AllTheseThings

Waiting for Excellence

My daughter and I joined her Brownie troop for a visit to the Lincoln Center to see Delibes' ballet Coppelia. This Advent we saw the Nutcracker at a more local venue. Although we had third row center tickets for the latter, our nosebleed Coppelia tickets were worth far more. The Lincoln Center is home to the New York City Ballet Company (according to itself, one of the top two companies in the US). I kept thinking it would be over - the lead could not possibly have another solo. It struck me that waiting for excellence is really worth it. I would rather go to the Lincoln Center once every five years than to the local ballet every year. In our case, group tickets in the 'gods,' as the British put it, cost less and gave infinite more satisfaction. Sometimes I fear I am not exposing our daughters to enough cultural events; yesterday reminded me to wait and save for the best.

Beth

allthesebeth@yahoo.com

Prep Work

Last week we visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is a favorite spot for my seven year old and me.  After studying Egypt, we spent almost 2 hours in the Egyptian collection; she knew more than the junior college kids falling asleep in front of the Temple of Dandur.  Last month we rented the audio guide and she was engrossed in the Greek and Roman Collection before and after lunch.  But this most recent visit we went because my aunt was visiting. We had not studied any new period closely, so we meandered around.  L. enjoyed the audio tour again, but was more aimless. (The biblical imagery was understandable to her.  My 4 year old and I reasoned out who we thought was the bad thief and who was the good thief.  She had good reasons, but the artists were not as interested in the thieves as we were.)

Anyway.  What struck me following our most recent tour was how much L. benefited from studying a period before seeing the great works from that period.  It was the same reaction I had today at Muscoot Farms; the animals fascinated the children: the farm tools they had no concept of were ignored.  Being a homeschooling mom, this is helping me focus what we study and where we go for field trips.

Still Learning,

Beth

allthesebeth@yahoo.com

Mind Over Body

So, it turns out Cleopatra was loved for her mind, not her body.  Feminism was on the march in ancient Egypt too I guess. 

Some British archaeologists--for Valentine's Day no less--published findings based on a Roman coin depicting Cleopatra.  They show that she was no physical beauty at all.

Compare:

and

Then think about the modern mind's traditional view of Cleopatra:

 

Which images are closer?  Cleopatra and Susan B. Anthony or Cleopatra and Elizabeth Taylor?

I think the artists since Cleopatra's time have altered our perception, bringing it down to the "lowest common denominator" of sorts--physical beauty.  In doing so, they have altered the reason she was probably revered from her personality to her body.  (And for those of us in the viewing audience, thank goodness for that!  As for society, well, that's another story--the audience v. societal benefits, is the perpetual battle, isn't it?)

Consider this progression of descriptions over the centuries--from closest in time (see the coin above for the physical depiction) to the most modern (see E. Taylor's picture nearby.)

From the article:

Plutarch, in the "Life of Antony" written a century after the great romance, said of Cleopatra: "her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her."..."But the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said or did, was something bewitching. It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice ..."

Then to Chaucer:

"fair as is the rose in May."

And to Shakespeare:

Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety; other women cloy the appetites they feed, but she makes hungry where most she satisfies."

Well, it turns out that the reason age couldn't wither her was that it had already occurred!  Nevertheless, the woman's beauty was in her presence and company.  This, I imagine is something Susan B. Anthony would have applauded.  And maybe, just maybe, we have in Rome and Egypt an early example of the type of mind-over-body womanhood so much discussed in erudite circles today.

Nevertheless, I doubt the movie would have been such a hit had Susan B. had the lead!

We blog, you decide,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Columns Mean Learning

James Lileks has a post reviewing new shows, including HBO's Rome, which I have not seen, but know Hugh Hewitt is a big fan of the show.  While writing about Rome's new season, Lileks comments on the historical accuracy and detail of the sets.  This leads to an interesting discussion on Roman architecture:

All Western cultures like to think of themselves as reflections of Rome – heirs who believe they have bested the legacy, but still suspect they lack the iron in the spine that made Rome great. But we’re better than they were. The attributes that held them together are incompatible with an Enlightened society, and what virtues they had they consumed in their rise to power. But we feel a kinship, and that’s only natural; we all grew up associating their architectural vocabulary with ours. Church, business, government – everyone took turns dressing up in Roman glory.

Why? It’s peculiar, the assumptions we make. Think of “Gothic” church architecture - busy facades, filigreed steeples, flying buttresses, everything squeezed together and competing to get to  heaven first, giant stone mountains evaporating in an effervescence rapture. It seems very old and spooky. Roman, or “classical” architecture, almost stands outside of time: it’s a timeless ideal, and its effect on the Western imagination is so enduring that when the clumsy exhausted modernists came up with something like this in 1968 (click for a larger picture) they felt compelled to put columns out front to match the neighboring classical buildings. Because columns meant college and learning and civilization.  Such a building might have meant something else 2000 years ago – say, “here’s the place where they slit the throat of the bull and dump the blood on the rich lady who wants Jove to make sure her husband gets that new job” – but those meanings have been drained from the structures, replaced with meanings particular to Christianity and concepts associated with Christian cultures. 

I love the line "competing to get to heaven first"--it has a certain Tower-of-Babylon quality.  Also, the concept that classical architecture stands outside of time resonates with me.  I do not know, from a technical standpoint, why it does seem to be timeless--but I never tire of seeing it.  It would be great if someone who has studied architecture could explain how it does that.  Lileks' university example shows a building's architecture can look dated within a few decades--sadly, my university has more than its fair share of such designs--yet classical still draws the eye millennia latter.  I think the American Founders appreciated this fact, which is good for our Capital's architecture. 

I don't know why moderns must fixate on finding the new "thing."  Rediscovering the old "thing" would be just fine with me.

Back to the future,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com