Saturday 26 June 2021

Pashley Manor - a Jewel in the Heart of East Sussex

Here is a collage of the nine photos I took on my day out at Pashley Manor gardens in the little village of Ticehurst in East Sussex. It was a wonderful sunshiny day and the most beautiful sounds of small birds chirping against a soothing background of bubbling water. (Must be the most blissful orchestra ever.)

The Manor passed on from the Pashleys to the Bullens in 1483, in other words, to the "Boleyns", and there is a Philip Jackson sculpture of Anne in the first picture. (I'm not sure whether the Bullens bought it from them, or whether they fought them for it, or even whether the transfer was by the whim of the King. I need to find out some more of the history.

This beautiful Manor is still a family home, which was purchased privately, so you can't go inside the house. But who would want to be inside on such a lovely day in such a gorgeous garden? What a privilege it must be to live there in eleven acres of heaven.

Tuesday 26 November 2019

What Did William Wordsworth Do to Samuel Taylor Coleridge?




When a great ego collides with a crippling addiction, the results are sure to be catastrophic. So it was for the “friendship” that existed during the late 1790s and 1800s between William Wordsworth (1770-1850) and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1832.)
Wordsworth’s single-minded ambition fed his ego, while Coleridge’s addiction resulted from his heavy consumption of opium, which he believed he needed to inspire his creativity.In her review of Adam Sisman’s book, “The Friendship, Wordsworth and Coleridge,” in The Telegraph, Frances Wilson takes issue with Sisman’s somewhat unsympathetic view of the troubled and dreamy Coleridge. Indeed, when looking at the material available, it does seem as though Wordsworth was far from sympathetic towards his needy poet friend, and on occasion, rather cruel.
The Beginning of England’s Romantic Poetry Revolution
Coleridge, son of a Devonshire vicar, moved to Nether Stowey on the edge of the Quantock Hills, not far from the home of Wordsworth and his sister, Dorothy. The two poets got together and became friends, and then they decided to compile their experimental, major work in English poetry, the Lyrical Ballads, which were to spawn the revolution of England’s Romantic Poetry. Coleridge’s important contribution was The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. However, he was known for starting poems and not finishing them. His lack of faith in his own creative genius was sadly lacking, and he lost heart easily.
In his article, “Cruel Wordsworth drove Coleridge to brink of death” in the Sunday Times, Nicholas Helien says, “William Wordsworth, poet and romantic, is to be portrayed in a controversial BBC feature film as a bully, who betrayed his closest friend and collaborator, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, driving him into a drug addiction that nearly killed him.”
Manipulative Behaviour
Richard Holmes, the Coleridge biographer who researched the film, put forward a number of issues between the pair, some of them related to their work and others of a more personal nature. He claims that Wordsworth was a bully, uninterested in helping or saving his friend. Instead, Wordsworth decided to profit from his friend’s addiction by spurring him into an even more excessive consumption of opium. It was nothing more than an experiment by Wordsworth, in order to “…reap the poetic rewards of the vision.”
According to Helien, the makers of the film, “Pandaemonium” believed the decline in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s health and his lack of faith in himself and his own creativity, could be directly attributed to William Wordsworth and his sister, Dorothy. Holmes quotes Frank Cottrell Boyce, who wrote the screenplay:
“Coleridge was looking for a father figure and he found one in Wordsworth. But Wordsworth betrayed him. He was feeding on two other geniuses – his sister Dorothy and Coleridge.”
It seems a strange claim to suggest that Coleridge might discover a father-figure in Wordsworth, since there were only two years’ difference in age between the two poets. While it seems fair to say that Coleridge needed to latch onto a stronger personality he believed he could trust, a more fitting comparison might be that of a concerned older brother.
The problem was William Wordsworth’s inability to understand Coleridge’s originality and vision. Biographers describe Coleridge as a weaker personality, but maybe this is to judge him too harshly. He was a man of great imagination and sensitivity. Coleridge was unable to withstand such harsh criticism and rejection and so he did not publish the work spurned by Wordsworth. Instead, he turned to opium for both consolation and inspiration.
Crisis of Creativity
In the year 1800, William Wordsworth was preparing the second edition of the Lyrical Ballads. To Coleridge’s distress, Wordsworth rejected his poem “Christabel,” generally considered to be one of his greatest works. As a result, Coleridge had, what Jenny Fabian, in her essay title, describes as “Coleridge’s Crisis of Creativity.”
By this time, Coleridge was suffering from a constant fear of failure, as well as a lack of confidence and self-esteem, qualities that propelled him into an even deeper addiction to opium.
Helien’s article quotes Michael Kustow, the film’s producer: “Coleridge, who had already been exploring the effect of opium on his writing upped his intake for solace. His consumption was staggering. He began to gulp laudanum – liquid opium – as if it were wine.”
The article explains that Coleridge would take one hundred drops of laudanum at one time, and was spending around £5 a week on opium, an enormous amount of money at that time, reckoned to be the equivalent of two weeks’ average earnings. Wordsworth only used the drug if he had something wrong with him; a toothache or some other bodily pain.
Support for William Wordsworth
The film’s claims have been hotly disputed by Jonathan Wordsworth, a descendant of William Wordsworth. He told Nicholas Helien that, on the contrary, Wordsworth had been “massively supportive” of Coleridge. According to Jonathan Wordsworth, the only mistake made was by Montagu, for telling Coleridge what Wordsworth had written.
This seems illogical. After all, whether or not Coleridge knew about Wordsworth’s betrayal, it would have made no difference to its intended result – that of a further rejection by refusing to allow the unfortunate Coleridge to move into Wordsworth’s London lodgings. It was a betrayal, regardless of whether the victim had knowledge of it.
Further, Jonathan Wordsworth refused to blame Coleridge’s decline on Wordsworth’s reluctance to publish his work. Instead, he blamed Coleridge’s depression and addiction on the poet’s unconsummated love affair with his sister-in-law, Sara Hutchinson. (Coleridge had been married, but the marriage, unsurprisingly, had broken down.)
The other contributing factor, according to Jonathan Wordsworth in his interview with Helien, was this: “It is also not Wordsworth’s fault that Coleridge began to talk a great deal of metaphysics and took the view that he was no longer worthy of being a poet.”
Again, can this be a fair evaluation? Visionary poetry was what Coleridge did best. Wordsworth knew this when the two men collaborated  on their great project.
Did Wordsworth Abandon Coleridge?
On 14 October, 1803, Coleridge wrote to Thomas Poole (letter reprinted in Romanticism An Anthology,edited by Duncan Wu):
“I now see very little of Wordsworth. My own health makes it inconvenient and unfit for me to go thither one third as often as I used to do – and Wordsworth’s indolence, etc. keeps him at home. Indeed, were I an irritable man (and an unthinking one,) I should probably have considered myself as having been very unkindly used by him in this respect, for I was at one time confined for two months, and he never came to see me – me, who had ever paid such unremitting attention to him!”
By, 1810, the situation was dire. Coleridge was depressed and unproductive. He left the Wordsworths’ house in the Lake District and went to lodgings in the London residence of Basil Montagu. Even here, the poet would find no haven. Wordsworth had pre-empted him, by writing to Montagu, telling him that Coleridge was no more than “a drunken nuisance,”  explains Helien in the Sunday Times article.
(Christabel and Other Poems.  (Christabel was the unfinished poem claimed to have been turned down by Wordsworth although this has been disputed) It was not published until many years later, in 1817 on the initiative of Byron.)

A Literary-Cormorant
In fact, Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s predilection for metaphysics in his poetry is well documented.
The “Lyrical Ballads” entry in The Oxford Companion to English Literature, edited by Margaret Drabble, quotes Coleridge from his Biogaphica Literatia, chapter xiv, describing their collaboration:
“…it was agreed that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural or at least romantic… Mr. Wordsworth, on the other hand, was to propose to himself as his object, to give the charm of novelty to things of everyday.”
A further example is a letter he wrote dated 19 November, 1796, to John Thelwall (letter reprinted in Romanticism, An Anthology, edited by Duncan Wu) where he expressed his innermost feelings. Here is the relevant passage:
“I am and ever have been, a great reader and have read almost everything, a literary-cormorant. I am deep in all out of the way books, whether of the monkish times of of the puritanical era. I have read and digested most of the historical writers, but I do not like history. Metaphysics and poetry and “facts of mind” (ie. accounts of all the strange phantasms that ever possessed your philosophy-dreamers from Thoth the Egyptian to Taylor the English pagan) are my darling studies.”
Breakdown, Recovery and a New Path
Coleridge suffered a mental and physical breakdown at the end of 1813 and had treatment in Bristol, before spending time to recuperate with friends. Then, in 1816, he went to Highgate and settled in the home of Dr. James Gilman, where he remained until the end of his life.
Although the publication of Christabel was imminent, as well as the publication of his collected poems Sybilline Leaves (1817,) his career as a poet was, in essence, finished. He filled the gap by becoming a philosopher and lecturer and he gained a group of enthusastic intellectuals around him, including key literary figures of that time, radical philosopher, William Godwin (who married Mary Wollstonecraft, and the essayist, Charles Lamb.
A Philosophical Evaluation
Although he may not have achieved the poetic commendations he yearned for from Wordsworth and his peers, Coleridge is now remembered, deservedly, for his visionary originality. The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, under the entry Samuel Taylor Coleridge, says:
“Coleridge’s reputation as a poet is secured by a small, though radiant, corpus of major works… His theory of the poetic imagination as a unifying and mediating power within divided modern cultures, provided one of the central ideas of Romantic aesthetics, and his dialectical juxtapositions of reason and understanding, culture and civilization, and mechanical and organic form, shaped the vocabulary of its recoil from Utilitarianism. Yet much of Coleridge’s work is shot through with self-doubt and fears for his Christian belief, a metaphysical anxiety that seems to anticipate modern existentialism.”
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, for all his mental illness, eccentricities and opium addiction, was truly a remarkable visionary and philosophical poet whose influence will continue to enrich English literature.
Resources for this article
Wilson, Frances. Review: The Friendship, Wordsworth and Coleridge. (2006). The Telegraph. Accessed on November 21, 2014




Fabian, Jenny. Literature: Coleridge, A Crisis of Creativity. londongrip.co.uk. Accessed on November 21, 2014




Helien, Nicholas. Cruel Wordsworth drove Coleridge to brink of death. (1997). Sunday Times.




Hannah, John, et al. Pandaemonium. (2000). BBC. Accessed on November 21, 2014




Wu, Duncan, Ed. Romanticism An Anthology. (1994). Blackwell Publishers Ltd..




Ousby, Ian, Ed . The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English. (1993). Cambridge University Press.




Drabble, Margaret, Ed. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. (1985). Oxford University Press.



Saturday 9 June 2018

Great Women "Damed" in the Birthday Honours List

I am so inspired. Three of my favourite famous women have been "damed" in the Honours. (Yes I just made that word up - if men can be knighted then women can be damed.) 

Anyway, here they are, the irrepressible and most articulate in the defence of women's rights, Prof. Mary Beard, the unforgettable actor Emma Thompson and brave Kate Adie whose hardback I have telling of her journalistic missions to far-flung and often hostile countries. 

Just my subjective personal preferences, they are three among many creative and humanitarian people, both male and female, who have been honoured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44397682

Monday 10 July 2017

Whistler's Mother Gave Birth to Him Today - Born 10 July 1834

and here she is, looking relaxed, a Victorian icon, Whistler's Mother Anna
Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain
While most male artists were busy painting wives, mistresses and pretty models, Whistler (1834-1903) chose to paint his mother.  According to his Wikipedia page, in 1871 Anna modellled for him in Cheyne Walk, in Chelsea. She must have been very proud that her son wanted to preserve her in oils for posterity.

Although - it wasn't quite like that. There is a backstory. An MP had asked Whistler to paint his daughter Maggie Graham, according to mentalfloss.com.  It appears Maggie got fed up, and so Whistler was left with a prepared canvass doing nothing.

So his asked his Mum to sit in. The result has been described as iconic as the Mona Lisa.

The ironic thing about this painting is that it was almost rejected by the Royal Academy in 1872, but ended up being widely admired and feted worldwide, which must have been very satisfying for the artist. Its permanent home, when it's not touring is in the Musee D'Orsay in Paris, France.

Whistler's Wikipedia page quotes the artist after his painting began to attracted attention::

"Just think — to go and look at one's own picture hanging on the walls of Luxembourg — remembering how it had been treated in England — to be met everywhere with deference and respect...and to know that all this is ... a tremendous slap in the face to the Academy and the rest! Really it is like a dream."





Wednesday 5 April 2017

Human Enhancement - Is it a Bad Thing to Want to Look Better than Well?

Public Domain: goodfreephotos.com


Genetic testing and engineering pose complex moral and cultural dilemmas for scientists, philosophers and humanity in general. Some may win, some must lose - how do we reconcile our differences?

Cures and preventative therapies to combat human diseases are helping to improve our health and extend our lifespan. There is, of course, a downside; for example, although we now live longer, we have to endure a poorer quality of life for a much higher percentage of its total span. Being human, we generally consider that life, however difficult, is better than no life at all. But human enhancement, in the sense of making us, in Michael Selgelid's words "better than well," is a subject of intense debate as discussed in his article "A Moderate Approach to Enhancement."
The following "improvements" to our lives are no longer merely speculation.We can, if we want to:
1.   Genetically test IVF embryos before they are implanted, so that only those with healthy and positive qualities are chosen.
2.   Following on from item 1, parents might eventually select qualities with which to endow their offspring, for example intelligence, height, beauty, strength, etc. These "designer" children would, of course, enjoy better quality lives.
3.   Genetic therapy might remove a "disease-causing genetic missing sequence."
4.   Following on from item 3, it might then be possible to enhance a person's genome for pure human enhancement where there is no threat to life.
Many people are comfortable with the idea that enhancement procedures could, and should, be used to combat disease providing they are safe. But - to interfere with nature merely for enhancement, just for acquiring "desirable traits" presents, for some, a moral dilemma.
So what is morally wrong with human enhancement?
The main objection put forward by Michael Selgelid is that of the social consequences. The procedures would only be available to those able to afford them, leading to an imbalance in social equality. 
"It is hard," he says, "to imagine that they would be made freely available to all via universal healthcare systems, which, due to resource constraints, are often unable to provide even necessary services to all who need them."  
It follows from this that wealthy people and their children would do better than poor people and their children, increasing the division between those who have and those who must go without.
We might now look at the philosophy of objectivism as propounded by Russian-born American novelist, Ayn Rand, who maintained that we should not sacrifice our own lives to others, nor should we sacrifice others' lives to ourselves. 
In principle, this seems rational, embodies respect for the individual, promotes personal responsibility and rational self-interest, and the constitutional protection of an individual's rights.  Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in "Against Environmentalism" explains her theory which claims that "things qualify as good or evil, valuable or detrimental, only insofar as they serve or frustrate the ultimate value, and the ultimate value is one's life." Rand says, in The Virtue of Selfishness, page 27: 
"Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man - in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life." 
But, here there is a difficulty; the need to reconcile asserting the ultimate value of one's own life when it actually devalues the life of another person or persons. How do we reconcile this difficulty?
Why is genetic enhancement different from other kinds of enhancement?
Michael Selgelid points out:
"We already tolerate a wide variety of inequality-promoting non-genetic enhancements."  
Selgelid is talking about the comfortable lifestyles of the rich; for example, the sports, music and arts lessons, the special schools and holidays. Is there, he asks, any difference between genetic enhancement and the other kinds of enhancement?  
I am not sure whether this is a valid argument. The fact that inequality already exists in society is surely not a good reason to condone further inequalities, in other words, "Two wrongs don't make a right!"  What Michael Selgelid actually concludes is that the main difficulty would be "scale." If the practices became widespread, then "their impact on equality could turn out to be much greater than that which results from currently available non-genetic means of enhancement."
Not only would this be unjust, but democracy and social stability could be under threat. There is, already, a great injustice in medical research resources, where 90 per cent of research focusses on ten per cent of global diseases because it targets drugs expected to provide the maximum profit. Quality of life overall could plummet due to the drain on resources caused by genetic human enhancement. As Rand says, inThe Virtue of Selfishness, page 16: 
"The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: "of value to whom and for what?"
Empirical and Philosophical Questions
The unresolved questions must address the inequality that might result from unrestricted human enhancement, and the impact that this unrestricted practice might have overall. But, Selgelid asserts, these are really empirical questions, and not purely philosophical questions. The philosophical questions 
"...concern how the value of personal liberty should be weighed against social equality and welfare in cases where these values conflict." 
This brings into focus the important concept of liberty, although Michael Selgelid is quick to point out that no quality should necessarily have precedence over others.
"Utilitarians," he says, "argue that aggregate benefit is the only thing that ultimately matters to society, ie. the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people, should always be promoted, even at the expense of liberty and equality." 
Egalitarians on the other hand, favour equality above all, while libertarians, of course, are intent on the value of liberty. Each stance has values of right and values of wrong due to the weight placed on the quality they emphasise. As far as Selgelid is concerned, this means they are "out-of-line with commonsense, ethical thinking and what is generally considered to be good policy-making."
Michael Selgelid concludes that the answer must be to maintain balance and apply trade-offs between the qualities of liberty, equality and utility in order to determine:
 "how great the costs of enhancement would need to be for us to be justified in denying people the freedom to enhance themselves and their offspring, and to what extent." 
This, I believe, is one of the most difficult moral dilemmas the human race has had to address and it will be interesting, and maybe even frightening, to see how the situation develops.
Sources:
·      Berliner, Michael S. "Against Environmentalism," Ayn Rand Institute: Accessed 28 December 2013.
·      Selgelid, Michael, "A Moderate Approach to Enhancement,"Philosophy Now, Issue 91, July/August 2012.
·      Harwood, Jeremy, "Ayn Rand," Philosophy - 100 Great Thinkers, Quercus, 2010.


Thursday 23 March 2017

23 March, Six Years Ago Today - Goodbye to Elizabeth Taylor, the World's Most Beautiful Screen Goddess

Public Domain

Elizabeth Taylor was an actress of immeasurable emotional depth and beauty. In her heyday, men around the world adored her and women wanted to be like her.

Elizabeth Taylor was born to beauty and success, a never-to-be-forgotten British-born icon of stage and screen and a "billionairess" in her own right.

For playing Cleoptatra in 1963, she is credited with the distinction of almost bankrupting 20th Century Fox, commanding a $1m fee, which, after lawsuit and counter lawsuit between the stars and the film company, was increased to around $7m. She performed her role of Cleopatra alongside her Welsh husband, Richard Burton, who played Mark Anthony.
In 1991, a deal was struck with the cosmetic giant, Elizabeth Arden, to market perfumes under Taylor's name and "White Diamonds" and "Passion" produced sales last year of $69m.
A Unique Childhood Star
She was born in 1932 and, as a child, lived in London near Hampstead Heath, where she rode her horse bareback and went to ballet classes like any other middle-class girl. She and her parents left the UK for America when the second World War broke out and they lived in Beverley Hills. Here, this talented young girl won a part in Lassie Come Home, (1943) and later, in National Velvet, (1944).
Taylor is remembered fondly by other actresses who worked with her. Angela Lansbury remembers a strikingly beautiful little girl with bright violet eyes and black hair. Shirley MacLaine comments on the maturity and extreme emotional depth of her performances.
Elizabeth moved, effortlessly, from child-star to adult actress. Her first adult film with Montgomery Clift was A Place in the Sun, followed by many more, including Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Cleopatra and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.
Seven Husbands - Eight Marriages
Taylor had seven husbands and eight marriages, as she married Richard Burton twice:
  • Conrad Hilton ~ 1950
  • Michael Wilding ~ 1952
  • Mike Todd ~ 1957
  • Eddie Fisher ~ 1961
  • Richard Burton ~ 1969
  • Richard Burton ~ 1975
  • John Warner ~ 1977
  • Larry Fortensky ~ 1991
Elizabeth Taylor was greatly influenced by her second husband, Mike Todd and deeply traumatised when he died in a plane crash after just over a year of marriage.

The chemistry between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton was intense and their relationship was volatile. 

I remember watching a television interview many years ago, in the late sixties or early seventies - Richard wanted something from Elizabeth's handbag and he literally took it from her and riffled through it. She glanced at him sideways, looking half-pleased, as though she welcomed that level of intimacy between them and Burton's presumption that it was actually okay to do that.

She was not always so passive. They argued frequently, yet they found it hard to be apart.
Elizabeth Taylor divorced her last and her eighth husband, Larry Fortensky in 1996.

A Great Loss to the World, but Her Legacy Lives On

At the age of 79 on Wednesday 23 March 2011, Elizabeth Taylor died of congestive heart failure. She'd been ill for a long time and had become overweight and wheelchair bound, but she never lost that indefinable sparkle and overt charisma that were so integral to her persona.

Since her death, hand-written letters have been revealed detailing her young romance with William Pawley Jr dating back to 1949, in which she expresses her great love for this young man. "I've never known this kind of love before - it's so perfect and complete - and mature," she says. 

Charitable Works

Elizabeth Taylor contributed generously to charitable causes. When her close friend, Rock Hudson, died in 1985, Elizabeth Taylor set up her Aids foundation which raised $270m. In 1993, she received an honorary Oscar for outstanding contributions to humanitarian causes and you can watch the video of her acceptance speech by clicking here.

Sources:
  • "Not just an icon, Elizabeth Taylor was also worth a billion dollars." The Independent. 30 March 2011.
  • England's Elizabeth - Elizabeth Taylor, BBC4, 31 Ma