leur esprit leur fit trouver plus court de s'en rapporter au jugement des autres. Toutes les notions religieuses sont fondées uniquement sur l'autorite; toutes les religions du monde défendent l'examen et ne veulent pas que l'on raisonne; c'est l'autorité qui veut qu'on croie en Dieu; ce Dieu n'est lui­même fondé que sur l'autorité de quelques hommes qui prétendent le connoître, et venir de sa part pour l'annoncer à la terre. Un Dieu fait par les hommes a sans doute besoin des hommes pour se faire connoître au monde.
Ne seroit‑ce donc que pour des prêtres, des inspirés, des métaphysiciens que seroit reservée la conviction de l'existence d'un Dieu, que l'on dit neanmoins si necessaire à toute le genre humain? Mais trouvons‑nous de l'harmonie entre les opinions théologiques des différens inspirés, ou des penseurs répandus sur la terre? Ceux même qui font profession d'adorer le même Dieu, sont‑ils d'accord sur son compte? sont'ils contents des preuves que leurs collègues apportent de son existence? Souscrivent‑ils unanimement aux idées qu'ils présentent sur sa nature, sur sa conduite, sur la façon d'entendre ses prétendus oracles? Est‑il une contrée sur la terre où la science de Dieu se soit réellement perfectionnée? A‑t‑elle pris quelque part la consistance et l'uniformité que nous voyons prendre aux connoissances humaines, aux arts les plus futiles, aux métiers les plus meprisés? les mots d'esprit, d'immatérialité, de création, de prédestination, de grace; cette foule de distinctions subtiles dont la théologie s'est partout remplie; dans quelques pays, ces inventions si ingénieuses, imaginées par des penseurs qui se sont succédés depuis tant de siècles, n'ont fait, helas! qu'embrouiller les choses, et jamais la science la plus nécessaire aux hommes n'a jusqu' ici pu acquérir la moindre fixité. Depuis des milliers d'années des rêveurs oisifs se sont perpétuellement relayés pour méditer la Divinité, pour deviner ses voies cachées, pour inventer des hypothèses propres à développer cette énigme importante. Leur peu de succès n'a point découragé la vanité théologique; toujours on a parlé de Dieu: on s'est disputé, l'on s'est égorgé pour lui, et cet être sublime demeure toujours le plus ignoré et le plus discuté.
Les hommes auroient été trop heureux, si se bornant aux objets visibles qui les intéressent, ils eussent employé à perfectionner leurs sciences réelles, leurs lois, leur morale, leur éducation, la moitié des efforts qu'ils ont mis dans leurs recherches sur la Divinité. Ils auroient été bien plus sages encore, et plus fortunés, s'ils eussent pu consentir à laisser leurs guides désoeuvres se quereller entre eux, et sonder des profondeurs capables de les étourdir, sans se mêler de leurs disputes insensées. Mais il est de l'essence de l'ignorance d'attacher de l'importance à ce qu'elle ne comprend pas. La vanité humaine fait que l'esprit se roidit contre les difficultés. Plus un objet se dérobe à nos yeux, plus nous faisons d'efforts pour le saisir, parce que dès‑lors il aiguillone notre orgueil, il irrite notre curiosite, il nous paroît intéressant. En combattant pour son Dieu, chacun ne combattit en effet que pour les intérêts de sa propre vanité, qui de toutes les passions humaines est la plus prompte a s'alarmer, et la plus propre à produire de très grandes folies.
Si, écartant pour un moment les idées fâcheuses que la théologie nous donne d'un Dieu capricieux, dont les décrets partiaux et despotiques décident du sort des humains, nous ne voulons fixer nos yeux que sur la bonté prétendue, que tous les hommes, même en tremblant devant ce Dieu, s'accordent à lui donner; si nous lui supposons le project qu'on lui prête, de n'avoir travaillé que pour sa propre gloire, d'exiger les hommages des êtres intelligens; de ne chercher dans ses oeuvres que le bien‑être du genre humain; comment concilier ces vues et ces dispositions avec l'ignorance vraiment invincible dans laquelle ce Dieu, si glorieux et si bon, laisse la plupart des hommes sur son compte? Si Dieu veut être connu, chéri, remercié, que ne se montre‑t‑il sous des traits favorables à tous ces êtres intelligens dont il veut être aimé et adoré? Pourquoi ne point se manifester à toute la terre d'une façon non équivoque, bien plus capable de nous convaincre, que ces révélations particulières qui semblent accuser la Divinité d'une partialité fâcheuse pour quelques‑unes de ses créatures? Le toutpuissant n'auroit‑il pas donc des moyens plus convaincans de se montrer aux hommes, que ces métamorphoses ridicules, ces incarnations prétendues, qui nous sont attestées par des écrivains si peu d'accord entre eux dans les récits qu'ils en font? Au lieu de tant de miracles, inventés pour prouver la mission divine de tant de législateurs, revérés par les différens peuples du monde, le souverain des esprits ne pouvoit‑il pas convaincre tout d'un coup l'esprit humain des choses qu'il vouloit lui faire connôitre? Au lieu de suspendre un soleil dans la voùte du firmament; au lieu de répandre sans ordre les étoiles, et les constellations qui remplissent l'espace, n'eut‑il pas été plus conforme aux vues d'un Dieu si jaloux de sa gloire et si bien intentionné pour l'homme; d'écrire d'une façon non sujette à dispute, son nom, ses attributs, ses volontés permanentes, en caractères ineffaçables, et lisibles également pour tous les habitants de la terre? Personne alors n'auroit pu douter de l'existence d'un Dieu, de ses volontés claires, de ses intentions visibles. Sous les yeux de ce Dieu si sensible, personne n'auroit eu l'audace de violer ses ordonnances; nul mortel n'eût osé se mettre dans le cas d'attirer sa colère: enfin nul homme n'eût eu le front d'en imposer en son nom, ou d'interpréter ses volontés suivant ses propres fantaisies.
En effet, quand même on supposeroit l'existence du Dieu théologique, et la réalité des attributs si discordans qu'on lui donne, l'on ne peut en rien conclure, pour autoriser la conduite ou les cultes qu'on prescrit de lui rendre. La théologie est vraiment le tonneau des Danaïdes. A force de qualités contradictoires et d'assertions hazardées, elle a, pour ainsi dire, tellement garroté son Dieu qu'elle l'a mis dans l'impossibilité d'agir. S'il est infiniment bon, quelle raison aurions‑nous de le craindre? S'il est infiniment sage, de quoi nous inquiéter sur notre sort? S'il sait tout, pourquoi l'avertir de nos besoins, et le fatiguer de nos prières? S'il est partout, pourquoi lui élever des temples? S'il est le maître de tout, pourquoi lui faire des sacrifices et des offrandes? S'il est juste, comment croire qu'il punisse des créatures qu'il a remplies de foiblesses? Si la grace fait tout en elles, quelle raison auroit‑il de les récompenser? S'il est tout‑puissant, comment l'offenser, comment lui résister? S'il est raisonnable, comment se mettroit‑il en colère contre des aveugles, à qui il a laissé la liberté de déraisonner? S'il est immuable, de quel droit prétendrions­nous faire changer ses décrets? S'il est inconcevable, pourquoi nous en occuper? S'IL A PARLÉ, POURQUOI L'UNIVERS N'EST‑IL PAS CONVAINCU? Si la connoissance d'un Dieu est la plus nécessaire, pourquoi n'est‑elle pas la plus évidente, et la plus claire. —Système de la Nature, London, 1781. [4] [Shelley quotes verbatim, errors and all, scattered paragraphs from Volume Two, London edition (1771), principally from pages 16‑18, 27, 319‑326, as though they were consecutive. ]
The enlightened and benevolent Pliny thus publicly professes himself an atheist: Quapropter effigiem Dei formamque quaerere inbecillitatis humanae reor. Quisquis est Deus (si modo est alius) et qua cunque in parte, totus est sensus, totus est visus, totus auditus, totus animae, totus animi, totus sui. . . . Imperfectae vero in homine naturae praecipua solatia ne deum quidem posse omnia. Namque nec sibi potest mortent consciscere, si velit, quod homini dedit optimum in tantis vitae poenis: nec mortales aeternitate donare, aut revocare defunctos; nec facere ut qui vixit non vixerit, qui honores gessit non gesserit, nullumque habere in praete­riturn ius, praeterquarn oblivionis, atque (ut facetis quoque argumentis societas haec cum deo copuletur) ut his dena viginti non Sint, et multa similiter efficere non posse. Per quae declaratur haud dubie naturae potentiam id quoque esse quod Deum vocamus. [5]
            Plin. Nat. Hist., cap. de Deo.
The consistent Newtonian is necessarily an atheist. See Sir Mr. Drummond's Academical Questions, Chapter iii.
Sir W. seems to consider the atheism to which it leads as a sufficient presumption of the falsehood of the system of gravitation; but surely it is more consistent with the good faith of philosophy to admit a deduction from facts than an hypothesis incapable of proof, although it might militate with the obstinate preconceptions of the mob. Had this author, instead of inveighing against the guilt and absurdity of atheism, demonstrated its falsehood, his conduct would have been more suited to the modesty of the sceptic and the toleration of the philosopher.
Omnia enim per Dei potentiam facta sunt: imo quia naturae potentia nulla est nisi ipsa Dei potentia. Certurn est nos eatenus Dei potentiam non intelligere, quatenus causas naturales ignoramus; adeoque stulte ad eandem Dei potentiam recurritur, quando rei alicuius causam naturalem, sive est, ipsam Dei potentiam ignoramus. [6] Spinoza, Tract. Theologico‑Pol. chap. i, p. 14. [Shelley's Note.]
Notes
1.  See Holbach's Système, 1.31‑39, for a similar argument.
2.  "I do not invent hypotheses, for whatever is not deduced from phenomena should be called an hypothesis; and a hypothesis, whether of metaphysics, or physics, or occult qualities, or mechanics, have [sic] no place in philosophy.
3. "To say what he is, one would have to be he."
4. For a translation of this quotation see Appendix D(a).
5. For the translation of the quotation see Appendix D(b). Shelley's text differs slightly from the Loeb. This quotation, lacking the first sentence, is given in A Refutation of Deism.
6. For a collation of Shelley's text with that of Spinoza and translation see Appendix D(c).

SOURCE: Shelley, Percy Bysshe. “There Is No God” (1813), in: Shelley's Prose, edited by David Lee Clark (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1954), pp. 97-102.

On Polytheism (1819?) by Percy Bysshe Shelley
“I Will Beget a Son” by Percy Bysshe Shelley
A Fragment of A Refutation of Deism by Percy Bysshe Shelley
[A Refutation of the Christian Religion] (1814?) by Percy Bysshe Shelley
A Fragment on Miracles (1813-1815) by Percy Bysshe Shelley
Essay on the Devil and Devils by Percy Bysshe Shelley
Kanto por la angloj
[Song to the Men of England] de Percy Bysshe Shelley
Al—
[To—, 1821] de Percy Bysshe Shelley
Odo al la Okcidenta Vento
[Ode to the West Wind] de Percy Bysshe Shelley
Offsite:
The Necessity of Atheism by Percy Bysshe Shelley
A Defence of Poetry and Other Essays by Percy Bysshe Shelley

Home Page | Site Map | What's New | Coming Attractions | Book News

Ernst Balcke (1887-1912)

$
0
0
 
Ernst Balcke (1887-1912) 
No. 85 / Diciembre 2015 - Enero 2016

Expresionistas alemanes núm. 85:
Ernst Balcke
Paula Ludwig
Franz Werfel
Poetas alemanes núm. 85:
Julia Engelmann
Odile Kennel
___________________________________________________________________
Traducción de S.W. Artur Beyer


Die Selbstmörderin

Auf ihrer Brust klebt eine gelbe Kröte;
die regt sich nicht; ihr Purpurauge droht
voll Angst und Eifersucht tief durch die Röte
des schwülen Abends, der im West verloht.

Zwischen den schlanken, weißen Fingern blinken
die Kelche kaum entkeimter Wasserrosen,
grüngelbe Tange hängen in den losen,
aschblonden Haaren, die zum Grunde sinken.

Die kalten, blauen Lippen legen sich
wie Lapislazuli um ihre Zähne;
der scharfe Kiel eines der vielen Kähne
riss, rot wie Karmosin, tief einen Strich

Durch ihre Stirn. Schwer, langsam gleitet sie,
nicht Wind noch Welle sind da, die sie rühren.
Vom schlanken Halse bis herab zum Kinn
des Froschlaichs schwarze Fäden sie umschnüren.

Sie treibt zur Stadt. Gelbgraue Dünste kauern
wie fahle Hunde um des Himmels Rund.
Ein Dampfer rauscht; von ölig-schmutzigen Schauern
wird überschüttet ihr sehnsüchtiger Mund.

Zwischen verfallenen Häuserfronten windet
hindurch sich ihr einst heiß geliebter Leib.
Durchs Dunkel, horch, von höchsten Wonnen kündet
leis singend, irgend ein glückseliges Weib ––

Das Licht auf ihrer Haut erlischt. –– Den Nebel
wälzt aus den Brückenlöchern vor der Wind.
Von einem Dampferdeck bespeit ein Flegel
ihr süßes Antlitz, das im Grau zerrinnt.


La suicida

Pegado a su pecho un sapo amarillo
que no se mueve, su ojo púrpura amenaza
lleno de angustia y celos en el rojo oscuro
de la tarde bochornosa que se consume en el oeste.

En sus delgados dedos blancos brillan
los cálices de unos nenúfares apenas purificados,
algas de un verde amarillento cuelgan de su cabello
rubio ceniza que desciende suelto hacia el fondo.

Los labios fríos y azules enmarcan
los dientes como lapislázuli;
la quilla aguda de algún barco
pintó en su frente una honda línea roja

como el carmín. Flota pesada, despacio,
no hay ni viento ni ola que la mueva.
Del esbelto cuello para abajo hasta el mentón
la ciñen los hilos negros de las huevas de rana.

Flota hacia la ciudad. Humos amarillentos al acecho
como perros pálidos rodean el cielo.
Un barco pasa murmurando; sucios chubascos
aceitosos llenan su boca anhelante.

Entre fachadas desmoronadas se desliza
su cuerpo antes tan ardientemente deseado.
¡Escucha!, en la oscuridad una mujer canta bajito
y recuerda feliz placeres supremos.

La luz se extingue en su piel. El viento
empuja la neblina por los hoyos del puente.
Un joven vulgar, desde la cubierta de un barco,
le escupe en su dulce rostro derritiéndose en el gris.



Winter

Und plötzlich ist in einer Nacht des Winters
endloses Lilienfeld emporgesprossen,
wie Riesenmohn hängt rot die Sonne drüber,

Wie eine süße Nymphe in Narzissen,
auf die verliebt der dicke, rote Schädel
sich des vernarrten Faun herniederneigt.

Gleich einem Schwan, der auf dem breiten Rücken
die rote Rose trägt der Königin
als Zeichen ihrer Liebe dem Geliebten.

Wie ein Gemach, darin die weißen Kleider
der Braut am Boden keusch und einsam ruhn,
indes die rote Ampel träumt und lächelt. –

Wie eine Mutter, fiebernd, aus den Kissen
die Arme schlohweiß, starr emporgereckt,
das Neugeborne auf den Händen wiegt.


Invierno

Y de repente, en una noche de invierno
creció un campo interminable de azucenas,
con el sol colgado encima como amapola gigante,

Como una dulce ninfa entre narcisos,
contemplada desde arriba por la testa
gorda y roja de un fauno amoroso.

Cual un cisne que en su ancha espalda
lleva la rosa roja de la reina
al amante como prueba de amor.

Como un aposento donde el vestido
de la novia descansa solo en el suelo castamente,
mientras el farol rojo sueña sonriendo.

Como una madre que temblando en las almohadas,
estirando sus entumecidos brazos canos,
mece al recién nacido en sus manos.



Angenehme Gesellschafter

Die Teufel rannten mit ihm, Schritt für Schritt,
so sehr er lief, er konnte sie nicht meiden,
er musste Schmutz und Stank der Eklen leiden.
Sie liefen mit, sie liefen mit, mit, mit.

Sie rülpsten in der Morgensonne Röte,
mit ihren Schwänzen schlugen die Reflexe
des Lichts sie aus, und fette, schwarze Klexe
von dickem Schleim spieen sie in die Beete.

Das Frühlingslaub zerrieben sie zu dürren,
staubgrauen Pulvern, in den Abend glotzten,
den seligen, sie wie Ferkel, und sie kotzten
in Weiher, welche Glanz und Traum umschwirren.

Sie trieben programmatisch die Entweihung,
all Übles stopften sie in seinen Schlund,
bis er, mit jäher Geste der Befreiung,
des Gifts Erlösung warf in seinen Mund.


Acompañantes agradables

Los diablos corrían con él, paso a paso,
por mucho que corría, no podía evitarlos,
tenía que soportar de los asquerosos la mugre y la peste.
Con él corrían, con él, con él, con él.

Eructaban en el rojo sol matinal,
con golpes de sus colas extinguían los reflejos
de la luz y escupían gordas manchas negras
de flema espesa en los canteros.

Molían el follaje primaveral en polvos
áridos y grises; a la beata tarde mironeaban
como puercos; y vomitaban
en estanques donde revolotean sueños y resplandor.

Se dedicaron de manera sistemática a la profanación,
atiborraron de maldad su garganta,
hasta que, con un gesto brusco de liberación
se echó a la boca el veneno redentor.
Viewing all 107 articles
Browse latest View live