Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Gilman, Autobiographical Wallpaper
“The Yellow Wallpaper”:
An Autobiography of Emotions by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
by Kelly Gilbert[http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/gilman.htm]
Much of the life that is reported of Charlotte Perkins Gilman is concerned with her troubled and loveless relationships: with her mother, her father, and her daughter. These relationships are central to the life of Charlotte Gilman yet only peripherally relate to the incident in her life that sparked one of the greatest pieces of feminist literature ever written. Ann L. Jane suggests that \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" is \"the best crafted of her fiction: a genuine literary piece . . . the most directly, obviously, self-consciously autobiographical of all her stories\" (Introduction xvi). Today in the twentieth century this statement does not contain the impact that it should for the women of the world who never experienced the suffocating life that Gilman led from 1860 to 1935. To be able to relate to Gilman\'s situation and appreciate “The Yellow Wallpaper” for how it exemplifies women\'s lives is difficult in this age where women have more freedom than ever before. Gilman\'s original intent in writing the story was to gain personal satisfaction from the knowledge that Dr. S. Weir Mitchell might, after reading the story, change his treatment. But more importantly Gilman says in her article in The Forerunner \"It was not intended to drive people crazy, but to save people from being driven crazy, and it worked\" (20).
When the story first came out in 1892 the critics saw \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" as a description of female insanity and mayhem instead of a story that reveals society\'s values. A Boston Physician wrote in The Transcript after reading the story that, \"Such a story ought not to be written . . . it was enough to drive anyone mad to read it\" (Gilman 19). This statement implies the thought that any woman who would go against the grain of society might as well have been insane for writing it in the first place. In the time period in which Gilman lived \"The ideal woman was not only assigned a social role that locked her into her home, but she was also expected to like it, to be cheerful and gay, smiling and good humored\" (Lane, To Herland 109). The women who refused this role and chose a life of self-expression and freedom from the social constraints suffered ridicule and punishment from their peers. This is not unlike the repercussions that Gilman experienced throughout her lifetime from expressing her need for independence from the private sphere that she had been relegated to. Through her creation of \"The Yellow Wallpaper,\" Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote an autobiography of her emotional and psychological feelings of rejection from society as a free-thinking woman. This work is a reaction to the lack of free agency that women had in the late 1800’s and their inability to have a career and a family; the pressures of these restrictions resulted in her involvement in Dr. S. Weir Mitchell’s \"rest cure.\"
Gilman comes from a long list of freedom fighters for women’s rights; without having this type of influence throughout her life she would have never become the free thinker and advocate that she is famous for today. Charlotte Gilman was born on July 3, 1860, in Hartford, Connecticut to a long lineage of revolutionary thinkers, writers, and intermarriages that were, as Carol Berkin put it, \"in discrete confirmation of their pride in association\" (18). Whether from the inbreeding or from the high intellectual capacity of the family, there was a long string of mental disorders fluctuating from “manic-depressive illness” to nervous breakdowns ranging from suicide to short term hospitalizations (Lane, To Herland 110). Gilman\'s aunt, Harriet Beecher Stowe, also complained of this same illness; Beecher wrote to a friend saying, “My mind is exhausted and seems to be sinking into deadness” (Lane, To Herland 111). She felt this way for years and suffered many breakdowns until finding “real release in her writing\" of Uncle Tom\'s Cabin (Lane, To Herland 111). Along with Gilman and Stowe, another well known writer and lecturer of her time, Catherine Beecher, was also sent to the same sanitarium for nervous disorders. Coming from a family of such well known feminists and revolutionaries it\'s no wonder that Gilman grew up with the knowledge that she had the right to be treated the same as anyone, man or woman, and was just as capable in her work and in her personal life.
Having this strong background affected more than her mind set about things; it also affected her interpersonal relations that she had with her husband and what role she was expected to play in that relationship. This was a major factor to her breakdown upon entering into the bonds of marriage with Charles Walter Stetson, \"an extraordinarily handsome and charming local artist\" (Lane, Introduction x). From the beginning she struggled with the idea of having to conform to the domestic model for women. Upon repeated proposals from Stetson, Gilman tried to \"lay bare her torments and reservations\" about getting married (Lane, To Herland 85). She states that \"her thoughts, her acts, her whole life would be centered on husband and children. To do the work she needed to do, she must be free\" (Lane, To Herland 85). This idea was scariest of all to Gilman who sincerely loved Charles yet also loved her work and her freedom from constraints. “After a long period of uncertainty and vacillation” she married Charles at the age of 24 (Lane, Introduction x). Not even a year later on March 23, 1885, Charlotte bore Katharine Stetson, \"But feelings of \'nervous exhaustion\' immediately descended upon her, and she became a \'mental wreck\' \" (Ceplair 17). What is commonly known as Post-Pardum Depression was the affliction that fell upon Gilman; because doctors of the time were not versed about the female hormonal system all nervous disorders were associated with \"hysteria\" a reference used for women with emotional problems. In this time of illness she wrote many articles on \"women caught between families and careers and the need for women to have work as well as love\" (Ceplair 19).
Gilman’s love for free will and her work caused a major tension that was not anticipated; the stress of denying the “normal” social roles of women caused her to have a breakdown that led to the meeting with Dr. S.Weir Mitchell. Her writing was an effort at expressing the tensions she felt between her work, her husband and her child. She tried her best at beating the depression she felt but in the end \"she collapsed utterly in April 1886\" (Ceplair 19). This final collapse forced her to search out the Dr. Silas Weir Mitchell the nationally recognized neurologist who specialized in the nervous diseases of women. When Mitchell initially interviewed Gilman he told her that “she was suffering from neurasthenia, or exhaustion of the nerves\" the diagnosis required his renowned rest cure (Lane, To Herland 115). The treatment required for the cure involved four steps: “1) extended and total bed rest; 2) isolation from family and familiar surroundings; 3) overfeeding, especially with cream, on the assumption that increased body volume created new energy; 4) massage and often the use of electricity for \'muscular excitation\'\" (Lane, To Herland 116). The women he treated were basically taught an extreme version of how to be domestic and submissive according to the society outside of the sanitarium. This treatment would be considered cruel and unusual punishment to anyone today but then it was supposed to be the best care you could get. After a month of treatment Gilman was sent home with the instructions to \"live as domestic a life as possible . . . and never touch pen, brush or pencil as long as you live\" (Lane, To Herland 121). For a woman of Gilman’s intellect and stamina this was an impossible feat to accomplish. She says in her diary that \"I went home, followed those directions rigidly for a months and came perilously near to losing my mind\" (Lane, To Herland 121).
In the late 1800’s women like Gilman were not given the opportunity to choose their career over their families, to do so meant they had to give up one or the other. Gilman did exactly that, despite the enormous amount of controversy she created she chose her work over her family. Due to the enormous pressure of the treatment on her psyche and \"calling upon an inner sense of survival, she rejected both husband and physician\" (Lane, Introduction x). Gilman divorced her husband in 1887 and moved to California. A few years later in order to lecture across the country she gave her child to her ex-husband and his new wife, who happened to be Gilman’s best friend, and left to fulfill her work. Years later in 1890 she wrote \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" in reaction to Dr. S. Weir Mitchell’s “rest cure.” In her \"Why I Wrote ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’?\" Gilman describes the \"years I suffered from a severe and continuous nervous breakdown\" and goes on to talk about the doctor who treated her and how in response to treatment had \"sent a copy to the physician who so nearly drove me mad\" (Gilman 19, 20). She says, \"the best result . . . years later I was told the great specialist had admitted to friends of his that he had altered his treatment of neurasthenia since reading ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’\" (Gilman 20).
Gilman is insistent throughout all of her interviews that this acknowledgement of her writing by Dr. Mitchell is the quintessential accomplishment that she could gain. Regardless of what she said there’s an underlying tone of this work being too close to her emotional and psychological reality to be the true and only reason. There have been many studies as to what Gilman’s intent was in writing \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" as Joanne Karpinski suggests, \"one theme that seems to run through all her works . . . is a desire for order and coherence in lived experience\" (3). Holding this theory true, then it is assumed that this work is a sorting through of her emotions and fears in her personal life and as Lane states, “(it) is an intensely personal examination of Gilman’s private nightmare” (To Herland 127). If Gilman says that it was for her revenge for Dr. Mitchell she was neglecting to admit that it was also a true to life account of her emotional and psychological state.
Today, after nearly three decades of studies and analysis of both her life and her works, \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" is one of the few pieces of work that Gilman ever wrote that delved as deep into her emotions and feelings as she was capable of doing. Lane states that “Never again in her writing did she take such an emotional chance or engage in such introspection as she did in this story” (To Herland 127). Even though it\'s fiction the story has some dramatic similarities in Gilman’s own life. Lane describes a diary entry from Gilman in which she states, \"I made a rag baby . . . hung it on the doorknob and played with it. I would crawl into remote closets and under beds-to hide from the grinding pressure of that profound distress\" (Lane, To Herland 121). This is an ironically similar description of the nameless narrator in the story who crawls and \"creeps\" in the corners of the room. Gilman showed her emotional reality in the work and tries to discover for herself as Lane describes, \"what happens to our lives if we let others run them for us\" (Introduction xviii). This realization was hard for her \"(it) must have haunted Gilman all her life because it answered the question: what if she had not fled her husband and renounced the most advanced psychiatric advice of her time?\" (Introduction xviii). \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" is a testament to Gilman\'s own life experience and in reading it there is a feeling of the tough decisions she made in her life and the impact those decisions had on her emotionally and mentally. Never again did Gilman write anything with such a personal attachment as this story had, \"perhaps the emotional truth and intensity of ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ drained her; perhaps it frightened her\" (Lane, To Herland 127).
Gilman\'s life was plagued with pain, emotionally and psychologically, yet she lived every second to fullest extent. Her only fear was that she would not accomplish her life\'s work, and unfortunately because of the lifestyle she lived she never gained recognition for her accomplishments. Gilman died on August 17, 1935, by huffing chloroform; she had terminal cancer and decided it would be best to take her own life than die a long painful death. It wasn’t until the 1970s that Gilman’s works began to enter into to the colleges and the feminist forum. She was undoubtedly ahead of her time in her every thought and action. Not until recently have critics began to study “The Yellow Wallpaper” and the more they delve into the world of Charlotte Perkins Gilman the more we learn about what it was like to live an emotional and psychologically restraining society.
An Autobiography of Emotions by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
by Kelly Gilbert[http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/wohlpart/alra/gilman.htm]
Much of the life that is reported of Charlotte Perkins Gilman is concerned with her troubled and loveless relationships: with her mother, her father, and her daughter. These relationships are central to the life of Charlotte Gilman yet only peripherally relate to the incident in her life that sparked one of the greatest pieces of feminist literature ever written. Ann L. Jane suggests that \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" is \"the best crafted of her fiction: a genuine literary piece . . . the most directly, obviously, self-consciously autobiographical of all her stories\" (Introduction xvi). Today in the twentieth century this statement does not contain the impact that it should for the women of the world who never experienced the suffocating life that Gilman led from 1860 to 1935. To be able to relate to Gilman\'s situation and appreciate “The Yellow Wallpaper” for how it exemplifies women\'s lives is difficult in this age where women have more freedom than ever before. Gilman\'s original intent in writing the story was to gain personal satisfaction from the knowledge that Dr. S. Weir Mitchell might, after reading the story, change his treatment. But more importantly Gilman says in her article in The Forerunner \"It was not intended to drive people crazy, but to save people from being driven crazy, and it worked\" (20).
When the story first came out in 1892 the critics saw \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" as a description of female insanity and mayhem instead of a story that reveals society\'s values. A Boston Physician wrote in The Transcript after reading the story that, \"Such a story ought not to be written . . . it was enough to drive anyone mad to read it\" (Gilman 19). This statement implies the thought that any woman who would go against the grain of society might as well have been insane for writing it in the first place. In the time period in which Gilman lived \"The ideal woman was not only assigned a social role that locked her into her home, but she was also expected to like it, to be cheerful and gay, smiling and good humored\" (Lane, To Herland 109). The women who refused this role and chose a life of self-expression and freedom from the social constraints suffered ridicule and punishment from their peers. This is not unlike the repercussions that Gilman experienced throughout her lifetime from expressing her need for independence from the private sphere that she had been relegated to. Through her creation of \"The Yellow Wallpaper,\" Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote an autobiography of her emotional and psychological feelings of rejection from society as a free-thinking woman. This work is a reaction to the lack of free agency that women had in the late 1800’s and their inability to have a career and a family; the pressures of these restrictions resulted in her involvement in Dr. S. Weir Mitchell’s \"rest cure.\"
Gilman comes from a long list of freedom fighters for women’s rights; without having this type of influence throughout her life she would have never become the free thinker and advocate that she is famous for today. Charlotte Gilman was born on July 3, 1860, in Hartford, Connecticut to a long lineage of revolutionary thinkers, writers, and intermarriages that were, as Carol Berkin put it, \"in discrete confirmation of their pride in association\" (18). Whether from the inbreeding or from the high intellectual capacity of the family, there was a long string of mental disorders fluctuating from “manic-depressive illness” to nervous breakdowns ranging from suicide to short term hospitalizations (Lane, To Herland 110). Gilman\'s aunt, Harriet Beecher Stowe, also complained of this same illness; Beecher wrote to a friend saying, “My mind is exhausted and seems to be sinking into deadness” (Lane, To Herland 111). She felt this way for years and suffered many breakdowns until finding “real release in her writing\" of Uncle Tom\'s Cabin (Lane, To Herland 111). Along with Gilman and Stowe, another well known writer and lecturer of her time, Catherine Beecher, was also sent to the same sanitarium for nervous disorders. Coming from a family of such well known feminists and revolutionaries it\'s no wonder that Gilman grew up with the knowledge that she had the right to be treated the same as anyone, man or woman, and was just as capable in her work and in her personal life.
Having this strong background affected more than her mind set about things; it also affected her interpersonal relations that she had with her husband and what role she was expected to play in that relationship. This was a major factor to her breakdown upon entering into the bonds of marriage with Charles Walter Stetson, \"an extraordinarily handsome and charming local artist\" (Lane, Introduction x). From the beginning she struggled with the idea of having to conform to the domestic model for women. Upon repeated proposals from Stetson, Gilman tried to \"lay bare her torments and reservations\" about getting married (Lane, To Herland 85). She states that \"her thoughts, her acts, her whole life would be centered on husband and children. To do the work she needed to do, she must be free\" (Lane, To Herland 85). This idea was scariest of all to Gilman who sincerely loved Charles yet also loved her work and her freedom from constraints. “After a long period of uncertainty and vacillation” she married Charles at the age of 24 (Lane, Introduction x). Not even a year later on March 23, 1885, Charlotte bore Katharine Stetson, \"But feelings of \'nervous exhaustion\' immediately descended upon her, and she became a \'mental wreck\' \" (Ceplair 17). What is commonly known as Post-Pardum Depression was the affliction that fell upon Gilman; because doctors of the time were not versed about the female hormonal system all nervous disorders were associated with \"hysteria\" a reference used for women with emotional problems. In this time of illness she wrote many articles on \"women caught between families and careers and the need for women to have work as well as love\" (Ceplair 19).
Gilman’s love for free will and her work caused a major tension that was not anticipated; the stress of denying the “normal” social roles of women caused her to have a breakdown that led to the meeting with Dr. S.Weir Mitchell. Her writing was an effort at expressing the tensions she felt between her work, her husband and her child. She tried her best at beating the depression she felt but in the end \"she collapsed utterly in April 1886\" (Ceplair 19). This final collapse forced her to search out the Dr. Silas Weir Mitchell the nationally recognized neurologist who specialized in the nervous diseases of women. When Mitchell initially interviewed Gilman he told her that “she was suffering from neurasthenia, or exhaustion of the nerves\" the diagnosis required his renowned rest cure (Lane, To Herland 115). The treatment required for the cure involved four steps: “1) extended and total bed rest; 2) isolation from family and familiar surroundings; 3) overfeeding, especially with cream, on the assumption that increased body volume created new energy; 4) massage and often the use of electricity for \'muscular excitation\'\" (Lane, To Herland 116). The women he treated were basically taught an extreme version of how to be domestic and submissive according to the society outside of the sanitarium. This treatment would be considered cruel and unusual punishment to anyone today but then it was supposed to be the best care you could get. After a month of treatment Gilman was sent home with the instructions to \"live as domestic a life as possible . . . and never touch pen, brush or pencil as long as you live\" (Lane, To Herland 121). For a woman of Gilman’s intellect and stamina this was an impossible feat to accomplish. She says in her diary that \"I went home, followed those directions rigidly for a months and came perilously near to losing my mind\" (Lane, To Herland 121).
In the late 1800’s women like Gilman were not given the opportunity to choose their career over their families, to do so meant they had to give up one or the other. Gilman did exactly that, despite the enormous amount of controversy she created she chose her work over her family. Due to the enormous pressure of the treatment on her psyche and \"calling upon an inner sense of survival, she rejected both husband and physician\" (Lane, Introduction x). Gilman divorced her husband in 1887 and moved to California. A few years later in order to lecture across the country she gave her child to her ex-husband and his new wife, who happened to be Gilman’s best friend, and left to fulfill her work. Years later in 1890 she wrote \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" in reaction to Dr. S. Weir Mitchell’s “rest cure.” In her \"Why I Wrote ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’?\" Gilman describes the \"years I suffered from a severe and continuous nervous breakdown\" and goes on to talk about the doctor who treated her and how in response to treatment had \"sent a copy to the physician who so nearly drove me mad\" (Gilman 19, 20). She says, \"the best result . . . years later I was told the great specialist had admitted to friends of his that he had altered his treatment of neurasthenia since reading ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’\" (Gilman 20).
Gilman is insistent throughout all of her interviews that this acknowledgement of her writing by Dr. Mitchell is the quintessential accomplishment that she could gain. Regardless of what she said there’s an underlying tone of this work being too close to her emotional and psychological reality to be the true and only reason. There have been many studies as to what Gilman’s intent was in writing \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" as Joanne Karpinski suggests, \"one theme that seems to run through all her works . . . is a desire for order and coherence in lived experience\" (3). Holding this theory true, then it is assumed that this work is a sorting through of her emotions and fears in her personal life and as Lane states, “(it) is an intensely personal examination of Gilman’s private nightmare” (To Herland 127). If Gilman says that it was for her revenge for Dr. Mitchell she was neglecting to admit that it was also a true to life account of her emotional and psychological state.
Today, after nearly three decades of studies and analysis of both her life and her works, \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" is one of the few pieces of work that Gilman ever wrote that delved as deep into her emotions and feelings as she was capable of doing. Lane states that “Never again in her writing did she take such an emotional chance or engage in such introspection as she did in this story” (To Herland 127). Even though it\'s fiction the story has some dramatic similarities in Gilman’s own life. Lane describes a diary entry from Gilman in which she states, \"I made a rag baby . . . hung it on the doorknob and played with it. I would crawl into remote closets and under beds-to hide from the grinding pressure of that profound distress\" (Lane, To Herland 121). This is an ironically similar description of the nameless narrator in the story who crawls and \"creeps\" in the corners of the room. Gilman showed her emotional reality in the work and tries to discover for herself as Lane describes, \"what happens to our lives if we let others run them for us\" (Introduction xviii). This realization was hard for her \"(it) must have haunted Gilman all her life because it answered the question: what if she had not fled her husband and renounced the most advanced psychiatric advice of her time?\" (Introduction xviii). \"The Yellow Wallpaper\" is a testament to Gilman\'s own life experience and in reading it there is a feeling of the tough decisions she made in her life and the impact those decisions had on her emotionally and mentally. Never again did Gilman write anything with such a personal attachment as this story had, \"perhaps the emotional truth and intensity of ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ drained her; perhaps it frightened her\" (Lane, To Herland 127).
Gilman\'s life was plagued with pain, emotionally and psychologically, yet she lived every second to fullest extent. Her only fear was that she would not accomplish her life\'s work, and unfortunately because of the lifestyle she lived she never gained recognition for her accomplishments. Gilman died on August 17, 1935, by huffing chloroform; she had terminal cancer and decided it would be best to take her own life than die a long painful death. It wasn’t until the 1970s that Gilman’s works began to enter into to the colleges and the feminist forum. She was undoubtedly ahead of her time in her every thought and action. Not until recently have critics began to study “The Yellow Wallpaper” and the more they delve into the world of Charlotte Perkins Gilman the more we learn about what it was like to live an emotional and psychologically restraining society.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Brown Dog affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This original statue of the brown dog was erected in Battersea in 1906, then dismantled and presumed destroyed in 1910 after the Brown Dog riots. A new statue of the dog was erected in Battersea Park in 1985.
Brown Dog affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brown Dog affair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This original statue of the brown dog was erected in Battersea in 1906, then dismantled and presumed destroyed in 1910 after the Brown Dog riots. A new statue of the dog was erected in Battersea Park in 1985.
The Brown Dog affair was a political controversy about vivisection that raged in Edwardian England from 1903 until 1910.[1] It involved the infiltration of University of London medical lectures by Swedish women activists, pitched battles between medical students and the police, police protection for the statue of a dog, a libel trial at the Royal Courts of Justice, and the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate the use of animals in experiments. The affair became a cause célèbre that reportedly divided the country.[2][3]
The controversy was triggered by allegations that, in February 1903, William Bayliss of the Department of Physiology at University College, London, had performed illegal dissection before an audience of medical students on a brown terrier dog — adequately anaesthetized, according to Bayliss and his team,[4] conscious and struggling, according to the Swedish activists.[5][6] The procedure was condemned as cruel and unlawful by the National Anti-Vivisection Society. Bayliss, whose research on dogs led to the discovery of hormones, was outraged by the assault on his reputation. He sued for libel and won.[5]
Anti-vivisectionists commissioned a bronze statue of the dog as a memorial, unveiled in Battersea in 1906, but medical students were angered by its provocative plaque — \"Men and women of England, how long shall these things be?\" — leading to frequent vandalism of the memorial and the need for a 24-hour police guard against the so-called \"anti-doggers.\" On 10 December 1907, 1,000 anti-doggers marched through central London, clashing with suffragettes, trade unionists, and 400 police officers in Trafalgar Square, one of a series of battles that became known as the Brown Dog riots.[6][7]
Tired of the controversy, Battersea Council removed the statue in 1910 under cover of darkness, after which it was allegedly destroyed by the council\'s blacksmith, despite a 20,000-strong petition in its favour.[8] A new statue of the brown dog was commissioned by anti-vivisection groups over 70 years later, and was erected in Battersea Park in 1985.[9]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Background
o 1.1 Politics
o 1.2 Science
* 2 Vivisection of the brown dog
o 2.1 Infiltration by Swedish activists
o 2.2 Involvement of the National Anti-Vivisection Society
o 2.3 Bayliss v. Coleridge
* 3 Brown Dog memorial built
o 3.1 Riots
+ 3.1.1 Strange relationships
o 3.2 \"Exit the \'Brown Dog\'\"
o 3.3 Memorial restored
* 4 See also
* 5 Notes
* 6 References
* 7 Further reading and external links
[edit] Background
[edit] Politics
Claude Bernard, considered the father of physiology, wrote that \"the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen.\"[10]
Walter Gratzer, professor emeritus of biochemistry at King\'s College London, writes that a powerful opposition to vivisection arose in England during the reign of Queen Victoria, represented equally in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.[11] At that time, the word \"vivisection\" was used to describe the dissection of live animals, either with or without anaesthesia, often in front of audiences of medical students. The term is now used more broadly to include other kinds of animal testing, particularly anything invasive.[12]
Frances Power Cobbe founded the National Anti-Vivisection Society in 1875.
According to Gratzer, well-known physiologists, such as Claude Bernard and Charles Richet in France, and Michael Foster and Burdon Sanderson in England, were frequently pilloried for the work they did. Bernard was a particular target of violent abuse, even from members of his own family.[11] He appears to have shared their distaste, writing that \"the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen.\"[10] Gratzer reports that British anti-vivisectionists infiltrated the lectures in Paris of Bernard\'s teacher, François Magendie, where animals were strapped down on boards to be dissected, with Magendie allegedly shouting to the dogs as they struggled: \"Tais-toi, pauvre bête!\" (Shut up, you poor beast!)[11]
The British National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) was founded in December 1875 by Frances Power Cobbe, an early feminist and animal rights activist, at a time when there were around 300 experiments on animals each year in the UK.[13] The opposition to vivisection led the government to set up the First Royal Commission on Vivisection in July 1875, which recommended that legislation be enacted to control it; the Second Royal Commission was set up in 1906 because of the Brown Dog affair. The first led to the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876—criticized by NAVS as \"infamous but well-named\"—which legalized and attempted to set limits on the practice. The law remained in force for 110 years, until it was replaced by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986,[14] which is the subject of similar criticism from the modern animal rights movement.
The Cruelty to Animals Act stipulated that researchers could not be prosecuted for cruelty, but that animals must be anaesthetized, unless the anaesthesia would interfere with the point of the experiment;[15] may be used only once, though several procedures regarded as part of the same experiment were permitted; and must be killed when the study is over, unless doing so would frustrate the object of the experiment.[16][15] Prosecutions under the Act could be made only with the approval of the Home Secretary, at the time Aretas Akers-Douglas, 1st Viscount Chilston, who was thought to be unsympathetic to the anti-vivisectionists\' cause.[17]
[edit] Science
Physiologist Ernest Starling, who worked with William Bayliss.
In the early twentieth century, Ernest Starling, Professor of Physiology at University College, London, and his brother-in-law, physiologist William Bayliss, were using vivisection on dogs to determine whether the nervous system controls pancreatic secretions, as postulated by Ivan Pavlov.
They knew that the pancreas produces digestive juices in response to increased acidity in the duodenum and jejunum, due to the arrival of chyme there. By severing the duodenal and jejunal nerves in anaesthetized dogs, while leaving the blood vessels intact, and then introducing acid into the duodenum and jejunum, they discovered that the process is not mediated by a nervous response, but instead by a new type of chemical reflex. They named the chemical messenger secretin, as it is secreted by the intestinal lining into the bloodstream, stimulating the pancreas on circulation.[18][19]
In 1905, Starling coined the term \"hormone\", from the Greek hormao (ὁρµάω meaning \"I arouse\" or \"I excite\")[20][19] to describe chemicals such as secretin that are capable, in extremely small quantities, of stimulating organs from a distance.[21][22]
Bayliss and Starling had also used vivisection on anaesthetized dogs to discover peristalsis in 1899.[23] Over their careers, they went on to discover a variety of other important physiological phenomena and principles, many of which were based on their experimental work involving animal vivisection.[24][7]
[edit] Vivisection of the brown dog
Henry Dale, the future Nobel laureate, killed the dog when the dissection was over.
The brown dog was a mongrel of the terrier type, probably a former stray or pet,[16] weighed 14 lb (6 kg), and had short, rough hair.[25] He was first used in a dissection in December 1902 by Starling, who had cut open the dog\'s abdomen and ligated the pancreatic duct.[4] The dog lived in a cage for the next two months, reportedly upsetting people with his howling.[26]
He was brought back to the lecture theatre for another demonstration on 2 February 1903. During this second procedure, he was stretched on his back on an operating board, with his legs tied to the board, his head clamped into position, and his mouth muzzled to keep him quiet.[27]
In front of the audience, Starling cut the dog open again to inspect the results of the previous surgery, after which he clamped the wound, then handed the dog over to Bayliss, who wanted to look at the salivary glands. Bayliss cut a new opening in the dog\'s neck to expose the glands.[1] The dog was then stimulated with electricity to demonstrate that salivary pressure was independent of blood pressure.[1][4] Bayliss was unable to show this, and gave up trying after half an hour. The dog was handed over to a student, Henry Dale, a future Nobel laureate, who removed the dog\'s pancreas, then killed him with a knife.[4]
Walter Gratzer writes that the dog was anaesthetized during the procedure with a morphine injection, then with a mixture of chloroform, alcohol, and ether, which was delivered to a tube in the dog\'s trachea via a pipe hidden behind the bench the men were working on. He argues that, without anaesthesia, it would have been impossible for the researchers to perform the surgery.[4]
[edit] Infiltration by Swedish activists
Unknown to Starling and Bayliss, their lectures had been infiltrated by two Swedish women activists. Louise \"Lizzy\" Lind-af-Hageby, a 24-year-old Swedish countess, and Leisa K. Schartau had visited the Pasteur Institute in Paris in 1900 and were appalled by the use of animals there.[28] On their return to Sweden, they made contact with the Swedish Animal Protection League, and in December 1900 founded the Anti-Vivisection Society of Sweden. In 1902, they enrolled as students at the London School of Medicine for Women— a vivisection-free college which had visiting arrangements with other London colleges—partly to gain medical training, and partly as undercover anti-vivisectionists.[29]
Swedish feminist and animal rights activist Louise Lind-af-Hageby in 1963 with Lord Dowding
The women attended lectures at King\'s and University College,[28] keeping a meticulous diary, which they published in 1903 as Eye-Witnesses, changing the title for the second edition to The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology.[30] The book was reportedly a bombshell, receiving 200 reviews in four months.[28]
Of the brown dog, the women wrote that he appeared conscious, and that there was no smell of anaesthesia:
A large dog, stretched on its back on an operation board, is carried into the lecture-room by the demonstrator and the laboratory attendant. Its legs are fixed to the board, its head is firmly held in the usual manner, and it is tightly muzzled. There is a large incision on the side of the neck, exposing the gland. The animal exhibits all the signs of intense suffering; in his struggles, he again and again lifts his body from the board, and makes powerful attempts to get free. The lecturer, attired in the blood-stained surplice of the priest of vivisection, has tucked up his sleeves and is now comfortably smoking a pipe, whilst with hands coloured crimson he arranges the electrical circuit for the stimulation that will follow. Now and then, he makes a funny remark, which is appreciated by those around him.[5]
Other students present during the surgery reported that the dog had not struggled, but had merely twitched.[4]
[edit] Involvement of the National Anti-Vivisection Society
Lind-af-Hageby and Schartau decided to show their diary to the barrister Stephen Coleridge, secretary of the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), and the son of a former Lord Chief Justice of England.
Coleridge\'s attention was drawn to the description of the brown dog experiments, because the Cruelty to Animals Act forbade the use of an animal in more than one experiment. Yet it appeared that the brown dog had been used by Ernest Starling to perform surgery on the pancreas, then used again by Starling when he opened the dog to inspect the results of the previous surgery, and for a third time by Bayliss to study the salivary glands.[1] Furthermore, the dog had not been properly anaesthetized, according to the women, and had been killed by Henry Dale, at the time an unlicensed research student. The women also alleged that the students had laughed during the procedure: \"there were jokes and laughter everywhere\" in the lecture hall while the brown dog was being dissected, according to Lind-af-Hageby, a claim she published in her book under the chapter title \"Fun\".[31] These were all regarded as prima facie violations of the Act.[16]
Stephen Coleridge gave an angry speech about the allegations, possibly intending to provoke a suit for libel.
Peter Mason writes that Coleridge decided there was no point in relying on a prosecution under the Act, which he regarded as deliberately obstructive. Instead, he gave an angry speech about the allegations to the annual meeting of the National Anti-Vivisection Society at St. James Hall in May 1903, probably with a view to inciting a suit for libel.[32][16] The speech included a statement from Lind-af-Hageby: \"The dog struggled forcibly during the whole experiment and seemed to suffer extremely during the stimulation. No anaesthetic had been administered in my presence, and the lecturer said nothing about any attempts to anaesthetize the animal having previously been made.\"[33] Coleridge accused the scientists of having tortured the animal. \"If this is not torture, let Mr. Bayliss and his friends ... tell us in Heaven\'s name what torture is.\"[33]
Mason writes that a verbatim report of the speech was published the next day by the radical Daily News — founded by Charles Dickens — and over the next three days by other national and regional papers. Questions were raised in the House of Commons, particularly by Sir Frederick Banbury, a Conservative MP and sponsor of a vivisection bill aimed at ending demonstrations of the kind conducted by Starling and Bayliss. On 8 May 1903, Coleridge challenged Bayliss in a letter to the Daily News: \"As soon as Dr. Bayliss likes to test the bona fides and accuracy of my public declaration ... he shall be confronted from the witness box by eyewitnesses I rely upon.\"[34]
Bayliss demanded a public apology, and when it failed to materialize, he issued a writ for libel. Starling decided not to sue. Even The Lancet, a medical journal that was no supporter of Coleridge, wrote that \"it may be contended that Professor Starling ... committed a technical infringement of the Act.\"[25]
[edit] Bayliss v. Coleridge
The court was shown this reconstruction of the brown dog\'s dissection. The image shows William Bayliss (standing at the front), Ernest Starling, and Henry Dale.
The trial began on 11 November 1903 at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, and took place over four days, closing on 18 November 1903. The British Medical Journal called it \"a test case of the utmost gravity\".[25] The public gallery was described as packed and rowdy,[1] with no spare seats or standing room, and queues 30 yards (30 m) long forming outside the courthouse.[35]
Bayliss\'s counsel, Rufus Isaacs,[36] called Starling as his first witness. Starling admitted that he had broken the law by using the dog twice, but said in his defence that he had done so to avoid sacrificing two dogs.[4] The court accepted Bayliss\'s statement that the brown dog had been anaesthetized with one-and-a-half grains of morphia and six ounces of alcohol, chloroform, and ether. He further stated that the dog had been suffering from chorea, a disease involving involuntary spasm, meaning that any movement the women had witnessed was not purposive. In addition, Bayliss testified that a tracheotomy had been performed, and that it was therefore impossible for the women to have heard the dog crying and whining, as they had claimed.
William Bayliss testified that the dog had been anaesthetized. He said that any movement had been the result of chorea, and was not purposive.
Coleridge\'s defence called on the two Swedish women as witnesses. They testified that they were the first students to arrive at the lecture hall, and that they saw the dog being brought in. They were then left alone with the dog for about two minutes, and examined him themselves. They observed scars from the previous operations, and saw an incision in the neck where two tubes had been placed. They did not smell any anaesthetic. The dog was making what they regarded as voluntary movements, which suggested to them that he was conscious.[26]
The publisher of The Shambles of Science withdrew the book, but an anti-vivisection group republished it, and by 1913 it had gone through five editions.
Coleridge was criticized for having accepted this \"unsubstantiated calumny,\" as the bacteriologist Harold Ernst later called it, without seeking corroboration, though he knew that speaking about it publicly could lead to prosecution. Coleridge responded that he hadn\'t sought verification because he knew the claims would be denied, and he testified that he continued to regard the women\'s statement as true.[37]
The jury found that Bayliss had been defamed, and on 18 November 1903 he was awarded £2,000[38] with £3,000 costs, worth around £250,000 in 2004, according to Gratzer. There are conflicting views as to how popular a decision this was. The Edinburgh Medical Journal wrote in 1904 that the ruling was greeted by applause in the court,[39] and Frances Power Cobbe fell into a depression because of the animus of the public. While The Times declared itself satisfied with the verdict, the Daily News called it a miscarriage of justice,[26] and launched a fund to cover Coleridge\'s expenses, raising £5,735 within four months. Bayliss donated his damages to UCL for use in research; Gratzer writes that the fund is probably still being used today to buy animals for research.[4]
On 25 November 1903, Ernest Bell of Covent Garden, publisher and printer of The Shambles of Science, apologized to Bayliss \"for having printed and published the book in question,\" and pledged to withdraw it from circulation and hand over all remaining copies to Bayliss\'s solicitors.[40] The Animal Defense and Anti-vivisection Society, founded by Lind-af-Hageby in 1903,[41] republished the book, printing a fifth edition by 1913.[42] The chapter \"Fun\", which had caused such offence, was replaced with one called \"The Vivisections of the Brown Dog,\" describing the experiment and the trial.[43][44]
[edit] Brown Dog memorial built
A postcard published in 1906 by the National Anti-Vivisection Society
After the trial, Lind-af-Hageby was approached by Anna Louisa Woodward, founder of the World League Against Vivisection, who suggested the idea of a public memorial.[42] Woodward raised a subscription, and commissioned from sculptor Joseph Whitehead a bronze statue of the dog on top of a granite memorial stone — 7 ft 6 in (2.3 m) tall — containing a drinking fountain for human beings, and a lower trough for dogs and horses.[45]
The group turned to the borough of Battersea for a location for the memorial. The area was known as a hotbed of radicalism — proletarian, socialist, belching smoke, and full of slums — and was closely associated with the anti-vivisection movement. Battersea General Hospital refused to perform vivisection, or to employ doctors who engaged in it, and was known locally as the \"Antiviv,\" or the \"Old Anti.\"[46] The Battersea Dogs Home was well-known in London; its chairman, the Duke of Portland, rejected a request in 1907 that its lost dogs be sold to vivisectors as \"not only horrible, but absurd.\"[47]
Battersea council agreed to provide a space for the statue on its newly completed Latchmere Estate, a housing estate for the working class offering terraced homes at seven and sixpence a week.[48] The statue was unveiled on 15 September 1906 in front of a large crowd — speakers included George Bernard Shaw and Charlotte Despard[49] — bearing an inscription hailed by The New York Times as the \"hysterical language customary of anti-vivisectionists,\" and \"a slander on the whole medical profession\":[50]
In Memory of the Brown Terrier Dog done to Death in the Laboratories of University College in February 1903, after having endured Vivisection extending over more than two months and having been handed from one Vivisector to another till Death came to his Release. Also in Memory of the 232 dogs vivisected at the same place during the year 1902. Men and Women of England, how long shall these things be?[51]
[edit] Riots
Medical students at London\'s teaching hospitals were enraged by the plaque. The first year of the statue\'s existence was a quiet one, while University College explored whether they could take legal action over it, but from November 1907 onwards, the students turned Battersea into the scene of frequent disruption.
The first action was on 20 November 1907, when a group of University College students, led by undergraduate William Howard Lister, crossed the Thames from the north over to Battersea with a crowbar and a sledgehammer, and tried to attack the statue.[52] Ten of them were arrested. The next day, others protested in Tottenham Court Road against the fines levied on the ten, and the day after that saw a demonstration of hundreds of students, who marched holding effigies of the brown dog on sticks.[16] The Times reported that they marched down the Strand to burn an effigy of a magistrate, and when it failed to ignite they threw it in the Thames.[53]
“ As we go walking after dark,
We turn our steps to Latchmere Park,
And there we see, to our surprise,
A little brown dog that stands and lies.
Ha, ha, ha! Hee, hee, hee!
Little brown dog how we hate thee.
—One of the songs the rioters sang as they marched down the Strand on 10 December 1907, this one to the tune of Little Brown Jug.[54] ”
The rioting reached its height on Tuesday, 10 December 1907, when 100 medical students again tried to pull the memorial down. The previous protests had been spontaneous, but this one was organized to coincide with the annual Oxford-Cambridge rugby match at Queen\'s Club, West Kensington, the protesters hoping that some of the thousands of Oxbridge students due to attend would swell their numbers. Peter Mason writes that street vendors were even selling handkerchiefs with the date of the protest printed on them, and the words \"Brown dog\'s inscription is a lie, and the statuette an insult to the London University.\"[55]
Toward late afternoon, one group of protesters headed for Battersea, intending to uproot the statue and throw it in the Thames. Driven out of the Latchmere Estate by male workers, they proceeded down Battersea Park Road, where they tried unsuccessfully to attack the anti-vivisection hospital. The workers again forced the students back, the Daily Chronicle reporting that, when one student fell from the top of a tram and was injured, the workers shouted: \"That\'s the brown dog\'s revenge!\"[56]
A second group headed for central London, waving more effigies of the brown dog, joined by a police escort and, briefly, a busker on the bagpipes.[55] As the marchers reached Trafalgar Square, they were 1,000 strong, facing 400 police officers, some of them mounted.[57] The students gathered around Nelson\'s Column, the ringleaders climbing on to the base of it to make speeches. As students fought with police on the ground, mounted police charged the crowd, scattering them into smaller groups and arresting the stragglers, including one Cambridge undergraduate, Alexander Bowley, who was arrested for \"barking like a dog\".[58]
The fighting in central London continued for hours before the police gained control of the crowd. One local doctor told the South Western Star that the students\' failure to hold back the police for longer was a sign of the \"utter degeneration\" of junior doctors and the Anglo-Saxon race.[58]
Over the following days and weeks, more rioting broke out, with medical and veterinary students uniting. Women\'s suffrage meetings were routinely invaded by medical students barking like dogs, and shouting \"Down with the Brown Dog!\", though the students knew not all suffragettes were anti-vivisectionists.[59] A women\'s suffrage meeting at the Paddington baths, organized by Millicent Fawcett, was violently invaded on 5 December. Louise Lind-af-Hageby arranged a meeting of anti-vivisectionists at Acton Central Hall on 16 December, and though the meeting was protected by a large guard of Battersea workers, over 100 students managed to smuggle themselves in, and the event deteriorated into an exchange of chairs, fists, and smoke bombs.[60]
Questions were asked in the House of Commons about the cost of policing the statue. London\'s police commissioner wrote to Battersea Council to ask whether they would contribute to the cost, which had reached £700 a year. Councillor John Archer—the first person of African descent to be elected to public office in the UK and later elected mayor of Battersea—told the Daily Mail that he was amazed by the request, considering Battersea was already paying £22,000 a year in police rates. Other councillors, concerned about a hike in the rates, suggested the statue be encased in a steel cage and surrounded by a barbed wire fence. The Canine Defence League wondered whether, if Battersea were to organize raids on laboratories to destroy vivisection instruments, the laboratories would be required to pay the police costs themselves.[61]
[edit] Strange relationships
Susan McHugh of the University of New England writes that the dog\'s mongrelly status reflected the extraordinary political coalition that rallied to the statue\'s defence. The riots saw socialists, trade unionists, Marxists, Liberals, and suffragettes descend on Battersea to fight the medical students, even though the suffragettes, identified with the bourgeoisie, were not a group toward whom organized male workers felt any warmth—working-class men did not want to enfranchise the cheap labour of women. But the \"Brown Dog Done to Death in the Laboratories of University College\" by the male scientific establishment united them.[62]
Coral Lansbury writes that the causes of feminism and women\'s suffrage became closely linked with the anti-vivisection movement. Three of the four vice-presidents of the Battersea General Hospital that refused to allow vivisection were women.[63] Lansbury argues that the Brown Dog affair became a matter of opposing symbols, the iconography of vivisection striking a chord with women. The vivisected dog muzzled and strapped to the operating board blurred into images of suffragettes on hunger strike restrained and force-fed in Brixton Prison; women strapped into the gynaecologist\'s chair by an all-powerful male medical establishment, forced to have their ovaries and uteruses removed as a cure for \"mania,\" or strapped down for childbirth.[64] Richard Ryder writes that the dog represented the vulnerability of women; the medical students the machismo of science.[2]
Both sides saw themselves as heirs to the future. Hilda Kean of Ruskin College writes that the Swedish protagonists were young and female, anti-establishment and progressive, while the accused scientists, older and male, were viewed as remnants of a previous age.[65] It was the Swedish women\'s hard-won access to higher education that had made the case possible in the first place, creating a new form of political agitation, a \"new form of witnessing,\" according to Susan Hamilton of the University of Alberta.[66] Against this, Lansbury reports that the students saw the women and the trade unionists as representative of superstition and sentimentality, anti-science, anti-progress—\"women of both sexes\" defending a brutal, insanitary past—while the students and their teachers were the \"New Priesthood.\"[67]
[edit] \"Exit the \'Brown Dog\'\"
\"Exit the \'Brown Dog\'\": A photograph in the Daily Graphic, 11 March 1910, shows the empty spot where the Brown Dog had stood.
Battersea Council grew tired of the controversy. A new Conservative council was elected in November 1909, amid talk of removing the statue. There were protests in support of it, and the 500-strong Brown Dog memorial defence committee was established. Twenty thousand people signed a petition, and 1,500 attended a rally in February 1910 addressed by Charlotte Despard, the Irish suffragette and Sinn Féin activist; Liberal MP George Greenwood; and Louise Lind-af-Hageby.[8] There were demonstrations in central London, and speeches in Hyde Park, with supporters wearing masks of dogs.[16]
The protests were to no avail. The statue was quietly removed before dawn on 10 March 1910 by four Council workmen accompanied by 120 police officers.[68][69] It was first hidden in a bicycle shed, then believed to have been destroyed by a council blacksmith, who reportedly smashed it, then melted it down.[69][9] Ten days later, 3,000 anti-vivisectionists gathered in Trafalgar Square to demand the return of the statue, but it was clear Battersea Council had turned its back on the affair.
Peter Mason writes that all that is left of the old Brown Dog is a small hump on the pavement at the centre of Latchmere Recreation Ground, near the Latchmere Pub. The sign on a nearby fence reads \"No Dogs\".[3]
[edit] Memorial restored
The new Brown Dog by Nicola Hicks, erected in Battersea Park in 1985.
The New York Times wrote in March 1910 that \"it is not considered at all probable that the effigy will ever again be exhibited in a public place\".[50]
Over 75 years later, a new memorial to the brown dog was erected just behind the Pump House in Battersea Park, commissioned by the National Anti-Vivisection Society and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, and unveiled by actress Geraldine James on 12 December 1985.[70] The new statue, by sculptor Nicola Hicks, is mounted on top of a five-foot high Portland stone plinth, the dog based on Hicks\' own terrier and described by Mason as \"a coquettish contrast to its down-to-earth predecessor.\"[71] It repeats the original inscription, and adds:
This monument replaces the original memorial of the brown dog erected by public subscription in Latchmere Recreation Ground, Battersea in 1906. The sufferings of the brown dog at the hands of the vivisectors generated much protest and mass demonstrations. It represented the revulsion of the people of London to vivisection and animal experimentation. This new monument is dedicated to the continuing struggle to end these practices. After much controversy the former monument was removed in the early hours of 10 March 1910. This was the result of a decision taken by the then Battersea Metropolitan Borough Council, the previous council having supported the erection of the memorial. Animal experimentation is one of the greatest moral issues of our time and should have no place in a civilized society. In 1903, 19,084 animals suffered and died in British laboratories. During 1984, 3,497,355 animals were burned, blinded, irradiated, poisoned and subjected to countless other horrifyingly cruel experiments in Great Britain.[72]
The new Brown Dog by Nicola Hicks, described as a \"coquettish contrast to its down-to-earth predecessor\"[71]
Echoing the fate of the previous memorial, the statue was moved into storage in 1992 by Battersea Park\'s owners, the Conservative Wandsworth Borough Council, as part of a park renovation scheme, according to the Council. Anti-vivisectionists, suspicious of the Council\'s explanation, campaigned for its return. It was reinstated in the park\'s Woodland Walk in 1994, near the Old English Garden, a more secluded location than before.[73]
Hilda Kean has criticized the new statue. The old Brown Dog was upright and defiant, she writes, not begging for mercy, which made it a radical political statement. The new Brown Dog is a pet, the creator\'s own terrier, sited in the Old English Garden as \"heritage\". Quoting David Lowenthal, professor emeritus at UCL, Kean writes that \"what heritage does not highlight, it hides.\" She writes that the new statue has been separated from its anti-vivisection message and from popular images of animal rights activism—the balaclavas of activists and the painful eyes of rabbits. The new Brown Dog is too safe, she argues. Unlike its controversial ancestor, it makes no one uncomfortable.[16]
"The Yellow Wallpaper" is a 6,000-word short story by American writer Charlotte Perkins Gilman, first published in January 1892 in New England Magazine. It is regarded as an important early work of American feminist literature, illustrating attitudes in the 19th century toward women's physical and mental health.
The story is written in the first person as a series of journal entries. The narrator is a woman whose husband — a physician — has confined her to the upstairs bedroom of a house he has rented for the summer. She is forbidden from working and has to hide her journal entries from him so that she can recuperate from what he has diagnosed as a "temporary nervous depression — a slight hysterical tendency;" a diagnosis common to women in that period.[1] The windows of the room are barred, and there is a gate across the top of the stairs, allowing her husband to control her access to the rest of the house.
The story illustrates the effect of confinement on the narrator's mental health, and her descent into psychosis. With nothing to stimulate her, she becomes obsessed by the pattern and color of the room's wallpaper. "It is the strangest yellow, that wall-paper! It makes me think of all the yellow things I ever saw — not beautiful ones like buttercups, but old foul, bad yellow things. But there is something else about that paper — the smell! ... The only thing I can think of that it is like is the color of the paper! A yellow smell."[2]
In the end, she imagines there are women creeping around behind the patterns of the wallpaper, and comes to believe that she is one of them. She locks herself in the room, now the only place she feels safe, refusing to leave when the summer rental is up. "For outside you have to creep on the ground, and everything is green instead of yellow. But here I can creep smoothly on the floor, and my shoulder just fits in that long smooch around the wall, so I cannot lose my way."[3]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Plot synopsis
* 2 Media adaptations
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 Further reading
[edit] Plot synopsis
Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
Told in the first-person perspective, in the form of a series of writings, the story details the narrator's descent into madness. The protagonist's husband believes it is in the narrator's best interest to go on a rest cure since he only credits what is obvious. He serves as his wife's physician, therefore treating her like a powerless patient. The story hints that part of the woman's problem is that she recently gave birth to a child, insinuating she may be suffering from what would, in modern times, be called postpartum psychosis. While on vacation for the summer at a colonial mansion, the narrator senses "something queer about it [the mansion]." The narrator is confined in an upstairs room to recuperate by her well-meaning but dictatorial and oblivious husband, but this treatment only exacerbates her depression.
She devotes many journal entries to obsessively describing the wallpaper — its "yellow" smell, its "breakneck," scrawling pattern; she also describes the various missing patches of wallpaper and the yellow smears it leaves on the skin and clothing of anyone who touches it. (Said yellow smears are found on her clothing, suggesting that all along it was she that was shredding the wallpaper). She believes a hatred radiates from the room, and concludes that it must have once been a nursery, and that the children who lived in it hated the wallpaper as much as she did. She notes a patch of wallpaper has been rubbed off at her shoulder height early in the book, and after lapsing into insanity confirms that she was the one who had done all the damage to the room, although she is oblivious to this fact herself. The longer she stays in the bedroom, the more the wallpaper appears to mutate and change, especially in the moonlight. With no other stimuli than the wallpaper, the pattern and designs on the wallpaper become increasingly intriguing, and a figure of a woman soon appears in the design. She eventually decides that there is a woman creeping on all fours behind the "bars" created by the shadows, who is trying to escape her prison.
With the summer drawing to a close the narrator asks permission to leave the room. John does not grant her permission to walk outside, so the narrator tells him she thinks she is losing her mind. He urges her to not speak another word of it, and she eventually consumes her entire night with watching the wallpaper, while sleeping during the day. Eventually the woman descends into complete insanity, thinking she is a woman who has escaped from inside the wallpaper.
As the story draws to a close, the narrator decides she must try to free the woman now hiding in the wallpaper and begins to strip the remaining designs off the wall. While working on peeling away the wallpaper, she tries to hide her obsession with it due to her paranoid fear that John will decide she is still ill, and his sister will remain with them. On the last day of summer, she locks herself in her room in order to strip the remains of the wallpaper. When John arrives home, the woman refuses to unlock the door and tells him to go fetch the key from outside her window where she threw it earlier. Once he returns with the key and opens the door, however, he finds her creeping around the room, circling the walls and touching the wallpaper. John faints as she exclaims, "I’ve got out at last," and she continues to circle the room, stepping over his inert body each 'lap' around.
[edit] Media adaptations
* A version of it was performed twice on the radio program Suspense by Agnes Moorehead.
* Produced by the BBC for a series entitled "Masterpiece Theatre" a television film was adapted in 1989. It was adapted by Maggie Wadey and directed by John Clive.
* A radio drama production of The Yellow Wallpaper was produced by the Radio Tales series for National Public Radio. The drama was performed by Winifred Phillips, whose performance won a Gracie Award for Best Actress in a National Network Drama from The American Women in Radio and Television. This Radio Tales version can also be heard on Sonic Theater on XM Radio.
* BBC Radio dramatized the story for the series Fear on Four.
* A stage adaptation was performed at the 2006 Edinburgh Fringe Festival.
* Song "Yellow Creep Around" on the Mary's Danish album Circa, published one century after the original.
* A film adaptation will be released in 2009.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This original statue of the brown dog was erected in Battersea in 1906, then dismantled and presumed destroyed in 1910 after the Brown Dog riots. A new statue of the dog was erected in Battersea Park in 1985.
The Brown Dog affair was a political controversy about vivisection that raged in Edwardian England from 1903 until 1910.[1] It involved the infiltration of University of London medical lectures by Swedish women activists, pitched battles between medical students and the police, police protection for the statue of a dog, a libel trial at the Royal Courts of Justice, and the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate the use of animals in experiments. The affair became a cause célèbre that reportedly divided the country.[2][3]
The controversy was triggered by allegations that, in February 1903, William Bayliss of the Department of Physiology at University College, London, had performed illegal dissection before an audience of medical students on a brown terrier dog — adequately anaesthetized, according to Bayliss and his team,[4] conscious and struggling, according to the Swedish activists.[5][6] The procedure was condemned as cruel and unlawful by the National Anti-Vivisection Society. Bayliss, whose research on dogs led to the discovery of hormones, was outraged by the assault on his reputation. He sued for libel and won.[5]
Anti-vivisectionists commissioned a bronze statue of the dog as a memorial, unveiled in Battersea in 1906, but medical students were angered by its provocative plaque — \"Men and women of England, how long shall these things be?\" — leading to frequent vandalism of the memorial and the need for a 24-hour police guard against the so-called \"anti-doggers.\" On 10 December 1907, 1,000 anti-doggers marched through central London, clashing with suffragettes, trade unionists, and 400 police officers in Trafalgar Square, one of a series of battles that became known as the Brown Dog riots.[6][7]
Tired of the controversy, Battersea Council removed the statue in 1910 under cover of darkness, after which it was allegedly destroyed by the council\'s blacksmith, despite a 20,000-strong petition in its favour.[8] A new statue of the brown dog was commissioned by anti-vivisection groups over 70 years later, and was erected in Battersea Park in 1985.[9]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Background
o 1.1 Politics
o 1.2 Science
* 2 Vivisection of the brown dog
o 2.1 Infiltration by Swedish activists
o 2.2 Involvement of the National Anti-Vivisection Society
o 2.3 Bayliss v. Coleridge
* 3 Brown Dog memorial built
o 3.1 Riots
+ 3.1.1 Strange relationships
o 3.2 \"Exit the \'Brown Dog\'\"
o 3.3 Memorial restored
* 4 See also
* 5 Notes
* 6 References
* 7 Further reading and external links
[edit] Background
[edit] Politics
Claude Bernard, considered the father of physiology, wrote that \"the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen.\"[10]
Walter Gratzer, professor emeritus of biochemistry at King\'s College London, writes that a powerful opposition to vivisection arose in England during the reign of Queen Victoria, represented equally in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.[11] At that time, the word \"vivisection\" was used to describe the dissection of live animals, either with or without anaesthesia, often in front of audiences of medical students. The term is now used more broadly to include other kinds of animal testing, particularly anything invasive.[12]
Frances Power Cobbe founded the National Anti-Vivisection Society in 1875.
According to Gratzer, well-known physiologists, such as Claude Bernard and Charles Richet in France, and Michael Foster and Burdon Sanderson in England, were frequently pilloried for the work they did. Bernard was a particular target of violent abuse, even from members of his own family.[11] He appears to have shared their distaste, writing that \"the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen.\"[10] Gratzer reports that British anti-vivisectionists infiltrated the lectures in Paris of Bernard\'s teacher, François Magendie, where animals were strapped down on boards to be dissected, with Magendie allegedly shouting to the dogs as they struggled: \"Tais-toi, pauvre bête!\" (Shut up, you poor beast!)[11]
The British National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) was founded in December 1875 by Frances Power Cobbe, an early feminist and animal rights activist, at a time when there were around 300 experiments on animals each year in the UK.[13] The opposition to vivisection led the government to set up the First Royal Commission on Vivisection in July 1875, which recommended that legislation be enacted to control it; the Second Royal Commission was set up in 1906 because of the Brown Dog affair. The first led to the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876—criticized by NAVS as \"infamous but well-named\"—which legalized and attempted to set limits on the practice. The law remained in force for 110 years, until it was replaced by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986,[14] which is the subject of similar criticism from the modern animal rights movement.
The Cruelty to Animals Act stipulated that researchers could not be prosecuted for cruelty, but that animals must be anaesthetized, unless the anaesthesia would interfere with the point of the experiment;[15] may be used only once, though several procedures regarded as part of the same experiment were permitted; and must be killed when the study is over, unless doing so would frustrate the object of the experiment.[16][15] Prosecutions under the Act could be made only with the approval of the Home Secretary, at the time Aretas Akers-Douglas, 1st Viscount Chilston, who was thought to be unsympathetic to the anti-vivisectionists\' cause.[17]
[edit] Science
Physiologist Ernest Starling, who worked with William Bayliss.
In the early twentieth century, Ernest Starling, Professor of Physiology at University College, London, and his brother-in-law, physiologist William Bayliss, were using vivisection on dogs to determine whether the nervous system controls pancreatic secretions, as postulated by Ivan Pavlov.
They knew that the pancreas produces digestive juices in response to increased acidity in the duodenum and jejunum, due to the arrival of chyme there. By severing the duodenal and jejunal nerves in anaesthetized dogs, while leaving the blood vessels intact, and then introducing acid into the duodenum and jejunum, they discovered that the process is not mediated by a nervous response, but instead by a new type of chemical reflex. They named the chemical messenger secretin, as it is secreted by the intestinal lining into the bloodstream, stimulating the pancreas on circulation.[18][19]
In 1905, Starling coined the term \"hormone\", from the Greek hormao (ὁρµάω meaning \"I arouse\" or \"I excite\")[20][19] to describe chemicals such as secretin that are capable, in extremely small quantities, of stimulating organs from a distance.[21][22]
Bayliss and Starling had also used vivisection on anaesthetized dogs to discover peristalsis in 1899.[23] Over their careers, they went on to discover a variety of other important physiological phenomena and principles, many of which were based on their experimental work involving animal vivisection.[24][7]
[edit] Vivisection of the brown dog
Henry Dale, the future Nobel laureate, killed the dog when the dissection was over.
The brown dog was a mongrel of the terrier type, probably a former stray or pet,[16] weighed 14 lb (6 kg), and had short, rough hair.[25] He was first used in a dissection in December 1902 by Starling, who had cut open the dog\'s abdomen and ligated the pancreatic duct.[4] The dog lived in a cage for the next two months, reportedly upsetting people with his howling.[26]
He was brought back to the lecture theatre for another demonstration on 2 February 1903. During this second procedure, he was stretched on his back on an operating board, with his legs tied to the board, his head clamped into position, and his mouth muzzled to keep him quiet.[27]
In front of the audience, Starling cut the dog open again to inspect the results of the previous surgery, after which he clamped the wound, then handed the dog over to Bayliss, who wanted to look at the salivary glands. Bayliss cut a new opening in the dog\'s neck to expose the glands.[1] The dog was then stimulated with electricity to demonstrate that salivary pressure was independent of blood pressure.[1][4] Bayliss was unable to show this, and gave up trying after half an hour. The dog was handed over to a student, Henry Dale, a future Nobel laureate, who removed the dog\'s pancreas, then killed him with a knife.[4]
Walter Gratzer writes that the dog was anaesthetized during the procedure with a morphine injection, then with a mixture of chloroform, alcohol, and ether, which was delivered to a tube in the dog\'s trachea via a pipe hidden behind the bench the men were working on. He argues that, without anaesthesia, it would have been impossible for the researchers to perform the surgery.[4]
[edit] Infiltration by Swedish activists
Unknown to Starling and Bayliss, their lectures had been infiltrated by two Swedish women activists. Louise \"Lizzy\" Lind-af-Hageby, a 24-year-old Swedish countess, and Leisa K. Schartau had visited the Pasteur Institute in Paris in 1900 and were appalled by the use of animals there.[28] On their return to Sweden, they made contact with the Swedish Animal Protection League, and in December 1900 founded the Anti-Vivisection Society of Sweden. In 1902, they enrolled as students at the London School of Medicine for Women— a vivisection-free college which had visiting arrangements with other London colleges—partly to gain medical training, and partly as undercover anti-vivisectionists.[29]
Swedish feminist and animal rights activist Louise Lind-af-Hageby in 1963 with Lord Dowding
The women attended lectures at King\'s and University College,[28] keeping a meticulous diary, which they published in 1903 as Eye-Witnesses, changing the title for the second edition to The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology.[30] The book was reportedly a bombshell, receiving 200 reviews in four months.[28]
Of the brown dog, the women wrote that he appeared conscious, and that there was no smell of anaesthesia:
A large dog, stretched on its back on an operation board, is carried into the lecture-room by the demonstrator and the laboratory attendant. Its legs are fixed to the board, its head is firmly held in the usual manner, and it is tightly muzzled. There is a large incision on the side of the neck, exposing the gland. The animal exhibits all the signs of intense suffering; in his struggles, he again and again lifts his body from the board, and makes powerful attempts to get free. The lecturer, attired in the blood-stained surplice of the priest of vivisection, has tucked up his sleeves and is now comfortably smoking a pipe, whilst with hands coloured crimson he arranges the electrical circuit for the stimulation that will follow. Now and then, he makes a funny remark, which is appreciated by those around him.[5]
Other students present during the surgery reported that the dog had not struggled, but had merely twitched.[4]
[edit] Involvement of the National Anti-Vivisection Society
Lind-af-Hageby and Schartau decided to show their diary to the barrister Stephen Coleridge, secretary of the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), and the son of a former Lord Chief Justice of England.
Coleridge\'s attention was drawn to the description of the brown dog experiments, because the Cruelty to Animals Act forbade the use of an animal in more than one experiment. Yet it appeared that the brown dog had been used by Ernest Starling to perform surgery on the pancreas, then used again by Starling when he opened the dog to inspect the results of the previous surgery, and for a third time by Bayliss to study the salivary glands.[1] Furthermore, the dog had not been properly anaesthetized, according to the women, and had been killed by Henry Dale, at the time an unlicensed research student. The women also alleged that the students had laughed during the procedure: \"there were jokes and laughter everywhere\" in the lecture hall while the brown dog was being dissected, according to Lind-af-Hageby, a claim she published in her book under the chapter title \"Fun\".[31] These were all regarded as prima facie violations of the Act.[16]
Stephen Coleridge gave an angry speech about the allegations, possibly intending to provoke a suit for libel.
Peter Mason writes that Coleridge decided there was no point in relying on a prosecution under the Act, which he regarded as deliberately obstructive. Instead, he gave an angry speech about the allegations to the annual meeting of the National Anti-Vivisection Society at St. James Hall in May 1903, probably with a view to inciting a suit for libel.[32][16] The speech included a statement from Lind-af-Hageby: \"The dog struggled forcibly during the whole experiment and seemed to suffer extremely during the stimulation. No anaesthetic had been administered in my presence, and the lecturer said nothing about any attempts to anaesthetize the animal having previously been made.\"[33] Coleridge accused the scientists of having tortured the animal. \"If this is not torture, let Mr. Bayliss and his friends ... tell us in Heaven\'s name what torture is.\"[33]
Mason writes that a verbatim report of the speech was published the next day by the radical Daily News — founded by Charles Dickens — and over the next three days by other national and regional papers. Questions were raised in the House of Commons, particularly by Sir Frederick Banbury, a Conservative MP and sponsor of a vivisection bill aimed at ending demonstrations of the kind conducted by Starling and Bayliss. On 8 May 1903, Coleridge challenged Bayliss in a letter to the Daily News: \"As soon as Dr. Bayliss likes to test the bona fides and accuracy of my public declaration ... he shall be confronted from the witness box by eyewitnesses I rely upon.\"[34]
Bayliss demanded a public apology, and when it failed to materialize, he issued a writ for libel. Starling decided not to sue. Even The Lancet, a medical journal that was no supporter of Coleridge, wrote that \"it may be contended that Professor Starling ... committed a technical infringement of the Act.\"[25]
[edit] Bayliss v. Coleridge
The court was shown this reconstruction of the brown dog\'s dissection. The image shows William Bayliss (standing at the front), Ernest Starling, and Henry Dale.
The trial began on 11 November 1903 at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, and took place over four days, closing on 18 November 1903. The British Medical Journal called it \"a test case of the utmost gravity\".[25] The public gallery was described as packed and rowdy,[1] with no spare seats or standing room, and queues 30 yards (30 m) long forming outside the courthouse.[35]
Bayliss\'s counsel, Rufus Isaacs,[36] called Starling as his first witness. Starling admitted that he had broken the law by using the dog twice, but said in his defence that he had done so to avoid sacrificing two dogs.[4] The court accepted Bayliss\'s statement that the brown dog had been anaesthetized with one-and-a-half grains of morphia and six ounces of alcohol, chloroform, and ether. He further stated that the dog had been suffering from chorea, a disease involving involuntary spasm, meaning that any movement the women had witnessed was not purposive. In addition, Bayliss testified that a tracheotomy had been performed, and that it was therefore impossible for the women to have heard the dog crying and whining, as they had claimed.
William Bayliss testified that the dog had been anaesthetized. He said that any movement had been the result of chorea, and was not purposive.
Coleridge\'s defence called on the two Swedish women as witnesses. They testified that they were the first students to arrive at the lecture hall, and that they saw the dog being brought in. They were then left alone with the dog for about two minutes, and examined him themselves. They observed scars from the previous operations, and saw an incision in the neck where two tubes had been placed. They did not smell any anaesthetic. The dog was making what they regarded as voluntary movements, which suggested to them that he was conscious.[26]
The publisher of The Shambles of Science withdrew the book, but an anti-vivisection group republished it, and by 1913 it had gone through five editions.
Coleridge was criticized for having accepted this \"unsubstantiated calumny,\" as the bacteriologist Harold Ernst later called it, without seeking corroboration, though he knew that speaking about it publicly could lead to prosecution. Coleridge responded that he hadn\'t sought verification because he knew the claims would be denied, and he testified that he continued to regard the women\'s statement as true.[37]
The jury found that Bayliss had been defamed, and on 18 November 1903 he was awarded £2,000[38] with £3,000 costs, worth around £250,000 in 2004, according to Gratzer. There are conflicting views as to how popular a decision this was. The Edinburgh Medical Journal wrote in 1904 that the ruling was greeted by applause in the court,[39] and Frances Power Cobbe fell into a depression because of the animus of the public. While The Times declared itself satisfied with the verdict, the Daily News called it a miscarriage of justice,[26] and launched a fund to cover Coleridge\'s expenses, raising £5,735 within four months. Bayliss donated his damages to UCL for use in research; Gratzer writes that the fund is probably still being used today to buy animals for research.[4]
On 25 November 1903, Ernest Bell of Covent Garden, publisher and printer of The Shambles of Science, apologized to Bayliss \"for having printed and published the book in question,\" and pledged to withdraw it from circulation and hand over all remaining copies to Bayliss\'s solicitors.[40] The Animal Defense and Anti-vivisection Society, founded by Lind-af-Hageby in 1903,[41] republished the book, printing a fifth edition by 1913.[42] The chapter \"Fun\", which had caused such offence, was replaced with one called \"The Vivisections of the Brown Dog,\" describing the experiment and the trial.[43][44]
[edit] Brown Dog memorial built
A postcard published in 1906 by the National Anti-Vivisection Society
After the trial, Lind-af-Hageby was approached by Anna Louisa Woodward, founder of the World League Against Vivisection, who suggested the idea of a public memorial.[42] Woodward raised a subscription, and commissioned from sculptor Joseph Whitehead a bronze statue of the dog on top of a granite memorial stone — 7 ft 6 in (2.3 m) tall — containing a drinking fountain for human beings, and a lower trough for dogs and horses.[45]
The group turned to the borough of Battersea for a location for the memorial. The area was known as a hotbed of radicalism — proletarian, socialist, belching smoke, and full of slums — and was closely associated with the anti-vivisection movement. Battersea General Hospital refused to perform vivisection, or to employ doctors who engaged in it, and was known locally as the \"Antiviv,\" or the \"Old Anti.\"[46] The Battersea Dogs Home was well-known in London; its chairman, the Duke of Portland, rejected a request in 1907 that its lost dogs be sold to vivisectors as \"not only horrible, but absurd.\"[47]
Battersea council agreed to provide a space for the statue on its newly completed Latchmere Estate, a housing estate for the working class offering terraced homes at seven and sixpence a week.[48] The statue was unveiled on 15 September 1906 in front of a large crowd — speakers included George Bernard Shaw and Charlotte Despard[49] — bearing an inscription hailed by The New York Times as the \"hysterical language customary of anti-vivisectionists,\" and \"a slander on the whole medical profession\":[50]
In Memory of the Brown Terrier Dog done to Death in the Laboratories of University College in February 1903, after having endured Vivisection extending over more than two months and having been handed from one Vivisector to another till Death came to his Release. Also in Memory of the 232 dogs vivisected at the same place during the year 1902. Men and Women of England, how long shall these things be?[51]
[edit] Riots
Medical students at London\'s teaching hospitals were enraged by the plaque. The first year of the statue\'s existence was a quiet one, while University College explored whether they could take legal action over it, but from November 1907 onwards, the students turned Battersea into the scene of frequent disruption.
The first action was on 20 November 1907, when a group of University College students, led by undergraduate William Howard Lister, crossed the Thames from the north over to Battersea with a crowbar and a sledgehammer, and tried to attack the statue.[52] Ten of them were arrested. The next day, others protested in Tottenham Court Road against the fines levied on the ten, and the day after that saw a demonstration of hundreds of students, who marched holding effigies of the brown dog on sticks.[16] The Times reported that they marched down the Strand to burn an effigy of a magistrate, and when it failed to ignite they threw it in the Thames.[53]
“ As we go walking after dark,
We turn our steps to Latchmere Park,
And there we see, to our surprise,
A little brown dog that stands and lies.
Ha, ha, ha! Hee, hee, hee!
Little brown dog how we hate thee.
—One of the songs the rioters sang as they marched down the Strand on 10 December 1907, this one to the tune of Little Brown Jug.[54] ”
The rioting reached its height on Tuesday, 10 December 1907, when 100 medical students again tried to pull the memorial down. The previous protests had been spontaneous, but this one was organized to coincide with the annual Oxford-Cambridge rugby match at Queen\'s Club, West Kensington, the protesters hoping that some of the thousands of Oxbridge students due to attend would swell their numbers. Peter Mason writes that street vendors were even selling handkerchiefs with the date of the protest printed on them, and the words \"Brown dog\'s inscription is a lie, and the statuette an insult to the London University.\"[55]
Toward late afternoon, one group of protesters headed for Battersea, intending to uproot the statue and throw it in the Thames. Driven out of the Latchmere Estate by male workers, they proceeded down Battersea Park Road, where they tried unsuccessfully to attack the anti-vivisection hospital. The workers again forced the students back, the Daily Chronicle reporting that, when one student fell from the top of a tram and was injured, the workers shouted: \"That\'s the brown dog\'s revenge!\"[56]
A second group headed for central London, waving more effigies of the brown dog, joined by a police escort and, briefly, a busker on the bagpipes.[55] As the marchers reached Trafalgar Square, they were 1,000 strong, facing 400 police officers, some of them mounted.[57] The students gathered around Nelson\'s Column, the ringleaders climbing on to the base of it to make speeches. As students fought with police on the ground, mounted police charged the crowd, scattering them into smaller groups and arresting the stragglers, including one Cambridge undergraduate, Alexander Bowley, who was arrested for \"barking like a dog\".[58]
The fighting in central London continued for hours before the police gained control of the crowd. One local doctor told the South Western Star that the students\' failure to hold back the police for longer was a sign of the \"utter degeneration\" of junior doctors and the Anglo-Saxon race.[58]
Over the following days and weeks, more rioting broke out, with medical and veterinary students uniting. Women\'s suffrage meetings were routinely invaded by medical students barking like dogs, and shouting \"Down with the Brown Dog!\", though the students knew not all suffragettes were anti-vivisectionists.[59] A women\'s suffrage meeting at the Paddington baths, organized by Millicent Fawcett, was violently invaded on 5 December. Louise Lind-af-Hageby arranged a meeting of anti-vivisectionists at Acton Central Hall on 16 December, and though the meeting was protected by a large guard of Battersea workers, over 100 students managed to smuggle themselves in, and the event deteriorated into an exchange of chairs, fists, and smoke bombs.[60]
Questions were asked in the House of Commons about the cost of policing the statue. London\'s police commissioner wrote to Battersea Council to ask whether they would contribute to the cost, which had reached £700 a year. Councillor John Archer—the first person of African descent to be elected to public office in the UK and later elected mayor of Battersea—told the Daily Mail that he was amazed by the request, considering Battersea was already paying £22,000 a year in police rates. Other councillors, concerned about a hike in the rates, suggested the statue be encased in a steel cage and surrounded by a barbed wire fence. The Canine Defence League wondered whether, if Battersea were to organize raids on laboratories to destroy vivisection instruments, the laboratories would be required to pay the police costs themselves.[61]
[edit] Strange relationships
Susan McHugh of the University of New England writes that the dog\'s mongrelly status reflected the extraordinary political coalition that rallied to the statue\'s defence. The riots saw socialists, trade unionists, Marxists, Liberals, and suffragettes descend on Battersea to fight the medical students, even though the suffragettes, identified with the bourgeoisie, were not a group toward whom organized male workers felt any warmth—working-class men did not want to enfranchise the cheap labour of women. But the \"Brown Dog Done to Death in the Laboratories of University College\" by the male scientific establishment united them.[62]
Coral Lansbury writes that the causes of feminism and women\'s suffrage became closely linked with the anti-vivisection movement. Three of the four vice-presidents of the Battersea General Hospital that refused to allow vivisection were women.[63] Lansbury argues that the Brown Dog affair became a matter of opposing symbols, the iconography of vivisection striking a chord with women. The vivisected dog muzzled and strapped to the operating board blurred into images of suffragettes on hunger strike restrained and force-fed in Brixton Prison; women strapped into the gynaecologist\'s chair by an all-powerful male medical establishment, forced to have their ovaries and uteruses removed as a cure for \"mania,\" or strapped down for childbirth.[64] Richard Ryder writes that the dog represented the vulnerability of women; the medical students the machismo of science.[2]
Both sides saw themselves as heirs to the future. Hilda Kean of Ruskin College writes that the Swedish protagonists were young and female, anti-establishment and progressive, while the accused scientists, older and male, were viewed as remnants of a previous age.[65] It was the Swedish women\'s hard-won access to higher education that had made the case possible in the first place, creating a new form of political agitation, a \"new form of witnessing,\" according to Susan Hamilton of the University of Alberta.[66] Against this, Lansbury reports that the students saw the women and the trade unionists as representative of superstition and sentimentality, anti-science, anti-progress—\"women of both sexes\" defending a brutal, insanitary past—while the students and their teachers were the \"New Priesthood.\"[67]
[edit] \"Exit the \'Brown Dog\'\"
\"Exit the \'Brown Dog\'\": A photograph in the Daily Graphic, 11 March 1910, shows the empty spot where the Brown Dog had stood.
Battersea Council grew tired of the controversy. A new Conservative council was elected in November 1909, amid talk of removing the statue. There were protests in support of it, and the 500-strong Brown Dog memorial defence committee was established. Twenty thousand people signed a petition, and 1,500 attended a rally in February 1910 addressed by Charlotte Despard, the Irish suffragette and Sinn Féin activist; Liberal MP George Greenwood; and Louise Lind-af-Hageby.[8] There were demonstrations in central London, and speeches in Hyde Park, with supporters wearing masks of dogs.[16]
The protests were to no avail. The statue was quietly removed before dawn on 10 March 1910 by four Council workmen accompanied by 120 police officers.[68][69] It was first hidden in a bicycle shed, then believed to have been destroyed by a council blacksmith, who reportedly smashed it, then melted it down.[69][9] Ten days later, 3,000 anti-vivisectionists gathered in Trafalgar Square to demand the return of the statue, but it was clear Battersea Council had turned its back on the affair.
Peter Mason writes that all that is left of the old Brown Dog is a small hump on the pavement at the centre of Latchmere Recreation Ground, near the Latchmere Pub. The sign on a nearby fence reads \"No Dogs\".[3]
[edit] Memorial restored
The new Brown Dog by Nicola Hicks, erected in Battersea Park in 1985.
The New York Times wrote in March 1910 that \"it is not considered at all probable that the effigy will ever again be exhibited in a public place\".[50]
Over 75 years later, a new memorial to the brown dog was erected just behind the Pump House in Battersea Park, commissioned by the National Anti-Vivisection Society and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, and unveiled by actress Geraldine James on 12 December 1985.[70] The new statue, by sculptor Nicola Hicks, is mounted on top of a five-foot high Portland stone plinth, the dog based on Hicks\' own terrier and described by Mason as \"a coquettish contrast to its down-to-earth predecessor.\"[71] It repeats the original inscription, and adds:
This monument replaces the original memorial of the brown dog erected by public subscription in Latchmere Recreation Ground, Battersea in 1906. The sufferings of the brown dog at the hands of the vivisectors generated much protest and mass demonstrations. It represented the revulsion of the people of London to vivisection and animal experimentation. This new monument is dedicated to the continuing struggle to end these practices. After much controversy the former monument was removed in the early hours of 10 March 1910. This was the result of a decision taken by the then Battersea Metropolitan Borough Council, the previous council having supported the erection of the memorial. Animal experimentation is one of the greatest moral issues of our time and should have no place in a civilized society. In 1903, 19,084 animals suffered and died in British laboratories. During 1984, 3,497,355 animals were burned, blinded, irradiated, poisoned and subjected to countless other horrifyingly cruel experiments in Great Britain.[72]
The new Brown Dog by Nicola Hicks, described as a \"coquettish contrast to its down-to-earth predecessor\"[71]
Echoing the fate of the previous memorial, the statue was moved into storage in 1992 by Battersea Park\'s owners, the Conservative Wandsworth Borough Council, as part of a park renovation scheme, according to the Council. Anti-vivisectionists, suspicious of the Council\'s explanation, campaigned for its return. It was reinstated in the park\'s Woodland Walk in 1994, near the Old English Garden, a more secluded location than before.[73]
Hilda Kean has criticized the new statue. The old Brown Dog was upright and defiant, she writes, not begging for mercy, which made it a radical political statement. The new Brown Dog is a pet, the creator\'s own terrier, sited in the Old English Garden as \"heritage\". Quoting David Lowenthal, professor emeritus at UCL, Kean writes that \"what heritage does not highlight, it hides.\" She writes that the new statue has been separated from its anti-vivisection message and from popular images of animal rights activism—the balaclavas of activists and the painful eyes of rabbits. The new Brown Dog is too safe, she argues. Unlike its controversial ancestor, it makes no one uncomfortable.[16]
"The Yellow Wallpaper" is a 6,000-word short story by American writer Charlotte Perkins Gilman, first published in January 1892 in New England Magazine. It is regarded as an important early work of American feminist literature, illustrating attitudes in the 19th century toward women's physical and mental health.
The story is written in the first person as a series of journal entries. The narrator is a woman whose husband — a physician — has confined her to the upstairs bedroom of a house he has rented for the summer. She is forbidden from working and has to hide her journal entries from him so that she can recuperate from what he has diagnosed as a "temporary nervous depression — a slight hysterical tendency;" a diagnosis common to women in that period.[1] The windows of the room are barred, and there is a gate across the top of the stairs, allowing her husband to control her access to the rest of the house.
The story illustrates the effect of confinement on the narrator's mental health, and her descent into psychosis. With nothing to stimulate her, she becomes obsessed by the pattern and color of the room's wallpaper. "It is the strangest yellow, that wall-paper! It makes me think of all the yellow things I ever saw — not beautiful ones like buttercups, but old foul, bad yellow things. But there is something else about that paper — the smell! ... The only thing I can think of that it is like is the color of the paper! A yellow smell."[2]
In the end, she imagines there are women creeping around behind the patterns of the wallpaper, and comes to believe that she is one of them. She locks herself in the room, now the only place she feels safe, refusing to leave when the summer rental is up. "For outside you have to creep on the ground, and everything is green instead of yellow. But here I can creep smoothly on the floor, and my shoulder just fits in that long smooch around the wall, so I cannot lose my way."[3]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Plot synopsis
* 2 Media adaptations
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 Further reading
[edit] Plot synopsis
Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
Told in the first-person perspective, in the form of a series of writings, the story details the narrator's descent into madness. The protagonist's husband believes it is in the narrator's best interest to go on a rest cure since he only credits what is obvious. He serves as his wife's physician, therefore treating her like a powerless patient. The story hints that part of the woman's problem is that she recently gave birth to a child, insinuating she may be suffering from what would, in modern times, be called postpartum psychosis. While on vacation for the summer at a colonial mansion, the narrator senses "something queer about it [the mansion]." The narrator is confined in an upstairs room to recuperate by her well-meaning but dictatorial and oblivious husband, but this treatment only exacerbates her depression.
She devotes many journal entries to obsessively describing the wallpaper — its "yellow" smell, its "breakneck," scrawling pattern; she also describes the various missing patches of wallpaper and the yellow smears it leaves on the skin and clothing of anyone who touches it. (Said yellow smears are found on her clothing, suggesting that all along it was she that was shredding the wallpaper). She believes a hatred radiates from the room, and concludes that it must have once been a nursery, and that the children who lived in it hated the wallpaper as much as she did. She notes a patch of wallpaper has been rubbed off at her shoulder height early in the book, and after lapsing into insanity confirms that she was the one who had done all the damage to the room, although she is oblivious to this fact herself. The longer she stays in the bedroom, the more the wallpaper appears to mutate and change, especially in the moonlight. With no other stimuli than the wallpaper, the pattern and designs on the wallpaper become increasingly intriguing, and a figure of a woman soon appears in the design. She eventually decides that there is a woman creeping on all fours behind the "bars" created by the shadows, who is trying to escape her prison.
With the summer drawing to a close the narrator asks permission to leave the room. John does not grant her permission to walk outside, so the narrator tells him she thinks she is losing her mind. He urges her to not speak another word of it, and she eventually consumes her entire night with watching the wallpaper, while sleeping during the day. Eventually the woman descends into complete insanity, thinking she is a woman who has escaped from inside the wallpaper.
As the story draws to a close, the narrator decides she must try to free the woman now hiding in the wallpaper and begins to strip the remaining designs off the wall. While working on peeling away the wallpaper, she tries to hide her obsession with it due to her paranoid fear that John will decide she is still ill, and his sister will remain with them. On the last day of summer, she locks herself in her room in order to strip the remains of the wallpaper. When John arrives home, the woman refuses to unlock the door and tells him to go fetch the key from outside her window where she threw it earlier. Once he returns with the key and opens the door, however, he finds her creeping around the room, circling the walls and touching the wallpaper. John faints as she exclaims, "I’ve got out at last," and she continues to circle the room, stepping over his inert body each 'lap' around.
[edit] Media adaptations
* A version of it was performed twice on the radio program Suspense by Agnes Moorehead.
* Produced by the BBC for a series entitled "Masterpiece Theatre" a television film was adapted in 1989. It was adapted by Maggie Wadey and directed by John Clive.
* A radio drama production of The Yellow Wallpaper was produced by the Radio Tales series for National Public Radio. The drama was performed by Winifred Phillips, whose performance won a Gracie Award for Best Actress in a National Network Drama from The American Women in Radio and Television. This Radio Tales version can also be heard on Sonic Theater on XM Radio.
* BBC Radio dramatized the story for the series Fear on Four.
* A stage adaptation was performed at the 2006 Edinburgh Fringe Festival.
* Song "Yellow Creep Around" on the Mary's Danish album Circa, published one century after the original.
* A film adaptation will be released in 2009.
The Yellow Wall Paper - popular passages
... case for myself, for I was crying before I had finished. It is getting to be a great effort for me to think straight. Just this nervous weakness I suppose. And dear John gathered me up in his arms, and just carried me upstairs and laid me on the bed, and sat by me and read to me till it tired my head. He said I was his darling and his comfort and all he had, and that I must take care of myself for his sake, and keep well. - Page 26
Appears in 65 books from 1901-2007
So I walk a little in the garden or down that lovely lane, sit on the porch under the roses, and lie down up here a good deal. I\'m getting really fond of the room in spite of the wallpaper. Perhaps because of the wallpaper. It dwells in my mind so! I lie here on this great immovable bed — it is nailed down, I believe — and follow that pattern about by the hour. It is as good as gymnastics, I assure you. - Page 22
Appears in 71 books from 1901-2006
Of course not. I know well enough that a step like that is improper and might be misconstrued. I don\'t like to LOOK out of the windows even— there are so many of those creeping women, and they creep so fast. - Page 52
Appears in 37 books from 1901-2007
more »
I really have discovered something at last. Through watching so much at night, when it changes so, I have finally found out. The front pattern does move — and no wonder! The woman behind shakes it! - Page 42
Appears in 39 books from 1901-2007
... everything is green instead of yellow. But here I can creep smoothly on the floor, and my shoulder just fits in that long smooch around the wall, so I cannot lose my way. Why there\'s John at the door! It is no use, young man, you can\'t open it! How he does call and pound! Now he\'s crying for an axe. - Page 54
Appears in 71 books from 1901-2006
... a toy-store. I remember what a kindly wink the knobs of our big old bureau used to have, and there was one chair that always seemed like a strong friend. I used to feel that if any of the other things looked too fierce I could always hop into that chair and be safe. The furniture in this room is no worse than inharmonious, however, for we had to bring it all from downstairs. I suppose when this was used as a playroom they had to take the nursery things out, and no wonder! I never saw such ravages... - Page 16
Appears in 65 books from 1901-2007
And it is like a woman stooping down and creeping about behind that pattern. I don\'t like it a bit. I wonder — I begin to think — I wish John would take me away from here ! * * ***** It is so hard to talk with John about my case, because he is so wise, and because he loves me so. - Page 29
Appears in 32 books from 1901-2006
IT is very seldom that mere ordinary people like John and myself secure ancestral halls for the summer. A colonial mansion, a hereditary estate, I would say a haunted house... - Page 1
Appears in 44 books from 1901-2007
It was moonlight. The moon shines in all around just as the sun does. I hate to see it sometimes, it creeps so slowly, and always comes in by one window or another. John was asleep and I hated to waken him, so I kept still and watched the moonlight on that undulating wallpaper till I felt creepy. - Page 29
Appears in 72 books from 1901-2007
I mustn\'t lose my strength, and has me take cod liver oil and lots of tonics and things, to say nothing of ale and wine and rare meat. Dear John! He loves me very dearly, and hates to have me sick. I tried to have a real earnest, reasonable talk with him the other day, and tell him how I wish he would let me go and make a visit to Cousin Henry and Julia. But he said I wasn\'t able to go, nor able to stand it after... - Page 25
Appears in 64 books from 1901-2007
Appears in 65 books from 1901-2007
So I walk a little in the garden or down that lovely lane, sit on the porch under the roses, and lie down up here a good deal. I\'m getting really fond of the room in spite of the wallpaper. Perhaps because of the wallpaper. It dwells in my mind so! I lie here on this great immovable bed — it is nailed down, I believe — and follow that pattern about by the hour. It is as good as gymnastics, I assure you. - Page 22
Appears in 71 books from 1901-2006
Of course not. I know well enough that a step like that is improper and might be misconstrued. I don\'t like to LOOK out of the windows even— there are so many of those creeping women, and they creep so fast. - Page 52
Appears in 37 books from 1901-2007
more »
I really have discovered something at last. Through watching so much at night, when it changes so, I have finally found out. The front pattern does move — and no wonder! The woman behind shakes it! - Page 42
Appears in 39 books from 1901-2007
... everything is green instead of yellow. But here I can creep smoothly on the floor, and my shoulder just fits in that long smooch around the wall, so I cannot lose my way. Why there\'s John at the door! It is no use, young man, you can\'t open it! How he does call and pound! Now he\'s crying for an axe. - Page 54
Appears in 71 books from 1901-2006
... a toy-store. I remember what a kindly wink the knobs of our big old bureau used to have, and there was one chair that always seemed like a strong friend. I used to feel that if any of the other things looked too fierce I could always hop into that chair and be safe. The furniture in this room is no worse than inharmonious, however, for we had to bring it all from downstairs. I suppose when this was used as a playroom they had to take the nursery things out, and no wonder! I never saw such ravages... - Page 16
Appears in 65 books from 1901-2007
And it is like a woman stooping down and creeping about behind that pattern. I don\'t like it a bit. I wonder — I begin to think — I wish John would take me away from here ! * * ***** It is so hard to talk with John about my case, because he is so wise, and because he loves me so. - Page 29
Appears in 32 books from 1901-2006
IT is very seldom that mere ordinary people like John and myself secure ancestral halls for the summer. A colonial mansion, a hereditary estate, I would say a haunted house... - Page 1
Appears in 44 books from 1901-2007
It was moonlight. The moon shines in all around just as the sun does. I hate to see it sometimes, it creeps so slowly, and always comes in by one window or another. John was asleep and I hated to waken him, so I kept still and watched the moonlight on that undulating wallpaper till I felt creepy. - Page 29
Appears in 72 books from 1901-2007
I mustn\'t lose my strength, and has me take cod liver oil and lots of tonics and things, to say nothing of ale and wine and rare meat. Dear John! He loves me very dearly, and hates to have me sick. I tried to have a real earnest, reasonable talk with him the other day, and tell him how I wish he would let me go and make a visit to Cousin Henry and Julia. But he said I wasn\'t able to go, nor able to stand it after... - Page 25
Appears in 64 books from 1901-2007
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Oklahoma Tornadoes
Compared with other States, Oklahoma ranks number 2 for frequency of Tornadoes, 7 for number of deaths, 9 for injuries and 5 for cost of damages. When we compare these statistics to other States by the frequency per square mile, Oklahoma ranks, number 2 for the frequency of tornadoes, number 10 for fatalities, number 15 for injuries per area and number 6 for costs per area. Based on data from 1950 - 1995.
Oklahoma Tornadoes
Oklahoma in 1970 had a population of 2,559,463 and between 1950 and 1995 had 2,379 tornadoes. This ranks the State number 2 in tornadoes by State. The population in 1970 divided by the number of tornadoes equals 1,076 This ranks Oklahoma number 6 in the ratio of tornadoes to population. Oklahoma had 220 fatalities between 1950 and 1995. Compared to other states it ranked 7 The risk of death in any one year is 1 in 523,527 This ranks Oklahoma as number 4 for the risk of death by tornado . Between 1950 and 1995 the state had 3,192 injuries involving tornadoes. This ranks the state number 9 among the States for injury. The risk of injury in any one year is one in 36,083 When we divide the population by the number of injuries, the State ranks number 4 The total cost of tornadoes between 1950 and 1995 was $1,068,178,432.00 This ranks the state number 5 The cost per person for tornadoes, in the state per year, is $ 9.27 This ranks the State number 3 In costs for tornadoes per person
The Metaphysical View of Death and Life After Death Part 3
One of the salient features of religious beliefs is that during transition, before one passes over to heaven or hell, one has to undergo a judgment. The Ancient Egyptians, Tibetans, Christians, Muslims and many others all have and had their judgment scenes in their theological concepts. This is ingrained in the eschatology of religion and has, as a matter of fact, a basis of truth which we shall see later as we consider the bardos. It will suffice here to describe certain aspects of the Judgment scene.
The Judgment scene of almost every religion consists of a judge, a weigher of the scales, a scribe, and of course, the soul being judged. To Ancient Egyptians, Osiris was the judge of the soul, Anubis the weigher of the scales, while Thoth was the scribe. The human soul was often depicted as hawk-headed. In Zoroastrianism, Mithras or sometimes Zoroaster sits on the judgment seat, with Rashnu acting as weigher and Sraosha as recorder. Tibetans called their magistrate Dharmaraja and their scribe Shinje--the monkey-headed one. Christians believe that Jesus would be the one to judge the \"quick and the dead,\" with angelic personnel acting as his amanuensis.
In the Judgment scene, as conceived by the ancient Egyptians, the Ab, or heart of the soul is weighed against Maat, or Truth, symbolised by a feather. The deceased makes a long confession, affirming his or her goodly works. The negative works of the soul goes unstated and unproclaimed--the soul hoping that its past sinful deeds are overlooked and not revealed. But then comes the weighing of the scales, where the statements of the soul are gauged of its truth. When found not to measure up to its honesty, the soul is led to hell to be tormented by Typhon, who is one of the presiding demons; otherwise, it is shown the way to paradise. The Judgment scene of all religions follows more or less along similar lines.
According to some religious and cultural beliefs, prior to the Judgment or the entry into the underworld, the soul had to cross a river or rivers, before passing on to its destination. The soul is usually led across the river in a boat or by using certain bridges. Ancient people used these symbols to signify the processes of transition. Muslims call the bridge \"Sirat,\" while followers of Zoroaster call it \"Chivat.\" Ancient Greeks called the underworld rivers Styx, Acheron, Cocytus, and Phlegethon. These named rivers correspond to the four streams of the Garden of Eden: Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Phrath. Occultly, they probably refer to the four etheric planes. Scandinavians also believe in a river that souls in the cthonian world had to cross. They call this \"Wimur.\" Ancient Babylonians believed that the soul had to cross the Huber river prior to reaching the \"mountain of justice,\" or the Judgment scene.
Psychologically, rivers, oceans, pools, and lakes all refer to the subconscious element within man. In the depth of the Freudian \"id,\" lurk various monsters--phobias, psychosis, neurosis, and repressions. In an occult sense, these monsters of the psyche are known collectively as the Dweller on the Threshold. Crossing rivers in the context of its symbolism, entails encountering these monsters, these repressed images in the death process; and indeed, according to Tibetan thanatology, this is exactly what occurs in the bardo. All religious doctrines teach of the danger that the soul may have to face in the intermediate state.
The Judgment scene of almost every religion consists of a judge, a weigher of the scales, a scribe, and of course, the soul being judged. To Ancient Egyptians, Osiris was the judge of the soul, Anubis the weigher of the scales, while Thoth was the scribe. The human soul was often depicted as hawk-headed. In Zoroastrianism, Mithras or sometimes Zoroaster sits on the judgment seat, with Rashnu acting as weigher and Sraosha as recorder. Tibetans called their magistrate Dharmaraja and their scribe Shinje--the monkey-headed one. Christians believe that Jesus would be the one to judge the \"quick and the dead,\" with angelic personnel acting as his amanuensis.
In the Judgment scene, as conceived by the ancient Egyptians, the Ab, or heart of the soul is weighed against Maat, or Truth, symbolised by a feather. The deceased makes a long confession, affirming his or her goodly works. The negative works of the soul goes unstated and unproclaimed--the soul hoping that its past sinful deeds are overlooked and not revealed. But then comes the weighing of the scales, where the statements of the soul are gauged of its truth. When found not to measure up to its honesty, the soul is led to hell to be tormented by Typhon, who is one of the presiding demons; otherwise, it is shown the way to paradise. The Judgment scene of all religions follows more or less along similar lines.
According to some religious and cultural beliefs, prior to the Judgment or the entry into the underworld, the soul had to cross a river or rivers, before passing on to its destination. The soul is usually led across the river in a boat or by using certain bridges. Ancient people used these symbols to signify the processes of transition. Muslims call the bridge \"Sirat,\" while followers of Zoroaster call it \"Chivat.\" Ancient Greeks called the underworld rivers Styx, Acheron, Cocytus, and Phlegethon. These named rivers correspond to the four streams of the Garden of Eden: Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Phrath. Occultly, they probably refer to the four etheric planes. Scandinavians also believe in a river that souls in the cthonian world had to cross. They call this \"Wimur.\" Ancient Babylonians believed that the soul had to cross the Huber river prior to reaching the \"mountain of justice,\" or the Judgment scene.
Psychologically, rivers, oceans, pools, and lakes all refer to the subconscious element within man. In the depth of the Freudian \"id,\" lurk various monsters--phobias, psychosis, neurosis, and repressions. In an occult sense, these monsters of the psyche are known collectively as the Dweller on the Threshold. Crossing rivers in the context of its symbolism, entails encountering these monsters, these repressed images in the death process; and indeed, according to Tibetan thanatology, this is exactly what occurs in the bardo. All religious doctrines teach of the danger that the soul may have to face in the intermediate state.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Drowning is not so pitiful - A poem by Emily Dickinson - American Poems
Emily Dickinson - Drowning is not so pitiful
Drowning is not so pitiful
As the attempt to rise
Three times, \'tis said, a sinking man
Comes up to face the skies,
And then declines forever
To that abhorred abode,
Where hope and he part company --
For he is grasped of God.
The Maker\'s cordial visage,
However good to see,
Is shunned, we must admit it,
Like an adversity.
Awakening - she learns to swim at outset of story and how to drown at finale.
Drowning is not so pitiful
As the attempt to rise
Three times, \'tis said, a sinking man
Comes up to face the skies,
And then declines forever
To that abhorred abode,
Where hope and he part company --
For he is grasped of God.
The Maker\'s cordial visage,
However good to see,
Is shunned, we must admit it,
Like an adversity.
Awakening - she learns to swim at outset of story and how to drown at finale.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Daisy Miller
story starts in switzerland (Vevey) on lake Geneva religious serenity. @aunt [place visted by many Ams, cafe 9 yr brat - asks for sugar; teeth hurt by europe and european things. RANDOLF. Daisy (white muslin, 100 frills and flounces, and lots of pale colored ribbon, balanced in her hand little parasol; "strikingly, admirably pretty") arrives charming, confidence in life. no qualms talks strangers -"how pretty you are, though Winterbourne");forward female; young man cannot accost young woman in polite society: CIVILITY rules of decorum: social contact couched in language of military strategy - advance, retreat
- eugenio "the most fastidious man I have ever met" great relish for female beauty;- sees breach of discretion. ignorance innocence. James contrasts values europe v.american. ]
- remarkable expressive feature - "eminently beautiful, but with a want of finish" - a coquette; from NY state
- Europe (to daisy) : lack of society, gentleman society. W never heard girl talk this way. RANDOLPH no qualms approach strange (AMERICAN ACT)
- realism "scientific record of life" all life - povert, middleclass, pornography - excluded - but James focused on middle class luxury
- ROMANTICISM things never can know directly - different world. james char consistent throughout bk., predictable faithful rendition character/all aspects of life
- asperity of her retort. Mrs. Miller simple, easily manageable person.
- "CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE" :James - means narrative - story about DM told by W - sentient center or central interlligence. w lived all life in europe - know conventions of europe but also understanding of Am, aware of her uncoventionality is she great flirt or essence of innocence? daisy pts out castle - w offers to escort. mother - acccept indiscrete go w him to castle alone
- james rdr learn gradually about char. as w does; pert little face no trace irony mockery sincerity, not bashful, no understand customs, confidence, independe am quals
- aunt aloof aristo feels need to be aattentive to Mrs.Costello already ear of scandal dm "seen heard, heard thing, made efforts keep away from xxxx" duty to not accept that kind of common
walking around in moonlight "like an indolent sylph"
every two days she had a headache, never dined at the table d'autre
very exclusive, Daisy eager to know his aunt
walked on parapet, and in distance over starlit lake dim prospect dimly seen mtn forms
reserved, formal, social rules, social sway of aunt hierarchical constitution of that society almost oppressively striking. "You needn't be afraid."
vulgar common person, actions improper in bad taste
Aunt is a confidante to W, used by James to explain details - never meet daisy. used to show views
define exact position
proud rude W tries to conceal attitude gallantly.
W reaction to aunt's refusal is important: daisy's deportment intoxicates W and he grows ever more attracted to her, mystified, enchanted. His intrigue overrides his aunt's opposition.
He will escort Daisy to the Chateau de Chillon - I am not too innocent - curling moustache
canoe ride even worse. covers aunts refuse meet daisy as proud, rude woman
day together wonderful til new w departure to rome
daisy's free behavior, am more liberal set of rules
not hold back by restriction of social forms, limitations placed on her freedom.
CHARMING SPONTANEOUS TEASING
rome in winter
"invidious kinswoman" Costello horrified at news of trip to castle.
How far girl disregard conventions of society mantain her reputation?
by
Bring me that novel by xxx
SECTION 3
fortune hunters, Costello "very dreadful people" hopelessly vulgar to be avoided
daisy many acquaintances, ostensibly loose behavior for the gossip mill.
To the party Daisy want bring friend - a strange man!
go on walk : immproper for girl - w escort then.
pension gardens.
GIOVANNELLI "not a gentleman but a very clever imitation" - a "Music master", as anyone could see.
Daisy though is innocent, heedless of her transgressive misconduct, not a lawless woman but does
That she not conduct herself as she should. pity to let her ruin herself - Mrs Walker: Get in the carriage - and I'll tell you.
Daisy refuses to get in carriage. says she is being talked about.
She would not to know. I don't think I should like to know what you mean. - sums up dm want people respond not judge - rules seems to condemn living life.
Imperiously, GET IN
"I suspect we have lived too long in Geneva."
W urbane able to conceal feelings but dm cannot hide feelings "inscrutable combination of audacity and innocence" - incultivated or indelicate?
not conform habits seem useless. likes her freedom - dm inexhaustable energy/rules good
time/reputation agreeable people/disagreeable spontaneous; admirable quals made ugly
(w sees)
at rome, d hears dm rep strange men, improper behavior "walking the streets" on street,
walker tries intercede.
PARTYdm: "i'm glad I'm not a girl of this country"
PARTY
life of party dm. her party offend host - snubbed.
innocent but impetuous - d tries warn indiscretions.
dm to "depart with what grace she might" ??
Gio always around now on - w convinced dm interested only in gio.
"the little italian" found to be minor lawyer.
flirt w win is she engaged w
no concept of propriety "inexhaustible good humor"
repre so much that is innocent, good, admirable, but made to look ugly
coliseum her cavalier
at night accidentally espies daisy + young ital - shock
roman fever- final imprudence = death - 3x sent message. tell w "she was not engaged"
cryptic at first, later understands. only after death, realize she innocent would have
welcomed intervention. she "would have appreciated someone's esteem"
W to costello, we "lived too long in foreign parts"
Gio "most innocent + woderful he ever met"
much revision all as James work
1-switzerland
2-rome
dickens balzac hawthorne
Monday, February 2, 2009
Paradise Lost / Milton, John RIVERS
Thus they their doubtful consultations dark Ended, rejoicing in their matchless Chief: As, when from mountain-tops the dusky clouds Ascending, while the north wind sleeps, o\'erspread Heaven\'s cheerful face, the louring element Scowls o\'er the darkened landscape snow or shower, If chance the radiant sun, with farewell sweet, Extend his evening beam, the fields revive, The birds their notes renew, and bleating herds Attest their joy, that hill and valley rings. O shame to men! Devil with devil damned Firm concord holds; men only disagree Of creatures rational, though under hope Of heavenly grace, and, God proclaiming peace, Yet live in hatred, enmity, and strife Among themselves, and levy cruel wars Wasting the earth, each other to destroy: As if (which might induce us to accord) Man had not hellish foes enow besides, That day and night for his destruction wait! The Stygian council thus dissolved; and forth In order came the grand infernal Peers: Midst came their mighty Paramount, and seemed Alone th\' antagonist of Heaven, nor less Than Hell\'s dread Emperor, with pomp supreme, And god-like imitated state: him round A globe of fiery Seraphim enclosed With bright emblazonry, and horrent arms. Then of their session ended they bid cry With trumpet\'s regal sound the great result: Toward the four winds four speedy Cherubim Put to their mouths the sounding alchemy, By herald\'s voice explained; the hollow Abyss Heard far adn wide, and all the host of Hell With deafening shout returned them loud acclaim. Thence more at ease their minds, and somewhat raised By false presumptuous hope, the ranged Powers Disband; and, wandering, each his several way Pursues, as inclination or sad choice Leads him perplexed, where he may likeliest find Truce to his restless thoughts, and entertain The irksome hours, till his great Chief return. Part on the plain, or in the air sublime, Upon the wing or in swift race contend, As at th\' Olympian games or Pythian fields; Part curb their fiery steeds, or shun the goal With rapid wheels, or fronted brigades form: As when, to warn proud cities, war appears Waged in the troubled sky, and armies rush To battle in the clouds; before each van Prick forth the airy knights, and couch their spears, Till thickest legions close; with feats of arms From either end of heaven the welkin burns. Others, with vast Typhoean rage, more fell, Rend up both rocks and hills, and ride the air In whirlwind; Hell scarce holds the wild uproar:-- As when Alcides, from Oechalia crowned With conquest, felt th\' envenomed robe, and tore Through pain up by the roots Thessalian pines, And Lichas from the top of Oeta threw Into th\' Euboic sea. Others, more mild, Retreated in a silent valley, sing With notes angelical to many a harp Their own heroic deeds, and hapless fall By doom of battle, and complain that Fate Free Virtue should enthrall to Force or Chance. Their song was partial; but the harmony (What could it less when Spirits immortal sing?) Suspended Hell, and took with ravishment The thronging audience. In discourse more sweet (For Eloquence the Soul, Song charms the Sense) Others apart sat on a hill retired, In thoughts more elevate, and reasoned high Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will, and Fate-- Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute, And found no end, in wandering mazes lost. Of good and evil much they argued then, Of happiness and final misery, Passion and apathy, and glory and shame: Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy!-- Yet, with a pleasing sorcery, could charm Pain for a while or anguish, and excite Fallacious hope, or arm th\' obdured breast With stubborn patience as with triple steel. Another part, in squadrons and gross bands, On bold adventure to discover wide That dismal world, if any clime perhaps Might yield them easier habitation, bend Four ways their flying march, along the banks Of four infernal rivers, that disgorge Into the burning lake their baleful streams-- Abhorred Styx, the flood of deadly hate; Sad Acheron of sorrow, black and deep; Cocytus, named of lamentation loud Heard on the rueful stream; fierce Phlegeton, Whose waves of torrent fire inflame with rage. Far off from these, a slow and silent stream, Lethe, the river of oblivion, rolls Her watery labyrinth, whereof who drinks Forthwith his former state and being forgets-- Forgets both joy and grief, pleasure and pain. Beyond this flood a frozen continent Lies dark and wild, beat with perpetual storms Of whirlwind and dire hail, which on firm land Thaws not, but gathers heap, and ruin seems Of ancient pile; all else deep snow and ice, A gulf profound as that Serbonian bog Betwixt Damiata and Mount Casius old, Where armies whole have sunk: the parching air Burns frore, and cold performs th\' effect of fire. Thither, by harpy-footed Furies haled, At certain revolutions all the damned Are brought; and feel by turns the bitter change Of fierce extremes, extremes by change more fierce, From beds of raging fire to starve in ice Their soft ethereal warmth, and there to pine Immovable, infixed, and frozen round Periods of time,--thence hurried back to fire. They ferry over this Lethean sound Both to and fro, their sorrow to augment, And wish and struggle, as they pass, to reach The tempting stream, with one small drop to lose In sweet forgetfulness all pain and woe, All in one moment, and so near the brink; But Fate withstands, and, to oppose th\' attempt, Medusa with Gorgonian terror guards The ford, and of itself the water flies All taste of living wight, as once it fled The lip of Tantalus. Thus roving on In confused march forlorn, th\' adventurous bands, With shuddering horror pale, and eyes aghast, Viewed first their lamentable lot, and found No rest. Through many a dark and dreary vale They passed, and many a region dolorous, O\'er many a frozen, many a fiery alp, Rocks, caves, lakes, fens, bogs, dens, and shades of death-- A universe of death, which God by curse Created evil, for evil only good; Where all life dies, death lives, and Nature breeds, Perverse, all monstrous, all prodigious things, Obominable, inutterable, and worse Than fables yet have feigned or fear conceived, Gorgons, and Hydras, and Chimeras dire.
reverdie
Huck Finn + Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, by George Byron (canto1)
When Huck is warned he mightgo to the "bad place", he counters he'd rather go there, a change of scene.
And now Childe Harold was sore sick at heart,
And from his fellow bacchanals would flee;
’Tis said, at times the sullen tear would start,
But pride congealed the drop within his e’e:
Apart he stalked in joyless reverie,
And from his native land resolved to go,
And visit scorching climes beyond the sea;
With pleasure drugged, he almost longed for woe,
And e’en for change of scene would seek the shades below.
Wronging Huck's rite of passage skewing patrilinearity, society sides with Pap -the grotesque whited sepulchre, the embodiment or core of White evil - - gifting custody despite history abuse and vice - comment South, slavery - misled blind judge give $1 to father. dad binge, drunken rage, kidnap, cabin in woods, chase "angel of death" - the boy is confused, ill-informed of moral values and consistent principles imparting meaning to existence.
A satire on society, reform.
Huck is trapped between Scylla, Charybdis. The River - archetypal idiom of life, emblem of being, Skamander, Tiber, Nile, Amazon, Thames, Congo, Volga, Arne, Yangtzi, Euphrates, Ob, Lethe, Triton, Jordan, Cocytus, offers an exit to an absurd stalement in which existence is the rarified misery of nonagency, the pupptted pawn of others. Self-interested powers act to promote personal and public agenda - hypocrites, institutionalized lobbying..
Jim and Huck returnedly discuss magic and superstitions are the lens to see fortune destiny;
environment is the surreal landscape of the human condition. Storm as King Lear's crisis.
Dead man - muse bad luck, handke discarded snakeskin; joke dead rattler next to Jim's sleep, mate stings: in the end, they (we) realize the actual bad luck as result of negative components.
volatile.
The linked fates - intertwined. an island - eye of the storm. Imperiled break from society - isle paradise - smoke, fish, berries, fantasy island sequestered from cant of society - alternative family form
houseboat signs of life - cards, whiskey bottles - Dad - son shielded from sins of fathers, dead older generation, life is a river, river current of time, ineluctable impulse forward some control.
snakes lurk on Jackson Island like sanke in garden of Eden
explosive, unstable servant celebrity of hag-ridden jim; boys to cave of imagination
prayer meaning - help others, payers only do good others; there exist 2 gods
rumor circulates pap dead. face distorted unrecognizabl as mask true identity alien
Don Juan - Sunday School Picnic enchanted Arabs, Elephants, Tom's supernatural world parallels the widow's religious scaffold - ironize sentimentality, romanticism popular genre - fairy models -
leads to Hucks skepticism = folis boyishness links opposites in mutual orbit.
Tom's lofty perspective
acculturation process - Rousseau's noble savage, Blake's innocent child, gradually snded down till become sheople.
Travel anight hide steal decoy, robbers become victims, pity robbers stranded on wreck - rapscallions - wreck of the Walter Scott - two runaways' raft sanctuart capsule free system at odds with universe. disobedience authority
fog thick lost direction - Dante lost start Inferno. Trick Jim think all storm a dream - is reality a dream? Which is reality? sowing discord.
"be lowlie wise" mind own business. explore ruined steamboat mistake, tie up to wreck stormy night dark consequences - "wandering in mazes lost"
error. There is a tiger behind every door.
overhears plotting robbers in ship.
Cairo, mouth of Ohio river - free state goal. upriver back in time old memories formative experince of innocence.
Jim cries out h only friend. hf decide handiness//morality (harbor runaways - the "right thing" How do we challenge conventional wisdom, traditional culture, authority of predecessors.
Analogy cow talk, men - animal farm : Huck less free than Jim, imprisoned mainstream thinking in white society, reject conventional morality chose internal notion of right.
[canoe disappear, collide raft steambiat separate, hub huck, dogs spokes
huck transgender Sarah]
orphan lie Huck lands midst of family feud meet mirror in rural antfarm Buck - Shepherders,
Grangerford.
raft open space, no fences walls, blocking barriers blind ignorance - what we don't know makes what we do.
See some wate mocassins - snake in grass turns out to be Jim. deadly vendetta erupts bloodbsth flee
ch19 - tartar scam removes more than plaque.
enterprising conartist marry their talents two wings of the same butterfly.
Emilys overwhelmingly bad paintings - bad taste Victorian sentimentalism, romantic conceits (huck genuine marvel at palace) propenstiy mourning melancholy - oversealous bad taste morbid subj - cruel laugh - riches concern wealt, fanily honor ridiculous notion creates ssmtifamuky, ubfs ily, afsmily, oipposite egat should. lineage of generations creates greatest foolly in novel.
Duke and Dauphin criminals who govern the space fugitives live in, power,
conners and charlatans, wield society's jovean retribution, adams eves sib of selfauthorahip
heart of darkness, conduit to freedom, wayout
22 duke prints hadbill, adverts, valency of written word. industrisl age, technos tecgnology power
to be or not to be. actors professional lyers. ROYAL NONESUCH (women, children admitted no! - patriarchy - potent but bungling insidious, incredible malice, con artist can con relig meeting because it is basiccally a con itself. playing a dangerous game, swindling masses and outwitting angry cuckolded. artful artists art fake dauphin and bilgewater.
arkansas lasy young men smoking kliafing nothing to do no thoughts in head - deataled describe
lynchmob mob power juggeranaut - sherman attacks cowardive og mob tsunami wield destructive unbridled stranth - shutgun. eloquences deplorable cowardicve of, respectable citizens who do bad in name of good
23 scarlet fever deaf daughter unable gear jim recall
smallpx ruse fool hunt for escapee, jim must be tied up to be free
con daughter gold house wilkes sisters generous charity guft ti daughtersimposters - audience selfish vindictiveness eable inept crowning
dr robinson cassandra appears self-righteous - moral cofudsion
stupid gullible wilkes sisters
victim crimal as criminals; jim beat daughter undeserved - noble humanity - forgive all but self honesty role fir huch
racist upbringing empathy for blacks
ch 26
joanna hairlip sheffield as prot minister
swindkw sweet women, duke wont leave until steal all money.
front room dead father lies in parlor
dog basement dog caught a rat - coffin never opened,
dauphin says take firls estate take to england. missing money huck blames family slaves. but joanna told confess promise silent til h able save jim
auction mob stopped real bros,
26
though huck experiience grosth, indecisive not able stopped duke etc. now acts. contradictory mss from society. (later mary-jane crying impels huck resolute - brreakup love of family - bkack family.
both seeming good - warson and bad -duke - willing to perpetuate sinful acts - separate bond of love between mother and child. serious but comic.
29 harvet Wilkes authentic english accents no sign language broken arm cannot talk
more desparate lies check coffin $$$ h lights out, fat off again, then accident duke and dauphin cross paths fortune agian. all escaped all suspect each other hid gold.
conmen start plotting suspiciously. no sign of jim, printed bills reward for jim, sold $40
confusion quandary j what to do - ashamed to be known as help slve escape.
steal jim to free him.
29-31 bungling inept charm last vestige vanish - Satan deterioted Paradise Lost. evil pursues Huck and Jim on raft. When Huck cannot pray hypocritically (god is only can tell difference), follow consciouness. accept sacrifice heaven go to hell
was anyone hirt no a nigger was killed that was lucky. devalue life.
sally basically good but blind to racist mores.
33 tom sees a ghost - h shocked at tom's spineless engagement in plan to antagonizes society pronciples tom emulate Huck's respect tom fell.
cried tar feather conscience useless makes you fell bad no matter what you do.
34. tom plan more stylish. brash romantic adventure foolish conform socisl exprctant preserve reputation, though huck willing give up booth - tim just sees opportunity adventure. dim fir watermelon. saw off jims leg.
superstitious slave sees as ghost jim to think work of witches. exploit
38 force jim inscribe autograph inside shed, mournful declarations (should be stone though - millstone) tom natural ablity to supervise. smuggle rattlesnake into shed
15 rats under sally's bed - spiders, etc. Sally rasing Cain. supper - honest rattling good day's work - bagged but not tied - all escaped. week later sally still sensed snakes
spiders disliked jim disliked spiders. circus. if ever got free never be a slave again.
letter - always significant - being in a remote place at least in voice. later anonymous letters warning poeple to attract attention, mullett-headed fools - calm seas are boring,
[Dryden Absalom and Achitophel:
name to all succeeding ages curst:
For close designs and crooked counsels fit,
Sagacious, bold, and turbulent of wit,
Restless, unfixed in principles and place,
In power unpleased, impatient of disgrace
A fierysoul, which working out its way,
Fretted the pigmy body to decay
And o'er-informed the tenement of clay.
A daring pilot in extremity,
He sought the storms ; but, for a calm unfit,
Would steer too nigh the sands to boast his wit.
Great wits are sure to madness near allied ,
And thin partitions do their bounds divide ;
Else, why should he, with wealth and honour blest,
Refuse his age the needful hours of rest ?
Punish a body which he could not please,
Bankrupt of life, yet prodigal of ease ?
And all to leave what with his toil he won
and The Medall:
- The frauds he learnt in his fanatic years
- Made him uneasy in his lawful gears.
- At best, as little honest as he could,
- And, like white witches, mischievously good.
- To his first bias longingly he leans
- And rather would be great by wicked means.
- Thus framed for ill, he loosed our triple hold,
- (Advice unsafe, precipitous, and bold.)
- From hence those tears, that Ilium was our woe:
- Who helps a powerful friend forearms a foe.
- What wonder if the waves prevail so far,
- When he cut down the banks that made the bar?
- Seas follow but their nature to invade;
- But he by art our native strength betrayed.
- So Samson to his foe his force confest,
- And to be shorn lay slumbering on her breast. ]
remoteness in time as Don Quixote - romantic undercurrent far away long ago.
huck enthralled in tom's game, forgets the objective of rescue, jim captive powerless, snakes for fun, clouded dynamic, tom smothered out all lessons in an instant learned on raft with jim. objectification just as sally and uncke sailas janusfaced treatment free slave. little basis objective judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
