Discussion:
Latin phrase used in German
(too old to reply)
redmagic
2006-02-02 15:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Hello all,

Could somebody give me a precise translation of the term "sua res, quae
agitur"? It's used by Bertolt Brecht in a comment on one of his early
plays, and refers to the degree of empathy which he expects the
spectator to feel. Would "the thing itself, which moves" be close?

Thanks,

Ian Saville
Daniel Hoehr
2006-02-02 15:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by redmagic
Hello all,
Could somebody give me a precise translation of the term "sua res, quae
agitur"? It's used by Bertolt Brecht in a comment on one of his early
plays, and refers to the degree of empathy which he expects the
spectator to feel. Would "the thing itself, which moves" be close?
Thanks,
Ian Saville
Far from having any in-depth knowledge about Brecht, I should think
that "sua res, quae agitur" refers to the spectator and means "his
thing/cause that is being done/presented". That is the spectator does
not find himself in the play, his "splendid isoltaion" remains
unviolated.

DH
Daniel Hoehr
2006-02-02 15:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by redmagic
Hello all,
Could somebody give me a precise translation of the term "sua res, quae
agitur"? It's used by Bertolt Brecht in a comment on one of his early
plays, and refers to the degree of empathy which he expects the
spectator to feel. Would "the thing itself, which moves" be close?
Thanks,
Ian Saville
Far from having any in-depth knowledge about Brecht, I should think
that "sua res, quae agitur" refers to the spectator and means "his
thing/cause that is being done/presented". That is the spectator does
not find himself in the play, his "splendid isoltaion" remains
unviolated.

DH
B. T. Raven
2006-02-02 16:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Hoehr
Post by redmagic
Hello all,
Could somebody give me a precise translation of the term "sua res, quae
agitur"? It's used by Bertolt Brecht in a comment on one of his early
plays, and refers to the degree of empathy which he expects the
spectator to feel. Would "the thing itself, which moves" be close?
Thanks,
Ian Saville
Far from having any in-depth knowledge about Brecht, I should think
that "sua res, quae agitur" refers to the spectator and means "his
thing/cause that is being done/presented". That is the spectator does
not find himself in the play, his "splendid isoltaion" remains
unviolated.
DH
From the context supplied by Ian I would guess that Brecht meant something
like "what is going on [on the stage] is the playgoers intimate concern,
business, etc. So the connection between viewer and actor is based on the
Einfühlung of common humanity experienced by the one who represents the
action and the one who witnesses it.

Eduardus
redmagic
2006-02-02 16:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps I should give the full context, rather than people trying to
guess. I suspect that Daniel has it right (and that he has found the
full quote, since his explanation uses some of the other terms that
Brecht uses). Brecht says:"The spectator's 'splendid isolation' [in
English in the original] is not violated, it is not sua res, quae
agitur, he is not lulled by being invited to empathise". So, I suppose,
"it is not 'his own thing which moves''".
Thanks for the clarification.
Ian
Daniel Hoehr
2006-02-02 16:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by redmagic
Perhaps I should give the full context, rather than people trying to
guess. I suspect that Daniel has it right (and that he has found the
full quote, since his explanation uses some of the other terms that
Brecht uses). Brecht says:"The spectator's 'splendid isolation' [in
English in the original] is not violated, it is not sua res, quae
agitur, he is not lulled by being invited to empathise". So, I suppose,
"it is not 'his own thing which moves''".
But "agitur" is passive.

After some thought and a nice cuppa, I'd go for:

"his thing / matter which is being done" (i.e. on the stage)
Post by redmagic
Thanks for the clarification.
Ian
DH
Robert Stonehouse
2006-02-02 20:02:32 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Feb 2006 08:44:19 -0800, "Daniel Hoehr"
Post by Daniel Hoehr
Post by redmagic
Perhaps I should give the full context, rather than people trying to
guess. I suspect that Daniel has it right (and that he has found the
full quote, since his explanation uses some of the other terms that
Brecht uses). Brecht says:"The spectator's 'splendid isolation' [in
English in the original] is not violated, it is not sua res, quae
agitur, he is not lulled by being invited to empathise". So, I suppose,
"it is not 'his own thing which moves''".
But "agitur" is passive.
"his thing / matter which is being done" (i.e. on the stage)
Post by redmagic
Thanks for the clarification.
...
One or two points. 'Res' is the subject of a play, and
'agitur' means 'is being acted'. So more exactly, 'he
himself is not the subject of what is being acted on the
stage'.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
redmagic
2006-02-02 20:27:00 UTC
Permalink
<One or two points. 'Res' is the subject of a play, and
'agitur' means 'is being acted'. So more exactly, 'he
himself is not the subject of what is being acted on the
stage'.>

Thanks very much. I'll take that as definitive.

Ian
Robert Stonehouse
2006-02-03 07:34:31 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Feb 2006 08:44:19 -0800, "Daniel Hoehr"
Post by Daniel Hoehr
Post by redmagic
Perhaps I should give the full context, rather than people trying to
guess. I suspect that Daniel has it right (and that he has found the
full quote, since his explanation uses some of the other terms that
Brecht uses). Brecht says:"The spectator's 'splendid isolation' [in
English in the original] is not violated, it is not sua res, quae
agitur, he is not lulled by being invited to empathise". So, I suppose,
"it is not 'his own thing which moves''".
But "agitur" is passive.
"his thing / matter which is being done" (i.e. on the stage)
The original is Horace, Epistles 1.18.84.

Protect your friend's reputation, says the poet, or you may
find your own in danger next,
"nam tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet,
et neglecta solent incendia sumere viris."

"For it is your affair that is going on, when the house next
door is on fire,
and fires neglected tend to gain in strength."
(I take 'paries', wall, to be 'pars pro toto' intended to
convey 'house'.)

I am not sure if Brecht, as a playwright, means to import
'res' meaning the story or subject of a play and 'agitur'
meaning 'is being acted on stage'. If he does, then the
meaning will be 'the story that is being acted is not his
own story'. That would add a good deal of point.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
Ed Cryer
2006-02-03 13:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On 2 Feb 2006 08:44:19 -0800, "Daniel Hoehr"
Post by Daniel Hoehr
Post by redmagic
Perhaps I should give the full context, rather than people trying to
guess. I suspect that Daniel has it right (and that he has found the
full quote, since his explanation uses some of the other terms that
Brecht uses). Brecht says:"The spectator's 'splendid isolation' [in
English in the original] is not violated, it is not sua res, quae
agitur, he is not lulled by being invited to empathise". So, I suppose,
"it is not 'his own thing which moves''".
But "agitur" is passive.
"his thing / matter which is being done" (i.e. on the stage)
The original is Horace, Epistles 1.18.84.
Protect your friend's reputation, says the poet, or you may
find your own in danger next,
"nam tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet,
et neglecta solent incendia sumere viris."
"For it is your affair that is going on, when the house next
door is on fire,
and fires neglected tend to gain in strength."
(I take 'paries', wall, to be 'pars pro toto' intended to
convey 'house'.)
I am not sure if Brecht, as a playwright, means to import
'res' meaning the story or subject of a play and 'agitur'
meaning 'is being acted on stage'. If he does, then the
meaning will be 'the story that is being acted is not his
own story'. That would add a good deal of point.
--
The English idiom is "at stake".
Non capitis eius res agitur, sed pecuniae (Tacitus); it's not his life at
stake, but his money.
Aguntur iniuriae sociorum, agitur vis legum (Cicero) ; it's a question of
injuries to allies, a question of the force of the laws.
Nam tua res agitur (Horace); since your interests are at stake.

Ed
Robert Stonehouse
2006-02-03 23:02:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:13:03 -0000, "Ed Cryer"
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Robert Stonehouse
On 2 Feb 2006 08:44:19 -0800, "Daniel Hoehr"
Post by redmagic
Perhaps I should give the full context, rather than people trying to
guess. I suspect that Daniel has it right (and that he has found the
full quote, since his explanation uses some of the other terms that
Brecht uses). Brecht says:"The spectator's 'splendid isolation' [in
English in the original] is not violated, it is not sua res, quae
agitur, he is not lulled by being invited to empathise". So, I suppose,
"it is not 'his own thing which moves''".
...
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Robert Stonehouse
I am not sure if Brecht, as a playwright, means to import
'res' meaning the story or subject of a play and 'agitur'
meaning 'is being acted on stage'. If he does, then the
meaning will be 'the story that is being acted is not his
own story'. That would add a good deal of point.
--
The English idiom is "at stake".
Non capitis eius res agitur, sed pecuniae (Tacitus); it's not his life at
stake, but his money.
Aguntur iniuriae sociorum, agitur vis legum (Cicero) ; it's a question of
injuries to allies, a question of the force of the laws.
Nam tua res agitur (Horace); since your interests are at stake.
In this context, yes. But as your middle example suggests,
'agitur' is used in other contexts, something like French
"il s'agit de ..". So in general, 'conduct <business>' or
something like that. For example, 'agere cum populo', to
conduct business in the Assembly of the People.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
Daniel Hoehr
2006-02-02 16:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by B. T. Raven
Post by Daniel Hoehr
Post by redmagic
Hello all,
Could somebody give me a precise translation of the term "sua res,
quae
Post by Daniel Hoehr
Post by redmagic
agitur"? It's used by Bertolt Brecht in a comment on one of his early
plays, and refers to the degree of empathy which he expects the
spectator to feel. Would "the thing itself, which moves" be close?
Thanks,
Ian Saville
Far from having any in-depth knowledge about Brecht, I should think
that "sua res, quae agitur" refers to the spectator and means "his
thing/cause that is being done/presented". That is the spectator does
not find himself in the play, his "splendid isoltaion" remains
unviolated.
DH
From the context supplied by Ian I would guess that Brecht meant something
like "what is going on [on the stage] is the playgoers intimate concern,
business, etc. So the connection between viewer and actor is based on the
Einfühlung of common humanity experienced by the one who represents the
action and the one who witnesses it.
But Brecht says that "it is *not* sua res, quae agitur":

Die 'splendid isolation' des Zuschauers wird nicht angetastet, es
ist nicht sua res, quae agitur, er wird nicht beruhigt dadurch, daß
er eingeladen wird mitzuempfinden, sich im Helden zu inkarnieren und,
indem er sich gleichzeitig betrachtet in zwei Exemplaren, unausrottbar
und bedeutsam aufzutreten. Es gibt eine höhere Art von Interesse: das
am Gleichnis, das am Andern, Unübersehbaren, Verwunderlichen.

http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/archive/00000079/01/brecht2.htm

So he describes the emotional distance (if that phrase makes any sense)
between what is going on in the play and the spectator.
Post by B. T. Raven
Eduardus
DH
B. T. Raven
2006-02-02 17:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by B. T. Raven
Post by Daniel Hoehr
Post by redmagic
Hello all,
Could somebody give me a precise translation of the term "sua res,
quae
Post by Daniel Hoehr
Post by redmagic
agitur"? It's used by Bertolt Brecht in a comment on one of his early
plays, and refers to the degree of empathy which he expects the
spectator to feel. Would "the thing itself, which moves" be close?
Thanks,
Ian Saville
Far from having any in-depth knowledge about Brecht, I should think
that "sua res, quae agitur" refers to the spectator and means "his
thing/cause that is being done/presented". That is the spectator does
not find himself in the play, his "splendid isoltaion" remains
unviolated.
DH
From the context supplied by Ian I would guess that Brecht meant something
like "what is going on [on the stage] is the playgoers intimate concern,
business, etc. So the connection between viewer and actor is based on the
Einfühlung of common humanity experienced by the one who represents the
action and the one who witnesses it.
But Brecht says that "it is *not* sua res, quae agitur":

Die 'splendid isolation' des Zuschauers wird nicht angetastet, es
ist nicht sua res, quae agitur, er wird nicht beruhigt dadurch, daß
er eingeladen wird mitzuempfinden, sich im Helden zu inkarnieren und,
indem er sich gleichzeitig betrachtet in zwei Exemplaren, unausrottbar
und bedeutsam aufzutreten. Es gibt eine höhere Art von Interesse: das
am Gleichnis, das am Andern, Unübersehbaren, Verwunderlichen.

http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/archive/00000079/01/brecht2.htm

So he describes the emotional distance (if that phrase makes any sense)
between what is going on in the play and the spectator.
Post by B. T. Raven
Eduardus
DH

But the OP left out this critical word 'non.' As drama criticism this
leaves Brecht open to the charge of being a playwright in mold of Mackie
Messer. This is the same attitude toward humanity expressed by Spengler a
few years before in _Der Untergang des Abendlandes_. The witness to the
dissolution of his own society acts and feels as if he were a Gibbon,
writing about his own time, but from the perspective of someone living two
thousand years in the future, unconcerned, paring his nails.

Eduardus
Loading...