Latest news with #TheAeneid
NDTV
08-05-2025
- General
- NDTV
How Popes Choose Their Names And What's Its Significance
When white smoke billows from the Sistine Chapel and the words "Habemus Papam" (We have a pope) echo across St Peter's Square, the Catholic Church gets its new leader. But even before he steps onto the balcony, one crucial decision is already made: his name. Choosing a new name is the pope's first public act. From Francis to Benedict, John Paul to Pius, papal names carry stories of reform and transformation. The pope's chosen name isn't just a preference or a nod to a favourite saint. It is often the first message to the world about who he intends to be, the legacy he honours, and the direction he hopes to steer the Church. History Of Papal Name Changes For the first 500 years, popes retained their birth names. The practice of adopting a new name began with Pope John II in 533, born Mercurius. He changed his name to avoid the pagan connotations associated with Mercury, the Roman god. The last pope to keep his birth name was Marcellus II in 1555. Over time, adopting a papal name became customary, with most popes choosing names of predecessors or saints they wished to emulate. The most popular papal names have been John, Gregory, Benedict, Clement, and Innocent. How Does A Pope Choose His Name? There are no formal rules governing how a pope selects his name. Joshua McManaway, assistant professor at Notre Dame's McGrath Institute for Church Life, told The Pillar, "There are very few rules for the man at the top, so they're allowed to choose what they want." While popes have freedom in choosing their names, there's an unwritten tradition. No pope has taken the name "Peter II." This is likely out of reverence for St Peter, the first pope appointed by Christ. Mr McManaway said, "I suspect it is humility or perhaps even because one does not want to compare oneself to the one pope we know Christ chose himself." Not all popes choose their names based on past pontiffs. Pope Pius II, who led from 1458 to 1464, picked his name because he loved books. His real name was Enea Silvio Piccolomini, and he chose "Pius" after a character named Aeneas in a famous poem, 'The Aeneid', who was called "pious Aeneas." Another example is Pope Julius II. He first wanted to be called "Formosus II". "Formosus" means "handsome" in Latin. The cardinals, however, advised against it, so he went with "Julius II" instead. There is something odd about the numbering of popes named John. In 1958, Pope John XXIII was elected, but there was never a Pope John XX. This mix-up happened because of confusion in old records, including mistakes and the counting of some fake popes (called antipopes). So now, the official list says there have been 21 Popes named John, even though number 20 is missing. Why Pope Francis Chose His Name In 2013, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became pope and chose the name "Francis," inspired by St Francis of Assisi. It was a big deal since no pope had picked a completely new name in over 1,000 years, not since Pope Lando in 914. Pope Francis later said he was moved by Cardinal Claudio Hummes, who hugged him after his election and said, "Don't forget the poor." That made him think of St Francis of Assisi, who is known for living simply and caring for the poor.
The Guardian
29-03-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Henry Gibbs painting looted by Nazis to be returned to Jewish art dealer's family
A 17th-century painting by Henry Gibbs that was looted by the Nazis and has been in the Tate collection in the UK for the past 31 years is to be returned to the descendants of a Jewish art collector. Aeneas and his Family Fleeing Burning Troy was stolen by the Nazis from a gallery in Antwerp, Belgium, after its owner, Samuel Hartveld, was forced to flee in May 1940, eight months after the start of the second world war. It will be returned to Hartveld's great-grandchildren after a decision by the Spoliation Advisory Panel, which considers claims regarding Nazi-looted artworks now in a UK public collection. The 1654 painting depicts scenes from The Aeneid, a poem telling the legendary story of Aeneas, a Trojan who fled the fall of Troy and travelled to Italy, where he became the ancestor of the Romans. The painting shows Aeneas trying to rescue his family from the burning city. Chris Bryant, the arts minister, said the return of the painting was the 'perfect example' of what the panel was intended to do – 'helping to reunite families with their most treasured possessions that were looted by the Nazis'. Since the independent panel was established by the government in 2000 it has received 23 claims, with 14 works returned to the heirs of their former owners. When Hartveld, a successful art dealer, and his wife, Clara Meiboom, fled Antwerp for New York, they were forced to leave behind treasured possessions. The Henry Gibbs painting was one of 66 in his flourishing gallery in the city. The couple's son, Adelin Hartveld, remained in Belgium and joined the resistance. He was caught and later executed by the Nazis. Hartveld and his wife survived the war, but the collector was never reunited with his paintings. Most were looted and sold by the German authorities, and some are now believed to be in galleries across Europe after changing hands several times. The Henry Gibbs painting was bought by the Tate collection from Galerie Jan de Maere in Brussels. Two of Hartveld's three great-grandchildren submitted a claim for restitution in May 2024 via a trust set up in the name of their mother, Sonia Klein. The panel's report said: 'The legal and moral claims to restitution of this painting by the great-grandchildren and heirs of Samuel Hartveld, who was forced to flee his homeland, leaving behind his property, books and art collection, are obvious. The property, library and the paintings in his gallery were looted as an act of racial persecution.' The panel said Tate had not disputed the claim, and its response had been 'open and honourable'. Maria Balshaw, Tate's director, said: 'It is a profound privilege to help reunite this work with its rightful heirs … Although the artwork's provenance was extensively investigated when it was acquired in 1994, crucial facts concerning previous ownership of the painting were not known.' The trustees of the Sonia Klein Trust said: 'This decision clearly acknowledges the awful Nazi persecution of Samuel Hartveld and that the 'clearly looted' painting belonged to Mr Hartveld, a Jewish Belgian art collector and dealer.'
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats rage over their leaders' impotence
'If I cannot move heaven, I will raise hell.' So wrote the Roman poet Virgil in his epic poem, 'The Aeneid.' At the moment, congressional Democrats can't move heaven, and they are not raising hell either. And polls show that raising hell is precisely what their voters want Democrats in Washington to do. Sixty-five percent of Democrats told an NBC News poll last week that they want congressional Democrats to raise hell in opposition to President Trump and 'stick to their positions even if that means not getting things done in Washington.' People who voted for Democrats are tired of hearing comedian Bill Maher quip that a mule symbolizes Democrats because 'it's the other thing that just stands there when you beat it.' That too-close-to-the-truth humor brings us to the case of Senate Minority Leader Charles 'Chuck' Schumer (D-N.Y.). He just voted for a Trump-backed plan to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. It will keep the government open, but it also gives Trump more power to slash government programs. Why did Schumer run away when he should have stood up to Trump's power grab? Without congressional approval, Trump is already wildly firing federal workers, shutting down federal agencies and pulling federal funding. Schumer decided it was best to go with Trump's power grab and keep the government open. The fury from Democrats nationally was so intense that Schumer had to cancel stops on his book tour. 'If we ended up in a shutdown, three weeks from now people would come to me and say, 'They just cut off my Medicaid,' 'They just got rid of my veteran's benefits,'' Schumer explained. 'Then they'd say to me, 'Why did you let the shutdown happen?'' But that explanation is not quieting the rage. The dean of congressional Democrats, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), fueled the fire: 'I myself don't give away anything for nothing,' Pelosi told reporters in a not-so-subtle swipe at Schumer. 'It's unforgivable that Democrats didn't… let the chips fly,' said podcaster Scott Galloway. That kind of rage against Schumer remains widespread. But did he make a strategic error? In a government shutdown, Trump would have gained broad power to label millions of government employees as 'non-essential,' and then fire them. Schumer saw Trump's ploy and stopped it. With the government remaining open, Schumer is betting Trump and congressional Republicans will bear responsibility for any fallout as Americans begin complaining about Trump slashing the federal workforce and hammering spending on programs for the elderly and needy. Also, it is a fact that the party forcing a shutdown typically pays a political price. That would have hurt Democrats' efforts to win a Senate majority next year. So I'd argue that as a matter of political strategy, the pragmatic Schumer made the right move. But that does little to mitigate the rage among Democrats. Schumer once saw John Boehner (R-Ohio) make a similar move and be consumed by the fire. The former Republican House Speaker once made a deal with Democrats to keep the government open under President Obama. Boehner's caucus soon forced him to step down. The same fallout now threatens Schumer. 'Let me just say it's important for people to know when it's time to go,' Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said last week when asked about the 74-year-old Schumer. 'We're going to have conversations…about all the [party's] leadership.' The anger that is splitting Democrats crosses the lines of generation, region and race. Thirty-five-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is already being urged to mount a primary challenge to Schumer for his U.S. Senate seat in 2028. Eighty-three-year-old Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist, is creating a sharp contrast with Schumer by traveling nationwide on a 'Stop Oligarchy' tour. Sanders is firing up packed auditoriums, some in red states, by attacking Trump and the 'millionaires and billionaires,' working with Trump. Seventy-seven-year-old Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) showed the same willingness to take the fight to Trump when he stood during Trump's televised address to Congress and shouted that no one elected Trump to cut Medicaid and Social Security. His cane-shaking display earned Green a police escort out of the House Chamber, a congressional censure and an effort to boot him from his committee assignments. It also earned him respect from a lot of Democrats who want to see someone fire back at Trump. The same political podcasts and talk shows that excoriated Schumer quickly lionized Green. And they delighted in noting that Republican Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), was only reprimanded, not censured, by Republicans for heckling President Obama during an address. Forty-three-year-old Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) is another rising star among Democrats looking for a champion to take on Trump. She is all over television warning that Trump is trying to cut federal programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich. I come back to podcaster Galloway. He contrasted Schumer's willingness to vote with Republicans with former GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell's (R- Ky.) hard-nosed opposition to Senate Democrats under President Obama. 'I think we should have channeled Mitch McConnell, who has bested and beat the s— out of Charles Schumer every round for 15 million rounds running,' he said. 'It's an enormous strategic error.' Honestly, if McConnell were leading the Democrats, do you think he would have caved? Juan Williams is senior political analyst for Fox News Channel and a prize-winning civil rights historian. He is the author of the new book 'New Prize for these Eyes: the Rise of America's Second Civil Rights Movement.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
24-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Democrats rage over their leaders' impotence
'If I cannot move heaven, I will raise hell.' So wrote the Roman poet Virgil in his epic poem, 'The Aeneid.' At the moment, congressional Democrats can't move heaven, and they are not raising hell either. And polls show that raising hell is precisely what their voters want Democrats in Washington to do. Sixty-five percent of Democrats told an NBC News poll last week that they want congressional Democrats to raise hell in opposition to President Trump and 'stick to their positions even if that means not getting things done in Washington.' People who voted for Democrats are tired of hearing comedian Bill Maher quip that a mule symbolizes Democrats because 'it's the other thing that just stands there when you beat it.' That too-close-to-the-truth humor brings us to the case of Senate Minority Leader Charles 'Chuck' Schumer (D-N.Y.). He just voted for a Trump-backed plan to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. It will keep the government open, but it also gives Trump more power to slash government programs. Why did Schumer run away when he should have stood up to Trump's power grab? Without congressional approval, Trump is already wildly firing federal workers, shutting down federal agencies and pulling federal funding. Schumer decided it was best to go with Trump's power grab and keep the government open. The fury from Democrats nationally was so intense that Schumer had to cancel stops on his book tour. 'If we ended up in a shutdown, three weeks from now people would come to me and say, 'They just cut off my Medicaid,' 'They just got rid of my veteran's benefits,'' Schumer explained. 'Then they'd say to me, 'Why did you let the shutdown happen?'' But that explanation is not quieting the rage. The dean of congressional Democrats, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), fueled the fire: 'I myself don't give away anything for nothing,' Pelosi told reporters in a not-so-subtle swipe at Schumer. 'It's unforgivable that Democrats didn't… let the chips fly,' said podcaster Scott Galloway. That kind of rage against Schumer remains widespread. But did he make a strategic error? In a government shutdown, Trump would have gained broad power to label millions of government employees as 'non-essential,' and then fire them. Schumer saw Trump's ploy and stopped it. With the government remaining open, Schumer is betting Trump and congressional Republicans will bear responsibility for any fallout as Americans begin complaining about Trump slashing the federal workforce and hammering spending on programs for the elderly and needy. Also, it is a fact that the party forcing a shutdown typically pays a political price. That would have hurt Democrats' efforts to win a Senate majority next year. So I'd argue that as a matter of political strategy, the pragmatic Schumer made the right move. But that does little to mitigate the rage among Democrats. Schumer once saw John Boehner (R-Ohio) make a similar move and be consumed by the fire. The former Republican House Speaker once made a deal with Democrats to keep the government open under President Obama. Boehner's caucus soon forced him to step down. The same fallout now threatens Schumer. 'Let me just say it's important for people to know when it's time to go,' Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said last week when asked about the 74-year-old Schumer. 'We're going to have conversations…about all the [party's] leadership.' The anger that is splitting Democrats crosses the lines of generation, region and race. Thirty-five-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is already being urged to mount a primary challenge to Schumer for his U.S. Senate seat in 2028. Eighty-three-year-old Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist, is creating a sharp contrast with Schumer by traveling nationwide on a 'Stop Oligarchy' tour. Sanders is firing up packed auditoriums, some in red states, by attacking Trump and the 'millionaires and billionaires,' working with Trump. Seventy-seven-year-old Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) showed the same willingness to take the fight to Trump when he stood during Trump's televised address to Congress and shouted that no one elected Trump to cut Medicaid and Social Security. His cane-shaking display earned Green a police escort out of the House Chamber, a congressional censure and an effort to boot him from his committee assignments. It also earned him respect from a lot of Democrats who want to see someone fire back at Trump. The same political podcasts and talk shows that excoriated Schumer quickly lionized Green. And they delighted in noting that Republican Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), was only reprimanded, not censured, by Republicans for heckling President Obama during an address. Forty-three-year-old Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) is another rising star among Democrats looking for a champion to take on Trump. She is all over television warning that Trump is trying to cut federal programs for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich. I come back to podcaster Galloway. He contrasted Schumer's willingness to vote with Republicans with former GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell's (R- Ky.) hard-nosed opposition to Senate Democrats under President Obama. 'I think we should have channeled Mitch McConnell, who has bested and beat the s— out of Charles Schumer every round for 15 million rounds running,' he said. 'It's an enormous strategic error.' Honestly, if McConnell were leading the Democrats, do you think he would have caved?
CBC
11-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
The Aeneid, a 2,000-year-old poem that reads like a playbook for U.S. politics today
The new regime in Washington now has a taste for something that's very old: a global empire, the way ancient Rome aspired to have. U.S. President Donald Trump has talked of expanding America's reach, to Panama, to Gaza, to Greenland, and to Canada, to fulfil what he referred to in his second inaugural address as "Manifest Destiny." "The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation — one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons," President Trump said in his speech, Jan 21, 2025. We might have thought this kind of political thinking was dead and gone: the whole business of taking over someone else's land without their permission, the way Europeans conquered Indigenous lands centuries ago. But in the United States — and Russia, too — the idea of empire is making a late-stage comeback. "When President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defence," Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said during his Jan. 14 confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "He, like me, wants a Pentagon laser-focused on lethality, meritocracy, warfighting, accountability and readiness." The Aeneid as a guide to imperialism One of the blueprints for imperialism has always been The Aeneid, by the Roman poet Virgil, working between 29 and 19 BCE. It tells the story of Aeneas, a Trojan leader on the run with his son, carrying his aging father on his back, escaping with other refugees the burning city of Troy which had been laid siege by the Greeks, whose soldiers had hidden in a giant wooden horse. It picks up the story where Homer's Odyssey and Iliad leave off: Aeneas and his people sail west to found a new home in a land where they may or may not be welcome. At first, they're blown off course to North Africa, to Carthage, where Aeneas tells Queen Dido his war stories, and where Dido, against her best instincts, falls in love with him. But there's a problem: "pius" Aeneas, as he's called in the poem (meaning dutiful and, for lack of a better term, job-oriented) has his eyes on his mission to found a new city for his people, and doesn't have time for love. Heartbroken Dido kills herself. Eventually, Aeneas and crew land in Hesperia, what's now Italy, and do battle with the locals. The way Virgil saw it, long before Romlus and Remus were on the scene, this landing was the founding of Rome. In many ways, The Aeneid is a story of conquest meant to please his patron, Emperor Augustus, who was busy transforming Rome from a republic to an empire, and needed the good-news propaganda. Aeneas was the son of Venus, a goddess: therefore Rome, and her empire, are sanctioned by the heavens. That divine sanctioning of empire is what many leaders in the decades and centuries that followed took from the poem, too. "This text by Virgil — elite men were reading," Susanna Braund told IDEAS, a retired professor of classics at the University of British Columbia. "This formed their worldview. And when you look at the imperial projects of the British, and the Spanish and the Portuguese, these were guys who were totally raised on the idea that you go west and you bring your 'culture,' in scare quotes, to the 'uncultured natives' in scare quotes." But there is another way to read the poem. Look at the character of Dido, whose sad tale prompted an opera by Henry Purcell in the 17th century, which see her as more sympathetic, more worthy of attention than dutiful, dull and narrow-minded Aeneas. "There are people who see in the treatment of characters, particularly Dido, the tragic Carthaginian queen," said Daniel Mendlesohn, author of Ecstasy and Terror: From The Greeks to Game of Thrones. According to Mendlesohn, there's "a subversive view of the imperial project." A celebration of empire or critique? So was Virgil secretly building a critique of the Roman Empire into The Aeneid, right under Augustus' nose? It remains an open question. "When you read between the lines there are at the very least ambivalent attitudes present in the poem about empire," said classics professor Paul Hay. But Sarah Ruden, who has translated The Aeneid into English, adds the epic poem shows another side that focuses on humanity. "Virgil appears to be the first author who gives a sympathetic depiction of cannon fodder, of nobodies, of unheroic characters who don't want to be in war. "But they are humanized — they are real people to him. They have a past. They have a tragedy." And yet there have been many, including Benito Mussolini, who used The Aeneid to justify his own fascist goals (he famously subsidized the publication of the poem during his reign), who see the poem as a model for empire building. The lesson, however, for those who interpret it that way is simple: read it again. Daniel Mendelsohn is a writer and classicist in New York State. Susanna Braund is a retired professor of classics, University of British Columbia. Shadi Bartsch is a Helen A. Wegenstein distinguished professor of classics at the University of Chicago. Paul Krause is an instructor of humanities at Chesterton Academy of Albuquerque in New Mexico. Tedd Wimperis is an assistant professor of classical languages at Elon University in Elon, North Carolina. Paul Hay is a professor of classics at Hampton Sydney College in Hampton Sydney North Carolina. Sarah Ruden is a translator of Virgil's Aeneid in Connecticut. Ellen Harris is the author of Henry Purcell's Dido and Aeneas, and a retired faculty member in music and theatre arts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
