ellauri088.html on line 559: Arrangements settled.—Harris’s method of doing work.—How the elderly, family-man puts up a picture.—George makes a sensible, remark.—Delights of early morning bathing.—Provisions for getting upset.
ellauri156.html on line 68: Many tragic incidents occur as the unexpected outcome of a sequence of events. Certainly that is the case with King David. A little vacation from war leads to a day spent in bed, followed by a stroll along the roof of his palace as night begins to fall on Jerusalem. By chance, David sees a woman bathing herself, a sight which David fixes upon, his pecker coming instantly to attention, and then follows up on with an investigation as to her identity. The woman is shortly summoned to the palace and then to his bedroom, where David sleeps with her (well no, actually he spends time with her very much awake; what is meant by this euphemism is that he fucks the lady crazy.) Even though he has discovered she is the wife of Uriah, a warrior who is fighting for the army of Israel. Never mind. The woman becomes pregnant, and so David calls Uriah home, hoping it will be thought that he has gotten his wife pregnant. When this does not work, David gives orders to Joab, the commander of the army, which arranges for Uriah's death in battle. It looks like the perfect crime, but David's sin is discovered and dealt with by Nathan, the prophet of God. Nathan is Philip Roth's alter ego's name, Nathan Zuckerman! Can this be an accident? Jehova knows, it's too late to ask Phil.
ellauri156.html on line 269: I am not suggesting that David purposed to see something he should not. (I bet he did, peeping Tom. You actually come round to the same conclusion below, Bob.) More than likely he is walking about, almost absent-mindedly, when suddenly his eyes fix on something that rivets his attention on a woman bathing herself. The text does not really tell us where this woman is bathing, and why at this time of the night? We only know that she is within sight of David's penthouse (rooftop). David notes her beauty. He does not know who she is or whether she is married. We cannot be certain how much David sees, and thus we do not know for certain whether he has yet sinned. (What the fuck? How much do you need to see to sin? Are boobs enough, or do you need to see the pudendum or the fanny?) If David saw more of this woman than he should (a fact still in question), then he surely should have diverted his eyes. It was not necessarily evil for him to discretely inquire about her. If she were unmarried and eligible, he could have taken her for his wife. His inquiry would make this clear.
ellauri156.html on line 299: The sequence of events, so far as David is concerned, can be enumerated in this way: (1) David stays in Jerusalem; (2) David stays in bed; (3) David sees Bathsheba bathing herself as he walks on his roof; (4) David sends and inquires about this woman; (5) David learns her identity and that she is married to a military hero; (6) David sends messengers to take her and bring her to him; (7) David lays with her; (8) Bathsheba goes back to her home after she purifies herself. This same sequence can be seen in a number of other texts, none of which is commendable. Shechem “saw, took, and lay with” Dinah, the daughter of Jacob in Genesis 34:2. Judah “saw, took, and went in to” the Canaanite woman he made his wife in Genesis 38:2-3. Achan “saw, coveted, and took” the forbidden spoils of war in Joshua 7:21. Samson did virtually the same in Judges 14. Let us not forget that a similar sequence occurred at the first sin when Eve “saw, desired, and took” the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3. (Thanx a lot Bob for this compendium. This will certainly come handy later on, when looking for something fun to read.)
ellauri156.html on line 311: Now, having looked at the big picture, let's concentrate on the juicy details. The text informs us that David sees this woman bathing and notes that she is very beautiful. It is sometimes thought that David saw Bathsheba unclothed as she bathed herself publicly, and that the sight of her (unclothed/partially) body prompted David to act as he did. Virtually the identical words employed in our text (“very beautiful in appearance”) are found in Genesis 24:16 of Rebekah, as she came to the well with a water jug on her shoulder. She was neither naked nor partially clothed. Similar (though not identical) descriptions are found, where no exposure of the woman is indicated at all (see Genesis 12:11; 26:7; 29:17; Esther 1:1). I believe one of the reasons David summons Bathsheba to his palace is that he has not seen all that he wishes. (Haahaa! Bob, you are a little too bashful here. Most likely he wants to try on what he saw, like St. Thomas who wanted to put his finger in the wound. Seeing is not believing.)
ellauri156.html on line 313: Let's pursue this matter a little more. (Oh lord, I feel the spirit stirring below my belt.) Bathsheba is bathing herself. (This is about the 4. time Bob invites us to picture this tender moment. There are not too many of them in the Bible, so let us savor it.) We tend to assume that this means she is disrobed, at least partially. I believe Bathsheba is bathing herself in some place normally used for such purposes. Only David, with his penthouse vantage, would be able to see her, and a whole lot of other folks if he chose. The poor do not have the same privacy privileges as the rich. I have seen any number of people bathing themselves on the sidewalks of India, because this is their home. The word for bathing employed here is often used to describe the washing of a guest's hands or feet and for the ceremonial washings of the priests. Abigail used this term when she spoke of washing the feet of David's servants (1 Samuel 25:41). Such washings could be done, with decency, without total privacy. We assume far too much if we assume Abigail is walking about unclothed, in full sight of onlookers.
ellauri156.html on line 319: It is not as if Bathsheba is acting in an unbecoming manner, knowing that men are around. She has every right to assume they are not. David is around, but he should not be. On top of this, she is not bathing herself at high noon; she is bathing herself in the evening. This is when the law prescribed (for ceremonial cleansing), and it is when the sun is setting. In other words, it is nearly dark when Bathsheba sets out to wash herself. David has to crane his neck and use his binoculars to see what he does. I believe Bathsheba makes every effort to assure her modesty, but the king's vantage point is too high, and he is looking with too much zeal. I am suggesting that David is much more of a peeping Tom than Bathsheba is an exhibitionist. I believe the text bears me out on this.
ellauri156.html on line 374: Aika hemmetisti kyyhkypaisteja papille, kun jokainen menstruoiva nainen tuo niitä sille 2kpl/kk. Pappi pysyy hyvin selvillä seurakuntalaisten varmoista päivistä. Hmm. Jos Bathsheban kuukkixet oli ohize jo vähintään viikko sitten, kohtahan sillä oli ovulaatio, eikäpä ihme että Taavi-enon mälli teki heti tehtävänsä. Vaikka mä en kyllä usko eze jäi siihen yhteen kertaan. (2) When did this cleansing occur, and when was it completed? Was Bathsheba’s bathing which David witnessed part of her ceremonial cleansing? If so, there may have had to be a delay before the Law permitted intercourse. Otherwise, David would have caused her to violate the Law pertaining to cleansing, since it may not have been complete. The translations which make her cleansing a past, (continued) completed event seem to be suggesting that she was now legally able to engage in intercourse, though certainly not with David. If she was still in the process of her cleansing, David’s sin of adultery is compounded because it was committed at the wrong time, while cleansing was still in process. It is also possible to read the text (as does the NASB) to say that Bathsheba waited at David’s house until she was ceremonially clean from her evening with David. It is interesting that nothing is said of David waiting until he was cleansed. The inference I take from this “cleansing” reference is that Bathsheba was still concerned about keeping the Law of Moses, even if David was not. Big fat hairy diff.
ellauri156.html on line 392: In our first lesson, we devoted our attention to the first four verses of chapter 11, which depict David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba. Pretty unbelievable that I got a whole four pages out of it. The trick is was to keep repeating the juicy bit about Bathsheba washing herself before (or after) David's load. I sought to demonstrate that this sin was all of David's doing. The author points his accusing finger at David, not Bathsheba. It was not Bathsheba's indiscretion in bathing herself (as I understand this story), for she was simply obeying the ritual of purification outlined in the law. It was David who, by means of his lofty elevation and view, looked inappropriately at Bathsheba, washing herself,violating her privacy. I endeavored to demonstrate that David's sin with Bathsheba was the result of a sequence of wrong decisions and attitudes on David's part. In one sense, being on the path he was, his destination (of adultery, or something like it) was to be expected. His sins of omission finally blossomed and came into full bloom.
ellauri156.html on line 633: David has become king of both Judah and Israel. He has, in large measure, consolidated his kingdom. He has taken Jebus and made it his capital city, renaming it Jerusalem. He has built his palace and given thought to building a temple (a plan God significantly revises). He has subjected most of Israel's neighboring nations. He has done battle with the Ammonites and prevailed, but he has not yet completely defeated them. The Ammonites have retreated to the royal city of Rabbah, and as the time for war (spring) approaches, David sends all Israel, led by Joab, to besiege the city and to bring about its surrender. David has chosen not to endure the rigors of camping in the open field, outside the city. He has chosen rather to remain in Jerusalem. Sleeping late, David rises from his bed as others prepare to go to bed for the night. David strolls about the rooftop of his palace and happens to steal a look at a beautiful young woman bathing herself, perhaps ceremonially, in fulfillment of the law.
ellauri156.html on line 635: It is not due to any intent on her part, nor even any indiscretion. She is bathing herself as darkness falls, and being poor (see 12:1-4), she does not have the privilege of complete privacy, especially when the king can look down from the lofty heights of his rooftop vantage point. David is struck with her beauty and sends messengers to inquire about her identity. They inform David of her identity, and that she is married to Uriah, the Hittite. That should have ended his interest, but it does not. David sends messengers who take her, bringing her to his palace, and there he sleeps with her. When she cleanses herself, she goes home. (Or was it the other way round? Can't remember.)
ellauri160.html on line 174: During the subsequent row, Pound left the table and returned with a tin bathtub on his head, suggesting it as a symbol of what he called Les Nagistes, a school created by Lowell's poem "In a Garden", which ends with "Night, and the water, and you in your whiteness, bathing!" Apparently his behavior helped Lowell win people over to her point of view, as did her offer to fund future work.
ellauri196.html on line 759: You saw her bathing on the roof
ellauri263.html on line 341: No washing or bathing;
ellauri272.html on line 729: Mutta runoilija Lewis, joka tutki aihetta kirjassaan Sunbathing In The Rain, sanoi, että hänen tutkimuksensa Harvardin Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study -oppilaitoksessa oli ehdottanut erilaisia ​​​​havaintoja.
ellauri310.html on line 662: In the United States and Canada, any casual sleeveless shirt can be called tank top or tank shirt, with several specific varieties. It is named after tank suits, one-piece bathing suits of the 1920s worn in tanks or swimming pools. The tank top designed for a tight fit and often made of ribbed cotton is also colloquially called an A-shirt, or, more offensively, wifebeater, beater, guinea tee or dago tee (guinea and dago being American ethnic slurs for people of Italian ethnicity). Boob tube on briteissä hihaton toppi ja jenkeissä hölmöpönttö eli TV.
xxx/ellauri121.html on line 358: Peg on muistavinaan että jonkun nazin morsian olisi ollut keskitysleirin pihalla bikineissä kissalasit päässä. Hmm. Although two-piece bathing suits were being used by women as early as the 1930s, the bikini is commonly dated to July 5, 1946 when, partly due to material rationing after World War II. Cat eye glasses first became popular in the 1950s with their feline inspired style. A huge contrast to the frames that had been in fashion previously, cat eye glasses marked a new era of chic style for women. The glasses were originally created to be worn only with optical lenses, but it was the hugely famous actress Audrey Hepburn that kicked off the trend for cat eye sunglasses after her starring role in 1961 hit film Breakfast at Tiffanys. Eli selkeästi joku anakronismi, sodanjälkeisiä muoteja. Platform shoes oli kyllä muotia 30-40-luvuilla. Mitä vittua on "sen ajan painokuvahatut?" Ei takuulla ollut 40-luvun muotia, mitä sitten ovatkaan. Ja sit toi älytön Nolite te bastardes carborundorum josta on ollut useaankin otteeseen syytä marista.
xxx/ellauri123.html on line 760: In 1947, Vladi moves to Ramsdale, a small town in New England, where he can calmly continue working on his book. The house that he intends to live in is destroyed in a fire, and in his search for a new home, he meets the widow Charlotte Haze, who is accepting tenants. Humbert visits Charlotte´s residence out of politeness and initially intends to decline her offer. However, Charlotte leads Humbert to her garden, where her 12-year-old daughter Dolores (also variably known as Dolly, Dolita, Lo, Lola, and Lolita) is sunbathing. Humbert sees in Dolores the perfect nymphet, the embodiment of his old love Annabel, and quickly decides to move in.
xxx/ellauri202.html on line 196: Roger Martin du Gard (23 March 1881 – 22 August 1958) was a French novelist, winner of the 1937 Nobel Prize for Literature. Martin du Gard, homosexual by inclination and avocation, was miserably married to a devout Catholic who despised all his literary friends. Martin du Gard is much impressed with the fine appearance of the German race. The handsome boys and beautiful young girls are, to him, a reincarnation of ancient Greece. Martin du Gard reported back to André Gide on the wonders and delights of Berlin, where he had found the young involved in ‘natural, gratuitous pleasures, sport, bathing, free love, games, [and] a truly pagan, Dionysiac freedom’.
19