Classical matters

Lord Lucan in disguise?

I saw a plug for a forthcoming book on Twitter this morning by an American academic called John Kyrin Schafer. 

He's about to publish a book about the Roman poet Catullus. 

That led me, on a whim, to his university website and this description of one of the courses he runs - '"Lucan Bellum Civile" - Readings in Latin Literature'.

That doesn't sound particularly scintillating, but then came the details of the module.

Strap yourself in Boris and let the Hans Zimmer soundtrack begin:

Once dismissed as second-rate bombast, Lucan's epic poem of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey has enjoyed a remarkable comeback: these days, "Lucan" is probably your average Latin hipster's expected answer to the question, "who's the best Roman poet?" From the time-delayed murderousness of his rhetoric and the shocking grossness of his violence to the eternal emptiness and infinite perversity of his world gone mad, Lucan's is an aesthetic of unremitting bleakness, and you'll love it. Extensive readings of his soul-scouring Latin.

Now that's how to sell a course!

Naturally I tried some Lucan and dived to the last book and Caesar and Cleopatra (and Ptolemy):

Now from the stream Pelusian of the Nile,
     Was come the boyish king, taming the rage
     Of his effeminate people: pledge of peace;
     And Caesar safely trod Pellaean halls;
     When Cleopatra bribed her guard to break
     The harbour chains, and borne in little boat
     Within the Macedonian palace gates,
     Caesar unknowing, entered: Egypt's shame;
     Fury of Latium; to the bane of Rome
70   Unchaste.  For as the Spartan queen of yore
     By fatal beauty Argos urged to strife
     And Ilium's homes, so Cleopatra roused
     Italia's frenzy.  By her drum she called
     Down on the Capitol terror (if to speak
     Such word be lawful); mixed with Roman arms
     Coward Canopus, hoping she might lead
     A Pharian triumph, Caesar in her train;
     And 'twas in doubt upon Leucadian waves
     Whether a woman, not of Roman blood,
80   Should hold the world in awe.  Such lofty thoughts
     Seized on her soul upon that night in which
     The wanton daughter of Pellaean kings
     First shared our leaders' couches.  Who shall blame
     Antonius for the madness of his love,
     When Caesar's haughty breast drew in the flame?

That last bit, in Latin (which I've never learned), is "quis tibi uaesani ueniam non donet amoris, Antoni, durum cum Caesaris hauserit ignis pectus?". I might try to learn that.

*******

Such Latin thoughts were also on the mind of this morning's Broadcasting House on BBC Radio 4...though they came at the end.

More on that story later....

*******

#MeToo

The programme began with a surprisingly gentle interview with Sam Gyimah by my old favourite Paddy O'Connell.

Sam, as you may be aware, is the until-very-recently tax-slashing, ultra-Thatcherite, globalist, Brexit-disliking Tory leadership contender and potential Conservative PM who's now suddenly transformed himself, within the two-month wink of a butterfly's eye, into a Lib Dem MP (and who everyone, it seems, likes and thinks is a nice guy). He's now claiming that liberal Tory Boris (a socially liberal, pro-immigration, pro-public spending Tory) is far too right-wing for him.

I'd have liked Paddy to tease some of those contradictions out with Mr. Gyimah but such teasing-out never came.

*******

The BIG story though for BH was the David-Cameron-book-launch-related news.

This, after a tiny clip of Tim Waterstone spreading ordure over it, resulted in a weird discussion between former Labour spinmeister Ali Campbell (of 45 minutes/dodgy dossier/Dr David Kelly fame) and self-confessed Lib Dem voter Iain Dale, who were in almost total agreement about how great and important David Cameron's new book is - so much so that they kept on pointing out how much they agreed with each other.

Please allow me then to quote an alternative point of view, tweeted last night by Helena Morrissey DBE (any relation to THE Morrissey, who really ought to be knighted, then made PM?):

One of the many issues people have with the media & the BBC is the “news” is so often just about the predictable media/political bubble. BBC is paid for by taxpayers - how many taxpayers think the D Cameron book is the most important news for them? It is the lead story tonight.

I'm betting that D Cameron is going to be top news for the BBC all week. 

*******

Back to Latin matters and, after a later onslaught from Quango Queen Dame Louise Casey (who mounted a massive stallion over Boris's Hulk comments, as if humour shouldn't be permitted while homelessness exists on the streets of Britain), the programme climaxed in a mini-lecture from one of the BBC's highest profile experts, Prof. Mary Beard, on the uses and abuses of historical (especially Classical) references by politicians.

Despite promises that politicians across the spectrum fell under her scrutiny, only one politician was held up to the full glare of Prof. Mary's magnifying glass.

Can you guess who? (Clue: He has blond, tousled hair).

Mary Beard, courtesy of Radio 4, 'debunked' Boris three times over his "half truth" and "extremely conservative version of the ancient world".

The first, I think, she showed he didn't get quite right. The other two I think she didn't prove at all, beyond ringing a bell to signify her disagreement with PM Boris.

She also said she'd "been fighting for most of (her) life" against the impression that Latin and Greek is "something that Tories do". (Very Radio 4!).

Two Beards

The weirdest thing, despite Mary not noticing it, is that - despite Prof. Mary conceding that he was right on some thing - the errors made by "Johnson" 'prove' him to be a liberal Tory.

Yes, Mary conceded, Boris got it broadly right about Sparta being a xenophobic, militarist regime but, aha, he was so wrong about (approvingly) claiming that Athens had a "welcoming" approach to immigrants. Athens wasn't "welcoming" to outsiders, Prof. Mary said. And I believe her.

The second example was Boris contrasting Jesus Christ and the Emperor Augustus. Boris said that Augustus was "all about glory, competition and success" and Jesus Christ "believed in turning the other cheek and kindness and compassion" and, thus, appealed to women, slaves and the non-winners of the Roman Empire. Prof. Mary called this "a classic howler", saying that - despite Christianity appealing to some women and slaves - it was mainly down to rich people and Roman emperors that Christianity became successful because "it plugged into the power structure". Now, I know she's an expert but I've read so much about the origins of Christianity and I think I know that until Constantine (some 300 years after Jesus) turned the Roman Empire into a Christian empire, Christians were (with intermittent savagery) often heavily persecuted. Yet they grew and grew. And they did include women and slaves and poor people. And Prof. Mary's objections rather sound to me like ideological hair-splitting.

And the third example, contrasting Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, saw Prof. Mary grudgingly confessing herself "pleased" with Boris that he'd called Caesar being "an absolute b****" for his mass-murdering of the Gauls, yet still damning Boris for saying that Julius Caesar was, despite that, greater than Alexander the Great, her buzzer ringing with resentment. Her reason? Well, she didn't say, and we were left none the wiser. She thinks "neither of them deserve to be in pedestals". So was Boris wrong, as Prof, Mary buzzed in, to say that Julius Caesar, progenitor of the long-lasting Roman Empire that reshaped so much of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, and who inspired the Holy Roman Empire and titles such as Shah, Tsar and Kaiser, was greater than the semi-ephemeral, ultra-violent, magnificent shooting star that was Alexander the Great? I'd say 'no', and that Mary Beard was wrong to ring her buzzer. And that the BBC was wrong to grant her an uncaveated authority to bluff her way through another BBC-licensed denunciation of Boris Johnson.

Now, yes, the BBC may be right to take Mary Beard as an interesting, free-thinking historian, but it doesn't mean that her expertise in the earlier Roman Empire necessarily makes her an expert on the rise of Christianity, or an unbiased arbiter of historical truth, or a commentator capable of completely debunking a Classics-taught PM she deeply disapproves of over Brexit.

But here's where we are. Is there a Latin phrase out there to sum all of this up?

Talk Like an Egyptian

Today's Dateline London (minus Gavin Esler) was an unusually feisty and rewarding affair. 

Much of it was taken up with a discussion of this week's violent events in Egypt and it began with an impassioned contribution from the programme's regular Egyptian contributor, Abdallah Homouda. 

This came across as something of a cry of frustration at the way in which the events have been covered by Western media organisations, and Mr Homouda gave me the impression of being distinctly nervous about presenting his own point of view on the BBC today - given the BBC's own recent reporting.

[Maybe he'd heard the BBC's Roger Hearing bellowing at a liberal Egyptian pro-army guest on last night's The World Tonight].  

Here's as exact a transcription as possible (sorry, but a couple of words eluded me):

I was concerned yesterday when I was told that I would come to the programme because I felt that I could be a lone voice in a tide of Western media which is barraging Egypt these days. 

I find it really difficult to say that..er..

Everything is accusing the military, accusing the security forces and exonerating the culprit, who is the Muslim Brotherhood. There are 350,000 members, well-organised and bound by obedience and commitment, well-trained, and a wing of them is well-armed and they have taken on the security forces from the very beginning. 

They massed their members in two areas around Cairo. They made life difficult for everyone.

Everyone forgot that there were 45 days of agitation, contrary to the narration in the West.

In the West they played on the fact that they are against the military and for democracy and in Cairo they were speaking about the Islamic estate and the Islamic identity of Egypt and that Western democracy is a heretic civilisation. 

They spoke about the Coptic Christians in Egypt as 'casual citizens'. 'Casual citizens' could go anywhere, but Egypt is for them only and not for everyone else.

It is amazing that the Left and the Right both in the West are so naive, or they have their own self-interest. The Egyptian people are beginning to feel, in a way, under attack, xenophob....sorry, I can't say the word...yeah, xenophobic.  

I am so stressed because of the situation to the extent that I find it difficult even to speak in Arabic, because of the unfairness of the situation.

The military just set the scene to reboot the democratic process. The new president is by the default constitution the head of the constitutional court, so he.. [came?]. A new government has been appointed of technocrats who are well-respected around the world and the army is guarding from as far away as possible, leaving the security forces to direct the situation.

The 45 days of agitation threatened everyone, 'We either control you or kill you', and encouraging their own members to play martyrdom, and embarrass the Egyptian authorities in the world.

What I can say is not enough.

I have a list of 45 churches around Egypt which were burned.

What is happening in killing is up and down the country. It is not between the security forces and the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies, it is between the Muslim Brotherhood who are attacking the people.

Today I'm going to interview an English lady who lives in Alexandria and this lady has pictures and will give testimony. I'm inviting Nabila to come and interview her as well, just to know what is going on from someone who is not Egyptian.

The surprising thing here was that Mr Homouda wasn't a lone voice on the panel. In fact, that lone voice belonged instead to the French-Algerian Guardian columnist Nabila Ramdani. 

Nabila - as you might already be aware - has been one of the BBC's most-used 'external' commentators on Middle Eastern matters in the last few years, perhaps because her views strike many at the BBC as being well-judged. (I have to say though that I usually completely disagree with her).

However, in a complete reversal of the situation I'd have expected from Dateline, Nabila Ramdani found herself ranged not only against Mr Homouda but also against Janet Daley of The Sunday Telegraph [from the Right] and Marc Roche of Le Monde [from the Left] - both taking Mr Homouda's side in the noisy tussle that ensued. 

Nabila's views tallied with much that I've been hearing from the many BBC reporters and editors who have been reporting from the country over the past few days and weeks. It was most unusual to find her views so robustly challenged - and all thanks to Dateline [not something I usually find myself writing!] 

3-against-1 situations on Dateline are something I usually complain about (though actually the programme's frequent 4-against-0 consensuses are my particular bugbear.), so I suppose I should be complaining about bias here too. 

I'm not though. Is this because this particular bias coincides happily with my own point of view? Or because this particular bias (deliberately or accidentally) counteracted the prevailing bias of the BBC's own reporters (as I think it does)? 

Muslim Brotherhood: Good or bad?

Comparing the reporting of the Egyptian army's killing of pro-Morsi protesters near the HQ of the Republican Guard yesterday evening showed that reporters from both the BBC and ITV had a similar take on the course of the violence. 

After Friday prayers, a breakaway group of aggrieved Muslim Brotherhood marchers arrived at the army headquarters and, in time, began to become angrier. They were met by a military which started with a speech welcoming peaceful protest but warning the protesters against coming closer, then began firing warning shots and tear gas as the crowd grew more aggressive, then began firing live ammunition directly into the crowd, one man being killed immediately. In the process, the BBC crew - including Jeremy Bowen - suffered minor injuries. 

The contrast between the coverage, from what I saw of it (an important qualification, of course), is that Jeremy Bowen's reports framed the incident with a description of the depth of the Muslim Brotherhood's roots in Egyptian society while ITV News's John Irvine gave a much less sympathetic assessment of the Brotherhood (on their main early evening bulletin). 

Jeremy Bowen: 

These are deeply religious people. Over generations since it was founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has built loyalty by providing the closest the poor of Egypt have had to a welfare state - medical care, legal help and religious guidance. 

There are powerful forces arrayed against each other in this country. On one hand the Muslim Brotherhood, with deep roots in the community, can put a lot of people onto the streets; on the other the army, seized control of the country and wants to hold it.

John Irvine: 

I have to say the Muslim Brotherhood may have renounced violence years ago but it's guilty of sending out mixed messages. In was always highly unlikely that a 'Day of Rage' would end peacefully. Also they've been trying to incite Islamic groups to go on the offensive and some of these groups are now armed to the teeth. They've got weapons out of post-revolutionary Libya and from the Gaza Strip. 

Now that's a train of thought I've not heard (or read) expressed by any BBC reporter. Have you?

'The World Tonight' - and last night, and the night before...

Continuing to review the past week's editions of BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight, I want to surf my way over the choppy waters of the last five days and see how often the shark of bias lurks beneath, ready to bite off the leg of impartiality. So to speak.

19/11/2012

Besides the Israel-Gaza conflict, this edition looked at Burma in the light of President Obama's visit to the Asian nation. Is the West seeking to draw Burma away from its traditional ties to China? Carolyn Quinn spoke to Josh Kurlantzick from the American think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, about the country's foreign relations. It was an interesting interview. 

Then there was a report by James Reynolds on anti-Assad Syrian refugees in Turkey. They don't like Bashar one bit. There have been repeated accusations that the BBC has been far too embedded - literally and emotionally - with the Syrian rebels. This report won't have undermined that impression (however unfair it may be). Its themes were the plight of refugee children, the badness of the Assad regime, the eagerness of the rebels, the unease of the Turkish state. 

The impending rebel seizure of Goma in Eastern Congo (DRC) was next up for discussion. Gabriel Gatehouse talked to Carolyn. The under-reporting of the various wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the last couple of decades remains one of the scandals of modern reporting. Compare it to the saturation coverage of events in Gaza or the West Bank. Deaths in the DRC since 1996 appear to have topped the 5 million mark (at least) - an extraordinary tally of human suffering. It tells you something that when you do a simple search on the BBC News website, the 'News' results bring up 6,793 results for "Congo" (with includes results for the other Congo - Congo Brazzaville - too) and   14,984 for "Israel". If you assume the figure to be 5 million dead in the DRC over that period and compare it to the figure (14,500) given by Wikipedia for deaths in the Israel-Palestinian conflict since 1948 (i.e. over a far longer period) you find that the recent wars in the Congo have killed some 370 times more people - in other words, VASTLY more. The BBC, of course, has been far from alone in under-reporting the plight of the Congolese and massively over-reporting the 'plight' of the Palestinians. Still, a myriad numbers of wrongs doesn't make a right. That is all a preamble to saying 'Well done!' to The World Tonight for giving up under five minutes of Monday's edition to the story. That said, they spent 16 minutes on Israel-Gaza (over 3 times as long). 

The programme ended with a report from the BBC's Guy De Launey on the growing friendship between a U.S. stealth fighter pilot (Dale Zelko) and the Serb artillery operator (Zoltan Dani) who shot him down in 1999 - the subject of a documentary called 'The Second Meeting'.  We heard from the two men and the director. Interesting. 

20/11/2012

As well as the women bishops and the Gaza sections (reviewed in earlier posts), Tuesday's edition discussed Afghanistan. Paddy Ashdown says Western nation-building has failed in the country (said host Ritula Shah). There have been failures galore, but there has been some good done...by the European Union. Paul Moss reported on the EU's involvement in training the ill-reputed Afghan police force. The Afghan people are grateful. The EU trainers are pleased with their work. The EU's top man in this field is pleased too. Where the US and Britain have failed, the EU is succeeding it seems. That was one of the messages of that report, I think. It's very rare to hear a positive report about Western intervention in Afghanistan. Interesting that it reflects so well on the European Union, isn't it?