Some Troubling Comments on Covid-19 by Some Conservative Acquaintances

First, full disclosure. My wife is an ICU nurse, and she is thus on the front lines of this pandemic. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t worried for her safety, and for the wellbeing of my family. I don’t think those outside of the medical profession understand what a major pandemic means for people like us. For the most part, the people I will be quoting in this post are white, privileged, and not at risk. So I find it particularly disturbing when they spread both misinformation and - as I will note - veiled threats. 

***

While most of my friend list these days are rational people who accept science, seek the common good, and so on, there has been an increasingly troubling trend among my right-leaning acquaintances to take, um, interesting positions on things, particularly those in which the actions of a certain president (or party) might be seen in a bad light. This week, I saw a few posts which I left alone because I had no interest in getting into a fight, but that have really made me think and consider exactly what is going on here. I decided to write a bit about them, and why I think they are seriously problematic. Let’s start with one which is a 100% partisan issue. 

“We need to be honest and call it the Chinese/Wuhan Virus.”

This one comes directly from The Toupee Who Shall Not Be Named and his white nationalist advisers, but the GOP in general seems to be pushing this. There are several problems with this, so let me work through them one at a time. 

#1: It openly encourages racism and xenophobia

Il Toupee, pretty obviously, has a worldview which says that bad things come from “those people,” meaning non-Americans in general, but particularly people with darker skin. This has been obvious throughout his life, but on full display from the beginning of his campaign. In the most recent speech, he pushed (AGAIN!) for his wall, and blamed other countries. So, at minimum, this is part of a calculated play to rile up Trump’s xenophobic base - and stir up xenophobia and support for xenophobic policies. 

But it’s more than that in practice. Chinese (and other Asian) restaurants have seen business dry up. Incidents of hate and hate crimes against Asian Americans has increased. (I have a few friends who have experienced this first hand.) So this isn’t just of academic interest. It is an obstacle to seeing a pandemic virus as something we all have to come together and solve. If we are focusing on blaming the “other,” we miss an opportunity to collaborate. 

This has been obvious in the US response to the pandemic: refusing WHO tests, excluding foreign nationals while failing to screen citizens, and insisting until recently that the whole thing was a Chinese and Democrat hoax. 

#2: It misses that the virus could have originated anywhere

Throughout recorded history, viruses have jumped from animal species to humans. This is well documented. But even more than that, our very DNA shows strong evidence of cross-species transfer dating back to the rise of mammals. This is something that we humans have dealt with and will continue to deal with because it is fundamental to how life on earth works. Anywhere there is human/animal contact, viruses will jump. 

Not only that, but our modern situation makes this even more likely. As habitat destruction occurs, animals are forced into contact with humans. Likewise, as humans push into former wilderness, contact occurs. Climate change will also stir things up by changing ranges for various species, bringing them into contact with each other - and us. 

#3: It obfuscates the frightening parallels between China’s mistakes and ours

Trump fans - and Republicans in general - seem unwilling to see or admit the similarities between China and the United States. The whole “China is Communist, we are Capitalist, so we never make the same mistakes” is a strong ideology. Although beyond the scope of this post, China is far more capitalist than the American Right realizes. It is just unusual in that it is both totalitarian AND capitalist, which is a combination we are not used to. But it also makes the grave error to think that it is China’s Communist traits which were at fault. Rather, it was more broadly human failings - and the failings of a certain kind of politician specifically - that were at fault. 

Let’s look at the factors here that led to this:

Lack of regulations for food safety and animal contact

We need to be honest about this. Not too long ago, the US was every bit as vulnerable. (Read things like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle for more on this.) 

But how much better are we? As a nation, our methods of raising meat are pretty lax compared to, say, Japan, or most of Europe. We have tens of thousands of animals crammed into tiny cages and kept in unsanitary conditions. We are an accident waiting to happen ourselves. 

Historically speaking, the most common nexus between humans and animals for disease has been poultry and pigs. And guess what? Which animals are raised in the factory farm way here in the US? That’s right: poultry and pigs. So it was really just chance (and the fact that China is a huge place with a lot of people) that led to this coming from China. It could easily have started here. 

And let’s also be honest about this: The GOP and Trump have been working to roll back regulations - including food safety regulations. So they are actually making it more likely that the next pandemic will originate here.

Political suppression of information

It is absolutely true that China suppressed information about the outbreak. It is also true that this was done for political purposes - to keep the Dear Leader from bad news. It is also true that China punished a whistleblower. 

It is also absolutely true that Trump did the same thing. That’s the problem with autocratic narcissists in power. Regardless of the economic or political system, they act in a predictable manner. When pandemics are involved, this causes problems. 

Republicans need to stop with this “blame China” thing and take a hard introspective look at how their policies, and their own Dear Leader are problematic and counterproductive in dealing with a pandemic.

#3: It misses a lesson of history

Have you heard of the “Spanish Flu”? Yeah, probably. That was our last deadly global pandemic, about 100 years ago. But did you know that the Spanish Flu did NOT originate in Spain?

That’s right:

The Spanish Flu did not originate in Spain.

The reason it is associated with Spain is that during World War One, Spain was a neutral country. Because of that, it had no incentive to suppress information about the flu, but openly reported infections and deaths. Unlike countries like the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and so on. They suppressed information because if they reported deaths, it might encourage the enemy. 

There are several hypotheses as to where the Spanish Flu originated. Some have proposed a British military base in France during the war. Others think Chinese laborers may have brought it. But there is also the possibility that it came from...wait for it...Kansas. A military base in Kansas. There is no definitive evidence, in part because we didn’t have tests, and much evidence wasn’t public at the time. 

In any event, the important thing here isn’t exactly where it originated as the fact that it could plausibly have originated anywhere - but the country that first went public got the blame. 

So, in summary, insistence on blaming China for the pandemic is counterproductive. It encourages racism and xenophobia, it ignores the common risk factors that the US shares, discourages collaboration, and misses the lessons of history. 

“The CDC is lying: the death rate is actually really low.”

There are some variants on this one, but the common thread seems to be the idea that the REAL problem is that this is being blown out of proportion, is not really a big deal, and that we should just go on with business as usual. Related to this is conspiratorial thinking that some combination of China/Democrats/the Media want to hurt Trump, and thus manufactured a crisis to tank the economy. 

Frankly, this is troubling. 

Let me tackle a few of the claims to show what is going on here. 

Because we haven’t tested that many people, the death rate is artificially high

It is true that we have tested very few people here in the US. This is actually really troubling to medical professionals and scientists, because it means that we likely have a ticking time bomb of infected people out there. 

Here is why the experts believe the death rate is actually a lot higher than the flu: there are countries who HAVE tested extensively, and have a pretty good idea about the rates. 

It is one thing to say China is still lying. (It’s plausible, although not certain.) It is another to say that ALL of the following countries are lying:

South Korea: has tested far more people by percentage of population than any other. It has also been successful at containing the outbreak by testing, tracing contact, and quarantines. Because of this, it has a huge body of evidence of the rates of serious complications and fatalities. South Korea is also a free country, and has no incentive to fabricate a pandemic. Also, because the US is a big trade partner, why would it try to destroy the US economy?

Taiwan: also has mostly contained things through testing, quarantine, and tracing. Also no friend of China, and depends on the US. 

Iran: has credibility problems, but it seems unlikely that it would fabricate a deadly pandemic in its own country. Also, we have satellite photos of mass graves. It seems like a stretch. 

Italy: In order to believe this is a hoax, you MUST believe that Italy is lying. That it doesn’t in fact have a healthcare infrastructure stretched past the breaking point, with some patients going without care, an overwhelmed funeral industry, and a high death rate. Why would Italy do that? It has no particular hate for the US, it is a free country, and no big friend of China. 

Spain: is in much the same place as Italy, with a disturbingly high death rate, and a higher testing rate than the US. Why would Spain be lying?

Great Britain: is arguably our closest ally, has a similarly incompetent and racist goofus as a leader, and is certainly not Communist. And yet, Britain too is showing a troubling infection and death rate, and is prepared for worse. Why would Britain be lying about that? 

So, to believe that this is somehow just an overblown media panic, you have to believe that ALL of these countries are in on the conspiracy. Really? 

And now, the most troubling of all:

“If this turns out to be overblown, people need to be held accountable.”

This one was shocking to me to hear, particularly from a legal colleague who should know better. 

I mean, WHO is he saying should be “held accountable” and how? 

Are we talking about suing the scientists who warned us? That’s the sort of thing that happens in totalitarian countries, not free democracies with free speech rights. Scientists should be free to give warning where they believe it is appropriate. And, in fact, this has been an ongoing issue with the Right, which is determined to discount any science that gets in the way of profit. From environmental regulation to climate change. I am concerned that the Right would prefer us to be more like China, where everything - including science - is expected to serve the regime and corporate interests. 

Also, let’s say that our drastic action actually works, and we shut down this pandemic. Do we punish the scientists because their advice worked? I mean, it’s hard to tell the difference between successful action and unnecessary action. (Although, you could look at the difference between South Korea and Italy in the actions and their results…) 

Okay, so maybe we don’t sue or prosecute scientists for this. Do we sue the media?

Again, this is what totalitarian regimes do. Not free democracies. But, again, note that Trump thinks (like totalitarians throughout history) that the press is “the enemy of the people.” That isn’t surprising. But to hear so-called conservatives argue for “holding the press accountable” is chilling. 

Again, let’s be honest about what this means in practice. We would be punishing the press for truthfully reporting what other countries are saying. (See above.) We would be punishing the press for reporting what scientists are saying. We would be punishing the press for failing to suppress information that is economically inconvenient. Think about that for a moment. 

Okay, so maybe we don’t punish the press. Maybe we just punish the elected officials who shut down schools and restaurants. 

This is at least not as politically chilling. We can vote out anyone we don’t like, and that is fine in the political sense. 

But think of this too: if a governor (or county government) makes a decision based on the scientific and medical information he or she has, why does that warrant punishment? Would we really prefer that all decisions be made based on the economy and the stock market? This is a lose-lose for elected officials and other decision makers. A pandemic doesn’t have a good result possible - either you leave everything open and let the disease spread or you shut things down and cause hardship. If given the choice, I would prefer that our leaders defer to science in areas in which science has the necessary information. I would certainly trust medical and epidemiological experts to have better advice than investment bankers when it comes to pandemics. And certainly more than a willfully ignorant narcissist who has a “gut feeling.” 

So, summary: it is unlikely that a dozen other countries are just making stuff up. This shit is real, and should be treated accordingly. And let’s stop already with talk of punishing the whistleblowers. That’s crazy, totalitarian talk, and is inappropriate in a democracy. 

We have a rough road ahead of us (particularly my wife and others on the front lines.) Let’s not make it worse with denialism, xenophobia, and calls to punish those trying to limit the damage. 

We Should All Be Feminists by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Source of book: Borrowed from the library. 

Every March for the past 7 years, I have read a selection for Women’s History Month. I have generally chosen works connected with Feminism. Although demonized by the Cultural Fundamentalist circles I was raised in (and sadly by an increasingly reactionary and fundamentalist Evangelicalism as well), it really shouldn’t be controversial. Feminism is simply this:

The Cultural, Political, and Economic Equality of men and women.

Of course, the problem with this for many is that this idea is anathema to them. Their worldview depends on a structural inequality of the sexes, one where men control the institutions of power and the money we use as a means of exchange. In order to justify this, they cling to ideas of a congenital inferiority of women (whatever euphemisms they use to deny this), whereby women are unfit for leadership, or even control of their own lives and destinies.

Here are my selections for previous years:

Are Women Human? By Dorothy Sayers (2014)

A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft (2015)

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood (2016)

Woman Lawyer: The Trials of Clara Foltz by Barbara Babcock (2017)

The Home-Maker by Dorothy Canfield Fisher (2018)

The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton (2019) 

***

 

For this year, I decided to read Adichie’s short book - pamphlet really - adapted from her marvelous TED talk. I was already pretty familiar with it, but wanted to check and see if it was something that I would put on my list to recommend. 

The thing that rings the most true about Adichie’s experiences as detailed in the book is the way that “Feminism” is used as an epithet. It certainly was in my family, sadly. The ironic thing is that my dad is actually a feminist in practice, most of the time: he has never believed certain things were “women’s work,” he vigorously enforced policies against sexual harassment when he was a supervisor, and I have never known him to do anything inappropriate toward a woman. So it really was disheartening to hear him, even recently, complain that feminism had ruined everything. Sigh. 

I used to believe kind of the same thing, because I bought the Fundie/Conservative bullshit about what Feminism was really about. You know, man hating, humorless, whatever. And also, it was easier to believe that most (secretly all) women wanted to be stay at home mothers rather than work, because biology, when the women closest to me said that was what they wanted. 

The thing is, having strong women as music teachers kind of made that seem silly. And then, once I got into law, well, the whole thing fell apart. And that was before I met my wife…

Anyway, here are some highlights. 

But I remember that as I argued and argued, Okoloma looked at me and said, “You know, you’re a feminist.”

It was not a complement. I could tell from his tone -- the same tone with which a person would say, “You’re a supporter of terrorism.” 

Unfortunately, this is still a problem. I am now an open feminist, but that means that I am looked on like a serial killer in certain circles. Usually, this is because of the lies about feminism which are believed as (literally) gospel truth. I love this bit in the book:

Anyway, since feminism was un-African, I decided I would now call myself a Happy African Feminist. Then a dear friend told me that calling myself a feminist meant that I hated men. So I decided I would now be a Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men. At some point I was a Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men And Who Likes To Wear Lip Gloss And High Heels For Herself And Not For Men. 

Of course much of this was tongue-in-cheek, but what it shows is how that word feminist is so heavy with baggage, negative baggage: you hate men, you hate bras, you hate African culture, you think women should always be in charge, you don’t wear make-up, you don’t shave, you’re always angry, you don’t have a sense of humour, you don’t use deodorant. 

In my case, instead of “African,” use “Christian.” Because in those circles, gender roles and gender essentialism have become core beliefs of the religion. 

Another bit that really stood out was this one. 

We spend too much time teaching girls to worry about what boys think of them. But the reverse is not the case. We don’t teach boys to care about being likeable. We spend too much time telling girls that they cannot be angry or aggressive or tough, which is bad enough, but then we turn around and either praise or excuse men for the same reasons. All over the world, there are so many magazine articles and books telling women what to do, how to be and not to be, in order to attract or please men. There are far fewer guides for men about pleasing women. 

True story: before my wife and I were dating, she visited us, riding with a family member who stopped by a neighbor’s briefly. We heard later that she (who was my grandmother’s age) told my mom, “she seemed really sweet until she opened her mouth.” And that is kind of how it has been. Amanda is not concerned about making men like her. She isn’t interested in playing the femininity game. She doesn’t dress based on what men think, and doesn’t particularly care about “likeability.” This has, alas, caused unnecessary friction with my family. As has this one:

I know a woman who hates domestic work, but she pretends she likes it, because she has been taught that to be ‘good wife material’, she has to be -- to use that Nigerian word -- homely. And then she got married. And her husband’s family began to complain that she had changed. Actually, she had not changed. She just got tired of pretending to be what she was not. 

Not that Amanda ever pretended, but there is this expectation that women pretend that their greatest joy in life is childcare and housework. She refused to pretend to be who she was not. Like Dorothy Sayers, Adichie homes in on the core issue:

The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations. 

And that is exactly what feminism is about. 

Adichie also notes that sexism also hurts men, who are taught to be hard, violent, and so on, so they are “not like a woman.” I also loved that she noted the connection between masculinity and money. A man’s worth is measured by his paycheck, which leaves lower income males seeking to prove their manliness through other, less beneficial means. 

I also recognized Amanda in another passage. 

A Nigerian acquaintance once asked me if I was worried that men would be intimidated by me.

I was not worried at all -- it had not even occurred to me to be worried, because a man who would be intimidated by me is exactly the kind of man I would have no interest in. 

This is one hundred percent Amanda. One reason she liked me was that I am not intimidated by strong women. Actually, I rather like strong women. I like working with them, because they don’t play stupid manipulative games. I like competence. Just saying. 

One final bit that struck me was this one. 

Some people ask, ‘Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?’ Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general -- but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem should acknowledge that.

And that is the crux of the problem with the denialism so trendy in right wing circles right now. On a related note, the “all lives matter” bullshit didn’t arise until “black lives matter.” This nonsense about being concerned for all rights is just a deflection whenever an excluded group protests. 

Adichie is right: we should all be feminists. And we should be clear what it means to not be a feminist as well. It is nothing less than opposition to social, economic, and political equality for women. 

***

As I write this, much of our state is being shut down to try to slow the spread of the Covid-19 virus. The effect on our family will be that Amanda (who is an ICU nurse) will likely be working a lot of extra shifts to keep our healthcare system functioning. I, on the other hand, will essentially lose a couple months of income. That means that our roles (which are already more egalitarian than most) will have to shift. She will be the primary breadwinner, and I will have to take over most of the household duties. Not a big deal for us, because I don’t measure my worth in dollars, or believe housework is beneath me. And she knows that I respect her career and will support her 100% through this crisis.

Prometheus Bound and Prometheus Unbound

Source of book: I own a Heritage hardback with both of these works paired. 

The Greek myths continue to speak to us today - after all, they are an example of how we humans use stories as our most powerful way of grappling with the imponderables. While the language (even in translation) of the ancient Greeks often seems unfamiliar, the eternal questions still ring true. 

 Prometheus Bound by Peter Paul Rubens

The story of Prometheus has fascinated for at least three thousand years. One of the Titans, he and his family ruled the world before the Olympian gods overthrew them. Prometheus stole fire and gave it to the humans, enraging Zeus, who chained Prometheus to a rock and sent an eagle to eat his liver.

Prometheus Bound is a play traditionally attributed to Aeschylus, but now believed by some scholars to have been written earlier by an unknown playwright. It was apparently the first in a trilogy, but, alas, the others have been lost to the ravages of time. From other writers, it is believed that the other plays completed the story through the release of Prometheus by Heracles and the reconciliation with Zeus. However, the philosophical ideas in those later plays remain unknown to us. I mention this because Prometheus Bound has little action, but a lot of philosophical discussion. 

Much later, English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley decided to write his own response and conclusion to the play, in an extended poem entitled Prometheus Unbound. At a library sale last year, I was able to purchase a gorgeous hardback containing both works, along with an insightful introduction by Rex Warner, the translator, and Mary Shelley’s afterword to her husband’s poem. 

While I have referred to the earlier work as a play and the later as a poem, this fails to describe both works adequately. They are actually quite similar in format, with very little action, and a lot of dialogue. It is believed, however, that the Greek play was indeed performed, while Shelley didn’t actually intend his work to be performed as a play. Either would be difficult to stage for modern audiences, honestly, because of the lack of dialogue and extensive symbolism. 

Aeschylus changes the Prometheus myth a bit from the earlier version by Hesiod. Rather than paint Prometheus as a trickster justly punished by the noble Zeus, he portrays Prometheus as a noble martyr, unjustly punished by Zeus despite all that Prometheus did for him. In Hesiod’s version, the result of Prometheus’ gift of fire was that humans had to work for their bread - and worse, they were given the first woman, Pandora, who would be a curse on males thereafter. (Misogynist much?) In contrast, Aeschylus has Prometheus give crucial assistance to Zeus, which Zeus resents later because it detracts from his glory. Also, Zeus decides to eliminate humanity. The gift of fire - and a warning - allows humankind to survive. And leaves Zeus nursing a nasty grudge. Hence, Prometheus is chained to the rock and gets his liver eaten. 

Prometheus has a secret, however: he knows how Zeus may eventually be overthrown. That secret will eventually lead to his release and reconciliation, but during this play at least, it only inflames Zeus’ rage. 

The link between the two plays comes from Prometheus’ revelation that fire wasn’t the only thing he gave to humanity. He also taught them the civilizing arts which allowed them to rise above their animal natures. In Shelley’s poem, this idea of Prometheus as the embodiment of human aspiration and progress is given full treatment. Prometheus is first tormented more by Jupiter (Shelley uses the Roman names, not the Greek ones), but change is on its way. Instead of having Jupiter and Prometheus reconcile, Shelley envisions Jupiter overthrown. The Oceanids, primarily Asia, Ione, and Panthea, figure prominently in the play, first visiting Demogorgon in the underworld, then riding out with the Demogorgon and the Hours to see the fall of Jupiter. The Earth itself turns against Jupiter and his arrogant boasting. The poem then switches focus to a hopeful view of progress and the future. 

In some ways, Shelley’s optimism seems dated - it is of its time, the heady 19th Century, when human progress seemed assured. And, in retrospect, this wasn’t entirely wrong. Humans have made tremendous ethical progress over the last few centuries, although it hasn’t been in a straight line. However, the old tribalism has never died (and indeed has had a good decade lately), and Prometheus Unbound, like other progress poems of the era seems a bit naive. 

But the language is certainly glorious. For that matter, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with envisioning better days, better things, better ideas. So much of the apocalyptic literature in the Bible, for example, is utopian in that sense. The lion and the lamb and all, swords into plowshares, and so on. We need the inspiration of the poets who envision a better world - which we can work toward creating. 

Although very different, the two works do fit together well, and I am glad I read them back to back. 

There are so many great lines, I have to quote a few, starting with Prometheus Bound. There is an exchange between the chorus and Prometheus early in the play, regarding how Prometheus went beyond just giving mankind fire. 

Chorus: But did you not perhaps go further than all this?

Prometheus: Yes. I stopped mortals from seeing their fate in advance.

Chorus: What cure did you find to charm away that sickness?

Prometheus: I settled unseeing hopes to dwell among them.

That’s brilliant. We do not know the future, but we have been given unseeing hope to envision a better future. (Again, Shelley takes this idea and runs with it.)     

Later in the play, Io visits Prometheus, on the run from a lustful Zeus and a vengeful Hera. I liked her description of how Zeus pursues her in her dreams.

There were always visions haunting my virgin bed

Night after night, and speaking kindly in my ears

With smooth sounds saying: ‘O most fortunate maiden,

Why keep so long your maidenhood, when you might make

The greatest match? Zeus is on fire with a shaft 

Of longing for you, and wants to join in love with you.

It is not for you, my child, to spurn aside the bed 

Of Zeus…’

Io, of course, is relevant to the story in different levels. She will be the ancestor of Herakles, who will free Prometheus. But she, like Prometheus, suffers unjustly as a result of the whims of the gods. Aeschylus also reveals her to be the potential spouse of Zeus who will lead to his downfall: her son with Zeus, if born, would overthrow him. But Aeschylus gets even more metaphorical with this. 

Io: And who will take from Zeus the sceptre of his power?

Prometheus: He will himself, he and his empty-headed plans.

Eventually, Io is driven from the scene by the Gadfly, sent by Hera to torment her. The chorus snarks a bit about the inadvisability of wedding a god. 

Wise, very wise was he

Who first found this ring true within his judgment

And with his tongue gave out the word:

Far the best thing is to wed within one’s station,

And, if one works for one’s living, not to long

For marriage with the glorious in wealth

Or with the families whose pride is birth.

Dang it! I guess fairy tales don’t come true. Actually, Aeschylus has a good point here: the rich - and the gods - are mostly assholes anyway. 

Those are the lines that stood out from Prometheus Bound. I found the philosophical questions to be fascinating, particularly the ageless Problem of Evil. 

Shelley, in his preface to Prometheus Unbound, makes it clear that he has no intention of following the outline of the known mythology. After all, even the Greek greats took liberties. “They by no means conceived themselves bound to adhere to the common interpretation or to imitate in story as in title their rivals and predecessors...Had I framed my story on this model, I should have done no more than have attempted to restore the lost drama of Aeschylus.” Furthermore, in Shelley’s view, reconciling Jupiter and Prometheus would have been to reconcile the champion of humankind with its oppressor. 

As an atheist, Shelley was controversial enough, but he took a pretty solid aim at religion from the opening lines, spoken by Prometheus in defiance of Jupiter. 

Monarch of Gods and Daemons, and all Spirits

But One, who throng those bright and rolling worlds

Which Thou and I alone of living things

Behold with sleepless eyes! regard this Earth

Made multitudinous with thy slaves, whom thou

Requitest for knee-worship, prayer, and praise,

And toil, and hetacombs of broken hearts,

With fear and self-contempt and barren hope. 

Looking back, this is how toxic religion works (in complete contrast to “pure religion” as described by Saint James): ruling with fear and self-contempt. In fact, that’s pretty much a good litmus test for toxic religion. If it relies on fear and telling you how bad you are, it’s toxic, and will have poisonous fruit. While I am not an atheist, I find that writers like Shelley tell the truth when it comes to the poison. 

Prometheus also responds later to Mercury, who has come to demand that Prometheus give up his information about Jupiter’s fate. He gives the usual “be humble and repent and submit” thing. Prometheus replies with an accusation:

                                                Evil minds

Change good to their own nature. I gave all

He has; and in return he chains me here 

Years, ages, night and day: whether the Sun

Split my parched skin, or in the moony night

The crystal-winged snow cling round my hair:

Whilst my beloved race is trampled down

By his thought-executing ministers.

Such is the tyrant’s recompense: ‘tis just:

He who is eval can receive no good;

And for a world bestowed, or a friend lost,

He can feel hate, fear, shame; not gratitude:

He but requites me for his own misdeeds. 

Mercury finally feels some pity, even as he cannot fathom why Prometheus defies the greater power. 

Prometheus: 

Pity the self-despising slaves of Heaven,

Not me, within whose mind sits peace serene,

As light in the sun, throned…

The chorus too is puzzled, and point out that mankind’s knowledge hasn’t been a universal blessing. After all, look at all the evil there is on earth - and all the evil that men do. And he isn’t even happy. 

Dost thou faint, mighty Titan? We laugh thee to scorn.

Dost thou boast the clear knowledge thou waken’dst for man?

Then was kindled within him a thirst which outran

Those perishing waters; a thirst of fierce fever,

Hope, love, doubt, desire, which consume him for ever. 

Looking on, Panthea and Ione see visions of the evil to come, including the sight of “a youth with patient looks nailed to a crucifix.” 

The heaven around, the earth below

Was peopled with thick shapes of human death, 

All horrible, and wrought by human hands,

And some appeared the work of human hearts,

For men were slowly killed by frowns and smiles. 

Prometheus himself is struck by the sight of Christ, and speaks some amazing words about that. 

Remit the anguish of that lighted stare;

Close those wan lips; let that thorn-wounded brow

Stream not with blood; it mingles with thy tears!

Fix, fix those tortured orbs in peace and death,

So thy sick throes shake not that crucifix,

So those pale fingers play not with thy gore.

O, horrible! Thy name I will not speak,

It hath become a curse. I see, I see

The wise, the mild, the lofty, and the just,

Whom thy slaves hate for being like to thee.

Just, wow. This is exactly what we are seeing unfold in our own time. Those who have bastardized the name of Christ hunt and hate those who most resemble Christ, and worship an orange idol who is the polar opposite of the one they claim to follow. 

But change is coming. Even the chorus admits it, and looks forward to the future. 

In the atmosphere we breathe,

As buds grow red when the snow-storms flee,

From Spring gathering up beneath 

Whose mild winds shake the elder brake,

And the wandering herdsmen know

That the white-thorn soon will blow:

Wisdom, Justice, Love, and Peace,

When they struggle to increase,,

Are to us as soft winds be 

To shepherd boys, the prophecy

Which begins and ends in thee. 

These pairings of four (or five) virtues or personified nobilities recur throughout in various forms. Here is another one, from Panthea:

Hither the sound has borne us--to the realm

Of Demogorgon, and the mighty portal,

Like a volcano’s meteor-breathing chasm,

Whence the oracular vapour is hurled up

Which lonely men drink wandering in their youth,

And call truth, virtue, love, genius, or joy,

That maddening wine of life, whose dregs they drain

To deep intoxication: and uplift,

Like Maenads who cry loud, Evoe! Evoe!

The voice which is contagion to the world. 

Much of the second half of the poem is very atmospheric, with a phantasmic and symbolic setting, and an ongoing conversation between Panthea, Asia, and Ione with various spirits. If you like romantic-era flights of poetic fancy, this is some of the most sublime. Here is just one word picture that I loved. 

Look how the gusty sea of mist is breaking

In crimson foam, even at our feet! It rises

As Ocean at the enchantment of the moon

Round foodless men wrecked on some oozy isle.

That swerve in the last line gets me. Suddenly, we have starving men on a desert island. 

Asia has the guts to question Demogorgon about the problem of evil. And Shelley does hit on a problem with monotheism in general: who created evil? There are no easy answers to this - which is why we are still talking about them thousands of years later. In Shelley’s view, mankind was originally born free - and Prometheus (as a metaphor) gave wisdom and strength to Jupiter, who failed to heed the warning to let mankind be free. Thus, mankind was shackled to tribalism and evil resulted. 

To know nor faith, nor love, nor law; to be

Omnipotent but friendless is to reign;

And Jove now reigned; for on the race of man

First famine, and then toil, and then disease,

Strife, wounds, and ghastly death unseen before,

Fell; and the unseasonable seasons drove

With alternating shafts of frost and fire,

Their shelterless, pale tribes to mountain caves:

And in their desert hearts fierce wants he sent,

And mad disquietudes, and shadows idle

Of unreal good, which levied mutual war,

So ruining the lair wherein they raged. 

Asia hopes to see better, of course. Demogorgon asks why she wants to know. 

                                    If the abysm

Could vomit forth its secrets...But a voice

Is wanting, the deep truth is imageless;

For what would it avail to bid thee gaze

On the revolting world? What to bid speak

Fate, Time, Occasion, Chance, and Change? To these

All things are subject but eternal Love.

The very end of the work sums up this theme that ultimately, Love must triumph. It is interesting that Shelley, though not religious, seems to be more in tune with the teachings of Christ than most “christians.” Here are the final stanzas of the poem, spoken by Demogorgon. 

This is the day, which down the void abysm

At the Earth-born's spell yawns for Heaven's despotism,

And Conquest is dragged captive through the deep:

Love, from its awful throne of patient power

In the wise heart, from the last giddy hour

Of dread endurance, from the slippery, steep,

And narrow verge of crag-like agony, springs

And folds over the world its healing wings.

Gentleness, Virtue, Wisdom, and Endurance,

These are the seals of that most firm assurance

Which bars the pit over Destruction's strength;

And if, with infirm hand, Eternity,

Mother of many acts and hours, should free

The serpent that would clasp her with his length;

These are the spells by which to re-assume

An empire o'er the disentangled doom.

To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;

To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;

To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;

To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates

From its own wreck the thing it contemplates:

Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;

This, like thy glory, Titan! is to be

Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;

This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory!