Category: Vocabulary

Melum ut in pluribus

I am having trouble understanding the above Latin expression. I encountered it in Theodor Haecker, Kierkegaard the Cripple (tr. C. Van O. Bruyn, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950) in the passage:

Not only for Augustine, but also for that Christian whose teaching is most perfectly harmonious, Thomas Aquinas, the evil in the world was always in the majority. Melum ut in pluribus. This must never be forgotten, nor was it in Kierkegaard's judgment. (pp. 29-30)

My first question: why melum and not malum?

Second question: where in Thomas can we find melum ut in pluribus?

Wiktionary informs us:

Borrowed from Ancient Greek μῆλον (mêlon). Doublet of mālum, from dialectal Ancient Greek μᾶλον (mâlon). First attested in Petronius.

Now mēlum n (genitive mēlī) means apple, and malum, mali means evil, adversity, torment, misery, punishment, etc.  This answers my first question but gives rise to a third: Is there some connection here with the Adam and Eve story in the Garden? 

Fourth question: I don't recall ever seeing the word 'apple' in my English versions of Genesis. Is there in the original text of Genesis a word that translates as 'apple'?  

Fifth question:  I don't understand ut in this context.  Wiktionary says it can be used as an adverb or as a conjunction. But it doesn't seem to be used in either way in melum ut in pluribus.

Here are some other Latin phrases most of which my astute readers already know. 

Word of the Day: Triolet

Here:

An eight-line stanza having just two rhymes and repeating the first line as the fourth and seventh lines, and the second line as the eighth. See Sandra McPherson’s “Triolet” or “Triolets in the Argolid” by Rachel Hadas. 

Return
 
The taste is strong as ever,
figs and cheese and wine.
I recall each savor;
the taste is strong as ever,
even if it will never
be quite so fresh again.
The taste is strong as ever,
figs and cheese and wine.
……………………
 
I will now try to write a triolet.
 
Hooked
 
The ancient lures entice me still,
Property, pelf, and power.
Even if against my will,
The ancient lures entice me still.
Despite advancing age and wisdom's rise,
Their grip on me is unreleasing.
The ancient lures entice me still,
Property, pelf, and  power.
…………………………
 
But I'm no poet, and I know it, so there's no way I could blow it.

Sub-distinguishing the lie?

What does "sub-distinguishing the lie" mean in the following passage from A. J. A. Symons, The Quest for Corvo: An Experiment in Biography (NYRB, 2001, p. 73):

He [Frederick Rolfe, a.k.a. 'Baron Corvo'] was wont to condemn the alleged laxity of the Roman Communion in the matter of truthfulness, and its sub-distinguishing the lie. He himself, brought up a strict Anglican, had all the Anglican horror of lying and equivocation of every description. He seemed to be quite serious about it, which surprised us, as he was universally regarded as about the biggest liar that we had ever met.

What I want to know is what it means to sub-distinguish a lie, and I need examples of this alleged laxity of the Roman Communion in the matter of truthfulness.

Paging Dave Lull.  And a tip of the hat to reader Hector C.  for recommending Symons' intriguing book.

……………..

Addendum (8/2/24): Dave Lull to the rescue.  Mr. Lull writes, "I wonder whether the author means the distinguishing of the lie from “mental reservation.”  That's it, I think; bang on the link and see if you don't agree. 

The philosophy of lying is especially germane these days inasmuch as the Biden administration is composed from top to bottom of  serial, brazen liars, bullshitters, and prevaricators of every conceivable stripe, not to mention Orwellian language subverters.  (The Orwellian 180, as I like to call it, goes well beyond lying as I will explain later, and is far more pernicious.) A first-rate example of language subversion was provided by Alejandro Mayorkas, head of — wait for it — Homeland Security (sic!), when he said that the border is secure "as we define secure."  Alright buddy, but then you are literally a horse's ass as I define horse's ass. What's your game, pal? Are you the head honcho of the Reconquista?

Now who is this Dave Lull fellow? Here is a tribute of mine from 2011, with links to tributes from others:

Who is Dave Lull?

If you are a blogger, then perhaps you too have been the recipient of his terse emails informing one of this or that blogworthy tidbit.  Who is this Dave Lull guy anyway?  Patrick Kurp of Anecdotal Evidence provides an answer:

As Pascal said of God (no blasphemy intended) Dave is the circle whose center is everywhere in the blogosphere and whose circumference is nowhere. He is a blogless unmoved mover. He is the lubricant that greases the machinery of half the online universe worth reading. He is copy editor, auxiliary conscience and friend. He is, in short, the OWL – Omnipresent Wisconsin Librarian.

For other tributes to the ever-helpful Lull see here.  Live long, Dave, and grease on!

‘Arguable’: a Near-Contronym

'Arguable' is a word that a careful writer, one who strives for clarity of expression, should probably avoid.  I have always used it to mean: it may be plausibly argued that.  But then I noticed that some use it to mean: open to dispute, questionable.  These two meanings, though not polar opposites, are inconsistent.  

The two meanings of  the verb 'cleave,' however, are polar opposites: to stick together (intransitive) and to split apart (transitive).  Merriam-Webster:

Cleave is part of an exclusive lexical club whose members are known as contronyms: words that have two meanings that contradict one another. In the case of cleave the two meanings belong to two etymologically distinct words. One cleave means “to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly,” as in “a family that cleaves to tradition”; it comes from the Old English verb clifian, meaning “to adhere.” The cleave with meanings relating to splitting and dividing comes from a different Old English word, clēofan, meaning “to split.” So although one might assume the two were once cleaved to one another only to become cloven over time, such is not the case!

One is never done learning the mother tongue. Mine is English. I fancy myself a worthy son who honors his mother, a mother who is also a mistress whom I will never master. 

Just the other day, my assiduous editor, Tony Flood, pointed out that my use of 'enjoin' in a manuscript he is helping me prepare for publication, though a correct use, was ambiguous in the manner of 'cleave.'  Now I have a keen nose for ambiguity, both syntactic  and semantic, but this ambiguity had escaped me all these years. The verb 'enjoin' can mean  either "to direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition" or "forbid, prohibit." I had been laboring under the misapprehension that it carried only the first meaning.

All hail to the mistress we will never master, our alma mater, the matrix of our musings, the sacred enabler of our thoughts.

This is why, to keep with the maternal metaphor, the subversion of language is the mother of all subversion.

Word of the Day: Anfractuous

Merriam-Webster:
: full of windings and intricate turnings : TORTUOUS
 
The Unbreakable Anfractuous

Plots and paths can be anfractuous. They twist and turn but do not break. Never mind that the English word comes ultimately from the Latin verb frangere, meaning "to break." (Frangere is also the source of fracture, fraction, fragment, and frail.) But one of the steps between frangere and anfractuous is Latin anfractus, meaning "coil, bend." The prefix an- here means "around." At first, anfractuous was all about ears and the auditory canal's anfractuosity, that is, its being curved rather than straight. Anfractuous has been around for centuries, without a break, giving it plenty of time to wind its way into other applications; e.g., there can be an anfractuous thought process or an anfractuous shoreline.

Word of the Day: Perseveration

Leftists want to limit your vocabulary so as to limit your thought and make you easier to control.  They want total control. David Horowitz says it well on his masthead, "Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out."  (When a transgressive calls herself 'progressive,' you know there's a cesspool of mendacity up ahead.)

perseveration /pər-sĕv″ə-rā′shən/
 
noun
  1. Uncontrollable repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.
  2. The tendency to continue or repeat an act or activity after the cessation of the original stimulus.
  3. The act or an instance of persevering; perseverance.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

 

Word of the Day: ‘Phatic’

phatic /făt′ĭk/
 
adjective
  1. Of or relating to communication used to perform a social function rather than to convey information or ideas.
  2. Pertaining to words used to convey any kind of social relationship e.g polite mood, rather than meaning; for example, "How are you?" is often not a literal question but is said only as a greeting. (Similarly, a response such as "Fine" is often not an accurate answer, but merely an acknowledgement of the greeting.).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
 
Don't confuse 'phatic' with 'vatic.' 
 
vatic /văt′ĭk/
 
adjective
  1. Of or characteristic of a prophet; oracular.
  2. Pertaining to a prophet; prophetic, oracular.
  3. Resembling or characteristic of a prophet or prophecy.
    "a kind of sibylline book with ready and infallible answers to questions"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

Allyship?

Explained here. Is this a parody?

Word found here:

“I started to see these intelligent, educated people, whose mission is to make our system better for people of color, suddenly posting all this anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian stuff,” Rose said. “I’m not changing my values, but screw the allyship. I will not stop fighting, because I believe in the causes themselves. But as for going out of my way to support, to post, to give money? I’m done.”

Word of the Day: Peritus

Merriam-Webster: "an expert (as in theology or canon law) who advises and assists the hierarchy (as in the drafting of schemata) at a Vatican council."

I was sent to the dictionary by this communication from Tony Flood:

Bill, I remember Lonergan and other Vatican II periti refer[ring] disparagingly (in their writings) to the "theology of the manuals," publications approved for student-seminarian use. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, published the 262-page book in question [Renard's Philosophy of Being] , its second edition (mine is the 7th printing, 1950, of a 1943 book). The title page is stamped "St. Charles Seminary Library, Staten Island, N.Y." and the next page bears an Imprimi potest and Imprimatur. [Edward] Feser refers to Renard's The Philosophy of Being as a "textbook." Structurally sound, no marks on any page, but it wears its 70+ years of handling on its cloth cover (no paper cover). 

Tony's unloading from his library. I never unload; I just buy more. There's always space for more books. You make space. Commit territorial aggression against your wife's book shelves; invade her capacious closets; get rid of furniture. Books before bread. "Man does not live by bread alone."

Rudyard Kipling

“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”

In these trying times, 'lead' is a precious metal.

The Bookman and the Rifleman

You know things are getting bad when a bookman must also be a rifleman if he intends to keep his private library safe from the depredations of leftist thugs who are out to 'de-colonize' it. You cannot reach these evil-doers with arguments, for it is not the plane of reason that they inhabit; there are, however, other ways to each them. The gentle caress of sweet reason must sometimes give way to the hard fist of unreason.

This raises an important moral question. Are there cultural artifacts so precious that violence against humans in their defense is justified?  I should think so. For those out to 'cancel' high culture have no qualms about 'cancelling,' i.e., murdering its creators.  That is one consideration. But also: haven't the barbarians forfeited their (normative) humanity to such an extent that they no longer deserve moral consideration? Do they form a moral community with us at all?

I am just asking. Or is inquiry now verboten?