Revisiting Jerry Falwell’s Mother and Stanley Fish

Prof. Stanley Fish
This essay is not about Jerry Falwell’s mother instead it is about Stanley Fish says about Free Speech. What does Jerry Falwell’s mother to do with this? In 1983 Larry Flynn, publisher of Hustler, published a parody interview with Jerry Falwell in which Mr. Falwell remises about his first time. In this case his first time was with his mother in an outhouse! Mr. Falwell sued and lost. The various courts ruling that Larry Flynn’s freedom of speech rights were trumped Jerry Falwell and his mother’s damaged reputations. Well some people were disturbed by this outcome. One of them was Stanley Fish a Professor of Duke University and a noted Post-Modernist thinker. But then Prof. Stanley Fish entitled a collection of his essays There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and it’s a good thing too.1 The book contains a essay on Freedom of Speech, with the title above which is also used as the title of the book, which is about how Freedom of Speech doesn’t really exist and an essay about the libel case involving Jerry Falwell.

Through it all Prof. Fish manages quite simply not to get it.

For example he says:

“Free speech” is just the name we give to verbal behaviour that serves the substantive agendas we wish to advance; and we give out preferred verbal behaviours that name when we can, when we have the power to do so, because in the rhetoric of American life, the label “Free Speech” is one you want for your favourites to wear. Free speech, in short, is not an independent value but a political prize, and if that prize has been captured by a politics opposed to yours, it can no longer be invoked in ways that further your purposes, for it is now an obstacle to those purposes.2

Later Prof. Fish articulates the idea that freedom of expression assumes that some speech is meaningless or wrong to say. Really?

Prof. Fish is articulating a position which states that the demand for “Free Speech” is always inherently political and used to advance a position and that it is not a independent position. In other words it is always political and that no one really believes in “Free Speech” as an abstract value.

By arguing that “Free Speech” is political Prof. Fish brings it into the argument for debate, by assuming it is political he can argue that limitations on it are merely like “Free Speech” political positions. Thus Prof. Fish can argue for limitations on speech.

But then Prof. Fishes' point is that the crowd of anti “politically correct” pundits etc., have captured the ground of “Free Speech” so that arguments for “Free Speech” by “Liberal” or “Progressive” groups etc., have conceded that ground to the enemy so that the debate must shift to how “Free Speech” isn’t real and how it can be and is limited, so we can then discuss what can be banned.

One wonders how Prof. Fish with his assumption that “Free Speech” is always political tailors with people like Prof, Chomsky’ defence of Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson right to speak.3 Prof. Fish seems to think that “Free Speech” is purely a political act designed to advance a particular political position. This is false. To quote Chomsky:

But I’m saying if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. I mean Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. Right? So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you’re not in favour of freedom of speech. There’s two positions you can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want.4

Prof. Fish seems to be totally unaware of this sort of position.

Prof. Fish then goes into a rather useless rant about how speech related injuries can be hurtful and painful and should not be trivialized and then Prof. Fish talks about how a recommended solution that the solution to this is more speech trivializes the harm. That speech operates in the real world and that to treat speech like it was mere ideas forgets that they are actions.5

This of course a straw man and Prof. Fish’s statement that the more speech argument trivializes the “harm” speech can do is a nice example of Prof. Fish indicating that he is in the end not very radical at all. Chomsky among many others can tell him how the media is constrained by market and other forces to marginalize and largely shut out opinion contrary to powerful interests. Such that more speech is indeed a powerful tool and very much in the interest of the powerless and marginal. Further that constraints on speech will be controlled directly and / or indirectly by these powerful interests, so just how would the powerless and marginal benefit from that? Chomsky and others like him have a powerful distrust of the state and its various institutions and Prof. Fish is here indicating quite strongly an almost childlike trust in such things.6

The speech codes that Prof. Fish is here defending are of course under control of the institutions in question and Prof. Fish’s trust in the good faith of those institutions is touching and frankly naïve.

But then Prof. Fish “knows” that “Free Speech” is always about politics:

When the First Amendment is successfully invoked, the result is not a victory for free speech in the face of a challenge from politics but a political victory won by the party that has managed to wrap its agenda in the mantle of free speech.7

Really? I just wonder how this explains the ACLU defending the rights of Klansmen, Neo-Nazi and Fundamentalists to “Free Speech”. Given that the ACLU routinely defends groups and people whose positions are radically different from and contrary to ACLU positions on all sorts of issues.8

Prof. Fish does not seem to understand that the ACLU position and those who think along the same lines, is that you give opinions you despise freedom to be expressed, precisely to defend your own freedom to express your own opinions. Not as he seems to think that “Freedom of Speech” will lead in the end to “right” or “true” opinions to dominate. As for the Prof. Fish’s argument that speech can cause “harm”, well so what! The problem is that which speech causes “harm” is very much a personal matter. I have little doubt that I could easily find Conservative pundits, Fundamentalists who regard the speech of Fish and others like him has “grievous and deeply wounding”9, and of course causing untold harm, and therefore it should be suppressed.

Prof. Fish seems to be totally unaware that there are other grounds for attacking so-called Conservatives wrapping themselves in the mantle of “Free Speech”. One of course is the unmitigated hypocrisy of such a stance when many so-called Conservative pundits routinely call for the suppression of speech they do not like, and in fact have engaged in quite disgusting campaigns of attempted suppression. Or that Conservative educational institutions, Fundamentalist schools etc., routinely suppress “Free Speech” and other First Amendment rights but that Conservative pundits etc., pass over these offences in silence.10

Further that speech codes can be defended on the grounds that they are often vastly less restrictive than the arbitrary authority and grounds which the authorities who run those institutions can discipline for “bad” behaviour or words. Further that it is important to realize that these institutions being private institutions have a greater right to regulate the behaviour of the people who are privileged to be allowed into them. These arguments may be good or bad but they are certainly better than the convoluted stew that Prof. Fish argues for.11

But then in a rather convoluted series of passages Prof. Fish ends up arguing for regulation of speech, because in the end Prof. Fish doesn’t wish to hear speech he doesn’t like. Of course Prof. Fish is utterly unaware that there are people who don’t want to hear his opinions and wish to suppress them, using the very same logic he does.

What does this have to do with Jerry Falwell’s mother?


Reverend Jerry Falwell Well in 1983 Larry Flynn published, in his sex magazine Hustler, a vicious parody of Reverend Jerry Falwell reminiscing about his first time; first time having sex that is. Making it problematic Reverend Falwell was describing having sex with his mother in an outhouse. That is definitely really nasty! Certainly this is to put it mildly tasteless and certainly going after Jerry Falwell is one thing but his mother also?! Jerry Falwell sued for libel.

But then Prof. Fish ruins the whole thing by a couple of statements such as:

So what we have here is a false and malicious depiction of two people with the avowed intention of wounding one so that his ability to function as a minister of the gospel would be destroyed.12

Well poor Reverend Falwell! I note that Prof. Fish says this after admitting that the article says very clearly that it is a parody. It is rather interesting that Prof. Fish avoids any mention of Reverend Falwell’s own very well developed capacity for malice and cruelty. As for being a minister of the gospel many would disagree with that. But then the phrase is purposely designed to raise sympathy for Mr. Falwell. Forgetting of course that in the departments of political and economic power Falwell vastly exceeded Flynn. We are not talking about an innocent here. Then Prof. Fish makes it very clear that he doesn’t like Flynn very much or pornography or considers pornography a form of legitimate “speech” because it is not about politics. At this point Prof. Fish makes the comment about the founding fathers would not have considered obscenity true speech. So!?13 At that point it is hard to take Prof. Fish seriously.

This entire spiel is designed to once again support the idea that certain types of speech should be suppressed in this case pornography. This requires, in the present example, a demonization of Larry Flynn. I will simply tell Prof. Fish that he should read Gore Vidal’s essay Sex is Politics,14 if he seriously thinks pornography is not a form of speech.

Larry Flynn

Later Prof. Fish makes some comment that we already regulate speech with the rather obvious implied and direct contention that we should continue to regulate speech.15 Prof. Fish once again doesn’t get it. Everything that exists in human life is regulated one way or the other that is the nature of human existence and frankly even the most extreme free speech absolutist knows this. (Prof. Fish creates a rather absurd caricature of such a person). After all everyone with any sense knows about yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is not protected speech. The point is how much / how speech should be regulated. By redefining the issue to whether or not speech should be regulated at all Prof. Fish avoids this problem. Of course setting up the straw man of the position that the alternative to that position is one of no regulation, and demonstrating that such a position is simply stupid Prof. Fish once again tilts at windmills.

It is of interest that Prof. Fish admits that attempts to define a rational basis for declaring something obscene are contradictory, difficult and absurd but draws no conclusions that perhaps this indicates that trying to do so outside very narrow range of limits perhaps should not be done. Instead Prof. Fish believes that this indicates that perhaps deciding what is obscene should be deduced entirely outside rational discourse. Which of course would make it possible to ban pornography because he finds it personally icky. One again Prof. Fish forgets that many people might find his type of discourse also personally icky and so therefore it should be banned.

Now regarding the above case I wonder if Prof. Fish is ready to allow everyone to be sued who refers to someone has a “son of a bitch”, because after all such a statement calls someone’s mother a dog. In this case the piece was clearly indicated to be a parody and not to be taken seriously, and it is clear that the piece was an attack on Reverend Falwell not his mother. So frankly I agree with the verdict that rejected the libel claim. Despite Prof Fish’s insinuations the fact that Larry Flynn publishes pornography is simply not relevant in this case. But then it is clear that Prof. Fish doesn’t like Larry Flynn or pornography. So he is here basically arguing for allowing the suppression of pornography on the grounds it is not legitimate “speech”.

That said I still find the parody piece offensive and it would have been nice if Larry Flynn had published an apology to Jerry Falwell’s mother.16 In my opinion the piece was unnecessarily tasteless and Jerry Falwell’s mother should have been left alone.

In the end Prof Fish seems to have problems with freedom so I quote:

Those who do not understand that freedom has value in itself, though its expression necessarily produces evil as well as good, are poorly suited to the culture of democracy.17

1, Fish, Stanley, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.

2, IBID, p. 102.

3, A lot of nonsense as been written about this. I would just note that Chomsky’s defence of Robert Faurisson is solely a defence of his right to speak and not be silenced, not of Robert Faurisson’s utterly repellent views. I will forgo linking to or referring to any of Robert Faurisson’s works. You just need to Google to find his filth. See Wintonick, Peter, & Achbar, Mark, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1994, pp.175-191.

4, Wintonick et al, p. 184.

5, IBID, pp. 108-109.

6, See Chomsky, Noam, & Herman, Edward S., Manufacturing Consent, Revd. Edition, Pantheon Books, New York, 2004.

7, Fish, p. 110.

8, See the ACLU website, Here.

9. Fish p. 109.

10, See for example Wilson, John K., The Myth of Political Correctness, Duke University Press, London, 1995, and Jenkinson, Edward B., Censors in the Class Room, Discus Books, 1979. See also Weiner, Jon, Historians in Trouble, The New Press, New York, 2005. A classic action is the ouster of Ward Churchill who was ousted from his tenure position at the University of Colorado over alleged academic misconduct when the actual reason, (as determined by a trial) was some controversial, and frankly rather disgusting statements regarding 911 he foolishly uttered and wrote. I will not repeat them, just Google. Well Prof. Churchill won his wrongful termination suit. Basically a lot of so called Conservative pundits and others went baying for his blood and to get him turfed. They got more than they bargained for from Prof. Churchill. I still find his comments repellent but frankly the Universities teem with Profs having disgusting opinions that is no reason to fire them. See The Ward Churchill Trial, Here.

11, See Wilson, pp. 90-135.

12, Fish, p. 120.

13. IBID, pp. 120-133.

14, in The Second American Revolution and other Essays 1976-1982, Random house, New York, 1982.

15, Fish, pp. 128-130.

16. As far as I can tell Hustler never printed an apology to Jerry Falwell’s mother. I in all modesty suggest the following:

Mrs Falwell we would like to apologize for unintentially causing you pain and anguish. It was our intention to hit that hypocrite turd of a son of yours and it was a mistake to drag you into our dispute with him. So once again our sincere apologies.

17. Revel, Jean-Francois, The Totalitarian Temptation, Penguin Books, New York, 1977, p. 17.

Pierre Cloutier

William G. Dever and the Minimalists

William G. Dever

I was going to do a piece about the school of Biblical Minimalism and its use of Post-Modernism but the Archaeologist William G. Dever has beat me too it. So I'll just quote two passages from one of his books. Now Biblical Minimalism is a hyper-critical school of criticism that maintains that the Bible is a collection of "texts" that have little or nothing to do with events that really happened. They are "fictions" that have nothing or next to nothing to tell us about what really happened. This school of thought is commonly called the Copenhagen school. This school views the Bible has a collection of texts that have to be approached suspiciously for their "real" purpose which is to support an ideological position and does not except in the most tenuous sense tell use anything about real events. Further this school assumes that very little if any older material got into the Bible, and that it reflects overwhelmingly the late Persian / Hellenistic period and were used to justify policies and positions that existed then.

Dever's first summarizes his view of the "new" Post-Modernist literary approach.

A Brief Critique of New Literary Criticism

My own misgivings about the new literary critical approach to texts concern primarily the following:

1. Its determined “anti-historical” stance, for which! find no justification.

2. Its promise of superior results; but does this approach truly edify us, or merely entertain us?

3. Its lack of sophistication, despite its claims, particularly in its inchoate theories of “literary production.” These are usually borrowed from other disciplines long after they have become obsolete.

4. Its largely reactionary character, self-consciously situated on the “margins” of society and preoccupied with questions of ideology and power and political discourse that may be totally foreign to the text.

5. Its stress on the “social context” of all knowledge, but its ignoring the original context of the text itself.

6. Its minimalization of the importance of philological, historical, and comparative-analytical competence; its “know-nothing” attitude toward, or denial of, any original context.

7. Its contradiction in insisting upon the “isolation” of an individual text, but at the same time arguing that “intertextuality” is essential in reading texts.

8. Its positing that a text must be “tested;’ but producing no criteria by which that might be accomplished.

9. Its denial of “authorial intent;’ which defies common sense.

10. Its ultimate cultural relativism, which makes the text mean anything the reader wants. This is no different from the distortion and exploitation of texts of which they accuse both Fundamentalists and the liberal religious establishment in the past.

11. Its fondness for “posing questions” of the text, but its lack of any answers.

12. Its elevation of the reader’s subjective concerns to the status of final arbiter of “meaning,” which I find arrogant and self-indulgent.

13. The oppressively ideological and polemical character of the entire movement, which substitutes slogans for sustained rational argument.

14. The superiority of this approach is often asserted, usually dogmatically; but its actual reading of texts often borders on the fantastic.

15. A typical postmodern stance is assumed as essential, but it is rarely defended. Is the latest fad (for that is what it will in time be seen to have been) really the best?1

The next quote is William G. Dever's summary of the "revisionist", "post modern" positions and tactics.

1. Always attack the Establishment on principle, and in the name of “revolutionary progress?’ Set in motion a counter-culture, even if it means repudiating your own earlier works, but pretending that you have not done so.

2. Pose a set of convenient false issues; create an imagined dichotomy between positions; polarize the discussion.

3. Reject consensus scholarship; deplore the middle ground; carry the argument to its most extreme; celebrate the bizarre, since it gets attention.

4. Caricature the history of traditional scholarship; demonize any remaining opponents.

5. Deny that there are objective facts; insist that everything is relative, and that all interpretations (except your own) are under suspicion.

6. Pretend to be scientific, but discard evidence that doesn’t fit; falsify the rest.

7. Be “politically correct” at all times; pretend to identify with the oppressed minorities, while still maintaining your elitist privileges.

8. Substitute clever epigrams for sustained rational argument; use catchy slogans to conceal the real agenda.

9. Declare yourself innovative and “revolutionary”; inflate banalities into presumptuous social pronouncements.

10. Reject empiricism and positivism as outdated and perverse; but promote your own Utopian visions.

11. Elevate skepticism into a scholarly method; cherish cynicism; pride yourself on how little real knowledge you possess, since that suggests modesty and honesty.

12. Remember that the real issue is always ideology: race, gender, class, power, and above all politics. Expose others’ ideology, but deny that you have any.

13. Escalate the level of rhetoric, so that the issues are obscured.

14. Announce the “New Truth” triumphantly,

15. When exposed, decamp; accept martyrdom gracefully.

If all this sounds familiar, it is. It is precisely the method and agenda of the extreme forms of postmodernism that I have posited above as the intellectual and social matrix of revisionism. This is not sound, careful, balanced, honest scholarship: it is demagoguery.2

Certainly the above is both blistering and highly nasty, but frankly having read some of this stuff it is hard NOT to react the way Dever did. (Check Dever for a bibliography of such works)3 Other books by Dever include:

Who Were the Early Israelities and Where did They come from?, William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids Michigan, 2003.

Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids Michigan, 2005.

1. Dever, William G., What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know it?, William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids Michigan, 2001, pp. 15-16.

2. IBID. pp. 52.

3. See for example Thompson, Thomas L., The mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel, Basic Books, London, 1999, and Davies, Philip R., In Search of "Ancient Israel", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement 148, Sheffield Academic, Sheffield, 1992.

Pierre Cloutier

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus: a few notes

Constantine VII Porphrogenitus

Constantine Porphrogenitus was a Byzantine Emperor who reigned 913-959 C.E... He was the son of Leo VI called the Wise. Constantine VII Porphrogentius was born in 905 C.E.1 His nick name Prophrogenitus simply mean “born to the purple”.2 He was called this because he was born to a reigning Emperor.

Constantine was not born legitimately. His father Leo had been married three times before and had failed to have a son who lived. The Orthodox Church frowned on the idea of a fourth marriage so after his third wife died Leo did not marry his new mistress Zoe Carbonopsina, (meaning dark eyed). Leo had taken up with her in 902 C.E. When Constantine was born in late 905 C.E., Leo decided he had to risk a crisis in the Church for the sake of securing the succession which could only be done by legitimizing his son. Under the laws of the time Leo would legitimize any children born out of wedlock by marrying the mother. This Leo did, marrying Zoe secretly in early 906 C.E. When word got out this provoked a serious crisis in Church and State. Eventually after a rather terminable and tedious dispute the marriage was accepted and Constantine legitimized. The condition was that fourth marriages would not be accepted in the future.3

Leo VI, the Wise
Leo died in 912 C.E. and was succeeded by his brother (or half brother) Alexander who only reigned for 13 months.4 What evidence we have indicates that Alexander detested Leo and disliked both Constantine and his mother Zoe, who he forced in a Convent. When Alexander died he had created a board of seven regents for his young nephew.5

Soon afterwards a tedious power struggle began which lasted for seven years. It involved The Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus and Zoe, who had returned from her Convent and later the general Romanus Lecapenus. The ins and outs of this struggle although of interest will be past over here. In the end the upstart general Romanus I called Lecapenus won and put Zoe back in the Convent, this time for good in 920 C.E.6

Coin with Portrait of Romanus I, Lecapenus

It seems to be quite clear that Romanus intended to displace the Imperial family and establish his own family on the throne permanently. Constantine was in the way of this so the established Byzantine practices of murdering him, castrating him or blinding him would seem to be in order so that this could be done. However Constantine was saved by a number of factors. Firstly he was still very young about 14 years of age. Secondly he was since birth plagued by the poor health that would bother him until he died. Finally Romanus does not seem to have been, for a Byzantine Emperor, especially blood thirsty or ruthless. So Romanus dealt with the situation by marrying Constantine to his daughter Helena and probably hoping that Constantine would just die of natural causes.7

Probably by this time Constantine had developed the scholarly interests that would be his chief interest and career during the years that he was out of power. Probably these very same interests helped to keep him safe by making Romanus and his sons not take him too seriously. His marriage to Helena was also a success it appears that she became a voice at court in favour of her husband’s interests.

Romanus’ reign was an overall success.8 Romanus was however a total failure in his efforts to establish a new Imperial line. His favourite son Christopher died young in 931 C.E. Romanus’ two other sons Stephen and Constantine were too put it mildly unsuitable. Making it even more difficult Helena and Constantine VI had several children including a eldest son named, like his grandfather, Romanus. Romanus was also faced with the indisputable fact that Constantine was not dying and was through his considerable scholarly pursuits showing clear signs of real intelligence. That and the fact that Romanus began to believe that he was being punished for trying to overthrow the legitimate dynasty. The fact that if Constantine succeeded him Romanus’ grandchild would reign probably played a role in Romanus recognizing his son in law as his successor.9

Romanus’ two other sons faced with the near certainty of being forced into a monastery at best when their brother in law succeeded to power upon their fathers death decided to overthrow their father. On December 20th 944 C.E., The sons having secreted their supporters into the palace kidnapped their father from his bedroom and sent him by boat to become a monk in a monastery on a near by island close to the capital Constantinople. Unfortunately for the usurpers upon hearing of the overthrow of Romanus a mob gathered in front of the palace demanding to see Constantine VI. Fearing what the mob might do the two brothers showed Constantine to the crowd, although he looked dishevelled and had been fetched from the Imperial libraries where he had been researching another book.10

In consequence to the mobs threats the brothers were forced to recognize Constantine VI has senior Emperor. They however plotted to kill Constantine and take sole power. Unfortunately for them Constantine acted before they did. Aided by his wife Helena the two brothers were arrested, on the 27th of January 945 C.E., and they were both exiled and imprisoned. They both died in prison, one most conveniently “while trying to escape”. 11

The two brothers were briefly imprisoned on the same island with their father who said to them:

“Oh happy hour,’ he cried, ‘that has compelled Your Majesties to visit my humble estate. That filial affection which drove me from the palace, I suppose, has not allowed you yourselves to remain there any longer. How fortunate that you should have sent me here some time in advance: my brother-monks and fellow soldiers in Christ devote their days to things of the spirit, and would not have known how Emperors should be received had they not had me with them, an expert in imperial protocol. Here is boiled water for you, colder than the Gothic snows; here are soft beans, all manner of greenstuffs, and leeks freshly plucked. You will find none of those delicacies from the fishmongers that cause illness; such maladies as we have here are brought about by our frequent fasts. Our modest abode has no place for a large and extravagant company; but it is just large enough for your Majesties, who have refused to desert your father in his old age.”12

Romanus died in that monastery on June 15, 948 C.E.13

Constantine VI reigned until 959 C.E., when he died, and was overall a successful monarch.14...

Constantine VII, Porphrogenitus Being crowned by Christ

Constantine as adult was described as tall and broad shouldered, with a large black beard and pale blue eyes. He also apparently drank a lot. It is of interest to point out that Constantine was also an icon painter and apparently the only Byzantine Emperor to be one.15

Constantine was mainly a scholar and that remained until he died his chief interest and passion. Since it is hard to distinguish between works he commissioned or wrote himself here is a list of the major works either written by him or commissioned by him.

De Thematibus, A history of the development of the Byzantine administrative Theme system complete with an over view of how it worked in Constantine’s day. Written by Constantine.

Genesius’ History, A History of Byzantium.

Theophanes Continuatus, Books I-IV, A continuation of The Chronicle of Theophanes.

Constantine’s biography of his supposed grandfather Basil I. (Theophanes Continuatus, Book V). Written by Constantine.

De Administrando Imperio, An overview of Byzantine foreign affairs contains much information that would have been considered in Constantine’s day state secrets. Written for Constantine's heir Romanus II.

De Caerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae, An overview of Byzantine court ceremonial. Written by Constantine.16

Among other things Constantine also commissioned an immense work of 53 books of extracts from Greek literature grouped around topics.17 Constantine cannot be described by a long shot has a great writer, but he had access to sources we do not have today and was, apparently from the books we have of his today, a tireless researcher.18

Here I will discuss only one of Constantine’s books his De Administrando Imperio.19

The De Administrando Imperio, is divided into sections by country described and outlines proper / or recommended imperial policy towards said country. It also contains in many respects brief outline histories of some of these countries, in some cases it is the first even remotely reliable histories of these countries brief has these sections are. In some places Constantine extensively quotes other authors, and further he gives some geographical information.

In his introduction Constantine says:

(Proem) A wise man maketh glad a father, and an affectionate father taketh delight in a prudent son….

Lo, I set a doctrine before thee, so that being sharpened thereby in experience and knowledge, thou shall not stumble concerning the best counsels and the common good: first, in what each nation has power to advantage the Romans, [The Byzantines] and in what to hurt, and how and by what other nation each severally may be encountered in arms and subdued; then, concerning their ravenous and insatiate temper and the gifts they demand inordinately; next concerning also the difference between other nations, their origins and customs, and manner of life, and the position and climate of the land they dwell in, its geographical description and measurement, and moreover concerning events which have occurred at various times between the Romans and different nations; and thereafter, what reforms have been introduced from time to time in our state, and also throughout the Roman Empire.20

This book gives us some insight into the workings of Imperial policy and certainly an insight into Imperial realpolitik. For example:

(s. 4) So long as the Emperor of the Romans [The Byzantine Emperor] is at peace with the Pechenegs, [A Nomadic steppe people] neither the Russians nor Turks can come upon the Roman dominions by force of arms, nor can they exact from the Romans large and inflated sums in money or goods as the price of peace, for they fear the strength of this nation which the Emperor can turn against them while they are campaigning against the Romans. For the Pechenegs, if they are leagued in friendship with the emperor and won over by him by letters and gifts, can easily come upon the country of both the Russians and of the Turks, and enslave their women and children and ravage their country.21

Being a Christian he describes the prophet Mohammed as

(s. 14) “The blasphemous and obscene Mahomet,…

But as he had the disease of epilepsy, his wife, a noble and wealthy lady, was greatly cast down at being united to this man, who was not only destitute but an epileptic into the bargain, and so he deceived her by alleging: ‘I behold a dreadful vision of an Angel called Gabriel, and being unable to endure his sight, I faint and fall’;..”22

Not exactly an exercise in ecumenical understanding, too put it mildly, but an excellent view into the mind set of a pious Byzantine Christian of the 1oth century C.E.

About the early history of some of the Slavic settlers of the Balkans Constantine has some interesting information. For example concerning the Croatians he say:

(s. 31) The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called ‘white’, who lived beyond Turkey [Not modern Turkey but the steppe region] and next to Francia, and have for Slav neighbours the anabaptized Serbs. ‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’. These same Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor Romans Heraclius before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius at that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from Rome and settled there, and who were therefore called ‘Romani’ from their having been translated from Rome to those countries, I mean, to those now called Croatia and Serbia. These same Romani having been expelled by the Avars in the days of this same Emperor of the Romans Heraclitus, their countries were made desolate. And so, by command of the Emperor Heraclius these same Croats defeated and expelled the Avars from these parts, and by mandate of Heraclius the emperor they settled down in that same country of the Avars, where they now dwell. These same Croats had at that time for prince the father of Porgas. The Emperor Heraclius sent and brought priests from Rome, and made of them an archbishop and a bishop and elders and deacons, and baptized the Croats; and at that time the these Croats had Porgas for their prince.23

In another section Constantine gives the genealogy of King Hugh, his father in law, whose daughter Eudocia was married to his son, Romanus II; no doubt to flatter his father in law and his son.

(s. 26) Now, she who came up to Constantinople and was joined in marriage to Romanus, the son born in the purple of Constantine, the Christ-loving sovereign, was the daughter of the same illustrious king Hugh, and she was called Bertha after the name of her grandmother, I mean the elder Bertha, who after the death of Adalbert her husband reigned ten years; but she, the young Bertha changed her name to Eudocia, after the grandmother and sister of Constantine, the Christ loving sovereign.24

The above is just a sampling from this work.

As I said Constantine VII died in 959 C.E., to be succeeded by his son Romanus II.

Constantine’s legacy is not his doings as monarch but his scholarship, without which we would have a good deal less knowledge and insight into the Byzantine world.

Solidus coin with Portrait of Constantine VII, Porphrogenitus

1. Runciman, Steven, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus & his reign, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1929, pp. 41-42.

2. Norwich, John Julius, Byzantium: The Apogee, Penguin Books, London, 1991, p. 119.

3. Ostrogorsky, George, History of the Byzantine State, Basil Blackwell, London, 1956, pp. 259-260, Treadgold, Warren, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 1997, pp. 468-470, Jenkins, Romilly, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries AD 610-1071, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1987, pp. 212-226, Norwich, pp. 113-119.

4. Both Alexander and Leo VI had the same mother there is a dispute over whether or not they had the same father. It is possible that Leo’s real father was Michael III, who Basil I, Leo’s supposed father had assassinated so he could take the throne. See Jenkins, pp. 165-166, 98-199, Norwich, pp. 80-81, 102, Treadgold, pp. 455, 462, Ostrogorsky, pp. 233-234. Perhaps at another time I will tell the story of this rather complicated mess.

5. Treadgold, pp. 471-472, Norwich, pp. 122-126.

6. Treadgold, pp. 473-476.

7. Norwich, pp. 117-126.

8. More than one Byzantine Emperor could reign at a time so that Constantine continued to reign, without any power or influence during Romanus’ reign. See Runciman for the best account in English of the reign.

9. Runciman, pp. pp. 229-237.

10. Runciman, pp. 232-233.

11. Runciman, pp. 234-235.

12. Norwich, p. 158, quoting the Anapodosis of Liudprand, v, 23.

13. Runciman, p. 236.

14. Treadgold, pp. 487-494, Norwich, pp. 162-174, Jenkins, pp. 256-268,

15, Norwich, p. 162, Jenkins, pp. 256-257, Toynbee, Arnold, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World, Oxford University Press, London, 1973, pp. 5, 19-21.

16. Toynbee, pp. 576-577.

17. IBID. p. 576.

18. IBID. pp. 575-605.

19. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio, Revised Edition, Translated by Jenkins, Romilly J. H., Dumbarton Oaks, Center for Byzantine Studies, Washington D.C., 1967. This edition contains the original Greek text and on the facing page a translation in English of that page.

20. IBID. pp. 45-47.

21. IBID. pp. 51-53.

22. IBID. pp. 77-79.

23. IBID. pp. 147-149.

24. IBID. p. 113.

Pierre Cloutier

An update for The Devil’s Dictionary

THIS POST CONTAINS SOME CRUDE / VULGAR LANGUAGE!

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!

Ambrose Bierce
In 1911 Ambrose Bierce, American humorist, published his The Devil’s Dictionary1, here are a few updates for a new version.

Accomplice – Someone who helps a criminal do a wicked act, who got caught and could not bribe, cheat, lie or dissemble his / her way out of it.

Asshole – An empty space, and / or a person who won’t sleep with you.

Born Again – The nearest thing a Fundamentalist experiences to an Orgasm. Also an impossibility given that you are only born once. A licence to boss everyone else around.

Christian – Debased and abused term misused by many. See Fundamentalist.

Criminal – Someone who steals, lies, kills etc., on a small scale; does not apply to those who do it wholesale see Politician, CEO etc.

Cunt – An empty space, and / or a women who won’t sleep with you.

Fucking – A pleasurable activity that must be made un-pleasurable and guilt ridden so that people who can’t do it will feel some pleasure denying others pleasure.

Heterosexuality – The true faith and only path to salvation, although only if done the correct way, (missionary position for procreation only with no pleasure). Every effort must be made to convert all humans to this true faith least they enjoy themselves.

Heresy – The losing side of an argument. An opinion you don’t like. Something to get indignant about.

Homosexuality – A Heresy. Which every effort must be made to stamp out least everyone be denied salvation. See Heterosexuality.

Freedom Fighter – Someone who murders, mains and devastates without scruple, who is on our side and therefore is not a Terrorist. See Terrorist.

Fundamentalist – Liar, Blasphemer, Heretic, and also brain dead. See Zombie.

Jesus of Nazareth – Guy who got nailed to a tree for saying wouldn't it be great if people were nice to each other for a change. (See book Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy2). Although Jesus was Jewish he was of course not Jewish according to most of his followers. See Christian.

Living together – An illicit form of Marriage.

Luxury – Allowed only to those who have worked hard all their lives and their children wives, husbands, relatives, friends, parasites, politicians, thieves, liars, cheaters etc, who of course have a god given right to think the world owes them a living.

Marriage – Legal prostitution. See Prostitution.

Masturbation – Self sex, everyone can do so of course no one should do it. Bulwark of virginity.

Media – Teller of truths that are lies also providers of depraved sexual services to the highest bidder. Also known as ass kissers and butt lickers.

National Interests – The interests of the rich and powerful has against the interests of 95-99% of the population.

Orthodox – The winning aside of an argument. An opinion you like. Senility. See Zombie.

Political Correctness – Term applied by powerful, influential people to formerly powerless people complaining about powerful influential people abusing and libelling them. Also the whining of the powerless and abused as against the whining of the rich and powerful which is not Politically Correct but merely objective reality.

Politician – See Criminal and Accomplice. Someone who is out for his own interests but cloaks it in lies and subterfuge. Also a wholesale thief, liar, hypocrite, killer etc. Generally also a pet poodle of the rich and powerful. Noted for his / her brown nose.

Prostitution – Marriage without illusions. See Marriage. Disgusting activity in which only the providers of the service are depraved not the customers.

Sex – Wicked pleasurable activity indulged in by most and therefore must be made as guilt ridden and loathsome as possible. See Fucking.

Shrub – A smaller, more insignificant Bush.

Special Interests – Everybody except the rich and powerful, i.e.., 95-99% of the population.

Terrorist – Someone who murders, mains and devastates without scruple, who is not on our side.

Zombie – Master of Doublespeak. Those who think in a box the size a pin. See Orthodox and Fundamentalist.


1. A copy can be found Here. The Devil’s Dictionary and other works by Ambrose Bierce can also be found Here.

2. Adams, Douglas, Del Rey, New York, 1995.

Pierre Cloutier

The Stoned Nailmaker's
“Jump the shark” Post, Part One

The following is my list of the moments at which TV shows began that slide to sucksville. The opinions are entirely my own of course.

Happy Days

This show was more accurately described by MAD Magazine as Crappy Days gave us the phrase “jump the shark”, referring to that horrid, brain-cell killing episode when the “Fonz” jumps over a shark while driving a motorcycle. I disagree. The moment came when after they raped, mutilated and murdered an idea of a series taking place in the fifties, they went further and decided to make the “Fonz” really “cool” thus elevating awesome stupidity and ignorance into “cool”. Defining Episode the “Fonz” doing Hamlet. (The Bard would have killed himself if he Had not already been dead.)

Cast of Happy Days

The Beverly Hillbillies

This show is an example of TV thinking during the sixties. Basically a bunch of “city slickers” decide to make fun of country people by portraying them has stupid and ignorant. An example of urban contempt for country life. The show started in the toilet and went down from there. When the show went off the air Time magazine said it was “the best indication of an improvement in network taste”. Defining moment when Granny thought that Elle-Mae was marrying a real “frog” and would have little “tadpoles”.

Cast of The BeverlyHillbillies

Cheers.

Diana leaving. Afterwards it became obvious what a bunch of worthless, contemptible losers the regulars were. The sort of people you would see bleeding to death on the road and leave to die without a moment’s hesitation. The Diana character was irritating and annoying but not contemptible; when she left the total uselessness of the other regulars became all too apparent. Cheers started the trend on American sitcoms of having vile, worthless regulars the viewer could feel superior too and contemptuous of.

Scene from Cheers

The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis

The adventures of the superficial, worthless Dobie where both funny and very cynical for its time. Dobie’s parents who have no use for their son (who would), were priceless. This show was way ahead of its time. It went downhill the day it was canceled and no new shows could be made.

Scene from The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis

Frasier

Staring the worthless, self-important Dr. Frasier Crane and his bowel movement of a brother Niles and their rotting dog doo of a father and don’t get me started on the dog, (a living argument for abusing animals). This show continued the Cheers syndrome of having vile, contemptible regulars. This vastly overrated show was stuck in the sewer from day one only the character of Lilith, Frasier’s ex-wife, to occasionally raise it above pus level. This show went down hill from the beginning. Thankfully its over. Defining moment Frasier lets his father move in with that rancid dog. Why?

Cast of Frasier

Bewitched

A totally absurd concept that cried out to be utterly terrible but thanks to smart writing and good acting, (especially by Elizabeth Montgomery has Samantha) worked. This show started the long slow agonizing decline when it replace Darrin one with Darrin two. (Killing him off would have been a better idea but hey this was the sixties can’t have that on TV can we?).

Cast of Bewitched

Leave it to Beaver

A show which is perfectly impossible to understand why anyone not in need of sleep would find it funny or watch it unless in need of having to induce a coma. A show whose smarmy endorsement of mindlessness was positively creepy. Another one in decline from the toilet from day one. Any episode with Dad giving Beaver a moral lesson at the end will induce vomiting.

Cast of Leave it to Beaver

The Adams Family. (sixties version)

An Hollywood abortion. Adams, who created the cartoons which Hollywood mutilated and abused, apparently hated the show. The vicious, sly humour of the cartoons is emasculated and made harmless and wholesome. A total travesty. Another one that started in the tank and stayed there. The episode with the Adams refusing to spank their children is a defining moment for a family that poisons, tortures, and blowups each other.

Cast of The Adams Family

Roseanne

Here we have two “jump the sharks”, hard as it is to believe. The episode where Joan Collins showed up and Roseanne asked her why she was “such a bitch?” At this moment the show moved from its working class “realism” to being rather nauseatingly self referential with lots of guest stars. Hard has it is to believe Roseanne achieved the incredible feat of “jumping the shark” again. When the Connors won 100 million. Enough said. (The Connors appeared on Jerry Springer afterwards which says it all).

Cast of Roseanne

Seinfield

What can one say of this over praised, over hyped “entertainment”, except that it was Married with Children for the self important and pretentious. In fact pretentiousness was this shows defining characteristic. The four main characters carry the Cheers syndrome of having lead characters that are vile and contemptible to the nth degree. The irritation factor created by Jerry’s whining monologues or the nauseating applause when Ed Norton rip-off Kramer enters a room are truly awesome. The incredible display of butt licking when the show went off the air by TV critics would be enough to make anyone doubt the existence of God. Not even Trekkers at their worst were so sycophantic. The spectacle was at once stunning and disheartening. The moment this horror started to go downhill was the truly amazing episode where George’s fiancee dies and the regulars celebrate her death, thus revealing what pieces of vomit they are and that the show was basically Married with Children for pretentious snobs.

Cast of Seinfeld

Pierre Cloutier