I just finished two books that on the surface have nothing to do with each other. Corelli's Mandolin by Louis De Berniers is a novel set in WWII Greece. The Trouble with Principle by Stanley Fish is a philosophical, political, and constitutional inquiry on "first principles". "Nothing in common", you say? I spit on your nothing in common. It is my job to find similarities where there are none.(Compare and contrast Enlightenment France and Belgian waffles).

I had a great time reading Corelli's Mandolin. It is one of those books where you want to slow down a savor the words and images. The Italian occupation of the Greek island of Cephellonia is the setting for this novel of life, history, love, and war. The primary characters are a history writing doctor, Iannis, and his daughter and Peligia, and an Italian Army Captain Antonio Corelli who didn't take the occupation seriously. His greatest diversion was his operatic company La Scala who squeezed and farted their tunes on the latrine every morning. This becomes a love story, but it is the war that intervenes and forces it's heaviness on the lightness of new love.

This is closely based on the historical record, sketchy as it is. The villains are the Germans who occupy another part of the island, and the Greek communists who did little to resist the occupiers and a great deal to terrorize their countrymen. During the war the island experienced a tense but secure standoff. Once the allies overran Italy and the Italian troops were ordered to switch sides, is when the reality of war takes root.

The political background id told through several minor characters including a Communist ELAS member and a German officer. It is through these characters that you see effect of absolute principles absolutely held. The dialectical materialism of the Communists and the social Darwinism of the Fascists were both considered to be based on scientific principle. Both groups were absolutely certain of their correctness. The result was WWII and the Cold War. What a waste of human life. Absolute principles, my friends, what are they good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN'. Sing it again.

Which brings me to the second book, The Trouble with Principle. Stanley Fish maintains that not only can absolute principle be used to justify any horror, but that neutral principles don't even exist.Fish has a way of angering the Right and the Left. The Right feels if there is no absolute, be it God or Reason, or whatnot, there is no absolute bedrock principle to base a political system upon. Shudder. That sound like the moral relativism of those mealy mouthed liberals. YIKES! On the other hand the Left has its own absolute principles that surround the Enlightenment ideals of tolerance, etc. Take the First Amendment freedom of speech. You've got the ACLU defending Nazi's who would just as soon bomb them as look at them. It is with special relish that Fish takes on the Left in academia. The Left doesn't really want tolerance of, say, religion in schools. Yet it clings to these precarious absolutes.

He believes all we are left with are the shifting sands of belief. He makes a great deal of sense. Fight hard for your view. Use as much evidence, logic, and persuasiveness you can bring to it. But ultimately when you refer back to first principles, you are doing it for rhetorical flourish.

This brings me back to my college days. In the heady 70's I would sometimes refer to myself as a Left winger,(NEVER a Liberal). But I could only do it with two preceding adjectives: non-dogmatic, democratic. Of course in this nation that amounted to a meaningless series of words. But the point being that when you sip too much of your own wine you can't see the truth, even if THE truth doesn't exist.

(BTW I believe Hollywood has bought the rights for Corelli's Mandolin. Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts?)

UPDATE: Four hours after I wrote this I learned that the movie has been made. It stars Nicholas Cage and Penelope Cruz. Chances are the scope of the history will be left unsaid. Hollywood is good at that love story stuff though.