The Lord's Prayer -- Implicated

Speranza

The Lord High Everything Else's Glory

For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory

Is "lord" a form of 'praise' or flattery?

In his amusing "The Bible and Conversational Implicature", M. M. Warner, who calls me 'too much of a Gricean to be taken seriously', finds that much of the Lord's prayer terribly hyperbolic and slightly otiose in parts, too.

But so is the Older Testament. The Old Frisian version of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer goes (from E O Robinson's Book, English and its Closest Relative):

Thit riuht skref God selua, use hera, tha thet was thet Moyses latte thet
Israheliske folk thruch thene rada se.

Note the expression:

"God selva, use hera".

Literally: God self, us herr". I.e. "God himself, our lord".

It goes on: "Thin God thet is thi ena, Thine God that is the one".

I must say that I always found the rubric, "lord's pryaer" kind of
confusing. If God = Lord, who is JESUS, really? So I guess _Lord's_ prayer
is a misnomer. It should be "Jesus's prayer".


The Lord's prayer ends, in Frisian, with "For thine is the kingdom, the
power and the glory". The Frisian word for "glory" is:


"hear-lik-heid"


Literally,


lord-like-hood.


(cfr. Middle Dutch, 'heerlijkheid', Middle German, 'Herrlichheit',


Vortigern, of
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk


tells me


"both mean something like 'glory', but also denotes it belongs to the Lord
(Middle Dutch 'heer', Middle German 'Herr'). It is very ancient language,
but "the Power & the glory", in a sense that they are the Lord's, are
probably the nearest descriptions here."
=====
My Classical reference to Catullus: In "Learn Latin", JLS (Grice Circular)
writes:


"If you want to be a writer, learn Latin"
R. M. Brown, Virginia ranch.
Interview to The Houston Voice.


Consider:


1. Isqve domvm nobis isqve dedit dominam
ad qvam commvnes exerceremvs amor
2. So a house to us, so he gave a woman,
in whom we could share the common loves. (Copley)
3. So a house to us, and so he gave a housekeeper
under which we could enjoy the common loves (Goold)
4. He gave us a house and a honey
towards whom we could exercise the common loves (Kinsey)


What the heck did Catullus mean in his dirty poem, a la Grice? Alison
Parker wrote in an essay for The Classical Association that "(1) has proved
a critical slough, mired with unnecessary emendations, and it's the poem's
addressee who gets burned. (1) has suffered badly at the hands of their
'rescuers.' A first, innocent reading might make (1)'s meaning seem fairly
clear, but they have been rendered a critical swamp-pit of perverse
quibbles on word meanings, and even dubious grammar, not forgetting a
scholarly zeal to clean the whole thing.
Some reference assignment, first: in (1) most take "domina" => "Lesbia" &
tend to follow Froehlich who changes the original "dominam" into "dominae".
Consider (2). But (3) sees her as a "housekeeper" (euphemism for
"chaperon") who covers for an adulterous tryst. In Kinsey's interpretation
(MINE TOO. JLS) the "domina" was sure brought in for a menage a trois with
Allius -- whom Catullus really loves. But is it necessary to see this as a
cheesy affair with a wanton woman in a lent-out love-nest, or should we try
to see it as a true favour from friend to friend, a real domus and a
respectable marriage? Now that IS the question. Consider "domum" here. We
shouldn't think here of
a cute condo(m)(inium).
Also, we can't say that Allius is giving Catullus a mistress. He already
has her. Allius must be giving only the cheesy love-nest. Froehlich's
illegal emendation to "dominae", as Lieberg aptly quips, is very "traurig"
(= sneaky, unhappy, what-ever). But if the "dominam" is just a scheming
"chaperone", Catullus would not
like to have HER or would he. The classical scholer [sic. JLS :)] Solmsen
tangentially remarked that the
Romans were not known for the practice of having a chaperon, but what did
he know anyways.
Consider "dedit". Some prim and propers have said the verb "to give"
(donate) implies "adoption or lawful marriage", but doesn't it. Is Catullus
leading his audience that marriage is at last on his brain? Mmmm... Recall
the missive that Catullus received from Mallius:
Dear Catullus,
Why don't you come over to my place, so we
can screw around and then you can put us to sleep
reading your poetry.
Yours,
Mallius.
And cfr. poem No. 50, where Catullus gets together with _Calvus_ for a
night of decadence. But Catullus's brother's death has changed him,
hormonally. He's just not in the mood for casual sex. Note that in 68a
Catullus himself puts aside heavy partying Mallius had accustomed him for.
And there's a silly little puer. So it would seem as though, via his bro's
death Catullus has finally given
up making love to the unsuitable sluts, plus going out with that silly
little puer. But is he real settling down? Note the "ad" (in (1) "make love
TO the domina". "Ad" towards persons is not overly common as an equivalent
to "apud" ("in the house of,", French "au Pierre LaFleur"), so it could
just mean make love TO somebody. The interpretations of "ad quam (dominam)"
as 'in which whore' or 'in the whore where...' is, admittedly, rather
shaky. Note that no sex play is necessary involved. Cfr the previous poem:
I don't jump someone else's whore
I don't hog the food or get drunk...
On the other hand, I display charm, love,
and pleasant civility.
This contrasts with Copley's translation of the same line,
That guy that beat you outa yer gal,
& is doing yer exercizes fer ya.
"But it ruins the joke here, whatever the joke is." (I AGREE. It doth seem
to kinda ruin it). But then is 'exerceret amorem' rather lofty -- kinda
'courts'- But there's a problem here, if Mollius smells, the domina (unless
she's really a one) would not have sex him. Sex the aemulus is unthinkable. As
Catullus puts it,
No pretty girl would sleep
With a smelly fellow.
Only there is one lady so lustful
that she will
"and we can guess who she is". I take "amores communes' to mean, obviously,
"mutual orgasm". Solmsen, the classical scholar, objects that in the case
of friendship and enmity, "communis" is always used for two people's
feelings for a third. But that's apples and oranges! There's the possible
objection that Catullus can't call Lesbia or anyone else his wife, because
she isn't. Our confessional poet wouldn't lie to us. Of course he can call
her whatever he likes. Is Mollius a socer? One can see Catullus as having a
joke at the addressee's expense. "Okay, okay," he says, "that was no wife,
that was my lady. -- and she isn't much
of a lady, for that matter". He's sure jerking the audience around. And
we've yet to learn that Catullus's lover is a married one and no meretrix
she -- which delighted the Roman audience even more, and we have
eleven poems about Lesbius pulcher, the darling brother. But the darling
brother -- THAT is another story".