Guess the Quote

Let’s play guess the quote!

Opposition there was none: the boldest spirits had succumbed on stricken fields or by proscription-lists; while the rest of the nobility found a cheerful acceptance of slavery the smoothest road to wealth and office, and, as they had thriven on revolution, stood now for the new order and safety in preference to the old order and adventure. Nor was the state of affairs unpopular in the provinces, where administration by the Senate and People had been discredited by the feuds of the magnates and the greed of the officials, against which there was but frail protection in a legal system forever deranged by force, by favoritism, or (in the last resort) by gold.

1. Who wrote this? If you are close, that’s ok. He was a very famous writer, I will give you that much.

2. What is the name of the work that this is written in? Any of the author’s works would be ok.

3. Where in the book can this quote be found? Approximate pages ok.

2. Where was this written?

3. When was this written? Approximate times are ok.

4. What language was this originally written in? This is an English translation from another language.

5. What is the writer discussing in this paragraph?

15 Comments

Filed under Antiquity, Government, History, Law, Literature, Roman Empire

15 responses to “Guess the Quote

  1. James Schipper

    I hazard that this was written in Latin by Cicero about the usurpation by Julius Ceasar.

  2. You are correct on some questions!

    It was indeed written in Rome 2,000 years ago. It was also written in the English language. And I think you may be correct about the subject matter.

    However, this was not written by Cicero. Instead it was written by another Roman author.

    • James Schipper

      Dear Robert

      You wrote “English” where you should have written “Latin”. The book must have been Historiae, which can either mean Histories or About History.

      Tacitus, by the way, is regarded as one the most difficult of the classical Roman authors. These classical Romans seemed to have a mania about avoiding streamlined sentences. Instead of writing “Nullus dies agenti longus est” = No day is long for a busy person, they would write “Nullus agenti dies longus est” (Seneca) = No to a busy person day is long. Instead of writing “Pulchram uxorem habet” = He has a beautiful wife, they would write “Pulchram habet uxorem” = He a beautiful has wife.

      It is this habit of inserting something in the middle of noun phrases that makes classical Latin so hard to read.

      Regards. James

      • Actually it is The Annals, Book One. Now we need to know where in the book it is found and we are done!

        • Maurice

          Book one, chapter two. Actual line count varies on which edition and translation is being used but let’s burn some daylight and just crank it up at — “nullo adversante . . .” Cheers!

        • I am told that this is the first paragraph in Book One of the Annals, but maybe you are correct and it is the opening for Chapter 2 instead.

  3. TJF

    Robert:

    I was going to second James’ assertion that it was a Roman author but you beat me to it, given that your affirmed the author was Roman the language would be Latin. (FWIW, I’ve been watching an interesting special on YouTube about the Roman invasion (the successful one) of Britain).

  4. TJF

    To Rob:
    What is the writer discussing in this paragraph?

    Transition and dissolution of the Roman Republic to the empire I would guess. Hence I would agree again with James that the passage is a reference to the time frame when Julius Caesar usurped power. It’s a history written so perhaps Tacitus or Livy?

  5. I would say Cicero, though one of the Gracchi (Tiberius or Caius) is not excluded, since they were Kennedy-like politicians addressing the issue discussed in the text. I would say the book to be De Legibus (on the subject of Laws) since it discusses the evolution of Roman Law from the standpoint of conservative morals (like Plato) rather than of biological-like sociological analysis (as Aristotle rather did), and it must be somewhere at the end of the third book which is more historical than the two former ones which rather discuss law from the standpoint of absolute philosophy. That must have been written in Rome, though Cicero and others also loved Athens as an intellectual resort in the same way many of our contemporaries love to write in Paris. The time must be about 60 BC, as the author witnessed the Republic transforming into Caesarean dictatorship. The language must be latin, though a Greek original is not excluded since it was the language of culture, science and money in most of Italy, including Rome itself, high-level latin having been fashioned into an intellectually respectable language quite recently. Of course the text discusses the final phase of the Roman Republic when the body of free self-standing citizens was becoming a thing of the past as the big landowners and construction entrepreneurs using slave labour and having benefitted from the pillage of the former Punic Empire had started to put all other enterprises out of business, even though it could also apply to a certain extent to the final phase of Southern Dixieland society before it engaged into the Civil War, or the present state of the whole of America since the advent of Southern Strategy and even more so since the pillage of the former Soviet Satellite countries by the Judaeo-American interest groups. What I am putting here is just a guess, for I am not fond at all of latin culture, which I find to be quite a regression from that of other empires of antiquity, especially the Greeks.

    America is not moving towards transformation from a Republic into a Cesarean or Augustan post-democratic empire, that is yet another elite fantasy growing complacent by entertaining the prospect of a long planned civilizational decadence they would enjoy the privileges of for yet four or five centuries more before return to Gothic invasion time or even Olduvai. America is on a collision course onto a wall that can be likened only to the Third Reich’s, America’s elite are in a Weltmacht oder Niedergang mentality thay just cannot escape from. American déclassé Whites are most typically former Germans and those they resent against as the new abusive elite are thought to be (and are to a lesser extent) Jewish-German, they are about to re-enact in this century on the New Continent what was done on the Old Continent in the last century by their brethren. It is no use trying hard to miscegenate and overwhelm with immigrants the Whites forcibly so as to escape such a destiny, the coloured people that come to replace the effete Whites are more purely red-neck-like and protestant and potentially Nazi than the real Red Necks of German descent ever were. The more you fight against the destiny you deserve by dint of sheer cunning, the better you work at making it come true. The more you repeat “never again!” in the hope of commanding reality through New Age visualization techniques the more “again and again and again…” answers Echo. Greek tragedy teaches such things far better than Roman history.

    • Gay State Girl

      “It is no use trying hard to miscegenate and overwhelm with immigrants the Whites forcibly so as to escape such a destiny, the coloured people that come to replace the effete Whites are more purely red-neck-like and protestant and potentially Nazi than the real Red Necks of German descent ever were. The more you fight against the destiny you deserve by dint of sheer cunning, the better you work at making it come true. The more you repeat “never again!” in the hope of commanding reality through New Age visualization techniques the more “again and again and again…” answers Echo. Greek tragedy teaches such things far better than Roman history.”

      Good point. The altright would do well to be more open minded about the immigrants the deride as well.

    • Sam

      I won’t do so but I was going to cut and paste the exact same lines as above. My comment being. Hurrah. You have no idea how sick I am of the Jews running my society into the ground. Maybe I’m wrong but I can see no difference between their actions and a tribe of psychopaths. I see no difference between their religion and the religion of psychopaths. After all plenty of religions have tenants that don’t require the enslavement of everyone on the planet.

      Everybody hates psychopaths eventually. They always sound good in the beginning, Lovely people. Friends of everyone. Life of the party. Then they isolate you, “mainstream press control”. Eventually their true colors come out, (9-11)(false flags)(bank bail outs)(assassination of Kennedy and many others)(corruption of politicians and law enforcement), it goes on and on.

      Then there’s such surprise by Jews that never really did any of this but did you stand up when Jews said,”The white race is the cancer of human history”. No you didn’t. When the impossibility of 9-11 and building #7 happened causing mass deaths and destruction did you try to stop it. No you didn’t and on and on. Jews who are not psychopaths do nothing and say nothing while snickering at the stupidity of the evil Gentiles. Unfortunately people always wake up eventually and at that point we just don’t believe any of you. All your protestations are for naught.

    • Great post Judith! But it is not Cicero. It is Tacitus, Book One of the Annals. Now we just need to know approximately where in the book this paragraph is found and we are done!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s