Proelium Lewensis

Factum est hoc proelium in die XIIII mensis Maii anno MCCLXIIII.

[MS. Harley 978. fol. 128, r].


Calamus velociter scribe sic scribentis,
Lingua laudabiliter te benedicentis,
Dei patris dextera, domine virtutum,
Qui das tuis prospera quando vis ad nutum;
In te jam confidere discant universi,
Quos volebant perdere qui nunc sunt dispersi.
Quorum caput capitur, membra captivantur;
Gens elata labitur, fideles lætantur.
Jam respirat Anglia, sperans libertatem;
Cuï Dei gratia det prosperitatem!
Comparati canibus Angli viluerunt,
Sed nunc victis hostibus caput extulerunt.
Gratiæ millesimo ducentesimoque
Anno sexagesimo quarto, quarta quoque
Feria Pancratii post sollempnitatem,
Valde gravis prelii tulit tempestatem
Anglorum turbatio, castroque Lewensi;
Nam furori ratio, vita cessit ensi.
Pridie qui Maii Idus confluxerunt,
Horrendi discidii bellum commiserunt;
Quod fuit Susexiæ factum comitatu,
Fuit et Cicestriæ in episcopatu.
Gladius invaluit, multi ceciderunt,
Veritas prævaluit, falsique fugerunt.
Nam perjuris restitit dominus virtutum,
Atque puris præstitit veritatis scutum.
Hos vastavit gladius foris, intus pavor;
Confortavit plenius istos cœli favor.
Victoris sollempnia sanctæque coronæ
Reddunt testimonia super hoc agone;
Cum dictos ecclesia sanctos honoravit,
Milites victoria veros coronavit.
Dei sapientia, regens totum mundum,
Fecit mirabilia bellumque jocundum;
Fortes fecit fugere, virosque virtutis
In claustro se claudere, locis quoque tutis.
Non armis sed gratia christianitatis,
Id est in ecclesia, excommunicatis
Unicum refugium restabat, relictis
Equis, hoc consilium occurrebat victis.
Et quam non timuerant prius prophanare,
Quam more debuerant matris honorare,
Ad ipsam refugiunt, licet minus digni,
Amplexus se muniunt salutaris ligni.
Quos matrem contempnere prospera fecerunt,
Vulnera cognoscere matrem compulerunt.
Apud Northamptoniam dolo prosperati,
Spreverunt ecclesiam infideles nati;
Sanctæ matris viscera ferro turbaverunt,
Prosperis non prospera bella meruerunt.
Mater tunc injuriam tulit patienter,
Quasi per incuriam, sed nec affluenter:
Punit hanc et alias quas post addiderunt,
Nam multas ecclesias insani læserunt;
Namque monasterium, quod Bellum vocatur,
Turba sævientium, quæ nunc conturbatur,
Inmisericorditer bonis spoliavit,
Atque sibi taliter bellum præparavit.
Monachi Cystercii de Ponte-Roberti
A furore gladii non fuissent certi,
Si quingentas principi marcas non dedissent.
Quas Edwardus accipi jussit, vel perissent.
Hiis atque similibus factis meruerunt
Quod cesserunt hostibus et succubuerunt.
Benedicat dominus S. de Monte-Forti!
Suis nichilominus natis et cohorti!
Qui se magnanimiter exponentes morti,
Pugnaverunt fortiter, condolentes sorti
Anglicorum flebili, qui subpeditati
Modo vix narrabili, peneque privati
Cunctis libertatibus, immo sua vita,
Sub duris principibus langüerunt ita,
Ut Israelitica plebs sub Pharaone,
Gemens sub tyrannica devastatione.
Sed hanc videns populi Deus agoniam,
Dat in fine seculi novum Mathathiam,
Et cum suis filiis zelans zelum legis,
Nec cedit injuriis nec furori regis.
Seductorem nominant .S. atque fallacem;
Facta sed examinant probantque veracem.
Dolosi deficiunt in necessitate;
Qui mortem non fugiunt, sunt in veritate.
Sed nunc dicit æmulus, et insidiator,
Cujus nequam oculus pacis perturbator:
“Si laudas constantiam, si fidelitatem,
Quæ mortis instantiam vel pœnalitatem
Non fugit, æqualiter dicentur constantes
Qui concurrunt pariter invicem pugnantes,
Pariter discrimini semet exponentes,
Duroque cognomini se subjicientes.”
Sed in nostro prelio cuï nunc instamus,
Qualis sit discretio rei videamus.
Comes paucos habuit armorum expertos
Pars regis intumuit, bellatores certos
Et majores Angliæ habens congregatos,
Floremque militiæ regni nominatos;
Qui Londoniensibus armis comparati,
Essent multis milibus trecenti prælati;
Unde contemptibiles illis extiterunt,
Et abhominabiles expertis fuerunt.
Comitis militia plurima tenella;
In armis novitia, parum novit bella.
Nunc accinctus gladio tener adolescens
Mane stat in prelio armis assuescens;
Quid mirum si timeat tyro tam novellus,
Et si lupum caveat impotens agnellus?
Sic ergo militia sunt inferiores
Qui pugnant pro Anglia, sunt et pauciores
Multo viris fortibus, de sua virtute
Satis gloriantibus, ut putarent tute,
Et sine periculo, velut absorbere
Quotquot adminiculo Comiti fuere.
Nam et quos adduxerat Comes ad certamen,
De quibus speraverat non parvum juvamen,
Plurimi perterriti mox se subtraxerunt,
Et velut attoniti fugæ se dederunt;
Et de tribus partibus tertia recessit.
Comes cum fidelibus paucis nunquam cessit.
Gedeonis prelium nostro comparemus,
In quibus fidelium vincere videmus
Paucos multos numero fidem non habentes,
Similes Lucifero de se confidentes.
“Si darem victoriam,” dicit Deus, “multis,
Stulti michi gloriam non darent, sed stultis.”
Sic si Deus fortibus vincere dedisset,
Vulgus laudem talibus non Deo dedisset.
Ex hiis potest elici quod non timuerunt
Deum viri bellici, unde nil fecerunt
Quod suam constantiam vel fidelitatem
Probet, sed superbiam et crudelitatem;
Volentes confundere partem quam spreverunt,
Exeuntes temere cito corruerunt.
Cordis exaltatio præparat ruinam,
Et humiliatio meretur divinam
Dari sibi gratiam; nam qui non confidit
De Deo, superbiam Deus hanc elidit.
Aman introducimus atque Mardocheum;
Hunc superbum legimus, hunc verum Judæum;
Lignum quod paraverat Aman Mardocheo,
Mane miser tollerat suspensus in eo.
Reginæ convivium Aman excœcavit,
Quod ut privilegium magnum reputavit;
Sed spes vana vertitur in confusionem,
Cum post mensam trahitur ad suspensionem.
Sic extrema gaudii luctus occupavit,
Cum finem convivii morti sociavit.
Longe dissimiliter accidit Judæo,
Honorat sublimiter quem rex, dante Deo.
Golias prosternitur projectu lapilli;
Quem Deus persequitur, nichil prodest illi.
Ad prædictas varias adde rationes,
Quod tot fornicarias fætidi lenones
Ad se convocaverant, usque septingentas,
Quas scire debuerant esse fraudulentas,
Sathanæ discipulas ad decipiendas
Animas, et faculas ad has incendendas,
Dolosas novaculas ad crines Samsonis
Radendos, et maculas turpis actionis
Inferentes miseris qui non sunt cordati,
Nec divini muneris gratia firmati,
Carnis desideriis animales dati,
Cujus immunditiis, brutis comparati,
Esse ne victoria digni debuerunt,
Qui carnis luxuria fœda sorduerunt:
Factis lupanaribus robur minuerunt,
Unde militaribus indigni fuerunt.
Accingitur gladio super femur miles,
Absit dissolutio, absint actus viles;
Corpus novi militis solet balneari,
Ut a factis vetitis discat emundari.
Qui de novo duxerant uxores legales,
Domini non fuerant apti bello tales,
Gedeonis prelio teste, multo minus
Quos luxus incendio læserat caminus.
Igitur adulteros cur Deus juvaret,
Et non magis pueros mundos roboraret?
Mundentur qui cupiunt vincere pugnando;
Qui culpas subjiciunt sunt in triumphando;
Primo vincant vitia, qui volunt victores
Esse cum justitia super peccatores.
Si justus ab impio quandoque videtur
Victus, e contrario victor reputetur;
Nam nec justus poterit vinci, nec iniquus
Vincere dum fuerit juris inimicus.
Æquitatem comitis Symonis audite:
Cum pars regis capitis ipsius et vitæ
Solam pœnam quæreret, nec redemptionem
Capitis admitteret, sed abscisionem,
Quo confuso plurima plebs confunderetur,
Et pars regni maxima periclitaretur,
Ruina gravissima statim sequeretur;
Quæ mora longissima non repareretur!
.S. divina gratia præsul Cycestrensis,
Alta dans suspiria pro malis immensis
Jam tunc imminentibus, sine fictione,
Persüasis partibus de formatione
Pacis, hoc a Comite responsum audivit:
“Optimos eligite, quorum fides vivit,
Qui decreta legerint, vel theologiam
Decenter docuerint sacramque sophiam,
Et qui sciant regere fidem Christianam;
Quicquidque consulere per doctrinam sanam
Quicquidve discernere tales non timebunt,
Quod dicent, suscipere promptos nos habebunt;
Ita quod perjurii notam nesciamus,
Sed ut Dei filii fidem teneamus.”
Hinc possunt perpendere facile jurantes,
Et quod jurant spernere parum dubitantes,
Quamvis jurent licita, cito recedentes,
Deoque pollicita sana non reddentes,
Quanta cura debeant suum juramentum
Servare, cum videant virum nec tormentum
Neque mortem fugere propter jusjurandum,
Præstitum non temere, sed ad reformandum
Statum qui deciderat Anglicanæ gentis,
Quem fraus violaverat hostis invidentis.
En Symon obediens spernit dampna rerum,
Pœnis se subjiciens, ne dimittat verum,
Cunctis palam prædicans factis plus quam dictis,
Quod non est communicans veritas cum fictis.
Væ perjuris miseris, qui non timent Deum!
Spe terreni muneris abnegantes eum,
Vel timore carceris, sive pœnæ levis;
Novus dux itineris docet ferre quævis
Quæ mundus intulerit propter veritatem,
Quæ perfectam poterit dare libertatem.
Nam Comes præstiterat prius juramentum,
Quod quicquid providerat zelus sapientum
Ad honoris regii reformationem,
Et erroris devii declinationem,
Partibus Oxoniæ, firmiter servaret,
Hujusque sententiæ legem non mutaret;
Sciens tam canonicas constitutiones
Atque tam catholicas ordinationes
Ad regni pacificam conservationem,
Propter quas non modicam persecutionem
Prius sustinuerat, non esse spernandas;
Et quia juraverat fortiter tenendas,
Nisi perfectissimi fidei doctores
Dicerent, quod eximi possent juratores,
Qui tale præstiterant prius jusjurandum,
Et id quod juraverant non esse curandum.
Quod cum dictus pontifex regi recitaret,
Atque fraudis artifex forsitan astaret,
Vox in altum tollitur turbæ tumidorum,
“En jam miles subitur dictis clericorum!
Viluit militia clericis subjecta!”
Sic est sapientia Comitis despecta;
Edwardusque dicitur ita respondisse,
“Pax illis præcluditur, nisi laqueis se
Collis omnes alligent, et ad suspendendum
Semet nobis obligent, vel ad detrahendum.”
Quid mirum si Comitis cor tunc moveretur,
Cum non nisi stipitis pœna pareretur?
Optulit quod debuit, sed non est auditus;
Rex mensuram respuit, salutis oblitus.
Sed ut rei docuit crastinus eventus,
Modus quem tunc noluit post non est inventus.
Comitis devotio sero deridetur,
Cujus cras congressio victrix sentietur.
Lapis hic ab hostibus diu reprobatus,
Post est parietibus duobus aptatus.
Angliæ divisio desolationis
Fuit in confinio, sed divisionis
Affuit præsidio lapis angularis,
Symonis religio sane singularis.
Fides et fidelitas Symonis solius
Fit pacis integritas Angliæ totius;
Rebelles humiliat, levat desperatos,
Regnum reconsilians, reprimens elatos.
Quos quo modo reprimit? certe non laudendo,
Sed rubrum jus exprimit dure confligendo;
Ipsum nam confligere veritas coegit,
Vel verum deserere, sed prudens elegit
Magis dare dexteram suam veritati,
Viamque per asperam junctam probitati,
Per grave compendium tumidis ingratum,
Optinere bravium violentis datum,
Quam per subterfugium Deo displicere,
Pravorumque studium fuga promovere.
Nam quidam studuerant Anglorum delere
Nomen, quos jam cæperant exosos habere,
Contra quos opposuit Deus medicinam,
Ipsorum cum noluit subitam ruinam.
Hinc alienigenas discant advocare
Angli, si per advenas volunt exulare.
Nam qui suam gloriam volunt ampliare,
Suamque memoriam vellent semper stare,
Suæ gentis plurimos sibi sociari,
Et mox inter maximos student collocare;
Itaque confusio crescit incolarum,
Crescit indignatio, crescit cor amarum,
Cum se premi sentiunt regni principales
Ab hiis qui se faciunt sibi coæquales,
Quæ sua debuerant esse subtrahentes,
Quibus consüeverant crescere, crescentes.
Eschaetis et gardiis suos honorare
Debet rex, qui variis modis se juvare
Possunt, qui quo viribus sunt valentiores,
Eo cunctis casibus sunt securiores.
Sed qui nil attulerant, si suis ditantur,
Qui nullius fuerant, si magnificantur,
Crescere cum ceperint, semper scandunt tales
Donec supplantaverint viros naturales;
Principis avertere cor a suis student,
Ut quos volunt cadere gloria denudent.
Et quis posset talia ferre patienter?
Ergo discat Anglia cavere prudenter,
Ne talis perplexitas amplius contingat,
Ne talis adversitas Anglicos inpingat.
Hüic malo studuit comes obviare,
Quod nimis invaluit quasi magnum mare,
Quod parvo conamine nequibat siccari,
Sed magno juvamine Dei transvadari.
Veniant extranei cito recessuri,
Quasi momentanei, sed non permansuri.
Una juvat aliam manuum duarum,
Neutra tollens gratiam verius earum;
Juvet et non noceat locum retinendo.
Quæque suum valeat ita veniendo;
Gallicus ad Anglicum benefaciendo.
Et non per sophisticum vultum seducendo,
Nec alter alterius bona subtrahendo;
Immo suum potius onus sustinendo.
Commodum si proprium comitem movisset,
Nec haberet alium zelum, nec quæsisset
Toto suo studio reformationi
Regni, sed intentio dominationi,
Solam suam quæreret, et promotionem
Suorum proponerat, ad ditationem
Filiorum tenderet, et communitatis
Salutem negligeret, ac duplicitatis
Palli[o] supponeret virus falsitatis;
Sic fidem relinqueret Christianitatis,
Et horrendæ subderet se pœnalitatis
Legi, nec effugeret pondus tempestatis.
Et quis potest credere quod se morti daret,
Suos vellet perdere, ut sic exaltaret?
Callide si palliant honorem venantes;
Et quod mortem fugiant semper meditantes;
Nulli magis diligunt vitam temporalem,
Nulli magis eligunt statum non mortalem.
Honores qui sitiunt simulate tendunt,
Caute sibi faciunt nomen quod intendunt;
Non sic venerabilis .S. de Monte-forti,
Qui se Christo similis dat pro multis morti;
Ysaac non moritur cum sit promptus mori;
Vervex morti traditur, Ysaac honori.
Nec fraus nec fallacia Comitem promovit,
Sed divina gratia, quæ quos juvet novit.
Horam si vocaveris locum que conflictus,
Invenire poteris quod ut esset victus
Potius quam vinceret illi conferebat;
Sed ut non succumberet Deus providebat.
Non de nocte subito surripit latenter;
Immo die redito pugnat evidenter.
Sic et locus hostibus fuit oportunus,
Ut hinc constet omnibus esse Dei munus,
Quod cessit victoria de se confidenti.
Hinc discat militia, quæ torneamenti
Laudat exercitium, ut sic expedita
Reddatur ad prælium, qualiter contrita
Fuit hic pars fortium exercitatorum,
Armis imbecillium et inexpertorum:
Ut confundet fortia, promovet infirmos,
Confortat debilia Deus, sternit firmos.
Sic nemo confidere de se jam præsumat;
Sed in Deum ponere spem si sciat, sumat
Arma cum constantia, nichil dubitando,
Cum sit pro justitia Deus adjuvando.
Sicque Deum decuit Comitem juvare,
Sine quo non potuit hostem superare.
Cujus hostem dixerim? Comitis solius?
Vel Anglorum sciverim regnique totius?
Forsan et ecclesiæ, igitur et Dei?
Quod si sic, quid gratiæ; conveniret ei?
Gratiam demeruit in se confidendo,
Nec juvari debuit Deum non timendo.
Cadit ergo gloria propriæ virtutis;
Et sic in memoria, qui dat destitutis
Viribus auxilium, paucis contra multos,
Virtute fidelium conterendo stultos,
Benedictus dominus Deus ultionum!
Qui in cœlis eminus sedet super thronum,
Et virtute propria colla superborum
Calcat, subdens grandia pedibus minorum.
Duos reges subdidit et hæredes regum,
Quos captivos reddidit transgressores legum,
Pompamque militiæ cum magna sequela
Dedit ignominiæ; nam barones tela
Quæ zelo justitiæ pro regno sumpserunt,
Filiis superbiæ communicaverunt,
Usque dum victoria de cœlo dabatur,
Cum ingenti gloria quæ non sperabatur,
Arcus namque fortium tunc est superatus,
Cœtus inbecillium robore firmatus;
Et de cœlo diximus, ne quis glorietur;
Sed Christo quem credimus omnis honor detur!
Christus enim imperat, vincit, regnat idem;
Christus suos liberat, quibus dedit fidem.
Ne victorum animus manus osculetur
Suas, Deum petimus quod illis præstetur;
Et quod Paulus suggerit ab ipsis servetur,
“Qui lætatus fuerit, in Deo lætetur.”
Si quis nostrum gaudeat vane gloriatus,
Dominus indulgeat, et non sit iratus!
Et cautos efficiat nostros in futurum;
Ne factum deficiat, faciant se murum!
Quod cæpit perficiat vis omnipotentis,
Regnumque reficiat Anglicanæ gentis!
Ut sit sibi gloria, suis pax electis,
Donec sint in patria se duce provectis.
Hæc Angli de prælio legite Lewensi,
Cujus patrocinio vivitis defensi;
Quia si victoria jam victis cessisset,
Anglorum memoria victa viluisset.
Cuï comparabitur nobilis Edwardus?
Forte nominabitur recte leopardus.
Si nomen dividimus, leo fit et pardus:
Leo, quia vidimus quod non fuit tardus
Aggredi fortissima, nullius occursum
Timens, audacissima virtute discursum
Inter castra faciens, et velut ad votum
Ubi et proficiens, ac si mundum totum
Alexandro similis cito subjugaret
Si fortunæ mobilis rota semper staret;
In qua summus protinus sciat se casurum,
Qui regnat ut dominus parum regnaturum.
Quod Edwardo nobili liquet accidisse,
Quem gradu non stabili constat cecidisse.
Leo per superbiam, per ferocitatem;
Est per inconstantiam et varietatem
Pardus, verbum varians et promissionem,
Per placentem pallians se locutionem.
Cum in arcto fuerit quicquid vis promittit;
Sed mox ut evaserit, promissum dimittit.
Testis sit Glovernia, ubi quod juravit
Liber ab angustia statim revocavit.
Dolum seu fallaciam quibus expeditur
Nominat prudentiam; via qua venitur
Quo vult quamvis devia recta reputatur;
Nefas det placentia, fasque nominatur;
Quicquid libet licitum dicit, et a lege
Se putat explicitum, quasi major rege.
Nam rex omnis regitur legibus quas legit;
Rex Saül repellitur, quia leges fregit;
Et punitus legitur David mox ut egit
Contra legem; igitur hinc sciat qui legit,
Quod non potest regere qui non servat legem;
Nec hunc debent facere ad quos spectat regem.
O Edwarde! fieri vis rex, sine lege;
Vere forent miseri recti tali rege!
Nam quid lege rectius qua cuncta reguntur,
Et quid jure verius quo res discernuntur?
Si regnum desideras, leges venerare;
Vias dabit asperas leges impugnare,
Asperas et invias quæ te non perducent;
Leges si custodias ut lucerna lucent.
Ergo dolum caveas et abomineris;
Veritati studeas, falsum detesteris.
Quamvis dolus floreat, fructus nequit ferre;
Hoc te psalmus doceat; ad fideles terræ
Dicit Deus, “Oculi mei sunt, sedere
Quos in fine seculi mecum volo vere.”
Dolus Northamptoniæ vide quid nunc valet;
Nec fervor fallaciæ velut ignis calet.
Si dolum volueris igni comparare,
Paleas studueris igni tali dare,
Quæ mox, ut exarserint, desistunt ardere,
Et cum vix inceperint terminum tenere.
Ita transit vanitas non habens radices;
Radicata veritas non mutat per vices.
Ergo tibi libeat id solum quod licet,
Et non tibi placeat quod vir duplex dicet.
Princeps quæ sunt principe digna cogitabit:
Ergo legem suscipe, quæ te dignum dabit
Multorum regimine, dignum principatu,
Multorum juvamine, multo comitatu.
Et quare non diligis quorum rex vis esse?
Prodesse non eligis, sed tantum præesse.
Qui nullius gloriam nisi suam quærit,
Ejus per superbiam quicquid regit, perit.
Ita totum periit nuper quod regebas;
Gloria præteriit quam solam quærebas;
En radicem tangimus perturbationis
Regni de quo scribimus, et dissentionis
Partium quæ prælium dictum commiserunt.
Ad diversa studium suum converterunt.
Rex cum suis voluit ita liber esse;
Et sic esse debuit, fuitque necesse
Aut esse desineret rex, privatus jure
Regis, nisi faceret quicquid vellet; curæ
Non esse magnatibus regni, quos præferret
Suis comitatibus, vel quibus conferret
Castrorum custodiam, vel quem exhibere
Populo justitiam vellet, et habere
Regni cancellarium thesaurariumque.
Suum ad arbitrium voluit quemcumque,
Et consiliarios de quacumque gente,
Et ministros varios se præcipiente,
Non intromittentibus se de factis regis
Angliæ baronibus, vim habente legis
Principis imperio, et quod imperaret
Suomet arbitrio singulos ligaret.
Nam et comes quilibet sic est compos sui,
Dans suorum quidlibet quantum vult et cuï
Castra, terras, redditus, cuï vult committit,
Et quamvis sit subditus, rex totum permittit.
Quod si bene fecerit, prodest facienti;
Si non, ipse viderit, sibimet nocenti
Rex non adversabitur. Cur conditionis
Pejoris efficitur princeps, si baronis,
Militis, et liberi res ita tractantur?
Quare regem fieri servum machinantur,
Qui suam minuere volunt potestatem,
Principis adimere suam dignitatem,
Volunt in custodiam et subjectionem
Regiam potentiam per seditionem
Captivam retrudere, et exhæredare
Regem, ne tam ubere valeat regnare
Sicut reges hactenus qui se præcesserunt,
Qui suis nullatenus subjecti fuerunt,
Sed suas ad libitum res distribuerunt,
Et ad suum placitum sua contulerunt.
Hæc est regis ratio, quæ vera videtur,
Et hæc allegatio jus regni tuetur.
Sed nunc ad oppositum calamus vertatur:—
Baronum propositum dictis subjungatur;
Et auditis partibus dicta conferantur,
Atque certis finibus collata claudantur,
Ut quæ pars sit verior valeat liquere.
Veriori promor populus parere.
Baronum pars igitur jam pro se loquatur,
Et quo zelo ducitur rite prosequatur.
Quæ pars in principio palam protestatur,
Quod honori regio nichil machinatur;
Vel quærit contrarium, immo reformare
Studet statum regium et magnificare;
Sicut si ab hostibus regnum vastaretur,
Non sine baronibus tune reformaretur,
Quibus hoc competeret atque conveniret;
Et qui tunc se fingeret, ipsum lex puniret
Ut reum perjurii, regis proditorem,
Qui quicquid auxilii regis ad honorem
Potest, debet domino cum periclitatur,
Cum velut in termino regnum deformatur.
Regis adversarii sunt hostes bellantes,
Et consiliarii regi adulantes,
Qui verbis fallacibus principem seducunt,
Linguisque duplicibus in errorem ducunt:
Hii sunt adversarii perversis pejores;
Hii se bonos faciunt cum sint seductores,
Et honoris proprii sunt procuratores;
Incautos decipiunt, quos securiores
Reddunt per placentia, unde non caventur,
Sed velut utilia dicentes censentur.
Hii possunt decipere plusquam manifesti,
Qui se sciunt fingere velut non infesti.
Quid si tales miseri, talesque mendaces,
Adhærerent lateri principis, capaces
Totius malitiæ, fraudis, falsitatis,
Stimulis invidiæ puncti, pravitatis
Facinus exquirerent, per quod regni jura
Ad suas inflecterent pompas, quæque dura
Argumenta fingerent, quæ communitatem
Paulatim confunderent, universitatem
Populi contererent et depauperarent,
Regnumque subverterent et infatuarent,
Quod nullus justitiam posset optinere,
Nisi qui superbiam talium fovere
Vellet, per pecuniam largiter collatam;
Quis tantam injuriam sustineret ratam?
Et si tales studiis suis immutarent
Regnum, ut injuriis jura supplantarent;
Calcatis indigenis advenas vocarent;
Et alienigenis regnum subjugarent:
Magnates et nobiles terne non curarent,
Atque contemptibiles in summo locarent;
Et magnos dejicerent et humiliarent;
Ordinem perverterent et præposterarent;
Optima relinquerent, pessimis instarent;
Nonne qui sic facerent regnum devastarent?
Quamvis armis bellicis foris non pugnarent,
Tamen diabolicis armis dimicarent,
Et regni flebiliter statum violarent;
Quamvis dissimiliter, non minus dampnarent.
Sive rex consentiens per seductionem,
Talem non percipiens circumventionem,
Approbaret talia regni destructiva;
Seu rex ex malitia faceret nociva,
Proponendo legibus suam potestatem,
Abutendo viribus propter facultatem;
Sive sic vel aliter regnum vastaretur,
Aut regnum finaliter destitueretur,
Tunc regni magnatibus cura deberetur,
Ut cunctis erroribus terra purgaretur.
Quibus si purgatio convenit errorum,
Convenit provisio gubernatrix morum,
Qualiter prospicere sibi non liceret,
Ne malum contingere posset quod noceret?
Quod postquam contigerit debent amovere,
Subitum ne faciat incautos dolere.
Sic quod non eveniat quicquam prædictorum,
Quod pacis impediat vel bonorum morum
Formam, sed inveniat zelus peritorum
Quod magis expediat commodo multorum;
Cur melioratio non admitteretur,
Cuï vitiatio nulla commiscetur?
Nam regis clementia regis et majestas
Approbare studia debet, quæ molestas
Leges ita temperant quod sunt mitiores,
Et dum minus onerant Deo gratiores.
Non enim oppressio plebis Deo placet,
Immo miseratio qua plebs Deo vacet.
Phara[o] qui populum Dei sic afflixit,
Quod vix ad oraculum Moysi quod dixit
Poterant attendere, post est sic punitus,
Israel dimittere cogitur invitus;
Et qui comprehendere credidit dimissum,
Mersus est dum currere putat per abyssum.
Salomon conterere Israel nolebat,
Nec ullum de genere servire cogebat;
Quia Dei populum scivit quem regebat,
Et Dei signaculum lædere timebat;
Et plusquam judicium laudat misereri,
Et plusquam supplicium pacem patri[s] veri.
Cum constat baronibus hæc cuncta licere,
Restat rationibus regis respondere.
Amotis custodibus vult rex liber esse,
Subdique minoribus non vult sed præesse;
Imperare subditis et non imperari;
Sibi nec præpositis vult humiliari.
Non enim præpositi regi præponuntur;
Immo magis incliti qui jus supponuntur.
Unius rex aliter unicus non esset,
Sed regnarent pariter quibus rex subesset.
Et hoc inconveniens quod tantum videtur,
Sit Deus subveniens, facile solvetur.
Deum namque credimus velle veritatem,
Per quem sic dissolvimus hanc dubietatem.
Unus solus dicitur et est rex revera,
Per quem mundus regitur majestate mera;
Non egens auxilio quo possit regnare,
Sed neque consilio qui nequit errare.
Ergo potens omnia sciensque præcedit
Infinita gloria omnes quibus dedit
Sub se suos regere quasique regnare,
Qui possunt deficere, possunt et errare,
Et qui suis viribus nequeunt præstare,
Suisque virtutibus hostes expugnare,
Neque sensu proprio regna gubernare,
Sed erroris invio male deviare.
Indigent auxilio sibi suffragante,
Necnon et consilio se rectificante.
Dicit rex: “Consentio tuæ rationi;
Sed horum electio subsit optioni
Meæ; quos voluero michi sociabo,
Quorum patrocinio cuncta gubernabo;
Et si mei fuerint insufficientes,
Sensum non habuerint, aut non sint potentes,
Aut si sint malevoli, et non sint fideles,
Sed sint forte subdoli, volo quod reveles
Cur ad certas debeam personas arctari,
A quibus prævaleam melius juvari?”
Cujus rei ratio cito declaratur,
Si quæ sit arctatio regis attendatur;
Non omnis arctatio privat libertatem,
Nec omnis districtio tollit potestatem.
Potestatem liberam volunt principantes,
Servitutem miseram nolunt dominantes.
Ad quid vult libera lex reges arctari?
Ne possint adultera lege maculari.
Et hæc coarctatio non est servitutis,
Sed est ampliatio regiæ virtutis.
Sic servatur parvulus regis ne lædatur;
Non fit tamen servulus quando sic arctatur.
Sed et sic angelici spiritus arctantur.
Qui quod apostatici non sint confirmantur.
Nam quod Auctor omnium non potest errare,
Omnium principium non potest peccare,
Non est inpotentia, sed summa potestas,
Magna Dei gloria magnaque majestas.
Sic qui potest cadere, si custodiatur
Ne cadat, quod libere vivat, adjuvatur
A tali custodia, nec est servitutis
Talis sustinentia, sed tutrix virtutis.
Ergo regi libeat omne quod est bonum,
Sed malum non audeat; hoc est Dei donum.
Qui regem custodiunt ne peccet temptatus,
Ipsi regi serviunt, quibus esse gratus
Sit, quod ipsum liberant ne sit servus factus,
Quod ipsum non superant a quibus est tractus.
Sed quis vere fuerit rex, est liber vere
Si se recte rexerit regnumque; licere
Sibi sciat omnia quæ regno regendo
Sunt convenientia, sed non destruendo.
Aliud est regere quod incumbit regi;
Aliud destruere resistendo legi.
A ligando dicitur lex, quæ libertatis
Tam perfecte legitur qua servitur gratis.
Omnis rex intelligat quod est servus Dei:
Illud tantum diligat quod est placens ei;
Et illius gloriam quærat in regendo,
Non suam superbiam pares contempnendo.
Rex qui regnum subditum sibi vult parere,
Reddat Deo debitum alioquin vere;
Sciat quod obsequium sibi non debetur,
Qui negat servitium quo Deo tenetur.
Rursum sciat populum non suum sed Dei,
Et ut adminiculum suum prosit ei:
Et qui parvo tempore populo præfertur,
Cito clausus marmore terræ subinfertur.
In illos se faciat ut unum ex illis;
Saltantem respiciat David cum ancillis.
Regi David similis utinam succedat,
Vir prudens et humilis qui suos non lædat;
Certe qui non læderet populum subjectum,
Sed illis impenderet amoris affectum,
Et ipsius quæreret salutis profectum,
Ipsum non permitteret plebs pati defectum.
Durum est diligere se non diligentem;
Durum non despicere se despicientem;
Durum non resistere se destituenti;
Convenit applaudere se suscipienti.
Principis conterere non est, sed tueri;
Principis obprimere non est, sed mereri
Multis beneficiis suorum favorem,
Sicut Christus gratiis omnium amorem.
Si princeps amaverit, debet reamari;
Si recte regnaverit, debet honorari;
Si princeps erraverit, debet revocari
Ab hiis quos gravaverit injuste negari,
Nisi velit corrigi; si vult emendari,
Debet ab hiis erigi simul et juvari.
Istam princeps teneat regulam regnandi,
Ut opus non habeat non suos vocandi:
Qui confundunt subditos principes ignari,
Sentient indomitos sic nolle domari.
Si princeps putaverit universitate
Quod solus habuerit plus de veritate,
Et plus de scientia, plus cognitionis,
Plus abundet gratia, plusque Dei donis:
Si non sit præsumptio, immo sit revera,
Sua tune instructio suorum sincera
Subditorum lumine corda perlustrabit;
Et cum moderamine suos informabit.
Moysen proponimus, David, Samuelem,
Quorum quemque novimus principem fidelem;
Qui a suis subditis multa pertulerunt,
Nec tamen pro meritis illos abjecerunt,
Nec illis extraneos superposuerunt,
Sed rexerunt per eos qui sui fuerunt.
“Ego te præficiam populo majori,
Et hunc interficiam;” dicit Deus.—“Mori
Malo, quam hic pereat populus,” benignus
Moyses respondeat, principatu dignus.
Sicque princeps sapiens nunquam reprobabit
Suos, sed insipiens regnum conturbabit.
Unde si rex sapiat minus quam deberet;
Quid regno conveniat regendo? num quæret
Suo sensu proprio quibus fulciatur,
Quibus diminutio sua suppleatur?
Si solus elegerit, facile falletur,
Utilis qui fuerit a quo nescietur.
Igitur communitas regni consulatur;
Et quid universitas sentiat, sciatur,
Cuï leges propriæ maxime sunt notæ.
Nec cuncti provinciæ sic sunt idiotæ,
Quin sciant plus cæteris regni sui mores,
Quos relinquunt posteris hii qui sunt priores.
Qui reguntur legibus magis ipsas sciunt;
Quorum sunt in usibus plus periti fiunt;
Et quia res agitur sua, plus curabunt,
Et quo pax adquiritur sibi procurabunt.
Pauca scire poterunt qui non sunt experti;
Parum regno proderunt, nisi qui sunt certi.
Ex hiis potest colligi quod communitatem
Tangit quales eligi ad utilitatem
Regni recte debeant; qui velint et sciant
Et prodesse valeant, tales regis fiant
Et consiliarii et coadjutores;
Quibus noti varii patriæ sunt mores;
Qui se lædi sentiunt, si regnum lædatur;
Regnumque custodiunt, ne, si noceatur
Toti, partes doleant simul patientes;
Gaudenti congaudeant, si sint diligentes.
Nobile juditium regis Salomonis
Ponamus in medium; quæ divisionis
Parvuli non horruit inhumanitatem,
Quia non condoluit atque pietatem
Maternam non habuit, quod mater non erat
Teste rege docuit; ergo tales quærat
Princeps, qui condoleant universitati,
Qui materne timeant regnum dura pati.
Sed si quem non moveat ruina multorum;
Si solus optineat quæ vult placitorum;
Multorum regimini non est coaptatus,
Suo cum sit omnium soli totus datus.
Communis conveniens est communitati;
Sed vir incompatiens cordis indurati
Non curat si veniant multis casus duri;
Casibus non obviant tales modo muri.
Igitur eligere si rex per se nescit
Qui sibi consulere sciant, hinc patescit
Quid tunc debet fieri. Nam communitatis
Est ne fiant miseri duces dignitatis
Regiæ, sed optimi et electi viri,
Atque probatissimi qui possint inquiri.
Nam cum gubernatio regni sit cunctorum
Salus vel perditio, multum refert quorum
Sit regni custodia; sicut est in navi;
Confunduntur omnia si præsint ignavi;
Si quis transfretantium positus in navi
Ad se pertinentium abutatur clavi,
Non refert si prospere navis gubernetur.
Sic qui regnum regere debent, cura detur
Si de regno quispiam non recte se regit;
Viam vadit inviam quam forsan elegit.
Optime res agitur universitatis,
Si regnum dirigitur via veritatis.
Et tamen si subditi sua dissipare
Studeant, præpositi possunt refrenare
Suorum stultitiam et temeritatem,
Ne per insolentiam vel fatuitatem
Stultorum potentia regni subnervetur,
Hostibus audacia contra regnum detur.
Nam quocumque corporis membro violato,
Fit minoris roboris corpus. Ita dato
Quod vel viri liceat propriis abuti,
Quamvis regno noceat; plures mox secuti
Et libertatem noxiam, sic multiplicabunt
Erroris insaniam, quod totum dampnabunt.
Nec libertas proprie debet nominari,
Quæ permittit inscie stultos dominari;
Sed libertas finibus juris limitetur,
Spretisque limitibus error reputetur.
Alioquin liberum dices furiosum,
Quamvis omne prosperum illi sit exosum.
Ergo regis ratio de suis subjectis,
Suomet arbitrio quorum volunt vectis,
Per hoc satis solvitur, satis infirmatur;
Dum quivis qui subditur majore domatur.
Quia nulli hominum dicemus licere
Quicquid vult, sed dominum quemlibet habere
Qui errantem corrigat, benefacientem
Adjuvat, et erigit quandoque cadentem.
Præmio præferimus universitatem;
Legem quoque dicimus regis dignitatem
Regere; nam credimus esse legem lucem,
Sine qua concludimus deviare ducem.
Lex qua mundus regitur atque regna mundi
Ignea describitur; quod sensus profundi
Continet mysterium, lucet, urit, calet;
Lucens vetat devium, contra frigus valet,
Purgat et incinerat quædam, dura mollit,
Et quod crudum fuerat ignis coquit, tollit
Torporem, et alia multa facit bona.
Sancta lex similia p’rat (?) regi dona.
Istam sapientiam Salomon petivit;
Ejus amicitiam tota vi quæsivit.860
Si rex hac caruerit lege, deviabit;
Si hanc non tenuerit, turpiter errabit;
Istius præsentia recte dat regnare,
Et ejus absentia regnum perturbare.
Ista lex sic loquitur, “per me regnant reges;
Per me jus ostenditur hiis qui condunt leges.”
Istam legem stabilem nullus rex mutabit;
Sed se variabilem per istam firmabit.
Si conformis fuerit huïc legi, stabit;
Et si disconvenerit isti, vacillabit.
Dicitur vulgariter, “ut rex vult, lex vadit:”
Veritas vult aliter, nam lex stat, rex cadit.
Veritas et caritas zelusque salutis
Legis est integritas, regimen virtutis;
Veritas, lux, caritas, calor, urit zelus;
Hæc legis varietas tollit omne scelus.
Quicquid rex statuerit, consonum sit istis;
Nam si secus fecerit, plebs reddetur tristis;
Confundetur populus, si vel veritate
Caret regis oculus, sive caritate
Principis cor careat, vel severitate
Zelum non adimpleat semper moderate.
Hiis tribus suppositis, quicquid placet regi
Fiat; sed oppositis, rex resistit legi.
Sed recalcitratio stimulo non nocet;
Pauli sic instructio de cœlo nos docet.
Sic exhæredatio nulla fiet regi,
Si fiat provisio concors justæ legi.
Nam dissimulatio legem non mutabit,
Cujus firma ratio sine fine stabit.
Unde si quid utile diu est dilatum,
Irreprehensibile sit sero perlatum.
Et rex nihil proprium præferat communi;
Quia salus omnium sibi cessit uni.
Non enim præponitur sibimet victurus;
Sed ut hic qui subditur populus securus.
Reges esse noveris nomen relativum;
Nomen quoque sciveris esse protectivum;
Unde sibi vivere soli non licebat,
Qui multos protegere vivendo delebat.
Qui vult sibi vivere, non debet præesse,
Sed seorsum degere, et ut solus esse.
Principis est gloria plurimos salvare;
Cum sua molestia multos relevare.
Non alleget igitur suimet profectum,
Sed in quibus creditur subditis prospectum.
Si regnum salvaverit, quod est regis fecit;
Quicquid secus egerit in ipso defecit.
Vera regis ratio ex hiis satis patet;
Quod vacantem proprio status regis latet.
Namque vera caritas est proprietati
Quasi contrarietas, et communitati
Fœdus insolubile, conflans velut ignis
Omne quod est habile, sicut fit in lignis
Quæ dant igni crescere patiens activo,
Subtracta decrescere modo recitivo.
Ergo si fervuerit princeps caritate,
Quantumcumque poterit de communitate,
Si sollicitabitur quod recte regatur,
Et nunquam lætabitur si destituatur,
Unde si dilexerit rex regni magnates,
Quamvis solus sciverit, quasi magnus vates,
Quicquid opus fuerit ad regnum regendum,
Quicquid se decuerit, quicquid faciendum,
Quod sane decreverit illis non celabit,
Præter quos non poterit id quod ordinabit
Ad effectum ducere; igitur tractabit
Cum suis, quæ facere per se [non] putabit.
Cur sua consilia non communicabit,
A quibus auxilia supplex postulabit?
Quicquid suos allicit ad benignitatem,
Et amicos efficit, fovet unitatem,
Regiam prudentiam decet indicare
Hiis qui suam gloriam possunt augmentare.
Dominus discipulis cuncta patefecit,
Dividens a servulis quos amicos fecit;
Atque quasi nescius a suis quæsivit
Quid sentirent sæpius, quod profecte scivit.
O! si Dei quærerent principes honorem,
Regna recte regerent, et præter errorem.
Si Dei notitiam principes haberent,
Omnibus justitiam suam exhiberent.
Ignorantes dominum, velut excæcati,
Quærunt laudes hominum, vanis delectati.
Qui se nescit regere, multos male reget;
Si quis vult inspicere Psalmos, idem leget.
Joseph ut se debuit principes docere,
Propter quod rex voluit ipsum præminere.
Et in innocentia cordis sui David,
Et intelligentia, Israelem pavit.
Ex prædictis omnibus poterit liquere,
Quod regem magnatibus incumbit videre
Quæ regni conveniant gubernationi,
Et pacis expediant conservationi;
Et quod rex indigenas sibi laterales
Habeat, non advenas, neque speciales,
Vel consiliarios vel regni majores,
Qui supplantant alios atque bonos mores.
Nam talis discordia paci novercatur,
Et inducit prælia, dolos machinatur.
Nam sicut invidia diaboli mortem
Induxit, sic odia separat cohortem.
Incolas in ordine suo rex tenebit,
Et hoc moderamine regnando gaudebit.
Si vero studuerit suos degradare,
Ordinem perverterit, frustra quæret quare
Sibi non obtemperant ita perturbati;
Immo si sic facerent essent insensati.


Featured: Simon de Montfort, Sixth Earl of Leicester; drawing of a stained glass window at Chartres Cathedral, ca. 1250.


Proelio apud Bannockburn

This account of the Battle of Bannockburn (1314) was written during the reign of King Edward III (1312 – 1377). It is found in Cotton. Titus, A. XX., fol. 68.

Quomodo comes Gloverniæ fuerat occisus apud Strivelyn, et Anglici victi.

Me cordis augustia cogit mira fari,
Scotiæ quod Anglia cæpit subjugari:
Nova jam prodigia dicitur patrari,
Quando matri filia sumit dominari.
Regionum Anglia plurium matrona,
Cuï tributaria jam dabantur dona,
Proth dolor! nunc cogitur nimis esse prona
Filiæ, qua læditur materna corona.
Exiit per Angliam edictum vulgare,
Admonendo quempiam arma præparare,
Ut adiret Scotiam phalanx vendicare
Jura, vel injuriam posse vindicare.
Ad quod thema debeam nimis protelare:
Rex cæpit militiam suam adunare,
Inconsultus abiit Scotos debellare.
Ira sponte rediit nolens plus obstare.
Erant in excercitu plures generosi,
Milites in exitu nimis et pomposi;
Cum ad bellum venerant tot impetuosi,
Satis promti fuerant hostes animosi.
Animosi fuerant et hoc apparebat;
Cum partes certaverant, illa permanebat
Stabilis, sed fugiit quæ superbiebat.
Inproba succubuit, astuta vincebat.
Inauditus ingruit inter hos conflictus;
Primitus prosiliit Acteus invictus,
Comes heu! Gloverniæ dans funestos ictus;
Assistens in acie qui fit derelictus.
Hic phalangas hostium disrupi coegit,
Et virorum fortium corpora subegit;
Sed fautor domesticus sibi quem elegit,
Hic non erat putitus quando factum fregit.
Hic est proditorius vir Bartholomeus,
In cunctis victoriis quem confundat Deus!
Domino quod varius fit ut Pharisæus.
Hinc Judæ vicarius morte fiet reus.
Videns contra dominum hostes desævire,
Fingit se sex seminum longius abire;
Domino quod renuit suo subvenire,
Proditor hic meruit tormenta obire.
Plures sunt quem perperam comes est seductus,
Ut ovis ad victimam et ad mortem ductus,
Qui [sunt] per quos oritur tam vulgaris luctus,
Hoc satis cognoscitur per eorum fructus.
Quorum virus Anglia tota toxicatur;
Vulgaris justitia sic et enervatur;
Regale judicium per hos offuscatur;
Ex hoc in exilium fides relegatur.
Victa jacet caritas, et virtus calcatur;
Viret ingratuitas, et fraus dominatur;
Quicquid in hiis finibus mali perpetratur,
Dictis proditoribus totum inputatur.
Iste deceptorius vir non erat solus,
Per quem proditorius jam fiebat dolus;
Alter sed interfuit, quem non celet polus,
Et fiat ut meruit infernalis bolus.
Hujusmodi milites, regno pervicaces,
Sathanæ satellites, sunt nimis rapaces;
Regis si sint judices undique veraces,
Destruent veneficos suos et sequaces.
Capitis sententiam pati meruerunt,
Cum sponte militiam talem prodiderunt;
Qui fuerunt rustici, sicut permanserunt,
Comitis domestici fugam elegerunt.
Hii fraude multiplica virum prodiderunt,
Inpia gens Scotica quem circumdederunt;
Ipsum a dextrario suo prostraverunt,
Et prostrati vario modo ceciderunt
Fideles armigeri qui secum fuerunt;
Milites et cæteri secum corruerunt;
Cum sui succurrere sibi voluerunt,
Hostibus resistere tot non valuerunt.
Sic comes occubuit præ cunctis insignis,
Qui sua distribuit prædia malignis;
Sibi quisque caveat istis intersignis,
Jam fidem ne præbeat talibus indignis.
Ex hoc illi comites actibus periti,
Adhuc qui superstites sunt, fiant muniti,
Alias in prælio cum sistant uniti,
Ne sic proditorio telo sint attriti.
Cruciatur Anglia nimio dolore,
Tali quod versutia privatur honore,
Muniatur cautius mentis cum labore,
Error ne novissimus pejor sit priore.
Consulo comitibus adhuc qui sunt vivi,
Quod sint proditoribus amodo nocivi;
Sic et per industriam omnes sint captivi:
Anglici ad Scotiam fiant progressivi.
Credo verum dicere, non mentiri conor;
Jam cæpit deficere nostri gentis honor;
Comitem cum lividus mortis texit color,
Angliæ tunc horridus statim crevit dolor.
Nostræ gentis Angliæ quidam sunt captivi;
Currebant ab acie quidam semivivi;
Qui fuerunt divites fiunt redemptivi;
Quod delirant nobiles plectuntur Achivi.
Mentes ducum Angliæ sunt studendo fessæ,
Nam fœdus justitiæ certo caret esse;
Ergo rex potentiæ stirps radice Jessæ,
Fautores perfidiæ ducat ad non esse!
Quando sævit aquilum, affricus quievit;
Et australi populo dampnum mortis crevit.
Anglia victoria frui consuevit,
Sed prolis perfidia mater inolevit.
Si scires, Glovernia, tua fata, fleres,
Eo quod in Scotia tuus ruit hæres;
Te privigni capient quorum probra feres;
Ne te far … facient, presens regnum teres.
Facta es ut domina viro viduata,
Cujus sunt solamina in luctum mutata;
Tu es sola civitas capite truncata;
Tuos casus Trinitas fæcundet beata!


Featured: The Battle of Bannockburn, by William Allan; painted in 1850.


Captio Lincolnie

Pugna Lincolniensis fuit magnae pugnae mediae aetatis. Hoc carmen pugnam et reparationem describit. Hic versus descriptionem pugnae saeculo decimoquarto in prima parte conscriptam fuisse verisimile est. In uno codice extat: MS. Cotton. Vespas. B. XIII. fol. 130, vo.

Incipiunt versus de Guerra Regis Johannis.

Serpserat Angligenam rabies quadrangula gentem.
In proprium jurata jugum, motuque minaci
Gens sibi degenerans, ut libera serviat, alta
Corruat, incolumis ægrotet, tuta pavescat,
Vendicat antiquas inimico consule leges;
Non legis libra, non juris luce, nec igne
Sacri consilii, sed nec lima rationis,
Fulgurat in vetitum spreta ratione voluntas.

Prima fuit rabies proprio concepta tumore;
Altera belligeras Francorum traxerat alas;
Conduxit nigras Scottorum tertia turmas;
Flexit quarta leves tenui sub veste Galenses.

Fœdera rumpuntur pacis, tonitrusque minaces;
Serpsit in attonitas corrupta licentia turres,
In quibus ægra fides latuit, medicumque salutis
Expectata diu, tandem de munere Christi
Convaluit, traxitque suas in bella cohortes.

Hæc rabies patiente Deo permissa parumper
Non concessa fuit, ut molles fulmina mentes
Comburant, nec ut ira Dei confundat inermes.
Sed cordis scrutator oves deserta petentes
Errantesque diu proprio revocavit amore,
Vapulet ut meritas medicato verbere culpas,
Divinasque minas clementia patris amicans
Ubere materno lenivit verbera patris.

Anglorum nutabat honor, regnique venustas,
Inclinata caput divini judicis iram
Senserat, et tumido timuit servire tyranno.
Pendula palma, diu dubio protracta favore,
Nunc risit Gallis, nunc risum contulit Anglis,
Verius applaudens istis, fallacius illis.

Non tulit ulterius regem regnare furentem
Vindicis ira Dei; cecidit percussus ab illo
Cujus templa, domos, combusserat igne minaci.
A face fax oritur fati, flammæque furorem
Dum furit in regem febris vindicta fugavit.
Summus honos mors illa fuit, culmenque decoris
Attulit, in nullo quod erat superatus ab hoste,
Et tot erant hostes; victus victore superno,
Invictusque suos hostes moriendo momordit.

Desinat ira tumens; discat servire potestas
Curvarique Deo, cui subdens colla resurget;
In surgendo cadet: brevis est humana potestas,
Et brevibus discat finem properare diebus.

Planxerat extinctum regio viduata Johannem,
Degenerique timens sua subdere colla marito
Invocat Angligenas Anglorum lacrima vires;
Quo gravior dolor est, propior medicina doloris.

Fulserat interea minimæ scintillula formæ,
Regia progenies, laceri spes unica regni,
Stella quasi succensa Deo, nubemque paternam
Exuit, irradians nova lux, stellasque fugatas
Fulmine de patrio pueri candela vocavit.

O Pietas preciosa Dei! qui magna magistrat,
Fortia confundit, infirma levat, feritates
Fulminat, inflatos frangit, qui virginis alvo
Parvulus egressus, parvum suscepit alendum,
Ecclesiæque dedit gremio, quem matris in ulnas
Blanda parens recipit, nato blandita parentis
Obsequio, teneram capiti positura coronam.
Consilium cœleste fuit, quod consona sacri
Unio consilii regi parere puello
Non timuit, timuitque magis servire tyranno.

Unio sacra novum maturat ad ardua regem;
Utilitas, pietasque, fides, concurrere fatis
Conjurant, cunctos[que] crucis signare sigillo;
Constiterant vexilla crucis, regemque novellum
Ambierant, bajulosque crucis crux alba decorans
Instabiles statuit fidei fundamine turmas.

O famosa viri legatio, lima beati
Consilii, sidus recti, speculum rationis,
Gala dei cultor, curæ cristata galero!
Anglia victrices strinxit divinitus enses,
In commune bonum fundunt castella catervas
Signiferas, belloque truces, hostique minaces.

Tempus erat quo terra novo pubescere partu
Cœperat, et teneras in crines solverat herbas,
Vellera pratorum redolens infantia florum
Pinxerat, et, renovas crispans coma primula silvas,
Innumeras avium revocavit ad organa linguas,
Gallica tum rabies aquilonis adhæserat Anglis,
Conjurata manus medios transire per Anglos,
Londoniis egressa suis, longasque latebras
Deseruit Lodovica cohors, comitesque superbos
Concessa pudet ire via, Montique Sorello
Subsidium ferale ferunt, nam quo magis illum
Major palma colit, graviorem ferre ruinam
Præcavet ira Dei; sed cautior inde recessit
Nobilitas comitum, fidei flos, regia virtus,
Cestrensis clipeus, donec frendente tumultu
Transierat rabies notum super ardua castrum,
Trigintæque latus, longique superbia belli
Fluxit ad obsessam matronæ nobilis arcem.

Huc ubi fata feras fremitu flexere phalangas,
Fama volat, comitesque vocat, comitumque sodales
Cestrenses, crescitque seges clipeata virorum.
Regia signa micant, et conjurata sequuntur
Agmina, clara fides cum denique protrahit ora,
Candida signa crucis juvenum præstantia pingunt
Pectora, consolidat communis corda voluntas;
Vincendi spes una fuit, victoria cunctas
In facies præmissa patet, plausuque secundo
Permittunt socias in consona prælia dextras.

Instabat sabbatum quo festa peracta superni
Flaminis, et trinum celebrat deitatis honorem
Vespera; sol prima lambebat lampade terras,
Cum tuba terribili dederat præludia cantu;
Bella movent ferrata duces, tot signa videres
Nutantes tremulo galeas superare volatu,
Tot clipeos vario mutantes signa colore.
Fulsit in armatas solaris gratia turmas,
Febricitabat iners, validabant corda feroces.
Venit ut attonitam constantia Martis ad urbem,
Terribili juvenes muros cinxere corona,
Rimanturque novos aditus; nec protinus urbem
Invasere duces; legatio mittitur intus
Sacrilegos revocare viros ad fœdera pacis.
Nec placuit pax ulla feris, convitia fundunt,
Legatos spernunt, adduntque minacia verba.

Irrita legati postquam mandata reportant,
Magnanimos monet ire duces; tum bellicus horror
Infremuit, tonuere tubæ, mugitus in auras
Horridus insurgit, et, constrepitante tumultu,
Mirari poterant terrena tonitrua nubes.
Transiliunt fossas, transcendunt mœnia, portas
Confringunt, aditus rumpunt, et prælia miscent.
Et gladiis fecere viam; confusio digna
Sacrilegos sternit, fundunt examina Christi
Ferrigeras Mavortis apes, stimulisque timendis
Hostiles penetrant tunicas, squamosaque ferri
Texta secant, Saulosque trahunt ad vincula Pauli,
Reddidit et lepores conversio sacra leones.

Hic Moyses in Monte stetit, Josue stationem
Fixerat hic solis, magnum premit inde Goliam
Funda lapisque David; vidit venerabile mirum
Lincolniensis honor, vidit maris ira trophæum
Imperiale Dei, vidit quadrangula pestis
In se victrici vexilla resurgere palma.
Vidit, et obstupuit, sensitque superbia belli
Pro puero pugnare Deum; nec sponte quievit,
Sed crepuit, pacisque pedes in colla recepit.

O famosa dies, nostrum veneranda per ævum!
Bellica qua rabies latuit, qua pacifer ensis
Pestiferas domuit partes, qua gratia Christi
Dedecus extersit natum, fideique lavacro
Proluit inscriptum versa de fronte pudorem.

Expliciunt versus de Guerra regis Johannis.


Featured: Secunda pugna Lincolniensis. Matthæus Parisiensis, Chronica majora, volume II, folio 51v (55v), annis 1240-1253.


Ward 7: Psychological Portraits of the G7 International Club Leaders

The American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third edition (DSM-III) uses the term “neurotic” in the title of the section (group) of mental disorders: “Neurotic, Stress-Related, and Somatoform Disorders.” That is, we can argue that neurotic = related to the psyche, and not necessarily as a deviation from the norm. As confirmation we can quote from Randolph Nesse’s Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: “Like sweating, shivering, fever, and pain, capacities for fear, anger, joy, and jealousy are useful in certain situations… First, symptoms such as anxiety and sadness are, like sweating and coughing, not rare changes that occur in a few people at unpredictable times; they are consistent responses that occur in nearly everyone in certain situations. Second, the expression of emotions is regulated by mechanisms that turn them on in specific situations; such control systems can evolve only for traits that influence fitness. Third, absence of a response can be harmful; inadequate coughing can make pneumonia fatal, inadequate fear of heights makes falls more likely. Finally, some symptoms benefit an individual’s genes, despite substantial costs to the individual.”

Defense mechanism (psychological defense (neuropsychosis)—A concept of depth psychology that refers to an unconscious mental process aimed at minimizing negative experiences. Protective mechanisms underlie resistance processes. The term was first introduced by Freud in 1894 in The Neuro-Psychosis of Defence, and was used in a number of his later works to describe the struggle of the self against painful or intolerable thoughts and affects.

It is worth noting that there is no universally accepted classification of mental defense mechanisms, although many authors have published their own views. The main complaints about most classifications are either lack of completeness (the critic does not find an important mental process in the classification that he or she classifies as protective), or excessive completeness (the critic finds many mental processes in the classification that he or she does not classify as protective or does not identify as independent processes at all). To all appearances, it is connected with the fact that minimization of negative experiences is in general a natural need of any living organism (in particular, a human being), and with some assumption any mental process can be recognized as aimed at achieving this goal. The necessity of singling out separate protective mechanisms is connected with the practical need of psychologists to single out and describe the most universal of unconscious protective processes.

Most modern psychologists recognize a certain set of defense mechanisms, the names of which have become almost universal.

Protective mechanisms are usually divided into levels (from two to four), but there is still no consensus on the principles of this division and on where to include which defense. The following analysis in this article is based on the classification described in the book by Nancy McWilliams, who identifies four levels of defense mechanisms according to how “primitive” they are, depending on how much their use prevents a person from adequately perceiving reality. In her opinion, “The person using a defense is generally trying unconsciously to accomplish one or both of the following: (1) the avoidance or management of some powerful, threatening feeling, usually anxiety but sometimes overwhelming grief, shame, envy, and other disorganizing emotional experiences; and (2) the maintenance of self-esteem.”

Level 1 “pathological,” includes: delusional projection; denial; distortion.

Level 2 “immature,” includes: acting out; hypochondria; passive-aggressive behavior; projection; schizoid fantasies; cleavage.

Level 3 “neurotic,” includes: displacement; dissociation; intellectualization; isolation of affect; reaction formation; repression.

Level 4 “mature,” includes: altruism; anticipation; humor; sublimation; repression.

So, according to McWilliams’ classification, we can distinguish two groups of defense mechanisms, where the first will have a destructive effect on the person, and the second group is constructive.

Destructive impulses of the psyche that do not lead to rational perception and comprehension, but only seem to do so: dissociation, introjection, denial, defensive fantasy and primitive idealization, as well as split ego, annulment, displacement, displacement, disregard, moralization and separate thinking.

A Lie gets Halfway around the World before the Truth has a Chance to Put on its Pants

As far as the communicant-communicator relationship is concerned, almost all of the defense mechanisms fall into the group of destructive influence in the context of the perception of media information. Why is this so? It is natural for a person to believe the information, which he/she believes to be stated by an authoritative source or one of the key media; therefore, a person practically never thinks about the truthfulness of the information and does not reflect upon it. In most cases a person usually does not verify the information he receives from other sources, but fully trusts the direct message received in person (audibly, visually); and the psyche, seeing the immediate danger, either allows identification with another person or group of people, or allows inclusion of elements of the external world into his personality, perceiving them as part of his Ego. However, this is a destructive defense, unable to withstand prolonged distress, or capable of suppressing the intellectual functions of the personality.

To the constructive group of the influence of defensive mechanisms, when receiving information, we can include only a few of the above, namely, isolation of affect, acting out, rationalization, reversion, and reaction formation.

Based on defense mechanisms, manipulation and sophisticated lies often take place from people whose true thoughts and intentions remain secret, and psychiatrists and profilers often agree in discussions about their false and true selves. But is it possible to predict what to expect from a person and how he or she feels about what is going on if, for example, he or she holds an executive position? To do this we must look at the origins of not only the beginning of his career, but also in general the formation of him as a person. In this article we will consider the psychological portraits of the leaders of the Big Seven (G7): USA, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Canada, and Japan.

In Whose Hands is America?

Joe Biden was born on November 20, 1942, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Growing up in Scranton and New Castle, Delaware, he attended the University of Delaware and received his law degree from Syracuse University in 1968. Joe Biden’s paternal great-great-grandfather, William Biden, was born in Sussex County, England, from where he emigrated to the United States. His maternal great-grandfather, Edward Francis Blewitt, was a member of the Pennsylvania Senate.

He was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970, and a year later, at age 29, was elected to the U.S. Senate from Delaware. Biden had a severe stutter as a child, but his speech improved as he “turned three decades old,” building his ideal image/picture as a politician.

In 1973, Joseph Biden became the youngest senator in U.S. history, taking office at age 30. Less than half a century later, Biden became the nation’s oldest president in U.S. history.

Biden took the oath of office at the hospital where his children were staying after a terrible tragedy—Biden’s first wife, Neilia, and his one-year-old daughter, Naomi, were killed in a car crash, with only his sons Hunter and Beau surviving. Biden initially wanted to refuse to take the oath of office, arguing that if there was a dispute between being a good senator and a good father, he would choose the latter, since his children had no other father. So, Joseph gave the ultimatum that he would only take the oath of office at the hospital to be closer to his children. On the one hand, a rather eloquent act by a good father who did not want to leave his children in a difficult time, on the other hand, a promising politician who wants to serve the country, even at a critical moment in his life. However, if you watch the video of his oath [The Biden’s oath, 1973, PBS NewsHour] you will notice that it was filmed in a movie pavilion, not in a hospital room (many extras, cameramen with cameras and lighting directors)—that is, Biden literally danced on the graves of his recently occurred tragedy.

Here one can notice the desire to serve and to add weight to his own persona, as a high moral, and clearly aware of his priorities. Biden was often accused of being insensitive and rigid, so the tragedy played into his hands. In the swearing-in video, which was filmed two days after the car crash, Biden does not look grief-stricken, which can be seen as:

a) complete detachment from the situation and its blocking (a protective reaction of the psyche to strong shocks);

b) a defensive reaction, which in profiling is commonly referred to as the thrill of deception (when a person’s lies, first of all, their nonverbal manifestations are mistaken for the truth).

However, even such a performance did not contribute to a resounding success. A couple of years later in 1978, Biden was forced to withdraw his candidacy because of accusations of plagiarism in his campaign speech.

Biden was a longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also served as its chairman. He opposed the 1991 Gulf War, and supported NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe and NATO’s involvement in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

However, if we go back to Biden’s personality, we note an almost constant contradiction in his verbal and nonverbal language. It is most often expressed in those moments when Joe Biden is either trying to lie convincingly or answer uncomfortable questions. In one interview, for example, where he talks about meeting his second wife, Jill, Biden makes a sharp chopping gesture with his hands almost the entire time, as if to cut himself off from what he is saying, with his body in tension and his answer often accompanied by a deep sigh. Although Joe and Jill tell a rather romantic tale of their meeting, Jill’s first husband talks about how she cheated on him with Biden, who was his friend, and he told him right to his face that he still remembers Neilia. In this regard, it is reasonable to argue that this chopping hand gesture is deception and detachment.

Also, one of Biden’s frequent gestures, which has a relatively negative meaning, is the scrolling of a circle silhouette in the air with his hand or finger, as if visually repeating everything he says, and convincing of the reality and truthfulness of his words. That is, in media space, Biden is creating a new pseudo-reality of a “good hero” that the American public is sure to believe.

Not to mention Biden’s drug policy of the 1990s and his son Hunter’s world-famous addiction. Biden gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in support of stiffer penalties for drug trafficking and possession, but at the same time his son Hunter was never convicted of clearly over the legal limit of white powder possession. What is this: a lie from the podium in the name of saving his son, or another mask that Biden changes with enviable regularity? If you follow the logic, Biden should have sent Hunter to jail to keep his reputation on track and prove his words in action. After all, his image as a manager and his policy line were built primarily on a religious family, on family values and proper parenting. And, as you can see, with each of these points Joe Biden failed. In addition, Hunter only hyperbolized the problems within the family, taking them to the world level.

Also, don’t forget the story of Biden’s daughter Ashley’s diary, where she wrote, “I’ve always been turned on by guys. Hyper-obsessed from a young age. I remember being sexually attracted to one of our family members. I remember having sex with friends in my early teens, showering with my dad, which is probably not allowed… Was I molested? I think so. Was I abused? I think so… I don’t remember the details, but I remember the pain. At a young age I showered with my father. Perhaps it was inappropriate.” In 2009, a friend of Ashley Biden tried to sell a $2 million video to The New York Post in which Ashley allegedly used cocaine at a party. Negotiations brought the price down to $400,000, but the tabloid rejected the offer, opting instead to publish a story about the alleged video. After The New York Post published the story, it emerged that Ashley had previously been arrested for marijuana possession in 1999 in New Orleans, but the charges were dropped and she was released.

But going back to the psychological portrait, we can note that over the years, Biden himself has believed all the lies he has been telling to the people for years. Here we can also note the so-called “mythomania” and the propensity for pathological lying. Although the term “pathological liar” is not used in clinical diagnosis, most psychiatrists believe that this type of personality is either the result of mental illness or low self-esteem. Lying is the intentional and deliberate or not deliberate provision of false information; but common lies are defensive in nature and are used to avoid the consequences of the truth, while pathological lying can be described as a habituation to lying; and a situation in which one lies constantly, without personal gain, is considered pathological.

It may also be noted that Biden has recently been noted to have pathological phantasm, a memory disorder in which events that a person has invented or imagined seem to him to have actually occurred.

And if we classify more specifically, we can note in his speech and behavior paralytic phantasms. They arise against a background of dementia, euphoria and are often a part of paralytic delusions of grandeur. Close in clinical manifestations to fantasy confabulation, but differing from it in gross ridiculousness (for example, at one speech in 2022, Biden not only got lost in space when speaking in Pittsburgh, where he got confused trying to leave the stage, but also in a congratulatory message to Vice President Kamala Harris called her “the great president.” That same month, Biden declared that the U.S. has 54 states, as opposed to only 50).

Also, Biden has pathological narcissism, which has been slow enough to develop to pathological since the beginning of his career as a senator. Up until the 1990s, one could see not only embarrassment, but also a healthy insecurity about the role that Biden was playing. By the end of 2022, however, one can see how Joseph literally dedicates literally every speech to himself and his role in the world process (e.g., his speech on 02/21/2023 in Warsaw). Because of his low self-esteem, which has been, it is fair to say, regressed by stuttering, Biden has not yet gotten rid of his inner complexes; and now that he gets every recognition and affirmation of his importance, the better and more successful it is to feel as if HE is the one who can rule the WHOLE world.

A few more characteristics of Biden: hypocritical, unprincipled, cruel and totally contradictory to his public image.

Abused Liverwurst, or the Scholzomat

Olaf Scholz was born to a family of salesmen on June 14, 1958 in Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, but grew up in the Rahlstedt district of Hamburg.

Scholz’s father recalled his son as an ambitious “smart guy,” using sarcasm from childhood to appear witty, and also recalled how Olaf annoyed his brothers and spoke Latin to his teacher. “He told me when he was 12 that he wanted to be chancellor,” Gerhard Scholz says. Watching his son finally lead Berlin, he says, gave him “an invigorating sense of happiness.” At the same time, Olaf Scholz is known to have made an agreement with his brothers not to say anything at all about what happened as a child and what is happening now in their family.

Scholz joined the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), in 1975 as a high school student, where he became a member of Jusos (short for Young Socialists), the youth organization of the SPD. From 1982 to 1988 he was Deputy Federal Chairman of Jusos, and from 1987 to 1989 he was also Vice President of the International Union of Socialist Youth. During his time at Jusos, he supported the Freudenberger Kreis (the Stamokap wing of the Jusos university groups) as well as the SPW magazine; and in articles he advocated “overcoming the capitalist economy” and criticized NATO. In 1985 Scholz graduated from the University of Hamburg as a specialist in labor law.

Before Scholz became Federal Chancellor of Germany, he worked as Chairman of the SPD, the first mayor of Hamburg, Minister of Labor and Social Development, head of the Ministry of Finance, Vice-Chancellor of the government. There is even a legend in German society that the real Chancellor Scholz owes his career to Gerhard Schroeder, whom the then young Olaf openly scoffed at, at one of his meetings, saying: “It would help us a lot if you had at least a little understanding of the matter.” Despite his impertinence, Schroeder took a liking to Scholz and took him to Berlin, making him General Secretary of the party.

Scholz became one of Germany’s oldest postwar leaders. He is also one of Germany’s most static, unemotional and secretive politicians. Scholz always has everything clearly, precisely, and literally systematized in every speech, for which he even earned a nickname, designed by analogy to a robot or automated construct for communicating with the population, the “Scholzomat”: “Today is essentially Christmas and birthday all in one for you, and yet you look as euphoric as an English butler at tea time,” remarked an astonished TV interviewer to Olaf Scholz the evening after his election as mayor of Hamburg in 2011. It was a characteristic performance of the man known as “Scholzomat” for his mechanical, austere and laconic style of communication. Ten years on, Scholz’s style has not changed a bit. But in the September federal elections, the “Scholzomat” seemed to offer exactly the quality that the German public craved, in the absence of the retired Angela Merkel.

Speaking of Angela Merkel, according to biographer Lars Haider, Scholz, the Germans “chose him because he looks a lot like Angela Merkel. That was the expectation.” But while almost everything is known about Merkel, almost nothing is known about the life of the current chancellor except his income and his beloved wife Britta Ernst, to whom he has been married for 40 years. Ernst was also an opinionated and eccentric politician in her youth, but as a child she had less ambitious dreams and wanted to be an ordinary schoolteacher. One got the impression that Olaf Scholz had become an exemplary and obedient student: Always well-dressed, with his suits buttoned up, he came to the podium with texts of his speeches and hardly interacted with the public in social networks. So, on the eve of the election, he looked like an ascetic who is only interested in work. Germans appreciated this. However, thanks to the work of the image-makers, Scholz recently began to appear in public without a tie, began to communicate more on social networks, and spoke “without notes,” and tried to look livelier than a Scholzomat.

In German society, Scholz has a reputation for being secretive, nonpublic, meticulous, but also ambitious and extremely confident. But despite his ambitious goals as a child, Scholz visibly panders to the American leader and yields on most issues, sometimes even carrying out direct instructions from the American government, receiving approval from the overseas side.

Such a personality reversal is quite real for narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), when self-esteem is quite unstable, and can regress from ambitious plans to an obedient henchman. Such changes are noticeable not only in character, but also outwardly. Regarding Olaf, it can be noted that the peak of his “grandiosity” came in his youth, when he wanted to appear bigger, to occupy a wide information space and to receive confirmation of his actions; at this time, his image with puffy hair, flared pants and jackets, non-verbal gestures with an overt undertone (arms extended/elbows spread on the table/steady posture with feet at shoulder width) were typical. However, a regression of NPD can be observed now, when Scholz tries to shrink outwardly, as if to become smaller than he is; he has a bald head, and almost all non-verbal gestures are reduced to hands folded at belly level, which characterizes the feeling of discomfort of being in this or that place or position, a kind of fence from the outside world, similar to the children’s “Ollie Ollie in come free” game.

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by a belief in one’s own uniqueness, superiority over others, grandiosity (wanting to become chancellor, i.e., a leader of society, from age 12); an exaggerated opinion of one’s talents and accomplishments (here we can quote Scholz Sr.’s words about his son in the reference above); an absorption in fantasies about his success; an expectation of unconditional good treatment and unconditional submission from others; a seeking of admiration from others to confirm his uniqueness. Nancy McWilliams describes a person with narcissistic disorder as ” organized around maintaining their self-esteem by getting affirmation from outside themselves,” specifying that we are talking about people for whom this task overshadows all others, not just those sensitive to criticism or praise. “Preoccupied with how they appear to others, narcissistically organized people may privately feel fraudulent and loveless.” It is also pointed out that narcissistic pathology is not a normal childhood sense of grandiosity preserved into adulthood, but rather a compensation for early, and therefore profound, disappointments in relationships.

It is also worth noting that NPD often appears in people with an inferiority complex. It cannot be argued, but it can be stressed that being short, burly and clumsy, unable to fight back, and politically unaccountable, hardly added extra points to Olaf Scholz’s self-confidence. He may also have been bullied as a child or as a young man, for the real reasons, for which he hides these particular periods of his life, are not known for certain.
Regarding American-German relations, I would like to focus on the Stern magazine cartoon (“Der grosse Bruder ist zurück”—“Big Brother’s Back”) and Scholz’s non-verbal body language. In the negotiations with Joe Biden, where Olaf sat in the closed posture described above, there was one distinctive gesture that indicated Scholz’s desire to dominate and point to Biden, rather than being in a dependent position. This gesture was evident in the Chancellor’s hands: the hand with the outstretched index finger was covered by the other hand—that is, he was suppressing his desire by simply nodding his head in response and losing interest as the conversation progressed. Joseph Biden read the text on then page, without even looking in the direction of his interlocutor.

So how can we characterize the psychological profile of Olaf Scholz? He knows how to skillfully adjust not only to the party line, but also to the dominant players. Although he is not a pathological liar like Biden, Scholz often mirrors not only politics, but also gestures, facial expressions, and words of the interlocutor, in his role as a dependent player, a behavior characteristic of narcissists. Scholz also easily changes masks, as well as his interests, because he does not have his own moral and ethical attitudes to defend, so he accepts and adopts from those who give him power or a certain dominance, and for this encouragement Scholz is willing to literally mimic to achieve his goals.

Assistant Philosopher

Emmanuel Macron was born on December 21, 1977 to Jean-Michel Macron, a professor of neurology at the University of Picardy, and Françoise Macron-Nogues, a doctor. He studied at the University of Paris X-Nanterre, the Institute of Political Studies and the National School of Administration. From 1999 to 2001 he was an assistant to the philosopher Paul Ricoeur.

Macron worked as an inspector at the Ministry of Economy from 2004 to 2008. From 2007, he was deputy rapporteur for the Commission for the Improvement of French Growth, headed by Jacques Attali. He was an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque, for which he was nicknamed “the financial Mozart.”

The figure of Macron of recent years is quite feasible to examine from the symbiosis of the archetype of the Magician and the King, because with all his appearance he seems to show that he is worthy of this mission—to reconcile everyone and find a compromise with everyone. This archetype worked to his advantage during his second presidential campaign in 2022: the platform presented in Aubervilliers included no less than 100 reform projects. Among them, ensuring France’s energy independence through the construction of wind farms and nuclear power plants and the self-sufficiency of national agriculture; new allocations were promised to the armed forces of the Republic, assuring that the industry could expect extensive investments (the French defense budget would increase to €50 billion by 2025); and Macron also promised that France would play a “consolidating role” in strengthening European security. If in the first presidential campaign Macron bet on an optimistic France that he could build, and thus won a larger percentage of the vote: “The genius of Macron is that he managed to transform the anger of the French into optimism… Emmanuel Macron has in his hands a fantastic instrument of power, strong both in the number of officials he elected and in the dispersion of his opponents,” noted French socialist Nicolas Beytout. Then, in the second presidential campaign, Macron bet on the self-sufficiency of the country.

I will make a contextual insertion to clarify the qualitative meaning of archetype and archetypes. Archetypes are difficult to describe, and psychologists have never come to a conclusion as to how many there are, especially since Carl Jung did not have a fixed list of archetypes, and it was constantly varying. However, the theory of 12 archetypes is considered one of the major ones. So, according to Carl Jung, the main archetypes are: persona, anima and animus, shadow and self. His famous followers Margaret Mark and Carol Pearson expanded this number to 12 archetypes: Innocent, Orphan, Warrior, Caregiver, Seeker, Revolutionary, Lover, Creator, Ruler, Magician, Sage, and Jester. It is worth noting that Pearson used the theory of archetypes in marketing, explaining how to create a brand that customers will love, even if the product is mediocre. According to Pearson, it is enough to create an attractive brand image, in which the buyer can see himself or something close to his lifestyle/worldview, for it to be popular. This theory is true not only for marketing, but also for other socially relevant areas, because archetypes help to create a brand/film/ advertisement/literary or political character that resembles people.

The Ruler is one of the older (mature) archetypes in the theory of the 12 archetypes, and is based on the Creator archetype. This archetype takes everything under its control to prevent chaos; it relies only on itself and its powers.

The Magician is one of the older (mature) archetypes in the theory of the 12 archetypes. The ultimate goal of the Magician as an archetype is the encounter with selfhood. Unlike the lower archetypes, the Magician has learned not only to create, but also to increase expediently what he has created. If the Ruler takes responsibility in the material world, the Magician can resort to the help of the invisible world (the unconscious). In the modern world, the prototypical Magicians are psychologists, psychotherapists and gurus ready to share skills and secrets of spiritual enlightenment; but one type of Magician remains unchanged at all times—charlatans (in the present time this can include online conmen).

In reality, however, it turns out that Macron has only created a magical overlay, remaining in fact an ordinary charlatan (for example, the pension reform involving an increase in the retirement age in France from 62 to 64 years, which he had firmly promised not to touch, will come into force this fall). It is worth noting how tense Macron’s body is as he announces this reform. His eyes are wide open, indicating an aggressive demeanor, and a readiness to attack in case of retaliatory aggression. Also, there is the chopping hand gesture, which was discussed above with the example of Biden, indicating a deliberate lie. Macron was hunched over and tense, so much so that he seemed ready to pick a fight if he heard criticism in return. It’s as if he was showing that it’s none of your [population’s] business to bring about reforms.

Also, the Magician archetype failed at the talks in Beijing with Xi Jinping on April 5, 2023, where Macron arrived with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, following Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia. Initially, Macron, trying to indicate his dominance, made a mistake in the greeting protocol, using a “power gesture” that is in line with the American diplomatic tradition, not the French and even less so the Chinese, where a handshake is not particularly welcome—Macron put his hand over Xi Jinping’s hand in shaking hands, and then patted him on the back. And this despite the fact that Emmanuel himself looked awkward and confused, as evidenced by his unsure, bouncing step and jumpy facial expression. Then, at the negotiating table, the pair of Macron and von der Leyen were practically seated at another table from Xi Jinping, which, of course, diminished the power and confidence of those arriving in Beijing, and drew public derision. If we turn to archetypes, we can already notice the Sage archetype in Xi Jinping’s figure upon meeting: the center of the body is forward, the gaze is slightly down on the encounter, and there is a certain permissible reticence. Macron, on the other hand, appears as the Wizard who fails.

By the way, the Magician archetype is very often superseded by his real role—the Jester. The oldest image in the world, close in age to the image of the ruler, and the last of the four senior (mature) archetypes in the theory of the 12 archetypes. In his image he combines features of all 11 archetypes analyzed before, but the Jester is a hostage of his role, dependent on the surrounding reality. The Jester has no desires or purpose, because without the surrounding reality he has nothing to do. He combines the playfulness and naivety of the Innocent, he portrays Rulers and Sages, he rebels against some events, he is two-faced as a Magician, being in the world of illusory art. In general, the Jester is always paired with another archetype, such as the Orphan (this is the image of “his own guy” that Emmanuel Macron also often tries to demonstrate to the public).

Such a pair (Jester + Orphan) can be seen again in the negotiations in Beijing, where Macron, according to contemporary rhetoric, concluded as follows: “I know I can count on you to bring Russia to its senses and bring everyone back to the negotiating table. A lasting peace must be achieved in which all internationally recognized borders are taken into account and escalation is ruled out. I think this is an important issue for China as well as for France and for all of Europe.”

It is important to note that Macron was trying to match his image in his head, and the main disappointment for him was not the achievement of any goals in the negotiations, but the discrepancy between what he had imagined in his head and what actually happened. Such castles in the air are called false expectations, and when confronted with a different reality at such times, a person becomes anxious, tense, resentful, irritated, angry, and disappointed. As a rule, all the negative emotions that swarm inside are released upon others. False expectations are a middle-ground between pathological escapism and intrusive reveries.

A Russian Emigrant?

Former British Prime Minister (2019 -2022), former Mayor of London (2008 -2016) and former British Foreign Secretary (2016 – 2018) Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born on June 19, 1964 in New York, USA. As a child, Boris suffered from deafness and underwent several surgeries. Johnson’s parents divorced when he was 14 years old.

Johnson’s background is interesting. His great-grandfather on his father’s side, the Turkish journalist Ali Kemal, was briefly interior minister in the government of Ahmed Okday, the last grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire. In this position, he ordered the arrest of Kemal Ataturk. Later, after Ataturk came to power, Okday was executed by order of Nurredin Konyar. After that, Boris Johnson’s grandfather, Osman Ali, fled to Great Britain, where he took the name of Wilfred Johnson. The second surname “Pfeffel” goes back to the German great-grandmother, Baroness Maria-Louise von Pfeffel, who was the granddaughter of the famous chess player Arne de Rivière, great-granddaughter of Duke Paul of Wurttemberg, grand-niece of Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna and Ernestina Pfeffel (wife of poet Fyodor Tyutchev). Boris Johnson’s maternal great-grandfather, the American paleographer Elias Avery Levy, was born in the Russian Empire in Kalvaria (Poland) to a Jewish family. Johnson is a distant descendant of King George II. He himself is named after a Russian émigré whom Johnson’s parents had met in Mexico.

Interestingly, Boris Johnson once referred to himself as a “Russophile” because of his Russian roots. In 2017, during talks with Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, he said: “Let me say that I am a Russophile, a convinced Russophile. I have ancestors in Moscow. I am convinced that I am the first British Foreign Secretary whose name is Boris and please don’t doubt that I want to improve our relations.” Here we can also note Boris’ love of languages: at one time he tried to learn Russian, but now he has switched to Ukrainian.

In the early 1970s, Boris’s father, Stanley Johnson, was one of the first commissioners of the United Europe Pollution Control Commission. Boris received his primary education at a European school in Brussels. In 1979-1984, Stanley Johnson was a member of the European Parliament. Later the family moved to Great Britain, and he continued to study at the preparatory school in East Sussex, and then at Eton. In 1983-1984, he studied at Balliol College, Oxford University. He was elected to the elite Bullingdon Club. Boris did not often attend club meetings. In 1986 he became co-chairman of the famous discussion club Oxford Union Society. His close friends include Charles Spencer, younger brother of Princess Diana, and David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party (2005-2016).

Johnson began his career as a journalist, but even at that time was fired from The Times for lying in his story. And as Foreign Minister, he made a lot of enemies, insulting his partners with caustic comments about them. And in the midst of the Covid pandemic, in the midst of a hard lockdown, he was unable to give up his “wine Friday” party (later, these parties during the Covid epidemic became known as “partygate” and had the status of a political scandal), for which he received absolute disrespect from the public, who reminded him of all his sins. And after the start of the Special Military Operation, he was the instigator of British involvement. But despite this, Boris Johnson remains one of the most charismatic British politicians.

From Johnson’s nonverbal language, his sarcastic manner, and his flamboyant goofiness, you can tell he is symptomatic of ADHD, and the fact that his mother was treated in a psychiatric clinic for depression and the children were in boarding school during treatment only confirms the basis of this syndrome.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a behavioral and mental developmental disorder that begins in childhood. It is manifested by symptoms such as difficulty in concentrating, hyperactivity and poorly controlled impulsivity. Clinically, people with ADHD react too quickly to tasks without waiting for directions and instructions on how to perform them, and inadequately evaluate the demands of the task. As a result, they are very careless, inattentive, reckless, and frivolous. Often, they cannot predict the potentially negative, harmful or destructive (and even dangerous) consequences that may be associated with certain situations or their actions. They often expose themselves to unreasonable, unnecessary risks in order to show their courage, whims and quirks.

It is worth remembering that Johnson supported the Brexit decision only because he wrote two columns about it, with an opinion for it and an opinion against it, and the column with a positive assessment gathered more votes among readers. In fact, Boris’s antics are known without exaggeration to the whole world. Also, adults with the syndrome have a problem with organizing the space around themselves (it is enough to remember how in 2021, after losing the thread of the narrative, Boris was looking for something to hang on to in his notes, and then he started talking about Piggy Peppa and her artistic connection to Picasso) and difficulties in interpersonal relations (Johnson insulted his subordinates and called himself “the Führer” in their presence).

We can also note the pathological lying and populism that has accompanied Johnson since his job at The Times, Boris even lied to Queen Elizabeth II when he asked for a parliamentary recess to promote his Brexit deal with the EU and keep MPs out of the House of Commons—this led to a conflict between the branches of government.

What other touches can be added to Boris Johnson’s psychological portrait? Boris’ idol is Winston Churchill, who was not only a flamboyant politician, but also led a lavish lifestyle. Boris Johnson is notorious for quite a bit of profligacy: he was short of money, according to British press headlines, right from the beginning of his tenure at The Times. Not only was Johnson asking for a quite a sum to renovate his Downing Street residence, but in 2021 Johnson was short of money for sustenance, and conservative party sponsors bought him food from the Waitrose supermarket and delivered it to Downing Street. Johnson was also famous for being a populist and flattering the establishment to get more income.

Slumdog Millionaire

The present British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, was born on May 12, 1980 in Southampton, the son of Yashvir Sunak, a general practitioner in the public health system, and Usha Sunak, a pharmacist. Sunak’s parents, Hindus, immigrated to Britain from East Africa, where in turn their parents had migrated in colonial times from the Punjab, both from what is now India and from what is now Pakistan. His father, Yashvir Sunak, was born and raised in the colony and Protectorate of Kenya (present-day Kenya) and works as a general practitioner for the National Health Service. His mother, Usha Sunak, born in Tanganyika (which later became part of Tanzania), was a pharmacist and owned Sunak Pharmacy in Southampton from 1995 to 2014, and has a degree from Aston University. Rishi received his secondary education at a prestigious private school, Winchester College. In 2001, he graduated from Lincoln College, Oxford University, where he studied philosophy, politics, and economics. From 2001-2004, he worked at Goldman Sachs, then earned an MBA from Stanford University. He returned to the City and worked for the hedge fund TCI. He founded a $1 billion global investment company, specializing in supporting small businesses in the UK.

In 2015, he won the 2015 parliamentary election in the Richmond (Yorks) constituency, managed to be Chancellor of the Exchequer (2020-22), and ousted Boris Johnson (according to the intraparty conspiracy theory) as Prime Minister of Great Britain after Liz Truss resigned on 20 October 2022, becoming the unelected but incumbent Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Rishi Sunak quite often bases his public appearances and outputs on the archetype of the Orphan. The Orphan is not necessarily someone deprived of parental care and, as is already clear, not necessarily a child. It is more about the experience of loss and loneliness that people experience at different ages. This archetype can also be characterized as “his own guy,” who is easy for us to understand because he knows the rules of social behavior, and he is easy to relate to. But at the same time, in all his gestures, demeanor, behavior, and linguistic landscape, there is a clear sense of his superiority and a clear awareness of his position in society, which is even readable in his appearance: Sunak’s favorite form of wearing his jackets is open, and the jacket is so open that one can literally read the couturier’s name from a distance. According to behind-the-scenes interviews, with people who work closely with him: directors, screenwriters, writers of his speeches, etc., speak of him as a “capricious child,” who does everything as he wants, does not like to walk the line and is epathetic.

Also, in addition to the Orphan archetype, it is possible to identify the type of human opportunist, but not the mimicry type like Olaf Scholz, since he has no deep attachments. According to Erich Fromm: “An enterprising ‘conformist opportunist’ with a consumerist goal (‘fool’) differs significantly from a ‘dullard’ precisely in initiative, the source of which is ‘Festinger dissonance’ turned inside out: he perceives painfully any deviation from social norms and actively prevents it. He is stubborn, willful and authoritarian-dominant. Personal lifestyle sense is created by a firm belief in the impeccability of his own opinions and decisions, which is constantly confirmed in practice. It is an ideal caporegime and constitutes a personnel source for the system of power.” And according to the type of social character, also based on Fromm’s analysis of personality, Rishi Sunak can be characterized as a person with: “market orientation. For this type, personality is valued as a commodity that can be sold or exchanged profitably. These people strive to always look neat and are willing to demonstrate any personality trait that would increase their chances of success.”

I Drank until I Lost my Memory, Only Once a Year

Fumio Kishida was born in Shibuya, Tokyo, on July 29, 1957, to a family of hereditary politicians. His father, Fumitake Kishida, was a civil servant in the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and director of The Small and Medium Enterprise Agency. Because the Kishida family was from Hiroshima City, the family returned to Hiroshima every summer. Many members of the Kishida family were killed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and Fumio grew up influenced by the stories of surviving relatives about the atomic bombing. The sixth mayor of Hiroshima, Kan’ichi Oda, was his great-great-grandfather, and his father Fumitake Kishida and grandfather Masaki Kishida were politicians who were members of the lower house of parliament.

Fumio Kishida went to PS 13Q The Clement C. Moore School, in the Elmhurst district, in Queens, New York, because his father was working in the United States at the time. Fumio then graduated from Kaise High School and studied law at Waseda University and graduated in 1982. At Waseda University, he became friends with the future Japanese politician, Takeshi Iwai.

Kishida’s political career developed smoothly. After working at the now-defunct Japan Long-Term Loan Bank, and then as secretary of a member of the House of Representatives, Fumio Kishida was first elected to the House of Representatives in July 1993, from the Liberal Democratic Party, representing Hiroshima District 1. He then served as Minister of Okinawa and Northern Territories Affairs from 2007 to 2008, after which he was appointed Minister of State for Consumer Affairs and Food Safety in the cabinet of then Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda in 2008. Kishida was also Minister of State for Science and Technology Policy, Quality of Life and Law and Government Reform in Yasuo Fukuda’s cabinet. In 2012, he was appointed foreign minister in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s cabinet. In 2017, he chaired the political council of the Liberal Democratic Party and was elected Chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, on September 29, 2021.

According to Kishida, alcohol has accompanied him throughout his political career, and although he notes that alcohol has a very important place in Japanese diplomacy, “[I] drank until I lost my memory at least once a year,” hardly sounds like diplomatic protocol. Although withdrawal syndrome is temporary, alcoholism is almost always permanent. Kishida insists that he is done with alcohol, and probably began to watch his reputation more closely afterwards. He even fired his own son, Shotaro, who worked as his secretary, after a scandal erupted around a party at his official residence. It is unlikely that Kishida suffers from allodoxaphobia, but he says Miyazawa’s words are his favorite expression: “Those in power should not forget modesty.” But like Rishi Sunak, he tries to use the Orphan archetype—he orders cheaper food in restaurants and sits down at smaller tables, and he says he doesn’t shy away from household chores; in the family, he is in charge of washing dishes and cleaning the bathroom. Yet Fumio Kishida’s appearance—a tailored suit, expensive shoes, and other attributes of clothing—gives reason to doubt Orphan’s sincerity.

Regarding relations with Russia and other world leaders, Kishida is duplicitous: while maintaining a tough policy toward Russia, Kishida is very compliant to the American agenda. “It’s hard to imagine Japan becoming even more pro-American,” Glosserman noted. “They support any initiative of Washington and are even offended when they are forgotten.” Thus, Tokyo was unhappy that they were not invited to join the new AUKUS alliance. And in domestic politics, Kishida has already promised a number of changes, in particular by pledging to create a “new capitalism” in the country.

However, when speaking to foreign leaders, Kishida often stands in a closed posture, extending his far hand across his body to shake hands rather than closer to his interlocutor—an indication of detachment from the situation and an internal dissent with what is happening. This is confirmed by the body torso, which is also often not turned toward the interlocutor. Even so, at the G7 meeting, Kishida is by no means at the end of the procession: Kishida walks ahead of everyone, even ahead of Joe Biden, the unspoken dominant of the club.

In public appearances, Kishida often assumes a brisk gait, a hunched back, and raised eyebrows, indicating discomfort in the moment. Also, one can notice that Kishida prefers to keep his hands near his pockets or in his pocket, which indicates that the person is either hiding something (metaphorically hiding something in his pocket) or lying, also his neck and body are often tense.

Former Teacher

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was born on December 25, 1971, to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a former Prime Minister of Canada. In April 1972, at a reception at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, U.S. President Richard Nixon (who did not get along with Pierre Trudeau and called his visit “a senseless waste of time”) toasted the boy, to whom his wife Pat Nixon had given a toy Snoopy: “To the future Prime Minister of Canada, to Justin Pierre Trudeau.”

Justin’s parents divorced when the boy was 6 years old, and after Pierre Trudeau left politics, he moved his sons to Montreal. There Justin graduated from the same high school as his father, the Collège Jean de Brebeuf. After high school, he earned a B.A. in English Literature from McGill University (in 1994) and a B.A. in Education from the University of British Columbia (in 1998). After working as a substitute teacher in Coquitlam for a while, he found a full-time teaching job at a private school in Vancouver, West Point Grey Academy, where he taught French and mathematics. Later, he taught at Winston Churchill Public High School, also in Vancouver. In 2002, he returned from Vancouver to Montreal, where he studied first engineering at the Polytechnic School of Montreal and then environmental geography at McGill University, but did not graduate in either field.

Trudeau, like his associates, has also built his policy line on the Orphan archetype, but unlike the others in the G7 who also use this archetype, Trudeau does pose in public, for example with bags from the Metro supermarket, which he reuses. He often posts memes on social media, goofs around and dances, on par with the general population. He is beloved by voters, not only for his awareness of many issues, but also for two things: his colorful socks and his close relationship with pandas.

However, none of this can be attributed to anything. And in Trudeau’s case it is due to the unclosed gestalt of the father-son relationship: “My father was an incredibly tough, bright, strong man in all the classic manifestations of leadership, but at the same time he had problems because he often kept his distance when showing emotion. People tried to insult me by saying, ‘He’s not his father’s son—he’s his mother’s son.’ And I always responded to that: ‘Thank you very much.’” Children whose parents were very strict have much more persistence and self-confidence; they also have strong empathy and much developed psychological sensitivity.

But there is a downside—such children are skilled liars, prone to rebellious, aggressive behavior, or depressed moods and depressions, and they are also easily influenced by others. Interestingly, Trudeau devotes a lot of attention to child-rearing in his speeches and praises himself for cutting taxes for the middle class and raising them by one percent: “We give nine out of 10 families more money every month to help with the costs of raising their children.” He could have started with any thesis in his speech, but he starts specifically with parenting. And it’s certainly not just because he chose to teach; because children who have had traumatic experiences with their parents often want to show, despite these experiences, that they can take a completely different path; and they believe, create and build more wisely than what was done for them. It can also be seen as a kind of father-child race, where the loser gets to watch the offspring’s actions as punishment.

One might question Trudeau’s Oedipus complex, but it leaves no doubt that the rudiments of the Iocasta complex were/are present in his mother, Margaret, who once came to his school in despair over a boyfriend who had left her, who was diagnosed with bipolar illness.

“My mother was always so generous and so sensitive and so vulnerable, and at the same time she radiated so much strength,” Trudeau says. “Even though she had huge, real mental health issues. She understood people and built interpersonal relationships to a greater degree than perhaps my father did.” There is a typical attempt here to justify the abusive parent and find sanity in the sick behavior, something most often found in people who are afraid of being left alone, empaths and those who were raised in austerity but retained psychological attachment (a type of Stockholm syndrome).

When he speaks, Trudeau often shows his disposition: the palms of his hands are turned upward, his shoulders open and his face relaxed, but a certain tension remains in his non-verbal language, as if he is waiting each time for his father to appear and evaluate him.

Despite his developed emotional intelligence, Trudeau’s tenseness is reflected in ridiculous and outlandish antics: on Canada Day, Trudeau’s speech praised all of Canada’s provinces, but somehow he forgot Alberta. Then, Trudeau jumped up on stage and tried to set the record straight. “Let me just start by saying I’m a little embarrassed—I got excited somewhere over the Rocky Mountains. Alberta, I love you. Happy Canada Day.” But hours later, some Alberta politicians said the neglect was intentional.

Also, oddball behavior accompanied him in his youth—he had a habit of throwing himself down flights of stairs at parties in order to get a laugh.

His morbid self-love, or narcissism (critics call him a “shiny pony”), sometimes overshadows this tension with strange and inappropriate jokes: “I could probably beat Vladimir Putin (in a hand-to-hand fight). Maybe you’re not aware of it, but I was actually a boxer and, according to my mother, pretty good at it. He has bare-chested pictures, and so do I. Why not let people decide who’s stronger, huh?” [in February 2018 on his social media page]. And his sense of humor often raises many questions, and one that doesn’t score points at the expense of his enemies. Thus, Trudeau, as the equivalent of a centrist Democrat, sought to bring the optimistic “sunny ways” back to governing the country after nearly a decade of Dick Cheney’s rule. Thus, as he left a parliamentary hall filled with portraits of French kings, he falsely sang a verse from Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone,” pointing to a portrait of Louis XIV. Such behavior clearly does not fit the orphan archetype described above, for “his own guy” clearly would not compare himself to a king.

Italian Passion

Giorgia Meloni, the first woman ever to chair the Council of Ministers of Italy, was born on January 15, 1977, in Rome. She is the daughter of Francesco Meloni, a lawyer originally from Sardinia, and Anna Paratore, originally from Sicily. At the age of three she moved with her sister and mother to the poor quarter of Garbatella after, according to her own recollections, she accidentally set fire to her former home together with her sister. Her father had left the family by then, and since the age of twelve Giorgia has had no contact with her father.

She graduated in linguistics at the Amerigo Vespucci Institute in 1996. At the age of 15, she founded the student association “Ancestors” (Gli Antenati), which had as its goal the fight against the school reform project conceived by the Minister of Education, Russo-Ervolino. In 1996, she headed the organization Student Action (Azione Studentesca). In 1998 she was elected to the Provincial Council of the Province of Rome by the National Alliance and became a member of the Commission for Culture, School and Youth until 2003. In 2008 she became Minister without portfolio for Youth in the fourth Berlusconi government. Later she also headed the youth organization of the People of Freedom “Young Italy” (Giovane Italia). In June 2012, Meloni left the People of Freedom, and in December of the same year, together with Ignazio La Russa and Guido Crozetto, she founded the “Italian Brothers-National Right Center” party. On March 8, 2014, Meloni was elected chairman of the Italian Brothers party, and by the spring of 2014, the press began to name Giorgia Meloni among the possible successors to Silvio Berlusconi as leader of the center-right forces of Italy. On October 22, 2022, after being sworn in and taking office, Giorgia Meloni officially became the first woman to head the Italian government.

Although Meloni describes herself as, “I’m cranky. I get angry very easily, I cry. I say a lot of bad words, but I know how to control myself,” she is masculine—primarily expressed in her nonverbalism. Meloni quite often assumes a masculine stance—feet shoulder-width apart, body thrust forward, which indicates a sense of her own dominance.

Although her shoulders are almost always open, Meloni often keeps her arms crossed at chest level or pressed against her body, thereby expressing her sense of detachment from the situation and her desire to distance herself from the question. Gestures with her right hand and open palm can often be seen, with her gaze moving in the opposite direction, indicating an attempt to lie or a full-fledged lie.

Also, Meloni often clenches her hands into a fist while tensing her shoulder muscles and neck, which indicates not only ostentatious belligerence, but also inner belligerence. That gesture is usually accompanied by a furtive glance, which in this case indicates internal secrecy, constant vigilance and accuracy in her words.

The slashing hand gesture accompanies Meloni in almost every speech, especially the rhetoric of modern weapons supplies. But the gesture also accompanies the constant up-and-down pumping of her hands and nodding of her head, as if she were trying to “drum up” her words to her listeners.

Often one can see Meloni’s hands folded at the level of her belly, which attests to her discomfort and inner desire to distance herself from what is happening. Moreover, she breaks this “posture” only for a handshake, and then she opens her palm only halfway, which also testifies to her discomfort at these moments.

Although Meloni could be characterized as a masculine woman, the fact that she grew up without her father’s attention is quite overt in her behavior and self-perception. She is not just a woman politician, she “achieved everything on her own” according to the formula “not because, but in spite of.” This behavioral line can be explained from the Freudian point of view of psychoanalysis. According to Freud’s theory, a girl who realizes that she lacks male authority experiences an inferiority complex with a simultaneous manifestation of anger towards her mother. And then there are only two ways of development: phallic fixation occurs and in the future such girls show tendency to polygamy, defiant behavior and desire to please all men, which leads to inability to be in a healthy relationship with one partner or, as can be observed in Meloni’s case, there is no division into male and female in the subconscious; the girl does not understand that each sex is strong in its own way and each has its distinctive features.

A competitive type of thinking is formed, where regardless of the presence or absence of masculinity, everyone is to some extent male. Moving forward, such girls show excessive independence, masculinity and, as they say in society, they become strong and independent. It is no coincidence that Meloni says about herself: “I know how to control myself.”


This article appears courtesy of Katehon.

I Got The Coronavirus – Enough With The Hysteria!

What follows is a personal account. It should not be read as a general description of symptoms that are true for all people. Much of what happens during any infection depends on the condition of individual immune systems and pre-existing medical conditions – and there is also the fact the coronavirus, Covid19, or the Wuhan virus has forty known mutations (thus far). So, it is difficult to say how each individual body will react when infected.

I contracted the coronavirus at a doctor’s office, of all places, where there was far too much coughing, sneezing and wheezing going on, without any regard for public hygiene, such as, covering the mouth at least. I chose to write this article anonymously, because suddenly we live in precarious times, and I have no idea what the fallout of my account might be. People have become so wild-eyed. There is a lot of misinformation, panic and finger-pointing, where to go out in the public now is not only controlled, if not forbidden, but an act of distrust. People look at you with anger if you are not wearing a face-mask. But it no longer really matters where I got the virus, and I should have worn a face-mask. So, I just want to deal with the facts. This is what happened next.

The Process Of The Infection

On the first day, I grew very weak and feverish. So, I thought I should go and get myself tested. This was an entirely useless effort, especially given what it involved. To get a test, they shove a swab of sorts all the way up your nose – really far up the nose, so it really hurts. And the man doing the procedure seemed especially inept (another reason why I want to remain anonymous). I say the test was useless because it is not as if getting tested will mean getting a treatment that will cure what you are being tested for.

I think these tests are simply an effort to get an idea of the number of infections. And I now think they only serve to feed the hysteria. Given the procedure, I would suggest that you avoid the test and just stay home. Once the test was done, it came back positive, and I was advised to lock myself away at home until I got better – and then to wait for another fourteen days, before trying to venture out into a public place. In effect, I was placed under house-arrest (just like everyone else).

The first three days of infection consisted of a very painful throat and fever. It was not really a sore-throat, as such, which we have all experienced, which makes the throat feel raw, as if it has been badly scratched. Rather, what I experienced was extreme pain when swallowing. If I did not swallow, I did not feel any pain. It was as if a hand clamped down hard around my throat, whenever I tried to swallow. I can imagine how this might prove very dangerous for some.

As well, trying to speak meant that my throat constricted and I could only get out a few words before lapsing into a bad coughing fit – again, dangerous for those with compromised lungs. And when I coughed, I got nosebleeds (which I have never gotten belief). But I believe that these nosebleeds were the result of the injury I had received when I got the test done; they were not an effect of the virus. But I could be wrong. This condition persisted for five days, during which I slept a lot.

Then, something very strange happened on the sixth day. The sclerae (the whites) of my eyes turned a dark red, and my eyes hurt. I say strange, because it seemed that I was now showing the ophidian origins of the virus (given the Chinese penchant for eating snake-meat in the winter months (because said meat is supposed to be very “warming”). But, of course, there are other theories about the origins of this virus. My eyes also started to water a lot, and I could not look at strong light without feeling a burning in my eyes.

On the seventh day, the stranglehold on my throat suddenly grew weaker, and I felt that my body was finally beginning to fight back with some success! My eyes grew less red. The fever became low-grade. The cough remained.

Over the next three days, my throat recovered to what I would call normal, where I could swallow with only a very slight pain, and my eyes cleared up completely, although they still watered. The cough persisted, but the fever disappeared.

As of writing this account, I feel that I have regained normalcy (homeostasis). The cough is infrequent and my eyes water occasionally. It is simply my body clearing things up, it seems. And, such is my rather uneventful journey through coronavirus land. In my experience, then, it was nothing more than a flu.

I should mention that I did not take any medication, nor did I take any supplements. I just am not a pill-popper. I did, however, take some home-made cough syrup, which helped a lot with the cough. I simply let my body’s immune system take over.

So, what does all this mean? There are two takeaways. First, there is the virus itself and its pathology. Second, there is the coronavirus-panic. In other words, there is the reality of the virus – and then there is the construction of what I call, “the Coronavirus Narrative,” which is all about whipping up fear and hysteria. The one has little to do with the other.

Regarding the question of pathology, the coronavirus is nothing new, of course, as it has been known and documented and studied for quite some time. The version that I got is simply another form of the flu.

Now that I have gone through the experience, I can honestly say that I have had far worse bouts of the flu in years past. So, if you are a normal, healthy person, you will not die from the coronavirus. This is not the Black Death revisited, as it is being currently advertised. Get that fear out of your head. If you are healthy, and your lungs are in good shape, and you catch the virus, you will be feverish. Yes, it will hurt (as my throat did); and, yes, you will cough a lot. But you will not die from it. Your immune system will fight back and flush it out of your body.

As with any flu, the only people at risk will be those who have very weak immune systems, or who have lung conditions, or who have other pre-existing medical conditions, which would be exacerbated by any kind of infection. In other words, the same people who also die each and every year of the regular flu. Thus, for example, last year in the United States, 80,000 people died of the flu. Probably the same number will die this year as well. The only difference being that this year the cause of death will be a flu by the name of Covid19 – and that number will only feed the panic.

The Grand Coronavirus Narrative

Something very strange happened with this flu virus – suddenly it became the Grim Reaper. This portrayal is held together by three types of stories that are continually being told in the media – those that delve into the origins of the virus (its etiology); those that dictate personal and communal behavior; and those that seek to posit some sort of catharsis, through purification or expiation, by extolling a solitary existence.

Right from the beginning, the question of how this virus came to infect human beings was misty. Some said that its origins were natural, having jumped species from bats, snakes, or ant-eaters to humans (given the Chinese penchant to eat such creatures, especially in the winter months, for their “warming” qualities of such meat, according to Chinese alchemy, i.e., medicine). But others said that it was a bio-weapon that had somehow “escaped” from a lab and into humans. Many were the videos shown online of poor victims collapsed on to the streets, bleeding, and even shaking and flopping about. They were all said to be victims of this virus.

Next came the massive governmental efforts by the Chinese to contain the virus by way of forced confinement of the people of Wuhan and other cities, and the videos of streets being sprayed with something or other (presumably a disinfectant).

Then, came the accusations. The Chinese said it was indeed a bio-weapon, let loose by the US military. And there were already reports of nefarious Chinese agents stealing material from labs in the States and Canada – and even the arrest of a Harvard scientist for being on the payroll of the Chinese. We are all familiar with these facts, and they hardly bear repeating.

Then came the reaction, which was an effort to win control over the spread of the virus. This meant doing what China did and shutting down everything and promoting (and even enforcing) self-quarantine. Stay home. Come out only if you need to buy essentials. Only through massive government effort that purification (catharsis) can be affected.

And then there was the media, which was, and is still, having a field-day promoting the hysteria, with 24/7 coverage. The ceaseless fearmongering works really well because it is always presented without context (like the daily infection- and death-count), so that for most people, the world is indeed facing a massive die-out event, much like the Black Death and the Spanish Flu of 1918. None of this is true, of course, but that matters little, since well-constructed narratives have no need of truth.

People are scared. No one wants to die. But people die of all kinds of things over the course of every year. However, when death is wrapped up in the form a contagion that floats about in the air, ready to infect anyone – the fear becomes justifiable. But there is also something very strange about the numbers being thrown about, which are used to promote the fear. Those that began this fear now seem be having second thoughts. Here is a good analysis.

The Technocrats

But this hysteria is also bringing back the fact of reality. One of the fundamental problems of modernity is that it is technocratic (in that it only relies on the opinions of experts, which then became all-powerful narrative that then guide us as to how we live and what we do). If experts agree, we have truth, and we must all kowtow to said truth (also known as scientific “consensus”). This has been the case with the promotion of environmentalism, genderism, politics, and now infectious disease. In effect, the purpose of science now is to continually affirm social narratives (which are happily manufactured by another set of experts – professors).

But the problem with experts is that they cannot be wrong, for they are purveyors of a new “gospel.” This means that all experts prefer to present extreme conclusions, rather than anything sensible. This is especially true of any sort of statistics that have to do with disease, where they are often as extreme as possible, because no one will blame them for being “cautious” – that less people died than they had predicted. If they low-ball their figures and the disease produces a higher body count, then they will be pilloried. So, these experts are always hedging their bets and safeguarding their reputations as well as their very lucrative careers.

And then there are the predictive models that they use to tell us how many will get infected and how many will die. As we all know – there are always problems with hypothetical mathematical models. Remember, the same sort of models that are giving us death-charts, have long been used to prop up the entire “Global Warming Narrative.”

Some Side-Effects

But suddenly, the Coronavirus Narrative has sidelined, even derailed, all other narratives that had kept so many busy for so very long. Does anyone still want to go and agitate for bathroom rights for transgenders? How about marching for feminism? Global warming anyone? What of the New Green Deal for a happier proletariat?

And all those mealy-mouthed moralists, who were busy squawking about “racism” and “xenophobia” – now have to be xenophobic in order to stay alive – they have to stay away from all people, because their own bodies will be invaded by an infection that actually does come from foreign parts and foreign people. They even have to wear masks and gloves, lest “foreign” infections invade their own pure bodies. Oh, the irony is rich indeed.

And all those one-world types, who hated borders – now have to stay inside the strictest of borders, their own homes.

As for the diversity and equality crowd – well, they have to keep at least six feet from everybody, because mixing with strangers can be deadly.

All these tired old narratives will now have to go the way of the dodo – because the Coronavirus Narrative has changed the world very quickly and very drastically; and no one is even noticing. In effect, there is now no “normal” to go back to.

The World Ahead

It is very startling and frightening that we have all so easily agreed to abandon all our freedoms. We want security at all cost.

Here is what has already been lost:

  • All communities have broken down, since no crowd, no matter how small, can assemble. There can only be individualized allegiances to virtual groups, where only the pretence of a gathering can be provided online.
  • The screen alone will mediate our transactions with the world outside our bodies.
  • All supply chains are now fragile, if not broken. If enough workers decide not to show up to work, for fear of being infected, there is no supply.
  • The service sector of the business model is in shambles. Places like barber-shops, restaurants, gyms, etc. are no longer “truth-worthy.” Suddenly, the very notion of the value of work is now gone
  • Anyone who does not work and earn in front of a screen at home is now unemployed.
  • Governments have quickly consolidated power. Suddenly, there are “Quarantine Laws” which are population containment directives. And a fearful citizenry has happily agreed to forego freedom and be put under siege by their own politicians.
  • The notion that we all laughed at – safe spaces – is now law. We now all have been put inside safe spaces, from which we cannot emerge without permission from the state and the technocrats.
  • Work is made useless, by being declared “inessential,” so that ordinary people no longer know how to pay rent, buy food and look after their families. We will have the rise of the “precariat,” people who will only barely find precarious work. And can it be that this mass unemployment will turn larger corporations to robotic work, making the situation far worse for ordinary people?

The world we knew has been lost – because we have lost the most important component of the world – trust.

More Hysteria

The Coronavirus Narrative is also an expression of our hyper-feminized culture, where manliness has lost all meaning and value. It is certainly pertinent that the word, “hysteria” comes from the Greek term for “womb, vagina.” What we have now is not a manly response to hardship, where we all say that we will persevere, we will continue to work, we will continue with life, even though life is always tough and at times deadly (for death is part of life).

Instead, we now encounter the world only in terms of nurturing. The only way possible to deal with hardship is to seek safety, as offered by the warmth of the womb, because the world is much too fearful a place.

Where is the moral courage? Where is the determination? Where is the call for us to be strong, no matter what the adversity? Where are the calls that say exposure to the virus will build immunity, though it may kill some? People who live in bubbles do so because they will die in the open air. Are we really demanding zero deaths each and every year?

No, no, let us just hunker down in our safe spaces, shut the world down; best to accept mass house-arrest, until the maternal-state figures out how to save us from the Grim Reaper, ravaging the world beyond our windows, our screens. We are safe inside. Nesting is the only answer to adversity we have left as a culture.

Where shall we go from here? There were other viruses before (like SARS, H1N1, avian) – and there will continue to be flu viruses from China each and every year, which will continue to kill thousands. (Perhaps the WHO, in its wisdom, might want to invest in a program to encourage the Chinese to change their eating habits and not kill so many of us each year?).

Will we have annual lockdowns every flu season? Will the Coronavirus Narrative, or some version thereof, become the only narrative that truly matters each and every year? Will we now redesign the very purpose of daily life to meet the expectations of this all-encompassing, mega-narrative of perpetual protection offered to us by the state?

Covid19 is not the return of the Black Death. But it is the return of the Great Fear, through which we are allowing petty tyrants (politicians) to usher us into the Dystopia of lost freedoms, oppressive governing structures, and rejigged economies that will always favor the privileged classes. A brave new post-Covid19 world, indeed.

The image shows a plague doctor by Paul Fürst, 1656.