Happy Efforts of Sagacity

 The business of Definition is part of the business of discovery. When it has been clearly seen what ought to be our Definition, it must be pretty well known what truth we have to state. The Definition, as well as the discovery, supposes a decided step in our knowledge to have been made. The writers on Logic in the middle ages, made Definition the last stage in the progress of knowledge; and in this arrangment at least, the history of science, and the philosophy derived from the history, confirm their speculative views. If the Explication of our Conceptions ever assume the form of a Definition, this will come to pass, not as an arbitrary process, or as a matter of course, but as the mark of one those happy efforts of sagacity to which all the sucessive advances of our knowledge are owing. 

[ William Whewell, Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, vol. 2 (John W. Parker: 1847) p. 16.]

Knowing and Loving

In fact it is knowing that causes love and gives birth to it. It is not possible to attain love of anything that is beautiful without first learning how beautiful it is. Since this knowledge is sometimes very ample and complete and at other times imperfect, it follows that the philtre of love has a corresponding effect. Some things that are beautiful and good are perfectly known and perfectly loved as befits so great beauty. Others are not clearly evident to those who love them, and love of them is thus more feeble. 

[Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, DeCatanzaro, tr. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press (Crestwood, NY: 1974) p. 89.]

God and Tribal Deities

 It's interesting to think about how the Old Testament regards the various deities of tribes around the Israelites. 

The Canaanites worshipped El, and the Scriptures make no distinction at all between the Lord (YHWH) and El. It's unclear how much to make of this, since 'El' eventually became the generic word for any high God in the area, but we can say straightforwardly that there is no sign that the Israelites ever had any problem with the worship of El, considered on its own.

The Edomites worshipped Qos (or Qaus or Koze), and there is also no sign of any animosity toward Qos in Scripture, despite the fact that the Israelites were regularly interacting with Edomites; the name only even comes up twice for sure (and then only in the name Barqos: Ezra 2:53, Nehemiah 7:55), and possibly it might underlie the very difficult-to-interpret Hebrew of Proverbs 30:31 (which we usually translate as 'king with his host', but might originally have read 'Qos with the king'). There are a few old inscriptions (from Kuntillet Ajred) that possibly refer to Qos as "YHWH of Teman", so some people have suggested that they were just seen as the same. Others have suggested that Qos might not have been a name but a title. There's a lot we don't know here, but again it's interesting that worship of Qos wasn't seen as an issue by any of the Jewish prophets. (The first sign of any trouble over between Jews and Edomite worshippers of Qos is in the Hasmonean period, when the Hasmoneans cracked down on Edomite worship, but that seems to have been a cultic crack-down arising for political reasons.)

Three local tribal deities are firmly and repeatedly rejected in Scripture: Ashtoreth (Attartu/Astarte), Chemosh (Kamosh), and Milcom (Milkam). They are explicitly stated to be foreign and their worship is said to be offensive to the Lord. Milkam was worshipped by the Ammonites, and we know almost nothing about him; he is referred to in Scripture as 'desolation' and 'abomination'. We have a few seals that associate Milkam with bulls and maybe the stars. He might be the same as Moloch, although we don't know for sure.

We know a bit more about Kamosh. He was worshipped by the Moabites; the Moabites were Canaanites, but there seems reason to think that they had a very distinctive worship. In Moabite inscriptions, Kamosh is associated with the planet Venus, the morning star, and the Semitic deity Attar. Although it is limited, there is definitely evidence that his worship involved human sacrifice, at least under specific conditions (like war), and that the Moabite worship may have actively involved appealing to him for curses. In later days, the Greeks associated him with Ares, and he may well have had similar brutal characteristics, since he does seem to have been a war-god. Scripture also refers to him as 'abomination'.

Ashtoreth, of course, is the foreign 'abomination' we know most about. She was a goddess, and she is always the consort of another god. So this is obviously one major strike against her: she is the guarantor of polytheism. If you worship her, you definitely worship multiple gods. She may be very, very old, since the Phoenicians almost certainly inherited her from the Akkadians and perhaps also the Eblaites, who formed one of the first organized kingdoms in the area. The Greeks associated her with Aphrodite, and it used to be thought that she was a fertility goddess, but actually this seems not to have originally been the case, and evidence of association with the explicitly erotic (e.g., temple prostitution) seems scattered and occasional, and perhaps mostly linked to Byblos and to Carthage. She's definitely associated with ships, lions, horses, and hunting. She may have been a war goddess, and in fact this might be one link between the three rejected deities -- they may be war gods whose worship involved abominable activities of various kinds in the name of war. Ashtoreth is often associated in Scripture with war, directly or indirectly, as when the Phoenicians put their war trophies in the temple of Ashtoreth. She is also regularly associated with Baalim.

Baal is not a single deity. The word is Canaanite for 'Lord', and different cities seem to have had each a Baal of that city. The earliest parts of Scripture don't seem all that hostile to Baal; it seems to be treated as just a divine title, and the Israelites may themselves have sometimes used it of their own God, if theophoric names and divine epithets are to be taken as evidence (e.g., Psalm 68:4 calls God 'cloud-rider', which was also an epithet of Hadad, the most influential local Baal). As time goes on, however, 'Baal' as a divine title becomes treated with greater and greater hostility in the Scriptural narrative. Since there are many Baalim and Scripture does not distinguish them, we don't always know which is meant, but there is strong evidence that the rejection of Baal is associated with two Baalim in particular: Hadad and Melqart, who are sometimes identified with each other. In any case, the Baal that was introduced into Israel by King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, and with whose worshippers the prophet Elijah kept struggling was almost certainly Hadad or Melqart. Melqart is associated with the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Carthage (although the chief Baal of Carthage was Hammon rather than Melqart). The Greeks associated him with Heracles. Beyond this, we don't know much about Melqart. Hadad, also called Rammanu/Rimmon ('the Thunderer'), was a storm god, and a very ancient one worshipped by the Akkadians and Eblaites; he is also the Baal who causes problems for El in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle.

Thus we get a full spectrum, from the accepted or at least neutral (El, Qos), to the heavily mixed (Baal), to the vehemently repudiated (Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Milcom). The two key sources of variation seem to be (1) relation to polytheism and (2) kind of worship. El, Qos, and some versions of Baal are, or seem to be, supreme deities, so it's easier to adapt their titles and names to monotheism; Ashtoreth and some versions of Baal are inherently polytheistic, and this is probably also true of Milcom and perhaps also Chemosh. Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom are associated with 'abomination' in worship, however that is understood, and the same may well be true of Hadad, at least in the version introduced into Israel. Thus worship of them made you directly complicit with evils.

Of course, all of this is really quite patchy. We can infer a fair amount about Baal Hadad and Ashtoreth, and to a lesser extent about El, because their worship was ancient and widespread, with lots of fragments of information about them across a long spread of time, but the evidence we get about even them is often limited and confused, and at times outright confusing. About the rest, we know considerably less, and even our best guesses are often not much more than guesses. Much of what we think we know for any of them could very well be upended with one good archeological find.

Expressive Truth and Falsehood

 Today I learned that there is a musical version of Pride and Pejudice; in fact, there are several. The one that came to my notice is called Pride & Prejudice: A New Musical, called "A New Musical" to distinguish it from a previous P&P musical. It's rather peculiar; some aspects of the story come through, and there are genuinely funny parts, but some of the songs are absurd to the point of being grating. Part of the problem is that musicals externalize expression of emotion into music in non-subtle ways; this can be done be done well, but it causes problems when the expression is not 'true' to the characters or the story, and the problems are intensified if the original is often quite subtle, as is the case here. For instance, Elizabeth Bennett early on in P&P:ANM sings a song, "Headstrong," in which sings that she is too headstrong for a man to bear. Now, I am very certain that this is not true to Jane Austen's character. Maybe Elizabeth would suggest something as a joke, but it seems very clear that she would be quite offended if someone seriously thought that she was too headstrong for a man to endure. She sees herself as reasonable woman, and this plays an important role in her story-arc; being unmarriageable (which is what it amounts to in context) is not at all part of her self-conception. Indeed, any man who thought she was too headstrong would almost certainly be dismissed by Elizabeth as arrogant at best, and very possibly as stupid. As for Mr Darcy -- I'm not sure I can fully imagine what a musical expression of Mr Darcy should be, but it is certainly not this, and it's a very big problem if your adaptation of Pride and Prejudice cannot make sense of Mr Darcy.

Of course, part of it could be acting or musical direction rather than the material itself; these are also ways in which the music could be true or false as expressive to character. And to be wholly honest, I think even poor adaptations of P&P are worth having, if they ever increase the probability that we will have good ones.

In any case, it's a good example of the fact that emotional expression itself admits of true and false.

Habitude XXXVI

 To the second one proceeds thus. It seems that in one human being there are many original sins. For it is said in Psalm I, For behold I was conceived in iniquity, and in sins my mother conceived me. But sin in which a human being is conceived is original. Therefore there are many original sins in one human being.

Further, one and the same habitude does not incline to contraries, for habitude inclines by way of nature, which tends to one. But original sin, even in one human being, inclines to diverse and contrary sins. Therefore original sin is not one habitude, but several.

Further, original sin infects all the parts of the soul. But the diverse parts of the soul are diverse subjects of sin, as is obvious from the foregoing. Since therefore one sin is not able to be diverse subjects, it seems that original sin is not one but many.

But contrariwise is what is said in Ioan. I, Behold the lamb of God, behold he who takes away the sin of the world [peccatum mundi]. Which is said singularly because the sin of the world, which is original sin, is one; as the Gloss explains there.

I reply that it must be said that in one human being is one original sin. The reason for this is able to be taken in two ways. In one way, on the part of the cause of original sin. For it was said above that only the first sin of the first parent is handed down to posterity. Whence original sin in one human being is one in number; and in all human beings it is proportioned to one, to wit, in reference to the first source [primum principium]. In another way the reason for this is able to be taken from the essence itself of original sin. For in every disordered [inordinata] disposition, specific unity is considered on the part of the cause, but numerical unity on the part of the subject, as is obvious in corporeal illness, for there are diverse specific illnesses which proceed from diverse causes, such as superabundance of heat or cold, or from lesion of lung or liver, but one illness according to species in one human being is only one numerically. But the cause of this corrupt disposition that is called original sin is just one, namely, privation of original justice, through which subjection of the human mind to God is suppressed. And in one human being it cannot but be one, but in diverse human being it is specifically and proporationately one, but numerically diverse.

To the first, therefore, it must be said that sins are said plurally according to that custom of divine Scripture in which the plural is frequently put for the singular, as in Matth. II, They died who sought the soul of the child. Or else because in original sin all actual sins pre-exist, as in a kind of source, when it is multiple in force. Or else because in the sin of the first parent, which is handed down by origin, there were several deformities, to wit, pride, disobedience, gluttony, and suchlike other things. Or else because many parts of the soul are infected by original sin.

To the second it must be said that one habitude is not able through itself [per se] and directly, that is, through its own form, to contraries. But indirectly and incidentally [per accidens], to wit, through removing the impeding [per remotione prohibentis] nothing impedes, just as, the harmony of mixed body being dissolved, elements tend to contrary places. And likewise, the harmony of original justice being dissolved, diverse powers of soul are impelled diversely.

To the third it must be said that original sin infects diverse parts of the soul, according as they are parts of one whole, just as original justice is contained in all parts of the soul in one. And thus there is but one original sin, just as there is one fever in one human being although diverse parts of the body are affected.

[St. Thomas Aquinas, ST 2-1.82.2, my translation. The Latin is here, the Dominican Fathers translation is here.]

Corpus Christi

  Corpus Christi 

Bread is broken on the table;
into the cup is poured the wine;
by this word the Word our Savior
becomes the substance of the sign. 

Adam's flesh from fleshly Adam
is freed from sinful flesh once more,
for we, by blood and by slain body,
are flesh and blood with Christ our Lord. 

Speak, my tongue, of His scourged body,
now blessed and broken for our race,
of pricelessness of blood now flowing
to pay our price and grant us grace. 

Sing, my voice, the song of angels
as here they wonder at his tomb,
which, with side-sprung water flowing,
encompassed us to be our womb. 

Love, my heart, the changeless ancient
who descends from God above
to be a babe and passion's patient;
He is God, for God is Love. 

Trust, my soul, in Truth most holy:
for Truth is true and does not lie.
All free from lie, from lies He freed us;
here see the sign Truth truly died! 

Hope, my spirit in your Savior,
for He is life, in dying lives,
for us is given by the Father
to be this Bread of Life we give. 

Shout, my sisters; shout, my brothers!
From on the housetops make it known
and tell the tale on every mountain
to own this well: you are His own!

Tireless at Eve as in the Golden Noon

A June Sonnet
by Clara B. Heath

A poet were no poet if the June went by,
Year after year, and brought no tender thrill
Through all his being till his pulse ran high.
When thistle down before the wind lies still,
His gross and selfish thoughts perchance will fill
The rare June days, with summer roses nigh.
A poet may be songless! his mute lips
May answer not when Nature speaks in tune,
But rythmic numbers thro' each day-dream slips;
His fancies throng him 'neath the pure pale moon;
He soars on wings the care fiend never clips,
Tireless at eve as in the golden noon;
Prosaic reason 'neath his vision dips;--
His purple mantle wraps him close in June.