Republic?

When the heads are in the clouds

In many ways Coco prefers to stay out of politics, it is all too difficult and Coco rarely understands the arguments, but then so apparently does Republic. It is non-political. So, it is appropriate to comment then. One king was once told, ‘Obedience is better than sacrifice’. It is a word to which all kings, whether having the name king or some other epithet that is used to camouflage their aspirations to be king, should take heed. It was said of the Cretans that everyone of them wanted to be king, and of the Israelis in the time of the judges: ‘Every one did what was right in their own eyes. There was no king in Israel.’

When we look into the word of God we find that no form of civil government is approved by him than a monarchy, and even that was second best. Samuel spoke to them on the occasion of the coronation of the first king of Israel: ‘See .. your wickedness, which you have done in the sight of the Lord in asking a king for yourselves, is great, [for] the Lord your God was your king.’ The Lord gave them a king. Moses had warned them of the consequences of choosing a king for themselves, that they would groan under the burden of him.

But because of our condition which makes what Coco said in the first paragraph true, it is necessary to order civil society. How should it be ordered? Republic think it should not be a monarchy, but if you read what they have written, then it should become obvious to you that everything that they want, apart from one thing to which Coco shall come shortly, can be obtained simply be restoring to the Monarch that which parliament has subtly taken away over many years.

Why, and how have they taken away the very necessary powers of the head of state? By the very simple cry, ‘We have been elected. It is the will of the people.’ What then will we hear if, as they want, there is an elected head of state? ‘I have been elected. It is the will of the people.’ What sort of power grabs will we face then? We see it in many republics. Does Coco need to name any? They are in all six continents perhaps yet save one, but Coco is not sure where the border is between the fifth and the sixth (and Coco is not talking about the 49th parallel).

It is good that Republic raise the question, however, even though they have their head in the clouds. As Brecht said once: His economics is good, but he takes no account of human nature. And as he said it in German, it is impossible to say he has been misquoted, though Coco would accept a charge of producing a poor translation. In order to avoid the problem of our human nature, which makes us all want to be kings even if we are not Cretans, it is far better to have a head of state who is not chosen. He is king who was born to it, therefore he does not wield power because he has been given it by others for himself as so many so called kings and presidents do, but because he inherited it and having inherited it he must also pass on his inheritance to another to use for the benefit and good of the people over whom he rules, his subjects, with honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability.

Our monarchy may not be perfect, but then neither are you, nor Coco, are we? But it is better than many possible alternatives, and certainly better than their proposal. You see everything that they say they want can be obtained without an elected head of state. Does Coco suggest then that they construct their argument ingenuously simply because they dislike the idea of privilege? But it is the very privilege that they dislike that protects us from electing, inflicting upon ourselves, a man who only wants to be there for the power it gives him. Coco leaves it to you, dear reader, to answer the question.

To return to Israel, the first king was a failure. He thought little of obedience, perhaps it could be said that honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability were also absent in his rule, but Coco shall leave another to set out the theses and antitheses for that. The Lord then chose a king for them and promised that one of his line would come who would be the true king who would rule in righteousness, a man in whom honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability (yes, accountability too), would always be found and never not be found. That man came and they would not submit to his rule. His kingdom is not of this world he told the man who had power to condemn him to execution on a cross, but God confirmed that he is indeed king by raising him from the dead. One day we shall see him return in power, and all shall bow the knee to him and acknowledge that he is Lord, the true king. ‘Come to me all you who labour and are heavy laden’, he calls , ‘my yoke is easy and my burden is light’. This king came not to be served, but to serve, and whilst he is due all worship honour and praise, it is clear that his rule will always be for the benefit and good of his people: ‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.’

May you find, in this year of Jubilee, find rest for your souls.

Proscription

Happy new year to y’all. Well, at least in the UK it is for corporation tax. Income tax customers have to wait another five days for their new year.

We are presently in a period of grace granted by the EU, so I understand, for green and blue. My step-grandfather was a seaman and had tattoos, the outlines of which were still discernible though quite shadowy or blurred by the time I was old enough to even take any notice of them.

The EU are rightly concerned about the injection of hazardous substances into the skin (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59871779), even the topical application of some substances, such as polonium, is exceedingly dangerous though no one has suggested that that is in common use. The EU are more concerned about alcohols like isopropanol. I had a look at the list here: https://echa.europa.eu/substances-restricted-under-reach

I was interested to find creosote in the list. I can now either stop looking for it or expect it to reappear in the hardware stores; I am not sure which yet, it may become a totem of distinction from the EU or a sop at upholding their standards. I was rather surprised that polonium was not on the list, or perhaps I missed it.

You may have read, some years ago (I think it was late 20th century), of an alternative to tattoos which had been proposed by a number of French chemists who had worked with goldfish. They were looking into chemical substitution, a technique which was just becoming viable as we were discovering ways in which individual molecules could be manipulated. There were reports of some successful substitutions to produce blues, reds and whites but the techniques then were far too imprecise. It really was like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, except that the nut could not be seen when viewed in the same frame as the head of the hammer. [I really liked the idea of new simile, coined in January, of using a fighting elephant to crush a flea, used by a certain Eastern country of a Western one, but realised, having attempted to crush fleas myself, that the flea is likely to be not at all perturbed about being underneath an elephant’s foot. It will just wait for the foot to move and .. Ping! Back to work mate]. However, though the work was abandoned for a time better techniques, which were developed for the sequencing of biologic molecules, and the ability to model in 3D the structures of complex organic molecules, led to the ability to manipulate these. To be able to cut threads of complex polymers and insert alien modules was the step that was required, which led to genetic modification. I would like to enter into a discussion here about the differences between genetic modification and selective breeding for they are often conflated by some who have an axe to grind, but this is not the place to do so, so I shall refrain from following my desire to do so. The ability to modify living organic material revived the ideas of chemical substitution, but now not so much with the single atom in mind but rather a sequence of coding modules in DNA. Melanin production in the subcutaneous skin is controlled by the chemical responses of these biologic structures to sunlight. The question was asked whether this could be modified in some specific ways.

Research began, as always by giving PhD students the dirty work without telling them what the real end game is, otherwise they might get the academic credit instead of you. It was quite difficult, but slowly a picture began to emerge of the processes involved, the active regions of the genome and how the differences between racial skin types affected discolouration. The real work then began, can modifications be made to change the responses of the skin? This was all hidden under the guise of finding better protections for skin from UV damage, which then attracted significant funding, though not widely publicised for fear of damaging the value of their own products, from cosmetic manufacturers. There were some small successes; limited areas little more than spots could be changed, but any increase in melanin production may have beneficial effects, and if the changes were enduring may afford better protection from UV damage.

The work continued, with the cosmetic industry involved in this clandestine work it was rather harder to do what they really wanted to do, to see if patterns could be created firstly with melanin, but also could different coloured responses be produced – greens and reds perhaps? This required work not only into the production of melanin but other colourful organics like hæmoglobin and the non active elements of chlorophyll. Some of this was quite risky as it was well known that the really vibrant colours of arsenic green, cobalt blue, cæsium orange and lead red were quite toxic in the human body, but it was also understood that if these were firmly locked into structures that the body itself produced it was unlikely that they would be broken down thus releasing the toxic components into the body where they could do damage.

This was likened to the way that a tattoo remains in situ. The tissues that contain the tattoo are renewed and worked continually, but the tattoo itself essentially retains its structure undisturbed over many years. Would this sort of thing be possible with the modified tissues? It would take years to find out of course in real human subjects, and would they get permission to try it? So they had then to find an animal with a sufficiently high metabolic rate that what would take several years in a human body may only take months. Hummingbirds were an obvious candidate, but the plumage was a problem (not to mention a certain amount of a good dose of sentimentality over using such a pretty bird in this way), so a separate programme was set up to understand the elements of the genome that controlled metabolic rates, and consider whether the appropriate factors could be introduced into the rat genome to enhance it. This was a fascinating work, and they soon discovered much more about the interrelatedness of the body’s functions though not really understanding what was actually going on. The work was being done however not with a view to understanding, that could come later, but simply to engineer the genome in the required way. Eventually, they made sufficient progress and upon seeing one of the first successfully enhanced rats, that one of the team remarked that it was as well they had not been working on bats else the simile ‘like a bat out of..’ would take on quite a different meaning.

It was the likeness to the tattoo that solved their second problem, though that could not be revealed at this stage. The result of the tattoo artist’s work produces an analogue design, but the tool is a needle inserted at discrete points. This pixelated approach could be used for the genetic modifications of the skin. They also realised that this greatly enhanced the variety of colouration that was possible. It was thought that they then needed to find three modifications that produced the tricolour of ‘primary’ colours (like RGB or CMY). A larger palette of colours would be more useful, but much more difficult to handle. The reduced palette however allowed them to, at least initially, remove the more potentially dangerous modifications for the really vibrant colours aforementioned.

The results on the rats were promising. The modifications did remain in situ over the rats, admittedly short and rather shortened lifetimes, and did not seem to have any adverse effects. Would the modifications endure in much longer living organisms? The programme would take five to ten years, and the subjects would be pigs. In the meantime work continued on the rats into production of different colours and patterns, mostly using simply blue, white and red stripes to check alignments and later some quite simple images where colours were mixed producing some remarkable results.

The researchers started to draw up business plans, but they new they would have to wait before going public for the work on the pigs to conclude, and for no epidemic of swine flu to break out in their subjects.

Leaving the laboratory, April, one of the team working with the rats, noticed that there was a new prominent notice on the tattoo parlour on the other side of the road. The notice declared in quite clear terms (as you might expect) their sentiments concerning the EU ink ban, and the devastating impact upon the ‘industry’ and artists who work in it, and then went on to announce a new service. They acknowledged that the vibrancy of tattoos would be damaged by the new rules, and that this may have a significant impact upon the self-esteem of those who wished to be painted. They also acknowledged that some of the substitute inks that they would be permitted to use had the blurring and shadowing issues seen in many older people who had been painted many years earlier. April thought that it was good to read such an honest admission of what is generally known but rarely acknowledged. The notice then went on to describe the new service. The parlour was going to specialise, and would become a post-mortem tattoo parlour for those who want a tattoo to look its best at the end, not just at the beginning. They knew how disappointed many people felt years after their tattoo that it was not what it was. The notice encouraged those who wished to be painted to wait. They could still book their slot and pay a deposit now, with the balance to be paid just before the work was done. They would be assured that the tattoo would be of the highest quality, and would not be subject to the EU rules limiting the inks that could be used. They were promised that cobalt blue, arsenic green, cæsium orange and red lead would be used if required with some even more exotic options of radium blue, promethium and tritium greens for those who wished to be seen in dimmer lighting. They would be provided with digitally produced images of the finished work to show to friends before the work had been done, and would have the guarantee that it would not fade, nor blur nor shadow. Provision would be made, in conjunction with the undertakers for the tattoo to be displayed in a most sensitive and respectful way possible, prior to cremation or burial as appropriate. A footnote informed readers that the use of radium blue would not be permitted where a cremation was to follow.

April was about to go into the shop to find out what they meant when she realised that that was some kind of joke and stormed off, annoyed that it was not the first time she had been fooled into wasting her time reading such things.

Water

The penalties for disobedience

Apparently water refuses to obey the rules. It is one minute and three seconds in here:
BBC teaching video: Why water is one of the weirdest things in the universe
Does this not mean that there is something wrong somewhere? Apparently water is made up of two very light chemicals, hydrogen and oxygen and the rules say that…Coco shall not repeat the obvious mistake.

In many way perhaps Coco should not be surprised at the attitude shown here. You may have heard, or read, elsewhere about two exceedingly dangerous chemicals chlorine, a gas, and sodium, a metal. You would not want to find yourself in an atmosphere of chlorine otherwise known as mustard gas. It was used with terrible effect in WWI. Nor would you want to be near neat sodium, especially if there were any water (so we come back to water) in the vicinity. Water and sodium do not get on very well. Sodium will rip the water apart releasing hydrogen whilst hydrolising itself. The heat generated will melt the sodium and ignite the hydrogen in the atmospheric oxygen, thus producing water again. You may get hurt.

But we are told that if you burn sodium in an atmosphere of chlorine then you will obtain nothing more potent than table salt.

Is that not wonderful, two dangerous chemicals produce, in combination, a substance that is essential to, at least some forms of, life? But wait a moment, please, is not the combination also a dangerous substance? A lethal dose may be as low as 25g. Please do not mistake salt for sugar. Even dissolved in water brine can cause a prophylactic shock when ingested.

The headline, Sodium and chlorine made safe (in table salt) is a much better strap line than Sodium and Chlorine when combined produce sodium chloride, with a discussion of the uses and dangers of the novel compound.

And so, Water does not obey the normal rules is a strap line that grabs the attention. It is thought better to say this than to say that Water demonstrates the inadequacy of our understanding of chemistry. That is a turn off, is it not? Even worse to say, In order to understand the behaviour of water, we must understand something of the nature of the hydrogen bonds within it.

How arrogant we are! Surely the rules are not set by us. We may be able to formulate them, but the rules are set in the world around us, and all of creation obeys those rules. Water certainly does obey the rules in every way. By the oxidisation of hydrogen, hydrogen and oxygen become water, with all of the properties that belong to water. If this substance water does not follow the rules of our chemistry, then that can only mean one thing: the rules of our chemistry are inaccurate, inadequate or simply wrong. They are out of line with the rules of the chemistry of this world. And if our rules are wrong for water, for what other compounds are they wrong? In what ways are other compounds going to surprise us when they behave in unexpected ways because they do not obey the rules that we have defined?

Surely, we should not be so arrogant, but humbly bow before the Maker of all things, who alone knows fully, and accurately, all of the rules that he has set for the operation of every element and every possible combination of those elements in this vast universe.

If the phenomenon does not accord with our understanding, we do not dismiss the phenomenon, but rather our understanding. As James Clerk Maxwell said to the one Bishop ‘..in accordance with the science of 1876 (which may not agree with that of 1896) it would be very tempting to say that … but I should be very sorry if an interpretation founded on a most conjectural scientific hypothesis were to get fastened to a text .. the rate of change of scientific hypothesis is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretation, so that if an interpretation is founded upon such an hypothesis, it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.’ How truly did he speak.

Apologies to my chemical friends for any exaggeration, inaccurate or otherwise erroneous descriptions contained in this article. Coco sees that it is not just the BBC that has this false view.

Snowflake

Nobody

Nobody has hosted a project a nobody.purechocolate.org.uk.

Register your interest here, or continue going nowhere, finding something else not to do.

Coco may add to this block, on the other hand it may just sit here doing as much as any other block does.

My friend Christopher Robin

My friend has gone to his final resting place. There awaits him, so I have hope, a glorious admittance to the place which the Lord had gone beforehand to prepare for him.

We had fellowship together in the Lord though we disagreed (and rarely agreed) on peripheral matters. He came as an elder to the church. He had already indicated where he was going, and soon he started to lead in such a way that we would become a congregation where each one had a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation, where everything would be done for the building up of the body of Christ. He would not tolerate, as James would not, those who showed partiality towards those who wear gold rings and fine clothing, giving to them the best seats but rather he opened up to the poor and needy providing support and homes to them.  

Not all in the congregation were ready for all of this, some called it innovation, others a revival of some of the things which the church had long ago been instructed to give up (not the bits about the poor and needy I hasten to add). Others were ready, and eagerly listened to the teaching that our brother gave; impatient with what was seen as slow progress, though they had heard him say that when one of us has a grievance against another we should not dare to go to law before the unbelievers about the matter and so kept the matter within the church, they did not remember that no charge should be admitted against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses, and in so doing they grievously injured our brother, causing him to groan under the weight placed upon him. It is sometimes very hard for us to be patient.

One writer suggested that when Paul left Titus in Crete he was left among a people where everyone wanted to be their own king. As it was in the days of the judges: everyman did what was right in his own eyes. It seems now ironic that his ministry began by teaching us what amphictyony means. We are little different. We each want to be king. But the Lord has already made us a nation of kings and priests, to serve him who is King of kings, who said whoever would be great among you must become the servant of all. My friend sought to be such a servant. We should not assert our own authority. All power and authority has been given to him. Let us then, we who are in churches, remember what the Apostle said to the churches: obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning for that would be of no advantage to you.

Monuments

The Paradox of Monuments

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

Whenever I read these words I began to wonder what the Lord meant when he said them. There seemed to be an incongruity about them. Of course when you read on you understand what he meant for the scribes and Pharisees were about to do exactly what they say of themselves they would not have done. But let us think for a moment about the perspective that the scribes and Pharisees were taking.

They had built monuments to prophets. Why had they done this? They wished to honour the memory of those who had been mistreated by the forefathers. The prophets had in the main been rejected by the people. We would like to say that they had been fearless in their denunciation of the sins of the people, but we only need to look a Elijah to see that fearlessness was not a quality that was in abundant supply among them. We might also want to say that they were men who wanted to be prophets – how many today desire to be prophets and how many search them out, whether they claim to be of the Lord or whether they are nothing more than necromancers? But again, we find that the desire to be a prophet was in short supply. Jonah rather than do the job tried to run away to Tarshish (somewhere in or perhaps beyond the western end of the Mediterranean Sea). Jeremiah complained that what he had to say burned in his bones; it wearied him. A later prophet found that the words which were sweet in his mouth were bitter in his stomach. No, it was not so. These men were ripped from obscurity: Amos a shepherd from Tekoa. Even Ezekiel and Isaiah, priests, could have remained in obscurity had they not been made a prophets.

The prophets were not popular men in their own day. Jeremiah complained that the words burned in his bones when he tried to keep silent. Isaiah who spoke his words openly in his early days, in later life had to speak more cautiously as the persecution grew and he spoke of the coming Messiah to the house churches before he was cruelly sawn apart by Manasseh’s crew.

They were honoured by the scribes and Pharisees of the Lord’s day, who said ‘we would never have done such things’, but in their hearts a cold December was waiting to be revealed.

What of today, we have statues and monuments to men, which men today find offensive. Those who pull them down say, ‘we would never have done such things’. Those who wish them gone say ‘We must change our practices’ and ‘Why is it such an agony to remove them’. But we benefitted from what they did, we are their descendants; they are our ancestors.

But are we any different than they were? Are those who pull down statues any different than the ones who put them up and the ones whom they represent? If they were slavers, are we any less so? Do they and we not buy at least some jeans, sandals, shirts, sweat shirts, t-shirts, track suites, trainers, trews, trousers, and whatever else men in these days wear from retailers who source at least some of their products from the sweat shops of south Asia made with cotton from the plantations of central Asia? Or are they the minority who go out of their way to discover the source of the materials in every item of clothing and refuse to do business with any who have any connection with slavers.

No, men are the same today as they were when they persecuted the prophets, as when they built monuments to them, as before slavery had not been abolished in the British Empire and as we are since that time. There may be external differences. Men may show their revulsion of certain things in different ways, but within the hearts beat in the same way, and the desires of those hearts are the same.

It is easy to throw stones at men of the past. They cannot answer back. Why do they not throw stones at the slavers of today or are the consequences too great to be contemplated? Ah, yes, I almost forgot, the Lord who said that those who build the monuments are no different than their forefathers who persecuted the monumented, also said that the one who is without sin should throw the first stone.

The people who are so vocal about the erasure of the memory of these things cannot throw stones at the ones who continue the practices which they claim to revile, for they are themselves as guilty as their ancestors. They continue to benefit from the things they claim to hate, not as a consequence of past actions, but of what they do in the present day.

The Lord goes on the speak of how those who built the monument will behave in contradiction of their words in the not very long coming after days:

Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

But he also weeps that they shall behave in such ways:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’

Men continue to reject the prophets of the Lord Jesus, and treat his people like this. Oh that they would yield to him and be gathered under his wings.

Finally, a word of caution before you tear what I have said apart, but if you wish to do so, then please do for I am willing to learn. It will help me to present the case in a better way next time round, but I am aware that it is possible to represent the prophets in a different way than I have done in the preceding paragraphs. I have chosen this approach deliberately in order to illustrate what I have to say but not to misrepresent them. I know that It is not a complete representation of the prophets. They, and we, are complex individuals. When we try to produce a line drawing of ourselves or anyone else it will inevitably fall short of providing a complete picture.

A shameful date

There was no interference

It was a news report this morning that suggested a song with refrain to Auld Lang Syne:

So then the police spoke this way:
We do not investigate
Historic breaches of the law
Regulations that you know.

There has been no interference
No political pressure
The choice is theirs, and theirs alone
As you heard from you know who.


An independent investigation
Then had to take place
We wait for its report to come
Before we judge the case.

There has been no interference
No political pressure
The choice is theirs, and theirs alone
As you heard from you know who.


Just as the report is about to come,
To be published as you know
The police begin to investigate
To start their enquiry.
There has been no interference
No political pressure
The choice is theirs, and theirs alone
As you heard from you know who.


Now the report cannot be seen
In full as it might have been
For that you know might prejudice
The police enquiry.

There has been no interference
No political pressure
The choice is theirs, and theirs alone
As you heard from you know who.


We must await the police report
On these most serious things
Our own report will silent be
On all but trivia.

There has been no interference
No political pressure
The choice is theirs, and theirs alone
As you heard from you know who.
©Credits:
Noteworthy Composer for scoring and producing the midi file
Melody Assistant by Myriad Software for producing the mp3
Virtual Singer for singing
Powerpoint for producing the mp4
BBC for reporting the new content that inspired the song with refrain
Tradition for remembering the music
Wikipedia for providing a low resolution image of Test Card C

Copyright notices:
The background image is believed to be a screenshot of what may be a copyrighted television programme which would then be © Copyright BBC & BREMA (British Radio and Electronic Manufacturers’ Association). It is further believed that the use of this low-resolution screenshot for illustration of its purpose, to demonstrate good quality, reliable reception without interference qualifies as fair use. This resolution of the image of Test Card C does not substantially affect the benefits, which belong to the copyright holder, and can be considered a fair use.
The words are © Copyright Stuart Moffatt 2022. Commercial use is expressly prohibited but otherwise they are hereby made freely available for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licence modified to exclude permission for commercial use. This exclusion may not be overridden.

With apologies in advance for errors of syntax, orthography and grammar which may be found embedded in this document whether arising from oversight, incorrect application of language packs or generally any other misadventure; and in general for any offence given inadvertently or inappropriately or both taken or not taken by those whose sensibilities, whether grammatical, orthographical, moral or simply personable, have been offended whether, not or if you have not incorrectly misunderstood the content, intent, meaning and purpose of this article, and to those whose copyrights may have been inadvertently or wantonly infringed, but never as to cause damage the copy holder’s rights, and, if you have managed to read this far, for any errors or omissions whether wilful, unintended, innocent or deliberate in the content of this polemic, and with thanks to you who have made it thus far for your patience.

A Striking Image

Sometimes Coco’s posts are far too wordy, so he thought he would keep it simple today. See, there are already far too many words!

Explanations of art work flow quite readily from artists these days, Coco supposes in part it is because the art cannot speak for itself, but Coco hopes that what he presents here requires no explanation and that you will all fully understand it. It is, with a little thought such as you might give to a cryptic crossword, completely self explanatory. Coco had noticed that the BBC had presented some striking pictures from around the world today, so he thought to present you with a striking picture also. He was going to give it a name but that is entirely unnecessary, it shall be left simply with the adjective that has already been provided.

© Stuart Moffatt 2022

Resolving

Spero meliora?

Thinking about the new year, Coco had been locked in a discussion with a linguistical friend, who could turn your Latin homework into better Latin than ever Pliny’s grandson would have even dreamed he could write, trying to find a better expression of ‘Spero meliora’ than is offered either by Google translate or by the owners of the motto. It seemed to Coco to be far too weak to be a good motto, though Coco had no doubt that to the literate Roman it carried much more weight that Micawber’s ‘Something will turn up’, which is all the poor English language can muster. Coco had hoped for better. ‘Semper ad Meliora’ is hardly an improvement, though ‘Semper meliora’ may be closer to that for which Coco had hoped. It was inevitable that Coco should come out of the discussion with a turnip nose, as in cauliflower ear, of which Coco had learned from the Third Programme’s heir at about 1845 this evening¹. Beware if you have such a thing lest when you use tobacco and blow smoke from it the fire wardens are not called out!

So what is the outcome of this, this is a new year, but we bring into the new year all that the old year has left with us, and no amount of resolution will change that – Brecht later in the evening², as a Marxist criticising Marx, said for all his agreement with the economic theory that Marx had failed to take into account human nature – but there is One who has not failed to take into account human nature and has given us not only a resolution but the power to change: ‘I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.’ If he has taken hold of me that I may take hold of the prize, then surely we can know that we shall take hold of it.

So in this new year, it does not matter whether we say it in Latin or in English, it is the doing that matters: let us all press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

    1. BBC Words and Music 2 January 2022 quoting an extended version of Samuel French Acting Edition of Bernhardt/Hamlet pages 89-90
    2. Brecht: The Mother here and elsewhere.
    3. The nose: 

    The viola plays again

    Special rendition

    Just before 11h yestermorn, the BBC played Silent Night by a composer whose skills excelled in the use of the propensity of violas to play in unison with themselves. Alfred Schnittke was a master of the improbable and novel, even taking into account the built in weakness of the tuning system of the instrument. Viola players are well known for overcoming the stiffness of the tuning pegs in their instruments by applying wax rather than chalk to their stems. They are also one of the boldest and most brash of musicians, outdoing even the infamous ‘bonists, in their ability to overcome what may appear to the untrained ear to be a mistake. In a word they are the toreadors of the musical world.

    On the BBC playlist it was item 17. You would have had to wait nearly two hours to hear this exceptional piece of violistic virtuosity, or scroll forward to 1:54, just after the adverts, which just like June 4th, are not there. At the time of posting it would have only been available for a further 29 days, so you had had to be quick…to listen, but now that the 29 days have expired all that remains for you is this faint and feinting echo of the performances of that day.

    As always, Coco must apologise for any inaccuracies, or deviations from the facts of the matter, but one must not let the facts get in the way of a good story, as every viola player knows, and secondly, to the two excellent musicians for any misrepresentation of their performance. Coco should add that the instrument – it is actually a violin that is being played in this performance, demonstrating even more the extraordinary ability of the performer, which approaches that of Mike Yarwood, to be able on that most well-behaved of instruments, to imitate one of the most incorrigible.


    Essential Classics – Georgia Mann – BBC Sounds
    Refresh your morning with a great selection of classical music.
    BBC.CO.UK