BookTalk.org

Jacoby suggests this soliloquy from Shakespeare's King Lear "is the essence of the secularist and humanist faith... [which] must be offered ... as a robust creed worthy of the world's first secular government" Poor naked wretches, whereso'er you are, That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm, How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides, Your loop'd and window'd raggedness, defend you From seasons such as these? O, I have ta'en Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp; Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel, That thou mayst shake the superflux to them, And show the heavens more just.I don't understand either the speech or the connection to secularism. Anyone? If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

Looks to me like it would be equally applicable to the basic Christian ethos. And it's practically a paraphrase of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty -- except that Shakespeare beat Eiffel to the punch.

I think it is because this excerpt stresses caring for other humans and understanding that we are all the same and should care for those less fortunate than ourselves...and less about appeasing a god. At least that is what it says to me.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Well, it's humanist in that it emphasizes the notion of imagining one's self in another person's position, which is a psychological basis for humanist belief.

I think we'll have to find a better creed than that! Few Americans will respond to phrases like "Take physic, pomp" or "shake the superflux to them". I have no clue what they mean...

I often wish people would be more ready to offer literal interpretations of poetic language (more than one if they see ambiguity) - so that I could be a little more sure that I am not missing something that they are seeing. I suppose their reluctance is in part due to a reluctance to patronize the reader by pointing out something obvious - but I also wonder whether they are not at some level afraid to come out into the open in case they have misinterpreted or missed something. So, with apologies if this is too simpleminded to be worth saying:Take physic, pompphysic is medicine. Pomp, I take it, is a reference to himself. i.e. I gloss it asTake the medicine, you proud, pompous old man!The medicine being, of course, the act of exposing himself to the elements in order that he may better understand the misery of the poor who have no protection.That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,superflux means abundance, so "shake the superflux to them" means treat them to the benefits of your wealth with generosity.What is the connection to secularism? I suppose Jacoby sees this as a powerful poetic statement of the principle on which a non-theistic philosophy should be based - that the rich and powerful should take time to recognize the suffering of those less fortunate and be moved to help and protect them.

Which would make it liberal as much as secularist. I wonder if that was Jacoby's intention in pointing it out.

Possibly. It seems especially odd to call it secularist when the last line is: And show the heavens more just.Which may just be an Elizabethan way of saying And show the world (or Providence) more just, but could also be a reference to the idea of a king as appointed by God, and hence his representative.

It could probably be interpreted a number of ways. It might, for instance, be taken to mean, "And show the heavens that we're more just than they." I don't think that would be a very orthodox reading, though.

ken, thanks, that is a very informative post. I guess we also have to remember that Shakepear wrote a few hundred years ago and the language has changed.