May 9

Home / Uncategorized / May 9

Given the current unchecked spate of lies and misinformation polluting our society, it may be worthwhile to consult the opinions of Thomas Jefferson on the subject, written in an 1807 letter, substituting the word “newspaper” with the phrase “social media”.

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer “by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.” Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it’s benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood.

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.

I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time: whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables.

General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this: Divide his paper into 4 chapters. Heading the 1st. Truths, 2d. Probabilities, 3d. Possibilities, 4th. Lies. The 1st. chapter would be very short...

Such an editor too would have to set his face against the demoralising practice of feeding the public mind habitually on slander, & the depravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. defamation is becoming a necessary of life: insomuch that a dish of tea, in the morning or evening, cannot be digested without this stimulant. 

 

April 23

Home / Uncategorized / April 23

Hume, for example, ignored the following response by James Beattie to his attacks on religion. People like Hume, Beattie wrote, should remember that “in the solitary scenes of life, there is many an honest and tender heart pining with incurable anguish, pierced with the sharpest sting of disappointment, bereft of friends, chilled with poverty, racked with disease, scourged by the oppressor; whom nothing but trust in Providence, and the hope of a future retribution, could preserve from the agonies of despair. And do they [the Enlightened], with sacrilegious hands, attempt to violate the last refuge of the miserable, and to rob them of the only comfort that had survived the ravages of misfortunate, malice, and tyranny!” 

– David Stove, Cricket versus Republicanism, 1995

April 19

Home / Uncategorized / April 19

This unaired British comedy sketch meant for the series The Complete and Utter History of Britain will appeal only to that reader who took years of Latin in high school and floundered, as I did, with verb forms. It features an ancient British couple, after the Roman invasion, coming to terms with the new Latin language.

WIFE: Where been have you?

HUSBAND: Ah! Flosburga (vocative)! Well I, a cup of mead, with Egfrith, having been enjoying, I his place was about to having been making the action of being about to go, when …

WIFE: You me that expect to believe?

HUSBAND: It the honest truth is… I, the hour being late and the mead having been much finished, not another one by with or from Egfrith would have been about to have had, had he, fearing lest I, thinking myself treated ungenerously to have been, either would feel I ought to have with him been staying or …

WIFE (leaping up and packing suitcase): Of this that enough is! To my mother’s I, this the last straw being, you too far having gone, am home going.

(She leaves)

HUSBAND: Wait! (imperative) (He shakes his head sadly) This for a lark stuff.

(Pulls out bottle of mead from his coat) Fear I my wife me just understand me not does.

– Roger Wilmut, From Fringe to Flying Circus, 1980

March 24

Home / Uncategorized / March 24

1199 Richard the Lionheart of England is hit in the shoulder by a crossbow bolt. Richard had laid siege to a castle in France either because of a feudal quarrel with the Viscount of Limoges or because a treasure trove was supposedly on the domain. This tawdry skirmish resulted in a wound that turned gangrenous and would kill him. Conflicting stories are told about the boy who shot him after he was taken prisoner – he was either pardoned and sent off with a reward by Richard or he was skinned alive by Richard’s angry men.

1401 Mongols sack Baghdad. The second great wave of Mongol expansion began in central Asia led by Timur (aka Tamerlane) and swept almost to the Mediterranean. On the way Timur besieged Baghdad for 40 days and on capturing it killed everyone in the city except for Muslim clergy.

1603 Tokugawa leyasu begins the Tokugawa Shogunate, an isolationist dynasty that crushed high-ranking provincial lords, nearly exterminated Japanese Christianity, and forbade contact with the outside world. It will end only in the mid-19th century when the American navy forces open the country to foreign trade and diplomacy.

1989 The tanker Exxon Valdez runs aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska and spills  240,000 barrels of crude oil. This ecological disaster did much to advance the cause of environmental activism and new mandates for maritime safety. 

March 15

Home / Uncategorized / March 15

493 The Murder of Odoacer

In the late 5th century the Roman Empire in the West was largely a fiction. The territories had been overrun by a number of Germanic tribes looking for loot and places to settle. The imperial throne was the plaything of rebellious generals and their barbarian allies. In 476 a Gothic/Hunnic military leader, Odoacer, deposed the last western emperor, Romulus Augustus, and sent the kid home without much ado.

Odoacer dispatched the regalia to Zeno, the eastern emperor in Constantinople, and henceforth claimed to be administering Italy in his name. For 12 years he ruled with notable success, collaborating with the Senate in Rome, keeping his land-hungry tribesmen happy, and making sure civilization still functioned. (Without the Roman civil service who was going to collect the taxes?) Though he was an Arian Christian he seems to have had decent relations with his Catholic subjects.

Odoacer’s big mistake was to join with other rebels in trying to depose Zeno, sensing that the emperor was viewing him as a danger. Zeno responded by turning to another Gothic general, Theoderic, who invaded Italy. After years of fighting, Theoderic had Odoacer cornered in Ravenna, where he was protected by easily-defended marsh land. In 493 a peace was negotiated whereby the peninsula was to be shared by the two warriors but at a banquet of reconciliation, Theoderic stabbed Odoacer to death, and ordered his wife and children to be murdered as well.

Theoderic wisely adhered to Odoacer’s policy of cooperation with the Roman elite and ruled Italy happily for over 30 years.

March 10

Home / Uncategorized / March 10

1931 Birth of Georges Dor

After the British conquered New France in 1759 during the Seven Years’ War, they decided to let the inhabitants keep their French language, Catholic religion, and civil law, partly as a counterweight to the restive English-speaking colonies to the south. This allowed the Québecois to develop a unique culture, as distinct from the rest of Canada as it was from France. 

In the 1950s and 60s, this culture became self-consciously aware and aggressively separatist, producing writers, composers, and singers who were proud to flaunt their indifference to American and Canadian artists. This was particularly marked among the singer-songwriters known as chansonniers, such as Gilles Vigneault, Pauline Julien, and Georges Dor.

Dor was a radio disk jockey and news director who wrote poetry in his spare time. In 1968 he penned his masterpiece “La Manic”, a love letter from a lonely worker in the north of Québec labouring on the Manicouagan power project. It rose to the tops of the Quebec charts and even captured the fancy of Anglophone prairie boys a thousand miles to the west. He sings it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2RzMhqbrkY

Its beginning in French goes:

Si tu savais comme on s’ennuie
À la Manic
Tu m’écrirais bien plus souvent
À la Manicouagan.
 
Parfois je pense à toi si fort
Je recrée ton âme et ton corps
Je te regarde et m’émerveille
Je me prolonge en toi
Comme le fleuve dans la mer
Et la fleur dans l’abeille.
An English translation:
 
If you only knew how bored we are at La Manic,
You’d write to me a lot more often in La Manicouagan.,
 
Sometimes I think of you so hard
I recreate your soul and your body,
I look at you and wonder,
I extend myself in you
Like the river in the sea
And the flower in the bee.
 
The chansonnier genre’s greatest hit was Gilles Vigneault’s beautiful “Mon Pays”, a hymn to winter in Québec, which became an unofficial separatist anthem
Mon pays, ce n’est pas un pays, c’est l’hiver
Mon jardin, ce n’est pas un jardin, c’est la plaine
Mon chemin, ce n’est pas un chemin, c’est la neige
Mon pays, ce n’est pas un pays, c’est l’hiver.
 
Some cretin took the music and turned it into the thrice-execrable disco number “From New York to L.A.” Unforgivable.

March 7

Home / Uncategorized / March 7

Sumptuary laws

How we clothe and adorn our bodies has always been a public concern. Every religion has something to say about proper or improper dress or headwear or hairstyles. Every state has regulations regarding the outward show of a decent citizen. The outlandish garb of the 21st century against we oldsters impotently rail have their antecedents in every culture. Inevitably, the more outré clothing has been fingered as the cause of national calamities. 

Pierre Lacroix, a writer of the 19th century – an era which produced such crimes against fashion as the bustle, tartan trousers, and leg-o-mutton sleeves – here rants against the dandies of the 14th century.

“We must believe that God has permitted this as a just judgment on us for our sins,” say the monks who edited the Grande Chronique de St. Denis, in 1346, at the time of the unfortunate battle of Crecy, “although it does not belong to us to judge. But what we see we testify to; for pride was very great in France, and especially amongst the nobles and others, that is to say, pride of nobility, and covetousness. There was also much impropriety in dress, and this extended throughout the whole of France. Some had their clothes so short and so tight that it required the help of two persons to dress and undress them, and whilst they were being undressed they appeared as if they were being skinned. Others wore dresses plaited over their loins like women; some had chaperons cut out in points all round; some had tippets of one cloth, others of another; and some had their headdresses and sleeves reaching to the ground, looking more like mountebanks than anything else. Considering all this, it is not surprising if God employed the King of England as a scourge to correct the excesses of the French people.”

Other contemporary writers, and amongst these Pope Urban V and King Charles V, inveigh against the poulaines, [long-toed shoes] which had more than ever come into favour, and which were only considered correct in fashion when they were made as a kind of appendix to the foot, measuring at least double its length, and ornamented in the most fantastical manner. The Pope anathematized this deformity as “a mockery of God and the holy Church,” and the King forbad craftsmen to make them, and his subjects to wear them. All this is as nothing in comparison with the profuse extravagance displayed in furs, which was most outrageous and ruinous, and of which we could not form an idea were it not for the items in certain royal documents, from which we gather that, in order to trim two complete suits for King John, no fewer than six hundred and seventy martens’ skins were used.

March 6

Home / Uncategorized / March 6

More from Pierre Lacroix and the strange world of our medieval predecessors.

Because the rudimentary police forces of the Middle Ages were so ineffective, it was widely believed that punishment should be harsh, exemplary, and public. The Church did its best to rein in the more barbaric customs, both those inherited from the Romans and those introduced by the Germanic peoples. In 866, for example, Pope Nicholas V. condemned the Bulgarian custom of torturing the accused, telling them it was considered contrary to divine as well as to human law: “For,” says he, “a confession should be voluntary, and not forced. By means of the torture, an innocent man may suffer to the utmost without making any avowal; and, in such a case, what a crime for the judge! Or the person may be subdued by pain, and may acknowledge himself guilty, although he be not so, which throws an equally great sin upon the judge.” Priests could not shed blood nor take part in any procedure that might result in the death penalty. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 abolished the various forms of trial by ordeal. 

Nonetheless, every state employed torture and gruesome methods of imposing penalties on the culprit. In Germany public executioners could attain civic prominence and prosperity (though still be shunned by decent folk). In England, there was no such officer and executions were often botched by amateurs. Of his own country, Lacroix notes:

 In France, the executioner, otherwise called the King’s Sworn Tormentor, was the lowest of the officers of justice. His letters of appointment, which he received from the King, had, nevertheless, to be registered in Parliament; but, after having put the seal on them, it is said that the chancellor threw them under the table, in token of contempt. The executioner was generally forbidden to live within the precincts of the city, unless it was on the grounds where the pillory was situated; and, in some cases, so that he might not be mistaken amongst the people, he was forced to wear a particular coat, either of red or yellow. On the other hand, his duties ensured him certain privileges. In Paris, he possessed the right of havage, which consisted in taking all that he could hold in his hand from every load of grain which was brought into market; however, in order that the grain might be preserved from ignominious contact, he levied his tax with a wooden spoon. He enjoyed many similar rights over most articles of consumption, independently of benefiting by several taxes or fines.

We may add that popular belief generally ascribed to the executioner a certain practical knowledge of medicine, We which was supposed inherent in the profession itself; and the acquaintance with certain methods of cure unknown to doctors, was attributed to him; people went to buy from him the fat of culprits who had been hung, which was supposed to be a marvellous panacea. 

March 2

Home / Uncategorized / March 2

1882 An assassination attempt on Queen Victoria

P.G. Wodehouse said, “It is never difficult to distinguish between with a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.” One such irate Hibernian, Roderick MacLean, was annoyed with English folk and Queen Victoria in particular and entered the annals of infamy with a bungled regicide.

Roderick MacLean was born in 1854 and seems to have fallen into a what we could today a state of paranoia schizophrenia, convinced that he was beset with enemies and secret watchers.  He believed that he spoke personally with God who had assured him that he would ascend the British throne someday. God also gave him the secret number four and the colour blue as his lucky signs. After stating that he was intent on killing someone — anyone — his sister had him committed to a lunatic asylum. On his release he acquired a pistol and made his way to Windsor.

On March 2, 1882, as Queen Victoria made her way from the train to her coach, MacLean raised a gun and fired on her. The shot missed and he was set upon by the crowd. He was put on trial for high treason but a jury took only 5 minutes to pronounce him not guilty by reason of insanity. He spent the rest of his days in Broadmoor Prison, dying in 1912.

This was the last of 8 assassination attempts made upon Queen Victoria. They may well have led to an increased popularity with Britons. The monarch told her daughter that she was moved by the “enthusiasm, loyalty, sympathy and affection” shown by her subjects, and added: “It is worth being shot at to see how much one is loved.”

February 28

Home / Uncategorized / February 28

It is Michel de Montaigne’s birthday and I make so bold as to post a re-run of a previous blog in which the 19th-century antiquarian  Robert Chambers praises the noble Frenchman of the sixteenth century.

I often wonder which five characters I would like to have lunch with. I always start by thinking of Samuel Johnson, but I fear he would prove too dogmatical for my other guests. I know that Montaigne would behave well no matter who his companions were.

The father of Montaigne was a baron of Perigord. Having found Latin a dreary and difficult study in his youth, he determined to make it an easy one for his son. He procured a tutor from Germany, ignorant of French, and gave orders that he should converse with the boy in nothing but Latin, and directed, moreover, that none of the household should address him otherwise than in that tongue. “They all became Latinised,”‘ says Montaigne; “and even the villagers in the neighbourhood learned words in that language, some of which took root in the country, and became of common use among the people.” Greek he was taught by similar artifice, feeling it a pastime rather than a task.

At the age of six, he was sent to the College of Guienne, then reputed the best in France, and, strange as it seems, his biographers relate, that at thirteen he had run through the prescribed course of studies, and completed his education. He next turned his attention to law, and at twenty-one was made conseiller, or judge, in the parliament of Bordeaux. He visited Paris, and was received at court, enjoyed the favour of Henri II, saw Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, and entered fully into the delights and dissipations of gay society. At thirty-three he was married though had he been left free to his choice, he “would not have wedded with Wisdom herself had she been willing. But ’tis not much to the purpose,” he writes, “to resist custom, for the common usance of life will be so. Most of my actions are guided by example, not choice.” Of women, indeed, he seldom speaks save in terms of easy contempt, and for the hardships of married life he has frequent jeers.

In 1571, in his thirty-eighth year, the death of his father enabled Montaigne to retire from the practice of law, and to settle on the patrimonial estate. It was predicted he would soon exhaust his fortune, but, on the contrary, he proved a good economist, and turned his farms to excellent account. His good sense, his probity, and liberal soul, won for him the esteem of his province; and though the civil wars of the League converted every house into a fort, he kept his gates open, and the neighbouring gentry brought him their jewels and papers to hold in safe-keeping. He placed his library in a tower overlooking the entrance to his court-yard, and there spent his leisure in reading, meditation, and writing. On the central rafter he inscribed: I do not understand; I pause; I examine. He took to writing for want of something to do, and having nothing else to write about, he began to write about himself, jotting down what came into his head when not too lazy. He found paper a patient listener, and excused his egotism by the consideration, that if his grandchildren were of the same mind as himself, they would he glad to know what sort of man he was. “What should I give to listen to some one who could tell me the ways, the look, the bearing, the commonest words of my ancestors!” If the world should complain that he talked too much about himself, he would answer the world that it talked and thought of everything but itself.

A volume of these egotistic gossips he published at Bordeaux in 1580, and the book quickly passed into circulation. About this time he was attacked with [kidney] stone, a disease he had held in dread from childhood, and the pleasure of the remainder of his life was broken with paroxysms of severe pain. “When they suppose me to be most cast down,” he writes, “and spare me, I often try my strength, and start subjects of conversation quite foreign to my state. I can do everything by a sudden effort, but, oh! take away duration. I am tried severely, for I have suddenly passed from a very sweet and happy condition of life, to the most painful that can be imagined.”

Abhorring doctors and drugs, he sought diversion and relief in a journey through Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. At Rome he was kindly received by the pope and cardinals, and invested with the freedom of the city, an honour of which he was very proud. He kept a journal of this tour, which, after lying concealed in an old chest in his chateau for nearly two hundred years, was brought to light and published in 1774; and, as may be supposed, it contains a stock of curious and original information. While he was travelling, he was elected mayor of Bordeaux, an office for which he had no inclination, but Henry III insisted that he should accept it, and at he end of two years he was re-elected for the same period.

During a visit to Paris, he became acquainted with Mademoiselle de Gournay, a young lady who had conceived an ardent friendship for him through reading his Essays. She visited him, accompanied by her mother, and he reciprocated her attachment by treating her as his daughter. Meanwhile, his health grew worse, and feeling his end was drawing near, and sick of the intolerance and bloodshed which devastated France, he kept at home, correcting and retouching his writings. A quinsy [throat infection] terminated his life. He gathered his friends round his bedside, and bade them farewell. A priest said mass, and at the elevation of the host he raised himself in bed, and with hands clasped in prayer, expired. Mademoiselle de Gournay and her mother crossed half France, risking the perils of the roads, that they might condole with his widow and daughter.

It is superfluous to praise Montaigne’s Essays; they have long passed the ordeal of time into assured immortality. He was one of the earliest discoverers of the power and genius of the French language, and may he said to have been the inventor of that charming form of literature—the essay. At a time when authorship was stiff, solemn, and exhaustive, confined to Latin and the learned, he broke into the vernacular, and wrote for everybody with the ease and nonchalance of conversation. The Essays furnish a rambling auto-biography of their author, and not even Rousseau turned himself inside out with more completeness. He gives, with inimitable candour, an account of his likes and dislikes, his habits, foibles, and virtues. He pretends to most of the vices; and if there be any goodness in him, he says he got it by stealth. In his opinion, there is no man who has not deserved hanging five or six times, and he claims no exception in his own behalf. “Five or six as ridiculous stories,” he says, “may he told of me as of any man living.” This very frankness has caused some to question his sincerity, but his dissection of his own inconsistent self is too consistent with flesh and blood to be anything but natural.

Bit by bit the reader of the Essays grows familiar with Montaigne; and he must have a dull imagination indeed who fails to conceive a distinct picture of the thick-set, square-built, clumsy little man, so undersized that he did not like walking, because the mud of the streets bespattered him to the middle, and the rude crowd jostled and elbowed him. He disliked Protestantism, but his mind was wholly averse to bigotry and persecution. Gibbon, indeed, reckons Montaigne and Henri IV as the only two men of liberality in the France of the sixteenth century. Nothing more distinguishes Montaigne than his deep sense of the uncertainty and provisional character of human knowledge; and Mr. Emerson has well chosen him for a type of the sceptic. Montaigne’s device—a pair of scales evenly balanced, with the motto, Quo scais je? (What do I know?)—perfectly symbolises the man.

The only book we have which we certainly know was handled by Shakespeare, is a copy of Florio’s translation of Montaigne’s Essays. It contains the poet’s autograph, and was purchased. by the British Museum for one hundred and twenty guineas. A second copy of the same translation in the Museum has Ben Jonson’s name on the fly-leaf.