Queen Marie Antoinette of France

On this day in 1793, Queen Marie Antoinette of France was executed in the midst of the French Revolution.


Queen Marie Antoinette by Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun, in 1783AD.

She was the daughter of Maria Theresa of Austria (ruled Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia, 1740-1780) and Holy Roman Emperor Francis I (reigned 1745-1765), former Duke of Lorraine (reigned 1729-1737; switched with Tuscany owing to the outcome of the War of the Polish Election), and Grand Duke of Tuscany (reigned in Tuscany, 1737-1765).  Thus, Marie Antoinette was a member of the House of Hapsburg and of Lorraine.

Her reputation is without question worse than she deserves, being the object of a load of Revolutionary propaganda which refuses to die.  As wife to King Louis XVI, who was guillotined in January 1793, she would face execution at the very same time that the Department of the Vendee in the west of France was in rebellion against the forces of the Revolution.  Dark days, indeed, but worth recalling.

On 21 January 1793, His Most Christian Majesty, Louis XVI, was executed.  Even Louis XVI’s own cousin, Louis Philippe of Orleans voted for his death.  This royal execution was wildly unpopular in the rest of Europe, and that summer half of France would rebel against the rebels.  France declared war on Great Britain and Holland on 1 February, and 24 February draft bill demanding 300,000 troops.  7 March saw France declare on Spain, and the Austrians push back the French in Belgium.   The draft of February along with the other outrages of the Revolution prompted a rising in the Vendée on 12 March, the days that followed saw the word spread, and new forces and leaders join the attempt to defend Church and Throne (“Long live the King, Long live the good priests! & White cockade”).  By 14 March, 12,000 were in arms (The Catholic and Royal Army).  A couple leaders: Jacques Cathelineau, a baker and Francois-Athanase Charette, a young nobleman.  On 5 April 1793 the Committee of Public Safety was established.  In May, the 2^nd largest city in France, Lyons, rose in rebellion against the Revolution.  The Girondin [former anti-monarchist Republicans, once on the left, now considered Conservatives in the Assembly] were ejected from power by a mob of 80,000 on 2 June.  The Assembly ordered their arrest – and they would be dead by the end of the year.  This led to the “reign of terror” (3 June ’93 to 28 July ’94 – 14,080 would be put to death).  On 9 June, the Vendéens seize the city of Saumar – momentum continues in their favor in this counter-Revolution.  On 27 July 1793, Robespierre joined the Committee of Public Safety, and the Terror begins.  What of the Vendée?  Cathelineau made the decision to march on the port of Nantes rather than Paris itself – and an attack there on 29 June 1793 would cost his life (died 14 July), and doom the cause.; d’Elbée would be the new commander of the rising. In October, on the 5^th, the new Revolutionary calendar was introduced, surely a triumph of mankind.  On 9 October, the Lyons uprising was finally crushed, and 2,000 were executed.  It was on Oct. 16 that Queen Marie-Antoinette was executed, to be followed by the Girondin leaders on 31 Oct.  That Autumn, Henri la Rochehajaquelein, would be commanding the Vendée rising, as the movement crumbles – he was famous for the “if I advance, if I retreat, if I die” quotation.  By December, however, the Vendee uprising, too, is extinguished.



As Edmund Burke, the British Member of Parliament, had noted in 1790, regarding Queen Marie Antoinette and this wicked Revolution, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France:
 

"I hear, and I rejoice to hear, that the great lady, the other object of the triumph, has borne that day, (one is interested that beings made for suffering should suffer well) and that she bears all the succeeding days, that she bears the imprisonment of her husband, and her own captivity, and the exile of her friends, and the insulting adulation of addresses, and the whole weight of her accumulated wrongs, with a serene patience, in a manner suited to her rank and race, and becoming the offspring of a sovereign distinguished for her piety and her courage: that, like her, she has lofty sentiments; that she feels with the dignity of a Roman matron; that in the last extremity she will save herself from the last disgrace; and that, if she must fall, she will fall by no ignoble hand.

125

It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in,—glittering like the morning-star, full of life, and splendour, and joy. Oh! what a revolution! and what a heart must I have to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that charity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness."

Chivarly is gone.  We are in an age of sophists, economists, and calculators.  The glory of Europe, and the West, is extinguished.  I nurse a hope that Burke is incorrect that this is "for ever," but grim it looks, indeed.

 I present below the final will and testament of His Most Christian Majesty, King Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette's husband.  The words and thoughts of a tyrant?  I think not.  May the soul of King Louis, and his Queen, rest in peace, and may we have such serenity of charity towards our enemies:

LAST TESTAMENT OF LOUIS XVI

In the name of the Very holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

To-day, the 25th day of December, 1792, I, Louis XVI King of France, being for more than four months imprisoned with my family in the tower of the Temple at Paris, by those who were my subjects, and deprived of all communication whatsoever, even with my family, since the eleventh instant; moreover, involved in a trial the end of which it is impossible to foresee, on account of the passions of men, and for which one can find neither pretext nor means in any existing law, and having no other witnesses, for my thoughts than God to whom I can address myself,

I hereby declare, in His presence, my last wishes and feelings.

I leave my soul to God, my creator; I pray Him to receive it in His mercy, not to judge it according to its merits but according to those of Our Lord Jesus Christ who has offered Himself as a sacrifice to God His Father for us other men, no matter how hardened, and for me first.

I die in communion with our Holy Mother, the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, which holds authority by an uninterrupted succession, from St. Peter, to whom Jesus Christ entrusted it; I believe firmly and I confess all that is contained in the creed and the commandments of God and the Church, the sacraments and the mysteries, those which the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught. I never pretend to set myself up as a judge of the various way of expounding the dogma which rend the church of Jesus Christ, but I agree and will always agree, if God grant me life the decisions which the ecclesiastical superiors of the Holy Catholic Church give and will always give, in conformity with the disciplines which the Church has followed since Jesus Christ.

I pity with all my heart our brothers who may be in error but I do not claim to judge them, and I do not love them less in Christ, as our Christian charity teaches us, and I pray to God to pardon all my sins. I have sought scrupulously to know them, to detest them and to humiliate myself in His presence. Not being able to obtain the ministration of a Catholic priest, I pray God to receive the confession which I feel in having put my name (although this was against my will) to acts which might be contrary to the discipline and the belief of the Catholic church, to which I have always remained sincerely attached. I pray God to receive my firm resolution, if He grants me life, to have the ministrations of a Catholic priest, as soon as I can, in order to confess my sins and to receive the sacrament of penance.

I beg all those whom I might have offended inadvertently (for I do not recall having knowingly offended any one), or those whom I may have given bad examples or scandals, to pardon the evil which they believe I could have done them.

I beseech those who have the kindness to join their prayers to mine, to obtain pardon from God for my sins.

I pardon with all my heart those who made themselves my enemies, without my have given them any cause, and I pray God to pardon them, as well as those who, through false or misunderstood zeal, did me much harm.

I commend to God my wife and my children, my sister, my aunts, my brothers, and all those who are attached to me by ties of blood or by whatever other means. I pray God particularly to cast eyes of compassion upon my wife, my children, and my sister, who suffered with me for so long a time, to sustain them with His mercy if they shall lose me, and as long as they remain in his mortal world.

I commend my children to my wife; I have never doubted her maternal tenderness for them. I enjoin her above all to make them good Christians and honest individuals; to make them view the grandeurs of this world (if they are condemned to experience them) as very dangerous and transient goods, and turn their attention towards the one solid and enduring glory, eternity. I beseech my sister to kindly continue her tenderness for my children and to take the place of a mother, should they have the misfortune of losing theirs.

I beg my wife to forgive all the pain which she suffered for me, and the sorrows which I may have caused her in the course of our union; and she may feel sure that I hold nothing against her, if she has anything with which to reproach herself.

I most warmly enjoin my children that, after what they owe to God, which should come first, they should remain forever united among themselves, submissive and obedient to their mother, and grateful for all the care and trouble which she has taken with them, as well as in memory of me. I beg them to regard my sister as their second mother.

I exhort my son, should he have the misfortune of becoming king, to remember he owes himself wholly to the happiness of his fellow citizens; that he should forget all hates and all grudges, particularly those connected with the misfortunes and sorrows which I am experiencing; that he can make the people happy only by ruling according to laws: but at the same time to remember that a king cannot make himself respected and do the good that is in his heart unless he has the necessary authority, and that otherwise, being tangled up in his activities and not inspiring respect, he is more harmful than useful.

I exhort my son to care for all the persons who are attached to me, as much as his circumstances will allow, to remember that it is a sacred debt which I have contracted towards the children and relatives of those who have perished for me and also those who are wretched for my sake. I know that there are many persons, among those who were near me, who did not conduct themselves towards me as they should have and who have even shown ingratitude, but I pardon them (often in moments of trouble and turmoil one is not master of oneself), and I beg my son that, if he finds an occasion, he should think only of their misfortunes.

I should have wanted here to show my gratitude to those who have given me a true and disinterested affection; if, on the one hand, I was keenly hurt by the ingratitude and disloyalty of those to whom I have always, shown kindness, as well as to their relatives and friends, on the other hand I have had the consolation of seeing the affection and voluntary interest which many persons have shown me. I beg them to receive my thanks.

In the situation in which matters still are, I fear to compromise them if I should speak more explicitly, but I especially enjoin my son to seek occasion to recognize them.

I should, nevertheless, consider it a calumny on the nation if I did not openly recommend to my son MM. De Chamilly and Hue, whose genuine attachment for me led them to imprison themselves with me in this sad abode. I also recommend Clery, for whose attentiveness I have nothing but praise ever since he has been with me. Since it is he who has remained with me until the end, I beg the gentlemen of the commune to hand over to him my clothes, my books, my watch, my purse, and all other small effects which have been deposited with the council of the commune.

I pardon again very readily those who guard me, the ill treatment and the vexations which they thought it necessary to impose upon me. I found a few sensitive and compassionate souls among them - may they in their hearts enjoy the tranquillity which their way of thinking gives them.

I beg MM. De Malesherbes, Tronchet and De Seze to receive all my thanks and the expressions of my feelings for all the cares and troubles they took for me.

I finish by declaring before God, and ready to appear before Him, that I do not reproach myself with any of the crimes with which I am charged.

Made in duplicate in the Tower of the Temple, the 25th of December 1792.

LOUIS

(Archives Nationales, Paris, dated 25 Dec 1792; given by the King to M. Baudrais, a municipal officer, on 21 Jan 1793, a few moments for he left for his place of execution. Baudrais immediately signed his name to authenticate it and deposited it with the commune, where it was signed and certified by Coulomneau, the secretary, and Drouel, the vice-president)

Vive le Roi!

Live well!

200th of the Battle of Queenston Heights

Today is the Bicentennial of the Battle of Queenston Heights, fought during the War of 1812.  After the failed American operations on the Detroit front, in October of 1812 an American army under the command of General Stephen Van Rensselaer of the New York Militia attempted another invasion into Ontario, Canada -- this time across the Niagara River.


Sir Isaac Brock, killed at Queenston Heights (left) & General Stephen Van Rensselaer (right)

The night before the assault, American batteries tried to soften the British positions on the Canadian shores, but to little effect.  They managed to land, and make their way to a position on Queenston Heights -- where Sir Isaac Brock, the "Hero of Upper Canada," knighted for his success at Detroit, launched a counterattack against the invading force, which outnumbered his own.  He would fall mortally wounded in the charge.


The Charge of Sir Isaac Brock at the Battle of Queenston Heights.  Notice the fallen Brock in the bottom-center-right, and his Indian allies center-right.

The new British commander, General Roger Sheaffe, however, managed to use Iroquois allies to keep the Americans pinned at their position near the river while he brought in 900 more troops.  By the time he launched his assualt, the American force was unnerved by the Indian warriors and running low on ammunition.  The British force, ready to drive the Americans, fired a single volley, and charged -- defeating the invading army within a quarter of an hour.


Battle of Queenston Heights, Ontario.

At a cost of 104 killed or wounded for the Crown, including Sir Isaac Brock, the British, Canadians, and Indian allies killed and wounded 500 and captured a further 960.  It was a disaster, and another set-back for the American ground war.

The year of 1812 was, for the United States, one of disaster along the Canadian border, with two failed invasions and the loss of Detroit.  Scattered victories on the high seas gave the USA some success, however, and the war would go on...

Live well!

Council of Ephesus, 431AD

Today was, after being instituted by Pope Pius XI in 1931, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of Our Lady.  It was established in honor of the anniversary of the great Council of Ephesus in 431AD, at which Our Lady was defined as Theotokos -- Mother of God -- and the Nestorian heresy was condemned.


Theotokos of Vladimir.

In 428 Nestorius, originally a monk from Antioch, was made Patriarch of Constantinople (428-431).  This eloquent and austere new Patriarch, his first Christmas as shepherd of the Imperial capital preached that Mary was not the Mother of God!  Behold, the Nestorian heresy.  He, and the Nestorian heretics, claims that Christ is not actually God, but God only dwells in him as “in a temple” or “a garment.”  Thus, there are two persons in Christ – and Mary was only mother of the human person, not the divine.  Thus, she is not Mother of God, but only Mother of Christ!  This caused quite the stir in the area, as you might imagine.  A lawyer actually interrupted his homily in the Cathedral, and he would be faced by another bishop on the next feast of the Annunciation.

Copies of these homilies reached the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Cyril (Successor of St. Mark from 412-444AD), in 429 and he immediately condemned the ideas and reported them to the pope, St. Celestine I (Successor of St. Peter from 423-432).  Nestorius, for his part, appealed to the Eastern Roman Emperor, Theodosius II (Reigned, 408-450).   The Pope, agreeing with St. Cyril, condemned the teaching of Nestorius, and threatened to depose him.  He, for his part, persisted, and this with the encouragement of Patriarch John of Antioch (Successor of St. Peter from 428-442).


Ephesus today: the Library of Celsus.

The Emperor, Theodosius II, hoping to find a solution, summoned a general council – the Third – at Ephesus which met in 431.  St. Augustine was actually invited, but he had died by the time the invitation arrived.  After a delay, owing to the absence of John of Antioch, the council finally opened in the blazing heat of June 431, with Cyril of Alexandria presiding as legate of the Pope.  The Council carefully read the teachings of Nestorius, and quickly condemned them.  Nestorius himself was given three warnings to arrive and answer, but he refused, and was deposed.  The Council unanimously declared that Mary was, indeed, Theotokos!  Torch-lit processions and celebrations met the declaration in Ephesus.

A more thorough account of the Council can be found here: Old Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Ephesus

St. Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death!

Live well!

150th of the Battle of Perryville, KY

CS General Braxton Bragg (left) & US General Don Carlos Buell (right).

Today 150 years ago the 16,000-man Confederate Army of the Mississippi (soon to be Army of Tennessee) of CS General Braxton Bragg clashed with the 22,000-man Union Army of the Ohio (soon to be the Army of the Cumberland) of US General Don Carlos Buell met in the field of battle near Perryville, KY.


Map of the Kentucky Invasion of CS General Braxton Bragg.  [Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com]


That late summer of 1862, as Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, invaded Maryland, so to, in the Western Theatre, the other major Confederate field army, that of Bragg, invaded the border state of Kentucky.  Indeed, the Commonwealth of Kentucky had a fair number of Confedeate sympathizers, and Bragg would spend some time installing a Southern government in the Bluegrass State.  In pursuit was the Union force of Don Carlos Buell.  He was under great pressure from the administration to engage the Southern host, as it was already October.  A feint by the Union commander as his forces marched Southeast from Louisville insured that he would have greater numbers than his Confederate foes.


Opening dispositions of the two armies at Perryville, KY.  [Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com]

The two arms fought the Battle of Perryville in warm, and dry conditions, owing to a drought that had impacted the region that year.  Indeed, opposing groups of skirmishers looking for water marked the opening of the battle.

Here is the NPS description of the battle: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/ky009.htm

The battlefield itself is maintained as part of the Kentucky State Park system: http://www.perryvillebattlefield.org/

Like the Battle of Antietam the month before, the Battle of Perryville was marked by intense fighting and heavy losses.  Bragg lost 20% of his engaged force at Perryville, 3,396, while Buell had 4,211 Union casualties.   Likewise, it ended with both forces still on the field of battle, and, also like Antietam, the strategic situation meant that the Confederates and Bragg would have to abandon the invasion and fall back into Tennessee.  In a final clear parallel -- General Buell would be relieved of command for his sluggish pursuit of Bragg, as General McClellan would be removed for his failure to follow-up on his "victory" over Lee at Antietam.

Both theatres would see mighty clashes come December...

Live well!

Battle of Lepanto

Our Lady of the Rosary, by Nicola Porta.

Tomorrow, a Sunday, is the Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, formerly the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, and the annivesary of the great victory over the Ottoman Turkish fleet at the Battle of Lepanto.

In 1570, the Ottoman Turks were on the advance under Sultan Selim II (reigned 1566-1574) – declaring war on the Republic of Venice and attacking the Most Serene Republic's possession of Cyprus.  In September 1570, the Turks took Nicosia in Cyprus, massacring the inhabitants.  They followed this up with the capture of the last Venetian stronghold in Cyprus at Famagusta in Aug 1571 after an 11 month siege.

Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572), to combat the Turkish threat, put together the Holy League, consisting of Spain, Venice, and the Papal States.  It was too late to save Cyprus, but on 7 October 1571, the fleet of the Holy League, under the command of the illegitimate son of Emperor Charles V (+1558), and half-brother of Philip II of Spain, Don Juan of Austria (+1578), met the Turkish fleet.


Don Juan of Austria.


The Battle of Lepanto.

They would meet the Ottomans off the coast of Greece in a grand naval battle: the Battle of Lepanto!  The battle line was five miles long (270 Ottoman vs. 220 Holy League vessels), and this was the last great battle of oared ships in history.  The Ottomans lost 15-20,000 killed to 7,500 Holy League men, with 15,000 Christian slaves freed.  The image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe was actually present at the battle, as was Miguel Cervantes, author of Don Quixote!


The Battle of Lepanto, as portrayed in the Vatican Museums.

St. Pius V famously had a vision in Rome of the victory having been won, and informing his advisors of the fact long before word came to the Eternal City.


Pope St. Pius V, OP.

This great victory halted the advance of the fleets of the Ottoman Empire, and inspired, in gratitude, the establishment of the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, which became the of Our Lady of the Rosary by order of Pope Gregory XIII in 1573 -- after the prayer the the Catholic world had offered for victory.

G. K. Chesterton has a brilliant poem on the battle, which I present for you here:

LEPANTO, by G. K. Chesterton:

WHITE founts falling in the Courts of the sun,
And the Soldan of Byzantium is smiling as they run;
There is laughter like the fountains in that face of all men feared,
It stirs the forest darkness, the darkness of his beard;
It curls the blood-red crescent, the crescent of his lips;	5
For the inmost sea of all the earth is shaken with his ships.
They have dared the white republics up the capes of Italy,
They have dashed the Adriatic round the Lion of the Sea,
And the Pope has cast his arms abroad for agony and loss,
And called the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross.	10
The cold queen of England is looking in the glass;
The shadow of the Valois is yawning at the Mass;
From evening isles fantastical rings faint the Spanish gun,
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Dim drums throbbing, in the hills half heard,	15
Where only on a nameless throne a crownless prince has stirred,
Where, risen from a doubtful seat and half attainted stall,
The last knight of Europe takes weapons from the wall,
The last and lingering troubadour to whom the bird has sung,
That once went singing southward when all the world was young.	20
In that enormous silence, tiny and unafraid,
Comes up along a winding road the noise of the Crusade.
Strong gongs groaning as the guns boom far,
Don John of Austria is going to the war,
Stiff flags straining in the night-blasts cold	25
In the gloom black-purple, in the glint old-gold,
Torchlight crimson on the copper kettle-drums,
Then the tuckets, then the trumpets, then the cannon, and he comes.
Don John laughing in the brave beard curled,
Spurning of his stirrups like the thrones of all the world,	30
Holding his head up for a flag of all the free.
Love-light of Spain—hurrah!
Death-light of Africa!
Don John of Austria
Is riding to the sea.	35
Mahound is in his paradise above the evening star,
(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
He moves a mighty turban on the timeless houri's knees,
His turban that is woven of the sunsets and the seas.
He shakes the peacock gardens as he rises from his ease,	40
And he strides among the tree-tops and is taller than the trees;
And his voice through all the garden is a thunder sent to bring
Black Azrael and Ariel and Ammon on the wing.
Giants and the Genii,
Multiplex of wing and eye,	45
Whose strong obedience broke the sky
When Solomon was king.
They rush in red and purple from the red clouds of the morn,
From the temples where the yellow gods shut up their eyes in scorn;
They rise in green robes roaring from the green hells of the sea	50
Where fallen skies and evil hues and eyeless creatures be,
On them the sea-valves cluster and the grey sea-forests curl,
Splashed with a splendid sickness, the sickness of the pearl;
They swell in sapphire smoke out of the blue cracks of the ground,—
They gather and they wonder and give worship to Mahound.	55
And he saith, "Break up the mountains where the hermit-folk can hide,
And sift the red and silver sands lest bone of saint abide,
And chase the Giaours flying night and day, not giving rest,
For that which was our trouble comes again out of the west.
We have set the seal of Solomon on all things under sun,	60
Of knowledge and of sorrow and endurance of things done.
But a noise is in the mountains, in the mountains, and I know
The voice that shook our palaces—four hundred years ago:
It is he that saith not 'Kismet'; it is he that knows not Fate;
It is Richard, it is Raymond, it is Godfrey at the gate!	65
It is he whose loss is laughter when he counts the wager worth,
Put down your feet upon him, that our peace be on the earth."
For he heard drums groaning and he heard guns jar,
(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
Sudden and still—hurrah!	70
Bolt from Iberia!
Don John of Austria
Is gone by Alcalar.
St. Michaels on his Mountain in the sea-roads of the north
(Don John of Austria is girt and going forth.)	75
Where the grey seas glitter and the sharp tides shift
And the sea-folk labour and the red sails lift.
He shakes his lance of iron and he claps his wings of stone;
The noise is gone through Normandy; the noise is gone alone;
The North is full of tangled things and texts and aching eyes,	80
And dead is all the innocence of anger and surprise,
And Christian killeth Christian in a narrow dusty room,
And Christian dreadeth Christ that hath a newer face of doom,
And Christian hateth Mary that God kissed in Galilee,—
But Don John of Austria is riding to the sea.	85
Don John calling through the blast and the eclipse
Crying with the trumpet, with the trumpet of his lips,
Trumpet that sayeth ha!
Domino gloria!
Don John of Austria	90
Is shouting to the ships.
King Philip's in his closet with the Fleece about his neck
(Don John of Austria is armed upon the deck.)
The walls are hung with velvet that is black and soft as sin,
And little dwarfs creep out of it and little dwarfs creep in.	95
He holds a crystal phial that has colours like the moon,
He touches, and it tingles, and he trembles very soon,
And his face is as a fungus of a leprous white and grey
Like plants in the high houses that are shuttered from the day,
And death is in the phial and the end of noble work,	100
But Don John of Austria has fired upon the Turk.
Don John's hunting, and his hounds have bayed—
Booms away past Italy the rumour of his raid.
Gun upon gun, ha! ha!
Gun upon gun, hurrah!	105
Don John of Austria
Has loosed the cannonade.
The Pope was in his chapel before day or battle broke,
(Don John of Austria is hidden in the smoke.)
The hidden room in man's house where God sits all the year,	110
The secret window whence the world looks small and very dear.
He sees as in a mirror on the monstrous twilight sea
The crescent of his cruel ships whose name is mystery;
They fling great shadows foe-wards, making Cross and Castle dark,
They veil the plumèd lions on the galleys of St. Mark;	115
And above the ships are palaces of brown, black-bearded chiefs,
And below the ships are prisons, where with multitudinous griefs,
Christian captives sick and sunless, all a labouring race repines
Like a race in sunken cities, like a nation in the mines.
They are lost like slaves that sweat, and in the skies of morning hung	120
The stair-ways of the tallest gods when tyranny was young.
They are countless, voiceless, hopeless as those fallen or fleeing on
Before the high Kings' horses in the granite of Babylon.
And many a one grows witless in his quiet room in hell
Where a yellow face looks inward through the lattice of his cell,	125
And he finds his God forgotten, and he seeks no more a sign—
(But Don John of Austria has burst the battle-line!)
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop,
Purpling all the ocean like a bloody pirate's sloop,
Scarlet running over on the silvers and the golds,	130
Breaking of the hatches up and bursting of the holds,
Thronging of the thousands up that labour under sea
White for bliss and blind for sun and stunned for liberty.
Vivat Hispania!
Domino Gloria!	135
Don John of Austria
Has set his people free!
Cervantes on his galley sets the sword back in the sheath
(Don John of Austria rides homeward with a wreath.)
And he sees across a weary land a straggling road in Spain,	140
Up which a lean and foolish knight for ever rides in vain,
And he smiles, but not as Sultans smile, and settles back the blade....
(But Don John of Austria rides home from the Crusade.)

Live well!

Confederation, Federation, and Union

From 1867 to 1910AD, British colonies on three continents formed national governments within the British Commonwealth and Empire.  As the British colonies of the East Coast of North America formed the United States of America, so these colonies formed national governments to unite neighboring colonies, but did so within the confines of the British Empire, retaining their tie to the British monarchy.  These would be self-governing nations with a Prime Minister leading their goverment, but with a Governor-General appointed by the crown as representative of the monarch and as a kind of acting head of state.


Coat of Arms of the Dominion of Canada (left); Map of the original Confederation, provinces in white (right)

On 1 July 1867, four British colonies in North America formed a new Confederation of four provinces -- this was the birth of Canada.  Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario were the original member provinces that formed this New Dominion of Canada under Queen Victoria.  New provinces would be added, of course: Manitoba would join in 1870, British Columbia in 1871, Prince Edward Island in 1873, Alberta & Saskatchewan in 1905, and, finally, Newfoundland in 1949 (Newfoundland, since 1907AD, had been its own Dominion until its joining Canada).


Coat of Arms of Australia (left); Map of Australia (right).

In 1901AD, the six colonies of Australia formed a Federation, drafting a federal constitution, and gaining a Prime Minister.  These six self-governing colonies became the six states of the new nation of Australia: New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania.


Coat of Arms of New Zealand

New Zealand, once governed from New South Wales, received a similar dominion status in 1907AD, as its own entity as we know it today.


Coat of Arms of the Union of South Africa (left); Map of the Union (right.)

Finally in 1910AD, the four British colonies of the southern tip of Africa form the Union of South Africa as a dominion of the British Empire.  The four colonies were the Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, and Orange River Colony, which would become known as the Orange Free State.  In this case, the legislature would meet at Cape Town (Cape Colony), the Administrative capital would be Pretoria (in the Transvaal), and the high court would sit at Bloemfontein (Orange Free State).  Unlike Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, South Africa would, in 1961AD, abandon Dominion status and the British monarchy to become the Republic of South Africa.


Great Seal of the Irish Free State.

We might mention, in passing, the status of Ireland as a dominion as the Irish Free State starting in 1922 and ending with their full independence as the Republic of Ireland.

Live well!

Aristotle's Categories, Part III

The Philosopher, Aristotle (died 322BC), is certainly preeminent among the Greek philosophers.  His thought is nothing short of brilliant, and sets the bar for rational human reasoning.


A bust of Aristotle; a Roman copy of an original by Lysippos from 330BC.


His Categories, written around 350BC, were long a basic introduction to philosophical reasoning, a work that presented precisely what the name implies: the categories of existence.  Here we find substances and accidents, subjects and predicates.  This work is divided into 15 chapters, which I will present in three installments.  Below, you find the third and last...

The University of Adelaide in South Australia has also published a very attractive e-book of the Categories with the same translation: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/categories/

------------
ARISTOTLE'S CATEGORIES
Translated by E.M. Edghill

Part 9

Action and affection both admit of contraries and also of variation of degree. Heating is the contrary of cooling, being heated of being cooled, being glad of being vexed. Thus they admit of contraries. They also admit of variation of degree: for it is possible to heat in a greater or less degree; also to be heated in a greater or less degree. Thus action and affection also admit of variation of degree. So much, then, is stated with regard to these categories.

We spoke, moreover, of the category of position when we were dealing with that of relation, and stated that such terms derived their names from those of the corresponding attitudes.

As for the rest, time, place, state, since they are easily intelligible, I say no more about them than was said at the beginning, that in the category of state are included such states as 'shod', 'armed', in that of place 'in the Lyceum' and so on, as was explained before.

Part 10

The proposed categories have, then, been adequately dealt with.
We must next explain the various senses in which the term 'opposite' is used. Things are said to be opposed in four senses: (i) as correlatives to one another, (ii) as contraries to one another, (iii) as privatives to positives, (iv) as affirmatives to negatives.

Let me sketch my meaning in outline. An instance of the use of the word 'opposite' with reference to correlatives is afforded by the expressions 'double' and 'half'; with reference to contraries by 'bad' and 'good'. Opposites in the sense of 'privatives' and 'positives' are' blindness' and 'sight'; in the sense of affirmatives and negatives, the propositions 'he sits', 'he does not sit'.

(i) Pairs of opposites which fall under the category of relation are explained by a reference of the one to the other, the reference being indicated by the preposition 'of' or by some other preposition. Thus, double is a relative term, for that which is double is explained as the double of something. Knowledge, again, is the opposite of the thing known, in the same sense; and the thing known also is explained by its relation to its opposite, knowledge. For the thing known is explained as that which is known by something, that is, by knowledge. Such things, then, as are opposite the one to the other in the sense of being correlatives are explained by a reference of the one to the other.

(ii) Pairs of opposites which are contraries are not in any way interdependent, but are contrary the one to the other. The good is not spoken of as the good of the had, but as the contrary of the bad, nor is white spoken of as the white of the black, but as the contrary of the black. These two types of opposition are therefore distinct. Those contraries which are such that the subjects in which they are naturally present, or of which they are predicated, must necessarily contain either the one or the other of them, have no intermediate, but those in the case of which no such necessity obtains, always have an intermediate. Thus disease and health are naturally present in the body of an animal, and it is necessary that either the one or the other should be present in the body of an animal. Odd and even, again, are predicated of number, and it is necessary that the one or the other should be present in numbers. Now there is no intermediate between the terms of either of these two pairs. On the other hand, in those contraries with regard to which no such necessity obtains, we find an intermediate. Blackness and whiteness are naturally present in the body, but it is not necessary that either the one or the other should be present in the body, inasmuch as it is not true to say that everybody must be white or black. Badness and goodness, again, are predicated of man, and of many other things, but it is not necessary that either the one quality or the other should be present in that of which they are predicated: it is not true to say that everything that may be good or bad must be either good or bad. These pairs of contraries have intermediates: the intermediates between white and black are grey, sallow, and all the other colours that come between; the intermediate between good and bad is that which is neither the one nor the other.

Some intermediate qualities have names, such as grey and sallow and all the other colours that come between white and black; in other cases, however, it is not easy to name the intermediate, but we must define it as that which is not either extreme, as in the case of that which is neither good nor bad, neither just nor unjust.

(iii) 'privatives' and 'Positives' have reference to the same subject. Thus, sight and blindness have reference to the eye. It is a universal rule that each of a pair of opposites of this type has reference to that to which the particular 'positive' is natural. We say that that is capable of some particular faculty or possession has suffered privation when the faculty or possession in question is in no way present in that in which, and at the time at which, it should naturally be present. We do not call that toothless which has not teeth, or that blind which has not sight, but rather that which has not teeth or sight at the time when by nature it should. For there are some creatures which from birth are without sight, or without teeth, but these are not called toothless or blind.

To be without some faculty or to possess it is not the same as the corresponding 'privative' or 'positive'. 'Sight' is a 'positive', 'blindness' a 'privative', but 'to possess sight' is not equivalent to 'sight', 'to be blind' is not equivalent to 'blindness'. Blindness is a 'privative', to be blind is to be in a state of privation, but is not a 'privative'. Moreover, if 'blindness' were equivalent to 'being blind', both would be predicated of the same subject; but though a man is said to be blind, he is by no means said to be blindness.

To be in a state of 'possession' is, it appears, the opposite of being in a state of 'privation', just as 'positives' and 'privatives' themselves are opposite. There is the same type of antithesis in both cases; for just as blindness is opposed to sight, so is being blind opposed to having sight.

That which is affirmed or denied is not itself affirmation or denial. By 'affirmation' we mean an affirmative proposition, by 'denial' a negative. Now, those facts which form the matter of the affirmation or denial are not propositions; yet these two are said to be opposed in the same sense as the affirmation and denial, for in this case also the type of antithesis is the same. For as the affirmation is opposed to the denial, as in the two propositions 'he sits', 'he does not sit', so also the fact which constitutes the matter of the proposition in one case is opposed to that in the other, his sitting, that is to say, to his not sitting.

It is evident that 'positives' and 'privatives' are not opposed each to each in the same sense as relatives. The one is not explained by reference to the other; sight is not sight of blindness, nor is any other preposition used to indicate the relation. Similarly blindness is not said to be blindness of sight, but rather, privation of sight. Relatives, moreover, reciprocate; if blindness, therefore, were a relative, there would be a reciprocity of relation between it and that with which it was correlative. But this is not the case. Sight is not called the sight of blindness.

That those terms which fall under the heads of 'positives' and 'privatives' are not opposed each to each as contraries, either, is plain from the following facts: Of a pair of contraries such that they have no intermediate, one or the other must needs be present in the subject in which they naturally subsist, or of which they are predicated; for it is those, as we proved,' in the case of which this necessity obtains, that have no intermediate. Moreover, we cited health and disease, odd and even, as instances. But those contraries which have an intermediate are not subject to any such necessity. It is not necessary that every substance, receptive of such qualities, should be either black or white, cold or hot, for something intermediate between these contraries may very well be present in the subject. We proved, moreover, that those contraries have an intermediate in the case of which the said necessity does not obtain. Yet when one of the two contraries is a constitutive property of the subject, as it is a constitutive property of fire to be hot, of snow to be white, it is necessary determinately that one of the two contraries, not one or the other, should be present in the subject; for fire cannot be cold, or snow black. Thus, it is not the case here that one of the two must needs be present in every subject receptive of these qualities, but only in that subject of which the one forms a constitutive property. Moreover, in such cases it is one member of the pair determinately, and not either the one or the other, which must be present.

In the case of 'positives' and 'privatives', on the other hand, neither of the aforesaid statements holds good. For it is not necessary that a subject receptive of the qualities should always have either the one or the other; that which has not yet advanced to the state when sight is natural is not said either to be blind or to see. Thus 'positives' and 'privatives' do not belong to that class of contraries which consists of those which have no intermediate. On the other hand, they do not belong either to that class which consists of contraries which have an intermediate. For under certain conditions it is necessary that either the one or the other should form part of the constitution of every appropriate subject. For when a thing has reached the stage when it is by nature capable of sight, it will be said either to see or to be blind, and that in an indeterminate sense, signifying that the capacity may be either present or absent; for it is not necessary either that it should see or that it should be blind, but that it should be either in the one state or in the other. Yet in the case of those contraries which have an intermediate we found that it was never necessary that either the one or the other should be present in every appropriate subject, but only that in certain subjects one of the pair should be present, and that in a determinate sense. It is, therefore, plain that 'positives' and 'privatives' are not opposed each to each in either of the senses in which contraries are opposed.

Again, in the case of contraries, it is possible that there should be changes from either into the other, while the subject retains its identity, unless indeed one of the contraries is a constitutive property of that subject, as heat is of fire. For it is possible that that that which is healthy should become diseased, that which is white, black, that which is cold, hot, that which is good, bad, that which is bad, good. The bad man, if he is being brought into a better way of life and thought, may make some advance, however slight, and if he should once improve, even ever so little, it is plain that he might change completely, or at any rate make very great progress; for a man becomes more and more easily moved to virtue, however small the improvement was at first. It is, therefore, natural to suppose that he will make yet greater progress than he has made in the past; and as this process goes on, it will change him completely and establish him in the contrary state, provided he is not hindered by lack of time. In the case of 'positives' and 'privatives', however, change in both directions is impossible. There may be a change from possession to privation, but not from privation to possession. The man who has become blind does not regain his sight; the man who has become bald does not regain his hair; the man who has lost his teeth does not grow his grow a new set. (iv) Statements opposed as affirmation and negation belong manifestly to a class which is distinct, for in this case, and in this case only, it is necessary for the one opposite to be true and the other false.

Neither in the case of contraries, nor in the case of correlatives, nor in the case of 'positives' and 'privatives', is it necessary for one to be true and the other false. Health and disease are contraries: neither of them is true or false. 'Double' and 'half' are opposed to each other as correlatives: neither of them is true or false. The case is the same, of course, with regard to 'positives' and 'privatives' such as 'sight' and 'blindness'. In short, where there is no sort of combination of words, truth and falsity have no place, and all the opposites we have mentioned so far consist of simple words.

At the same time, when the words which enter into opposed statements are contraries, these, more than any other set of opposites, would seem to claim this characteristic. 'Socrates is ill' is the contrary of 'Socrates is well', but not even of such composite expressions is it true to say that one of the pair must always be true and the other false. For if Socrates exists, one will be true and the other false, but if he does not exist, both will be false; for neither 'Socrates is ill' nor 'Socrates is well' is true, if Socrates does not exist at all.

In the case of 'positives' and 'privatives', if the subject does not exist at all, neither proposition is true, but even if the subject exists, it is not always the fact that one is true and the other false. For 'Socrates has sight' is the opposite of 'Socrates is blind' in the sense of the word 'opposite' which applies to possession and privation. Now if Socrates exists, it is not necessary that one should be true and the other false, for when he is not yet able to acquire the power of vision, both are false, as also if Socrates is altogether non-existent.

But in the case of affirmation and negation, whether the subject exists or not, one is always false and the other true. For manifestly, if Socrates exists, one of the two propositions 'Socrates is ill', 'Socrates is not ill', is true, and the other false. This is likewise the case if he does not exist; for if he does not exist, to say that he is ill is false, to say that he is not ill is true. Thus it is in the case of those opposites only, which are opposite in the sense in which the term is used with reference to affirmation and negation, that the rule holds good, that one of the pair must be true and the other false.

Part 11

That the contrary of a good is an evil is shown by induction: the contrary of health is disease, of courage, cowardice, and so on. But the contrary of an evil is sometimes a good, sometimes an evil. For defect, which is an evil, has excess for its contrary, this also being an evil, and the mean. which is a good, is equally the contrary of the one and of the other. It is only in a few cases, however, that we see instances of this: in most, the contrary of an evil is a good.

In the case of contraries, it is not always necessary that if one exists the other should also exist: for if all become healthy there will be health and no disease, and again, if everything turns white, there will be white, but no black. Again, since the fact that Socrates is ill is the contrary of the fact that Socrates is well, and two contrary conditions cannot both obtain in one and the same individual at the same time, both these contraries could not exist at once: for if that Socrates was well was a fact, then that Socrates was ill could not possibly be one.

It is plain that contrary attributes must needs be present in subjects which belong to the same species or genus. Disease and health require as their subject the body of an animal; white and black require a body, without further qualification; justice and injustice require as their subject the human soul.

Moreover, it is necessary that pairs of contraries should in all cases either belong to the same genus or belong to contrary genera or be themselves genera. White and black belong to the same genus, colour; justice and injustice, to contrary genera, virtue and vice; while good and evil do not belong to genera, but are themselves actual genera, with terms under them.

Part 12

There are four senses in which one thing can be said to be 'prior' to another. Primarily and most properly the term has reference to time: in this sense the word is used to indicate that one thing is older or more ancient than another, for the expressions 'older' and 'more ancient' imply greater length of time.

Secondly, one thing is said to be 'prior' to another when the sequence of their being cannot be reversed. In this sense 'one' is 'prior' to 'two'. For if 'two' exists, it follows directly that 'one' must exist, but if 'one' exists, it does not follow necessarily that 'two' exists: thus the sequence subsisting cannot be reversed. It is agreed, then, that when the sequence of two things cannot be reversed, then that one on which the other depends is called 'prior' to that other.

In the third place, the term 'prior' is used with reference to any order, as in the case of science and of oratory. For in sciences which use demonstration there is that which is prior and that which is posterior in order; in geometry, the elements are prior to the propositions; in reading and writing, the letters of the alphabet are prior to the syllables. Similarly, in the case of speeches, the exordium is prior in order to the narrative.

Besides these senses of the word, there is a fourth. That which is better and more honourable is said to have a natural priority. In common parlance men speak of those whom they honour and love as 'coming first' with them. This sense of the word is perhaps the most far-fetched.

Such, then, are the different senses in which the term 'prior' is used.

Yet it would seem that besides those mentioned there is yet another. For in those things, the being of each of which implies that of the other, that which is in any way the cause may reasonably be said to be by nature 'prior' to the effect. It is plain that there are instances of this. The fact of the being of a man carries with it the truth of the proposition that he is, and the implication is reciprocal: for if a man is, the proposition wherein we allege that he is true, and conversely, if the proposition wherein we allege that he is true, then he is. The true proposition, however, is in no way the cause of the being of the man, but the fact of the man's being does seem somehow to be the cause of the truth of the proposition, for the truth or falsity of the proposition depends on the fact of the man's being or not being.

Thus the word 'prior' may be used in five senses.

Part 13

The term 'simultaneous' is primarily and most appropriately applied to those things the genesis of the one of which is simultaneous with that of the other; for in such cases neither is prior or posterior to the other. Such things are said to be simultaneous in point of time. Those things, again, are 'simultaneous' in point of nature, the being of each of which involves that of the other, while at the same time neither is the cause of the other's being. This is the case with regard to the double and the half, for these are reciprocally dependent, since, if there is a double, there is also a half, and if there is a half, there is also a double, while at the same time neither is the cause of the being of the other.

Again, those species which are distinguished one from another and opposed one to another within the same genus are said to be 'simultaneous' in nature. I mean those species which are distinguished each from each by one and the same method of division. Thus the 'winged' species is simultaneous with the 'terrestrial' and the 'water' species. These are distinguished within the same genus, and are opposed each to each, for the genus 'animal' has the 'winged', the 'terrestrial', and the 'water' species, and no one of these is prior or posterior to another; on the contrary, all such things appear to be 'simultaneous' in nature. Each of these also, the terrestrial, the winged, and the water species, can be divided again into subspecies. Those species, then, also will be 'simultaneous' point of nature, which, belonging to the same genus, are distinguished each from each by one and the same method of differentiation.

But genera are prior to species, for the sequence of their being cannot be reversed. If there is the species 'water-animal', there will be the genus 'animal', but granted the being of the genus 'animal', it does not follow necessarily that there will be the species 'water-animal'.

Those things, therefore, are said to be 'simultaneous' in nature, the being of each of which involves that of the other, while at the same time neither is in any way the cause of the other's being; those species, also, which are distinguished each from each and opposed within the same genus. Those things, moreover, are 'simultaneous' in the unqualified sense of the word which come into being at the same time.

Part 14

There are six sorts of movement: generation, destruction, increase, diminution, alteration, and change of place.

It is evident in all but one case that all these sorts of movement are distinct each from each. Generation is distinct from destruction, increase and change of place from diminution, and so on. But in the case of alteration it may be argued that the process necessarily implies one or other of the other five sorts of motion. This is not true, for we may say that all affections, or nearly all, produce in us an alteration which is distinct from all other sorts of motion, for that which is affected need not suffer either increase or diminution or any of the other sorts of motion. Thus alteration is a distinct sort of motion; for, if it were not, the thing altered would not only be altered, but would forthwith necessarily suffer increase or diminution or some one of the other sorts of motion in addition; which as a matter of fact is not the case. Similarly that which was undergoing the process of increase or was subject to some other sort of motion would, if alteration were not a distinct form of motion, necessarily be subject to alteration also. But there are some things which undergo increase but yet not alteration. The square, for instance, if a gnomon is applied to it, undergoes increase but not alteration, and so it is with all other figures of this sort. Alteration and increase, therefore, are distinct.

Speaking generally, rest is the contrary of motion. But the different forms of motion have their own contraries in other forms; thus destruction is the contrary of generation, diminution of increase, rest in a place, of change of place. As for this last, change in the reverse direction would seem to be most truly its contrary; thus motion upwards is the contrary of motion downwards and vice versa.

In the case of that sort of motion which yet remains, of those that have been enumerated, it is not easy to state what is its contrary. It appears to have no contrary, unless one should define the contrary here also either as 'rest in its quality' or as 'change in the direction of the contrary quality', just as we defined the contrary of change of place either as rest in a place or as change in the reverse direction. For a thing is altered when change of quality takes place; therefore either rest in its quality or change in the direction of the contrary may be called the contrary of this qualitative form of motion. In this way becoming white is the contrary of becoming black; there is alteration in the contrary direction, since a change of a qualitative nature takes place.

Part 15

The term 'to have' is used in various senses. In the first place it is used with reference to habit or disposition or any other quality, for we are said to 'have' a piece of knowledge or a virtue. Then, again, it has reference to quantity, as, for instance, in the case of a man's height; for he is said to 'have' a height of three or four cubits. It is used, moreover, with regard to apparel, a man being said to 'have' a coat or tunic; or in respect of something which we have on a part of ourselves, as a ring on the hand: or in respect of something which is a part of us, as hand or foot. The term refers also to content, as in the case of a vessel and wheat, or of a jar and wine; a jar is said to 'have' wine, and a corn-measure wheat. The expression in such cases has reference to content. Or it refers to that which has been acquired; we are said to 'have' a house or a field. A man is also said to 'have' a wife, and a wife a husband, and this appears to be the most remote meaning of the term, for by the use of it we mean simply that the husband lives with the wife.

Other senses of the word might perhaps be found, but the most ordinary ones have all been enumerated.

THE END

--------------

My text was taken from:
 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.3.3.html


Live well!