Concerning digressive thoughts
This blog post could easily [and quite literally] post for Professor Sexson's other oral traditions class, but some reason my sense of urge has me writing into this particular ocean of stories. This is so for the simple fact that I've learned a lot more about fantasy in this class than mastering your memory with a factual fortitude of creation--ironically being fantastical conjures constructed by the marriage of language (of the clearly communicable recollection...) and...living? (...within the continuum of experiences)--wherein my memory palaces. We're reading The Art of Memory by Frances Yates in our other class and after our first class ending at two o'clock I got to reading more of Yates prior to Ocean of Stories. In reading the first few pages of chapter 16, which focuses on correlations betwixt Shakespeare playwrights and the mnemonic systems of Fludd, Bruno, and Camillo [comparing The Globe Theatre with , then Walter walks through the door. He cordially waves while setting his stuff down. I salute him. We both have on our headphones.
The day before he said something that struck me--something along these lines so I'll paraphrase--, something that I can completely relate to,
"You're in The Ocean of Stories class? I didn't even know because I get our two classes mixed up. I'm reading one thing for three-thirty-seven and it applies moreso to something we're discussing in four-thirty-eight." I know how you feel, man; seeing as I'm going to now offer several quotes from Frances Yates book to mull over while they might seem completely frivolous, but consider my proposition beforehand--'Every aspect of the real world, from the societal to the natural, is playfully notioned, put in motion, and evidentally present in each of plays Shakespeare has written and henceforth been performed in The Globe Theatre--famous for it's variety of possible entrances, square stage, and circular hole in the ceiling (if I'm not mistaken, although no one else seems to be sure after reading Yates' historical research). One play, theoretically, contains a fair representation of the universe in and of it's prudential production.':
"...the Vitruvian figure inscribed in a square and a circle became a symbol of hte mathematical sympathy between microcosm and macrocosm. How could the relation of Man to god be better expressed...than by building the house of God in accordance with the fundamental geometry of square and circle?" (359)
"And the Globe...shows that the Shakespearean theatre was not imitation but an adaptation of Vitruvius...there was a basic change introduced by the multilevel stage. The old religious theatre showed a spiritual drama of the soul of man in relation to the levels of Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise." (363)
""All the world's a stage."" (364)
Then something else comes to mind, something having recently occurred within the confines--if I may elegantly gloss--the pages of the washroom's literature. A book also referenced in my 337 blog (crap, how will I ever get around to my point for this class?), titled Quadrivium: The Four Classical Liberal Arts of Number, Geometry, Music, and Cosmology. On page 112 they talk about a triangular vesica-based--(in geometry it's like a trinity-venn diagram) influence on architecture, namely showing the floor plan of Winchester Cathedral (pictured above). From what I can gather, this is a church we see above is obviously a cross. The two short sides, which I'm assuming are facing east and west, are equal in volume so that there can be more room for the lead priest's stage (with a large backstage) and an even vaster space for a plentiful congregation to fill the pews. Look at a triangular vesica--when I did all I could think of was the rule of three and all it's derivatives; there's Father-Son-Holy Spirit--Heaven-Hell-Purgatory--Priest-Farmer-Warrior--A-B-C. Furthermore, on the offhand, I think that a preached sermon is as much a performance as a playwright itself--something I realized by watching my most recent, brilliantly persuasive, and rather--pardon my insensitivity--superficial minister of the Trinity Presbyterian Church. Nevermind that because too soon another Yates quote oncomes to mind reminding me of the short sides,
"When these 'heavens' cover the stage, we learn that the stage was at the east of the theatre, like the altar in the church." (364)
Anyways, reading the previous quote along with rummaging through Quadrivium this evening really got me thinking about the significance of geometry as well as drama, it's elements being tragedy and comedy, a dichotomy of genre instead of the genre quartet we addressed in class early this semester (Romance, Comedy, Irony, Tragedy). I'll be honest, this whole numbers game confuses me so by reasonably quantifying the concept of genre it makes it a whole lot easier for me to understand our classes main theme of "Romance."
Which again gets me thinking of something Walter said this afternoon before class--and I'll once again paraphrase--"The romance in people mostly goes unsaid. People think about what they're going to say--let's say it's to someone they really like or think is awful cute--and they give what they want to say a lot of thought. But we hardly ever say what we think, so people never quite can be defined as romantics if they don't speak it."
This thought rung to the tune of one of Frye's final declarations in The Secular Scripturewhen he says that "in our greatest romance that we begin to say that we have earned the right to silence." (188) Now let's think about this-- let's reflect with a 'moment of silence'.
Anyways, I guess my initial thought was that Romance is a derivation of Comedy because this is the realm of 'happy endings' as opposed to the tragic endings where like--the hero dies. Our final project is to present the 'perfect romance'--something our group has began to work on--and it's quickly turning into a comedy.
Now, let's look back one of the Yates quotes describing the difference between imitation and adaptation. This story we're developing seems like it's becoming an imitation of romance because it's turning into a comedy, but--by incorporating the essential elements of romance, yes?--that's fine. I've discovered that between the drama, the historical figures, my fellow classmates--on top of the rich teaching--and other thoughts at the tip of my tongue which creep into the back of my mind that, well shit I guess, that romance is an elementally supplementation itself. Simply, it's secondary.
My argument here goes back to Irony. A couple years back when I took Mythologies our final group presentation was an adaptation of the story of Oedipus--one of the the most amazing plots I've ever read. It's perfect, but what genre does it belong to? Tragedy! I say 'yeah, and romance. The fling between Oedipus and Jocasta happened out of love! But Oedipus doesn't end happily. Oedipus is probably a tragedy, but there is without dispute a romance in and of the play (engulfed in irony [thus, associated and undertoned with in comedy?])'
Well in celebration of this combination of Professor Sexson's classes I'll end with a couple of my favorite quote from Frye which apply directly to Oral Traditions:
"William Blake once said 'imagination has nothing to do with memory.'" (175)
"...all memory is selective, and the fact that it is selective is the starting point of creation." (175)
"...heaven and hell have been written but the great poem of earth has still to be written." (171)
No comments:
Post a Comment