Balanced on the sharp edge
I was recently asked to contemplate Federalist Paper # 41 and Aristotle Contemplates the Bust of Homer by Rembrandt van Rijn. No context was given other than that the two works represented different points of view in a discussion between two people I know fairly well. That seemed challenging enough for a winter morning, so I did as suggested. With a nod to the obvious beauty of both works, but looking for something more, I began with the painting.
Aristotle seems to have moved from 350 BCE to the early 17th century. He has a longish beard and long hair, not typical of Aristotle's time and not at all like the statuary of him. His clothes are typical of 17th century Europe. In the upper left of the painting is a stack of what looks suspiciously like bound books, somewhat unlikely since Aristotle lived some 1,800 years before the time of Gutenburg and and his printing press. What would be Rembrandt's purpose in placing a modernized Aristotle before a bust of Plato? Perhaps this marks the end of the geocentric and highly regular Aristotelian cosmos, in favor of the heliocentric design from Galileo? Is Aristotle, hand on the head of Plato, eyes fixed on something distant, thinking that, like Plato, his work has at last been superseded? Is it a statement that time moves on unfettered by what we think of it?
And what of Madison, a federalist in a time when people said the United States "are" instead of today's verb, "is". He is highly suspicious of vesting too much power in the central government, yet he understands that not everything can be done by independent and squabbling states. I would like to drop this paper on the desks of some of our current leaders, just to remind them that (I hope) there are limits to their power and we (I wish) are watching. As nice as it would be to live without the Defense Department, Madison makes the point that, as long as one country anywhere maintains a standing army, we would be foolish not do do so as well. Granting that power, and the concomitant funds to support it, does not, however, grant unlimited power to government. Freedom from government interference in our lives is inherently limited by the actions of others. In granting power to government to protect our freedoms, we must be vigilant that we do not sacrifice the very things we need government to protect.
Now for the hard part. How do these two images interact? What do Rembrandt's painting and Madison's Federalist Paper say to each other? I drew from this effort a sense that nothing is permanent. We can respect our predecessors, study how and what they thought, bring their views forward in time, and learn from them. We cannot, however, expect to find an ultimate, final, unchanging truth and must rely on the interpretation of principles from the past, informed by current events. We need not -- must not -- abandon first principles when we find them flawed in light of later discoveries or events. We must sift through history and the wisdom of great thinkers for the building blocks of new ideas, avoiding rash impulses to rush off in one direction or another without the contemplation evident in both of these works. Rembrandt's attention to light and shadow, to eyes and expression; Madison's attention to sentence structure, word choice, the placement or absence of a semicolon; these represent the level of care we need to apply to changes in the way our world is structured and restructured. Pay attention to the devil hiding in the details. Ferret it out before acting, but work quickly. We do not work alone in the world. Remember the adage: "Look before you leap if you like, but if you mean leaping, don't look long."
posted by AkLewy at 1:04 PM
3 Comments:
As one of the participants in the discussion, I can say that you've taken far more time to consider the relationship between the two and have found an interesting link that I don't think either of us in the discussion would have necessarily seen. This is very insightful and if is this is what I will have time to do in retirement, I want to retire soon.
I should point out that you focused on sections of Federalist Paper #41 other than that which was targeted in the discussion. Madison's discussion on the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution was more of the point. What power the government gains from the general welfare clause is hugely debated and for those that interpret it broadly, it's been the source of enormous (and, I would argue, far too excessive) social spending. What's interesting about FP41 is that Madison was responding to Patrick Henry's concerns that the clause as written was dangerous because of the opportunity for broad interpretation. Madison felt that it was clear that general welfare was limited to only those areas further described later in the Constitution, where the phrase is repeated several times.
The discussion itself remains incomplete, as the only response so far to questions such as, "What do you think about the discrepency between the views of Lyndon LaRouche and James Madison when it comes to the general welfare clause?" has been met with, "You should contemplate this painting." Clearly we are talking past each other, and although I know that, I'm not sure my discussion partner is aware or prepared to do anything about it.
Just to throw one more controversial hat in the ring, though, these kinds of disparate ideas brought out, examined, and discussed is what university and corporate policy-makers ought to mean when they talk about "encouraging diversity."
Who was Aristotle? What did this supposedly great thinker in European civilization represent, as contrasted with Plato and Socrates? Why is he dressed in the clothing and styles of the Venetian families rather than Greek robes? And, furthermore, why, when contemplating the seer Homer, does such a distant, deadpan expression exist upon his visage? Perhaps some similarities are being presented by Rembrandt for us to think about, and absorb, so as to further our understanding of all that is being represented, both in the painting and in the discussion involving this painting. That is what I would suggest. Let us reexamine this work of art, hopefully with an actual print before us, but if this is not possible, a nice sized photo (http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/rembran/ click on "misc. paintings") will do. Notice, if you will, the heavy globs of paint Rembrandt applied, to illustrate the excessive gold chains Aristotle wears, as the Venetians did. Notice also, if you will, the brow and gaze of the stone Homer. Why is it he, the non-living statue, almost appears more lively and animated than the living Aristotle? Almost to the point of laughing? Why is it Rembrandt chose a bust of Homer, a blind storyteller, rather than a more well known philosopher who might have lived at any period during the 19 centuries before Rembrandt's time, for Aristotle to contemplate? What might this suggest about the relationship between these two historical figures, and more importantly, between the painting and the observer?
These are the thoughts which I was hoping to stimulate within the minds of people with whom this discussion has affected. Perhaps I shall respond to Federalist #41 at another time, since that was not MY first choice for philosohpical discussion and hypothesizing.
Ian
Who was Aristotle? There is a good overview here.
What did he have to do with Plato and Socrates? He was a student of Plato, who extended Plato's ideas and work.
Why Homer? Homer's poetry describing Troy and early Greek civilization was carried through a dark age in the memory of Greek people. They apparently memorized some 25,000 lines of Homer's work, carrying Greek history into the flowering of Greece, which in turn led to the development of one of the cultures on which western civilization is based.
Why does Homer appear lively and alert while Aristotle seems somber? Homer is depicted as frozen in time from when he was at his peak, and in a commemorative bust. How else could he appear? Aristotle is a little harder, and much more speculative and, I assume, has much to do with the clothing.
Why Aristotle in the time of Rembrandt? This suggests to me that Rembrandt is trying to relate his own era to that of the Greek predecessor, as I said in my original post. I don't have much more to offer. Perhaps if I ponder a while, I'll come up with something. One thing I can think of that would help: is Aristotle dressed in the manner of the Dutch or of the Italians? Can his dress be more precisely dated?
I also think it would be useful to view Aristotle through the perspective of his own writings. The overview mentioned in my first paragraph offers enough of a basis to begin.
Post a Comment
<< Home