anyone who has negligently jogged through a copy of "the divine comedy" will, i expect, be puzzled why dante places traitors—to kindred, country, and lords—at the very bottom of hell, where the punishment is fiercest. why treason especially? when you consider the vast catalogue of human iniquity—from talking during the movie, to upskirting, to bakers putting chocolate in their hot-cross buns—treason, or double-dealing, doesn't seem so terribly bad. or so i thought.then i happened to hear the archbishop of canterbury's simpering plea for the incorporation of sharia law in england. quite amazing, really. a supposed "defender of the faith" arguing for an accommodation with radical evil (to shoplift a phrase from hannah arendt). and at a time of war, no less. what larks.
one thinks back to the '30s and the reputations of the high-and-splendid obliterated forever by their keeping company with appeasement: geoffrey dawson (editor of "the times"), lord londonderry, miss unity mitford, halifax, chamberlain. pooh-pooh. child's play compared to the archbish's effort.
though i suppose i should send a "thank you" note to lambeth palace for clearing up this dante business for me. all quite straightforward now.
(note: pix "the kiss of judas". no excuse needed for giotto. it seemed most appropriate.)
