Tag Archives: christopher rush

Book Review: Tolkien: New Critical Perspectives, eds. Neil D. Isaacs and Rose A. Zimbardo. Lexington: UP Kentucky, 1981.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary and Author’s Perspective

Isaacs and Zimbardo’s collection of Tolkien criticism, their second compilation since the completion of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, offers a variety of essays about diverse issues and themes of Tolkien’s trilogy.  Because of the variety and wealth of critical possibility in Tolkien’s Middle-earth, I will concentrate here on three of the more important and useful essays.  Since the essays were brief, I will summarize their content and discuss the author’s perspective together.  All three of these essays were recollected in the editors’ more recent Tolkien collection Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien Criticism from 2004, but the page references are to the 1981 collection.

Lionel Basney’s “Myth, History and Time in The Lord of the Rings” presents in twelve brief pages a look at three crucial though often neglected aspects to Tolkien’s Middle-earth.  Basney is quite literate concerning mythological structure, teleology, and social progression, which becomes clear quickly in his brief essay; however, Basney subsumes his knowledge for the less-educated reader well, allowing the lay reader (who, though, should be more than a passing Tolkien fan) to get a sort of beginning look at applying teleological analysis to Tolkien’s Middle-earth.  Basney is also conscious throughout that a design in the Middle-earth universe, with a consistent and coherent cosmogony, might lead certain readers to posit a Christian/Biblical worldview or design upon Middle-earth, but Basney cautions against such a reading.  To Basney, Tolkien has explicit, coherent design and natural progression from age to age and people to people but also a “causal vagueness” (16) that should warn readers away from reading too much into it as a work of God or divine providence.  (Certainly The Silmarillion is more explicit about the supernatural powers at work in and around Middle-earth, but that is beyond Basney’s focus; The Lord of the Rings is much less explicit or dependent on Tolkien’s “God” Eru/Ilúvatar or “angels” the Valar.)

Verlyn Flieger’s essay “Frodo and Aragorn: The Concept of the Hero” does what its title implies, in that it examines the two major (obvious) heroes of The Lord of the Rings, from both their characters and actions.  Flieger draws on medieval and fairy-tale criticism to distinguish these two heroes, implying more than declaring that Tolkien did the same when he created them.  Aragorn is the typical medieval and mythical hero, the lost/forgotten king on his quest to restore his throne and marry his princess.  Frodo is the typical fairy-tale hero, an unusual creature who becomes embroiled in gargantuan tasks but survives and succeeds through cunning, luck, and magic.  Flieger’s key insight, though, is noticing that Tolkien inverts the culmination of both of these heroes’ quests: Frodo, the fairy-tale hero, suffers the loss of his finger and estrangement from the world he once loved; Aragorn, the medieval/mythic warrior who travels through the underworld and reunites the nations against the evil one gains the more typical fairy-tale ending of the restored kingdom and happily-ever-after marriage to the princess.

Third is Patrick Grant’s essay “Tolkien: Archetype and Word.”  Obviously Grant uses archetypal criticism: “Frodo moves through a process equivalent to Jung’s individuation, which is charted by the main action of the book” (93).  Grant also looks to Jung when analyzing Gollum’s role as Frodo’s shadow.  Throughout Grant’s analysis, he finds Tolkien’s counterpoint of light and darkness symbolic of identity: “Saruman’s multicolor, like the facelessness of the riders, indicates a dissolution of identity.  White is whole; fragmented, it is also dissipated” (98-9).  Grant’s conclusion relates somewhat to the “Word” component of the title, finding, like Basney, design in the archetypes of the story: “Tolkien plainly indicates throughout The Lord of the Rings that on some profound level a traditional Providence is at work in the unfolding of events.  And in a world where men must die, where there are no havens, where the tragedy of exile is an enduring truth, the sense, never full, always intermittent, of a providential design, is also a glimpse of joy” (103); the archetypes and design lead through the darkness into a saving light.

Critical Response and Evaluation

It is not surprising that these three essays were reprinted in the editors’ “best of” collection, since they were the cream of the crop from 1981’s collection.  Basney’s essay has great potential, given his obvious understanding of the interpretive framework by which he analyzed The Lord of the Rings.  I would have appreciated a longer, more advanced analysis from him; as it was, the essay provides only a few useful ideas — very useful, definitely, but not as many as the title suggested before I read it.  I appreciate Basney’s underlying perspective that, despite the pervasive teleology of Tolkien’s world, Tolkien was not creating an allegory of the Biblical story of creation nor was the “God” of Tolkien’s sub-creation, Eru/Ilúvatar, causing everything to happen, but instead was allowing growth and choices.  Basney’s insights, few though they were, are helpful: “One of Middle-earth’s governing cosmic conditions is the growth of legend into history” (16).  Structural repetition is essential in demonstrating how heroes in The Lord of the Rings, especially Aragorn, are types of the heroes that came before them discussed in The Silmarillion.  Another of his good quotations, “It is through the transformation of certain myths into experience that the free peoples recognize each other, and their common destiny and enemy” (13), helps us understand the mythical foundation of The Lord of the Rings.

From what we know of Tolkien’s reading habits, Verlyn Flieger is almost undoubtedly correct, at least in her analysis, if not the implications that Tolkien consciously created two discrete heroes both necessary to the completion of his tale.  Perhaps he was not consciously utilizing a medieval and fairy-tale hero, but Flieger’s analysis fits well.  She is, after all, probably the leading voice in Tolkien criticism, especially concerning the History of Middle-Earth series.  One somewhat lengthy quotation from her is worth the entire essay, and worth more than most of the essays in the collection:

Aragorn’s is a true quest to win a kingdom and a princess.  Frodo’s is rather an anti-quest.  He goes not to win something but to throw something away.…  Aragorn’s is a journey from darkness into light, while Frodo’s is a journey from light into darkness — and out again.…  To Frodo come defeat and disillusionment — the stark, bitter ending typical of the Iliad, Beowulf, and Morte d’Arthur (42).

She develops those ideas very well.  Like Patrick Grant, she highlights the importance of Gollum, with his role in the story more psychological than physical even though he leads Frodo and Sam through Mordor.  He is what Frodo could become, and Frodo must fight the psychological battle against the call of the Ring as well as fending off his own devolution into another Gollum.

Grant seems to discuss his archetypal approach to the trilogy more than the “Word” component, but at other times “Word … is a primary archetype” (88) throughout Tolkien’s work, so it gets a bit confusing.  Other than that, Grant’s Jungian archetypal analysis is quite interesting — were one to focus more on the archetypes of Tolkien, one would definitely need to read more Jung, but Grant’s introduction here is helpful — elaborating more than Flieger on Gollum’s role in the book.  Frodo and Gollum are opposites, but Sam is the stalwart center.  Another opposite crucial to Grant’s Jungian approach is Galadriel and Shelob, a connection I had never thought of before.  In addition to the generalized opposites, Grant emphasizes that characters aren’t really either good or evil but have components of both, and, as Galadriel’s scene by the mirror and Frodo’s entire journey illustrate, must choose to be either good or evil.  His comments and viewpoint are different from how I’ve read the books before and are quite useful even to Tolkien fans who are not interested in psychological or archetypal criticism.

Two Kinds of Wisdom: James 3:13-18

Christopher Rush

This year, during our consecrated times together, we will be exploring the cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, justice, moderation, as well as the three foundational Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.  While it might appear to a cursory examination that these will be disparate messages relating in no way to one another, that is certainly not true.  When I say that this message concludes the subject of wisdom and that next week we will discuss courage, do not think that you will be allowed to forget about wisdom.  As Mr. Moon said earlier, wisdom is the foundation of all the virtues we will examine throughout the year.

In math class, when you have advanced so far as to leave even numbers behind, regardless of the complexity of the calculations you and your calculator will be computing, you will never leave the basic principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.  In English class, when you have advanced so far that you can analyze patterns and themes from any literary era or movement, interpreting metaphors, ironies, and symbols with the ease of an Inkling, you will never leave the basic principles of grammar, mechanics, and usage.

Wisdom is the goal, as well as the commencement.  Last week Mr. Moon exegeted for us the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of that list is the fact that the first and last categories of people both receive the same reward.  “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:3).  “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10).  Eternal life is the beginning of the Christian experience; it is also its end.  Even so, wisdom is the beginning of these virtues and will also be their end.  So do not think that while we are talking about courage or justice or faith that we aren’t talking about wisdom — we are always talking about wisdom.

As we sort-of-but-not-really conclude our time with wisdom, it occurred to me that a practical passage on wisdom would be of great benefit to all of us.  This is an odd occurrence, since I usually despise practical sermons.  In my day I have visited a diverse panoply of church bodies and heard a variety of speakers.  Often, in my experience (which, if it differs from yours, good for you), practical sermons and series do not require the church attendee to open a Bible.  An odd thing, isn’t that, for a gathering of Christians in an official “body of Christ” situation to neglect?  If I had to pick one thing that I hoped of all graduates of Summit Christian Academy after they leave my humble tutelage — just one thing — it would not, I must admit, be the chiastic structure of The Iliad, or great symbols of the Mississippi River in Huck Finn, or even that they purposed to commit the Shakespearean canon to memory.  The one thing, if I must choose only one thing, that I hope for all students of Summit, is that you love the Word of God (both written and incarnate), and cling to it desperately as you go out to a world that passionately hates you.  So today, without apology, we will be reading from the Word of God.  And, conveniently enough, it is both doctrinal (my personal favorite) and practical.  Bonus.

The Book of James is a superbly practical book.  Last year, the Men’s Ministry Team spent much quality time reading this book, and we examined its dozens of explicit commands on how to live the Christian life.  Throughout his letter, James makes many of his points using a great literary device known as juxtaposition.

Juxtaposition places two opposite ideas or characters next to each other to compare and contrast their attributes.  This technique has been used throughout time in many areas, from literature to music to general entertainment.  Homer places the greatest warrior of Greece sulking in his tent; next to him, Homer places Hector, Troy’s last, best hope for victory.  Taking both of his works together, we see the warrior mentality of Achilles contrasted with the strategic guile of Odysseus.  When opposite characters aren’t enemies but friends, they are sometimes called “foils.”  Hamlet has his Horatio, Darcy has his Bingley, and Holmes has his Watson.  I didn’t realize it when I first thought of these three examples, but upon further reflection it occurred to me that Hamlet, Darcy, and Holmes are all silent, brooding thinkers, while Horatio, Bingley, and Watson are all resolutely loyal to their often-sullen friends.

Many songwriters have also employed juxtaposition to get across their points, usually within about three minutes:

Well I would walk a million miles

To give her all that she needs

She would walk a million more

To do well as she pleased

Once upon a time I was fallin’ in love

Now I’m only fallin’ apart

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Back in the day when comedians were funny because they were funny and not because they were vulgar, some of the greatest comedians of the 20th-century came in pairs — not pairs of comedians, but pairs of entertainers.  One was the comedian; the other was the straight man, often, but not always, a singer.  If you don’t know Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis, or Hope and Crosby, then you probably don’t actually know what comedy is.  No offense.

Though many of the previous examples of juxtaposition were opposites, they were complementary opposites (except for the music — funny how that happens).  Holmes and Watson and Abbott and Costello needed each other for success.  The juxtapositions James puts forth in his letter, however, are not complementary.  Most of his juxtapositions are either one choice or the other.  One choice is for life, the other for death.  And, like Romeo and Juliet, life and death can’t really spend a whole lot of time together.

In chapter 3, James gives the classic exhortation on taming the tongue.  He concludes by pointing out the inconceivability of the same water source producing both salt and fresh water and the unimaginable situation of a fig tree producing olives or a grapevine producing figs.  From those logical impossibilities James turns to the subject of wisdom.  And, as his wont, he juxtaposes two kinds of wisdom in James 3, verses 13-18:

13Who is wise and understanding among you?  By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.  15This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.  16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.  17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.  18And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

(English Standard Version)

As we have seen throughout this month, wisdom, according to the Bible, has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement.  Pride, boasting, and self-serving behavior are not acceptable by-products of wisdom.  In his classic commentary, Matthew Henry says, “[t]hese verses show the difference between man’s pretending to be wise, and their being really so.  He who thinks well, or he who talks well, is not wise in the sense of the Scripture, if he does not live and act well.  True wisdom may be known by the meekness of the spirit and temper.”  People who boast about their knowledge may in fact know a great deal of information.  Wisdom, however, they lack.  Wisdom is meek and allows the wise to live well.  Of the two kinds of wisdom, let us focus on the negative then turn to the positive.

Earthly wisdom is, in fact, no wisdom at all.  We may think we are being wise or intelligent when we plan and perhaps even succeed under our own strength or ability.  When we focus on ourselves, though, we can’t but help to think that all people are focusing on themselves.  So when we succeed, as James intimates, on our own power we boast and brag since it is something we have done by ourselves — no one helped us, not even God.  “Look at what great things I have done,” we say, perhaps only to ourselves.  Maybe our boasting is internal, and the world around sees nothing but a smug smile on our faces.  But James warns us that we have not in any way actually succeeding at anything.  We are, in fact, “being false to the truth.”  When we are consumed by selfish ambition and boasting about our accomplishments, we completely fail to see who has done the actual work or given us the ability to accomplish anything.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, when we are so wrapped up in selfish ambition, leaving no room for thoughts about others, not even God, we are forced to assume that all people around us are succeeding on their own merits and abilities.  This does not allow us to be glad for other people when they succeed, especially if it is against us.  If we are trying to win even something so inconsequential as a game with our selfish ambition and we lose, do we feel glad for our conqueror?  Of course not!  Our skills and abilities fell short, so we are deficient.  James readily acknowledges that a mind of selfish ambition cannot think positively about others.  Instead, as he says, we regard others with bitter jealousy.

Too many churches and too many Christians despise each other not because of doctrinal error or truly abhorrent practices, but because we are ensconced in selfish ambition and so are bitterly jealous of others when they succeed.  “Oh, well, if we lived in California and had Rick Warren as our head pastor, of course we’d have a huge, growing church!  Obviously if we had Chris Tomlin as our worship leader no doubt our worship times would be alive and meaningful — but we don’t have them!”  Utter preposterousness, as if God made a mistake when placing you here and now and not then and there!  Envying other churches because they have a success outreach campaign and we don’t?  This is certainly not admirable.  We aren’t to be jealous of Christians as if their success came from their strengths and abilities.

Selfish ambition is not new to the church.  Moments after Jesus restores Peter three times, according to the rule of three, Peter has the supreme dullness to look back at John and ask the Christ about what is going to happen to him.  Based on Jesus’ emphatic response, we can believe that Peter was not asking out of genuine concern for his fellow believer.  He was asking out of selfish ambition.  Jesus, knowing that could only lead to bitter jealousy, responded wonderfully.  “What is that to you?!  Don’t you concern yourself with what I have appointed for him.  YOU FOLLOW ME.”  Selfish ambition is lost in its focus and has no possibility of success or glorifying God.  The cure is to change our focus.  Follow Christ and His purposes.  Realize that we can do nothing on our own for good.  Any intelligence, any physical ability, any skill or talent we have did not originate within us!  Sure, we may have practiced and honed those skills and talents, but we did not endow them into ourselves when we were born.  All these things — our reasoning abilities, our strength, our very life — have come from above.  When we think we have done something we are mistaken and are being “false to the truth.”

Verse fifteen helps to clarify the nature of this selfish ambition.  When we believe that we are capable of success or goodness on our own, we are not truly employing wisdom.  The “wisdom” that enables bitter jealousy, boasting, and falsehood is not a heavenly wisdom; it is of this sinful earth — perhaps James is making the point that this kind of thinking is akin to the level of thinking done by a rock or a tree (not very complimentary).  Matthew Henry says of this verse

Those who live in malice, envy, and contention, live in confusion; and are liable to be provoked and hurried to any evil work.  Such wisdom comes not down from above, but springs up from earthly principles, acts on earthly motives, and is intent on serving earthly purposes.

Not only is it of this world, but James continues to describe its true origin: it is an unspiritual kind of thought process.  I would doubt that he is arguing for Monism, as if thoughts are merely chemical reactions to external stimuli and are simply mechanical functions of a material brain.  Instead, I believe he is trying to say that this kind of thinking is as far from God’s thinking as can be, a point he drives home in the last of his list of three: this thinking is demonic.  Now we get to the source of this “wisdom.”

Most people I’ve met, at one time or another, tend to get confused.  Well, about many things, but in particular, we all seem to believe that there is this thing that exists we like to call “what I want to do.”  Perhaps we phrase it like, “when I graduate and move out I’m going to start doing what I want to do, and my parents can’t do anything about it.”  “As soon as I get to college, boy, I’m going to do what I want to do.”  Unfortunately, though, and while I may be mistaken, I’ve come to believe that this thing we like to call “what I want to do” doesn’t actually exist.  There are really only two choices: what God wants me to do and what Satan wants me to do.

Now, please don’t misunderstand.  I am not in any way arguing, and I don’t believe James is arguing, for aggregate Dualism.  There are not, as some faiths posit, two eternal superpowers one we call “Good” the other “Bad” or “God” and the “Devil” (or both called “Lazarus”) constantly at war and neither is stronger than the other, but they are both equal and locked in mortal combat and we sometimes get caught in the crossfire.  That’s not what I’m saying: Satan and God are not equal in power or authority.  I’m saying that those are the only two alternatives we have by which to live our lives: God’s way or Satan’s way.  James, as mentioned before, does not give us a third option, usually.  We have a dilemma: whom will we follow?  What kind of wisdom will we employ?  There is no “my wisdom” or “what I want to do.”  Perhaps seeing the outcomes of both wisdoms will aid our choice.

Verse sixteen shows us the end of demonic wisdom: if we wrap ourselves in selfish ambition and jealousy, what do we find at the end?  Happiness?  Prosperity?  Never-ceasing fountains of root beer and skittles?  No.  We find “disorder and every vile practice.”  Selfish ambition and bitter jealousy are not easily sated.  In fact, I doubt they ever are.  Has Satan grown tired of doing what is evil yet?  I don’t think so.  And he’s very adept at it, too.  Jealousy can’t wish well-being on others and is not content to watch others succeed.  Selfish ambition does not promote harmony and cooperation but disorder and every vile practice.  I think we have all had enough experience at being alive that we need not go into detail about that phrase.  James, too, knows it is enough to say it before he moves on.  And so shall we.

The only other option before us is “the wisdom from above,” in verse seventeen.  This wisdom is “first pure.”  Have you ever had a cold glass of filtered water?  It is remarkable: no color, no taste, no additives — simply unadulterated refreshment.  It is no wonder that the best food and drinks that enable us to live a salubrious life are those that are pure.  Purity is essential.

Wisdom is peaceable.  Opposed to the disorder of selfish ambition and bitter jealousy, genuine wisdom is calm, quiet, serene, and harmonious.  The purity of a single glass of water expands to the tranquility of a placid lake in the cool of the late afternoon, sitting in a chair sipping fresh water reading Ivanhoe.  Peaceable wisdom acknowledges that God is the author of ability, intelligence, and success and needs not be jealous of others, since God is doing His work through others.  Peaceable wisdom knows that any achievements we do are because He has allowed and enabled them, not because we are self-sufficient.

Wisdom is gentle.  Certainly there is the time for righteous indignation accompanied by swift and concentrated justice.  Yet, wisdom is habitually gentle.  There is no boasting or bragging with wisdom.  College professors who bludgeon you with their lectures and ignore queries do so because they do not have wisdom.  They merely have a repository of knowledge and have no idea what to do with it.  Wisdom is calm and tender.  Jesus is the Lamb who was slain, silent before His shearers, benevolently taking the malevolence of sin upon Himself for us all.  Wisdom is honey to the lips, sweet and soothing.

Wisdom is open to reason.  Unlike the professors who allow for no argument or diverging opinions, wisdom from above seeks rational, intelligent discourse.  “Come, let us reason together,” calls the Lord.  We were created by and in the image of a rational Being who desires reasonable responses and interactions.  We could have been made mindless automatons who know of nothing but worshipping God, yet we have the choice and ability as Christians to reason with Him, to understand Him and His ways as much as we can.  God desires that.  Your teachers desire rational discussions and interactions with you because wisdom is open to reason.

Wisdom is full of mercy and good fruits.  Not Fruit Snacks, but real, pure fruit.  A pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable attitude might be good enough from our perspective but not for the wisdom from above.  A bounty of mercy is almost too good to be true.  Wisdom from above understands the nature of fallen beings and the being-sanctified-but-not-yet-glorified nature of justified beings.  We need mercy, not just at the cross, but frequently, yea, daily.  Moment by moment, in fact.  Mercy does not obviate justice.  Just as the gentleness of wisdom allows for anger in its time, mercy does not let things go just to let things go.  Mercy has already paid the penalty for our transgressions, and mercy rebukes the Accuser when he tries to bring up forgiven debts.

Wisdom’s “good fruits” are the subjects of the remainder of our chapels this year, in the remaining cardinal virtues and the Christian virtues.  No doubt, too, they are the “fruit of the Spirit” Paul recites in Galatians.  James possibly also has in mind what he said in verse thirteen, that wisdom is shown in action.  Wisdom, some have said, is the right application of knowledge.  Having previously discussed earlier in chapter three that the same water source cannot produce both salt and fresh water, neither can the wisdom from above produce anything but good fruits.  The actions of the wise are good fruit.  Have you ever picked fruit from trees or vines?  It doesn’t take much effort to collect ripe fruit.  Actions done from wisdom are no struggle to perform and only benefit those who receive them.  Matthew Henry says this: “Those who are lifted up with such wisdom, described by the apostle James, is near to the Christian love, described by the apostle Paul; and both are so described that every man may fully prove the reality of his attainments in them.”

Wisdom is impartial and sincere.  According to Matthew Henry, “It has no disguise or deceit.  It cannot fall in with those managements the world counts wise, which are crafty and guileful; but it is sincere, and open, and steady, and uniform, and consistent with itself.”  Wisdom pays no attention to nationalities or gender.  It is consistent regardless of who needs it because it is pure.  In sincerity, wisdom never does anything “because it has to,” because it was assigned as homework, or “if it feels like it.”  Wisdom does what is right fully and whole-heartedly every time — all the time.

Then the good fruits of wisdom become an entire harvest of righteousness, and the peace that passes all understanding sows a bountiful reward for those who are blessed by the wisdom from above.  Genuine wisdom makes peace — how could it not?  It is pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, merciful, impartial, and sincere.  It does not “keep” the peace, placating tempers and symptoms while ignoring the sin and contention.  Wisdom solves conflict by bringing resolution, often by exposing sin and leading one to repentance and then, ultimately, peace.

How do we know which of the two kinds of wisdom we follow?  Our deeds will show us.  It is that simple.  If we are sowing a harvest of righteousness in peace, if we are pure, gentle, reasonable, merciful, impartial, sincere — we are wise with the wisdom from above.  If we are selfishly ambitious, bitterly jealous of others, always looking down and thinking about the things of this world, we are suffocating in the wisdom of this world, which is, in truth, a demonic distortion of wisdom.

The goal is wisdom, yet it is also the beginning.  I am reminded of the words of a not too-old spiritual, perhaps you may have heard it before.  This version I’m thinking of, though, is not the original, but the occasional live rendition performed years after its initial composition, done by the same artists, perhaps modified to reflect the growth and introspection after several years of performance and life:

You broke the bonds and

You loosed the chains

You carried the cross

You took my shame

You took the pain

You know I believe it

But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.

Just as in the Beatitudes with the kingdom of Heaven being the initial and final reward, just as eternal life is something we can have now and can have in greater fullness in the next life, so, too, is wisdom the beginning as well as the goal.  While it may seem like we are done talking about wisdom and that we are moving on to another topic, we will find throughout this year that the more we talk about courage, justice, moderation, faith, hope, and love, we are really talking about the “good fruits” of wisdom.  It is always what we are looking for, no matter how much we may find it, no matter how well we experience it and live it out.

As a benediction, I will close with one final quotation from Matthew Henry’s insightful commentary on James chapter 3:

May the purity, peace, gentleness, teachableness, and mercy shown in all our actions, and the fruits of righteousness abounding in our lives, prove that God has bestowed upon us this excellent gift [of wisdom].

This essay is adapted from a chapel address given September 28, 2007.

Visions of Angels All Around — Trespass: Gabriel’s Genesis Retrospective, pt. 2

Christopher Rush

Moving into the ’70s (Sort Of)

Genesis had parted ways with Jonathan King.  John Silver had been replaced by John Mayhew on drums.  The band was now signed with Charisma Records, a major source of progressive rock in the early 1970s.  With Charisma came Paul Whitehead, the graphic artist who would create the covers of Trespass, Nursery Cryme, and Foxtrot (as well as several other covers for Charisma).  Free from the constraints of Jonathan King, and having some studio recording and live performance experience under most of their belts, Genesis was poised to become one of the premiere prog-rock band of the ’70s.  But first…

Trespassing Between Folk and Prog

Trespass has suffered slight disrepute and ignominy for years (though, perhaps even a bad reputation might be better than the near-total absence of a reputation that their clandestine debut album has), though the final song “The Knife” became the first real hit of the band, both critically and live on stage.  Despite this, the album as a whole is the second part of their maturation process (their “teenage years,” if you will) — on the precipice of full-grown development.  Some may argue that their third album, Nursery Cryme, is the culmination of their maturity, leading to the high-water greatness of Foxtrot, Selling England By the Pound, and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway before their next great self-reinvention after Peter Gabriel’s departure.  To a degree that is true, and we will discuss Nursery Cryme more in our next issue, but it is an underappreciated album that bears more connection to the three great albums just mentioned than it does to the hybrid-like electric folk and mellotron-powered prog rock of Trespass.

Instrumentally, Anthony Phillips, Michael Rutherford, and Tony Banks have more diversity on this album: the acoustic twelve-string guitar is prevalent, as well as the dulcimer, nylon bass, and Banks’s mellotron (made most famous by the opening sound of Foxtrot).  Without the synthesized strings and brass that mostly plagued From Genesis to Revelation (mainly because the band didn’t want them), the sound of the album is more genuine as a Genesis album.  It has a folksy feel throughout, undeniably, but that isn’t necessarily a detrimental thing.  Peter Gabriel’s vocal abilities shine through far more than they did on the limitations of their pop debut, reaching great emotional peaks during the album, especially in “Visions of Angels,” “Stagnation,” and “The Knife.”  His flute work (and tambourine work) helps create the diverse woodsy, almost Tullian feel scattered throughout.  Many critics consider the sound of the album as invoking the part-Romantic, part-Victorian idyll — though the end of “The Knife” is more of a police riot as the idyllic loss of innocence and natural purity comes to a dramatic conclusion.

The Paul Whitefield cover may not capture the essence of the album as overtly and succinctly as his covers for Nursery Cryme and Foxtrot do, but once you have listened to the album a few times (with the lyrics in front of you some of those times, though not necessarily the first time through) the relevance to the songs will make sense — it’s not a direct representation but a satisfying pastiche of many of the album’s major ideas.  The dull blue/gray dominance of the cover art might account, in part, for the general dissatisfaction with the album as a whole, but the prevalence of the empty grayness has a great deal to do with the album’s general tenor: the vital, natural days of happiness are disappearing, only to be replaced by empty nothingness.  The panoramic natural view from the window capture the idyllic aspects of the album, while the royal couple gazing upon it provide the narratorship for most of the songs here.  The Cupid-like cherub could be one of the angels all around from “Visions of Angels,” and the floral curtains could be from any song.  The mysterious face in the upper-right corner sometimes looks like a demon, sometimes a faun — perhaps you should figure it out yourself.  The most obvious connection from the cover to the album content is the giant knife cutting a swath through the entire painting — though, of the several different bladed objects mentioned during the album, to which one it is referring (if not a combination of them) is the real question.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the cover is the knife itself, clearly a “real” knife cutting through the painting, adding an additional layer of reality to the complexity of Genesis’s transformation.  Just as “The Knife” is about the end of life as we know it (at least the way we are used to it), the knife cuts through the final, forlorn gaze of the noble couple on the life they used to love (perhaps being blanketed by an angel and demon); superimposed on all of that Genesis itself is both cutting ties with its pop roots while also about to sever ties with the overt folk rock of Trespass in favor of all-out prog rock for the remainder of the Peter Gabriel era.

“Looking For Someone”

Genesis’s re-creation begins with an appropriate lyrical comment and attitude: “Looking for someone, I guess I’m doing that.”  The band is definitely looking for a new beginning, certainly looking for an audience, and the lack of certainty in the narrator (“I guess”) fits the transitional nature of the album as a whole — better than From Genesis to Revelation but not yet the level of Nursery Cryme (definitely not Foxtrot or Selling England by the Pound).  The narrator continues with “Trying to find a mem’ry in a dark room / Dirty man, you’re looking like a Buddha / I know you well — yeah.”  The collage of unrelated images is confusing at best, but the “mem’ry” trying to be found for this album is an early glimpse of the antique scene depicted on the cover: the memory of days long ago, better days that have been destroyed by various factors — poor memory not the least of them.  Doubtful it is that we are to associate the “I know you well” with the “Buddha,” as if the narrator has spent time searching out the mystical paths to Enlightenment and inner tranquility; one would suspect the narrator to be more self-assured were that the case — unless, of course, the narrator has spent time with Buddhism and is still confused.  The uncertainty of the narrator continues as the need to “Keep on a straight line, I don’t believe I can” is followed by more difficult tasks ahead: “Trying to find a needle in a haystack / Chilly wind you’re piercing like a dagger / It hurts me so — yeah.”  As mentioned above, the dagger is a pervasive image throughout the album, introduced here.  The brief musical force of the previous line is dimmed subito for the great ironic line, “Nobody needs to discover me / I’m back again” — this is exactly what the audience must do!  Genesis does indeed require the audience to discover them now that they are back again, now with an album more akin to their forthcoming mature sound and style.  The melodic tendency to rapidly crescendo to dramatic hits is next demonstrated by the remainder of the chorus-like section: “You see the sunlight through the / Trees to keep you warm / In peaceful shades of green. / Yet in the darkness of my mind / Damascus wasn’t far behind.”  The king and queen surveying the remnants of their territory on the cover of the album do behold a forested landscape that may well remind them of warmer, brighter days, roaming through forests free from care.  If this album is an English idyll, perhaps the reference to Damascus places the time period of this opening song after the Crusades and Richard I’s defeat (of a sort) of Saladin at the close of the twelfth century, when the king and queen on the cover remember periods of both carefree days (“sunlight through the trees”) and days of war and loss — yet both of those periods are so long ago no one can remember them clearly today.

The time period jumps ahead.  “Lost in a subway, I guess I’m losing time,” he says.  “There’s a man looking at a magazine. / You’re such a fool, your mumbo-jumbo / Never tells me anything — yeah.”  Not even periodicals and modern technology can restore the innocence and intelligence lost so long ago.  The return of the chorus, now in its modern-day dress, brings more resolve on the narrator: no one needs to discover him because he is ready to be his own man.  Genesis did not need the tutelage that led to From Genesis to Revelation, since they wanted to be their own band with their own style — perhaps that cry for independency continues through the rest of this version of the chorus: “You feel the ashes from the / Fire that kept you warm. / Its comfort disappears / But still the only friend I know / Would never tell me where to go.”  All the direction given before has lead nowhere; it is time to be autonomous, to create one’s own style.  The musical interlude that follows, the first real forceful musical outburst of Genesis’ album career, is the beginning of that autonomy (with rare tones from Peter Gabriel’s flute sprinkled throughout).

In Genesis’s attempt to find direction (“Looking for someone”), it has now found itself: “And now I’ve found myself a name” — the name of the band is the same, but the sound and direction are different (though still with the motifs and foreshadowed bits mentioned in the previous article), and the name “Genesis” is starting to become what it will mean during the rest of Gabriel’s direction.  The rest of the lyrics of this song, “Come away, leave me / All that I have I will give. / Leave me, leave me / All that I am I will give” remind the audience of their initial invitation to join them in From Genesis to Revelation, but now that the band is breaking out on its own, it is willing to give of itself all it has, provided it is left alone to be itself.  They are starting to trust their own musical and lyric instincts (still maturing though), and we are to do so as well.

“White Mountain”

“White Mountain” is as close to an E. J. Erichsen Tench fairy tale as rock music will ever get.  The opening music of the piece is mildly reminiscent of medieval Christmas ballads, furthering the pervasive Victorian-idyll mood Trespass emits.  From the opening verse (an inaccurate way to describe the narrative progression of Genesis’s material) we get the first reference to the title of the album: Fang, the traitorous wolf, has trespassed where only the leader of the wolves may go and learned of the secret crown and scepter of, perhaps, the king depicted on the cover of the album, placing the events of this song somewhere between the time periods covered in “Looking for Someone” (from the perspective that the songs on this album are connected).  One-eye, the rightful ruler of the wolves, and his followers are out for retribution, and Fang is surrounded by a web and a sleeping fox: no matter how cunning he can be, it won’t be enough; he will soon be caught, trapped by his own importunate curiosity.

Fang soon encounters the steep path of the mountain, knowing that only descent will save him — but in this, too, he betrays his wolfish nature and clan rules: “A wolf never flees in the face of his foe,” and this is exactly what Fang does, cementing his guilt and forfeiting his life.  One-eye and Fang face off in their climactic duel, but Fate has already decreed against Fang the usurper.  One-eye is said to raise the scepter and use it against Fang, blurring the lines between animal and human — adding a lycanthropic aura to the characters and song.  The next morning, the white mountain stained with Fang’s traitorous blood, One-eye buries the unlawfully uprooted crown and scepter of the gods and peace is restored in the wolf kingdom, the laurels of victory proclaiming One-eye’s rightful authority.  The idyllic twelve-string strums and haunting whistling through the deserted blood-dimmed mountains send this unusual song into the ether.

“Visions of Angels”

The theme of lost innocence and lost youth returns here, straining against musically delightful tones.  The narrator tries to look at the trees “but there’s not even one.”  He runs to the smiling stream nearby “but the water’s dry.”  He looks to his girl’s face and tries to take her hand but “she’s never there.”  Why?  We’re never told.  “I just don’t understand / The trumpets sound my whole world crumbles down.”  That’s pretty serious.  After this realization of the complete absence of life-giving nature and love, the chorus proclaims “Visions of angels all around / Dance in the sky / Leaving me here / Forever goodbye.”  Based on the propinquity of the declaration of the nearby dancing and utterly uninterested angelic realm to the declaration of the narrator’s world crumbling down, the cosmology of this world is getting increasingly desolate.  The music accompanying the talk of angels is fitting for a heavenly realm, but the irony of the angels’ disinterest in the affairs of men is inescapable.

Desperation and despondency continues in verse two: “As the leaves will crumble so will fall my love / For the fragile beauty of our lives must fade / Though I once remember echoes of my youth / Now I sense no past, no love that ends in love.”  The sentiment is clear enough.  If the narrator is the king from the cover (which would make sense, but we are not here to force a thorough-going structure onto the album — even if the narrator of this song is unrelated to the cover or any other song on the album, the interpretation is similar enough), we are back in the decline of the Middle Ages.  Not only are the warm, happy days gone, but also hope itself is fading quickly.  The situation is becoming increasingly embittering to the narrator: “Take this dream the stars have filled with light / As the blossom glides like snowflakes from the trees / In vengeance to a god no-one can reach.”  The impotent angelic realm is joined by an equally uninvolved deity.  Happiness and hope are so far gone the king’s dreams are now just vitriolic attrition against the god that has allowed this destruction to occur.  Musically, the song is part military cadence, part ballroom dance number — the confusion of sounds and styles is fitting for a song about conflicting emotions and reactions.

After another chorus reveling in the angelic realm’s disinterest in the affairs of men, the final verse sees the melancholy nostalgia of the narrator morphed into anger: “Ice is moving and world’s begun to freeze / See the sunlight stopped and deadened by the breeze / Minds are empty bodies move insensitive / Some believe that when they die they really live / I believe there never is an end / God gave up this world, its people long ago / Why she’s never there I still don’t understand.”  Does the king think God is a woman?  Perhaps — or that his thoughts have returned to his wife and her distance from him as well.  His whole world has indeed crumbled down — and the angels keep dancing all around.

“Stagnation”

The preamble to this song returns us to the present age: “To Thomas S. Eiselberg, a very rich man, who was wise enough to spend all his fortunes in burying himself many miles beneath the ground.  As the only surviving member of the human race, he inherited the whole world.”  I’m pretty sure they made this guy up, but if not, he’s one of those eccentric rich British guys from a century or two ago; in other words, a rich British guy.  The song itself is one of the more diverse and impressive on the album: it is probably getting tiresome to read comments about Genesis foreshadowing their future greatness, but this song, even more than the more popular “The Knife” at the close of the album, is a sign of the burgeoning diversity and musicality of the band.

The album thus far has been about stagnation: final glimpses of what is being lost and fading memories of what once was; yet, “Stagnation” is not about giving up and letting go.  By the end of “Stagnation,” the king (again, assuming the narrator of this song is the king from the cover) is determined, like the narrator of Dylan Thomas’s most famous poem, not to go gentle into that good night.  The song as a whole is Gabriel’s best lyrical work to date, unquestionably: “Here today the red sky tells his tale / But the only listening eyes are mine / There is peace amongst the hills / And the night will cover all my pride.”  The synesthesia is delightful, coupled by the few moments of peace in the album; instead of another angry tirade against Fate, impotent supernatural beings, and Nature, we have the quiet acceptance of one’s downfall as so often brought about by hubris.  “Blest are they who smile from bodies free / Seems to me like any other crowd / Who are waiting to be saved” ends the first verse-like section of this song.  Is he referring to the stars smiling down, free? or the previous angels vindicated for their indifference? Perhaps — just as distant and uninvolved as people, waiting to be saved, too passive.  And then comes the great turn.  Musically the song has been fast, almost careering out of control.  The realization of his connection with the natural world, and the fate of others, yields a pause in thought.  The musical interlude is more Pink Floyd than Genesis, but only temporarily.  When the hit comes again, powered by impressive sounds from Tony Banks, the king has a better self-understanding.

“Wait, there still is time for washing in the pool / Wash away the past. / Moon, my long-lost friend is smiling from above / Smiling at my tears. / Come we’ll walk the path to take us to my home / Keep outside the night. / The ice-cold knife has come to decorate the dead / Somehow.”  The knife returns again, promising to destroy all that is known — but now the king will not idly give in.  The queen whose fidelity has been questioned throughout may be back, though the king referring to it as “my home” might belie that — it matters little; what matters is the return of the resolution of the king to live and enjoy the day and keep the night of death at bay for as long as possible.

“And each will find a home / And there will still be time / For loving my friend / You are there / And will I wait for ever beside the silent mirror / And fish for bitter minnows amongst the reeds and slimy water.”  This interlude, both emotionally and musically, is the real highlight of the album.  It is a fine example of Genesis’s ability to becalm a situation and then build up to a powerful climax.  “I, I … said I want to sit down. / I, I … said I want to sit down. / I want a drink — I want a drink / To take all the dust and dirt from my throat / I want a drink — I want a drink / To wash out the filth that is deep in my guts / I want a drink.”  The climax of “Stagnation” rivals later Gabriel-era Genesis songs: Peter Gabriel’s vocal performance here is surpassed only by the unsurpassable finale of “Supper’s Ready” on Foxtrot (though, the greatness is comparatively short, and many other later songs as wholes are better than the whole of “Stagnation”).  His flute work after the climax leads to a satisfying march-like resolution supplied by the ethereal chorus: “Then let us drink / Then let us smile / Then let us go.”  The song winds down — though it certainly doesn’t stagnate — and dusk falls.

“Dusk”

“Dusk” is a good example of the band’s need to grow, especially Gabriel’s need to tighten up his lyrical creations.  The song is simple enough, though hard to place in the dual chronologies of the previous songs.  The Victorian idyll sound dominates with no break or contrary theme, which is not bad, since the song is so short it needs little variety.  It is almost a call-and-response song, with Gabriel’s voice dominating the initial verses and the ethereal chorus replying with an impressively parallel pair of choruses (and a third chorus unlike the first two).

“See my hand is moving / Touching all that’s real / And once it stroked love’s body / Now it claws the past” is verselet one.  The tone of Gabriel’s voice does not sound like the voice in previous songs, making the narrator of this song most likely a different persona from the album thus far.  The thought of the lost past continues, as the hand that once touched the body of a loved one now can only claw at the past (a good verb, though the song as a whole reminds us clearly of Gabriel’s youth and relative inexperience at creating lyrics).  The ethereal chorus responds with “The scent of a flower / The colors of the morning / Friends to believe in / Tears soon forgotten / See how the rain drives away another day.”  The disjunction of the ideas is more reminiscent to us today of any typical contemporary “Christian” chorus of seemingly unrelated Bible words than the depth and brilliance of more mature Genesis lyrics.  The musical interludes, though, help distract us away from the near-inanity of the lyrics, reminding us again of the maturing skill of Banks, Rutherford, and Gabriel (Phillips and Mayhew are maturing as well, but since they depart the band after this album, it almost doesn’t matter — Phillips has a very successful career later, but Mayhew sort of disappears into the mist).

Verse two: “If a leaf has fallen / Does the tree lie broken? / And if we draw some water / Does the well run dry?”  The questions seem deep … but they aren’t, not really, especially since the connection to the ideas that begin the song is tenuous at best.  The most impressive part of the song comes from the second chorus/response and its parallel to the first one, at least initially: “The sigh of a mother / The screaming of lovers / Like two angry tigers / They tear at each other. / See how for him lifetime’s fears disappear.”  Are the sigh and scream the two angry tigers tearing at each other, or just the screaming of the lovers tearing at each other?  I really don’t know, but I suspect neither does Peter Gabriel, so it’s okay.  Another enjoyable yet brief musical interlude sets us up for the final vocals of this brief, ambivalent song.

“Once a Jesus suffered / Heaven could not see Him. / And now my ship is sinking / The captain stands alone.”  We don’t need to get up in arms about Gabriel’s notion about Heaven unable to see Jesus — the brief references to a worse-than-deist god earlier in the album are far worse than this speculation; besides, it may be partially true that Heaven could not see Christ on the cross while He was bearing the sins of the world.  The later couplet is more pertinent to the general direction of the album (since we know Jesus recovered far better than Gabriel could imagine — either of them, really).  Instead of the kingdom sinking and the king standing alone as it has been thus far, now the narrator is a captain of a sinking ship, alone on the bridge.  The chorus’s response is enigmatic but strangely fitting for this song: “A pawn on a chessboard / A false move by God will now destroy me / But wait, on the horizon / A new dawn seems to be rising / Never to recall this passerby born to die.”  Despite the brief optimism, it is nothing like the strong renewed resolution in “Stagnation.”  Here it is another aspect of Gabriel’s lyrical growing pains.  A final twelve-string/piano chord-dominated finish leads us to the final (and one of Genesis’s most frenetic) song of this part-idyll, part-maturing transitional album.

“The Knife”

The original album jacket provides this dedication on this song: “For those that Trespass against us.”  This is the only direct reference to the album’s title other than the lyrical reference to Fang’s trespass crime in “White Mountain,” but the “knife” reference has pervaded the album, leading to this modern metaphorical usage.  Not since the ending of “Looking for Someone” have we been clearly in the contemporary time period on this album, but that changes with a stark reappearance of gun-shooting chaos by the close of this song.  Moments ago, I mentioned that “The Knife” is one of Genesis’s most frenetic songs in its entire oeuvre, and that’s true — that’s not to say they never play fast-paced songs, they do; but the pounding nature of this song, mimicking a growing cacophonous riot between constabulary and a demagogue’s posse, is rare for this band.  Even the pounding opening of “Watcher of the Skies” on Foxtrot (and sections of “Supper’s Ready” on the same album) does not reach the malevolent frenzy of “The Knife.”  The previous “knife” references on the album have been about destroying and ending.  Now, it is personified as a seemingly well-intentioned revolutionary who, essentially, is only using force to establish his own tyranny at the expense of others, bringing life as we know it to a more malicious close than the simple outright destruction of other daggers and knives.  Additionally, it may be about law enforcement representatives who are likewise readily willing to use violence to solve problems and quell disturbances.  Knives allow for little stagnation after all.

The danger of young radicals and their philosophies is delineated in the otherwise fine-sounding lyrics that spring forth with the rapid organ pounding of Tony Banks: “Tell me my life is about to begin / Tell me that I am a hero / Promise me all of your violent dreams / Light up your body with anger. / Now, in this ugly world / It is time to destroy all this evil. / Now, when I give the word / Get ready to fight for your freedom / Now — / Stand up and fight, for you know we are right / We must strike at the lies / That have spread like disease through our minds. / Soon we’ll have power, ever soldier will rest / And we’ll spread out our kindness / To all who our love now deserve.”  Such is the rallying cry of most would-be tyrants and despots who, like Marius and Enjolras, think they are doing the right thing for the right reason.  The problem with this line of “thinking” comes in Gabriel’s pointed couplet at the end of this tirade: “Some of you are going to die — / Martyrs of course to the freedom that I shall provide.”  The motivation is clear: it is about power, not about justice or right — isn’t that often the way?

Any grip on morality is lost by the time verse two comes around: “I’ll give you the names of those you must kill / All must die with their children. / Carry their heads to the palace of old / Hang them high, let the blood flow. / Now, in this ugly world / Break all the chains around us / Now, the crusade has begun / Give us a land fit for heroes / Now —.”  The “stand up and fight” chorus returns after this.  It is clear the narrator does not truly want a land fit for heroes, since real heroes will in turn displace this power-motivated revolutionary, like Robespierre’s fate.  The lyrics of this section were changed slightly during live performances, but those emendations are irrelevant here: the point of the song is the same on the album and live on stage.

Both of those verses come out in a rapid pace, and though the audience probably thinks the song is almost over based on the number of words Gabriel has just sung/chanted at them, we are barely two minutes into a nine-minute song.  Suddenly the speed evaporates and the words disappear, and we are waiting for the mob of “freedom fighters” to attack the police barricade.  Soon a quiet and menacing chant of “We are only wanting freedom” begins, supported by other chants the attentive listener will hear, followed by modern police/riot squad responses: shots are fired over their heads and the battle commences, slowly at first, then forcefully and rapidly.  The pulsating tones during the “battle scene” help one realize why this song was so popular during early live concerts (though it sounds nothing like the “Battle of Epping Forest” forthcoming on Selling England By the Pound).  Soon the rioters win, and we can only guess how many “martyrs of freedom” have suffered for this would-be patriot soon-to-be-dictator.  Though we have come a long way from the idyll reverie of the medieval king from the cover, the pervasive knife of destruction was worked its way along the entire tapestry of the album.

“Tell Me My Life is About to Begin”

Though “The Knife” ends somewhat pessimistically, the album as a whole is a fine beginning to the real initialization of Genesis’s career.  It is an optimistic album, with a sound unlike most albums of its time and certainly unlike most albums created today.  Many more changes were about to occur in the life of the band: “The Knife” was soon released as a single, though the cover of it is anachronistic (an odd charge for the album just discussed, admittedly).  The cover bears the five-member line-up of the “classic years” of Genesis: Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Mike Rutherford, Tony Banks, and Steve Hackett — even though Collins and Hackett did not play on “The Knife” or Trespass and only came on after its release to replace John Mayhew and Anthony Phillips, respectively.  This line-up would create the seminal albums of Genesis’s Gabriel-era career: Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot, Selling England By the Pound, and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.  Having gone through their lyrical and musical pubescence, Genesis was about to become what it wanted to be: the culmination of progressive rock in the 1970s, and one of the best rock bands of all time.

Centennial: Their Story is Our Story

Christopher Rush

Introduction

The mini-series (perhaps more accurately “maxi-series”) reached its perfection with 1978-79’s mighty Centennial, the 12-part adaptation of James A. Michener’s novel of the same name.  Not as long as War and Remembrance, not as culturally shattering as Shōgun or Roots, Centennial is nonetheless everything that television mini-series adaptations/original stories could be.  This is its story.

Only the Rocks Live Forever

The mini-series opens with a panoramic shot of the mighty landscape of Colorado, and James Michener himself steps forward to introduce the story: in essence, the story of Centennial is a story of the land and its inhabitants – perhaps more the land itself, though its inhabitants are an integral and changing aspect of how the story is constructed.  The Platte River, the farmland, the open plains; trappers, settlers, farmers, cowboys, shepherds — the land and its people create this story of America.  Under Michener’s direction, the mini-series contracts the first three chapters on the formation of the land and the evolutionary progress of the animals into a brief visual effect and David Jannsen voiceover.  What will become northern Colorado is populated by the Arapaho, including a young boy named Lame Beaver (played, eventually, by the powerful Michael Ansara), who, raised by his uncle, learns, among other key lessons, that human life is frail and temporary: only the rocks live forever.  Lame Beaver makes a name for himself by stealing horses from a rival tribe and bringing them to the Arapaho for the first time.  With the new form of transportation, the Arapaho lifestyle is changed forever, as they join the plains horse culture.  Soon Lame Beaver and the audience are immersed in the pelt-trapping days of the mid-18th century through the French Canadian fur trapper/trader Pasquinel.

Pasquinel (played by Robert Conrad with what always appeared to me to be a believable French-Canadian accent — some may disagree, but that is their right as citizens of the world) is the main character of parts one and two of Centennial — though a trapper and trader, Pasquinel knows the land, the rivers, and the animals, which makes him in one sense the ideal inhabitant according to the novel.  Pasquinel embodies the simplicity of living off the land, not taking too much simply for profit but utilizing the cycles of life without disrupting the balance of nature (unless you count selling guns to various tribes), but he is no thoughtless tree hugger.  He sells guns to competing tribes to gain access to more pelts and safe travel.  After being wounded by the Pawnee, Pasquinel is robbed and assaulted by river pirates who take his pelts after months of work.  Returning to St. Louis (“San Looiee”), Pasquinel is forced to partner with Bavarian silversmith Herman Bockweiss (Raymond Burr without a wheelchair) as his financial backer.  With the Pawnee arrow permanently stuck in his back, Pasquinel furthers his ties to St. Louis by marrying Bockweiss’s daughter Lise (Sally Kellerman) — he does love her, in as limited a fashion as he is capable of, but he never hides the fact he is mostly interested in financial support for his fur trading life.

Back in the field, Pasquinel meets the naïve yet thoroughly honest (and, frankly, totally awesome) young Scotchman Alexander McKeag (the one and only Richard Chamberlain, king of the mini-series).  Rescuing him from his own nemeses the Pawnee, Pasquinel trains McKeag in the ways of the American fur trade, and they become life-long friends … of a sort.  Like all epic heroes, McKeag is soon wounded rather drastically, primarily because he doesn’t listen to Pasquinel during an Indian coup.  Pasquinel saves McKeag’s life and helps him regain his confidence, just in time for the major schism in their friendship to occur: her name is Clay Basket (Barbara Carrera); she is Lame Beaver’s daughter.

Clay Basket falls for shy, gentle McKeag, naturally; Lame Beaver, however, demands that she marry Pasquinel, ensuring both her financial security and the continual supply of guns to the Arapaho.  Lame Beaver settles his plans for his family before ending his life-long feud with the Pawnee — but not before he discovers gold in a nearby riverbed, though he doesn’t know its future significance; to him, it is a shiny malleable metal useful for making bullets to kill his enemy.  When McKeag and Pasquinel return the following season, Pasquinel marries Clay Basket and learns about the gold, believing she would know where her father found the gold.  McKeag, knowing his friend does not love her, recognizes the motivation behind Pasquinel’s actions, and their friendship starts to fray.

The Yellow Apron

Years pass and Clay Basket gives birth to Jacques and Marcel.  Pasquinel continues to spend time both in the field with McKeag and his Arapaho family as well as time in St. Louis with Lise.  McKeag does not approve, of course, but remains loyal as long as he can, in part because he cannot part from Clay Basket.  Jacques senses the tension, though he does not understand it.  Pasquinel, upon his return, foolishly determines to take his family to St. Louis; at an army fort, drunken soldiers deride Pasquinel and his half-breed family, resulting in a serious wounding of Jacques, who never forgives the White Man for what happens to him; later, Jacques is also wounded by a Native arrow, cementing his (and his brother’s) isolation from both worlds.  Pasquinel spends time with Lise, letting her know about his Arapaho family (though, being a wife, she had suspected so for a long time, just as Clay Basket does); McKeag tries to teach Jacques and Marcel how to trap in the meantime, though Jacques soon grows tired of his substitute father.  Eventually Jacques takes his frustration out on McKeag, stabbing him nearly to death.  McKeag retaliates briefly but he restrains himself; after all, Jacques is Clay Basket’s son, but he is also “twisted” with rage, and McKeag knows he can no longer stay.

Though Pasquinel salvages a temporarily successful family life with Clay Basket and the boys (and his future daughter), he soon becomes obsessed with discovering Lame Beaver’s gold strike.  Meanwhile, McKeag becomes an isolated mountain man, trapping alone and almost going mad from the lack of community.  Eventually he learns of a Rendezvous of mountain men (one of the many historically accurate events Michener includes throughout his grand saga) and decides to go, if only to see his former friend (and Clay Basket) again.

At the Rendezvous, McKeag releases some pent-up frustration, even wearing the Yellow Apron to show off a classic Highland dance — during which he reunites with Pasquinel, and they are able to set aside their differences and enjoy some time together as old friends.  One of the key traits of Centennial is that noble, generous people often have both a second chance at love and the time to amend past wrongs — not everyone does, but most of the “heroes” of the tale do, primarily because of their goodness.  By this time, Jacques (Jake) and Marcel (Mike) have grown up to be angry young men, though Jacques is far angrier than Marcel.  Jacques can shoot better than most white men, even with their muskets.  The reunion is short-lived, however, as the old arrow wound acts up and causes Pasquinel to pass out.  At Pasquinel’s request, McKeag cuts out the arrowhead, giving it to Jacques as a souvenir.  Pasquinel asks McKeag to join them, at least to see Clay Basket again (who is away, tending their young daughter Lucinda), but McKeag refuses.

Years later, McKeag makes his way to St. Louis and meets Lise and her daughter Lisette, telling Lise the truth about Pasquinel and his life.  Lise in turn convinces McKeag to follow his heart after all these years and confront Pasquinel and try to win Clay Basket for himself (though not out of selfishness to have her husband all to herself — it is too late for that).  McKeag does so, in part because Jacques and Marcel are no longer with their parents.  Pasquinel finally finds Lame Beaver’s gold, only to be mortally wounded by Arapaho warriors.  McKeag and Clay Basket come upon him in his final moments, and Pasquinel entrusts her to McKeag, knowing he will take far better care of her than he ever did.  Not knowing the gold is around them, McKeag leads Clay Basket and Lucinda away to a new life.

The Wagon and the Elephant

Part three sends the story in a new direction while (like Les Misérables) also rejoining the original storyline already in motion.  Parts 1-5 are a loosely unified story about Native Americans and other early inhabitants of the land (trappers, mountain men, and prospectors); parts 3-8 are also the extended story of Levi Zendt, a Mennonite runaway, and his industriousness helping turn the land from its rugged, natural beginnings to a bastion of civilization (with other sub-stories about the land and its inhabitants along the way).  Parts 9-11 resolve some of the other storylines already developed midway through the series, bringing the land into the 20th century.  Part 12 takes place a couple generations later, acting more as a dénouement than a direct resolution, eventually leading to the tale of Centennial being told., bringing the series full-circle (in a Roots-like way).

Levi Zendt (Gregory Harrison) is a young, hardworking, honest Mennonite growing up in Pennsylvania in the middle of the 19th century.  Despite the strenuous and strict lifestyle, Levi finds himself interested in young Rebecca who, unbeknownst to him, is also sought after by his elder brother.  Rebecca knows this, and being one of those girls, coquettes Levi in front of the orphanage, then, as girls of that ilk tend to do, shifts the blame upon Levi, whose reputation is ruined.  He is formally shunned by his family, except his intelligent mother who gives him money and the family horses, telling him to leave and start a new (real) life for himself.  He begins his new life by buying the eponymous wagon and then picking up Elly Zahm (Stephanie Zimbalist at the precipice of her Remington Steele fame), his friend at the orphanage who knew Rebecca was making up the story.  Together, they embark for the west, totally unprepared yet vital and enthusiastic.  Their first stop (after getting married) is St. Louis.  There, they join a group following the Oregon Trail with young and authoritative Captain Maxwell Mercy (Chad Everett) and his wife Lisette Pasquinel Mercy.  Also on the trip is naïve English author Oliver Seccombe (Timothy Dalton before his hardened James Bond days) trying to prove Native Americans derived from Welshmen.  This ragtag group is led by the thoroughly repugnant (both physically and morally) mountain man Sam Purchase (Donald Pleasance in one of his least pleasant roles, which is saying quite a bit for his storied career).  Without Levi’s knowledge, Purchase sells Levi’s family horses for cattle, ending Levi’s last tie with his old life (he’s sort of a mix of Marius and Aeneas, really).  Captain Mercy is on deployment to a frontier army fort (at which McKeag and his family live) in part to set up connections with the western tribes, hoping his wife can make emotional ties to Jake and Mike Pasquinel, now grown up terrors on the plains, since she is their half-sister (to the extreme).

After meeting McKeag, Clay Basket, and now-grown Lucinda, Levi and Elly continue west without the safety of Captain Mercy.  Soon into the trip, Purchase tries to rape Elly, though Seccombe and Levi prevent it (and then Seccombe prevents Levi from killing Purchas).  For Levi and Elly, this is the last straw, the eponymous “elephant” (something so big and devastating that it destroys all hopes for the future and ends their plans in failure).  Upon their forlorn return east, they team up with McKeag and his family to start a new settlement and trading post away from the army fort and closer to Clay Basket’s Arapaho home grounds, in part because Elly is now pregnant and she doesn’t want to head too far in their old wagon in her condition.  Before they can begin this new phase of their life, Elly is bitten by a rattlesnake and dies instantly.  Devastated, Levi leaves the McKeags and their trading post for McKeag’s old mountain man isolated fort, mourning for Elly and their unborn child.

For as Long as the Waters Flow and The Massacre

After what may or may not be an appropriate mourning period, Lucinda McKeag goes to console Levi in his isolation and grief.  Furthering Centennial’s trope of second-chances for love, Levi and Lucinda begin their romantic relationship shortly thereafter.  As that begins, the story adds another element: Hans Brumbaugh (Alex Karras) and his farming.  Brumbaugh does not begin as a farmer; in fact, he begins as a prospector who runs into Spade Larkin, another prospector looking for Lame Beaver’s gold.  Larkin pesters Lucinda too much about the gold, believing she would know where her grandfather’s gold came from, but she obviously doesn’t.  Without her help, Larkin and Brumbaugh find the vein but have an altercation resulting in Larkin’s death.  Brumbaugh feels guilty about Larkin’s accidental death, leaving the gold behind for a new life as a potato farmer, buying land from Clay Basket.

The major focus of parts four and five is the conclusion of the “Indian Problem.”  McKeag’s role in the story comes to a conclusion during Levi and Lucinda’s wedding.  Though she has spent time back in St. Louis developing her literacy (and fending off the romantic pursuit of young Mark Harmon), Lucinda has committed her heart to Levi.  Jake and Mike, taking a break from harassing settlers and farmers (though they believe they are defending their territory from interlopers, and they are probably right), come to see their mother and sister again.  Jake and McKeag even lay aside their life-long grudge for the sake of Lucinda’s happiness and the potential reconciliation of Indian and white settler.  During a revisit of the Highland reel that helped reunite him with Pasquinel, McKeag has a heart attack and dies in Clay Basket’s arms.  With him dies as well any real chance of formal unity between the Indian tribes and the westward-moving American settlers/army.  Major Mercy returns as well to further the negotiations.  Jake and Mike are willing to listen to him, knowing his integrity, and eventually some treaties are signed, granting the Arapaho and other nations certain lands “for as long as the waters flow.”  Levi, having taken over McKeag’s trading post and role as peacemaker, can only do so much to stem the tide of governmental deception concerning the Indian nations.  We all know that despite Mercy’s integrity and willingness to ensure his promises, it is only delaying the inevitable expansion of post-colonial America.  The burgeoning Civil War also marks the end of peaceful cooperation with the Indians.

“The Massacre” is probably the saddest episode of the entire series, bringing to a close all the major storylines and characters that began this saga as well as showing, in a remarkable degree of honesty, the lack of integrity and humanness of 19th-century American governmental and military policy and action.  Centennial really has only two major villains: Frank Skimmerhorn here in part five and Mervin Wendell in parts nine through eleven (three, if you count Wendell’s wife Maude), but Skimmerhorn (played frighteningly well by otherwise-nice guy Richard Crenna) is clearly the worst character in the entire saga.  With the army presence on the frontier decreased due to the Civil War back east, the Pasquinel brothers have been causing a great deal of disturbance.  Playing upon settlers’ excited passions, Skimmerhorn (who already has a preternatural hatred for all-things Indian based on things he experienced back in Minnesota) gathers a militia with official army support and leads a raid on the remnants of the Arapaho people, who by now have no weapons, no warriors, and virtually no horses.  Mark Harmon’s character, Captain McIntosh, returns as a member of Skimmerhorn’s army, though he refuses to join in on the massacre and is temporarily discharged.  The arrant perniciousness of Skimmerhorn is exemplified in his line “nits turn into lice,” when referring to two Arapaho infants being held by one of his acolytes.  The “soldier” assassinates the two infants, revolting young Private Clark who joins Captain McIntosh’s dissenters.  The massacre becomes public knowledge but as a victory against Indian aggression.  During McIntosh’s court martial, adjudicated by General Asher (Pernell Roberts sans stethoscope) who had earlier assisted Mercy’s negotiations with the tribes, Private Clark’s testimony about Skimmerhorn’s actions and comment about the baby Arapaho sway public sentiment against Skimmerhorn, and McIntosh is restored to honor (though he has, of course, forever lost Lucinda to Levi).  Despite the temporary backlash, Skimmerhorn rebounds back into popularity enough to gather a militia to lynch the Pasquinel brothers.  Stephen McHattie’s performance as Jacques (Jake) has been sterling for several episodes, but his performance at the end under Skimmerhorn’s abuse is stellar.  Once they learn of Jake’s death, Levi and Lucinda convince world-weary Mike to turn himself in to the “real authorities,” since only then can he get a “fair trial.”  He never gets one.  On the way to turning himself in, Mike is shot in the back by Skimmerhorn.  Mercy is so enraged by Skimmerhorn’s actions that he challenges him to a duel, willing to abandon his military career to end Skimmerhorn (even though it is essentially too late).  Skimmerhorn’s son John arrives in time to see Mercy beat him nearly to death — though Levi prevents him; sickened by his father’s behavior, John rejects him outright.  Skimmerhorn is banished from Colorado, the damage already done.  The Civil War ends, the army returns, the Indians are gone, and so are all the original characters and storylines from the beginning of the saga.  It is time for a new focus.

The Longhorns and The Shepherds

The new focus comes dramatically and starkly with episode six, “The Longhorns.”  Only a couple of the new stars of the series make brief appearances, and the focus shifts to the new diverse inhabitants of the land: this time, the cattlemen.  Oliver Seccombe returns, having failed as a writer, now giving cattle baron a try on behalf of the Earl Venneford estates of England.  Utilizing the Homestead Act in a rather shady way, Seccombe and the Venneford Ranch eventually overtake over six million acres — in part by claiming the right of contiguity: their cattle can also roam on land contiguous to their own.  Though Seccombe is still trying to be an amiable and honest business man, the pressures of his role and his own lack of experience in cattle ranching eventually overcome his integrity, though not for some time.

Hans Brumbaugh is one of the main opponents of the Venneford, but his antipathy is only touched on here in a brief confrontation with Seccombe.  The majority of the episode is turned over to a new set of characters led by Dennis Weaver as R.J. Poteet.  John Skimmerhorn returns to live down his father’s shame by doing good for the community by assisting Seccombe with a cattle drive from Texas up to Colorado, where the location of the series takes place, in what is now called Zendt’s Farm in the Colorado Territory.  Skimmherhorn gets the assistance of Poteet, the best trail boss in the business, as well as the typical rag-tag group of experienced cattlemen who know all the old jokes; the typical youngster who needs to settle a family debt and become a man, Jim Lloyd (soon played by William Atherton much less smarmy than he is in Die Hard one and two); and even the typical Mexican cook Nacho.  The drive features all the stock Western cattle-drive movie elements: Indian skirmishes, lack of water, internal conflict with the loner, Jim’s struggles coming of age on the drive, losing a few guys we’ve come to love from injury and sickness, and the eventual success of the trip.  Along the way are the occasional Natty Bumppo-like messages about the greatness and grandeur of the natural world, the open range, and how these days are never going to come again, due, ironically enough, because of the very things the cowboys are doing: establishing mega-ranches and centralized townships of power along the frontier, turning it from an untamed, natural wilderness into civilization itself — an irony the Poteet himself wistfully realizes and laments.  Though the episode has all the attributes of a stereotypical treatment of the “ol’ West,” it escapes the syrupy-sweetness of what it could have been and is rather an enjoyable episode, despite having almost no connection to the episodes and characters (and scenery) that have come before.  The characters, though typical, are real and engaging, the conflicts, though typical, are likewise believable, tense, and entertaining.  The message of the episode, as so often occurs throughout Centennial, is present without being heavy-handed, and we end up believing the cowboys and, despite the hardships, miss the days and freedom of the open range.

The ever-changing nature of the passage of time and life is furthered by the next episode, “The Shepherds,” which acts in part as a dénouement to “The Longhorns” as well as another transition to the next few episodes, as the saga of the land and its inhabitants takes on new guises and new conflicts.  Though it is called “The Shepherds,” it is more about the conflict of the land’s new inhabitants: homesteaders, farmers, shepherds, and cattlemen.  The land can only sustain so much, and the arrival of Messmore Garrett and his sheep is the last straw.  As Seccombe and secret agents of the Venneford start gobbling up farm land, Seccombe’s financiers force him to descend into hiring gunmen to drive off homesteaders and shepherds, despite the fact some of the men attacked and killed are former cowboys he hired to bring the cattle to the Venneford in the first place years ago.  Time passes rather quickly between episodes, sometimes confusingly so, but the theme of time passing does not affect our emotional attachment to the new characters, especially as they sometimes meet tragic ends at the hands of other characters we care about.  Adding an extra layer to Seccombe’s character is his romance to Charlotte Buckland (Lynn Redgrave), daughter of one of his visiting financiers.  Their romance continues Centennial’s theme of second chances for love, but we also have the sense that Seccombe is becoming a cattle baron version of Macbeth, despite his growing amour.

The uncontrollable passage of time is shown clearly in this episode during David Jannsen’s voiceover: Zendt’s Farm is now called Centennial, and the Colorado Territories is now a state in the union (called Colorado).  The Arapaho, like most Indian tribes, have been removed to reservations (in a great symbolic scene).  The lawless frontier days are no more, and this new structure and civilization is embodied in husky Sheriff Axel Dumire (Brian Keith in a role that won’t surprise you).  The range war is his major target, and though it reaches an unusual end with a unique amalgamation of the warring factions for a matter of vengeance, Dumire closes the episode by scolding the various warring parties: this battle is over, and time moves on; if one wants to live in a civilized town, one has to comport oneself in a civilized way.  It’s time to bury the dead and let life move on.

The Storm and The Crime

At this point of the series, the character role call has grown rather large, and it is time for both flashbacks of key events and a bit of a clearing out.  Calling “The Storm” another “Longhorns” dénouement would be partly correct, in that we see more of the Poteet cattle drive characters make a brief (and tragic) return, but the episode serves more as a continued transition to the character conflicts of the final episodes.  The timing of this episode is a bit confusing, in that Levi is visiting his Pennsylvania kinsman for the first time in decades, and that trip supposedly only takes a few weeks, but back in Centennial it appears a few months (or more) have passed (the spring of “The Shepherds” has been replaced by an early winter).  The recent theme of the inevitable passage of time is set in stark contrast to the unchanging (stagnation?) of Mennonite Pennsylvania.  Levi is able to finally reconcile with his family and tell Elly’s old friend about her death, but the entire trip is unsatisfactory for him — this is not his home; his home is in Centennial with Lucinda.

Oliver Seccombe’s financial troubles escalate throughout this episode, despite the efforts of Charlotte to encourage him and help him see his good qualities.  Though we completely believe Oliver’s love for the land and his sacrificial tactics to provide for Charlotte, we also know he has engaged in dubious practices to maintain the patina of prosperity for the Venneford backers in England.  The arrival of accountant Finlay Perkin (Clive Revill) furthers Seccombe’s concern, since British accountancy does not align with American-range bookkeeping.  The eponymous storm by the end of the episode destroys the crops, the cattle, and Oliver’s hopes.

Though the episode begins with some of the funnier moments in the series (especially in the later group of episodes), it does not end very humorously.  In addition to the destruction of Seccombe’s hopes and dreams, the storm brings the end of one major story and the beginning of the last story: after his return from his Pennsylvania visit, Levi makes some weighty and impressive (though theme-heavy) comments about man as an individual and his responsibility in the face of Time and History … only to be killed shortly thereafter in a railway accident, filmed in a heartbreakingly perfect way, for all of the irony involved.  Lucinda is still around for awhile, true, but the death of Levi really concludes all ties to the characters and struggles from the beginning of the saga: and appropriately enough, the episode ends with a brief flashback tribute to the characters that had come before, characters who cared more about the land than the people who inhabit it now seem to do.

The last character arc/story begun at the end of “The Storm” is further developed in “The Crime,” and that is the story of the Wendells, travelling actors (con artists more like) that have prior acquaintanceship with Sheriff Dumire.  Though they are struggling actors trying to be honest and make a living at first (or so it appears), their shady past catches up to them and Dumire impounds their earnings, leaving them penniless and homeless — until the gullible preacher comes by, rescues them, and soon falls for Maude Wendell, allowing them to pull the ol’ “badger game” on him, blackmailing him out of a home and steady income.  Soon the Wendells get cocky and careless and the badger game backfires, resulting in the death of a businessman by Maude — their son Philip, witness to the whole event, hides the body in an underground cave in the same area that houses Lame Beaver’s gold strike, though he doesn’t notice.  The Wendells take the businessman’s wealth, but they realize he can’t spend it for that would arouse Dumire’s suspicions.

The last of the old characters ends his story in “The Crime” as well, as Oliver Seccombe, saddened by the loss of the land more than the loss of his cattle empire, commits suicide on the range, leaving Charlotte alone.  She soon returns to England.  The Indians are gone.  The fur traders and mountain men are gone.  The pioneers are now industrialists and businessmen.  Nothing’s the same anymore.

The Winds of Fortune and The Winds of Death

With very little connection to the beginning of this saga, some might find these final episodes dull and irrelevant, but that would be a great disservice to what Michener’s entire purpose is: reminding us that time passes, things change, but the land remains, and we need to be wise stewards of it.

Charlotte returns from her England trip and soon falls for the older Jim Lloyd, though their romance, like all romances in this saga, goes through its initial hiccoughs.  By now Jim is essentially the last of the old cattle drive people; the shepherds have had their way, the cattle are almost no more, and even Brumbaugh and his new beet empire reach their zenith as he, too, has to adapt to new ways of living.  Homesteaders are likewise a thing of the past and the civilized land Dumire helped to establish is quickly becoming the modern world of the twentieth century.

The Wendells’ conflict with Dumire reaches an interesting plateau, as young Philip has to balance his admiration for the strong, noble lawman with his commitment and filial obligations to his shady parents.  Dumire never gives up his suspicions that the Wendells are connected to the mysterious disappearance of that businessman, but before he can prove anything, the previous unsolved mystery of the range war murders from “The Shepherds” comes back to destroy him.  With Dumire out of the way, the Wendells are free to spend their ill-gotten money, investing in land development and real estate — assuredly in ways opposed to Levi Zendt, McKeag, and Pasquinel.

As its name indicates, “The Winds of Death” brings a lot of these later conflicts and characters to a sad conclusion — such is the way of life.  The implication that the 20th century is the worst era of the history of the Platte lands is there for the audience to see, but Michener is always optimistic that we can learn from these mistakes and decisions and return to wise stewardship without expecting the land to do what it cannot do.  The horrible consequences of demanding too much from the land is displayed during the scariest scenes of the entire series at the close of this episode.  Despite warnings from quite old Hans Brumbaugh and almost as old Jim Lloyd, Earl and Alice Grebe buy dry prairie land from the Wendells and try to farm there.  Despite his guilt about his family’s past and his association with Dumire, Philip Wendell soon involves himself in the family business of shady real estate banditry, foreclosing on farmers during the crises of World War I and the Dust Bowl — almost making one yearn for the days of Seccombe and the Venneford, which by this time is much smaller than it used to be but has become its most successful in its new incarnation, thanks to industrious Jim and Charlotte Lloyd.  During the height of the Dust Bowl, and perhaps the scariest incidental music in the history of television, Alice Grebe goes insane, killing most of her family and is then killed by her husband who then commits suicide.  Shortly thereafter, unrelatedly, Jim Lloyd dies and we know the story is almost over.

The Scream of Eagles

By the late 1970s, Centennial, Colorado is barely recognizable from what it once was and now looks very much like a modern American city, still suffering from the Western travails of racial discrimination, opportunism, and the pressures of ecological remediation.  Philip Wendell (now played by Robert Vaughn) is, likewise, no longer recognizable from the morally impressionable young boy he was to the late-middle-aged entrepreneur he has become under his parents’ tutelage.  In contrast is Paul Garrett (David Janssen on screen, finally, after narrating 11 episodes), current owner of the Venneford Ranch and descendent, somehow, of most of the major characters in Centennial’s history: Messmore Garrett, Jim Lloyd, Levi Zendt, Pasquinel, Lame Beaver, and more.  Eventually, Garrett is persuaded to run against Wendell in the upcoming election for Commissioner of Resources, an office that will be responsible for managing the region’s economic growth and historic preservation: the ideologies clashing through the entire saga reach a clear climax.

Meanwhile, Sidney Endermann (Sharon Gless — Cagney, not Lacey)  and Lew Vernor (Andy Griffith) arrive to capture the history of Centennial, finding a valuable resource in Paul Garrett.  Their inquiries into the land and its inhabitants convince Garrett to run for office against Wendell, in part, because of his growing frustration with governmental treatment of, well, everyone and everything.  Instead of giving up or just complaining, Garrett can become part of the system and work effectively to bring about change and restoration: again, the optimistic message of Centennial is clear.  During their investigation, Vernor discovers the old cave that houses the corpse of the man Wendell’s mother murdered years ago, frightening Wendell.  He, in turn, does his best to smear Garrett during their competing campaigns, but it appears by the end (though never explained explicitly) that Garrett wins, furthering the optimism of the saga.  With the future looking bright, provided wisdom and ecological responsibility win out over unbridled acquisitiveness, Vernor and Endermann start writing the history of Centennial, bringing the saga full circle.

Their Story is Our Story

Perhaps you are wondering why I told you the whole story, and why, perhaps, you should bother watching the series now that you know what happens (or why, even, you should read the almost thousand-page novel).  Though it might not seem like it, I certainly did not tell you the entire story.  A saga like this has many more characters, plotlines, conflicts, and themes that can be adequately summarized here — even the main characters and storylines are much more interesting and enjoyable than the treatment given above.  The novel, especially, has a great deal more content than the mini-series has, particularly about the early prehistory of the land and Brumbaugh’s beet industry.  The differences between the versions are not terribly important, though Morgan Wendell is a better person in the book than in the mini-series.  It is a full, involving, quality story (in both versions), and it should be enjoyed be everyone simply because it is a great story: the characters are real, the history is true, and the ideas are engaging and relevant.  Finally available on dvd, though the people who wrote the summaries on the dvd cases sometimes sound like they haven’t seen the episodes, we can watch Centennial whenever we want.  Additionally, the retrospective bonus feature is an enjoyable look back with some of the major actors, sharing memories and interesting tidbits of filming this mega-masterpiece; it’s always nice to hear key actors in major roles talk appreciatively of their parts, their fellow actors (especially the kind things Robert Conrad and Barbara Carrera have to say about Richard Chamberlain), and the cultural significance of the work itself.  Essentially, though, you should read the novel and enjoy the mini-series for the same reason James A. Michener created the story in the first place.  As he says in his introductory monologue

I suppose my primary reason for writing the book Centennial was to ask us, you and me, if we’re aware of what’s happening right now to this land we love, this earth we depend upon for life.…  It’s a big story about the people who helped make this country what it is and the land that makes the people what they are.  And it’s a story about time, not just as a record but also a reminder: a reminder that during the few years allotted to each of us, we are the guardians of the earth.  We are at once the custodians of our heritage and the caretakers of our future.

Centennial is the great adventure of the American West, and this story, their story, is our story.  Its message is as true and relevant today as it was thirty years ago.  That is reason enough to read it, watch it, and treasure it again and again … for as long as the waters flow.

Where the Sour Turns to Sweet — From Genesis to Revelation: Gabriel’s Genesis Retrospective, pt. 1

Christopher Rush

Series Introduction

You don’t listen to enough Genesis.  In part to celebrate the band’s induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (sixteen years late), we present an analytical tribute.  This series of analyses is predicated on the assumption that if you know anything about Genesis, it’s probably that you have heard “Invisible Touch” on the radio and thought it was just Phil Collins.  While that’s a fine start and most likely not really your fault, you are missing out on an amazing musical world of a unique band.  Ideally, this series of analyses will entice you to get your own copies of Genesis’s oeuvre and enjoy them forever.  As much as I might want to just dive in to my favorite albums (Foxtrot, Selling England by the Pound, A Trick of the Tail), it is important to take this systematically from the beginning … sort of.  The point of this series is not to give you a biographical context of the band, its members, or its critical reception (though a bit of that will be done).  Neither are we going to avail ourselves of the too-small library of literature available on the band and their music (biographies, dvd bonus interviews, and the like) — this is primarily a formalist critical approach, one listener to another.  Nor are we endeavoring to analyze Genesis’s place in propinquity with The Moody Blues, King Crimson, or Yes.  Instead, the focus is the music itself, and, so as not to get entirely unwieldy, the focus will primarily limit itself to the main studio album releases themselves.  I envision that time this year will only permit us, at best, to make it though the Peter Gabriel era and, hopefully, just preview the Phil Collins era with A Trick of the Tail.  Essentially, that means we will not get to any of the “radio hits” of the late ’70s and early ’80s incarnation this season — but that is okay.  Our main purpose, then, is to explore the creativity and unsurpassed brilliance of the Peter Gabriel era of Genesis.

In the Beginning

In 1967, four friends at Charterhouse School, Peter Gabriel, Tony Banks, Mike Rutherford, and Anthony Phillips, gathered together and formed the band Genesis, under the direction (after a fashion) of Jonathan King.  Chis Stewart joined the band on drums and soon came the single “The Silent Sun,” an intentional pastiche of the Bee Gees’ sound (from the ’60s, remember, before their now-trademark ’70s Disco style) and nothing like the soon unmistakable Genesis sound.  Another single, “A Winter’s Tale,” followed three months later and so did Chris Stewart’s replacement, John Silver.  As the title of their first album indicates, From Genesis to Revelation is loosely based on the Bible.  Unsurprisingly, many record shops placed the album in their “religious” sections, which might account, in part, for its poor, almost non-existent, reception.  Additionally, the bandmates were 16-18 years old in 1968 when the album was made, without any prior recording experience — From Genesis to Revelation is an inaugural album in every sense of the word, but like most bands’ inaugural albums, it has a certain (perhaps sentimental) aura.

Without the members’ knowledge, producer Jonathan King overdubbed strings and horns and sequenced the songs to cement the “concept”-like nature of the album.  Shortly after its release, Genesis and Jonathan King parted ways.  King wanted to continue the radio-friendly short song format, but Genesis wanted to expand into longer, radio-unfriendly territory.  Fortunately for us all, the young lads of Genesis stuck to their creative daemons (the positive ones).  John Silver was replaced by John Mayhew, the band started working on what would become Trespass, and they signed to Charisma Records.

Though it was released on Decca Records (home of The Moody Blues), From Genesis to Revelation has been licensed to several other recording labels, which thus explains its absence from the recent Genesis 1970-1975 box set.  Its best availability now is on either a one-cd version (that contains some of the non-album singles) or a two-cd version (with even more of the non-album singles and some interview material).

“And it’s all gone wrong”

Though we stated above our primary purpose is to discuss the major studio albums of the Peter Gabriel era, some words on the initial single releases are in order first — even though they aren’t much like the Gabriel Genesis sound as we know it today.  It began with “The Silent Sun,” with “That’s Me” on the B-side.  Released, as we’ve said, as a copy of a sort of the Bee Gees’ ’60s sound, this first single was made, in part, to regain King’s interest in the band, since he was a Bee Gees fan.  As with much of From Genesis to Revelation, music fans of the era might recognize more of The Moody Blues than the Bee Gees.  Listening through these early songs, unless one knew it was Genesis (or could recognize Gabriel’s young voice), one might suspect it was The Moody Blues or The Turtles or possibly even some generic British Invasion assembly line band.  Their early demo work is proof of this: “Image Blown Out,” only recently made available to the public, is pure ’60s British pop music: you think it’s possibly Chad and Jeremy, maybe Herman’s Hermits, and then suddenly The Association shows up to provide the chorus.  “She’s So Beautiful” is better and becomes a template for “The Serpent” on From Genesis to Revelation.  “Patricia” becomes “In Hiding” on the album with lyrics added.  “Try a Little Sadness” is quintessential demo material, though its message on the importance of sadness in a maturing relationship is mildly impressive.  The completists out there (of whom I am trying to be one) will need to get the Genesis Archive 1967-75 and the Genesis 1970-1975 box sets for the rest of the demo material.

The Days of Future Passed influence is palpable in the lyrics of “The Silent Sun” (you do know, right, that Days of Future Passed is the second Moody Blues album, one of the best albums of all time?  If not, get it, listen to it, and begin your lifetime of Moody Blues listening with your lifetime of Genesis listening ).  Lyrically, the song covers a range of natural images: the sun, a tiny stone, a mountain stream chilling the sea, a star-filled night sky, snowflakes healing an otherwise ugly ground.  The variety, as you can imagine, instead of creating a unified whole leads to several discrete thoughts and images about as rambling as every band’s first song usually is.  The chorus is also about as bland as any typical love song can get: “Baby you feel so close / I wish you could see my love, / Baby you’ve changed my life / I’m trying to show you.”  Musically, the song is nice but unremarkable.  The ambiguity of some of the lyrics is the highlight of the song, in that we can see early signs of Gabriel’s lyrical ingenuity, though still in its embryonic stage.

“That’s Me” could easily be mistaken for a musical theater number from the 1960s.  Strangely enough, there’s more connected “sun” language and imagery throughout “That’s Me” than “The Silent Sun.”  As a song, the lyrics are more unified and developed, though the development is slight at best.  We see again the developing lyricism of Peter Gabriel: the narrator, at odds with society and, to a degree, the natural world, is uncertain for most of the song who he is, who he has been, and what his place is in an untrustworthy world.  By the end of the song, the narrator has realized some unsettling things about himself and ends with a plaintive cry for assistance.

The follow-up single release of “A Winter’s Tale”/“One-eyed Hound” is likewise nondescript.  “A Winter’s Tale” is a much more gentle song, lyrically and musically.  The natural world is not as hostile this time.  The chorus is very much Moody Blues-influenced, but it is still nice on its own, though some might find it a bit grating, which would be a sound engineering mixing issue — nothing under the control of the band at that time in their career.  “One-eyed Hound” is an oddity.  It would be easy to see it as a not-so-subtle sexual metaphor: “Night is the time for chasing the one-eyed hound” is repeated throughout — but that is too easy and, in context, erroneous.  The “one-eyed hound” is a person: verse two says “Have you seen the one-eyed hound? / Tell me where he’s going.”  Verse one seems to indicate the one-eyed hound has himself been “[c]hasing dogs in the moonlight,” but for some reason that is “a sin” for which “he never can win.”  The ambiguity of this song is not as impressive, lyrically, as “The Silent Sun” or “That’s Me.”  The other repeated line, “And it’s all gone wrong,” may be a much better summation of Genesis’ career at this point: at odds with their management, unsure of their own musical and lyrical abilities, unknown by the public, and mis-categorized by record stores.

Turning the Sour into Sweet

Though the band doesn’t seem to care much about these early days, and this initial album is only tenuously connected to their main oeuvre, From Genesis to Revelation did provide what all bourgeoning bands need: practice.  With this album, Gabriel got experience writing lyrics, Banks and Rutherford got experience playing and recording in the studio, and the band got experience playing together.  Not everything else was a total loss, though: some of the musical ideas can be heard in more mature forms in later albums, and many of them are turned into fuller instrumental versions during live performances.

The album begins with another musical-theatre-like opening: it sounds at first like the Sharks and the Jets are back.  Instead, Peter Gabriel is inviting the audience to join them on a musical tour of the Bible (after a fashion).  The biblical veracity of Gabriel’s invitation is tenuous at best, but for a pop song, it’s unusually substantial.  By filling our minds with love and searching for the world of future glory full of sunshine gliding in, the darkness inside us will creep out.  At this world of future glory, “where the sour turns to sweet,” we can leave our “ugly selfish shell / To melt in the glowing flames.”  It is certainly a much more Biblical idea that we are naturally selfish than the Rousseauean/Romantic idea we are naturally good.  With this invitation to join the band on a journey to transform from sour into sweet, Genesis’s real musical career begins.

From Genesis to Revelation is a remarkably disjointed album, musically, furthering the kinship to Days of Future Passed.  After the di-melodic “Where the Sour Turns to Sweet,” the album changes melodic directions with “In the Beginning.”  The album we have (in its many variations) is, whether Genesis wanted it as such or not, a concept album, and “In the Beginning” clearly initiates that.  The initial musical aspect of the song is a fine representation of the creation of the material cosmos: it is a very believable “sound of a new born world.”  Lyrically, “In the Beginning” is more reminiscent of Ovid’s Metamorphoses than the Bible.  Instead of immediate design and order, the world fashions itself through flux and a dialectical clash.  Instead of the purpose of a Divine Person, “You’re in the hands of destiny.”  One might wonder at this point why this album is being recommended, if it distorts the actual book of Genesis: the final stanza of the song brings back the lyrical splay into a more Biblical conception, at least the second half of it.  The first half continues the diverse creation myths: “Is that a chariot with stallions gold? / Is that a prince of heaven on the ground? / Is that the roar of a thunderflash?”  The chariot with gold stallions is reminiscent of Helios, and “roar of a thunderflash” has all the appearance of Zeus’s mighty thunderbolts.  The “prince of heaven on the ground” could be Satan, though it seems more likely to be either an angel or even a theophany.  The remainder of this stanza is especially relevant: “This is my world and it’s waiting to be crowned / Father, son, looks down with happiness / Life is on its way.”  Assuming the Father and Son mentioned here are the two-thirds of the Biblical Trinity, God certainly did look down with happiness, especially considering the Biblical language of humanity acting as a crown to God’s creation: life was, indeed, on its way.  Listening to this album is more beneficial than eschewing it, naïvely.

“Fireside Song” is a good foreshadowing of the musical skill that Genesis was to develop in so many of their memorable and mature albums, especially Foxtrot, Selling England By the Pound, and A Trick of the Tail.  The song continues the creation of the material world, filled with personification and evocative imagery that is sometimes undercut by the rough studio mixing.  As has been mentioned above (and will no doubt be repeated ad nauseam during The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway), sometimes Genesis can be … tricky with their lyrics.  It is difficult to tell if “Fireside Song” skips to the fall of mankind or ahead to Revelation’s culmination of the world or what.  Time seems to be passing, as indicated by all the movement words: drifting, slips, creep, pass; as well as the juxtaposition of what the world was like: full of confusion, disappointment, fear, and disillusion, but “[n]ow there’s hope reborn with every morning / See the future clearly at its dawning” — a very optimistic line repeated over a soothing, Tony Banks-driven piano melody (sometimes subordinated under the mysteriously-added strings track).

Following another “concept album musical interlude/transition,” “The Serpent” is perhaps the most obvious Bible-themed song on the album.  It, too, is the forerunner of a common trope Genesis uses in most of their other Gabriel-era albums: different narrators in the same song, not always identified.  “The Serpent” is a bit easier to follow, though, in that the pronoun shift helps distinguish when Satan is talking (the “you”s and “you’re”s) and when man/Adam is talking (“I’m,” “my”).  The melodic line (adapted from the demo “She’s So Beautiful”) conveys the sneakiness of Satan and his serpent guile.  The imago dei incarnation theme is present throughout the song, highlighting in a very short song (and quite reminiscent of Milton) Satan’s estimation of this new world, the incarnation of man as a kind of imaging of God Himself (to a degree), Satan’s conception of the power and danger man will bring to him, Adam’s pristine created nature, and (and this is very Miltonian) mankind’s trepidation concerning the approach of the serpent.  The song ends with confusion for mankind and, unfortunately, confusion for the audience, as the connection to the Bible becomes extremely tenuous for a vast majority of the remainder of the album.

“Am I Very Wrong?” has an almost wedding-like beginning, though connecting that to the creation and marriage of Adam and Eve would be precarious at best.  The plaintive questions of the verses could be reminiscent, again, of Milton’s Satan or Adam, but the ambiguity is too powerful for this listener.  The chorus suddenly marks the return of The Association in a bizarre candy-coated threatening chorus that desires that they “hope your life will never end” — perhaps the “your” is the audience, perhaps it is the individual asking the questions about the mysterious “happiness machine” he/she wants to abjure along with these mindless, hive-like friends that are celebrating this birthday with about as much filial devotion as a horde of cannibalistic zombies.  I’m not even sure Peter Gabriel sings this song, not that that matters too much here.

The unmistakable sound of Peter Gabriel’s voice clearly returns with “In the Wilderness,” which may be referring, albeit highly loosely, to the Israelite years in the Wilderness.  “In the Wilderness” is another forerunner of another well-used Genesis trope: near-paradoxical disjunction between musical texture and lyrical content.  The chorus is an especially cheery rah-rah that has all the appearance of celebrating life and the vitality that music brings, until the thought descends quickly from rain falling lovely onto rooftops then sliding down the drains into the gutters of life as people run aimlessly and self-delusionally like rain through a gutter, splashing out meaninglessly, compartmentalized by time that actually controls their lives, not the other way around.  The days that pass by “[tear] pieces from our lives to feed the dawn,” which is not a pleasant thought, though it may be somewhat (metaphorically) accurate.  The connection to the Israelites potentially comes in a touch with the second verse: “Fighting enemies with weapons made to kill / Death is easy as a substitute for pride / Victors join together, happy in their bed / Leaving cold outside the children of the dead.”  The great ambiguity of the song comes in the otherwise lovely end: Tony Banks (much maligned keyboardist of Genesis for almost all its existence) plays through the chorus in a somber, slightly minor key transposition, bringing the song about death, destruction, and the futility of life to a peaceful, melodic close.

“The Conqueror” begins with a modulated version of the “In the Wilderness” chorus sound on a different instrument, no doubt an effect to continue the “concept album” feel as the classic ’60s, pre-Genesis sound is furthered by “The Conqueror.”  It’s hard to tell who this conqueror is: Satan? Genghis Khan? Robespierre? Napoleon? Antiochus Epiphanes? (I just threw that last one in for fun.)  The song doesn’t tell us.  The diverse cultural occurrences (a castle on a hill, rolling heads) could indicate the conqueror is a general description of evil in every time and generation, and the destruction that dictators, conquerors, despots and others of that ilk bring wherever they go, as long as they are unopposed, even by feckless heroes who squirm “on an empty floor.”  Justice does come eventually, though, as “words of love” seem to be the real solution to ending the conqueror in its/his many forms — words of love replace the position of the conqueror and, ironically, even the feckless hero who could not overcome the conqueror by might.  Though, the a cappella declaration that “the words of love” are lying on the floor could indicate a pyrrhic victory.

“In Hiding” is possibly the most awkwardly disconnected song on the album — even if the album weren’t a semi-concept album, the song is as unwieldy any you’ll hear.  The closest analogy I can think of is this would be the song Richard Cory would sing if he were visiting Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory (Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka).  We have moved from happiness machines to factories of truth.  The song is very much a Romantic lament: away from society, away from the city, safely on a mountain or upon a river, the narrator is “lost in the beauty” of the natural world while “[i]n hiding.”  The chorus indicates the proud self-assurance of the narrator, in that no matter what society does to him, he “[has] a mind of [his] own,” and thus enjoys the solitude, which makes the choice of “hiding” appropriately incongruous with the song.

Following another lovely instrumental transition/introduction, the album moves on to “One Day,” but the song has no apparent connection to the general plan of moving from Genesis to Revelation.  Lyrically, the song is another precursor to later Genesis songs.  Though other songs on the album deal with interactions with the natural world, as we have seen, “One Day” features personal interactions with animals, foreshadowing, perhaps, Gabriel’s on-stage characters of the fox and Batwings from Foxtrot (which led to Gabriel’s other on-stage personas during his tenure with Genesis), as well as so many songs that will be discussed later.

“Window” continues the lack of connection to the Bible, but it does further presage the frequent classical allusions replete in later Gabriel-era albums.  This time, the lyrics are a combination of Pilgrim’s Progress (mountains of truth, slough of despond, pastures of dream day), classical myth (dancing nymphs, beckoning trees), to literature and folklore (an albatross reminiscent of Coleridge plus Jack Frost himself).  After a honky-tonk intro/segue that has nothing to do with either “One Day” or “Window,” this song features one of the album’s prettiest choruses musically.  The entire song is another prime example of Genesis’s pop beginnings, but “Window” is possibly the best of the era.  The Moody Blues parallel may be strongest with this song, but it is still a great example of the potential in young Genesis.

And then suddenly Chicago Transit Authority shows up and starts accompanying The Association on “In Limbo.”  Considering Limbo is not a Biblical concept, this song’s connection to the theme of the album is likewise tenuous at best.  The narrator pleas toward the end to God for clarification on where, exactly, his soul is now, after requesting that he be taken away from the “world of fear” and “the power of [his] ambition.”  Again we see the preference for the natural world: requesting supernatural transportation from the world of fear and ambition and to “the furthest star in the sky” and “the deepest cave of the night,” the narrator is initially pleased to believe that he has “conquered time” but soon realizes that he may no longer be in control of his own destiny and person and finds himself in Limbo.  This is pleasant enough at first, but the absence of motion, direction, purpose, and activity soon becomes too much for the narrator to handle, leading to another plaintive request for the end of his existence.  What this has to do with the Bible is beyond me.  Perhaps only the first side of the album (back in the day when cds were larger, had two playable sides, and were called “records”) was intended to be pertinent to the theme of the album, since side one ended with “In the Wilderness” and side two began with “The Conqueror.”

The general disjunction of the second side or half of the album with its own concept is abetted by the appearance of two minutes and thirteen seconds of “The Silent Sun.”  The disconnected natural imagery is still there, just as it was on the song’s single release months before, but now on the studio album that is supposed to be a concept album of songs based on the Bible, it is even more out of place.  The off-the-rack ’60s pop chorus is as bubble-gummy as a stick of Juicy Fruit™.

The album ends with “A Place to Call my Own,” a song as representative of this uncertain and disjointed album as it is of the musical and lyrical fecundity that Genesis was about to exhibit in its future albums.  In one minute and six lines, Genesis essentially bids adieu to its imposed Biblical structure and theme and embraces the panoply of mythical, textual, and even sub-textual opportunities that awaited it once it sloughed off the confines of being a pop rock band and became a (if not the) progressive rock band (and this coming from the best Jethro Tull, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, and Rush fan you’ll ever meet — give me time on Yes, King Crimson, and ELP).  The final minute of the song is another musical display of the band’s early talent and potential, ending with a quiet chorus of “ah”s and “la”s.  Genesis’s journey had begun — and so has yours.

The Mermaid of Christmas Cheer Has Returned to the Sea: Alpha Leader’s Reflections on a Fallen Comrade

Christopher Rush

At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, on the final day of school in fact, I knew it was time to have a little talk with Brian Mouring.  I told him briefly and quietly, simply giving him something to think about for the summer: in sum, I told him that he was one of the more important students in the school during its present incarnation.  Not only did he have a fair amount of influence in his own class (though most of them would still deny it to this day), but his actions and attitudes were noticed and reflected by his brothers, who in turn affected their own classes (and still do to this day).  He took that encouragement about his own importance and influence to heart, to a certain degree, and we can see that influence now.  Believe it or not, Brian Mouring was an important part of Summit Christian Academy, on and off the soccer field.

I do not pretend that I know “the real” Brian Mouring — true, I spent more time with him than most, and we spent much of his Europe trip together (when he wasn’t off exploring with Bradley), and I probably had a higher opinion of him than most while he was here, but I got only the Brian Mouring he wanted me to see.  And that is fine with me.  I was asked earlier this year why I had such a high opinion of him, and I’ve always made it clear that Brian was one of those guys that if you treated him the way God treats him, if you considered him the way God viewed him, he would eventually become the man God wanted him to be, and Mr. Mouring indicated at Brian’s service that he was on the road to achieving that — perhaps he had, in fact, achieved it as much as he needed to.

The most interesting part of Brian’s service, to me, was Mr. Mouring’s list of dangerous, life-threatening activities that had happened to Brian (or in which he actively participated) in the recent years.  My wife made the point after the service about how that was a remarkable example of God’s grace and love, not just for Brian but all of us.  Think of it accurately: it’s not that God took Brian “too soon,” but that God miraculously kept Brian alive long enough for him to become, truly, a born-again Christian.  That is a quintessential example of the love of God if I have ever seen one.  As Mr. Mouring said, we all daily perform “routine” acts that are far more dangerous than what Brian was doing the day he died.  It was, in truth, a demonstration of the love of God.

The title of this tribute indicates that this is my personal reflections on the influence of Brian Mouring in the brief time I knew him; thus, if my recollections so far and continuing are discordant with your impressions of the Brian you knew, that’s okay with me, and hopefully it’s okay with you.  The “Alpha Leader” designation refers to perhaps the highlight of my time with Brian, the Senior Europe trip in the spring of 2009.  I don’t want this to turn in to an advertisement for going on the trip, so the fact that experience is the highlight of our three+ years together is merely coincidental.  On that trip, for a variety of reasons we shan’t go into here, no one else really wanted to hang out with Brian, Bryan, or myself, which was perfectly fine with us, since that gave us the freedom to do what we (i.e., I) wanted to do during free time without having to acquiesce to anyone else’s desires.  That was rather enjoyable, especially when it came time to divide the entire group.  All we’d have to do is call out “Alpha Team,” and we’d gather up and move out to whatever secret things we’d want to see in Rome, Florence, or Paris.  Good times.  True, they didn’t always want to go see what I wanted to see, and Alpha Team broke up once in awhile, but being intelligent men we never took it personally or lost any emotional energy about having our feelings hurt.  Brian was good like that.

During the trip, when the tour guide asked many questions on the bus while we were travelling from place to place, only Brian and Bryan were willing to answer any question — not because I was sitting close to them on the bus, but because they took it upon themselves to simultaneously bring enjoyment to the moment (one of their main purposes in life) and do what was expected of them in that situation (one of their most underrated characteristics).  Don’t misunderstand me — I’m not here to harangue the non-Bri/yan population of the class of 2009; all I’m saying is that while on the Europe trip, they behaved themselves far better than the rest of their classmates, which most people (who knew them even less accurately than I did) would not have believed before, during, or after the trip.

I acknowledge that this is becoming somewhat commonplace, but as soon as Mrs. Lane came into our in-service meeting the morning of August 18 and announced that Brian was missing, I knew on some non-cognitive (perhaps non-rational) level that Brian was gone.  Like the rest of you, I did hold out some hope that he would be found alive out to sea shortly thereafter, but it was not very real.  I had no sense of desperation or despair; in fact I was rather calm about the whole thing, which was in part why I didn’t go to any of the prayer services — I suspected that people would have wanted to see me grieving and mourning, but I wasn’t in that place yet, so I didn’t go.  That probably sounds a great deal more selfish than I meant it, so I hope you didn’t take that the wrong way.  I had heard from various sources earlier in the summer that Brian had become a born-again Christian, so I knew he was much better off than the rest of us, so the sorrow I felt was for his family (and still is).  Shortly thereafter, my equanimity was replaced with anger.  Not anger at God — don’t be ridiculous; anger at the many people who, to be frank, didn’t like/know Brian when he was here and suddenly were acting like they had lost a valued friend and colleague.  Also, the preposterous reactions of various people (mostly through Facebook statuses) about how “life is too short, so we need to squeeze all the happiness out of life while we can,” people who had pretended to believe the Biblical declarations of life and its purpose but now, facing genuine loss and tragedy for the first time, had apparently reverted into hedonists with no eternal perspective.  I spent most of the next couple of weeks being angry.  I didn’t really grieve until we started singing “It is Well With My Soul” during Brian’s memorial service.  With Mr. Mouring’s words and that song (to be honest, I really didn’t listen to whatever Pastor Brian said), I was able to release my anger and finally grieve the temporary loss of Brian and resume the love I had for Brian and even the people who didn’t like him very much the way I should love them — and I’m fairly certain Brian would have wanted that as well.

I wouldn’t want to end on such an emotionally charged note — this is Brian, after all: the guy who painted his chest blue to show his support for a school he only recently started attending, who performed the role of the Mermaid of Christmas Cheer, and who stuck with Babylon 5 to the end.  I don’t want to tell you how you should best remember Brian; you can figure that out in your own way — though C.S. Lewis reminds us in A Grief Observed that the sooner you stop trying so hard to remember him, the better (sharper, more accurate) your memory of him will become.  Instead, let me tell you some of the ways by which I remember him.

During one of those bizarre “all the Drama kids have to take four class periods off each day to finally decide to get ready for their performance” days we used to have a couple of years ago, I found myself in my room with Brian and Bryan and not much to do — they had long since given their senior theses, no final exams for which to study, and not much point in having class considering they were the only ones around.  Thus, they decided to do what any sensible students would do in such a situation: borrow one of the games PCC left sitting around and play it; in this case, Guess Who?.  If you never had the pleasure of watching Brian and Bryan play Guess Who?, you’ve missed out.  It gets rather intense and impressively mature: not the usual sorts of questions more younger players would likely ask when trying to identify which person one’s opponent had.

One of Brian’s (and Bryan’s) main attributes was believing that he had absolute comprehension of the layout of a city, regardless if the time spent in that city did not exceed an hour and a half.  Such was the case when Alpha Team and a couple other friends went to some of the secret places of Florence, Italy.  Despite the fact I knew Florence’s layout rather well, Brian and Bryan knew they could lead us directly from Santa Croce back to our hostel in plenty of time for refreshment before the evening all-group gathering for dinner.  With the rallying cry of “I got this!” echoing in the streets upon which Michelangelo and Dante trod, Brian and Bryan led us around the town.  Literally, around the town.  Three times.  After twenty minutes of walking, we spied once again the unmistakable outline of Santa Croce.  “We’re back where we started, guys.”  “I got this!”  Another half hour of walking, through the outer city gates, back through the outer city gates, and finally the unmistakable outline of Santa Croce.  “Brian, we’re back at Santa Croce.”  “I got this!”  Somehow, Da Gama and Magellan lead us back to the hostel just in time to not go in pretty much but to go straight to the meeting place for dinner, which may explain some of the Facebook photos you may have seen of Brian and Bryan lying on the Florentine grass on a late afternoon — exhausted because their hubris and my munificent willingness to let them fail resulted in a circuitous trek around the Cradle of the Renaissance.  I knew even then it was worth it.

To date I have only seen the regenerate Brian Mouring once, at my birthday party this past June.  I know with utmost certainty he knows how I felt about him, which is in part, I believe, why we got along so well.  When he needed to leave, we said our typical goodbyes in the living room, though I was standing in the entranceway of our home by the time he got around to actually going.  I watched Brian walk out the door but for some inexplicable reason, I had the urge to say goodbye to him one last time, so I opened the door and waved goodbye again.  Brian gave me a quintessential Brian look of “Dude, what?” with his quintessential Brian smile, and he waved goodbye and left, nodding as if to say “I’ll see you later, don’t worry.”  I know I will see him again soon enough, in a place where no shadows fall, as has so often been said.  I’ll think of him whenever I watch NewsRadio, mention “usurpation” as the theme of The Tempest, or eat a tasty cheeseburger — and these experiences will be even better because of these memories.  And I know, in the words of that gospel song:

In a little while

Surely you’ll be mine

In a little while … I’ll be there.

In a little while

This hurt will hurt no more

I’ll be home, love.

Goodbye, my friend.  I will see you soon.

Book Review: Virgil: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Steel Commager. Twentieth Century Views.  Englewood: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1966.

Christopher Rush

Preface

Of the essays in the collection, I found eight to be useful to varying degrees in addition to Mr. Commager’s introduction.  I will briefly highlight the content of each of these eight essays as well as each author’s perspective together (as they are too short to treat well separately), and conclude with a critical evaluation of the essays.  Many of the essays are either abridgements from their original lengths or reductions of chapters from entire books by the authors.  Since I read only what was made available in the collections, I must refer to the essays by the titles given to them by the editor.

Content Summary and Author’s Perspective

Steele Commager’s brief introduction to the collection of essays, unlike Harold Bloom’s introductions to the Modern Critical Interpretations series, is not a précis of what the following essays concern (ironically, what I am doing now), but mostly a brief treatment of Aeneas as an epic hero, and how he through Virgil distinguished himself from Homer’s heroes.

C.M. Bowra’s essay “Some Characteristics of Literary Epic” does exactly what its title implies: he briefly discusses the nature of oral epic, its purposes and forms, and its heroes and representation of a heroic world.  He distinguishes briefly between Homer’s heroic world and Virgil’s heroic world, one key difference being Homer’s heroes live and die for their own glory, while Virgil’s heroes have a higher calling for a social ideal (61).  Bowra’s guiding perspective on the epic is the different purposes for the heroes: whether it be self-centered or others-centered.

C.S. Lewis’s essay “Virgil and the Subject of Secondary Epic” is extracted from his Preface to Paradise Lost.  While the extract does not make much sense by itself — atypical of the Twentieth Century Views series, since most chapters re-forged into short essays make sense as presented — Lewis’s chapter/essay offered some helpful ideas on Virgil’s presentation of the epic, as distinguished from earlier author-less epics.  His fuller discussion on the difference between “primary” and “secondary” epics, while quite trenchant, was not included in this selection, which is odd since it was Lewis’s main purpose in addressing Virgil in a work more devoted to Milton.  Fortunately, that difference is not relevant to our purposes here.

“Odysseus and Aeneas” by Theodore Haecker was a short (roughly the first eight essays in the collection were generally fewer than twelve pages long; the final four were much longer) contrast of the two heroes, though his insights treat Aeneas more than Odysseus.  He, like most of the authors of these early shorter essays, did not have any overt “perspective” in the sense of approaching the poem from psychology, archetypes, feminism, or the like, but instead was more formalist, addressing primarily what was in the poem, not external to it.  At least, that is the impression I got from the essay originally.

Wendell Clausen’s “An Interpretation of the Aeneid” acknowledges the prerequisite of knowing Homer before understanding Virgil: “any response to the Aeneid will depend in good part on an intimate knowledge of the Iliad and the Odyssey” (75).  Most critics of Virgil (that I’ve read recently) reference the connection of the two authors in what ways such knowledge suits their particular foci, but Clausen’s general admission seemed unique, not saying Virgil is a copy or modifier of Homer, but just the idea that the reader’s success with Virgil is in some way determined by the reader’s prior success with Homer.  After that, Clausen focuses mostly on the character of Aeneas, highlighting his burdens and the tragic circumstances he surmounts in his poem.  Clausen’s emphasis on the emotional states of Aeneas borders on psychological interpretation but does not give the reader any overt references to it.

Brooks Otis’s “The Odyssean Aeneid and the Iliadic Aeneid” begins the final third of essays much longer than the previous grouping.  Otis begins with a structural approach to the Aeneid, offering a kind of map with a two-fold purpose: first it lists the general content of each book of the poem in a brief three- or four-word phrase, labeling books one through six as “Odyssean” and books seven through twelve as “Iliadic”; second it draws (literally) connections from one book to another, indicating its mostly chiastic pattern — similar to Cedric H. Whitman’s structural diagram of the Iliad referenced by Peter Leithart in Heroes of the City of Man.  The rest of his essay elaborates on the pattern, how the first half (Aeneas’ Odyssey) is preparation for the “Iliadic Fulfillment” of his quest in the second half of the poem.

The title of Adam Parry’s essay “The Two Voices of Virgil’s Aeneid” is at times akin to J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Two Towers, in that the reader is not always sure to which voices/towers the author is specifically referring.  For Parry, sometimes the two voices are those of Aeneas and his rival Turnus; at times it is what Otis called the two halves of the poem, the Odyssean and Iliadic halves; at other points in the essay Parry seems to be referring to two different moods of the poem itself: the tragedy of Aeneas’ personal losses contrasted with the empowering hope for the future surety of the Roman Empire.  Regardless of the oft-times ambiguous title, the content of the essay provides a distinctive approach to Aeneas’ character in light of Virgil’s authorship and audience: sometimes Aeneas is a Roman version of Homer’s Greek Achilles and Odysseus, sometimes he is a model of his supposed successor Octavius-Augustus; Parry also suggests the possibility that Virgil temporarily casted Aeneas as Octavius’ enemy Mark Antony, when Aeneas entangles himself with Dido, Queen of Carthage (who becomes a type of Cleopatra, in that Egypt and Carthage are both enemies of Rome).  Parry spends much time analyzing Aeneas as a servant of History/Fate/Destiny; because he serves an “impersonal power,” he cannot be a hero (123) — an interesting conclusion.  For Parry, though, Aeneas is saved “as a man” because he is so unrelentingly self-sacrificial and suffers through so much for others.

Bernard M.W. Knox (who, along with Mortimer Adler, would undoubtedly be on the Mt. Rushmore of Influential 20th-century Classicists — using “classicist” as an encomium) contributed “The Serpent and the Flame: The Imagery of the Second Book of the Aeneid” to this collection.  While interesting and excellent, as Knox usually is, it was limited in focus, as its title makes clear.  Unlike other classicists, such as Gilbert Murray, Knox does not assume the reading audience is familiar with Greek and limits his use of it while thoroughly analyzing an intentionally narrow component of Virgil’s epic.

Finally, Viktor Pösch’s “Basic Themes” concludes the collection.  One of the major themes for Pösch is the sea, which for him is “an overture” to the other motifs in the poem (165).  Other themes (at times Pösch seems to use “theme,” “symbol,” and “metaphor” interchangeably, as I am, unfortunately, wont to do in my classroom) include love as the “motivating force in all that Aeneas does” (166), the Aeneid as a “poem of humanity” (173), and Aeneas’ journey to the underworld as a symbol of “a trial of the hero” (176), this last quite aligned with Joseph Campbell’s journey of the hero.

Critical Response and Evaluation

Though my elongated summary connotes some of my responses to the essays, some final evaluations are appropriate here.  On the whole, I have found the older Twentieth Century Views series of essays far superior to Harold Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations series.  That is not an attack on Professor Bloom, nor an overt diatribe against recent scholarship contrasted to earlier scholarship (I am a much younger, poorer, and unpublished scholar than those published in either series); it is merely a generalized reaction.  I prefer (and trust) the Twentieth Century Views series so much that I will purchase one whenever I can find one in a used book store, even if I have never read the author in question (such as Proust, though he is on my “someday soon” list).  The series also does not, in my acknowledged limited experience with it, include derisive or vituperative essays on the author or subject, unlike what Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations essays occasionally do.  Bloom’s series does offer great essays, certainly, especially the occasional erudite contributions by latter-twentieth-century scholars, so they are not entirely shoddy — I simply prefer the Twentieth Century Views series.

Commager’s introduction, as I mentioned before, aids in the superiority of the series, in that his introduction is a thoughtful contribution to the subject, unlike Bloom’s “introductions” which are synopses of the essays in the collection (I often find Harold Bloom a helpful albeit limited scholar, though in his own books).  Commager sets the tone of analytical appreciation for Virgil and his poems, giving insights I found helpful, such as his remark “… in the Aeneid, duty and inclination are constantly opposed” (11).

C.M. Bowra’s essay provided good generalized descriptions of epic poetry.  His precise comments help introduce the nature of epic poetry before focusing on epic heroes, more so than the typical high school definition of an epic poem as “a long, narrative poem usually focusing on one hero.”  Bowra’s essay emphasizes the differences in values of Homer’s epic and Virgil’s epic, an invaluable insight in the distinction of the heroes.

I knew about C.S. Lewis’s essay (unlike the other “essays” transplanted from their original sources) because I have read Preface to Paradise Lost.  As mentioned above, the extraction of this one chapter does not make too much sense, though I did find some useful comments from Lewis (not a third face with Adler and Knox, since Lewis was more of a medievalist than a classicist).  With the profundity of useful ideas from the other essays in this collection (and other sources), one needs not revisit Lewis’ book, even for his distinction between “primary” and “secondary” epics — unless one wants to read a good work about an even more important work, and thus gain a better understanding of Western Civilization.

A title like “Odysseus and Aeneas” offered great promise, in that comparatively so few of the critical works I’ve read had anything to say about the participants in the content of the Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid.  So many other critics want to talk about the poems’ origins or historicity or animal and nature symbology — which is wonderful, but not all there is.  Unfortunately, Haecker’s essay (at least the version presented in this collection) did not provide as much analysis as I had hoped.  I gleaned three tidbits from him — helpful tidbits, but brief tidbits: “How full of paradox, how dialectical is the inner life of Aeneas!  Does he in this resemble any of Homer’s heroes?” (70)  “Like all reticent men, he (Aeneas) can speak only the truth that is in him, and that only occasionally and darkly.  And again, like all reticent men, be they so from necessity or of their own free will, he makes no such brave figure as Achilles or Odysseus” (Ibid.).  And “the true leader is not he who makes himself leader, but he who is called and dedicated to that end by Fate” (74).  I appreciate Haecker’s perspective that Aeneas might be inferior in some ways to Odysseus and Achilles (unlike most other critics who usually see Aeneas as a better-rounded consummation of “the hero” Homer was trying to create), especially his stress on Aeneas as a “reticent hero” out of necessity — I just wished Haecker had more useful things to say (a thoroughly selfish comment, though it is a well-meant selfishness, unlike Achilles’).

Wendell Clausen’s “An Interpretation of the Aeneid” is similar to other essays in the collection in that he highlights the tragedy and suffering Aeneas endures — genuine loss, unlike Odysseus’ temporary abstinence from happiness and contentment or Achilles’ egotistic honor besmirchment (his loss of Patroclus is genuine, though Gilbert Murray cautions us against believing Achilles is completely selfless even in missing/feeling loss at the death of Patroclus).  Of the many helpful ideas from Clausen, two stand out: “Aeneas enters the poem wishing he were dead, the only epic hero to do so” (77); “Aeneas is more burdened by memory than any other ancient hero” (Ibid.).

Certainly Brooks Otis’s structural diagram of the Aeneid’s thematic and chiastic pattern is invaluable.  His explication of that pattern is similarly useful.  Even his summary of the poem is remarkable: “the Aeneid is … the story of death and rebirth by which unworthy love and destructive furor are overcome by the moral activity of a divinized and resurrected hero” (92) — a bit of archetypal criticism added to his structural criticism.  Like other critics, Otis notes Aeneas’ psychological component of his heroic character, though Otis always relates his ideas to the structure of the poem, in that it (Aeneas’ psychology) changes in connection with the structural plot changes: plot and character are intertwined.

I commented above on the elasticity, if not ambiguity, of Adam Parry’s title, “The Two Voices of Virgil’s Aeneid,” though the title was not as important to me as his other insights.  I especially enjoyed his connections to Virgil and Augustus — certainly that is a necessary component to accurately understanding and interpreting this epic poem.  His comparisons of Aeneas to Octavian/Augustus and Mark Antony are enlightening and unique, while completely plausible.  Similarly, his conclusion that Aeneas can’t truly be a “hero” because he is guided/forced/in the service of an impersonal power, but that he is a more complete “man” than the Homeric heroes, offers an interesting perspective.  Yet, Parry’s conclusions are odd, in that he maintains that Aeneas is a fuller man than either Achilles or Odysseus even though he does not have the free will that they have — Aeneas is the plaything of History, which he cannot escape: how does this make him more of a man?  For Parry, the answer is that Aeneas “is man himself; not man as the brilliant free agent of Homer’s world, but man of a later stage in civilization, man in a metropolitan and imperial world, man in a world where the state is supreme.  He cannot resist the forces of history, or even deny them; but he can be capable of human suffering, and this is where the personal voice asserts itself” (121-122).  Possibly: I need to keep pondering these conclusions until I can more readily agree with him.

Obviously I have great respect and admiration for Bernard Knox if I am willing to place him on the Mt. Rushmore of Classicists (along with Mortimer Adler after a fashion, certainly A.E. Housman, and possibly Gilbert Murray — Maynard Mack might be up there, especially if we changed the title to Influential Popularizers of Classics in the 20th century).  Even so, his narrow essay, while stunning in its thoroughness and wealth of knowledge, was mostly extraneous to my personal focus on the heroes of the poems.  He did make some indirectly useful comments on Menelaus and Agamemnon (calling them twins, which no other commentator highlighted — except Gilbert Murray, though also indirectly) as together a force of “merciless destruction” (127), and another interesting comparison of Pyrrhus (Achilles’ son?) to the serpents killing Laocoön as he kills Priam (136).

Victor Pösch’s “Basic Themes” was, like Knox’s essay, interesting, but mostly unsuited for my needs when researching for my Master’s thesis.  His themes quoted above were the themes I found most useful of the many he addressed.  In order to incorporate his dominant sea theme, though, I’d would have had to insert much of his argument, which on the whole is irrelevant to my thesis, so I couldn’t really do that.  However, if one simply wanted to improve one’s ability to understand (and potentially teach) such classical literature, then one of his almost superfluous comments is extraordinarily helpful: “The essence of a symbolic relationship is that the correspondence between the symbol and the thing symbolized is not precise, but flexible, opening up an infinite perspective” (166).  Certainly Pösch’s concise definition is extraordinarily helpful beyond the confines of this article.

As only one example of the many in the history of classical scholarship and inquiry into Virgil’s Aeneid, Commager’s Twentieth Century Views collection is a challenging introduction to one of the most important works in Western Civilization.  The Twentieth Century Views series as a whole is undoubtedly a worthwhile series to investigate, own, and enjoy forever, especially in light of the general and decided decline of scholarship (especially classical scholarship) today — despite the fact my postmodern Master’s professors encouraged me to ignore the older works in favor of the more recent writings on the subject.

Book Review: The Rise of the Greek Epic, 4th Ed., Gilbert Murray. New York: OUP, 1960.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary

In what was once a landmark exploration of Homer and the Iliad (I say that not derogatorily), Gilbert Murray analyzes a vast amount of material related to ancient Greece, the nature of ancient stories and books, the construction and minutiae of the Iliad, and its reception and place in history.  In the four prefaces, one for each edition, Murray has different things to say, mainly about the changing nature of Homeric interpretation during the first half of the twentieth century, when his book was being re-edited and re-released.  Despite the changing nature of the then-current geo-political world, however, Murray’s book did not seem to undergo many revisions.  At best, he seems to have added only some footnotes regarding newer critical works and some appendices.

Murray’s introduction attempts to situate the reader into the nature of the Greece of the Iliad as well as its poetry, commenting on differences in the known Greece with its portrayal in the Iliad, as well as cultural differences between the poem and the world of Murray’s present reader.  His next major section is on “The People,” first the people who became the Greeks (the Achaeans of Homer’s poem and the Greeks of Homer and his followers), secondly some of the major beliefs of the people in the poem and the disintegration caused by wars and migrations.  His second, and longer, major section is “The Literature,” first providing for the reader an understanding of what a book was in Homer’s day and how it is completely unlike what present readers think of as a book.  Next he begins to address the Iliad more specifically (almost one-third of his way into his exploration), highlighting how it fits his earlier definition of a “traditional book,” evidencing it with expurgations, peculiarities, and almost minutiae to support his points.  He then addresses the historical content of the Iliad before assessing whether or not it is a “great poem.”  To close his work, Murray returns to more peripheral arguments such as Homer’s connection to Ionia and Attica, and final comments on what is known and unknown about Homer, the poem, its place, and reception in antiquity.  His appendices are like extended footnotes regarding various issues he addresses throughout the body of his exploration, and he refers the reader to them as needed.

Author’s Perspective and Purpose

Though I referred to “Homer” when summarizing the content of The Rise of the Greek Epic, one of Gilbert Murray’s major points which he makes several times (at least in the first half of the work), is that he believes “Homer” to be almost as fictional as Zeus or Apollo.  Murray believes the Iliad and the Odyssey (though his evidence is mostly concerning the Iliad) to be the work of composite poets and emendators over many years, if not centuries.  That is the essence of his argument in the “nature of the traditional book” section — a traditional book or story was not created to be read, but was kept hidden until the poet could recite it; also, Murray cites several examples of line inconsistencies throughout the Iliad, such as different kinds of armor, to point to multi-generational editorship on the base poem.  The Iliad is too long to be recited as well and must be a composite of different poets/editors over time to produce what we now know as the Iliad.  Much of his support is given in Greek, so those who are not familiar with the language must take his word for it.

Murray’s title is almost the opposite of what his intention seems to be: for most of the work, Murray details what the Iliad is not, almost to the point at which his title should be the fall of the Greek epic — at times it seems he comes to bury Homer, not to praise him.  Murray focuses on many details and incidents whose connection to the poem does not seem readily apparent until much further on, and even then, his purpose is not always clear.  It is evident overall that he wants to accurately ground his audience in what he perceives to be an accurate historical understanding of the nature of the events and culture of the peoples depicted in the Iliad, and the nature and times of the people writing, emending, and receiving the poem — since there are many according to Murray.  Unfortunately for Murray, as he himself must admit toward the end of his exploration, “the argument has rested chiefly on analogies and general considerations, not on documents: it has had to be very cautious, aiming at probability, not certainty, constantly suggesting, not professing to demonstrate” (282): hardly the most persuasive kind of argument, but necessary when dealing with an ill-documented antiquity.

Critical Response and Evaluation

I very much wanted to enjoy Murray’s book more than I did.  His analytic introduction appeared to offer a profundity of Homeric scholarship untouched by the fads and fancies of twentieth-century theory.  Frustratingly, The Rise of the Greek Epic was, for the most part, unsuited to my main purpose for reading them while composing my Master’s thesis in examining the Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid: the nature of epic heroes.  Among the issues Murray addresses, the actual characters in the poem are given very little attention.  As mentioned above, Murray spends much more time dissecting apparent historical inconsistencies such as bronze armor, the nature of shields, and what is not in the poem.  Much of Murray’s comments on Homeric expurgations are, as the above quotation admits, mere arguments from absence: because something is not in the copies that exist today, they must have been elided by some editor after the first poets had it in their versions of the poems.  This sort of argumentation was, as I said, frustrating at times, though it was nice to read Murray’s almost-apologetic admission that he was dealing with mostly speculation.

Another disappointing component to Murray’s analysis, similar to my disappointment with Joseph Campbell, is his almost preposterous treatment of various Biblical passages for no useful or accurate reason.  I am not arguing against the possibility that the Bible has had various scribes and translators and editors over the centuries, but Murray’s “analysis” of the Old Testament on pages 107-119, supposedly in an effort to prove what was the nature of “traditional books” — i.e., editors come along and change things to suit the fancies of the day, whether or not they create conflicts with other passages of the text — seemed to be substandard scholarship.  Not only was he not proving his point about traditional books and their connection to the Iliad, but he more readily demonstrated his ignorance about them.  Obviously this is a reaction from my particular worldview, but I am baffled by so many scholars who can argue well when it comes to what they know but then resort to Biblical derision when they want to mask their own ignorance about whatever topic they know they must address but cannot do so well.

With such pervasive reactions against Gilbert Murray’s book, it might seem odd that I am including it in this journal.  I am including it because, more than any other scholarly work on the Iliad I have read recently, it has made me want to be a better Homeric scholar.  As I mentioned above, Murray writes with the supposition that his reading audience is fluent in Greek.  That may have been true a century ago, but I did not have that opportunity growing up in American public schooling in the later-half of the twentieth century.  For years, as I have tried to understand these classical works better, I have had the nagging feeling that the only way I can truly improve in classical scholarship is to understand (read at least, if not write or speak) the classical languages.  The same is true for my Biblical interpretation skills: I can only get so far reading John Nelson Darby or a New American Standard version of what was originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  Perhaps Murray was not writing for the average reader for The Rise of the Greek Epic, but his linguistic challenge was effective for me.

That is not the only reason I include it, however.  Murray has several good insights into the poems throughout his work, though “throughout” is a generous concision of “scattered throughout.”  It was not exactly “hit and miss” with Murray, but his good offerings were somewhat sporadic — though, once I found them, they were very helpful.  I do not personally agree with his assessment of a multiplicity of Homers, but that might be my classical scholarship nascence (i.e. utter ignorance) talking.  My own argument in my thesis focuses on what the poems say about heroes, not whether or not the poems are a hodge-podge of multiple insertions, deletions, and revisions.  Even so, Murray’s work provides helpful ideas and a challenge that more recent Homeric criticism does not.

Book Review: Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature, Peter J. Leithart. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1999.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary

Heroes of the City of Man addresses eight works of classical Greece, four epics and four dramas: Hesiod’s Theogony, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, and Virgil’s Aeneid; Aeschylus’ Eumenides, Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus, Euripides’ Bacchae, and Aristophanes’ Clouds.  Peter Leithart gives about equal time to all works, since his overarching premise is not to praise one literary form above the other.  Leithart gives each a working subtitle, each designed to highlight what Leithart supposes is that work’s major theme: the Theogony is the “Pagan Genesis,” Iliad is “Fighters Killing, Fighters Killed, Odysseus is the “Son of Pain,” and the Aeneid is “Patria and Pietas.”  Of the dramas, the Eumenides is a tale of “Blessings of Terror,” Sophocles’ first play in the Oedipus trilogy is “Riddles of One and Many,” the Bacchae is “The Contest of Fetters and Thyrsus,” and Aristophanes’ Clouds is about the “Sophist in the City.”

As a college professor, Peter Leithart always has higher and continued education in mind, in not only this but his other works I’ve read and own.  He divides each work into sections, usually along thematic lines that fit with his overarching subtitle for the work, and after each section gives “review questions” and “thought questions,” to help the reader remember and analyze what he or she has just read.  At the end of the book, Leithart has an “Additional Reading” section, a bibliography (not annotated) of recommended works to continue the reader’s analysis of the classical Greek epics and plays.

Author’s Perspective and Purpose

The subtitle is a clear indicator of Leithart’s religious and philosophical perspective in approaching the works he analyzes in his book.  For the better read reader, however, his very title is an initial indicator of his approach: the “city of man” epithet is obviously taken from Augustine’s City of God, a classic work of Christian thought that categorizes much of life as either part of the city of God or the city of Man — Leithart clearly associates the works of ancient Greece as distinct from the “city of God.”  This is not surprising since Homer, Hesiod, and the rest do not claim to know or associate their stories with the monotheistic God of Augustine.  Unlike other critics, however, (and by “other” my experience so far means “almost all”) Leithart does not treat the members outside his particular religious and philosophical framework as deficient, unworthy, or haphazard.  Instead, Leithart has great respect for the originality, skill, tragedy, humanity, and beauty found within the works of the classical pagan Greeks.  Most (for lack of a better word) secular critics I’ve read in my years of study who approach the works of Homer or Virgil seem to find ways to bring up the Bible (usually for no justifiable reason) as a “straw man” to knock down and disparage in an attempt to distract readers from flaws or perceived shortcomings in the hoped-to-be superior non-Biblical works.

Leithart, however, has no problems in approaching and analyzing the ancient works for what they are, not what he hopes them to be.  Certainly his perspective is “biased,” in that he is approaching them from a Christian worldview — not one in which they were constructed; but this does not mean that critics who approach Homer or Hesiod or Aristophanes from a “secular” worldview are not biased — on the contrary, they have their own secular biases, not the least of which is not being a contemporary of the authors, bringing nineteenth, twentieth, or twenty-first century hermeneutical penchants to the ancient texts.  With the freedom to make no apologies for either what the texts say (or appear to say) or his personal interpretational framework, Leithart does not hesitate to discuss what other critics might timorously deem controversial or ambiguous, such as the moral issues involved with Odysseus’s affairs while claiming to be faithful to his wife.

Critical Response and Evaluation

Leithart’s work has been very influential to me, since, as you know, our classes together often (“always” would be overly generous) focus our analyses of ancient literature from a Christian perspective (which has myriad definitions and sub-interpretations, but a precise designation of what that entails at least at our school is peripheral to the main argument here).  Part of what makes Leithart’s work so useful is that he treats his subjects with overt respect, both analytically and aesthetically.  He is a Christian scholar (not an oxymoron) who noticeably enjoys the works from the “city of man” almost as much as he does from the “city of God.”

It is no accident, either, that Leithart and I appreciate the works from the “city of man,” while approaching them from a Christian perspective.  We both teach at classical schools, which is more than just different curriculum compared to government-mandated knowledge.  He finds great value in the works and ideas of those who believe differently than he does, completely unlike the secular critics I have read who trot in the Bible (or, more accurately, their masqueraded versions of what is supposedly the Bible) to deride and ridicule.  Leithart does none of this, even with passages he does not personally enjoy.  He does not scorn Homer for creating a poem centering on a selfish hero, though he does not hesitate to call Achilles a selfish hero: these are not contradictory statements.

In his introduction, Leithart formulates his reasoning behind his analysis of these classic works in the guise of a response to Tertullian’s question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”  As the renaissance of Classical Christian schooling can attest, quite a lot.  Fortunately, though, unlike many lesser-skilled critics regarding recent pop culture fads (such as Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings movie adaptations), Leithart does not blindly embrace everything about these classics as “close enough to Christian” — Odysseus is not a type of Christ (nor are Harry Potter and Gandalf, despite the claims of recent pseudo-intellectuals) to Leithart.  Even with his admiration and appreciation for the classics, Leithart maintains an appropriate distance from them, as he makes clear in the following paragraph:

Heroes of the City of Man is a book about Athens by an author who resides contentedly in Jerusalem.  One of the foundational assumptions of this study is that there is a profound antithesis, a conflict, a chasm, between Christian faith and all other forms of thought and life.  Though I appreciate the sheer aesthetic attraction of classical poetry and drama, I have no interest in helping construct Athrusalem or Jerens; these hybrids are monstrosities whose walls the church should breach rather than build.  Instead, I have attempted to view Athens from a point securely within the walls of Jerusalem (14).

Part of the utility of Leithart’s work is his synthesis of and expounding upon other key critics.  His analysis of Cedric Whitman’s understanding of the Iliad’s chiastic structure has been helpful to me for years, even before I first read Whitman for myself.  Likewise, Leithart’s analysis of Odysseus’s process of revelation at the close of the Odyssey has been a helpful way to maintain the interest of students as we wrap up the great story.

Some critics might conceive of Leithart’s analysis and categorizing of these classical works as too much Christian revisionism, but they would be mistaken.  I have read other authors who try to imprint Christianity too much onto other works (like Tolkien and Harry Potter as mentioned above), but Leithart does not do that.  He unabashedly analyses these classical works from a Christian perspective, but he does not make of them what they are not.  Instead, he provides an excellent companion to these ancient works for anyone, whether he or she resides in either the city of Man or the city of God.

Book Review: The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 2nd Ed., Joseph Campbell. Bollingen Series XVII.  Princeton: Princeton UP, 1968, 1949.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary

Joseph Campbell’s classic work on mythology of various cultures, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, is an important work in the field, if not as extensive as his later four-volume The Masks of God.  The fundamental premise or thesis throughout The Hero with a Thousand Faces is that all cultures and religions create a basic story by which their heroes and origin myths operate, and that the similarity of all world-wide stories is not accidental: he calls it the “monomyth.”

Campbell divides his examination of the monomyth in two parts: first, the adventure of the hero; second, the cosmogonic cycle.  The adventure of the hero section is, perhaps, the more memorable (and useful) of the two.  By comparing diverse religious myths and hero stories from a variety of peoples, Campbell presents a fairly believable picture of the nature of the hero’s quest.  Obviously there are variations from culture to culture and quest to quest, but Campbell accounts for many of them.  The second section, the cosmogonic cycle, is related to the hero, but first begins with ideas about cosmos origins (at its name implies).  Campbell says that all life, like all cultures, is cyclical to a degree; all life has phases, like all heroes’ quests have phases.  Heroes come and go because eventually the people forget what kind of restoration the hero brought.  This section employs longer examples from cultures’ stories, while Campbell’s own critical commentary dwindles.

As hinted at above, Campbell draws on a variety of cultures’ myths and hero tales to generate and support his thesis.  Campbell does not cite any personal contact with these cultures other than their stories, so he has probably used historical research, i.e., reading myths and stories from around the world.

Author’s Perspective and Purpose

Joseph Campbell does not only place the stories of diverse heroes and myths in propinquity to demonstrate their similarities, though demonstrating their similarities is an important purpose for The Hero with a Thousand Faces.  To interpret the stories, Campbell overtly uses psychological analysis, referring to it explicitly in several passages.  Campbell draws connections between dreams and myths & heroes, though he does say that myths and dreams, while similar, are not the same.  The unconscious is important to both, but myths are more conscious expressions of universal ideas — the universality is found when these stories are examined next to each other.  Toward the beginning of the book, Campbell references several dreams cited in various Freudian and Jungian texts on dream analysis.  He extrapolates from those initial ideas on heroes, myths, and quests.  From there here creates his monomyth structure.

In addition to his psychological impetus behind his analyses of dreams and myths, Campbell also seems to favor Buddhist (and possible Hindu) religions and stories.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does at times, seem to taint his interpretations of other cultures and religious stories, especially Christian/Biblical stories.  Campbell often makes remarks about “Christian” believers and historical events that are, undoubtedly, terrible (like the Crusades), yet those are, to be fair, relative aberrations in a two-millennium belief system.  Campbell does not make any disparaging remarks about Buddhist stories, believers, or heroes/characters in myths; the most he says is that the story of the death of Buddha gets a bit comical.

Campbell’s purpose is obvious: he wants to demonstrate that the seemingly-disparate myths, heroes, and quests of stories from around the world are, in fact, similar.  All heroes have the same basic pattern, despite miniscule differences, and all quests can be mapped and diagramed, which Campbell does.  He does this well, providing almost a surfeit of examples to support his analyses.  His second section, the cosmogonic cycle, is weaker than the hero section, though it, too, is well-supported.

Critical Response and Evaluation

I must say that I do not find it intrinsically unfortunate that Campbell favors Eastern beliefs over Western (all authors believe and favor some worldview over every other system); but it does, as mentioned above, disappoint and taint his other interpretations.  It disappoints in that by obviously favoring one belief system over another, Campbell makes his comments on both systems somewhat suspect.  He takes Bible stories and verses out of context to make some of his points, which is academically unsound.  In other places, he enjoins the readers to compare various Bible stories to Hindu or other religions’ stories — which, is not necessary bad (as that is, in part, the entire purpose of the work) — but the stories are often too different, in either content or meaning.  At times it appears as if Campbell wants to level certain belief systems or stories to prove his points, instead of simply analyzing the stories as they are and making his conclusions from them.

Psychological analysis, too, despite a century of criticism and evaluation, is still, to me at least, a tenuous method to interpret not only dreams but also literature.  I do not want to press this point too firmly either, since I understand that literary analysis itself (as separate from particularly psychological analysis) can be a tenuous, subjective activity.  But declaring that an occurrence or character in a dream means something specific simply because the psychologist or interpreter says so doesn’t seem to be a very believable system by which to interpret and understand things.  Perhaps this is my ignorance of the field speaking, and I acknowledge readily my limitations in the psychological realm, but I did not find Campbell’s work and references to psychological interpretations very helpful or credible.

With that said, I found Campbell’s work overall quite helpful.  His analysis and structure of the hero’s quest and journey was the best portion of the work, and it was the most helpful analysis of the hero’s function I’ve read so far.  I had the suspicion when beginning Campbell’s work that that portion would be the most useful, and I was not disappointed in that regard.  At the beginning of part one, the adventure of the hero, I found Campbell’s diversity of examples from several countries interesting — at first.  Toward the end of the work, though, the examples became more tedious as the ratio of Campbell’s analysis to myths reversed.  At the close of the work, in the cosmogonic cycle discussion, Campbell’s own ideas and synthesis diminished to a few scant sentences in each subsection, while his examples increased to multi-page examples.  It seemed like Campbell had two different works in mind, but didn’t have enough ideas for “The Cosmogonic Cycle” so he tacked it on to the end of “The Adventure of the Hero” and padded it with too many examples and stories.  I found Campbell’s map of the hero’s journey through “departure,” “initiation,” and “return” very insightful and helpful.  If you are interested in myths, heroes, comparative literature, psychological analysis, or Star Wars (since George Lucas readily admits Campbell’s work was highly influential in helping him create his space opera), The Hero with a Thousand Faces is a worthwhile read.