In this clash, if you approach more closely to the enemy, put your right hand forward, and hold the sickle against him with the right hand.  Indeed, you will apply the left hand to the left femur, then if you followed with the left foot, you will draw the sickle across the length of the foe’s head.  But if he, putting the right foot forward, wields the same against you, and you shall have held the sickle in your right hand against the foe, with the left hand applied to the left femur in the same way, you repel his strike at your right flank.  From there, however, you apply the sickle to this right arm and quickly pull in the direction of yourself.  Indeed if he tries to maintain the same tactic against you, you grab his right in your left hand, and if you remove the foe’s assault to your right side, immediately cut forth at the left side of his head, and from there retreat backward.  Indeed if the adversary should similarly retreat backward, then you drive sharply following the enemy in, and you cut the sickle forth at the foe’s right hand.

In mutual approach, if you prepare yourself athletically for competition, remember to hold your right foot forward, and hold the grain sickle against your foe, in your right hand.  Indeed, you establish the left under the right arm, from there you concede inward with the left foot, and from a lower position you attack by cutting to the right arm of the foe.  But if, however, you shall have placed the right foot against him in the same way, and you hold the sickle in your right hand in the habit of cutting in from above, indeed with the left under the right arm, you repel his attempt at your turned left side with your sickle, meanwhile, your enemy’s right hand having been grabbed with your left, from the left side of the enemy you cut forth at his neck with the sickle.  Indeed, if he similarly advances on you from above, with the left hand held back, you apprehend his right hand, and if you avert his attempt on your left side, draw the sickle all the way down his left arm, and from there concede backward.  But if your enemy shall have receded, pursue your foe with a twin step in order to crowd in, and cut forth at his head.

If you mutually come together with the sickle being duly ruled in the customary manner, you hold the right foot forward, you confine the sickle in your right hand next to the left side of your head, indeed with the left hand open, you extend against the enemy.  And from there it follows with the left, you cut toward the right side of his head.  But if the adversary wields the same against you, p[lacing the left foot forward, holding the sickle in the right, reclining on the left side of the head, you bring the right hand left.  Then, the right hand of the enemy having been grabbed with your left, you wound his head on the right side.  On the other hand however, if the enemy similarly approaches on you from above, with the right hand swiftly apprehended, you avert his with a shorter cut in the same rationale.  From there however, if you immediately drag yourself to the right, you will try to cut toward the enemy with the left foot forward.  Indeed if he tries the same, then with the left you overwhelm the interior of the enemy’s right elbow, and if you draw back to the right from there, with the point of the sickle, you strike his head and concede backward.

This one is titled “Habitus inferi ictus bipennis de latere utroque”

“The posture of a low strike with the halberd from either side.”

To this posture of a low strike from either side, which soon follows, with this tactic suitable for you, put the left foot forward, the turned point verges toward the opponent from above, and suddenly align the right hand with the right hip, and the halberd turns to the face of the enemy or you strike the chest.  But if he turns away your impulse/in-strike, then rotate the halberd from his left to his right flank.  Indeed, if he shall have made use of a twin strike against your face, place the left foot ahead of you in the same habit of striking the dead, containing the halberd in your right hand and apply it to his right femur, and with the blade you break downward from your right side onto the opponent’s strike, indeed with the right foot following, in-fix/affix the anterior point of the halberd to his chest.  But if the enemy usurps the same against you, drag your left foot backward, and soon with the right taken back in the same manner, striving for equal standing, and certainly you come through with your foe, but suddenly shake his head violently with an [upward strike? Strike from above?].  If however, you remove his strike with the blade of your halberd, and if you seek his “shamefuls” with a strike, he will let you withdraw backward.

University of Toronto, March 17=9619, 2011
Keynote Address by Carol Mavor (Manchester) (others to be confirmed)
* *
The 22nd annual conference of the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto in March 2011 will focus on the idea of Iconoclasm, the breaking of images *and* the making of icons.
The word Iconoclasm is weighted with a long history of religious significance, from the Byzantine war on religious icons of the 8th- and 9th-centuries and the Protestant reformation in the 16th century, to the Taliban destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan in the 21st century. But the idea of destroying or defacing images, especially images that convey aspects of cultural dominance or, conversely, pose a threat to that dominance, is as often political as religious: think of the Chinese Cultural Revolution or graffiti moustaches. Political iconoclasm, unlike religious iconoclasm, does not object to representation as such but rather to certain images that have been granted the status of icons. However, any act of desecrating symbols of authority itself often takes on iconic status: take, for example, photos of
the pulling down of statues from Romania to Iraq.

Iconoclasm need not be visual and material and can also take abstract and intellectual forms. Subversive, transgressive, blasphemous writing is also iconoclastic in inspiration and function. Moreover, the power associated with images in general and iconic images in particular has often inspired writers to subdue the power of images or to wrest it for themselves. The ekphrastic contest between literature, or verbal representation, and images, or visual representation, is very often iconoclastic in nature.

Contemporary media culture floods us with images and alters their impact, creating ever more sophisticated organized cults around them, such as celebrity, high art, advertising, the news, etc. Just as the word icon has acquired new meanings, ranging from signs for computer applications to logos and celebrity, so, too, iconoclasm, the urge to deface, destroy, or alter images, takes on wholly new meanings.

We wish to examine a wide range of iconoclastic moments in order to understand the political, ethical, and aesthetic stakes involved in challenging the signifying power of the iconic image. Is there a tradition of iconoclasm or is the modern icon and thus modern iconoclasm something new? Is iconoclasm even possible, or does it always participate in the forces of iconicity, creating, in effect, iconoclastic icons? Subjects that are of interest to us include but are in *no way* limited to:

Classical/Antiquity (pre-5th century CE)
Idol Worship and Biblical Images
Mythology: Symbols, Images of Gods, Heroes, etc.
Epic Narratives and the Performance of Lyric Poetry
Ekphrastic imaginings
Medieval (5th=9615th centuries)
Theories of the Imagination and Images; representations of other worlds
Sight/Insight
Iconography; religious iconoclasms and iconoclasts
Mystery/Miracle plays
Early Modern (15th=9617th centuries)
The Politics of Appropriation, Assimilation, Domination in Conquest and Colonial documents
Man and his God: The Vatican; The Reformation; the Council of Trent;
Staging the World: early modern drama
Iconic Genres: The invention of the Novel; Poetry and the re-telling of myth and religion
18th and 19th centuries
Innovations in Media and Technology
Ignitions of the Enlightenment
The rise of Decolonisation and Postcolonialism
The turn to Revolution, the pull of Evolution
The Gothic, the Sublime, and Romance
20th century to present:
Iconoclastic genres: The reinvention of the novel (re-imagining the novel-as-icon) Poetry’s Image/Imagination (Dadaism, Futurism, Concrete Poetry, etc.)
Magical Realism, Surrealism, Realism, the Fantastic
Iconography, Fetish Images, Pop Culture, Film
Trauma, Terrorism, Disasters, Ruins
Icons in the Digital Age
Theoretical Concerns
Negative Dialectics; the question of the Negative
The Epistemology of the Iconic Closet: Queer Icons and the
Reinvention of Tradition
Moving through and beyond Ekphrasis
Benjaminian Auras
Unstaging the World: poor theatre; theatre of cruelty; holy theatre; postdramatic performance art; Theatre of the Opressed, etc.

Please submit abstracts of no more than 250 words by September 10, 2010 to
iconoclasm.2011@gmail.com. Include full name, email, affiliation, status
(student, faculty, independent scholar), a 50-word bio, and AV requirements=
.

Please check our website for updates:
www.chass.utoronto.ca/complitstudents/complitconference

I hope it’s getting better all the time for you, too.

This word does not prove to be a tempest of meaning and clarity in a dixie cup of a single breath, though, so questions compound.  The answers necessary to placate the curious finally lead to a discussion about a particular cluster of stars.  “Those are the Twins, the Gemini,” someone cleverly pronounces.  “They are stars, but they are special.”

Someone interjects with an obvious, “Why?” before the line of inquiry can be laid aside.  After all, why should those stars be special and have a name, while the clusters of lights around them are simply “other stars”?  And so, this clever person begins to tell a story of twin brothers, Castor and Pollux, who were the younger brothers of the most beautiful woman in the entire world.

Human kind has always accessed understanding through storytelling.  A desire to preserve these stories and their secrets can be imagined as an impetus for writing.  Letters make simple stories grow in complexity, until someone saw the need to distinguish mere stories from literature.  Liturature is a slippery concept, though.  Theseus’ remarks on drama, in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, can be extended to understood within the context of the literary form: “The best in this kind are but shadows; and the worst are no worse if imagination amend them” (Act I, Scene I).  In other words, literature exposes truths by weaving knots of lies.

With the propagation of so many webs and so many lies, with so many stories to sort tales of eternal truth from, mankind began a new line of inquiry: What are the mechanisms by which narrative functions?  How is it that we, as creators of narrative, can make the simultaneous statements, “This is a falsity; it never happened,” and, “This holds truth; it is important”?

Anyway, here is a translation of a brief halberd play.  The original author was one Paulus Hector Mair (1517-1579), a sporting enthusiast and commentator.  Mair might be considered something of the John Madden of his day, except for the fact that Madden actually played his sport.

Enjoy!

“In this condition, you join yourself in this manner, with the left foot forward, you confine the halberd above your head, meanwhile you sprout the pole arm at the head facing you, with the right foot following.  But if he shall have followed you in the same, in the habit of stopping the strike from above, in turn, with the left figured in front, taking the left backward, and if in like manner you bring up to your adversary, his strike will be made void, meanwhile indeed with the axe brought down, and you seek the face of the enemy with a strike of the anterior point.  If however he intercepts, with it having been rotated from his left flank by a turned right hand, to his right arm you will apply the blade of the halberd.  Also, if he should usurp the same against you, if you should recede by foot, you shall have freed yourself from the enemy by a strike, but soon you will strike high up openly in his sight, and in the same habit of striking you will apply the halberd with your own to his left side.  Indeed if you shall have deflected the halberd from this form, drag yourself around with a turn.  Further, if you should sense your enemy firmly resisting, follow backward with the right, puncture the breast of the opponent.  Or in the same habit of extra to spend, with the location having been drawn back from, repel his strike with posterior point, and with this reasoning you will vindicate yourself from all danger.”

So, I thinks to meself, “Well, if’n that in’t a bit of a question.  Might as well give as I get.” Here’s a paragraph that reflects how seriously I take marketing:

Red drapes hang everywhere, as I enter the first room.  The giant lizard sort of freaks me out, but he’s polite, and he offers to take my coat.  I turn back to inspect the décor, and all I can see is red.  Each of the lights has a red shade on it, or a thin red cloth draped over the lamp.  The light softens the room, and makes it look like it’s getting farther away at an amazing speed.  To stop this sinking feeling of falling into a Red Abyss, I make my way past the gaggles and bevies of attractive women who are strewn about the place, out onto the back porch.  The lizard is back there, just chillin’ for all to see.  He reaches into the cooler at his knees and tosses me a Cold One.  There’s plenty of Punch in a vat in the red house, but I’m a man of simple tastes, as is our host, apparently.  I bum a cigarette from him, and we turn to gaze out over his expansive lawn.  I inhale deeply, and know that this is going to be a crazy night.

I went through my undergrad at San Francisco State University, the student culture of which is a geyser of semieducated liberalism.  I won’t start in on the Spartican Youth Organization for now, though, since this has more to do with reading 19th century feminist literature (The Yellow Wallpaper, if you’re interested) and being forced by good manners to endure statements about how all men oppress (but especially the white ones) in all ways all the time.  To be truthful, I don’t believe that her husband caused her insanity.  Under the misguidance of 18th century science, he was doing the best he could to restore his wife to health and happiness, helping her out of post-partim depression.

I could go on in this vein for a while (years of practice), but one thing I’ve learned about this argument is that it often times cannot be accepted coming from a man, especially when he becomes heated in the discussion.  To that end, I redirect you toward Jodi Kasten.

But the real answer to all of this is compromise.  Neither side is intrinsically better than the other.  Equality means, again, that everyone is treated the same.

One way to look at things is by examining the rights of citizenship.  As I’m a classicist, I turn to Roman Law to outline the rights of a citizen.  Food for thought.

I:the right to vote

II: the right to hold public office

III: the right to make legal contracts and own property

IV: the right to marry and to pass citizenship to offpsring

V: the right to sue and be sued in the court system

VI: the right to have a legal trial

VII: the right to appeal decisions from magistrates and lower court rulings

VIII: A citizen cannot be whipped or tortured, unless found guilty of treason.

IX: If found guilty of treason, and if sentenced to death, a citizen cannot be sentenced to die at the cross. (no torturous methods of putting legally sentenced citizens to death)