We will play Wagon Wheel some other time…
Tag-Archive for » Literature «
Letter from Bishop Conley to parents, students, alumni, and friends of St. Gregory’s Academy
Greetings to parents, students and alumni of St. Gregory’s Academy,
I would like to introduce myself. My name is Bishop James D. Conley, Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Denver. I was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Denver under Archbishop Charles Chaput, in May of 2008 by His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.
I also happen to be a close, life-long friend of Mr. Howard Clark. We were roommates at the University of Kansas and fellow students of the Pearson Integrated Humanities Program in mid 1970s. I have great admiration and esteem for Mr. Clark’s accomplishments as teacher, mentor, and Head Master over these many years at St. Gregory’s Academy. The individual and collective achievements at SGA are truly remarkable. I have met many alumni over the years and have had a number of them as students when I served as chaplain of the University of Dallas Rome program and as theology instructor for Christendom College Rome campus. I have seen them juggle, heard them sing, and watched them pray. I have been inspired and edified by the unique and unmistakable character of the SGA education and formation.
Like all of us, I was deeply saddened and disappointed to hear the announcement last week of the closure of SGA. I know this unfortunate news has affected many loyal parents and families of the academy. My own experience, however, has taught me that with every disappointment in life, Our Lord offers an opportunity for growth in holiness.
A few years ago, Mr. Clark and I, along with a few dedicated graduates of SGA, established a non-profit corporation entitled the Clairvaux Institute. This new institute was established to be an educational foundation dedicated to promoting a classical liberal arts education and a return to the sources of authentic Catholic Culture.
I can tell you that there is a real possibility of a new school starting next fall modeled in the tradition of St. Gregory’s Academy under the auspices of the Clairvaux Institute.
Many things must be sorted out and many obstacles have to be overcome. Everyone is still dealing with the shock of the recent announcement. My sincere prayer is that this note of introduction will serve as an encouragement to the whole St. Gregory’s family.
Presently, the Clairvaux Institute is looking for suitable property for our inaugural year. We have some very promising prospects. Nothing is certain at this point, but as Catholics, we are called and invited to “cross the threshold of hope.” I am honored to be a part of this praiseworthy endeavor. We will keep you informed as events unfold.
In the meantime, be assured of my prayers and please redouble your prayers for all those who are involved in this worthy and noble initiative.
Saint Gregory the Great, pray for us.
Sincerely Yours In Christ,
James D. Conley, S.T.L
Poetry Postage
Thanks, Davey, for the heads up
* * *
Is there anything Dana Gioia cannot do with poetry?
* * *
Former National Endowment for the Arts chair Dana Gioia, who lives in Santa Rosa, is on the committee to select commemorative stamps. On March 3, the Postal Service releases a series of stamps, its largest literary project ever, honoring 20th century poets Elizabeth Bishop, Theodore Roethke, Wallace Stevens, William Carlos Williams, Sylvia Plath, Denise Levertov, Gwendolyn Brooks, Robert Hayden and E.E. Cummings. The poets’ images are on the fronts of the stamps, and their poems are on the paper that backs the press-on stamps.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/30/DDAJ1MUC6Q.DTL#ixzz1l92H5esQ
A Tribute to Dr. John Senior
This is an amazing tribute to Dr. John Senior by Robert Wyer (an student of the Integrated Humanities Program – IHP):
The original article can be found here
Dr. John Senior was a retired Professor of Classics and a well-known Catholic thinker, of international reputation. He authored The Way Down and Out (1959), The Death of Christian Culture (1978), The Restoration of Christian Culture (1983), Pale Horse, Easy Rider (1992), and The Idea of a School (1994). With two other professors, Dr. Dennis Quinn and Dr. Frank Nelick, he taught in the very successful Integrated Humanities Program at the University of Kansas. Dr. Senior was a longtime member of the Immaculata Chapel at St. Mary’s College in Kansas. He was buried from the chapel on April 13, 1999, following a Requiem Mass celebrated by the rector, Rev. Fr. Ramon Angles. The following tribute is offered by one of his students.
At the end of Tom Brown’s Schooldays by Thomas Hughes, Tom returns to visit the tomb of Dr. Arnold, the former headmaster of Rugby School. Tom wasn’t always the perfect student during his years at Rugby, but he imbibed Dr. Arnold’s spirit because he was a good boy and ―perhaps, more importantly ―because Dr. Arnold was wise enough and good enough to see the man that Tom could become. When Tom returns, he goes into the chapel where Arnold is buried; he is brokenhearted and he cries as the memories of the past surround him. At first, his thoughts are of Dr. Arnold:
And he turned to the pulpit [where Arnold regularly preached to the boys], and looked at it, and then, leaning forward with his head on his hands, groaned aloud. “If he could only have seen the Doctor again for…five minutes; have told him all that was in his heart, what he owed to him, how he loved and reverenced him, and would by God’s help follow his steps in life and death, he could have borne it all without a murmur. But that he should have gone away for ever without knowing it all, was too much to bear.”
Many former students of John Senior undoubtedly experienced similar sentiments when he died on April 8, 1999. Many of us, who were students, friends, and family of Dr. Senior, owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude for his witness to the truth. Above all else, he was a teacher. Dr. Senior was a man rooted in reality. The starting point of any conversation with him (and its arché sustaining the talk throughout) was things as they are. For him, the fundamental question remained, “Is it true?” He wholeheartedly subscribed to the sane and common-sensical philosophy recorded in Shakespeare’sAs You Like It: “the property of rain is to wet and fire to burn.” For this reason (though always a gentleman according to Newman’s famous definition), Dr. Senior believed in telling the truth. A lie is a deliberate frustration of man’s natural God-given capacity to utter the truth. Even when telling the truth meant disagreeing with a friend or someone he greatly respected, he would humbly but clearly beg to differ ―ultimately because God is Truth. In an age seduced by talk of “Who’s to say?” Dr. Senior began his teaching by pointing to the world around him. He was a poet, and poets are taken with reality. Dr. Senior was called a romantic and a dreamer (and worse), but he was not some utopian visionary. He was too grounded in the earth to be fantastical. With all of his being, Dr. Senior believed that the Catholic Faith represents the highest expression of truth. When he was led to the Church later in life, he embraced it with Pauline zeal and sought to steep himself in her wisdom and traditions. He loved the Latin language because it was her language; he loved St. Benedict as the patron of Europe and his monastic rule as the plow of Christendom; he loved the Fathers and St. Thomas Aquinas. He prayed the ancient Divine Office and preached the merits of the traditional Roman liturgy. He loved the Blessed Virgin Mary and all of her angels. He loved the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because there he found Christ Himself. He led students to the baptismal font, to the altar as priests, to the bonds of good and fruitful marriages, and to the choirs of monasteries.
He understood that Christian culture is the seedbed of the Faith. Though the Faith can (and does) endure amidst a culture antithetical to it, it cannot flourish under such conditions. Archbishop Lefebvre, in a statement Dr. Senior loved to recall, told him, La messe est l’Eglise (The Mass is the Church). In The Restoration of Christian Culture,Dr. Senior elaborated on this most important truth preserved by the courageous archbishop:
Whatever we do in the political or social order, the indispensable foundation is prayer, the heart of which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the perfect prayer of Christ Himself, Priest and Victim, recreating in an unbloody manner the bloody, selfsame Sacrifice of Calvary. What is Christian culture? It is essentially the Mass. That is not my or anyone’s opinion or theory or wish but the central fact of 2,000 years of history. Christendom, what secularists call Western Civilization, is the Mass and the paraphernalia which protect and facilitate it. All architecture, art, political and social forms, economics, the way people live and feel and think, music, literature ―all these things when they are right are ways of fostering and protecting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To enact a sacrifice, there must be an altar, an altar has to have a roof over it in case it rains; to reserve the Blessed Sacrament, we build a little House of Gold and over it a Tower of Ivory with a bell and a garden round it with the roses and lilies of purity, emblems of the Virgin Mary ―Rosa Mystica, Turris Davidica, Turris Eburnea, Domus Aurea, who carried His Body and His Blood in her womb, Body of her body, Blood of her blood. And around the church and garden, where we bury the faithful dead, the caretakers live, the priests and religious whose work is prayer, who keep the Mystery of Faith in its tabernacle of music and words in the Office of the Church; and around them, the faithful who gather to worship and divide the other work that must be done in order to make the perpetuation of the Sacrifice possible–to raise the food and make the clothes and build and keep the peace so that generations to come may live for Him, so that the Sacrifice goes on even until the consummation of the world.
Elsewhere, Senior explained that not all of these elements of civilized human life have to preach the Faith explicitly, but they should echo it in their order and beauty, and even (especially!) in their simple elegance. John Senior was not an advocate of luxurious living or empty aestheticism; he was a troubadour of simplicity, a virtue reflected in his subtle austerity. Though his boyhood dreams were of cowboys and poets (and both were realized), Dr. Senior found his vocation as a teacher. To his tribute, he became a latter-day Socrates to countless young men and women. Not all of Dr. Senior’s students followed him into the Church, but the thousands who did not surely gained some greater affinity for the good, the true and the beautiful as a result of his teaching the classic works of literature. In this regard, he was a worthy son of another great teacher, Mark Van Doren, of Columbia University, though he outdistanced his mentor in coming to the fullness of revealed truth. As successful as he was, Dr. Senior remained humble, giving the credit to God. He insisted that no Catholic was going to win on the world’s terms, he realized that “losing” is the path of martyrs and saints, paved by the Passion and Death of Our Lord.
Nothing is coincidental, Dr. Senior used to maintain; all is providential. He died at home on Easter Thursday, while praying the rosary with his beloved wife. The epistle appointed for the day is from the Acts of the Apostles:
Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza: this is desert. And rising up he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him (Acts 8:26-31).
Dr. Senior ended one of his last essays, History and the School, by quoting and commenting on this passage as a paradigm of good teaching.
-
“Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip.” Before the beginning, the angel speaks. There is a theological dimension outside time to the act of teaching, which though not sacramentally sealed, is nonetheless a vocation; the teacher is called.
-
“And rising up, he went.” A sign of one’s vocation is his instantaneous response. Like falling in love, against all rational reluctance, it is a “want,”something one cannot live without.
-
“And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch.” Good students must be Ethiopian―black in ignorance if not in skin (often in skin as well) who, castrate of their arrogance, come up to school to learn. Smart-aleck know-it-alls cannot be taught.
-
“Reading Isaias the prophet.” Teaching is not advertising or salesmanship. College English teachers faced with freshmen who hate literature, think their job is somehow to convert them —by cajolery, finding something in a text (or selecting lesser texts) relating to their sick, impoverished wants. But the fault was back in high school where they should have loved Shakespeare. But, the high school teacher found his freshmen coming up from elementary school with no desire to read Shakespeare because they had not first loved Stevenson. And the grade school teacher found his students coming up from home without Mother Goose. And more important still, the love of literature at any stage supposes love of life ―grounded in acute sensation and deep emotion. I remember a famous college professor who, asked for a reading list, replied,“Why take the course if not engrossed in it already? One can no more study a book than love a girl on assignment.” And if they do not love girls?
-
“And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot.” The original call is general–the angel said to St. Philip, “Arise and go toward the South,” which is to say to some good school. But when the teacher, perusing rows of up and down-turned faces, hears an interior whisper ―“That one, there” ―it is love at first sight. That teachers have favorite students and students favorite teachers is a fact no sentiment of fairness can delete. Of course we must be just and love in charity; but affection knows no law. Sometimes a student goes through several grades before he finds his master and a teacher must be patient when the spirit fails to speak.
-
“And Philip running thither.” It is true that because the teacher qua teacher is superior to the student, the student must come to him ―you cannot force learning on unwilling souls. But as we love God only because He first loved us, so teachers, when they hear the second call, must run to wake their sleeping students up.
-
And then, like Socrates, quicken them with questions: “And thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?”
-
Then such love may be requited: “And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.” The student now stays after class with questions of his own, comes to the teacher’s office, follows him around, gets invited to his home and, like good fathers and sons, they become lifelong friends.
John Senior could write so eloquently of what he called “a little eight-note scale of its own on the acts (not arts) of teaching and learning” because he loved his students. Quoting Garrigou-Lagrange, he said that an analogy exists between paternity and teaching; both are generative. But the love of the teacher for his student, like the love of the father for his son, is greater than vice versa because it is the love of the cause. Finally, however, Dr. Senior was urged on by charity, the love of God. His greatest lesson was to teach others to do the same. As Tom Brown remembers Dr. Arnold, he also recalls the number of other students who were influenced by the great man―others “nobler and braver and purer than he.” Hughes ends his novel with words even more appropriate in the case of John Senior and his students.
For it is only through our mysterious human relationships, through the love and tenderness and purity of mothers and sisters and wives, through the strength and courage and wisdom of fathers and brothers and teachers, that we can come to the knowledge of Him, in whom alone the love, and the tenderness, and the purity, and the strength, and the courage, and the wisdom of all these dwell for ever and ever in perfect fullness.
Crime and Punishment
Questions on Crime and Punishment Book Two
A question, adapted from Hannah Arendt (The Life of the Mind: Volume One: Thinking): What does Raskolnikov seek throughout Crime and Punishment? Does he seek meaning, or does he seek truth? Is there any difference between meaning and truth?
Think about this: man expresses the activity of his mind through language, through words, through signs. What do “clichés, stock phrases, adherence to standardized codes of expression and conduct” signify? What does a man’s “own new word” signify?
When Arendt experiences Adolph Eichmann’s war crimes trial, she is “struck by a manifest shallowness in the doer that made it impossible to trace the uncontestable evil of his deeds to any deeper level of roots or motives.… The only notable characteristic one could detect in his … behavior … was something entirely negative: it was not stupidity but thoughtlessness.” Arendt remarks on the external signs of this thoughtlessness in terms of language: “Cliches, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence” (4).
Where else do we encounter those “clichés” etc. that I have talked about as being “sentimental”? I have kept pushing the question: Why does Raskolnikov murder those women? Well, what I’m really asking is the question I would like you to consider as you continue reading Crime and Punishment: “Could the activity of thinking as such … be among the conditions that make men abstain from evil-doing or even actually ‘condition’ them against it?” (5).
C and P Book I
These are some excerpts from the first in a series of “lectures” that I will be discussing with the senior class at St. Greg’s.
Raskolnikov’s “Own New Word”
I feel that some kind of introduction to the novel itself is an appropriate introduction to this novel. One of the characteristics of the novel itself is that things are presented as they happen, but they are also presented as they seem to happen in the minds of characters. So, you will notice that Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment has the singular burden of a double consciousness. The Russian root ras means split; Raskolnikov’s character is split as well–more on that point throughout the book; especially when Mr. Svidrigailov shows up a couple days after the murder. The narration of the book itself is a kind of split, though, a dual presentation of events as Raskolnikov experiences them, and events as Raskolnikov thinks about them. It is one of the delights of Crime and Punishment–as of every novel–to explore the boundary between things as they happen to the conscious acting, living, loving Raskolnikov, and things as they appear to happen, or as they strike below Raskolnikov’s consciousness. What things are, and what things seem to be; good and evil; dreams and reality: these things blur and there is little solid and definite in Dostoevsky’s world. I remember Mr. Cully saying, of reading Crime and Punishment: “It’s better than any drug!”
***
The reasons, if you like that way of putting it, for killing the old woman are scattered throughout his past experiences. But it is easy to point to one event that has tipped the balance, you could say, causing him to think, “From this day forth, / My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth.” Right after he has read his mother’s letter to him, Raskolnikov voices his choice in the following manner. He could “Renounce life altogether;” he could “[a]ccept fate obediently as it is, once and for all, and stifle everything in myself, renouncing any right to act, to live, to love!” (45). If this is one alternative, then the other, doing “something without fail, at once, quickly,” deciding “at all costs to do at least something” (45)–even if that something is murdering the old woman–well, that second alternative, even if it is not good, it may be seen in a bit more light than a simple decision to murder wantonly.
Now, I don’t want to be seen as justifying murder, or wrongdoing, or sin, but it is kind of important to look at the context of people’s decisions before judging them. The lines from Burns’ “Address to the Unco’ Guid” recall themselves: “What’s done, we partly may compute, / But ne’er know what’s resisted!” We can at least partly understand what Raskolnikov does: he murders a couple defenseless women and takes their money. But what is the thing that Raskolnikov is trying to resist by that action, by itself an unjustifiable crime? That is a bit more difficult to see.
Let me ask you this: Why does ‘accepting fate as it comes’ mean that Raskolnikov is renouncing any right “to act, to live, to love”? What could there be about such fate–letting Luzhin marry his sister–that will ‘stifle everything in himself’? I suggest that violent opposition to the unreal word, or opposition to old, dead words, drives Raskolnikov to murder. There is something of this in the letter from his mother. Ruminating her letter, Raskolnikov says of people like his sister and mother:
“And that’s how it is with these beautiful, Schilleresque souls: till the last moment they dress a man up in peacock’s feathers, till the last moment they will not utter a real word beforehand; the thought alone makes them cringe; they wave the truth away the with both hands, till the man they’ve decked out so finely sticks their noses in it with his own bare hands….” (42)
The attitude of such people is expressed in language that is trite, overused, sentimental, cliché. Such an attitude wishes to impose its own conception of what should be without seeing its place in reality, or rather, its context with all humanity. ‘Its contact with all things human,’ is what I just said; it will be fruitful to examine this attitude and its relation to speaking a new word and becoming in a way outside of the law. But now, let’s look at a couple examples of the attitude I mentioned before: the speakers of trite sentimentalities.
Y’all have heard the phrase about how “it’s useless to beat a dead horse.” It’s an example of a phrase that is empty or unreal. Many proverbs are cliché. I don’t mean to shock you by deriding wise morals from the fables, fairy tales, or even the Bible. But, they are often sententious. I just mean to say that if you are going to say something new, you would do well to avoid trite phrases.
***
Whatever–I’m getting sidetracked. “Beating a dead horse…”: well, Raskolnikov experiences something that exposes the emptiness of sententious, old dead words. In section five, Raskolnikov, in a somewhat delirious state, dreams of a horse being beaten to death. It is unclear whether this dream is a memory of an actual experience or whether it is strictly hallucinogenic. But, how appropriate that Raskolnikov experiences the horror and revulsion at something sentimental or out of tune with humanity while that cliché is in his consciousness! What I mean is, telling the peasant Mikolka, “Hey, you! It’s useless to beat a dead horse!” is itself useless and empty. Raskolnikov’s reaction, however, seems much closer to a real response or real new word that answers the situation at hand. What I mean is, the impulsive horror and sorrow in a child’s face does more to evoke shame and fear in an evildoer than do the empty phrases from the other onlookers: “That puny nag can’t pull a loaded cart!” “Where’s your fear of God?” As a side note, what made a bigger impression on Peter as he was fleeing Rome: the pricks and nags of conscience, or the vision of Christ suffering because of his flight?
There is much more to draw from Raskolnikov’s dream–pay special attention to dreams in this book!– but there is another instance of sentimentality that deserves attention now.
We find it in Luzhin. Pulcheria Alexandrovna writes how Luzhin has “carelessly let slip” his true motive for marrying Avdotya Romanovna: “A husband ought to owe nothing to his wife, but it is much better if a wife looks upon her husband as a benefactor” (36). Luzhin is marrying for the sake of fulfilling a theory. There will be no love of either’s part: marriage is simply a tool used for the sake of social advancement (Luzhin) or fiscal security (Dunya for the sake of Rodya). Pulcheria worries that her son holds nothing holy; has become an agnostic (one who is against gnosis, the intimate communion with things holy). I can’t suggest that Raskolnikov as we see him and how he approaches life is a perfect Christian. Yet, he, much more than Luzhin or the peasants in his dream, appreciates intimately such holy things–such gnostic things–as the sanctity of creatures, God’s creation, as the human desire to resist oppression of his sister–basically, he seeks to bring about the union of mankind (characterized by love) in his resolve to speak out against the trite and sentimental fear of morals and conscience.
I don’t want to draw too many conclusions, but it’s good to look at Raskolnikov’s theory. As voiced by a student in a bar, the theory runs that, by taking one life, such as the pawnbroker’s, “thousands of lives [will be] saved from decay and corruption. One death for hundreds of lives–it’s simple arithmetic!” His conversant replies, “Of course she doesn’t deserve to be alive … but that’s nature.” And the reply: “Eh, brother, but nature has to be corrected and guided, otherwise we’d all drown in prejudices. Without that there wouldn’t be even a single great man. ‘Duty, conscience,’ they say–I’m not going to speak against duty and conscience, but how do we really understand them?” (65).
Raskolnikov operates on a similar theory (more on the differences later in the book). Raskolnikov’s murder is his way of correcting and guiding nature. It is his own new word, his first step towards greatness. But, I’d like to ask, just how new is this theory? I mean, if these other people in the bar are casually or theoretically discussing the same theory as applied to the very person he has planned to murder, how original is his word going to be? Isn’t Raskolnikov guilty himself, not of marrying for a theory, as Luzhin does, but of ‘murdering and robbing for a theory’? Isn’t his action just as empty as beating a dead horse? [I refer to the many parallels between the two murder scenes in the first section of the book: the horse signifies in some way the poor Lizaveta.]
Well, let’s look closer at this ‘murder theory.’ It’s fair to say that the modern German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has had some influence on Raskolnikov. Nietzsche had a little theory, the basis of which is that there are some people who are different than most others; people who are allowed to interpret the law as they see fit; people who may correct and guide the natural law in order to become “great men,” thus abandoning things like duty and conscience, going beyond both good and evil.
It’s obvious that Raskolnikov is not only unoriginal with regards specifics about his theory: he overhears by chance another person expounding views that he himself might agree with. This theory is not even original to his contemporary Russia; it is rather borrowed from a foreign country. As you’ll see, the basis for this theory is not even original to modern times (the 19th century for Dostoevsky). Just one earlier version of Nietzsche’s theory is found in the epistles of Saint Paul.
Saint Paul says some pretty shocking things in his letters; shocking, beautiful things though. How about this: “To those outside of the law, I became as one outside of the law” (cf. 1 Cor 6). Even though Saint Paul acknowledges the importance of “the law,” requiring circumcision, for example, and holds himself to the law, he becomes “all things to all men:” meaning that he in some way lowers himself to the level of those who are not as law-abiding as he is. There is not an exact parallel: Saint Paul is primarily referring to the “Law” in the sense of “Scriptural Law,” whereas Nietzsche and his modern followers refer more to the “Natural Law.” But, they are still talking about the same thing.
***
Well, I’ve brought up a lot things that may be considered extra-textual, and it’s high time we got around to the murders themselves.
He could not waste even one more moment. He took the axe all the way out, swung it with both hands, scarcely aware of himself, and almost without effort, almost mechanically, brought the butt-end down on her head. His own strength seemed to have no part in it. But the moment he brought the axe down, strength was born in him.
The old woman was bareheaded as always. Her thin hair, pale and streaked with gray, was thickly greased as usual, plaited into a ratty braid and tucked under a piece of horn comb that stuck up at the back of her head. Because she was short, the blow happened to land right on the crown of her head…. Then he struck her again and yet again with all his strength, both times with the butt-end, both times on the crown of her head. (76-77)
***
Lizaveta was standing in the middle of the room, with a big bundle in her hands, frozen, staring at her murdered sister, white as a sheet, and as if unable to utter a cry…. He rushed at her with the axe…. And this wretched Lizaveta was so simple, so downtrodden, and so permanently frightened that she did not even raise a hand to protect her face, though it would have been the most necessary and natural gesture at that moment, because the axe was raised directly over her face. She brought her free left hand up very slightly, nowhere near her face, and slowly stretched it towards him as if to keep him away. The blow landed directly on the skull, with the sharp edge, and immediately split the whole upper part of the forehead, almost to the crown. (79)
I have suggested that Raskolnikov commits these murders in some way to combat the oppression of empty words. Where is the center of these “polite, meaningless words” that are empty and dead? It is in the intellect; in the center of the brain, as far as possible separate from the heart of the matter, away from the person’s heart. When Raskolnikov murders, he does not consciously aim for the “crown” of the head, or for the “forehead, almost to the crown.” His point of attack is, unconsciously, appropriate for striking against the empty word or phrase.
The *est books I read in 2010
Rules: (1) Pick your own categories, and (2) The synopses are, obviously, the funnest part.
Best Reread: Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. First time reading the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation. Oh man that Svidrigailov is creeptastic. And how did I not mention Razumikhin on that 15-fictional-characters meme? Six-word synopsis: Everyone loves you — stop killing people.
Longest/Hippest: Infinite Jest, by David Foster Wallace. About 1000 pages and almost certainly worth it, especially for the AA bits, not to mention Madame Psychosis. Six-word synopsis: AA, tennis, and one ingenious suicide.
Silliest: Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein. Just as well I didn’t get hold of this book ten or fifteen years ago, when I might have not realized it was utter crap, but fairly entertaining utter crap. Six-word synopsis: Martian teaches consciousness-raising screwing techniques.
Most Inspiring: The Cross and the Switchblade, by David Wilkerson. Six-word synopsis: Wow, Jesus really meant those things.
Gut-Rippingest: The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini. Sure the ending’s a little Hollywood, but I haven’t felt that compellingly miserable since A Separate Peace. Six-word synopsis: Sure glad I’m not that guy.
Still Haven’t Read: To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee. That is who it’s by, right? Six-word synopsis: I wouldn’t know, now would I?
Just Plain Best: Clockers, by Richard Price. Fans of The Wire, take note — Price also wrote a handful of episodes for the show, and I loved about this book exactly what I love about it. Six-word synopsis: One lovable felon, one heartbreaking cop.
And then darkness swept over the plains
Who would win?
Henry V vs. Hamlet
Polonius vs. Juliet
Ahab vs. Iago
Josh Mahan vs. Kate (taming of the shrew) and the Nurse (Romeo & Juliet)
Cleopatra vs. Lady Macbeth
Summer Plans
My only definite plan this summer is to post more regularly here, because I will be writing a lot this summer. See, when the doctor released me from the hospital in Scotland, he said (after giving me lots of drugs!) that he was worried about my blood pressure.
Doctor: “It’s right on the edge of being dangerously low.”
Me, filled with incredulity and mirth: “Don’t worry, doctor, I’ll take care of that back in the States.”
To that end, I plan, this summer, to sit on my butt during the days, avoiding exercise and eating fatty foods (read: grease-fest), while drinking lots and lots of coffee, and smoking lots and lots of cigarettes–and read tons and tons and tons of stuff. Then I’ll get to write about that stuff.
Just a warning.
Ladies and Gentlemen!
-Frank Sheed
He was a poet, a polemicist, and a prose stylist without peer, but Hilaire Belloc (1870-1954) was first and above all a mighty champion of the Catholic faith. With his brave (and sometimes brash) defenses of Catholic civilization, he taught an entire generation of Catholics never to stand for being treated as second-class citizens in the predominantly Protestant Anglosphere.
Today, with the Faith once again suffering scorn and contempt from all sides, it is time to re-discover this Catholic champion.
The Essential Belloc draws upon the prolific writer’s works (he authored more than 140 books, plus countless articles, pamphlets, and letters) to provide a comprehensive overview of his ideas, style, and personality. More than just a collection of quotes, these pages offer rich samplings from Belloc’s writings, affording you a solid introduction to his thoughts on:
• The foundational link between European culture and the Catholic faith
• The anti-Catholic historical myths that the English-speaking world has come to accept as fact
• The limits—and dangers—of science that has abandoned faith in God
• The latent power and future menace of militant Islam
• The characteristic faults of political and economic systems that deviate from Catholic principles
• The particular charms of places throughout the world: their towns and roads, their churches and inns
• The love of good food, wine, and ale, and the songs of camaraderie that go with them
And more—plus delightful examples of Belloc’s poetry and wit.
Belloc himself once remarked that “genius is the ability to think in a very large number of categories.” In The Essential Belloc you will marvel at how well he fits that very definition, and be edified by the breadth of his brilliance—and its continuing relevance for the modern world.
— Pat Buchanan
– H. W.Crocker III, author of Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, A 2,000-Year History
"Icarium Mare" by Richard Wilbur
Here’s the poem on which I am writing my final J-Po paper. I thought that some might enjoy making its acquaintance.
Icarium Mare
Richard Wilbur
We have heard of the undimmed air
Of the True Earth above us, and how here,
Shut in our sea-like atsmosphere,
We grope like muddled fish. Perhaps from there,
That fierce lucidity,
Came Icarus’ body tumbling, flayed and trenched
By waxen runnels, to be quenched
Near Samos riding in the actual sea,
Where Aristarchus first
Rounded the sun in thought; near Patmos, too,
Where John’s bejeweled inward view
Descried an angel in the solar burst.
The reckoner’s instruments,
The saint’s geodic skull bowed in his cave–
Insight and calculation brave
Black distances exorbitant to sense,
Which in its little shed
Of broken light knows wonders all the same.
Where else do lifting wings proclaim
The advent of the fire-gapped thunderhead,
Which swells the streams to grind
What oak and olive grip their roots into,
Shading us as we name anew
Creatures without which vision would be blind?
This is no outer dark
But a small province haunted by the good,
Where something may be understood
And where, within the sun’s coronal arc,
We keep our proper range,
Aspiring, with this lesser globe of sight,
To gather tokens of the light
Not in the bullion, but in the loose change.
Peter’s Summer "Job"
Dear Friends,
An Afternoon With Dr. Louise Cowan
Poetry, Culture, and the University of Dallas
Any noble movement in culture is preceded by a return and re-grasping of foundational ideals, a return to simplicity. Optimism and simplicity graces a finished soul, a noble character, a saint.
After four years, is it true that the memories of wild nights, draughts of Shiner, and fiery couches will hide the majesty and power of the education we hold in our hands? In restoring our vision of what UD’s education has meant to us, this year’s graduation commencement address was less than effective. Besides any debate we might engage in as regards its argumentation, personally what was more disappointing was its failure to match the grandeur of our education and ideals with its subject. About to receive a confirmation of the privileged education which we have received, we heard about academic integrity through tolerance. I do not mean to belabor the address, but rather contrast it with the beautiful presentation of the King’s Award on Dr. Louise Cowan. Why was this presentation the most memorable of the morning, why did the faculty—and soon after the student body—instantaneously and unanimously rise to applaud the life’s work of Dr. Cowan? The afternoon spent with her by eleven recently graduated English majors satisfied where the graduation failed. I consider it the true confirmation of my four years, both a reflection on what was received and a challenge to unleash the power of what we have learned. A simple afternoon with wine and a saintly scholar contained more ceremony—more of an efficacious service—than the grand gestures and look of the graduation exercise. These reflections—at times mere sketches—attempt to recount and communicate the spirit of learning, wisdom, and hope which filled those few hours.
Dr. Cowan is a southern lady. As we filed in somewhat sheepishly into a well-lit conference room with a table delicately adorned with plates of cheese and pristine wine-glasses, Dr. Cowan, with her characteristic sunglasses and calm smile, promptly embraced each student. She embraced—sometimes with a kiss on the cheek—each student, even those whom she was first meeting. We were delighted into silence, and milled about until Dr. Cowan invited us to enjoy the Hors D’Oeuvres, wine, and, of course, her famous artichoke-dip. The conversation—and a true conversation it became—began with Dr. Cowan asking us all what our plans were for post-graduation. Her voice had a calm and steady tenor which underlay a maternal presence, graced by both affection and wisdom. One knew that her roles as mother and teacher had formed an indelible mark on her character.
Her wit was sharp and charming, her insights were impeccably articulated, and her spirit was awe-inspiring. No one person has left such an invaluable, unrepeatable first impression on me. A humble soul speaks only the truth, and Dr. Cowan never overstated nor understated a fact or opinion, especially in relation to herself. Even statements laudatory of herself were expressed with an elegance and a matter-of-factness which exhibited the depth of her humility. She cared not for her own value in scholarship, but for scholarship, for a love of literature. She told us that the UD education is not “superficial” because, “We do not simply know the great works, but they live inside us, become us.” This was no more the case than in Dr. Cowan.
A Sense of Urgency
In the context of discussing strained politics within the University of Dallas, Dr. Cowan commented that “protesting is not our business, it is not fitting with the mission of our school. Perhaps this is just a personal eccentricity, but my husband and I always rejected adopting a mob mentality when you want something done. If you want to do something, if you disagree, go out there yourself and do something about it. Write a letter, talk to the person. When I left UD for a decade”—in response to the board’s firing of the heads of the departments in order to ensure that the graduate school of psychology would be closed—“I didn’t tell anybody to do the same.” Her stress on the role of the individual in transforming UD’s culture matched her insistence that we are charged to transform the national culture.
The main reason that literature is currently stagnating or declining, and a cause of optimism and excitement, is that, as Donald Cowan would frequently discuss, we are in between two overarching myths. The old myth is the dregs of the Enlightenment, the centuries-old Rationalism which embraces an analytic, rationalist structuring of reality. This old myth is masculine, analytic, quantitative, and scientific. Rationalism has died, and a new myth must arise, and with it a new wave of literature will come. Dr. Cowan said that the new myth would be characteristically feminine, close to the earth, Egalitarian, and essentially poetic. This shift would be soon, in fact now. A sense of urgency compelled her to present to us, the recent graduates who carry the necessary tools, to steer and shape this shift.
At the same time, Dr. Cowan called herself at times a skeptic about culture. She pointed out the in the media truth and tradition are fruitless, insubstantial terms. It is the privilege of the well-educated UD student to recognize the deep flaws of academia and the culture at large, and his obligation to infuse within culture the truths and tradition it so tragically lacks. Quite to the contrary of the “bunker mentality,” to which she alluded, Dr. Cowan believes the UD student ought to diffuse his zeal for learning and tradition, leading the revitalization of culture.
It is an exciting time for poetry and culture. Dr. Cowan never separated the two. The former presents itself in a form which is complimentary to and distinctively flavored by the latter. So, what ought we to do?
“You should all get a Masters someday.” She repeated this phrase ten times in the course of the conversation. Her reasons for saying so were twofold. Simply put, first, the academic world needs UD students. Secondly, the professional world needs UD students. Concerning the latter, Dr. Cowan stressed that a graduate degree allows one to enter a more elite circle of competition. The UD student is well-equipped to effect an authentic transformation of culture on both an academic and, if I may be allowed, secular level not from practical knowledge but based on the love and understanding of literature which we have allowed to grow and flourish. It is our ideas, our souls. From a twenty-one year old, such phrases always seem dead, fanciful, unproven and awkward. From such a sage as Dr. Cowan, one could believe it. Her call to us was clear, understandable, and terrifyingly lofty.
A Mother of a School
“When we started this University we thought UD students would change the world…I guess I still believe that.” She has dedicated the larger part of her life to UD, from its beginnings and through its innumerable and continuing trials. Her stories about UD’s beginnings and her thoughts on UD’s culture and aim were always marked with an irrepressible optimism and clear-sightedness in regards to its mission. The school has been through many purgative trials, and has always faced challenges from within, either from administration, the board, or the faculty. “We are poor, aren’t we? We’ve always been poor.” Dr. Cowan optimistically reminded us that UD has perpetually faced financial crises, at times worse than the present one.
Dr. Cowan lamented that she cannot teach anymore, reminding me what was said at graduation that Dr. Cowan prefers the title “teacher” over scholar, as in her own words “something happens in teaching that does not occur in ordinary life.” Such love for teaching has become so ordinary to us while at UD that we may forget its uniqueness.
Dr. Cowan advised that “being too proper will restrict the freedom of imagination” which characterized the spontaneous, adventurous beginnings. “When I was at TCU, during faculty meetings people walked around drinking sweet tea. At the University of Dallas, at faculty meetings I observed nuns walking around with glasses of bourbon.”
The Sisters of St. Joseph were marvelous, and need to be honored for conceiving of this school, providing the University with the idealistic, enthusiastic, optimistic spirit born of the character of nuns. Dr. Cowan referenced Nicolai Gogol, saying “nuns are girls who never become women,” but rather maintain their enthusiasm and youthful spirit. Cowan further quoted him by saying, “the problem with girls is that they become women.” Granted, the school required the academic direction offered by the Cowans, who saw that the school was transforming into a vocational school. However, the nuns gave the school a youthful, adventurous quality.
“Hungarians are mean,” said Dr. Cowan with a smile, “but they provided a seriousness and sophistication in all our dealings.” The Cistercians brought with them something America did not have, a European sense of class which added another dimension of culture to the faculty. They also embraced a spirit of moderation which guided the University atmosphere.
UD was always a family, in many ways caused by the southern character of the school. The University of Dallas was founded with hospitality and congeniality, provided by the southerners who first led the school. In many ways this must be restored by a return to simplicity, spontaneity, and a sense of adventure. The school must realize the adventure entailed in seeking to diffuse its ideals, combating the trend of Universities towards a mediocre, pragmatic, non-poetic education and to uphold the value of the Western tradition. She saw the current UD culture as being more proper, where things are more controlled and moderated by propriety. She warned that “being too proper will restrict the freedom of imagination” which characterized the spontaneous, adventurous beginnings. What we imagine is not simply another small, mediocre, Catholic University. “When we began the school, we wanted to make a real University.”
When asked what may be improved in UD’s current culture, Dr. Cowan spoke about the early enthusiasm for debate, for lively discussion about large questions concerning literature and philosophy. The main improvement that Dr. Cowan wishes to see is a greater inter-departmental dialogue and debate. She advocated programs that would provide a forum for debate with lots of involvement. She remembered a time when faculty and students were excited about big academic debates that were happening amongst the faculty. Our love is literature, great ideas, and this should be our passion. That there is a lack in inter-department conversation can be traced to two factors: specialization and treatment of faculty. A specialization in scholarship which ignores the whole of tradition can preclude a collaborated discussion concerning the whole (a mindset not dissimilar to the common trend to leave out translated works). Secondly, Dr. Cowan reminded us that the faculty is scandalously underpaid, and has even received deductions in salary, leading to either a disenchantment or stress which discourages the extra enthusiasm required for lively dialogue. Dr. Cowan challenged us to “Get the faculty to argue.”
Many other institutions consider UD as naïve to study translated works. Dr. Cowan’s Vanderbilt education was comprised of only English Literature. However, at UD, that not simply a few masters of Italian read The Divine Comedy, but every student does, changes the atmosphere fundamentally. Learning comprises a whole, where every work forms a part and adds to the whole organism. Without translated works, our vision of reality would come only through the lens of Beowulf and Canterbury Tales, and Dr. Cowan joked about what an odd reality that would be. She told us that the UD education is not “superficial” because, “we do not simply know the great works, but they live inside us, become us.” She said that when she met the Fugitive Critics, called also the New Critics and the Southern Critics, she noticed that they quoted Homer frequently. These works were ingrained in them, a part of their soul, not merely an object of their knowledge. UD aspires to offer their students this type of vision.
In discussing the ideal UD President, Dr. Cowan remained immensely refined considering the recent tension which has surrounded the office. Dr. Cowan stressed that the President must be a charming, public figure. His job is fundamentally to attain large monetary donations. The way in which one attains large donations is through going out into the city, into Dallas, and contributing to the city, getting involved in the city. As president, Donald Cowan would join city boards and attend city meetings. Dr. Cowan upheld the character of Dr. Lazarus as of the utmost kindness, never returning criticism with a harsh word and always remaining a gentleman. However, Dr. Cowan pointed out that he is “not a public man,” but a reserved man, and thus perhaps does not sufficiently go out and convince people of this school’s importance. One must literally go into the city, find the big potential donors, and convince them that the University of Dallas is accomplishing something extraordinary. The school does not need an academic leader—the faculty are doing a fine job, and do not need change. The school needs money. UD needs a president with the charm and enthusiasm to sell the school to the city.
Briefly mentioning the core, Dr. Cowan reminded us that it was never meant to remain static, but evolve. However, evolve in the right direction (an important qualification), i.e. towards a fuller vision of the Western tradition.
Dr. Cowan distinguished UD’s education from Great Books Programs. The latter is exemplified in an institution like TAC or St. John’s. She noted that the students there are essentially debaters, as the seminar/debate style of the classrooms there encourages students to see problems, to doubt every proposition. The books can thus lose their integrity in relation to their entirety, and may never enter the students’ mind as a holistic vision.
An Angel Looking on Literature (“You can disagree with me.”)
“We should look upon literature as the angels look upon the works of man.”
Both startling and profound, this statement underlay every interpretation of literature Dr. Cowan gave that afternoon. When we approach to literature we ought to match the wonder which the angels have in considering man’s works in context of the divine plan. This notion encompasses the reason why we love literature, the mystery that keeps us in pious awe and compels us to seek the UD education and latch onto its mission.
“Fiction is in decline.” Later she would say poetry is, too. A great writer, as opposed to a good writer, captures a layered meaning reflected in the Medievals’ four-fold method, where the highest level, the spiritual level, is the anagogical. Jane Austen is a good writer, rendering things beautifully, but remains at the moral level, as do many Victorians, and thus is not great. She apologized profusely for her blunt opinions. Jane Austen was never in the core at first for this reason. Madame Bovary also remains at a moral level, but is rendered spectacularly. As she was considering converting, Dr. Cowan discovered that Madame Bovary was on the Index, and hesitated in her decision to be Catholic. Madame Bovary is completely orthodox. She commented to the side that the Index had noble intentions, but simply did not know how to read literature. Great works get at something mysterious, unknown, beyond the veil. Moby Dick showed what the novel could be, revealed the scope to which the genre could aspire. “The greatest novel in the world is Brothers Karamazov,” for it simply has everything.
Dr. Cowan thinks it inappropriate to approach an artwork and judge the characters good or bad; she detests professors who hate Odysseus because he is unjust. We are not meant to judge characters, but we are “to look upon literature as the angels look upon the work of man,” with wonder in relation to its place in the overall divine plan. Wonder at the intricacies, depths, and mysteries of human life is the mark of a good reader of great works.
She enumerated a list of books we should all read (novels) which included most of the Lit Trad. sequence, but notably also contained Brothers K, Anna Karenina, Absalom Absalom, Light in August, Dubliners, Ulysses, Portrait, Lord Jim
Peter asked about the difference between the reader judging Odysseus and Dante’s condemning him to hell and Cowan recognized that Dante is obviously doing something different. She also emphasized that the journey of the Divine Comedy is reflected in most great works.
“Literature is an organic thing,” just as Eliot spoke of culture in Tradition and the Individual Talent, where “organic” has a very important place, underlining the character of great books to change the meaning of the whole, to add to the ever-growing, unified tradition. Not just the meaning in our minds changes, but literally the meaning of the work changes. Joyce’s Ulysses transforms Odysseus in the Odyssey.
Interestingly, Dr. Cowan was not familiar with poetry until she met her husband, a physicist with a deep love for poetry. On being asked who were the greatest poets, Dr. Cowan opined that Keats has been the greatest poet of all time, one who reached depths which no other poet has uncovered. She also named Donne, Marvell, Hopkins, Eliot, Frost, and a few others as great poets. Shakespeare’s sonnets lack the same mysteriousness of Keats’ poetry, as Shakespeare’s sonnets, undoubtedly both beautiful and genius, are intellectual exercises. She said all this—apologizing several times—while maintaining that, of course, they must be read as Shakespeare is the most important writer in the English language. Dr. Cowan remarked that her husband could remember the sonnets and would recite them even after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.
She also mentioned some current poets. She recognized Jorie Graham as an example of someone who is good but missing something, perhaps because in the midst of a shift in myths there is nothing to undergird contemporary poetry. A minor poet is one who never strikes a false note, a note of sentimentality, writes beautifully and flawlessly. A successful minor poet is John Crowe Ransom. A major poet does all this, but accesses themes and mysteries which journey beyond the veil, embracing Keats’ negative capability in drawing forth the unknown. In this light, Allen Tate was a failed major poet. She briefly commented that perhaps if something did not happen to Tate which led him abruptly to stop writing, he might have attained the status of major poet.
Her comments about literature were as lofty and inspiring as her insights into culture and our role in society. In her mind, and as the University of Dallas has always believed, the two are united in the same love for the truth. In awe of the organic, interwoven whole of tradition, our calling is to take up the love for that tradition which we have inherited and carry society into a new myth transformed and guided by our actions, thought, and zeal. I think every person in the conference room might have stayed all day. Dr. Cowan seemed to want to as well: more than a few times, in the youthful spirit of UD she let us know, “if we’re running out of wine there is more in my apartment. I can go get it.” Dr. Cowan is a mother and a teacher. As any person there can attest to, separating the two is neigh impossible.
The gathering was on May 19th, 2009. Compiled by Peter Kane from the memories of Peter Bloch, Michael Horan, Mary Pat Jones, Laura Junker, Peter Kane, Anne Lorimer, Elizabeth Lowery, Alex Misko, Laura Papania, John Sercer, and Mary Watson.
Brideshead Revisited

















