Ink 2017

Ink S U M M E R

2 0 1 7

C H U R C H E R ’ S

C O L L E G E

Editorial It’s always a great pleasure to edit INK, the school’s academic magazine, and see the extent of academic endeavour shown by our pupils and staff.

Understandably, Brexit and Donald Trump have been a theme over the last two editions, but it’s great to have Art, Architecture and Ancient Greece as a refreshing counterbalance, along with articles on music, hypnosis and a piece of creative writing. INK is also a forum to showcase artistic talent and you’ll be able to see to results of hard work in Art and D&T too. Just like the subject of Saffron Wood’s painting on the front cover, please do look into this magazine and in your wide-eyed wonder maybe you will be inspired to contribute next year.

Contents “All for the love of a woman”. Is this the fundamental reason for the beginning of the English Reformation? ..............................................................................3-5 Evie Fleck

To what extent is the approach to composition and recording determined by the medium of performance and context? Approaches to modern hip hop music and its production......................................................................................................6-7 Molly Moran

Brexio, Brexis, Brexit: Globalisation and the Roman Republic............................8-9 Michael Murray

“Public referendums are the worst way of making public decisions.”

Are they? ............................................................................................................12 Archie Phillips

Bill Baker (Summer 2017)

How can Grayson Perry’s ‘Memory Jar’ describe the relationship humans have with objects, memory and identity?..............................................................13-16 Zahra Coulthard

Examinez le thème de discrimination dans « Kiffe Kiffe Demain »................17-18 Emily Giffin

“Human life is more important than any other form of life” .........................19-21 Tommy Howells

The Changing Face of State Architecture........................................................22-25 Joe Twitchen

“Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air.” Do you agree? .....................................28 Imogen Morrogh

Romeo’s Achilles Heel: a literary comparison of Achilles and Romeo .......................................................................................................................29-30 Laura Jenkinson Cover by: Saffron Wood (Fifth Year)

What do you thINK? Submissions to Ink are welcomed throughout the year.

Email wbaker@ churcherscollege.com if you have an article you would like to publish.

What is Hypnosis ?.........................................................................................31-32 Annabelle Hall

Why Frodo and Achilles are so infuriating to a modern audience ......................33 Harry Richards

From what you have learned from studying the Minoan, Mycenaean, Dark and Archaic ages, what do you think is the most important type of archaeological evidence and why?..............................................................................................34 Harry Allen

To what extent did the situation of women in the 19th century influence the actions of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina and Flaubert’s Madame Bovary?............35-37 Emily Nanovich-Walker

Sirius....................................................................................................................38 Bethany Procter

2

“All for the love of a woman”. Is this the fundamental reason for the beginning of the English Reformation?

Evie Fleck Lower Sixth

Historian David Starkey claims that it was “that remarkable woman” Anne Boleyn who turned Henry from “the pious prince who ruled an England at the heart of Catholic Europe” to “the great schismatic, who had created a national church [with] insular, xenophobic politics”.

The radical English Reformation, beginning with the Break with Rome (1533-35) encompassed a wide range of radical legal, financial and eventually doctrinal changes in England that facilitated Henry VIII’s move to “national sovereignty and monarchical supremacy” in England (Haigh). The impact of these changes cannot be underestimated since, after a delay in which he hoped Henry would change his mind, they caused the Pope to excommunicate the entire country from the Catholic faith to which it had been committed for almost a thousand years. However, the Break could also be attributed to various other factors: Henry’s need for a male heir, the intransigency of the Papacy and Charles V, Protestant ideas and Henry’s desire for power and wealth.

Firstly, it could be said that Anne Boleyn herself, “who even her worst enemy had to admit had ‘sense, wit and courage” (Starkey) caused the Break with Rome. Wary of Henry due to the experience of her sister Mary who submitted to being his mistress (whilst already married) and was then discarded, Anne showed remarkable strength of character in

refusing to sleep with Henry for five years. Unaccustomed to being denied, Anne seemed to inspire in Henry an obsession, of which the end result was radical religious change and their union in marriage. It is undoubtable that he loved her deeply since despite his hatred of writing, he penned her many praiseful letters, signed, like a lovesick schoolboy “”H seeks A.B, No Other Rex,” with her initials in a childish heart. Henry was prepared to do anything in order to achieve marriage with Anne, and so, when an annulment with Katherine of Aragon proved impossible to obtain, the English Reformation began, “all for the love of a woman”.

in many arranged marriages between complete strangers with wildly disparate ages. For example, Henry’s sister, Mary Tudor was briefly married to the French King Louis XII, over 30 years her senior. As King, Henry had the power to fall in love with and have children by whomever he wished, as we can see in the case of Mary Boleyn (who bore him two illegitimate children).

Had Katherine of Aragon been able to give Henry a son, Anne would have simply been a mistress. It was therefore the dynastic future she offered him, more importantly than her actual person that caused the Break with Rome.

[T]he English Reformation began, “all for the love of a woman”.

However, it must be remembered that high profile marriages in this period were not necessarily made for love, they were to produce legitimate children and create dynastic alliances, as can be seen

Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn

3

Building on that point was Henry’s desire for a male heir. This was necessary in order to fulfil his drive for immortality through dynastic fulfilment. For Henry’s ego, massaged through a childhood experienced as the pride of Court, continuing his line was essential. By failing to do this, he was failing to carry out his duty as a King. Henry did have a daughter, Mary Tudor, borne by his Spanish wife, Katherine of Aragon. But there was no historical precedent to make Mary seem a viable future ruler, with the only previous female ruler of England, Matilda, ruling in a tumultuous time of civil war. To the aggressively masculine Henry, a daughter could never viably continue his dynasty and it was therefore as if he had no children at all. Something needed to be done in order to solve this problem of possible dynastic extinction. When attempts at getting an annulment with his wife proved futile, he therefore moved towards the Break with Rome in order to garner the legitimate male heir he desired. So it was not Anne, but the dynastic future she offered that sparked off

Sack of Rome of 1527 by Johannes Lingelbach

the English Reformation.

This view can also be backed up with the example of Henry’s worries about the validity of his marriage. These doubts, casting aspersions on the legality of Julius II’s papal dispensation for his marriage way back in 1509 only began twenty years later when he lacked an heir and therefore professed himself “divinely cursed”. Indeed, the passage in Leviticus damning the marriage between a man and his brother’s widow makes an implicit judgement that they “shall be childless”. This was what struck such a chord with Henry. He was looking for a reason to get rid of Catherine. So it was his lack of a male heir that made Henry question the validity of his marriage and look for an alternative in Anne Boleyn.

her marriage with Henry. Due to the death of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian and Ferdinand of Aragon, Charles V was the most powerful ruler in Europe, with vast lands in Spain, the Austrian Netherlands and the politically important area of Northern Italy- a powerful enemy. Charles was the Renaissance Prince (young, highly educated and hugely powerful) which Henry had always aspired to be, Secondly, as Supreme Head of the Church, the Pope would have been able to grant Henry his annulment, allowing him to marry Anne without breaking with the Papacy.

But at the 1527 Sack of Rome, the Pope was taken prisoner, therefore becoming the puppet of Charles V, and so could not grant Henry his wish. This hostile international situation was worsened by Cardinal Wolsey’s diplomatic decision to ally with France against Charles V. By being hostile to the Habsburgs, Henry was being hostile to his chances of an annulment since Charles controlled the Papacy, and indeed, most of Europe.

The 1529 Ladies Peace after the Battle

As King, Henry had the power to fall in love with and have children by whomever he wished.

An additional cause of the Reformation was the international situation from 1529, which was completely hostile to the annulment which Henry desired.

Firstly, Charles V was Katherine of Aragon’s nephew, and so he would therefore support the continuation of

4

of Landriano further strengthened Habsburg-Pope relations, so the annulment was not possible, and Henry was forced into breaking with Rome.

Therefore, the intransigency of Charles V and the Pope, not just the “love of a woman” caused the Reformation.

The character of Katherine herself (another remarkable woman) strengthens this idea. Popular in England, having led an army to victory against the Scots at Flodden, incredibly religious and having been married for 20 years, Katherine would not let the annulment happen without resistance, helping to force the break. Like Anne, she refused to comply, rejecting the suggestion of Cardinal Campeggio and the Legatine Court that she be shut up in a nunnery. She pleaded directly to the court and her husband to do her “right and justice” and “take pity” on her with an emotive speech immortalised in Shakespeare’s Henry VIII. Most importantly, she appealed directly to her nephew Charles V for help, vindicating his intransigency.

Another reason for the English Reformation that links to Anne Boleyn’s importance was the spread of Protestant ideas and their influence on Henry. Anne, the woman Henry desired, was a strong Protestant, and

documents justifying the Reformation such as ‘On the Obedience of the Christian Man’ (then illegal and given to Henry by Anne) and the ‘Satis Copiosa’ (stating that English Kings had always had secular and spiritual authority in England) were compiled with by Protestants. The influence of these Protestants can be seen with the positions of power they were given.

Henry wanted to marry Anne, and made Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury in 1532, even though he had never held a senior post before.

Protestant ideas justified the Refor mation and massaged Henry’s ego by asserting Henry as the most powerful man in England.

leanings disseminating the English New Testament, to be burnt alive as heretics. That is not the act of a man highly influenced by Protestant ideas.

When the Break finally occurred, no core doctrines were touched (parish and monastic life continued as before). The only change was that Henry was able to procure his divorce and hopeful male heir. Therefore, Protestant ideas were not a main factor behind the Break with Rome.

The personal doctrine of the man who once wrote In Defence of the 7 Sacraments and was named Fidei Defensor by the Pope himself never truly changed.

Whilst powerful Protestants such as Henry’s genius legal adviser Cromwell may have facilitated and justified the Break, it was Henry’s initial desire for a male heir that inspired it.

Henry tried to garner an annulment within the Catholic Church, first through Biblical arguments and then through pressure on the Pope via the English clergy.

However, Henry’s behaviour shows us that he delayed breaking with the Papacy until he had no other option, taking “hesitant and stumbling steps” to “slowly and unwillingly [achieve] his supremacy” (Haigh). Therefore, although he may have used Protestant ideas of his future wife and others to justify it, they were not an initial factor in the Break.

Instead of immediately breaking with the Papacy when he first started having doubts about his marriage in 1529, Henry tried to garner an annulment within the Catholic Church, first through Biblical arguments and then through pressure on the Pope via the English clergy. This pressure was to be used as a bargaining chip, with caveats inserted into his demand to be Supreme Head of the Church and to an Act in Conditional Restraint on Annates in 1532 that targeted Church wealth. Henry made reversible changes because, since Protestant doctrine had not truly affected him, he still wanted an annulment from the Papacy if possible. Therefore, this delay shows his deep doctrinal opposition to the Reformation, as late as 1530 he was ordering priests, with Protestant

The final reason for the Break with Rome was the power and wealth that it gave Henry. As the owner of 1/3 of the land in England, the Church was an easy target for the wealth and therefore power through land that Henry desired, as we can see later through his decision to dissolve the monasteries. Legislation such as the Act of Conditional Restraint on Annates caused Church payments to go to the monarchy not the Pope, increasing Henry’s Thomas Cranmer power through wealth. In 1532 the Submission of the Clergy gave Henry Supreme headship of the Church, which “appealed to his selfimportance as King” (Haigh). We can see from 1530 that Henry’s egotistical desire for further power was a catalyst in the Break since, in documents, he began

5

describing himself as “Imperial”, showing his desire to rule absolutely over England, not like a King, but as an Emperor, without the challenges to his authority caused by the Papacy.

However, although we can see that Henry desired and enjoyed the power and wealth it brought him, this was a bonus of the Break with Rome, not a factor that initially inspired it. This is because the legislation giving Henry supreme power and wealth was only created 1533-34, long after the idea of the Break was seeded in Henry’s mind through his lack of heir and an adverse foreign policy situation.

Thus, although it is a romantic idea, and refreshing to think that occasionally it was women, rather than men affecting major change in Tudor England, Henry’s love for Anne Boleyn was not the main cause of the English Reformation. It was two other main factors working in conjunction that caused the Break with Rome. Henry’s desire for a male heir (what Anne represented) and therefore dynastic continuance sparked off the whole process and was a constant, strong motivation, as well as the hostile foreign situation forced Henry to solve this problem, not within but outside of the Catholic Church due to the intransigency of Charles V and the Pope. Whilst other factors may have had some influence, these two were the constant driving force, overpowering Henry’s doctrinal doubts and causing radical change to religious administration in England.

To what extent is the approach to composition and recording determined by the medium of performance and context? Approaches to modern hip hop music and its production.

Molly Moran Upper Sixth

The ways in which the modern consumer listens to music are changing more rapidly than ever before.

Constant technological advances mean that the musicians and producers of today have to pay increased attention to the development of musical ideas, the amplification or recording of any live instruments, and the mixing of a track.

They are also compelled to consider the context of their music and ensure that the integrity of a genre or style is kept.

These considerations are magnified in a genre such as hip hop, in which musicians often write to convey personal issues or give opinion on current sociopolitical controversies. The flexibility that this offers has allowed the genre to be introduced to a wider demographic and reach new media. Therefore, the increasing ambitions of artists and the new media that they are taking their music to have led to the development of new approaches to composition and recording. It is the decision of a musician/group and their production team as to when the medium of performance and context of the music are the conclusive factors in the creative process.

In 2015, composer Lin-Manuel Miranda was met with undivided acclaim when he brought ‘Hamilton: An American Musical’ (depicting the life of the American Founding Father) to the Broadway stage. It has been deemed a cultural phenomenon for its “sublime conjunction of radioready hip hop (as well as R&B, Brit pop and traditional showstoppers)”.

Historian Ron Chernow, author of ‘Alexander Hamilton’ (the biography on which Miranda based the musical), was surprised to find the first 40 pages of his book condensed into a 4 minute song. This show has been the first look into rap and hip hop for many of its audience members and this has spread further with the release of the original Broadway cast album and the ‘Hamilton Mixtape’, in which established artists

including John Legend and Wiz Khalifa have remixed or covered some of the musical’s best-loved numbers. The creative team behind ‘Hamilton’ realised that the approach to the recording of this cast album would have to differ to the recording of other musicals’ albums, let alone a ‘traditional’ hip hop album.

Questlove from the Roots

A cast album recording is usually a quick process, with all the vocals and accompanying instruments being recorded within a few days. Very little is done to edit the recordings, as the unpolished sound is the perfect souvenir for an audience member to take away. However, Miranda added extra edits to the recording so that all of the emotions could be conveyed realistically and each character’s personality traits be reflected in the recording of the score. In doing this, the album maintains the conditions of a musical theatre album, whilst also obtaining the distinctiveness of the hip hop genre. Derik Lee, an engineer on the cast album, said: “I really could flex my muscles here in approaching this as a hip-hop or pop album.”

An example of the differences between the recording of ‘Hamilton’ in contrast to its contemporary musicals is the setup of musical theatre singers compared

6

to that of hip hop and rap artists.

Musical theatre singers usually require sight lines to the other performers that their character is interacting with, as they would on a stage. This means that the area in which they record has to be larger, in order to accommodate for the unique angles at which the singers require the vocals booths to be.

This cast album was recorded in two Avatar studios in New York. To rent both of these spaces for the 46 days of recording and editing time cost the team a small fortune, but it was a price that they were willing to pay to allow the actors to give the best possible performance. Additionally, the musical used a lot of fresh talent making their Broadway debut, meaning that they did not have experience recording and ‘were not sure what to listen to or how to approach the microphone’.

Time had to be spent teaching these performers how they can help create the best possible recording. The vocals were not the only instruments affected by the different approach to recording; the percussion was also adapted to demonstrate new characteristics. For example, Questlove (drummer and joint frontman of a band called The Roots) overdubbed a percussion part in which he hit a table to create a drum sound, recorded with a Neumann U67 microphone. The sound produced created a new, interesting timbre which further embellished the original percussion part.

Lin Manuel-Miranda’s musical numbers are littered with references to the hip hop style and some of its own founding fathers. Going no further than the first song, there are nods to the likes of Snoop Dogg and Drake with the repetition of “What’s Your Name?” directed towards the protagonist, as well as the rising harmonies as the ensemble sings “New York” quoting the Jay-Z and Alicia Keys song ‘Empire State of Mind’. These are joined by a reference in the song ‘Yorktown’ and the call “we

have one shot to live another day”, which seems to mirror Eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself ’, in which he raps, “You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow.”

Marshall Mathers, under the artist name Eminem, has been at the forefront of the rap and hip hop scene for over 25 years and his team have developed an unmistakable way of channelling the context and experience behind his work through the means of contrasting arrangement, recording and mixing techniques.

These are highly effective in his 2010 album Recovery. The first way in which Eminem’s approach changed for this album was his collaboration with a wider variety of producers and instrumentalists. This automatically allowed access to an even greater bank of knowledge to produce the desired character of his music. For example, on the song ‘Love The Way You Lie’, significant elements of the track (including the hook melody) were created by British producer Alex da Kid. Rihanna’s vocals on the track do not have much done to them, which keeps them very raw and subtleties can be heard such as small cracks or the natural break in her voice. Eminem’s rap has a long delay on it and it is double tracked, making the lyrics even more hard-hitting. All of these elements emphasise the difficult topic of domestic violence, which is the inspiration behind the song. It is clear that the context undoubtedly had an effect on the creative decisions, both in the composition and the production of this song.

approach to composition must utilise the nuances of the styles and grasp the attention of the listener.

approaches music with the purpose of expressing an emotion, and finding the means with which to do it successfully.

Alt-J have adopted many interesting techniques to their set-up and recording.

For example, drummer Thom Green employs a kit that is ‘very much his own’. Firstly, he uses no cymbals and the closest component he has to the cymbal timbre is the back of a saucepan.

The uniqueness of this sound adds the rustic quality commonly associated with the folk genre. Green also uses a snare drum from a toy shop, which takes attention away from the snare part as the smaller instrument will make a higher sound with less depth. These modifications successfully give the band’s music an individual sound, which encourages a listener to take an interest in their music. The band’s approach include many other ways to create interest including the instrumentalists playing unpredictable riffs and rhythms that only happen once in the song. Sometimes the songs that they release haven’t been edited at all after using a monitor and this is true for a third of the songs on the band’s 2012 album ‘An Awesome Wave’. This gives these songs an incomparable natural and unpolished quality which only makes the music more intriguing.

This is noticeable going as far back as his second album Late Registration.

Craig Bauer, an engineer on the album, said “(Kanye) wants it gritty and hip hop” and the choices for this album included using music from older songs and arranging instruments in ways they wouldn’t normally be arranged, changing the context of musical ideas.

For example, in the song ‘Heard ‘Em Say’ featuring Adam Levine, West pairs Levine’s high soulful voice with soft acoustic guitars and whilst they are very quiet in the mix, they add a percussive timbre to Levine’s voice which gives his words more intention. Bauer also found that the processing applied to some instruments might not have seemed out of place at Abbey Road in 1966, showing that the important thing to West is achieving the emotion of his work and that context is a definitive element.

[T]he closest component he has to the cymbal timbre is the back of a saucepan.

Eminem and his engineer Mike Strange Jr are said to be ‘averse to mixing ‘in the box”. This can also be said for the members of the indie-rock band Alt-J and their production team. Whilst mostly known for their folk-rock sound, components of their songs are heavily influenced by hip hop traditions, and therefore their approach has to change to accommodate for the needs of each style, as any artist wishing to fuse genres must do. In addition to this, the

Whilst Alt-J are making important developments in their approach to creating music, they are still relatively unknown on a global scale. Yet, artists at the height of success are doing this

Alt-J

as well. Kanye West has now found more of a name for himself as an outspoken celebrity, with pop culture being heavily influenced by his confidence and image. However, his rap career and extensive experience as a producer are still thriving as his seventh studio album ‘Life Of Pablo’ reached peak positions in the charts all over the world during 2016. It is evident upon listening to West’s work that he

7

In conclusion, the breadth of artists that change their approach to composition and recording, as well as the engineers and producers that change their production techniques based on the need to express a particular story or feeling, show that it is to a great extent that the context of music and its

medium of performance determines aspects of the creative process. Whilst some may argue that media should not affect musical decisions, as music should be universal, to give an audience member or listener the best impression of a performance or recording, tailoring the approach to the creative process is essential.

Brexio, Brexis, Brexit: Globalisation and the Roman Republic.

Michael Murray Staff

Michael Gove and Boris Johnson

The forces of globalisation left the Roman republican senate behind, the UK’s political parties face the same danger.

Journalists have commented that the UK’s Brexit vote was a backlash from working class Britain, those ‘left behind by globalisation’(1). Global movement of capital has seen the UK’s economy eviscerated of its old industrial base, with jobs outsourced to countries with cheaper labour costs. This has resulted in former industrial towns become characterised by unemployment, closures and the need for ‘regeneration’(2).

At the same time the foreign finance capital and inequality has inflated Britain’s house prices, as property in the UK has been seen as a safe and even lucrative investment. As a result, UK property ownership lies beyond the means of most people, and many Leave voters have attributed house price inflation to immigration. In response to the outsourcing of jobs

and the increasing competition for the fewer opportunities remaining, those ‘left behind’ by globalisation therefore saw it in their interests to vote against a major institution of globalisation, the EU. In

summary, globalisation has encouraged a Brexit vote by producing inflationary pressure on property and deflationary pressure on the value of labour.

Republican Rome faced similar problems. The expansion of the Roman Republic’s empire amounted to an ancient form of globalisation.

Having profited most from imperialism, Rome’s aristocratic elite used its new found wealth to purchase land in Italy, forming huge estates known as latifundia. This led to a mass dispossession of Rome’s rural citizenry, which was exacerbated by importation of cheaper labour, in the form of slaves. Rome’s rural

[T]he historical factors behind Caesar’s assassination are comparable to the problems globalisation poses today.

‘Et tu, Michael’, commented Stanley Johnson, Boris Johnson’s father, in response to Michael Gove’s leadership bid this week. The aptness of this historical analogy is perhaps even stronger with regard to Labour’s coup against Jeremy Corbyn.

But while journalists have used such Shakespearean references to focus on the scheming of individual politicians, none has noticed that the historical factors behind C a e s a r ’ s assassination are comparable to the problems globalisation poses today, and are causing similar political turmoil.

Vincenzo Camuccini - the Assassination of Julius Caesar

8

citizens, who, roused by Caesar’s ally, Mark Antony, forced the assassins to flee Rome. Ultimately the Senate would not recover their support in Italy and were defeated by Caesar’s successors, Mark Antony and Octavian, in Philippi, Greece, two years later. The senate held to visions of the noble Republic and failed to see that these no longer reflected the reality faced by Rome’s citizenry, who supported the Caesarean revolution. The factors behind the Republic’s destruction were larger than the personality of Caesar, but were rooted in the problems an expanded empire brought: slavery, inequality and concentrated land ownership.

The result was political turmoil fuelled by populism and demagoguery. Many impoverished rural citizens moved to the city of Rome where they began to support populist politicians. The first of these, Tiberius Gracchus, demanded land redistribution in 133 BCE, but was assassinated on the streets of Rome by the Senate. His brother, Gaius, likewise was forced to suicide in 121 after assuming Tiberius’ mantle.

Marius reformed the army in 88 BCE, allowing it to employ Rome’s urban poor.

As a consequence, soldiers became loyal to their paymaster generals, and intense rivalries between these generals sparked civil wars, between Marius and Sulla (88–87 BCE), Caesar and Pompey (48–46 BCE), and ultimately, between Caesar’s successors Octavian (later Augustus) and Mark Antony (33–31 BCE). Augustus became Rome’s first emperor, and his victory marks the death of the Republic.

undermine the established p o l i t i c a l order.

Across the western world antiglobalisation sentiment is fuelling support for populist politicians on both the left and right: UKIP, Donald Trump and Podemos are but a few.

Caesar, in a similar position to Corbyn, had little support amongst the established order of the senate and drew on support from Rome’s deprived urban citizenry on the one hand and from his soldiers on the other, in whose economic interests he acted (a comparable nexus exists between Labour and the trade unions). When the senators assassinated him on the 15th March 44 BCE, they did so to preserve their vision of a Roman aristocratic oligarchy, the Republic. They imagined they would be praised as regicides in a political culture that was supposedly hostile to one man rule, according to its imagined traditions.

One of the assassins, Brutus, a former ally of Caesar, even envisaged the assassination as his duty, given his ancestor’s role of bringing down Rome’s ancient monarchy in 509 BCE. The assassins thought they would be praised for freeing Rome from the ambitions of an upstart unconstitutional monarch. Our established political parties should pay attention to this historic event: the assassins could not have been more wrong.

In our century similar pressures of globalisation are beginning to

The Republicans underestimated Caesar’s popularity with the Roman

Crawford, M. (1992) The Roman Republic, Fontana, London

population found itself without farms or the opportunity to offer their labour competitively (3).

Caesar, in a similar position to Corbyn, had little support amongst the established order of the senate and drew on support from Rome’s deprived urban citizenry.

9

Our established parties are facing a reaction to globalisation in the form of widespread populism, whether it be through the Brexit vote or the strong hold Corbyn has over Labour party members. The lesson the Conservative and Labour parties should learn from Rome is that a change in leadership will not solve their problems. Globalisation means existential crisis for the status quo. They must respond to these challenges directly, or, like Rome’s Republic, become irrelevant in an unfolding new world.

Latin teacher, Churcher’s College, Petersfield References: 1 https://www.theguardian.com/ business/2016/jun/26/brexit-isthe-rejection-of-globalisation 2 https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2016/jun/27/ liverpool-london-brexit-leave-eureferendum 3 Scullard, (2011) p16, Chapter 1, section 8: Economic changes and the land problem. Crawford, M. (1992) p. 99f Further Reading: Scullard, H.H. (2011) From the Gracchi to Nero, Routledge, London.

Kate Sampson (GCSE)

‘Self’ Zahra Coulthard (Upper Sixth)

‘Skin’ Imogen Bowley (Upper Sixth)

‘Translucent’ Harriet Nichols (Upper Sixth)

10

Guy Drake (Third Year)

Bethany Procter (Upper Sixth)

Emily Jupe - Nature Inspired Dress (GCSE)

‘Sleep’ Libby Gervais (Upper Sixth)

11

“Public referendums are the worst way of making public decisions.”

Are they?

Archie Phillips

Fifth Year (This unseen, timed essay was written in one hour)

“Public referendums are the worst way of making public decisions.” Are they?

Socrates, the founder of Western philosophy and the figurehead of ethical thinking was, surprisingly enough, not the supporter of democracy that we would expect him to be. He was actually firmly against the notion of the general public deciding on matters, in the city which championed such civil rights. He argued that, if you were electing the captain for a sea voyage, would you be more likely to listen to the sailors knowledgeable in sea-faring, who would be taking part in the trip, rather than pool the votes of a random selection of people living on the mainland. The unbeknownst listener to this argument at once agreed that the sailors would be a better choice as they are in a better position to make the judgement.

This sounds like a perfectly logical and reasonable answer – so why do we, in modern society, feel the need to make public decisions in accordance with the will of the people, when there are politicians, elected by the said people, who can use their knowledge and experience gained over their career to make the most informed decision possible?

A common refutal that the thinking of Socrates is that the so-called rabble on

the mainland have the opportunity to educate themselves before casting their vote, therefore producing a voting pool not quite as ignorant as Socrates feared. However, in the wake of the EU referendum of 2016 the murky waters surrounding fact and fiction could be the most dangerous threat to democracy yet. Each campaign had their own clear agenda, and the titfor-tat war of words between them led to the birth of various ‘facts’ that soon became axiomatic among the British population. For example, the leave campaign emblazoned on the side of their bus that £350 million was sent to Brussels every week. This was blatantly misleading and the notion that this money could be spent on the NHS were we not in the EU is laughable to anybody with access to a search engine.

With the potential for so much ‘fake news’ (as Donald Trump would call it) circulating in the run-up to elections, can the public be relied upon to sift through piles of exaggerated statistics to uncover the required pieces of information that would allow them to truly make an informed decision? Some might say that the Brexit vote is evidence to the

contrary. More state control of the media could be a possible remedy to this issue, as only verified facts could be released to the general public. But it is apparent that a state controlling what the citizens can and can’t view is not likely to hold referendums in the first place.

These points which I have put forward have clearly shown public referendums to be a poor way to make decisions.

However, one could argue that politicians, although voted into power by the public, are not always prepared to represent the overall concerns of the people, and so public referendums are, and can only be, the best way to gather the opinion of the population. The government of Britain and its members are, at large, in place to exercise state power in accordance with the will of their citizens. Therefore, as we decided to leave the European Union as a nation, this has to be the best outcome for the UK. Without a public referendum, this information would be amiss, and parliament would be unknowingly defying the British public every day Article 50 is not triggered and actively going against the wishes of those they represent. Who is anybody to decide what is best for the country when we have do adamantly voiced our opinion? The era of post-truths may be a threat to its integrity, but any healthy democracy requires public referendums as a way of making public decisions as ultimately, it will be the public facing the consequences, whether they be fruitful or quite the opposite.

[W]hy do we... feel the need to make public decisions in accordance with the will of the people, when there are politicians, elected by the said people, who can use their knowledge and experience gained over their career to make the most informed decision possible?

12

How can Grayson Perry’s ‘Memory Jar’ describe the relationship humans have with objects, memory and identity?

Zahra Coulthard Upper Sixth

and understood, though increasingly commonplace, disease. It acted as a catalyst for change which has brought significant funding, research, openness, understanding and progress in combating a deadly disease which knows no social or economic boundaries, and has vitally increased awareness of the challenges society faces in tackling wider issues around identity, consumerism, who we are and our ultimate legacy to the world.

Memory Jar

In 2015 the artist Grayson Perry displayed his ceramic work “Memory Jar” as part of his ground breaking ‘Who Are You?’ exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. The exhibition as a whole addressed issues of identity and the labels we place upon people according to their personal mores or standing in society. It opened up debate into who we think we are and how we want people to see and respect our personal truths, no matter how socially challenging that might be. But it was this particular work of art that was to prove the power of art to change lives. This seminal art work depicted, for the first time in tangible form, how Alzheimer’s destroys memory and identity and the effects this has on sufferers and their families. Memory Jar opened up media, public and more importantly political debate around a little discussed

An ordinary middleclass British couple, Christopher and Veronica, were the inspiration for Perry’s “Memory Jar” and were interviewed by him in a Channel 4 documentary which charted his design processes and ambitions for the piece. Christopher is suffering from Alzheimers and his wife Veronica has become his full time carer.

It was evident from the film interview that as Christopher’s memories were lost, as his Alzheimer’s progressed, his sense of identity was diminishing too, and remarkably as this happened, the same thing was happening to his otherwise healthy wife Veronica. Because Veronica’s identity was so integrally connected to their shared memories together, as soon as he stopped,

through the disease, to reflect back those memories, it was as if, by being forgotten by her husband, she too was ceasing to exist in reality, like a slow death. Our family and relationships are such a massive part of who we are.

This is why it’s tough to see a member of our own family die because we’re seeing a piece of our reflected selves go too. According to Perry “we depend on other people to plot our position in the universe.” “They are part of us, we’re not an island… without them we are just like the tree in the forest that no one hears.” Perry calls this dependence ‘Communal memory.’ Our memory is not just our own but is created by all the relationships, meetings, friendships, acquaintances we’ve had with other people.

Humans have used objects to explain, rationalise and explore their identity for millennia. Since human beings created the first arrowhead tools around 64,000 years ago, these objects arguably became the first known works of art that their owners would have been measured by. When archaeologists find a skeleton they rely on the objects that surround them as their only means of identity. A sword indicates a warrior, a gold torque a chieftain, arrowheads a hunter.

In the ‘Principles of Psychology’ by William James, he said: “A man’s self is the sum total of all that he can call his.”

Long after we’re gone, our items become our legacy.

Our children will inherit our possessions and thus inherit a part of our identity and a part of our being.

[A]s Christopher’s memories were lost, as his Alzheimer’s progressed, his sense of identity was diminishing too.

13

Our memories are so important to our identity because they help us

make decisions for the future. This is because the amygdala hippocampus is not only the centre of the brain where memories are made but also where

relationship with our own identity and memory has changed. People had the power to actually stop time and hold an historical moment in their hand -

Christopher and Veronica

simulations of the future are created.

We devise a sense of identity based on not only memories but also facts about ourselves that people tell us about to try and create the widest spectrum of knowledge about our identity not only from our own perspective but also from that of others.

Alzheimer’s is symbolised on the jar as a demon such as Lucifer, a fallen angel or better yet, as Mercury the thief of time, zooming manically down from heaven. Perry refers to this graphic personification of Alzheimer’s as “Alzi”, a demon who cuts up our memories using a large pair of scissors. In the case of “Memory Jar” the memories that Alzi destroys are transfer images that have been applied on the pot made from photographs of Veronica and Christopher’s lives. The surface of ‘Memory Jar’ is encrusted in these fragmented photographic shards like the jagged mess of memories that now beseiges Christopher’s brain and that of any Alzheimer’s patient. When experiencing a disease like Alzheimer’s where memories become corrupted and lost, looking back at photographs allows sufferers and family members to experience and stimulate memories through looking back at the snapshot stills of life that might have been forgotten.

When diseases such as Alzheimer’s strike, photographs are often the last stronghold of our identities. Since the invention of photography our

viewing themselves as they were as children, for example. While intangible memory can be corrupted a tangible object becomes much more reliable.

Memory cannot be a trusted source of reality therefore we increasingly rely on objects and cinematography to preserve the truth. At the heart of the National Portrait Gallery, Perry has elevated Veronica and Christopher’s family “snaps” in “Memory Jar” to art works of national importance, symbolising the precious fragility of all our personal memories and thus the ephemeral nature of identity.

And in this, as with all great artists, Grayson Perry’s work expresses more than the unspoken fear of losing one’s identity with one’s memories, it plugs into the zeitgeist of the 21st century’s obsession with fame and eternity but by deliberately using traditional art forms (ceramics and printed photography) he exposes the creations in modern media as a paper tiger, a tragic sham – despite our personal wealth, abilities and sophistication, the technological and digital advances of the modern age are actually undermining the chances of any of us or our deeds being remembered much beyond our lifetimes.

of his identity as a hunter, and it was built to last. In 1434 Signor Arnolfini commissioned a wedding portrait from the finest artist in the world, Jan van Eyck, the man who could stop time with paint in oils on panel to create an “eternal” work of art that would preserve the image, the fame of his patron, his identity and trappings of wealth, for centuries to come and this work still entrances visitors to the National Gallery six hundred years on.

Today every moment and meal of our daily lives is captured on social media as we curate our lives for this generation, and we believe, for subsequent generations. However, these memories, these filtered, photoshopped symbols of what we want others to believe we are, are ephemeral, our thoughts and memories are stored externally, not in the brains of our loved ones but in mobile phones and devices. Our portraits, unlike Signor Arnolfini’s, are no longer tangible, but corruptible digital code trapped in a server in the Nevada Desert, susceptible to minute changes in temperature and erased in a nanosecond by power failure.

When Grayson Perry chose his materials to create his work on Alzheimer’s, he could, like so many artists of this age, have used the vulnerable medium of the digital video, but he didn’t. He deliberately reverts to one of the oldest known art materials and art forms of all for this important work – a pottery jar.

Mass production in the 20th century made ceramics ubiquitous and cheap. We’ve consequently lost touch with the mystery and symbolism of the clay pot and no longer appreciate the skill, effort and sheer mastery that go into producing an object of this nature by hand. In the classical world pottery was the highest form of art, preserved for the most important rites of passage.

In almost every ancient culture in the world this art form was used in ritual to hold the body in death. The Greeks created exquisitely decorated funeral krater jars, and Egyptian Pharaohs had their organs stored for the afterlife

Our memories are so important to our identity because they help us make decisions for the future.

Primitive man may only have possessed an arrow head but it was a clear symbol

14

in canopic jars. Perry has made a pot with a lid that is firmly closed. Pots are mysterious vessels. Clay is solid where memories are intangible. Monumental ceramicist Julian Stair’s exhibition in Dec 2014 at Somerset House in London gave me an atmospheric and insightful experience into pots, their symbolism and their power. He said: “Creating pots is a process of making ideas tangible and material; a practical philosophy. It’s a belief that pottery, the simplest of all things, can articulate the most complex of ideas.”

When we see them on display in museums we gaze at their exterior decoration but never consider what lies within, the hidden realm, beyond sight. Could it be that Veronica and Christopher are preserved within the vessel, and this blanket is in fact a symbolic cross section allowing us a glimpse of what lies beneath the clay wall? For many cultures pots are seen as possessing human characteristics.

Their curves and ‘bellies’, ‘necks’ and ‘lips’ mirror our own. Just as Julian Stair and the ancient Greeks and the Mayans

before him preserved the body after death in womblike clay vessels, decorated with the feats of their labours, returning them to the earth from which they had come to be reborn, Perry preserves the identities of Christopher and Veronica without and symbolically “within” the swollen belly of his pot. These “everymen” are preserved for eternity within his artwork, together with their backstory, their history, and the emotional challenges they faced at the end of their days.

are, not what we hope and want to be. Opposing the monstrous Alzi, on the other side of the pot, sheltered by a blanket of “protection” and “love” (according to Perry), is a touching but unflattering portrait of the present day Veronica and Christopher wrapped in each other’s arms.

Christopher looks defiantly out at the viewer, calm and collected, willing to face the challenge ahead of him. His wife grips onto him desperately, as she grips onto what’s left of their shared identity in the fleeting moments left of pure sanity. Perry‘s ‘Memory Jar’ is “a funeral urn for memories” for both Veronica and Christopher’s memories but also symbolically for our own.

Grayson Perry’s work... plugs into the zeitgeist of the 21st century’s obsession with fame and eternity.

“Memory Jar” is an essay on the futility of the modern desire to curate our lives digitally as a lasting testament that probably no one will read; Perry saves Veronica and Christopher for posterity by creating something tangible and he doesn’t filter the truth. He uses the pot also to remind us who we really

Having a close relationship with my grandparents I am confronted with the realities of ageing, fears of death and increasingly the loss of memories.

Often art holds up a mirror to what lies in our own subconscious and the reason why Grayson Perry’s Memory Jar had such a profound effect on me was that it not only made me contemplate the inevitable loss of my grandparents, whom I saw in the pot’s depictions of ‘Christopher’ and ‘Veronica,’ but it also made me contemplate my own mortality. The power of art is that it can touch us personally while at the same time addressing issues that affect the nation as a whole.

By producing an art work for public display in the heart of the art establishment – the National Portrait Gallery - the gallery where Britain comes to look at its own public face Perry has deliberately made the taboo issue of Alzheimer’s a talking point in the public domain. More and more people now understand the disease through his work and more people now feel enfranchised to talk about a disease that affects an estimated 850,000 people in Britain, a figure that’s expected to double in the next 20 years. After Perry’s show, on 24th November 2015, the Prime Minister of the time, David Cameron, announced

15

the creation of the UK’s first Dementia Research Institute which would receive up to £150 million in funding to drive forward research and innovation in fighting dementia. Alzheimer’s has finally become mainstream and Alzi, the demonic thief, now has a police force hot on his heels.

In his attempt to bring the art of the people to the people Perry has been able to fundamentally bring about change.

Although Veronica and Christopher and Perry won’t live forever, their identity and memory will live on through ‘Memory jar’ and their legacy is the fundamental change it’s brought about in the Alzheimer’s community.

In the future we may find a cure for the debilitating crippling disease that brutally rips away the identity of its sufferers and killed almost 530,000 people in England and Wales last year. Those who may benefit from the research conducted through new funds will be thankful to Perry, Christopher and Veronica for the small change they helped bring about. In Veronica’s words the memory of her husband Christopher instilled in Perry’s jar will last “forever” and in that work alone a cure already exists.

are organic. Like cells, memories may be transitory, corruptible, fragmentary, but for millennia, mankind has tried to make them permanent by using tangible objects as identity symbols and memory triggers.

of an era more than 13 billion years ago which may shed light on our greatest dilemma – who we are. For they show us not what we can become but where we came from – the first beat of creation, the first “memory” from which all life and existence hails.

And in that truth we come back to Perry’s Jar that contains the empty universe of all our hopes and dreams and reminds us that we don’t need to suffer from Alzheimer’s or to lose our smartphones to be reduced to just atoms of objects flying through chaos. Like Veronica and Christopher’s shredded photographs we must all face up to the fact that no matter what we own, we are all just shards of distant memories, organic accumulations of those original creations at the birth of the universe.

“I is not a noun it is a verb. The self is constantly changing and there is no identifying core being that is the self.”

Thus identity has become fused with materiality.

The power and effect of a material object in whichever form, can express so much more about the individual and our struggle to understand who we are than an abstract idea. And that is why tangible art forms such as Grayson Perry’s ceramics have such power and can bring about active change.

Scientists using NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope have recently detected light from the earliest objects in the universe.

These objects are not manmade, they cannot be acquired. They are a glimpse

I arranged to meet and interview Grayson Perry during a talk he gave at the Royal Collection at Buckingham Palace. It gave me unprecedented access into his methods, inspirations and intent. I was able to ask him about his opinion on the self, and identity. He said: “I is not a noun it is a verb.

The self is constantly changing and there is no identifying core being that is the self; we are an accumulation of different personalities woven into one mesh; like a city, it grows and changes”. This made me realise that identity and memory

16

Examinez le thème de discrimination dans « Kiffe Kiffe Demain ».

Emily Giffin Lower Sixth

conséquent, le lecteur est mené à croire que le roman dépeint non seulement une histoire d’amour et de lutte, mais l’histoire est aussi un porte-voix pour les marginalisés, forcés à tolérer la discrimination.

Au cours du roman, il est évident que Faïza Guène essaie de sensibiliser le lecteur au sujet de la discrimination à travers ses personnages. Par

Considérons d’abord l’importance du racisme dans son roman.

Pour entamer le sujet, selon moi, le fait qu’Hamoudi soit cherché dans la rue par la police illustre, d’une part, une méfiance qui existe dans leur

17

société, mais d’autre part, si l’on examine ce fait de plus près, un aspect du racisme. Autrement dit, la police ne lui fait pas confiance à cause de la couleur de sa peau. De plus, il est clair qu’Hamoudi a été viré après avoir été soupçonné de vol pour la même raison.

Il en est aussi conscient, en disant à Doria que « le seul truc qu’ils peuvent

[M]ais l’histoire est aussi un porte-voix pour les marginalisés, forcés à tolérer la discrimination. [lui] reprocher, c’est cette sale gueule ».

Aussi, les soucis de Doria soulignent ce problème de racisme dans le roman.

Elle nous raconte ses souvenirs du bac-à-sable dans la Zone Pavillonnaire, où les autres enfants croyaient qu’elle était sale, alors que ce n’était que du henné. Ceci nous montre que ceux qui habitent dans les zones plus aisées de Paris ne sont pas conscients des cultures différentes à la leur.

Pour autant que je sache, le comportement de l’assistant social envers Doria et sa mère révèle aussi une nuance de racisme. Il leur dit qu’elles étaient la seule famille « avec un enfant seulement » qu’il avait vue, ce qui mène

Doria à évoquer qu’il devait sûrement se référer aux Arabes. Similairement, cette maltraitance envers la culture musulmane est aussi reflétée par le responsable raciste de la mère de Doria, qui la force à cacher ses dates à manger pendant le Ramadan, car elle serait autrement grondée. Combiné avec son appellation péjorative de « La Fatma », on peut donc affirmer que le roman se déroule au sein d’une société plutôt intolérante.

recherche d’une femme plus féconde avec l’objectif de réussir à avoir un fils, montre peut-être que les femmes ont un rôle singulièrement domestique. De plus, le besoin d’une assistante sociale après le départ du père de Doria fait allusion à la culture patriarcale musulmane, où l’homme est nécessaire. Il ne faut pas oublier non plus que la mère de Doria est illettrée et à de faibles revenus comme femme de chambre, ce qui souligne le mode de vie typique d’une femme inférieure.

Cependant, dans ce roman, il est vrai que les femmes sont dépeintes d’une manière courageuse dans leur répression grâce à leur solidarité et attitude optimiste. Prenons l’exemple de la Tante Zohra qui se débrouille sans un mari six mois par an, en attendant qu’il revienne pour l’abuser quand il est présent. Elle craint son retour, sachant qu’elle sera obligée de lui raconter que son fils a été mis en prison, ainsi que savoir qu’il va lui taper dessus. Néanmoins, elle continue à lutter dans la vie, quelque chose qu’elle partage avec Doria et sa mère, ainsi que Samra, la voisine.

Bien qu’on croit vivre dans un monde beaucoup moins misogyne aujourd’hui, les personnages qui apparaissent dans « Kiffe Kiffe Demain » montrent que le rôle des femmes est encore assez réprimé.

Bien qu’on croit vivre dans un monde beaucoup moins misogyne aujourd’hui, les personnages qui apparaissent dans « Kiffe Kiffe Demain » montrent que le rôle des femmes est encore assez réprimé. La situation de la voisine de Doria nous illustre très clairement l’abus que connaissent encore les femmes aux mains des hommes.

Malgré son évasion, Samra vivra toujours avec son passé tyrannisé, ce qui souligne le problème de l’inégalité qui existe toujours. Aussi, le fait que le père de Doria soit parti à la

D’un autre côté, en ce qui concerne l’emploi, Faïza Guène révèle un autre aspect de la discrimination qui a lieu dans son roman. Autrement dit, la marginalisation sociale et économique devient une illustration de la discrimination dans la société de « Kiffe Kiffe Demain ». Quant à Doria, le métier qu’on lui propose après ne pas avoir réussi à redoubler, c’est coiffeuse, ce qui révèle le manque de possibilités qu’elle a en ce qui concerne son emploi. D’ailleurs, Doria semble très intelligente au cours du roman, ce qui mène le lecteur à affirmer que son emploi sera aussi injuste que les raisons pour lesquelles elle a dû ‘choisir’ cet emploi. En outre, comme mentionné avant, Hamoudi est viré de son travail ce qui l’oblige à en trouver un autre

18

comme homme de sécurité. Cependant, il reconnaît que ce n’est que « faire le chien de garde », montrant qu’il sait bien les conséquences d’être victime de la discrimination. En fait, Doria et Hamoudi sont les deux forcés à travailler dans des métiers qui ne leur conviennent pas du tout en raison de leur classe sociale ‘inférieure’.

Finalement, il va de soi que le rôle de l’éducation dans le roman fait partie des aspects qui contribuent à la discrimination que les personnages doivent supporter. Très similaire à son avenir en coiffure, l’éducation de Doria n’a pas été d’un très haut niveau.

Les professeurs, on nous révèle, font la grève avec plus d’effort qu’ils font leurs cours, ce qui reflète un sens de discrimination envers les enfants des banlieues par rapport à l’importance de leur éducation. Le fait que Doria obtienne de mauvaises notes à l’école, malgré son intelligence, souligne le rôle de l’éducation en suscitant sa discrimination.

Finalement, il va de soi que le rôle de l’éducation dans le roman fait partie des aspects qui contribuent à la discrimination que les personnages doivent supporter.

En conclusion, on peut déduire que la discrimination dans « Kiffe Kiffe Demain » est très apparente et responsable des problèmes que les personnages comme Doria doivent subir.

Bien qu’il y ait beaucoup d’aspects qui contribuent à cette discrimination, je dirais qu’il faut admettre que ceux qui sont les plus significatifs sont le racisme et l’éducation car c’est ici qu’on voit les effets qui vont toucher Doria le plus dans son futur.

“Human life is more important than any other form of life.”

Tommy Howells 3rd Year

The idea of human life being more important than any other form of life is controversial, for some people it would seem obvious that we should put ourselves before other forms of life, whilst other people would argue that all life is important.

Firstly, although the law falls on both sides, through the eyes of the law human life is more important than any other form of life (barring a few exceptions like endangered species and the other primates). Humans kill other forms of life all the time; farmers kill animals for food, vets kill animals if they are sick or wounded and we kill animals in our own home because we are scared of them or find them annoying. We kill bugs and ants all the time when we walk or drive around, but nothing happens.

However, if we kill another human the law acts. We get arrested, tried and then sentenced accordingly.

Another example of this is that about a year ago, a circus man was abusing one of the elephants used for the shows.

There were witnesses and CCTV evidence against him, however he only got a warning and the elephant was relocated. On the other hand, if a human was found guilty of abusing another human, he or she would be far more likely to get a sentence in prison. So in this sense, the law said the human life was more important. Although the law can’t cover every possible scenario, most cases show that human life is more important than any other form of life.

It could also be argued that we are more important because we are the dominant species. We have built, conquered and consumed all over the planet. We have dominated all other species. Not only this, we are the most intelligent of all species. Other animals have not built mobile phones, or rockets, as they are not intelligent enough. Furthermore, our intelligence had led us to build veterinary clinics and animal hospitals.

So we are the only species that attempts to help other species at its own cost.

Moreover, we know that one day the world will come to an end, either through extinction caused by man, a natural disaster, or if the sun explodes in billions of years. Humans have the ability to save the planet, animals don’t, and so for this reason human life is more important than any other form of life.

how we assert control over our instincts.

Unlike animals, humans make choices and act on experience and make use of freewill. We make sensible decisions based on both rational thought and experience. For instance, if one of your friends was upset, your thoughts and experiences would not make you want to make them more upset, you would ask them what was making them upset, and try to make it better.

However, animals, who may appear to act kindly, are only acting on instinct and instinct alone.

Humans have the ability to save the planet, animals don’t, and so for this reason human life is more important than any other form of life.

In addition, in the Bible it quotes, “God said let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish in the sea, the foul of the air, the cattle of the land and over all the earth.”

This shows that God wants humans to rule over the earth and that they are more important than any other form of life. God has a plan for every human, and believes that man should rule over “all the earth.”

Another reason why human life is more important than any other form of life is

Harambe

19

If a human was given a choice between saving a girl, a cat or a worm, the vast majority of people would choose to save the girl, as we think the girl is more important. An example of this is the recent case of Harambe. In March 2016, a child fell into a gorilla pen at the zoo, and everyone in the zoo thought the child was more important than the gorilla, and so the gorilla was shot

Stephen Hawking

and the boy was saved. This is just one example of how other people think of human importance.

One more compelling reason why human life is more important than any other form of life is potential. When a human being is born, it has the potential to become something great. A good example of this is Stephen Hawking.

Stephen Hawking was born with a rare form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) however he has advanced the human race unbelievably in terms of our understanding of space, black holes and astrophysics. In terms of potential no other species compares with humans.

Furthermore, an instrumental view supports the view that humans are more important than any other form of life. An instrumental view would say that animals should only exist if they are useful to us as humans, which of course some are. Nonetheless, on the whole humans are far more useful to other humans. There was never a time when an animal built a car, or a hospital, or a restaurant. Humans are more important than any other form of life because of our intelligence. Our intelligence and technical ability make us far more useful.

On the other hand though, there are lots of compelling arguments against the statement, and these arguments

suggest that human life is no more important than any other form of life.

Firstly, from a non-religious point of view, all animals on the planet started as single celled organisms. In the beginning, everything just started as single celled organisms, however through evolution the single celled organisms developed into more complex lifeforms over the course of millions of years. They were also adaptations of each species, special genetic variations that caused both physical and mental changes to every type of animal. This made them able to survive in the toughest of environments, from the South Pole to the Amazon. It just so turned out that homo-sapiens evolved into the humans we are today and so in terms of evolution, we are no more special than any other type of animal. We just evolved differently.

We were once single-celled organisms and so we should not take advantage of evolution.

life really is. You have to work really hard to keep yourself healthy and well, by brushing your teeth and eating fruit and vegetables. Exercising regularly and caring for your body are also important.

But life can be taken away so easily for each and every creature, and so in this sense of fragility, human life is not more important than any other form of life.

Another religious example of how all life is important comes from the Hindus. They believe that all life (whether human or otherwise) is interconnected through reincarnation, so whilst you may be human in one life you could be a very different species when you are born again. Therefore, all life is sacred and should not be killed. To emphasise this belief, many Hindus choose to be vegetarians and believe that no animal should be killed for food. In addition, some Hindus compare the killing of a foetus to the killing of a priest, and this shows that they think all life is important.

This and the other views stated can be thought of in terms of intrinsic value.

This view supports the argument that human life is no more important than any other form of life as it says that all life on the planet belongs naturally to this earth and is essential. It should not be tampered with. This would suggest that everything is equal.

[I]n terms of evolution, we are no more special than any other type of animal.

There is also the perception that all creation is special and sacred. This suggests that no form of life is more important than any other form of life.

It doesn’t matter whether you are a king or a tiny insect; both of your lives are planned. Furthermore, it also suggests the fragility of life and just how precious

20

One more idea that disagrees with the statement is the fact that the planet and its ecosystem supports everything and therefore this inter-related health is far more important than human life. From the smallest fish in the sea, to the biggest elephants in Africa, the planet provides shelter, food and water for all species. The planet is a home to all. So through the “eyes of the earth,� humans are no more important than any other form of life, and we should not exploit this.

Human life is no more important than any other form of life and there are actually elements suggesting that

human life is worse than other forms of life. Our “posed intelligence” has led to deforestation, habitat destruction, climate change and overharvesting of cattle and fish.

The few charities and people that give back to the world are strongly opposed by the rest of society that cheat, spread corruption, murder, steal and sell drugs, all for personal gain. There are also the innocent people who stand by and do nothing. We would not be alive if it weren’t for plants and animals. Throughout history, plants and animals have helped prevent global warming by releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, provided food to combat starvation and given most of the world affordable, nutritious meat. Animals, plants and other forms of life are just as important as humans, as they provide for us. Plants are exceedingly important to humans in other ways too. Plants contain medicines and substances that we use all around the world today.

Many plants contain antibiotics and painkillers, such as penicillin. These are very important to the human race.

this could happen in a number of ways.

Whatever happens it is inevitable that we will be wiped out, and if we aren’t careful all life on the planet with us. In the long run, we are just as unimportant as other forms of life on the planet, as everything has an end.

We know that one day the earth will come to an end.

The only real concept of human importance comes from religion (mainly Christianity) and there are many agnostics and atheists who believe otherwise.

The final idea that disagrees with the statement is time. We know that one day the earth will come to an end, and

To conclude, there are lots of compelling arguments on both sides and the statement that we are more important will continue to be studied and analysed for centuries to come. It has marked an ongoing debate between philosophers, animal rights activists and religious people.

Whilst Christians would say human life is more important than any other form of life as God created man in his own image and had a special relationship with people, Hindus would argue that all life is part of the same cycle of existence.

Animal rights activists and non-religious people would disagree with this statement and think that human life is equally as important as any other form of life because they feel that vulnerable species should be protected or disagree with the idea that we should value something because God has told us to do so.

other form of life as God created man in his own image and Jesus chose to portray himself as a human even though he could have chosen any form of life.

Also we need to kill animals for food and nutrients and we have significantly greater intelligence than them. We have the potential to go further than any other life form on earth. Buddhism backs up human importance as only humans can reach enlightenment; animals cannot do so because they only have instincts. However I can see how people would disagree with the quotation. Firstly, humans destroy the planet’s ecosystem exploiting this ruthlessly. Terrorists, murderers and criminals degrade human importance by killing people and even the law degrades human importance as it sends people to prison and Death Row.

Terrorists, murderers and criminals degrade human importance by killing people.

I can see how people would say that human life is more important than any

Reincarnation

21

With all this in mind though, I believe that in the short term human life is more important than any other form of life as we have the potential to go further and can achieve more with our lives. However, unless we can make the most of our potential we may quickly find ourselves on the way to extinction. No doubt this will happen eventually but whether we are more important is dependent on what we do whilst we exist, how long we manage to survive and whether we cause harm to the planet or adapt to recognise the value of all life.

The Changing Face of State Architecture Joe Twitchen Upper Sixth

Zeppelinhaupttribüne

The expression of architecture as instrument of political advancement and statesmen is an idea that has been employed by statesmen and leaders for as long as humans have erected civic buildings. However, the 20th century has seen a shift in the way statecraft has been carried out and how the international system functions. The ideal to strive for a peaceful world following the devastation of two World Wars and an end to the prolonged period of global mistrust during the Cold War combined with the growing economic phenomenon of globalisation has seen the hard power politics of the past slowly become an irrelevance.

New economic and social influences, considered soft power, are now seen to mark out the global power brokers of the modern age. And this shift has been reflected in the architecture of the dictatorial and autocratic states who have the single minded ideology and political will to overwhelmingly reflect the culture of their regime through the built environment. Thus, this shift in power can been seen through the development of the architecture of the dictators, from the Nazi notions of hard power expression to the United Arab Emirates’ desire to project their

wealth and success to secure their international reputation as a global centre of business and trade.

On 30th January, 1933, an Austrian Gefreiter (lance corporal) and leader of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party named Adolf Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor of Germany. However, far from acting as a conventional, democratically elected leader, the Nazi g over nment would rapidly plunge the state into a bleak period of totalitarian repression and control. Power was centrally consolidated as opposition groups were eliminated, to the point where the government’s rule became congruent with that of a dictatorship. With the passing of the Enabling Act on the 23rd March 1933, all pretences of democracy were abandoned and, combined

with Hitler’s lifelong ambition as a fledgling artist and aesthete, the Führer would take an incisive interest in the architecture and resultant imagery of the Third Reich. Hitler’s platform to election as leader of Germany was based on the seductive promise of providing ‘work and bread’ for German citizenry. Germans were led to believe that the rise of the Nazi state would herald a return to greatness, prosperity and the dominance of continental Europe for a nation broken by internal hardship and economic strife. Thus, the buildings of Hitler’s Reich were to become a propaganda tool; symbolizing Nazi supremacy, legitimizing the regime through creating links to the great Arian empires of antiquity, as well as being a showcase for the Nazi ideal of a modern German state. Hitler recruited architect, Albert Speer, to bring his vision for the reconstruction of the fabric of the Third Reich to fruition.

Efforts to glorify the regime through architecture were centred on the two nuclei cities of Nazi Germany, Berlin and Nuremberg.

Nuremberg, a city lying on the banks of the Pegnitz River in the German state of Bavaria, was the spiritual home of Hitler’s far-right experiment, and thus became a centre of party rallies. One of Speer’s first projects in the city was the imposing Zeppelinhaupttribüne, the centre-piece of the city’s Nazi rally grounds. The project bears all the hallmarks of dictatorial architecture discussed previously. The grandstand’s imposing 360 meter width, crowned by a 7 meter high Swastika, was intended to convey the dominance and control of Hitler’s government. Whilst the use of a classical aesthetic, borrowed from the Greek Pergamon Altar, acted to

The grandstand’s imposing 360 meter width, crowned by a 7 meter high Swastika, was intended to convey the dominance and control of Hitler’s government.

22

lend permanence to the regime, it was against this imperious backdrop that, for the 1934 party rally, Speer filled the open auditorium with 300,000 party loyalists, and lined the perimeter with 134 spotlights.

This created the iconic ‘Cathedral of Light’ in which the party faithful could revel in the spirit of common purpose and unity that Hitler desired. The success of the rallies in Nuremberg spurred Hitler to demand the construction of a covered venue for the party’s meetings, thus the Kongresshalle was proposed. Designed by Nuremberg based architects Ludwig and Franz Ruff, the 50,000 seat fine grain granite leviathan, further demonstrated the facets of Hitler’s architectural ideology.

Much like the Zeppelinhaupttribüne, the Kongresshalle used overwhelming size (70 meters high by 250 meters in diameter) to convey a sense of total control and domination. The architects further drew inspiration from the classical age, with references to Rome’s great Colosseum, in the circular shape, exterior archway detailing and the material choice of solid stone. Here architectural style very specifically reflected Hitler’s desire to project a ‘thousand year Reich’.

the Greater German Reich. Hitler had famously demeaned the former structure as fit only ‘for a soap company’.

The building’s grand entrances and salons were designed to leave an unequivocal impression of grandeur and spectacle on visiting guests.

Lavish design was clearly evident in both Hitler’s 400 square meter study and its imposing 150 meter-long galleried reception, which led to a set of 5 meter high, richly detailed doors. The finest materials were employed throughout, along with work by noteworthy artists and sculptors such as Arno Breker, to ensure the building fulfilled its purpose to astound. After the completion of the chancellery in 1939, Hitler and

The building’s grand entrances and salons were designed to leave an unequivocal impression of grandeur and spectacle on visiting guests.

However, the grandest plans of the Führer’s leadership were reserved for the Nazi’s administrative centre and capital, Berlin. The dictator demanded the almost total destruction of the central core of the old city, replacing it with what became known as the Welthaupstadt Germania, During his 1924 incarceration in Landsberg Prison, Hitler started to produce sketches for the structures that would eventually form his vision for Germania. In collaboration with his faithful architect, Speer, the Führer began to formally plan the ‘emblematic’ buildings that would form the administrative core of the new capital. In 1938, Speer granted the world a foretaste of the grandeur that was to come; A New Reich Chancellery was designed as the headquarters of

290 meters into the sky, dwarfing any previous features of the city and would have easily become the largest domed space in existence. In fact, the hall’s proportions were so gargantuan that it was suggested that the condensation from the breath of those gathered inside the building would rise and then fall as rain. Internally, the building contained seating for 180,000 visitors and a recessed niche from which leading party officials could speak. Three tiers of seating would rise towards a copper lined ceiling, with the construction of the building rendered almost exclusively in finest granite. Externally the building would employ purely classical influences, with the Pantheon in Rome acting as the stylistic template. Thus the building fulfilled all the demands of a dictatorial project. Domineering and pompously oversized, the structure would have successfully intimidated and overwhelmed, while the references to the Pantheon provided the Nazis with a useful link to the Roman empire

Great Hall, Germania

Speer began to consider the next phase of the construction of Germania.

A central spine, provisionally named ‘Neue Strasse’, would act as a central north-south axis for the new capital.

This central spine would be straddled by a triumphal arch, twice as high and four times wider than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Speer and Hitler planned new ceremonial buildings to line Neue Strasse, exalting Nazi control. At the tip of the new central thoroughfare would stand the centrepiece of the new Germania, the domed Great Hall. The structure would rise

23

of antiquity.

It is therefore deeply apparent the ideology and messages these buildings aimed to reflect and convey. Europe in the inter-war years was a hotbed of instability and competition. The unsatisfactory conclusion to World War I at the hands of the compromised Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, set the stage for the difficulties to follow. Economic depression during the 1930s further acted to destabilise the continent, and the commensurate rise of dictatorial regimes in the

following years added to the unrest.

The rapid German rearmament in the years following Hitler’s seizure of Burj Khalifa, Dubai power in which defence spending increased by 22.5 billion marks in a mere 6 years was indicative of the intense militarisation of this time.

This truly was the era of hard, military power in which opposing nations competed to exceed each other’s capability.

This warlike world order was reflected in the style and the nature of the buildings designed and/ or constructed, such as the Great Hall planned for Berlin and Nuremburg’s Kongresshalle. The references to the great conquering empires of antiquity were explicit in the architecture of the buildings, allying the military might of Nazi Germany to previous great civilisations. The overwhelming scale and extrovertly permanent construction methods of these projects further conveyed the hard power capabilities of the Reich. Through projecting overwhelming strength and power, Hitler aimed to impress the might and hard power capabilities of the new Germany on all foreign belligerents.

However, the end of the Cold War and the restructuring of the world order that followed saw the previously embattled Soviet Union and Western Societies entering a tentative period of peace and alliance with a view to creating a more harmonious and stable global climate. As a result, the great nations of the world were increasingly aware that their hard power politics were less effective in this new age, and it would increasingly be economic power, not military might, that would define a successful nation. Thus, new states began to assume ever-greater strategic importance as a result of

their economic capabilities, and this would increasingly be reflected in the

architecture of their civic buildings.

One such nation state is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In December 1971, following independence from former colonial overlords Great Britain, six authoritarian Emirates located on the Arabian Peninsula united to form the UAE, with a further state – Ras alKhaymah – electing to join the union the following year.

The inauguration of oil exports from the area in 1962 has precipitated the tran sfo r m ati on of the national economy from one dependant on fishing and a declining pearl industry to one that, despite declines in recent years, has grown fantastically prosperous. However, while the buildings constructed at the behest of the ruling Crown Princes make a political statement of success and power, the way this has been achieved and the motivations behind this differ

greatly to those of the Nazi regime.

The buildings’ aims are undoubtedly to convey the wealth and prosperity accrued by the Arab world, but they also wish to propagate a meaning unique to the UAE itself. Thus, aside from economics, the buildings wish to portray the tolerance and comparatively liberal attitudes of their locality.

The desire of the UAE to flaunt its economic power in an age when monetary influence is key is clearly visible. During my field visit to the UAE in April 2016, I was able to observe the methods of construction and the extravagant finishes to the buildings. The state of Abu Dhabi, the capital city of the nation, is home to a building that truly embodies the wealth of the state, the Emirates Palace Hotel. Opened in March 2005 at a construction cost of $3 billion, the hotel occupies a prime position on a spit of land extending into the Persian Gulf at the southernmost tip of Abu Dhabi’s grand water side Corniche. The hotel complex is home to 394 lavish residences, as well as several equally palatial leisure facilities, including a 1.3 km long private beach and an expansive fitness centre.

Internally, the hotel maintains the opulence of its domed exterior with fittings rendered in gold and marble materials. The luxurious nature of the project was assured through the claim that the property is ‘beyond 5 stars’ in terms of exemplary luxury and service. The hotel clearly alludes to the message that the state is aiming to convey, namely one of exemplifying the UAE’s economic prowess and its importance in a soft power age. Abu Dhabi is home to other landmark buildings that similarly reflect the wealth of the autocratic ruling family.

The new headquarters building for state owned Abu Dhabi National Oil

[N]ew states began to assume evergreater strategic importance as a result of their economic capabilities, and this would increasingly be reflected in the architecture of their civic buildings.

24

Company (ADNOC) was completed in 2014, with the 342 meter monolith rising to become the 2nd tallest structure in the city and a monument to the black gold that established the power of the Emirate.

Similarly, the 160 meter C a p i t a l G a t e w a y building further demonstrates the financial daring and enterprise of the region, as its 18 degree lean to the west that surpasses all current rivals in this field, and is four-times that of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

civic buildings possesses a far more considered meaning and function. An additional function of the state’s architecture is to unite the disparate groups that comprise the nations. The UAE is a relatively young country, and has a highly federalised political system, where each Emirate is ruled by an individual family who possess great power over their Emirate. This has resulted in the use of architecture to project a sense of common ancestry and build unity in the nation. The employment of traditional, Arabic styles on prominent buildings, such as the placement of 114 traditionally styled domes atop the Emirates Palace Hotel, reflects the use of architecture to create a sense of heritage in a region that previously had only a small permanent population and a divided ancestry. Furthermore, the inclusion of features such as traditional Arabic wind towers on even mundane projects, such as suburban housing developments, further demonstrates this notion.

The functions of these buildings are largely economic not political in nature, therefore confirming the transfer of military power to economic power.

Lying 130 km to the north-east, Dubai has similarly embraced the use of extravagant architecture and lavish construction projects to project its economic might. Dubai experienced a far greater scramble to develop the once remote desert trading post, resulting in the city’s skyline being busier than that of Abu Dhabi. The centrepiece of the city’s newly towering silhouette is the 829 meter Burj Khalifa, Designed by the noted American firm, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, this tribute to the region’s economic significance was opened to great acclaim in 2009 as the World’s tallest structure by some margin. The state is also home to another symbol of the Emirates’ wealth, the Burj al Arab Hotel. Opened in 1999, the hotel has rapidly become an icon of the city as, again, a symbol of the prosperity and extravagance of the autocracy. Thus, whilst inheriting certain characteristics of their forebears such as impressing the international community, these new buildings have been constructed at the behest of an autocratic government – albeit making a decidedly different political statement.

The functions of these buildings are largely economic not political in nature, therefore confirming the transfer of military power to economic power.

Despite continuing complaints surrounding the rights of migrant workers and the true extent to which the state has liberalised and opened up to the west with restrictions remaining in place on the ability of expats to own property outside Burj al Arab, Dubai

of designated ‘’investment areas’, the UAE is recognised as one of the most liberal and accepting Muslim nations, and this facet of society is recognised in its architecture.

With only However, far from merely being an around 10% of extravagant and often vulgar display the population of wealth, many of the UAE’s being Emirati,

25

the UAE has used architecture to extol its acceptance of secular religious practice and other faiths and cultures within their staunchly Islamic framework.

This notion of religious tolerance and the promotion of acceptance of other global cultures is a marked difference between the UAE and much less accepting neighbours such as Saudi Arabia. This was evident during a visit to the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi. The initial aim of the $500 million project was to promote unity among the disparate Islamic cultures and factions, thus cementing the UAE as a place of acceptance and tolerance.

Also, the acceptance of western tourists and visitors to this deeply holy place of worship is indicative of how the ruling regime aims to break with the precedent of past dictatorships, promoting a message of acceptance and tolerance rather than division and factional conflict. Through the promotion of its newfound economic power as well as the ruler’s celerity to promote a message of acceptance, it was evident that the architecture of the autocratic UAE has been developed in a very different vein to the Nazi regime. Far from aiming to be a symbol of divisiveness and exclusion as well as military might, the architecture of the Emirates focuses on the new equators of ‘soft power’.

UAE buildings promote a dialogue of globalisation, of cross-border and cross-cultural exchange, and also of the economic wealth of this oil rich region.

Thus, the UAE represents a thoroughly modern articulation of the architecture of dictatorships and autocracies.

‘Vertical Structure’ Kate Sturges (Upper Sixth)

Annabel Keoghane - Music / Piano Stool (Upper Sixth)

Zoe Blackburn (Third Year)

26

‘Self’ Henry Cox (Upper Sixth)

William Birch-Tomlinson (Upper Sixth)

‘Exit’ Catherine Barnwell (Upper Sixth)

‘Skin’ Annie Wright (Upper Sixth)

27

“Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air.” Do you agree?

Imogen Morrogh

Fifth Year (This unseen, timed essay was written in one hour)

In last year’s US Presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump shocked the world by beating his Democratic opponent, Hilary Clinton to become the 45th President of the United States of America. Whilst his policies are viewed by some as fresh and modern, I do not believe him to be a breath of fresh air.

First and foremost, it must not be forgotten that Trump is the first President in history to have no political or military background. He is most famous for being a businessman who has made billions and some might argue this to be a positive thing, given that with such a different background he will be a breath of fresh air. Furthermore, his lack of filter and willingness to speak his own mind could be seen as

new and fresh.

There can be no denying his sheer determination to succeed and many believe this to be one of his best attributes.

Many of his policies are extremely radical which distinguishes him from all previous Presidents.

Trump has said that he wants to “eradicate radical Islam”, lower taxes, introduce paid maternity leave and follow a policy of protectionism.

Although to millions, his views and policies seem overly radical, there can be no denying his main policy of “making America great again” and in that sense he could be seen as a breath of fresh air.

cases since his inauguration, President Trump has appeared to be taking a step back in terms of international relations, something that is far from classifying himself as “fresh”. One of his first actions was to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific trade agreement. His justification was that it would protect American jobs, however there can be no denying that global trade creates more jobs than it destroys. Furthermore, Trump denies the existence of climate change, calling it a “hoax”, “invented by the Chinese”. He appears to have a blatant disregard for climate change (one of the most threatening issues of today) and instead of denying it, he should be taking action to lower the USA’s CO2 emissions. The President is also keen to repeal “Obamacare” – another example of the ways in which he’s taking steps back, instead of improving America. Trump called Obamacare a “complete and total disaster”, yet what would happen to the thousands who would lose their health insurance if he gets rid of it?

In conclusion, I believe that Trump is not a breath of fresh air. Although certainly different from previous Presidents, Trump has very few policies or attributes to argue that he will be successful. His policies are in many cases old fashioned and poorly thought through.

He’s been shown to be an egomaniac, a narcissist and a misogynist and he frequently expresses racial views. As an ex-businessman he has had little experience of the need to compromise and as the President, arguably the most powerful man in the world, the ability to negotiate is vital. However, his egotistical and radical statements do not suggest his ability to do so.

[H]is lack of filter and willingness to speak his own mind could be seen as new and fresh.

On the other hand, Trump has on many occasions been shown to have oldfashioned, racial and homophobic views.

He’s been disrespectful, degrading and sexist towards women, who on one occasion he described as “disgusting animals”. In a speech during his campaign he accused Mexican migrants of being “rapists” and as “bringing in drugs and crime”. Moreover, in many

28

Romeo’s Achilles Heel: a literary comparison of Achilles and Romeo Laura Jenkinson Staff

actually, as is generally assumed, his ‘Achilles heel’, but in fact his anger, which he allows to get the better of him, refusing all attempts to bribe him back to the battle without a proper apology. Romeo has a similar ‘flaw’, in that having resisted the challenges of the irate Capulet Tybalt for so long, he finally gives in to his own roused anger and fights.

(In this case, these characters are perhaps opposites, the former allowing anger to overwhelm him from the start, and the latter managing to avoid it until it overcomes him.)

I often find that I use Romeo and Juliet as a comparative reference when teaching the Iliad. It’s useful most notably in its tragic structure: while the Iliad isn’t classed as a tragedy as it pre-dates Aristotle’s Poetics, which lay down the observed rules of tragedy, it has many features typical of tragedy, and in Plato’s ‘Republic’ he refers to Homer as ‘protos didaskalos’, “first teacher”, of the tragedians.

pour out its emotions in the ‘catharsis’ of the protagonist’s death Both Achilles and Romeo have these characteristics:

• a moment when they realise they went wrong (‘anagnorisis’)

Noble protagonist: Achilles is a princely warrior, fighting for his own reputation rather than for the good of others, but his insistence on the honourable conduct of others and his close friendship with Patroclus redeem him in this regard. Romeo is also a princely character, although again one potentially self-interested – his initial depression at being thrown over by ‘fair Rosaline’ at the start of the play can seem melodramatic – but who is redeemed by his passionate and reciprocated love for Juliet, and his friendships with Benvolio and Mercutio.

• and finally the audience gets to

Hamartia: Achilles’ ‘fatal flaw’ is not

A tragedy has the following features, as observed by Aristotle: • a noble protagonist with admirable characteristics • a ‘flaw’ in that protagonist’s character that will ultimately doom them (called ‘hamartia’, meaning ‘missing the target’, no matter how hard they try to do the right thing) • a ‘fall’ from their high status to a low status (called ‘peripeteia’)

Peripeteia: Achilles loses his best friend Patroclus, and likely gains aidos from some after rejecting the correctly-offered kudos from Agamemnon in the embassy of Greek warriors sent to him, and then allowing Patroclus to fight in his place to increase Achilles’ own value. He goes from being the ‘best of all the Achaians’ [Greeks] to lying prostrate on the ground, covering himself in dust and dung in grief.

Romeo’s peripeteia is similarly catastrophic, as he both loses his best friend and his new wife, exiled immediately after killing Tybalt with an immediate death sentence to be carried out if he returns.

Achilles’ ‘fatal flaw’ is not actually, as is generally assumed, his ‘Achilles heel’ (see for explanation), but in fact his anger.

29

Anagnorisis: Achilles realises he has let his anger go on too long after it results in Patroclus’s death, and gives up his anger towards Agamemnon, coming back to the battle.

Romeo, it could be argued, doesn’t get his anagnorisis, as he dies (by his own hand) before he realises that Juliet isn’t really dead. Part of the success of the Bas Luhrman film of the play is that

he allows Juliet to wake just as Romeo swallows the poison, and we see the realisation and mounting horror on Romeo’s face just as he dies. This in turn adds to the…

Catharsis: Romeo’s senseless death (and of course Juliet’s) and the Montague and Capulets’ subsequent truce is certainly cathartic for the audience, added to by the often-neglected death of Paris, the poor suitor who has acted completely correctly throughout he play and dies rather unnecessarily in order to demonstrate Romeo’s passionate grief.

than Achilles’s as we know Achilles has just slit the throats of twelve Trojan children prisoners of war over Patroclus’s pyre, which even the gods find hard to swallow. As Hector is cremated, finally Achilles’ anger subsides, which results in the end of the Iliad, rather than the end of Achilles.

[T]he Achaians, particularly Agamemnon, are forced to come back on bended knee to implore Achilles back into battle.

However, this is where it doesn’t quite work for Achilles, because he isn’t really a tragic hero – he doesn’t die. In fact, Achilles doesn’t actually have a real anagnorisis, as rather than give up his flaw when he realises what it has led to, he instead transfers the anger he has for Agamemnon onto Hector, the slayer of Patroclus. This anger does not even end when Hector is dead, and Achilles ‘put the body to great shame’ by dragging it behind his chariot around the walls of Troy, in front of Hector’s parents.

In the end, the gods inspire Priam, Hector’s father, to come and ransom the body, and Achilles’ anger finally ends in a moving scene where the young ‘murderer’ and bereaved old father cry together – this is as close to catharsis as we get, and it is rather generated more by Priam’s tears

Interestingly, both Achilles and Romeo have ‘agents’ of their hamartia, characters that act on them to bring about the result of their flaws. Achilles’ best friend Patroclus is allowed by Achilles to go out to fight in his place, just until the Trojans have been forced back enough by his mere presence so that the Achaians, particularly Agamemnon, are forced to come back on bended knee to implore Achilles back into battle; if his mere presence scares the Trojans back, then what will his actual fighting do? However, in perhaps his own mini-tragedy, Patroclus lets his own enjoyment of battle stop him from following Achilles’ instructions to ‘not go further than the wall’, similar to the often-seen ‘don’t look back!’ trope in Greek mythology.

He goes too far, takes on Hector (and

Apollo!), and is killed. This event brings Achilles back into the battle, against his own judgement and not in the way he had wanted, with a ton of apologies and kudos-bringing gifts.

Romeo is also dragged unwillingly into battle by his best friend, Mercutio. Romeo’s two kinsmen Benvolio and Mercutio represent Romeo’s good and kind (‘bene’) and frivolous and wild (‘Mercurial’, after Mercury, Greek god of travelling, thieves, and boundaries) sides.

Whilst Benvolio persuades Romeo not to act, Mercutio practically forces Romeo to ‘defend his honour’ that Tybalt is defacing. Mercutio, like Patroclus, then fights in Romeo’s place, and, like Achilles, Romeo is dragged into battle when Tybalt kills Mercutio, incurring Romeo’s revenge. (At this point it’s worth noting that Benvolio, now not having Mercutio to balance out, disappears from the script.)

While the actual personalities of the characters of Romeo and Achilles are very, very different (one is a lover, the other is a fighter), the literary similarities are certainly useful to help students explore the genre of tragedy and the history and development of Western literature.

Achilles Bearing Body of Patroclus

30

What is Hypnosis ?

Annabelle Hall Lower Sixth

Hypnosis is shrouded in mystery. There are so many common misconceptions surrounding this peculiar art form, some of the most common being: • “Sleep” • People being made to do things against their will.

• That hypnosis is a dangerous thing and should not be messed with.

All of these ideas are in fact false. I thought I would try and remove the veil of mystery surrounding the subject and get the word out as to what hypnosis really is.

This, I feel is the ‘least bad’ way to try to explain what it is as we do not currently have a broad enough understanding to explain fully what is really happening in the participants’ minds when the hypnotist tells them to “sleep.”

Over the years there has been much debate as to what is going on when someone falls into a hypnotic ‘trance’ and two sides have emerged: • The people who believe hypnosis is a special state -

[W]e do not currently have a broad enough understanding to explain fully what is really happening in the participants’ minds when the hypnotist tells them to “sleep.”

Hypnosis induces a different state of consciousness.

• The people who believe it is a kind of role playing behaviour -

Hypnosis is not a real state of mind and the subject is merely ‘playing along’.

More recently, these two sides have found a middle ground and this ‘grey area’ is currently being explored.

So, what is hypnosis?... To be completely honest, nobody really knows. The word ‘hypnosis’ is derived from the Greek word ‘Hypnos’ which means ‘To sleep’ however, we now know that hypnosis is not sleep. So, in that case what is it?

Many of the most renowned hypnotists such as Milton Erickson* have tried to explain what hypnosis is. Erickson describes it as “A state of special awareness characterised by receptiveness to ideas”

Instead of trying to grapple with what hypnosis is it’s easier to say what it is not. Firstly, as I have already mentioned, hypnosis is not sleep. The hypnotist is not putting people to sleep, he is merely altering their state of consciousness so that they are relaxed and will readily accept his suggestions. The reason why hypnotists still use the word sleep is simply because it is easy. The suggestion to “sleep” is much quicker and simpler than “you will now fall into an altered state of consciousness”. People understand the word sleep so by using a word with which the subject is familiar the hypnotist is simply increasing his

31

chances of success. If the subject stops to question what the he has said his or her concentration will lapse and their chances of going into the required state are significantly reduced.

Secondly, many people fear being put into a hypnotic trance as they don’t want to do anything that will make them look stupid in front of their friends (these types of people usually make the worst subjects).

Again, this fear is almost completely unjustified. Yes, a stage hypnotist can make a rugby player dance around the room thinking he’s a prima ballerina, not only embarrassing the guy but also the art of ballet in the process.

However, there is a limit to how much a subject will do under the influence of hypnosis. If a stage hypnotist tried to make a subject do something that is against their moral values he will usually fail. The subject, no matter how good he or she is, will either not carry out the suggestion or, will come out of the trance completely.

Lastly, Hypnosis is not dangerous.

Nobody has ever failed to come out of a hypnotic ‘trance’, in fact most awake feeling refreshed and as if they had just had a nap. This is really important.

The 1952 Hypnotism Act means that the process of hypnotic induction cannot be shown on television just in case someone at home gets put ‘under’ and not brought out again**. This is obviously an important safety measure, nonetheless it has led to the induction process being shrouded in mystery.

People’s fear of the unknown has led them to think that something terrible must be taking place, but this is simply not the case.

I would’ve put my own hypnotic induction script here but I don’t want to be responsible for teenagers (probably boys) trying to hypnotise their friends to do something ludicrous. However, I can give you a rough idea of how it works which, if you were interested enough, should give you somewhere to start and should hopefully shed a little light on the process of hypnotic induction.

Dave Elman, a hugely influential hypnotherapist explains how hypnosis works better than I ever could: “Hypnosis is a state of mind in which the critical faculty of the human mind is bypassed”

doing the same thing.

Simple obedience People will almost always do what they are told. Therefore, the hypnotist must be an authoritative figure, rather like a teacher. If you say anything with complete confidence some of the more suggestible people will fully accept what you are saying as the truth even if what you are actually saying makes no sense at all. The word ‘because’ also increases obedience.

An American university student found that she could get people to give up their space in a queue for the photocopier simply by saying “please can I go in front of you because, the weather is nice today”. As odd as this may seem this peculiar response happens due to the word ‘because’ reminding our subconscious of our childhood, for example when we were told we couldn’t eat the sweet because, “its nearly lunch time.”

Hypnosis can be used very effectively by qualified doctors to remove pain in their patients.

The “critical faculty” is a theoretical part of the brain that is, to put it simply, your judgement. It is the part of the brain that knows what your name is.

However, it can be influenced by the suggestions of a confident hypnotist.

Suggestion is what is thought to be the main factor that allows a hypnotist to bypass the ‘critical faculty’. For example, ‘As you read this you are beginning to notice your eyelids becoming heavier and heavier’. This simple example suggests to the subject (or reader in this case) that their eyelids are feeling heavy creating a subconscious force that makes the subject really believe that this is happening to them.

Although you may not realise it we experience examples of suggestion daily, for example if someone starts talking to you about headlice you may suddenly feel the urge to scratch your head. Hypnosis can be achieved just through suggestion however, there are other factors that can also influence (I’m still scratching) how a person reacts to the hypnotist’s words, for example:

Social pressure Quite simply, if someone sees the people around them being successfully hypnotised they feel under some kind of social obligation that they should be

There is also another aspect of hypnosis that I have slightly overlooked as I am most interested in stage hypnotism, but it is most certainly noteworthy.

Hypnosis can be used very effectively by qualified doctors to remove pain in their patients. There have been many examples of surgeries performed without the patient being given any anaesthetic and women smiling through childbirth. The idea of hypnosis in the hospital is still in its infantile stages and it may take many years for doctors to make full use of the array of benefits hypnosis can offer. In my opinion hypnosis could significantly reduce the frequency with which doctors use anaesthetics. I am not qualified as a hypnotherapist or a doctor so I shall not provide any more information on this topic for fear of spreading false information but, if this has sparked your interest, I thoroughly recommend the book ‘Hypnotherapy’ by Dave Elman. Elman gives a fascinating insight into the powers of hypnosis in medicine and has countless examples as

32

to where hypnosis has helped patients before, during and after an operation.

Hypnosis really isn’t something that people need to fear and the ‘hush hush’ that surrounds it, partly due to the 1952 Hypnotism Act and hypnotists such as Derren Brown hypnotising a man to believe the world had ended*** have created the illusion that hypnosis is voodoo witchcraft devil thing that should not be messed with. This, I feel, is such a shame as hypnosis has the potential to help so many people not just in hospitals but also at home.

(I frequently use hypnosis to remove a headache I may have) If the public were just slightly better informed about the art of hypnosis, skeptics could be silenced and the beauty of the human mind truly acknowledged and appreciated. *The father of modern hypnotic induction techniques and who is said to have used the handshake induction so frequently that by the end of his career nobody wanted to shake his hand for fear of being hypnotised. **However, if you ask me it would make for a rather amusing episode of ‘Gogglebox’ ***Although the man involved has benefitted hugely from this experience and went from cleaning ovens to a behaviour specialist at a special needs school.

Derren Brown

Why Frodo and Achilles are so infuriating to a modern audience Harry Richards Lower Sixth

at least in the film adaptations, massively underestimates and negates his companion Sam’s role, treating him as a booby and fall-guy throughout because he is not the chosen ring-bearer.

Frodo in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, and Achilles of Homer’s Iliad, share several characteristics in their flaws and their general story arcs. Both characters are extremely hard to empathise with, thanks to their complex motives and more-than-human qualities.

Frodo is often seen as “queer”, or weird, by other Shirefolk, as he is a lot closer to the outside world than other hobbits, and his thirst for adventure, at least early on in his life, separates Frodo from his quiet neighbours. Similarly, Achilles is misunderstood by the Greeks. His closeness with his mother, the sea-nymph Thetis, sets him out as special and his understanding of Fate and deeper need for Kudos make him even more so.

However, these qualities make both heroes too ‘perfect’ and unable to be empathised with. Throughout their respective stories, both characters are incredibly infuriating from a modern perspective. Achilles’s refusal to go into battle as a result of a petty argument with Agamemnon, although justified to Achilles due to his need for Kudos, makes no sense to a modern definition of ‘hero’, selfless and always working for others; by fighting he could save countless lives. Even his contemporary hero friend Ajax assumes it is “all because of a girl” (Book 9), suggesting that Achilles’ motives are even oblique and frustrating to a more average audience, due to his otherness. Frodo is also ‘selfish’; as Achilles puts his Kudos ahead of other people, so Frodo,

Moreover, the actions of Frodo lead to husband Sam’s dearest companions leaving them to complete the task alone.

Patroclus, Achilles’s closest companion, with whom he shares a tent, goes into battle alone due to his frustration with Achilles, in order to try and help him.

Sam is often told to leave by Frodo, after being framed for eating the last of the supplies by Gollum: Frodo’s selfish beliefs choose the manipulator over the pure friend. These actions leave both stories’ protagonists in difficult situations, and lessen their characters: Frodo loses the duel with Shelob and needs rescuing, and Achilles’s anger is so magnified by the death of Patroclus that he doesn’t observe the funeral rites for Patroclus’s killer, Hector, mutilating his body instead, even to the horror of the gods, who intervene. Thus without their companions, both Frodo and Achilles are fundamentally unlikeable or unadmirable to a modern audience.

Achilles has nothing in his life but his mother and his precious Kudos. Frodo has friends, but is irritated by their immaturity, and makes his whole priority the ring, to their detriment. Achilles becomes a character so dominated by rage it becomes impossible to empathise with his utter blood-lust. Likewise, Frodo spends

most of his journey alienating the audience by whining and generally just getting metaphorically and physically carried by Sam. What makes Frodo more infuriating is how the world treats him: he is seen as a hero, when all he really does is follow Sam around. He even possesses no fighting skill, whereas Sam takes Cirith Ungol alone, saving Frodo. Frodo is still seen as the saviour and Sam gets nothing – although the film versions seek to rectify this by allowing Sam to win the object of his affections, barmaid Rosie, on their return to the Shire, and raise a family, while Frodo lives alone. Patroclus, although not technically a better warrior than Achilles, is more humanised as he visits the wounded and then goes to fight not for his own Kudos, but for Achilles’, and for the good of the Greeks as a whole: he fights out of pure loyalty and the price is his death.

[H]is thirst for adventure, at least early on in his life, separates Frodo from his quiet neighbours.

33

Frodo and Achilles are too unlike modern ‘humanised’ heroes to empathise with, so the audience needs Sam as Patroclus to generate Pathos for them as no one can really respect Frodo the story-stealer and Achilles the selfish from a modern, moral perspective.

Sam, Frodo and Gollum

From what you have learned from studying the Minoan, Mycenaean, Dark and Archaic ages, what do you think is the most important type of archaeological evidence and why?

Harry Allen Third Year

Grave goods

I believe that the three most important types of archaeological evidence are pottery, burial customs and architecture.

I put pottery in the top three as I think it gives us an in depth view of daily life, war and even gods and goddesses.

Earlier this year we looked at a pot, it had soldiers marching with round shields and spears, it also showed us their armour and physical features. From this pot we can learn the Mycenaeans, who made it, were proud warriors and had well-armed men of war. This is just a snippet of what we can find from the intricate writing and images on pottery. The weakness of pottery is it is easily destroyed and the script or images can be scraped off.

and other non-biodegradable items don’t, for example a dagger, inscribed with gold images of a group of men fighting off mountain lions was found and shown to us as a source. This is solid proof of ancient life you can touch, see and hear, even this dagger tells us more than what they fought with but what they could make, what resources they had, who they fought and the wealth of the owner. The weakness of burial customs is that only metal and pottery objects are preserved but cloth, clothes and even wood objects degrade slowly away. Also, the bodies of the owners are biodegradable and only the bones are found.

[W]hen it is found it is like a treasure chest full of knowledge, and writing, art, burial items, frescos and pottery.

Second on my list is burial customs; from the start of humans once going on people are buried with their possessions, wood and cloth may rot away but metal

Finally, on my list is architecture; architecture is one of the massive features of a civilisation, if you find the foundations of a city or an aqueduct you know it was an ancient civilisation when studying the Mycenaeans we

34

looked at an image of a citadel but just the crumbled foundations, we were then shown the one that was recreated as we thought it would have been like.

Being able to see where people lived, slept, worked, played, relaxed and potentially were killed in when a new civilisation took over is amazing. All the other archaeological sources and evidence comes from civilisation; the architecture is like a beacon revealing it to us because when there is architecture all the other evidence is found.

Overall I believe that architecture is the most important type of evidence as everything comes from it, it only has one weakness; it is easily destroyed and is very hard to find, but when it is found it is like a treasure chest full of knowledge, and writing, art, burial items, frescos and pottery. Even though architecture has its weakness it is by far the most important in my eyes.

To what extent did the situation of women in the 19th century influence the actions of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina and Flaubert’s Madame Bovary?

Emily Nanovich-Walker Upper Sixth

Women’s social status during the 19th century was far more restricted and limited compared with the rights women hold today, in the 21st century.

However, slowly small pockets of opposition towards the traditionalist view began a p p e a r i n g.

This took place in R u s s i a amongst young intellectuals as well as France whereby women stood up against society, forming the feminist movement which soon spread throughout Europe.

Authors and artists in many countries began using their work as a platform to challenge society – as reflected in Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary, where the authors are possibly conveying their own political views in a format that was socially acceptable.

Through analysing these texts and their female protagonists, one can explore the idea of ‘The Woman Question’ and attempt to conclude whether restrictive social situations pressured the female protagonists to act immorally; or if it is more appropriate to blame the women themselves; or could it possibly be an amalgamation of both factors?

Therefore: to what extent did the Situation of 19th Century Women Influence the Actions of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina and Flaubert’s Madame Bovary?

progressed, men went out for work and women were expected to stay at home and be the ‘perfect’ housewife.

Russia adhered to Western ideologies regarding the status of women, confident that a woman’s life should be devoted to marriage and motherhood as confirmed in the 1836 code of Russian law.

Women were denied the right to work outside the home and intelligence was considered a masculine feature, something women were incapable of possessing.

[W]omen could not vote nor testify in court and they were banned from institutions of higher education.

During the 19th century women lived in an era characterised by gender inequalities. They enjoyed very few of the social and political rights which are now taken for granted in Western countries. For example, women could not vote nor testify in court and they were banned from institutions of higher education. In previous centuries women had often worked alongside husbands in the family business. However, as the 19th century

Diana Greene’s article, Mid-Nineteenth Century Domestic Ideology in Russia suggests that the Russian government “perpetuated ideology” which allowed girls to understand their roles within society “through literature exclusively for them”. Green expresses how this literature was created with the intention

to define social standards to children.

Girls were portrayed as “pure, pious, submissive and domestic” and boys were viewed as “heroic and noble”.

During the 19th century, the only socially acceptable way women gained respect within society was through

35

motherhood and marriage. Within peasant families, wives worked alongside their husbands. And amongst the upper echelons of society, women supervised servants and were responsible for hosting parties and dinners in order to uphold her family’s social status. Tolstoy ultimately believed that the primary duty of women was to raise children and family. Nonetheless, during this period the idea of divorce began to emerge and the fact that Tolstoy’s Anna refuses Karenin’s divorce request, highlights this social issue and draws attention to it.

Despite restrictions, artists and authors began examining the subject of a woman’s life, challenging their position in society, by representing the unjust social expectations placed upon them within their work.

It was common for artists to use their masterpieces to acknowledge Russia’s social and political issues, hoping this

would help change people’s opinions.

As Stavrou said, “the Russian artist was concerned with the tendentious and transformative purpose of art and not simply with formal or aesthetic qualities”.

During the 1860s in Russia, a younger generation of intellectuals emerged who were captivated with the woman question, taking the views of influential writers. This included Chernyshevsky, author of A Woman’s Complaint who wanted to emancipate women, allowing them to live without men, freeing them from the “bedroom and the kitchen”.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that primogeniture was not the rule in Russia and daughters could inherit land as well as moveable property. Russian women received the vote in 1917 compared with 1944 in France, making Russian society seemingly more progressive where women were concerned.

In post-Revolution France, the idea of female equality received a setback following the implementation of the Napoleonic Code in 1804. From its introduction, the legal rights of men and women were affirmed; and the subordination of women to men was enshrined within the Code.

The Code ensured that married women gave their husbands obedience, and were prohibited from selling “immovable” property. Women also had to give 1/3 of their profits to their husbands; men had authority over children, with the power of employing the “ancient right of correction” which could imprison a child for six months. Husbands also had the right of gaining a divorce if his wife committed adultery, but not vice versa. Penalties were also unequal for adultery: a woman could be imprisoned, whereas a husband was merely fined.

The Code survived for more than 150 years in France. Only in 1968 could wives work without their husband’s permission; and only in 1970 did husbands forfeit the rights as family head.

Women were restricted as artists as well as in their educational opportunities.

Before the French Revolution of 1789, the French Academy limited the number of female admissions to four, and following the Revolution, women were then excluded until 1897. As Linda Nochlin outlines in her essay “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” that women were expected to restrict themselves to the

‘polite’ painting subjects and were refused access to nude models because it was deemed improper, particularly if it was a male.

the repression weighed down upon her since “the inequalities between women and men that constitute a major feature of western society are vividly portrayed

Leo Tolstoy

Despite the patriarchal structure of society, women’s lives in France during the 19th century did change. In literature women became idealized with authors praising the female with adoration as seen by Rudolphe, the seducer of Emma Bovary. In art Morisot’s The Cradle, and Cassatt’s The Bath- paintings explicitly reflect a maternal woman with her child.

Or is this idealism an attempt to subjugate women as the weaker and more innocent gender?

in the novel-bourgeois heterosexuality kills women and ruins men.”

Tolstoy uses his protagonist to emphasise the stereotypes and inconsistences of Russian society.

Gilian Slovo states that Tolstoy uses the “out-casting of Anna to tell us about the nature of aristocratic society”.

Anna choose to rebel against the norm, even “abandoning her duty to protect” according to Naomi Segal which could reflect the seriousness of the situation and severe unhappiness Anna feels: She is afraid of losing her son who acted as the “cornerstone for her moral condemnation.”

[P]rimogeniture was not the rule in Russia and daughters could inherit land as well as moveable property.

In analysing the character of Anna Karenina, most critics look to answer the question: is Anna’s story a tale of social oppression or one of moral tragedy and self-destruction?

The feminist critic Mary Evans suggests that Anna can be viewed as “a victim of the patriarchal society and a role model for women liberation.”

However, Anna breaks this barrier of restriction but ultimately pays the price since she is unable to gain the happiness she wants. Evans argues that Anna did not “act to resist patriarchy”, but instead acted this way to escape from

36

Similarly, Luckas in his article “Narrate or Describe” suggests Anna’s fragility within society is portrayed in the horse race which Vronsky loses. Anna had ultimately “been broken” like Frou Frou and “driven by those around her”.

This explicitly suggests Anna’s lack of freedom and independence, and that of other Russian women during the

19th century, linking to the idea that Tolstoy uses Anna’s plight to reflect the limited rights of women. As Luckas states, “Anna must be used in reckless pastime or not at all.”

The novel focuses on the battle of Anna against herself, as well as the friction between society/individualism and morality/immorality, which combined peel off the layers of Anna’s personality, leading to Anna’s innocence being revealed. Anna is not stereotyped as adulterous to show the evils of an emancipated woman, yet is not pardoned of these actions. Instead Tolstoy exposes Anna, thus generating deeper and more philosophical questions about life, engaging readers since the story questions the restrictions of Russian society and expectations it placed upon women. As Evans concludes, Anna “should be read as a victim and as an active manipulator of her own fate.”

Like Anna, there have been many interpretations of Emma’s character; Miftahur Roifah and Evi Eliyannnahs’ essay “Comparing the women in Madame Bovary and the Awakening” certainly agree that Emma lived life outside the expected norms of women in that time in France; stating, “Emma far trespassed the cultural boundary set for women in the 19th century.”

The idea of “Emma the fantasist” is suggested in her background; as a child she is sent to a convent where she indulged in romantic novels and day-dreamed of her future. She looked out for the unusual and mystical and transitioned from a dreamy girl into a full blown romantic who longed for excitement to escape the dullness of everyday life. Yet “these desires were unrealistic in any possible world… the love Emma yearns never existed” according to Eric Lawrence. Emma’s increasing debt to Lheureux in supplying extravagant luxuries supports this “dream state of mind”, but this debt is ultimately the thing which sparks “her downfall” (Heath). The frustration and despair the mounting debt causes, in itself, suggests Emma’s inability to face up to reality. Tragically the burden becomes too much to bare, not just for Emma, but also for her

husband Charles, who also dies.

In contrast, Kelly Plemmons in her article “What lies beneath: Motivation for Emma Bovary’s Suicide”, sympathises with Emma as a victim of 19th century male oriented society which prevents women from trying to live life to the full, whilst at the same time lording the men who just did that. Plemmons’s view is that Emma

[A]rtists and writers used literature and art as a platform for women and intellectuals to voice their views. is “discontent in her life” and praises Emma’s free will. And it is Emma’s romantic idealism which slowly demolishes her life, thus deconstructing the traditional expectations of women at the time, ignoring her responsibilities in relation to her husband and child, becoming a “bad mother” according to Bill Overton.

Certainly Emma is portrayed as a person ignoring reality, living in her dreams and expending all energies on wishful desires.

Freud even suggests that Emma’s desires “are little scenes in which she plays the heroine. She prefers to dream rather than see Leon in reality.” The reader sees the downfall coming as Flaubert writes that Emma found “all the banalities of marriage in adultery”. They can see her longings and unfulfilled desires, but Emma is oblivious to them.

She gets bored quickly and ends up driving both Leon and Rudolphe away. As George Eliot wrote in his essay, “Silly Novels

by Lady novelists”, Emma is “tired by love.”

It is clear that women were deeply restricted in their daily lives during the 19th century in both France and Russia. In both countries however artists and writers used literature and art as

37

a platform for women and intellectuals to voice their views on this social subject. In Russia, an enlightenment and literary movement engaged intellectuals and authors; and in France, following the rise of Napoleon, women stood up against society, empowering themselves and demanding change.

This consequently caused each country to demand the emancipation of women. From these changes within society, women gradually did gain more freedom, but they were never truly free. It was only in later centuries that women gained the vote and more legal rights. This period can be viewed as a pivotal turning point for women since it saw the emergence of the feminist movement, and it got people addressing the issue, laying the groundwork and providing a catalyst for change in later centuries.

Answering the question from a 21st century perspective is difficult because women have gained much in the intervening period; I believe that Emma and Anna were frustrated by the restrictions placed upon them, and this ultimately led to their self-destruction and death. However, I also believe they were catalysts for our emancipation journey.

Sirius Rivulets of silver shimmer in the pearl light.

Emeralds grow on Native Silver trees laden with rubies, garnets and amber.

Gold inlaid with Mother of Pearl, Gold Stone and Abalone shells, washes the shore.

A bright platinum light in the night: Sirius; Fleeting as wind, stealthy as time, It follows the stream ‘til its end: The Halcyon’s nest, sea abyss whence none can voyage ‘Bergs carved from diamond, embedded in mercury, sail the horizon.

The Winter Wind returns to deafen the landscape with his screams.

His voice is that of a long and old time.

Sirius - still running - hears the Wind’s voice and howls in return to the glass sky, the pearl moon and The pyrite stars.

Lowers his head. Resuming the hunt of that uncatchable prey?

Or fleeing from an unseen predator?

The sun rises like a terrible phoenix in the dawn of the spring And Sirius still lopes ever closer to it. He is weak now, but not slowing.

Life starts to thaw in the fiery wings of the sun, The ‘bergs of diamond dissolve into the mercury sea.

Sirius begin to fade, ‘til he was gone, Vanquished by the risen sun.

The mountains shed their tears…

And they fall…

Down the slopes of their faces…

Forming rivulets of silver, which in turn form streams of silver…

Which continued until its end…

Then flows over the beaches of gold inlaid with mother of pearl, gold stone and abalone shells…

Into the sea of mercury, studded with ‘bergs of diamonds…

Under the veils of light where Sirius’s platinum gleam could be seen.

By Bethany Procter, Lower Sixth

38

39

Could it have worked?

Constitutional Monarchy in France 1789 - 1792 By Emeritus Professor William Doyle

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 4.30 - 5.30pm Churcher’s College Lecture Theatre.