între trei imagini ce-ți pătrund inima, aștept
să citesc în flăcări de brichetă și în mucuri de țigară
în note deja scoase din violoncelul spart (te miri cum mai se aude ceva)
vreau să simt boala din sufletul revoluționarului

de când protestați în piață, cei de la curățenie au mai mult de lucru
își strâng visele cu mai multă fericire-
clădirile sunt înconjurate de caracatițe albastre
peștii plutesc zi de zi pe străzile capitalei
în subteran șerpi construiesc metrouri din ziduri de cărămidă
pescari așteaptă la malul lacului cișmigiu, dar e iarnă și trebuie să spargă gheața
(sau asfaltul)
corturile de pe malurile mării au putrezit
au putrezit și îndrăgostiții din sacii de dormit
au mucegăit tot așteptând răsăritul de soare
s-au înecat trași de monoxidul de carbon scos de plante și nisip

plecați, din țarcul nostru plecați
aici ne-am semănat somnul așteptăm să răsară clădiri și semne
ridică-te, femeie, ridică-te, copile
smulgeți-vă carnea, rupeți-vă musculatura, nu mai aveți ce face cu ea
protestați cu scheletul ce v-a mai rămas
florile culese de ieri mi-au rămas în vaza de pe masă
ridică-te femeie, ridică-te, copile
astăzi ne ridicăm și umblăm pe jos.
gata, gata, somn ușor, bună dimineața.

(Revista Steaua, nr.9/2011)

În urma ieșirilor în stradă tot mai violente a cetățenilor, o firească întrebare începe să măgulească mințile tinerilor socialiști, ce încă îl citesc cu entuziasm pe Karl Marx și (de multe ori) poartă tricouri cu revoluționarul Che Guevara: capitalismul cade după criza începută în 2008? Asistăm la ”un sfârșit al istoriei” în sensul în care Fukuyama încearcă să definească evoluția societății de astăzi? Sau mai degrabă trebuie să căutăm o explicație în teoria ”ciocnirilor civilizațiilor”, anunțată de Samuel Huntington?
Într-o primă fază, trebuie să înțelegem cum democrația occidentală nu este tocmai vârful anunțat de Fukuyama. De asemenea, trebuie să trecem în revistă teoria lui Huntington referitoare la faliile civilizațiilor, pentru a înțelege cum mentalitatea schimbă terenul (sau cum, harta precedă teritoriul, în termenii lui Baudrillard). În final, trebuie să analizăm cum principiul democrației este deseori abuzat și impune chiar o deformare a realității.
1.Democrație, dulce nebunie
Un lucru este cert: punctul de pornire al marxiștilor este eternul concept de luptă de clasă. Revoltații sunt masele, populațiile nemulțumite de pe mapamond, indiferent că vorbim de pakistanezul ce vinde mâncare în Bronx, că e vorba de vreun locuitor din banlieurile franțuzești sau un student din Grecia. Dacă încercăm să dăm de capăt în această ecuație , să scoatem termenul necunoscut numit burghezia decadentă și să găsim astăzi echivalentul, ne va fi destul de greu. Chiar dacă suntem tentați să spunem și să arătăm cu degetul înspre lideri, înspre organizații conspiraționiste, înspre sisteme economice sau înspre guvern, în funcție de nivelul de înțelegere a situației globale.
Cu siguranță putem spune că marii looseri sunt cei care au prins mandate prezidențiale în timpul crizei. Mulți dintre cei care candidau prin 2007-2008 la postul de președinte promiteau o dezvoltare economică ce în termenii acelor timpuri nu părea deloc fantastică. Nicolas Sarkozy a mizat pe acest lucru și a câștigat, Merkel de asemenea. Este destul de dificil să integrăm cazul lui Traian Băsescu în această categorie deoarece dacă bine ne amintim, alegerile au avut un miros putred. Și totuși, that’s not the point. Important este de văzut cum încrederea populației a scăzut, cum prestigiul lor a scăzut în sondaje, iar atunci când populația nervoasă ieșea pe stradă, numele lor erau scandate primele. Asistăm la o fetișizare a numelor oficiale. Pancardele sunt îndreptate spre acel „rău exterior”, deoarece, după cum bine putem observa, populația în sine nu este de vină pentru ce se întâmplă. Băsescu, Sarkozy, Bush sunt de vină. Cu tot „protestul pașnic” la activ, nu am văzut nicio pancardă în care să scrie un mesaj de tipul ”FMI ne-a furat” zilele acestea la știri.
Francis Fukuyama insista asupra faptului că democrația este forma ultimă de civilizație, printr-o abordare oarecum hegeliană. În alte cuvinte, democrația liberală capitalistă este cea mai înaintată posibilitate de organizare a statului și astfel asistăm la un ”sfârșit al istoriei”. Dacă stăm să privim problema puțin dintr-un alt unghi, putem vedea cum acest sistem este departe de a fi perfect. Într-un sistem care presupune reprezentativitatea și accesul în teorie a oricui la putere și la sistemul decizional, care este rolul partidelor politice? Dincolo de clișeica definiție conform căreia un partid ar reuni oameni cu aceleași opinii, în realitate, un partid nu poate să creeze decât o hegemonie, un sistem elitist. Oricare partid, indiferent de doctrina lui, are un lider. De multe ori, sistemul decizional este filtrat prin „doctrina de partid”, prin anumite țeluri, iar cetățeanul nu participă practic cu nimic. Nu spune nimic. Istoria ne-a învățat cum de pildă, sistemul sovietic ce anunța egalitate s-a transformat într-un sinistru organ de măcel, cum după măreața Revoluție din 1789, toți monarhiștii au fost uciși de către revoluționari, deși deviza sfântă ”Libertate, Egalitate,Fraternitate” presupune și libera opinie, cum astăzi Parlamentul European este doar o logoree, o beție dulce de cuvinte...
Astfel, putem fi destul de reticenți atunci când vorbim despre democrația liberală ca formă supremă de guvernământ, extazul și orgasmul civilizației vestice actuale. Putem însă să ne întrebăm dacă nu ar exista alt sistem politic pertinent care să rezolve problemele economice, sociale și politice actuale. Băieții marxiști ar ridica degetele rapid din banca în care toți s-au așezat, ușor vizibili după tricourile lor roșii cu Che Guevara și ar spune-o cu satisfacție: Da, marxismul, Lenin și lupta de clasă. Totuși, trebuie să avem în vedere faptul că în societatea de astăzi, majoritatea celor care luptă și strigă în numele stângii, o fac din snobism. Cazul Franței este celebru, cu cunoscuta-i elită de „comuniști de caviar și saloane”. În cazul în care nu este la putere, discursul populist al membrilor de stânga dorește să devină un catalizator și să spună răspicat ”Proletari din toate țările, uniți-vă!”. De multe ori însă, omul telespectator sau implicat în procesul media, este mult prea bulversat de ceea ce se întâmplă și poate să cadă foarte ușor în capcana principiului ”uite ce lucruri bune zice ăsta”.
2.Regionalism, falii tectonice, tensiuni.
Ajungem la întrebarea firească și justificată: ce este democrația? Ca să evităm un răspuns frumos, în care ne plimbăm prin istoria Greciei Antice și analizăm conceptul de demos alăturat de kratos,kratein, trebuie să extragem această definiție dintr-o perspectivă geopolitică separată. Cu alte cuvinte, ideea de democrație nu este la fel în SUA ca și în România sau Arabia Saudită. Decât pe foaia și în cursurile de filosofie sau de științe politice. În altă ordine de idei, voi face apel la Samuel Huntington, care propune o teorie care este destul de interesantă. El face o paralelă între faliile seismice ale globului și ”faliile civilizațiilor” care se ciocnesc între ele, se macină între ele, exercitând presiune una asupra celorlalte.
Samuel Huntington, în lucrarea "Ciocnirea civilizaţiilor" distinge opt mari entităţi, care se află mai presus decât popoarele şi care asemenea faliilor tectonice, exercită o presiune uluitoare una asupra celeilalte.Acestea sunt: cea sinică, în zona Chinei, cea japoneză, hindusă, islamică, ortodoxă, occidentală, latino-americană şi africană. Fiecare are anumite trăsături, raportări şi viziuni asupra întregii lumi. Faliile sunt împărţite în funcţie de apartenenţa la religie, care de mult a fost un factor superior celui naţional, etnic sau politic.Aceste plăci civilizaţionale au evoluat pe baza a unor reminiscenţe, se modifică, se ciocnesc, se împart sau se unesc. Spre exemplu, privind lucrurile din punct de vedere istoric, scindarea Orient(lumea bizantină)-Occident(în speţă Roma) s-a realizat în 395, când Imperiul se împarte în două părţi, pentru a se evita pe termen scurt un război civil. Problema principală se iveşte atunci când civilizaţia occidentală, care îşi atribuie universalitatea în mod greşit, intră într-un conflict ideologic, politic sau social cu celelalte.
Concret, asistăm la o confruntare directă Islam-Occident, ce are loc în orice domeniu. Renaşterea valorilor islamice au loc în paralel cu decadenţa lumii occidentale, depărtarea tot mai mult de sfera religiosului a omului modern. Asistăm la un "baby-boom" al Islamului, o populaţie care o dată ajunsă la maturitate va schimba cursul istoriei, la fel cum explozia demografică de după cel de-al Doilea Război Mondial din America şi Europa a generat multe probleme. Raţionamentul pare destul de simplu: în perioadă de criză acută, lumea occidentală asistă la o sfidare prin clădirea celei mai înalte clădiri, nu în deja obişnuitul Manhattan, ci în Emiratele Arabe Unite, în mijlocul deşertului. Desigur, este un alt mod de a spune "Suntem moderni, dar putem mai bine fără voi". Afirmarea musulmană este de fapt, apogeul lor demografic. În Africa asistăm la o islamizare forţată, prin aportul de servicii "din leagăn în mormânt". Individul este ajutat de către instituţii nonguvernamentale care în acest tărâm al nimănui iau locul statului.Nu este de mirare faptul că majoritatea fundamentaliştilor provin din Africa.

3.Killing in the name of.
În ce măsură explică această ciocnire a faliilor protestele de astăzi? Într-o anumită măsură, această falie poate fi foarte ușor observabilă în cadrul protestelor din 2011, când doctrina americană a democrației a ajuns în țări cu o altă mentalitate decât cea occidentală. Oamenii s-au revoltat, liderii au căzut, totul a fost bine, Vestul a aplaudat frenetic. Ce a rămas după? După un an de la schimbarea puterii, în Tunisia nu se întâmplă mare lucru. Au loc zâzanii între partidele politice, ura față de occidentalismul american crește și mai mult, în sondaje câștigă partidele extremiste islamice. America a pierdut un pariu în această zonă, o greșeală ce pe viitor poate să coste destul de scump. În primul rând, pentru cetățeanul din Lumea a Doua, (cu nuanță spre Lumea a Treia), criza a fost cauzată de liderii politici naționali (precum Mubarak, Khadaffi, etc.). Așa că s-au revoltat, au răsturnat puteri, au impus democrația.Au avut loc și intervenții militare, vezi cazul lui Khadaffi. Dar criza nu a trecut. Astfel, trebuie căutat un nou vinovat pentru problemele financiare ale fiecărui cetățean în parte. La fel cum după cel De-al Doilea Război Mondial, statutul de Absolut negativ a fost câștigat de către Hitler și actul său de holocaust, în cazul discursurilor fundamentaliste islamice, la loc de frunte este capitalismul american. Dacă vorbim în termeni vagi psihanalitici, vom putea constata că această formă de manifestare este de fapt o temere de lumea inconștientului, de teama inconștientului.
Slavoj Zizek, în ”Welcome to the Desert of the Real” dorește să spună că de fapt trăim într-o virtualitate impusă de sistem. Printr-un paralelism, el spune că astăzi, omul este definit de acțiunea sa în virtualitate la fel ca și în filmul Matrix, unde fiecare om este conectat la marele aparat. Exemplele pot fi enumerate la nesfârșit: facebook, ”1984” al lui Owell, sistemul totalitar, Big Brother, în fapt, teme cu care se joacă Slavoj Zizek în acel volum, încercând să dovedească faptul că realitatea este un deșert. La fel ca și democrația. Trebuie să fim onești și să-i recunoaștem limitele. Să ridicăm măcar din sprânceană atunci când un George W.Bush ne spune că intervenția în Irak sau Afganistan este ”în numele democrației”.

In order to understand what is happening with Billy Budd in Herman Melville’s novel, we have to take into consideration that the main character is caught in an unusual situation which requires unusual solutions. We can name that his life is caught in a scheme of duty for the state and for the well-functioning of the culture. The problem of morality, law and love is stated very interestingly in this novel. For Herman Melville, the notion of law is similar with that of war. The suitable definition of law in this case must be understood as, is “ a system of rules that a society or government develops in order to deal with crime, business agreements and social relationships”according to Collins Advanced Dictionary. This is a suitable and comfortable vision in order to approach to this text. Still, we can apply the pattern of law as “a natural process in which a particular event or thing which always leads to a particular result”. Or, in other words, “the particular result” could be, like in physics, the death of Billy Budd. Still, we have to define the concept of “love” and how this is seen in this text. Do we have a Platonic love, a Christian love or a odd, homosexual relationship? A first striking aspect is that, as being a story about sailors, we do not have any women characters. The generic term for love is not suitable in this situation. Instead, a proper definition would be “a strong liking for something or someone, or a belief that it is important”. In other words, it is dilemmatic the relationship between Billy Budd and Captain Vere from this point of view.

Throughout the text, we can observe that we have a strong sense of duty from Captain Vere and from Billy Budd. Still, whereas Billy fails to do his duty properly, Vere manages to do his duty and to respect the law. To what extent the war manages to suppress any other natural feelings, like love and ultimately, life itself?

In order to understand the mixture between love and war, first of all we have to focus on the symbiosis relationship between love and war, then to see the different points of these two themes and finally, to explore the possibilities of the process.

Love with war.
For a first approach, we must understand that Herman Melville confuses the reader from the beginning and especially in the final part. We must observe that society is seen, as in George Orwell’s “1984” as a strong entity which drags at the end every individual. The action is happening after the “regicidal French Directory” and always exists a possible menace for the order of the state. Everything functions within the state and inside this great society: the King has all powers: “there are Englishmen forced to fight for the King against their will”. In other words, everything is supported inside the state unless it menaces the existence of the state itself. This can be understood very well in this fragment, especially in the tensioned chapter 21, when Billy Budd holds his speech and preaches this idea. The narrator of Billy Budd is not the typical omniscient narrator for the 19th century story. He often gives us clues that this situation is beyond any level of understanding, for example when he refuses to explain the reason why Billy Budd is so hated by John Claggart. Some critics suggest that Melville in this novel wants to suggest that “society elaborates social forms and conventions to render the individual subordinate to social norms” . In other words, love is a social convention in order that state to be functional.

This opinion can be found throughout the text in several places. In the first chapter, the figure of the “Handsome Sailor” can be explained by following the statement just mentioned. The adjective “handsome” can refer to a particular physical quality of the sailor, but also can suggest the relativity of virtue. In the absence of a strong, stable presence of virtue, culture must be induced in order to have the possibility to rule. In this case, the sense of love must be induced in order to impose the society, as Melville seems to state in Billy Budd, Sailor. The love present as a form of social manifestation is mentioned from the first chapter by Herman Melville, by using explicit words, like: “the Red Whiskers now really loves Billy-loves him”, “but they all love him” . In the first example, the repetition of the verb “to love” in a simple form gives to this affirmation a value of universal law, which existed for ever.

Billy Budd is not accustomed with the phenomenon of “usage” present at the board of Bellipotent. In other words, the men is reduced to the point when it can be controlled by the state. For instance, the actions of Vere are done after the same pattern: he judges the case not according to his mind and the expectances of the society and not according to his own believes and vision. For instance, the principle of usage is central in chapters XXIII and XXVII: “Now each proceeding that follows a mortal sentence pronounced at sea by a drumhead court is characterized by promptitude not perceptibly merging into hurry, though bordering that”. Everything is done according to a strict cannon. The love functions as a form of punishment too. The image of the reading of the sentence is similar for John Rathbun with a Calvinist church. The role of civilization is to impose the culture, the institutions and the formal establishment. According to this novel, the stability in the novel is maintained also by war: At any rate, for notable instances, since these have no vulgar alloy of the brute in them, but invariably are dominated by intellectuality, one must go elsewhere”.



2.Love against the experience of war.
From the beginning, we can observe very easily how the image of Billy Budd is based on the Christ’s image. The love pattern functions in this case as a pattern of refusing the establishment of the society. If we analyze the Biblical source, we can observe how Christ often acted against the Jewish establishment, for example during the Temple incident. The type of love that can be found in this novel, in the relationship between Billy Budd and the crew is caritas love, if we credit Denis de Rougemont’s work about love in the Western civilization. In order to have a more exact approach about this vast term called “love”, we will use the distinction made by Denis de Rougemont in “L’Amour en Occident” , where distinguishes between philia (maternal love), eros (passionate love), agape (pure love) and caritas (the love of the church, or in this case, the community). It is important to make this distinction because the term love is very large and deals, as we can see, with a large category of relations. A possible approach may be to see the law system as a part of caritas category.

Of course, beside this interpretation we can argue that the relationship between Billy Budd and Captain Vere is a homosexual one. Herman Melville gives throughout the text some key phrases and situations. First of all, it is a story about sailors and we can suppose that this is a womanless life. However, the image of Billy Budd is constructed following the emergence of an elusive and ambiguous bound between the purity of Eros and greed of Ares. His figure, from this point of view, is inspired from the image of the ancient Greek god Dyonisos. The “diversion” which Herman Melville makes at the beginning of the chapter, in the second paragraph of the 1st chapter wants to emphasize the dual character of the character that later will appear in this story: “I saw (…) a common sailor so intensely black (…). The two ends of a gay silk handkerchief thrown loose about the neck danced upon the displayed ebony of his chest, in his ears were big hoops of gold, and a Highland bonnet with a tartan band set off his shapely head.” This is an unusual image for a sailor and trying to evoke desire for the reader. The image can be a replica of an ancient Greek statue, with all the corporal harmony.

We also can speculate on the meaning of the ship Bellipotent and the authority of it that has to be guided by captain Vere. Another spelling for the ship could be “Billy-potent”, with clear sexual connotations effects. Also, Billy repeatedly is called by Captain Vere as Billy as an angel: “Struck dead by an angel of God! Yet the angel must hang!” (p.352). Billy is considered to be the “jewel” of the sailors. Another aspect which reminds us about Christ is that he managed to make peace in a turbulent crew.

3.The trial that passes understanding
We can observe that the climax of the whole story is when Billy Bill kills Claggart and assumes his act. We can observe that he is not determined by a specific fact. He is affected by the incapacity of telling a word or a sentence. The 20th and 21st chapters are determined by an unusual avoid of words. First of all, Billy Budd has forgotten his ability to speak and to defend himself and reacts very fast and on the other hand, the whole process happens in the cabin, with doors closed (huis clos). Being the only witness, Vere relates the events that happened before with all the explanations: the fact that Billy Budd was accused by Claggart and how Billy responded to it. In this situation, Billy Budd reacts and explains what happened with exact details. The question about a potential conspiracy is revealing in order to understand the hierarchical system. The court is afraid of a conspiracy first of all rather than on the effect of the process. The order must be maintained on Bellipotent at all costs.
The roles changed betweem Claggart and Billy Budd were changed: ”innocence and guilt personified in Claggart and Budd in effect changed places”. According to the law imposed by the system, Billy Budd is the one that has made mistakes and has to be punished. In the next chapters, his story has a more specific religious echo. On the other hand, Melville gives here another clear biblical reference or textual allusion. The myth of Abraham gives an alternative explanation about the present situation: the God’s degree is above the individual conscience and for Vere the martial law is above the sense of duty towards Billy. In other words, love within the war wins. Melville seems to say that the system has to be preserved, as well as the social order. The main religious reference in the part of the execution is the striking similarity between Billy and the image of Christ, as a image of forgiveness and mercy. Religion is in this case a form to impose the culture, in tension with nature: religion imposes “the discipline and purposes of war”.
Another possible interpretation is the Kantian imperative, regarding morality. Billy Budd seems to follow the principle enounced by Kant: “two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me”. The discourse held before his execution seems to follow this topic and to urge his death: “private conscience should not yield to that imperial one formulated in the code under which alone we officially proceed?”. We can observe that Billy Budd’s life follows the pattern of fatum, the life that has already been written and can not be changed at all.

To conclude, we must understand that the novella manages to sum up interesting ideas from different cultural backgrounds. I consider that Herman Melville insists very much on the phenomenon of ‘usage’, how the system manages to exploit the people and how only by return to the natural state you can fight the social order. At the end, we can observe that love inside the war wins, the love imposed by the order of the system. We can observe how Eros is not only defeated by Ares, but also works in order to establish the order of war.


References:
Literature:
1. Melville, Herman Billy Budd, Sailor and Other Stories, with an Introduction by Frederick Busch, Penguin Books, London.
Critical works:
1. De Rougemont, Denis, Love in the Western world, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983.
2. Rathbun, John Billy Budd and the Limits of Perception, Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol.20, No.1 (Jun.1965).
javascript:void(0)

A possible interpretation of love, following Denis de Rougemont’s patterns
In order to understand Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Scarlett Letter”, we must realize that it was written in a different age, with different conceptions and expectations. Hans Robert Jauss, a critic who built his literary theory on the reader’s expectation in a written text, considered that a discourse reflects the mentality of its own time. In other words, we can consider that this novel reflects the opinion of 1850s about the Puritan communities and about the religious phenomenon. If we want to observe the whole mechanism on which the text functions and to deconstruct it, we must at a first reading to make an intellectual empathy with the author and his times (this would be a first step taken into consideration by Hans Robert Jauss ). In other words, Hawthorne was not very keen on the fundamentalism of Quakers or Puritans. In other works too, he emphasized their illogical view of life . Widely, this author offers a personal interpretation of life in 17th century.

We can observe that the theme of love functions in different patterns in this novel. I consider that the theme of love introduces the principle of the juridical act. In order to have a more exact approach about this vast term called “love”, we will use the distinction made by Denis de Rougemont in “L’Amour en Occident” , where distinguishes between philia (maternal love), eros (passionate love), agape (pure love) and caritas (the love of the church). It is important to make this distinction because the term love is very large and deals, as we can see, with a large category of relations. A possible approach may be to see the law system as a part of caritas category. The action of the novel is determined by the law of the Puritan society. In other words, it is determined by the love of the church for each of his members. According to Oxford Dictionary, a suitable definition for law is: ”the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties”. To our distinction, the law would define a part of the last category.

In “Scarlett Letter” it is clearly expressed the moral faith of liberty and it is accused the fundamentalism of the Puritans. Still, we must ask ourselves to what extent the law is justified by the religious faith? To what extend can we read in the novel the law principles applied from a Christian (a religion of love ultimately) view?
First of all, I will analyze the way in which the three first types of love (philia,eros and agape) appear in the novel and who are the principal actors. Then I will focus on dichotomy between punishment and forgiveness, a ambiguous theme that deals both with the sense of law and love in the text. In my last part I try to answer to the question of sin in the ”Scarlet Letter” and to show that the Puritans wanted to control the nature and every person in the community.

In “The Scarlett Letter”, the most visible type of philia love is the relationship between Pearl and the main character. Nathaniel Hawthorne builds Pearl as a complex character, identified both as the symbol of the scarlet letter, and as a living symbol of the sin. The Puritans see her existence as a product of Satan’s rather than a child of God. For Hester, Pearl is the only reason for living: “Hester has fought against her sorrows before Pearl’s birth”. Because she suffers from ostracism as her mother, she searches in the natural world for companionship. In the traditional tension between nature and culture, the place for this character is in the first category, without doubt.
The passionate love or according to Rougemont, eros, is not present directly in the action of the novel. The licentious act between Dimmesdale and Hester is not presented in the novel, but instead, we have constant references to it. Dimmesdale considers himself as “the worst of sinners” and “altogether vile” and even tells this to his whole congregation, but nobody takes into consideration the real meaning of the words. The meeting in the forest makes a shift in his thinking. After that he takes into consideration the possibility of the escape from that community. We can consider that after this moment, because Dimmesdale is protecting Hester and her child, their relationship is a pure one, or agape, according to Denis de Rougemont. Letter A appears in this situation too, Hawthorne uses this symbol to show the secret of the preacher (the letter A that appears on his chest).
The relationship with the community can also be considered as a form of love, especially at the end of the novel. According to the Puritan rigid dogmas, the reason for the ostracism is the love for her and the need for correction. For a historical interpretation, we would have to take into consideration that during Hawthorne’s day, a women would be expected to be first of all a mother. A rejected woman was that who could not raise her child. A tensioned situation is present when the community does not believe that she is suitable enough to raise her child (the episode when Reverend Wilson, Reverend Dimmesdale and the Governor discus about this issue). The antithetic feeling, the hate of the reverends is marked in the 17th chapter, with the divine invocation of the priest: ”The judgment of God is on me, answered the conscience-stricken priest.”.


Let us consider that the text is built on the dichotomy of the punishment and forgiveness. What is the purpose of the punishment, according to the Puritan community? If we analyze the Biblical source and their way of thought throughout the history, we find that the main determination for punishment is the love for the others. We must understand that in that period, the church and the state are the same entity, especially in a Puritan community. In the first chapter appears the tension between the individual and the state with the example of the need of building a prison in every recognized settlement. The social order and obedience are the main focus on this chapter. Those who are not belonging to majority (like Hester), will face ostracism and hate. She is seen ”as intricate and shadowy as untamed forest, amid the gloom of which they were now holding a colloquy that was to decide their fate”. This quote defines the first appearance of Hester in the eyes of Salem community.
How functions the ostracism in this novel? Clearly, the most striking element of judgment is the symbol of the ‘letter A’. In this novel, the punished is obliged to wear it, but at the same time chooses to wear this mark. We can observe from the chapter “The Market” that Hester has an ambivalent relationship with this sign. First of all, is a sign of rejection, but at the same time, it is a sign of beauty: “On the breast of her gown, in fine red cloth surrounded with an elaborate embroidery and fantastic flourishes of gold thread, appeared the letter “A”. It was so artistically done, and with so much fertility and gorgeous luxuriance of fancy, that it had all the effect of a last and fitting decoration to the apparel which she wore” . We can observe the specific terminology that Hawthorne uses in order to explore and suggest the richness of this embroidery (“fine”, “elaborate”, “fantastic”, “gold”, “artistically”, “fertility”, “gorgeous”, ”luxuriance”, ”fancy”). A hypothesis for the use of these adjectives is for ambiguity and also to suggest the forgiveness of Hester.
We must consider that the principle of forgiveness functions in the text as a sum of the punishment with the love of Hester for the community. This can be seen in the final part, when the passed letter is seen as a stigma: ”the stigma gone, Hester heaved a long, deep sigh, in which the burden of shame and anguish departed from her spirit.”. The following exclamation, ”O! exquisite relief” announces both the feeling of freedom (characteristic to law) and the possibility to be loved by the community and to be integrated into it. The relationship between Arthur Dimmesdale and Hester throughout the novel is a clear example of how this tension is resolved at the end. Arthur Dimmesdale’s image is dependent of his congregation, he avoids to be seen close to Pearl or Hester at any moment. Still, he protects them secretly and he punishes himself because he is incapable of confessing his sin publicly. The meeting in the forest in chapter XVII produces a shift in his thinking. The symbol of the mirror plays a crucial part in this chapter, with the resuming phrase: “The soul beheld its features in the mirror of the passing moment.” This is the moment of truth and forgiveness between these two characters. On the other hand, Hester’s relationship with Chillingworth is characterized by its inability to forgive, under the influence of his anger.

Throughout the whole novel, Hester is questioning herself “What is the sin?”. We can consider that this is also a voice of the narrator who builds the whole action based on this problematic question of theology and philosophy. According to the Puritan law, present in this novel, the sin implies an earthly punishment by a judge. How functions the juridical aspect in the text?

We must come again to “The Market Place”, a scene where the figure of the judges is presented in great detail. A striking aspect is presented at first, when we have the image of the magistrates as a ambiguous tension: “The magistrates are God-fearing gentlemen, but merciful overmuch-that is a truth,’ added a third autumnal matron.” . It appears that for a traditional Puritan community, the faith is put against mercy: “merciful”. We can observe this also by the use of the conjunction “but”, which usually introduces an alternative meaning or solution for the first part of the phrase. This moral is clearly not a Christian one; instead, we have the Old Testament principle of “eye for an eye” applied here. The God they fear is not the Christian one, but is Yahweh, the Jewish unique divinity. According to the historical interpretation by Jauss, we have a 19th century vision about the harsh, Puritan law. They had come to New England in order to establish some communities that “would exemplify the religious and moral rigor that they deemed necessary for salvation” . The Puritan consider themselves as the Jewish people: elected by God, the chosen ones.
Another striking aspect of the severity of the Puritan law code is the moral that they try to impose by force. For them, the ideal is the ”natural dignity” and ”force of character” and they fight against the free will. We must consider that for Puritans, the main purpose was to control the nature, by this achieving the Adam’s status before the fall. Nature must be brought under the control of the pilgrim, to be ordered and cultivated. They want to do the same thing with Hester, to control any odd and to level the society by destroying any possible differences. Hester is seen as the Other, the odd which has and at the end, will be leveled. Hawthorne manages to show this opposition between nature and culture with the image of the house where Hester lives, situated in a distant and safe place from the main community.
In chapter 17, we find an aspect which strikes the reader; the narrative voice seems to empower the Puritan way of life and vision: “the whole seven years of outlaw and ignominy had been little other than a preparation for this very hour” . Her stage of purification of seven years has been passed and now she can return to the community center. Her rite of passage is considered as a period of “ignominy” and she became an “outlaw”, a characteristic which is by excellence attributed to men. We have few cases of women who are told that are “outlaw”. She manages to exit this previous stage and to be accepted in the society which at first hated her. Dimmestdale’s forgiveness in this chapter, but only after hearing her speech. I consider that when he announces this forgiveness, he is talking in the name of himself, the community and the divinity itself: “I freely forgive you now. May God forgive us both!”. The use of the adverb “freely” is very problematic because we have a derived part of speech from the adjective “free”. We must observe that the use in this context gives ambiguity and proposes two ways of interpretation. The first hypothesis is that Dimmesdale considers him action relieved from any social tension. Another possible interpretation is that the act of forgiveness itself is determined by freedom.

To sum up, we must observe that “Scarlet Letter” by Nathaniel Hawthorne is a novel which manages to emphasize the mingling of the religious aspect with the juridical code. Ultimately, we must take into consideration that a contextual view explains many aspects from this novel, but does not manage to explain Hawthorne’s vision about the Puritans. At a first reading we would tend to say that Hawthorne is against this rigid mentality, but as I tried to argue, the end is very ambiguous and proposes a “doctrine of forgiveness” and an excellent example of what Denis de Rougemont calls philia.

References:
Literature:
1. Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, Penguin Books, London, 1994.

Critical works:
1. De Rougemont, Denis, Love in the Western world, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983.
2. Jauss, Hans Robert, Pour une esthetique de la reception, Gallimard, 1978.
3. Reynolds, Larry J. (ed.), A Historical Guide to Nathaniel Hawthorne, Oxford University Press, 2001.
4. McFarland Pennell, Melissa Student Companion to Nathaniel Hawthorne, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1999.

According to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary , a suitable definition for image is “a copy of the shape of a person or thing, especially made in stone or wood”. In the artistic field, this word has the significance of a mental picture or idea. Of course, if we try to discuss about image, considering the modernist current, we would find ourselves in a great difficulty because for the first time in European tradition, the focus of art is not reality. Ezra Pound, in Gaudier-Brezeska, wrote that ”the image is not an idea”, emphasizing on the possibility that the image is more a sum of ideas. He uses the metaphor of ”vortex”, insisting that every image uses or is used to form a system, “a radiant node or cluster”. We must observe that Pound wants to sustain that an image proposes a new universal order: this is a clear modernist opinion. We can understand ambiguous word “vortex” in two ways: first of all, as an image that announces ambiguity in the text and secondly as a point in the history of ideas of a visual image.
Peter Childs in 'Birth, and Copulation, and Death' considers that for Eliot, modernism "is a literature [of what Eliot calls the] UNREAL CITY:a composite picture of urban life". In other words, we can consider that for Yeats the image is a figure which has another mechanism to function, a vortex where “ideas are constantly rushing”.The means of expression are different, as well as the ideas behind the text (of course, we are not talking about universal themes, like love, faith or patriotism). An explanation could be the different literary roots of the two poets: Yeats is more close to the 19th century tradition than Eliot. The definition of the image as representation of reality could be applied more in order to define Yeats's poetry. In his essay The Celtic Twilight, Yeats considers that he wanted to "create a little world out of the beautiful, pleasant and significant things of this marred and clumsy world". I consider that this quote is ambivalent and reveals what Ezra Pound calls "the vortex from which and through which, and into which, ideas are constantly rushing": the poetic richness which is present for both Yeats and Eliot, even if it is expressed in different manner.
We must ask ourselves to what extent the images manage to maintain an illusion of reality? Do we have a same idea, written in a different manner for the two poets? Or rather their approach is far more individual and they share only a minimum poetic heritage? How functions the tension between reality and art, considering the modernist current which appears in various artistic fields at the time?
In order to try to answer to this problem, I will try to find common themes for the two poets and then to see how the images manage to be "a radiant node or cluster". First of all, I will focus on the tension between division and unity. I will try to analyze some examples of images that I consider that are relevant to it. Then, I will explore the relationship between reality and fantasy taking into consideration other forms of discourse. I will try to deal with other examples from the artistic field and to emphasize that Eliot proposes a new theme: the urban one, recuperated by the postmodernist literature. At the end, I will focus on the functionality of the rhythm.
Division vs. unity.
A first tension present in both Yeats's and Eliot's imagery is that between division and unity. For Yeats the disorder is present in The Second Coming with the image of the vortex that sums up everything: "turning and turning in the widening gyre". The idea of dissolution would come in mind to a first lecture, but we must consider that this concerns more an implosion of the universe, until the moment of saturation: "things fall apart; the centre cannot hold". The theory of the vortex functions in this situation in two ways: first as a visual image and secondly, because Yeats follows an European tradition from this perspective. The reality for Eliot too is seen as a "a heap of broken images, where the sun beats" (The Waste Land, line 22) . We may consider these two quotes as two starting points for the modality in which the poets manage to see the reality.
By analyzing these two "definitions", we may think that they are talking pretty much about the same idea; from a general perspective, this could be a very comfortable point and probably not a relevant one. Still, if we take into consideration the opinion of Peter Childs about the context of creation, we will face a dichotomy. On one hand, Yeats sees the art as a mimetic act, whereas Eliot considers himself as a composer of the reality, where the poet is impersonal , relieved from personal emotions and feelings. Yeats, with his Romantic-type euphoria, can be situated on the opposite. If we would join the two definitions mentioned above, we would have the next phrase, which gives an alternative understanding. For Yeats "the things fall apart" and T.S.Eliot is building his world from fragments, from "a heap of broken images".
If we would transpose this at metaphysical level, we will notice that in both cases there is a strong need for spirituality, especially after the First World War. The esoteric orientation of both poets is a large subject and that stirs even today controversy in the scholastic field. We must consider that a large part of the intellectuality considered that Europe of the time was somehow mistakenly driven towards rationalism and they asked a new spiritual revival (for instance, Rene Guenon). Some clear images emphasize the idea of the destruction of the universe. For instance, "The river's tent is broken", reflects TS Eliot’s opinion about his times; in the same way, in the poem "September 1913", Yeats insists on the end of the nationalism as being a religion, even before the Great Conflagration: “And the living nations wait/Each sequestered in its hate”. He uses the image of the past heroes, but not as we would expect from the already existing literary cannon, where the hero sacrifices himself. The key to interpreting their role lays in the second stanza of the poem “September 1913” (lines 9-10). The pronoun “they” manages to comprise all the personalities under one word and the main attribution of the heroes is that they “were different”. This can be an aspect of the nostalgia of a Golden Age. The evocative image of the “the names that stilled your childish play” could be seen as the influential memory of the four Irish partisans present in the poem.
Reality vs. Fantasy.
We would be tempted to think that for both poets, there is no real reference; in fact, Yeats is more determined to consider the other forms of art too. John Dixon Hunt, in "Broken images: T.S.Eliot and Modern Painting" considers that Eliot concentrates very much on the power of the meaning of the word and less on the matter of how the same idea could be reflected in other artistic discourses. He uses references borrowed from other forms of art only as a mean, not as a purpose. Instead, Yeats borrows many Ancient Greek myths in order to present them as they are (“Leda and the Swan”). In the second case, the myth is the purpose of the poem itself.
For Yeats, the euphoric feeling is given by the nationalistic feeling. For instance, in “September 1913”, the feeling of sadness and the incapacity in front of history reaches the climax in the third stanza, by summoning the old heroes. This is a recurrent theme for the Romantic period, when poets from all Europe use the names of those who fought for the liberation of the nations. The image of O’Leary is very important in this poem because gives a clear historical and biographical reference. This national hero belonged to Yeats’s romantic conception of Irish nationality. The spatial reference “in the grave” makes reference to the funeral of O’Leary, where the poet could not attend. His death in 1907 seemed to be the last link with the Romantic ideals of 1848.
Times Literary Supplement, in its original review of The Waste Land considered that this poem “brings us to the limits of verbal coherence” and somehow gains the same status as Duchamp’s Nude, which draws the viewer to the limits of the artistic expression. Instead, Yeats is rather with turned with his face towards the past; in his poems, his main focus is especially on the high-culture models: the Greek heritage, the tradition and the nationalism. TS. Eliot is more focused on urban images and on the possibility of the aesthetics of the city. This tradition will be recuperated by the postmodernist movement.
Exploring the structure of the language.
Both Yeats and Eliot explore the power of the rhythm in poetry. This gives a specific euphony for several passages. For instance, in the poem ”Crazy Jane on God”, the stanza is composed using an alternation of the number of words: ”That lover of a night/Came when he would,/Went in the dawning light/(…)/All things remain in God”. For a naïve loud reading, this would be similar to a childish game. This element can be found in ”The Waste Land” in various places: “Twit twit twit/ Jug jug jug jug jug jug/So rudely for’d/Tereu”. This ternary rhythm, repeated in the second verse of this quotation, makes reference to a more licentious action. Still, this is only an example of how the two poets explore the structure of the language in order to give or suggest an image.
Yeats uses the repetition not only for euphemistic purposes, but also to emphasize some words that work as concepts or have unique characteristics. For instance, we have a fine mechanism in the line “things thought too long can be no longer thought”. First of all, the assonance of the consonant “t” (“things thought too”) gives a ternary rhythm, suggesting a gravity of the discourse. In this stanza, the modal “can” is used having an epistemic value and acts like a ‘mirror’ in the sentence, splitting the same two words: long and thought. While in the first part, ‘thought’ acts like an adjective, in the second part takes an active part in the verbal structure.
From this point of view, even though it expresses something rather different, a similar technique is used in the last part, in line 427 of the poem “The Waste Land”: “London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down”. The repetition, somehow musical, reminds either of a jazzy rhythm (the modernism brings to light new musical forms), either of a descendent tone. For the second hypothesis, we can observe that other repetitions occur often in this part and sometimes seem to be a mantric invocation: “o swallow swallow”, “data.dayadhvam.damyata.”, “shantih shantih shantih”.
To conclude, we must observe that the “methods” used by Yeats and Eliot are not very different. However, I consider that the imagery that draws the reader into the vortex, if we take into account Ezra Pound’s affirmation, functions in both cases, but in a different way. I consider that Eliot proposes new themes for the future, whereas Yeats rather sums up all previous heritage. The last one uses a discourse rather comfortable for the reader, but Eliot manages to force the limits of the language with his poem “The Waste Land”.

References:
1. Cowie,AP(ed.), Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, , Oxford University Press,1989.
2. Childs, Peter The Twentieth Century in Poetry: A Critical Survey,London, Routledge,1999,
3. Moody, A.D.(ed.), The Waste Land in Different Voices, Edward Arnold Publishers, London, 1974.

cu o raceala ce presimt ca o sa se agraveze intr-o posibila pneumonie, cu nervii pusi aproape la pamant din diverse cauze, cu doua examene la care inca nu m-am pregatit, cam acestea sunt bagajele mele catre Franta. Merg cu microbusul. Experienta Erasmus, part 2. Astept ca de data aceasta Parisul sa fie mai darnic si sa-mi ofere o imagine mult mai placuta.
Alors, din Satmarul meu ciudat mult iubit.
***mi-e dor de camera din camin din anul 1, chit ca era exagerat de mica. prietenii imi erau in caminul vecin;lumea se invartea in jurul strazii piezise.***

***mi-e dor de oameni, nu de lume***
asa spunea si blaga-n "cantareti bolnavi":
Purtăm fără lacrimi
o boală în strune
şi mergem de-a pururi
spre soare-apune.

Ni-e sufletul spadă
de foc stinsă-n teacă.
Ah iarăşi şi iarăşi
cuvintele seacă.

Vânt veşnic răsună
prin ceţini de zadă.
Purces-am în lume
pe punţi de baladă.

Străbatem amurguri
cu crini albi în gură.
Închidem în noi un
sfârşit sub armură.

Purtăm fără lacrimi
o boală în strune
şi mergem de-a pururi
spre soare-apune.

Răni ducem - izvoare -
deschise subt haină.
Sporim nesfârşirea
c-un cântec, c-o taină.