Tempus Non Nascitur, Fit

Poul Anderson, Time Patrol (New York, 2006).

The opening story, "Time Patrol," contains no less than four Latin phrases.

Mainwethering: "...res naturae..." (p. 21).
Mainwethering: "Tempus non nascitur, fit." (p. 29)
Everard: "Tempus fugit." (ibid.)
Everard: "...peregrinator temporis..." (p. 38)

Mainwethering (pronounced "Mannering," I think) says that his second phrase, meaning "Time is not born, it is made," is a parody but I do not know of what.

(Another Latin saying that could be relevant here is "Tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis" ("Times change and we change with them"). This already evocative phrase could become doubly so in a Time Patrol scenario.)

Mainwethering tells Everard and Whitcomb that a time shuttle stolen in 2987 was "'[f]inally recovered from fifth century Britain by two Patrolmen named haw! Everard and Whitcomb.'" (p. 28) We soon learn that Time Patrol rules usually prohibit Patrolmen being told their own futures. Everard asks:

"'If we've already succeeded, why bother?'" (ibid.)

I think that an initial response to Everard's question should be as follows:

Mainwethering is addressing him and Whitcomb in 1894;
Mainwethering has made inquiries and received a reply from a Patrol office further in the future (the stolen time shuttle had originated in the "Ing Empire" period, later than 2987 and separated from it by an Interregnum);
according to that reply, two Patrolmen named Everard and Whitcomb did recover the stolen time shuttle from fifth century Britain;
therefore, the current timeline contains a fifth century in which an Everard and Whitcomb recovered the shuttle and an 1894 in which an Everard and Whitcomb converse with Mainwethering;
therefore, there are two possibilities -

(i) the Everard and Whitcomb who are conversing with Mainwethering travel to the fifth century to recover the shuttle and return with it to 1894 (someone else will take it from then);
(ii) the Everard and Whitcomb who are conversing with Mainwethering do not travel to the fifth century, in which case they are still in 1894 when an Everard and Whitcomb return from the fifth century with the recovered shuttle.

In the case of (ii), they will have duplicated themselves and this is to be avoided.

Mainwethering's actual response to Everard, apart from looking shocked, is:

"'But my dear fellow! You have not already succeeded. The job is yet to do, in terms of your and my duration-sense. And please do not take success for granted merely because history records it. Time is not rigid; man has free will. If you fail, history will change and will not ever have recorded your success; I will not have told you about it.'" (pp. 28-29)

There is more but I need to pause here. Being told of their success might make them take it for granted which is why, we are told later in the series, it is usually forbidden to tell anyone the outcome of his own current or intended activities. If they fail, then their failure will happen in timeline 2. I have no alternative but to introduce the terminology of numbered timelines here because the conversation with Mainwethering occurs in a timeline in which they succeeded. If we are to consider the relationship between two timelines, then it makes sense to number them. Mainwethering has just told them about their success in timeline 1 and "'...will not have told [them] about it'" in timeline 2.

If we do not think in terms of timeline 1 preceding timeline 2 along a second temporal dimension at right angles to the timelines themselves, then we are left with the absurdity of Mainwethering effectively saying, "I have just told you about your success but it is nevertheless possible that I have not just told you about your success and indeed it is possible that the Mainwethering who is speaking to you at this moment is not speaking to you at this moment and does not even exist." This position is untenable.

Mainwthering continues:

"'That is undoubtedly what happened, if I may use the term "happened," in the few cases where the Patrol has a record of failure.'" (p. 29)

What is undoubtedly what happened? A Patrolman was told of his recorded success, took it for granted, therefore failed, therefore there is a record of failure, not of success? Granted causality violation, this could happen although I think that it would require at least two timelines, not just a single timeline in which neither the success nor any record of it ever happened. So, yes, Mainwethering may use the term "happened," because the past tense of this verb refers to an event in a previous timeline, not to a previous event in the current timeline.

Finally:

"'Those cases are still being worked on, and if success is achieved at last, history will be changed and there will "always" have been success. Tempus non nascitur, fit, if I may indulge in a slight parody.'" (ibid.)

Those cases are not "...still being worked on..." at the time when he is speaking in 1894. He means that those cases were worked on in earlier periods of his current timeline and will be worked on in later periods of his current timeline. Thus, there may be a subsequent timeline in which success has been achieved and therefore there has always been success with no need for quotation marks around "always." But the Mainwethering who is saying all this to Everard and Whitcomb will live out the remainder of his lifespan in his current timeline.