Idiosophy

A physicist loose among the liberal arts

Author: Joe Page 15 of 32

Site manager

Preparing the Text

Attention conservation notice: Preparing a text for automated poetry detection is half spell-checking. That part may be kind of dull; I’m writing it down anyway because this blog is how I remember things now.

Cleanup

To do automated text processing, you need a text. Some people, like the indefatigable Sparrow, type the whole text by hand. I am more defatigable than in-, so I needed another way. The Internet Archive has a text version of The Lord of the Rings, left over from the days of freedom before the Enclosure of the Internet. I
suspect that the lawyers have let it survive because the quality of the scan is so poor. I started with that.

I did most of my work on the Unix command line. My constant companion is a program called “aspell“. Feed it a text file, and it returns a list of all the words it didn’t recognize. A scanner makes predictable errors, such as reading a “u” as “ii” or an “h” as “li”. Those were the most common misspellings. They are easy enough to encode in a stream-editor input file. So I cleaned up all of those that I could. Some were harder, like distinguishing between “ore” and “orc”. The computer will never get that straight, so I did those by hand. All ambiguous cases got changed to “orc”, and then I went to the Moria chapters and turned back the two or three actual mentions of “ore”. (I have no idea how hard this task would be with a book I didn’t know so well, but I may soon find out.)

[ETA: The Guardian has a hilarious article saying that I didn’t get the really fun scanner error.]

The next thing to do was restore the hyphenated words at the ends of lines. That’s easy to do with a little Perl script — check lines that end in hyphens; delete the hyphen and newline, and see if the combination passes spell-check.

Now comes the fun part. LotR is full of proper names, archaic words, British
spellings, and invented languages. The spell-checker will never get those
right. So I had to work my way through the aspell output, picking out by hand the
briticisms and other things that were correct but unknown to the software. This took up my spare time for about a week. The result is a long list of words that are
correctly spelled, despite what the spell-checker thinks. So the process was:

  1. Run aspell on the text;
  2. Use the comm command to compare the output to the list of correct words. Remove all the words in the output that are correct in this context;
  3. Figure out what the corrections might be on the remainder.  If they’re not wrong, add them to the “correct” list.
  4. Repeat until the remainder is empty.

The list of correct words is an interesting document in its own right. You never know when that might come in handy, so I’ve published it on the Humanities Commons Core.

We now have a text of the book. Text is not all we need, though. We need sounds.

Phonetics

Next, we have to find the poetry. Alliteration is easy to identify, in theory. We’re  going to look for words that begin with the same sound. Or, rather, words that have the same sound at the beginning of the accented syllable. This is done with a “pronouncing dictionary”. I used the free one from Carnegie-Mellon University. (These were invented so voice-mail systems could read you a printed text over the phone, but they can be used for Good, too.) For each word in the English language, it has a line with the spelling of the word its phonetic expansion:

VOLUNTARY  V AA1 L AH0 N T EH2 R IY0
ASSISTANT  AH0 S IH1 S T AH0 N T
POSTMEN	 P OW1 S T M EH N

The list of phonemes are on the welcome page of the dictionary, but they’re easy to figure out.  Vowels have stresses; the numbers are the amount of stress each vowel gets. Zero means unstressed.  One means stressed. Subsidiary stresses have higher numbers.  Straight out of the box, the dictionary has over 130,000 words in it, but of course that’s not enough.  I spent the next couple of weeks making dictionary entries for all the LotR-words I collected in the last step. The supplementary dictionary is also on line at the Humanities Commons.  Surprisingly, the CMU dictionary contains all of the phonemes I needed except one. The supplement includes “KH” for words like “Erech” and “Grishnakh”.

This concludes the boring part. Next, I plunge into the quagmire of Anglo-Saxon scansion.

Inflectional Survivor

Anyone who talks to people from other countries a lot eventually notices that there are some parts of English that are very hard to get the hang of.  (of which to get the hang?) One struck me in particular: no matter what language they spoke originally, hardly anyone gets “a three-hour tour” or “a ten-foot pole” right at first.  Everybody wants to use the plural in phrases like that. “Three hours tour”, “five minutes wait”, and so on.  I heard it from so many people that eventually I came to the conclusion that the foreigners are right, and English got it wrong.

Well, that turns out not to be quite true. While I was supposed to be doing my Old English homework this morning, I discovered a page about “inflectional survivors“: the words that still kept their Anglo-Saxon inflections, through all the Vikings, Frenchmen, and Vowel Shifts.

ten-foot Pole

Eugeniusz Taraciński, the tallest man in Polish history

It turns out that the word “foot” in “ten-foot pole” is just such a survivor. “Ten-foot” takes the genitive plural. In Anglo-Saxon the phrase is “tien fota“. English-speakers being lazy, the ending eventually dropped off. Changing the vowels to make “foot” plural would have been too much work, so “ten-foot pole” it is.

So I was mistaken; English didn’t actually get it wrong.  We do in fact have a little bit of grammar, despite the convictions of everyone in Europe.

Automated Detection of Alliterative Verse: Intro

One doesn’t have to get very deep into studying Middle-earth to notice Anglo-Saxon alliterative verse. It’s right there on the surface, but an American teenager probably won’t get that it’s a structured verse-form. (At least, I didn’t. I thought it was another kind of vers libre.) I don’t know what fraction of Tolkien fans end up fascinated by this mostly-forgotten poetic form but I’m one of them. 

After one gets the hang of its rhythm, the really interesting part starts: alliterative lines start to show up in all kinds of places in Tolkien.  The first one I noticed was when the Riders of Rohan came to the Pelennor Fields:
In dark Mindolluin’s sides / they dimly echoed.’

Years later, I was listening to the Prancing Pony Podcast and heard (line breaks and caesurae added):

Then the warriors of Nargothrond went forth, and…
Tall and terrible / on that day looked Turin,
And the heart of the host / was upheld, as
He rode on the right hand / of Orodreth.[1]
Silmarillion, chapter 21, p. 239.

I started wondering how many of those buried alliterative lines there are in The Lord of the Rings. If there are a lot, they’re almost certainly carrying meaning. Could this be one of the techniques JRRT used to give a feel for where the story was in space and time? Maybe we’ll see lots of them in Rohan (even apart from the poems), and almost none in Lothlorien. If this works, it might be actual scholarship.

I raised one objection with myself: isn’t this just an Anglo-Saxon version of the “found poetry” that was all the rage in the 1960s? My English teachers inflicted that on us and I hated it. Without “intentionality” (as real scholars call it) it can’t be poetry, was my main objection.  I think this isn’t the case, for two reasons. First, nothing Tolkien wrote was unintentional. If alliterative lines are there, he left them there for us to find. Second, the poems they find always seemed to be free verse. If the poetry-finders had ever found a sonnet, or even a limerick, I’d have thought much better of them. Here, I’m looking for a strict verse form.

Granted, it’s possible to accidentally create a formal alliterative line. Tom Shippey pointed out that Steve Earle did it in a country song. Earle wrote it as a couplet:

When your Subaru is over and your Honda’s history,
I’ll be burnin’ down the back roads, just my baby and me…

“Sweet Little ‘66”, lines 22-23

but that second line scans perfectly. This isn’t the same thing as found poetry, because Earle was intentionally writing verse, and liked the alliteration. It’s the mirror image of what Cædmon wrote :

Þa middan-geard  / mann-cynnes weard

“Cædmon’s Hymn”, line 7

Which rhymes, but the rhyme is a poetic flourish, not part of the structure.

In keeping with proper Idiosophical practice, I decided to give the job to a computer. [2] Telling what happened is too long for one blog post, so I’m making this into a series.  Part 2 will be the delights of getting a text in shape. Part 3 will be a scream of frustration at the scholarship of Old English poetic meter. Part 4 will be algorithms, and Part 5 will be the results.

Teaser: the first thing the computer found was something I’d been staring at for a generation without seeing: “Bilbo Baggins / of Bag End .


[1] This is how I learned the correct pronunciation of “Orodreth”.

[2] That was almost a year ago – I could have done it by hand by now.

Jousting and Fencing

Just listened to Session 18 of the Mythgard Academy class on Le Morte d’Arthur. One unexpected thing I am really enjoying about this class is Prof. Olsen’s explications of knightly combat in “SportsCenter” style. Despite the five centuries since jousting was a thing, I recognize almost everything from my old days in competition, just one century ago.

This session had a long treatment of sir La Cote Male Tayle beginnning ab0ut 2:21:16. Sir La Cote Male Tayle is a strong knight, but not in the top ranks, so sometimes he wins and sometimes he loses. I can relate to that much better than to hot-shots like Tristram. When sir Mordred is spilling the beans on how top-ranked knights keep an eye on the competition, it reminded me of a bout I fenced long ago. January, 1998, the North American Cup in South Bend, Indiana. The luck of the draw put me in Pool #1. My first bout was against a short, left-handed, tough-looking guy whom I didn’t recognize.

What I did recognize was most of the US National Team, a few top-ranked coaches, and a couple of off-duty referees watching me fence. That’s weird. No, wait — they’re not watching me fence, they’re watching my opponent. I was doing all right, mostly because people tended not to believe how long my lunge could be. (I may occasionally have deceived opponents on that topic. 😇) We were tied 2-2 when he decided he’d seen everything I could do, and he won 5-2. As the spectators dispersed, I heard one of the coaches say, “Now we know who’s going to win the tournament.” Yeah, who?, I wondered. Oh: This guy. The one with an Olympic gold medal in his pocket.

Sir Mordred’s perspicacity hasn’t diminished a bit. But Ibragimov only beat me because the temperature was 20° F and I’m strongest in warm weather. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

What’s an “Old Book”?

Brenton Dickieson has a discussion going at A Pilgrim in Narnia about C.S. Lewis’s opinion that reading old books is good for you. I have always agreed with that, despite the fact that it sometimes makes me talk funny. That statement immediately raises the question, “how old does he mean”? Brent takes the minimum of the set {ages of books mentioned by CSL in that piece}, and gets 50 years. Surprisingly young, for a medievalist. I would have expected 10 times that.

The Tempest, 1921 edition
The oldest book in easy reach, from my grandmother’s grade school

Obviously (I say, as is customary when I’m about to prove myself wrong), the definition of “old” is determined by the discipline within which one is working. The humanities change slowly, so a “research methods” class in a state-of-the-art university might have us reading St. Augustine, and people still care what Sir Philip Sidney had to say.

The sciences change faster: in 1989 I got some sidelong looks for citing a paper from 1962 [1]. Engineering changes faster still: I am now so old that I’ve written things that are indistinguishable from old books. At the extreme, computer software changes like quicksilver. One of my co-workers retired last week and left his books behind. His books unquestionably contained archaic thinking, despite the fact that some of them were published this year. Glibly phrased, by the time a book about software can get to your shelf, it’s obsolete.

There’s always an exception that proves me wrong, though. My Relativity professor was the extraordinary E. A. Desloge. One day in lecture, he mentioned that St. Augustine had actually asked the right question to have discovered the Theory of Relativity. Augustine asked, “Is time the same for everyone, or does each person have their own?” I believe Prof. Desloge was paraphrasing Confessions XI. Alas for the history of science, Augustine believed there was a Preferred Observer and he built his entire cosmology around Him. But as far as we’re concerned here, this is a definite case of a modern physicist reading a very old book.


[1] Skyrme, T. . (1962). “A unified field theory of mesons and baryons”. Nuclear Physics 31: 556–569. Bibcode:1962NucPh..31..556S. doi:10.1016/0029-5582(62)90775-7.

Stepping into a Wilderness of Dragons

My copy of A Wilderness of Dragons: Essays in Honor of Verlyn Flieger arrived today, so I turned immediately to the essay by Tom Hillman, Simon Cook, Jeremiah Burns, Richard Rohlin, and Oliver Stegen about dreams, memory, and enchantment. This is good stuff. Section 3 points out the many ways that Elvish dreams are described in LotR, which rang a bell with other things I’ve been reading lately.

As the consortium of essayists puts it, “we would seem to be justified in identifying Elvish dreams with a ‘clear vision’ generated from the memories and also the imaginings of Elves…” (p.132). This derives from an etymological extract from Unfinished Tales, where the name “Olórin” is glossed as coming from a word that means not-exactly “dream”, rather something that ‘included the vivid contents of their memory as of their imagination”.

idk which one this is

So an old man cloaked in grey, wearing a big hat and carrying a staff, is associated with two kinds of mental activity that don’t translate easily into modern English. We’ve heard that before. All this time I’d thought of Gandalf as having a strong streak of Odin in his character, but it had never occurred to me to include Hugin and Munin in the package.

Non-Review: Ka: Dar Oakley in the Ruin of Ymr

Cover of the first hardcover edition

John Crowley‘s latest novel is about Crows. One Crow, in particular — the one who invented the idea of giving Crows names so listeners know whom you’re talking about. Dar Oakley (for it is indeed he) learned human language, which is how humans can learn his story. I loved this book and want to tell everyone about it.  However, I am in no way qualified to write book reviews, so that’s not what this is. This is just a list of bullet points, vaguebook style, of things I remember from my first reading that might intrigue people enough to pick it up.

  1. Know how David Copperfield is narrated in the first person, but the narrator isn’t born until the end of Chapter 1? Crowley tops that.
  2. The first few chapters reminded me of Watership Down in the way the author teaches us all sorts of things about Crows seamlessly within the story line. (This book capitalizes animal and plant species; I don’t yet understand why.) The difference is that Rabbits eating is kind of cute, and Crows eating is decidedly not.
  3. My favorite part is when Dar Oakley domesticates a medieval monk.
  4. Crowley’s fantasy keeps up with the times. I noticed several places where the plot turns on facts about ecology or anthropology that were only established in the last few years.
  5. This is not a fairy tale, much as it sometimes seems. It has a eucatastrophe, but it’s not at the end.
  6. Crowley may be in a conversation with Neil Gaiman. There’s a reply to American Gods here, I think.

Five Views of the Inklings

Influence among artists is a complex and poorly-understood phenomenon.  Diana Pavlac Glyer took an excellent shot at understanding influence among the Inklings in The Company They Keep. This post is a graphical expression of her work; no additional scholarship has been committed. I had grandiose plans for network analysis of the Inklings and their influence on each other, but I hit an insurmountable stumbling block: the Inklings didn’t write very much.  It’s folly to apply big-data analytical techniques to a small set of things, so I’m just drawing pictures here. 

As anyone would anticipate, C.S. Lewis is at the center of things, almost any way we choose to plot the graph.  Here, the size of the dot indicates the number of connections to other people. There is one link per mention in TCTK, so when there are lots of mentions, the links look like a fat blob, not a line.

graph of five interactions

All interactions among Inklings

OB Owen Barfield JAWB J.A.W. Bennett
DC David Cecil NC Nevill Coghill
JDG James Dundas-Grant HD H.V.D. Dyson
AF Adam Fox CH Colin Hardie
RH Robert E. Havard CSL C.S. Lewis
WL Warren Lewis GM Gervase Mathew
RBM R.B. McCallum CES C.E Stevens
CRT Christopher Tolkien JRRT J.R.R. Tolkien
JW John Wain CW Charles Williams
CLW C.L. Wrenn All The ensemble

This is a complicated network, but it can be analyzed into components. DPG cites Karen Burke LeFevre’s book Invention as a Social Act, which identifies four different types of influence that authors (or any creators, actually) can have on one another: Resonator, Opponent, Editor, and Collaborator. To these four, DPG adds a writer-specific category: dedications.

Resonators are not just cheerleaders; they can bring out the best in an author by insisting they produce nothing less.  C.S. Lewis was the champion resonator.

graph of resonator relationships

Resonators among the Inklings

Opponents are those who poke holes in the weak parts of a work before you finish it, so prospective publishers don’t do it.  These are not so common among such supportive friends as the Inklings, so the network is much smaller.  The line from HD to JRRT is a mathematical representation of the most famous quotation in all of Inklings scholarship.

opponent influences among the inklings

Opponent relationships among the Inklings

Editors are editors. Again, C.S. Lewis is the nexus around which everyone else is arranged. Christopher Tolkien only has one line to his father, because DPG considers him more of a collaborator than an editor of the History of Middle-earth.  “All” is there in the bottom-right corner because J.R.R. Tolkien gave credit to the whole group for helping edit The Lord of the Rings. It’s not clear whom exactly he meant, so I didn’t resolve it into individuals.

inklings who edited another's work

Editorial relationships among the Inklings

Collaborators are collaborators. This is a dense network because I drew a line between any two Inklings whose names appeared as authors on a single work. For example, Essays Presented to Charles Williams had five Inkling authors which yields ten lines. C.S. Lewis is not so central, because he’s only one of a group of equals in these cases. Here also is the dense blob of links between the Tolkiens, one line for each of the posthumous volumes of the Legendarium. Various Festschriften are most of the other lines in this graph, so ironically it is dominated by books that were written after the Inklings had dissolved. 

collaboration

Collaboration relationships among the Inklings

Dedications are another Lewicentric network. Each of the the three most-prolific authors dedicated a work to the Inklings as a group.  Without the node labelled “All”, this graph would almost look like a chain, mathematically trivial.

Dedication relationships between Inklings

Conclusion

The Inklings were a large and not-well-defined group. Writers’ groups tend to be much smaller.

“Collaborative circles usually consist of three to five members; only rarely do they consist of more than seven or eight.”

Michael P Farrell, Collaborative Circles (cited in TCTK)

Despite its size and fluidity, the group we know as the Inklings was among the most influential writers’ groups of the twentieth century. The graphs above give a hint how this could be. Resolving the network into LeFevre’s various types of artistic influence shows that the Inklings can profitably be thought of as a superposition of normal-sized collaborations, one for each type of influence.  The various graphs share C.S. Lewis as the most important member measured by degree centrality, and also by who furnished the meeting space. The other members of each sub-network vary according to type. Like a refracting crystal, the network representation of the Inklings presents a different shape according to the perspective from which we choose to look at it, but each shape shares the important features of the underlying form.

Caveat:  as DPG says, “The examples of encouragement conflict, editing, collaborating, and referencing described in this book are not intended to form a comprehensive or exhaustive list.” (TCTK, p.213) If she left it out, so did I. Apart from dedications, I have omitted the section about “referents”, where characters in one Inkling’s work are based on another Inkling. Referential relationships as DPG described them are so amorphous that indicating them with lines on a graph seemed incorrect.


Works Cited

Farrell, Michael P. Collaborative circles: Friendship dynamics and creative work. University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Glyer, Diana Pavlac. The Company They Keep: CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien as Writers in Community. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2007.
LeFevre, Karen Burke. Invention as a social act. SIU Press, 1986.

 

Written by the Winners

Source: Wikpedia

I feel sorry for the bottom lion.

Shakespeare’s play Henry V came up on the BBC’s In Our Time podcast, in celebration of their 20th anniversary. Pretty impressive for a podcast! As the panel discussed all the Plantagenets in their turn, it reminded me of an experience from long ago.

An impressive theatrical company was performing the play in Paris while I was living there. Le Monde published a long review in their entertainment section. 25 years later I’m unable to track it down on line, so I’m working from memory here.

The writer pointed out a thing I’d never heard in any English-language source. All the carousing that young Hal did with Falstaff and the gang in the “Henry IV” plays has an important role in Henry V: because he had spent all that time in bars, he spoke fluent English. His rousing speeches to the troops at Harfleur and on St. Crispin’s day are a huge deal because no previous king since 1066 could have given them. From William the Bastard on, the kings only spoke French.  When history is written by the winners, valuable perspectives like this can easily get lost.

Disclaimer: Henry IV spoke English as his native language, according to the fountain of all knowledge, but this may not contradict the Le Monde reviewer. Henry grew up in aristocratic surroundings, and the gaps between classes in England were wide, and are still large today. Henry IV probably could not speak in an idiom that would sound congenial to the common soldiers, at least not well enough to pull off something like this:

Why covet the Silmarils?

Joan Bushwell,  in an old piece called “The Tolkienian War on Science”.
(h/t Daniel Stride), explains Fëanor in a way that makes him (to me) almost sympathetic. I do have one big disagreement with the author, though. I’m on board when she calls Fëanor “the master smith/scientist/engineer”. But then she builds an analogy between Morgoth’s theft of the Silmarils and the current anxiety engineers have about intellectual property. No way. Fëanor is not upset about the theft of “intellectual property”. It’s clear that Fëanor gave away intellectual property freely – look at the alphabets for the best example. Silmarils are different. When Morgoth stole the Silmarils, Fëanor didn’t have them any more. In fact, he couldn’t even make new ones. They were like moon rocks or glacial core samples: literally irreplaceable, since we don’t fly to the Moon and the glaciers are melting.

“Intellectual property” is a bizarre legal fiction because it’s exactly the opposite of Silmarils. When (not “if”) intellectual property is stolen, the possessions of the developer are unchanged. The only thing the developer loses is the secrecy. The potential for profit.

Gandalf was fond of lecturing on topics like this, so pontification must not be too reprehensible. There are several reasons why people would want to own things and keep thieves away.

  1. They need things to live their lives, e.g. a wheelchair or a craftsman‘s tools
  2. A wish to preserve the things from harm
  3. The pleasure of accumulating things
  4. They want the status that possessions provide
  5. To exploit them for advantage in battle or its modern equivalent, trade

JRRT approves of number 1: “Would you part an old man from his support?” (III,vi) JRRT approves of number 2: “It shall be set in imperishable crystal to be an heirloom of my house…”. (II, viii) [1]

Numbers 3 & 4 are deadly sins. I’m pretty sure Morgoth was working from one of these or the other.

Number 5 isn’t morally nailed down outside of LotR, but Faramir was unambiguous: “If it were a thing that gave advantage in battle, I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it.” (IV, v) Either way, it is the only one of the five that we know wasn’t motivating Fëanor.

Maybe the whole debate over Fëanor can be boiled down to an argument over which motivation he thought he was acting on.


[1] Yes, I could have chosen more weighty quotations, but Idiosophy is a hobbitish discipline.  By the way, is anything else in Middle-earth “imperishable”?

Page 15 of 32

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén