Showing posts with label age. Show all posts
Showing posts with label age. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Smart: By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept

Smart, Elizabeth: By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept; Flamingo/HarperCollins, Hammersmith, 1992



I read this book as a rite of passage in my teens - a Canadian rite of passage.  I'd forgotten what Smart's prose was like.  Some time in the last 5 years I read Rosemary Sullivan's biography of Elizabeth Smart which I found fascinating: partly because of the details of her life in the earlier part of the last century but also because she has a nature so dissimilar to mine.  Her decisions, her actions and the way she lived her life were so different from my life and my choices that it seems far more than 1/2 a century and several wars distant from my lifetime.

I just finished Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther and it is interesting to compare the 2 books: Goethe from the male perspective in 18th century Germany and Smart's from the female perspective in North America.  One somewhat fictional (though Goethe incorporated events from his own life as well as an acquaintance who committed suicide because of unrequited passion) and the other poetically autobiographical.  Both writers passionate and literary people.

I enjoyed Smart's writing and imagery though my ever-rational side kept parsing the sentences for truth to anchor the poetry in fact and chronology.  Of course she reminds me of Sylvia Plath, similar time period and both women in love with philandering poets and tolerating their comings and goings, waiting and suffering for their lover to return to spend some time with them.  I also can't help thinking about Pat Lowther.

Like poetry, Smart's prose captures moments and vignettes with brief bursts of strong imagery.  In one of my favourite sentences she captures whole [passionless] lifetimes in one sentence.  

When I hurry down the street it is not any game I hold in my mind and play with the passers by, but the shyness which keeps seamstresses nervously peering out of their badly-lit rooms, half hidden behind the drab lace, preferring to dream over their gas-jets and mild tea than submit to the rude investigations of the world.

This is every Anita Brookner novel, distilled down to one sentence.  Smart then goes on to write:

There are such, you know, and they treat their possessions gently, as if they were children or animals. But don't think they are overlooked. Thousands of angels yearn over them, are even now embroidering them skirts, and getting ready to teach them the rhumba.   [Part 6]

Where Brookner seems to have some fellow feeling for her gentle, quiet, oh-so-correct women, Smart sees their lives with a twist of humour but humour arising from the contempt of the young and passionate for the aged and resigned.  Later in Part 8 she is more explicit about her contempt for the degenerations of passionless old age, saying of the old:
Or does nature walk beside them, holding their flabby forearms and whispering medicinal lies? For memory deserts them and their eyes get dimmer as the past achieves perspective. 
Who can say there is anything won at such a price?

[..] But her eyes were like medieval wild men in her head, clutching at her diminishing days that brought them no rest. [Part 6]

Smart, like Goethe/Werther, also has a strong relationship with nature.  She writes "But what can the wood sorrel and the mourning dove, who deal only in eternals, know of the thorny sociabilities of human living?"

On passion/love:

The stream of our kiss put a waterway around the world, where love like a refugee sailed in the last ship.  My hair made a shroud, and kept the coyotes at bay while we wrote our cyphers with anatomy.

[..] I am possessed by love and have no options.

[Part 10]  He kisses the circles on top of the water beneath which I lie drowned.  Soft as a fish, the kiss glides down to me, it swims through me, trailing its bubbles of love.


Smart writes about "the hatred of the mediocre for all miracles."

[...] Not one of all those martyrs nailed to every tree in the western hemisphere will find favour in the editor's measuring eye.  On the amusement page, to fill up space, one inch and a half, perhaps, of those who were forced to die.
Butter is up 10 cents.  The human being is down.

When she and Barker are arrested at the California/Arizona state border, and charged with intending to cross state lines for the purposes of sexual communion, Smart writes at the end of their 2-day interrogation, 

Who is for us if these are so fiercely against?  All our wishes were private, we desired no more scope than ourselves. Could we corrupt the young by gazing into each other's eyes? Would they leave their offices?  Would big business suffer?


Though the majority of the book takes place in America with references to England, I enjoyed the odd Canadian reference

But faint as hope, and definite as death, my possible phoenix of love is as bright as a totem-pole, in the morning, on the sky, breathing like a workman setting out on a job.

Asking no one's forgiveness for sins I refuse to recognize, why do I cry then to be returning homeward through a land I love like a lover?

[...] how sympathetic the frozen Chaudiere Falls seem under the December sky, compared with these inflexible faces.

The passion burning through Smart's book, though it only covered a short period during her early 20s, is incandescent.  And the fact that she spent her life in England raising 4 children she had with Barker, though they never married and he only visited intermittently, suggests the centrality of passion in her life persisted.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Anouilh: ANTIGONE

Anouilh, Jean: Antigone; tr. Barbara Bray, Methuen, London,  1987



Jean Anouilh 1910-1987
Born in Bordeaux. His father was a tailor and his mother a violinist (at a nearby resort). The family moves to Paris when he is 8. Begins Law at the Sorbonne but quits to become a dramatist. He was quite influenced by the work of Pirandello, which surfaced in Paris in the 1920s.  Marries the actress Monelle Valentin when he is 22. Prisoner of war (briefly) in 1940. Antigone begins her 1st run (500 performances) in 1944, with Monelle Valentin in the lead role.  Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh perform in  Antigone at the London Old Vic in 1949. Lives near Lausanne for the last 30 years of his life. Anouilh increasingly disillusioned by French society, and has a particular antipathy to De Gaulle but also the far left militants.

Anouilh describes to Paul Vandromme what the theatre meant to him "Thanks to those spring evenings [at the theatre] in 1928 I was able to escape a little from the long night of my existence."

The Methuen edition describes some differences between Anouilh's Antigone and Sophocles'. Anouilh omits Tiresias, the blind seer.  In Anouilh's version, Creon (Antigone's uncle and now King of Thebes due to the deaths of both her brothers, Oedipus' sons) does not experience the growth and change we saw in Sophocles' version.  In the original, Creon has a conversation with both Tiresias and with his own son Haemon and both these men urge him not to carry out the death penalty Antigone received when she disobeyed Creon's edict and buried her brother Polyneices.  Creon spurns their advice initially, determined to be a strong impartial ruler but he eventually repents and realizes that by holding to his decision, he is dishonouring the gods.  In Anouilh's version, Creon is a more sympathetic man who has given up the life he enjoyed in order to become King of Thebes when both of Oedipus' sons kill each other.  His growth seems to have taken place prior to the events of the play.  Anouilh also omits much of the power and reason of Haemon's speeches.

It's interesting reading this Antigone after having read Elizabeth Smart's "By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept." (I've been reading a bit out of sync over the break). Both are young passionate women who are very judgmental and intolerant (as is Werther) of age and its apparent compromises. All three are very idealistic and uncompromising.

It's not an original observation that passion and youth go together but the 3 books I've just read in the last week have really pummelled me with this dogmatic pairing.  All 3 texts, 2 fictional, one poetically autobiographical, have main characters that are young, subsumed by passion and intolerant of age, reason, compromise, survival.  All 3 see age or even maturity as, literally, a fate worth than death.  I'm still coming to grips with this uncompromising view of passion and with the prospect that passion, real passion, is - possibly, likely, sadly - only attainable in the young.  I'm not quite ready to give up on the possibility of passion but I also don't see life in such uncompromising, black and white, all-or-nothing, terms.

Laura was speaking the other day about having watched Baz Luhrman's "Romeo & Juliet" in another class.  She'd 1st seen the film as a teen or young adult and had found it very moving and enthralling, very powerful.  She said watching it in class made her realize the generational difference between herself and some younger classmates - who found the film dated and laughable.  I saw the film as an adult, probably in my 30s and I wasn't emotionally affected by it but thought it was a worthy update of the famous play.  It's interesting how age so affects perception.  I'm finding that about books I'm re-reading that I read as a teen or young adult.  I may get more context, more perspective, more substance out of them now but I don't know if they will affect me emotionally or chromatically the same way certain books did when I was young.

I enjoyed reading a different version of Antigone - for the same reason I enjoy (usually) seeing repeated versions of various of Shakespeare's plays - you get something different out each time.  I did very firmly have in my head, the whole time I was reading it, the fact that it was written in Paris during the 2nd world war.  Images from Casablanca and other WWII films and books would flit around in my head as I read through the play.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Goethe: The Sorrows of Young Werther

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe: The Sorrows of Young Werther; Tr. Michael Hulse; Penguin Classic; London, 1989



This is one of Goethe's earliest works.  He wrote it after a period of time when he fell in love with a woman engaged to another man he was friendly with; and also after he learned of the suicide of a young man over a failed love.  It's written in the form of letters to an old friend but it seems quite dated. Having a man write another male friend bemoaning and sighing over his forbidden love seems very unlikely in this time.

His passion does ring true though Goethe didn't bring Lotte to life for me - she seems colourless and not very present.

Werther has a discussion with Albert (Lotte's fiancé) about love and passion.
[...] a man wholly under the influence of his passions has lost his ability to think rationally, and is regarded as intoxicated or insane.

Werther replies: Ah you sensible people! [...] Passions! Intoxication! Insanity! You are so calm and collected, so indifferent, you respectable people, tut-tutting about drunkenness and holding unreasonable behaviour in contempt, passing by like the priest and thanking God like the Pharisee that you are not as other men.  I have been intoxicated more than once, my passions have never been far off insanity, and I have no regrets [...]

As Werther becomes more depressed about the futility of his love for Lotte (the lack of any future togetherness) he speaks about the transitory nature of much love and the relative unimportance of individuals. [26 October]

Your friends value you! You often make them happy, and your heart in turn feels it could not do without them; and yet - if you were to go, if you were to depart from this intimate circle, would they feel the void, how long would they feel the void that your loss tore open in their fate? - how long? - Oh Man is so transient a being that even where his existence is most secure, even where his presence makes its sole true impression felt, he must fade and disappear from the memories and souls of his loved ones, soon, oh so soon!

[27 October]
I could often tear my heart open and beat my poor head on seeing how little people can mean to each other.  if I do not offer love and joy, happiness and warmth, ah! the other will not bring them to me either; nor will my heart, overflowing with rapture, move him at all if he is cold and listless.

Werther continues to love and pine after Lotte but after she marries Albert, he finds that he can't bear the idea, can't keep himself away from her and so he borrows Albert's pistols (such a passive-aggressive move though maybe it wasn't at that time) and shoots himself.  Like the real model (Jerusalem), Werther doesn't die right away but lingers for a day or so before dying.

Goethe has some lovely descriptive phrases about the countryside where Werther spent most of his time, in the mountains.  He speaks about sitting many hours at a table outside an inn, under the linden-trees.

The language is very over-wrought: beset hearts, floods of tears, tear my heart asunder, awesome majesty, torment, ardent pleasures, anguished spirit etc.  High Romance.

It seems very different from the man who wrote Faust.  Werther is very intolerant about reason, maturity and age.  In Faust, the older Goethe is more sympathetic to aging, writing: "Old age doesn't make us childish, as they say, It finds the true surviving child in us."  Though I didn't end up feeling connected to any of the characters or their problems, Werther's passion did seem strong and all-consuming and I felt this was a good introduction to an early Romantic novel.  Exposing my lingering prejudices, I would probably have found Werther's emoting more bearable if he were a female - but then again, maybe not...he did go on and on.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Shakespeare's KING LEAR

Assigned text: Shakespeare, King Lear  Oxford Paperbacks, 2008
Text I read: The complete Works of William Shakespeare, Cambridge University Press, 1982, London.


As our texts get within 1000 years of the current time, I find them more appealing.  I've enjoyed the ancient texts and the more of them I read, the more I get out of them but now being able to read  Shakespeare felt a bit like coming home.  I have only read a couple of his plays (aside from high scool assigned readings that sadly did nothing to make me appreciate Shakespeare - I hope English teaching is more inspiring today in this regard).  Every time I see a good production of Shakespeare (and thank god for Bard on the Beach and other Shakespeare festivals) or read one of his plays I'm astounded and thrilled by his language.  I hadn't read King Lear before and had never seen it performed so my only knowledge is hazy and pieced together from occasional references.  I enjoyed the play and it worked very well to read it the same week as Machiavelli's The Prince.  Even before actually knowing what Machiavellian might denote, I would have called Edmund Machiavellian in his plotting and his amoral decisions and actions.  I don't think I'd ever heard of Kent before and he was a Scarlet Pimpernel-type character for me.

This play was full of lots of passion and a bit of reason.  King Lear seemed to make his decisions solely based on passion.  He may have been a more reasonable leader in his prime but in his dotage he seems a creature of impulse and passion.  He throws years of love away with Cordelia based on her very reasonable and thoughtful (and NOT passionate answer to his question about how much his daughters love him).  Yet he is more than taken in by Goneril and Regan's fawning and hypocritical replies - he obviously didn't study Machiavelli's chapter 23 on "How Flatterer's Must be Shunned".

Goneril and Regan, the two eldest daughter's (why are the eldest always the evil siblings?), seem to just be evil.  It's hard to say whether they are governed by passion or reason.  They seem motivated by greed and though they can plan and act amorally, I'm not sure it qualifies as reason.  I think it is just evil passions and animal cunning.

Edmund is motivated by anger, jealousy, greed, feelings of vengeance, bitterness.  He can reason much more effectively and in a very Machiavellian way.  He probably balances passion and reason but in all their negative connotations - which for me puts him more in passions camp and less in reasons camp.  We haven't really been considering qualifying passion and reason into good passion and bad passion; good reason and bad reason but Edmund would end up solidly in the BAD camp for both qualities/emotions.

Kent has both passion and reason in a good way.  He is passionate in his devotion to King Lear and in his bravery and integrity bu he is also very reasonable in his ability not to have his judgement clouded by passion.  He seems more to act based on HONOUR and we haven't discussed where this falls in the passion or reason camp.  That would be an interesting discussion.

I have to include some favourite lines to remember:
Act 1, Scene 1
40-41  ...while we unburdened crawl towards death...
56 ...dearer than eyesight, space and liberty
60  ...:A love that makes breath poor and speech unable
90  Nothing will come of nothing  (A "shout out" to Lucretius and Marcus Aurelius, Epicureans and Stoics)
148  ...when majesty stoops to folly
164  kill thy physician, and the fee bestow on the foul disease
181  Freedom lives hence and banishment is here
199  ...but now her price is fall'n
205  Dowered with our curse and strangered with our oath
249-251  ...that art most rich, being poor; most choice, forsaken; and most loved, despised
279-280  Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides, who covert faults at last with shame derides

Act 1, Scene 2
14-15  th' creating a whole tribe of fops got tween a sleep and a wake
21  Now, gods, stand up for bastards
51  the oppression of aged tyranny
30  by an auricular assurance  (I have to admit I like this turn of phrase solely for its medical interest); also Act 1, Scene 4 child of spleen
134-135  An admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!
136  My father compounded with my mother under the dragon's tail, my nativity was under Ursa Major.
151  How long have you been a sectary astronomical?

Act 1, Scene 4
185  and be athwart disnatured torment
289  sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child
Scene 5
as a crab's like a apple

In Act 2, Scene 2, Kent has a wonderful speech where he recitesa long list of epithets about Oswald.
70  anger hath a privilege
81  epileptic visage  (I'm not sure what this means, contorted?)
51  Fortune that arrant whore
116  I'll beat the drum till it cry sleep to death
130  sepulchring an adultress (you have to admire Shakespeare's economy of language - he says so much so succintly and pithily)
165  you fen-sucked fops

Act 2, Scene 4
221  Thou art a boil, a plaque-like sore or embossed carbuncle
232   for those that mingle reason with your passion (Regan speaking about her father's old age)
275  women's weapons (tears)

Act 3, Scene 2
I am a man more sinned against than sinning
70  The art of our necessities is strange and can make vile things precious
79  a brave night to cool a courtesan  (about a cold night)

Scene 3
21  o, that way madness lies
75  pelican daughters

Act 5, Scene 3
137  A most toad-spotted traitor
173  The wheel is come full circle



Tuesday, October 2, 2012

MENCIUS

MENCIUS Translated by D.C. Lau; Penguin Classics London 2004



An author completely unknown to me, Mencius lived in China in the 4th century BCE.  He followed the teachings of Confucius who lived about a century earlier.  There was much change going on in China at the time with feudal states being expanded and annexed, government becoming centralized and individual ownership of the land permitted.  One interesting event that Mencius refers back to a few times was the Great Flood during the time of Yao, where Yü dredged “the Nine Rivers” forming the Yangtse, the Yellow River, the Huai and the Han.  Lucretius in De Rerum Natura, mentions Deucalion (the Greek Noah) and the Great Flood and of course the story of Noah and his ark is prominent in the 1st book of old Testament of the bible (Genesis).

 I found much of what Mencius wrote (based on Confucius’ teachings) to be of interest and still useful today.  The text was a tough slog at times partly because of the plethora of Chinese names, nicknames or honorifics and partly because, mixed in with advice and observations that still resonate, was a lot of  analogy and advice about observing the rites, about the duties of the “higher” and “lower” members of society, about archaic very formalized courtesies etc.

 Mencius writes about ming: the moral commands or moral mandate from heaven which apply to both rulers and individuals.  There is much discussion of this mandate from Heaven in Mencius.  During his time the Yin dynasty was overthrown and I’m sure that the people and philosophers had to reconcile the divine right of the emperors and other rulers with the legitimacy of overthrowing of tyrants.  They seem to have accomplished this by concluding that mandates from Heaven can be bestowed and can be taken away, they aren’t forever. 

III.A.4

There are those who use their minds and those who use their muscle.  The former rule, the latter are ruled.

 Two central qualities or virtues valued by Mencius were:

Jen  = benevolence

Yi  = righteousness, duty

Mencius acknowledges that desires and appetites are part of human nature but because these are also part of animal nature, these aren’t the distinguishing components of human beings.  He felt that the distinguishing component or trait of humans was ‘heart’ or hsin.  The heart for Mencius was the thinking, moral part of man.  For Mencius it wasn’t wrong to enjoy pleasures etc but it came down to how you obtained the pleasures, what priority you assigned to the pleasure, how you lived your life.


Mencius describes 4 types of heart:

Heart of compassion                         =          benevolence

Heart of shame                                   =          dutifulness

Heart of Courtesy & Modesty         =          observance of rites

Heart of Right & Wrong                   =          wisdom


In Book IV.B.8

“Only when there are things a man will not do is he capable of doing great things”


Mencius felt that people were innately capable of good, of compassion.  He considers that we are all born with a good heart but we inevitably stray from this.

VI.A.11

The sole concern of learning is to go after this strayed heart.  That is all.


Mencius feels that most people don’t even realize their heart has strayed and that this is due to “ignorance of priorities”.  It’s not wrong to enjoy pleasures but if we put desire and pleasure above leading a moral life and following the Way, then our heart stays astray.  In this matter of priorities he is like the Epicureans.  The Epicureans would not have been in agreement about the importance of observing the rites and formalities but they felt that we should not be governed by our desires.

Whether people realize their potential depends mainly on their will/commitment to follow the Way, as well as on external circumstances.  Mencius has a great analogy about this.  He describes how lush and heavily treed Ox Mountain was in ancient times but because it was near a city, men kept cutting down the trees.  The forest might have been able to survive this over-harvesting because the environment (cool night air and morning dew) provided support and nurturing but it couldn’t survive the additional daily onslaught of the pigs and deer eating all the new young shoots of trees.  Similarly a person may be able to withstand much of what drains them by resting and replenishing their resources (mental, spiritual, moral) but if they are faced with a daily grinding away at them, their good qualities can’t survive.

The text is full of basic maxims about life.  One section quotes a saying of the people of Ch’i
You may be clever
But it is better to make use of circumstances
You may have a hoe
But it is better to wait for the right season
 VII.A.29

To achieve anything is like digging a well. You can dig a hole 9 fathoms deep, but if you fail to reach the source of water, it is just an abandoned well.


While many of these were apt, they weren’t as interesting as the sections where Mencius sets out what he thinks living a “good” life is.  Many of the precepts are quite austere. 

III.B.1

There has never been a man who can straighten others by bending himself

 III.B.8

When one realizes that something is morally wrong, one should stop it as soon as possible.


Mencius also had some interesting ideas on the value of adversity.  In Book VI.B.15

[…] As a rule, a man can mend his ways only after he has made mistakes.  It is only when a man is frustrated in mind and in his deliberations that he is able to innovate […] Only then do we learn the lesson that we survive in adversity and perish in ease and comfort.

 I am sure that there are many entrepreneours today that would find alot of wisdom in this.

One aspect of Mencius’ advice that I’ll be thinking about and trying to put into practice myself is his advice not to always look to others or be affected by others or blame others but to look to yourself.  It’s usually easier to blame someone or something else when you run into problems but your 1st step should be looking into yourself. 

IV.A.4
If others do not respond to your love with love, look to your benevolence;
If others fail to respond to your attempts to govern them with order, look into your own wisdom;
if others do not return your courtesy, look into your own respect. 
In other words, look into yourself whenever you fail to achieve your purpose.

In Book IV.A.8 he also offers some reassurance from the T’ai chia, albeit some tough love, putting the onus back on the individual:

When heaven sends down calamities,

There is hope of weathering them;

When man brings them on himself,

There is no hope of escape.


Once again, this entire text is written for men.  Women are assumed not to be part of any higher purpose.  It would be wonderful if we could discover ancient hidden texts written by women that let us know what their discussions were, something similar to the Nushu script that women in China used to learn and communicate with each other.

Mencius describes (Book III. B. 2) the way of women:

When a girl marries, her mother gives her advice […] “you must be respectful and circumspect.  Do not disobey your husband.” It is the way of a wife or concubine to consider obedience and docility the norm.

 Ultimately, Mencius' advice about personal integrity, self-reliance and self-analysis and about the value of reason and passion (priorities) hold true and have value to this day.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Discussion: Antigone and Phedre

On one level a play about conflicting laws, on another level a play about passion and duty.  The play ANTIGONE was full of dualism, a word I've never really thought much about prior to this class.

Youth [Antigone]  vs. Age [Creon]
Female [Antigone] vs. Male [Creon]
Ruler [Creon] vs. subjects [Antigone]
Passion [Antigone] vs. reason [Creon]
Duty to Family and Gods [Antigone] vs. duty to the State/Thebes [Creon]

Some of the group felt that Antigone was a rebellious teenager and the main conflict was between youth and age.  I didn't get that perpective from my reading of the text.  For me the main conflict was between the duty to the gods to bury a family member vs the duty towards the state to stand strongly against threats to the city state (and NOT bury the body of a traitor - as a warning to others who might try to attack Thebes).

Stephen set possible resolutions out as Aristotelian moderation vs a Hegelian requirement for synthesis (a better and more progressive solution, working out a way to have family loyalties AND loyalty to state).  Creon eventually did bend and decide to provide a proper burial and to pardon Antigone but too late.

Antigone is very single-minded: her duty to her family (brothers, parents) comes above all.  She even says that she would not go against the state for her husband or children as they can be replaced.  It's hard to know how she feels about her sister as she doesn't seem too concerned about any duty towards Ismene.  Creon feels equally strongly (though I'm not sure if he is equally passionate) about Thebes.

182    
But it’s even worse when he plays favourites
Puts family or friends ahead of fatherland.

Someone mentioned that in Greek plays, women are the holders of passion and men are the holders of reason but they get thrown off course by passion.
Lorraine mentioned that the cover of the text is a photo of Simone Weil.  I hadn't read the note about the photo.  Simone Weil died for holding to her principles, just as Antigone did.

Other than Creon, no one in the play seems to question Antigone's decision and actions.  At the end, Antigone who has been so strong, suddenly bewails her fate:

…They are taking me against my will.
Look at me O you lords of Thebes:
I am the last remnant of kings.
Look at what these wretched men are doing to me,
For my pure reverence!

Did Antigone feel that the gods would save her?  She seems to suddenly be fighting against her [self-induced] fate – being murdered for her reverence to the unwritten laws of the gods.

During the course of the play, Creon is the only character who really changes.  Unyielding and unwilling to bend at the beginning, before the end of the play he decides that holding to his original positions will lead to injustice.  He changes his mind but too late to avert tragedy.

In Phedre as well, passion seems much stronge than reason though those whose actions are most governed by passion seem to end tragically.  The play by Racine is based on a play called Hippolytus by Euripides.  Stephen mentioned that Racine was raised and educated in a Jansenist monastery in Port Royal.  Cornelius Jansen argued that since the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, man has not possessed free will.  Our lives are guided or directed by "concupisentia" (ardent desire) and subject to grace.  Most people are driven by their desires with only a few being guided  by grace.  This was compared to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.  Neither the Jansenists nor the Calvinists wanted to admit they felt desire because that would show they were not one of the "elect".

We had a discussion about guilt.  Phedre resists her attraction to Hipploytus because she feels it is wrong but her life is blighted by the guilt she feels over her feelings (though she feels she has been cursed by Venus and this is why she makes poor choices in love).  Hippolytus was a strong character, upright, chaste, strong and brave but he becomes weak and doomed when he falls in love (with Aricia).

Finally we discussed Aristotles' championing of "moderation" and how his works would have been known to the audiences of both plays.  Both Antigone and Phedre would have demonstrated what happens when you go to extremes and don’t practice moderation.



Saturday, September 15, 2012

DISCUSSION Plato's Symposium and Sappho's poems and fragments


We had our 2nd class yesterday and discussed Plato’s Symposium and Sappho’s poems and fragments.  Though Plato’s book was all about Eros (love and desire) and contained no less than 7 separate speeches about Eros, the few poems and scraps of Sappho's poetry that have survived make you FEEL passion, love, desire.  The dominant motif of Plato’s work was Reason and the dominant motif in all Sappho’s words is PASSION.

Roberta led the discussion on Sappho.  Prior to the class and leading right up to the class, she had tweeted fragments from Sappho which was a fun way to read some fragments and think about them individually. We had a round table session where we each read a fragment and tried to be aware of what our immediate sensation was after hearing Sappho’s words.  Everyone seemed to have enjoyed her poetry.  When we got into a later discussion about what some of the fragments might have meant, it became bogged down for me in discussions of how literally to interpret the following 2 fragments:

and for you I make an offering
of a white goat

(which sounded to me like something Leonard Cohen might have written)

Sweet mother, I can no longer work the loom.
Slender Aphrodite has made me fall in love with a boy.”


This is one of those situations where the words themselves are enough for me without analyzing it too closely but at the same time, it would be interesting to find out more about that time, what the rites would have been to worship Aphrodite, gender roles, people's relationships with the gods they worshipped – not to flesh out the poem itself but just to delve into a world I know nothing about.


It was very interesting to read Plato’s Symposium on Eros the same week we read Sappho’s work.  Someone mentioned that several speakers in the Symposium note that Eros is a neglected god whom no one has written about but Plato does not mention Sappho, a Greek poet from 2 centuries earlier who would certainly have been known in Athens in Plato’s (and Socrates’) time.  The two texts were such distinct examples of Passion vs Reason with the additional irony that Plato’s logical discussions were on the subject of Eros: Love or Desire, yet compared to Sappho, his work lacked passion.

Byron led the discussion on the Symposium.  There were several interesting themes in this work which we had a chance to discuss.
One was a brief discussion of Plato’s Theory of Forms:
There exist out there in the universe forms for everything that are the perfect versions – people may get a glimpse of these perfect forms and then once you’ve seen it you’ll never be satisfied with the imperfect forms i.e.: love is not just sexual satisfaction, it’s also a beautiful ideal.

I wasn’t aware of this theory before and don’t really have a good understanding of the concept – again something I would like to read more about when I get the chance.

We discussed the idea that what we see is not necessarily what really is – you have to work at things as they are not necessarily what they 1st appear.  This, in my limited understanding of Socrates, seems to sum up his method: to challenge the other person on what they think they know and by questioning them and discussing their ideas, show them that their understanding is imperfect BUT help them towards a better understanding through the discussion.

We also discussed one of the recurrent themes: duality.  The speeches contained many examples where things were mentioned and categorized into 2 opposing categories:

Heavenly Aphrodite/Common Aphrodite
Young/old
Good love/vulgar love
Wisdom/Ignorance
Health/Disease
Lover/Beloved
Male/Female

Sappho by contrast did not seem to use duality in her work.  It's more centered on the person, the connection, the passion, the natural world around her.

Socrates speech was interesting as Diotima brings in the idea of a spectrum – that extremes aren’t the entire story – many people fall in the middle (the “enlightened” people?)

202a – Diotima (Haven’t you realized that there is something between wisdom and ignorance?)
It’s having right opinions without being able to give reasons for having them” –

There are also some devastating characterizations in Plato's speeches:
204a  “The problem with the ignorant person is precisely that, despite not being good or intelligent, he regards himself as satisfactory.”


We also discussed the question of whether we should be concerned about the intention or the act.  Several speakers in the Symposium had touched on this, most notably Pausanias.  This issue is still debated to this day.  I remember seeing “Oleanna” a play by David Mamet which contrasts an interaction between a professor and a young female student from each of their viewpoints and suggests that judgment of an action or of someone's words depends more on how it is perceived than on how it was intended by the speaker.
The question of intention also comes up in the murder trials where the intent has a huge impact on the punishment: 1st degree murder vs manslaughter.  Similarly with state-sanctioned killing: war, self-defense, terrorism etc.

Byron asked “How strange is it that Socrates stands still for extended lengths of time, presumably lost in thought? What would happen today if someone did this? Is this lost in thought or some form of dissociation?”  The answers brought up the theory of the bicameral mind again and how we define mental illness.  For me this brings us back to Diotoma’s spectrum.  Every time I hear about a new mental illness being defined and making it into  the latest edition of the “Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", I can’t help but think that all of us could find ourselves somewhere on many of these spectra, that we are just defining variations on normal human conditions.

We ended our discussion by talking about immortality.  During Socrates’ speech the purpose of life seemed to be immortality and this is achieved through 'reproduction in beauty', suggesting that we should be pursuing truth, beauty, good and that the path to this was through philosophy.  We spoke about the ways of trying to achieve immortality, each containing some kind of flaw:
  • procreational (via children) - the problem was that over time your line could die out, or even if it didn’t, who would remember you generations down ?  In modern scientific terms however, your genetic material would survive.
  • reputational – either through history (figures such as Alexander the Great) or through surviving written works such as philosophy or literature, or works of art.  The question then becomes how well do you want to be remembered to consider you have achieved immortality: 
  1. just your name, 
  2. your work without your name (such as an anonymous creator of some Etruscan vase in a museum somewhere), 
  3. having future generations know your work but nothing about you, such as Lucretius (coming up in a couple of weeks), to know about you but mainly misinformation such as Richard III, maligned by Shakespeare and known by today’s world as a hunchback, tyrant and murderer of children.  This is very topical today as archaeologists excavate on Grey Friars Street in Leicester, hoping to find the lost grave of Richard the III.
For me immortality would be best achieved by creating something that retained its significance and power centuries later, such as Sappho did.