The Artwork of The Tale of Princess Kaguya

The film seems to be set in the Heian period of Japan. A quick glance at the emaki (scrolls with artwork on them) show the fashion and interior design of the period which is clearly transcribed in the film. The animators did not, however, put the main action off in the corner and split the scene diagonally with a birds-eye view over walls, as typical of of these illustrations.
 The governess in particular looked like she stepped right out of The Tale of Genji Scrolls, from her clothing, face shape, long black hair, and the shape of her skull when her head is bent.

The Tale of Princess Kaguya

The Tale of Genji

In one scene, Princess painted some animals that are reminiscent of the whimsical black and white animals of Choju Jinbutu Giga scrolls.

Then we've got this lovely brush work which is also reminiscent of traditional styles:

The Tale of Princess Kaguya

The end of the film depicted a raigo of Amida Buddha and in particular it reminded me of one picture called Raigo of Amida and Twenty-Five Attendants. This picture depicts the cloud at an angle coming down to a house, just like some shots in the movie. Little beings fly on ahead, like the little "fairies" in the film, although the ones in the picture aren't wearing pink skirts. A raigo is a descent of Amida Buddha to receive people after they die.

The Raigo of Amida and Twenty-Five Attendants

Click here to view close-ups of the raigo painting: Kyoto National Museum: Raigo of Amida

This film released by Studio Ghibli in 2013 is a melancholy film and not a fun family film. The film does contain the nudity of small children and breasts of nursing mothers.

Facts are from the wikipedia, my memory from The Arts of Japan class I took at university, and also History of Japanese Art, by Penelope Mason.

Dr. Watson and the war in Afghanistan, past and present.

In the original adventures of Sherlock Holmes, written by A. C. Doyle, Dr. Watson served in the second Afghan War.
"The regiment was stationed in India at the time, and before I could join it, the second Afghan war had broken out...I...succeeded in reaching Candahar in safety, where I found my regiment, and at once entered upon my new duties." -A Study in Scarlet.  Candahar is another spelling of current Kandahar, a city in Afghanistan.

In the new BBC Sherlock series, Dr. Watson also served in Afghanistan.

So, they're just keeping it true to the book, right?

The amazing thing though is that Sherlock is set in our current times, and there currently is a war with British soldiers participating in it in Afghanistan, if this series had been produced 15 years earlier or later than it was, this statement would have been non-nonsensical. They would have had to substitute the name of a different country or set the show in the past. But they didn't, because there was a war there then, and there is a war there now.

The Parallels of King David and Robin Hood

I was sitting in a Panera talking with my friend, Renée, when she told me that she saw many similarities between the life of King David of Israel and the story of Robin Hood. Skeptical and surprised, I listened as she began to lay out the parallels and earnest excitement radiated from her deep brown eyes as she attempted to convince me.  I was been astounded, and a swirl of thoughts and possibilities rustled through my mind. The similarities were clear and I saw potential blog material. Before long she cried out with animation, "Your face! You're not sure what you just heard!"
"No, you're right!" I stuttered out, and continued, "My blog is all about comparisons. I was thinking about maybe you could do a guest post for my blog."
Fortunately she was excited with this idea, and so I am pleased to present the first ever guest post on Lore and Literature:

The Parallels of King David and Robin Hood

By Renée Du'Quatre

 Ever since I was a child, I have loved the story of Robin Hood. It has always been one of my favorites. It’s a fun, adventurous, romantic story with memorable characters that you immediately grow to love. When I was little I would take my toys, assign them a character from the story, and play for hours.

Growing up in a Christian home I also learned all about the Bible at a young age. Biblical History was one of my favorite subjects in school and even now as an adult I still love and enjoy studying the Word of God.

 Over the years I’ve seen many different versions of Robin Hood and read over the history of King David many times. As I learned more and studied each of them individually, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between the two legendary, historical heroes. 

I believe it started when I was still in either elementary or middle school and we had to read a novelized version of the life of King David called The Fugitive King by Elizabeth Rice Handford. It struck me then how similar David’s life (before he was crowned king) was to that of Robin Hood.

 Now, I don’t know if this is just me and how my strange, overactive mind works, but personally I don’t believe it takes a lot of imagination to see all the similarities here. 

Granted, with Robin Hood most of the details in the characters and the story line vary depending on the version you read or watch. But I think most of the details listed below are ones that most adaptations generally stick to and are traditionally accepted by those who enjoy or are familiar with the story. 

After a few days of researching I was able to compile this list:

Robin, or Sir Robin of Locksley, was a knight who was pursued by the oppressive ruler Prince John.

David was a shepherd, (who as a young man was anointed to be the next king of Israel, 1 Samuel 16:1-13), who became appointed as head over the king’s men of war, (1 Samuel 18:5) and was later resented and hunted by King Saul. (1 Samuel chapter 19.) 

Both were honorable men with titles and a promising future. Both were declared fugitives and were savagely pursued by the active rulers of their land and forced into hiding for years. (1 Samuel 26:1; 27:1.)

Both were noted as being excellent warriors. (1 Samuel 18:5-7.)

Robin is famous for using his bow and arrow.

David is known for using his sling and a smooth stone. (1 Samuel 17:40, 49.)

Both had high respect and loyalty to their kings. Robin was known for being dedicated to King Richard. David, even though he was pursued by King Saul, still refused to kill him or even do him harm. (1 Samuel 24:1-22, 26:1-25.)

Robin is known for taking down his foe, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, (in some adaptations an assassin, in others a fellow nobleman) who was sent to kill him.

David is known for taking down the giant, Philistine champion, Goliath. (1 Samuel chapter 17.)

Robin had his ‘Merry Men.’

David had his ‘Mighty Men.’ (2 Samuel 23:8-39.)

Robin’s best friend was ‘Little John.’

David’s best friend was Prince Jonathan. (1 Samuel 18:1-4, 19:1-20:42.)

Jonathan and David used a bow and three arrows as a signal in I Samuel 20:18-23; something Robin and Little John would be accustomed to do. (In 2 Samuel 1:17-27 David wrote The Song of the Bow in mourning over the death of Jonathan.) 

Robin was in love with Maid Marian who (in certain versions) was a relative (or ward) to the king (in early adaptations she is a shepherdess).

David’s first wife, Michal, was the second daughter of King Saul. (1 Samuel 18:17-30.) 

Both women were used by the callous rulers, (the men whose responsibility it was to protect them) as bait/a snare in order to trap the men they loved. (1 Samuel 18:17-30) However, instead of trapping them they proved to be helpful assets in their escape. (1 Samuel 19:15-17.)

Robin and his ‘Merry Men’ liked to sing and are known through ballads.

David was a musician who wrote many songs and poems.

Both were God-fearing men, (David was a man after God’s own heart [1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22]) who were associated with godly men. 

Robin was good friends with Friar Tuck.

David was anointed by the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 16:1-13) and goes to him for safety when hunted by King Saul in 1 Samuel 19:18. Later when he is king, David is rebuked by Nathan the prophet for sinning with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:1-14) and by the prophet Gad for an unspecified sin in 2 Samuel 24:1-17.  (Possibly his sin was taking a census of the people, an act of pride instead of relying wholly on God.) Gad is also referred to as David’s Seer in 2 Samuel 24:11. 

Robin would occasionally disguise himself like a beggar or farmer to spy on his enemies or extract information from them.

David pretended to be insane before Achish the king of Gath when he was in fear of his life. (1 Samuel 21:10-15.)

Although they are both highly acclaimed heroes and usually praised for their valiant efforts, they are also notoriously remembered for their faults. Robin was an outlaw and a thief. David was an adulterer and a murderer. 

I’m sure there are probably more similarities to the two heroes that I missed.

Overall, my reason for pointing out these similarities is purely out of love and respect for both legendary heroes. It was fun for me to consider, and then take the time to do some personal research on each man.  

I hope you enjoy reading as much as I enjoyed researching. 

Note: I put Biblical references to David but no references to Robin, because the Bible is literal, factual history whereas the stories of Robin Hood (as I previously mentioned) are mostly based off ballads and traditions that vary; most of which are listed on the Wikipedia website and can be referenced there if desired.

Ten Things You Didn't Think You'd Learn from Reading Sherlock Holmes

Photo: Edana A.

A little list of things one can learn from reading the Sherlock Holmes adventures by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, precluding detective work and Holmes' maxims:

1. Brandy is the proper restorative for someone who has fainted.

2. "Bunny rabbit" was a term that was in use during the early 1900s.

3. A hansom was a common mode of travel.

4. Brain fever is the result of great mental stress.

5. The English adorned their homes with busts of Napoleon, (even though he was an enemy of Britain.)

6. "Grotesque" does not mean "horrible." See my post: The Meaning of Grotesque

7. Army pensions were in existence pre-WWI

8. Trains can be awkward. "Yes, sir, I fear that I am a little late; but the trains were awkward" (The Adventure of the Six Napoleons).

9. Men's boots had laces. (They still do.)

10. A Scotch bonnet was not considered dignified for elderly non-Scots. (Doesn't say if The British thought it was dignified on Scots or not.)

Drugs, Then and Now.

I love reading books written in the past that are set in present/recent past in relation to the author's life. It's so enlightening to be able to see what people thought about different topics, what they knew scientifically, and to see their social customs through their own eyes.

I just started reading The Sign of Four, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and published in 1890 (Sherlock Holmes - Wikipedia). It begins with a dialogue between Holmes and Watson that sounds as if it could have taken place today. Well, not with the exact same words, but the argument seems essentially the same. 

By Sidney Paget

Watson is disturbed at seeing Holmes injecting himself and finally broached the subject with, "What is it today? Morphine or cocaine?"

Holmes replied that it was cocaine and asked if he would like to try some. Watson replied with a stout refusal, and they proceeded to debate the use of cocaine.

Let's dissect their arguments a little bit. Below each quote are my thoughts. I've highlighted the different parts of the argument with the same color as my thought about that statement. So, the second red sentence is my thought about the red sentence in the quote. The second purple sentence corresponds to the purple sentence in the quote. Etc.

Holmes said, "I suppose that its influence is physically a bad one. I find it, however, so transcendingly stimulating and clarifying to the mind that its secondary action is a matter of small moment."

He acknowledges that the drug has negative physical effects. But he uses it anyhow because of the feeling it gives him. This is typical. He claims that it helps him think. I've heard that one before too.  Certain drugs are said to give one an out of this world feeling (transcendence) and to be stimulating.

Watson answered with, "Your brain may, as you say, be roused and excited, but it is a pathological and morbid process, which involves increased tissue-change, and may at last leave a permanent weakness. you know too, what a black reaction comes upon you. Surely the game is hardly worth the candle. Why should you, for the mere passing pleasure, risk the loss of those great powers with which you have been endowed? Remember that I speak not only as one comrade to another, but as a medical man to one for whose constitution he is to some extent answerable."

He stresses the fact that cocaine has detrimental, long-lasting, permanent side-effects. He points out that it is not worth the risk, and makes his argument personal by warning that the cocaine could damage Holmes' intellect which is his greatest pride. Watson (like anyone making a good argument) validates his speech with relevant credentials. 

We really don't give people in the past enough credit for what they did know. In this case, that would be Sir Arthur since Watson and Holmes are his creations and not real people at all, but he, the author, had to know the pro and con arguments in order to write them into his book. I find it amazing that this argument, which is pertinent today, was actually basically the same then and now.

Double L

Old English looks like Welsh and Icelandic combined.  And yet it looks a bit like German.

Speaking of Welsh and Icelandic, double L, "ll" makes the same sound in both these languages and is unlike anything in present day English. It is a voiceless lateral fricative (Ll - Wikipedia). According to one Icelandic pronunciation video, this sound is made by placing one's tongue to one side of the mouth and blowing.  It works for me.

Watch this video to hear the sound.

A thousand years ago feels like yesterday

I felt like they were my neighbors, my relations, my community, these Icelanders from a thousand years ago.

I think it was the style in which their sagas were written.

Many authors these days take an over-the-shoulder, inside-the-soul, point of view with their characters, telling you exactly what the character is thinking and feeling in every excruciating detail. I like that. However, the sagas were not written that way, they were written in a rather external fashion. Yet I felt close to the people.

They seemed real because the lens through which I saw them was as if I were a part of the community. I am told a bit of what they are feeling, I hear of their actions, I know who is best friends with who and how they are related. Just like in real life. In real life I don't know every thought, every pleasure, every pain that passes through my friends, let alone acquaintances that I see frequently.  And so the sagas, by being distant, seem real because I see a community functioning, like my home school co/op, like my extended family, like my Christian community. I see the major events that take place and I hear a little of the inside scoop through those more directly involved.

Additionally the descriptions of people are sometimes vivid, so it's like you can see them. I can see their face and external appearance (physique, clothing), but I can't see their mind. Like real life.

Interestingly, books written in first person or with a very over-the-shoulder view often  leave you guessing as to the person's looks.

They were so human, driven by their feelings of greed, anger, ambition, brokenheartedness and by what was acceptable in their culture.  The women were not meek sheep in the kitchen. A number had strong characters and were driving forces in the stories as they struggled for revenge. And they often manipulated/strong-armed their husbands into getting their way.

And so the sagas easily bridge the gap between then and now, despite culture and language barriers.

Þingvellir - That Great Wonder of Iceland

On my trip I visited Þingvellir. It was beautiful in the setting sun with the yellow grass, the rocks, the many branched river, and the distant snow capped mountains. Allen French's description of this place in The Story of Rolf and the Viking Bow fit quite well with what I saw there. Granted there are some more recent buildings there now and the booths were gone, yet the landscape was the same. French calls the place "Thingvalla," and the parliament, "the Althing" instead of "Þingvellir" and the "Alþingi."  

"For from the plain on which they journeyed a large part had fallen clean away, many yards down, and it lay below like the bottom of a pan. The Great Rift was the name of the western precipice, and there was no way down save by one steep path....When Rolf had got down to the plain, he saw all the booths for the lodging of those who came to the Althing, ranged along the river....he went down to the Hill of Laws, where the Fifth Court sat to hear appeals. Now the Hill of Laws is cut off from the plain by deep rifts, and men showed Rolf where, to save his life, Flosi had leaped one rift at it's narrowest part and that was a great deed."  -The Story of Rolf and the Viking Bow, page 94-95 

View from the plain above, overlooking Þingvellir

 

This first picture is taken while standing on the Great Rift.
The Great Rift (western precipice) is on the left side of the picture below. The flag pole is rising from the Lögberg (Law Rock) which either is the Hill of Laws, or a part of the Hill of Laws.

Down beside the precipice

 

 

 

The Great Rift.

In the photo above, the smaller rocks on the left is the back of the Hill of Laws.
In the photo below, you see the view if you turn and look the other way up the rift while standing the Hill of Laws.

The Rift

Snorri's Booth

Snorri's booth is on the hill, overlooking the river where the booths where located in the story. This, however is not an inconsistency. Since Snorri was a very important man at the Althing, his could have been located there while many others were situated along the river.

Hill of Laws

I believe this is the Hill of Laws spoken of. It is actually a long hill; this is just a portion of it, but you can see that it is near the western precipice.

The Rivers

 

 

Above are the rivers by which the booths stood; the view from the Hill of Laws. 

 

Þingvellir

 

 

 

Above is a photo I took down on the plain after crossing the rivers. Here you see the Hill of Laws with the flag pole and the Great Rift behind it.

Allen French called this place, "that great wonder of Iceland." And it really is. The place is gorgeous, my pictures do not do it justice. In a sense it is the heart of Iceland, of both the land and the country. 

It is near the place where the tectonic plates collide, the volcanic activity caused by this collision is possibly responsible for the formation of this island, and the fact that the land sits where two tectonic plates meet is responsible for the many geological wonders of this country: the volcanoes, geysers, and hot springs.  Volcanoes have played a huge role in making Iceland the land it is today. Basalt is basically everywhere you turn. And other forms of volcanic rock are also abundant.

In this place so near the edges of the plates, the country was formalized. The Alþingi began in 930 A.D. and continued for many years and after an interlude of foreign control, Iceland was declared an independent republic in 1946. A ceremony was held at the Law Rock. From the start, Iceland was different from other nations. In 930, Europe was ruled by kings, yet Iceland was a republic. There were no kings or nobility. There were chieftains and some men had more power than others, but it was still different than the other countries of the the time.

All photos are my own.

Les Misérables

I'd like to start by saying that this post has nothing to do with the Les Misérables film that is coming out in December. I've never even seen the musical Les Misérables. But, where there is smoke there is fire...

Volumes 1&2

So, I undertook to read the original unabridged version in French. Wow, books these days are so different from back then. If someone went on for pages and pages about social darkness and then went back to the story, and then did it again....well, the book probably wouldn't get published without major amputations. But that was then, and this is now. So, the story that was adapted into one of the most popular musical dramas made it to press. Look to the past, learn for the future.

Anyhow, the thing that struck me most about the book is the fact that the title is very fitting. I wish I had kept a tally of how many times the word "misérable" was used.

Basically there are three types of miserable people in this book:

The miserably poor
The emotionally wretched
The wretchedly both

The French word "misérable" is full of meanings. First of all, it is a noun and an adjective like the English word "miserable." One would think it means "miserable" straight-up and simple. But, it actually translates better as "wretched" (adj) or "wretch" (n).  It can also mean "slummy" and "poverty stricken." The French word "misérable" translates to "miserable" when one is talking of a miserable place or situation but not a miserable person.

Sources:
http://dictionary.reverso.net/french-english/miserable
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-french/miserable