Review: The Wind in the Willows

I knew of The Wind in the Willows stories from the family evening readings of my childhood. Even so, all I could really remember is that there was a character called Toad and another called Frog and they hung out together. After reading this book, I know now that we must have been reading a different book altogether by the same author. The Wind in the Willows seems like it was the first of a series of books written by Kenneth Grahame. The main characters are the little creatures found along the banks of a river but personified. They go on adventures, sing songs, and simply live life as I think Grahame thought life ought to be lived. But I had forgotten most about what these stories were about. So I picked up this book recently because I needed a new book to read to my daughter for naptime. As I read, I found that I greatly enjoyed the book, and I look forward to reading it again to future children.

The Wind in the Willows is a children’s book to be sure, but that did not stop me from enjoying the story. Grahame wrote these stories a little after the end of the Industrial Revolution for his son. Their story is a sad one, and I encourage you to look into it further, but from this father-son relationship came a series of delightful stories about little creatures who lived along the shores of the riverbank in a quiet corner of England.

Grahame’s prose is alive. It is beautiful. While some of the sentences can get a little wordy, his descriptions place you right in the story, allowing you to feel and see and hear what you are reading. It really is exemplary of a bygone day of writing. The stories are unhurried, they are funny, they are touching. While I read them for my daughter’s naptime, I looked forward each day to learn a little more of a time that no longer exists in a world of real fantasy written like a score of literary music.

I don’t know if The Wind in the Willows is for everyone, but I like to think that it is. I think you need to love reading and have a good sense of humor, and maybe know a little about turn-of-the-century English life. It is not necessary, but I think you should know a little about the background for Grahame’s writing (for his son and the lost world of pre-industrialized England). You have to love good, beautiful, unhindered prose that is more than the simple stuff of today. Truly, they don’t write ’em like they used to. And perhaps that is why I loved this book so much. No, it’s not my favorite book that has ever been written. But The Wind in the Willows is right for remembering the little things that pass us by, seizing the moment, slowing down for good friends, growing as a person, learning about ourselves, and enjoying a good story about odd little characters that really aren’t so different from us.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

Comments on the “Dresden Files”

I decided about a week ago to pick up Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files series again after not looking at them for about a year. My husband had read the series and said that I would really like them. While he was correct on other series suggested to me, such as the Codex Alera  and Wheel of Time, I did not take to the Dresden Files as quickly. But I had read so many “intellectual” books recently that I needed a break. (I actually started Atlas Shrugged for a second time and still cannot get past the 3rd or 4th chapter. Maybe I should read War and Peace first?) This time around, I ate up the few Dresden books we had.

I have only gotten through four of the Dresden Files books so far. I have the sixth, but I’m waiting on the fifth. While I think you could probably pick up just about any of these books and enjoy them, they do run in a chronological fashion and context truly does add to a story. So I have to wait to continue my book-eating.

Overall, I do like these books. I never thought of myself as a fantasy reader until I read the Codex Alera, also written by Jim Butcher. I think I finished those books in a month or so. That series and the Wheel of Time are not much like the Dresden Files save that the mystical is included in all (and all are fiction). But the Dresden Files are different. They are set in the real world and in the recent past and present. Dresden, the titular character, sets himself up in Chicago as a professional wizard, helping everyone from maidens in distress to the special investigations division of the Chicago Police Department. There is danger, mystery, and a bit of romance throughout. Somehow, Butcher managed to mix what are seemingly separate genres of literature into one coherent and engaging series.

The books are not long, but I have found that in just about every book I think I am at the end before I am. You know the feeling. You’re at that moment in the story where it seems all the leads have come together at everything is looking up for our unlikely hero when you realize there are still 150 pages left. You have to ask, “Oh no, what is going to go wrong?” And something usually does. After all, this is also a drama. No drama, or mystery, or romance for that matter, is complete without a little suspense.

While the conclusions are usually positive in the relative sense, not every story ends in all sunshine and roses. This is not a Shakespearian comedy. People get hurt, are separated, and die. There is also happiness, laughter, and love. In many ways, this fantasy series reflects life while combining the mysterious and supernatural in ways that books typically do not.

And this is where I initially hesitated reading the series. Dresden is a wizard, and with that comes spirits, demons, summoning, and, of course, magic. With other books, such practices were easy to ignore because they were in a fantasy world. But as I mentioned, Butcher manages to put the fantastical world of Dresden into the real world, our world. This causes me to pause as witchcraft and the supernatural, or spiritual, world is real, as are its dangers. Yet Butcher deals with it in the sort of seriousness that is deserves. Though there are fantastic creatures, like werewolves, faeries, and other beings, he generally treats them as creatures of darkness and evil. In general, good and evil are rather clearly defined. There are rules and consequences. While I am going to shy away from some parts of the books, Butcher’s treatment of the spiritual in our world is in some ways refreshing.

He also does not ignore the reality of Christianity. I have no idea what Butcher himself actually believes, but I find his use of Christianity within his novels fascinating. One character in particular has a sort of special calling and power that Dresden does not exactly understand yet highly values. This character knows the power of God and that our battle is not with flesh and blood. Like all Christians should, he recognizes the reality of spiritual evil and the battle all around us. This character also sees Dresden as a friend and tries to lead him to the truth. Dresden recognizes something in his friend. He just doesn’t know what it is yet.

The wizardry does still bother me, I can hardly deny that. But I do not see Butcher dealing with the spiritual flippantly. Perhaps my opinion will change as I continue the series. It is fantasy, fiction, but spiritual powers are realities and that cannot be ignored.

Whatever the case may end up being, I cannot deny that Jim Butcher is a talented author. He has managed to make Dresden a particularly likable and, in many ways, a relatable character. The world is dramatic, spiritual, mysterious, real. These things appeal to me as a reader and a writer, and it makes sense to me why so many are drawn to his books.

Until next time, blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

Comments on the “Paradiso”

I will begin by saying that I do not have any great insight to provide into the Paradiso. In all honestly, so much has been said on Dante’s The Divine Comedy that not much more can be said. However, as I was reading it I found a few things interesting in the text and I thought I would comment on that.

First of all, I find Dante’s separations both intriguing and somewhat troubling. Obviously, as titled by the second part, the Purgatorio, Dante believes in Purgatory, which I do not find biblically sound. But that is beside the point. What I truly find interesting throughout the Divine Comedy, and especially int he Paradiso, were the separations within each of the places. While I understand that Catholic teaching is heavenly influenced by works-based thinking, I am surprised that this would bleed into the views on heaven, or paradise.

Why did the Medieval Church think that heaven would be separated? Why did they think that some people who were less worthy would be farther from God and those deemed more worthy (by Dante) got to be closer?  There are only two places one can go after death: Heaven or Hell. You are either separated from God or with Him forever, and there are no levels within or in-between. While I recognize that the Divine Comedy is in part a vision and is heavily fiction, I find it troubling that this was a generally accepted view held by people in the Church at that time. We are all one in Christ.

Secondly, I found it odd how much of Greek and Roman philosophy and imagery was used in the text, especially in the Paradiso. Obviously in the first poem, Dante meets a key Roman figure in history. But a great number of Greek and Roman, or at least pagan, gods are mentioned all throughout the text, not to mention his request towards his muse. Why use pagan imagery in a highly Christian work? Why not use more biblical imagery? I understand that the classical influence was high at this time, and it only became more focused as time went on, leading to many abuses in the church, notably during the time of Galileo. I understand that, but I find it disappointing that such an opportunity was missed.

I recognize that in part why there are these layers in Hell and Heaven and why there is a heavy secular influence is because so often people lean towards what the world teaches rather than what Scripture teaches. It is familiar and human. Many would rather conform to the world rather than by what God tells us to be true. This is not to say that we can not learn from things outside of the Bible, but rather that we must keep Christ at the forefront of our lives and use the Bible as our guide.

Obviously this makes more sense to my readers who are Christian, but I say this to clear the confusion both for believers and unbelievers.  Part of why there have been abuses in the Church, why much of Church teaching has been watered down today, why many actions of “Christians”, past and present, don’t appear very Christ-like is because of this outside influence. I do not mean just sin. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely through Him. This is not what I mean. Rather, confusion arises when there is a mixture of teaching. This confuses seekers, those who simply like to read literature and understand the beliefs of writers, and immature Christians. This is why I find the pagan imagery particularly troubling in the Paradiso.

However, I found the overall text to be quite great, which should be of no surprise to anyone who has read great poetry. Dante is a master of the pen, and his position alongside Homer, Virgil, Milton, and the writers of other great epics is well deserved. I did not read the Divine Comedy in Italian as I cannot read Italian (and my Latin is only so good). Even so, the poetry comes through beautifully in the translation. They really do not write poetry like they used to! And despite the flaws I find in Dante’s work, I still think that his writing should be among that which students of literature read.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

Review – Creation: Basics & Beyond

 

 

Publisher: The Institute for Creation Research

Authors: Morris III, Morris, Lisle, Johnson, Jeanson, Guliuzza, Tomkins, Hebert, Shwerwin, and Thomas.

 

 

The Institute for Creation Research’s book Creation: Basics & Beyond provides, as the cover indicates, an in-depth look at “science, origins, and evolution.” More explicitly, this book explains in detail the relevancy of Genesis in regard to science, history, morality, our worldview, and how we live. This book shows how the first couple chapters of Genesis, not to mention all of Scripture, impact who we are as people and how we view ourselves and the world around us.

Creation: Basics & Beyond is divided into five main sections in addition to an introduction, conclusion, and final argument for creation in an appendix. This relatively succinct book – it contains fewer than 350 pages – tackles subjects on worldview, biology, geology, dinosaurs, and astronomy. Within each of these sections are a series of papers that are simple and short enough for a reader who does not spend their days reading science journals to enjoy, but detailed enough to gain hearty knowledge and will not bore the technical reader. This book tackles issues like: the Day-Age Theory; is Genesis history or poetry; macro and micro “evolution”; DNA; the origin of “races”; how fossils are actually dated; does continental drift happen; the significance dragon legends; distant starlight and its answers; UFO’s; and the multi-verse theory. These are only a handful of the various topics scientists from multiple fields addressed in this book.

I found the book to be easy enough to read for a variety of readers and enjoyed it thoroughly. While I read it from cover to cover, as one of the authors indicated, it could be read piecemeal. A reader could simply pull out a chapter to read without particular  need of previous or following chapters. However, I found it better to read from beginning to end as 1) I try to read like that when I can and 2) the book also follows a logical format that adds to the following chapters if you read them “in order”. Also, some chapters reference other chapters for readers to review for more information separately. But, the papers can stand alone.

There were, though, a  couple of points in the book I did not agree with. They were mainly found in the section on the origin of races, ironically enough, as that is what my own book is about. However, they made some assumptions on the person of Nimrod that, from my own research, I cannot say is fully accurate, or is at least difficult to prove. While Nimrod is likely to have been the instigator of Babel (which seems to agree both Scripturally and extra-biblically), Scripture never explicitly says it was him, nor what his influence was.

Additionally, while there are 70 “nations/family groups” mentioned in Genesis 10, we do not know that there were only or as many as 70 languages formed. In fact, with as many languages that have died out, with as many that look similar, with as many that are nearly impossible to tell which are original and which are a “copy”, saying there were specifically 70 is a matter of opinion that still needs more research. Overall, however, I found the book to be most accurate, and the rest of this particular chapter to be based solidly on Scripture and good science.

The main goal of Creation: Basics & Beyond, addressed in both the introduction and conclusion, is to show the inherent and inerrant truth of Scripture, mainly Genesis, and how this book of beginnings has an earthly and eternal impact on our lives. It also addresses how rejecting Genesis also has moral, social, and historical implications. This is why the book begins with addressing worldviews. While you could pick up this book and start in the middle, or end, knowing what and why you believe something is important in any area of life, including Genesis, as it is the foundation of most of our social, moral, historical, and spiritual structures we base ourselves on. Creation is more than the opposite of evolution, rather, it constitutes the basis for everything we believe, whether we reject or adhere to it.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

Twice Freed: Slavery, Freedom, and Forgiveness

 

 

 

Author: Patricia St. John

Publisher: Christian Focus Publications

 

 

 

Onesimus wanted what any young boy wants: fun, adventure, travel, love, and most of all, freedom. Unfortunately, Onesimus’s life did not include any of these things. Instead, he was a servant to the wealthy Philemon and his family. Sure, his life was not as hard as it could be, but being a servant  did not include any of the things he wanted in life. Even on days when he got glimpses of those things – like the visit from the beautiful Eirene of Laodicea – he was always swiftly reminded of how trapped he was. His life was out of his hands. That is, until the day Master Philemon and his son Archippus take Onesimus on a journey to Ephesus that changes his life forever. While there, the trio meet an odd man telling of the way to real freedom, to truth, and the only way to eternal life. But when a riot breaks out, Onesimus seizes his opportunity to make his own way to freedom.

His journey will take him all cross the Anatolia, Greece, and finally to Rome, and along the way realize what his dreams of adventure and love really look like. He will come across many familiar historical figures, like Epaphras, Demetrius, Appia, Priscilla, Mark, and so many more, some who bring him further from the truth and others closer to it. Along the way, Onesimus will get his adventure and – much as he will grow to despise it – will also learn what true love means and what real freedom is. Before his journey is over, he will be confronted with a truth that will change this slave boy into a man worthy to serve his Master.

Twice Freed by Patricia St. John retells the story of Onesimus in an exciting and fascinating way. The reader not only gets to learn about who he was but also what it might have been like to be a Gentile or a Christian during this time. This short piece of historical fiction takes the reader on a journey with one of the most intriguing characters of the New Testament but is seldom discussed. This well-researched book will travel though the Roman World and show what it was like for those who lived in it from all walks of life. Most of all, it teaches the reader, as the journey did Onesimus, what true freedom really means, and the importance of repentance and forgiveness. This story is a great read for anyone, young and old, who loves historical fiction, adventure, and tales that teach while they entertain – which this novel certainly does!

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 

 

Review: The 5000 Year Leap

 

 

Author: Cleon Skousen

Publisher: National Center for Constitutional Studies

 

 

 

 

For a book that has incurred quite a bit of hostility and derision, The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen is discerning, non-aggressive, simple, and direct in its explanation of the Founders’ ideas for forming the United States. Skousen’s book is divided into what might be called three parts. The first small section of the book, just over thirty pages, is full of forwards, praise, and reasons for the book in addition to the actual introduction. The actual first part establishes the foundation for the book, including the Founders’ basis in Judeo-Christian values, Anglo-Saxon law, the three branches of government, and the influences of certain Enlightenment thinking.  The 28 chapters which comprise the meat of the book are titled by principles that Skousen believes built and energized what is often called the Great Experiment.

Skousen’s ideas are nothing new to those who know history, but they are conveniently placed into a singular book that is decent for reference. Nearly every page has a quote by a founder, and if not a founder then one who praised, criticized, or led America. These are decent for reference, but it may seem tedious to those who are not accustomed to reading chucks of original text from the founding era. Even so, they aid the modern reader trying to understand why and what the Founders did. Not enough people read what our Founders wrote, if they even read our founding documents! Though Americans should read the actual texts, this book does a decent job summarizing their ideas.

These ideas, or founding principles, vary in nature but are unified in purpose. Each of these ideas built upon the others to make our nation what is it, or perhaps what it is supposed to be. The author frequently comments on the fact that our nation, especially our governing body, has strayed from these founding principles. A few of these principles include: Natural Law, Morality based on Judeo-Christian values, Equality under the law and in the eyes of God; right to defense and property and the necessity of them both; limited powers and freedom of people; the burden of debt and the need for a strong family. While I agree with many of the arguments that Skousen made in his book, he is not flawless. Though America is great, she is not perfect as people are imperfect. Towards the end of his book, he seems to lose the focus on the fact that mankind is morally flawed and gives Americans a little too much credit. But then again, he wrote this book during a different time, and I see today’s world a much bleaker one.

Additionally, Skousen held to Mormonism, which, though holding to Judeo-Christian values, is not a true Christian faith. For those who are not Christian, this will hardly impact your reading, as I am sure most everyone can agree these values are essential to a reasonable society. For those who are Christian, just keep it in the back of your mind. His Mormonism barely impacts the book and does not hinder his message concerning the Founders and their goals. Even so, keep it in mind.

Skousen’s The 5000 Year Leap is a simple book that shows how a group of people moved past millennia of royals, dictatorships, slavery, and secularism to form a government based on the power of the people, limited government, and Judeo-Christian values. His praise may seem to high for these people, but do not let that overshadow the monumental change made by the Founders. Though not on as big of scale as Christianity, the Founders and America as a whole changed world history, and mostly for the better. We are not perfect, and we have strayed from our founding. Skousen’s book is one effort to educate more people in a reasonable manner on where we came from, a warning for where we are going, and a guide to get back.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

A Chimerical Idea

To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.

~ James Madison

Though the idea has since escaped us in recent days, it was once widely recognized that people are corrupt. People are sinful, evil, desiring wrongdoing. It is only through careful instruction, typically from youth, that our debase nature is curved. It is for this reason we have government, laws, churches, the Bible. When we gain instruction in our youth, our adulthood choices are better-guided.

But what has this to do with liberty? This has to do with self-government, or responsibility. If people are able to govern themselves, they are able to govern their households. And if their households, then their community. If their community, then their country. This was the intent of our founders. They knew that men were inherently bad, thus they made it where tyrannical rule was most difficult to achieve. It was the people who had the power. But what does self-government look like? Self-government is living with good manners, putting others’ needs above your own, being courteous, civil, working to the betterment of yourself, virtuous. Self-government is recognizing the bad within oneself and striving to do what is right in spite of it, hopefully with the acknowledgement and help of the Lord.

When people are self-governed, the sanctity of life, the ownership of property, and the respecting of opinions reign in freedom and liberty, and then people are truly happy. But to say that this is possible without virtue is chimerical because it is
“incapable of realization” (“chimerical.”).

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

~Benjamin Franklin

Human rights only exist so long as people are self-governed and virtuous. Without such a foundation in the hearts and minds of people, liberty and happiness dissolve. And it is only if we are a virtuous people that we will be able to deserve those things we cherish.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 

---

Works Referenced

“chimerical.” The Online Etymology Dictionary. 2017. Accessed 29 Apr 2018.

Skousen, Cleon. The 5000 Year Leap. National Center for Constitutional Studies. 2011. pp. 49-57.

A Great Man and a Greater Source

As many of my literary friends may know, today marks the day that Shakespeare died and, likely, was born. Shakespeare was a great man; Shakespeare was a writer. He was a man who took old stories, history, and lessons and crafted them into plays and poems that have stood the test of time. Little more can be said about this giant of English and world literature than what has already been said. But there is one point, one source about Shakespeare’s works that should be emphasized, and that is the Bible.

There is much truth in the remark that “without Tyndale, no Shakespeare.” It is also true that “without Tyndale, no King James Bible.” “Without the king James Bible,” Alister McGrath observed, “there would have been no Paradise Lost, no Pilgrim’s Progress, no Handel’s Messiah, no Negro spirituals, no Gettysburg Address. … Without this Bible, the culture of the English-speaking world would have been immeasurably impoverished.” The literary debt Anglo-America letters owe to this translation is incalculable.

The English Bible’s influence on great works of literature accounts for only a fraction of its overall influence on the English Language.

Daniel Dreisbach, Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers, 31.

Like most literature in the Western world, Shakespeare was heavily influenced by, or at least heavily filled with, the Bible.

The most frequently repeated figure on the books of the Bible to which Shakespeare refers is 42 books–eighteen from each of the Testaments and the remaining from the Apocrypha.  Shakespeare’s writing contains more references to the Bible than the plays of any other Elizabethan playwright.  A conservative tally of the total number of biblical references is 1200, a figure that I think could be doubled.

Numerically the book with the most references is the book of Psalms, and usually Shakespeare refers to this book as it appears in the Anglican Prayer Book.  Other biblical books that are high in the number of references are Genesis, Matthew, and Job.  The Bible story that appears most often–more than 25 times–is the story of Cain and Abel.  There are so many references to the opening chapters of Genesis in Shakespeare’s plays that scholars make comments to the effect that Shakespeare must have had these chapters nearly memorized.  Shakespeare’s allusions are sometimes generalized, as for example to characters in the Bible, but often the parallels are linguistic and specific, requiring a specialist’s knowledge.

Leland Ryken, “Shakespeare and the Geneva Bible”.

One can hardly ignore God in the sonnets between Romeo and Juliet, in the reference on Protestantism in Hamlet,  or in any number of references to God within the historical Henry plays. So in remembering one of the greatest writers of all time, we remember that one of his influences comes from the greatest Book of all time: the Bible.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

---

Works Cited

Dreisbach, Daniel L. Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2017. p. 31. Accessed 23 Apr 2018.

Mabillard, Amanda. Biblical Imagery in Macbeth. Shakespeare Online. 20 Nov. 2001. Accessed 23 Apr 2018.

Ryken, Leland. “Shakespeare and the Geneva Bible“. Jul 2009. Accessed 23 Apr 2018.

Shakespeare on religion: 8 quotes from the greatest English writer

On the Liberty of the Press

 

Author: David Hume

Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company

 

 

In looking for something to read, I came across David Hume’s Of the Liberty of the Press. While Hume and I disagree, for the most part, on the best form of government,  I do agree with him on the importance of the press. He begins this essay noting that foreigners find Britain’s freedom of the press surprising. This is due mainly to the fact that other governments are absolute and they do not allow such political, social, or religious freedom. These freedoms were even better realized in America, but this essay was written before the founding.

Part of what makes the people free is the freedom to speak. Liberty is kept by people, and people keep it, in part, by speaking. But such liberty can be taken away if the people are silent or are silenced. This is why we in America have the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom to religion, and so many other liberties. These are natural rights, but as Hume says, such liberty can be taken away slowly.

‘Tis seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.

He compares such a loss of liberty with slavery. Slavery did not become so great or so well accepted all at once but it disguised itself “in order to be received.” This is true for any freedom, right, or liberty we enjoy: it can be taken away piece by piece. Liberty is not lost all at once, but it can be lost and perhaps not regained, at least for a time (unless there is a revolution, to which I direct you to the Declaration of Independence).

And this is why we should strive to defend our rights lest any person, group, or government try to deny us of them. One way to do this is to keep the press free. We should not permit people or ideas to be shut down or encourage censorship, even if we disagree with what is said! We should allow dissenting or opposing opinions! This is often how change happens. If something is wrong, we can speak out. If we believe something to be true, we can publish it without fear of a loss of liberty.  Let us keep the market of ideas open. In this way we shall preserve liberty. To do anything else would result in a loss of liberty. We must not allow “such a bare-faced violation of liberty” by a “despotic government” or anyone else. If we stand by while people – with whom we agree or disagree – are silenced, we may conclude like Hume that the liberty of our country “is gone forever when these attempts shall succeed.”

~Rose

Review: Evolution Exposed

Author: Roger Patterson

Publisher: Answers in Genesis

 

 

 

 

 

One of the joys and duties parents have is to train up their children in the way they should go (Pro. 22:6). This training often comes in the form of conveying knowledge. Parents can train their children how to walk and eat; they can demonstrate the way a marriage is to look; they can instruct them in worldview and religion. Parents do these things, knowingly or not, because this knowledge is ingrained in them. But what about knowledge that they do not have? What happens when children need training in how to defend their worldview and parents do not know how to help? How can parents instruct their children then? Where can they turn?

I have often seen parents and children struggle when it comes to understanding and teaching apologetics. Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia which means “to defend.” Thus, when Christians talk about apologetics, they talk about defending our worldview against attacks. Sometimes these attacks come from within the church or between doctrines. In this case, simply reading the Scriptures is the way to go. Other times, these are philosophical attacks, and one should read first Scripture and then perhaps church fathers. But what about scientific attacks? How do parents, who neither read science articles nor keep in touch with the latest research, aid their children in standing strong in their faith?

While the Bible is clear on when God created the earth and mankind, people can begin to doubt or question their faith when they are presented with information that they think or are told contradicts what they believe. These arguments are usually first introduced in science classes (e.g., biology, chemistry, earth science, etc.), though now evolutionary doctrine is infiltrating even children’s entertainment. Biology is, in many ways, the basis for evolutionary interpretations; demolishing this foundation causes evolution itself to fall. The issue arises when evolutionary interpretations are presented alongside and equal to actual observable facts, making it difficult for people to differentiate what is truth and what is not.

To counteract these interpretations, many people have written similar books to Patterson’s Evolution Exposed, and many of them are quite decent. I personally have enjoyed and appreciated reading them. Though the information and research is well done and useful, the writing is typically rather technical. This is not a bad thing, but it can be difficult for a middle or high schooler to know the information to defend his faith if he cannot understand the information. Thus, Patterson wrote his book Evolution Exposed.

Patterson wrote this book, and other books, for parents and children to prepare for the arguments they will be facing and teach them how to face those arguments. His writing is at a level that both middle and high schoolers can read, but this does not mean that a college student or parent would not enjoy or appreciate the book just the same. The book is neither dull nor too technical.

Patterson organized his book well, and began by laying down a foundation to build on. He defines the difference between historical/origins science and operational science, reminding readers that both evolutionary and creationist interpretations of facts are based on presuppositions and are origins science. He does not hide from this issue but faces it boldly, for we have Scripture and much evidence for our worldview. Patterson clearly and concisely lays out the arguments made by evolutionary scientists, explains where they fall short of being observable science, and explains the creationist interpretation and defense. He also provides summaries of articles, along with their sources, that explain in further detail the creationist perspective.

Additionally, Patterson makes it very clear that both people with an evolutionary worldview and those with creation worldview can be scientists. They both look at the same facts established by observational science. Yet they can both come to different conclusions based on their presuppositions. This he further demonstrates by listing many different Christian scientists of the past and present. He does this so that Christians can have confidence when we face something that sounds like a contradiction to God’s Word. We must know our faith, why we believe it, and how to defend it against all attacks. We must not mix secular interpretations with God’s infallible Word but look to see what the baseline observable evidence is and see how it is interpreted in light of Scripture.

The evolutionary arguments laid out in his book are drawn from a few textbooks commonly used across the United States. Patterson makes note that even if these specific textbooks are not used, these foundational arguments can be found in nearly every secular-based textbook. Evolution Exposed is meant to be a guideline. Each chapter is divided by subject (e.g., “What is science?”, “Classifying Life,” “Natural Selection vs. Evolution,” etc.). At the beginning of these chapters, he charts in detail where this information came from in the textbooks; at the end of each chapter, he lists articles that speak on the same subject and additional creation resources. He also provides questions a student could use, respectfully, in the classroom or in discussions with friends to challenge the worldview presented. He also gives suggestions on how to answer questions, like on homework or tests, that “give the answer” the teacher is looking for but do not compromise a student’s faith.

This book is a useful tool for teens or parents of teens concerned about what questions or challenges they might face in high school or college. This can help prepare Christians, young and old, to give an answer for why they believe what they believe and for the hope that is within them (1 Pet. 3:15-16).

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh

Translator: Benjamin R. Foster
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company

 

 

 

 

Among the lessor known epics of our world is a piece called the Epic of Gilgamesh or simply Gilgamesh. It is also considered the oldest epic ever found, although the Atrahasis and Enuma Elis are next up. Despite its age and origin, this epic still provides new insights today. The epic is not entirely unique in its story as it tells the adventures of a great hero and shares a history of which we all are a part. Gilgamesh allows the modern-day reader to glimpse at a world we can no longer see. It also gives us a different perspective on events that, as Christians, we know quite well. Though Gilgamesh is not very long, its impact and importance is significant, and so we should read it.

Like most other epics, Gilgamesh is split up into sections that, in general, divide the narrative. For example, the first section of Gilgamesh introduces us to who Gilgamesh is and why this epic was written. The sections of Gilgamesh are mainly separated by the tablets they were written on, of which there are eleven. There is no single, complete, original copy of the epic. In fact, the epic itself says that it was written on a lapis tablet, which has never been found. Additionally, the story has been found in various collections from southern Babylon to Assyria in addition to individual stories unique to those places. One key fact of this tablet is the inclusion of the Deluge. Assyria has a flood story and so does Babylon in addition to the one found in ancient Sumer, which this translation is largely based on.

The Gilgamesh epic was written in the Sumerian language. For some perspective: Ancient Sumer was found on the plain amidst the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and vaguely encompassed an area that included a city called Eridu and a city called Ur (not the same Ur of the Chaldees Abram was from, that was in the north) that later became the city of Babylon, now modern-day Iraq. The plain of Shinar, mentioned in Genesis within the Babel account, is likely on this same plain between the Tigris and Euphrates.

The account begins by telling us that Gilgamesh built the walls of Uruk, but he did not build the city. He is the son of gods and man, so he is a sort of demigod, larger than life. He is the son of a man named Lugalbanda. Gilgamesh, the king of Uruk, is known for his stature (literally) and is the mightiest in the land. He was known as the greatest of kings. And this is typical for an epic – this is about a hero – so they are going to praise him as such. Because of his bragging and desire “to establish eternal fame,” Gilgamesh is often compared to Nimrod.

Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.”

~ Genesis 10:8-10 ~

Nimrod built the cities of Babylon, Erech, Akkad, Calneh, Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah, and Resen (Gen. 10:10-12). The first four cities were roughly on the plain of Sumer and the latter in the north towards the area that became Assyria and later part of Syria. Mostly importantly, Nimrod is also credited for inciting the building of the Tower of Babel. But as I said before, this was likely in the north, not in either Ur or Uruk in southern Babylon.

The Sumerian/Babylonian man credited with building the Tower is named Enmerkar, another sort of demigod. Enmerkar was king of Uruk before Gilgamesh, according to the Sumerian King list but well after the flood. While I will avoid saying either for certain, I am working under the presumption that Nimrod and Gilgamesh are not the same people, however similar they are, though they are probably related. If Enmerkar and Gilgamesh are the same people under different names, which is unlikely, why is Babel not even mentioned in this epic? Perhaps Gilgamesh simply wanted fame like that his ancestor had, but that is where their similarities end.

Gilgamesh includes other places that are also found in Scripture or are at least known in their relation to Scripture. One is just in passing, and this is Elam. While preparing for an epic journey and fight, Gilgamesh packs various weapons, including an Elamite bow. Elam was a people who lived southeast of Sumer in an area that is now part of Iran. In fact, the Persians came from them. Elam was a son of Shem, and he founded Elam. When the Bible talks of the Medes and the Persians, Elam is Persia and Media is Madai, a son of Japheth.

Another land mentioned is Lebanon. At first it is simply called the forest of cedars, but it is eventually called Mount Lebanon, an area known for cedars. Gilgamesh goes here for two reasons: he had to cut down a cedar, marking him king, and kill a monster called Humbaba, furthering his might. Both of these feats must be accomplished so that he might establish “eternal fame,” which is very important to our epic hero. He is reminded a few times not to rely on his own strength and is saved by gods and friends alike, to accomplish his feats. Though he succeeded, he also suffers great loss, sending him on another adventure, but that will be discussed momentarily.

First, who or what is Humbaba? Here is how this thing is described:

The guardian of the forest of cedars […]

Humbaba’s cry is the roar of a deluge,

His maw is fire, his breath is death,

He can hear the rustling for sixty double leagues.

Who can go into his forest?

Adad is first and Humbaba second.

Who, even among the gods, could attack him?

II.243-52

…his features are grotesque,

who is there who could face his weaponry?

II. 262-63

He let out a single bloodcurdling cry,

The guardian of the forest shrieked aloud

[…]

Humbaba was roaring like thunder.

V. 201-4

This creature also had his own river. He is called a monster, a guardian, who makes the mountains of Lebanon quake. What could do this? Perhaps he was a monster or a man. I tend to think more likely he was a dinosaur, or dragon to this Sumerian. How is he described? He is grotesque, he lives in a desolate area – on a forested mountain near a river – and his “maw is fire, his breath is death,” a description used multiple times, that implies the ability to breathe fire. What creature do we know like this? I believe a dragon-like creature, which we would call a dinosaur today, fits this description. In fact, I think the Leviathan is the next closest creature except that the Leviathan seems to be a sea creature rather than a land one. The only odd thing about Humbaba, the guardian of the forest, is that he can talk. However, so can a couple of giant scorpions. Though the talking is doubtful, and this is an epic, no one doubts the reality of scorpions. Why doubt a great beast of old?

And yet, a dragon is not the greatest part of this epic. No, the most fascinating part is the man whom Gilgamesh scours the earth to find. This man is known as the “Distant One,” though he likely lived not far from Gilgamesh. This man is also called a forefather of Gilgamesh, and I believe this to be true. This man is known as both Utanapishtim and Atrahasis in this epic (and others), but to us, he is better known as Noah.

Indeed, the whole reason that this epic is recorded, besides telling of Gilgamesh’s great feats, is to tell the story of the flood. The epic begins by telling us that Gilgamesh brought back “tidings from before the flood” from a distant land. Gilgamesh actually went there, however, to find the secret to eternal life, but he comes back with something much better, which is why this account closes the epic.

Utanapishtim lived in a city called Shuruppak, which was along the Euphrates. We know that two of the four rivers flowing through the Garden of Eden were named the Tigris and the Euphrates. These would have been destroyed in the flood. Why are there still two rivers found today bearing these name? Because the names were preserved by Noah and his sons and they renamed these two rivers after those original ones, a fact also included both in this epic. This was a common practice, and it helped preserve history in some ways.

Utanapishtim was the son of a man named Ubar-Tutu. This name appears in the aforementioned Sumerian King list as an antediluvian king of Uruk. How can this be? Likely, Noah was split into two people – Ubar-Tutu and Utanapishtim – over the centuries of descendants retelling the story of the flood and the founders of their land.

Utanapishtim reveals to Gilgamesh a “secret matter,” which is that a god (it is unclear which god it actually is) tells Utanapishtim that a flood is coming. Now, many of the gods had decided to send the flood, but only one decided to tell a human. He told Utanapishtim this warning:

Wreck house, build boat,

Forsake possessions and seek life,

Belongings reject and life save!

Take aboard the boat seed of all living things…

XI.24-27

Unlike the ark the Lord tells Noah to build, the boat Utanapishtim is told to build likely would not float. The boat describe was a cube and divided equally, which is unsurprising considering the shape of Sumerian and Babylonian architecture. This flood story was passed down through the generations and gained cultural influences; it was not preserved as the inspired Word of God is. But like in the Scriptures, this god gives Utanapishtim instructions that he obeys, though instead of warning his neighbors of what is to come, he deceives them. He does say that rain is coming, but that it will be a blessing rather than destruction. Many people helped build this boat, and it only took 5 days! The boat was made of wood and covered in tar and pitch. Many people and creatures boarded the ship as well:

What living creatures I had I loaded upon her,

I sent up on board all my family and kin,

Beasts of the steppe, wild animals of the steppe, all types

of skilled craftsmen I sent up on board.

XI.84-87

Then the god comes to him at the appointed time of the flood and tells him to close up the ship.

The appointed time arrived,

In the morning cakes in spates,

In the evening grains in rains,

I gazed upon the ace of the storm,

The weather was dreadful to behold!

XI.90-95

The flood is described in more detail in respect to the gods, who regretted sending it. They “tore our the mooring posts (of the world)” and “made the dikes overflow” (XI.106-5). They “set the land ablaze” and “flooded the land … smashed it like a [clay pot]” (XI.110). The flood came down in such a torrent that people could not see one another and the water “passed over the people like a battle” (XI.113). It rained six days and seven nights, a common phrasing in the epic (sets of three are common as well). On the seventh day there was calm again. So not quite the 40 days, but one of these writers had Divine inspiration and the other by word of mouth and placed into an epic!

Utanapishtim then tells Gilgamesh that all people turned to clay, which has also been mentioned multiple times before in the epic. Dust to dust appears to have been accepted by the Sumerians. At this time, Utanapishtim looked to see what remained of the world, and all he saw was water. The boat eventually rested on a Mount Nimush and remained there for a week. On that seventh day, he let out a dove, which returned. Then a swallow that returned. Finally he released a raven that did not return. Then he knew he could open the doors again. Utanapishtim “set up an incense offering on the summit of the mountain” just as Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord after the flood and the Lord made a promise to Noah (XI.161). A similar statement is made by the gods to not destroy mankind with a flood. However, Utanapishtim is also sent to live alone with his wife, which is in part why he is called the Distant One and became like the gods.

It was for this reason, to gain eternal life, that Gilgamesh sought out his ancestor, but he fails the test and loses what could have made him youthful again. But he did gain something greater, and that was the account of the days before and during the flood that was foretold at the beginning of the epic. In fact, this epic ends much the same way that it begins. Our epic hero is still human, but he has returned a changed man with the prize of knowledge that would be passed down to the next generation.

This collection of interesting facts found in Gilgamesh does not tell you the details of the adventure; that is for you to find out for yourself, and I encourage you to do so. Despite it being an epic, it is also rather short, much shorter than Beowulf. This is likely because much of the text has been lost. For example, one adventure is mentioned in passing that does not happen in the epic. But the story is fascinating and the details intriguing. Without reading, you would miss the tale of Enkidu and how he became a friend of Gilgamesh; you would miss the interaction between the gods; you would miss what this world looked like through the eyes of someone who lived thousands of years ago. Much can be learned in this epic in addition to the great flood and our forefather Noah. And like most poetic works, retelling it in prose simply does not do it justice.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 

---

Works Referenced

“Gilgamesh.” Benjamin R. Foster, trans. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. 2009. Print.

The Account of Noah, the Flood, and Babel

The Sumerian King List (For the lineage of Ubar-tutu, Enmerkar, Lugalbanda, and Gilgamesh, go to pages 77-91)

Problems of Convenience: A Modest Propsal

 

 

Author: Jonathan Swift
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company

Commentary

Jonathan Swift, Irish by parentage but Englishman by citizenship, wrote A Modest Proposal in 1729. During the time he wrote this, there was great suffering in Ireland, and the English seemed to be at a loss as to how to deal with that problem. As the name might suggest, Swift hoped that his readers would be convicted to respond to the plight in Ireland by considering his “modest” proposal. Though he is possibly best known for his novel Gulliver’s Travel’s, Swift was at his best when he was writing satire, and that is what A Modest Proposal is: satire. Those who first read this piece probably did not think this “proposal” was satire at first. Their assumptions may have been based on many things, including the somewhat misleading subtitle and the fact that something really did need to be done in Ireland. Although what Swift wrote was for a specific time and place, his message still applied 100 years afterwards and still applies in the present.

As was true during most of the time Ireland was under British rule, Swift’s time saw a great oppression of the Irish people. It is not as though the people were intentionally abused, but their suffering was there nonetheless. They were poor, dirty laborers. Many of the imports to England came from Ireland, while the Irish starved. In general, the Irish were treated as the lessor of society. Because of their great suffering, the Irish often sold themselves to various shipmasters, traders, and colonists so that they might leave their wretched land and eat. Selling themselves for work, often to pay for their passage, was the only way for most of them to find prosperity and freedom because they had no money.

Swift saw the plight in Ireland and the apathy in Britain. Therefore, he wrote his proposal in hopes of waking up the British to the reality they were ignoring. There were many problems in Ireland that the English saw. For one, the Irish had far too many children, who were a “grievance” to society and their parents. They were beggars, thieves. They even demanded the charity of England, who took most of their goods through trade. Moreover, they were Catholic, leading in part to the great number. Swift also notes some of the horrid practices among these people who, as it was well know, were dying and rotting before them in filth, misery, and starvation. Swift writes,

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas, too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman beast.

This was a great grievance, and the English looked down upon the Irish because of it. But the British missed how their deeds were causing the death via starvation of those same children. Indeed, much like the supposed cannibals of Montaigne’s essay, Swift compares the English to a similar inhumanity. But what is Swift’s solution to this great problem? Well, since the English are already devouring the Irish by devouring their only supply of food, already withholding the support that Ireland needed, already treating them as livestock, Swift proposes that they eat them.

Yes, literally. Or figuratively. His proposal is straight-faced satire, and Swift does in fact go through the many ways a person could eat a child. You can fillet them, roast them, boil them, and, to make sure that nothing is wasted of so plentiful a crop, use their skin for gloves and boots. Indeed, the mothers and fathers would care so much for their children if they could make even three pounds per child. Even a few shillings would give them enough for bread! And then, since they will not have to care for their children after about a year, which before they would have had to raise the babe to adulthood – what an expense! – they can have more children which they can sell for money. The meat will be good and nourishing and the land better able to support others because of their sacrifice. Even if the meat cannot last long, Swift writes, he is sure that there is a “county which would be glad to eat up a whole nation” before it went bad.

By using the workers for food, the tenants of the land could have food to give to their lords, “as they have already devoured most of the parents, [they] seem to have the best title to the children,” like one would treat a mare or sow and their offspring. Some will have to be kept for breeding, but all of the extra people can be slaughtered without hindrance. After all, Swift writes, they are going to die of old age, disease, accident, or starvation anyway. And there really were, he reminds, too many Papists. Why not make the best use of them for the whole country, not to mention those poor starving, struggling parents? This will then support the parents and the country. As his proposal is “of no expense and little trouble,” he can see no reason why anyone would object to it.

Now Jonathan Swift was not actually saying that the English should eat the Irish. Rather, he was pointing out the problem with England’s apathy towards the plight in Ireland. They saw Ireland as a means for trade and supply. Ireland was better off forgotten until they needed it for food, like corn, wheat, or potatoes. The land and its people were not good for much else. Swift is merely pointing out that if the English are so calloused that they are willing to let the Irish starve so that the citizens that live in England may live, then they might as well go the whole way and literally eat the people themselves. They already were being devoured.

Swift’s writing seemed to have fallen on deaf ears, for a similar problem arose during the Victorian Era. During this time, a great famine broke out, and, like before, England basically ignored it or came up with excuses: they are lazy; much nutrition can come from other common plants; we cannot let them become dependent; what would happen if our citizens found out we were financially supporting the Irish?; and so on. In their eyes, the Irish were the unwashed masses, not really citizens of England. They were those who practiced Catholicism and brought this upon themselves by having too many children. They did not really deserve the help of England.

In short, many were practicing ideas that had long since been growing in popularity. These ideas were first plainly written by men such as Thomas Malthus. In his book  Principles of Population, he stated that it was good for the masses, the lessor of society, to die out so that, plainly speaking, the strong could survive. If the land could not produce enough to support the people, they would naturally select themselves to reduce the population.

Many different groups of people were viewed this way – from Africans to the Irish. In fact, only a handful of years after the Famine had basically ended, Darwin wrote his infamous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Not many know the full title of his book, but he meant what he said. Many during Darwin’s time felt the need for the lessor races to die out so that the higher races might live on and not be burdened by those below.

The above image comes from a book called Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View written by H. Strickland Constable. The point of this drawing was to show that the Irish are actually descended from Africans, thus making them less human than Europeans. This idea is false on two counts: first, while the Irish and Africans are brothers in the sense that they descend from Noah’s sons, they are not related in the way that Strictland, or others, proposed; second, their origin of descent does not make them more or less human as all are of one blood and are children of Adam formed in the image of God. We may think it barbaric that brothers would treat each other this way, but we are not far from this reality in our own society today.

This was both the main problem and the mainline idea that permeated societies of that time: different races existed and those different races were more or less human. Because of this, millions were oppressed and killed. And while the Irish, among others, were killed for the sake of convenience and apathy among the British, today such an apathy and desire to murder for convenience happens with abortion. Do we really think this practice is any different from England’s? Do we not devour the children? Do we not see them as animals, not quite human, merely a burden to us and society? And if we do not think this, do we not hear it? Do we not find ways to excuse their deaths and encourage their mothers to lead them to the slaughterhouse? Thousands die each day via abortion, yet many people do not care, do not know what it is, or desire it. While the culture is changing, it is not happening quickly enough. Many more will die to the hand of convenience before this horrendous atrocity ends.

Whether people wish to admit it or not, the genocides that have happened around the world – African, European, or otherwise  – all of them are committed because of ideas purported by Malthus and his followers, like Darwin, Galton, Sanger, and others. People are killed for difference, hate, and convenience. They are killed because at one point in time, after years of whispers, men finally began to say what they desired to be true, that it was not only natural, but good for certain people to be eliminated, or left to die, for the sake or progress and convenience. And as Swift wrote, we have propped up these people as if they were the “preserver of the nation” despite the fact that they are among those who aided in its destruction. Do we really think we are any different from the British in the way they viewed their subjects as our nation treats abortion? So I ask you: will we look on in horror at our current state, as we do at Swift’s modest proposal, or will we continue to be those who future generations will look on with disgust?

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 

Review: How to Read Literature like a Professor

I was introduced to a book called How to Read Literature Like a Professor, written by Thomas Foster, in the past year, though I only recently found the time to read it. I was apprehensive to reading the book at first because I though it might be stuffy, or inapplicable, or even repetitive. And while many of the “ways to read” he presented were familiar to me, they were neither stuffy not inapplicable. In fact, I found them refreshing and exciting as he applied some in ways I had not considered before.

Anyone who has taken an English class probably knows the basics of what to look for when reading literature, especially good literature (then again, I might just say, generally “old” literature). But I think only those who have taken a good literature class would have gone through most of the approaches that Foster takes in his book. In fact, while I was reading the book, I wondered if perhaps my professors had read this book before or if they simply had a stroke of genius. I prefer to think it was a little of both, as I had some particularly good literature professors, in my humble opinion.

Foster goes through some major themes, motifs, interpretations, and inspirations of literature that I hope most students or avid readers would have at least stumbled across. His book, though, takes these ideas and explains what and why they are as well as giving a sample of literature that contains them. These are such as: the quest and what it means; virginity and vampires; poetry, its forms and uses; the versatility of a character across literature; Shakespeare and his offspring; the weather; symbols; sex and when it is not; social motivations; morality; physical appearance; and of course, how Christ and Christianity influenced literature. The latter I found to be most intriguing, along with his dealings with politics. Throughout the book, though I did try to guess, I could not decide if the writer was a christian or not. I have my own opinions, but I have withheld myself from doing research on the author, as I am often apt to do. While I will eventually try to find out, I appreciated him taking a moderate approach so as to present things in the light of literature and her applications rather than to push an agenda one way or another.

I found his writing balanced and decently informed in various subjects. His work is concise (if I had not been so busy, I could have finished the book in a handful of days, though it took me a solid month). The chapters are short, but clear, to the point, and entertaining. As I said before, Foster’s writing is most engaging. You can tell that he not only knows what he is talking about, but is well read and enjoys his work. He does not write nor teach for necessities sake, but because he actually likes it.

Throughout the book, Foster mentions dozens of pieces of literature. I attempted to keep a running list of pieces I wanted to read at some point on my Goodreads page, but I did not record every book, poem, or play that he happened to mention. Thankfully, he placed a list of works at the end of his book so that readers, like you and me, could be sure they could get around to reading the ones we did not want to forget or miss by trying to flip back through the book.

One thing that I appreciated most about Foster’s book was that it gave me a better glimpse at what it is like to read like a professor. I do not mean to be quaint. While I do love literature, and there were only a few very surprising things that he presented in the book, Foster took apart literature I have and have not read and placed them in categories I may not have considered, presenting those pieces in a light I never saw. How to Read Literature Like  Professor really helps a reader to see with the glasses of one who reads for a living. While it is good to read for fun, I find that a book has greater depth when I know why a writer was writing what he wrote, when he wrote it, and what his influences were.

I like to know these things. I also find them to be beneficial. For example: I wrote a paper on the Aeneid, but not on the adventure, but on whether or not Aeneas was a Roman or a Greek. I took apart the poetry found towards the beginning that, if my memory serves me well, talked of foundations, children and families, men leading, and honey. There were a few other examples, and my paper expounded upon the subject more, but in general, those things supported the Roman Pietas rather than Greek Cleos. But, I only knew to look for these things because I knew the difference between Roman and Greek mentality – both of which have permeated Western culture – and why those differences mattered, especially to Virgil.

What does this have to do with Foster’s book? In short, he shows why knowing these things matter and why readers should look for them, even if they are reading for pleasure rather than work. Not only does it expand our minds and learning, but knowing the backdrop and the fine-print aids us enjoying a piece. Knowing Greek literature helps us understand modern American writers; knowing Arabian Nights prepares us for the Canterbury Tales; knowing history helps us understand the present; knowing the details explains the big picture. A story can be a good story, but reading it with the correct glasses will make it great and impactful. I have often found that authors seem to hide bits, waiting for the right person to find them. Their works are enjoyable without the reader knowing them, but having the satisfaction of “Aha!” makes them all the better. This, and so much more, is why Foster’s How to Read Literature Like a Professor is a great book, not only for its educational purposes, but also for the world it opens up to a reader.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

Eating Our Own “Of Cannibals”

 

Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company

Author: Michel De Montaigne

 

 

 

 

 

I was encouraged some years back to read a piece by Michel De Montaigne called “Of Cannibals.” I was under the impression that is was something like “A Modest Proposal,” which is possibly my favorite piece of satire. While I would not call this satire, the way that Montaigne displays truth through contrast is similar. By comparing the people of Brazil during the 16th century with the Europeans of that same time, Montaigne demonstrates that our vices and supposed virtues are not all that different; our humanity with its shortcomings equal. Despite the fact that Europe considered itself a noble race, instead of the descendants of a barbarous people, such as the Hungarians, Gauls, Scythian, and Celts that preceded them – besides even the Greeks and Romans – the people of Europe, as all people do, carried on a nature and performances that were, by all accounts, barbarous. Though this essay was written to people of a certain time and place, its message still applies today.

Indeed, just as we do today, Europe had deemed itself developed, virtuous, full of valor, and enlightened. They were superior in body and mind to the barbarous nations they encountered. But as Montaigne writes, they judged these things not “by reason’s way” but by what was popular, socially accepted, the norm. Instead of highlighting faults via truth, they compared what was akin to themselves as good; what was not similar, the opposite, was deemed bad. The author quotes an encounter out of Greek history:

“I do not know what barbarians these are, but the formation of this army that I see is not at all barbarous.”

This is not a description of some group we might call barbarous, such as the Celts, Thracians, or Gauls, but of the Romans. Everyone who was different was a barbarian to the Greeks. This idea runs through the essay by comparing the regular practices of cannibals with those of Europe. His point is that while they seem foreign, we are much akin.

What are the virtues of this South American people? In truth, the virtues are similar to those of Europeans. They marry and have children. There are leaders, prophets, preachers. They hunt and have war. In fact, Montaigne notes, their way of waging war is not dissimilar to Europe’s wars even if their motives are. They are not wasteful nor too greedy. They call each other brother, and father, and child. While their food may be different in some ways, people of Europe and the Americas can enjoy it just as well.

Most of all, they are human. They make songs and poems, much like the Greeks, Montaigne notes, and their beds are like those found on Europe’s ships. They have swords, and grills; they shave, and eat and drink fish and wine. These people are told two things: have valor and love their wives. They not only have religion but a soul – an immortal one at that.

While these people still need Christ, we should be ashamed, Montaigne notes, as we basely look upon them. While not all cultures are equally noble, not all “noble” ones are good. Each has its faults to various degrees, and each needs to look at itself and see its faults along with its successes. This, however, we refrain from doing. “From this vice spring many great abuses,” he states.

How many of the above virtues seem to differ from those said to be upheld by the people of the 15th to 17th centuries in Europe? How different are they from those we claim to hold now? It should be noted that during the time of Montaigne, the war between the Catholic’s and Huguenots had broken out. In other places, it was the Catholics and the Lutherans; still others, the Anglicans, and Waldensians, and Tyndales, and Wycliffes, and Calvins, and so on. Not all were organized sects of Christianity, but all were workers of the Word. They sought the reform the Church needed, not to become like the world, but to better hold to the teachings of Christ. Yet what were these Christians doing? Were they having councils to work things out as in the early Church? Were they working to find agreement or examining their own faults? Were they trying to find the unity in Christ that He so desires?

No, they were eating themselves alive.

But there never was any opinion so disordered as to excuse treachery, disloyalty, tyranny, and cruelty, which are our ordinary vices.

Montaigne was not only talking to the religious community and its leaders; he was talking to the whole of Europe. But there is no doubt who bears the greatest moral responsibility. The people of that time snubbed their noses at such “debase” cultures that existed in the Americas. The leaders of Europe, religious, political, and otherwise, treated their brothers, their “halves,” as through they were of another race. It was as though they denied the teachings and the Word they claimed to uphold.

Not that these barbarians and cannibals should not be looked at with horror – cannibalism is horrible and evil; it strikes me as fitting that it should have the word ‘bal’ in it – those same people failed to recognize that same barbarism within themselves.

Though the cannibals denied the humanity of their brothers by eating them, they still recognized it within themselves in relation to the others. Yet with all the advancement that the world had made, however much it had been enlightened, however much freedom the Gospel brought, the world and its leaders failed to stand upon their own foundation and thus denied the humanity of their brothers, fathers, and children, “among neighbors and fellow citizens and what is worse, on the pretext of piety and religion.” They persecuted not their enemies, but their brothers.

So we may well call these people barbarians, in respect to the rules of reason, but not in respect to ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity.

…

Truly here are real savages by our standards; for either they must be thoroughly so, or we must be; there is an amazing distance between their character and ours.

Towards the beginning of his essay, Montaigne present this illustration:

When I consider the inroads that my river, the Dordogne, is making in my lifetime into the right back in its descent, and that in twenty years it has gained so much ground and stolen away from the foundations of several buildings, I clearly see this is an extraordinary disturbance…

He notes also that rivers are subject to change, going one direction this day and another yesterday or tomorrow. Yet this illustration is more than rivers as the cannibals are more than those who eat people; each are representational. Europe had a stream of new ideas running through it, some going one way and others the opposite. While Christianity had brought great prosperity, some of those who taught it did so without the truth in their hearts and with wrong motives, thus corrupting the foundation of the world around them.

In the same way, the new ideas and ways of thinking, the new way people looked at the world around them had changed, and not entirely for the good. Where certain leaders had eroded the good foundation of Christ that had existed for many years before, the “new thinkers” eroded the foundation near to completion, one that is seemingly gone today. While many enlightened people thought themselves as having gained much ground, they had in the process destroyed the foundation on which they and their gains rested. They had, in essence, thrown off their newfound freedom to return to the treacherous and barbarous ways of their origins.

I am not sorry that we notice the barbarous horror of such acts, but I am heartily sorry that, judging their faults rightly, we should be so blind to our own. I think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead.

Between religion, social, and political persecution, the world was a hotbed of hatred.  Some might say that it is still today. Those claiming Christianity were heretics and hypocrites; the social classes were divided further by new, debase teachings of science, and the political wars intermingled and corrupted the two. Because of this strife, the people of Europe were literally eating themselves alive from the inside out. How ignoble to think this any different from the cannibals! Instead of capturing and killing our enemies, we do this to our brothers.

Both then and now, no matter the continent, we have been unable to look ourselves into the mirror of law and see our own faults, be they social, political, or religious. We have let ourselves become subjected to the “human disease” that infects all: the sinful nature. We pride ourselves in being clever and “advanced,” a loaded term of evolutionary origins and connotations, yet we “cannot help altering history a little” to excuse our current faults. We have not found our valor, honor, and worth in heart, will, and creed, but instead in strength and “survival of the fittest.” We are not “a character fit to bear true witness” of ourselves.

So what is the solution? If you were to ask Montaigne, he would probably say that we should look to the cultures of others who resemble the original nature of people. I am not so sure that this is the case. While it is good to learn from other cultures and take the good and learn from the bad, it is not good to model after them entirely. Likewise, the sinful nature is always present; without Christ, we are truly barbarous and enslaved.

Thus, we should be on the side of truth, regardless of whom it benefits in a passing moment. We should examine ourselves to see the faults within and compare ourselves to the truth, destroying and drowning our old Adam (Psa. 26:2, Lam. 3:40, 2 Cor. 13:5). Let us not become mired in tribalism and “us vs. them.” Learn. Do not decided what is good or bad by man’s fleeting and faulty wisdom but by God’s. Jet us judge things by “reason’s way,” by God’s way. It is His will that is unchanging, and His Word that is true and right. His design for us is the nature we should attend to. In this way, we can acknowledge our faults without fear and can lay down our shame, because we know a God that forgives. But let us do so now and share such truth and unity with others and end our incessant gorging of the flesh.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 

---

 

De Montaigne, Michel. “Of Cannibals.” vol. 1 The Norton Anthology of World Literature, W. W. Norton & Company. , 2nd ed., New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 2009, pp. 1631-40.

 

Twelfth Night: Not What it Appears

As the name suggests, Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night has to do with the day of Epiphany, or the twelfth day after Christmas. Whether this lands on January 5th or 6th is up to debate. But while this play is named after this Holiday, very little in the play has to do with what we might think. There are no three wise men, though there are three fools,  and there is only one mention in the entire play of the phrase “twelfth night”. No, this play has less to do with religiosity and much more with the festival, a time of carnival, that came to surround this time.

Indeed, the festival had much more to with people pretending to be who they are not. Sometimes, this tradition took the form of the King Cake with a bean, coin, or other object put into the cake for someone to find. The person who had the object in their slice of cake would be king for the evening. This tradition was common across most of Europe. But a similar tradition that developed out of, or perhaps from, this was that the nobility would pretend to peasants and visa versa. Sometimes, masques were held at this time. During the Renaissance and onward, nobles and peasants alike took time to celebrate the end of the Christmas season by coming together with feasts, festivities, and even pretending to be someone that you are not. The practice of plays and mumming, however, had already been well established by the common folk.  These are the sort of ideas and themes that should be kept in mind while reading Twelfth Night, for while the King Cakes down hearken back to the “three kings” or magi that visited the Christ child, the majority of the play has to do with people pretending to be who they are not, even if it is not precisely a masque.

So who are these people and who are they not? While there are a whole host of characters, there a few crucial ones: Orsino, Olivia, Sir Andrew, Malvolio, Feste, and Viola, she perhaps being the main character.

Orsino is rather clear-cut and does not really, or at least intentionally, pretend to be someone he is not. He does, however, act in a way not fitting for his station. He is a Duke and his name means bear yet he is a lovesick, soft-hearted man who acts more womanly that even Viola at points. Besides Viola, however, he is the most self-aware and recognizes the dual-nature of men:

For such as I am, all true lovers are,

Unstaid and skittish in all motions else

Save in the constant image of the creature

That is beloved. …

For, boy, however we do praise ourselves,

Our fancies are mode giddy and unfirm,

More longing, wavering, sooner lost and worn,

Than women’s are.

Act 2, scene 4, ll. 17-20 & 32-35

And in the end, he reveals his boyish tendencies. Though the sole heart of his affection was for Olivia, and he passionately sought her, in the end he changed his love for Viola.

Olivia is false in the way that she leads people to believe she feels about love. She makes it appear throughout the play that she is incapable of love because of the death of her father and brother. But with the first chance that she is offered at a different love, she jumps on it and pursues it passionately, even to the point of marrying the “wrong” person because she wanted that love so much. But in truth, though she deceives herself with the veil she put over her heart, it is really she who is deceived by others, including Viola, Feste, Maria, and her kinsman.

Sir Andrew and Sir Toby only pretend to be someone in this way: they think they better than they are. While they are nobility, have names conveying strength, and status implying wisdom and knowledge, they are embody none of these things, most especially Sir Andrew. He is said to be brave, but in the face of danger in a lily livered coward. He frequently refers to himself as a knight, yet he has not the bearing or chivalry of one. He is a silly looking, stupid-minded, drunk spend-thrift. But in his case, the only one he fools is himself, for all those around him recognize his failings as a knight. Sir Toby is much the same, though he is clearly more mature and more wise than Sir Andrew, though not by much.

Two characters that are clearly underestimated by most of the others in the play, save by each other, are Maria and Feste. It is because of the underestimation that they are able to be something other than what their status defines for them. They never pretend to be someone other than they are, but because people assume something of them, they expect them to be that way. This is the way Maria and Feste inadvertently deceive others.

Maria may best be described by this phrase: though she be little, she is fierce. And though that phrase is never used in the play, she is often referred to by her diminutive stature, called a beagle, a wren, a “queen of the Amazons”, a shrew, and a mouse throughout the play, especially by Sir Toby. Yet in spite of this, she is the mastermind behind the downfall of Malvolio, who does not suspect her at first. Additionally, in spite of her name, Maria is no saint. And yet, she is the mother of many plots that happen throughout the play.

Like Maria, Feste also does not match his name nor his role as fool. He is rather melancholy for someone who is to bring entertainment. He also fits the phrase “Better a witty fool than a foolish wit”, the latte of which better fits Sir Andrew. In truth, Feste is a wise fool. He recognizes Olivia’s foolishness for mourning for her brother if she believes him to be in heaven. He takes advantage of wordplay and the lack of wit in Sir Andrew. Though he does sometimes talk gibberish, more often than not he plainly says what the audience is likely thinking while they watch, and typically says truth. He is possibly the first to recognize that “Nothing that is so is so”. But the only times he pretends to be someone he is not, for he could clearly be explained as a wise fool, is when he pretends to be a priest who comes to visit Malvolio. He does this so well, in fact, that he is able to switch between characters flawlessly. Even so, he makes the more “biblical” references throughout the whole play, even if they are not all the most respectful.

Malvolio only pretends to be someone he is not insofar as he is convinced to. Malvolio is a conceited, narcissistic, bringer of ill-news. He is one who constantly frowns and brings nothing but the opposite of merriment. He he is the one made to look the fool, not Feste, when he is convinced that Olivia is secretly in love with him. He dresses in a hideous way, is made to smile like a fool, and act in such a way that is contrary to his nature.

Finally, there is the lovely Viola. She is the crux of the play and the unifier of them all. Though Sebastian, her twin brother, and Olivia are the first to get married, it is she that brought it to happen. She is the one who actually becomes someone who she is not to woo for someone not loved in return and then be sought after in such a way that her brother finds love. It is quite a twist of events, but all are brought together in the end. She is the character that makes this a comedy, a unifier. She is the reason why Sebastian and Olivia find love. She is the reason why Orsino finds love in her. Yet this all came about with some deception and much confusion, for she pretends to be a boy, one who sings and delivers messages. This is why Olivia first falls in love with her and then mistakes Sebastian for “Cesario”. Because of her disguise, she is saved from harm by Antonio who think she is Sebastian.

Despite her being a woman, she is more noble than the two ‘sirs’, more gentlemanly than Malvolio, more lordly than Orsino. And despite pretending to be a man, she is more true to love than Olivia, more virtuous than Maria. In truth, she is the most self-aware of the group and more true to her nature and virtues than those around her, even in her deception. And perhaps in her pretending to be someone she was not, Viola was able to get a glimpse into the world and minds of others in a way she otherwise would not have. Perhaps her chater is to make us ponder how one gets to the truth? Throughout the whole play, everyone is deceving everyone else and never saying thr truth until she reveals it all at the end. Perhaps being straightforward initially would have been better. But, that makes for a much less interesting comedy, now doesn’t it?

The ironic thing is that when this play first came out, the actor would have been a man playing a woman pretending to be a man. Her whole character is a mind twister for you, and she is possibly the most interesting, perhaps after Feste, in my opinion.

Thus, the play of Twelfth Night perhaps should be more commonly referred to as What You Will, for in this play people are who you will them to be, even if they are not. If people think you are one thing, they will perceive you as such and be surprised when you are not. For example, Sir Toby marries Maria, probably because of her wit. Olivia marries Sebastian because she assumes he is Cesario. And yet, this play reflects the Twelfth Night traditions: people pretending to be someone they are not. Those who were not nobility became so, and those who were became as though they were not. Furthermore, Orsino’s finally words proclaim that Viola will be “his mistress” and “his fancy’s queen” since he was her’s for a times, and thus the roles are reversed once more, as might perchance happen on a Twelfth Night celebration.

It is a play of confusion and playacting on a night when playacting was celebrated. And though the play wasn’t first published on Twelfth Night, the theme and gist of the story revolves around the traditions of that night. And more can be said about each of these characters on whether they are who they claim to be or are claimed to be, but that is for another day. In short, my point is that whether you read it or not before, remember that this is a comedy and there will be at least a marriage; that this play both is and is not about Twelfth Night, which I wish I would have known; and that perhaps it is better not to deceive in the matters of love. Everything could have been cleared up much sooner.

~Rose

 

Fun Fact:

If you are looking for some names to study, look up the names of Olivia, Viola, and Malvolio. It is no wonder why these three interact with each other so often, regardless of the plot. They are reflections or inverses of each other, most notably in their names, which are anagrams of each other (though Malvolio has “mal” added to his).

 

 

---

Works Referenced

Shakespeare, William. “Twelfth Night; Or What You Will.” The Complete Works of Shakespeare. edited by David Bevington. 5th ed., New York: Pearson. 2004. pp. 337-69.

Twelfth Night: Its Definition and History

A More In-depth look at Twelfth Night and its Sources

Wikipedia: Twelfth Night

Wikipedia: Twelfth Night