I'm not sure I haven't posted some of this before, but I was going through the notebook I keep in my car to jot down ideas, and I decided it was time to share some of the quotes I have scribbled in there. These come from audio books that I was listening to as I drove.
From one of the Aubrey-Maturin novels by Patrick O'Brian: "'I can get you a chaplain,' said the commandant, turning the knife in the wound."
From The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas: "If one's lot is cast among fools, it is necessary to study folly."
From Bleak House by Charles Dickens: "I soon discovered my mistake and found him to be train-bearer and organ-blower to a whole procession of people."
From a single paragraph in The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy, the words "dumbledore" and "hagrid."
From The Return of the Native by Hardy: "She had pagan eyes, full of nocturnal mysteries."
From the same book: "To be yearning for the difficult, to be weary of that offered; to care for the remote, to dislike the near... This is the true mark of the man of sentiment."
From Daniel Deronda by George Eliot: "A difference of taste in jokes is a great strain on the affections."
I have a note attributing the following to the same book: "Love has a way of saying, 'Never mind.'" However, I cannot now find this quote in the text of the book. Instead, I find this interesting quote from the same author's Adam Bede: "Love has a way of cheating itself consciously, like a child who plays at solitary hide-and-seek; it is pleased with assurances that it all the while disbelieves."
From Daniel Deronda, again: "Gossip is a sort of smoke that comes from the dirty tobacco-pipes of those who diffuse it: it proves nothing but the bad taste of the smoker."
From The Well-Beloved by Hardy: "...this was what he had become now, in the mockery of new Days."
From Brave New World by Aldous Huxley: "...good penetrating x-rayish phrases..."
From the same, the definition of a philosopher as deduced from the writings of Shakespeare: "A man who dreams of fewer things than there are in heaven and earth."
Another definition of philosophy cited in the same book: "Finding bad reasons for things that people believe for other bad reasons."
Again from the same: "You can't have a lasting civilization without plenty of pleasant vices."
And finally, from the same book: "...the right to be unhappy." (All right, J. K. Rowling fans! Who remembers where a bit of Brave New World sneaks into Harry Potter?)
Showing posts with label quotes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quotes. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Quotable Departed
This week, my mother was reminiscing about her late second husband, my stepfather, who had a unique way of expressing himself. For example, she understandably remembers this exchange:
SHE: How do you feel?
HE: Like I was eaten by a wolf and s*** off a cliff.
I think this quote works on many levels. OK, it makes me laugh. This is more than I can say for Mom's favorite example of the words I put to my feelings when I was very little:
SHE: How do you feel?
ME: Like gray eggs.
SHE: How do you feel?HE: Like I was eaten by a wolf and s*** off a cliff.
I think this quote works on many levels. OK, it makes me laugh. This is more than I can say for Mom's favorite example of the words I put to my feelings when I was very little:
SHE: How do you feel?
ME: Like gray eggs.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Random Quotability
I had just opened the next book I plan to read when I saw the following quote on the dedication page:
One was: "Someone calling you a duck doesn't make you a duck." Another was: "If everyone else decides to jump off a cliff, that doesn't mean you should jump too." And of course, there was always: "Use your brains for something besides fertilizer for hair."
Hmmm. When I look in the mirror now and see how little hair is still growing up top, I suppose I should take pride in knowing that I've followed Dad's advice. And looking at this picture of e e cummings, I reckon he must have followed similar advice...
To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. (e e cummings)Wow. I think that sums up a great deal that has been going on in my personal life, as well as the challenge that I believe faces my community of faith. It puts me in mind of pearls of wisdom that fell from my father's lips when I was a child just beginning to feel the pressure of which cummings speaks.
One was: "Someone calling you a duck doesn't make you a duck." Another was: "If everyone else decides to jump off a cliff, that doesn't mean you should jump too." And of course, there was always: "Use your brains for something besides fertilizer for hair."Hmmm. When I look in the mirror now and see how little hair is still growing up top, I suppose I should take pride in knowing that I've followed Dad's advice. And looking at this picture of e e cummings, I reckon he must have followed similar advice...
Friday, May 28, 2010
Luther Quote
This comes from Luther's Works (American Edition), vol. 4, pp. 191-192, where Luther comments on Genesis 23:3 and the death of Abraham's wife Sarah...
In another place, Luther approvingly quotes his protector, Elector Frederick of Saxony, as saying: "Those addresses which are based on the arguments and traditions of men are extremely cold, unconvincing, and weak; for nothing can be adduced that is so keen that it cannot be refuted by other arguments. Only the Sacred Scriptures have such a majestic and powerful tone, even without our effort, that they can meet and dispose of all the debating tricks and compel one to say (John 7:46; Matt. 7:29): 'No man ever spoke like this man! He teaches as one who has authority, not as the scribes and Pharisees!'" (LW 14:283).
God forgive me for all the time I wasted in my youth in trying to convince doubters and deniers of His truth by rhetoric and argument, and help me to check the continuing tendency to do the same! For I now see the truth of what Luther and his Elector are saying here. The Kingdom of Heaven is not founded on syllogism or dialectical persusasion. Rather, the Gospel must be proclaimed, and its efficacy trusted, and the results left in God's hands. To Him be all the glory!
If we were so strong and could believe without any doubt that Christ died for our sins and rose again for our justification and life (Rom. 4:25), no terror or fear would cling to us; for the death of Christ is a sort of sacrament which assures us that our death is nothing. But the weak are affected more by examples than by a sacrament,In this passage, Luther uses the word "sacrament" in an unusual way. Nevertheless, he also makes a distinction that has lately been growing in my mind - the distinction between using God's Word as a basis for argument and rhetoric on the one hand, and on the other hand being healed by the efficacious power of the Gospel.for because of the greatness of the Person of Christ it does not penetrate hearts so easily and persuade them to despise death.
Therefore we cling to examples that are analogous, just as I myself sometimes take more pleasure in the example of Sarah than in that of Christ. The reason is the weakness of my faith. Sarah’s death has greater appeal and more comfort for me, since I know that she was a most saintly woman. Nevertheless, I hear that she dies, is buried, and is forgotten in such a shameful manner, as though she had been snatched from the sight not only of men but also of God and the angels. If this happened to her, I shall not be disturbed, even though the same thing happens to me.
But those who have greater strength of heart and faith cherish this sacrament; and because they believe that the Son of God died for them, they scoff at death and regard Satan and hell as a jest, in accordance with 1 Cor. 15:55: “O death, where is thy sting?” and Col. 2:15: “He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in Himself.” Here Paul is speaking very mockingly and disdainfully about death.
The reason is that for Paul Christ is not only an example but also a sacrament, which is richer and far more sublime than an example. For the sacrament supplies in manifold ways and without limit whatever is lacking in the example. Sarah did not die for me; nor can she bestow life on me. But it is the majesty and importance of the sacrament that it has life-giving power which will restore life to me in the resurrection of the dead.The example of Sarah is the rhetoric, as it were, which draws, arouses, and persuades us to despise death; but the sacrament brings about and works in my body what was brought about in Abraham and many saints who were raised from the dead.
Therefore examples should not be scorned, since the rhetoric they employ is pleasant; but because the example of Christ is at the same time a sacrament, it is efficacious in us and not only teaches us, as do the examples of the fathers, but accomplishes what it teaches. It gives life, the resurrection, and deliverance from death.
The examples of the saints teach that one has to die, and they persuade us to bear death with composure. Over and above this, however, Christ’s example says: “Arise. Be alive in death. Your putridity will become more radiant and more brilliant than the sun.” For Christ’s example is a sacrament which bears witness and makes us certain; it not only teaches or persuades but proves and demonstrates necessarily that Christ’s death imparts life to us.
In another place, Luther approvingly quotes his protector, Elector Frederick of Saxony, as saying: "Those addresses which are based on the arguments and traditions of men are extremely cold, unconvincing, and weak; for nothing can be adduced that is so keen that it cannot be refuted by other arguments. Only the Sacred Scriptures have such a majestic and powerful tone, even without our effort, that they can meet and dispose of all the debating tricks and compel one to say (John 7:46; Matt. 7:29): 'No man ever spoke like this man! He teaches as one who has authority, not as the scribes and Pharisees!'" (LW 14:283).God forgive me for all the time I wasted in my youth in trying to convince doubters and deniers of His truth by rhetoric and argument, and help me to check the continuing tendency to do the same! For I now see the truth of what Luther and his Elector are saying here. The Kingdom of Heaven is not founded on syllogism or dialectical persusasion. Rather, the Gospel must be proclaimed, and its efficacy trusted, and the results left in God's hands. To Him be all the glory!
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Random Quotability
"Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think" (John Stuart Mill, 1806-73).
This is an interesting statement. Translated into today's English, it means the mistakes of those who earnestly seek knowledge do more to advance the cause of truth than the correct beliefs of those who merely think what they are told to think. Or, it is wiser to be misled by your personal quest for truth than to conform to someone else's dogma.I think there is both truth and falsehood in Mill's dictum. Consider, for example, what Paul says about the matter: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).
Again, "If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:3-5).
And again, "Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you" (2 Timothy 1:13-14).
So submission to a pattern of received doctrine is not altogether foolish, according to St. Paul. Nevertheless, I would agree with Mill that a constant inquiry into the basis of what we believe is essential for engaging the faithful and defending the faith. The Beroean Christians are therefore commended for "examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). And certainly the content of our common faith should rest on a surer foundation than a mere parliamentary record of what the church, as a human institution, has voted to call its "official position." The official position must always be subject to inquiry... and that inquiry, to the "standard of sound words" that exists prior to our church body.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
April Foolishness
In the spirit of the apostle Paul, on this April Fools' Day "I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness" (2 Corinthians 11:1).
It has been a while since I have returned to my thread on hermeneutics. Perhaps this is wise, because each time I enunciated a principle of Bible interpretation, it was like peeling away a layer of an onion. There were bound to be tears. As each layer of human conceit is peeled away, as we move closer to the heart of the question of how to be sure of the Holy Spirit's intended meaning, I was bound to offend the sensitive palates of certain connoisseurs. In short, you're more likely to lose friends than gain them when you draw clear distinctions between truth and error, and lots of them. But like the fool that I am (and, I daresay, Paul was), I intend to go on losing friends and making enemies.
Today's exercise in hermeneutics also revives one of my pet topics: the doctrine of Baptism. And to fully demonstrate how foolish I can be, I'm going to take on Leon Morris, author of the New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John. Morris is a highly respected, if not revered, Bible exegete. His scholarly work is both painstakingly detailed and vast in extent. How dare I challenge him?
I dare because I am a fool carried away by passion. And I can't help being stirred to passion when I see a wise man such as Leon Morris make a grotesquely asinine statement such as the following. In discussing several possible interpretations of John 3:5 ("Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"), Morris writes:
Dr. Morris, if you're out there, please accept this April Fools' Day pulling of your nose in the spirit of wit and jollity with which it is intended. For now that I think it over, I find my anger giving way to merry laughter. Who wouldn't laugh at such a joke? For after all your sober and careful work, you still managed to trip over a piece of child's play. On what basis, sir, do you infer that Baptism was a nonexistent sacrament when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3? Perhaps you have been humbled by a silly misconception that Christian Baptism was not instituted until moments before Christ went up into heaven (Matthew 28:19)?
To be sure, that verse is the classic "proof text" indicating that Christ instituted Baptism as a perpetual ordinance for His church. To be sure, that verse furnishes us with the Trinitarian name in which we baptize. But does this necessarily rule out the disciples' knowing this formula before then? Where is your evidence that there was no such sacrament as Baptism until that point?
Your mistake, Dr. Morris, is not merely that you are arguing from the silence of Scripture. Your mistake is that you have rejected the positive testimony of Scripture. Even leaving aside the question whether John the Baptist's baptism qualifies as Christian Baptism - a question that Acts 19:3-5 leaves in doubt - John's baptism invariably formed a part of the early church's proclamation of Christ (Acts 1:5, 22; 10:37; 11:16; 13:24; 19:4). There is also Acts 18:25, where the validity of Apollos' Christian preaching (based solely on the baptism of John) is not questioned; he only needed to brush up a bit on his doctrine! Then there's Jesus question to the Jewish elders: "Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men?" (Matthew 21:25; Mark 1:4; Luke 20:4). Though the correct answer is never explicitly given, the context strongly favors "from heaven." Still, if backed into a corner by a literalistic Evangelical exegete, I would have to concede that whether John's baptism was the full deal remains an open question...
On the other hand, John 3:22 testifies that, after finishing his discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus spent time baptizing with His disciples in Judea. Why should we think this was a different Baptism from what He entrusted to His disciples in Matthew 28:19? John 4:1-2 further tells us that Jesus' ministry of Baptism had put that of John in the shade, though admittedly it was not Jesus but His disciples who did the actual baptizing. Why should we assume the disciples did this without authorization until Matthew 28:19? And if they did it with authorization, then on what basis do we assume that the command to baptize in Matthew 28 instituted anything new?
Let's back up even further. All four gospels - in Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, and John 1 - describe Jesus' baptism by John in the river Jordan. That seems awfully significant. There aren't four parallel gospel accounts of many things apart from Jesus' death and resurrection. Off the top of my head the only other thing I can think of is the feeding of the 5,000 - which, of course, CAN'T have anything to do with the Lord's Supper! If I had to look for a specific origin point for Christian Baptism, Jesus' Baptism would stand out as by far the most likely candidate. This is the interpretation Martin Luther puts on it in His baptismal hymn
"To Jordan came the Christ our Lord," and in the "Flood Prayer" from his Baptismal Booklet. And it isn't an easy interpretation to dismiss, once you start considering it.
Consider it! When it was time to begin His ministry, Jesus came to John and submitted Himself to a Baptism of repentance. John objected that he himself should rather be cleansed by Jesus, but Jesus insisted "in order to fulfill all righteousness." As He went up from the water, the Holy Spirit descended as a dove and the heavenly Father spoke out of the thundering sky, identifying Jesus as His Son in whom He delighted. What is Matthew 28:19's formula for Trinitarian Baptism but the application of this event, of the distinctive participation of each person of the Trinity in Jesus' Baptism, to the Baptism of every Christian until the end of time?
So, by being baptized Jesus entered upon His atoning work. The Sinless One repented on behalf of sinners. The Holy One made what was then merely a washing of water accompanied by preaching into a sanctifying and cleansing "washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26), a washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), a washing of sanctification and justification in God's Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:11), a washing of rebirth and renewal unto eternal life (Titus 3:5-7), a rebirth in water and the Spirit (John 3:5), a sprinkling of the body with pure water that also cleanses the conscience from evil (Hebrews 10:22), an incorporation into Jesus' atoning blood (1 John 5:6-8) and into his death, burial, and resurrection that sets us free from bondage to sin (Romans 6:4-7; Colossians 2:11-12), and a flood that, together with faith (Mark 16:16), saves us by drowning sin within us, just as the Genesis flood saved Noah's family from a corrupt world (1 Peter 3:20-21). All this can be said about Baptism because, on the testimony of no lesser witnesses than God the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Son was bathed in its waters for us. All this can be said about Baptism because the same Triune God pledges His name on the power of Baptism to make disciples of all the heathen (Matthew 28:19) -- a task He undertook immediately after His Baptism, and did not postpone until the day of His ascension.
And so, Dr. Morris, in all seriousness, before you say that Jesus could not possibly have meant Baptism in John 3:5 because it didn't exist yet, you had better conclude with the words: "April Fool!" Otherwise, someone else might start throwing the word "fool" around, and heaven knows that would be foolish!
It has been a while since I have returned to my thread on hermeneutics. Perhaps this is wise, because each time I enunciated a principle of Bible interpretation, it was like peeling away a layer of an onion. There were bound to be tears. As each layer of human conceit is peeled away, as we move closer to the heart of the question of how to be sure of the Holy Spirit's intended meaning, I was bound to offend the sensitive palates of certain connoisseurs. In short, you're more likely to lose friends than gain them when you draw clear distinctions between truth and error, and lots of them. But like the fool that I am (and, I daresay, Paul was), I intend to go on losing friends and making enemies.
Today's exercise in hermeneutics also revives one of my pet topics: the doctrine of Baptism. And to fully demonstrate how foolish I can be, I'm going to take on Leon Morris, author of the New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John. Morris is a highly respected, if not revered, Bible exegete. His scholarly work is both painstakingly detailed and vast in extent. How dare I challenge him?
I dare because I am a fool carried away by passion. And I can't help being stirred to passion when I see a wise man such as Leon Morris make a grotesquely asinine statement such as the following. In discussing several possible interpretations of John 3:5 ("Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"), Morris writes:"Water" may refer to Christian baptism. The strong argument in favor of this view is that baptism may well have been the natural association that the term would arouse among Christians at the time the Gospel was published. John would scarcely have been unmindful of this. The weak point is that Nicodemus could not possibly have perceived an allusion to an as yet non-existent sacrament.Wow. What a fine piece of rationalization! Even as biased as he is against accepting any interpretation that lends credence to the sacramental power of Baptism (and I could give other examples), Morris is forced to admit that the original audience of John's Gospel would have understood this as a reference to Baptism. The reason, of course, is that the gospels were originally catechetical books, tools for instructing new disciples in the faith -- especially as regards the sacramental works of God. With ears to hear and eyes to see, one can readily see that the four gospels are absolutely loaded with insights relating to the sacraments of Eucharist, Absolution, and Baptism, and to the vocation of preaching the Gospel. A less honest exegete than Morris (and I can give examples of that too) would rationalize away every example that bears witness to this, but Morris at least grants that, to the first-century audience to whom John wrote, the most natural interpretation of John 3:5 would have pointed to Baptism. Yet at the same time, he says that Christ could hardly have meant that when He originally spoke the words of John 3:5; after all, Baptism was then "an as yet non-existent sacrament"!
Dr. Morris, if you're out there, please accept this April Fools' Day pulling of your nose in the spirit of wit and jollity with which it is intended. For now that I think it over, I find my anger giving way to merry laughter. Who wouldn't laugh at such a joke? For after all your sober and careful work, you still managed to trip over a piece of child's play. On what basis, sir, do you infer that Baptism was a nonexistent sacrament when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3? Perhaps you have been humbled by a silly misconception that Christian Baptism was not instituted until moments before Christ went up into heaven (Matthew 28:19)?
To be sure, that verse is the classic "proof text" indicating that Christ instituted Baptism as a perpetual ordinance for His church. To be sure, that verse furnishes us with the Trinitarian name in which we baptize. But does this necessarily rule out the disciples' knowing this formula before then? Where is your evidence that there was no such sacrament as Baptism until that point?Your mistake, Dr. Morris, is not merely that you are arguing from the silence of Scripture. Your mistake is that you have rejected the positive testimony of Scripture. Even leaving aside the question whether John the Baptist's baptism qualifies as Christian Baptism - a question that Acts 19:3-5 leaves in doubt - John's baptism invariably formed a part of the early church's proclamation of Christ (Acts 1:5, 22; 10:37; 11:16; 13:24; 19:4). There is also Acts 18:25, where the validity of Apollos' Christian preaching (based solely on the baptism of John) is not questioned; he only needed to brush up a bit on his doctrine! Then there's Jesus question to the Jewish elders: "Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men?" (Matthew 21:25; Mark 1:4; Luke 20:4). Though the correct answer is never explicitly given, the context strongly favors "from heaven." Still, if backed into a corner by a literalistic Evangelical exegete, I would have to concede that whether John's baptism was the full deal remains an open question...
On the other hand, John 3:22 testifies that, after finishing his discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus spent time baptizing with His disciples in Judea. Why should we think this was a different Baptism from what He entrusted to His disciples in Matthew 28:19? John 4:1-2 further tells us that Jesus' ministry of Baptism had put that of John in the shade, though admittedly it was not Jesus but His disciples who did the actual baptizing. Why should we assume the disciples did this without authorization until Matthew 28:19? And if they did it with authorization, then on what basis do we assume that the command to baptize in Matthew 28 instituted anything new?
Let's back up even further. All four gospels - in Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, and John 1 - describe Jesus' baptism by John in the river Jordan. That seems awfully significant. There aren't four parallel gospel accounts of many things apart from Jesus' death and resurrection. Off the top of my head the only other thing I can think of is the feeding of the 5,000 - which, of course, CAN'T have anything to do with the Lord's Supper! If I had to look for a specific origin point for Christian Baptism, Jesus' Baptism would stand out as by far the most likely candidate. This is the interpretation Martin Luther puts on it in His baptismal hymn
"To Jordan came the Christ our Lord," and in the "Flood Prayer" from his Baptismal Booklet. And it isn't an easy interpretation to dismiss, once you start considering it.Consider it! When it was time to begin His ministry, Jesus came to John and submitted Himself to a Baptism of repentance. John objected that he himself should rather be cleansed by Jesus, but Jesus insisted "in order to fulfill all righteousness." As He went up from the water, the Holy Spirit descended as a dove and the heavenly Father spoke out of the thundering sky, identifying Jesus as His Son in whom He delighted. What is Matthew 28:19's formula for Trinitarian Baptism but the application of this event, of the distinctive participation of each person of the Trinity in Jesus' Baptism, to the Baptism of every Christian until the end of time?
So, by being baptized Jesus entered upon His atoning work. The Sinless One repented on behalf of sinners. The Holy One made what was then merely a washing of water accompanied by preaching into a sanctifying and cleansing "washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26), a washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), a washing of sanctification and justification in God's Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:11), a washing of rebirth and renewal unto eternal life (Titus 3:5-7), a rebirth in water and the Spirit (John 3:5), a sprinkling of the body with pure water that also cleanses the conscience from evil (Hebrews 10:22), an incorporation into Jesus' atoning blood (1 John 5:6-8) and into his death, burial, and resurrection that sets us free from bondage to sin (Romans 6:4-7; Colossians 2:11-12), and a flood that, together with faith (Mark 16:16), saves us by drowning sin within us, just as the Genesis flood saved Noah's family from a corrupt world (1 Peter 3:20-21). All this can be said about Baptism because, on the testimony of no lesser witnesses than God the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Son was bathed in its waters for us. All this can be said about Baptism because the same Triune God pledges His name on the power of Baptism to make disciples of all the heathen (Matthew 28:19) -- a task He undertook immediately after His Baptism, and did not postpone until the day of His ascension.
And so, Dr. Morris, in all seriousness, before you say that Jesus could not possibly have meant Baptism in John 3:5 because it didn't exist yet, you had better conclude with the words: "April Fool!" Otherwise, someone else might start throwing the word "fool" around, and heaven knows that would be foolish!
Friday, May 29, 2009
Quotable Titus Groan
Further to my review of Titus Groan, I marked some highlights in the text, sentences and paragraphs that I found particularly delightful. Mervyn Peake always seemed to find a new way to say everything. Time after time, as I read this book, I gasped in awe, or scratched my head in wonder, or giggled with evil glee. His knack for words, images, and moments of wit constantly opened up new vistas and showed new facets. In my opinion, more people ought to know this book, so that we can drop allusions to it in our conversation and trust they will be noticed and enjoyed. Here are a few of them.
The first passage I marked was the chapter titled "The Attic," which astonished me as a whole. Within it is the poem "The Frivolous Cake," which I read aloud twice to a friend in the break room at work, much to the concern of my co-workers. It's a piece of delightful nonsense, comparable to the fancies of Lewis Carroll. Part of the first stanza, for instance, reads:
In the final lines of the chapter titled "A Gift of the Gab," Peake describes Steerpike thus:
When I marked this sentence, I thought: Wow. I can't wait to find an excuse to quote this.
In the following chapter, titled "While the Old Nurse Dozes," Peake powerfully evokes the urgent need rising up within the wetnurse Keda, culminating in a very moving, two-sentence paragraph:
I drew a question-mark next to the paragraph in the chapter titled "The Library," in which the East Wing of the castle is described as
In "Reintroducing the Twins," I chuckled at how the the twins
I wonder how much Peake personally shared Steerpike's sentiments. Is this a confession or a manifesto? Or is it an indictment on the rhetoric of demagogues? Whatever the answer may be, Titus Groan is a veritable symphony of "new enfranchised noises."
What was the effect of Steerpike's speech?
In the chapter "Meanwhile," Doctor Prunesquallor's sister Irma
Later, in "Half-Light," we find Sepulchrave in the early stages of madness. Perhaps, therefore, it is nonsense when he confides to his daughter:
Another flush of poetic prose crops up early in the chapter "A Roof of Reeds," where Keda observes
One of the weirdest paragraphs in the book is surely this one, later in the same chapter:
In "A Bloody Cheek-Bone," Flay is caught hurling one of Lady Groan's pets at Steerpike. The latter comes away with a light flesh-wound and
I wish I could quote all of the chapter titled "The Reveries," which describes what all the deeply sick people at the aforementioned breakfast were thinking while Barquentine droned on so. Let it be enough to say that William Faulkner, James Joyce, et al had nothing on Mervyn Peake when it came to writing experiments in point-of-view and stream-of-consciousness. Irma Prunesquallor's reverie goes on for more than a page with scarcely a single full stop, and includes such private considerations as:
A good summation of the overall atmosphere of the book and its setting can be found in the chapter "In Preparation for Violence," where we read:
In "Blood at Midnight," I found this super-quotable phrase in a description of the sharpness of Mr Swelter's cleaver:
The entire duel between Swelter and Flay, later in that same chapter, is worthy of being read and re-read in admiring detail. I laughed heartily when the tremendously fat chef sprang forward:
It is also Doctor Prunesquallor who makes the most pointed observation about his sister - perhaps as much "to the point" as any bald statement in this book:
Then Peake, once again referring to Doctor Prunesquallor, issues what may be his assessment of where clear thought fits into the world that emerged from the flames of World War II:
Nevertheless, Peake wraps up the book with a three-paragraph crescendo of triumphalistic braying, which would ring utterly false if it weren't so self-spoofingly odd. Here is part of the penultimate paragraph:
The first passage I marked was the chapter titled "The Attic," which astonished me as a whole. Within it is the poem "The Frivolous Cake," which I read aloud twice to a friend in the break room at work, much to the concern of my co-workers. It's a piece of delightful nonsense, comparable to the fancies of Lewis Carroll. Part of the first stanza, for instance, reads:How jointlessly, how jointlesslySince this poem appears in a book treasured by Fuchsia Groan, I reckon it represents a style of literature Mr. Peake wanted to lampoon--something absurdly sentimental, perhaps. Nevertheless, it's a wonderfully light moment within the predominantly gloomy atmospherics of the book.
The frivolous cake sailed by
On the waves of the ocean that pointlessly
Threw fish to the lilac sky.
In the final lines of the chapter titled "A Gift of the Gab," Peake describes Steerpike thus:
His face remained like a mask, but deep down in his stomach he grinned.
When I marked this sentence, I thought: Wow. I can't wait to find an excuse to quote this.In the following chapter, titled "While the Old Nurse Dozes," Peake powerfully evokes the urgent need rising up within the wetnurse Keda, culminating in a very moving, two-sentence paragraph:
Keda raised her heand and wiped away the slow tears from her cheeks. 'I must have love,' she whispered.Her tragic journey becomes the most painfully, touchingly human episode in the novel.
I drew a question-mark next to the paragraph in the chapter titled "The Library," in which the East Wing of the castle is described as
...a procession of forgotten and desolate relics, an Ichabod of masonry that filed silently along an avenue of dreary pines whose needles hid the sky.What, pray, is an Ichabod? But only a few paragraphs later I took pleasure in this description of Lord Sepulchrave's library:
All things in the long room absorbed his melancholia. The shadowing galleries brooded with slow anguish; the books receding into the deep corners, tier upon tier, seemed each a separate tragic note in a monumental fugue of volumes.
In "Reintroducing the Twins," I chuckled at how the the twinshad been staring at Steerpike more in the manner of a wall staring at a man than a man staring at a wall.And in "Keda and Rantel," I was gripped by this passage:
Her breast rose and fell, and she was both weak and strong. She could feel the blood flowing within her and she felt that she must die or break forth into leaves and flowers.In "The Grotto," Peake memorably portrays Gormenghast as
...a sinister thing as though drawn out of the earth by sorcery as a curse on all who viewed it.One of the feelings that has lingered since I finished reading the book is pity for the twins, Cora and Clarice Groan. In spite of all evidence that they deserve no sympathy, for there really is something wrong deep inside them, I couldn't help regretting the tricks Steerpike played on them. He messed with their simple minds and brought out their most monstrous aspects, but he also terrified them to a dreadful degree. Here, from the chapter "The Sun Goes Down Again," is a sample of how the adder-tongued Steerpike speaks to them:
'Glorious,' said Steerpike, 'is a dictionary word. We are all imprisoned by the dictionary. We choose out of that vast, paper-walled prison our convicts, the little black printed words, when in truth we need fresh sounds to utter, new enfranchised noises which would produce a new effect.'
I wonder how much Peake personally shared Steerpike's sentiments. Is this a confession or a manifesto? Or is it an indictment on the rhetoric of demagogues? Whatever the answer may be, Titus Groan is a veritable symphony of "new enfranchised noises."What was the effect of Steerpike's speech?
The aunts put their arms about one another so that their faces were cheek to cheek, and from this doublehead they gazed up at Steerpike with a row of four equidistant eyes. There was no reason why there should not have been forty, or four hundred of them. It so happened that only four had been removed from a dead and endless frieze whose inexhaustible and repetitive theme was forever, eyes, eyes, eyes.Two paragraphs after this magnificent portrait, however, I drew another question-mark in the margin where it says:
They got to their feet awkwardly and stood before him evil.Huh? I'm wondering if that isn't a misprint.
In the chapter "Meanwhile," Doctor Prunesquallor's sister Irma
Wow! An even bigger wow -- arguably the most quotable line in the whole book -- comes in the chapter "And the Horses Took Them Home," after the burning of the library:...rose rustling to her full height, arching her nostrils as she did so, as though they itched with pedigree.
The shelves that still stood were wrinkled charcoal, and the books were standing side by side upon them, black, grey, and ash-white, the corpses of thought.What a description of burned books!
Later, in "Half-Light," we find Sepulchrave in the early stages of madness. Perhaps, therefore, it is nonsense when he confides to his daughter:
'That is Andrema, the lyricist - the lover - he whose quill would pulse as he wrote and fill with a blush of blue, like a bruised nail. His verses, Fuchsia, his verses open out like flowers of glass, and at their centre, between the brittle petals lies a pool of indigo, translucent and as huge as doom.'
Another flush of poetic prose crops up early in the chapter "A Roof of Reeds," where Keda observes...a region of marshland which reflected the voluptuous sky in rich pools, or with a duller glow where choked swamps sucked at the colour and breathed it out again in sluggish vapour.Peake plunges further into poetic diction in "Early One Morning," where he describes a leaky, frescoed ceiling
...where a faded cluster of cherubs lie asleep in the bosom of a mildew'd cloud.The contraction of the word "mildewed" suggests that the author's mind inclined toward verse at that moment, possibly in a lampooning way.
One of the weirdest paragraphs in the book is surely this one, later in the same chapter:
Swelter's eyes meet those of his enemy, and never has there held between four globes of gristle so sinister a hell of hatred. Had the flesh, the fibres, and the bones of the chef and those of Mr Flay been conjured away and away down that dark corridor leaving only their four eyes suspended in mid-air outside the Earl's door, then, surely, they must have reddened to the hue of Mars, reddened and smouldered, and at last broken into flame, so intense was their hatred - broken into flame and circled about one another in ever-narrowing gyres and in swifter and yet swifter flight until, merged into one sizzling globe of ire they must surely have fled,My marginal note here consists of a question-mark, followed by an exclamation-point.the four in one, leaving a trail of blood behind them in the cold grey air of the corridor, until, screaming as they fly beneath innumerable arches and down the endless passageways of Gormenghast, they found their eyeless bodies once again, and reentrenched themselves in startled sockets.
In "A Bloody Cheek-Bone," Flay is caught hurling one of Lady Groan's pets at Steerpike. The latter comes away with a light flesh-wound and
Something to remember, that: cats for missiles."The Dark Breakfast" ends thus:
No one is listening to Barquentine. The rain has drummed for ever. His voice is in the darkness - and the darkness is in his voice, and there is no end at all.
I wish I could quote all of the chapter titled "The Reveries," which describes what all the deeply sick people at the aforementioned breakfast were thinking while Barquentine droned on so. Let it be enough to say that William Faulkner, James Joyce, et al had nothing on Mervyn Peake when it came to writing experiments in point-of-view and stream-of-consciousness. Irma Prunesquallor's reverie goes on for more than a page with scarcely a single full stop, and includes such private considerations as:...I am still a virgin but there was Spogfrawne who had had so many beautiful adventures among the people he redeemed from sin and he appreciated me and wrote me three letters on tissue paper although it was a pity that his pen-nib used to go right through it so often and make it difficult for me to read the passionate parts where he told me of his love in fact I couldn't read them at all and when I wrote and asked him to try and remember them and write me a fourth letter just putting in only the passionate sentences which I couldn't read in the first three of his beautiful letters he wouldn't answer me and I think it was because I asked him in my last message to him to either write more carefully on the tissue paper or to use ordinary paper that he became shy poor silly stupid glamorousIn the chapter "Here and There," Peake cheekily reports thatMr Spogfrawne who I will always remember but he hasn't been heard of since and I am still a virgin...
The darkness in the great hall has deepened in defiance of the climbing of the sun. It can afford to be defiant with such a pall of inky cloud lying over the castle...In "Presage," Keda reflects that she does not fear rejection of her people because she has suffered it already in anticipation:
All this was far wan history and an archaism.I loved that sentence. In the very next paragraph, however, I ran into another difficulty, betokened by a marginal question-mark:
'I shall follow my knowledge - ah, so soon, so soon into the julip darkness.'Can anyone spot me a definition of the word julip?
A good summation of the overall atmosphere of the book and its setting can be found in the chapter "In Preparation for Violence," where we read:
Drear ritual turned its wheel. The ferment of the heart, within these walls, was mocked by every length of sleeping shadow. The passions, no greater than candle flames, flickered in Time's yawn, for Gormenghast, huge and adumbrate, out-crumbles all.
In "Blood at Midnight," I found this super-quotable phrase in a description of the sharpness of Mr Swelter's cleaver:...as lazes through long grass the lethal scythe.Again, what a phrase to drop into an erudite essay, allusion-riddled story, or conversational contest of wits with your literary rivals! I can hardly wait to rub somebody's nose in their inability to identify my source! Ha, ha, ha! But seriously, the margins of the same chapter are riddled with my markings. Sepulchrave, driven insane by the loss of his library and suffering under the delusion that he is a death-owl, raves:
'Good-bye. It is all one. Why break the heart that never beat from love? We do not know, sweet girl; the arras hangs: it is so far; so far away, dark daughter... But they will take me in. Their home is cold; but they will take me in. And it may be their tower is lined with love - each flint a cold blue stanza of delight, each feather, terrible; quills, ink and flax, each talon, glory! Ah no - not that long shelf - not that long shelf: it is his lifework that the fires are eating. All's one. Good-bye... good-bye... Blood, blood, and blood and blood, for you, the muffled, all, all for you and I am on my way, with broken branches. She was not mine. Her hair is red as ferns. She was not mine. Mice, mice; the towers crumble - flames are swarmers. There is no swarmer like the nimble flame; and all is over. Good-bye... Good-bye.For my money, that is one of the most beautiful mad scenes in English literature.It is all one, forever, ice and fever. Oh, weariest lover - it will not come again. Be quiet now. Hush, then, and do your will. The moon is always; and you will find them at the mouths of warrens. Great wings shall come, great silent, silent wings... Good-bye. All's one. All's one. All's one.'
The entire duel between Swelter and Flay, later in that same chapter, is worthy of being read and re-read in admiring detail. I laughed heartily when the tremendously fat chef sprang forward:
For a moment there was so much flesh and blood in the air that a star changed colour under Saturn's shoulder.Mervyn Peake, you sick, sick man! The next passage I would like to quote, but won't, is the blue streak Barquentine swears at Steerpike in the chapter titled, ahem, "Barquentine and Steerpike". However, this descriptive paragraph is apposite:
Steerpike began to bow, with his eyebrows raised by way of indicating that his ear drums had proved themselves equal to the call made upon them. If the art of gesture had been more acutely developed in him he might have implied by some hyper-subtle inclination of his body that what aural inconvenience he experienced lay not so much in his having to strain his ears, as in having them strained for him.Two consecutive paragraphs in the chapter "By Gormenghast Lake" merited marginal exclamation-points. The first such mark indicates my astonishment at one of the few places where, in my opinion, Peake may have misjudged a description of one of his characters. Perhaps it's just me, or perhaps he is being a mite too judgmental when he reports that Irma Prunesquallor
Some authors show compassion to their most flawed characters. Clearly, Peake is not one of them. On the other hand, he seems to have developed an increasing fondness for Irma's brother, the Doctor, who appears repulsive at first, only later to show signs of having a very ordered mind while also being able to offer up priceless remarks like:...had gone out of her way, it appeared, to exhibit to their worst advantage (her waist being ridiculously tight) a pair of hips capable of balancing upon their osseous shelves enough bric-a-brac to clutter up a kleptomaniac's cupboard.
'The top of the morning to you, my dears,' trilled the Doctor; 'and when I say "top" I mean the last cubic inch of it that sits, all limpid-like on a crest of ether, ha, ha, ha.'My new fantasy in life is to be the father of several children who will, in unison, complete that very quote at me whenever I great them with, "The top of the morning to you, my dears!"
It is also Doctor Prunesquallor who makes the most pointed observation about his sister - perhaps as much "to the point" as any bald statement in this book:
'She thinks she's a lady... Oh, dear! the poor thing. Tries so hard, and the more she tries the less she is. Ha! ha! ha! Take it from me, Fuchsia dear, the only ladies are those to whom the idea of whether they are or not never occurs.'In another attack of pure description, the very next paragraph says:
The branches of the trees behind them chafed one another, and their leaves, like a million conspiring tongues, were husky with heresy.
Then Peake, once again referring to Doctor Prunesquallor, issues what may be his assessment of where clear thought fits into the world that emerged from the flames of World War II:[He] was a freak only in that his mind worked in a wide way, relating and correlating his thoughts so that his conclusions were often clear and accurate and nothing short of heresy.What Mr Rottcodd feels in the final chapter may reflect the inner crisis Peake himself felt as he tried to fit his experiences in the British Army, and particularly as a war artist sketching the victims of German concentration camps, into the worldview that had prevailed up to that time:
[H]e became aware of a sense of instability - a sensation almost of fear - as though some ethic he had never questioned, something on which whatever he believed was founded and through which his every concept filtered was now threatened. As though, somewhere, there was treason. Something unhallowed, menacing, and ruthless in its disregard for the fundamental premises of loyalty itself. What could be thought to count, or have even the meanest kind of value in action or thought if the foundations on which his house of belief was erected was found to be sinking and imperiling the sacrosanct structure it supported.
Nevertheless, Peake wraps up the book with a three-paragraph crescendo of triumphalistic braying, which would ring utterly false if it weren't so self-spoofingly odd. Here is part of the penultimate paragraph:Through honeycombs of stone would now be wandering the passions in their clay. There would be tears and there would be strange laughter. Fierce births and deaths beneath umbrageous ceilings. And dreams, and violence, and disenchantment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








