-
-
Mariangela
Ian SeedThree texts
Rupert M LoydellVessel
Melita SchaumSome Guts
Simon Collings (with collages by John Goodby)Three Short Fictions
Meg PokrassThe Campus Novel
Peter RobinsonCharlie Boy and Captain Fitz: A One-Act Play
Alan WallSnapshot, Sachsenhausen and three more poems
Peter BlairSeven short poems
Lucian Staiano-DanielsFour prose poems
Olivia TuckThe Back of Beyond and two more prose poems
Tony KittTwo poems
Moriana Delgadofrom Reverse | Inverse
Lucy HamiltonSix haibun
Sheila E. MurphyKingfishers and cobblestones and five more new poems
Kitty HawkinsZion Offramp 76–78
Mark ScrogginsCome dancing with me and two more new poems
Marc VincenzPlease swipe right
Chloe Phillips‘Three Postcards’ and a prose poem
Linda BlackStill life
Melita SchaumIn memory of
John Taylor with drawings by Sam ForderImmortal wreckage
Will StoneNew in Translation
Snowdrifts
Marina Tsvetaeva, trans. by Belinda CookePoems from Prière (1924)
Pierre Jean Jouve, trans. by Will StoneSix prose poems
Pietro di Marchi, trans. by Peter RobinsonThe goddess of emptiness.
Jean Frémon, trans. by John Taylor -
A new Review of John Matthias’s Some Words on Those Wars by Garin Cycholl.
Anthony Howell’s review, A Clutch of Ingenious Authors: Michelene Wandor Four Times EightyOne: Bespoke Stories | Annabel Dover Florilegia | Sharon Kivland Abécédaire
Essays by Alan Wall
· ‘King of Infinite Space’: The Virtue of Uncertainty
· AI: Signs of the Times
· The Lad from Stratford
· Stanley Kubrick: Sex in the CinemaWill Stone’s Missing in Mechelen and At Risk of Interment
G. Kim Blank’s Civilizing, Selling, and T. S. Eliot Curled Up behind the Encyclopædia Britannica
Tronn Overend’s Samuel Alexander on Beauty
AND Conor Robin Madigan’s Master Singer, Simon Collings’s Robert Desnos, Screenwriter, and Igor Webb’s Never Again
Simon Collings, Carrying the past: The Afterlight by Charlie Shackleton.
New Fortnightly Serials
from The Runiad
Anthony Howellfrom White Ivory
Alan Walland much more below this column.
Departments
-
Contact the Editors here.
-
Audio archive: Two poems, with an audio track, from Heart Monologues by Jasmina Bolfek-Radovani | Daragh Breen’s Aural Triptych | Hayden Carruth reads Contra Mortem and Journey to a Known Place | Anthony Howell reads three new poems | James Laughlin reads Easter in Pittsburgh and five more | Peter Robinson reads Manifestos for a lost cause, Dreamt Affections, Blind Summits and Oblique Lights
Previous Serials
2011: Golden-beak in eight parts. By George Basset (H. R. Haxton).
2012: The Invention of the Modern World in 18 parts. By Alan Macfarlane.
2013: Helen in three long parts. By Oswald Valentine Sickert.
2016: The Survival Manual by Alan Macfarlane. In eight parts.
2018: After the Snowbird, Comes the Whale, by Tom Lowenstein.
LONDON
Readings in The Room: 33 Holcombe Road, Tottenham Hale, London N17 9AS – £5 entry plus donation for refreshments. All enquiries: 0208 801 8577
Poetry London: Current listings here.
Shearsman readings: 7:30pm at Swedenborg Hall, 20/21 Bloomsbury Way, London WC1. Further details here.NEW YORK
10 reliable poetry venues in NYC.
· The funeral of Isaac Albéniz
· Coleridge, poetry and the ‘rage for disorder’
· Otto Rank
· Patrons and toadying · Rejection before slips
· Cut with a dull blade
· Into the woods, everybody.
· Thought Leaders and Ted Talks
· How Mary Oliver ‘found love in a breathing machine.’
AND read here:
· James Thomson [B.V.]
A dilemma for educators:
Philosophy and the public impact.
.
Michelene Wandor on Derek Walcott and the T.S. Eliot Prize.
.Nick Lowe: the true-blue Basher shows up for a friend.
Anthony Howell: The new libertine in exile.
Kate Hoyland: Inventing Asia, with Joseph Conrad and a Bible for tourists.
Who is Bruce Springsteen? by Peter Knobler.
Martin Sorrell on John Ashbery’s illumination of Arthur Rimbaud.
The beauty of Quantitative Easing.
Subscribe
0 Comments
Prince Andrew or President Adams?
By Anthony O’Hear.
A public life.
PRINCE ANDREW’S FRIENDSHIP WITH the billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his Kazakhstani connexions; the resignation of Sir Howard Davies over the LSE’s involvement with the Gaddafi regime in Libya; Peter Mandelson’s meetings with Saif Gaddafi and the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska; Tony Blair’s earlier cultivation of Colonel Gaddafi followed by his more recent promotion of Rwanda’s controversial president Paul Kagame…Just a few more moments in British politics and public life, with a delicious intertwining of the official and personal, of partying and diplomacy, something which will all be forgotten soon enough. Or is there something more worrying here?
It is significant that, as far as we know, there is nothing here for which any of our public figures could or should be prosecuted; they have done nothing illegal. Defenders of each of them (and there are plenty who will leap to their defence in each case) will point out that in most of these cases British interests were being served (even if in the case of Libya this now looks a little thin). So maybe the public unease, which undoubtedly exists, is itself irrational, based on a kind of self-righteous envy over the perfectly legal behaviour anyone rich and powerful.
OR MAYBE THERE IS something less ignoble than envy here. Maybe the rich and the powerful, with whom our leaders are consorting, are particularly open to corruption, and to dragging others into their orbit. The novelist Scott Fitzgerald, as bedazzled by celebrity and wealth as any teenage girl of to-day, once remarked to his friend Ernest Hemingway, ’You know, Ernest, the rich are different from the rest of us.’ ‘Yes, Scott’, came the gravelly reply, ’They’ve got more money’.
There is no doubt that people with more money have the ability to behave differently from the rest of us, and often more spectacularly badly, if only because they are more insulated from the effects of their actions than the rest of us. Being insulated in this way includes being insulated from the very presence of lesser and less wealthy mortals. So the rich and, by extension the powerful, can afford (literally) to fly in the face of much which the rest of us would regard as common decency, to say nothing of common morality.
We should not pretend to be surprised by any of this. But what rightly sticks in the gullet of ordinary, decent people is when they see public figures, who are their representatives, getting too close to those who behave offensively. This is true whether the public figures are politicians, royalty or leading academics, and the disgust is compounded when those our representatives are close to are notorious tyrants.
THE WORLD WEARY WILL tell us to wise up. We can hardly be surprised that the current management of the LSE, including some of the very great and good, got into bed with Gaddafi and his son, particularly when funding was at stake; after all, that very institution was founded by the ghastly Webbs, who unapologetically endorsed Stalin at the height of the purges. British foreign policy, Blair and Robin Cook notwithstanding, has never exactly been ‘ethical’ (remember that?): examples over the centuries are too numerous to mention, save to say that, following appeasement, which everyone remembers, the Webbs were not the only British apologists for Stalin in the 1940s, which is far less mentioned to-day.
In a mental bubble.
In 1513 in words which might have been addressed to Colonel Gaddafi to-day (or to Stalin in the 1930s, come to that), Niccolo Machiavelli wrote that in order to maintain his state a prince is often ‘under a necessity of acting against faith, against charity, against humanity, against religion’, though he added that he must appear to be doing the opposite. (So Machiavelli would have approved of an ‘ethical’ foreign policy – as public relations and providing it wasn’t actually ethical in any inconvenient way.)
In 2011 we are so inured to Machiavelli that his words have all but lost their power to shock. But at the time they were shocking and were intended to shock. What Machiavelli was denying was that there was a natural law (of God, of morality) by which princes would or should be judged. Henceforth there would be no higher law in statecraft than the necessity of survival.
We might think that public figures in democracies are not subject to Machiavellian strictures. But long before Machiavelli, in Ancient Athens (where they knew something about the workings of democracy) Plato and Aristotle both observed that even in a democracy rulers tend ultimately to their own interests. They may begin by appealing to the needs of the majority, and even serve those needs for a time. But bit by bit, as they get more embedded in ruling and more insulated from the rest, they start promoting the interests of their own factions at the expense of the whole. Democrats thus become oligarchs, a class of their own, looking out for themselves, and insensitive to the feelings of ordinary citizens.
That there is truth in this picture is amply borne out by the MPs’ expenses scandals and also by the revelations from Wikileaks. Collectively what we see here are groups of people, operating in their own mental bubbles, who no longer get what ordinary people think and feel. They behave as if they are lords of the universe, untouched by normal standards and untouchable by the disapproval of their inferiors (as they would intuitively think.) The type of insensitive behaviour manifested by Prince Andrew and the rest should come as no surprise, because it fits all too well into the mindset of those raised by birth or election to dominate and rule. The present crisis, to the extent that it is not just a passing phase, may be a good thing to the extent that it shows that our public figures are not always untouchable by the disapproval of ordinary people.
THE MINDSET, THOUGH, WILL always be with us. Rulers and public figures will always be open to the very real temptations and to the flattery which they bring, whatever political system we have. The remedy is not improved regulation or a new political system, but rather to convince public figures that – contrary to Machiavellian pragmatism and the pleasures of swanning on the boats of oligarchs and consorting with tyrants – they remain subject to the natural law of God and the common decencies of mankind. ‘Love justice, you who rule the earth’, words from the Book of Wisdom, sung by the souls in Dante’s Paradise, making such a vision ineffably beautiful.
It is not a wholly impossible ideal, even on earth, far less an ignoble one. John Adams was the second president of the United States. He was central in forging the American constitution, and as President, he safely steered his country through critical times during the French revolutionary war. When he lost his second election, he simply left Washington to live on his farm in Massachusetts for the rest of his life. And during this time he also re-engaged in friendship with Thomas Jefferson, his old enemy and rival. We would be a better country were we to hear more of the modesty of our public figures, of their withdrawal to private life, rather than of their oligarchic connexions and earning power.
Anthony O’Hear is director of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, professor of philosophy at the University of Buckingham, and the co-editor of The Fortnightly Review. He is the author of Philosophy in the New Century and Plato’s Children, among others.
Related
Publication: Wednesday, 23 March 2011, at 23:50.
Options: Archive for Anthony O'Hear. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.