Animal Farm

I spent Monday and today reading Animal Farm to sleepy looking 9^th graders at the local high school, and attempting to explain the parallels in Soviet history. I worked with another teacher, and she handed out the following journal topic:

Mr. Jones uses violence to goad the animals, and the animals use violence in revolt; are the animals justified in using violence? Is violence ever justifiable in for a good cause?

She then laid out her instructions and asked them to write whether they believed “an eye for an eye” was ever right, which seems to me to be an entirely separate discussion. The old principle of an eye for an eye (which German scholars now tell us the Hebrew people borrowed from Hammurabi) was a legal, and not a moral verse. Neither Moses nor Hammurabi ever stated that boundaries ought to be defended and kings succeeded by poking out eyes. (German scholars now tell us that the Hebrews borrowed the concept of “eyes,” and possibly other organs, from the ancient epic of Gilgamesh) They only stated that if someone did lose an eye, the law demanded that the responsible party suffer the same penalty. Confusing these two dilemmas (which are both interesting discussions) is like asking “Under what circumstances is Imperialism a just practice? Does this mean that Imperialist nations must pay their fines by cashier’s check?”

As regards the general justice of violence, I’m inclined to ask for more specific terms. Physical violence is the type being asked about, but the entrenched pacifist needs to consider verbal and psychological violence as well. This blog, for example, uses the English language forcibly. Whether or not anyone reads it, I do enjoy saying strong words for the same reason I enjoy drinking strong drinks: it is invigorating. This blog is the literary equivalent of throwing rocks at glass bottles back in the woods. It helps my aim, but I mostly like the noise. All of us know I’m sure, the perpetrators of psychological violence. They ask uncomfortable questions and use their body language to confound, trip, and flabbergast us without ever raising a fist or saying a word. The skilled dialectician may never work physical harm upon a living soul, but between his verbal and psychological force he crumbles those around him. This world is, despite our best efforts, still a wilderness in many respects. But is it ever permissible to practice violence upon another creature bearing the imago Dei? If so, I think it must be done by the rules of the West. As abominable as war might be, it can be and has been conducted with honor. The Judeo-Christian world is worth preserving from whatever would assail it on the outside, and the Judeo-Christian ethic of war is the means to that end; to spare woman and child, to prefer conservation to waste and plunder, and to practice chivalry to enemy and ally. To prefer mercy, to practice the art of arms, and to respect the duces and the patria; these qualities exemplify the man who might justly defend himself with physical violence.

Reading today some Byron, Il 3, Cicero, Pliny, Is 50, Matt 2, and Wives and Daughters. Here is Gaskell on the Gibson’s cook: “The cook did not like the trouble of late dinners; and being a Methodist, she objected on religious grounds to trying any of Mrs. Gibson’s new recipes for French dishes.