Poem by John Ahern. (G-rated Poem. Don’t worry. I don’t discuss Catullus directly.)

Camena! Vobis miserere!
Omne vitium tuum,
Habitus oculorum, cum sopa in eos!
Eos aperiam poeticam pellegere,
Dummodo agas aliquod ad Catullum!

(And, my grammar is not yet near perfection. Comment if you see any horrid mistakes. I’m still working on Latin poetry, you know.)

********************************************

Gabriel Bertilson pictures,

And goes on to write,

By request of John, today I give you the etymology of worship (perhaps a bit later than when I had it ready).

Worship comes from Old English weorþscipe (with the variant forms wurþ-, wyrþ-), from weorþ, worth and -scipe, -ship, in a condition/state of; so if the word had come down to us regularly, we would have modern English worthship.

The loss of the th (Old English þ/ð) was probably due simply to the fact that it’s easier to say sh than thsh. From the quotes given in the Oxford English Dictionary (perhaps not an exhaustive record of all spellings throughout the history of the English language, but the closest I can get), the first time the th was omitted was in 1154 (wurscipe), and the last time it occurred was in 1340 (worþssipes).

It was originally used to refer to “the condition of being worthy, honor, renown”, which makes most sense from its constituent parts. And then, related to that, it described what a person of “worthship” deserves or is entitled to: respect, honor.

And so from the last meaning we get the usual modern meaning of worship: in worship we’re seeking to give honor to God.

I was thinking about this all: if worship is merely the giving of honor to someone deserving it, can we really say that one should only worship God, since there are other people who have done good things? I suppose the answer is that the worship of God is more than merely the giving of honor to Him.

But as I have nothing more helpful to say on that, a good day (or night) to you all.

A note on the picture: The flower is foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia); the fern is Lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina); and the roundish divided leaves in the background are (I think) wild geranium (Geranium maculatum).

Hannah Roorda asks,

To be or not to be?

These words have been quoted, paraphrased, abused, parodied, and used in every possible manner. And yet, they have never been separated from the man who originally penned them?—?one William Shakespeare (and indeed, whenever Shakespeare is mentioned, these words always manage to enter the discussion.)

Shakespeare has always been recognized as a master playwright, some-time historian, social critic, and philosopher. Despite his good standing in the literary world, some have taken it upon themselves to criticize his work as being unoriginal; pointing out that it is quite apparent that many of his best stories and characters were stolen from other authors. However, this is quite possibly what makes his work so enjoyable and profitable. In fact, I propose to you that Shakespeare wrote plays the way musicians write jazz?—?borrowing from every source worth listening to and creating something new in the combination. Americans should love Shakespeare.

My commentary on Old Bill doesn’t go much beyond this modest (or perhaps outrageous) proposal, except for the addition that Shakespeare’s work reflects his culture?—?overtly Christian. Instead, I would like to point you to some resources to help you begin to examine the Bard and his philosophy and worldview for yourself.

To Read:

From Shakespeare:
A Midsummer Night’s Dream — Perhaps Shakespeare’s best-loved comedy, A Midsummer Night’s Dream is light, amusing fantasy. It influenced modern culture’s views of fairies and fantastic creatures, impacted ideas about love and reason, and has inspired generations of followers. More than that, Shakespeare’s Christian views on the nature of God shine through spectacularly, no matter how hard critics try to cover them.

Macbeth — Shakespeare on Human Nature, Sin, and Corruptibility. A dark tale with a somber, though noble ending. It is considered a tragedy, but in the end, the wrong is punished and the good guys win.

Henry V — If you read only one of Shakespeare’s histories, this is the one. On kings and authority, men, battles, death.

Much Ado About Nothing — More love, marriage, deceit, comedy, malapropisms (though the word had not been invented) and speech. Shakespeare reserved his wittiest lines for Beatrice and Benedick.

From Others:

The most-authoritative Christian book on Shakespeare that I can honestly recommend to you is Brightest Heaven of Invention by Peter Leithart, put out by Canon Press.

To Watch:

There are a lot of Shakespeare film-adaptations out there?—?where do you begin? Well, you’ve got to start somewhere, and I don’t recommend you begin with Laurence Olivier’s Henry V. In fact, I recommend you stay away from Olivier’s idea of Shakespeare, as he misses a lot of the philosophy and worldviews, the humor and earthiness, and ends up with plays filled with pomp, circumstance, elaborate and incorrect costumes and props, and it becomes just so over the top it makes you want to swear off Shakespeare for the rest of your life.

Instead, I recommend:

Much Ado About Nothing
(Directed by Kenneth Branaugh, 1993)

Henry V
(Directed by Branaugh, 1989)

Hamlet
(Directed by Franco Zeffirelli, 1990)

10 Things I Hate About You
(After you recover from your shock… this is a modern take on The Taming of the Shrew, and not a bad film. It does keep the essence of the play, and it translates to modern times rather well, giving you new perspective on old truths. Caution: Rated PG-13 for crude sex-related humor and dialogue, alcohol and drug-related scenes.)

The Complete Works of Shakespeare (Abridged)
(A stage production which, if nothing else, perfectly captures the spirit of Shakespearean humor, if not the letter. Any serious Shakespeare buff needs to watch this and lighten up. Caution: Crude humor and language.)

To Do
Anyone who really wants to appreciate and understand Shakespeare has one final task?—?participation. Shakespeare is supposed to be done live?—?go see it, get involved, and only then can you enjoy the Bard fully.
My Local Troupe.
Touring Troupes Worth Seeing.

John Ahern writes in response to Nick’s post against Abstractions and Platonic notions, etc.,

Well, to put my difference with Nick simply, I think he’s been inconsistent. That inconsistency is bound to exist, as there is some inconsistency in almost every position?—?even, apparently, including mine, as I do believe that Reason exists.

Unfortunately, Nick has let on to a Platonic ideal already?—?that is, the Platonic ideal of personality. Platonic ideals give essences to things, and he says that the essence of a chair is found in the ability of a person to make it a chair, to give it its chairish essence. Personality, then, would be his only Platonic ideal.

Nick does have a worthy claim against Plato, and I don’t personally (no pun intended) think that Plato could reconcile his abstracts of Goodness, Truth, and Beauty with the idea of Personality.

I once argued with a friend over what made a human a human, and I said that it was his sense of morality and his ability to reason. My friend chafed at the idea of man’s innate sense of morality, and I cited the first chapter of Mere Christianity as a good place to see the argument. (Of course, I could have cited Romans 1, but that has more baggage.) His objection to C. S. Lewis’ argument was that C. S. Lewis was supporting a sense of morality and an ability to reason apart from God.

As for Van Til (with one “l”?—?shows how much I know about him), I’ll have to read up on that a bit more to properly respond to that.

But what C. S. Lewis put so elegantly later in Mere Christianity (read the chapter on dualism and competing religions) is that the Three Transcendentals, Goodness, Truth, and Beauty, are really incarnational things. They are not apart from God because God is They. Truth, our ability to reason, is not a tool made by God for men to use; it was not made by God at all. Begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. Likewise, morality is not something apart from God, but it is within the Trinity.

Because the Logos became flesh, Plato’s ideas become refined. The Word (Logos) that gave the word “light” its essence is a Person because he is human. This is where Plato and Kant can be unified.

This explains Romans 1 and the existence of “conscience” and the Tau. St. Thomas wasn’t telling us something we didn’t know in his proofs for the existence of God. We already know his existence because man was made in Imagine Dei. (“His invisible attributes are clearly seen.”)

And, as for the claim that the word “Goodness” has no meaning outside the word “Evil”?—?A Grief Observed, C. S. Lewis.

And, finally, as for Reason proving Reason, or Logic proving Logic, this is all very true. I suppose one could level the same complaint against God and his creation. If God made everything, then he had to make himself. But that’s utter rot. The fact is that God is in a completely different time, and he needs no beginning or end. Again, we see an illustration of Reason as something coming from God to man. In order for Reason to work, as Nick ironically pointed out, it has to be a Person.

Hannah Roorda writes,

As my first contribution, I would like to share with you an instructive poem that found its way into a novel of mine last night. It would seem that it was simply inspired, but the truth is that I learned most of what I know about poetry from a single course?—?Omnibus II, put out by Veritas Press.

On Courtship?—?A couplet (forgive the pun).

Young man who hopes to win fair heart,
Must learn the ancient courting art.

He need not boast of honors long,
Nor prove himself in dance or song.

But when he is in lover’s sight
Must speak the truth, and act in right.

And not just then, but all the day
Must tread the straight and narrow way.

For maidens who are worth the fight
Want but men who walk upright.