Caspar David Friedrich’s Wanderer Above The Sea Of Fog (1818)

Back in 2016 when I intro­duced this blog (here) and the sense of the “sub­lime” as some­thing of excel­lence “occa­sion­al­ly glimpsed” here­in, I men­tioned that the con­cept of the sub­lime was one with a long his­to­ry of being debat­ed by artists and writ­ers over the cen­turies. I can pad that idea out a bit now, since it has a direct con­nec­tion to the sub­ject of this week’s blog, and so for fun and edi­fi­ca­tion, here’s a lit­tle pot­ted his­to­ry or mini-essay on the con­cept of the sub­lime.

The first known study of the con­cept was the 1st cen­tu­ry AD trea­tise On The Sub­lime, ascribed to Long­i­nus and which talks about the use of great or lofty lan­guage, intend­ed to inspire awe or ven­er­a­tion, in the field of rhetoric. This trea­tise was redis­cov­ered in the 16th cen­tu­ry and trans­lat­ed into Eng­lish and French in the fol­low­ing decades, and it had a sig­nif­i­cant influ­ence on lit­er­ary crit­i­cism and the phi­los­o­phy of aes­thet­ics in the 17th and 18th cen­turies.

The con­cept was devel­oped in Britain in the ear­ly 18th cen­tu­ry and came to describe an aes­thet­ic qual­i­ty in nature dis­tinct from beau­ty, brought into promi­nence by the writ­ings of John Den­nis (1693), Joseph Addi­son (1705) and Antho­ny Ash­ley-Coop­er (1709). All three of these authors had under­tak­en a cross­ing of the Alps, as part of that famil­iar Enlight­en­ment pas­time the “Grand Tour”, and all three inde­pen­dent­ly expressed their con­trast­ing feel­ings of fear and plea­sure at the awe­some­ness of nature and derived, as Addi­son described it, “an agree­able kind of hor­ror”.

Edmund Burke more for­mal­ly devel­oped this con­cep­tion of sub­lim­i­ty in A Philo­soph­i­cal Enquiry into the Ori­gin of Our Ideas of the Sub­lime and Beau­ti­ful in 1756, and Ger­man philoso­phers Kant, Schopen­hauer, Hegel and Rudolf Otto each added their aca­d­e­m­ic heft to the sub­ject. Soon, the con­cept would be realised in the art move­ment known as Roman­ti­cism and we would see the por­tray­al of land­scape in an entire­ly new man­ner: not just a visu­al­i­sa­tion of the sim­ple enjoy­ment of a beau­ti­ful view, as in the clas­sic con­cep­tion, but rather an exam­i­na­tion of a reunion with the spir­i­tu­al self through the con­tem­pla­tion of nature and its majes­tic pow­er.

Ger­man artist Cas­par David Friedrich (1774–1840) was instru­men­tal in cre­at­ing this notion of a land­scape full of roman­tic feel­ing: die roman­tis­che Stim­mungs­land­schaft. Friedrich’s paint­ings com­mon­ly employed the Rück­en­fig­ur, a per­son seen from behind, con­tem­plat­ing the land­scape and invit­ing the view­er to sim­i­lar­ly place him­self in that medi­um and expe­ri­ence the sub­lime poten­tial of nature. The Friedrich paint­ing that is above all used to char­ac­terise this con­cept is his 1818 oil on can­vas, Wan­der­er above the Sea of Fog.

It depicts a man stand­ing upon a rocky precipice and gaz­ing out across a land­scape cov­ered in a thick sea of fog through which oth­er ridges, trees, and moun­tains pierce. It is con­sid­ered one of the mas­ter­pieces of the Roman­ti­cism move­ment and to suc­cess­ful­ly evoke the sub­lime or Addis­on’s “agree­able hor­ror”.

Cas­par David Friedrich, Wan­der­er above the Sea of Fog

Richard Wagner’s Ride Of The Valkyries (1870)

There’s noth­ing quite as Ger­man­ic as a Wag­n­er opera, and noth­ing quite as epic as his mag­num opus, Der Ring des Nibelun­gen (The Ring of the Nibelung). The full cycle of the four parts of The Ring lasts fif­teen hours and although prag­ma­tism these days gen­er­al­ly means that just one of the parts is per­formed, I do like the idea of watch­ing it in its entire­ty. A bit like read­ing Proust’s In Search Of Lost Time in its 1.2 mil­lion word entire­ty (see my blog on that here). Nei­ther chal­lenge have I yet under­tak­en, I should say, but back in 1876, it must have been some spec­ta­cle to have attend­ed the famous Bayreuth Fes­ti­val, when the full cycle was per­formed for the first time, over four days: Das Rhein­gold (The Rhine­gold), Die Walküre (The Valkyrie), Siegfried, and Göt­ter­däm­merung (Twi­light of the Gods)

The opera is loose­ly based on char­ac­ters from Ger­man­ic and Norse hero­ic leg­end and cen­tres around the epony­mous mag­ic ring that grants domin­ion over the world and how it is fought over by gen­er­a­tions of gods, heroes and myth­i­cal crea­tures, until the final cat­a­clysm at the end of the Göt­ter­däm­merung. The com­plex­i­ty of the epic tale is matched by the increas­ing com­plex­i­ty of the music as it pro­gress­es, and Wag­n­er wrote for such a gar­gan­tu­an orches­tra that a spe­cial pur­pose-built the­atre was built at Bayreuth.

The piece that we all know is the Ride of the Valkyries from Die Walküre, con­tain­ing that rous­ing leit­mo­tif as the Valkyrie sis­ters of Norse mythol­o­gy (“choosers of the slain”) trans­port the fall­en heroes to Val­hal­la. The music was used in Apoc­a­lypse Now (1979) where it was played on heli­copter-mount­ed loud­speak­ers dur­ing the Amer­i­can assault on Viet­cong-con­trolled vil­lages. And just recent­ly, in the excel­lent and grit­ti­ly hon­est TV doc­u­men­tary film, Our Falk­lands War: A Front­line Sto­ry, it was revealed that it was sim­i­lar­ly played loud­ly over the tan­noy as 2 Para were get­ting into the land­ing craft in prepa­ra­tion for their first assault on the Falk­land Islands.

Here’s a ver­sion from the BBC Proms, best enjoyed from a sofa rather than a land­ing craft.

Cesare Viazzi, Ride of the Valkyries (1906)

 

Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel Ceiling (1512)

Well, I sup­pose it had to hap­pen soon­er or lat­er, what with the Cre­ation of Adam being astride the top of these blogs week in, week out: it’s time to look at that apex preda­tor of the Renais­sance art world, and num­ber one cause of vis­i­tors’ neck strain, the Sis­tine Chapel. No vis­it to Rome is com­plete with­out it, and per­haps no blog on the sub­lime can afford to omit it.

First, a whis­tle-stop his­to­ry tour: Sis­tine Chapel 101, if you like. Meet Pope Six­tus IV, pope between 1471 and 1484:

Pope Six­tus IV

It was Six­tus (adjec­tive “Sis­tine” in case you need that mansplained) who com­mis­sioned the build­ing of the chapel, which was com­plet­ed in 1481 and has served ever since as the Pope’s offi­cial res­i­dence. Six­tus is also known for found­ing the Span­ish Inqui­si­tion, but that’s anoth­er sto­ry, let’s stick with the chapel. He arranged for a team of painters (not Michelan­ge­lo yet — he comes lat­er — but includ­ing two oth­er famous names, Bot­ti­cel­li and Ghirlan­diao) to cre­ate a series of fres­coes on the walls, depict­ing the lives of Moses and Jesus.

Fast for­ward to 1508 and Pope Julius II is in charge (Julius was a rel­a­tive of Six­tus: nepo­tism was anoth­er of Sixtus’s strong suits):

Pope Julius II

Julius com­mis­sioned Michelan­ge­lo to com­plete the dec­o­ra­tion of the chapel by paint­ing the ceil­ing, which he com­plet­ed four years lat­er in 1512. This was a project that changed the course of West­ern art and is right­ly regard­ed as one of the crown­ing artis­tic accom­plish­ments of human civil­i­sa­tion. Replete with bib­li­cal scenes,  sto­ries and char­ac­ters, the ceil­ing is a riotous col­lec­tion of limbs and draperies, at first glance, and indeed a pho­to of the ceil­ing does­n’t real­ly do it jus­tice — but giv­en time to appre­ci­ate (whilst not bump­ing into fel­low tourists), it is an artis­tic tour de force that war­rants its fame. Click on these images to expand; the first to spot the Cre­ation of Adam wins a prize…

Zack Snyder’s 300 (2006)

Frank Miller is an Amer­i­can artist and writer of com­ic books and graph­ic nov­els such as The Dark Knight Returns, Sin City, and the inspi­ra­tion for today’s blog, 300. I have not pre­vi­ous­ly delved into the genre of the graph­ic nov­el, and actu­al­ly I’m not today either because it’s the 2006 film of the same name by Zack Sny­der, inspired by Miller’s sto­ry, that I am writ­ing about. Nev­er­the­less, the film is very much led by the graph­ic nov­el vibe and owes its styl­is­tic ren­der­ing to Miller’s work.

300 is a fic­tion­al retelling of the Bat­tle of Ther­mopy­lae in 480 BC between the invad­ing Per­sian army and the Spar­tans dur­ing the Per­sian Wars. Some years ago, my fam­i­ly and I went on a dri­ving hol­i­day to Greece and along the way vis­it­ed the sites of three ancient bat­tles: Marathon, Plataea, and the mel­liflu­ous­ly named Ther­mopy­lae, the “Hot Gates”. There’s a stat­ue of the Spar­tan king Leonidas there, his fame res­onat­ing down the ages a full two and a half thou­sand years lat­er (2502, at the time of writ­ing, to be pre­cise). The con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous his­to­ri­an Herodotus wrote about Ther­mopy­lae in his His­to­ries: how the Per­sian king Xerx­es I and his army were held at the nar­row pass at Ther­mopy­lae by a mas­sive­ly out­num­bered unit of 300 Spar­tan sol­diers. It’s history’s great­est last stand.

And boy, does the film take this idea and run with it! It is of course ide­alised out of any remote con­nec­tion to real­i­ty, but this is its whole point: it is graph­ic nov­el in motion and is made specif­i­cal­ly to be a feast for the eyes. It takes some­thing that is the most bru­tal, piti­less con­cep­tion imag­in­able – that of hand-to-hand, kill-or-be-killed com­bat with cold met­al – and turns it into a bal­let, a chore­og­ra­phy of bat­tle. Ger­ard But­ler plays Leonidas and brings rous­ing lead­er­ship to its apex: the way he moti­vates his fight­ers to bat­tle is up there with Brave­heart and Hen­ry V.

With a slight word of warn­ing for those for whom mass bat­tle is not their par­tic­u­lar cup of tea, do oth­er­wise watch this bat­tle scene. It encap­su­lates the val­our, the do-or-die spir­it, the out­right strength and dis­ci­pline and fight­ing capa­bil­i­ty of these trained Spar­tan sol­diers, and it does so, as I say, with a styl­is­ti­cal­ly chore­o­graphed beau­ty that is equal­ly won­der­ful and dis­turb­ing to behold. With the pro­vi­so that I would nev­er wish myself in the midst of this scene in a mil­lion years (the blood runs cold at the thought), by God it’s thrilling to watch!

300

Leonard Rossiter as Rigsby in Rising Damp (1975)

We tend to think of sev­en­ties’ com­e­dy as hav­ing failed the test of time and some­thing per­haps best for­got­ten, due to our mod­ern-day sen­si­tiv­i­ties regard­ing out­dat­ed cul­tur­al norms such as those around gen­der roles and race rela­tions. Our minds con­jure up such stark exam­ples as Love Thy Neigh­bour and Mind Your Lan­guage, and cringe at their naivety, whilst the sight of white actors “black­ing up” in It Ain’t Half Hot Mum would cause notable dis­com­fort these days. But to dis­re­gard all sev­en­ties sit­coms on such a premise is to throw baby out with the bath­wa­ter, because in amongst the com­e­dy TV shows from that decade are some absolute gems, and the best of them in my view was Ris­ing Damp.

Ris­ing Damp was writ­ten by Eric Chap­pell on the back of his 1973 stage play The Banana Box and ran between 1974 and 1978, star­ring Leonard Rossiter, Frances de la Tour, Richard Beck­in­sale and Don War­ring­ton. Rossiter plays Rigs­by, the miser­ly land­lord of a run-down Vic­to­ri­an town­house who rents out his shab­by bed­sits to a vari­ety of ten­ants: Beck­in­sale plays Alan, a long-haired and good-natured med­ical stu­dent; Frances de la Tour plays Ruth (Miss Jones), the whim­si­cal spin­ster with whom Rigs­by is in love; and War­ring­ton plays the recent arrival Philip Smith, also a stu­dent and appar­ent­ly the son of an African chief. As a black man, Philip ini­tial­ly brings out the knee-jerk sus­pi­cions of Rigs­by; how­ev­er, the land­lord quick­ly accepts his new ten­ant and hence­forth regards him with a wary respect borne of Philip’s intel­li­gence and sophis­ti­cat­ed man­ners (some­thing not lost on Miss Jones either).

The char­ac­ters were ful­ly-formed from day one due to the fact that three of the prin­ci­pal actors had already honed their char­ac­ters in the stage play (only Beck­in­sale was new to the role). The dia­logue is bril­liant­ly con­ceived and deliv­ered by the actors with aplomb: their tim­ing is superb, and in Rigs­by, of course, we have one of the great­est com­e­dy char­ac­ters of all time. Watch him here as Alan and Philip tease him about women and the “eroge­nous zones”, that new­ly pop­u­larised term made pos­si­ble by the rise of the “per­mis­sive soci­ety”. Price­less.

Ris­ing Damp cast

Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side Of The Moon (1973)

Read­ers of my gen­er­a­tion may recog­nise the fol­low­ing com­mon social trope from teenage gath­er­ings and house par­ties. As music plays, ring-pulls are released from cans of lager, and friend­ly ban­ter fills the room, in a dim-lit cor­ner, a long-haired layabout is skin­ning up a joint on the near­est album cov­er, which always seems to be Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon. It per­haps wasn’t always The Dark Side of the Moon, but as a meme it fits pret­ty well into this snap­shot of the­mat­ic mem­o­ry. Mind you, in the era I was attend­ing teenage gath­er­ings, at the start of the eight­ies, the album was already get­ting quite old (it had been released in 1973) but it had turned into an endur­ing and per­pet­u­al­ly high-sell­ing album that every­one (the lads any­way) seemed to relate to.

It was the Floyd’s eighth stu­dio album, con­ceived and devel­oped over years as a con­cept album explor­ing var­ied themes such as con­flict, greed, time, death and men­tal ill­ness, and large­ly inspired by the band’s ardu­ous lifestyle and the grow­ing men­tal health prob­lems suf­fered by for­mer band mem­ber Syd Bar­rett (who left the group in 1968). Pri­mar­i­ly devel­oped dur­ing live per­for­mances, the band added new mate­r­i­al dur­ing two ses­sions in 1972 and 1973 at Abbey Road Stu­dios in Lon­don.

It’s high­ly exper­i­men­tal: the group incor­po­rat­ed mul­ti­track record­ing, tape loops, ana­logue syn­the­sis­ers, and snip­pets from inter­views with the band’s road crew and var­i­ous philo­soph­i­cal quo­ta­tions. The engi­neer was Alan Par­sons, and he was respon­si­ble for much of the son­ic feel to the album (not least by recruit­ing the singer Clare Tor­ry, who appears on The Great Gig in the Sky). It works extra­or­di­nar­i­ly well, as a whole as much as its indi­vid­ual parts. This actu­al­ly takes me back to anoth­er teenage meme, that of bod­ies lying around a dark­ened room, in a pleas­ant fug, and lis­ten­ing to the album in its entire­ty.

Here’s the intro to the album put effec­tive­ly to video by a fan (cred­it: Marc-André Ranger)…enjoy! Now, where are those Rizlas?

Pink Floyd
The icon­ic album cov­er, by Storm Thorg­er­son

Robert Donat in Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)

Some months ago here at OGOTS Tow­ers, in a piece on Walt Whitman’s O Cap­tain! My Cap­tain (see here), we looked at that won­der­ful role por­trayed by Robin Williams in Dead Poets Soci­ety: the uber-inspi­ra­tional teacher, John Keat­ing. Well, this week we’re look­ing at anoth­er stal­wart of the fic­tion­al school­room, one Charles Edward Chip­ping AKA “Mr Chips”.

Good­bye, Mr. Chips is a 1939 roman­tic dra­ma based on the 1934 novel­la of the same name by James Hilton. The film is about Mr Chip­ping (Robert Donat), a much-loved elder­ly school teacher at Brook­field pub­lic school, who looks back at his career and per­son­al life over the decades. We learn about his rise through the teach­ing ranks, his friend­ship with Ger­man teacher Max Stae­fel (Paul Hein­reid) and his trag­i­cal­ly short mar­riage to Kathy (Greer Gar­son), who dies in child­birth along with their baby. From there­on in, Chips’ life is devot­ed exclu­sive­ly to the school and he devel­ops a rap­port with gen­er­a­tions of pupils, even­tu­al­ly teach­ing the sons and grand­sons of many of his ear­li­er pupils.

Although he osten­si­bly retires in 1914, Chips is soon enjoined to return as inter­im head­mas­ter due to the short­age of teach­ers because of the Great War. Dur­ing a bomb­ing attack by a Ger­man Zep­pelin, Chips insists that the boys keep on trans­lat­ing their Latin, and to the great amuse­ment of his pupils, choos­es the sto­ry of Julius Cae­sar’s bat­tles against the Ger­man­ic tribes. Now there’s stiff upper lip!

As the war drags on though, every Sun­day in chapel Chips reads aloud into the school’s Roll of Hon­our the names of the many for­mer boys and teach­ers who have died in the war. It’s a poignant scene (that you can see below). Upon dis­cov­er­ing that Max Stae­fel has died fight­ing on the Ger­man side, he reads out his name, too. “Fun­ny read­ing his name out with the oth­ers, after all, he was an ene­my”, says one school­boy to anoth­er after­wards. “One of Chips’ ideas I sup­pose” his mate says, “he’s got lots of fun­ny ideas like that”.

Chips retires per­ma­nent­ly in 1918, but con­tin­ues liv­ing near­by. He is on his deathbed in 1933 when he over­hears his col­leagues talk­ing about him. He responds, “I thought I heard you say it was a pity – a pity I nev­er had any chil­dren. But you’re wrong. I have! Thou­sands of them, thou­sands of them.. and all.. boys”.

Robert Donat as Mr Chips

Rudyard Kipling’s Rikki-Tikki-Tavi (1894)

As a child of the six­ties, I was exposed to that great 1967 Dis­ney clas­sic, The Jun­gle Book; I remem­ber being tak­en to the cin­e­ma to watch it and at the end, as the cred­its rolled, I begged to stay and watch Mowgli, Baloo and Shere Khan all over again (I seem to remem­ber we’d been a bit late and missed the first few min­utes so I built my jus­ti­fi­ca­tion upon that; it didn’t work). Mean­while, at school, a copy of the book on which the film was based was a sta­ple of the class book­case: Rud­yard Kipling’s The Jun­gle Book. Most of the short sto­ries must have been read out to us at one time or anoth­er but one in par­tic­u­lar stands out in my mem­o­ry: the tale of Rik­ki-Tik­ki-Tavi.

Rik­ki-Tik­ki-Tavi, so named for his chat­ter­ing vocal sounds, was a young Indi­an grey mon­goose who befriends an Eng­lish fam­i­ly resid­ing in India. He gets to know the oth­er crea­tures inhab­it­ing the gar­den and is warned of the cobras Nag and Nagaina (names per­haps inspir­ing J K Rowl­ing to choose, years lat­er, the name Nagi­ni for Voldemort’s snake), who are angered by the human fam­i­ly’s pres­ence in their ter­ri­to­ry and seek to kill them

Accord­ing­ly, Nag enters the house­’s bath­room before dawn to kill the humans, but Rik­ki attacks Nag from behind in the dark­ness. The ensu­ing strug­gle awak­ens the fam­i­ly, and the father kills Nag with a shot­gun blast while Rik­ki bites down on the hood of the strug­gling male cobra. The griev­ing female snake Nagaina attempts revenge against the humans, cor­ner­ing them as they have break­fast on a veran­da, but again Rik­ki saves the day, pur­su­ing Nagaina to her under­ground nest where an unseen final bat­tle takes place. Rik­ki emerges tri­umphant from the hole, and ded­i­cates his life to guard­ing the gar­den.

The sto­ries in The Jun­gle Book were inspired in part by ancient Indi­an fable texts such as the Pan­chatantra and the Jata­ka tales, and indeed there is a sim­i­lar mon­goose and snake ver­sion of the Rik­ki-Tik­ki-Tavi sto­ry found in Book 5 of Pan­chatantra. Kipling’s “beast tales” were thus the revival of an old tra­di­tion, with Kipling’s own spin gleaned from his expe­ri­ences grow­ing up in India for the first five years of his life (and with a hearty dol­lop of aban­don­ment issues, per­haps, after Kipling was sent back to Eng­land for an unhap­py peri­od, but that’s anoth­er sto­ry). Here are the open­ing lines to the sto­ry.

THIS is the sto­ry of the great war that Rik­ki-tik­ki-tavi fought sin­gle-hand­ed, through the bath-rooms of the big bun­ga­low in Segowlee can­ton­ment. Darzee, the tai­lor-bird, helped him, and Chuchun­dra, the muskrat, who nev­er comes out into the mid­dle of the floor, but always creeps round by the wall, gave him advice; but Rik­ki-tik­ki did the real fight­ing.

He was a mon­goose, rather like a lit­tle cat in his fur and his tail, but quite like a weasel in his head and his habits. His eyes and the end of his rest­less nose were pink; he could scratch him­self any­where he pleased, with any leg, front or back, that he chose to use; he could fluff up his tail till it looked like a bot­tle-brush, and his war-cry as he scut­tled through the long grass, was: “Rikk-tikk-tik­ki-tik­ki-tchk!

One day, a high sum­mer flood washed him out of the bur­row where he lived with his father and moth­er, and car­ried him, kick­ing and cluck­ing, down a road­side ditch. He found a lit­tle wisp of grass float­ing there, and clung to it till he lost his sens­es. When he revived, he was lying in the hot sun on the mid­dle of a gar­den path, very drag­gled indeed, and a small boy was say­ing: “Here’s a dead mon­goose. Let’s have a funer­al.”

“No,” said his moth­er; “let’s take him in and dry him. Per­haps he isn’t real­ly dead.”

They took him into the house, and a big man picked him up between his fin­ger and thumb and said he was not dead but half choked; so they wrapped him in cot­ton-wool, and warmed him, and he opened his eyes and sneezed.

“Now,” said the big man (he was an Eng­lish­man who had just moved into the bun­ga­low); “don’t fright­en him, and we’ll see what he’ll do.”

It is the hard­est thing in the world to fright­en a mon­goose, because he is eat­en up from nose to tail with curios­i­ty. The mot­to of all the mon­goose fam­i­ly is, “Run and find out”; and Rik­ki-tik­ki was a true mon­goose. He looked at the cot­ton-wool, decid­ed that it was not good to eat, ran all round the table, sat up and put his fur in order, scratched him­self, and jumped on the small boy’s shoul­der.

“Don’t be fright­ened, Ted­dy,” said his father. “That’s his way of mak­ing friends.”

“Ouch! He’s tick­ling under my chin,” said Ted­dy.

Rik­ki-tik­ki looked down between the boy’s col­lar and neck, snuffed at his ear, and climbed down to the floor, where he sat rub­bing his nose.

Rik­ki-Tik­ki-Tavi book cov­er
Rud­yard Kipling

John Clare’s The Shepherd’s Calendar (1827)

Not every­one is an expert in Roman­tic poet­ry (and nei­ther am I, though I con­cede I’m no slouch) but if I were to ask you to name “the big six” poets of the Roman­tic era (late 18th to mid-19th cen­tu­ry), I bet you’d stand a fight­ing chance because they almost fall off the tongue: Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Blake, Shel­ley, and Keats, right? There’s anoth­er poet from the era, how­ev­er, who nev­er rose to the majesty of the afore­men­tioned giants, but who nonethe­less is now regard­ed as a major tal­ent: the “Northamp­ton­shire Peas­ant Poet”, John Clare.

Unlike some of his con­tem­po­raries, John Clare didn’t have the where­with­al to lounge about on the Span­ish Steps in Rome (Keats), swim the Helle­spont (Byron), or swap ghost sto­ries around the fire at a vil­la by Lake Gene­va (Shelley…oh, and Byron again), because he spent his life as an agri­cul­tur­al labour­er, pot­boy, and gar­den­er, and nev­er left the coun­try.

Born in Help­ston in Northamp­ton­shire in 1793, John worked as a farm labour­er with his father from being a young boy onwards. The farm and the nature per­me­at­ing his sur­round­ings pro­vid­ed his inspi­ra­tions; this was where he found his voice and began writ­ing poems and son­nets. In an attempt to stave off his par­ents’ evic­tion from their home, John offered his poems to a local book­seller, who in turn sent them off to the pub­lish­ing firm who had already pub­lished the works of one John Keats. The rur­al aes­thet­ic appealed and thus, these suc­cess­ful col­lec­tions of poems were spawned: Poems Descrip­tive of Rur­al Life and Scenery, The Vil­lage Min­strel and Oth­er Poems, The Rur­al Muse, and the col­lec­tion I own: The Shepherd’s Cal­en­dar.

Whilst Clare’s ear­li­er poems speak of the har­mo­ny and beau­ty of nature in the Eng­lish coun­try­side, his lat­er work bemoans the great changes to the envi­ron­ment and soci­ety brought about by the Enclo­sure Acts. These wiped out a whole way of life by abol­ish­ing the open field sys­tem of agri­cul­ture which had been the way peo­ple farmed in Eng­land for cen­turies. The own­er­ship of the com­mon land was tak­en from them and the coun­try­side was dec­i­mat­ed as new­ly-unem­ployed coun­try folk flowed into the towns to par­tic­i­pate in the Indus­tri­al Rev­o­lu­tion.

The hurt was deep, and in fact Clare found it increas­ing­ly dif­fi­cult to cope with life, and he sad­ly descend­ed into depres­sion and men­tal ill­ness, even­tu­al­ly spend­ing many years in an asy­lum. Whilst there he wrote the poem I Am! which is a win­dow into his men­tal strug­gles and a stark con­trast to his hard-work­ing but hap­py hey­day. Here’s a poem from the lat­ter peri­od, Spring, with I Am! fol­low­ing…

Spring

Come, gen­tle Spring, and show thy var­ied greens
In woods, and fields, and mead­ows, by clear brooks;
Come, gen­tle Spring, and bring thy sweet­est scenes,
Where peace, with soli­tude, the loveli­est looks;
Where the blue uncloud­ed sky
Spreads the sweet­est canopy,
And Study wis­er grows with­out her books.

Come hith­er, gen­tle May, and with thee bring
Flow­ers of all colours, and the wild bri­ar rose;
Come in wind-float­ing drap­ery, and bring
Fra­grance and bloom, that Nature’s love bestows–
Mead­ow pinks and columbines,
Keck­sies white and eglan­tines,
And music of the bee that seeks the rose.

Come, gen­tle Spring, and bring thy choic­est looks,
Thy bosom graced with flow­ers, thy face with smiles;
Come, gen­tle Spring, and trace thy wan­der­ing brooks,
Through mead­ow gates, o’er foot­path crooked stiles;
Come in thy proud and best array,
April dews and flow­ers of May,
And singing birds that come where heav­en smiles.

I Am!

I am—yet what I am none cares or knows;
My friends for­sake me like a mem­o­ry lost:
I am the self-con­sumer of my woes—
They rise and van­ish in obliv­i­ous host,
Like shad­ows in love’s fren­zied sti­fled throes
And yet I am, and live—like vapours tossed

Into the noth­ing­ness of scorn and noise,
Into the liv­ing sea of wak­ing dreams,
Where there is nei­ther sense of life or joys,
But the vast ship­wreck of my life’s esteems;
Even the dear­est that I loved the best
Are strange—nay, rather, stranger than the rest.

I long for scenes where man hath nev­er trod
A place where woman nev­er smiled or wept
There to abide with my Cre­ator, God,
And sleep as I in child­hood sweet­ly slept,
Untrou­bling and untrou­bled where I lie
The grass below—above the vault­ed sky.

John Clare

James McNeill Whistler’s Arrangement in Grey and Black, No. 1 (1871)

With Mother’s Day immi­nent it seemed appo­site to take a look at an image that has been endur­ing­ly asso­ci­at­ed with moth­er­hood, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the US, since the Vic­to­ri­an era: the famous Whistler’s Moth­er. James Abbott McNeill Whistler (1834–1903) was an Amer­i­can painter, based pri­mar­i­ly in Eng­land, and a lead­ing pro­po­nent of “art for art’s sake”, that cre­do which con­sid­ered art to have intrin­sic val­ue quite sep­a­rate from any moral or didac­tic func­tion. He was all about tonal har­mo­ny and saw par­al­lels between paint­ing and music, even enti­tling many of his paint­ings as “arrange­ments”, “har­monies”, and “noc­turnes” — his Whistler’s Moth­er is only col­lo­qui­al­ly so-called and was real­ly called Arrange­ment in Grey and Black.

The sub­ject of the paint­ing is, unsur­pris­ing­ly, Whistler’s moth­er, Anna McNeill Whistler, who was liv­ing with the artist in Lon­don at the time. The sto­ry goes that Anna Whistler was only act­ing as a sub­sti­tute because the orig­i­nal mod­el couldn’t make the sit­ting, and although Whistler had envi­sioned his mod­el stand­ing up, his moth­er was just too uncom­fort­able to pose upright for long peri­ods of time so insist­ed on sit­ting down.

The work was shown at the 104th Exhi­bi­tion of the Roy­al Acad­e­my of Art in Lon­don in 1872, after nar­row­ly avoid­ing rejec­tion by the Acad­e­my (a bone of con­tention for Whistler for many years after). It seems that all these weird ideas Whistler held about “arrange­ments” and so on just didn’t sit well with the stuffed shirts of the Acad­e­my, and they insist­ed on adding an explana­to­ry adjunct, “Por­trait of the Painter’s moth­er”, to Whistler’s title. Whistler even­tu­al­ly sold the paint­ing, which was acquired in 1891 by Paris’s Musée du Lux­em­bourg and  is now housed in the Musée d’Or­say.

In 1934, the US Post Office Depart­ment issued a stamp engraved with the por­trait detail from Whistler’s Mother, bear­ing the slo­gan “In mem­o­ry and in hon­or of the moth­ers of Amer­i­ca”. In that spir­it, this blog is writ­ten in mem­o­ry and hon­our of my own love­ly mum, and to moth­ers every­where!

Whistler’s Moth­er

Commentaries on excellence in art, music, film, and literature