Movie of the Day today was Out of the Past a documentary on the origins of the gay-straight alliance and the history of "comming out" in American society. It is certainly a documentary to consider using in the American government or American Social History class. Interesting that it "came out" (no pun intended) in 1998, a year with historical meaning for me with respect to this issue.
One of the earlier segments of the documentary talks about Michael Wigglesworth, a puritan minister and Harvard theology professor who made all his confessions about same sex attractions in his journal in code. I wish I could find a copy of a page to show here. I suppose thats the way all things eventually get out in the open. We first tell ourselves truths in dreams, camouflaged in symbols. And slowly but surely what is on the deepest inside works its way to the surface.
Skyler and I had a great conversation about dreams, the unconscious, and the source of creative genius last night. Ironically, I had one of the most powerful dreams I have had all year last night. It was a dream about being in the Roman Empire I think. I recall that the rules of morality I was used to did not apply there and it was a frightening place. Someone gave me a deep slicing cut on the outside palm of my hand and it started t bleed profusely. I was trying to hold my fingers on it but it was bleeding terribly and I feared I would pass out soon. Someone came along and stitched it up. I remember finding a group of Christians and being overwhelmingly glad that Christianity had replaced the violence of the Roman culture that I had been subjected to in the dream, even if it wasn't true. But at the very end, I was advising someone who was going to go back into what I had come out of that they would have to define themselves. That they could chose themselves. They did not have to be chosen by the culture.
I was talking to Skyler last night about the evolutionary theory that he was covering in his Anthropology class. My conclusion was that relationships were important to happiness in life and that ideas that destroyed relationships might not be worth insisting on. That it was legitimate to chose the preservation of a relationship over the championing of an idea.
I wonder some days if I have any influence as a parent. Other days I wonder if anything else does.
Question for Comment: I wonder about Michael Wigglesworth and his compulsion to express what was going on in his journal and yet his instinct to hide it in code at the same time. Is this a healthy compromise? What do you think?
OK, so I haven't written for a while. But I have an excuse. Many excuses. All good. One of them is that I have been reading a good book on American history and culture. Its a CORE reading assignment for first year students at the college and I am trying to work my way through all of their assigned readings. The essential argument of the book is that cultural folkways in American society have direct correlations to the folkways in regions of Britain where settlers originated.
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America, by David Hackett Fischer
The book's thesis is that in any given culture, 'folkways' always include the following things:
- Speech ways: conventional patterns of written and spoken language - pronounciation, vocabulary, syntax and grammar.
- Building ways: prevailing forms of vernacular architecture and high architecture, which tend to be related to one another.
- Family ways: the structure and function of the household and family, both in ideal and actuality.
- Marriage ways: ideas of the marriage-bond, and cultural processes of courtship, marriage and divorce.
- Gender ways: customs that regulate social relations between men and women.
- Sex ways: conventional sexual attitudes and acts, and the treatment of sexual deviance.
- Child-rearing ways: ideas of child nature and customs of child nurture.
- Naming ways: onomastic customs including favored forenames and the descent of names within the family.
- Age ways: attitudes toward age, expreiences of aging, an age relationships.
- Death ways: attitudes toward death, mortality rituals, mortuary customs and mourning practices.
- Religious ways: patterns of religious worship, theology, ecclesiology and church architecture.
- Magic ways: normative beliefs and practices concerning the supernatural.
- Learning ways: attitudes toward literacy and learning, and conventional patterns of education.
- Food ways: patterns of diet, nutrition, cooking, eating, feasting and fasting.
- Dress ways: customs of dress, demeanor, and personal adornment.
- Sport ways: attitudes toward recreation and leisure; folk games and forms of organized sport.
- Work ways: work ethics and work experiences; attitudes toward work and the nature of work.
- Time ways: attitudes toward the use of time, customary methods of time keeping, and the conventional rhythms of life.
- Wealth ways: attitudes toward wealth and patterns of its distribution.
- Rank ways: the rules by which rank is assigned, the roles which rank entails, and relations between different ranks.
- Social ways: conventional patterns of migration, settlement, association and affiliation.
- Order ways: ideas of order, ordering institutions, forms of disorder, and treatment of the disorderly.
- Power ways: attitudes toward authority and power; patterns of political participation.
- Freedom ways: prevailing ideas of liberty and restraint, and libertarian customs and institutions.
Boys and I had at least two really good conversations today. We were talking about the difference between Brutus' and Antony's perceptions of the crowds in Julius Caesar. Brutus is a man of reason and principle. Our reasons are so full of good regard" he says "That were you, Antony, the son of Caesar, You should be satisfied. . . ."
By your pardon;
I will myself into the pulpit first,
And show the reason of our Caesar's death:”
He believes that since HE cares more about principle and logical consistency, others can be expected to think and act in the same way. Indeed, Brutus would kill himself if his principles dictated that he do so.
"With this
I depart,--that, as I slew my best lover for the
good of Rome, I have the same dagger for myself,
when it shall please my country to need my death."
Instinct means nothing to him. Emotional bonding, also nothing. Ties of friendship? A third time nothing. He expects the crowd to be the same way ... and to some extent, they are. They do respond to his reasoning power. But this reasoning is buried like Pompey under Vesuvius lava within a few minutes of Antony's opportunity to speak. Why? Does Antony counter Brutus' reason with reason? No. He doesn't bother. He counters Brutus' reason with tone of voice, with immediate experience, with emmotion, instinct, and appeals to the self-interest concerns of the crowds. The crowds go from "Live, Brutus, Live" to "Burn their houses" in a matter of minutes. Crowds, Shakespeare seems to be saying, are not controlled by logic but by a far more inherent instinctual collective id. How am I affected NOW? What can I see, hear, smell, taste NOW? What do I feel NOW?
Is he right? Is a person who learns to think, to summarize information, break information down into smaller parts, put information and perspectives together, evaluate arguments, identify basic assumptions, compare and contrast arguments, short-circuit group thinking tendencies, ask questions, identify important but ignored questions, construct visions, follow ideas to logical conclusions, trace cause and effect patterns, predict unseen side effects to policy decisions, admit mistakes, explain failures, assimilate contradictions, solicit alternative perspectives, undermine oppositional ideas, build communities, integrate cultural core beliefs, identify problems, and communicate creative solutions among a thousand other things that brains are capable of simply learning how to use a sword in a world of machine guns (people who can manipulate others with emotions?
Question for Comment: Are we doomed to be ruled by those who master the art of appealing to the instinctual programing of human motivation? Should I quite trying to be a critical thinking teacher and learn to be less like Brutus and more like Antony? Is a person who can think always going to be like that poor sword wielding Ninja guy in Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark?
Betrayed people are just insane. Thats all there is to it. And it
doesn't matter how intelligent a person is either. Brains have nothing
to do with it. Spirituality has nothing to do with it. Basic goodness ... upbringing ... reading. Betrayed people are just going to be insane. You can count on it.
Mailing Cow's Head to Wife's Lover? No!
Tue Jan 8, 8:45 PM EST
NORRISTOWN, Pa. — A man who mailed a bloody cow's head to his wife's lover has been sentenced to probation and community service. Jason Michael Fife "understands that in a civilized society a person cannot send a severed cow's head to anybody," said his defense lawyer, Henry Hilles.
The victim received a package containing a cow's head with a puncture wound in its skull on June 1, 2006.
Police said Fife, 31, got the cow's head from a butcher's shop, claiming he wanted the dried skull for decoration. Instead, he mailed the head frozen, so as not to alert parcel carriers to the contents, police said. The box became bloody after sitting on the victim's doorstep on a warm day.
Police were able to trace the package and threatening e-mails to Fife, court documents indicate.
"My client did step over the line here, but one can certainly understand his frustration, given that the victim was carrying on an affair with my client's wife," Hilles said.
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/odd/2008/01/08/ODD.Mailed.Cow_s.Head/
Question for Comment: Here is someone that has been betrayed. Five years from now, will she wish she had NOT destroyed this guy's laptop? OR will she wish she HAD destroyed his TV?
"Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most." Fyodor Dostoevsky
Do a google image search for 1999 Superbowl XXXIV and a dozen pictures of this scene will pop up. Why, in a sixty minute football game, with hundreds of moments worth photographing and recording, maybe thousands, will THIS particular image make the final cut. What makes it such a searing memory?
The answer? It is the very last second of the game. It is the end game so to speak. The Tennessee Titan receiver, Kevin Dyson being tackled by St. Louis Rams player, Mike Jones one yard short of the endzone. One measly yard short of victory, exultation, football immortality. One yard. The length of his arm perhaps. A whole game distilled into one play, a whole season reduced to the universe of three cubic feet and whole cities grieve or celebrate what happens in it in that two seconds of time. A whole NATION watches. What would Kevin Dyson have done differently if earlier that day he had been taken into a back room to see this play. What if by some feat of augury,
I came this close to a goal a few weeks ago. And I think again last Monday. If someone had been capable of ten seconds of kindness, I think I might have made it across that line. But they weren't. Game over perhaps.
Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma, or a hideous dream:
The Genius and the mortal instruments
Are then in council; and the state of man,
Like to a little kingdom, suffers then
The nature of an insurrection.Julius Caesar
It never ceases to amaze me how people justify their cruelties to other people. Here are the last written words of John Wilkes Booth, assassin of Abraham Lincoln
“I can never repent it, though we hated to kill. Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment.”
“After being hunted like a dog through swamps, woods, and last night being chased by gunboats till I was forced to return wet, cold, and starving, with every man's hand against me, I am here in despair. And why? For doing what Brutus was honored for. What made (William) Tell a hero? And yet I, for striking down a greater tyrant than they ever knew, am looked upon as a common cutthroat. My action was purer than either of theirs. One hoped to be great himself. The other had not only his country's but his own, wrongs to avenge. I hoped for no gain. I knew no private wrong. I struck for my country and that alone. A country that groaned beneath this tyranny, and prayed for this end, and yet now behold the cold hands they extend to me. God cannot pardon me if I have done wrong. Yet I cannot see my wrong, except in serving a degenerate people. The little, the very little, I left behind to clear my name, the Government will not allow to be printed. So ends all. For my country I have given up all that makes life sweet and holy, brought misery upon my family, and am sure there is no pardon in the Heaven for me, since man condemns me so. I have only heard of what has been done (except what I did myself), and it fills me with horror. God, try and forgive me, and bless my mother. Tonight I will once more try the river with the intent to cross. Though I have a greater desire and almost a mind to return to Washington, and in a measure clear my name - which I feel I can do. I do not repent the blow I struck. I may before my God, but not to man. I think I have done well. Though I am abandoned, with the curse of Cain upon me, when, if the world knew my heart, that one blow would have made me great, though I did desire no greatness. Tonight I try to escape these bloodhounds once more. Who, who can read his fate? God's will be done. I have too great a soul to die like a criminal. Oh, may He, may He spare me that, and let me die bravely. I bless the entire world. Have never hated or wronged anyone. This last was not a wrong, unless God deems it so, and it's with Him to damn or bless me.”
Last Journal Entry of John Wilkes Booth
Even Benedict Arnold held that his attempted betrayal of West Point was an act of patriotism. In a letter to George Washington he wrote "love to my
country actuates my present conduct, however it may appear inconsistent
to the world, who very seldom judge right of any man's actions". But lest Washington should be regarded as incapable of rationalizations himself, we have this letter he wrote in 1766:
"Sir: With this letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg the favour of you to sell, in any of the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return for him: one hhd of best molasses, one of best Rum, one barrel of Lymes if good and cheap, … and the residue, much or little in good ole spirits…That this Fellow is both a rogue and a Runaway…I shall not pretend to deny. But . . . he is exceedingly healthy, strong and good at the Hoe… which gives me reason to hope he may, with your good management sell well (if kept clean and trim'd up a little when offered for sale… [I] must beg the favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him hand-cuffed till you get to Sea."
See HERE for Washington's thoughts on slaves
Last week, I watched the movie, Wetback: An Undocumented Documentary. I thought it would make an excellent addition to my Modern American Social History class movie list. In the course of the movie,everyone with a stake in the matter of illegal immigration seems to get a chance to speak. Those who have migrated to America illegally and those who are planning to, those who work for the government to keep illegal immigrants out and those who provide safe houses to help them. Those who make a living helping others immigrate illegally and those who's living are affected. Those who patrol the borders as vigilantes and those who patrol the borders as criminals seeing to rob or exploit immigrants. The movie paints with a wide brush and seems to take no sides. Just the sort of movie I like when I am looking at an issue like this.
The irony is that just yesterday, I was constructing a Global Module (online course with international student participation) that asked students to introduce themselves by talking about their socialization with respect to borders. The class connects my American Social History students with American literature students in Amman Jordan so I decided to start the first week with a conversation about Robert Frost's poem, Mending Wall. Here is the question I asked them to answer.
Week 1: Robert Frost’s Mending Wall and Introductions: We would like to make it clear in the first week that the objective of this experience is not primarily to better understand literature with each other but rather to better understand each other with literature. So rather than just study a piece of literature this week, we would like to give you the chance to introduce yourselves to one another by making use of piece of literature. It seems to me that Robert Frost’s poem Mending Wall would make as good a means of introduction as any. It is a poem about two neighbors separated by a boundary that they both inherited. One neighbor, Frost, would like to see the boundary slowly disappear though he respects his neighbor’s wish to maintain it. The other neighbor would like to keep the boundary intact so that his property (culture) is not influenced by that of his neighbor’s.
So … this week, we would like you to introduce yourselves to the group by responding to the following question: “In Frost’s poem Mending Wall, two people sharing a part of the planet go out to rebuild a wall built by their ancestors. One of the men believes that it is important to maintain the boundary between their respective properties (cultures) and the other would like to see the boundary dissolve so that their two properties (cultures) can relate to each other without a sense of fear. I suppose we have all been raised to see ourselves as members of groups who have been bequeathed traditional ideas about how they should relate to certain other groups. (These group identities may be based on nationality, ethnicity, family, gender, class, religion, political affiliation, educational attainment, or any number of other of the distinctions that humans use to differentiate themselves as members of “clans” and sub-clans). Take a moment to talk about Frost’s poem and what you learn from it and then introduce yourself by telling us just a little bit about at least one cultural boundary that you were raised to protect … or to think mattered. Which of the men in Frosts poem have you been more like thus far in your life? Have you been a cultural boundary protector or a cultural boundary remover? Why? Can you give us one specific story from your life that would illustrate?”
Mending Wall: http://www.ketzle.com/frost/mending.htm
Question for Comment: Which of the men in Frosts poem have you been more like thus far in your life? Have you been a cultural boundary protector or a cultural boundary remover?
The following questions were asked by one of my colleagues in a proposed Global Module discussion guide of Simone De Beauvoir's The Second Sex:
Who was Simone de Beauvoir and what was her reason for writing The Second Sex? Do you find her arguments convincing? Are her points still valid or has the world changed dramatically since de Beauvoir wrote The Second Sex?Obviously, the reader can do a biographical search themselves if they are interested but the following suffices for the briefest of answers:
"Beauvoir's The Second Sex, published in French in 1949, sets out a feminist existentialism which prescribes a moral revolution. As an existentialist, Beauvoir accepts the precept that existence precedes essence; hence one is not born a woman, but becomes one. Her analysis focuses on the concept of The Other. It is the (social) construction of Woman as the quintessential Other that Beauvoir identifies as fundamental to women's oppression." Wikipedia
To start with, I think it is fair to say that at the time of the Supreme Court case, Bradwell v. Illinois in 1873, De Beauvoir was right. In that case, Myra Bradwell was asking to be allowed to practice law in Illinois. The Supreme Court ruled that she couldn't because she was a woman. In Justice Bradley's words,
"The civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. One of these is, that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counsellor.
It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.
The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the State; and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.
For these reasons I think that the laws of Illinois now complained of are not obnoxious to the charge of abridging any of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."
I think this is precisely what De Beauvoir was complaining about. But Bradwell v. Illinois was ruled on 35 years before Simone de Beauvoir was born. By 1949 when the Second Sex was written, women were practicing law and in some cases, were moving into positions of leadership (I am thinking about Golda Meir among others) so, something had changed. But the question is, is this still the case? Does society STILL define women as "the other"? Does it still maintain that there are SOME boundaries that men and women should be separated by? Well, the answer is "yes" but those boundaries are more like islands in the social map than whole continents. Should even these islands be disposed of? Personally, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. I think there are differences between men and women that matter but I think individual men and women should be allowed to find them.
In The Second Sex, de Beauvoir makes the point, “But if I wish to define myself, I must first of all say: ‘I am a woman’: on this truth must be based all further discussion. A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex.” What point is de Beauvoir making here?
I think she is asserting that men see themselves as defining "normal". They see themselves as defining the species and they see women as a member of the species modified. As if to say that even though women make up 50% of the species by population, they are humans with "women's syndrome" like one might refer to someone with Down's syndrome".
But I think that this has changed. Just last week, I watched a documentary about the ways that men's brains and women's brains are generally wired somewhat differently. Clearly, there were advantages and disadvantages to both wiring schemes and one simply needed to recognize the differences. There was no hint that one was better than the other. I think that is the general sense of things today.
In a famous quote, de Beauvoir proposes that, “He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other.” What does this mean? Is woman “the Other?” If she is “the Other,” what are the consequences?
I suppose the consequences of asserting power because of a pre-asserted
ownership of a claim to being the absolute is that it forces women (the
"other") to cultivate attributes of the absolute (the male) in order
to get any access whatsoever to that power. They cannot claim power on the
basis of memberships in a shared absolute. Women then, must act like men, look
like men, think like men to acquire the privileges of the absolute. They must,
to put it one way, put shoulder-pads in their business suits. Those would be
the consequences I would imagine.
Simone de Beauvoir wrote, “Why is it that women do not dispute male
sovereignty? No subject will readily volunteer to become the object, the
inessential; it is not the Other who, in defining himself as the Other,
establishes the One. The Other is posed as such by the One in defining
himself as the One.” Do you believe this argument? Maybe more
importantly, why “is it that women do not dispute male sovereignty?”
Well, first of all, women DO dispute male sovereignty. They do it all the time.
Secondly, fewer and fewer men assert it, giving fewer and fewer women the right
to dispute it. But lastly, there are many women who do not dispute it because
they BENEFIT from it. Some women get men to care for them better than they feel
they could care for themselves by allowing such men to feel good about
themselves as superiors.
If we believe de Beauvoir then a good question to ask would be – was the
creation of “the Other” a conscious or unconscious decision? That is,
were women deliberately given a supporting role?
Both. I think it is a matter of assertion. WE as humans generally believe that which we hear most often asserted and men typically take more risks with respect to assertion. They are more willing to assert that things are so when they may or may not be so. Perhaps their greater muscle mass gives them the impression that they can afford to be wrong and not pay for it?
de Beauvoir states, “If woman seems to be the inessential which never becomes the essential, it is because she herself fails to bring about this change. Proletarians say ‘We’; Negroes also. . . But women do not say ‘We’ . . .” Is this true? She also points out that women “have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest . . .” Why would women have trouble organizing to bring about change?
"The greatest weapon in the arsenal of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed" I often say. The question about why women have had trouble organizing to bring about change may be rooted in an era before modern communication tools. Women were often isolated in homes caring for children. But now they have cell phones, internet, IM, cars, PDA's, TV, and organizations (like the Vermont Council on Women) to aid in the development of networks. I might argue that given their better communication skills in general, women may have organizational advantages today.
Simone de Beauvoir suggested that, “The bond that unites her to her oppressors is not comparable to any other.” What does she mean?
I suspect that she is referring to the demands of child begetting and child
rearing. Reproduction is a fundamental need. Women cannot depend on quantity of
offspring to offset a lack of quality in their reproductive lives. In some
ways, like it or not, women need men in order to duplicate themselves and send
their DNA into the next generation. They generally speaking, need to keep men
in their lives to help with the task and this gives men, I guess, some element
of power that De Beauvoir believes is greater than the reciprocal need. This
would be interesting to debate.
de Beauvoir proposed that “woman has always been man’s dependant, if not his
slave; the two sexes have never shared the world in equality.” Is she
overstating her case? If it is true, then what has stood in the way of
women achieving equality?
Can I answer that, not being myself, a woman? I know that I do not and have
not regarded women as "slaves" or inferiors. I have myself, ironically,
felt at times as though I were the one regarded as a the slave. So
"yes" I do think she overstates the case. But I was not living in
1949 either.
“To decline to be the Other,” wrote de Beauvoir, “to refuse to be a party to
the deal – this would be for women to renounce all the advantages conferred
upon them by their alliance with the superior caste.” Would there be
advantages for women to be “the Other?”
Obviously there were advantages. Why else would the system have been
maintained? I know that on any frosty 20 below morning when the dog needed to
be taken out, you know who was going to do it NOT you know who. Perhaps the
following poem suffices. Sir Husbain and the Dragon
Let’s assume that de Beauvoir is correct, that woman is “the Other.” Let’s bring in examples from our different countries of instances where women are “the Other.” Or, is de Beauvoir wrong? Can you cite examples from your country that prove that woman is not “the Other,” or at least is no longer “the Other?”
OK. Take the issue of violence. Watch any American movie and you will never see a man who is BOTH violent towards women AND a heroic character. A man who commits an act of violence towards a man can continue being the heroic character in the movie, indeed, to BE a heroic character, he probably HAS to commit some act of violence towards a man … but let him lay one hand on a woman and his status as hero is over. Conversely, American movies today are loaded with female characters who beat up guys and retain their heroine status. Kill Bill, Elektra, Cat Woman, Charlies Angels, Crouching Tiger; Hidden Dragon, The Incredibles etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum, Even in movies about normal people, women can smack a man, slap a man, kick a man, punch a man, insult a man, or whatever and retain status as a likable good character. But it does not work that way in reverse.
I am sure there are many other illustrations and that they go both ways. That was just one that entered my mind.
"It is virtually impossible to imagine the court of Henry VIII. In that world, civilized graciousness and pleasant conversation in luxurious circumstances could turn in a moment into a hell of personal and political betrayal, imprisonment, torture, and execution. Henry was a brilliant and generous man in many ways, but he was also an unpredictable and dangerous ruler whose selfish motives could combine with the malice of ascendent courtiers to ruin lives."
http://www2.eou.edu/~deeng205/Wyatt.html
AN EARNEST SUIT TO HIS UNKIND MIS-
TRESS NOT TO FORSAKE HIM..
ND wilt thou leave me thus ?
Say nay ! say nay ! for shame
To save thee from the blame
Of all my grief and grame.1
And wilt thou leave me thus ?
Say nay ! Say nay !
And wilt thou leave me thus ?
That hath lov'd thee so long ?
In wealth and woe among :
And is thy heart so strong
As for to leave me thus ?
Say nay ! Say nay !
And wilt thou leave me thus ?
That hath given thee my heart
Never for to depart ;
Neither for pain nor smart :
And wilt thou leave me thus ?
Say nay ! Say nay !
And wilt thou leave me thus ?
And have no more pity,
Of him that loveth thee ?
Alas ! thy cruelty !
And wilt thou leave me thus ?
Say nay ! Say nay !
1 Sorrow.
Source:
Yeowell, James, Ed. The Poetical Works of Sir Thomas Wyatt.
London: George Bell and Sons, 1904. 108-109.
THE LOVER RECOUNTETH THE VARIABLE
FANCY OF HIS FICKLE MISTRESS.
S it possible ?
That so high debate,
So sharp, so sore, and of such rate,
Should end so soon, and was begun so late.
Is it possible?
Is it possible?
So cruel intent,
So hasty heat, and so soon spent,
From love to hate, and thence for to relent ?
Is it possible ?
Is it possible?
That any may find,
Within one heart so diverse mind,
To change or turn as weather and wind,
Is it possible ?
Is it possible?
To spy it in an eye
That turns as oft as chance on die,
The truth whereof can any try ;
Is it possible ?
Is it possible?
For to turn so oft ;
To bring that low'st that was most aloft ;
And to fall highest, yet to light soft ;
It is possible !
All is possible !
Whoso list believe,
Trust therefore first and after preve ;1
As men wed ladies by license and leave ;
All is possible !
1 Prove.
Source:
Yeowell, James, Ed. The Poetical Works of Sir Thomas Wyatt.
London: George Bell and Sons, 1904. 106-107.
OF DISSEMBLING WORDS.
HROUGHOUT the world if it were sought,
Fair words enough a man shall find ;
They be good cheap, they cost right
nought,
Their substance is but only wind ;
But well to say and so to mean,
That sweet accord is seldom seen.
My Groups
-
The Analogical Imagination Updated: Jun 18, 2008
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
