Super Bowl: One Leg, Still Deadly

Long John Silver takes down Tom

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Monday

With plans to make today’s post about last night’s Super Bowl winner, I was hoping the Eagles would carry the day. Not because I particularly cared for either team but because I had a great poem in mind should they emerge victorious:

The Eagle
By Alfred Lord Tennyson

He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ring’d with the azure world, he stands.

The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.

Well, the Eagles fell all right, although not in the predatory way that Tennyson envisions. Kansas City won on a last second field goal 38-35.

Unfortunately for me, to choose a work about Native American chiefs would make me complicit in the way the Kansas City moniker caricatures and thereby belittles Indians. I needed something else.

The idea came when I saw the transcendent Patrick Mahomes win a second straight game while all but playing on one leg. I believe he sustained his high ankle sprain against the Cincinnati Bengals in the AFC championship game and then reaggravated it late in the first half of the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, he played lights out when he returned in the second half. Especially impressive was a 20-yard scramble late in the fourth quarter, setting his team up for the winning field goal. One could see him wincing after the play.

So what literary characters operate on one leg? Captain Ahab comes to mind except that he ends up in the loss column. Moby Dick, only slightly larger than some of Philadelphia’s defenders, proves too much for him.

So instead I turn to Long John Silver, who walks with the aid of a crutch. One scene in particular will resonate with Philadelphia fans because it reveals Stevenson’s legendary pirate, like Mahomes, to be a stone-cold killer.

Jim, the protagonist and narrator, has discovered that Long John has murderous designs and has corrupted many of the men aboard the ship. Jim slips from a boat that Long John is rowing ashore, hides in the brush, and then witnesses Silver and his confederates murdering some of the honest shipmates. In one case, the murder occurs, as it were, offstage:

Far away out in the marsh there arose, all of a sudden, a sound like the cry of anger, then another on the back of it; and then one horrid, long-drawn scream. The rocks of the Spy-glass re-echoed it a score of times; the whole troop of marsh-birds rose again, darkening heaven, with a simultaneous whirr; and long after that death yell was still ringing in my brain, silence had re-established its empire…

I imagine that scream emanating from Philadelphia’s defense as Mahomes, as it were, carved them up.

And then there’s the murder that Jim witnesses first hand. Shipmate Tom, who is at that moment confronting Silver, also hears the scream and understands what it portends:

Tom had leaped at the sound, like a horse at the spur, but Silver had not winked an eye. He stood where he was, resting lightly on his crutch, watching his companion like a snake about to spring.

“John!” said the sailor, stretching out his hand.

“Hands off!” cried Silver, leaping back a yard, as it seemed to me, with the speed and security of a trained gymnast.

“Hands off, if you like, John Silver,” said the other. “It’s a black conscience that can make you feared of me. But in heaven’s name, tell me, what was that?”

“That?” returned Silver, smiling away, but warier than ever, his eye a mere pinpoint in his big face, but gleaming like a crumb of glass. “That? Oh, I reckon that’ll be Alan.”

And at this point Tom flashed out like a hero.

“Alan!” he cried. “Then rest his soul for a true seaman! And as for you, John Silver, long you’ve been a mate of mine, but you’re mate of mine no more. If I die like a dog, I’ll die in my dooty. You’ve killed Alan, have you? Kill me too, if you can. But I defies you.”

And with that, this brave fellow turned his back directly on the cook and set off walking for the beach.

So that seems that. After all, what harm can we expect from a one-legged man? Unfortunately, as the Eagles learned to their sorrow, quite a lot. Long John too, we learn, is a precision passer:

But he was not destined to go far. With a cry John seized the branch of a tree, whipped the crutch out of his armpit, and sent that uncouth missile hurtling through the air. It struck poor Tom, point foremost, and with stunning violence, right between the shoulders in the middle of his back. His hands flew up, he gave a sort of gasp, and fell.

Whether he were injured much or little, none could ever tell. Like enough, to judge from the sound, his back was broken on the spot. But he had no time given him to recover. Silver, agile as a monkey even without leg or crutch, was on the top of him next moment and had twice buried his knife up to the hilt in that defenseless body. From my place of ambush, I could hear him pant aloud as he struck the blows.

Jim momentarily loses consciousness from horror, only to awake to see Long John, as it were, receiving the trophy:

When I came again to myself the monster had pulled himself together, his crutch under his arm, his hat upon his head. Just before him Tom lay motionless upon the sward; but the murderer minded him not a whit, cleansing his blood-stained knife the while upon a wisp of grass. Everything else was unchanged, the sun still shining mercilessly on the steaming marsh and the tall pinnacle of the mountain, and I could scarce persuade myself that murder had been actually done and a human life cruelly cut short a moment since before my eyes.

If you are an Eagles fan, is this what it felt like? You have my deepest sympathy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

A Mistake to Put God in the Sky

J.J. Derghi, God Manifests Himself as Cloud (watercolor, 1866)

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Spiritual Sunday

My friend and occasional contributor to this blog Pastor Sue Schmidt alerted me to “The Worst Thing” by the self-described mystic poet Chelan Harkin. Among other things, it shows the danger of relying on a single metaphor to describe God. If God is beyond imagining, then the language we use to talk about God must have the exploratory openness of poetry.

In her first stanza, Harkin observes,

The worst thing we ever did
was put God in the sky
out of reach
pulling the divinity
from the leaf…

I’ll note that the idea of God as a sky deity rather than a leaf deity owes something to the nomadic Israelites, who needed a god that could travel. Some of the attraction of the local gods they encountered in Palestine—and that various of the prophets railed against—was that they were more intimate in the way Harkin suggests.

Curious about the poet, I went to her website https://chelanharkin.com/

and wasn’t surprised to learn she owes a debt to Rumi and Hafiz, two Sufi poets (which is to say, two poets from Islam’s mystic strain). Describing her book , Harkin describes her poetry collection Susceptible to Lights as

 a collection of poetry that is mystical and ecstatic in nature–mystical defined as anything having to do with opening the heart to light and ecstatic having to do with anything expressed from this place. Susceptible to Light is here to remind you of your joy, to assist you in reconsidering ways of relating to your life that better serve and open your heart, to deconstruct anything about God that doesn’t feel close, intimate, authentic, and warm, and to remind your soul to break the surface and take a breath.

Then she quotes the two Sufi poets:

Rumi says, “What was said to the rose that made it open was said to me here in my chest.” (Barks, Rumi the Book of Love, 2003) May this collection help you feel a taste of that sweet openness. Hafiz says, “God and I have become like two giant fat people living in a tiny boat. We keep bumping into each other and laughing.” (Ladinsky, The Gift, 1999, p. 199) May this collection help you feel the possibility of that kind of laughter.

Here’s her poem:

The Worst Thing
By Celan Harkin


The worst thing we ever did
was put God in the sky
out of reach
pulling the divinity
from the leaf,
sifting out the holy from our bones,
insisting God isn’t bursting dazzlement
through everything we’ve made
a hard commitment to see as ordinary,
stripping the sacred from everywhere
to put in a cloud man elsewhere,
prying closeness from your heart.

The worst thing we ever did
was take the dance and the song
out of prayer
made it sit up straight
and cross its legs
removed it of rejoicing
wiped clean its hip sway,
its questions,
its ecstatic yowl,
its tears.

The worst thing we ever did is pretend
God isn’t the easiest thing
in this Universe
available to every soul
in every breath.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Poetry in the Face of Disaster

Rescue workers following Turkish-Syrian earthquake

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Friday

Casualties of the Turkey-Syria earthquake continue to mount, with the 21,000+ deaths surpassing the number of those killed in Japan’s earthquake-caused tsunami twelve years ago (around 18,000 deaths). And then there was the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which killed between 100,000 and 160,000.

The question I find myself asking each time is what is the use of poetry at such moments given the inadequacy of words. Here’s the essay I posted following the Haitian earthquake and reposted following the Japanese tsunami:

Reprinted from March 21, 2011

As I wrote last year when the earthquake hit Haiti, all human language, including literature, comes up short when faced with disaster and death. Literature is language by humans about humans, and destruction on this scale seems to laugh narrative and image to scorn.

Nevertheless, being human, we try to bring even apocalyptic disasters into a narrative that we can comprehend. It’s why Genesis has the story of Noah, the narrative of an angry God punishing a sinful people. It’s not a happy story but at least the unexplainable is brought into the human sphere. Today there are Christians who find the Japanese tsunami in the Book of Revelations and Muslims who say it was foretold in the Koran. Such religious stories offer the consolation that horrific events serve some larger purpose, even though we may not know what that purpose is.

Of course some, claiming to know the inscrutable mind of God, are all too willing to tell us what “He” has in mind. I’m thinking, for instance, of evangelist Pat Robertson claiming that the Haitian earthquake was caused by a 19th century deal with the devil to kick the French out.

As ridiculous and offensive as Robertson is, all of us do a version of his explaining. Our minds probe away at the disaster, trying to find some human fallibility that accounts for it. After all, if humans helped cause it, then we might be able to prevent future disasters.  We just have to do something different. An explanation, almost any explanation, gives us the illusion that we are not powerless. Probing into the cosmic meaning of an event is the premise for Thornton Wilder’s fine novel The Bridge over San Luis Rey.

The Japanese tsunami challenges us because nothing about it can be attributed to humans.  This is not a narrative of abused nature rising up in wrath at what humankind has done to the earth. This is not the Dionysus of Euripides’s The Bacchae striking back at an arrogant Pentheus. Prehistoric villages would have been destroyed no less than the Japanese city of Sendai, even though they left a far lighter footprint on the earth.

True, there would have been fewer inhabitants and they would not have had nuclear reactors. But fewer deaths would have made it no less tragic for those who died.

In his poem “Hap,” Thomas Hardy puts forth the terrifying possibility that our suffering is meaningless. In fact, he says that he would prefer that there were some malevolent god above us who was dishing out misery than no god at all. The suffering caused by such a god would at least fit within some framework. After all, we understand human malevolence.

But, Hardy asks, what if “joy slain” and hope cut off are nothing more than blind chance.   What if “crass Casualty” and “dicing Time,” two “purblind [dim-witted] Doomsters,” are the sole reason for the cataclysm. Then suffering has no meaning and, by the same reasoning, neither does our happiness.

Here’s the poem:

Hap

If but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh:
“Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love’s loss is my hate’s profiting!”

Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.

But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?
Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.

Hardy’s vision is as stark as it gets.

Yet paradoxically, just by writing a poem that voices our despair, Hardy gives us hope. Language, inadequate though it may be, still rises up to register a protest. We use the tools we have to grapple with the unknown.

And perhaps grappling is healthier than calmly reassuring ourselves that there is a higher reason for these deaths. Unfortunately, “God’s higher plan” can become an abstraction allowing us to look past flesh-and-bone suffering.

When others are suffering, it is not the time to be focusing on finding consolation for ourselves.  Think instead of the victims and their families and friends.

In that fellow sympathy, I believe, we will find a higher meaning. In our love for humanity, we give our lives purpose. I believe that this was Jesus’s message, but one doesn’t need to ascribe a particular religious framework to it. Do our hearts break at the images coming out of Japan? Yes, and they should break. Now, can we take our sympathy and apply it to those close around us who are also suffering?

Further note, written in 2023: I’ve recently been reading Ruth Ozeki’s Tale for the Time Being 2013, which mentions the Japanese tsunami. There we find Japanese myth attempting to encapsulate, through narrative, an event that otherwise defies all human understanding:

In medieval Japan, people used to believe that earthquakes were caused by an angry catfish who lived under the islands.

In the earliest legends, the mono-iu Sakana, of “Saying-things Fish,” ruled the lakes the rivers. This supernatural fish could shapeshift into human form and speak in human tongues, and if any humans trespassed against his watery realm, he would appear to them and deliver a warning. If the offenders failed to heed this warning, the enraged mono-iu Sakana would punish them by sending a flood or some other natural disaster.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, the mono-iu Sakana had morphed into the jishin namazu, or Earthquake Catfish, an enormous whalelike creature who caused the earth to shake and tremble by his furious thrashing. The only thing holding him in check with a large stone wielded by the Sashima Deity, who lives at the Kashima Shrine….If the Kashima Deity dozes off or gets distracted, or is called away on business, the pressure on the catfish’s head is released, allowing it to wiggle and thrash. The result is an earthquake.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Shakespearean Praise for King James

Lebron James break the all-time scoring record

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Thursday

Tuesday night the Lakers’ Lebron James broke the most prestigious individual record in basketball, one that many thought would never be broken and, given how James keeps scoring baskets despite being 38, are pretty sure will never be broken again. With a fadeaway jumpshot against the Oklahoma Thunder, James surpassed Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s scoring record of 38,387.

Of James’s many nicknames, the one that seems to have stuck was bestowed upon him by his high school teammates: King James. While the name probably alludes to the King James version of the Bible rather than to the monarch who commissioned the translation, still I thought I’d have some fun by applying Shakespeare’s praise of Britain’s James I to our own King James.

In Henry VIII, probably co-written with John Fletcher, Shakespeare concludes by having a character predict two glorious monarchs. The first is Henry’s daughter Elizabeth, whose christening the king is at that moment attending. The second is James. Here’s the passage:

Nor shall this peace sleep with her: but as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,
Her ashes new-create another heir,
As great in admiration as herself;
So shall she leave her blessedness to one,
When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness,
Who from the sacred ashes of her honour
Shall star-like rise, as great in fame as she was,
And so stand fix’d: peace, plenty, love, truth, terror,
That were the servants to this chosen infant.
Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him:
Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
His honour and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations: he shall flourish,
And, like a mountain cedar, reach his branches
To all the plains about him: — our children’s children
Shall see this, and bless heaven.

Think of Lebron rising star-like, as great in fame as was the player he is replacing in the record books. “Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,” —or basketball court lighting—“his honor and the greatness of his name shall be.” Given the player’s remarkable prowess, we can say, without exaggeration, that he has “flourish[ed] and, like a mountain cedar, [has] reach[ed] his branches to all the plains about him.” In later years, “our children’s children shall see this, and bless heaven.”

Shakespeare’s praise of King James appears elsewhere, although less explicitly. I’ve learned from reading James Shapiro’s 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear that there is a significant allusion to James in Macbeth. (1606 was also the year of Macbeth.) James, who had recently ascended to the throne, believed he was descended from Banquo, and Shakespeare reshaped the historical record to flatter him.

In Shakespeare’s version, Banquo is not Macbeth’s accomplice in the murder of Duncan, as Holinshed’s Chronicles report, but an innocent friend and later victim. According to Shapiro, the “show of eight kings” in Macbeth was inserted with James in mind:

In this dumb-show each of Banquo’s royal heirs appears. The eighth one carries a magical mirror that shows Macbeth many more of Banquo’s descendants…This show of kings culminates in James himself, the eighth Stuart King of Scotland…

The mirror, Shapiro speculates, was physically positioned in front of James, thereby avoiding “the delicate issue of impersonating a living prince on stage.”

So think of our own King James as descending from a noble lineage of scoring champions, with the last two being Wilt Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar. Against all probability, Denham Wood has moved upon the old scoring record and there’s a new king in town.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments closed

Odysseus’s Authoritarian Power Play

Odysseus chastises Thersites

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Wednesday

Yesterday I wrote about how, in the first book of The Iliad, Homer delivers a masterclass in leadership. Today I explore a more chilling topic raised by author: how those in power use a combination of mockery, threats, and actual violence to maintain control. It involves an incident that troubled me as a child and that I still find deeply disturbing.

Yesterday, I mentioned how Odysseus salvages a situation that supreme commander Agamemnon has botched. Thinking that he can use reverse psychology on the troops, Agamemnon has suggested they shamefully abandon the war effort and sail for home. Instead of feeling ashamed, however, they leap at the chance and head for their ships. It takes everything Odysseus can do to round them up and bring them back to a council of war.

In that council we encounter Thersites, a man infamous for both his looks (he is bandy-legged, lame in one foot, and “the ugliest man who came beneath Ilion”) and his abusive tongue. Homer describes him as one

who knew within his head many words, but disorderly;
vain, and without decency, to quarrel with the princes
with any word he thought might be amusing to the Argives.
(trans. Richmond Lattimore)

Thersites does not only speak for himself in his subsequent words, however, but voices the resentment that has been building up amongst the troops against Agamemnon and that has been given voice by Achilles. In doing so, he repeats some of the same accusations that we have just heard from that warrior. Achilles has called Agamemnon “the greediest of all men” and one who, while leaving the fighting to others, reserves the greatest part of the booty for himself. Thersites repeats the charge as he makes the case for returning home:

Son of Atreus, what thing further do you want, or find fault with
now? Your shelters are filled with bronze, there are plenty of the choicest
women for you within your shelter, whom we Achaians
give to you first of all whenever we capture some stronghold.
Or is it still more gold you will be wanting, that some son
of the Trojans, breakers of horses, brings as ransom out of Ilion,
one that I, or some other Achaian, capture and bring in?
Is it some young woman to lie with in love and keep her
all to yourself apart from the others? It is not right for
you, their leader, to lead in sorrow the sons of the Achaians.
My good fools, poor abuses, you women, not men, of Achaia,
let us go back home in our ships, and leave this man here
by himself in Troy to mull his prizes of honor
that he may find out whether or not we others are helping him.

At this point in the story, the future of the Greek expedition hangs in the balance. Odysseus saves the day by astutely combining scornful rhetoric with strategic violence. Tactics that could not be used against Achilles can be used against Thersites, who becomes a proxy for the Greek hero. Grabbing Agamemnon’s scepter, symbol of authority, Odysseus begins by diminishing Thersites with his words:

Fluent orator though you be, Thersites, your words are
ill-considered. Stop, nor stand up alone against princes.
Out of all those who came beneath Ilion with Atreides
I assert there is no worse man than you are. Therefore
you shall not lift up your mouth to argue with princes,
cast reproaches into their teeth, nor sustain the homegoing.
We do not even know clearly how these things will be accomplished,
whether we sons of the Achaians shall win home well or badly;
yet you sit here throwing abuse at Agamemnon,
Atreus’ son, the shepherd of the people, because the Danaan
fighters give him much. You argue nothing but scandal.

Then come the threats:

And this also will tell you, and it will be a thing accomplished.
If once more I find you playing the fool, as you are now,
nevermore let the head of Odysseus sit on his shoulders,
let me nevermore be called Telemachos’ father,
if I do not take you and strip away your personal clothing,
your mantle and your tunic that cover over your nakedness,
and send you thus bare and howling back to the fast ships,
whipping you out of the assembly place with the strokes of indignity.

Finally Odysseus backs up the threats with action, turning the scepter—meant to peacefully convey authority—into a weapon. In doing so, he reveals the hard power that always lurks behind soft power:

So he spoke and dashed the scepter against his back and
shoulders, and he doubled over, and a round tear dropped from him,
and a bloody welt stood up between his shoulders under
the golden sceptre’s stroke, and he sat down again, frightened,
in pain, and looking helplessly about wiped off the tear-drops.

This show of force impresses the troops. While their own lives would be better if they listened to Thersites—they would return home without further fighting–Odysseus has turned the man into a pathetic object of derision, something he could not have done with Achilles. Thersites here functions as a scapegoat: when the troops proceed to laugh at him, they are imagining themselves as princes, not as common soldiers. Odysseus’s move is right out of the authoritarian playbook:

Sorry though the men were they laughed over him happily,
and thus they would speak to each other, each looking at the man next him:
‘Come now: Odysseus has done excellent things by thousands,
bringing forward good counsels and ordering armed encounters;
but now this is far the best thing he ever has accomplished
among the Argives, to keep this thrower of words, this braggart
out of assembly. Never again will his proud heart stir him
up, to wrangle with the princes in words of revilement.’

Their laughter is of the sort described by Thomas Hobbes in his classic work Leviathan. As the 17th century political philosopher sees it, laughter is a means of asserting your authority in a world defined by the struggle for power. We laugh at others because it makes us feel superior to them (“sudden glory”) while hiding our own imperfections:

Sudden glory, is the passion which maketh those Grimaces called LAUGHTER; and is caused either by some sudden act of their own, that pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves. And it is incident most to them, that are conscious of the fewest abilities in themselves; who are forced to keep themselves in their own favor, by observing the imperfections of other men. And therefore much Laughter at the defects of others is a sign of Pusillanimity.

Through bullying Thersites, who is in fact a “deformed thing,” Odysseus rallies the troops to his side. Although they were fleeing for their ships only moments before, now they are prepared to charge into battle:

So he spoke, and the Argives shouted aloud, and about them
the ships echoed terribly to the roaring Achaians
as they cried out applause to the word of godlike Odysseus.

Agamemnon, this time effectively, follows up Odysseus’s call, eliciting a response that is compared to waves crashing against a cliff:

So he spoke, and the Argives shouted aloud, as surf crashing
Against a sheerness, driven by the south wind descending,
some cliff out-jutting, left never alone by the waves from
all the winds that blow, as they rise one place and another.

So how does an authoritarian rally the troops? By scapegoating marginalized persons through the use of insults, threats of violence, or even actual violence. If you do it well, your audience will ignore their own concerns and follow you anywhere.

Further thought: Political scientist John Stoehr, whose columns I follow on The Editorial Board, notes that the tactics used by Odysseus are not limited to demagogues but can be seen at work in society as a whole. Whites retain control in an increasingly diverse society by appearing moderate while relying on a police force that functions like an occupying army. (Whites don’t see the police this way, of course, but others do.) As Stoehr puts it in a recent column:

Occupying armies—in order to keep the peace, uphold the law and preserve the order—periodically send a message to the local population that disorder will not be tolerated. To that end, they will seek out and destroy someone, usually the weak, with a spectacular display of violence.

That’s what happened last week in Huntington, California. The city’s occupying army made an example of a Black man with no legs. (They said he was armed with a knife.) They shot to death Anthony Lowe, Jr., as he ran from them in terror on his tumps. Who’s in charge. The occupying army.

White power elites and police departments have also countenanced, if not outwardly endorsed, extralegal violence, such as lynchings in the Jim Crow south and routine police violence today. Certain members of the GOP won’t even allow the gun violence of current White terrorists to be labeled terrorism and look for ways to minimize their actions. Their main problem with the recorded killings of George Floyd and Tyre Nichols is that they threaten to expose the workings of the system.

That system can be seen clearly in Odysseus’s handling of Thersites.

In Stoehr’s view, America’s best hope lies in “reasonable White people” rejecting the constituent elements of that system–White supremacy, White fear, White privilege and sense of entitlement–and instead making common cause with people of color.

 
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Homer’s Masterclass in Leadership

Agamemnon and Achilles square off in a Pompei mosaic

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Tuesday

Having spent time over the past three years talking about Divine Comedy, The Aeneid, Absolom and Architophel, Rape of the Lock, In Memoriam, Paradise Lost and Moby Dick, our faculty discussion group has moved on to The Iliad. For those who know Sewanee faculty, our other members are John Reishman, John Gatta, Ross MacDonald, and (our newest member) Pamela Macfie, all from the English Department.

After our first discussion of Iliad, I am convinced more than ever that one of Plato’s attacks on Homer is wrong. Contra the philosopher’s criticism, the poet offers an absolute masterclass on leadership.

Plato’s critique occurs in The Republic when he is accusing literature of being several steps removed from truth. Plato has Socrates say that Homer’s renditions of such professions as charioteer, general and doctor are inferior to what we would get from actual charioteers, generals, and doctors. The same goes for legislators, as Socrates notes in the following interchange:

Socrates: [W]e have a right to know respecting military tactics, politics, education, which are the chiefest and noblest subjects of his poems, and we may fairly ask him about them. “Friend Homer,” then we say to him, “…if you are able to discern what pursuits make men better or worse in private or public life, tell us what State was ever better governed by your help?…
 
Glaucon: I think not; not even the Homerids themselves pretend that he was a legislator. 

Socrates: Well, but is there any war on record which was carried on successfully by him, or aided by his counsels, when he was alive? 

Glaucon: There is not. 

The question is not whether Homer was an actual legislator, however, but whether The Iliad could help someone become a better legislator. Our group concluded that the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles, around which the entire poem revolves, should be read by every aspiring leader.

Agamemnon, who heads the allied Greek forces, feels himself humiliated when he is forced to give up a woman he has captured. The situation is this: Chryseis is the daughter of a priest of Apollo. When the Greek leader, despite proffered ransom money, refuses to return her, Apollo unleashes a plague upon the Greeks. After nine days of watching the troops suffer, Achilles—their most fearsome warrior—calls a council meeting and queries the Greek seer Kalchas about the plague’s cause. After ensuring he will not be punished for telling the truth, the seer points to Agamemnon.

In a fury, Agamemnon lashes out and, since Achilles has forced the issue, demands that the warrior recompense him by handing over his own captive (Briseis). Achilles objects in no uncertain terms:

You wine sack, with a dog’s eyes, with a deer’s heart. Never
once have you taken courage in your heart to arm with your people
for battle, or go into ambuscade with the best of the Achaians.
No, for in such things you see death. Far better to your mind
is it, all along the widespread host of the Achaians
to take away the gifts of any man who speaks up against you.
(trans. Richmond Lattimore)

While concurring that Agamemnon is clearly in the wrong—in fact, he is constantly making poor leadership decisions—our group noted that the two men have different imperatives. Agamemnon, who is trying to hold together the Greek alliance, can’t afford to be publicly humiliated, regardless of the justice of the accusations against him. In some ways, lashing out at Achilles, who has demonstrated superior leadership qualities, reveals his own insecurities. While failing to command the respect that Achilles does, he also recognizes—and resents—his dependency on his greatest warrior.

Both Agamemnon and Achilles are provided off-ramps by Nestor, the wisest of Greeks, who offers the following advice:

You, great man that you are, yet do not take the girl away
but let her be, a prize as the sons of the Achaians gave her
first. Nor, son of Peleus, think to match your strength with
the king, since never equal with the rest is the portion of honor
of the sceptred king to whom Zeus gives magnificence. Even
though you are the stronger man, and the mother who bore you was immortal,
yet is this man greater who is lord over more than you rule.
Son of Atreus, give up your anger; even I entreat you
to give over your bitterness against Achilleus, he who
stands as a great bulwark of battle over all the Achaians.

Agamemnon will take this advice later, when it is too late, but for the moment he spurns it, revealing his insecurity when he says,

Yet here is a man who wishes to be above all others,
who wishes to hold power over all and to be lord of
all, and give them their orders…

This is a classic case of projection.

Just as Agamemnon doesn’t acknowledge the respect due to a great warrior, so Achilles doesn’t fully recognize Agamemnon’s governing challenges. As Ross noted, it’s as though Agamemnon is the coach and Achilles his star player, and we see regularly what happens to teams when coach and star are at odds. Achilles quits the alliance and then, working through his goddess mother, obtains Zeus’s promise to make the Greeks pay for Agamemnon’s insult. In other words, comrades with whom Achilles has been fighting shoulder-to-shoulder will pay with their lives to prove his indispensability.

Agamemnon’s bungling continues. In Book II, hoping to galvanize the Greeks into an assault, he attempts reverse psychology, telling his forces that Zeus has commanded them to “go back to Argos in dishonor,” where their effort will come to be seen as

a thing of shame for the men hereafter
to be told, that so strong, so great a host of Achaians
carried on and fought in vain a war that was useless
against men fewer than they…

John Reishman, a Notre Dame graduate, noted that legendary coach Knute Rockne would use such an approach to fire up the Fighting Irish football team. After hearing themselves described as women, the players would charge onto the field to prove themselves men.

We noted that Agamemnon, having just lost his major warrior, perhaps uses the strategy to reunite the Greeks in a shared sense of purpose. In this instance, however, the ploy backfires as the Greeks are only too happy to run to their ships and prepare to set off for home. Only frantic damage control by Odysseus keeps the force from entirely disintegrating.

(I’ll have more to say in a future post about Odysseus’s strategy since, as one of our members noted, it has some worrisome application to authoritarian practices in our own society.)

To sum up, Plato shouldn’t ban Homer from his ideal republic but instead invite him in to teach the future leaders of the state. And regarding future leaders, it’s worth noting that Sewanee’s new president, about whom everyone is excited, has probably read The Iliad. John Reishman tells me that Robert Pearigen, when a Sewanee undergrad, may well have taken the course “Representative Masterpieces,” in which the old epics are taught. While we probably can’t attribute Pearigen’s success as the Millsaps president to Homer, we can predict success at Sewanee if he avoids Agamemnon’s insecurity and temper tantrums, respects the gifts of the talented forces who serve under him, and listens to the wise Nestors around him.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

Lucille Clifton on Black History

Lucille Clifton

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Monday

Thanks to Trump wannabe Ron DeSantis and various other GOP politicians, Black History is under more assault than it has been in years. Suddenly school libraries and school curricula are being scoured of America’s troubled racial past. Someone recently tweeted (spouted actually since I’ve shifted over to Spoutify) that “the people who threw rocks at Ruby Bridges for trying to go to school are now upset their grandchildren might learn about them throwing rocks at Ruby Bridges for trying to go to school.” (Ruby Bridges Goes to School has been under assault in Texas schools.)

I remember when I had my own Black history awakening. The local NAACP, of which my father was a member, had purchased a number of books for Sewanee’s Black school. As it was summer, my father brought them home, which is how I came to read biographies of George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman. I was inspired by their stories.

Such stories did not show up in my seventh grade Tennessee history class, where plantation slavery was barely mentioned and the major cause of the Civil War (so we were taught) was economic differences between the north and the south. (Also, while learning much about Tennessee favorite son Andrew Jackson, we were never taught about the Cherokee trail of tears that he instigated.) There are important reasons why the nation needs a “Black History Month.”

Lucille Clifton has several poems about White erasure of Black history. In “why some people be mad at me sometimes,” she succinctly writes,

they ask me to remember
but they want me to remember
their memories
and i keep on remembering
mine.

During a visit to South Carolina’s Walnut Grove Plantation, Clifton took a tour and was struck by the guide failing to mention the slaves. She had to prod the man to learn that a field of unmarked rocks was actually a slave graveyard. When she looked at the plantation’s inventory, she discovered that the female slaves were even more invisible than the male slaves. The poem makes powerful use of puns in its pointed climax:

at the cemetery, walnut grove plantation, south carolina, 1989
by Lucille Clifton

among the rocks
at walnut grove
your silence drumming
in my bones,
tell me your names.

nobody mentioned slaves
and yet the curious tools
shine with your fingerprints.
nobody mentioned slaves
but somebody did this work
who had no guide, no stone,
who moulders under rock.

tell me your names,
tell me your bashful names
and I will testify.

the inventory lists ten slaves
but only men were recognized
.

among the rocks
at walnut grove
some of these honored dead
were dark
some of these dark
were slaves
some of these slaves
were women
some of them did this honored work.
tell me your names
foremothers, brothers,
tell me your dishonored names.
here lies
here lies
here lies
here lies
hear

Clifton knows that, in correcting the historical record, she will draw fire. In “i am accused of tending to the past,” she protests that she is not shaping history but merely reporting it. Like it or not, it will speak through her:

i am accused of tending to the past
as if i made it,
as if i sculpted it
with my own hands. i did not.
this past was waiting for me
when i came,
a monstrous unnamed baby,
and i with my mother’s itch
took it to breast
and named it
History.
she is more human now,
learning languages everyday,
remembering faces, names and dates.
when she is strong enough to travel
on her own, beware, she will.

Is Black history strong enough to travel on its own yet or do we still need a Black History month to nurture it a bit longer. Is it still a baby that Ron DeSantis can suffocate in its cradle? I’m not entirely sure.

Nor do I entirely understand what to make of Clifton’s warning. Will failure to tend to our Black past result in a vengeful Black populace? The poem was written around the time that Rodney King was beaten senseless by Los Angeles cops, leading to riots, so maybe that’s what Clifton has in mind here.

If so, subsequent Black history has been far less a threat to Whites than Clifton predicts. In fact, the real danger to the country is White violence, not Black. I have yet to see White supremacists paying a price for their assaults.

But I agree with “History” learning new languages, faces, names, and dates. I don’t think that DeSantis will be able to turn back that clock.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

What No Eye Has Seen, Nor Ear Heard

Valentin de Boulogne, St. Paul Writing His Epistles

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Spiritual Sunday

I had a jolt today as I was looking over today’s epistle reading, from St. Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. One of the passages, I realized, gets parodied—or at least alluded to—in Midsummer Night’s Dream. This give us an opportunity to explore in some depth what Shakespeare is up to.

Paul is writing about the difference between human wisdom and God’s wisdom. Only those who have experienced the Holy Spirit, he writes, can “understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.” By contrast, those who rely only on the senses, the intellect, and the heart are “doomed to perish.” Here’s the passage:

Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the human heart conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 

Compare this with “Bottom’s Dream,” in which the self-confident amateur actor attempts to describe his tryst the night before with the queen of the fairies:

I have had a most rare vision. I have had a dream, past the wit of man to say what dream it was: man is but an ass, if he go about to expound this dream. Methought I was—there is no man can tell what. Methought I was,–and methought I had,–but man is but a patched fool, if he will offer to say what methought I had. The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report, what my dream
was.
I will get Peter Quince to write a ballad of this dream: it shall be called Bottom’s Dream, because it hath no bottom… (emphasis mine)

Bottom is not the only buffoonish Shakespeare character to capture a brief glimpse of ethereal realms. Consider Caliban, at his most lyrical, telling two other buffoons, Stefano and Trinculo, about the island:

Be not afeard; the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again: and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me that, when I waked,
I cried to dream again.

In both Midsummer and Tempest Shakespeare explores his profound longing for something intangible and expresses his deep frustration that he cannot capture that something in his poetry. In Midsummer we encounter his frustration in the gap between a playwright’s aspiration and what shows up on stage. After Hippolyta complains about the play performed by the local townfolk—“This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard”—Theseus observes that even “the best in this kind are but shadow.”

If Shakespeare, who wrote “the best in this kind,” sees even his own efforts as “but shadow,” what hope for the rest of us?

For his part, Prospero in Tempest talks about the fragility of our attempts to capture our dreams. The “great globe” undoubtedly alludes to the Globe theatre as well the earth. In any event, all will melt into thin air:

These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. 

St. Paul, articulating a vision that seems—certainly to the worldly wise—to be just as evanescent, says that, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we will find ourselves able to “speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden.” Whereas if we rely on that which is only human, we will grasp no more than “the human spirit that is within.”

Years ago, before I joined Julia in attending church services, I used to say that I didn’t need religion because I had literature. While I no longer it’s a case of either/or—both have become vital to me—I wasn’t entirely wrong. Both attempt to put us in touch with  a spiritual realm that continually eludes us. I think that’s what Shakespeare is telling us through his allusion to Paul’s letter.

What clinched my decision to start attending church was rector Bill Pregnall, a wise man who never once pressured me to join, telling me that he sensed that I longed for mystery. That truth hit me like a thunderbolt and I have been involved in church ever since. This weekly Sunday column is part of my never-ending exploration of that mystery.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

Kipling’s Stellar Advice for Leaders

Emanuel Leutze, Washington Crossing the Delaware (1851)

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at rrbates1951 at gmail dot com and I will send it/them to you. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Friday

Sewanee College, where I serve as an occasional visiting professor, has just chosen a new president—and given that I submit a weekly poem to the town newspaper, I chose Rudyard Kipling’s “If” to greet the news.

I remember being put off when I encountered the poem in high school, what with its patriarchal “you’ll be a man, my son!” finale. It struck me as overly macho. When I read it now as I enter my 70s, however, I applaud the quality of the advice. The poem provides essential leadership tips for men and women alike.

Kipling’s balancing act is brilliant, especially in such lines as trusting yourself but remaining open, dreaming while not getting lost in dreams, thinking but not getting hung up on your conceptual framework.

And then there’s the advice, which Wimbledon offers to players (they can read it on the wall as they enter center court), to regard both Triumph and Disaster with equanimity. And when disaster strikes, to stoop and rebuild “the things you gave your life to,” even if you must do so with “worn-out tools.”

We probably don’t want our presidents risking everything on one throw of the dice (although sometimes large gambles must be taken). On the other hand, presidents need Kipling’s next piece of advice: to “force heart and nerve and sinew/To serve your turn long after they are gone” and to exhort yourself to “hold on” even when you’d rather give up.

It’s also wise to neither get stampeded by the “crowds” (staff, faculty, students, the public) nor lose yourself in an elitist bubble (trustees, big donors). And not to be hurt when people behave according to their institutional roles in their dealings with you. When I headed my department, I found it particularly hard to acknowledge that people who knew me previously were suddenly responding to me as chair, not as Robin Bates.

Kipling’s next piece of advice—don’t let either friends or foes get you down—reminds me of a witty interchange in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. Feste the fool tells us he is made better by his foes and worse by his friends, explaining to Orsino,

Marry, sir, [my friends] praise me and make an ass of me; now my foes tell me plainly I am an ass: so that by my foes, sir, I profit in the knowledge of myself, and by my friends, I am abused: so that, conclusions to be as kisses, if your four negatives make your two affirmatives why then, the worse for my friends and the better for my foes.

Finally, Kipling advises that leaders should let “all men count with you, but none too much”—which I interpret as needing to respect everyone while maintaining a distance. So if you spend a full sixty seconds out of every minute putting these precepts into practice, all should go well.

Of course, as Kipling himself warns, disasters will still occur. But by following his advice, you’ll at least give yourself the best chance of success.

If you can keep your head when all about you   
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;   
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   
    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;   
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,   
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,   
    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,   
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,   
    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed