Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World Before and After Jesus
© 1999 Thomas Cahill
I've never expected to read the words "his silly circumcised penis swelling for all to see" in connected with Jesus Christ, but I have now, after reading Desire of the Everlasting Hills: the World Before and After Jesus. Cahill is one of those authors who can manage to intrigue me, somewhat annoy me, and leave me thinking -- did he really just say that? I had to read about Jesus' silly circumcised penis swelling a few times before accepting that yes, Cahill was pondering and writing on the penis of his god -- and calling it silly, yet.
Cahill begins his conversation with the reader at the twilight of the "Axiol Age", his term for that period that witnessed the flowering of philosophical, intellectual, and religious thought that gave us Buddha, Confucius, Plato, and their kin. Our story is set a Judea that has become partially Hellenized by Alexander the Great -- who Cahill spends time on -- and which is now a Roman province. He tells us of the rise of the Maccabees, who I had heard of but knew nothing about. According to Cahill, a man named Judeas Maccabee organized an insurrection against their Selucid rulers when said rulers attempted to refile the temple in Jerusalem. Judeas triumphed and his family became the rulers of the area, albeit ruling under the Roman thumb. Herod, Cahill tells us, is the last of that line -- meaning Herod is actually Jewish.
Since Christianity began as a Jewish sect, Cahill explores the various branches of Judaism that are flowering now that there are no Orthodox priests to keep people in. The two I remember most are the Essenes and the Pharisees. The Essenes resemble monks in that they retire in the wilderness to contemplate YHWH and so forth, while the Pharisees are alarmed at the growing lack of respect for the law and attempt to restore the old practices. The Pharisees will be the main villains in the New Testament, for those unfamiliar with it. He then explores the changing perception of Jesus and Christianity among the disciples and the Early church. I realized as the book wound to an end that the reason I don't know much about the early church is not that I haven't really looked before, but because there's not much information to draw on. The evidence is scant, and Cahill seems to restrict himself to it. There's no real wild speculation here -- no stories of Mary Magdalene leading the church and being ousted and driven into exile by Peter. Cahill's Catholicism does intrude at a couple of points, most notable when he addresses Martin Luther and ritual in the Catholic church.
I enjoyed the book quite well until the last chapter, when he attempts to attribute to Jesus and his followers (like Paul) everything from universal suffrage to tolerance. Looks to me to be an example of selective reading. The case of Paul is especially interesting, given that he writes to the members of one church and advises them that women shouldn't speak in church. That letter is written off by Cahill as being attributed to Paul but not really being his. Regardless of who wrote it, its precense in the Christian canon is fairly damning to Cahill's idea. An idea that occured me while reading was that I can understand why religions like Christianity were able to catch on. Following explict rules set forth in sermons is easier than contemplating Buddhist or other philosophical principles and then behaving in accordance with them.
Although the last chapter is forced and Cahill needlessly insults humanist ethics*, the book on the whole was fairly interesting.
* He recounts somene named Malcolm Muggeridge who visited a leper colony being run by Christians. Muggeridge apparantly stated that no humanist could do this. According to Wikipedia, he converted to Christianity. According again to Wikipedia this meant he could not enjoy Life of Brian, so it is entirely his loss. The International Humanist and Ethical Union's work in southeast Asia and Africa leaves me with no doubt that empathy is just as powerful as perceived divine command at inspiring people work for one another, and my personal conceit is that empathy is natural and thus more sustainable. The book is described as being a work of "reconciliation" between believers and nonbelievers, so Cahill's attitude there is questionable.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Compleat Gentleman
The Compleat* Gentleman: The Modern Man's Guide to Chivalry
© 2004 Brad Miner
256 pages
I have a friend in love with the idea of chivalry, and he often asks me to comment on the rise of chivalry given my tendency to engage in medieval reading. He recently mentioned that he is doing research into the idea on his own, and brought up this book. Unthinkingly, I mentioned that it was part of my Amazon wishlist** and he asked me if I wanted to read it. Partially out of curiosity and partially out of politeness, I agreed. I should explain why a book on chivalry was on my Amazon wishlist: back in high school, I became infatuated with the cult of the southern gentleman. Part of it stemmed my religiosity and part of it stemmed from my brief relationship with southern nationalism (an affair that has left me feeling dirty ever since). I am no longer concerned with being a "manly man" or a "gentleman", but out of curiosity I decided to read the book.
The book is written by Brad Miner, formerly of the National Review and the editor of a conservative encyclopedia and a conservative bookclub. (This is the description on the back of the book, not mine.) He calls himself a "conservative liberal", which means he gets to question the Church while grumbling about the neo-Marxist Titanic and the "so-called sexual revolution". This is funny at first, but grows tiring the more he indulges himself. He begins with "Massed Against the World", writing about how men of virtue are now completely marginalized and ignored in a culture of depravity and egalitarianism run amok. He then spends a number of chapters on the history of chivalrism, beginning with ka-niggits and moving on to Victorian gentlemen, simultaneously dragging Stoicism along for the ride. He then writes on the three basic parts of the "compleat gentleman": the warrior, the lover, and the monk, ending with "Chilvary in the Modern Age" and "The Art of Sprezzaratura".
Miner is quite the romantic. Although he admits that knights and Victorian gentleman did not live up to their ideals, he sees their attempt to be good as admirable. I would, too, if I thought knights and Victorian gentlemen were attempting to be good. According to the rear flap of the book, he is "inspired by tradition but not bound by it", which sounds good but doesn't appear to mean anything. Miner comes off as self-congratulatory, a trait I sympathize with. He wants very badly to be a member of an "aristocracy of virtue", but judging by "Chivalry in a Democratic Era", his "code of honor" is there for his convenience. It does gives him room to snub those he sees as unvirtuous and to act in ways I personally see as uncivil. He also sees violence as honorable in many circumstances. There is also the fixation on "manly" ethics: where do women fit into his worldview? His ideal woman seems to have the virtues of a godly woman with some 21st century sensibilities thrown in.
The book grew rather boring after a while: while Miner and I share a commitment to virtue, his code seems to me to be hypocritical and impotent. I'm curious as to what my friend thinks, though.
* Miner's odd spelling is apparantly based off of a Victorian book about The Compleat Gentleman, but my etymological dictionaries show that "complete" was never spelled like that.
** I was mistaken. The two books on my wishlist were The Modern Gentleman: A Guide to Essential Manners, Savvy, and Vice by Phineas Mollod and Jason Tesauro
and The Gentleman's Guide to Life by Steve Friedman.
© 2004 Brad Miner
256 pages
I have a friend in love with the idea of chivalry, and he often asks me to comment on the rise of chivalry given my tendency to engage in medieval reading. He recently mentioned that he is doing research into the idea on his own, and brought up this book. Unthinkingly, I mentioned that it was part of my Amazon wishlist** and he asked me if I wanted to read it. Partially out of curiosity and partially out of politeness, I agreed. I should explain why a book on chivalry was on my Amazon wishlist: back in high school, I became infatuated with the cult of the southern gentleman. Part of it stemmed my religiosity and part of it stemmed from my brief relationship with southern nationalism (an affair that has left me feeling dirty ever since). I am no longer concerned with being a "manly man" or a "gentleman", but out of curiosity I decided to read the book.
The book is written by Brad Miner, formerly of the National Review and the editor of a conservative encyclopedia and a conservative bookclub. (This is the description on the back of the book, not mine.) He calls himself a "conservative liberal", which means he gets to question the Church while grumbling about the neo-Marxist Titanic and the "so-called sexual revolution". This is funny at first, but grows tiring the more he indulges himself. He begins with "Massed Against the World", writing about how men of virtue are now completely marginalized and ignored in a culture of depravity and egalitarianism run amok. He then spends a number of chapters on the history of chivalrism, beginning with ka-niggits and moving on to Victorian gentlemen, simultaneously dragging Stoicism along for the ride. He then writes on the three basic parts of the "compleat gentleman": the warrior, the lover, and the monk, ending with "Chilvary in the Modern Age" and "The Art of Sprezzaratura".
Miner is quite the romantic. Although he admits that knights and Victorian gentleman did not live up to their ideals, he sees their attempt to be good as admirable. I would, too, if I thought knights and Victorian gentlemen were attempting to be good. According to the rear flap of the book, he is "inspired by tradition but not bound by it", which sounds good but doesn't appear to mean anything. Miner comes off as self-congratulatory, a trait I sympathize with. He wants very badly to be a member of an "aristocracy of virtue", but judging by "Chivalry in a Democratic Era", his "code of honor" is there for his convenience. It does gives him room to snub those he sees as unvirtuous and to act in ways I personally see as uncivil. He also sees violence as honorable in many circumstances. There is also the fixation on "manly" ethics: where do women fit into his worldview? His ideal woman seems to have the virtues of a godly woman with some 21st century sensibilities thrown in.
The book grew rather boring after a while: while Miner and I share a commitment to virtue, his code seems to me to be hypocritical and impotent. I'm curious as to what my friend thinks, though.
* Miner's odd spelling is apparantly based off of a Victorian book about The Compleat Gentleman, but my etymological dictionaries show that "complete" was never spelled like that.
** I was mistaken. The two books on my wishlist were The Modern Gentleman: A Guide to Essential Manners, Savvy, and Vice by Phineas Mollod and Jason Tesauro
and The Gentleman's Guide to Life by Steve Friedman.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Lost on Planet China
Lost on Planet China: One Man's Quest to Understand the Most Mysterious Country in the World
© 2088 J. Maarten Troost
382 pages
While looking for a book on Chinese history, I encountered this travelogue and decided to give it a go. Lost on Planet China is the account of J. Maarten Troost's extended stay in China, which spans weeks at the very least. In beginning the book he writes on the subject of China's changing image in the world. He knows that China is not what it was during his childhood -- during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward -- and given its rising prominence in world affairs, he decides to visit it. Troost's perspective is an interesting one: both of his parents were European (Czech and Dutch) and he apparently spent his childhood in the Netherlands, although he now lives in the United States. The book is quite funny: he documents his initial reactions (and acclimated responses to) to various aspects of Chinese culture: the language barrier, the idea of children urinating in the street, the complete normality of dead livestock blocking sidewalks, the presence of street lamps decorated with Tibetan swastikas, and the art of haggling for the "Chinese price".
Although the book is entertaining and funny, it is also informative in that Troost adds commentary to what he observes. He sees China still trying to create an identidy for itself -- embracing the wild materialism of the United States while hanging on to the Cultural Revolution and trying to decide whether to divorce itself from or embrace the past. It was well worth the time I spent read, and if you are at all interested in what experiencing China is like, I reccommend it.
© 2088 J. Maarten Troost
382 pages
While looking for a book on Chinese history, I encountered this travelogue and decided to give it a go. Lost on Planet China is the account of J. Maarten Troost's extended stay in China, which spans weeks at the very least. In beginning the book he writes on the subject of China's changing image in the world. He knows that China is not what it was during his childhood -- during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward -- and given its rising prominence in world affairs, he decides to visit it. Troost's perspective is an interesting one: both of his parents were European (Czech and Dutch) and he apparently spent his childhood in the Netherlands, although he now lives in the United States. The book is quite funny: he documents his initial reactions (and acclimated responses to) to various aspects of Chinese culture: the language barrier, the idea of children urinating in the street, the complete normality of dead livestock blocking sidewalks, the presence of street lamps decorated with Tibetan swastikas, and the art of haggling for the "Chinese price".
Although the book is entertaining and funny, it is also informative in that Troost adds commentary to what he observes. He sees China still trying to create an identidy for itself -- embracing the wild materialism of the United States while hanging on to the Cultural Revolution and trying to decide whether to divorce itself from or embrace the past. It was well worth the time I spent read, and if you are at all interested in what experiencing China is like, I reccommend it.
This Week at the Library (2/3)
Books this Update:
This week's reading was an interesting selection: philosophy, religious and otherwise, dominated. I began with What the Buddha Taught in the interests of increasing my cultural literacy. Outside of a familiarity the foundational tenets of Buddhism (the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path) I know very little about it. The book has been very well-received, but I wasn't really able to build on what I know. Much of the book was an explanation of the Four Noble Truths, and although I generally understood what was being said, I never had an "A-HA!" moment where it all made sense. How the idea of no-self meshes with the idea of reincarnation is still beyond me, despite Rahula having committed a chapter to it. I think I am more interested in practice than in theory.
Next I continued in Thomas Cahill's Hinges of History series, reading The Gifts of the Jews. The book was not what I expected: rather than focusing on Judaism in the late classical era, Cahill examines the Hebrew mind using the Christian "Old Testament" as his source. While his information on Sumerian culture was informative, his view of the developing Jewish mind seems overly romantic and quite forced. I cannot make an informed comment on some of his interpretations in regard to religious worldviews of the Sumerians, but there are some about which I am informed and here I disagree with Cahill. He sees western civilization coming out of Jerusalem, while I see it coming out of Athens. I do not see how the idea of the individual can be more attributed to the Hebrews than the Athenians, based on my study of Greek philosophy and my knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures, which I have read since I was a child. While Cahill weaves a tight narrative as usual, here the threads of that narrative seem to be complete fabrications -- imposed upon the text rather than gleaned from it.
Having contemplated Buddhism and Judaism, I next moved to liberal Christianity with Oliver "Buzz" Thomas' 10 Things Your Minister Wants To Tell You. In the book Thomas addresses ten issues concerning Christianity today. The issues range from biblical literalism to homosexuality and the afterlife, but it is the first -- biblical literalism -- that I deem most important. Thomas is not a biblical literalist, which I see as perfectly reasonable. Despite knowing that the bible is a book written and translated by men with agendas, Thomas still sees it as a message from God, with some of it being lost in translation and warped by human culture. Having established that the bible must be interpreted, Thomas proceeds to interpret it according to 21st century standards. You may be able to see where that leads: the flames of Hell are quenched, women become people instead of things, homosexuality is regarded as natural, and suddenly it's perfectly okay to eat lobster and wear mixed threads. Thomas' religion is a progressive and ennobling religion, but -- unhappily for the world -- progressive and ennobling religion isn't what people want. As a result, Thomas comes off as preaching to the choir.
Taking a break from all of the philosophy, I read a historical thriller: Robert Harris' Imperium. Imperium is the first in a trilogy about the life of Cicero, one of Rome's finest statesmen and philosophers. Imperium is executive power, and in this first book we see Cicero's quest to achieve it. He begins as a young senator from a backwater province, ignored by his fellows. In the opening chapters he is still being schooled in philosophy, and he and his servant/slave Tiro begin a long working relationship. The book is written in the first person, from Tiro's perspective, and according to Harris Tiro really did write a book on Cicero's life. Tiro tells us the story of Cicero's slow and never certain rise to power in the changing political theatre that is Rome. This is excellent fiction.
Lastly, and accompanying Imperium, I read The Roman Mind by M.L. Clarke. Clarke is a professor of Latin -- or was. This book was published in 1956 when Clarke held that position, so unless he has extraordinarily longevity he is probably only with us in the past tense now. Clarke begins by opining that although the Romans are remembered for their administrative prowess, they were also thinkers. They came to philosophy and literature late, and when they did they built upon Greek culture, but the result was still distinctly Roman. They took the teachings of Epicures and Zeno and the legends of Homer and made them Greece. Most of what we know of Stoicism comes to us through the Romans, and that Stoicism is subsequently rather Roman, with an emphasis on duty and practical living than the theoretical ideas Zeno and Chyrsippus wrote on. Clarke's book takes us through decades of Roman philosophy, political thought, religion, and some literature, ending with the death of Marcus Aurelius, the "last philosopher". I thought the read very enjoyable and informative. It went well with my reading of Imperium.
Pick of the Week: Imperium, Robert Harris
Quotation of the Week: "The art of life is to deal with problems as they arise, rather than to destroy one's spirit by worrying about them far in advance." - Cicero, as quoted in Imperium.
Next Week:
- What the Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula
- The Gifts of the Jews, Thomas Cahill
- 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You, Oliver Thomas
- Imperium, Robert Harris
- The Roman Mind, M.L. Clarke
This week's reading was an interesting selection: philosophy, religious and otherwise, dominated. I began with What the Buddha Taught in the interests of increasing my cultural literacy. Outside of a familiarity the foundational tenets of Buddhism (the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path) I know very little about it. The book has been very well-received, but I wasn't really able to build on what I know. Much of the book was an explanation of the Four Noble Truths, and although I generally understood what was being said, I never had an "A-HA!" moment where it all made sense. How the idea of no-self meshes with the idea of reincarnation is still beyond me, despite Rahula having committed a chapter to it. I think I am more interested in practice than in theory.
Next I continued in Thomas Cahill's Hinges of History series, reading The Gifts of the Jews. The book was not what I expected: rather than focusing on Judaism in the late classical era, Cahill examines the Hebrew mind using the Christian "Old Testament" as his source. While his information on Sumerian culture was informative, his view of the developing Jewish mind seems overly romantic and quite forced. I cannot make an informed comment on some of his interpretations in regard to religious worldviews of the Sumerians, but there are some about which I am informed and here I disagree with Cahill. He sees western civilization coming out of Jerusalem, while I see it coming out of Athens. I do not see how the idea of the individual can be more attributed to the Hebrews than the Athenians, based on my study of Greek philosophy and my knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures, which I have read since I was a child. While Cahill weaves a tight narrative as usual, here the threads of that narrative seem to be complete fabrications -- imposed upon the text rather than gleaned from it.
Having contemplated Buddhism and Judaism, I next moved to liberal Christianity with Oliver "Buzz" Thomas' 10 Things Your Minister Wants To Tell You. In the book Thomas addresses ten issues concerning Christianity today. The issues range from biblical literalism to homosexuality and the afterlife, but it is the first -- biblical literalism -- that I deem most important. Thomas is not a biblical literalist, which I see as perfectly reasonable. Despite knowing that the bible is a book written and translated by men with agendas, Thomas still sees it as a message from God, with some of it being lost in translation and warped by human culture. Having established that the bible must be interpreted, Thomas proceeds to interpret it according to 21st century standards. You may be able to see where that leads: the flames of Hell are quenched, women become people instead of things, homosexuality is regarded as natural, and suddenly it's perfectly okay to eat lobster and wear mixed threads. Thomas' religion is a progressive and ennobling religion, but -- unhappily for the world -- progressive and ennobling religion isn't what people want. As a result, Thomas comes off as preaching to the choir.
Taking a break from all of the philosophy, I read a historical thriller: Robert Harris' Imperium. Imperium is the first in a trilogy about the life of Cicero, one of Rome's finest statesmen and philosophers. Imperium is executive power, and in this first book we see Cicero's quest to achieve it. He begins as a young senator from a backwater province, ignored by his fellows. In the opening chapters he is still being schooled in philosophy, and he and his servant/slave Tiro begin a long working relationship. The book is written in the first person, from Tiro's perspective, and according to Harris Tiro really did write a book on Cicero's life. Tiro tells us the story of Cicero's slow and never certain rise to power in the changing political theatre that is Rome. This is excellent fiction.
Lastly, and accompanying Imperium, I read The Roman Mind by M.L. Clarke. Clarke is a professor of Latin -- or was. This book was published in 1956 when Clarke held that position, so unless he has extraordinarily longevity he is probably only with us in the past tense now. Clarke begins by opining that although the Romans are remembered for their administrative prowess, they were also thinkers. They came to philosophy and literature late, and when they did they built upon Greek culture, but the result was still distinctly Roman. They took the teachings of Epicures and Zeno and the legends of Homer and made them Greece. Most of what we know of Stoicism comes to us through the Romans, and that Stoicism is subsequently rather Roman, with an emphasis on duty and practical living than the theoretical ideas Zeno and Chyrsippus wrote on. Clarke's book takes us through decades of Roman philosophy, political thought, religion, and some literature, ending with the death of Marcus Aurelius, the "last philosopher". I thought the read very enjoyable and informative. It went well with my reading of Imperium.
Pick of the Week: Imperium, Robert Harris
Quotation of the Week: "The art of life is to deal with problems as they arise, rather than to destroy one's spirit by worrying about them far in advance." - Cicero, as quoted in Imperium.
Next Week:
- Desire of the Everlasting Hills, Thomas Cahill
- Evolution for Everyone, David Sloan Wilson
- Lost on Planet China, J. Maarten Troost
- Pompeii, Robert Harris
The Roman Mind
The Roman Mind: Studies in the History of Thought from Cicero to Marcus Aurelius
© 1956 M.L. Clarke
168 pg.
While Rome is known for its administrative prowess, author M.L. Clarke wants to remind us that they were thinkers, too: philosophers, borrowing from the Greek tradition. Their philosophies, while beginning in Greece, gained a Roman-ness to them when they were transmitted to Italy. After establishing background and introducing the reader to the two most influential philosophies adopted by Rome -- Epicureanism and Stoicism -- Clarke introduces us to the first true Roman philosopher, Cicero. We see in Cicero's time a Rome just beginning to be shaped by Greek philosophy, a Rome where traditional Romans have become strangers in their own city. Their culture is in the process of changing, and many are uncomfortable with this. But Greek philosophy and the Roman mind will meet and merge, and in the next chapter -- "Philosophy in Augustus' Time" -- we see that a distinctly Roman Stoicism has established itself, while Epicureanism -- once much more popular than Stoicism -- has exhausted itself and is fading into the bakcground.
This book is not simply about Roman philosophy, however. Clarke also addresses Roman religion, the Roman national spirit, the growth of political ideas, the idea of fate, and "Humanitas". All of these things work on the other, and Clarke makes this clear. The book ends with the death of Marcus Aurelius, the "last philosopher". In his epilogue, Clarke points out that Stoicism was a doctrine that was passed down from teachers to students -- and with the death of the last Stoic, Stoicism itself would pass on -- but not before shaping some of the new religion taking hold in Rome, that of Christianity.
I found the book to be well-written and quite interesting. It may be difficult for other people to find, though: I found it through my university's academic library.
© 1956 M.L. Clarke
168 pg.
While Rome is known for its administrative prowess, author M.L. Clarke wants to remind us that they were thinkers, too: philosophers, borrowing from the Greek tradition. Their philosophies, while beginning in Greece, gained a Roman-ness to them when they were transmitted to Italy. After establishing background and introducing the reader to the two most influential philosophies adopted by Rome -- Epicureanism and Stoicism -- Clarke introduces us to the first true Roman philosopher, Cicero. We see in Cicero's time a Rome just beginning to be shaped by Greek philosophy, a Rome where traditional Romans have become strangers in their own city. Their culture is in the process of changing, and many are uncomfortable with this. But Greek philosophy and the Roman mind will meet and merge, and in the next chapter -- "Philosophy in Augustus' Time" -- we see that a distinctly Roman Stoicism has established itself, while Epicureanism -- once much more popular than Stoicism -- has exhausted itself and is fading into the bakcground.
This book is not simply about Roman philosophy, however. Clarke also addresses Roman religion, the Roman national spirit, the growth of political ideas, the idea of fate, and "Humanitas". All of these things work on the other, and Clarke makes this clear. The book ends with the death of Marcus Aurelius, the "last philosopher". In his epilogue, Clarke points out that Stoicism was a doctrine that was passed down from teachers to students -- and with the death of the last Stoic, Stoicism itself would pass on -- but not before shaping some of the new religion taking hold in Rome, that of Christianity.
I found the book to be well-written and quite interesting. It may be difficult for other people to find, though: I found it through my university's academic library.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Imperium
Imperium: A Novel of Ancient Rome
© Robert Harris 2006
305 pages
I would not have expected to find a novel set in ancient Rome, nor would I expect the author of a mystery novel set in a world where Nazi Germany emerged victorious in the second world war to have penned it -- but here it is, and here Robert Harris has penned it. This is a novel set in the last days of the Old Republic -- before the dark times, before the Empire. The novel is told in the first person, from the perspective of "Tiro": slave/servant of Marcus Tullius Cicero, known chiefly by his last name. In a way, this is a biographical novel about Cicero, although it starts when he is a young politician in his twenties and culminates in his election to the consularship. The story takes us through several decades of political change in Rome, although it is not one long and fluid story: Tiro, addressing the reader directly, writes that he has no wish to bore the reader with a retelling of hum-drum events. He focuses, rather, on three very memorable and life-altering episodes in Cicero's political life.
I found the book completely compelling: not only does Harris create drama out of stuffy-sounding letters about legal incidents, but he makes the idea of Rome come alive. Its politics, its sights and sounds -- he gives the city life. Tiro's narration holds the story together and offers us a different perspective on Rome. He is aware of the plight of slaves, the existence of an entire Republic beyond the walls of Rome and the personal interests of its ruling class. He shows us Cicero when he triumphs and Cicero when he badly misjudges situations. This is excellent drama -- but beyond fiction, it is historical fiction. Here, too, Harris comes through. His depictions match what I know of the period, especially in terms of philosophy.
I enjoyed the book immensely, and am pleased to know that it is only the first book in a planned trilogy about the life of Cicero.
"The art of life is to deal with problems as they arise, rather than to destroy one's spirit by worrying about them too far in advance." - Cicero, as quoted in the book. He also commented that "Sometimes one must begin a fight in order to find out how to win it."
© Robert Harris 2006
305 pages
I would not have expected to find a novel set in ancient Rome, nor would I expect the author of a mystery novel set in a world where Nazi Germany emerged victorious in the second world war to have penned it -- but here it is, and here Robert Harris has penned it. This is a novel set in the last days of the Old Republic -- before the dark times, before the Empire. The novel is told in the first person, from the perspective of "Tiro": slave/servant of Marcus Tullius Cicero, known chiefly by his last name. In a way, this is a biographical novel about Cicero, although it starts when he is a young politician in his twenties and culminates in his election to the consularship. The story takes us through several decades of political change in Rome, although it is not one long and fluid story: Tiro, addressing the reader directly, writes that he has no wish to bore the reader with a retelling of hum-drum events. He focuses, rather, on three very memorable and life-altering episodes in Cicero's political life.
I found the book completely compelling: not only does Harris create drama out of stuffy-sounding letters about legal incidents, but he makes the idea of Rome come alive. Its politics, its sights and sounds -- he gives the city life. Tiro's narration holds the story together and offers us a different perspective on Rome. He is aware of the plight of slaves, the existence of an entire Republic beyond the walls of Rome and the personal interests of its ruling class. He shows us Cicero when he triumphs and Cicero when he badly misjudges situations. This is excellent drama -- but beyond fiction, it is historical fiction. Here, too, Harris comes through. His depictions match what I know of the period, especially in terms of philosophy.
I enjoyed the book immensely, and am pleased to know that it is only the first book in a planned trilogy about the life of Cicero.
"The art of life is to deal with problems as they arise, rather than to destroy one's spirit by worrying about them too far in advance." - Cicero, as quoted in the book. He also commented that "Sometimes one must begin a fight in order to find out how to win it."
Ten Things
Ten Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job!)
© Rev. Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, 2007
108 pages.
I do not subscribe to the Christian faith, but I've heard of this book through one podcast or another and decided to read it out of curiosity. The book is written by a Baptist minister and concerns ten controversial issues in the Christianity -- issues that most Christian ministers would rather not visit too much. The ten issues are:
Despite his Baptistisity, "Buzz" Thomas is quite open to interpretating the Bible. He begins with a fairly standard "Science and religion aren't in conflict" argument, which on some levels works and which fails on others. As I understand the conservative Christian take on sin and redemption, there were once two real people named Adam and Eve who were corrupted by the spirit-thing of Sin, and that the Rules of the Game dictated that their Sin would be passed on to their ancestors, leading to all sorts of unpleasantness. Then, several thousand years later, YHWH decided to help we poor mortal schmucks out by sending us Jesus, his son/personal avatar, depending on your personal interpretation of the scriptures. The Rules of the Game dictate that sacrifices help out with the Sin thing, so YHWH allowed himself/his son-self to be killed, thus making various things possible -- again, depending on your interpretation. The possibility the conservative tradition embraces is that the spirit of YHWH can enter you and you can overcome temptation. Note you "can", because most people would rather do what they like and chant "Not Perfect, Just Forgiving"
The point of this is that if human knowledge tells you a literalist interpretation of Genesis is flawed, and the basic premise of most Christianity is built on that original sin idea, then the entire system is going to collapse unless the believer is sporting an impression ability to ignore the obvious or compartmentalize things. Without that magic "Sin", the entire religion erodes away to Bible-Jesus being a moral teacher on the level of Buddha -- and at that level, dogma is going to keep evaporating away until religion has just become religious philosophy. I am perfectly okay with that, but most people aren't. They want their religion to be a Religion, something that gives them magic things like eternal life. Moral teachers can't give you heaven -- but God-magic can.
If you take away biblical literalism, you can how the book develops. The Bible is no longer the Word of God: it's a book written by men with agendas and translated by men with agendas. It portrays a primitive society that is still developing civilization, not one that is perfect so long as it is obeying the Word of God. "The Bible" becomes a collection of history, myth, poetry, and laws. Pleasing God becomes not obeying rules, but being nice to people. Women are no longer seen as through Paul's eyes (as subservient to males as males are to YHWH), but through the eyes of the 21st century. Hell? Just a myth,"designed to scare and control primitive people"*. He doesn't really comment on destinies: he just dismisses the idea of a torturous hell.
This book is a work of liberal Christianity, and the liberal Christians adore it. In a way, Thomas shows how progressive and ennobling religion can be if freed from dogma and superstition-- but progressive and ennobling religion is not what humanity wants. If that's what we wanted, the Unitarian Universalist church would be one of the largest. People want strength and security, and the easiest way to attempt to get it is to console oneself with uncompromising dogma. The inner strength of idealism, while serving philosophers like myself and liberal Christians like Thomas well, is not realized by most people in my experience. I wish more Christians thought as Thomas did: the United States would be so much more pleasant. Sadly, though, I think Thomas is quite literally preaching to the choir.
* A phrase not from Thomas, but from George Carlin's "Ten Commandments" sketch.
© Rev. Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, 2007
108 pages.
I do not subscribe to the Christian faith, but I've heard of this book through one podcast or another and decided to read it out of curiosity. The book is written by a Baptist minister and concerns ten controversial issues in the Christianity -- issues that most Christian ministers would rather not visit too much. The ten issues are:
- How it all began
- Why we're here
- The Bible: what is it?
- Miracles
- How To Please God
- Women
- Homosexuality
- Other Religions
- Death and Beyond
- How it all Ends
Despite his Baptistisity, "Buzz" Thomas is quite open to interpretating the Bible. He begins with a fairly standard "Science and religion aren't in conflict" argument, which on some levels works and which fails on others. As I understand the conservative Christian take on sin and redemption, there were once two real people named Adam and Eve who were corrupted by the spirit-thing of Sin, and that the Rules of the Game dictated that their Sin would be passed on to their ancestors, leading to all sorts of unpleasantness. Then, several thousand years later, YHWH decided to help we poor mortal schmucks out by sending us Jesus, his son/personal avatar, depending on your personal interpretation of the scriptures. The Rules of the Game dictate that sacrifices help out with the Sin thing, so YHWH allowed himself/his son-self to be killed, thus making various things possible -- again, depending on your interpretation. The possibility the conservative tradition embraces is that the spirit of YHWH can enter you and you can overcome temptation. Note you "can", because most people would rather do what they like and chant "Not Perfect, Just Forgiving"
The point of this is that if human knowledge tells you a literalist interpretation of Genesis is flawed, and the basic premise of most Christianity is built on that original sin idea, then the entire system is going to collapse unless the believer is sporting an impression ability to ignore the obvious or compartmentalize things. Without that magic "Sin", the entire religion erodes away to Bible-Jesus being a moral teacher on the level of Buddha -- and at that level, dogma is going to keep evaporating away until religion has just become religious philosophy. I am perfectly okay with that, but most people aren't. They want their religion to be a Religion, something that gives them magic things like eternal life. Moral teachers can't give you heaven -- but God-magic can.
If you take away biblical literalism, you can how the book develops. The Bible is no longer the Word of God: it's a book written by men with agendas and translated by men with agendas. It portrays a primitive society that is still developing civilization, not one that is perfect so long as it is obeying the Word of God. "The Bible" becomes a collection of history, myth, poetry, and laws. Pleasing God becomes not obeying rules, but being nice to people. Women are no longer seen as through Paul's eyes (as subservient to males as males are to YHWH), but through the eyes of the 21st century. Hell? Just a myth,"designed to scare and control primitive people"*. He doesn't really comment on destinies: he just dismisses the idea of a torturous hell.
This book is a work of liberal Christianity, and the liberal Christians adore it. In a way, Thomas shows how progressive and ennobling religion can be if freed from dogma and superstition-- but progressive and ennobling religion is not what humanity wants. If that's what we wanted, the Unitarian Universalist church would be one of the largest. People want strength and security, and the easiest way to attempt to get it is to console oneself with uncompromising dogma. The inner strength of idealism, while serving philosophers like myself and liberal Christians like Thomas well, is not realized by most people in my experience. I wish more Christians thought as Thomas did: the United States would be so much more pleasant. Sadly, though, I think Thomas is quite literally preaching to the choir.
* A phrase not from Thomas, but from George Carlin's "Ten Commandments" sketch.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)