Bogus AntiStrats: Emerson
Tom Reedy
Waldo Emerson. According to the Shakespeare Fellowship site, Emerson wrote,
"The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare Societies comes to mind, that he
was a jovial actor and manager. I cannot marry this fact to his verse."
Analyzing the quote, it seems that some societies devoted to the study of
Shakespeare had the opinion that William Shakespeare was a "jovial actor and
manager." Emerson says he cannot reconcile that opinion with the poetry
Shakespeare wrote. How that indicates Emerson's disbelief in the authorship
of William Shakespeare, I'm not clear.
(And why this is an "Egyptian verdict," I have no idea, and the site doesn't
bother to explain the mystery.)
This quotation comes from an essay, Shakspeare; or, the Poet, from a
collection of essays entitled Representative Men. You can read the entire
essay online here: http://www.emersoncentral.com/shak.htm. It is well worth
the effort. Emerson writes about the origin and nature of genius and airs
some opinions which might be surprising to both sides of the authorship
dispute.
But although biography is not the point of the essay, Emerson also writes
some passages that indicate his beliefs about Shakespeare's life, and those
are the parts that I want to excerpt here, beginning below the double lines.
I will try to furnish enough context to make Emerson's purpose clear.
Shakspeare's youth fell in a time when the English people were importunate
for dramatic entertainments. The court took offence easily at political
allusions, and attempted to suppress them. The Puritans, a growing and
energetic party, and the religious among the Anglican church, would suppress
them. But the people wanted them.
[.]
The secure possession, by the stage, of the public mind, is of the first
importance to the poet who works for it. He loses no time in idle
experiments. Here is audience and expectation prepared. In the case of
Shakspeare there is much more. At the time when he left Stratford, and went
up to London, a great body of stage-plays, of all dates and writers, existed
in manuscript, and were in turn produced on the boards. . . . . Shakspeare,
in common with his comrades, esteemed the mass of old plays, waste stock, in
which any experiment could be freely tried.
[.]
We have to thank the researches of antiquaries, and the Shakspeare Society,
for ascertaining the steps of the English drama, from the Mysteries
celebrated in churches and by churchmen, and the final detachment from the
church, and the completion of secular plays, from Ferrex and Porrex, and
Gammer Gurton's Needle, down to the possession of the stage by the very
pieces which Shakspeare altered, remodelled, and finally made his own.
Elated with success, and piqued by the growing interest of the problem, they
have left no book-stall unsearched, no chest in a garret unopened, no file
of old yellow accounts to decompose in damp and worms, so keen was the hope
to discover whether the boy Shakspeare poached or not, whether he held
horses at the theatre door, whether he kept school, and why he left in his
will only his second-best bed to Ann Hathaway, his wife.
There is somewhat touching in the madness with which the passing age
mischooses the object on which all candles shine, and all eyes are turned .
. . . A popular player,-nobody suspected he was the poet of the human race;
and the secret was kept as faithfully from poets and intellectual men, as
from courtiers and frivolous people. Bacon, who took the inventory of the
human understanding for his times, never mentioned his name. Ben Jonson,
though we have strained his few words of regard and panegyric, had no
suspicion of the elastic fame whose first vibrations he was attempting. He
no doubt thought the praise he has conceded to him generous, and esteemed
himself, out of all question, the better poet of the two. . . . Since the
constellation of great men who appeared in Greece in the time of Pericles,
there was never any such society;-yet their genius failed them to find out
the best head in the universe. Our poet's mask was impenetrable. You cannot
see the mountain near. It took a century to make it suspected; and not until
two centuries had passed, after his death, did any criticism which we think
adequate begin to appear.
[.]
The Shakespeare Society have inquired in all directions, advertised the
missing facts, offered money for any information that will lead to proof;
and with what result? Beside some important illustration of the history of
the English stage, to which I have adverted, they have gleaned a few facts
touching the property, and dealings in regard to property, of the poet. It
appears that, from year to year, he owned a larger share in the Blackfriars'
Theatre: its wardrobe and other appurtenances were his: that he bought an
estate in his native village, with his earnings, as writer and shareholder;
that he lived in the best house in Stratford; was intrusted by his neighbors
with their commissions in London, as of borrowing money, and the like; that
he was a veritable farmer. About the time when he was writing Macbeth, he
sues Philip Rogers, in the borough-court of Stratford, for thirty-five
shillings, ten pence, for corn delivered to him at different times; and, in
all respects, appears as a good husband, with no reputation for eccentricity
or excess. He was a good-natured sort of man, an actor and shareholder in
the theatre, not in any striking manner distinguished from other actors and
managers. I admit the importance of this information. It was well worth the
pains that have been taken to procure it.
But whatever scraps of information concerning his condition these researches
may have rescued, they can shed no light upon that infinite invention which
is the concealed magnet of his attraction for us. We are very clumsy writers
of history. We tell the chronicle of parentage, birth, birth-place,
schooling, school-mates, earning of money, marriage, publication of books,
celebrity, death; and when we have come to an end of this gossip, no ray of
relation appears between it and the goddess-born; and it seems as if, had we
dipped at random into the "Modern Plutarch," and read any other life there,
it would have fitted the poems as well. It is the essence of poetry to
spring, like the rainbow daughter of Wonder, from the invisible, to abolish
the past, and refuse all history. Malone, Warburton, Dyce, and Collier, have
wasted their oil.
[.]
Can any biography shed light on the localities into which the Midsummer
Night's Dream admits me? Did Shakspeare confide to any notary or parish
recorder, sacristan, or surrogate, in Stratford, the genesis of that
delicate creation? The forest of Arden, the nimble air of Scone Castle, the
moonlight of Portia's villa, "the antres vast and desarts idle," of
Othello's captivity,-where is the third cousin, or grand-nephew, the
chancellor's file of accounts, or private letter, that has kept one word of
those transcendent secrets? In fine, in this drama, as in all great works of
art . . . the Genius draws up the ladder after him, when the creative age
goes up to heaven, and gives way to a new, who see the works, and ask in
vain for a history.
Shakspeare is the only biographer of Shakspeare; and even he can tell
nothing, except to the Shakspeare in us; that is, to our most apprehensive
and sympathetic hour. He cannot step from off his tripod, and give us
anecdotes of his inspirations. Read the antique documents extricate,
analyzed, and compared, by the assiduous Dyce and Collier; and now read one
of those skiey sentences,-aerolites,-which seem to have fallen out of
heaven, and which, not your experience, but the man within the breast, has
accepted as words of fate; and tell me if they match; if the former account
in any manner for the latter; or, which gives the most historical insight
into the man.
Hence, though our external history is so meagre, yet, with Shakspeare for
biographer, instead of Aubrey and Rowe, we have really the information which
is material, that which describes character and fortune, that which, if we
were about to meet the man and deal with him, would most import us to know.
We have his recorded convictions on those questions which knock for answer
at every heart,-on life and death, on love, on wealth and poverty, on the of
life, and the ways whereby we come at them; on the characters of men, and
the influences, occult and open, which affect their fortunes; and on those
mysterious and demoniacal powers which defy our science, and which yet
interweave their malice and their gift in our brightest hours.
[.]
Shakspeare is as much out of the category of eminent authors, as he is out
of the crowd. He is inconceivably wise; the others, conceivably. A good
reader can, in a sort, nestle into Plato's brain, and think from thence; but
not into Shakspeare's. We are still out of doors. For executive faculty, for
creation, Shakspeare is unique. No man can imagine it better. . . .
Shakspeare has no peculiarity, no importunate topic; but all is duly given;
no veins, no curiosities: no cow-painter, no bird-fancier, no mannerist is
he: he has no discoverable egotism: the great he tells greatly; the small,
subordinately.
[.]
Cultivated men often attain a good degree of skill in writing verses; but it
is easy to read, through their poems, their personal history: any one
acquainted with parties can name every figure: this is Andrew, and that is
Rachel. . . . In the poet's [Shakespeare] mind, the fact has gone quite over
into the new element of thought, and has lost all that is exuvial. This
generosity abides with Shakspeare. We say, from the truth and closeness of
his pictures, that he knows the lesson by heart. Yet there is not a trace of
egotism.
One more royal trait properly belongs to the poet. I mean his cheerfulness,
without which no man can be a poet,-for beauty is his aim. He loves virtue,
not for its obligation, but for its grace: he delights in the world, in man,
in woman, for the lovely light that sparkles from them.
[.]
Some able and appreciating critics think no criticism on Shakspeare
valuable, that does not rest purely on the dramatic merit; that he is
falsely judged as poet and philosopher. I think as highly as these critics
of his dramatic merit, but still think it secondary. . . .
Shakspeare, Homer, Dante, Chaucer, saw the splendor of meaning that plays
over the visible world; knew that a tree had another use than for apples,
and corn another than for meal, and the ball of the earth, than for tillage
and roads: that these things bore a second and finer harvest to the mind,
being emblems of its thoughts, and conveying in all their natural history a
certain mute commentary on human life. Shakspeare employed them as colors to
compose his picture. He rested in their beauty; and never took the step
which seemed inevitable to such genius, namely, to explore the virtue which
resides in these symbols, and imparts this power,-what is that which they
themselves say? He converted the elements, which waited on his command, into
entertainments. He was master of the revels to mankind. Is it not as if one
should have, through majestic powers of science, the comets given into his
hand, or the planets and their moons, and should draw them from their orbits
to glare with the municipal fire-works on a holiday night, and advertise in
all towns, "very superior pyrotechny this evening!" Are the agents of
nature, and the power to understand them, worth no more than a street
serenade, or the breath of a cigar? One remembers again the trumpet-text in
the Koran,-"The heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, think
ye we have created them in jest?" As long as the question is of talent and
mental power, the world of men has not his equal to show. But when the
question is to life, and its materials, and its auxiliaries, how does he
profit me? What does it signify? It is but a Twelfth Night, or
Midsummer-Night's Dream, or a Winter Evening's Tale: what signifies another
picture more or less? The Egyptian verdict of the Shakspeare Societies comes
to mind, that he was a jovial actor and manager. I can not marry this fact
to his verse. Other admirable men have led lives in some sort of keeping
with their thought; but this man, in wide contrast. Had he been less, had he
reached only the common measure of great authors, of Bacon, Milton, Tasso,
Cervantes, we might leave the fact in the twilight of human fate: but, that
this man of men, he who gave to the science of mind a new and larger subject
than had ever existed, and planted the standard of humanity some furlongs
forward into Chaos,-that he should not be wise for himself,-it must even go
into the world's history, that the best poet led an obscure and profane
life, using his genius for the public amusement.
Well, other men, priest and prophet, Israelite, German, and Swede, beheld
the same objects: they also saw through them that which was contained. And
to what purpose? The beauty straightway vanished; they read commandments,
all-excluding mountainous duty; an obligation, a sadness, as of piled
mountains, fell on them, and life became ghastly, joyless, a pilgrim's
progress, a probation, beleaguered round with doleful histories of Adam's
fall and curse, behind us; with doomsdays and purgatorial and penal fires
before us; and the heart of the seer and the heart of the listener sank in
them.
==============================================================
What is he saying here in this last graf, part of which the SF fellowship
quotes to give the impression Emerson was a doubter in Stratford Will?
He is saying that Shakespeare was more than just a theater manager; that he
was an artist. That really is about it. That the people who insist that
Shakspeare can only be appreciated through drama alone are wrong, and at
this present moment in Shakespearean criticism the tide seems to be going
towards Emerson's opinion.
I realized I indulged myself a bit there, but I believe I proved my
contention: that Emerson was not an antiStratfordian. No where in the essay
does he indicate any doubt that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon
wrote the works traditionally attributed to him.
So what does this mean? It means that whoever put together the Shakespeare
Fellowship presentation has quoted Emerson out of context to make it appear
as if he doubted the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford. And not
only that, they ignored the clear indications to the contrary in the very
same essay! It was a willful misreading of Emerson!
I call upon them to delete the Emerson portion of the "Honor Roll of
Skeptics." To do any less would be to continue a dishonest practice and
accrue them no merit.
And I still have no idea as to why it is an "Egyptian verdict."
TR
Tom Reedy
news:hjlMb.4944$1e....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
For some reason the first double line did not appear on my screen. Emerson's
comments begin with "Shakspeare's youth fell in a time when the English
people were importunate for dramatic entertainments."
TR
Tad Davis
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I call upon them to delete the Emerson portion of the "Honor Roll of
> Skeptics." To do any less would be to continue a dishonest practice and
> accrue them no merit.
>
> And I still have no idea as to why it is an "Egyptian verdict."
Great piece of bluff-calling, Tom. But I bet you ten bucks the name
stays on the list. (I'm curious about the "Egyptian verdict" too. I
looked up "Egyptian" in the OED and couldn't come up with a plausible
explanation.)
--
Tad Davis
tadd...@ucwphilly.rr.com
http://taddavis.blogspot.com
lecolin
> Waldo Emerson. According to the Shakespeare Fellowship site, Emerson wrote,
> "The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare Societies comes to mind, that he
> was a jovial actor and manager. I cannot marry this fact to his verse."
>
> Analyzing the quote, it seems that some societies devoted to the study of
> Shakespeare had the opinion that William Shakespeare was a "jovial actor and
> manager." Emerson says he cannot reconcile that opinion with the poetry
> Shakespeare wrote. How that indicates Emerson's disbelief in the authorship
> of William Shakespeare, I'm not clear.
>
> (And why this is an "Egyptian verdict," I have no idea, and the site doesn't
> bother to explain the mystery.)
>
> This quotation comes from an essay, Shakspeare; or, the Poet, from a
> collection of essays entitled Representative Men. You can read the entire
> essay online here: http://www.emersoncentral.com/shak.htm. It is well worth
> the effort. Emerson writes about the origin and nature of genius and airs
> some opinions which might be surprising to both sides of the authorship
> dispute.
>
It is indeed worth the effort. For what it's worth, from another
(much later) essay on that site, is this quote from Emerson: " The
bold theory of Delia Bacon, that Shakspeare's plays were written by a
society of wits, -- by Sir Walter Raleigh, Lord Bacon, and others
around the Earl of Southampton, --had plainly for her the charm of the
superior meaning they would acquire when read under this light; this
idea of the authorship controlling our appreciation of the works
themselves." He did not seem to endorse that approach at all.
Emerson has romantic ideas about genius. He seems to think a genius
above biography; he likes to think of them as "responsible", as if
aware of their great power and wanting to channel it in a positive
way. He seems to try to think with intelligence and inspiration, but
not critically. Interesting. Thanks to Tom for posting.
KQKnave
<taddavis-CDC614...@nycmny-nntp-rdr-03-ge1.rdc-nyc.rr.com>, Tad
Davis <tadd...@ucwphilly.rr.com> writes:
>> And I still have no idea as to why it is an "Egyptian verdict."
>
>Great piece of bluff-calling, Tom. But I bet you ten bucks the name
>stays on the list. (I'm curious about the "Egyptian verdict" too. I
>looked up "Egyptian" in the OED and couldn't come up with a plausible
>explanation.)
>
My guess would be that the Shakespeare Societies had some big convention
in Egypt, where they came to that decision.
That's a very perceptive essay by Emerson.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Tom Veal
Most likely, Emerson's reference is to the Exodus Pharoah's blindness
to transcendence. An "Egyptian verdict" would be one that looked only
at here-and-now facts, without considering that human beings are more
than their diets and their business dealings.
KQKnave
Tom...@ix.netcom.com (Tom Veal) writes:
>Most likely, Emerson's reference is to the Exodus Pharoah's blindness
>to transcendence. An "Egyptian verdict" would be one that looked only
>at here-and-now facts, without considering that human beings are more
>than their diets and their business dealings.
It's hard to see how Pharoah's unpleasant treatment of the Jews has
anything to do with deciding that someone was a jovial actor and manager:
"The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare Societies comes to mind, that he
was a jovial actor and manager."
Tom Veal
> In article <c87247a2.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> Tom...@ix.netcom.com (Tom Veal) writes:
>
> >Most likely, Emerson's reference is to the Exodus Pharoah's blindness
> >to transcendence. An "Egyptian verdict" would be one that looked only
> >at here-and-now facts, without considering that human beings are more
> >than their diets and their business dealings.
>
> It's hard to see how Pharoah's unpleasant treatment of the Jews has
> anything to do with deciding that someone was a jovial actor and manager:
>
> "The Egyptian verdict of the Shakespeare Societies comes to mind, that he
> was a jovial actor and manager."
Pharoah didn't recognize that Moses and Aaron were prophets of God.
The Shakespeare Societies didn't recognize that the playwright was far
more than merely "a jovial actor and manager". A strained parallel,
I'll admit, but it's the best that I can think of. No doubt Mr.
Crowley will soon tell us that "Egyptian" has something to do with
bodily functions.
KQKnave
After looking at the OED, I think it's more likely now that "Egyptian" meant
"Gipsy". The association being a jovial actor who toured the countryside
with gypsies who worked carnivals and so forth. That definition of the word
was known from 1514, used by Fielding in Tom Jones in the 1700's.
But that word seems to be a favorite of Emerson's. Searching that
website I found some other unusual examples of that word in his writing:
Friendship
The root of the plant is not unsightly to science, though for
chaplets and festoons we cut the stem short. And I must
hazard the production of the bald fact amidst these pleasing
reveries, though it should prove an Egyptian skull at our banquet.
Man the Reformer
I know, it often, perhaps usually, happens, that where there is a
fine organization apt for poetry and philosophy, that individual finds
himself compelled to wait on his thoughts, to waste several days
that he may enhance and glorify one; and is better taught by a
moderate and dainty exercise, such as rambling in the fields, rowing,
skating, hunting, than by the downright drudgery of the farmer and the
smith. I would not quite forget the venerable counsel of the Egyptian
mysteries, which declared that "there were two pairs of eyes in man,
and it is requisite that the pair which are beneath should be closed,
when the pair that are above them perceive, and that when the pair
above are closed, those which are beneath should be opened."
Neil Brennen
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040112210853...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> After looking at the OED, I think it's more likely now that "Egyptian"
meant
> "Gipsy". The association being a jovial actor who toured the countryside
> with gypsies who worked carnivals and so forth. That definition of the
word
> was known from 1514, used by Fielding in Tom Jones in the 1700's.
> But that word seems to be a favorite of Emerson's.
Just a suggestion. Could Emerson be using the word as a synonym for "exotic"
or "mysterious"? Recall that the East - Middle or otherwise - was
little-known to many at that time.
KQKnave
<chessno...@mindnospamnews.com> writes:
Yes, in another context, but it doesn't really fit the characterization of
Shakespeare as a "jovial actor and manager". What's mysterious about
that? Unless you want to say that Emerson thought that the decision
to label Shakespeare that way was itself mysterious.
Neil Brennen
> In article <7HIMb.6104$i4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Neil
Brennen"
> <chessno...@mindnospamnews.com> writes:
>
> >
> >"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20040112210853...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >> After looking at the OED, I think it's more likely now that "Egyptian"
> >meant
> >> "Gipsy". The association being a jovial actor who toured the
countryside
> >> with gypsies who worked carnivals and so forth. That definition of the
> >word
> >> was known from 1514, used by Fielding in Tom Jones in the 1700's.
> >> But that word seems to be a favorite of Emerson's.
> >
> >Just a suggestion. Could Emerson be using the word as a synonym for
"exotic"
> >or "mysterious"? Recall that the East - Middle or otherwise - was
> >little-known to many at that time.
>
> Yes, in another context, but it doesn't really fit the characterization of
> Shakespeare as a "jovial actor and manager". What's mysterious about
> that?
Emerson isn't charecterizing Shakespeare as "Egyptian", but the verdict of
the "societies".
Unless you want to say that Emerson thought that the decision
> to label Shakespeare that way was itself mysterious.
That's exactly what I am suggesting.
Tom Reedy
news:ccJMb.6162$i4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Maybe "Egyptian" means out-of-place, off-the-wall, incongruous. It is a fine
mystery. I tremble everyday lest a definition should come out.
TR
John W. Kennedy
> Maybe "Egyptian" means out-of-place, off-the-wall, incongruous. It is a fine
> mystery. I tremble everyday lest a definition should come out.
I've just skimmed the essay itself in hopes of finding a clue as to
"Egyptian verdict" might mean. Nothing found.
But what is clear is that what Emerson is saying on the whole is that it
was a pity that Shakespeare had to waste his genius on common, vulgar
theatre pieces, when he might have done the world so much more good by
writing essays. So question as to Shakespeare's identity comes in at
all. (To him, the "solution" offered by the Shakespeare deniers would
only make the puzzle that much more difficult.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
John W. Kennedy
> Maybe "Egyptian" means out-of-place, off-the-wall, incongruous. It is a fine
> mystery. I tremble everyday lest a definition should come out.
I've just skimmed the essay itself in hopes of finding a clue as to
"Egyptian verdict" might mean. Nothing found.
But what is clear is that what Emerson is saying on the whole is that it
was a pity that Shakespeare had to waste his genius on common, vulgar
theatre pieces, when he might have done the world so much more good by
writing essays. No question as to Shakespeare's identity comes in at
BCD
***I suspect that Tom is "in the ballpark" with his thought. Emerson
was influenced by Thomas Carlyle--Emerson's personal visits to Carlyle
in Chelsea left Carlyle fairly unenthusiastic, but never mind. Here's
Carlyle's usage of "Egyptian" in one of his Latter-Day Pamphlets (No.
4); note that C. is thinking of the spiritual: "This is a reflection
sad but important to the modern Governments now fallen anarchic, That
they had not spiritual talent enough. And if this is so, then surely
the question, How these Governments came to sink for want of
intellect? is a rather interesting one. Intellect, in some measure, is
born into every Century; and the Nineteenth flatters itself that it is
rather distinguished that way! What had become of this celebrated
Nineteenth Century's intellect? Surely some of it existed, and was
"developed" withal;--nay in the "undeveloped," unconscious, or
inarticulate state, it is not dead; but alive and at work, if mutely
not less beneficently, some think even more so! And yet Governments,
it would appear, could by no means get enough of it; almost none of it
came their way: what had become of it? Truly there must be something
very questionable, either in the intellect of this celebrated Century,
or in the methods Governments now have of supplying their wants from
the same. One or other of two grand fundamental shortcomings, in
regard to intellect or human enlightenment, is very visible in this
enlightened Century of ours; for it has now become the most anarchic
of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
***It would be consistent with Carlyle and with the rest of the
passage above that, with "Egyptian darkness," C. was thinking of the
unenlightened, doomed, Pharaoh's treatment of Moses and his followers;
to Carlyle, the Victorian era had false gods ("Our true Deity is
Mechanism," he relates in *Signs of the Times*), perhaps triggering in
his thoughts a parallel to the pantheon of the Egyptians, and, thence,
Pharaoh's persecution of those who pursued the spiritually enlightened
path. Could Emerson have picked up this line of thought with its
symbology from personal conversation with Carlyle? Maybe!--then using
it to indicate those who, unseeing of the spiritual, observe only the
less lofty, more worldly, attributes of Shakespeare.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
KQKnave
odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) writes:
>for it has now become the most anarchic
>of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
>Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
>
>***It would be consistent with Carlyle and with the rest of the
>passage above that, with "Egyptian darkness,
I don't think so. "Egyptian" here seems to be merely a synonym for
"primitive".
BCD
> In article <be4a0014.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) writes:
>
> >for it has now become the most anarchic
> >of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
> >Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
> >
> >***It would be consistent with Carlyle and with the rest of the
> >passage above that, with "Egyptian darkness,
>
> I don't think so. "Egyptian" here seems to be merely a synonym for
> "primitive".
***Maybe; but, as "primitive" was very much in Carlyle's active
vocabulary (see below), why did he choose "Egyptian" instead? Not
willy-nilly, I think.
***Carlyle, in a Biblical mood in *The French Revolution*
(III/3.I/3.1.II): "The sun shines; serenely westering, in smokeless
mackerel-sky: Paris is as if sleeping, as if dead:--Paris is holding
its breath, to see what stroke will fall on it. Poor Peltier! Acts of
Apostles, and all jocundity of Leading-Articles, are gone out, and it
is become bitter earnest instead; polished satire changed now into
coarse pike-points (hammered out of railing); all logic reduced to
this one primitive thesis, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!"
***Carlyle, in a culinary mood in *The French Revolution*
(I/1.II/1.2.VII): "For life is no cunningly-devised deception or
self-deception: it is a great truth that thou art alive, that thou
hast desires, necessities; neither can these subsist and satisfy
themselves on delusions, but on fact. To fact, depend on it, we shall
come back: to such fact, blessed or cursed, as we have wisdom for. The
lowest, least blessed fact one knows of, on which necessitous mortals
have ever based themselves, seems to be the primitive one of
Cannibalism: That I can devour Thee. What if such Primitive Fact were
precisely the one we had (with our improved methods) to revert to, and
begin anew from!"
***Carlyle, in a linguo-corporeal-sartorial mood in *Sartor Resartus*
(ch. 11): "Language is called the Garment of Thought: however, it
should rather be, Language is the Flesh-Garment, the Body, of Thought.
I said that Imagination wove this Flesh-Garment; and does not she?
Metaphors are her stuff: examine Language; what, if you except some
few primitive elements (of natural sound), what is it all but
Metaphors, recognized as such, or no longer recognized; still fluid
and florid, or now solid-grown and colorless? If those same primitive
elements are the osseous fixtures in the Flesh-Garment, Language, —
then are Metaphors its muscles and tissues and living integuments."
***Carlyle, in a Platonic mood in *On Heroes and Hero-Worship: The
Hero as Divinity*: "You remember that fancy of Plato's, of a man who
had grown to maturity in some dark distance, and was brought on a
sudden into the upper air to see the sun rise. What would his wonder
be, his rapt astonishment at the sight we daily witness with
indifference! With the free open sense of a child, yet with the ripe
faculty of a man, his whole heart would be kindled by that sight, he
would discern it well to be Godlike, his soul would fall down in
worship before it. Now, just such a childlike greatness was in the
primitive nations."
KQKnave
>
>kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote in message
>news:<20040114171304...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>> In article <be4a0014.04011...@posting.google.com>,
>> odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) writes:
>>
>> >for it has now become the most anarchic
>> >of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
>> >Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
>> >
>> >***It would be consistent with Carlyle and with the rest of the
>> >passage above that, with "Egyptian darkness,
>>
>> I don't think so. "Egyptian" here seems to be merely a synonym for
>> "primitive".
>
>***Maybe; but, as "primitive" was very much in Carlyle's active
>vocabulary (see below), why did he choose "Egyptian" instead? Not
>willy-nilly, I think.
It doesn't matter that "primitive" was in his vocabulary. I don't know
of any writer who uses only one particular word or set of words
exclusively.
You've come up with a rather strained interpretation of Carlyle anyway.
You claim "note that C. is thinking of the spiritual:", but while
Carlyle does use the *word* "spiritual", he uses it in this context
to mean something like "will". The passage is concerned
with intellect, and how some governments fall into anarchy for
lack of application of intellect. "Egyptian" in this case refers to the
current (by current I mean Carlyle's time) state of Egypt, which
had fallen into primitive darkness from its heyday when the pyramids
were built:
"This is a reflection sad but important to the modern Governments now
fallen anarchic, That they had not spiritual talent enough. And if this is so,
then surely the question, How these Governments came to sink for want of
intellect? is a rather interesting one. Intellect, in some measure, is
born into every Century; and the Nineteenth flatters itself that it is
rather distinguished that way! What had become of this celebrated
Nineteenth Century's intellect? Surely some of it existed, and was
"developed" withal;--nay in the "undeveloped," unconscious, or
inarticulate state, it is not dead; but alive and at work, if mutely
not less beneficently, some think even more so! And yet Governments,
it would appear, could by no means get enough of it; almost none of it
came their way: what had become of it? Truly there must be something
very questionable, either in the intellect of this celebrated Century,
or in the methods Governments now have of supplying their wants from
the same. One or other of two grand fundamental shortcomings, in
regard to intellect or human enlightenment, is very visible in this
enlightened Century of ours; for it has now become the most anarchic
of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
I really can't see any Biblical connotation at all. I also don't think we
can use Carlyle to interpret Emerson, since Emerson used the
word "Egyptian" to have meanings that are not Biblically related
anyway (such as "Egyptian skull" that I gave earlier).
BCD
> In article <be4a0014.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) writes:
> >
> >kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote in message
> >news:<20040114171304...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> >> In article <be4a0014.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> >> odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) writes:
> >>
> >> >for it has now become the most anarchic
> >> >of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
> >> >Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
> >> >
> >> >***It would be consistent with Carlyle and with the rest of the
> >> >passage above that, with "Egyptian darkness,
> >>
> >> I don't think so. "Egyptian" here seems to be merely a synonym for
> >> "primitive".
> >
> >***Maybe; but, as "primitive" was very much in Carlyle's active
> >vocabulary (see below), why did he choose "Egyptian" instead? Not
> >willy-nilly, I think.
>
> It doesn't matter that "primitive" was in his vocabulary.
***It certainly does. If he never used it, it would not be so
remarkable that he wouldn't choose to use it in some particular
situation. And it does matter that he had it in active use, as shown
by my citations from several of his works, which prompts us to ask why
he used one supposed synonym rather than another, and particularly one
very odd supposed synonym rather than another.
> I don't know
> of any writer who uses only one particular word or set of words
> exclusively.
***And yet, writers, being aware of connotations--Carlyle, with his
colorful style, more so than most--will use words which bring the
enlightened Pharoah, um I mean "reader," the desired set of
connotations. Choosing "Egyptian" over your supposed "primitive"
would be a remarkable choice if the writer meant nothing more than
"primitive."
> You've come up with a rather strained interpretation of Carlyle anyway.
***Thank you. Unfortunately, it seems to be correct.
> You claim "note that C. is thinking of the spiritual:", but while
> Carlyle does use the *word* "spiritual", he uses it in this context
> to mean something like "will".
***Not at all, not in the slightest, unless you define "will" rather
broadly. He is discussing enlightenment and how the intellect is
guided. Moses and the Israelites being first detained under the
unenlightened Pharaoh and then being led into the promised land by
spiritual enlightenment is quite apt in this context, and is indeed,
as you'll see below, something of a commonplace in his thinking. My
view is further bolstered by the first paragraph of Carlyle's
*Latter-Day Pamphlet* No. 4, this same one in which we see his use of
"Egyptian darkness"; note the use of "spiritual," "Divine,"
"contradictions of the Divine Fact," all of which indicate where his
mind is, why thoughts of Moses would have occurred to him, and thence
the unenlightened government of Pharoah, who was certainly "not wise
enough": "In looking at this wreck of Governments in all European
countries, there is one consideration that suggests itself, sadly
elucidative of our modern epoch. These Governments, we may be well
assured, have gone to anarchy for this one reason inclusive of every
other whatsoever, That they were not wise enough; that the spiritual
talent embarked in them, the virtue, heroism, intellect, or by
whatever other synonyms we designate it, was not adequate,--probably
had long been inadequate, and so in its dim helplessness had suffered,
or perhaps invited falsity to introduce itself; had suffered
injustices, and solecisms, and contradictions of the Divine Fact, to
accumulate in more than tolerable measure; whereupon said Governments
were overset, and declared before all creatures to be too false.
> The passage is concerned
> with intellect, and how some governments fall into anarchy for
> lack of application of intellect. "Egyptian" in this case refers
***No it doesn't. See above and below.
> to the
> current (by current I mean Carlyle's time) state of Egypt, which
> had fallen into primitive darkness from its heyday when the pyramids
> were built:
***Excluding the present passage as highly questionable, could you
cite a passage in Carlyle in which he shows interest in or knowledge
of the state of Egypt in his own time? The closest he seems to come,
as far as Google searches and recollection of my studies of Carlyle
will serve, is mentioning Egypt in passing in the context of Napoleon.
Meantime, his interest in the travails of Moses is much in evidence
in his works; quoting a convenient passage from George P. Landow of
Brown University (http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/type/ch5e.html),
which treats a bit of your interpretation of "spiritual" as well: "The
working-class bias and the working-class associations of these types
perhaps explain why Thomas Carlyle, who makes such major use of Exodus
in Sartor Resartus, so rarely employs it in his political writings. On
these occasions when he does employ secularized types derived from the
Exodus narrative, he applies them m a manner very different from that
found in Massey and other working-class radicals. "Jesuitism," one of
The Latter-Day Pamphlets (1850), thus bases an elaborate analogy of
modern man's desire for freedom upon the Exodus account. But when
Carlyle states, "if it please Heaven, we shall all yet make our Exodus
from Houndsditch," he is not concemed with freedom from political or
economic oppression. Instead, this Victorian sage, who desires freedom
from illusion, spiritual blindness, and the slavery of "Consecrated
Falsity," wants his contemporaries to make their "Exodus into wider
horizons, into God's daylight once more." To free themselves from this
form of Egyptian slavery, men of the nineteenth century, says Carlyle,
must cast off an outmoded Old Testament religion (in which he
apparently includes a great deal of Christianity as well). When men
have grown enough to put aside such belief, they, "immeasurably richer
for having dwelt among the Hebrews, shall pursue their human
pilgrimage. St. Ignatius and much other saintship, and superstitious
terror and lumber, Iying safe behind us (20.32 30). Like Swinburne
writing two decades later, Carlyle masterfully uses typological images
to attack the religion on which they are based. Even when alluding to
the departure from Egyptian slavery in an overtly political work, such
as The French Revolution (1837), Carlyle gives this episode his own
peculiar intonation. The chapter "Give Us Arms," which relates the
events of 13 July 1789 when the people of Paris obtained weapons,
might seem the obvious context in which to make the usual political
application of this type. Carlyle, however, instead uses it to argue
that the urge to be free is essentially a spiritual fact, and he thus
mentions the great "moment, when tidings of Freedom reach us; when the
long-enthralled soul, from amid its chains and squalid stagnancy,
arises, were it still only in blindness and bewilderment, and swears
by Him that made it, that it will be free!" According to this
Victorian prophet who would on the contrary later in his career
emphasize that men have a basic drive to be led, "it is the deep
commandment, dimmer or clearer, of our whole being, to befree. Freedom
is the one purport . . . of all man's struggles, toilings, and
sufferings." Therefore, it is one of life's supreme moments when a man
realizes that he can -- that he must be free. It is, says Carlyle, a
"first vision as of a flame-girt Sinai, in this our waste Pilgrimage,
-- which thenceforth wants not its pillar of cloud by day, and pillar
of fire by night!" (2.183~) Carlyle obviously concentrates on the
enslaved person's spiritual state and does not even mention the
enslaving power, be it Pharaoh, Satan, or the mill owners. His analogy
hence does not serve the prime political purpose of sharply opposing
groups or factions each of which immediately receives a predetermined
moral status. Like many others who cite Exodus typology in a political
context, he relies upon it to attach religious prestige, as it were,
to an essentially secular matter. Similarly, in describing the mental
state of a person awakening to the possibility of freedom, he employs
this Exodus narrative to make that political awakening appear part of
some essential principle of history."
> "This is a reflection sad but important to the modern Governments now
> fallen anarchic, That they had not spiritual talent enough. And if this is so,
> then surely the question, How these Governments came to sink for want of
> intellect? is a rather interesting one. Intellect, in some measure, is
> born into every Century; and the Nineteenth flatters itself that it is
> rather distinguished that way! What had become of this celebrated
> Nineteenth Century's intellect? Surely some of it existed, and was
> "developed" withal;--nay in the "undeveloped," unconscious, or
> inarticulate state, it is not dead; but alive and at work, if mutely
> not less beneficently, some think even more so! And yet Governments,
> it would appear, could by no means get enough of it; almost none of it
> came their way: what had become of it? Truly there must be something
> very questionable, either in the intellect of this celebrated Century,
> or in the methods Governments now have of supplying their wants from
> the same. One or other of two grand fundamental shortcomings, in
> regard to intellect or human enlightenment, is very visible in this
> enlightened Century of ours; for it has now become the most anarchic
> of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
> Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
>
> I really can't see any Biblical connotation at all.
***Bummer. See above.
> I also don't think we
> can use Carlyle to interpret Emerson, since Emerson used the
> word "Egyptian" to have meanings that are not Biblically related
> anyway (such as "Egyptian skull" that I gave earlier).
***Carlyle, as a known influence on Emerson, can very properly be used
at any time to enlighten us on the possibilities inherent in Emerson's
thought.
KQKnave
>> >> I don't think so. "Egyptian" here seems to be merely a synonym for
>> >> "primitive".
>> >
>> >***Maybe; but, as "primitive" was very much in Carlyle's active
>> >vocabulary (see below), why did he choose "Egyptian" instead? Not
>> >willy-nilly, I think.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that "primitive" was in his vocabulary.
>
>***It certainly does. If he never used it, it would not be so
>remarkable that he wouldn't choose to use it in some particular
>situation. And it does matter that he had it in active use, as shown
>by my citations from several of his works, which prompts us to ask why
>he used one supposed synonym rather than another, and particularly one
>very odd supposed synonym rather than another.
I hope you are finding this exercise in strained, out-of-context associations
amusing. It's becoming tiresome to me but I'll refute you one more time
and leave it at that.
Carlyle's use of "Egyptian" in this context is not unusual given the
context, which is "the fall of nations". It is Emerson's use of the word,
which has no immediately identifiable context, that is *somewhat*
puzzling.
>> I don't know
>> of any writer who uses only one particular word or set of words
>> exclusively.
>
>***And yet, writers, being aware of connotations--Carlyle, with his
>colorful style, more so than most--will use words which bring the
>enlightened Pharoah, um I mean "reader," the desired set of
>connotations. Choosing "Egyptian" over your supposed "primitive"
>would be a remarkable choice if the writer meant nothing more than
>"primitive."
But given the subject of the essay (see more below), "Egyptian"
is not remarkable at all, since the essay is about the fall of
governments, and Egypt had by that time fallen into a "primitive"
darkness. The key word in Carlyle's paragraph is "anarchic".
He is making an analogy between what he feels is the current
anarchy and the current anarchy of Egypt. Egypt was an
ordered society in the days of the Pharoahs, so he can't be
referring to the time of the Exodus.
>> You've come up with a rather strained interpretation of Carlyle anyway.
>
>***Thank you. Unfortunately, it seems to be correct.
No, it's completely wrong.
>> You claim "note that C. is thinking of the spiritual:", but while
>> Carlyle does use the *word* "spiritual", he uses it in this context
>> to mean something like "will".
>
>***Not at all, not in the slightest, unless you define "will" rather
>broadly. He is discussing enlightenment and how the intellect is
>guided. Moses and the Israelites being first detained under the
>unenlightened Pharaoh and then being led into the promised land by
>spiritual enlightenment is quite apt in this context, and is indeed,
>as you'll see below, something of a commonplace in his thinking. My
>view is further bolstered by the first paragraph of Carlyle's
>*Latter-Day Pamphlet* No. 4, this same one in which we see his use of
>"Egyptian darkness"; note the use of "spiritual," "Divine,"
>"contradictions of the Divine Fact," all of which indicate where his
>mind is, why thoughts of Moses would have occurred to him, and thence
>the unenlightened government of Pharoah, who was certainly "not wise
>enough":
I was going to use this paragraph myself, (Carlyle's pamphlets are
available at project Gutenberg) so I'll take yours and add my own emphasis
in capitals:
"In looking at this wreck of Governments in all European
countries, there is one consideration that suggests itself, sadly
elucidative of our modern epoch. These Governments, we may be well
assured, have gone to anarchy for this one reason inclusive of every
other whatsoever, That they were not wise enough; that SPIRITUAL
TALENT EMBARKED IN THEM, THE VIRTUE, HEROISM, INTELLECT,
OR BY WHATEVER OTHER SYNONYMS WE DESIGNATE IT, was not adequate,--probably had
long been inadequate, and so in its dim
helplessness had suffered, or perhaps invited falsity to introduce itself;
had suffered injustices, and solecisms, and contradictions of the Divine
Fact, to accumulate in more than tolerable measure; whereupon said
Governments were overset, and declared before all creatures to be too false."
Carlyle tells you himself what he considers to be "spiritual": the talents
that people have, and those he probably believed came from God. You
can't assume therefore that everytime Carlyle mentions "spiritual"
that every other word in the text must have some specific Biblical
connotation.
>> The passage is concerned
>> with intellect, and how some governments fall into anarchy for
>> lack of application of intellect. "Egyptian" in this case refers
>
>***No it doesn't. See above and below.
>
>> to the
>> current (by current I mean Carlyle's time) state of Egypt, which
>> had fallen into primitive darkness from its heyday when the pyramids
>> were built:
>
>***Excluding the present passage as highly questionable, could you
>cite a passage in Carlyle in which he shows interest in or knowledge
>of the state of Egypt in his own time?
First of all, I don't have to, becaused it's clear from that paragraph
that that is what he is referring to. He's talking about nations "falling"
into "Egyptian darkness". Since Egypt had by that time already
fallen into darkness relative to its glory days of the Pharoahs and
the pyramids, the meaning is obvious.
But in any case, Carlyle is aware of the Egypt of his time, because
in pamphlet #3 he wrote:
"These are the kind of men we want; these, the nearest possible
approximation to these, are the men we must find and have, or go
bankrupt altogether; for the concern as it is will evidently not
hold long together. How true is this of Crabbe: "Men sit in
Parliament eighty-three hours per week, debating about many
things. Men sit in Downing Street, doing protocols, Syrian
treaties, Greek questions, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Egyptian
and AEthiopian questions;"
[snip of more Carlyle]
I have no doubt that Carlyle made references to the Bible in
his writing. But that does not mean that every reference to Egypt
must pertain to the Pharoah of the Bible and his encounter
with the Jews. In many of the cases you cited, the Biblical
reference is in the form of a pun. I can see how the phrase
"Egyptian darkness" (not the word "Egyptian" by itself)
could be such a pun, because in Exodus 10:21-21 God
made a darkness descend over Egypt.
Robert Stonehouse
>In article <be4a0014.04011...@posting.google.com>,
>odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) writes:
>
>>for it has now become the most anarchic
>>of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
>>Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
>>
>>***It would be consistent with Carlyle and with the rest of the
>>passage above that, with "Egyptian darkness,
>
>I don't think so. "Egyptian" here seems to be merely a synonym for
>"primitive".
Exodus chapter 10.
21. And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward
heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even
darkness which may be felt.
22. And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a
thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days.
23. They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for
three days; but all the children of Israel had light in their
dwellings.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
BCD
> In article <be4a0014.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) writes:
>
> >> >> I don't think so. "Egyptian" here seems to be merely a synonym for
> >> >> "primitive".
> >> >
> >> >***Maybe; but, as "primitive" was very much in Carlyle's active
> >> >vocabulary (see below), why did he choose "Egyptian" instead? Not
> >> >willy-nilly, I think.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that "primitive" was in his vocabulary.
> >
> >***It certainly does. If he never used it, it would not be so
> >remarkable that he wouldn't choose to use it in some particular
> >situation. And it does matter that he had it in active use, as shown
> >by my citations from several of his works, which prompts us to ask why
> >he used one supposed synonym rather than another, and particularly one
> >very odd supposed synonym rather than another.
>
> I hope you are finding this exercise in strained, out-of-context associations
> amusing.
***Yes, your increasingly desperate and fevered responses are quite
amusing to me and no doubt others. Thanks!
> It's becoming tiresome to me but I'll refute you one more time
> and leave it at that.
***I love such displays of generosity.
> Carlyle's use of "Egyptian" in this context is not unusual given the
> context,
***That's for sure! If only you understood what he meant.
> which is "the fall of nations".
***Nope. Read the pamphlet more carefully in your second attempt to
understand it, if indeed you have finished your first attempt. It's
the lack of spirituality in the governance of nations, which, true
enough, can *lead* to the fall of nations. The pamphlet in question is
replete with references and calls to religiosity in leaders: "He [the
Englishman] has been at it these two hundred years; and has now
carried it to a terrible length. He couldn't follow Oliver Cromwell in
the Puritan path heavenward, so steep was it, and beset with
thorns,--and becoming uncertain withal. He much preferred, at that
juncture, to go heavenward with his Charles Second and merry Nell
Gwynns, and old decent formularies and good respectable aristocratic
company, for escort; sore he tried, by glorious restorations, glorious
revolutions and so forth, to perfect this desirable amalgam; hoped
always it might be possible;--is only just now, if even now, beginning
to give up the hope; and to see with wide-eyed horror that it is not
at Heaven he is arriving, but at the Stygian marshes, with their
thirty thousand Needlewomen, cannibal Connaughts, rivers of
lamentation, continual wail of infants, and the yellow-burning gleam
of a Hell-on-Earth!" and "The great Falsity, behold it has become, in
the very heart of it, a great Truth of Truths; and invites thee and
all brave men to cooperate with it in transforming all the body and
the joints into the noble likeness of that heart! Thrice-blessed
change. The State aims, once more, with a true aim; and has loadstars
in the eternal Heaven. Struggle faithfully for it; noble is this
struggle; thou too, according to thy faculty, shalt reap in due time,
if thou faint not. Thou shalt have a wise command of men, thou shalt
be wisely commanded by men,--the summary of all blessedness for a
social creature here below. The sore struggle, never to be relaxed,
and not forgiven to any son of man, is once more a noble one; glory to
the Highest, it is now once more a true and noble one, wherein a man
can afford to die! Our path is now again Heavenward. Forward, with
steady pace, with drawn weapons, and unconquerable hearts, in the name
of God that made us all!", for just two examples. Note especially his
phrase "thou too, according to thy faculty, shalt reap in due time";
this idea is not far removed from his "that spiritual talent in them .
. . was not adequate," which you misinterpret. One reaps according to
his faculty, thinks Carlyle; if a government's spiritual talent is not
adequate, it is overset.
> It is Emerson's use of the word,
> which has no immediately identifiable context, that is *somewhat*
> puzzling.
***My primary concern here is Carlyle as being an influence on
Emerson.
> >> I don't know
> >> of any writer who uses only one particular word or set of words
> >> exclusively.
> >
> >***And yet, writers, being aware of connotations--Carlyle, with his
> >colorful style, more so than most--will use words which bring the
> >enlightened Pharoah, um I mean "reader," the desired set of
> >connotations. Choosing "Egyptian" over your supposed "primitive"
> >would be a remarkable choice if the writer meant nothing more than
> >"primitive."
>
> But given the subject of the essay (see more below), "Egyptian"
> is not remarkable at all, since the essay is about the fall of
> governments, and Egypt had by that time fallen into a "primitive"
> darkness. The key word in Carlyle's paragraph is "anarchic".
> He is making an analogy between what he feels is the current
> anarchy and the current anarchy of Egypt. Egypt was an
> ordered society in the days of the Pharoahs, so he can't be
> referring to the time of the Exodus.
>
> >> You've come up with a rather strained interpretation of Carlyle anyway.
> >
> >***Thank you. Unfortunately, it seems to be correct.
>
> No, it's completely wrong.
***No, it's completely right. Your spiritual talent is not adequate.
***Read it again. He is stating that the spiritual talent they
had--the virtue, heroism, intellect, indeed under any synonyms--was
not talented enough to put them in touch with the Divine Fact--that
is, with the true spiritual truths. One perhaps has to have some
familiarity with Carlyle and his principles to understand what he is
about here. Carlyle was not one to put faith in supposed fruits of
endless intellectualizing; rather, for Carlyle, the nobility of Man
was in his labor, was in his doing the work which lay before him.
Meantime, the prophets, the poets, the seers who were in touch with
spiritual truths would guide those of less spiritual talent. If you
think I'm straining things, you just haven't read or understood much
Carlyle.
> >> The passage is concerned
> >> with intellect, and how some governments fall into anarchy for
> >> lack of application of intellect. "Egyptian" in this case refers
> >
> >***No it doesn't. See above and below.
> >
> >> to the
> >> current (by current I mean Carlyle's time) state of Egypt, which
> >> had fallen into primitive darkness from its heyday when the pyramids
> >> were built:
> >
> >***Excluding the present passage as highly questionable, could you
> >cite a passage in Carlyle in which he shows interest in or knowledge
> >of the state of Egypt in his own time?
>
> First of all, I don't have to, becaused it's clear from that paragraph
> that that is what he is referring to.
***Ah, the Crowley defense!
> He's talking about nations "falling"
> into "Egyptian darkness". Since Egypt had by that time already
> fallen into darkness relative to its glory days of the Pharoahs and
> the pyramids, the meaning is obvious.
***Yes, the reference to Exodus 10:21-22 is obvious (many thanks to
Stonehouse for posting this) and thereby pretty much knocks your
blustery theorizing and gratuitously offensive manner into a cocked
hat.
> But in any case, Carlyle is aware of the Egypt of his time, because
> in pamphlet #3 he wrote:
>
> "These are the kind of men we want; these, the nearest possible
> approximation to these, are the men we must find and have, or go
> bankrupt altogether; for the concern as it is will evidently not
> hold long together. How true is this of Crabbe: "Men sit in
> Parliament eighty-three hours per week, debating about many
> things. Men sit in Downing Street, doing protocols, Syrian
> treaties, Greek questions, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Egyptian
> and AEthiopian questions;"
***Well, he *is* quoting Crabbe there; the passage hardly shows
*Carlyle's* "interest in or knowledge of the state of Egypt" beyond,
perhaps, by his relaying a quote, his knowledge of the merest fact
that it exists.
> [snip of more Carlyle]
***Snip as well as of learned commentary about Carlyle's frequent use
in his work of the Moses/Pharaoh/Exodus motif.
> I have no doubt that Carlyle made references to the Bible in
> his writing. But that does not mean that every reference to Egypt
> must pertain to the Pharoah of the Bible and his encounter
> with the Jews. In many of the cases you cited, the Biblical
> reference is in the form of a pun. I can see how the phrase
> "Egyptian darkness" (not the word "Egyptian" by itself)
> could be such a pun, because in Exodus 10:21-21 God
> made a darkness descend over Egypt.
***In other words, it's not what you stated it to be, merely a synonym
for "primitive," but rather what I stated it to be, a reference to the
Pharaoh/Moses tale. Thank you for that merry chase. Now, no more
histrionic debatism, please. You can leave
"I drink, I huff, I strut, look big and stare;
And all this I can do, because I dare."
to Drawcansir.
[CURTAIN]
KQKnave
>> It is Emerson's use of the word,
>> which has no immediately identifiable context, that is *somewhat*
>> puzzling.
>
>***My primary concern here is Carlyle as being an influence on
>Emerson.
That's great, but everyone else wants to know what Emerson meant.
>
[snip]
No, he says quite clearly that "These Governments, we may be well
assured, have gone to anarchy for this one reason inclusive of every
other whatsoever, That they were not wise enough;" and goes one
to list the talents that they were lacking. I have no idea where
you are getting "put them in touch with Divine Fact." The essay
is about the state of anarchy of some governments. In any case
you have missed the point: just because he mentions the word
"spiritual" in a paragraph doesn't mean that everything in that
paragraph must have some biblical referent or connotation.
>One perhaps has to have some
>familiarity with Carlyle and his principles to understand what he is
>about here.
Why? His English seems plain enough here.
>Carlyle was not one to put faith in supposed fruits of
>endless intellectualizing; rather, for Carlyle, the nobility of Man
>was in his labor, was in his doing the work which lay before him.
>Meantime, the prophets, the poets, the seers who were in touch with
>spiritual truths would guide those of less spiritual talent. If you
>think I'm straining things, you just haven't read or understood much
>Carlyle.
I think Carlyle's meaning is straightforward enough. You've introduced
a lot of extraneous matter.
[snip]
>> >***Excluding the present passage as highly questionable, could you
>> >cite a passage in Carlyle in which he shows interest in or knowledge
>> >of the state of Egypt in his own time?
>>
>> First of all, I don't have to, becaused it's clear from that paragraph
>> that that is what he is referring to.
>
>***Ah, the Crowley defense!
Hardly. It is you who is doing the Crowleyation, with your added
extraneous material (see above).
>> He's talking about nations "falling"
>> into "Egyptian darkness". Since Egypt had by that time already
>> fallen into darkness relative to its glory days of the Pharoahs and
>> the pyramids, the meaning is obvious.
>
>***Yes, the reference to Exodus 10:21-22 is obvious (many thanks to
>Stonehouse for posting this) and thereby pretty much knocks your
>blustery theorizing and gratuitously offensive manner into a cocked
>hat.
If it was so obvious why didn't you just point it out in the first place?
I pointed it out in my own post quite awhile (2 and a half hours) before
Stonehouse did.
>
>> But in any case, Carlyle is aware of the Egypt of his time, because
>> in pamphlet #3 he wrote:
>>
>> "These are the kind of men we want; these, the nearest possible
>> approximation to these, are the men we must find and have, or go
>> bankrupt altogether; for the concern as it is will evidently not
>> hold long together. How true is this of Crabbe: "Men sit in
>> Parliament eighty-three hours per week, debating about many
>> things. Men sit in Downing Street, doing protocols, Syrian
>> treaties, Greek questions, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Egyptian
>> and AEthiopian questions;"
>
>***Well, he *is* quoting Crabbe there; the passage hardly shows
>*Carlyle's* "interest in or knowledge of the state of Egypt" beyond,
>perhaps, by his relaying a quote, his knowledge of the merest fact
>that it exists.
You are making nonsense of Carlyle's paragraph. He is talking about
then current events, not the Egypt of the Pharoah's. In doing so he
makes a *pun* based on the Biblical passage.
>> [snip of more Carlyle]
>
>***Snip as well as of learned commentary about Carlyle's frequent use
>in his work of the Moses/Pharaoh/Exodus motif.
>
>> I have no doubt that Carlyle made references to the Bible in
>> his writing. But that does not mean that every reference to Egypt
>> must pertain to the Pharoah of the Bible and his encounter
>> with the Jews. In many of the cases you cited, the Biblical
>> reference is in the form of a pun. I can see how the phrase
>> "Egyptian darkness" (not the word "Egyptian" by itself)
>> could be such a pun, because in Exodus 10:21-21 God
>> made a darkness descend over Egypt.
>
>***In other words, it's not what you stated it to be, merely a synonym
>for "primitive," but rather what I stated it to be, a reference to the
>Pharaoh/Moses tale. Thank you for that merry chase. Now, no more
>histrionic debatism, please. You can leave
It is a synonym for "primitive", because you can substitue that word
into the paragraph and it does not change the sense. Here is Carlyle
again:
"One or other of two grand fundamental shortcomings, in
regard to intellect or human enlightenment, is very visible in this
enlightened Century of ours; for it has now become the most anarchic
of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
Egyptian darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
or
"One or other of two grand fundamental shortcomings, in
regard to intellect or human enlightenment, is very visible in this
enlightened Century of ours; for it has now become the most anarchic
of Centuries; that is to say, has fallen practically into such
primitive darkness that it cannot grope its way at all!"
In any event, I fail to see any definite connection between Carlyle
and Emerson. I know you want it to be there, but wanting is not
proof. And since none of this has shed any light on the phrase
"Egyptian verdict" used by Emerson, it's all been a complete
waste of time unless you can tell us clearly what Emerson is
saying.
BCD
[...]
***We've reached the point at which about all we can say to each other
is "Your thoughts are wrong-headed and absurd." I stand by what I've
written. Vaya con dios.
Tom Reedy
that quote to say he had doubts is dishonest, right? Because I think the
Fellowship should be held accountable for its dishonest presentation.
TR
"BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
news:be4a0014.04011...@posting.google.com...
BCD
> But the consensus on Emerson is that he wasn't an antiStrat, and the use of
> that quote to say he had doubts is dishonest, right? Because I think the
> Fellowship should be held accountable for its dishonest presentation.
>
> TR
***I'd say that anyone claiming on the basis of that quote that
Emerson was anti-Strat in his opinion would need to explain with a
good deal of satisfactory precision how he or she came to that
conclusion. Non-Egyptian precision.
Neil Brennen
news:<etdOb.13010$1e....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > But the consensus on Emerson is that he wasn't an antiStrat, and the use
of
> > that quote to say he had doubts is dishonest, right? Because I think the
> > Fellowship should be held accountable for its dishonest presentation.
> >
> > TR
>
> ***I'd say that anyone claiming on the basis of that quote that
> Emerson was anti-Strat in his opinion would need to explain with a
> good deal of satisfactory precision how he or she came to that
> conclusion. Non-Egyptian precision.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> --BCD
And the amusement provided by such an exercise is worth the trouble. Lecolin
is still spinning like a top to make the Dickens quotation
antiShakespearean.