SONETO DE WILFRED OWEN a tradução - e interpretação - que 'se parece com o autor'

Apontamos por que a tradução que saiu, domingo (20.7), na Folha de S.Paulo é ruim. Apresentamos outra tradução, inédita, e juntamos o original - para o leitor comparar,  aprender e se deliciar.


Elogiável a publicação do soneto de Wilfred Owen no caderno Ilustríssima de domingo passado (20.07), enriquecendo o conteúdo principal, sobre a IGG (Primeira Grande Guerra).
 
Incluir tradução para nossa língua também merece aplausos. Contudo, a tradução em si foi decepcionante.
 
O tradutor, está evidente, se esforçou para compor rimas, mas estas não podem ser imperiosas a ponto de justificar o sério abalo da obra original em suas demais características. A simplicidade e tom amplamente tocante do soneto de Owen acabaram seriamente prejudicados.

Ainda que um 'thou' logo na primeira linha remeta para a forma antiga do inglês, concluir precipitadamente que os versos são arcaicos e indecifráveis - até para a maioria dos leitores daquele caderno cult - é um equívoco. Outras formas arcaicas, variantes da anterior, surgem: thy, thee. De novo, não é isso que deve embotar a avaliação do soneto que - em tudo o mais - apresenta termos simples.
 
As adaptações que o tradutor empreende só podem ser aceitáveis se o resultado for belo como o original, a tradução refletindo aquele no impacto, sentimento, alcance. 

A última linha da tradução ostenta uma alteração de sujeito, o que configura falha elementar, dado que não aponta para uma troca por algo decisivamente salutar ao texto traduzido. No original, é 'God' tanto o sujeito de 'curse' quanto de 'cut'; o tradutor transfere o 'cut' para a própria Arma, o que subtrai vigor do texto.
 
Na escolha de palavras difíceis, o tradutor feriu o soneto de morte, e a audiência boiou - não deu para entender. 'Troante esconjuro' para traduzir 'huge imprecations' termos simples em inglês, ilustra cabalmente esse meu ponto, que encontra repetidamente respaldo ao longo de toda a tradução.

Além disso, há interpretações difíceis a fazer. 'Artillery' pode se referir às armas ou aos soldados.
Há uma 'Great Gun', que pode ser confundida com o 'black arm'. Mas, justamente nisso está grande parte da engenhosidade dos versos, percebida, por muitos, como obstáculo ao entendimento.
 
Ao interpretar que a artilharia é uma arma em uso do lado do combate em que o autor está, o tradutor impõe
várias outras perdas ao texto original, que procura disfarçar
com um vocabulário pesado como a Grande Arma.

A crítica ao soneto encontrada no site The Wilfred Owen Association também adota tal interpretação mas, por fim, acaba reconhecendo sua perplexidade diante do resultado e indaga: 'But there's one thing wrong. It does not sound like Owen, does it?' [Mas há algo errado. O soneto não soa como de Owen, soa?]

O que toca o autor não é a ação da Grande Arma, mas o que esta faz com o pelotão escuro, parte da Artilharia (soldados). O pelotão escuro é dizimado; o autor, que faz parte da Artilharia, vê, portanto, seus companheiros massacrados pela Grande Arma, que não é apenas um artefato, mas o Inimigo.
O autor, a obra, o contundente background, bem como os fartamente castigados leitores de português merecem o 'esconjuro' só se vier no devido modo, tempo e lugar.
 
Ao tomar o choque do 'bulhufas' como simples leitora, eu não parti de pronto para a análise crítica, mas busquei outra tradução - e eu mesma retraduzi o soneto. A interpretação diferente que eu adoto (descrita no parágrafo acima do imediatamente anterior) produz, já no título, diferenças em relação à tradução publicada no Ilustríssima.
Vejamos:

Ao ver um pelotão de nossa artilharia pesada em ação

 
tradução de Mariangela Pedro do original de Wilfred Owen
 
Ganha lentamente projeção, longo pelotão no escuro,
Grande Arma espichando ao Céu, afoita por insultar;
Cadencia altiva, contra eles está anos a fio a ensaiar
Graves ofensas a passarem por estonteante apuro!
Chega à Arrogância, inseparável de teu dizimar,
E os elimina, antes que se graduem em um pecado mais maduro.
Aproveita nosso ressentimento, canhão em ação, - para dissipar
Sim, no temporal, nosso vigor e, moldado em labaredas, nosso ouro.
 
Contudo, em consideração àqueles fadados
por tua maligna carga a sucumbir sem reação,
Não haveremos de, trágico pelotão, em meio à destruição,
Recuar em segurança aos nossos ninhos abastados.
De fato queremos, quando tal maldição absoluta for,
Que Deus dela cuide, e livre nossa alma desse horror!
 

Notas adicionais da tradutora:
1) observem as rimas. O tradutor aqui é necessariamente poeta; tem de criar novo soneto, novas rimas. Nada fácil. Para isso, é impossível se ater a uma tradução 'ponto a ponto'. É fundamental recriar e ao mesmo tempo preservar o sentido, o tom, a emoção.
2) Conseguimos preservar o 'espírito' da coisa, sem ter de desencavar palavras esdrúxulas, e oferecendo riqueza de vocabulário.
3) o pelotão 'no escuro' (1a. linha) é coerente com a figura da Grande Arma, que lança uma grande sombra sobre o pelotão, tanto literal, quanto figurativamente.
4) a diferença em relação à tradução publicada na Folha é brutal. Para comparar com mais afinco, não deixe de ler a crítica que precede minha tradução. Além de muito mais bonito, meu texto é também um produto coeso, fiel a uma interpretação diferente das existentes, mas mais robusta e afinada com toda a obra restante de Owen.

Comparando com a tradução de Nelson Ascher:

Já iniciamos esta postagem com uma crítica à tradução publicada na Folha, domingo. Não deixe de lê-la. Aqui, fazemos apenas uma síntese, que é seguida pela íntegra daquela tradução, bem como pelo original do finado poeta britânico.

A tradução publicada em Ilustríssima deixa 'coisas de fora', não oferece um sentido coeso; sequer dá para entender um pedacinho que seja, já que abusa de palavras estrepitosamente difíceis, talvez para dar ao leitor a impressão de que o tradutor entendeu o soneto, e o leitor é que é 'deficiente'. Faz adaptações que roubam em vez de louvar o original. As muitas falhas da tradução, enfim, expõem uma distância colossal do original, sobretudo quanto à interpretação geral.

Esta é a tradução que consta da Ilustríssima:

Ao Ver uma Peça de Nossa Artilharia Pesada Posta em Ação (por Neson Arscher)
Armem-te aos poucos, longo braço preto,
Grande arma arranha-céu pronta a imprecar;
Mira-os sem trégua, em riste, e lança, feito
Troante esconjuro, maldições sem par.
A empáfia que requer tua ação brutal,
Esmaga antes que agrida mais. Derrama,
Canhão, nosso ódio; e esbanja em temporal
Nosso alento, nosso ouro como chama.
Mas pelo bem daqueles, aço aziago,
Que, nada hostis, tua praga há de prostrar,
Não te recolham, findo o teu estrago,
A salvo à paz de nosso bem-estar.
Feito e enfim posto o teu feitiço -adeus:
Deixa a nossa alma, e amaldiçoe-te Deus!
O original:

On Seeing a Piece of our Heavy Artillery Brought into Action

Wilfred Owen

Be slowly lifted up, thou long black arm,
Great Gun towering towards Heaven, about to curse;
Sway steep against them, and for years rehearse
Huge imprecations like a blasting charm!
Reach at that Arrogance which needs thy harm,
And beat it down before its sins grow worse.
Spend our resentment, cannon, -yea, disburse
Our gold in shapes of flame, our breaths in storm.

Yet, for men's sakes whom thy vast malison
Must wither innocent of enmity,
Be not withdrawn, dark arm, the spoilure done,
Safe to the bosom of our prosperity.
But when thy spell be cast complete and whole,
May God curse thee, and cut thee from our soul!

The most remarkable recent document in favor of freedom

What is the document referred to in the title?

It is a letter addressed to the British Prime Minister, released three days ago. It is signed by seven leaders of world institutions related to the press, media and journalism.

It is motivated by the reaction of the UK to the Snowden case. More specifically, the letter challenges the response of the British authorities - supposedly a top democracy - to the reporting of Snowden's leak by the British newspaper (see? one of their own papers) The Guardian. 

But there is a single fact that has just come along and has led those entities to make them voice a passionate demand in the name of freedom and, more broadly, democracy. Such fact is the ruling of the High Court in the UK regarding the detention of the Brazilian David Miranda last August at Heathrow Airport, where he also had Snowden's documents confiscated. The Court decided that the detention and the confiscation were just right and legal.

Of course, the fact Miranda is a Brazilian makes it easier for the judges to rule according to the "terrorism" sordid allegation. 

Miranda and Glenn Greenwald make up a couple - they live together in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Greenwald, as most of you must know, is an American who until recently worked for The Guardian, where he published Snowden's story. Our guess is that Greenwald was forced to leave the British paper; he left shortly after having published Snowden's shocking revelations based on NSA documents. His last day in The Guardian was Oct 31.

Such developemts have everything to do with Aaron Swartz, who did so much in defence of the freedom of ideas. 

While I go now looking for the full ruling of the British Court, you can appreciate the letter to David Cameron below. It is a copy from https://www.cpj.org/blog/Coordinating_Committee_Letter.pdf

CPJ stands for Committee to Protect Journalists, whose main director signed first in the letter. 

The link above points to versions of the letter in Spanish and in French. 

The Rt. Hon. David Cameron
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
Great Britain

February 18, 2014
Dear Prime Minister Cameron:
 

Last month members of the Global Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations
met in London to assess threats to press freedom around the world and to plan joint action.
The Coordinating Committee includes many of the leading international press freedom
organizations. When we selected London for our annual meeting, it was because it is a
convenient gathering point. We did not expect that the press freedom challenges in the United
Kingdom would feature so prominently on our agenda.
 

But in the two days preceding the annual meeting, many Coordinating Committee members,
including representatives from the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Inter American Press
Association, the International Press Institute, the World Press Freedom Committee, and the
International Association of Broadcasting, had an opportunity to participate as observers in a
fact-finding mission organized by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
(WAN-IFRA). We heard a full spectrum of views—from academics and political analysts;
industry groups; freedom of expression organizations including Article 19, Index on Censorship,
and English PEN; and pressure groups like Hacked Off, who introduced us to some of the
victims of the phone hacking scandals. We also had a chance to meet with members of
Parliament, and some members of the WAN-IFRA delegation were also hosted by the Rt. Hon.
Maria Miller MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
 

The mere fact that WAN-IFRA would take the unprecedented step of organizing a press freedom
mission to the United Kingdom shows in and of itself the level of concern in the global press
freedom community. While WAN-IFRA plans to issue a separate in-depth report at a later time,
we are writing to you directly as members of the Coordinating Committee to share our views. As
groups fighting for press freedom and freedom of expression around the world, we are deeply
concerned that actions taken by your government will embolden autocratic leaders to restrict the
media under the guise of protecting national security or improving media performance. In fact,
this is already occurring.
 

A key area of focus for the WAN-IFRA delegation is the government pressure that has been
applied to the Guardian newspaper and its editor, Alan Rusbridger. The pressure began in May
2013 after the Guardian began publishing a series of stories based on documents leaked to them
by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. These documents, some of which the Guardian
shared with U.S. media organizations including The New York Times and ProPublica, revealed
the existence of a massive government surveillance effort carried out by the NSA and
Government Communications Headquarters. These stories sparked a broad public debate around
the world about the appropriate limits of government surveillance in the electronic age. That
debate reverberated throughout the capitals of Latin America and Europe; led to the introduction
of resolutions at the United Nations; and sparked a broad policy review in the United States that
is playing out both in the courts and the political arena.
 

Unfortunately, the focus of attention in the U.K. has been less on the implications of the
Snowden revelations and more on the journalistic efforts undertaken by the Guardian to make
this critically important information available to the global public. In August 2013, David
Miranda, the partner of then-Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, was detained under the U.K.’s
anti-terror law while transiting through Heathrow airport. Journalistic material that he was
transporting on behalf of the Guardian was confiscated. Subsequently, Rusbridger revealed that
a senior government official compelled the Guardian to destroy hard drives containing the
leaked Snowden documents, even though the copies of the material were available to Guardian
reporters operating outside the U.K. who are continuing to report on the revelations.
 

In December 2013, Rusbridger was called upon to testify before a Parliamentary Select
Committee regarding the newspaper’s decision to publish the Snowden documents. In the course
of those proceedings, Rusbridger’s patriotism was called into question. Speaking before
Parliament, you claimed, without evidence, that the Guardian’s actions had damaged British
national security and urged Parliament to carry out an investigation. Parallel to the Parliamentary
investigation, the Metropolitan Police are reportedly carrying out a criminal inquiry into possible
violations of the anti-terror law.
 

We view these actions and the consistent government pressure on the Guardian as incompatible
with the British tradition of press freedom, and deeply damaging to the country’s international
prestige. If there is evidence that the Guardian has broken the law—and we would like to stress
that we have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that this is the case—then the competent judicial
authorities should carry out an independent criminal investigation free of government
interference. Your comments, and those of some members of Parliament, have at a minimum
undermined the perception of impartiality by suggesting that the process is being driven by
political rather than legal concerns.
 

We note that the unprecedented pressure on the Guardian comes at a time when the British
public is engaged in a fierce debate over media regulation. We believe the issues are linked, as
together they create the impression that British authorities are seeking to constrain and control
the work of the media. In fact, the debate over media regulation was sparked by the Guardian’s
and other newspapers’ reporting on criminal phone hacking and other abuses committed by some
members of the media over the course of many years. In response to these revelations, you
announced that a commission led by Sir Brian Leveson would carry out a systematic inquiry into
media practice and propose steps to curb abuses. The revelations also sparked the mobilization of
hacking victims, led by Hacked Off.
 

At the end of his 18-month inquiry, which documented a culture of abuse and arrogance in the
media, Leveson proposed the creation of a new, more robust mechanism for what was termed
“independent, voluntary press self-regulation.” He also proposed that participation in the new
self-regulatory body be incentivized by a system of rewards and punishments grounded in
statute. We were pleased that you rejected such an explicit statutory framework for media
regulation, describing it as a “Rubicon” that Britain could not cross.
 

A Royal Charter was proposed as a compromise. A medieval vestige, a Royal Charter is more
commonly conferred on a public institution. In this case, the language of the charter was crafted
by government ministers and presented to the Queen for signature by her advisory body, the
Privy Council. In a convoluted process virtually incomprehensible to anyone not versed in its
arcana, the Royal Charter establishes a recognition body to certify that any self-regulatory entity
created by the media itself conforms to the Leveson recommendations. To compel participation
in this regulatory body, Parliament was called on to pass several measures that impose high
punitive damages on media outlets that do not join the system and also require that they pay legal
costs of plaintiffs in libel actions, even when the media organizations prevail in civil libel cases.
 

This Parliamentary action, in our view, establishes statutory underpinning for media regulation.
This means that the Rubicon has, in fact, been crossed. After listening to all sides of the debate,
we recognize the gravity of the problem of media abuse that the Royal Charter seeks to address.
We also recognize that the Leveson inquiry took a deliberate and thoughtful approach to a
complex issue. But the deliberative nature of the process does not mean that the best outcome
has been recommended. It is our view that the Parliamentary action that essentially compels
participation in the regulatory mechanism belies claims that it will be “voluntary.”
 

Indeed, it should be a source of serious concern to your government that autocratic leaders
seeking to limit media freedom now cite the British example. President Rafael Correa of
Ecuador, who has championed one of the most repressive media laws in all of Latin America,
has explicitly invoked the British example in defending his actions. In an August 2013 speech,
he noted:
 

“The Communication Law, the gag law, threat to freedom of expression, words that the
Mercantilist press uses to lie and assert that this is [a] country [where] no [one] can
express an opinion and that free voices are silenced. But now foreign counties show that
Ecuador is right. The United Kingdom has created a communication law to regulate the
excesses of a certain yellow press in that country.”

 

The WAN-IFRA mission heard from Lord Anthony Lester of Herne Hill that government representatives from South Africa to Malaysia had asked how the British approach to media regulation could be adapted to their circumstances. Zafar Abbas, the editor of Dawn newspaper
in Pakistan and a member of the WAN-IFRA delegation, described to us how Pakistani officials
now routinely cite actions of the British government in pressing the Pakistani media to “selfregulate”
or face government action.
 

We write to urge you to take immediate steps to safeguard press freedom in the U.K. and to ensure that the actions of your government are never used to justify media restrictions elsewhere in the world.

Specifically, we urge the following:

• Distance yourself from the Parliamentary investigation into the Guardian and refrain from any public comments about the criminal investigation, to avoid the perception of political pressure.

 

• Urge Parliament to repeal the amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill and other legislation that provides statutory underpinning to the Royal Charter.

 

Britain’s democracy, including its robust and diverse media, has been an inspiration to people around the world who struggle to be free, and is a source of British “soft power” and influence.
Indeed, your actions as prime minister have in several recent instances had a direct and powerful
impact on journalists seeking to report the news in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In a meeting with Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, you raised the case of an imprisoned journalist, Abdiaziz Abdinuur, who was subsequently released. In October, when you traveled to
Sri Lanka to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, you visited Jaffna and
met there with a group of Tamil journalists, highlighting their vulnerability and increasing international attention.
 

Your ability to exercise this kind of positive influence rests on the perception that the British media operates free of government interference. Any action that diminishes that perception not only emboldens autocratic leaders to take repressive action against the media but it erodes the
ability of Britain to exercise moral suasion and to defend the rights of the world’s most vulnerable journalists. We hope you will take this factor into account when considering actions and formulating policies around the media in the United Kingdom.
 

Sincerely,
 

Joel Simon
Executive Director
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
 

Elizabeth Ballantine
President
Inter American Press Association (IAPA, SIP)
 

Alexandre K. Jobim
President
International Association of Broadcasting (AIR-IAB)
 

Alison Bethel McKenzie
Executive Director
International Press Institute (IPI)

Vincent Peyrègne
Chief Executive Officer
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)

Ronald Koven
European Representative and Acting Director
World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC)

Chris Llewellyn
President & CEO
FIPP (Worldwide Magazine Media Association)

by MARIANGELA PEDRO

In this environment of "interactivity", it is easy to expand networks; what is unlikely is to broaden the mind.

Mariangela Pedro, the editor of the blog


===========================================
Nesse ambiente de "interatividade" é fácil ampliar as redes; improvável é alargar a mente. 
Mariangela Pedro, editora do blog
===========================================

Another blog meant for people like you

I also keep mariangelapedro.blogspot.com

It's bilingual, English and Brazilian Portuguese

ADMIRABLE BRAVE SONG FOR A NEW WORLD ~ CANÇÃO DE "PRIMAVERAS" PARA UM MUNDO NOVO

It has been my best song since I was 25. It must touch everyone with a brave soul and so it reminds me of people like the late Aaron Swartz.

Esta é a melhor canção de todas para mim, desde meus vinte e cinco anos. Ela deve ser especial para todos os de alma revolucionária; ela hoje me faz lembrar também de Aaron Swartz.

Greatest Love of All
Michael Masser & Linda Creed,
I prefer it performed by Whitney Houston

Chorus
I decided long ago, never
to walk in anyone’s shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can’t take away my dignity
Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me

Decidi há muito tempo
jamais andar nas sombras
de quem quer que seja
Não importa que eu
fracasse, ou que seja bem-sucedido
Pelo menos eu vivo de
acordo com aquilo em que acredito
Não importa o que tirem de mim
Não podem tirar minha dignidade
Porque o maior amor de todos
Está acontecendo para mim
Encontrei o maior amor de todos
Dentro de mim

O QUE ESTÁ POR TRÁS DE MINHA PRONTIDÃO PARA OBEDECER?

Por que o ser humano é tão propenso a obedecer e por que é tão difícil para ele desobedecer? 

Enquanto eu for obediente ao poder do Estado, da Igreja, or da opinião pública, sinto-me seguro e protegido. Na verdade, pouco importa que poder é esse a que eu sou obediente. Sempre é uma instituição, ou são outros seres humanos, que usa a força de uma maneira ou de outra e que falsamente alega ter pleno conhecimento e capacidade de ação. 

Minha obediência torna-me parte daquele poder que eu venero e, portanto, sinto-me forte. Não há como eu errar, já que tal poder decide por mim; não tenho como sentir-me desamparado, já que ele zela por mim; não há como eu pecar, porque ele não permite que eu peque. E, mesmo que eu peque, a punição resume-se a retornar para o poder supremo.

Para desobedecer, uma pessoa precisa ter a coragem de se ver só, de errar e de pecar. Mas coragem não basta. A capacidade de ser corajoso depende do estado de desenvolvimento daquela pessoa. Somente se ela já desprendeu-se do colo da mãe e das ordens do pai, somente se ela já tem a estatura de um indivíduo plenamente desenvolvido sendo, portanto, dona da capacidade de pensar e sentir por si, somente então pode tal pessoa ter a coragem para dizer "não" ao poder; somente então pode desobedecer.

Uma pessoa pode tornar-se livre por meio de atos de desobediência, aprendendo a dizer "não" ao poder. Mas não apenas consideramos a capacidade de desobedecer como condição para a liberdade. A liberdade também é condição para a desobediência. Se tenho medo da liberdade, não me atreverei a dizer "não", não terei a coragem para ser desobediente. Na verdade, a liberdade e a capacidade de desobedecer são inseparáveis. Portanto, todo e qualquer sistema social, político e religioso que proclame a liberdade, mas que não admita a desobediência não pode ser considerado verdadeiro.

Tradução de Mariangela Pedro de trecho de Erich Fromm, On Desobedience and other Essays, 2nd ed, Redwood, 1984, p. 6 [essay: Disobedience as a psychological and moral problem, originally published in 1963] O original em inglês está neste link:

http://aaronswartzlibrary.blogspot.com.br/?view=mosaic#!/2013/06/what-is-behind-my-virtue-of-obedience.html

What is behind my 'virtue' of obedience that I do not see?

versão em português

Why is man so prone to obey and why is it so difficult for him to disobey? 

As long as I am obedient to the power of the State, the Church, or public opinion, I feel safe and protected. In fact it makes little difference what power it is that I am obedient to. It is always an institution, or men, who use force in one form or another and who fraudulently claim omniscience and omnipotence. 


My obedience makes me part of the power I worship, and hence I feel strong. I can make no error, since it decides for me; I cannot be alone, because it watches over me; I cannot commit a sin, because it does not let me do so, and even if I do sin, the punishment is only the way of returning to the almighty power.

In order to disobey, one must have the courage to be alone, to err and to sin. But courage is not enough.The capacity for courage depends on a person's state of development. Only if a person has emerged from mother's lap and father's commands, only if he has emerged as a fully developed individual and thus has acquired the capacity to think and feel for himself, only then can he have the courage to say "no" to power, to disobey.

A person can become free through acts of disobedience by learning to say no to power. But not only is the capacity for disobedience the condition for freedom; freedom is also the condition for disobedience. If I am afraid of freedom, I cannot dare to say "no," I cannot have the courage to be disobedient. Indeed, freedom and the capacity for disobedience are inseparable; hence any social, political, and religious system which proclaims freedom, yet stamps out disobedience, cannot speak the truth.

Erich Fromm, On Desobedience and other Essays, 2nd ed, Redwood, 1984, p. 6 [essay: Disobedience as a psychological and moral problem, originally published in 1963]

HOW AARON SWARTZ WAS GOOD - AND HOW WE REMAIN BAD

The excerpt of Political Writings, by John Milton (1608-1674), we present here sets apart the good men from the bad ones, according to a criterion most will find hideous.

The fact that most join the group of the bad accounts for not only the existence of tyrannies, but also corruption, enduring injustice. Also explains why a young Brazilian woman (30 years old), a mother of a one or two year-old, living in a so called 'consolidated democracy', is in prison (as of June 4, 2012), deprived of all contact with family, whoever, paying for a crime she did not commit, but was rather perpetrated by policemen who sell themselves as executors - icons of impunity. 

The woman is Elize Matsunaga, widow of the grandson of the founder of YOKI, company bought by the American giant General Mills, who announced the deal in its webpage on June 24, 2012, three days after Marcos Matsunaga (besides heir, was the CEO) went missing. More about this here.

The good - there can be no mistake - are very much represented by AARON SWARTZ. The treatment he received is also in the lines reproduced below. We remain, however, largely mistaken in that we still fail to see tyranny where it is just before our eyes.That makes us bad, in Milton's indisputable conception.

John Milton's words still speak volumes. Here are they: 

 
Political Writings, John Milton, Cambridge University Press, p. 3:

If men within themselves would be govern'd [governed] by reason, and not generally give up their understanding to a double tyrannie [tyranny], of Custom from without, and blind affections within, they would discern better, what it is to favour and uphold the Tyrant of a Nation. But being slaves within doors, no wonder that they strive so much to have the public State comformably govern'd to the inward vicious rule, by which they govern themselves. For indeed none can love freedom heartilie [heartedly], but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence; which never hath [had] more scope or more indulgence then under Tyrants. Hence is it that Tyrants are not oft offended, nor stand much in doubt of bad men, as being all natually servile; but in whom virtue and truth worth most is eminent, then they fear in earnest, as by right their Masters, against them lies all their hatred and suspicion. Consequentlie [Consequently], neither do bad men hate Tyrants, but have been always readiest with the falsifi'd names of Loyalty, and Obedience, to colour over their base compliances...

OS BONS E OS MAUS, SEGUNDO JOHN MILTON

O trecho de John Milton (1608-1674) que apresentamos aqui separa o joio do trigo, os bons dos maus, segundo um critério que quase todos acharão odioso.

O fato de a maioria ser do grupo dos maus explica não apenas as ditaduras, mas a corrupção, a injustiça crônica. Explica por que uma mulher jovem brasileira, 30 anos, mãe de uma criança de um ano, ou dois, está presa, incomunicável, pagando por um crime que não cometeu, enquanto policiais que se vendem como executores estão impunes, às voltas com o negócio, como de costume.

O escrito é difícil para a maioria, o que me leva a "traduzi-lo". Milton argumenta que liberdade é coisa só para os bons. Os maus não se opõem aos tiranos. Estes dirigem "todo o seu ódio e suspeita" contra os bons, que seguem a "virtude e o verdadeiro valor".

Os maus desistem da razão, da compreensão, em favor de duas coisas: (1) do costume externo, ou seja, do que é o habitualmente aceito, do estabelecido ("as coisas são assim e pronto") e (2) dos cegos afetos internos, que têm também enorme peso nessa generalizada sujeição ao mal. 

Tais afetos cegos, por exemplo, levam os maus a rejeitarem os bons que os criticam, ainda que o façam com toda a razão (ra-zão de que os maus desistiram...) e com a intenção de ajudar os maus a se libertarem.

Os maus fazem amizade com os tiranos, os que matam. E chamam isso de outras coisas, como fé - no caso da Igreja -, ou chamam de lealdade, de obediência. Ou, ainda, de juízo: "Manda quem pode, obedece quem tem juízo". Isso só cabe na boca de um mau sujeito. 

Não se conforma você com a classificação de "mau"? Ora, quem apoia o poder que mata não é mau? É o quê? É também cego, certamente. Um cego ardiloso, cheio dos esquemas para tapar o sol com um discurso-peneira, repleto de furinhos, de incoerência. Isso, para os maus, é a "palavra de Deus". 

E quanto mais cheio de furinhos for o discurso, melhor o tomam, chamando os furinhos de outra coisa: de mistérios.

Agora, as palavras de Milton:

Se dentro de si as pessoas desejassem se governar pela razão e dela não abrissem mão - como em geral o fazem - em troca de uma dupla tirania, a do costume externo e a dos cegos afetos internos, elas entenderiam melhor o que implica favorecer e amparar o tirano de uma nação. Mas, como sejam escravos portas adentro, não admira se empenharem tanto em fazer o estado público se governar de acordo com a viciosa regra interior, mediante a qual governam a si mesmos. Na verdade, só as pessoas boas podem amar vigorosamente a liberdade; as demais amam não a liberdade, mas a permissão [que as autoridades concede]; que sempre teve mais amplitude e indulgência nas tiranias. Dos maus, os tiranos raras vezes esperam agressão ou mesmo deles suspeitam, já que são naturalmente servis. Por outro lado, para quem a virtude e o verdadeiro valor é o mais importante, destes têm [as autoridades] um temor profundo e, sendo por direito [tão somente por direito, ou seja, por via institucional] senhores deles, contra eles voltam todo o seu ódio e suspeita. É por isso que os maus não odeiam os tiranos, mas estão sempre prontos a colorir, com alegações falsas de "lealdade" e "obediência" [inclusive a Deus], suas torpes condescendências aos tiranos [a aprovação a coisas terríveis, como a Inquisição, é um exemplo].

John Milton, Escritos Políticos, p. 5-6, minha adaptação da tradução de Political Writings, publicada pela Martins Fontes.

Texto original, pela Cambridge University Press, p. 3:

If men within themselves would be govern'd [governed] by reason, and not generally give up their understanding to a double tyrannie [tyranny], of Custom from without, and blind affections within, they would discern better, what it is to favour and uphold the Tyrant of a Nation. But being slaves within doors, no wonder that they strive so much to have the public State comformably govern'd to the inward vicious rule, by which they govern themselves. For indeed none can love freedom heartilie [heartedly], but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence; which never hath [had] more scope or more indulgence then under Tyrants. Hence is it that Tyrants are not oft offended, nor stand much in doubt of bad men, as being all natually servile; but in whom virtue and truth worth most is eminent, then they fear in earnest, as by right their Masters, against them lies all their hatred and suspicion. Consequentlie [Consequently], neither do bad men hate Tyrants, but have been always readiest with the falsifi'd names of Loyalty, and Obedience, to colour over their base compliances...

REASONS; THE AARON SWARTZ LIBRARY

In a nut shell (pls, Brazilians, do not translate that as "numa casca de noz"!!), Aaron Swartz was the antithesis to this picture.

Regretfully, we today face the future without him.

We face, still, a primitive world where laws are tougher with thinkers.

I have spotted something curious, a direct correction: the more a political unit is ridden with corruption, the more public authorities' voice increases in tone: "We must set an example!". That came out of the mouth of public prosecutors in the Brazilian state of São Paulo, when addressing the case of a twenty-something law student who tweeted, when she knew Dilma Rousseff had won the final round, something like this: pls let a person from the northeast be drowned.

Northeast is the part of Brazil where Rousseff's (and Lula's) party is very strong - politically speaking, people there vote for assistance and assistance.

the more a political unit is ridden with corruption,

the more public authorities' voice increases in tone.

The girl just mentioned immediately lost her job. And her scholarship. When I last read about the case, she had been found guilty, but I think she could appeal by that time. No more did I hear about it. About the 'example' the authorities need.

I still ask myself, What if she was not a girl? If the tweet had come from a young man? Or from a wealthy person?

That very body of prosecutors keeps a High School - and housed an international seminar, while that girl was facing charges for racism. In that seminar, an American specialist was invited to argue that "the legal system should not aim at punishing, but at educating and integrating."

Today, papers are once again showing prosecutors targeting at students - this time, dozens from the University of São Paulo (USP).  And they are openly determined to punish.

Authorities pursue. That seems to be a long surviving method, they have consistently applied when striving  to set themselves as 'examples. But setting examples of what?

When the future is at stake, that is the most relevant question to which a reply is still missing.

I do not see Aaron as a martyr. Some appear to try to make him fill a hole - I fear that hole is the very endless fight of the Rebel.  And to get the meaning of rebel here, one must read The Rebel, here.

We should use libraries to become able

to ask essential questions

The Library named after Aaron we started on the 30th-day anniversary of his death does not intend to fill any hole.

Regretfully, most of us use libraries to eventually become authorities, eager to be seen as 'examples'. We should use libraries to become able to ask essential questions. One of them, again, is: Examples of what? We have failed to use libraries to answer that question.

And one result of that was Aaron's suicide at 26. His age must remain part of the fact. It should have been a big factor when that certain prosecutor-pursuer was building his case against Aaron.  

It wasn't. His 'exemplary' performance was his final goal.

The name of the prosecutor we omit here is found in the report of Aaron's memorial, whose link is

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/friends-family-mourn-reddit-founder-article-1.1243444