Leonard means "brave lion", derived from the Germanic elements levon "lion" and hard "brave, hardy". This was the name of a 5th-century Frankish saint from Noblac who is the patron of prisoners and horses. The Normans brought this name to England, though it did not become common there until the 19th century.
Reviewer 2 (Comments to the Author):
1. The paper needs to be rewritten to improve the English and logical expression.
We thank the reviewer for the great suggestion. We have been in accordance with the comments to modify the article to a more proper expression which had been revised by a native speaker.
谷歌搜图时惊现谜之叔本华。追过去一看，竟然来自Pottermore Ilvermony Sorting Ceremony；也不知道是谁编的，可能内部有阿图尔的间谍...
Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler
Revolutionaries should not think through other people's minds.
Or, perhaps they should? Or even ought to?
How can one change the world if one identifies oneself with everybody?
How else can one change it?
He who understands and forgives--where would he find a motive to act?
Where would he not?
各个角色说的每一句话都很通顺，但我就是不知道他们为什么要说这些，台词上段跟下段究竟有何关系。有人突然大笑，有人畏惧别人，有人下跪，有人露出谜之神色，而我根本不明白他们在干啥。之前读卡拉马佐夫兄弟前几百页时也有同样的感觉：What the hell is going on? 直到读大篇独白时才开始理解人物、情节与主旨。如果群魔没有独白，我觉得我就要彻底跪了。
Writers are necessarily ambivalent about any kind of recognition—honors, prizes, simple praise—because they are ambivalent about their relationship to the present. The first audience that a writer wants to please is the past—the dead writers who led him to want to write in the first place. Forced to admit that this is impossible, he displaces his hope onto the future, the posterity whose judgment he will never know. That leaves the present as the only audible judge of his work; but the present is made up of precisely the people whom the writer cannot live among, which is why he subtracts himself from the actual world in order to deposit a version of himself in his writing. The approbation of the living is thus meaningful to a writer only insofar as he can convince himself that it is a proxy for the approbation of the past or the future—insofar as it becomes metaphorical.
问题2. 历史上打着清算名号的事件，其结局分布如何？有多少变成了底层民众手刃中产阶级/民众自动形成all-against-all arena，统治阶级基本没损失/趁机进行派系斗争；有多少大致推翻了统治阶级，建立了新政权？
从去年十二月到现在，几乎每天都在想无论如何要给Mircea Eliade的Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return写一篇至少三千字的感想。Eliade的论证过程漏洞很明显，过度概括的嫌疑不小，但是……不写我难受得慌（。
From Hegel on, every effort is directed toward saving and conferring value on the historical event as such,the event in itself and for itself. In his study of the German Constitution, Hegel wrote that if we recognize that things are necessarily as they are, that is, that they are not arbitrary and not the result of chance, we shall at the same time recognize that they must be as they are. A century later, the concept of historical necessity will enjoy a more and more triumphant practical application: in fact, all the cruelties, aberrations, and tragedies of history have been, and still are, justified by the necessities of the "historical moment." Probably Hegel did not intend to go so far. But since he had resolved to reconcile himself with his own historical moment, he was obliged to see in every event the will of the Universal Spirit. This is why he considered "reading the morning papers a sort of realistic benediction of the morning." For him, only daily contact with events could orient man's conduct in his relations with the world and with God.
How could Hegel know what was necessary in history, what, consequently, must occur exactly as it had occurred? Hegel believed that he knew what the Universal Spirit wanted. We shall not insist upon the audacity of this thesis, which, after all, abolishes precisely what Hegel wanted to save in history--human freedom. But there is an aspect of Hegel's philosophy of history that interests us because it still preserves something of the Judaeo-Christian conception: for Hegel, the historical event was the manifestation of the Universal Spirit. Now, it is possible to discern a parallel between Hegel's philosophy of history and the theology of history of the Hebrew prophets: for the latter, as for Hegel, an event is irreversible and valid in itself inasmuch as it is a new manifestation of the will ofGod--a proposition really revolutionary, we should remind ourselves, from the viewpoint of traditional societies dominated by the eternal repetition of archetypes. Thus, in Hegel's view, the destiny of a people still preserved a transhistorical significance, because all history revealed a new and more perfect manifestation of the Universal Spirit. But with Marx, history cast off all transcendental significance; it was no longer anything more than the epiphany of the class struggle. To what extent could such a theory justify historical sufferings? For the answer, we have but to turn to the pathetic resistance of a Belinsky or a Dostoevski,for example, who asked themselves how, from the viewpoint of the Hegelian and Marxian dialectic, it was possible to redeem all the dramas of oppression, the collective sufferings, deportations, humiliations, and massacres that fill universal history.
Yet Marxism preserves a meaning to history. For Marxism, events are not a succession of arbitrary accidents; they exhibit a coherent structure and, above all, they lead to a definite end--final elimination of the terror of history, "salvation." Thus, at the end of the Marxist philosophy of history, lies the age of gold of the archaiceschatologies. In this sense it is correct to say not only that Marx "brought Hegel's philosophy back to earth" but also that he reconfirmed, upon an exclusively human level, the value of the primitive myth of the age of gold, with the difference that he puts the age of gold only at the end of history, instead of putting it at the beginning too. Here, for the militant Marxist, lies the secret of the remedy for the terror of history: just as the contemporaries of a "dark age" consoled themselves for their increasing sufferings by the thought that the aggravation of evil hastens final deliverance, so the militant Marxist of our day reads, in the drama provoked by the pressure of history, a necessary evil, the premonitory symptom of the approaching victory that will put an end forever to all historical "evil."
- Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return, Harper Torchbooks, 147-49 (1954)
您看，在某些和Marxism多少少少有点关系的国家， 不论是官方还是一部分勇于发声的民众似乎都具有一种几乎不可思议的justify the unjustifiable能力。这样的思考方式的形成是否和Eliade所描述的这种历史观有关系呢？这些国家走上了应该不怎么符合老马本人心意的道路，不过在我所知范围内他们好像也还是将“把历史的进程视为the epiphany of the class struggle” 这种特色史观保留在了教育和宣传系统中的（。