silhouette of man riding on camel
Something is Wrong With My Master Manipulator - A planksip® Möbius Worth Mentioning 

This nugget came from George Steiner's After Babel, Aspects of Language and Translation (1975). The Lawrence of Arabia pairs with John Cowper Powys as "English-English" orators. What does that mean? I think it's a compliment with a deeply insulting social commentary about the quality of language nowadays. Consider a thinker like T.E. Shaw (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia) and his 1932 version of Homer's "novel"; Odyssey. "Victorian Orientalism" and scout-master heroics", sandwich the biblical pastiche. Apparently this snack leaves undesired taste in the mouth of George Steiner, yet, the following passage does sound like a novel, somewhere between pastiche and parody.

The bronze-headed shaft threaded them clean, from the leading helve onward till it issued through the portal of the last ones. Then he cried to Telemachus, 'Telemachus, the guest sitting in your hall does you no dis grace. My aim went true and my drawing the bow was no long struggle. See, my strength stands unimpaired to disprove the suitors' slandering. In this very hour, while daylight lasts, is the Achaens' supper to be contrived: and after it we must make them a different play, with the dancing and music that garnish any feast.' He frowned to him in warning: and Telemachus his loved son belted the sharp sword to him and tightened grip upon his spear before he rose, gleaming-crested, to stand by Odysseus, beside the throne.[1]


  1. Steiner, George. (1975). After Babel : aspects of language and translation. London ; New York : Oxford University Press ↩︎

Note to self: Read Shaw's Odyssey as well as W.J. Woodhouse's review and delve into the vast vault of T. E. Lawrence Studies available courtesy of historian Jeremy Wilson.

In the mean time here is a teasing with links to the individual chapters at the end.

The Odyssey of Homer

translated from the Greek by T. E. Lawrence

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE


The twenty-eighth English rendering of the Odyssey can hardly be a literary event, especially when it aims to be essentially a straightforward translation. Wherever choice offered between a poor and a rich word richness had it, to raise the colour. I have transposed: the order of metrical Greek being unlike plain English. Not that my English is plain enough. Wardour-Street Greek like the Odyssey's defies honest rendering. Also I have been free with moods and tenses; allowed myself to interchange adjective and adverb; and dodged our poverty of preposition, limitations of verb and pronominal vagueness by rearrangement. Still, syntax apart, this is a translation.

It has been made from the Oxford text, uncritically. I have not pored over contested readings, variants, or spurious lines. However scholars may question the text in detail, writers (and even would-be writers) cannot but see in the Odyssey a single, authentic, unedited work of art, integrally preserved. Thrice I noted loose ends, openings the author had forgotten: one sentence I would have shifted in time: five or six lines rang false to me: one speech seems to come before its context. These are motes in a book which is neat, close-knit, artful, and various; as nearly word-perfect as midnight oil and pumice can effect.

Crafty, exquisite, homogeneous—whatever great art may be, these are not its attributes. In this tale every big situation is burked and the writing is soft. The shattered Iliad yet makes a masterpiece; while the Odyssey by its ease and interest remains the oldest book worth reading for its story and the first novel of Europe. Gay, fine and vivid it is: never huge or terrible. Book XI, the Underworld, verges toward 'terribilità' - yet runs instead to the seed of pathos, that feeblest mode of writing. The author misses his every chance of greatness, as must all his faithful translators.

This limitation of the work's scope is apparently conscious. Epic belongs to early man, and this Homer lived too long after the heroic age to feel assured and large. He shows exact knowledge of what he could and could not do. Only through such superb self-criticism can talent rank beside inspiration.

In four years of living with this novel I have tried to deduce the author from his self-betrayal in the work. I found a bookworm, no longer young, living from home, a mainlander, city-bred and domestic. Married but not exclusively, a dog-lover, often hungry and thirsty, dark-haired. Fond of poetry, a great if uncritical reader of the Iliad, with limited sensuous range but an exact eyesight which gave him all his pictures. A lover of old bric-a-brac, though as muddled an antiquary as Walter Scott—in sympathy with which side of him I have conceded 'tenterhooks' but not railway-trains.

It is fun to compare his infuriating male condescension towards inglorious woman with his tender charity of head and heart for serving-men. Though a stickler for the prides of poets and a man who never misses a chance to cocker up their standing, yet he must be (like writers two thousand years after him) the associate of menials, making himself their friend and defender by understanding. Was it a fellow-feeling, or did he forestall time in his view of slavery?

He loved the rural scene as only a citizen can. No farmer, he had learned the points of a good olive tree. He is all adrift when it comes to fighting, and had not seen deaths in battle. He had sailed upon and watched the sea with a palpitant concern, seafaring being not his trade. As a minor sportsman he had seen wild boars at bay and heard tall yarns of lions.

Few men can be sailors, soldiers and naturalists. Yet this Homer was neither land-lubber nor stay-at-home nor ninny. He wrote for audiences to whom adventures were daily life and the sea their universal neighbour. So he dared not err. That famous doubled line where the Cyclops narrowly misses the ship with his stones only shows how much better a seaman he was than his copyist. Scholiasts have tried to riddle his technical knowledge - and of course he does make a hotch-potch of periods. It is the penalty of being pre-archaeological. His pages are steeped in a queer naivety, and at our remove of thought and language we cannot guess if he is smiling or not. Yet there is a dignity which compels respect and baffles us, he being neither simple in education nor primitive socially. His generation so rudely admired the Iliad that even to misquote it was a virtue. He sprinkles tags of epic across his pages. In this some find humour. Rather I judge that here too the tight lips of archaic art have grown the fixed grin of archaism.

Very bookish, this house-bred man. His work smells of the literary coterie, of a writing tradition. His notebooks were stocked with purple passages and he embedded these in his tale wherever they would more or less fit. He, like William Morris, was driven by his age to legend, where he found men living untrammelled under the God-possessed skies. Only, with more verbal felicity than Morris', he had less poetry. Fashion gave him recurring epithets, like labels: but repetitions tell, in public speaking. For recitation, too, are the swarming speeches. A trained voice can put drama and incident into speeches. Perhaps the tedious delay of the climax through ten books may be a poor bard's means of prolonging his host's hospitality.

Obviously the tale was the thing; and that explains (without excusing it to our ingrown minds) his thin and accidental characterisation. He thumb-nailed well; and afterwards lost heart. Nausicaa, for instance, enters dramatically and shapes, for a few lines, like a woman - then she fades, unused. Eumaeus fared better: but only the central family stands out, consistently and pitilessly drawn - the sly cattish wife, that cold-blooded egotist Odysseus, and the priggish son who yet met his master-prig in Menelaus. It is sorrowful to believe that these were really Homer's heroes and exemplars.

T. E. Shaw

Publication history
Invocation

Book 1 | Book 2 | Book 3 | Book 4 | Book 5 | Book 6 | Book 7 | Book 8 | Book 9

Book 10 | Book 11 | Book 12 | Book 13 | Book 14 | Book 15

Book 16 | Book 17 | Book 18 | Book 19 | Book 20

Book 21 | Book 22 | Book 23 | Book 24

And Now the Orator John Cowper Powys and Fellow Philosopher

John Cowper Powys Courtesy of planksip® - Googleplanksip

From 1905 to the early 1930s, John Cowper Powys lectured in the United States for the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching, gaining a reputation as a charismatic speaker.[1] He spent his summers in England. During this time he travelled the length and breadth of the US, as well as into Canada.[2] Powys's marriage was unsatisfactory, and Powys eventually lived a large part of each year in the USA, and had relationships with various women.[^11] An important woman in his life was the American poet Frances Gregg, whom he first met in Philadelphia in 1912.[3] He was also a friend of the famous dancer Isadora Duncan.[4] Another friend and an important supporter in America was the novelist Theodore Dreiser.[5] In 1921 he met Phyllis Playter, the twenty-six-year-old daughter of industrialist and business man Franklin Playter.[6] Eventually they established a permanent relationship, though he was unable to divorce his wife Margaret, who was a Catholic. However, he diligently supported Margaret and the education of their son.[7]
In the US he engaged in a public debate with the philosopher Bertrand Russell on marriage, and he also debated with the philosopher and historian Will Durant.[8] Powys was also a witness in the obscenity trial of James Joyce's novel Ulysses,[9] and was mentioned with approval in the autobiography of US feminist and anarchist, Emma Goldman. Powys would later share Goldman's support for the Spanish Revolution.[10]

Patchin Place New York (2011) where Powys lived in Greenwich Village.
His first novel Wood and Stone, which Powys dedicated to Thomas Hardy, was published in 1915. This was followed by two collections of literary essays Visions and Revisions (1915) and Suspended Judgment (1916). In Confessions of Two Brothers (1916), a work that also contains a section by his brother Llewelyn, Powys writes about his personal philosophy, something he elaborated on in The Complex Vision (1920), his first full length work of popular philosophy. He also published three collections of poetry between 1916 and 1922.

Politically, Powys described himself as an anarchist and was both anti-fascist and anti-Stalinist: "Powys already regarded fascism and Stalinism as appalling, but different, totalitarian regimes".[11]

It was not until 1929, with the novel Wolf Solent, that Powys achieved any critical or financial success.[12] In 1930 Powys and Phyllis moved from Greenwich Village in New York City to Hillsdale in rural upstate New York.[13] One of Powys's most admired novels, A Glastonbury Romance, published in 1932, sold well, though he made little if any money from it because of a libel lawsuit.[14] Another important work, Autobiography, was published in 1934.


  1. Herbert Williams, John Cowper Powys, pp. 52–3. ↩︎

  2. Herbert Williams, p. 55, Robin Paterson, "Powys in Canada: John Cowper Powys's [^11]: Canadian Lectures". Powys Notes (1994/95, p. 33. ↩︎

  3. Herbert Williams, pp. 77, 70.[2] ↩︎

  4. Herbert Williams, John Cowper Powys, pp. 83–4. ↩︎

  5. Autobiography (1967), pp. 528, 550–5. ↩︎

  6. Morine Krissdottir's, Descents of Memory, pp. 170 ↩︎

  7. Morine Krissdottir, Descents of Memory, pp. 72, 86–90, 170, 298. ↩︎

  8. Autobiography (1967), p. 535. ↩︎

  9. Morine Krissdottir's, Descents of Memory, pp. 235–6; p. 212; p. 135. ↩︎

  10. Vision on fire: Emma Goldman on the Spanish Revolution edited by David Porter, AK Press, 2006, p. 48. ↩︎

  11. H. Gustav Klaus and Stephen Thomas Knight, To Hell with Culture: Anarchism and Twentieth-Century British Literature. University of Wales Press, 2005. ISBN 0708318983. p. 127. ↩︎

  12. C. A. Coates. John Cowper Powys in Search of a Landscape. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Nonle, 1982, p. 90. ↩︎

  13. Herbert Williams, p. 97. ↩︎

  14. Coates, p. 90. ↩︎