30/1/07 - History of Art - The Ghent Altarpiece: Church, Court and Cloth

The Ghent altarpiece is the largest known altarpiece, now in Belgium. It is famous and much discussed. There is no documentary evidence for it, except for a piece of writing in 1432: "The painter Hubert Van Eyck, than whom no one was greater, began this work, and his brother Jan, second in art, completed the weighty task, at the request of Joos Vidt. On the sixth of May he [Vidt] begs you, by means of this verse, to take care of what came into being." The date 1432 is indicated by capitalised letters in the inscription, which when read say 1432 in Roman numerals. Van Eyck was considered the greatest artist next to Campin. His older brother Hubert was also a painter, said to be greater than Jan in the inscription. Art historians think that the document made up a history for the altarpiece, but this is not necessarily true - it could have been written later when Hubert was possibly most popular. Hubert died in 1426, and it is likely that the altarpiece was finished six years after his death. Was this a normal length of time to complete an altarpiece? The first letter of the inscription is missing. The letters remaining are "ictor" - if the first letter was a 'p', then it means pictor (artist); if the first letter was an 'f', then it means fictor (sculptor). If Hubert was a sculptor, he may have been the one who carved the frame. We must research this by studying the style of the altarpiece.

It has two tiers: the highest tier is the most prominent. Some say that this style was not prevalent at the time; so was each tier made at different times or simply by two different people? Or both? There are discrepancies: the viewpoint of the middle figures is that the viewer looks down on them, but the viewpoint for Adam and Eve is from below and is highly sophisticated - it could indicate a style difference between two painters or it could be symbolic; the closed wings show sybils and prophets (Isaiah, for example), and the sybils are unusual and have never been painted this way before; the closed middle panels show nothing significant and look awkward, but the enclave is similar to Campin's so perhaps the artist imitated it; there is a dawn cityscape through the window which throws long shadows, which the artist could have picked up from Campin's experimental painting during a visit to Tournai; the view is similar to that from Joseph's workshop window by Campin. Jan Van Eyck is the man most likely to have painted all this.

On either side of the top inside panel are St John the Evangelist and St John the Baptist. We know that it is John the Baptist because he points at God on the middle panel. The saint looks different to the depiction of him on the outer side.

Adam appears to be stepping into our world (like a fallen man coming into a fallen world). Above him is a depiction of Cain and Abel. Adam is so detailed: each strand of hair, all his wrinkles and even the fig leaf are painted naturalistically; the fig leaf must have been observed and sketched by Jan on his travels to Spain and Portugal. Eve holds a citrus fruit known as 'Adam's apple' (the forbidden fruit was thought to be an apple because of the similar words for apple and 'malis' or evil, but this is not concrete evidence for what the fruit really was). Above Eve is a depiction of Cain killing Abel with the jaw bone of an ass (it was traditionally a club or axe), which is the same story as Campin's window detail in Marriage of the Virgin.

Notice that the panels of the Ghent Altarpiece are not harmonised with each other; the lower panels are not securely fitted to the top tier. It could have been arranged this way to suit the patron.

The lower tier shows the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb. The words of St John the Baptist are inscribed from the Bible. St John was the patron saint of the city that the altarpiece was made for, and he was involved in the wool trade which was also significant for the city because they imported it and made expensive cloths from it. The wealth of Joos Vidt came from the wool trade. The portrait of Vidt is likely to be by the same artist as Leal Souvenir, i.e. Jan.

The fountain in the lamb scene appears to have been added later, as it was not originally the central axis. A close up of the dove suggests that the top of the painting was cut down later and originally there was a gold background rather than a blue sky (although gold backgrounds were old-fashioned at the time). Old Testament figures are painted on the left; New Testament figures are on the right. The background scenes on each side do not coincide or indicate that there was once a union between them. They are equivocal iconographically and stylistically - the confessor saints and virgin saints have long bodies and small heads in comparison with the foreground figures. Does this indicate a second artist? There are sixty different flowers on the lower tier, so the artist took a long time to accurately observe and draw and reproduce each one accurately, including Mediterranean plants, so it was probably Jan. The chunky foreground figures and their gestures are similar to Sluter's work, a contemporary of Hubert. The judges are depicted in an unusual way, suggesting that they were painted separately from the other panels.

(Note that this is a copy. The original was stolen in the 1930s. The judges panel took six months to copy in modern times, working from a photograph.)

The God figure wears a papal crown, suggesting the importance of the Church. The jewellery is so lifelike it could be a photograph. The sparkle of water is indicated. The St John the Baptist on either side are distinct from each other, yet one is so beautifully painted: perhaps it is true that Hubert was greater than Jan? The illuminated manuscript that St John holds is a copy of an old-fashioned manuscript (from the twelfth century). The Virgin looks like she could be a mirror image of Campin's in Marriage of the Virgin, in terms of face, hair, and more.

The altarpiece must have been modified and reconstructed - there are too many inconsistencies. Hubert died six years before the date on the altarpiece, so perhaps Jan took over. Jan may have been busy as he had a patron and was being sent on errands, so perhaps this accounts for some of the discrepancies: at intervals he may have relied on drawings or forgotten what he'd already done. It seems that Hubert painted the annunciation scene and Jan filled in the middle panels for their setting. He took six years to complete the altarpiece.

One sibyl, 'Isabella', is similar to the word 'sibyl', but why did he choose Isabella? On the 6 May 1432, the finishing date, the duchess's son was baptised. Nine months earlier the duchess chose to have the baby at Ghent, so Jan paid homage to this by painting her in above the Virgin.

In conclusion, in the Ghent Altarpiece, stylistic analysis of the painting supports the assertion of the inscription that one artist took over the work from another, his brother. Art historians need both written evidence and visual evidence to help support their views of the origins of paintings during this period. Large altarpieces at this time satisfy not only the devotional enthusiasms and spiritual needs of their viewers, they are also meaningful in political and even economic terms - the birth of an heir, the wool trade, relations between court and crown, etc. The detailed, highly naturalistic style developed by the Van Eyck brothers probably encouraged changes in viewing habits. No longer were altarpieces simply to be viewed by congregations from a distance during church services. There was much to be gained from getting up close in order to admire the detail. This shifted the viewing experience away from the sphere of fulfilling the Church's requirements to the business of pleasure towards the notion that looking might be something to be enjoyed and worth cultivating for its own ends.

30/1/07 - Classical Literature - Sophocles: Antigone (2)

The agon is a type scene of Greek tragedy, involving one-line speeches, e.g. 640-650. It occurs when two characters argue over something noble. Both characters must have a convincing case, although perhaps in this case Creon's argument is too extremely against the laws of the gods. Does Antigone have a better case? She says she is fighting on behalf of the gods and performing her duty as a sister. This conflict could also represent male v female; age v youth; state v household; secular v divine; convention v absolute standard. Creon does not perceive Antigone as an opponent; he believes he has ultimate power over her. Ismene compromises; she is a mediating character. Antigone, on the other hand, is more extreme.

In line 590 Antigone claims to be acting for love. There is a contradiction in her lack of interest for her fiancée, who is mentioned out of the blue in 641, by Ismene to Creon. Why does Ismene mention Haemon, instead of Antigone? This makes Antigone seem colder, so we see she has a harder, less empathetic side.

The chorus reflect that the gods are trying to get rid of the family by Antigone's self-destruction. Notice the imagery of the family tree, ripped up by the gods, then the chorus go back on themselves and say it is the folly of man that has eradicated Oedipus' family line: double determinism (determinism v free choice).

Creon is the manifestation of the ancient Greek fear of institutional change: the state was unstable because it could be overthrown by any individual who took the sword to the city.

In lines 770-787 Haemon says he is trying to help Creon against the rumours of the people. Creon accuses him of acting in love of Antigone. Note that romantic love was not a genre in Sophocles' time. It is a subplot only. Antigone claims to live for love, yet she is obsessed with filial love, borderlining on incest, while she shows no love for Haemon.

Lines 995-1005 have caused controversy. There is a contradiction: Antigone claims she is fighting for her family, not the gods. She says that she acted because she was the only relative of Polynices' left to act. This is unjustified because he is already dead, so it is pointless choosing him over Haemon, as she can't continue the family line by choosing him. She bewails not having the chance to have a family, not out of sentimentality or love for Haemon, but because she can't have the normal life of a Greek woman.

Creon has a double claim: as head of state and protector of the family, so it is his responsibility to find Antigone a husband. He should first have buried her brother, then married her to Haemon to bring her into the family. Instead he refuses the former and makes the latter impossible by burying her alive - literally stifling her.

In the last lines the play changes from being Antigone's tragedy to Creon's. He changes his mind and relents, yet he is too late and becomes crushed because of the reversal. Sophocles' plays have such bleak endings. We feel sympathy for Creon.

Comparison between Antigone and Oedipus the King: dialogue and choral episodes; repeated agons; Antigone a little stiff, perhaps slower for benefit of large (uneducated) audiences to follow; fast dramatic endings - a glimmer of light before the end, then the tragedy hits hard; have the potential for a happy ending; Apollo not cruel because he warns Laius three times, yet he is a cruel worker of fate.

Antigone seen as virtuous and chaste, not reverenced qualities today, so modern audiences may see Antigone as an extremist. Does Antigone seem inconstant to modern audiences, and is this a different view to the ancient Greeks? Was Oedipus justified for killing the king at a crossroads: so is he a sinner or is he sinned against?

30/1/07 - English Literature - Shakespeare: Twelfth Night

There is a 20th century perception that tragedy, rather than comedy, is Shakespeare's speciality. Recently, comedy has been opened up to modern literary criticism.

There were two traditions of English comedy inaugurated as dramatic conventions in Elizabethan England. They were Shakespearian comedy and Jonsonian comedy. They were distinct and opposing forms: Shakespeare's are romantic and pastoral, Jonson's satiric and urban; Shakespeare wrote about forgiveness and mercy, Jonson was judgemental in examining vices of humanity, particularly hypocrisy; Shakespeare's comedy is celebratory and festive, about having a good time, promises a better world where marriages are symbolic of hope for the future, while Jonson is didactic, moralistic, underlining the failings of humans, and he purges and punishes the humours; Shakespeare's comedy is a benign interpretation of humanity, while Jonson's is malign.

We will look at comedy and tragedy in contrast. Tragedy clarifies Shakespearian comedy, which might be otherwise confusing.

"The pre-eminence of women [in comedy] doubtless harks back to the festival roots of comedy, those rites of spring in which women played a prominent part. May queens were more common in English villages than May kings. And courtship, the standard situation of romantic comedy, was one of the few situations in which women could, in literary tradition and sometimes in fact, exercise power over men. What is most important to note here is that the elevation of women and servants over their betters, like comedy’s cavalier treatment of the law, was quite at odds with the prevailing social values."
[Susan Snyder, The Comic Matrix of Shakespeare’s Tragedies (Princeton, 1979), pp. 28-28]

"The conventions of tragedy [can] be related to a sense of one’s own life as unique and never to be repeated, each decision and act consequential. Comedy’s lesser stakes and its cast of more ordinary people reflect the obverse; life felt as common and ongoing, an endless stream in which we are participants but not the whole story."
[Susan Snyder, The Comic Matrix of Shakespeare’s Tragedies (Princeton, 1979), p. 41]

Comedies are associated with themes of romance, festivity, marriage, metamorphosis.

Tragedies take the names of the hero, e.g. Othello, Hamlet. They are predominantly men (except Anthony and Cleopatra, and Romeo and Juliet). No comic title takes the name of its hero because comedies are not about one particular thing. Instead, the title is suggestive of mood and tone, it is elusive and general. Tragedy is about isolated individuals; comedy suggests it is about collectivity, sociability, a conveying of the world of drama and the world of the audience. The audience and actors are integrated, e.g. As You Like It. Tragedies are about kings, emperors, princes, noblemen, generals and governors, i.e. socially elevated individuals who are defined by their public roles. Comic protagonists are less socially elevated. It is easier to laugh at characters we look down on. Aristotle outlined in his Poetics that we should look up to tragedic heroes, but down on comic characters. So tragedy is about isolation, and comedy integration and social collectivity. There is no emotional identification for any of the comic characters; for example, there are multiple couples in comedies. Comedy is concerned with what unites humans, and tragedy for what distinguishes them.

"All tragedies are finished by a death,
All comedies are ended by a marriage."
[Lord Byron, Don Juan, Book III, Canto 9]

"Claudius. ‘Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,
To give these mourning duties to your father;
But you must know your father lost a father;
That father lost, lost his; and the survivor bound
In filial obligation for some term
To do obsequious sorrow. But to persevere
In obstinate condolement is a course
Of impious stubbornness, ‘tis unmanly grief."
[Hamlet Act 1, Scene 2, 87-94]

"Orsino. How now, what news from her?
Valentine. So please my lord, I might not be admitted,
But from her handmaid do return this answer:
The element itself till seven years’ heat
Shall not behold her face at ample view,
But like a cloistress she will veiled walk
And water once her day her chamber round
With eye-offending brine – all this to season
A brother’s dead love, which she would keep fresh
And lasting to her sad remembrance."
[Twelfth Night Act 1, Scene 1, Lines 22-31]

Claudius adopts the comedic attitude to death - that death should be got over, that one should concentrate instead on the living. There is death at the beginning of Twelfth Night - Olivia's brother. Olivia wants to mourn him for seven years, but this is not normal in comedy. Sure enough, the power of life overcomes her sorrow; Olivia can't keep up her grief. In tragedy, the life of a hero is unique and unrepeatable so their death is tragic. In comedy everyone is identified within a community, so when one person dies the rest carry on.

Next, we will look at romance in Twelfth Night. Shakespeare wrote romantic comedies; he used romance to intersect and shape comedy. The occurrence of a shipwreck is used often in his work. It is a clever plot device for landing characters in places that they otherwise would not be in. The character becomes emotionally, physically and metaphorically dislocated. The comedy is therefore about loss and restoration; exile and return. Chance and adventure.

"Viola. What country, friends, is this?
Captain. This is Illyria, lady.
Viola. And what should I do in Illyria? My brother he is in Elysium. Perchance he is not drowned.
Captain. It is perchance that you yourself were saved.
Viola. O my poor brother! And so perchance may he be.
Captain True madam, and so comfort you with chance."
[Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 1-6]

Illyria is a remote setting; it is exotic, and allows the audience to suspend their beliefs on the purposes of the play. If the setting was nearer to home it would be more unbelievable, but placed far away it is plausible. The characters experience limitations of their destiny. The use of shipwrecks allows Shakespeare to confront the idea that humans can achieve anything. It shows our limitations of power and action. Chance affects us more than we affect it.

"Olivia. I do I know not what, and fear to find
Mine eye too great a flatterer for my mind.
Fate, show thy force, ourselves we do not owe [own]
What is decreed must be, and be this so."
[Act 1, Scene 5, 298-301]

Olivia voices the thought that fate is the agent of destiny. She surrenders herself to a higher power.

"Viola. I am the man . . .
How will this fadge? My master loves her dearly,
And I, poor monster, fond as much on him,
And she, mistaken, seems to dote on me.
What will become of this? As I am man,
My state is desperate for my master’s love,
As I am woman, now alas the day,
What thriftless sighs shall poor Olivia breathe!
O time, thou must untangle this, not I.
It is too hard a knot for me t’untie."
[Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 15 & 33-41]

Viola also gives herself up to a time agent to sort out the problems she encounters. Time is expressed as a benign helper.

Frye discusses the benevolence of time and fate in comedy.

"The essential drive in comedy is towards liberation, whether of the central character, a pair of lovers, or society, and so comedy has the same narrative shape as many of the programmes in religion that lead towards goals of salvation or enlightenment or beatitude. In Aristotle, where reversal is treated mainly as a structural principle of tragedy, something in an action exceeding the bounds of what is given to the human situation . . . is reversed by the returning power of nature or divine will or opposed human force. Such a reversal operates within the general framework of human law. But the parallels suggested between comedy and myths of deliverance make us wonder whether the typical comical reversal may not transcend the framework of law altogether, as the work of a redeeming or rescuing force opposed to the normal movement of circumstances."
[Northrop Frye, The Myth of Deliverance: Reflections on Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies (Toronto, 1983), p. 14]

"The drive towards a comic conclusion is so powerful that it breaks all the bonds of probability in the plot, of habit in the characters, even of expectations in the audience, and what emerges at the end is not a logical conclusion of the preceding action, as in tragedy, but something more like a metamorphosis."
[Northrop Frye, A Natural Perspective: The Development of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance (New York and London, 1965), p. 133]

Reversal of action typically belongs to tragedy, e.g. Sophocles' Oedipus the King. The hero of the tragedy antagonises social forces which leads to his death. There is a reversal in the pre-eminence to his death. The death of the tragic hero is due to natural laws. In comedy reversal operates differently. Natural law, e.g. time, does not reverse situations, but the intervention of fate and chance does, making them seem like superhuman forces. So comic conclusions are not logical, but a metamorphosis.

29/1/07 - History of Art - Robert Campin: The Workshop of a Netherlandish Painter and Its Clients

Robert Campin was a contemporary of Van Eyck, who died in 1441.

The Duke of Burgundy acquired many European countries: he married an heiress and married off his children to the heirs of other countries, making himself incredibly powerful.

Melchior Broederlam kicked off a new Netherlandish style. His altarpiece at the Chartreuse de Champmol made new use of space, directing the eye into the distance. He used architectural settings to encompass his figures; he used light and darkness to contrast the figures with the architecture. He made use of symbolic features such as the white lily to represent virginity.

Campin's Merode Altarpiece dates to the mid-1420s. The relationship between setting and figures in painting had improved since the previous century (see Pucelle's Annunciation manuscript page). Now the paintings were more convincing and successful. Inspiration could be got from everyday life. The altarpiece shows a prosperous household. The left wing features devotional figures, a man and wife looking into the annunciation room. The Virgin has not yet noticed the angel; she is reading the prophecy in the Bible that a virgin would conceive. Her lowly status and humility are signified by her sitting on the floor rather than on the bench. The details are appropriate to the time of year: the newly stifled fire and March flowers. Besides, Spring is associated with new birth.

Artists of this time took Joseph's job as carpenter much more seriously, due to a closer reading of the Bible. Joseph is shown darning socks in Malouel's Nativity, and on the right wing of Campin's Merode Altarpiece.

The Ingelbrecht coat-of-arms is shown in the window, which symbolises 'angel bringing forth.' The family is based in Malines near Brussels.

X-rays show that the woman donor on the left wing was painted after the man, but not by the original artist. Perhaps the man was single when the painting was commissioned. The rosebush and the servant guarding the door are painted more crudely than the male donor. The key is painted in detail, inscribed IHS, a symbol relating to Jesus.

On the right wing, there is a mouse trap on display. This is significant as At Augustine wrote that the Devil knew there would be a conception of a virgin, and Joseph was given to Mary to lure the Devil off the scent, like a mouse trap. Four items in the picture also appear in Isaiah's prophecies: a footstool, a rod, an axe and a saw. The artist includes these to draw attention to the Bible story.

The angel in the central panel is dressed in a deacon's clothing. The table has sixteen sides: Hebrew sacrificial altars were supposed to have sixteen sides. The candle is smouldering as if its light has been eclipsed by the light of Christ passing directly through it. The Florentine jug has a white lily in it. The jug is decorated with a bird motif and there is an anagram of 'R. Campin' written in hebraicised letters. It is not a signature because it is too hidden, but it is still an acknowledgement of the identity of the artist. It was acceptable for some artists to publicise their identity, but some did not wish to do this and so they compromised with a kind of code.

The Virgin has the style of a 'moon-faced' Virgin. Her hands are not painted very sophisticatedly, which suggests that an apprentice painted them.

Campin also painted a Nativity, earlier in his career. Does this painting seem less sophisticated than the altarpiece? There is a winter landscape, and an accounting for the time of day: dawn is parallel to the birth of Christ. There is a contrast between natural light and religious light. Perhaps the Nativity is not really unsophisticated.

In Campin's Marriage of the Virgin, around 1430, there is more emphasis on Joseph than on Mary, who was 'chosen' to marry the virgin because he had the flowering rod that appeared in the prophecy. The architecture is detailed; Joseph is surrounded by Romanesque architecture and Mary by Gothic architecture.

Robert Campin and his associates were among the earliest Netherlandish painters to explore an understanding of the play of light in their work, resulting in a more acute portrayal of naturalistic detail. These developments were facilitates by refinements in the technique of oil paint, giving rise to a greater sense of luminosity and sparkle in painting. The new naturalism developed by Campin and his contemporaries seems to have stimulated a reconsideration of modes of pictorial symbolism. Even everyday objects, like carpenters' tools, not previously considered worthy of pictorial representation, might suggest exceptional meaning, or special spiritual significance.

29/1/07 – Classical Literature – Sophocles: Antigone (1)

The Antigone was performed around 441 BC, judging by external documentary evidence. In 440 Sophocles was called on for generalship. Oedipus the King was performed between 431-29, judging from internal evidence (textual references, etc.).

Passages of note: 25-35, 70-105, 180-205, 215-235, 377-416 (ode to man, esp. 406-415), 500-520, 640-650, 770-787, 995-1105 (esp. character of Antigone), 1180-1197, 1220ff, 1344-1370.

Antigone begins the day after (or soon after) Polynices and Eteocles kill each other in battle. In ancient times, whoever won the battle had the obligation of burying the dead. As both brothers are killed, it is the duty of outside powers to bury them.

Notice how Sophocles begins his plays. The Antigone begins in medas res. The conversation between characters lets the audience know the story. In the beginning there is a state of emergency. Creon tries to establish order through chaos.

Antigone is concerned for her loved ones. In Greek, filos means love for close ones. She claims to be acting on behalf of her brother. She is extreme, but seems to have a cause. She excludes her sister. Notice the chorus imagery of the rising sun, declaring their survival.

The Greek word eros is a sexually motivated desire in love. It is different from filos (love suitable for family). ‘Love’ is a vague term, and ambiguous. Antigone says: “I will lie with the one I love and loved by him.” She prioritises her brother over Ismene.

In lines 180-205 Creon aligns himself with the state. Its claims should be recognised but he has put it in danger, so he makes a decree that anyone caught burying Polynices’ body will be executed. Perhaps he should have secured Polynices an honour; has Creon overstepped the mark?

In lines 377-416 Creon accuses the sentry of being bribed into burying Polynices. The chorus widens the scope of issues within the play, e.g. the choral ode to man, as well as allowing actors to change. The chorus express wonder at the creativity of man, a topical theme at the time as the Greeks were making machines and changing the traditional roles of gods within the city (Sophocles does not include gods onstage). Sophocles questions this: man has to work into the fabric of life, and death is inescapable. He sets the scene for Antigone’s intervention.

In 499-524 the sentry hands Antigone over to Creon. Antigone is compared to a whirlwind: she is heroic but also has a martyr complex. She believes she will obtain glory with the will of the gods. So does she have a good cause or an ulterior motive? Is she right?

Opening scene (Prologos, 1-116): Antigone and Ismene. Antigone informs Ismene of Creon’s decree: Polynices, having led a foreign army against his own city and now lying dead outside the walls, is to be denied burial. Antigone asks Ismene to join her in violating the decree and burying their brother. Ismene dares not disobey.

First choral ode (Parodos, 116-179): As the sun rises, the chorus greet their day of salvation, and recount the battle: the enemy army as a threatening eagle, now brought low.

Second scene (First epeisodion, 180-376): Creon and chorus: Creon assumes command. He decrees funeral honours for Eteocles, while Polynices is to be left exposed. Chorus express some worry about Creon’s orders, but comply. Sentry and Creon: sentry (comical low-life?) describes how someone has covered the body with dirt (not a full burial, but enough to meet ritual obligations). Creon thinks the guards have been bribed, sends sentry back with orders, under threats of death, to find the culprit.

Second choral ode (First stasimon, 377-416): Ode to man: praise of human achievement and ingenuity. Man successful “when he weaves in the laws of the land, and the justice of the gods.” Prayer to exclude him who does not do so.

Third scene (Second epeisodion, 416-655): Sentry, Creon and Antigone: sentry brings in Antigone, caught in the act. Sentry describes the events: the whirlwind, then Antigone giving Polynices funeral rites for the second time. Exit sentry.
Agon of Creon and Antigone: Antigone claims divine sanction, “the laws of the gods.” Creon cannot abide the effrontery, and sentences Antigone to death, including Ismene. Antigone brands Creon a tyrant, but Creon claims to uphold the state.
Ismene, Antigone and Creon: Ismene untruthfully confesses to the crime, but Antigone rejects her as an accomplice. Question of Antigone’s engagement to Haemon raised for the first time.

Third choral ode (Second stasimon, 656-700): “Blessed are those who have not tasted devastation … earthquake, sea-storm imagery: the surge crashing down again upon the house of Laius, wiping out last remains (Antigone and Ismene). Last root extirpated by unreason. Prayer to Zeus.

Fourth scene (Third epeisodion, 701-859): Creon, Haemon and chorus: Creon rails against Antigone; the need for discipline and obedience within family and state. Haemon stresses his devotion to his father, but reminds him that all man are fallible, and that the citizens disapprove of his actions. The exchanges heat up: Creon accuses Haemon of putting Antigone and marriage before duty, while Haemon is more directly critical of Creon. Creon threatens to execute Antigone in front of him; Haemon storms off: “you will never see me again.” Creon announces he will bury Antigone alive.

Fourth choral ode (Third stasimon, 879-894): Hymn of Eros/love.

Fifth scene (Fourth epeisodion, 895-1034): Lyric exchange between Antigone and chorus. Antigone as the “bride of death.” The chorus question her daring, recall her family’s shame and grief.
Creon and Antigone: Creon orders Antigone’s burial. She wails her fate (problem lines 995-1105: would not have dared do so for anyone but a brother?) and is taken away.

Fifth choral ode (Fourth stasimon, 1035-1089): Series of (obscure) mythological parallels for Antigone’s plight: inescapable fate, even for the highest born.

Sixth scene (Fifth epeisodion, 1090-1238): Enter Teiresias, and Creon. Teiresias warns Creon that he is bringing plague and contamination upon the city by not burying Polynices. Creon reacts angrily, and accuses Teiresias of corruption. Teiresias replies with a prophecy: Creon will lose a family member for inverting the order of the living and the dead, and the city resents his rule. Exit Teiresias. Creon hesitates, but finally concedes: he rushes to the tomb where Antigone is walled in.

Sixth choral ode (Fifth stasimon, 1239-1271): The chorus call on Dionysus, patron of Thebes, and purifier.

Seventh scene (Exodus, 1272-1470): Messenger scene: A messenger arrives, and announces the death of Haemon, and then repeats it, in more detail, to Eurydice, Creon’s wife. Haemon found the body of Antigone in the tomb, after she had hanged herself. Haemon tried to kill Creon, then took his own life with his sword. Eurydice enters the palace, followed by the messenger. Creon returns with the body of Haemon. The messenger exits the palace and announces that Eurydice has also killed herself. Creon left disconsolate.

26/1/07 - English Literature - A History of Sex

By sex we mean: The division of species into male or female Sexual instincts and desires Sexual intercourse. The definition of sex in terms of history is the one that relates to changing notions of sexual identity. This can affect the way we see Renaissance literature compared to the way that contemporary audiences saw it. The YMCA has a gay subtext. At the time of its release in 1978, the word 'gay' was contested. Mainstream Britain saw the song on surface value rather than in a gay context. Nowadays it is seen differently. People can now be visibly gay and the context of the song has changed along with this. This demonstrates how the sexual self changes, and so the history of sex shapes the meaning of art. The fact that cultural codes of sexuality have changed suggests that there is also a 'performance' aspect to sexual identity; sexual desire involves culture, not merely biology. Notions of masculinity and femininity differ geographically as well as historically. Donne's To His Mistress Going to Bed is about a sexual encounter with his lover. It is an erotic rhapsody. It expresses relations between conquest, colonialism, discovery, voyaging and erotic desire. It describes Donne's private experiences. It expresses erotic desire in terms of the possession and occupying of women. "Guiana is a country that hath yet her maidenhead, never sacked, turned, nor wrought, the face of the earth hath not been torn, nor the virtue and salt of the soil spoilt by manurance, the graves have not been opened for gold, the mines not broken with sledges, nor their images pulled down out of their temples. It hath never been entered by any army of strength, and never conquered or possessed by any Christian prince." [Sir Walter Raleigh, The discovery of the large, rich, and beautiful Empire of Guiana, with a relation of the great and golden city of Manoa (which the Spaniards call El Dorado)] Note Raleigh's use of language: "entered", "conquered", "possessed." It is sexually suggestive, unambiguous. He even talks about its "maidenhead" as it is a 'virgin' land. Antipholus of Syracuse. Then she bears some breadth? Dromio of Syracuse. No longer from head to foot than from hip to hip. She is spherical, like a globe. I could find out countries in her. Antipholus. In what part of her body stands Ireland? Dromio. Marry sir, in her buttocks. I found it out by the bogs. Antipholus. Where Scotland? Dromio. I found it by the barrenness, hard in the palm of the hand. Antipholus. Where France? Dromio. In her forehead, armed and reverted, making war against her heir. Antipholus. Where England? Dromio. I looked for the chalky cliffs, but I could find no whiteness in them. But I guess it stood in her chin, by the salt rheum that stand between France and it. Antipholus. Where Spain? Dromio. Faith, I saw it not, but I felt it hot in her breath. Antipholus. Where America, the Indies? Dromio. O, Sir, upon her nose, all o'er embellished with rubies, carbuncles, sapphires, declining their rich aspect to the hot breath of Spain, who sent whole armadoes of carracks to be ballast in her nose. Antipholus. Where stood Belgia, the Netherlands? Dromio. O, sir, I did not look so low. [William Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 117-147] Notice the xenophobic and sexist language used in this passage. In all of the above examples, an association has been drawn between woman and the earth. Women are defined by their physicality, and men by their rationality. There is a fusion of politics and intimacy.

25/1/07 - History of Art - Selecting Exhibitions: Argument versus Display

This lecture will discuss the process of selection of exhibitions, how shows are conceived, how works are chosen. What makes a good exhibition? Should the exhibition show fine objects, or fine objects with an argument?

It must be considered who the exhibition is for. Is it for the public? The elite of art historians? Or students? Anybody? The public might be too large and crowded. Depending on what the exhibition is showing, different publics will be attracted. For example, at the Royal Academy's Van Dyck exhibition, the main public was over 50, and when the Royal Academy had a pop art exhibition, there were mainly teenagers. The museum has to cater for different publics and attract sponsorship to make a profit. It is difficult to get sponsorship. Is the exhibition worth more than the permanent collection? Scholars are the biggest audience: exhibitions should provoke ideas and knowledge in them to be mot valuable. Local museums have more reason for exhibitions than larger museums (because it is the smaller museums that educate people the most).

Questions about nineteenth century art raised wider ramifications. The Hayward Gallery and Boston Museum of Fine Arts housed an exhibition on Renoir. This could be a distorting name due to lack of variation in the exhibition, which had only paintings, no sculptures. One masterpiece was placed beside another, giving a false impression. Is an exhibition reason enough for bringing pictures such long distances? Yet, they could be valuable for showing the progression of the artist, or contrasting the style of one artist with another. Pictures may be too fragile to travel. Bequests may restrict the movement of pictures. Renoir was only a partial exhibition, since only paintings were shown, and of those, only masterpieces.

At the National Gallery in London and The New York Metropolitan Museum, an exhibition, Ingres Portraits was shown. There was a single theme: showing different media and different levels of finish, including drawings. Different rooms were used so the lighting could be adjusted according to the media used: paintings need strong light and drawings only dim light. This demonstrated how the artist worked. On the sketch for Mme Moitessier, we can see that Ingres worked on the background first. Why did he abandon the drawing? The exhibition was therefore educational, but was it only for students or also for the public who had little knowledge of art?

Another exhibition at the National Gallery in London was shown in 1997: Seurat and the Bathers. This exhibition was based on a single picture. The artist had preserved the preliminary work for the final painting. Sketches and oil sketches were shown. The sequence of sketches was unknown, but was debated for the exhibition. Seurat and the Bathers was making an argument about how Seurat made up the final picture. Poussin's painting was put alongside Seurat's, supposedly to highlight his influence. Other influential pictures were hung, such as those by Corot and Lhermitte, and pictures that contrasted with Seurat's were hung, e.g. Loir. A painting by Cornet of the same scene was hung, as well as Seurat's subsequent painting, La Grande Jatte.

The Royal Academy in London and the Guggenheim Museum, New York, showed an exhibition called 1900. The original idea was to show works from the Exposition Universelle of 1900. However, some of the paintings that were needed couldn't be loaned out, so they showed paintings from the years outside of 1900, and paintings from outside of France. It was a daring juxtaposition. It was known that Picasso saw the Exposition Universelle of 1900 and was impressed by it; his Absinthe Drinker was shown in the exhibition. Degas's daring pose and subdued colour of After the Bath was placed beside Carolus-Duran's Danaë. At other times, the exhibitionists were suggestive rather than daring, for example by hanging Monet's Morning on the Seine next to Hofmann's Sunset on the Sea, both of which paint water and mist. Conventional themes were used, like landscape and portrait. There were also sub-categories like bathers and social scenes.

At the National Gallery of Scotland in 2003, an exhibition was held called Monet 1878-1883. These were paintings of the time when he was at Vétheuil and Normandy. The subject was not fully explored. There were high quality contrasts. It was shown that Monet often painted the same scene over and over again. Paintings from other artists who showed at the Exposition Universelle 1878 were hung beside Monet's. The exhibition was akin to a survey of mid-century French landscape painting. Many such artists died before Monet's paintings were finished, the artists that Monet considered to be his idols. Perhaps he wanted to show himself to be their successor. Monet's suggestion of binocular vision in his paintings was also highlighted in the exhibition.

25/1/07 – Classical Literature – Oedipus the King

Does Oedipus exit or not? Should he be murdered or exiled?

In line 910 it is clear that the murderer of Laius must be exiled. But there is also talk of murder and punishment for the murder of the king. In lines 515-23, Teiresias seems to give the story away. Should this part be staged as an aside? Should Oedipus exit before this? Such problems are not resolved in the play.

In the Creon scene, Jocasta reconciles Creon during his argument with Oedipus. In 710, Creon’s punishment is debated. In 770ff, Oedipus thinks that Creon and Teiresias are conspiring against him.

In 885-900, there is a debate on the thieves (plural) said to have killed Laius. Oedipus is daydreaming (almost). He remembers his actions as a young man. But it is also revealing of Oedipus’ character: he may be a puppet of fate, but they were his own actions, a sign of his violent character.

Jocasta’s consolation to Oedipus is that the prophecy can’t be true because the baby died. She denies the existence of fate (religion, gods, etc.) yet goes to pray to Apollo directly afterwards, indicating that she is worried or unsure. “Son of Chance” – Oedipus has had good luck and bad luck.

Oedipus claims some suffering on himself – blinding himself is his responsibility and the affirmation of his freedom. Freedom is exercised also in his choice to discover the truth about his past.

The final twist: he feels concern for his daughters. This is ironic because Antigone has already been staged and the audience knows the fate of her and her sister Ismene while Oedipus does not.

25/1/07 - English Literature - Hamlet and Scepticism

The play is compelling to scholars, possibly due to its sequence of events and its reflection of the deepest uncertainties of the time.

"nothing reaches us except as altered and falsified by our senses. When the compasses, the set-square, and the ruler are askew, all the calculations made with them and all the structures raised according to their measurements, are necessarily out of true and ready to collapse. The unreliability of our senses renders unreliable everything which they put forward."
[Montaigne, An Apology for Raymond Sebond. Trans. M. A. Screech. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987, p. 184]

Montaigne voices Renaissance scepticism, which Shakespeare also uses within the play. Hamlet's traditional theatrical structure of revenge tragedy allows scepticism to be explored. The nature of the play is otherwise problematic, and full of conundrums.

In its centre, Act 3 Scene iii, Hamlet meets his enemy Claudius at prayer, defenceless. The meeting comes after the 'Mouse-Trap' intended to provoke Claudius, so Hamlet has uncovered the truth about his father's murderer. Everything so far has led up to this moment of resolution and climax. First, Hamlet speaks a conditional "How might I do it." He doesn't go through with it. Instead, he begins to exercise reason: Claudius will go to heaven if he is killed during repentant prayer, unlike Hamlet's father. Hamlet wishes to kill Claudius during sin so that he will go to hell. However, the moment of opportunity has gone forever.

In Act 3 Scene i, in the "To be or not to be" speech, Hamlet exercises reason, the fear of afterlife and the unknown keeps him in this life. In Act 3 Scene iii, Hamlet believes Claudius will go to heaven. He must be confused, because both can't be true. Hamlet says the dead can't speak, yet his own dead father has already came to speak with him; he can't believe in both things. At the end of Act 3 Scene iii Claudius reflects that his prayers are empty and have not gone to heaven; it is an ironical blow for Hamlet.

There are contradictions throughout the play, between resolution and reflection. It explores the channel that humanism opened and problematises it. Scepticism challenged the concept of what humans are and what the world is. Hamlet embodies this issue. Shakespeare allowed scepticism to enter revenge tragedy, a place where it doesn't belong, for in the end, Hamlet is prevented from taking his revenge. Kyd's Spanish Tragedy was influential to Shakespeare, particularly with Hamlet and Titus Andronicus: they both explore revelation, revenge, and the making of a revenger.

Hamlet begins traditionally, with the disclosure of a secret, usually from a ghost. This changes the avenger's relation to the world (through revelation). In traditional revenge tragedy, we go through what this does to the avenger, who is submitted to terrible things as a result of the revelation. The revenger tries to secure evidence on which to act. He devises a plot, through disguise or wit. There is a process of transformation through insight and outrage. However, there is no room for scepticism in revenge tragedy, which often offers a more comprehensive understanding of the truth. This convention is pervasive in Hamlet. The 'Mouse-Trap' shows that Shakespeare will not conform to conventions.

Renaissance scepticism was a method of doubting conceived perceptions of humans and the world, and questioning whether people will ever be able to comprehensively understand themselves and their world. Luther argued that the Catholic Church cannot offer understanding, that we must return to scripture. This overthrew a millennium of Catholic teaching. There was difficulty in finding stability. It was believed that the only way to arrive at certainty is to overthrow all other methods.

Montaigne's response to the struggle for truth (above) is absurd. He says that reason is vanity of the ego; doubt and suspension of judgement should be used. "What can we know?" Our judgements vary all the time, truth is false the next moment. Can we trust our senses? No. There may be other senses. Our passions and wants determine the way we see the world. Our view of the world is an illusion. Montaigne uses doubt to explore the issues of humanism. The truth is that humans are not up to the task of discovering the truth. One must have humility. How is this relevant in revenge tragedy? Such scepticism is not usually compatible with revenge tragedy, but in Hamlet it is.

Hamlet's soliloquies allow us to hear his reflections, and they slow the play down. We can see into Hamlet's mind. So he is himself the object of sceptical scrutiny. The way he sees the world is not often the way that we see it. He considers experiences and practises as well as form. Hamlet questions political authority, sexual hierarchy and the patriarchal world of the court. How does the power of scepticism affect the play?

It all begins with the moment of revelation, with the speech of his father's ghost.

"If thou hast nature in thee, bear it not;
Let not the royal bed of Denmark be
A couch for luxury and damned incest.
But howsomever thou pursuest this act,
Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive
Against thy mother aught. Leave her to heaven,
And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge
To prick and sting her. Fare thee well at once:
The glow-worm shows the matin to be near
And 'gins to pale his uneffectual fire.
Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me.
[1.5.81-91; emphasis added]

The ghost asserts that Hamlet should act against unnatural things, then prohibits Hamlet from harming his mother. Why is the ghost afraid of the daylight? Why should Hamlet "remember" him? Hamlet's experience of tragedy is flawed at once - the speech is a conundrum of contradictions, not a certainty.

Hamlet contradicts himself in his soliloquy of Act 4 Scene iv.

How all occasions do inform against me,
And spur my dull revenge! What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused. Now, whether it be
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on the event,
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward, I do not know
Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;
'Sith I have cause and will and strength and means
To do't. Examples gross as earth exhort me:
Witness this army of such mass and charge
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake. How stand I then,
That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,
Excitements of my reason and my blood,
And let all sleep? while, to my shame, I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain? O, from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!
[Shakespeare, William, Hamlet. Ed. Harold Jenkins. London and New York: Methuen, 1983.4.4.-66; emphasis added]

Hamlet says that one should stir to action only if there is good reason, then says that it should take action if it is for one's honour. Limits in one idea are shown by limits in another idea.

23/1/07 - History of Art - Artists and the Liberal Arts

In the later middle ages, artists became more important in society. Why were they elevated at this time?

Stylistic changes seem to coincide with the elevation of the status of the artist. Naturalism was more highly prized. There was increasing documentation.

In the 'Madonna and Child' from the Book of Kells, 9th century, there are no signatures or dates on the works, and neither are there any on the figures of Chartres Cathedral. Scholars must deduct information from looking at the work. The figures of the visual arts in the early middle ages tend to have the same idealised style, because there were no models for the figures.

By the second half of the 13th century, there was a change in artists' attitudes towards nature. If we look at Jean Pucelle's Belleville Breviary, c.1328, there is a clear interest in nature in the margins of pictures. Nature is used to decorate; small details are included, which suggests that a close observation of nature was required.

In Jean de Limbourg's page of 'February' in the Très Riches Heures, imagery is used to give a sense of coldness: the whiteness of the snow and the depiction of the peasants. In Pol de Limbourg's 'August' page, recognisable figures and buildings are used, and there is the depiction of heat. The Limbourgs are more widely documented than Pucelle, as if for posterity, which is how we know as much as we do about their lives.

Van Eyck came after the Limbourgs and was even more naturalistic. He depicts texture and light minutely. Life-like portraiture began to be practised at this time, as in Van Eyck's Leal Souvenir of 1432. He was a respected painter at the time and signed and dated his own work. So there is documentation on the painting itself. Sometimes we can identify the sitters using inscriptions and other features in the painting.

Dürer signed and dated his paintings, and wrote about his art extensively. Art historians are more informed about this time as a result. His complete personality was written down. He painted his self-portrait beside the inscription of altarpieces.

Why were artists increasingly attracted by the possibilities of more naturalistic styles in the late Middle Ages? What motivated artists in the 15th century to sign and date their work when this had rarely been practised previously? Why did Dürer and his contemporaries write extensively about their art when in the earlier Middle Ages there is scant evidence for artists ever expressing a view on anything?

On the Last Judgement painting of the mid-13th century, there is inscribed "W. de Brailes", a sign held up by an ecclesiastical figure. It was taught that artists should show humility in their work, and pride evoked beating as a punishment. It was said that such signatures were there to remind Christ to save the artist.

Old prejudices against artists and naturalism in the visual arts were gradually eroded. Such prejudices included those of St Benedict, the founder of western monasticism, who argued against artistic pride or celebrity; the second Biblical commandment about idolatry, which was thought to encompass naturalism; Plato's arguments against mimetic art, as copies of nature are several times removed from 'true' reality and are therefore inferior; Aristotle's arguments against the practice of art, as artists fall into the category of manual labourers rather than the superior work of thought such as mathematics, writing and philosophy; and St Gregory's associating painting with illiteracy.

The intellectual arts were also known as the 'liberal arts'. These were arts based on the study of numbers, like geometry and mathematics, and arts based on the study of words, like grammar and rhetoric. Such arts were intellectual and respected.

Artists began to connect their work to aspects of the liberal arts to elevate their status. For example, they said that pictures in manuscripts tell the stories better than words, and taught people to think visually.

Courtly patronage came up against church patronage. Noblemen had more say in patronage than previously. One king owned twenty copies of the same story in manuscript form, indicating that he was more interested in the variation of pictures rather than the text. Artists took advantage of this by using pictures to relate to the patron and to tell jokes, such as the Limbourgs.

Van Eyck was well read and had intellectual powers. He read Ovid and Homer and refers to them in his work. The motto on his self-portrait translates to "As well as I can," but the inscription is also an anagram of his name. Van Eyck had an elevated status as an artist, his title was almost equal to a king's, and he is not often referred to as a painter.

Putting artists into guild protected their interests. Van der Weyden's St Luke Painting the Virgin Mary, 1430s, added respectability to artists by associating them with St Luke, who was in turn a man associated with words (he wrote a part of the Bible) and was himself a painter.

The god Apelles was thought to be a naturalistic painter, giving incentive to people to follow the arts. Classical literature gave ideas to artists. Self-portraiture came about as painters realised that they could look into a mirror and paint themselves. There are illustrations of female artists painting self-portraits in manuscripts of the time.

Artists gradually came to associate their own activities with the liberal arts, theoretical studies based on words and numbers. Architecture had always had a high status because it depended on geometry and mathematics. Painters began to use this to advantage, such as the page of God Creating the Universe and a manuscript, where the painter had to use compasses to paint God using compasses to create the world.

Villard d'Honnecourt studied Reims Cathedral using naturalistic observation. He associated architectural drawing with artistic imitation. The introduction to his book associates drawing with geometry: "...you will also find here the art of drawing, the elements being such that the discipline of geometry requires and teaches."

Dürer was interested in perspective and the relation of art to mathematics. In St Jerome in his Study, he uses perspectival techniques, distance, etc.

Van Eyck uses foreshortening in his Annunciation painting, and perspective techniques have been used for the floor, incorporating zodiac signs to show his understanding of astronomy. His Singers and Musicians panels are very accurate in terms of knowledge of music. There is also incredible detail in the sketch for St Barbara and Tower, although he made up the tower from principles of architecture which he knew.

By associating painting and sculpture with studies that were considered intellectual (the liberal arts), artists helped to raise their status from craftsmen to valued members of society, capable of prestige and fame.

23/1/07 – Classical Literature – Sophocles: The Oedipus Myth

In the original myth of Oedipus, Tydeus and Diomedes are involved, as well as Polynices and Eteocles. Oedipus discovers his folly sooner and remarries. In Aeschylus’ tragedies, Laius is warned three times by Apollo of his destiny. There is an account of Laius’ killing. Questions are raised about whether Laius deserved his death, and as Apollo is a kind god, did Laius’ lack of heed lead to his downfall? Also, Oedipus marries Jocasta and has children with her, discovers his transgression and blinds himself. It was Aeschylus who invented this blinding. Oedipus curses his children and they die … Apollo’s way of nullifying the incestuous family line (as he tried to by warning Laius).

Passages of note: 150-158, 276-287, 468-485, 515-523, 777-800, 954-997, 1280-1310, 1250-1480.

The opening section is expository. Here, Oedipus is confident and recalls past glories.

Questions posed to the oracle were answered indirectly and left for entreating party to solve. So responsibility is placed on individuals, as they have to work the prophecies out for themselves.

It was thought that murder polluted the state and illness was the punishment for this. In this case, Laius’ murderers polluted the city and brought plague to Thebes.

There is dramatic irony because the audience knows more than Oedipus does, and sees double meanings in his language referring to his inevitable downfall.

Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes came before Sophocles’ Three Theban Plays. The part of the chorus declined through the centuries. The chorus acts like a curtain, showing where the breaks in action come, and yet the chorus don’t advance the story. Songs capture the emotional moment, rather, with music and poetry. The choral odes are often more memorable than the drama.

In lines 515-523 Oedipus seems to hear too much. Surely Teiresias is giving the game away by telling Oedipus the truth right at the beginning? However, Oedipus still thinks he is the son of Polybus, a farmer, and so he believes Teiresias is mad.

23/1/07 - English Literature - Ben Jonson: Volpone

Jonson's reputation is often discussed in tandem with Shakespeare's. Shortly after Jonson's death he was considered the best of the two, and associated more with classics than with bawdy theatre. His reputation faded since the 1700s, and Shakespeare has been praised more. Jonson is often portrayed as the anti-Shakespeare, whose failures magnify Shakespeare's triumph. Shakespeare's models are praised as models of humanity; Jonson is criticised for lack of this, instead using stereotypes. This may not be inaccurate. Jonson gives us a critical view of his own work and his view on the function of poetry. 1. "If men will impartially, and not asquint, look toward the offices and function of a poet, they will easily conclude to themselves the impossibility of any man's being the good poet without first being a good man. He that is said to be able to inform young men to all good disciplines, inflame grown men to all great virtues, keep old men in their best and supreme state, or, as they decline to childhood, recover them to their first strength; that comes forth the interpreter and arbiter of nature, a teacher of things divine no less than human, a master in manners; and can alone, or with a few, effect the business of mankind: this, I take him, is no subject for pride and ignorance to exercise their railing rhetoric upon." 2. "As for the vile and slothful, … as they worthily fear [poetry] and think it a high point of policy to keep her in contempt with their declamatory and windy invectives; she shall out of just rage incite her servants … to spout ink in their faces that shall eat, farther than their marrow, into their fames, and not Cinnamus the barber with his art shall be able to take out the brands, but they shall live, and be read, till the wretches die…" 3. "Application is now grown a trade with many, and there are that profess to have a key for the deciphering of everything; but let wise and noble persons take heed how they be too credulous, or give leave to these invading interpreters to be over-familiar with their fames, who cunningly, and often, utter their own virulent malice under other men's simplest meanings." [Jonson, Volpone, Dedicatory Epistle] Here, Jonson illuminates how mankind should live. It is in line with Sidney's way of thinking. It is another defence of poetry, supposing that poetry is under attack. At the time, poetry was thought to be a form of persecution, satire and impertinence. Jonson denies that it targets individuals; his poetry is judicial and accusatory but it does not single anyone out. He uses violet language: "spout ink in their faces." Poetry deals with those who morally deserve punishment, but it is general in its reference. Jonson uses images of vice, not individuals, to demonstrate their comeuppance. Jonson's work is similar to fables, where figures are given animal names to represent moral failures or traits. If we decode Jonson's play, we can find a moral, go away and practice it. This would be boring, however. It is misleading to assume that Volpone is as simple as a fable. There are some good characters, e.g. Celia and Bonario. We do not focus on these characters as dramatic centres; they are stereotypical characters, not comic, and there is no satisfying comedic outcome. Jonson says that he produces 'types' of moral character, but it is not as simple as that. Their moral dilemmas are given particular situations, a commercial context. Venice was the realm of money and trade; we must take account of Jonson's concrete world that he puts up for us. He represents theatre as a commercial enterprise. In 1576 the first theatre coincided with the set up of the trade market. Jonson said that this was not a coincidence. He thinks he is capable and worthy of spouting ink in detractors' faces, yet he also writes for money. He portrays this paradox in his works. The play is set in Venice but there seems to be a mix-up of Venetian and London factors. Why Venice? Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice saw the city as a commercial centre. For Jonson, too, Venice engaged best in commercial issues. It was also politically ideal; there was the balance between the monarchy, democracy and the people. There was no tyranny. In the Renaissance, Venice was seen as an ideal social model. In the play, Venice is not like this; it is corrupt, and the important figures of noblemen and lawyers are also corrupt. Jonson shows antagonism towards the society. The character Volpone hoards wealth, but he is not a miser. The lay begins with heaps of treasure. The poetry is hyperbolic, vivid, and in praise of gold. It verges on sacrilege. The gold is not just beautiful. It's virtue is that it has the power to make men do anything, yet it is a dumb God. It is a means to an end. Money means power, which helps to achieve desire. So money is an end for actualising desires. Volpone loves the process of getting what he wants, of seeing changes in others; they become his playthings. The play could be about transformation, and its pleasures. VOLP: 'Tis the beggar's virtue, If thou hast wisdom, hear me, Celia. Thy baths shall be the juice of July-flowers, Spirit of roses, and of violets, The milk of unicorns, and panthers’ breath Gather’d in bags, and mixed with Cretan wines. Our drink shall be prepared gold and amber; Which we will take, until my roof whirl round With the vertigo: and my dwarf shall dance, My eunuch sing, my fool make up the antic. Whilst we, in changed shapes, act Ovid’s tales, Thou, like Europa now, and I like Jove, Then I like Mars, and thou like Erycine: So, of the rest, till we have quite run through, And wearied all the fables of the gods. Then will I have thee in more modern forms, Attired like some sprightly dame of France, Brave Tuscan lady, or proud Spanish beauty; Sometimes, unto the Persian sophy’s wife; Or the grand signior’s mistress; and, for change, To one of our most artful courtesans, Or some quick Negro, or cold Russian; And I will meet thee in as many shapes: Where we may so transfuse our wandering souls, Out at our lips, and score up sums of pleasures, [Act 3 Scene vii, 210-34] This passage is the seduction of Celia. The process of transformation is here eroticised. It engages in the psychology of commerce which was popular in Jonson's time. Venice is represented as a city simply compromised by the commercial pull. VOLP: Nay, fly me not. Nor let thy false imagination That I was bed-rid, make thee think I am so: Thou shalt not find it. I am, now, as fresh, As hot, as high, and in as jovial plight,As when, in that so celebrated scene, At recitation of our comedy, For entertainment of the great Valois, I acted young Antinous; and attracted The eyes and ears of all the ladies present, To admire each graceful gesture, note, and footing. [Act 3 Scene vii, 154-64] Volpone here recalls an acting triumph, referring to his role and the seduction of the theatre. So Jonson enforces that theatre is like commerce, depending on actualisation of our desires in the same way as money. Theatre is moral and yet tempting. The tension between the two makes it successful with both readers and audience.

22/1/07 - History of Art - The Limbourgs: Brothers and Individuals

The Limbourg brothers were Pol, Jean and Herman.

Individuality has been prized more since the medieval times; at the time of the Limbourgs, conformity was more valued than individuality. The glass painters of the Sainte-Chapelle, Paris, came together to work on the windows: they had no artistic license, they simply had to obey orders. Manuscript artists are mostly unidentifiable due to their conformity of style, except if there are minor quirks, e.g. Master of the Hair-Pin Draperies.

The Limbourg brothers worked on three manuscripts that we know of: Pol and Jean worked the Bible Moralisée; Pol, Jean and Herman made the Belles Heures; and all three made the Très Riches Heures.

Around 1400 Jean and Herman, aged 16 or 17, were apprenticed to a goldsmith. Later they moved north due to the plague, but were thrown in jail before getting home. They were released after six months due to the high status of their uncle, Duke of Burgundy.

When they began working on manuscript illumination, they were the first to allude to themselves and the people they knew in their artwork. At first, it seems that manuscript illumination was a task given to Pol and Jean in order to keep them out of trouble. They copied an Exodus page from a previous manuscript, something which was by that time old-fashioned and out-of-date. They were not very productive at this time, finishing only two books of the Bible in two years. Their style is interesting: they used a variety of characters, illustrated weather patterns, and used perspectivity (a sense of space and distance). At this early stage, the brothers' work is indistinguishable from each other. They must have worked in the same style; conformity was most important at this time.

The colour of draperies on some of the pages is a shining white. It is likely that Jean was the innovator of this technique using his goldsmith training (he would have been taught enamelling, which also uses a brilliant white).

The painting from the Belles Heures of 'Mary and Child on a Donkey' could have been influenced by the naturalistic styles of Broederlam's altarpiece and Claus Sluter's mourning figures. Such tiny details as the footprints of the donkey have been observed.

It is likely that Herman was the least talented of the three brothers, in terms of portraying succinct scenes, emotionality and space.

One of the artists was interested in costume, for example, the painter of 'George and the Dragon', which shows a close study of clothing.

Later in their career, they represented the Duke of Berry singled out among the brothers on the first page of the Très Riches Heures. The Duke of Berry was a very generous patron to them. He gave them a house and gifts of jewels. They were known to play jokes on him, one time giving him what looked like a book with a pearl encrusted spine which turned out to be carved out of wood. Jokes are also alluded to on the first page of their manuscript: there is the illusion of horns, implying the character to be a 'cuckold'. The painter of this page is probably the same painter of George and the Dragon, for there is the same interest in costumes. It could have been Pol, who was the closest to the Duke, because it appears that the Duke sat for the picture. Pol was interested in portraits, including portraits of castles belonging to the Duke. This would have involved much travelling on his part.

It appears that the 'February' page was painted by a different brother, probably Jean. He may have painted this to try to evoke sympathy from the Duke for the peasants who had to deal with increased taxes. There is good use of space, and it is the first known snowscape. Notice the attention to details such as footprints. March and July also show peasants and use spatial techniques to guide the eye towards the distance. 'Christ in the Garden of Eden' is the first known nightscape.

Despite the talent of his brothers, it seems that Herman used his cluttered style throughout his life.

There is more allusion to the Duke and the artists, and room for humour, on the 'January' page, which contrasts the 'old', i.e. the Duke, with the 'new', i.e. the Limbourg brothers.

22/1/07 – Classical Literature – Sophocles: Introduction

How should we relate the play to the original audience?

Sophocles was called up in political service, but he was inconspicuous as a playwright. It has been said that his plays have had enduring interest because of the universal truths explored in them.

Sophocles wrote 123 plays, grouped into four, including a satire. He competed in the Great Dionysia thirty times. We know very little about his young career. We have no clear idea of progression in his plays, because only seven have survived, which are probably only his masterpieces. Oedipus the King was Aristotle’s favourite play, especially because of its tragic reversal.

It has been thought that tragedy has to be something bad happening to a good person, and it must not be random. The situation must be potentially avoidable for the audience to be able to feel the profundity of the tragedy. The tragedy must be beautiful as well as dark and desolate. The tragic isn’t a philosophy; for the Greeks tragedy was a festival play and there followed a satire full of food, sex and other pleasures of life. The tragedy simply made the audience aware of potential tragedy; it was speculative.

People watching the plays at the Great Dionysia already knew the myths that the play utilised as its plot. They were more interested in how the play was written, rather than the storyline: plot changes, poetry, spectacle, etc.

Opening scene (Prologos, 1-168): Oedipus and the priest (1-97). The priest pleads for help: the city is suffering from a plague; Oedipus is aware of their suffering, and is awaiting Creon’s return from Delphi, where Oedipus has sent him to consult the oracle of Apollo.
Oedipus and Creon (98-168). Creon returns: the oracle declares that the plague has been caused by the murder of the previous king, Laius. Oedipus undertakes to solve the crime. All exit.

First choral ode (Parodos, 170-244): The chorus enter. The play to the gods Zeus, Apollo, Athena and Artemis; describe the horrors of the plague, which they compare to death and/or the god of war, and call on the same gods, plus now Dionysus, to banish him.

Second scene (First epeisodion, 245-526): Oedipus reassures the chorus, and makes three edicts: 1. If the murderer comes forward and confesses, he will be exiled, but without further punishment; 2. Oedipus offers a reward for any information, and banishment for whoever conceals any knowledge of the crime; 3. Oedipus curses the murderer. The chorus leader suggests sending for Teiresias, but Oedipus has already done so. Teiresias arrives, asks to be dismissed. Oedipus denounces him, Teiresias replies in kind. Oedipus accuses Teiresias of conspiring with Creon, Teiresias replies that Oedipus is the murderer. Oedipus and Teiresias drive each other on until Oedipus dismisses Teiresias in disgust, and Teiresias denounces Oedipus’s true situation (note problem: exit Oedipus?).

Second choral ode (First stasimon, 527-572): The chorus describes the curse, now in swift pursuit of the murderer. As for Teiresias, the chorus expresses puzzlement and worry, but finally give Oedipus the benefit of the doubt: “never will I convict my king.”

Third scene (Second epeisodion, 573-954, including lyric exchanges 725-767): i) Oedipus and Creon. Oedipus accuses Creon of treason: why did Teiresias accuse Oedipus of the murder, and did Creon put him up to it? Creon denies any aspirations to rule. Enter Jocasta. Jocasta intervenes, and Creon swears his innocence, then leaves. ii) Jocasta tries to calm Oedipus, and reassures him of the unreliability of oracles. She tells him of the prophecy to Laius: if he had a son, the son would kill him. But Laius was killed by thieves, they say, while the baby was exposed. Oedipus: was Lauis killed at the crossroads? Oedipus now fears he killed Laius. He tell Jocasta about his past: his life and then flight from Corinth, the prophecy at Delphi (kill father, wed mother), and then the fight at the crossroads, and his slaying of whole party. He fears he has cursed himself as the murderer. Jocasta entreats him to wait until they can question a shepherd, the sole surviving witness of Laius’ murder. If his version of events is true (thieves, plural), then Oedipus is innocent: one cannot equal many.

Third choral ode (Second stasimon, 954-997): Eternal laws, nothing mortal, a god inhabits them; “pride breeds the tyrant”; let god punish the arrogant man; “why join the sacred dance”; how cant he oracles be wrong? Where are Zeus and Apollo? Is religion dead?

Fourth scene (Third epeisodion, 998-1194): Jocasta is supplicating Apollo for Oedipus’ sake, when the messenger from Corinth arrives. He announces that he brings good tidings: Oedipus’ father Polybus, the king of Corinth has died. Oedipus is to inherit the crown. Oedipus enters, learns the news, and is elated: the oracle has been refuted. But Oedipus still fears for his mother. The messenger inquires about Oedipus’ worries, and reveals to Oedipus that ha was not really the son of Polybus. The messenger further reveals that he rescued Oedipus as a baby, or rather took him from another shepherd. Oedipus asks the chorus, then Jocasta: is that shepherd the same man sent for, the survivor of the murdered party? Jocasta asks Oedipus to stop his search, but Oedipus simply accuses her of thinking him of low birth. Jocasta leaves with shrieks. Oedipus names himself “the son of chance.”

Fourth choral ode (Third stasimon, 1195-1214): The chorus tries a prophecy: tomorrow Mount Cithaeron will be sung as the mother of Oedipus; the chorus wonder: which of the gods is Oedipus’ father?

Fifth scene (Fourth epeisodion, 1215-1310): Oedipus greets the shepherd, cross-examines him. The shepherd denies all knowledge, is refuted by the messenger, and under threat of torture reveals all. Oedipus as “son of pain.”

Fifth choral ode (Fourth stasimon, 1311-1350): Generations of men, a mere dream? Oedipus the great example: count no man blessed. The chorus expands on the “outrage” of Oedipus’ actions: Oedipus saved the city/chorus by killing the Sphinx, but now brings them down.

Sixth scene (Fifth epeisodion, 1351-1430): Messenger scene: a messenger announces to the chorus the events within the palace: Jocasta has hanged herself. Oedipus then finds her, lays her down and blinds himself.

Lyrics between Oedipus and chorus (1431-1498): Oedipus exits the palace, his eyes gouged out. The chorus asks Oedipus why he acted thus, rather than kill himself. Oedipus justifies his actions, and asks for exile.

Final scene (Exodos, 1499-1684): Enter Creon. Oedipus begs for exile, but Creon will not act until he has consulted Apollo. Oedipus gives his last wishes concerning the children, asks to see his girls Antigone and Ismene. Oedipus is again refused his plea for exile, and Creon takes the girls from him, against Oedipus’ will. Chorus: “count no man happy till he dies.”

19/1/07 - English Literature - Theatre and Performance

Previous to studies in drama and theatre, plays were read out in the same way as epic poetry. Characters were treated like real people (e.g. "How many children had Lady Macbeth?"). Alternatively, poems could be seen as sources of imagery and metrical verse. The limitation of this is that it treats drama as a reading text, not as something written for the theatre, as something cultural and increasingly professional.

When studying a play, the stage, space, performance conditions, institutions and commercial arrangements should all be considered. Theatre should be seen in a social context, e.g. a court performance.

Bear baiting and animal fighting were popular entertainments before drama became public. Amphitheatres were created for the first time during the Elizabethan era; they were the first purpose-built stages for drama, with a backstage area, galleries and a roof. The New Globe was one of these. They were different to today's theatres: they were bare, they had no scenery, they were in the open air, there was no clear demarcation of the stage space and the audience space, plays were performed in the round, there were no stage lights. Consequently, actors had to behave differently then compared to now. Different parts of the stage delineated different acting. The locus was for famous and important characters, who would act as if they were in a different world. The front of the stage was for actors who could acknowledge the presence of the audience, and slapstick could be acted here. This acting was highly mimetic and akin to pantomime. The best seats were to the side of the stage, on the stage itself. Because of the close proximity of the audience to the actors, illusionistic drama was impossible.

There were indoor theatres, like Blackfriars Theatre. From 1609n onwards, Shakespeare used the theatre, particularly in winter. It was expensive to attend plays in such theatres, and more comfortable, so was available only to elite audiences. Because of the private and educated audience, there were more classical references, more erudite satire and more risqué political statements. Lighting could be used to illuminate the stage for the first time. Here there was clear delineation of audience stage, so special effects and more dramatic scene changes became possible. Language was less important here because there were so many other resources available.

Chorister boys were press ganged into such theatre. They learned voice projection, acting and singing. Children performed for an adult audience. When Shakespeare took over the theatre, male adults also took over. The young boys tended to play female parts, while the adult males played men and comic roles, whether male or female in character.

Gender identity was mixed up, and there was sexual intrigue and interaction. Cross dressing was therefore a major issue, and not always accepted.

"What man so ever weareth woman’s apparel is accursed, and what woman weareth man’s apparel is accursed also. … Our apparel was given to us as a sign distinctive to discern betwixt sex and sex, and therefore one to wear the apparel of another sex, is to participate with the same, and to adulterate the verity of his own kind."
[Philip Stubbes, The Anatomy of Abuses (1583)]

One woman, Mary Frith, was a notorious celebrity for dressing in a mixture of male and female items. Sometimes she got up on stage and played her flute. However, this was considered scandalous, and she was equated to a prostitute.

It was widely thought that theatre seduced people into vice and caused them to lose their identity. This was particularly thought among Puritans and the civic authorities in London. Theatres were built outside the jurisdiction of the authorities and churches. St. Paul's Cathedral was built on the north bank of the Thames, while the theatres were built on the south bank. The theatre was a marginal institution, considered to be threatening to the authorities, who thought that the only reason that people should gather was for mass. Henry VIII sold Protestant churches to the people, built in the Liberties, also places outside the authorities' jurisdiction.

"For the student of Western culture, the playhouses of Elizabethan London can precipitate an uncanny sense of cultural déjà vu… Homer was always a wanderer, as Socrates says, errant and homeless as the songs he sang; poetry and drama began in exile, and whether actually returned to their proper place or not, are to be viewed as marginal pastimes. Literally or figuratively, they take place outside the polis, society, or episteme to which they ambiguously belong. They stand not outside history, but at a slight remove from the historical conditions that make them possible – able to transcend, criticize, and even comment upon those conditions by virtue of a certain marginality."
[Steven Mullaney, The Place of the Stage (1988), 56]

Theatres prospered because they were commercially successful; they were wrapped up in the commercial life of London. Plays such as Volpone comment on the commercial nature of themselves. The issue of commerce versus morals was often brought up.

Theatres were also a resource which political authorities could use for events such as the Lord Mayor's parade. An arch built in Fenchurch to welcome King James to London represents an actor and musicians as part of the culture of the city. There rose a new form of English drama - the masque. A masque is difficult to define, but it could be described as a multi-media spectacle. There would be music, actors, painters, ornate costumes, and the involvement of nobles and royals and their guests. Masques occurred on special occasions such as the arrival of a foreign noble visitor. King James watched such masques from above in his purpose-built palace, White House. Scenery moved about, there were backdrops, elaborate sets, illusions and depth, and the king was entitled to the seat with the best view of the illusions on backdrops, such as one point perspective.

18/1/07 - History of Art - Museums

This lecture will consider how museums are influential rather than neutral, and some of the controversies that have surrounded museums.

The first modern museum was founded in the late 18th century, at a time closely linked to Enlightenment and the rise of the bourgeoisie. Museums were frequently purpose-built, though sometimes they were installed in already existing buildings. Private collections were the first displays, but they were often crowded.

Many see the Louvre as the real beginning of modern museums. The building began as a palace for the king. After hid death a decree was put out that the Louvre would open to the public in 1793. This was the agenda for hanging paintings in its halls. "Potent engines of ideology."

French museums in particular are treasures of war, showing objects that were taken as booty abroad, for example, some of its 17th century Spanish paintings. Provenance later became an issue and museums were therefore seen to harbour an aggressive culture and power struggles.

When the National Gallery was first opened in Angerstein's house it was an embarrassment of a mere 40 paintings compared to The Louvre's hundreds. It was later moved to a purpose-built building in Trafalgar and more paintings were acquired.

Other cities wanted to show off their prestige and power by having their own museums. Worldly success came to be measured by acquisition in museums (whether they collected national paintings, local paintings or those of an individual).

Museums are now used to protect, curate and conserve works. They provide a permanent haven for works that would otherwise be damaged or sold to an 'unsuitable' place. Works are studied and catalogued accurately and thoroughly. Studies of works are facilitated. Museums are always looking to improve their permanent collection by complementing already existing works by filling in gaps and acquiring works that are central to the museum's surrounding culture. Emphasis has been placed on availability to public and education for all. Museums try to provide entertainment for a public of diverse background, which is increasingly important as government funds rely on customer numbers, hence the current level of marketing that museums use).

So presentation, the images and information given are important for museums.

Deacquisition (selling surplus or undesirable items) is rare in the UK, but common in the US. The reason why this is not exercised in the UK is because while some paintings may appear to be inferior today, they may gain significance in the future. There is also a rise in the returning of apparently looted works to their country of origin. There is the issue of restoration and conservation of paintings: the Louvre is conservative and prefers not to restore paintings but to leave them in their present condition; the National Gallery in London is cavalier and prefers to restore its paintings to their original condition so that they can be better appreciated. Admissions to galleries are mostly free, for the inclusiveness of everyone. However, charging would bring some much-needed cash. Installations could be put in for the sake of education or beauty; this needs to be considered before paintings are installed. And how much say should marketing have on the hanging of works? Nowadays, the market has a lot more say than it did previously.

The culture of ancient Greece is seen as the epitomy of great art, so some museums imitated this style, for example, look at the architecture of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. There is often a balance that must be struck between modern, respected style and the emulation of the classical arts.

Museums try to give the impression that art objects ennoble the viewer, hence why some galleries and museums such as the National Gallery of Scotland are set back from the street. In order to get there, you must cross the road, walk across a courtyard and mount some steps. Many people dislike the oppressive atmosphere of museums, however. Others find them glorifying.

The rise of the museum came in conjunction with the decline of religion. Museums replaced church visits. Yet they are similar in many ways: they have a sacred space, one must speak in a hushed voice, one must process down long corridors, venerate works and behave with unusual decorum.

The Guggenheim Museum brought to question whether it was the contents of the museum that were of most interest, or whether it was the architecture of the building.

Extensions on to museums are sometimes unsuccessful yet required, for example, the Playfair Project at the National Gallery of Scotland and the refurbishment programme of the power station in London in what is now the Tate Gallery. Yet it was argued that the Guggenheim's significance was its architecture and not is exhibitions.

We must consider what the effect of museums on art really is. Remember that works of art were not originally made for museums or public viewing. In a museum, art could lose all meaning. The Bridgewater Madonna, say, would look different if it were put in a display of monographic works, Italian works, religious works or a private setting. Other factors include using neutral walls and how crowded the works are affect aesthetics. Also, how the viewer sees a work of art depends on what they have seen previous to it, and in turn seeing the work of art may affect how they see subsequent works of art.

The South Kensington Gallery had a separate room for watercolours and showed a preference for classical art. The order that we're supposed to see the art can be influenced by curators, for example, ethnographic sections tend to be on the top floor of a gallery or museum. Barnes deliberately undermined the view that ethnographic art should be kept separate from classical art by putting both sections together and showing how one influenced the other. He even declared in his will that this was not to be changed.

Period hanging tries to re-establish the original settings that paintings were painted and viewed in. This is an educational agenda.

Aesthetics became more popular in the 1960s so each work began to be treated as a work of art in itself. In the Getty Museum, the works are widely spaced and information about them is restricted to minimise conditioning on the viewer. Dark walls were used, and enclosed rooms with wide open spaces, with seating for contemplation. The Beyller Foundation and Tate Gallery adopted this approach, with emphasis on education of the soul rather than factual education. Galleries became places of escapism and purification.

Thematic hanging is the final one. This type of hanging disregards date and tradition. So still lives of all nationalities and periods can be seen together. However, this is a limiting technique so only large museums are able to do it.

18/1/07 - Classical Literature - Aeschylus: 'Libation Bearers' and 'Eumenides'

1. Libation Bearers

Here, there is a cycle of violence and retribution; one crime leads to another. According to Zeus, the way out is "knowledge through suffering." It is a three times old law: the doer must suffer.

"You great powers of Fate, may Zeus grant an ending here
in which justice changes to the other side!
'In return for hostile words, let hostile words be paid' -
in exacting what is due, Justice shouts that aloud,
and 'In return for bloody blow, let bloody blow repay!'
'For the doer, suffering' is saying three times old."
[306-315 (Chorus)]

Orestes makes a conscious decision to kill his mother.

"Pylades, what am I to do? Is such respect to stop me from killing my mother?"
[Orestes' final hesitation and decision, 899]

Everyone is convinced of Orestes' just revenge.

"There came justice at last to Priam's children,
heavy and just in punishment;
there came to Agamemnon's house
a double lion, double warfare ...
Come! Cry celebration for our master's house
in escaping evil and its wealth's erosion by two polluters ..."
[Chorus celebrates the triumph of justice, 935ff]

2. Eumenides

Here, intention does not matter, only the deed itself. There is the juxtaposition of pollution and purification: Orestes goes to Delphi washed in pig's blood. According to ancient law, it is impossible to purify the pollution of murder.

"You must repay us with a gruel of red
to slurp from your limbs while you live;
I shall want my food from you by drinking this grim draught.
And when I have withered you I well lead you off below, alive,
to pay penalty for the matricide and its horror."
[Chorus of Furies to Orestes, 264-268]

Athena settles the matter at court, with a jury of Athenian citizens. Notice her judge-like language.

"To judge this matter is greater than any mortal thinks - and I certainly have no right to decide between pleas about shed blood where angers are sharp, especially since you, Orestes, have been submissive to custom and come in supplication to my temple purified and harmless; and I respect you as giving the city likewise no cause for blame - but these persons have an allotted role not easy to dismiss, and if they do not get an outcome which brings them victory, poison from their proud spirit will later fall to the ground and bring the lands intolerable, everlasting sickness. This is how the matter stands: both courses, for you to stay, Orestes, and for me to send you away, bring harsh pain if there is no wrath against me. But since this matter has descended suddenly upon us here, I shall appoint judges for murder-cases, with respect for oaths under an ordinance which I shall lay down for all time ..."
[Athena to Orestes, 470ff]

Her reason for voting in favour of Orestes is strange and arbitrary: she says that she cannot understand a mother's point of view as she never had one, so the crime of killing a father is much worse than the killing of a mother. The Furies are granted a position as the kind Furies of justice by Athena.

Mythical past is linked to contemporary legal debates in Eumenides. The Furies really were worshipped as the kind divinities of Athena, and the ancient counsel was restricted to cases of homicide four years before the Oresteia was written. So the Oresteia accounts for contemporary customs, and it ends with political compromise.

18/1/07 - English Literature - Wyatt and Surrey

The first half of the 16th century has not been widely studied, but Wyatt and Surrey are important figures of this time.

"Henry Earl of Surrey and Sir Thomas Wyatt, between whom I find very little difference, I repute them for the two chief lanterns of light to all others that have since employed their pens upon English poesy. Their conceits were lofty, their styles stately, their conveyance cleanly, their terms proper, their metre sweet and well proportioned, in all imitating very naturally and studiously their master Francis Petrarch."
[George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie, c. 1565-70 (published 1589)]

Puttenham praises Wyatt and Surrey. However, he was biased because he was attempting to make a name for himself in the courts; Wyatt and Surrey are courtiers.

Wyatt was the inventor of a new sonnet form. Surrey was the inventor of iambic pentameter.

Wyatt came first; Surrey claimed that Wyatt was his poetic father. Surrey translated the Aeneid into iambic pentameter, trying to create a sense of poetry as the centre of naturality. He was executed aged 30 for treason.

Both poets were well aware of the dangers of court.
They did not publish their poems at the time because writing was not seen as a way of living, but was meant only to entertain groups of friends privately. Their audiences were therefore familiar, close audiences who knew the subject of the poems.

Wyatt considered court life and private life to be separate. He thought himself unfitting for court because he was not deceitful.

"The passions of the thought make eche manner of life that is offred them conformable & like to them self/not vnot them that haue chosen the best lyf custome maketh it nat plesaunt/as some say/but rather wisdom maketh the best life to be also most plesant. Therefore the well of surete of the minde/springing in our self/let vs assay to make most pure & clere/that those thinges that gyue vs foren thinges & chaunceable/we may make mete & according/in suffring with gret vprightnesse of the mynde."
[Wyatt, The Queyte of Mynde, a translation of Plutarch]

The last line of the poem contrasts the busy court life with the quiet life of the mind. Wyatt says that happy people are those who are strong enough of mind to deal with the trials of life. Despite seeing such benefits of court exile, he expresses some frustration of lack of independence and of stimulation, indicating that he regrets his banishment.

In Whoso list to hunt, Wyatt tries and fails to end the pursuit of his lover, but is disillusioned; he can't have her because she belongs to Caesar. Petrarch's deer has been freed by Caesar; Wyatt's has been claimed by him. In Wyatt's poetry, court life and love often come into conflict.

The finality of the message in Whoso list to hunt is emphasised by the rhyming couplet and final lines: abba, cddc, effe, gg.

Surrey's poems differ in structure and content.

Love, that doth raine and life within my though,
And buylt his seat within my captyve brest,
Clad in the armes wherin with me he fowght
Oft in my face he doth his banner rest.
But she that tawght me love and suffre pain,
My doubtfull hope and eke my hote desire
With shamfast looke to shadoo and refrayne,
Her smyling grace convertyth straight to yre.
And cowarde love than to the hert apace
Taketh his flight where he doth lorke and playne
His purpose lost, and dare not show his face.
For my lordes gylt thus fawtless byde I payine;
Yet from my lorde shall not my foot remove.
Sweet is the death that taketh end by love.
[Surrey, translation of Petrarch's Rime 140]

Both poets have said that love often looks apparent in their face, that their lady is angry and that love hides.

Wyatt changed the sonnet form to three quatrains and a couplet to end, but the octave remains untouched. Surrey ends each quatrain with a different rhyme. It is a sensible change to make because of the difficulty with using the same rhyme many times. Notice the iambic pentameter. Surrey studied unrhymed classical meter, where the focus is on long and short syllables rather than stressed and unstressed syllables. Surrey introduced this into his poetry. Enjambment is used on lines about flight, which was discouraged at the time in favour of using each line as a complete statement. Peter Scupham stated that iambic pentameter was difficult for scholars not the write because it flows so naturally.

Surrey personifies love; Wyatt shows inwardness and uncertainty, and interacts with love. "Heart" residence indicates he is inside himself. He uses battle imagery. His rhyming couplet is not a true rhyme as the last line is a complete statement and has the effect of being less conclusive than Surrey's.

This difference is also reflected in their translations of David's Psalms.

Mye flesshe is troubled, me hart doth feare the speare;
That dread of death, of death that ever lasts,
Threateth of right and draweth neare and neare.
Moche more my sowle if trowbled by the blastes
Of thise assawltes, that come as thick as hayle,
Of owrldlye vanytie, that temptacion castes
Agaynst the weyke bulwarke of the flesshe frayle.
[Wyatt, 'Penitential Psalms', II. 100-6]

O lord thow knowst the inward contemplation
Off my desire, thou knowest my syghes and plaints
Thow knowst the teres of my lamentation
Can not expresse my hertes inward restraints.
My hart pantyth, my force I fele it quaile.
My syght, myn lyes, my lok dekays and fayntes.
And when myn enmys did me most assayle,
My frendes most sure, wherein I sett most trust,
Myn own vertus, sonest then did ffaile,
And stoud apart, reson and witt vniust,
As kyn vnkynd were fardest gone at need.
So had thei place theire venim owt to thrust
That sowght my deth by nowghty word and dede.
[Wyatt, 'Penitential Psalms', II. 358-70]

Oh Lorde, uppon whose will dependeth my welfare,
To call uppon thy hollye name syns daye nor night I spare,
Graunt that the just request of this repentaunt mynd
So perce thyne eares that in thy sight som favour it may find.
My soule is frughted full with greif of follies past;
My restles bodye doth consume and death approcheth fast.
[Surrey, imitation of Psalm 88]

When recheles youth in an unquiet brest,
Set on by wrath, revenge and crueltye,
After long warr pacyens had opprest,
And justice wrought by pryncelye equitie;
My Deny, then myne errour, depe imprest,
Began to worke dispaire of libertye,
Had not David, the perfyt warriour, tought
That of my fault thus pardon shold be sought.
[Surrey, proem to Psalm 88]

In Wyatt's poem, the soul fears its own inconsistency as well as external forces. Surrey's translations are more political works. By "Lorde" he could mean God or Henry VIII. In his proem he admits wrongfulness, but only in order to achieve a result.

Surrey's poetry is about politics and dignity and the public. Wyatt is inclined to talk about and to be artificial. He is concerned about what appears to be and what truly is. He can be political and critical of the court, particularly relating to falsehood. Both poets probably shared references and associations with their friends.

The contrast between the public and the private explored in both the poets' work gave later poets a reference of the courts, to new ways of thinking and new ways of talking about courts.