Showing posts with label Dante. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dante. Show all posts

Friday, August 19, 2022

Adriatic: A Concert of Civilizations at the End of the Modern Age by Robert D. Kaplan

 
Kaplan's most personal & reflective book

I’ve read many of Robert D. Kaplan’s books, and he’s not an easy writer pigeonhole. Is he a travel writer, or a journalist, or an historian, or a geopolitical strategist, or a literary critic, or a memoirist? In different books—and sometimes all in one book—he qualifies for all of these designations. In fact, in Adriatic, we find Kaplan at his most diverse and his most personal. 

The bones of the book come from a journey (in segments) that Kaplan made that began in Rimini, Italy, and then moved onto Ravenna, Venice, and Trieste (all in Italy), then through Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Albania, culminating on the Greek island of Corfu. The common theme is the ties of these cities and nations—these lands—with the Adriatic Sea; and, in a larger sense, with the Mediterranean and the diverse civilizations and regimes that have existed in proximity to the Mediterranean. Around the Adriatic, Rome, Byzantium, Venice, the Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, and other nations and groups have all encountered one another, along with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Islam. 

Part of the story involves commentary and analysis from another author known as a journalist and geopolitical strategist; lots of reports of conversations with locals—politicians and government officials, academics, historians, and other writers. As one might expect, one comes away with insights into the social, economic, and political situations that Kaplan observes in these lands. All of this is worth the price of admission, but Kaplan’s observations and reporting are not what drew me to read this book twice over. (In reviewing my highlights and notes to write this review, I realized that I gobbled down the book during my first reading, and I would be wise to savor it on a second reading. My hunch proved correct.) 

In fact, several more layers in the book take its value far beyond reporting about current events in each locale. To start with, Kaplan makes his trip into a literary tour. Even before the beginning of his account of his journey, we are introduced to quotes from Italo Calvino; beginning in Rimini, he discusses the work and reputation of Ezra Pound; in Ravenna, we are treated to Dante; in Venice, he discusses Thomas Mann (Death in Venice); in Trieste, James Joyce (where Joyce wrote The Dubliners and other works) and Joseph Brodsky; and eventually on down to Corfu, where he discusses the Nobel Prize-winning Greek poet George Seferis. And in addition to these (and other) literary lights, Kaplan mentions authors most often considered “travel writers." In Corfu, for instance, it’s Lawrence Durrell; in Venice, it’s James/Jan Morris and Mary McCarthy; in Trieste, it’s Sir Richard Francis Burton (the nineteenth-century adventurer and translator) and Claudio Magris; and in (the former) Yugoslavia he cites Rebecca West and her 1941 book, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon. These lists of authors are but a sampler. 

But there is another layer down in this book. For Kaplan is not a name-dropper; he’s a reader. His admiration for the authors and works that he discusses is frank (especially for historians and their histories). In fact, he rues his lack of training as a historian and linguist. But he denigrates his own experiences and reporting too much. True, those who haunt archives and who bring to life earlier ages do a great service for which they are rightly hailed. Their work brings history to life, not simply as so many tales from the past, but as a set of events and actions that reveal human intentions and projects in all their magnificent diversity. History provides crucial self-disclosure for the human race, by which we can develop the self-consciousness of our species. Kaplan, through his reading and writing, advances this project with a book like this even more than what he could do via a more formal work of history. 

Digging down another level, Kaplan reveals his own quest for self-knowledge and continuing self-criticism. While Kaplan rues that his formal education ended with an undergraduate degree, I fear that graduate school might have spoiled his taste for broad interests and first-hand knowledge. And, he proves himself a committed, life-long autodidact, which is the mark of any truly educated, cultivated person. Certainly, Kaplan has role models who are great writers who’ve not been hampered by their (relative) lack of formal education. (A favorite of Kaplan and mine is Patrick Leigh Fermor, who was kicked out of school as a young man and went on the write some of the finest English-language prose of the twentieth century, and who quoted Horace to a captive German general on Mt Aetna on Crete during WWII—a great story there.) Whether a historian, philosopher, travel writer, or journalist, to be at the top rank one must know when to adjust one’s focus, when to use the microscope and when to use the telescope as one searches for knowledge across a variety of landscapes. Kaplan does this quite well. (Another fine example of this ability is the late historian-essayist John Lukacs, whose focus could shift without blurring from the “Modern Age” to Five Days in London, May 1940.) 

The final aspect of this book is the deepest and perhaps the most rewarding. This is Kaplan writing a memoir, a confession. Kaplan notes that in writing this he was in his mid-60s, and he’d been to many of these locations before. (See his Mediterranean Winter (2004.) In this sense, this book is similar to his earlier In Europe's Shadow: Two Cold Wars and a Thirty-Year Journey Through Romania and Beyond (2016), which reviewer Timothy D. Snyder described as revealing

[T]he confident, poetical Kaplan, striving as ever in his writing for the proverbial, but also a reflective, political Kaplan, seeking at times to submerge his gift for romantic generalization in respectful attention to the ideas of others. That tension — between an aesthetic sense of wholeness and the intellectual acceptance of complexity — is the real subject of the book, both as autobiography and as geopolitics. 

So, this book: it’s as much a memoir and autobiography as it is a book of travel and political analysis. As in the earlier book, Kaplan chastises himself for his earlier support of the Iraq War, having (mistakenly) thought that it would entail the overthrow of a dictatorship along the lines of the 1989 fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. But he doesn’t dwell on this mistake or the controversy surrounding his earlier book in the Balkans (Balkan Ghosts (1993) that influenced the Clinton administration, making the President reluctant to become actively involved in stopping the Serbian genocide. (There, Kaplan was an early proponent of intervention, notwithstanding any impression taken from Balkan Ghosts by others.) 

But again, I have to emphasize that Kaplan pulls the camera out further, for a wider focus, for a wider reflection upon himself. A sampling: 

The real adventure of travel is intellectual, because the most profound journeys are interior in nature. (Location 89)
. . . . 
[I]t is the books you have read, as much as the people you have met, that constitute autobiography. (Location 95)
. . . .
Because travel is a journey of the mind, the scope of the journey is limitless, encompassing all manner of introspection and concerned with the great debates and issues of our age. (Location 96)
. . . . 
Travel is psychoanalysis that starts in a specific moment of time and space. And everything about that moment is both unique and sacred—everything. (Location 99)
. . . . 
Originality emanates from solitude: from letting your thoughts wander in alien terrain. I boarded a ferry from Pescara to Split a half century ago to feel alive thus. For this reason I am alone now in a church in Rimini in winter. The lonelier the setting, the crueler the weather, the greater the possibilities for beauty, I tell myself. Great poetry is not purple; it is severe. (Location 106)
. . . . 
The mystery of travel involves the layers revealed about yourself as you devour such knowledge. Thus, travel must lead to self-doubt. And I am full of doubts. (Location 113)

[A]s I matured and became more interested in abstract matters rather than in atmospherics—in Confucian philosophy itself rather than in merely the setting for it, in the geopolitics of Italian city-states rather than in the art they produced—[Ezra] Pound’s evocative allusions to such matters, idiosyncratic as they might be, arguably nutty and crackpot for significant stretches, kept me from altogether deserting him. (Location 347)
. . . . 
Travel leads to books, and good books lead you to other good books. And thus, I have become an obsessive reader of bibliographies. (Location 385)
. . . .
The more I learned, the more aware I became of my own ignorance and autodidacticism. Only in late middle age would I become intellectually comfortable in my own skin, confident that the truest and most revealing insights sometimes involve seeing what was right in front of your eyes as you traveled. The future, I have learned, is often prepared by what cannot be mentioned or admitted to in fine company. The future lies inside the silences. (Location 535)
. . . . 
The train is the perfect place to think and read. (Location 602)
. . . .
Even just one day of travel constitutes a moment of lucidity that breaks through the grinding gears of daily habit, so that it becomes a bit more difficult to lie to oneself. I travel in order not to be deceived. Camus writes, “I realized…that a man who’d only lived for a day could easily live for a hundred years in a prison. He’d have enough memories not to get bored.” Very overstated perhaps, but not if that one day was a day of travel. (Location 603)
. . . 
[B]ecause there is no redemption, there is only confession. (Location 629) 
Such a person, such a writer, who strives for such a degree of self-knowledge, self-understanding, who recollects opportunities realized and lost, and who engages in a such on ongoing project of genuine education--of drawing out one's self, as does Kaplan--deserves our admiration for giving voice to so much that we may pass over or have missed in ourselves. 

I hope that this gives you a sample of the many layers of this book and the reason why Kaplan would worry about how this book might be categorized in a book store! It’s many books, many styles, all in one book. It’s a terrific read; a travelogue for the mind; a reflection on many times and places. 

Friday, November 12, 2021

Thoughts 12 Nov 2021

 


Weber’s understanding of values was indebted chiefly to Nietzsche and that Donald G. Macrae in his book on Weber (1974) calls him an existentialist; for while he holds that an agent may be more or less rational in acting consistently with his values, the choice of any one particular evaluative stance or commitment can be no more rational than that of any other. All faiths and all evaluations are equally non-rational; all are subjective directions given to sentiment and feeling. Weber is then, in the broader sense in which I have understood the term, an emotivist and his portrait of a bureaucratic authority is an emotivist portrait. The consequence of Weber’s emotivism is that in his thought the contrast between power and authority, although paid lip-service to, is effectively obliterated as a special instance of the disappearance of the contrast between manipulative and non-manipulative social relations.

The defense would argue, citing Descartes, Aristotle, Kant, or Popper, that humans err by not reasoning enough. The prosecution would argue, citing Luther, Hume, Kierkegaard, or Foucault, that they err by reasoning too much.

The purpose of a hypothesis in science is to propose an explanation for what we observe, either in nature or in the laboratory (ideally, a testable hypothesis): Why did this happen and not that? The more observations a hypothesis can explain or the more phenomena it can predict, the better the explanation, the better the hypothesis. This insistence that we get fat because we overeat is not even wrong, as the legendary physicist Wolfgang Pauli, a man with a gift for memorably pithy criticisms, might have put it. It explains nothing.


Entropy is a measure of the deadness of a system. Negentropy or information is a measure of the liveliness of a system.

He ["Phaedrus"] felt that institutions such as schools, churches, governments and political organizations of every sort all tended to direct thought for ends other than truth, for the perpetuation of their own functions, and for the control of individuals in the service of these functions.

The great masterpieces of twentieth-century historical writing rarely mention dates. Think, in particular, of so-called cross-sectional studies, such as Fernand Braudel’s book on the Mediterranean world at the time of Philip II, which does not present us with a development over time but is instead content with describing what that world looked like at one specific temporal cross-section.

[John Ciardi:] In contrast with the turbulent complexity of Hell, Dante’s Purgatory is simple, regular, and serene. On the lower reaches below the gate are kept in exile for varying lengths of time those souls who, for various reasons and in various conditions, sought salvation at the last moment. Above, within Purgatory, we find not the multifarious crimes by which vice or sin manifests itself in Hell (or on Earth), but simply the seven Capital Vices that lead to sinful acts.

Thursday, January 21, 2021

Forgive & Forget About Donald Trump--Now!--Or Not: My Thoughts

                                   Dante leads the way to a consideration of what to do with Trump
 

In Dante’s tale of his pilgrimage through the afterworld as a living man, he descends into Inferno (hell) with his guide, the shade of the great Roman poet Virgil. After plumbing the depths of hell, Dante and Virgil ascend into Purgatorio (purgatory), a mountain that Dante and any would-be entrant into Paradiso (paradise) must traverse before gaining entrance to the final heavenly reward. The journey up the mountain serves to purge the pilgrim of his sins. And in the ninth canto (section), Dante awakens from his sleep to find himself at a locked gate guarded by an angel with a flaming sword, and in front of Dante lie three steps up to the gate. The first consists of white marble polished to a reflective shine. The second step is deep, dark indigo, rough, with a deep fissure running both its length and width. The third and final step before reaching the angel with the flaming sword, is a deep red, the color of venous blood. The Mandelbaum translation: 

“Come forward, therefore, to our stairs.” 

There we approached, and the first step was white marble, so polished and so clear that I was mirrored there as I appear in life. 

The second step, made out of crumbling rock,

rough-textured, scorched, with cracks that ran across its length and width, was darker than deep purple. 

The third, resting above more massively, appeared to me to be of porphyry, as flaming red as blood that spurts from veins. 

And on this upper step, God’s angel— seated upon the threshold, which appeared to me to be of adamant— kept his feet planted.


Alighieri, Dante. Purgatorio (La Divina Commedia) (Kindle Locations 3634-3663). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 


Each step allows the pilgrim Dante to continue on the path to purging his sins, and each step represents an essential element required to continue the path. Translator Michael Mandelbaum’s notes explain the process and the symbolism: 


This first of the three steps corresponds to the first of the three parts of the sacrament of penance-confession— contrition of the heart. The clear polish of the marble reflects the sinner’s true image, so that he can recognize his sinfulness. The second, made out of dark crumbling rock, corresponds to the emotional upheaval that comes with confession by the lips, the second part of penance; and the third step of “porphyry, / as flaming red as blood that spurts from veins” corresponds to satisfaction by works, the third stage of penance. The bloodred color suggests both the blood Christ shed to redeem the sins of mankind and the zeal needed to shun future sins.


Id., Kindle Locations 24696-24701. 


So what relation does a snippet of text from a long medieval poem have to do with whether to pursue the removal and disqualification process against Donald Trump? Bear with me. 


These few lines from Dante’s masterpiece came to mind from reading and hearing opinions pro and con about pursuing the case against Trump for his role in the attack on the Capitol.  I realized that much of my reaction and analysis of this issue stems from what I’d experienced hundreds of times in my decades as a lawyer involved in hundreds of criminal cases, from traffic tickets to serious felonies. And as you may know, most criminal cases that get beyond the preliminary stages are resolved by a guilty plea or a guilty verdict, either to the original charge or to a related charge. And what does a guilty plea entail? First, an admission by the defendant that he or she (but a lot more “he”) has in fact committed a crime. This often requires the defendant to describe the crime committed. And, in the hope of receiving a more favorable sentence--less of a fine, less probation time, less jail time, or even less prison time-- the defendant is given an opportunity, preferably in-person, to address the judge directly and express remorse for his actions and make assurances that any leniency will not be abused by further violations. The sentence passed by the court will often not only include a prescribed form of punishment (which is the prerogative of the state), but also some form of satisfaction or atonement. For instance, the payment of restitution (similar money damages in a civil case) to the victim of a crime who suffered a measurable monetary loss, or perhaps some form of community service. Sincerely expressed apologies to the Court and to victims also can play a role. There is all manner of variations on this outline according to the varying practice of each jurisdiction, but in general,  this is how it works. (I’ve experienced this process in four different jurisdictions, Federal, Iowa, Illinois, and Maryland--as an attorney!) 


I hadn't realized it before now, but all of these instances were variations on a theme described by Dante, who wrote from medieval Italy!


I’ve heard from a variety of sources--some highly partisan (Republicans) and some definitely not Trump supporters--that we should not pursue the impeachment process against Trump because it will continue and perhaps worsen partisan divisions (the primary Republican argument) or that we should immediately put Trump in the rearview mirror and concentrate on the future. In fact, it’s a post by a friend on Facebook that has led me to record these thoughts. My friend wrote: 


No one is happier with the personnel change in our federal government . . . that took place today than I am.  HOWEVER, it is time to stop the anti-DJT, et al, rhetoric and focus on working to ease the unrest he showed us is there.  It is time to put the words peaceful, respectful dialogue into our political vocabulary and to understand that the answers to most issues are in the term, moderate, (versus far-left or far-right).

 

On one hand, I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. Politics in a democracy requires a commitment to certain principles, some formal and written, as in the Constitution, and some informal, such as norms of courtesy and civility in public discourse. Those who don’t share a commitment to democracy and liberty--in the sense of freedom of speech and the ability to participate in the public square--take themselves outside of politics as such when they violate these norms and resort to violence (threatened or actual). Speech that leads to action taken by a political body after due deliberation is the essence of politics. (In this train of thought I follow the insights of Hannah Arendt.) And the goal of a democratic polity should be to bring as many possible persons into the decision-making realm as possible, persons who are willing and capable of engaging in civil discourse. We can also imagine our nation as a “society” in the sense of a group of persons coming together for a joint undertaking. In doing so, we seek to transform areas of “non-agreement” into areas of “agreement” via a “dialectical process” that’s based upon persuasion and led by a spirit of cooperation. Conversely, society should work to minimize areas of “disagreement” that are reinforced by an “eristic process;” to wit, the use of arguments in which one side or the other prevails.  I’m taking this line of thought from R.G. Collingwood, the early 20th-century British philosopher. It’s worthwhile to quote Collingwood’s words at some length below to appreciate his perspective that I’m endorsing and using: 


24. 58. What Plato calls an eristic discussion is one in which each party tries to prove that he was right and the other wrong.

 

24. 59. In a dialectical discussion you aim at showing that your own view is one with which your opponent really agrees, even if at one time he denied it; or conversely that it was yourself and not your opponent who began by denying a view with which you really agree. 

 

24. 6. The essence of dialectical discussion is to discuss in the hope of finding that both parties to the discussion are right, and that this discovery puts an end to the debate. Where they ‘agree to differ’, as the saying is, there is nothing on which they have really agreed.

 

 

27. 92. In a dialectical system it is essential that the representatives of each opposing view should understand why the other view must be represented. If one fails to understand this, it ceases to be a party ‘and becomes a faction, that is, a combatant in an eristical process instead of a partner in a dialectical process.

 

 

28. 17. An ‘eristic’ (24. 58) political process can go on without discussion. Aiming as they do at victory, the parties to it may very well use force (20. 5) or attempts at force; for each tries to crush the rest, and this is best done not by discussion but by violence: that is, by civil war among the rulers. 

 

28. 18. A ‘dialectical’ (24. 59) political process, aiming not at victory but at agreement, might certainly go on without discussion in words, if a language of gesture or other nonverbal language was once fairly established; but, as it is, verbal discussion is the only kind which men can extensively use for political purposes.

 

 

29. 52. Dialectic is not between contraries but between contradictories (24. 68). The process leading to agreement begins not from disagreement but from non-agreement. 

 

29. 53. Non-agreement may be hardened into disagreement; in that case the stage is set for an eristic in which each party tries to vanquish the other; or, remaining mere non-agreement, it may set the stage for a dialectic in which each party tries to discover that the difference of view between them conceals a fundamental agreement.


29. 6. Granted that these ‘conflicts’ (non-agreements, not disagreements) are inevitable, how are they to be dealt with? 

 

29. 61. There are two possibilities. They may be dealt with dialectically: that is by a process leading from non-agreement to agreement; or they may be dealt with eristically, that is, by hardening non-agreement into disagreement and settling the disagreement by a victory of one party over the other. 

 

29. 62. To adopt the second alternative is to make war. To regard the second alternative as the only one available in such cases is to think of war as the only possible relation between bodies politic; to think that every body politic is permanently at war with every other.

 

29. 63. War is a state of mind. It does not consist in the actual employment of military force. It consists in believing that differences between bodies politic have to be settled by one giving way to the other and the second triumphing over the first.

 

Collingwood, R. G.. The New Leviathan. Read Books Ltd.. Kindle Edition. 

 

In short, we can either attempt to work together or go to war. Of course, in some circumstances, “war” in the guise of an eristic argument may be justified. For instance, in a judicial setting, a trial is a forum where eristic arguments are the norm and the parties may be said to be involved in a “war of words.” But note that the law courts and legal process quite different from legislatures and the political process. The courts of law resolve disputes within parameters established by the Constitution (or “constitutions,” as each state has its own constitution) and the laws adopted by the legislature. Thus, fights are contained and constrained when they reach the courts. For instance, if the legislature passes--and the executive branch approves--a law against inciting a riot, that law will be enforced by the courts. The eristic element is constrained by the parameters of the law adopted. Thus, in this example, the issue isn’t whether one should be allowed to incite a riot, but whether a person intentionally did in fact incite a riot. 

 

All this is to say that while we should seek agreement wherever we can, we will still have disputes and differences that entail argument and not simply efforts at accommodation. 

 

Now to the orange elephant in the room--or more accurately, in Mar-a-Lago. I cannot agree more with President Biden (and my friend quoted above) about addressing our differences and healing our divisions. We can disagree about policies: the role and effectiveness of government, the most appropriate level of immigration to allow; the most appropriate form and level of taxation; the best way to address climate change; and so on. These policy issues, and about every other policy issue, appropriately give rise to differing opinions. Also, interests vary. Values vary. This is why a commitment to values of process is so crucial in a democracy, values such as a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the peaceful transfer of power. 

 

But where a serious allegation of wrong-doing against anyone, even a president, is based upon good-faith evidence that meets the standard of probable cause that a crime has been committed, that allegation must be addressed, even if it raises the specter of further partisan division. (This also applies to “high crime or misdemeanors,” although such allegations need not necessarily constitute a violation of the criminal law.) 

 

To walk away now from the issue of former President Trump’s culpability for the January 6 attack on Congress would prove an egregious mistake. Perhaps more than a third of the Senate will not find Trump culpable for inciting an insurrection. Perhaps there will be enough senators who will doubt that Trump formed any requisite intent or that “incitement” is too vague a term. And some senators will certainly make a decision based solely on their sense of how their vote will play with their home-state voters. But to allow Trump to hold this highest office ever again and to allow him to reap the rewards of post-presidency without any reckoning-- without any confession or contrition for his actions--is an insult to we the victims of his wrongdoing. (Yes, I’m claiming wrongdoing on his part--his lies, his sowing of dissension, his attempt to corruptly influence election officials,  his refusal to honor the democratic process--even if some do not believe that his actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.) 



We, the American people, as much as the institution of Congress, are the victims of the January 6 attack. We should not expect or request that the American people simply forgive and forget the assault promoted by Trump, (as I contend it was). We should not ask the American people to simply forgive and forget any more than we should expect the victim of an assault--a spouse, a child, a friend, or even a stranger--to pretend that they should simply “forgive and forget” the actions of an utterly unrepentant, utterly remorseless perpetrator. The Senate must pass judgment for us to achieve a sense of justice and an opportunity for reconciliation. It may seem harsh, it will likely prove divisive, but without it, we won’t achieve the reckoning and reconciliation that we want and need. And finally, if we fail to act by giving this matter the full consideration and judgment that it deserves, will fail those to whom we are passing on this democratic republic. As President Biden noted in his inaugural address,We have learned again that democracy is precious. Democracy is fragile. And at this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed.” But “this hour” alone should not satisfy us. How we act--or fail to act--will echo deep into the future and will define the course of our nation for the decades to come. We mustn’t do the convenient thing, we must do what the times require of us. We must leave the legacy that will allow future generations to enjoy the fruits of a democratic republic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Sunday, April 5, 2015

The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, translated by Allen Mandelbaum

How does one review The Divine Comedy, which has been subject to consideration for centuries by some of the greatest minds of Western culture? I won't try. It's a brilliant and imaginative work of the first order, perhaps the greatest single work in the Western literary canon. If handled with care, one doesn't read it, one experiences it.

Mandelbaum's translation works very well, holding a poetic sensibility without attempting to replicate Dante's terza rima. The result reads (silently or aloud--this isn't modern prose, it's poetry) in a way that takes you into Dante's world. I'm not enough of an expert to compare translations authoritatively, but I don't know that other translations that I've read match this one. His notes are    a quite thorough and elucidating.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Words of Wisdom from Dante


And let this weigh as lead to slow your steps, 
to make you move as would a weary man
to yes or no when you do not see clearly:
 

whether he would affirm or would deny,
he who decides without distinguishing
must be among the most obtuse of men;

opinion—hasty—often can incline
to the wrong side, and then affection for
one’s own opinion binds, confines the mind.

Far worse than uselessly he leaves the shore
(more full of error than he was before)
who fishes for the truth but lacks the art.

. . . .
So, too, let men not be too confident
in judging—witness those who, in the field,
would count the ears before the corn is ripe;

for I have seen, all winter through, the brier
display itself as stiff and obstinate,
and later, on its summit, bear the rose;

and once I saw a ship sail straight and swift
through all its voyaging across the sea,
then perish at the end, at harbor entry.

Let not Dame Bertha or Master Martin think
that they have shared God’s Counsel when they see
one rob and see another who donates:

the last may fall, the other may be saved.

Dante Alighieri, Paradiso, Canto XIII (Mandelbaum translation)