Thinking on Ebenezer Scrooge, Charles Dickens, and Good Examples of Bad Things

Tags

Charles Dickens, Christmas, Ebenezer Scrooge, Good Examples of Bad Things, Hebrew, meaning, religion

It is fascinating to me that Christmas is such a widely celebrated holiday. Mostly for two reasons. First, I am Southern European, tradition there dictates that Christmas is celebrated on January 6th, when the wisemen are believed to have visited baby Jesus at the manger. Funny thing about that story, most traditions state the wisemen visited Jesus when he was five years old, in Egypt! I suppose visiting a baby is far more awesome than visiting a five-year old, although reconciling the version of King Herod in the Bible with the traditions must have been a primordial duty of religious individuals since the 4th century CE; hence the conflict and the seemingly smooth story that follows the line of ‘pregnant mary-manger-wisemen visit.’ The second reason for my bewilderment is the fact that Christmas was a stolen pagan holiday. Traditional European Catholic households celebrate not only January 6th, but also Good Night on December 24th (the night Jesus was supposedly born) and Old Night on December 31st (the last night of the year). There are banquets, families get together, and reminisce about, well, nothing. We sit around at a table and tell green (off colored) jokes and make fun of grandpa.

Why the feast? The reason is pagans used to celebrate the coming and passing of the longest night of the year, December 21st, and celebrate the beginning of the end of Winter. Funny thing Winter just starts there, at that date; but that did not matter to the ancients. They had been storing crops for months, and this was a time to splurge and be happy about the future ahead. Thus, they celebrated for ten days smack dab in the middle of the Winter season. This ritual was so practiced in the ancient world at large, that it was one of the first things Catholic Christians took over in order to help convert pagans to their cause. You know, after they were done killing them for their beliefs.

You may ask, how is this related to Ebenezer Scrooge, Charles Dickens, and good examples of bad things? I was watching this video from the LDS Church and reading this article online by The Mirror, when I realized that a whole lot of people believe Christmas was revived (at the very least) by Charles Dickens, if not wholly invented by him (at most). I do what I always do and dwelt quite a bit on that idea. Trying to wrap my head around something that is so obviously incorrect entails far more than knowing the problem, it also entails attempting to understand the reason why the wrong solution makes sense to those who believe it so. When I saw the video from my own religion, I realized how thoroughly all-encompassing the story had become. We had a scrooge, a bunch of little kids, and crankiness beyond reason. The man realizes the error of his ways by seeing something he had never seen before. He becomes, by virtue of his change, no longer the evil of the story, but the benefactor. Christmas is not about the presents, it is about the change of the soul. It is not only important to note that people will see that video and think of Christmas, it is also important to note that people will see that video and be reminded of what Christmas is through the words of Charles Dickens. When a name becomes a verb, as in ‘don’t Scrooge Christmas’ or and adjective ‘don’t be a scrooge’ one has to give credit where credit is due.

Yes. Charles Dickens was awesome. He taught us the value of Christmas in a book about an angry and avaricious old man who turns his life around because he has visions of his past life, his current state, and the future. Hhhhhmmmm, but wait. Ebenezer Scrooge is the good guy? This is one of the reasons I love novels. You never know when the bad guy will actually turn out to be the hero of the story. A quick digression: in Hebrew, a ‘Ehben Ezar’ is a commemorative stone set by the Israelites after battles in order to be reminded of the fact that victory was owed to God, not man. We return to Dickens, and are reminded of Ebenezer and his reminding us of what Christmas is not. In order to remind us of what Christmas isn’t, there had to have been a belief, and a strong one at that, of what Christmas was; otherwise the metaphor would have been lost in those who read the book.

The irony: we do not usually think of Ebenezer as a good character even though we use him as a moralizing example to chastise our loved ones during the holiday season. Thus, if the memory of Christmas was strong in Dickens times and people understood Scrooge as a good figure, don’t the facts that we think Dickens the savior of Christmas and our understanding of Scrooge really speak to a loss of what Christmas is supposed to be and mean in our time? Have we become so entangled in modern thought that we no longer remember the true spirit of the season? Pagans, Catholics, Early Catholics, Dickens, Scrooge… they all spoke of Christmas as a season to be happy for the future, not to indulge the present with presents. Christmas was about looking forward, and being thankful that we would be able to spend that time with our loved ones. Gifts, well, they are just what happened when the celebration of happiness was lost to the gift giving of Christmas.

Thus, appreciate the value of a good bad character. Learn to enjoy, reader, the beauty of what is to come, rather than the passing of what is. Scrooge could not see the true meaning of Christmas until he learned to appreciate the passing of time; it is time we tried to do the same.

Thinking of Homer, Twisted Words, and Twisted Minds

Tags

Ancient Greece, ancient greek, Aristotle, Erechtheus, heroes, Homer, Husband, Iliad, Ion, John Milton, meaning, Men, Odysseus, Odyssey, religion, Theseus, Toni Morrison, twisted, Twisting

ἅνδρα μοι ἕννεπε, μοῡσα, πολύτροπον…
Of the man/husband/hero tell me, ō muse, the one of many turns…
Dime, musa, del hombre/esposo/héroe de muchas vueltas…

There is an inherent beauty in the first words of every Ancient Greek play. The reason is as simple now as it was innovative then: the first word of the play or poem dictated the theme for the work, especially amongst near-eastern writers born in Ionian lands beyond Attica, such as Homer. This archaic style would have been ancient even to the ancients, easily predating the classic writers of the 4th and 3rd centuries by at least 300 years. It is inevitable to compare Homer and our very own Victorian-era poets and their obsession for Latin, conservative views on life, and understanding of history. Homer, in much the same way, was obsessed with Linear B (which he spoke by tradition, not because he understood it), thought the previous culture quite conservative, and attempted to understand the history he was trying to portray.

A bit of a digression is in order. It is quite obvious that while making the attempt Homer fails to really portray the culture of the 12th century. At best, the ancient poet is speaking of the culture of the 11th to 10th centuries. We should think of the Iliad as a frame. Homer knew the borders were set, with some names, a battle, and perhaps the knowledge of a couple of events, but no more. What is within the frame can be defined as a painting, completely made up by the author based on his understanding of history centuries after the war in Troy, his assumptions, and his imagination. Those facts did not stop even the great Aristotle from using the Odyssey to make assumptions about the Athenian constitution. The philosopher had no qualms about ascribing post-12th century political advances, such as the creation of the village, to pre-12th century individuals such as kings Ion, Theseus, and Erechtheus. We suffered from the same ailment, for early historians such as Bede ascribed historical facts to mythological characters such as king Arthur. The historian knew some battles against the Saxons had taken place in 4th and 5th century England, and that someone amongst the Anglos had taken the lead to defeat them. More than likely, this man was multiple men, although Bede combined the battles he thought took place and ascribed the success of the Anglo push against the Saxons to King Arthur (Ambrosius) as early as the 8th century. Mark Twain said that history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Writers suffer from the same problem. They do not repeat each other, but they rhyme nicely.

Let us return to the issue at hand, then. The Odyssey begins with five words out of which the first is one of the most diverse and twisted concepts in all of Homeric Greek. A twist, as Homer understood it, was a witty turn of fate made by humans against the will of the gods. A twisted man was one able to wiggle his way out of any problem or thorny situation. Not every man could be twisty; only the most cunning and self-driven of men received such a title. Further, men themselves were divided into many categories, from φώς (not to be confused with φῶς – light) to ἅνήρ; it is the latter, out of all his choices, which Homer uses to open his rhapsody. The word can be translated as man/husband/hero, and it dictates, as stated, how the Odyssey will be themed. After all, who is Odysseus and what are his chiefly concerns if not the ones represented by this very word? The Odyssey is reminiscent of a time in which the gods, demigods, and heroes are extinct. It is a man, son of humans, that becomes the most important figure in the epic poem. This man, who is a hero by virtue of his many twists is also a husband to a traditional and loyal wife. Ἅνδρα, thus, describes the Odyssey perfectly. Further, Homer summons the muses to his aid. The idea there is that man no longer knows his history, it can only be revealed to him. Compare his calling to the summoning of the muses by John Milton in “Paradise Lost,” the epic poem about Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (if you haven’t read it, you are missing out). Both Homer and Milton admit, by their summoning of the muses, that the period they are about to describe cannot be ascertained by research, only by revelation. It is ironic that one of the muses, Clio, is in charge of history. Although, irony is made practicality when we consider Clio represents oral history. Also, it is interesting that Homer uses an Imperative form of the verb ‘to tell’ in order to summon the muses. This indicates active research by the writer, since inspiration can only come when one has done the legwork to learn what could have taken place. In essence, research is the rite that summons the inspiration of the muses.

I described the word ἀνήρ as twisted, and gave you an idea of what the adjective meant in Homer’s time. The reason for it was that I consider the statement by Homer highlighted in this post, like his first word, twisted beyond twisting; in the good sense, of course. Πολύτροπον, thus, was an appellative of Odysseus because he was ‘twisty;’ able to wiggle out of any situation by sheer smarts. In many ways, there are many twisty writers today, able to wiggle out of grammatical problems and story dead-ends with amazing understanding of language and plot twists that engage the reader and baffle even the most skeptic of critics. This is why I love Homer, he is as twisty as Odysseus; his plot twists are unexpected and diverse. There is never a dull moment in the Odyssey, just as Odysseus’ life is never dull.
Thus, here we are. We have untwisted Homer’s first phrase in the Odyssey. Perhaps it is the role given to the reader to untangle the tangled words of the artist. If such is true, then we are failing at doing our jobs. However, the problem is only exacerbated by the fact that few writers twist their words anymore. We think of twisting as a bad thing, not to mention the twisted as bad people. Toni Morrison comes to mind, for she is an extremely twisted writer. It takes time to understand her work, which is also dreary and dark, filled with African-American issues, Womanism, and family problems, making her a very complex writer. I think we can say, with some certainty, that twisting and untwisting are essential to create meaning. We cannot long survive without the complexity needed to write good, twisted works. Writing well, then, is not only about proper grammar and syntax, it is about proper twisting as well.

Thus, reader, be twisted in writing and speaking. Give us, those who still care of the untangling, a chance to enjoy the process of making meaning.

Valete.

Thinking on Faith, Credit, and Belief

Tags

belief, credit, faith, god, nature, philosophy, prayer, religion, st. augustine, strength

Religion has long claimed to hold an unjustified monopoly on faith that makes those who do not believe in a God highly suspicious of the term. Believers see it as a requirement for salvation – whatever that salvation may be – while everyone else interprets the term as an excuse to do anything and everything for one’s belief. There is even a division within believers that boils down to bare minimum differences from one system of belief or another. Ideas such as: faith is enough for salvation, and faith is only good when complimented with works, have divided religionists of all creeds and backgrounds. In reality, faith is not the monopoly of religionists, nor the scourge of the atheists; it is a necessary emotional anchor which keeps us believing in the ever-changing indivisible element of humanity: the individual. That individual is the atom of our species, the basic element of culture, the person which could never be relied upon without that much needed dose of faith – though we may call it trust in a less religion-involved format, Faith plays an vital part in our everyday actions, interactions and thoughts.

Let us first dive into the meaning of the word ‘Faith’ in order to attain a minimum understanding of its roots and background. Faith originated in the Latin ‘Fides’ (Trust), and it shares a root with the verb ‘Fidere’ (to trust). This word however, has always had a monetary connotation in Ancient Rome; the term was used for a person who placed confidence on another’s ability to pay back a debt, that is, ‘Fides’ also was a word for credit. The term in the 13^th century was used for the duty associated with fulfilling one’s trust; ‘in good faith’ is still a term used for transactions today. The term then applies to trust indeed, but a trust not without investment; in fact, there would be no faith without the necessary extension of credit. Using this definition, we extend credit to others, or whatever deity we claim allegiance to, in expectation that said credit will be returned in the future. Faith is no more than a transaction, indeed a deposit, into an account from which we expect payment in full. Sometimes said payment does not return to us immediately, in others, the return is so great that we seem reticent to accept it, and yet, the vast majority of the time, we end up with our own account having suffered a withdrawal it will never recover, leaving us to our own devices in regards to building our Faith funds once more.

The religionist may say that whoever or whatever God is, he cannot be the entity we hold responsible to our credit. The question is, why not? No matter which religion one adheres to, the entity which is God wants us to improve and to grow. Whether the maxim of a religion is to reach the uppermost reaches of understanding, heaven, or some imaginary animal hierarchical chain, the god or gods leading them wish them to improve. Granted, we are speaking in general terms of a Judeo-Christian religion and in regards to a personified God, although polytheistic religions also have examples of greatness in their understanding of divine beings which their human counterparts attempt to imitate. However, ignore that, see these concepts as they apply to you. Our faith to these beings, money, power, or whatever moves you is but an extension of credit; and whether we expect to be paid in full now or later, before or after death, in the shape of cash or produce; our choices and expectations are but an accumulation of belief.

Both atheists and religionists may ask: What is the purpose of faith if it is dependent on the expectations of man and his god? Indeed, it may seem that we have little choice in regards to how nature and the divine work, so why should we have a choice on faith? However, if we are placing our faith on a certain subject or belief, giving that line of credit ac chance, aware of the circumstances that place our investment in jeopardy in order to have some sort of expectation, said expectation will compel us to act in order to defend our investment. That is our choice; that is our possibility. God, nature, atoms, they may be unattainable, but it is our choice to place face on one or another concept. It is our choice to trust or distrust, to care or not to care. Trust that atom of society, man; or trust that grand body of the world, nature or god. Either way, if we see belief and faith in this light, we will rise to a better tomorrow by trusting, once again, that life can be better if we only follow St. Augustine’s plea: Pray is if everything depended [on whatever you believe], rise as if everything depended on yourself.

Thinking on Charity, Corinthians 13, and Bible Meanings

Tags

ancient greek, bible, caring, Charity, classical greek, Corinthians 13, love, philology, philosophy, religion, St. Paul

It is Greek Quote Wednesday, and I have found an oldie that serves as a newbie.

Once, someone asked me what I thought on Charity and the modern understanding of the word in our culture. This paper is my answer, in a few pages.

Charity is the Whole

Χαίρετε!