The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Facing Fearful Odds"
Some lines that are often (perhaps unfortunately) omitted when this poem is quoted.
Like most of us, I've often see this stanza, from a poem by Macaulay; indeed, it's been often quoted in recent weeks, with regard to the valor of the Ukrainians defending their nation:
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods."
It's stirring, of course, but I've often found it a bit distanced from us because of the last two lines: My sense is that we don't care as much as did the Romans about the resting places of our ancestors, and those of us who are religious mostly (not entirely, but mostly) don't view any particular temple with great reverence.
More broadly, the last two lines seem to be about fighting for honor or tradition, not for living people who are loved in the way we love the living. It's easy, of course, to view the last two lines as a stand-in for compatriots, friends, family, and the like; but it takes a bit of conceptual broadening.
But just today I came across the next four lines; let me quote again the first stanza, but this time followed by those lines:
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods,
And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast."
A slightly different effect, I think. (There's more to the poem, but I don't find it quite as striking.)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cool. 🙂
Stop all these pointless deaths, and the breakage of $trillion. Why are Putin and his oiligarchs still alive?
In this vein, I think the full stanza is worth considering:
I'd love to hear what people think of it, but note the difference between the first four lines and the last -- the first are eternal and general, and the last are closely linked to Rome and its history, even more so than the ashes/temples lines. If you want to think back on ancient Rome, the whole stanza is good; but if you have something broader in mind, the last four lines seem to me to be a distraction.
I think it's an effective illustration of the range of causes that the Roman soldiers are being asked to serve: the religious importance of the specific geographic space, the safety and security of their families, and the threat that Tarquin himself specifically posed to the security of the nascent republic and its institutions by virtue of his unusually evil character.
The latter point does, I think, have a certain relevance to the current conflict.
With regard to a modern interpretation about sacred ancestry, there was a 19th century humorist who went by the stage name, Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby (actually David Ross Locke).
Here is Mark Twain describing Nasby's performance:
"I was all curiosity to hear him begin. He did not keep me waiting. The moment he had crutched himself upon his left arm, lodged his right upon his back, and bent himself over his manuscript he raised his face slightly, flashed a glance upon the audience, and bellowed this remark in a thundering bull-voice:"
"We are all descended from grandfathers!"
"Then he went right on roaring to the end, tearing his ruthless way through the continuous applause and laughter, and taking no sort of account of it. His lecture was a volleying and sustained discharge of bull's-eye hits, with the slave power and its Northern apologists for targets, and his success was due to his matter, not his manner; for his delivery was destitute of art, unless a tremendous and inspiring earnestness and energy may be called by that name. The moment he had finished his piece he turned his back and marched off the stage with the seeming of being not personally concerned with the applause that was booming behind him."
We must meet the threat with our blood, our valor, indeed with our very lives. To ensure that Western Civilization. Not Russian. Dominates this world now and always!
We each live or die for our own God or gods or temples or flags or loved ones. Whatever gives the Ukrainians the heart and courage to do what they do, I honor that.
But who would (willingly) die for Putin?
As many as would die for Trump, and for the same reasons as for Putin. And in both cases, sadly, the number is not insignificant.
Please refresh me, Purple: How many people has Trump sent off to die for the same reasons Putin sent thousands of Russians off to die, that is, to conquer an independent nation?
Note we both used would—the future tense. And the "reasons" referred to, apply to both Trumpists' and Putinists' longings for a strong, authoritarian cult of personality Dear Leader who will vanquish the modernists and modernity they so envy and fear. Do you believe that's impossible?
And do you for a moment believe Trump doesn't lust after the degree of autocratic-aiming-for-totalitarian control Putin has over Russia, including the ability to openly jail or assassinate rivals, manipulate the media and, eventually, bend the military to his whims?
Yes, he failed in his first effort—but he tried, and he learned. I give him no credit for trying and failing. I hope we are not foolish enough to give him a second.
Let's see...
sexist
cisnormative
xenophobic
superstitious
If that poem is accurate, the Romans were a bunch of clingers, like the poet himself.
Fortunately, the Romans were replaced by their betters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals
Roman civilization was replaced by diverses. That included the followers of a Palestinian Jew from within, not just Goths. It plunged the Western world into the Dark Ages for 1000 years. The Romans were on the verge of the discoveries of the Renaissance. Imagine where we would be today without those 1000 years of Diverse Darkness.
The most stirring part of the poem comes later, after Horatius, and the two other volunteers had held the enemy back long enough for the bridge to be made ready to fall.
Back darted Spurius Lartius; Herminius darted back:
And as they passed, beneath their feet they felt the timbers crack.
But when they turned their faces, and on the further shore
Saw brave Horatius stand alone, they would have crossed once more.
I wonder the extent to which Macaulay was having a slight dig at his own countrymen for their lack of virtue (and note the etymology of "virtue") given those lines and these:
Then none was for a party—
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great;
Then lands were fairly portioned!
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.
Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe,
And the tribunes beard the high,
And the fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction,
In battle we wax cold;
Wherefore men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old.
Although I love it, Lays of Ancient Rome is a deeply strange work. Macaulay is explicit in the preface that he is imitating the presumed tropes of his fictional Roman balladeer:
More to the point, here's his description of the character he invented as the author of this ballad:
Yes it's beautiful and moving. It works as great propaganda for a war that shouldn't be. These people aren't dying for those things. These people are dying for Zelenskyy's conquest of a region that doesn't want to be part of Ukraine. Zelenskyy waged a war of conquest against the Donbas region, and when their allies retaliated against him, he played the victim. He came out of peace talks with Putin declaring that the region was the sticking point in their talks and that he would never recognize the region's independence. Ukrainian men, women and children are dying because Zelenskyy won't afford the Donbas region the same rights that he insists Russia had an obligation to afford Ukraine: the right of secession. Why do we like to romanticize war? War is innocent people dying for the megalomania and power-obsession of their corrupt rulers. It's not an honorable way to die, it is a mockery of the value of human life.
Yes, Zelensky should never have invaded Ukraine.
That's like saying Putin going into Ukraine was Putin invading Russia. If Ukraine had a right to declare independence, then why does the Donbas region not have the same right? Either way, the fact remains that this is all about Zelenskyy maintaining power and control in that region. That is why Zelenskyy is forcing his people to make these unimaginable sacrifices. That is why he is asking the world to make even more sacrifices. Power and control.
You are overloking one or two little details.
Although the collapse of the Soviet Union was a messy affair, and several of the constituent Republics unilaterally declared their independence, the Soviet Union did eventually get formally dissolved. Moreover the Russian Republic itself formally recognised the independence of Ukraine.
So the Donbas region has been recognised by Russia as part of Ukraine, not merely during the Soviet era, but in the post Soviet independent era. Thus whatever the residents of Donbas think, Donbas is not part of Russia. Even now, Russia has not annexed it.
So formally, in terms both of international recognition, the Donbas is part of Ukraine, and even in terms of Russian recognition - the Russian goovernment only recognised the two self proclaimed Donbas Republics (themselves plainly Potemkin creations of the Russian government) as independent of Ukraine in February this year - three days before the Russian invasion. (Or rather the latest invasion since Russian troops have already been operating there for eight years.)
As to the question of the moral case for the independence of Donbas being in some way analagous to the moral case for the independence of Ukraine, then sure, as in many many conflicts around the world, there's a case to be made. But that's not quite the same thing as the case for a foreign power to invade to try to settle the matter.
Of course the position of the Donbas and eastern Ukraine generally - with a lot of Russian speakers who may feel an allegiance to Russia rather than Ukraine, is, like its most obvious modern parallel - the position of Northern Ireland - the legacy of an ancient wave of immigration. In each case sponsored by the Imperial power.) Naturally I eagerly await Prof Somin's next article confirming that mass immigration is always wonderful, and nevah evah has any difficult consequences.
It doesn't really matter when the Russian government recognized anything. Alliances change, alliances are formed and dissolved over time. The region declared independence. Zelenskyy waged war upon them to bring them back under his control. The region sought and was eventually granted an alliance with somebody who had the money and resources to help (namely Russia). Russia told Zelenskyy to stop bombing the region and to promise to keep NATO weapons out of his country. Zelenskyy refused. Russia retaliated. Russia attacked civilians and children. Russia met with Zelenskyy to garner peace and, by Zelenskyy's own account, was rebuffed because of Zelenskyy's refusal to recognize the Donbas region's independence (he was willing to agree to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine at this point). So Russia continues to attack Ukrainian civilians including children. (Of course, Russia's tactics are deplorable, and, sure, they have their own motives for getting involved, as anybody who forms an alliance with another nation does. And, no, we can't trust that Putin will keep his word. But at the end of the day, if you are going to garner peace with another nation, you have to give them a chance to keep their word. Otherwise there will never be peace.) It's not like Russia is demanding he turn over to them an area that wishes to remain under his protection. Then he might be justified in asking his people to pay this price: to protect his people. They are demanding that he recognize the independence (not turn over to Russia) a region that wants to be independent. (And remember: Just because Putin is evil, doesn't mean Zelenskyy is good or always right.) Whatever you think of Donbas region's declaration of independence, one has to ask: Is it worth the price Zelenskyy is demanding of his people?
I'm going to hate myself in the morning for interacting with a Russian bot...
"The region declared independence"
So did Catalonia, the Confederacy, CHAZ/CHOP, etc, etc. Generally speaking, subsets of nations don't have a unilateral right to secede. Countries do have amicable divorces - Czechoslovakia comes to mind, as does the...ahem...USSR. Once Russia agreed to Ukrainian independence in 1991, it can't change it's mind 20 plus years later, any more than Britain can change its mind about US independence. You have to negotiate. Even if the Quebec separatists had won the 1995 referendum, they wouldn't have been justified in a unilateral secession. And if they did the US surely wouldn't have been justified in sending troops to Quebec to fight Canada.
"...you have to give them a chance to keep their word"
As the adage goes, 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'.
"a region that wants to be independent"
That's not all that clear for two reasons - first, it's not obvious the referendum was neutrally administered, to put it mildly, and secondly it's not obvious that it still holds. There is evidence that the people in the Donbas and Crimea have not found living under Russian rule congenial. If you want to follow this line of argument, have Russia withdraw and have a referendum with UN monitors, etc. If the separatists win, then they can open negotiations with Ukraine and I might even support their aims.
"Is it worth the price Zelenskyy is demanding of his people?"
That is for the Ukrainian people to decide.
"I'm going to hate myself in the morning for interacting with a Russian bot..."
And I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for interacting with a warmonger, but here we go...Not a Russian bot. Don't support Russia. As I have said before, I think what Russia is doing is abhorrent. That doesn't mean Zelenskyy is flawless. As I have pointed out before: Criticizing Zelenskyy is not supporting Putin. Putin is evil. That doesn't mean Zelenskyy can do no wrong. Putin and Zelenskyy can both be bad. Zelenskyy can be good and make bad choices from time to time. Why does condemnation of Putin and Russia have to mean blind support of every whim of Zelenskyy's? Was criticism of Bush or Obama support of terrorists? Is criticism of Biden's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal support of the Taliban? No. One can criticize somebody without automatically supporting their enemies.
"Generally speaking, subsets of nations don't have a unilateral right to secede."
We're not speaking generally. We're speaking specifically. Ukraine is denying the Donbas region a right it demands Russia acknowledge for Ukraine. This is like if the CSA was successful in its secession from the Union and then turned around and denied its states the right of secession. If you have acknowledged a right for yourself, you don't really have room to deny it to somebody else.
"As the adage goes, 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'."
Then what is the path to peace in your eyes? The only way to have peace talks is to give both sides a chance to live up to their end. If they don't there should be consequences. But there is no path to peace without giving the other side a chance to live up to its end of the deal. In this case the only path to peace would be, what? Ousting Putin from power and hoping the person who fills that void will be less of an evil psychopath (unlikely)? Do you really think that Ukraine has the resources to do that? Do you really think that can happen without Putin instigating nuclear war? Do you really think that's realistic? If not, then at some point peace will rely upon giving Putin a chance to stay true to his word. Of course it's a risk. As I said, he's an evil psychopath. Of course he can't be trusted. But there really isn't another road to peace.
"f you want to follow this line of argument, have Russia withdraw and have a referendum with UN monitors, etc. If the separatists win, then they can open negotiations with Ukraine and I might even support their aims."
Something Zelenskyy could have done before Russia invaded to avoid the invasion. Something Zelesnkyy could have agreed to in peace talks with Russia to attempt to secure at least a temporary ceasefire whilst the referendum was ongoing instead of blatantly stating that he would "never" recognize the region's independence.
"That is for the Ukrainian people to decide."
And how do they do that? That is like saying it is for the Russian people to decide if the Donbas region is worth what Putin is doing. There is a TON of evidence that the Russian people don't support Putin's actions. But they are powerless to stop him. The Ukrainian people have no more power over Zelenskyy's decisions. The fact that Zelensky has banned 11 political parties and has taken over all media outlets to stop reporting that is critical of the war suggests that there are those among his citizenship who do not believe it is worth the price they are being forced to pay. But, again, they have no power to stop it.
No. Russia already acknowledged it.
Or maybe it's like when the U.S. was successful in its secession from Great Britain, but then turned around and denied its states the right of secession.
As Lincoln explained, republican government cannot survive if someone can simply declare himself not subject to the government if he doesn't like the outcome of an election. Secession can only be justified if republican government has already broken down.
Russian troops leaving Ukraine. (They must at least withdraw to their pre-Feb. 24 positions.)
There is no evidence whatsoever of that. Russia did not invade because of anything Zelensky did or did not do.
"Or maybe it's like when the U.S. was successful in its secession from Great Britain, but then turned around and denied its states the right of secession."
It's like that, too. Frankly, the confederate states DID have a legal right to secede. The United States was supposedly a union of sovereign states. As sovereign states they had the right to choose whether or not to maintain that union. If they seceded, they gave up the privileges of the union, but that is a choice they had the right to make.
"Then what is the path to peace in your eyes?
Russian troops leaving Ukraine. (They must at least withdraw to their pre-Feb. 24 positions.)"
No, that is the destination, not the path. Of course the goal is that Russian troops leave. That's what peace looks like. Now what's the path to getting there?
" Russia did not invade because of anything Zelensky did or did not do."
You must not have been paying attention in the lead-up to the invasion when Putin said: "Stop bombing the Donbas region or we will invade" and then Zelenskyy continued bombing the Donbas region. Also when Putin said: "Guarantee that you won't be a part of NATO or allow NATO to place weapons in Ukraine" and Zelenskyy refused to guarantee that even though, according to Biden anyway, NATO membership for Ukraine was never in the works. Both things that Zelenskyy did and did not do that led to the invasion. Furthermore: Whether the initial invasion was because of Zelenskyy's choices or not, the continued war surely is. Zelenskyy's own people have acknowledged that peace talks broke down because Ukraine will never acknowledge the independence of the Donbas region.
"You must not have been paying attention in the lead-up to the invasion when Putin said: "Stop bombing the Donbas region or we will invade" and then Zelenskyy continued bombing the Donbas region."
I think everybody is aware that Putin was going to invade if they didn't stop trying to win back Donbas, and he was going to invade if they DID stop trying to win back Donbas.
Because he was going to invade, period. Like he was going to stop biting off chunks of Ukraine for any reason short of being defeated.
No, that is both factually and legally incorrect. The U.S. was a country, not a confederation of sovereign states. And more importantly: once one voluntarily enters into an agreement, one doesn't have the right to unilaterally withdraw from it, regardless of one's status.
No, that's the path. Once Russia ends its unprovoked aggression, then the parties can enter into peace talks, in which Putin steps down, Russia pays reparations, and admits it has no say in whether Ukraine joins NATO.
You must not have been paying attention to the fact that Putin is a liar.
No. There are Russian troops on Ukrainian soil. That's Russia's choice, not Zelensky's. If Zelensky had his way, those troops would all leave and the continued war would stop continuing.
No, it's literally saying the exact opposite. I was mocking you.
I have no idea why you're trying to relitigate a 3-decades old event right now. Whether Ukraine had a "right" to declare independence — a problematic phrasing — is irrelevant, since the country from which it declared independence dissolved shortly thereafter, and its successor formally recognized said independence. (On multiple occasions.)
As to whether the Donbas "region" has the right to independence, what exactly does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Let's assume it does have such a right. The region was effectively independent. (Well, independent of Kyiv; it was of course not independent of Moscow.) This war is about Russia trying to end Ukrainian independence, not about the independence of Donetsk or Luhansk. Or Sevastopol, for that matter.
Now, I suppose if Russian troops left the Donbas and those two regions conducted free and fair elections and voted for independence, we would have to consider whether they had grievances justifying independence. But since that has never happened, this is all moot.
There you go again. Did Zelensky send Russian troops to seize Kyiv? And Kharkiv and Mariupol and Kherson and Melitopol and… well, you get the idea.
Zelensky is a democratically elected leader who isn't "forcing" Ukrainians to defend themselves from Russian invasion.
I don't know why I continue to argue some of these points, they're really moot. As I said: Russia's actions here are horrid. My point is that Zelenskyy has had opportunities to stop them and refused. Regardless of how you feel about the Donbas region's right to secede, the bottom line is THAT is what the Ukrainian people are dying over.
"This war is about Russia trying to end Ukrainian independence"
That's a false narrative and bit of war propaganda with absolutely no factual support whatsoever. There has never been a single point where Ukraine's independence has been called into question by anybody but American politicians and American media in an attempt to justify American involvement in this conflict. Or, if you're feeling charitable, it's an assumption people make based on their biases and expectations of Putin. It is not, however, rooted in any fact whatsoever. From day one this war has been about 2 things: 1) Ukrainian involvement in NATO and 2) Ukraine's continued bombing of and refusal to acknowledge the independence of the Donbas region. Again I point out that Zelenskyy's people themselves said that Russia's demands in their peace talks were that Ukraine swear to stay out of NATO (to which they agreed) and that Ukraine acknowledge the independence of the Donbas region. They even said that the reason peace talks ended with Russia is because Ukraine will never acknowledge the independence of the Donbas region. Even Zelenskyy's people aren't saying "Russia was trying to get us to give up our independence."
"That's a false narrative and bit of war propaganda with absolutely no factual support whatsoever"
Those weren't Russian troops on the outskirts of Kyiv?
"There has never been a single point where Ukraine's independence has been called into question by anybody but American politicians and American media in an attempt to justify American involvement in this conflict."
WaPo:
"In 2008, Putin told a surprised George W. Bush that “Ukraine is not a country”"
Last I checked, Putin isn't American.
Realistically, I can only give you 1/10 for trolling. You are coming across like Baghdad Bob. Are there training classes or something you can take to upgrade your arguments?
And let's not forget that on the eve of this war, Putin gave a speech listing "denazification" and "demilitarization," not "protecting Donbas," as his objective. They wanted to seize the country, not protect the democratic aspirations (snicker) of the two regimes they were propping up in eastern Ukraine.
Hi, Abbie. That is where the gas and oil are in Ukraine. Zero tolerance for Putin sympathizers, including Trump. Trump has completely turned around, and would have been much tougher on Rusha than the timid and weak Biden.
Weakness is the single most powerful cause of aggression. The self imposed weakness of our nation by the lawyer for rent seeking purposes, to generate worthless make work jobs, is the cause of all violent crime. It is now the cause of Russian aggression, as well.
Disagreeing with Zelenskyy is not sympathizing with Putin. This is the problem. Just because Putin is wrong doesn't make Zelenskyy right. This is one of the classic war propaganda tactics: Putin bad ergo Zelenskyy perfect in every way. Nope. Doesn't work like that. Like I said in my reply to Lee Moore, what Putin is doing is abhorrent. That doesn't mean it was unavoidable. Maybe it was maybe it wasn't. The point is: Zelenskyy didn't even try. And since this whole thing started, Zelenskyy has been acting more and more like Putin: Banning political parties, taking over all media to control the media narrative about his war, etc. Like I said: Yes. Putin is evil. That doesn't make Zelenskyy good. And criticizing Zelenskyy is not supporting Putin.
I saw "Facing Fearful Odds" and though the post would be about American bankers and their quest today to redeem Rubles offered in payment of debts by Russians now estopped from paying debts in Dollars. Such American bankers indeed are facing fearful odds and likely will collapse from the burden of never-to-be-paid debts.
And then I read abhudd47's comment and wondered who would rush to my aid if I ever actually pursued the right of self-determination -- the rights of secession and self-protection.
If I became fearful of Yemeni artillery positioned by Mexico around my home, who would help me? If Spanish suddenly became, by unverified vote, the American national language and a Battalion began to physically assault English speakers like me, who would help me? If Canada decided to seize funds I had lawfully deposited into a bank, who would help me?
When does a war of aggression begin? Does it begin with the simple statement "I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina" or does it begin when a a fleet of ships is ordered to deliver reinforcing supplies to that position?
If South Carolina wants to secede, let it make its own nukes.
Well, they do have their own plutonium refinery, and several military bases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_River_Site
Precisely. Or ally themselves with somebody who will provide them. That is how secession works. You give up the privileges of the union and have to find a way to make it on your own or form a new union with other players.