Magnolia from cuttings

Magnolia from cuttings should not be a headache. I heard many complaining about managing roots from maganolias. However simple the procedure that I tasted may be, it requires some vermiculite and rooting hormone, which maybe Clonex or other liquid hormones.

Size of the cuttings. 30 - 60 cm, about the thickness of a pen or a little less thick.

Take some cuttings of fresh wood when they do not have leaves, that's in autumn and winter.

Magnolia is a type that takes a while to make roots and very often the cutting dries out before making any roots.

Removing 5 to 10 cm of the bark will stimulate root growth in most of the stubborn cuttings

To remove the bark use a very sharp clean knife and then gently cut into the bark and peel it off. Do not go to deep for it may only compromise the cutting.

Regular liquid hormone treatment.
Then they will need to take a bath in one liter of water to which is added a liquid rooting hormone. About 10 ml of 0,4 % 3-indolebutyric (that is the usual liquid rooting hormon) acid to each liter of water. One litter should be enough...

Then you need to soak the basis of those cuttings in that solution for one night - up to one day.

These cuttings spent one night in that solution. 10 ml 0,4 %   3-indolebutyric acid  to 1 l of water.

If you have Clonex istead of  3-indolebutyric acid,  then the only thing is to dip the basis of the cuts into clonex gel and keep them there for a couple of minutes. You do not have to soak them over night, but you do have to remove the bark as I showed above. The rest you can do as follows below.

Then take a transparent jar of 1 liter an fill it with with vermiculite and then add water and some of the solution left from cuttings. About 30-50 % of solution and the rest water. The vermiculite has to become swamp wet.That's very wet. Do not make a soup of it by adding to much water!

I always choose a transparent jar because you can see through and check whether the plants shoot roots or not. I add some of the leftover of the solution prepared before, or about 10 ml Clonex.

Then I gently push the cuttings inside the rooting medium. If I use Clonex I simply leave a thick layer of Clonex gel on the basis.

Magnolia are stubborn to root and I am adding so much hormone because this will decay in time and lose its proprieties. This way the cuttings will receive for a longer time the impetus to root.

Cover the cuttings with a plastic bag with a few holes. The bag will maintain moisture and impede quick dry-out

Then place the cuttings in a light position on a window sill but not in full sun. 15-18 degrees Celsius should be enough. They wont like the heat at this period for it will make them dry out quicker. Because these are deciduous trees the heat will stir them to shoot new leaves. The energy and water for these leafs will be taken from the cutting itself  and since the plants won't have roots for absorption they risk dying-out.

Therefore it is indicated to pulverize from time to time with some foliar feeding in 1/2 concentration than the one recommended.

After more than one month less than two they should have some roots.

These roots are quite fleshy and fragile so do not be tempted to get the cuttings out as I did. I am to be excused of didactic drive to do so.  These will need to be a little bit bigger in order to be reported in a normal potting soil.

As soon as the roots would become a bit bigger you may replant the cutting. Continue to grow it inside to the same position. You do not need keep the bag overhead. Just continue growing in a pot until well established and then after all risk of frost start hardening-off the plant. Continue growing throught the summer and then in the autumn plant out.

Proteste și canapele

Românii s-au săturat și au începuit cu protestele.  Nu toți, doar câțiva mai pricăjiți, pentru că națiunea stă comfortabil în fața televizoarelor.

Ionele Niță din București ne povestește:

„Nu... Națiunea dictează, nu câteva mii de protestatari.Națiunea este în fața televizoarelor. Te uiți și privești! Acesta ar trebui să fie sloganul noii generații de protestatari. Eu, de exemplu, fără modestie declar că protestez schimbând canalele: dă pe PROTV, dă pe Antenna, schimbă pe TVR, ce-i pe OTV? În plus, în timp ce privesc, protestul meu ia proporții, pentru că începă și înjur politicienii cum numai un român adevărat știe să facă. Apoi mă rog la sfinți și la Fecioară să îmi crească venitul și să reducă TVA-ul.Seara, după știri și film, mai fac o tură TV de verificare și apoi mă duc și mă culc cu gândul la schimbare. Dimineața mă trezesc neschimbat în neschimbare și o iau de la capăt: canapea, bere, mai un mic, canalele TV, știri, înjurături, blesteme și gânduri de schimbare. Și uite așa protestez eu. Protestul meu este în gând și în suflet și nu am de ce să îl impart cu vagabonzii și viermii și mai știu eu ce. Și crede-mă că tare bine-i să îmi lățesc fesele în fața monitoarelor și să mă bat cu pumnu-n piept că io mi-s român adevărat.”

Valeria Ciocănescu se afirmă și ea:

Sunt socata de nesimtrea`` in forma continuata`` a guvernului nostru. Indivizii acestia inca statea si zambeau acolo in parlament cu aerul acela de superioritate cu care ne gratuleaza de atatia ani. Rusine sa le fie !!!!!

Posturile de televiziune au atins într-adevăr vizionări record. Lumea nu maiștia pe ce să mai schimbe pentru a afla o nouă realitate, ceva mai romantic, în care eroi protestatri vor fi capabil de acte mărețe. Unii se bucurau la auzitul cioburilor... Alții visau la haos pe strâzi... Iar alții sperau ca zâmbetele cotrocenești să înceteze.

Singura problemă era că nimic nu se întempla.

La televizor trăiau cu toții, la televizor erau cu toții români și pălini de românism. Însă odată ce ar fi trebuit să miște cel mai anemic deșt,i povara, durerile de șale, obligațiile de familie și cele medicale îi impiedică să lase telecomanda din mână.

VAI DA’ BENOCLATĂ NAȚIE!

Trăiau cu toții în fața televizoarelor. Gelu Oprinescu spera la ceva pașoptist, însă mutând de pe un canal pe altul a rămas dezamăgit.

Delia Budică a leșinat în casă în urma unei sincope determinată de frutuna blestemelor anti-udreobăsești ce a izvorât din gura ei în timp ce privea știrile de la 20.

Paraschiva Paraschiv a fost internat de urgență, cu arsuri grave cauzate de neatenție prin opărire cu apă de cafea și nu a  putut viziona în totalitate declarațiile lui Victor Ponta.

Șerban Măcelaru a suferit și el o intervenție chirurghicală cauzată tot de „neatenție în fața televizoarelor”. Acesta și-a mușcat degetul, în loc de cabanos în timp ce viziona transmisiunea directă a declarațiilor lui Gigi Becali pentru OTV.

Mai nou toată lumea poate apărea la televizor. La câte posturi sunt, cred că este nevoie de figuranți și aplaudaci. Nu mai trebuie să înveți nimic pentru că ți se spune totul la televizor, iar dacă pierzi vreo emisiune dai un telefon la un vecin sau o prietenă și persoana respec tivă îți va explice ce și cum...

Elisaveta (TVeta)  Ocheanu, din Turda este renumityă pe plan local pentru repovestirea emisiunilor TV. A început totul acum 10 ani când vecinele ei Persefora Rubinstein și Lucreția Tulău au fost la băi la Sovata și nu au putut urmări 14 episoade din „Lacrimi de țigancă”, iar doamna „Tveta” cum este nimită de turdeni, le telefona zilnic câte două minute și le povestea rapid fiecare episod. Femeile au fost atât de plăcut impresionate de povestirile Tvetei încât nici măcar nu au dorit să se mai uite la telenovelă când s-au întors acasă, pentru că Tveta povestea în 2-3 minute mai frumos decât ceea ce vedeau ele într-o ora la TV și mai mult decât atât Tveta nu le rezuma niciodată publicitatea. Cu asemenea economie de timp, Persefora Rubinstein și Lucreția Tulău aveau timpul necesar pentru a se uita la telenovela coreano-turcești  „Inimă la inima zbuciumată”. Cele două au povestit și pe la lții și uite că oamenii au început să o programeze pe TVeta înainte de a pleca în concediu. Și ea s-a gândit că asta nu este muncă ușoară și ea nici nu are timp de chestii de genul ăsta așa că a început să perceapă o taxă pentru povestirea fiecărui episod.

-         Doamna TVeta cât percepeți pentru un episod? Care este tariful.

-          Domnnule, eu îți spun că tarifele variază și după clientă și după elenovelă și uneori chiar și după fiecare episod în partea. Păi după client variază astfel... Unii clienți preferă o relatare rapidă, un episod de 45 de minute relatat în 2 minute costă 2 lei,   relatat de 45 de min  povestit în 7 minute costă 5 lei, un episod de 45 de minute rezumat în 30 de minute costă 20 de leiși în final, un episod de 45 minute povestit într-o oră jumate costă 35 de lei.

-          Aha, deci în funcție de cât de lung dorește clientul să plătească.

-          Nu chiar. Cât dorește clientul să știe. Însă sunt episdoare de 25 de minute și prețurile scad cu 30 %.  Sau sunt telenovele în care nu se întâmplă mare lucru și nu este mult de povestit. De exemplu, eu pot să repovestesc orice episod din Tânăr și neliniștit în maxim 45 de secunde. Însă din Twin Peaks, nu reușeam să repovestesc un episod mai repede de 2 ore...

-          Deci telenovelele  sunt de mai mulște feluri și unele sunt chiar dificile.

-          Alea în episoade puține sunt cele mai dificile, alea în episoade lungi sunt cele mai ușoare. Nu trebui să faci nimic prin casă pentru că fac ei la televizor pentru tine. Și apoi sunt zile în care nu prea sunt telenovele de succes. Iar eu nu-mi permit să stau nicio zi. De obicei sunt mailiberă în weekend că sunt puține telenovele la televizor.

-          Ce planuri de viitor aveți.

-          Eu ți-am spus că eu nu-mi permit să șed în weekend așa că acum îmi fac anhtrenamentul în povestirea meciurilor de fotbal. Că în weekend sunt tare multe meciuri și puține telenovele. Mi-am făcut rost de un simulator de voce, că la bărbați nu le place orice voce la meciuri. Acest model este din 2012, foarte nou, modelul Țopescu!

Vai cât de ocupat sunt și nu văd capul de treabă însă tot la monitor mă aflu.  Îmi povestește și mie cineva ceva?

Concluzia: curul, canapeaua, micul, berea și televizorul vor fi mereu alături de români. Dacă nu ne putem baza pe politicieni, nu rămâne decât să ne bazăm pe cururile noastre. Canapelele noastre din fața televizoarelor au toate forme ergonomice. 

Violate prin interfon

Ieri dimineață mă duc în garaj să îmi scot mașina pentru a da fugă la grădină. Se deschide ușa, eu descarc lăzi cu ghivece trântind la portiere și mutând lucruri dintr-o parte în alta.  În fiecare sâmbătă este o piață alimentară în apropiere și la acea o oră mișunau zeci de oameni prin fața garajului meu. Deodată apare o doamnă care începe să mă întrebe dacă eu am fost sunat cu o seară înainte...
- De cine să fiu sunat? întreb eu uitându-mă pe dedesubtul și pe deasupra ochelarilor la ea.
- De violator...
Nici nu termină de cuvântat că alte două doamne se alăturară. Și începură toate trei un taifas despre violator, încât toate păreau să fie profund afectate. Până la urmă am aflat că este vorba de un francofon pe numele de Lucien care a sunat la interfon și le-a amenințat pudoarea.
Una dintre ele are 83 de ani și cred că ar fi lăsat ușile larg deschise pentru Lucien. Alta în mod cert trece printr-o menopauză dificilă, iar a treia arată ea mai abuzată, mai ciufulită și tare necăjită, însă nicidecum să fie violată. După ce s-a spart gașca am aflat că de fapt doamna trece și ea printr-o menopauză dificilă și că își îndoapă depresia cu alcool.

Și eu stau să mă gândesc... ce naiba o găsit violatorul atractiv la butoanele interfoanelor ale acestor doamne?

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN

INSTITITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY

Course Title: Social and Political Philosophy: Seminar

Course code: W0AN6a

TOPIC:

Discussion on the rights and obligations of the migrant

Presented by:

Horea Mihai

Student Number: s0219770

Course instructor: Crispino Akakpo

January 2012

Migration is a natural act. Current anthropological theories depict man as a migratory being and, apparently, despite millenary civilisation, primitive man’s migratory behaviour, in the attempt to make a better living, remains unchanged. The fundamental difference between primitive man and contemporary man is that, in this age, people have abandoned the purely natural environment and entered  a political one. People are born unclothed and vulnerable, unassisted by any ethical or political norm. What they learn throughout their life can be reduced to a kind of normativity of belief, politics and morals. The political element governs aspects of human life which nature treats indifferently. Therefore, when we talk about man in general, and migration in particular, it is impossible to avoid the status quo. This matter should be treated equivocally and ambivalently: man has a natural right to migrate, which, however, clashes certain political norms. How can this clash between natural rights and political obligations be solved, in the case of migrants? I shall make an attempt to answer this question in the following paragraphs, maintaining the fact that natural rights enjoy a relative pre-eminence and stating, from the very beginning, that in order to find a response it is impossible to give a univocal and uncompromising answer.

I will initially discuss philosophical aspects of the needs and the manner in which they integrate into the problems related to migration, and the way in which these needs generate rights. There, I will attempt certain norms connected to migrant’s status, in the light of my conception of three-level of rights. And finally, I will attempt to briefly apply the previously established norms to a certain contemporary debates regarding the status of the migrant woman.

Philosophical anthropology offers different accounts of the man and his search for consensus, and as long we advocates of pluralism, it might seem a paradoxical enterprise. Yet, agreement is the fundament of a society and remains the all-encompsassing criterion for any functional morality. One tendency consists in harmonizing opposing beliefs, while another is to look for already established agreements. The first may take a long time and be strenuous, the second may demand observations.

In my shy normative elaboration, the individual is central due to his ontological precedence to no matter which kind of social or conventional establishment. However, having in mind the intimate relationship between the society and the individual, my approach is one of temperate personalism. That each individual has a valued personhood is a statement of common sense. Furthermore, the Kantian maxim through which each person should be treated as an end in itself and not as mere means is worth considering.[1] 

These two preliminary ideas seem acceptable because they constitute a reflection on what an individual may conceive and desire from his personhood. Instead of focusing on the differences between utilitarianism and Kant’s maxim, I would rather emphasize teleological aspects in the formation of needs.[2]

Obviating from propaganda, I employed Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” to determine the needs of a human being. Abraham Marslow developed the pyramid of needs[i] by situating at the lower but fundamental level the physiological needs. Despite certain points of contention, his hierarchy of needs will serve as guideline in my personalist approach of the migrant. Thus, on the lowest level stand those needs, which cumulatively satisfied, secure the physical existence of the individual. Although, I imagine the essence of a human being as trialism of interdependence of body, mind and emotion, because of higher dependence on the environment, the physical compound appears to be the most vulnerable. Therefore, the lowest but basic needs are those which institute the fundamental right to live. Rights concerning mind and soul follow on a higher level. Experience has shown that in terms of need, people are able to suspend the emotional and even the rational sides in extreme cases and then be able to resume their activity. However, such suspension of activity in case of the body is indeed possible, but definitive. People have genuine needs for wisdom and love and therefore at higher level people must enjoy rights which protect intellectual and emotional activities.[3] 

As for the secondary (second-level or mid-level) rights, I refer to the rational participation within the universe. In this case the human universe may be reduced to the society in which he lives.  Reason, in this context, is a process of identification of occurrences and understanding of causal relationships. It presupposes an understanding of the formal framework of a society and of its law. Introspection is compensated by even a more outward evaluation of the environment. As I said before, each individual participates in the formation of the universe, therefore, when we think about our anthropic environment, the essence of a society (as human environment) is constituted by the outward activity of each and every member of it. In so far as our actions have a rational basis, we can establish comprehensive communication with our peers. Therefore, our rational being is deeply connected to the rational being of the others. Although, the affiliations on basis of love are possible, the rational side of our being-in-the-world is intimately linked to the others. Without communication and without action a society cannot exist, therefore a group of people cannot subsist as long as its members live through passive states. A person who is not actively involved in the society is not a member of it.

But how does this long introduction rather on philosophical anthropology relates to the social political topic of rights of the migrant?

Migration, whether voluntary or not, involves the transfer of certain rights, suspension of others and steadily keeping of others. The act of migration terminates the relationship of one individual with his native environment and a change of status takes place from local to alien. Migration removes the link with the ethos of the native civil society and, the migrant loses his citizenship and the rights to cultural membership through absence. Membership presupposes an active state in which one is engaged in the complex relationships of exchange with other members. Upon departure, a migrant ceases to be a member of his native society. However, his fundamental rights cannot be lost because life in itself does not respond to any man-made convention and the creation of human life eludes the powers of a community. Life is a happening, in which human bearers are mere instruments.[4] Hereby, I propose a thought experiment in which we are gone beyond “the veil of ignorance” and imagine, maybe as Rousseau did in the Discourse on Inequality, the man in the state of nature, free from any moral conventions and yet permitted to live by a law that is positioned above any human law.

Thus, through migration an individual remains a dweller of the planet while conserving his fundamental rights. This idea is consistent with actual international legislation on Human Rights, according to which these rights are unalienable and any carrying-off represents an abuse.  

However, if we look at at migration from a social perspective, then the migrant suffers from a loss of rights.  He ceases to be a citizen of his native state and he is not a citizen of any other state.[5]  He remains indeed a dweller of the planet, but by any means not a member of a particular society. As dweller of the planet, he has the right to procure himself the resources necessary to the conservation of his being. However, because of the status quo of social and political organisation, the migrants are in most of the cases prevented from securing their own being through their own means. Accordingly, the state of adoption should create the necessary conditions for each migrant to satisfy his basic needs, or otherwise to supply for him. Thus, any humanitarian principle is bypassed.

The migrant facing a new socio-political environment, in which he may feel alien, has the obligation to submit himself to the social norms of the state of adoption. States should be seen as autonomous entities which function according to own/local laws. Therefore, the migrant cannot import the laws of his native state in the state of adoption. In addition, the adoptive state cannot be responsible for sustaining the migrant beyond the limits of fundamental rights. Whether a migrant should or not have civil rights is a matter of local justice. This is certainly a problematic issue. As long as there is no recognition of a minority by an external group, that minority cannot enjoy social validation except for in its inner part. In a state, if a minority is unrecognized, it is politically inexistent. However, as political creeds are a posteriori to the natural and cultural realities, there is a gap between social and cultural realities and their political representation, and the states are not capable of diminishing this gap. This lack of capacity should not be interpreted as a weakness, but as an unavoidable occurrence. Hence, not all states are ready to offer immediate civil rights to the migrants. Christopher Wellman brings forward another strong reason through which a state can refuse the migrants’ civil rights:

“The first is that legitimate states are entitled to a right of political self-determination. The second point is that freedom of association is an integral component of self-determination. Unless you enjoy freedom of association, you're not entirely self-determining. And third of all, that freedom of association necessarily involves the right not to associate with some others.”[ii]

Since the goal of migration is maintaining or improving personal welfare and state’s goal is, ideally, the welfare of its citizen we may say that the interests of both migrant and state are conjoint. This seems to be a reason strong enough to grant one citizenship. However, citizenship presupposes being active within a civil society and a migrant may find it difficult to spontaneously become a functional member of the civil society. This view, even in contrast with liberal policies, brings us close to Thomas Jefferson and Tocqueville’s theories concerning citizenship, should not be regarded as being subordinated to socialist policies. My desire is rather to express the fact that civil indifference cannot generate membership to a certain society. Even though there may be cases in which an individual does not possess the capabilities to actively participate in a civil society, the fulfilment of certain civil responsibilities maintains its permanence within socialist states, as well as within liberal ones.

For such reason, the granting of citizenship should be delayed. Martha Nussbaum extending the theories of John Rawls and Amartya Sen demands us to look at social-political matters from the point of view of individual capabilities.[iii] I believe this is a common-sense proposal which can be considered when dealing with migrants. The requirements should be properly formulated and linked to the capacities of the migrant. In Flanders there is a desire for rapid civil integration of the migrants and this approach of capabilities is institutionalized. Furthermore, the state obliges a certain group of migrants to participate in programs of language and civil training. Nevertheless, such programmes cannot succeed as long there is resistance on the migrant’s behalf. Again, desire to participate is an important act in acquiring new citizenship. Hereby, we can distinguish the active citizenship, which presupposes the emergence from the personal sphere and requires active involvement in the civil structures of a society, and passive citizenship in which a person is in fact absent or disinterested of the general social welfare.[6] One of the first steps to be undertaken consists of the establishment of rational communication between the migrant and the society and as consequence linguistic agreement should be reached. There are various positions, ranging from a nationalist view that each migrant should unconditionally should feel responsible for speaking the major language of the state of adoption up to more liberal theories, such those of Kymlicka arguing for linguistic and cultural independence. I believe that both extremes are in need of mediation because none of the alternatives is feasible and in harmony with our being. I believe that language is the arch between what I called mid-level rights (secondary rights) and tertiary rights (or cultural rights). As we have seen before, the fundamental rights are linked to pre-conventional necessities, for life is a happening outside the general human will or power. As we move upwards, the secondary rights are formal and conventional being linked to rational principles of necessary living within a society.

On a third level we have informal rights, which cannot be regulated by rational principles, because they are not coupled to the purely rational side of an individual. Customs, traditions, law of the land are imprinted in the consciousness of one individual simply by being-in-the-world within a particular cultural environment. The relationship between an individual and native culture and ethos has a degree of intimacy which transcends the social and political frontiers. We can impede people from acting according to their local customs, but we will never be able to obstruct their inner attachment to their cultural heritage[7]. Furthermore, such impediments will increase frustration and render an individual or group unhappy. This position is similar with Kymlicka’s view on minority rights.[iv]

Language has a dual function: firstly, it is an instrument of communication between the members of a civil society and, secondly it is intimate token for the history and cultural heritage of an individual or group. Formal regulations which concern the use of language within the civil society can be imposed, but these regulations cannot be active in the private sphere of an individual or group. Therefore, following the principle of linguistic territoriality, the migrant, as long as he desires to become an active citizen and benefit from the rights given by the country must speak the language in use at his arrival. However, in his private life, in the informal and familial interaction with other people he has the liberty of employing the language of his choice. Philippe van Parijs argues that „it must be realistic to expect those who settle in a particular territory to have the courage and humility to learn the territory’s official language”.^[v]

In more general terms, secondary rights or citizenship cannot supervene on cultural rights. Thus, I propose a hierarchy of rights consistent with the pyramid of needs. Having such framework, it would less problematic to deal matters concerning civil rights opposing cultural rights. As long as cultural rights do not clash with secondary or primary rights, the former are to be considered acceptable and legitimate.

In order to explain my comprehension of clash between these levels of rights, I shall refer to certain case studies. At the same time, discussing the following cases is intended to show the way in which my approach can be applied in order to settle certain debates concerning human rights and, at the same time, to represent a conclusive material for the completion of this paper. The illustrated examples concern the status of the migrant woman, and the approach is indifferent to feminist opinions.

The author Susan Moller Olin, in the article “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” raises the issue of polygamy within ethnical groups of African migrants in France. Polygamy is understood by Okin as the breach of women’s dignity, and therefore, rejected. However, if look is cast in the light of my personal approach, the reader will see that polygamy won’t be an express infringement of any of the previously mentioned rights. By all means, if it is forced upon a person, then primary rights, as well as secondary ones, are defied. This leads to the conclusion that polygamy is legitimate if it is consensual.[8] Another discussion which aroused general interest is that of infibulation. If this act is considered acceptable within certain minorities, from a European perspective it represents a barbarian act of transgression of human rights. From my personal perspective, such an act defies the basic rights of a person, and, therefore, such practices should not be tolerated. Hence, a clash appears between a tertiary right, of cultural practice, and a primary one. As I affirmed before, primary rights are fundamental and pre-eminent.

The act of forbidding the hijab in certain institutions seems rather a measure of forced emancipation of Muslim women, than acting according to the fair justice principles. The symbolism of the gesture is a mirroring of their culture, which needs to reach public society. The hijab is worn out of modesty, and the purpose is to allow a woman to be judged for her morals and ideals, instead of her appearance, as our judgement of female presence often tends to be very much influenced by appearance. From my point of view, this does argue against any of the previously mentioned categories of rights and it does not lead to a conflict between primary and cultural rights.  However, if we bring into discussion the topic of infibulation, there is a clean-cut distinction between the two. In the case of infibulation, fundamental rights are infringed. As long as these rights are considered universal, such an act is unacceptable.[9]

Of course, this cannot be considered an all-encompassing theory, and migration theories are not exhaustively treated. My attempt was to establish a personalist basis in the political debates concerning migration. At this moment there are clashes between the laws existent and the real needs of the migrant, which is why I believed this approach to be fundamental.

---

[1] I expressed my desire for an unbiased view of the man. I believe that both my claims are not a matter of biased morality but of agreement. Each ibndividual looks towards of the accomplishment of his own good. Our actions are directed towards the accomplishment of a certain good and whether that good is

[2] It has been observed that every action is resulted from motivation and it is directed towards attaining some good. The incentive for such teleological movement appears to be the need. Metaphysically, the need is the temporally occurring tension between two moment-states of pleasure. Thus, the good must be correlated to pleasure, without any hierarchical distinction between the two, for the pleasure without the good is mere passion with a debilitating effect on reason, while the good without the pleasure is subservient to moral imperatives, belittling the immanent value of human feeling. In other words, what is sound to the mind, must be enjoyable for the soul, and must not expose one to great physical stress.

[3] In addition to this trialism of human being, I must draw attention to the ontological dependence on the environment in a human being lives. We are not isolated from the environment, we are open entities and this openness is immanent. We participate in the Universe and we are sourced by it. Therefore, although otherness may forever be unknown, it is impossible to deny our being-in-the-world. As contingent beings we are shaped by the environment,  and, when the environment is too aggressive, we are no longer shaped, but rather chopped into, and, unless terribly pugnacious, we may end up with multiple amputations of our individuality, frustrated and unhappy. It is therefore important to ascertain the importance of human emotion too. Emotions are not disposable and benefit of what I call tertiary (or third level) rights. These rights focus on a sort of intimacy which cannot be regulated throughout pure rational principles and from this point of view they will benefit of a greater level of independence. We are able to physically adapt to the geo-climatic environment. Due to these adaptations we have certain traits. People living on high altitude have an increased number of haemoglobine cells in their blood, for instance. Human races did not appear due to arbitrary or accidental genetic changes, but as a long process of adaptation within a specific environment.

[4] Our parents may participate in our creation, however they could not participate in the conceivement of life. This leads me to another conclusion that killing or torture is an outrageous rebellion against being. Furthermore, even death penalty is an agression on being. Nevertheless, the homicide is a social reality and the retribution of such act should be re-assignement of ethos and social ban.

[5] Indeed, the actual regulation on such matters is very distinct than my view, however we can ascertain that a person who is not present in a civil society, bears, at most honorifically, a citizenship status.

[6] We cannot consider people spending most of their lives in front of TV’s watching soap operas, or busy solely with domestic activities real or active citizens. The result of one citizen’s action must have an impact within the society.

[7] The cultural heritage of an individual or group is of an ambivalent nature because it reflects both moral and political norms, as wells as natural phenomena of the geographical area in which the individual originates. Therefore, limiting the sphere of cultural manifestation of an individual is impossible solely on a rational level. In this regard, related to the aspects which are foreign to the legislator’s consciousness, either tolerance or intolerance can be applied. Consequently, the cultural rights of a migrant which transcend the borders of the basic rights, may be treated with intolerance.

[8] A debate on polygamy would lead to a too high digression for this paper, but, if we regard things through a natural perspective, people are not monogamous. Monogamy appears as  norm of political foundation of family. However, considering the dynamics of the relationships between individual, we cannot talk about a natural monogamous behavior. Moreover, both in Belgium and The Netherlands, there have been debates about regulating polygamous relationships, not as a wish to guarantee certain cultural rights of minorities, but as a demand of certain nationals. For instance, in 2005, in Rosendal, three persons managed to establish a legal contract of cohabitation (Reformatorisch Dagblad, Ewout van der Staaij, „Huwelijk wordt steeds verder opgerekt”, 23-09-2005). At present, both in Flanders and Holland, there are groups belonging to the national majority which are supportive of  “polyamory”.

[9] If a consensus has been reached as far as infibulation is concerned, the issue of scarves is still under debate. It is very interesting how a piece of cloth can generate such a volume of debates. It seems that some of the smallest problems can generate the biggest headaches. However, in the second case, when dealing with such issues the categorical imperative is inescapable, and since we cannot apply any kind of mutilation to our citizens, infibulation does contravene the Human Rights creed, but it is also an ethical infringement, whereas headscarves are mere accessories with a statement. Certain people wear crucifixes, others wear caps, berets and hats. Even the Queen of England is seen wearing a scarf, and nobody talks about her prostration under a male dominion.

---

[i] Abraham Maslow - Theory of Motivation (1943). Internet source. http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/abraham-maslow-theory-human-motivation.shtml

[ii] Christopher Wellman, Christian Barry, Matt Peterson - The Arbitrary Morality of Immigration and Citizenship, Public Ethics Media, November 3, 2009

[iii] Martha Nusbaum , Women and human development. The capability approach (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 4- 11

[iv] Multicultural citizenship, Will Kymlicka,  (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) pg. 76 - 81

[v] Philippe Van Parijs - Linguistic justice for Europe, Belgium and the world, Lectures for the XXIst century  (Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2008)

Horea Mihai

BA Philosophy

KULEUVEN

Edgar Degas’s painting Dancer with bouquet, curtseying. Analysis and social context

The painting “Dancer with bouquet, curtseying”, dates back to 1878, the materials used being pastel on maroufled paper on canvas. Its height is 0.72m, and its width, 0.77 m. The work is preserved in Musee d’Orsay, registration number, RF 4039. Until 1892 it belonged to the collection A. Bellino. In 1892, it was sold in Galleries Georges Petit, sale A. Bellino. Until 1911, it was part of the collection of count Isaac de Camodo, Paris. In 1911, it became the possession of Musee du Louvre, and became part of the Louvre exhibition in 1914.

            The exhibitions in which it was presented were Panama Pacific International Exhibition, San Francisco, USA, 1914; Exhibition Degas : paintings, pastels and drawings, sculptures (…), Paris, France, 1924; Degas, Paris, France, 1937 ; French pastels, Paris, France, 1949; Pastels and miniatures of 19th century, Paris, France, 1956; Degas – works of Musee du Louvre : paintings, pastels, drawings, sculptures, Paris, France, 1969; Degas, Paris, France, 1988; Degas, Ottawa, Canada, 1988; Degas, New York, USA, 1988; Mystery and brilliance, Pastels of  Musée d'Orsay, Paris, France, 2008.

            Hilaire Germain Edgar de Gas was born in Paris, 19 July 1834, the eldest of three boys and two girls born to a prosperous banker from a Neapolitan family and his Créole wife from New Orleans.  

            In the early 1870s, the female ballet dancer became his favorite theme. During a visit of relatives in 1872 to Louisiana, he painted The Cotton Exchange at New Orleans (finished 1873), his only picture to be purchased by a museum during his lifetime. After 1880, pastel became Degas's preferred medium. He used sharper colors and gave greater attention to surface patterning, depicting milliners, laundresses, and groups of dancers against backgrounds now only sketchily indicated. For the poses, he depended more and more on memory or earlier drawings.  In 1881 he exhibited a sculpture, Little Dancer, and as his eyesight failed, he turned increasingly to sculpture, modeling figures and horses in wax over metal armatures. These sculptures remained in his studio in disrepair and were cast in bronze only after his death. During the Dreyfuss Affaire, Degas, himself an anti-Semite, will break with some of his most loyal art collectors, gallery owners, and some of his eldest friends, one being Ludovic Halévy, librettist at the Opera introduced him to the world of theatre and dance He will only see him again on his death bed . (Sue Roe, “The private life of the Impressionists”, New York: Harper Collins, pg. 34, 122, 134).

            Unlike Impressionist painters who preferred painting ‘en plein air’, Degas was a master of painting under artificial light. At the end of the show, the dancer, with a large flower bouquet, greets the unseen public. The artist is interested in the magical effect of artificial light, which is cast upon he characters upwards. The deformed face of the dancer seems like a mask. This, despite the intense color and the exotic scene, introduces a perception of reality behind the brilliancy of the theater. The bow of the ballerina doesn’t hide effort and exhaustion, whether her face is in the shade, or the light coming from the light source on the floor. Behind the ballerina, the dancers stay posing, but we notice that one of them scratches her back, and the other clumsily advances her foot. The impression created by light bears social allusion that Degas must have been aware of.  Such depiction of dancers suggests realism, or maybe a realist impression of the humanity of his dancers. We may compare this painting with the work Laundresses, in which one of the women yawns rakishly. Moreover, through the subtle representation of such a gesture, Degas leaves the impression that his subjects with to escape a life which presupposes simulation and show and, beyond the mesmerizing participation on stage, dancers have the same need. 

            19^th century European culture is divided between the idealized exaltation and marginalization of women, obliged to respect rules established by a society of men. The characters of romantic ballet correspond to the double image of the woman, both angelic and diabolic. Degas doesn’t adhere to this mythology and prefers painting the real world of women, without judging them. He exalts feminine dance in its exhaustion, its victories, its melancholies, its everydayness.

            Out of “La Condition sociale de l'artiste: XVIe-XXe siècles”, we learn that at the beginning of the 1870s, Degas was a regular visitor of the Paris Opera on rue Le Peletier, and, after the moment in which the building was ruined by fire, Degas frequented the Garnier Opera. This access allowed him to be in contact with a social category of women which had always fascinated him: lower class, unmarried, sexually available. Degas was the painter of dancers, cabaret singers, laundresses, after all, and he must have been aware of the fact that, very often, dancers were forced into prostitution. The same book offers an account of the condition of the dancer, by citing two confessions of former dancers at that time: “What is the use of doing yourself harm when you can please just as well, with less effort? If you haven’t got a good figure, you must use your talent, but if you are pretty and well-formed, that makes up for everything.” Another dancer confessed that: “As soon as a dancer enters the Opera, her destiny as a whore is sealed: there she will be a high class whore.”

            Alastair Sooke, deputy art critic of The Daily Telegraph, ascertains the unfavorable social conjuncture of the ballerinas in the Paris Opera: “The dancers of the Paris Opéra, many of whom came from an impoverished background and had a reputation for loose morals, belong to the large cast of “modern” characters found in Impressionist art.”

            At the end of the 1870s, the Garniera Opera had equipment of illumination that was both on gas and electric. Electric light was an absolute novelty in Paris. Degas used artificial light in such a manner that the face of the dancer leaves a surprising impression. We could have waited that the show ends in reverence and smile, but Degas penetrates the intimacy of the ballerina and depicts the unusual effort, and the lack of satisfaction. The painter himself declared: "Women can never forgive me; they hate me, they feel that I am disarming them. I show them without their coquetry."[1]

            Because Degas has never done anything in a frivolous and distracted manner, he tries to comprehend the corporal mechanism. Beyond the unusual movements, he wants to know the science which rendered muscular efforts harmonious and easy. In his compositions there are frequent juxtapositions of “des etoiles et de petit rats[2] qui travaillent a la barre”. Due to the works consecrated to this subject, one can follow Degas’ passion for movement.

            The first works have a static character but, step by step, it will be only the movement that will interest him, and, due to this fact, he will be equally obliged to change technique. His knowledge of oil painting is not of much help – as he slowly realizes – before the exigencies imposed by his ambition to catch movement. Therefore, he uses pastel more and more. To him, it is not a wholly new technique, as he had already adopted it, but, besides appreciating it more, he knows all its weak points and, particularly, its frailty. Therefore, he mixes pastel and gouache, tempera, with solvent (which was apparently invented by Dégas.) It involves “de-oiling” your oil paint by letting it sit on paper towels or other absorbent paper for several hours then scraping it onto your palette and using solvent to dilute and apply it. The paint dries very quickly as the solvent evaporates, which did make blending difficult. The result has a matte appearance like pastel or gouache.

            The first attempts weren’t always successful and certain works with a grainy or stained look, bizarre colors, stand proof. He believes that the best way is tempera and pastel. Pastel is diluted with fixative, agglomerating it in opaque layers, often drowning the trait in a very special ‘fondu’, then finishing the picture either by the traits, the accents, pure pastel, strokes of brush which give very pleasant effects of fluidity. “La danseuse au bouquet, saluant” is the most typical work realized in this manner. (Paris:Siloe Edition, 1978).  Pg. 121- 130)

            In these three images, I attempted to discover the center of the image. One notices that in the center of the painting there is the joint of the forearm of the dancer. In the background, on the middle vertical line, in a vertical position, there is the woman who holds the parasol The body of the dancer in the foreground fills only half of the main square, cutting the canvas in two near the diagonal. The other dancers are placed on the background and fill a small portion of the canvas, Degas leaving half of the painting empty, at the border towards non-color.

            Through this procedure, I believe that the painter contrasts the ternary medium of the stage with the dynamics of the ballerinas. However, though the depiction of the dynamic dancers in the near background and the far one in the right, degas suggests the potentiality of their movement. The depiction of dancers in groups focuses attention towards the individuality of the main ballerina. What’s more, the solitary woman in the centre of the background weighs the idea of individuality in the painting.

            Therefore, there is an antithesis between a double perspective: first of all, a perspective towards the group of ballerinas regarded in their entirety, having common features and almost identical, and towards whom the light falls from a superior point; and secondly, a frontal direct perspective towards the central ballerina, whose features suggest individuality, and whose face is enlightened upwards. The portrait of the ballerina individualises her and differentiates her from other dancers.

            Perhaps, Degas tried to offer a double image upon the life of ballet: a superficial one, in which dancers are presented only as people endowed with a kinetic sense, a regard from above, which loses itself in details, and a frontal, careful perspective, through which we can notice the effort, simulation, through the impression of mask suggested on the unbeautified face of the ballerina and the wry smile, the tight body, suggesting suffering, and the humble bow.  The theme of the bow is encountered in several paintings of Degas. There are numerous studies for this painting, and even a version which depicts the public under the image of a lady with a fan, therefore establishing a contast between the static image of a passive public, and the dynamic image of the ballerinas. [3]. 

            Degas’ academic training encouraged a strong classical tendency in art, with clashed with the view of the Impressionists. To him, the line was a means to describe contours and render compositional structure. On the other hand, the Impressionists valued colour, and concentration on surface texture. In the two images above, we shall remark the geometric sense of Degas, particular to classicists. Firstly, the lines that he uses fall under main angles. The yellow lines present a degree of inclination of 30 degrees and are most frequently used in rendering the contour of the arms and the legs of the dancers. The perfectly vertical lines (magenta) show the static position of the two women who hold parasols. The cyan lines, at 45 degrees, and the purple ones, at 60 degrees, contour especially the dresses of the dancers, and other elements in the background.

            Degas repetitively uses the isosceles obtuse triangle in realising the portrait of the ballerina in the foreground. The dress is made in the shape of a diamond made of two triangles with a common basis. A repetirion is encountered in contouring cleavages, parasols, the fan, and in realising the landscape.

            The colour palette is typical to Degas’ pastels, depicting ballet scenes on the stage. Cold colours alternate with non-colours and a few accents of warm colour. Small flower details of a warm colour can be remarked in the outwear of the bowing dancer, while her face and skin are rendered in cold hues of pink. In order to accentuate the exoticism from the background, Degas uses warm colours in realising the silhouettes of the black women and parasols, therefore establishing a stronger contrast between the static and dynamic elements.

In the upper left corner we may notice the curtain, in dark colours and black, behind which the group of dancers seems to move.

            The dancers in the left side cast their looks backstage, leaving the impression that they want to leave the stage, and the group in the left side looks in other directions, while the ballerina in the foreground looks towards the public. All in all, we take part on a heterogenous dynamics of the dancers, while none of them assists at the bow in the foreground. Perhaps Degas wishes to render the impression of a lack of unity, in order to suggest the competition between the dancers.

            What’s more, the dark-coloured curtains are closed and crepuscularly englightened, suggesting mystery, and the viewer cannot guess what is behind her, nor the point of interest towards which the left-side dancers regard. In this respect, I would like to remind the reader Degas’ words:  "A painting requires a little mystery, some vagueness, some fantasy. When you always make your meaning perfectly plain you end up boring peopl

            The fact that the person in the centre of the background is in a static position somehow dictates the feeling of the painting: the ballerinas seem to be compelled to dance in a limitative manner. Their wish to be freed from these limits is suggested by the heterogeneousness of the movements. Besides, the bouquet of flowers, placed in a point of interest, complements the impression of a censured sublime.

            The inclusion of a painting in the Impressionist movement can be legitimate, because Degas is a master of impression, but due to the painting under artificial light, due to the oblic lines, the painting displays classical elements. The measure of 1/3 or 2/3 between the free spaces and busy ones is not respected, and this brings about artistic libertarianism. The social theme brings elements of subtle realism, Degas declining a faithful depiction of reality, and this transforms the canvas into a surprising, mysterious aesthetic experiance, which leaves the main impression of concealment rather than disclosure.

---

[1] Marie-Claire Chappet, Degas on dance: "...a pretext for painting pretty fabrics", The Telegraph,12 sep. 2011

[2] This is an euphemism used for the little dancers.

[3] Forella Marevrino, Jacques Lassaigne „Tout l’oeuvre paint de Degas”, Paris: Flammarion, 1974, pg. 110 - 120

Summary of “Virginia Woolf. A biography” by Quentin Bell

The following summary is concerned with the first volume of Quentin Bell’s “Virginia Woolf A Biography”, A Harvest Book, published in New York, in 1972. The original edition appeared in Great Britain, in two volumes. However, this paperback edition contains both volumes in a single tome. The first volume, divided into nine chapters covers the first 30 years of Virginia Stephen, whereas, the second volumes follows the author throughout her married life.

Quentin Bell was the younger son of Vanessa Bell and the writer and critic Clive Bell, and the nephew of Virginia Woolf.  Bell spent his early years Charleston, in the farmhouse home of Vanessa and Clive.  Figures such as E.M. Forster and, of course, Leonard and Virginia Woolf were frequent company at his house.

Bell was an important member of the Bloomsbury Circle[1], a group that included Virginia Woolf, Vanessa Bell, Clive Bell, John Maynard Keynes, Adrian Stephen, E. M. Forster, Leonard Woolf, and others. He was thus privileged to publish Bloomsbury (1968), and a two volume biography of his aunt. With the publication of this highly acclaimed biography of Virginia Woolf, and his other works, he became Bloomsbury's most celebrated chronicler and, the guardian of the family legacy. However, despite the fact that the members of Bloomsbury Circle were pacifists, he tried to join the army in the Second World War, but he was refused on medical grounds. Quentin Bell became a painter, sculptor, potter, author, and art critic.  He became Professor of Fine Art at the University of Leeds; Slade Professor of Fine Art at Oxford University; and Professor of the History and Theory of Art at Sussex University.

Among his other books were On Human Finery, Victorian Artists and Bloomsbury.  In 1995, he published his memoirs, Bloomsbury Recalled (called Elders and Betters in Britain); and in 1997 his Charleston: A Bloomsbury House and Garden, which being finished by his daughter Virginia Nicholson, was published posthumously. He died on 16 December 1996, at the age of 86.

With this biography, Bell won in 1972 the James Tait Black Memorial Prize[2], one of Britain’s oldest literary awards. The award is given annually by the University for the best work of fiction and, more relevant in this context, the best biography, published in the previous year.

In 1972, at the invitation of Leonard Woolf[3], Quentin Bell wrote an historical biography of his aunt Virginia Woolf.  Quentin Bell writes a very detailed biography of his aunt, following her, when sources permitted, even in a day after day chronology. The main sources for this biography are The Berg Collection which, after of the arrangements of Leonard Woolf, would gather the 27 manuscript volumes of Virginia Woolf’s diaries from the period 1915 – 1941. A second source represents the Charleston papers from King’s College in Cambridge, which contains the letter of Vanessa and Clive Bell, Duncan Grant and Roger Fry,  Monk House papers, which comprise the correspondence between Virginia and Leonard Woolf and also a considerable amount of manuscripts. Apart from these sources, Quentin Bell made use of various letters and memoirs of members of the family and friends, including those of his mother, Vanessa Bell and his own correspondence with Virginia Woolf. Virginia Woolf’s diaries and letters provide the reader with first-hand information about her life. Anne Olivier Bell (Quentin’s wife) edited five volumes of Virginia Woolf’s diaries (1977-1984) and Nigel Nicolson (Vita Sackville-West’s youngest son) edited six volumes of Virginia Woolf’s letters (1975-1980).

In the first chapter, we are taken back around 1750, and introduced to the earliest data on the family three of the Stephen Family. Quentin Bell draws a line between the temperament of the male descendant, ending with Leslie Stephen, Virginia’s father and the female line ending with Julia, Virginia’s mother. Accordingly, the female ancestors on the line were always beautiful and welcoming, and in a certain degree inclined towards arts, while the male figures where more rational and serious up to obliviousness. With the birth of Leslie Stephen, “a nervous, delicate boy, fond and over-excited by poetry”, the balance seems to be settled. Both Virginia and her sister Vanessa inherited the artistic inclination of their father, and the social and boisterous welcoming attitude of their mother. We find out that both of them were later members in Bloomsbury group, Virginia accounting for literature and Vanessa for painting and interior decoration.

Julia Stephen had been married before, and from her previous marriage she had two sons, George and Gerald and a daughter, Stella. Leslie had a daughter, named Julia, mentally sick, who died in a asylum in 1845. After marriage, Leslie and Julia had four children: Vanessa, the oldest, followed by Thoby, Virginia and Adrian, the cadet.

Virginia was born on January 25^th 1882, at no. 22 Hyde Park Gate and spent her early years in the nursery on the top of the house with her 3 other siblings. Laura lived separately, while George, Stella and Gerald were past the nursery age. The children were home tutored either by Julia, either by Leslie and soon we find out that “Virginia’s intellectual revolution” did not result from her formal education. We find out that although words were Virginia’s strongest allies, she could not learn foreign languages, and despite of her repeated efforts to learn Greek or French, she could not go beyond a minimal vocabulary in French. Both of the sisters, and Vanessa in particular, favoured Thoby. It is ascertained that although there was a close relationship between Virginia and Vanessa, there was also a great degree of minor clashes between the two sisters.

The first important and consistent literary undertaking of Virginia, The Hyde Park Gate News, began to be issued on 9^th of February 1891 and it contained gossip and observation on the events within and around the Stephen family. The series which were read by grownups and friends of the family continued weekly, although with gaps, until 19 December 1892.

Later, on 5 May 1985, her mother Julia died because of influenza and Virginia said that “her death was the greatest disaster that could happen”(Bell, pg. 40). Virginia has her first serious breakdown and Quentin Bell suspects that she might have, if not attempted, at least entertained the idea of suicide. The most difficult time consisted in the morning, since her father was the chief mourner and the children had to cope both with their suffering and with their father. Stella, Julia’s daughter from the first marriage assumed the role daily chores in the house for a while but she eventually married in august 1896.  Quentin Bell records that, according to the latter statements of Leonard Woolf and Virginia’s doctor Noel Richards, the writer’s half-brother George made advances on her, shortly after her mother’s death. Furthermore, in a later document, namely a later from Virginia to Ethel Smith, Virginia confesses that her brother had an incestuous relationship with her. Quentin Bell offers reasons to believe that both of the Duckworth brothers sexually abused both of the Stephen sisters throughout their childhood and   teenage period, until 1904. The biographer assumes that these events, conjoint to her mother’s death, had a crucial effect on Virginia’s mental health. In July 1897, Stella dies from an unhealed gastric chill. During the same year, Virginia becomes very fond of Stella’s widower, Jack Hills, but it seems that a love affair developed between him and Vanessa. During that year Virginia health started to become frail and she needed long periods of rest. In what follows, Virginia attends many social events within the family circles and friends, she travels and pays many visits. According to Bell, entering in contact with London society Virginia gathers the experience which will sketch the portrait Rachel Vinrace from her first novel published in 1915, The Voyage Out. In March 1900 Virginia falls sick again, with measles, this time. After long suffering, Leslie Stephens dies on the 22^nd of February 1904 and the children decide the move away from Hyde Park Gate.

That year started badly for Virginia for she is incapable of focusing upon writing, while she had feelings of guilt concerning her father. After traveling in Italy and France during the spring of 1904, Virginia faces her second nervous breakdown and she is put into a care of Dr. Savage and three other nurses. She recovers steadily and in august join the rest of her family at the new residence at No 46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. With the help of her friend Violet Dickinson, she published for first time on 14 December 1914 in The Guardian. The house in Bloomsbury was more spacious than the previous one and although Vanessa made her debut in interior design, Virginia was appalled by the fact that her half-brother was residing with them. In November 1904 Leonard Woolf is invited for a dinner at the Stephens house in Gordon Square, before his departure to Ceylon. Virginia was present at that dinner and she was noticed by Leonard because of her ill looks and her silence, while Virginia observed him and collected stories about him. It seems that Leonard Woolf was of very sanguine temper, most of the time angry and obviously misanthrope.    

In January 1905, Virginia is declared cured. Clive Bell and Leonard Woolf were friends with Thoby and participated in the formation of multi-authored poetry volume called Euphrosyne, which was privately published. The volume was mocked by Virginia in a commentary, one year later. Quentin Bell published in the Appendix C of the first volume the text of the commentary. Virginia mocks them for their limited vocabulary, lack of originality and inspiration found in minor French poets, but also she gently criticizes the difference in status between men and women, for, both her brothers were studying in a college, while she was at home.

Throughout 1905, Virginia remains active: during the spring, she embarks on a journey to Lisbon, Seville and Granada, and the she pays brief visits to friends in Oxford and Cambridge. During the summer, all Stephen siblings spent their holidays at the sea, where they are visited by their traditional friends, Violet Dickinson, Jack Hills and others. In October 1905 Vanessa realized the Friday Club, a society concerned with Fine Arts whose members would meet weekly. Although Virginia was not deeply interested she commented amused on the differences within the club.  By the end of the year, Virginia is ardently busy with writing, reviewing and teaching adults of working class at Morley College. Although she found the environment not at all motivating, she continued teaching until the end of 1907. Because of her commitment to Morley Collage, the biographer assumes that Virginia’s health has been good and stable. However, in 1906, The Stephens organized a trip to Greece. Thoby and Adrian saw it like an adventure and they rode on horseback from Trieste, through Montenegro and Albania, while Vanessa, Virginia and Violet Dickinson travelled by train. Virginia discovered the Byzantine Art of which she had been unaware, until her arrival in Greece, while she was not interested in modern Greece. During the trip, Vanessa fell ill and Virginia spent two weeks in a hotel room reading Merimee and attending her sister. Thoby returned to London and fell ill, while Vanessa’s recovery was only brief and she was waited at Dover by George with a nurse. Virginia and Adrian became responsible for the household. Violet Dickinson fell ill and she was taken care of at her home in Manchester Street. Thoby died eventually on the 20th of November after a series of crises of what lately was discovered to be typhoid fever.  Virginia is asked not to convey to her friend Violet and she continues for almost one month writing to her about the improvements of Thoby’s health. Quentin Bell offers a heart-breaking account of the familial situation by citing from Virginia’s letter to Violet from the day of her brother’s death: “We are going well through the stageș and then three days after his funeral: “Thoby is going on splendidly…”.(Bell, pg. 100)Two days after Thoby’s death, Vanessa in an act of desperation, visited Clive Bell and agreed to marry him and Virginia finds some consolation in this news.

The following year, Virginia has to fight not only with the feeling of loss of her brother, but also with the hateful feeling of having to let go to Vanessa who married Clive Bell in February. The moods of the sisters are opposed, for Vanessa is enthusiastic and happy about her marriage, while Virginia cannot find consolation. In her attempt to gather biographical information about Thoby she was refused by all his friends on different pretexts.  Thus, at the beginning of 1907, Virginia’s sole companion was her younger brother Adrian which she found “maddeningly lethargic, lamentably silent, unable to find interest in anything” (Bell, pg 117).

After such a shift Virginia and Adrian began hunting for a new house, and by end of March they are settled on 29 Fitzroy Square. For the most part 1907 Virginia travels to Paris, to various friends in Cambridge and Great Britain and during the last part of the year she works on her novel Melybrosia. The novel would occupy her time for the following 5 years until its completion and publishing much later under the name of The Voyage Out, in 1915. Virginia worked assiduously for this novel. Quentin Bell ascertains that there were no more than seven versions of it. In the meantime, she continued reviewing other works not only under The Guardian, but also for The Times and other journals. Quentin Bell asserts that Virginia did not publish her own literary works because of her shyness, because she was terrified of exposing herself to the world.

The biographer focuses in chapter seven on Virginia’s love and sex life. Virginia was repeatedly told to marry, and Lytton Strachey, writer and critic of the Bloomsbury group was the most eligible person in the circle of acquantainces of the Miss Stephen. On 17 February 1909 he proposed and Virginia accepted, but very soon they found out that they could not live together so the betrothal was timely dissolved. Quentin Bell asserts that there have been infidelities on the part of Clive Bell with his sister-in-law. Virginia accused him of being a “cuckoo that lays eggs in other bird’s nests” (Bell, pg. 133). This affair proved to be painful for all three of them, even though Vanessa treated the problems lightly and with a slight dash of humour. Contrary to certain expectation there has never been a scene and the relationship between sisters, although at times under did not collapse and nor the relationship between Virginia and Clive Bell, the latter becoming the critic of her unfinished novel Melymbrosia. The biographer suggests that Clive Bell showed signs of jealousy when Virginia was courted by Lytton or other men, while she depicts Clive in her journal as being “sensitive, modest, kindly man, a little bit too carefully polished and a little bit too conscious of his own social gifts”. For what we understand, between Virginia and Clive was a mutual relationship of respect and appreciation. During this time Virginia continued to work on Melymbrosia.      

Quentin Bell remembers the practical joke of the Dreadnought Hoax which took place on 10 February 1910. During the same year the nation faces a period of political and social unrest and the Bells and the Stephens went to the Trafalgar Square to protest on the behalf of the liberals. Clive had desire for political promotion and Virginia did support him, but soon it seemed to her that “politics, like philanthropy attracts a bloodless, inhuman kind of person. (Bell, pg. 161). In June that year, Virginia suffers another breakdown and she is put under the care of a nursing home for about one month. Vanessa, being immobilized by her second child, (Quentin) could not attend to her. In September 1910 she would return back home.

Vanessa falls sick after Clive departs for Constantinopole, and Vanessa and Virginia are to follow later. The Bells began having matrimonial difficulties and their marriage metamorphoses steadily into friendship. This, and the mutual attachment with Clive bell led Virginia to reconsider the idea of marriage and she became an advocated of sexual liberty. Virginia had a few affairs until she settled for Leonard Woolf. Because their lease of 29 Fitzroy square was coming to an end they moved to another house 38 Brunswick Square and the vacant top floor was offered to Leonard Woolf, who returned to England in May 1911 for a year's leave. The ground floor was given to Duncan Grant.  Virginia was indeed in an awkward position living in 1911 with three other bachelors, but this seemed to mind only her half-brother, George. Her relationship with Leonard developed steadily and he proposed to Virginia in a letter dated on 11 January 1912. He knew that Virginia would need a long time to decide and he asked for extension of his leave with four months, because his leave was about to expire in May. He was asked to give a reason but he refused. Instead, he resigned in early 1912 and that same year married Virginia.

The first volume also contains five appendices in which Quentin Bell offers a chronology of events, Virginia’s Report on Teaching at Morley College, her comments on the poetry volume Euphrosyne,  some correspondence between Virginia and Clive on the The Voyage Out, and, finally her account of The Deadnought Hoax.

---

[1] It is in this group of artists that Virginia Woolf forged her adulthood longtime friendships.

[2] James Tait Black Prize winners : http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/people/tait-black/biography

[3] http://www.smith.edu/library/libs/rarebook/exhibitions/conway/bellbio.htm