Do I wake or sleep?

So, as I said in my last entry, I had an interesting meeting with my professor a few weeks ago. I wanted to touch base with him, mainly, on my paper (at that point I was worried I wouldn't have enough material in the Annales Gendanses text to flesh out my analysis on the Battle of the Golden Spurs), but also on a few other issues. I started out by telling him first off, I love the class and I want to apologize for always blurting out the answer. He started to laugh and said, holding up his fingers close together, just give the rest of the class a beat before you jump in. I said it's a function of several things--1) I'm an actor, and hence a show off. 2) I'm an athlete, so I hate being beaten to the answer. And 3) this is my thing*, this is medieval history, my big interest. He then asked me--what are you doing here at Columbia? I said do you mean what else am I taking this semester, or in the larger sense? He said--well, you're clearly extremely bright, very capable, and you read the texts very carefully. And you're in a non-degree program. I said well, I'm part of the Post-baccalaureate Studies Program. I want to get my master's in history but I majored in English and music, and had never actually taken a history class before I started here, although I'd certainly read a lot of history on my own. So this is part of putting together a competitive application, to get some history credits. He said to me--save your money. You're certainly capable of doing the work--you should have no difficulty getting into a good program, either here or somewhere else. All you need are your GREs and a recommendation, which I'm happy to write for you. I said--but Columbia doesn't really have a master's in history--it's part of a Ph.D. track-program. He said no, but they offer a master's in medieval/Renaissance studies. My eyes got big. First of all, that he's looked up my record (knew that I am currently in a non-degree program); second, that he's, like, strategizing for me!

So--food for thought. I have not pre-registered yet for the fall because I need to think this summer about this application--if I want to commit to it, to apply for the fall of 2012. I'd been thinking about taking off the semester anyway just to give my savings a break. I also have to talk to the PTB and make sure I can go part-time (less than that, really, one class at a time)--although for an actual master's, I would be more comfortable with actually getting a loan instead of just paying out my savings. It wouldn't be that much, since a humanities master's only takes about a year (full-time). And think about taking the GREs--again. I took them back when I was a college senior--I did well on them (high 600s-low 700s--I got like 720 on the logic section) but that was awhile ago.

And besides Kosto, I have no doubt that Professors Kaye (Intellectual Medieval Life) and Maiuro (Roman History) would also write me recommendations. Maiuro and I got along like a house afire, and everytime I see Kaye he asks me when I'm going to take another class of his.

*At one point I noticed he had a book by Norman Cantor on my shelves--I interrupted myself and said oh, I love him! I have several books of his, including Inventing the Middle Ages, Medieval Lives and In the Wake of the Plague. I'm so easily distracted--oooh, pretty shiny!

So, this past week has been a bit stressful--we got the study sheet for the final last Tuesday and it was really no help. Basically it was "go over everything we studied in class." We studied at least 1000 pages of primary sources, not to mention at least that much of secondary sources! And the man really does lecture VERY quickly. But at least this time we didn't have to identify actual passages from the sources (he did that for the midterm, VERY HARD). The TA ran a study session that confirmed my hunch that going over the themes of the class would be a useful way to break it down. Last week I made up a study guide--25 PAGES LONG. It took so long to type, I actually didn't finish typing it until Friday night, when I no longer had access to a computer at work or home. (I actually have a home printer but it's crap, doesn't feed very well. I really just keep it for a scanner.) I figured I might be able to send it to a printer on the campus network, but I read how to do it on the Columbia site--it's sort of complicated, there are queues and a quota. I wandered around my neighborhood Saturday morning and found a UPS "store" that also offers office service, including printing, and for much less than I'd feared. So banged out that job! I stayed in my apartment for most of the weekend, going over this material. OY. So much more stressed for this final than my others--I really, really do not like this final format. I was not that worried for my finals in Roman History or Medieval Intellectual Life, I felt very prepared for them. Oh well, if I was worried, I can only imagine my classmates were as well.

The exam. I probably got a 95% on the first section (reverse identifications) and I know I nailed the middle section. He gave us a document that we hadn't studied--we had to pick it apart as a source, looking at the language, possible bias, try to figure out who wrote & when, find contradictions, etc. I had a blast with that, especially when I snarkily pointed out a contradiction that reflected some ass-kissing on the part of the chronicler. The third part--that was hardest and naturally it was worth the most. I thought I did okay, but not as well as the middle section. I finished up pretty well though, I wrote how "the canon texts of the Laws of War of the High Middle Ages were like so many distant mirrors, reflecting the giants who had preceded them and and each other, building" blah blah blah--basically the point was that these pieces drew on each other and the past [very medieval, they all made constant reference to previous writers, especially Aristotle and Augustine]. And shoutouts to Baabara Tuchman* can only help! Anyway, I sat there for at least a couple of minutes before I came up with that last concluding line--extemporaneous eloquence is not easy!

When I turned in the blue books, I asked about our papers--we were supposed to get them back after the final. Jay (TA) has suggested before the final but Professor Kosto vetoed it--I said to Jay "probably for the best. Can you imagine being in a classroom trying to concentrate on your final while someone next to you is silently weeping or angrily scratching in their blue books? Bit distracting!" Anyway, Jay whispered to me that I'd gotten an A--I made him repeat it! I was thrilled, not least because I got an A- on my first paper--and I still don't know why, because they seemed to love it! Nothing but compliments. Anyway, very happy about that, and then later Jay mailed our papers' comments to us.

Jay'd said : Very nice intermingling of cultural/military issues, perceptive reading of sources, and lovely writing. Good work!

And Kosto said: I wasn´t sure where you were going with this, but it turned out very well. Super readings of the written sources, and a nice use of the visual ones. You don´t blindly apply the models of chivalry, but extract a model of moral behavior from your own reading of the sources. Well done.

Eeeeehhhhh! I love this because--when I first discussed the topic with them (the role of the cavalry in the Battles of Hastings (1066--the Normans invaded England) and the Golden Spurs (1302, Courtrai--the French cavalry were smashed by a bunch of Flemish burghers and peasants))--*I* wasn't sure where I was going with it! I had an idea about the imaginative connection with the horse, but I didn't have this firm thesis I was definitely going to prove. I just had a feeling, and followed my instincts, exploring through my writing. I'd wanted to use as one of my sources the Bayeux Tapestry--Kosto said that I should use another additional source to explicate the tapestry, so I used William of Poitiers's Gesta Guillelmi, and for the Battle of the Golden Spurs, a Flemish source. But I knew--somehow--the Tapestry would be useful, I could do something with that--and in the end, the piece also talked about the power of the imagery of the Tapestry (which I wrote in my last entry).

*Her A Distant Mirror is a classic in this field--EVERYONE'S read it. And it has a whole delicious chapter on the Black Death!

Sweating through my second (final) paper right now, on the role of the cavalry in Hastings and the Battle of the Golden Spurs. Will surface when it's done (probably tonight, I'm on the conclusion right now).

Who Put the Fun in Family Dysfunction? (All about the Borgias)

Also, last week for class we read Henry V and watched bits of it in class, both the Olivier and the Branagh. Haven't seen the Branagh since it first came out in '89--it's quite good! I definitely prefer it to my Olivier--I have very mixed feelings about the quality of Olivier's films (perhaps I should say their success--as I emailed to my professor:

Olivier's Shakespeare adaptations have always tried to bestride both theater and film--NOT always successfully! ("To be or not to be" CANNOT be a voiceover, what was he thinking? Shakespeare's lines are too theatrical to be believable as thought, they *must* be spoken aloud. Declaimed, as it were!)

And the 1944 H5 is sooo cheesy, with its forced humor during the Salic law scene, and that Globe framework. Just doesn't work for me, although I do like Olivier's Richard III--hottt! I like how he split up the wooing scene, makes it *infinitely* more believable that Anne finally succumbs. Only Olivier could make Humpback Dick hot!

Anyway we looked at it specifically WRT Laws of War--since the 1944 was meant as British propaganda, they left out the Harfleur speech and the speech where Henry has the French prisoners executed. Branagh's version, which of course is much darker (they called it "the post-Falklands Henry V"), has both scenes (I believe--I know he has the Harfleur scene, he chews up the scenery, masticates it within an inch of its life, and spits it out again). We compared the Agincourt speech, even though it doesn't address Laws of War, just because it's so good. (Hilariously, Olivier's Agincourt is all sunny--uh, the rain and the mud is WHY the English won, guys! The French cavalry got stuck in the mud and the English archers finished 'em off.) The professor compared the long shots in the Olivier to the closeups in the Branagh, saying this is why Olivier is the better actor. I emailed him:

Do you really see the tight camera closeup on Henry in the St. Crispin Day speech as bad acting? That speaks to more Branagh's directing than his acting--and really, that's just a different style....Branagh's Henry V shots and editing are more cinematic. I also think his take on the text is more a look at Henry the man--his development from Prince Hal the carouser to a King in every sense of the word, whereas Olivier's movie had a wider focus.

He replied:

I make that point about Olivier simply for the sake of an audience that has probably never seen him and is likely to be wowed by Branagh's eyes (a student last year practically swooned) and stirring
music and the reaction shots of Brian Blessed.

As I said, I hadn't seen it since it first came out, but I really liked what I saw (again) so I watched some more last night on YouTube. OH MY GOD. The wooing scene. The wooing scene. Kenneth, marry me now. NOW. When he walks around the table saying "Oh Kate, nice customs curtsy to great kings..." I...I cooed out loud. So, so cute. O anonymous student from last year, I am RIGHT there with you!

And on a fairly random note, I *love* how little English names have changed in 600 years. We STILL are naming our princes and princesses Catherine and Henry. And Edward and Margaret and Elizabeth and William...

I proudly present the debut of my new history blog--Cliopolitan. I concentrate on history but I bring in a lot of other humanities and arts (poetry, theater, etc.) Check it out, read it, "follow" it, comment and experience the transit gloria mundi!

I conceived of this idea last summer--the main purpose of this is as part of a larger effort to stack the deck for my grad school applications as much as possible. But I've also noticed another great side effect--it's forcing me to write a mini-essay every week and getting me back in the habit of focused, tight, purposeful writing.

Some of the entries on history I've written here will reappear there--cleaned up, tighter, with more multi-media. My LJ is more of an emotional dumping ground and and a "this is what's happening with me" and I don't really edit that much what I write here--it's not for a huge audience. But my history blog will be different.

I think it's really depressing when, in the first wave of reaction to this horrible event yesterday, there's more attention paid to the so-called "finger pointing" and "blame" than to, you know, six people who were murdered in cold blood and how a political system was hijacked yesterday. Because let's remember who the real victims are here--ranty demogogues who suddenly realize their words have an impact and are now scrambling to cover their asses by washing their hands of responsibility. There are several examples but this in particular struck me. Judson Phillips, the head of a Tea Party networking organization, issued this statement:

( Cut for political musings )

The whole thing is just so goddamn sad. I've been wavering on the death penalty lately but this guy sure deserves it. A nine year old girl? Jesus.

Last week I ordered most of my books for this semester--we have quite a few (like 6-7). Many of them arrived today, including A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry, Medieval Warfare: A History, What Were the Crusades? and Froissart's Chronicles. We also have the Penguin edition of Henry V on the list--I'm going to ask the professor if he can distribute the critical essays in .pdf format or something, since I already have at least two copies of Hank the Cinq. But--DROOL. The book on the Crusades looks delicious--I'm going to be even more of an Hermione and read it before class, as well as a few of the others.

Amazon has started a new program--Amazon Student. You give them your .edu email address, they verify that you're a student, and then for a year you can try out all the benefits of Amazon Prime (which for my purposes means faster shipping). Class doesn't start for another couple of weeks so I didn't really need the books that quickly but it's nice to have anyway.

So, we started Dante's Paradiso last week.

I effing LOVE it.  It is beautiful and serene and challenging and I love it.  It is definitely the most interesting text we've had so far--infinitely more interesting than Aquinas's Summa Theologica, or even Sylvestri's Cosmographia.  Once we got into the Aristotelian era, we moved away from dialectic (which I can appreciate but it's not exactly riveting unless you're watching it as performance art) and into contemplation of Aristotle's vision of the universe--which meant that there were a lot more cosmologies being written and maps being drawn.  And the Commedia is like this times ten.  Just listen to this:

Lift up then, Reader, to the lofty wheels
   With me thy vision straight unto that part
   Where the one motion on the other strikes,

And there begin to contemplate with joy
   That Master's art, who in himself so loves it
   That never doth his eye depart therefrom.

Behold how from that point goes branching off
   The oblique circle, which conveys the planets,
   To satisfy the world that calls upon them;

And if their pathway were not thus inflected,
   Much virtue in the heavens would be in vain,
   And almost every power below here dead.

If from the straight line distant more or less
   Were the departure, much would wanting be
   Above and underneath of mundane order.

This took me a LONG time to figure out.  First of all, Dante-the-character is writing this from a pre-Copernican point of view--he still subscribes to the worldview that the universe revolves around the earth.  Then, he's telling you, the Reader, to imagine something--you can't see it, it's a path (two paths) that you have to plot.  What he's asking you to imagine is where the celestial equator and the ecliptic meet.  They are difficult to explain, and I'm not sure I grasp the whole thing anyway, but basically they are two imaginary paths tracing the journey of the sun across the year, as measured against the constellations (specifically the zodiac--the two paths "strike" against each other because the earth is tilted and this is what gives us our seasons.  Paradiso takes place around the spring equinox of 1300, the equinoxes are the two times when these paths meet.)  To blow your mind even further, Dante-the-character isn't even ON the earth when he's saying this--at this point in the narrative, he's still in the sphere of Mars.  So he's far above the earth, asking you to look up from earth and imagine the plots of two paths that the sun makes over the course of the year--but the sun doesn't make it, WE make it because the earth revolves around the sun!  MIND.  BLOWN.

And for all this messing around of perspective and putting yourself in another's position--he's right.  Imagine if there were no tilt?  No seasons? No autumn, no spring?  And almost every power below here dead. Kind of makes you think of...The spring, the summer, childing autumn, angry winter/and the mazed world by their increase now knows not which is which...The universe in all its glory--"no atoms casually together hurled/could e'er produce so beautiful a world."  I cannot imagine how an astronomer could ever be an atheist--to contemplate the perfect wholeness and order of the universe is to see God.