From books-owner Fri Apr 14 22:40:22 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id WAA34867 for books-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 22:40:21 GMT Received: from homer22.u.washington.edu (homer22.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id SAA18477 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 18:40:17 -0400 Received: by homer22.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA76467; Fri, 14 Apr 95 15:41:13 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer22.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 15:41:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Green To: The List Subject: report on a conversation over a pitcher. (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk (the following was written on Thursday and reviewed and approved by David on Friday, today) My experiences with alcohol being few and limited, I had never before today actually gone to a pub for a "philosophical discussion," when David and I went down to the Big-Time Brewery after class to attempt to continue in private a debate that had arisen between us here in this forum. (Apparently this is going to become a semi-traditional thing, every or just some Thursdays or maybe even Tuesdays after class, at some pub somewhere, and anyone and everyone is invited to come along. Actually, if this is going to become permanent, maybe we should consider alternating pubs and cafes, 'cause I think I just don't like alcohol enough to drink it every week!) "But what is the purpose of attempting to have a philosophical discussion while imbibing alcohol?" I asked as we got into his car. "Doesn't alcohol impede one's mental capacities?" The answer was that it lowers one's inhibitions so that ideas can flow more freely. Thus, it was not so much a Socratic dialogue as, well, some other kind of dialogue. But we found a few interesting points/questions that may be of interest to this List. First (we hadn't even gotten there yet, still in the car) we established what was peculiar about the mode of discourse we were about to engage in. There are two peculiarities: A) Rather than a "public" discussion, such as takes place in our classroom, where relations between participants are kept at an impersonal level, we were engaging in a form of discussion/discourse (?) that does not theoretically exclude "personal" views/experiences/beliefs; indeed from the outset we knew that our discussion would in some way embrace the differences that exist in our "worldviews"--this issue, whether we can or cannot see beyond the "shadows" that I posited as the limit of human communication, though we never did actually get to it, was in fact what prompted David's invitation to a chat. The question that arose, then, was: Why do "personal" worldviews and experiences fall only into "private" discourse, and are excluded from the "public"/"impersonal" discourse of the serious scholarly realm, the classroom etc.? On one hand it can be seen to go back even as far as Plato's notion of One Reality (and thus the official mode of discourse that proceeds rationally and logically to Right Belief, Right Interpretation); on the other, there is the current cultural milieu in which such a thing as "personal belief" (e.g., the "priesthood of all believers" in Christianity, the complete democratization of doctrine and interpretation) is normal...but constructed as "one's own business" (and thus as having little consequence for what happens in the "real" world?). B) The second peculiarity about this form of discourse was the presence of beer. If there was a C, B made me forget about it. The rest of the discussion focused on several topics, including various ways of conceptualizing divinity, especially God's Im/Mutability and our consequent Free Will or Lack of Same. Why do we care so much about immutability, so much that we constrain divinity with it? (and DOES immutability constrain God?-but that's another question) People have worked and worked and worked to make constructs in order to be able to *deal* with an immutable God; we must because we exalt immutability! We can try to answer the "why": from mutability can proceed "mistakes," that is, "wrongnesses" that have to be rectified..whereas from immutability can come nothing that *can* be rectified..(and therefore nothing that *should* be rectified, ie, "perfection"?). [And do Buddhists share our yearning after immutability in their yearning for nirvana, or do we only understand "nirvana" in terms of our own "immutability"?] And yet it seems the immutable model of God is going out of fashion--we who are brought up to idealize "democracy" are in love with Free Will, and an immutable God is just really hard to reconcile with that. Suppose that God is an author, and the universe is his book. What kind of book is it? A tragedy, where the ending is clear? Insofar as our lives end in death, yes. Is it a mystery? Insofar as we do not know "how it will all turn out" (ie, we do not know the future), yes...but does God know how it will all turn out? There are three images of a writer: there is the image of the writer who has decided on how he wants his plot to turn out and so forces the characters to bring that ending about; there is the image of the writer hypnotized by his characters into making them do what they force him to make them do; there is the image of the writer who creates premises that affect everything else that happens in the story--this last is both what a writer really does and also what really happens in the real world, with or without the existence of God: we are born with certain "premises" affecting the "story" of our lives, within which we must act (perhaps the etymology of "premise" would help here; are not premises things that always precede other things, things that make some sort of "suggestion" about what is to follow?). If God is envisioned as a writer (and this is by no means a new vision of God) then this third image of a writer (which is not quite an image of immutability nor quite an image of powerlessness) may be an image of God that will "work better" for "us" (now) than the previously widespread image of God as Immutable...... This, then, is what we spoke of (some of what we spoke of), but I have endeavored to translate personal discourse into impersonal discourse. Also, I note that I am still developing my hypothesis, which I have yet to see disproved to my satisfaction, and which, thanks in part to this discussion, I will reword: Could it be (I ask) that an idea of the universe that involves "immutable singularity," such as--in Plato and Aristotle and their philosophic successors--"First Cause", or--in religion--the idea of the single all-powerful immutable Creator God, was made possible by, or was a result of, the invention of immutable text? Could it indeed be that our Exaltation of Immutability itself was only possible after the invention of the immutabilitization of Words? ...The gods of Greece, about whom so many different, often conflicting, stories were told, long before such stories were jotted down, seem such a nonimmutable bunch....but when you give writing to Greeks, a few of them, at least, start worrying less about those gods and start worrying instead about the single authoritative nature of the universe, about its single cause...and we've seen that Plato cannot but think in terms of writing, just as the book of Genesis gives great importance to Words, followed later by John's "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." (I:1). Anyway, enough. Brian G. From books-owner Sat Apr 15 02:21:45 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA38721 for books-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 02:21:45 GMT Received: from homer12.u.washington.edu (homer12.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id WAA34364 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 22:21:41 -0400 Received: by homer12.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA48157; Fri, 14 Apr 95 19:22:37 -0700 X-Sender: drusus@homer12.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 19:22:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ross To: Books List Subject: Re: report on a conversation over a pitcher. (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I see that you are continuing the fine old Greek tradition of the *Symposium*; I will make sure I can attend next time. Just a couple of comments/questions. First, to what extent do you-all endeavor to exclude your personal world-views from in-class discussions? While I (attempt) to maintain an appropriate degree of scholarly objectivity, I for one have to admit to coloring at least some papers and discussions with my world-view, and I don't really see anything wrong with doing so (otherwise a lot of marxists around here would be out of business . . .). Finally, and more pertinently, while I am not yet convinced that writing is a prerequisite for developing ideas of an immutable god or first principle, I would venture to say that the brand of philosophy which Aristotle engaged in, and thus his arrival at a "Prime Mover", is. More specifically, Aristotle begins by defining *everything* at every stage of his argument, include its means of transmittal, i.e. writing, speech, and their various components (a "verb" is this, a "substance" is this, a "sentence" is this . . . ). Aristotle then works from these very basic premises (if a is b and b is c then a is c), over hundred of pages of texts, to such concepts as the proper ordering of society, the ethics of individual behavior, and the existence of the Prime Mover. While this is a greatly over-simplified account of Aristotle's method, his work nevertheless is quite the tour-de-force of rational, linear thought; the thoroughness and complexity of this work certainly exceed those attainable in a pre-literate society. --Shawn From books-owner Sat Apr 15 02:46:07 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA19874 for books-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 02:46:06 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id WAA28828 for books; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 22:46:03 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504150246.WAA28828@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: report on a conversation over a pitcher. (fwd) To: books Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 22:46:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1095 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk point of view: all right Shawn, or anybody, let's have some specifics. 1. something you would say that is point-of-view free enough that you wouldn't think twice about saying it in class 2. something *with* point-of-view that you might think twice about but *would* say in class 3. something that, even if you think you should stick up for what you believe in class, you still *wouldn't* say in class because it was too . . . what? Real life examples from other classes might help. I ask this as serious question because it gets at the question of how we manage the decorum of face-to-face encounters. Maybe the best form of (3) is something you remember chickening out on saying in a classroom . . . P.S. Brian: next time, you say to the guy "just gimme a Perrier, *straight*" -- and if you say it with a snarl, they'll know not to mess with you. Charge you about 8 times what the same amount of Perrier on the open market would cost, but that's for the privilege of breathing the smoke and trying to find a place where your feet don't stick to the floor. jo'd From books-owner Sat Apr 15 03:13:30 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA22831 for books-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 03:13:29 GMT Received: from homer18.u.washington.edu (homer18.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA17194 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 23:13:27 -0400 Received: by homer18.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA82820; Fri, 14 Apr 95 20:14:21 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer18.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:14:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Green To: Shawn Ross Cc: Books List Subject: Re: report on a conversation over a pitcher. (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk (open letter addressed to Shawn): Like you, I also am not convinced by my Immutable God/Text-based society hypothesis. That's why I'm calling it a hypothesis and not a theory (or do we have "hypotheses" in history? I got quite a grilling in elementary through high school on How Science Works but I've *never* been told about the Methods Of History; why is Science so keen to tell us its methodology and not other--fuzzier--branches of learning?). I'm just kicking it around idly, really, because it is kind of interesting. What I'm looking for is information of exactly the sort you have supplied about Aristotle. Brian g From books-owner Sat Apr 15 03:49:37 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA26012 for books-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 03:49:36 GMT Received: from homer12.u.washington.edu (homer12.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA34455; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 23:49:33 -0400 Received: by homer12.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA104022; Fri, 14 Apr 95 20:50:29 -0700 X-Sender: drusus@homer12.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:50:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ross To: "James O'Donnell" Cc: books Subject: Re: report on a conversation over a pitcher. (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199504150246.WAA28828@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 14 Apr 1995, James O'Donnell wrote: > point of view: all right Shawn, or anybody, let's have some specifics. > > 1. something you would say that is point-of-view free enough that > you wouldn't think twice about saying it in class To an extent, I "censor" myself with the context of the class in mind; in a religion or philosophy class, I will pretty much express whatever I think of, and have even been know to play devil's advocate in order to antagonize other members of the class as much as possible. In a history or literature class, however, the only things I don't "think twice about saying" are those which I believe are reasonably free from what I would call overtly politicized content, and which I believe are immediately relevant to the discussion. This ranges from some opinions of mine which I believe are almost completely not-political and do not entail too many value judgements, such as "Augustine's concept of the soul was influenced by neo-Platonic precedents," to moderately loaded ideas such as "comparative political stability, modern transportation, and the introduction of a lingua franca were benefits of British imperialism in India." That is about as far as I comfortably go in class. My internal criteria for this category center on objectivity, historical context, and relevancy to the discussion. > 2. something *with* point-of-view that you might think > twice about but *would* say in class When a volatile discussion becomes heated, I will move somewhat further along what I see as a continuum between what is acceptable and what is not. The most immediate example I can think of was the final paper I wrote for hstam 431 last quarter. The situation is somewhat different, in that this was a paper and not a comment in class, so I will use this opportunity to compare how freely I express myself in three academic settings. While I refer to the same continuum for all three media, I am most careful about what I present in print as a paper, somewhat less so during in-class discussion, and I have to admit that I am least inhibited over email. For example, as I read back over the email posting which prompted Professor O'Donnell's response, I noticed that I probably would not have made that snide remark concerning marxists in class. In any case, back to that paper. My thesis posited a relationship between growing contempt for physical reality, the degradation of the individual, and the rise of imperial autocracy in the Greek east of Late Antique Roman Empire. I remember at one point as I was writing this paper wondering whether or not I was grinding my axe a little too much, considering my high opinion of Enlightenment political philosophy and the idea, expressed by Ayn Rand among others, that one's socio-political system is ultimately based upon one's epistamology. Once again, however, this came down to a question of maintaining objectivity and appreciating historical context, which I decided I was doing, and so turned in the paper. As far a actual in-class examples go, I have been known to sharply criticize existentialism and postmodernism in historiography classes, and even did so on the list here once, if I remember correctly. > > 3. something that, even if you think you should stick up for what > you believe in class, you still *wouldn't* say in class because > it was too . . . what? I can think of a few things which I have chosen to speak about with the professor or another student outside the classroom setting. This includes ideas which I do not think meet the "objectivity" criterium to the degree necessary to express in a formal setting. For example, I just replied off-list to Cherie (and am about to to K. Ryker--prepare yourself) concerning her comments on progress. Like Professor O'Donnell, I consider this a highly politicized, i.e. less objective, subject by nature. Thus, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to subject the rest of you to my comment that "progress", by any reasonable definition, is demonstrable since at least the industrial revolution. While I am thoroughly convinced of the objectivity of my reasoning, in this case I have met enough people who aren't to think twice before starting in on it. In this case, however, relevancy to the topic at hand was the overriding criterium in my decision not to post to the list. I perform something of a cost-benefit analysis of a particularly controversial comment, weighing the exertion (and class time) it would take to defend that idea, and whether doing so would move the entire discussion too far off-track, against the relevancy of the comment in question. > > Real life examples from other classes might help. I ask this as serious > question because it gets at the question of how we manage the decorum of > face-to-face encounters. Maybe the best form of (3) is something you > remember chickening out on saying in a classroom . . . > > > jo'd For me, acceptability reduces to maintaining standards of objectivity, context, and relavence to the discussion, although in writing this I did realize that I do place some weight on my estimate of how controversial a particular comment is; I am more than willing to make one, as my friends know, but I think twice on the relevancy and objectivity of a comment which I know will be very controversial. Shawn From books-owner Sat Apr 15 04:27:49 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA37792 for books-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 04:27:48 GMT Received: from homer12.u.washington.edu (homer12.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA05531 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 00:27:45 -0400 Received: by homer12.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA32359; Fri, 14 Apr 95 21:28:40 -0700 X-Sender: drusus@homer12.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 21:28:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ross To: Brian Green Cc: Books List Subject: Re: report on a conversation over a pitcher. (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Brian-- My apologies for throwing the words hypothesis and theory without due care. Also, I thought I would add that fall quarter in an ancient historiography seminar we briefly discussed history's self-definition vis-a-vis other "harder" studies. I don't remember exactly what we talked about (Jason or Professor Thomas may be able to help here), but part of the discussion revolved around the definition of sub-fields within history (prosopography, psycho-history, etc.) which have been better defined, as well as related fields, such as anthropology, which have defined themselves as "sciences". Part of this problem relates to the nature of historical inquiry itself, especially considering ancient history; due to the scarcity and nature of the extant sources, only a relative handful of "facts" are known with any certainty, and these alone tell us little. To a large extent, history, like literature, does come down to a matter of interpretation. Not that all historical interpretation is completely subjective, but this interpretive quality seems to me to separate history from "hard" sciences, but not so much from other social sciences (it depends who you talk to whether history is a social science or one of the humanities). Finally, the dependence of history upon interpretation spawns a whole herd of varying historical philosophies or approaches, from dialectical history to marxist history to various postmodern theories . . . any of which defines itself quite differently. --Shawn From books-owner Sat Apr 15 21:13:08 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id VAA39628 for books-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 21:13:07 GMT Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id RAA17607 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 17:13:03 -0400 Received: from stewart.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id OAA02778; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 14:13:56 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 14:13:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199504152113.OAA02778@seanet.com> X-Sender: STEWART@pop.seanet.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: books From: STEWART@stewart.seanet.com (CHARLES STEWART-GORDON) Subject: Intro and problem Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Finally, I have e-mail that actually sends AND receives. Up to now it's been one or the other. I'm Charles Stewart-Gordon, and I'm a non-matriculated student acquiring both background and up-to-date records for application to Graduate School. Please call me Stewart. Although I'm fascinated by anything that happened a long time ago, my particular area of interest is Late Antiquity as a period marked by the profound success of Christian Culture in modifying and supplanting Classical Culture. At this point, I have only the vaguest notions of what I will find. As a starting point for my inquiry this quarter, I've chosen the rather inconsequential fact that the last Roman Senator died in 640. I want to work backwards from this point in an attempt to find out what passed away with this last extremity of the institution of the Roman Senate. The title of Senator must have meant something to this person as a sign of distinction, but why had it lost meaning to everyone else such that no one cared to have the same distinction? Could one say that the passing of the institution, even as only a vacuous title, somehow marked the end of Classical Culture as an active thing in society, leaving it to be passively appropriated and hybridized into the ascendant Christain Culture of the Middle Ages? Rather than explore what was kept in this process of continuity, I want to determine what was lost. I'll keep you posted through the quarter. Stewart From books-owner Sun Apr 16 02:13:48 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA30789 for books-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 1995 02:13:47 GMT Received: from shiva1.cac.washington.edu (shiva1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.201]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id WAA09536 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 22:13:43 -0400 Received: by shiva1.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA05981; Sat, 15 Apr 95 19:14:39 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 19:14:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Linda Wright To: books Subject: A Nascent Textual Community? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Book two of *On Christian Doctrine* indicates the existence of a well-established Christian textual community which is already complex, yet one with is still laboring to define a canonical corpus. I find several reasons to view this community as one which would still seem to be in its early development phase. Though Augustine can already speak of Scripture which has been translated into various languages (6), he finds it appropriate to define which works are in the canon he discusses (13). He also has to help readers determine how to assess the value of other scriptures they may come upon (12). This isn't just because he is teaching new readers how to approach the Scriptures, but also because there are so many translations available (16). Vastly different from Plato's fear that books would fall into the hands of inappropriate readers, Christian translators seem all too eager to make their doctrine widely available with varying success at accuracy. None the less, throughout, Augustine is able to speak of the authority of these texts, and even preferred versions (19, 20, 22). Approximately 800 years after Plato there is not only an established textual community, but a specialized one, that is, a Christian textual community, with its own recognized canon, authorities, and tradition. Augustine's distinction between negligent and discerning readers corresponds to the different types of listeners' souls encountered by the rhetorician in the *Phaedrus*. In a manner similar to how a skilled rhetorician would determine the type of argument best suited to the soul of the listener, Augustine outlines the steps through which readers ascend to the wisdom found in the Scriptures. This is a practical and effective way of dealing with the wider audience that can be reached by the written text. Memory has a very different function in *OCD* than it did in the *Phaedrus*, too. The written word is now to be memorized, becoming memory, even if the reader cannot understand (14); it no longer serves merely as an aid to recollection of things already known. Would Socrates not have considered this attitude blasphemy? Though the written word now has an integral role in Christianity, it lacks complete reliability in transmission and is still tied to orality. Augustine meticulously discusses problems with translations, the necessity to emend texts, and the importance of knowing Hebrew, Greek, and Latin in order to accomplish this task. The skills required of the reader are not insignificant and seem further to indicate the recent emergence of the Christian textual community, as their very canon has not been firmly established or circulated in standard editions. On this next point I am less clear as to whether it presents supporting evidence for a nascent textual community, or whether it is tradition surrounding the history of the Septuagint. Augustine refers to the Septuagint's authority only in an oral form: "*spoken* as if with the *mouth* of one", and "inspired" (Latin="interpretati": explained, translated. I only go into this because "inspired", Latin="breathe into", would have allowed me a firmer example of the non-written authority present, but heeding A's advice to consult the original, I find that we have been somewhat mislead by our translator.) If this emphasis on the spoken translation is evidence for a developing textual community, we can still observe the transition to a new form and the continuing role of orality. Let me conclude by emphasizing that I am not arguing for a *progression* from oral to written culture. Rather, I am searching for evidence here which might suggest that this is a nascent textual community, and how oral tradition shaped and continued to influence the former. I don't see the role of texts as one which completely replaces orality, though texts do eventually take on greater authority in many societies. -Linda From books-owner Sun Apr 16 03:11:52 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA13476 for books-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 1995 03:11:51 GMT Received: from homer05.u.washington.edu (homer05.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.12]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA26777 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 23:11:46 -0400 Received: by homer05.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA57821; Sat, 15 Apr 95 20:12:41 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer05.u.washington.edu Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 20:12:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Green To: The List Subject: decorum vs. point-of-view (re: report on a conversation...), or, a , , , , , post knee-deep in quotation marks. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk (Finally I am ready to respond to O'Donnell's question and, to some extent, to Shawn's answer)----- What I was specifically getting at when I said that "personal" worldviews etc. were less appropriate in certain situations was precisely *talking about* our personal etc., and not so much presenting statements that are *influenced by* personal etc. In an "official" situation, my personal belief or disbelief, say, in God, is something that maybe I could get away with alluding to, but if we were to allow a discussion to get going that had as its seed and central theme *my own* ideas about God (I mean, if we somehow new we were talking about *me* rather than scaling the edifice(s) of Truth, plumbing the depths of History, where Ideas exist somehow Outside of each of us) we all might get a little uncomfortable. "Personal things" or "Things on the personal scale", things that don't seem "objective", just seem anomalous in official, "impersonal" situations. They are unexpected, and can cause discomfort or comedy; jo'd is simply the most masterful practitioner of the art of anomaly I've ever witnessed: He comes in talking about the meaning of the words "go" and "like," and we all laugh, and even when he demonstrates how central the question is to our theme, we still chuckle, because of the peculiarity of talking about that. Etc. It is commonplace to note that electronic communication (email, discussion groups, et cetera ad infinitum) is dominated by "informality." Is this because the first wave of colonists to this world were youths, D&D-playing kids who invented terminology like "flames" and shorthand like btw and imho and :)? (I've never figured out what imho means.) Or does it have something to do with a tendency that has been observed* in all humans to be more emotionally forthcoming, with loved ones or with strangers, when using the written word for non-face-to-face communication? *(I and other people I know have observed it. But I can, in this pseudo-formal footnote, cite some sort of authority: Samuel R. Delany describes what happened when he assigned his Clarion (science fiction writing workshop) students the task of collecting material from partners for a brief biography, through written words only, then asked them to share the biographies in class: "...when their communication was limited to the written word, almost in spite of themselves they had shunted into personal areas and intensely emotional parts of themselves that felt uncomfortable before oral display...though no one was averse to my or each other's *reading* these papers" [Samuel R. Delany, _The Jewel-Hinged Jaw: Notes of the Language of Science Fiction_, New York: 1977, p. 144]) What about in this situation, where the electronic venue, the cool hang-out, has been co-opted by, well, by "us," Academia? How much of this current post is appropriate? I am, myself, a fairly informal person (though some, higher on the informality scale, would disagree!). I think I get it from my father....(hmm, ixne on that line of thought).... I feel, personally, that I've been pushing the envelope a little in this List. I talked about "Star Trek" in my very first post ("The Federation Library") (and I even wondered aloud there how appropriate it was); also I recently explained some very personal background related in important ways to my idea about textual cultures and Singular Views of the Cosmos, that is, I seemed to think it appropriate to get behind what seemed like a dry, intellectual idea to the personal facts that in some way informed it. And others, not all, so far, have seen fit to introduce themselves here. Would all this be "done" in a "traditional" upper-level-but-still- notionally-undergraduate seminar situation? Not at all that I am questioning the value of it; given my own tendences toward informality, and what I've been saying, it should seem that I feel that all this can be quite beneficial. But then (personal background) I've been profoundly influenced by current practices in high school English classrooms, and my mother is a high school English teacher who really believes in the "reader response" theory of teaching literature. If anybody doesn't know what I'm talking about I would be glad to provide a summary; Addressing "reader response theory" may indeed be quite relevant to our themes. But I did seem to consider this a sufficiently formal venue to "translate" some of the ideas David and I discussed at the pub out of their personal contexts and and into...what shall I call it but impersonalese?--that very mode of discourse that (in my personal view) tries to pretend that personal contexts are not, in fact, where ideas get started, but that there *is* some structure or edifice of Ideas "Out There" which we "tap into." Cf. the two diagrams jo'd wrote on the board: "I speak to you with words, and there's a package of ideas in my head which somehow goes along with the words and informs the package of ideas in your head" VS "I speak to you with words and we are both informed by the IDEAS that EXIST, or by Reason, or by God's Truth, as you will". Let me make it more concrete, or rather, let me personalize it. One of the key ideas in my "God as lonely Diarist" story which I told you about was that God can never, in this "scenario" (my use of the word "scenario" indicates that I have no single idea about God but several "scenarios"--I deal in hypotheses, you could say), God can never know whether his creations have real existence outside of his imagination. God as Solipsist, you might say. I have never heard of this idea from anyone else, or read it anywhere else; but I am *fantastically* unwellread when it comes to (the history of) philosophy, or theology for that matter, and I have always expected that one day someone will tell me that my idea of God the Solipsist (or naive believer who ought to be a solipsist), is Not New, that Somebody Else Thought It First. (In fact I was fully expecting somebody to tell it me *here*, right after I made that post, in fact, anybody who can is asked please to do so!) What would this do? It would mean that this idea, which I am quite fond of, is in some way no longer "mine"--it would be, instead, a permanent fixture of that Palace of Ideas that the *real* philosophers and sundry other idea makers have been building since time immemorial (that progress idea again), and I would then be obliged to go off and explore this Palace, that is, read the real philosophers who *really* invented the idea, and the legions of scholarly secondary commentary on same (not that I would be loathe to do so). This Palace of Ideas seems to me, to state my feeling frankly, an absurdity in terms of Reality (that's because my notion of Reality is, or tries to be, centerless, purposeless, Godless [though willing to admit possibility], filled only with the things we can observe [but even that category is fluctuating, especially given the recent Hubble-telescope- based revelation that the universe is half the age of the oldest stars in it!], and--in some sense, "thus,"--objectivity-less. That is to say, though I think that objectivity is a good thing to strive for, it is ultimately impossible to attain; also that the "I speak/you know exactly what I'm saying because Ideas are Real" model of reality is not one I subscribe to. The "matter" Hamlet reads is only "words, words, words." And yet this strange edifice exists insofar as we act as if it existed, we pay homage to it: it is our cultural/intellectual heritage...our Federation Library. It exists because in order not to be considered a neophyte, in order to be a fully fledged member of the intellectual society, I can't just be a really deep thinker: I have to have explored the venerable labyrinth and passed its many tests, as those whose ranks I am striving to join have done before me. To become acquainted with the Palace is the rite of initiation into the world of the sophisticated intellectuals. One cannot pass for an intellectual without it. If I were to publish that God story without doing my homework, and it turned out that so&so did posit that idea, that it is an established part of the cultural intellectual ouvre, I would be treated differently than otherwise. Isn't it interesting that we have to put names on genuses of ideas/thought? And priority counts. If I, knowing nothing of, say "the ideas of so&so," come up independently with a few ideas that match so&so's, I am not said to have "come up" with anything, I have merely "stumbled upon" "so&soian thought." I'm not exactly complaining about this situation--what can I do about it, after all? I'm only drawing attention to the fact that we treat the world of ideas in this way--we *do* seem to believe in "progress," at least in the sequential development of this Structure of Ideas, and that ideas are ideas because they partake of this tradition. I think what I've been saying is obvious, on a certain level, but should we not be aware of everything we do, and every assumption that underlies what we say? (=rhetorical question.) I seem to have segued at some point from "decorum vs. point of view" to something like rhetoric vs. reason. Where's the connection? Oh yes, a decorous situation is one in which we try to act as if points of view don't exist and reason does. A lot of this post might seem like nothing but a lot of...well, a lot of talk. Do I, ahem, have any serious thinkers to back up my claims? I have just today heard of Bruno Latour, who argues, in a book that I would like to find except somebody's got it already from our library, called _Science in Action_, that Truth is essentially based on how many authority figures you've cited. I'll get him and cite him to you. Also several others working in the "rhetoric of inquiry" movement. But, in fact, this post does not come entirely out of nowhere, either. I'm almost embarrassed to admit that my principal inspiration for this post, or rather what gave me a few kernels of inspiration that set me to thinking and half-feverish writing in the very dead of last night, was James O'Donnell's review of Richard Lanham's _The Electronic Word_. (See his recent publications page.) (And why should I be almost embarrassed? It must be something about a "seminar situation" to which I am unused. This seems a kind of wonderland of professionalism to which I've never before been exposed.) There are other ways in which this is but a small world after all. For example, d'ya remember the Medieval treatise on Love that I mentioned, which people are beginning to think maybe should not be understood as seriously intended? One of the pioneers of that idea was, ta-tum, D.W. Robertson, Jr., our very own Augustine translator, arguing that Andreas' treatise is to be read ironically, in, of all places, his 1962 book, _A Preface to Chaucer_. Alright, I'm finished. Brian Green From books-owner Sun Apr 16 04:23:06 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA26862 for books-outgoing; Sun, 16 Apr 1995 04:23:05 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id AAA20457 for books; Sun, 16 Apr 1995 00:23:03 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504160423.AAA20457@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: ref. To: books Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 00:23:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 333 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk When you get a chance in front of a good WWW browser, go to the "additional material" page for this course and click on the "images of Greek books": there are now about 18 of them, and they offer food for thought and vision. Thanks to Andy Wiesner, transcontinental wetware, for putting this remarkable archive together. jo'd From books-owner Mon Apr 17 21:02:01 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id VAA09921 for books-outgoing; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 21:01:59 GMT Received: from homer07.u.washington.edu (homer07.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id RAA38586 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 17:01:55 -0400 Received: by homer07.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA34688; Mon, 17 Apr 95 14:02:50 -0700 X-Sender: hektor@homer07.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:02:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "K. Ryker" To: books Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I mentioned last Thursday that Augustine didn't bother to construct a good argument for his interpretations of the scriptures and compared his method to Plato's more systematic dissemination. It is quite apparent upon further reading that Augustine is very capable of presenting a solid, even rational argument when he wishes and if there is a sound argument to be had. He carefully documents the use of fragments as a method for interpretive ambiguities and reinforces his conclusions with comparable translations and texts written in earlier languages (pg.83). He also admonishes his initiates not to confuse literal and figurative signs and provides coherent examples of what he means. On the other hand he takes great liberal leaps when he attempts to interpret his scriptures literally by alluding to mystical knowledge that would make the meaning more clear. Upon close reading of his argument on numerology (pg. 52), he deliberately leaves it unfinished and reverts to faith, perhaps intentionally or perhaps because he was getting too scientific for the good of his fledglings. As it applies to the interests of this course, it would appear that the entire effect of preserving the written word in the scriptures is frivolous as least as it relates to the meaning or intention of what was written. Augustine clearly states that many of his Christian interpretations were taken from or enhanced by the Jews, Plato and other pagans and ultimately says that it doesn't matter what the author intended, but rather how the church intends it to be understood (pg.101) - so it could have been any written thing (which it is). The point is, the value is in that it is written down in words, the content is secondary. The emphasis was on establishing a legitimacy for the catholic church which could validate it academically against the prolific thinkers and philosophers of the past. The question is, what is the worth of the written word in this context? From books-owner Tue Apr 18 02:04:23 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA33660 for books-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 02:04:22 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id WAA20598 for books; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 22:04:19 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504180204.WAA20598@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: reading (fwd) To: books Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 22:04:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 797 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk >From a list-lurker, a lovely story! I came across an interesting paragraph, from the Libri Carolini of 794 A.D., which describes a scene where a man is confronted with two identical pictures of beautiful women and is told that one is a picture of the Virgin Mary and the other of Venus. The man asks the artist which is which, and the painter supplies one picture with the caption: Virgin Mary, and the other with the caption: Venus. The picture with the mother of God is elevated venerated and kissed, while the other was miligned, scorned and cursed, although both were equal in shape and color, and were made of identical material, and differed only in the caption. (!) The problem of Mary's pagan ubiquity renders her the mother of literacy's necessity in that scenario, eh?. From books-owner Tue Apr 18 06:52:37 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id GAA32171 for books-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 06:52:36 GMT Received: from homer06.u.washington.edu (homer06.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id CAA40870 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 02:52:33 -0400 Received: by homer06.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA41310; Mon, 17 Apr 95 23:53:27 -0700 X-Sender: rstaffel@homer06.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 23:53:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Rebecca Staffel To: The List Subject: Things I'm not writing Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Greetings to all! This will start out as fragments and then perhaps I can draw it all together with some heavy editing. Or maybe it will remain fragments. I have been training the Italian faculty here on the ways of the 'Net, and I've been trying to convince them that there are many ways they can use the technology in their teaching and research, citing some of the things we're doing in this class. One professor protested, "don't you feel like it's overkill, that you can never escape the discussion?" I responded that I didn't, and that it allowed folks like me who are a bit tentative about speaking in class a chance to vent in the privacy of their office/study, and that theoretically, the thoughts expressed will be more clearly presented (we've got control-T for spelling, I'm still looking for control-G for grammar!:-) ). Most of the time I believe what I said, but lately there have been so many different ideas and thoughts loosed upon us, I haven't had a chance to respond or even synthesize! So I *am* a bit overwhelmed and frustrated. This will be a scatter-shot attempt to respond to some things that have arrived in my inbox, and also say and summarize some things that have been on my mind while reading. ...nearly an hour passes... I *told* you this was "things I'm not writing!" I can't even eke out a bit of writing about not writing. Okay, here comes the scattershot I warned you about... On textual community/the reading experience/why read Plato: Someone (I apologize that I can't find the post, and consequently I could be completely misrepresenting the thought) more or less said that for the many reasons that we *do* read Plato, it's *not* because we mean to believe it or follow anything he's saying (I really wish I could find the post! Help?). I must personally (and here we bring in the personal p.o.v. stuff from yesterday/today) disagree! I wrote before about being more of a text-lover than a text-interpreter, and this is where it comes in. I read texts with the desire to be taken in, to be convinced, to be moved by an argument. I want to embrace the text (perhaps my version of jo'd's "wallowing") and make it my own. I want to try the ideas on for size and see if they fit before challenging them. I have some support from Roland Barthes here (_Le plaisir du texte_, 1973), but I'm still working on a good excuse/explanation for how I read. At any rate, I cannot accept or maintain the pugilistic stance that most professional readers (i.e., graduate students) seem to take before every text they encounter. Sure, after I've gotten used to it, I'm ready to bat the text around a bit, but I hesitate to fight (read: overanalyze) the words as they come at me the first time. BUT this leads me to worry: Am I an unfit reader? Was Plato trying to protect his words from me because I am too anxious to accept them? Museums: In an Early Modern class, I learned that museums were a Renaissance/early modern invention (it's okay if that's actually debatable, it's just what I have in my mind as fact for now). The point was that the neo-Classicists were the first group to actively look back at history and try to find truth hidden in it. It makes sense to me, but of course I don't have a lot of training in ancient history, so I'll leave it to someone else to confirm or deny. As I said in the first or second class, I read Plato because the guys that *I* like to read, read him. They were looking for the truth, and since I might be looking for truths in their writing, I will happily follow their trail. (Plato's) Seventh Letter: Not enough was said about it. I'm still turning over the ideas of essential being and metaphor in my head. I'll say more if anything ever emerges. Talks last Friday: I attended two talks on Friday, Horst Wenzel's "Hearing and Seeing -- Word and Image -- Audiovisual perception in the Middle Ages" and Zakiya Hanafi's "The Honest Courtesan -- the Erotics of Topography of Early Modern Venice." Both of these scholars addressed the common sphere of text and image, and how both must be considered in the interpretation of works in which both are presented. Prof. Wenzel, in particular, addressed the issue of different kinds of memory (pre-literate and post-literate, in particular), and I will attempt to synthesize (that word again!) what he said by the time we hit Clanchy. (And yes, Cherie, I will send you notes from the talk this week!) Derrida and Plato and *Pharmakon*: I rashly promised that I would reread this and try to give some kind of synopsis. What was I thinking? You should all run out and read it yourselves, because Derrida's play with words is a large part of the fun. The chapter/article is "La pharmacie de Platon" in _La dissemination_, Paris, Editions du Seuil, 1972. Here's what I will give you: Derrida delineates the various references to Pharmaceia/Pharmakon/drugs and shows how they equal words, particularly written words. The intoxicating effect of the written word is powerful enough to lure Socrates out of the city, and so also causes him to tell the cautionary tale of Theuth -- just because you have a prescription doesn't make you a doctor. My other favorite marginal note is "writing = patricide. By writing you kill the speaker, who is the father of the word." Chew on that. The other nugget I pulled out of Derrida was related to what I wanted to say about Lysias' speech and the dangers of writing, but couldn't quite get out, although Professor O'Donnell almost said it: it seems that one of the dangers (or thrills) of reading another's writing is that the reader must assume the position of the "I." While Lysias' speech may have been written by Lysias for Phaedrus (I still think so), Phaedrus assumes the subject when he reads it to Socrates. Socrates tries to defuse some of this shift (of which he seems quite aware) by continually attributing the speech to L. And when S. has to make the speech, he covers his head, once again trying to remove himself from the subject position which he must per force assume. I haven't even gotten to Augustine, but it's time for bed. Thanks for bearing with me. Until tomorrow... Rebecca From books-owner Tue Apr 18 07:23:22 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id HAA10970 for books-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 07:23:21 GMT Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id DAA09685 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 03:23:15 -0400 Received: from mx.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id AAA12218; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 00:24:06 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 00:24:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199504180724.AAA12218@seanet.com> X-Sender: STEWART@pop.seanet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: books From: STEWART@stewart.seanet.com (CHARLES STEWART-GORDON) Subject: Herodotus in your sprare time Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Kyle's question about musuems in antiquity has gotten me thinking about Herodotus and what passed for knowledge for him. I have only read excerpts of Herodotus, so I hope someone better informed will be able to answer the questions that have come to mind. In collecting together a compendium of knowledge about places, people, and things, has Herodotus in fact contrived a portable museum? This may blur our own distinctions between libraries and museums; museums for me have physical, sensible exhibits. But I think it does suggest a mentality toward the collection and dissemination of knowledge that would support a museum. What passed for knowledge, at least in the book on Egypt (Book 2, Euterpe), was the oral traditions that made up the 'authority of the Egyptians and their priests.' For Herodotus that was good enough. What I find striking is the differing attitudes about time held by the Egyptians, Herodotus, and of course us. The Egyptians recorded a list of three hundred forty-one generations of kings from the time of Menes (Bk 2, pg.142). Herodotus, allowing for a generous thirty years per king, calculated that this would mean Egypt had been around for eleven thousand three hundred forty years and believed it without hesitation. The Egyptians don't seem to be concerned with dating things; the kings are a sequence that is represented by 347 statues erected in a temple. It's Herodotus who is unsatisfied with their way of knowing the past, and puts it into terms he prefers. They are terms that we prefer too, but his perspective on time allows him to accept the notion of that place having existed unchanging for that long. To me, the five thousand years since the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt seems a fantastically long time, but I know that a great deal has changed since then. My question, at last: is the calculation of years, like the assembling of bits of knowledge about places and people, a result of the textual history? Stewart From books-owner Tue Apr 18 09:50:25 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id JAA16994 for books-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 09:50:24 GMT Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id FAA16477 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 05:50:21 -0400 Received: from mx.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id CAA15436; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 02:51:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 02:51:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199504180951.CAA15436@seanet.com> X-Sender: cicero@pop.seanet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: books From: cicero@cicero.seanet.com (Bryce Carpenter) Subject: thoughts on *OCD* II Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Worthy of considerable attention, I believe, are the last two chapters in book two of Augustine's *On Christian Doctrine*, II.xli and II.xlii. In particular, I'm interested in the 'Sign of the Cross.' In this sign are many more. The Cross of Our Lord itself, Augustine tells us, is made up of breadth, length, height, and depth, and to each dimension a part of the body of Christ is fixed. The breadth refers to the portion of the Cross upon which the hands are stretched, the length refers to the whole body, the height refers to the head, and the depth refers to the portion hidden beneath the earth. The whole body is the Church, the community of Christ, who is the head.(II.xvi.24) The hands are the means by which the body performs good deeds in Christ. They are the saints who are rooted and founded in charity.(II.xli.62) Depth, then, rooted beneath the earth, is the strength of the penetrating humble herb, hyssop, which is representative of the healing charity of Christ. Thus are the four elements.(II.xvi.25) But what of the Cross itself? The symbol of the Cross is twofold. It serves as a reminder to us of our own mortality and of Christ's sacrifice. By recognizing His will, the first step towards wisdom, we are moved by fear to thought of our own mortality. In the contemplation of our mortality, we nail our pride, our sins, to the wood of the cross.(II.vii.9) Our pride can thus be affixed to the cross because of Christ's sacrifice, which is His charity. Augustine says that this sacrifice emphasizes for us nothing more than that which He said to those whom he saw suffering: 'Come to me...and I will refresh you. ...learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls.' (II.xli.62 -Acts 7:22) Through the sign of the 'meek and humble herb'(hyssop), Augustine again reminds us of the healing power of Christ's charity. From that example he says that it necessary for us to 'become meek through piety so that we do not contradict Divine Scripture.'(II.vii.9) Thus by the piety instilled by the image of the Cross, Augustine asserts the authority of canon, the written Word. It is by such instruction and reflection that Augustine leads the reader to book III. But through this instruction, I believe Augustine is answering many of the questions raised by Plato. Knowing that his book would be circulated, which was his intention, Augustine is not content to let his text stand for only those suitable to read it, that is, educated in all the ways he proposes. Rather, due to the missionary nature of his religion, Augustine seeks to instruct and prepare all readers for Scripture. He doesn't teach Greek or Hebrew to his readers, but at least lets them know that those languages should be learned for proper study of Scripture. In the last chapter of book II he uses the word 'instruction.' By use of this word it is implied that he wants to bring the reader somewhere, to wisdom, rather than let his words stand as obstacles to the reader unaccustomed to Scripture. Augustine also argues the authority of the written Word. He maintains this belief not from his cultural tradition but from his Christianity, which inherited the practice of maintaining canon from the Hebrew tradition. With this textual tradition, Augustine gives authority to his own words. By citing Scripture, Augustine himself speaks with authority, but not that of simply a speaker, such as Lysias, but of a teacher with uncommon charity. From books-owner Tue Apr 18 14:32:32 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id OAA19865 for books-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 14:32:30 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id KAA37262; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 10:32:26 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504181432.KAA37262@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Things I'm not writing To: rstaffel (Rebecca Staffel) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 10:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Cc: books In-Reply-To: from "Rebecca Staffel" at Apr 17, 95 11:53:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 301 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk quick point: "neo-classicistg" creatig a historical sense. That's why I have the swift and the Housman there. How does the past change when you turn it into classics? How do you change when you do that? Why does this seem no longer so compelling an educational strategy as it once did? jo'd From books-owner Tue Apr 18 14:36:22 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id OAA33379 for books-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 14:36:21 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id KAA05456; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 10:36:16 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504181436.KAA05456@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Herodotus in your sprare time To: STEWART (CHARLES STEWART-GORDON) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 10:36:16 -0400 (EDT) Cc: books, stewart In-Reply-To: <199504180724.AAA12218@seanet.com> from "CHARLES STEWART-GORDON" at Apr 18, 95 00:24:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 802 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk One counterpart to the making of history is the making of historical tourism. This happens at different times and in different ways through history. Why do you go to places where things happened, or to see things that are old, and what are you doing when you do that? This is *more* interesting in ancient times when a lot of the display is fraudulent in one way or another (scene in Lucan of Caesar visiting "Troy", or going to see Mt. Sinai and being shown the actual site quite nearby of the burning bush, but it still happens: on NPR yesterday, guy goes to Cuba today, gets tour of Meyer Lansky's hotel room, shown "authentic" Degas on wall that is way clearly a fake -- what difference does it make?). That makes the world into a kind of text, or set of signs about the past . . . From books-owner Tue Apr 18 14:45:28 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id OAA15996 for books-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 14:45:28 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id KAA26230 for books; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 10:45:25 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504181445.KAA26230@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Bryce, cross, etc. To: books Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 10:45:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1745 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk So Bryce says: "Depth, then, rooted beneath the earth, is the strength of the penetrating humble herb, hyssop, which is representative of the healing charity of Christ." How *true* is that proposition for Augustine? Suppose I said, *that's not what the Cross means, that's a silly interpretation!* Would he disagree with me? If I had another complicated pro-Christian reading of it, would he say I was "wrong"? If not, what's the value of that manipulation of signs? Remember, Constantine saw a cross in the heavens and heard the wordsd "In this sign you shall conquer" or roughly, "Under this standard/symbol you shall conquer". One hundred fifty years later, accdg to legend, St. Patrick met the founder of the O'Donnell family, converted him to Christianity, and miraculously emblazoned a fiery red cross on his shield, which means that you can go to Dublin today and buy the O'D family coat of arms with a hand holding a cross and the legend "In hoc signo vinces" under it. Two other points: in medieval iconography, already in Aug. very explicitly, the wood of the cross = the wood of the bark, and so you climb up on the wood of the cross to sail through the flood to reach port. And: later medieval iconography had it that the wood of the cross came from the tree that Adam ate from, and that the "skull place" (Golgotha) got its name from having people buried there, among them Adam himself, so you would get a representation of the crucifixion with an underground skull of Adam out of which the tree/cross rises. This leads, as Bryce rightly says, towards book 3, which is all about that kind of non-literal, initially obscure signification . . . We get there by figuring out the value of obscurity . . . From books-owner Wed Apr 19 02:29:44 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA11325 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 02:29:43 GMT Received: from homer22.u.washington.edu (homer22.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id WAA36148 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:29:37 -0400 Received: by homer22.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA46106; Tue, 18 Apr 95 19:30:22 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer22.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 19:30:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Green To: CHARLES STEWART-GORDON Cc: books Subject: Re: Herodotus in your sprare time In-Reply-To: <199504180724.AAA12218@seanet.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Last weekend I was about to write that the closest thing to our notion of a museum that the greeks had was the homeric corpus, in that it, more than anything else, was what they seemed to consider their collective statement about who they were and had been--the so-called "bible of the greeks." But I didn't write that, because the notion of a portable museum, a textual museum, seemed...unorthodox.... Thanks, Charles, for taking the plunge. in re O'Donnell's answering post about historical tourism: we're still pretty keen to get at the historicity of Troy, a century and more after Schliemann unearthed it. How long ago was it that the hydrologists found that there was a large bay where now there is a marshy plain, which was created by silting from the Scamander River? The fact that there was a bay there changes the topography of the Trojan plane drastically, and "explains" a lot of things in the Iliad; for example, the Greeks could have been beached on the far side of the bay, and the wall they built would not have been difficult to build given that they can now be conceived of as building just a short wall along a strip of beach from the shore to the cliffs behind them. Also, now you really do have to cross the Scamander to get from Troy to the Greek camp and vice versa, whereas without this bay the Scamander is off to the side out of the picture. etc. Our own Dr. David Wick wrote his masters thesis on this, which can be found in the library. But all these things, from the "discovery of Troy" to the discovery that the land lay differently 3000 years ago, somehow make the Trojan War "truer." The discovery, in Greece, of a Mycenaean-age helmet made of boar's tusks, matching the description of a helmet Odysseus puts on at one point in the Iliad, also fits in here.... The world as a set of signs about "the past," or rather, the world as a set of signs about a book....hmmm. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Brian Green From books-owner Wed Apr 19 02:37:25 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA26013 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 02:37:25 GMT Received: from homer06.u.washington.edu (homer06.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id WAA16018 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:37:18 -0400 Received: by homer06.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA115363; Tue, 18 Apr 95 19:38:09 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer06.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 19:38:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: cherie kartchner woodworth Cc: books Subject: Re: introduction, and a question In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, cherie kartchner woodworth wrote: > > > Let me introduce myself: I'm a graduate student in early Russian and East > European history. I've been working for the last year on research on > early printing in Muscovy, which has led me to the questions of oral > and literate cultures. I've got to do another research project this summer > on this second topic. Hopefully, this will all work into my dissertation. > > I got onto the list only a few days ago, and was advised to first read > the syllabus on the web. This I have dutifully done. And it has > provoked in me a question. Now, I apologize if this has already been > discussed. (Even then, maybe someone would be so kind as to fill me in.) > > It seems to me the syllabus suggests the following schema: > > oral --> literate/ manuscript --> literate/ printing --> literate/ electronic > > and, correspondingly, > > ancient --> medieval --> modern > > I wonder if this doesn't imply development, and therefore some idea of > progress; that writng is better than oral communication, and printing is > better than manuscripts, and so on. > > I am reminded of the conceptual power of such "development trees" by > Stephen Gould's essay in a recent issue of Natural History. He was > talking about the near-universal paradigm of depicting the evolutionary > tree with man at the top (in fact, the whole tree designed with the > teleological message that past evolution only has meaning because it > leads to the ultimate creature, man). And he was speaking [or rather, > writing :-)] of the difficulties of shaking this visual image of > progress. > > But (since the question of museums has come up), I should add that the > impetus for Gould's essay was the newly opened evolution exhibit at the > Natural History museum. In the new exhibit, evolutionary developments are > illustrated chronologically, in a succession of rooms. Thus as the > museum-goer walks through the rooms ("reads" the exhibit in part through > physical motion), s/he reaches hominids fairly early on, and later comes > to something like hippopotamuses or whales (since the distinguishing > characteristic of the hominid branch occurred earlier than that of the > whales, or whatever). Kind of turns the self-congratulatory idea of > progress on its head. > > So, with regard to oral and literate cultures, have we implied a path of > development? And if so, are we wrong to do so? I can't think of any > manuscript culture still flourishing in our midst; but a long history of > literacy certainly has not meant that *oral* culture has been displaced. > Indeed, there are many things which we (despite our universal > literacy) learn almost exclusively through oral transmission. For > example, have you ever tried to learn to cook, or do a craft, or play a > sport from a book? You can see the difficulty of trying to incorporate > into a book the necessary information. (e.g. "Knead the dough until it > feels *just right*, then put it in the oven until it looks done.") > > Might I suggest that there are studies of the vitality of oral culture > among us today? Two (absolutely arbitrary) examples that spring to mind > are _One Potato, Two Potato_ and _Passing the Time in Balleymenone_. > > cherie woodworth > Ms. Woodworth: I found your reference to Stephen Jay Gould rather interestng, and it occurred to me, from an anthropological point of view, that you might find the following of interest, if not edification: The fact that, from a teleological standpoint, is not the human race at this particular point in time (along with all other concurrently viable primate species) the end result of primate evolution (I use primate rather than hominid since at this particular juncture the only living hominid species is Homo sapiens sapiens, and I find the scope an uncomfortably narrow one)? If we should remain long enough to evolve into something else (e.g., Homo sapiens extraterrestrialis or some such) would not our distant descendants view themselves as the end product of the evoluitonary process with reference to their own time and space? We can, by definition, only view the "Other" (whether that "Other" be separated from us by time, space, cultural milieu, or some other criterion) in terms of how it differs from ourselves. This has, in my opinion, been ably demonstrated in *The Mirror of Herodotus* by Francois Hartog. It is difficult to describe what is not like us, unless, of course, we define those alien qualities in terms of how they differ from us. Please send along any comments or thoughts you might have regarding this or any other topic. On a personal note, I see that you attend the University of Indiana. If you should happen to know Julie Langford-Johnson (an undergraduate colleague of mine), please inform her that I would like to hear from her. Sincerely, Jason Hawke ============================= Jason G. Hawke University of Washington (206) 517-7916 cimon@u.washington.edu ============================= From books-owner Wed Apr 19 02:41:13 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA32828 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 02:41:12 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id WAA35125 for books; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:41:09 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504190241.WAA35125@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Thursday seminar To: books Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:41:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1458 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk At 1:30 p.m. Thursday, when our liveware seminar will not meet this week, if you can get to a machine that can do telnet (you can do this from the system or shell prompt on homer or the like), try this: telnet ccat.sas.upenn.edu 7777 connect guest south 105 You will be "in" a virtual "classroom" on the "Penn" campus. See who else shows up, identify yourself, and talk to each other. There's help on line, but the key thing you need to know is that if you type " at the left margine, whatever you type until you hit will be attributed to you as spoken "discourse" everybody else can here. For an alternate path (esp. if "connect guest" doesn't work for you) then try: telnet ccat.sas.upenn.edu 7777 connect Latin Latin out out out south 105 (Some strange things may happen to you, but what the heck?) List-lurkers welcome to come along and meet the rest, and I will try to be there myself, but there are time zones and a schedule where I'm lecturing that evening to cope with. Want a preview? Get a WWW browser up and go to: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/teachdemo and read down until you get the description of a "MOO" and see what you think. IF YOU TRY AND DON'T SUCCEED, be attentive and tell me later in detail what the problem is. We'll do this again at least once to make sure we all get a crack at it. Augustine? Well, look at those sheep, and look at Galatians 4.21-31, and think about "allegory". jo'd From books-owner Wed Apr 19 02:48:20 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA33876 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 02:48:20 GMT Received: from homer06.u.washington.edu (homer06.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id WAA44868; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:48:09 -0400 Received: by homer06.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA35860; Tue, 18 Apr 95 19:49:03 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer06.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 19:49:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: "James O'Donnell" Cc: books Subject: Re: cross-cultures; progress In-Reply-To: <199504131438.KAA26023@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk [[B On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, James O'Donnell wrote: > The two notes yesterday synergize. (1) The anthropological comparison > shows how a society can and does function absent writing. One point I > would emphasize: What "knowledge" consists of is a part of what > changes. The Phaedrus and the Beaver people would not be thinking in the > first instance of "how to format indented paragraphs on a word processor" > as knowledge -- that's just craft, knack, skill. How to imagine and > reconstruct what the range of "knowledge" is like in such a society? (2) > Progress . . . > I take it as a fact that *some* technological innovations create > a one-way movement of users. I don't know societies that have acquired > writing, or electricity, or antibiotics, that have later cheerfully and > voluntarily foresworn them. There *are* societies that have acquired, > say, a Higher Religion and later given up on that. So I think it is far > to speak of "progression" for those movements which seem irreversible. > But identifying such progressions objectively is a separate thing > from putting a moral valuation on them, and when we speak of "progress", > it's usually with some such moral overtone. The debate about the moral > progress or lack of progress of the human race is large and interesting > and (most important) politicized. At the moment, the political right is > on the side of Progress, the political left more skeptical; what's > interesting is that this is a great historical turnabout, for the left > historically has been the party of progress and the right the party of > skeptical suspicion of the new. But it's Newt who's preaching the third > wave . . . > Moi, I prefer not to play in that moralizing game, at least when > I'm trying to be scholarly. Put another way, I prefer to worry about > questions that seem resolvable. But (long way around) the structure of > this course is designed to mark one impending "progression" (the > acquisition of e-technology) by looking back at other such moments. I > said on the first day that it was a weakness that we're doing this in > chronological sequence, but it seems to me not a disabling one. > > jo'd > Dear fellow participants: At the risk of sounding facile or crude, as regards "progress" I would point out the following: * We currently don't have to bang rocks together to cook our food * Most of us still have, by and large, our own teeth * Despite the lack of high birth or burgeoning\disproportionate wealth we are not only able to attend a university but also have access to this "whiz-bang" technology. I realize some subjective valuations are involvedhere, but nevertheless. I think most of my fellow participants would agree the above three are generally "good" (for lack of a better term) things. Jason Hawke =========================== Jason G. Hawke University of Washington (206) 517-7916 cimon@u.washington.edu =========================== From books-owner Wed Apr 19 02:49:27 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA43408 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 02:49:21 GMT Received: from homer22.u.washington.edu (homer22.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id WAA33931; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:49:17 -0400 Received: by homer22.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA39084; Tue, 18 Apr 95 19:48:54 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer22.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 19:48:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Green To: "James O'Donnell" Cc: books Subject: Re: Bryce, cross, etc. In-Reply-To: <199504181445.KAA26230@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Jo'd spoke of cross shapes in class...saying that it metamorphed from T-shaped to "cross" ("t"?) shaped. But I heard somewhere that Roman crosses were actually X shaped, to spread-eagle the victims (ala da Vinci's famous sketch). Brian Green From books-owner Wed Apr 19 03:34:02 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA39461 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 03:34:01 GMT Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu (homer17.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA33567 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 23:33:52 -0400 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA50662; Tue, 18 Apr 95 20:34:44 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer17.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 20:34:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: "K. Ryker" Cc: books Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, K. Ryker wrote: > All of the old books were written by long-dead guys, or at least > they get the dubious credit. The interpreters are other long-dead guys, > all human, none divine. As we progress into Christian doctrine the > "proper" interpretations intended for the unwashed and unruly masses > as opposed to the elite cults, will become painfully apparent. By > addressing the acclaimed divine influence that inspired Christian > interpretation > it will prove evident that we have little chance of distinguishing what > one man wrote and another man interpreted according to his own agenda. > > On the subject of museums, I was not thinking of those things > contemporary to the Greeks such as temples but rather collections of > artifacts from cultures that went before them. The Greeks spent enough > time trying to distinguish themselves and their progression, just as > we do from those who have lived before us, so they must have been > distinguishing themselves from the previous cultures of > which they were aware. Hence, the question of museums, or private > collections and the continuity of activities that link us to the past > and the knowledge that has been achieved back there and then forgotten, > or corrupted. Were they, like us, digging through old bones and bits and > pieces in search of what? truth? What makes us think that it's ever been > discovered and what makes us think that some human could have effectively > chronicled it, or would have had the desire to? The quest, however, > continues with grail-chasing obsession after some manifest secret obscurely > buried back in history, certainly > humans have been consumed with the idea since history began (another > debatable topic). > Dear K. Ryker: If I may, let me paraphrase a Rastafarian philosopher\musician (forgive me, but I forget precisely whom, though for some reason either the name Peter Tosh or Bunny Wailer keeps presenting itself), who said thatr the Truth stands, immutable, somewhere in the middle, while everyone tries to bend it this way or that in order to serve his or her own needs. It is only a paraphrase, of course, which has lost the poetry and concision of the original, but you get the idea, I am sure. The point is, that every responsible (emphasis on the responsible) historian\archaeologist\literary critic takes this very fact into account (though they may not have any familiarity with the Rastafarian philosopher whom I have just mentioned) whenever they endeavour to discover something regarding the past. Therefore, there is agreat deal more involved than simply taking at face-value the word of a "lomg-dead guy" or, for that matter, any slightly less "long-dead guy" who may have provided his own *opinion* as to what the former "long-dead guy" (i.e., the original author) meant when he wrote such-and-such. In other words, one would do well to acquaint oneself with recent trends in historiography before one deigns to condemn the entire discipline of History of historical insight. =============================== Jason G. Hawke University of Washington (206) 517-7916 cimon@u.washington.edu =============================== From books-owner Wed Apr 19 03:48:47 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA43777 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 03:48:46 GMT Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu (homer17.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA33020 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 23:48:43 -0400 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA122745; Tue, 18 Apr 95 20:49:36 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer17.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 20:49:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: books Subject: FW: ETIQUETTE - "Guilty of receptive noninitiation, your honor" (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 18:20:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ross To: Jason Hawke Subject: FW: ETIQUETTE - "Guilty of receptive noninitiation, your honor" (fwd) Hey Jason, this is a good one! --Shawn ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 15:08:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Gillick To: Funny List -- Alicia McKissen , Morgan Spriggs , Ed Tackett , Heather Pedlar , Jeanette Pettibone , Jennifer Behrens , Jonathan Dally , Kristin Flatness , Sarah Blattler , Shawn Ross , Steve White , Heather Murray Subject: FW: ETIQUETTE - "Guilty of receptive noninitiation, your honor" (fwd) FELLOW SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS: THE PITFALLS OF COMMUNICATION, ORAL, WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE... <> Dating Don'ts and Don'ts -- A Handy Checklist for the Politically Correct 90's Here, just in time for spring, is a list of things that are now against the rules, according to the the sex-and-dating police. Read -- and memorize -- this information to avoid lawsuits, dismissal from work, expulsion from school -- or worse! LIP-LICKING, TEETH-LICKING, AND PROVOCATIVE EATING. All these (and more) are on a list of "unacceptable gestures and behaviors" distributed at the University of Maryland at College Park. STANDING TOO CLOSE. Standing too close is one of a long list of "sexually harassing behaviors" that Susan Strauss and Pamela Espeland caution us "have been reported in U.S. high schools." (Others are MAKING "VERBAL COMMENTS ABOUT CLOTHING" and "WEARING AN OBSCENE HAT.") ATTENDING PERFORMANCES OF "ROMEO AND JULIET." London school official Jane Hardman-Brown refused to take her students to see "Romeo and Juliet" on the grounds that it was a "blatantly heterosexual love story." (It's not clear whether Hardman-Brown wants the play rewritten to celebrate alternative lifestyles, or would prefer to have it banned altogether.) EXCESSIVE EYE-CONTACT. University of Toronto chemistry professor Richard Hummel was recently prosecuted for "prolonged staring" at a female student. INSUFFICIENT EYE-CONTACT. A handbook published at Barnard College in New York warns male professors who fail to make sufficient eye-contact with their female students that their conduct is "contributing to a biased atmosphere in the classroom" which may cause women to "feel discouraged and/or physically threatened." RECEPTIVE NONINITIATION. If a woman makes a pass at her male boss, and her boss responds, he (not she) is guilty of sexual harassment, according to Hunter College professor Sue Rosenberg Zalk. Zalk's term for this underpublicized offense: "receptive noninitiation." FORGETTING A WOMAN'S NAME. A report issued by a committee at the University of Pennsylvania lists "women's names not remembered" as a pernicious form of sexual discrimination. PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF AFFECTION. The Minnesota Department of Education discourages "displays of affection in hallways" on the grounds that such displays "may offend others" and are "heterosexist." HAMBURGERS. Jeremy Rifkin, author of Beyond Beef, notes that "the statistics linking domestic violence and quarrels over beef are both revealing and compelling." SELF-DEPRECATING HUMOR. And finally this, from Robin Morgan, former editor of Ms.: If a man's "self-deprecating humor" leads a woman to initiate sex with him, then that man is -- in a "radical feminist" sense of the term -- guilty of assault. Source: The Official Sexually Correct Dictionary and Dating Guide -- by Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf. From books-owner Wed Apr 19 04:01:55 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA37577 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 04:01:54 GMT Received: from homer09.u.washington.edu (homer09.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA10684; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:01:40 -0400 Received: by homer09.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA54654; Tue, 18 Apr 95 21:02:32 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer09.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 21:02:32 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: Brian Green Cc: "James O'Donnell" , books Subject: Re: Bryce, cross, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Find attached a reference article if you are interested. David. On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Brian Green wrote: > > Jo'd spoke of cross shapes in class...saying that it metamorphed from > T-shaped to "cross" ("t"?) shaped. But I heard somewhere that Roman > crosses were actually X shaped, to spread-eagle the victims (ala da > Vinci's famous sketch). > > Brian Green > > CROSS, CRUCIFY stauros ^4716^ denotes, primarily, "an upright pale or stake." On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, "to fasten to a stake or pale," are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed "cross." The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A. D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the "cross" of Christ. As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word "Christ" and had nothing to do with "the Cross" (for xulon, "a timber beam, a tree," as used for the stauros, see under TREE). The method of execution was borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians. The stauros denotes (a) "the cross, or stake itself," e. g., ; (b) "the crucifixion suffered," e. g., <1 Cor. 1:17-18>, where "the word of the cross," RV, stands for the gospel; , where crucifixion is metaphorically used of the renunciation of the world, that characterizes the true Christian life; <6:12,14; Eph. 2:16; Phil. 3:18>. The judicial custom by which the condemned person carried his stake to the place of execution, was applied by the Lord to those sufferings by which His faithful followers were to express their fellowship with Him, e. g., . B. Verbs. 1. stauroo ^4717^ signifies (a) "the act of crucifixion," e. g., ; (b) metaphorically, "the putting off of the flesh with its passions and lusts," a condition fulfilled in the case of those who are "of Christ Jesus," , RV; so of the relationship between the believer and the world, <6:14>. 2. sustauroo ^4957^, "to crucify with" (sufor," sun, "with"), is used (a) of actual "crucifixion" in company with another, ; (b) metaphorically, of spiritual identification with Christ in His death, , and .# 3. anastauroo ^388^ (ana, again) is used in of Hebrew apostates, who as merely nominal Christians, in turning back to Judaism, were thereby virtually guilty of "crucifying" Christ again.# 4. prospegnumi ^4362^, "to fix or fasten to anything" (pros, "to," pegnumi, "to fix"), is used of the "crucifixion" of Christ, .# (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words) (Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers) From books-owner Wed Apr 19 04:06:54 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA30798 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 04:06:53 GMT Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu (homer17.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA30276; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:06:47 -0400 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA113464; Tue, 18 Apr 95 21:07:39 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer17.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 21:07:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: Shawn Ross Cc: "James O'Donnell" , books Subject: Re: report on a conversation over a pitcher. (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 14 Apr 1995, Shawn Ross wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Apr 1995, James O'Donnell wrote: > > > point of view: all right Shawn, or anybody, let's have some specifics. > > > > 1. something you would say that is point-of-view free enough that > > you wouldn't think twice about saying it in class > > To an extent, I "censor" myself with the context of the class in mind; in > a religion or philosophy class, I will pretty much express whatever I > think of, and have even been know to play devil's advocate in order to > antagonize other members of the class as much as possible. In a history > or literature class, however, the only things I don't "think twice about > saying" are those which I believe are reasonably free from what I would > call overtly politicized content, and which I believe are immediately > relevant to the discussion. This ranges from some opinions of mine which > I believe are almost completely not-political and do not entail too many > value judgements, such as "Augustine's concept of the soul was influenced > by neo-Platonic precedents," to moderately loaded ideas such as > "comparative political stability, modern transportation, and the > introduction of a lingua franca were benefits of British imperialism in > India." That is about as far as I comfortably go in class. My internal > criteria for this category center on objectivity, historical context, and > relevancy to the discussion. > > > > 2. something *with* point-of-view that you might think > > twice about but *would* say in class > > When a volatile discussion becomes heated, I will move somewhat further > along what I see as a continuum between what is acceptable and what is > not. The most immediate example I can think of was the final paper I > wrote for hstam 431 last quarter. The situation is somewhat different, in > that this was a paper and not a comment in class, so I will use this > opportunity to compare how freely I express myself in three academic > settings. While I refer to the same continuum for all three media, I am > most careful about what I present in print as a paper, somewhat less so > during in-class discussion, and I have to admit that I am least inhibited > over email. For example, as I read back over the email posting which > prompted Professor O'Donnell's response, I noticed that I probably would > not have made that snide remark concerning marxists in class. In any > case, back to that paper. My thesis posited a relationship between > growing contempt for physical reality, the degradation of > the individual, and the rise of imperial autocracy in the Greek east of Late > Antique Roman Empire. I remember at one point as I was writing this > paper wondering whether or not I was grinding my axe a little too much, > considering my high opinion of Enlightenment political philosophy and the > idea, expressed by Ayn Rand among others, that one's socio-political > system is ultimately based upon one's epistamology. Once again, however, > this came down to a question of maintaining objectivity and appreciating > historical context, which I decided I was doing, and so turned in the > paper. > > As far a actual in-class examples go, I have been known to sharply > criticize existentialism and postmodernism in historiography classes, and > even did so on the list here once, if I remember correctly. > > > > 3. something that, even if you think you should stick up for what > > you believe in class, you still *wouldn't* say in class because > > it was too . . . what? > > I can think of a few things which I have chosen to speak about with the > professor or another student outside the classroom setting. This > includes ideas which I do not think meet the "objectivity" criterium to > the degree necessary to express in a formal setting. For example, I just > replied off-list to Cherie (and am about to to K. Ryker--prepare > yourself) concerning her comments on progress. Like Professor O'Donnell, > I consider this a highly politicized, i.e. less objective, subject by > nature. Thus, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to subject the > rest of you to my comment that "progress", by any reasonable definition, is > demonstrable since at least the industrial revolution. While I am > thoroughly convinced of the objectivity of my reasoning, in this case I > have met enough people who aren't to think twice before starting in on > it. In this case, however, relevancy to the topic at hand was the > overriding criterium in my decision not to post to the list. I perform > something of a cost-benefit analysis of a particularly controversial > comment, weighing the exertion (and class time) it would take to defend > that idea, and whether doing so would move the entire discussion too far > off-track, against the relevancy of the comment in question. > > > > > > Real life examples from other classes might help. I ask this as serious > > question because it gets at the question of how we manage the decorum of > > face-to-face encounters. Maybe the best form of (3) is something you > > remember chickening out on saying in a classroom . . . > > > > > > jo'd > > For me, acceptability reduces to maintaining standards of objectivity, > context, and relavence to the discussion, although in writing this I did > realize that I do place some weight on my estimate of how controversial a > particular comment is; I am more than willing to make one, as my friends > know, but I think twice on the relevancy and objectivity of a comment > which I know will be very controversial. > > Shawn > > Dear Participants: All I really wish to add to this discussion is simply this: *I have often noticed (as my friend and colleague Shawn Ross has noted, with particular reference to e-mail) that it is a good deal easier to vent one's spleen in writing than it is to do so face-to-face or even in a public forum. Does the artifice of writing provide us with an armor, as it were, behind which we feel comfortable to say and do as we please, since the vehicle of communication has become depersonalized, and if so, is this an advantage or disadvatage -- please let me hear your opinions on this matter (i.e., is the depersonalization yet freer expression of ideas preferable to a more human yet more restrained discourse?) Sincerely, Jason ========================= Jason G. Hawke University of Washington (206) 517-7916 cimon@u.washington.edu ========================= From books-owner Wed Apr 19 04:29:42 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA26020 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 04:29:41 GMT Received: from homer09.u.washington.edu (homer09.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA36254 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:29:37 -0400 Received: by homer09.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA28815; Tue, 18 Apr 95 21:30:31 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer09.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 21:30:30 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: Re: report on a conversation over a pitcher. (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Re: the shield of written words, consider how differently we drive when we know no one knows who we are, as compared with when we are driving with frends. For more on what anonymity may imply and an analysis of community on the net look at my home page for a paper on that topic. http://weber.u.washington.edu/~helper/ David From books-owner Wed Apr 19 04:40:20 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA27855 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 04:40:19 GMT Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu (homer17.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA20682 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:40:12 -0400 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA102255; Tue, 18 Apr 95 21:41:04 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer17.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 21:41:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: Brian Green Cc: The List Subject: Re: decorum vs. point-of-view (re: report on a conversation...), or, a , , , , , post knee-deep in quotation marks. In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Sat, 15 Apr 1995, Brian Green wrote: > It is commonplace to note that electronic communication (email, > discussion groups, et cetera ad infinitum) is dominated by > "informality." Is this because the first wave of colonists to this world > were youths, D&D-playing kids who invented terminology like "flames" and > shorthand like btw and imho and :)? (I've never figured out what imho > means.) Or does it have something to do with a tendency that has been > observed* in all humans to be more emotionally forthcoming, with loved > ones or with strangers, when using the written word for non-face-to-face > communication? > > *(I and other people I know have observed it. But I can, in this > pseudo-formal footnote, cite some sort of authority: Samuel R. Delany > describes what happened when he assigned his Clarion (science fiction > writing workshop) students the task of collecting material from partners > for a brief biography, through written words only, then asked them to > share the biographies in class: "...when their communication was limited > to the written word, almost in spite of themselves they had shunted into > personal areas and intensely emotional parts of themselves that felt > uncomfortable before oral display...though no one was averse to my or > each other's *reading* these papers" [Samuel R. Delany, _The Jewel-Hinged > Jaw: Notes of the Language of Science Fiction_, New York: 1977, p. 144]) > > What about in this situation, where the electronic venue, the cool > hang-out, has been co-opted by, well, by "us," Academia? How much of > this current post is appropriate? > > Brian Green > > > > > > > > > > Dear Brian (and other fellow participants): I would like to share with you a piece of wisdom which came to me from one of my professors at the University of Utah, Dr. William Hess (Princeton, '64, I believe), who passed along to one of our upper division Greek classes the following observation (I, of course, paraphrase): Most of the linguistic innovations which come into a language come into it from the marginal areas of the society which speak that language; thus, the *koine* Greek (the dialect which was not only the lingua franca of the Hellenistic World but also of the New Testament) most closely resembld the Boeotian dialect of Classical Greek, i.e. that dialect which was used by the playwrights of the Old Comedy (of which Aristophanes was the most famous) to denote rustic\uncouth\uncultivated persons, much as an English playwright of the late Renaissance\early Modern period might have had some characters speak in Scottish\Welsh\Cornish accents in order to underline their rusticity. The implications of this are intriguing (linguistically at the very least) and one wonders to what areas beyond linguistics it might extand. Comments? --Jason ============================= Jason G. Hawke University of Washington (206) 517-7916 cimon@u.washington.edu ============================== From books-owner Wed Apr 19 05:15:33 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA35115 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 05:15:32 GMT Received: from wolfram.ucs.indiana.edu (wolfram.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.181.202]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id BAA11302 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 01:15:29 -0400 Received: from ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu (ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.181.201]) by wolfram.ucs.indiana.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id AAA13584 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:06:30 -0500 Received: by ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu (1.38.110.45/16.2) id AA159197989; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:06:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 00:06:27 -0500 (EST) From: cherie kartchner woodworth X-Sender: cwoodwor@ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu To: books Subject: progress Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I feel I have been misunderstood, and that misunderstanding continues to grow. My point was not that writing doesn't confer great advantages (as Mr. O'D pointed out, no culture has voluntarily forsaken writing, once it was acquired.) And conversing by e-mail is undoubtedly better than banging rocks. However, I know that as a scholar who lives in the library, I sometimes think that writing is the *only* story. I have to remind myself that centuries of literacy have not meant that oral culture has been completely displaced. Writing is good for a great many things; but spoken communication is better in a few areas. If we were to examine modern studies of oral culture, might we not find parallels with or insights into the oral culture of ancient Greece? Oral culture has its own strengths, and is quite persistent over time. For example, my research right now concerns a tale that was first recorded in 16th century Russia, with obvious folkloric roots. Ethnographers later returned to the villages (in the 19th century, and in the 1920s, 1950s, and 1960s) and found that the tale had persisted in the oral tradition--undoubtedly influenced by the written version, but with a vitality all its own. I now return you to your regular programming..... From books-owner Wed Apr 19 05:27:57 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA43966 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 05:27:56 GMT Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu (homer17.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id BAA16053; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 01:27:52 -0400 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA74393; Tue, 18 Apr 95 22:28:46 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer17.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:28:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: "James O'Donnell" Cc: books Subject: Re: Bryce, cross, etc. In-Reply-To: <199504181445.KAA26230@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk <> On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, James O'Donnell wrote: > So Bryce says: "Depth, then, rooted beneath the earth, is the strength of > the penetrating humble herb, hyssop, which is representative of the > healing charity of Christ." How *true* is that proposition for > Augustine? Suppose I said, *that's not what the Cross means, that's a > silly interpretation!* Would he disagree with me? If I had another > complicated pro-Christian reading of it, would he say I was "wrong"? If > not, what's the value of that manipulation of signs? > Remember, Constantine saw a cross in the heavens and heard the > wordsd "In this sign you shall conquer" or roughly, "Under this > standard/symbol you shall conquer". One hundred fifty years later, accdg > to legend, St. Patrick met the founder of the O'Donnell family, converted > him to Christianity, and miraculously emblazoned a fiery red cross on his > shield, which means that you can go to Dublin today and buy the O'D family > coat of arms with a hand holding a cross and the legend "In hoc signo > vinces" under it. > Two other points: in medieval iconography, already in Aug. very > explicitly, the wood of the cross = the wood of the bark, and so you > climb up on the wood of the cross to sail through the flood to reach > port. And: later medieval iconography had it that the wood of the cross > came from the tree that Adam ate from, and that the "skull place" > (Golgotha) got its name from having people buried there, among them Adam > himself, so you would get a representation of the crucifixion with an > underground skull of Adam out of which the tree/cross rises. > This leads, as Bryce rightly says, towards book 3, which is all > about that kind of non-literal, initially obscure signification . . . We > get there by figuring out the value of obscurity . . . > > The name Hawke was originally an old Cornish name, Hawken, belonging to a minor noble family of county Cornwall (extreme southwest England) associated with the more established and more prominent ole Norman French noble house of Stackhouse. Both sided with the Yorkists in the War of the Roses (whose badge was a white rose) versus the House of Lancaster (whose symbol was the red rose); the Yorkists, of course, lost initially, and my ancestors, hoping to avoid the wrath of the Lancasters, dropped the "n" from the end of the name, so that they might escape notice. Some 500 years later, when discussing with my ex-fiancee the attire for our wedding (which never came to pass), she suggested I wear a red rose, to which I responded (Quite reflexively, surprisingly), "I would rather die than wear that Lancaster badge." --Jason ============================== Jason G. Hawke University of Washington (206) 517-7916 cimon@u.washington.edu ============================== From books-owner Wed Apr 19 11:32:50 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id LAA27894 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:32:49 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id HAA38129 for books; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 07:32:47 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504191132.HAA38129@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: progress To: books Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 07:32:46 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "cherie kartchner woodworth" at Apr 19, 95 00:06:27 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 135 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On progress, I'll just say that the chapter in Clanchy "on not being prejudiced in favor of literacy" awaits and repays study. jo'd From books-owner Wed Apr 19 17:14:06 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id RAA27228 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 17:14:04 GMT Received: from homer04.u.washington.edu (homer04.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id NAA43350 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:13:58 -0400 Received: by homer04.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA108140; Wed, 19 Apr 95 10:13:30 -0700 X-Sender: rstaffel@homer04.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 10:13:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Rebecca Staffel To: Jason Hawke Cc: books Subject: Re: FW: ETIQUETTE - "Guilty of receptive noninitiation, your honor" (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Jason -- The hardest part about writing this is knowing how easy it will be for you to dismiss me as humorless and touchy, which are two adjectives I've never been associated with. But taking that chance, and hoping that you instead see me as both a human and a colleague, I have to ask -- why did you forward that "humor" to our list? I've been trying to figure out the relevancy of it to our various discussions, but all I can come up with is that it is a good illustration of the "armor" that email provides us with. I can't imagine that you'd stand up and say any of those things in class. Sure, some of them are absurd and laughable, but some of those instances of "dumb rules" are taken out of the context of terrible, painful, hurtful experiences that women have gone through while making their way through university life. Your making fun of them says to me that either 1) you don't care, or 2) you don't believe that harrassment or discrimination occurs, or 3) you think it's okay. It doesn't matter which one of those happens to be true for you -- what matters is your display of those beliefs to the entire list. I may have forwarded a tasteless joke or two to friends, myself, but the important thing is that I chose my audience carefully. You may send all of your money to NOW and regularly march in Take Back the Night demonstrations, but since I don't know that, I can only assume that you are hostile to my presence in the class on account of my sex, because of what you have forwarded to the list. Please, please, tell me that I've misunderstood, and show me how this relates to sign theory or the transition from oral to written culture. I don't think I'm alone in the confusion as to the reasons for your post. Still ready to laugh at a good joke, Rebecca From books-owner Wed Apr 19 18:24:36 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id SAA40916 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 18:24:35 GMT Received: from wolfram.ucs.indiana.edu (wolfram.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.181.202]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id OAA40908; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 14:24:31 -0400 Received: from ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu (ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.181.201]) by wolfram.ucs.indiana.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id NAA27185; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:00:08 -0500 Received: by ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu (1.38.110.45/16.2) id AA176134407; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:00:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:00:05 -0500 (EST) From: cherie kartchner woodworth X-Sender: cwoodwor@ezmail.ucs.indiana.edu To: Rebecca Staffel Cc: Jason Hawke , books Subject: Re: FW: ETIQUETTE - "Guilty of receptive noninitiation, your honor" (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Thank you, Rebecca, for saying so eloquently what I felt as well. It was disconcerting to find that "joke" plopped down in an academic discussion. But, as with you, I am anxious to bear no grudges. cherie woodworth remote From books-owner Wed Apr 19 19:03:04 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id TAA08676 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 19:03:03 GMT Received: from homer03.u.washington.edu (homer03.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id PAA05596 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 15:02:55 -0400 Received: by homer03.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA119740; Wed, 19 Apr 95 12:03:44 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer03.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 12:03:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: Rebecca Staffel Cc: books Subject: Re: FW: ETIQUETTE - "Guilty of receptive noninitiation, your honor" (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Rebecca Staffel wrote: > Dear Jason -- > > The hardest part about writing this is knowing how easy it will be for > you to dismiss me as humorless and touchy, which are two adjectives I've > never been associated with. But taking that chance, and hoping that you > instead see me as both a human and a colleague, I have to ask -- why did > you forward that "humor" to our list? > > I've been trying to figure out the relevancy of it to our various > discussions, but all I can come up with is that it is a good illustration > of the "armor" that email provides us with. I can't imagine that you'd > stand up and say any of those things in class. Sure, some of them are > absurd and laughable, but some of those instances of "dumb rules" are > taken out of the context of terrible, painful, hurtful experiences that > women have gone through while making their way through university life. > Your making fun of them says to me that either 1) you don't care, or 2) > you don't believe that harrassment or discrimination occurs, or 3) you > think it's okay. > > It doesn't matter which one of those happens to be true for you -- what > matters is your display of those beliefs to the entire list. I may have > forwarded a tasteless joke or two to friends, myself, but the important > thing is that I chose my audience carefully. You may send all of your > money to NOW and regularly march in Take Back the Night demonstrations, > but since I don't know that, I can only assume that you are hostile to my > presence in the class on account of my sex, because of what you have BB> forwarded to the list. > > Please, please, tell me that I've misunderstood, and show me how this > relates to sign theory or the transition from oral to written culture. I > don't think I'm alone in the confusion as to the reasons for your post. > > Still ready to laugh at a good joke, > > Rebecca > BB Dear Fellow Participants (and particularly Rebecca): I want to extend my deepest apologies for any offense I may have caused in forwarding the humor list which I had received. It was certainly not my intention to do so, and I want to express that I am in fact sensitive to those things which Rebecca has pointed out. Again, no offense was intended, and my reason for forwarding this was not to ingratiate myself by forwarding tasteless jokes or to get a chuckle out of anyone. If this had come from a news list or off the web, I would have forwarded it. The fact of its source is an unhappy one, and I realize that, couched in "humor," it created a very negative connotation for a number of people. Its presentation as "humor" was, again, not my intention. I thought it might be of *interest*, as explained below... My reasons for the post were simply these: we have been talking about the fact that Plato maintained that the written word was not to be preferred -- oral communication (i.e., to Plato, face-to-face communication) was preferable, for the speaker(s) could defend their actions, and thus the communication "lived," and a better understanding could be obtained by the communicants. I found these examples which were posted to the list as cases of the misunderstandings which can arise even in personal communication, and thought that it might impel some discussion as to how written communication, though depersonalizing, might lead to clearer expression and avoidance of personal interactions through which miscommunications can and do arise, whether intentional or otherwise (as has been observed elsewhere in these discussions). Unfortunately, I unwittingly demonstrated the second principle here without more fulling stating my reasons for throwing these things out for discussion. Again, I deeply apologize -- when I turned on my e-mail last night I found 108 messages waiting for me and I rushed through a number of things I would rather have not in order to catch up. My own personal feelings regarding the behavior exhibited in the items contained in "ETIQUETTE" is that it is reprehensible and inexcusable, and I was not forwarding it as a "humor" item, as I hope I have explained. Let me reiterate -- to all those whom I have offended in any way, I am truly sorry, and if ever I post something again so potentially controversial, I will take the time to explain my reasons why when doing so. If there is anything I can do to make further amends (and this extends not only to Rebecca but to anyone who was understandably upset by this), please do not hesitate to let me know. My sincerest apologies, Jason ============================= Jason G. Hawke University of Washington (206) 517-7916 cimon@u.washington.edu ============================= From books-owner Wed Apr 19 20:34:55 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id UAA33803 for books-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 20:34:54 GMT Received: from homer12.u.washington.edu (homer12.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id QAA43014 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 16:34:50 -0400 Received: by homer12.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA24534; Wed, 19 Apr 95 13:35:44 -0700 X-Sender: palin@homer12.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:35:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Erica Palin To: Cultures list Subject: The Translation of Texts Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I would like to address a subject that was touched upon in class which is of great interest to me, this subject being the translation of the bible from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and the possible loss of meaning that goes along with this prossess.One question I have is whether the the King James version of the Bible was translated from Hebrew directly into English or was it translated from Latin into English. If the latter is the case then what we read in our English translation is so far removed from its original form that there must be a substancial degradation of original meaning. I have heard that each Hebrew letter had a numerical value and that the combinations of letters gave numerical references to other passages, works, ect., so that only someone who was part of the Hebrew textual community would be aware of these references and understand them, such that without this knowledge the true meaning of the writings is lost. If this is so what can be said about the validity of the English bible that can be bought at any book store today and, for that matter, the Latin manuscript that St. Augustine worked from in the 4th c. I recognize the fact that St.Augustine is coming from the point of view that the translation, even though possible ambiguities may arise from untranslatable words from the original text, still represents the word of God (see 2.15.22).I would like to call attention to the line in which St.A. states the following; "...that the books which the Jewish nation refused to transmit to other peoples, either out of envy or for religious reasons, might be revealed so early, by the authority and power of King Ptolemy, to the nations which in the future were to believe in Our Lord." My understanding of the refusal of the Jewish nation to translate the books is that the Hebrew language is the chosen language of God for the revelation of His word, and that to translate His word into a different language means a corruption of His word. This belief in the degradation of Gods word through translation can also a big part of the Islamic tradition. In a book that I have been reading called _Islam;the Way of Submission_,by Soloman Nigosian, the author states that it is believed that all of the previous revelations of Gods word through the profits were "adulterated by human imperfections."(ch.5,pg.111) and that" the Qur'an is God's final revelation-the perfection and culmination of all truth-sent through His angel to Muhammed for all mankind." Not only is it believed that the Qur'an is the unadulterated word of God but that the language it was revealed in, Arabic, is the sacred language that God chose as the instrument for the revelation of His word.Thus translation of the Qur'an into other languages has been a heated subject of debate for Muslims.It is believed that the translation of the Qur'an can convey the basic meaning of the Qur'an but can not be experienced as the true word of God in translation. Part of this belief stems from the fact that the Arabic found in the Qur'an is so eliquent and pure that it can only be emulated but never actually matched, giving it an untouchable and sacred quality and proving it's divine origin. Something else that I found interesting in reading this book is the importance of oral transmission of the Qur'an. The word Qur'an in Arabic means Recitation and the basis of Muslim faith and piety is in the vocal articulation of the Qur'an. A Muslim must memorize and recite the Qur'an outloud. This chanting of the Qur'an is at the heart of Islam.The power of the Qur'an comes the individual memorizing and reciting the words of the Qur'an. Although there are individuals who recite for an audience and are particularly skilled at the recitation of the Qur'an, all individuals are obligated to memorize and recite it. Erica From books-owner Thu Apr 20 01:09:37 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id BAA29466 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 01:09:37 GMT Received: from homer11.u.washington.edu (homer11.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.12]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id VAA15124 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 21:09:30 -0400 Received: by homer11.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA91839; Wed, 19 Apr 95 18:10:24 -0700 X-Sender: rstaffel@homer11.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 18:10:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Rebecca Staffel To: The List Subject: Flame war averted and an illustration of problems in interpretation Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Hi Jason and everybody, Jason, thank you for the quick response and explanation, and many thanks, also, to those who wrote me individually. This situation that we've passed through brings up lots of great questions (which, I guess, was more or less the original intent). So what should we do with this wonderful illustration of problems in interpretation, no matter what the medium? Is email the best or worst of both worlds? As I've said before, I like the possibility of thinking over and editing what I say/write before I hit ^X (something I can't do in class), and I also like the fact that I can quickly get a response from others in the discussion. But on the other hand, ^X can be hit hastily, and the others in the discussion can ignore me (less possible in a classroom, I would submit) or misunderstand me (possible everywhere). Smileys can only carry a small tidbit of the emotions I wish to transmit. And, as I mentioned to someone recently, when we each read the discussion in our own rooms, there's no way of knowing if collective eye-rolling or collective applause is taking place in response to various posts. I think that makes it difficult to move the discussion along sometimes, because we're missing all the visual cues which would otherwise guide us in the direction of consensus. So I guess we're in a phase of creating rules for our new hybrid of orality and text. There must be a few Platos lurking here who are suspicious of the new technology, along with some Phaedruses (Phaedri?) who are tentative, yet anxious to embrace it (I can fit in either group, it just depends on the day). And maybe there's an Augustine ready to give us rules to use it and decode it... We've looked at Plato's and Augustine's handbooks, should we be creating our own? Professor O'Donnell, what is the mission of our "extra-aulular" discussion? Or is there one? Or is figuring out what to do with it part of the plan? If it is, it certainly sounds reasonable, and I don't mind being a part of the guinea pigs/pioneers. But I thought I'd ask, just in case :-) (there's that darned smiley!). Are we straying from the path, or are we forging a new one? Thanks for listening/reading/thinking, Rebecca From books-owner Thu Apr 20 02:04:14 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA22490 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 02:04:13 GMT Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id WAA20692 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:04:09 -0400 Received: from mx.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id TAA22338; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 19:05:01 -0700 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 19:05:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199504200205.TAA22338@seanet.com> X-Sender: cicero@pop.seanet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: books From: cicero@cicero.seanet.com (Bryce Carpenter) Subject: sensitivity Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk The novelty of e-mail is something that we all may not entirely admit to be effected by. Indeed it is hardly a new experience for many in the seminar. The scope of experience, among the seminar participants, with this sort of thing ranges from the knowing professionals to those of us who just recently had to get an e-mail account for JOD's course(s). Nevertheless, the e-mail discussion list for the Cultures of the Book seminar this quarter is a new experience for all of us. Rebecca pointed out to me that neither we, the seminar, nor JOD made any ground rules for the list and are simply making up the rules as we go along. This is indeed true. Given events as they have transpired, maybe some ground rules do need to be set. I admit, though, that it makes me shudder to have to apply *rules* to an academic environment, and I'm not quite sure that they can apply. As students we are left to our best judgement as to what is appropriate and permissible to say in class. The discussion between Shawn, Brian, and JOD regarding just this subject brings forward many interesting points. Even if that discussion fails to answer all the questions for all the people, there is plenty there to fuel thought concerning our in-class attitude, posture, and argument. As far as this list is concerned, I believe that we should treat it as part of the class. When I read the syllabus I understood just that and I believe that all seminar participants would agree on at least that. Thus the list should be approached with like bearing and decorum as the classroom. The immediacy of e-mail can in the user create a casual sense, almost conversational. But, we also have the luxury of editing our work, a luxury that we don't enjoy in class. In class, some of us, myself especially, often have to argue out of holes created by our own words. That is where e-mail differs (whether it falls short or not is another argument) from conversation. With e-mail, we can carefully compose and edit what it is we wish to share, and do so always with the notion of relevance and the scrutiny of our audience in mind. And of this audience I would remind everyone, myself as well, of the diversity within. Diversity, as a buzzword of the modern cosmopolitan university, may be beginning to sound stale to some. Whatever. I think that we need to be aware and consious of it. By keeping the diverse nature of the class in mind, we should all make the extra effort to consider our audience. Not just the diverse nature of the audience, but what is important enough to convey should be considered. We should use this list as we would classtime and not waste time. It's a shame that we need events as such to remind us of it, but let it serve to do just that. Even though the class consists largely of historians and classicists, we are all quite different and unique. The class, itself, is part of the class. So as we approach class with scholarly conduct, let us approach each other with the same, at least in class, which includes this list. From books-owner Thu Apr 20 02:08:02 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA24379 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 02:08:01 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id WAA11569 for books; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:07:57 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504200207.WAA11569@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Flame war averted and an illustration of problems in interpretation To: books Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:07:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Rebecca Staffel" at Apr 19, 95 06:10:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1151 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Tomorrow: Experiment with "talking" in that session and see if you can "talk" about the Gal. 4.21-31 passage. That puts a "text in this class" for sure! I'll be there if I can. Yesterday: I'm glad the misunderstanding was gotten around while I was still thinking about how to respond. I'm still not sure there aren't issues left up in the air, but better to deal with them, I think, face to face. Put it this way: notice how *little* it takes to evoke very large issues and very politicized communities. Why should that be? And why is "political correctness" so neuralgic an issue? It's about subjecting informal discourse to high textual norms: why do we either want to do this or fear that other people want to do this? And HOW did it get to be the case that the political RIGHT in America got to portray the LEFT as repressing freedom of speech? I feel sometimes like Rip Van Winkle waking up. And how did attacking the left for repressing freedom of speech become itself so effective a tool for . . . repressing freedom of speech? All very confusing. At any rate, greetings from Mobile AL, where it's hot and humid. From books-owner Thu Apr 20 02:54:34 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA14997 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 02:54:33 GMT Received: from homer04.u.washington.edu (homer04.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id WAA24720 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:54:29 -0400 Received: by homer04.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA109822; Wed, 19 Apr 95 19:55:24 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer04.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 19:55:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: books Subject: Thoughts on Augustine Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Hello to all -- The other night, as I was reading Book Two of *On Christian Doctrine*, I chanced upon a system of note-taking which I thought I would share, for it made the decipherment of Augustine's complex and multi-leveled writing style much easier at least for me. In the past I have always struggled to separate what Augustine is saying from what he may or may not mean, and again to separate these from how he is saying it. Suddenly, I found myself discovering a great deal that I don't believe an even more-than-casual straightforward reading might have revealed, at least for me. If it is of use to anyone else, great. If not, I thought it was at least my duty to pass along the discovery, so please bear with me. I essentially drew a line down the middle of the page, dividing it into two columns, heading the left and right as "Structure" and "Information" respectively. Under Structure I catalogued the device(s) used by Augustine to convey his ideas, which I then listed under Information. The results were interesting to me anyway, as I began to wonder if I were over-analyzing the text and finding things that Augustine never expected anyone to notice, either because he placed them there subconsciously or because he did not place them there at all, and what then "gurgles up" as it were is nothing more than coincidences revealed by overly zealous interpretation. Be that as it may, I will throw out some of my observations, and of course welcome any comments... [All references to passages are book and paragraph, not book and chapter] First and foremost, I was struck by Augustine's use (if he did in fact use it) of numerical devices in the first part of Book II, and given his advice (II.25) not to be ignorant of the significance of numbers, I am prompted to wonder, for I am not that familiar with Augustine, just how into numerology was he? Anyway, back to the point. I noticed he used the first *seven* paragraphs to talk about *signs*, following a progression from general to specific (signs in general, natural signs, conventional signs, conventional signs which are words, words which are written rather than spoken, the written signs which make up the Sacred Scripture, the sign which is the Sacred Scripture). The use of seven crops up again when he talks about the seven steps by which cleansing of the eye of the heart is achieved (he enumerates the steps in paragraphs 9-11) and thus the "eye" of the heart can "see" the brightness of the Trinity, which is actually too bright to behold, the two-fold love of God and neighbor is sought, and the clean-hearted holy man prefers neither himself nor his neighbor to the Trinity, nor anything else to Truth -- thus he ascends to the seventh step, where he enjoys peace and tranquility. In light of the use of Seven in Revelation and the fact that it is so intermeshed there with the vocabulary of ambiguous signs which Augustine is emphasizing, and that the ultimate end of the process of seven consecutive steps is the very goal to which every holy man should obtain -- i.e., true peace and tranquility (perhaps a metaphor for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth?), it led me to think that the parallel was no accident. Thoughts? He refers back to the Trinity as of importance, and I thought I also discerned in the first three steps of the seven step process the type of Trinitarian construction which Augustine used both in Book I of this work as wel as in the *Confessions*. In paragraphs nine and ten he discusses the first three steps -- *fear* of God (Who will be the arbiter of Judgment), *piety* as the sacred books, the Word of God on Earth, force one to lament his own situation (as a sinner for whom God sent his Son to die in atonement? Augustine was certainly big on the doctrine of original sin) -- *piety* thus perhaps is symbolic of Christ. Finally there is *knowledge*, which involves the interpretation of the Word, and in which one might see the Holy Spirit, which was for Augustine the divine force for which the Church stood as the physical manifestation. In fact, as I mentioned yesterday in class, in paragraph 12, Augustine underlines knowledge as the key step, and there goes on to talk about the canon as determined by the authority of the Churches. I also found interesting that it is in paragraph 27 (3x3x3=27) that he underscores the threefold nature which is in everything, using specifically the example of the Muses. Like I said, this may be penetrating beyond what is really there, but I would find the "coincidences" striking. Can't wait to hear from you! Jason From books-owner Thu Apr 20 03:45:59 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA22865 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 03:45:58 GMT Received: from homer04.u.washington.edu (homer04.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA12618 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 23:45:54 -0400 Received: by homer04.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA80516; Wed, 19 Apr 95 20:46:47 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer04.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 20:46:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: books Subject: A parallel problem? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk One more thought about Augustine -- I found it intriguing that in paragraph 8 of Book II, Augustine says: "...no one doubts that things are perceived more readily through similitudes..." Whereas Plato in the *Phaedrus* says (246): "To describe it as it is would require a long exposition of which only a god is capable; but it is within the power of man to say...what it resembles." Also, we all recall that Plato used the image of writing to refer to something indelibly "written on the soul," in other words, defining what he means by expressing it in terms which represent the antithesis of what he means. In light of this, I found the following in paragraph 11 of Book II in Augustine rather interesting: "...he cleanses that eye through which God may be seen, in so far as He can be seen by those who die to this world as much as they are able....And now although the light of the Trinity begins to appear more certainly, and not only more tolerably but also more joyfully, it is still said to appear `through a glass in a dark manner' for `we walk more by faith than by sight'..." I found Augustine's uses of sight to express the idea of what really can not be seena fascinating one, and wondered if this phenomenon of using what can be seen (Plato's writing on the soul or Augustine's light which can be seen but dimly) is technology-dependent, i.e., what is seen becomes the default for what is "real" as opposed to what is heard once a society becomes literate. The ancient Greeks used the same word for "I see\perceive\behold" (*eido*), which in its perfect sense, "I have seen" (*oida*) was actually used as a present meaning "I know." My Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon informs me that the use of forms of *eido* to mean "knowing\acknowledging" stretches back to the Homeric epics, so apparently in the case of the Greeks at least such a relationship would seem elusive to establish. Yet the Latin cognate for *eido*, *video*, did not acquire such a dual meaning, or if it ever did, lost it by historical times. Is "seeing is believing" then entirely culture-dependent? Or, put another way, if the language of a culture is a road-map to its thought processes (and I here emphasize the if) what sort of expectations and assumptions will be built into a culture which regards seeing and believing as two sides of the same coin when the value of writing is considered? How is any attempt to get at such assumptions undermined by a Plato, who despite the "seeing-knowing" vocabulary of his culture nonetheless prefers what is spoken to what is written? Sincerely, Jason From books-owner Thu Apr 20 04:57:34 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA24789 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 04:57:33 GMT Received: from shiva1.cac.washington.edu (shiva1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.201]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA22992 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:57:30 -0400 Received: by shiva1.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA04263; Wed, 19 Apr 95 21:58:24 -0700 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 21:58:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Linda Wright To: books Subject: Christian Liberation or Reader Liberation? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk When Augustine addresses his Christian readers in book three he repeatedly contrasts spiritual freedom with carnal servitude, and refers frequently to "Christian liberation". Christians will find the means by which cupidity is to be overthrown in the Scriptures, and Christian liberation frees signs for Christian use. The physical act of reading is the focus of discussion now (rather than the physical artifact, bk 2), and it liberates the soul through knowledge. Reading is liberation. Is this another way in which Christianity, a religion of the book, managed to enjoy such success? (An ambiguous term, "success", but one I will employ.) Many have argued that Christians first made greatest use of that new technology, the codex book. Was it also the first religious (or even philosophical) movement to recognize the reader as a viable audience and serious consumer? I keep returning to that idea of "Christian liberation" and struggle to further express ideas on how this elevates the reader of Holy Scripture to a position in which s/he has greater private access to spiritual redemption. The act of reading itself is liberating, and seems to me at least to be a novel approach to spiritual growth (at the time Augustine is writing). It takes responsibility for the individual's soul out of the complete control of the Church and its authorities, and puts it into the hands of its consumers. Salvation is literally put into the hands of the reader, and Augustine shows him/her how to use the texts to their fullest advantage. The focus of attention shifts from the written text to reading. Previously my own interest has been in the physical text itself and the activities surrounding its production. Augustine has finally made me realize the attention and consideration that must also be given to the reader. The passage in Galatians which we are to read for tomorrow also contrasts slavery and freedom. I am far from sure how we are to interpret this passage and its signs, but believe one way might be to recall the liberation of scholarship from the pagans (along with their gold and clothing) in order to apply it to Christian uses. I come to this possibility through the casting out of the son of the bondswoman (son of the flesh), so that he not be heir with the son of the freewoman: overthrowing of carnal servitude by spiritual freedom. I haven't found exactly the answer I'm searching for over the past few days, so for now this remains an incomplete chapter in my term project to better understand the _cult_ of the book. -Linda From books-owner Thu Apr 20 05:12:05 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA12292 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 05:12:04 GMT Received: from homer06.u.washington.edu (homer06.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id BAA28158 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 01:12:01 -0400 Received: by homer06.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA45359; Wed, 19 Apr 95 22:12:55 -0700 X-Sender: sablack@homer06.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:12:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "S. Blackmon" To: books Cc: sablack Subject: quick note Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Hi everyone, Sorry I have been remiss the last few days in my e-mail writing, but I have been sick and I have had to fill in for a manager at work. I was just sitting down to read the bible, (I must say I had to unpack a few boxes to find it) I wanted to confirm the pages we were to read, *Galatians 4.21-31*, thanks Jod, but I am a little dismayed at what was there. I really do not know what to compare in these pasages, either I am totally out of sink or my bible is. I believe this bible was given to my mother in her sunday school class in 1954, and it was already used before that. It also says that it was translated from the original Greek? Oh well I must dwell on this for awhile. I hope to have some exciting news from the world of Jack Goody (My assigned reading ). The only problem is that his books are either checked out untill the end of May or missing from the shelves. I will start a hunt at the public Library tomorrow. Anyone who can help with this search please let me know. One last note for tonight, on the point of weather reading(books) is better or not than e-mail type advances, I must say it is alot easier to curl up at night with my flashlight(So not to wake the husband) and read a book, then it will ever be to curl up with a computer, yes David even your supper dupper laptop. A book must be *of the flesh*, a guilty pleasure that some of us still enjoy. Unlike the seemingly cold and hard technology that so many crave. Well its late I need to get to work. I hope to join you all tomorrow on-line. I would like to hear thoughts on the sheep and the whole freewoman/bondwoman thing in Galatians. Shelley From books-owner Thu Apr 20 06:46:44 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id GAA09651 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 06:46:43 GMT Received: from homer15.u.washington.edu (homer15.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.16]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id CAA19374; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 02:46:40 -0400 Received: by homer15.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA69177; Wed, 19 Apr 95 23:47:32 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer15.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 23:47:32 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: "S. Blackmon" Cc: books, sablack Subject: Re: quick note In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, S. Blackmon wrote: > One last note for tonight, on the point of weather reading(books) is > better or not than e-mail type advances, I must say it is alot easier to > curl up at night with my flashlight(So not to wake the husband) and read > a book, then it will ever be to curl up with a computer, yes David even > your supper dupper laptop. A book must be *of the flesh*, a guilty > pleasure that some of us still enjoy. Unlike the seemingly cold and hard > technology that so many crave. Shelly, I write this as I am lieing in bed next to the woman to whom I am married, and her comment is "I find your computer irritating after 10:30 at night." While I agree the book may be less intrusive today as a physical technology, the computer and more important the link provides material that can not be duplicated in printed text. e.g. an exciting flamewar averted among colleagues and scintillating dialogue with any number of potential points of conversation. All from the comfort of my nocturnal abode. Until tomorrow, David Until tomorrow, David - Brian call me at 819-2271 - and anyone else who might want to give the virtual class room a look see before class DN. From books-owner Thu Apr 20 08:57:00 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id IAA21994 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 08:56:59 GMT Received: from homer12.u.washington.edu (homer12.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id EAA18914 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 04:56:55 -0400 Received: by homer12.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA42913; Thu, 20 Apr 95 01:57:48 -0700 X-Sender: drusus@homer12.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 01:57:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ross To: Jason Hawke Cc: books Subject: Re: A parallel problem? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Jason Hawke wrote: > > The ancient Greeks used the same word for "I see\perceive\behold" > (*eido*), which in its perfect sense, "I have seen" (*oida*) was actually > used as a present meaning "I know." My Liddell-Scott Greek-English > Lexicon informs me that the use of forms of *eido* to mean > "knowing\acknowledging" stretches back to the Homeric epics, so > apparently in the case of the Greeks at least such a relationship would > seem elusive to establish. Yet the Latin cognate for *eido*, *video*, > did not acquire such a dual meaning, or if it ever did, lost it by > historical times. Is "seeing is believing" then entirely > culture-dependent? Or, put another way, if the language of a culture is > a road-map to its thought processes (and I here emphasize the if) what > sort of expectations and assumptions will be built into a culture which > regards seeing and believing as two sides of the same coin when the value > of writing is considered? How is any attempt to get at such assumptions > undermined by a Plato, who despite the "seeing-knowing" vocabulary of his > culture nonetheless prefers what is spoken to what is written? > > Sincerely, > > Jason > > The relationship between the ideas of "seeing" and knowing gets even more complicated. According to my Cassell's Latin & English Dictionary, *video, videre* can be used to mean "see" in the English sense of "to understand". What is even more interesting, however, is that the basic meaning of *intellego, intellegere* is "to discern or perceive"; the "knowing" of *intellego* is still directly related to and based upon sensory input (especially sight), not innate knowledge or rememberance. This gets even better. A Greek cognate of *intellego* is *lego*, which means to arrange, to gather, or to choose (to pick things up or lay thing down), but also means to speak, say, utter, or communicate by word or mouth. I am also fairly sure that the Greek word meaning "to read" is related to this; I seem to remember that it had something to do with "picking out" letters on the page, I just can't seem to remember what it is right now. Poking around a bit, I also notice the Latin *accipio, accipere* means to take or accept, then to hear or to feel, then to grasp or to learn. Thus a verb of learning/knowing also derives from a word describing non-sight sensory input. It appears to me (there's another interesting word, "appear" which deals with both external sights in internal opinions, and has parallels in both Greek, *dokew*, and Latin, *videri--passive voice of videre*), that Augustine was astute when he observed, "Among the signs by means of which men express their meanings to one another, some pertain to the sense of sight, more to the sense of hearing, and very few to the other senses (II.4)." The concepts of "seeing", "hearing", and "knowing" seem closely related to one another and connected with the idea of communication, either by speech or (I think) writing. Goodnight all, --Shawn Ross From books-owner Thu Apr 20 18:34:16 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id SAA26672 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 18:34:13 GMT Received: from shiva2.cac.washington.edu (shiva2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.202]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id OAA12578; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:34:00 -0400 Received: by shiva2.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA07408; Thu, 20 Apr 95 11:34:52 -0700 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:34:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Linda Wright To: Shawn Ross Cc: Jason Hawke , books Subject: Re: A parallel problem? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Shawn Ross wrote: > both Greek, *dokew*, and Latin, *videri--passive voice of videre*), that > Augustine was astute when he observed, "Among the signs by means of which > men express their meanings to one another, some pertain to the sense of > sight, more to the sense of hearing, and very few to the other senses > (II.4)." The concepts of "seeing", "hearing", and "knowing" seem > closely related to one another and connected with the idea of > communication, either by speech or (I think) writing. Concomitant to this discussion on "seeing/knowing" and the relationship of "seeing", "hearing", and "knowing" in commun- ication, I've come across an article on reading and praying audibly in Classical Philology. It talks about what texts "say", "tell us", etc. The article is only two photocopied sheets and I'd be happy to bring a few copies to class if anyone is interested. (Please drop me a private note.) Jason brings up the "road-map" to a culture's thought processes. These references to "walking" in the texts we've read continue to catch my eye, but I don't know what to make of them yet. (Augustine mentions "walking through the forest of prophecy" and being led by the "pathways of light" which are his rules. Fascinating, but I need to do more work with these images to find out why they interest me so, and what they might mean. -Linda From books-owner Thu Apr 20 20:15:59 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id UAA34447 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 20:15:58 GMT Received: from shiva2.cac.washington.edu (shiva2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.202]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id QAA21639 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:15:54 -0400 Received: by shiva2.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA11409; Thu, 20 Apr 95 13:16:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:16:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Linda Wright To: books Subject: Transcript of Today's Class Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk For those of you who can't make it to the Penn MOO classroom today, I will be capturing the session and will be happy to provide you with a copy. Please send email to me personally if you want this transcription. I hope you can all make it! -Linda lwright@cac.washington.edu From books-owner Thu Apr 20 20:23:59 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id UAA13812 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 20:23:58 GMT Received: from homer10.u.washington.edu (homer10.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id QAA25575 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:23:54 -0400 Received: by homer10.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA90249; Thu, 20 Apr 95 13:24:48 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer10.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:24:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: books Subject: Please help Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Dear fellow participants -- I hit a wrong keystroke and accidentally axed Jod's instructions for getting to the virtual classroom. If any of you could forward me a copy before you go, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Sincerely, Jason From books-owner Thu Apr 20 20:34:54 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id UAA32416 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 20:34:50 GMT Received: from homer07.u.washington.edu (homer07.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id QAA28569 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:34:43 -0400 Received: by homer07.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA40604; Thu, 20 Apr 95 13:35:37 -0700 X-Sender: rstaffel@homer07.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:35:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Rebecca Staffel To: The List Subject: More Help? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk So... uhhh... I'm able to telnet in, but then nothing happens besides the display of the welcome screen. Now what? (Gee, I hope someone else is doing this with several windows open and sees my plea!) Rebecca From books-owner Thu Apr 20 22:18:27 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id WAA26454 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 22:18:26 GMT Received: from homer19.u.washington.edu (homer19.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.3]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id SAA14161 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 18:18:23 -0400 Received: by homer19.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA58940; Thu, 20 Apr 95 15:19:16 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer19.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 15:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: books Subject: Thank you all Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk To everyone (and especially Linda, Rebecca, David N, David O): Thanks for the call to arms and helping me get on the system so I could participate in our "virtual class" today. I will see you all on Tuesday; have a great weekend! Sincerely, Jason From books-owner Thu Apr 20 23:15:04 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA32756 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 23:15:03 GMT Received: from homer01.u.washington.edu (homer01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id TAA28137 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:14:55 -0400 Received: by homer01.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA56121; Thu, 20 Apr 95 16:15:48 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer01.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:15:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Green To: The List Subject: the moo Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk To be honest, I didn't like it very much. I felt some frustration at the way the subject under discussion kept metamorphosing, kept bouncing in different, dizzying directions.... the way you have to hold so&so's question from four messages back in your head as you try to answer somebody else's question, and still keeping up with what's being said. Well, then again, it wasn't that bad all the time, only some of the time. I could get used to it. Not much different, I suppose, from getting used to traditional discussion settings. And, after all, it was not useless...perhaps we struck Egyptian gold a few times....(the MOO itself is Egyptian gold for us academics).... "Amber" :) From books-owner Thu Apr 20 23:48:54 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA14057 for books-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 23:48:53 GMT Received: from homer10.u.washington.edu (homer10.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id TAA21728 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:48:49 -0400 Received: by homer10.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA97031; Thu, 20 Apr 95 16:49:42 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer10.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:49:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian D Green To: The List Subject: Rom 8:33-34/OCD THREE:III:6 (p.81) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On page 81 (Book 3, chapter 3, paragraph 6) of On Xn Doctrine, Aug tells us that reading verses 33 and 34 of Romans 8 as two questions followed by two *answers* would be "utter madness." Instead, he says, the question "Who shall accuse against the elect of God?" is followed by a *rhetorical question* with an implied negative response: "God that justifieth?" (that is: "*God* that *JUSTIFIETH*??!!!??"). And similarly for verse 34: "Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that Died, yea that is also risen again; who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us???!!!!??" My King James pretty clearly doesn't follow Augustine's reading: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? *It is* God that justifieth. Who is he that condemmeth? *It is* Christ that died...." (emphasis added) Comparisons? What do other modern bibles do, and what did the original do, and what did the translation(s) available to Augustine do, with this passage? Is the Latin (Latin est non legitur to me) that enigmatic? Brian From books-owner Fri Apr 21 03:50:15 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA33200 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:50:14 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA21668 for books; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 23:50:11 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504210350.XAA21668@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: back from my lecture To: books Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 23:50:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 173 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Sorry I had to flee: lost my voice halfway through but found it again. I just wanted to say how DELIGHTED I am that this went off as well as it did. Full marks to all! From books-owner Fri Apr 21 05:15:21 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA19283 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 05:15:21 GMT Received: from carson-oms2.u.washington.edu (carson-oms2.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.5]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id BAA10318 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:15:18 -0400 Received: from carson.u.washington.edu by carson-oms2.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA00722; Thu, 20 Apr 95 22:16:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 22:16:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jennifer Merry To: Brian Green Cc: The List Subject: Re: the moo In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Brian, I can understand your frustration on the MOO; however I liked it in spite of some of the difficulties. At first it was difficult to figure out what was showing on my screen versus on everyone elses (those names really threw me!), but after a bit it worked pretty well for me. The discussion did go off on several tangents there towards the end, but that made it all the more interesting in some respects. I thought the immediacy of the MOO made it more exciting than e-mail, although it is easier to compose one's thoughts and edit on e-mail. The MOO was a discussion, but we lacked the verbal and visual clues of face to face interaction, which I think made us all get a different perspective. Those are just some thoughts on the MOO. Talk to everyone later :-) Jennifer From books-owner Fri Apr 21 05:39:47 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA28823 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 05:39:47 GMT Received: from homer14.u.washington.edu (homer14.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.15]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id BAA16530 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:39:44 -0400 Received: by homer14.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA69679; Thu, 20 Apr 95 22:40:34 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer14.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 22:40:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian D Green To: Jennifer Merry Cc: The List Subject: Re: the moo In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk You're right, it is exciting, and it is a new experience, a different perspective. I'm actually of two minds about it, myself, but I'm sure my reservations will disappear when I get used to it. Brian From books-owner Fri Apr 21 07:43:08 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id HAA24676 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 07:43:07 GMT Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id DAA28511 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 03:43:02 -0400 Received: from mx.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id AAA14796; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:43:52 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:43:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199504210743.AAA14796@seanet.com> X-Sender: STEWART@pop.seanet.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: odysseus From: STEWART@stewart.seanet.com (CHARLES STEWART-GORDON) Subject: Romans Cc: books Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Brian sent the following query on the 20th: On page 81 (Book 3, chapter 3, paragraph 6) of On Xn Doctrine, Aug tells us that reading verses 33 and 34 of Romans 8 as two questions followed by two *answers* would be "utter madness." Instead, he says, the question "Who shall accuse against the elect of God?" is followed by a *rhetorical question* with an implied negative response: "God that justifieth?" (that is: "*God* that *JUSTIFIETH*??!!!??"). And similarly for verse 34: "Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that Died, yea that is also risen again; who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us???!!!!??" My King James pretty clearly doesn't follow Augustine's reading: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? *It is* God that justifieth. Who is he that condemmeth? *It is* Christ that died...." (emphasis added) Comparisons? What do other modern bibles do, and what did the original do, and what did the translation(s) available to Augustine do, with this passage? Is the Latin (Latin est non legitur to me) that enigmatic? Brian >>>>>>>> My own New Jerusalem Bible, published by Doubleday and certified free of doctrinal error, has something completely different. "Who can bring any accusation against those that God has chosen? *When God grants saving justice who can condemn?* Are we not sure that it is Christ Jesus, who died-yes and more, who was raised from the dead and is at God's right hand-and who is adding his plea for us?" Both of our translations seem to commit the very error that Augustine hoped to prevent by having Christ condemn the elect. Looking first at my translation, then at yours, I get the sense that God is going to set straight those who accuse His elect, not that He is the one doing the accusing. Do you get that, too? Stewart P.S. I may have sent inadvertently a message form a few days ago. Please ignore it. From books-owner Fri Apr 21 08:15:44 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id IAA18160 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:15:43 GMT Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu (homer17.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id EAA24299 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 04:15:39 -0400 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA61354; Fri, 21 Apr 95 01:16:32 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer17.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 01:16:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: books Subject: More on the Moo Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I have to say, for one, that I liked the Moo a great deal; my only gripe would be (and the problem may be insoluble, as correcting the error might involve a programming nightmare -- like Socrates, I feel I know just enough about it to realize that I know absolutely nothing at all) that I did not care much for the fact that one's own compositions were often cut into by incoming messages, which, though sufferable from the standpoint of one's own transmissions, often garbled the thoughts of others, and made it often quite difficult to follow the discussion -- not to mention the fact that just enough would come through from time to time to make me certain that I was missing out on some really great ideas; if the fragmentary nature of ancient history hadn't already conditioned me somewhat to this level of frustration, I might have been tempted to rip my hair out! A question for those far more acquainted with this sort of thing than I: isit feasible to delay incoming messages on one's screen between a keystroke (say, the initial ") and the enter key? If so, it might help the discussion, if it might make it ever so slightly less simultaneous...or am I nit-picking? Jason From books-owner Fri Apr 21 18:51:35 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id SAA11646 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 18:51:34 GMT Received: from homer16.u.washington.edu (homer16.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.17]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id OAA35447 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:51:30 -0400 Received: by homer16.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA119840; Fri, 21 Apr 95 11:52:17 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer16.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 11:52:17 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: Re: FWD>Virus warning (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk FYI from davidn ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Dale M. Courtney To: HISTEC-2@baylor.edu Subject: Re: FWD>Virus warning >FYI: here is a message I received about a new virus: > > > >There is a computer virus that is being sent across the Internet. If you > > >receive an e-mail message with the subject "GOOD TIMES"--DO NOT READ >IT...do > >not read the message. Delete it immediately. > FYI, this message has been making its way around the internet for awhile. It is of a dubious source. There is no computer virus that can affect a computer by merely reading it (ie, viewing it). All must be executed in one form or another (*.bat, *.exe, *.com, *.ovl, etc). A text file cannot do that. Bottom line: if you download an executible file, virus check it before executing it. Otherwise it can't hurt you. Dale From books-owner Fri Apr 21 18:59:26 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id SAA31443 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 18:59:25 GMT Received: from homer16.u.washington.edu (homer16.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.17]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id OAA19143 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:59:19 -0400 Received: by homer16.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA43419; Fri, 21 Apr 95 12:00:10 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer16.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:00:10 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: Re: FWD>Virus warning VERIFICATION (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Sorry to worry everyone - DavidN ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:19:28 -0600 From: Doug Milford To: HISTEC-2@baylor.edu Subject: Re: FWD>Virus warning VERIFICATION FYI, I sought and received verification yesterday from the Computer Incident Advisory Capability (CIAC) that the "Good Times" virus is indeed a hoax. -Doug >X-POP3-Rcpt: dmilford@david.wheaton.edu >Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:20:45 -0700 >From: "Marvin J. Christensen" >To: dmilford@david.wheaton.edu >Cc: ciac@llnl.gov >Subject: Re: Good Times virus >Reply-To: ciac@llnl.gov > > >Yes, Good Times is a hoax. > >CIAC is coordinating with Federal Communications Commission and CIAC >will release a CIAC NOTES 09 which is an update to CIAC NOTES 04. > >Any idea where this started? > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >Computer Incident Advisory Capability (CIAC) Marvin J. Christensen >(510)422-8193 (510)423-5173 >ciac@llnl.gov mjchristensen@llnl.gov >---------------------------------------------------------------------- From books-owner Fri Apr 21 19:09:15 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id TAA25824 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 19:09:14 GMT Received: from homer16.u.washington.edu (homer16.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.17]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id PAA25307 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:09:08 -0400 Received: by homer16.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA17800; Fri, 21 Apr 95 12:10:00 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer16.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:10:00 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: MOO Session -on the WEB Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk For those happy with webbing it, the MOO Session from Thur logged by Linda is now on the web via Davidn's home page http://weber.u.washington.edu/~helper/ Happing Webbing. David, P.S. If anyone wants help geting access to the web let me know and I can walk you through from most anywhere. +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ / David A. Norwood Cell/v-mail 819-2271 University of Washington \ / helper@u.washington.edu U.S.A. \ / david@intersystems.com \ / http://weber.u.washington.edu/~helper/ \ / 800 242-5529 or local 463-3688 Student, History Major \ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ From books-owner Fri Apr 21 23:12:06 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA21898 for books-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:12:04 GMT Received: from homer07.u.washington.edu (homer07.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id TAA27525 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 19:12:01 -0400 Received: by homer07.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA43822; Fri, 21 Apr 95 16:12:53 -0700 X-Sender: rstaffel@homer07.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 16:12:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Rebecca Staffel To: The List Subject: Re: MOO Session - on the WEB In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk > http://weber.u.washington.edu/~helper/ Thanks, Linda, for capturing our session and thanks, David, for putting it up on the web! It's gratifying to go back and see that we really did follow some threads and participate in some mutual sense-making -- it seemed so frantic at the time, but it's fairly coherent in retrospect. Perhaps we should take up some of the very worthy questions and comments that got lost along the way? I'd like to think more about the images of barrenness which occur in both Galatians/Genesis and also in the Song of Songs "Sheep" passage, as well as Augustine's "power tools for interpretation" :-) and the stuff that David and Linda and Bryce started in on having to do with fight imagery and Christian defensive. Or maybe we should all pass quiet weekends in contemplation? :-) Rebecca From books-owner Sat Apr 22 01:27:31 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id BAA32505 for books-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 01:27:30 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id VAA32244 for books; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 21:27:27 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504220127.VAA32244@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: rebecca's suggestion To: books Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 21:27:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 188 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk OK, everybody who MOO'd, give us less than a screenful (n.b. Brian and David!) with three ideas/questions/things-to-pursue. I'll digest that on Tuesday a.m. to organize class that day. From books-owner Sat Apr 22 13:46:20 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id NAA20711 for books-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 13:44:27 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id JAA38370 for books; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 09:44:24 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504221344.JAA38370@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: BOUNCE books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu: Admin request (fwd) To: books Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 09:44:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1968 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Now there's one trick about our list that you need to know. If you use in a message to the list any of the magic words that are used for list business, the machine doesn't distribute the message but sends it to me. The idea is tha tpeople trying to join or leave lists often send messages wrongly to the lit itself, which annoys people, and this prevents that. So you have to watch for words like s*bscr*be and uns*bscr*be and in this case h*lp! (See the first line). (PS Jennifer's message is exactly what I have in mind: more please!) owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu wrote: From daemon Sat Apr 22 04:16:49 1995 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 04:16:49 GMT Message-Id: <199504220416.EAA37287@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> To: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu From: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Subject: BOUNCE books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu: Admin request From: Jennifer Merry To: "James O'Donnell" Cc: books Subject: Re: rebecca's suggestion Hello everyone, First of all, I'd like to thank Linda (for h*lp w/the MOO & capturing it), David N. (for putting our session on the Web), Rebecca (for her suggestion) and all the participants. My ideas, questions and considerations regarding subjects brought up during our MOO session are the following: a. The role of the interpretor and interpretation. We touched on this in class on Tuesday as well. How much is too much interpretation? b. How many (one or more) levels of reception do the Scriptures give people and is there only one *Truth* or only relative truths. In particular, what did Aug. think of this and do we (in this class, community) agree with him? c. In book III Aug. writes of servitude & liberation. Is the reader empowered over the writing and can the written word defend itself? I hope this is what Rebecca and JO'D were thinking of about responses to the MOO and questions our session brought up :-) Until Later, Jennifer (jmerry@u.washington.edu) From books-owner Sat Apr 22 16:36:31 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id QAA12517 for books-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:36:30 GMT Received: from shiva2.cac.washington.edu (shiva2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.202]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id MAA14303; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 12:36:24 -0400 Received: by shiva2.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA20644; Sat, 22 Apr 95 09:37:17 -0700 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 09:37:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Linda Wright To: "James O'Donnell" Cc: books Subject: Re: rebecca's suggestion In-Reply-To: <199504220127.VAA32244@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Here is the list of things I'd like to discuss a little more on Tuesday. I'm glad so many of us could be online! It was a tad disorienting, but a lot of fun to be able to interact for a spell. 1. The Galatians passage: why you had us read it, and some of the ways in which it works with On Christian Doctrine. I'm hoping this also leads to a great discussion on allegory. 2. Barrenness and slavery/liberation, as they pertain to the works we are currently reading. 3. Words weren't able to defend themselves in the *Phaedrus*, and the Christian reader does seem to be able to find his/her defense through the Holy Word. So, I guess I'll toss in a vote for discussing "defense" in terms of the written text (though, I seemed to have been on the spot for this one online, which means I'd better have something to say in class:). -Linda From books-owner Sat Apr 22 23:14:13 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA27779 for books-outgoing; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 23:14:13 GMT Received: from homer11.u.washington.edu (homer11.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.12]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id TAA15486 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 19:14:09 -0400 Received: by homer11.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA42308; Sat, 22 Apr 95 16:14:57 -0700 X-Sender: hektor@homer11.u.washington.edu Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 16:14:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "K. Ryker" To: books Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Sorry I missed the MOO, hardware problems prevented what sounds like an interesting exchange. Thank again to Linda for providing a transcript. My theme in this course will be to address the rewriting of history and resulting implications as opposed to accepting multi-interpreted versions by people who may have had "agendas" completely dissimilar to those intended by the original authors. I think historians should take an objective view and question the authority of the writings of the past if that seems appropriate (and that of course is subjective, but then so are the past writings) and before accepting verbatim, try to understand more thoroughly just what one is accepting. Accepting is easy, perhaps a more challenging pursuit of the status quo is in order and will prove more enlightening with respect to the past. Since we all know that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it (or so someone wrote), perhaps the truth should not remain covered up by what should have happened in order that we may benefit from what actually did happen. Discovering the reason that some literature was rewritten could also prove quite interesting as well. Political and religious authority and power are not the only reasons there are discrepancies between what actually did happen and what we have come to believe happened. Other examples include the eventual transcriptions of oral traditions and linguistic development. Even with the best and purest intentions language and words, and their meaning have become modified through time. In his book, Beliefs and Holy Places, James Griffith records years of carefully collecting oral traditions from the southern Arizona and northern Sonoran area of Mexico as part of his research. One of these stories traces the tradition of the snake in folklore and records diverse versions among the Indian groups themselves as well as the written Spanish missionary accounts from the 16th century and the adaptations of the Mexicans and Anglos. He emphasizes that "the written word may be the only place to go for traces of this particular link with our distant past," as the last of the oral traditionalists die off. Homer's Iliad is probably the result of the same sort of compilation. Both examples stress the need and great benefit of the written word as a tool. There is no question, in my view, of the unparalleled value of the written word as regards the enlightenment of humanity, but this does not mean that everything written should be accepted without question. Quite the opposite, I think we can learn as much from investigating, with an open mind, those writing that may have been altered as we can from accepting words written by gifted as well as not-so-gifted people that lived before us. On a separate note, I agree with Bryce regarding the preservation of an academic decorum with regard to use of E-Mail in the context of the course. I'm new to the net and one of the first things I noticed was a sort of anonymous informality that doesn't seem to have a correlation in other theaters of exchange. I'm not criticizing, I am, rather, intrigued as to the difference between face-to-face exchanges and pseudo-anonymous exchanges. I prefer face-to-face because, I suppose, I'm used to it and also there is the aspect of communication that goes beyond words yet enhances them that occurs when one is actually looking at someone or at least hearing tonal implications as occur in phone conversations. On the other hand, the written word incorporates none of these aspects as we find it in literature. Perhaps this accounts for some of the discrepancies in interpretation. From books-owner Sun Apr 23 00:37:50 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id AAA12726 for books-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 00:37:49 GMT Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id UAA22956; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 20:37:44 -0400 Received: from mx.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id RAA14321; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 17:38:35 -0700 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 17:38:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199504230038.RAA14321@seanet.com> X-Sender: cicero@pop.seanet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "James O'Donnell" From: cicero@cicero.seanet.com (Bryce Carpenter) Subject: Re: rebecca's suggestion Cc: books Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Briefly stated, I would like to further investigate, in class, why it was that we read that passage from Gal., what the corresponding passage from *OCD* was doing, and more on the whole 'defensive' thing since I put Linda on the spot with that one (and which I feel awful about doing). In a nutshell, that's it. Bryce >OK, everybody who MOO'd, give us less than a screenful (n.b. Brian and >David!) with three ideas/questions/things-to-pursue. I'll digest that on >Tuesday a.m. to organize class that day. > From books-owner Sun Apr 23 01:58:26 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id BAA32961 for books-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 01:58:25 GMT Received: from homer06.u.washington.edu (homer06.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id VAA11452; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 21:58:21 -0400 Received: by homer06.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA40265; Sat, 22 Apr 95 18:59:14 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer06.u.washington.edu Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 18:59:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian D Green To: "James O'Donnell" Cc: books Subject: Re: rebecca's suggestion In-Reply-To: <199504220127.VAA32244@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Hey, Professor O'Donnell, David and I were wondering what "n.b." means? And is there a list that we can find somewhere that lists all these nifty computerese shorthands with their meanings? Brian On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, James O'Donnell wrote: > OK, everybody who MOO'd, give us less than a screenful (n.b. Brian and > David!) with three ideas/questions/things-to-pursue. I'll digest that on > Tuesday a.m. to organize class that day. > From books-owner Sun Apr 23 03:47:36 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA24902 for books-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 03:47:35 GMT Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu (homer17.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA29249 for ; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 23:47:32 -0400 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA03501; Sat, 22 Apr 95 20:48:24 -0700 X-Sender: drusus@homer17.u.washington.edu Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 20:48:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ross To: Books List Subject: The MOO discussion . . . Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I would like to begin by saying that I was quite impressed by the MOO; a few minor glitches, but all-in-all a nifty piece of technology. As far as our discussion was concerned, I would like to pursue the "Egyptian Gold" metaphor a bit more; as Rebecca brought up, Augustine earlier reports that "if anyone thinks a lie may sometimes be useful, he must think that iniquity is sometimes useful also (p 31)." I think that this statement at the appropriation of the Egyptian Gold/Pagan wisdom is some what problematic. This whole question of rewriting/appropriating history also interests me; according to some of the contemporary historiography I've read, this is often done as part of the process of defining the other in terms of the self, and then subsuming the other into the self (defining Pagans in terms of Christianity, for instance--i.e. Plato really learned from Jeremiah). I believe this to is somewhat problematic considering that for quite a while Augustine *was* a Pagan, and certainly had a classical education--how is this reconciled? Anyway, I've used more than my screenful, so I will briefly mention that the two topics we diverged upon towards the end of class (my fault I think, sorry if it got confusing), namely the martial imagery and the barrenness allegory/don't mistake words for signs/the letter killeth--spirit quickeneth issue, need further attention. I think my explaination that the latter is an explaination of what the coming of Jesus did for Judaism (and to a lesser extent pagan philosophy) is far too facile. See you-all Tuesday, --Shawn From books-owner Sun Apr 23 06:44:32 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id GAA23356 for books-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 06:44:27 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA27444 for books; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 02:44:24 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504230644.CAA27444@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: this week's schedule To: books Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 02:44:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 426 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Tuesday: mopping up OCD, MOO, and other TLA's. (TLA = "Three Letter Acronym") Thursday: Clanchy: Introduction, esp. "Being Prejudiced in Favour of Literacy". NEXT WEEK: Tuesday: more on Clanchy and medieval MSS, but begin reading Gutenberg Galaxy. The course will be half over at this point, and McLuhan and Lanham particularly are going to take some time to work on, so we need to motivate on over the hill. From books-owner Sun Apr 23 07:46:00 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id HAA38237 for books-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 07:46:00 GMT Received: from homer11.u.washington.edu (homer11.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.12]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id DAA37208 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 03:45:56 -0400 Received: by homer11.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA44192; Sun, 23 Apr 95 00:46:49 -0700 X-Sender: drusus@homer11.u.washington.edu Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 00:46:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ross To: Books List Subject: Outside research . . . Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk One of the two outside topics which I am looking at this quarter is early Chinese historiography and the Chinese textual tradition. I think that at this point, as we are discussing the formation of the Christian Canon, it might be instructive to examine the formation of the Confucian Canon used from Han to T'ang times for civil service examinations (the Canon, and the examinations continued, but were modified, I will turn to this topic at a later date; I figured that eleven centuries were enough to leap in a single bound). For reference, China was first unified under the Ch'in dynasty (221-207 BC; the infamous book burnings which are described in the additional information section of the WWW page for this class happened during this dynasty), followed by the Western Han (202 BC-AD 9), the usurpation of Wang Mang (AD 9-23), the Eastern Han (25-220), a period of disunion (220-589), the Sui Dynasty (581-618; it took the first Sui emperor a while to get the situation under control), and the T'ang Dynasty (618-907). During the Han to T'ang era, the civil service exam came into its own as a method of selecting administrators and bureaucrats. The material covered by the test included knowledge of the Five Classics, as well as composition, calligraphy, and sometimes mathematics and law. While the nature of the exam changed and developed significantly, the texts over which it was given remained constant and formed a recognized canon of works. Early in the Western Han Dynasty, Confucianism came to be recognized as the official state ideology, replacing the strict, authoritarian Legalism/Realism of the Ch'in Dynasty. In a nutshell, Confucianism is a paternalistic system prescribing the filial, social, and political relationships in an extremely hierarchical society, as well as the rituals by which these relationships are made manifest. The defining works of Confucianism were canonized as the Five Classics (*ching*) at this time. They are as follows: 1) *I-ching* (Classic of Changes): A cryptic diviner's handbook which had acquired commentaries that lent it mystical cosmological significance. 2) *Shu-ching (Classic of Writings): A collection of short pieces, mostly rhetorical, attributed to rulers, ministers, and sages from mythical antiquity to the early Chou Dynasty (the Chou Dynasty was a bronze age Chinese empire which had effectively collapsed 5 centuries prior to the Ch'in unification). The pre-Chou documents are considered apocryphal by modern scholars; the early Chou documents legitimate (for the most part). 3) *Shih-ching* (Classic of Songs): China's earliest collection of poetry. 4) *Ch'un-ch'iu* (Spring and Autumn Annals): A laconic chronicle of events from 722 to 481, accompanied by three commentaries, two of which interpret and explain the individual events in light of Confucian philosophy, the third of which provides vivid narratives of some of the events; it seems to be a separate, yet ancient, independent source incorporated into the *Ch'un-ch'iu* very early. 5) *Li-ching* (Classic of Rituals): a cycle of three works covering Chou Rituals (*Chou-li*), Propriety and Ritual (*I-li*), and Ritual Records (*Li-chi*). Some interesting similarities (and differences) can be noted between the formation of this canon and the Christian (or Classical) canon in the west. First, authorship was very important; compilation of the Spring and Autumn Annals, Classic of Songs, and Ritual Records were attributed to Confucius, speeches from the Classic of Writings were purported to have been spoken or written by the great figures of China's early history, two of the Classics of Rituals books were accredited to the Duke of Chou, brother of the first Chou king and an historical figure of great weight. Second, when weighty authorship was unavailable (or in addition to it), antiquity was highly esteemed; the Classic of Changes was purported to be of extreme antiquity. Furthermore--much like the Romans--the Chinese idealized their past, especially the early (Western) Chou Dynasty, as an era or just rule, morality, and harmony. As far as content is concerned, in addition to harking back to a golden age, early commentaries, such as those accompanying the Spring and Autumn Annals or Classic of Changes, often imparted allegorical meaning to the terse texts, usually in light of Confucian philosophy. Chinese philosophers, such as Mencius or Hsun-tzu extensively used analogy as well to explain the hidden meanings found in such works (horses and chariots were popular among the Chinese as well, although early Chinese philosophy usually dealt more with governance and practical ethics than the nature of the soul or the nature of love). One notable difference between Chinese and Western antiquity is the inclusive nature of Chinese philosophy; there was nothing analogous to the advent of Christianity in the west. With the possible exception of the Ch'in dynasty, Chinese rulers generally recognized the value of the various schools of thought and several, including Toaism and Legalism/Realism influenced emperors as individuals or the bureaucratic structures which they oversaw. While their was rivalry amongst the "Hundred Schools" of philosophy, nothing prevented a Han or T'ang governor from receiving a Confucian education, practicing Toaism (or later Buddhism) as a personal philosophy/religion, and employing legalist tenets in the nature of his rule. * * * The above was shamelessly cribbed from *China's Imperial Past*, by Charles O. Hucker, *Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China*, by Arthur Waley, and class notes/handouts from HSTAS 451, taught by Xiaohui Li, Autumn Quarter 1994. Well, I suppose that everyone has had enough by now, so thank you for bearing with my verbosity and gross generalizations. If anyone has any suggestions or requests, I am still forming my approach to this topic, so all input is welcome and appreciated. --Shawn From books-owner Sun Apr 23 17:05:05 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id RAA30957 for books-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 17:05:03 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id NAA29671; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 13:05:00 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504231705.NAA29671@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Romans To: STEWART (CHARLES STEWART-GORDON) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 13:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Cc: books In-Reply-To: <199504210743.AAA14796@seanet.com> from "CHARLES STEWART-GORDON" at Apr 21, 95 00:43:52 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 225 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Charles S.-G. asks about Romans 8.33-34. This is interesting: everybody have a look at that, and *somebody* (not me) be sure to bring a reputable English translation to class, and we'll add it to the Gal. 4 passage . . . From books-owner Sun Apr 23 21:16:08 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id VAA23502 for books-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 21:16:08 GMT Received: from homer15.u.washington.edu (homer15.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.16]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id RAA30921; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 17:16:04 -0400 Received: by homer15.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA33272; Sun, 23 Apr 95 14:16:57 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer15.u.washington.edu Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 14:16:56 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: "James O'Donnell" Cc: CHARLES STEWART-GORDON , books Subject: Re: Romans In-Reply-To: <199504231705.NAA29671@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I am working on an analysis of the passages and will bring several translations as well as detailed responce later this afternoon. Davidn On Sun, 23 Apr 1995, James O'Donnell wrote: > Charles S.-G. asks about Romans 8.33-34. This is interesting: everybody > have a look at that, and *somebody* (not me) be sure to bring a reputable > English translation to class, and we'll add it to the Gal. 4 passage . . . > From books-owner Mon Apr 24 06:12:53 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id GAA37924 for books-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 06:12:51 GMT Received: from homer17.u.washington.edu (homer17.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id CAA36890 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 02:12:40 -0400 Received: by homer17.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA30848; Sun, 23 Apr 95 23:13:27 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer17.u.washington.edu Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 23:13:26 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: Romans - Long Post from Davidn Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Warning long post, get into it only if you want to. Comments on Romans: First, Brian's concerns regarding the words *It is*. In both passages 33 and 34 the *It is* is not found in the original Greek but has been added for readability so any tendency to place emphasis on these two words would not be recommended in my reading of the text. But I do beleave the translators who use *It is* are correct I also concure with A. that the second half of each of these passages are retorical questions to be answered in the negative. Verse 33 is clear (God who justifies, why would he bring charges against the elect if he justifies.) (a) Satin is normaly considered the "accuser" in this role his powers are found lacking in verse 31: 31 What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? (NIV) (b) Then when we read 34 in conjunction with 33 must follow the same pattern of question followed by a retorical question with a negation responce.(but even if one interprets to the contrary the larger message is still the same: that it is Christ that is interceding for us.(verse 34) (c) and lastly if we read verse 35 we see again the question with a retorical negative responce that is totaly transparent: 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? (NIV) A. uses these passages to illustrate the need to read text in context. I don't beleave any of the translations listed below bely his interpetation. Rom 8:32-35 (King James Version) 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (KJV) Rom 8:32-35 (New American Standard) 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (New American Standard) Rom 8:32-35 (American Standard) 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; 34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (American Standard Ver) Rom 8:32-35 (New International, my favoriate) 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died-- more than that, who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? (New International Ver) ---------- Even Stewart's New Jeruselam passage which I also find a little luminant does not seem to stray from the intent and is actualy more transparent than the others when we read "plea for us" as "interceding for us" (see below) >My own New Jerusalem Bible, published by Doubleday and >certified free of doctrinal error, has something completely different. >"Who can bring any accusation against those that God has chosen? >*When God grants saving justice who can condemn?* >Are we not sure that it is Christ Jesus, who died-yes and more, >who was raised from the dead and is at God's right hand-and who >is adding his plea for us?" If anyone is interested you can read a traditionaly commentary on these passages below. A side note: Stewart's comment or possible quote regarding the New Jerusalem Bible as being "Certified free of doctrinal error" My question is certified by whom and error pertaining to what doctrine. This may be a good jump point to the questions of power and text. Sorry about the length of this post, thank you to any who made it this far, I hope will be able to return the curticy in the future. DavidN. ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- Matthew Henry's Commentary - a traditional perspective - Romans 8:31-39 PP7 II. We have an answer ready to all accusations and a security against all condemnations (v. 33-34): Who shall lay any thing? Doth the law accuse them? Do their own consciences accuse them? Is the devil, the accuser of the brethren, accusing them before our God day and night? This is enough to answer all those accusations, It is God that justifieth. Men may justify themselves, as the Pharisees did, and yet the accusations may be in full force against them; but, if God justifies, this answers all. He is the judge, the king, the party offended, and his judgment is according to truth, and sooner or later all the world will be brought to be of his mind; so that we may challenge all our accusers to come and put in their charge. This overthrows them all; it is God, the righteous faithful God, that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? Though they cannot make good the charge yet they will be ready to condemn; but we have a plea ready to move in arrest of judgment, a plea which cannot be overruled. It is Christ that died, etc. It is by virtue of our interest in Christ, our relation to him, and our union with him, that we are thus secured. 1. His death: It is Christ that died. By the merit of his death he paid our debt; and the surety's payment is a good plea to an action of debt. It is Christ, an able all-sufficient Saviour. 2. His resurrection: Yea, rather, that has risen again. This is a much greater encouragement, for it is a convincing evidence that divine justice was satisfied by the merit of his death. His resurrection was his acquittance, it was a legal discharge. Therefore the apostle mentions it with a yea, rather. If he had died, and not risen again, we had been where we were. 3. His sitting at the right hand of God: He is even at the right hand of God-- a further evidence that he has done his work, and a mighty encouragement to us in reference to all accusations, that we have a friend, such a friend, in court. At the right hand of God, which denotes that he is ready there-- always at hand; and that he is ruling there-- all power is given to him. Our friend is himself the judge. 4. The intercession which he makes there. He is there, not unconcerned about us, not forgetful of us, but making intercession. He is agent for us there, an advocate for us, to answer all accusations, to put in our plea, and to prosecute it with effect, to appear for us and to present our petitions. And is not this abundant matter for comfort? What shall we say to these things? Is this the manner of men, O Lord God? What room is left for doubting and disquietment? Why art thou cast down, O my soul? Some understand the accusation and condemnation here spoken of of that which the suffering saints met with from men. The primitive Christians had many black crimes laid to their charge-- heresy, sedition, rebellion, and what not? For these the ruling powers condemned them: "But no matter for that" (says the apostle); "while we stand right at God's bar it is of no great moment how we stand at men's. To all the hard censures, the malicious calumnies, and the unjust and unrighteous sentences of men, we may with comfort oppose our justification before God through Christ Jesus as that which doth abundantly countervail," <1 Cor. 4:3-4>. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary) From books-owner Mon Apr 24 08:50:05 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id IAA38132 for books-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 08:50:03 GMT Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id EAA20719 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 04:49:56 -0400 Received: from stewart.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id BAA28930; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 01:50:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 01:50:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199504240850.BAA28930@seanet.com> X-Sender: STEWART@pop.seanet.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: books From: STEWART@stewart.seanet.com (CHARLES STEWART-GORDON) Subject: Missed the MOO Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I'm sorry I missed the MOO, but I'm still sorting out the basic in and outs of the electronic age. Whenever I put in the info from JO'D's e- mail at the place where it said 'host', it would tell me it couldn't locate host. If I keep trying, I *will* get the hang of this. It's weird to try and add to a conversation that's already taken place, but you all touched on some interesting questions, not the least of which was the distinction between Truth and truth. Should we think of the spoken word of God signified in Scripture as a distinct Truth from the Truth that lays beyond the impossible image of 3 and 1? At John 14.6-10, and more conveniently at OCD Bk.1, XXXIV, 38, Christ says he is "the way, the truth, and the life." (In my bible, Way, Truth, and Life.) I think that faith for Augustine is faith in the truth of the message of resurrection and salvation through the Word made flesh. '...and faith will stagger if the authority of the Divine Scriptures wavers.' (Bk. 1, XXXVII, 41). Faith sustains the authority of Scripture by believing in the Truth it signifies, which is the Way. It is this Truth that I don't think can be separated from the Truth of the One Trinitarian God. I suppose I capitalize 'Truth' to denote that Truth of the spoken Word of God according to Augustine , to distinguish it from truth as such. Truth in the latter sense, I mean the little 't' sense, to me is a predicate that is dependent on its subject and has no existence by itself. Is the statement 'Christ rose on the third day,' true or false? 'Truth' in the big 't' sense I think is self-existent, for Augustine, but one can also predicate truth of it. Shawn raised a question that didn't get much response, though it's one that I have too. Of the two allegories we've looked at, one is Scriptural and the other is something Augustine cobbled together. Because the story of Hagar and Sarah carries the interpretation of the succession of the Church to the elect-status and its right to the spiritual heritage of the Jews, does that mean it is the only allegory it can carry? A more important question would be, is Augustine's allegory any less a signification of the Truth than Paul's? I suppose the Truth would be the same of each, and the Apostle arrived at his Truth through the tropic technique of allegory. Still, there's something about the two that is different. It's late so I'll be quiet now. Just a final word about the sheep. I thought he meant the saints were multiplying the flock of the Good Shepherd., and there is that image of them being born into the fold. Reborn? Anyway, I personally can't imagine the thought of watching someone chewing food for swallowing to be pleasant, strangely or otherwise. Good night, Gracie Stewart From books-owner Mon Apr 24 13:25:29 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id NAA38687 for books-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 13:25:28 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id JAA36372 for books; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:25:23 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504241325.JAA36372@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: from Charles Stewart-Gordon To: books Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:25:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1072 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk who used the h-word in his first line! :-) owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu wrote: From daemon Mon Apr 24 09:11:57 1995 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:11:55 GMT Message-Id: <199504240911.JAA21242@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> To: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu From: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Subject: BOUNCE books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu: Admin request >From books-owner Mon Apr 24 05:11:48 1995 Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id FAA38133 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 05:11:47 -0400 Received: from stewart.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id CAA29311; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 02:12:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 02:12:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199504240912.CAA29311@seanet.com> X-Sender: STEWART@pop.seanet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: books From: STEWART@STEWART.seanet.com (CHARLES STEWART-GORDON) Subject: Romans If it's any h*lp, my translation comes directly from Greek. Stewart From books-owner Mon Apr 24 16:33:33 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id QAA32095 for books-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:33:31 GMT Received: from homer07.u.washington.edu (homer07.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id MAA19028 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 12:33:26 -0400 Received: by homer07.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA34821; Mon, 24 Apr 95 09:34:18 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer07.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:34:18 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: One page on MOO Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk First the name problem, I found it interesting that it was important for me, and others to make sure we were known by our own names, except Amber. - what is at play regarding anonymity? The multiple thread conversation was also a problem. The speed of discussion was at times blinding and I was drained following the game, did anyone else feel this way? benefits - it was fast and fun you could throw out concepts without concern for deep rebuttal, this opened up the conversation more than in class. DavidN From books-owner Tue Apr 25 00:55:13 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id AAA23291 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:55:12 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id UAA35317 for books; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 20:55:09 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504250055.UAA35317@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: toni morrison quoted To: books Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 20:55:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 220 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On NPR, saying that you don't get authentic communication on television, but that authentic communication takes place first between an author and her text, then between a text and a reader. Sound familiar? :-) jo'd From books-owner Tue Apr 25 01:45:43 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id BAA14830 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 01:45:41 GMT Received: from homer16.u.washington.edu (homer16.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.17]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id VAA14565 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 21:45:30 -0400 Received: by homer16.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA22270; Mon, 24 Apr 95 18:46:21 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer16.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 18:46:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: books Subject: a Screen about MOO Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Three things about the MOO: 1) As I already suggested in a previous message, I didn't much care for the constant interruption, mostly because it garbled the messages of other participants and made the discussion difficult to follow -- Linda has sent me instructions on avoiding this in the future, and I discovered (by agency of a late night stroll on the campus of the Virtual University of Pennsylvania) through the introductory help section of MOO how to avoid this in the future. 2) As mentioned above, I took a 4:30 am stroll at UPenn via the MOO on early Friday morning, and thought it was, for lack of a better term, "tubular" (like Prof. O'Donnell re: dude, I find it difficult to keep a straight face!) Go to the second floor of the classroom building and try "25th" -- spooky :-) 3) [and running over my one screen] I found the discussion absolutely remarkable; more than anything, I enjoyed the concurrent discussions between which one might jump back and forth (though admittedly I stayed to my own, yet the posibility was ther), sonething which I imagine would probably not be possible in a real classroom environemt. I look forward to seeing you all tomorrow! Jason From books-owner Tue Apr 25 03:53:56 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA35855 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 03:53:54 GMT Received: from homer01.u.washington.edu (homer01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA33031 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 23:53:50 -0400 Received: by homer01.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA95300; Mon, 24 Apr 95 20:54:41 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer01.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 20:54:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian D Green To: David Norwood Cc: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: Re: Romans - Long Post from Davidn In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Oh, I get it! "It" in "It is" is not a pronoun referring to the subject ("Who") of the last sentence, as in "Who does y? It is x that does y." You're telling me that "It is God that justifieth" is only another way of saying "God is *the one* (it) who justifieth," that the "it" is not a reference to the previous sentence! That was where I was confused. In my opinion, this "it is" construction does not enhance readability, particularly, but then I'm living only in the 20th century. Now that I think about it, this does make much more sense. Justifying seems an action slightly at odds with accusing: Who shall *accuse*...? It is God who *justifies*. Now I begin to see my mistake in purchasing a king james. And yet I see the NIV uses the same "It is" construction for at least verse 33. That construction just doesn't promote clarity, it seems to me. --Brian On Sun, 23 Apr 1995, David Norwood wrote: > > > Comments on Romans: > > First, Brian's concerns regarding the words > *It is*. In both passages 33 and 34 the *It is* is not found > in the original Greek but has been added for readability so > any tendency to place emphasis on these two words would not > be recommended in my reading of the text. > > But I do beleave the translators who use *It is* > are correct I also concure with A. that the second half > of each of these passages are retorical questions to be answered > in the negative. Verse 33 is clear (God who justifies, why would he > bring charges against the elect if he justifies.) > ..... > > I don't beleave any of the translations listed below bely his interpetation. > > Rom 8:32-35 (King James Version) > 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, > how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? > 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God > that justifieth. > 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, > that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also > maketh intercession for us. > 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, > or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? > (KJV) > > Rom 8:32-35 (New American Standard) > 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us > all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? > 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; > 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, > rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also > intercedes for us. > 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, > or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? > (New American Standard) > > Rom 8:32-35 (American Standard) > 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, > how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? > 33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God > that justifieth; > 34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea > rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, > who also maketh intercession for us. > 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, > or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? > (American Standard Ver) > > Rom 8:32-35 (New International, my favoriate) > 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- > how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? > 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It > is God who justifies. > 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died-- more than that, > who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also > interceding for us. > 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or > hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? > (New International Ver) > > ---------- > Even Stewart's New Jeruselam passage which I also find a little > luminant does not seem to stray from the intent and is actualy more > transparent than the others when we read "plea for us" as > "interceding for us" (see below) > > >My own New Jerusalem Bible, published by Doubleday and > >certified free of doctrinal error, has something completely different. > > >"Who can bring any accusation against those that God has chosen? > >*When God grants saving justice who can condemn?* > >Are we not sure that it is Christ Jesus, who died-yes and more, > >who was raised from the dead and is at God's right hand-and who > >is adding his plea for us?" > > If anyone is interested you can read a traditionaly commentary on > these passages below. > > A side note: Stewart's comment or possible quote regarding > the New Jerusalem Bible as being "Certified free of doctrinal error" > My question is certified by whom and error pertaining > to what doctrine. This may be a good jump point to the questions > of power and text. > > Sorry about the length of this post, thank you to any who made it > this far, I hope will be able to return the curticy in the future. > > DavidN. ..... From books-owner Tue Apr 25 04:07:24 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA17817 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 04:07:23 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id AAA37010 for books; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:07:20 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504250407.AAA37010@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: the romans stuff To: books Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:07:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 322 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk All interesting in its own right, but we won't have time to talk about *that* tomorrow because what I want you to think about instead, reading Charles S.-G., David N., and Brian G., is about the textual practices, starting with the Jewish tent-maker and down to the present, that construct this particular discussion. From books-owner Tue Apr 25 04:29:10 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA25620 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 04:29:10 GMT Received: from homer01.u.washington.edu (homer01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA33295 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:29:06 -0400 Received: by homer01.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA94541; Mon, 24 Apr 95 21:29:59 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer01.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 21:29:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian D Green To: The List Subject: < a screenful Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk (fyi, btw, I've n.'d b. jod's n.b. --bdg) 1) So does allegory make a point more pleasurable/pleasurably, as A. says, or does it render something more confusing, so that, as A. also says, we have to work to get at the meaning? Does allegory go both ways? 2) Was I correct to say that "ask your teacher for the rules=pray"? Prayer could at least be a *subset* of asking for guidance, because surely guidance can come from fellow humans?????? That little equation just sort of bounced out of my head when it was pointed out that adding prayer ruined our perfect three: Why do we like threes so much? 3) I've read through our saved MOO discussion more than twice, looking for thoughts, things to say here...What sort of text is a saved MOO session? --Brian From books-owner Tue Apr 25 04:42:26 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA26840 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 04:42:25 GMT Received: from homer23.u.washington.edu (homer23.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.3]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA21195 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:42:18 -0400 Received: by homer23.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA107471; Mon, 24 Apr 95 21:43:05 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer23.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 21:43:05 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: Brian D Green Cc: The List Subject: Re: < a screenful In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk MOO Session is ascII text, from an email message. From books-owner Tue Apr 25 04:43:40 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA36614 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 04:43:39 GMT Received: from homer01.u.washington.edu (homer01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.11]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA16897 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:43:36 -0400 Received: by homer01.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA30559; Mon, 24 Apr 95 21:44:27 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer01.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 21:44:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian D Green To: David Norwood Cc: The List Subject: Re: < a screenful In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk funny guy On Mon, 24 Apr 1995, David Norwood wrote: > MOO Session is ascII text, from an email message. > > From books-owner Tue Apr 25 05:06:40 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA36653 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 05:06:39 GMT Received: from homer12.u.washington.edu (homer12.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id BAA26407 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 01:06:35 -0400 Received: by homer12.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA13929; Mon, 24 Apr 95 22:07:26 -0700 X-Sender: sablack@homer12.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 22:07:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "S. Blackmon" To: books Cc: sablack Subject: how about Clanchy Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Howdy everyone, I am afraid that I was one of those who missed the very exciting class that took place on thursday. I have read thru all the e-mail and the reveiws seem to be mixed. I do admit to being a little down harted about the current topic of discussion. No offense meant to anyone, but I have instead started my reading of Clanchy. I think this will be more my speed. He is with the Dept. of History and talks in his intro about anthropology data. He even cites my every eulusive Jack Goody as a source. I don't want to donw play all of the wonderful discussions that have been going on but has anyone else moved on and have any thoughts on our new book? I would love to hear from you all. My second plea for the night, I have been completely unsuccessful in my quest for the three Jack Goody books that I think would be of use to us, *Literacy in Traditional Society, Interface Between Written and Oral, and Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society*, If any of you know where I can find these books, or have them lying around please let me know. If not, Jo'd, I may have to request a change of direction from you, our supreme leader, as I have yet to enlighten the rest of our kindred on my area of interest. Well I will see you all tomorrow in our real-life class. Shelley From books-owner Tue Apr 25 05:09:47 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA36967 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 05:09:47 GMT Received: from homer22.u.washington.edu (homer22.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id BAA39522 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 01:09:43 -0400 Received: by homer22.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA26347; Mon, 24 Apr 95 22:10:35 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer22.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 22:10:34 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: Some comments on transmission. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I often feel I am on the other side of the street, so why stop now. Textual traditions from the tentmaker forward, I have been looking at the development of NT cannon and also have found a very interesting text on 12th Cent monastic Psalters. One of the elements of textual tradition is the transmission of the text, looking at the NT cannon its construction and transmission I found a revealing component of early scriptorium practices that I was unaware. I always envisioned the translators and rewriters of the biblical cannon as being devout, connected directly to God, people who were guided in as nearly as possible enerrant(sp) transmission. While this may have been the case in many if not most cases the transmission is only as strong as the weakest link and the following passage from Bruce Metzger's *The Text of the New Testament* opened my eyes a little: "When, however in the fourth century Christianity received official sanction from the State, it became more usual for commercial book manufacturers, or scriptoria, to produce copies of the books of the New Testament. Sitting in the workroom of a scriptorium, several trained scribes, Christian or non-Christian, each equipped with parchment, pens, and ink, would write a copy of the book being reproduced as the reader, or lector, slowly read aloud the text of the exemplar. In this way as many copies could be produced simultaneously as scribes were working in the scriptorium. It is easy to understand how in such a method of reproduction errors of transcription would almost inevitably occur. Sometimes the scribes would be momentarily inattentive or, because of a cough or other noise, would not clearly hear the lector. Furthermore, when the lector read aloud a word which could e spelled in different ways (as in English, for example, the words great and grate, or there and their), the scribe would have to determine which word belonged in that particular context - and sometimes he wrote down the wrong word."(pg 14) He notes other problems on page 195 --"scribes who thought were more dangerous than those who wished merely to be faithful in copying. Many of the alterations which may be classified as intentional were no doubt introduced in good faith by copyists who believed that they were correcting an error or infelicity of language which had previously crept into the sacred text and need to be rectified." These scribes got paid piece work, about 25 denarii for 100 lines (quality work). a bible would come to ,about 30,000 denarii. One of the elements (physical) that impacted early biblical texts that may interest some is that it is likely that Luke and Acts, two books of the NT believed to be written by the same person and having chronological congruity would have each needed their own scroll. The typical scroll length was about 30 to 35 feet and both books would not have fit on just one scroll. From books-owner Tue Apr 25 05:15:51 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA14885 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 05:15:50 GMT Received: from homer22.u.washington.edu (homer22.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id BAA21022 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 01:15:47 -0400 Received: by homer22.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA82529; Mon, 24 Apr 95 22:16:39 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer22.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 22:16:36 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: more on transmission Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I am sorry, my ^x was trigger happy again. The note about the scribes getting paid belongs with the scriptorium and then paragraph about the thinking scribes should have a 13th or 14th C. notation. David. From books-owner Tue Apr 25 13:39:49 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id NAA33439 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 13:39:48 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id JAA32148 for books; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 09:39:45 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504251339.JAA32148@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: a new word To: books Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 09:39:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4660 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Joyce Coleman wrote: From daemon Tue Apr 25 04:25:16 1995 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 01:41:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Joyce Coleman Sender: Joyce Coleman Reply-To: Joyce Coleman Subject: Re: the "audiate" To: Medliteracy In-Reply-To: <199504201153.MAA19068@uxa.liv.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Dr. R.H.P. Wright wrote: > In the last mail Joyce Coleman said: > > > And Margery Kempe, who helps the argument more by having been a > > real person, was illiterate but doesn't seem to have lost much ground as > > a result. An intelligent, "audiate" listener--even an illiterate one--is > > quite likely to have been able to retain what s/he heard and critique it. > > > This discussion is all extraordinarily interesting - > Could you please say something about the "audiate"? It sounds > a useful idea, but I'd like to know how to define it ....... RW > "Audiate" is a word introduced by W.F. Bolton, in a comment on the prevalence of public reading (reading aloud to others from books) in the Middle Ages. "It is clear," he wrote, "that those who most frequently encounter it [the written word] in the spoken word gain quite remarkable facility for maintaining their attention and for grasping matters of individual detail or overall structure: they were primarily `audiate' rather than `literate.'" ("Introduction: The Conditions of Literary Composition in Medieval England," in Bolton, ed., _History of Literature in the English Language_, v. 1: _The Middle Ages_. London, 1970, pp. ix-xxxvi; quote from p. xvii). Bolton gives the word a rather limited scope, focusing on these issues of attention and memory. I think there's more meaning waiting to be carried by the word--as Prof. Wright suggests. I would (and do) use it to designate competent listeners to an oral or aural genre/performance. Competence would include a familiarity with the matter of the text and the manner of the performance, with an ability to respond to significant variations, intertextualities, or other cues, and to formulate culturally valid judgments. Thus Margery Kempe, as an audiate listener to, e.g., saints' lives, would have understood what the genre was and what formulae and themes to expect to hear in it. She could have recognized an innovation, or a parallel to another saint or Mary/Christ, and she could have critiqued any departure from what she felt was the proper decorum for such a story. She would also, presumably, have appreciated and responded appropriately (well, maybe not, given that it's Margery) to the reader's performance, and been able to judge whether the performance met her and/or the genre's standards. Someone who was "inaudiate" might hear the same text and miss many of these nuances--as I would miss, e.g., a modern jazz artist's deliberate echo of Duke Ellington. We are, unavoidably, pretty inaudiate as audiences of medieval literature; even when it's pretty clear the text would have been performed aloud, we have little idea of the performance style or the audience's reactions. Of course, to some degree I suppose the description of Margery would overlap with what a "literate" private reader of the same saint's life would do and judge in reading it. But "audiate" includes the dimension of relating to the text as performed, and it performs a service in acknowledging the potential competence and intelligence of people who happened to be unable to read--as well as their potentially competent, intelligent interaction with texts. Also, there's no reason that a literate person couldn't be audiate as well, or vice versa--i.e., a literate person might well hear a text read aloud and be able to respond to and judge the performance, just as an audiate person (who knew how to read) might decide to read a text privately, thus foregoing the performance dimension. (I'm leaving out here any concern with books that someone reads to him/herself; I think the question of a social vs. a private experience is the key one, at least for the sort of research I'm interested in.) I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this as a coinage. For my thesis, now revised and in press, I put a fair amount of effort into coming up with words to describe things like this--non-prejudicial and (hopefully) unambiguous terms for modes of experiencing late medieval lit. All the best, Joyce Coleman From books-owner Tue Apr 25 15:33:13 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id PAA28886 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 15:33:12 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id LAA21962 for books; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:33:04 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504251533.LAA21962@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: forwarded To: books Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:33:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1065 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk David used the h-word again! From books-owner Tue Apr 25 11:12:49 1995 X-Sender: helper@homer13.u.washington.edu Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:13:40 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: thead archive LindaW asked me to post the romans thread on my home page, so I did. If anyone has a or wants to put together a selected archive package of our email sessions I would be happy to help put together a WWW presentation. I have a e-mail to WWW (html) translator that works great. Check out my home page to see what it does. David +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ / David A. Norwood Cell/v-mail 819-2271 University of Washington \ / helper@u.washington.edu U.S.A. \ / david@intersystems.com \ / http://weber.u.washington.edu/~helper/ \ / 800 242-5529 or local 463-3688 Student, History Major \ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ From books-owner Tue Apr 25 23:48:55 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA17237 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 23:48:53 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id TAA22607 for books; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 19:48:50 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504252348.TAA22607@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: log of messages To: books Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 19:48:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 192 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk All messages for the course are now on the WWW page. The two months that haven't happened yet are dummies I put in there and they will automatically open when we get to May and June. jo'd From books-owner Tue Apr 25 23:55:59 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA13671 for books-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 23:55:58 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id TAA16730 for books; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 19:55:55 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504252355.TAA16730@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: BMMR+ (fwd) To: books Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 19:55:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1204 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Incidental e-mail from a UW faculty member who will remain anonymous but perhaps obvious or at least familiar to some of you. The "libelli" read in churches are martyr stories *written* down -- City of God, book 22, has a good example. More texts with power . . . I've just spent a few days grazing in A's sermons on the cult of martyrs. Lots of fun, easy Latin (less work), and full of interesting perspectives on the younge A. It makes me think that the City of God XXII is really an appendix to his sermons at that point in his "career". Anyway, imago would probably be a very weak keyword for the sermons, as opposed to the De trin.-- for interesting reasons. So thanks for the offer, but when I get to CETEDOC I'll play my own tune and see what happens. Sermon 316 does *not* provide to those who leap on it much solid meat-- on the contrary, since, for all his reticence about images in churches, he's effusive about libelli read in churches-- indeed, as part of his sermon (#322)! Someone could do a wonderful thesis in rhetorical and epistemological theory on this, the CD, the Contra Cresconium, the DDC, etc. Peter Brown is too rhetorical himself to handle it. More later. From books-owner Wed Apr 26 04:51:11 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id EAA11598 for books-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 04:51:10 GMT Received: from shiva2.cac.washington.edu (shiva2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.202]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id AAA13897 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:51:07 -0400 Received: by shiva2.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA14149; Tue, 25 Apr 95 21:51:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 21:51:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Linda Wright To: books Subject: Read and Pray Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk My extra work for this quarter involves reading two special letters of Jerome's (22 and 107) to two young Christian women. In this week's passages I encountered the following phrase which relates closely to the content of our course: Oras: loqueris ad sponsum; legis: ille tibi loquitur. . . You pray: you speak to your Spouse; You read: He speaks to you. . . (my translation) I wrote earlier during the course of the final scene where Phaedrus and Socrates offer a prayer to the gods, and of the intimacy which exists in the one-to-one relationship between petitioner and God (or god, if you prefer). This passage in Jerome's letter falls within a section where he draws heavily from the Song of Songs, blending the topic of today's class, allegory, with carnal and spiritual intimacy. The praying and reading here is being done in the seclusion of the bedroom, with husband (sponsum) as author and bride as reader. Pray to your spouse (God), and he speaks to you through his written word (the Holy Scriptures). The reader must become an active partner in the relationship. The two acts of speaking and reading are inseparable in this interchange (dare I use the word "intercourse", for the context of this passage invites the comparison?). An important distinction in the relationship formed between reader and author is the function of the the written word. Through the text the author's words speak directly to the reader, involving him or her physically (through the eyes and hands while see and hold the text) and mentally (that voice inside us which "speaks" and "hears" the words). While being read, those words belong only and both to the reader and author, uniting them through the common bond of their message. There also exists the luxury of time: time to linger over difficult or pleasurable passages, time to reread the same, and time to read whenever and wherever the reader so desires. Time is not so cruel to the written word as it is to the spoken word. Tangential to this brief essay is a question I have on the imagery of hands pressed together in the act of prayer. Commonly seen in various artistic representations and media are readers who are seated with a book on their lap, hands under each cover. When that book is closed, the hands would be pressing the book together and in a similar position as they are during prayer. Is this just coincidence, or does the position of the hands in prayer have anything to do with reading? -Linda From books-owner Wed Apr 26 05:01:47 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id FAA11553 for books-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 05:01:46 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id BAA23578 for books; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 01:01:44 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504260501.BAA23578@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: praying hands To: books Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 01:01:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1108 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Coincidence: have a look at this (it's got diagrams!): [thanks to Patty Shaw for putting me on to this author last quarter] Author: Trexler, Richard C., 1932-. Title: The Christian at prayer : an illustrated prayer manual attributed to Peter the Chanter (d. 1197) / Richard C Trexler. Pub. Info.: Binghamton, N.Y. : Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1987. Phy Descript: 260 p. LC Subject: Petrus-Cantor-ca-1130-1197-De-penitentia-et-partibus-eius. Petrus-Cantor-ca-1130-1197-De-oratione-et-speciebus-illius. Prayer -- History-of-doctrines -- Middle-Ages-600-1500. Posture-in-worship -- History-of-doctrines -- Middle-Ages-600-1500. Other Author: Petrus, Cantor, ca. 1130-1197. Author/Title: Petrus, Cantor, ca. 1130-1197. De penitentia. 1987. Petrus, Cantor, ca. 1130-1197. De oratione. 1987. Series Info.: Medieval & Renaissance texts & studies ; v. 44. Library Loc.: Suzzallo/Allen. Status: Suzzallo General Stacks BX1749.P363 T74 1987 CHECK THE SHELVES From books-owner Wed Apr 26 23:25:27 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA24713 for books-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 23:25:26 GMT Received: from homer03.u.washington.edu (homer03.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id TAA38784 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 19:25:19 -0400 Received: by homer03.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA22539; Wed, 26 Apr 95 16:26:09 -0700 X-Sender: hektor@homer03.u.washington.edu Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 16:26:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "K. Ryker" To: books Subject: Clanchy Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk On Tuesday it was mentioned that the scriptures are based on oral traditions that assume a background already known by the readers. This was also the case with the Greek tragedy and comedy writers who assumed that their audiences were familiar with the whole hierarchy of immortals and royals and half-cast offspring. One of the results of this subliminal knowledge could be dual allegory or allegory based on information that we either do not have or cannot understand. Sort of like hearing a political joke from the 1890's that comes across as less than cogent. Clanchy takes a refreshingly broad view: "Ideological assumptions haunt the use of the word "literacy". Behind its simple dictionary definition as the quality of being literate lies a morass of cultural assumptions and value judgements."(pg.9) I would like to discuss further the implications of selective enlightenment, the effect of uniform standards (which I propose will hark back to how we read and understand literature), and the long term effect that this patronage has had on us. Clanchy also addresses the "preoccupation with posterity" as practiced by the monastic houses (pg.147-9). He explains how the monks considered writing as a providential instrument; "the monastic writer aimed to use records to convey to posterity a deliberately created and rigorously selected version of events," based on the same rationale offered by Augustine - that it is all God's will or they would not have thought of it in the first place... One more quote, as a sort of balance to all of the previous quoting re. Augustine and scriptures and I also wrote part of this myself in an earlier E-mail, so now I'm validated - "By truth about the past they meant what really should have happened . . . because the truth was too important to leave to chance." (pg.149) ......................... JOD - More on Griffith this w/e. There are several intersting tie-ins with Clanchy one of which is the use of tangible symbols such as statues for the Papago and the knives or swords attached to writs and charters in medieval England and their function in an oral culture. From books-owner Thu Apr 27 01:40:56 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id BAA28179 for books-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 01:40:55 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id VAA33543 for books; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 21:40:51 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504270140.VAA33543@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: context To: books Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 21:40:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 948 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Kyle's point about tragedy and scripture both depending on a received tradition (oral) that helped you interpret the presence. Note how contemporary educational debates love to get on to questions of "canon" and what things you should require people to read when young in order to give them a common range of reference. Note (1) the artificiality of that, and (2) the de facto "canon" of common and increasingly oral [or was it ever not oral?] tradition that we share from popular culture. I've noticed in my lifetime that Abe Lincoln has been fading from view, but John F. Kennedy is everywhere, and we all share a lot about him (enough to do an intelligent job of watching Forrest Gump) without sharing a single textual source. My point is that cultures *do* share not just texts but con-texts, but the idea that this can be reduced to specific texts in an educational canon is artificial at least and impossible at worst. jo'd From books-owner Thu Apr 27 06:29:58 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id GAA11289 for books-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 06:29:57 GMT Received: from seanet.com (kesha.seanet.com [199.181.164.1]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with ESMTP id CAA05135 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 02:29:53 -0400 Received: from mx.seanet.com by seanet.com with SMTP (8.6.9/25-eef) id XAA28139; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 23:30:40 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 23:30:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199504270630.XAA28139@seanet.com> X-Sender: cicero@pop.seanet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: books From: cicero@cicero.seanet.com (Bryce Carpenter) Subject: bibles & Cassiodorus Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Though a bit after the fact, I thought some comparisons of early Christian Scripture to be interesting yet. These lists of 'acceptable' scripture come from three of perhaps the most important sources for this sort of thing: Jerome, Augustine, and the Septuagint. These lists come largely from Cassiodorus' *Introduction to Divine and Human Readings*. More stuff afterwards. Jerome Augustine Septuagint *The Law *The History (22 books) Genesis Genesis Genesis Exodus Exodus Exodus Leviticus Leviticus Leviticus Numbers Numbers Numbers Deuteronomy Deuteronomy Deuteronomy *The Prophets Joshua Joshua Joshua Judges Judges Judges Ruth Ruth Ruth Samuel 1-4 Kings 1-4 Kings Isaiah 1-2 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles Jeremiah Job Psalter Ezekial Tobit *Bks. of Solomon The Book of The 12 Esther Proverbs (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Judith Wisdom Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, 1-2 Esdras(2 Esdras=Nehemiah) Ecclesiasticus Nahum, Habakkuk, 1-2 Maccabees Ecclesiastes Zephaniah, Zechariah, Song of Songs Haggai, and Malachi) *The Prophets (22 books) *The Prophets Psalter Isaiah *The Hagiography Proverbs Jeremiah Job Ecclesiastes Ezekiel David(Psalms) Song of Songs Daniel Proverbs 1-2 Jesus son of Sirach Ezekiel Ecclesiasticus (note 1 below) The Four Major Prophets Hosea, Amos Song of Songs Isaiah Micah, Joel Diaries (1-2 Chronicles) Jeremiah(incl. Lamentations) Obadiah, Jonah Esdras Daniel Nahum, Habakkuk Esther Ezekiel Zephaniah The Twelve Minor Prophets Haggai Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Zechariah Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Malachi Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Job Haggai, Malachi Tobit Esther Judith 1-2 Esdras 1-2 Maccabees Note 1 Ecclesiasticus is sometimes also called The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach and is considered deuterocanonical only by the RCC, apocryphal elsewhere. New Testament Gospels Gospels Gospels MMLJ MMLJ MMLJ Epistles of the Apostles Epistles of the Apostles Acts...Apostles 14 of Paul(same as Aug's list) Romans Epistle of Peter 1-2 Peter 1-2 Corinthians to the Nations 1-3 John Galatians Eps. of James James Ephesians Eps. of John to Jude Philippians the Parthians 1-2 Thessalonians Romans Colossians 1-2 Corinthians 1-2 Timothy Philippians Titus Colossians Philemon 1-2 Titus 1-2 of Peter 1-2 Timothy 1-3 of John 1-2 Titus Jude Philemon James Acts of the Apostles Acts of the Apostles Revelation Revelation Revelation Totals 22 OT 44 (2x22) OT 44 OT 27 NT 27 NT 26 NT Why the long chart? Because that's how almost how Cassiodorus did it. He had a chapter on each of the three bibles in his library in *IDHR* and wrote out these lists in such a way that the careful reader, whom he is addressing, would notice the differences in content, that is not only the inclusion/omission of certain Books, but the differences in the way each bible (I don't know if they used the word *Bible* at that time, but I will) had the Books ordered. Jerome's bible is deceivingly short and simple. What appears to be a slash and burn series of omissions in the OT is simply a consolidation and reorganizaton for symbolic purposes. He combined and ammended several books to reach this end result. The 22 books in his OT are equal in number to the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Jerome does this to further illustrate that it was in Hebrew which God revealed the OT and from Hebrew which he worked. The 22 books of the OT when added to the 27 (3x3x3) books of the NT equals 49, or 7x7. Cassiodorus explains that the number seven is complete in a 'twofold sense.'(I.xv.13) In a religious sense, it is symbolic of much (the seven days of creation, for example) and the word itself in Latin, septem, is complete on its own (it's indeclinable). But to the seven sevens (49) Cassiodorus adds 1, for the Trinity, to arrive at 50. Why 50 if 49 seemed pretty good? Throughout *IDHR*, Cassiodorus mentions the jubilee, a Jewish custom of those days and earlier which occurred every 50 years and all slaves were set free and property was restored to its rightful owner. Thus from an Augustinian perspective, to which Cassiodorus does indeed s*bscribe (more on that another day), the number of the Bible's entirety, 50, is indicative of its ability to compassionately forgive transgressions and remit the sins of those who are absolutely penitent.(I.xii.2) Cassiodorus further says that Jerome's cola et commata arrangement of Scripture is, following the example of '50,' forgiving of 'the simplicity of the brothers,' who are ignorant of punctuation, so that they are not penalized for their ignorance, but may better understand Scripture in this manner. Augustine's compilation of Scripture is more extensive, if only in number, than Jerome's. Augustine's OT totals 44 books, 22 of The History and 22 of The Prophets. 22 is 7x3+1. Creation, members of the Trinity, one God. 44 added to the 27 books of the NT equals 71, 'and if to this number you add the unity of the Holy Trinity, there will result a number appropriately and gloriously perfect in balance,' 72.(I.xiii.2) 72 probably refers to the number of scholars in the Septuagint (72 was later rounded to 70 by the Church). Cassiodorus is careful to remember the lesson of Augustine regarding translations. In II.xv.22 of *OCD*, Augustine instructs that the Greek translation of Scripture should take precedence over the Latin, and Hebrew over the Greeek. For that reason, Cassiodorus retained a Greek translation in his library at the Vivarium which had 75 books. To this number Cassiodorus says that 75 souls came with Jacob from the land of Canaan to Egypt and that Abraham was 75 years old when 'he joyfully received the word of the Lord.'(I.xiv.4) (BTW, if you ever find yourself in the grand ol' Vivarium with nothing to do, you can find this bible in the eighth bookcase. Cassiodorus likes to map out his library for us. :~) ) So here are more examples of signs in the Augustinian sense. The organization of the Bible is a sign, or a series of them. Yet to Cassiodorus, and Augustine, these signs do not conflict. In a textual community without a standard, the Church of Late Antiquity, Cassiodorus sets a standard with his brothers in the Vivarium to keep *good* examples of the Bible around for study. Actually, these are the only bibles that Cassiodorus mentions, but by mere exclusion in either collection or even mention of anything else, he is implying that there were other versions about and thus wrote this user's manual for his brothers so that they may better understand why these versions of Scripture were the ones which he, and the Church, kept. From books-owner Thu Apr 27 10:20:37 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id KAA29515 for books-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:20:36 GMT Received: from homer06.u.washington.edu (homer06.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id GAA30787 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 06:20:32 -0400 Received: by homer06.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA33764; Thu, 27 Apr 95 03:21:23 -0700 X-Sender: drusus@homer06.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 03:21:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ross To: Books List Subject: Becoming more prejudiced in favor of literacy . . . In-Reply-To: <199504270140.VAA33543@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Before turning to Clanchy, I would like to comment on Kyle's and Professor O'Donnell's recent postings . . . I would propose that the development of a written canon in contemporary America (and before) is not quite as artificial as Professor O'Donnell asserted earlier; could it not be seen as a necessary and desirable way of managing an exponentially increasing body of texts from which to draw? To illustrate this point using an example already forwarded, it seems to me that the mythological background necessary to catch almost all the references in fifth century BC Attic tragedy could be acquired from knowledge of the Epic Cycle (*Iliad*, *Odyssey*, three others no longer extant), the Homeric Hymns, Hesiod (*Works & Days*, *Theogony*) and perhaps a smattering of lyric poetry. While this is a considerable amount of information to internalize, it is nothing like, to take an extreme example, the works one would need to have knowledge of to fully understand a few pages of Nietzsche's *Twilight of the Idols*. Certainly the latter is very much the product of Clanchy's nineteenth century humanist education (see what happens to philologists when they don't get out enough) and of a literate society, but that does not change the fact that the explosion of information available may *require* the "arbitrary" formation of a cannon; there does not seem to be any other way of creating a "common range of reference" in, or even approaching the vast literature of, a society that has been literate for an extended period of time. Also, how much of today's common culture is oral and how much is textual? Did you-all learn about JFK from your friends/parents or from Arthur Schlessinger? Moving on to Clanchy, I have to say I am somewhat disappointed/disturbed by the introduction. While I am impressed with his approach to examining the transition to a society based on written record, namely examining eleventh to thirteenth century England in detail then extrapolating from there, I found the section "Being Prejudiced in Favour of Literacy" to be somewhat more politicized than I had expected. Not that I am one to criticizing an author for having an opinion, but I found that Clanchy was willing to sacrifice his internal logic to his agenda at times. I thought his admonition that "anthropological studies of non-literate societies in the third world and sociological studies of deprived urban proleteriats in the west both suggest that literacy in itself is primarily a technology (7)," was well put; looking at literacy as a specialized technology rather than some ubiquitous aspect of civilization seems legitimate and appropriate. Later, Clanchy warns against "utilitarian and mechanistic" technological determinism (20). Still, he is willing to state, "It may be a consequence of mass literacy, rather than a coincidence, that the mass killings of the twentieth century have been done by the most schooled populations in the world's history (11)." If by this he means that technology is a amoral factor which may be used for good or ill, and has been used for a great deal of ill this century, then his point is taken. If Clanchy is, on the other hand, trying to tie literacy to mass warfare, as is implied by his examination of conscription (11), or to acts of eugenics and genocide (10), the connection is somewhat tenuous and indeed reeks of overstated technological determinism. (Distasteful eugenic practices can be found in largely non-literate societies such as archaic Sparta, just as conscription was practiced at least as early as the Persian Empire, at least if you are willing to consider rounding up the surviving males from a conquered village and whipping them into battle as slaves a primitive form of conscription; literacy only makes the process a little more efficient). I also had a problem with a couple of Clanchy's rather blithe statements. His assertion that literacy and the teaching thereof were intended not to educate 19th century workers but to produce an "orderly, disciplined, and deferential workforce (8)" seems somewhat contrived; as an undergraduate, I heard the same theory concerning 18th century Methodism in England. Then as now I can't quite believe that the elites in English society were well-organized enough and shrewd enough to carry off such an insidious plot; I think that is giving them way too much credit. Being from a working class family, I also take exception to his assertion that even today that "only a minority of those who attend school can be proven to benefit, in either economic or cultural terms, from the acquisition of literacy (7)." It may indeed be that "some modern academics, rather than peasants . . . risk mental confinement within the 'small circumscribed world' of their field of specialization (9);" literacy was and is crucial to almost every job I can think of (I can elaborate in class if anyone wishes). Furthermore, if literacy is superfluous, why does Clanchy get so riled up about the "elitism" of humanism? Furthermore, if "civilization" ought not be defined by literacy itself, or even by technology (i.e. literacy-as-technology, p. 7), or by art (the literature deemed worthy by a narrow elite), how are we to define civilization? Or are we not to define it and descend into a morass of post-structuralist relativism? Finally, I have to voice my astonishment that any medievalist could claim that "Whether [medieval peasants] were better or worse off than modern labourers is a matter of opinion, not historical fact (9)." I defy anyone to present an objective, historically supported list of ways which life was better for *any* premodern peasant than for even the most menial modern laborer in a western, industrialized nation. If there is anything I have learned from studying ancient history, it is that Hobbes was pretty much right when he described premodern life as "nasty, brutish, and short." My apologies for posting such an invective-laden and "political" message; I did think, however, that Clanchy's introduction was politicized enough to warrant it. Despite my objections, I am really looking forward to reading more of this book (does it strike any of you as odd that Clanchy derides literacy so much in a *book*? It reminds me of Plato's Seventh Letter . . .) --Shawn From books-owner Thu Apr 27 16:27:08 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id QAA15002 for books-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:27:07 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id MAA23444 for books; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:27:04 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504271627.MAA23444@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: for thursday To: books Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:27:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 491 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk More attention to the technology of actually making manuscript books: read around in Clanchy looking for what appeals to you that way (looking at the pictures and then going back to the text a good strategy), and then look at the additional materials page for the course, where I've just posted a link to an article I wrote a couple of years ago: read that on-line (good practice: lynx is fine if you haven't got mosaic or netscape) and we'll talk about it thursd. and into Tuesday From books-owner Thu Apr 27 16:29:43 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id QAA30181 for books-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:29:42 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id MAA36575 for books; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:29:39 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504271629.MAA36575@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: oops To: books Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:29:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 109 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I meant, read that For Tuesday, adn we'll go on to McLuhan (who still talks about manuscripts) by Thursday. From books-owner Thu Apr 27 23:37:49 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA41084 for books-outgoing; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 23:37:48 GMT Received: from homer11.u.washington.edu (homer11.u.washington.edu [140.142.78.12]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id TAA40567 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:37:45 -0400 Received: by homer11.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA116358; Thu, 27 Apr 95 16:38:36 -0700 X-Sender: odysseus@homer11.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian D Green To: The List Subject: safe at last! (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Speaking of the importance of education, the liberal arts, etc...... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 14:59:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Kenneth Kitchell To: clist udub Cc: aegeanet send Subject: safe at last! Cross posted.... sorry for redundancies WEdnesday's NYT has an excerpt from the letter sent by the so-called Unabomber who, you may have heard, is targetting university types inter alios. But there is good news -- read on: "We have nothing against universities or scholars as such. All the university people whom we have attacked have been specialists in _technical fields_. .....We would not want anyone to think that we have any desire to hurt professors who study archaeology, history, literature or harmless stuff like that. The people we are out to get are the scientists and engineers, especially in critical fields like computers and genetics....." So, there is good news, and bad news. We in the fields of classical literature and archaeology are safe. Remember that next time someone asks you "Why'd you go into that field???!!" The bad news is that we are harmless and non-critical. A fair trade perhaps..... Ken Kitchell, LSU From books-owner Fri Apr 28 00:54:15 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id AAA16499 for books-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:54:14 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id UAA29550 for books; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 20:54:10 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504280054.UAA29550@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: ok, your assignment To: books Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 20:54:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 569 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I talk too much. SO here, where you can talk as much as you like, I want you to think of something we've talked about or something your reading about and give us over the next week as purely *technological* an analysis as you can -- some phenomenon of literacy, books, interpretation, etc., and see how far you can strip away your moralizing instincts and just talk about what *happened*, what's *there*. Comment if you will on the temptation to moralize, but prepare yourself for flames from any direction if you fall back into the temptation headlong. jo'd From books-owner Fri Apr 28 02:16:42 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id CAA40666 for books-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 02:15:55 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id WAA38612 for books; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 22:15:47 -0400 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199504280215.WAA38612@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: optional assignment To: books Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 22:15:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn2.9] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 399 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Tuesday, if the gadgets work, I plan to spend most of the time looking at some images on screen and asking you to "read" them for us -- images of writing and images of written things, all from medieval MSS and the like. If you get a chance and want to have a look early, go either to the additional materials page or directly to: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/class.pictures.html jo'd From books-owner Fri Apr 28 12:00:17 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id MAA38087 for books-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 12:00:16 GMT Received: from homer23.u.washington.edu (homer23.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.3]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id IAA39361 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 08:00:12 -0400 Received: by homer23.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA30080; Fri, 28 Apr 95 05:01:03 -0700 X-Sender: helper@homer23.u.washington.edu Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 05:01:03 -0700 (PDT) From: David Norwood To: HSTAM431 LIST Subject: Re: Bomb Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Just a note, due to our field, we are not safe, please check out the warning notices posted by UW security on the UW anouncements PAGE http://www.washington.edu:1183/home/uwin/services/uwgen/TableOfContents0.html - Not realy a big deal statisticly(sp) but FYI. DavidN From books-owner Sat Apr 29 19:20:12 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id TAA36668 for books-outgoing; Sat, 29 Apr 1995 19:20:11 GMT Received: from shiva2.cac.washington.edu (shiva2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.202]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id PAA38711 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 1995 15:20:07 -0400 Received: by shiva2.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA28148; Sat, 29 Apr 95 12:20:57 -0700 Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 12:20:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Linda Wright To: books Subject: Electrons, Paper, and Parchment Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Consider how I write to you today: keyboard, computer screen, and data link bringing my words to you, various electronics transferring electrical impulses to 1 and 0 bits, then to mere pulses of light (fiber optics), and reversing the whole process at your end. This is greatly simplified, but enough detail for my needs. There is a lot of technology involved here and I have to possess a fair amount of knowledge to make it all work. Now consider just a decade ago. I would have had to bring to class a piece of paper which I'd written in pencil and read to you or hand it around. My local stationery store would have provided all the technology, that is, paper and pencil. I don't have to know how that paper was made, or how they get that little cylinder of graphite inside the wooden pencil; I just go to the store, buy my supplies, go home, and write. I wish I could talk more about the earlier Middle Ages when paper was still made from rags, laid on wire frames, pressed to release the excess water, and then hung to dry. Even this doesn't outline the entire process. I don't know how readily available it was to the average consumer, in what form it was purchased (By the sheet? Cut sheet? Uniform sizes?), and will have to leave that for someone else. Could one go to a stationer and also purchase pen and ink? At some point in time, no doubt one could, but when that was I can't say. Writing wasn't as easy technologically then, nor were the materials for writing easily procured. I find it necessary to remind myself of these matters when considering the technical differences writers have dealt with throughout the history of the text. The differences amaze me, and I hope amazement will not be misunderstood as moralizing. If your patience has allowed you to continue this far I hope to repay your attention by finally coming to the true subject of this missive and discuss some of the technical difficulties encountered when writing on parchment or vellum. My context is the monastic scriptorium, the only for setting for MSS production with which I have any familiarity. Our medieval scribes, brother Mark or sister Maria (yes, nuns were scribes, too!), for example, didn't just take a piece of parchment off their desks and begin copying out the day's work. First, just briefly think about the parchment itself. I can't go into great detail about how it was made, but I will mention a few important particular for our monastic scribes. Parchment requires a laborious manufacturing process and one which was most often done downwind of the inhabited areas. Animal skins, usually sheep and calf (please see JO'D's excellent NREN article), had to be scraped and cleaned, soaked in lye, thoroughly rinsed, carefully stretched, and very carefully scraped again. Once the parchment was acquired by the monastery, the precentor or armarius was in charge of parceling it out to the scribes. First the parchment had to be cut to the desired size. The scribes then had to "rule" their parchment and may have done this in one of two ways. A row of "prickings" would be made down each side of the page, and then lines would be drawn with pen or in another way which left easily visible lines. Or, the scribe might use "dry point" ruling, in which a metal stylus is run between the two sets of prickings making an indented line for writing on one side of the page, and a raised one on the opposite side. Several pages could be ruled at one time using this manner, and the lines are barely visible once the text has been written. The scribe also had to make his or her own ink, it wasn't purchased in little bottles, ready for use. Ink was made from a variety of materials, but soot or oak gall were commonly mixed with gum and boiled together with wine. This is just a simple recipe for black or brown ink. Colored inks used for decoration were much more elaborate, sometimes requiring expensive jewels such as lapis lazuli or even gold for the pigments. Gold leaf is a wondrous accomplishment to consider. It was pounded so thin that even the illuminator's breath could destroy its application to the page. (Illumination and copying were usually done by different people, but the decorated page required great skill in page layout on the part of the scribe.) Pens didn't come off the shelf, either, and the scribe had to trim the nib correctly before starting to write and during his or her work. I'll end by briefly mentioning a few general points on the MS production process. Copying work was assigned to scribes, they did not choose what they would write. A particular exemplar might be on loan for only a short time (if so, the book might be unbound and individual sections given to different scribes for copying), specific texts might be needed or requested by sister houses or patrons, or a scribe might even have been sent to another monastery to copy a book for which the risk of a loan was too great. Finished texts would be corrected by another scribe and often interlinear corrections can be seen, yet errors naturally still exist. When a text had been copied the individual pages still had to be bound together (though this was not always the case), and then possibly covered. What a *vastly* different process from the way we write and acquire books today! I've omitted many fascinating details and there is much I don't yet know about the entire process of MSS production. Medieval manuscripts and books and their production greatly interest me, and I could go on far too long. I hope that JO'D will talk at length on such topics in class on Tuesday, especially correcting anything I've brought up which may be inaccurate. -Linda From books-owner Sun Apr 30 03:55:36 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id DAA20146 for books-outgoing; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 03:55:35 GMT Received: from homer06.u.washington.edu (homer06.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.13]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id XAA40109 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 1995 23:55:32 -0400 Received: by homer06.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA125687; Sat, 29 Apr 95 20:56:22 -0700 X-Sender: cimon@homer06.u.washington.edu Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 20:56:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Hawke To: books Subject: a little Cicero on the side Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I ran across this while doing a little reading on the side, from Cicero's *De Re publica*: In the year when Tuditanus and Aquilius were consuls (129 B.C), Publius Africanus (Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Minor), the son of Paulus, decided to spend the Latin holidays at his country-seat, and a considerable number of his most intimate friends stated their intention of visiting him during that period. Early in the morning of the holiday itself, his nephew, Quintus Tubero, arrived in advance of all the rest. Scipio greeted him cordially, for he was truly glad to see him, and then asked: Why are you here so early, Tubero? For these holidays would certainly have provided you with an excellent opportunity for pursuing your literary studies. Tubero: My books are at home to me at any time, for they are never busy, but it is a very great privilege to find you at leisure... I thought it interesting that in one breath Cicero gives us the advantages of books (always available), yet the preferability of face-to-face discourse, for what it's worth. Jason From books-owner Sun Apr 30 23:25:04 1995 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) id XAA35574 for books-outgoing; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 23:25:03 GMT Received: from homer13.u.washington.edu (homer13.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.14]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/CCAT) with SMTP id TAA16366 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 19:24:59 -0400 Received: by homer13.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA94196; Sun, 30 Apr 95 16:25:48 -0700 X-Sender: hektor@homer13.u.washington.edu Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 16:25:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "K. Ryker" To: books Subject: purely tech Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Prof. O'Donnell made reference to how Hitler might be historically remembered with reference to the first real use of mass media and its stunning effect. Joseph Goebbels feat in manipulating and disseminating selected "canon" has always fascinated me. In the purely technical sense, the resultant effect was not what was said but rather that it was repeated so effectively and so often that the doctrine became an oral communication with a seemingly traditional basis. People tend to repeat what they hear in the context of conversation without questioning authority but rather incorporating the "I heard that ..." effect of perpetuated albeit unfounded rhetoric. A modern equivalent is the increasing propensity for news broadcasters to quote a "source" that turns out to be CNN or similar and is just as likely to be a flippant sentence taken out of context yet reported as if there were some validity behind it. They are reporting on reporting. The phenomenon of mass medial influence worldwide is unprecedented. Now, as in the past, it is perhaps less than wise to accept the oral verbiage that has be written down without questioning the authority of its providence. Perhaps unprecedented is not quite right. The power of the written word enabled those who used it the power to determine what was best for humanity. The difference now is that so many different cultural groups are involved, throughout the world, many with completely different concepts of the world. AS a brief example, and hopefully more relative than to only my mind, there is a human oracle-goddess, right now, sitting on a pedestal in the old part of Kathmandu, Nepal; there is another one in Bohktaphur, a much older city 90 miles north. They sacrifice goats by slitting their throats at the goddesses' feet. I asked them what they did with the rest of the goat and they told me they eat it which I thought very practical. Nepal is so isolated that not even the British occupied it. Interestingly they incorporate a mixture of Buddist, Hindu, Muslim and local Pagan dogma into intermingled rituals. The first time I went there I read in a hand-set type newspaper that in a village 50 miles east they had stoned a woman to death for adultery. There is also a priest in a cave near Chiang Rai, Thailand that sits in a glass case and has for 25 years. m This may seem incongruous to Joseph Goebbels and the effects of mass media, but I also recall that when the Mujahadhin took control in Afghanistan after the Russians left, all they had (they complained) was a command tent, a T.V. (presumably for CNN) and a FAX. At the risk of incurring Prof. JOD's flames, I am proposing that the effect of this new technology is going to be vastly different from previous innovations and will require great responsibility and and a living venue as opposed to the static Christian closed and invulnerable principle.