Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Theatre. Politics. What's the difference?

My alma mater, Monmouth College, is preparing, tomorrow, for the premiere of its Crimson Masque production of "Trojan Women" by Euripides, modern English translation by Nicholas Rudall. Nobody will admit to it, but the timing of production of this strongly anti-war play is a little suspect. Even though the play is to be performed in semi-traditional style (there are actually women portraying the women, unlike the ancient cast, which were all male, but the set and costumes are derived from statues of around the 5th century BC) the selection would have been made late last summer or early fall, just about the time of the abu Ghraib noises in the media... Could it be that the faculty at good ole MC might have a political bias? HMMMmmm. I am making ticket reservations for tomorrow evening's performance. We shall see if dramaturge Dr. De Young's promise of "no modern references" holds up under scrutiny.

Nevertheless, there is something rather intriguing in the words of an earlier translator, Gilbert Murray(1915 Oxford edition): "... the spirit of pity for mankind exalted into a moving principle; a principle which has made the most precious, and possibly the most destructive, elements of innumerable rebellions, revolutions, and martyrdoms, and of at least two great religions.

"Pity is a rebel passion. Its hand is against the strong, against the organised force of society, against conventional sanctions and accepted Gods. It is the Kingdom of Heaven within us fighting against the brute powers of the world; and it is apt to have those qualities of unreason, of contempt for the counting of costs and the balance of sacrifices,
of recklessness, and even, in the last resort, of ruthlessness, which so often mark the paths of heavenly things and the doings of the children of light. It brings not peace, but a sword."




I believe I shall toss this quote in the faces of the leftists who keep telling me that conservatives are heartless and without pity...

2 comments:

leucanthemum b said...

Yeah, but the lefties are too often absolutely fixed in their ideologies. At least the compassionate conservatives are MOVING targets...

leucanthemum b said...

Let's not forget that compassion is a new thing to the conservative pallette.

The majority of the bushies are actually not stuck to any one plan. Bush himself may be fairly focused, but the party is, as Arnold described in lots more words, during the Convention, a wide and loose conglomeration.

The compassionate portion is actually confused as to whether or not they approve of abortion -- they don't want it "on demand" for everybody, but they don't want to take away women's rights. They don't want criminals out there with guns, but they don't want to screw with the constitutional right to bear arms. They don't want to starve the poor, but they don't want a "nanny state" -- they encourage private and faith-based programs for the disadvantaged, but don't want to be caught supporting proselytising groups. They want the right for religious individuals and groups to express themselves in public -- even on government property, but they don't want the government to pay for it. They don't want the US to be the world's police force, but they don't see anybody else doing anything about terrorism... There's so much vacillation going on in the ranks that some of us are getting seasick.