Nice that the Slovenian’s have decided to honor their most well known poet France PreÅ¡eren by putting his likeness on their new Euro coins. The bank has an amusing story (PDF) behind the reason for adding a signature below the likeness of someone so famous:

Unfortunately, PreÅ¡eren’s image remains largely unknown, despite the great number of “well known portraits”. For that reason we have decided to put his handwriting on the coin, as a sure confirmation that it is authentic PreÅ¡eren. We use the poet’s silhouette in releif (after Dremelj’s portrait) because it attests to the “poetic character” of this little-known representation in a contemporary manner.

And even if you look closely at the coin, I suspect his true image will continue to remain largely unknown. Funny and rather strange twist of identity logic. “Officer, please note that I consider myself a poetic character so my identity card has a rather ambiguous photo on it instead of the normal portrait.”

Should we recognize his signature any more than an image?Trubar apparently has a more well-known portrait, despite being alive hundreds of years earlier, and so they only put examples of his typography on the coin.

Speaking of identities, I also noticed that the Carinthian stone was given a place on the Slovenian currency, although Carinthia is actually an area that spans an informal Slovenian province and an Austrian federal state.

I have seen the following presented as an anonymous Buddhist saying:

Not every poem’s good because it’s ancient,
Nor mayst thou blame it just because it’s new,
Fair critics test, and prove, and so pass judgment;
Fools praise or blame as they hear others do.

Interesting, and perhaps naive, challenge to Lincoln’s prophetic “You can please some of the people all of the time…”. The poem seems to suggest that you can actually achieve some kind of vaulted “fair critic” status and escape the tragedy of the fool. But what if the others are more qualified than you and you do not have the resources or expertise to reach conclusive judgment? Who decides fairness, or what constitutes sufficient “test and prove”?

I am not convinced of the Buddhist connection. For example, compare it to the actual teachings in the Dhammapada:

‘They blame him who sits silent
And him that has much to say;
They blame the one that’s of measured speech;
In the world there is none unblamed.’

Maybe it’s just me but that makes the first verse look more like a protestant attribution of righteousness. I mean should those blamed by the fair critic(s) feel more enlightened than those blamed by the fools? Where’s the middle path?