She’s probably too busy. She’s got things to meet, people to do.
5 Likes
Qui tacet consentire videtur. You left out the main verb, “seems, appears.” “He who is silent seems/appears to consent/indicate agreement.” Important because if senators and reps are telling themselves, “Well, in my silence I have not consented/indicated my agreement, no one will notice my silence, and later I can take myself whichever way the winds of fortune are blowing,” they are delusional.
Videtur also means “is seen,” which can have a different valence from “seems” and “appears.” “Seem” and “appear” can indicate that something is being hidden, that “all is not as it seems,” that “he appears to be generous but he actually has ulterior motives.” “Is seen,” the passive voice of “he/she/it sees” – let’s try that here: “He who is silent is seen to consent/agree to.” That is, is exposed as consenting/agreeing to.
Thanks for the reminder of this Latin adage!
6 Likes
I know the maxim from “A Man For All Seasons”.
I clipped the last verb, in part, because Colbert omits it here:
And he loves quoting “A Man For All Seasons” on occasion.
“…but for Wales?”
5 Likes
Adding, you remind me that Colbert has long played with these ideas:
The Latin motto on the mantelpiece in The Colbert Report studio was Videri quam esse, which translates to “to seem to be, rather than to be”.
3 Likes
The coup was set in motion the Friday night Elmo’s bois showed up at USAID to tear it all down. No one has been able to slow it down and the destruction continues apace.
6 Likes
The Nerd Reich
10 Likes
So interesting! Well, if dropping the main verb started with Mitch, that explains it. He wasn’t raised a good Catholic boy who had learned at least some basic Latin. I wonder, though, what was rattling around in Colbert’s head as he spoke.
I am not particularly familiar with A Man for All Seasons (though aware that I should be). But I found this online portion of the script (emphasis mine):
Cromwell:
Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.
Sir Thomas More:
I do.
Cromwell:
But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner’s silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace’s title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More’s opinion of this title?
Cromwell:
Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More:
Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is “Qui tacet consentiret”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell:
Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
Sir Thomas More:
The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
I confess to uncertainty how properly to translate the Latin in, "The maxim is “Qui tacet consentiret”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. That imperfect subjunctive (consentiret) is certainly not “gives consent.” “Would/might give consent?” I dunno. Latin this late is beyond my ken. And maybe Bolt just made it that up anyway.
But silence is, as this portion of the play explores, a most important subject. Good catch.
4 Likes
This reads like a missive from a future Ken Burns documentary about this era.
“Dearest Margaret, I took down two Oathkeepers who were threatening folks in line at the Target.” “Then I provided backup for the armed post office employees who were threatened by the Bezos and DeJoy brigades”.
6 Likes
So they are talking about privatizing the postal service, De Joy is leaving and then this today:
Crazy
3 Likes
Elon is in charge?
Elon is not in charge?
Schrödinger’s DOGE
4 Likes
Yesterday, [Collins] told Politico that Musk’s illicit activity clearly “violates Article I of the Constitution,” but said it was up to the courts to challenge the Trump administration’s actions.
Um, can’t Congress sue in court???
2 Likes
I prefer Iron Twinkie!
1 Like
The GOP now stands for Group of Pussies.
2 Likes
I am not giving these cowards and hypocrites one ounce of credit. They KNOW they are ceding their responsibilities but are too afraid of losing their jobs to do anything about it. They are not saving their country. They are trying to save their miserable asses.
2 Likes
K Rand. Cool. But to quote Paul Simon, “What’re going to do about it, that’s what I’d like to know.”
1 Like
Off topic I know, but I guess I haven’t seen a picture of Rand Paul in a while. What happened to his face? He looks like some kind of Nintendo character.
I don’t like the sound of that eight bit!
4 Likes
Isn’t that what impeachment is for?
3 Likes