---- By J. L. Speranza, F. R. S. (failed), &c.
---------- For the Grice Club
----- SOME RUNNING COMMENTS ON BAILEY'S piece at the NYT (thanks to L. J. Kramer for pointing my attention to this). In her op-piece, "Algebra in Wonderland" M. Bailey, of Oxford, writes:
Since Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was published [...] scholars have noted how its characters are based on real people [...] Dodgson most likely had real models for [all] the strange happenings in Wonderland; [His is] a mishmash of satire [on] a finely honed [affilato, affinato][mathematic] for describing the conceptual relations between things
But Dodgson, Bayley writes, would not have such "nonsense" as to what this 'new' mathematic was supposed to be doing --
Regarding the psych-analytic "WHO-ARE-YOU?" encounter Alice has with with the Caterpillar, Bailey is sure it's about the square root of a negative number. Bayley:
Alice’s exchange with the Caterpillar
parodies the first purely symbolic system
of algebra [...] by Augustus De Morgan
The Anglo-Indian, as I call him, who had published on the very Un-Greek notion of 'Arabic' algebra as meaning almost any nonsense you want: square root of negative numbers, and plus: proportion, rather than absolute length. Hence, Bailey surmises, Alice's change of formats, which the Caterpillar accepts provided they keep the proportion (or 'temper') correct.
Chapter 6, 'Pig and Pepper,' parodies[on the other hand]the Principle of Continuity a bizarre concept from projective geometry, and an important aspect of topology where one shape can bend and stretch into another and a circle is the same as an ellipse or a parabola
The Duchess’s baby, thus,
turns into a pig, witht the Cheshire Cat expressing, “I thought it would.”
Finally,
we should read tea-party as [t]-party,
with "t" being the mathematical symbol for Time
Cfr. Henninge, "if you knew Grice as much as I do" (Henninge, "A Grice-Brie Party", this blog). Bayle concludes her note:
Without math, “Alice” might have
been more like Dodgson’s later book,
“Sylvie and Bruno”
I still treasure a couple of things!
(a). A beautiful photo of yours truly as Mad-Hatter (the setting!) in one of my fancy-dress parties. I will try and scan it and share!
(b). The whole collection of Mischmasch, a series of circulars I edited with my cousin Peter Willemoes, where he made great fun of things. For one of those issues (the series of which I shared with the Lewis Carroll Society in Luton, Beds, via Anna-Maria Ghersi, a member and our our contact), we cared to translate (and I'll see if I can find it and paste):
(c). J. L. Borges's foreword to a local edition (tr. by E. Stilman, Buenos Aires: Corregidor) of "The Alice Books". It's a short piece but instilled with all the love he always had for the book and which he instilled on me. Borges starts by citing Dodgson's Symbolic Logic and the discussion of the empty-set: the set of impossible things. The Alice Books surely do not belong: they are pretty possible, if weird.
(d). I went as far as getting hold of Sutherland, Logic and Lewis Carroll (big thick book I got from Holland Janua Linguarum Series Major). Indeed, all of Bayley's references are there to be beholden: Mill in particular.
I am pleased that Bailey is at Oxford. Oxford just would not be the same (i.e. Oxford) without Carroll. He belonged to the best of the best. My by-far best mementos at Oxford were walking down Aldate's, pass the Alice Shop, towards the Christ Church Meadows. Plus Science Museum to see the embalmed Dodo, and those summer days rowing as far as wherever it was that the Reverend rowed with Duckworth. I treasure most of Dodgson's oeuvre at my Swimming-Pool Library, and I'm pleased to have presented to the Lewis Carroll Society this piece on Humpty Dumpty which got published in Jabberwocky and which I again am planning to scan and share with the Club. Cheers!
PS. Yes: I realise "Implicature in Wonderland" is clumsier than (the non-clumsy) "Algebra in Wonderland" but -- hey. I should add "Aspects of Alice" and the work of Peter Alexander, and P. N. Heath, which also, via Gardner, have explicated some of the sous-entendus (to use Mill's phrase) of Carrolliana for us! -- and posterity. Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
When IS A WORD A WORD? (I realize this is supposed to be a comment on JL's "Implicature In Wonderland", but I had written this previously in respose to Jason and kept getting lost in the bureaucracy of signing in and etc. But now that I've mastered the monster I sending it on regardless. Let the accountants weep.)
ReplyDeleteBy line...Mike Geary.
When is a word a word and when is it just a wotsit? "Kefuffle" as we all know is a fine word in good standing. A grandmotherly word, to be sure, but a word nonetheless. Now "kankedort", my favorite 'wotsit', has only been recorded once, as was mentioned earlier, my use of the "word" was contested by JL's hypothetical support of a hypothetical objection by one Mr. Kramer, who JL conjectures would object to my use of the word in that I didn't USE kankedort as a word but only named it -- ergo, it has still only been recorded once. The Riverside Chaucer footnotes "kankedort" as: "a difficult situation?" Even they are not certain as to it's meaning, however, JL should be pleased to note that they have more courage than the editor's of the OED (Old Etiquette Book?)and took a guess at least. To me, "kandedort" is a highly charged onomatopoeic word describing most of my life. I feel very close to it, and take offense when anyone dares challenge my use of it. Is it a word? At the Phrontistery ( http://phrontistery.info/ ) they have a collection of "lost" words which may interest some of you, or not. "Kankedort" is not among their lost words. Going by their catalog I'd have to choose something like "decutient foppotee" to describe myself and that's way off center. So I'm sticking with "kandedort" and I am writing a letter to my Senator demanding the word be acknowledged as a living, breathing word. Won't you join me?
Bye line...Adam, Namer of Names.
Count me in. It also expresses me to a T, thank you. But it is still YOUR word. The Old Ettiquette Damisel (OED) goes further than that, it says, "a difficult, uncomfortable, situation" etc. Vide "Kankedort" this blog. I'll see if can retrieve the meaning, or definition. The MLN (Modern Language Notes, for 1949) suggests it's a corruption for 'conundrum' and the OED3 may want to hear about it. You use it very right when you say what you say. I'd advise you to drop the scare quotes though. Thus, when you write:
ReplyDeleteTo me, "kandedort" is a highly charged onomatopoeic word describing most of my life.
That's still mention, rather than use, and it won't do for OED3 quote. Try harder. Mix it with some anachronism, since the word sounds pretty mediaeval in its lovely overtones (or pretty lovely in its mediaeval overtones) to me.
Such as,
"Meanhwile, I had this dilemma. A trilemma almost. It was raining, plus, and the wind was..." (Sorry, I can't write and it all sounds Bulwer Lytton to me).
"And so I found out that I was finding myself, like Troilus, in a kankedort".
I would advise you to avoid any reference, if you can, to Troilus, because the OED3 editor is going to add 'scare' quotes. Try a different setting altogeher. A sci-fi setting perhaps. Try to make a sentence where the big marked thing is NOT, this kankedort but some other thing, a woman, say.
I suggest we write a play, called "KANKEDORT" -- for the Grice Club. It's a series of skits, so feel free. I will start right after sending this. Cheers.
The OED definition, earlier than the Riverside, I think goes,
ReplyDelete"an awkward situation or affair".
For the record. I'll now expand the context of the hapax.
Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, 1380, II.
ReplyDelete1751 But now to yow, ye loveres that ben here,
1752 Was Troilus nought in a kankedort,
1753 That lay, and myghte whisprynge of hem here
1754 And thoughte, "O Lord, right now renneth my sort
1755 Fully to deye, or han anon comfort!"