Thōmās Mōrus
"Itaque hanc tōtam rem in mediō posuit, & quid crēdendum putāret liberum cuique relīquit(1).
Nisi quod sanctē ac seuērē uetuit, nē quis usque adeō ab hūmānae nātūrae dignitāte dēgeneret, ut animās quoque interīre cum corpore, aut mundum temere ferrī, sublātā prōuidentiā putet. atque ideō post hanc uītam supplicia uitijs dēcrēta, uirtūtī praemia constitūta crēdunt. contrā sentientem, nē in hominum quidem dūcunt numerō, ut quī sublīmem animae suae nātūram, ad pecuīnī corpusculī uīlitātem dēiēcerit, tantum abest ut inter cīuēs pōnant, quōrum institūta, mōrēsque (sī per metum liceat) omnēs, floccīfactūrus sit(2).
Cui enim dubium esse potest, quīn is pūblicās patriae lēgēs, aut arte clam ēlūdere, aut uī nītātur infringere, dum suae prīuātim cupiditātī seruiat, cui nullus ultrā lēgēs metus, nihil ultrā corpus speī superest amplius.
Quamobrem sīc animātō nullus commūnicātur honōs, nullus magistrātus committitur, nullī pūblicō mūnerī praeficitur.
Ita passim uelut inertis, ac iacentis nātūrae despicitur.
Caeterum nullō afficiunt suppliciō, quod persuāsum habeant, nullī hoc in manū esse, ut quicquid libet, sentiat; sed nec minīs adigunt ullīs, animum ut dissimulet suum, nec fūcōs (3) admittunt, & mendācia, quae uelut proxima fraudī, mīrum quam habent inuīsa.
Uērum nē prō suā disputet sententiā prohibent, atque id duntāxat apud uulgus.
Nam aliōquīn apud sacerdōtēs, grāuēsque uirōs seorsum, non sinunt modo, sed hortantur quoque, confīsī fore, ut ea tandem uēsānia ratiōnī cēdat".
(1) Ūtopus, reī pūblicae Ūtopiensis institūtor, cīvibus concessit ut quam cuique religiōnem libeat sequī queat.
(2) "Floccī facere" est parvī aestimāre, tantī quidem quantī valet floccus, id est, lanārum particula inūtiliter ēvolans.
(3) Translātē "fūcus" pro simulatiōne et fallāciā valet. Quae translātio ad hunc modum ēnōdarī potest: propriē est "fūcus" frutex marīnus ad purpuram faciendam; hinc nōmen factum est ipsī purpurae vel etiam colōri purpuram imitantī, tum generātim cuicumque colōrī nōn sincērō et nātūrālī, atque etiam cuicumque dictō vel factō fallācī dolōsō mendācī.
De imāgo: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintura_renacentista#/media/File:Tiziano_-_Amor_Sacro_y_Amor_Profano_(Galer%C3%ADa_Borghese,_Roma,_1514).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Alexander Isaī fīlius Solženicyn
Ex ōrātiōne A World Split Apart habitā in Universitāte Hardvardiānā annō Dominī MCMDXXVIII
"The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man's physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones".
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario