Recipients in alphabetical order:

University of Cambridge | Harvard University | Universität Heidelberg | University of Oxford | Université de Paris Sorbonne | Stanford University | Yale University

Gregorius rectores salutat.

For a long time, it went without saying that the purpose of universities was to serve the cause of knowledge by means of uncompromising research and free debate. As you probably know, the first universities were founded by the Church in the Middle Ages, at a time that predates the economy of free market and capitalism as we know it. Those universities were not free to challenge church teachings, but they were free to operate with no regard to business interests. After the Reformation and the Enlightenment, research and debate became more and more emancipated.

In the 19th century, uncompromising research achieved a zenith of unparalleled excellence in Europe. Yet in more recent decades there has been a decline in the quality of research and academic standards. One of its symptoms is the understanding that universities must serve the interests of technology and business. Knowledge that is not perceived as a benefit to these interests is neglected.

Yet I want to assume that true universities want to remain independent from commercial, religious and political constraints, creating a place where love of knowledge and freedom of research take precedence over everything else. If it not be so, knowledge no longer expresses self-cultivation, but rather alienation. Only through self-cultivation, however, can we make the best contribution to a world where democracy, the rule of law and human rights are under threat.

1

My criticism is probably known, and I gladly join the voices that have uttered it before me. Yet perhaps I may offer a way out of this scenario. While it is acceptable that many go to university with a view to entering the job market afterwards, universities should put more effort into supporting those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I mean people whose motivation is greater than just embellishing a curriculum vitae.

Sadly, those who are most committed to knowledge are the most fragile in the job market. What is reasonable to expect from a university worth its name is this: a setting where alumni may live, work and study together in a self-sufficient livelihood and in life-long commitment to research.

This would be a permanent cell of research set up by universities and providing the most committed alumni with enough resources for independent research, maintained by a sustainable and self-sufficient way of living. This is in fact a very old approach. It is not too different from the economy of a monastery, a religious cell where activities of work and study are alternated. This provides all members with an opportunity to exert both their bodies and their minds in a healthy and constructive way.

2

The main difference that such a cell can make is the ability of maintaining itself independently through the work of its members. I am suggesting a different economic model for these cells, devised in a bespoke way to assist commitment for knowledge and talent that cannot be wasted in a technocratic job market.

Whether we like it or not, the concept of universities is a medieval concept of education and cultivation of the mind, and we need a medieval concept of economy and livelihood to assist those who approach a University in a spirit of sacrifice and commitment for knowledge. It is irresponsible to provide students with education and erudition just to leave them at the mercy of free-market and profit-led interests eventually. I affirm that it is the duty of a true university to provide not only the best possible knowledge, but also the livelihood that is most appropriate for those who chose to sacrifice their lives for such knowledge.

It is true that many have the opportunity to pursue a career at the university from which they graduate. But this is not enough to accommodate commitment for knowledge in its full expression. It would be unreasonable to assume that the only way of pursuing meaningful or legitimate research is by joining the paid staff of an university. Besides the formal academic world, there has to be an opportunity for those who wish to research in a more independent setting, maybe associated to an university as life-long members of an autonomous and self-sufficient research cell, yet not in the capacity of paid academic staff.

3

The role of the mother university of such academic cells of alumni would not be to finance it in the long term, but to lay the foundations and finance the setting-up of the cells. Its members would be responsible, then, for earning their livelihood out of the given resources. The mother university will provide, for instance, the land and the buildings. The members of the cell, in their turn, will grow their own food and perhaps produce their own clothes. They will build an independent supply of water, electricity and other forms of energy so as not to incur in any fixed costs. The mother university, in its turn, will provide technical advice to enable, among other things, the development of such independent forms of supply. It will also provide regular, or at least occasional, contact with academic staff to enrich research on both sides.

This first outline of an academic monastery, if you will, is the outline of a third way. It is a way out of the dichotomy between the constraints of a technocratic free market and the doubtful limitations of an academic career. In the 1990s, the world had more understanding for the concept of a third way, which now appears lost in intellectual resignation and cynicism. Yet you do not approach a true university and the cause of knowledge in order just to surrender to intellectual resignation and cynicism after many years of study and critical education. This is why I hope the suggestions I am outlining will be taken seriously.

4

Taking others seriously is not always the forte of the academic world. What concerns me most is a degree of indifference towards society, endemic among professors. This is the result of an academic life where the main focus is to embellish one’s curriculum and climb on narrow career ladders that only lead to accumulation of titles and social alienation. We see this in many so-called elite universities where formalities count more than knowledge, and where everything is about manners. And money. Yet behind the manners there is always an environment of destructive competition. Any true erudite can easily see through it. This careerism cannot lead to anything good, and the last thing it will serve is the cause of knowledge.

This is an alarming reality in the world in which we live, where freedoms are threatened and where professors should be engaging in a broad and critical debate with society. To close your eyes, to think only of your career, to listen only to those who make a cult of your personality is not the way forward. Byzantinism is not the answer. If I may paraphrase Sartre, an academic who only goes quietly about his business may be an expert, a technical authority in his area. But it takes more to be an intellectual. You become an intellectual when you meddle with things people tell you not to meddle with. It is only when you leave your comfort zone that you become a true erudite and prove the depth of your commitment. For knowledge is not only knowledge that profits yourself, but also knowledge about others.

5

The careerism, the professional cynicism, the byzantinism of social lethargy, all this has to stop if universities want to continue to be worthy of credibility. It is time to think beyond titles, formalities, appearances. It is time to care about what people really have to say, and what I have to say is this: Clinging to narrow ladders only leads to disaster. This is why I am outlining a third way, a concept you are most welcome to work on, for the benefit of academics and societies alike. This initiative has to come from universities if it is to come from anywhere. Technocracy and business interests will never care, for not theirs is the cause of knowledge. It is now up to the strength of your character and the depth of your commitment to show that universities are more than money-making machines. It is time to prove that your institutions truly deserve a name that predates the rise of mercantilism and capitalism. It is the duty of the University, as a principle of education and livelihood, to raise itself not against capitalism, but above capitalism. There are grave doubts as to whether universities are still able to do so. Yet there is no way around it, you will have to make it work. For the sake of knowledge.

Autoritäre züge können auch in der formalen gestaltung der sprachen fuss fassen. den schreibenden geistern ist es geboten den gebrauch äusserer normen zu hinterfragen. die vorstellung dass literatur sich diesen normen unterordnen muss, darf eine kritische ästhetik nicht für selbstverständlich halten. selbstverständlich ist dass der offizielle und der literarische gebrauch getrennten wegen folgen, und dass die umstände neben einer offiziellen oft auch unterschiedliche literarische rechtschreibungen verlangen. solche umstände liegen vor wenn unreflektierte normen der sprache und der gesellschaft schaden, wenn rechtschreibungen eine unnötige hierarchiesierung von wörtern und buchstaben zustande bringen.

In der märzrevolution von 1848 gab es versuche den deutschen schriftgebrauch dynamischer zu gestalten. so wurde die grossschreibung vielerorts an den globalen gebrauch angepasst grossbuchstaben nur bei eigennamen und satzanfang zu verwenden. schon damals wurde die grossschreibung von substantiven als eine altmodische praxis empfunden, die den eindruck einer künstlichen hierarchie vermittelte, als ob substantive wörter erster klasse wären.

1

Seit der einführung der karolingischen schrift wurden wörter je wichtiger sie empfunden je grösser geschrieben. die karolinger selbt hatten nicht nur zwei sondern Vier klassen von buchstabengrössen. dennoch drückt der versuch von 1848 die überzeugung aus dass Alle Wörter Gleich Sind, und dass die hervorhebung einer bestimmten wortklasse durch grossschreibung ein autoritärer schriftgebrauch ist, ausdruck einer gesellschaft in der auch menschen nicht gleich behandelt werden.

Heute sehen wir immer noch überreste frühneuzeitlichen autoritarismus in der deutschen rechtschreibung. warum nur. in einer zeit in der autoritäre parteien ganz locker ins parlament einziehen, muss man die quellen dieser politischen gefahr auch ausserhalb der expliziten politik suchen und bekämpfen. das autoritäre das diese parteien verkörpern hat auch ästhetische wurzeln. die gut situierten anführer dieser bewegungen werden überhaupt nicht von wirtschaftlichen nöten sondern von ästhetischen fetischen und obsessionen getrieben. ihre unfundierte nostalgie gilt einer gesellschaft in der die abstraktionen der kultur und der identität sichtbar gemacht werden könnten. sie sehnen sich nach blonden blauäugigen menschen mit eleganten anzügen. sie wünschen sich eine welt voller rokoko- und downton-abbey-gepränge in der sich alle affektiert ausdrücken und gebärden. diese besessenheit mit sauberem schein und fassaden erheben sie dann zum politischen programm. raus mit einwanderern, zurück in die vergangenheit wo alle kultur und identität hatten, und bald werden alle wie bei Downton Abbey leben. aber jeder versuch identität sichtbar und handfest zu machen, wird stets in ästhetischem desaster enden. identität geht immer weit über formbesessenheit hinaus.

2

Darum ist es falsch und gefährlich zu denken dass deutsche identität oder irgendeine identität eine frage von gross- oder kleinschreibung, von schwarz oder weiss ist. identität ist vielfältig und belastbar. sie ist bereit ihre komfortzone zu verlassen. eine ästhetik die die komfortzone des schriftgebrauchs verlässt fördert die kultur und stärkt sie gegen die obsessionen des autoritarismus.

Ich versuche nicht eine apologie der gröbe und der hässlichkeit zu halten. im gegenteil, das was ich vorschlage betrachte ich nicht nur als politisch fundierter sondern auch als schöner. wir sind erben der karolingischen minuskel. dieses erbe kann seine ausgewogene eleganz aber nicht entfalten wenn jedes dritte wort mit einem grossbuchstaben beginnt. das stört die augen, das behindert das potenzial eines schriftbildes das am besten im schlichten gebrauch glänzt. die literatur, insbesondere die dichtung braucht keine rechtschreibung die das kognitive vermögen ihrer leser unterschätzt und annimmt, man kann einen text nicht verstehen wenn wörter klein geschrieben werden. grafisches gehabe ist nicht die lösung. literarisches schreiben ist viel eleganter wenn grossschreibung, abgesehen von eigennamen und absatzanfängen, nur zur subjektiven hervorhebung benutzt wird. Nur Zur Hervorhebung.

3

Auch die kommasetzung ist von ungewöhnlichem byzantinismus geprägt. ein komma ist nur nötig wenn der diskurs eine natürliche pause anbietet oder erfordert. man macht keine pause zwischen kurzen haupt- und nebensätzen wie „ich weiss dass du schreibst“. wozu die künstliche trennung zwischen prädikat und objekt. vor subjekt- und objektsätzen gehört grundsätzlich kein komma, zumal eine konjunktion bereits anzeigt dass ein neuer satz anfängt und zwar ohne pause. man würde es für undenkbar halten objekte oder subjekte zu isolieren wie „der mann, geht nach hause“ oder „wir sehen gerade, den mann“. das wäre syntaktischer pedantismus, und pedantismus ist es auch subjekt- und objektsätze von hauptsätzen zu trennen. allgemein beginnen nebensätze auch mit konjunktionen die den gebrauch eines kommas entbehrlich machen, es sei denn, es gilt eine natürliche pause zu markieren.

Explikative relativsätze brauchen komma, aber restriktive relativsätze brauchen kein komma. man sollte schreiben „der mann der dich sucht ist hier“, denn hier wird der begriff „mann“ auf einen bestimmten mann begrenzt und diese restriktive erläuterung ist nötig, so nötig dass eine pause in dem zusammenhang unzulässig ist. aber man sollte schreiben „der professor, der übrigens nie pünktlich zur vorlesung kommt, hat heute auch die unterlagen vergessen“, denn hier wird der begriff „professor“ nur nebensächlich explikativ erläutert.

Ein komma ist auch sinnvoll wenn verben aufeinander treffen und man eine verwirrung auschliessen will. „bevor wir schreiben, sollten wir denken“ ist besser als „bevor wir schreiben sollten wir denken“, da man nicht sofort erkennt dass Sollten sich auf Denken und nicht auf Schreiben bezieht. aber „bevor wir schreiben denken wir auch“ lässt keine verwirrung zu.

4

Doch es geht weiter. auch die interpunktion eines guten schriftgebrauchs ist durchaus in der lage nur mit komma und punkt auszukommen. kann man denn nicht erkennen dass dieser satz eine frage ist. wer braucht denn ein fragezeichen wenn der satz schon Selbst mit einem fragewort beginnt. ja, es gibt fragen die ohne fragezeichen schlecht zu erkennen sind und bei denen ein fragezeichen angebracht ist. aber die meisten fälle brauchen kein solches zeichen. es gehört nicht viel anstrengung und kreativität zu erkennen dass die meisten zeichen unserer interpunktion nur grafisches beiwerk sind. das was wir brauchen ist jedoch eine belastbare ästhetik jenseits des pompösen beiwerks. dekadente pomp nährt nicht die tiefe des inhalts sondern nur die oberflächlichkeit autoritärer fetische.

Wir haben eine archäologische rechtschreibung. muss literatur einem gehabe gehorchen das nur die obsessiven träume von rokokoparteien bestätigen. nein, das ist nicht der weg. eine ästhetik die sich in einer welt globaler herausforderungen behaupten will muss aufwachen, denn komplexe probleme brauchen ausgereifte lösungen. alles andere wird untergehen. vielleicht, wer weiss, ist die deutschsprachige literatur noch vom willen beseelt zu überleben, damit auch das schönste und das beste der sprache überlebe. ich für meinen teil kann den schreibenden geistern nur ermuntern sich in ihrem schriftgebrauch von allem abzuwenden was nach autoritarismus riecht. das ist der grund warum ich einen anderen weg suche, einen weg der mehr politische verantwortung und sensibilität, aber auch kritische zweifel zum ausdruck bringt. rechtschreibungskritik ist auch gesellschaftskritik.

5

Das internet ist durchaus ein privileg. dieser scheussliche segen erlaubt es mir meine seeflaschen ganz bequem ins deutsche festland zu schicken. das internet ist eine weite welt die man nicht abschaffen kann. die deutsche sprache ist nicht das eigentum eines staates oder eines volkes. sie gehört, wie jede andere sprache, der ganzen welt und bedarf keiner deutschen oder nicht-deutschen identität.

Ich möchte diese gelegenheit nutzen um wieder an mein stück Medea zu erinnern, das übrigens diesem neukarolingischen schriftgebrauch folgt. Medea ist das opfer einer gesellschaft in der nationale hysterie die oberhand nimmt, in der die menschenwürde einem illusorischen ästhetischen fetisch weichen muss. in dieser dystopie, der agonie der oberflächlichkeit unter dem hohlen mantel von kultur und identität, kann Medeas antwort aus der verzweiflung nicht anders als dystopisch fallen. Medea ist allgegenwärtig und doch nirgends bekannt. wahres leid ist unbekanntes leid, und Medeas tragödie ist eine tragödie sozialer gleichgültigkeit.

6

Wahre kunst ist unbekannte kunst. bekannte und somit verwaltete kunst ist das ergebnis von kompromissen, doch in den kompromissen lügt sich der künstler an, er widerspricht seiner eigenen kunst, er gibt sich auf um der hedonik von geld und beifall zu dienen. da entpuppen sich geld und beifall als den wahren zweck einer kunst die zum blossen mittel wird. daher kommt es dass, wie wahres leid, auch wahre kunst unbekannt ist. in der gleichgültigkeit die sie überall findet zahlt sie den preis dafür, dass sie niemandem etwas schuldet und dass trotz ihrer obskurität ihre integrität sich selbst genügt. mich muss man nicht lesen. nur klage man nicht wenn plötzlich seine kinder sich im bann einer politischen obsession einlullen. an warnungen fehlte es nicht.

Gestattet zur klassischen dämpfung eine kleine coda. inzwischen, so habe ich neulich gehört, lehnen verlage bücher ab mit dem zugeständnis dass die entscheidung nichts mit der qualität des werkes zu tun habe. da fragt man sich was der zweck eines verlages sei wenn literarische qualität keine rolle spielt. aber die antwort ist doch offensichtlich.

Poema Carioca

Ô Poeta, vem cá, chega aí! Me diz uma coisa:
Cê escreve pra quê, pra quê que cê escreve?
“Ah, pra ficar rico!” Então cê é empresário?
“Não não, a gente escreve é pra ficar famoso!”
Ah, então paga pau mesmo? “Eu não! Escrevo
O que vem do fundo do coração, entende?
Escrevo só pra mim, só pra mim mesmo!”
Mas então pra quê escrever? Basta pensar!

“Peraí, peraí, cê não entendeu, é prosôto
Também, claro!” Pra agradar ou desagradar?
“É pra agradar!” Então tá pagando pau!
“Porra de pau! Se não agradar tô nem aí.”
Ah é? Mas então pra que escrever, maluco?
Cê não tá nem aí pa opinião dosôto!

“Ah, sei lá, pode ser que alguém goste!”
Então paga pau mesmo! “Pago nada! Escrevo
Pra dizer quem eu sou, vem lá do fundo!”
E só você que tem fundo? “Não, todo mundo!”
Então todo mundo é poeta! “Não, não é,
Nem todo mundo sabe escrever que nem eu!”

Tá, mas cê quer o quê? Mostrar quem tu é
Ou como tu escreve? “Mostrar como escrevo!”
Então bajula! “Só to mostrando quem eu sou!”
Querido, quem precisa saber quem você é?
E pra quê? “Cara, ninguém precisa saber,
Mas talvez alguém aprenda alguma coisa.”

Ah, então cê é tipo filósofo? “Isso!” Então
Pra quê poema? Escreve logo um tratado aí!
“Eu sei, mas o bonito é poema!” E é verdade
Ou mentira o que tu escreve? “Ah, verdade!”
Poeta mesmo é quem diz a verdade, né? “Claro!”

Ah, mas então cê pode escrever de qualquer jeito!
Quer dizer, quem escreve feio mas diz a verdade
É poeta, né? “Deve ser!” E quem escreve só pra
Fazer bonito, é o quê? “Po, cara, vai te catar, vai!”

da antologia:
© Lira Menor

Aus Kains Tagen

– Jahre, bevor Kain seinen Bruder zum Spaziergang einlud und mit der Schaufel tötete, hatte der junge Mann schon etwas von, sagen wir, Hesses Steppenwolf. Noch als Kind war seine erste materielle Erfahrung die seines Leibes, der ihm ständig Durst und Hunger meldete, die althergebrachte, altmodische und unerträgliche Dichotomie, die keine ist. Der kluge Adamssohn begriff schnell, dass der Bedarf seines körperlichen Elements zu stillen war, wenn er überleben wollte. Diese unausweichliche Tatsache, die Kain so unpoetisch von der biologischen Selbstständigkeit der Bäume trennte, zwang ein noch ziemlich zartes Gemüt zur Berührung mit seiner Umwelt, und Kains Umwelt war natürlich die Gesamtheit dessen, was er sinnlich erfahren konnte, wobei wir nicht so förmliche Begriffe wie aus Kants reiner Vernunf brauchen wie Sinnlichkeit, Verstand und Anschauung, Raum und Zeit, Kategorien und Deduktion der reinen Verstandesbegriffe – war alles da, wissen wir schon.

1

Aber nachdem Kain mehr oder weniger seines Leibes Herr geworden, dämmerte ihm eine andere Erfahrung, eine ästhetische, eine Wahrnehmung der ἐσθής, der Kleidung seiner Umwelt. Sie war im engeren Sinne die Empfindung, die aus der Wahrnehmung entstand und sein Gemüt berührte, wie wenn er zwei Schafe seines Bruders am Schatten ruhen sah und dabei Gefallen fand. Im Rausche dieser Erfahrung empfand Kain das Bedürfnis, diese Umwelt zu besitzen, weil sie schön war. Seine Bedürfnisse, wie wir sehen, werden anspruchsvoller. Nur mit Durst-und-Hunger-Stillen ist ihm schlecht gedient. Ein geistiges Sehnen wird jetzt (man verzeihe mir den Tempuswechsel) an den Tag gelegt, gleich ein schönes und eben unmögliches, denn die ganze Umwelt kann er nicht besitzen und dies beunruhigt ihn. Kain begann also allmählich, Teile der Umwelt zu verarbeiten, etwa in seiner Farm, und eigen zu nennen. Der Adamssohn wurde damit zum Vater einer besonderen Art des Eigentums, einer Art, die rein geistige Bedürfnisse erfüllen sollte. Die Viecher, die er bis dahin gejagt hatte, und das Gemüse, das er fand, waren ein vorübergehendes Eigentum für den Leib. Kain erschuf etwas Eleganteres, und von dieser ersten Offenbarung der Eleganz bis zur ungeheuren Anhäufung von Ware und Kapital unserer Zeit gibt es im Grunde keinen großen Schritt. Es wäre nicht dazu gekommen, wenn der gute Junge sich auf Rinderjagd beschränkt hätte. Die Bedürfnisse seines Geistes, das Vermögen zur Empfindung des Schönen, ästhetische Erfahrung machte aus ihm den Begründer des Eigentums.

2

Wer kann es Kain verdenken, dass er alle schönen Empfindungen genießen wollte, dass der Ackermann auf seinen Willen zu genießen nicht verzichten mochte? Natürlich erwuchs in seinem Fall aus dem Drang zu genießen der Drang zu besitzen. Es ist zwar bitte schön nicht so, dass man nur genießen kann, was man besitzt. Kain aber sah es anders und hatte dies mit den meisten seiner Kinder gemeinsam, dass ihm am meisten das Unerreichbare gefiel, am allerersten seine gesamte Umwelt. Von jeher beanspruchen die Kinder dieses Adamssohnes so viel wie möglich für sich. Kain wurde also früh dazu gezwungen, mit der Unerfüllbarkeit seiner Bedürfnisse umzugehen, genauer gesagt, der arme Mann musste ja Bedürfnisse aufgeben, was ihm nicht immer leicht fiel. So erreichte er das erwachsene Alter in dem Zustand einer ungeheuren inneren Spannung, wie ein frustrierter Ackermann, denn dieses war das Höchste, was er sich leisten konnte. Die Steuerung seiner eigenen Bedürfnisse angesichts der Unmöglichkeit, alles zu besitzen, verkörperte in Kain die Geburt der Wirtschaft. Die Geschichte dieses Menschen ist ein Sündenfall von einem Zustand ästhetischer Naivität in die wirtschaftliche Bewusstwerdung der eigenen Existenz. Das unruhige Bewusstsein, dass ein Mensch in sich selbst nicht passt, ist die Wirtschaft, wie Kain sie entdeckte.

3

Indem der Ackermann die Wirtschaft entdeckte, erkannte er in seiner geistigen Verbitterung auch die Gesellschaft, die gemeinsame Bewirtschaftung der Umwelt durch Menschen, die sich gegenseitig beeinflussten. Da ward er seines Bruders gewahr, des Schäfers, denn gerade die Schafe seines Bruders, gerade Abels Bedürfnisse hinderten seine, schafften Spannung. Wie denn nicht? Abel wollte auch etwas besitzen, am besten so viel wie möglich. So musste Kain feststellen, dass seine geistigen Bedürfnisse, ja selbst die Stillung seines leiblichen Bedarfs ohne Berührung mit seinem Bruder unmöglich war. Wenn immer Kain sich eine Gegend aussuchte, um seine Körner zu säen, musste er hoffen, dass Abel und seine Herde sich woanders aufhielten. Da dies aber immer seltener der Fall war, musste Verhandlung entscheiden, wer was besaß, aber diese Brüder waren nicht sehr bekannt für Diplomatie. Die Rechtfertigung ihres Eigentums voreinander war eine ständige Quelle von Konflikten und von Anfang an wohnte dem Wesen ihres gemeinsamen Lebens Zwietracht inne. Die Feindschaft, die aus gemeinsamen Begierden entstand, machte Abel und Kain um so unversöhnlicher. Kain aber hielt sich nie gern in Gesellschaft auf, er erwartete nichts Gutes aus ihrem Schoß und wollte ihr nichts Gutes geben. Er sah sich im Gegenteil gezwungen, teilweise durch die Autorität des Vaters, sein Milieu zu ertragen, um zu überleben.

4

Adam, der Vater und Herrscher, war noch in der Lage, durch Vertrag und Gewalten den Schein einer Ordnung herzustellen und Eigentumsverhältnisse zu regeln. Aber seine Herrschaft war mitnichten das Ende der Konkurrenz und der Gewaltbereitschaft seiner Söhne und jeweiliger Parteien, gleichgültig, in welcher politischen Form der Patriarch versuchte, seine Macht auszuüben. Unter allen Umständen blieb jene Gesellschaft ein Schauplatz menschlichen Versagens, umso schlimmer angesichts ihrer Unausweichlichkeit. Denn selbst in einer Zeit, da die Welt so groß erschien, war es nicht mehr möglich, in die Freiheit der eigenen Einsamkeit zu fliehen. Auch dort musste schon jeder mit Gesellschaft umgehen. Adam, dem alten Herrscher, war die Einstellung seiner Kinder natürlich zuwider, weil der ehrwürdige Begründer jener Gesellschaft sie wie Aristoteles als einen Ort der Freundschaft betrachtete, in dem Menschen gemeinsame Ziele erreichen, in Frieden, Recht und Sitte miteinander leben mögen. Adam hatte ja viel von seinen Fehlern gelernt. Aber seine Hoffnung sollte sich als frommen Wunsch erweisen.

5

Auf Mord und Blut, Gewalt und Totschlag sann Kain in seinem paradoxen Drang zu besitzen und zugleich frei zu sein, während der Vater noch Vertrag und Recht, der Bruder Betrug und List für die Verhandlung mit dem Außenseiter suchte. Solchen Zustand erreichte jene Gesellschaft. Wenn einem alles gehört hätte, so hätte er Feinde gehabt. Wenn jedem alles gehört hätte, so hätte jeder Feinde gehabt. Nur noch zwei Szenarien schienen dort möglich, nur zwei: Blut und Hunger. Die Vermehrung und Verteilung der Güter nach Vertrag und Gesetz könnte längst nicht mehr alle zufrieden stellen, denn viele mussten im Leib und im Geiste hungern. Wenn aber Wut und Zorn außer Band gerieten, und Vernunft und Unvernunft sich nicht mehr unterschieden, und die Sinnlosigkeit von Zwang und Pflicht und Recht und Rechtfertigung unerträglich ward, da brach ein jeder außer sich. Und Hass, und Neid und gegenseitige Verachtung kamen ungehindert zu Tage, sodass Tod und Leichen auf den Straßen herrschten. Dem Hunger folgte Gewalt, und jene ganze Menschheit musste in der Sintflut ihres eigenen Blutes ertrinken. Ihre Gesellschaft war zu einer unheilbaren Wunde geworden.

6

Es begann mit Kain, denn Kain mochte seine Existenz nicht länger ertragen. Als er merkte, dass sein Vater und seine Gesellschaft das Werk des Schäfers würdigte, der es mit seiner Herde im günstigen Terrain leicht hatte, Kains Arbeit aber wenig Anerkennung genoss, weil die Beschaffenheit des Bodens dem Ackerbau im Wege stand, und also merkte, dass man ihm eine schlechtere Stellung geben wollte, obwohl er so viel arbeitete wie sein Bruder, da wurde Kain ungehalten. Hass entstand in seinem Inneren und er fragte sich, wenn er abends vor seinem fruchtlosen Felde stand, nachdem er den ganzen Tag gearbeitet, was er getan habe, um diese Existenz zu verdienen, und woran er sich von seinem Bruder unterscheide, der vom Zufall so viel Gunst erfuhr und überall gelobt wurde, während Kain mit derselben körperlichen und geistigen Beschaffenheit das Licht dieser Welt erblickte und dennoch von ihr ausgestoßen schien. Das schien ihm nicht recht. Als er eines Abends seinen Bruder allein sah, nahm er Abel auf das Feld und tötete ihn mit der Schaufel. Kain nahm seine Rache nicht nur an Abel, sondern an allem, was ihn wie aus dem Nichts in jene aussichtslose Lage geworfen hatte. Er gebrauchte das Höchste seiner Freiheit, um eine unversöhnliche Revolte gegen die Existenz auszudrücken.

7

So wanderte Kain sein Leben lang weinend durch Wüsten, während die Stimme seines Vaters ihn verfolgte und fragte: „Was hast du getan?“ Nach Jahren des Leides brachte ihn die Zerrissenheit der Reue zu einem Ort, in dem er eine Stadt gründete, um seine Taten wiedergutzumachen. Seine Herrschaft brachte Ordnung, aber er hatte nicht gelernt, in Gesellschaft zu leben, und konnte nicht verhindern, dass hinter dem friedlichen Anschein Zwietracht und gemeinsame Verachtung entstanden, ein unsichtbarer Krieg aller gegen alle, ein solcher Krieg, in dem das Leben eines jeden billig wurde. Kains Gesetze waren schwach und seine Sitten führten nicht zu Frieden und Freundschaft. Wenn diesem Adamssohn nicht einmal die Wirtschaft seines Ackerlandes gelungen war, wie konnte ihm sein zweites Ackerland, eine ganze Stadt gelingen? Kain schüttelte voller Enttäuschung den Kopf und seufzte. Die Kinder der Schwachen schauten ratlos auf den Untergang seiner Stadt. Dort litt am meisten die Hoffnung.

aus dem Werk:
© Drei Essays über Geschichte

INDEX

Letter to Jeremy Corbyn: Reflections on Immigration

I am writing to congratulate you on the success of your party during the last general elections. For many people, your manifesto provided a vision. Gregory Name

Antwort an Georg Solz: Der Präsident über Kunst im Sozialstaat

Sie machen darauf aufmerksam, dass Kunst und Kultur für die moderne Gesellschaft äußerst wichtig sind und fordern eine staatliche Unterstützung. Bundespräsidialamt

The Carolingian Series: Introducing a Different Book Approach

The Internet has brought us the benefit of easier forms of communication, but one of the effects of mass communication is the lack of focus and clarity. Gregory Name

Totila: Comunicado ao Público Novo Poema Épico

Comunico ao público por instrumento desta carta circular a obra épica Totila, a qual está disposta a público acesso para fins de leitura em meu domínio. Eustácio de Sales

Interview mit Georg Solz: Ein Gespräch über Ästhetik und Literatur

Herr Solz, man weiß nicht viel über Sie. Warum findet man keine Angaben über Ihre akademische Ausbildung? Georges Louis

Literary Extracts III

Read literary extracts from different polyglot works in prose and poetry – bringing style and aesthetic ambition to contemporary literature. The Carolingian

The Carolingian 2017 II: Articles and Essays

The contributions from the last edition are still available. This is a good chance to read them if you haven’t yet. The Carolingian

For many people, your manifesto provided a vision which other parties and leaders could not offer for a long time. It is rare to find a leader who stands by his word and will not be intimidated by bullying behaviour from within or without the party. The public opinion has great appreciation for those who say what has to be said.

Saying what has to be said also applies to the British exit from the EU. Immigration has been an important topic in the public debate since the referendum, and I do not know exactly what your party’s understanding of immigration in general is. While I do not expect that all members of a party should have a unanimous view on this matter, it is reasonable to strive for a prevailing opinion, that the public may know with more clarity which policies are being advocated.

It would be unfair to underestimate the complexity of the matter. Being an open and inclusive debate, the reflection of immigration should always welcome new and reasonable arguments, that with time and tranquillity we may take as much as is needed into consideration and avoid any rash conclusions. Otherwise, unhelpful policies will follow.

1

There is broad agreement among philosophers that the ultimate aim of society and the life of states is to achieve mutual friendship and prosperity. Aristotle speaks of states as partnerships with a view to a common good. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) refers to all countries as a «human family» in its very opening sentence. This is related to the fact that, everywhere, isolation leads to suspicion, suspicion leads to conflict and conflict leads to war. Suspicion begins where dialogue and partnership cease, where the motto is: You hide in your place and I hide in mine.

The existence of states and borders does not change the fact that the Earth was already inhabited before any state arose. At that time, the natural right of every member of the human family to move wherever he saw fit went unchallenged, and rightly so, for as Immannuel Kant stated in his Perpetual Peace, it is not the case that anybody is more entitled to live in a particular place in the world than anyone else, neighter by birth nor by any kind of natural law. So that, in this regard, national laws try to create, by convention, a privilege that nature as such did not bestow on anyone. The fact that the Earth is the Earth everywhere is that mankind is mankind everywhere is enough to show this: the whole Earth was equally given to all mankind.

2

This is the spirit, I believe, which the Declaration of 1948 tries to express by calling all human beings the «human family». Whether we like the European Union or not, we must acknowledge that this Union is an attempt to concretise the universal call to live as a family. It is not just a supermarket, as President Macron said recently. It is an attempt to erase borders. Although it does not make freedom of movement universal, it enables this freedom within most countries of a whole continent, which is already a beginning. The EU is not alone. Other regions of the world are coming together as families. The African Union and the Mercosur are only two examples of countries envisaging ever greater forms of free movement. This is not utopia. It is the pragmatism of nature. The dynamics of civilisation works towards bringing people and peoples together in an ever closer union. When single countries try to isolate themselves, suspicion, conflict and war follow. No friendship will grow out of isolation, and without friendship there will be no peace.

Yet not everybody is focusing on the human implications of isolation. Rather, there is a widespread concern in the public opinion about the economic impact of immigration. It is certainly an aspect worth considering. I doubt, however, that any objective assessment will be found. Anybody that understands statistics knows that figures are not reliable mirrors of reality. They are always based on insufficient data and criteria, they are drawn in subjective ways and ways that can manipulate the reader’s perception. The same reality can be presented by two completely opposing figures. As a politician (not Churchill) once affirmed, “I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself”.

3

What I know about economics is that the market, including the job market, is ruled by demand and supply. This being so, if a foreigner found a job in this country, that means that there was a job available in the first place. I also want to assume that nobody obliged the employer to employ a foreigner, but everybody employs whoever he or she wishes. I assume as well that nobody is employed on account of being national or foreigner but rather on account of either suitability for the task or cheaper supply of service. Thus, where there is market there is also competition. Yet losing a competition does not make us morally entitled to be resentful or annoyed at the prosperity of others, at least when we live and act with a view to friendship. Nor are we entitled to be hateful of the country, sex, race or religion of those who, in the competition, fared better than ourselves. There is an ethical distinction to be made here: Even where the prosperity of others may harm us, it does not follow from this that others are prospering in order to harm us, so that they would deserve to be hated. Rather, hating those who won any kind of competition in good faith only proves that we as losers deserved to lose.

Surely, the best society is that where there is no loser and where everybody has something to win. Where this is not the case, citizens can gather efforts and tackle sources of unfairness. If the job market is not working properly, it is best to look for solutions rather than resentment. If a certain group has little access to the job market, it is helpful to invest in such a group rather than trying to harm or exclude others. If someone performs badly in a competition, it would be rash to conclude that the reason for the bad performance is the presence of other competitors, and that the solution would be to exclude them from the competition. This would not improve the performance but destroy the competition. Where states invest in the education of their nationals, the access to the job market is improved. Otherwise, foreigners will fare better. Excluding the foreigners will not improve the performance of the nationals. If you want your own nationals to prosper in the job market, you do not close the borders, you change the government and the laws in order better to care for the nationals. Else you will close the borders and the problem will remain, because it was not the foreigner that brought the problem with him, as if sending him away would solve the problem. Rather, the foreigner will leave and the problem will stay.

4

Enabling competition is more enriching than destroying the competition. The latter leads to isolation. The former, though it is competition, still brings people together and gives them the opportunity to realise that they are part of a human family and should act fairly towards each other. This improves the moral standard of the competition and turns it into something constructive, guided in a spirit of brotherhood, friendship or at least respect.

Someone could argue that the true problem of immigration is not those who have a job but those who do not. Yet those who do not have a job came with a view of finding a job. They are enriching a friendly competition by adding variety to it. If they find a job, they will stay and work, and if not, they will look for opportunities in another country. If you are afraid that some will come to live on benefits, you change the legislation. In Germany, only those EU-citizens who worked for five years can claim certain benefits.

Others may answer that, in fact, immigration is not the main reason for leaving the European Union. If this be the case, then it would be reasonable to hope the the UK will not change its immigration policy towards Europe. Why, I have heard politicians say that, after the British withdrawal, only European citizens with a job contract should be allowed to enter this country with a view to settling in the long term. Perhaps not many politicians are aware of the implications of this discourse and the human values it reveals.

Let me start, if you please, with the concept of job: Apparently, politicians are implying that the best possible state is the state where everybody has a job, and that creating jobs for everybody will also create the best possible society. If this is what is being said, and if the best possible state is the state where everybody has a job, then you must be assuming that the state for which you are looking is something like Nazi-Germany, where by 1937 there was no unemployment: Everybody had a job, what else was missing in that state? The right values were missing! Thus it is the most illiberal reasoning to assume that it only takes giving everybody a job to make any society better. Yet where does this leave us with the argument that only people with a job should enter a country? Perhaps you can introduce me to a politician who is an infallible judge of lives and is prepared to judge the dignity of individuals on account of their having or not having a job.

5

Clearly, those who say that only people with a job should enter a country must be assuming that those with a job will bring a benefit to the country, while those without a job will bring none. And yet we need a distinction of terms here: Are we talking of moral benefit or economic benefit? If we are talking of moral benefit, it is difficult to understand why a person that is bringing a good job but no values to a country is more entitled to enter it than a person that is bringing no job but good values. There is also much confusion about concepts, for there is a difference between job and work. Why, a person can work and have no job: A painter is working on her paintings, although her work is not a job. I may be doing unwaged work in a community garden, which may take much time and effort, although this is not a job. On the other hand, a top manager in a big city may have a very well-waged job and do no work. Yet, if I understand the logic of those politicians, they are saying that someone with a job but no work is morally more entitled to enter the country than someone with a work but no job. Does that make sense? A diligent Spanish painter would be prevented from settling in the UK, and so would a passionate volunteer nurse from Poland, since those politicians imply that they do not deserve to live in this country, and that a well-paid consultant from Germany is more entitled to it. All shows that, in this argument, what matters is not the ethical value of the work, but simply the job, and when politicians say job, they mean simply wage. Will we therefore say that wage is enough to bring any moral benefit to a country? Yet this is not all, because some may say that the benefit of good jobs, which means high wages, is economic, and that therefore the consultant should be allowed to settle rather than the painter. This is intriguing, and here is why: The consultant may advise a big company in London to save money and cause 200 British workers to lose their jobs. Is this an economical benefit?

6

This being so, I am at a loss and cannot explain why an immigrant with a job and no values will bring a greater benefit, moral or economical, than an immigrant with no job and sound values. But I am a man of insufficient education, always glad to be enlightened, and perhaps you know of an argument that has escaped my poor reasoning and you will be so kind to produce it. If it be right to assume as Cicero in his work on duties that only what is honourable is useful, then we must agree that an economical benefit is not always useful, since it is not always honourable. Thus, if there should be a criterion for foreigners to settle in this country, this should be a moral rather than an economical one. Yet I am again at a loss, because I am not quite sure how easily values can be verified. Perhaps the UK wants to pioneer an innovative kind of border control and check how sound the moral values of individuals are before they enter the country. Or is someone going to say that this is absurd? Yet even more absurd would be to value an economic criterion of immigration rather than a moral criterion. Therefore, given the absurdity of the former and the unfeasibility of the latter, the best solution is not to judge the dignity of people on account of their having or not a job, but let them enter and settle in the country, knowing that those who bring no good job may bring good values. Because our hearts are not great enough to let people enter our borders in the very capacity of members of our human family, as indeed both universal rights and reason vainly enjoin, let at least those of the European family continue to have a freedom of movement truly worthy of human dignity.

7

Perhaps defenders of British pragmatism will argue that, if anyone can come to the UK, the country will be soon overcrowded. They are ready to forget the laws of the market and even logic when it suits them. For even if the 7 billion in the world were to make their way to Britain, most would leave soon afterwards, because a small place has not enough land and jobs for 7 billion. What benefit would they have in lingering here? Nobody wants to stay in a place where there is no perspective. This applies to European migrants too. Those who come to this country either have no financial concern or they do have a concern. If they have no concern, they can support themselves. If they have a concern, they must be coming with a view to find a job. Yet if after a while no job can be found and there is no prospect of finding a job and living off benefits, why would this person want to stay? He can realise for himself that the best to do is not to lose any time and look for a job in a more promising market. There is no need of intimidating legislation. Or will someone say that, even if all European immigrants could support themselves, leaving the borders open for them would soon overcrowd the country? But the same answer applies here, for surely nobody wants to stay in an overcrowded country, especially those who can support themselves. The more populated a place becomes the less attractive it becomes for new immigrants, for they can see that the market is saturated and that, if the market is saturated at one place, it must be full of unexplored opportunities somewhere else. Thus, demography has its natural ways of balancing itself.

8

The tone in which economic migrants (so-called) are mentioned is also worrying. There appears to be a consensus that these do not deserve to enter any European country. As a matter of logic, most help should be given to those who most need it. Now a journalist who flees political persecution often has a job and means to support herself, since the cause of migration is not economical but political. She would be welcomed in Europe. Yet a victim of famine in Africa flees her country not because of her opinion. She is too hungry to have an opinion. Her need of help is the same, if not greater, than the help needed for political immigrants. But why is it that the most fragile of all are the most demonised? I am sure that policies can be enacted to provide structural development in their countries. This is a noble pursuit. Yet the person who is fleeing famine needs to eat now and not just in ten years, when development comes to fruition. In France earlier this year, I spoke with the only survivor of a boat that capsized in the Mediterranean. I was told that, in Lybia, every night a stream of tears flows through the shores as most travellers call their families to bid them farewell. Nobody is proud at home, the mothers trying to prevent their children from embarking either to death or to a continent unworthy of their suffering. Most are urged to stay and go back – but go back to what?

Indeed, a job market that works fairly is vital for every society, but the job market alone cannot cover all the needs of human dignity. It is vulgar to live only with a view to increasing one’s wage and becoming a treasure-hoarder, and even more vulgar to expect that this should be the moral profile of people most entitled to settle in a country. I mean vulgarity, of course, in the same way as Aristotle, as anything that alienates our mind and body from what is conducive to their best constitution: virtue and health. As I mentioned in a recent exchange of letters with the President of Germany, a nation of uneducated car drivers cannot be the goal, even if everybody has a job. There will be always weak citizens who need protection and the state should protect the weak who seek refuge not in jobs and wages but in art, in science and knowledge. Even weaker than these, alas, are the refugees and many so-called economic migrants.

9

Democracy is the key principle of our political values. Yet democracy as such is not enough to build human dignity. It is important, in all our actions, to avoid anything that can turn democracy against itself. Since the beginning of the 20^th century, not a single dictatorship in the world has refrained from claiming the name of democracy for their autocratic systems. In Nazi-Germany, “democratic” referenda were called to give power to Adolf Hitler and decide over the Anschluss with Austria. In 1943, Goebbels incited the audience during his notorious Sportpalast speech to acclaim his doctrines unanimously, and so it was “democratically” decided that there should be a total war against the bolsheviks and the Jewish “terrorists” (this very word was used) who were financing communism and the destruction of the West. Currently, we see states proposing referenda to reintroduce the death penalty in a democratic way. Is it right that the will of the people should have no limit? Is it right to use democracy to defeat universal rights? This is an important reflection for a country like Britain, where apparently there is great appetite among politicians to rewrite human rights. Will they rewrite the Declaration of 1948 as well? They should consider the implications of their actions: rewriting universal rights whenever it suits them is to say that there is no such thing as universal rights and that, in a way, those condemned in Nürnberg were right in their statement that they could kill whoever they wanted because it was not written in any law that anybody has a right to live, or because the will of the people decided that a certain group should die. There has to be a moral limit for democracy. You cannot let the people decide in a referendum whether Jews should be sent to concentration camps and then excuse yourself by saying that this was the will of the people. There are universal rights that are above anything: also above the will of the people.

10

Many could find it improper that I try to compare the above referenda with the referendum on the British withdrawal. Why should I not compare them? Because fewer people will die? Yet the moral gravity of a decision does not depend on how many will die but on the intrinsic value of the decision. Or will someone argue that there were irregularities in the procedure of those referenda, that the audience at the Sportpalast speech and the electors were carefully chosen? This was indeed the case, but if we say that this was the problem, we say that fixing the procedure will make the decision legitimate. Had there been a democratic campaign with a long debate and different parties arguing whether homosexuals should live or die, and the death vote had won, then this would be a legitimate decision, since the procedure was regular. Is this right? This is wrong. Procedure cannot take precedence over values.

If the crowd is stirred against universal values, agitated by a discourse of resentment and hatred, you do not join the crowd under the pretext of listening to their concerns, you stand up and fight for the values under attack. You do not show compliance with hate speakers in order to canvass a few more voters. One may expect this behaviour from someone who went to Oxford just to join the rowing club and play with pig heads, and who after working ten years for a big and influential company now thinks he is fit to run a country. This is why businesspeople should not go into politics. They learn the dishonourable ways in which, much to shame of many a valuable trade, business can be done and think politics should be done in the same way, nay, that their ability in doing what is dishonourable is their best qualification for running the public affair. It would not be congruous with a man of integrity to approach politics as an illiberal bully looking for a business career. A man of your stature should be able and willing to break the spell of imposture that populists have cast over the country, flattering the crowd and manipulating the will of the people in ways that sooner or later will only harm the people.

11

Free movement is a principle higher than the European Union. It is not written in the Declaration of 1948, but it is written in our conscience as a natural right on a planet that does not belong to any people in particular. In fact, it is a shame for mankind that the Declaration of 1948 had to be written: It took the greatest genocide of all time for world leaders to write down what goes without saying. I hope no further genocide will force us to write down what is not yet written and should not need to be written. Let us not join the defenders of Nürnberg by saying we have no regard for universal rights because they are not written. It is not the writing that created rights, but good and evil already existed before mankind could write, and so did rights.

The European freedom of movement is a first glimpse of something universal. It is an attempt to turn nations of foes into a family of nations. Europe is more than a vile supermarket with which you can make a few quick trade deals. You cannot say to old partners and friends that you want their products but not their people. The moral logic of this attitude is not sound. Behind any product, there is the work of those who produced it. You cannot truly value the product if you do not value the people behind the product, if your motto is «you hide in your hole and I hide in mine, and every six months I can send a ship with money to get some of your products.» It would be retrograde, in terms of the universal rights that free movement represents, to try to unravel this process. It would unleash unnecessary woes to the European Union and to the UK alike. Do not use referenda as a pretext to trample over rights acquired with great difficulty. Respect the sacrifice of many who died that Europe might be a place of unity rather than a chain of isolated supermarkets where every thirty years an Adolf Hitler may arise. Do not tamper with the tools of democracy to attack principles much higher than democracy, and without which democracy is devoid of ethical meaning.

12

It is not a coincidence that, for Plato, the kings should be philosophers, the word «king» being used generically for any political leader, and «philosopher» applying to anyone who seeks wisdom and any fair distinction between what is right and wrong. For clearly, the actions of political leaders will affect the lives of many, and he who does not know with absolute certainty what is right and wrong should either not enter politics and risk bringing countless woes upon the lives of many, or at least approach any political decision with the greatest possible modesty, since the true effect of his acts and laws will be only visible years later: when the enthusiasm of heated debates and ephemeral passions has ceased, people will still be suffering the consequences. It is better, thus, to think carefully before voting too quickly for this or that law. In this spirit, I hope you will encourage a serene reflection in your party about immigration and the ethical meaning of the free movement of people both in the European Union and as a general principle. I agree with Plato that the good leader is he who can interweave the different elements of a state or party into a harmonious fabric by friendship and community of sentiment into a common life. I hope with all my heart that your leadership may build a friendship worthy of the human family.

Sie machen darauf aufmerksam, dass Kunst und Kultur für die moderne Gesellschaft äußerst wichtig sind und fordern eine staatliche Unterstützung für in finanzieller Not lebende Künstler. Es gibt in der Tat eine Vielzahl von Bildenden Künstlern, Musikern und Schriftstellern, die finanziell kaum über die Runden kommen und denen die Altersarmut droht. Dass sich einzelne von ihnen von den Sozialbehörden ungerecht behandelt fühlen, wurde mir von vielen Künstlern und Schriftstellern, mit denen ich zu tun habe, auch mehrfach geschildert. Hier ist grundsätzlich ein Umdenken erforderlich, wie Sie auch in Ihrem Brief formuliert haben.

In den letzten Jahren konnte einer Vielzahl von in Not geratenen Künstlern und Schriftstellern seitens des Staates bereits geholfen werden. In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich Sie auf die Deutsche Künstlerhilfe des Bundespräsidenten aufmerksam machen, die 1953/54 von Bundespräsident Theodor Heuss ins Leben gerufen wurde. Die Stiftung wird von dem jeweils amtierenden Bundespräsidenten treuhänderisch verwaltet. Ihr stehen jährlich 3,3 Millionen Euro an Mitteln zur Verfügung.

Im Übrigen verfügen einige Kultusministerien der Länder ebenfalls über Haushaltsmittel, die ausschließlich für in Not geratene Künstler bereitgestellt und in Form eines Ehrensolds ausgezahlt werden.

Die Förderung von Kunst und Kultur liegt Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier sehr am Herzen. Wie hat er es neulich so treffend formuliert: »Kunst lässt uns begreifen, was uns ergreift«.

The Internet has brought us the benefit of easier forms of communication, but one of the effects of mass communication is the lack of focus and clarity. Where all contents are mingled together, it becomes difficult for anything to stand out. Is the Internet getting in the way?

Until recently, it went without saying that there must be an intermediary between the writer and the reader: the publisher. This notion went unchallenged since the late Middle Ages when the modern book was invented, and probably rightly so, since any thought needed this printed medium to be communicated. This required a craft of its own, and thus the publisher arose.

When the levels of literacy were low, the demand was clearer and manageable. Slowly, publishing houses became overburdened. The trade established itself as a proper business, prioritising what promised the greatest sale. It transformed literature into a business model. To crown the trade, literature was divided into commercial genres like the departments of a company: crime, fantasy, historic novel, science fiction etc. Readers were conditioned to expect this kind of genrified writings in the shelves of book-stores.

1

Hardly an author from this commercial setting won a Nobel Prize. Derek Walcott, Thomas Mann, Samuel Beckett, Pablo Neruda, Albert Camus, Ernest Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Eliot, William Yeats, none of these wrote in pre-conceived genres to please the ambitions of a publisher. A true writer writes out of ambitions higher and nobler than money. Agents and publishers, far from rendering any valuable service, are playing a rather illiberal role: They take advantage of their position to alienate the literary production by unbearable commercial requirements. They alienate the taste of readers by a disproportionate supply of doubtful writings.

The Internet made many believe it would be possible to break this spell of commercial vulgarity. Direct contact, debate and interaction were the hopes. Websites rose as a potential haven for writers, with forums and platforms. Writers would acquire their own domain and build a free and unique place to share their writings and explore new forms of interaction. A wide net of small but authentic literary pages, all interconnected, would lead to a new cultural effervescence. It would emancipate literature. Yet by 2010 the Internet was being engulfed by social media. The trend became only worse and has now stifled most of the creative potential. Instead of a wide net of free websites, we see everybody quickly opening an account at the same social network and spending their days in trifling pursuits. Only a few acquired the tools to take the progress of the Internet in their own hands.

2

Little is left for serious writers, losing traffic for the attention economy, where pictures and numbers take precedence over debate. Independent thinkers are struggling to find any resonance. We can hardly think of a strategy for writers to interact freely with an audience online. The petty and pernicious ambitions of commercial publishers and alienating networks are universal. Yet not everything is a disaster. Without the web, not even this journal would exist, and little interaction is still better than none.

Publishing houses are not as bad as what they publish now. They contributed to the written transmission of many a classic. We have just read a non-exhaustive list of most deservingly Nobel-awarded writers, published by established houses. Yet none of them wrote in the doubtful genres which fill most of contemporary book-shops. The real disgrace is to encourage the massive production of these genres (so-called) for commercial purposes. We must condemn this attitude. It is below the standards of the uncompromising freedom that true, good and beautiful literature requires, as does any other art. It is a technocratic behaviour that leads to alienation. This is a major problem in the publishing world.

3

Most of the work of self-publishers is deplorable. In a world where every third person deems himself or herself a writer, it is difficult to distinguish what is good and bad. If Plato is right in Euthydemos, in any trade or art you consider, most people are mediocre, the truly good ones are only a few. Regarding literature, it is doubtful that publishing houses still have aesthetic authority and refinement to single out the best writers, since too many commercial criteria play a role, unless you rank books like Harry Potter, Fifty Shades of Grey and many other best-sellers as literarily refined. Even from those with enough discernment it would be naive to expect that, receiving thousands of manuscripts in a short period of time, they were able always to make the best possible decision, overloaded with work as they are. It would be unreasonable to expect that any conscientious writer, whether published or not, should expose his or her work to the slush pile of a money-driven publishing house. Note that the expression «slush pile» was coined by publishers themselves.

4

Self-publishing is not the solution. Self-publishers do a disservice to literature in their urge to become rich and famous. They regard literature as a business model, while genuine art serves a cause much higher. Publishing houses and self-publishers, far from being opposed to each other, have in fact too much in common: Both seek literature as a means of quick enrichment and applause. They are competing for the same goal, and this is why they reject each other. They seek from literature what they should seek from the lottery.

If you believe in art as a sacrifice, you spend your means to produce copies of your work in a small number, which you distribute among the friends of the cause. This is how Plato and Aristotle circulated their writings. Plato did not place a dialogue like Republic on a shelf to try to bargain as someone who will let us read it if we pay, but not if not. Success is not about turning literature into a contest of best-sellers. The Ancient ancestors paid for their manuscripts to be copied and circulated among a select group. They lost more money than they won, and this should be the spirit of anyone who believes what he has to share is true or good or beautiful. The payment is not money, but the intrinsic benefit of the work for the readers, which in return will benefit the author. This is an argument from Gorgias that makes our publishing business look as an imposture.

5

The classics survived because medieval monasteries sacrificed their means to reproduce copies. If the classics were to depend on businesses moved by a spirit of profit, they would not have survived. When they gradually acquired the status of “classics”, publishing houses started selling editions, possibly in the belief that they were good, but more probably because they knew that buying the “classics”, whoever they be, is a sign of status for many readers, so that there will always be a superficial demand for whatever be called a “classic”.

The modest disruption that the Internet has caused in the publishing business will have positive effects. It will help literature to become more emancipated. Until the reformation, the priest was an intermediary between man and God, indispensable in his office. We must hope that literature will be emancipated from an element that has imposed itself as a priest between the writer and the world. Free thinking cannot compromise with the needs of money-driven publishers. If you are looking for a means of enrichment, you do not approach literature. First you procure the means to support your life elsewhere, in order for your art or patronage to be truly free from any commercial concern.

The Renaissance is full of inspiring examples: The true publisher is a patron, who can afford to lose money to support not what will sell but what is good. Losing money in this way is a noble loss, while the gain which is based on selling what is mediocre is a vulgar gain – and it is vulgar to be concerned, as a publisher, with the question as to whether a book that is good will also sell. Publishing should be left to those who do not need to be concerned about that. A patron enables the book to be circulated in all appropriate circles. The work of the true publisher is patronage, yet, at least in terms of money, true patronage is not a gain, but rather the most expensive sacrifice. This is the spirit in which publishing should be approached.

6

Such is the aim of The Carolingian Books. The title is a reference to the Carolingian Renaissance: At Charlemagne’s time there was only a small circle of literati at the Emperor’s court and very few literate people beyond the clergy. Members circulated their writings among each other, which was the only way of cultivating literature at a time in which no wide readership could be expected. The difficulty of finding an audience is faced by any truly independent thinker or any writer who does not write commercial mainstream. For them, the Dark Ages will hardly come to an end. They will be always in need of a Carolingian Renaissance.

The Carolingian is a series of circular books: They wander in a circle that begins and ends with the first reader. Readers will give it back to the circulator in charge, who will make it circulate in another circle and so on. The concept is useful for the environment: It allows a small number of books to be printed and each copy to be perused by many different readers. Anyone can order a circular book from an appointed guardian. This is a genuinely Carolingian approach to the cultivation and circulation of literature. The printing and circulation of these books is not regarded as publication, which is now tainted by a commercial connotation, but simply presentation to an audience.

7

The books are not sold. When literature has intrinsic value, it brings a benefit from which you will profit yourself. Yet if on top of this you need to charge money for your book, you are not convinced of its intrinsic value. Circulating a book for free does not oblige readers to like it. Yet even those who will dislike it will acknowledge that, at least, they had no financial damage on top of their frustration; and that a conscientious thinker is under no moral obligation to write what will please those who are paying to be flattered and entertained. The moral contract between readers and writers must not be conditioned by money.

The Carolingian approach is an attempt to find an ethical middle way between the commercial arbitrariness of publishing houses and the conspicuous greed of self-publishers. A combined initiative of virtual and printed elements can benefit the culture of our time. It may not be in the foreground of social perception, but it will lay the foundations for greater things to arise. So did the Carolingian Renaissance, hidden in the background and yet enough visible for all who look for depth and enlightenment, a steadfast beacon showing that, despite all confusion and fears of war, culture and erudition will remain.

COMUNICO ao público por esta circular a obra épica Totila, acessível para fins de leitura em meu domínio. Aos amigos da literatura peço que façam chegar, a quem interessar possa, conhecimento e nota desta obra. Anexo a evocação de Apolo, do início do poema.

Petersfield, 15 de setembro de 2017

EVOCAÇÃO DE APOLO

Como devotos de Iemanjá lançando prenda ao mar depus no entardecer, Apolo, ofrenda de flores sobre a pedra cantando pelo prado um nome relembrado. Terás talvez de eternidades perdidas um olhar generoso sobre a sombra das vidas? Tutor de firmes, é somente um poema que dedico ao teu escudo maior, è dom menor que a beleza da flor e que a força das armas. Acede não por mim, mas pela dor de Roma que o verso recorda e que outrora te honrou.

Naveguemos, Febo, pelas ondas desta Internet, abominável bênção por onde, agitados, caçadores de moda e divisores de tempo vão flutuando vagos, intrigados no facebook e no twitter comentando a temperatura do vento. É por esse deserto que um destino severo impôs viver e dividir o que somos, e desse palco improvável evoco, na flor e na voz e no html, a transcendência dum deus incompatível.

Eu, se puder pedir, pedirei, ò Febo, que a tua mão se abata pelo mundo como um raio escaldante, sol devorador que és, e destruas as redes e os cabos, como um martelo esmagues no ferro uma impostura exterminadora de letras e vida e verdade. Confunde, guerreiro insaciável, a pretensão dos distraídos: Atira os seus filhos contra a rocha!

Muitos quiseram prantear a desventura que canto e também pranteio tarde. Poema! Teu verso è tão velho que do olvido acaba sendo novo. É preciso evocar, Apolo, com toda a força do sopro e todo o peito o teu concurso: Não naufrague na indiferença dos brutos o esmero de longos anos! É preciso muitas flores depor a fim de que a boa sorte vença, se assim quiseres, a inveja de tantos deuses e dum destino destruïdor de desígnios. Praza às tuas setas cruzando o peito de eleitos despertar amor ao belo, ao bom e ao vero. Ensina ao tolo que nada è velho nem novo, eterno ou não eterno apenas.

Feita a minha parte, Febo, faz a tua. Ordena à musa inebriar o sopro do bom coletor e destruir, na batalha do verso, a presunção de quem lê com pressa e má vontade. Tu que miraste, rei de guerras, o fundo das almas, prepara-me algum pequeno lugar no templo donde Platão com veredito aguarda, juiz implacável de Homero e do verso dos maus. Não ergui minha voz para cantar quimera e rogo vênia se, nalgum momento em verso meu, a verdade foi mais sonora da voz que a gravidade ordena. Redime, Apolo, o poema vahidoso e contudo ansioso da verdade. Ave, eleitor de fortíssimos, ave, desarmado desarmador de armadíssimos!

da obra épica:
© Totila

LOUIS: Herr Solz, man weiß nicht viel über Sie. Warum findet man keine Angaben über Ihre akademische Ausbildung?

SOLZ: Ich möchte nicht den Eindruck perpetuieren, dass literarisches Schreiben eine akademische Legitimierung benötigt. Thomas Mann hatte einen Realschulabschluss. Heute hat fast jede Vita einen Satz wie »hat dies und das studiert«, als ob ein Germanistikstudium oder eine Promotion den besseren Schriftsteller machte. Das stört mich.

LOUIS: Für Akademiker gilt also – Finger weg von Literatur.

SOLZ: Das war bis Anfang des 20. Jh. Usus – eine Frage des Schamgefühls. Heute ist man lockerer, gewiss. Aber wer als Autor historisches Bewusstsein hat, sollte sich nicht zu sehr als Akademiker brüsten. Diskretion ist geboten.

LOUIS: Ist Gregory Names Anthologie Word and Dust eine Abrechnung mit der Modernität?

SOLZ: Keinesfalls. Ich bin ein Kind der Modernität, ich verdanke ihr meine Identität. Was ich kritisiere, ist eine gewisse Ideologisierung der Zeit und der Gegenwart. Wie jede Ästhetik ist die Ästhetik unserer Zeit bedenklich, und ich versuche zu zeigen, was daran bedenklich ist.

LOUIS: Zum Beispiel.

1

SOLZ: Zum Beispiel die Vorstellung, dass es zwischen dem Schönen und dem Vulgären keine Grenze gibt. Das Schöne kann durchaus alltäglich sein. Aber reines Unterhaltungsmaterial kann das Schöne nicht sein.

LOUIS: Also gehen Sie von der klassischen Dichotomie zwischen Kunst und Unterhaltung aus.

SOLZ: Ja und nein. Kunst darf unterhalten. Aber was unterhält, ist nicht unbedingt Kunst. Entscheidend ist immer der ästhetische Anspruch.

LOUIS: Dabei klingen manche Ihrer Verse sehr vulgär.

SOLZ: Sollen sie auch! Das ist eine Art Provokation, weil ich die Anspruchslosigkeit der Banalität ja gern vorführe und karikiere. Sie brauchen nur meine deutsche Elektra oder Medea zu lesen, um die Diskrepanz zwischen Sprachebenen zu erkennen. Aber die Diskrepanz ist auch ein Dialog, denn ästhetische Abschottung gegen den Zeitgeist ist keine Lösung. Was ich in ästhetischer Hinsicht nicht mag, ist nicht gleich wertlos, im Gegenteil, ich verwende es auch gern für Kontrasteffekte.

LOUIS: Sie haben ziemlich viel geschrieben. Wie gefällt Ihnen die Unterscheidung zwischen Autoren und Schriftstellern?

2

SOLZ: Sie wird immer schwammiger. Schriftsteller sind etabliert, leben von der Literatur und schreiben mit Niveau. Der Rest sind bloße Autoren. Das ist das klassische Verständnis. Ich bin ein Weder-Noch.

LOUIS: Sie geben ein Online-Zirkular heraus. Warum heißt es Der Karolinger?

SOLZ: Das ist eine Anspielung auf die Karolinger Renaissance. Zur Zeit Karls des Großen gab es keine Verlage. Es gab nur einen Kreis von Literaten am Kaiserhof, die ihre Schriften unter sich zirkulieren ließen. So wurde Literatur zu einer Zeit gepflegt, in der es keine Möglichkeit gab, eine breite Leserschaft zu finden. Das passt ja gut zu meinen Schriften, für die es nur eine kleine Leserschaft gibt. Wer keinen Mainstream schreibt, kann kein großes Publikum beeindrucken.

LOUIS: Finden Sie das nicht elitär? Man könnte den Eindruck haben, Sie wollen die öffentliche Masse von Ihrer Kunst ausgrenzen.

SOLZ: Gar nicht. Meine Werke sind im Netz frei zugänglich für jeden, der sie lesen will. Der Karolinger ist eine Reihe ausgewählter Schriften, die ich in kleinen Mengen herausgebe und vorsichtig zirkulieren lasse. Das sind Zirkularbücher, oder Rundbücher.

3

LOUIS: Und wer kann diese Bücher lesen?

SOLZ: Jeder kann ein Zirklularbuch bei mir bestellen. Das wird per Post verschickt. Der Besteller muss sich nur verpflichten, das Buch zurückzuschicken oder mir durch andere Wege wieder zukommen zu lassen.

LOUIS: Also werden die Bücher nicht verkauft, weil sie zu Ihnen zurückkommen, und von Bestellern verlangen Sie auch keine Zahlung. Warum denn nicht?

SOLZ: Tja, was soll ich sagen? Das entspricht nicht dem Geist, in dem diese Schriften verfasst werden. Wenn Sie an den inneren Wert eines Werkes glauben, gehen Sie davon aus, dass es etwas Gutes in der Welt bewirken wird, von dem letzten Endes auch Sie selbst profitieren werden. Das ist ja schon mehr als Bezahlung! Wenn Sie aber zusätzlich Geld verlangen, dann sind Sie nicht wirklich vom inneren Wert des Werkes überzeugt. Ich wiederum bin nicht überzeugt von denen, die Literatur als Geschäftsmodell betrachten. Aber wahrscheinlich ist das nur Ansichtssache.

4

LOUIS: Herr Solz, Ihr Gedankengang erinnert mich stark an Plato, genauer gesagt an den Dialog Gorgias.

SOLZ: Ich weiß, ich habe auch meine Schwächen und Vorlieben. Niemand ist perfekt!

LOUIS: Und was ist der erste Titel, den Sie in der Karolinger-Reihe veröffentlichen?

SOLZ: Ich betrachte das nicht als Veröffentlichung, sondern nur als Vorstellung. Es ist ja wie gesagt nur für ein kleines Publikum gedacht. Der erste Titel ist Gregory Names Essay über die Existenz, eine literarische Arbeit über Ontologie.

LOUIS: Und wann erscheint denn der erste Titel auf Deutsch?

SOLZ: Hoffentlich bald, aber wenn Sie den Umfang der englischsprachigen Welt bedenken, werden Sie vielleicht verstehen, warum es Sinn macht, dass der erste Titel ein englischer ist. Ein deutschsprachiges Publikum zu finden ist viel schwieriger. Aber keine Sorge: Deutschsprachige Titel werden auch erscheinen. In due course, wie man im Englischen sagt.

LOUIS: Kann man Ihr Werk einem Genre zuweisen?

5

SOLZ: Niveau kennt kein Genre. Was ist denn Günther Grassens Genre? Welches Genre schreibt Herta Müller?

LOUIS: Aber haben Sie nicht den Eindruck, dass Verlage und Agenten eine Art Genrisierung der Literatur bewirken?

SOLZ: Das tun viele, weil es bequem ist. Es erleichtert die Arbeit. Aber die Literatur ist nicht da, um Verlagen und Agenten einen Gefallen zu tun.

LOUIS: Das klingt ziemlich harsch.

SOLZ: Das ist vielleicht kritisch, aber freundlich gemeint. Der Mensch ist ein unternehmensfreundliches Wesen, jawohl, und es ist schön, mit Literatur zu handeln. Aber es gibt ein gesundes Gleichgewicht zwischen ästhetischem Puritanismus und reiner Geldmacherei. Literatur soll nicht nur verkaufen. Sie soll auch schön sein.

LOUIS: Aber glauben Sie nicht, dass im Umgang mit Instanzen, die letzten Endes entscheiden, wer veröffentlicht wird, eine gewisse Diplomatie gehört? Nach dem Motto: Klein anfangen!

SOLZ: Man soll richtig anfangen! Entweder fängt man richtig an oder man fängt nicht wirklich an. Respekt ist immer wichtig, natürlich, aber Respekt existiert nur in einem Verhältnis unter Gleichen. Alles andere ist Duckmäuserei. Verstehen Sie, was ich meine? Man vollzieht den Schritt vom Bürgertum ins Künstlertum nicht, um als Ja-Sager zu leben. Kunst umfasst ja die Fähigkeit zu sagen, was nicht jeder hören will.

6

LOUIS: Sie haben gerade das Bürgertum erwähnt. Ist der Künstler etwa ein Revolutionär?

SOLZ: Nicht unbedingt. Kunst ist keine Ablehnung des Bürgertums. Sie ist aber ein Ausdruck der Freiheit. Wenn sich Autoren klischeehafte Verhaltensmuster aneignen, dann hat die Kunst ein Problem. Denken Sie an Autorenfotos, z.B. für einen Zeitungsartikel, Feuilletons etc. Was sieht man immer darauf? Ein junger Mann mit Lederjacke und zerfetzter Hose steht vor einer Grafitimauer. Soll das ein Ausdruck von Modernität sein?

LOUIS: Jedenfalls ist es schon weit vom Bürgertum entfernt.

SOLZ: Das weiß ich nicht. Wenn die Lederjacke schon teurer ist als ein Frack, dann sieht man sofort, wie präsent das Bürgertum ist.

LOUIS: Aber ist die Lederjacke vielleicht nicht ein Ausdruck von Innovation?

SOLZ: Innovation bringt etwas Neues zustande. Wenn man sich ein Verhaltensmuster aneignet, um sich nur der gängigen Cool-und-Geil-Mentalität anzupassen, was ist denn innovativ dabei?

LOUIS: Also doch lieber Frack tragen!

7

SOLZ: Man kann alles tragen, solange man nicht versucht, eine Künstleruniform durchzusetzen, wie es leider bei Autorenfotos so oft der Fall ist.

LOUIS: Auf Ihrer Seite liest man, dass Sie in social media nicht aktiv sind. Warum denn nicht?

SOLZ: Kunst zielt ja auf kulturelle Bereicherung und ästhetische Differenzierung. Social media bewirken genau das Gegenteil: kulturelle und ästhetische Nivellierung.

LOUIS: Glauben Sie aber nicht, Twitter oder Facebook könnten Ihnen als Schriftsteller helfen und Ihnen ein Publikum verschaffen?

SOLZ: Von Twitter und Facebook halte ich wenig. Ein Künstler kann nicht sagen: Ich trete Facebook bei, weil meine Freunde schon da sind. Das wäre eine Frivolität. Seine Freunde trifft man persönlich. Man kann sonst anrufen und Emails schreiben. Ich habe kein Bedürfnis, das gestrige Menü eines früheren Schulkameraden zu sehen. Meine Entscheidung hängt vor allem mit der Natur meiner Tätigkeit zusammen. Ein Schriftsteller ist ein Künstler. Man erhebt nicht die Flagge der Originalität, um zugleich Mitläufer zu werden.

LOUIS: In Ihren Schriften ist Musik fast allgegenwärtig. Spielen Sie ein Instrument?

SOLZ: Ja. Klavier! Aber nicht zu gut...

LOUIS: Was spielen Sie momentan?

SOLZ: Ich übe jetzt die Nocturnen Op. 48 Nr. 2 wie auch Op. 37 Nr. 1 von Chopin.

da obra épica:
© Poemas de Guerra, II

INDEX

An den Bundespräsidenten: Demokratie und Kunst im Sozialstaat

Zu Ihrer Wahl zum Amt des Bundespräsidenten möchte ich Ihnen gern gratulieren. Vor wenigen Jahren war Deutschlands jetzige Rolle unvorstellbar. Georg Solz

Politics and Literature: Recent Letters to Various People

Thank you for your note from April 16 asking to vote for you in the Hampshire County Council elections. It was a noble gesture to address me as a EU-citizen. Gregory Name

Literary Extracts II

Read literary extracts from different polyglot works in prose and poetry – bringing style and aesthetic ambition to contemporary literature. The Carolingian

The Carolingian 2017 I: Articles and Essays

The contributions from the last edition are still available. This is a good chance to read them if you haven’t yet. The Carolingian

Zu Ihrer Wahl zum Amt des Bundespräsidenten möchte ich Ihnen gern gratulieren. Vor wenigen Jahren war die Rolle, die Deutschland in Europa und der Welt eingenommen hat, unvorstellbar. Ich wünsche von ganzem Herzen, dass Sie die Werte der Bundesrepublik wie ein unerschütterlicher Leuchtturm vertreten werden. Die getrübte Zeit, in der wir leben, hat dieses Licht nötig.

Zusammenhalt ist einer der größten altgermanischen Werte. In der Antike berichteten Römer, dass an germanischen Siedlungen niemand verhungerte, weil die Gemeinschaft die Armen versorgte. Die Römer, die sich dort niederließen, wollten nicht in die alte Heimat zurückkehren. Es ist vielleicht nicht überraschend, dass das heutige Deutschland sich zu den Werten des Sozialstaates bekennt.

Ich möchte hoffen, dass dieser Sozialstaat in den nächsten Jahren auch Künstler unterstützen wird. Es freut mich zu wissen, dass der Bund im letzten Jahr einen Überschuss von 24 Milliarden Euro erzielte und dass die Arbeitslosigkeit weiter sinkt. Wenn ich lese, dass die Arbeitslosenquote ca. 6% beträgt, finde ich etwas beachtlich: Ich wäre fast versucht zu glauben, dass 94% der Bevölkerung eine kommerziell-berufliche Initiative aus Leidenschaft ergreifen und damit erfüllt sind, und dass weniger als 6% das Bedürfnis hätten, für die Kunst zu leben. Es ist aber nicht so. Einem beträchtlichen Teil der 94% wird von außen ein Lebensprogramm oktroyiert: Schule besuchen, Steuern zahlen, Rente bekommen. Viele erkennen früh ein künstlerisches Talent oder suchen eine genossenschaftliche Alternative zum Standard-Lebensprogramm, scheitern aber an der Fragilität ihrer Mittel. Sie landen beim Jobcenter, wo der Staat versucht, aus Künstlern Taxi-Fahrer zu machen.

1

Eine Gesellschaft des Zusammenhalts muss die Vielfalt der Bedürfnisse akzeptieren. Dazu gehört das Bewusstsein, dass es in jeder Gesellschaft eine gesunde Arbeitslosigkeit gibt. Das ist die Beschäftigung derjenigen, die scheinbar nicht arbeiten, aber einen Beitrag für die Kultur, die Identität und die Kohäsion einer Gesellschaft leisten. Vielen fehlt das Herz, um zu dieser Einsicht zu gelangen. Die Wahrnehmung von Kunst und Künstlern fällt oft negativ aus. Als berechtigter Künstler gilt nur derjenige, der reich, berühmt und preisgekrönt ist. Auch ein Mann sollte er sein. In allen anderen Fällen gilt Kunst als exzentrisches Hobby von Reichen oder Chaoten, die man am besten am Jobcenter heilt.

Das ist falsches Denken.

Es gibt in der Tat Menschen, die sich Künstler nennen und nichts hervorbringen. Aber es gibt viele, die mehr tun und für ihre Kunst leben, auch wenn sie nicht reich, berühmt und preisgekrönt sind. Die Existenz dieser Menschen ist von ihrer Kunst geprägt und das wird sich nicht ändern. Sie werden sich nicht an irgend ein berufliches Lebensprogramm vom Staat anpassen, und sie können zugrunde gehen, wenn sie es versuchen. Ohne jegliche Freude stelle ich dennoch fest, dass Deutschland ein Problem mit seinen Künstlern hat.

2

Es fehlt der politische Willen, Künstlern in der Not zu helfen. Es sind leider die meisten Künstler, die das Leben in all seiner Härte erfahren müssen: Ausgezeichnete Maler, Bildhauer, Musiker, Schriftsteller, die in Angst leben und oft als Abschaum betrachtet werden. Manche sind sogar preisgekrönt, manche berühmt. Aber sie haben nicht genug zum Existieren. Sie leben wie Phantombürger.

All dies hat einen Preis. Eine Gesellschaft, in der sich kreatives und kritisches Denken nicht entfalten kann, darf nicht klagen, wenn ihre Werte von einer Woge der Technokratie und des Populismus verschluckt werden. Der soziale Tod beginnt, wenn die Kultur stirbt. Kulturelle Öde führt zu politischer Stagnation. Die Menschen, die komplexen Problemen mit einfachen Endlösungen begegnen wollen, die Fremden- und Demokratiehass schüren, sind die Opfer einer Gesellschaft, in der anspruchsvolle Kunst und kritische Debatte erlahmen. Es sind Menschen, die der deutsche Staat hervorgebracht hat: Er hat ihre Bildung vernachlässigt. Er ist mitverantwortlich für ihr kritisches Unvermögen, das sich nun als eine Gefahr für die Demokratie erweist. Ich mag falsch liegen, aber dies ist meine Einschätzung: Es schien dem Staate wichtiger, diese Bürger in ein simples kommerziell-berufliches Programm einzubinden, damit die Statistik stimmt. Aber ein guter Staat braucht auch gute Werte. Statistiken reichen nicht. Der Milliardenüberschuss kann den alltäglichen Bürger nicht lehren, für welche Werte die Bundesrepublik steht und warum diese Werte wichtig sind.

3

Ich halte wenig von Volkswirten, die behaupten, Technologie sei das höchste Gut. Ich behaupte, Bildung ist das höchste Gut und das einzige Gut, das dem Begriff der Zivilisation gerecht ist. Die ganzen Kräfte einer Gesellschaft auf Komfortmaximierung zu lenken, den neusten Smartphone, das tolle Auto usw., wird keinen Staat vor dem Untergang retten. Die Stärke der deutschen Autoindustrie freut mich natürlich. Aber die Autoindustrie kann auch ohne Demokratie auskommen. Eine Nation ungebildeter Autofahrer kann nicht das Ziel sein. Neben der Innovation der Maschinen brauchen auch die Menschen Innovation, und diese kommt durch Bildung und Kultur, durch Kunst und Kritik. Seit langem gibt es einen Trend im deutschen Buchmarkt, dass nur Mainstreamliteratur angeboten wird – genrisierte Literatur für die Technokraten, die das Arbeitsministerium für die Statistik braucht. Eine Legion sogenannter Literaturagenten hat sich etabliert, so dass neue Autoren nur durch Agenten Zugang zu Verlagen, und nur eine kommerzielle Autorenoligarchie Zugang zu großen Buchläden findet. Ich möchte nicht arrogant erscheinen, aber ich muss sagen, dass in den letzten Jahren kaum ein anspruchsvolles Buch in Deutschland erschienen ist. Die Agenten und Verleger, die seichte Bücher begünstigen, sind mitverantwortlich für eine gewisse Wertekrise, die Deutschland im Moment erlebt. Sie wollten (vielleicht) der Literatur dienen. Sie wurden zu Agenten der Unbildung und des Populismus.

4

Aber selbst wenn der politische Willen fehlt, kann derjenige, der das höchste Amt im Staate bekleidet, für gesellschaftliches Verständnis werben. Die Künstler, die der Staat im Stich lässt, sie brauchen es. Verständnis für ihre Lage ist der erste Schritt für politische Änderung. Das Bewusstsein, dass Kunst keine Bagatelle ist, und dass gewissermaßen das Heil der Staaten von ihr abhängt, kommt nicht von alleine. Wer reich, berühmt und preisgekrönt ist, hat kein Verständnis nötig, aber der Kern aller künstlerischen Existenz hat nichts mit Reichtum, Ruhm und Preisen zu tun. Das sind seltene Zufälle, und selten sind diese die Ziele wahrer Kunst. Es bedarf einer gewissen Tiefe der Einsicht zu erkennen, dass die Kunst der unbekannten, alltäglichen Künstler nicht weniger Kunst ist. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass Deutschland diesen Künstlern mehr germanischen Zusammenhalt und weniger römische Verwaltung entgegenbringt. Ich empfinde keinen Genuss, deutschen Künstlern die Auswanderung nahezulegen, geschweige denn die Auswanderung nach Brexitannien. Deutschland muss mehr für seine Künstler tun.

Es wäre edel, wenn der Bundespräsident jede Gelegenheit nutzen könnte, um den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern eines geliebten Staates vor Augen zu führen, was eine Gesellschaft ohne Kunst und Künstler bedeutet. Ein Sozialstaat könnte diese Menschen besser berücksichtigen. Trotz des Jobcenters werden Künstler nicht aufhören, Künstler zu sein. Der Staat kann selbstverständlich nicht entscheiden, wer wahrer Künstler ist oder nicht, was Qualität ist oder nicht. Aber der Staat kann feststellen, wer eine künstlerische Existenz führt. Wer z.B. nachweisen kann, dass er oder sie zehn oder fünfzehn Jahre lang seinem oder ihrem künstlerischen Schaffen regelmäßig nachgegangen ist und in der Not lebt, dieser Mensch hat einen natürlichen Anspruch auf Unterstützung, und sei es nur durch Materialiengeld, damit er mindestens sein Schaffen fortführt.

5

Moderne Demokratien sind stolz auf ihre Errungenschaften. Sie haben adelige Privilegien abgeschafft. Aber Beethovens Werk schulden wir größtenteils den Zuwendungen von Erzherzog Rudolf von Österreich. Darf ich fragen, Exzellenz: Durch welche Instanzen hat der Sozialstaat die adelige Gunst und Unterstützung für Künstler ersetzt? Im demokratischen Prozess muss man oft erkennen, dass nicht alles automatisch besser wird, wenn man nur den Erzherzog entfernt. Ich fürchte, dass selbst Beethoven nach heutigen Verhältnissen beim Jobcenter und schließlich beim Discounter landen würde. Ich glaube nicht, der Staat sollte Kunst und Künstlerförderung nur der adeligen Gunst und der Privatinitiative überlassen. Unter Förderung verstehe ich nicht etwas wie einen järhlichen Wettbewerb, und dann mal gucken wer gewinnt. Dafür gibt es Stiftungen. Ich spreche eher von struktureller Unterstützung.

Es ist mir bewusst, dass die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre das politische Gleichgewicht weltweit belasteten und dass Deutschland in einer sehr schwierigen Lage ist, die viel Takt verlangt und deren Ausgang ungewiss ist. Prioritäten müssen gesetzt werden. Aber die Herausforderungen aus der Außen- und Innenpolitik können nicht als Grund dafür dienen, die Werte eines Landes zu vernachlässigen. Deutschland wird stärker und gesünder, wenn es im Bewusstsein gedeiht, dass ein Land ohne Kunst ein Land ohne Wert ist. Ich wünsche Ihrer Amtszeit und Ihnen selbst viel Segen, Glück und Frieden.

INDEX

Prosódia e Grafia: Elementos da Prosódia Poética do Português

Em métrica acentual, a regra de alternação prescreve o seguinte: Alternem-se sílabas tônicas e átonas para maior liquidez do verso. Eustácio de Sales

The Meaning of Civitas: Enlightenment in the Thoughts of a Writer

The Latin word civitas is usually translated as country, but it also refers to citizenship. I am concerned with the values of universal citizenship. Gregory Name

The State of the Internet: Ethical Challenges of Communication

The Internet was created with a clear goal: To provide an open, free and fair space for communication. Part of this has led to benefits. Gregory Name

Entrevista com Eustácio de Sales: Sobre o Poema Épico Totila

Você tem falado bastante sobre o poema Totila e criado uma certa expectativa. Já tem algum plano de apresentar o poema? Georges Louis

Literary Extracts

Read literary extracts from different polyglot works in prose and poetry – bringing style and aesthetic ambition to contemporary literature. The Carolingian

The Carolingian 2016: Activities

The contributions from the last edition are still available. This is a good chance to read them if you haven’t yet. The Carolingian

The Latin word civitas is usually translated as country, but it also refers to citizenship. As a polyglot who grew up in different countries, I am concerned with the values of universal citizenship rather than apologetic adherence to a country in particular. What is the meaning of citizenship and how to exert it in a way conducive to justice and to the common good?

The mind can be cultivated just as a garden. The culture of minds requires study, discipline and action. While everybody should focus on what they can do best, this should not excuse alienation. One should strive to learn more and more. This is the way leading to emancipation and happiness. Ignorance perpetuates slavery: The division of labour must not lead to intellectual impoverishment, to a society where everyone is only good at one thing and nothing else. Education must be a never ending process. Sartre made a distinction between an expert and an intellectual. An expert knows his field and nothing else, playing a conventional and predictable role, e.g. as a paid erudite at an university. An intellectual is someone who meddles in other areas and speaks when expected to be silent, an intruder concerned with more than his own business, humble, eager to learn, questioning, denouncing what is not right.

1

Plato asseverates: «The belief in the duty of enquiring after what we do not know will make us better and braver and less helpless than the notion that there is not even a possibility of discovering what we do not know, nor any duty of enquiring after it» (Meno, 86 B). Enquiring after what I do not know is my first existential duty. My second duty is to share the enquiry, that anyone may judge for themselves whether or not I am speaking the truth. I make use of the Internet to reach others and make known the extent of my thoughts, however imperfect they may be. The duty is not to be always right, but to enquire always, to be indeed an intruder, to disturb those who might wonder who on earth I am to say so and so or write this and that, and how arrogant it is to meddle in the fields of experts. Such are mindsets I cannot change, but the authority to enquire and say what one believes is naturally given. It does not require any social legitimation.

I often resort to poetry to express what goes beyond the limits of an essay. I agree with Aristotle: Exposure to dread and pity may lead to catharsis, a climax I tried to reach in many of my dramatic and epic poems. And yet, traumatic experiences such as the Holocaust proved that the power of catharsis is fragile. Catharsis is not enough to make us better. Poetry is an imperfect means of enquiring after transcendence. I have to articulate some enquiries through dialectic prose. My writings are a discreet contribution to the civitas that will outlive me.

2

I embrace ideas, ideals and practices that could benefit a civitas. Looking back to history, I recognise the patrimony that Latin has left us, and I cultivate this language as much as I can. Latin should be taught and used beyond conventionalism. It is a powerful language fully receptive to modern technological vocabulary, waiting to be explored and revived.

Looking at the present, I see the meaning of the Internet and realise its irreversible impact. As a member of the Internet Society, I advocate the values of freedom, transparency and neutrality. The Internet is a heritage that can be used for good and evil, and much work is needed to ensure that the benefits will prevail in the long term.

Finally, I look forward to the future and want to explore new options of common livelihood. Cooperative living and sustainability will lead to more prosperity and do less damage to the environment. I am always glad to visit communities where motivated friends of different political views work to implement innovative concepts on a small but sometimes self-sufficient scale. Despite imperfections, I see a great potential for these economic cells to improve common livelihood and education in the future.

An enlightened civitas enables the complete human being. It is a place where everyone can cultivate themselves to the full, where education and erudition achieve their ultimate zenith – where people are closer to the fulfilment of their existential duties.

The Internet was created with a clear goal: To provide an open, free and fair space for communication. The benefits are conspicuous. But as time goes by, novelties become trivial. Today, the bulk of the Internet consists of: 1) electronic post services; 2) research, information and entertainment sites, usually operated by legal entities; 3) and social networks. One essential element is missing: the sites of natural persons. The Internet is largely occupied by private companies, intermediaries between users and the web. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft or Apple are five companies owned by five people, perhaps ten, affecting the lives of five billion.

The Internet is now perceived as Facebook and Google. Without instruction and technical expertise, the mass of users cannot make more of it. The Internet comprises a small number of content producers and a huge mass of passive consumers: passive because they have either no content or no skill to make it known in a personal website. They end up on Facebook and Twitter. Not that it couldn’t be different: Anyone can learn the basic programming language, HTML, and it is perverse that HTML it is not taught in every school. Whoever does not speak this language browses online as an illiterate person. Full appreciation of the Internet requires virtual emancipation, which requires surpassing the condition of a mere consumer and becoming a producer of contents. Without that, the Internet will be a false promise.

1

Private companies reduced the Internet to a set of standard spaces. When you join Facebook, you adhere to a pattern: The default space. To share your thought, you will use the standard space and fit your content therein. Anyone’s information is levelled by the same program. Yet information thus levelled has no impact. Imagine a crowded pub or bar with everyone screaming and competing to see who speaks louder. This is not a scenario where genuine content stands out and discernment prevails.

No content can be displayed directly, because content is thought and thought is formless. We always need to convert thought into space. Traditionally, we think something, we take a clear piece of paper and fill it with words. The paper, which is space, becomes content.

The difference between a screen and a piece of paper? A sheet of paper is clear space. The screen is edited space, space which has become content. Thought will have to share the screen with layouts, buttons, functions, distractions that get in the way. They curtail thought. It is as if you wanted to write an essay on a piece of paper already filled. Thought cannot be fitted adequately into a space which is no longer thought-free.

2

To convey an idea on Twitter, you have to fit it into a space already full of content, where it will occupy only a small field. The rest of the content on the screen is pre-modelled by Twitter. Yet thought needs not a small field, but a neutral screen. Thus, to convert thought into a screen, you have to convert the screen into a neutral space, as free as blank paper. You need to be free from the implicit content of default layouts. Otherwise, space will be content interfering with thought, working against it.

Virtual emancipation relates to both content and space. No content will stand without a proper space. It seems a petty issue, but it is in small details that a default layout imposes itself, its own brand, its agenda, its dynamics, distracting from thought with buttons here and there, pop-ups, adverts, offers, a tiny world that makes thought look like a bagatelle.

The Internet is facing an extremely dangerous problem: Space is destroying thought. The humane future is that everyone may own their own unique space, where they can neutralize the screen and model it according to the needs of their thoughts. There must be no intermediary. This is not the case of a default account, whose space belongs to a private company.

3

Whoever is glad to pay for her own house or car, should also pay for her own virtual space. Those who live at others’ mercy are not free. You want to share something on Facebook, but Facebook can remove your content. It owns the space. It is as if someone lodged you out of charity and, beholden to them, you need to think twice before every word you utter.

I might follow the example of Orwell’s 1984 and write a book called «The Total Company»: It supplies everything and sells everything. Starting with a simple search browser, it expanded. First, it added e-mail services, website analysis, operating systems. Then, annoyed by the virtual world, it explored the real. It pervaded services of all areas: Technological, real estate, auto-mobile, textile and even food supply. Finally, the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors became departments of the Total Company. Whenever a small entrepreneur took some initiative, an audacious project, the Total Company easily bought the man, the initiative and everything else. And now we have this wonderful scenario: A one-company-world. Capitalism? I have not found, through the pages of John Locke, the passage sanctioning this sublime one-company-maket. And yet, in the hallucinations that haunt me, I seem to see the Total Company aiming, at all costs, for this joyous ideal: the whole Internet under its jurisdiction, one single company controlling little worlds and groups, all users accommodated to a feudal relationship, sharing on the same default space.

4

Let us not forget Locke: The oppressed and tired of oppression should seek refuge in an idyllic land of no man and there build their freedom. Locke is not urging you to go and found inerudite nations of shopkeepers around the world. Nor would he call it erudition to follow the good boy who goes to Oxford to join the rowing club. All initiatives that add meaning and life to freedom manifest themselves in these five groups: the commercial, the philanthropic, the cooperative, the scientific and the artistic initiative. We no longer have no man lands to explore, but we have the Internet, where everyone, if only they know how to use it, can found their company and their cooperative, can build their philanthropy and their art. This is the Internet. To this generous land we steer the boat of freedom for nothing? Adam and Eve, returning to paradise, have no time to contemplate it: They are too busy on Twitter, Adam scratching his sack in front of the screen, dying to see his friend’s last night’s menu.

The world would be much worse if all space were uniform. The free interaction of man and space is enriching, especially when it comes to the geography of the Internet: Uniformity is the absolute killer. Imagine a writer wishing to share her work with an audience. They will need a meeting point online, the artist and the public. Will that be the default layout of Facebook? Will that be Twitter? A blog? Let it be a space she can shape as much as she wishes!

5

Facebook is an interesting case. When it was launched, there were already reasonable means of interaction: letters, telephone, fax, email, chats, forums, blogs. It was a scenario that perfectly covered the longings of Internet users. With Facebook, suddenly you had nine hundred friends. It is an artificial number. It turns Facebook into a means of social isolation and social comparison. The quality of such crowd interaction is mediocre. But I am sure you are clever enough to use it in moderation, being an enlightened humanist as you are. The victims are always the others, exposed to an avalanche of adverts and a wonderful market of friends. It encompasses now entertainment, shopping, journalism etc., a thriving Total Company with a visionary goal: The user’s entire Internet experience will take place within the borders of Facebook. No need to log out. All human relations will be there, beautifully framed, synchronized and levelled. The customer owns the account and the account owns the customer. Yet art, being creative freedom and diversity, is not compatible with an addictive pattern.

Look at Google’s market power. It is so difficult to use the Internet without using some Google service – another kind of Total Company, the omnipresent brother. Fifty other companies could be sharing the space Google is now taking. But we may feel very blessed and reassured, indeed, for Google’s motto is «don’t be evil». Perhaps, in Google’s progressive ethics, doing the right thing means paying for its service not with money but rather with personal data. Immersed in a paradise of adverts, customers make decisions they would not make otherwise.

6

Mediocrity measures art in numbers. It is a question of group dynamics: The more people see a poorly liked page, the less they are inclined to hit the like button. It becomes a vicious circle. In a medium of social comparison like Facebook, everyone likes what has the greatest impact. They become worshippers of numbers. As the newsfeed is bound to swallow new posts, users seeking attention are conditioned to post even more in order to keep at the top of the newsfeed. These are posts created under pressure and exposed to an immediacy roller. A hate tirade will find more resonance than any elaborate article. Lost in parallel worlds, consumers of polemics are not in search of lucidity. They want to float together in a wave of hatred, for the thrill of hatred always involves an enthusiasm, a frantic excitement, an addictive joy. Moderation does not offer the same thrill. Let us be frank then: It is not on a Facebook page that the implicit essence of words will prevail.

For the classics, in a good writer’s text no word is superfluous. Twitter would seem to be a heaven of lapidary maxims, and it has made a great contribution indeed: It has shown that the limit between the concise and the frivolous is very tenuous. A short phrase is not necessarily succinct. The modern maxims of Twitter reveal more the precipitation of ideas than the concatenation of what is succinct and sensible. Twitter became a contest of rash summary judgements. Measured reasoning, however, requires time. The truth is far from the agitated mind. Everything invites the user to judge as quickly as possible. Where it is too easy to write anything, the intensity of hate is not surprising. It is easier and more exciting to hate than to understand.

7

This is what has become of the Internet.

To exceed in art or knowledge does not mean to exceed in our relationship with others. If quality in writing is excellence of form, it is possible to write well and have nothing to say, and it is possible to write badly and have much to say. Writing well is good, but it is better to write well and live well. The debate on the writer’s ideal space online is a reflection on how she addresses her audience, since her writings should mirror not only good form but also good life. This is the reason why I do not use social networks. I do not want to see the Internet reduced to a set of standard spaces. My appeal to writers? Respect your readers and do not expose knowledge and art to a mediocre quantification of truth and beauty. I do not prescribe censorship. I denounce the fragility of the medium, incapable of harbouring the true gravity of words and ideas. I defend not the destruction of the medium, but the emancipation of the space.

GEORGES: Eustácio, você tem falado bastante sobre o poema Totila e criado uma certa expectativa. Você já tem planos de apresentar o poema?

EUSTÁCIO: Se tudo correr bem, vai ser apresentado este ano. E realmente tenho falado, porque é um poema ímpar.

GEORGES: Por ser o mais longo que você já escreveu?

EUSTÁCIO: Pelo fato de ser, eu diria, o mais verdadeiro e o mais conflituoso, pelo menos na minha visão de autor, que por sinal é sempre limitada. Escrever sobre uma guerra onde todos perecem e ninguém é realmente culpado, é um trunfo bem antigo. Evoca a tragédia grega e a noção de culpa do destino. Também evoca certos paradoxos do mundo contemporâneo, onde não é possível distinguir entre o bonzinho e o malvado em nenhum conflito. É o imo de toda tragédia: Todos querem o bem e tudo termina mal.

GEORGES: Quem é Totila e qual é o conflito que o poema tematiza?

EUSTÁCIO: Totila é o rei dos godos, ou melhor, dos ostrogodos na Itália, a partir de 541. Foi coroado no meio duma guerra entre os godos e o Imperador Justiniano em Constantinopla. O conflito é simples: Justiniano quer reconquistar a Itália ...

GEORGES: ... que os godos tomaram?

1

EUSTÁCIO: Aí está o problema: Tomaram? As pessoas aprendem na escola que o Império Romano acabou em 476, quando Odoacro depôs o último Imperador numa espécie de golpe militar. O que ocorre é o seguinte: Havia dois Imperadores na época. Um em Roma e outro em Constantinopla. O de Roma caiu, mas o outro ficou. E Odoacro, que não era ingênuo, reconheceu o Imperador Zenão em Constantinopla. Até que Zenão se cansou de Odoacro.

GEORGES: E aí entram os godos?

EUSTÁCIO: Entram aí. Estavam causando problema nos Bálcãs e Zenão lhes propôs: Tirem Odoacro da Itália e fiquem por lá! Teodorico, o rei dos godos, expulsou Odoacro e reinou durante muito tempo na Itália. Foi um reino próspero. Mas quando Teodorico em Roma morreu e Justiniano subiu ao trono em Constantinopla, começaram conflitos, e os conflitos se escalaram a uma guerra.

GEORGES: Qual o desfecho da guerra?

EUSTÁCIO: Caos total. Justiniano vence, mas a devastação é tão grande que o Império não tem recursos para reconstruir a Itália. A infraestrutura, o comério, a agricultura: Tudo se arruína. E não parou por aí. Em 568 os lombardos invadiram a Itália, e o trauma seria ainda pior. Os godos foram massacrados. Não existia a noção de crime de guerra. Era um vale tudo.

2

GEORGES: Quão histórico é o seu poema? O Totila do Eustácio de Sales reflete o Totila real?

EUSTÁCIO: Veja, é óbvio que a minha intenção não é fazer uma reconstrução histórica. O Totila histórico pode ter sido mais cruel ou mais compassivo do que o meu. A principal fonte é Procópio de Cesareia em sua »História das Guerras«. Sabe-se que Procópio foi testemunha ocular de parte da guerra. Mas daí a dizer que sua visão de Totila é objetiva ... Não sei, não garanto. Busquei uma certa plausibilidade histórica na narração, mas o foco principal é literário.

GEORGES: Você acredita que as pessoas vão se identificar com um conflito do mundo Romano, um evento sem conexão com o mundo moderno?

EUSTÁCIO: Creio que sim! Vão se identificar com a dimensão geral do conflito, que é uma coisa atemporal. É um sofrimento afim à nossa realidade recheada de guerras, tensões, mal-entendidos. Mostra um dos abismos por onde o mundo outrora caiu e pode recair a qualquer momento.

GEORGES: Você não acha que hoje em dia existe uma atitude hostil com relação e este tipo de conteúdo? Tantas pessoas dizem por aí: »Não quero ler tragédia, minha vida já é cheia de tragédia.« As pessoas querem se divertir, se entreter.

3

EUSTÁCIO: Isto é um problema mesmo, mas a verdade é que o hedonismo sempre existiu, e certamente existe no mercado de livros. As pessoas querem pagar para ser bajuladas. Ninguém quer ser confrontado com alguma verdade menos dócil, ou com uma forma menos empolgante. Mas isto faz parte. O que eu não posso fazer como escritor e poeta é parar de escrever devido à má vontade do espírito hedonista. Pelo contrário, é escrevendo e provocando que se enfrenta a intoxicação que se vê por aí. Quando alguém me diz que um poema é longo, a resposta é a mesma: »Leia como se fosse um romance, sem pausa entre versos!« Muitas vezes funciona. Veja, o problema não é falta de tempo. Tempo é subjetivo, é questão de determinação, de vontade. O problema é a preguiça. Sócrates afirma em muitos de seus diálogos: »As coisas belas são difíceis.« A apreciação da arte requer um certo esforço, um trabalho mental. Não é ficar sentado no sofá e esperar que a TV tome alguma iniciativa.

GEORGES: E não seria justamente esta a questão? Vale a pena, no tempo em que vivemos, escrever um poema que, praticamente, »não é deste mundo«, que me perdoe a expressão, já que as pessoas estão acostumadas a outro tipo de oferta?

EUSTÁCIO: É complicado. A poesia nasce de uma necessidade íntima... Mas concordo com Sócrates: As coisas belas são difícies. Vá tentar ler Homero, ou Virgílio, ou Dante. Vá ler os Lusíadas, e aí você vai ver que toda essa poesia requer uma postura mental diferente. Requer atenção, alerta. O prazer desse tipo de leitura não é um prazer frívolo, fácil. Mas por ser custoso, por requerer trabalho, é um prazer mais profundo e duradouro, até mesmo por ser a recompensa de um esforço. Prazer sem esforço não é prazer, é entorpecimento. Há diferença entre a arte e a droga.

4

GEORGES: Como assim?

EUSTÁCIO: É simples: Se o prazer é para ser instantêneo, rápido, você sentado no sofá sem fazer nada, esse tipo de prazer só quem pode dar é o ópio. O efeito vem por si mesmo. O prazer que a poesia dá é diferente. Um poema como Totila quer se tornar parte da vida e da intimidade do leitor, a longo prazo. É um prazer que vai se construindo e burilando aos poucos. Como disse, as pessoas querem pagar para ser bajuladas, para se empolgar facilmente. Mas olhe: Eu não escrevo para empolgar, ou entusiasmar, ou para olharem meu verso e dizerem que é bonitinho. Isso seria um mero agrado estético, e bajular não é virtude. Escrevo sim para que o leitor reflita. Escrevo para incomodar, porque acredite: A verdade está mais próxima do incômodo do que do agrado.

GEORGES: Baudelaire, se bem entendo, vê a modernidade como a capacidade de expressar o belo naquilo que é aparentemente cotidiano ou banal. Totila é um poema moderno?

EUSTÁCIO: Não. Mas tampouco é poema antigo. Baudelaire estava se referindo à poesia lírica, ao convencionalismo duma poesia que se reduz a isto, ouça: »Eu vi uma flor, achei lindo e chorei.« Ou pior: »Você me abandonou, meu mundo se acabou.« É triste, mas grande parte da produção lírica se resume a estas duas citações. A épica não é isto. É narração, e é heroica. Você pode até escrever épica urbana, cotidiana, próxima ao conceito de Baudelaire. Fiz algo parecido em A Bela Adormecida e Poemas de Guerra, mas para isto já existe o romance em prosa. É desperdiçar um pouco o potencial da épica. Totila é poema histórico, não tem como ser cotidiano, não de todo. A distância temporal já cria um elemento mítico, um heroísmo, uma transcendência aparentemente irreal. É justamente nisto que a épica se sobressai, é esta a dimensão que só a poesia épica pode alcançar. E no entanto, Totila não é um poema de heróis. É um canto heroico sobre a aporia do heroísmo. É irônico.

5

GEORGES: Qual a métrica de Totila?

EUSTÁCIO: Há uma alternância entre seções de seis e de cinco tônicas por verso. Algumas seções são em verso livre. O verso geralmente termina numa »diérese bucólica«, o famoso tátata táta. Explicarei detalhes depois. Não deixa de ser uma evocação ao hexâmetro datílico, um verso muito meu.

GEORGES: Você às vezes aparece com uma morfossintaxe inusitada. Qual o propósito de todo esse maneirismo?

EUSTÁCIO: Mostrar que a língua é uma obra em progresso. Gosto de experimentar sim, isto é, dentro de um certo limite. Foi o que fiz em Totila. Algumas passagens retomam aspectos do português antigo. Outras têm um viés latinizante, por exemplo uma fala de Justiniano. Mas não é unilateral. Quando é alguém do povo que fala, um agricultor, um artesão, a dicção é diferente. Tem um toque mais caseiro, por assim dizer, como no início do poema. O que proponho é um certo plurilinguismo. É até interessante no contexto do tempo narrativo. Em 550, o latim estava morrendo. Durante a guerra dos godos, ouvia-se na Itália o latim, ou o que dele restava, o gótico, o grego, o persa e outras línguas em menor escala, línguas faladas pela população e pelas tropas multiétnicas em conflito.

GEORGES: Cá entre nós, Eustácio: Você considera sua linguagem acessível?

6

EUSTÁCIO: Meu caro, isto me lembra um pensamento de Geoffrey Hill: Acessível mesmo é banheiro público. A pessoa passa por um apuro e precisa de acesso rápido. A poesia é diferente. Requer, como já disse, uma certa postura mental. Tudo bem, convenhamos: Em matéria de acessibilidade, ninguém ganha de banheiro público, por favor! Mas olhe aqui, sinceramente: No fundo é acessível sim ... Qualquer pessoa entende.

GEORGES: E são 6000 versos mesmo?

EUSTÁCIO: Mais ou menos. Com os retoques, pode ser que fiquem menos. Geralmente, trabalho assim: Termino um poema épico hoje e engaveto por um ano. É como o pão recém-saído do forno. Precisa esfriar. Nesse meio tempo, você se desliga um pouco da obra, o que é saudável. Depois, você relê e vai retocando aos poucos.

GEORGES: Mas não deixa de ser um poema bem longo.

EUSTÁCIO: Longo? A Ilíade tem 15000 versos, a Odisseia 12000. A Divina Comédia tem 14000 versos, a Eneida 9000, isto porque incompleta. Os Lusíadas têm 8000 versos. Totila é um nanico.

7

GEORGES: Não é irônico que enquanto a Eneida canta a apoteose e o zênite, Totila canta o declínio, a ruína de Roma?

EUSTÁCIO: É irônico ... Ainda mais em português, que representa a ruína do latim, esse português com suas formas simplificadas, seus sons estranhos. Creio que sem /ʃ/ e /ʒ/ o português soaria mais sereno. Mas isto é bobagem, questão de gosto. O tempo muda qualquer idioma.

GEORGES: E quanto tempo Totila custou?

EUSTÁCIO: Segredo! Vou dizer só isto: Levou muito tempo. Acredite.