The Jefferson Bible
By Thomas Jefferson
Is Jefferson a deist? Jefferson is a materialist where Christ, the Lord God, is a spiritualist. I use the word lord carefully in that Jesus Christ held a sense of authority with regard to his view on the meaning of God. Can a material thinker be other than one capable of false gods? In Jefferson’s case this work says yes. Can a solely material man of reason transcend to the spirit world? In this question, I am not so sure.
Jefferson literally cuts and pastes the various authors of somewhat allegorical stories, merely because they are transcripts of Christ's words, into a chronological order so he can make practical sense of the word of Christ. The work itself speaks loudly to reason. The work clearly draws a map, laying out the buoys of moral code, suitable for this material world. But does this work buy you heaven on earth? I say yes, but wonder if Jefferson himself purchased the goods. Ironically Judaism is of the Law where as Christianity is of the Way. The former sits on a plethora of reason. The latter sits on a short one hundred fifty pages of Christ's message of transcendence through the forgiveness of sin and the acceptance of all that is; love. Jefferson does not deviate from Christ’s message. But he approached it in a reasonable way. Is there evidence in his work that he is a deist, I say yes. Is there evidence that his work promulgates transcendence the essence of Christ's message?
I was in discussion with a teacher friend of mine in the onset of my reading this book. He remarked; “was Jefferson truly a deist?” Using the Wiki definition as follows:
Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism.
In conjunction with the observation that Jefferson does not include any mention of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in his work, I conclude that Jefferson is a deist. If one were to only have read Jefferson’s Bible, never having experienced any form of modern day Christianity or Judaism, one would conclude that Jesus Christ is also a deist. When focusing only on his message the reader comes away with the notion that God is a three letter word that headlines the concept of the laws of nature. Judaism uses words in a nominal way to help man conform to these Laws. Christ taught that conformity with nature is found in the Way you live your life. Christ recognized the power of spirit, of which science has not sufficiently focused on. We have yet to complete that research. I always reflect back on the story once told to me on JS Bach. When he finally completed the ‘perfect fugue’ he died. His life was complete. Yet he, his spirit, his music whether written, performed, or heard, lives on in the lives of millions today. It is a law of nature that our biological homes expire. It is in the teachings of Christ that the way in which we live our lives transcend our body temples. If you truly embrace transcendence, then you wholly (w’holy) let loose your fear of death. When you do that your ego’s addiction to the laws of scarcity is over come as time gives way to eternity. I think that is Christ/’s message and Jefferson carried it forward. After all Jefferson/’s accomplishments in life he had to complete this work. His body temple expired not long after its completion. May his body rest in peace and may his spirit live forever.
General observations:
1. Luke, an educated physician, the son of a Greek freedman, stepson of a Roman governor; writes gospels of a pragmatic nature. His story gives the appearance of factual history where the reader can easily derive where the Pharisees would have grievances with Jesus who was openly and somewhat bombastically critical of them.
2. Whereas Matthew and Mark write in a much more spiritual tone, speaking to the Way of spirit, drawing more on allegory as opposed to puzzling parable. My favorite author in the Bible has become James for many reasons.
3. Christianity is not a religion. Catholics, Lutheranism, Baptists. Sunni, Shea, Hinduvita are religions. Christianity is a theology; you could call it a classification of philosophy as far as I am concerned. It was indeed the Judeo-Christian theology that brought the guiding principles to the founding fathers. They were deist of nature but not biased toward any religion or based in any one theology. I did not come to this well articulated view on my own.
4. Jefferson cuts and pastes excerpts from the bible. He pastes in a grouping suggesting a relevancy within the group and therefore a theme. As 'bible thumpers" quote certain versus out of context of the whole to justify current view based on the bible, I call this religion, not Christ's theocracy or deism. Does the fact that Jefferson takes that practice to a higher level by grouping make him still guilty of the same or is his grouping consistent with Christ's theocracy? If you answer the latter you can find evidence within the book that Jefferson uses Christ’s message in pure deist form, belief in one God, the manifestation of the laws of the universe.
5. Going in to this book, fresh off of reading Dear and Glorious Physician by Taylor Caldwell, I reflected back on comments too many folks make on my reviews. 'They are long, where do you find the time?' I thought of all the philosophers I have read on and about. The books were as well long. Jefferson's Bible is short as it includes solely Christ's message. Short and simple.
6. Much of the book is a cut and paste of scripture in complete context of one author or another. It is until page 126, three quarters if the way through the book the reader notices that Jefferson has been weaving Matt and Luke. In that tapestry you find Jefferson's theology endorsing the concept of 'chop wood - carry water’. But it goes a bit further to include n Aynd Rand's words live not for the sake of another man nor live at the sake of another man. You could turn that phrase inside out and say; live for the sake of another man nor live for your own sake. In my mind, it really doesn’t matter in practice if you believe we are all One. I am not so sure Jefferson is on board.
This concept speaks to hoarding of capital and implies through the metaphor the practice of planting seed, to the investment of capital. In my mind investment of capital is much different to spending as a consumer. Copping wood and carrying water with no purpose is just that; going through motions to consume both the wood and the water. He who is solely a consumer violates both sides of Rand’s coined rule no matter how you want to look at it. Man may be chopping wood and carrying water but may also be living an entitled benefactor’s life.
Christ was a deist and a capitalist. He planted seed, his lessons, to thousands. Thru Jefferson’s work in this book he may be entitled the same label. However thru his own criticism of Christ as being naive, I would want to put Jefferson's deeds to the test. Jefferson claims to be a materialist whereas he Criticized Christ for his spiritualism. To make it real simple I would not examine his biography from cradle to grave. I would only look at those days and moments just prior to his passing. In spirit was he ready? This work alone suggests begrudgingly that he was.
7. There is a distinct repetition In Jefferson's cut&paste work. The reader cannot grasp this until three quarters of the way through the book, promulgating the need to go back, and reread, looking for the pattern or logic of the larger context. In this version, Forrest Church failed to mention this in his introduction. I may mirror Jefferson’s work and take fifteen years to reread this book as an exercise in recursive analysis, perhaps to complete my …life.
8. Is it possible for the Son of Man to realize the Kingdom of Heaven? Jesus calls for all men to love one another and at that moment this reality, heaven on earth manifests itself. That is his theology in a nutshell.
9. I am intrigued that right after the passage of Mt 25, disusing the separation or unity of man, depending on whether you are a deist or a religious sort; Jefferson goes straight in to the betrayal of Jesus. Is he (they, Christ and Jefferson) speaking to the duality of man? Is betrayal in the nature of man?
10. Jefferson never mentions the resurrection!!!!!!!! It was not part of Christ’s lessons before the crucifixion. Did Jefferson get tired?
Annotated Bibliography This time worth reading my comments
The following is perhaps the closest I’ll ever come to ‘Bible thumping’ The versus that Jefferson captured, captured my thought as well. You may find your strain of thought entangled with as well. Enjoy.
Page 26: [of Jefferson’s pending accomplishment] "These are now idle projects for me. My business is to beguile the wearisome-ness of declining life, as I endeavor to do, by the delights of classical reading and of mathematical truths, and by the consolations of sound philosophy, equally in different to hope and fear."
My comment: Hope and fear were not in any way harbinger corner stones of Jesus' philosophy, as I have come to know it. Yet hope and fear ring through the halls of too many Christian institutes.
Page 27: [Jefferson writes to Van der Kemp]. It is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a materialist: He takes the side of Spiritualism. He preaches the efficacy of repentance towards the forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise if good works to redeem it.
My comment: Does this position of Jefferson immediately make is work suspect of the very own criticism of those before him? I reflect immediately on Emerson’s Nominalist essay and note that in this material word where words, symbols, and works of art are the essence of human communication are the bane of not only the recursiveness in religion’s attempt to retell Jesus' words, but also the exact departure of Jefferson's some what cynical views from those of Jesus.
Mk 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine; befir he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
My comment: In my time in Israel I found the common phrase of one who wished to make an inarguable point; ‘it is written'
Mk 2:27. And he said onto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath
Mt 5:1. And he opened his mouth, and taught them saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
My comment: Given Jefferson's disagreement with Jesus on material -v- spiritual I am surprised this made the final cut. Perhaps in 1820 the poor had not yet evolved to the 2000 common phrase 'desperate people do desperate things'. Perhaps this phrase came to pass when people, in mass, seeing that they can obtain the wealth of his King, became
material minded over his once spiritual reality.
My. 5:34; But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is Gods throne.
My comment: Swear means make an oath to change reality. Change is a component of reality. This is not a command to not change reality as it is, but to accept it including the changing seasons. How senseless it is to think you can change the seasons, nature.
Mt 6:33/34. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all things shall be added unto you
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto this day is the evil thereof.
My comment: Llive in the here and now. If time were measured by the events of change and one were to accept all things as they are then there is no change in one thing; acceptance. Without change on that one thing you have no measure of time; eternity. You are living in heaven for eternity. 'Unconditional acceptance' which is pragmatically a surpurpholous phrase, can be narrowed down to one nominal word: love.
Mk 7:20-23 And he said, that which cometh out of man, that defileth the man. For from within, out if the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murders, Thefts, covetousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these things come from within, and defile the man.
My comment: Tthe world, as it is, is what it is; until the heart of man decides it not to be. That alone does not make him evil, as it is man who sees a chair or a table when he gazes upon in a tree. In Jesus' list are representations in words of that which come from the heart. That observes scarcity not of nature but of mankind, which together with lack of the will to let it be produces evil seed to evil deeds
Mt 18:3-4. And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom.
Whoever, therefore shall humble himself as this little child the same as the kingdom of heaven.
My comment: It is real clear that Christ advocates transcendence to heaven while living on earth. He is making apparent a simple reality. It is what it is here and now and acceptance of this, unconditional love, or humbling yourself as does an innocent child is
the Way. I would speculate that 9 in 10 Christians would say when you die you go to heaven if you are good. I wonder, having not studied the Quran, about the seven virgins. Is that part of the Islamic Theology or is that an interpretation of either the Sunni or Shea derivative religions of Islam.
L 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the others; or he will hold on to one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
My comment: This has a relative bearing to the class warfare that has been stoked for the first time by an American president, Obama. The answer to this rift lay in the previous scripture in Luke 16:11/12 Luke goes on further to say in asynchronous order He that is not faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the
true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's who shall give that which is your own? Stick with me here.
Wealth all alone is not worth a conversation. It's what one does with his money. If one invests money back into the system of capital, then the overall capital of mankind benefits. And this is consistent with the moral code of Jefferson and therefore Jesus Christ. The universe will bestow upon you, as a good steward of wealth, more wealth. If a wealthy person deviates from this principle, by hoarding his money he puts the system at risk and therefore the nature of his own economics is at risk. If he merely spends is money frivolously on lavish living as to many sports superstars and Hollywood celebrities do, he will eventually become once again a poor person. As so many do.
Thus too if poor persons who are not good stewards of wealth are the benefactor of Obama's redistribution of wealth, American society will take a step backwards in terms of our capital base to achieve great things, for himself or God as I define God.. Money will be in the hands of people debased from the moral code of Jefferson and Christ. If he manages his mammon in accord with Luke and therefore the code of Christian theology he will be of God and therefore wealth.
Mt 20:1. For the kingdom of heaven is like unto man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard.
Mt 20:2: And when he had agreed with his laborers for a penny a day he sent them into his vineyard
Mt 20:13/16: But he answered one and said, Friend I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto the last even as I give unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what thy will with mine own? Is thine evil eye because I am good? So the last shall be first and the first last: for many be called and few chosen.
My comment: This draws on the situation with the, silently Obama endorsed, Occupy Wall Street violent protests. We have people in the streets in envy of those they claim to be greedy in their wealth. In Jesus's name let those who abide the law do as they will. In
Jefferson's mind I presume Matt's scripture to mean let thy will be free...not fair. I say to those of envy, those incapable of managing to their own wealth, those incapable of realizing where their wealth lay, let go of that envy for perhaps it is the log in their eye that impedes their ability to See…their own Way to Wealth.
Mt 22:31/32. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, ye have not read that which is spoken unto to you by God, saying; I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, I the God of Jacob? God is not the God if the dead but God of the living.
My comment: (possible conclusion) When you tie this to other scripture where it is written that the Kingdom of God is obtainable on earth, one concludes that Jesus' theology advocates that resurrection practically speaking, references the awakening to God, reality. In answering the question is Jefferson a deist; you may begin with his
work herein, but I find need to look at his life. He is great things. He also had a few misdeeds as well. Did he seek forgiveness and redemption? Was he, for example, able to offer John Adams, unconditional love while conducting there famous debate? Rats that leads me to more books to read. If he does, does that make him a Christian or a deist?
Mt. 23:30/31 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witness unto yourselves, that ye are children of them which killed the prophets.
My comment: In the context of all of Matt 23 one finds evidence that Christ’s is a deist. It is clearly in this theology Christ's disdain for the practices of the Jewish religion. In this specific scripture Christ is advocating the notion of One Man, the spirit that transcends from father to son. This is not to be confused with miracles. At the close of Matt 23 he advocates rather than give in abundance to impress each other; give of your all in the light of One God.
Mt 22:17/21[asked the Pharisees]. Tell us therefore. What thinkith thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, why tempt me ye hypocrites? See me the tribute-money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he sayith unto him who is this image and superscription? They sayith unto
him, Caesar’s. Then sayith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God's.
My comment: Matt is alluding to Jesus' disregard for the person not in men, as truth is not found therein. Truth is not found in the symbolism of man, not in his word or deed. So hence therefore they must be found in his spirit, the spirit of all mankind in it's place in the kingdom of heaven which has been established in the scripture as achievable by the living on earth. It is in the nature of man to love one another, when he sees his brother for who he is, not who he desires him to be.
So here is the test: then if desire were the antipathy of the nature of the spirit of 'one man' then is desire not true? How could desire exist in the nature of man if it Christ's theology it does not? Christ's theology has a dependency that actually challenges man desire to live, not die. It is in our nature to live, thrive, procreate and carry on...in the material world. There appears to be a dependency in Christ's version of truth. If truth has a dependency can it be absolute or in other words complete? Stick with me here.
In Christ what is important is not of this world as we know it. A true Christian accepts death as part of living and in doing so that desire to cheat the laws of scarcity of time evaporates. Without that desire, each man can See his brother in a new light.
Science says energy can only be altered, not destroyed. Many of the founding fathers believed this and it manifested in their notion that when their bodies expired their thoughts shall live on. The CERN project in Geneva Switzerland is on the verge of discovering what they are coining as the 'God matter'. That is what they are calling it the dark matter that existed before the big bang. Is this the nature of God? Is this what Christ new 2012 years ago, but expressed it in terms not of what it is, but rather how to deal with it? Does what it is really matter? If so then his theology espousing the idea that nature and God are one is on the verge of being proven to be the truth. I believe that man's desire to live is too often overshadowed by his desire to love. For without love, why live? Love, the absolute acceptance of what is, naturally, is the meaning of life.
Mt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharasees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of he'll than yourselves.
My comment: Here in Christ's theology is witness to his condemnation of the Jewish practice, the Jewish religion. Throughout the scripture Christ is on record reciting the Law of the Jews, and in many cases one reads the words, 'you hypocrites.’ Oddly enough it seems Christianity has followed suit of the Jews. Where theology may put the doctrine of One God into words, religion makes many authorities of that One God in their deeds.
Assuming this was true, then Jefferson is not, through his disagreement with Christ, on the notion of One Man in Spirit -v- Jefferson's notion of one man 'in deed', an absolute deist. He apparently waits for the deed to judge. Christ advocates that One Man, including the Church, with all its flaws, can be forgiven, redeemed, and resurrected. But through Jefferson's missing the mark of absolute deism, he does land on what is prevalent, apparently, in most material man; the belief in scarcity of at least time, caused my his fear of death. If one truly believes there is nothing after death, his behavior will respond accordingly. Thus it is his nature that through Christ's theology can only he responded to through, forgiveness, redemption, transcendence which is the kingdom of heaven among the living on earth. In this theology is the meaning of life and death.
Mt 25:31. When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherits the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mt 25:37/39. Then the righteous answer him saying, Lord when we saw thee an hungered, and fed thee? Or thirst, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took the in? Or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we the sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mt 25:40. And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto it unto the least of my bretheren , ye have done unto me
Mt 25:46 and they shall go away into ever lasting punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.
My comment: It seems to me that rather than take Christ for his word Christianity followed suit with the Jews and separated themselves from those that were not righteous. Let's remember the tale of Stephen, also in the scriptures, therefore of Christ's theology. Then look back at Mt 25. Who is the Son of Man? I say if I Christ and we are all brethren then therefore the King being referred to is each of us. When each of us or any of us is capable of the acts of the King as discussed in Mt 25, he finds the Kingdom of Heaven here in earth. Because Christ's theology includes forgiveness, redemption, and transcendence; at any time a person can take no time, an instant, to live in the Present Moment, and find eternal peace through the realization that the foundation of the world, Nature, is already perfect, just as it is. There is no Separation of one from another. There is only some in the light and some yet to come into the light and see it for its simple truth.
Mt 26:16. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger: and he that is chief, as he doth serve.
Mt 26:27. Fir whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is it not he that serveth? But I am among you as he that serveth. And the supper ended.
My comment: Jesus clearly says he is both. He is sitting at meat at the Last Supper saying he is their servant, not their King. He is clearly saying there is no separation among men. I say in the context of the whole reading of this book; when we all realize this, the Kingdom of Heaven would be realized on earth. And that is Christ's theology. Unfortunately it is the Church who made Jesus a God, not Jesus or Jefferson.
J 13:13/14. Ye call me Lord and Master; and ye say well for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one smothers feet
My comment: This comes close to refuting any notion that Jefferson, through Christ's work are then both deist. Does Christ imply that because they decided so, he assumes the role of Lord? Or is he simply assuming the assignment so that he can turn it around and say to them you are also each other's Lord and Master. Or are they servants to each other? Jesus's deed was to wash his brother’s feet as a servant, yet his word was he was their Lord. And then says the servant is not greater than the Lord nor the Lord greater than God
J 13:31 Jesus said: A new commandment I give unto to you, That ye shall love one another; as I have loved you, that ye shall also love one another.
Mk 14:70. Then said they all, Art thou the Son of God? And he say said
unto them Ye say that I am.
My comment: Note Jesus’ answer acknowledges it is the high priest saying this, but they are only the words of another man, not his. And while that man was Jewish, Christianity too easily followed to close to suit. It's been 1890 years until Unity doctrine attempts to correct for this mistake.
Related books and Utube links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRbZCO0aXng:
Eugine Onigen
by Hoffstader
Bhagavad Gita
The Power of Now
Ekart Tolle
An after thought:
I was surfing the internet to recall who Jefferson had his famous debates with. I came across Hamilton as one of his opponents. To those people who choose to spend their time Occupying Walls Street I offer you this bit of information on Alexanfer Hamilton.
Of illegitimate birth and raised in the West Indies, Hamilton was effectively orphaned at about the age of 11. Recognized for his abilities and talent, he came to North America for his education, sponsored by people from his community. He attended King's College (now Columbia University). After the American Revolutionary War, Hamilton was elected to the Continental Congress from New York. He resigned to practice law, and founded the Bank of New York..
Please note that he was not the benefactor of ANY government entitlement. Please let me suggest that you pick up Jefferson’s Bible while you are camping out, and find inspiration to not occupy it but to simply to chop wood and carry water and life for your own sake as it will contribute to the sake of all man kind. Be recognized for your abilities and talents, not for your protest to those who have not YET discovered you.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Dear and Glorious Physician
Dear and Glorious Physician
By Taylor Caldwell
I picked this book up at random. It was sitting on a coffee table and I knew not how it got there. I have great appreciation for Taylor Caldwell, both her work and the exceptional life she lived. In classic Caldwell style she paints every scene so as to place the reader in it. Caldwell is surely 20th a century rival to the likes of Hugo. You can actually smell the pomegranate in the Roman gardens while reading her book. You get a real sense from this book that the wealthy of Rome had many of the luxuries of today’s modern man. The missing mechanical inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries were simply replaced with slaves and servants. Lucanus, the Physician and main character was the son of a Greek freedman. From that perspective the reader gains a purely neutral view on the strife between Jew and Greek or Roman gentile. Caldwell never speaks directly to it; however the reader, late in the book, begins to sense that in too many cases that the Jews though good people were their own worst enemy when it came to integrating with other cultures.
As the story the story goes: Lucanus the young boy of a freed Greek slave still serving the son of his one time master Diodoris was a prodigy philosopher, though after reading his scripture not a very good writer, aspiring to be a physician. His mentors early on were a Roman tribune, a Greek record keeper, and a Greek tutor. The first two were both frauds in their association with their social setting which was a fraud in itself. In spite of those mentors, Lucanus pursues the one unknown God of the Jewish religion.
Mid way through the book, as Lucanus prepares to leave the Alexandria school of medicine, a graduate Physician, his Jewish teacher bids him farewell and tells a story of a boy born under a star in the East. The teacher predicts that Lucanus shall seek this boy and its only then that this reader of the book has the epiphany; Lucanus - Luke. It allows the author to make Luke an objective critic. An interesting twist of events exposes the Jews as the first to discriminate against the black man, by Caldwell's reference to the legend of HAM. It is also the Jew who doesn't recognize Christ as a messiah but is the Jew who is the early physician/scientist. Karmaiclly it is the Jew who has witnessed a millennium of Diaspora and its discrimination. In a few places the book Caldwell implies that the fate of the 'Diaspora' Jew was of his own making.
While early on Caldwell uses Lucanus to examine a merciless and hateful God, later she introduces the evil man as an alternative. Within the evil man is greed and envy where it's envy playing the evil role over a wealthy man who found his wealth through generosity? Generosity is hinted as being the channel to wealth as a generous person is a good steward of money. This reader was receptive to this hint because of outside influence. It is at this point that the light begins to come into Lucanus’s life that perhaps it is not the vengeful God, but vengeful man at the root of his depression
Caldwell provides a narrative, through the voice of Lucanas’s brother Priscus, the Roman Captain who supervised Christ's crucifixion the telling of that event. The story rivals all I had previously read in any Catholic program that I was raised in. This mainly speaks poorly upon my study. Lucanus's reaction is a revelation to the tormenting he had bore through his life. It was his 'born again' moment where, albeit only implied by Caldwell, that Lucanus became a Christian. Interestingly enough in that moment Lucanus tells his brother of the resurrection purely out of internal conjecture. Lucanus in Caldwell’s book had no fact or word from anyone that Christ had risen.
The first theme of the book is the search to define God. While the ancient people had there gods, Lucanus was busy examining the One God to the extent his challenge to that idea brings forward the notion that the word God is a concept and not a being at all. And so in exploring the concept of god, the second theme being developed is; there is no one philosopher or philosophy that is complete. Caldwell writes through one of her characters Keptah, Lucanus/’s tutor; many philosophers are not wise at all things. Keptah went on; "If a man were to live solely by the theories of the philosophers he would not survive, nor would he retain his sanity. I take this to mean two things. First man is incomplete…until his death.
A third theme comes to full maturation as Lucanus, a seasoned physician, treats the father of three wealthy sons. His illness is derived from a psychosomatic condition. In his analysis Caldwell, through the voice of Lucanus drives home the treatment of a person is more than the function of his body. The point stressed is your health is largely determined by how you both live and view your life. At this point the reader would be reflecting back on the death of an early main character, Diodoris, and contemplating the meaning of death with honor. While it may have not registered with the reader at than moment, Lucanas makes real clear that a physician’s role recognizes that death is every part of life and he must help the dying find comfort in death.
A forth theme may be Lucanas's philosophy that everything can be explained by science. There are many occasions where his treatment of a patient apparently on the brink of certain death, saves his life. In every life saving event Lucanus would say the patient was miss diagnosed. A physician would intuitively be of this mind. Its logical, reason of the mind. However Lucanas's loss of an early love to a fatal illness perpetuates revulsion to anything of the heart as well as a deep rooted contempt for those who believe in the unknown God; though he struggles with both. Lucanus advocates to the unlearned that they must trust the wise. Where as the wise reader knows that no collection of man, let alone any one man, knows everything; as this is the justification for science... what a paradox!!! The purpose of this theme I suspect is to discount all the life saving miracles of Christ and in the balance to poke a stick in the eye of science.
I was compelled upon finishing the book to read Luke’s Gospel and Acts. Specifically to Caldwell’s gradual enlightenment on this subject Luke directly writes the following in ACTS 10:28:
Peter to Cornelius: “You yourself know it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call on anyone profane or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?”
My translation: From the days of Christ to 2012 follows this train of semantics. While the Jews associated with creature and man by nomenclature, naming, categorizing and applying rules of law to them; Peter a new Christian delineated between, clean and unclean [in spirit]. He then approached a man of unknown character, looking for the opportunity to recognize his Holy Spirit [‘clean’ intention’, spirit of whole man, using my term - w’holy, one man] in him.
Did Caldwell, by putting Luke's Gospel including Acts I & II in the context of his life put the whole story on trial? Is their divine coincidence in the undercurrent of the spirit of mankind? Is there an ethos that science has yet to discover? Could science and religion surrender their swords and come to an agreement that there is indeed a mystery not to life but in life. Luke’s was a life of long bitterness and then long searching for the One God. Apparently, according to Caldwell this search was a common place, though not necessarily of Romans, of Rome at that time. Luke's gospel is taken in a tone of mystic allegory, where Caldwell's reconstruction of Luke's life gives a rise to the story that was behind the author(s) that was behind the allegory. That rise takes the mysticism out and lends a sense of realism to the accounting of the life of Jesus Christ.
I am not sure to what degree Caldwell intended, she implies an unfavorable character in the Jews. To those early adopters of Christianity many of whom were Jews there is no admonishment of the Law. But rather a following of tradition and fervor of the rabble character of simple people that became the agent of the birth of the Way of which we know today as Christianity. Christianity came to man as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy of which only the humble paid credence to. The Jews, who proclaimed only they to be chosen, were their own worst enemy. If only they lowered their adulation's to themselves, could they have avoided the following 1947 years of what became a Diaspora of tumultuous tragedy.
John the Baptist’s angry and vengeful announcement of the Messiah lit the fuse for Christ's crucifixion. Was that the way God intended the story to unfold? Or is this simply the nature of God...man? Is the nominal name we apply to nature, God? Praise be the nominalists, whether he/she be the High Priests of Judea, the Holy Imams of Mecca, or the Popes and Cardinals of the Vatican, that fall way short of their goal of simply stating reality, physical observation of our world including the psychology and sociology of man, is to be accepted purely as it is. This is the meaning of love. Between Luke a Gentile along with Paul a Jew, Christianity wins it's case in court, where the rabble continue the argument. In Caldwell's version she closes with a case for motherhood. Caldwell uses an allegorical story between Christ and a dark angel. The allegory tells of the virtue of mother earth...nature. Unfortunately it is the nature of man through his nominalistic character, with its dependence on the use of words, one required so far to communicate, a function of community, to argue. The argument is not of reality, but of their rendition of it.
Annotated Bibliography
Page 59: a long predicted Star is witnessed by Keptah he recognizes the message of love. He says to himself have been cleansed... I have been born. Blessed is the Name if the Lord.". A he knees dud have to see him for he knew he who had been born was with all men, in every place on earth, at this hour, and would never depart again.
Page 103: Diodoris, already characterize as one who despises the new Rome, remarks in a fit of rage “corrupt citizens breed corrupt rulers, and it is the mob who finally decides when virtue shall die....Rome's soldiery virtue died with Caesar Augustus.
My note: Caldwell spends enough time drawing a dichotomy between the virtues of a soldier and the decadence of the egalitarian society of the rulers that the read suspects either the weaving of a moral message or the drama in the plot.
Page 137: [Lucanus at the death of Rubria his child love vows to his mother Iris to defy God and not allow Him to snatch life from people.]. Lucanus murmured to Keptah, " surely it would be merciful to give him a potion and bring him death."
Keptah shook his head slowly, "Hippocrates has declared that is forbidden. Who knows at what instant the soul shall recognize God? Shall we kill the sufferer tonight when in the morning the recognition would come? Besides man cannot give life. Therefore it is not for him to give death. These are reserved only for Him, who is unknowable to our natures, and who moves in mysteries. "
My note: Caldwell wrestles as late as the 1950's with a physician’s decision of life or death. I appreciate she may be a clairvoyant in terms of regression. However examining the same decision in 2011, the physician’s role has become that of a scientist]. In this context has science and religion merged, or has the Scientist assumed the role of God? If he as assumed such, is he qualified? It begs the expression: 'only God knows.’ While medical science may have usurped God in giving life (cloning) and preventing death, has science overlooked the rest of the equation... A universe or at least an earth that can sustain a population explosion?
Page 149 [in the reconciling of the deaths of Aneneas, Lucanus' father, and Rubrea, Diodorus' daughter; Lucanus describes his regret for having treated his father in such a condescending way]. “I lost my father," Lucanus said ... " I am a son who came not to hate his father, but to be despise him lightly as a man if little learning and of many pretensions. I became arrogant and impatient, and condescending. I forgot all he suffered, all he had known.... I did not lose my father in those years, but my father lost a son. And now the son has lost his father, and I cannot reach him and ask his forgiveness for cruelty and impatience and pride of youth."
Diodorus' ... "Surely the gods do not reject contrition, and surely the shades in the regions of death are aware of repentance."
[Diodorus found peace in their dialogue. Lucanus, found in his youth only revenge. Revenge railed against a God who showed mo mercy for the one he loved. The dialogue and all of chapter 12 was about the dichotomy of selfishness and love for life].
My note: Does the scientist of 2011 have the moral compass to navigate the shoals of selfishness? Is it death itself that promulgates morality itself? Death being the prime variable to scarcity prompts moral thinking to choose between himself as though his body and spirit were inseparable and the living, all the living, mankind.
Page 153: comfortlessly, Lucanus would ask himself (If we are not immortal then why were we born? If I could only believe there is no God! But I believe in Him, and from Him I will have His victims, if not his answer! He haunts all men for the satisfaction of his hatred.
Page 186: says Diodorus; "Remember this, my children, that oppressive government is fiercer and more feared than a tiger.
My note: a common thread woven into the author’s moral message with Diodorous as the raw material.
Page 195: [in dialogue with a Jewish professor on a Indu professor of art, comparing Hindu to Judaism]. He has discussed with Joseph ben Gaiel [Lucanus poses the question on Hindu and Karma]. Then the Jew had said, "No. One only has to consider the illimitable harmony of nature, which is the reflection of God, it's precise laws which never deviate, its exactness. God is the Law and the Law is perfect and immutable."
My note: if the Jews has stopped there as opposed to writing the Torah and the Talmud’s their religion may not have run in to so much opposition...perhaps?
Page 196: As all patients were either slaves or destitute, experimentation upon them was sometimes merciless and quite often the experiments had no relationship to the immediate disease at all. This Lucanus found intolerable and hateful, and again only the Jewish teacher understood [not the other three in the room; Indi, Egyptian, or Roman]. The others kindly laughed at Lucanus. “Is it not justifiable that one man die so that others, multitudes, may live?" they would ask him. To which he would reply, while the Jewish teacher listened in searching silence, "No. One man is as important as a mass, and perhaps even more so."
My note: With the Holocaust in mind; why did Caldwell write this? She implies that only the Jew understood the concept that one life was as valuable as many. She clearly in context of the pertinent chapter condemns directly the Hindu, and then non specifically draws in any other than Jews. This is before Christ, so Christians get a pardon so far.
At this point this reader is dedicated to reading Luke in the Bible to see where one mans life equates to One Man as this Christian of Unity Doctrine sees it.
And finally to this point, I have to ask; has modern medicines challenge to death lost its moral compass? There was once a role where physicians allowed man to die in dignity. Have we evolved to ongoing experiments in biology to the advancements of medical research and the material rewards that come to the physician that breaks through?
This queer attitude did not diminish the affection and respect of the physicians. But when Lucanus would lament over mortal illness and work until he sweated to relieve its pain and to save the patient, all but the Jew were puzzled. Truth, knowledge was the object of
medicine. Death was the fate of all men, and pain also. "Yes, men must die,” Lucanus would say bitterly. "But is it not our duty to be most greatly concerned with pain? Even the pain of a slave?
My note: We know Caldwell is well researched and clairvoyant. What is her source on this philosophical question?
My note: This passage also speaks to the mission of doctors that would form the view of the American Founding Fathers. The scope of medicine then recognized death and at the same time looked to preserve life. But first and foremost was the dignity of the life while living, knowing death is inevitable. What is today's scope of medicine? Is it to prolong the biological term for the sake of medicine, as could be the case in Mary Schiavo? Does today's medicine exceed or deviate from the scope of our Founding Fathers. This question is most pertinent with the onset of Obamacare. Tying this to the other theme Caldwell explores through Diodorus, can government be so big to be oppressive through egalitarian excesses? Example IRS employees get free mass transit passes for work, so as to sponsor the government mass transit system. Would government employees, ie Congress and their families continue to get special medical care over the masses? These are moral questions that challenge not only medicine but also society. At present medical advances are out in front of our moral consensus as a society. Should we wait? Or shall we proceed and throw out the compass, as well as the rudder and sail into uncharted waters and leave the fate of man kind to chance? With 300 pages to go, I am hoping Caldwell speaks to this in more broad terms than the specific chapter, which speaks directly to whole medicine rather than specialized medicine. Was Mary Schiavo kept alive by medicine so as to study her organs? After all the current television series House speaks exactly to this subject.
Page 249: said Diodorus: "Listen to me Keptah! A mans first duty is to God and his country. Nations are God's expression of spiritual realms. When those nations become abandoned and debased, given up to bloody pride and debauchery, to war and tyrant, then they have deaaced the kingdoms of the earth, and penalty is death. Rome will inevitably
die unless many like me shall speak, and where are the voices raised in her behalf? Who shall cry out to Romans, 'You have destroyed what God has built and you must return to freedom and purity and virtue at once, lest you die'?"
Page 276: Keptah to Cusa on Lucanus; He said Rome was already lost, but man is not lost, a sophistry I did not refrain from pointing out to him. Man is his own executioner; he hangs himself in his own cross; he is his own disease, his own fate, his own death. His civilizations are an expression of him.
Page 281: Keptah says to Lucanus: Civilization to you is man's pathetic attempt to bring order to nature, to regulate it in to some form of meaning, to guide it's pointlessness in to some semblance of significance To you nature in it's seeding, it's growth, it's death is
a sum without an equation, a circle encompassing nothingness, a tree that flowers and bears no fruit and dies in a from desert. Such thoughts are lethal; they are frightful with death.
My note: my first thought was Godell, Escher, Bach. Most importantly was Godell's incompleteness theorem. Nature is incomplete and therefore we live on as a species. Science's penchant to remake nature under the pressures of society to be first more comfortable and then to defy death is a slippery slope with a frozen pond o tf thin ice at its foot. Yet in this conversation both Lucanus and Keptah are only half right, yet rather than merging thought to complete a beautiful interpretation of life; they part company of different views, the drama in the dichotomy of science and religion.
Page 282: Again Keptah shook his head. “You are wrong. Nature is absolute order, rules by absolute and immutable laws laid down at the beginning of the universe by God. Civilizations, so long as they agree with nature and it's laws, such as creation, freedom of growth, the dignity of all that lives, and beauty of form, and reverence for the being of God and their own being, survive. Once they turn to rigidity and anonymousness under State , and regulation of large and small forms to one flowerless level, the degradation of the best to the fruitless masses of men, the rejection of freedom for all - then nature must
destroy them, through wars or pestilences or quick decay. You are in the midst, in these days, of the workings of the Law.
My Note: Rome fell and it gave way to Dark Ages, then Renaissance, then Enlightenment, now? Are we again in the midst of the working laws of nature, often referred to as God?
Page 296: of Tiberius Caesar’s mind: He was trying at the time to save Rome, to restore some of the qualities that made her great. But a depraved people would not accept their liberty and former discipline and their character. [The dialogue continues to dwell on the faults of Christ's time Rome and the meaning of life, which was lost on Romans]
My note: Caldwell published this in 1959. Disclosed in her preface, She actually wrote it in a period of American history that found supremacy over all other nations. How is it at this time that Caldwell could have the premonition to draw a parallel to the United States and Russia, and then discount it in her peace?
Page 310: If man dies valiantly in armor on some battlefield of principle or patriotism or in protection of what he held most dear, then he had not lived in vain. But those who won battles and baubles lived ingloriously and died as ingloriously, the object of later
satires or a warning to the ages. It was strange that empires never learned that lesson, thought Lucanus. It was stance that man never learned anything at all.
Page 312: Lucanus thought [of the Roman elite]. Cicero had lamented that though the forms of the Republic were still celebrated the Republic no longer existed. Among these men and women there was no love for their country, no celebration of freedom, no honor for the mighty dead who had founded their nation and their institution.
My note: I instantly thought of Lincoln. If he knew he'd be followed by the likes of FDR, LBJ, BHO, would he have ratified the fourteenth amendment? Or would he have recognized that as imperfect as man is; the Constitution as it stood would be preferable to the democracy of debauched society that prevails in 2011 American society. My evidence lay in the TV show Entertainment Tonight where the antics of the debauched Hollywood celebrities invade households of the easily
lead only to entrance the multitudes across this once great Republic for which we once stood.
Page 319: So this was what the emancipation of Roman woman had led to, this vulgar and unabashed wantonness, thus witless shrieking, this half-drunken quarreling, thus continuous chatter of business, gossip, and politics, this effrontery, this noisy insistence! He thought of Aurelia and his mother, Iris, skilled in household duties, gentleness, the care of children, the cherishing of husbands. They might have known little of Virgil or Homer, nor could they have discussed military campaigns or legal suits of prominence of legal suits of prominence in the public courts, as these women had done earlier, but they could bring peace and joy to a home, and honor, and their children and their husbands revered them, and divorce and adultery were unknown. Lucanus mused. Did a nation decline and decay when women won dominance and when no doors of law, business or
politics were closed to them, or did the dominance of women merely indicate the nation was decaying?
My note: I marvel that Caldwell wrote this passage in the 1940's. Well before the women’s movement of the 60's and 70's. She wrote it at America's zenith. We have fallen from there since, I feel. I do know in my wife that she display's along with her friend the traits of this passage. Traits of a marriage, a family, and hence a nation all not in decline but decay. How does Caldwell reach so vividly in the past and foretell the future with such clairvoyant perception?
Page 351: Lucanus looked at the tablet for a long while. Finally he shook his head. "I understand the Jewish religion. It was Noah who upbraided his sons for finding him in his drunken nakedness. He particularly laid the curse on his sin, Ham, of black countenance. It is true that the black man has been truly cursed, but not by any deity, but only by man. If there is a God, and I know there is a God, he has cursed any of His children. Nor to any man has He given the command and to curse other men, but only to do good to them.
My note: obviously one would draw suspect on Jewish doctrine to a degree. If we were to accept Caldwell's research. Do we find here a root to anti- Semitism?
Page 395: [the centurion Antonius and Lucanas’s thought ] Nevertheless, I believe all these lips of the centurion, Antonius, is doubtless true - fro his point of view. Perhaps that Jewish rabbi, the teacher, knows some secrets which seem supernatural to us, but which ate part of natural law we have yet to discovered. And again this seems most reasonable to me, the physicians who attend the servant of Antonius made an error. The servant was not mortally I'll; he would have recovered in any event.
My note: Oddly enough today we call the study of nature science and find science in opposition to religion and this story is making reference to Jesus Christ.
Page 405: [Sara to Lucanus after he realizes he has been running from love and asks for Sara's hand in marriage] You gave been made empty in order that you may be filled with joy an peace beyond al your imaginings, Lucanus. Love tells me so but love does not tell me how. No Lucanus I cannot marry you, for in marrying you I will keep you from your destiny. That which you must find is not in my arms. God calls men from outbid the cities, from their own firesides, from their wives and their children from all they love, and his voice cannot be ignored. He has called you.
My note: People criticize those who use the phrase "its Gods will". But in this example Sara is only pointing out what has been Lucanas’s will for the past 404 pages of the book. Sara is saying to Lucanus it is in your nature to answer to a higher calling than love of Sara
Page 407: [Lucanus Rubria younger brother Priscus] I know that it was inevitable that Rome become what she is. Republics decay into democracies, and democracies degenerate into dictatorships. That fact is immutable. When there is equality - and democracies shall always bring equality - the people become faceless, the lose their initiative, they lose their pride and independence, they lose their splendor. Republics are masculine... [The rest of the paragraph is worth capturing] ...[on page 428] Priscus, you ad a husband and a father, and most particularly a father, can cultivate the masculinity
of free and noble men in your children; a man must always begin with his family, and then reach forth for his neighbors. He may fail, but at least he has tried. It is not in his failing that man is judged, but by the lack of his efforts. At last man is judged singly, and never in mass.
Page 446: [Hilell a wealthy Jew who admonishes first Jews then others to Lucanus to]. "And then there is the rabble, the marketplace rabble which afflict all cities and all nations, demanding always, greedy, eager for sport, with lusty animal appetites, quarrelsome, milling restlessly, incapable of learning anything, contentious and
dependent. Have you not such trouble in Rome, and will Rome not die of them, and the taxation they impose on their betters for their idle support.
My note: I am sure, have done some background reading on Caldwell, there is no 2011 agenda here. She wrote this in the 1940's. Yet my oh my, the ominous parallels.
Page 447: [Hilell continuing] "So you have the priests, frightened for their people and their faith; you have self appointed guardians if the Law, the Pharisees, who detest the humble; you have the shrill rabble, always searching for a victim. And you have Rome, ever watchful for signs of a rebellion against her power. Considering all these, it is a marvel that He was denounced to Roman officials, and that was the end. Or in the beginning" added Hilell.
Page 475: Lucanus. Looked down at the sleeping man and murmured;
" Oh You who have brought me from the wasted spaces, and the darkness, and barrenness, out of Your love and Your eternal mercy! Oh you who are companionate beyond imagining, You who know the suffering of men, because You have suffers them! [How profound a statement. Caldwell is actually saying that God, Nature has suffered man]. Oh hallowed are You in my soul, and I implore that You will accept my life that I serve You! Always have I loved You even when I contended with You out
of my lack of understanding.
My note: Profound to say God has suffered man. A world without that reality made apparent was a world where Lucanus witnessed the suffering of one mans actions upon another only to discover that the omni presence of God included suffering. A simple expression of 'it is what it is' absent a trait of the nominalist’s interpretation. How often have you heard the expression, 'it's beyond words'. When it's real, a revelation, it's beyond words. Or better said words are not necessary.
Page 482: Lucanus put his hand to his forehead and rubbed it dazedly. "I do not understand ", he muttered. Then he flung the coverlets from his brother's body and felt over his stomach and liver, and his glands. The ominous tumors have disappeared. The flesh was thin and emaciated, but also firm, and the pulse was strong.
Lucanus straightened. "It is not possible!" he cried. He looked at Nicias and Joshua imploringly. "We made an error."
"No," they said, and smiled at him.
"Through you God wrought his miracle, as a witness to us." said Joshua. [this was Lucanas’s revelation, his baptism in to Christianity]
My note: Up to this moment of all other 'miracle cures' that Lucanus witnessed, he was certain he made an error in his diagnosis. This time he implores two other physicians who confirm it was no mistake. The message I get is not so much the miracle, as that men of medicine at time accepted the concept of miracles for things of biology that they could not explain. Science and religion were not as adverse as 2011's current of pagans have us conceding to.
Page 508: [Lucanus] thought of Rubria and Sara, the dead he loved with such tenderness, and he said to himself that in reality there was no age, no weariness, no pain, no despair, no parting, no death. The world and the planets, the countless suns, rang with immortal youth, and the constellations and galaxies rejoiced in it. An exhilaration filled him. All he had ever loved was with him forever.
My note: I genuinely related to this passage. As death separates Lucanus from his first love, life's stories separate me from mine. I have always known in the physical world that physical aspect of love is long past and never to present itself in the future. I take extreme solace however knowing in spirit the immortal youth and the love that goes with it lives on... nothing more nothing less, just what is and it's acceptance...love. This is my reality. It is what makes the memories cherishable.
Page 535: [as Lucanus come upon the Sea of Galilee]. The foliage of the olives had the aspect of fettered silver; the green palms did not sway in the pure and windless air; the pomegranates bore their red fruit on their branches Luke jewels. Sheep slept about the olive trees, their wool pale gold. There was no cry of bird here in this aureate effulgence. The peace beyond understanding, the light that never lay on land or sea, was here caught as in glowing crystal, eternal and unchanging.
Page 546: [in the story of Zachary, father of John the Baptist]. Visions were no rare things to these simple and pious people; legends of the appearances of angels and portents ran through all their conversation.
My note: to the skeptic anti Christian, here lay a notion to your argument. While Luke was a physician of legend, wise of the world; his gospel was a recording of events among these simple people.
I wonder if it's like that there.
Page 562: [top] John [The Baptist] was a man of furious temporment.
Jesus knew he was his kinsman. John...
Cool Metaphors
Retreated like the moon behind a cloud
Pure as a cows milk
Soft as a doves call
Murmurous as a softly struck harp
On feet that moved no heavier than a breath
An interesting contrast; greed & envy
Interesting trivia: the fish symbol is a Greek anagram for Christo.
By Taylor Caldwell
I picked this book up at random. It was sitting on a coffee table and I knew not how it got there. I have great appreciation for Taylor Caldwell, both her work and the exceptional life she lived. In classic Caldwell style she paints every scene so as to place the reader in it. Caldwell is surely 20th a century rival to the likes of Hugo. You can actually smell the pomegranate in the Roman gardens while reading her book. You get a real sense from this book that the wealthy of Rome had many of the luxuries of today’s modern man. The missing mechanical inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries were simply replaced with slaves and servants. Lucanus, the Physician and main character was the son of a Greek freedman. From that perspective the reader gains a purely neutral view on the strife between Jew and Greek or Roman gentile. Caldwell never speaks directly to it; however the reader, late in the book, begins to sense that in too many cases that the Jews though good people were their own worst enemy when it came to integrating with other cultures.
As the story the story goes: Lucanus the young boy of a freed Greek slave still serving the son of his one time master Diodoris was a prodigy philosopher, though after reading his scripture not a very good writer, aspiring to be a physician. His mentors early on were a Roman tribune, a Greek record keeper, and a Greek tutor. The first two were both frauds in their association with their social setting which was a fraud in itself. In spite of those mentors, Lucanus pursues the one unknown God of the Jewish religion.
Mid way through the book, as Lucanus prepares to leave the Alexandria school of medicine, a graduate Physician, his Jewish teacher bids him farewell and tells a story of a boy born under a star in the East. The teacher predicts that Lucanus shall seek this boy and its only then that this reader of the book has the epiphany; Lucanus - Luke. It allows the author to make Luke an objective critic. An interesting twist of events exposes the Jews as the first to discriminate against the black man, by Caldwell's reference to the legend of HAM. It is also the Jew who doesn't recognize Christ as a messiah but is the Jew who is the early physician/scientist. Karmaiclly it is the Jew who has witnessed a millennium of Diaspora and its discrimination. In a few places the book Caldwell implies that the fate of the 'Diaspora' Jew was of his own making.
While early on Caldwell uses Lucanus to examine a merciless and hateful God, later she introduces the evil man as an alternative. Within the evil man is greed and envy where it's envy playing the evil role over a wealthy man who found his wealth through generosity? Generosity is hinted as being the channel to wealth as a generous person is a good steward of money. This reader was receptive to this hint because of outside influence. It is at this point that the light begins to come into Lucanus’s life that perhaps it is not the vengeful God, but vengeful man at the root of his depression
Caldwell provides a narrative, through the voice of Lucanas’s brother Priscus, the Roman Captain who supervised Christ's crucifixion the telling of that event. The story rivals all I had previously read in any Catholic program that I was raised in. This mainly speaks poorly upon my study. Lucanus's reaction is a revelation to the tormenting he had bore through his life. It was his 'born again' moment where, albeit only implied by Caldwell, that Lucanus became a Christian. Interestingly enough in that moment Lucanus tells his brother of the resurrection purely out of internal conjecture. Lucanus in Caldwell’s book had no fact or word from anyone that Christ had risen.
The first theme of the book is the search to define God. While the ancient people had there gods, Lucanus was busy examining the One God to the extent his challenge to that idea brings forward the notion that the word God is a concept and not a being at all. And so in exploring the concept of god, the second theme being developed is; there is no one philosopher or philosophy that is complete. Caldwell writes through one of her characters Keptah, Lucanus/’s tutor; many philosophers are not wise at all things. Keptah went on; "If a man were to live solely by the theories of the philosophers he would not survive, nor would he retain his sanity. I take this to mean two things. First man is incomplete…until his death.
A third theme comes to full maturation as Lucanus, a seasoned physician, treats the father of three wealthy sons. His illness is derived from a psychosomatic condition. In his analysis Caldwell, through the voice of Lucanus drives home the treatment of a person is more than the function of his body. The point stressed is your health is largely determined by how you both live and view your life. At this point the reader would be reflecting back on the death of an early main character, Diodoris, and contemplating the meaning of death with honor. While it may have not registered with the reader at than moment, Lucanas makes real clear that a physician’s role recognizes that death is every part of life and he must help the dying find comfort in death.
A forth theme may be Lucanas's philosophy that everything can be explained by science. There are many occasions where his treatment of a patient apparently on the brink of certain death, saves his life. In every life saving event Lucanus would say the patient was miss diagnosed. A physician would intuitively be of this mind. Its logical, reason of the mind. However Lucanas's loss of an early love to a fatal illness perpetuates revulsion to anything of the heart as well as a deep rooted contempt for those who believe in the unknown God; though he struggles with both. Lucanus advocates to the unlearned that they must trust the wise. Where as the wise reader knows that no collection of man, let alone any one man, knows everything; as this is the justification for science... what a paradox!!! The purpose of this theme I suspect is to discount all the life saving miracles of Christ and in the balance to poke a stick in the eye of science.
I was compelled upon finishing the book to read Luke’s Gospel and Acts. Specifically to Caldwell’s gradual enlightenment on this subject Luke directly writes the following in ACTS 10:28:
Peter to Cornelius: “You yourself know it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call on anyone profane or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?”
My translation: From the days of Christ to 2012 follows this train of semantics. While the Jews associated with creature and man by nomenclature, naming, categorizing and applying rules of law to them; Peter a new Christian delineated between, clean and unclean [in spirit]. He then approached a man of unknown character, looking for the opportunity to recognize his Holy Spirit [‘clean’ intention’, spirit of whole man, using my term - w’holy, one man] in him.
Did Caldwell, by putting Luke's Gospel including Acts I & II in the context of his life put the whole story on trial? Is their divine coincidence in the undercurrent of the spirit of mankind? Is there an ethos that science has yet to discover? Could science and religion surrender their swords and come to an agreement that there is indeed a mystery not to life but in life. Luke’s was a life of long bitterness and then long searching for the One God. Apparently, according to Caldwell this search was a common place, though not necessarily of Romans, of Rome at that time. Luke's gospel is taken in a tone of mystic allegory, where Caldwell's reconstruction of Luke's life gives a rise to the story that was behind the author(s) that was behind the allegory. That rise takes the mysticism out and lends a sense of realism to the accounting of the life of Jesus Christ.
I am not sure to what degree Caldwell intended, she implies an unfavorable character in the Jews. To those early adopters of Christianity many of whom were Jews there is no admonishment of the Law. But rather a following of tradition and fervor of the rabble character of simple people that became the agent of the birth of the Way of which we know today as Christianity. Christianity came to man as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy of which only the humble paid credence to. The Jews, who proclaimed only they to be chosen, were their own worst enemy. If only they lowered their adulation's to themselves, could they have avoided the following 1947 years of what became a Diaspora of tumultuous tragedy.
John the Baptist’s angry and vengeful announcement of the Messiah lit the fuse for Christ's crucifixion. Was that the way God intended the story to unfold? Or is this simply the nature of God...man? Is the nominal name we apply to nature, God? Praise be the nominalists, whether he/she be the High Priests of Judea, the Holy Imams of Mecca, or the Popes and Cardinals of the Vatican, that fall way short of their goal of simply stating reality, physical observation of our world including the psychology and sociology of man, is to be accepted purely as it is. This is the meaning of love. Between Luke a Gentile along with Paul a Jew, Christianity wins it's case in court, where the rabble continue the argument. In Caldwell's version she closes with a case for motherhood. Caldwell uses an allegorical story between Christ and a dark angel. The allegory tells of the virtue of mother earth...nature. Unfortunately it is the nature of man through his nominalistic character, with its dependence on the use of words, one required so far to communicate, a function of community, to argue. The argument is not of reality, but of their rendition of it.
Annotated Bibliography
Page 59: a long predicted Star is witnessed by Keptah he recognizes the message of love. He says to himself have been cleansed... I have been born. Blessed is the Name if the Lord.". A he knees dud have to see him for he knew he who had been born was with all men, in every place on earth, at this hour, and would never depart again.
Page 103: Diodoris, already characterize as one who despises the new Rome, remarks in a fit of rage “corrupt citizens breed corrupt rulers, and it is the mob who finally decides when virtue shall die....Rome's soldiery virtue died with Caesar Augustus.
My note: Caldwell spends enough time drawing a dichotomy between the virtues of a soldier and the decadence of the egalitarian society of the rulers that the read suspects either the weaving of a moral message or the drama in the plot.
Page 137: [Lucanus at the death of Rubria his child love vows to his mother Iris to defy God and not allow Him to snatch life from people.]. Lucanus murmured to Keptah, " surely it would be merciful to give him a potion and bring him death."
Keptah shook his head slowly, "Hippocrates has declared that is forbidden. Who knows at what instant the soul shall recognize God? Shall we kill the sufferer tonight when in the morning the recognition would come? Besides man cannot give life. Therefore it is not for him to give death. These are reserved only for Him, who is unknowable to our natures, and who moves in mysteries. "
My note: Caldwell wrestles as late as the 1950's with a physician’s decision of life or death. I appreciate she may be a clairvoyant in terms of regression. However examining the same decision in 2011, the physician’s role has become that of a scientist]. In this context has science and religion merged, or has the Scientist assumed the role of God? If he as assumed such, is he qualified? It begs the expression: 'only God knows.’ While medical science may have usurped God in giving life (cloning) and preventing death, has science overlooked the rest of the equation... A universe or at least an earth that can sustain a population explosion?
Page 149 [in the reconciling of the deaths of Aneneas, Lucanus' father, and Rubrea, Diodorus' daughter; Lucanus describes his regret for having treated his father in such a condescending way]. “I lost my father," Lucanus said ... " I am a son who came not to hate his father, but to be despise him lightly as a man if little learning and of many pretensions. I became arrogant and impatient, and condescending. I forgot all he suffered, all he had known.... I did not lose my father in those years, but my father lost a son. And now the son has lost his father, and I cannot reach him and ask his forgiveness for cruelty and impatience and pride of youth."
Diodorus' ... "Surely the gods do not reject contrition, and surely the shades in the regions of death are aware of repentance."
[Diodorus found peace in their dialogue. Lucanus, found in his youth only revenge. Revenge railed against a God who showed mo mercy for the one he loved. The dialogue and all of chapter 12 was about the dichotomy of selfishness and love for life].
My note: Does the scientist of 2011 have the moral compass to navigate the shoals of selfishness? Is it death itself that promulgates morality itself? Death being the prime variable to scarcity prompts moral thinking to choose between himself as though his body and spirit were inseparable and the living, all the living, mankind.
Page 153: comfortlessly, Lucanus would ask himself (If we are not immortal then why were we born? If I could only believe there is no God! But I believe in Him, and from Him I will have His victims, if not his answer! He haunts all men for the satisfaction of his hatred.
Page 186: says Diodorus; "Remember this, my children, that oppressive government is fiercer and more feared than a tiger.
My note: a common thread woven into the author’s moral message with Diodorous as the raw material.
Page 195: [in dialogue with a Jewish professor on a Indu professor of art, comparing Hindu to Judaism]. He has discussed with Joseph ben Gaiel [Lucanus poses the question on Hindu and Karma]. Then the Jew had said, "No. One only has to consider the illimitable harmony of nature, which is the reflection of God, it's precise laws which never deviate, its exactness. God is the Law and the Law is perfect and immutable."
My note: if the Jews has stopped there as opposed to writing the Torah and the Talmud’s their religion may not have run in to so much opposition...perhaps?
Page 196: As all patients were either slaves or destitute, experimentation upon them was sometimes merciless and quite often the experiments had no relationship to the immediate disease at all. This Lucanus found intolerable and hateful, and again only the Jewish teacher understood [not the other three in the room; Indi, Egyptian, or Roman]. The others kindly laughed at Lucanus. “Is it not justifiable that one man die so that others, multitudes, may live?" they would ask him. To which he would reply, while the Jewish teacher listened in searching silence, "No. One man is as important as a mass, and perhaps even more so."
My note: With the Holocaust in mind; why did Caldwell write this? She implies that only the Jew understood the concept that one life was as valuable as many. She clearly in context of the pertinent chapter condemns directly the Hindu, and then non specifically draws in any other than Jews. This is before Christ, so Christians get a pardon so far.
At this point this reader is dedicated to reading Luke in the Bible to see where one mans life equates to One Man as this Christian of Unity Doctrine sees it.
And finally to this point, I have to ask; has modern medicines challenge to death lost its moral compass? There was once a role where physicians allowed man to die in dignity. Have we evolved to ongoing experiments in biology to the advancements of medical research and the material rewards that come to the physician that breaks through?
This queer attitude did not diminish the affection and respect of the physicians. But when Lucanus would lament over mortal illness and work until he sweated to relieve its pain and to save the patient, all but the Jew were puzzled. Truth, knowledge was the object of
medicine. Death was the fate of all men, and pain also. "Yes, men must die,” Lucanus would say bitterly. "But is it not our duty to be most greatly concerned with pain? Even the pain of a slave?
My note: We know Caldwell is well researched and clairvoyant. What is her source on this philosophical question?
My note: This passage also speaks to the mission of doctors that would form the view of the American Founding Fathers. The scope of medicine then recognized death and at the same time looked to preserve life. But first and foremost was the dignity of the life while living, knowing death is inevitable. What is today's scope of medicine? Is it to prolong the biological term for the sake of medicine, as could be the case in Mary Schiavo? Does today's medicine exceed or deviate from the scope of our Founding Fathers. This question is most pertinent with the onset of Obamacare. Tying this to the other theme Caldwell explores through Diodorus, can government be so big to be oppressive through egalitarian excesses? Example IRS employees get free mass transit passes for work, so as to sponsor the government mass transit system. Would government employees, ie Congress and their families continue to get special medical care over the masses? These are moral questions that challenge not only medicine but also society. At present medical advances are out in front of our moral consensus as a society. Should we wait? Or shall we proceed and throw out the compass, as well as the rudder and sail into uncharted waters and leave the fate of man kind to chance? With 300 pages to go, I am hoping Caldwell speaks to this in more broad terms than the specific chapter, which speaks directly to whole medicine rather than specialized medicine. Was Mary Schiavo kept alive by medicine so as to study her organs? After all the current television series House speaks exactly to this subject.
Page 249: said Diodorus: "Listen to me Keptah! A mans first duty is to God and his country. Nations are God's expression of spiritual realms. When those nations become abandoned and debased, given up to bloody pride and debauchery, to war and tyrant, then they have deaaced the kingdoms of the earth, and penalty is death. Rome will inevitably
die unless many like me shall speak, and where are the voices raised in her behalf? Who shall cry out to Romans, 'You have destroyed what God has built and you must return to freedom and purity and virtue at once, lest you die'?"
Page 276: Keptah to Cusa on Lucanus; He said Rome was already lost, but man is not lost, a sophistry I did not refrain from pointing out to him. Man is his own executioner; he hangs himself in his own cross; he is his own disease, his own fate, his own death. His civilizations are an expression of him.
Page 281: Keptah says to Lucanus: Civilization to you is man's pathetic attempt to bring order to nature, to regulate it in to some form of meaning, to guide it's pointlessness in to some semblance of significance To you nature in it's seeding, it's growth, it's death is
a sum without an equation, a circle encompassing nothingness, a tree that flowers and bears no fruit and dies in a from desert. Such thoughts are lethal; they are frightful with death.
My note: my first thought was Godell, Escher, Bach. Most importantly was Godell's incompleteness theorem. Nature is incomplete and therefore we live on as a species. Science's penchant to remake nature under the pressures of society to be first more comfortable and then to defy death is a slippery slope with a frozen pond o tf thin ice at its foot. Yet in this conversation both Lucanus and Keptah are only half right, yet rather than merging thought to complete a beautiful interpretation of life; they part company of different views, the drama in the dichotomy of science and religion.
Page 282: Again Keptah shook his head. “You are wrong. Nature is absolute order, rules by absolute and immutable laws laid down at the beginning of the universe by God. Civilizations, so long as they agree with nature and it's laws, such as creation, freedom of growth, the dignity of all that lives, and beauty of form, and reverence for the being of God and their own being, survive. Once they turn to rigidity and anonymousness under State , and regulation of large and small forms to one flowerless level, the degradation of the best to the fruitless masses of men, the rejection of freedom for all - then nature must
destroy them, through wars or pestilences or quick decay. You are in the midst, in these days, of the workings of the Law.
My Note: Rome fell and it gave way to Dark Ages, then Renaissance, then Enlightenment, now? Are we again in the midst of the working laws of nature, often referred to as God?
Page 296: of Tiberius Caesar’s mind: He was trying at the time to save Rome, to restore some of the qualities that made her great. But a depraved people would not accept their liberty and former discipline and their character. [The dialogue continues to dwell on the faults of Christ's time Rome and the meaning of life, which was lost on Romans]
My note: Caldwell published this in 1959. Disclosed in her preface, She actually wrote it in a period of American history that found supremacy over all other nations. How is it at this time that Caldwell could have the premonition to draw a parallel to the United States and Russia, and then discount it in her peace?
Page 310: If man dies valiantly in armor on some battlefield of principle or patriotism or in protection of what he held most dear, then he had not lived in vain. But those who won battles and baubles lived ingloriously and died as ingloriously, the object of later
satires or a warning to the ages. It was strange that empires never learned that lesson, thought Lucanus. It was stance that man never learned anything at all.
Page 312: Lucanus thought [of the Roman elite]. Cicero had lamented that though the forms of the Republic were still celebrated the Republic no longer existed. Among these men and women there was no love for their country, no celebration of freedom, no honor for the mighty dead who had founded their nation and their institution.
My note: I instantly thought of Lincoln. If he knew he'd be followed by the likes of FDR, LBJ, BHO, would he have ratified the fourteenth amendment? Or would he have recognized that as imperfect as man is; the Constitution as it stood would be preferable to the democracy of debauched society that prevails in 2011 American society. My evidence lay in the TV show Entertainment Tonight where the antics of the debauched Hollywood celebrities invade households of the easily
lead only to entrance the multitudes across this once great Republic for which we once stood.
Page 319: So this was what the emancipation of Roman woman had led to, this vulgar and unabashed wantonness, thus witless shrieking, this half-drunken quarreling, thus continuous chatter of business, gossip, and politics, this effrontery, this noisy insistence! He thought of Aurelia and his mother, Iris, skilled in household duties, gentleness, the care of children, the cherishing of husbands. They might have known little of Virgil or Homer, nor could they have discussed military campaigns or legal suits of prominence of legal suits of prominence in the public courts, as these women had done earlier, but they could bring peace and joy to a home, and honor, and their children and their husbands revered them, and divorce and adultery were unknown. Lucanus mused. Did a nation decline and decay when women won dominance and when no doors of law, business or
politics were closed to them, or did the dominance of women merely indicate the nation was decaying?
My note: I marvel that Caldwell wrote this passage in the 1940's. Well before the women’s movement of the 60's and 70's. She wrote it at America's zenith. We have fallen from there since, I feel. I do know in my wife that she display's along with her friend the traits of this passage. Traits of a marriage, a family, and hence a nation all not in decline but decay. How does Caldwell reach so vividly in the past and foretell the future with such clairvoyant perception?
Page 351: Lucanus looked at the tablet for a long while. Finally he shook his head. "I understand the Jewish religion. It was Noah who upbraided his sons for finding him in his drunken nakedness. He particularly laid the curse on his sin, Ham, of black countenance. It is true that the black man has been truly cursed, but not by any deity, but only by man. If there is a God, and I know there is a God, he has cursed any of His children. Nor to any man has He given the command and to curse other men, but only to do good to them.
My note: obviously one would draw suspect on Jewish doctrine to a degree. If we were to accept Caldwell's research. Do we find here a root to anti- Semitism?
Page 395: [the centurion Antonius and Lucanas’s thought ] Nevertheless, I believe all these lips of the centurion, Antonius, is doubtless true - fro his point of view. Perhaps that Jewish rabbi, the teacher, knows some secrets which seem supernatural to us, but which ate part of natural law we have yet to discovered. And again this seems most reasonable to me, the physicians who attend the servant of Antonius made an error. The servant was not mortally I'll; he would have recovered in any event.
My note: Oddly enough today we call the study of nature science and find science in opposition to religion and this story is making reference to Jesus Christ.
Page 405: [Sara to Lucanus after he realizes he has been running from love and asks for Sara's hand in marriage] You gave been made empty in order that you may be filled with joy an peace beyond al your imaginings, Lucanus. Love tells me so but love does not tell me how. No Lucanus I cannot marry you, for in marrying you I will keep you from your destiny. That which you must find is not in my arms. God calls men from outbid the cities, from their own firesides, from their wives and their children from all they love, and his voice cannot be ignored. He has called you.
My note: People criticize those who use the phrase "its Gods will". But in this example Sara is only pointing out what has been Lucanas’s will for the past 404 pages of the book. Sara is saying to Lucanus it is in your nature to answer to a higher calling than love of Sara
Page 407: [Lucanus Rubria younger brother Priscus] I know that it was inevitable that Rome become what she is. Republics decay into democracies, and democracies degenerate into dictatorships. That fact is immutable. When there is equality - and democracies shall always bring equality - the people become faceless, the lose their initiative, they lose their pride and independence, they lose their splendor. Republics are masculine... [The rest of the paragraph is worth capturing] ...[on page 428] Priscus, you ad a husband and a father, and most particularly a father, can cultivate the masculinity
of free and noble men in your children; a man must always begin with his family, and then reach forth for his neighbors. He may fail, but at least he has tried. It is not in his failing that man is judged, but by the lack of his efforts. At last man is judged singly, and never in mass.
Page 446: [Hilell a wealthy Jew who admonishes first Jews then others to Lucanus to]. "And then there is the rabble, the marketplace rabble which afflict all cities and all nations, demanding always, greedy, eager for sport, with lusty animal appetites, quarrelsome, milling restlessly, incapable of learning anything, contentious and
dependent. Have you not such trouble in Rome, and will Rome not die of them, and the taxation they impose on their betters for their idle support.
My note: I am sure, have done some background reading on Caldwell, there is no 2011 agenda here. She wrote this in the 1940's. Yet my oh my, the ominous parallels.
Page 447: [Hilell continuing] "So you have the priests, frightened for their people and their faith; you have self appointed guardians if the Law, the Pharisees, who detest the humble; you have the shrill rabble, always searching for a victim. And you have Rome, ever watchful for signs of a rebellion against her power. Considering all these, it is a marvel that He was denounced to Roman officials, and that was the end. Or in the beginning" added Hilell.
Page 475: Lucanus. Looked down at the sleeping man and murmured;
" Oh You who have brought me from the wasted spaces, and the darkness, and barrenness, out of Your love and Your eternal mercy! Oh you who are companionate beyond imagining, You who know the suffering of men, because You have suffers them! [How profound a statement. Caldwell is actually saying that God, Nature has suffered man]. Oh hallowed are You in my soul, and I implore that You will accept my life that I serve You! Always have I loved You even when I contended with You out
of my lack of understanding.
My note: Profound to say God has suffered man. A world without that reality made apparent was a world where Lucanus witnessed the suffering of one mans actions upon another only to discover that the omni presence of God included suffering. A simple expression of 'it is what it is' absent a trait of the nominalist’s interpretation. How often have you heard the expression, 'it's beyond words'. When it's real, a revelation, it's beyond words. Or better said words are not necessary.
Page 482: Lucanus put his hand to his forehead and rubbed it dazedly. "I do not understand ", he muttered. Then he flung the coverlets from his brother's body and felt over his stomach and liver, and his glands. The ominous tumors have disappeared. The flesh was thin and emaciated, but also firm, and the pulse was strong.
Lucanus straightened. "It is not possible!" he cried. He looked at Nicias and Joshua imploringly. "We made an error."
"No," they said, and smiled at him.
"Through you God wrought his miracle, as a witness to us." said Joshua. [this was Lucanas’s revelation, his baptism in to Christianity]
My note: Up to this moment of all other 'miracle cures' that Lucanus witnessed, he was certain he made an error in his diagnosis. This time he implores two other physicians who confirm it was no mistake. The message I get is not so much the miracle, as that men of medicine at time accepted the concept of miracles for things of biology that they could not explain. Science and religion were not as adverse as 2011's current of pagans have us conceding to.
Page 508: [Lucanus] thought of Rubria and Sara, the dead he loved with such tenderness, and he said to himself that in reality there was no age, no weariness, no pain, no despair, no parting, no death. The world and the planets, the countless suns, rang with immortal youth, and the constellations and galaxies rejoiced in it. An exhilaration filled him. All he had ever loved was with him forever.
My note: I genuinely related to this passage. As death separates Lucanus from his first love, life's stories separate me from mine. I have always known in the physical world that physical aspect of love is long past and never to present itself in the future. I take extreme solace however knowing in spirit the immortal youth and the love that goes with it lives on... nothing more nothing less, just what is and it's acceptance...love. This is my reality. It is what makes the memories cherishable.
Page 535: [as Lucanus come upon the Sea of Galilee]. The foliage of the olives had the aspect of fettered silver; the green palms did not sway in the pure and windless air; the pomegranates bore their red fruit on their branches Luke jewels. Sheep slept about the olive trees, their wool pale gold. There was no cry of bird here in this aureate effulgence. The peace beyond understanding, the light that never lay on land or sea, was here caught as in glowing crystal, eternal and unchanging.
Page 546: [in the story of Zachary, father of John the Baptist]. Visions were no rare things to these simple and pious people; legends of the appearances of angels and portents ran through all their conversation.
My note: to the skeptic anti Christian, here lay a notion to your argument. While Luke was a physician of legend, wise of the world; his gospel was a recording of events among these simple people.
I wonder if it's like that there.
Page 562: [top] John [The Baptist] was a man of furious temporment.
Jesus knew he was his kinsman. John...
Cool Metaphors
Retreated like the moon behind a cloud
Pure as a cows milk
Soft as a doves call
Murmurous as a softly struck harp
On feet that moved no heavier than a breath
An interesting contrast; greed & envy
Interesting trivia: the fish symbol is a Greek anagram for Christo.
Eugine Onegin
Eugine Onegin
By Douglas Hofstadter
Hofstadter’s preface is an intriguing love story by a master of symbols and patterns who falls prey to compulsiveness and pounces on random coincidences. He gives in to love-for the poem, if only for the love of his wife, Carol. The question that anyone familiar with Hofstadter is; is this book Carol’s symbol, his deceased wife living beyond her mortality? Ironically, the story line by the original author Sergeevich Pushkin, the godfather of Russian literature, is a love story as well. Hence you’ll find two parallel themes in my review. First is the answer to the Hofstadter question. The second is a question to all of you. Pushkin’s love story told in poetry is one of familiar refrain. I suspect love manifests itself in many ways and thrives on many different levels..
In Hofstadter’s book I Am a Strange Loop, discussed in my review found here on Cigar Room of Books, he tells a touching true-life story of his wife’s passing. In that story he eventually climbs out of the funk he found himself in. This translation project was his bridge. He provides a rationale of how the entwined life between himself and Carol became an entwined thought pattern. Thought being capable of transcending modalities, allows his wife Carol to live on through the people she was close to, and then through generations. In piecing together the story in Strange Loop and his preface in this book, I have come to conclude that the hidden power of love drove Hofstadter, to this project so that he could release his grief and find a higher plane to express his love for Carol. The most remarkable feat I find is this book is Hofstadter's soul, already fluent in a few languages which are mere symbols of thought, flowing from the patterns of DNA, he translates a poem written in Russian, a language he is not fluent in, by the most renowned Russian author ever, and receives high accolades from Russians who say he captured the pure essence of Pushkin’s heart and mind.
You find evidence in chapter 7 verse 23: to my summation. This stanza is Tatyana’s soul reacting to the same books her long departed Onegin had read. The story places Tatyana in the same study that Onegin had spent time in. Pushkin infers that time and space becomes only somewhat relevant as she is experiencing the thoughts and feelings of her denied true love through the common denominator of the word symbols. In that room she becomes one with her lover. All of the entwined expressions of life between Douglas and Carol continue through their children and through their work.
There could be found on many pages,
The clench marks of his fingernails.
The girl, her gaze alert, engages
Two eager eyes upon these trails
Tatyana notes, with trepidation
The types of thought and observation
That struck Onegin forcefully
Things he agreed with silently.
The margins brought to her attention
Tracks from his pencil, trapped in coal.
Thus everywhere Onegins soul
Transduced itself, without intention
Through jotted words, through checks and hooks,
Through interrogatory crooks.
The story line is pretty simple and one that should find common experience amongst most readers. What makes this book worth reading is the story is told in verse. I am told many a Russian has it committed to memory which is a testament to the passion I have experienced in my Russian experiences. Eugene is your classic Russian youth full of vim and vigor and a penchant to be a man of the world. Tatyana is a unique young woman with a penchant to marry the person she loves rather than the person presented to her by society’s fate. As the story unfolds Tatyana submits her soul to Onegin in classic Russian form through a love letter invitation. Onegin, who inwardly discovers her inward beauty as well as his love for her rebukes Tatyana as being too vulnerable to withstand the realities his antics. As tradition forces herself, Tatyana is destined to be matched up with someone in the person of Eugene’s rival friend. The rivalry ends in a duel where Eugene while victor, he is deeply remorseful and becomes reclusive. As there lives take separate courses Eugene eventually finds in his approach to Tatyana the “shoe on the other foot” and an already married Tatyana, still with a deep love for Eugene must now reproach him.
To comment on the story and its translation I provide the following view. In my youth the popular song was Love The One You’re With and we all did. But until a man seasons a few years he is lacking in the skills and judgment to respond appropriately. There is much more to love than the outward directed world reveals. My guess is that the reason Russians can remember the poem, is it sings a familiar refrain in the lives of many. In reading this book if you find the same fate, close your eyes and be there now. In this world where you come in to it and leave it alone, and some times in the middle you feel the same; this poem committed to memory, may be your one friend to help you feel not so alone. I wonder if Hofstadter found this same experience?
From a scientific or Darwinian view and a take away on Hofstadter: If DNA is a pattern that evolves through experiences within each host, it is the pattern or symbol of your soul that lives on. Hence life that looks to flourish and continue on in this world requires a host willing to conceive, bare and nourish the symbol of her being, a child. That requires a mate. In natural mate selection to the host searches for a mate with the mutual respect for life, found in love for one another. A love for one another that are vested in the ability to recognize the interconnectedness found in oneness of mankind beginning with one’s self. This couple then forms a life together contributing to a home, village, and state world. This is where the continuation of their DNA (symbols of their souls) continues on.
By Douglas Hofstadter
Hofstadter’s preface is an intriguing love story by a master of symbols and patterns who falls prey to compulsiveness and pounces on random coincidences. He gives in to love-for the poem, if only for the love of his wife, Carol. The question that anyone familiar with Hofstadter is; is this book Carol’s symbol, his deceased wife living beyond her mortality? Ironically, the story line by the original author Sergeevich Pushkin, the godfather of Russian literature, is a love story as well. Hence you’ll find two parallel themes in my review. First is the answer to the Hofstadter question. The second is a question to all of you. Pushkin’s love story told in poetry is one of familiar refrain. I suspect love manifests itself in many ways and thrives on many different levels..
In Hofstadter’s book I Am a Strange Loop, discussed in my review found here on Cigar Room of Books, he tells a touching true-life story of his wife’s passing. In that story he eventually climbs out of the funk he found himself in. This translation project was his bridge. He provides a rationale of how the entwined life between himself and Carol became an entwined thought pattern. Thought being capable of transcending modalities, allows his wife Carol to live on through the people she was close to, and then through generations. In piecing together the story in Strange Loop and his preface in this book, I have come to conclude that the hidden power of love drove Hofstadter, to this project so that he could release his grief and find a higher plane to express his love for Carol. The most remarkable feat I find is this book is Hofstadter's soul, already fluent in a few languages which are mere symbols of thought, flowing from the patterns of DNA, he translates a poem written in Russian, a language he is not fluent in, by the most renowned Russian author ever, and receives high accolades from Russians who say he captured the pure essence of Pushkin’s heart and mind.
You find evidence in chapter 7 verse 23: to my summation. This stanza is Tatyana’s soul reacting to the same books her long departed Onegin had read. The story places Tatyana in the same study that Onegin had spent time in. Pushkin infers that time and space becomes only somewhat relevant as she is experiencing the thoughts and feelings of her denied true love through the common denominator of the word symbols. In that room she becomes one with her lover. All of the entwined expressions of life between Douglas and Carol continue through their children and through their work.
There could be found on many pages,
The clench marks of his fingernails.
The girl, her gaze alert, engages
Two eager eyes upon these trails
Tatyana notes, with trepidation
The types of thought and observation
That struck Onegin forcefully
Things he agreed with silently.
The margins brought to her attention
Tracks from his pencil, trapped in coal.
Thus everywhere Onegins soul
Transduced itself, without intention
Through jotted words, through checks and hooks,
Through interrogatory crooks.
The story line is pretty simple and one that should find common experience amongst most readers. What makes this book worth reading is the story is told in verse. I am told many a Russian has it committed to memory which is a testament to the passion I have experienced in my Russian experiences. Eugene is your classic Russian youth full of vim and vigor and a penchant to be a man of the world. Tatyana is a unique young woman with a penchant to marry the person she loves rather than the person presented to her by society’s fate. As the story unfolds Tatyana submits her soul to Onegin in classic Russian form through a love letter invitation. Onegin, who inwardly discovers her inward beauty as well as his love for her rebukes Tatyana as being too vulnerable to withstand the realities his antics. As tradition forces herself, Tatyana is destined to be matched up with someone in the person of Eugene’s rival friend. The rivalry ends in a duel where Eugene while victor, he is deeply remorseful and becomes reclusive. As there lives take separate courses Eugene eventually finds in his approach to Tatyana the “shoe on the other foot” and an already married Tatyana, still with a deep love for Eugene must now reproach him.
To comment on the story and its translation I provide the following view. In my youth the popular song was Love The One You’re With and we all did. But until a man seasons a few years he is lacking in the skills and judgment to respond appropriately. There is much more to love than the outward directed world reveals. My guess is that the reason Russians can remember the poem, is it sings a familiar refrain in the lives of many. In reading this book if you find the same fate, close your eyes and be there now. In this world where you come in to it and leave it alone, and some times in the middle you feel the same; this poem committed to memory, may be your one friend to help you feel not so alone. I wonder if Hofstadter found this same experience?
From a scientific or Darwinian view and a take away on Hofstadter: If DNA is a pattern that evolves through experiences within each host, it is the pattern or symbol of your soul that lives on. Hence life that looks to flourish and continue on in this world requires a host willing to conceive, bare and nourish the symbol of her being, a child. That requires a mate. In natural mate selection to the host searches for a mate with the mutual respect for life, found in love for one another. A love for one another that are vested in the ability to recognize the interconnectedness found in oneness of mankind beginning with one’s self. This couple then forms a life together contributing to a home, village, and state world. This is where the continuation of their DNA (symbols of their souls) continues on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)