Wednesday, April 14, 2010

The Good Felowship of Dust: Reflections on Herbert's "Church-monuments"

While that my soul repairs to her devotion,
Here I entomb my flesh, that it betimes
May take acquaintance of this heap of dust;
To which the blast of death's incessant motion,
Fed with the exhalation of our crimes,
Drives all at last. Therefore I gladly trust

My body to this school, that it may learn
To spell his elements, and find his birth
Written in dusty heraldry and lines;
Which dissolution sure doth best discern,
Comparing dust with dust, and earth with earth.
These laugh at jet and marble put for signs,

To sever the good fellowship of dust,
And spoil the meeting. What shall point out them,
When they shall bow, and kneel, and fall down flat
To kiss those heaps, which now they have in trust?
Dear flesh, while I do pray, learn here thy stem
And true descent; that when thou shalt grow fat,

And wanton in thy cravings, thou mayst know
That flesh is but the glass, which holds the dust
That measures all our time; which also shall
Be crumbled into dust. Mark here below
How tame these ashes are, how free from lust,
That thou mayst fit thyself against thy fall.

One can not encounter death, or even its monuments, without facing the certain knowledge that it will one day overtake us and turn our flesh to dust. Most often we chose to be forgetful of our coming death, thereby cheating ourselves of any profit from our brush with death's reminders. George Herbert, in his poem "Church-monuments," does not shrink from such an encounter with death's monuments, in this case tombstones, but rather uses this encounter to admonish his body to prepare for its inevitable dissolution into dust.

Herbert's tone is a devout one, but one which seems to posit a radical distinction between body and soul. In the poem's first three lines he evokes two themes that are central to the poem: a feeling of pious devotion and self-admonishment as well as a dualism between soul and flesh. Here, as throughout the poem, body and soul pursue different objects: while the soul goes to her devotion, the flesh is entombed to make acquaintance with death. Noteworthy, too, is the feminine pronoun used for the soul in the first line, while the body later receives exclusively masculine pronouns. In the third line we first find mention of dust, here likely referring specifically to a tombstone or even the heap of earth covering a grave or, perhaps, as below, referring more generally to the dust of mortality. The soul is here the animus of the flesh, leaving the body among the graves as it ascends.

The poet wishes his body to become acquainted with this dust "betimes," before it is driven there by "death's incessant motion," as evoked in the final three lines of the first stanza. This "betimes" is one of the few notes of hope in the poem: while the poet may not be able to avoid death, he can take away from his encounter with death a renewed determination to avoid its causes. It seems that we neither approach death casually nor approach it by purely natural causes; rather, we are blasted there by an eternal engine fueled by our crimes. Herbert here echoes St. Paul's notion that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23): our sins propel our incessant drive towards mortality. Herbert here is very inclusive: it is our shared crimes that drive all of us to our common death. As personal a meditation as the poem undoubtedly is, it reflects an individual response to a universal reality.

While the poem follows an a-b-c rhyme scheme, with each line made up of ten beats, an exception is made by using eleven beats in the first and fourth lines of the first stanza. Moreover, the extra beat in the first line gives us an extra sense of movement as we follow the soul repairing to her devotion. The fourth line's extra beat again evokes movement as we follow "death's incessant motion." The poem's rhythm is slow and steady, as befits its grave subject-matter. The twenty-four lines mirror the twenty-four hours of the day, time marching on.

The second stanza finds the poet trusting his body to the cemetery as to a school of mortality. In line six, as in the second line, the "I" of the poem again leads the body, making it appear likely that the "I" is the soul, the force of motion within the body. The simple lesson of the school is spelling: the body is to learn to spell its elements and find its birth written in the "dusty heraldry and lines" of the grave-marker. The tombstone or grave the body is asked to study reveals its components: dust and earth. One sees, by "Comparing dust with dust, and earth with earth," that one's body's elements will dissolve into that of which it was composed. In the twelfth line "these," namely the dust and earth, "laugh at jet and marble put for signs," which "sever the good fellowship of dust, / And spoil the meeting." That is, the "jet" (here, likely black lignite) and marble of tombstones are an artificial barrier between the dust of the body and the dust of the earth. For, ultimately, body, sign, and earth are all so much dust. The fellowship of dust will come about no matter how many monuments are constructed.

The monuments, being dust themselves, will also dissolve and be lost. No one will be able to point them out after they have bowed, kneeled, and falled down flat to "kiss those heaps," those earth-covered graves. Another reading of lines fourteen to sixteen is that the "they" of the fifteenth and sixteenth lines refers to people rather than tombstones. In this reading it is the visitors to the cemetery who bow down in veneration before the grave-heaps in which they vainly put their trust.

The end of the third and beginning of the fourth stanzas find the poet's "I" -- again, likely the soul -- reminding the body, as in the eighth line, to learn its "stem" and "true descent" from the dust while the soul continues to pray. It is curious that soul and body again seem to be engaged in separate tasks: the soul prays, the body learns its mortal lessons. This curiosity might be resolved by suggesting that the soul's very act of devotion is its meditative instructions to the body that it learn both its source and its final end.

An admonishment to restraint ends the third and begins the fourth and final stanzas. Still addressing the body, the poet -- or, perhaps, the poet's soul -- urges it, when it grows fat and wanton in its cravings, to remember "That flesh is but the glass, which holds the dust / That measures all our time; which also shall / Be crumbled into dust." We see here life as an hourglass: the body, as the hourglass itself, will soon too dissolve into dust. More problematic is the dust of the twentieth line which measures our time. What does it represent? One possibility is time, but such an interpretation renders the twenty-first line redundant. Is this measuring dust the soul? But the soul is immaterial, it is the one element in the poem which is above dissolution. It could be that this dust is simply the sand of the hourglass, a finite measure of our earthly life. The admonishment of lines seventeen to twenty-one appears to be based on the assumption that what is ultimately to be turned into dust does not deserve pampering. Or, at least, when it does grow fat and wanton in its cravings -- and the poet states this almost as an inevitability -- it should humble itself by remembering its origin and ultimate destination.

The poem's final three lines find the poet reminding the body that "here below," in the grave, the ashes are tame and free of lust. The poet's argument to his body here is less clear. It is likely a reminder that such feelings as lust are passions of the body which dissolve with its passing and, having reviewed the evidence for mortality, the body should restrain itself from such passions. The opposite conclusion, however, could be reached: that the body should make use of the life it has to enjoy its lust. The final line, "That thou mayest fit thyself against they fall," could be read in at least two ways. The most obvious would be that the poet, again addressing the body, urges it to guard itself against the fall of sin. Another possibility is that the fall refers to death, for which the body must prepare.

There does appear to be a dualism between soul and body: the soul is the animating force inside the brute body. The souls ascends in devotion while the body studies the simple lesson of its origin and destination. It is the "I," the soul (not that in line seventeen it is the "I," like the soul in the first line, that is praying) which alone appears to have reason and speech, while the body can only look and learn. Yet we can resolve this dualism and reintegrate soul and body to some extent by recalling that, throughout the poem, the soul is feminine and the body masculine. Joined together they make up the human person, which is neither disincarnate soul nor unanimated body. The soul's devotion in the opening line, as well as its prayer in line seventeen, could consist of the body's morbid lesson.

Though written in the first person and reflecting the poet's own graveyard meditation, the poem is universal enough in content and emotion to serve as a prayer for anyone encountering mortality.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

War and Peace Liturgical Errata


Since discussion of War and Peace has cropped up in the comment section, I thought I'd share an email exchange I had with Richard Pevear, co-translator (with his wife, Larissa Volokhonsky), of the version I read:
Mr Pevear,

I recently had the great pleasure of reading your recent translation of War and Peace. I noticed a few inaccuracies in your notes regarding Russian Orthodox liturgical matters that I thought I should point out.

Note 24 to Volume III, Part One (p. 1238 in the paperback edition). You write: 'There is a two-week fast period preceding the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on 29 June.' In fact, the length of this fast is variable, depending on the date of Pascha. The fast begins eight days after Pentecost (i.e., on the day after the Sunday of All Saints), and continues until the date you mention. It does normally last at least two weeks (at least for those following the Old Calendar; for those who follow the New it sometimes disappears altogether), but can last as long as two months when there is an early Pascha. Perhaps you have confused this fast with the other summertime fast, the Dormition Fast, which does in fact always last two weeks.

Note 28 (same volume, part, and page). You write: 'The priest and congregation kneel at vespers while the priest recites three long prayers.' There are, in fact, seven prayers -- although they are grouped into three parts (2-2-3).

Note 4 to Volume IV, Part One (p.4). You write: 'The same words are sung in the eucharistic prayer of the Orthodox liturgy.' I find this wording rather vague. The words you cite are in fact sung by the choir during the anaphora.

I hope you might find these points helpful. I have read nearly all the volumes of Russian literature you've translated into English, as well as some of your theological translations. I have also benefited from your wife's translations of theological literature into Russian. I owe you a great debt of gratitude for the many enjoyable hours I've spent reading your translations.

Please do not hesitate to contact me of I can be of further service.

Cordially,
x.
+++
Dear x,

Thank you for your appreciation of our work, and for your clarifications. I realize that our notes are sometimes vague, but they are meant for the general reader and are necessarily brief.

Yours truly,

Richard Pevear

Monday, April 12, 2010

Why Thomas Sunday?


The following is my translation of a Question and Answer with Hieromonk Job (Gumerov):
Question:
Why is a special Sunday dedicated to the Apostle Thomas?


Answer:
Belief in the great miracle of the Resurrection did not come to the disciples at once.
The first witnesses were the Myrrh-Bearing Women. It was still dark when they came to the cave in the garden of Joseph of Arimathea. The stone that had closed the entrance to the tomb turned out to have been rolled away. While they were at a loss, an Angel appeared to them and said: Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said: come, see the place where the Lord lay (Mt 28:5-6). For them to believe, the empty tomb and the word of the Angel were enough. Their caring and loving hearts were not touched by doubt. When they ran to tell the disciples, Jesus Himself met them and said: All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him (Mt 28:9). The Apostles did not believe them (Mk 16:11).

On the same day, when evening was drawing near, Jesus revealed the great mystery of His Resurrection to two more disciples (the Apostles of the Seventy, Luke and Cleopas), going to Emmaus, at a distance of sixty stadia (11.5 km) from Jerusalem. For their faith in the Resurrection of their Master, Jesus quoted from the Scriptures all the Messianic prophecy (Lk 24:27). However, they fully believed only after the Mystery of the Eucharist: As He sat at meat with them, He took bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their sight (Lk 24:30-31). Luke and Cleopas on the same day returned to Jerusalem and told the Apostles, but they did not believe them, as with the Myrrh-bearers. Late in the evening, Jesus appeared to the Apostles, who had gathered behind locked doors out of fear of the Jews. The Savior passed through the locked door. This showed the peculiarity of the Lord’s body, transfigured after the Resurrection. It does not follow the laws of the physical world. Jesus could pass through solid objects. The disciples were seized by confusion, because they thought that they were seeing a spirit. He showed unto them His hands and His side (Jn 20:20). This was important not only to convince them that He had come to them physically, but in order to conquer their disbelief. The Lord gave them to feel His hands, feet, and side. The wounds from the nails convinced them that this is the same body which had been crucified on the Cross.

The event to which Antipascha is devoted took place on the eighth day after the Resurrection. The Apostle Thomas was absent from the first appearance of the Savior to His disciples. Apparently it was not in town. The Apostles who met Thomas joyfully announced the Resurrection of their Teacher. We can assume that they said that Jesus gave them to touch His hands, feet, and sides to touch. Therefore his desire is understandable: Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my fingers into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand and His side, I will not believe (Jn 20:25). The disbelief of Apostle Thomas has nothing to do with the hardened immunity to the miracle of the Resurrection that we see among the Jewish leaders. This was the quite natural desire to reaffirm faith by visible and obvious evidence. The Risen Jesus on the eighth day renewed for His Apostles His appearance, appearing before them in the front room, the door of which was shut. To the doubt of the Apostle Thomas, the Savior answers with his own words, exactly repeating the request that Thomas expressed. This could not but amaze the doubting disciple: Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it in my side (Jn 20:27). It is namely for this reason, most likely, that Thomas did not fulfill the invitation of his Teacher to touch Him hands, feet, and side, but immediately believed and confessed Jesus Christ as God: My Lord and my God (Jn 20:28). People who stubbornly deny the Divine Savior of the world, bypass this place in the Gospel.

The first week after Pascha is called New week or Antipascha week (the Greek word "anti" means "instead of"), i.e., a renewal of Pascha. On this Sunday, by His new revelation to all eleven of the Apostles, the Lord repeated and renewed the revelation made on the first day of the Resurrection. But since the renewal of the Lord’s revelation took place on behalf of Thomas, the eighth day after Pascha is called St Thomas Sunday. Immediately following the week of Pascha, it completes the most solemn part of the great feast. Therefore Thomas Sunday is sometimes called the eighth day of Pascha. St. Gregory the Theologian writes: “From ancient times and for a good end has been established the law to honor the day of renewal, or better put, on the day of renewal to offer new thanksgiving. For was not the day of renewal the first day of the Resurrection, following from the sacred and luminous night? Why do we give such a name to this present day? That was a day of salvation, and this day of one of the remembrance of salvation" (Homily 44 on New Week.)

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Thomas Sunday

Tomorrow is the Sunday of Antipascha, also known as Thomas Sunday, on which we commemorate the Holy Apostle Thomas' touching of the Master's side. S. V. Bulgakov writes:
This Sunday commemorates the appearance of the Lord to the Apostles after His resurrection and the touching of His wounds by the Apostle Thomas. The circumstances of these events are sung in all the stikhera and troparia of the canon on Apostle Thomas Sunday and in the stikhera of the other days of this week. The appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostle Thomas and all the eleven is selected for the first Sunday after the Paschal Sunday because the circumstances of this appearance serve as the indisputable proof of the resurrection of the Lord from the tomb, "as from the chamber, with His immaculate flesh". It assures not only believers and the amazed of the joy of all the followers of the Lord, but even the infidel pagans and the enemies of Christ the Savior - the Judeans. It assures that by the power of His Divinity Jesus Christ is risen again from the tomb, that after the resurrection He did not have an imaginary or illusory flesh in which form the bodiless spirits or inhabitants of heaven are vested when they sometimes appear to us or to the holy brethren, but the real immaculate flesh which He has assumed from the womb of the All-holy Theotokos, with which He was nailed to the cross and on which there remained wounds even after the resurrection.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Rejoice, Lymph of Wisdom!

O spotless Theotokos, who ineffably gavest birth to the Word Who was of the Father before the ages, open my mouth, O modest one, that I may be rendered capable of praising thee, and may acclaim thee, crying these things unto thy Spring:

Rejoice, Spring of unceasing joyfulness.
Rejoice, Stream of ineffable comeliness;


Rejoice, Banishment of diverse impairments.
Rejoice, Destruction of varied ailments;


Rejoice, Brook of clarity, curing the believing.
Rejoice, Water of felicity, manifoldly healing the ailing;


Rejoice, Lymph of wisdom, banishment of ignorance.
Rejoice, Draught for the heart, brimming with ambrosia in abundance;

Rejoice, Bowl of manna with life a-streaming.
Rejoice, Laver and Nectar, divinely-wise flowing;

Rejoice, thou who hast shown us a passage from illness.
Rejoice, thou who didst quench the fire of sickness;


Rejoice, O Water of salvation.

This is the Oikos from today's service in the Pentecostarion. For more on today's commemoration of the Life-Giving Spring, see my post from last year.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Surfing the Web, Redeeming the Time

I’m just old enough to have grown up without the Internet. I was twenty-four when I first went online, and it was another five years or so before I became the owner of my first laptop and was able to go online at will. So I remember what life was like before the Internet, and my pervasive computer problems over the course of the past year have reminded me again.

What I can say without reservation is that the Internet has been bad for my spiritual and intellectual life. It's as distracting as television, and just about as nourishing. It keeps me from reading real books and distracts me from prayer. It reduces my attention span to a matter of seconds.

Now, no doubt, there are many invaluable resources on the Internet, and I am certainly not calling for total abstinence or avoidance. But I do believe that a great deal of caution in using the Internet is called for.

I can think of at least three serious dangers inherent in the prolonged use of the Internet: it changes the way we think; it changes the way we read; and it changes the way we relate with others.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn that the Internet changes the quality of one’s actual neurological activity. I have no doubts that studies demonstrating just this exist. In these brief notes, however, my evidence will be more anecdotal and autobiographical. What I can say for certain in that their is a direct correlation, in my experience, between the extent of my use of the internet and the diminishment of my attention span. I can think or I can surf; I can contemplate or I can click. And what I really can’t do during times that I use the internet a good deal is read. It’s always either the screen or the page, and the former almost always wins out.

For the sake of simplicity, one could identify three kinds of reading: deep reading (especially of fiction), internet reading, and spiritual reading. In his book How Fiction Works, the literary critic James Wood quotes with approval the words of Jorge Amador, the chief of police in a rough area of Mexico City who had instituted a reading program among his police force. Amador believes that reading fiction will enrich the lives of his officers in three ways:
First, by allowing them to acquire a wider vocabulary... Next, by granting officers the opportunity to acquire experience by proxy. ‘A police officer must be worldly, and books enrich people’s experience indirectly.’ Finally, Amador claims there is an ethical benefit. ‘Risking your life to save other people’s lives and property requires deep convictions. Literature can enhance these deep convictions by allowing readers to discover lives lived with similar commitments. We hope that contact with literature will make our police officers more committed to the values they have pledged to defend.

So, in other words: language; the world; and the extension of our sympathies towards other selves. These are among the reasons one should pick up Shakespeare or Milton, Papadiamandis or Dostoevsky. These are noble aims. But can they really be found outside actual bound books? We all know the language of emails, tweets, and texts. We know how narrowed our world becomes when we associate online only with those whom we agree. And we know, conversely, just how factious internet arguments tend to be. Quite simply, the “reading” we do online is barely reading at all, no matter how many words we create or consume.

Now compare this with spiritual reading according to the Fathers. St Peter of Damaskos writes: “The purpose of spiritual reading is to keep the intellect from distraction and restlessness, for this is the first step toward salvation.” Now, it would seem to me that if there are two things internet reading provokes, it’s precisely distraction and restlessness. Spiritual reading in the patristic sense is on an entirely higher plane than even the deep reading of literature. For St Peter of Damaskos, spiritual reading is the sixth of seven forms of bodily discipline. He writes:
The sixth form of discipline consists in reading the writings and lives of the fathers, paying no attention to strange doctrines, or to other people, especially heretics. In this way we learn from the divine Scripture and from the discrimination of the fathers how to conquer the passions and acquire the virtues. Our intellects will be filled with the thoughts of the Holy Spirit, and we will forget the unseemly words and conceptions to which we gave our attention before we became monks. Moreover, through deep communion in prayer and reading we will be able to grasp precious meanings; for prayer is helped by reading in stillness, and reading is helped by pure prayer, so long as we attend to what is being said and do not read or recite carelessly. It is true, however, that we cannot properly understand the full significance of what we read because of the darkness induced by the passions; our presumption often leads us astray, especially when we rely on the wisdom of this world which we think we possess, and do not realize that we need knowledge based on experience to understand these things, and that if we wish to attain knowledge of God mere reading or listening is not enough. FOr reading and listening are one thing and experience is another. One cannot become a craftsman simply by heresay: one has to practice, and watch, and make numerous mistakes, and be corrected by those with experience, so that through long perseverance and by eliminating one’s own desires one eventually masters the art. Similarly, spiritual knowledge is not acquired simply through study but is given by God through grace to the humble. That a person on reading the Scriptures may think that he partially understands their meaning needs cause no surprise, especially if that person is at the stage of ascetic practice. But he does not possess the knowledge of God; he simply hears the words of those who do possess this knowledge. Writers like the prophets often did indeed posses divine knowledge, but as yet the ordinary reader does not. So it is in my own case: I have collected material from the Holy Scriptures, but have not been found worthy of learning directly from the Holy Spirit; I have learnt only from those who did learn directly from the Holy Spirit. It is like learning about a person or a city from those who have actually seen them.
Thus we see that this “reading in stillness” is not an end in itself, but only points upwards to experience. But it would be churlish at this point to remark how far such spiritual reading is from anything we’re likely to do while surfing the web. My point is actually a more serious one: that too much time online actually makes such “reading in stillness” impossible.

FInally, the web changes the way we relate to others and to the whole notion of “community.” I remember very well the first time I heard the word “internet.” It was on a CNN story in about 1992, reporting on the opening of an internet cafe in San Francisco. I remember one thing from this story: the sound of the cafe. In the background were all the usual cafe noises of espressos being brewed and cups clanking. But over this noise not a single human voice was heard; all one heard instead was the clicking of keyboards. The impression has never left me. Relationships online are screen to screen rather than face to face. One has no commitments, no responsibilities. But all the while one has the feeling of being part of a “community.” This, of course, is a fraud.

I’ll end on another personal and anecdotal note. Last year, when my computer was broken, I at one point read War and Peace straight through in ten days. It was an exhilarating experience. It’s now been about ten days that I’ve had this new computer, and I haven’t completed a single book in the same length of time.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

The Lord is with thee!

Christ is Risen!

Today is the fountainhead of our salvation and the manifestation of the mystery which was from eternity.
The Son of God becometh the Virgin's Son, and Gabriel proclaimeth the good tidings of grace; wherefore, we also cry to the Theotokos with him:
Rejoice, thou who art full of grace, the Lord is with thee.