One of the weaknesses of internet communication is that
the frequency of typographical errors tends to preempt
a fundamental principle of interpretation: Assume, unless
there is definite proof otherwise, that the writer not only
means what he/she says but knows what he/she means.
This principle makes clear that Jim really meant dulce
decorum & not dulce et decorum; just as applied to
Keats's sonnet on Homer it makes clear that Keats
knew Balboa not Cortez discovered the Paciific,
and still meant Cortez not Balboa. That is, the
sonnet is structured around the analogy Chapman
is to Homer as Cortez is to Balboa: the second
person to see the immense seas (Homer's world
or the Paciific).
Anyhow, there are variations on dulce et decorum,
the greatest of which are the following two.
IV
These fought in any case,
and some believing,
pro domo, in any case . . .
Some quick to arm,
some for adventure,
some from fear of weakness,
some from fear of censure,
some for love of slaughter, in imagination,
learning later . . .
some in fear, learning love of slaughter;
Died some, pro patria,
non "dulce" non "et decor" . . .
walked eye-deep in hell
believing in old men's lies, then unbelieving
came home, home to a lie,
home to many deceits,
home to old lies and new infamy;
usury aage-old and age-thick
and liars in public places.
Daring as never before, wastage as never before.
Young blood and high blood,
fair cheeks, and fine bodies;
fortitude as never before
frankness as never before,
disillusions as never told in the old days,
hysterias, trench confessions,
laughter out of dead bellies.
V
There died a myriad,
And of the best, among them,
For an old bitch gone in the teeth,
For a botched civilization,
Charm, smiling at the good mouth,
Quick eyes gone under earth's lid,
For two gross of broken statues,
For a few thousand battered books.
---------------
Carrol
