1. Is it really just to expect a community to house and care for a man indefinitely because he has shown that he is a danger to it?

2. My sophomores are starting to read Hamlet, only since they’ve so far only done Shakespeare through a translation, they’re slightly panicking (which is exactly why I want them to have to read the original in the first place). I’m planning a few different exercises to hopefully get them to better understand what is going on.

3. One of the things I’m struggling with as a teacher is figuring out what I can expect of the students, and how to push their expectations. We as a culture have a bad habit of underestimating what kids are capable of, in the process reducing what they are capable of.

4. I was reading a bit on Anglo-Saxon Britain this week, and one thing that came up was the Witan; the council of nobles, bishops, and great men who advised the king. It was essentially a proto-Parliament (before Parliament voted itself to be all powerful). The king was expected to follow the advice of the Witan, and a king who ignored them could expect to be overthrown and replaced. At the same time, however, the king’s decision was regarded as final. A strong king could dominate the Witan and direct them as he liked, while a weak king would be directed by them.

This sounds to me like a fairly strong compromise between absolute monarchy and parliamentary pseudo-monarchy; if you have a bad or weak king for a while, the Witan can mostly take over, but if you have a good one, he won’t be blocked by them. In any case, this seems to me to be the idea of a Christian King: that he is the one with the final decision in controvertible matters, but is otherwise bound by the law and must take account of his advisors.

5. Someday I would like to write a story in which it turns out that archeology is fake and Geoffery of Monmouth’s history was a hundred-percent correct.

6. I’m also listening to Rob Chernow’s biography of John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller’s one of those fascinatingly contradictory characters who pop up in history, particularly American history. He was at once a cold-blooded robber baron par-excellence who crushed his business rivals by any means, fair or foul, and a pious Baptist who read his Bible every day, gave alms freely, and attended the same small church for most of his life. Chernow is a little too psycho-analytical for my tastes, but the biography is overall excellent and he plays reasonably fair with both sides of the mogul’s personality.

7. In many ways, Rockefeller embodies the New England business ethic that makes up such a large part of the American character: the hard practicality, the assumption that material prosperity corresponds to moral worth, the disdain for aristocracy and inherited wealth, the frugality and uncomplaining work ethic, etc. All the best and worst of the American businessman meet and meld into this one striking figure.

Overall, I like Rockefeller. I don’t agree with his image of the world or of business, but I find his rigid personal morality, scrupulous self-control, and careful business habits to be quite admirable. His more unscrupulous business practices are less so, of course, but they have a kind of ruthless brilliance about them as well.