1. Lateinischer Text

Si quid est in me ingeni, iudices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum, aut si qua exercitatio dicendi, in qua me non infitior mediocriter esse versatum, aut si huiusce rei ratio aliqua ab optimarum artium studiis ac disciplina profecta, a qua ego nullum confiteor aetatis meae tempus abhorruisse, earum rerum omnium vel in primis hic A. Licinius fructum a me repetere prope suo iure debet.

Quelle: Cicero: Pro Archia Poeta
Textkritische Oxford-Edition: M. Tulli Ciceronis orationes 6, ed. Albertus Curtis Clark, Oxford 1968.

2. Wörtliche Übersetzung

Ihr Richter, wenn irgendetwas an Talent in mir ist, – von dem ich fühle, wie gering es ist, – oder irgendeine Übung im Reden – worin ich in Maßen verweilt zu haben nicht leugne – oder irgendein Denkvermögen in dieser Sache, entsprungen aus den Studien und den Lehren der besten Fertigkeiten, – wovon ich gestehe zu keiner Zeit meines Lebens ferngeblieben zu sein – dann muss wohl insbesondere Aulus Licinius die Frucht aller dieser Dinge beinahe mit Fug und Recht von mir einfordern.

Wie hilfreich ist diese Übersetzung? Bitte einfach kurz auf die Sterne klicken:

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]

please wait...

Rating: 8.3/10 (4 votes cast)

3. Übersetzung Otto Schönberger (1979)

Wenn ich, ihr Richter, einiges Talent zum Redner habe, dessen geringes Maß ich allerdings fühle, oder einige Fertigkeit im Reden, womit ich mich, und das soll nicht geleugnet werden, nicht gerade oberflächlich beschäftigt habe, oder wenn ich auch nur einige theoretische Kenntnis der Redekunst besitze, die aus dem eifrigen Studium der schönen Künste hervorgegangen ist – und ich gestehe es offen, daß ich die Erwerbung dieser Kenntnis zu keiner Zeit meines Lebens vernachlässigt habe –, dann darf wohl in erster Linie mein Klient hier, Aulus Licinius, auf die Früchte aller dieser Eigenschaften sozusagen von Rechts wegen Anspruch erheben. (Seite 5)

Übersetzung beim Reclam-Verlag: Schönberger, Otto: M. Tullius Cicero. Pro A. Licinio Archia poeta oratio. Rede für den Dichter A. Licinius Archias. Lateinisch / Deutsch, Stuttgart 1979.

4. Satzanalyse

Hauptsatz

Nebensatz 1

Nebensatz 2

Nebensatz 3

Si quid est in me ingeni, iudices,

quod sentio,

quam sit exiguum,

aut si qua exercitatio dicendi,

in qua me non infitior mediocriter esse versatum,

aut si huiusce rei ratio aliqua ab optimarum artium studiis ac disciplina profecta,

a qua ego nullum confiteor aetatis meae tempus abhorruisse,

earum rerum omnium vel in primis hic A. Licinius fructum a me repetere prope suo iure debet.

5. Erläuterungen

• quid: aliquid.
• ingeni: Genitivus Partitivus zu ingenium.
• iudices: Vokativ zu iudex.
• quod: Relativpronomen, Bezug auf ingenium.
• quam … sit: indirekte Frage, deswegen Konjunktiv.
• qua: aliqua.
• dicendi: Gerund zu dicere.
• in qua: Relativsatz, Bezug auf exercitatio. Prädikat des Relativsatzes: infitior.
• me … versatum esse: AcI, Vorzeitigkeit.
• ratio aliqua … profecta gehört zusammen.
• studiis ac disciplina: Ablativ, abhängig von ab.
• a qua: relativsatz, Bezug auf ratio. Prädikat des Relativsatzes: confiteor. Subjekt: ego.
• nullum … tempus gehört zusammen: Akkusativ der zeitlichen Erstreckung.
• mit earum beginnt der Hauptsatz. Prädikat: debet. Subjekt: A. Licinius (= Aulus Licinius Archias).
• Infinitivkonstruktion nach debet mit dem Infinitiv repetere.
• fructum: Objekt zu repetere.
• earum rerum omnium: Genitiv, abhängig von fructum.

6. Sonstiges

Mehr zu Aulus Licinius Archias in Pro Archia Poeta: Ciceros Kontakt mit griechischem Gedankengut

In The Rhetoric of Empire David Spurr analyzes colonial discourse from the colonial era to this day. He does so by identifying the rhetorical features of that discourse and by studying the way in which they work. In the process he focuses mainly on nonfiction writing and in particular on journalism, which he expects to be less mediated by aesthetic requirements than fictional writing. One of the central questions that he poses during his explorations is:

“How does the Western writer construct a coherent representation out of the strange and (to the writer) often incomprehensible realities confronted in the non-Western world?” (3)

Spurr tries to find answers by mapping the tropes of the discourse and by compiling a genealogy of the variations of these tropes in texts of the nineteenth and twentieth century. In twelve chapters, which work quite independently, he points out different ways in which the Western writer constructs the reality of the colonized. An abundance of examples from works by Charles Darwin or T. E. Lawrence to contemporary journalistic texts published for example in the Washington Post, National Geographic and many other well-known sources support his arguments while at the same time facilitating the reading.

Spurr’s first chapter is entitled “Surveillance: Under Western Eyes“, in which he identifies the act of looking at landscapes, interiors and bodies as the first step in writing a report about a Third World culture. But this seemingly simple procedure already contains problems, for instance when an American Vietnam War reporter is taken up in a helicopter of the U.S. Air Force to get an overview over the battlefield. From there he naturally sees the war from a very onesided perspective. In the end, Spurr draws the conclusion that a writer always mediates what he sees, that he in a sense colonizes the landscape as he arranges the scene as the object of desire (27).

In the second chapter, titled “Appropriation: Inheriting the Earth“, Spurr gathers texts in which Western writers justify their colonizing actions and in a way claim for themselves the duty to exploit nature’s material resources that are hidden in the colonies. Thus, colonization becomes a gesture of “human solidarity” because it “unites the intellectual and moral qualities of Europe with the material wealth of the tropics” (29).

In “Aestheticization: Savage Beauties“, Spurr goes on to analyze the way in which information about the colonies is presented to the Western reader. He suggests that reports are often mediated in order to make reading an enjoyable and aesthetic experience. As a very striking example he cites guidelines by the editor for articles of National Geographic in the first half of the twentieth century, who, amongst other things, asks for an abundance of beautiful illustrations and an omission of controversial material (51).

Chapter 4, “Classification: The Order of Nations“, deals with the colonizer’s habit of classifying colonized people according to how modernized they are in comparison to his own nation. Spurr mentions other views on this issue, too: they take into account that modernization might not always and everywhere be desired and that traditional societies might, for instance, favor the aesthetic over the technological (74).

In “Debasement: Filth and Defilement“, Spurr describes the Westerner’s method of looking down on non-Westerners. This often happens in three distinct manners: “a colonized people is held in contempt for their lack of civility, loved for their willingness to acquire it, and ridiculed when they have acquired too much” (86). This debasement is also visible on a formal level. In a book about the source of AIDS in Africa, the author at the same time reduces and magnifies the people into the equivalent of a natural desaster; he writes about them as if they were an epidemic or an inundation (91).

In the following chapters David Spurr analyzes Western rhetoric in terms of negation, affirmation, idealization, insubstantialization, naturalization and eroticization. A particularly interesting idea is developed in chapter 8, “Idealization: Strangers in Paradise“. Spurr names a series of writings that have produced an “idealized savage”, which means that the “savages” live a happy life in a harmonious society on a tropical island. Against the background of the assumption that we see as happy those peoples who make us happy when we look at them, because of the poetic or aesthetic emotion evoked by their appearance, he comes to the conclusion that the idealization of the Other is “symptomatic of modern alienation and as a mark of profound self-doubt in the collective consciousness of the West” (135).

In his last chapter, which Spurr calls “Resistance: Notes Toward an Opening“, he writes about resistance to colonial discourse. An impressive example from 1926 mentions a Sudanese woman, who sees the British as simply the latest in a history of foreign occupiers. She calls them Turks and complains about their smell. This makes the author of the anecdote think and realize that both colonizer and colonized are in a similar way entrapped within the structures of power (187). The problem in the recent past is that the decolonialization of the Third World has not brought about a decolonialization of thought, which would cause a subversion of the powers that are included in discourse (200).

The Rhetoric of Empire offers a rich source of examples and their interpretations, so that the reader encounters excerpts from a very diverse range of publications. At times, however, one gets the impression that in his research David Spurr has come across passages that he liked very much and that he wanted to use in his book just for the sake of telling them to his readers, although he already had enough material to make his argument; the welcome abundance of examples sometimes turns into a redundance.

Apart from that, Spurr might have been better off if he had more often included a focus on the readership of the texts he analyzed in his interpretations. The occasional distinction between, for example, a popular and a professional audience had surely shed light on further interesting reasons why a rhetorical feature is used in a certain text in a specific way. All in all, Spurr has compiled a readable outline and helpful analysis of contructions of the colonial “Other”.

Spurr, David. 1993. The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing, and Imperial Administration. Durham: Duke University Press.

Likeable Misfits

Eagle vs Shark is a romantic comedy by New Zealand director Taika Cohen. The romantic part doesn’t contain anything new: girl falls in love with boy; he doesn’t get it but is instead interested in girl’s co-worker; at his party, however, they end up sleeping with each other and start a relationship. Arguments arise; boy dumps girl but after some time realises what an idiot he has been and finally they get back together

What makes this film special are the two lovers. Jarrod, played by Jemaine Clement, is as nerdy as it gets and, of course, works in a video game store. Lily, played by Loren Horsley, is no less of a social disaster. Sacked from her job at a fast food restaurant, she accompanies Jarrod on his trip to his hometown, where he plans his revenge mission against a high school bully. While Jarrod spends his days training for the fight, Lily gets to know his family. Jarrod’s father is filled with bitterness because his wife left him and became a lesbian and because his son is a freak; Jarrod’s best friend calls himself a hacker but accidently reveals a pornographic video on his computer. When the day of the revenge fight has finally come and Jarrod meets his old nemesis, a big surprise is waiting for them all and Jarrod has to make a crucial decision.

The film derives its unique charm from the lovely protagonists, who are idiots in so many ways, but in the end more human than most people. Their dialogues are brilliant; their acting is great. Yes, it might sound snobbish, but watching these awkward Kiwis struggling with their lives so many thousand miles away from the fast-paced world is a very enjoyable experience. One gets up from the sofa with a smile on the face and thinking about Lily’s rather useless but beautiful explanation of life: “You know, life is full of hard bits. But in-between the hard bits are some really lovely bits.”

Eagle vs Shark in the IMDb

HD Trailer on Apple

Trailer on YouTube:

In my article on Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things I write about migrating, returning and the consequences thereof. Read the introduction on this page and the whole essay by clicking on the link in the menu on the top of the page.

01. Introduction

There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered. (Nelson Mandela)

Migrations and returns have been taking place since the beginning of human history. Whereas the motives were very diverse, the challenges that the migrants faced stayed roughly the same. Homesickness, not to be accepted in the new environment, unfulfilled dreams, in the end maybe the wish to return.

In this essay I want to examine, in respect of Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things, the characteristics of a migration, and the idea of home as the place that the migrant leaves and as a place he seeks at this destination. I will then go on and discuss the crossing of borders and boundaries, the features of a border and the reasons for trying to cross it. This includes the moral boundaries that a society imposes on its members and also the question to what extend the protagonists in The God of Small Things can be found guilty of transgressing borders and breaking the rules.

In the following chapter, the topic will be the process of returning to the origin and the reasons for that, as well as the consequences and problems that the returning migrant may encounter after his homecoming. Aspects of space and time will play an important role here.

In ‘the point of no return’ I will look at returning from another angle and ask the question what could have been done to prevent the disastrous events from happening or if they could have been prevented at all, looking for the point when the ‘Rubicon was crossed’ and a turning around was no longer possible.

A common subject of postcolonial studies is the topic of my sixth chapter, the formation of hybrid identities among the migrants in The God of Small Things and how they unfold, but also in respect of the novel’s language and form. This goes on in the last chapter, where I will take a general look at the language in matters of how the idea of migrating and returning can be applied to the form of the novel.

Next chapter: The concept of migrating