NYT Crossword, 0720

Woah! So much that I do not know. Not only did I not finish the puzzle today, but I also had three wrong letters in the puzzle. Ouch. In my favor, however, is the observation that many in the puzzling community were stumped by the obscurity of some of these words.

The obscure:

• Mocks = JAPES?
• Trail to follow = SPOOR?
• Eurasian ducks = SMEWS?
• Natural bristle = AWN?
• Go rapidly = SKIRR?
• Bygone blades = SNEES? This appears to be a rather bogus clue.
• Open court hearing = OYER?

The proper names:

• "La Gioconda" mezzo-soprano = LAURA.
• Dr. Zhivago role = PASHA.
• Mrs. Woody Allen = SOONYI.
• Illinois city, site of the last Lincoln-Douglas debate = ALTON.
• Half-brother of Tom Sawyer = SID.
• Manhattan part = RYE. Doesn't actually appear to be a part of Manhattan, but rather 33 minutes away.

My mistakes:

• Across: November 5, in Britain/Down: "Venice Preserved" dramatist Thomas: GUYFAWKESNIGHT/OTWAY (not guyfaukesnight/otuay)
• Down: Bossman or bosswoman/Across: ____ state: PREZ/ZEN (not pres/sen)
• Across: La Scala cheer/Down: Capri, e.g., to a Capriote: BRAVA/ISOLA (not bravo/isolo). Clearly demonstrates my lack of Italian.
  

Descent of Ishtar

The Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld (Late Bronze Age)

From the Introduction

• This text seems to be an abbreviated Akkadian version of an older Sumerian text entitled, The Descent of Inanna.
• This text is associated with the funeral rites associated with the god Dumuzi, known as the taklimtu.
• It may be referring to a ritual carrying of a cult statue of Ishtar from Uruk, where she was patron, to Kutha, home of the gods associated with the Underworld.

Main characters

• Ishtar: daughter of Sin, goddess of love and war (interesting combo, recalling the love affair of Ares and Aphrodite).
• Ereshkigal: wife of Nergal, sister of Ishtar, queen of the Underworld (aka "Mistress of Earth").
• Namtar: Ereshkigal's vizier, a god of fate, and thus a bringer of disease.
• Dumuzi: Ishtar's lover, a god who spends half the year in the underworld.
• Belili: Dumuzi's sister, who weeps for him (aka Geshtin-anna)

Synopsis

Ishtar decides to visit the underworld, known as Kurnugi, and approaches the gate with threats if she is not let in. Her sister is not pleased at this news, but Ishtar is granted entrance, but only as she passes through the gates and all her clothes and jewelry are removed. While Ishtar is there, Namtar afflicts her with various diseases forcing her to remain, and in Ishtar's absence, fertility among both beast and man halts. In response, Ea creates a really handsome guy to go down and trick Ereshkigal into letting Ishtar go. He succeeds, but is cursed by the goddess. After anointing her with the waters of life, Ereshkigal lets Ishtar depart, receiving back her clothes and jewelry. Dumuzi is her ransom, and he is prepared with funerary rites, while his sister weeps for him and makes it possible for him to return one day.

Commentary

If the synopsis seems a bit confusing, that's because the text itself is a bit confusing. And yet, there are some beautiful lines of poetry here, too. The main problem is that there seems to be no particular reason for Ishtar to descend into Kurnugi, besides her own hell-bent (literally) desire to do so. Lacking is the kind of motive found in the various Greek stories of visiting the underworld (Persephone, Orpheus, Hercules, Odysseus, etc.). This problem is compounded by a very confusing shift in focus from Ishtar to Dumuzi in the last few lines. The narrator does not make it clear why Dumuzi is to be Ishtar's ransom, or how the need for a ransom fits in with the trickery of the handsome guy to get Ishtar back.

This poem introduces us to Mesopotamian views of death, or perhaps rather the world of the dead, and the natural passing from life to death. Death is described as "traveling one-way" or entering a house from which you cannot leave. I think people who have experienced the loss of loved ones could relate to such sentiments about death. (Compare 2 Nephi 1:14) Belili's highly emotional reaction to her brother's funeral at the end of the poem perhaps demonstrates typical distress at the situation. The dead are not described in very positive terms, and in fact, there seems to be a real fear that the dead might come back to haunt people - in other words, the dead are meant to stay dead and gone, which of course is the problem with Ishtar's descent to the underworld. The powerful emotions connected with death, particularly untimely death, are put into Ereshkigal's mouth:

'I have to weep for young men forced to abandon their sweethearts.
I have to weep for girls wrenched from their lovers' laps.
For the infant child I have to weep, expelled before its times.'

There also seems to be a close association of disease with death, as Namtar is commanded to strike Ishtar down with 60 diseases.

Another important aspect of the Mesopotamian world is fertility. In a world so reliant upon agriculture and husbandry, and one in which people probably lived on the brink of starvation and death regularly, we can easily imagine that a goddess of fertility would be an important deity. While she is gone, there is no procreation. The solution is to entice Ereshkigal with an object of sexual desire (the translator calls him 'Good-looks the playboy'), and the ransom payment required is Ishtar's former lover. I think we should imagine that Ishtar is dressed like a prostitute, bedecked with alluring clothes and lots of jewelry up and down her body. Her priestesses, who perform the funeral rites for Dumuzi, are called 'party-girls'. So again we see a close connection between the sources of life (water and sex) and the effects of death (weeping, funeral rites, and the stripping away of the signs of living (i.e. jewelry)).

The figures of Ishtar and Dumuzi seem to recall, in particular, the descents of Persephone and Orpheus to the underworld, although the details are dramatically different. Orpheus is the handsome young man come to win his dead lover back through song and poetry, but in the end he learns that people were not meant to come back from the dead, and he is forced to lament his lost lover. Persephone is more fortunate, but the necessity of returning to Hades for half of the year creates the cycle of fertility and death. The mythopoeic connections should be obvious.

Reflection

I was definitely struck by the powerful descriptions of death, the dead, and the underworld in this text. Clearly death meant loss, accompanied by suffering. Of course, death is the thing that makes us humans mortal, and as such it is a vital part of our temporal experience - both to experience the death of those we love, and the to succumb to it ourselves one day. Perhaps the most poignant image from the text, though, was Ishtar's passing through the seven gates into the underworld. With each gate she was stripped of her most precious possessions: crown, earrings, bangles, beads, rings, and clothes. It represents a clear reminder that we will not be able to take any of our earthly possessions with us into the afterlife. It is also a very visual image of the stripping away of our temporal existence, one emphatic step at a time, for a more eternal existence.

Reflections on Atrahasis

I'd like to go beyond the parallels between Atrahasis and the Biblical tradition, as intriguing as some of them are. I suspect that there are nuggets of truth embedded in there, which could enhance our understanding of Noah and Enoch, but I am not yet equipped to dig them out from amidst the rubble.

One of the things I teach my students about the Mesopotamians is that their literature tends to focus on the gods, with the humans more or less nameless slaves to the gods. Gilgamesh is an exception, but then he is also 2/3 god, 1/3 human. Here, Atrahasis is the only named human, and the only human who really acts, but even then he acts according to the behest of Enki. The real struggle in this work is between Enki and Ellil. Even when the flood comes, it is the gods' sufferings because of it that are discussed; the humans are merely victims of a great catastrophe. This provides a very interesting viewpoint for human literature, especially since this is one of the earliest surviving pieces of human literature.

For me, the question that all great literature answers is, what does it teach us about the nature of the human experience. If it answers such a question, then we can look to that work as a source of wisdom for our sojourn on this earth. On an emotional level, this work seems to portray a genuine feeling of helplessness vis-a-vis the supernatural, and perhaps even the natural (the two seem to be intertwined among the Mesopotamians). Atrahasis seems to be simply more fortunate than everyone else in surviving the flood - the beneficiary of a power struggle between Enki and Ellil. This is certainly a pessimistic view of human nature - even the creation of humans was simply a means of transferring the work load from the gods to a lesser form of being. I am compelled to wonder at the achievements of a civilization with such a view. Why make any great effort to build up cities and empires, produce music and art, write literature or keep records, when it is all so fleeting. I was particularly struck by the line "Reject possessions, and save living things." Not only is this a true principle, but for people who value humans so little, it is downright surprising. I would expect these people to say, "Hey, live it up now, because the gods could cause it all to come crashing down tomorrow." If they can value our humanity, we should definitely be able to do so.

Further to that thought is the end of the poem which reveals an attempt to understand something which is so much rarer in our world: infant mortality. I don't know what the infant mortality rate in the modern United States is, but I'm sure it is a lot lower than 33%. Perhaps seeing it as a decree of the gods made it less devastating to think about, but such notice in a text also suggests that they did value those infants and were sad to see them not survive.

My last thought on this book regards the times of famine designed to depopulate the earth. As the famine got worse and worse, the people devolved into cannibalism. I can only wonder how I myself might react to such a situation - how much food could have been available after 6 years of famine? If people didn't resort to cannibalism, then even more people would die - is the right choice then for everyone to give up and die, or should the strong do whatever it takes to survive? Of course, Abraham and Joseph lived during and survived times of famine, so perhaps we must simply learn to rely on the Lord.

Atrahasis, Tablet III

Tablet III

Synopsis

Atrahasis prays to Enki (aka Ea), who sends him a dream, commanding him to prepare for a flood by converting his house into a boat. Enki tells him to prepare for 7 days in the boat. Then, Atrahasis goes to the elders and explains to them that since Enki and Ellil have fallen out with each other, he is being driven out of Ellil's territory, forced to go live in Enki's land, the land of the Apsu. The community appears to help Atrahasis build the boat, and then he loads up birds, cattle and wild animals onto the boat. Finally, he feasts everyone, loads up his family, and then seals them all up inside the boat. Then the flood hits, and it seems to be the gods who really suffer during the flood. They complain that Ellil and Anu have made a bad decision with this flood. Nintu weeps for the destruction of men, who clog up the rivers like dragonflies. The flood lasts 7 days. Then, Ellil notices Atrahasis' boat, and rages against Enki, who acknowledges that he has done it to preserve mankind. Ellil has to accept it, and orders Enki and Nintu to work out the problem with mankind. Their solution is to provide for their mortality. Now, a third of the children born to women will not survive infancy, and some women will become priestesses who may not give birth. In this way, the population of humans will not become over large, and the noise which had upset Ellil will be better controlled.

Commentary

• Atrahasis is presented as a prophet, who can speak to his god, Enki, and receive dreams and understand portents. (Gen 6:9, 13, etc.)
  
• Atrahasis has a different relationship with the gods than the people among whom he lives. He serves Enki, while they seem to serve Ellil. Their land is considered Ellil's, not Enki's. Is this an echo of monotheism? (Gen 6:5-8)
  
• Is Atrahasis (perhaps at the behest of Enki) being sneaky here? He gets the locals to help him build a boat, and seems to be aware that a great flood is coming, but he doesn't seem to offer to save anyone else (because they belong to Ellil, who has ordered the flood?). (Note that the Genesis version does not say anything about Noah preaching repentance unto the wicked people. That information comes to us from Moses 8:20.)
  
• Atrahasis' boat seems to be more of a barge or submarine, which is completely sealed up, "so that the Sun cannot see inside it." (Gen 6:14-16, note that Noah gets a window in his ark; Ether 2:17)
  
• This tale seems to equate the flood with the fall of man into a state of mortality, which did not exist previously. (Gen 6:3 seems to suggest that the flood did mark a change in lifespan of humankind.)
  
• The entire account is mythopoeic, explaining the origin of human mortality, especially infant mortality, and the classes of celibate priestesses. (Gen 6-7 is moralistic.)
  

NYT XWord - 7/20/08

Success! Some of the clues seemed a bit too easy, and some a bit too obscure, but after completing the puzzle, I think most of the clues were pretty fair, even though there were still several clues or answers that I had never heard of before. I generally prefer the individual thematic answers to the kind of running quote found in this puzzle (since it takes a lot of cross-words to start to figure out the quote), but this quote was pretty funny. The puzzle was entitled 'Parting Thoughts', with the quote clue as 'Last request': "To die in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like the people in his car."

Proper names I have never heard of:

• John Ciardi ("Lives of X" poet)
• Erica Jong (author of a book entitled Fear of Flying, which would seem to about something I am uninterested in reading about)
• Lambert airport (the St. Louis airport, which I have actually passed through - didn't notice it was named 'Lambert' though)
• Inge (William Motte Inge to be more exact; "Picnic" playwright, which apparently won a Pulitzer; and not to be confused with William Ralph Inge, aka "the Gloomy Dean")

Other unfamiliar words:

• tercel (apparently, a male falcon (not a Toyota) - but this is the British spelling, the American being tiercel - that must explain why I didn't know it!)
• penne (a tasty tube? - Ok, this has other names that I have heard of: ziti or mostaccioli; besides, it's not the pasta that is tasty, it's the sauce!)
• spliff (slang for marijuana, comes from Jamaica, mon! - probably a good sign that I didn't know this one!)

Atrahasis, Tablet II

Tablet II

Synopsis

Tablet II is less straightforward than Tablet I, owing to both the fragmentary and repetitious nature of the text. In the end, I am not sure how much weight we can place on a chronological account, but the overall account has a few important themes. Ellil again became annoyed at the noise of the people, and ordered a famine in the land. The people used the same technique as with the previous plague: they ignored the other gods and appeased Adad, with offerings and a temple, into lifting the drought. The famine lasted 6 years, which culminated in cannibalism in the last years. Then enter Atrahasis into the story. He communes with Enki, or Ea, who guides him during the famine. The end becomes even more confusing, but it seems that Enki and Ellil had an argument, and Ellil demands a flood. Ellil also seems to be upset with the Igigi, who created humans and are now destroying them.

Commentary

• Is there a connection between the fact that the Bible reports Noah as being 600 years old at the time of the flood, and the Atrahasis discusses the passing of a period of 600 years? (Gen 7:6)
• The realms of the gods are divided into heavens, earth, and sea. (Gen 1:6-10)
• The Mesopotamians seem to have a notion that there are vast quantities of water below the surface of the earth, which recalls the Biblical flood which was not caused by the constant downpour, as much as by the rising of the depths over the earth. (Gen 7:11)

Atrahasis, Tablet I

Ipiq-Aya, Atrahasis (1700 BC)

From the introduction:

• Atrahasis is essentially the Noah figure of Mesopotamian literature.
• Atrahasis means 'extra-wise'.
• Atrahasis goes by many names: Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Xisuthros.
• Atrahasis may be connected with such figures as Noah, Prometheus, Odysseus, and Al-Khadir.
• The Old Babylonian Version seems to date from 1700 BC.
• The author named for the text is Ipiq-Aya, who worked during the reign of Ammi-saduqa, King of Babylon (1702-1682 BC).
• The text may have been written in Sippar, for the priestesses of the temple of Shamash (the sun god), to explain why they were not allowed to have children.
  

Tablet I

Synopsis

In the beginning, after heaven (ruled by Anu) was divided from earth (ruled by Ellil) the Anunnaki made the Igigi work for them, building irrigation canals and rivers like the Tigris and Euphrates. After 3600 years of this, the Igigi were not happy with the situation, so they counseled with each other and decided to rebel against Ellil. Besieged by the Igigi, Ellil called a council of the great Anunnaki to discuss this war with his own rebellious sons. The council decided that the labor imposed upon the Igigi was indeed too great. Their solution was to choose one god to be sacrificed, and to mix his flesh and blood with clay to create primeval man, who would then labor for the gods. Ilawela was chosen to be sacrificed, but a spirit of him would remain as a reminder of his sacrifice. Now the womb goddesses created 7 men and 7 women and decreed that they should pair off as husband and wife. Specific rites for child birth and marriage are decreed. But the people multiplied themselves to overflowing, and they made a great noise which rose up to ears of Ellil, who was annoyed. He therefore ordered that a disease should ravage the people to reduce their numbers (and thus their noise). Atrahasis recieved instruction from his god, Enki, and ordered the people to rebel against the gods - making no more offerings unto them - and to make offerings to Namtara, a demon of the underworld who could end the plague. The people built a temple to Namtara and made a flour offering, which brought an end to the plague.

Commentary


This is clearly an ancient Mesopotamian document:

• The canal-controller Ennugi
• The labor of the Igigi is building irrigation canals, clearing channels, and digging out the Tigris and Euphrates river beds.
• The teleology of the poem, which attempts to explain the origins of certain customs (marriage, birth) through this myth, and the mythopoeism of attributing disease to the gods.
• Men are ultimately tasked with laboring for the gods - it is their sole purpose.
• The round numbers are base 60: 3600 = 60*60; 600 = 60*10.
  

It presents several intriguing parallels to the Biblical tradition:

• The beginning of creation is described as a division of heaven and earth. (Gen 1:6-10)
  
• There is a Council in Heaven, followed by a War in Heaven. (Abraham 3:21-28)
  
• Ellil cries tears, just as God weeped in the Enoch tradition. (Moses 7:29)
  
• The notion of a god being sacrificed for humans. (Moses 6:62)
  
• Specific days set aside for purification, like a sabbath. (Lev 23:3)
  
• Purification through immersion. (Moses 6:59, 64)
  
• Forms of existence seem to include fleshly bodies, spirits and intelligences. (Abraham 3:22)
  
• Men are made of clay, which is simply a form of earth, the main component of man in the Bible. (Gen 2:7)
  
• A token of remembrance is used to remember the sacrificed god - his spirit remains.
• The 7 males and 7 females, paired off 2 by 2 sounds a lot like Noah loading his ark. (Gen 7:2)
  
• Men and women are to choose each other (cleave unto each other). (Gen 2:24)
  
• Atrahasis is described as a prophet - he speaks to his god and receives instruction from him for all mankind. (Amos 3:7)
  
• The disease that plagues man seems to act like a curse (for sin?), which can only be stopped through specific temple rituals (a return to righteousness). Namtara could be viewed as a Satan figure who will end the plague when appeased.
  

I also observed other echoes:

• Ellil is described as both a warrior and a counselor, recalling the ancient Greek principle of aretê so important to the Iliad and Odyssey, for example.
• The names of the gods Alla and Ellil seem to echo Allah and El - semitic names for God.
• The idea of the Anunnaki and the Igigi, and the rising up of the sons of Ellil against him seems to echo other mythical traditions where the younger generation of gods rises up against the elder (Zeus vs. Kronos, Kronos vs. Ouranos, etc.).
• The gods are sometimes grouped together, as the Anunnaki, Igigi, and Apsu, echoing such groupings as the Titans, Aesir, Vanir, or Jötunn.
• Humans are a combination of animal (they are flesh and blood creatures) and god (they are rational).
• The days set aside for purification are the first, seventh and fifteenth of the month, which sounds a lot like the Kalends, Nones, and Ides in the Roman calendar.
  

NYT XWord - 7/13/08

I am forced to admit defeat on this week's crossword, but I wish to challenge some of the clues and answers. Some seemed really forced or quite obscure. The puzzle seemed to rely a lot upon answers which weren't actually words (such as lines on a musical staff = EGBDF, kisses on paper = XES, or certain guy, in personals shorthand = SWM). I'm not saying they're not legit, just that I'd like to see real words in the puzzle.

First, the legitimate (from which I learned a few things I didn't know before):
Castle Bravo = H-Test
Penn station inits = LIRR (Long Island Railroad)
Swimmer Diana Nyad
Cambodia's money is called the Riel

Useless modern pop culture references:
1978 album: Q:Are we not men? A: We are Devo!, produced by Brian Eno
The Helen Reddy hit "Delta Dawn"

The questionable:
Although 'ameer' is an acceptable alternate spelling of 'Emir', it feels like a crossword stretch.
"Calls ones own" = Has? (I guess, but sheesh!)
"Stir" = the can (huh? I'm guessing it's referring to prison, but, please: one colloquial word to describe another colloquial phrase that law abiding citizens are unlikely to know?)
"derisive" = sneery (is that really a word?)
"detailed, old style" = itemed (whatever...)
"fully or partially: abbr." = adv (OK, both are adverbs, but that is a lame clue!)


I found another crossword blogger, and he had some of the same issues as me.

Reading Catchup

Last week I finished several books - most of them were my texts for this semester, and since this semester is now winding down, it is inevitable that I would finish a few. I'll just offer a few comments on each.

Klaus Bringmann, A History of the Roman Republic

This was my core textbook for Roman History. I only do the Republic and there are not a lot of texts out there devoted to just the Republic, but the whole Republic (well, really from Rome's foundation to the principate of Augustus). This was a new, recently published, text that covered exactly what I wanted. I found it to be an interesting read, covering a lot of the more recent research on early Rome. Unfortunately, I think it was beyond my students' grasp, as they had no foundational knowledge of Roman History to help. Bringmann's narrative became more complete when treating the Late Republic, but he spent too much time analyzing and arguing and not enough just presenting a straight-forward narrative which is what my students needed. Again, it was perfect for someone with a decent knowledge of the narrative already - I learned quite a bit from his particular perspective on certain issues of the Republic. Perhaps also a little problematic was the fact that Bringmann wrote the text in German and this was a translation. I think the translator did a fine job, although there were a few rough spots, but inevitably there was a Germanic quality to the whole text that alienates your basic American reader a bit.

Maurice Keen, The Penguin History of Medieval Europe

This is the core text of my online Medieval History course. I like it because Keen takes a thematically similar approach to my own in presenting medieval Europe. He examines Europeans' efforts to create and sustain Latin Christendom from the eighth century on. In the end, he explains the end of the Middle Ages in terms of a shift from a Christendom-centric view of Europe to one dominated by national kingdoms. He also offers more information about central and eastern Europe than a standard text, so that even I learned a few things about the Middle Ages from it. It is by no means a perfect text, but it is quite accessible and not too long. I supplement it with a more scholarly text that takes a less narrative and more thematic approach.

C. Edward Good, A Grammar Book for You and I (Oops, Me): All the Grammar You Need to Succeed in Life

This is by far the most readable and yet useful grammar book I have encountered, so I have brought it front and center in my Research and Writing methods course. Good has an engaging style and focuses particularly on issues to make the reader a better writer. Since Good's mian job is to teach lawyers how to write better expository prose, it is perfect for a history methods course. What it lacks is the traditional textbook's exercises, but I am putting those together myself (mainly involving sentence diagramming). I actually picked this up on the Barnes & Noble "Bargain Books" shelf a few years ago (and I did see some more copies on a recent trip to B&N), where it came in a hard back version entitled, Who's (...Oops) Whose Grammar Book Is This Anyway? If you want to understand English grammar better and become a better writer, I highly recommend this book as a 'good' place to start.

Joseph Cummins, Turn Around & Run Like Hell: Amazing Stories of Unconventional Military Strategies That Worked

I got this book for my birthday, and I only just finished it, after getting sidetracked with a bunch of other stuff (mainly work). The nice thing was that since it is just a collection of individual accounts of various military battles, I was able to come back to it and just keep going even after a couple of weeks of no reading. I was probably already familiar with about half of the battles (mainly the ancient ones). Overall, though, each battle was retold in an entertaining style, and I found that each tactic was indeed new and unconventional (not much repetition of tactics in the author's choice of battles). This was not high scholarship, but I certainly learned a few things, and only found a few small errors in the battles I did know. I wouldn't mind writing a book like this someday.

Current Bookshelf :

• Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction
• Anthony Everitt, Cicero
• Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity
• Garth Nix, Keys to the Kingdom #6: Superior Saturday
  
• Ellis Peters, Cadfael #3: Monk's Hood
  
• Jude Watson, Last of the Jedi #2: Dark Warning
  

NYT XWord - 7/6/08

I got all but 3 spaces in Sunday's NYTimes Crossword [apparently there are other weirdos out there like me who comment on their crossword experiences - and one of them is even named Ryan. I also learned from their site that I get the puzzle a week late (guess that's why I get the answers with it)]. Not being a pen connoisseur, I did not get the clue "Cross stock" which apparently refers to Cross brand pens; not being an inhabitant of Minnesota or Georgia, I did not know that Edina was a suburb of Minneapolis, nor that there is a town near Atlanta called Villa Rica. I've never heard of an orfe, a kir, or an aril. [What did I do before Google and Wikipedia?] I suppose a handheld device called a 'palmtop' makes sense, but I had never encountered such a thing before, but apparently they are common enough for those in the know. Also of interest, El Al is Israel's national airline based out of Ben Gurion Airport, and apparently El Al means 'skyward' in Hebrew - amazing the things you can learn in the crossword (whether you wanted to or not). I'm embarrassed to say that I was unfamiliar with the Verdi opera 'A Masked Ball', so I was unable to identify the aria Eri tu - ['You will be...'?] (full title: "Eri tu che macchiavi quell'anima"). And finally, I have never seen the perfume brand Coty. Despite this wealth of ignorance, however, I remind my readers that I only missed three of the boxes. TTFN!

P.S. I have now gotten my Mesopotamian myths text, and as soon as I get caught up on my grading, I will embark on my odyssey. But do take a look at the lists I've added at the foot of my blog.

Cicero on Literary Pursuits

I've never been much of a Cicero fan. This may go back to my difficulties in Latin 302 where we had to read [that is, labor through] his Catilinarian Orations. I found his periodic style very cumbersome and difficult to wade through. But this semester I decided to have my students evaluate a recent popular biography of the orator and statesman, since despite my general dislike, he was a central eyewitness figure in the fall of the Roman Republic, who also happened to leave us tons of primary source material for the period. For some balance I did have them read Sallust's account of the Catilinarian Conspiracy as well, which puts Cicero in a less favorable light, then he put himself in his own speeches.

So, now I'm reading this biography of Cicero, and I may have gained some new respect for him (although perhaps still not for his Latin style). He commented on his own educational training in his Pro Archias:

The time which others spend in advancing their own personal affairs, taking holidays and attending games, indulging in pleasures of various kinds or even enjoying mental relaxation and bodily recreation, the time they spend on protracted parties and gambling and playing ball, proves in my case to have been taken up with returning over and over again to . . . literary pursuits.

I find this statement to be just as applicable to our own day and age, and to me personally, as it was to the late Roman Republic (and probably also as meaningful as it must have been to Petrarch in the 14th century). In it, I think we find the key to Cicero's success - he was a country gentleman (read: bumpkin - his name means 'chickpea') who came to Rome as a young man determined to pull himself up by his bootstraps to the highest magistracies of the Roman Republic. He might have come to Rome, simply fit into this society, and promptly fell back into oblivion, but he did not. Instead he shunned the typical pleasures that most nobles wasted their time and money on in order to constantly improve himself and achieve his goal: the Roman consulship. Even if he was not the greatest orator in the history of Rome, he probably deserved to be, if we believe his own statement about his pursuit of education.

If we look at our own lives, how often do we feel that we have not achieved our full potential? And then, we might ask, how often have we come home at the end of the day and said to ourselves, "I'm so tired tonight, I'm just going to veg in front of the tube"; or how often do we plan to 'attend the games' [watch the football game] this weekend instead of toiling away at some chore that would see us nearer to our own personal goals? We live in a society focused on fun, and in that we have much in common with the people of the Roman Empire. Do we choose to wallow with the crowd in their entertainments, or do we seek the more lasting, even eternal, pursuits which will see us achieve immortality (however we choose to define that idea, which has been with us since the days of Achilles)?

Now, I am not advocating a life devoid of the simple pleasures of life, as I'm sure that Cicero did not avoid all the entertainments of his world (he seems to have been a fan of the theatre, for example). But we might well ask where our priorities lie, and those priorities might be best evaluated by an examination into our daily activities. How much time, or how much money, do we spend "taking holidays and attending games, indulging in pleasures of various kinds or even enjoying mental relaxation and bodily recreation, . . . on protracted parties and gambling and playing ball." Is it at a healthy level? How does that time and money spent compare to our "literary pursuits" - which might be more broadly defined in our day than in Cicero's? I write all this not to castigate anyone, as I know myself to be as guilty as anyone in my neglect of more substantial pursuits, but as part of my overall campaign to stem the tide of cultural decline in our civilization - a decline that I see everyday in my profession, and against which I fight a losing battle. It is not a question of if, but only when, our civilization will suffer a fate similar to that of the Romans. If it is any comfort, it took Rome almost 500 years from Cicero's day before it collapsed, but I would remind us that the last 300 years were far from pleasant.

Robin Hood

I finished watching the first three episodes of the recent BBC Robin Hood series. I can't decide whether I like the series or not. Some of the casting, or at least the portrayals, for example, are a bit odd - especially the sheriff. The show has the general grittiness of modern Robin Hood films (which, being a great fan of the sanitized 1938 version, has never struck my fancy much), but tries to intermix a bit of humor into it (both Much and the Sheriff seem to want to play the comedian role), as well as including a black man playing a master-at-arms (whatever that is) and a strong, independent Marian (all slightly reminiscent of Costner's Prince of Thieves, which is something no work should want to be compared to). And yet, there is something likable and admirable about Robin that makes it difficult to completely dismiss this version.

I think my biggest issue with the series is their inclusion of certain anachronisms. Now, almost all Robin Hoods have this problem to some extent, especially any version which includes a friar during the reign of King Richard (that mendicant order was not even created until the reign of King John). But this series seems to treat the crusades as some sort of nationalistic war being waged in the Holy Land, and in one episode the sheriff portrays Robin as a terrorist. All this rhetoric is clearly meant to echo our own times, when we are sending troops off to the Middle East and worrying about terrorists at home. Of course, the Robin Hood legend is very malleable and has been reworked over and over again, always keeping Robin current and relevant, so this, in and of itself, shouldn't turn me off of the show. Is this Robin Hood for the 21st century? Perhaps I'll have to watch a few more episodes to decide.

On a more mundane note: Tonight I completed my first New York Times Crossword Puzzle. I've gotten close a couple of times, and this one took me three days, but I did it. And now I must ask, "What the heck is an eft, a sepal, a calyx, an amole, and a coho; and how does the word 'elate' fit the clue 'send' (since elate comes from the Latin ex-ferre meaning 'to bring or bear out of'), or why should I equate a 'mugful' with 'beer'? Perhaps I merely display my ignorance.

Salut!