Aphra Behn

'All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the grave of Aphra Behn, for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds', wrote Virginia Wolf. Yet Aphra Behn lived in the 17th century, during the self same period as Samuel Pepys.

She made no reference to her own date of birth (circa 1640) or to her family name (although 'Johnson' has been suggested) and  nothing is known of her husband, Behn. Yet this outspoken playwright and novelist from East Kent, seems to have been one of the first of English women to prepare the way not only for women's rights, but for the right of freedom in general.

She was probably brought up as a Catholic and educated in a convent in France, for she was fluent in French and made many translations from French into English. She hated hypocrisy and was very much against the bondage of arranged marriages for wealth and status, which her first play 'The Forced Marriage' fully exposes.
During the trade war (1665) with the Dutch, she was sent to Holland to spy for King Charles II, but as it seems she was never requited for her services, she produced her first plays in 1670, "forced to write for bread, and not ashamed to own it", she declared.

She boldly countered her many critics for she was often targeted for her liberal and royalist opinions. At one time she was even arrested for 'abusive reflections' regarding the king's illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth (who was a Whig thus also subject to satire which would include her own).
She courageously expressed her opinions openly on religion, science and philosophy, as a women, and expounded her views on the natural force of love, in contrast to the meaningless, conventional rules of society of the XVII century. She even expressed the sexual feelings of women and their need for, and right to, true love. Her male critics denounced this as 'coarse and impure'.

She was also totally against slavery, and this long before the slave trade had ever reached it's peak, yet her novel 'Oroonoko, or The Royal Slave' was destined to outlive her and continue to greatly influence public opinion against slavery in general.

'Oroonoko' was an African prince hero. He was very handsome, courageous and cultivated, speaking several languages, yet he was treacherously enslaved himself, with the woman he loved, and was to die a horrible death through torture.
Aphra Behn wrote 'Oroonoko' as if she were an observer to what was taking place. Perhaps it is based on fact. In any case it's probable that she spent some time in Suriname where much of the story took place, before the country was taken over by the Dutch.
It's a story of loathsome treachery, showing up the hateful hypocrisy of the kind of Europeans who were (and perhaps still are) convinced that their education, religion, and what they consider to be their 'advanced civilised status', gives them vast superiority and unlimited rights over African natives.

Here's a short, but revealing excerpt:

'(...) They are extreme modest and bashful, very shy and nice of being touched. And though they are all thus naked, if one lives forever among 'em there is not to be seen an indecent action or glance; and being continually used to see one another so unadorned, so like our first parents before the Fall, it seems as if they had no wishes; there being nothing to heighten curiosity, but all you can see you see at once, and every moment see, and where there is no novelty there can be no curiosity. Not but I have seen a handsome young Indian dying for love of a very beautiful young Indian maid; but all his courtship was to fold his arms, pursue her with his eyes, and sighs were all his language; while she, as if no such lover were present, or rather, as if she desired none such, carefully guarded her eyes from beholding him, and never approached him but she looked down with all the blushing modesty I have seen in the most severe and cautious of our world. And these people represented to me an absolute ideal of the first state of innocence, before man knew how to sin. And 'tis most evident and plain that simple Nature is the most harmless, inoffensive, and virtuous mistress. 'Tis she alone, if she were permitted, that better instructs the world than all the inventions of man. Religion would here but destroy that tranquillity they possess by ignorance, and laws would but teach 'em to know offence, of which now they have no notion. (...)
They have a native justice which knows no fraud, and they understand no vice or cunning, but when they are taught by the white men. (...)'

Aphra Behn may be less known than other writers of her time, such as John Dryden, but as a 'female pen' she is certainly to England's credit. And it's also to England's credit that when she died in 1689, she was buried in Westminster Abbey.

___

  Text © Mirino (PW). Source- (with thanks) The Norton Anthology English Literature. March, 2010

Pepys

Surely there has never been such an observant, first hand record of a particular period in English history, as that written by Samuel Pepys in his diaries.
Not only a historical record, but personal day to day observations and accounts written spontaneously in short-hand and covering some of the most important events of the period. His recorded observations are so fresh that we can almost feel the horror and danger of the Plague of 1665, the terrible heat of the Great Fire of London the following year- that destroyed a great deal of central London including much of St Paul's Cathedral-, (and when, for save keeping he buried his wines and 'parmezan' cheeses in the garden). We feel the strong wind of the 'Great storme' of the 24th January, 1666,  
'so strong a wind, that in the fields we many times could not carry our bodies against it, but was driven backward. It was dangerous to walk in the streets, the bricks and tiles falling from the houses, that the whole streets were covered with them- and whole chimneys, nay, whole houses in two or three places, blown down...'

Through his writings we see King Charles II playing tennis, we hear the snoring of the old Lord Chancellor during the Privy Council meetings. On the 7th June, 1665 we experience with Pepys the hottest day he ever felt in his life. With him we behold the awesome death of his brother. Through his diaries we share his life, and through him we have not only an excellent, eye-witness account of that period, but an open, very vital and virile portrait of the diarist himself.

Although he wrote for himself, he was so honest and meticulous that he often seemed naively unaware of how much he was also revealing his personal weaknesses. The thoughtless way in which he treated his wife, Elizabeth, his many affairs, (referred to under a veil of an amusing and curious mixture of English, Latin, French, Italian and Spanish) his parsimony and selfishness. But as he was a great lover of life, and as his gift to posterity is so immense, naturally he is far more endeared to and admired historically, than ever ostracised.

Samuel Pepys was a civil servant, rising to become Secretary to the Admiralty and member of Parliament in 1673. He was in command of the organisation of the Navy during the Dutch War of 1672-74.
As from 31st May, 1669, at 34 years of age, he had considerable responsibility, but due to what he imagined was a serious eye-sight problem, he abandoned his more personal diary writing and thereafter only made such notes for official use. But had he never kept personal diaries at all, he would still have been recorded in history for his valuable naval work.

Toward the end of his life he built up an impressive library of books collected from all over Europe. These as well as the six volumes of his leather bound diaries were bequeathed to Magdalene College, Cambridge, on condition that they would remain entirely intact and unchanged. This seems to suggest that he must already have been aware of how important they were for posterity. They are still preserved in the same bookcases he had specially made by dockyard carpenters, and they will always serve to bring back to life this man in his environment of the mid XVII century.

More extracts respecting his way of writing and any incidental errors.

20 June, 1665. 
Thanksgiving day for Victory over the Dutch. 'Up, and to the office, where very busy alone all the morning till church time; and there heard a mean sorry sermon of Mr. Mills. Then to the Dolphin Taverne, where all we officers of the Navy met with the Comissioners of the Ordnance by agreement- where good musique, at my direction. Our club came to 34s a man - nine of us. Thence after dinner I to Whitehall with Sir W. Berkely in his coach. And so I walked to Herberts and there spent a little time avec la mosa, sin hazer algo con ella que kiss and tocar ses mamelles, que me haza hazer la cosa a mi mismo con gran plasir. Thence by water to Foxhall, and there walked an hour alone, observing the several humours of citizens that were there this holiday, pulling of cherries and God knows what.

1st February, 1667. 
Up, and to the office, where I was all the morning doing business. At noon home to dinner; and after dinner down by the water, though it was thick misty and raining day, and walked to Deptford from Redriffe and there to Bagwells by appointment- where the moher erat within expecting mi venida. And did sensa alguna difficulty monter los degres and lie, comme jo desired it upon lo lectum; and there I did la cosa con much voluptas. By and by su marido came in, and there, without any notice taken by him, we discoursed of our business of getting him the new ship building by Mr Deane, which I shall do for him.

Extracts from his notes on the Great Fire of London: 2nd September, 1666:

'...And among other things, the poor pigeons I perceive were both loath to leave their houses, but hovered about the windows and balconies till they were some of them burned, their wings, and fell down..'

'.... So near the fire as we could for smoke; and all over the Thames, with one's face in the wind you were almost burned with a shower of firedrops- this is very true- so as houses were burned by these drops and flakes of fire, three or four, nay five or six houses, one from another...'

5 September.
'.... Thence homeward, having passed through Cheapside and Newgate Market, all burned. And I took up (which I keep by me) a piece of glass of Mercer's Chapel in the street, where much more was, so melted and buckled with the heat of the fire, like parchment. I also did see a poor catt taken out of a hole in the chimney joyning to the wall of the Exchange, with the hair all burned off the body and yet alive...'

And a final discovery of 'misconduct'..

25 October, 1668. Lord's Day
'At night W. Batelier comes and sups with us; and after supper, to have my head combed by Deb, which occasioned the greatest sorrow to me that ever I knew in this world; for my wife, coming up suddenly, did find me imbracing the girl con my hand sub su coats; and endeed, I was with my main in her cunny. I was at a wonderful loss upon it, and the girl also; and I endeavoured to put it off, but my wife was struck mute and grew angry, and as her voice came to her, grew quite out of order; and I do say little, but to bed; and my wife said little also, but could not sleep all night; but about 2 in the morning waked me and cried, and fell to tell me as a great secret that she was a Roman Catholic and had received the Holy Sacrament; which troubled me but I took no notice of it, but she went on from one thing to the other, till at last it appeared plainly her trouble was at what she saw; but yet I did not know how much she saw and therefore said nothing to her. But after her much crying and reproaching me with inconstancy and preferring a sorry girl before her, I did give her no provocations but did promise all fair usage of her, and love, and foreswore any hurt that I did with her- till at last she seemed to be at ease again.'

__

Pepys, 1660

Text (source- The Illustrated Pepys, with thanks) transposed images-

(portrait of SP,  painting of Great Fire of London) © Mirino (PW) March, 2010 

The Venetian lesson

In view of the troubled situation in various parts of the world today and the disparaging allusions to the Crusades, referring to the Fourth Crusade may not be considered opportune. This especially when it seems more fashionable, even in Europe, to criticise the Crusaders rather than to praise these staunch defenders of the old continent.
This argument however is the main reason for this introduction. Is it not better to try to shed more light on a fatefully important error of the XIII century, than not refer to it at all? Would it not be depriving the 'enemy' of a concession, rather than granting a concession to the 'enemy'? Today more than ever before, the recorded truth of the past
is available for the taking. If it's masked or glossed over by the first,
it can easily be retrieved, possessed and exploited by the second.

Historically this fateful episode also represents an example of how various, complex circumstances, incidents, limitations, national and personal interests can intricately (diabolically) weave themselves together into a terribly ironic, Shakespearian twist, creating a combined effect that not only has nothing to do with the original objective, but even works totally against it.

In 'La Chute des Anges',  I made certain allusions that might also be pertinent here. Is there not a relative parallel in deforming the truth for a cause, and in deforming/defying the word of God? (The essential, universal truth). Isn't this the fundamental fault of religious fanatics who perpetuate crimes in the name of God they pretend to worship? And those condescending clerics who, after ignoring or deforming the religious laws they pompously profess to uphold and represent, still vainly presume to be God's élite, thus, in the most brutal way, disposing of any others who dare try to voice an alternative opinion. Are not such tyrants further examples of Lucifer's henchmen?

But in the camp of the Crusaders, why would their cause merit greater respect if they also abused the truth for its benefit? Is this not the same? When both sides are nevertheless convinced that they represent the will of God and that their enemy represents the Devil, God might be inclined to dismiss both, judging that neither the one nor the other can represent him at all. In this case both could go to the devil..

  
If it were heard said that the Christians of the Balkans, Lebanon and Syria who were to be subjected to the domination of the Ottomans for five centuries, would always prefer Turks to Latins, the effects of the Fourth Crusade might have had something to do with it. And this shameful episode in Medieval history created the irreparable cultural schism between the East and the West. After this final Crusade it was inconceivable that there would ever be any unity between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

To pave the way to Jerusalem, the original plan authorised by Pope Innocent III was to conquer Egypt which by the year 1200 had become an important centre of Islamic power. The project however seemed to have been doomed from the very beginning.
In order to transport the crusading army of several thousand, an important fleet was required. Venice was chosen because it was able to build the ships and was a near enough location for a western European army consisting mostly of Francs.
Part of the final, official agreement was that Venice would supply a fleet large enough to carry up to 35,000 soldiers to 'recapture Jerusalem' for the sum of 86,000 marks. Despite the wording of 'Jerusalem', Egypt was the real goal from the outset.
The Venetians, merchants at heart, also proposed to supply escort war ships on condition that they would receive half of the spoils of all conquests.

Initially there were problems between the Crusaders themselves which led to division. A contingent of Flemish soldiers consequently made its own way arriving in Acre in 1202. Others left from the port of Marseilles, France.
Many other soldiers and wealthy Knights on whom the project also depended, never arrived in Venice, and it soon became apparent that the sum agreed upon with the Doge wouldn't be met. All too late because the fleet was being built according to the agreement. A bit more than half of the sum was eventually found, but the remaining debt gave Doge Dandolo the upper hand. But had he not always anticipated this, in order to exact his own plans?

The first of these was the recuperation of the port of Zara (Zadar in Croatia) retrieved from Venice by Hungary. Zara was an important commercial rival, and the Venetian objective was to control and monopolise all Mediterranean trade. Now that Venice had an army at its disposal, this was within reach. Although Zara was a Christian city, the heavily indebted Crusaders felt that they had no other choice, and this, notwithstanding the protests and threats of excommunication from the Pope.

In October, 1202, a fleet of 480 ships sailed from Venice to the city of Zara. The city was taken the 24th November after five days of fighting. It was entirely sacked. 'Christians' ransacked Christian churches taking everything of value.
Although the Pope was furious and carried out his threat of excommunication of all who had participated in this abomination, he cancelled his decision after receiving word that it had been unavoidable. He was also swayed by the hope that the Crusade would not veer off its main course again.

The spoils of Zara however were not enough to pay the outstanding Venetian debt, and other plots were hatching. Unknown to the Crusaders, Venice had previously negotiated an agreement of trade with Egypt. The Venetians had therefore no reason to want to participate in a project that would compromise their own interests. Constantinople however, was the only remaining obstacle preventing Venice from realising its objective of Mediterranean trade supremacy.

It is also said that Doge Dandolo had another, more personal grudge against Constantinople, for it was there where he happened to lose his eyesight.

Coincidentally, the leader of the Crusade, Boniface de Manferrat, having recently sojourned in Germany, had been received by King Philip of Swabia. Expecting to receive the title of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and having family ties with Constantinople (his wife was daughter of Emperor Isaac II who had been disposed in favour of Alexius III in 1195) the King of Swabia had his own designs.
Isaac II also had a son, Alexius Angelus, who had managed to flee Constantinople when his father was dethroned. He had made his way to Germany to the court of King Philip.

The King hoped to divert the Crusade to Constantinople in order to place Alexius (as Alexius IV) on the throne.

A deal developed and was agreed upon when Alexius Angelus offered the Crusade 200,000 marks and an army of 10,000 soldiers, if and when he gained the Byzantine throne. He had also promised that Constantinople and its Empire would become subject to the Papacy.

                                                                                        

The fleet sailed across the Bosporus towards Galata in July, 1203. The first goal was the Tower of Galata guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn. The defence was weak, the tower was captured and the fleet thus gained entrance to the Horn.

At first the walls were well defended by the Varangian Guard, but the unanticipated flight of Alexius III, abandoning everything including his family, radically changed the situation. By releasing old Isaac II and restoring him to the throne, the Byzantines thought that any argument would be settled and that the Crusader's pretext would no longer exist.
But this wouldn't pay the Venetian debt.

It was then agreed that negotiators must debate with the newly restored Emperor, who was faced with the serious problem of his son's engagement. He had no choice but to agree, and it was arranged that both Isaac II and Alexius IV be jointly crowned in the Santa Sophia. But there was still the financial problem. The previous reign had been generally disastrous, also in economic affairs. To try to find money it was even thought necessary to deprive some churches of their treasures.

Unsurprisingly Alexius IV was not popular with the Byzantines of Constantinople. They also suffered from the imposition of new taxes. For them he only represented the interests of the western barbarians. The developing danger prompted the young Emperor to ask the Crusaders to stay on for his protection, in return for which he promised them even more money.

Accompanied by a strong escort, Alexius IV toured Thrace to try to collect funds and gain the loyalty of the people. During his absence a great fire broke out in Constantinople. It killed hundreds of citizens and destroyed a huge part of the old city centre. The Byzantines' furious reaction caused the flight of thousands of European refugees to the Golden Horn.
Alexius IV returned to this grave situation. His father was no longer in a condition to rule in any way. A delegation of Crusaders approached the court of Constantinople once more demanding that the debt be honoured. The Byzantine court took this as intolerably insulting, and it led to open war.

On the first day of January, 1204, seventeen ships were prepared, set alight and made to drift towards the Venetian fleet. The crews reacted promptly, managing to cast off and steer the fleet from harms way in time. Only one merchant ship was lost. The bold attempt had failed.

This failure made things even worse for the young Emperor, and anarchy broke out in the city.
The senate, deciding that a new leader was urgently needed, chose a young nobleman (Nicholas Canobus) who wasn't very keen on the idea. Meanwhile the threatened Alexius IV sent an urgent message to Boniface begging for his help and protection.

But then another Alexius appears upon the scene, the courtier Alexius Ducas, son of Emperor Alexius III- he who was the first to flee. This was then his moment. Pretending that a mob is about to storm the palace to kill the Emperor, he persuades the Varangian Guard to defend it. At the same time he convinces the Emperor, Alexius IV, that he must save himself.
Alone and unprotected the young Emperor is easily disposed of by Ducas and his henchmen. His imperial robes are seized and he is imprisoned.
Alexius Ducas claims the throne as Alexius V, supported by his clan and generally accepted.

This was all too much for old Isaac II, who died in despair. His hapless son Alexius IV was assassinated (poisoned and strangled) by order of the new Emperor. An Emperor of action who the people seemed to believe in because of the way he organised and improved the defence of Constantinople, encouraging attacks on the Crusaders whenever possible. The members of the nobility were far more reserved about him, having lost their influence. The Emperor's court had been replaced. Alexius V also had the precious support of the Varangian Guard none of whom had ever trusted Alexius IV. They too were encouraged by the new Emperor's fighting spirit.

A spirit that showed by the following successful defence of the city's ramparts when the Venetian ships tried to attack and breach them the 9th April, 1204.
The Crusaders were desperate and frustrated. They had heard that all those who had independently left for Syria had perished. The initial project of invading Egypt no longer interested them, and in any case they were still indebted to the old Doge Enrico Dandolo, and thus still under his yoke.

For the second assault of the 12th April, the wind was far more favourable, enabling the Venetian ships to beach a greater distance thus gaining enough height to use their specially constructed drawbridges which now reached the heightened ramparts. Costly defensive mistakes were made this time resulting in the loss of the north wall to the Venetians, and the lower grounds to the Crusaders.
If, in their eyes the battle had only just begun, the Byzantines had a different view: their walls had been breached, therefore they were lost. Everyone was trying to escape. The army too had already given up, for it was vastly outnumbered by the invading force. And the Emperor had fled the city.
A noble, Theodore Lascaris (reportedly to be crowned Emperor, later in exile) hopelessly tried to organise a last defence, but he too fled that night. A fateful night lit up by a second great fire, destroying even more of the ancient city.

The invaders woke up on the 13th April, 1204 to find that the war was already over. The city was theirs for the taking, in every way.

The Sack of Constantinople, three days of murder, rape, looting and wanton destruction, are recorded in full detail, accounts of which are easily accessible. It was a vile, senseless and barbaric act that obviously had nothing to do with whatever religion one professes to defend, if true religion ever needs to be defended. Such barbarity can only represent the worst that man is capable of, when he gives full rein to blind hate, prejudice, frustration and greed.
The loss of art treasures by the Sack of Constantinople is inestimable, and had the Venetians, being far more appreciative of art, not taken part, it would probably have been a lot worse. At least the Venetians conserved and treasure what they took. The Francs pretending to be Crusaders, apparently saw no reason why, amongst many other irredeemable, fine works, a magnificent bronze of Hercules, a creation of Lysippus, the famous court sculptor to Alexander the Great, shouldn't be destroyed and melted down, just for its bronze.

In reality, it was the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, in his eighties and blind, who had things in hand. The power of debt, indeed similar to that of Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice'.
To insure that there be no threat to the subsequent trading interests of the Republic of Venice, it's likely that Dandolo decided who then should take the throne of Constantinople (a choice that was fully accepted by the Pope).

The Venetians had triumphed, after all, they were primarily merchants, and not religious warmongers. They had used the Crusaders against their own cause and interests to remove the final obstacle obstructing Venice from establishing total dominance of Mediterranean maritime trade, and at the same time they had prevented the Crusaders from attacking their new trade partner, Egypt.

Trophies from Constantinople can be seen in la Piazza San Marco, such as the horses, the imperial quadriga, and the fine marbles adorning the Cathedral.
And what of the Byzantine Empire, the longest reigning Empire (1123 years) in the history of civilisation? By all accounts it must already have been in serious decline.

This sad episode in medieval history also reminds us that priorities were determined more by the power of wealth and financial considerations, than by the power of any presumed noble principles and religious considerations.
Eight hundred and six years later, this certainly still seems to be the case today, whatever one's nationality, culture or religion.

      
Text © Mirino (PW). Main Source (with thanks). Images Medieval Byzantine frescos. February, 2010

Prévisions et destinés

 'Nous voulons une union volontaire de nations'. Décembre 20, 1922. (phrase creuse..)

Ce  que l'on remarque au long de la lecture des carnets de guerre 14-18 d'Edouard Cœurdevey, est  son étonnante appréciation des faits et sa forte perspicacité haussée par une capacité aiguë de prévoir ce qui à l'époque ne pouvait pas être encore évident.

En considération de ses qualités, on ne peut que se plaindre de ce système de hiérarchie irresponsable et plus ou moins générale alors, qui semblait favoriser plutôt l'arrogance et l'incompétence (pistonnées par des amis et des proches influents) au détriment même de l'effort de guerre et des hommes de valeur comme Cœurdevey. Si on lui avait donné la responsabilité et l'occasion, il aurait pu contribuer à cet effort de manière bien plus positive aux périodes tellement critiques.

Voici, par exemple, un passage écrit le 17 mars, 1917:

'(...) C'est vraiment une journée sensationnelle. les journaux en grandes manchettes portent tous : "La Révolution en Russie. L'abdication du tsar." Il parait que le peuple russe a enfin perdu patience devant les vices de sa bureaucratie et la balaie. Un ministère composite s'installe. Milioukov aux affaires étrangères. Cela sonne mieux l'âme russe que les noms en "er", Starmer, etc. Tous les journaux français débordent d'applaudissements : Vive la Russie libérée qui sera demain la Russie libératrice...", crie Charles Humbert. Il paraît que les Boches, pour d'autres raisons, jubilent également. Tout le monde est donc content. L'avenir dira qui s'est réjoui à tort..'

Puis plus loin, Cœurdevey écrit le 16 juin, de la même année :

'Wilson a dit dans son message aux Russes : "Aucun peuple ne peut être forcé d'accepter la souveraineté qu'il repousse, aucun changement de pouvoir ne peut être effectué s'il n'a pour but d'assurer la paix au monde et le bonheur du peuple. La fraternité universelle ne doit plus être une phrase creuse, mais une réalité... Si nous sommes unis, la victoire est certaine, nous pourrons alors nous permettre d'être généreux."
"Un si noble langage, l'élan qu'il provoque dans la grande république américaine, l'autorité qui en résulte pour elle dans le concert des nations, ce sont là des faits immenses et qui permettent de croire au progrès du monde..." ("Wilson contre Machiavelli") G.W., journal de Genève, 15/6/17.
Il y a une différence capitale entre la portée de ces paroles de Wilson et les déclarations analogues antérieures que les révolutionnaires de 1784, 1789, de 1848, ou les magistrats candides de La Haye avaient faites. Celles-là étaient "des phrases creuses". Celles-ci sont pleines de la puissance américaine, de cette force immense et volontaire qui se dresse sur le monde épuisé, qui inclinera le sort des armes à l'heure et dans la direction qu'elle voudra, qui imposera à la grande conférence de la paix prochaine l'autorité irrésistible de son idéalisme appuyé sur la force triomphante. Il y a quelque chose de changé dans les destinées du monde..'

Et depuis lors, l'engagement libérateur, généreux, mais non toujours pleinement apprecié des Etats Unis, continue d'être appliqué. Et cent millions de victimes du communisme est plus qu'assez pour souligner en rouge vif la phrase de Cœurdevey, que 'l'avenir dira qui s'est réjoui a tort.'...

  'Le pain est le travail et le trésor de toute la nation Soviétique'. 

_____

Italiano

_____
 

Sources- With grateful thanks- Edouard Cœurdevey, Carnets de Guerre 1914-1918, © Plon. 
Images- Soviet Union propaganda posters of the epoch. Text © Mirino (PW) February, 2010.

The sky

The comfort of continuity, that the sun will always rise and dry the dew. That even when clouds are thick and grey, the sun is still there. The reassurance of another new day, another new gift.

The sky appears to be an infinite and evocative world in itself. Constantly changing wherever one is, and wonderfully varied above every part of our Earth.

It sometimes seems to be the mirror of our sentiments, or a guiding influence which often at it's best can evoke hope and confidence.

Yet the sky seems able to express every possible nuance of sentiment from the mildest to the most violent. Its infiniteness represents our aspiration, our Heaven, our future, sun, moon and stars. Despite what we can accomplish, we are dwarfed by its immensity and reminded of how much we depend on, and are a tiny part of this immensity, this fabulous cosmos.

One can imagine this awe-inspiring relativity can be felt looking down on the Earth from the darkness of space. So unique and precious. To reflect on history, how small and ephemeral our life is, our civilisation, the history of life itself and perhaps even our world is, in relation to this immensity, where time and space are infinite.

The sky is a master piece of truth in endless transformation. Whether it evokes formidable violence or sublime peace, it can always temper vanity and inspire humility. It can make us smile, close our eyes, and dream.

_____ 

 Italiano

_____ 

Text and images © Mirino (PW) February, 2010 

(Please note that all Viewfinder rights are reserved. Images and text © Mirino are protected, and must never be used by anyone without first obtaining authorisation. Any infringement would automatically be treated as such.
Although Google publish many images that appear on Google sponsored sites, obviously this doesn't mean that such works can be copied without confirmed authorisation when © is protected. Thank you for your appreciation concerning this).

A glorious example

The horror of the Haitian earthquake and its aftermath are covered in terrible detail, telling the story so far through images published by world press such as the Boston Globe, the BBC, the Washington Post.

One of the most unforgettable images is that of seven year old Kiki who, after being trapped for seven days and finally pulled out from the rubble, is seen smiling with his arms outstretched, as if there were never any doubt in his mind that his day of rescue and 'resurrection' would come.
When asked how he managed to survive without food and water, he simply replied, "God helped me".

This image has since become an icon symbolising Haiti courage and confidence. Indeed it's a wonderful example of faith and optimism last alluded to. Despite all the horrors of such an inconceivable reality, despite whatever resulting human weakness and shame, the fabulous image of this little boy seems to put everything into a proper and sane perspective. It dwarfs the pettiness, selfishness and the futility of so many other human (and inhuman) pursuits, frustrations and ambitions. It reduces to nothing the futureless hate and prejudice of fanatical causes. It reveals only the best of human nature by showing not only how a little boy is capable of surviving the most terrible cataclysm, but above all, by showing how he can achieve this so gloriously.

_____

Italiano
_____
Text © Mirino (PW)  Image © Polaris/eyevine (with thanks). January, 2010