Poke-Em-With-A-Stick-Wednesday (Joseph Wright Takes On Saul of Tarsus)

So, I've finally gotten around to reading THE PARGITERS: THE NOVEL-ESSAY PORTION OF 'THE YEARS', an edition of Woolf's unfinished first-draft attempt at the work that later became her demi-penultimate novel, THE YEARS. I've had a copy since 1986 (when I bought it at People's Bookstore in Milwaukee, on the lower east side), but given that THE YEARS is one of her weaker books I've obviously taken my time in getting around to it, spurred on by my recent reading of two other books on Bloombury or by Bloomsbury figures.

The most interesting thing about THE YEARS, from my point of view, has always been that one of the characters in it was inspired by Joseph Wright, Tolkien's tutor; Woolf had been deeply impressed by Wright's biography (written by Mary Wright) and his enlightened attitude towards women (which might in turn have explained Tolkien's support of women's higher education, which many of his generation at best tolerated and more often disparaged). In fact, in the course of my researches I found a letter Woolf had written to Mrs. Wright unknown to the editors of her Collected Letters (after I drew it to their attention they did get it added in, but I forget whether in the trade paperback reprinting or a supplement -- it's a long time ago now).

What startled me this time was coming across a quote attributed to Wright in the editor's introduction to this volume (p. xii). It so happens that I own the two-volume biography of Joseph Wright (although I confess I haven't read it yet; in this case I've only had the book since 2005, so I shd get to it one of these years), so I looked it up. It's a good thing I did, since the editor in fact compressed the quote, leaving out half a sentence without any indication of having done so. Here's the quote as it appears in Wright's book:

"St. Paul and the likes of him have much to answer for, and it is ever my most pious wish that they will reap their due reward. It is due to them, and them alone, that woman has been such a downtrodden creature in the past. It is only the present generation of women that is beginning to realize the abject state of woman in the past. Not so very long ago -- it still exists in many old-fashioned families -- a woman was regarded as a poor weak and feeble-minded creature who had no right to think for herself, but must leave all that to her husband, however silly and stupid he might be. Nay, things were even worse, for a woman was not generally allowed to chose her own husband, that was practically settled for her by her parents or guardian. I am thankful that all this is passing away. Apart from every other consideration, it is much better for the whole human race . . ." *

This is, of course, overstating the case -- Roman law and Mediterranean/Mid-East culture were both pretty misogynistic all on their own -- but he's right in that Paul of Tarsus put a theological imprimatur on misogyny that lasted for centuries (in fact, in some circles it's not over yet).

And did JRRT absorb this lesson from his mentor, along with his encyclopedic knowledge of out-of-the-way words and thirst to learn all he cd about their origin, or dogged determination to see a lengthy project through until its final triumphant completion and publication? Impossible to say, but it is interesting to note that for an author as old-fashion and traditionalist as Tolkien is generally held to be, there's a marked lack of emphasis on 'Obey'. Might be interesting to go back and re-read "The Mariner's Wife" from that perspective.

--John R.

current reading: THE PARGITERS by Virginia Woolf

*letter of Joseph Wright to his fiancee, Mary Wright; Sept. 5th 1896. Boldface emphasis mine; italic emphasis his. THE LIFE OF JOSPEH WRIGHT, by Elizabeth Mary Wright. (London: Oxford Univ. Pr, 1932). Volume I, page 315. My copy of this book bears a worn sticker in the shape of a green shield that I take to read "[B]oots/[Boo]klov[er']s/[L]ibrary"

Aslan Buddha

So, yesterday I saw an article* railing against Liam Neeson for being too open minded. In the course of which, the author accuses the Archbishop of Canterbury of being essentially a Fifth Columnist for Islamic jihad. Here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-blackwell/a-fatwa-on-liam-neeson_b_799591.html

Pretty mind-boggling, I thought. There's a good case to be made rebutting Neeson,** but of course to do that you'd have to pay attention to what Neeson actually said, as reported in the following piece:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctentertainment/2010/12/aslan-represents-mohammed-and.html

That is, the voice-actor (a devout Catholic) isn't presuming to speak for the author but simply gave his own opinion. It seems an odd thing to get excited about -- I mean, does any F. Scott Fitzgerald scholar worry about what Rbt Redford might say?

--John R.

.........................

* by Ken Blackwell, the Kathleen Harris of the 2004 election

**and also a good one defending his position

Dueling Billboards

So, a few days ago I saw the news story about a group of atheists putting up an anti-Xian Xmas message in New York City, apparently in a spot where traffic slows down a lot as people prepare to enter the Lincoln Tunnel. Which has so incensed the Catholic League that they've taken time off from trying to stop people from reading Phillip Pullman and taken out a second billboard, one of those Christ-is-the-reason-for-the-season ones, to counter the message.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/11/131988679/War-On-Christmas-Spreads-To-Lincoln-Tunnel

Two observations:

First, the atheists' message is self-evidently not 'reasonable', since the majority of people seeing their billboard will not in fact agree with them. So there's a self-imposed limit on how much damage a self-contradictory, smug little message like this can do.

Second, the Catholic League billboard in most contexts wd be so ordinary as to attract no notice -- we all see things like this around all the time. But it's a sad commentary that the League doesn't think God can take care of himself; that the Almighty needs them to rent billboard space. As the article-writer suggested at the end of his piece, there are more Xian uses for that money.

--JDR

A Christmas Billboard

So, recently I came across a mention of a deliberately controversial billboard put up by a liberal Anglican church (St. Matthew-in-the-City) in Auckland, New Zealand. It's not so much the billboard itself, which was both funny and extremely disrespectful of Joseph and Mary, that's interesting as has been the response to it. Within hours it'd been defaced, and the comments about it on their website, while including thanks from a few who found its challenge to Biblical literalism* thought-provoking, was dominated by vicious denunciations by self-identified Xians from around the world, not just of the image but specifically of the pastor (which in turn sparked a fair number of smug, condescending responses from Skeptical Inquirer-types). I find it fascinating that people who think they're Xian have no problem putting up controversial signs and billboards all around the country that present their views in the most gruesome, graphic, and in-your-face terms, yet explode in a fit of indignation when anyone who holds a contrary view presents it in the same formats. Or, in this case, the vehemence of those who believe, in contradiction of the Gospels, that Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage.

At any rate, if you'd like to see an image of the billboard (before it was vandalized), and also to hear the accompanying sermon, or skim over some of the (many, many) comments, here's the link. I'd advise not clicking on it, though, if you're easily offended by irreverent religious cartoons:

http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/index.php

Somewhat less controversially, tied to this is a second story about the ongoing collapse of Xianity in England: the number of people who identify themselves as Xians is now just over half the population, and of that half less than a quarter (23%) are Anglicans (that is, about 12-13% of the total population). For a church that used to be mandatory for all English, that's quite a fall, and helps explain much of the turmoil

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10860

Lucky for us that Madison won his war to prevent us from having any Established church over here (though he failed in his effort to make churches pay tax like everyone else). And yet the recent move to bar someone who wrote a book blasting Billy Graham from serving as a city councilman in Asheville North Carolina is a reminder that the fights of the 'founding fathers' are never really over.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327

--John R.

.....................

*e.g., the idea that God is white, male, has a beard, and lives in the sky. actually, I must say the explanations by the folks behind the poster show they have as little idea what Biblical literalists believe as vice-versa.

Valentinus or Valentine

So, today is St. Valentine's Day. As a rule, our holidays tend to have very little to do with the events that they're supposed to commemorate, or even their ostensible origins. Bunnies hiding candy eggs to celebrate resurrection and the defeat of sin and death is a bit of a stretch, for example. Sixth-generation Americans drinking green beer and pretending to be Irish relates to British missionary work in pagan Ireland how? But I ythink my favorite in this regard is Valentine's Day, both because it's a holiday that serves a great purpose in the here & now --celebrate the person you most love in your life; let them know how much you cherish them-- but also because its origins are so murky.

On the one hand, we know nothing about Valentine, other than that there were several figures of that name in early Xiandom, some of them martyrs. Later apologists fixed on a particular one of these as the original 'St.' Valentine, but their identification seems fairly dubious.

On the other hand, we have VALENTINUS, a very well known Xian theologian of the same era, the most influential teacher of his day and a much beloved figure to his many disciples; it was widely believed (truly or not we do not know) that his own teacher had been a disciple of Paul himself -- a sort of third-generation apostle.* It seems v. likely that 'Valentine', about whom we know nothing except a legend that he was beloved by all who knew him, and the gifted Xian leader Valentinus, author of works such as The Gospel of Truth, were one and the same.

Except that Valentinus isn't listed among the Church Fathers, because his followers ultimately did not become the mainstream of Xianity, and all his works were ultimately condemned as 'heretical'. So I suspect we have in 'St. Valentine' is the ghost of the memory of the person with all its content (what he actually taught) hollowed out. If so, in 'St. Valentine's Day' we have the Church devoting a feast day to commemorate a person who is condemned as a heretic under a slightly different spelling of his name.

Me, I think it just goes to show how differently we can appear in the eyes of our friends from those of our enemies. So it's a day that celebrates finding the best in others, especially those we love.

Happy Valentine's Day, all.

.....................
*cf. also Polycarp of Smyrna, who was venerated in his own lifetime as the last surviving person who had known one of the original twelve disciples (John the Evangelist).


UPDATE: (2/16-09)
I forgot that I wanted to include a brief mention of Japanese celebration of Valentine's Day, as represented in anime and manga. If these are to be trusted, they've taken our holiday and refined it in some interesting ways. On Valentine's Day itself, instead of an exchange of cards and flowers it's specifically a day when girls (and women) give gifts to guys; home-made chocolate seems to be the most prized gift of all. Then, one month later, the guys are supposed to respond on 'White Day' by giving some small gift to the person who gave them a special gift on Valentines. An interesting varient on the theme.