"Truth and beauty are in this alike, that the strictest survey seats them
both off to advantage. While the false lustre of error and disguise
cannot endure being reviewed or too nearly inspected."
--George Berkeley, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, p.43.
This was one of the readings, and a memorable one, from my first-year philosophy class. I just recently realized that the Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein can be understood as an answer to the problem posed by Berkeley. It is so hard to read because it is nowhere indicated that it is the answer to an unstated question.
Decades ago I read a novel by Alexander Theroux, Darconville's Cat, which has received considerable critical attention. All I can remember of it now is the phrase "the imperscrutable winds of autumn." I remember this because, at the time the word "imperscrutable" appeared only in the Oxford English Dictionary of which I had the compact edition, sadly no longer available. Now you can look it up on the internet: "imperscrutable, adjective. Not capable of being searched out; inscrutable."
One evening I walked past a second-hand bookstore in Montreal and noticed prominently displayed the three volumes of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which I would have liked to replace my compact edition of the OED which I had foolishly lent to a recorder player and never got back. I stepped inside the bookshop and inquired of the owner, a very large fellow ensconced behind the counter, if he would sell me the dictionary for half price if I could name three words that were in the OED but not in the Shorter. I did actually have in mind two other words of which that was the case, but I don't recall them at present. He gave me a long, measuring glance and said, "no." I should have proposed that if I could not name the three words I would purchase the set for double the asking price. If he had said no to that, it would have been a real compliment!
The thing about Alexander Theroux, as true of the newer book, Fables, as of his earlier work, is that he has a truly stunning vocabulary. It seems he has read everything, starting with the OED. Fables is a collection of, yes, fables and I find words on nearly every page that I have to look up. And some are only in the OED. If searched, an entry will come up, indicating that the word is in the OED, but not supplying a definition. Some examples:
- snools
- frokin
Taken from just the first couple of fables. If a word is only in the OED, the likely reason is that it hasn't been used in a book since, oh, the 18th century. Some other words, obscure, but in other dictionaries:
- schinocephalic
- oarage
- umbles
- suckets
- prinking
- sneaping
- Lapiths
- figpeckers
- hekatoncheirs
- scowring
And so on. Those examples came from the first twenty-two pages. And it was a pain typing them out because spell-correct tried to intervene in nearly every case.
Alexander Theroux is the only author, by the way, who sends me to the dictionary on virtually every page. The only author! I have a pretty hellacious vocabulary myself. Apart from his vocabulary, he is well worth reading. Writers like Saul Bellow and Robertson Davies have praised him highly. I find his fables uniquely fascinating. He is the brother of the travel writer Paul Theroux.
Speaking of vocabulary, I am reminded of the most absurd political slogan ever: "Don't immanentize the eschaton" which William F. Buckley Jr. used when he ran for mayor of New York in 1965, finishing third.
I'm almost stumped for a suitable envoi. About the closest I can get is this piece: La Couperin by Forqueray because the favorite composer of the recorder player I mention above was François Couperin.
4 comments:
Since Buckley's death the people most likely to "immanentize the eschaton" aren't the mainline liberal Protestants he was probably railing at but the postmillennialist theocratic reconstructionists in Idaho.
Some folks have playfully suggested that Buckley's best legacy was more likely slamming the door on mainstream conservativism to the Ayn Rand fanboys and the John Birchers rather than for having any particularly grand ideas of his own. As if on cue those were exactly the people who swept in like a tidal wave into the GOP.
I mean, you DID mention Buckley, after all.
I've got Berkeley's work but haven't dared to crack it open. Delphi sells a mountain of his work for a mere few books on ebook format. That's the great thing about long-dead philosophers, their work is either public domain and can be found for free, or are very affordable. Recently finished Michael Katz' lively translation of The Brothers Karamazov and am looking to revisit Kafka. Good times! :)
Yes, mea culpa for mentioning Buckley--but it was just in passing. I am at a loss to recall any examples of "postmillennialist theocratic deconstructionists" in Idaho or anywhere else.
Berkeley is surprisingly important in my opinion and not difficult to read absent the occasional 18th century phrasing. Yes, the great thing about reading the older philosophers is that they are relatively inexpensive, even in hardcopy. The Berkeley was about $20. But the inexpensive philosophical texts I bought as an undergraduate were just a couple of dollars.
Bryan, I assure you they're around Idaho but they didn't things kicked into high gear until 1989 onward. :)
Good to know Berkeley's not too hard to read. If I can deal with literally Puritan writing from a century or so earlier then it sounds like Berkeley won't be too bad. I couldn't pass up reading sermons by John Donne and I found him fairly accessible (and also, of course, one of the great poets of the English language).
John Donne is a favorite of mine. Re Berkeley: caveat lector! The problem that Berkeley poses ultimately is that of the problem of how consciousness relates to the world. Far from being resolved, it is as vexing as ever. In fact, the history of philosophy from Berkeley to Wittgenstein can be seen as an illustration of the wild digressions the intellect is capable of when freed from the bonds of matter.
Post a Comment