Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
intellectualammo

Roark pulled a Phryne?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This question has to do with The Fountainhead:

 

 

(spoiler alert)

 

 

Ellsworth Toohey wrote the following in his column after the Stoddard Trial:

”Mr. Roark pulled a Phryne in court and didn’t get away with it. We never believed that story in the first place.”

Pulled a Phryne?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading that story I am left far more confused that I was before hand. I haven't read the book in five years, but I don't think Roark asked for anyone's pitty, it was the opposite really. This was just Toohey trolling right? Or was the idea that Roark was bearing himself naked by telling everyone what he had done so honestly ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a reverse application.

The pity belongs to those who condemned Roark. Miss Francon exposed the nature of the other witnesses soul's in stark contrast to the nature of Roark's to the courtroom.

Roark exposed the nature of the Judge's soul by presenting him with the photographic evidence of what had been built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading a little more online, I think I have made some connections

Phyrne brought to court for blasphemy, Roark, something like that, too.

Hypereides came to defend Phryne and was a lover, same with Dominique in the case of Roark.

And maybe the disrobing of Phryne in front of the judges was perhaps in the manner of "the defense rests" way that Roark used in his trial by simply showing the statue and Stoddard Temple as his only defense.

She was defended by the renowned lawyer Hypereides, who was one of her clients, but despite his skill Phryne appeared doomed by the prejudice of the court; after all, she was independent, proud, educated, outspoken, powerful and wealthy, the diametric opposite of everything a “virtuous” Athenian woman was supposed to be. As a last effort, Hypereides tore off her gown to display her naked body to the judges, crying ““How could a festival in honor of the gods be desecrated by beauty which they themselves bestowed?”

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/phryne/

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominique seemed to be testifying on Roark's behalf, but stated explicitly that she was not. That was the parallel I was drawn to, admittedly ignorant of the 'capital crime' referred to on the wikipedia account. Yes, the prevailing attitude in the minds of the people involved, her testimony of "The Stoddard Temple must be destroyed. Not to save men from it, but to save it from men. What's the difference, however?" could underscore it. Not to save men from a great work which would be an affront to their sense of life, but to "save it from men???" What's the difference? To save something from men? From men doing what to it? Destroying it? Observing it?

Interesting catch, and question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roark exposed the nature of the Judge's soul by presenting him with the photographic evidence of what had been built.

Because if you see something he built, and you don't immediately gasp in wonder and awe with full understanding of the meaning of his work, you are clearly an evil non-thinker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if you see something he built, and you don't immediately gasp in wonder and awe with full understanding of the meaning of his work, you are clearly an evil non-thinker!

Yes, you get the sense that average eyes would defile it some way. That same idea is portrayed in the scene where Dominique buys a beautiful statute from a museum, then quickly destroys it so that no one else will ever be able to see it. A nice analysis of Dominique's viewpoint can be found in the thread, Is Dominique irrational? There, 2046 says:

"Dominique's flaw was that she held a malevolent view of the universe in that she saw evil as active, efficacious, and omnipotent in the world and the good as passive, weak, and impotent to succeed in the world... She destroyed the statue because she thought it was too good for the scum that inhabited the world, they were not worthy to share existence with such a vision of man. A vision of man and the universe it represented, which didn't exist to her. Therefore, she wants to destroy her values because she doesn't want to get her hopes up, so to speak, and have them dashed when she finds out they don't exist. Instead, she tells herself they don't exist and she won't achieve any values so that she won't have to suffer the pain of losing them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if you see something he built, and you don't immediately gasp in wonder and awe with full understanding of the meaning of his work, you are clearly an evil non-thinker!

The Night of January 16th offers the reader the chance to render their verdict at the end of the trial. The play was written to allow either verdict. Does a reader that concludes guilty clearly expose an evil non-thinker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Night of January 16th offers the reader the chance to render their verdict at the end of the trial. The play was written to allow either verdict. Does a reader that concludes guilty clearly expose an evil non-thinker?

Sorry to jump in again, but I am a little torn on this issue. On one hand, it does seem like that is what's being suggested (in an indirect way): "The initial Los Angeles run (as Woman on Trial) got complimentary reviews, although Rand was disappointed that they focused on the play's melodrama and its similarity to The Trial of Mary Dugan, while paying little attention to aspects she considered more important, such as the contrasting ideas of individualism versus conformity." I don't have the play with me, but I take that to mean that voting one way is right (ie: represents individualism) whereas voting the other way is wrong (ie: represents conformity). This theme is also present in Peikoff's lecture about the OJ Simpson trial, where he criticizes the jury who let OJ off because they believed there was 'a reasonable doubt.' He said that by the '50s, "With the white liberals at the head of the stampede, fighting to wean the blacks above all others from individualism, egging on every form they could find or create of black power, black truth, black lip, and black victims. To the liberals, blacks were and still are a means to an end. The end being the destruction of the last vestiges of individualism and then the building up of a totalitarian government" -Peikoff. Peikoff believes that voting 'not guilty' was entirely wrong, that it was an act of conformity, and that the verdict showed reason had been thrown out the window. On the other hand, didn't Rand show that this view is wrong, through Dominique in The Fountainhead?

Edited by mdegges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to apologize. My original reply was based on a simple review of Roark's trial and the wikipedia thumbnail sketch.

I'm looking into it a bit deeper.

Phyrne was a courtesan.

She was brought up on trumped up charges that carried a penalty of death.

She was acquitted.

Roark was an architect.

He was brought up on trumped up charges that carried a financial penalty.

He was found guilty.

Phyrne was exposed by her defense council in court when the trial appear to be going against her.

Roark did not cross examine any of the witnesses and only offered photographic evidence to the judge in his defense.

Phyrne's exposed beauty saved her.

Roark's verdict of guilty exposed the soul's of those who brought the charges against him. No one, save Dominique, saw "wonder and awe" in his achievement, including the judge.

The judge siding with the rest of the witnesses completes the conformity. In this sense, the Phyrne reference makes more sense as an oxymoron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×