BookLog Query
Daria's questions (on Greek Diary II) have given me a twinge of guilt over neglecting my teaching duties. I am ready to resume the BookLog and willing to entertain suggestions. I am also open to suggestions on controversies in the news.
I am currently studying Anglo-Saxon history and literature in preparation for our Summer School and will soon be revisiting the classics of Augustan literature (Vergil and Horace especially) for the next Winter School in Rome. Apart from that I am doing a lot of academic drudgery on family law in various centuries and cultures, but there is hardly anything interesting to read. In any spare reading time I have, I shall probably refresh myself with Wodehouse or old detective novels. I am also willing to take up any poet I am fond of, from Homer to Houseman. I'd like to go back to Machiavelli, but that would be a serious deflection of my current studies, but I am open to suggestions
Entries(RSS)
I am currently taking an introductory course in Greek civilization and I think we will be reading parts of the Iliad. I am also reading Machiavelli again for another class, but I am much more ignorant of Greek literature and thus more inclined to study that. My suggestions are laid humbly at your feet.
Dr. Fleming,
What are you reading at the Anglo-Saxon school? Beowulf? Bede? Frank Stenton? David Hume?
As a side note, because of a previous discussion we had here, I recently reread H.R. Ellis Davidson's Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe (wherein she discusses the Anglo-Saxons). We had discussed her thesis regarding the similarities between Germanic and Celtic tribes, something with which you didn't entirely agree. Upon rereading her book, I must say that I was somewhat disappointed how she downplayed totemism among the Germans and Celts - something which I think is quite obvious.
Out of curiosity, what's your take on Vergil vis-a-vis Augustus? I know it's vogue these days to read Vergil's compliments at face value, unlike earlier British scholars who saw irony in these complements and read between the lines a subtle animosity toward Augustus. Octavian's proscription lists (drawn up with Antony) hint at a rather ruthless and vengeful man - Sulla-like traits above which even Caesar considered himself (if only for practical reasons). Regardless, surviving texts often seem to present moderate leader of the fox-and-lion sort.
The left has a serious problem with nearly every great author of antiquity and with most great English poets. Few surviving ancient writers held views compatible with liberalism in any form, and when they appear to--as in the case of Socrates and Plato--the similarities are entirely illusory. This means, as I argued in an academic meeting 30 years ago, that they have only a few options: 1) Declare the writer to be unimportant, as they do with Xenophon and Plutarch, and occasionally with Vergil (derivative propagandist), 2) lie outright, as they do with Sophocles, or 3) more subtly, insist that despite what the writer says on the surface he is really being ironic and trying to undermine the very people and principles he has always seemed to support. This can be done by reading a text aloud with a sarcastic voice. I once heard my friend Joe Sobran--who is utterly and completely wrong about Shakespeare--read Henry IV's St. Crispian speech with a sarcastic tone to show that Shakespeare was really anti-war. By the way, I can imagine an actor not liking war but not the Earl of Oxford.
Octavian is a mixed character. He was dissolute and brutal in youth and under very wild circumstances of civil war, but under the influence of friends, especially his wife, he settled down into something like a model prince. The I Claudius version, hyped up from that old gossip Suetonius, is quite off the mark. Ferrero, I think, has a very convincing portrait in The Greatness and Decline of Rome. Vergil was neither propagandist nor ironist but a man rescued--like so many others--by the emperor and he came to see the Augustan restoration as divinely guided.
Beowulf and the shorter poems, some Bede, and I don't know what for a general history. Stenton is too academic, though I am getting a great deal out of rereading him. I've ordered Geoffrey Hindley's popular book to see if it would do. Any recommendations?
Some years ago after listening to a rather a lecture by an Aristotle scholar presenting a rather politically correct interpretation of Aristotle's political philosophy, I stated the very obvious that it seems it would be a rather difficult task to make Aristotle conform to modern egalitarianism, especially since he supported slavery. The Aristotle scholar frankly stated that academics have two choices today: They can (1) hate the ancients and write how horrible they were, or they can (2) reconstruct ancient thinkers so they conform to modern sensibilities. He, he said, chose the second path. (I appreciated his honesty.)
Regarding the Anglo-Saxons, I wouldn't have any recommendations, but in the past fear years - in part because of conversations at Chronicles - I've read Stenton and parts of Hume, and reread Bede and Beowulf.
A student of Allan Bloom once told me that Bloom had presented Plato's republic as an argument for American-style democracy. When challenged, he responded by saying that it was the only way to rescue Plato. Honesty is perhaps not le mot juste for these liar. One might praise them for occasional candor, at best.
"I am also open to suggestions on controversies in the news."
Perfect timing, Dr. Fleming. This thread closed down before I finished my post, but here you come with a second chance.
You wrote, in the thread under "Is Thomas Woods A Dissenter?, part 4": .... "one must beware of falling into the modern Catholic trap of arguing that we believe what we believe no[t] because it is consistent with divinely created reality but because a Supernatural being told us to."
This caused me to ask myself: Under what circumstances, if ever, may we claim divine authority for what to believe, do, and not do? Because these claims always bring down the condemnation of atheists, I tend to want to push back, even though I try to stay away from them (the claims, and the atheists, too) since I don't think I know enough of Scripture and church teaching.
I was attempting to work this out for myself, when I heard on the radio last week a report about a religious group that is under investigation for allegedly allowing its members to die, rather than submit them to modern medical practice. It's a common enough story, but what distinguished this one was the hate-filled vituperation heaped on the group by an editorial writer covering it. After asking "What kind of god wants [the deceased group member] to die in pain?", she wound up her scree with "and if your god has indeed created you in his image then he is a sadistic torturer, because that is what you are."
The radio did not give enough detail to tell if these cultists based their inaction on their reading of the nature of divinely created reality, or on their claim to know the divine will. I have often thrown up my hands, and wished these cults would just go away. In eternity, they will be facing much more than mere prison if they are guilty before God. But in the here and now, though these people are not baby seals, there comes a point when the ferocity with which their attackers wield their clubs excites a dumb, protective rage in me. Where is a believer to stand in all this? In the shape-shifting culture we live in, I must say I'm not sure I always find it easier to discern the lay of divinely created reality than I do to know God's will.
On a related note, I remember Claude Polin wrote an excellent piece about Leo Strauss in Chronicles. Have you ever thought about putting it online?
Regarding possible books to read, since no one else suggests anything:
- Sophocles, Antigone (loyalty to blood vs. loyalty to the state)
- Thucydides (if only the part on the Sicilian Expedition, esp. Nicias' speeches -- so relevant today it would be a shame not to discuss it at some point)
- Saga of the Volsungs (could compliment Anglo-Saxon readings)
- Tolkien, The Silmarillion (could have broad appeal, as many commenters at this site appear to be Tolkien fans)
- Cretien de Troyes,The Story of the Grail (interesting Celtic/Christian syncretism)
- Song of Roland (cf. Europe today)
- Anthony Trollope, The Way We Live Now (relates to our current financial crisis)
I must confess that any discussion of The Silmarillion would be beyond thrilling for me. Perhaps it is because it is the only book on your list I have read besides Antigone, but still, The Silmarillion is possibly my favorite read of all time.
Dream of the Rood and The Battle of Maldon (the A-S Alamo) from the corpus of AS poetry.
The Saga of King Hrolf Kraki.
I would like to request John Asser's life of King Alfred.
What good suggestions. Let's start with Maldon and Dream and. Maybe the volsungs, then Tolkien and then Antigone and the Aeneid. Anyone who has not read The Way We Live Now should do so. It is one of Trollope's best and that is saying a great deal. And it is also about the way WE live.
Dr. Fleming, what is your opinion of the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins? He has always been one of my favorites.
At his best, which in my view is none too often, Hopkins is wonderful. Unfortunately, his experiment in rhythm was instrumentalized by a generation of poets who destroyed the one secure basis of all Western poetry, and that is meter. I do not say that a great poet like Hopkins or Jeffers can not use some form of accentual verse that does not count the number of syllables, only that a tradition going back to Homer has been shattered and few are the poets today who can write well and fluidly in any traditional meter. The neo-formalists are, most of them, stiff and crude compared with earlier generations. There are exceptions, however, and it is not impossible that the art of versification will outlive my generation. I would not bet any serious money, however.
It seems to me, though, that those more modern poets ceased experimenting with rhythm at all, and abandoned the idea of rhythm in its entirety, and what we're left with can hardly be called 'poetry' at all.
My vote is for The Aeneid -- I don't think it's already been done, or has it?
Alternatively, The Dream of the Rood? I'm taking a course in Old English at the moment, and this work sounds especially intriguing. It would be motivating to have some supplemental insights on the language & culture as I struggle my way through memorizing the cases and whatnot.
Making a case aside from my own self-interest, it seems to me to be quite relevant to recent debates about northern pagans & Christianity, and to the summer school.
We shall definitely do an extended discussion of the Aeneid but first off let us do a few shorter AS poems. My knowledge of Old English is scanty to say the least, though I am doing a few pages every day of Sweet's Primer and going line by line through "Maldon." If Robert Peters would join in the discussion--taking the lead?--it would be very productive. I shall also ask Prof. Brownlow, who will be lecturing on AS poetry at our Summer School, to take part, though he may be far too busy as chairman of his department. We shall just have to muddle through. There is a famous story about a navy captain appointed by William IV (known as "Sailor William") as Regius Professor of Greek somewhere, despite the fact that he knew no Greek. The young men were having a difficult time and one day in class seemed on the point of despair, when the old seaman to encourage them said, "Courage, boys, I am only four chapters ahead of you."
I am going to be using the Everyman translation done by S.A.J Bradley, along with Pope and Fulk's Eight Old English Poems, published by Norton but there innumerable translations and AS texts online.
Dr. Fleming,
I always try to follow your book discussions, even when they don't fit into my current plan. (I'm trying to do some research on U.S. National Interests and the policies necessary to serve or achieve them - and am not happy with what I'm finding.)
At some point, I would like to hear your reasons for disagreeing with Joe Sobran on his opinion of who Shakespeare was. I've read some, but not all, of his book and a few of his other writings on the subject and he seems to make a good case; however, I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of his evidence.
I've found an interesting site for the "Battle of Maldon" here:
http://www.battleofmaldon.org.uk/index.htm
It has maps and photos of the battle site, a translation of the poem, links to other translations and related sites, as well as other background information.
It is not a question of disagreement. There is no scholarly case that has been made for Oxford. Joe fell for Ogburn who contributef zero. Ogburn did not even know how to ask the right questions. Only external evidence can be decisive and most stylometric tests are easily refuted by setting up controls. The whole thing I'd fantasy bordering on paranoia as I have explained to Joe many times.
Thanks for your response, Dr. Fleming. Now on to the battle!
Since a discussion of the Aeneid is on the horizon, can you suggest a proper translation? There seem to be a great many of them out there, some quite recent.
The answers to these questions may be self evident to any contemporary with an appreciation of the classics and 19th Cent. history, but I'll ask it anyway in hopes of an answer that is systematic.
Regarding the best and most educated 19th Cent. orators, i.e. influential politicians, statesmen, priests, etc., what was the canon of classic learning that they all held in common, and what was the chronology of their instruction?
(When Calhoun was ask for recommendations, he advised Jefferson, Madison, and Gibbon, as a minimum.)
My estimation based on what I've read is that they could read, write, and translate Greek and Latin. They were well read in Homer through Cicero, knew Ancient and European history fully, and they all could insert a handy and readily recalled analogy from mythology into any conversation.
What was their master reading list, and in what order? Why did they seem to so easily master it?
Why were they so adept at using what they read, whereas I have to reread and outline everything before I could begin to discuss it? Did they drink less then than we did in college and thus had intact their fully functioning grey matter? Were they not encumbered by the obligations of Animal House, and thus free to learn and remember?
Could it be true that limited exposure to music, and when exposed, exposed only to classical or folk, helps the brain remember, whereas immoderate exposure to the excited and hypnotic syncopations of African based beat music, i.e. soul, funk, rhythm and blues, rock and roll, has a dementing effect on brain function, because the feeling is immediately a primal sensation and not civilized elevation?
A man's deficiencies force him to seek excuses...
I saw an intriguing quotation in Salvo Magazine by John Granger regarding the Twilight series.
"Our current postmodern core myth is (ironically and with no little contradiction) that all societal myths are bad because they both make it impossible for us to see things as they really are and create a necessary division of the world into good guys with power and the 'others' who are marginalized. Our core evil is thus prejudice resulting from an unexamined belief; or core struggle is our inability to know anything for certain, blinded as we are by our beliefs; and our core good is the freedom resulting from a self-actualized choice that transcends our prejudices."
Sounds like the kind of current "ethical reasoning" that demands we make the self-actualized choice of "seeing the 'good' in our enemies and the 'evil' in ourselves, so that we can help others by being emphatic and just."
And more prescriptively, "holding ourselves accountable to 'the least of these' for our unearned privileges as we live into our baptismal covenant," which is mantra in today's Episcopal Church.
Questions:
What is the contrasting modern core myth, vs. this postmodern one? Who evolved the modern into the postmodern?
Is there an antecedent or analogy to this postmodern self sacrifice myth in antiquity or early Western philosophy? When were its seeds planted, and by whom?
Was Machiavelli the most influential instigator of our long lash of woe?