Subject: Re: Wie es eigentlich gewesen war - msg#00090

Previous Message by Date:

Re: TAN query: exploding shells at Waterloo

First of all, many thanks to Harold Hungerford, Steve Zoraster, Ricky Torrey, Owen Cramer, Jay Kardan, Diana Wright, Jean Alvares, Patrick Rourke, and (off-list) George Pesely and J.W. Worthy (I hope I've got everybody there) for their very helpful and informative posts. This enabled me to blast my know-it-all student right out the window. PTR posted: A little contemporary evidence: [snip] And the rocket's red glare, The bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night That our flag was still there. This came in last night, when I was out of computer reach. But in fact I woke up this morning feeling very patriotic, for the strains of "Star-Spangled Anacreon" were floating through my head, and I positively kicked myself for not having thought of these words yesterday. And now I find myself wondering about them. Would "the bombs bursting in air" refer to the phenomenon of fuses on exploding shells going off prematurely, before impact with the target? And what about the "rocket's [rockets'?} red glare"? What were these "rockets"? Flares? On a TAN tangent to this TAN discussion, my old fellow soldier in grad school ranks Geoffrey Harrison asks: Perhaps I am not the only list-member who has become curious to read, and thus desirous to know where one may find, "Nervous Nelly" Grant's Shiloh dispatch. Would you oblige, David? One may find it perhaps most readily on p. 999 of the Library of America Grant volume. One may also find it on p. 226 of John Keegan's "The Mask of Command," where, however, the recipient is stated to be the nicely named Don Carlos Buell. That is, I think, not true. It was addressed to Brig. Gen. William Nelson, who was at that point still across the Tennessee river with the sorely needed reinforcements. (Keegan, despite his fine reputation as a military historian, does nod at times. For instance, on the next page he kills off Lew Wallace-- "But Wallace, who was supporting Prentiss, had been been killed also"-- only to resurrect him on the next page, which is a great relief to fans of Ramon Navarro and/or Charlton Heston.) Grant wrote the dispatch around noon of the first day of the battle, having been caught with his pants down (or at least while breakfasting) around 6 that morning. The usual estimate of the Confederate forces under the soon-to-be-late Albert Sydney Johnston is 40,000. Grant's overestimate is one among several indications of his nervousness. Grant wrote this dispatch from horseback, and under fire. (I retain his creative spelling and syntax.) Comd.g Officer Advance Forces Near Pittsburg, Ten. Gen. The attack on my forces has been very spirited from early this morning. The appearance of fresh troops on the field now would have a powerful effect both by inspiring our men and disheartining the enemy. If you will get upon the field leaving all your baggage on the East bank of the river it will be a move to our advantage and possibly save the day to us. The rebel forces is estimated at over 100.000 men. My Hd Qrs. will be in the log building on top of the hill where you will be furnished a staff officer to guide you to your place on the field. Respectfully &c U.S. Grant Maj. Gen. What interested my students about the dispatches of both Wellington and Grant is that both do considerably more than just give an order. Rather than bark "Do X *on the double*," both took the time to attempt to *persuade* their recipients of the importance of doing X. Also interesting is Keegan's comment on Grant's dispatch: "Grant, so often characterized as a mere butcher, is thinking not of blood but of fears and hopes." (By the way, Grant tended *not* to think of blood. Interestingly enough, he had a constitutional repugnance to the sight of blood---and would get queasy even at the sight of blood in an insufficiently cooked steak. Odd, no?) I don't suppose anyone knows of written battlefield orders, either real or spurious, from antiquity? I couldn't think of any. And of course nowadays generals bark into walkie-talkies---or whatever is the state- of-the-art equivalent. David Lupher Classics Dept. Univ. of Puget Sound --

Next Message by Date:

Re: Theory ... again

>This seems not to have gone out because the LMC system was >intentionally shut down last evening to prevent virus complications. > >Apologies if this is an encore; I've not seen it yet. > >---- > >This may be of some interest ... > >CSM 1/27/04: > >"Theory in chaos" > >Excerpts: > >"Postmodern literary theory is now transforming itself so >rapidly that Marxist, feminist, deconstructionist, and >psychoanalytic critics (and others) are flocking back to the >drawing board in droves as they search for new approaches to >writing and teaching. Indeed, some academics say that >postmodern theory is on the way out altogether and that the >heady ideas that once changed the way literature is taught >and read will soon be as extinct as the dodo and the buggy whip." > >[snip] > >"But if theory is so profoundly flawed in its inability to >address the ideas and emotions that not only make us >individual but also allow us to marry, build communities, >and undertake the countless transactions that would be >impossible without basic share assumptions, how did it ever >become so popular in the first place? How did the notion >that There Is No Truth become The Truth?" >JMM / LMC A) No-one would speak against it for fear of seeming out-of-date or fogeyish; B) In classics, and no doubt other fields as well, it potentially allows one to work unimpeded by knowledge of language, history, legal institutions, etc. and thus to engorge a big fat CV for fatuous administrators who know only quantity, not quality, and to do so with relative ease, as long as readers at journals and presses follow principle A); In other words, to paraphrase Ovid, AA 1.637, C) Expediebat nullam esse ueritatem, et, ut expediebat, nullam esse putabant. James L. P. Butrica St. John's NL A1C 5S7 (709) 737-7914 (office)

Previous Message by Thread:

Re: Wie es eigentlich gewesen war

The subject line is German for "the way it had been."  If, on the other hand, the subject line would invoke the spirit of Leopold von Ranke's Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (1824, although I am not sure exactly where the oft -quoted _expression_, "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist," or related saws like "ad fontes," "sine ira et studio," actually occur).   I prefer Dr. Luther's "wo steht denn das geschrieben?" even if it did get him excommunicated.  The highest standard is of course is Albert Finney-Poirot's thrice repeated query on the Orient Express:  "Did you see it?"  I  think that is what Ranke meant, something like:  "Do your records go back to eye-witnesses or better?" Best, J.W. Worthy Sipe Springs, Texas

Next Message by Thread:

Re: Wie es eigentlich gewesen war

Sine ira et studio:  Tacitus, Annales 1.1.3:   inde consilium mihi pauca de Augusto et extrema tradere, mox Tiberii principatum et cetera, sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.   George Pesely Austin Peay State University   -----Original Message----- From: Classical Greek and Latin Discussion Group [mailto:CLASSICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of JW Worthy Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 11:55 AM To: CLASSICS-L@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Wie es eigentlich gewesen war   The subject line is German for "the way it had been."  If, on the other hand, the subject line would invoke the spirit of Leopold von Ranke's Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (1824, although I am not sure exactly where the oft -quoted _expression_, "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist," or related saws like "ad fontes," "sine ira et studio," actually occur).   I prefer Dr. Luther's "wo steht denn das geschrieben?" even if it did get him excommunicated.  The highest standard is of course is Albert Finney-Poirot's thrice repeated query on the Orient Express:  "Did you see it?"  I  think that is what Ranke meant, something like:  "Do your records go back to eye-witnesses or better?" Best, J.W. Worthy Sipe Springs, Texas