Wednesday, March 17, 2010

A twitch upon the thread...


I have been re-reading Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited and have enjoyed it immensely, so I thought I might give the 2008 film adaptation another try. I remember being rather underwhelmed by it the first time 'round, but as it features the highly-talented Ben Whishaw* as Sebastian, I was willing to take a second look.

My initial reaction, as it turned out, was correct. The acting isn't bad, but neither is it great. The music is rather nice. However, the adaptation really misses the whole point of the book: At the end of the novel, Charles Ryder has come to find, by a painful and circuitous path, faith and love of God. In the film, he only comes to a fond, agnostic indulgence of the puzzling religious impulses one sees in others. "Oh-ho!" the screenwriter seems to chortle at us, peering down magnanimously over his reading glasses, "Yes, well, I suppose if you must, you must. I can be a tolerant modern with the best of them––wink at your theological idiosyncrasies, wot. Now run along and go play with your imaginary friend, Jesus; the adults are talking 'art'."

I just found an interesting review of the film, written when it came out, that bemoans the retooling of a deeply-Catholic novel into a quite bald-faced anti-Catholic movie. That's a legitimate criticism. I was, however, quite surprised to read this little chestnut in the review:

The nature of the relationship between Charles and Sebastian is quite thoroughly discussed in the book. And Sebastian is repeatedly set off from the group Evelyn Waugh dubs "the sodomites" who are led by Antony Blanche––who in the book is THE homosexual in the story AND whose role in the story is to articulate the point-of-view of[,] well, Satan. The key discussion of the relationship between Charles and Sebastian comes through the analysis of the Italian mistress, Kara. She speaks of "these romantic male friendships that you British have," which occur in youth and are a precursor for adult love. Her warning about the relationship has to do with the fact that chumming around getting sloshed and being feckless with your buddies is something children do, and that growing up will mean letting the idyllic, wistful summers of childhood go. And she thinks Sebastian is going to struggle to accept adulthood.

AND THIS is what Brideshead Revisited is about. The invitation of grace to "grow-up" and assume responsibility for our lives ... Sebastian isn't a drunk because he wants to be gay and the Church has filled him with guilt about it. He is drunk because he doesn't want to accept the limits and urgency and intensity of adult Christianity (italics mine, L-dG).

I'm afraid there is only one adequate response to these assertions:

BALLS.

If you really don't think there's any homoerotic tension/overtone here, you haven't been reading carefully, and you certainly haven't besmirched your mind with any knowledge of the author's life. When referring to the first term at Oxford after meeting Sebastian, Charles reminisces that it was like a kind of childhood:

[I]ts toys were silk shirts and liqueurs and cigars and its naughtiness high in the catalogue of grave sins...

After he converted to Catholicism, Waugh burned his own diaries from his years at Oxford. Nevertheless, virtually all his biographers are willing to admit that he had a number of homosexual affairs as a young man. He was known to be somewhat flamboyant. In his memoirs, Sir Harold Acton remembered the Waugh of this period as

...a prancing faun, thinly disguised by conventional apparel. His wide-apart eyes, always ready to be surprised under raised eyebrows, the curved sensual lips, the hyacinthine locks of hair, I had seen in marble and bronze at Naples... Though his horns had been removed, he was capable of butting in other ways.

Ahem! Now that we have cleared that sordid business up...

One if the interesting features of Brideshead Revisited is the subtitle of the third section: "A Twitch Upon The Thread." This is a reference to a rather odd little detective story by G.K. Chesterton, featuring his beloved Father Brown character. I thought it might be interesting to put it up (and why not, as it is in the public domain). For your reading pleasure, then, you will find below Chesterton's short story, The Queer Feet. (Notice how I maturely pass over the coincidental nature of the story's title and the foregoing subject matter.)

*If you are not familiar with Mr. Whishaw's work, I cannot recommend highly enough the beautiful and miraculous film Bright Star. It is one of the loveliest things I think I've ever seen––truly, truly exquisite.


______________________________

The Queer Feet
by G.K. Chesterton

If you meet a member of that select club, "The Twelve True Fishermen," entering the Vernon Hotel for the annual club dinner, you will observe, as he takes off his overcoat, that his evening coat is green and not black. If (supposing that you have the star-defying audacity to address such a being) you ask him why, he will probably answer that he does it to avoid being mistaken for a waiter. You will then retire crushed. But you will leave behind you a mystery as yet unsolved and a tale worth telling.

If (to pursue the same vein of improbable conjecture) you were to meet a mild, hard-working little priest, named Father Brown, and were to ask him what he thought was the most singular luck of his life, he would probably reply that upon the whole his best stroke was at the Vernon Hotel, where he had averted a crime and, perhaps, saved a soul, merely by listening to a few footsteps in a passage. He is perhaps a little proud of this wild and wonderful guess of his, and it is possible that he might refer to it. But since it is immeasurably unlikely that you will ever rise high enough in the social world to find "The Twelve True Fishermen," or that you will ever sink low enough among slums and criminals to find Father Brown, I fear you will never hear the story at all unless you hear it from me.

The Vernon Hotel at which The Twelve True Fishermen held their annual dinners was an institution such as can only exist in an oligarchical society which has almost gone mad on good manners. It was that topsy-turvy product––an "exclusive" commercial enterprise. That is, it was a thing which paid not by attracting people, but actually by turning people away. In the heart of a plutocracy tradesmen become cunning enough to be more fastidious than their customers. They positively create difficulties so that their wealthy and weary clients may spend money and diplomacy in overcoming them. If there were a fashionable hotel in London which no man could enter who was under six foot, society would meekly make up parties of six-foot men to dine in it. If there were an expensive restaurant which by a mere caprice of its proprietor was only open on Thursday afternoon, it would be crowded on Thursday afternoon. The Vernon Hotel stood, as if by accident, in the corner of a square in Belgravia. It was a small hotel; and a very inconvenient one. But its very inconveniences were considered as walls protecting a particular class. One inconvenience, in particular, was held to be of vital importance: the fact that practically only twenty-four people could dine in the place at once. The only big dinner table was the celebrated terrace table, which stood open to the air on a sort of veranda overlooking one of the most exquisite old gardens in London. Thus it happened that even the twenty-four seats at this table could only be enjoyed in warm weather; and this making the enjoyment yet more difficult made it yet more desired. The existing owner of the hotel was a Jew named Lever; and he made nearly a million out of it, by making it difficult to get into. Of course he combined with this limitation in the scope of his enterprise the most careful polish in its performance. The wines and cooking were really as good as any in Europe, and the demeanour of the attendants exactly mirrored the fixed mood of the English upper class. The proprietor knew all his waiters like the fingers on his hand; there were only fifteen of them all told. It was much easier to become a Member of Parliament than to become a waiter in that hotel. Each waiter was trained in terrible silence and smoothness, as if he were a gentleman's servant. And, indeed, there was generally at least one waiter to every gentleman who dined.

The club of The Twelve True Fishermen would not have consented to dine anywhere but in such a place, for it insisted on a luxurious privacy; and would have been quite upset by the mere thought that any other club was even dining in the same building. On the occasion of their annual dinner the Fishermen were in the habit of exposing all their treasures, as if they were in a private house, especially the celebrated set of fish knives and forks which were, as it were, the insignia of the society, each being exquisitely wrought in silver in the form of a fish, and each loaded at the hilt with one large pearl. These were always laid out for the fish course, and the fish course was always the most magnificent in that magnificent repast. The society had a vast number of ceremonies and observances, but it had no history and no object; that was where it was so very aristocratic. You did not have to be anything in order to be one of the Twelve Fishers; unless you were already a certain sort of person, you never even heard of them. It had been in existence twelve years. Its president was Mr. Audley. Its vice-president was the Duke of Chester.

If I have in any degree conveyed the atmosphere of this appalling hotel, the reader may feel a natural wonder as to how I came to know anything about it, and may even speculate as to how so ordinary a person as my friend Father Brown came to find himself in that golden galley. As far as that is concerned, my story is simple, or even vulgar. There is in the world a very aged rioter and demagogue who breaks into the most refined retreats with the dreadful information that all men are brothers, and wherever this leveller went on his pale horse it was Father Brown's trade to follow. One of the waiters, an Italian, had been struck down with a paralytic stroke that afternoon; and his Jewish employer, marvelling mildly at such superstitions, had consented to send for the nearest Popish priest. With what the waiter confessed to Father Brown we are not concerned, for the excellent reason that that cleric kept it to himself; but apparently it involved him in writing out a note or statement for the conveying of some message or the righting of some wrong. Father Brown, therefore, with a meek impudence which he would have shown equally in Buckingham Palace, asked to be provided with a room and writing materials. Mr. Lever was torn in two. He was a kind man, and had also that bad imitation of kindness, the dislike of any difficulty or scene. At the same time the presence of one unusual stranger in his hotel that evening was like a speck of dirt on something just cleaned. There was never any borderland or anteroom in the Vernon Hotel, no people waiting in the hall, no customers coming in on chance. There were fifteen waiters. There were twelve guests. It would be as startling to find a new guest in the hotel that night as to find a new brother taking breakfast or tea in one's own family. Moreover, the priest's appearance was second-rate and his clothes muddy; a mere glimpse of him afar off might precipitate a crisis in the club. Mr. Lever at last hit on a plan to cover, since he might not obliterate, the disgrace. When you enter (as you never will) the Vernon Hotel, you pass down a short passage decorated with a few dingy but important pictures, and come to the main vestibule and lounge which opens on your right into passages leading to the public rooms, and on your left to a similar passage pointing to the kitchens and offices of the hotel. Immediately on your left hand is the corner of a glass office, which abuts upon the lounge––a house within a house, so to speak, like the old hotel bar which probably once occupied its place.

In this office sat the representative of the proprietor (nobody in this place ever appeared in person if he could help it), and just beyond the office, on the way to the servants' quarters, was the gentlemen's cloak room, the last boundary of the gentlemen's domain. But between the office and the cloak room was a small private room without other outlet, sometimes used by the proprietor for delicate and important matters, such as lending a duke a thousand pounds or declining to lend him sixpence. It is a mark of the magnificent tolerance of Mr. Lever that he permitted this holy place to be for about half an hour profaned by a mere priest, scribbling away on a piece of paper. The story which Father Brown was writing down was very likely a much better story than this one, only it will never be known. I can merely state that it was very nearly as long, and that the last two or three paragraphs of it were the least exciting and absorbing.

For it was by the time that he had reached these that the priest began a little to allow his thoughts to wander and his animal senses, which were commonly keen, to awaken. The time of darkness and dinner was drawing on; his own forgotten little room was without a light, and perhaps the gathering gloom, as occasionally happens, sharpened the sense of sound. As Father Brown wrote the last and least essential part of his document, he caught himself writing to the rhythm of a recurrent noise outside, just as one sometimes thinks to the tune of a railway train. When he became conscious of the thing he found what it was: only the ordinary patter of feet passing the door, which in an hotel was no very unlikely matter. Nevertheless, he stared at the darkened ceiling, and listened to the sound. After he had listened for a few seconds dreamily, he got to his feet and listened intently, with his head a little on one side. Then he sat down again and buried his brow in his hands, now not merely listening, but listening and thinking also.

The footsteps outside at any given moment were such as one might hear in any hotel; and yet, taken as a whole, there was something very strange about them. There were no other footsteps. It was always a very silent house, for the few familiar guests went at once to their own apartments, and the well-trained waiters were told to be almost invisible until they were wanted. One could not conceive any place where there was less reason to apprehend anything irregular. But these footsteps were so odd that one could not decide to call them regular or irregular. Father Brown followed them with his finger on the edge of the table, like a man trying to learn a tune on the piano.

First, there came a long rush of rapid little steps, such as a light man might make in winning a walking race. At a certain point they stopped and changed to a sort of slow, swinging stamp, numbering not a quarter of the steps, but occupying about the same time. The moment the last echoing stamp had died away would come again the run or ripple of light, hurrying feet, and then again the thud of the heavier walking. It was certainly the same pair of boots, partly because (as has been said) there were no other boots about, and partly because they had a small but unmistakable creak in them. Father Brown had the kind of head that cannot help asking questions; and on this apparently trivial question his head almost split. He had seen men run in order to jump. He had seen men run in order to slide. But why on earth should a man run in order to walk? Or, again, why should he walk in order to run? Yet no other description would cover the antics of this invisible pair of legs. The man was either walking very fast down one-half of the corridor in order to walk very slow down the other half; or he was walking very slow at one end to have the rapture of walking fast at the other. Neither suggestion seemed to make much sense. His brain was growing darker and darker, like his room.

Yet, as he began to think steadily, the very blackness of his cell seemed to make his thoughts more vivid; he began to see as in a kind of vision the fantastic feet capering along the corridor in unnatural or symbolic attitudes. Was it a heathen religious dance? Or some entirely new kind of scientific exercise? Father Brown began to ask himself with more exactness what the steps suggested. Taking the slow step first: it certainly was not the step of the proprietor. Men of his type walk with a rapid waddle, or they sit still. It could not be any servant or messenger waiting for directions. It did not sound like it. The poorer orders (in an oligarchy) sometimes lurch about when they are slightly drunk, but generally, and especially in such gorgeous scenes, they stand or sit in constrained attitudes. No; that heavy yet springy step, with a kind of careless emphasis, not specially noisy, yet not caring what noise it made, belonged to only one of the animals of this earth. It was a gentleman of western Europe, and probably one who had never worked for his living.

Just as he came to this solid certainty, the step changed to the quicker one, and ran past the door as feverishly as a rat. The listener remarked that though this step was much swifter it was also much more noiseless, almost as if the man were walking on tiptoe. Yet it was not associated in his mind with secrecy, but with something else––something that he could not remember. He was maddened by one of those half-memories that make a man feel half-witted. Surely he had heard that strange, swift walking somewhere. Suddenly he sprang to his feet with a new idea in his head, and walked to the door. His room had no direct outlet on the passage, but let on one side into the glass office, and on the other into the cloak room beyond. He tried the door into the office, and found it locked. Then he looked at the window, now a square pane full of purple cloud cleft by livid sunset, and for an instant he smelt evil as a dog smells rats.

The rational part of him (whether the wiser or not) regained its supremacy. He remembered that the proprietor had told him that he should lock the door, and would come later to release him. He told himself that twenty things he had not thought of might explain the eccentric sounds outside; he reminded himself that there was just enough light left to finish his own proper work. Bringing his paper to the window so as to catch the last stormy evening light, he resolutely plunged once more into the almost completed record. He had written for about twenty minutes, bending closer and closer to his paper in the lessening light; then suddenly he sat upright. He had heard the strange feet once more.

This time they had a third oddity. Previously the unknown man had walked, with levity indeed and lightning quickness, but he had walked. This time he ran. One could hear the swift, soft, bounding steps coming along the corridor, like the pads of a fleeing and leaping panther. Whoever was coming was a very strong, active man, in still yet tearing excitement. Yet, when the sound had swept up to the office like a sort of whispering whirlwind, it suddenly changed again to the old slow, swaggering stamp.

Father Brown flung down his paper, and, knowing the office door to be locked, went at once into the cloak room on the other side. The attendant of this place was temporarily absent, probably because the only guests were at dinner and his office was a sinecure. After groping through a grey forest of overcoats, he found that the dim cloak room opened on the lighted corridor in the form of a sort of counter or half-door, like most of the counters across which we have all handed umbrellas and received tickets. There was a light immediately above the semicircular arch of this opening. It threw little illumination on Father Brown himself, who seemed a mere dark outline against the dim sunset window behind him. But it threw an almost theatrical light on the man who stood outside the cloak room in the corridor.

He was an elegant man in very plain evening dress; tall, but with an air of not taking up much room; one felt that he could have slid along like a shadow where many smaller men would have been obvious and obstructive. His face, now flung back in the lamplight, was swarthy and vivacious, the face of a foreigner. His figure was good, his manners good humoured and confident; a critic could only say that his black coat was a shade below his figure and manners, and even bulged and bagged in an odd way. The moment he caught sight of Brown's black silhouette against the sunset, he tossed down a scrap of paper with a number and called out with amiable authority: "I want my hat and coat, please; I find I have to go away at once."

Father Brown took the paper without a word, and obediently went to look for the coat; it was not the first menial work he had done in his life. He brought it and laid it on the counter; meanwhile, the strange gentleman who had been feeling in his waistcoat pocket, said laughing: "I haven't got any silver; you can keep this." And he threw down half a sovereign, and caught up his coat.

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still; but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was always most valuable when he had lost it. In such moments he put two and two together and made four million. Often the Catholic Church (which is wedded to common sense) did not approve of it. Often he did not approve of it himself. But it was real inspiration––important at rare crises––when whosoever shall lose his head the same shall save it.

"I think, sir," he said civilly, "that you have some silver in your pocket."

The tall gentleman stared. "Hang it," he cried, "if I choose to give you gold, why should you complain?"

"Because silver is sometimes more valuable than gold," said the priest mildly; "that is, in large quantities."

The stranger looked at him curiously. Then he looked still more curiously up the passage towards the main entrance. Then he looked back at Brown again, and then he looked very carefully at the window beyond Brown's head, still coloured with the after-glow of the storm. Then he seemed to make up his mind. He put one hand on the counter, vaulted over as easily as an acrobat and towered above the priest, putting one tremendous hand upon his collar.

"Stand still," he said, in a hacking whisper. "I don't want to threaten you, but––"

"I do want to threaten you," said Father Brown, in a voice like a rolling drum, "I want to threaten you with the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched."

"You're a rum sort of cloak-room clerk," said the other.

"I am a priest, Monsieur Flambeau," said Brown, "and I am ready to hear your confession."

The other stood gasping for a few moments, and then staggered back into a chair.

The first two courses of the dinner of The Twelve True Fishermen had proceeded with placid success. I do not possess a copy of the menu; and if I did it would not convey anything to anybody. It was written in a sort of super-French employed by cooks, but quite unintelligible to Frenchmen. There was a tradition in the club that the hors d'oeuvres should be various and manifold to the point of madness. They were taken seriously because they were avowedly useless extras, like the whole dinner and the whole club. There was also a tradition that the soup course should be light and unpretending––a sort of simple and austere vigil for the feast of fish that was to come. The talk was that strange, slight talk which governs the British Empire, which governs it in secret, and yet would scarcely enlighten an ordinary Englishman even if he could overhear it. Cabinet ministers on both sides were alluded to by their Christian names with a sort of bored benignity. The Radical Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom the whole Tory party was supposed to be cursing for his extortions, was praised for his minor poetry, or his saddle in the hunting field. The Tory leader, whom all Liberals were supposed to hate as a tyrant, was discussed and, on the whole, praised––as a Liberal. It seemed somehow that politicians were very important. And yet, anything seemed important about them except their politics. Mr. Audley, the chairman, was an amiable, elderly man who still wore Gladstone collars; he was a kind of symbol of all that phantasmal and yet fixed society. He had never done anything––not even anything wrong. He was not fast; he was not even particularly rich. He was simply in the thing; and there was an end of it. No party could ignore him, and if he had wished to be in the Cabinet he certainly would have been put there. The Duke of Chester, the vice-president, was a young and rising politician. That is to say, he was a pleasant youth, with flat, fair hair and a freckled face, with moderate intelligence and enormous estates. In public his appearances were always successful and his principle was simple enough. When he thought of a joke he made it, and was called brilliant. When he could not think of a joke he said that this was no time for trifling, and was called able. In private, in a club of his own class, he was simply quite pleasantly frank and silly, like a schoolboy. Mr. Audley, never having been in politics, treated them a little more seriously. Sometimes he even embarrassed the company by phrases suggesting that there was some difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. He himself was a Conservative, even in private life. He had a roll of grey hair over the back of his collar, like certain old-fashioned statesmen, and seen from behind he looked like the man the empire wants. Seen from the front he looked like a mild, self-indulgent bachelor, with rooms in the Albany––which he was.

As has been remarked, there were twenty-four seats at the terrace table, and only twelve members of the club. Thus they could occupy the terrace in the most luxurious style of all, being ranged along the inner side of the table, with no one opposite, commanding an uninterrupted view of the garden, the colours of which were still vivid, though evening was closing in somewhat luridly for the time of year. The chairman sat in the centre of the line, and the vice-president at the right-hand end of it. When the twelve guests first trooped into their seats it was the custom (for some unknown reason) for all the fifteen waiters to stand lining the wall like troops presenting arms to the king, while the fat proprietor stood and bowed to the club with radiant surprise, as if he had never heard of them before. But before the first chink of knife and fork this army of retainers had vanished, only the one or two required to collect and distribute the plates darting about in deathly silence. Mr. Lever, the proprietor, of course had disappeared in convulsions of courtesy long before. It would be exaggerative, indeed irreverent, to say that he ever positively appeared again. But when the important course, the fish course, was being brought on, there was––how shall I put it?––a vivid shadow, a projection of his personality, which told that he was hovering near. The sacred fish course consisted (to the eyes of the vulgar) in a sort of monstrous pudding, about the size and shape of a wedding cake, in which some considerable number of interesting fishes had finally lost the shapes which God had given to them. The Twelve True Fishermen took up their celebrated fish knives and fish forks, and approached it as gravely as if every inch of the pudding cost as much as the silver fork it was eaten with. So it did, for all I know. This course was dealt with in eager and devouring silence; and it was only when his plate was nearly empty that the young duke made the ritual remark: "They can't do this anywhere but here."

"Nowhere," said Mr. Audley, in a deep bass voice, turning to the speaker and nodding his venerable head a number of times. "Nowhere, assuredly, except here. It was represented to me that at the Cafe Anglais––"

Here he was interrupted and even agitated for a moment by the removal of his plate, but he recaptured the valuable thread of his thoughts. "It was represented to me that the same could be done at the Cafe Anglais. Nothing like it, sir," he said, shaking his head ruthlessly, like a hanging judge. "Nothing like it."

"Overrated place," said a certain Colonel Pound, speaking (by the look of him) for the first time for some months.

"Oh, I don't know," said the Duke of Chester, who was an optimist, "it's jolly good for some things. You can't beat it at––"

A waiter came swiftly along the room, and then stopped dead. His stoppage was as silent as his tread; but all those vague and kindly gentlemen were so used to the utter smoothness of the unseen machinery which surrounded and supported their lives, that a waiter doing anything unexpected was a start and a jar. They felt as you and I would feel if the inanimate world disobeyed––if a chair ran away from us.

The waiter stood staring a few seconds, while there deepened on every face at table a strange shame which is wholly the product of our time. It is the combination of modern humanitarianism with the horrible modern abyss between the souls of the rich and poor. A genuine historic aristocrat would have thrown things at the waiter, beginning with empty bottles, and very probably ending with money. A genuine democrat would have asked him, with comrade-like clearness of speech, what the devil he was doing. But these modern plutocrats could not bear a poor man near to them, either as a slave or as a friend. That something had gone wrong with the servants was merely a dull, hot embarrassment. They did not want to be brutal, and they dreaded the need to be benevolent. They wanted the thing, whatever it was, to be over. It was over. The waiter, after standing for some seconds rigid, like a cataleptic, turned round and ran madly out of the room.

When he reappeared in the room, or rather in the doorway, it was in company with another waiter, with whom he whispered and gesticulated with southern fierceness. Then the first waiter went away, leaving the second waiter, and reappeared with a third waiter. By the time a fourth waiter had joined this hurried synod, Mr. Audley felt it necessary to break the silence in the interests of Tact. He used a very loud cough, instead of a presidential hammer, and said: "Splendid work young Moocher's doing in Burmah. Now, no other nation in the world could have––"

A fifth waiter had sped towards him like an arrow, and was whispering in his ear: "So sorry. Important! Might the proprietor speak to you?"

The chairman turned in disorder, and with a dazed stare saw Mr. Lever coming towards them with his lumbering quickness. The gait of the good proprietor was indeed his usual gait, but his face was by no means usual. Generally it was a genial copper-brown; now it was a sickly yellow.

"You will pardon me, Mr. Audley," he said, with asthmatic breathlessness. "I have great apprehensions. Your fish-plates, they are cleared away with the knife and fork on them!"

"Well, I hope so," said the chairman, with some warmth.

"You see him?" panted the excited hotel keeper; "you see the waiter who took them away? You know him?"

"Know the waiter?" answered Mr. Audley indignantly. "Certainly not!"

Mr. Lever opened his hands with a gesture of agony. "I never send him," he said. "I know not when or why he come. I send my waiter to take away the plates, and he find them already away."

Mr. Audley still looked rather too bewildered to be really the man the empire wants; none of the company could say anything except the man of wood––Colonel Pound––who seemed galvanised into an unnatural life. He rose rigidly from his chair, leaving all the rest sitting, screwed his eyeglass into his eye, and spoke in a raucous undertone as if he had half-forgotten how to speak. "Do you mean," he said, "that somebody has stolen our silver fish service?"

The proprietor repeated the open-handed gesture with even greater helplessness and in a flash all the men at the table were on their feet.

"Are all your waiters here?" demanded the colonel, in his low, harsh accent.

"Yes; they're all here. I noticed it myself," cried the young duke, pushing his boyish face into the inmost ring. "Always count 'em as I come in; they look so queer standing up against the wall."

"But surely one cannot exactly remember," began Mr. Audley, with heavy hesitation.

"I remember exactly, I tell you," cried the duke excitedly. "There never have been more than fifteen waiters at this place, and there were no more than fifteen tonight, I'll swear; no more and no less."

The proprietor turned upon him, quaking in a kind of palsy of surprise. "You say––you say," he stammered, "that you see all my fifteen waiters?"

"As usual," assented the duke. "What is the matter with that!"

"Nothing," said Lever, with a deepening accent, "only you did not. For one of zem is dead upstairs."

There was a shocking stillness for an instant in that room. It may be (so supernatural is the word death) that each of those idle men looked for a second at his soul, and saw it as a small dried pea. One of them––the duke, I think––even said with the idiotic kindness of wealth: "Is there anything we can do?"

"He has had a priest," said the Jew, not untouched.

Then, as to the clang of doom, they awoke to their own position. For a few weird seconds they had really felt as if the fifteenth waiter might be the ghost of the dead man upstairs. They had been dumb under that oppression, for ghosts were to them an embarrassment, like beggars. But the remembrance of the silver broke the spell of the miraculous; broke it abruptly and with a brutal reaction. The colonel flung over his chair and strode to the door. "If there was a fifteenth man here, friends," he said, "that fifteenth fellow was a thief. Down at once to the front and back doors and secure everything; then we'll talk. The twenty-four pearls of the club are worth recovering."

Mr. Audley seemed at first to hesitate about whether it was gentlemanly to be in such a hurry about anything; but, seeing the duke dash down the stairs with youthful energy, he followed with a more mature motion.

At the same instant a sixth waiter ran into the room, and declared that he had found the pile of fish plates on a sideboard, with no trace of the silver.

The crowd of diners and attendants that tumbled helter-skelter down the passages divided into two groups. Most of the Fishermen followed the proprietor to the front room to demand news of any exit. Colonel Pound, with the chairman, the vice-president, and one or two others darted down the corridor leading to the servants' quarters, as the more likely line of escape. As they did so they passed the dim alcove or cavern of the cloak room, and saw a short, black-coated figure, presumably an attendant, standing a little way back in the shadow of it.

"Hallo, there!" called out the duke. "Have you seen anyone pass?"

The short figure did not answer the question directly, but merely said: "Perhaps I have got what you are looking for, gentlemen."

They paused, wavering and wondering, while he quietly went to the back of the cloak room, and came back with both hands full of shining silver, which he laid out on the counter as calmly as a salesman. It took the form of a dozen quaintly shaped forks and knives.

"You––you––" began the colonel, quite thrown off his balance at last. Then he peered into the dim little room and saw two things: first, that the short, black-clad man was dressed like a clergyman; and, second, that the window of the room behind him was burst, as if someone had passed violently through. "Valuable things to deposit in a cloak room, aren't they?" remarked the clergyman, with cheerful composure.

"Did––did you steal those things?" stammered Mr. Audley, with staring eyes.

"If I did," said the cleric pleasantly, "at least I am bringing them back again."

"But you didn't," said Colonel Pound, still staring at the broken window.

"To make a clean breast of it, I didn't," said the other, with some humour. And he seated himself quite gravely on a stool. "But you know who did," said the, colonel.

"I don't know his real name," said the priest placidly, "but I know something of his fighting weight, and a great deal about his spiritual difficulties. I formed the physical estimate when he was trying to throttle me, and the moral estimate when he repented."

"Oh, I say––repented!" cried young Chester, with a sort of crow of laughter.

Father Brown got to his feet, putting his hands behind him. "Odd, isn't it," he said, "that a thief and a vagabond should repent, when so many who are rich and secure remain hard and frivolous, and without fruit for God or man? But there, if you will excuse me, you trespass a little upon my province. If you doubt the penitence as a practical fact, there are your knives and forks. You are The Twelve True Fishers, and there are all your silver fish. But He has made me a fisher of men."

"Did you catch this man?" asked the colonel, frowning.

Father Brown looked him full in his frowning face. "Yes," he said, "I caught him, with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world, and still to bring him back with a twitch upon the thread."

There was a long silence. All the other men present drifted away to carry the recovered silver to their comrades, or to consult the proprietor about the queer condition of affairs. But the grim-faced colonel still sat sideways on the counter, swinging his long, lank legs and biting his dark moustache.

At last he said quietly to the priest: "He must have been a clever fellow, but I think I know a cleverer."

"He was a clever fellow," answered the other, "but I am not quite sure of what other you mean."

"I mean you," said the colonel, with a short laugh. "I don't want to get the fellow jailed; make yourself easy about that. But I'd give a good many silver forks to know exactly how you fell into this affair, and how you got the stuff out of him. I reckon you're the most up-to-date devil of the present company."

Father Brown seemed rather to like the saturnine candour of the soldier. "Well," he said, smiling, "I mustn't tell you anything of the man's identity, or his own story, of course; but there's no particular reason why I shouldn't tell you of the mere outside facts which I found out for myself."

He hopped over the barrier with unexpected activity, and sat beside Colonel Pound, kicking his short legs like a little boy on a gate. He began to tell the story as easily as if he were telling it to an old friend by a Christmas fire.

"You see, colonel," he said, "I was shut up in that small room there doing some writing, when I heard a pair of feet in this passage doing a dance that was as queer as the dance of death. First came quick, funny little steps, like a man walking on tiptoe for a wager; then came slow, careless, creaking steps, as of a big man walking about with a cigar. But they were both made by the same feet, I swear, and they came in rotation; first the run and then the walk, and then the run again. I wondered at first idly and then wildly why a man should act these two parts at once. One walk I knew; it was just like yours, colonel. It was the walk of a well-fed gentleman waiting for something, who strolls about rather because he is physically alert than because he is mentally impatient. I knew that I knew the other walk, too, but I could not remember what it was. What wild creature had I met on my travels that tore along on tiptoe in that extraordinary style? Then I heard a clink of plates somewhere; and the answer stood up as plain as St. Peter's. It was the walk of a waiter––that walk with the body slanted forward, the eyes looking down, the ball of the toe spurning away the ground, the coat tails and napkin flying. Then I thought for a minute and a half more. And I believe I saw the manner of the crime, as clearly as if I were going to commit it."

Colonel Pound looked at him keenly, but the speaker's mild grey eyes were fixed upon the ceiling with almost empty wistfulness.

"A crime," he said slowly, "is like any other work of art. Don't look surprised; crimes are by no means the only works of art that come from an infernal workshop. But every work of art, divine or diabolic, has one indispensable mark––I mean, that the centre of it is simple, however much the fulfilment may be complicated. Thus, in Hamlet, let us say, the grotesqueness of the grave-digger, the flowers of the mad girl, the fantastic finery of Osric, the pallor of the ghost and the grin of the skull are all oddities in a sort of tangled wreath round one plain tragic figure of a man in black. Well, this also," he said, getting slowly down from his seat with a smile, "this also is the plain tragedy of a man in black. Yes," he went on, seeing the colonel look up in some wonder, "the whole of this tale turns on a black coat. In this, as in Hamlet, there are the rococo excrescences––yourselves, let us say. There is the dead waiter, who was there when he could not be there. There is the invisible hand that swept your table clear of silver and melted into air. But every clever crime is founded ultimately on some one quite simple fact––some fact that is not itself mysterious. The mystification comes in covering it up, in leading men's thoughts away from it. This large and subtle and (in the ordinary course) most profitable crime, was built on the plain fact that a gentleman's evening dress is the same as a waiter's. All the rest was acting, and thundering good acting, too."

"Still," said the colonel, getting up and frowning at his boots, "I am not sure that I understand."

"Colonel," said Father Brown, "I tell you that this archangel of impudence who stole your forks walked up and down this passage twenty times in the blaze of all the lamps, in the glare of all the eyes. He did not go and hide in dim corners where suspicion might have searched for him. He kept constantly on the move in the lighted corridors, and everywhere that he went he seemed to be there by right. Don't ask me what he was like; you have seen him yourself six or seven times tonight. You were waiting with all the other grand people in the reception room at the end of the passage there, with the terrace just beyond. Whenever he came among you gentlemen, he came in the lightning style of a waiter, with bent head, flapping napkin and flying feet. He shot out on to the terrace, did something to the table cloth, and shot back again towards the office and the waiters' quarters. By the time he had come under the eye of the office clerk and the waiters he had become another man in every inch of his body, in every instinctive gesture. He strolled among the servants with the absent-minded insolence which they have all seen in their patrons. It was no new thing to them that a swell from the dinner party should pace all parts of the house like an animal at the Zoo; they know that nothing marks the Smart Set more than a habit of walking where one chooses. When he was magnificently weary of walking down that particular passage he would wheel round and pace back past the office; in the shadow of the arch just beyond he was altered as by a blast of magic, and went hurrying forward again among the Twelve Fishermen, an obsequious attendant. Why should the gentlemen look at a chance waiter? Why should the waiters suspect a first-rate walking gentleman? Once or twice he played the coolest tricks. In the proprietor's private quarters he called out breezily for a syphon of soda water, saying he was thirsty. He said genially that he would carry it himself, and he did; he carried it quickly and correctly through the thick of you, a waiter with an obvious errand. Of course, it could not have been kept up long, but it only had to be kept up till the end of the fish course.

"His worst moment was when the waiters stood in a row; but even then he contrived to lean against the wall just round the corner in such a way that for that important instant the waiters thought him a gentleman, while the gentlemen thought him a waiter. The rest went like winking. If any waiter caught him away from the table, that waiter caught a languid aristocrat. He had only to time himself two minutes before the fish was cleared, become a swift servant, and clear it himself. He put the plates down on a sideboard, stuffed the silver in his breast pocket, giving it a bulgy look, and ran like a hare (I heard him coming) till he came to the cloak room. There he had only to be a plutocrat again––a plutocrat called away suddenly on business. He had only to give his ticket to the cloak-room attendant, and go out again elegantly as he had come in. Only––only I happened to be the cloak-room attendant."

"What did you do to him?" cried the colonel, with unusual intensity. "What did he tell you?"

"I beg your pardon," said the priest immovably, "that is where the story ends."

"And the interesting story begins," muttered Pound. "I think I understand his professional trick. But I don't seem to have got hold of yours."

"I must be going," said Father Brown.

They walked together along the passage to the entrance hall, where they saw the fresh, freckled face of the Duke of Chester, who was bounding buoyantly along towards them.

"Come along, Pound," he cried breathlessly. "I've been looking for you everywhere. The dinner's going again in spanking style, and old Audley has got to make a speech in honour of the forks being saved. We want to start some new ceremony, don't you know, to commemorate the occasion. I say, you really got the goods back, what do you suggest?"

"Why," said the colonel, eyeing him with a certain sardonic approval, "I should suggest that henceforward we wear green coats, instead of black. One never knows what mistakes may arise when one looks so like a waiter."

"Oh, hang it all!" said the young man, "a gentleman never looks like a waiter."

"Nor a waiter like a gentleman, I suppose," said Colonel Pound, with the same lowering laughter on his face. "Reverend sir, your friend must have been very smart to act the gentleman."

Father Brown buttoned up his commonplace overcoat to the neck, for the night was stormy, and took his commonplace umbrella from the stand.

"Yes," he said; "it must be very hard work to be a gentleman; but, do you know, I have sometimes thought that it may be almost as laborious to be a waiter."

And saying "Good evening," he pushed open the heavy doors of that palace of pleasures. The golden gates closed behind him, and he went at a brisk walk through the damp, dark streets in search of a penny omnibus.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Ashes: VI


Here we are at last with our final installment of Eliot's long, difficult, intense, and intensely personal Ash Wednesday. I have not, up to this point, added much in the way of analysis and interpretation. I tend to see scripture and poetry (somewhat) in the same category: they are neither tidy nor aloof. So interpretation, however much we may desire or pretend to the contrary, is usually quite personal. That is not to say that we are reduced merely to picking the linty fruit of our own navel gazing. (That was a more revolting analogy than I intended! Sorry.) Indeed, to the extent we are able, I think both God and good sense require us to seek knowledge by the usual, pedestrian, earth-bound means: research, logic, pondering, even (gasp!) debate, or at least discussion. In this process, objectivity ought to be a goal, but we should not fool ourselves into believing that we are above the fray.

Ultimately, we are laborers, and that means we work in the valley and, with time, among the foothills. We have not yet ascended the mountain. We are masons wielding trowel and mud and brick. As such, we must have enough perspective to know how to use a square and a plumb-line. We are not, however, the Architect, and our glimpses of the blueprints are, for the most part, fragmentary.

At the same time, as believers in the reality of the Holy Spirit, we should hope in (and work for) those moments when, amid the dust and rubble, a rock momentarily becomes a seerstone––when our battered lanterns miraculously cast light through walls, and even into hearts.

With these caveats in mind, then, let's briefly (and far from definitively) examine where Eliot has led us thus far.


I

Ash Wednesday begins in the desert. This is a common image for Eliot, author of The Waste Land and The Hollow Men. Modernism, wandering through the territory of savage individualism, cannot help but lead to anxiety and alienation, and, ultimately, to nihilism. Ayn Rand is the marijuana to Sartre's heroin––a gateway philosophy, if you like, a path toward No Exit.

The soul is weary. All is arid sameness. Having sought the World, he finds it only ash. The power in the earth, in nature, in life itself (and it is real: "veritable") is stripped away precisely because it is "transitory." Hitting rock-bottom, the rock crumbles and the bottom drops out. Lacking power to reach for the possibility of the divine ("blessèd face"), the soul would try to build something "upon which to rejoice," but how can it lay a foundation on nothingness? Even the modern poets' reaching to outdo one another in ironic paeans of sophisticated despair (like drowning men holding a peeing contest) ultimately holds no interest. Any effort to "rejoice" is a laughless joke, and now, in the blackness, the soul must consider that it might have missed something, some reality it didn't see, some meaning. If so, surely there will be judgment. In a world of nothingness, failing to notice the single reality is the ultimate sin, indeed, the only sin. In fear then, the soul begins to pray, begging mercy. In the last few lines, quoting the liturgy, Eliot has tied this single soul to a community. Perhaps we can see here some refutation of modernism's shrill insistence on individualism and the alienation that results. Perhaps to be saved at all we must be saved together.


II

My immediate reaction as I begin to read the second stanza is relief. It isn't cheerful, but there is some respite from the intolerable, insuperable despair. The poet begins to consider death itself, forgetting, oblivion––perhaps there is some rest here. He has been consumed utterly: "my legs" (mobility), "my heart my liver" (life), and "that which had been contained in the hollow round of my skull" (thought). There is a "Lady." Perhaps Dante's Beatrice? There is a focus here on the colors white and blue, which are distinctly Marian. This is a strange kind of paradise. The soul has been reduced––pared down to essentials? The bones "shine" and "chirp." He offers himself to "oblivion" (are we to associate "oblivion" with God?) and thereby retains himself, or at least some part of himself (Matt. 16:25 may be applicable here). Is this a kind of resurrection? We are not really in Christian territory yet, not as it is commonly understood. There are whiffs of Oriental incense (Buddhism? Nirvana?), yet I am reminded of some descriptions of Theosis: being swallowed in, or participating in the life of God himself. And in this section God does indeed invite these bones to participate, commanding them to prophesy. Now begins a litany of paradox, some of which, again, strikes me as Marian. (She is often associated with "the Rose.") Still, this is clearly not an expected kind of paradise for the believing Christian. Three times, he refers to the end of "love." (Perhaps more of a Buddhist notion, aimed at freeing oneself from all desire, craving, and attachment.) At least, though, the torture of the first stanza is alleviated. There is peace; there is some "land," some "inheritance."


III

The third section is a Pilgrim's Progress of sorts, maybe a Jacob's Ladder. I think Eliot is broadening his perspective, so I look at the first two stanzas as little summations of our progress to this point. The first refers to a "devil" that wears the face of "despair," which was the major opponent in the first section. The second stanza transcends that trial, leaving the devil "twisting, turning below," and now passes through a place with "no more faces," a place reminiscent of another devouring animal (like the leopards), an "agèd shark." There is no struggle here––it is peaceful, though not paradisaical––but the soul is ready to continue upward.

(I suppose I should mention that a "stair" is also an important image in Dante's Divine Comedy, which was a constant inspiration/preoccupation for Eliot. Indeed, the fragment of Dante used in the next section comes from a line that mentions a "stair.")

The third stanza is uncharacteristically lush. It is full of life and gorgeous pastoral imagery (in stark contrast to the sere beginning), but this richer language adds a new challenge: the poet hints––finally!––at eroticism. Eliot has escaped his own head––remember, from the first section:
And pray to God to have mercy upon us
And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
––he is now ready to face some of the basic challenges of incarnational theology. A reference to a "fig" is a common sign of fecundity, and it doesn't take a psychology major to guess at what Freud might say when addressing the meaning of a "slotted window" and an "antique flute." The soul is not immune to these temptations, but ultimately leaves behind "distraction" and the "music of the flute" [insert sophomoric joke here], finding "strength beyond hope and despair," continuing to climb.

This section ends with another quote from the liturgy:
Lord, I am not worthy
Lord, I am not worthy

But speak the word only.
These are the words spoken by the celebrant before he consumes the Host, and so occur in the same place in this poem as they do in the Mass: the intersection of the physical and the Divine.


IV

The soul now finds itself, again, in a kind of paradise––a moment of rest before the coming "exile." As in section II, we find the Lady, but this paradise is no valley of dry (albeit bright) bones. This is a garden growing in "violet" and "green." The Lady is still associated strongly with the colors blue and white, but notice that she makes "cool the dry rock and made firm the sand / In blue of larkspur, blue of Mary’s colour." The Lady is an agent of growth and life; there are no leopards stripping flesh from bones. In turning rocks and sand blue, she seems to be sanctifying the physical realm. There is a kind of salvation at work, perhaps a restoration to an Edenic ideal: "restoring / Through a bright cloud of tears, the years, restoring / With a new verse the ancient rhyme. Redeem / The time."

The poetry itself seems restored to life. We don't hear the jarring, fragmented rhythms of the opening. This "life" seems more holy (in this section, in contrast to section III, the aforementioned "flute is breathless"––Ahem), and at only a gesture from the Lady,
...the fountain sprang up and the bird sang down
Redeem the time, redeem the dream
The token of the word unheard, unspoken

Till the wind shake a thousand whispers from the yew

V

I have to agree with C.E. Chaffin that the fifth section of Ash Wednesday is... unfortunate. The rhythm and bizarre rhyme scheme are distracting and tend to rob this section of what impact it might have otherwise had. Nevertheless, a few observations:

We are back in the world. This might explain the intent of the choppy rhythm and mincing rhymes: it is difficult to find transcendence here. We are too busy, the "world is too much with us" (to rob another poet). The poet meditates, rambling, on the Word. Though He created it, the "unstilled world" does not recognize Him. We are unable to fully turn to Him, so he cries out: "O my people, what have I done unto thee."

Still, there may be cause to hope. Lines like "...the last desert before the last blue rocks..." and "The desert in the garden the garden in the desert..." suggest that we move through cycles of desert and garden; there are oases along the way, where we can be taught (as in the final section) "to sit still," where we might again see the Lady, where we can be reminded of The Word.


VI

As I haven't yet presented the conclusion, I will say little, but do want to highlight a thought or two. In this final section, we find we have come full circle. Life is still life, with all its difficulty and darkness, but the heart has changed. Where the first section begins with "Because," indicating that life has caused despair, we now find the word "Although," indicating hope in spite of the suffering and buffeting of mortal life.

More than that, maybe finding our faith (broken and weak though it might be) can return to us the love we used to feel for the world. But we must be careful to remember that "This is the time of tension between dying and birth..."––we are not here to stay.

Finally, we should see a glimpse of another possible identity for "the Lady." Wisdom is, in holy writ, often depicted as female––Sophia, in fact––but this depiction is also closely tied to another holy being, hinted at here with the words "spirit of the fountain, spirit of the garden ... spirit of the river, spirit of the sea." As a guide and teacher throughout the poem, it is possible the author means to suggest that this is the work of the Holy Ghost.

So, now, enjoy the sixth and final installment of T.S. Eliot's Ash Wednesday:


VI

Although I do not hope to turn again
Although I do not hope
Although I do not hope to turn

Wavering between the profit and the loss
In this brief transit where the dreams cross
The dreamcrossed twilight between birth and dying
(Bless me father) though I do not wish to wish these things
From the wide window towards the granite shore
The white sails still fly seaward, seaward flying
Unbroken wings

And the lost heart stiffens and rejoices
In the lost lilac and the lost sea voices
And the weak spirit quickens to rebel
For the bent golden-rod and the lost sea smell
Quickens to recover
The cry of quail and the whirling plover
And the blind eye creates
The empty forms between the ivory gates
And smell renews the salt savour of the sandy earth

This is the time of tension between dying and birth
The place of solitude where three dreams cross
Between blue rocks
But when the voices shaken from the yew-tree drift away
Let the other yew be shaken and reply.

Blessèd sister, holy mother, spirit of the fountain, spirit of the garden,
Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks,
Our peace in His will
And even among these rocks
Sister, mother
And spirit of the river, spirit of the sea,
Suffer me not to be separated

And let my cry come unto Thee.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LENT...


...so I won't call this an "interlude," but you must watch it anyway!

OK Go + Rube Goldberg = AWESOME!

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Ashes V


In our penultimate installment of Eliot's (somewhat dense and obscure, but intensely personal) poem, we find a quote from one of the most extraordinary moments in the liturgical year. Known as, "The Reproaches," this text is sung during the liturgy on Good Friday, and is as harrowing, in its way, as that awful moment in the accounts of the Passion: My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me!


(A copy of the sheet music for this setting is available here should you like to follow along.)

The sung text in the video above is in both Latin and Greek (so don't adjust your speakers if you aren't picking it up). Here's the English text, at no additional charge:

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.


Because I brought thee forth from the land of Egypt: thou hast prepared a Cross for thy Saviour.
Hagios, o Theos. Hagios ischyros. Hagios athanatos, eleison imas.
(Holy and mighty. Holy God. Holy and immortal, have mercy upon us.)
Because I led thee through the desert forty years, and fed thee with manna, and brought thee into a land exceeding good: thou hast prepared a Cross for thy Saviour.
Hagios, o Theos. Hagios ischyros. Hagios athanatos, eleison imas.
What more could I have done unto thee that I have not done? I indeed did plant thee, O my vineyard, with exceeding fair fruit: and thou art become very bitter unto me: for vinegar, mingled with gall, thou gavest me when thirsty: and hast pierced with a spear the side of thy Saviour.
Hagios, o Theos. Hagios ischyros. Hagios athanatos, eleison imas.
I did scourge Egypt with her firstborn for thy sake: and thou hast scourged me and delivered me up.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

I led thee forth from Egypt, drowning Pharaoh in the Red Sea: and thou hast delivered me up unto the chief priests.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

I did open the sea before thee: and thou hast opened my side with a spear.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

I did go before thee in the pillar of cloud: and thou hast led me unto the judgment-hall of Pilate.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

I did feed thee with manna in the desert: and thou hast stricken me with blows and scourges.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

I did give thee to drink the water of life from the rock: and thou hast given me to drink but gall and vinegar.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

I did smite the kings of the Canaanites for thy sake: and thou hast smitten my head with a reed.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

I did give thee a royal sceptre: and thou hast given unto my head a crown of thorns.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

I did raise thee on high with great power: and thou hast hanged me on the gibbet of the Cross.

O my people, what have I done unto thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me.

[Caveat lector: Most English translations are rendered with some slight differences from the foregoing (and likely with somewhat greater accuracy), but this version had a kind of "King-James-Version-y goodness" that always feels like home to me.]

For those of you who are still sore over that bit of unpleasantness in 1054 (and I'm not going to name names... Brandon), consider the following something of an olive branch. While still technically Roman chant, it has a much more "Eastern" church flavor––and, I must admit, chant with an ison is pretty cool. (JP II would say it's just part of breathing with "both lungs"... though some of those basses on the recording sound like they must have three or four at least! As a tenor, I am simultaneously filled with awe and covetousness. Then again, in opera, the tenor usually gets the girl, so there are some consolations––though mostly everyone is dead by the end anyway.)


Now, back to the text!

Drawing on lines from Micah, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, the text is heavily informed by the Old Testament. The Isaiah quotes are, for me, particularly interesting, as I spent some time digging in the early verses of Ch. 5 during my mission. The prophet sets his words in a style common for his time, inspired by (or at least imitating) a popular song-form. One of the important points we should note comes in verse 2, as the speaker rolls out a litany of all the things he has done to ensure the vineyard's success:
And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes...
The inclusion of the winepress is an unusual point. Normally, one such press would be sufficient for a number of neighboring vineyards; it was something of a communal resource. To build your own winepress was an expensive investment, and it suggests that the master of the vineyard was expecting extraordinary yields. This explains the real sense of despair and anger the master feels when, in spite of all he has done, the vines only produce "wild grapes." (Perhaps we should think about this chapter when we are bemused by a certain NT passage involving a rather unfortunate fig tree.)

Understanding what a winepress really meant to grape-growers is important. I mean, I like grapes as much as the next guy, but really, what's the big deal? In the ancient world, lacking the technologies of refrigeration and rapid transportation that we enjoy today, wine-making was the only way of turning this economically essential fruit into something valuable and lasting. We can nip down to the supermarket, but in the ancient world, months (years, really) of hard work would vanish in a couple weeks if it couldn't be bottled as wine.

Scripturally, the symbolism of the winepress resonates further. In a rather gory passage (Isaiah 63), the theme arises again:
I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people [there was] none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
And for the observant Latter-day Saint, there should be another familiar echo:
[H]e shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God (D&C 76:107).
(Note the beautiful relationship here between the two kinds of "blood stains" in these passages; the blood of those who reject Christ (in Isaiah)––blood spilled by destruction––will stain His garments, whereas, if our garments are marked with His blood––spilled by salvation––we are rendered "spotless.")

The vicissitudes of life, even the cycles of the year remind us: we are here for a brief season, then we wither and are gone. Only the Master Craftsman is able to make of us something that lasts, something of real value: if we allow Him, he will make us like Himself. After all, Lewis reminds us, everything that exists––every tree, flower, planet, and supernova; every human relationship we cherish––is only here for one purpose: "Every Christian is to become a little Christ."

How perfect, then, that He has chosen to reach toward us (and allow us to reach toward Him) most often through bread and wine.

Anyway, I must dash. (There is nothing like gratitude to remind me just how much repenting I have to do! It's a good thing I still have some Lent left; it's like a runway that lets us get our feet on the ground and taxi to the next liturgical terminal, so we don't just crash into Easter.)

Here's the Eliot you've been waiting for:


V

If the lost word is lost, if the spent word is spent
If the unheard, unspoken
Word is unspoken, unheard;
Still is the unspoken word, the Word unheard,
The Word without a word, the Word within
The world and for the world;
And the light shone in darkness and
Against the Word the unstilled world still whirled
About the centre of the silent Word.
O my people, what have I done unto thee.
Where shall the word be found, where will the word
Resound? Not here, there is not enough silence
Not on the sea or on the islands, not
On the mainland, in the desert or the rain land,
For those who walk in darkness
Both in the day time and in the night time
The right time and the right place are not here
No place of grace for those who avoid the face
No time to rejoice for those who walk among noise and deny the voice

Will the veiled sister pray for
Those who walk in darkness, who chose thee and oppose thee,
Those who are torn on the horn between season and season, time and time, between
Hour and hour, word and word, power and power, those who wait
In darkness? Will the veiled sister pray
For children at the gate
Who will not go away and cannot pray:
Pray for those who chose and oppose
O my people, what have I done unto thee.
Will the veiled sister between the slender
Yew trees pray for those who offend her
And are terrified and cannot surrender
And affirm before the world and deny between the rocks
In the last desert before the last blue rocks
The desert in the garden the garden in the desert
Of drouth, spitting from the mouth the withered apple-seed.
O my people.

Monday, March 01, 2010

Ashes: Interlude


Today, a portion of Tennyson's monstrously long In Memoriam. Dealing with the nexus of faith, doubt, and the demands of integrity, the poet relies on music as a metaphor to describe man's struggle with (or struggle toward) God and faith. It is, I think, as potent an image as Jacob and his angel.

Canto 96
You say, but with no touch of scorn,
Sweet-hearted, you, whose light-blue eyes
Are tender over drowning flies,
You tell me, doubt is Devil-born.

I know not: one indeed I knew
In many a subtle question versed,
Who touch'd a jarring lyre at first,
But ever strove to make it true:

Perplext in faith, but pure in deeds,
At last he beat his music out.
There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.

He fought his doubts and gather'd strength,
He would not make his judgment blind,
He faced the spectres of the mind
And laid them: thus he came at length

To find a stronger faith his own;
And Power was with him in the night,
Which makes the darkness and the light,
And dwells not in the light alone,

But in the darkness and the cloud,
As over Sinai's peaks of old,
While Israel made their gods of gold,
Altho' the trumpet blew so loud.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Ashes: IV


Nothing much to report today, apart from the cold that is making the rounds in my apartment. However, as I got the stomach flu, I am exempt––at least that's what I keep telling the Lord in our ongoing conversations.

(Speaking of which, that reminds me of a part in the book Cryptonomicon in which Goto Dengo, a Japanese soldier/prisoner recuperating in a Catholic hospital in the Philippines, begins to have discussion-arguments with the crucifix on his wall. The Lord always wins, remaining silent. Finally, going stir-crazy, Dengo tries to figure out what "INRI"––the superscript above the cross––is supposed to mean. One of the possibilities he considers is strangely reminiscent of a story once told me by a cleric, who shall remain anonymous: "Initiate Nail Removal Immediately" was Goto's guess.)

Drat. That wasn't particularly Lenten, was it? Well, let's make reparation thus:


The music is really too glorious to fit the season, but the text is suitably humble (from the deuterocanonical Book of Judith):
Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te
Deus Israel
qui irasceris
et propitius eris
et omnia peccata hominum in tribulatione dimittis
Domine Deus
Creator coeli et terrae
respice humilitatem nostram
Or, in English:
I have never put my hope in any other but in you,
O God of Israel
who can show both anger
and graciousness,
and who absolves all the sins of suffering man.
Lord God,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
be mindful of our lowliness.
Composed by (who else?) Thomas Tallis, this motet, Spem in alium, is set for eight five-part choirs, singing simultaneously. How a composer can juggle 40 independent lines of music without disaster is beyond me... far, far beyond me.

Part four (of six) of our Eliot series follows:


IV

Who walked between the violet and the violet
Who walked between
The various ranks of varied green
Going in white and blue, in Mary’s colour,
Talking of trivial things
In ignorance and knowledge of eternal dolour
Who moved among the others as they walked,
Who then made strong the fountains and made fresh the springs

Made cool the dry rock and made firm the sand
In blue of larkspur, blue of Mary’s colour,
Sovegna vos*

Here are the years that walk between, bearing
Away the fiddles and the flutes, restoring
One who moves in the time between sleep and waking, wearing

White light folded, sheathing about her, folded.
The new years walk, restoring
Through a bright cloud of tears, the years, restoring
With a new verse the ancient rhyme. Redeem
The time. Redeem
The unread vision in the higher dream
While jewelled unicorns draw by the gilded hearse.

The silent sister veiled in white and blue
Between the yews, behind the garden god,
Whose flute is breathless, bent her head and signed but spoke no word

But the fountain sprang up and the bird sang down
Redeem the time, redeem the dream
The token of the word unheard, unspoken

Till the wind shake a thousand whispers from the yew

And after this our exile

_____________________________________
*The words, "Sovegna vos," come from a fragment of Dante's Purgatorio. Interestingly, they were originally intended to serve as a portion of the epigraph for Eliot's The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock––though, ultimately, he chose a different quote. The fragment,
'sovegna vos a temps de ma dolor'.
Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina.
reads, in Eliot's own translation:
'be mindful in due time of my pain'.
Then dived he back into that fire which refines them.
Thus, in Ash Wednesday, the words are a call to remembrance: "Be mindful [of me/us?]..." For more information regarding the influence of Dante on this text, see this article.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Ashes: III


With compliments to Fr. Peter, and apropos of living in BYU's unmarried housing––a hotbed of celibacy!––let's begin today with a brief reading from the monastic rule par excellence, St. Benedict's:

The life of a monk [or Mormon missionary!] ought always to be a Lenten observance. However, since such virtue is that of few, we advise that during these days of Lent he guard his life with all purity and at the same time wash away during these holy days all the shortcomings of other times. This will then be worthily done, if we restrain ourselves from all vices. Let us devote ourselves to tearful prayers, to reading and compunction of heart, and to abstinence.

During these days, therefore, let us add something to the usual amount of our service, special prayers, abstinence from food and drink, that each one offer to God "with the joy of the Holy Ghost" (1 Thes 1:6), of his own accord, something above his prescribed measure; namely, let him withdraw from his body somewhat of food, drink, sleep, speech, merriment, and with the gladness of spiritual desire await holy Easter.

In 2006, I had the opportunity to sing during a session of General Conference (a good but grueling experience––I don't know where the MoTab Choir members get their stamina). My favorite song from that set was a scriptural paraphrase of a Book of Mormon text, set (by the incomparable Ronald Staheli) to an arrangement of Sibelius' beautiful Finlandia. Below you can view a video of this performance:


The scriptural passage from which the text was derived was, of course, the Psalm of Nephi.* (See here to read it in its entirety). It strikes me that this is an especially appropriate text for Lent. This Psalm possesses a dual nature, painted with penitence and gilded with praise. Consider, for instance, this passage:

...[M]y heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.

And now compare with the central line of the entire psalm:

Awake, my soul! No longer droop in sin. Rejoice, O my heart, and give place no more for the enemy of my soul.

Trust has delivered Nephi from his sins, triumphant only within the triumph of Christ. Nephi recites a litany of his blessings, which––considering his sins––would only serve to deepen his self-condemnation, were it not for the Atonement. This is God's alchemy (what C.S. Lewis called the "deep magic" in his Narnian Chronicles), which not only purifies us, but turns our dross to gold! The following line is especially telling:

He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.

This is a fascinating image, reminiscent of John Donne's famous words:
"Batter my heart, three person'd God... [B]end / Your force, to breake, blowe, burn and make me new... [F]or I / Except you enthrall mee, never shall be free..." It also calls to mind Pope Benedict's statement: "...[We must] strive toward truth with our whole heart, mind and will... It is then we see clearly. It is then that we are truly children of God living in His Majesty’s unfathomable reality of fiery love."

In our Lenten gardening we sow the seeds of Easter, and though the work is demanding and necessarily somber, it is suffused with quiet, expectant joy: Winter fades––Spring Himself is on the way!

I didn't go to church today;
the sun was shining so,
And drifting motes dropped like God's grace
through golden light below.
The rich grass preached and and rose like Christ,
the trees were up-flung hymns––
Great, open-throated orisons
of leaf and waving limb.
The zephyr-Spirit blew me where
it listed, and I went,
Becoming––for a moment––an
apostle, freshly sent.
Hear a homily of sunlight
making Truth a bell to ring:
There is Life from dark earth bursting!
Ah,
Come, my Jesus,
Thou true Spring!

Poor fare, I know––I'm no poet. Let's leave it to the professionals. Another installment (three of six) of Eliot's Ash Wednesday follows:


III

At the first turning of the second stair
I turned and saw below
The same shape twisted on the banister
Under the vapour in the fetid air
Struggling with the devil of the stairs who wears
The deceitful face of hope and of despair.

At the second turning of the second stair
I left them twisting, turning below;
There were no more faces and the stair was dark,
Damp, jaggèd, like an old man’s mouth drivelling, beyond repair,
Or the toothed gullet of an agèd shark.

At the first turning of the third stair
Was a slotted window bellied like the fig’s fruit
And beyond the hawthorn blossom and a pasture scene
The broadbacked figure drest in blue and green
Enchanted the maytime with an antique flute.
Blown hair is sweet, brown hair over the mouth blown,
Lilac and brown hair;
Distraction, music of the flute,
stops and steps of the mind over the third stair,
Fading, fading; strength beyond hope and despair
Climbing the third stair.

Lord, I am not worthy
Lord, I am not worthy

but speak the word only.
___________________________________________

*For those interested:

  • Here you can find a paper by the poet describing how he adapted the text (contains complete lyrics for the song).
  • Here is a form-critical analysis of Nephi's Psalm.
  • Another analysis.
  • Yet another analysis.
  • Brief thoughts on possible temple imagery in the psalm.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Ashes: Interlude


For those who would like further information about the poem Ash Wednesday, and some guidance in interpreting it (including the four installments still to come), please see the following resources:

Friday, February 19, 2010

Ashes: II


The next installment (two of six) of Eliot's Ash Wednesday.

(By way of friendly advice, don't worry if some of this seems pretty opaque; Eliot is challenging at the best of times, and this is difficult stuff even for him. There are some analyses online––which I will find and link to at a later date––but sometimes poems like this one defy analysis, and have to be intuited rather than interpreted.)


II

Lady, three white leopards sat under a juniper-tree
In the cool of the day, having fed to sateity
On my legs my heart my liver and that which had been contained
In the hollow round of my skull. And God said
Shall these bones live? shall these
Bones live? And that which had been contained
In the bones (which were already dry) said chirping:
Because of the goodness of this Lady
And because of her loveliness, and because
She honours the Virgin in meditation,
We shine with brightness. And I who am here dissembled
Proffer my deeds to oblivion, and my love
To the posterity of the desert and the fruit of the gourd.
It is this which recovers
My guts the strings of my eyes and the indigestible portions
Which the leopards reject. The Lady is withdrawn
In a white gown, to contemplation, in a white gown.
Let the whiteness of bones atone to forgetfulness.
There is no life in them. As I am forgotten
And would be forgotten, so I would forget
Thus devoted, concentrated in purpose. And God said
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only
The wind will listen. And the bones sang chirping
With the burden of the grasshopper, saying

Lady of silences
Calm and distressed
Torn and most whole
Rose of memory
Rose of forgetfulness
Exhausted and life-giving
Worried reposeful
The single Rose
Is now the Garden
Where all loves end
Terminate torment
Of love unsatisfied
The greater torment
Of love satisfied
End of the endless
Journey to no end
Conclusion of all that
Is inconclusible
Speech without word and
Word of no speech
Grace to the Mother
For the Garden
Where all love ends.

Under a juniper-tree the bones sang, scattered and shining
We are glad to be scattered, we did little good to each other,
Under a tree in the cool of the day, with the blessing of sand,
Forgetting themselves and each other, united
In the quiet of the desert. This is the land which ye
Shall divide by lot. And neither division nor unity
Matters. This is the land. We have our inheritance.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Ashes: Interlude


It is with great regret that I announce that my Lenten fast has been hijacked by a pagan deity. At approximately 5:00 PM, I made violent and abundant offering to Commodus, the porcelain goddess. Services began again at 9:00, and now we have had a kind of Vigils at 1:00 AM. It has been surprisingly regular, and might even be a benefit to observing the Divine Office if it weren't for the fact that it is so damned distracting to pray: "Glory be to the––BLLLEEECHERRRGurbleurble." (Though to be fair, one is always sure to make a profound inclination!) On the bright side, pagan worship is something of an improvement for me, as I am usually rendered completely atheist upon vomiting––it can take days to work my way back even to Pantheism.

I suppose I'll say "hi" again at 5:00, though I am somewhat worried by the fact that there are no fluids left. We've just gone clean out of bile, and so I suppose we'll have to move on to CSF and lymph, if we don't just jump straight to eyeballs and kidneys. It has been a real experience; have you ever puked so hard your joints hurt?

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Ashes: I


First, the photographic evidence: Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris. I did attend Mass this morning, and it was lovely. LDS missionary experience stood me in good stead, as the liturgy was bilingual, so I could follow along without a hitch really. (Well, not including the Spanish responses. I reverted to the English ones I'm used to.)

The homily was interesting (and brief, as he had to give it in two languages, one after the other), drawing on a passage from Mark:

So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.

Thus the Lenten season bears fruit as God works in us, though often we know not how. Our job then becomes one of clearing ground and weeding and watering. Ascesis and penitence are mainly a matter of getting out of God's way, making a place for him to work.

When it came to the imposition of the ashes, they used the formula from the NT: Repent (vertical mark) and believe the Gospel (horizontal).

The parish is in a transitional situation. They built the school first, and are now in the process of raising funds for the church proper, so Mass takes place in the gym area; there are no kneelers, just the vinyl floor over cement slab. This, combined with the short space between the rows of chairs, made kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer an interesting experience, but by golly you were focused!

The only disappointment was the Sanctus. Nobody knew the setting they were using, including the priest and the cantor––the congregation didn't stand a chance. It was in Spanish, so it wasn't in the little booklets, and it didn't sound like it was one the Spanish-speakers had ever heard before. (Again, mission experience came to the rescue: there has never been a disaster in religious music so spectacular as one abortive Zone Conference musical number in which I participated. It was pretty much an a capella invocation of the First Horseman of the Apocalypse––Pestilence himself rode with us that morning. I was hoping the earth could just swallow us all up afterward. Honestly, the mere memory induces literal nausea. The unfortunate Sanctus is no big deal at all.)

Anyway, there will be more meditation forthcoming, but for now a little poetic thought (part one of six):

Ash Wednesday
T.S. Eliot


I

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man’s gift and that man’s scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the agèd eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?

Because I do not hope to know again
The infirm glory of the positive hour
Because I do not think
Because I know I shall not know
The one veritable transitory power
Because I cannot drink
There, where trees flower, and springs flow, for there is nothing again

Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessèd face
And renounce the voice
Because I cannot hope to turn again
Consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
Upon which to rejoice

And pray to God to have mercy upon us
And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
Because I do not hope to turn again
Let these words answer
For what is done, not to be done again
May the judgement not be too heavy upon us

Because these wings are no longer wings to fly
But merely vans to beat the air
The air which is now thoroughly small and dry
Smaller and dryer than the will
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still.

Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death
Pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Friday, February 12, 2010

The Valentines of Valentine's


Though the martyr St. Valentinus was removed from the general calendar in 1969 due, in part, to a paucity of historical information about him, I thought we might bring him up anyway in an attempt to divert some of the flood of treacle soon to unfold.

His name derives from the Latin term valens, or "worthy." We use the related words "value" or "valuable" in English, and our Spanish brothers and sisters frequently use the phrase "vale la pena," meaning, "it's worth it" (literally: it is worth the pain, or effort). His name isn't in the earliest martyrologies, but was added in 496 by Pope Gelasius I (though with the admission that his deeds were "known only to God").

It seems that there were actually at least three different saints of that name, and all of them were martyrs. One a Roman priest, another a bishop, and the third a man martyred in Africa. Apart from their name, the historical sources at least make clear that all of the men were very fond of chocolates. (The foregoing sentence was a shameless lie, but it would be pretty cool, no?)

Here's a bit of one of them anyway:


I'm feeling romantic already.

Finally, in honor of the more popular observances of this coming Sunday, a favorite by W.H. Auden:

The Love Feast

In an upper room at midnight
See us gathered on behalf
Of love according to the gospel
Of the radio-phonograph.

Lou is telling Anne what Molly
Said to Mark behind her back;
Jack likes Jill who worships George
Who has the hots for Jack.

Catechumens make their entrance;
Steep enthusiastic eyes
Flicker after tits and baskets;
Someone vomits; someone cries.

Willy cannot bear his father,
Lilian is afraid of kids;
The Love that rules the sun and stars
Permits what He forbids.

Adrian's pleasure-loving dachshund
In a sinner's lap lies curled;
Drunken absent-minded fingers
Pat a sinless world.

Who is Jenny lying to
In her call, Collect, to Rome?
The Love that made her out of nothing
Tells me to go home.

But that Miss Number in the corner
Playing hard to get....
I am sorry I'm not sorry...
Make me chaste, Lord, but not yet.
There's some interesting theology tucked away in there, should you care to tease it out (not to mention some simply very-clever writing). Apologies to friends and relatives who are offended by "tits." Though, on second thought, most of us have had sufficient experience with them (though we may not remember it) that I don't really feel bad. Happy St. Valentine's Day, all!

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Daily Universe: Letter and Response


This was printed in today's edition of the school newspaper:

BYU vs. BYU-Idaho

Brigham Young University-Idaho and Provo are both Church schools, yet they differ nearly as two different worlds. After two years at BYU-Idaho, I transferred to BYU and I have been both pleased and disappointed. The new academic pressure to be successful flourishes within the walls of each building on campus. Yet the “Spirit of Ricks” that enchants and supports the students of BYU-Idaho does not exist here as clearly as in Rexburg. The standards of living are not held to such high regard and practiced with such strictness here at BYU. Though many people strive to do their best in maintaining the Honor Code, I believe the students here at BYU would benefit from working a little harder at raising the bar.

Girls, watch your skirts and clothing. It is essential to the sanity of our young men and to the dignity of womanhood that you are modest. Young men, you are priesthood holders. It has been asked of you to be clean in your appearance. Also, it is time to work together and keep curfew. The contents within the Honor Code have been set up by prophets, therefore, Heavenly Father has asked us to live a little different from the rest of the world. Great blessings and unity thrive at a university that is living a strict honor code together. I believe it is time for BYU to wake up and recommit to keeping the Honor Code. It does not restrict our lives but enriches our lives.

Chelsea Jamison
Spokane, Wash.

My riposte:

The Honor Code is a fine document, but we should be careful not to stray into the realm of fanaticism in its application. Letters like Tuesday's "BYU vs. BYU-Idaho" skirt the line. Suggesting that "the contents [of] the Honor Code have been set up by prophets" is somewhat misleading. It did not come down from the mountain with Moses, scrawled on the back side of the Decalogue. Those interested in the history of the Honor Code (and the many and varied permutations that have occurred over the years) should avail themselves of the free copy of "BYU: A House of Faith" online: http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/byu/chapter3.htm#honor>. More to the point, the Honor Code has value only insofar as it helps us to live the gospel. Increased strictness for its own sake is actually counterproductive. Hugh Nibley, one of BYU's most celebrated scholars, wrote: "The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, [etc.] come and go, but Babylon is always there: rich [and] respectable.... [T]he haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearance" (from "Approaching Zion," emphasis mine). If a BYU education has taught me anything, it is the frightening ease with which we swallow camels, while distracted by ultimately irrelevant gnats.

Nicholas Sherwood
Granby, Missouri
To be perfectly honest, I am rather proud of my restraint. I was pretty tempted just to say: "Hell, if you really liked Auschwitz North that much (and the frozen wasteland that surrounds it), I'm sure the reindeer will take you back if you ask nicely."

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Foot in Mouth Disease
or, It Goes Down Like Buttah


Only a few days ago, Reed Cowan's new documentary, 8: The Mormon Proposition, made its debut at the Sundance Film Festival. It has been in the news recently, and has––as you might expect––stirred up a real rumpus in Utah. (Though, strictly speaking, the film doesn't really drop any bombshells. Does anyone really believe that the Church didn't play the major role in that campaign? Does anyone really believe that the Church hadn't been planning for initiatives like this since the mid 90's, beginning in Hawaii? Honestly, you'd have to be living under a rock.)

In any case, one of the most talked-about issues in conjunction with this movie is an interview with Utah senator Chris Buttars. The interview was quite inflammatory (as we will see in a moment) and Buttars seems a little confused that people are so worked up.* He has recently stated that Cowan et al deceived him during the interview, explaining why he would make such impolitic comments on record and on camera. And what, you may ask, was the nature of this damnable lie? What were the subtle machinations that so ensnared the good senator? Well, Gentle Reader, I'll tell you: a crew-member mentioned serving a mission at some point in their conversation, and another crew-member, the cameraman actually, was wearing a BYU jacket. I know––the mind reels at such demonic cunning! Indeed, so subtly planned was this trickery that it required its perpetrators to lay the groundwork years earlier. Their commitment to their dark scheme was total, the cameraman actually going so far as to enroll at BYU, study there, and claim his degree at the end of his studies. Wheels within wheels, my friends! However, even that will not prepare you for the utter, satanic dedication with which the other crew-member crafted his own back-story. Would you, could you believe it if I told you––and I swear that I lie not––the crew-member in question had actually served an LDS MISSION!?! Like the Gadiantons of old, the methods given them by their dark masters are nothing less than "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

But enough about that. Let's take a gander at the text of the interview itself, and see if we can understand why it has become so infamous...

I believe in the Constitution being something that was inspired of God and the way these people are destroying the Constitution is they’re saying the Constitution is a living document, that means it’s subject to change. [Also they're saying that punctuation is unimportant and run-on sentences are not a bad thing to use when you are an elected official even though they make the fact that you get to vote on state educational policy a kind of cruel irony and sounding like a mongoloid in a public setting won't really affect your political career negatively because you live in Utah and having an "R" after your name in campaign materials essentially guarantees your reelection.] But truth don’t change [No it do not––though apparently proper subject-verb agreement do], it does not change, and I won’t accept any of that. So they say, well, marriage is between a man and a woman and that’s changed, [Whaaaa? Isn't that a contradiction? Either marriage is between a man and a woman OR it has been "changed." You can't have both. It makes about as much sense to say "The sun really does still rise in the east every morning, and that's changed." Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?] look around, look at all these combinations. Combinations of abominations, [Homeboy is mixing up Ether 8:19 and Matthew 24:15] as far as I’m concerned. To me, homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion and you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts, but I don’t care. [Well, if by "perversion" you are referring to something "of an unnatural or abnormal kind," as per the dictionary, then you're on thin ice. The argument of the "crime against nature" just doesn't hold any water, scientifically speaking. In practically all species that reproduce sexually, homosexuality is observable, particularly when you're considering higher vertebrates. In species that have life-long, monogamous pairings, there are also life-long, monogamous, homosexual pairings. The incidence stays pretty stable at 5 to 8%, whatever group you consider. Now, remember, in animal populations these members do not usually reproduce... yet they don't die out. This is not to make any moral or ethical claim regarding homosexuality, but the "it's unnatural" argument just does not stand up to scrutiny in the light of current science.]

They want to talk about being nice, but they’re the meanest buggers I’ve ever seen. [This is called "cherry picking." Of course they're the "meanest buggers" you've ever seen! How could they not be, when you've restricted your sample only to include "buggers"? Now, if you were to consider non-buggers, your evaluation might change. You cannot very well say, "Those straight folks are mean buggers," precisely because those straight folks are, by definition, not "buggers."] It’s just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war, but it’s been taken over by the radical side and the gays are totally taken over by the radical side. You don’t see the gay ["...the gay..."? Presumably "the gay" has a name, yes? "Have you talked to the gay this morning?" "What, you mean Bob?" "Yeah, like I said, the gay."] out there saying “let’s not do this gang.” [Ah, punctuation, thou art a fickle mistress! Suffice it to say there is a world of difference between "[L]et's not do this gang," and "[L]et's not do this, gang." Those commas are important, kids!] You see them marching around with signs and everything else. [Yes, just like those darn Muslims. Marching their signs right into the Pentagon, or really tall buildings in New York. You can hardly turn on the news these days without hearing about someone picketing a nightclub or an embassy in the middle east. Those Taliban rebels hiding in caves with their poster-board and magic markers, lobbing pithy slogans at US troops. The horror.]

I believe the whole thing is immoral and I believe you're moving towards... You see, [But wait! What am I moving towards? Don't leave us hanging!] if you say to me “Quit shoving your morals down my throat, Buttars,” my answer back is “You know my morals. What’s yours?” What is the morals of a gay person? [Yes, senator, what is they?] You can’t answer that, [No, you can't, because it sure as hell isn't English!] because anything goes. So now you’re moving towards a society that has no morals and there’s never been a nation that survived that’s done that. [I can't even think of anything funny to say to this, the implication is so incredibly offensive. Today dressing in drag, tomorrow smashing babies with shovels––it's a slippery slope. How long has it been since this man was last on the home planet?]

There’s a lot of dollar costs. [Yes, there is... there is a lot of costs. And, please note, they're of the "dollar" variety... as opposed to... I dunno, rupees?] You take their trying to have insurance rights the same as a man and a woman. Now, when you’re married, insurance companies can quantify, we got this many married people so they run their underwriting. You have no way to do that with gay people [Really? It would be impossible to register domestic partnerships and know their total number? Is this like some kind of gay Schrödinger's cat paradox? Once you put the homos in the filing cabinet you cannot know how many there are?] and you’re going to take on paying for all the extra, most often, diseases, and that’s huge. [Pause with me a moment. Let us revel in the glory of that statement. Repeat with me: "And you're going to take on paying for all the extra, most often, diseases, and that's huge." I don't know what that means, but could you puree it so I can smear it all over my body? Please. Luxuriate in the nutcase-ness.] And now you, as a straight, get to share that cost. That’s what I’m talking about. Those kinds of diseases are not exclusive with gays, but they represent the huge majority. [Evidently, he is unaware of the continent of Africa. More to the point, do gays currently get some special tax break or lowered insurance rate? Do they not currently pay for some of the benefits heterosexuals enjoy? Wouldn't a stable gay partnership represent the same kinds of economic benefits as a stable straight partnership?]

I believe that you will destroy the foundation of American society because I believe the cornerstone of it is a man and a woman and a family. It is, in my mind, the beginning of the end. Oh, it's worse than that. Sure, Sodom and Gomorrah was localized, this is world-wide. You can’t tell me that something was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah** is not going on wholesale right now and to a large degree among the gay community... [That's right. If there's one thing you know about gay people, it's that they all like gang rape! Oh, wait. That's not quite right is it, particularly when you consider that most sexual assault perpetrated against males is committed by... wait for it... straight men. Sexual assault, ironically, is not an uncommon form of anti-gay crime. See here for more information.] The underbelly is they do not want equality, they want superiority. [And gang rape! Don't forget that!]

The man is a wonder. He has his foot so far in his mouth, he could use his toes to wipe his backside. Honestly, people took the trouble to go to a voting booth and cast a ballot for this guy? What is wrong with you, Utah? It's like some kind of horrible dream.

There's no place like home... There's no place like home... There's no place like home...
___________________________


*Do remember that this is the same man who, when a colleague on the senate floor referred to a bill as an "unwanted baby," chimed in to say that "...this baby is black. It's a dark, ugly thing..." and was then shocked when people took issue with his choice of words!

**See here, and here for some interesting discussions on the subject.

There is only one canonized description of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It comes from Ezekiel:
As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou [speaking of Jerusalem] hast done, thou and thy daughters.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Ezra Taft Benson, April 1989 general conference:
The scriptures abound with evidences of the severe consequences of the sin of pride to individuals, groups, cities, and nations... It destroyed the Nephite nation and the city of Sodom.

Neal A. Maxwell, April 1999 general conference:
When love waxes cold, let the poor and the needy beware too, for they will be neglected, as happened in ancient Sodom.

Selfishness likewise causes us to be discourteous, disdainful, and self-centered while withholding from others needed goods, praise, and recognition as we selfishly pass them by and notice them not.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Seamus Heaney, again...


This is another favorite of mine, Gentle Reader, by our incomparable Irish friend.


Punishment

I can feel the tug
of the halter at the nape
of her neck, the wind
on her naked front.

It blows her nipples
to amber beads,
it shakes the frail rigging
of her ribs.

I can see her drowned
body in the bog,
the weighing stone,
the floating rods and boughs.

Under which at first
she was a barked sapling
that is dug up
oak-bone, brain-firkin:

her shaved head
like a stubble of black corn,
her blindfold a soiled bandage,
her noose a ring

to store
the memories of love.
Little adulteress,
before they punished you

you were flaxen-haired,
undernourished, and your
tar-black face was beautiful.
My poor scapegoat,

I almost love you
but would have cast, I know,
the stones of silence.
I am the artful voyeur

of your brain's exposed
and darkened combs,
your muscles' webbing
and all your numbered bones:

I who have stood dumb
when your betraying sisters,
cauled in tar,
wept by the railings,

who would connive
in civilized outrage
yet understand the exact
and tribal, intimate revenge.

This piece, like many of Heaney's poems from this period, draws on the bog, both for material and metaphor. The body of his "little adulteress" was pulled from the peat bed in 1951. The author's musing on the details of her body and her history leads him to dredge up memories from the swamp of his own experience of Ireland's conflict with Great(er) Britain.

In the first stanza he begins by reliving part of the young woman's execution. Significantly, he is not a simple observer––this is first-person experience: "I can feel the tug of the halter..." His language is highly intimate, erotic even, as he segues to an exterior perspective. From "the nape of her neck" he moves to "her naked front," then with greater detail to "her nipples." He begins to use seafaring jargon, referring to the "frail rigging of her ribs." The third stanza moves into the present––she is a corpse now––but continues to echo the sailing imagery with an anchor ("weighing stone") and buoyant "rods and boughs."

The fourth stanza begins to be less personal. The victim is viewed as organic material, a "sapling." Time spent under ground has turned her bones to "oak" and her skull into a "brain-firkin" (a kind of small barrel). Shaved hair has become the stubble of a harvested field. Heaney continues to use enjambment, creating a rhythmic awkwardness to match his discomfort with coming subject matter. Simultaneously, we see a kind of enjambment of imagery––consider the "rods and boughs" that are part of both the sailing metaphor and the notion of her having bones of "oak." The "stubble or corn" comes from the world of agriculture, and colors our understanding of "her noose" (earlier called a "halter") as a "ring," perhaps like the ring in the nose of an animal. The next stanza then changes the meaning of this "ring"; it stores "memories of love," like a wedding ring, but the next line––referring to her as a "little adulteress"––reveals that the "love" was illicit.

Heaney's words become yet more sympathetic, describing her as "beautiful" and "undernourished"; a "poor scapegoat"––for where is the man who shared in her sin? And now we begin to see the author's own sin, we become privy to an equally intimate "moral nudity." (Does he hope we will see his soul with the same understanding and kindness with which he has viewed her body?) His understanding has enabled him to "almost love" her, yet he confesses that he would have acceded to her death, at least by the consent of "silence." (The notion of casting "stones" here is ambiguous: is this a reference to death by lapidation, or are these light and dark stones cast as votes?) The author describes himself in terms yet more damning: he is a "voyeur." His consideration of her is not unsullied by personal interest; she is material for him to craft. Yet he sees her in ways more intimate even than her lover, who never viewed the honeycomb of her exposed brain, her "muscles' webbing," or––a beautiful line––"all [her] numbered bones."

He then shows us that his hypothetical assent to her death was not mere sentiment, because he has already committed an equivalent sin of omission. When Irish women were punished by being shorn and smeared with tar, then handcuffed in public––their own adultery was political: having relationships with British enemies of Irish independence––he too "stood dumb." His disapproval is weakened by being alloyed with insincerity. Yes, he would later speak of his "outrage," but this was "conniv[ing]," a nod to the "civilized" establishment. (Is this poem itself an example of that disingenuous impulse? After all what could be more "civilized" than turning his condemnation into literature?) Bone deep, he understands (and therefore––to some degree––sympathizes) with this "tribal, intimate revenge." He is a collaborateur, yet who among us could say different?

[Note: the body pictured above is not the body described in this poem. (You might have noticed that the head isn't shaved; besides which, the body in the image is male.) Unfortunately, there are no pictures available of the "little adulteress." For those who are interested, Heaney did write a different poem about the body in the photo: see here.]

Monday, January 18, 2010

Screwtape: "I ♥ Pat"


Pat Robertson, on the 700 Club, said the following regarding the Hatian earthquake:

They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." True story. And so, the devil said, "OK, it's a deal." And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.

Forget physics and plate tectonics, it's just Satan! And remember, if Haiti weighs as much as two ducks... SHE'S A WITCH!

Well, it appears that the prince of darkness himself has just responded in a letter to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action.

But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished.

Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth––glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"?

If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox––that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it––I'm just saying: Not how I roll.

You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings––just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best,
Satan

LILY COYLE, MINNEAPOLIS

In any case, raise your glasses, folks. Here's to Pat and to his dear old uncle Screwtape!

Monday, January 11, 2010

"Why am I so afraid?"
or, The Scientology Test


First, watch this:

Comedy Central PresentsFriday 10pm / 9c
Maria Bamford - Cult
www.comedycentral.com
Joke of the DayStand-Up ComedyFree Online Games


I was surprised this week to read this article.

You ought to read the whole thing, but let's just start with the little story that opens the piece:

A woman sat at her dining room table, buried in dozens of books and magazines. She looked discouraged. Her daughter asked if she could help.

The woman said she was preparing a Relief Society lesson. She told her daughter she didn't know how she could possibly "boil down all the information" she had collected for the lesson. The process, the woman acknowledged, was both time consuming and frustrating.

The daughter looked surprised.

"Why," she asked, "are you trying to boil down information? An inspired* Church-writing** committee has already done that for you."

The committee's work, the daughter continued, has been approved by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. It has been translated into dozens of languages and sent around the world. It corresponds with the lessons and information taught at the same time to other auxiliaries and quorums in the Church.

Now the woman looked confused.

"Everything you need––and more––is in your manual," the daughter said. "Now, here––drink this kool-aid. I made it specially."
(Okay, so that last little bit I made up, but seriously...)

The story concludes later:

Following the advice of her daughter, the woman above turned off her computer, shut the dozens of books open on her dining room table and picked up her manual and scriptures. The frustration she had previously experienced disappeared. She knew the material was doctrinally accurate. She knew its source was valid. It was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. She had won the victory over herself. She loved Big Brother.
(That last bit I did NOT make up... George Orwell did.)

Mormon blogger, Ronan James Head, invented a little examination that would prove extremely useful if more LDS folk employed it. It is called "The Scientology Test." It is safe and easy to use, plus it's absolutely free. Here's how you perform it:

1. Select a statement or text to examine.
2. Read and/or listen to it carefully.
3. Pretend that this statement/text actually came out of The Church of Scientology.
4. In that context (i.e. Scientology), does the statement make you think, "Wow. What a creepy cult..."?
5. If your answer is "Yes," the text in question has just failed the Scientology Test.

Brothers and Sisters, that article just failed the Scientology test... BIG TIME.

Brother Louis Midgley, a Mormon scholar, wrote the following about an LDS book of scriptural commentary, but it is quite germane to the subject at hand:

Such [approaches] also tend to close the door on the untapped possibilities within the scriptures. Our tendency is to rely upon presumably authoritative statements on matters that may seem urgent to us, but which may not have been of concern to those responsible for providing us with the [scriptures]. [We] seem to approach the text ... already knowing ... both the questions and the answers. Hence there are really no new insights, no discoveries on the teachings found in the text, that are not already accessible from sources already familiar to the Saints.
This injunction is somewhat like gun-control legislation: those who are going to use the guns illegally won't scruple at obtaining them illegally. Gun owners conscientious enough to be properly licensed probably aren't going to shoot anyone anyway, licensed or not. Similarly, teachers that are going to use crazy-go-nuts materials will likely use them regardless. Teachers who will fastidiously follow this counsel are probably responsible enough to be trusted to select and use outside materials in a way that does not detract from the lesson's intent.

If I were running the show (and we can all be thankful that I'm not), I would try to implement the following:

1. Focus the materials back on the scriptures. "Text, without context, is pretext." The manual should be designed to guide us through the canonical text––on its own terms! Currently, the approach is often the opposite: we use gobbets from the scriptures, stripped of their setting, and mix them willy-nilly in a kind of theological hobo stew. This approach is in many ways demeaning to the scriptures; we pull them apart, take just the bits we like, and then force those bits to fit into our molds. This is called "proof-texting," and it sucks.

2. Institute more Teacher-Improvement classes, and broaden their focus. These classes are currently a possibility, but they don't get used very frequently, which is a shame. It would be nice if these classes could also cover some basic skills of scriptural interpretation (helping class members to find and avail themselves of all the great material and resources that are out there), and preparing talks to help them practice public speaking skills.

3. Remember that memory is the residue of thought. (See here.) I don't know really how to implement this institutionally, other than saying we need to become comfortable with having questions, capable of accepting a certain degree of ambiguity. I think that we are supposed to have questions to wrestle with. Wresting can make you tired and dirty, but it was the closest Jacob ever got to an angel. We don't like the questions that cannot be answered neatly and wrapped up with a bow––consequently, much of our teaching feels... well... packaged. It's like Velveeta. Not that there's anything wrong with Velveeta, and I'm sure it delivers some basic nutrients, but wouldn't you rather have Stilton?
____________________

*Inspired? Sure! But let's not get carried away and suggest that "inspired" always means correct. For instance, read the following story from BYU Professor, Daniel Peterson, who has written lessons for Church manuals for years:

Having, some time back, served on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee of the Church for nearly ten years, I would never, ever, take a Gospel Doctrine manual to be an official and binding declaration of Church doctrine. We tried to get things right, we prayed about our work, and what we did was reviewed in Salt Lake before publication, but it scarcely constituted scripture.

A story:

Once, the scriptural selection about which I was assigned to write a lesson included, among other things, Acts 20:7-12, in which the apostle Paul drones on for so long in the course of a sermon that a young man (ironically named Eutychus or “Fortunate”) dozes off and falls from the rafters. Paul has to restore him to life. As a joke, I inserted a passage in my lesson manuscript that read somewhat along the following lines:

QUOTE
Have a class member read Acts 20:7-12. Have you ever killed anyone with a sacrament meeting speech? How did it make you feel? What steps can you take in the future to ensure that it does not happen again?

Members of the committee laughed, and the committee chairman sent my lesson on up, incorporating their suggested revisions but also still including my little joke, to Salt Lake City. Where it passed Correlation. (I can only assume that each member of the committee chuckled and then passed it on, expecting that somebody else would remove it.) When I received the galleys of the lesson back for final approval just before it went to press, the joke was still there. I faced one of the greatest moral crises of my life, but finally called Church headquarters and suggested that they probably didn’t really want the lesson to go out to Church members entirely as it stood. So the joke was removed.

The point being that Gospel Doctrine manuals are not to be confused with authoritative divine revelations.


**I have no idea why they hyphenated that; it makes no sense grammatically. A "brick-laying committee" is a committee that lays brick. Thus a "Church-writing committee" would be a committee that writes Church. But I digress...

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

A Christmas Meditation



And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not... but was grateful anyway.





Shepherd's Carol

We stood on the hills, Lady,
Our day’s work done,
Watching the frosted meadows
That winter had won.

The evening was calm, Lady,
The air so still,
Silence more lovely than music
Folded the hill.

There was a star, Lady,
Shone in the night,
Larger than Venus it was
And bright, so bright.

Oh, a voice from the sky, Lady,
It seemed to us then
Telling of God being born
In the world of men.

And so we have come, Lady,
Our day’s work done,
Our love, our hopes, ourselves
We give to your son.