The Odyssey

In 2018, Norton Co. published a new, and remarkable, version of Homer’s The Odyssey, translated by the Classics scholar Emily Wilson. Written in highly readable blank verse, this translation had all the mystery adventure, and bloodletting that the ancient Greeks must have enjoyed. My friend, Lou D, talked me into reading it and lent me the copy. He did me a great favor because it was a great read. Prof. Wilson’s introduction, notes, and chapter summaries helped with the unfamiliar territory. In the Introduction, Wilson argues against the commonly held idea that “Homer” was a composite of the various bards who gave public performance recitations of the tale for ages. Rather, she believes that the writing shows unmistakable characteristics of deliberate and thoughtful writing of a single genius. I am not sure. I know that highly educated people of the ancient world had highly developed memory skills and could recite long poems and other works. The work itself is not so tightly constructed that it seems to be deliberately and carefully edited and revised. Still, I think Prof. Wilson’s introduction is as admirable as her translation. There is a worthy discussion of the setting and time frame of the poem. Probably Homer had set the tale in the hazy past of the Mycenean age. She does take time to write about what every modern reader must feel about the work, that is, the feeling of shock and revulsion at the murderous violence of the hero and his son. One passage she points out is one that struck me as astounding. In recounting his bravery, Odysseus, says cavalierly that he and his crew stopped at one town, slaughtered the males and took the women as slaves.

           I sacked the town and killed the men.  We took their wives and shared their riches equally among us.

Then Odysseus goes on with has tale as if that episode was routine. A day in the life of a Greek hero. Personally, I was most shocked by the treatment of his household slaves. The women who had slept with the vile crowd of suitors were rounded up and made to drag out the corpses and clean up the bloody mess. Following that, as thanks, they were marched outside and hung. I have read several scholars who point out that Homer wanted his audience to understand the horrors of war and violence and the futility of the pursuit of honors after death. The tale of Odysseus has a famous passage where the hero visits the spirit of Achilles. Odysseus wants to know why it is not the ultimate success to become the great hero of the Greek victory over Troy and why be bitter over death. Achilles replies:

“Odysseus, you must not comfort me for death.   I would prefer to be a workman,  hired by a poor man on a peasant farm,  than rule as king of all the dead.

For me, all the slaughter, revenge, and misogeny looms too large to dismiss as a cultural relic and that Odysseus was well, complicated. Let’s hope such heroes stay in the ancient past. The Odyssey, by Homer. Translated by Emily Wilson. Norton, 2018.

Ulysses S. Grant

An amazing book, Grant, by Ron Chernow tells the remarkable story of President Grant.  Grant rose from being a cashiered army officer struggling in penury to become the victor over the rebellion and then one of the greatest American presidents.  After his service he was adored by his country and admired throughout the world.  An uncommonly decent man.  What may have been his battle even more difficult than the war was the aftermath of the war.  Grant spent his presidency struggling against the violent South which waged a vicious campaign against the freed slaves.  “Americans today know little about the terrorism that engulfed the South during Grant’s presidency.  It has been suppressed by a strange national amnesia.  The Klan’s ruthless reign is a dark, buried chapter in American history.  The Civil War is far better known than its brutal aftermath.” (p. 857).  Grant, Ron Chernow, Penguin Random House, 2017. 

Tribalism and the Midterms

All the blogosphere is talking about voters exercising a kind tribal loyalty in the voting booth and the rural v. urban divide demonstrates that.  I think it is time to maybe drop the “tribal” term and look more deeply at what motivates conservative personalities and liberal ones.  Here is a post I wrote earlier:

The David Brooks column last Friday  (The Internal Invasion) explored a broad view of the major divisions in the Trump election.  He used  gemeinschaft and gesellschaft ideals, a view of society where gemeinschaft (community based, reason based) competes with gesellschaft (society based, social cohesion based).  These terms were prominent in the work of Tonnies and Weber and I think Durkheim had a similar broad division.  This framing fits well with my most recent read:   Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind  which sees liberals as motivated by care and equality while conservatives are motivated only moderately by care and fairness and more by loyalty, sanctity, and authority.  Fairness is important for the right, but it means parity for their group while fairness for the left means equality.  Importantly, the right, or gesellschaft people are motivated by a group loyalty and care of their own, a parochial altruism.  The left is less groupish or loyal to a network and more universally altruistic.  Problem is, there are always more voters on the right who are highly motivated  and highly devoted to an emotional attachment to their social group, whether a religion or ethnicity or national identity.  Cold reason, facts, cosmopolitan care just has a hard time competing with flag waving loyalty or devotion to religion.

Plato Unmasked

Keith Quincy, the former chair of government at Eastern Washington University, wrote a somewhat abridged translation of Plato’s Dialogues that is a favorite of mine. When I studied a course on Plato at Berea College (Fall, 2016), we used the more authoritative translation edited by John M. Cooper and  D. S. Hutchinson (Plato: Complete Works, 1997, Hatchett).  Nonetheless, Quincy’s book is a delight especially his readable and engaging introductions to each dialogue.  I wonder if in the academic world it is admitted that some of Plato’s passages are just plain confusing and frequently a confusing diversion.  Quincy takes some liberties in translation and omits the less important parts.  I also think he is correct in writing that Xenophon’s style is more clear than Plato’s.  Most commentators I have read thing Plato’s writing style is captivating, but I think not.  I know that Bertrand Russell has little respect for Xenophon, but not Quincy.  This book is kept by my night reading chair and I just think of it as a true friend:  Plato Unmasked: Dialogues Made New, Plato translated by Keith Quincy, Eastern Washington University Press, 2003.

White Trash History

Nancy Isenberg, a sociologist and historian at Louisiana State University, wrote this somewhat overwrought history of the great working class or poorer class in America.  I think it does fill an important gap in political thinking:  we assume that bigotry and oppression is characteristic of black Americans, but that same hatred and exploitation certainly extends to the white lowest classes.  Ab ovo, this class has been used, cheated, and dismissed as ignorant proles who, nonetheless, managed to build America and create the wealth enjoyed be the more educated and wealthier whites.  Unfortunately, she displays enormous disrespect for Benjamin Franklin as well as scant understanding of his enlightened attitude and incredible contributions to this nation.  I learned from Isenberg that there is a robust lexicon for terms of little endearment for the lower classes, the white trash throughout history, such as lubbers and crackers, rednecks and clay-eaters (a puzzle over this one), and my favorite: mudsills.  Interesting in that a mudsill has a truly nasty ring to it, but in truth, a mudsill is a type of foundation holding up the rest of the edifice.  White Trash: the 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, Nancy Isenberg, Viking, 2016.

The Dream of Enlightenment

The major philosophers of the Enlightenment are presented by Anthony Gottlieb in this survey of the lives and contributions of such thinkers as Voltaire, Descartes, Liebniz, and others.  I am always interested particularly with Spinoza and Gottlieb does a creditable job with this.  The book is necessarily introductory but the author’s concentration on the biography and political conditions of each of the philosophers adds a great deal to understanding how philosophers such as Locke and Hume and Hobbes continue to contribute to contemporary thought and politics. The Dream of Enlightenment: the Rise of Modern Philosophy,  Anthony Gottlieb, 2016, W. W. Norton.

Groupiness in Politics

The David Brooks column last Friday  (The Internal Invasion) explored a broad view of the major divisions in the Trump election.  He used  gemeinschaft and gesellschaft ideals, a view of society where gemeinschaft (community based, reason based) competes with gesellschaft (society based, social cohesion based).  These terms were prominent in the work of Tonnies and Weber and I think Durkheim had a similar broad division.  This framing fits well with my most recent read:   Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind  which sees liberals as motivated by care and equality while conservatives are motivated only moderately by care and fairness and more by loyalty, sanctity, and authority.  Fairness is important for the right, but it means parity for their group while fairness for the left means equality.  Importantly, the right, or gesellschaft people are motivated by a group loyalty and care of their own, a parochial altruism.  The left is less groupish or loyal to a network and more universally altruistic.  Problem is, there is always more voters on the right who are highly motivated  and highly devoted to an emotional attachment to their social group, whether a religion or ethnicity or national identity.  Cold reason, facts, cosmopolitan care just has a hard time competing with flag waving loyalty or devotion to religion.

Walkable City, How Downtowns Can Save America, One Step at a Time, Jeff Speck, 2012

I was pleased to see that the Lexington Herald-Leader today reviewed Speck’s Walkable City because I was hoping more Kentuckians would read it.  Those of us who are familiar with walkable cities like the District of Columbia (where Jeff Speck lives) see the advantages of urban living that includes  a good deal of walking.  One important point that the author makes clear is that to improve walkability, you have to provide pathways that go somewhere, that is, are not just for exercise.  Walking to work, restaurants, entertainment and shopping are the keys to successfully transforming cities from drivable to walkable.  Walking must be useful as well as safe, comfortable, and interesting.  The small center of Berea, KY where we live is rated as highly walkable, but most other areas are “car dependent”.  While progress has made in improving walkways in Berea, the major structural problems that developed in the past 40 or so years remain, and remain difficult to solve.  The interstate cuts off from shopping and restaurants all the new housing, including many low-income areas where people walk from lack of other means of transportation.  We do have one local bus route (and here I give myself some credit for helping to bring it to Berea) but the local bus suffers a bit from the attitude that the author mentions where we so many of us support bus transit for you to ride.  (Effective bus transportation enhances walking by decreasing automobile use and allows for residents to avoid driving to many activities.)   The book does mention some of the counter-intuitive solutions that everyone ought to know, but I am afraid few do.  Making a street wider causes people to drive faster so it decreases safety.  Building more highways brings more congestion, not less, and increases sprawl, so increases drive time.  Providing more and less expensive parking brings more cars and decreases walkability.  On street parking makes neighborhoods safer and increases walkability.  On street parking increases walking safety and decreases automobile travel.  No matter how much a city wants more walking and less cars, it is usually up to the state’s Department of Transportation which receives the massive amounts of revenue from State and Federal fuel taxes.   I might add that every state D.O.T. is filled with highway engineers who want to build more roads, faster highways, and richer road contractors.  The result is more driving, longer distances, more fuel consumption, consequently more fuel tax revenue.  Its a drug, the addiction to fuel, taxes, and the endless self-perpetuating expansion of roads and worship of the automobile. And in recent years, it has become clear that the increased walkability of a neighborhood increases property values.  As Jeff Beck points out, cities are built upon neighborhoods, and to have a real neighborhood is to have a walkable area with a mix of the kinds of element that make up city life.

The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth, Mark Mazzetti, 2013

Mark Mazetti’s The Way of the Knife is a war report, an accounting of the furious combat between the CIA and the Pentagon and the bloodshed that ensues.  During the Viet Nam War, the CIA acted as a secret military force that was partly responsible for the American involvement in that awful endeavor that was so tragic for all who were involved.  But after that, the CIA returned to its original mission of espionage and information.  September 11th changed that, and for the recent past the CIA has been doing the dirty work that the military cannot or will not do.  The military, constrained by law, regulation, experience and a sense of high honor and integrity does perform the dark arts of secret killings and drone attacks targeted by big data.  The raid on Abbotabad was carried out by Special Forces normally under the command of the Pentagon.  In the case of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Seal Team Six operation was “sheep-dipped”, that is, it was guided by the CIA which apparently has little in the way of civilian control over their nefarious deeds.  CIA staff are often attached to embassy staff in order to shield them from foreign laws of any kind.  That was the case of Raymond Davis, a CIA operative disguised as staff of the US Embassy in Pakistan.  He shot to death two persons in Pakistan who may or may not have been antagonists.  The tussle between the Pentagon and the CIA is long-standing, but the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, President Obama, has apparently sided largely with the virtually lawless CIA.  The NSA’s snooping operations seem like little to concern us when there is the CIA doing the bloody work.

Shakespeare’s Tremor and Orwell’s Cough, John J. Ross, M.D., 2012

The dominant literary theory in the 20th century was the New Criticism, which taught that text was all, that the life and times of the author had little importance to the appreciation of art.  Yet many readers ignore this too precious idea and assume that the writer is inspired by circumstances.  Biography can lead to a greater appreciation of the work.  In Dr. John Ross’ medical biography of a handful of great English authors, he accounts for some of the well known as well as the highly speculative details of their writing lives, occasionally reflecting on their works. Some of the details are TMI, far Too Much Information, especially in the descriptions of the treatments and poisonous potions given to these unfortunate sufferers.  Here are the literary victims and their maladies:
Shakespeare shook.  His handwriting became increasingly tremulous and some have surmised that he had syphilis or perhaps just a dose of the clap.  But his tremor is the only known fact of his diminished scrawl and who knows, this could have been age itself.  That his work frequently referenced venereal diseases is not evidence and neither is the difficult question of why he completely stopped writing at all.  We do learn from Ross that syphilis probably came to Europe from the Caribbean, brought back by Columbus’ crew and the other early explorers.  Perhaps this was only justice as the South Americans were gifted with smallpox and other Continental diseases.
John Milton was a pedantic and generally reprehensible SOB, but we knew that.  He may have had Asperger syndrome.  His blindness was probably caused by chronic glaucoma and retinal detachment related to severe myopia.  Ross confirms what your mother told you, that reading in low light ruins the eyes, or at least a lot of reading does.  Myopia is not common to pre-literate societies.  Lead poisoning may have also given Milton intestinal problems (he was “afflicted with flatulence”) and the deterioration of his kidneys.  The lead may have come from drinking vessels or from his physicians.  None of his physicians were able to make him a better person.
Jonathan Swift became dizzy and deaf, probably from Meniere’s disease.  He grew depressed, dull and demented.  No doubt he had OCD, he was obsessively clean, hated filth and was disgusted by sex.  This did not temper his love life with a Stella Johnson and Hester Vanessa Vanhomrigh, insisting on their fastidious cleanliness.  Some of the smutty passages in his writing may have been a result of his increasing dementia.  After his death, his fortune went to a hospital for the mentally ill which “now has wards named after Stella and Vanessa.”
The Bronte sisters and the whole sickly family suffered greatly from one awful thing or another.  The girls father, Patrick Brunty (he adopted the less ruffian name Bronte) was a literary but pious tyrant and a vicar who enforced his moral rules with a strong left hook.  He placed the famous Charlotte and Emily, together with the lesser known Maria and Elizabeth in a cruel Dickensian boarding school that was subsequently shut down for its vile and unhygienic conditions.  It did not close in time to save several of the girls from death by tuberculosis.  Both Maria and Elizabeth Bronte expired promptly and Charlotte and Emily went on to fame and the unfortunate life of chronic consumptives.  A brother, Branwell, took to the wilder side of life and drugs, from which he too died young.  Then there was Aspergers, depression, insomnia, hyperemesis, delirium, malnutrition, and possibly bipolar disorder.  The youngest of the sisters, Anne, an early feminist writer, “died peacefully” of tuberculosis.  Ross notes that Asperger syndrome may be conducive to the quiet, asocial life of a writer.  And in an aside, Dr. Ross discusses how cystic fibrosis, when only one of the recessive genes is present, may actually provide protection from tuberculosis.
Nathaniel Hawthorne had a social phobia that was extreme and no doubt pathological.  Attendant to this was depression and alcoholism.  His intense shyness led him to slight a visiting publisher, but then run after him as he left and he “shyly handed him a bundle of papers.”  This was the manuscript of The Scarlet Letter, one of the perennial contenders for Great American Novel.  Long a depressive but physically healthy for most of his life, Hawthorne began to decline in health and weight and energy and finally succumb, probably due to stomach cancer.
Herman Melville’s father suffered bipolar disorder leading to an acute breakdown called Bell’s mania and ultimately death.  Melville was no stranger to mental disorders and even Melvilles’s sons suffered likewise.  Melville writes of the debauchery and drunkenness among the sailors in the South Seas and may well have indulged in some of the same.  Wild and uninhibited sex is a not too subtle theme in his writing although there is no real evidence he engage in anything like physical love for Nathaniel Hawthorne his friend and neighbor to whom he clearly was enormously attracted. There is what must only be called a love letter to Hawthorne that has led to speculation about Melville’s most personal life, but there is no smoking gun.  His bipolar affliction resulted in maniacal bouts of writing for which the reading public can only be grateful.  Melville also suffered debilitating back pain attributed to rheumatism but which Dr. Ross contends must have been ankylosing spondylitis.  AS also could account for Melville’s eye affliction, chest pain and even loss in height.  All this assortment of ailments may well account for the gloomy writing.  He live long with his many illnesses but the one that killed him was heart failure.  After his death, Billy Budd was published, but of course, it was Moby Dick that places this long-suffering author in the first rank of novelists in the English language.
William Butler Yeats suffered much from his lungs and had the kind of heart trouble that leads to the agonies of the lovelorn the most compelling of poetry.  It was his heart the finally did him in, dying of heart failure, “his wife and two mistresses in attendance.”    Like Dante and Beatrice, Yeats forever loved his Maude Gonne, who repeatedly spurned his marriage proposals, as did Maude Gonne’s daughter.  Yeats did marry the loyal Georgina Hyde Lees, a friend of Ezra Pound.  The young American Ezra Pound was a genius poet who worshipped the elder poet.  Yeats frequently lived with Pound in Italy, until madness and cynicism turned Ezra Pound into a fascist and traitor.  Brucellosis was the worst of the ailments for Yeats, if love-sickness does not count.  Caused by a bacterium transmitted through contaminated milk, brucellosis is a devastating lung disease that was difficult to treat before the age of antibiotics.  Yeats was treated with arsenic, a valuable remedy for infections known from ancient Greek times and is still used in veterinary medicine.  Yeats may have had a bit too much of the stuff and had a slow recovery.  He also voluntarily endured a “Steinach procedure”.  Steinach, a wacko charlatan, gave patients what was only a vasectomy, which he apparently convinced his dupes would restore the youthful vigor of their manly parts.   Surely Yeats had enough troubles without this, but the poor Irish patriot wrote some of the most moving and transcendent poetry in the English language.
On the other hand, there are those who consider Jack London a hack who wrote a couple of worthy stories.  Nonetheless, London became enormously popular and quite rich.  Jack London was bipolar and his maniacal bouts of energy produced volumes of rip-roaring adventure stories.  On one of his own adventures in the Solomon Islands, London contracted yaws, a disease that is a first-cousin to syphilis but can be contracted by only casual contact.  He suffered from terrible skin ulcers, a rectal fistula, and from the regimen of the attempted cure:  arsenic and mercury.  As a wealthy celebrity writer, physicians would prescribe for him most anything.  For later ailments, in addition to the toxic mercury, but possibly effective arsenic, London was given heroin, strychnine, belladonna, and a plethora of other snake oils.    He died of an overdose.
James Joyce had a dose of the gleet.  The clap.  Gonorrhea.  Neisseria gonorrhoeae.  The description of the symptoms, and worse, the treatment, is given by Dr. Ross, but not to be repeated here.  Joyce apparently took the cure for this awful malady and survived unscathed.  He may also have contracted chlamidia resulting in reactive arthritis.  Reactive arthritis, triggered by the genital infections is an autoimmune disease. This in turn may have triggered his iritis, an inflammation of the iris.  This became chronic and led to his near blindness.  What was the treatment?  Do you want to know?  Yes, he was treated with leeches applied to the eye.  During the writing of one of the greatest of literary feats, the magnificent Ulysses, his afflicted eyes worsened with severe glaucoma.  Ross reports that frequently in Ulysses, many passages refer to the aforementioned gleet and other STD manifestations. Joyce’s eyes continued to worsen, and he had to suffer the repeated cruelties of ocular surgeries.  What did the great wordsmith in at last was acute peritonitis.  Ross relates a doubtful anecdote, but one that rings so true about Joyce and his lifelong argument with Irish Catholicism.  A priest offered to give Joyce a church requiem and burial, but the writer’s wife Nora said, no, “I couldn’t do that to him.”
George Orwell had a bad cough.   Trouble with breathing, congestion, and bronchitis began to bedevil Orwell, born Eric Blair in 1903, as early as infancy.  He had a brilliant academic career but being decidedly among the common classes in snooty England, he took on the role of a policeman in Burma.  His weak lungs suffered in the East and he only worsened his condition upon an early retirement by a Bohemian lifestyle as scruffy writer in London.  Here he was given to fits of coughing up blood, attacks of pneumonia, and later tuberculosis.  The cruelties of his venture in fighting the fascists in the Spanish civil war did not help.  He took a bullet to the neck in that war and miraculously survived.  His incessant smoking could not have helped either.  When the world war came to England in 1940, the adventurous socialist volunteered his services, but of course, he failed his physicals.  Ross provides copious details of Orwell’s failing health, including various gruesome descriptions, which probably ought to be skipped by the squeamish.  No doubt Orwell’s suffering was not only from his diseases, but from the awful medical procedures which may have inspired some of the torture and institutional cruelties in Nineteen Eighty-four.  The critical and financial success of that novel came too late in life for Orwell as he was already dying.  He enjoyed a brief reprieve from his impending end, and sought to take a rest in the Swiss Alps but before his flight was to leave he died alone in the hospital, a gloomy genius to the last.