Rosamund's Bower

hereas Theseus, when given the task to traverse a labyrinth in search of the Minotaur had been tossed a clew of thread by Ariadne that he was to unravel as he went so that he could retrace his steps to exit, I had no thread to follow.

The word bower has several distinct denotations, all relatively archaic. The first, derived from the word "bough", or tree limb and used principally in falconry, refers to a young hawk as it is about to leave the nest. Presumably, it refers to the young bird that is developed enough to now rest on branches and begin its capture of prey. The kill, chiefly of birds, small mammals or insects is clean, and usually involves breaking the back of the victim. Bower also denotes a crude, uncouth, ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement and perceived as clownish. Finally, bower also refers to a chamber, retreat or a shelter made from boughs of trees or vines, which are entwined in an effort to enclose or shut in.

In the case of Rosamund's Bower, a legendary labyrinth located in Woodstock Park, Oxfordshire which was pulled down when Blenheim Palace was built nearby, few facts remain today. The history of Rosamund Clifford, 'Fair Rosamund' (Rosamund, "Rose of the World"), has been embroidered from the 14th century onwards with much imported legend. During the Elizabethan era, stories of the origin of Rosamund's Bower gained popularity.

There are several versions of the legend, one more popular than the rest. It's claimed that the labyrinth was built of creeping vines and rose bushes to conceal Rosamund Clifford, the 12th Century King Henry II's mistress. It was designed with an intricate path, rendering it impenetrable except by use of a thread. Legend has it that when King Henry was called away to go to war against his son in France, Rosamund begged to be allowed to go with him. The King objected and rejected her pleas, as he wished her to have a life befitting a lady and exiled her to the Bower. She feared she was never to see King Henry again.

In Henry's absence, his Queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine discovered a thread snagged on King Henry's spur and followed it to the centre of the labyrinth, where she found Rosamund. According to some accounts, Rosamund was slain, or forced to take her own life by Queen Eleanor. Upon his return, when King Henry learned what had happened he is reported never to have smiled again, but had a magnificent tomb erected over Rosamund's perfumed coffin in the convent nearby at Godstow. Rosamund's ghost, it is said, has been haunting Godstow Abbey ever since.

By fall of 2006 it became clear to me that I'd been directed, possibly intentionally, into what had become my own Rosamund's Bower. (For those who once knew me, Rosamund has significance as well). Some thirty odd months after my first encounter with "Doug" and our incessant chats on Yahoo messenger, despite my gentle, forgiving approaches, he was still not inclined to admit we had ever met, and had not yet acknowledged my emails. Emails written from my prison-like cell, deep within the labyrinth that he had guided me into, disoriented and with no thread to follow, only he could guide me out. I was left to ponder the reasons I had been "embowered", destined to a life of solitude, and imprisoned by someone who'd claimed to be my friend, someone I had cared for and who'd encouraged me to trust and be loyal to.

It was difficult not to believe that this had always been "Doug's" plan. Why, and what would become of me?

Hope is the thing with feathers

mpirical evidence has demonstrated a direct correlation between the value of restorative response and the healing process and was first conducted, in the criminal context, by Caroline Angel of the United Kingdom. At its core, the process enables a reduction of the trauma experienced by victims if a direct face-to-face meeting is conducted with the offender. The dialogue between transgressor and victim served beneficial in several regards, in terms of the psychological and sociological benefits to encourage repair rather than revenge in the victim, and for the offender in terms of minimising the likelihood of a repetition of an incident. Any way one views the evidence, it can be safely said that such controlled confrontation aids in making repair of the well being of a victim possible.

The face-to-face dialogue offers the victim an opportunity to receive respect and to be heard by the offender. This empowers a victim to ensure a better mental health outcome compared with a victim that is denied such an experience. For the most part, an apology, or other similar emotional reparation, is helpful to the victim’s recovery as it paves the way for the victim to reach a point where forgiveness is possible. Forgiveness, as mediated by the benevolent attributions and positive emotional reactions experienced by the victim, permits a strengthening of self-esteem and hope, and serves to limit the impact of anger and anxiety.

Strang, in her work entitled “Repair or Revenge” cites that restorative response is “a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve, collectively, how to deal with the aftermath and its implications for the future”. And there is an aftermath, perhaps, at times, much to the consternation of the offender!

Psychologists encourage restorative response through what has been termed by popular television personality, Dr. Phil McGraw, as Minimal Effective Response, or MER. Once again, like Restorative Justice in criminal scenarios, the concept of MER seeks to satisfy the need for resolution of the emotional upheaval perpetrated by someone who has deeply betrayed another's trust, while still conserving the victim's resources. MER is, at its very least, action taken to facilitate an explanation and an apology ~ a necessary beginning to the healing process and emotional closure. A closure to the associated pain of betrayal. McGraw recommends that a victim identify its MER by asking the following questions:

1. What action can I take to resolve this pain?
2. If I were successful and achieved this action, how would I feel?
3. Does the feeling I will have match the feeling I want to have?

Identification of MER, minimal effective response, and its subsequent deployment is crucial for proper healing to occur.

And that is exactly what I had set out to do.

Contrary to the claims of many members of the ILW newsgroup, when DF disappeared I didn’t seek revenge, I didn’t seek his removal from the country by the immigration service, nor had I launched the separate civil action with the principle purpose of recovering that which had been stolen from me (I had little confidence that anything in the way of monetary assets that he availed himself of in 2002 and 2003 would remain by the time the civil action was underway in mid-2004, anyway). No, I engaged in the action to be heard, to have one day, one opportunity to confront my offender so that I could repair the damage inflicted upon me during his systematic and deceptive acts and his treatment of me as an "inanimate object”.

With regard to the second incident, and learning that my online friend “Doug” had also betrayed my trust, I'd become a personification of “Vox clamantis in deserto”. I was but a voice crying out in the wilderness, and to date completely ignored and unheard.

What action could I take to resolve this pain? What Minimal Effective Response would be applicable in this case?

I continued to send occasional emails to “Doug” through late summer of 2006 hoping that one would prompt him to offer me answers. Answers that had become crucial by this time, after encountering "Doug" and becoming a victim of his failure to accept responsibility for his actions. No matter whether it had been simply an accident or a delberate attempt to deceive, his reluctance to now acknowledge my existance, let alone the reprecussions that I was experiencing, was more detrimental to me than the initial charade. In the 28 months that had ensued, I found myself unable to trust anyone, unable to believe anything uttered to me, unable to speak, communicate or even consider spending time with a member of the opposite sex.

I reflected on the feelings I had when I first met my online friend, "Doug", hopeful and ready to embrace people that were honest and caring. Now, as fall 2006 approached, some two and a half years later, I found that in order to look upon the future with any enthusiasm at all, more than ever I need an explanation for why he chose to strip me of the only thing of value that I took with me from my divorce ~ Hope.

"Hope" is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul
And sings the tunes without the words
And never stops at all ~ Emily Dickinson

Vox clamantis in deserto

ebruary 2006 came and went, and no acknowledgment from “Doug” relating to my application for the summer intern position in California. I was dismayed.

I thought that, at the very least, in his capacity with this institution "Doug" would have informed me by email that either I was totally unqualified for the position, or that all positions had been filled. I discovered that fact when I visited his web page to see if there was an alternate business-related email address for him, at the end of the month. Sure enough, not only was there a bold announcement that all positions had been filled, but also a notice that he was already in the field. I felt hurt. Not because I wasn’t selected ~ that was a long shot and I knew that I had no specific background that prepared me, but more because I viewed the lack of a rejection notification as another barb cast at me.

Meanwhile, after a long respite from active participation on ILW, I'd answered a thread that was directed to me by a new member who was seeking advice on how to report an alien spouse she claimed may have married her for fraudulent purposes. Unfortunately, BS began to ridicule me again. He is the member that I'd posted to on “Doug’s” behalf more than two years earlier, that culminated in a big mess. (I described the particular circumstances for that in the entries to this blog entitled, Five Reflect on the Mystery of Roanoke, and Wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch . )

BS was even more determined in this latest come back. His threats were full-throttle and visceral. He verbalised that he would stop at nothing and was intent on destroying my credibility and reputation amongst my industry colleagues and family members. I spawned in a series of new emails from him to me that would be unsettling for anyone to read. Indeed, I was once again facing his wrath and this time one that had been festering for 24 months. It was frightening. He claimed he believed in an "eye for an eye" and I knew it was not idle discourse. I offered explanation as to why I had spoken on “irritated’s” behalf, but BS would not accept it.

Knowing that “Doug” had originally asked me to post something on ILW, on his behalf, and, as such, had really placed me in this situation, in the first place, I forwarded BS’s correspondence to “Doug” with a plea for some help or moral support. Three of these alarming emails were forwarded to "Doug" from February to April 2006 ~ all, yes indeed, went unanswered. I was forced to consider that this was deliberate and quite possibly "Doug" didn’t care if something untoward would become of me. What made it particularly upsetting was that these threats to my personal safety had arisen out of the very favour that "Doug" had asked of me in engaging with BS on ILW in the first place!

The Latin, "Vox clamantis in deserto”, its translation being “a voice crying in the wilderness” harkens to John the Baptist, whose proclamations of Christ, while a hermit in the wilderness, were undeeded and in vain.

This expression is also the motto of one of the eight member schools of the Ivy League, that was considered at one time to be the frontier of the European settlement and was built to introduce Christianity to the American Indians ~ a beacon of cultural sophistication and learning that emanates from an otherwise quite pastoral Northeastern setting.

Naturally, “Doug” would be intimately familiar with this motto, having a Post Graduate research position at that very institution. I would learn that despite my loyalty, despite my caring and forgiving nature, despite my need for his help, for answers, or for support… my cries would go in vain.

“Ego vox clamantis in deserto".

"I am a voice crying in the wilderness".