after the move, and before publishing the new pictures, I've decided to upload my old photos remained in my archive that I had not shared it yet.

Vintage press photo. Gina Gershon and Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls (Paul Verhoeven, 1995).

 

Paul Verhoeven's American erotic drama Showgirls (1995) is a curious phenomenon. The critics dubbed the production one of the worst films of its era. Showgirls "won" at the 1996 Razzie Awards for Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Leading Actor (Elizabeth Berkley), Worst Female Newcomer (Berkley), and Worst Picture Couple as well as Worst Original Movie Song. Verhoeven was the first celebrity ever who came to receive his Razzies. In the years after its original release, Showgirls gained cult status, grossed over $100,000,000 on rentals, and made it into MGM's top 20 best-selling titles. And in recent years, the film has been subject to critical re-evaluation, with more and more notable directors and critics considering it a serious satire worthy of praise.

 

Elizabeth Berkley plays Nomi, a "street-smart" drifter who ventures to Las Vegas. She is determined to make a name as a dancer while putting her unspoken past behind her. Her tough, streetwise veneer is not as infallible as she would like. In Vegas, she becomes more cautious in the way she approaches strangers who seem willing to help her purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Her talent and connections in combination are only able to get her a job at the Cheetah Club, a strip joint. Her first true friend in Vegas, Molly Abrams (Gina Ravera), works as the costumer for Goddess, the topless production at the Stardust. It is through Molly that Nomi catches the eye of Goddess' headliner, Cristal Connors (Gina Gershon). Nomi has a love/hate feeling toward Cristal: she doesn't much like her but wants to become her.

 

At IMDb, the film's got a 4.9 rating but most of the more recent reviews of Showgirls are remarkably positive about the film. "Read between the lines!", "A Misunderstood Classic", "A really fun movie...despite what the critics say!", "This wonderful film only gets better with each viewing" and "Greatest critique of American culture since CITIZEN KANE" are some of the headlines of the IMDb reviews. Critics such as Jonathan Rosenbaum and Jim Hoberman, as well as filmmakers Jim Jarmusch, Adam McKay, and Jacques Rivette, have also gone on the record defending Showgirls as a serious satire. In a 1998 interview, Rivette called it "one of the great American films of the last few years", though "very unpleasant: it's about surviving in a world populated by assholes, and that's Verhoeven's philosophy". Quentin Tarantino has stated that he enjoyed Showgirls, referring to it in 1996 as the "only ... other time in the last twenty years [that] a major studio made a full-on, gigantic, big-budget exploitation movie", comparing it to Mandingo. Showgirls has been compared to All About Eve (1950) as a remake, update, or rip-off of that film. For Jonathan Rosenbaum, "Showgirls has to be one of the most vitriolic allegories about Hollywood and selling out ever made". "Verhoeven may be the bravest and most assured satirist in Hollywood, insofar as he succeeds in making big genre movies no one knows whether to take seriously or not", Michael Atkinson has written.

 

In Slant Magazine's four-out-of-four-star review, Eric Henderson rejects the "so-bad-it's-good" interpretation and lauds the film as "one of the most honest satires of recent years", stating that the film targets Hollywood's "morally bankrupt star-is-born tales." Henderson draws from a round-table discussion in Film Quarterly in which others argue its merits. Noël Burch attests that the film "takes mass culture seriously, as a site of both fascination and struggle" and uses melodrama as "an excellent vehicle for social criticism." In the same round-table, Chon Noriega suggests that the film has been misinterpreted and the satire overlooked because "the film lacks the usual coordinates and signposts for a critique of human vice and folly provided by sarcasm, irony, and caustic wit." The Guardian commented in 2020: "With Showgirls, the target was the American dream itself – and the dishonest "star is born” narratives churned out to sustain it. If Showgirls has a message, it’s that the game is rigged for women like Nomi. She thinks she’s climbing the pole but really she’s just spinning round it. The real power lies with the men running the racket. Nobody wanted to hear that at the time; maybe they’re ready to now. In its own messy way, Showgirls is a #MeToo story with a male gaze.

 

Sources: Wikipedia and IMDb.

 

And, please check out our blog European Film Star Postcards.

Enhanced & restyled by me

Wearing early FR Jason Wu.

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

Infallible Dasha takes center stage.

Exceptional Tatyana is the 2011 Jet Set Convention Exclusive Table Centerpiece with an Edition Size of 200. She has the same face screening as Nouveau Regime Tatyana but done with a different make-up palette. The face design is definitely perfection like most of the FR2 dolls. Although her edition size is almost as low as Dark Swan Elise from the past year, she is not as popular. Where I think she fell short was the styling. Underneath her bangs is a gorgeous metallic gold eyeshadow which I feel should not have been covered. While I like the idea of a full bang, hers was done starting from the hairline while the ideal full bang should start on the top of the head. Think of a bowl cut. The advantage to this though is that I can just pull out the bangs on her hairline and root new ones to give her a middle part and luckily I purchased Saran hair months ago which matches perfectly with her hair color. What I’m impressed by with the FR2 line is that almost all of the dolls seem to have thin hair which makes them more realistic but in actuality they are fully rooted. While FR2 had the most gorgeous face designs, almost all of the later dolls before the line was retired had a sort of translucent quality to their heads in the same case as Exceptional which I'm not a fan of. Comparing them to dolls with solid vinyl heads they have this ghostly appearance especially the once with the Cream skin tone. This translucent material is what I consider the culprit to the low sales of Infallible Dasha and Escapism Elise in the 2012 Tropicalia Convention. I’m just hoping that those face screening used from that time will be recycled once again so we can have a do-over for each of those dolls from the FR2 line and we just saw that recently with ITBE Mirage Ayumi who is in my opinion a stand out in comparison to the two FR2 versions of Ayumi in terms of face ups. There are so many gorgeous face designs done for FR2 that I would love to see again especially Evermore Vanessa.

Never mind the infallible precision radar guidance you'd need to land a freaking space rocket in an interior hangar accessible through a door barely wider than the rocket itself, interior hangars are cool. I was quite happy with the microscale retro-style rocket, but felt like it needed something more to complete the build; thus the hangar and port facility.

FR Dasha Infallible

And that's the lunacy of it isn't it?

That total and utter devotion, that unconditional, complete and infallible love, that obsessive and indestructible commitment to something which cannot ever, ever fail you, lie to you, let you down, use or abuse you, that will never have an agenda other than pure love, immaculate, perfect love, is the thing that is there waiting to destroy you. Because it becomes all of you and when it's gone there is absolutely nothing left and you'll slide back into that place. Where...Nothing....Sparkles.

 

Fingers in the Sparkle Jar

Chris Packham

SONY DSC

Wayne Manor 5PJL

 

I never thought this day would come. That’s what I keep telling myself, but deep down I know the truth. This day was inevitable ever since Bruce chose to put on that cape and cowl. We all knew it was inevitable. Amongst what the world considers gods, it was an inevitability that one day he would fall in the line of duty. I kept telling myself that they’re all just like me. Infallible, untouchable. But life has a horrific way of reminding of me just who I am. I walk out of a battle unscathed. No marks, no bruises. Bruce would walk out battered, bruised and in some of the worst cases with broken bones. Despite all that though, I always told myself that he’d out live all of us. I guess it was just a case that we all thought he was far too stubborn to die.

 

We were wrong.

 

Despite all the things I thought it would take to bring Bruce down I never thought it would be a bullet that would manage it. Yet at the same time it somewhat makes sense. It was a bullet that took Bruce’s parents away from him, and in a way it seems fitting that it is also a bullet that takes him away from us. But just as Bruce’s parents died defending him that night in Crime alley, Bruce gave his life to protect an innocent man from being assassinated. They would be proud of him. I think. I never had a chance to meet them before their deaths but I’m certain they would have been proud of him for all that’s done.

 

Most people believe that when Bruce Wayne dies he’ll have a huge funeral to commemorate his passing, with people from far and wide coming to pay their respects to them. But for those of us who knew Bruce, we know exactly what he would of wanted, as does Alfred. Possibly the closest person to Bruce and the only person he would trust with his funeral. It’s just as Bruce would have wanted. Quiet. Private. Surrounded by his friends. That’s just what Alfred has done.

 

It’s a small ceremony with few guests. Diana, Arthur, Barry and Hal. I’m certain Victor was invited also so it’s rather odd that he would miss such an important event to the man who helped free him from government control. But I suppose that even whilst mourning, the Justice League must always have someone on monitor duty. Beyond the members of the League I also recognize Dick and Tim out of costumes in black suits, rather odd especially given how Bruce is still in his suit but I’m certain he would have preferred to have been buried in it. I also recognize Jim Gordon the police commissioner of the Gotham City Police Department. I knew he and Bruce were friends, but I never knew that Jim knew that Bruce was Batman. I guess they were closer allies than I first thought.

 

The ceremony is short and to the point. A lot like Bruce himself. It’s quick and civil with a few friendly words from everyone.

 

Diana honors him as a warrior.

 

Barry honors him as the world’s greatest detective.

 

Hal honors him as a protector of the right.

 

Arthur honors him as a fair and just ruler.

 

Jim honors him as the savior of Gotham.

 

I choose not to give him all these fancy titles, as I know Bruce would want nothing less than to be given all these titles. He hated being referred to as the Dark Knight. He hated it when people gave him the nickname of the world’s greatest detective. But there’s one name I’m sure Bruce would have loved to of been called. A name I doubt he got very often from fighting the crimes of Gotham.

 

A good man.

 

The ceremony concludes and the League prepare to go their own separate ways until we’re next needed. Barry’s needed in central city. Hal’s been given a report of unexpected solar activity from our sun. Diana has been summoned back to Themyscira for a new assignment from her mother. Arthur has vowed to help young Tim protect Gotham with Bruce’s passing, and I want to find out why Victor missed the funeral before heading back to Metropolis…..

 

I was really aiming for a Holy Grail doll this year. A lot of times though I just don’t know when I’m gonna get that doll that I’m aiming for. So when the opportunity comes I just have to grab it. I guess it’s true that if you really want something so bad, the universe will find a way to bring it to you. I finally have Flawless Elise. The doll at the very top of my Wish List next to Optic Verve Agnes. Whenever I think of Elise, Flawless always comes to mind. It’s as if this version is the quintessential Elise… for me at least. What I particularly love about her is her hairstyle. She just looks so chic and sophisticated. I wouldn’t change a thing about her look. What’s special about her is her airbrushed eyeshadows creating a smoky eye effect (I finally figured out how to smell smoky lol). Special because the next wave of FR2 dolls just have the regular color blocked paint application. Ironically Flawless has a significant flaw and that is her head not matching the color of her body. The heads they produced were pink in color when it was supposed to be cream as her skintone was intended to be. The difference in tone is actually more noticeable as you see the doll in hand. I was going to give her a body upgrade and give her Purity Dasha’s body but now that I think about it, I feel she deserves a body that would match well with her head and the Japan skintone is actually really close. So what I did was I looked for a doll that matches her skintone. As I was doing the comparisons I was surprised on how in a year we got various shades of the Japan skintone. From A Touch of Frost Eugenia to Montaigne Market Elise to High Visibility Agnes and to the Gloss Convention dolls with the Japan skintone. I realized High Visibility is the most gray of them all. Different from the Japan skintone of the Gloss Convention dolls actually. Now the doll that matches Flawless’ head best is A Touch of Frost Eugenia. It’s not a perfect match but to me it’s close enough. Better than the Cream skintone of her original body. I’m going to do a comparison pic of both Flawless and ATOF soon. I’ve already made my decision that if I ever get Flawless Elise, she would have to have the original head. When she was released a lot of the people who got her asked Integrity Toys for a replacement head that matches her body. The replacement head turned out to have a translucent type vinyl and the fringe were also done differently as they do not curl inwards like the original. I feel that the original head photographed better. A lot of times heads with solid type vinyl comes out much more beautiful. I’ve also noticed that dolls with translucent heads are not well received like Most Wanted Elise, Escapism Elise and Infallible Dasha. Even though I got her nude, she actually is the most expensive doll I have purchased so far. But I have no regrets really.:) I have to hunt her accessories down next. Luckily I got her dress from the Sales Room at the Convention last year. So who should I aim for next year? Dark Swan Elise? Optic Verve Agnes? Ughhh! I wish! Maybe I should aim to win the lottery.:)

Part of Dr Grordbort's Infallible Aether Oscillators collection, made by Weta. They're unbelievably detailed and beautifully made.

According to the interwebs, at five miles it's the "longest natural sand spit in the United States," which I guess goes to show that some people really have a mania for ranking everything. (That question never occurred to me when I was there, I just thought, "It looks pretty long"). According to that same infallible source, there are fourteen mountains of 8000 or more meters in the world, and fifty-four people who have climbed all of them, the first being the legendary Reinhold Messner. I don't expect to join that list, but now I'm thinking that if I get ambitious I can walk (or maybe even jog, since the longest is only five miles) the fourteen longest natural sandspits in the US, then create a new entry on Wikipedia to claim my crown. Strait of Juan de Fuca, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, near Sequim, Washington.

Nothing has plagued me for being a half human and half elf, but magic. Magic is a corruptive force, and there may not be lines between light, grey and dark. There’s morals we do, atrocities, and heinous things all on top of the cherry.

 

My tutelage came from my father, who taught me everything I needed to know, and sparked my interests in chemistry as well. Mixing potions impressed my maternal grandmother; she was one hell of a witch and an elf, and my human mother took comfort in raising me to be independent. Through them, confounded myself with these three languages, English, French and the elf tongue. My fourth was Vietnamese, but I barely spoke it.

 

I never mentioned my paternal grandparents because they were dead before I even saw them. I wish I did and they could have been brought back to life, but resurrection magic is infallible and not for the faintest of hearts to be wielded I eventually made it back to my native home in Australia—in Brisbane, where they were buried. My father said they were adept teleporters—perhaps it’s my god given ability.

 

Unlike going to Vietnam where I tried redeeming myself, but I’d save that story another day.

 

Now we’re in the last level of the Louvre, a dawning place of darkness. Never seen this terrible, damn shit thriving in France for many years, that was because of the second Black Death. Now two weeks worth of possible souls lost down here… it spells of fear.

 

Terry: “I can track these footprints, mass blood down the elevators. A hidden threat. The amulet doesn’t say shit about limbs yet.

Edris: “Need a hand for fairy dust?”

Terry: “Yeah sure. You can conjure that from glass right? The pyramid’s pretty down.”

Edris: “Of course. But I can’t fly, that is.”

Luc: “Honestly, I can’t teleport right now, if we got this…”

 

My voice faltered through the empty walls, echoing it as it bounced around the corners. I should have whispered much more, in the slowest voice. I waver with Hexes’ dust, spreading it out in a unorthodox manner. Terry prepares his phone in case for dialing. No idea how that works, but assuming it’s the time to call the others, as he’s rather retro. I signal to Sean, who replies he’s got his blades up from checking the other floors. Nothing yet, but sprawled bodies and a couple of shadows to fight according to Prez as well. Magnus conjures wind in his palms, as it blows the glass into every direction.

 

Magnus: “I think we’re ready. The needle, do you have it?”

Luc: “No, I burnt it., you asked me to cast another spell.”

Magnus: “Don’t worry about that. I have a second on my hands. Blow this one for me..with phosphorus.”

Luc: “Alright. Show yourself now…and exorcise.”

 

The dead bodies of civilians start cramping up, as their drained blood starts stirring up to the air, much to our overwhelming sight. Depleting into black balls as it transforms, Magnus creates a shield.

 

Magnus: “They’ve led us into the trap; they’re not bloodhounds or suckers. They’re using it as a poisonous form. Everyone, gets your masks on. Edris, try absorbing it. Make a formation with Terry.”

Edris: “Yes sir.”

Terry: “What in the flying fuck is that?!”

Luc: “Black bloods. They’re really messy. You breathe through it, you die and transform into something worse than a symbiote. Now go!”

 

Terry makes a force field immediately as the blobs land quicker than hail. He does his best to try to maintain it like an umbrella as Edris conjures her dust, trying to contain it. He holds it long enough to dial Sean.

 

Sean: “Damn rain is pissing on us! Prez and I are finding spots. We’re going to the lower levels.

Prez: “Don’t let anything touch your skin or else you’re bloody fucked as well!”

 

He makes further notice of this, attempting to create a larger bubble as Edris concentrates harder. I teleport my needle in hopes of getting the blood to attract the blobs to the object itself—accordingly to Magnus, that’s how it works.

 

Furthermore it’s already been worse when the bodies dispersed as the blobs disentergrate them one by one, flesh tearing out from clothes, livers punctured…and looking like reanimated corpses.

 

I can’t help but say fuck this moment as the needle goes onto Edris’ hands. Her dust clasps onto it, now larger than the ones on a spinning wheel. Tapping into her focus, she diverges it out of Terry’s field.,causing it to disperse. Magnus seizes this opportunity and chants in Norwegian, as the blobs go into its direction one by one; eventually exploding in the air.

 

The lengthy battle only cost us minutes but it was a bit exhausting to say the least. I pick up my gun from my back, ready to fire in case of the next wave comes.

 

But it turns out to be nothing—within the pitch black, a voice hollers as barely movable bodies of Sean and Prez hover towards us.

 

Voice. You will have minutes to negotiate. Your friends will not last long. But if you don’t agree to terms, I will kill everyone in this very floor. Make your deal fast

 

Magnus: “And what if we don’t?”

 

Voice: Then I will shatter the very faith you have left...now, give us what we have. I hold another important secret about the leader you care most about...what are your choices?”

 

***

Nobody likes being conned. But that is exactly what’s happened. Donald Trump has laid the biggest con on all of us. Some knew what we were getting ourselves into. In fact, almost 3 million more people voted for his opponent in the 2016 election. Yet 42% of voters cast their ballots for the president. The head scratching from the other 58% has been constant ever since. We know people were sick of the status quo, sick of “politics as usual” and they appreciated what they saw as his straight talk. Many were enamored with his status as a successful businessman, hoping that would translate into a well-managed economy. We know Hillary Clinton had an image problem. And James Comey’s October letter bringing her emails back into question was a deciding factor.

 

We know all that. But there were clues sitting right under the surface that Trump was not as he advertised. We just couldn’t get to the facts or were stymied by his sycophants in the Republican Party. We tried for years to see his tax returns. He refused. What was he hiding?

 

Donald Trump was and is not a successful businessman. His businesses have filed for bankruptcy six times since 1991; he’s made poor investments, refused to pay contractors, and made money off his presidency. He’s leveraged his empire to the hilt. He says he owes $400 million but also says that’s a pittance next to his net worth. I doubt the accuracy of both his debt and his assets. Forbes reports he has $900 million in loans coming due in the next four years. And it stands to reason we should be concerned how that pressure to pay back those loans will translate into attempts to influence his political decisions in a second term. We read the transcript of his attempted extortion of the Ukrainian president to open investigations into Joe Biden. It was the basis for his impeachment. Yet it didn’t make any difference to the Republican Party. These enablers played a significant role in where we are now.

 

But what happens when Trump’s supporters realize his true nature? One of his most egregious acts was Trump University. It wasn’t a university at all, but a series of hotel room seminars. He bilked over 7500 people for these seminars costing between $1500 to $35,000. One of his “students,” Tarla Makaeff, called Trump U a scam and filed a class action suit to recoup some of the thousands of dollars she and others spent (Trump’s only appearance at these meetings was as a cardboard cutout). Trump countered by showing the positive reviews of these seminars by the same people who are now disgruntled. In their opinion, the Court of Appeals in the case of Makaeff v. Trump University stated, “As the recent Ponzi-scheme scandals involving one-time financial luminaries like Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford demonstrate, victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been fleeced.”

 

As MSNBC’s Ari Melber said, “How does this relate to the election right now? It suggests that even die-hard Trump fans…can change their minds. It’s also a reminder of how Trump is different than other traditional politicians: because he engenders stronger emotional reactions and feelings. And that can make his fans more ardent when they like him and more scorching when they break from him.” According to Melber, Vice President Biden is leading by 43 points among people who are switching their vote in six key states: from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020. Trump promised to bring back coal and steel jobs. That never happened. He started a trade war with China, only to hurt American farmers. The president kept promising a better health care program than Obamacare. After four years, we have yet to see any plan. And he has asked the Supreme Court to nullify the program, potentially leaving 20 million Americans without health insurance.

 

When The New York Times reported in September 2020 that the president paid only $750 in federal taxes for 2016 and 2017 and paid no taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years, many of his supporters finally realized they had been conned. It took over 30,000 lies and exaggerations during his term, a pandemic ignored and mismanaged, and his continued efforts to minimize the virus, even after he contracted it, before the point started to tip.

 

Still, many are willing to excuse his toxic temperament: his penchant to expect unquestioned loyalty to him over the American Constitution, his crass exploitation of women and the physically challenged, and his racist and anti-Semitic statements. They continue to idolize him. Many believe the coronavirus is a hoax and many like his market-driven economy. For these people, self-interest trumps Trump’s con.

 

After the last presidential debate, to any undecided voters I would say this: the American people are suffering. We are suffering from COVID-19, from the loss of our loved-ones and friends, and from the economic fallout of the pandemic. But just as important, we are suffering from the divisiveness in this country. The debate was a study in contrasts. Donald Trump has refused to take this pandemic seriously, even though he knows how serious it is. He has made the disease a political issue. While the president attacked, Joe Biden made his pitch. He wants to unite Americans, not red-state or blue-state Americans, but all Americans so we can better fight this disease and get the economy on track again. The president thinks the coronavirus will magically disappear.

 

Joe Biden is not infallible. But neither is he toxic. And that is a critical point if we want to beat this disease as quickly as possible. When Trump speaks, don’t believe all of anything. We’re being conned.

  

Feel free to pass this poster on. It's free to download here (click on the down arrow just to the lower right of the image).

 

See the rest of the posters from the Chamomile Tea Party! Digital high res downloads are free here (click the down arrow on the lower right side of the image). Other options are available. And join our Facebook group.

 

Follow the history of our country's political intransigence from 2010-2018 through a six-part exhibit of these posters on Google Arts & Culture.

 

The book has some recipes and a 1883 calendar but is mostly advertisements for patent medicines such as: Dr. Wm. Hall’s Balsam for the lungs, Mott’s Vegetable Liver Pills, Scovill’s Blood and Liver Syrup, Durno’s Catarrah Snuff, Watson’s Neuralgia King, Dr. Townsley’s Indian Vegetable Toothache Anodyne, Henry’s Carbolic Salve, Edey’s Carbolic Troghes, Denton’s Balsam, Kellinger’s Infallible Liniment, Dr. Barber’s Red Horse Powder, Oxygenated Bitters, Hall’s Essence of Jamaica Ginger, Dr. Baker’s Pain Panacea, and Dr. Roger’s Vegetable Worm Syrup

---------

Burlington, Vermont

Spiritual advisor, wise elder, infallible being. Deer hunter. True friend. Almost 14. Still gallumphing, and posing, straight up, no chaser, just right there, courageous and strong.

A few of you asked what makeup I used to achieve the look I had in the last photo that was posted.

A little background info to set the scene is need. I had a good close shave the night before this would have been around 8.00pm I then went about sorting my outfit for the following evening. I decided that I would just take my travel emergency makeup back! Yes I have a bag with the basic makeup kit in so as all I have to do is grab it and run.

The following day I set off for work looking forward to a night out At long last worked finished and shot around my friends house arriving about 7.00pm by this point 23 hours had past since I shaved. A lot of work was needed to look half decent but luckily the old fur doesn't grow that fast.

 

Ok my basic makeup routine is cover the shadow, foundation, powder and then sort my eyes prime first the colour, a second hit with the foundation to sort the trouble areas this part tends to go on a bit I then do my brows and lashes and start contouring yet more powder and paint. and ending with my lips. now all those stages take longer than it sound as I forgot to mention primer, concealer and all manner of other tricks to look almost like a woman

 

So last night I went simple. First I put a red base down over the blue shadow area. I use an old red red lippy for this and blend it in. This was followed my first light application of foundation. I then sorted my eyes out while letting the foundation set. my eye were simply done using a light pink base over the lid followed by a brown to give some definition. A second foundation application was applied lightly over the trouble areas and set with powder. The contouring started next by first using a bronzer along and under my jawline, either side of my nose and along my or just under my cheek bone. this was blended to give a natural look and to define my jaw, cheeks and to shrink my massive nose. Highlighting came next all the normal places, above the cheeks down the centre of my nose, chin, forehead and just above the jaw line this was all then blended and tinkered with by adding a touch of red here and bit of shimmer there.

I then sorted my lip by cleaning then up a little with a wipe to get the shape I wanted, this was followed by a lip stain then the lippy itself, once happy I set it all with a setting spray.

 

What I used is in the photo and are listed below.

 

top line

Makeup Revolution contouring pallets high and low lighting and a revolution RED lippy to cover the blue shadow.

Middle line

Foundation L'Oréal infallible 24h Rose Beige 145

powder L'Oréal True Match Rose Beige R3/C3

Bronzer Rimmel Natural bronzer ( contouring )

Freedom double ended (light and dark )contouring stick.

Clinique eye shadow 13 strawberry fudge duo

Clinique High impact mascara ( no longer available)

Rimmel London Brow this way 001 Blonde

Bottom line

Blending sponge for applying foundation (fingers work just as well as does a brush)

A travel brush set my ECO Tools, and a revolution highlighter brush.

Clinique lippy Matte Magenta

Clinique Chubby Stick Intense lip colour balm 03 Mightiest Maraschino

Revolution Pro Fix fixing spray.

 

The Clinique items are all samples nice and handy for a small makeup bag. Clinique are available in most big department stores such as Debenhams and John Lewis.

L'Oréal and Rimmmel are available in most drug stores such as boots, Superdrug and some supermarkets,

Makeup Revolution is only available as far as I know from Superdrug. Don't let the cheap cost of the brand fool you. I have used the highlighter, and eyeshadows a lot along with other products from the range and found them to be very good. Nice and cheap to learn the skills we need while giving fair coverage and staying power. They do a lip gloss/stain range that is amazing for staying put although it is a tad difficult to remove.

 

Hope this didn't bore you to much and with luck it will have given some pointers as to what can do the job on a budget at a fraction of the cost of brands like Mac. However if you can afford the good stuff and it works for you use it but don't be afraid to try the cheaper items.

I might do a few more post like this depending on the reaction this gets.

   

+

   

The Leyland Titan (1970s B15 variety) is one of my favourite types of bus, but it isn’t infallible. Ensignbus’s running day on 3 December 2016 saw no fewer than six buses suffer mechanical issues, and T986 (A986 SYE) broke down in the most unfortunate of locations: the Queen Elizabeth Bridge which forms the southbound section of the Dartford Crossing between Essex and Kent. Recovering the bus and its passengers necessitated the closure of the bridge. This view was taken shortly before T986 was dragged away by a tow truck from the replacement Volvo B9TL that took us on to Bluewater (the reflections of which can be seen in front of the Titan - the quality of this picture isn't really the reason for the upload shall we say...).

 

Part of the vision that Lucy saw in Coriakin's book; what would have been if she had said "the infallible spell to make beautiful her that uttereth it beyond the lot of mortals" (from The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by C.S. Lewis). I highly recommend the Chronicles of Narnia, even if they were written for children! I'm looking forward to seeing the next movie, as the Dawn Treader is my favourite. Please see this on large, or you'll miss the details. Oh, and I put some really strange paint effects on some of it ;)) View On Black

 

I think this is a record-- the only photo I took in here is the black bird on the urn! Thanks to mylaphotography for the photo of the beautiful model (her sister). She has great artwork, and is now my contact. You can see her photostream here: flickr.com/photos/myluvmyla/

"Fashion Model": © Mylaphotography

www.dreamstime.com/fashion-model-rimage4972840-resi122770

"Formal Garden of a French Priory": © Cyrille Lips

www.dreamstime.com/formal-garden-of-a-french-priory-rimag...

" Ancient Castle": © Mihai Jitian

www.dreamstime.com/ancient-castle-rimage1791483-resi122770

"Lion's Source": © Kharlampiy Dimitriadi

www.dreamstime.com/lions-source-rimage1288799-resi122770

"crow flock in moonlit landscape": © Michael Brown

www.dreamstime.com/crow-flock-in-moonlit-skyscape-rimage2...

"Blue Bible": © Gintautas Tumulis [I replaced "1908" with "Lucy"]

www.dreamstime.com/bible-rimage297131-resi122770

"Knights": © Morozova Tatiana

www.dreamstime.com/knights-rimage5585175-resi122770

"Wedding Tiara": © Lensara

www.dreamstime.com/wedding-tiara-rimage952082-resi122770

"Grunge blue book page with scrolls": © Luba V Nel

www.dreamstime.com/grunge-blue-book-page-with-scrolls-rim...

 

"Charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, but a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. " Proverbs 31:30

       

This is the tree that was in the background in yesterday's photo. BTW: the infallible internet declares "leaves" to be preferable to "leafs." Phew! Correct for once.

Found moments in the natural world:)

Not exactly the 'natural world' but I rescued this fabulous specimen trapped in our conservatory - using my infallible beer glass + beer mat method :)

But not before taking his/her portrait!

I have no idea which species? It looks like a dragonfly but only has one pair of wings not two - anyone?

Perhaps [https://www.flickr.com/photos/flickrway] can help me out :)

 

You can see a random selection of my photos here at Flickriver: www.flickriver.com/photos/9815422@N06/random/

SONY DSC

In my experience people's weather memory is short and, more often than not, deceptive. I am not myself infallible in this respect, but it is more often the case that my memory is blank rather than mistaken. Already I find it difficult to recall what kind of summer we've just had, never mind last year or the one before. I do remember that, unlike its marvellous early-lockdown predecessor, the recent spring was notably poor, with a cold April followed by a wet May. This snap, looking down into the Cynon valley from above Cwmbach, was taken in the first half of April. It was a beautifully sunny afternoon, but the trees were still bare and there was as yet no mildness in the air. In the South Wales valleys one does rather miss the sights and sounds (not so much the smells) of agriculture. You know the kind of thing ...ripening corn, barley waving in the breeze, tractors in the fields &c. &c. There's not much of that here, just commercial forestry, open moorland or grazing for sheep. Soils, I imagine, are thin and acidic, and the climate is decidedly wet, as we can see from all the sedges in the middle distance of the photo. Everywhere's a picture postcard though.

17. Kind: Meine Oma

 

Rosa Birkle (1895-1979) , HEIRAT mit Oswald LOCK

verh. Rosa Lock

Bis 1918 regierte ein Kaiser in Deutschland.

 

Buchseite:

"Leonhard Goffine", 2. Seite

privates Ahnen und Familien-Stammbuch

plus

Erklärungen zu religiösen Fragen,

Ausgabe hier "Christkatholische Kirche", später "altkatholische Kirche genannt":

undivided church but who separated from the see of Rome after the First Vatican council of 1869–70"

- Papal infallibility dogma

Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.

 

ungeteilte Kirche, die sich aber nach dem Ersten Vatikanischen Konzil von 1869-70 vom römischen Stuhl getrennt hat"

Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes Dogma

Danach gab es erst römisch-katholisch.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Christianity

.

" Old Catholic Church", all catholic members before 1870

 

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Leonard Goffiné

Goffine, Leonard (1896). Goffine's Devout instructions on the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays and holydays

 

Der Originaltitel lautet Hauspostill oder Christ-Catholische Unterrichtungen von allen Sonn- und Feyr-Tagen des gantzen Jahrs

1710 erschien bereits der sechste Druck in Köln. Allein im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert haben mindestens 22 Verlage Goffinés Handpostille verlegt.

 

Leonhard Goffiné OPraem war Prämonstratenser-Chorherr in der Abtei Steinfeld/Eifel und religiöser Volksschriftsteller. Er verfasste eine volkstümliche Handpostille, die mit mehr als 120 Auflagen und Übersetzungen in zahlreiche Sprachen zu den verbreitetsten religiösen Schriften der Weltliteratur zählt

How do you like my melons? I am enjoying some fresh, juicy Texas cantaloupe. I try to eat some fresh fruit every day. Cantaloupe is one of the special joys of summertime in Texas along with swimming and fresh peaches. This year I had a late start with swimming and sunning myself, and recent afternoon thunderstorms have cut down on my bikini time.

 

My nails are real and are a bit over a half inch long. They are painted in "Vixen" by Revlon. On my lips I'm wearing "Black Cherry" lipstick by Revlon and "Red Fatale" Infallible lipgloss by L'Oreal. My lashes are by Ardell with L'Oreal Voluminous mascara in 360 Black.

Pope Pius XII (Italian: Pio XII), born Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli 2 March 1876 – 9 October 1958), was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 2 March 1939 until his death in 1958. Before his election to the papacy, he served as secretary of the Department of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, papal nuncio to Germany, and Cardinal Secretary of State, in which capacity he worked to conclude treaties with European and Latin American nations, such as the Reichskonkordat with the German Reich.

 

While the Vatican was officially neutral during World War II, the Reichskonkordat and his leadership of the Catholic Church during the war remain the subject of controversy—including allegations of public silence and inaction about the fate of the Jews. Pius employed diplomacy to aid the victims of the Nazis during the war and, through directing the Church to provide discreet aid to Jews and others, saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Pius maintained links to the German Resistance, and shared intelligence with the Allies. His strongest public condemnation of genocide was, however, considered inadequate by the Allied Powers, while the Nazis viewed him as an Allied sympathizer who had dishonoured his policy of Vatican neutrality. After the war, he advocated peace and reconciliation, including lenient policies towards former Axis and Axis-satellite nations.[citation needed]

 

During his papacy, the Church issued the Decree against Communism, declaring that Catholics who profess Communist doctrine are to be excommunicated as apostates from the Christian faith. The Church experienced severe persecution and mass deportations of Catholic clergy in the Eastern Bloc. He explicitly invoked ex cathedra papal infallibility with the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in his Apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus. His magisterium includes almost 1,000 addresses and radio broadcasts. His forty-one encyclicals include Mystici corporis, the Church as the Body of Christ; Mediator Dei on liturgy reform; and Humani generis, in which he instructed theologians to adhere to episcopal teaching and allowed that the human body might have evolved from earlier forms. He eliminated the Italian majority in the College of Cardinals in 1946.

 

After he died in 1958, Pope Pius XII was succeeded by John XXIII. In the process toward sainthood, his cause for canonization was opened on 18 November 1965 by Paul VI during the final session of the Second Vatican Council. He was made a Servant of God by John Paul II in 1990 and Benedict XVI declared Pius XII Venerable on 19 December 2009.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

9125 R Papa Pio XII. Imprimé en France SA SAINTETÉ LE PAPE PIE XII 2. III.1939. do 9. X.1958. Édit Héliophora Paris - 9

 

Pio XII. lat. Pius PP. XII. (Rim, 2. ožujka 1876. - Castel Gandolfo, Italija, 9. listopada 1958.), rođen kao Eugenio Pacelli, 260. poglavar Katoličke Crkve, papa od 2. ožujka 1939. do smrti 1958.

 

Prije nego što je postao Papom, bio je Eugenio Pacelli od 1930. do 1939. godine državni tajnik Svete Stolice, te je njegov mandat bio obilježen teškim odnosima Katoličke Crkve s autoritarnim i totalitarnim režimima. Kao državni tajnik, uputio je samo Htilerovoj Njemačkoj čak 55 službenih protesta Svete Stolice protiv ideološki motiviranih postupaka njemačkih nacističkih vlasti, uključujući antisemitske politike tog režima. 1938. godine je javno ponovio riječi Pija XI. da je za “za kršćanina nemoguće da sudjeluje u antisemitizmu. Antisemitizam je nedopustiv, u duhovnom smo smislu svi mi Semiti”. Nakon što postao papom, Pio XII. je u svojoj prvoj enciklici Summi Pontificatus od 20. listopada 1939. god. ponovio Crkveno naučavanje protiv rasizma i totalitarizma - te su čak britanski i francuski ratni zrakoplovi bacali letke s tom enciklikom iznad okupirane Francuske. Nakon što je za pontifikata svojega prethodnika Pija XI. mogao ustanoviti da otvorena konfrontacija s nacističkim režimom povodom objave antinacističke enciklike Mit brennender sorge iz 1937. godine nije nanijela neku štetu njemačkom nacističkom režimu - nego je on bez osobitog reagiranja međunarodne zajednice zbog objave te enciklike pristupio nacionaliziranju katoličkih škola i drugih ustanova, te progonu katoličkih svećenika - čuvao se Pio XII. od javnih konfrontacija s protukršćanskim režimima i umjesto toga uglavnom djelovao diplomatskim putem, te omogućavao konspirativne akcije koje su između ostalog spasile više stotina tisuća europskih Židova. Međutim će od 1960-ih godina kritičari Katoličke crkve početi oštro napadati Pija XII. da nije smio šutjeti pred nacističkim zločinima i da se trebao otvoreno sukobljavati s nacistima; čak su ga zbog njegove javne neutralnosti u ratnim događanjima prozvali "Hitlerovim papom"

 

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Edward of Woodstock, known to history as the Black Prince (15 June 1330 – 8 June 1376),[1][a] was the eldest son of King Edward III of England, and the heir apparent to the English throne. He died before his father and so his son, Richard II, succeeded to the throne instead. Edward nevertheless earned distinction as one of the most successful English commanders during the Hundred Years' War, being regarded by his English contemporaries as a model of chivalry and one of the greatest knights of his age.[2]

 

Edward was made Duke of Cornwall, the first English dukedom, in 1337. He was guardian of the kingdom in his father's absence in 1338, 1340, and 1342. He was created Prince of Wales in 1343 and knighted by his father at La Hougue in 1346.

 

In 1346 Prince Edward commanded the vanguard at the Battle of Crécy, his father intentionally leaving him to win the battle. He took part in Edward III's 1349 Calais expedition. In 1355 he was appointed the king's lieutenant in Gascony, and ordered to lead an army into Aquitaine on a chevauchée, during which he pillaged Avignonet and Castelnaudary, sacked Carcassonne, and plundered Narbonne. The next year (1356) on another chevauchée he ravaged Auvergne, Limousin, and Berry but failed to take Bourges. He offered terms of peace to King John II of France, who had outflanked him near Poitiers, but refused to surrender himself as the price of their acceptance. This led to the Battle of Poitiers, where his army routed the French and took King John prisoner.

 

The year after Poitiers, Edward returned to England. In 1360 he negotiated the Treaty of Brétigny. He was created Prince of Aquitaine and Gascony in 1362, but his suzerainty was not recognised by the lord of Albret or other Gascon nobles. He was directed by his father to forbid the marauding raids of the English and Gascon free companies in 1364. He entered into an agreement with Kings Peter of Castile and Charles II of Navarre, by which Peter covenanted to mortgage Castro de Urdiales and the province of Biscay to him as security for a loan; in 1366 a passage was secured through Navarre. In 1367 he received a letter of defiance from Henry of Trastámara, Peter's half-brother and rival. The same year, after an obstinate conflict, he defeated Henry at the Battle of Nájera. However, after a wait of several months, during which he failed to obtain either the province of Biscay or liquidation of the debt from Don Pedro, he returned to Aquitaine. Prince Edward persuaded the estates of Aquitaine to allow him a hearth tax of ten sous for five years in 1368, thereby alienating the lord of Albret and other nobles.

 

Prince Edward returned to England in 1371 and the next year resigned the principality of Aquitaine and Gascony. He led the commons in their attack upon the Lancastrian administration in 1376. He died in 1376 of dysentery[b] and was buried in Canterbury Cathedral, where his surcoat, helmet, shield, and gauntlets are still preserved.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_the_Black_Prince

 

Danger Man

 

Created by

Ralph Smart

 

Starring

Patrick McGoohan

 

Country of origin

United Kingdom

 

Original language(s)

English

No. of series

4

No. of episodes

86

Running time

24–25 min. (Series 1)

48–49 min. (Series 2–4)

 

Production company(s)

Incorporated Television Company

 

Broadcast

 

Original channel

ITV

 

Picture format

35 mm film 4:3 B/W

Series 4 in colour

Audio format

Mono

Original run

11 September 1960 – 12 January 1968

 

Danger Man (titled Secret Agent in the United States, and Destination Danger and John Drake in other non-UK markets) is a British television series which was broadcast between 1960 and 1962, and again between 1964 and 1968. The series featured Patrick McGoohan as secret agent John Drake. Ralph Smart created the programme and wrote many of the scripts. Danger Man was financed by Lew Grade's ITC Entertainment.

  

Series outline

From the 1st series voice-over:

 

Every government has its secret service branch. America, CIA; France, Deuxième Bureau; England, MI5. NATO also has its own. A messy job? Well that's when they usually call on me or someone like me. Oh yes, my name is Drake, John Drake.

The line "NATO also has its own" is not always present.

 

Programme overview

 

The first series of episodes ran to 24–25 minutes each and portrayed John Drake as working for a Washington, D.C.-based intelligence organization, apparently on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, whose assignments frequently took him to Africa, Latin America, and the Far East. In episode 9, "The Sanctuary", Drake declares he is an Irish-American.

 

He sometimes seemed at odds with his superiors about the ethics of the missions. Many of Drake's cases involved aiding democracy in foreign countries and he was also called upon to solve murders and crimes affecting the interests of either the U.S. or NATO or both.

 

Beginning with the second series, which aired several years after the first, the episode's length was increased to 48–49 minutes and Drake underwent retconning and became a British agent working for a secret British government agency called M9 (analogous to Secret Intelligence Service), though his Mid-Atlantic English accent persists for the first few episodes in production. Other than the largely nominal change of employer and nationality, Drake's mandate remains the same: "to undertake missions involving national and global security". In keeping with the episodic format of such series in the 1960s, there are no ongoing story arcs and there is no reference made to Drake's NATO adventures in the later M9 episodes.

 

Pilot episode

 

The pilot was written by Brian Clemens, who later co-created The Avengers. In an interview Clemens said:

  

The pilot I wrote was called "View from the Villa" and it was set in Italy, but the production manager set the shoot on location in Portmeirion, which looked like Italy but which was much closer. And obviously the location stuck in Patrick McGoohan's mind, because that's where he shot his television series The Prisoner much later.

 

The second unit director on the pilot, according to Clemens:

 

... shot some location and background stuff and sent the dailies back to the editing room at Elstree. Ralph Smart looked at them, hated them, and called up the second unit director and said "Look, these are terrible, you'll never be a film director," and then he fired him. The name of the second unit director? John Schlesinger.

 

Early history

 

The series succeeded in Europe, making McGoohan famous. However, when American financing for a second series failed, the program was cancelled.The first season of the series aired on CBS from 5 April to 13 September 1961.[2] A DVD release of the first season by A&E Home Video in 2000, erroneously states on its box that these episodes were never broadcast in the US.

 

After a two-year hiatus, two things had changed; Danger Man had subsequently been resold all around the world, whilst repeat showings had created a public clamour for new shows. Also, by this time James Bond had become popular, as had ABC's The Avengers. Danger Man's creator, Ralph Smart, re-thought the concept; the second series' (1964) episodes were 49 minutes long and had a new musical theme, "Highwire". Drake gained an English accent and did not clash with his bosses at first. The revived Danger Man was finally broadcast in the U.S., it was now re-titled Secret Agent, and first shown as a CBS summer replacement program, given the theme song "Secret Agent Man", sung by Johnny Rivers, which became a success in its own right. In other parts of the world, the show was titled Destination Danger or John Drake.

 

Character development

 

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (October 2009)

 

Unlike the James Bond films, Danger Man strove for realism, dramatising credible Cold War tensions. In the second series, Drake is an undercover agent of the British external intelligence agency. As in the earlier series, Drake finds himself in danger with not always happy outcomes; sometimes duty forces him to decisions which lead to good people suffering unfair consequences. Drake doesn't always do what his masters tell him.

 

Drake is rarely armed, though he engaged in fist fights, and the gadgets he uses are credible.

 

Agent Drake uses his intelligence, charm and quick thinking rather than force. He usually plays a role to infiltrate a situation, for example to scout for a travel agency, naive soldier, embittered ex-convict, brainless playboy, imperious physician, opportunistic journalist, bumbling tourist, cold-blooded mercenary, bland diplomat, smarmy pop disk jockey, precise clerk, compulsive gambler, or impeccable butler.

 

Unlike James Bond, Drake is often shown re-using gadgets from previous episodes. Among the more frequently seen are a small spy camera hidden in a cigarette lighter and activated by flicking the lighter, a miniature reel-to-reel tape recorder hidden inside the head of an electric shaver or a pack of cigarettes, and a microphone which could be embedded in a wall near the target via a shotgun-like apparatus, that used soda siphon cartridges containing CO2 as the propellant, allowing Drake to eavesdrop on conversations from a safe distance.

 

As Drake gets involved in a case, things are rarely as they seem. He is not infallible—he gets arrested, he makes mistakes, equipment fails, careful plans do not work; Drake often has to improvise an alternative plan. Sometimes investigation fails and he simply does something provocative to crack open the case. People he trusts can turn out to be untrustworthy or incompetent; he finds unexpected allies.

 

John Drake, unlike Bond, never romanced any of the women, as McGoohan was determined to create a family-friendly show.[3] Drake uses his immense charm in his undercover work, and women are often very attracted to him, but the viewers are left to assume whatever they want about Drake's personal life. McGoohan denounced the sexual promiscuity of James Bond and The Saint, roles he had rejected, although he had played romantic roles before Danger Man.

 

The only exceptions to this rule were the two "linked" episodes of the series, "You're Not in Any Trouble, Are You?" and "Are You Going to be More Permanent?", in which Drake encounters two different women - both played by Susan Hampshire - and which contain numerous similarities in dialogue and set-pieces and both end with Drake in a pseudo-romantic circumstance with the Hampshire character.

 

Drake was also shown falling for the female lead in the episode "The Black Book" though nothing comes of it; this episode is also one of the only scripts to directly address Drake's loneliness in his chosen profession.

 

John Drake was not blind to the attraction of the opposite sex, often commenting on the prettiness of his latest associate. The implication is that it is impractical for him to launch any liaison. It was also the fact that many times the women in the show turned out to be femmes fatales, and heavily involved in the very plots Drake is fighting.

 

Although the villains are often killed, Drake himself rarely kills. An examination of all episodes indicates that, in the entire series, he only shoots one person dead, in one of the last half-hour episodes from the 1960 season.

 

While another shooting occurs in "The Ubiquitous Mr. Lovegrove", it is revealed to be a dream.

 

Drake's uses of non-firearm deadly force during the series number less than a dozen. Yet The Encyclopedia of 20th-Century American Television by Ron Lackmann incorrectly claims Danger Man was one of the most violent series ever produced. Drake is almost never shown armed with a gun, and the episode "Time to Kill" centres on Drake's hesitancy and initial refusal to take an assassination mission (events transpire to prevent Drake from having to carry the task out).

 

Co-stars and guest stars

 

In the second series, Drake unwillingly answers to "Gorton" (Raymond Adamson) his superior at M9[4] and later to "Hobbs" (Peter Madden), a sinister superior officer often seen fiddling with a knife-like letter opener. This interaction with disagreeable London-based superiors was phased out over the course of the 50-minute series, a clever ploy that reduced plot explanations early on to leave more mystery with the viewer. In the first half-hour series he had an equally edgy, but more good-humoured relationship with Richard Wattis, as his superior, "Hardy".

 

Most episodes had roles for guest stars such as Maurice Denham, Joan Greenwood, John Le Mesurier, Sylvia Syms and Burt Kwouk.

  

Production history overview

 

How much of leading character John Drake originated with series creator Ralph Smart and how much with actor Patrick McGoohan is uncertain; McGoohan never spoke about Smart in any detail. They did have face-to-face meetings at the beginning of the project, at which time they fleshed out the character of John Drake.

 

According to Andrew Pixley's notes to the CD Danger Man Original Soundtrack, Ian Fleming was involved with Ralph Smart to bring James Bond to television. (Casino Royale had been a one-off live TV play in America a few years before). Fleming dropped out and was replaced by Ian Stuart Black, and a new format/character to be called "Lone Wolf" was developed. This evolved into Danger Man. Fleming, meanwhile, assisted in pre-production discussion on the American series, The Man from U.N.C.L.E..

 

The degree to which McGoohan changed Smart's original ideas is unclear. Smart evidently agreed to any changes and continued to be enthusiastic about his creation.

 

In the United States, CBS broadcast some of the original format's episodes of the program in 1961 under the Danger Man title as a summer replacement for the Western series Wanted: Dead or Alive. Under the Secret Agent title, the same network aired the entirety of the second and third series in 1965-1966.

  

Theme

##Series 1 The Danger Man Theme composed by Edwin Astley

##Series 2–4 High Wire composed by Edwin Astley

##Series 2–4 in the US as Secret Agent, "Secret Agent Man" theme composed by P.F. Sloan and Steve Barri, and recorded by Johnny Rivers.

##Incidental music throughout all 4 series by Edwin Astley

 

The second "Danger Man" theme called "High Wire," developed during series 2-4. The original version features a subdued rhythm section with almost inaudible drums. This was replaced with a revised version with drums and bass pushed to the fore in the mix. The end credits theme tune was set to end in the same manner as the opening theme, ending on the held, questioning, lower "E". The two-note coda was added soon afterwards to make a definite ending. An audio clip from the recording session this comes from can be heard as an extra on the final disk of the DVD set from Network DVD. The revised theme featured this as a normal end to the tune. As series 4 was to be made in colour for the first time, a completely new arrangement was recorded which owed much to the arrangement on Astley's full-length single version of "High Wire" released the previous year (see below). The feature film "Koroshi" was created from the only two episodes made for series 4, "Koroshi" and "Shinda Shima" and the opening music is not found in the series.

 

Singles

##1961 - Theme from Danger Man, the "Red Price Combo" (main theme used in the 1st Series) - Parlophone 45 R 4789

##1964 - Danger Man "Hire Wire", the "Bob Leaper Orchestra" (alternative main theme, not used in any episodes. Features electric piano) - PYE 7N 15700

##1965 - Danger Man "Hire Wire", the "Edwin Astley Orchestra" (not used in series, arrangement influenced series 4 theme arrangement) - RCA 1492

##1965 - Danger Man "Hire Wire", the "Ivor Slaney Orchestra" (alternative arrangement, not used in any episodes) - HMV POP 1347

 

Program Ident

 

The original opening ID changed as the series progressed. The first series had McGoohan leaving a building and getting into a convertible under the opening narration reproduced earlier, and driving off.

 

The earlier of the two sequences for the hour-long series features a photograph of a benevolently-smiling McGoohan zooms partly out towards the right of the frame, then stops, adding the legend "Patrick McGoohan as". The three-ringed 'target' revolves round in time to the three-note orchestra hits to obscure McGoohan's photo as it reveals the programme logo on a pure black background.

 

The second version was in two segments. The first segment is filmed, comprising a full-length McGoohan in stark negative, menacingly taking a few paces towards the camera, then stops. In quick succession, the camera zooms-in fast onto his eyes, freeze-frames, then switches from negative to positive. The legend "Patrick McGoohan as" is added. This then switches to a different photo with McGoohan looking left out of picture. The familiar three-ringed 'target' then reveals the programme logo on a pure black background as before. The music was re-recorded for this version of the ident and lasted for the rest of the programme's run.

 

Later history, Koroshi and transition to The Prisoner

The fourth series consists of only two episodes, "Koroshi" and "Shinda Shima", the only two episodes of Danger Man to be filmed in colour and, as with two-parters from other ITC series such as The Baron and The Saint, these two separate but related episodes were recut together as a feature for cinemas in Europe.[5] Whilst "Koroshi" retains a strong plot-line and sharp characterizations, "Shinda Shima" was a pastiche of contemporary Bond movies. When the episodes were completed, McGoohan announced he was resigning from the series to create, produce, and star in a project titled The Prisoner, with David Tomblin as co-producer and George Markstein as script editor. Markstein was then the Danger Man script consultant. A number of behind-the-scenes personnel on Danger Man were subsequently hired for The Prisoner.

 

The two colour episodes aired (in black and white) in the UK in the time slot of The Prisoner, which had fallen behind schedule and could not make its airdates. The European cinema film feature version, Koroshi, did not receive theatrical release in the US but instead aired on network television as a TV movie in 1968.

 

Another, unused, fourth-series script was reworked as an episode of The Champions while, according to The Prisoner: The Official Companion by Robert Fairclough, the Prisoner episode "The Girl Who Was Death" was based upon a two-part Danger Man script that had been planned for the fourth series.

 

However, in an interview,[7] it is stated that McGoohan did indeed approach Jack Shampan with the idea of a series continuing Danger Man entitled The Prisoner.[clarification needed]

 

Secret agent John Drake and Prisoner Number Six

 

Prisoner fans frequently debate whether John Drake of Danger Man and Number Six in The Prisoner are the same person.[8] Like John Drake, Number Six is evidently a secret agent, but one who has resigned from his job. Moreover, in the surreal Prisoner episode "The Girl Who Was Death", Number Six meets "Potter", John Drake's Danger Man contact. Christopher Benjamin portrayed the character in both series. As has been previously stated, "The Girl Who Was Death" was an adaptation of an unused Danger Man script. As well as guest-starring in this show, Paul Eddington played another spy and No.6's former colleague, Cobb, in the opening episode of the latter show.

 

The first Danger Man series includes four episodes which use footage filmed in the Welsh resort of Portmeirion, which later became the primary shooting location of The Prisoner. This dramatic overlapping is complicated by reference books such as Vincent Terrace's The Complete Encyclopedia of Television Programs 1947–1979 referring to The Prisoner as a Danger Man continuation. Terrace postulates that John Drake's resignation reason is revealed in the "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling" episode, which is a follow-up to a mission assigned to Number Six before he was sent to The Village. Richard Meyers makes the same claim in his 1981 book, TV Detectives. He further states that this connects directly to "an episode of Secret Agent never shown in this country [i.e. the United States] with John Drake investigating the story of a brain transferral device in Europe", but no such episode of Danger Man was ever made. McGoohan stated in a 1985 interview that the two characters were not the same, and that he had originally wanted a different actor to play the role of Number Six.

 

Pop culture references

 

Danger Man has remained part of pop culture consciousness. Author Stephen King alludes to John Drake's cool in his novel The Shining. The band Tears for Fears refer to the character in their song "Swords and Knives", and Dead Can Dance titled one of the songs on their Into the Labyrinth album "The Ubiquitous Mr. Lovegrove" after a Danger Man episode, although the content of the song has no apparent relationship to the episode.

 

The American theme song has appeared in countless movies and TV shows, including during the climax of the first Austin Powers movie, and was covered by Devo.

 

In 2000, the UPN network aired a short-lived spy series entitled Secret Agent Man. Due to the similarities in titles between this series and the American edition of Danger Man, Secret Agent Man, a series with no relationship to the McGoohan program, is often erroneously referred to as a spin-off or remake of Danger Man.

 

The British animated series Danger Mouse was largely inspired by Danger Man and is a broad parody of both this series and secret agent films and television in general.

 

DVD releases

 

All four series are now available on DVD in Europe, Australasia and North America.

 

In Britain, Network DVD released a 13-disc "Special Edition" boxed set of the one-hour shows in June 2007. Extra features include the edited-together movie version of "Koroshi" and "Shinda Shima", the US Secret Agent opening and closing titles, image galleries for each episode, and a specially written 170-page book on the making of the one-hour series. Umbrella Entertainment has released the 24-minute series on DVD in Australia; the 49-minute series has been released by Madman.

 

Network DVD released the 1st (24 min) series in January 2010 on a 6 disc set with a commemorative booklet by Andrew Pixley. The Carlton 6 disc set is out of issue.

In North America, the three series of hour-long episodes were released by A&E Home Video under the title Secret Agent a.k.a. Danger Man in order to acknowledge the American broadcast and syndication title. However the episodes retain their original Danger Man opening credits (including the original theme by the Edwin Astley Orchestra), the first time these have been seen in the U.S., with the US "Secret Agent" credits included as an extra feature. The first series of half-hour episodes was issued by A&E sometime later as Danger Man. A&E subsequently released a single-set "megabox" containing all of the one-hour episodes; a revised megabox, released in 2007, added the half-hour episodes, and was released again in a modified slimline package in 2010.

 

On December 9, 2014, Timeless Media Group will re-release the entire series on DVD in Region 1 in a 17-disc set entitled Secret Agent (Danger Man)- The Complete Series.[13]

  

Marathon House 2011

The Washington title sequence of the first Series 24-minute episodes is a composite of the United States Capitol in the background and the Castrol Building, complete with London Bus stop, in the Marylebone Road, London as the foreground. This building is now Marathon House converted from offices to flats in 1998.[14]

 

In reality, no such building is allowed to exist in Washington, DC, as the Height of Buildings Act of 1910 limits the heights of building (except churches) to 130 feet, thus giving the United States Capitol building, at 289 feet, an unobstructed view from any part of the city (This has led to the popular belief that buildings in Washington D.C. are restricted to the height of the U.S. Capitol building).

 

Original novels and comic books

 

First issue of the Gold Key Comics series.

Several original novels based upon Danger Man were published in the UK and US, the majority during 1965 and 1966.

##Target for Tonight – Richard Telfair, 1962 (published in US only)

##Departure Deferred – W. Howard Baker, 1965

##Storm Over Rockall – W. Howard Baker, 1965

##Hell for Tomorrow – Peter Leslie, 1965

##The Exterminator – W.A. Balinger, 1966

##No Way Out – Wilfred McNeilly, 1966

 

Several of the above novels were translated into French and published in France, where the series was known as Destination Danger. An additional Destination Danger novel by John Long was published in French and not printed in the US or UK.

 

The adventures of John Drake have also been depicted in comic book form. In 1961, Dell Comics in the US published a one-shot Danger Man comic as part of its long-running Four Color series, based upon the first series format. It depicted Drake as having ginger hair, a trait shared with Patrick McGoohan, but which was unseen as Danger Man had been made only in monochrome at that time. In 1966, Gold Key Comics published two issues of a Secret Agent comic book based upon the series (this series should not be confused with Secret Agent, an unrelated comic book series published by Charlton Comics in 1967, formerly titled Sarge Steel). In Britain, a single Danger Man comic book subtitled "Trouble in Turkey" appeared in the mid-1960s and a number of comic strip adventures appeared in hardback annuals. French publishers also produced several issues of a Destination Danger comic book in the 1960s, although their Drake was blond. Spanish publishers produced a series titled 'Agent Secreto'. The Germans were particularly prolific, using 'John Drake' and a picture of McGoohan, as the cover for hundreds of "krimi" magazines.

   

I sogni sono fatti di tanta fatica.

Forse, se cerchiamo di prendere delle scorciatoie,

perdiamo di vista la ragione

per cui abbiamo cominciato a sognare

e alla fine scopriamo

che il sogno non ci appartiene più.

Se ascoltiamo la saggezza del cuore

il tempo infallibile ci farà incontrare il

nostro destino.

Ricorda:

"Quando stai per rinunciare,

quando senti che la vita è stata

troppo dura con te,

ricordati chi sei.

Ricorda il tuo sogno".

 

Sergio Bambarén da "Il delfino"

 

Dreams are made of hard work.

Perhaps if we try to take shortcuts,

we lose sight of the reason

so we began to dream

and eventually discover

that the dream is not ours anymore.

If we listen to the wisdom of the heart

time we will meet with the infallible

our destiny.

Remember:

"When you're about to give up,

when you feel that life was

too hard on yourself,

remember who you are.

Remember your dream. "

 

Sergio Bambarén from "The Dolphin"

  

Vintage press photo. Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls (Paul Verhoeven, 1995).

 

Paul Verhoeven's American erotic drama Showgirls (1995) is a curious phenomenon. The critics dubbed the production one of the worst films of its era. Showgirls "won" at the 1996 Razzie Awards for Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Leading Actor (Elizabeth Berkley), Worst Female Newcomer (Berkley), and Worst Picture Couple as well as Worst Original Movie Song. Verhoeven was the first celebrity ever who came to receive his Razzies. In the years after its original release, Showgirls gained cult status, grossed over $100,000,000 on rentals, and made it into MGM's top 20 best-selling titles. And in recent years, the film has been subject to critical re-evaluation, with more and more notable directors and critics considering it a serious satire worthy of praise.

 

Elizabeth Berkley plays Nomi, a "street-smart" drifter who ventures to Las Vegas. She is determined to make a name as a dancer while putting her unspoken past behind her. Her tough, streetwise veneer is not as infallible as she would like. In Vegas, she becomes more cautious in the way she approaches strangers who seem willing to help her purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Her talent and connections in combination are only able to get her a job at the Cheetah Club, a strip joint. Her first true friend in Vegas, Molly Abrams (Gina Ravera), works as the costumer for Goddess, the topless production at the Stardust. It is through Molly that Nomi catches the eye of Goddess' headliner, Cristal Connors (Gina Gershon). Nomi has a love/hate feeling toward Cristal: she doesn't much like her but wants to become her.

 

At IMDb, the film's got a 4.9 rating but most of the more recent reviews of Showgirls are remarkably positive about the film. "Read between the lines!", "A Misunderstood Classic", "A really fun movie...despite what the critics say!", "This wonderful film only gets better with each viewing" and "Greatest critique of American culture since CITIZEN KANE" are some of the headlines of the IMDb reviews. Critics such as Jonathan Rosenbaum and Jim Hoberman, as well as filmmakers Jim Jarmusch, Adam McKay, and Jacques Rivette, have also gone on the record defending Showgirls as a serious satire. In a 1998 interview, Rivette called it "one of the great American films of the last few years", though "very unpleasant: it's about surviving in a world populated by assholes, and that's Verhoeven's philosophy". Quentin Tarantino has stated that he enjoyed Showgirls, referring to it in 1996 as the "only ... other time in the last twenty years [that] a major studio made a full-on, gigantic, big-budget exploitation movie", comparing it to Mandingo. Showgirls has been compared to All About Eve (1950) as a remake, update, or rip-off of that film. For Jonathan Rosenbaum, "Showgirls has to be one of the most vitriolic allegories about Hollywood and selling out ever made". "Verhoeven may be the bravest and most assured satirist in Hollywood, insofar as he succeeds in making big genre movies no one knows whether to take seriously or not", Michael Atkinson has written.

 

In Slant Magazine's four-out-of-four-star review, Eric Henderson rejects the "so-bad-it's-good" interpretation and lauds the film as "one of the most honest satires of recent years", stating that the film targets Hollywood's "morally bankrupt star-is-born tales." Henderson draws from a round-table discussion in Film Quarterly in which others argue its merits. Noël Burch attests that the film "takes mass culture seriously, as a site of both fascination and struggle" and uses melodrama as "an excellent vehicle for social criticism." In the same round-table, Chon Noriega suggests that the film has been misinterpreted and the satire overlooked because "the film lacks the usual coordinates and signposts for a critique of human vice and folly provided by sarcasm, irony, and caustic wit." The Guardian commented in 2020: "With Showgirls, the target was the American dream itself – and the dishonest "star is born” narratives churned out to sustain it. If Showgirls has a message, it’s that the game is rigged for women like Nomi. She thinks she’s climbing the pole but really she’s just spinning round it. The real power lies with the men running the racket. Nobody wanted to hear that at the time; maybe they’re ready to now. In its own messy way, Showgirls is a #MeToo story with a male gaze.

 

Sources: Wikipedia and IMDb.

 

And, please check out our blog European Film Star Postcards.

Dasha Infallible

"And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."

– Pastor Æternus, chapter 3, para. 1.

 

Today, 18 July 2020, is the 150th anniversary of the dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council, 'Pastor Æternus' which defined the dogma of papal infallibility.

 

This stained glass window is in Brussels Cathedral.

Found moments in the natural world:)

Not exactly the 'natural world' but I rescued this fabulous specimen trapped in our conservatory - using my infallible beer glass + beer mat method :)

But not before taking his/her portrait!

I have no idea which species? It looks like a dragonfly but only has one pair of wings not two - anyone?

Perhaps [https://www.flickr.com/photos/flickrway] can help me out :)

 

You can see a random selection of my photos here at Flickriver: www.flickriver.com/photos/9815422@N06/random/

When Carl Sagan had famously said that “we’re made of star stuff,” he wasn’t joking because the facts are that the cosmos are hidden within all of us humans. We are the SO BELOW here on earth in which the cosmos and heavens are the AS ABOVE.

Albert Pike, 33rd Degree Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite said; “Lucifer the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendours intolerable blinds feeble sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not! ”

And one of Freemasonry’s greatest philosophers that has ever lived, 33rd Degree Freemason and master Rosicrucian Manly P. Hall said this about Lucifer in his book, All Seeing Eye; “Lucifer represents the individual intellect and will which rebels against the domination of Nature and attempts to maintain itself contrary to natural impulse. Lucifer, in the form of Venus, is the morning star spoken of in Revelation, which is to be given to those who overcome the world.”

Many people mistakenly think that Lucifer is Satan and vice versa, but the facts are that is simply not true. This misinformation, conspiracies and lies have been propagated to the people through many books and movies to the point today in this year 2013, that most people equate Lucifer with Satan or evil. Hopefully you have an open mind and will get past this propaganda like I did myself, in order for you to discover the truth. I AM sure this is the case or else most likely you wouldn’t be reading this website.

If you are asking the question, “Who is Lucifer?,” the answer that you will find often depends on who you ask or where you perform your search. But the facts are that if you were to research the true meaning of Lucifer that is somewhat hidden in secret societies such as Freemasonry, you would find that some of the world’s most prolific 33rd Degree Freemasons have already established the meaning of Lucifer, that they have written about in their books on the occult.

The word “occult” simply means hidden, which is the whole point of the misinformation that you will find on the true meaning of Lucifer. In addition, if you know where to look, the true definition of Lucifer along with corresponding information is now common knowledge on Wikipedia. However, due to countless publications of misinformation via articles, books and videos all over Youtube; the truth is still buried beneath a pile of ignorance.

Therefor, for us smart researchers, we have come to understand this simple fact: That in order to find the light, we have to uncover the truth which is buried at the bottom of these lies and hundreds of years of church, government and ignorant human propaganda. The real story of Lucifer is no different. We have to perform some fact checking of our own like you are doing right now, so that we all can get to the bottom of this disinformation in order to get to the light of the truth.

This article will do just that for you, by helping clear the lies in order for you to see the light of Lucifer for what he truly represents.

Jesus morning star

In the occult, Lucifer is often referred to as the ‘morning star.’ In the Bible, you will find this same exact reference to Jesus as well who says in Revelation 22:16 – “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

You see, just as Lucifer is known as the morning star, Jesus also calls himself ‘the bright morning star’ and as I stated above, Manly P. Hall had said, “Lucifer, in the form of Venus, is the morning star spoken of in Revelation, which is to be given to those who overcome the world.” Hence, rest assured that Jesus and Lucifer are one and the same which will become clearly evident to those with an eye to see the true light amongst the darkness in which we live.

The reason that both Lucifer and Jesus can be considered one and the same is because of an often little understood chemical compound that is hidden within each of our own DNA called ‘Phosphorus.’ Phosphorus is essential for life and the phosphate is a component of DNA, RNA, ATP, and also the phospholipids that form all cell membranes.

Simply put, without phosphorus, we humans would simply not be human because consciousness and our spiritual energy would not exist. It is through our DNA which contains phosphorus, that we become conscious to the world and who we are in order to live in the light. Hence, Lucifer is really just an allegory to describe ‘Phosphorus’ which resides in our DNA.

The literal meaning of phosphorus (Phosp-Horus = Lucifer) is “Light-Bringer.”

Horus winged sun

Here is the definition that you will find on Wikipedia; Phosphorus (Greek Φωσφόρος Phōsphoros), a name meaning “Light-Bringer”, is the Morning Star, the planet Venus in its morning appearance. Another Greek name for the Morning Star is Ἑωσφόρος (Heōsphoros), which means “Dawn-Bringer”.

The Latin word corresponding to Greek Phosphorus is “Lucifer”. It is used in its astronomical sense both in prose and poetry. The Latin word lucifer, corresponding to, was used as a name for the morning star and thus appeared in the Vulgate translation of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל (helel) – meaning Venus as the brilliant, bright or shining one – in Isaiah 14:12, where the Septuagint Greek version uses, not Φωσφόρος, but Ἑωσφόρος.

origins of freemasonry

Venus is the brightest morning “star” and is currently the focal point of the eastern dawn sky. This would be the reason why you will find that all Freemason Lodges face the north and south, but when you walk into the lodge room, you’re symbolically facing the East and all masonic rituals are performed while facing the East in preparation of the son of the morning via the dawn of a new day under the light of the morning star.

Manly P. Hall writes in his book, Initiates of the Flame: “It is said that in ancient times the Sphinx was the gateway of the Pyramid, and that there was an underground passage which led from the Sphinx to Cheops (Great Pyramid)” (Initiates of the Flame, p. 68).

The Sphinx symbolizes man. The Sphinx again symbolizes man, with the mind and spirit of the human rising out of the animal desires and emotions. It is the riddle of the ages, and man is once more the answer. The four fixed signs of which the Sphinx is a symbol are Taurus the Bull, Leo the Lion, Scorpio the Eagle, and Aquarius the Man, or the human head.

So, how can Lucifer be the the prince of darkness, when it has been established that Lucifer is really phosphorus, which a derived from a Greek name meaning “Light-Bringer?”

The facts are that is he is not the prince of darkness or Satan because Lucifer is really phosphorus that resides in our DNA. Once you understand this reality that is science based, you will then have one of the secret keys to the mysteries of the universe.

The light within each one of us humans is where we find Lucifer or Jesus, AKA the morning star.

sphynxeye

Hence, KNOW THYSELF and KNOW GOD. In ancient Egypt is was said; “The body is the house of God,” and one of the many proverbs is “Man, know thyself … and thou shalt know the gods,” and what Manly P. Hall called Aquarius the Man, or the human head represented by the Egyptian Sphinx.

When we KNOW THYSELF, we carry the water of Aquarius the Man and thus become Lion Kings of our own domain which the Egyptians had represented with the figure of a sphinx (Greek: Σφίγξ /sphinx, Bœotian: Φίξ /Phix) which is a mythical creature with, as a minimum, the body of a lion and the head of a human.

Unfortunately, with the advent of certain religions such as Christianity and Islam along with other government controls on the people, these ancient gnostic teachings were corrupted, modified or simply hidden from the multitudes of people because they are or were at one time very dangerous to the church and or government.

These authoritarian institutions operate primarily on the basis of having a master that is outside of you dictating your life, souls and spirit at every step, and they would rather “tell you who you are, where you come from and where you will be going,” rather than us humans being unique individuals who “know thyself … and thou shalt know the gods.”

The facts are that a person who KNOWS THYSELF and KNOWS GOD, is very hard to control by the powers that be because they loose their grip on this persons soul once they figure out “the game” which from day one has been an attempt to trick or steal us all out of our true beings, souls and spirits. Hence, the reason why there are all these lies and propaganda surrounding the name Lucifer.

lucifer 1

Lucifer represents the angel of light with individual intellect who ‘rebels’ against the outside ‘dark authority’. This is why he is called the ‘fallen angel.’ The dark and outside authority can be attributed to our flesh and fleshly desires coupled with the outside material world that attempts to take us away from the true light within each one of us.

This darkness tries to fool us into looking without when we should have always been looking within the whole time. Hence, this is the whole illusion of the matrix in which Satan, the true prince of darkness that represents the flesh and free will is looking to control you, so you do not look within yourself for the “prince of light” or “the morning star.”

The reference to the Venus is the AS ABOVE of which Lucifer, AKA Phosphorus is the AS BELOW.

The facts are that we are made of stardust” or star debris and are therefore “one with the universe.” This is where we get the AS ABOVE, in the SO BELOW and the AS WITHIN , of the AS WITHOUT. It is that star dust hidden inside you in the form of Phosphorus, which I have already stated is essential for life. The phosphate is a component of DNA, RNA, ATP, and also the phospholipids that form all cell membranes. This is the ‘spark’ in our DNA that makes us human. Lucifer is in all of us in the form of Phosphorus.

This may be where our souls access our divine consciousness and thus we become divine like Saint John or a Christ like Jesus. Or is this what the church calls evil in Lucifer because a conscious soul and spirit is a dangerous one and maybe that is why Jesus was crucified?

What is the fall of Lucifer?

fall of lucifer

It is an allegory of the light that resides in us and the fall is simply the fall away from this light. With the advent of most religions, this caused the fall of mankind. A fall away from the light within us that was then exchanged or forced by a false light that that was to be found outside of ourselves within a book or church.

Hence, the fall of Lucifer is the fall that each one of us takes when we look outside for answers as opposed to looking within for the true light, that which will guide us to the promise land or own own personal heavens.

As I stated above, Lucifer and the Morning Star are references to Phosphorus which is essential for life. Without phosphorus, consciousness, energy and the creation of this article would simply not be happening. When we turn away from this light within, we too fall away from grace. Hence, we fall for lies and truth in which we then become one of Satan’s tools that is represented by the planet Saturn. However, that will be a new article in itself.

Whether you choose to believe what I AM stating here and by confirming what I have written and quoted above, is entirely up to you because this is your path where you have to decide truth from fiction or light from dark on your own. However, if you have not done your own research and you have already reached an ignorant conclusion based on heresay or lies, then you are what Mr. Pike calls intolerable blinds feeble sensual, or selfish souls, in which you are one of the billions of Satan’s weak human tools. A soul who chooses darkness rather than light and an unawakened human who worships lies over truth, where ignorance rules your actions over that of true wisdom.

Hence, another brick in the wall…….

Albert Pike’s full quote of Lucifer in his famous book, Morals and Dogma on page 321;

albert-pike on lucifer

albert-pike

“The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. Lucifer. The Light Bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendours intolerable blinds feeble sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not! For traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed Plato and Philo also, were also inspired.”

  

Moe

Moe is the founder of GnosticWarrior.com. A website dedicated to both the ancient and modern teachings of Gnosticism.

 

Share this:

TwitterFacebook798GoogleLinkedInEmailPrint

68 Comments

Realist

Realist on January 25, 2019 at 11:24 am

Lucifer is the devil. The same one who was thrown down to earth with the other rebellious angels. Hence: how art thou fallen from heaven, oh lucifer (or horus, wotan, quetzalcoatl, shiva, jahbulon, e.t.c). If there was no devil, there would be no atlantis myth (Ezekiel’s Tyre), from where the so-called “aryans” and their global “all seeing eye” religion originated. And the dragon (reptilian) said to the woman: for if you eat of the fruit, your “eye” will be opened and you will become (equal) like a god, knowing (gnosis) good and evil.

Reply

Thoth Al Khem

Thoth Al Khem on January 24, 2019 at 1:36 pm

The WORD Lucifer is a MISTRANSLATION by St. Jerome in 382 AD ! PERIOD !!!!!! In Hebrew the word is Heylel/Halal…Hey (Yod) Lamed Lamed. Isaiah 14 is about a MAN….READ IT. The ONLY Lucifer was St. Lucifer of Cagliari who died 10 years before St Jerome PURPOSELY Mistranslated Isaiah 14:12. Doesn’t ANYONE ACTUALLY read the Bible? KILL LIST from King James Bible. YHVH 2,476,633 NOT including the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah…..SATAN? only 10. There is NO Devil………

Reply

Moe

Moe on January 24, 2019 at 3:32 pm

The Hebrew word Hêlêl or Heylel is found just once in the Hebrew Bible. It means to shine or shining one, to flash. The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as Ἑωσφόρος (heōsphoros), “bringer of dawn” and Lucifer is Latin for the Greek phosphorus.

The Church had labeled Simon Magus as Satan.

Reply

Realist

Realist on January 21, 2019 at 12:13 pm

How art thou fallen from heaven, oh Lucifer, the deciever, together with his fellow reptilians. He is the one who will take his followers to the lake of fire. Jesus Christ is God and saviour to all who accept Him.

Reply

Leonard

Leonard on January 18, 2019 at 1:39 am

Therefore, are you saying that Lucifer is Jesus? Most of all this piece of information are craps and they are produced to confuse, brainwash and deviate us from the only true God, Jesus Christ, the one who died on the cross of calvary in order to set us free from the grip of Satan, prince of peace, the only begotten son of God, the bright and morning star, the only way, the truth and life. Nobody cometh to the father except through him. Any book contradicting what is stated in the bible, the word of God is satanic. Satan is evil and what most occult worship is satan the ark enemy of the true living God, the creator of the universe.

Reply

Love2ClearClouds (Cherokee Name)

Love2ClearClouds (Cherokee Name) on December 3, 2018 at 9:22 am

Who is Lucifer?

I was taught in the SDA religion that Lucifer was Satan’s name before he fell from heaven. Felt stupid even when I was 11 years old.

I now understand that the Bible is astrology and physiology, as above so below. “JESUS” was originally IESOUS, the Greek name for the sUn in the sky. Each of the 12 “disciples” are actually symbolic/allegories of the 12 constellations. Those aren’t “halos” around the head of “Jesus” and the disciples, those lit heads are hints to the true identities and the actual truth that they are literally the sUn and the primary stars of the 12 primary constellations.

Every culture and time period gave their own names to the heavenly bodies. The ancients were well aware that everything in our 3D reality is frequency and vibration.

“ if you want to know the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration.”

-Nikola Tesla

This sUn emits codes through frequencies and scientists have recorded the sounds coming from the sun. The stars and planets are emiting their own frequencies and all frequencies affect us here as we are affecting everything out there.

In the book of Job, the oldest book in the Bible, there are several references to astrology…Mazzaroth, which is the Hebrew word for the 12 primary constellations/clock in the sky, and Zodiac is the Greek word. In the book of Job you read about the sweet influences of the Pleiades and about the mother bear and her cub/Ursa Major and Ursa Minor.

TPTB KNOW and use this knowledge/science to their own benefit and to our detriment. Becoming educated in astrology and it’s effects on our physiology will finally break the chains that have held us in these man-made prisons for millennia.

Ultimately, what we can not live without is the SUN. The eternal SUN gives life, it triggers cell regeneration and can extend life, it heals and restores.

I am a sungazer as was Akhenaton in Egypt before the bloodline, that still rules today, killed him. Because of sungazing, I no longer have the eyeglass restriction on my drivers license. I began my son gazing practice for years ago. Two years ago, I had to go in person for my 20 year drivers license renewal. I passed the eye exam for the first time in my 43 years of driving. I had given up the practice but after passing that eye exam I have been back at it the past couple of months. I am hoping to get to the level of not needing to eat food anymore. No more hunger…isn’t that what “Jesus” promised?

🌞🌟

Reply

Love2ClearClouds

Love2ClearClouds on December 3, 2018 at 8:47 am

I was taught in the SDA religion that Lucifer was Satan’s name before he fell from heaven. Felt stupid even when I was 11 years old.

I now understand that the Bible is astrology and physiology, as above so below. “JESUS” was originally IESOUS, the Greek name for the sUn in the sky. Each of the 12 “disciples” are actually symbolic/allegories of the 12 constellations. Those aren’t “halos” around the head of “Jesus” and the disciples, those lit heads are hints to the true identities and the actual truth that they are literally the sUn and the primary stars of the 12 primary constellations.

Every culture and time period gave their own names to the heavenly bodies. The ancients were well aware that everything in our 3D reality is frequency and vibration.

“ if you want to know the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration.”

-Nikola Tesla

This sUn emits codes through frequencies and scientists have recorded the sounds coming from the sun. The stars and planets are emiting their own frequencies and all frequencies affect us here as we are affecting everything out there.

In the book of Job, the oldest book in the Bible, there are several references to astrology…Mazzaroth, which is the Hebrew word for the 12 primary constellations/clock in the sky, and Zodiac is the Greek word. In the book of Job you read about the sweet influences of the Pleiades and about the mother bear and her cub/Ursa Major and Ursa Minor.

TPTB KNOW and use this knowledge/science to their own benefit and to our detriment. Becoming educated in astrology and it’s effects on our physiology will finally break the chains that have held us in these man-made prisons for millennia.

Reply

Jen

Jen on November 24, 2018 at 6:45 pm

Lovely work, as usual.

Lucifer can also relate to Samael, the Archangel. Fixed Zodiacal signs were Angels (Angels) of the Arch. The most crucial of the four fixed signs were depicted through most variations of the Sphynx, which was usually seen as a half lion and half human. In particular, an upper half woman with one breast exposed. This brings Aquarius and Leo into significance as gaurdians of the gateway of the Archs. (Think Zenith/vernal Equinox and Nadir, it’s opposition). Our most profound (and cataclysmic) events of history tend to happen when the Platonic year hits the 0 degree Pisces mark (beginning of the Age of Aquarius) and 0 degree Virgo (Beginning of the Age of Leo). The light will return during the Great Conjunction of winter 2020, the official beginning of the Age of Aquarius, by the Western systems. Strap on your seatbelts, folks. It’s going to be a wild ride! : )

Reply

Gene

Gene on November 18, 2016 at 5:18 pm

People/ mankind want to see these 2 as a person/s or creatures. Lucifer, some form of being and Jesus the man. When all of this is astrology/ astronomy personified.

Reply

Kirk Nyman

Kirk Nyman on October 21, 2016 at 4:28 am

I was taught in church growing up that Lucifer was Satan before his fall from grace due to his pride so he lost his once great name meaning light bearer to Satan meaning enemy opposer and slanderer. Just a thought, could it be that beings he was no longer the bright and morning star that Jesus came in to claim that title?

Reply

Bhsas

Bhsas on August 31, 2016 at 3:00 pm

then who is it that the occultists are sacrificing animals, babies, and children to in the rituals if Lucifer the angel, the prince of the darkness?

Reply

Lawrence clay rogers

Lawrence clay rogers on October 11, 2016 at 10:00 am

These are all ways they who are trying to prevent what must happen establish confusion for our people, they have failed

Reply

John lester anoya duo

John lester anoya duo on August 25, 2016 at 10:16 pm

I know who is lucifer

Reply

Lawrence clay rogers

Lawrence clay rogers on October 11, 2016 at 10:00 am

Do you?

Reply

ishi

ishi on July 15, 2016 at 10:23 pm

..i love how you write..it is good to see truth being spoken again..i will join as soon as it is financially possible to do so

Reply

angela frost

angela frost on May 31, 2016 at 4:28 pm

fantastic stuff moe,,,its great to see it put in the right context for me ,,something i have felt alone with for so long ,,i am not a scholar or a scientist of the enforced + restricted denied false truth seekers ,,,,,i just saw the real truth at the age of 5 yrs old before adults tricked me into their strange denying deliberately blinkered world of dellusional safety ,,,when my cat died ,,i watched all the elements join together to my cat more alive than his cold empty body lying in front of me ,,,it was normal to me …i knew there was no death ,,but only constant renewal ,,,but its a lonely world when you clearly see what everyone else prefers not to simply through fear of majority brain-washed acceptance

Reply

Joseph

Joseph on February 9, 2016 at 5:35 am

This is an excellent article. However I contend that the ‘fall’ of Lucifer was not a bad thing, but a good thing. The ‘fall’ of Christ and the ‘fall’ we must individually go through to knock us from a sensual/individual type of pride and give us true humility to be able to handle the power of ‘being as a God’ is what the ‘fall’ was really about. The single biggest problem in this material existence is power/control and individuals inability to handle it. The reason this is so is because people see themselves as ‘individuals’ and not part of the One. There is a veil placed in front of their faces. That is the deception Satan/Yaldabaoth placed upon mankind in order to rule them fully. Gnostic teaching states Satan is the God/Creator of this world and the Serpent came to show us ‘the way’. He took a ‘fall’ for that. Lucifer/Prometheus took a ‘fall’ to help us, Jesus took a ‘fall’ to help us…and if you have truly lived in this material existence…it is a requirement to take a ‘fall’ to do truly good.

Reply

Joseph

Joseph on February 8, 2016 at 5:55 am

Very good article. Something you must experience before you read and learn about. I have one comment I’d like to point out however. I believe the ‘fall’ that we take, as did Lucifer is not a bad thing or a falling away, but rather a necessary thing and a falling towards. If we are to follow true Gnostic teaching which basically teaches that Satan/The Demiurge is the God of this creation and material world, then to ‘fall’ away from it would truly be a blessing. It is described as a ‘fall’ in the sense that it is all about humility. Christ himself learned it as we must before we inherit the power of a God. Just look around. Power/Control is the single issue among separated beings. When one ‘falls’ one experiences a sense of powerlessness and helplessness. It is then true unity is infused and the individual, now realizing they are not an ‘individual’, but part of the One…can now rise up, with TRUE power, and go in and out of this material existence with relative ease and comfort. Just a thought.

Reply

KRISTA

KRISTA on January 15, 2016 at 5:43 pm

I am one of the original Starchildren God made in the beginning. I am the Evening Star. No joking whats so ever.

Reply

stacy

stacy on June 4, 2016 at 7:59 pm

me too are you rh neg?

Reply

Jecht

Jecht on December 31, 2015 at 1:42 pm

Good content. Very well laid out.

Wish you would go more deeply into the light. Our stardust deep inside us.

How do you determine your purpose?

Reply

ishi

ishi on July 15, 2016 at 10:32 pm

…sometimes….our ‘purpose’…is late in coming to us…sometimes..it is just one thing, one act….get to Know yourself & do what you are best at..wait patiently..when it is time for you, you will then know what to do

Reply

Jakob Albert

Jakob Albert on November 29, 2015 at 1:01 am

TheCloning of God

Godhad an inner compulsion to externalise himself: to make aconsciousness outside and beyond himself, and through this othernessto come to full consciousness.

Hegel,one of the greatest grandmasters of the Illuminati, said, “Thedivine Idea is just this: to disclose itself, to posit the Otheroutside itself and to take it back again into itself in order to besubjectivity and mind/spirit.”

Consciousness,including that of God, requires interaction with otherness if it isto develop. God is compelled to create otherness – to externalisehimself – and through a study of that otherness we can gain sureknowledge of God.

Hegelcriticised conventional Western religion on the grounds that itseparates God from the universe, and makes all of his attributesindependent of the universe. God, according to the traditional view,would be exactly the same whether or not anything else existed. Hisnature wouldn’t alter in the slightest even if there were no universeand no other creatures. Hegel fiercely attacks this view. If God hadno inner need to create anything else then why did he? Is hecapricious? Was he bored? Curious? None of these make any sense inrelation to a perfect God without deficiency. God is entirelyself-sufficient and needs nothing else according to the tenets ofmainstream Western religion. Hegel said, “If God is allsufficient and lacks nothing, how does he come to release Himselfinto something so clearly unequal to him?”

NoChristian, Jew or Muslim can answer why God creates the world when hehas no need to do so. If he does it for a reason such as wanting tospread his love then it implies that he has a need to do that, yetGod, by definition, needs nothing. If he does it because he wants tobe obeyed and worshipped then that also indicates deficiency on hispart. If God is truly self-sufficient, it is impossible that he wouldever have felt the need to create anything. Therefore God is notself-sufficient. Therefore a God of whom it is claimed that he isself-sufficient cannot exist. God creates otherness because he must.He has no choice. He is compelled. Creation is an act of innernecessity. God needs others as much as they need him. Anyone whodoesn’t understand that single truth can never understand God. Theywill always believe in a fantasy.

Godcreated many things as he evolved – a dazzling realm fashioned fromlight – but none of them gave him what he needed: an othernesscomparable to himself. Eventually, after endless experiments, Godsucceeded in cloning himself. The clone was the being that is nowknown as Lucifer, Son of God, the Angel of Light, the Morning Star,Lux Mundi, the Light of the World.

God,through his interaction with Lucifer, became fully self-conscious, asdid Lucifer. Between them, they created the first language, thedivine language. Then Lucifer wanted a brother as a companion and Godgranted his wish. The second son of God was a fateful being. Hisoriginal name was Paracletus, meaning “the Comforter” or”one called to help” because he was to be Lucifer’s brotherand friend. But religion knows him by his later name of Satanel, thensimply Satan. Satan means “accuser/adversary”. It will beexplained below why Paracletus, second son of God and beloved brotherof Lucifer, became the sworn enemy of his father and brother andacquired his dread new name.

Satan’sfatal flaw was “hyperephania” – extreme pride. Afflicted bydoubts about himself, lacking self-esteem, in awe of his father,envious of his radiant brother, unsure of his identity, Satancompensated by cultivating an exaggerated ego. After an age, hebelieved himself superior to Lucifer and even God. He resented theirrelationship and was jealous of it. He resented being the youngestand least powerful. Resentment became hate. Hate became action. Thataction was rebellion. He stood as the adversary of God and Lucifer.He accused them of plotting against him. He opposed all of theirplans.

Havingcreated Lucifer and Paracletus, God provided his sons with the secretof how to clone themselves. The clones of the two sons were thebeings now known as angels. The realm of light became populated bymany beings of light: God, his two sons and the choirs of angels. Butthe angels were loyal to their respective creators and reflectedtheir natures. Satan’s angels were infected with his discontent.

Satanand his army of angels rebelled against God, Lucifer and their loyalangels. The struggle was long and furious, but Satan and hisfollowers lost and fell. They were banished from God’s realm, beingcast out into darkness where the light of God never penetrated.

Satanwanted his own realm where he was the sole master. He discovered thesecret of matter and fashioned a rival universe of matter rather thanlight. This was the universe of the Big Bang – our universe. “Letthere be light,” Satan announced as he brought this universeinto existence: a mockery of God’s light. Satan is the creator andruler of our universe of the Big Bang, and he’s assisted by his rebelangels – called the archons, groups of whom were given regions of theuniverse to rule on Satan’s behalf. 144 archons are assigned toearth. They are responsible for most of the secret history of earth.They are opposed by two groups within that secret history: theIlluminati (consisting of approximately 6,000 people i.e. a similarnumber to that of the Old World Order), and the small group thatcreated the Illuminati but stands outside of the society, just as thearchons stand outside the Old World Order. That small group consistsof 36 angels of Lucifer.

TheIlluminati and the Old World Order are mirror images. Both groupsknow the secret history of earth, and the strange and fatefulstruggle that takes place behind the scenes and to which the rest ofhumanity is mostly oblivious.

Satanwas almost as bright as Lucifer in his earliest days, but he grewrepelled by light and made himself dark. He became “darknessvisible” to use John Milton’s immortal phrase. He is truly theprince of darkness, yet it must never be forgotten that he is the Sonof God and contains the divine spark.

ThroughSatan, evil entered the universe. The birth of evil is not difficultto understand. It is a product of a damaged self-consciousness, oflow self esteem finding a way to overcompensate. It is exactly thesort of situation with which Freud and Jung would be familiar. Whyshould gods be any different from humans? We are made in their image.

Self-consciousnessis a prerequisite for distinguishing good from evil. Animals cannotcommit acts of evil. Evil can be defined according to three levels:strong, medium and weak. Strong evil is the voluntary commission ofmalicious, harmful and even fatal acts towards others, to suit theselfish desires of the perpetrator. Medium evil is the voluntarycommission of acts to promote a selfish agenda, regardless of theimpact on others. Weak evil is captured by Burke’s famous aphorism:”The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for goodmen to do nothing.”

Goodness,likewise, comes in three strengths. Strong goodness is the voluntarycommission of benevolent, helpful acts towards others to promotecooperative, altruistic ends. Medium goodness is the commission ofacts that are intended not to have any ill impact on others. Weakgoodness is where someone does nothing to stand in the way of goodacts by others.

Only a self-consciousness is capable of making achoice between good and evil acts. The Tree of Knowledge of good andevil is a metaphor for that choice. Knowledge, arising fromself-consciousness, allows the commission of moral or immoral acts.Without knowledge, without choice, without self-consciousness, goodand evil would not exist.

Thereason that evil triumphs is simple: most people are evil.

The meaning of life, by Jakob Albert Boor, Johannesburg SA 2011

This Poem I write to you, are you troubled by silent questions?

Still aware, that spoken questions deserve answers, followed by actions?

The biggest question we have, deserves the world, the worth, to put it in words?

Again some week answer? And hide away, silently remembering historical hurts?

Did life won the feared battle from us individually, and us all?

In the ‘’flock of sheep’’ we feel save, with courage so small.

Standing alone in silence, self decision making seems rough?

Just make the decision, in the end you will feel tough enough.

Visualizing the wall so high, the border so far, even to scared while imagining!

Imagining building inner trust, strength and pride that will be never ending!

Where the trigger does should come from, something needed to start,

Will we be waiting for the bomb, as that power provides, will awaken our hart?

The world showed his errors, examples, way too big or too small.

Everything what states ’too’’ will be a too big responsibility? Again excusing us weakened all?

The mindset we are having, the excuses from weakness we’ll make.

Not teaching us to stand strong while we are forced on steps to take.

Humans think often, the world is too much to take.

Do we use survival instinct, when that world is at stake?

Now with some details, I will show the irony in this.

Walking by, around real essentials, and leave them as it is….

We must look different to needed changes, cultures and mindsets heading for the cliffs and loose.

The roots of the problem measured, we’ll brainstorm for solutions from which together! we will choose.

Troubleshooting, attitude and believes, core reactors make it happen, you’ll see.

Opens different kinds of doors, for the lonely life changer the entrance to be?

As stepping out of the box at first, loneliness is part of the challenge.

Need an example? You will find in the movies, visuals will help with the balance.

As you may choose the right, but difficult path

You‘ll be tested mentally, trust will recognize the value in it, you should now that.

Believing is the keyword; you don’t need a religion for that?

Believing is you! That pure feeling inside! No world war started from that.

Can we stand still, could a simple poem stand a difference..?

No! It will be the reader who breaks down his offence.

Important is that it is able to trigger what’s already there!

It’s already in everybody’s hart; yes, you will get the credits! That would only be fair.

Isaiah: 64…

”Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down, that the mountain would tremble before you!

As when fire sets twigs ablaze and causes water to boil,

come down to make your name known to your enemies

and cause the nations to quake before you”

Isaiah 64:7-8

No one calls on your name

or strives to lay hold of you:

For you have hidden your face from us

and makes us waste away because of our sins.

Yet O Lord, You are our Father.

We are the clay, you are the Potter:

We are all the work of your hand.

Isaiah: 63;16-17 !!

BUT YOU ARE OUR FATHER,

THOUGH ABRAHAM DOES NOT KNOW US,

OR ISRAEL ACKNOWLEDGE US:

YOU OUR LORD, ARE OUR FATHER,

OUR REDEEMER FROM OF OLD IS YOUR NAME.

WHY OUR LORD, MAKE US WANDER FROM YOUR WAYS

AND HARDEN OUR HEARTS SO WE DO NOT REFER YOU?

RETURN FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR SERVANTS

THE TRIBES THAT ARE YOUR INHERITANCE…..

ISAIAH 52:6

THEREFORE MY PEOPLE WILL KNOW MY NAME;

THEREFORE IN THAT DAY THEY WILL KNOW

THAT IT IS I WHO FORETOLD IT,

YES, IT IS I…

ISAIAH: 49;5 😉

Reply

James

James on November 9, 2015 at 2:53 pm

This is about having strength within, and showing why strength within is important, because there is always one testing your inner strength. When you try to be strong externally, sometimes in a moment of anger or argument, you’re giving up your inner strength.

Reply

jessu beluang

jessu beluang on October 30, 2015 at 5:52 am

any idea about lucifer?

Reply

farang

farang on October 20, 2015 at 7:51 am

Lucifer is a king. A very real king, not an abstract concept and certainly not Istar/Venus. His son is “Satan.” I suppose one could label me a 34th degree realist, I read and gain knowledge. His name “Lucifer” is the French way of saying his name, much like Lazerus. Hint: Lazerus is “The Blue”…azure…same as the statue of Osiris found in Tut’s tomb. You are welcome…She asked me to spread the truth for those with ears to hear. What I am saying is from mainstream evidence easily found for those that will bother to look. User Fau was his actual name, Moe. User means “crown Prince.”

Reply

Daniel

Daniel on June 27, 2015 at 2:28 am

I believe that all religions were created for balancing purposes and the only true creator is what everyone knows as god in which most pray to as god ,created all so god is the love and sin of all, also it is stated in the bible that we were all made perfect which we were we all chose this life we live now and the reason for this is to learn unique lessons that we have chosen, xenu/Lucifer etc were all real entities brought upon by personal belief produced by the reptilians on to man and other species and in which many beings have conquered this world single headedly, also this world has been inhabited many times over by us and different beings like us which we have ultimately destroyed ourselves in the end thanks to the help of other beings, now a systematic person who has no psychic awareness will disregard this as crap well that is ok your just not evolved enough to realise the truth and most likely have been suppressed by society all your life which is ok you will learn maybe in the next life as you have already started looking into these things in this one, but a true psychic who can communicate with the cross dimensional reptilians like I and see them in there dimension know other whys, now belief creates all and belief comes from the source I have shape shifted into what you could call Lucifer and felt his power I have also been gang stalked for the last five years and live with a spy for the last two who is my girlfriend, I have spotted many military people hiding in close quarters of the house to and get tested daily even by young kids which the government promotes, the truth is we all can be whatever we want to be but because we are evolving to quickly we are suppressed by other beings because we are very dangerous to them also here’s a few things that you should know, if you know the real truth you are a target, the reason why they presented the bali 9 all over tv was for historical purposes, the government will set up something catastrophic to enforce a new law that will take more of our rights away and cause the presentation subliminally of a coming war/ hostility or for the benefit of a new historical purpose, all crime syndicates are run by the government for the preservation of balance now non surpressed people will know this as true but it is harder to find people like I as I are killed of for we are truth

Reply

The Quantumologist

The Quantumologist on June 2, 2015 at 6:21 am

Isaiah Chapter 14 is the ONLY direct reference in the Old Testament to Lucifer, and it’s here: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/

Reply

lallala

lallala on May 6, 2015 at 5:24 pm

lucifer is the light in darkness. He paves our way towards fully becoming a human being once again.

Reply

jv

jv on May 2, 2015 at 1:19 am

The first references of Lucifer come from the HOLY Word of God. Lucifer was cast out of Heaven for wanting to be above the one true HOLY God. There is NO other place in the entire world that the truth about Lucifer is spoken. Satan means fallen angel and deceiver. The reason why some say Luciferian is because they believe he is like God, whom is actually the roaring lion, seeking to devour and to destroy people, God’s creation. It is truly sad that I come to these sites and find people who seek the easier way, which the Bible clearly calls the wide road, of which many find, but leads to destruction. You cannot take things out of context and pick and choose verses, when the Bible is literally God’s Holy Word spoken spiritually to followers all that time ago. Lucifer and Satan ARE proven the same. The Bible is complete, and cannot be separated. Many new versions have come out with the intention to change or leave out scripture. This is also blasphemy and heresy. Jesus Christ IS God whom came to save the world from being lost and helpless.

Reply

Cruise4

Cruise4 on December 25, 2015 at 6:31 pm

Christ, Christos is the oil produced when the Kundalini hits a gland in the brain. It sits there for 3 days and then flows over the pineal gland. I think this may equate to enlightenment. Jesus is an allegory of the Sun, and also each of us. Whether he actually existed or not is moot. Do what he says or you are no christian, and he taught the above, as is quite clear in various parables such as the Bride and Groom. This is what ‘they’ suppress in us by all means possible.

Reply

Deb

Deb on February 8, 2015 at 4:48 pm

I agree with some of this and much of it makes sense. However, there are, in my opinion, some holes in your logic. For example, intellect is not always contrary to nature, nor is nature evil. Nature is loving and brutal, nurturing and deadly, just as is the human archetype of the divine, in whatever form. I think that you are perhaps equating nature with the feminine and maybe that is where the misogynistic tone of your other articles is coming from if you consider nature evil. Nature itself has a vast intelligence. There would be no intellect without it and certainly no avenue of expression for that intellect. Also, you say that we all have to walk our own paths and not be lead by others, which I absolutely agree with 100%. However, you also take a very condescending tone with those who disagree with you and accuse them of being blind, refusing to see the truth, etc. I would gently remind you that you are human and fallible and therefore you should take care not to sound so much like the very authorities you rightfully accuse of deceiving the people. As for Lucifer, I see him as neither perfect light or perfect darkness. He is, in my opinion, an archetype with strengths and weaknesses. He is the symbol of an truth that, as Cliff pointed out below, must be balanced with love. That love is often expressed in feminine terms as women are the great nurturers. I am reminded of nothing so much as the blind men and the elephant, all accusing each other of lies while simply looking at the same thing in a different way.

Reply

Moe

Moe on February 9, 2015 at 5:27 am

Do you think you know it all? Do you think you are going to insult me on my blog, great work and I’m going to be Mr. Nice to you? It is clear to me you have took the new age information hook line and sinker like 99.9% of the people who have not done their own independent research which is expected so don’t feel bad. Lucifer is simply Latin for the alchemical element known in Greek as phosphorus in which Lucifer is from the morning star known a Jupiter. The feminine aspect is portrayed as the goddess Isis (Cybele, Rhea, the Magna Mater etc) who represents sulfur from the planet Venus. You are making this about men and women or into a gender battle as if Isis was a real and Lucifer was some dude who fell from heaven. They are ancient memes for the profane and ignorant like you who are truly the blind and zombified.

Reply

Francine Stroman

Francine Stroman on April 5, 2015 at 4:02 pm

Moe- I found this article to be very “materialistic” in nature. This experience that you are having right now isn’t actually about anything, in human terms anyway. It’s just hyper intelligent light shining forth and even that is saying too much. On another note it might not be such a bad thing for to learn to acept some constructive critism..

That’s ok I love ya anyway;)

Reply

Guest

Guest on September 28, 2015 at 1:13 pm

I have to say More, I love how you take no crap from people on here. If anyone who did their research would know your right. Opinions are like butt-holes we all have one. This people are profane. And you are sharing very guarded secret s. Which I do not agree with, but that’s out of my control. It was planned long ago, and is designed to happen. Anyways stay strong, stay a warrior

Reply

sinner

sinner on November 15, 2015 at 7:20 pm

Lucifer means The Anti Christ, by the way u idiot Moe why u insist anti christ evil calling Lucifer, ok u have ur belief , don,t u worry ur messiah will not survive except for few years, stop pretending being good guy and inventor of white magic . Have spell on me idiot, if u practice magic I hope u know what does exist to counter magic and ur messiah Lucifer ,

Reply

Cruise4

Cruise4 on December 25, 2015 at 6:09 pm

ISIS can be conversed with, as a feminine aspect/spirit, by taking Ayahuasca. So can Lucifer who apparently comes across as somewhat arrogant. As above so below, As within so without may allow sulpher and phosphorous to be synonomous, same as planets (stars).

I’m seeing an X formation… Lucifer (Red,love of the self), Satan (Blue, love of the mother), as the left and right in this X. Whats on the other ends? We have the woman and the whore in the Bible. Inversion, tops and bottoms. Middles (balance,heart) as green. The whole construction is being prised open, the black and the white of the papersea (papacy) and represents the left and right hemispheres of the brain. This is behaviour of Light, see Goethe. Some of this information is encoded in ‘Jupiter Rising’ and ‘How to train your Dragon 2’.

Very hard to convey in such a short space. ISIS is a real something though. Confirmed and certain, and it’s why they are trying to demonise the name at present with ‘terrorist’ association etc. She is also an illusionist, I’m thinking. Spiders from Ma’s… Ma Sons?

Reply

Cruise4

Cruise4 on December 25, 2015 at 6:16 pm

One other very interesting thing… On one of the Jeff Rense shows dealing with reverse speech (approx. January ish 2015), Obama said ‘There will be no pursuit of the woman’. They had no clue what it meant but it was one of the clearest reverses I’ve ever heard.

Reply

Cliff

Cliff on February 6, 2015 at 9:26 am

Lucifer does indeed represent the light, that is to say the pure light of the rational intellect, and just the intellect. It is the cold light of pure reason unmitigated by the warm light of the heart and thus unbalanced. It is the light that allows the means to justify the end, as pure reason would demand it do so. The Christ you quote also said that ‘by their works you shall know them’ . Your Albert Pike stated that three world wars would be required to bring in the Masonic Age, The Masons have been major players in creating two of them and are on the cusp of igniting the third, so please do not equate your luciferian objectives with that of the light of the Gnostic Christ self. Notwithstanding this, there are many truths still contained in your article, however it seems that these are very cleverly placed to capture those who seek for the light within, an imitation of the path of the seeker after truth, two paths that appear to be subtlely similar and yet ultimately lead to devastating different results. ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ , Albert Pike’s and the Mason’s very definately is.

Reply

Larry

Larry on March 12, 2016 at 10:16 pm

Quite an interesting point: ‘those who seek for the light within, an imitation of the path of the seeker after truth, two paths that appear to be subtlely similar and yet ultimately lead to devastating different results.’

Reply

THE ALL

THE ALL on December 4, 2014 at 5:14 pm

there are several important points which need to be understood…Christianity does not have a monopoly on the term “Lucifer” nor on its definition. The Christian concept and definition of the term “Lucifer” is merely the latest in a long line of definitions and interpretations of this pre-Christian term.

The word “Lucifer” occurs only once in the entire Bible. This is in Isaiah 14:12, which says: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Those who read this verse in its actual context will clearly see that the sentence is applied specifically to a certain Babylonian king who was an enemy in war of the Israelites. The original Hebrew text uses the word הֵילֵל which literally means “bright star” or “shining one,” a term applied sarcastically or mockingly by the Israelites to this particular enemy of theirs. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible – one of the chief of whom was the well known Rosicrucian initiate Dr Robert Fludd, a fact which will no doubt shock and horrify many Christians – chose to translate this word with the Latin word “Lucifer.” .“Lucifer” literally means Lightbringer, Lightbearer, Bringer of Dawn, Shining One, or Morning Star. The word has no other meaning. Historically and astronomically, the term “Morning Star” has always been applied to the planet Venus. Since the only occurrence of the word “Lucifer” in the Bible is that one verse in Isaiah, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which says that Lucifer is Satan or the devil. It was Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 AD) who was the first person to apply that passage of scripture to Satan and thus to equate Lucifer with Satan. But even then this notion didn’t catch on in a big way until the much more recent popularisation of John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” in which Lucifer is used as another name for Satan, the evil adversary of God. Also, such luminaries of the Christian world as Martin Luther and John Calvin considered it “a gross error” to apply Isaiah 14:12 to the devil, “for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians.”

Thus the Christians who claim that Lucifer is the devil actually have no Biblical basis or authority for such a belief. Though they may claim to be “Bible believing Christians” whose faith is built solely on “the Word of God” they are actually followers – in this and many other respects – of Christian religious tradition and not of the Christian Bible. Or have they quietly conferred divine infallibility upon the Pope and Milton without informing the rest of the world?

H.P. Blavatsky was never at any point in her life a Christian, gave no credence to Christian theology and did not believe in any type of personal or anthropomorphic God nor in any type of personal or anthropomorphic devil. She believed and taught that there is but ONE Infinite Divine Life which is everything and in everything and that It has no adversary or enemy, since there is nothing but That – the boundless, impersonal, omnipresent Principle of Absolute Existence Itself. She was against the notion of worshipping or praying to anyone or anything. She taught that evil is really imperfection, which is the automatic and inevitable byproduct of the existence of matter.

Now let us take a look at some of the statements HPB made about Lucifer in “The Secret Doctrine”…

* “Esoteric philosophy admits neither good nor evil per se, as existing independently in nature. The cause for both is found, as regards the Kosmos, in the necessity of contraries or contrasts, and with respect to man, in his human nature, his ignorance and passions. There is no devil or the utterly depraved, as there are no Angels absolutely perfect, though there may be spirits of Light and of Darkness; thus LUCIFER – the spirit of Intellectual Enlightenment and Freedom of Thought – is metaphorically the guiding beacon, which helps man to find his way through the rocks and sandbanks of Life, for Lucifer is the LOGOS in his highest, and the “Adversary” in his lowest aspect – both of which are reflected in our Ego.” (Vol. 2, p. 162)

* “In antiquity and reality, Lucifer, or Luciferus, is the name of the angelic Entity presiding over the light of truth as over the light of the day. In the great Valentinian gospel Pistis Sophia it is taught that of the three Powers emanating from the Holy names of the Three Tριδυνάμεις, that of Sophia (the Holy Ghost according to these gnostics – the most cultured of all) resides in the planet Venus or Lucifer.” (Vol. 2, p. 512)

* “It is but natural – even from the dead letter standpoint – to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis, as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it is he who was the “Harbinger of Light,” bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first to whisper: “in the day ye eat thereof ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil” – can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An “adversary” to Jehovah the “personating spirit,” he still remains in esoteric truth the ever-loving “Messenger” (the angel), the Seraphim and Cherubim who both knew well, and loved still more, and who conferred on us spiritual, instead of physical immortality – the latter a kind of static immortality that would have transformed man into an undying “Wandering Jew”.” (Vol. 2, p. 243)

* “The Fall was the result of man’s knowledge, for his “eyes were opened.” Indeed, he was taught Wisdom and the hidden knowledge by the “Fallen Angel,” for the latter had become from that day his Manas, Mind and Self-consciousness. In each of us that golden thread of continuous life – periodically broken into active and passive cycles of sensuous existence on Earth, and super-sensuous in Devachan – is from the beginning of our appearance upon this earth. It is the Sutratma, the luminous thread of immortal impersonal monadship, on which our earthly lives or evanescent Egos are strung as so many beads – according to the beautiful expression of Vedantic philosophy.

“And now it stands proven that Satan, or the Red Fiery Dragon, the “Lord of Phosphorus” (brimstone was a theological improvement), and Lucifer, or “Light-Bearer,” is in us: it is our Mind – our tempter and Redeemer, our intelligent liberator and Saviour from pure animalism. Without this principle – the emanation of the very essence of the pure divine principle Mahat (Intelligence), which radiates direct from the Divine mind – we would be surely no better than animals.” (Vol. 2, p. 513)

So we see that in the teachings of Theosophy – which are at times deliberately symbolical, allegorical, and esoteric – the Lightbringer or Bringer of Dawn (Lucifer in Latin) is our Mind Principle, our individual self-consciousness and spark of intelligence, which was awakened in mankind around the middle period of the Third Root Race, also known as the Lemurian Epoch. Our mind can either be our adversary (which is what the word “satan” literally means) or it can be the lightbearer (the Lucifer) of spiritual Truth to us, the knowledge of which brings about our liberation from ignorance, including spiritual self-ignorance. Jose M. Herrou Aragon, in his book “Primordial Gnosis: The Forbidden Religion,” writes…“According to Gnostic legends and myths, the great Unknowable God sent Lucifer, angel of indescribable fire and light, to show man the light and to help him wake up and see his true origin, the origin of his Spirit, which has been perversely imprisoned in this impure matter called body-soul. He is an uncreated being, who came to the created world to bring Light: Liberating Gnosis. The saving knowledge which can wake man up and help him free his imprisoned Spirit. The knowledge which allows him to know who he truly is, why he is here in this world and what he has to do to liberate himself and fulfil his Spirit, which belongs to another uncreated and unknowable plane. “We have said that Lucifer came to the world to wake man up, to help him remember his divine origin, the divine origin of his Spirit, and to help him free himself from the body-soul in which he is trapped, and from created time and matter.” Theosophy interprets all these allegorical Gnostic teachings as referring to “the lighting up of Manas” (Manas is the Sanskrit word for Mind) which we mentioned above. When we bear in mind that “The Secret Doctrine” teaches that the Lemurian Root Race was born under the influence of Venus and received its “light and life” from the Planetary Spirit of Venus, it all becomes clearer, since Lucifer has been an accepted synonym for Venus – the bright and morning star – since long before the days of Christian theology and millennia before Lucifer was first ignorantly equated with the devil. In “The Secret Doctrine” we read that “Venus, or Lucifer (also Sukra and Usanas) the planet, is the Light-Bearer of our Earth, in both its physical and mystic sense.” Venus is said to be the “spiritual prototype” of Earth and “the Guardian Spirit of the Earth and Men.” It is “the most occult, powerful, and mysterious of all the planets; the one whose influence upon, and relation to the Earth is most prominent” and every change that takes place on Venus “is felt on, and reflected by, the Earth.” Since it would take too long and also be out of place here to try to explain all of this to the reader unfamiliar with Theosophy, we can sum up by saying that what H.P. Blavatsky has to say about Lucifer is entirely esoteric, symbolical, and philosophical. Those four excerpts quoted above are virtually the only specific statements and explanations she ever made about Lucifer, although fanatical Christians and half-crazed conspiracy theorists like to give the impression that she spent almost all her time ranting and raving about Lucifer, which is simply not true. As for the reason her magazine was named “Lucifer,” she wrote in its very first article – titled “What’s in a Name?” – that “the first and most important, if not the sole object of the magazine, is expressed in the line from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, on its title page. It is to bring light to “the hidden things of darkness,” (iv. 5); to show in their true aspect and their original real meaning things and names, men and their doings and customs; it is finally to fight prejudice, hypocrisy and shams in every nation, in every class of Society, as in every department of life. The task is a laborious one but it is neither impracticable nor useless, if even as an experiment. Thus, for an attempt of such nature, no better title could ever be found than the one chosen. … No fitter symbol exists for the proposed work – that of throwing a ray of truth on everything hidden by the darkness of prejudice, by social or religious misconceptions; especially by that idiotic routine in life, which, once that a certain action, a thing, a name, has been branded by slanderous inventions, however unjust, makes respectable people, so called, turn away shiveringly, refusing to even look at it from any other aspect than the one sanctioned by public opinion. Such an endeavour then, to force the weak-hearted to look truth straight in the face, is helped most efficaciously by a title belonging to the category of branded names.” But as she was later to remark, the ignorant and erroneous belief that Lucifer = Satan “has struck its roots too deep in the soil of blind faith” to allow many people to bravely, boldly, and unashamedly reveal the true origins and true nature of what the so-called Lucifer actually is. Those who attempt to do so are always bound to be immediately labelled as “satanists” and “devil worshippers” by a certain class of Christian, those whose trademark characteristics invariably tend to be wilful ignorance and mental laziness. It has indeed become a “branded name,” one which still automatically conjures up the image of an anthropomorphic devil even in the minds of the most hardened atheists. Yet who can deny that even Jesus is portrayed as boldly proclaiming his identity with Venus the Lightbringer in Revelation 22:16, where he says “I, Jesus, am the bright and morning star.” If the translators had chosen to translate this verse using Latin just as they did with Isaiah 14:12, it would read “I, Jesus, am Lucifer.” Theosophists are not afraid of public opinion or misguided prejudice, nor of the claims and threats of Christianity, that most arrogant, ignorant, and impudent of all the world’s religions. “There is no religion higher than Truth” – and eventually, as always, the Truth will prevail.

 

Phosphorus? How did the ancients know about, and zero in on this single element? Also, what was the mystery secret that was imparted to Alexander the great by his Greek mentor that enabled him to defeat a million man Persian army with only 35.000 of his men?

 

Before it was known by the word Phosphorus which is a word given to us by the Greeks, and the Latin Lucifer, it was simply known as the Elixir of Life or the Flower of Life. Often it was called by the plant names they used for the Elixir of Life or the Flower of Life that were high in Phosphorus such as Mandrake, the Lotus and Red Barley of the Gods.

 

Our thoughts are words,words are sounds,sounds vibrates,vibration is energy, energy glows and that glowing is LIGHT.Everything is Light.Even our thoughts.>> “It is through our DNA which contains phosphorus, that we become conscious to the world and who we are in order to live in the light.” Wrong. “live in the light” suggests you and I are separate from this universe of light ,that there is a “we” somehow not attached .EVERYTHING IS LIGHT.You and me and everything inbetween all made up of the same light energy . Light is a LIE ,there is nothing there. 99.9999999 EMPTY SPACE (potential).Lucifer =Bringer of LIGHT.

 

It is not correct that Lucifer equals Jesus, as Yourself also quote.

“Lucifer represents the individual intellect and will which rebels against the domination of Nature and attempts to maintain itself contrary to natural impulse. Lucifer, in the form of Venus, is the morning star spoken of in Revelation, which is to be given to those who overcome the world.”

Lucifer from Madam Blavatsky and Freemasonry has highjacked Jesus’ title, for evil, not for good.

The Christian mystic Rudolf Steiner says Lucifer and Satan (The Devil) is two different spiritual entities, but to compare ANY of the two as Jesus is way off target.

“Rudolf Steiner taught that the two great demons, Lucifer and Ahriman, offer mankind gifts — from Lucifer, we receive the gift of intellectual thought; from Ahriman, mastery of the physical realm. These gifts are beneficial and even necessary at our current stage of evolution, but they also entail great risks, temptations that can lead us badly astray. According to Steiner, Christ — the Intelligence of the Sun — needs to interpose between Lucifer and Ahriman, balancing them so that we may receive their influences in the proper, beneficial proportions”.

 

gnosticwarrior.com/lucifer.html

Poseur (or poser) is a pejorative term, often used in the punk, heavy metal, hip hop, and goth subcultures, or the skateboarding, surfing and jazz communities, to refer to a person who copies the dress, speech, and/or mannerisms of a group or subculture, generally for attaining acceptability within the group or for popularity among various other groups, yet who is deemed not to share or understand the values or philosophy of the subculture.

 

While this perceived inauthenticity is viewed with scorn and contempt by members of the subculture, the definition of the term and to whom it should be applied is subjective. While the term is most associated with the 1970s- and 1980s-era punk and hardcore subculture, English use of the term originates in the late 19th century.

 

Etymology and definitions

The English term poseur is a loanword from French, in which it is used figuratively since the mid-19th century with the same meaning as in Englishto refer to people who "affect an attitude or pose". Etymonline, an online etymology dictionary, argues that since the "word is Eng.[English] poser in Fr.[French] garb", the term itself could thus "be considered an affectation".

 

Dictionary.com says the word refers to "a person who habitually pretends to be something he is not".[1] The Merriam-Webster dictionary notes that the term was also used to refer to a "person who pretends to be what he or she is not" or an "insincere person". The Encarta dictionary states that the term is used to describe a "pretentious person" or "somebody who tries to impress others by behaving in an affected way". The Cambridge Dictionary defines a "poseur" as "someone who pretends to be something they are not, or to have qualities that they do not have".

 

Use within contemporary subcultures

Punk subculture

 

The punk subculture classifies members who are deemed to not understand or respect the subculture values as "poseurs".

Music journalist Dave Rimmer wrote that the first punks in London used "terms in which they expressed their disdain for hangers-on and those whose post-hip credentials didn’t quite make it came straight out of the authenticity movements: 'Poseurs' was the favorite epithet. Ross Buncle argues that eventually the Australian punk scene "opened the door to a host of poseurs, who were less interested in the music than in UK-punk fancy dress and being seen to be hip".He praises the gigs where there "were no punk-identikit poseurs" in the audience.

 

In a review of The Clash film Rude Boy, a critic argued that this "film was another sign of how The Clash had sold out – a messy, vain work of punk poseurs". US music journalist Lester Bangs praised punk pioneer Richard Hell for writing the "strongest, truest rock & roll I have heard in ages" without being an "arty poseur" of the "age of artifice".[10] Another critic argues that by the late 1970s, "punk rock had already, at this early date, shown signs of devolving into pure pose, black leather jacket and short hair required". Please Kill Me includes interviews with punks in New York and Detroit who "rip their English counterparts as a bunch of sissified poseurs".

 

The term poseur was used in several late-1970s punk songs, including the X-Ray Spex song "I Am a Poseur", which included the lyrics "I am a poseur and I don't care/I like to make people stare/Exhibition is the name." Another song using the term was the Television Personalities song "Part-Time Punks". The Television Personalities' song "was a reaction to the macho posturing of the English punk scene".The lyrics argue that, "while Television Personalities were not themselves punks in the orthodox sense, neither was anyone else". The song "declared that either everyone who wanted to be a punk was one or that everyone was a poseur (or both)", and it argues that "the concept of [...] punk rock authenticity, of Joe Strummer, was a fiction".

 

An article in Drowned in Sound argues that 1980s-era "hardcore is the true spirit of punk" because "[a]fter all the poseurs and fashionistas fucked off to the next trend of skinny pink ties with New Romantic haircuts, singing wimpy lyrics". It argued that the hardcore scene consisted only of people "completely dedicated to the DIY ethics"; punk "[l]ifers without the ambition to one day settle into the study-work-family-house-retirement-death scenario".

 

The Oi band Combat 84 has a song entitled "Poseur" which describes a person changing from a punk to a skinhead, and then into a Mod and a Ted. The lyrics include the lines "Poseur poseur standing there/You change your style every year."

 

1990s–2000s

 

Joe Keithley of D.O.A. has said: "For every person sporting an anarchy symbol without understanding it there’s an older punk who thinks they’re a poseur."

Dave Rimmer writes that with the revival of punk ideals of stripped-down music in the early 1990s, with "Cobain, and lots of kids like him, rock & roll ... threw down a dare: Can you be pure enough, day after day, year after year, to prove your authenticity, to live up to the music [or else] live with being a poseur, a phony, a sellout?

 

Refused's Dennis Lyxzén and Bad Religion's Brett Gurewitz used the term to refer to early 2000s-era pop punk fans as "kids – more specifically the new wave of punk poseurs who came to the music via bands like Good Charlotte". They argue that these young listeners want "not to have to think and [instead they] would rather use music as escapism [,] and too many bands seem willing to comply".

 

One writer argued that the Los Angeles punk scene was changed by the invasion of "antagonistic suburban poseurs", which bred "rising violence [...] and led to a general breakdown of the hardcore scene".[ A writer for The Gauntlet praised the US Bombs' politically oriented albums as "a boulder of truth and authenticity in a sea of slick poseur sewage", and called them "real punk rockers" at "a time where the genre is littered with dumb songs about cars, girls and bong hits".

 

Daniel S. Traber argues that attaining authenticity in the punk identity can be difficult; as the punk scene changed and re-invented itself, "[e]veryone got called a poseur".[18] One music writer argues that the punk scene produced "...true believers who spent long days fighting the man on streets of the big city [and living in squats who] always wanted to make punk rock less a cultural movement than some kind of meritocracy: "You have to prove you're good enough to listen to our music, man."

 

Joe Keithley, the singer for D.O.A. said in an interview that: "For every person sporting an anarchy symbol without understanding it there’s an older punk who thinks they’re a poseur." The interviewer, Liisa Ladouceur, argued that when a group or scene's "followers grow in number, the original devotees abandon it, [...] because it is now attracting too many poseurs—people the core group does not want to be associated with".

 

The early 1980s hardcore punk band MDC penned a song entitled "Poseur Punk", which excoriated pretenders who copied the punk look without adopting its values. The lyrics sheet packaged with Magnus Dominus Corpus, the album on which "Poseur Punk" appears, contains a picture of the band Good Charlotte juxtaposed underneath the lyrics to "Poseur Punk". As part of MDC's 25th anniversary tour in the 2000s, frontman "Dictor's targets remain largely the same: warmongering politicians, money-grubbing punk poseurs (including Rancid, whose Tim Armstrong once worked as an M.D.C. roadie), and of course, cops".NOFX's album The War on Errorism includes the song "Decom-poseur", part of the album's overall "critique of punk rock's 21st century incarnation of itself". In an interview, NOFX's lead singer Mike Burkett (aka "Fat Mike") "lashes out" at "an entire population of bands he deems guilty of bastardizing a once socially feared and critically infallible genre" of punk, asking "[w]hen did punk rock become so safe?

 

Heavy metal subculture

Jeffrey Arnett argues that the heavy metal subculture classifies members into two categories: "acceptance as an authentic metalhead or rejection as a fake, a poseur".In a 1993 profile of heavy metal fans' "subculture of alienation", the author notes that the scene classified some members as poseurs, that is, heavy metal performers or fans who pretended to be part of the subculture but who were deemed to lack authenticity and sincerity.

 

In the heavy metal subculture, some critics use the term to describe bands that are seen as excessively commercial, such as MTV-friendly glam metal groups in which hair, make-up, and fancy outfits are more important than the music.[citation needed] Another metal subgenre, nu metal is seen as controversial amongst fans of other metal genres, and the genres detractors have labeled nu metal derogatory terms such as "mallcore", "whinecore", "grunge for the zeros" and "sports-rock". Gregory Heaney of Allmusic has described the genre as "one of metal's more unfortunate pushes into the mainstream."[ Jonathan Davis, the frontman of the pioneering nu metal band Korn, was in an interview and said

 

“There's a lot of closed-minded metal purists that would hate something because it's not true to metal or whatever, but Korn has never been a metal band, dude. We're not a metal band. We've always been looked at as what they called the nu-metal thing. But we've always been the black sheep and we never fitted into that kind of thing so … We're always ever evolving, and we always piss fans off and we're gaining other fans and it is how it is.”

 

Axl Rose said "We thought we were so badass [...]. It was just so clear what stupid little white-boy poseurs we were."

Ron Quintana wrote that when Metallica was trying to find a place in the LA metal scene in the early 1980s, it was difficult for the band to "play their [heavy] music and win over a crowd in a land where poseurs ruled and anything fast and heavy was ignored".[

 

David Rocher described Damian Montgomery, frontman of Ritual Carnage, as "an authentic, no-frills, poseur-bashing, nun-devouring kind of gentleman, an enthusiastic metalhead truly in love with the lifestyle he preaches... and unquestionably practises".] In 2002, Josh Wood argued that the "credibility of heavy metal" in North America is being destroyed by the genre's demotion to "horror movie soundtracks, wrestling events and, worst of all, the so-called 'Mall Core' groups like Slipknot and Korn", which makes the "true [metal] devotee’s path to metaldom [...] perilous and fraught with poseurs."

 

In an article on Axl Rose, entitled "Ex–‘White-Boy Poseur'", Rose admitted that he has had "time to reflect on heavy-metal posturing" of the last few decades: "We thought we were so badass [...] Then N.W.A came out rapping about this world where you walk out of your house and you get shot. It was just so clear what stupid little white-boy poseurs we were."

 

The Swedish band Poser Executioner, a Black Metal band formed in 2011, has lyrical themes against posers and "false metal."

 

Goth subculture

 

Nancy Kilpatrick's Goth Bible describes poseur goths as "young kids going through a goth phase who do not hold to goth sensibilities but want to be part of the goth crowd."

Nancy Kilpatrick's Goth Bible: A Compendium for the Darkly Inclined defines "poseur" for the goth scene as follows:"goth wannabes, usually young kids going through a goth phase who do not hold to goth sensibilities but want to be part of the goth crowd...". Kilpatrick dismisses poseur goths as "Batbabies" whose clothing is bought at [mall store] Hot Topic with their parents' money.The goth website Goth.net has a section on poseurs which states that "No matter who you are, you're going to be a poseur at some point. No one is born knowing all the intimate details of any subculture and until you finally bring your posing ass into the fold, you're never going to learn. Just make sure that if you really are interested, you do your research and you ask questions. That's where the poseurs get sorted from the chaff."

 

A Goth music reviewer made a reference to the "teen poseur-Goth crowd that enjoys the tiny genre known as symphonic metal." In the goth subculture, the pejorative term "mall Goth" is sometimes used to describe poseurs.

 

Hip hop subculture

 

Authenticity or "street cred" is important in hip-hop culture.

In the hip hop scene, authenticity or street cred is important. The word wigger is the specific used to refer to caucasian people mimicking black hip-hop culture. Larry Nager of The Cincinnati Enquirer wrote that rapper 50 Cent has "earned the right to use the trappings of gangsta rap – the macho posturing, the guns, the drugs, the big cars and magnums of champagne. He's not a poseur pretending to be a gangsta; he's the real thing."

 

A This Are Music review of white rapper Rob Aston criticizes his "fake-gangsta posturing", calling him "a poseur faux-thug cross-bred with a junk punk" who glorifies "guns, bling, cars, bitches, and heroin" to the point that he seems like a parody. A 2004 article on BlackAmericaWeb claims that Russell Tyrone Jones, better known as rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard, was not "a rough dude from the ’hood" as his official record company biographies claimed. After Jones's death from drugs, the rapper's father claimed that "his late son was a hip-hop poseur, contrary to what music trade magazines published in New York" wrote. Jones' father argued that the "story about him being raised in the Fort Greene [Brooklyn] projects on welfare until he was a child of 13 was a total lie"; instead, he said "their son grew up in a reasonably stable two-parent, two-income home in Brooklyn".

 

The article also refers to another "hip-hop poseur from a decade ago", Lichelle “Boss” Laws. While her record company promoted her as "the most gangsta of girl gangstas", posing her "with automatic weapons" and publicizing claims about prison time and an upbringing on the "hard-knock streets of Detroit", Laws' parents claim that they put her "through private school and enrolled [her] in college in suburban Detroit".

 

As hip hop has gained a more mainstream popularity, it has spread to new audiences, including well-to-do "white hip-hop kids with gangsta aspirations—dubbed the 'Prep-School Gangsters'" by journalist Nancy Jo Sales. Sales claims that these hip hop fans "wore Polo and Hilfiger gear trendy among East Coast hip-hop acts" and rode downtown to black neighborhoods in chauffeured limos to experience the ghetto life. Then, "to guard against being labeled poseurs, the prep schoolers started to steal the gear that their parents could readily afford". This trend was highlighted in The Offspring song "Pretty Fly (for a White Guy)".

 

A 2008, Utne Reader article describes the rise of "Hipster Rap", which "consists of the most recent crop of MCs and DJs who flout conventional hip-hop fashions, eschewing baggy clothes and gold chains for tight jeans, big sunglasses, the occasional keffiyeh, and other trappings of the hipster lifestyle". The article says this "hipster rap" has been criticized by the hip hop website Unkut and rapper Mazzi, who call the mainstream rappers poseurs or "fags for copping the metrosexual appearances of hipster fashion". Prefix Mag writer Ethan Stanislawski argues that there "have been a slew of angry retorts to the rise of hipster rap", which he says can be summed up as "white kids want the funky otherness of hip-hop [...] without all the scary black people".

 

African-American hip hop artist Azealia Banks has criticized white rapper Iggy Azalea "..for failing to comment on “black issues", despite capitalising on the appropriation of African American culture in her music." Banks has called Azelea a “wigger” (a pejorative term for a white person who copies the manner of speaking and dress of African-American culture) and there have been "...accusations of racism against Azalea" focused on her "...insensitivity to the complexities of race relations and cultural appropriation."

 

Other music cultures

Authenticity is also deemed to be important in the House, UK Garage, and grunge styles of music.

 

Other genres and subcultures

Mark Paytress writes that in 1977, Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger called singer/songwriter Patti Smith a "poseur of the worst kind, intellectual bullshit, trying to be a street girl".[44] A music writer for The Telegraph called Bob Dylan an "actor and a rock 'n' roll poseur to rival David Bowie and Mick Jagger at their most flamboyant".

  

The term "poseur" is also used in the skateboarding subculture.

The skateboarding subculture attempts to differentiate between authentic skaters and pretenders. A New York Times article on the 2007 skateboarding scene notes that "some first-time skaters drawn into the sport by catchy choruses or candy-colored sneakers are dismissed as poseurs" who are "walking around with a skateboard as an accessory, holding it in a way we call ‘the mall grab['.]" In the 1988 video game Skate or Die!, "Poseur Pete" is humorously the name of the challenger for beginner-level players. The After Disaster, a podcast, states that in fact "mall grabbing" is the proper way to hold a skateboard.

 

A LA City Beat magazine writer argues that "dance music had its Spinal Tap moment some time around the year 2000", arguing that "the prospect of fame, groupies, and easy money by playing other people's records on two turntables brought out the worst poseurs since hair metal ruled the Sunset Strip. Every dork with spiky locks and a mommy-bought record bag was a self-proclaimed turntable terror."A Slate magazine article argues that while the independent music scene "can embrace some fascinating hermetic weirdos such as Joanna Newsom or Panda Bear, it's also prone to producing fine-arts-grad poseurs such as The Decemberists and poor-little-rich-boy-or-girl singer songwriters".

 

The term "drugstore cowboy" denotes people who dress up like cowboys or cowgirls but who are not involved in associated cowboy activities such as herding cattle, putting horseshoes on horses, fixing fences and working on ranches

 

Shortly before midnight 8 July 1994 at the Franklin Street Bar & Grill in Monterey, California, computer pioneer Gary Kildall suffered a blunt force head trauma which led to his death a few days later. In one version, he was attacked by one or more rough looking bikers. Because wearing his Harley-Davidson vest and likely under the heavy influence of alcohol, he looked and perhaps acted too much like an Outlaw motorcycle club poseur of Hells Angels while attending the biker bar, irritating the initiated. Kildall had no memory of the event afterwards.

 

One surfing commentator decries the presence of poseur surfers, who he describes as younger men who stick to longboarding because out of "laziness, ignorance, or fear of trying something they’re not good at, they stick to their longboards." The commentator states that "...these lazy pieces of shit are content with just “gliding” because it’s the easy way out... It’s the pussy way out. It’s weak. It’s pathetic. It tells me that this person lacks ambition, lacks a broader perspective, because instead of striving to make progress in a sport that this person supposedly loves, they’re content with a lower level of achievement."

 

The concept of a "jazz poseur" dates back to the 1940s. Bob White from Downbeat argued that some jazz critics knew nothing about new jazz (Bebop) and nothing about chords, tone, or the technical aspects of jazz; instead, they would just learn the names of a few old masters and "...become a romantic, a charlatan, a poseur, a pseudo-intellectual, an aesthetic snob, ...well on the way to success" as a jazz critic.[ In the 2000s, the CBC produced a radio show about how to spot "jazz poseurs" in a jazz scene. These were described as people who do not know much about the music, but they can "name-drop" the names of famous performers.

 

Salon writer Joan Walsh calls US politician Paul Ryan a Randian poseur. She claims that while he purports to believe in Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, which harshly criticizes government social redistribution programs, he actually benefitted from these programs in his life.

 

In the United States, a media controversy arose in June 2015 over what one paper called a "'Black' poseur." "Rachel Dolezal resigned as president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP... amid a furor over racial identity that erupted when her parents came forward to say she has been posing as black for years when she is actually white." As well, the city of "Spokane is investigating whether she lied about her ethnicity when she was appointed to the city's police oversight board. Her application said her ethnic origins included white, black and American Indian."]Dolezal completed an MFA at Howard University, a historically black university. She "...teaches African studies at a university and was married to a black man."

 

In this white marble sculpture depicting a mother and her child, Paul Lancz's vision of the artist is unique because it depicts two equally important entities expressing total devotion to each other.

 

The child kisses the hand of the mother, the mother the child's forehead. In a world where nothing is sacred or inviolable, especially human beings, Tenderness appears as an infallible symbol of permanence and invulnerability.

 

PAUL LANCZ

Born in Hungary in 1919, Canadian sculptor Paul Lancz studied at the Budapest School of Fine Arts and worked for three years with the internationally renowned Hungarian sculptor Szigmond Kisfaludy Strobl. Lancz moved to Canada in 1956. Much of his production consisted of busts of well-known politicians and artists.

 

In 1967, he presented a bust of Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion to the Israel Pavilion for the Montréal World Fair. Among the other busts that he produced were those of eminent Montréal figures, including Abraham Bronfman, Armand Frappier, Alexis Nihon, and René Lépine. He died in Montréal in 2005.

Metaphysical certainty is not God, though it contains something of Him. This is why Sufis accompany even their certainties with this formula: ''And God is more wise".

 

A cult of the intelligence and mental passion take man further from truth. Intelligence withdraws as soon as man puts his trust in it alone. Mental passion pursuing intellectual intuition is like the wind which blows out the light of a candle.

 

Monomania of the spirit, with the unconsious pretension, the prejudice, the insatiability and the haste which are its concomitants, is incompatible with sanctity.

 

Sanctity introduces in the flux of thoughts an element of humility and of charity, and so of calm and of generosity. This element, far from being hurtful to the spiritual impetus or the sometimes violent force of truth, delivers the spirit from the vexations of passions and thus guarantees both the integrity of thought and the purity of inspiration.

 

According to the Sufis mental passion must be ranked as one of the "associations" with Satan, like other forms of"idolatry" of the passions. It could not directly have God for its object, for, were God its direct object, it would lose its specifically negative characteristics.

 

Man must beware of two things: first of replacing God, in practice if not in theory, by the functions and products of the intellect, or of considering Him only in connection with this faculty; and, secondly, of putting the "mechanical" factors of spirituality in the place of the human values - the virtues - or only considering virtues in relation to their "technical" utility and not in relation to their beauty.

 

Intelligence has only one nature, that of being luminous. But it has diverse functions and different modes of working and these appear as so many particular intelligences. Intelligence with a "logical", "mathematical" or- one might say - "abstract" quality is not enough for attaining all aspects of the real.

 

It would be impossible to insist too often on the importance of the "visual" or "aesthetic" function of the intellective faculty.

 

Everything is in reality like a play of alternations between what is determined in advance - starting from principles - and what is incalculable and in some way unforeseeable, of which we have to get to know by concrete identification and not by abstract "discernment".

 

In speculations about formal elements it would be a handicap

to lack this aesthetic function of intellect. A religion is revealed, not only by its doctrine, but also by its general form, and this has its own characteristic beauty, which is reflected in its every aspect from its "mythology" to its art.

 

Sacred art expresses Reality in relation to a particular spiritual vision. And aesthetic intelligence sees the manifestations of the Spirit even as the eye sees flowers or playthings.

 

Thus, for example, in order to understand Buddhism profoundly, if one is not a Buddhist born, it is not enough to study its doctrine; it is also necessary to penetrate into the language of Buddhist beauty as it appears in the sacramental image of the Buddha or in such features as the "sermon on the flower".

 

The aesthetic function of the intelligence - if you may call it

that for lack of a better term - enters not only into the form of every spiritual manifestation but also into the process of its manifestation.

 

Truth must be enunciated, not only in conformity with certain proportions, but also according to a certain rhythm. One cannot speak of sacred things 'just anyhow", nor can one speak of them without limitations.

 

Every manifestation has laws and these intelligence must observe in manifesting itself, or otherwise truth will suffer.

Intellect is not something cerebral, nor is it specifically human

or angelic. All beings "possess" it. If gold is not lead, that is because it "knows" the Divine better. Its "knowledge" is in its very form, and this amounts to saying that it does not belong to it itself, for matter could not know. None the less one can say that the rose differs from the water-lily by its intellectual particularity, by its "way of knowing" and so by its mode of intelligence.

 

Beings possess intelligence in their form to the extent that they are "peripheric" or "passive" and in their essence to the extent that they are "central", "active" and "conscious".

 

A noble animal or a lovely flower is "intellectually" superior to a base man.

 

God reveals himself to the plant in the form of the light of the

sun. The plant irresistibly turns itself towards the light; it could not be atheistical or impious.

 

The infallible "instinct" of animals is a lesser "intellect", and man's intellect may be called a higher "instinct". Between instinct and intellect there stands in some sense the reason, which owes its troubles to the fact that it constitutes a sort of "luciferian" duplication of the Divine Intelligence - the only intelligence there is.

 

Knowledge of facts depends on contingencies which could not enter into principial knowledge. The level of facts is, in certain respects, inverse in relation to that of principles in the sense that it includes modes and imponderables that are the extreme opposite of the wholly mathematical rigour of universal laws. At least this is so in appearance, for it goes without saying that universal principles are not contradicted.

 

Even beneath the veil of the inexhaustible diversity of what is possible their immutability can always be discerned, provided that the intelligence is in the requisite condition for being able to discern it.

 

If the intellect is, so to speak, sovereign and infallible on its own ground, it cannot exercise its discernment on the level of facts otherwise than conditionally. Moreover God may intervene on the level of facts with particular things willed by Himself that are at times unpredictable, and of such things principial knowledge could only take account a posteriori.

 

-----

 

Frithjof Schuon

 

-----

 

Quoted in: The Essential Frithjof Schuon (edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr)

  

© Cynthia E. Wood

 

www.cynthiawoodphoto.com | FoundFolios | facebook | Blurb | Instagram @cynthiaewood

  

Ten Things I Have Learned by Milton Glaser,

Graphic Designer b. 1929

Part of AIGA talk given in London

November 22, 2001

 

1

YOU CAN ONLY WORK FOR PEOPLE THAT YOU LIKE.

This is a curious rule and it took me a long time to learn because in fact at the beginning of my practice I felt the opposite. Professionalism required that you didn’t particularly like the people that you worked for or at least maintained an arms length relationship to them, which meant that I never had lunch with a client or saw them socially. Then some years ago I realised that the opposite was true. I discovered that all the work I had done that was meaningful and significant came out of an affectionate relationship with a client. And I am not talking about professionalism; I am talking about affection. I am talking about a client and you sharing some common ground. That in fact your view of life is someway congruent with the client, otherwise it is a bitter and hopeless struggle.

  

2

IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE NEVER HAVE A JOB.

One night I was sitting in my car outside Columbia University where my wife Shirley was studying Anthropology. While I was waiting I was listening to the radio and heard an interviewer ask ‘Now that you have reached 75 have you any advice for our audience about how to prepare for your old age?’ An irritated voice said ‘Why is everyone asking me about old age these days?’ I recognised the voice as John Cage. I am sure that many of you know who he was – the composer and philosopher who influenced people like Jasper Johns and Merce Cunningham as well as the music world in general. I knew him slightly and admired his contribution to our times. ‘You know, I do know how to prepare for old age’ he said. ‘Never have a job, because if you have a job someday someone will take it away from you and then you will be unprepared for your old age. For me, it has always been the same ever since the age of 12. I wake up in the morning and I try to figure out how am I going to put bread on the table today. It is the same at 75, I wake up every morning and I think, how am I going to put bread on the table today? I am exceedingly well prepared for my old age, he said.

 

3

SOME PEOPLE ARE TOXIC; AVOID THEM.

This is a subtext of number one. There was in the sixties a man named Fritz Perls who was a gestalt therapist. Gestalt therapy derives from art history, it proposes you must understand the ‘whole’ before you can understand the details. What you have to look at is the entire culture, the entire family and community and so on. Perls proposed that in all relationships people could be either toxic or nourishing towards one another. It is not necessarily true that the same person will be toxic or nourishing in every relationship, but the combination of any two people in a relationship produces toxic or nourishing consequences. And the important thing that I can tell you is that there is a test to determine whether someone is toxic or nourishing in your relationship with them. Here is the test: You have spent some time with this person, either you have a drink or go for dinner or you go to a ball game. It doesn’t matter very much but at the end of that time you observe whether you are more energised or less energised. Whether you are tired or whether you are exhilarated. If you are more tired then you have been poisoned. If you have more energy you have been nourished. The test is almost infallible and I suggest that you use it for the rest of your life.

 

4

PROFESSIONALISM IS NOT ENOUGH or THE GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GREAT.

Early in my career I wanted to be professional, that was my complete aspiration in my early life because professionals seemed to know everything - not to mention they got paid for it. Later I discovered after working for a while that professionalism itself was a limitation. After all, what professionalism means in most cases is diminishing risks. So if you want to get your car fixed you go to a mechanic who knows how to deal with transmission problems in the same way each time. I suppose if you needed brain surgery you wouldn’t want the doctor to fool around and invent a new way of connecting your nerve endings. Please do it in the way that has worked in the past.

Unfortunately in our field, in the so-called creative – I hate that word because it is misused so often. I also hate the fact that it is used as a noun. Can you imagine calling someone a creative? Anyhow, when you are doing something in a recurring way to diminish risk or doing it in the same way as you have done it before, it is clear why professionalism is not enough. After all, what is required in our field, more than anything else, is the continuous transgression. Professionalism does not allow for that because transgression has to encompass the possibility of failure and if you are professional your instinct is not to fail, it is to repeat success. So professionalism as a lifetime aspiration is a limited goal.

 

5

LESS IS NOT NECESSARILY MORE.

Being a child of modernism I have heard this mantra all my life. Less is more. One morning upon awakening I realised that it was total nonsense, it is an absurd proposition and also fairly meaningless. But it sounds great because it contains within it a paradox that is resistant to understanding. But it simply does not obtain when you think about the visual of the history of the world. If you look at a Persian rug, you cannot say that less is more because you realise that every part of that rug, every change of colour, every shift in form is absolutely essential for its aesthetic success. You cannot prove to me that a solid blue rug is in any way superior. That also goes for the work of Gaudi, Persian miniatures, art nouveau and everything else. However, I have an alternative to the proposition that I believe is more appropriate. ‘Just enough is more.’

  

6

STYLE IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

I think this idea first occurred to me when I was looking at a marvellous etching of a bull by Picasso. It was an illustration for a story by Balzac called The Hidden Masterpiece. I am sure that you all know it. It is a bull that is expressed in 12 different styles going from very naturalistic version of a bull to an absolutely reductive single line abstraction and everything else along the way. What is clear just from looking at this single print is that style is irrelevant. In every one of these cases, from extreme abstraction to acute naturalism they are extraordinary regardless of the style. It’s absurd to be loyal to a style. It does not deserve your loyalty. I must say that for old design professionals it is a problem because the field is driven by economic consideration more than anything else. Style change is usually linked to economic factors, as all of you know who have read Marx. Also fatigue occurs when people see too much of the same thing too often. So every ten years or so there is a stylistic shift and things are made to look different. Typefaces go in and out of style and the visual system shifts a little bit. If you are around for a long time as a designer, you have an essential problem of what to do. I mean, after all, you have developed a vocabulary, a form that is your own. It is one of the ways that you distinguish yourself from your peers, and establish your identity in the field. How you maintain your own belief system and preferences becomes a real balancing act. The question of whether you pursue change or whether you maintain your own distinct form becomes difficult. We have all seen the work of illustrious practitioners that suddenly look old-fashioned or, more precisely, belonging to another moment in time. And there are sad stories such as the one about Cassandre, arguably the greatest graphic designer of the twentieth century, who couldn’t make a living at the end of his life and committed suicide.

But the point is that anybody who is in this for the long haul has to decide how to respond to change in the zeitgeist. What is it that people now expect that they formerly didn’t want? And how to respond to that desire in a way that doesn’t change your sense of integrity and purpose.

 

7

HOW YOU LIVE CHANGES YOUR BRAIN.

The brain is the most responsive organ of the body. Actually it is the organ that is most susceptible to change and regeneration of all the organs in the body. I have a friend named Gerald Edelman who was a great scholar of brain studies and he says that the analogy of the brain to a computer is pathetic. The brain is actually more like an overgrown garden that is constantly growing and throwing off seeds, regenerating and so on. And he believes that the brain is susceptible, in a way that we are not fully conscious of, to almost every experience of our life and every encounter we have. I was fascinated by a story in a newspaper a few years ago about the search for perfect pitch. A group of scientists decided that they were going to find out why certain people have perfect pitch. You know certain people hear a note precisely and are able to replicate it at exactly the right pitch. Some people have relevant pitch; perfect pitch is rare even among musicians. The scientists discovered – I don’t know how - that among people with perfect pitch the brain was different. Certain lobes of the brain had undergone some change or deformation that was always present with those who had perfect pitch. This was interesting enough in itself. But then they discovered something even more fascinating. If you took a bunch of kids and taught them to play the violin at the age of 4 or 5 after a couple of years some of them developed perfect pitch, and in all of those cases their brain structure had changed. Well what could that mean for the rest of us? We tend to believe that the mind affects the body and the body affects the mind, although we do not generally believe that everything we do affects the brain. I am convinced that if someone was to yell at me from across the street my brain could be affected and my life might changed. That is why your mother always said, ‘Don’t hang out with those bad kids.’ Mama was right. Thought changes our life and our behaviour. I also believe that drawing works in the same way. I am a great advocate of drawing, not in order to become an illustrator, but because I believe drawing changes the brain in the same way as the search to create the right note changes the brain of a violinist. Drawing also makes you attentive. It makes you pay attention to what you are looking at, which is not so easy.

 

8

DOUBT IS BETTER THAN CERTAINTY.

Everyone always talks about confidence in believing what you do. I remember once going to a class in yoga where the teacher said that, spirituality speaking, if you believed that you had achieved enlightenment you have merely arrived at your limitation. I think that is also true in a practical sense. Deeply held beliefs of any kind prevent you from being open to experience, which is why I find all firmly held ideological positions questionable. It makes me nervous when someone believes too deeply or too much. I think that being sceptical and questioning all deeply held beliefs is essential. Of course we must know the difference between scepticism and cynicism because cynicism is as much a restriction of one’s openness to the world as passionate belief is. They are sort of twins. And then in a very real way, solving any problem is more important than being right. There is a significant sense of self-righteousness in both the art and design world. Perhaps it begins at school. Art school often begins with the Ayn Rand model of the single personality resisting the ideas of the surrounding culture. The theory of the avant garde is that as an individual you can transform the world, which is true up to a point. One of the signs of a damaged ego is absolute certainty.

Schools encourage the idea of not compromising and defending your work at all costs. Well, the issue at work is usually all about the nature of compromise. You just have to know what to compromise. Blind pursuit of your own ends which excludes the possibility that others may be right does not allow for the fact that in design we are always dealing with a triad – the client, the audience and you.

Ideally, making everyone win through acts of accommodation is desirable. But self-righteousness is often the enemy. Self-righteousness and narcissism generally come out of some sort of childhood trauma, which we do not have to go into. It is a consistently difficult thing in human affairs. Some years ago I read a most remarkable thing about love, that also applies to the nature of co-existing with others. It was a quotation from Iris Murdoch in her obituary. It read ‘ Love is the extremely difficult realisation that something other than oneself is real.’ Isn’t that fantastic! The best insight on the subject of love that one can imagine.

 

9

ON AGING.

Last year someone gave me a charming book by Roger Rosenblatt called ‘Ageing Gracefully’ I got it on my birthday. I did not appreciate the title at the time but it contains a series of rules for ageing gracefully. The first rule is the best. Rule number one is that ‘it doesn’t matter.’ ‘It doesn’t matter that what you think. Follow this rule and it will add decades to your life. It does not matter if you are late or early, if you are here or there, if you said it or didn’t say it, if you are clever or if you were stupid. If you were having a bad hair day or a no hair day or if your boss looks at you cockeyed or your boyfriend or girlfriend looks at you cockeyed, if you are cockeyed. If you don’t get that promotion or prize or house or if you do – it doesn’t matter.’ Wisdom at last. Then I heard a marvellous joke that seemed related to rule number 10. A butcher was opening his market one morning and as he did a rabbit popped his head through the door. The butcher was surprised when the rabbit inquired ‘Got any cabbage?’ The butcher said ‘This is a meat market – we sell meat, not vegetables.’ The rabbit hopped off. The next day the butcher is opening the shop and sure enough the rabbit pops his head round and says ‘You got any cabbage?’ The butcher now irritated says ‘Listen you little rodent I told you yesterday we sell meat, we do not sell vegetables and the next time you come here I am going to grab you by the throat and nail those floppy ears to the floor.’ The rabbit disappeared hastily and nothing happened for a week. Then one morning the rabbit popped his head around the corner and said ‘Got any nails?’ The butcher said ‘No.’ The rabbit said ‘Ok. Got any cabbage?’

 

10

TELL THE TRUTH.

The rabbit joke is relevant because it occurred to me that looking for a cabbage in a butcher’s shop might be like looking for ethics in the design field. It may not be the most obvious place to find either. It’s interesting to observe that in the new AIGA’s code of ethics there is a significant amount of useful information about appropriate behaviour towards clients and other designers, but not a word about a designer’s relationship to the public. We expect a butcher to sell us eatable meat and that he doesn’t misrepresent his wares. I remember reading that during the Stalin years in Russia that everything labelled veal was actually chicken. I can’t imagine what everything labelled chicken was. We can accept certain kinds of misrepresentation, such as fudging about the amount of fat in his hamburger but once a butcher knowingly sells us spoiled meat we go elsewhere. As a designer, do we have less responsibility to our public than a butcher? Everyone interested in licensing our field might note that the reason licensing has been invented is to protect the public not designers or clients. ‘Do no harm’ is an admonition to doctors concerning their relationship to their patients, not to their fellow practitioners or the drug companies. If we were licensed, telling the truth might become more central to what we do.

 

View Larger ImageCeltic-Tree-of-Life-Symbol-Meaning-and-Symbolism

The deeper you delve into the history of the world, of its people, of its cultures, of its traditions and its religions, the more you realize that we are all just one extended family. Nothing separates us apart from a lack of knowledge of our shared past and a hope in a unified future. The Tree of Life is symbolic of this.

 

The association of trees with Life, both in the worldly plane and that of the gods, is a universal concept that spans both space and time. Evidence that humans accorded trees with a special status and equated them with the spiritual world can be found in virtually every religion and every ancient culture.

 

The Celtic Tree of Life Symbol and Its Meaning

 

Crann Bethadh, the Celtic Tree of Life was more than a mythical idea spoken of around campfires and alluded to during certain ceremonies. No, for the Celts, a people who were intimately bonded to the Earth around them, the Tree was a tangible part of everyday existence.

 

In the thousand years (ending in approximately 500 A.D.) that they were the dominant pagan tribe in Ireland and other parts of Northern Europe, the Celts left created and behind enough evidence of their deep reverence of nature for us to understand their perception of the Universe.

  

Crann Bethadh was depicted as a tree with a stout trunk, its many branches swirling up to meet the sky above while its equally numerous roots expanded into the earth below. A very interesting variation – and one that has become ever so popular today – is the Tree of Life Knot.

 

This design projects the branches and roots in such a manner that they weave around the center and one of each connects with one of the other, creating a circle. Often, the Tree’s design is symmetrical in the horizontal plane – it is identical viewed from above or below.

 

It is not just the tree that is represented in that motif – it is all of life on the planet.

 

So, why did these designs come to be a part of Celtic culture? How is it that they made the tree a central part of all they knew?

 

The answer is simple: they recognized that trees were the center of all that occurred. Their ability to create life from the sunlight and water abundant in the air and the soil fed the herbivorous and omnivorous species, including Man. Celts realized that the absence of greenery would be the absence of life itself.

  

Celtic mythology expanded on this idea by illustrating the branches as reaching up into the sky, the realm of the gods, while the roots settled deep into the soil, anchoring the tree to the earthly realm. Together, the tree became the channel and conduit between the will of the divine world and the mortals who lived below.

 

The choice of the tree as this means of communication is heavy with symbolism.

 

The march of the seasons, which first gives the tree its leaves, then strips them, before repeating the cycle alludes to the belief in the cycle of Life to which the Celts ascribed.

 

The role of the tree as the giver and protector of life also played a significant part. Birds, insects and small animals sheltered in its branches and trunk, as did humans in inclement weather. Trees gave people wood to create homes and tools, and firewood to keep them warm, cook their food and sterilize water to make it potable.

 

In Celtic lore, trees were seen as ancestors of human beings, a concept which has actual parallels in the science of evolution. This belief accorded them not just a place in mythology but also in genealogy; it created a personal bond between the people who lived in the forest and the trees in their midst.

 

But to reduce the Celtic respect of the tree to pure symbolism would be an egregious error; the Celts put into practice that in which they believed.

 

When a tribe chose a spot for a new settlement, they would pick a location around a strong, sturdy tree. The area around that tree would be cleared but that one tree remained as the center of their settlement. Under its shade, the elders of the tribe would meet to make important decisions and give proclamations. The tree was given the name Crann Bethadh.

 

The tribe’s Tree of Life was seen as its soul. In times of conflict, warring factions would strive to damage or destroy the Tree of their enemies. Doing so was not just a physical act but a great demoralizing tactic meant to sap the will of their victims to fight. Conversely, for one to destroy the Tree of his own tribe was unforgivable sacrilege.

 

The Tree of Life in Christianity

 

Most people take a rather simplistic view of the Tree of Life/Knowledge as related in the first chapter of the Bible, Genesis. In it, Adam and Eve are cast out the Garden of Eden because they disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

However, a more nuanced reading suggests that consumption of the Fruit of Knowledge reveals to Adam and Eve their imperfection(s) and lays bare to them that they are not infallible. For the pair to have remained in the Garden would have meant eternal suffering over the conscious realization of their own shortcomings.

 

In that understanding, the exit from the Garden allowed them to live without constant self-loathing.

 

There are actually references to two Trees in Genesis, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. The second is where the forbidden fruit grew. However, after the casting out of Adam and Eve, it is stated that God leaves a guardian at the Tree of

Life.

 

Are they the same tree?

   

The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt

 

The ancient Egyptian empire were one of the world’s first organized civilizations from which we know of Man’s reverence for the Tree.

 

Their carvings and artwork speak of an acacia tree from which the god, Osiris and his wife and consort, the goddess, Isis, are borne. The Egyptians refer to the acacia as the tree within which ‘life and death are enclosed’.

   

The Tree of Life in Hinduism and Buddhism

 

The banyan tree is accorded a special status in Hindu lore and scripture. If the Celtic Tree of Life is seen to represent a cycle where the branches and the roots meet, the banyan tree achieves this feat in reality.

 

In the first stage of its life, a banyan tree grows like any other, upwards from the soil towards the sky. However, once it reaches adulthood, the branches droop back down towards the soil and begin to resemble the trunk.

As time progresses, these branches thicken and develop to the point that they are indistinguishable from the original trunk. They also undertake the same roles as the trunk, transporting and distributing nutrients to all parts of the tree. After some time, a single banyan looks like a grove of trees.

    

This unique behavior is taken by Hindus and Buddhists as a symbol of the great Cosmic Dance where all matter is the same, originating in the Universal Truth and returning to it. Ancient Hindu scriptures like the Vedas and Bhagvad Gita reference the banyan tree.

 

Buddha is said to have attained Enlightenment under a Bodhi tree in the Northern Indian state of Bihar. A living Bodhi tree in Sri Lanka is supposed to have been gown from a cutting from that actual tree.

Whereas the Buddha himself never referred to the Bodhi as the Tree of Life, it is held in high regard by both Buddhists and Hindus for the role that it played.

 

The Tree of Life in Islamic Mythology

 

The Creation myths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are almost identical as they all refer largely to the Torah. However, unlike Christian tradition that suggests that there might have been two divine trees in the Garden of Eden, the Islamic scripture refers to suggest one.

 

The Tree of Life in Islam is referred to in the Quran as the Tree of Immortality. The story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve is identical to that in the Torah and Bible; the Devil in the form of a serpent tricks the couple into eating the fruit of the tree, whereupon they gain the knowledge of good and evil.

 

While most Muslims see the stories in the Quran as a history of actual events, the Ahmadiyyah sect ascribes to the view that the story is not a literal but a metaphorical one. They believe that the eating of the fruit is a symbolic representation of disobedience of God’s orders.

 

The Tree of Life in Judaism and Kabbalah

 

In Judaism, the term the ‘Tree of Life’ is very different from what is understood in most other systems of belief. Eitz Chaim is a Hebrew term that translates literally as Tree of Life and is used to describe the Jewish holy book, the Torah itself.

 

In the mystical beliefs of the Kabbalah, the Tree of Life is a series of ten interconnected points on a vertically-elongated hexagon that represents parts of ‘The Infinite’ (God) that creates and maintains the physical and supernatural realms.

 

The Tree of Life in Mesoamerican Beliefs

 

The Tree of Life is more accurately described as the World Tree in the cultures of ancient Central and South American tribes.

 

These trees are depicted as having four branches extending in the four cardinal directions and roots that descend into water below. The latter is believed to be a representation of the underworld.

The trunk of the tree is often depicted as an upright caiman.

There are references to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth here, but rather an illustration of the three worlds in their discrete states.

    

The Tree of Life in Norse Mythology

 

Just like the Celts, the Norsemen, too, had great regard for trees. Several actual trees believed to have magical properties make an appearance in Viking history, including the sacred Tree at Uppsala and Thor’s Oak (Donar’s Oak).

 

However, there is also the mythical Yggdrasil. Yggdrasil is believed to be either an ash or a yew tree, with branches and roots that lead to the various worlds in which gods and men dwell. The fruit of tis tree keeps the Norse gods youthful.

 

It is quite possible that the Celtic image of the Tree of Life was inspired by the Norse Viking traditions.

In the Norse version of the cosmos, this great tree connects the nine planes of existence. Among them are the world of men; Asgard, home of the gods; Hel, the land of the Dead; the spring, Hvergelmir; and the well, Mímisbrunnr.

      

The fact that Yggdrasil stands in a spring alludes to the Norse belief in the origins of all life in water, a version of events with which science seems to concur today. While there is no indication of an actual cycle like that suggested by the Tree of Life knot, the interconnected nature of all the planes of existence through the branches, trunk and roots of the tree seem to propose a parallel idea.

 

In Norse mythology, the end of the entire universe will happen at a cataclysmic battle between the gods called Ragnarok. All of existence will be rent asunder, save for a man and a woman who hide in the hollow of a tree.

 

The name of the tree is never revealed, nor is the fate of Yggdrasil when Ragnarok comes.

 

However, the couple will emerge from within the tree into a world which will have been created anew to start the world all over again. In that sense, Yggdrasil functions as both the protector and sustainer of all life.

   

The Tree of Life in Popular Culture

 

The 2009 film, Avatar, depicts a giant planet where every single plant and tree is interconnected by a vast underground network of roots. The local population are able to connect physically to the Tree and, through this act, bond, heal and even affect life and death.

 

Tree of Life, a 2011 film explores the interconnected nature of not just the planet but the entire Universe and all of existence, past, present and future.

 

mythologian.net/tree-life-meaning-symbolism/

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

From the Wikipedia page on the Elgin Marbles:

 

[[[

The Elgin Marbles, known also as the Parthenon Marbles, are a collection of classical Greek marble sculptures, inscriptions and architectural members that originally were part of the Parthenon and other buildings on the Acropolis of Athens.[1][2] Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1799–1803, had obtained a controversial permission from the Ottoman authorities to remove pieces from the Acropolis.

 

There is controversy as to whether the removed pieces were purchased from the ruling government of the time or not. [3] From 1801 to 1812 Elgin's agents removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the Parthenon, as well as architectural members and sculpture from the Propylaea and Erechtheum.[4] The Marbles were transported by sea to Britain. In Britain, the acquisition of the collection was supported by some,[5] while many critics compared Elgin's actions to vandalism[6] or looting.[7][8][9][10][11]

 

Following a public debate in Parliament and subsequent exoneration of Elgin's actions, the marbles were purchased by the British Government in 1816 and placed on display in the British Museum, where they stand now on view in the purpose-built Duveen Gallery. The legality of the removal has been questioned and the debate continues as to whether the Marbles should remain in the British Museum or be returned to Athens.

 

Contents

 

• 1 Acquisition

• 2 Description

• 3 Legality of the removal from Athens

• 4 Contemporary reaction

• 5 Damage

•• 5.1 Use as a Christian church

•• 5.2 Morosini •

•• 5.3 War of Independence

•• 5.4 Elgin

•• 5.5 British Museum

•• 5.6 Athens

• 6 Ownership debate

•• 6.1 Rationale for returning to Athens

•• 6.2 Rationale for retaining in London

• 7 Public perception of the issue

•• 7.1 Neologisms

••• 7.1.1 Opinion polls

••• 7.1.2 Popular support for restitution

• 8 Other displaced Parthenon art

• 9 Further reading

• 10 See also

• 11 References

• 12 External links

•• 12.1 Pros and cons of restitution

 

Acquisition

 

In December of 1798, Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, was appointed as "Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty to the Sublime Porte of Selim III, Sultan of Turkey". Prior to his departure to take up the post he had approached at least three officials of the British government to inquire if they would be interested in employing artists to take casts and drawings of the sculptured portions of the Parthenon. According to Lord Elgin, "the answer of the Government... was entirely negative."[5]

 

Lord Elgin decided to carry out the work at his own expense and employed artists to take casts and drawings under the supervision of the Neapolitan court painter Giovani Lusieri.[5] However, while conducting surveys, he found that Parthenon statuary that had been documented in a 17th century survey was now missing, and so he investigated. According to a Turkish local, marble sculptures that fell were burned to obtain lime for building.[5] Although the original intention was only to document the sculptures, in 1801 Lord Elgin began to remove material from the Parthenon and its surrounding structures[12] under the supervision of Lusieri.

 

The excavation and removal was completed in 1812 at a personal cost of £74,240 (about $4 million in today's currency).[13] Elgin intended the marbles for display in the British Museum, selling them to the British government for less than the cost of bringing them to Britain and declining higher offers from other potential buyers, including Napoleon.[12]

 

Description

 

Main articles: Parthenon Frieze and Metopes of the Parthenon

 

The Elgin Marbles include some 17 figures from the statuary from the east and west pediments, 15 (of an original 92) of the metope panels depicting battles between the Lapiths and the Centaurs, as well as 247 feet (of an original 524 feet) of the Parthenon Frieze which decorated the horizontal course set above the interior architrave of the temple. As such, they represent more than half of what now remains of the surviving sculptural decoration of the Parthenon. Elgin's acquisitions also included objects from other buildings on the Athenian Acropolis: a Caryatid from Erechtheum; four slabs from the frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike; and a number of other architectural fragments of the Parthenon, Propylaia, Erechtheum, the Temple of Athena Nike and the Treasury of Atreus.

 

Legality of the removal from Athens

 

As the Acropolis was still an Ottoman military fort, Elgin required permission to enter the site, including the Parthenon and the surrounding buildings. He allegedly obtained from the Sultan a firman to allow his artists access to the site. The original document is now lost, but what is said to be a translated Italian copy made at the time still survives.[14] Vassilis Demetriades, Professor of Turkish Studies at the University of Crete, has argued that "any expert in Ottoman diplomatic language can easily ascertain that the original of the document which has survived was not a firman",[15] and its authenticity has been challenged.[16]

 

The document was recorded in an appendix of an 1816 parliamentary committee report. The committee had convened to examine a request by Elgin asking the British government to purchase the marbles. The report claimed that the document[17] in the appendix was an accurate translation in English of an Ottoman firman dated in July 1801. In Elgin's view it amounted to an Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles. The committee was told that the original document was given to Ottoman officials in Athens in 1801, but researchers have so far failed to locate any traces of it despite the fact that the Ottoman archives still hold an outstanding number of similar documents dating from the same period.[16] Moreover the parliamentary record shows that the Italian copy of the firman was not presented to the committee by Elgin himself but by one of his associates, the clergyman Rev. Philip Hunt. Hunt, who at the time resided in Bedford, was the last witness to appear before the committee and claimed that he had in his possession an Italian translation of the Ottoman original. He went on to explain that he had not brought the document, because, upon leaving Bedford, he was not aware that he was to testify as a witness. The English document in the parliamentary report was filed by Hunt, but the committee was not presented with the Italian translation purportedly in his possession. William St. Clair, a contemporary biographer of Lord Elgin, claimed to possess Hunt's Italian document and "vouches for the accuracy of the English translation". In addition, the committee report states on page 69 "(Signed with a signet.) Seged Abdullah Kaimacan". But the document presented to the committee was "an English translation of this purported translation into Italian of the original firman",[18] and had neither signet nor signature on it, a fact corroborated by St. Clair.[16] The lines pertaining to the removal of the marbles allowed Elgin and his team to fix scaffolding, make drawings, make mouldings in chalk or gypsum, measure the remains of the ruined buildings and excavate the foundations which may have become covered in the [ghiaja]; and "...that when they wish to take away [qualche] pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon, that no opposition be made thereto". The interpretation of these lines has been questioned even by non-restitutionalists,[19] particularly the word qualche, which in modern language is translated as some. According to non-restitutionalists, further evidence that the removal of the sculptures by Elgin was approved by the Ottoman authorities is shown by a second firman which was required for the shipping of the marbles from the Piraeus.[20]

 

Despite the controversial firman, many have questioned the legality of Elgin's actions. A study by Professor David Rudenstine of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law concluded that the premise that Elgin obtained legal title to the marbles, which he then transferred to the British government, "is certainly not established and may well be false".[21] Rudenstine's argumentation is partly based on a translation discrepancy he noticed between the surviving Italian document and the English text submitted by Hunt to the parliamentary committee. The text from the committee report reads "We therefore have written this Letter to you, and expedited it by Mr. Philip Hunt, an English Gentleman, Secretary of the aforesaid Ambassador" but according to the St. Clair Italian document the actual wording is "We therefore have written this letter to you and expedited it by N.N.". In Rudenstine's, view this substitution of "Mr. Philip Hunt" with the initials "N.N." can hardly be a simple mistake. He further argues that the document was presented after the committee's insistence that some form of Ottoman written authorization for the removal of the marbles was provided, a fact known to Hunt by the time he testified. Thus, according to Rudenstine, "Hunt put himself in a position in which he could simultaneously vouch for the authenticity of the document and explain why he alone had a copy of it fifteen years after he surrendered the original to Ottoman officials in Athens". On two earlier occasions, Elgin stated that the Ottomans gave him written permissions more than once, but that he had "retained none of them." Hunt testified on March 13, and one of the questions asked was "Did you ever see any of the written permissions which were granted to [Lord Elgin] for removing the Marbles from the Temple of Minerva?" to which Hunt answered "yes", adding that he possessed an Italian translation of the original firman. Nonetheless, he did not explain why he had retained the translation for 15 years, whereas Elgin, who had testified two weeks earlier, knew nothing about the existence of any such document.[16]

 

In contrast, Professor John Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law and also Professor of Art at Stanford University, putting aside the discrepancy presented by Rudenstine, argues that since the Ottomans had controlled Athens since 1460, their claims to the artifacts were legal and recognizable. The Ottoman sultan was grateful to the British for repelling Napoleonic expansion, and the Parthenon marbles had no sentimental value to him.[12] Further, that written permission exists in the form of the firman, which is the most formal kind of permission available from that government, and that Elgin had further permission to export the marbles, legalizes his (and therefore the British Museum's) claim to the Marbles.[20][citation needed] He does note, though, that the clause concerning the extent of Ottoman authorization to remove the marbles "is at best ambiguous", adding that the document "provides slender authority for the massive removals from the Parthenon... The reference to 'taking away any pieces of stone' seems incidental, intended to apply to objects found while excavating. That was certainly the interpretation privately placed on the firman by several of the Elgin party, including Lady Elgin. Publicly, however, a different attitude was taken, and the work of dismantling the sculptures on the Parthenon and packing them for shipment to England began in earnest. In the process, Elgin's party damaged the structure, leaving the Parthenon not only denuded of its sculptures but further ruined by the process of removal. It is certainly arguable that Elgin exceeded the authority granted in the firman in both respects".[19]

 

Contemporary reaction

 

When the marbles were shipped to England, they were "an instant success among many"[5] who admired the sculptures and supported their arrival, but both the sculptures and Elgin also received criticism from detractors. Lord Elgin began negotiations for the sale of the collection to the British Museum in 1811, but negotiations failed despite the support of British artists[5] after the government showed little interest. Many Britons opposed the statues because they were in bad condition and therefore did not display the "ideal beauty" found in other sculpture collections.[5] The following years marked an increased interest in classical Greece, and in June 1816, after parliamentary hearings, the House of Commons offered £35,000 in exchange for the sculptures. Even at the time the acquisition inspired much debate, although it was supported by "many persuasive calls" for the purchase.[5]

 

Lord Byron didn't care for the sculptures, calling them "misshapen monuments".[22] He strongly objected to their removal from Greece, denouncing Elgin as a vandal.[6] His view of the removal of the Marbles from Athens is also reflected in his poem "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage":[23]

  

Dull is the eye that will not weep to see

Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed

By British hands, which it had best behoved

To guard those relics ne'er to be restored.

Curst be the hour when from their isle they roved,

And once again thy hapless bosom gored,

And snatch'd thy shrinking gods to northern climes abhorred!

  

Byron was not the only one to protest against the removal at the time:

  

"The Honourable Lord has taken advantage of the most unjustifiable means and has committed the most flagrant pillages. It was, it seems, fatal that a representative of our country loot those objects that the Turks and other barbarians had considered sacred," said Sir John Newport.[13]

  

A parliamentary committee investigating the situation concluded that the monuments were best given "asylum" under a "free government" such as the British one.[5] In 1810, Elgin published a defence of his actions which silenced most of his detractors,[4] although the subject remained controversial.[citation needed] John Keats was one of those who saw them privately exhibited in London, hence his two sonnets about the marbles. Notable supporters of Elgin included the painter Benjamin Robert Haydon.[5]

 

A public debate in Parliament followed Elgin's publication, and Elgin's actions were again exonerated. Parliament purchased the marbles for the nation in 1816 by a vote of 82-30 for £35,000.[6] They were deposited in the British Museum, where they were displayed in the Elgin Saloon (constructed in 1832), until the Duveen Gallery was completed in 1939. Crowds packed the British Museum to view the sculptures, setting attendance records for the museum.[5] William Wordsworth viewed the marbles at the museum and commented favorably on their aesthetics.[24]

 

Damage

 

Some of the Marbles were damaged prior to Lord Elgin's obtaining them.

 

Use as a Christian church

 

After the conversion of the Greek people to Christianity the Parthenon was eventually converted from a temple of the Virgin (Parthenos) Athena to a holy temple (hieros naos) of the Virgin Mary.[25] The church of the Parthenon and Athens in general was considered the fourth most important pilgrimage in the Eastern Roman Empire, after Constantinople, Ephesos and Thessalonica.[26] The temple's use as a Christian church constitutes the single longest period of its history (ca. 500–1450 AD) and its importance as a church and Christian pilgrimage was greater than that it enjoyed in Ancient Greece.[27] During this period, frescoes and inscriptions were added to the marble walls and columns as it was a custom of the era's pilgrim to mark their visit.[25] Altogether some 220 funerary inscriptions survive for the years 600-1200, though many more were probably lost due to structural damage to the building and erosion of the surface.[25] Similar inscriptions were found in the Propylaia as well as on the church of St. George in the Keramykos, which in antiquity was a temple of Hephaistos and is today called the Theseion.[28] From 1205 to 1456 Athens was ruled by Western Crusaders and the church was converted into a Latin cathedral, although the stream of pilgrims continued.[29]

 

Morosini

 

Another example of prior damage is that sustained during wars. It is during these periods that the Parthenon and its artwork have sustained by far the most extensive damage. In particular, an explosion ignited by Venetian gun and cannon fire bombardment in 1687, whilst the Parthenon was used as a munitions store during the Ottoman rule, destroyed or damaged many pieces of Parthenon art including some of those later taken by Lord Elgin.[30] In particular this explosion sent the marble roof, most of the cella walls, 14 columns from the north and south peristyles and carved metopes and frieze blocks flying and crashing to the ground and thus destroyed much of the artwork.Further damage was made to the art of the Parthenon by the Venetian general Francesco Morosini when he subsequently looted the site of its larger sculptures. His tackle was faulty and snapped, dropping an over life-sized Poseidon and the horses of Athena's chariot from the west pediment to the rock of the Acropolis forty feet below.[31]

 

War of Independence

 

The Erechtheum was used as a munitions store by the Ottomans during the Greek War of Independence[32] (1821–1833) which ended the 350-year Ottoman rule of Athens.

 

The Acropolis was besieged twice during the Greek War of Independence, once by the Greek and once by the Ottoman forces. During the siege the Greeks were aware of the dilemma and chose to offer the besieged Ottoman forces, who were attempting to melt the lead in the columns to cast bullets, bullets of their own if they would leave the Parthenon undamaged.[33]

 

Elgin

 

Elgin consulted with sculptor Antonio Canova in 1803 about how best to restore the marbles. Canova was considered by some to be the world's best sculptural restorer of the time; Elgin wrote that Canova declined to work on the marbles for fear of damaging them further.[5]

 

To facilitate transport by Elgin, the column capital of the Parthenon and many metopes and slabs were either hacked off the main structure or sawn and sliced into smaller sections causing irreparable damage to the Parthenon itself to which these Marbles were connected.[34] One shipload of marbles on board the British brig Mentor was caught in a storm off Cape Matapan and sank near Kythera, but was salvaged at the Earl's personal expense;[35] it took two years to bring them to the surface.

 

British Museum

 

The artifacts held in London suffered from 19th century pollution—which persisted until the mid-20th century[37] — and they have been irrevocably damaged[38] by previous cleaning methods employed by British Museum staff.

 

As early as 1838, scientist Michael Faraday was asked to provide a solution to the problem of the deteriorating surface of the marbles. The outcome is described in the following excerpt from the letter he sent to Henry Milman, a commissioner for the National Gallery.[39][40]

  

The marbles generally were very dirty ... from a deposit of dust and soot. ... I found the body of the marble beneath the surface white. ... The application of water, applied by a sponge or soft cloth, removed the coarsest dirt. ... The use of fine, gritty powder, with the water and rubbing, though it more quickly removed the upper dirt, left much imbedded in the cellular surface of the marble. I then applied alkalis, both carbonated and caustic; these quickened the loosening of the surface dirt ... but they fell far short of restoring the marble surface to its proper hue and state of cleanliness. I finally used dilute nitric acid, and even this failed. ... The examination has made me despair of the possibility of presenting the marbles in the British Museum in that state of purity and whiteness which they originally possessed.

  

A further effort to clean the marbles ensued in 1858. Richard Westmacott, who was appointed superintendent of the "moving and cleaning the sculptures" in 1857, in a letter approved by the British Museum Standing Committee on 13 March 1858 concluded[41]

  

'I think it my duty to say that some of the works are much damaged by ignorant or careless moulding — with oil and lard — and by restorations in wax, and wax and resin. These mistakes have caused discolouration. I shall endeavour to remedy this without, however, having recourse to any composition that can injure the surface of the marble

  

Yet another effort to clean the marbles occurred in the years 1937–38. This time the incentive was provided by the construction of a new Gallery to house the collection. The Pentelic marble, from which the sculptures are made, naturally acquires a tan colour similar to honey when exposed to air; this colouring is often known as the marble's "patina"[42] but Lord Duveen, who financed the whole undertaking, acting under the misconception that the marbles were originally white[43] probably arranged for the team of masons working in the project to remove discoloration from some of the sculptures. The tools used were seven scrapers, one chisel and a piece of carborundum stone. They are now deposited in the British Museum's Department of Preservation.[43][44] The cleaning process scraped away some of the detailed tone of many carvings.[45] According to Harold Plenderleith, the surface removed in some places may have been as much as one-tenth of an inch (2.5 mm).[43]

 

The British Museum has responded to these allegations with the statement that "mistakes were made at that time."[38] On another occasion it was said that "the damage had been exaggerated for political reasons" and that "the Greeks were guilty of excessive cleaning of the marbles before they were brought to Britain."[44] During the international symposium on the cleaning of the marbles, organised by the British Museum, Dr Ian Jenkins, deputy keeper of Greek and Roman antiquities, remarked that "The British Museum is not infallible, it is not the Pope. Its history has been a series of good intentions marred by the occasional cock-up, and the 1930s cleaning was such a cock-up". Nonetheless, he pointed out that the prime cause for the damage inflicted upon the marbles was the 2000 year long weathering on the Acropolis[46]

 

Dorothy King, in a newspaper article, claimed that techniques similar to the ones used in 1937-1938 were applied by Greeks as well in more recent decades than the British, and maintained that Italians still find them acceptable.[12] Attention has been drawn by the British Museum to a purportedly similar cleaning of the temple of Hephaistos in the Athenian Agora carried out by the conservation team of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens[47] with steel chisels and brass wire in 1953.[35] According to the Greek ministry of Culture, the cleaning was carefully limited to surface salt crusts.[46] The 1953 American report concluded that the techniques applied were aimed at removing the black deposit formed by rain-water and "brought out the high technical quality of the carving" revealing at the same time "a few surviving particles of colour".[47]

 

According to documents released by the British Museum under the Freedom of Information Act, a series of minor accidents, thefts and acts of vandalism by visitors have inflicted further damage to the sculptures.[48] This includes an incident in 1961 when two schoolboys knocked off a part of a centaur's leg. In June 1981, a west pediment figure was slightly chipped by a falling glass skylight, and in 1966 four shallow lines were scratched on the back of one of the figures by vandals. During a similar mishap in 1970, letters were scratched on to the upper right thigh of another figure. Four years later, the dowel hole in a centaur's hoof was damaged by thieves trying to extract pieces of lead.[48]

 

Athens

 

While the levels of nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter pollution in Athens are average compared to other European cites,[49] air pollution and acid rain have caused damage to marble and stonework at the Parthenon.[50] The last remaining slabs from the western section of the Parthenon frieze were removed from the monument in 1993 for fear of further damage.[51] They have now been transported to the New Acropolis Museum.[50]

 

Until cleaning of the remaining marbles was completed in 2005,[52] black crusts and coatings were present on the marble surface.[53] The laser technique applied on the 14 slabs that Elgin did not remove revealed a surprising array of original details such as the original chisel marks and the veins on the horses' bellies. Similar features in the British Museum collection have been scraped and scrubbed with chisels to make the marbles look white.[54] Between January 20 and the end of March 2008, 4200 items (sculptures, inscriptions small terracotta objects), including some 80 artifacts dismantled from the monuments in recent years, were removed from the old museum on the Acropolis to the new Parthenon Museum.[55][56] Natural disasters have also affected the Parthenon. In 1981, an earthquake caused damage to the east facade.[57]

 

Since 1975, Greece has been restoring the Acropolis. This restoration has included replacing the thousands of rusting iron clamps and supports that had previously been used, with non-corrosive titanium rods;[58] removing surviving artwork from the building into storage and subsequently into a new museum built specifically for the display of the Parthenon art; and replacing the artwork with high-quality replicas. This process has come under fire from some groups as some buildings have been completely dismantled, including the dismantling of the Temple of Athena Nike and for the unsightly nature of the site due to the necessary cranes and scaffolding.[58] But the hope is to restore the site to some of its former glory, which may take another 20 years and 70 million euros, though the prospect of the Acropolis being "able to withstand the most extreme weather conditions — earthquakes" is "little consolation to the tourists visiting the Acropolis" according to The Guardian.[58] Directors of the British Museum have not ruled out temporarily loaning the marbles to the new museum, but state that it would be under the condition of Greece acknowledging British ownership.[13]

 

Ownership debate

 

Rationale for returning to Athens

 

Defenders of the request for the Marble's return claim that the marbles should be returned to Athens on moral and artistic grounds. The arguments include:

 

• The main stated aim of the Greek campaign is to reunite the Parthenon sculptures around the world in order to restore "organic elements" which "at present remain without cohesion, homogeneity and historicity of the monument to which they belong" and allow visitors to better appreciate them as a whole;[59][60]

• Presenting all the extant Parthenon Marbles in their original historical and cultural environment would permit their "fuller understanding and interpretation";[60]

• Precedents have been set with the return of fragments of the monument by Sweden,[61] the University of Heidelberg, Germany,[62] the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.[62] and the Vatican[63];

• That the marbles may have been obtained illegally and hence should be returned to their rightful owner;[64]

• Returning the Elgin Marbles would not set a precedent for other restitution claims because of the distinctively "universal value" of the Parthenon.[65]

• Safekeeping of the marbles would be ensured at the New Acropolis Museum, situated to the south of the Acropolis hill. It was built to hold the Parthenon sculpture in natural sunlight that characterises the Athenian climate, arranged in the same way as they would have been on the Parthenon. The museum's facilities have been equipped with state-of-the-art technology for the protection and preservation of exhibits [66]

 

Rationale for retaining in London

 

A range of different arguments have been presented by scholars[13], political-leaders and British Museum spokespersons over the years in defence of retention of the Elgin Marbles within the British Museum. The main points include:

 

• the maintenance of a single worldwide-oriented cultural collection, all viewable in one location, thereby serving as a world heritage centre. The British Museum is a creative and living achievement of the Enlightenment, while the Parthenon, on the other hand, is a ruin that can never now be restored.[48]

• the assertion that fulfilling all restitution claims would empty most of the world's great museums – this has also caused concerns among other European and American museums, with one potential target being the famous bust of Nefertiti in Berlin's Altes Museum;[13] in addition, portions of Parthenon marbles are kept by many other European museums, so the Greeks would then establish a precedent to claim these other artworks;[12]

• scholars agree that the marbles were saved from what would have been severe damage from pollution and other factors, which could have perhaps destroyed the marbles,[12] if they had been located in Athens the past few hundred years;[13]

• experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece's ruling government and a legal principle of limitation would apply, i.e. the ability to pursue claims expires after a period of time prescribed by law;[13]

• More than half the original marbles are lost and therefore the return of the Elgin Marbles could never complete the collection in Greece. In addition, many of the marbles are too fragile to travel from London to Athens;[13]

• display in the British museum puts the sculptures in a European artistic context, alongside the work of art which both influenced and was influenced by Greek sculpture. This allows parallels to be drawn with the art of other cultures;[67]

• the notion that the Parthenon sculptures are an item of global rather than solely Greek significance strengthens the argument that they should remain in a museum which is both free to visit, and located in Europe's most visited and largest city. The government of Greece intends to charge visitors of the New Acropolis Museum, where they can view the marbles (as of 2010 the price is five Euros),

• a legal position that the museum is banned by charter from returning any part of its collection.[68]

 

The latter was tested in the British High Court in May 2005 in relation to Nazi-looted Old Master artworks held at the museum; it was ruled that these could not be returned.[69] The judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, ruled that the British Museum Act – which protects the collections for posterity – cannot be overridden by a "moral obligation" to return works known to have been plundered. It has been argued, however, that connections between the legal ruling and the Elgin Marbles were more tenuous than implied by the Attorney General.[70] However, despite the British Museum's charter preventing the repatriation of items within its collection, a 2005 bill concerning the repatriation of ancestral remains allowed for the return of Aboriginal human remains to Tasmania after a 20-year battle with Australia.[71]

 

Another argument for maintaining their location within the UK has been made by J. H. Merryman, Sweitzer Professor of Law at Stanford University and co-operating professor in the Stanford Art Department. He argued that if the Parthenon were actually being restored, there would be a moral argument for returning the Marbles to the temple whence they came, and thus restoring its integrity. The Guardian has written that many repatrionists imply that the marbles would be displayed in their original position on the Parthenon.[12] However, the Greek plan is to transfer them from a museum in London to one in Athens. The sculptures which Elgin spared have been taken down and put in the New Acropolis Museum. "Is it more spiritually satisfying to see the Marbles in an Athenian museum gallery than one in London?"[50] Other voices, this time in the House of Lords, have raised more acute concerns about the fate of the Elgin Marbles if they were to be returned to Greece. In an exchange on 19 May 1997, Lord Wyatt, stated:

  

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be dangerous to return the marbles to Athens because they were under attack by Turkish and Greek fire in the Parthenon when they were rescued and the volatile Greeks might easily start hurling bombs around again?[72]

  

Public perception of the issue

 

Neologisms

 

The practice of plundering artifacts from their original setting is sometimes referred to as 'elginism',[73][74][75][76] while the claim, sometimes used by looters and collectors, that they are trying to rescue the artifacts they recover has become known as the "Elgin Excuse".[77]

 

Opinion polls

 

Despite the British Museum's position on its ownership of the marbles, in 1998, a poll carried out by Ipsos MORI asking "If there were a referendum on whether or not the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece, how would you vote?" returned these values from the general adult population:[78]

 

• 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece

• 15% in favour of keeping them at the British Museum

• 18% would not vote

• 27% had no opinion

 

A more recent opinion poll in 2002 (again carried out by MORI) showed similar results, with 40% in favour of returning the marbles to Greece, 16% in favour of keeping them within Britain and the remainder either having no opinion or would not vote.[79] When asked how they would vote if a number of conditions were met (including, but not limited to, a long-term loan where by the British maintained ownership and joint control over maintenance) the number responding in favour of return increased to 56% and those in favour of keeping them dropped to 7%.

 

Both MORI poll results have been characterised by proponents of the return of the Marbles to Greece as representing a groundswell of public opinion supporting return, since the proportion explicitly supporting return to Greece significantly exceeds the number who are explicitly in favour of keeping the Marbles at the British Museum.[78][80]

 

Popular support for restitution

 

An internet campaign site [81], in part sponsored by Metaxa aims to consolidate support for the return of the Elgin Marbles to the New Acropolis Museum in Athens.

 

Other displaced Parthenon art

 

The remainder of the surviving sculptures that are not in museums or storerooms in Athens are held in museums in various locations across Europe. The British Museum also holds additional fragments from the Parthenon sculptures acquired from various collections that have no connection with Lord Elgin.

 

The collection held in the British Museum includes the following material from the Acropolis:

 

• Parthenon: 247 ft (75 m) of the original 524 ft (160 m) of frieze

•• 15 of the 92 metopes

•• 17 pedimental figures; various pieces of architecture

• Erechtheion: a Caryatid, a column and other architectural members

• Propylaia: Architectural members

• Temple of Athena Nike: 4 slabs of the frieze and architectural members

 

Further reading

 

• Mary Beard, The Parthenon (Profile Books, 2004) ISBN 978-1-86197-301-6

• Marc Fehlmann, "Casts and Connoisseurs. The Early Reception of the Elgin Marbles" (Apollo, June 2007, pp. 44–51)[82]

• Jeanette Greenfield 'The Return of Cultural Treasures'(Cambridge University Press 2007)

• Christopher Hitchens, Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles (with essays by Robert Browning and Graham Binns) (Verso, March 1998)

• Ian Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze (British Museum Press, 2002)

• Dorothy King, The Elgin Marbles (Hutchinson, January 2006)

• François Queyrel, Le Parthénon, Un monument dans l'Histoire (Bartillat, 2008) ISBN 978-2-84100-435-5.

• William St Clair, Lord Elgin and the Marbles (Oxford University Press, 1998)

 

See also

 

• Acropolis Museum

• Greece – United Kingdom relations

 

References

 

• ^ "What are the 'Elgin Marbles'?". britishmuseum.org. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/w/what_are_the_elgin_marbles.aspx. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

• ^ "Elgin Marbles — Greek sculpture". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-184554/Elgin-Marbles. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 

• ^ www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles. http://www.athensguide.com/elginmarbles. 

• ^ a b Encycolopedia Britannica, Elgin Marbles, 2008, O.Ed.

• ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Casey, Christopher (October 30, 2008). ""Grecian Grandeurs and the Rude Wasting of Old Time": Britain, the Elgin Marbles, and Post-Revolutionary Hellenism". Foundations. Volume III, Number 1. http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8. Retrieved 2009-06-25. 

• ^ a b c Encyclopedia Britannica, The Acropolis, p.6/20, 2008, O.Ed.

• ^ Linda Theodorou; Facaros, Dana (2003). Greece (Cadogan Country Guides). Cadogan Guides. p. 55. ISBN 1-86011-898-4. 

• ^ Dyson, Stephen L. (2004). Eugenie Sellers Strong: portrait of an archaeologist. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-3219-1. 

• ^ Mark Ellingham, Tim Salmon, Marc Dubin, Natania Jansz, John Fisher, Greece: The Rough Guide,Rough Guides, 1992,ISBN 1-85828-020-6, p.39

• ^ Chester Charlton McCown, The Ladder of Progress in Palestine: A Story of Archaeologic

After taking this picture I looked closer at the name, "Gibbons Hall" and realized that was my mothers madden name. The Gibbons family I know lived in Georgia and Alabama. I wonder if this hall was named after someone in my family tree. Strange how life is, one moment you think you may be alone the next you see a family name on a very old building.

 

The cornerstone for Gibbons Hall was dedicated on October 12, 1911 and named for the University's first chancellor, Cardinal James Gibbons (1834-1921). As Apostolic Vicar of North Carolina he attended the First Vatican Council; there he voted in favor of papal infallibility and was the second youngest bishop in attendance. He was Bishop of Richmond (1872-1877) and Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921). As Archbishop of Baltimore, he became the second American Cardinal in 1886. Cardinal Gibbons was often seen as the spokesman of the Catholic Church in America. He was an advocate of the labor movement and the right of the working class to protect themselves. Every president from Andrew Johnson to Warren Harding was an acquaintance and Cardinal Gibbons was an adviser to several of them, especially Theodore Roosevelt. Cardinal Gibbons was one of the strongest advocates for the creation of The Catholic University of America. Though an older, stately building, Gibbons Hall was last renovated in 2009 and the main entry lounge is currently being restored making this a charming location to live on campus. Gibbons is home to approximately 139 sophomore, junior, and senior students.

  

The summer sunlight cast a dusty glow through the window of Illyana’s dorm. Her friend, Yuri, plopped herself on the plush bed, hanging her high-heeled feet over the edge. Vedma, Illyana’s cat brushed against her.

 

”What are you waiting for? Are you going to start it?”

Illyana had planned on showing Yuri lots of things about her life in America, but most importantly she wanted to show her the magic she’d learned since being in Belasco’s realm.

 

”I’m getting there! I just gotta find the…” Illyana sifted through a pile of old flakey notes and scripts. She pulled out one with gilded margins and some foreign text. ”Aha! There’s the old bastard.” Illyana’s eyes went wide and she covered her mouth looking at Yuri. Her friend shushed her, laughing.

 

”Careful, Piotr will hear you!” She teased, at Illyana’s detest. She groaned as she organized the ritual she was planning. “I love my brother, but it’s insanity living in such close quarters with him. He’s always looking around the corner, watching me, making sure I don’t do anything even mildly dangerous. I can’t even perform my magic around him. He doesn’t like it.”

 

Illyana finalized the arrangement of the ritual she came up with. According to her reading, a spell like this should work. It’s just that it wasn’t written down anywhere she could find. She would summon the sword she had in Limbo, as Belasco was controlling her. She was free of his will, thankfully, but the sword was something else. At the very least, she wanted to see it again.

 

She stood to her feet and held the gilded script before her. Her cats came up to watch, as if they knew what was going on. She began chanting what would sound like gibberish to Yuri, but to her they were precise, articulate words that went beyond the specificity of any encyclopedia in Xavier’s school.

Illyana finished reading the script, and a circle of runes formed in the bronze washtand before her. Out from the circle formed a glowing blue sword, its shape perfect and infallible.

 

Continued in 2/4:

www.flickr.com/photos/132853958@N04/50939886531/in/datepo...