Shrove Tuesday for Latin Students & Teachers

According to http://en.wikipedia.org, on Shrove Tuesday, at 11 am at Westminster School in London, a verger from the Abbey leads a procession of eager boys into the playground of the school for the Annual Pancake Grease. The school cook, who must be something of an athlete to manage it, tosses a huge pancake, reinforced with horsehair, over a five meter high bar and the boys frantically scramble for a piece. The scholar who emerges from the scrum with the largest piece receives a cash bonus from the Dean. The cook also gets a reward. Were the cook to fail to get the 'pancake' over the bar within 3 tries, he or she would have been booked, or pelted with (rather heavy) Latin primers; it is rumored that this took place on (at least) one occasion.

St. Andrew's Colloquy & the Problem of Evil

Professor Chris Paul was the guest for the St. Andrew's Colloquy this last Thursday. He lectured on the "Problem of Evil" which is a fairly strong and popular argument against the belief in a Christian God. He presented a Christian Response and took questions from the audience.



Perhaps the High School students at St. Andrew's could fill in some details....

Regarding Vocation: A Prayer for Every Man in His Work

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who declarest
thy glory and showest forth thy handiwork in the
heavens and in the earth; Deliver us, we beseech thee, in
our several callings, from the service of mammon, that we
may do the work which thou givest us to do, in truth, in
beauty, and in righteousness, with singleness of heart as
thy servants, and to the benefit of our fellow men; for the
sake of him who came among us as one that serveth, thy
Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Vocation

Our philosophy reading for today's discussion discussed Marx's concern with vocation, essentially, although I don't think that word was used. Marx was good at noticing the problems but not so good, it seems, at finding solutions.

I remember reading Dorothy Sayers on the idea of vocation and how important she thought it was. Are we really that connected with our calling/vocation--with what we do as a "job" or "career"? Is it a matter of life and death--at least spiritual? Sayers seems to think so...and Marx, though dealing with it in an economic rather than spiritual context, at least sees the problems, though he would likely deny the spiritual realities that Sayers would employ to even talk of the matter.

Some of you students seemed to be saying that you thought a person’s vocation determines how others think of that person as well as how that person might think of himself. Is it just that, or does one's vocation actually, in some way, determine who one is? --not just economically or socially, but metaphysically?

father foos+

Christmas: For Miss Steinberg & Her Students

I found this in one of my "Christmas" books, A Wreath of Christmas Legends by Phyllis McGinley.

Story for an Educated Child

It used to be, when the world was young,
Animals spoke a Christian tongue,
Articulating clearly.
And still do those of peaceable bent
Practice the kind of accomplishment
On Christmas evening, yearly.

With human wit, in a human voice,
The beasts of the barnyard all rejoice
From Vespertime to Matin,
Recounting tales of the little God
Over and over. But isn't it odd?
The speech they speak is Latin.

The strident Cock lifts up his crest,
Stuttering, "Christus natus est!"
Till midnight splits asunder.
Laborious from his stable box,
"Ubi? Ubi?" lows the Ox,
Bemused with sleep and wonder.

The somnolent Sheep, adrift from dreams,
Bleats "Bethlehem!" and her quaver seems
Half question and half promise.
Then Ass that wears by an old decree
A cross on his back for prophecy,
Brays forth his loud "Eamus!"

And there they gossip while night grows gray
And curious stars have slipped away
From shimmering thrones they sat in.
So many a child might brave the cold
To hear them talking. But I am told
He mustn't be more than six years old.
And who at six knows Latin?

Merry Christmas,

Mrs. Foos

And yet another post on Narnia

How do we understand the allegorical elements in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe?


A quote from Colin Duriez’ book Tolkien and C. S. Lewis: The Gift of Friendship to start this discussion off:
“One of Tolkien’s central criticisms of Lewis’s Narnian stories was that they were too allegorical, too literally representative of Christian doctrine. Though Lewis did insert many pointers to what he calls ‘secondary meanings’ in Narnia, his intention was not to write allegory. He saw the Narnian stories as arising out of what he called a ‘supposal’—his ‘supposal’ was a world of talking animals—that set the frame of the stories. He explained this in a letter shortly before he died: ‘The Narnian series is not exactly allegory. I’m not saying “let us represent in terms of Mächen [fairy tale] the actual story of this world.” Rather “supposing the Narnian world, let us guess what form the activities in the [scheme of things] a Creator, Redeemer or Judge might take there.” This, you see, overlaps with allegory but is not quite the same.’”

father foos

2nd Post on Narnia

So, another post regarding the Narnia film--and a question: in reading around the web about the film and the responses to it, I've noted that quite a few Christians are handing out tracts before and after the film showings. Doesn't this defeat the whole concept? Didn't Lewis write story because it communicates in a way that a tract cannot? After all, Lewis was quite capable of writing an essay--and good ones too. Yet, he thought the imagination fertile ground for deep thinking (magic?).

How badly do we miss the point of Lewis' work while we are in the midst of a Lewis revival?

father foos

Narnia--A Review

A well-done film version of the book, yes, but there are some obvious problems. But when has it ever been different? Any film of a good book always suffers by comparison. In some ways, we have to acknowledge this and expect a film version to be something less, but perhaps quite stimulating--particularly visually-- and hopefully, will encourage us all to go back to the books.

The Chronicles of Narnia is apt to be compared to the LOTR's films of the last three years and this is understandable, but unfortunate, I think. The books are not really comparable. Lewis was knowingly using a modern, children's genre of writing while Tolkien quickly moved out of the children's realm (The Hobbit) into adult fare as the black riders enter into the Shire.

The films, if authentic to the books, will contain the same distinctions at some level and should, in some ways, not be compared. To break my rule, however, the Narnia film comes in a weak second in character development. One does not care enough for the characters to really care that much about what happens to them. In the LOTR's, one cares much more quickly for those characters, it seems. Of course Tolkien's writing was much deeper and multi-layered compared to the Narnia series, so the characters are already embedded in many of our minds. Also, the LOTR's takes more time with each movie to accomplish its character development.

I just didn't care that much when Aslan was killed. I thought the scene where the witch confronted Aslan about the law was much more powerful. The centaur who was essentially the general for Peter's army gave, for me, the most sublime and eloquent picture of what Aslan was all about. When he saw Peter in trouble, with the witch's army closing down on him, he leapt to his aid and did just what he had said earlier to Peter that he would do: He would be with him "to the death."

That was good story-telling.

At the end of the day, a good film of a great book.

father foos