Illustrious deeds, of dazzling brilliance, are represented by politicians as the outcome of great aims, whereas they are usually the result of caprice or passion. Thus the war between Augustus and Antony, though ascribed to their rival ambitions to dominate the world, may have been merely a result of jealousy.
[Ces grandes et éclatantes actions qui éblouissent les yeux sont représentées par les politiques comme les effets des grands desseins, au lieu que ce sont d’ordinaire les effets de l’humeur et des passions. Ainsi la guerre d’Auguste et d’Antoine, qu’on rapporte à l’ambition qu’ils avoient de se rendre maîtres du monde, n’étoit peut-être qu’un effet de jalousie.]François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680) French epigrammatist, memoirist, noble
Réflexions ou sentences et maximes morales [Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims], ¶7 (1665-1678) [tr. Stevens (1939)]
(Source)
A version of this appeared in the 1st edition (1665). Variants in the 1st edition include starting with Les, not Ces, and speaking of des grands intérêts, not desseins. The 1st edition also was much more assertive that it étoit un effet de jalousie (was a result of jealousy).(Source (French)). Alternate translations:Great and heroick actions which dazle their eyes who consider them, are represented by Politicians, as if they were the effects of great Interests; whereas they are ordinarily the effects of humour and passions. Thus the war between Augustus and Marc Antony, which some imputed to the Ambition they had of aspiring to the Empire of the World, was an effect of their mutual jealousie.
[tr. Davies (1669), ¶104]Those great and glorious Actions, that even dazle our Eyes with their Lustre, are represented by Politicians as the result of great Wisdom and excellent design; whereas in truth, they are commonly the effects of Passion and Humour. Thus the War between Augustus and Antony, which is usually thought to proceed from Greatness of Soul, and the Ambition each of them had to become Master of the World, was very probably no more than Envy and Emulation.
[tr. Stanhope (1694), ¶8]Great actions, the lustre of which dazzles us, are represented by politicians as the effects of deep design; whereas they are commonly the effects of caprice and passion. Thus the war between Augustus and Antony, supposed to be owing to their ambition to give a master to the world, arose probably from jealousy.
[pub. Donaldson (1783), ¶10; [ed. Lepoittevin-Lacroix (1797), ¶7]Great actions, the lustre of which dazzles us, are by politicians represented as the effects of deep design, whereas they are commonly the effects of caprice and passion. Thus the war between Augustus and Anthony, supposed to be owing to the ambition of giving a master to the world, arose probably from jealousy.
[ed. Carvill (1835), ¶7]Those great and brilliant actions which dazzle our eyes, are represented by politicians as the effects of great designs, instead of which they are commonly the effects of caprice and of the passions. Thus the war between Augustus and Antony, which is attributed to the ambition they had of making themselves masters of the world, was, perhaps, nothing but a result of jealousy.
[ed. Gowens (1851), ¶8]Great and striking actions which dazzle the eyes are represented by politicians as the effect of great designs, instead of which they are commonly caused by the temper and the passions. Thus the war between Augustus and Anthony, which is set down to the ambition they entertained of making themselves masters of the world, was probably but an effect of jealousy.
[tr. Bund/Friswell (1871), ¶7]Historians would have us believe that the most dazzling deeds are the results of deep-laid plans; more often they are the reuslts of men's moods and passions. Thus the war that Augustus waged against Antony, caused, we are told, by their ambition to be masters of the world, was, perchance, but the outcome of jealousy.
[tr. Heard (1917), ¶7]Statesmen will often present those great and striking deeds with which they dazzle our eyes as the outcome of some grand design, whereas in fact they are usually the product of mood and of emotion. Thus the struggle between Augustus and Mark Anthony, portrayed as the result of their conflicting ambition each to become sole master of the world, was perhaps caused simply by mutual jealousy.
[tr. FitzGibbon (1957), ¶7]Politicians explain great and resplendent deeds that dazzle the eye as born of high purpose, where for the most part they derive from whim or passion. Thus the war between Augustus and Antony, which we ascribe to their equal ambition to rule the world, was no more, perhaps, than the result of jealousy.
[tr. Kronenberger (1959), ¶7]Great and glorious events which dazzle the beholder are represented by politicians as the outcome of grand designs, whereas they are usually products of temperaments and passions. Thus the war between ‘Augustus and Antony, attributed to their passion to seize the mastery of the world, was probably nothing more than a result of jealousy.
[tr. Tancock (1959), ¶7]Those great and brilliant actions that dazzle the eyes of men are represented by politicians as being the effects of great designs; but they are usually the results of temper and the passions. Thus the war between Augustus and Antony, which is supposed to be due to the ambition they both had of making themselves the masters of the world, was perhaps nothing more than an effect of jealousy.
[tr. Whichello (2016) ¶7]
Quotations about:
caprice
Note not all quotations have been tagged, so Search may find additional quotes on this topic.
Strength of character leads us to a degenerate form of it — obstinacy. It is often very difficult in concrete case to say where the one ends and the other begins; on the other hand, it does not seem difficult to determine the difference in the abstract. Obstinacy is not a fault of the intellect; we use the term as denoting resistance to our better judgment, and that cannot be located, without involving us in a contradiction, in the intellect, which is the capacity of judgment. Obstinacy is a fault of temperament. This inflexibility of will and impatience of contradiction find their origin only in a particular kind of egotism, which sets above every other pleasure that of governing itself and others solely by its own caprice.
[Die Charakterstärke führt uns zu einer Abart derselben, dem Eigensinn. Sehr schwer ist es oft, im konkreten Falle zu sagen, wo die eine aufhört und der andere anfängt, dagegen scheint es nicht schwer, den Unterschied im Begriffe festzustellen. Eigensinn ist kein Fehler des Verstandes; wir bezeichnen damit das Widerstreben gegen bessere Einsicht, und dieses kann nicht ohne Widerspruch in den Verstand als dem Vermögen der Einsicht gesetzt werden. Der Eigensinn ist ein Fehler des Gemütes. Die Unbeugsamkeit des Willens, diese Reizbarkeit gegen fremde Einrede haben ihren Grund nur in einer besonderen Art von Selbstsucht, welche höher als alles andere das Vergnügen stellt, über sich und andere nur mit eigener Geistestätigkeit zu gebieten.]
Karl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) Prussian soldier, historian, military theorist
On War [Vom Kriege], Book 1, ch. 3 “On Military Genius [Der Kriegerische Genius],” (1.3) (1832) [tr. Jolles (1943)]
(Source)
(Source (German)). Alternate translations:Force of character leads us to a spurious variety of it -- obstinacy. It is often very difficult in concrete cases to say where the one ends and the other begins; on the other hand, it does not seem difficult to determine the difference in idea. Obstinacy is no fault of the understanding; we use the term as denoting a resistance against our better judgment, and it would be inconsistent to charge that to the understanding, as the understanding is the power of judgment. Obstinacy is a fault of the feelings or heart. This inflexibility of will, this impatience of contradiction, have their origin only in a particular kind of egotism, which sets above every other pleasure that of governing both self and others by its own mind alone.
[tr. Graham (1873)]Strength of character can degenerate into obstinacy.. The line between them is often hard to draw in a specific case; but surelyi it is seasy to distinguish them in theory. Obstinacy is not an intellectual defect; it comes from reluctance to admit that one is wrong. To impute this to the mind would be illogical, for the mind is the seat of judgment. Obstinacy is a fault of temperament.. Stubbornness and intolerance of contradiction result from a special kind of egotism, which elevates above everything else the pleasure of its autonomous intellect, to which others must bow.
[tr. Howard & Paret (1976)]
TRELANE: I don’t know if I like your tone. It’s most challenging. That’s what you’re doing, challenging me?
SPOCK: I object to you. I object to intellect without reason. I object to power without constructive purpose.
TRELANE: Why, Mr. Spock, you do have a saving grace, after all — you’re ill-mannered!
Paul Schneider (1923-2008) American screenwriter
Star Trek, 1×17 “The Squire of Gothos” (1967)
World events are the work of individuals whose motives are often frivolous, even casual.
Gore Vidal (1925-2012) American novelist, dramatist, critic
“The Twelve Caesars,” United States (1993)
“Perhaps this isn’t just a test of the world,” said Crowley. “It might be a test of you people, too. Hmm?”
“God does not play games with His loyal servants,” said the Metatron, but in a worried tone of voice.
“Whooo-eee,” said Crowley. “Where have you been?”Terry Pratchett (1948-2015) English author
Good Omens, 6. “Saturday” (1990) [with Neil Gaiman]
(Source)
