Letters correspondence carpe diem Latin

Animation courtesy of Jeannine Wilson

Wilson's Almanac

Letters 

Your almanackist receives many letters on many subjects.
It is intended that just a few of these will be featured on this page.

 

First up: this interesting correspondence (December, 2002) about 'carpe diem' between me and a reader named Dunc:

Dear Pip

You say on your site, 'Our mission: To give Wilson's Almanac readers many
reasons and many ways to Carpe diem! Seize the day!'

'carpe' is the imperative of 'carpo', I pluck, and thus 'carpe diem'
strictly means, 'Pluck (the fruits of) the day.'

The 'usual' translation, which you give, seems to arise from a confusion of
'carpo' with 'capio', I take, seize - thus 'seize the day' would be 'cape
diem'.

Dead Poets' Society has a lot to answer for; but the truth, no doubt, will
set you free.

Regards / Dunc

PS A pedantic point, perhaps, but Latin doesn't use capital letters at the
beginning of a sentence - only for proper names.  Thus 'Iulius Caesar', but
'carpe diem'.
Dunc

Dear Dunc

 

http://www.m-w.com/mw/textonly/wftw/98mar/032798.htm

 

It seems that Horace used the term carpe diem, and no less a figure than Lord Byron used it as well.

 

So I don't know whether to use 'cape diem - seize the day' or 'carpe diem - pluck the day'. I'm inclined to use the latter and set the readers a-thinking.

 

How is 'cape' pronounced, by the way? Is it a homophone of 'carpe'?

 

Any further ideas would be gratefully received.

 

Cheers

 

Pip

Dear Pip 

As you've noted, 'carpe diem' is from Horace's much-admired Odes - ode XI of Book 1, in line 8, to be precise. (Whether or not he was using an expression current in his day, and there's no evidence of it, it's through him that we know the phrase.) 'carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero', he said - pluck the day, trust tomorrow minimally. 

Horace was popular with the Romans, of course, but also tremendously popular with English men (almost always men) of letters, who routinely spoke, and often wrote, in Latin (and to some extent Greek). To pick up on the Miriam-Webster point in your citation, the author of Shakespeare clearly knew Latin, and must therefore have read Horace because there was no way of avoiding him - the 'Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare' school imagine him to have been a schoolmaster in his young days so as to provide him with Latin, as you know. Other phrases from Horace occasionally pop up - parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus ('mountains will labour, a silly little mouse will be born'); or - eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume, labentur anni 
('Alas, Postumus, Postumus, the fleeting years slip away' - it helps the flavour if you know the name Postumus means 'last-born'). 

The pronunciation of Latin in the classical period is of course lost to us, but its modern conventions are based on a lot of hard work and clever guessing. 'cape' sounds something like 'cappay' but (1) the 'a', while short, is not as far forward as the 'a' in 'bat' - it's back a tad towards 'ah'; (2) the 'e' is like 'e' in 'bet', and not a diphthong (e + i) as in English 'ay'; and (3) stress in Latin is a whole lot softer than in English, so the two syllables are of nearly equal value, with the first one 
(being the stem) slightly more prominent. 'carpe' sounds something like 'carpay' but (1) the 'a' is long, as in 'ah'; (2) you pronounce the 'r' separately 
(like the Americans do); and (3) the last syllable is pronounced as before, and the same comment about stress applies. 

That's doubtless more than you want to know, but it was fun to write. 

Regards / Dunc 

 

Dear Dunc, 

This was a great letter, and I took it all in. Thank you so much for writing it. I will, some time fairly soon, publish it in my ezine, just as today in the Dec 7 issue I published your first letter to me. 

I'm feeling that if on my website I change to cape diem I will need to add an explanatory note. I don't mind doing this, but I recoil from the idea of putting it on the 253 pages on which it occurs. It would seem like overkill. But if I don't, I run the risk of having 99% of readers think I've got it wrong, so how could they trust the rest of my work for accuracy. Hmmm, will have to work on this. Perhaps I will just hyperlink each occurrence to an explanation. That would look less messy. 

It's all been very interesting and educational for me. Thank you again. 

cape diem, 

Pip 

 

Nay, good Pip, change not a thing! Everyone reading your 'zine already 'knows' that Carpe diem means Seize the day (which, let's allow, renders the basic idea well enough). My instinctive reaction is that the text is sufficiently glossed for the actual meaning by the letters you print. 

floreat ezine tuum! 

Regards / Dunc 

Emails cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

Next is a letter from a great supporter of the Almanac, Sue Lockinger (Sep 20, 2002)

Pip,

I realize that you do not like things the US is doing. No one is perfect and everyone has their right to their opinion.

As a journalist though I would think you would want to show more than one side of things. Is the US the only country doing things you don't like?

Don't we do anything right as far as you are concerned?

The US citizens are one of the first to jump in and help in any kind of crisis no matter where in the world it is happening or what caused it.

How about reporting on some of the good things we do instead of picking on us all the time.

Sue Lockinger Mesa, AZ

 

Hi Sue

I presume you wouldn't have written forthrightly if you didn't expect me to
answer in a forthright fashion, nor to print this in the almanac, so here
goes.

I am critical not of the good people who live on the land where you live. I
am an Americophile who has long supported your country much to my own social
isolation. In the past I supported many aspects of US foreign policy,
including many in Africa, some in Central America, and most in Indo-China.
It was very unfashionable in this country to do so, but I stood with USA
democratic forces for three decades. There are still aspects of US foreign
policy I applaud, though fewer by the day. I think you will find that
outside the USA this is not unusual, and there is today a huge and growing
tide of opposition, not to the great American people, but to current
American foreign policy.

I am devoutly, constitutionally, congenitally pro-American. If it were not
for the USA, my life would today probably be ruled by Japanese Imperialist,
Nazi or Indo-Chinese Communist dictators. Despite Mr George W Bush, I am
still proud to be pro-American in a world that largely is not any longer,
and I continue to take criticism for being pro-American.

My criticism is directed not at Americans but at the cabal of mega-rich men
who are plotting a major war that is unnecessary and outrageous. We now know
that the dictator Hussein has met Bush's conditions, but a blind man can see
that they were false conditions and that military plans proceed apace in
Washington, London, Canberra and elsewhere. A bloodbath is being planned,
and no amount of sophistry by any politician can gloss that fact or make
wounds not hurt. It is likely that tens of thousands of innocent people will
be killed if the plotters' plans come off. And why? Not because Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction. Many countries have those, and Bush is not
planning to invade them. In fact, no country has such weapons in such
quantities as the USA, and surely no one would think that the people of your
country should be attacked with explosives for the sins of the American
military-industrial complex. The people of Iraq are unable to prevent their
leaders buying these weapons -- from America, Briatin, France, Germany, and
so on.

Perhaps 200,000 innocent people were killed last time my country's loonies
and yours invaded Iraq for Texaco, Esso, BP and the others that covet Iraqi
oil. Since then, as many as 500,000 children have died largely because of
the sanctions we "democratic and superior" nations imposed.

You must have noticed that I have also included in my writings, the loonies
in the UK, Australia and other places with regard to the Iraq issue.
However, Bush is the most dangerous of all with the vile weapons of mass
destruction with which he is obviously so eager to prove his statesmanship.

And then there are other dangerous "leaders" I regularly criticize, such as
those of China. Even as I write, the Butcher of Tien An Mien Square is being
hosted by the Prime Minister of my country -- what ezine do you know of that
so regularly attacks the Communist dictators of China? Or those of Burma,
Vietnam and Cuba? You haven't mentioned how much I wrote against the Taliban
months before September 11, 2001. I opposed the Taliban for 6 or 7 years
while few had ears to listen. People For Nuclear Disarmament in Australia
forbade my writings in their newsletter because I criticised the USSR at a
time that most peaceniks were attacking America. I resigned an excellent
position with a foreign aid agency (Austcare) because they were giving money to SWAPO
and the ANC at a time that both were engaged in terrorism. My journalistic
integrity, I think, is fairly intact.

You write that I do not show in my almanac what good comes from the USA. I
must vigorously dispute that assertion. Barely a day goes by that I do not
refer uncritically in some way to some positive aspect of American life, in
whichever field one can imagine. My readers regularly read of American
heroes and celebrities: Ben Franklin, Betsy Ross, Abraham Lincoln, Thoreau,
Emerson, Martin Luther King, Elvis Presley, Edison, JFK, Ronald Reagan,
American actors and actresses, and so on. Wilson's Almanac frequently
mentions American events, inventions, institutions, customs and holidays ...
no country comes anywhere near receiving the favourable "reporting" in my
writings than the USA -- and I include my own country of Australia.

As I see it, my friend Sue, there are several major issues in the world
today that require the committed focus of people of goodwill. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to put them in a scale of importance. I refer
to the military might and the ideological commitments of the most populous
and murderous dictatorship in human history, namely, The People's Republic
of China; the destruction of the planet's environment by the economic forces
of "globalization" (headquartered in cities such as New York, London and
Tokyo), and the rise in the United States of America of militaristic
expansionism and cultural imperialism.

I doubt these are words you want to hear from me, but I believe these things
deeply and I have to say that beyond the fun and entertainment and
inspiration for positive living with which I try to inform my almanac, my
conscience will not permit me to write dispassionately about evils as I see
them in the world. It is not in my nature to do so, and I believe it is not
in the interests of Wilson's Almanac to be soft on those who trample basic,
decent human values.

In closing, may I say that the United States of America is undoubtedly a
great nation. Perhaps not the "greatest nation" as Mr Bush tells his
constituents, because many nations are great in many ways and for many
reasons. The people of China are a great people. The people of Nigeria are a
great people. So are those of Australia, Germany, Fiji and Nepal. Yes, the
USA helps with crises around the world, but comes about 18th on the list
(per capita) of nations that give foreign aid. under Bush, the USA is one of
the worst global citizens, refusing to support the World Court, the Kyoto
Protocol on global warming, and many other pressing initiatives. Outside the
propaganda and the mini-mind of Mr Bush, I regret to say, the USA has lost
its lustre in the world, and that is not of my doing.

The people of Iraq are a great people as well, and having suffered under
cruel and evil dictatorship, how can we not demand that our political
leaders use their vast resources to find non-violent ways to help the Iraqis
escape their plight? One never, ever hears our political servants calling
for suggestions on that score, nor does any nation invest the large sums of
money in peace that they all do in war. Personally, I cast my lot with the
peacemakers and opponents of totalitarianism.

I regret to disappoint you by saying that I haven't even started yet.

Thank you, Sue, I have always very much appreciated your letters and your
support as an advertiser and friend, and thank you for this considered
letter. All good wishes, and happy Equinox.

Abundance and gratitude,

Pip

Now for a letter from Billy of the USA. His letter, published in the October 18, '02 Almanac, is a response to Pip's editorial of October 14, '02, which was on the subject of the terrorist bombing at Kuta Beach, Bali on October 12, '02.

PIP,                                                             

I wish to express my sorrow at the loss of life in Bali.
However I STRONGLY disagree at your ASSUMPTION Pres.Bush is inciting terrorism. As a young PROUD american..... To me thats an insult,if you believe Saddam Hussien is just "misunderstood",then you just dont get reality..and unfortunetly probably never will. Have you ever seen young Kurd boys lined up and shot? Did you see the film of thousands of men,women,babies killed my Hussiens chemical weapons? Muslim Clerics ARE the ones that incite anger and hopelessness in thier youth. They desire a world wide islamic state,THEY STATE THIS OVER AND OVER! leftest in america will use propaghanda to *TRY* and support "the big bad USA " thing..but the majority of americans are smart enough to realize this is NONESENSE (TG!) You can buy thier *Ridiculous* JIVE,but i dont appreciate it from you or your ezine. Pres Bush is trying to PREVENT a massive tragedy that could make 9-11 pale...if he doesnt ..and a nuke dirty bomb goes off in america...then weak liberals such as yourself will be as much responsible as the scumbag terrorist themselves. And thats not going to be pretty my freind. Im HAPPILY unsubscribing from your ezine,cause frankly ..you make me sick now. On ALL my websites,i will express my outrage at your ignorance,hundreds of innocent Aussie youth are dead..and you want to give the REAL killers a get out of jail free card,because of your misguided politics. sad...sad..sad..

Sincerely,
Billy

 

Dear Billy,

 

Thank you for your letter. I admire you very much for the passionate feelings that the senseless slaughter of hundreds of people has aroused in your heart. I believe that the cause of peace is favoured as long as there are sincere people like yourself who are morally outraged by slaughter.

 

Although we shall have to agree to disagree on some things, and I won't argue them with you, I feel it necessary to answer some things you wrote.

 

I have never believed, and have never written, that Saddam Hussein is "just misunderstood", so if you have been insulted, it can not have been by me. In fact, my editorial didn't mention Hussein at all. I do, however, consider him to be a political monster and scarcely misunderstood at all. Almost all agree his philosophy and actions are a blight on the world. Many of his policies are palpably corrupt and dangerous.

 

Perhaps you are conflating the 'War on Terrorism' with the planned invasion of Iraq, but they are two very different wars. Iraq is, as you know, a sovereign nation just to the north of Saudi Arabia that has a population of 22,675,617 (July 2000 est.), 42 per cent of them children under the age of 14 (male 4,860,795; female 4,708,453). One of my tasks and duties in life is to labour to prevent men and women killing any of those children, if I can. The last time your country and mine invaded Iraq, thus incurring the justifiable anger of many people in many nations, many scores of thousands of innocent civilians were unnecessarily killed and maimed. Some estimates are as high as 200,000 and some even more. They are not mere statistics, they are our brothers and sisters on a very small planet. Most were innocent citizens like you and me.

 

I believe that this crime against humanity, and the fact that the American and Australian people were told falsely that there were minimal casualties, behoves "proud Americans" and proud Australians to strive to prevent such evil happening again. We must strive not to be proud of our countries when they perform as an axis of evil, but we must educate them, and sometimes oppose them. Enlightenment and education, not bombs, are the prescription for ignorance and evil, whether in Iraq, Australia or America. I think this is rather Jeffersonian and thus American in tenor. Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 24, 1816, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."

 

One must bear in mind that most of the terrorists of 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. You might have noticed, however, that President Bush doesn't propose to invade Saudi Arabia. Have you ever stopped to wonder why? Some commentators say it is because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. However, Pakistan has these as well, like many other nations. Yet US foreign policy is not to invade Pakistan. US policy is to stand side by side with Pakistan.

 

Is it because Iraq is not a democracy? But Pakistan is a military state ruled by unelected generals.

 

Israel and America have weapons of mass destruction: biological, nuclear and chemical. Yet Britain does not propose to invade your country, but Iraq. Surely these facts must raise doubts in your mind. Are you not more concerned about nuclear weapons already in the hands of Pakistani generals, weapons they have threatened to use, than about those that might one day be manufactured in Iraq? Both are awesome worries, but first things first, I would have thought. I ask this because it is you that raises the nuclear question.

 

You asked if I saw the film regarding Hussein's despicable gassing of Kurdish civilians. Yes, I saw it 13 or so years ago at about the time I was supporting Kurdish refugees from Iraq, victims of Hussein. Do you know where Hussein got the chemicals from? The USA and Britain gave them to him. Former President Clinton publicly affirmed this last week. The United Nations tells us that 1.4 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-imposed sanctions, which is three thousand times more than the number of Kurds who died of gassing at the hands of Hussein.

 

I must say that it seems to me that the goal of the TNCs (transnational corporations) that have their their hands on the tiller of US and British foreign policy is, I believe, is 3 trillion dollars' worth of oil under Iraqi soil. War is usually about such matters, rather than about morality. Morality is usually an arcane concept discussed and debated by passionate, morally concerned people such as you and me, rather than by stockholders or managers.

 

Finally, please accept that I did not write that President Bush is "inciting terrorism". I believe that he is provoking terrorism. The two are not the same, and the difference is highly significant. I actually believe that Mr Bush believes that terrorism will be decreased by force of arms against the dispossessed and angry. I believe he is 180 degrees wrong. It seems to me that terrorism will increase in your country and mine under Bush's policies. Like you, I write with conviction in order to prevent that eventuality. You have not yet persuaded me that I am taking the wrong course, but if you do convince me, I will change that course.

 

I take the liberty to note here that there are many good websites that link to other sites that examine the current dangers to America (and the world) from current US foreign policy. Two excellent places to start are www.wilsonsalmanac.com/news.html and http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/links/newsandnewsfeeds.html

 

Thank you again for taking the time to write, and best wishes.

 

Carpe diem!

 

Pip

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Harry S Truman

Too easy

----- Original Message ----- From: Alejandra To: pipwilson[at]acay.com.au Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:06 AM

Subject: Ignorant


To whom it may concern,
I accidentally stumbled on your site and your ignorance is obvious. I didn't even need to read anything. The titles say it all. Calling Mary a goddess, relating Jesus to others people and converting heathen myths to truth is twisting lies to conform to your own pathetic view. Faith is what it is FAITH. If you knew Salvation history you wouldn't write such rubbish. Look at the picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe. If she were a "goddess" as you say would she be facing down? Look at the position of her hand: in prayer. Praying to who? God. Near her neck the sign of the cross. In her womb the light of the world: Jesus the Christ. She has no divinity on her own. God chose her from the beginning to be true God yet true man. He receives his human body from Mary's Fiat, her yes. She is preserved from any stain of sin in advance because she is destined to be Jesus's mother. And Jesus being God, it would be unthinkable that he would be born from a sinner. She has no divinity, no power unless it is given to her by God. Look at what she says during her apparitions: Pray not to me but to God through me. Jesus gave us his mother at the foot of the cross not as a goddess but as a mother. She is a mother leading us to her son. People like you full of ignorance, you give Catholics a bad name. People think we adore Mary and that is by no means allowed. Ever. Yes, she has a very important role in Salvation history, but she is not, I repeat, not a goddess. We adore 1 God: Our Father (who created us), Son (Jesus who died for us) and the Holy Spirit ( who keeps making us better). Research Catholicism history especially the Cathechism. I challenge you to. It's easy to see things from the surface and come up with unbased ideas, it's not so easy to dig and research. Your theories and parallels are based on your own ignorance. I will pray for you.

[Unsigned]

Howdy Mr Wilson, 

Greetings from Tassie Down Under, lovely website you have. 

As I read of your site being part of Pagan network, I thought I’d better say “hello” from the neighbours. It was while browsing for some of my sermon preparation to look up Mr Eternity that I was directed to your almanac. 

Only to make your Millennium problems worse. I have done some thinking on the subject, wavering to and fro and back again, holding the mathematical inclusive view you share on the web. With one major difference: it is not January that marks the changeover but the end of March 2001. The ancient Anno Domini was inclusive, but does not refer to the birth of Christ, but to his actual arrival on earth in the incarnation. Early medieval documents speak about “in the year of the incarnation of the Lord”, until Gregory most of the western world had an annunciation year starting in late March for this reason, and if I am not very much mistaken this continued in Britain and some other protestant countries until far in the eighteenth century. 

Of course one can celebrate any millennium at any time as one pleases. We can organise our own one today. But to celebrate the Millennium is another matter entirely. Perhaps January 2000 and even 2001 is the celebration of a few hundred years old interpretation of the implications of a calendar reform by Gregory as late as the sixteenth century, a celebration of an interpretation that is not even a millennium old. 

I leave you to it, thank you for making your interesting almanac available on the web! 

Cheers, 

Dr Benno Alexander Zuiddam 

Launceston, Tasmania

Australia

You make some excellent points, Dr Zuiddam, and I have learned something, for which thanks. I wasn't aware that the setting of Anno Domini was from the date of incarnation rather than the actual birth of Jesus Christ. Thanks for the information. 

The early Church would generally have understood the Vernal Equinox to be the commencement of the year, an ancient practice that is eminently sensible (far more sensible than our January 1, in my view), and still the custom for Muslims and many others today. (I have a little background on the origins of our calendar at http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/greg.html  that might interest you.) 

The question of whether the setting of the date of Annunciation at March 25 post- or pre-dated the setting of the Nativity at December 25 is a moot point, though I presume that Christmas was the first arbitrary date arrived at, as it was customary for many ancient gods and saviours to be born at the (old) Winter Solstice. (I refer you to http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html  for a little on this.) Thus, if Jesus was born at the customary December 25, he would have had to have been conceived on March 25. 

As you know, a lot of our calendar of days and months is very arbitrary, and, as you point out, so it is when applied to the centuries and millennia. No doubt, it's impossible to devise one that isn't arbitrary. 

Thanks very much for writing, 

carpe diem, 

Pip Wilson

Hello Pip,
May this hat bring you joy and outrageous freedom. Like the Pied Piper, you are a path finder, jester and magus.
Just to know your magic and wisdom is making a difference in the world. No matter if people respond or not.
  I am a performer, did my original art expression in New York for 18 years. There were times I just thought I must be crazy because people sat so still and inwardly observing while I was performing and delivering the Message. Everybody told me how much they love my work, but few people really gave the financial support.
To know is the key. Be well and free,
Star Light,
WA, USA

Here's me & the hat, Star Light, and I really love it!! Many thanks for my very own wizard hat.

More letters will be added periodically

Tell friends about this page