Fish on Two World Views

Stanley Fish, who I always thought of as a provocative sometimes infuriating (ly wrong) law professor, and who was also a dean of arts and letters at the University of Chicago, writes today of two quintessential New York experiences, one the endless refractions of character and choice, the other the endless fascination with contingent chaos.

What do I mean? His look at The Fugitive, a 60s TV series that breathlessly propelled its main character into the nooks and crannies of ordinary lives magnified through their stresses on choice, morality, mortality, a later movie (which sounded an awful lot like a low-budget Woody Allen sketch) of the same, but even more plotless spotlight on conflicts between inner worlds, and a new museum of contemporary art that looks like a crash pad after everyone sniffed cocaine and then went out to eat.

And, of course, I liked his admittedly retrograde view of the tensions of the soul as they soundlessly and furylessly confront their mute inner stresses brought on by brief, intense contact with others.

If you have time for a longish read.

From Ancient to Modern: the Meaning of a Clause

The heart of the Second Amendment is to be found the the Latin Ablative Absolute.

As Adam Freedman writes in today's New York Times, forget about the commas and focus on the words: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Freedman points out that "the founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized the first two clauses as stating the foundation for the conclusion. Thus the introductory clause "is [a] rhetorical device [known] as the “ablative absolute” of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence” (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras)" The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.”"

Freedman argues that "when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary."

We can look forward to a lot of hand wringing as we await the Supreme Court's decision on the DC hand gun ban that was struck down the by Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit. Freedman's view seem by far the most logical. I can't imaging the Founders arguing over the placement of commas. But more likely worrying about the right of the people to protect themselves through local, well regulated, militias and their need for arms.

(My only question about Freedman's argument is that the Latin places the premise after the conclusion. It really reads, in Latin, "I fear neither civil war nor death by violence, because Ceasar commands the earth." It is the English translation the places the causal premise first. So, I would translate the Second Amendment into modern English as: "People need to be able to own guns in order to protect themselves through well regulated militias.")