Turkeys for Christmas?

Whilst it is voting day in the UK, it is quite a different day in the former North American colonies. One of Coco’s friends pointed him to The False Prophet Rising: Part 2 – The Merging of Church and State https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BaoI5FPWO5o/hqdefault.jpg. It was not something that would normally grab his attention. Listening to the analysis of a Trump speech at the National Religious Broadcasters’ Convention – 2/22/24 reminded him very much of encouraging turkeys to vote for Christmas and not letting them know that they are on the menu. Having no influence as far as the choice of their new president is to be makes the detail of the various presentations in some ways superfluous which is a view contrary to that of the BBC (see US election 2024: Why the world is watching so closely https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/2048/cpsprodpb/CB97/production/_132291125_whitehouse_976getty.jpg.webp).

Without making any political statement, the suggestion is that Trump does not actually know what he is talking about, though he thinks he does. He has an altogether different purpose in what he says than that which the commentators perceive in it. When you are playing chess the aim of course is to position your pieces in such a way that you may capture the opposing king. This is most effectively achieved if you are able to position your pieces in that way without drawing the attention of your opponent to what you have done. Now in this world chess is not being played with only 0x20 pieces. The more pieces there are the greater the likelihood of being able to move the relevant ones into position without their ultimate purpose being seen, providing of course you have a different good enough reason for so positioning them.

This is the strategy which is being suggested by the commentators, and note, the particular pieces in the game do not ever need to know why they have been positioned apart from the immediate cause. In this case, the immediate cause is that Trump wants the support of the broadcasters in his campaign. None of the pieces need to know what their ultimate use will be. This is especially important in war games of course, for if any of the pieces fall into enemy hands you want them to have no more information than that they had orders to be where they were found.

Coco has a different view of the end times than that which he perceived to be the views both criticised and held by the commentators, but something is going to happen. If nothing else Daniel’s prophecy makes that clear (he could go into further detail but shall refrain here today), but exactly what it is, and certainly when, we do not yet know. It will be obvious enough when the day comes. For Coco the assessment of Trump’s appeal was interesting enough, though it contained nothing new from the prophetic perspective, you may however find it quite interesting from a political for it illustrates how a politician can represent himself to be on more than one side at the same time. Some form of quantum tunnelling is possible to the seasoned political chameleon, but Coco is sure you knew all of that.

Anyway, Coco leaves it to you. The whole show will take less than an hour if you speed it up so that they talk at a reasonable speed rather than a drawl.

For an alternate view of the end times, Wesley aptly express it in his hymn, which also makes reference to the proclamation by trump some 250 years prior to his actual appearance:

Lo! He comes with clouds descending,
once for favoured sinners slain;
thousand thousand saints attending
swell the triumph of his train:
Hallelujah!
God appears on earth to reign.

Every eye shall now behold him 
robed in dreadful majesty;
those who set at nought and sold him,
pierced and nailed him to the tree,
deeply wailing,
shall the true Messiah see.

Every island, sea, and mountain,  
heaven and earth, shall flee away;
all who hate him must, confounded,
hear the trump proclaim the day;
come to judgment!
come to judgment! come away!

Genus reassignment

Times were very hard. The countryside was being squeezed by the urban population, rows and rows of solar panels were being placed not only upon the most productive arable fields but now even upon the pastoral land where sheep may have safely grazed. The panels it was true provided much needed shade from the summer sum, but the diminution of the number of animals put pressure on the economy of the canine population, making life very difficult for the wolves who had families to feed.

As a young wolf Adolphe recognised that the situation was very grievous indeed. How could he raise a family if he could not provide for them was a question he frequently asked himself until one day when he met Flora.

Flora was a Pomeranian who visited the moorland beyond the fields one day. Adolphe was resting in the shade of one of the few trees on the moor when her mistress disturbed him, also looking for shade from the noon-day sun. Adolphe retreated to a safe distance in the bracken, waited and watched. Adolphe never saw her walk. She was always in the arms of her mistress, who treated her more like a cub than a dog he thought. Just then, as it did to Newton when he waited under an apple tree, it occurred to him. It would be a bold experiment, he said to himself, but it may work.

It was many days later that he saw Mutton, a member of the Salish family, running freely among the solar panels. He made her acquaintance and learned that her master was nearby, but she was allowed to run as she will. Adolphe was perturbed by the reference to the master being nearby, and watched carefully. Often the masters carried iron sticks which had deadly accuracy. It was that which he feared.  He bid his time. Mutton and her master continued to visit the area with quite some regularity. Slowly Adolphe got to know her better.

One day her master saw them running together and called her back. She encouraged him to follow, saying that all would be well, as long as he did just the same things that she did.

It was difficult for Adolphe to roll over onto his back to allow the human to rub his belly with a pair of heavy boots, but he noticed that there was no long iron stick on the human’s back. The human allowed them to eat together, though there was not a lot as he had only prepared enough for one dog. Mutton encouraged Adolphe to eat the most.

On the next occasion the human told Mutton to find her friend. A few hours later they both arrived and ate together again, but this time the human had prepared two meals. The lying on the back took place again, and then – this was not part of Adolphe’s plan – something was placed around his neck. He had not noticed before but Mutton also wore one. A vine was attached to it and held firmly by the human. It was time to go. Adolphe remembered what he had been told. ‘It will be alright. Do as I do.’ Adolphe was about to learn new things.

Some months later they returned to the moor. The vine was slipped from his neck and he and Mutton ran freely again. They returned that day to the human’s den, and so for the rest of the week. Mutton later told Adolphe that he was free to go if he wished. The human would be happy either way. Mutton returned home.

They continued to meet on the moor, then one day Mutton asked to see his den. She did not return home that day. Her master, his friends and their dogs, spent the next several weeks looking for her but to no avail. Though they often found evidence of her recent activity – that she was alive and well that was very clear – there were no sightings. The spy-cam that they set up caught many images of the wolves, including Adolphe, but Mutton never strayed into view.

Five months later Mutton arrived back at her former home with a litter of woolly, wolves. They were perhaps six weeks old. She returned to the moor shortly afterward, but continued to make regular visits to her old master.

The leopard changes his spots

Adolphe reflected on the success of his experiment. How much easier it would be for his offspring to remain hidden from the ever watching eye of the shepherd.

As Farmer Giles raised his gun he heard a voice coming from the flock.

The wolf bleated: Don’t shoot – I have had a genus reassignment!

Lupine to Ovine?

The prophet asked: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23) The Lord is speaking against his people in Jerusalem, giving them warnings of what is to come if they will not change their ways. The words sound harsh, but they are full of compassion:

Hear and give ear: Do not be proud, for the Lord has spoken. Give glory to the Lord your God before he causes darkness, and before your feet stumble on the dark mountains, and while you are looking for light, he turns it into the shadow of death and makes it dense darkness. But if you will not hear it, my soul will weep in secret for your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly and run down with tears.

Jeremiah 23:15-17

The people are comfortable in their ignorance. Everyone of them wants to do it my way and not the Lord’s way. Pride and godlessness fill the streets. This soon overflows into violence against others. If we insist on my way, and never give in or consider others, we shall soon come into conflict with those around us. If pride fills our hearts, then we shall soon disrespect those around us who do not have quite the same view of ourselves that we have. The apostle rejoins us to not to think of [ourselves] more highly than [we] ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. So he warns them that they must change, but so accustomed to them have their wicked ways become, they cannot change them any more than a leopard can change its spots.

But he problem goes much deeper than that, as intimated by the double simile. It is not just a bad habit which we must shake off, it is an intrinsic part of our make up as human beings just as the colour of our skin. The change required is impossible for us, just as impossible as gender and genus reassignments are. Who then can be saved? the disciples asked Jesus, in a different context (Mark 10). A change is required which is fundamental. The Lord provided the answer: With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible. John records for us as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Just as the wolf cannot become a sheep, even if he were able to grow woollen fleece as a sheep, we cannot by the will of man become children of God. We must be born again, born from above, born of the Spirit, born of God. With man it is impossible, but with God, simply come to Jesus and receive him.

Forgotten things

It is a quirk of time zones that today means different things in different places, and the tomorrow of GMT, may be the today of a different zone, though unlikely at this late hour to be the yesterday of any less further west than Hawaii.

With that in mind then, and understanding that already ten hours of today have elapsed where today is today, please kindly take note that that today is the day when some would have us to believe that nothing happened, but many interesting and disturbing things did happen on this day, some being so recent as to only achieve the silver Jubilee of their decadary this year.

We need only think of George III of Hanover, who was born on this day in 1738 to understand its importance for the later potential unification of the Saxon peoples of northern Europe, but for a closer personal connection an unnamed, for fear of infringement of the GDPR, lady was also born on this day failing to see the coronation of our late Queen by perhaps a mere thirty five hours.

When we think of disturbing things then perhaps the completion of a great evacuation from northern Europe may come to mind, but on the other hand the not unusual event of one man venturing onto a zebra crossing to bring to a halt the on-coming traffic may speak to some of the completion of another great evacuation which had recently taken place.

Many other such things may well spring to your mind and your remembrance, or otherwise be disclosed to you by the elephantine memory of this forum.

Street Furniture

It was Monday morning when Coco noticed it.

Or carry on reading….

There was a road sign above his head, not visible until immediately after a left turn had been executed from a very busy thoroughfare and having been caught previously by a restricted entry notice in a similar position Coco halted to read the sign, which was rather similar in its length to the abstract of a précis of War and Peace which recently been printed as a supplement to a well-known daily newspaper not afraid to use long words, complete sentences and paragraphs had.

Almost immediately there was a sound rather like an angry goose behind his vehicle, which he thought, though it is rather difficult to judge from inside a car, seemed to emanate from the large white passenger coach which was also turning, or rather trying to turn, left but had found an obstruction on the road. Coco wondered why such a comfortable vehicle was being used for the carriage of geese, but as farmers sometimes use their Rolls Royce for the carriage of pigs perhaps Coco need not have wondered. It may have been that Coco was mistaken and there actually was a mad wild goose nearby no doubt on a leash being held by one of the inhabitants of those parts. Anyway, leaving the goose behind, there are four road signs here within a distance of about four poles of the corner, each of which needs to be carefully, correctly, and comprehensively comprehended by the road users. The coach driver would have to travel more slowly to read them, though he would be able to read with greater ease than the writer being seated himself at a greater altitude than he.

Why we complain about lower speed limits when the plethora of street furniture requires a forward motion of no more than five mph is somewhat of a mystery to Coco.

A solution to this problem appears to have been found by our friends in Westmoreland. It only remains for its proper implementation in other parts of the country, and particularly in our towns, where the uncountable nature of signs can lead to extraordinary consequences. Coco must say that when he first saw the sign it seemed to him to be a quite unnecessary addition to the street furniture, but after many more than several sightings of the same its usefulness began to become clear to him.

Coco regrets now not stopping to photograph one end of a one way street where, when you approached from the west the speed limit was thirty mph, but when you approached from the east it was a mere twenty mph. There were other ways onto the street one of which clearly indicated the end of a twenty mph zone, but imposed a new zone with the same speed restriction only three metres, which as we know is even shorter than a pole, further down the road. Coco felt that Westmorelanders should be invited to discussions and consultations about a new regime for the placement and display of signs. Coco should also like to propose a standard here, but Coco, who has no doubt that others can provide better suggestions for the standard, invites you to do so. With the incorporation of the Westmorelandish solution this would greatly increase the readability of our signs, and reduce the risk of signs being misread.

What Coco proposes is a standard layout of signs, which would remove the need for multiple sign posts, at least one of which will be missed when there is an angry goose following you, to replace them with one sign post where all of the different parts would be present in a standardised order. That order would be the same on all road signs from the top to the bottom. The order Coco would propose is as follows, from the top:

  • Entry/no entry
  • Traffic flow direction
  • Speed limit
  • Parking restrictions
  • Road closure times and restrictions
  • Bus lane information
  • Enforcement notices
  • Other useful information – eg time of day, proximity to schools, hospitals, months of the year, police stations etc

As an aside, Coco does wonder why we need to be told about enforcement, it should be a given that where there is a restriction enforcement tools will be in place, hence positioning it towards the bottom of the standardised layout. This standardised layout of signs would make them easier to read and increase safety on our roads.

Now this is where the Westmorelandish sign comes into its greatest use. Coco had hoped to be able to show you a picture of such an actual sign, but having only seen them whilst driving where it was not possible to stop, and due to the inappropriateness of taking hold of a camera or mobile phone whilst being in charge of a motor vehicle Coco does not have such a photograph. The possibility of finding one on maps occurred to Coco, but having driven all the way virtually from Lancaster towards the A66 on the M6, we had a breakdown at

we could go no further. Coco had to pick the man up and move him manually forward on the road….it must be electrical interference from the railroad below…if you can find where to click in order to move forward, please let Coco know.

A bit further down the road we are overtaken by a white City van, which appears to be moving relatively to us faster than we are moving than the articulated truck which we are overtaking and which is almost certainly travelling as fast as its speed limiter allows it. But it is a white van; white vans are invisible against the white clouds.

Sadly, on this epic journey Coco found no examples of the sign, so Coco must fake one. By the way, though there were indications of road works, no actual works were visible. Google maps is evidently not to be relied upon for the presence or otherwise of roadworks.

When we have a standard, which is capable of carrying all the information a road user may need on one sign post, it is also necessary to indicate if any particular part of it is not in use. This Westmorelandish sign is ideally suited to that use, and so would be used on every road sign when any particular part of the sign was not required.

Where the really useful information about where the road leads – is it going to Edinburgh or London is an important consideration when you are wondering whether to turn left or right in Doncaster – needs to fit in somewhere but Coco is having difficulty finding room for it. Coco dare says it will be obvious to many of you what the solution is.


Anyway, here is an example of a sign using the new standard, don’t forget to follow the link to see the original. Coco is sure to be certain that you agree the new standardised sign on the right is far easier to read than the conventional placing of four signs as on the left.

Schrödinger

If you have have not read Schrödinger, read this first. As this is a disturbing and not an easy read, perhaps the BBC would be a little easier to grasp.


Schrödinger, The Elusive Intellectual Cat – An Oration
If you prefer to listen than read, you may do so here.

Warning:

This post contains material which may be difficult for those of a sensitive disposition to read and view. If you are likely to take offence at the site or sight of an iron maiden, then you are advised not to proceed but to press the back button on this webpage, to clear your cache, and remove any links to this page from your web-history. Please do not remove any links to the home page but retain them for future delectation and degustation.

If however you are you have understood Schrödinger, then you will understand that no felines have been hurt in the production of the image, which for the most part has been produced by artificial intelligence as instructed by the mind of Coco, which has a modicum of real, though still imaginary, intelligence, and if you have ever visited the Far Side you will also understand that the image is not an attempt to produce a pastiche of the works that you may find there. The skill, albeit aided by computer generated imagery, used in this production cannot match the skill of the artists on the far side, nor their ability to represent and interpret unlikely, but not impossible, social circumstances in a novel, and often bewildering, manner, so as to catch the readers and viewers off guard in their understanding of the words written and the images presented.

Finally, did you hear the radio presenter talking about Coltrain recently? He, in the generic sense, though a musician spoke of always listening to music as a listener and not as a musician. Coco thought that rather odd, because the only way you can listen to music is as a listener. You cannot listen to music as a spectator for the organs of spectacle are not susceptible to providing interpretable responses from the brain (except perhaps for those of allodynia), you must use the organs of hearing to understand the perturbations of pressure in the atmosphere which envelops you. Whether, if you are a musician, you are capable of laying aside your musicianship when listening to another musician is a moot point, but not relevant for there is no disagreement between being a listener who is not a musician and a listener who is, except perhaps when it comes to an interpretation or criticism of the performance to which the listening had been applied. Both the listening musician and the listening non-musician heard, and listened to, the same sounds.

Penultimately, yes, that should precede finally, but Coco now considers that Coco has written enough, though you may disagree and consider that Coco has written far more than necessary (Coco would not wish to disagree with you over your concluded opinion for then we would both waste much hot air, or finger energy should the discussion, debate, argument or conversation proceed in a written form over that which is of less than ephemeral interest to any of the readers of this page) and that this page may now be long enough to have prevented the image below from being viewed before you had read the warning above. If you have not read the warning, please return to the top of the page to read it. If you consider that it is safe to do so, you may proceed.

Please note that if you do proceed, you confirm that you have read the warning, have taken heed to it, and shall hold harmless Coco, his representatives, this website and anyone and everyone else should you suffer any feeling of offence after proceeding other than yourself. Furthermore, if you feel any sense of let down after proceeding, you also hold yourself responsible for following your fingers rather than your nose and your conscience and thus provoking the response within yourself.

You have been warned!

Kitty considered the position carefully and, despite her feline disposition, realised that whatever Schrödinger may have said, there was only one way she would come out of the box.

Coloured

South Africa’s Tyla sparks culture war over racial identity

English is a very difficult language as we who were born to speak it know from the moment we meet someone from the other side of the railway track (Coco would have said over the border but English speakers from other parts of the world may misunderstand what that means). It is not merely the orthography that confuses. Every English reader, who has read the preface of the OED, knows how to pronounce ghotti and what also it means.

Words can sound exactly, well quite closely, the same, but it is in the spelling of them, there, their contrasting meanings are displayed. Other words may be spelt in exactly the same way, but have different meanings, so after this sentence which we read, read it we have. When you speak it out you may hear it said that the people of Ware wear warehouse wares where once were were-wolves.

Some words have the same spelling and the same meaning but different sounds depending upon where you find them in the sentence. The hour the hole in my argument appears, let me know. Whilst that example is, Coco reckons, always true, there is much controversy about some words and their vocalisation wherever they may appear in a sentence.

Yet other words have identical spelling and sound but completely contrasting meaning. You rely upon the context to understand which word is being used. So, when Coco says He cleft the bond what does he mean? There is insufficient context to understand which verb is being used.

Be careful in English then when you are dividing the spoil, that you give it not to two too many for fear of making spoil of your reputation.

Perhaps however the one of the most irritating parts of English is that there is no common authority to define spelling. Orthography matters, but not enough. The English are not governed by Roman law, at least not for the past 1600 years, and neither is its spelling unlike some other European languages, but when English breaks out from Europe, then it loses much of its freshness. For example, we have two similarly spoken and spelt words, but quite different Saviour and savour, both of which suffer from manipulation in the hands of others becoming Savior and savor. Coco supposes that it does bring them both closer to a single root word which means to cleanse, wash, purify or save, but the second of the two is actually from a different root word. The original L has been dropped in Saviour, and the original P has become a V in savour. There are words which link the two, so though the etymology may not be quite this clear: salver and salvor. You may also find that there is a close link between the flavour and taste of something to the testing of the food for the presence of a poison, potentially suggesting an ancient overlap in the uses of the derivatives of salve and saporo. Do not rely upon Coco for this analysis, please check it out yourself. Coco’s labyrinth has a number of misleading paths.

Coco has not mentioned, but in passing, yet the variety of vocalisation of words across dialects. When hat, hut, heart, hurt, and heat can only, in one dialect, only be distinguished by spelling having identical vocalisation is fascinating. My hat in hand my heart hurt at the heat of the hut afire.

The variety of the representation of English then in its orthography and vocalisation offers both confusion and opportunity. The referenced article indicates that the use of the word colored(sic.) is offensive in a certain circumstance. Coco would agree, it is most offensive when written on paper and should at all times be corrected, other than when used for didactorial (English words may easily be derived from others) and academic purposes. However, coloured in the same circumstance is no offence but a mark of honour. In some cultures the colouring of the body, quite apart from the natural colours, is a means of embellishment. It is cosmetic. Coco rather thinks that the majority who do this do not have the burden of English as the mother tongue so a different set of words is likely to be used [see Proscription].

That being the case, the learned use of English is to understand that though the words have similar, though not identical, vocalisation, the spelling indicates that they have different meanings, as different as remarked above as is between cleave and cleave. So, it may be an offence to say the man is colored but it is a great honour to say the man is coloured.

As is said elsewhere: Why do they not get it? How many different ways can you spell it in the English language?

Translation

We use the word translation in many different ways, accountants and theologians having quite specialised uses of the term which may befuddle, without a translation, the poor man on the Clapham omnibus.

When you try to translate Do you feel special? and Do you feel different? into certain Romance languages the distinction found in Germanic languages may be lost. Difficulties abound when seeking to give the correct and proper meaning of words in one language in a second. But have you noticed that there is as much difficulty when translating from even very closely related languages?

The Wesleys wrote many hymns which are in use today, but they wrote in a different language than we speak today, though their language and ours are for the most part mutually intelligible. John Wesley was aware of the problem of translation however, for he is recorded as saying: I desire that they would not attempt to mend them; for they are really not able. John Wesley was a very able poet and not a mean user of the English language. Certain publishers thought that perhaps however he had not quite said what he intended to say and sought to ‘improve’ on the work of the author.

Coco is quite sure that were Mr Wesley to have lived in the 20th and 21st centuries his hymns and expressions would be just a sure footed as they were in another land and a different language. He knew what he was saying and said what he meant.

Sometimes however, modernists wish to translate into contemporary English that which was written in a different dialect and then fail to ensure that when they attempt to do so they have not changed to meaning of the author. Some also erase the obvious and leave behind the ridiculous:

Crown Him the Lord of years,
the potentate of time,
creator of the rolling spheres,
ineffably sublime!

is the 19th century English

Crown Him the Lord of years,
the potentate of time,
creator of the rolling spheres,
in majesty sublime!

is the modern substitute

There is a subtle distinction. Incidentally, whilst ineffable may not be in common usage, it is not an archaic word. It surprises Coco that the translator did not know that. The concept of the rolling spheres is however an archaic description of the cosmos however ‘poetic’ it may appear to be to our ears. Much more serious errors however can be made.

In the hymn Beneath the cross of Jesus, written by Elizabeth Cecelia Clephane (1830-69) in the middle of the nineteenth century we have these words:

The hymn begins:
Beneath the Cross of Jesus
I fain would take my stand.
later we have:
O safe and happy shelter!
O refuge tried and sweet!
O trysting-place where heaven’s love
and heaven’s justice meet!

Which becomes:
Beneath the Cross of Jesus
O may I take my stand.
and later:
O safe and happy shelter!
O refuge tried and sweet!
That awesome place where heaven’s love
and heaven’s justice meet!

The changes may seem to be trivial, until you consider the difference in meaning between the former and the current expressions. Elizabeth knew her theology, and so apparently do the translators, but they have forgotten the fundamental principle of translation which is to express in the target language as precisely as possible what was said in the original. There are two significant errors here, which Coco suggests reflect badly upon the theology of the translators and perhaps illustrate a tendency in contemporary thought to downgrade the robust theology of the Bible.

Coco must admit that fain and trysting, unlike ineffable, are archaic words, though we are quite capable of understanding them. They may derive from a foreign language, that is the English of the nineteenth century, but many of our contemporary words derive from foreign languages and we are quite unashamed to use them: bhaji springs to mind, though Coco is as fond of them as Tigger is of thistles. The difference in meaning between the translation and the original is however considerable in both its modern and original understandings.

Fain is not an expression of a request for permission to do something, but rather an expression of a sense of unworthiness to take part in something of great importance. When you wish to see the king or some other important official, you must ask for permission, May I have an audience?, and then you must turn up at the appointed time, if you are granted an audience. This is not what Elizabeth meant, otherwise she would have used that expression herself. May I? was not foreign to the nineteenth century speaker of English. Elizabeth knew precisely what she meant: She had not sought an audience with the king, but rather the king had sent a letter to her: By Royal command we require the presence of Elizabeth at such and such a time and place. In her heart was both joy and fear. How could she appear in the presence of the king? She shrank back from it. Suppose she arrived and her attire was unsuitable or unpleasing to the king? Suppose she made some stupid or silly remark in his presence? I fain would go, she cries out, and go I must for I am compelled by his command to do so.

But the translator should understand this: God has commanded men everywhere to repent and to believe the gospel. Obedience to this command requires that we come to the cross of Jesus. It is not a matter of may but must. I must stand beneath the cross of Jesus.

The theology has been changed. To ask if I may stand beneath the cross is to ignore that we have been commanded to do so. Do I think that if I ask for permission, then the obtaining of that permission will suggest perhaps some element of good in me which prompted the king to allow me to stand there? Ah, that is not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who calls everyone to come to him. It is only those who think they have something to give him who will not come. They do not hear his voice, because they want him to reward them for the ‘good’ things they have done.

Secondly, the second change strips out of the hymn the most delightful doctrine that God’s love and his justice work together for the salvation of men. God is one. His attributes are not in conflict with one another. The place where love and justice meet is indeed an awesome, Coco would prefer to say aweful in its proper sense with a different spelling than use the contemporary term, but let it be, an awesome place. There is no doubt about that, but it was not that aspect of that place about which Elizabeth was writing, otherwise she too could have used a different expression than trysting. Trysting is nothing to do with awe. Trysting is to do with love and courtship. It is an aspect of our culture which perhaps our modern English world has forgotten.

Elizabeth knew exactly what she meant when she used that word to describe the place where love and justice meet. They had not gone to that place to settle their differences. There would be no great battle between love and justice. Love and justice had gone to that place as lovers. Love and justice had only one common purpose and aim, which God had expressed from before the foundation of the world, that the Son would be given the nations as an inheritance. For this to be fulfilled the Son would give himself for his people. The cross of Jesus speaks to us of both his love and his justice. It is their trysting place. In this way God would demonstrate that he is both just and justifier.

William Vernon Higham 1926-2016 speaks of the awesomeness of that place in his hymn:
Great is the gospel of our glorious God,
where mercy met the anger of God’s rod;
a penalty was paid and pardon bought,
and sinners lost at last to Him were brought.
Mercy and anger, love and justice, meet to fulfil the work of God.

In another nineteenth century hymn we have the very thing that Elizabeth expressed. It seems unlikely that Elizabeth would have known it at least in the English translation. First of all it was written in Welsh by William Rees (1802-83):
Here is love, vast as the ocean,
lovingkindness as the flood,
when the Prince of life, our ransom,
shed for us his precious blood.
Who his love will not remember?
Who can cease to sing his praise?
He can never be forgotten
throughout heaven’s eternal days.

On the mount of crucifixion
fountains opened deep and wide;
through the floodgates of God’s mercy
flowed a vast and gracious tide.
Grace and love, like mighty rivers,
poured incessant from above,
and heaven’s peace and perfect justice
kissed a guilty world in love.

William Edwards (1848-1929) translated it to English and expressed in it what Elizabeth captured in her use of trysting place. Heaven’s peace, joins with heaven’s justice to kiss a guilty world.

Do not be misled by the bad theology that sees God’s justice being at odds with his love, or that which suggests that the God of the Old Testament is not of the New. Our God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, is one God, in whom there is no conflict between his love, peace, mercy, grace, anger and justice. Jonathan Edwards described heaven as a world of love. God is love, and where God is, in his love, anger, mercy and justice we have a trysting place to which all may come. Yes, we may fear to come, but we may come for the royal command has been issued:

Come to me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 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.
Matthew 11:28-29

Darwin’s Finches

It was the proposal of the American Ornithological Society to rename some of the native birds of their homeland for reasons apparently dismissed by their counterpart body the National Audubon Society as reported by the BBC (US ornithological society says dozens of birds will be renamed) that prompted Coco to write. Once again it is evidence of a failure on the part of modern society to face its history – the journey it has taken to get where we are today – and it ready preparedness to efface its history in order to give the appearance of not participating in the sins of its fathers.

Why should the thick-billed longspur not be known as rhynchophanes mccownii (the Thick Billed Longspur of McCown rather like the Kyle of Lochalsh except it looks like a sparrow to this non-ornithologist)? Why should the names of Wilson’s warbler and snipe be changed? Or is it that what is really being said here is that we should suppress the names of all who are called Wilson or McCown in order to completely eradicate any memory of anything untoward that those of those names, and many others, did in our history? Perhaps Coco’s suggestion is merely an innocuous conspiracy theory.

McCown's Longspur

The Lord spoke of those who seek to efface history in these terms: 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.’ Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets*.

If Darwin had known what we know today he would not have been so quick to label his finches as multiple differentiated species evolved from a common ancestor, but rather a single species of birds as diverse in their morphological appearance as humanity. His comment that ‘two species may be often seen climbing about the flowers of the great cactus-trees; but all the other species of this group of finches, mingled together in flocks, feed on the dry and sterile ground of the lower districts’ should have alerted him to ignore the conclusions of Gould, which would only mislead him further. He did not benefit from contemporary genetic work nor the field work of the Grants so we should not treat him too harshly; he was as much a man of his day as McCown, Aubudon and Wilson. Perhaps though if Coco were to wish to efface our history, and the impact of the Darwinism in the provocation of at least some of the atrocities of the twentieth century Coco may wish to remove the epitaph of Darwin’s Finches, but let it stand as a witness to the folly of contemptorary(sic.) thought on our origins.

The witness of those who built the tombs did indeed fall upon themselves for it was not many days later that they were instrumental in bringing to pass what had long been foretold, the death of the Innocent One for we who are guilty. God accepted his sacrifice for us and raised Jesus from the dead. We cannot erase our past, but must face up to it, acknowledge it to him, and he will blot it out, efface it in the blood of Jesus.

Matthew 23:29-31, 32-36
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.’ 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.

Luke 11:47-51
Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

The Prepared Piano

Had we not known what was coming the backstage sounds may have indicated that the music that was to follow would be of, shall we say, an interesting nature. If you have ever listened to the Lord Denning of the now defunct Third programme in its modern guise, Tom Service, you will understand that we can all be composers, it is simply a matter of rearranging the notes, as we were to hear in the first two pieces for prepared pianoforte, into a new order to produce a new work.

The orchestra handled the spiky passages quite well in the opinion of this auditor though his opinion is little really to go by, and even managed to pull off some eighth tone shifts without batting an eyelid. The pianist made valiant efforts – when the orchestra seemed to be taking it too easily she came in with great gusto, increasing the velocity only for the orchestra to calm things down again no sooner had she left, so to speak, the stage. This behaviour was quite consistent and seemed not at all out of place despite it perhaps being felt to be not appropriate for a fully written out score as we had for these two pieces. The skill of the orchestra, in the hands of the conductor, not to forget that of the pianist, was amply demonstrated by these rapid and frequent changes.

The serenade for strings (Elgar), which followed, was in quite a different mood to the prepared piano pieces. The strings were much more comfortable here. There were no inadvertent eighth tones; the smooth lyricism and close romantic harmonies contrasted almost beyond measure with some of the classical jumps and leaps that Mozart had required of them.

The preparation of the pianoforte by the way had been beautifully done. It was a rich black in colour with at least a thirty centimetre polish, tuned to perfection in equal temperament. The only puzzle I had was as the concerti were in C minor and Eb major, why had they not prepared the piano with Mozart’s tuning?

As for Tom Session’s contention, the two concerti do indeed demonstrate that it is simply a matter of rearranging the notes, but it requires a Mozart to successfully achieve it, the rest of us are much more like the man on the Pirschheide tramline who though he knows the train time tables forwards, backwards and crabwise, cannot plan a journey for you from Zwiesel to Aachen. Mozart on the other hand can take Twinkle, twinkle, and with it show you the Milky Way.

The Fall of Florence

Saturday had an interesting evening, Beethoven, Ireland and Honegger. Daniele Gatti played Beethoven’s 4th concerto in a pleasant way that drew you in to the conflict that he portrayed. After a generous interval and Ireland’s Concertino pastorale for strings we were treated to what I had thought, and those of you who know anything about Honegger also would also think, would be quite a challenging piece, Liturgique, symphony nr.3.

Somewhat astonishingly however It proved however to be as lyrical as Ireland’s pastorale.