I know the world has been waiting on tenterhooks to find out the meaning of the emblem of the 16th-century printer Thomas Creede: well meet “Truth”. That’s who it is. (That’s according to Bigmore and Wyman A Bibliography of Printing, Volume I, p. 148-9.)

Creede himself wasn’t however, above the odd porkie: in 1595 he was fined and put on a £40 bond for having kept an apprentice without enfranchising him after the proper period.

Now you are going to ask why she’s naked – well beyond the obvious answer of “sales”.

Marina Warner’s brilliant Monuments and Maidens tells me:

“In general, mediaeval Christian iconography did not represent Truth naked: following rather the more traditional imagery of the virtues, it depicted her as a clothed virgin.
In language, however, the association of truth with disclosure is very ancient indeed, and this metaphor, when applied anthropomorphically, was translated into nakedness. .. Horace speaks of nuda veritas and Petronius of nuda virtus… truth possesses an eschatological body, transfigured and innocent, “sprung out of the earth”, she is also primordial and aboriginal, like nature …”

Warner traces her through Alberti, Botticelli’s The Calumny of Apelles and to the pageant at which Elizabeth was welcomed to London in 1559, although then Truth wore white silk. (pp. 317-9)

Regular readers won’t be surprised to know I now have a new question: can anyone suggest a good/standard text for the history of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, covering particularly the late 16th century? (This is traditionally where I say you are all scholars and gentlepersons and worth more money…)

It is not that history repeats itself, exactly, just that the same debates come up again and again. So it was that when “English literature” was just getting established in the 16th century, there was a concerted struggle over whether poetry should rhyme.

“But the question of rhyme was nor simply a small technical question about the following of ancient models. It was a fundamental element in the definition of poetry itself and the question of its relationship to the other half of the liveral arts, the quadrivium, those arts concerned with measure and proportion. The opponents of rhyme — among whom we may principally number William Webbe and Thomas Campion, along with Ascham himself — all acknowledge the close relationship of poetry to rhetoric, or eloquence in general, and thereby agree that poetry has been a principal source of civil order.” (in Kinney (ed) The Cambridge Companion to English Literature 1500-1600, CUP, p. 42)

Webbe was seeking “the means, which we yet want, to discern between good writers and bad, but perhaps also challenge from the rude multitude of rustical rhymers, who will be called poets, the right practice and orderly course of true poetry.” (From A Discourse of English Poetry, 1586, quoted p. 265.)

Looking at some of the rhymes I’m working on now, I kind of wish that they’d won at the time, rather than blank verse having had to wait until the 20th century to win out.

Three of the four pamphlets I’m looking at that are “elegies” for Dame Helen Branch (who died aged 90 in 1594) give her burial date. One doesn’t, which has led me to think that it is likely to have been the earlies, produced before the funeral.

But it has the following lines …

The yeare was fifteene hundreth, ninetie foure,
And grateful Abchurch hath her bones in store.

Now does “in store” suggest something temporary? There were – for reasons on which I am unclear – 18 days between her death and her funeral. (The only possibly explanation I have is that London had been hit by massive, exceptional storms in the weeks before her death, which might have disrupted things?)

Or is it “in store” just because it rhymes with “foure”?

There may be no answer to this, but I am open to suggestions…

There’s a fascinating insight into the mindset of the patriarchy, or at least of one of its defenders, in Foreign Policy this month. Phillip Longman’s argument in a nutshell is that only the rule of the fathers will ensure that large numbers of children are born. Therefore we must have a full on, father-knows-best-and-rules-all (probably with a heavy leather belt), patriarchy.

Throughout the broad sweep of human history, there are many examples of people, or classes of people, who chose to avoid the costs of parenthood. Indeed, falling fertility is a recurring tendency of human civilization. Why then did humans not become extinct long ago? The short answer is patriarchy.
Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule. Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles.

The fallacies are obvious. One is that Earth can continue to support an infinitely increasing population, until, presumably, each person has just enough space to stand. That’s so obviously ridiculous — when the world’s ecosystems are already showing severe signs of collapse — that it hardly requires a response.

But let’s for a moment follow his social Darwinism, and consider the claim that societies that outbreed other societies will eventually come to rule them, which seems thus far to have done India and China little good. What has finally started to lift them is education, training, investment in people — things that are only possible with relatively small families. For what is needed today is clearly a skilled, educated workforce.

Longman manages to provide no evidence for his claim that sheer numbers are important, beyond suggesting that America’s problems in Iraq come because it hasn’t got enough people for the military. (Not that they don’t want to join the military because it suddenly looks like a lousy career option, to be fighting an unwinnable, unpopular war.) Although he does manage to drag the fall of the Roman Empire, always a conservative classic, even though it undermines his own argument: “What was once the Roman Empire remained populated. Only the composition of the population changed.”

But, Longman claims, since children always turned out like their parents (how then did we get to such a “parlous” state of affairs?) the patriarchy is going to win anyway, so everything’s all right, since every citizen will soon believe in a “patriarchal God [who] commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to father.”

One of the other (many) faults in his argument? Oh, yes, that the West is not still a patriarchy – a place ruled by men. Funnily enough, women are still astonishingly thin on the ground in positions of real power in governments, in businesses, in pretty well anywhere at all. Funnily enough, the only states that might have a reasonable claim to have grown beyond patriarchy are the Scandinavian countries. And they – with excellent parental pay and conditions, childcare etc, are the states getting closest to replacement rates of reproduction.

Perhaps the answer is not to grow the patriarchy, but to genuinely get rid of it, if you do in fact want to encourage women to have children?

An afternoon canvassing for the Greens in Kentish Town and Highgate – a collection of 35 Green and possible Green voters logged, from about 100 people at home and an equal number of leaflets left for those who weren’t. Highlights included the guy who “works for the Tory party”, and the man who’d been really annoyed by Conservative canvassers earlier in the week and who was hence easily won over. Not a bad run at all.

I’m old enough, just, to have worked with compositors in the back room of a newspaper, marking up copy for them to typeset, directing the paste-down process, and signing pages off “the stone”.

It was the comps at the Cootamundra Herald who taught me a range of (fairly) standard correction marks: the stroke through a letter to delete, the upward-pointing arrow at the relevant spot for insert, # for a space, a circle around a dot for a full point (full stop).

But I hadn’t realised, until reading Phillip Gaskell’s New Introduction to Bibliography: The Classic Manual of Bibliography, which covers EVERYTHING you could conceivably want to know about the actual production of books through the past 500 years or so, that these all date back to the 16th century. (I also learnt that the arrow is called a “caret”.)

Nice to think that through so much change some things stay the same. Whether this will survive the age of Word “track-changes” I’m not sure. Would be nice to think they would – one small piece of continuity…

GORDON BROWN will intensify the battle for Britain’s green voters with a range of new environmental taxes in this week’s budget, including a rise in road tax for “gas-guzzling” cars and large four-wheel-drive vehicles.
The chancellor is to create a new top rate of vehicle excise duty for the worst polluters, taking it up to about £185. The measure would probably apply to vehicles that emit more than 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometre driven.
At the moment, the top rate of road tax on private cars applies to those emitting more than 185g of CO2 per kilometre. Owners of diesel cars in this band pay £170 a year while owners of petrol-driven cars pay £165.

The headline “gunning for gas-guzzlers” looks great. But £10 to £20 a year; what a total cop-out! (One can only hope this will be one of those leaks that will be boosted in the Budget for another spin-doctor headline.)

Tim Yeo, the senior Conservative MP who chairs the committee, said: “If we are going to deter people from buying and using such vehicles in towns then we should be looking at road tax levels of up to £5,000.”

Here, here! (And I might add, which the Conservatives won’t, the level has to be so punitive that the resale value drops out of these vehicles – that’s one way to REALLY discourage people from buying them.)

And, yes, before anyone asks, I’m happy to allow for exemptions to normal tax levels for people who can show that they really need them, eg genuine farmers; a 5-acre paddock for Petronella’s pony mustn’t count.

Just one more reminder why: evidence from 1930s diaries show the effects of climate change. (I’m sure I’ve read that story before, but what the hell, it is a good one.)
****
The Queen being in Australia takes me back, to my first “big” job as a journalist (covering her visit to Albury in 1988). Widespread apathy about royalty was already evident then and it seems nothing has changed except among the few oddities who always go into paroxyms of puppyish devotion on such occasions. Even John Howard, despite all of his attempts to take Australia back to the 1950s, hasn’t managed to change that.

Really, it is time Australia got its own head of state, surely.