ACROAMATA & ALIA BLOGA LATINA

Hic praebentur acroamata (vulgo: podcasts) et bloga varia quae in rete inveniri possunt. Certe opiniones hic expressae externae sunt Ephemeridi.

---

LOGODAEDALI AURIFODINA

---

Why am I against the Teaching of Classics in Middle and High School?

05 Feb 2026, 14h19
The Opinion of an Italian Amateur Latinist

The title of this essay may come as a surprise to you. «Why» you could think «Why do you, born in Italy, the land of classics par excellence, claim to be against the study of classical languages in secondary school, despite taking pleasure from reading and writing in Latin?».

The reasons are many and, while some of them are based on the Italian education system’s horrendous situation, the others can be extended to other countries.

Thanks for reading Logodaedalī Aurifodīna! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Recently the Italian Minister of Education and Merit declared in an interview that the 2025-2026 National Instructions for schools will include Latin in middle school (on a voluntary basis), resparking the debate on the usefulness of Latin.

The common justifications usually are:

• Latin opens the mind and/or trains critical thinking;

• L. helps building vocabulary;

• L. helps learning other languages;

• L. helps developing skills in other subjects;

---

Does Latin open the mind?
According to a recent study it does not. «We find that having done classical studies does not affect conscientiousness and openness but increases neuroticism and self-reported unhappiness»1.

Does Latin help building vocabulary?
Yes, partially2.

We argue that, while the collated data do provide significant evidence for the beneficial impact of learning Latin on the L1 (first language) development of English native speakers, evidence for an impact on MFL (modern foreign language) and cognitive development is less substantial.

Does Latin help learning other languages?
Not really3.

Knowledge of Latin is probably not an optimal preparation for modern language learning.

Does Latin help developing skills in other subjects?
Not really4.

There is evidence to support that the study of Latin has several benefits, including increased English vocabulary and grammatical knowledge. However, research does not indicate that Latin is unique in this regard. Regarding cognitive abilities and performance in other disciplines such as mathematics, the majority of research does not indicate that Latin gives students any advantage in these areas.

---

These are the common questions regarding the teaching of Latin.

I would like to present another point of view. In the webpage of the school I have attended at, it is written that the purpose of Classical High School is to acquire the knowledge of classical languages ​​necessary for understanding Greek and Latin texts.
In my personal opinion this objective, shared by all schools of this type, is largely not met. I could name only a few classmates that acquired the knowledge of classical languages necessary for understanding Greek and Latin texts and even they weren’t able to read simple texts without the compulsive use of the dictionary.

One could say that being able to read classical texts is not the objective of classical education, but I object that there cannot be any real knowledge of greek and latin without the ability to read in them. Thus, the teaching of classical languages is useless not only because it doesn’t open the mind, teach important skills and help learning other languages, but also and more importantly because it doesn’t even make the students able to read the original texts that constitute the curriculum. For example, a few years ago I met a guy in the University of Milan, who was studying modern languages and he told me that the majority of his peers were having great difficulty passing the Latin written test that involved basic exercises of translation and reading comprehension.

This problem is well known in the Latin/AG community.

If you are one of my readers, I take for granted that you read Foreman’s essay Latin as She is Spoke: How Classicists Tricked Themselves, and the Real Issue with Mary Beard's Latin.

Not long ago, Mary Beard graced us with a bit of honorable honesty in the Times Literary Supplement, in which she confessed to what is a bit of an open secret among most classicists. She can't sight-read a complex Latin text all that well. Most classicists can't. This admission — from someone like Beard — is good to have out there.

What irritates me is that —again like most classicists — she treats this as a self-evident fact to be just accepted rather than a problem to be dealt with, as if nobody could hope to actually read Cicero with ease. It always strikes me as bizarre and a bit embarrassing to see classicists insisting that it is impossible to acquire fluid or fluent command of Latin or Greek, that "we" can never do this. It's not just that this assumption would be news to people like Galileo, Kepler or Descartes. It's that people do actually acquire this kind of competence. Today. Anyone who pokes around at, say, the Conventiculum Bostoniense, will find proficient Latin-speakers as readily as Zeus finds incestuous booty-calls.

If you are an academic, you probably read Thakkar’s essay too5.

If, therefore, we do not drastically improve the level of graduate training in medieval Latin, hopeless misunderstandings of medieval sources will increasingly come to scar the scholarly landscape. In the meantime, it is evidently worth reminding translators and reviewers alike, as Wyclif used to remind his contemporaries, that «if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.

---

I believe that a possible solution could look like this:

• Liceo Classico is abolished;

• teaching of classical languages through grammar-translation methods is suppressed and substituted with modern approaches;

• the study of classical languages becomes elective and not mandatory;

• enrolment to classical degrees is limited;

Readers may object: «Isn’t this an elitarian view? Isn’t classical education a common good?». I could reply: «is theater attendance a common good or a luxury?». The hard truth is that classical education is a good of the second type. People can enjoy it in their free time, as many discovered with pleasure during the infamous lockdown.

Our society needs people who know italian (insert your mother tongue), english, maths, sciences, informatics, geography and history of the world, law and economics and so on6.

Subscribe now

1

Brunello, G., Esposito, P., Rocco, L., & Scicchitano, S. (2023). Do Classical Studies Open Your Mind?. Institute of Labor Economics.

2

Bracke, E., & Bradshaw, C. (2020). The impact of learning Latin on school pupils: a review of existing data. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 226-236.

3

Haag, L., & Stern, E. (2003). In search of the benefits of learning Latin. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 174.

4

Holliday, L. R. (2012). The Benefits of Latin?. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(1), 3-12; this reminds me of a study on a similar subject whose conclusion is strikingly similar: Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2020). Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis. Memory and Cognition, 48, 1429–1441 «This meta-analysis has examined the experimental evidence regarding the impact of music training on children’s non-music cognitive skills and academic achievement. The ineffectiveness of the practice is apparent and highly consistent across studies. Moreover, recent correlational studies have confirmed that music engagement is not associated with domain-general cognitive skills or academic performance».

5

Thakkar, M. (2020). Duces caecorum: On Two Recent Translations of Wyclif. Vivarium, 58, 357-383.

6

M. Boldrin. (2014) Aboliamo il Classico!. Noise from Amerika.

---

Quaestiō dē angelō et daemone mentientibus

25 Aug 2025, 09h07
Sumpta ex mīmēmate et solūta secundum Thōmam Aquīnātem

Grātiās tibi agō! Subscrībe grātiīs ut novās epistulās accipiās et opus meum sustineās.

PROOEMIUM

Angelus hominī cuidam īnsusurrāvit sē eum salvāre posse, daemon autem renīdēns dīxit sē eundem jam salvāvisse, sed utrīsque vērō mentientibus ūnus tantum sibi cōnscius mendāciī erat.

Quaeritur uter ex hīs cōnscius mendāciī esset in prōpositō dilemmate. Et circā hoc quaeruntur duo. Prīmō, utrum angelus mentīrī possit. Secundō, utrum angelus dē salute hominis scīre possit.

ARTICULUS 1

Et sīc prōcēditur ad prīmum. Vidētur quod angelus mentīrī possit.

1. Angelus est substantia intellectuālis, et sī voluntāte dēclīnat ā vērō, potest mentīrī sicut et homō. Ergō angelus mentīrī potest.

2. Praetereā, daemon est angelus lāpsus quī adhūc nātūram angelicam retinet. Sed daemon mentīrī potest, cum sit pater mendāciī. Ergo et angelus mentīrī potest.

Sed contrā dīxit Thōmās angelōs bonōs malum facere nōn posse, nec daemonēs bonum (Scrīptum super Sententiīs, liber II d. 7 q. 1 a. 2 s.c. 2). Sed mendācium malum est. Ergō angelus bonus mentīrī non potest.

Respondeō dīcendum quod mendācium est dīcere falsum cum intentiōne falsum dīcendī. Distinguere oportet inter falsitātem fōrmāliter, dē quā suprā, et falsitātem māteriāliter, quae praeter intentiōnem accidit. Nam dīxit Thōmās magis oppōnī vēritātī «quod aliquis dīcat vērum intendēns dīcere falsum, quam quod dīcat falsum intendēns dīcere vērum» (Summa Theologiae, IIa–IIae q. 110 a. 1 ad 1). Ergō falsitās māteriāliter, cum sit praeter intentiōnem, «nōn habet perfectam ratiōnem mendāciī» (Summa Theologiae, IIa–IIae q. 110 a. 1 co.). Voluntās autem angelī semper ad bonum dīrīgitur, ergō ei numquam intentiō falsum dīcendī esse potest.

Ad prīmum et ad secundum dīcendum quod, licet angelus habeat voluntātem līberam, tamen angelus cōnfirmātus est in bonō et malum facere nōn potest.

ARTICULUS 2

Et sīc prōcēditur ad secundum. Vidētur quod angelus dē salūte hominis scīre potest.

1. Homō enim potest aliquātenus dē suā salūte jūdicāre. Sed angelus multō magis scit quam homō. Ergo angelus dē salūte hominis scīre potest.

2. Praetereā, angelus missus est in ministerium «propter eōs quī herēditātem capient salūtis», secundum Apostolum. Sī angelus ignōrāret omnīnō dē salūte hūmānā, nōn posset hominēs ad bonum dīrīgere vel cōnsulere, quod tamen facere vidētur.

Sed contrā dīxit Thōmās angelum occulta cordium scīre nōn posse (Quaestiōnēs disputātae dē vēritāte, q. 8 a. 13 co.; Summa Theologiae, Ia q. 57 a. 4 s.c.), nec futūra contingentia (Summa Theologiae, Ia q. 57 a. 3 s.c.). Sed salūs hominis pendet et ex occultō mōtū cordis et ex dīvīnā grātiā futūrā. Ergo angelus dē salūte particulāris hominis scīre nōn potest.

Respondeō dīcendum quod angelus dē salūte hominis dupliciter cōnsīderāre potest: ūniversāliter et particulāriter.

Ūniversāliter quidem, angelus scit hominem salvārī posse secundum nātūram hūmānam, quae ad beātitūdinem ōrdinātur, et secundum commūnia auxilia grātiae quae Deus hominibus praebēre solet.

Particulāriter vērō, angelus nōn potest certō scīre an hic homō salvārī possit propter tria.

Prīmō, quia salūs pendet ex occultīs cordis dispositiōnibus, quās angelus cognōscere nōn potest.

Secundō, quia salūs ex speciālī grātiā Deī pendet, quae cognitiōnem angelicam excēdit.

Tertiō, quia salūs ad futūra contingentia pertinet. Thōmās enim dīxit angelōs nōn scīre futūra, nisi quātenus in causīs dēterminātīs continentur (Summa Theologiae, Ia q. 57 a. 3 co.). Sed salūs hominis ex plūribus causīs contingentibus pendet, praesertim ex līberō arbitriō et grātiā Deī.

Unde angelus, dīcendō hominem salvāre posse, loquēbātur dē possibilitāte generālī, nec scīre poterat impedīmenta particulāria quae salvatiōnem impedīrent. Et ideō māteriāliter falsum dixit sed nōn fōrmāliter.

Ad prīmum dīcendum quod licet angelus superiōrī modō cognōscat, tamen līmitātur ad ea quae per nātūralem cognitiōnem attingī possunt, nōn autem potest scīre secrēta cordium vel futūra contingentia.

Ad secundum dīcendum quod angelus mittitur in ministerium nōn ut certa dē salūte praedīcat, sed ut secundum Deī voluntātem hominēs adjuvet et dīrīgat.

δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν δότε!

Share

---

Σοδόμαδε

23 Aug 2024, 15h08
Colloquium impudīcum Graecē habitum

Hōc in opusculō libīdinēs apertē et impudīcē dēscrībuntur. Caveat lēctor nē legat nisi adultus homō!

Grātiās tibi agō! Subscrībe grātiīs ut novās epistulās accipiās et opus meum sustineās.

---

Φιλόγελως
Χαῖρε, ὦ φιλέλλην. Ἆρα μανθάνεις τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν φωνὴν χρώμενος τῷ βιβλίῳ τῷ Ἀθήναζε ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ;

Κότταλος
Ναί, τούτῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ ἐχρώμην μανθάνων.

Φιλόγελως
Τὸ ἀναγιγνώσκειν τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον κἀμοὶ πολὺν γέλωτα παρέχει ἐπιτρίβοντι τοὺς λόγους καὶ μεταβάλλοντι εἰς πορνικούς·

ἐπεὶ ἐν ἀγροῖς γυμνάσιον οὐκ ἔστι, δεῖ Δικαιοπόλιδα βαστάζοντα λίθους τὸ σῶμα εἰς ἰσχὺν ἀσκεῖν. Κάμνων δ ̓ ὁ Δικαιόπολις καθίζει ὑπὸ τῷ δένδρῳ. Οὐ δὲ πολὺν χρόνον ἡσυχάζει, ἐπεὶ πότνια νύμφη Καλυψώ, δῖα θεάων, ἥκουσα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ μείγνυται φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ1. Ἔστι γὰρ πολὺς πόνος τὴν θεὸν σκαλαθύρειν. Τέλος δὲ καταδύνει ὁ ἥλιος.
«Διὰ δὲ τί ὑπὸ σκιᾷ δένδρου κείμενος οὐχ ἡσυχάζεις,» ὁ Δικαιόπολις φησίν, «ἀλλ ̓ ἐνεργὸς ὢν τὴν θεράπαιναν σκαλαθύρεις, ὦ Ξανθία;»
«Ἐπεὶ πότνια Καλυψώ, δῖα θεάων, βούλεται τοὺς θνητοὺς ἄνδρας, ἕως ἂν ζῶσιν, ὅτι πλείστας γυναῖκας βινεῖν.» ὁ Ξανθίας φησίν, «Ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις ἔστυκα Νεαίρας τῆς θεραπαίνης ἀθρῶν τὼ δεινὼ μαστώ».

Κότταλος
Διὰ τί, ὦ μωρότατε;

Φιλόγελως
Γέροντί μοι ὄντι σχολή ἐστι μελετᾶν τὸ ἀττικίζειν.

Σχολαστικός
Κἀγὼ οὐ γέρων ὤν οὐδὲν ἥττων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου Ἀθήναζε μετέβαλον εἰς πορνικούς. Ἰδοὺ ὁ μῦθος·

ἐπεὶ δὲ νὺξ γίγνεται, μετ’οὐ πολὺν χρόνον ὕπνος τὸν Φίλιππον λαμβάνει. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ὕπνοις ὁ νεανίας γυναῖκα τινὰ τὴν μάλα καλὴν ὁρᾷ πλησιάζουσαν.
ὁ Φίλιππος «τὶς εἶ σύ;» φησίν, «ἆρα τῶν θεῶν τις ἢ τῶν θνητῶν εἶ;».
ἡ γυνὴ ἀποκρίνεται· «τοὔνομα μοι οὐδεμία ἐστίν. ἆρ’οὐ βούλει τιμᾶσθαι διότι τὸν λύκον ἀπέκτονας;»
ὁ Φίλιππος λέγει· «δηλαδή». ἡ γυνὴ οὖν πρῶτον πτύει τρὶς εἰς τὸν αὐτοῦ φαλλὸν, εἶτα κύπτει.
ὁ Φίλιππος μάλα χαίρει καὶ λέγει·«ἵλεως ἴσθι καὶ πλήθυνε τὸ σπέρμα!». ὁ Φίλιππος τοῦ θοροῦ ἀπορραίνει καὶ βοᾷ.
ἐν δὲ τούτῳ ὁ πατὴρ προσχωρεῖ τῷ παιδὶ καὶ, «τί σοι γίγνεται, ὦ παῖ;» φησίν, «τίς σε ἐποίησε ἀποσπερμαίνειν;».
ὁ δὲ Φίλιππος ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγείρεται καὶ λέγει· «οὐδεμία. ὦ παππία, διὰ τι σκότος γίγνεται πανταχοῦ;»
ὁ Δικαιόπολις λέγει· «φεῦ τοῦ ὀνειρωγμοῦ... τυφλὸς εἶ».
Πότνια δὲ Καλυψώ, δῖα θεάων, ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις μετακιάθει τοὺς θνητοὺς ἄνδρας, ὥστε αὐτοῖς εἶναι τὸν ὀνειρωγμόν.

Κότταλος
Ὤ τῆς ἀσεβείας! παύετε, παύετε. ἆρ’ οὐ τιμᾶτε τοὺς θεούς, θνητοὶ ὄντες;

Φιλόγελως
Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀτιμάζω τοὺς θεοὺς ἔγωγε. τιμῶ γὰρ μάλιστα τὴν Δουργὴν. τοῦ γὰρ πολέμου καὶ τοῦ θανάτου ἡ τῶν Ἰνδῶν θεὸς.

Σχολαστικός
Συγγνώμην μοι ἔχε! μάλα ἥμαρτον. ὁ Φιλόγελως διαφθείρει τοὺς νέους ὡς ὁ Σωκράτης.

Κότταλος
Δεῖ τινα τῶν τοῦ δίου Σωκράτους κατηγόρων εὑρίσκειν ὡς τὸν Φιλογέλωτα ἀποκτένωμεν.

Σχολαστικός
Χαλεπώτατα λέγεις!

Φιλόγελως
Ὁ Φιλόγελως σκοπεῖ τά τε μετέωρα καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ γῆς καὶ διαφθείρει τοὺς νέους καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων.

δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν δότε

Share

---

τὸ γλωσσάριον

ἀπορραίνω: adspergō, irrōrō

βαστάζω: tollō, portō

βινέω: ineō, coëō

ἐπιτρίβω: atterō, adflīgō

ἔστυκα (στύω): ērēctus sum (dē pēne)

εὐνή, ἡ: lectus

θορός, ὁ: sēmen genitāle

κύπτω: mē incurvō, prōnus sum

μείγνυμι: (pass.) prope accedere, cōnsuescere (dē concubitū)

μεταβάλλω: mūtō, invertō

ὀνειρωγμός, ὁ: somnium dē rē venereā cum effūsiōne sēminis

πότνια, ἡ: augusta, veneranda

σκαλαθύρω: fodiō (coëō cum fēminā)

Σοδόμαδε: adv. Sodoma (vd. Ἀθήναζε: Athēnās)

φιλότης ητος, ἡ: concubitus

1

ἐμίγην φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ Il. 3.445; μίγη φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ Il. 6.25

---

Collatz

07 Jun 2024, 14h03
Sīve mathēmaticā dē quaestiōne nōn solūtā

Annō 1937 Lotharus Collatz, mathēmaticus theodiscus, prīmum quaesīvit, an quīlibet numerus nātūrālis reducī ad ūnum per algorismum sequentem possit:

• Sī numerus pār est, dīvidātur per duo;

• Sī dispār, triplicētur et ad eum addātur ūnum;

Exemplī grātiā numerus 5 dispār est, itaque triplicandus est et ad eum ūnum addendum, quō factō invenimus numerum 16, quī dīvidī potest usque ad ūnum: 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

Paulus Erdős, mathēmaticus Hungarus, dīxit mathēmaticam fortasse nōndum praestō esse hīs problēmatibus.

Nēmō enim quaestiōnem solvit.

Ēnōdātiō numerī 27

«Testūdō: Quīn cōnāris ā numerō 27 incipere? Nihil, scīlicet, polliceor. Sed aliquandō cōnāre animī causā. Praetereā suāderem ut magnam plagulam chartae afferrēs»1.

27, 82, 41, 124, 62, 31, 94, 47, 142, 71, 214, 107, 322, 161, 484, 242, 121, 364, 182, 91, 274, 137, 412, 206, 103, 310, 155, 466, 233, 700, 350, 175, 526, 263, 790, 395, 1186, 593, 1780, 890, 445, 1336, 668, 334, 167, 502, 251, 754, 377, 1132, 566, 283, 850, 425, 1276, 638, 319, 958, 479, 1438, 719, 2158, 1079, 3238, 1619, 4858, 2429, 7288, 3644, 1822, 911, 2734, 1367, 4102, 2051, 6154, 3077, 9232, 4616, 2308, 1154, 577, 1732, 866, 433, 1300, 650, 325, 976, 488, 244, 122, 61, 184, 92, 46, 23, 70, 35, 106, 53, 160, 80, 40, 20, 10, 5, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1

Saepenumerō hominēs algorismum comparāre solent cum grānis grandinis, quī iterum iterumque in tempestāte atrōcī cadunt et surgunt.

Quīn ūtimur repraesentātiōnibus conjectūrae Collatz ut piīs imāginibus?

Aliī numerōs ab algorismō generātōs cum arboribus comparant.

Exemplum algorismī linguā pȳthōnicā scrīptum

import sys

def collatz(num):
    while num != 1:
        if num % 2 == 0:
            num = num // 2
            print(num)
        else:
            num = 3 * num + 1
            print(num)
try:
    while True:
        try:
            input_num = int(input('Scrībe numerum:\n'))
            collatz(input_num)
        except ValueError:
            print('Numerus integer tibi scrībendus est!')
except KeyboardInterrupt:
    sys.exit()

Grātiās tibi agō! Subscrībe grātiīs ut novās epistulās accipiās et opus meum sustineās.

1

D. R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid (1979), Basic Books, 1999, p. 401

---

Opusculum necopīnātum

15 Apr 2024, 14h42
X cōnspicienda

Salvē lēctor,

Quid fit? Quid agitur?

§1. Postulātiō

Ecquis vestrum periodicum c.t. Hermēs Americānus fortasse nōvit? In fasciculīs I-IV (m. Dec. a. 1984 , pp. 24–41) Hermae Americānī inest quaedam versiō Latīna capitulī prīmī dē Anulōrum Erō. Īnfrā scrībō quae inquīsītiōne per rēte factā legī possunt:

«... Simillimus est Magistrī Bilbōnis, nec tantum vultū. Etenim dē genere Sacciōnum erat pater ejus, et Magister Drogō Sacciō hobbis erat bonus et honestus, neque quidquam dē eō poterās dīcere, antequam persummersus est.»

«Persummersus?!» conclāmant. (Haec sānē et pējōra dē Magistrō...  

... Bilbōnis Sacciōnis cōnsobrīna erat, minuma dē fīliabus Tucis Annōsī. Jamvērō Magistrī Drogōnis patruus magnus — idem erat avus Magistrī Bilbōnis. Ex quibus fit, ut Magister Frodō noster fiat ipsī cōnsanguineus tam secundō gradū quam tertiō, utrōque tamen semel remōtus, ut ...

Estne tibi exemplar hujus operis? Potēsne id mihi mittere? Fac mē certiōrem. Tibi pergrātus erō.

§2. Haicu scrīpsī ex fragmentō Sophoclis (Cic. ad Att. II.7.4)

κἄν ὑπὸ στέγῃ πυκνῆς ἀκούειν ψακάδος εὐδούσῃ φρενί.

saltem sub tēctō

audiō crebram stillam

mente quiētā.

§3. Hexametrum scrīpsī ex sententiā Jōhannis Vergae

Il mare è amaro e il marinaio muore in mare.

Dēcēdit, nostrum est mare amārum, et in aequore nauta.

§4. Quōmodo dīcitur terrorist Latīnē?

1. per circuitiōnem verbōrum seu circumlocūtiōnem:

   1. is quī alicui terrōrem injicit (in­cutit, īnfert, affert…) seu aliquem terret

   2. terrōrum auctor

   3. homō terrificāns (Bacci?)

2. per analogiam significātiōnis:

   1. ēversor (Levine)

3. per verbōrum novātiōnem:

   1. tromocratēs -ae seu tromocrata -ae, ex Graecō sermōne τρομοκρατής (Egger; L.R.L.; Calepīnus novus)

   2. terrorista

§5. Πῶς λέγεται based ἑλληνιστί;

Nōn sōlum ἀρετὴ praecipuē significat fortitūdinem et virtūtem bellicam, sed etiam nēquāquam est adjectīvum. Itaque based sēnsum illīus verbī perperam exprimit.

§6. NON·FVI·FVI·NON·SUM·NON·CURO

Estne cynicum dēspērātumque summārium vītae?

§7. Jūdicēs 13,6

Ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ ἦλθεν πρός με, καὶ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ὡς εἶδος ἀγγέλου θεοῦ φοβερὸν σφόδρα·

Vir Deī vēnit ad mē habēns vultum angelicum terribilis nimis.

§8. Sententia Menandrī

Γράμματα μαθεῖν δεῖ καὶ μαθόντα νοῦν ἔχειν.

Litterās oportet discere ac īnsuper prūdentem esse.

§9. Jācōbus Wimpfelingius, Germānia, lib. II, ūtilitās Latīnae linguae

Nōnne satius esset, nōnne honestius, nōnne laudābilius fīliōs vestrōs bonō ingeniō praeditōs adhūc imberbēs et ephēbōs ad Latīnōs librōs applicārī, in quibus nōbilissimam linguam perdiscerent, quā aliēnigenōs nuntiōs, episcopōs, cardinālēs et (sī opus esset) summum pontificem alloquī et ipsōs sācerdōtēs inter sē colloquentēs evangelicamque historiam et cētera, quae in rē dīvīnā leguntur, intellegere et mōre Gallōrum Italōrumque sēcum cōnscientiam ēmundāre possent, librōs inquam, in quibus sapientiam, jūstitiam, religiōnem, prūdentiam, fēlix rēī pūblicae rēgimen, jūstas lēgēs, historiās, gesta veterum, optimōs mōrēs, praeclārās virtūtēs, nātūrālium rērum causās, rigidārum lēgum moderāmen et aequitātem, disciplīnam mīlitārem et stratēgēmata sūgerent, et ut tandem virī factī nuntiōs et ōrātōrēs in conventibus imperiī intellegerent aut saltem in propriīs negōtiīs causidicōs Latīnē loquentēs caperent et certō scīrent, epigrammata sibi aut suīs īnscrībenda vitiō carēre, nē prō validō aut strēnuō generōsus in sarcophagō incīdātur, atque ut īnscrīptiōnēs monētārum legere possent, et nē eōs latēret, cur coenobia dīvī Jōhannis et sānctī Nīcolāī in undīs vocitentur ineptēque illa ad canēs in vernaculā nuncupārī.

Sīc ex īnscītiā Latīnae linguae multa locōrum nōmina corrupta sunt et male intellecta, sīc et falluntur, quī extrēmōs Hispāniae ōrās vīdērunt reversīque sē apud ātram stēllam vulgō zu dem finstern Sternen fuisse gloriantur, cum apud fīnem terrae fuerint, sīc apud alpīnātēs oppidum Interlacus Hynderlappen, sīc domus Petrī inter Mollesheym et pāgum Sulcēnsem Dompfietern, sīc Alta Rīpa prope Nemetēs Alttrip corrupta sunt et rusticē nuncupantur, longē ā Latīno sermōne, quō prīmum īnsignīta fuērunt, aliēna.

§10. Paracelsus, Opera Omnia, vol. I, 1658, dē causīs morbōrum invīsibilium, lib. III, p. 126

Quamquam et hoc vērum sit, ipsam quoque imāginātiōnem causam esse succubī et incubī, ea nīmīrum ratiōne, quod imāginātiō rēs illās pariat, et deinde distrahantur. Hoc ut intelligātis, oportet prīmum scīrī sperma incubī et succubī, unde id prōveniat et nascātur. Prōvenit autem ex fortī et pertinācī imāginātiōne eōrum omnium, quī in cogitātiōnibus ac animō procantur. Quia ergo ex imāginātiōne oritur, jam vērum et nātūrāle sēmen nōn est, sed est īnstar salis fatuī.

[...]

Jam vērō sperma hoc, ita prōductum, ex imāginātiōne in amōre hereos1 nātum est, quid vērō iste amor est? Nihil aliud, quam quod sibi aliquis per phantasiam in animō fēminam fingit, et cum hāc rē habendō, amōrem suum exsatiat. Unde surdī quoque ac fatuī spermatis exitus est, quod ad līberōrum generātiōnem ineptum est. Ex illō tamen spermate Incubus et Succubus gignuntur. Sed adhūc ūnum hīc notāre dēbētis, nīmīrum hujusmodī imāginātiōnem mātrem esse lascīviae impudīcae: unde fit, ut sī amātōrēs et amātrīcēs tālēs per intentam imāginātiōnem congrediantur, minimē fēcundī sint. Imāginātiō enim gubernat hoc sperma ita, ut nātūrā ab extrāneīs īnfringātur. Quae causa potissima est multōrum sterilitātis ac molae. Ut vērō dē generātiōne istā incubī et succubī dīcere pergam: noscendum vōbīs est, spermata illa per spīritūs nocturnōs asportārī. Hī illa in ea loca trānsferunt, ubi exclūdī possint, nīmīrum ad serpentēs, vermēs, būfōnēs, et impūra animālia similia. Ibi enim ā spīritibus illīs actus, seu congressiō cum spermatibus illīs in animālia illa fit.

Grātiās tibi agō! Subscrībe grātiīs ut novās epistulās accipiās et opus meum sustineās.

1

amor hereos melancholiam significābat

---

---

____________________________________