I write best in my books' margins. I thought I'd see if it worked in a blog's margins, too.

Marginal

On Philosophy in fiction. How does Shakespeare use ideas in fiction? On Friday, a friend referred me to a couplet I’ve never thought about, though I’ve taught Romeo and Juliet for eight straight years:

She’s not well married that lives married long;
But she’s best married that dies married young.

With these and other reflections on life and love, Friar Lawrence in act 4, scene 5 seeks to comfort the Capulets over Juliet’s ostensible death. The view of marriage expressed by this couplet seems to contradict those Lawrence expresses in act 2, scene 6 while counseling Romeo about marriage:

These violent delights have violent ends
And in their triumph die, like fire and powder,
Which as they kiss consume: the sweetest honey
Is loathsome in his own deliciousness
And in the taste confounds the appetite:
Therefore love moderately; long love doth so;
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.

(Is “love moderately” another of Romeo and Juliet’s oxymorons? After all, even the lover Jesus scolds in Revelation, “I would thou wert cold or hot.” But I think Lawrence’s advice here hinges on what he might mean by moderation: develop other interests in one’s marriage besides sex, and develop other interests in life besides marriage. (But what kind of play would such a life afford us?) Lawrence here also touches on another Romeo and Juliet idea: the link between sex and violence.)

I think the contradiction between Lawrence’s endorsement of “long love” in act 2 and his endorsement of what must be called short love in act 4 reinforces act 4’s dramatic irony. No one in the latter scene but Lawrence knows that Juliet is alive. So Shakespeare uses this dramatic irony to work in some thematic irony. Lawrence takes the opportunity while living this lie to aver in the starkest terms the antithesis of his own opinion.

What makes Friar Lawrence’s avowal of short love otherwise so convincing is the play’s focus on young love and the absence from the play of anything like long love (unless you count the long feud as long love by agreeing with Romeo that “Here’s much to do with hate, but more with love”). But the play’s treatment of moderation and violence reinforces what the dramatic irony suggests – that Lawrence in act 4 presents the antithesis of his own opinion. This antithesis strengthens both the drama and the theme.

Shakespeare, maybe even more than his devotee Dostoevsky, enriches fiction with ideas.

Marginal

On Orality and intimacy. Woolf, too:

What has praise and fame to do with poetry? What has seven editions (the book had already gone into no less) got to do with the value of it? Was not writing poetry a secret transaction, a voice answering a voice?

Ong could have used that quote as an epigraph to something. (From Orlando, which I just finished rereading. Harcourt 1956 edition, page 325)

Marginal

On Santorum vs. Paul: Lincoln vs. Douglas?  In last night’s Jacksonville debate, Santorum again went out of his way to espouse natural law principles.  Asked how his faith might influence him as president, he immediately veered from the question to make the case for reading the Declaration of Independence as the heart of the Constitution.  He then accused President Obama of what amounts to legal positivism — of seeing the state as the source of our rights. Santorum:

Faith is a very, very important part of my life, but it’s a very, very important part of this country. The foundational documents of our country — everybody talks about the Constitution, very, very important. But the Constitution is the “how” of America. It’s the operator’s manual.

The “why” of America, who we are as a people, is in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”

The Constitution is there to do one thing: protect God-given rights. That’s what makes America different than every other country in the world. No other country in the world has its rights — rights based in God-given rights, not government-given rights.

And so when you say, well, faith has nothing to do with it, faith has everything to do with it. If rights come…

(APPLAUSE)

If our president believes that rights come to us from the state, everything government gives you, it can take away. The role of the government is to protect rights that cannot be taken away.

And so the answer to that question is, I believe in faith and reason and approaching the problems of this country but understand where those rights come from, who we are as Americans and the foundational principles by which we have changed the world.

Notice the telltale references to both faith and reason, to the distinction between the Declaration as a statement of truths and the Constitution as a means of protecting those truths (Lincoln’s apples of gold in pictures of silver), and to the question over the ultimate origin of rights.  Pure natural law argument.

Of course, the purest form of legal positivism these days comes from the conservatives and not from Obama or other moderates.  The legal positivism of Bork, Rehnquist, and Scalia, among others — the refusal to see our rights as emanating from anything greater than a majority’s sufferance — is partly a reaction to what those judges and justices understand to be a groundless Living Constitution.  For the average conservative jurist, discovering the Declaration’s truths in the Constitution seems just as touchy-feely as Living Constitution’s shifting, generational understanding.

This is why I believe moderates and liberals are closer to the Founders than the conservatives.  ”Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”  At least the Living Constitution has as its central premise that the Constitution has a heart.  And if moderates and liberals want to stop ceding the Constitution and the Founders to the states-rights conservatives, they may wish to examine natural law, perhaps starting with John Locke and Abraham Lincoln.  After all, few of Rick Santorum’s political views inexorably follow from natural law.

Marginal

On Voir Dire (and critic George Steiner’s aversion to critics).  Here’s artist and theorist Wassily Kandinsky on art historians:

Art historians . . . write books full of praise and deep sentiments — about an art that yesterday was regarded as senseless.  By means of these books, they remove the hurdles over which art has long sine jumped, and set up new ones, which shti time are supposed to stay permanently and firmly in place. Engaged in this occupation, they fail to notice that they are building their barriers behind art rather than in front of it.  If they notice it tomorrow, then they will quickly write more books in order to remove their barriers one stage further.  And this occupation will continue unchanged until it is realized that the external principles of art can only be valid for the past and not for the future. . . . Theory is the lantern that illuminates the crystallize forms of yesterday and before. [On the Spiritual in Art, chapter 3]

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. [Matthew]

Marginal

On Texas’s successive secessions. A potential secessionist is now a potential president.  James Buchanan is considered one of our worst presidents in large part because he didn’t think he could resist secession.  But even Buchanan never suggested secession as an option, as Mr. Perry has.  The issue isn’t patriotism but one of inalienable rights.  At its heart, secession is contrary to the notion that all men are created equal.

Marginal

This week's New Yorker coverOn Hope & the photograph.  I just discovered Peter Schjeldahl talking about John Berger talking about Franz Hals in this week’s New Yorker as part of his review of the Met’s current Hals show. Schjeldahl and I wrote about different Berger essays on Hals, and I spared you Berger’s political theory in the essay I read (“The Hals Mystery”).  Schjeldahl thinks Berger’s political reading of Hals in the essay he read amounts to a projection that “belittles Hals as an individual.”  I could tell Schjeldahl enjoyed Berger’s ideas about Hals, and I enjoyed Berger’s way of addressing both Hals’s class-consciousness and his existentialism.  Maybe it’s all a projection, or maybe Hals wasn’t prophetic of only photography.

Speaking of which, Schjeldahl sounds like he would agree with Berger at least about Hals and photography:  “Hals showed them how candid technique could serve the direct registration of people and things as they really appear: art as an adept performance, in a streaming present tense.”