Cruikshank’s “Cock Lane Ghost”

nightmare

From “George Cruikshank’s The Table Book” (1845). Cruikshank is most famous today for his illustrations of the work Charles Dickens. His “Table Book” is a miscellany of the artist’s steel and wood engravings, accompanies by stories, poems, and other bric-a-brac. Fascinating stuff.

This engraving accompanies a little bit of fluff called “Poetical Invitations,” which includes a reference to the Cock Lane Ghost just so they have a place to print one of Cruikshank’s more chilling creatures:

Young ladies should be very careful in issuing notes of invitation to a moonlight soiree, for they do not know who may overhear them, and attend the rendezvous. The Cock Lane Ghost, had he been living when the song of “Meet me by moonlight” was composed, would have been a very likely sort of gentleman to be waiting “in the grove at the end of the vale,” for the purpose of bestowing the sweet light of his eyes–glaring through two holes in a turnip–upon any one who had asked for it.

The Cock Lane Ghost was a famous haunting of the 18th century.

Advertisements

Dante and Beatrice

Ary Sheffer, 18456.

“Dante and Beatrice,” Ary Sheffer, 1856.

“Indeed I see that in your intellect
now shines the never-ending light; once seen,
that light, alone and always, kindles love;
and if a lesser thing allure your love,
it is a vestige of that light which – though
imperfectly – gleams through that lesser thing.”

Beatrice to Dante

Is It Beautiful, or “Mean, odious, repulsive, and revolting”?

1024px-John_Everett_Millais_-_Christ_in_the_House_of_His_Parents_(`The_Carpenter's_Shop')_-_Google_Art_Project

This is “Christ in the House of His Parents,” painted by John Everett Millais in 1849 and one of the landmarks of the -Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood movement. It’s a masterpiece of symbolic naturalism. Everything in it has meaning. At the  center of the action is the child Jesus. He’s cut his hand on a nail, and some of the blood has dropped to his foot, prefiguring the wounds of the crucifixion.

The Blessed Mother holds out a cheek for him to kiss in comfort. Joseph examines the wound with the nonchalance of a worker who has seen many such injuries, but St. Anne looks more concerned and reaches for the pliers to yank the offending nail. Off to the left is a worker, observing Jesus: a witness like many others in the gospel. The boy to the right suggests John the Baptist, nervously bringing water to wash the wound as he will use water to baptize Christ.

In the background we see sheep watching through the door: the flock of Christians. On the ladder rests a dove, representing the Holy Spirit, and the ladder itself may symbolize either Jacob’s ladder or a ladder used in the crucifixion. The triangle on the wall is the Trinity, the wood of the cross litters the workshop, branches suggest the palms of Palm Sunday.

The only bizarre part of the composition are the red-headed figures of Mary and Jesus. Why make them red-headed? Another gesture at the blood of the passion? Or is it just a visual cue to set mother and child apart? Only Mary and Jesus share blood and thus genetic traits. The blood of Christ was the blood of Mary.

The painting was hugely controversial when it was first shown. Much as I admire Charles Dickens, his eruption of outrage is absurd:

…you come, in this place, to the contemplation of a Holy Family. You will have the goodness to discharge from your minds all Post-Raphael ideas, all religious aspirations, all elevating thoughts, all tender, awful, sorrowful, ennobling, sacred, graceful, or beautiful associations, and to prepare yourselves, as befits such a subject Pre-Raphaelly considered for the lowest depths of what is mean, odious, repulsive, and revolting.

You behold the interior of a carpenter’s shop. In the foreground of that carpenter’s shop is a hideous, wry-necked, blubbering, red-headed boy, in a bed-gown, who appears to have received a poke in the hand, from the stick of another boy with whom he has been playing in an adjacent gutter, and to be holding it up for the contemplation of a kneeling woman, so horrible in her ugliness, that (supposing it were possible for any human creature to exist for a moment with that dislocated throat) she would stand out from the rest of the company as a Monster, in the vilest cabaret in France, or the lowest ginshop in England. Two almost naked carpenters, master and journeyman, worthy companions of this agreeable female, are working at their trade; a boy, with some small flavor of humanity in him, is entering with a vessel of water; and nobody is paying any attention to a snuffy old woman who seems to have mistaken that shop for the tobacconist’s next door, and to be hopelessly waiting at the counter to be served with half an ounce of her favourite mixture. Wherever it is possible to express ugliness of feature, limb, or attitude, you have it expressed. Such men as the carpenters might be undressed in any hospital where dirty drunkards, in a high state of varicose veins, are received. Their very toes have walked out of Saint Giles’s.

A Lost Papal Bust by Bernini Found

bernini

Photo: Sotheby’s

This bust of Pope Paul V by Bernini surfaced two years ago in a private collection after being lost for 100 years. Commissioned by the Pope’s nephew Cardinal Scipione Borghese in 1621, it was the first papal work of the 23-year-old artist. It remained in the Borghese family until 1893, when it was misidentified and auctioned off as the work of Alessandro Algardi.

It’s been acquired by the Getty Museum and goes on display this week.
IMG_0826.JPG

Comics Legend John Byrne Angers Transsexual Activists UPDATED

Wikimedia says this is a drawing of Demon by noted hate-monster John Byrne, but really it is a picture of his evil soul.

This just in from the Social Justice Warriors: John Byrne is evil.

This very stupid year is already, quite obviously, the Year of the Transsexuals, because the rage-fits of a tiny cadre of deeply troubled people must be part of Our National Dialog all day every day.

The latest Enemy of the People is Byrne, one of the giants of the 70s and 80s, best known for his runs on X-Men, Fantastic Four, and, most spectacularly, the reinvention of Superman for Man of Steel (comics not movie).

Byrne was asked about transsexual issues on his forum, particularly this article from feminist Elinor Burkett objecting to some of the language used by the “trans” community.

He said things I and many others have said. And now he’s going to pay for it by being subjected to boycotts and shrieking fits from people who are not at all hysterical.

This is the real starting point of this discussion: being born male or female, physically, sets up a series of parameters. Those parameters are not really altered if the male puts on a dress and declares himself to be a woman. (I have grown tired of transvestites being called “she.”)

As so often happens in our Society, the pendulum has swung, and as it usually does it has swung further in one direction than the other. Thus, in the last hundred years or so, we have gone from being incredibly narrow and restrictive in matters sexual — incarcerating homosexuals, for instance — to stretching perhaps a little too far to be “all encompassing.”

I understand the biological processes that can happen in utero, which are considered by some to be the cause of “transgender” individuals, but, as some have noted, the jury is still out on whether this creates a genuine condition or a mental illness.

Later in the exchange, he says this:

A REALLY hard question, then: Many people are tortured and driven by a desire to have sex with children. Our society frowns on this, and such people are considered mentally ill. We do not accommodate them, we do not respect them.

How is being “transgender” different? Given all the twists and turns that have happened in our general understanding of how the brain and mind work — still a work in progress — how difficult is it to imagine a future in which it will be determined without doubt that “transgender” is, indeed, a mental illness? How will we feel about all those people who, instead of actually helping them, we encouraged in a program of self-mutilation?

This is a long, long road, and so far we have taken barely a single step upon it. (Christine Jorgenson was half a century ago. How much has changed?)

Amen, John. Reasonably argued, and completely logical.

Naturally, the mere fact that he brought up pedophilia even if only by analogy is sending the SJWs into orbit. Some of the sites I read are already saying they will no longer run any John Byrne art and plan to have a blackout on his work. They argue that this kind of Stalinist purge is perfectly a-okay because they don’t have to give space to a “hater.”

What we have to remember is that most of the people writing on these fan sites and posting to social media are 20-somethings: self-important naifs with a minimal understanding of the world beyond their comic books and computers–special snowflakes fed on a steady diet of peanut-free food and “social justice” propaganda. Nothing is more insufferable than a 20-something with an opinion. (I know: I was one, and I was widely published at the time, and I cringe every time I think of some of the things I wrote.) Their thoughts on social, political, and economic issues are almost invariably useless, based on shallow reading and inexperience, and isolated from the messy realities of life in the real world. Because of the socially disorienting times in which they came of age, they’ve spent too much of their lives in narcissistic contemplation of every aspect of their own specialness, which is how we get stupid crap like “gender fluid” people and “microaggressions”. These are exactly the kind of PC twits Jerry Seinfeld has been driving into a frenzy with his criticisms of their unique blend of thin skin and pig-ignorance.

John Byrne was also defamed by the director of the new, certain-to-be-awful Fantastic Four movie. The actor playing Johnny Storm is black, and his sister, Sue Storm, is played by a white girl. Obviously, this is all very silly agenda-driven stuff that I don’t care one whit about. They want to cast a black actor as a white comic book character? Fine. Who cares. Yay for diversity in fictional characters who catch fire. That’s a big deal, right?

Then again, I’m not Byrne and didn’t draw Johnny Storm for five years, so I have no skin in the game. (What? Bad phrase?)

Here’s what Byrne said:

When it comes to casting a Black actor as Johnny Storm, there is a degree of historical ignorance at work that is insulting to Stan Lee and the memory of Jack Kirby.

Lee and Kirby, both New York Jews, did not “cast” the Fantastic Four as extensions of themselves. It took fifty years for a writer (and I wish it had been me!) to identify Ben Grimm as Jewish. But what Stan and Jack did when shaping the early Marvel Universe was demonstrate a social conscience in the best ways the Nation at the time would tolerate. And let us not forget, it was Stan and Jack who desegregated the American Armed Forces almost a decade before it happened in real life.

Lee, Kirby, Ditko and the rest introduced ethnic and racial minorities with a far greater frequency than, say, DC. Wyatt Wingfoot became a regular member of the FF’s supporting cast. Robbie Robertson showed up in Spider-Man. The Black Panther arrived. Heroic non-White figures arose from the ranks of the common man. Remember Al B. Harper, who died to save the world?

When Johnny is race-swapped the inevitable response from some segments of fandom and the media is that this is “necessary” due to comics in the 1960s being hotbeds of White supremacy — while nothing is further from the truth. American comics had long been the home to some of the most liberal, forward thinking people you were likely to meet. They cannot be taken to task for portraying society as that society perceived itself. But they should definitely be lauded for being, often, ahead of the curve when it came to social reform.

He makes some good observations, and is eager to defend his generation and the one that came before from accusations of racism. That’s the point at which someone involved in the new movie, like director Josh Trank, could address this respected FF artist and engage his arguments on their strengths and weaknesses.

byrne

Oh.

Stacy Keach played a Nazi in American History X.

Ergo: John Byrne–John Friggin’ Byrne–is a racist Nazi who hates black people.

UPDATE: On Twitter I was alerted to a tweet by Josh Trank claiming the comment above was a joke. Color me unconvinced. Does it read like a joke? Is calling someone a Nazi in this overheated, oversensitive environment funny or even responsible? Nothing about the wording suggests so.

So, no: not buying it. I’m imagining Marvel told him to back off since they have a $122 million reboot about to release and they don’t need a s***storm of controversy.

Jesus Christ: Pro Wrestler?

Here’s the official logo for the upcoming Year of Mercy:

logo

My first thought was: Why does Jesus have two heads? Is it theological statement on his two natures? Is the other head supposed to be Rosy Grier?

Then I realized that the mustard colored thing draped across his shoulders isn’t a stole or something, but a man, and Jesus appears ready to body slam the dude into the mat. I think I saw King Kong Bundy do this to Doink the Clown once.

Why does he have no bones? And the merging eyeball is seriously disturbing, despite the silly reasoning:

The image, created by Jesuit Father Marko Rupnik, also shows one of Jesus’ eyes merged with the man’s to show how “Christ sees with the eyes of Adam, and Adam with the eyes of Christ.”

That doesn’t make any sense at all.

Why are we getting bad art like this in 2015? I think this same illustration was on the cover of my 4th grade CCD textbook in 1977: Your Friend Jesus!

Beauty can’t save the world if the people responsible for Church design and expression have the artistic sensibility Norman Bridwell.

The sad part is that the original artist, Fr. Rupnik, is a talented creator of mosaics. But in transferring the visual language from one medium to another something essential was lost, creating this absurd image. What works in mosaic on a wall doesn’t necessarily work as pure graphical design on the screen or page. I appreciate the Byzantine influence on his work, but in this case the result is an aesthetic fail.

See also: Simcha Fisher

The Earliest Known Depiction of Witches On Brooms, and What It Tells Us About Evil

2015-03-22 13.59.07This marginal illustration comes from Le champion des dames (A Defense of Women) by Martin Le France, 1451. Martin was secretary to both Antipope Felix V and Pope Nicholas V. His work is a 24,000-verse (!) poem extolling the virtues of women, but also condemning heresy and corruption.

The witches are identified Vaudois, or Waldensians, who were accused of practicing witchcraft and celebrating the witch’s Sabbath. Flight was one of the powers given to demons and their minions, and thus was often associated with evil.

The art is interesting because it’s part of a shift from depicting witches demonically or sexually, to showing them as simple women in everyday clothes.

Why the broom? The internet is full of very silly theories with little historical grounding, the most commonly repeated being that brooms were used to apply flying ointments to the nether regions of the witch. Go ahead and take a moment to imagine that. I’ll wait. The flying ointment part is real. The awkward and painful applicator? Not so much.

We’re also told that it stems from the testimony of male witch Guillaume Edelin in 1453, which was two years after this manuscript was created. So, we can stop blaming poor Guillaume any time now.

I prefer simple answers: as witches start to be depicted as more ordinary, they’re given a prop to indicate their commonplace, feminine nature. What’s more ordinary than a housewife’s broom?

The witch, it tells us, is not always discernible by outward appearances. What does evil look like? It looks like us. Or, in the case of medievals, like that annoying woman next door.

Exorcising A Possessed Statue of The Virgin Mary and Child

Four scenes from the life of St. Peter of Verona (1206 – April 6, 1252), also known as Peter Martyr, are depicted in frescoes at the Portinari Chapel, at the Basilica of Sant’Eustorgio, Milan. One of these shows an incident from his life in which he exorcised a possessed statue of the infant Jesus and the Blessed Mother, complete with devil horns!

2015-03-16 11.08.58

As if the painting and incident are not strange enough, there’s this: the frescoes were the work of Renaissance master Vincenzo Foppa, yet were hidden under layers of plaster until 1952, when they were carefully recovered. The chapel also contains the tomb of Peter Martyr.

Creative Commons: Veduta della Cappella Portinari della chiesa di Sant'Eustorgio a Milano. Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto, 1-3-2007

Creative Commons: Veduta della Cappella Portinari della chiesa di Sant’Eustorgio a Milano. Foto di Giovanni Dall’Orto, 1-3-2007

Peter Martyr was an inquisitor who preached against heresey. On Palm Sunday 1252, he was assassinated by two hitmen hired by the Cathars of Milan. After they struck off a piece of his skull with an axe, he recited the opening words of the Apostles Creed and fell to the ground. Some stories say that he wrote  “Credo in Unum Deum” in blood as he lay dying. When his assassin, Carino of Balsamo, saw that the blow to head had not finished his victim, he stabbed him, which is why Peter often is show with both instruments of matrydom, as so:

lorenzo_lotto_-_madonna_and_child_with_st_peter_martyr_-_wga13648

Lorenzo Lotto: Madonna and Child with St. Peter Martyr

His assassin fled to a Dominican monastery, repented, did penance, and is venerated as Blessed Carino Pietro of Balsamo.