Old propaganda becomes mythologised. When a claim is invented and it appeals to a mindset it joins that fabulous tableaux. I live in a waspish culture. So it is their cache of tropes I was immersed in. My misfortune is, I have no comfort in it. Several of the tropes are utterly false, while others are highly debatable and suspect. Yet, they are resistant to change. Several of these show up, and rattled off in, even, college history survey courses. They are so accepted, that they have become proverbial. They have become successful, so successful that, even, those whom they are directed against believe them. The following are certain, anti-catholic chestnuts. Now, there are other believed fictions in the non-religious sphere also; they are frequent in fields where opposing camps have divided themselves, such as in politics*. When factual corrections, and logical, even irrefutable, evidence is given, the false position, often, withstands the assault of reality.
angels on a pin's head, or needle's point
Isaac D'Israeli (1766-1848), the father of premier Benjamin Disraeli, wished to ridicule Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics and he, not they, brought forth this argument. He may have been familiar with a handful satires written between his time and Thomas' time. He is the author of this fiction. Saint Thomas tells us that angels are non corporeal, so the question never was his.
mediæval flat earth
The man who invented Rip van Winkle, and Ichabod Crane, invented this one. Washington Irving wrote a book on the voyages of Columbus. Salamanca, the spanish university, in 1486 had a discussion on the circumference of the spherical earth, not whether the earth was spherical. The american 'mediæval' mind created this theory in 1828.
adam's belly button
Some people, fundamentalist protestants, are upset with Michelangelo's Sistine painting of Adam. Adam has a navel. This was neither a renaissance, nor mediæval dilemma. God created man (Adam) completely and perfectly intact. Before people read the Bible, in certain protestant manners, and thought processes, this issue was unthinkable.
bibles were kept locked and chained to prevent reading
Bibles, and other books, were chained, in part, for the same reasons some reference books in twentieth century libraries, telephone books in booths, registry books in guard shacks and hotels were--so that people didn't walk off with them, and that the next person could use them. Also some of these mediæval tomes were very valuable, and artworks in themselves. Further, before movable type and the printing press, literacy rates were lower. Further, access to cheap books for a mass public was a nineteenth century phenomenon, as was still greater rates of education and literacy. The rationale depicted in this myth is easily demonstrable as ridiculous, but its true purpose is to project a successful slander.
luther's theses
Luther and the church door posting is a fiction, that, Luther in his own time denied. It is a dramatic, theatrical invention to trumpet his rôle.
spanish inquisition
In some versions 50 million or more were executed. Spain has not that population now in a far more populous world. Where did the bodies come from?
The spanish inquisition went on for centuries. Many real historians would cite the number of executions from one to ten thousand. This is part of the black legend that elizabethan propagandists used to slander, and libel, the spanish enemy. The tudor queen had an extensive terror, torture, and killing operation. A chief difference, between the two, was that the spanish institution allowed for legal defenses for the accused, while much of the english persecution was secret, and extra-legal, confere the tactics of the busheviks.
galileo
Galileo was under a condition of house arrest, not torture, nor execution.
mediæval burning of witches
The greatest number of witch trials were during the age of reason. The first english witch was executed in Elizabeth's reign. The scots first executed a great number of supposed witches beginning in 1590, in North Berwick. They were tortured and burnt. James VI was the instigator. Even greater numbers (a few thousand) during the seventeenth century. Calvinists, on both side of the Atlantic, hunted witches. Twenty were executed (nineteen hanged, one crushed) and five died in detention, all in Salem of Massachusetts Bay Colony, during 1692-3. In November of 1688 the irish, catholic, gaelic speaking, ex-slave, Mary Glover was hanged in Boston. Cotton Mather judged her guilty for all that she was as proof of being a witch.
dark ages
In this, supposedly, ignorant span of centuries the church created the university and the hospital as institutions. As a corrective one can read Régine Pernoud († 1998). Her quick, enjoyable read is available in english translation, Those Terrible Middle Ages (1997). Pernoud points out many historical fallacies, including the mussulman civilising influence, protestantism as liberating (in great contrast to a recent guest, Serene Jones, on the most recent Bill Moyers Journal, where she propagandised on Calvin as I turned on, and then off the set; usually Mr. Moyers has more accurate and credible guests), modernity as freedom and so on.
___________________________
*Republican talk radio is substantially of this nature, as is Fox television. John McCain had to tell a disbelieving woman that Obama was a christian, and not what she had heard. The false issue, that doubts his citizenship is of like nature, but this has always been the modus operandi of the Republicans. Oft told lies, especially appealing lies, are convincing.
Showing posts with label writer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writer. Show all posts
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Shakespeare knew it
How much more would Shakespeare have written if he had a typewriter? Thirty-seven, extant, credited plays, and the other poetry, of verbally dense work are studded with a myriad of gems. There are so many famous quotations, and beyond that many important insights of thought that are overlooked in the vast bounty.
In this one sentence, that has not been memorised by millions, Shakespeare destroys a baseline argument of the busheviks and the condoners of torture:
Some versions can compare to each other, film to film, film to print, and less at hand--live version to film, print or another live performance. As You Like It was filmed in 1936 and 2006. Elisabeth Bergner and Bryce Dallas Howard played Rosalind. Leon Quartermaine and Kevin Kline played Jacques. Bergner was a european german, and even though, she clearly pronounced each word, one could hear the teutonic tone from a distance, while Howard was brilliant and quite fetching. Quartermaine spoke the seven ages of man speech, in, virtually, the same tone, emotion and rhythm as I did off the page. It was almost unison, i was vainly impressed. Kline played the role far more lackadaisical.
A Midsummer Night’s Dream in 1935 was a delight, and one highlight was the hilarity of James Cagney as Bottom turning into an ass. Kline played the part in 1999. There are several fine, and great, actors appeared on film in Shakespeare. The wonderful part is, that, one can see the performances again and again. Richard Burton’s live performances on stage are not so recoverable for another look and listen. Film on disc is a great service.
But, back to the rack, the elizabethan english employed the rack and other forms of torture, and Shakespeare was fully aware. He had relatives tortured and killed. He himself was occasionally imperiled. Come Rack! Come Rope! (1912), a novel by Robert Hugh Benson, was written concerning that late elizabethan and early stuart time. Men could be broken to say anything true, imagined or fantastic; or for the pleasure of the torturers.
In this one sentence, that has not been memorised by millions, Shakespeare destroys a baseline argument of the busheviks and the condoners of torture:
PORTIA: Ay, but I fear you speak upon the rack,Perhaps, every person literate in english should be familiar with about a dozen plays of Shakespeare. He is meant to be read out loud. Film adaptations of his plays are not all that common, but some of them are excellent, and can be viewed while having the text near by.
Where men enforced do speak anything. — The Merchant of Venice III. ii. 33-4.
Some versions can compare to each other, film to film, film to print, and less at hand--live version to film, print or another live performance. As You Like It was filmed in 1936 and 2006. Elisabeth Bergner and Bryce Dallas Howard played Rosalind. Leon Quartermaine and Kevin Kline played Jacques. Bergner was a european german, and even though, she clearly pronounced each word, one could hear the teutonic tone from a distance, while Howard was brilliant and quite fetching. Quartermaine spoke the seven ages of man speech, in, virtually, the same tone, emotion and rhythm as I did off the page. It was almost unison, i was vainly impressed. Kline played the role far more lackadaisical.
A Midsummer Night’s Dream in 1935 was a delight, and one highlight was the hilarity of James Cagney as Bottom turning into an ass. Kline played the part in 1999. There are several fine, and great, actors appeared on film in Shakespeare. The wonderful part is, that, one can see the performances again and again. Richard Burton’s live performances on stage are not so recoverable for another look and listen. Film on disc is a great service.
But, back to the rack, the elizabethan english employed the rack and other forms of torture, and Shakespeare was fully aware. He had relatives tortured and killed. He himself was occasionally imperiled. Come Rack! Come Rope! (1912), a novel by Robert Hugh Benson, was written concerning that late elizabethan and early stuart time. Men could be broken to say anything true, imagined or fantastic; or for the pleasure of the torturers.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
my name it don't matter
When I was at university, I really became a confirmed folk music enthusiast. I mentioned to schoolmates, that, Bob Dylan was worthy of a Nobel prise; they softly ridiculed me. A while back, I read, he was nominated. To many, his voice is an obstacle. Some enjoy his work when performed by others. I knew one, whom, thought All along the watchtower, by Jimi Hendrix, was the finest rock song. I loved the voices of Joan Baez and Judy Collins. Those of my acquaintance did not. Many hours I played, listened, and sang to the records I enjoyed.
Dylan was not the only poet/lyricist, I found brilliant. There have been very, few, serious poets of the last half century, in the country, whose verses either sing or sting. Springsteen, Simon, Young and some other musicians have written gems, whilst professors and aesthetes type leaden words. Billy Collins has several delightful poems, some Richard Wilbur, and not much else. Robert Frost was a giant, Sandburg nearly and since their deaths it has fell. I know the russians have Vladimir Semjenovič Vysockij, and I have little familiarity of others.
Some of Dylan's songs took ancient folk melodies, and wedded words that had the same feel. Some lyrics struck deeply.
Certainly, there are other readings of Dylan, and he encourages an uncertainty as opposed to an understanding. The material after the early periods sings less to me.
Dylan was not the only poet/lyricist, I found brilliant. There have been very, few, serious poets of the last half century, in the country, whose verses either sing or sting. Springsteen, Simon, Young and some other musicians have written gems, whilst professors and aesthetes type leaden words. Billy Collins has several delightful poems, some Richard Wilbur, and not much else. Robert Frost was a giant, Sandburg nearly and since their deaths it has fell. I know the russians have Vladimir Semjenovič Vysockij, and I have little familiarity of others.
Some of Dylan's songs took ancient folk melodies, and wedded words that had the same feel. Some lyrics struck deeply.
Oh my name it is nothin'Dylan was a young man, and some of the lines were weary and haggard. There is the knowing desperation, the weltschmerz of the observant powerless. I also knew, that, my name it don't matter, and the land i came from is called the midwest. I, most probably, will never be recognised; and though my name means something to me, it does not to others, but i can place myself in time.
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest...
...I was so much older then,My youth was sharply earnest. I knew it then, and was not going to reject nor deny it, but with the passage of time, I have grown tired, if not wiser. I was older then, i am younger than that now. Sounds a paradox, but that which i would battle then with gusto and awareness, now still exists, and my sabre is not forged. The passage of time puts me unready for engagement, and i knew that then.
I'm younger than that now.
Certainly, there are other readings of Dylan, and he encourages an uncertainty as opposed to an understanding. The material after the early periods sings less to me.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Short shrift
This term appears in Shakespeare's longest play, Richard III. Lord Hastings is to be executed, to his surprise, and these being christian people, the condemned is supposed to be allowed last rites for the benefit of his eternal soul. To be shriven is to use the sacrament of confession, hence 'Shrove Tuesday'. Hastings is being pressured first by Ratcliff, and then by Lovel to hurry up, and dispatch. Richard (Duke of Gloster) is hungry, presumably so are they, and he wants the beheading executed, so that, he can be nourished and satiated.
Lord Hastings. Woe, woe for England! not a whit for me;One of the characters, in the novel and movie, The Reader, speaks of the task in killing many people. One of the soldiers, the fellow speaking, sits down to smoke a cigarette, between dispatches. This bunch is done, and I take a smoke break, and then return to the job at hand. No thought of significance or morality, just the infringing annoyance preventing an ordinary enjoyment done several times a day.
For I, too fond, might have prevented this.
Stanley did dream the boar did raze his helm;
But I disdain'd it, and did scorn to fly:
Three times to-day my foot-cloth horse did stumble,
And startled, when he look'd upon the Tower,
As loath to bear me to the slaughter-house.
O, now I want the priest that spake to me:
I now repent I told the pursuivant
As 'twere triumphing at mine enemies,
How they at Pomfret bloodily were butcher'd,
And I myself secure in grace and favour.
O Margaret, Margaret, now thy heavy curse
Is lighted on poor Hastings' wretched head!
Sir Richard Ratcliff. Dispatch, my lord; the duke would be at dinner:
Make a short shrift; he longs to see your head.
Lord Hastings. O momentary grace of mortal men,
Which we more hunt for than the grace of God!
Who builds his hopes in air of your good looks,
Lives like a drunken sailor on a mast,
Ready, with every nod, to tumble down
Into the fatal bowels of the deep.
Lord Lovel. Come, come, dispatch; 'tis bootless to exclaim.
Lord Hastings. O bloody Richard! miserable England!
I prophesy the fearful'st time to thee
That ever wretched age hath look'd upon.
Come, lead me to the block; bear him my head.
They smile at me that shortly shall be dead.
[Exeunt] III. 4.
"...It was in a quarry, and above the Jews and the soldiers there was an officer sitting on a ledge in the rock swinging his legs and smoking a cigarette. He looked a little morose. Maybe things weren't going fast enough for him. But there was also something satisfied, even cheerful about his expression, perhaps because the day's work was getting done and it was almost time to go home. He didn't hate the Jews. He wasn't..."Evil is often banal. Consideration for a victim's life is trivial in comparison.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Die Schuldfrage/The Question of Guilt
In 1946, a professor of philosophy, at Heidelberg, lectured on guilt. That year a short book was published, Die schuldfrage : ein beitrag zur deutschen frage, The question of guilt: a contribution to the german question, which is usually rendered, The Question of German Guilt. Karl Jaspers had been a psychiatrist. After the first war, he became a philosopher. After 1933 and especially after 1938, life became difficult. Jaspers had married a jewess. After Dachau was established, he at any day, might become a resident, and his wife...
Jaspers was an existentialist, who was interested in christian mysticism, but did not believe in a personal God. He believed in a transcendence. As a psychiatrist, he studied delusion. As a man, he worried about the power of the modern world to crush men. He was an humanist. One can see how he would not have been a favorite of the fascists, then or now.
He wrote, and spoke, and by doing so ― questioned. There is guilt and liability, personal and collective, and there is responsibility. It is not sui generis, there is criminal, political, moral, and [he is a philosopher] metaphysical. Nuremberg had trials, at the time. The student in Germany must confront this in his culture and education.
Two of the recent award winning movies concerned this: The Reader, from a novel by Bernhard Schlink, and Frost/Nixon, from a play by Peter Morgan. In the former, Jaspers book, is specifically mentioned, at the beginning of a law seminar, as required reading. Several books are read from in the film, that one is not; but it is a thesis of the story. In the latter, there is an admission, by Nixon in an interview with Frost,“Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”* The ‘it’― that which, Mr. Frost posits, is something illegal. This is the old political theory, that, the sovereign is above the law; it is the opposite of that which is taught, in the american classroom, to children.
After Nixon’s resignation, his successor pardoned him. Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election, in part, due the anger of that move. Much of the nation believed and wanted a criminal trial. Some Republicans wanted revenge. Carter, Clinton and Obama are immaterial, any Democrat, thoroughly irregardless of thought, belief or deed will be attacked, even hysterically ― a priori.
Now, the germans must struggle with morality. The United States has no such compunction, or even scruples. A great deal is because of the essential, calvinist mythology developed here. Such americans, and the United States are uncondtionally, predestined for earthly glory; will not be damned: because, they cannot be; they need partake in no, personal atonement, it has been done for them by God; they can never lose this state. What this means, is they have absolute license and no culpability. History, even chronicles, are devoid of meaning and cannot instruct.
The german has to consider the burden of the nation’s fascist and nazi past. Certain routes of behavior are suspect, and cannot appear to be engaged in. In the United States of America there is a sizeable percentage of people, that will complain and accuse, and condemn the “blame America first crowd” and those citizens whom “hate America”. A german is required by the world to be moral, many americans, merely, and quickly sanctify every action.
Now, Nixon was wily, paranoid and vindictive. His Viet Nam policy and all the spying, dirty tricks and criminality that surrounded Watergate indicts him to history; but the man had a certain gravitas, he did do good things, he had diligence and he is better than any Republican who followed. Perhaps, the greatest evil he did was the promotion, from political oblivion, of GHW Bush, for his spawn, had none of the good qualities of Nixon, and did greater harm to the nation, and the world, in exceeding the degree of criminalities that Nixon invoked, caused and did do.
Just recently, Miss Rice, took a question at Stanford about busheviks and torture, she answered, “by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.” Yesterday, she was asked, by a fourth grade elementary student a similar question. She responded, “So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country.” She has a remarkable firmness in denial, she will not shake the party line. Those are just two incidents, but will the nation’s youth be undaunted in asking the questions, that, the press and the legal system are silent about?
__________________
*This was on the third televised program, seen 19 May 1977, in the story it is at the end.
Jaspers was an existentialist, who was interested in christian mysticism, but did not believe in a personal God. He believed in a transcendence. As a psychiatrist, he studied delusion. As a man, he worried about the power of the modern world to crush men. He was an humanist. One can see how he would not have been a favorite of the fascists, then or now.
He wrote, and spoke, and by doing so ― questioned. There is guilt and liability, personal and collective, and there is responsibility. It is not sui generis, there is criminal, political, moral, and [he is a philosopher] metaphysical. Nuremberg had trials, at the time. The student in Germany must confront this in his culture and education.
Two of the recent award winning movies concerned this: The Reader, from a novel by Bernhard Schlink, and Frost/Nixon, from a play by Peter Morgan. In the former, Jaspers book, is specifically mentioned, at the beginning of a law seminar, as required reading. Several books are read from in the film, that one is not; but it is a thesis of the story. In the latter, there is an admission, by Nixon in an interview with Frost,“Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”* The ‘it’― that which, Mr. Frost posits, is something illegal. This is the old political theory, that, the sovereign is above the law; it is the opposite of that which is taught, in the american classroom, to children.
After Nixon’s resignation, his successor pardoned him. Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election, in part, due the anger of that move. Much of the nation believed and wanted a criminal trial. Some Republicans wanted revenge. Carter, Clinton and Obama are immaterial, any Democrat, thoroughly irregardless of thought, belief or deed will be attacked, even hysterically ― a priori.
Now, the germans must struggle with morality. The United States has no such compunction, or even scruples. A great deal is because of the essential, calvinist mythology developed here. Such americans, and the United States are uncondtionally, predestined for earthly glory; will not be damned: because, they cannot be; they need partake in no, personal atonement, it has been done for them by God; they can never lose this state. What this means, is they have absolute license and no culpability. History, even chronicles, are devoid of meaning and cannot instruct.
The german has to consider the burden of the nation’s fascist and nazi past. Certain routes of behavior are suspect, and cannot appear to be engaged in. In the United States of America there is a sizeable percentage of people, that will complain and accuse, and condemn the “blame America first crowd” and those citizens whom “hate America”. A german is required by the world to be moral, many americans, merely, and quickly sanctify every action.
Now, Nixon was wily, paranoid and vindictive. His Viet Nam policy and all the spying, dirty tricks and criminality that surrounded Watergate indicts him to history; but the man had a certain gravitas, he did do good things, he had diligence and he is better than any Republican who followed. Perhaps, the greatest evil he did was the promotion, from political oblivion, of GHW Bush, for his spawn, had none of the good qualities of Nixon, and did greater harm to the nation, and the world, in exceeding the degree of criminalities that Nixon invoked, caused and did do.
Just recently, Miss Rice, took a question at Stanford about busheviks and torture, she answered, “by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.” Yesterday, she was asked, by a fourth grade elementary student a similar question. She responded, “So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country.” She has a remarkable firmness in denial, she will not shake the party line. Those are just two incidents, but will the nation’s youth be undaunted in asking the questions, that, the press and the legal system are silent about?
__________________
*This was on the third televised program, seen 19 May 1977, in the story it is at the end.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
It is four, it is always four!
Sometimes one thing reminds one of another, and sometimes there is chain of provenance of memories and works. Last night I had a couple of discussions, and in between them I remembered a scene from a television show. The scene had the actor, Patrick Stewart being subjected; the scene is a retelling of Orwell. The character O’Brien, was portrayed by Richard Burton, in an extremely grey Nineteen Eighty-Four [which I do not remember well] at the picture show, but the motivation of the interrogator (read torturer) was shown better in Star Trek as, the unnamed, Gul [captain] Madred. The two and two formula of truth, I have remembered maintaining many times as truth and freedom, and have been appalled by the other conversant not agreeing. I remember Dostojevskij, and other russians, and Aristotle, and Aquinas, and the epitome of the self evident.
In a two part episode, Chain of Command, of the second Star Trek, which came out very late in 1992, Captain Picard is captured by the next series main villains, Cardassians. They want military information and plans. The interrogating officer finds out Picard knew nothing of any military plans, yet the torture continues. He shows four lights. The answer he wants to hear from Picard is that there are five.
The torturer received news of the agreement which is to have Picard released immediately, he [the torturer] quickly attempts to fool and pressure Picard to verbally break, and to state the evident falsity as actuality. Guards come to escort Picard’s release, and are displeased that the officer does not have Picard ready. Picard stands defiant, “There are four lights!”
Elsewhere, Captain Picard remarked,“Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced.” The torturer says to his daughter: “But human mothers and fathers don’t love their children as we do.” At times, the episode is chilling, it is even more chilling, that such scenes happen every day, and by fellow citizens. I have since read, that, the scriptwriter, Frank Abatemarco, was in contact with Amnesty International.
____________________
From, George Orwell, 1984, part 3, chapter 2:
'Do you remember,' he went on, 'writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four"?'
'Yes,' said Winston.
O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'
'Four.'
'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'
'Four.'
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four.'
The needle went up to sixty.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Five! Five! Five!'
'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'
'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'
Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.
'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.
'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'
'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'
He laid Winston down on the bed. The grip of his limbs tightened again, but the pain had ebbed away and the trembling had stopped, leaving him merely weak and cold. O'Brien motioned with his head to the man in the white coat, who had stood immobile throughout the proceedings. The man in the white coat bent down and looked closely into Winston's eyes, felt his pulse, laid an ear against his chest, tapped here and there, then he nodded to O'Brien.
'Again,' said O'Brien.
The pain flowed into Winston's body. The needle must be at seventy, seventy-five. He had shut his eyes this time. He knew that the fingers were still there, and still four. All that mattered was somehow to stay alive until the spasm was over. He had ceased to notice whether he was crying out or not. The pain lessened again. He opened his eyes. O'Brien had drawn back the lever.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four. I suppose there are four. I would see five if I could. I am trying to see five.'
'Which do you wish: to persuade me that you see five, or really to see them?'
'Really to see them.'
'Again,' said O'Brien.
Perhaps the needle was eighty -- ninety. Winston could not intermittently remember why the pain was happening. Behind his screwed-up eyelids a forest of fingers seemed to be moving in a sort of dance, weaving in and out, disappearing behind one another and reappearing again. He was trying to count them, he could not remember why. He knew only that it was impossible to count them, and that this was somehow due to the mysterious identity between five and four. The pain died down again. When he opened his eyes it was to find that he was still seeing the same thing. Innumerable fingers, like moving trees, were still streaming past in either direction, crossing and recrossing. He shut his eyes again.
'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'
'I don't know. I don't know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six -- in all honesty I don't know.'
'Better,' said O'Brien.
In a two part episode, Chain of Command, of the second Star Trek, which came out very late in 1992, Captain Picard is captured by the next series main villains, Cardassians. They want military information and plans. The interrogating officer finds out Picard knew nothing of any military plans, yet the torture continues. He shows four lights. The answer he wants to hear from Picard is that there are five.
The torturer received news of the agreement which is to have Picard released immediately, he [the torturer] quickly attempts to fool and pressure Picard to verbally break, and to state the evident falsity as actuality. Guards come to escort Picard’s release, and are displeased that the officer does not have Picard ready. Picard stands defiant, “There are four lights!”
Elsewhere, Captain Picard remarked,“Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders why it is still practiced.” The torturer says to his daughter: “But human mothers and fathers don’t love their children as we do.” At times, the episode is chilling, it is even more chilling, that such scenes happen every day, and by fellow citizens. I have since read, that, the scriptwriter, Frank Abatemarco, was in contact with Amnesty International.
____________________
From, George Orwell, 1984, part 3, chapter 2:
'Do you remember,' he went on, 'writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four"?'
'Yes,' said Winston.
O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'
'Four.'
'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'
'Four.'
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four.'
The needle went up to sixty.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Five! Five! Five!'
'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'
'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'
Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.
'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.
'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'
'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'
He laid Winston down on the bed. The grip of his limbs tightened again, but the pain had ebbed away and the trembling had stopped, leaving him merely weak and cold. O'Brien motioned with his head to the man in the white coat, who had stood immobile throughout the proceedings. The man in the white coat bent down and looked closely into Winston's eyes, felt his pulse, laid an ear against his chest, tapped here and there, then he nodded to O'Brien.
'Again,' said O'Brien.
The pain flowed into Winston's body. The needle must be at seventy, seventy-five. He had shut his eyes this time. He knew that the fingers were still there, and still four. All that mattered was somehow to stay alive until the spasm was over. He had ceased to notice whether he was crying out or not. The pain lessened again. He opened his eyes. O'Brien had drawn back the lever.
'How many fingers, Winston?'
'Four. I suppose there are four. I would see five if I could. I am trying to see five.'
'Which do you wish: to persuade me that you see five, or really to see them?'
'Really to see them.'
'Again,' said O'Brien.
Perhaps the needle was eighty -- ninety. Winston could not intermittently remember why the pain was happening. Behind his screwed-up eyelids a forest of fingers seemed to be moving in a sort of dance, weaving in and out, disappearing behind one another and reappearing again. He was trying to count them, he could not remember why. He knew only that it was impossible to count them, and that this was somehow due to the mysterious identity between five and four. The pain died down again. When he opened his eyes it was to find that he was still seeing the same thing. Innumerable fingers, like moving trees, were still streaming past in either direction, crossing and recrossing. He shut his eyes again.
'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'
'I don't know. I don't know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six -- in all honesty I don't know.'
'Better,' said O'Brien.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
George,Quijote and the Dragon
To-day is Saint George’s, and the traditional date of the death of Miguel de Cervantes. Heroism of the struggle, with the ardor of a chivalric, christian heart ties these two together. The dragon is symbolic of a fearsome adversary. Saint George defeated him. In Cervantes Don Quijote, our befuddled caballero was, in spirit, the perfect christian chevalier. I could write a book on this, but I have not the audience, nor the support...
Jurij Zaninović. Bridge with four dragons. 1900-01. Ljubljana.
I am also fascinated with the word for the creature: draco, drakon, zmaj, aždaja, smok. There are particular dragons, and there are types of dragons, and the general dragon. (The east asian dragons have a different ethos, from the indo-european dragons.) These dragons share with the biblical dragon an interchangeability with the serpent, but with wings and fire, which greatly increases their fearsome mythology. There are exceptions to their rapacious, evil ferocity, some are guardians. This is surprising and interesting. The dragon of Ljubljana, ljubljanski zmaj, supposedly guards the bridge, and the city; yet in the small town of Sveti Jurij (Saint George) not far off, the traditional heraldic depiction of the armoured and caped saint dispatching the fearsome beast with a lance is the coat of arms, shield, and flag. A similar Jurij serves Moscow. Now, the serbs also love George, as the english once did, but in addition to the generic slavonic zmaj, they also name aždaja. This dragon came from Persia and the zoroastrians, but not directly. The barbarian turks picked up words from conquered civilisations and were linguistic vehicles.
To further speculate, wildly, and most uncertainly: there is the less common words 'pogoj' dragon, and, in srpskohrvatsko, 'pakoa', hell, perhaps suggesting sulfurous pitch*. In addition the greek 'hades', 'aidelon', and 'άδης', fires of hades, and in Plato, the house of hades. From the greeks the russians got 'ad' in addition to their variation of peklo, pekel, pakao, pekla. There is the persian 'aži dahāka'. Is there a multi-lingual convergence of creature and locale? of dragon and hell? Or am I like the father in, My big fat greek wedding, creating fanciful etymologies?
_____________
*Jakob Grimm noted the fire and stench of slavonic hells, and modern greek hell. The hebraic 'gehenna' has often been translated into hellfire, and fire and brimstone means fire and sulfur.
Jurij Zaninović. Bridge with four dragons. 1900-01. Ljubljana.I am also fascinated with the word for the creature: draco, drakon, zmaj, aždaja, smok. There are particular dragons, and there are types of dragons, and the general dragon. (The east asian dragons have a different ethos, from the indo-european dragons.) These dragons share with the biblical dragon an interchangeability with the serpent, but with wings and fire, which greatly increases their fearsome mythology. There are exceptions to their rapacious, evil ferocity, some are guardians. This is surprising and interesting. The dragon of Ljubljana, ljubljanski zmaj, supposedly guards the bridge, and the city; yet in the small town of Sveti Jurij (Saint George) not far off, the traditional heraldic depiction of the armoured and caped saint dispatching the fearsome beast with a lance is the coat of arms, shield, and flag. A similar Jurij serves Moscow. Now, the serbs also love George, as the english once did, but in addition to the generic slavonic zmaj, they also name aždaja. This dragon came from Persia and the zoroastrians, but not directly. The barbarian turks picked up words from conquered civilisations and were linguistic vehicles.
To further speculate, wildly, and most uncertainly: there is the less common words 'pogoj' dragon, and, in srpskohrvatsko, 'pakoa', hell, perhaps suggesting sulfurous pitch*. In addition the greek 'hades', 'aidelon', and 'άδης', fires of hades, and in Plato, the house of hades. From the greeks the russians got 'ad' in addition to their variation of peklo, pekel, pakao, pekla. There is the persian 'aži dahāka'. Is there a multi-lingual convergence of creature and locale? of dragon and hell? Or am I like the father in, My big fat greek wedding, creating fanciful etymologies?
_____________
*Jakob Grimm noted the fire and stench of slavonic hells, and modern greek hell. The hebraic 'gehenna' has often been translated into hellfire, and fire and brimstone means fire and sulfur.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Anselm, Doctor of the Church
To-day is Saint Anselm's day. Nine hundred years ago, to-day, he left the earthly life. He is apelled: d'Aosta, à Bec, of Canterbury, depending on the language used, and the nation claiming. He was born in Aosta (Piedmont Italy) and went on to Bec (Norman France) and became a benedictine monk, scholar and philosopher. Now, in the year Anselmo reached Christ's age, William conquered England, and Anselm was prior at Bec, the prevous prior, Lanfranc became the archbishop of Canterbury in 1070. Lanfanc was succeeded by Anselm. William (II) Rufus was an overreaching, immoderate king, and interfered with church affairs. For four years the see was left vacant as William Rufus collected and robbed what was available. Anselm succeeded his old teacher, and inherited his problems. With a new king, Henry I, a slightly better go went forth, although Anselm would still find exile. The conflict between mitre and crown would continue in England for centuries, until the faith was completely forbidden. Now, neither Canterbury nor the crown mean much of anything, outside of pomp and ceremony.Anselmo, during his time at Bec, was in the center of the intellectual world. Anselm is considered a founder of scholasticism. In philosophy and theology, he is the most important betwixt Augustine and Aquinas. In Cur Deus Homo, he writes on the theology of the Atonement. In the Proslogium, he gives two versions of, what Kant later calls, the ontological proof of God, which in the simplest manner can be reduced to: God exists by definition, because that which you understand to be, as what God would be, is an idea that could not be invented in your mind, by your mind.
Augustine said, "Crede, ut intelligas". Believe that you may understand.
Anselmo said, "Credo, ut intelligam". I believe that I may understand.
Christian faith was at the center of philosophy and understanding.
_______________________________
To-day, is also the birthday of the city of Rome.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thucydides and bushjr
Since it is truly hazardous to keep your position teaching the truth, yet important; I have long been of the opinion, that, history and politics need only be taught of the classical pre-christian age, the appropriate study of Herodotus, Tacitus, Livy, Cæsar will fully illuminate the issues of to-day; and still, people will know what implies what. Socrates was capitally condemned for subverting the youth. What does a knowledgeable, moral, and scrupulous teacher sacrifice for continued employment? or minimal criticism?
We can remember the play within a play, Shakespeare used, in Hamlet. He was telling the power that was, how it was. Hamlet did not survive the play. In the winter of 1933, as Weimar fell to the new reich, the operetta Der Silbersee had a ballade on Cæsar. Everyone knew that Cæsar was alive in Germany. The principals never worked in the homeland again, at least under that regime; if they had written and performed that work later, it would have been the hemlock they would taste. If the following passage was published in the papers of this land, or read on television and radio during the recent usurpation of government in early 2003, what would have been the responses?
*axis of evil, coalition of the willing, decapitating the regime, democracies, embedding, freedom fries, homeland security, mission accomplished, old Europe, patriot act, regime change, shock and awe, weapons of mass destruction, with us or against us, yellow cake
†...there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.―Darth Cheney. Speech to VFW National Convention. 26 August 2002.
...We know for a fact that there are weapons there.―Ari Fleischer. 9 January 2003.
...We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.―Donald Rumsfeld. 30 March 2003.
...Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction.―Jack Straw (British Foreign Secretary). 2 April 2003.
...Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.―Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff. 26 May 2003.
...For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.―Paul Wolfowitz. Vanity Fair. 28 May 2003.
...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.―george w bush. 30 May 2003.
‡En adoptant à l'unanimité la résolution 1441, nous avons collectivement marqué notre accord avec la démarche en deux temps proposée par la France : le choix du désarmement par la voie des inspections et, en cas d'échec de cette stratégie, l'examen par le Conseil de Sécurité de toutes les options, y compris celle du recours à la force...En réponse à cette question, la France a deux convictions: la première, c'est que l'option des inspections n'a pas été conduite jusqu'à son terme et peut apporter une réponse efficace à l'impératif du désarmement de l'Iraq ; la deuxième, c'est qu'un usage de la force serait si lourd de conséquences pour les hommes, pour la région et pour la stabilité internationale qu'il ne saurait être envisagé qu'en dernière extrémité...L'option de la guerre peut apparaître a priori la plus rapide. Mais n'oublions pas qu'après avoir gagné la guerre, il faut construire la paix. Et ne nous voilons pas la face : cela sera long et difficile, car il faudra préserver l'unité de l'Iraq, rétablir de manière durable la stabilité dans un pays et une région durement affectés par l'intrusion de la force. Face à de telles perspectives, il ya l'alternative offerte par les inspections, qui permet d'avancer de jour en jour dans la voie d'un désarmement efficace et pacifique de l'Iraq. Au bout du compte, ce choix là n'est-il pas le plus sûr et le plus rapide?...Il ya dix jours, le Secrétaire d'Etat américain, M. Powell, a évoqué des liens supposés entre Al-Qaida et le régime de Bagdad. En l'état actuel de nos recherches et informations menées en liaison avec nos alliés, rien ne nous permet d'établir de tels liens...Dans ce temple des Nations Unies, nous sommes les gardiens d'un idéal, nous sommes les gardiens d'une conscience.La lourde responsabilité et l'immense honneur qui sont les nôtres doivent nous conduire à donner la priorité au désarmement dans la paix.―Dominique de Villepin.14 February 2003.
In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, in case of failure of this strategy, the review by the Security Council of all options, including the use of force...In response to this question, France has two convictions: the first is that the option of inspections has not been carried through to its conclusion and can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq, the second is that use of force would be so fraught with consequences for men, for the region and for international stability that it can not be considered as a last resort...The option of war may appear a priori the fastest. But let us not forget that after winning the war, we must build peace. And let us be clear: this will be long and difficult, because it will preserve the unity of Iraq, restoring a lasting stability in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force. Faced with such prospects, there is the alternative offered by the inspections, which allows to move from day to day in the way of an effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. Ultimately, the choice is not the safest and fastest?...Ten days ago, U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, spoke of the supposed links between Al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. In our current state of research and information carried out in conjunction with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links...In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, we are the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor that we must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.[these two sentences, typically french]
§‘neo-conservatives’, ‘busheviks’
|| Robert Byrd, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry
**David Addington, Jay Bybee, Douglas Feith, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes II and John Woo. And of course bushjr, Cheney, Fleischer, Wolfowitz, Libby, Rumsfeld, et alia.
We can remember the play within a play, Shakespeare used, in Hamlet. He was telling the power that was, how it was. Hamlet did not survive the play. In the winter of 1933, as Weimar fell to the new reich, the operetta Der Silbersee had a ballade on Cæsar. Everyone knew that Cæsar was alive in Germany. The principals never worked in the homeland again, at least under that regime; if they had written and performed that work later, it would have been the hemlock they would taste. If the following passage was published in the papers of this land, or read on television and radio during the recent usurpation of government in early 2003, what would have been the responses?
[4] Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.* Reckless audacity† came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation‡ was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence, became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence._______________________________
[5] The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy§; his opponent a man to be suspected||. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended,
[6] until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime**. — Thucydides (Θουκυδίδης). c.400 b.C. from the History of the Peloponnesian War. Book III. chapter 82. Civil War in Corcyra (Κέρκυρα, Kérkyra, Corfu)
*axis of evil, coalition of the willing, decapitating the regime, democracies, embedding, freedom fries, homeland security, mission accomplished, old Europe, patriot act, regime change, shock and awe, weapons of mass destruction, with us or against us, yellow cake
†...there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.―Darth Cheney. Speech to VFW National Convention. 26 August 2002.
...We know for a fact that there are weapons there.―Ari Fleischer. 9 January 2003.
...We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.―Donald Rumsfeld. 30 March 2003.
...Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction.―Jack Straw (British Foreign Secretary). 2 April 2003.
...Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.―Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff. 26 May 2003.
...For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.―Paul Wolfowitz. Vanity Fair. 28 May 2003.
...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.―george w bush. 30 May 2003.
‡En adoptant à l'unanimité la résolution 1441, nous avons collectivement marqué notre accord avec la démarche en deux temps proposée par la France : le choix du désarmement par la voie des inspections et, en cas d'échec de cette stratégie, l'examen par le Conseil de Sécurité de toutes les options, y compris celle du recours à la force...En réponse à cette question, la France a deux convictions: la première, c'est que l'option des inspections n'a pas été conduite jusqu'à son terme et peut apporter une réponse efficace à l'impératif du désarmement de l'Iraq ; la deuxième, c'est qu'un usage de la force serait si lourd de conséquences pour les hommes, pour la région et pour la stabilité internationale qu'il ne saurait être envisagé qu'en dernière extrémité...L'option de la guerre peut apparaître a priori la plus rapide. Mais n'oublions pas qu'après avoir gagné la guerre, il faut construire la paix. Et ne nous voilons pas la face : cela sera long et difficile, car il faudra préserver l'unité de l'Iraq, rétablir de manière durable la stabilité dans un pays et une région durement affectés par l'intrusion de la force. Face à de telles perspectives, il ya l'alternative offerte par les inspections, qui permet d'avancer de jour en jour dans la voie d'un désarmement efficace et pacifique de l'Iraq. Au bout du compte, ce choix là n'est-il pas le plus sûr et le plus rapide?...Il ya dix jours, le Secrétaire d'Etat américain, M. Powell, a évoqué des liens supposés entre Al-Qaida et le régime de Bagdad. En l'état actuel de nos recherches et informations menées en liaison avec nos alliés, rien ne nous permet d'établir de tels liens...Dans ce temple des Nations Unies, nous sommes les gardiens d'un idéal, nous sommes les gardiens d'une conscience.La lourde responsabilité et l'immense honneur qui sont les nôtres doivent nous conduire à donner la priorité au désarmement dans la paix.―Dominique de Villepin.14 February 2003.
In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, in case of failure of this strategy, the review by the Security Council of all options, including the use of force...In response to this question, France has two convictions: the first is that the option of inspections has not been carried through to its conclusion and can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq, the second is that use of force would be so fraught with consequences for men, for the region and for international stability that it can not be considered as a last resort...The option of war may appear a priori the fastest. But let us not forget that after winning the war, we must build peace. And let us be clear: this will be long and difficult, because it will preserve the unity of Iraq, restoring a lasting stability in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force. Faced with such prospects, there is the alternative offered by the inspections, which allows to move from day to day in the way of an effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. Ultimately, the choice is not the safest and fastest?...Ten days ago, U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, spoke of the supposed links between Al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. In our current state of research and information carried out in conjunction with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links...In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, we are the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor that we must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.[these two sentences, typically french]
§‘neo-conservatives’, ‘busheviks’
|| Robert Byrd, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry
**David Addington, Jay Bybee, Douglas Feith, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes II and John Woo. And of course bushjr, Cheney, Fleischer, Wolfowitz, Libby, Rumsfeld, et alia.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Scorsese and Silence
Now, the path of an item of interest, that appears in a person’s field of interest is not always direct. I, casually looking at a citizen’s internet journal, was directed to an article in a catholic weekly, which further directed me to the AFP, which in mid-February ’09, picked up a story that nipponistas and film enthusiasts took up at the beginning of the month, which confirmed a story that was reported from Cannes in May of ’07--Martin Scorsese is to film, his version of, Shusaku Endo’s 1966 novel, Silence (Chinmoku). In August of ’06, an UK edition of the novel came out, with a foreword by Scorsese. In October ’06, he told reporters, that, he was considering it for fifteen years. I have not read that foreword, but it may tell us how Scorsese would present the story.
Scorsese once wanted to be a priest, and was a seminarian. He may have lost his faith, but is still interested in christian themes, the nature of Christ and belief, and perhaps, imposition and loss of belief. He made an adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis’ The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. Kazantzakis so bothered the church, that, he was denied a christian burial. The novel is worth reading. It deserved to be put on the Index. It was an heretical portrait of Christ, it was near adoptionism, and near nestorianism. It was not meant to be biographical. Kazantzakis changed several undisputed facts*. Scorcese’s film was protested, and anti-christians heralded it for free speech. I was not going to spend money on it, but I did get a tape from the library. I could not have watched more than twenty minutes of it. Scorsese insulted Kazantzakis, and what he did to Christ, well Jesus suffered more on the cross, but this was not to His benefit either. It was a totally wretched movie, well I admitted, that, I watched only the beginning, but if you start eating a meal and you are gagging, and sickened by the food, would you eat the remainder?
I, later, followed the news and the contrast with Mel Gibson’s, The Passion. News ran a long time before the film was shown. Gibson wants to make a movie. It can be filmed. He will pay for everything. It was to be filmed in Italy where Pasolini’s film, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, had been. No one will market the film. And then there was controversy: radical protestant fundamentalists, activist anti-anti-semites were incensed, Hollywood blackballed the movie, and Gibson. I would be far, far more comfortable with Mister Gibson.
Scorsese has made more excellent movies than disasters. The screen writer, for Silence, is to be Jay Cocks, who was the writer for Gangs of New York, a fabulous, sprawling disaster. Practically every person of note, associated with 19th century New York City was brought onto the screen. Facts and chronology were random. They both worked together on The Age of Innocence, which was a good movie. The two movies, that, I mentioned unfavorably, did receive great praise in certain quarters. Some people gravitate toward certain tastes and projects, based on their proclivities, and, of course, it varies. For those who have affection for Endo, and his subject manner, these are anxious moments.
__________
*from memory, he changed the number of apostles, and made Judas their chief; and he has a caravan bring the bark of the cinchona that produces quinine, which came from the Andes; these, I surmise, are hints that this is about a Jesus of an alternate universe.
postscriptum 30 July 2014: [click] Filming may soon begin.
Scorsese once wanted to be a priest, and was a seminarian. He may have lost his faith, but is still interested in christian themes, the nature of Christ and belief, and perhaps, imposition and loss of belief. He made an adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis’ The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. Kazantzakis so bothered the church, that, he was denied a christian burial. The novel is worth reading. It deserved to be put on the Index. It was an heretical portrait of Christ, it was near adoptionism, and near nestorianism. It was not meant to be biographical. Kazantzakis changed several undisputed facts*. Scorcese’s film was protested, and anti-christians heralded it for free speech. I was not going to spend money on it, but I did get a tape from the library. I could not have watched more than twenty minutes of it. Scorsese insulted Kazantzakis, and what he did to Christ, well Jesus suffered more on the cross, but this was not to His benefit either. It was a totally wretched movie, well I admitted, that, I watched only the beginning, but if you start eating a meal and you are gagging, and sickened by the food, would you eat the remainder?
I, later, followed the news and the contrast with Mel Gibson’s, The Passion. News ran a long time before the film was shown. Gibson wants to make a movie. It can be filmed. He will pay for everything. It was to be filmed in Italy where Pasolini’s film, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, had been. No one will market the film. And then there was controversy: radical protestant fundamentalists, activist anti-anti-semites were incensed, Hollywood blackballed the movie, and Gibson. I would be far, far more comfortable with Mister Gibson.
Scorsese has made more excellent movies than disasters. The screen writer, for Silence, is to be Jay Cocks, who was the writer for Gangs of New York, a fabulous, sprawling disaster. Practically every person of note, associated with 19th century New York City was brought onto the screen. Facts and chronology were random. They both worked together on The Age of Innocence, which was a good movie. The two movies, that, I mentioned unfavorably, did receive great praise in certain quarters. Some people gravitate toward certain tastes and projects, based on their proclivities, and, of course, it varies. For those who have affection for Endo, and his subject manner, these are anxious moments.
__________
*from memory, he changed the number of apostles, and made Judas their chief; and he has a caravan bring the bark of the cinchona that produces quinine, which came from the Andes; these, I surmise, are hints that this is about a Jesus of an alternate universe.
postscriptum 30 July 2014: [click] Filming may soon begin.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Carlyle and a theory of history
Thomas Carlyle, *4 December 1795, †1881, was a calvinist, who lost his christianity, but retained a moralism and certain prejudices. He studied at the University of Edinburgh, first for mathematics, and later german philosophy. After this, he is of interest, to me at least, as a passionate historian. Carlyle valued the importance of the spirit, individually and communally, over material values.
One of his arguments: The history of the world is but the biography of great men, is the point of my interest here. Many of us, especially in grade school, were taught of the great accomplishments of the american inventors — Bell, Edison, Ford the Wright Brothers, et alia. It was taught to us in such a way, that, as these men alone gave the world these devices, with an implied, though not stated, suggestion, that, without them nothing. And they were all americans. So the syllogism was implicated. A mixture of national triumphalism and inevitability; after all the space race was going to be won. Well, not all the men, who, garnered the credit, and the profit, were the real, or sole, or first inventor; and furthermore, such technology was being explored and worked with by many others. So if individual A was not there, an individual B, or C, or even Z would place the feather in his cap. Sometimes the circumstances necessitate the event.
Well, there are other instances, where, the actor involved does create a different history than another individual. Certainly, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were greater than their predecessors and successors. The unique qualities of these men shaped american history, as de Gaulle or Bismarck did their countries. Now, could another such contemporaneous individual have had the same effects? Or even if they did not, would that country’s history and society’s form be virtually the same an hundred years hence? Is there a sort of inevitable determinism of progression? Perhaps, the great man alters history, as in delaying something for a time, and not course. Well, all that involves a great deal of wild speculation.
Are significant (good or bad) individuals, heroes to Carlyle, akin to turning points in history? Were their particular presence enough to alter the course of mankind onto a different path? Or was their struggle with time and events historic in of itself?
Either way there are other historical contentions that are still true. I will refer to a few of the ancients. Aristotle stated that poetry spoke in universals, while history in particulars. History has many lessons, if people are willing to learn.
One of his arguments: The history of the world is but the biography of great men, is the point of my interest here. Many of us, especially in grade school, were taught of the great accomplishments of the american inventors — Bell, Edison, Ford the Wright Brothers, et alia. It was taught to us in such a way, that, as these men alone gave the world these devices, with an implied, though not stated, suggestion, that, without them nothing. And they were all americans. So the syllogism was implicated. A mixture of national triumphalism and inevitability; after all the space race was going to be won. Well, not all the men, who, garnered the credit, and the profit, were the real, or sole, or first inventor; and furthermore, such technology was being explored and worked with by many others. So if individual A was not there, an individual B, or C, or even Z would place the feather in his cap. Sometimes the circumstances necessitate the event.
Well, there are other instances, where, the actor involved does create a different history than another individual. Certainly, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were greater than their predecessors and successors. The unique qualities of these men shaped american history, as de Gaulle or Bismarck did their countries. Now, could another such contemporaneous individual have had the same effects? Or even if they did not, would that country’s history and society’s form be virtually the same an hundred years hence? Is there a sort of inevitable determinism of progression? Perhaps, the great man alters history, as in delaying something for a time, and not course. Well, all that involves a great deal of wild speculation.
Are significant (good or bad) individuals, heroes to Carlyle, akin to turning points in history? Were their particular presence enough to alter the course of mankind onto a different path? Or was their struggle with time and events historic in of itself?
Either way there are other historical contentions that are still true. I will refer to a few of the ancients. Aristotle stated that poetry spoke in universals, while history in particulars. History has many lessons, if people are willing to learn.
The principle office of history I take to be this: to prevent virtuous actions from being forgotten, and that evil words and deeds should fear an infamous reputation with posterity.—Tacitus
Not to know what happened before one was born is always to be a child.— Cicero
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Dante Alighieri
... love and tend the noble poet whom We do not hesitate to call the most eloquent singer of the Christian idea.
— Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum 1921
D(ur)ante Alighieri*1265, †1321 was the creator of literary italian. He is the italian poet, perhaps he is the poet. His poetic rendering, of heaven and hell, is understood to be a culmination of mediæval thought on the cosmos. This poem was the fruit of his exile. He was involved in the political life of Florence in Tuscany and belonged to a losing faction. His exile and death penalty was rescinded recently (June 2008) by the city’s council 19 - 5.
On this night, Dante entered to his eternal reward. His erudition and breadth of learning suggest he was a schoolman, but his academic route is lost to us. The comedy was written during his twenty years in Ravenna. The plot of the poem, as in the Odyssey, is going home, but the main character is the poet himself. He meets with the souls of the dead, some whom he knew, many notables of history. His enemies ended up in hell. He descends through the many levels of hell, and sees the torments and tormentors of the lost souls. He then travels to purgatory, where souls are being cleansed and have hope. Finally he visits heaven, and finds joy and radiance, the closer he gets to God, the greater the good.
Roberto Benigni, the actor that will be remembered in America for walkimg on top of seats to get to the Oscar stage, is a Danteïst scholar. His television programme, Tutto Dante, of lectures and recitations on the Divine Comedy was highly viewed. His live performances fill large venues. Can anyone in the US believe, that, a middle aged man, reciting the poetry of seven centuries ago, could outsell a teen idol whom dances to lip-synced music? Our gnomish buffoon, turned scholar, rhapsodises on the fifth canto of the Inferno, the story of the adulterous lust of Paolo and Francesca. The complete comedy is one hundred cantos.
In recent years, Dante’s skull has been graphed and imaged, so as, to recreate his appearance. A very, few years ago, the bones of Count Ugolino have been examined. In the poem, Ugolino is portrayed as being a man who ate the flesh of his fellow, imprisoned relatives. The surviving evidence casts doubt on that tale. So many passages are of continuing interest, especially the infernal descriptions.
In the infernal canto xxviii, we find the moslem heresiarch, split from chin to fundament. If this were to be written, two centuries on, Dante could have the protestant heresiarch, whom so much was consumed with fundamental concerns, join him in the same condition. There, is a church, in Bologna, that has the scene painted, obscurely, on the ceiling. This church has received bomb threats. Dante still invites strong feelings.
| Nel mezzo mi ritrovai per una selva oscura, ché la diritta via era smarrita. | Midway upon the journey of our life I found myself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost. I Canto I, 1-3 |
| Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate. | All hope abandon, ye who enter in. I Canto III, 9 |
| E quella a me: «Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi ne la miseria; e ciò sa ’l tuo dottore. | And she to me: “There is no greater sorrow Than to be mindful of the happy time In misery, and that thy Teacher knows. I Canto V, 121-123 |
| E’n la sua volontade è nostra pace. | And in His will is our peace. III Canto III, 85 |
| L’amor che muove il sole e l’altre stelle. | The Love which moves the sun and the other stars. III Canto XXXIII, 145 (final line) |
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Thomas More and William Shakespeare
“a man of the most tender and delicate conscience that the world saw since Augustine ”— John Donne“He was the person of the greatest virtue these islands ever produced.”— Jonathan Swift
“Blessed Thomas More is more important at this moment than at any moment since his death, even perhaps the great moment of his dying; but he is not quite so important as he will be in about a hundred years’ time.” — G. K. Chesterton
“the best friend the poor ever had” — Sir Thomas More, William Shakespeare et allia
“More is a man of an angel’s wit and singular learning. I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability? And, as time requireth, a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes, and sometime of as sad gravity. A man for all seasons.” — Robert Whittington in 1520
DON PEDRO
The sixth of July: Your loving friend, Benedick.
BENEDICK
Nay, mock not, mock not. The body of your
discourse is sometime guarded with fragments, and
the guards are but slightly basted on neither: ere
you flout old ends any further, examine your
conscience: and so I leave you.
— William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, I. i.
One joke is particularly puzzling. If Benedick ever does fall in love, laugh his friends, he will sign a letter on "the sixth of July." Benedick is stung. "Mock not, mock not," he reproves, "ere you flout old ends any further, examine your consciences." Like the language of the liturgy, July 6 meant nothing to Protestants at the time, and nothing either to modern textual commentators. But to Elizabethan Catholics it was a highly significant date. It was on July 6 that Henry VIII executed Sir Thomas More, his former chancellor, for refusing to acknowledge the monarch as the supreme head of the church in England. More had become the model for "recusant" English Catholics, ready to face destitution, imprisonment, exile, or death for their religion. The significance of the date was deepened for Catholics when the young Edward VI, Henry VIII's fervently Protestant son, also died on July 6--clearly a judgment on his heretic father. This is why Benedick puts a stop to the banter. His friends have gone too far. Mock not old ends he says--the deaths of Thomas More and Edward are not a laughing matter--and his parting shot "examine your consciences" is a reminder of the case of conscience which drove More to the scaffold. From this moment on, Benedick's behavior--and the hidden identity of Beatrice--would have been of consuming interest to dissident audiences. — Clare Asquith, ShadowplayShakespeare does not write nonsense. He always says something, you may not understand it, but he is imparting information, albeit, sometimes, in obscured references. The sixth of July must refer to something! Shakespeare had worked on a play about Thomas More. In his hand survives the lines, that, a censor warned him of consequences. Art was political, and not less so in the elisabethan police state. The poet saints Campion and Southwell were horribly executed, Marlowe was assassinated and others were also silenced. Shakespeare was adept at veiling and surviving. So what in english history, before 1600 would an audience note about that day? Shakespeare came from a family of recusants. The recusants were quite aware of the 6th of July.
A tragedy, Sir Thomas More, was written by a team of playwrights in 1592. One of the group, was our friend from Stratford. The play was not known to have been performed. The censor wrote on the manuscript, “Perform this scene at your peril.” Shakespeare is ‘Hand D’ in the autograph. His contribution includes More, as London sheriff, in quieting the anti-foreign mob*, in the riot of 1517. Thomas More was a dangerous topic in Elisabethan England.
For centuries, english catholics held the 6th of July for Thomas More. When Saint Thomas More was officially canonised by Rome in 1935, his day was shared with Saint John Fisher, whom was also martyred by Henry, on the 22nd of June, the day Fisher was executed. Either day commemorates.
Robert Bolt’s play and the subsequent movie, A Man for All Seasons, paints a marvelous and heroic portrait of More. A man of conscience, a living embodiment of its exemplar, a man whose opinion was necessary to legitimatise government policy. Other such individuals, Fisher, Reynolds, Webster, Hale, Houghton, Middlemore, Exmew, Newdigate, Forest met cruel torments and hideous executions. This is why More is a patron of conscience for the edification and benefit of all who would touch on the law, its advocates, legislators, counselors and statesmen. He would not consent, when refusal meant death. He was a man, whom “No” meant “No”. He would not assent to error mandated by the state.
An interesting note, the bolsheviks, after they seized Russia, had Thomas More’s name inscribed on a monument, in Aleksandrovskij Garden, Moskva. Was it in regard to his Utopia ? or his conscience?
________________________
*If one accepts Shakespeare’s catholic code, the foreign merchants being attacked can be identified with Catholic missionaries, whom were ministering to the faithful.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The last word with Shakespeare
Tempest Epilogue―Prospero’s Prayer
Spoken by Prospero (the actor – Will Shakespeare’s last appearance, last word)
Now my charms are all o’erthrown,Loreena McKennit edits this and sings it with a haunting and lovely tune.
And what strength I have’s mine own,
Which is most faint: now, ’tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardon’d the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon’d be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
Now my charms are all o'erthrown,Purgatory, a concept that bothered and continues to bother protestants, the soul’s or humanity’s eschatological dilemma must be alluded in this. After this, Shakespeare retired to exile in Stratford, away from London. A fair question is why was this his last statement? He appears on stage alone, the play is ended. There is a recurring metaphor for Shakespeare that the actor on the stage is all men in their own lives. We all must recognize that the word ‘indulgence’ was a politically/religiously loaded term, c.1612, after the Age of Faith and before the Age of Enlightenment. Here the actor is concerned for the fate of his soul and he begs for intercessory prayer, if not that, what else could it refer to? He is asking for mercy of Mercy, God in the person of Jesus. The divine arbiter of justice, who grants pardon and who had been pierced and is still being pierced.
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint: now, 'tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
[Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardon'd the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;] skipped
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
[Which was to please] twice Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon'd be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
George Abbot was Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, he had strong ‘puritan’ leanings and disapproved of both theatre and catholicks. James I was no friend to catholics, and this was after the Guy Fawkes hysteria. Shakespeare was not free to be a publick figure, yet he needed to speak, when it was perilous to do so. He spoke on multiple layers and not everyone receives every reference. Then as to-day, non-catholics are tone deaf to catholic words and misunderstand catholic concepts.
The english were still using the Julian calendar. William Shakespeare died on Saint George’s Day (and may have been born on that patronal feast of the english), 23 April 1616 (O.S.) (3 May N.S.). His public life was forced to end with this play, and though, not truly an elderly man, he had less than a handful of years left. His mind was considering the last years and the last four things. I believe, he says this in his last speech. He was a catholic. People knew he died as a ‘papist’. The sentiments of this last word fit catholic belief, theology and devotion.
Recently (1993), the Sunday immediately after the Resurrection has been named for the Divine Mercy*. The icon of this has two streams of light, red and white, emanating from the heart of Jesus. Our Lord grants mercy for our sins, and pardons our faults.
An older devotion is that to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It became fixed in the 17th century, but had existed for centuries before. The Sacred Heart is pierced by a crown of thorns and His heart bleeds for us.
Jesus at the end of His life is in torment, yet He prays for us, His fellow men. He asks for their forgiveness. He hears the confession of the penitent thief and promises him paradise. The last of the Seven Words of Jesus on the cross is said to his Father, Our Father:
et clamans voce magna Jesus ait Pater in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum et hæc dicens exspiravit_______________________
And Jesus crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost.― Luke xxiii. 46.
*In the vision granted to Saint Faustina *1905,†1938, Jesus says to her,
“I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy.”Of course, this is centuries after Shakespeare, but it is of the same spirit and spirituality. Catholicism has the same flavor in the first century as the twenty first.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Jurij Aleksejevič Gagarin
Human space travel began on the 12th of April 1961. The progression was dog, monkey (chimp), man. The tension and trepidation of the press and the public concerning surviving space was heavy. Lajka, the dog had died. A cosmonaut (spaceman) was as much a prisoner, and an experimentee as a trained pilot. Gagarin survived. Drama, there was: man conquers space.
The next year, it was a national holiday, Cosmonautics Day. It became an annual celebration for the Russians and the Soviets. The (US) National Space Society translated this into Yuri’s Night in 2001. The cold war was over, and the space shuttles made the news, only when they became disasters, and they wanted more space program.
Radio reports were broadcast across Russia, that first day, “The world's first spaceship, Vostok [East], with a man on board, has been launched on April 12 in the Soviet Union on a round-the-world orbit ”. The unnamed launch pad (at Bajkonur) was departed from at 9.07 a.m. Jurij Aleksejevič radioed back, “The flight is proceeding normally. I feel well ”, and “The flight is normal. I am withstanding well the state of weightlessness”. The public heard at 11.10, that at 10.25 the orbit was completed. The new Magellan, had gone faster and higher than any man had ever gone. The most perilous portion remained, re-entry and then the landing. At 12.25, the good and triumphant news came across broadcast radio, “At 10:55 Cosmonaut Gagarin safely returned to the sacred soil of our motherland ”.
Vostok 1 was the sputnik that carried Gagarin into orbit. The Mercury program in the US was put to shame and it groused. The accomplishment was played down, instruments did all that a man could do in space, for now. The russians were in the lead and that was not appreciated. Space was a prestige project. Russia and the United States competed on everything.
In interviews Gagarin spoke about his adventure:
“From the spaceship, I could not see as well as from an airplane, but still I could see very well. I saw with my own eyes the spherical shape of the earth. I must say that the view of the horizon is unusual and very beautiful. I could see the unusual transition from the light surface of the earth to the blackness of the sky. There is a very narrow band that makes the transition. This band is a delicate blue color.”
“The sun in outer space is tens of times brighter than here on earth. The stars are easily visible. They are bright and distinct. The entire picture of the firmament has much more contrast than when seen from the earth.”
“It is difficult to say in words all the feelings that took hold of me when I stepped on our Soviet land. First of all, I was glad because I had successfully fulfilled my task. In general, all my feelings can be expressed by one word: joy. When I was going down, I sang the song, The Motherland Hears, the Motherland Knows.”
On that first space flight, Jurij Aleksejevič sang a tune by Šostakovič of Dolmatovskij's lyrics*, which began:
Родина слышит, Родина знает,It was a great event, Gagarin became a celebrated, national hero and a world celebrity, and the Soviet government had bragging rights. He was Russia’s Lindbergh, Russia’s Columbus. A handsome russian boy who braved the future and succeeded. Khruščjev crowed, “Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any God there”.† He was never to fly as a cosmonaut again. Within seven years he was gone, a victim in a fighter plane crash.
Rodina slishit, Rodina znaet
Где в облаках её сын пролетает.
Gde v oblakakh eje sin proletaet.
The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows
Where in the clouds her son flies.
__________________________
Jevtušenko in a novel quotes from The Angel, in reference to Gagarin:
The angel was flying through sky in midnight,†This was Khruščjev’s propaganda boast, it was not Gagarin, who was a christian.
And softly he sang in his flight;
And clouds, and stars, and the moon in a throng
Hearkened to that holy song.
He sang of the garden of God's paradise,
Of innocent ghosts in its shade;
He sang of the God, and his vivacious praise
Was glories and unfeigned.
The juvenile soul he carried in arms
For worlds of distress and alarms;
The tune of his charming and heavenly song
Was left in the soul for long.
It roamed on earth many long nights and days,
Filled with a wonderful thirst,
And earth's boring songs could not ever replace
The sounds of heaven it lost.
― Mikhajl Jurijevič Lermontov
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Oldspeak, Verbicide and Incorrectionists
“Life and language are alike sacred. Homicide and verbicide — that is, violent treatment of a word with fatal results to its legitimate meaning, which is its life — are alike forbidden.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. in The Autocrat of the Breakfast-TableHolmes was speaking of puns, but the point made is greater than that. It goes to the nature of truth.
I learned and do speak english, or as George Orwell had called it in 1984,“oldspeak”. I speak as I knew and know. I shall resist attempts to be prescribed and proscribed. Orwell wrote, that the speakers of oldspeak were accused of thoughtcrimes. With the intensity that some of these incorrectionists hoist their words on us, it is as we were criminals. Some incorrectionists have faulty rules and conceptions of the propriety of grammar and vocabulary, and merely incorrect us as if they were schoolmarms; but others have a political agenda and their political correctness, I shall not put up with. People need correction if their thoughts and words are on wrong or incorrect information, but dictating the words and their meanings for one’s interest, independent or contrary of the truth, is evil. Our unapproved thoughts become thoughtcrimes or, in Newspeak, “crimethink”. I object to this malevolent censorship.
“By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. ” — George OrwellWe oldspeak speakers are endangered. There are several sorts of newspeak about us and their purveyors are aggressive. Certain groups have their agendas: commercial advertisers (e.g. I, if I wish to order a hamburger, shall call it a hamburger and not their silly term; likewise a coffee chain identifies cup sizes as short, tall, grande, vente, this is jumbled non-sense, the oldspeak is small, medium, large, extra large); the government (Patriot Act = curbing of the Bill of Rights); the police (person of interest = suspect); and the military (surge = escalation, air support = bombing, collateral damage = civilian deaths). They use jargon to distort comprehension. They wish to impose their manufactured system onto you. They use verbal subterfuge and camouflage. They wish to change our behavior, as if we were skinnerian rats.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Dr. Joseph GöbbelsThere are other transgressors. Recently, a certain Maria Reimondez is trying to use the courts to profit from her transgression. The Whitbread Book of the Year in 2003 went to Mark Haddon. Reimondez was to be the Galician translator. Moisés Barcia, the editor for the publisher, which ended her contract stated, “As we corrected her text, we realised that she was systematically translating neutral words into feminine ones, and masculine words into feminine or neutral forms ”. She went the path of inclusive language, which decries male orientation and replaces it with a feminisation. There is an apt expression for this: Il traduttore è traditore.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis* suggests that our sentient universe is more than described by our mental words and their textures. Your english-language, thought world is not the same as a Navajo’s universe. Different languages present the world differently. If you are bi-lingual you have a greater understanding of the universe, because each language is limited and each language perspective is different. Some things are very self-evident in one language and not in another. From this it follows that: he who tries to manipulate other’s words, manipulates their world. This, if, done for an interest counter to the other is violent.
Somewhere in the Gospels, Our God and Brother said something to the effect,“let your ‘yes’, be yes, and your ‘no’, be no.”† Jesus transmits that we should be honest and accurate in our speech. Politically correct or politically or socially coerced language is a sin against truth. Euphemisms such as “collateral damage” are lies. As Solženitsin said in his Nobel speech, “Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE.” Lies are violent, remember Aleksandr Isajevič spoke on their method and use. To substitute for socio-political reasons, “Our Creator” for “Our Father ” is of the same method and purpose. Jesus, always addressed the God of the Old Testament, by Abba, the familiar for Father. He, Jesus, was the Son, not the offspring. Any change for this Father-Son relationship is heresy, that is why language other than, in the name of the Father and of the Son ... is heresy; and if used in baptismal formulæ are invalid.
“And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. ” — Genesis i. 27.
If the common or unitive gender of our and many other languages is masculine, then the above is sensible, and beautiful. Feminist language of supposed inclusion makes this what?
________________________________
*Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf. To some this is a form of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity.
† But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.— Matthew v. 37. Here, Jesus was saying that the use of oaths, in addition to language, was not necessary, but still, the point is there. Later in James, the similar, “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath. But let your speech be, yea, yea: no, no: that you fall not under judgment.”
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Robert Frost †1963
When I see birches bend to left and rightRobert Frost (*26. iii.1874, †29. i.1963) was the finest 20th century, english language, american poet. He was the only, american poet who could have been a russian poet. Slavonic people seem to have an affinity for birches, but that is co-incidental to the allure of his work. He should be studied in all schools, in the country, no other american poet has surpassed, or even equalled, him since. Truth and beauty and depth of thought need to be appreciated and be available.
Across the lines of straighter darker trees,
I like to think some boy’s been swinging them. …3
Some boy too far from town to learn baseball,
Whose only play was what he found himself, … 27
I was drawn to the poem, because I climbed birches, in the backyard, when I was small. Later as an adult, I found a spoken album of Frost reciting his work. When I read the poem, I can hear his voice.
Frost began to read an original poem at the inauguration of John Kennedy. The sun was very bright, and the glare off the snow too strong, he recited another poem* from memory. Bill Clinton, in pale imitation, tried in a similar vein with Maya Angelou playing Frost's rôle, a generation later.
________________________
*The Gift Outright
______________________________
Postscriptum 9 May 2011: The few people who come to this essay wonder if Frost was Catholic. He was not. Some people count Frost an atheist. He was not. Certain propagandists are always harrowing the dead and enlisting them in their tribe. It is true that certain words of Frost are critical,that is not proof. Many people who believe also utter frustration with their belief.
Frost's mother was a Scot Presbyterian, who became a Swedenborgian. Frost grew up this and left it behind, but remaining a 'mystic'. One can see he struggles. He had defined himself as an 'Old Testament Christian'. With such serious brooding and poignant, pensive melancholy in his verse many a Catholic can easily identify with Frost; but this is true to some other believers as well.
In his last letter dictated, in hospital, addressed to, an old professor and wife, friends he talks of Christ and Salvation: "...I was just saying today how Christ posed Himself the whole problem and died for it. How can we be just in a world that needs mercy and merciful in a world that needs justice. We study and study the four biographies of Him and are left still somewhat puzzled in our daily lives...."
Robert Frost was a serious thinker, who struggled in understanding of God. He was not a common customary believer, but he believed. Frost had lived in Yankee New England, if he had an atmosphere where more Catholic thought was current, one could see him fluent with Carmelite spirituality or Sr. Faustina and Divine Mercy.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Russian reading room
October 30th 1821 O.S.* (we are using new style dating, an event that occurred on old style dating of October 30th would not be today), saw the birth of Fjedor Mikhajlovič Dostoevskij (Фёдор Миха́йлович Достое́вский), he did not see sixty. The correction calculation, our calendraic adjustment, is to the eleventh of November, an already, busy commemoration.
I had classes with two extra fine professors, Carl Gustavson and Edgar Whan, and I cannot remember, with absolute certainty, which gentleman suggested that each library ought to have a russian reading room. The other would have seconded the motion. Accumulating snow outside, big overstuffed chairs, a fireplace, balalaikas on the wall and a large samovar on the table would add a 19th century air to the room, a couple of lacquered boxes on the mantle and icons of St. George and Our Lady of Kazan, further still, for remember: the phrase was always -- Holy Mother Russia.
I know that not everyone is interested in an education that imparts erudition. Still, an educated man should have familiarity with the fruits of western civilisation. The oeuvre of russian literature is a pearl of great worth that is denied,only, by blockheads.
I enjoy humor, the classic set jokes, the elephant situ. To truncate one: students in a swiss boarding school must write an essay about our elephant, each boy wrote one with a characteristic national interest, the russian boy wrote about the elephant and the cosmos. This is the manner of thought that aspires to know the largest picture, man's role in existence.
Fjedor Mikhajlovič suggested that all of russian literature came from under Gogol's cloak. The comedy of Gogol, in having a poor clerk investing his psyche and worth in cloth, or a nose coming bodily alive to walk in a cathedral, or the selling of dead souls, is humor in profound pathos. Russian humor had gravitas and an edifying aspect. We all are significant beings, but we are in relation to all men and unto God.
In the writings of Lev Nikolajovič Tolstoj we have, above all the panoramic spread of War and Peace, a book so large that one needs a boot with a metatarsal guard to protect the foot from its falling. Now, there are two new english translations. Lev Nikolajovič saw war, he had carried the gun, and became a pacifist. He was so intensely so, that, it led to excommunication from the russian church. Without Tolstoj would we have had all of Gandhi's commitment and without Gandhi would King have been a giant? We follow paths cut by others. An occasional couple of hours, in that reading room, would do us all well.
___________________________________________________
*To correct the Julian calendar, the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1582†. The Gregory was Pope Gregory XIII, for this reason certain countries delayed adoption. This led to certain oddities, e.g., Shakespeare and Cervantes died on the same date, they did not die on the same day. In Spain, St George's day, 23 April 1616 N.S. was a Saturday. Ten days later, a Tuesday in England, was 23 April 1616 O.S.. Voltaire, whose pithy and sarcastic, sharp wit is attributed many observations, explains this thusly: "The English mob preferred their calendar to disagree with the Sun than to agree with the Pope". They changed their minds with the Act of 1751, which had the14th of September, 1752 follow immediately after the 2nd. Russia maintained the Julian calendar to the revolution, the russian church still does.
†The day after October 5, 1582 was October 16, 1582.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
