Grex Latine Loquentium

[Kynetus Valesius]

oh sorry

didn't realize this was such an ancient topic when I responded ....forget it.

[Dionysius47]

Not so ancient, Kynetus, if we both feel moved to respond.

Let me remind everybody what the rule of the Grex Latine Loquentium has been since it was set up by Konrad in about 1994: letters may be sent in on any subject as long as they are written in Latin. I've been a member since about 1995, and I and everyone else have adhered to that rule. Dura lex, perhaps, sed lex. This means that we continue to discuss a full range of contemporary topics, including religion and politics. The world has changed since 1994, and often not for the better. With the inexorable rise of political correctness in the West over the past 15 years and the concomitant censorship and self-censorship, many things that would have been judged perfectly legitimate topics for debate in 1994 are now considered to be off limits, however important they may be. Of course what one man might call vile slanders resulting from bile and prejudice may seem to another nothing but the unvarnished truth. The Grex provides a forum for all views to be expressed - not simply the narrow doxa which the BBC, The Guardian, New York Times, Le Monde and other organs of the liberal left promote. In the Grex views from different religious and political positions are argued in the robust way that they always have been in free societies. When Avitus was a member of the Grex we often disagreed with each other and argued, as I recall. Latin is used in the Grex as a vehicle for the discussion of present-day matters and therefore remains a living language. That is precisely as it should be.

[Dionysius47]

As an example of the kind of thing that is discussed in Latin in the Grex Latine Loquentium, I have at his request translated a piece by Victorius Ciarrocchi, one of our oldest members, in response to a widely publicized report on the recent collapse of Roman buildings in Pompeii:

“The world was wearied with civil strife” (Tacitus, Annals, I, 1). This can be said about many aspects of contemporary Italy. Almost all of our ancient monuments are falling into decay because of neglect, indifference or disregard. A person who loves Ancient Rome and Latin will be considered by some Italians to be a “reactionary”. Someone who praises the heritage of Italian civilization and of Europe is often thought of as a “fascist.” Even if a person is not actually condemned in such terms, it is not rare for them to be looked down on. If four trees which are blocking the flow of traffic are cut down, as happened in this city a few days ago, ecologists and people of a similar persuasion will begin clamouring to “protect nature and the ecosystem”. But when the foundations of a house in Pesaro were buried in cement, the ecologists and members of similar groups said nothing. I am not making this up, it is all true.

If one were to write a historical account of the relationship between political groups and the Latin language, how much could be said about the many politicians from the French Revolution up to our own time who have been unremittingly hostile to Latin culture and displayed anger, malice and hatred towards it! Viale Trento, 94---61100 Pesaro (Italia).

[adrianus]

Salve, Dionysi quadragesime septime,

I think this example makes an appeal for sympathy by condemning the fallacious reasoning of others before shifting ground to suggest that ecologists have no interest in the Built Heritage. There is nothing stopping an ecologist also having archaeological interests, just as there is nothing (existentially) stopping a person who loves Ancient Rome and Latin also being fascist and reactionary. It's just that a necessary connection is lacking between these things.

And then you give a one-sided assessment of "many politicians". Yes, "much can be said", but you say very little and omit reference to possible reasons for the hostility of these politicians.

Ad misericordiam, Dionysi, argumentum sodalis tui qui ratiocinationes aliorum fallaces condemnat; tunc modo alieno res aedificas oecologis non curae esse suadet. Nihil obstat quominus et archaeologus sit oecologus, quominus fascista vel rebus pristinis deditus, qui studium Romae Antiquae linquaeque latinae amat. Deest autem inter has res nexus necessarius.

Dein angustum argumentum circa multes civis rei publicae servientes proponis. Multa dici posse dicis at non enarris; praesertim causas cur adversi illi homines sint omittis.

[Francisca Parva]

Adrianus wrote “And then you give a one-sided assessment of "many politicians". Yes, "much can be said", but you say very little and omit reference to possible reasons for the hostility of these politicians.” I presume though that referring to people publicly as bigots without providing any shred of evidence (which is actually slander), is acceptable to the people who have written and supported the views on this thread? Or is it permissible for some to write such comments without giving evidence, but not for others?

If someone wishes to accuse people of being bigots, he or she should provide evidence in the form of quoted passages complete with a (completely accurate) translation into the language used generally on the forum (in this case English). I say quoted passages because it is very common for people to completely subvert the meaning of comments by taking them out of context, and therefore ‘misquoting’ them for their own ends.

I have been a member of the Grex for about four years and quite frankly, I have read little there which could be viewed as ‘bigoted’; only strong views about topics which people feel quite passionately about. All opinions can be equally strongly rebutted, if someone should wish to do so (and they often do). It is not uncommon however, in life generally, to find people who, as soon as they are confronted with strong opinions which they don’t agree with, immediately brand the owners of them as bigots. Such people either cannot be bothered to put together a coherent argument against those opinions, or are incapable of doing so, and thus resort to name-calling.

I have no need to quote anything here to back up my arguments, since the original comments are still available publicly in this thread. I am very surprised, however, having come across this thread by accident (having seen one of the worst comments in Google) that the moderators of Textkit, which I had previously been led to believe was an excellent resource, should allow such bigoted comments to be posted. They do no credit to Textkit nor to the cause of Latinity generally. Thesaurus wrote “The quality and civility of discussion on Textkit is infinitely preferable to that of the Grex.” If this thread is genuinely an example of that quality and civility, I have no great wish to read further.

[thesaurus]

I am very surprised, however, having come across this thread by accident (having seen one of the worst comments in Google) that the moderators of Textkit, which I had previously been led to believe was an excellent resource, should allow such bigoted comments to be posted. They do no credit to Textkit nor to the cause of Latinity generally. Thesaurus wrote “The quality and civility of discussion on Textkit is infinitely preferable to that of the Grex.” If this thread is genuinely an example of that quality and civility, I have no great wish to read further.

Seeing as your initial point is that we shouldn't call people "bigots" without substantial evidence, can you explain in what sense Adianus's comments are "bigoted"?

[Francisca Parva]

Seeing as your initial point is that we shouldn't call people "bigots" without substantial evidence, can you explain in what sense Adianus's comments are "bigoted"?

Dear Thesaurus....

No, I would not care to explain something which I haven't asserted. I have simply taken one of his comments as a starting point for my general reply to this thread, which should be evident from the fact that I haven't addressed him personally, as I have you. I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth.

[Smythe]

As an addendum to Thesauarus' comments ... why, again, are we reviving this thread? It is dead, requiescat in pace.

[thesaurus]

As an addendum to Thesauarus' comments ... why, again, are we reviving this thread? It is dead, requiescat in pace.

Agreed. Because the original participants of this conversation are not all to be found, it would be best to not continue the discussion in this thread. If someone would like to continue discussing any of these issues, they are welcome to start a new thread.