by John Banville
In a letter to his
friend Paul Fréart de Chantelou in 1649, Poussin, referring to the
execution of Charles I, makes the following observation: "It is
a true pleasure to live in a century in which such great events take
place, provided that one can take shelter in some little corner and
watch the play in comfort." The remark is expressive of the
quietism of the later Stoics, and of Seneca in particular. There are
times when I wish I had lived more in accordance with such a
principle. Yet who could have remained inactive in this ferocious
century? Zeno and the earlier philosophers of his school held that
the individual has a clear duty to take a hand in the events of his
time and seek to mould them to the public good. This is another,
more vigorous form of Stoicism. In my life I have exemplified both
phases of the philosophy. When I was required to, I acted, in full
knowledge of the ambiguity inherent in that verb, and now I have come
to rest -- or no, not rest: stillness. Yes: I have some to
stillness.
Today, however, I
am all agitation. The Death of Seneca is going for cleaning
and valuation. Am I making a mistake? The valuers are very
dependable, very discreet, they know me will, yet I cannot suppress
the unfocused doubts that keep flying up in me darkly like a flock of
restless starlings at the approach of night. What if the cleaners
damage it, or in some other way deprive me of it, my last solace?
The Irish say, when a child turns from its parents, that it is making
strange; it comes from the belief that fairy folk, a jealous
tribe, would steal a too-fair human babe and leave a changeling in
its place. What if my picture comes back and I find that it is
making strange? What if I look up from my desk some day and see a
changeling before me?
It is still on
the wall; I cannot summon up the courage to lift it down. It looks
at me as my six-year-old son did that day when I told him he was to
be sent to boarding school. It is a produce of the artist’s last
years, the period of the magnificent, late flowering of his genius,
of The Seasons, of Apollo and Daphne, and the Hagar
fragment. I have dated it tentatively to 1642. It is unusual among
these final works, which taken together form a symphonic meditation
on the grandeur and power of nature in her different aspects,
shifting as it does from landscape to interior, from the outer to the
inner world, from public life to the domestic. Here nature is
present only in the placid view of distant hills and forest framed in
the window above the philosopher’s couch. The light in which the
scene is bathed has an unearthly quality, as if it were not daylight,
but some other, paradisal radiance. Although its subject is tragic,
the picture communicates a sense of serenity and simple grandeur that
is deeply, deeply moving. The effect is achieved through the subtle
and masterful organisation of colours, these blues and golds, and
not-quite-blues and not-quite-golds, that lead the eye from the dying
man in his marmoreal pose -- already his own effigy, as it were --
through the two slaves, and the officer of the Guard, awkward as a
warhorse in his buckles and helmet, to the figure of the
philosopher’s wife, to the servant girl preparing the bath in which
the philosopher will presently be immersed, and on at last to the
window and the vast, calm world beyond, where death awaits.
I am afraid.
(pp. 180-182)