D. The Culture of the English-Speaking World PDF

‘I’ll say it is.’ And then slipping on her professional manner again as though it were a pair of glasses, she resumed. ‘How will the loved one be attired?’ We have our own tailoring section. Sometimes after a very long illness there are not suitable clothes availa...

‘I’ll say it is.’ And then slipping on her professional manner again as though it were a pair of glasses, she resumed. ‘How will the loved one be attired?’ We have our own tailoring section. Sometimes after a very long illness there are not suitable clothes available and sometimes the Waiting Ones think it a waste of a good suit. You see, we can fit a Loved One out very reasonably as a casket-suit does not have to be designed for hard wear and in cases where only the upper part is exposed for leave-taking there is no need for more than jacket and vest. Sometimes dark is best to set off the flowers.’ Dennis was entirely fascinated. At length he said: ‘Sir Francis was not much of a dandy. I doubt of his having anything quite suitable for casket wear. But in Europe, I think, we usually employ a shroud.’ ‘Oh, we have shrouds too. I’ll show you some.’ The hostess led him to a set of sliding shelves like a sacristy chest where vestments are stored, and drawing one out revealed a garment such as Dennis had never seen before. Observing his interest she held it up for his closer inspection. It was in appearance like a suit of clothes, buttoned in front but open down the back; the sleeves hung loose, open at the seam; half an inch of linen appeared at the cuff and the V of the waistcoat was similarly filled; a knotted bowtie emerged from the opening of a collar which also lay as though slit from behind. It was the apotheosis of the ‘dickey’. ‘A specialty of our own,’ she said, ‘though it is now widely imitated. The idea came from the quick-change artists in vaudeville. It enables one to dress the Loved One without disturbing the pose.’ […]”. D. The Culture of the English-Speaking World? No culture is unique in itself, isolated from other cultures. There exist mutual and longstanding influences between peoples. Even within the English-speaking world, there exist a host of differences and cross-cultural misunderstandings. The 2013 movie “Saving Mr Banks” (directed by John Lee Hancock), shows such misunderstandings between P.L. Travers, the uptight author of Mary Poppins, and Walt Disney, informal in the extreme. §2. The Strength of Culture What makes culture important? There exist different levels of understanding. 1. Personal level The problem can be taken on a variety of levels. One might have to do with “home sickness”, suffering from being far away from family, friends, … nostalgia for the famous madeleine de Proust. Another might be to struggle with etiquettes, cultural codes (Americans certainly do not kiss each other…). 23  Prsn morale Legal persons (not to be confused with natural persons) can also have difficulties with culture because of the need to adapt their market according to the culture they are dealing with. They may also have differences of perception of risk and uncertainty. 2. National level o Citizenship considerations: naturalization ceremonies that prove your attachment to U.S. culture (to become a naturalized U.S. citizen). o Culture wars which polarize people against each other on divisive subjects (abortion, guns, death penalty). o National broadcasting systems: the BBC, NPR, or French government funding of culture. 3. International level A matter of “soft power”: this is the ability of a country to showcase its strength and its values and persuade other countries to do what it wants without force or coercion. Was developed by Joseph Nye who insisted on the power of a country that doesn’t only concern on material factors. But it depends also on the power of attract, to appeal on other countries. It’s the worldwide credibility of a country, their ability to influence other countries with their own values. Trump’s tweets, jazz music, the first Great Exhibition, Disneyland in Shanghai, … At present, the United Nations has fifteen specialized agencies that carry out different functions on behalf of the United Nations. Of foremost concern for cultural matters is of 59 course the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), headquartered in Paris and established in 1946 pursuant to the signing of its Constitution on November 16, 1945. Whilst recognizing in its preamble “[t]hat the wide diffusion of culture, 60 and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must fulfil in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern”, Article I of the UNESCO Constitution lays out the purpose of the organization as being “to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations”. As an intergovernmental organization, the role of 61 59 Pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations of 1945, the specialized agencies of the U.N. are established at the initiative of the Economic and Social Council by intergovernmental agreements concluded under Articles 57 and 63 of the Charter. The agencies have “wide international responsibilities, as defined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related fields” (Article 57). 60 The UNESCO Constitution was drafted at the United Nations Conference for the establishment of an educational and cultural organization (ECO/CONF) convened in London from November 1-16, 1945 (the London Conference). The conference gathered the representatives of forty-four States. For the text of the UNESCO Constitution, see http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=15244&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed May 28, 2020). 61 For Professor Derek W. Bowett of the University of Cambridge, the aims of UNESCO were “of so general a character as to suggest a ‘general’ participation by States, rather than a clear variation in real 24 UNESCO is understandably limited by reason of its norms not being enforceable. To say that the organization lacks any influence would nevertheless be a gross exaggeration. The United States withdrew from UNESCO twice because of disagreements with the institution and its activities. The first time occurred in 1983-84 under President Ronald Reagan on the basis of 62 the agency’s alleged anti-Western bias under the leadership of then-director general Amadou Mahtar M’Bow. The United States rejoined UNESCO on September 29, 2003 under 63 President George W. Bush, seemingly to galvanize international solidarity after the attacks on the country of 9/11. The second time the United States withdrew from UNESCO took effect on January 1, 2019 in retaliation to the agency’s recognition – in 2017 – of the old city of Hebron in the West Bank as a Palestinian World Heritage Site. Following the U.S.’s 64 announcement of withdrawal by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the then-director-general of UNESCO – Irina Bokova – lamented: “At the time when the fight against violent extremism interest or participation […]. Its comparative removal from acute political problems moreover enables a much more egalitarian participation by States, so that features like the ‘veto’ are absent from its constitution”, in D.W. Bowett, The Law of International Institutions, 4 Ed. (London, Stevens & Sons, th 1982), pp. 113-114. In terms of “legislative” processes, UNESCO adopts three types of norms. 1) Conventions (and agreements of standard-setting nature) are adopted by the General Conference by a two-thirds majority (Constitution, Article IV, para. 4, and Rules of Procedure, Article 12(1)). Conventions are subject to ratification, acceptance, or accession by the Member States. 2) Recommendations are adopted by the General Conference by a simple majority (Constitution, Article IV, para. 4, and Rules of Procedure, Article 12(2)). Whilst not subject to ratification, the mere fact they have been adopted entails obligations even for those Member States that neither voted for it nor approved it (see below). 3) Declarations do not figure as such among the proposals which may be submitted to the General Conference for adoption but they may be (and have been) considered and adopted. In terms of strict legal practice, declarations are similar to recommendations (and cannot be made binding upon Member States). Declarations are nevertheless said to enjoy greater moral authority than recommendations. UNESCO’s Constitution, Article IV, para. 4, provides that “each of the Member States shall submit recommendations or conventions to its competent authorities within a period of one year from the close of the session of the General Conference at which they were adopted” [”competent” meaning competent to legislate, not just to study: see UNESCO Memorandum in U.N.J.Y. (1965), 137]. Under Article VIII of the UNESCO Constitution, Member States are bound to report periodically to the organization on the laws, regulations, and statistics relating to its educational, scientific and cultural institutions and activities, and on the action taken with regard to conventions and recommendations. 62 Withdrawal from UNESCO is governed by Article II(6) of its Constitution. 63 On the U.S. withdrawal of 1983-84, see Jeffrey L. Chidester and Paul Kengor (Eds.), Reagan’s Legacy in a World Transformed (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 2015), pp. 275-276. A major source of controversy also lay in M’Bow’s (mis-)management of the organization. At the time, the United Kingdom and Singapore also withdrew from the organization. For extended discussion on this crisis, see Pierre de Senarclens, La Crise des Nations Unies (Paris : PUF, 1988); Douglas Willilliams, The Specialized Agencies and the United Nations: the System in Crisis (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987). On the effects produced by the withdrawal of the United States on UNESCO’s staff, see Meryll David- Ismayil, “Dans l’adversité, un soutien sans reserve à l’UNESCO?”, 78 Culture & Conflits, 2010, pp. 119- 142. 64 Among other relics and cultural sites, the old city of Hebron is home to the Tomb of the Patriarchs, a sacred religious site known as the Cave of Machpelah to Jews, and as the Sanctuary of Abraham to Muslims. Further to the recognition by UNESCO of the old city of Hebron as a Palestinian World Heritage Site, Israel and the United States complained that the United Nations was engaging in “anti- Israel bias” stemming from the recognition of Palestine as a member state of the U.N. in 2011. At the time, under President Obama, the United States stopped paying its membership dues to UNESCO in protest. By 2017, the past-due fees had grown to $570 million. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson took advantage of the Hebron recognition to initiate the formal process of withdrawal from the organization. As of 2019, the United States was considered to owe UNESCO more than $600 million in arrears. The United States currently participates as “observer state” on “non-politicized issues”, including the protection of World Heritage sites (developed below). 25 calls for renewed investment in education, in dialogue among cultures to prevent hatred, it is deeply regrettable that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations leading these issues”. Three dimensions of culture taken at an international level, deserve particular 65 concern. The first concerns how cultural heritage is apprehended, protected and preserved. The second concerns the legal consequences resulting from the willful destruction of cultural heritage, today recognized as a possible war crime. Finally, due regard should be had to the role of culture in the wide picture of achieving sustainable development. a). The Identification, Protection and Preservation of Cultural Heritage In 1972, UNESCO adopted an international treaty – the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereafter, World Heritage Convention) that meant to encourage the identification, protection, and preservation of cultural and natural heritage considered to be of outstanding value to humanity. Inscription on the World 66 Heritage List follows a very strict procedure whereby the applicant must show, inter alia, that the object or site at stake has an exceptional quality that transcends national borders. Twenty- two years after the adoption of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, it appeared that the World Heritage List lacked balance in the type of properties that were registered on the List and in the geographical areas that were represented (the vast majority was located in developed regions of the world, most notably in Europe). Accordingly, in 1994, the World Heritage Committee launched a “Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced, and Credible World”. The General Conference of UNESCO expanded its understanding of culture at the beginning of the 21 century by taking account of “intangible cultural heritage” (ICH). A Convention for st the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted on October 17, 2003. Belgium 67 has 13 elements effectively inscribed on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, amongst which its “beer culture” (inscribed in 2016: 11-COM), or its processional giants and dragons (inscribed in 2008: 3-COM). France has 18 elements, 65 Statement by Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, on the occasion of the Withdrawal by the United States of America from UNESCO, October 12, 2017, Internet available at https://en.unesco.org/news/statement-irina-bokova-director-general-unesco-occasion-withdrawal-united- states-america-unesco (accessed May 29, 2020). This was one of a pattern of withdrawals initiated by the Trump administration. The U.S. also withdrew from the United Nations human rights council and threatening to leave the World Health Organization at the height of the Covid-19 epidemic. The Trump administration also left the Paris climate agreement and the Iran nuclear agreement. For Samantha Power, who served as President Obama’s US ambassador to the United Nations, these measures not only caused damage to support for global order but also constituted a regrettable “pullback from alliances that are at the heart of effective multilateralism… What Trump has jeopardized more than anything is the sense of American constancy, [that] we’re going to be there when you need us”, in Alison Flood, “‘Gross incompetence at highest levels’: ex-Obama adviser blasts Trump’s Covid response”, The Guardian, May 29, 2020, Internet available at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/29/samantha-power-hay- festival-trump-covid-gross-incompetence (accessed May 29, 2020). 66 Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted November 16, 1972, and entered into force on December 17, 1975, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1037, Internet available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002800fece0&clang=_en (accessed May 23, 2020). 67 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, Internet available at https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/2003_Convention_Basic_Texts-_2018_version-EN.pdf (accessed May 29, 2020). 26 amongst which its gastronomy (inscribed in 2010: 5-COM) or skills related to perfume (inscribed in 2018: 13.COM). 68 b). The Willful Destruction or Plunder of Cultural Heritage Already in the 2 century, in his description of the First and Second Punic Wars, the Greek nd historian Polybius criticized the wartime plundering of art. Eighteen centuries later, the 69 fathers of international law and principal authorities on the rules of law of war, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and Emmerich de Vattel (1714-1767) clearly made the case in their respective works against the destruction or plunder of art and architecture in time of war. The question 70 remains: why protect monuments when people are dying in a conflict? The answer to this question has been fraught with difficulty for centuries. One simple answer has been to say that people who are dying often feel strongly about their heritage. They themselves ask that their monuments be protected. Beyond this simple explanation, however, there is something that concerns humanity at large. In its submissions to a case argued before the International Criminal Court in 2016 (developed below), UNESCO stated that “the loss of heritage during times of conflict can deprive a community of its identity and memory, as well as the physical testimony of its past. Those destroying cultural heritage seek to disrupt the social fabric of societies”. Indeed, the International Criminal Court has recognized itself: “Because of their 71 purpose and symbolism, most cultural property and cultural heritage are unique and of sentimental value. As a result, they are not fungible or readily replaceable. The destruction of international cultural heritage thus ‘carries a message of terror and helplessness; it destroys part of humanity’s shared memory and collective consciousness; and it renders humanity unable to transmit its values and knowledge to future generations’. It is an irreplaceable loss that negates humanity”. 72 Various initiatives were taken in the 19 century to recognize that works of art and th monuments should not be plundered in times of war. In 1814, King Louis XVIII adopted a decree to return a limited number of paintings from France to Prussia after Napoleon’s defeat at the battle of Waterloo. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln commissioned a work from Professor Francis Lieber (1798-1872) – of Columbia College (now Columbia University) – on the rules of law of war. Presented as a short pamphlet that all Union soldiers could carry, the Lieber Code of 1863 addressed the subject of destruction in times of war of 68 Precisely, reference is had to the skills related to perfume in “Pays de Grasse”, the skills pertaining to (i) the cultivation of perfume plants, (ii) the knowledge and processing of natural raw materials, and (iii) the art of perfume composition. 69 Polybius, Histories, Book IX (III – Affairs of Sicily. The Spoils of Syracuse), Internet available at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/9*.html (accessed June 24, 2020). In French, see Polybe, Histoire (Paris: Gallimard – La Pléiade, 1970), Livre IX (III – Les affaires de Sicile), pp. 585-586. 70 Hugo Grotius wrote On the Law of War and Peace (De jure belli ac pacis) in 1625. Emmerich de Vattel wrote The Law of Nations (Le Droit des gens) in 1758. For a general timeline of the history of protection of cultural property, see the website of the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield, at https://uscbs.org/timeline.html (accessed June 24, 2020). 71 UNESCO Observations as amicus curiae, para. 1, in The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, ICC, Trial Chamber VIII, Reparations Order, August 17, 2017, No. ICC-01/12-01/15, Internet available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/record.aspx?docNo=ICC-01/12-01/15-194 (accessed May 23, 2020). 72 The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, ICC, Trial Chamber VIII, Reparations Order, para. 22 (p. 12)(internal notes omitted), August 17, 2017, No. ICC-01/12-01/15, Internet available at https://www.icc- cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2017_05117.PDF (accessed May 23, 2020). 27 monuments, places of worship, works of art, libraries and scientific collections. According to73 Article 35 of the Code, “classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded”. In addition, the Lieber Code identified military necessity for the first time as a 74 general legal principle to limit the use of violence. Article 14 of the Lieber Code provides: “Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consist in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war”. Starting in 1899, various international law instruments addressed cultural destruction incidentally. Reference may be had to the 75 Conventions of the Hague concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land and concerning Naval Bombardment in Time of War, whether those of July 29, 1899 or those of October 18, 1907. The Great War sadly brought these concerns to the fore. Among other shocking tragedies, the destruction of the library of the University of Leuven – containing a wing of ancient manuscripts and three hundred thousand books – caused outrage worldwide. 76 Following the Great War, there was a specific reference to culture in an inter-American treaty known as the Washington Pact of April 15, 1935 for the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institution and of Historic Monuments (also known as the Roerich Pact, named after Nicholas Roerich. The first international treaty actually signed in the Oval Office, the object of the Roerich Pact was the protection of historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational, and cultural institutions both in time of peace and in time of war. In accordance with this objective, it set out to provide for the use of a distinctive emblem to identify the monuments and institutions coming within the protection of the treaty. The issue of massive destruction of cultural heritage took renewed significance during the Second World War. To give but two illustrations of large-scale cultural devastation in WWII, a German bombing raid in November 1940 all but destroyed the Cathedral of Coventry which 73 For the complete text of the Lieber Code, or Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (also referred to as “General Orders No. 100”), see The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, Internet available at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp (accessed June 24, 2020). On the life of Dr. Francis Lieber, see Military Legal Resources website, at https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Lieber_Collection/Items/francisbio.html (accessed June 24, 2020). 74 See also Article 36: “If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace. In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured”. 75 Previously, a proposed Brussels Declaration of August 27, 1874 (concerning the Laws and Customs of War) also addressed the destruction of cultural property in its Article 17: “In such cases all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to art, science, or charitable purposes, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings by distinctive and visible signs to be communicated to the enemy beforehand”. The proposed Brussels declaration was the product of Russian Czar Alexander II’s initiative to gather 15 European States to analyze a draft international agreement on the law and customs of war. While agreement was reached, with minor alterations to the draft prepared by the Russian Government, the proposed Brussels Declaration was never ratified. For the text of the proposed Brussels Convention, see website of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/135 (accessed June 24, 2020). 76 For extended discussion, see Alan Kramer, Dynamic of Destruction: Culture and Mass Killing in the First World War (Oxford: OUP, 2007). 28 had stood in the city since the late 14 century, and Allied bombings in 1944 largely left the th monastery of Monte Cassino (founded in 529) in ruins. In December 1943, then-Commander- in-Chief of the Allied forces, General Eisenhower issued an order to his commanders demanding the protection of historical monuments. Based in Germany, he wrote: “Today we are fighting in a country which has contributed a great deal to our cultural inheritance, a country rich in monuments which by their creation helped and now in their old age illustrate the growth of the civilization which is ours. We are bound to respect those monuments so far as war allows. If we have to choose between destroying a famous building and sacrificing our own men, then our men’s lives count infinitely more and the building must go. But the choice is not always so clear-cut as that. In many cases the monuments can be spared without any detriment to operational needs. Nothing can stand against the argument of military necessity. That is an accepted principle. But the phrase ‘military necessity’ is sometimes used where it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience or even of personal convenience. I do not want it to cloak slackness or indifference”. 77 The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted on May 14, 1954 was the first multilateral treaty to focus exclusively on the protection of cultural heritage during hostilities. The Convention covers “movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art, manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above”. It also covers building and centers whose main purpose is to house 78 such items. The 1954 Hague Convention also bars using a cultural site “for purposes which 79 are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict”, generally meaning that signatory states are requested to refrain from using such sites to house soldiers or weapons with the goal of shielding them from attack. The Convention permits immunity 80 in “exceptional cases of unavoidable military necessity, an only for such time as that necessity continues”. Two protocols were added to the Hague Convention, the first on the date of its 81 original signing on May 14, 1954. The second was adopted on May 17 1999 after the conflicts that erupted in the early 1990s, particularly those in the former Yugoslavia. It entered into force on January 23, 2011. Meanwhile, the international community strengthened the protection of cultural property in 1977 with additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 53 thus prohibits “any acts of hostility directed against the historic 77 “General Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Protection of Cultural Property” (letter of December 29, 1943), National Archives, Internet available at https://text-message.blogs.archives.gov/2014/02/10/general- dwight-d-eisenhower-and-the-protection-of-cultural-property/ (accessed June 24, 2020). 78 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954 (The Hague May 14, 1954), Article 1(a), Internet available at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed June 23, 2020). 79 Ibid, Article 1(b) and (c). 80 Ibid, Article 4(1). 81 Ibid, Article 11(4). 29 monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples”. Targeting cultural sites was now a war crime. 82 The relationship between culture and international criminal law received a further push in 2002 with the setting up of the International Criminal Court (hereafter, ICC), based in the Hague. The ICC is the court of last resort to pursue people accused of genocide, war crimes, 83 and crimes against humanity. In its definition of “war crimes”, Article 8 of the Rome Statute that establishes the International Criminal Court specifically refers to the destruction of culture, whether happening in international armed conflict or in armed conflict not of an 84 international character. A war crime may thus encompass an act that is aimed at 85 “[i]ntentionally directing attacks against building dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives”. In the absence of a referral by the 86 United Nations Security Council, the Prosecutor of the ICC may initiate an investigation on his/her own initiative (proprio motu) or upon request from a State Party to the Rome Statute. 87 A notable illustration – and first application – of these provisions came before the ICC in December 2015. The Prosecutor of the ICC brought criminal proceedings against Ahmad Al 88 Faqi Al Mahdi on the basis of Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute, with respect to his participation in the “Hesbah” (“Manners Brigade”) operational in Timbuktu, Mali in the summer of 2012. Precisely, the Prosecutor presented evidence that established reasonable grounds to believe Al Madhi was criminally responsible for having committed, individually and jointly with others, facilitated or otherwise contributed to the commission of war crimes alleged by the Prosecutor regarding intentionally directing attacks against ten religious and historical buildings in Timbuktu (none of which were military objectives). With the exception of one building, all had the status of protected UNESCO World Heritage sites. After a trial that began in August 2016 during which the accused admitted his guilt and showed honest repentance, the 8 Trial Chamber of the Court unanimously found Al Madhi guilty beyond th reasonable doubt. Thereupon, he was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment (the time spent 82 See Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), June 8, 1977, Internet available at https://ihl- databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750068 (accessed June 24, 2020). 83 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, done at Rome on July 17, 1998, in force on July 1, 2002: see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544, Depository: Secretary General of the United Nations, Internet available at http://treaties.un.org or https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource- library/documents/rs-eng.pdf (accessed May 23, 2020). Writing in May 2020, there were 137 signatories to the Rome Statute (123 parties). In May 2002, the George W. Bush administration informed the Secretary General of the United Nations that “the United States [did] not intend to become a party to the treaty”. Accordingly, the United States considered it “[had] no legal obligation arising from its signature on December 31, 2000”. See https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII- 10&chapter=18&clang=_en#12, End Note No. 12 (accessed May 23, 2020). 84 Rome Statute of the ICC, Article 8(2)(b)(ix). 85 Rome Statute of the ICC, Article 8(2)(e)(iv). 86 Ibid. 87 See Article 15.1 of the Rome Statute: “The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court”. When acting proprio motu (or sua sponte), a Pre-Trial Division of the Court must authorize the commencement of the investigation: Article 15.3 – 15.5 of the Rome Statute. 88 On the basis of Articles 58 and 59 of the Rome Statute, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a warrant of arrest against Ahmad Al Faqi Al Madhi on September 18, 2015. He was surrendered to the ICC on September 26, 2015. 30 by the suspect in detention since September 2015 being deducted from the sentence). 89 Although noting that crimes against property were generally of less gravity than crimes against persons, the Chamber considered that the buildings targeted by the accused were not only religious and historic buildings but that they had also a symbolic and emotional value for the inhabitants of Timbuktu. A Reparations Order was delivered by the ICC one year later, on August 17, 2017. As mentioned above, Al Madhi clearly showed his remorse and expressed 90 empathy with the victims (calling upon people not to become involved in similar conduct). In so doing, he underscored the international dimension provoked by his cultural destruction in Timbuktu: “I am really sorry, I am really remorseful and I regret all the damage that my actions have caused. I regret what I have caused to my family, my community in Timbuktu, what I have caused my home nation, Mali, and I’m really remorseful about what I had caused the international community as a whole”. The Al Madhi case is noteworthy in that it was the 91 first case in which the ICC applied Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute. The Al Hassan 92 case, due to begin before the ICC on August 25, 2020, would be the second case of this nature, also concerning intentional direct attacks against buildings dedicated to religion and historic monuments (likewise committed in Timbuktu, Mali, between April 2012 and January 2013). 93 Besides hearings before the ICC, the protection of cultural sites remains an ever-topical subject at large. Threats – and the potential committing of war crimes – originate from unsuspected corners of the world. Immediately after the United States’ killing in Baghdad of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani (January 3, 2020), Donald Trump threatened to strike 52 Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the killing. In a series of tweets, Trump wrote that “if Iran strikes Americans, or American assets”, the country would target these sites “some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD”. Whilst the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike 94 Pompeo, and defense Secretary Mark Esper attempted to walk back the president’s statements, Donald Trump persisted in his threats, writing: “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way”. The president seemed oblivious to the 1954 Hague Convention developed 95 above. He also seemed to disregard U.S. military policy that largely feeds on Eisenhower’s order of December 1943 (supra). The Law of War Manual issued by the Department of Defense of June 2015 (updated December 2016) mentions cultural property 625 times. The 96 97 89 The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, ICC, Trial Chamber VIII, Judgment and Sentence, September 27, 2016, No. ICC-01/12-01/15, Internet available at https://www.icc- cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2016_07244.PDF (accessed May 23, 2020). 90 The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, ICC, Trial Chamber VIII, Reparations Order, August 17, 2017, No. ICC-01/12-01/15, Internet available at https://www.icc- cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2017_05117.PDF (accessed May 23, 2020). The ICC assessed Mr. Al Madhi’s liability for reparations (damage to protected buildings + consequential economic loss + moral harm) at Euros 2.7 million (at para. 134 and p. 60). 91 Ibid, at para. 70. 92 In so doing, it deemed it necessary to interpret the crime and its elements: see paras. 14-18 of the Judgment of September 27, 2016. 93 See https://www.icc-cpi.int/mali (accessed August 6, 2020). 94 Laurel Wamsley, “Trump Says He’ll Target Iran’s Cultural Sites. That’s Illegal”, NPR, January 6, 2020, Internet available at https://www.npr.org/2020/01/06/794006073/trump-says-hell-target-iran-s-cultural- sites-that-s-illegal (accessed June 23, 2020). 95 Ibidem. 96 Department of Defense Law of War Manual, June 2015 (updated December 2016), Internet available at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20- 31 U.S. military is supposed to educate its soldiers about their responsibilities not to target or destroy cultural property and the Pentagon has been known to distribute playing cards with photos of cultural sites in various conflict zones to remind troops about their duties in this regard. Today, the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield (hereafter, USCBS), a non-profit organization based in Arlington, Virginia and formed in 2006 in response to heritage catastrophes around the world, plays a significant role in sensitizing people to the risks faced cultural property in times of armed conflict. Besides military training and advocacy (most 98 notably regarding U.S. ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention), the USCBS spends a considerably amount of time and energy drawing up cultural heritage inventories. Claiming to be the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross, the USCBS provides “no-strike lists” of important cultural sites in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. All the while, on June 26, 2020, Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for the immediate arrest and prosecution of people who deface or remove federal statues, leading up to ten years’ imprisonment. In a rambling presentation of the purposes of his order, the 99 president aimed at “anarchists and left-wing extremists” and condemned states that had supposedly “surrendered to mob rule, imperiling community safety, allowing for the wholesale violation of our laws, and privileging the violent impulses of the mob over the rights of law-abiding citizens”. Besides calling for ten-year prison sentences, Donald Trump also directed federal law enforcement agencies to withhold portions of federal funding to cities that did not protect statues from demonstrators. The measures, largely adopted in bluster, came in the wake of protests that swept over the United States after the death of George Floyd in May 2020. Among other monuments, protesters pulled down the statue of Confederate general Albert Pike in Washington D.C. and attempted to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square near the White House. The president’s executive order was considered all the more unnecessary that it was already a federal crime to deface or steal federal property , and that an executive order cannot make it any more of a crime. Within 100 hours of the issuing of the executive order, the DOJ brought charges against four protesters (one of whom was taken into custody) for attempting to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square. The charges were the first of this nature brought in a federal court. 101 %20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190 (accessed June 24, 2020). 97 Laurel Wamsley, “Trump Says He’ll Target Iran’s Cultural Sites. That’s Illegal”, op. cit. 98 For the website of the United States Committee of the Blue Shield, see https://www.uscbs.org/index.html (accessed June 24, 2020). 99 Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence, June 26, 2020, Internet available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/executive-order-protecting-american-monuments-memorials-statues-combating-recent-criminal- violence/ (accessed June 28, 2020). 100 Ever since 1948, federal law punishes “[w]hoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof”: 18 U.S.C. §1361, authorizing a penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for the willful injury of federal property. In addition, the “Veterans’ Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003” (18 U.S.C. §1369) punishes with the same penalties the destruction of federal and in some cases state maintained monuments that honor military veterans. See also the “Travel Act” (18 U.S.C. §1952) that permits prosecutions of arson damaging monuments, memorials, and statues on state grounds in some states. On the civil plane, see the “Public System Resource Protection Act” (54 U.S.C. §100722). In the name of “freedom of religion”, the president also made a gesture towards his Christian supporters, aiming at those who attack, remove, or deface depictions “of Jesus or other religious figures or religious art work”. This had already been addressed by the “Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996” (18 U.S.C. §371). 101 See Department of Justice, Press Release 20-073, Internet available at https://www.justice.gov/usao- dc/pr/four-men-charged-federal-court-attempting-tear-down-statue-andrew-jackson-lafayette (accessed 32 §3. The Weaknesses of Culture Culture harbors a number of weaknesses. Its very strength – the preservation of a nation’s most important ideas and values – constitutes a source of vulnerability. Not for nothing do dictatorships try and wipe their cultures clean of the past, destroying works that they consider degenerate, clamping down on their poets and thinkers and imposing censorship. Different examples come to mind. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-76) launched by Chairman Mao Zedong is a case in point. During this bleak period of Chinese history, youthful Red Guards fanned out across the country to destroy cultural treasures seen as representing the “old China” and denounce anyone seen as lacking ideological purity or class loyalty. Western classical treasures, in particular works of literature or classical music, were banned as well. Untold numbers of people were killed or driven to suicide and millions of 102 careers destroyed (among others, intellectuals were sent to work as peasants). In the Soviet 103 Union, the mere expression of music, composed by indigenous composers, was famously subject to cultural repression during the Stalinist era. The Russian composers Sergei Prokofiev (1891-1953) or Dimitri Chostakovitch (1906-1975) were sidelined for not giving a better portrayal of Socialist Realism. Criticized for not being sufficiently concerned with uplifting ideological content and hence being “unpatriotic” if not “subversive”, cultural bureaucrats reigned high over plenary sessions of the Composers’ Union to thwart the performance and staging of these composers’ works. In large part, Stalin simply wished to 104 demonstrate his absolute and unlimited hegemony over the country’s culture and creators. 105 Closer to us, in March 2001, the Taliban dynamited and destroyed two colossal Buddhas (one measuring 53m tall, the other 35m) carved in a cliff in the Bamiyan valley in the Hindu Kush mountains, Afghanistan. The monumental statues were viewed as idolatrous symbols of un- Islamic culture and identity. In the summer of 2012, Islamist extremists from the Ansar Dine group, allied with extremists from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb undertook similar destructions in Mali in the ancient mosques and shrines of Timbuktu. Music was banned and June 29, 2020). For extended discussion, see Evan Semones, “Justice Dept. announces first felony charges in attempted toppling of Andrew Jackson statue near White House”, Politico, June 27, 2020, Internet available at https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/27/four-charged-andrew-jackson-statue- washington-342335 (accessed June 29, 2020); Jason Slotkin, “Justice Department Charges 4 Over Attempt to Topple Andrew Jackson Statue in D.C.”, NPR, June 28, 2020, Internet available at https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/28/884427554/justice- department-charges-4-over-attempt-to-topple-andrew-jackson-statue-in-d-c (accessed June 29, 2020). 102 Cf. Daj Sijn’s novel, Balzac ou la petite tailleuse chinoise, or the movie From Mao to Mozart, with Isaac Stern. 103 Whilst the principal official reason behind the Cultural Revolution was to purify Chinese culture and counter the alleged “evil bourgeois wind” blowing across China, the real reason was in fact to sideline Mao Zedong’s rivals and return purity to the Communist party. In his endeavors, Mao Zedong was assisted by the so-called “gang of four”, including Mao’s wife (Jiang Qing), his Shanghai protégé (Yao Wenyuan), his vice-premier (Zhang Chunqiao), and a labor activist (Wang Hongwen). One month after Mao’s death in 1976, the four were arrested when more pragmatic party comrades launched a palace coup. For extended discussion, cf. Paul Clark, The Chinese Cultural Revolution. A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). 104 Tikhon Khrennikhov played an important role in this respect. 105 Robert Hale, Sergei Prokofiev (London : Robert Hale, 1987), pp. 314-317. In part, the puritanical sensibilities of Stalin were offended by some of these composers’ works, most notably Chostakovitch’s Lady Macbeth of the Mtsenck District (which includes a rape onstage). 33 thousands of parchment manuscripts were either burnt or looted. The perpetrators of this demolition objected to the city’s mystical Sufi traditions. 106 The following developments focus on three historical examples from the English-Speaking world. A. The Protestant Reformation Introduced to government service as a secretary for Cardinal Wolsey before becoming Henry VIII’s most valuable advisor, Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) unleashed sledgehammer gangs to do away with works believed to promote foolish devotion to spurious miracles. The Protestant Reformation of the 16 century was under way. Specifically, this period is th 107 associated with the Dissolution of the Monasteries (1538-1541). In so doing, hundreds of 108 shrines were closed and their relics either taken or vandalized. The destruction of the shrine 109 of St. Thomas Becket prompted the Pope to pronounce the excommunication of King Henry VIII from the Catholic Church (December 17, 1538). An even more aggressive onslaught against images associated with “idolatry” began soon afterwards, under the youthful – and short – reign of Edward VI (1537-1553). Historians consider that by the time this period of 110 state-sponsored iconoclasm ceased, with Edward’s death in 1553, England had lost as much as 90% of its Christian art. More demolition was to come. In the turmoil of the 17 century, 111 th 106 Besides Afghanistan and Mali, mention should be made of similar cultural destructions in Egypt in August 2013 (see most notably the ransacking of the Malawi Museum in Minya province, upper Egypt), Iraq in March 2015 (perpetrated by militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as Isis), and Syria (where an estimated 90% of the country’s heritage is believed to have been destroyed by Isis and other groups, including mosques, shrines and tombs from the 13 and 14 centuries). A Saudi th th preacher, Sheikh Muhammad al-Munajjid, justifies the vandalism by resorting to a general prohibition in Islam against representing the human form (adding that if the Prophet Mohammed or his companions did not destroy statues, it was because they could not se them or lacked tools to demolish them). One may wonder if recording a video and broadcasting it to the outside rule does not amount to breaking that rule. One author considers that another reason behind the vandalism may have to do with the felt necessity to do away with the relics of the Middle East’s pre-Islamic heritage (that transcended current borders and religions): “These artefacts were treasured by the former, nationalist governments of the region for precisely that reason, as symbols of national identity. Erasing history..., by crushing the region’s pre- Islamic faiths and smashing statues, is a way to suppress national identity and religious and cultural diversity”, in Gerald Russell, “Modern vandals who smash centuries of history”, Financial Times, March 9, 2015. 107 On the Protestant Reformation and idolatry, see Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation. Europe’s House Divided. 1490-1700 (London: Penguin Books, 2004), pp. 558-562. The rise to power of Thomas Cromwell (1485?-1540) as the King’s cjief minister was short-lived. He fell in disgrace when Henry VIII suspected him of being a closet Lutheran. Suspected of treason and heresy, he was arraigned under a bill of attainder and executed on Tower Hill in July 1540, 108 King Henry VIII considered the monasteries were bastions of “popery”: see Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford History of Britain (Oxford: OUP, 2010), pp. 276-77. On the Dissolution of the Monasteries (and on corruption and decay of monasteries in 16th century England in general), see G.R. Elton, England Under the Tudors (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1955), pp. 102-116, and pp. 140-150. 109 The administration of monastic wealth led to the establishment of the Court of Augmentations of the King’s Revenue. 110 Henry VIII died on January 28, 1547, when his son – Edward – was nine. A regency council of sixeteen members would govern the realm and exercise the royal supremacy until he was 18 years old. The Duke of Somerset played the role of Protector and quickly became the de facto sole regent. Somerset’s part in the destruction of all forms of art associated with Catholic liturgy and ritual was instrumental. King Edward VI died of tuburculosis on July 6, 1553, at the age of 15. See Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford History of Britain (, op. cit., pp. 288-89. 111 Cf. Simon Schama, “The culture of conflict”, Financial Times, March 14-15, 2015. 34 England’s Long Parliament adopted an ordinance authorizing the removal of “all monuments of superstition and idolatry”. William “Basher” Dowsing (1596-1688), a Puritan officer and renowned iconoclast, took this mandate of obliteration to heart, recording his achievements in an inventory with painstaking precision. To take but his entries for January 29, 1643, the day 112 began quietly but soon picked up pace. “Chatsham, Jan. the 29 – Nothing to be done. th Washbrook, Jan. the 29 – I broke down 26 superstitious pictures, and gave th order to take down a stone cross, and the chancel to be leveled. Copdock, Jan. the 29 – I brake down 150 superstitious pictures, 2 of God th the Father, and 2 crucifixes, did deface a cross on the font, and gave order to take down a stone cross on the chancel, and to level the steps, and took up a brass inscription, with ora pro nobis, and cujus anime propitietur Deus. Belstead. We brake down 7 superstitious pictures, the Apostles and 2 others, and took up 4 inscriptions in brass, of ora pro nobis, etc. Ipswich. Stoke Mary’s. 2 crosses in wood, and 2 cherubims panted, and one inscription in brass, with ora pro nobis, etc. At Peter’s, was on the porch, the crown of thorns, the Spunge and Nails, and the Trinity in stone, and the rails were there, which I gave order to break in pieces. Mary’s at the Key. Jan. the 29. I break down 6 superstitious pictures. th St. Mary Elmes, Jan. the 29. There was 4 iron crosses on the steeple, which th they promised to take down that day, or the next. Nicholas, Jan. the 29. We brake 6 superstitious pictures, and took up 2 th brass inscriptions, of ora pro nobis, and gave order for another, cujus anime propitietur Deus, and there was the Crown of Thorns. Mathew’s, Jan. the 29. We break down 35 superstitious pictures, 3 angels th with stars on their breasts, and crosses. Mary’s at the Tower, Jan. the 29. We took up 6 brass inscriptions, with ora th pro nobis, and ora pro animabus, and and cujus anime propitietur Deus, and pray for the soul, in English, and I gave order to take down 5 iron crosses, and one of wood on the steeple”. The motive behind the perpetrators of many of these cultural tragedies may be found in an “instinct of cultural panic that the supreme works of the past will lead people astray from blind, absolute obedience. Neither beauty, nor history have the least interest for them because they live in and force others to inhabit a universe of timeless subjection. The mere notion that the achievement of humanity might rise to the level of sublimity is itself a sacrilegious affront. In a way, this is a backhanded compliment to the power of images”. 113 B. The Hays Code 112 William Dowsing, The journal of William Dowsing of Straford, Parliamentary Visitor, appointed … for demolishing the superstitious pictures and ornaments of churches, etc. Within the county of Suffolk, in the years 1643,-1644 (London : Gale ECCO Print Editions, 2010). 113 Cf. Simon Schama, “The culture of conflict”, Financial Times, March 14-15, 2015. 35 The principal reason behind the near-absolute absence of cultural repression in the United States has to do with freedom of expression embodied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Several exceptions nevertheless stand out. Moral values have a profound impact on culture, as can be illustrated in the American movie industry at the end of the 19 century – beginning of the 20 century. A short movie clip from th th 1896 that depicts a couple kissing was considered offensive. One critic wrote in horror: “the 114 spectacle of the prolonged pasturing on each other’s lips was hard to bear. When only life- sized, it was pronounced beastly. Magnified to gargantuan proportions and repeated three times over, it is absolutely disgusting”. None other than D.H. Lawrence (1885-1930), of 115 Lady Chatterly fame, considered that couples kissing on screen was “pornographical” and likely to “excite men and women to secret and separate masturbation”. Censorship existed 116 from the beginning of the American movie industry, at least at the state and local levels. In 1897, Maine passed the first censorship law regarding films (aimed at prize-fighting boxing). With unparalleled zeal, Major M.L.C. Funkhouser of the Chicago Board of Censors curtailed the screening of movies on the basis of their moral content, because they were guilty, in his words, of “exploiting crime, showing the degradation of women, making a hero of a criminal, or ridiculing authority”. Even movie adaptations of Charles Dickens fell prey to his censorship. It was only after he had censored two war films from 1918 – Hearts of the World by D.W Griffith and My Four Years in Germany by William Nigh – that Funkhouser was fired. The United States Supreme Court waded in the waters of censorship and the film 117 industry in 1915 – in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio – after the state of Ohio established a board of censors. The facts of the case had to do with Mutual 118 Film Corporation leasing or selling 5,000 prints of films to exhibitors in the states of Ohio and Michigan. Films could only be distributed in Ohio further to an approval by the state board of censors (and at the corporation’s expense). The Corporation sought an injunction aimed at preventing this system from working. It most notably based its arguments on the ground that Ohio’s law violated freedom of speech as protected under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the Corporation’s contentions. According to the 119 Court, motion pictures did not warrant the same protection of freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by the Constitution. For Justice Joseph McKenna, the author of the decision, “The exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition”. Put 114 The “May Irwin Kiss” – also known as “The May Irwin-John C. Rice Kiss” or “The John C. Rice-May Irwin Kiss” – was directed by William Heise in 1896. The scene depicts an amorous moment from the play, The Widow Jones, in which the actor John C. Rice awkwardly plants his lips on those of the actress May Irwin. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q690-IexNB4 (visited April 29, 2016). 115 Cf. David Denby, “Sex and Sexier”, The New Yorker, May 2, 2016, pp. 66-72, at 68. 116 Ibdidem. 117 Funkhauser’s censorship of these two films received considerable negative publicity, some critics accusing him of “pro-German sympathies”. The Chicago Tribune suggested he should be “soundly spanked”. In part, Funkhauser was fired because his censorship hurt the film industry in Chicago. Local distribution and exhibitions were advresly affected. For extended discussion, cf. Michael Glover Smith and Adam Selzer, Flickering Empire: How Chicago Invented the U.S. Film Industry (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), at p. 166. 118 Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915). 119 Other arguments were based on the contention that Ohio’s law impeded interstate commerce and delegated legislative power to the board of censors. 36 differently, the ruling amounted to allowing states regulate license and censor motion pictures as part of their general exercise of police power to protect the social welfare of the community. 120 Different Hollywood celebrity scandals then rocked the United States involving sex, drugs and murder. Most notably, Fatty Arbuckle (1887-1933) – a comedian who once rivalled Charlie Chaplin in fame – was charged with rape and manslaughter. The English-born film 121 director William Desmond Taylor was murdered in his apartment (with sexual undertones). 122 Finally, Wallace Reid (1891-1923) was involved in drug overdose. For the media, something 123 had to be done to rein in Hollywood excess. More than 100 Congressional bills for censorship to protect the common good were submitted in 1921. In response, film executives themselves promoted a set of moral standards to ward off federal regulation and sustain national distribution networks. Censorship from Washington – in the guise of a national censorship board similar to that which existed in the states – was the last thing Hollywood wanted. The standards were not strictly enforced however. They amounted to verbal agreement among producers, eager to capitalize on box office receipts and a general climate of social progressivism. In addition, audiences were soon engulfed in a new dimension of cinema with the arrival of sound in the late 1920s. Sound in motion pictures attracted new audiences and ushered in a new era of grim and violent cinema. As a result, films in the late 1920s-early 1930s contained sensational violence (“Public Enemy” in 1931), profanity and sexual innuendos (“I’m no Angel” in 1933), along with references to abortion, infidelity, or illegal drug use. Women were shown in their underwear or scantily clad garments (“Gold Diggers” of 1933). The first lesbian kiss in sound cinema was portrayed in Morocco in 1930, featuring Marlene Dietrich. Interestingly, many films had a feminist slant, portraying women with sympathy and affection. All the while, the Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA) had reached out in 1922 to a Washington insider, William H. Hays, to administer morals. At first, the task of William Hays was limited to public relations, to 124 relieve the pressure between Hollywood and Washington, and lobby for the interests of the studios. In 1927, Hays formed a committee of studio heads to draft a list of “Don’ts and Be 120 For extended discusion, see Jeremy Geltzer, Dirty Words and Filthy Pictures (University of Texas). 121 To celebrate his new contract with Paramount Pictures ($1 million/year for three years – an unheard amount at the time), Arbuckle and some friends celebrated at the Saint Francis Hotel in San Francisco. Large quantities of alcohol were being drunk (this being during the Prohibition). One actress – Virginia Rappe – who took part in the party fell severely ill. Most people considered Rappe’s condition to be caused by liquor. She died within a few days from peritonitis, caused by a ruptured bladder. Fatty Arbuckle was arrested and charged with Rappe’s murder. Two trials resulted in hung juries. A third trial acquitted Arbuckle with an unprecedented written apology that reads: “Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle [they wrote]. We feel that a great injustice has been done him... there was not the slightest proof adduced to connect him in any way with the commission of a crime. He was manly throughout the case and told a straightforward story which we all believe. We wish him success and hope that the American people will take the judgment of fourteen men and women that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame”. Arbuckle’s career was over. William Hays – in the first major policy decision of his new job- had banned Arbuckle from the screen. 122 William Desmond Taylor had directed some forty motion pictures (including several with Mary Pickford) in addition to being head of the Motion Pictures Directors’ Association. Generally considered to give a touch of class to Hollywood vulgarity, Taylor’s murder was never solved. 123 Wallace was the third major Paramount personality to be involved in scandal in 1922. Known as the “screen’s most perfect lover”, he starred in a number of motion pictures that were huge financial successes (most notably films by D.W. Griffith). Following an accident on a film set that left him with serious injuries, he became addicted to morphine and entered a sanatorium to cure his drug addiction. He died at the age of 31. 124 Hays had been chairman of Republican National Committee and Postmaster General under the administration of Warren Harding. 37 Carefuls”, based on lists of items that were commonly rejected by local censorship boards. Eleven subjects were totally taboo and twenty-five had to be handled with utmost care. One taboo subject (i.e. a “Don’t”) was “pointed profanity by either title or lip – this includes the words ‘God’, ‘Lord’, ‘Jesus’, ‘Christ’ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), ‘hell’, ‘damn’, Gawd’, and every other profane and vular expression, however it may be spelled”. It was only in March 1930 that the MPPDA issued a statement of policy called the Motion Picture Production Code, more commonly known as the “Hays Code”. It set a small jury to review films for content. Two ideas motivated the 125 censors. One was the theory of “imitative behavior”: an audience, in particular a young audience, will copy what it has seen on film. A detailed (hence “imitable”) depiction of crime had to be removed (this included lockpicking, safe-cracking or the mixing of chemicals to produce explosives). The other theory was that of “moral compensation”: sin could be seen in movies, but it had to be punished. If someone performed an immoral act, the person had to be punished on screen. The Code would not allow for “crime to pay”. On occasion, this would force the change to the ending of a movie (most notably, Mervyn LeRoy’s horror-thriller movie of 1956, The Bad Seed). With these guideposts, the Code prohibited profanity, licentious or suggestive nudity, sexual perversions and rape. Adopted voluntarily by the major studios, the Hays Code was intended to prove to Congress and the public that Hollywood could “do the deed” itself and clean up its act. The Hays Code was not seriously enforced until 1934. C. McCarthyism The cultural repression that took place in the United States in the 1950s is of a different nature. In large part, it stemmed from anti-Communist hysteria and the desire of the Republican Party to “pin something” on the Roosevelt administration and the Truman administration that followed it. Anti-Communist hysteria struck the United States late in the 126 1940s and would hold the country in bondage for close to a decade. Events began in 1948 when the Truman administration itself secured the indictment of eleven leaders of the U.S. Communist Party on charges of conspiracy to teach the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, in violation of the Smith Act of 1940. A lengthy (9-month) trial, attracting 127 125 The Code was largely the brainchild of a Jesuit priest, Father Daniel A. Lord (1888-1955) and a Catholic layman, Martin Quigley (1890-1964). The two authors of the Code based the standards on Catholic theology and practice. For extended discussion, cf. Thomas Doherty, Pre-Code Hollywood Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema. 1930-1934 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999). For Doherty, “Their amalgam of Irish-Catholic Victorianism colors much of the cloistered design of classical Hollywood cinema, not just the warm-hearted padres played by Spencer Tracy, Pat O'Brien, and Bing Crosby, but the deeper lessons of the Baltimore catechism – deference to civil and religious authorities, insistence on personal responsibility, belief in the salvific worth of suffering, and resistance to the pleasures of the flesh in thought, word, and deed”. For a biography of Father Dan Lord, cf. “Dan Lord. Hollywood Priest”, America, December 12, 2005. 126 Arthur Miller aptly describes this reaction in his autobiography, Timebends, “Ten, twenty, thirty years later it became clear that a good part of what drove this domestic campaign was a conscious decision, first by a sector of the Republican Party, out of power for nearly two decades, to equate the basic New Deal ideas with disloyalty, and then by acquiescent Democrats to see the light. But at the time, to most people, it all had the feel of a natural phenomenon, an unstoppable earthquake rolling through the political landscape. Despite the Democrats’ only spotty resistance to him, McCarthy would soon be calling the whole Roosevelt-Truman era ‘twenty years of treason’. And indeed, by the eighties under Reagan, the structural supports of the New Deal had largely been repudiated even if they could not be totally dismantled without the country collapsing”. 127 Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act), 76 United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stats. th 670, 18 U.S.C. §2385. 38 utmost media attention, ensued. Eventually, the party leaders were found guilty and lower courts upheld the conviction. The case was then brought before the United States Supreme Court to determine whether the Smith Act’s restrictions on speech violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered June 4, 1951, ruled in the negative, effectively upholding the convictions of the Communist Party leaders. For the majority, the 128 Smith Act did not “inherently” violate the First Amendment. The Court held that there was a distinction between the mere teaching of communist philosophies and active advocacy of those ideas. Such advocacy created a “clear and present danger” that threatened the government. Given the gravity of the consequences of an attempted putsch, the Court held that success or probability of success was not necessary to justify restrictions on the freedom of speech. Two Justices dissented from this decision, most notably Justice Douglas. Douglas 129 considered that the Communist Party made up a tiny minority of the nation and hardly represented a threat for anyone: “… it is impossible for me to say that the Communists in this country are so potent or so strategically deployed that they must be suppressed for their speech. I could not so hold unless I were willing to conclude that the activities in recent years committees of Congress, of the attorney general, of labor unions … were so futile as to leave the country on the edge of great peril. To believe that the petitioners (Communists) and their following are placed in such critical positions as to endanger the nation is to believe the incredible. (…) It is safe to say that the followers of the creed of Soviet Communism are known to the F.B.I.; that in case of war with Russia they will be picked up overnight as were all prospective saboteurs at the commencement of World War II; that the invisible army of petitioners is the best known, the most beset, the least thriving of any fifth column in history. Only those held by fear and panic could think otherwise”. Meanwhile, another affair grabbed the nation’s attention. Alger Hiss (1904-1996), a brilliant law student from Harvard Law School who had clerked for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes at the United States Supreme Court, went on to work for the Roosevelt administration in the late 1930s. He became a key State Department official and eventually served as Secretary General at the 1945 conference in San Francisco where the United Nations was founded. Testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee, Whittaker Chambers, an editor for the magazine Time and himself a former member of the U.S. Communist party claimed that Hiss was a fellow member of the Communist party who had passed State Department documents to Hiss and a Soviet official. Hiss denied the charges and sued Chambers for libel. Eventually, Hiss was brought to trial, not for treason (the statute of limitations had run out), but for two counts of perjury: (i) for lying about passing government documents to Chambers, and (ii) for denying that he had seen Chambers since 1937. Hiss was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The Hiss attorneys petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari but the petition was denied on March 12, 1951. Only Justices Black and 130 Douglas voted to hear the case. Justice Douglas adamantly claimed that there was no proof of wrongdoing and that Hiss had served as a highly respected official in his years at the State Department. Douglas generally believed that “the entire affair was a matter of hysteria, 128 Dennis et al. v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951); 71 S. Ct. 857 (1951); 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951). 129 The other dissenter was Justice Hugo Black. Justice Tom C. Clark did not participate in the case. 130 Three Justices recused themselves. Justices Frankfurter and Reed had testified as character witnesses for Alger Hiss. Justice Tom Clark had served as U.S. Attorney General when the case was tried. With certiorari denied, Hiss then surrendered to serve his sentence, protesting his innocence during his incarceration and until his death at the age of 92 in 1996. 39 contrived evidence, and political byplay”. Indeed, hysteria was such that even those who had 131 accepted to hear Hiss’s arguments were suspected of treason. Against these judicial developments, Joe R. McCarthy (1909-1957), a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, began a persecution of vast swathes of American society suspected of Communist sympathy. This campaign took place against the backdrop of a “red scare” associated with the beginning of the Cold War. McCarthyism began in Feb. 1950 with the Senator announcing that he had in his hand a list of numerous communists “known to the Secretary of State” who were working and making policy in the State Department. The smear campaign soon turned into an all-out “witch hunt” aimed at high government officials (civil servants, diplomats), intellectual circles (scholars, scientists), trade unionists, and the entertainment industry, including actors (Larry Parks, Zero Mostel), directors (Charlie Chaplin, Jules Dassin), screenwriters (Dalton Trumbo), and musicians (Leonard Bernstein, Paul Robeson)… Many people were summoned before a special committee of the U.S. Congress: “House Un- American Activities Committee” (HUAC). Some people refused to come. Asa result, they were held “in contempt” of Congress. Other people were willing to talk about their own past, but not about that of other people ! they were also held “in contempt” of Congress. Some simply refused to answer questions, invoking their right under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution not to bear witness against themselves: “taking” the Fifth was interpreted as an admission of guilt. The Justice Department drew up a list of organizations it decided were “totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive … or seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means”: the list included: the Chopin Cultural Center, the Cervantes Fraternal Society, the Committee for the Negro in the Arts, the Committee for the Protection of the Bill of Rights, the League of American Writers, the Nature Friends of America, the Washington Bookshop Association The first reason behind McCarthyism was the “red scare”, a shorthand expression designed at describing the fear of Communism in the United States ! different world events… 1. Czechoslovakia and Berlin blockade of 1948 2. End of American atomic monopoly in 1949 3. Communist control over China (Chiang Kai-shek forced to leave the mainland and take refuge in the island of Taiwan) 4. Korean War of 1950-53 5. Upsurge of colonial peoples demanding independence: e.g. Indochina and France 6. These were all portrayed to the public as signs of a world Communist conspiracy Journalists were victims of these attacks. Thus with Edward R. Murrow (1908-1965), a pioneer of television news broadcasting (“See It Now” on CBS) who had an uncompromising style of journalism and dared to uphold freedom of thought: most notable was his defense of 131 Cf. Edwin P. Hoyt, William O. Douglas. A Biography (Middlebury, Vermont: Paul S. Eriksson, 1979), at 101. 40 Milo Radulovich (a weatherman dropped from the Air Force). Ultimately, Murrow challenged McCarthy head-on… For Murrow, “We will not walk in fear of one another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility”. See movie “Good Night, and Good Luck”, directed and co-written by George Clooney (2005). The Red Scare fuelled paranoia and collective hysteria within the US. §4. Significance Culture is not an abstract construct hanging out on a limb, ready to be scooped up by the “happy few”. It feeds society just as much as it is a reflection of past and present society. Most notably, the dialectical relationship between law and culture (law influencing culture and culture influencing law) comes out when out viewing America’s gun culture. American attitudes towards guns would perhaps change if the United States Congress enacted gun- control legislation. Parents with troubled, isolated children fascinated by violence (such as Adam Lanza, responsible for the Newtown, Connecticut gun-spree of December 2012) might think twice before turning the family home into an arms depot. Conversely, it could be argued that in failing to enact laws on this matter, Congress was prey to the NRA’s view that the only answer to gun violence is more guns. History in this respect is culture’s bloodstream. A. Individual Dimension The organic dimension of culture, taken from an individual standpoint, comes out when analyzing a single work of culture such as a painting, a novel, or a play. Although one may fall into national stereotypes when defining cultural production in this way, one has a natural inclination to say, for example, that Magritte or Félicien Rops are quintessential Belgian painters. It is impossible to imagine a German Puccini or an English Wagner. Much can be 132 learned on contemporary American culture by watching The Simpsons or listening to American R&B. a). Humor In a different vein, Chaucer is a quintessential English author (despite recognizing his close affinities with French or Italian cultures: infra). A very special brand of irony comes out in The Canterbury Tales. Each of 29 pilgrims, according to a plan proposed by Harry Bailey, 133 132 In this vein of thought, it has to be emphasized that, whilst some books get translated, a great mass of national cultural output rarely circulates across borders. 133 According to Cazamian, “[Chaucer’s] selection of the English language as a medium points to a consciously national purpose. Machaut and the other French writers with whom he can be more easily connected in lis lifetime could give him no humor, since they had none. Chaucer’s humor developed with the maturity of his original powers; neither the French nor the Italian phase in his career had much to do 41 the host of the Tabard Inn (where the pilgrims meet) is supposed to tell two stories on the way to Canterbury and two stories on the way back. The teller of the best tale – Harry Bailey 134 being the judge – is to be rewarded at the end of the pilgrimage with a dinner at the Tabard provided by his fellow pilgrims. We never find out who wins the host’s prize. We can only be sure of one thing – that it is not Chaucer himself. Chaucer himself is a (shy) pilgrim in The Canterbury Tales. Bailey invites him to tell a “tale of mirth” (gladness), adding “it should be dainty, judging by your face” (“dainty” = beautiful). Chaucer begins The Tale of Sir Topaz: “Listen, lords, with all your might And I will tell you, honour bright, A tale of mirth and game, About a fair and gentle knight In battle, tournament and fight Sir Topaz was his name”… (six pages follow…) The problem is that Chaucer’s tale is so terribly dull that Harry Bailey cuts him off in the middle. Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales (The Host stops Chaucer’s Tale of Sir Topaz)(London: Penguin Classics, 1951), at 207. ‘No more of this for God’s dear dignity !’ Our host said, suddenly interrupting me, ‘I’m wearied out by your illiterate stuff. God bless my soul ! I’ve had about enough. My cars are aching from your frowsty story ! The devil take such rhymes ! They’re purgatory ! That must be what’s called doggerel- rhyme,’ said he. ‘Why so?’ said I, ‘Why should you hinder me In telling my tale more than another man, Since I am giving you the best I can?’ ‘By God,’ he said, ‘put plainly in a word, Your dreary rhyming isn’t worth a turd! You’re doing nothing else but wasting time. Sir, in a word, you shall no longer rhyme. Let’s see if you can tell us one of those Old tales from history; and speak in prose. Let it be gay or have a wholesome moral.’ Then Chaucer – the great poet – tells a prose story that is hardly less dull (Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee). The combination of these two stories, or rather their unexpected unfolding and with that development; his humour found itself gradually, but reached its full vigor in the last and supreme work where a purely English subject gave his art ample scope for the expression of English life and thought. The humor that is the highest distinction of the Canterbury Tales is the flower Chaucer’s self-realization as national poet of England”, in Louis Cazamian, The Development of English Humour, op. cit., at 79. 134 Chaucer’s (or Bailey’s) ambitious project was never completed.. Only twenty-four tales – less than a fourth – have come down to us. 42 handling in the narrative, provide “the first example in literature of that peculiar English humor which takes a keen delight in self-derision”. Indeed, Henry Fielding (1707-54) shows 135 this vein in his novel Tom Jones (published in 1749), as well as Laurence Sterne (1713-68) in his novel Tristam Shandy (published 1759-67). William Makepeace Thackeray (1811-61) 136 also intervenes as an ironic “teller in the tale” in Vanity Fair (published in 1847-48), laughing at himself, his characters and his readers in a unique way. By way of illustration, the end of Chapter 14 shows the old, physically hideous baronet, Sir Pitt Crawley, on his knees proposing to Becky Sharp, the beautiful, ambitious, and spiritually corrupt heroine of the novel. Hence, most readers are captured by what may only be considered a romantic proposal. Thackeray underlines this impression at the opening of Chapter 15, but he does so in a way that mocks the sentimental novel of romance by undercutting it with his irony: “Every reader of a sentimental turn (and we desire no other) must have been pleased with the tableau with which the last act of our little drama concluded; for what can be prettier than an image of Love on his knees before Beauty ?” (Sir Pitt, a personification of Love ? and Becky Sharp, a personification of Beauty ?) … 137 In political terms, Anglo-American self-deprecation may be illustrated when Presidents join members of the media in making fun of themselves and each other, as Washington’s players in politics and journalism gather each year for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. In April 2013, the most elaborate skit was a video in which director Steven Spielberg explained his plan to follow up Lincoln with a new film, Obama, using actor Daniel Day-Lewis, famous for his ability to transform himself into a role, to play President Obama’s part. Obama appeared on camera as Day-Lewis, saying, “The cosmetics were challenging. I mean, you wouldn’t believe how long it takes to put these ears on in the morning”. In another joke, the President claimed borrowing one of his wife’s tricks to liven up his second term – and the auditorium’s large screens showed candid photos of the President, with photoshopped bangs added to his forehead. Cross-cultural misunderstandings may abound as well. The French author Hippolyte Taine demonstrates cross-cultural misunderstandings when he compares Becky Sharp from William Thackeray’s Vanity Fair with Valérie Marneffe from Balzac’s Les parents pauvres. Both Becky and Valérie are ruthless and manipulative seducers, depicted by the authors in a suicidal downfall that consumes the women and their entourage. However, Taine remarks in a tainted – and unfair – value judgment that gives preference to the French author, “La différence des deux œuvres marquera la différence des deux literatures. Autant les Anglais l’emportent comme moralistes et satiriques, autant les Français l’emportent comme artistes et romanciers”. The reasons for these misunderstandings are numerous: most notably, Taine 138 cannot stand English humour. He admits himself that this cannot be overcome. 135 Cfr. Anthony Burgess, English Literature (London: Longman, 1974), at 33. 136 Whilst associated with the culture of the English-speaking world, it would be incorrect to consider that self-deprecation is exclusive to the culture of the English-speaking world. The Japanese artist Hokusai, who is said to have changed his name 30 times and moved his house 93 times, may be admired for his self-deprecation. 137 Occasionally, Thackeray will invoke “The Muse, whoever she be, who presides over this Comic History […] (opening sentence of Chapter 50). For extended discussion on these authorial pronouncements of Thackeray in Vanity Fair, see Graham Handley, Vanity Fair (London: Penguin Masterstudies, 1985), pp.108-23. 138 Hippolyte Taine, Histoire de la literature anglaise, Vol. 5 (Paris: Hachette, 1893), p. 122. The contrast between Valérie Marneffe and Becky Sharp is then developed by Taine over the next 6 pages. On Valérie Marneffe, see also Félicien Marceau, Les personages de la Comédie humaine (Paris: Gallimard, 1977), pp. 276-279. 43  “Cette disposition d’esprit produit l’humour, mot intraduisible, car la chose nous manqué. L’humour est le genre de talent qui peut amuser les Germains, les hommes du Nord; il convient à leur esprit comme la bière et l’eau-de-vie à leur palais. Pour les gens d’une autre race, il est désagréable; nos nerfs le trouvent trop âpre et trop amer”. 139 Taine depicts Thackeray as a person who lacks the gravitas required of a serious novelist. In a derogatory stroke of the pen, Thackeray is characterized as no more than a “satirique”. Moreover, the effusive mixture of styles and ideas that so characterizes English literature is viewed as a playful - but meaningless – diversion in a realm of human activity that calls for concentrated effort and seriousness. Just as he depicts Thackeray in an unfavorable light, Taine considers Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) as an unsufferable historian who cannot control a dashing style and comic impulses. Referring to Carlyle’s work on the letters and speeches of Oliver Cromwell (1845), Taine writes: « Il ne sait pas se tenir en place, n’occuper à la fois qu’une province littéraire. Il bondit par saccades effrenées d’un bout à l’autre du champ des idées ; il confond tous les styles, il entremêle toutes les formes ; il accumule les allusions païennes, les reminscences de la Bible, les abstractions allemandes, les termes techniques, la poésie, l’argot, les mathématiques, la physiologie, les vieux mots, les néologismes. Il n’est rien qu’il ne foule et ne ravage. Les constructions symétriques de l’art et de la pensée humaine, dispersées et bouleversées, s’amoncellent sous sa main en un gigantèsque amas de débris informes, au haut duquel, comme un conquérant barbare, il gesticule et il combat ». 140 Having said as much on the misunderstandings of authors outside their element, writers (James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, …), musicians (Frank Zappa, Philip Glass, …), or film directors (Orson Welles, Woody Allen, …) are often misunderstood at home. Some attain much higher levels of understanding or recognition abroad. The famous landscape painter, John Constable (1776-1837), had liitle influence on 19 century British painting, but his work th was well received in France and produced lasting influence on the plein air Barbizon school, thus connecting to impressionism. Indeed, in terms of understanding, more faithful, 141 insightful interpretations of certain national cultural icons may come from abroad. Thus certain English writers, in their appraisal of the year-long Complete Works Festival of Shakespeare’s works in 2007, considered that an Indian production of A Midsummer’s Night Dream and a Japanese production of Coriolanus were better than many previous national stagings. By combining a “dizzying range of styles and influences”, the Indian Dream gave “the play a multi-layered quality that is difficult to imagine coming from a straight, homebound production, but that is arguably part of its essence”. In terms of actually attaining a higher degree of recognition abroad than at home (nul n’est prophète dans son pays …), examples abound. With respect to Zappa, it turns out that he sold roughly four times as many records in the Old Continent than in the country that provided so much of the raw material for his scabrous satirising… 139 Hippolyte Taine, Histoire de la literature anglaise, Vol. 5, op. cit., p. 238. 140 Ibidem. One should note that the reputation of Thomas Carlyle waned in the English-speaking world in the 20 century, partly by reason of his style, judged eccentric even by British standards and referred to as th “Carlylese”. 141 For the life and works of John Constable, see http://www.john-constable.org (visited June 10, 2014). 44 b). Tragedy The war poetry of Wilfred Owen (1893-1918), offers a stark illustration of the hopelessness and anger at the cruely and waste of war that pervaded the trenches during the Great War. One of his poems, entitled “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (“It is sweet and right to die for one’s fatherland”) is a bitter and reference to Horace. In fact, Owen meant this to be an ironic reference to the attitude of innocence and naiveté that surrounded the our-tbreak of the Great War. Many imagined it was about going to a “picnic when you don’t know where you’re going to”. The widespread belief was that the war would be short and almost 142 uneventful. Owen put these beliefs to abrupt and chilling rest, most notably when speaking about the encounter between soldiers from different sides. Wilfred Owen, Strange Meeting (1917) It seemed that out of the battle I escaped Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped Through granites which Titanic wars had groined. Yet also there encumbered sleepers groaned, Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred. 5 Then, as I probed them, one sprang up, and stared With piteous recognition in fixed eyes, Lifting distressful hands as if to bless. And by his smile, I knew that sullen hall; With a thousand fears that vision's face was grained; 10 Yet no blood reached there from the upper ground, And no guns thumped, or down the flues made moan. "Strange, friend," I said, "Here is no cause to mourn." "None," said the other, "Save the undone years, The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours, 15 Was my life also; I went hunting wild After the wildest beauty in the world, Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair, But mocks the steady running of the hour, And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here. 20 For by my glee might many men have laughed, And of my weeping something has been left, Which must die now. I mean the truth untold, The pity of war, the pity war distilled. Now men will go content with what we spoiled. 25 Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled. They will be swift with swiftness of the tigress, None will break ranks, though nations trek from progress. Courage was mine, and I had mystery; Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery; 30 To miss the march of this retreating world Into vain citadels that are not walled. Then, when mu