 G'day mate. So our text for today is a poem by Lord Alfred Tennyson from 1830 called the Hesperides. He says, laugh not loudly, watch the treasure of the wisdom of the West, lest one from the East come and take it away. I'm reading a book by Edward Alexander, classical liberalism in the Jewish tradition. So chapter six titled Dr. Arnold, Matthew Arnold and the Jews. On April 5, 1830 in his maiden speech to the House of Commons, Thomas Macaulay spoke eloquently in favor of Robert Grant's bill for the removal of Jewish disabilities, alluding to but not naming Nathan Rothschild, who financed the Allied armies ranged against Napoleon. Macaulay noted that as things now stand, a Jew may be the richest man in England. The influence of a Jew may be of the first consequence in a war which shakes Europe to the center, and yet the Jews have no legal right to vote or to sit in Parliament. 300 years ago, they had no legal right to the teeth in their heads. So he's dredging up a story about King John extracting gold teeth from Jewish heads. Thomas Carlisle exclaimed, I did not mean that I want King John back again, but if you ask me which mode of treating these people to have been the nearest to the will of the Almighty, to build them palaces or to take the pincers for them, I declare for the pincers. He fancied himself in the role of Victorian King John with Baron Rothschild at his mercy. Now, sir, the state requires some of these millions you have heaped together with your financing work. You weren't very well. The speaker gave a twist with his wrist. Now, now will you. And another twist until the millions were yielded. So although Thomas Macaulay was a liberal, he did not speak for all liberals, some of whom stood much closer to Carlisle on the Jewish question. One of these was Thomas Arnold, the famous headmaster of rugby and the intellectual leader of the liberal or the broad church branch of the Church of England. So Thomas Arnold was not a big fan of the Jews. He very much opposed the bill to remove Jewish disabilities, because it's based on the low rabbinical notion of citizenship. So he's protesting against the French Revolution and the Jacobinites notion of citizenship, that a man acquires a right to citizenship by the accident of his being littered on the nation's soil or because he pays taxes. So he thought that there was a lot of use in the notion of citizenship, which is kind of a modern notion, I guess you believe much more in blood and soil. So Jacobitism was a 17th and 18th century movement that the support of the restoration of the house of Stuart the British throne. The revolution created the principle of a contract between monarch and people. If this contract was violated, the monarch could be removed. Jacobites argued that monarchs were appointed by God and could not be removed. So they argue that the post 1688 regime was illegitimate. So the Jacobites argued that monarchs could never be removed. So Thomas Arnold insisted he must petition against the Jew bill because it's based on this low rabbinical notion of citizenship. So he believed that essentially that the being English was not something that you could just look into just because you happened to be on English soil or you paid taxes. So he had the view that the world is made up of Christians and non-Christians. With Christians unity was essential. With non- Christians unity was impossible or even where possible it was deplorable. Parliament should be thanked for having achieved the great liberal decideratum of doing away with the distinctions between Christian and Christian. But I pray that distinctions be kept up between Christian and non-Christians. Jews Thomas Arnold argued had no claim whatever to political rights because the Jews are strangers in England have no more claim to legislate for it than a lodger has to share with the landlord and the management of his house. England is the land of Englishmen not of Jews. My German friends agree with me. Wow. So he sounds quite all right there doesn't he? The only way Jews could claim English citizenship was by becoming Christians. So he sounds like Melchie and Brondelfle. They have no claim to become citizens but by conforming to our moral law which is the gospel. He wanted to deport Jews from England to a land where they might live by themselves independent. Said he would feel morally obligated to make a financial contribution to the costs of deportation. He feared that if Jews were to be accorded citizenship they might one day become magistrates or judges an appalling prospect for Thomas Arnold. So to Thomas Arnold only Englishmen can only be Christians. They cannot be members of another religion. University can aid the cause of general education only if it has a Christian character since Thomas Arnold's perspective. Students must be examined in the New Testament. Christianity is no mere branch of knowledge but it's very basis. When he tried to imagine examining a Jewish student in a sacred history of which he would not admit a single fact or tried to imagine having to abstain from calling our Lord by any other name than Jesus he rebelled. Who would be served by ripping out the core of education? Are we really for the sake of a few Jews who may like to have a degree in arts? To destroy our only chance of our being even either useful or respected as an institution of national education? It would be the first time that education in England was avowedly un-Christianized for the sake of accommodating Jews. He was the sole member of the London University Senate opposed to giving Jews degrees and exempting them from New Testament examinations. After that he resigned his position. So Edward Alexander is a traditional Jew. He wrote this book, Classical Liberalism and the Jewish Tradition. He writes, Arnold's stress on the Christian character of English education and citizenship was inseparable from a racial idea of English character. And so to the other Edward Alexander this is a way of showing how ludicrous the Thomas Arnold position was. So to English Jews, Thomas Arnold must have seemed a hasperidian dragon trying to preserve what Alfred Tennyson called in a poem of 1832, the treasure of the wisdom of the West from barbarous intruders, a bigot denying the full rights of academic citizenship. Arnold's exclusiveness rested on a grasp of the truth that Jews eager for emancipation and enlightenment tended to miss altogether. That when you study Western history and Western literature, you're studying not just revolutions and poems, you are entering the very mind of Christendom, the mind of Western Christianity. So Arnold knew far better than the Jews did that anyone who studied English literature and English history, even at a non-sectarian London University must submit to a whole world of assumptions that were alien and presumably offensive to him. The Jewish God is a fierce tribal deity who was supplanted in the progressive movement of the world by the gentle and universal Christian one. The Jews had rejected Jesus as more spiritual teaching as they were attached to the old law. Just couldn't see that its message of love and forgiveness had made it obsolete. Although their Bible had foretold his birth, death and resurrection, they rejected him as their messiah because they found his claim to divinity blasphemous and condemned him to death. What Jews call Torah is an Old Testament that has to be edited, interpreted, complemented, fulfilled and superseded by the New Testament and that Jewish collective existence since the inception of Christianity was a prolonged illustration of the spiritual blindness derided in the Gospels. So even without the compulsory examination in New Testament that Arnold insisted on the education Jews would receive at London University exacted a price for national citizenship in the form of a distortion and narrowing of Jewish self-definition. So throughout the 19th century in Europe, particularly beginning in western Europe, Jews were increasingly integrated and made citizens with close to full rights of citizenship. But it was often at the price of getting the Jews to abandon their distinctive approach to life. Jews might have been better off as Jews had the exclusionist Arnold and not his more liberal and secular opponents won the struggle over university admissions. Nearly a century later Morris Joseph addressing Jewish students at Cambridge pointed to the snares that awaited Jewish undergraduates, the great English universities, is included not only what seemed to be a wider learning and culture than that of their own Jewish ancestors but even the physical surroundings. Gothic architecture was essentially Christian architecture even if the buildings were not formally chapels. The Jewish student at an elite English university is set in an intensely Christian atmosphere all the more potent because of the historic associations that go to the making of it and the simple services of the plain brick structure that does duty for a synagogue present a glaring contrast the impressive form and environment of the public worship of the university churches. So this is a speech from 1830 the risk that university life entail for Jews may be measured in part by the experience of those who Dr. Arnold did not consider dissenters from Christianity to whom churches were not alien. So Protestants who did not belong to the established English church during this time had a similar experience to Jews. They often became Anglicans to overcome their sense of being outsiders. So I grew up a seventh-day Adventist in Australia very much had the sense of being outside the established society outside the established Anglican church. Catholics also outside the established church would have faced similar dangers at the English universities but their church showed no interest in having the universities open up to their people. A writer in a Catholic journal in 1851 said thanks be to God the Protestantism of England has shut our Catholics from Oxford and with few exceptions indeed from Cambridge also. So Thomas Arnold's son was named Matthew. He had much friendlier relationships with Jews. He surmised that the English people were far more likely to be brought to a more philosophical conception of religion through Judaism than through Hellenism. Arnold's attitude toward the prospect of bringing Jews into the educational system while respecting the integrity of their religious culture stands in sharp contrast to that of his father Thomas Arnold. So Matthew Arnold praised the French system of education because it accepted without necessarily encouraging religious division. The spirit of sect Arnold observed was noxious but less noxious in the spirit of religious persecution. The French were the population 36 million recognized three and only three religious divisions for education Protestantism, Ramic Catholicism and Judaism. The English system despite its smaller population of 21 million recognized no less than seven religious divisions six Protestant one Catholic none Jewish. Okay let me go here to Jews in English department looking at Edward Alexander's work classical liberalism and the Jewish tradition here. Okay page 131 chapter 11 Ludwig Louison a Berlin born Jew had made himself into a southern Christian gentleman in Charleston had to leave Columbia University in 1903 without his doctorate because he was in the eyes of Columbia's English Fajori irredeemably Jewish. I remember my father talked about a Jew who converted to Seventh-day Adventism and came to study at Avondale College where my father was the chair of the religion department. My father told me that even though he converted to Christianity he still had all these Jewish mannerisms and nobody liked him. So even though Ludwig Louison who apparently became a southern Christian gentleman he was denied his doctorate from Columbia University because he was irredeemably Jewish. Like many a Jewish student of English literature after him the names of Irvin Aaron Price and Arnold Stein spring to mind Louison was told that he should not or could not proceed in his studies because the prejudice against hiring Jews in English departments was insuperable. So when do you think the first Jew was hired as a professor of English literature in America? What decade? It was the 1940s. So two decades later meaning 1923 reflecting on the appointment of a number of Jewish scholars in American colleges and universities he noted that in one discipline alone the old resistance remained firm. So Jews made their way into every academic department but one by the 1920s and that was English. A number of Jewish scholars in American colleges the ordermen got in because nativistic anti-Semitism was not as strong 25 years ago as it is today. Regarding the younger men they were appointed through personal friendship or prestige. But the prejudice against Jews has not relented in a single instance in regard to the teaching of English. Perhaps this was because the study of English unlike that of science or even philosophy was intimately bound up with the particularities of culture for precisely the study of the mind of Western Christianity. So the study of English literature is essentially the study of Christendom of Western Christendom. What's English literature? Bernard Berenson called the angry Saxons who ran the English departments were mindful of what Tennyson had written in the heresperities. The treasure of the wisdom of the West needed to be guarded well and warily lest one from the east come and take it away. In the 20th century the would-be invaders of the sacred preserve were barbarous Eastern European Jews. So Suzanne Klingenstein did a graduate work at Harvard produced a book, the first book, Jews in the American Academy 1900 to 1940. So it tells the story of the first Jewish professors in the American Academy. So why did one of them a professor of philosophy, Harry Wolfson, keep silent during Harvard's attempt to establish a Jewish quota in 1922 or its later rejection of refugee scholars from Nazi Germany? It was because of the traditional respect of the Talmudist for the institution that shelters his learning. Harvard had clearly succeeded Slobodka, Yeshiva, and Wolfson's reverence. So the Jews who succeeded in becoming professors in the American Academy probably prior to the 1970s they were overwhelmingly the most assimilated of Jews and the least observant of Jewish law. So in Jewish studies departments you almost never will find support for the state of Israel. So Jewish studies departments in American universities tend to be quite skeptical of Israel that very rarely tend to defend Israel. So the Jews gained access to the American Academy essentially by giving up their Jewishness, giving up their particularity, giving up observance and by dressing and acting and comporting themselves in the most assimilated fashions. First tenured English department professor was Lionel Trilling who got on at Columbia University in the 1940s and he aspired to conquer Morningside Heights that's an area of New York near Columbia University without paying the price of complete intellectual assimilation. But Lionel Trilling was a highly assimilated Jew. So the author here Edward Alexander was in Lionel Trilling's Victorian seminar and he was taken aback to find out that Trilling never actually visited England until 1957. Then Klingenstein's second book deals only with literary scholars. Trilling said after World War II that his fellow intellectuals would take a break from being anti-American for a few years and then go right back to it. So she interviews Harry Levin, her first Jewish scholar and he threatened to withhold his permission to quote from his interviews with and letters to her if she insisted on forcing him into a theory of American ethnicity. So Harvard University particularly its English department had a long resistance to Jewish interlopers. This book discusses the higher anti-Semitism of George Santiana, Henry Adams and T.S. Eliot. So these early Jewish literary scholars are overwhelmingly waspy. They heavily assimilated or they were homosexual. So in one seminar Cynthia Ozick asked Lionel Trilling, we're talking about Kafka and Marx and she named some other famous Jewish intellectuals and she said they were all Jewish. Shouldn't we discuss if that had some effect on their work? Trilling got very angry with her and these early Jewish scholars, these early professors of English literature, literary analysts did not want to want to talk about the burden of Jewish ancestry. They said they cared as little about being Jewish as Marx did. One Jewish scholar of literature, Alan Gutman, reacted to what he deemed excessive Jewish fussing over the Holocaust by naming his children Hans and Erica. So this book is called Enlarging America and it shifts eventually from the Harvard culture of Jewish professors to the Columbia University culture of literary critics. For a novelist critic Cynthia Ozick, the magazine editor Norman Pot Horace, academic literary critic Stephen Marcus and feminist literary scholar Carolyn Heilbrunn. So Cynthia Ozick recalls Lionel Trilling's reaction to her asking in a seminar whether the fact that Freud and Marx and Einstein were Jewish signified something. Trilling's reaction was out of proportion. He blew up at me, was enraged, outraged. I had sullied, I had vulgarized his class. Trilling's growing unease about the wayward path taken by some of his students and disciples is vividly conveyed in the chapter on Norman Pot Horace. So they're a little too Jewishly particularistic for Lionel Trilling's liking. The book's concluding section is called The Rediscovery of Origins and uses Robert Orter at Ruth Weiss to exemplify literary scholars who had gotten doctorates in English in the 1960s but used the knowledge of Hebrew and Yiddish they had acquired as children or adolescents to move into Jewish studies in the 1970s and 1980s playing modern critical methods to the interpretation of Jewish texts. Jonathan Orter who's at UC Berkeley student of both Trilling and Levin added to their legacies an uvrah an interpretation of Hebrew literature that was unimaginable when Trilling and Levin attended college. Then Ruth Weiss was appointed to a chair in Yiddish at Harvard University in the 1980s. No, 1992. On some crucial matters the author Cleonstein is mysteriously reticent. Typically she moves deliberately from book to book by her subjects yet Ruth Weiss is if I am not for myself the liberal betrayal of the Jews 1992. One of the most important Jewish books of the past 50 years goes unmentioned. Neither do we hear the Sledgehammer assault on the book in 1992 by Jonathan Orter ludicrously depicted as an unpolymical person when his maturity would never use literary criticism to advise the people on what it should do. In fact, Jonathan in fact Robert Orter I'm sorry Robert Orter imputed Masada like paranoia to Weiss precisely as he had imputed it to go to my ear and other Israelis in a very literary commentary magazine article of July 1973 which urged greater flexibility and more readiness for diplomatic risk taking upon the Israelis who are still pondering Orters advice when the Arabs launched the Yom Kippur war in October by ignoring the ranker's dispute between Weiss and Robert Orter of whether the safety of the Jews or the imperatives of liberal liberalism should take precedence. So virtually every professor putatively Jewish professor in these books espoused the imperatives of liberalism over the safety of Jews except Ruth Weiss. The author misses a fine opportunity to bring her overall argument into focus and face the question of what good this enlargement of America has done to the Jews themselves. Given the success stories of Jewish integration into the English departments and the resorting enlargement of literary scholarship why is it that 90 percent of Jewish English professors cannot read their way around a dreidel and that an equal percentage of the professors of Jewish studies whose enterprise flourished in the wake of the Six Day War in 1967 would have soon come to the defense of Israel on campus as they would endorse the flat earth theory. The author notes that Jewish integration into the literary academy unlike that of any other group was accompanied by the almost complete loss of their cultural heritage and con-committant communal self-esteem. Okay so reading here Edward Alexander classical liberalism and the Jewish tradition he's not a big fan of the New Yorker okay the Deborah Lipstadt David Irving trial New Yorker version page 49 1961 the New Yorker sent the eminent political thinker Hannah Arendt to Jerusalem to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann a recount and analysis of the trial first appeared in the February and March 1963 issues of that magazine then were published as a book with the contentious title Eichmann in Jerusalem report on the banality of evil the book aroused a terrific storm of controversy primarily because it alleged that the Jews had cooperated significantly in their own destruction wherever Jews lived they were recognized Jewish leaders whoops ovei the recognized Jewish leaders and this leadership Hannah Arendt maintained almost without exception cooperated in one way or another for one reason or another with the Nazis is now generally accepted that Hannah Arendt was woefully and woefully mistaken in this central assertion we all participate in our own destruction the church of entropy so the New Yorker at that time was infamous for not allowing letters to the editor challenging or refuting articles that are published how many New Yorker readers had ever before cared to read a word of the vast literature about Jewish resistance martyrdom and occasional survival during the Holocaust how many of these readers would ever know that the distinguished Jewish historian Jacob Robinson discovered a huge number of factual errors in Arendt's articles she later enumerated in a page by page refutation of her book entitled and the crooked shall be made straight Irving Howe was outraged that Hannah Arendt's articles which had brought the most serious charges against European Jews against their institutions against their leaders and against their character being distributed to a mass audience unequipped to judge them critically and had then been sealed shut against criticism in the New Yorker itself the New Yorker as for the whole court trial style it represents the publication of miss Arendt's articles disposed of the issue there's nothing more for it to say are allowed to be said in this columns except to defend miss Arendt she branded the Jewish leadership in Europe as cowardly incompetent and collaborationist she accused it of helping the Nazis destroy the Jews of Europe she alleged if the Jews had not cooperated with the Nazis many fewer than six million would have been killed responsible and scholarly opponents disputed a factual statements and her conclusions yet as far as the imperious New Yorker was concerned miss Arendt has the first the last the only word now Edward Alexander moves on publication by the New Yorker of April 16 2001 of Ian Baruma's account of Hitler admired David Irving's lawsuit in London against Deborah Lipstadt showed despite his publication of important work by Arendt Applefield despite having broken the story of Jed Jadawayne New York had not quite subdued this Holocaust problem of the 37 years earlier Baruma's story perversely titled blood libel begins with a nonsensical declaration that Irving is not so much an outright Holocaust denier as a Holocaust minimizer so in Deborah Lipstadt's book denying the Holocaust 1993 she claims that Irving had graduated in 1988 from Hitler worshiper to Holocaust denier it was that claim that Irving challenged unsuccessfully in court either there was a Holocaust a systematic German campaign to destroy European jury or there wasn't Irving either denied it took place or he didn't to say he minimized is to talk Jabalwaki so Baruma in the New Yorker informs his readers that David Irving is deemed a serious indeed a brilliant historian by serious admirers including such serious people as the military historian John Keegan and the journalist Christopher Hitchens Hitchens that omnipresent expert on all matters touching the Jews pronounced Irving a great historian of fascism Baruma's favorite guide to the whole business is yet another exemplar of serious reflection the brilliant DD Guttenplan from whom whose venomous book the Holocaust on trial Baruma borrows a sublimely condescending formulation that Lipstadt's concern was that Irving was bad for the Jews Guttenplan believes that David Irving was good for the Jews because he shares many perhaps most of Irving's deepest convictions that the Jews had conspired against him the Jews exploit the Holocaust the Zionists exploit the Holocaust that Lucy Davidowitz demonize the Nazis that the Anti-Defamation League is a spy organization well the ADL is in part a spy organization and I don't know is there a difference between exploiting something and simply using it as a basis certainly Israel and Zionism uses the Holocaust as a basis to make its case to the world so apparently Mark Kallett denied any pedo stuff by millennial woes and denied that the penis picture was of woes Guttenplan's description of Deborah Littstadt as a woman with a bad back in a New York manner more bet-midler than Bess Meyerson anti-Semitism is a long history in Europe but the Holocaust gave it a bad name even among people who thought it a perfectly respectable piece of bigotry prior to World War II so yeah I've noticed that people born after World War II much more reluctant to say negative things about Jews than people born say in the 1920s my father was born in 1929 Mark Kallett said it was up to the victim if she wanted to bring it to the police and Edward Alexander here does not approve of Peter Novik's polemic the Holocaust in American life Novik contended that their Holocaust memory is a Jewish scheme for grabbing the gold medal in the victimization Olympics and for self-aggrandizement to the expense of other victimized peoples so Edward Alexander here this is the golden era of Luke's dreams I don't care what anyone says thank you we few we lucky few we band of brothers that's what we are we few we lucky few we band of brothers here so Beroomi in the New Yorkers the suitable chronicler of the Irving Lipstadt trial for a country like England where disputes about beliefs and ideas are often reduced to distinctions of manners and traders who continue to wear their Cambridge ties in Moscow and order their suits from Seville Rowe less at much sympathy in intellectual circles so Bruma says he's he's tempted strongly tempted to share David Irving witnesses John Keegan's view of Irving as a class act marred by some crazy ideas because Irving is excellently dressed and has a posh accent Irving's historian adversary Richard Evans addressed the court remarks of Beroomi in the nasal monotone of the outer London suburbs and came across as the kind of state educated Britain who gets jumpy at the sound of an upper class voice so that's his critique of the very careful historian Richard Evans who absolutely took apart David Irving's scholarship this is low level Anthony Trollop but what can it possibly tell American readers about the ideological motives of the principles in the conflict and Edward Alexander here he complains about Beroomi's silence about the place of Israel and the writings of Holocaust deniers and their apologists and defenders if Beroomi is to believe left-wing radicals like Chris Fitzsens and Norm Chomsky come to the defense of right-wing Holocaust deniers mainly because of their devotion to free speech but Israel occupies a crucial place in the demonology of Hitchens and Chomsky just as it does in the world of the deniers Chomsky's defense of Robert Faris on connected to some of Chomsky's deepest political orientations in particular his unwavering animus toward the United States and Israel even though Chomsky does not directly endorse the claims of the French Holocaust deniers he wishes them well in their endeavors pre-evidently believes that to undermine belief in the Holocaust is to undermine a belief in the legitimacy of the state of Israel which many people suppose mistakenly to have come into existence because of western bad conscience over what was done to the Jews in World War II so Norm Chomsky's zeal on behalf of French Holocaust denier Denier Foresson is unlikely to cool till the French Republic passes a law requiring that Foresson's works be read in public schools and advertised and sold at the entrance to synagogues but of this seething cordon of Israel hatred New Yorkers readers are left blissfully ignorant by Baruma when Primo Levi published his now classic memoir of Auschwitz in 1947 he already foresaw the assault on Holocaust memory that pervades the work of the aggressive polemicists such as David Irving seems to address them directly in the poem that served as a preface to his work if this is a man meditate that this came about I commend these words to you carve them in your hearts at home in the street going to bed rising repeat them to your children or may your house fall apart may illness impede you may your children turn their faces from you okay so this this is inspired by that Alfred Lord Tennyson poem the Hesperides it's a poem that came out in 1832 it's all about protecting the treasure of the west from the barbarians from the east to in Greek mythology the Hesperides are the nymphs of evening and golden light of sunset who are the daughters of the evening or the nymphs of the west are also called the Atlantis from their reputed father the titan atlas the north wind fall in the new star night zedonian henna voyaging beyond the hori promontory of soloway past thy material in calm bays between the southern and the western horn had neither wobbling of the nightingale nor melody the libyan lotus flute blown seaward from the shore but from a slope that ran bloom bright into the atlantic blue beneath the highland leaning down a weight of cliffs and zoned below with cedar shade came voices like the voices in a dream continuous till he reached the other sea the golden apple the golden apple the hallowed fruit guard it well guard it warily singing airily standing above the charmed root round about all is mute as the snow field on the mountain peaks as the sand field at the mountain fort crocodiles in briny creeks sleep and stir not all is mute if you sing not if you make false measure we shall lose eternal pleasure worth eternal want of rest laugh not loudly watch the treasure of the wisdom of the west guys watch the treasure of the wisdom of the west in a corner wisdom whispers five and three that it not be preached abroad make an awful mystery the blossom unto three-fold music bloweth ever more it is born anew and the sap to three-fold music floweth from the root drawn in the dark up to the fruit creeping under the fragrant bark liquid gold honey sweet through and through keen eyed sisters singing airily looking warily every way guard the apple night and day lest one from the east come and take it away father hasper father hasper watch watch ever an eye looking under silver hair with a silver eye father twinkle not a steadfast sight kingdom's laps and climate change and races die honor comes with mystery hoarded wisdom brings delight number tell them over and number how many the mystic fruit tree hordes lest the red combed dragon slumber rolled together in purple fords look to him father lesty wink and the gordon apple be stolen away gordon apple represents the west the western tradition christened him for his ancient heart is drunk with overwatchings night and day round about hallowed fruit tree cord sing away sing aloud and ever more in the wind without stop lest his scaled eyelid drop for he is older than the world he awakened we awaken rapidly leveling eager eyes if he sleep we sleep dropping the eyelid over the eyes if the gordon apple be taken the world will be overwise five lengths a gordon chain a wee hasper the dragon and sisters three bound about the gordon tree father hasper father hasper watch watch night and day lest the old wound of the world be healed the glorian seal the gordon apple be stolen away in the ancient secret revealed look from west to east along father old himmler weakens caucuses is bored and strong wandering waters unto wandering waters call let them clash together firm and fall out of watching's out of wiles comes the bliss of secret smiles or things are not told to war half round the mantling night is drawn purple fringed with even and dawn hasper hateth phosphor and evening hateth mourn i was talking about here protecting the treasures of the west from the interloper from the east every flower and every fruit the redolent breath of this warm sea wind ripeneth arching the billow in his sleep but the land wind wandereth broken by the highland steep two streams upon the violet deep for the western sun and the western star and the low west wind breathing afar the end of day and beginning of night make the apple holy and bright holy and bright round and for bright and blessed mellowed in a land of rest watch warily day and night all good things are in the west till mid noon the cool east light is shut out by the round of the tall hillbrow when the foreface sunset yellowly stays on the flowering arch of the bow the luscious frutige clustered mellowly golden colonel golden cord sunset ripened above on the tree the world is wasted with fire and sword but the apple of gold hangs over the sea five lengths of golden chain a wee hasper the dragon and sister's three daughters three bound about or round about the gnarled ball of the charmed tree the golden apple the golden apple the hallowed fruit guard it well guard it warily watch it warily singing eerily standing above the charmed root so this was a poem that uh i think he did not publish in his his lifetime let's get a little bit more here on uh tenison hmm okay i got more more work today talk to you guys later