The Rosetta Stone by Ancient Egyptians (196 BC) ✎

The recent scandal at the British Museum has prompted me to visit it to have a look at some important ancient art & artefacts.

Below is the Rosetta Stone of the British Museum. It's enormous, dark and amazingly well-preserved - and really quite meticulous and beautiful to look at.

There are actually several Rosseta stones. 28 to be precise, of which 21 are in Egypt. It was part of a royal decree by a Pharaoh during the Ptolemaic era of ancient Egypt (the last one). This famous one was discarded as rubbish and used as rubble to fill in a wall. The slab of rock was stumbled upon in 1799 in Rosetta (Egypt) during Napoleon's campaign - which deciphered the Egyptian script, essentially starting Egyptology. When the British defeated them shortly afterwards, it ended up at the British Museum. 

Famously, it allowed the ancient Egyptian script to be decoded for the first time. 

It bears a priestly decree issued by Pharaoh Ptolemy V in 196BC which was copied out in three languages: hieroglyphics, demotic – language of the time – and ancient Hellenistic Greek. 

My camera didn't pick up the Greek script, so I will have to visit again soon. But they are so ornate and beautiful. 

Demotic

Egyptian hieroglyphs

The main thrust of this text is about giving honours to the Pharaoh.  For example, a statute of himself was to be placed in the Temple (Edfu?); including celebrating his birthday in the Temple. 

✲✲✲

Returning to Egypt?

There have been calls in recent years to return the Rosetta Stone to Egypt.

I thought I would add a little bit explaining why I think is mistaken and should be politely rejected - mostly for being ahistorical. But, below are some arguments for my position.

1. It is an object of human history created by people who've been dead for over millennia. Objects of a dead civilization don't "belong" to anybody. I don't accept that merely because people are living in the same area today, that they get some special priority.
2. It shouldn't be the case that every country has to return objects from other countries. It shouldn't only be displaying "their" own stuff. (What is "theirs" - see point 4). I accept that the rules and laws governing how an object was acquired are critical.
3. Technically, it was written during the Ptolemaic era of Egypt - which was a Greek state. Nothing about this stone is Egyptian. The people who carved it are ancestors of everyone in the Mediterranean basin. 
4. Ancient Egypt has almost nothing to do with modern-day Egypt. Not the language, not the culture, not the religion, not the government. Only, somewhat, the land. And that land has been subject to invasion and assimilation by the Macedonians, the Romans, then by the Caliphate, then the Ottoman empire, and Mameluks, then a Khedivate of Egypt - before finally becoming an autonomous Egyptian Republic with a permanent borders as we tend to understand it. And, that discounts the temporary invasions by the Hyksos, the Nubians, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Sassanid, the French and the English. In fact, Narmer (the great unifior of the Upper and Lower Egypt and forger of the First Dynasty) did so via conquest and subjugation of others. So, who - among all these peoples - are the 'real' Egyptians are?

My first day at Bar School ✎

I thought I'd share a few pics of my first day (Monday 11th) on the Bar course in London. I received a scholarship from Lincoln's Inn, thank Christ. It pays the expensive tuition fees with a tiny stipend for living expenses. Another huge thank you to the Inn.

I have to study civil and criminal procedure and advocacy related-stuff. Also, some ethics and a few other legal bits and bobs to be assessed on.

I include a mug here to show how huge these tomes are. And these are only the civil stuff. We have to sit end of year exams on them.

My friend from Cambridge is on the same course. Nice to already have a friend. (Also, wearing my Edvard Munch shirt; for street-cred purposes).

Unfortunately, I will have to cut back on the blog posting. Perhaps once a week.

The course is quite intense.

Borough Market in London ✎

I recently went through Borough Market on Southwark Street (near London Bridge).

Sourdough, English cheese, wine and cured meats ... hmmmm.

Inspired by another blogger going through her local market, I decided to take some photos and share them on my blog.

✲✲✲

The Southwark Tavern, I once applied for a job here.

So many colours.

I love the light and shadow here.
Cassava is a Brazilian vegetable. 

People eating.

Baby fruit. :)

Yes, baby pineapples ... so cute.

Amazing deli (above & below)

Olive oil dips.

Lovely fromagerie (above & below)

Salt and pepper.

Plants for sale :)

This elderly butcher had the most incredible white beard.

So beautiful.

Somerset Cheddar :)

Bakers.

A historic schedule of the rents for stalls in the market. 

Butchers

Bedale St.

Coffee people.

Gourmet-style canned fish.
£6.80 for canned salmon! 

Organic nut brittle.
I don't know how I got the lights to shine like that.

Southwark Cathedral (above & below)

A lovely day.

The portrait of Noor Inayat Khan and her amazing story ✎

I recently saw this interesting article in the paper. It lead me to discover the incredible story of a British spy during WWII of Indian/American provenance. The unveiling of this new portrait by Queen Camilla is a fitting tribute

Who is she?

She was living in London when she decided to help in the war effort in 1943. Khan - of Indian and American descent - served in the SOE (Special Operations Executive) which was set up by Winston Churchill in 1940. Operating as a spy in France, she managed to evaded capture for many months and sent vital information to the Allies. She was betrayed which resulted in her eventual arrest by the Gestapo. She escaped prison but was recaptured shortly afterwards. She was subjected to some of the most inhumane treatment by her captors. She refused to reveal - despite torture - anything to her captors, including her real name. She was sent to Dachau where, on the 13th of September 1944, she was executed. 

I discovered a book about her life. The amazon site said this:

Noor was one of only three women SOE awarded the George Cross and, under torture, revealed nothing but her name - but not her real name, nor her code name, just the name she used to register at SOE: Nora Baker. Kept in solitary confinement, chained between hand and feet and unable to walk upright, Noor existed on bowls of soup made from potato peelings. Ten months after she was captured, she was taken to Dachau and, on 13 September 1944, she was shot. Her last word was 'Liberte'.

She was posthumously awarded the George Cross in 1949.

Remembering HM Queen Elizabeth II ✎

In 2022, Queen Elizabeth II died in her Platinum Jubilee year; aged 96. She was our longest-reigning monarch and dedicated her life to royal duty. There have been a few nice pieces in the press. 

The portrait below was released by the King today of the late Queen. It's nice, but not the best I've seen.

✲✲✲

In defence of the Crown

I thought I'd write a little piece defending the Crown.  A recent BBC poll suggested that the Crown is losing popularity among the younger generation in Britain. I'm a supporter of the constitutional settlement of 1689. But, I fear there is a serious disconnect with our history alongside a decline in social and political probities with a postmodernist decline in respect for institutions. So, I think my generation might be the last to have the Monarchy.

Our former Queen was the embodiment of what Walter Bagehot defined as the "dignified" part of the state (against the "efficient"). The Cabinet, Parliament and Prime Minister fall into the "efficient". To me, the Crown serve two important & subtle functions.

(1) Firstly, the Crown is the legitimation of power that is tied to the former Kings and Queens of England and, with it, our broader tradition and history. Constitutional monarchy gives stability. The continuous election of heads of state alters the focus of national identity. I think Presidential Republics, esp. like the United States, are the worse for it (though there are exceptions, perhaps Australia). America's political animosity and ill-will arises because it lacks an apolitical and neutral central figure of mutual respect that imbues the organs of state with a purpose and calling beyond the quotidian business of government. That is why the Crown is apolitical. Their purview extends beyond the contemporary and towards the distant future of our country. When a judge enters the court, all stand in a mark of respect. The Crown ties the whole state with the nation's dignity and history - via the sense of continuity. As Edmund Burke wrote:

People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. Besides, the people of England well know that the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation and a sure principle of transmission, without at all excluding a principle of improvement.

We live in an age where there is such little respect for the offices of institutions, and a calling beyond ourselves. I was recently shocked to discover that George Catlett Marshall (who is regarded as the architect of the United States victory in WWII and served both Roosevelt and Truman administrations) completely refused to write a memoir of his time in office. The Crown stand for something quite different (exception = Harry & Markle). Today, MPs regularly appear on television shows and publish their memoirs. Despite being offered huge advances, Marshall felt publishing his autobiography would be an improper profiting from government service.

(2) Secondly, the Crown - as an institution - is the ultimate check-and-balance against dictatorships. The Crown brings that sense of respect, order and legitimacy that inherently opposes it. The Monarch lacks the power to rule, while the executive lacks the ceremonial standing and worth to command.

Well, those are my thoughts.

Have a lovely weekend.