SOBRAN'S --
The Real News of the Month
May 2005
Volume 12, Number 5
Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 for 2 years;
trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
E-mail subscriptions: $39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a
12-month subscription to the print edition); $65 for
2 years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print
edition).
Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617 Website: www.sobran.com
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211 or www.griffnews.com
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): Add $1.25 per
issue for Canada and Mexico; all other foreign
countries, add $1.75 per issue.
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-513-5053. Allow
4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.
CONTENTS
Features
-> Might, Right, and the American State
-> Publisher's Note
-> The End of "Progress"
-> Old Man Shakespeare
-> Thanks
Nuggets (plus electronic Exclusives)
List of Columns Reprinted in This Issue
FEATURES
{{ MATERIAL DROPPED OR CHANGED SOLELY FOR REASONS OF
SPACE APPEARS IN DOUBLE CURLY BRACKETS. EMPHASIS IS
INDICATED BY THE PRESENCE OF "EQUALS" SIGNS AROUND THE
EMPHASIZED WORDS. }}
Might, Right, and the American State
(page 1)
The great literary critic Northrop Frye begins his
essay "The Problem of Spiritual Authority in the
Nineteenth Century" with a startlingly astute political
observation:
"The source of actual or 'temporal' authority in
society is seldom hard to locate. It is always in the
near vicinity of whatever one pays one's taxes to. As
long as it can be believed that might is right, and that
the tax-collecting power is not to be questioned, there
is no separate problem of spiritual authority. But the
thesis that might is right, even when as carefully
rationalized as it is in Hobbes, has seldom been regarded
as much more than an irresponsible paradox."
Frye goes on to show how various political
philosophies, from Milton to Matthew Arnold and William
Morris, have dealt with the problem of justifying the
state in terms of "spiritual authority." The question is
rarely addressed now, and a vacuum has been filled, as a
practical matter, by secular universities, which supply
the values by which modern society is kept in "so
constant a state of revolution and metamorphosis." But in
earlier times -- Christian times -- the West was deeply
concerned with defining the state, its just powers, and
its moral limits.
Today the very idea of such limits is nearly
defunct. The state just keeps growing, always claiming
more of its subjects, but even those who resist its
growth rarely offer, or demand, a stabilizing rationale.
"Standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" -- William
Buckley's famous phrase of 1955 -- is still as near to a
contemporary conservative credo as we have.
"Stop"? Stop what? Just what is "history" doing
wrong? Most conservatives have a long list of particular
objections, but these are rather miscellaneous and
contradictory. In their way, conservatives themselves
have encouraged the expansion of the warfare state, while
grumbling about the concomitant swelling of the welfare
state, their chief complaint about which, nowadays, is
that it isn't being managed on sound Republican
principles. Liberalism is now equally devoid of
principle.
{{ Nearly all the political players now agree in
practice that might -- especially American might, the
might of the U.S. Government -- is right. A government is
above all an economy, taking from some, giving to others,
threatening (and sometimes delivering) destruction to
still others, mostly abroad, while assuming
responsibility for prosperity at home. The more godless
it becomes, the more authority it assumes; the more
aggressive it becomes, the more it insists its purposes
are defensive. Its watchwords are "defense," "security,"
"safety," "protection," and "health," public and
national. }}
It's interesting to note that the Canadian Frye's
formidable list of political philosophers is drawn almost
entirely from English literature (Rousseau gets a brief
mention). Though the U.S. Government is the most gigantic
state in human history, it has curiously lacked a single
important American theorist since its infancy as a
constitutional republic.
Passing strange. Socialist, Communist, Fascist,
Zionist, and many other regimes have had their
philosophers; but the American regime still awaits even a
disinterested, realistic Aristotelian description of its
actual constitution (as distinct from its obsolete
written one), let alone an attempt to justify the
fantastic scope of its present powers.
To be sure, America is capable of vehement
self-congratulation; but this usually takes the form of
empty democratic slogans. What is totally absent is any
serious attempt to show that the American regime, as it
now exists, meets the test of reason.
Publisher's Note
(page 2)
I am pleased to announce that we have just released
a Compact Disc of Joe Sobran's first book, SINGLE ISSUES:
ESSAYS ON THE CRUCIAL SOCIAL QUESTIONS (The Human Life
Press, New York, 1983).
This CD is essentially an electronic photograph of
the 1983 book, which has been out of print for many
years. There is no audio on the CD -- just a picture of
each of 189 pages of the book plus front matter and the
dust jacket. You will need a computer to print out the CD
or to view it on your monitor.
SINGLE ISSUES is a selection of Joe's essays written
from 1975 through 1982 for HUMAN LIFE REVIEW. Some of the
15 articles included are: "Nothing to Look At: Perversity
and Public Amusements"; "Bogus Sex: Reflections on
Homosexual Claims"; "The Established Irreligion"; "On
Imposing One's Views"; "In Loco Parentis"; "Razing the
Past"; "The Value Free Society"; and "'Secular Humanism'
or 'The American Way.'" (A full listing of the contents
can be seen on the website at
www.sobran.com/books.shtml.)
It is a wonderful compilation of Joe's writings on
culture, society, the family, and right-to-life issues.
The CD is for sale for just $12 but is FREE as our
gift to you if you renew your subscription. Also, you
might consider giving a gift subscription of SOBRAN'S to
a friend, colleague, family member, or priest and we will
include the CD as a bonus.
You can arrange renewals and gifts on-line at
www.sobran.com, by telephone (800-513-5053), or by using
the subscription forms enclosed with this issue.
SOBRAN'S In A Box
A kind contributor has made it possible for us to
assemble and box complete sets of SOBRAN'S from our first
issue in September 1994 through December 2004. This
"Ten/Four" Set (10 years plus four issues from 1994)
totals 122 issues of SOBRAN'S.
We have a limited number of these sets -- which are
in cardboard boxes -- so order soon if you want one.
Also, you may consider donating a set to a pubic or
university library. We can ship the set to you -- or give
us the name of a contact person and the library address
and we'll ship it directly. Make sure to ask the library
if they wish to recieve this donation.
We are offering a bargain price for this complete
set: just $50 for the box of 122 newsletters! This
includes shipping (the box weighs about 10 pounds).
Be aware that this set is simply loose newsletters
in a box. No binders, no magazine clips, no frills. Just
the priceless words and wisdom of Joe Sobran.
Finally I would like to thank you for your cards and
prayers as Joe recuperates from foot surgery. Keep them
coming. They are a tremendous help to him.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fran Griffin
Publisher
The End of "Progress"
(page 3)
In its coverage of the Catholic Church, the NEW YORK
TIMES never lets you down. Its banner headline announced,
"German Cardinal Is Chosen as Pope," but a sub-headline
signaled the theme of the story: "In a Celebrating Crowd,
Some Show Concern over His Doctrine."
"His" doctrine? Is Benedict XVI adding idiosyncratic
beliefs of his own to the ancient creeds?
Not exactly. By the fifth paragraph of the story,
the paper reported that "some" in the applauding crowd at
St. Peter's were expressing "reservations about his
doctrinal rigidity." One American student worried that he
"might scare people away." Another spectator called his
election "the gravest error."
The story quoted nobody in the vast, applauding
crowd who thought Benedict might be a good pope. The rest
of the account was peppered with ominous words like
"harsh," "rigid," "divisive," and "contentious."
Count on the TIMES to seek out, and feature,
Catholic malcontents to comment on events in the Church
-- as it did consistently throughout the long papacy of
this pope's friend and mentor John Paul II, whose
orthodoxy (or "doctrinal rigidity") it likewise deplored.
Once again liberals, inside and outside the Church,
are alarmed that the Pope is too Catholic. An aging lost
generation of Catholic liberals, full of false hopes
since the Second Vatican Council, can't shake the idea
that they are the Wave of the Future, and that the
Church's destiny is to adopt their destructive "reforms."
But Benedict's quick election means that liberalism's day
is over.
Benedict promises -- or, from the liberals' point of
view, threatens -- to reaffirm and strengthen the
orthodoxy and traditions they have hoped were doomed. The
College of Cardinals has witnessed the bad fruits of
headlong change: the weakening of the faith of ordinary
Catholics, the corruption of the liturgy, plunging Mass
attendance, and the infiltration of the seminaries and
the priesthood by homosexuals. A consequence has been one
of the most explosive scandals in the entire history of
the Church, the sexual abuse of boys by priests.
More "progressivism," anyone? The Church of Rome has
chosen not to go the way of the Church of England or its
American branch, the Episcopal Church. We have seen the
"progressive" future, and it doesn't work.
C.S. Lewis, who died in 1963, just as the Second
Vatican Council was beginning, was the great apologist
for "mere Christianity." By this he meant the irreducible
core of belief shared by all who believed that Jesus
Christ was the Son of God. Lewis carefully avoided
discussing the doctrines that divided Catholics and
Protestants; as a devout Anglican, he assumed that "mere"
Christianity was secure within the Church of England.
But as the Catholic writer Joseph Pearce points out,
events have proved otherwise. By the end of his life,
Lewis was warning against the proposed ordination of
women and other fashionable changes; today his church has
long since adopted most of them, marginalizing many of
the doctrines he considered essential to any form of
Christianity worthy of the name. As one wag quipped only
a few years after Lewis's death, the Church of England is
so liberal that "nobody from the Pope to Mao Zedong can
say with any assurance that he is =not= an Anglican."
Benedict XVI means to see to it that everyone will
know confidently whether or not he is a Catholic. But
liberals consider the mere definition of Catholic
teaching -- the elimination of mush -- a form of
intolerance, or "doctrinal rigidity."
This Pope has always known that Catholic doctrine is
not "his," or anyone else's, to change. The secular
world, including many within the Church, will always
passionately urge that this doctrine be updated to suit
the times, rather than just restated in terms
intelligible to the times. As G.K. Chesterton reminds us,
there is a world of difference between restating and
updating. It's the difference between putting old wine in
new wineskins and putting new wine in the old wineskins.
Liberalism is no longer new, but that's not what's
wrong with it. The trouble is that it's false, was always
false, and never offered anything that could be permanent
and sustaining. It survives only as the corrosive residue
of another time, a fad now expiring, which our new Pope
seems determined to expunge from the Church.
Old Man Shakespeare
(pages 4-5)
Even my friends wonder why I'm so impassioned about
proving that "Shakespeare" was really the Earl of Oxford,
Edward de Vere. They're too polite to roll their eyes,
but I can sense that they think I'm in the grip of an
eccentric obsession. What difference can it make to
sensible people? We have the plays, don't we? What else
matters?
Let me try to explain. Only Shakespeare conveys the
full pathos of writing. When I read the Sonnets, I come
close to tears. Here is the genius who wrote HAMLET --
the only man who ever lived who even =could= have written
it -- and he feels his life has been a failure! What on
earth would success be like?
When my friend Sam Francis died recently, I
reflected that Sam might have understood this. Despite
his talent, and despite having his share of admirers, I
always felt that Sam knew the loneliness of writing as
Oxford had known it.
So in a way I'm simply trying to correct a
historical injustice, like a crusading lawyer who wants
to prove that an executed man, long dead, was innocent
after all. I want =justice= for Oxford! And I can't rest
as long as the world denies him the glory that is due
him.
These thoughts come to mind after reading a new
Oxfordian book, PLAYERS: THE MYSTERIOUS IDENTITY OF
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, by one Bertram Fields (who, as it
happens, is a lawyer). It breaks no new ground and is
even, by my lights, behind the curve. Though it mentions
me a few times, I don't think Fields really understands
the materials he's dealing with. He not only makes
arguments that have been made before, but also makes a
few that should have been abandoned long ago. They get us
nowhere.
I hope to write at least one more book on this
question, from an angle that has been largely neglected:
Shakespeare, when we first hear of him, is already in his
prime. I touched on this point in these pages four issues
ago when I argued that the two long poems, VENUS AND
ADONIS (1593) and THE RAPE OF LUCRECE (1594), are mature
works, not the "early" ones they've been commonly assumed
to be. (This article is also available at
www.sobran.com/oxfordlibrary.shtml.)
This means that when "Shakespeare" made his public
debut as a writer, he had already achieved full mastery.
The academic scholars have gotten the whole story wrong.
They have the poet arriving in London from Stratford
around 1590 and learning his craft as an
actor-playwright, then taking time out for fancy poetry
during the plague years. This narrative requires them to
twist or ignore at least six key facts.
ITEM: Thomas Nashe referred to Hamlet and his
"tragical speeches" in 1589. But this date is too early
for the scholars' story; William, son of Stratford,
couldn't have written such an accomplished work before
about 1600. So Nashe must have been referring to an
earlier Hamlet play, an "ur-HAMLET." No shred of this
supposed play has ever turned up, which hasn't stopped
the scholars from treating it as solid fact.
ITEM: In 1591, the great poet Edmund Spenser
published verses lamenting that "our pleasant Willy," a
brilliant writer of comedy who imitates Nature herself
and from whose pen honey and nectar flow, had recently
been "idle" and absent from the theater. For many years
it was assumed that "Willy" could only be Shakespeare
(who was often said to "imitate Nature" and whose style
was likened to "honey"). But then, because of the early
date, the scholars decided that he must have been someone
else. But who? They've never figured that out. Maybe
there was an ur-Willy?
ITEM: Also in 1591, a mysterious poet calling
himself "Phaeton" saluted the writer John Florio in a
sonnet whose polish and rich imagery fairly cry out that
the author is Shakespeare. But yet again, the scholars
have resisted the obvious. Their reason? "Too early."
Their chronology of the Stratford gent's career is set in
concrete. He =couldn't= have been writing excellent
sonnets in 1591!
ITEM: At this point, in 1593, the poet himself
introduced one of the greatest red herrings of all time:
Making his formal literary debut as "William Shakespeare"
with VENUS AND ADONIS, he called the poem (in his
dedication) "the first heir of my invention," creating
the impression that he was a young poet at the beginning
of his career. Taking him literally, the scholars still
base their chronology on the dogmatic assumption that
this is the Stratford man giving us the straight scoop.
(Odd as this sounds, even to me, Shakespeare =never=
mentions Stratford.)
ITEM: In 1594, WILLOBIE HIS AVISA, a cryptic work of
gossip in doggerel rhyme (author unknown), described
"W.S." as an "old player" (i.e., actor) who has amorous
adventures. If there was any doubt as to who W.S. was,
the poem added, "And Shakespeare paints poor Lucrece'
rape." This time the scholars admit that the allusion is
probably to Shakespeare, but they don't know what to make
of his being called "old."
ITEM: In 1599, a small book of verse titled THE
PASSIONATE PILGRIM included a version of what is now
known as Shakespeare's Sonnet 138, in which the poet
confesses that he lies to his mistress about his age,
even though "my days are past the best" and "I am old."
This poem was probably written several years before 1599,
along with so many other sonnets bemoaning the poet's
age, wrinkles, misfortunes, and approaching death. But
even when he himself says, "I am old," the scholars
refuse to believe him.
The scholars may not know what to make of all this,
but I think I do: Three witnesses who knew something of
Shakespeare personally -- Spenser, the author of
WILLOBIE, and Shakespeare himself -- were telling us that
whatever and whoever the poet was, as of 1591 to 1599 he
was, as we say, no spring chicken.
In fact the real Shakespeare apparently reached the
peak of his genius by about the time the man who has been
mistaken for him arrived in London. If so, the scholars
have gotten the dates of =all= the plays wrong. They were
written much earlier than has been believed -- most of
them long before the Stratford man came to town.
One example. In 1601 supporters of the rebellious
Earl of Essex revived RICHARD II, hoping that the scene
of Richard's deposition would inspire Londoners to join
their insurrection against Elizabeth I. It didn't, but
the queen was enraged by this use of the play against
her. During the subsequent official inquiry, an actor
named Augustine Phillips mentioned that the play was "so
old and so long out of use" that it had become hard to
perform properly.
According to most scholars (who of course take the
Stratford man's authorship as a given), the play was
written about 1595. But a play only six years old would
hardly be called "so old and so long out of use." Judging
by its style, I'd say that it had been written long
before HAMLET -- that is, many years before 1589.
But to return to my original question, what
difference does it really make? Well, the Stratfordian
myth is just too neat for my taste. It's a sentimental
democratic myth: a Horatio Alger success story of a
self-made provincial, of undistinguished blood and
education, who arrives in the big city and achieves
astounding literary greatness through sheer native talent
and hard work.
This happy yarn is no doubt encouraging to those who
have dropped out of school, but I can't believe it. The
learned Ben Jonson might scoff at the poet's ignorance
("small Latin and less Greek"); the even more learned
John Milton could marvel at Shakespeare "warbling his
native woodnotes wild"; yet such dismissals are hard to
square with the immense rhetorical virtuosity of HAMLET
and LUCRECE.
It's hard to offer an appealing counter-myth for
Oxford. He was about as different from the Stratford man
as can be imagined. He came of blue blood (some of it, in
fact, royal), money, and Cambridge University, with help
from the best tutors in England. He was even a favorite
of the queen. Yet he wasted his huge fortune (inherited,
not earned) and made bitter enemies, and was perhaps the
supreme example not of the self-made but of the
self-unmade man. Later in life he was ostracized at
court. He also appears to have been singularly cruel to
his wife. Many people, studying his life, find him
repellent. I can hardly blame them.
So why do I take his part? Only because he was
Shakespeare, and nobody else was. I make no excuses for
him. If, in the Sonnets, he bewails his misfortunes, he
never denies having brought many of them on himself; he
confesses his "guilt" and "harmful deeds." Oxford's
unsparing self-knowledge shows up in the eloquent but
self-pitying heroes Lear, Othello, Macbeth, and Leontes
(in THE WINTER'S TALE), all of whom must learn to face
their own guilt. We can't separate his genius from his
flaws. In his hard-won maturity, when he saw himself as
"old," the social isolation that may have forced him to
write under pen names also enabled him to produce
literary miracles about isolated men. The strange story
should be told.
Thanks
(pages 5)
My gratitude is inexpressible to all of you who have
offered your prayers and expressed your good wishes
during my recent infirmity. I seem to be recovering from
the surgery for a badly infected foot; I may yet recover
from my medications too! Not that I don't count my
blessings, including the angelic care I received in the
hospital, the generosity of my friends who visited me,
and the devoted ministrations of my son Mike here at
home.
NUGGETS
MANY HAPPY RETURNS: Congratulations to Fr. Ian Boyd,
founder and editor of THE CHESTERTON REVIEW, on the
occasion of that splendid journal's 30th anniversary.
Father Boyd offers a free copy of the delicious
anniversary issue to new subscribers; just write him at
The Chesterton Review, 400 South Orange Avenue, South
Orange, NJ 07079, or chestertoninstitute@shu.edu ($38 for
a year's sub, $70 for two years). Then enjoy the only
scholarly journal that makes me laugh out loud. (page 7)
NOW IT CAN BE TOLD: An art historian contends that
LAOCOON, long regarded as one of the greatest sculptures
of antiquity, is actually a Renaissance forgery. And the
forger? None other than the great Michelangelo! I guess
it figures. If a wonder like that could be faked, who
else on earth could have done it? (page 8)
PROGRESS REPORT: How goes the War on Terrorism? Well, the
State Department and intelligence officials reckon that
the number of terrorist attacks all over the world more
than tripled last year. Maybe it's just another of those
intelligence failures. (page 9)
Exclusive to electronic media:
LONG-RANGE WEATHER FORECAST: In a three-part series in
THE NEW YORKER, Elizabeth Kolbert argues plausibly that
global warming is real and will bring almost unimaginable
disaster within the next generation. Maybe so; but we
heard similar dire prophecies about the "population
explosion" in the Sixties. And then as now, the solution
was bigger government. Yes, friends, only tyranny can
save us!
NEVER SEND A BOOR: John Bolton, President Bush's choice
for new United Nations ambassador, has a low opinion of
the UN. Which would be fine, except that everyone who has
ever encountered Bolton seems to have an even lower
opinion of him. By every account, he's as abrasive as a
badger; he's been accused of botching diplomatic
assignments, alienating allies, bullying subordinates,
and falsifying intelligence data. No wonder Bush thinks
he's just the man to represent this administration.
REPRINTED COLUMNS
(pages 6-12)
* Family Secrets (March 22, 2005)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050322.shtml
* Will Faith Destroy Us All? (March 29, 2005)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050329.shtml
* The End of a Papacy (March 31, 2005)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050331.shtml
* The Lost Art of Speaking (April 5, 2005)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050405.shtml
* Honey and Vinegar (April 19, 2005)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050419.shtml
* Another Country (April 26, 2005)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050426.shtml
* Roosevelt and His Critics (April 28, 2005)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050428.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All articles are written by Joe Sobran.
You may forward this newsletter if you include the
following subscription and copyright information:
Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package.
See http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml
or http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2005 by The Vere Company -- www.sobran.com.
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate
www.griffnews.com with permission.
[ENDS]