The Geneva Bible, that is. Such is what most influenced Shakespeare, as evidenced by the actual plays (not what we do or don't know about the actual author, who I think was Christopher Marlowe, anyway).
This is the foreword of the book, Shakespeare and the Holy Scripture, by Thomas Carter, a fascinating book from 1905, in the public domain:
I HAVE endeavoured to find out how far the English Bible influenced the thought and formed the vocabulary of the greatest of English writers. It is obvious that the citing of passages which may be termed parallel has its limitations, and that interesting parallels might be discovered in any great literature. Words which are to be found in Shakespeare and the Holy Scripture may also have been the common property of the country side. But a careful study of the poet reveals a wide knowledge and use of Scripture, and one is therefore justified in assuming that more remote parallels may have arisen from the same source.
Carter goes on to demonstrate the just how woven into the drama were imagery, metaphors, figures of speech, and ideas found in the Geneva, as well as the Bible, in general. He writes, "No writer has assimilated the thoughts and reproduced the words of Holy Scripture more copiously than Shakespeare." Also, "I have studied every line in the plays in order to trace out how far this indebtedness extends, and after a careful comparison have come to the conclusion that the Genevan Bible was the version used by Shakespeare."
The Geneva, I should mention, was by far the most popular English Bible of Shakespeare's time. You can read the Geneva here. By our standards, it is a tougher read; though far from impossible or even all that hard. You get used to its semantic rhythms, different spellings, and different typology. Very rewarding, all in all.
Richard Schickel is definitely on the right track when he says that arts criticism is already democratic enough:
Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities.
Opinion — thumbs up, thumbs down — is the least important aspect of reviewing. Very often, in the best reviews, opinion is conveyed without a judgmental word being spoken, because the review's highest business is to initiate intelligent dialogue about the work in question, beginning a discussion that, in some cases, will persist down the years, even down the centuries.
I know the objections to this argument: Most reviewing, whether written for print or the blogosphere, is hack work, done on the fly for short money. Anyone who has written a book has had the experience. Your publisher kindly forwards the clippings, and you are appalled by the sheer uselessness of their spray-painted opinions. Looked at this way, you could say that book reviewing is already democratic enough, thanks much. It's more than ready for the guy from car parts.
All I would add to the list of requirements for critics is that their work demonstrate their capacity to both allow the interpretive process to unfold as discovery as well as treat works of art like they would their friends. Clearest example of this is Roger Ebert's film criticism.
I read everything he writes (or try to!). His regular NRO feature, "Impromptus", often feels like a cozy chat amongst friends after Saturday night dinner; or reading a (hand-written) letter from a friend on a Sunday morning over a cup of rich coffee. Or simple, funny tours through the thought of a non-confrontational conservative.
Or something.
Anyway, his newest column contains something about the word "fascism" that I think is required reading by anyone intelligent. Find the original column here. Below is the relevant excerpt:
A word about the French: After Sarkozy's election, hundreds of university students in Paris "went on strike." What does it mean to go on strike, if you're a student? To refuse to attend class? Isn't that called hooky? And who cares, really, if these students go on "strike"? Whom are they injuring, other than themselves? (Actually, the less Parisian education they have, the better off they may be.)
But this is not so amusing: Student and other demonstrators shouted, "Sarko, fascist! The people will have your hide!" (A Reuters story is here.) That, I submit, is the authentic voice of Leninism. Note the reference to "the people," the presumption of speaking for "the people" - and this was after a free and fair election, in which "the people" really and truly spoke! It was the kind of election that these demonstrators would never permit, in their ideal society.
And "The people will have your hide." Yes, behind these shouters is Leninism, or Jacobinism, or whatever we choose to call it. We are reminded that it never dies; that civilization must be always on guard against it.
And then there is "fascist": "Sarko, fascist!" All of us who are conservative, or classically liberal, have had to be called fascist. It goes with the territory. And yet it's no fun. I have been called fascist since I was in college. And those who do it are either malicious or ignorant - sometimes, I guess, they are both (and what a brutal combination: malice and ignorance).
Ordinarily, it does no good to try to reason with people: Fascists are centralizers of power; we are decentralizers. Fascists are nationalizers of industry; we are free-marketeers. Fascists are collectivists; we are anti-collectivists. It is no use to say any of this: "Fascist" is an epithet used by mean or stupid people against those they dislike who are perceived to be "on the right." One result is that, when a real fascist comes along, there is no word left for him.
How odd that we who want to fight tirelessly against jihadists, or Islamofascists, are called "fascists"! How perverse that we liberal democrats, who wave the flag of universal human values, are called "fascists"! If you follow Jefferson and Locke and Lincoln and Churchill and Reagan - why, you are a fascist, at least according to some (to many).
But one must not whine. The other day, I brought up the "fascist" business with Roger Kimball, the conservative writer and editor. I said, "Are you ever called a fascist?" Brightly - for he is a bright kind of guy - he said, "Early and often!" In the past, I knew of Reagan-supporting Jews who had tattoos on their arms who were denounced as "fascists." (And when I say tattoos, I'm not talking about the biker kind.)
Anyway . . . an old, old story. But annoying all the same.
Every word is spot on. And the deeper implication unmistakable. It is found in this statement: "We are reminded that it never dies; that civilization must be always on guard against it." I'm reminded of one of my favorite definitions of creativity: finding new solutions to old problems. And that French student's views are a very old problem, even as dressed in seemingly evolved, progressive garb. But those clothes mask the truth.
The book itself is still a remarkable technology. People like the look and feel of books. They don't run out of batteries. You can read them in the sunlight. You can read them during takeoffs and landings and in the bathtub. — Siva Vaidhyanathan, critic of the Google Book Search
If one were against the U.S. effort in Iraq, then one would do the following with the English language:
Always use the passive voice: "Violence was unleashed", "Fifteen Iraqis were killed", "More casualties arise from spreading brutality"-anything other than naming an active agent that might suggest one culpable party—the -ex-Baathists and Muslim jihadists who blow up, shoot, gas, behead, and torture their enemies and innocents daily.
Always use the word "civil war" as in "We are caught in a civil war" or "We have no business in a civil war." And when called on its imprecise usage, retreat to lofty platitudes like "I won't quibble over a mere term when thousands die" or "Call it what you will, thousands still die" or "This is a stupid debate."
But a civil war — two clearly defined sides, each striving to seize power, with antithetical ideologies and agendas — is hardly Iraq, where Sunni tribal elders, Shiite clerics, an elected government, and coalition forces all try to stop 10,000 or so nihilists from murdering so barbarously that they incite a backlash from Shiite gangs or a general sense of hopelessness among the population at large that both loathes and is fearful of these terrorists. There is a reason that histories of the Civil War have a special chapter on Quantrill with the assorted specialized vocabulary like "raiders," "outlaw," "bushwacker," "Jayhawker." What culminated in Lawrence, Kansas — arson, shooting of civilians, settling grudges, targeted assassinations, and general mayhem — was something different from Grant, Lee, etc.
Avoid the word "jihadist," and especially "murderer" or "terrorist."
Prefer "militant," "gunman," or "insurgent" — any term that disconnects suicide murderers and jihadists from what they exist for (to kill).
It is much worse, after all, for a Marine to kill a "gunman" or "militant" or an "insurgent" than a "terrorist", "jihadist" or "murderer."
GENEVA -- Centuries before it became a continent or country synonymous with wealth, power or freedom, ''America'' was coined by a Renaissance cartographer as the catchall designation for a world Europeans had yet to name or explore.
The name stuck despite its humble history and unsure start at a backwater French court. It celebrates the 500th anniversary of its baptism in the town of St. Die today, exactly a half-millennium after its first use on a world map.
Cartographer Martin Waldseemueller's map and accompanying 103-page book caused the hemisphere to be named for explorer Amerigo Vespucci instead of Christopher Columbus. Columbus believed to his death in 1506 that his four voyages had all been to Asia.
Quotes on why to learn Latin and Greekposted by MD
"Hardly any lawful price would seem to me too high for what I have gained by being made to learn Latin and Greek." — C.S. Lewis
"To read Latin and Greek authors in their original, is a sublime luxury. I thank on my knees him who directed my early education for having put into my possession this rich source of delight; and I would not exchange it for anything which I could then have acquired, and have not since acquired." — Thomas Jefferson
As J.W. MacKail put it: "Latin and Greek are not dead languages. They have merely ceased to be mortal."
"I now entered the first class of what today would be called the gymnasium for classical languages [Greek and Latin]...In retrospect it seems to me that an education in Greek and Latin antiquity created a mental attitude that resisted seduction by a totalitarian ideology." — Pope Benedict XVI, Memoirs
Latin is the mother tongue of Western civilization. Because it has been the language that has transmitted our cultural heritage for over 2000 years, it pulls together language arts, history, geography, culture, art, architecture, music, values, religion, government, science, math. Everything in the modern world seems to be related to Latin and the ancient and medieval cultures that spoke it. By examining the roots of our culture in its mother language, knowledge begins to integrate naturally.
In recent years, we seem to have unconsciously lapsed into the belief that — outside of phonics — all language study is somehow necessarily subjective: that there is no way to study it in an objective and orderly manner. I think that it is no coincidence that this view seems to directly correspond to the elimination of Latin from the curriculum of schools from the 1920s to the 1960s. In short, the reason we think language study is subjective is because we have forgotten Latin.
I figure I haven't had enough disagreement with my ideas lately, so I'll wade into the controversy about what Don Imus said. As an artist in America, I believe the right to offend is near absolute, and a right held by all citizens. Especially through speech. The proper response to offensive words are strong, well-worded retorts. If Imus feels he should apologize (I certainly would), it should be to the Rutgers basketball team, and no one outside that circle. Because his words referred to no one else. Not all women, black people, or anyone.
The attempt to make this a bigger deal than that is typical, yet fundamentally spurious. The offending words, "nappy" and "hos" are everywhere in our culture, and obviously part of black American culture. Thus I agree with John Derbyshire's view:
"Nappy-headed"? "Nappy" is a term aggressively promoted by black-identity activists themselves. A book search on Amazon.com with key phrase "nappy hair" returned 767 results: Nappy Hair by Carolivia Herron, Going-Natural: How to Fall in Love With Nappy Hair by Mireille Liong-a-Kong, Sculptured Nails and Nappy Hair by Lincoln Park, Nappy Hair 101 by Ayana Hardin, Happy to be Nappy by Bell Hooks, etc., etc., etc., etc.
As for "hos"—well, again, this is a term lifted from the heart of black American culture. Michelle Malkin has done the legwork here, uncovering some of the lyrics in the Billboard Hot Rap Tracks chart. "When it come down to these hos / I don't love em," and so on.
So Don Imus did what? Used a couple of commonplace black-cultural terms. If you don't want people to use these words, guys, stop promoting them.
That leaves the question of whether it is acceptable for those not black to use those terms. I've never understood this "it's only okay for the in-group" argument, no matter the particular demographic in question. Whether it's sexual orientation, ethnic background, sex, skin color, or whatever — the argument that "it's ok for us to say certain things, but no one else" is not logical. It is dogma, a form of hardened opinion that reasonable people ought be able to disagree upon, without threat of assault. I think more people than generally thought disagree with the "it's only ok for the in group" opinion; but keep quiet, viewing dissent as a waste of time.
People can say whatever they want, about whomever they want. It is one of the consequences of a society that upholds the importance of the idea of liberty. Whether people should say whatever they want is a whole other question that involves the golden rule of treat others as you would have yourself treated, as well as the responsibility that ensues from one's words. Of course Imus is responsible for his words, and their consequences. The question is to whom do those consequences apply. To the Rutgers women, yes; to their immediate families, sure; to anyone else, no.
This episode dramatizes clearly that political correctness has far from died in our America culture. This is sad, but we must keep up the fight against it. Because people who well-meaningly advocate political correctness, in whatever form, fundamentally practice nothing but the soft bigotry of low expectations — low expectations, that is, of the "offended" people's capacity (and responsibility) to stand up for themselves, as self-respecting individuals. That they expect that those offended can't is the bigotry.
Thank you, Don Imus. You've given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.
You've given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.
You've given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.
Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it's 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
The bigots win again.
While we're fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I'm sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent's or Snoop Dogg's or Young Jeezy's latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.
I ain't saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don't have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.
It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.
Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.
It's embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.
I'm no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.
But, in my view, he didn't do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should've been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it's only the beginning. It's an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.
I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.
Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers' wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.
But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.
In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?
I don't listen or watch Imus' show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it's cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they're suckers for pursuing education and that they're selling out their race if they do?
When Imus does any of that, call me and I'll get upset. Until then, he is what he is - a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you're not looking to be made a victim.
No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There's no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.
So I've started to learn Latin. It's something I've thought about doing for over a decade. It'll take forever and a day. But whatever — it'll be rewarding and I'm sure the pain will be tempered by fun and the feeling of accomplishment.
It occurred to me while I was doing today's lesson: my first goal should be to read my college diploma. The damn thing is in Latin. I've had it for ten years (as of this May). I should know what it says, since enough was paid for it, huh.
Anyway, here you go: POLYSEMY edificamus! (We build POLYSEMY!)
Here's the text of a letter Jefferson wrote on Jan 27th, 1800, endorsing the classical education model, the foundation of which is here indicated as the Latin and ancient Greek languages. The letter is to Dr. Joseph Priestley, a famous English scientist and educator of that period, who was then residing in the United States:
Dear Sir, - In my last letter of the 18th, I omitted to say anything of the languages as part of our proposed University. It was not that I think, as some do, that they are useless. I am of a very different opinion. I do not think them very essential to the obtaining eminent degrees of science; but I think them very useful towards it. I suppose there is a portion of life during which our faculties are ripe enough for this, and for nothing more useful. I think the Greeks and Romans have left us the present models which exist of fine composition, whether we examine them as works of reason, or of style and fancy; and to them we probably owe these characteristics of modern composition. I know of no composition of any other people, which merits the least regard as a model for its matter or style. To all this I add, that to read the Latin and Greek authors in their original, is a sublime luxury as in architecture, painting, gardening, or other arts. I enjoy Homer in his own language infinitely beyond Pope's translationi f him, and both beyond the dull narrative of the same events by Dares Phrygius; and it is an innocent enjoyment. I thank on my knees, Him who directed my early education, for having put into my possession this rich source of delight; and I would not exchange it for anything which I could then have acquired, or have not since acquired.
And this approach is where in America's government schools?
From the introduction to Learn Latin, by Peter Jones:
Western civilization is built on three mighty foundations — Greek, Jewish, and Roman. Each made its unique contribution to the world we inhabit today.
But it was the Romans that made it all possible. The Roman empire and its great universal language, Latin, provided the means by which Jewish (and so Christian), Greek and Roman ideas and culture could spread throughout the West.
As a result, Latin is one of the most influential languages in the world. It has had a powerful and lasting effect upon nearly all European languages, including our own basically Germanic language, English.
Latin was also the language of education, church and state in Europe for 1500 years. Its literature has been enthralling readers for 2000 years.
Further, Latin is a superb educational tool. It is universally recognized as one of the best ways of learning about language, as all who have ever learned it will know.
RSS
