View allAll Photos Tagged hypocrite
Name: Douzhanopterus.
Meaning of name: Victorious Fighting Buddha wing.
Species: D. zhengi.
Classification: Pterosauria, Monofenestrata.
Time period: Oxfordian stage of the Late Jurassic.
Distribution: Liaoning, China.
Wingspan: 74 centimetres.
Lifestyle: Piscivore.
Douzhanopterus was an exact mix of early Rhamphorhynchidae & later Pterodactyloid characteristics, the fossil record is bursting with link species. The average length of Elephants’ tusks has halved in my lifetime due to natural selection. The peppered moth turned from light grey to black during the Industrial Revolution but since the Clean Air Act has slowly returned to light grey due to natural selection. In just three weeks I produced a new subspecies of aphid that was totally immune to a particular pesticide I was using thanks to natural selection so just open your eyes & think. Trust in science because it created the airliners that you fly in; the turbine blades operate at a higher temperature than was used to cast the blades in the first place but science found a solution. The same DNA science that says that there is only 1.2 difference between human & chimp DNA is used by law enforcement throughout the developed world, if you believe that the science is wrong then you must also believe that law enforcement has committed a crime comparable to the Holocaust! You can’t cherry-pick science without looking like a hypocritical idiot so just trust there are people out there that are a lot smarter than both of us and they are called scientists.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhLd18Xg6x0
Thieves, thieves and liars, murderers
hypocrites and bastards [in laughter]
hey thanks for nothing!
morals in the dust
two-faced bastards and syncophants
no trust
thieves! liars!
inside, outside, which side, you don't know
my side, your side, their side, we don't know
which side are they? which side are they?
which side of their mouth do you suppose that it came?
which side are they? which side are they?
which side of the grass is greener?
cold-carbon.com
File #8
Attachment: Asylum Therapy Room CCTV Cam 1:24-1:45.mp4
”Mr J, I’m not sure I’m ok with this. I mean….if we do all these bad things to bad people, doesn’t that make us bad people as well?”
”Harley my dear. Everyone’s a hypocrite in some way. Dear old Batsy thinks he’s a good man because rather than victimise the average joe he goes after the aggressors when in reality he’s upsetting the balance. The strong will prey on the weak, all we can hope is to remain the strong.”
”But if we’re hurting these bad people aren’t we exactly the same as them?”
”Of course we are Harley. But there’s one thing you to remember. Everyone we go after has done something bad once in their lives.”
”How can you be so certain?”
”Human nature. Deep down we’re all monsters at some point in our lives. I’m just willing to accept it and move on. The question really is, will you stand by me?”
”…..Yes…….”
”I knew there was a reason I liked you.”
With that the Joker grabs hold of Harley and kisses her on the lips. It’s the first time he displayed visible affection towards the former doctor and it appeared to do all that he’d hoped. She gave in. She allowed her feelings towards the clown prince of crime to control her and rather than try to change him, she accepted him for what he was. Not for what she wanted him to be.
In the end, her attempts to change the Joker merely resulted in him converting her.
Harleen Quinzel died that night. In her place rose the Joker’s accomplice known as Harley Quinn.
Over the many years after she broke him out of Arkham, Harley would come to realize the truth of the man she was so infatuated with. He wasn’t the angel she thought he was. In fact, to call him the devil incarnate would do him a disservice. He’d often beat her for stepping out of line and even throw her aside if it helped himself. Yet still, she refused to leave him. That’s the danger of love. You’ll do almost anything to make someone happy, even if it’s against your own interests.
It’s an interesting thing to observe. Joker made no secret of his hatred for his father and how he used to beat him and his mother, and yet he seems to have become the very same thing. In many ways the attempts of the son to escape his father’s legacy merely resulted in him becoming the father. I wonder if I’ll ever be lucky enough to become like my father….
End of Case Files.
Yesterday morning I had my first experience shooting an iconic location in Arches National Park. The popular North Window framing Turret Arch shot. The shooting surface is on a small ledge and can possibly fit 5-6 photographers. On a busy weekend morning this is prime real estate and I've heard some stories about how much of a nightmare it can become. My curiosity peaked and I wanted to see for myself what it's like shooting elbow to elbow while comp stomping the masses.
I arrived first and an hour later the photographer train came chugging through. The disappoint in their red faces and winded voices when they come upon me was sweet victory! Everyone was cautiously polite and over prepped for their moment in replicated post card glory. Come on sun, hurry up and warm this damn rock so I can beat the path back to the parking lot! Finally the moment arrived; the North Window started to glow and Turret Arch was playing in it's shadow. I fired off a few shots and bid my fellow lemmings a good morning.
It's hard not to be a little sarcastic when describing this experience. I find more joy in the journey and for me that is solitude. Witnessing this moment was beautiful and yet the circumstances compromised the occasion. Alas, there I was, the hypocrite corralled on the ledge taking part in my own gripe.
I've been thinking about how quick we are to judge others. I know I can be guilty of this and it bothers me. Often times there is so much more to a story or a person's life than I'll ever know. And I only need know if I really care about the people or the situation and yet often times we want to know everything just for the sake of knowing it. We'll ask others about how so and so is doing or what happened with so and so…you know what I mean. But if we don't truly care in our hearts for these people then why should we even bother to ask others about them. If we have no intention of caring, giving, praying for or helping then what right do we have to pry around into other people's lives.
I am often reminded of the Bible passage in Matthew 7 where Jesus says; "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Pretty sobering words I'd say, something I need to be reminded of often. Jesus was reminding me of my own shortcomings - the planks in my eyes - and if there are planks in my eyes then how can I hope to see clearly into the lives of others. We are all equal…yet not the same…on level ground…none is better than another. Oh by human standards we measure each other against those we deem as bright lights in our society but in reality we all fall short.
I think it is only when we truly see how wretched pitiful and blind we are that we can then accept that amazing grace offered by Jesus. And in doing that I then have a grateful heart that is able to extend that grace to others…to want to cheer them on, to think the best of them instead of the worst. To offer them a hand to pull them up rather than a foot to kick them back down.
More and more I am so reminded of what my Saviour did for me. He knew He would be betrayed, denied and rejected by his closest friends in His greatest hour of need and yet He still loved them, His heart remained open to them and so He requires the same from me.
"Never forget Jesus WASHED the feet of those who would fail Him in His darkest hour." Debbie Friley (It's a Keeper)
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good…" Romans 12:21
WTF? Seriously, i was complaining that facebook was acting like the moral police. They wouldn't let me be in a complicated threeway relationship with toast and bacon. Bah!
THEN i started seeing this ad:
"Curious Girls. The new social network for lesbian girls. Check it out."
SERIOUSLY! WTF?! i'm taking serious notice because it hasn't been removed yet. is it targeted ads? cuz i don't talk smack on facebook. aside from coworkers reading about my life, there are children on facebook.
---
addendum:
i am not judging anyone's sexuality. be who you are. swing any which way you like. i am judging facebook and their decision to be hypocritical and questioning their morals. i think it's wrong because of the way they worded the ad. there are many kids who spend time on facebook and will think it's cute. IF and i say IF they worded it to the effect of "do you think you're gay and need more info?" no questions. i'd be fine with it.
i am judging this on this ad itself and in the context in which it is done.
----
addendum #2
can someone tell me where you got the link to this pic? thanks.
----
addendum #3
so it isn't a link. this is the #1 "relevant" flickr search result for "lesbian"?
wells cathedral, the choir, wells, england, 12th-15th c.
this is a flawed autostitch of three handheld photos, but I still feel I should share it with you for the mood.
I was standing at the crossing, right under the tower, looking into the choir. the service had been over for less than two minutes, but the choir would sing for another hour or so and this area was out of bounds for that entire period. I just snug in there during their break and for a moment the place felt very vibrant and alive with the warm light of the lamps, the sheet music, and the last of the incense under the vaults.
yes, when you are from protestant scandinavia, even the church of england feels alive...
I honestly lost track of time, but I think we spent about four hours in and around the church and it still felt a little rushed. for one house. so much for progress in architecture.
to the atheist visitor, these are the flowers of evil, of course, but what flowers... and yes, I know what you are thinking, hypocrite lecteur - what evil.
more words, yada, yada, yada.
Is nature a god?
Apparently, atheists think so.
Atheists believe that nature is the first cause (creator) of everything, including itself.
Atheists believe that nature created itself from nothing ....
‘A Universe from Nothing’ Lawrence Krauss.
“The universe can and will create itself from nothing” Stephen Hawking.
They believe that (Mother) nature has all the creative powers and abilities that monotheistic religions attribute to a creator God.
Just how credible is the atheist belief in nature as a godlike entity?
AND - Do atheists have any logical, scientific or rational argument to support the belief that nature has such incredible, creative powers?
The answer to that is NO!
Atheist's religious-like devotion to naturalism is a completely blind faith. It is a faith that cannot be supported by any rational argument because it contradicts logic and scientific laws, as explained below:
Something or nothing?
There are only two alternatives, something or nothing. Existence or non-existence?
Existence is a fact!
We know something exists (the physical universe),
but why?
Two questions arise …why is there something rather than nothing?
And where did that something come from?
Obviously, something cannot arise from nothing, no sane person would entertain such an impossible concept. However, an incredible fantasy that the universe created itself from nothing, is being proposed by some, high profile atheists, and presented to the public as though it is science. A sort of ‘theory of everything’ that purports to eliminate a creator. For example, the campaigning, militant atheist Lawrence Krauss has written a book which claims the universe can come from nothing, ‘A Universe from Nothing’.
Anyone who is silly enough to spend money on a book which makes such a wild, impossible claim, soon realises that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is not nothing at all, but an exercise in ‘smoke and mirrors’. His ‘nothing’ involves the pre-existence of certain, natural laws and quantum effects. That is certainly not 'nothing'. And his book, with the deceptive title, simply kicks the problem of - why there is something rather than nothing? into the long grass.
A well, publicised example of the universe allegedly being able to arise from nothing was one presented by Professor Stephen Hawking, and summed up in a single sentence:
“Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”
It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from nothing.
In a state of infinite and eternal nothingness, nothing exists and nothing happens - EVER.
Nothing means absolutely ‘nothing’. Nothing tangible and no physical laws, no information, not even abstract things, like mathematics. If nothing exists there can be no numbers or anything based on numbers.
Furthermore, you don’t need to be a genius, or a scientist, to understand that something CANNOT create itself.
Put simply, it is self-evident that - to create itself, a thing would have to pre-exist its own creation to carry out the act of creating itself. In which case, it already exists.
And, if anything at all exists, i.e. in this example ‘gravity’, it cannot be called 'nothing'.
Furthermore, ‘gravity’ cannot be a creative agent, it is merely an inherent property of matter – it is obvious that a property of something cannot create that which it is a property of. And also, How can something pre-exist that which it is a property of?
Thus, we are obliged to conclude that nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by highly regarded scientists.
“Fallacies remain fallacies, even when they become fashionable.” GK Chesterton.
Such nonsensical propositions are vain attempts to undermine the well, established, law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.
Incredibly, Hawking's so-called replacement for God completely ignores this law of cause and effect, which applies to ALL temporal (natural) entities, without exception.
Therefore, Stephen Hawking's natural, 'theory of everything' which he summed up in a single sentence can, similarly, be debunked in a single sentence:
Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.
Religion?
Once we admit the obvious fact that the universe cannot arise of its own accord from nothing (nothing will remain nothing forever), the only alternative is that ‘something’ has always existed – an infinite ‘something’. For anything to happen, such as the origin of the universe, the infinite something, cannot just exist in a state of eternal, passive inactivity, it must be capable of positive activity.
If we examine the characteristics, powers, qualities and attributes which exist now, we must conclude that the ‘something’, that has always existed, must have amazing (godlike) powers to be able to produce all the wonderful qualities we see in the universe, including: information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc.
This means we need to believe in some sort of ‘godlike entity’. The only remaining question is - which god?
Is the godlike entity a creator, or simply nature or natural forces as atheists claim? Seeking an answer to that question is the essential role of religion, which essentially utilises logic and reason, rather than just relying on blind faith.
Why God MUST exist ...
There are only two states of being (existence) – temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is ‘temporal’. That which has no beginning is ‘infinite’.
Everything that exists must be one or the other.
The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it essentially relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.
The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.
They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.
The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every, natural effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.
“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes
It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.
A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities.
Consider this simple chain of causes and effects:
A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
D causes E
‘A, B, C & D’ are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them. Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So, we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it.
We also must say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent, they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.
Why?
Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence. E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.
The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore, neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise, with B, which is wholly responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A, whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus, we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
Conclusion …
A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.
Entropy
The initial (first) cause of the temporal realm had to be something non-temporal (uncaused), i.e. something infinite.
The word ‘temporal’ is derived from tempus, Latin for time. - All temporal things are subject to time - and, as well as having a beginning in time, natural things can also expect to naturally degenerate, with the passage of time, towards a decline in function, order and existence. The material universe is slowly in decline and dying.
The natural realm is not just temporal, but also temporary (finite). Science acknowledges this with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy).
As all natural things are temporal, we know that the initial (first), infinite cause of everything temporal cannot be a natural agent or entity.
The infinite, first cause of everything natural can also be regarded as ‘supernatural’, in the sense that it is not subject to natural laws that are intrinsic only to natural things, which it caused.
This fact is verified by science, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that there is no ‘natural’ means by which matter/energy can be created.
However, as the first cause existed before the natural realm (which is subject to natural laws, without exception), the issue of the first cause being exempt from natural laws (supernatural) is not something extraordinary or magical. It is the original and normal default state of the infinite.
If the material universe was infinite, entropy wouldn’t exist. Entropy is a characteristic only of natural entities.
The infinite cannot be subject to entropy, it does not deteriorate, it remains the same forever.
Entropy can apply only to temporal, natural entities.
Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and, being subject to entropy, will have an end.
That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.
As all natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not possibly be a natural entity.
So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.
This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).
The Bible explains that the universe was created perfect, without the effects of entropy such as decay, corruption and degeneration. It was the sin of humankind that corrupted the physical creation, resulting in physical death and universal entropy ...
Scripture: Romans 8:18–25
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."
Can there be multiple infinite, first causes? It is evident that there can be only one ‘infinite’ entity. If, for example, there are two infinite entities, neither could have its own, unique properties.
Why?
Because, unless they possessed identical properties, neither would be infinite. However, if they both possessed the very same properties, there would be no distinction between them, they would be identical and thus a single entity.
To put it another way …
God, as an infinite being, can only be a single entity, if He was not, and there was another infinite being, the properties which were pertinent to the other infinite being would be a limitation on His infinite character, and vice versa. So, neither entity would be infinite.
Creation - an act of will?
For an infinite cause to produce a temporal effect, such as the universe, an active character and an act of will must be involved. If the first cause was just a blind, mechanistic, natural thing, the universe would just be a continuation of the infinite nature of the first cause, not temporal (subject to time). For example, if the nature of water in infinite time was to be frozen, it would continue its frozen nature infinitely. There must be an active agent involved.
Time applies to the temporal, not the infinite. The infinite is omnipresent, it always was, it always is, and it always will be. It is the “Alpha and the Omega” as the Bible explains.
Jesus claimed to be omnipresent, when referred to Himself as “I am”. He was revealing that His spirit was the infinite, Divine spirit (the infinite, first cause of everything temporal).
Therefore, what we know about the characteristics of this supernatural entity, are as follows:
The single, supernatural entity:
1. Has always existed, has no cause, and is not subject to time. (is infinite, eternally self-existent, autonomous and non-contingent).
2. Is the first, original and deliberate cause of everything temporal (including the universe and every natural entity and effect).
3. Cannot be, in any way, inferior to any temporal or natural thing that exists.
In simple terms, this means that the single, infinite, supernatural, first cause of everything that exists in the temporal realm, has the capability of creating everything that exists, and cannot be inferior in any powers and attributes to anything that exists. This is the entity we recognise as the creator God.
The Bible tells us that we were made in the image of this God. This is logical because it is obvious, we cannot be superior to this God (an effect cannot be greater than its cause).
So, all our qualities and attributes must be possessed by the God in whose image we were made.
All our attributes come from the creator, or supernatural, first cause.
Remember, the logic that something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.
We have life. Thus, our creator must be alive.
We are intelligent. Thus, our creator must be intelligent.
We are conscious. Thus, our creator must be conscious.
We can love. Thus, our creator must love.
We understand justice. Thus, our creator must be just, etc. etc.
Therefore, we can logically discern the character and attributes of the creator from what is seen in His creation.
This FACT - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s, is recognised as a basic principle of science, and is it crucial to understanding the nature and attributes of the first cause.
It means nothing in the universe that exists, resulting from the action of the first cause, can be in anyway superior to the first cause. We must conclude that, at least, some attributes of the first cause can be seen in the universe.
Atheists frequently ask how can we possibly know what God is like?
The Bible (which is inspired by God) tells us many things about the character of God, but regardless of scripture, the universe itself gives us evidence of God’s nature.
For example: can the properties of human beings, in any way, be superior to the first cause?
To suggest they are, would be to violate the scientific principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
All the powers, properties, qualities and attributes we observe in the universe, including all human qualities, must be also evident in the first cause.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have life.
If there is intelligence in the universe the first cause must have intelligence.
The same applies to consciousness, skill, design, purpose, justice, love, beauty, forgiveness, mercy etc.
Therefore, we must conclude that the eternally, self-existent, non-natural (supernatural), first cause, has life, is conscious, has intelligence and created the temporal as an act of will.
We know, from the law of cause and effect, that the first cause cannot possibly be any of the natural processes frequently proposed by atheists, such as: the so-called, big bang explosion, singularity or quantum mechanics.
They are all temporal, moreover, it is obvious that none of them are adequate to produce the effect. They are all grossly inferior to the result.
To sum up:
Using impeccable logic and reason, supported by our understanding of established, natural, physical laws (which apply to everything of a natural, temporal nature) acknowledged by science, humans have been able to discover the existence of a single, infinite, supernatural, living, intelligent, loving and just creator God.
God discovered, not invented!
Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by atheists, a personal, creator God is not a “human invention”, and He is certainly not a backward substitute for reason or science, but rather, He is an enlightened, human discovery, based on unimpeachable logic, reason, rationality, natural laws and scientific understanding.
The real character of atheism unmasked.
Is belief in God just superstitious, backward thinking, suitable only for the uneducated or scientific illiterates, as atheists would have us believe?
Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as the best brain in modern atheism, his natural explanation for the origin of the universe "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" was claimed by some, to have made belief in a creator God redundant. This is an atheistic, natural, creation story, summed up in a single sentence.
When we realise what atheists actually believe, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that it is atheism, not monotheism, which is a throwback to an unenlightened period in human history. It is a throwback to a time when Mother Nature or other natural or material, temporal entities were regarded by some as having autonomous, godlike, creative powers –
“the universe can and will create itself from nothing”
The discredited concept of worshipping nature itself (naturalism) or various material things (Sun, Moon, idols etc.) as some sort of autonomous, non-contingent, creative, or self-creative agents, used to be called paganism. Now it has been re-invented as 21st century atheism ...
The truth about modern atheism is it is just pagan naturalist beliefs repackaged.
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” - G.K. Chesterton.
God’s power.
Everything that exists is dependent on the original and ultimate cause (God) for its origin, continued existence and operation.
This means God affords everything all the power it needs to function. Everything operates only with God’s power. We couldn’t even lift a little finger, if the power to do so was not permitted by God.
What caused God?
Ever since the 18th century, atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell etc. have attempted to debunk the logical evidence for a creator God, as the infinite, first cause and creator of the universe.
The basic premise of their argument is that a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (no first cause, but rather an infinite regress). And that, if every effect requires an adequate cause (as the Law of Cause and Effect states), then God (a first cause) could no more exist without a cause, than anything else.
This latter point is summed up in the what many atheists regard as the killer question:
“What caused God then?”
This question wasn’t sensible in the 18th century, and is not sensible today, but incredibly, many atheists still think it is a good argument against the Law of Cause and Effect and continue to use it.
As explained previously, the Law of Cause and Effect applies to all temporal entities.
Temporal entities have a beginning, and therefore need a cause. They are all contingent and dependent on a cause or causes for their beginning and existence, without exception.
It is obvious to any sensible person that the very first cause, because it is FIRST, had nothing preceding it.
First means 'first', it doesn’t mean second or third. If we could go back far enough with a chain of causes and effects, however long the chain, at some stage we must reach an ultimate beginning, i.e. the cause which is first, having no previous cause. This first cause must have always existed with no beginning. It is essentially self-existent from an infinite past and for an infinite future. It must be completely autonomous and non-contingent, not relying on any cause or anything else for its existence. Not temporal, but infinite.
So, the answer to the question is that - God was not caused, only temporal entities (such as ALL natural things) essentially require a cause.
God is the eternally, self-existent, ultimate, non-contingent, supernatural, first. infinite cause of everything temporal.
As explained earlier, the first cause could not be a natural entity, it had to be supernatural, as ALL natural entities are temporal and contingent (they all require causes).
Is the atheist, infinite regress argument sensible?
This is the argument against the need for a first cause of the universe. The proposition is that; a long chain of natural causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (an infinite regress). This proposition is nonsensical.
Why?
It is self-evident that you cannot have a chain of temporal effects going backwards in time, forever. It is the inherent nature of all temporal things to have a beginning. Likewise, for a long chain of temporal causes and effects, there must be a beginning at some point in time. Contingent things do not become non-contingent, simply by being in a long chain.
Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.
Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy.
Therefore, it is an absurd notion that there could be a long chain of temporal elements in which, although every individual link in the chain requires a beginning, the complete chain does not. And, although every individual link in the chain is subject to the law of entropy, the chain as a whole is not, and is miraculously unaffected by the effects of entropy, throughout an infinite past, which would have caused its demise.
What about the idea that infinite regress is acceptable in maths?
Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.
It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.
Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.
For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.
As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. Two is 2 ones, three is 3 ones, etc.
The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.
The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).
Atheism is an insidious and deceptive cult, which attempts to indoctrinate the public through relentless hype and propaganda.
Here is some good news for any theists reading this. All atheist arguments are easily demolished. Not because I, or any other theist, is exceptionally clever, but because atheism is based on lies and deceit. Once people realise that, it becomes obvious that there will be major flaws in EVERY atheist argument. It is then a simple matter, for anyone interested in truth, to expose them.
Atheism is claimed to be the scientific viewpoint and supporter of science. That is the great deception of the modern age.
What is the truth?
Science is based on looking for adequate causes of EVERY natural happening or entity AND on making predictions and assessments about the natural world, based on the validity of natural laws.
Atheism is based on ignoring the fact that EVERY natural happening or entity requires an adequate cause, not just ignoring it, but even actively opposing it.
Unbelievably, atheism is about looking for, and hoping to find, non-causes and inadequate causes.
Atheism is also against the scientific method, of making assessments and predictions based on the validity of natural laws, and in favour of rejecting and challenging the validity of natural laws.
Because the existence of natural laws which support the necessity of an adequate, first cause is fatal to the atheist cult.
The often repeated atheist argument that we just don’t know whether causality or any other natural laws existed before the start of the universe, is not a valid argument for atheism. Even if it was a sensible argument, the very best that could be said of it, is that it is an argument for agnosticism.
'Not knowing' (agnosticism) is a neutral position, it is not an argument for or against theism or for or against atheism. If you claim to be in the ‘don’t know’ camp and are a genuine agnostic, you have to sit firmly on the fence - you have no right to ridicule and lambast theists who believe that causality and natural laws are universally valid and by the same token you cannot ridicule atheism. Those who ridicule and attack theism are not genuine agnostics, because they come down firmly on the side of atheism. That is not a ‘don’t know’ (agnostic) position.
The argument for atheism cannot be simply based on ‘not knowing’ whether the law of cause and effect and other natural laws existed prior to the universe. Atheism depends on a definite rejection of causality and natural laws at the beginning of the material realm.
And that argument also reveals atheists as gross hypocrites.
When Stephen Hawking declared to the world: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” atheists applauded and crowed about ‘science’ making God redundant. How come they didn’t criticise him for claiming he knew the law of gravity pre-existed the universe? Apparently, Hawking KNEW the law of gravity existed, but decided that the law of cause and effect and other natural laws didn’t exist. What happened to the: “we just don’t know what laws existed before the universe or Big Bang” argument on that occasion? Unbelievable hypocrisy! Which effectively demolishes the bogus atheist argument that “we don’t know what laws existed”. What atheists actually mean to say is that: “we know that laws which support our argument did exist, but we don’t know that laws which destroy our argument existed”.
The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting the universal validity of science and natural law. You can't do both...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
_____________________________________________
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
1.primadonna
2.how to be a heartbreaker
3.radioactive
4.power and control
5. Bubblegum bitch
6.lies
7. Home wrecker
8.starring role
9. State of dreaming
10. Sex yeah
11.teen idle
12.valley of dolls
13. Hypocrites
14. Fear of loathing
JOHN LENNON and YOKO ONO (talk to Robin Blackburn and Tariq Ali)
Tariq Ali: Your latest record and your recent public statements, especially the interviews in Rolling Stone magazine, suggest that your views are becoming increasingly radical and political. When did this start to happen?
John Lennon: I've always been politically minded, you know, and against the status quo. It's pretty basic when you're brought up, like I was, to hate and fear the police as a natural enemy and to despise the army as something that takes everybody away and leaves them dead somewhere. I mean, it's just a basic working class thing, though it begins to wear off when you get older, get a family and get swallowed up in the system. In my case I've never not been political, though religion tended to overshadow it in my acid days; that would be around '65 or '66. And that religion was directly the result of all that superstar shit--religion was an outlet for my repression. I thought, 'Well, there's something else to life, isn't there? This isn't it, surely?' But I was always political in a way, you know. In the two books I wrote, even though they were written in a sort of Joycean gobbledegook, there's many knocks at religion and there is a play about a worker and a capitalist. I've been satirising the system since my childhood. I used to write magazines in school and hand them around. I was very conscious of class, they would say with a chip on my shoulder, because I knew what happened to me and I knew about the class repression coming down on us--it was a fucking fact but in the hurricane Beatle world it got left out, I got farther away from reality for a time.
TA: What did you think was the reason for the success of your sort of music?
JL: Well, at the time it was thought that the workers had broken through, but I realise in retrospect that it's the same phoney deal they gave the blacks, it was just like they allowed blacks to be runners or boxers or entertainers. That's the choice they allow you--now the outlet is being a pop star, which is really what I'm saying on the album in 'Working class hero'. As I told Rolling Stone, it's the same people who have the power, the class system didn't change one little bit. Of course, there are a lot of people walking around with long hair now and some trendy middle class kids in pretty clothes. But nothing changed except that we all dressed up a bit, leaving the same bastards running everything.
Robin Blackburn: Of course, class is something the American rock groups haven't tackled yet.
JL: Because they're all middle class and bourgeois and they don't want to show it. They're scared of the workers, actually, because the workers seem mainly right-wing in America, clinging on to their goods. But if these middle class groups realise what's happening, and what the class system has done, it's up to them to repatriate the people and to get out of all that bourgeois shit.
TA: When did you start breaking out of the role imposed on you as a Beatle?
JL: Even during the Beatle heyday I tried to go against it, so did George. We went to America a few times and Epstein always tried to waffle on at us about saying nothing about Vietnam. So there came a time when George and I said 'Listen, when they ask next time, we're going to say we don't like that war and we think they should get right out.' That's what we did. At that time this was a pretty radical thing to do, especially for the 'Fab Four'. It was the first opportunity I personally took to wave the flag a bit. But you've got to remember that I'd always felt repressed. We were all so pressurised that there was hardly any chance of expressing ourselves, especially working at that rate, touring continually and always kept in a cocoon of myths and dreams. It's pretty hard when you are Caesar and everyone is saying how wonderful you are and they are giving you all the goodies and the girls, it's pretty hard to break out of that, to say 'Well, I don't want to be king, I want to be real.' So in its way the second political thing I did was to say 'The Beatles are bigger than Jesus.' That really broke the scene, I nearly got shot in America for that. It was a big trauma for all the kids that were following us. Up to then there was this unspoken policy of not answering delicate questions, though I always read the papers, you know, the political bits. The continual awareness of what was going on made me feel ashamed I wasn't saying anything. I burst out because I could no longer play that game any more, it was just too much for me. Of course, going to America increased the build up on me, especially as the war was going on there. In a way we'd turned out to be a Trojan horse. The 'Fab Four' moved right to the top and then sang about drugs and sex and then I got into more and more heavy stuff and that's when they started dropping us.
RB: Wasn't there a double charge to what you were doing right from the beginning?
Yoko Ono: You were always very direct.
JL: Yes, well, the first thing we did was to proclaim our Liverpoolness to the world, and say 'It's all right to come from Liverpool and talk like this'. Before, anybody from Liverpool who made it, like Ted Ray, Tommy Handley, Arthur Askey, had to lose their accent to get on the BBC. They were only comedians but that's what came out of Liverpool before us. We refused to play that game. After The Beatles came on the scene everyone started putting on a Liverpudlian accent.
TA: In a way you were even thinking about politics when you seemed to be knocking revolution?
JL: Ah, sure, 'Revolution' . There were two versions of that song but the underground left only picked up on the one that said 'count me out'. The original version which ends up on the LP said 'count me in' too; I put in both because I wasn't sure. There was a third version that was just abstract, musique concrete, kind of loops and that, people screaming. I thought I was painting in sound a picture of revolution--but I made a mistake, you know. The mistake was that it was anti-revolution. On the version released as a single I said 'when you talk about destruction you can count me out'. I didn't want to get killed. I didn't really know that much about the Maoists, but I just knew that they seemed to be so few and yet they painted themselves green and stood in front of the police waiting to get picked off. I just thought it was unsubtle, you know. I thought the original Communist revolutionaries coordinated themselves a bit better and didn't go around shouting about it. That was how I felt--I was really asking a question. As someone from the working class I was always interested in Russia and China and everything that related to the working class, even though I was playing the capitalist game. At one time I was so much involved in the religious bullshit that I used to go around calling myself a Christian Communist, but as Janov says, religion is legalised madness. It was therapy that stripped away all that and made me feel my own pain.
RB: This analyst you went to, what's his name. ..
JL: Janov ...
RB: His ideas seem to have something in common with Laing in that he doesn't want to reconcile people to their misery, to adjust them to the world but rather to make them face up to its causes?
JL: Well, his thing is to feel the pain that's accumulated inside you ever since your childhood. I had to do it to really kill off all the religious myths. In the therapy you really feel every painful moment of your life--it's excruciating, you are forced to realise that your pain, the kind that makes you wake up afraid with your heart pounding, is really yours and not the result of somebody up in the sky. It's the result of your parents and your environment. As I realised this it all started to fall into place. This therapy forced me to have done with all the God shit. All of us growing up have come to terms with too much pain. Although we repress it, it's still there. The worst pain is that of not being wanted, of realising your parents do not need you in the way you need them. When I was a child I experienced moments of not wanting to see the ugliness, not wanting to see not being wanted. This lack of love went into my eyes and into my mind. Janov doesn't just talk to you about this but makes you feel it--once you've allowed yourself to feel again, you do most of the work yourself. When you wake up and your heart is going like the clappers or your back feels strained, or you develop some other hang-up, you should let your mind go to the pain and the pain itself will regurgitate the memory which originally caused you to suppress it in your body. In this way the pain goes to the right channel instead of being repressed again, as it is if you take a pill or a bath, saying 'Well, I'll get over it'. Most people channel their pain into God or masturbation or some dream of making it. The therapy is like a very slow acid trip which happens naturally in your body. It is hard to talk about, you know, because--you feel 'I am pain' and it sounds sort of arbitrary, but pain to me now has a different meaning because of having physically felt all these extraordinary repressions. It was like taking gloves off, and feeling your own skin for the first time. It's a bit of a drag to say so, but I don't think you can understand this unless you've gone through it--though I try to put some of it over on the album. But for me at any rate it was all part of dissolving the God trip or father-figure trip. Facing up to reality instead of always looking for some kind of heaven.
RB: Do you see the family in general as the source of these repressions?
JL: Mine is an extreme case, you know. My father and mother split and I never saw my father until I was 20, nor did I see much more of my mother. But Yoko had her parents there and it was the same....
YO: Perhaps one feels more pain when parents are there. It's like when you're hungry, you know, it's worse to get a symbol of a cheeseburger than no cheeseburger at all. It doesn't do you any good, you know. I often wish my mother had died so that at least I could get some people's sympathy. But there she was, a perfectly beautiful mother.
JL: And Yoko's family were middle-class Japanese but it's all the same repression. Though I think middle-class people have the biggest trauma if they have nice imagey parents, all smiling and dolled up. They are the ones who have the biggest struggle to say, 'Goodbye mummy, goodbye daddy'.
TA: What relation to your music has all this got?
JL: Art is only a way of expressing pain. I mean the reason Yoko does such far out stuff is that it's a far out kind of pain she went through.
RB: A lot of Beatle songs used to be about childhood...
JL: Yeah, that would mostly be me...
RB: Though they were very good there was always a missing element...
JL: That would be reality, that would be the missing element. Because I was never really wanted. The only reason I am a star is because of my repression. Nothing else would have driven me through all that if I was 'normal'...
YO: ... and happy ...
JL: The only reason I went for that goal is that I wanted to say: 'Now, mummydaddy, will you love me?'
TA: But then you had success beyond most people's wildest dreams...
JL: Oh, Jesus Christ, it was a complete oppression. I mean we had to go through humiliation upon humiliation with the middle classes and showbiz and Lord Mayors and all that. They were so condescending and stupid. Everybody trying to use us. It was a special humiliation for me because I could never keep my mouth shut and I'd always have to be drunk or pilled to counteract this pressure. It was really hell ...
YO: It was depriving him of any real experience, you know...
JL: It was very miserable. I mean apart from the first flush of making it--the thrill of the first number one record, the first trip to America. At first we had some sort of objective like being as big as Elvis--moving forward was the great thing, but actually attaining it was the big let-down. I found I was having continually to please the sort of people I'd always hated when I was a child. This began to bring me back to reality. I began to realise that we are all oppressed which is why I would like to do something about it, though I'm not sure where my place is.
RB: Well, in any case, politics and culture are linked, aren't they? I mean, workers are repressed by culture not guns at the moment ...
JL: ... they're doped ...
RB: And the culture that's doping them is one the artist can make or break...
JL: That's what I'm trying to do on my albums and in these interviews. What I'm trying to do is to influence all the people I can influence. All those who are still under the dream and just put a big question mark in their mind. The acid dream is over, that is what I'm trying to tell them.
RB: Even in the past, you know, people would use Beatle songs and give them new words. 'Yellow submarine' , for instance, had a number of versions. One that strikers used to sing began 'We all live on bread and margarine' ; at LSE we had a version that began 'We all live in a Red LSE'.
JL: I like that. And I enjoyed it when football crowds in the early days would sing 'All together now'--that was another one. I was also pleased when the movement in America took up 'Give peace a chance' because I had written it with that in mind really. I hoped that instead of singing 'We shall overcome' from 1800 or something, they would have something contemporary. I felt an obligation even then to write a song that people would sing in the pub or on a demonstration. That is why I would like to compose songs for the revolution now ...
RB: We only have a few revolutionary songs and they were composed in the 19th century. Do you find anything in our musical traditions which could be used for revolutionary songs?
JL: When I started, rock and roll itself was the basic revolution to people of my age and situation. We needed something loud and clear to break through all the unfeeling and repression that had been coming down on us kids. We were a bit conscious to begin with of being imitation Americans. But we delved into the music and found that it was half white country and western and half black rhythm and blues. Most of the songs came from Europe and Africa and now they were coming back to us. Many of Dylan's best songs came from Scotland, Ireland or England. It was a sort of cultural exchange. Though I must say the more interesting songs to me were the black ones because they were more simple. They sort of saidshake your arse, or your prick, which was an innovation really. And then there were the field songs mainly expressing the pain they were in. They couldn't express themselves intellectually so they had to say in a very few words what was happening to them. And then there was the city blues and a lot of that was about sex and fighting. A lot of this was self-expression but only in the last few years have they expressed themselves completely with Black Power, like Edwin Starr making war records. Before that many black singers were still labouring under that problem of God; it was often 'God will save us'. But right through the blacks were singing directly and immediately about their pain and also about sex, which is why I like it.
RB: You say country and western music derived from European folk songs. Aren't these folk songs sometimes pretty dreadful stuff, all about losing and being defeated?
JL: As kids we were all opposed to folk songs because they were so middle-class. It was all college students with big scarfs and a pint of beer in their hands singing folk songs in what we call la-di-da voices-'I worked in a mine in New-cast-le' and all that shit. There were very few real folk singers you know, though I liked Dominic Behan a bit and there was some good stuff to be heard in Liverpool. Just occasionally you hear very old records on the radio or TV of real workers in Ireland or somewhere singing these songs and the power of them is fantastic. But mostly folk music is people with fruity voices trying to keep alive something old and dead. It's all a bit boring, like ballet: a minority thing kept going by a minority group. Today's folk song is rock and roll. Although it happened to emanate from America, that's not really important in the end because we wrote our own music and that changed everything.
RB: Your album, Yoko, seems to fuse avant-garde modern music with rock. I'd like to put an idea to you I got from listening to it. You integrate everyday sounds, like that of a train, into a musical pattern. This seems to demand an aesthetic measure of everyday life, to insist that art should not be imprisoned in the museums and galleries, doesn't it?
YO: Exactly. I want to incite people to loosen their oppression by giving them something to work with, to build on. They shouldn't be frightened of creating themselves--that's why I make things very open, with things for people to do, like in my book [Grapefruit]. Because basically there are two types of people in the world: people who are confident because they know they have the ability to create, and then people who have been demoralised, who have no confidence in themselves because they have been told they have no creative ability, but must just take orders. The Establishment likes people who take no responsibility and cannot respect themselves.
RB: I suppose workers' control is about that...
JL: Haven't they tried out something like that in Yugoslavia; they are free of the Russians. I'd like to go there and see how it works.
TA: Well, they have; they did try to break with the Stalinist pattern. But instead of allowing uninhibited workers' control, they added a strong dose of political bureaucracy. It tended to smother the initiative of the workers and they also regulated the whole system by a market mechanism which bred new inequalities between one region and another.
JL: It seems that all revolutions end up with a personality cult--even the Chinese seem to need a father-figure. I expect this happens in Cuba too, with Che and Fidel. In Western-style Communism we would have to create an almost imaginary workers' image of themselves as the father-figure.
RB: That's a pretty cool idea--the Working Class becomes its own Hero. As long as it was not a new comforting illusion, as long as there was a real workers' power. If a capitalist or bureaucrat is running your life then you need to compensate with illusions.
YO: The people have got to trust in themselves.
TA: That's the vital point. The working class must be instilled with a feeling of confidence in itself. This can't be done just by propaganda--the workers must move, take over their own factories and tell the capitalists to bugger off. This is what began to happen in May 1968 in France...the workers began to feel their own strength.
JL: But the Communist Party wasn't up to that, was it?
RB: No, they weren't. With 10 million workers on strike they could have led one of those huge demonstrations that occurred in the centre of Paris into a massive occupation of all government buildings and installations, replacing de Gaulle with a new institution of popular power like the Commune or the original Soviets--that would have begun a real revolution but the French C.P. was scared of it. They preferred to deal at the top instead of encouraging the workers to take the initiative themselves...
JL: Great, but there's a problem about that here you know. All the revolutions have happened when a Fidel or Marx or Lenin or whatever, who were intellectuals, were able to get through to the workers. They got a good pocket of people together and the workers seemed to understand that they were in a repressed state. They haven't woken up yet here, they still believe that cars and tellies are the answer. You should get these left-wing students out to talk with the workers, you should get the schoolkids involved with The Red Mole.
TA: You're quite right, we have been trying to do that and we should do more. This new Industrial Relations Bill the Government is trying to introduce is making more and more workers realise what is happening...
JL: I don't think that Bill can work. I don't think they can enforce it. I don't think the workers will co-operate with it. I thought the Wilson Government was a big let-down but this Heath lot are worse. The underground is being harrassed, the black militants can't even live in their own homes now, and they're selling more arms to the South Africans. Like Richard Neville said, there may be only an inch of difference between Wilson and Heath but it's in that inch that we live....
TA: I don't know about that; Labour brought in racialist immigration policies, supported the Vietnam war and were hoping to bring in new legislation against the unions.
RB: It may be true that we live in the Inch of difference between Labour and Conservative but so long as we do we'll be impotent and unable to change anything. If Heath is forcing us out of that inch maybe he's doing us a good turn without meaning to...
JL: Yes, I've thought about that, too. This putting us in a corner so we have to find out what is coming down on other people. I keep on reading the Morning Star [the Communist newspaper] to see if there's any hope, but it seems to be in the 19th century; it seems to be written for dropped-out, middle-aged liberals. We should be trying to reach the young workers because that's when you're most idealistic and have least fear. Somehow the revolutionaries must approach the workers because the workers won't approach them. But it's difficult to know where to start; we've all got a finger in the dam. The problem for me is that as I have become more real, I've grown away from most working-class people--you know what they like is Engelbert Humperdinck. It's the students who are buying us now, and that's the problem. Now The Beatles are four separate people, we don't have the impact we had when we were together...
RB: Now you're trying to swim against the stream of bourgeois society, which is much more difficult.
JL: Yes, they own all the newspapers and they control all distribution and promotion. When we came along there was only Decca, Philips and EMI who could really produce a record for you. You had to go through the whole bureaucracy to get into the recording studio. You were in such a humble position, you didn't have more than 12 hours to make a whole album, which is what we did in the early days. Even now it's the same; if you're an unknown artist you're lucky to get an hour in a studio--it's a hierarchy and if you don't have hits, you don't get recorded again. And they control distribution. We tried to change that with Apple but in the end we were defeated. They still control everything. EMI killed our album Two Virgins because they didn't like it. With the last record they've censored the words of the songs printed on the record sleeve. Fucking ridiculous and hypocritical--they have to let me sing it but they don't dare let you read it. Insanity.
RB: Though you reach fewer people now, perhaps the effect can be more concentrated.
JL: Yes, I think that could be true. To begin with, working class people reacted against our openness about sex. They are frightened of nudity, they're repressed in that way as well as others. Perhaps they thought 'Paul is a good lad, he doesn't make trouble'. Also when Yoko and I got married, we got terrible racialist letters--you know, warning me that she would slit my throat. Those mainly came from Army people living in Aldershot. Officers. Now workers are more friendly to us, so perhaps it's changing. It seems to me that the students are now half-awake enough to try and wake up their brother workers. If you don't pass on your own awareness then it closes down again. That is why the basic need is for the students to get in with the workers and convince them that they are not talking gobbledegook. And of course it's difficult to know what the workers are really thinking because the capitalist press always only quotes mouthpieces like Vic Feather* anyway. [Ed. Note: Vic Feather 1908-76 was General Secretary of the TUC from 1969-73.] So the only thing is to talk to them directly, especially the young workers. We've got to start with them because they know they're up against it. That's why I talk about school on the album. I'd like to incite people to break the framework, to be disobedient in school, to stick their tongues out, to keep insulting authority.
YO: We are very lucky really, because we can create our own reality, John and me, but we know the important thing is to communicate with other people.
JL: The more reality we face, the more we realise that unreality is the main programme of the day. The more real we become, the more abuse we take, so it does radicalise us in a way, like being put in a corner. But it would be better if there were more of us.
YO: We mustn't be traditional in the way we communicate with people--especially with the Establishment. We should surprise people by saying new things in an entirely new way. Communication of that sort can have a fantastic power so long as you don't do only what they expect you to do.
RB: Communication is vital for building a movement, but in the end it's powerless unless you also develop popular force.
YO: I get very sad when I think about Vietnam where there seems to be no choice but violence. This violence goes on for centuries perpetuating itself. In the present age when communication is so rapid, we should create a different tradition, traditions are created everyday. Five years now is like 100 years before. We are living in a society that has no history. There's no precedent for this kind of society so we can break the old patterns.
TA: No ruling class in the whole of history has given up power voluntarily and I don't see that changing.
YO: But violence isn't just a conceptual thing, you know. I saw a programme about this kid who had come back from Vietnam--he'd lost his body from the waist down. He was just a lump of meat, and he said, 'Well, I guess it was a good experience.'
JL: He didn't want to face the truth, he didn't want to think it had all been a waste...
YO: But think of the violence, it could happen to your kids ...
RB: But Yoko, people who struggle against oppression find themselves attacked by those who have a vested interest in nothing changing, those who want to protect their power and wealth. Look at the people in Bogside and Falls Road in Northern Ireland; they were mercilessly attacked by the special police because they began demonstrating for their rights. On one night in August 1969, seven people were shot and thousands driven from their homes. Didn't they have a right to defend themselves?
YO: That's why one should try to tackle these problems before a situation like that happens.
JL: Yes, but what do you do when it does happen, what do you do?
RB: Popular violence against their oppressors is always justified. It cannot be avoided.
YO: But in a way the new music showed things could be transformed by new channels of communication.
JL: Yes, but as I said, nothing really changed.
YO: Well, something changed and it was for the better. All I'm saying is that perhaps we can make a revolution without violence.
JL: But you can't take power without a struggle...
TA: That's the crucial thing.
JL: Because, when it comes to the nitty-gritty, they won't let the people have any power; they'll give all the rights to perform and to dance for them, but no real power...
YO: The thing is, even after the revolution, if people don't have any trust in themselves, they'll get new problems.
JL: After the revolution you have the problem of keeping things going, of sorting out all the different views. It's quite natural that revolutionaries should have different solutions, that they should split into different groups and then reform, that's the dialectic, isn't it--but at the same time they need to be united against the enemy, to solidify a new order. I don't know what the answer is; obviously Mao is aware of this problem and keeps the ball moving.
RB: The danger is that once a revolutionary state has been created, a new conservative bureaucracy tends to form around it. This danger tends to increase if the revolution is isolated by imperialism and there is material scarcity.
JL: Once the new power has taken over they have to establish a new status quo just to keep the factories and trains running.
RB: Yes, but a repressive bureaucracy doesn't necessarily run the factories or trains any better than the workers could under a system of revolutionary democracy.
JL: Yes, but we all have bourgeois instincts within us, we all get tired and feel the need to relax a bit. How do you keep everything going and keep up revolutionary fervour after you've achieved what you set out to achieve? Of course Mao has kept them up to it in China, but what happens after Mao goes? Also he uses a personality cult. Perhaps that's necessary; like I said, everybody seems to need a father figure. But I've been reading Khrushchev Remembers. I know he's a bit of a lad himself--but he seemed to think that making a religion out of an individual was bad; that doesn't seem to be part of the basic Communist idea. Still people are people, that's the difficulty. If we took over Britain, then we'd have the job of cleaning up the bourgeoisie and keeping people in a revolutionary state of mind.
RB: ...In Britain unless we can create a new popular power-and here that would basically mean workers' power--really controlled by, and answerable to, the masses, then we couldn't make the revolution in the first place. Only a really deep-rooted workers' power could destroy the bourgeois state.
YO: That's why it will be different when the younger generation takes over.
JL: I think it wouldn't take much to get the youth here really going. You'd have to give them free rein to attack the local councils or to destroy the school authorities, like the students who break up the repression in the universities. It's already happening, though people have got to get together more. And the women are very important too, we can't have a revolution that doesn't involve and liberate women. It's so subtle the way you're taught male superiority. It took me quite a long time to realise that my maleness was cutting off certain areas for Yoko. She's a red hot liberationistand was quick to show me where I was going wrong, even though it seemed to me that I was just acting naturally. That's why I'm always interested to know how people who claim to be radical treat women.
RB: There's always been at least as much male chauvinism on the left as anywhere else--though the rise of women's liberation is helping to sort that out.
JL: It's ridiculous. How can you talk about power to the people unless you realise the people is both sexes.
YO: You can't love someone unless you are in an equal position with them. A lot of women have to cling to men out of fear or insecurity, and that's not love--basically that's why women hate men...
JL: ... and vice versa ...
YO: So if you have a slave around the house how can you expect to make a revolution outside it? The problem for women is that if we try to be free, then we naturally become lonely, because so many women are willing to become slaves, and men usually prefer that. So you always have to take the chance: 'Am I going to lose my man?' It's very sad.
JL: Of course, Yoko was well into liberation before I met her. She'd had to fight her way through a man's world--the art world is completely dominated by men--so she was full of revolutionary zeal when we met. There was never any question about it: we had to have a 50-50 relationship or there was no relationship, I was quick to learn. She did an article about women in Nova more than two years back in which she said, 'Woman is the nigger of the world' .
RB: Of course we all live in an imperialist country that is exploiting the Third World, and even our culture is involved in this. There was a time when Beatle music was plugged on Voice of America....
JL: The Russians put it out that we were capitalist robots, which we were I suppose...
RB: They were pretty stupid not to see it was something different.
YO: Let' s face it, Beatles was 20th-century folksong in the framework of capitalism; they couldn't do anything different if they wanted to communicate within that framework.
RB: I was working in Cuba when Sgt Pepper was released and that's when they first started playing rock music on the radio.
JL: Well hope they see that rock and roll is not the same as Coca-Cola. As we get beyond the dream this should be easier: that's why I'm putting out more heavy statements now and trying to shake off the teeny-bopper image. I want to get through to the right people, and I want to make what I have to say very simple and direct.
RB: Your latest album sounds very simple to begin with, but the lyrics, tempo and melody build up into a complexity one only gradually becomes aware of. Like the track 'My mummy's dead' echoes the nursery song 'Three blind mice' and it's about a childhood trauma.
JL: The tune does; it was that sort of feeling, almost like a Haiku poem. I recently got into Haiku in Japan and I just think it's fantastic. Obviously, when you get rid of a whole section of illusion in your mind you're left with great precision. Yoko was showing me some of these Haiku in the original. The difference between them and Longfellow is immense. Instead of a long flowery poem the Haiku would say 'Yellow flower in white bowl on wooden table' which gives you the whole picture, really....
TA: How do you think we can destroy the capitalist system here in Britain, John?
JL: I think only by making the workers aware of the really unhappy position they are in, breaking the dream they are surrounded by. They think they are in a wonderful, free-speaking country. They've got cars and tellies and they don't want to think there's anything more to life. They are prepared to let the bosses run them, to see their children fucked up in school. They're dreaming someone else's dream, it's not even their own. They should realise that the blacks and the Irish are being harassed and repressed and that they will be next. As soon as they start being aware of all that, we can really begin to do something. The workers can start to take over. Like Marx said: 'To each according to his need'. I think that would work well here. But we'd also have to infiltrate the army too, because they are well trained to kill us all. We've got to start all this from where we ourselves are oppressed. I think it's false, shallow, to be giving to others when your own need is great. The idea is not to comfort people, not to make them feel better but to make them feel worse, to constantly put before them the degradations and humiliations they go through to get what they call a living wage.
Tariq Ali is editor of London's New Left Review, a filmmaker and novelist, and has written more than a dozen books on world history and politics, including 1968 and After: Inside the Revolution (1978) and the 1987 Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties. He was prominently involved in 60s antiwar and radical politics; Jagger, a personal friend, is said to have written "Street Fighting Man" in his honor.
although i wasn't tagged to do her little challenge tag thingy i still felt like.. let's call it inspiration instead of bargining in on something i was not invited to partake in ;)
i'm gonna go on a miny tirade..
makeup.
most EVERY girl uses it. like 19/20 use at least little something. but, even though i'm one of those 19, i hate it. i hate that in order for me to feel just as attractive as any other girl i have to wear it.. but she wears it to feel as attractive as me. it's a cycle. beauty is nothing but an illusion. i wish makeup had never been invented. think of how much better off we'd be, honestly. no one to say "well my eyelashes could be as long as hers if i bought the right mascara" or "my eyes could pop as much as hers if i bought the right eyeshadow." your eyelashes would just be eyelashes and your eyes stood out if they did and didn't if they didn't. inner beauty would be so much more valuable if girls didn't have to walk around looking fake. i hate makeup. and yet i use it. hypocrite, yes. human, yes.
THE FUCKING INTERNET!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Givz★A★Fuck says:
Gunz FTL????
Waves of Perception Pro User says:
no this is someone different. This stitch came out nicely. That thiefs was 1999 and that kept was 2004. Stupid diss.
iam_from_oakland_RU says:
open season on gunz!
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
The Hills Have Eyes Pro User says:
this is that dude who had all those stencils all over downtown
shits waaack.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
Tainted Wheat Pro User says:
fuck this
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
rape walls says:
shit id take out all of this fools shit if i lived over there. tired toys need to get some respect beaten into them if they cant learn it themselves.
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
F.M.Radio Pro User says:
same gunz that went over an old ass dut peice at this spot
Posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
pavementdexterity Pro User says:
gunz should really give up. find a new hobby.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
this aint ftl this is the same gunz who does the stencil shit downtown thats gonna get lined
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
iam_from_oakland_RU says:
thanks for the recap elements
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
yeah
just trying to make sense of all this
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
mutherfuckurbitchassstreetart [deleted] says:
gee only words i read are "all over." and oh no i went over old fading pieces from like 99! oh no! such bad etiquette! cry me a river!!! you fucks really need to get a life! i travel the world, i get $$$, i could care less about getting respect from a bunch of ignorant fucks i don't know... it cracks me up how hard you fucks get to thinking you are!!! how u get so caught up in your small bubble of the world, so consumed with your petty lifestyles! you spend your days working at a warehouse for minimum wage and your nights running the streets with your butt buddies! yeah thats the life, your such a better person than me! lol! lol! lol! cant even laugh at ya'll selves. i mean like...all this hate is beautiful!!! i love you haters!!! i love that i get under your skin enough that you would come online and comment on my shit... read the tag: "fuck you and that shit you stressin." period. oh and im a get "lined" !?! bring it on! dont talk on the internet where u feel all nice and cozy and protected...come and get me!!! oh and i should give up turnips? find a new hobby? i have...my new hobby is hunting you like a deer!!! --Mothafucken Gunz
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
mutherfuckurbitchassstreetart [deleted] says:
oh ms. turnips...more thing...it's pretty funny that you would comment on a piece of mine when i have never seen any piece from you ever...not online-nowhere...and even if i had...my 2 year old son can paint your shit...like its really that hard to throw up a fucking dumbass turnip! keep thinking your the man chump...i never said i was...but you my friend certainly are not...you gassed up, boisterous, insecure emo faggot.
your buddy gunzy ;)
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
turnips is gay [deleted] says:
on flickr search type in "my name is turnips"
lol
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
LOL he posts this and deletes himself....
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
Lemme Handle My Business says:
trnps go, i dont know what the fuck this toy talking bout
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
pavementdexterity Pro User says:
cheese ball. really sad.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
yeah....................... i saw some hacked shit of gunz today while i was on the bus....
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
on my dick hella hard! must be doing something right! when you were riding the bus you saw some hacked up shit of mine ? oh no! a. so the fuck what, mofos hate and there is always more shit getting thrown up, u cant stop me , so who cares. and b. how was that bus ride you broke bitch? you broke riding the bus...fuck u gon tell me? LMFAO!!! i can say, do, and delete whatever i want and there aint shit you can do about it except get mad talk shit online and cross me out. wamp wamp wamp. your the sad losers if you ask me. turnips dont go, turnips is generic, 90 percent of u are generic. drawing your dumb shit on post office stickers does not make for great street art. you may hate, but at least i have created my own unique style and im more clever than 90 percent of you!!! get out of your little petty bubble and see the world. it takes turnips, the octo-toy and the rest of your lil gay friends to go against one dude. think about that, i get more done by myself then you and all four of your friends combined, then you want to call me a pussy? u aint shit without your homeboys and u aint shit with your homeboys...open season my ass. ..
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
F.M.Radio Pro User says:
go get $$$ and travel the world or whatever you do dude...
stop getting so caught up in our little "bubble of the world"...
" i could care less about getting respect from a bunch of ignorant fucks i don't know..."
why do you keep making new accounts to come back on here and write paragraphs contradicting yourself...stop trying to prove yourself to us ignorant fucks who you dont care about..
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
i don't have to prove myself to anybody. like i said if people can have a forum to hate on me than i can use that forum to talk back. no matter what account its under...
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
F.M.Radio Pro User says:
if you dont have to prove anything to anyone, then shut the fuck up. do what the fuck you do and if you matter fools will know what's up. If you have to come online and talk a bunch of shit or go over 10 year old pieces to get noticed then your just really not doing it my dude. If you never went over this old thiefs&kept, if this gunz was on a blank wall, nobody would have took a flick of that shit. and nobody would be talking to or about you right now. thats how suckers get fame..
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
i been making stickers and painting for most of my adult life...i do this for me...it's a great creative outlet and it helps me to not take myself or life too seriously...not 4 you..i dont care about fame or whether or not u notice me...i have bigger fish to fry...its just fucking vandalism when you get right down to it...so whatever...i must matter though cause fools feel the need to come online and talk shit about me...i wouldnt be saying shit back if that were not the case....however i do respect your willingness to comment maturely instead of just talking a buncha shit...i aint mad atcha
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
The Hills Have Eyes Pro User says:
what makes me mad is the lack of respect for history. and it seems blatant. i could understand if you didnt like it and it was painted recently, but its managed to run for ten years. that excess paint on the bottom bar of that z could have been used for other "creative outlets".
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
umm u got it twisted...i respect the history to the fullest...i know whose come b4 me...ive done my hw... i found this spot months ago and painted something over an old fading piece i couldnt even read...i think someone above said it was a "dut" piece, it was so faded i couldn't even read it doe...it had had it's run and it was time to liven the area up...the homeless guy i be-friended there was so excited that his house was getting some new artwork!
then some fool named serf comes along and paints over my piece and writes "stop going over people" so i hit it again with the roller and just decided to make a point 2 him, hence the excess paint and the "fuck u and that shit u stressin" it was for my own personal pleasure & for serf, not all of you or the people who had painted there before me...people hate on me and go over me everyday...it's just the name of the game...sometimes u gotta send a message...even if it's at the expense of some some fading pieces from some writers that came b4 me. shit i didnt even think a whole helluva lotta people even knew about this spot or cared about the old fading shit that was there...the "fuck u" and the access paint was for serf, not for the writers who had been there previously...just wanted to set the record str8. what u want me to do? worry about what every other writer would think and write a big "no diss"
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
and yeah i will go over some recently painted shit if i don't like it, and so would you...and i only go over suckas that go over me...or some old fading shit that no-one seems to give to shits about anymore, and it aint cuz i aint got no respect for them, it's cause the shit is old and fading.
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
iam_from_oakland_RU says:
fools been painting that spot for years son!!!!!! its quite evident that you did not do your home work. Folls do care about that ols ass fading shit. 99.99% of all graffiti is gone!!!!! lost for ever under millions of gallons of paint, for that 00.01% of shit that survive become meccas for writers of all ages to link back to the past in ways that through a photograph could never be attaind. Graffiti is Graffit and you what you want but realize that Graffit is bigger then you or him or her and your actions will ripp though that quite sport of months to come. lay low!
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
iam_from_oakland_RU says:
besides the colors dont look faded to me!!!
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
duh they been painting that spot 4 years...i can read the dates...whatever dude...it's not like the shit was really anything special either...your just looking for any reason you can to hate on me cause u think i don't care or don't have any respect when in reality you don't even know me at all so who are u to judge....so whatever sounds like you need to get a life and stop taking petty vandalism and yourself so seriously...lay low my ass!
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
fools who care about their old ass fading shit being fucked with are sad sorry individuals with low self esteem who take themselves, their petty crimes and petty lifestyles waaaay to seriously in my opinion...i pity them and i pity u tough guy...take an english class if u can find a break from being a narrow minded fuck.
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
The Hills Have Eyes Pro User says:
"fools" who care about their old fading graffiti probably cant contribute like they used to due to things like the law, injury, relocation, etc. and if they put in work during their time, they sure as fuck earned the spot. so to paint over it shows ignorance. i thought you said "you did your homework. AND, if that excess paint was for serf, why did you go over thiefs and kept? they are in no way shape or form affiliated with serf to my knowledge.
look, dont (well do) take it personally. people make this mistake everyday. every writer should know that there are consequences for their actions, and they best thing to do in this situation is rather than defend yourself, own up and learn from your mistakes.
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
fools who care about their old ass fading shit being fucked with are sad sorry individuals with low self esteem who take themselves, their petty crimes and petty lifestyles waaaay to seriously in my opinion...i pity them and i pity u tough guy...take an english class if u can find a break from being a narrow minded fuck.
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
The Hills Have Eyes Pro User says:
clearly everything i just said went way over your head. how big is your ego?
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
going over kept is one thing but theifs is a whole new level of fucking bullshit
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
Lemme Handle My Business says:
yeah that is straight bullshit gunz that shit was there before you started so you could actually learned some shit dumbass instead YOU DECIDED TO HACK AT SOMETHING THAT WAS FADING WELL GUESS WHAT, YOUR SHITS GONNA BE FADING TOO AND SOME OTHER WRITER IS GONNA COME AND HACK OVER YOU EXCEPT YOU WONT BE AS FAMOUS SO NO ONE WILL REALLY GIVE A FUCK
stop being an asshole and learn some shit you fuckin toy
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
dude chill the fuck out... i used to have no clue about any of this shit but now i think its pretty clear: History is Very Important in the game of graff but some people might forget that or wont even give a shit... "Lemme Handle My Business" he might learn and he might not, you cant help that if he does or doesnt, dont base your statements on shit that you've heard above....
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
Lemme Handle My Business says:
iight bitch whatever. dont hate on trnps, gunz, he's better than you and at least doesnt do stencil bullshit and lame ass stickers
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
iam_from_oakland_RU says:
elements bro Kept is whats up just as much as thiefs!!!!!! dont talk down on the KIL superstars! everybody get gunz yee!
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
aight aight i see yeah theifs is whats up but going over kept is not acceptable
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
first and foremost, everybodys got an opinion... actually i really don't have much of an ego at all...i just find that in THE GRAND SCHEME of it all, "the shit u stressin" to be straight lori petty "hills." you can call me ignorant and i can call you petty, case closed. just like ya'll can talk shit and i can use the same forum to say my piece, it don't mean im not owning up or am trying to defend myself, im a big boy i can handle it. if someone comes along years from now and hacks my shit who the fuck cares, i had fun, i got a pic, and most of all-THE PAST IS FUCKING EMPTY AND MEANINGLESS! IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I DON'T RESPECT THE PAST AND THE HISTORY BUT THATS THE ENTIRE POINT I BEEN TRYING TO MAKE, IT'S THE FUCKING PAST! IT'S GONE AND IT'S EMPTY AND MEANINGLESS- SO 4 THOSE OF U WHO CHOOSE TO DWELL ON IT AND LIVE IN IT ARE FUCKING PETTY AND I PITY YOU. YOU WANT TO LOOK AT OLD SHIT YOU PAINTED YEARS AGO, BE LIKE ME, LOOK AT YOUR FUCKING PORTFOLIO. and i said it before and i'll say it again trnps wants to beef trnps gon get it. he aint shit, i been doing this waaaaaaaay long before he popped up, yeah he does stickers-thats about all he does-and they suck -at least i make unique stickers and am not like all the rest of these generic assholes like trnps who just draw on post office stickers and the sun and/or rain destroys them in like 3 weeks. tht fuck is not better than me, but everybodys got an opinion and this is mine. If im such a toy than why do i teach graffiti classes???
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
do you teach at edna brewer?
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
na not at one specific site. besides u think i would tell u where 2 find me
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
The Hills Have Eyes Pro User says:
its not living in the past, its respecting it. why not demolish the pyramids and stonehenge to build roads and buildings and real estate? its not like these people are still here to contribute graffiti. they came, did their thing, and left. if you can honestly say that history isnt important, than i pity you. if you dont know your past, you dont know your future. that separates the fakers from those who are real.
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
very true....
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
i never said i didnt respect the past or that history isnt important read what i wrote earlier today very carefully over and over again. and try to do it without bias or a filter~cause i painted over "your boys" or something. its very obvious that as u think everything im saying goes way over my head i think the same of what im saying to you. so this is pointless and is not going to accomplish anything so there is no need for us to continue to waste our time-u don't know me and i don't know u, the funniest part about all this is if we knew each other-we would prob be good friends :)
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
The Hills Have Eyes Pro User says:
If i recall, you said, and i quote, "IT'S THE FUCKING PAST! IT'S GONE AND IT'S EMPTY AND MEANINGLESS". and as for respect, the proof is in the puddin.
but yea, if you write, you're prolly my friend.
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
whatever dude i aint mad atcha~i could go into so much more detail if i really wanted to get my point across...but its really pointless peace love and respect to all...even u
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
same.... do what you gotta do to get ups and all but respect history
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
Waves of Perception Pro User says:
You are a hypocrite gunz. I really hope you don't actually believe what you are saying because it is incredibly delusional.
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
if i didnt respect history then i wouldnt be on here talking my shit, i'd just be like fuck you. so i offended some people by painting that shit, big deal-my bad-but the moment is gone its 2 fucking late what the fuck u want me to do!?! just because i dont think its that big of a deal doesnt mean i dont respect history. fools that popped up after me piece over my shit all the time, im sure~but i don't take myself that seriously and it doesnt really bother me and u shouldnt let someone like me bother u if you had your time and did your thing...than im sure your name will live on regardless. just cause i say the past is meaningless im speaking literally like to me some old shit i painted that gets hacked is the past to me its gone so why should i trip and thats what the fuck i been trying to get at...its kinda funny/ sad to me that it would be that big of a deal...its not like i painted your car or something. the world is so much bigger than this piece...
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
delusional my ass!
"an outside the box thinker"
fuck the shins
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
rape walls says:
^fools are trippin because you are hurt as fuck, the shit you dissed was from 99 and still not dissed by toys like you. dissing their pieces was unnecessary and immediately shows you lack the proper common senseto paint. if i saw you on the street i would clothesline your bitch ass. go ahead and write a few more essays and see if any more people agree with you! hahaha punk ass mark
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
iam_from_oakland_RU says:
clothesline that nigga like whAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! respect to "smoke trees"
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
iam_from_oakland_RU says:
then fools gonna post this www.flickr.com/photos/40472633@N05/3737587416 / and say he aint got no problem with Kept? i was wondering for years who finally buffed the Kept peice down at this spot and it turns out to be Gunz? god damn fool must be on some meth induce pychosis!!!
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
hahahaha^^
Posted 6 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
same as it ever was says:
wamp wamp wamp
boo hoo hoo
maybe if you had more going for you in 2009, you wouldn't cry about some lame shit you or your cronies did way back in 1999.
yeah...your real tough from the comfort of your computer-u wannabe alpha-male prick! go back to the tool academy...you aint clotheslining shit but your laundry. "hahahaha, punk ass mark"
Posted 3 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
SMOKE NOW OR DIE says:
same as it ever was says:
wamp wamp wamp
boo hoo hoo
maybe if you had more going for you in 2009, you wouldn't cry about some lame shit you or your cronies did way back in 1999.
yeah...your real tough from the comfort of your computer-u wannabe alpha-male prick! go back to the tool academy...you aint clotheslining shit but your laundry. "hahahaha, punk ass mark"
This is what i say....
by your definition of "had more going for you" you mean all the shit you've talked on this flick the most..... or maybe the stuff of yours getting lined and hacked everywhere you see it????? or maybe the knowledge being served on your ass by people that actually know shit unlike your toy ass....
you can talk tough and shit on the internet, no doubt but when it comes to painting, and being noticed and respected, your lower than everybody here....
Posted 3 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
lol tellin it like it is..... i saw alotta Gunz hacked and one with some major garbage on top of the hack..... its not complete but soon he'll be over i'm guessin very soon at the rate all this shit happened
Posted 3 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
iam_from_oakland_RU says:
nice zinger but the being noticed part is kinda week, you know as well as i do the only people writer care about being noticed by is them selves but fuck Gunz. Phyllis out
Posted 3 weeks ago. ( permalink )
view profile
elements of life 2K9 E2K says:
fosho he probably just read the comments and looked around oakland chinatown and downtown..... fuck gunz
Posted 3 weeks ago. ( permalink )
'SWAN THEATRE
Opened in 1986, the Swan Theatre is a favourite space for many actors, directors and audiences. An intimate theatre, it seats 426 people on three sides of a deep thrust stage.
We regularly stage the work of Shakespeare's contemporaries in the Swan Theatre, as well as plays by later writers, such as Restoration playwrights, and new work by today's writers.'
We had been to see a new play called The Hypocrite, set in Hull in 1642 - in the days leading up to the English Civil War. A knockabout farce with more than a hint of Morecambe and Wise, but with some telling moments.
Saint Martin, the southern most land-mass under Bangladeshi control sits isolated in the Irrawaddy Delta. On one side , there's the vast expanses of the Bay-of-Bengal and on the other side is the beautiful Burmese mountainscape.
While on a recent vacation in St Martin, me and a few friends of mine set out to circumnavigate through the northward beach of the isle. A while later we were made aware of the sun's existence in the eastern side through the beautiful irradiance that filled the sky...but the sun itself was hidden behind the Burmese mountains. Finally, after 10 or 15 minutes from sunrise, the giant, red gas-giant appeared in the silhouette of the mystic Burmese mountains. We sat down to bask in it's heavenly evanescence, wishing ourselves on the top of those mountains...in the flesh.
The truth is though, the appropriate phrase for the land in the distance should be "Beautiful from far, but far from beautiful". Despite having a population of over 500 million, a geography rich with wildlife, natural beauty and rare minerals, Burma has been plagued by a merciless military junta from 1962. Deeply religious and revered figures like the Buddhist monks even didn't escape persecution when they tried to protest the totalitarian policy of the government. If you zoom in on the coast-line on a brightly sparkling day, there's barb-wire,MG-pill boxes and watchtowers everywhere....even around the few pagodas that are visible from the distance.
So am I satisfied with this barbaric,insane land filled with back-biting hypocrites that we call "Bangladesh"? Well, I should be...but I've always been difficult to please :)
SOOC (minor cropping in PS) , because I'm getting tired of post-processing these days.
I normally never post memes, but I've gotten quite tired of self-proclaimed purists being condescending while hypocritically using custom elements with their figs.
I was tagged by Christa10 favorite foods:
1. Watermellon
2. Pizza
3. Brownies
4. Jam tart cookies
5. Home made mac and cheese
6. Tacos (as long as it isn't fast food tacos)
7. Junior Mints
8. Chicken Soup
9. Baby Back Ribs
10. Any kind of pie. xp
I was also tagged by Jaqueline to do 10 things I hate.
1. Hypocritical people
2. When your film doesn't load advance properly and there are large parts that aren't exposed... like today. lol
3. Friends who don't call you back/keep in touch
4. When people move. :(
5. Books that have whiny characters that are written in first person. coughtwilightcough
6. People who side with Gale (except azure!)
7. When I look really bad in photographs haha
8. Having to go shopping and taking years to find something inexpensive and that looks good
9. Reading a good book at night until 1am and then having to wake up early the next day.
10. People who mess up books in the library and leave it to student helpers who have to clean it up
I don't really like tagging people, so if you want to do it, just add yourself to the photo and do it. :)
quickly for the new year, Bit rusty TBH, not done much Graff sketching lately, just been working on paintings that are graff and non-graff related in style and subject..
I just begun to use oils for the first time in over 10 years got tired of acrylics,i'll get back to you in a few months, but so far i'm glad to be using oils again..
anyway done this, need to get outlining more, just going through them patches you get, artists, or writers block, i guess you all know.
anyway hope 2013 is productive Graff wise and personally to all you lot this new year.
And I would like to see some justice and common sense regarding jailing writers for graff, its fucking crazy when i hear or read the corrupt fuckers are really up to in parliament. they fix it so there's loop holes made for all the rich C*unts, Bankers and all the bullshit big corporations get away with, but they pay there way giving Rich boy Cameron and his rich buddys around the law, I was never a conspiracy type of person, but there's things going on that just fucks you off, The government is just a smokescreen, Its the huge Oil, Banks and pharmaceutical corporations and other things we don't know running this corrupted country.
Back to the writers, Whats jailing them going to achieve? When these rail company's say its cost so many £1000000's to remove graffiti Its all bullshit.
What gets me too is the hypocritically way they protect the latest things by certain people, yet at the same time they jail writers that are no danger to anybody whom have family's etc, that nothing but soap and water can't fix, Its not as if they made the trains dangerous by cutting the brakes, or smashed all the windows etc..its all to much, totally madness every custodial sentence for graffiti, yet the bosses of these corporations use every excuse to make more profit using graffiti as an excuse to add extra fares while these fat fucking bosses give themselves a nice extra few million in bonus, paying Cameron and the gun slinger cow boy wanna be.. Iain Duncan Smith, etc nice little earners.. to keep government policy sweet for these corporate tax avoiders, oil firms.. they, the super rich are the ones running the country, with hard edged tory C*unts lapping under there feet. To please there masters at will...
If you went putting up stencils done in a certain style and signed by certain names one night, then the next went night done some things signed by your tag see what happens, you can guess what would be the outcome.
anyway sorry for the rant, just I'm truly pissed off with the bullshit that's going on now with all this non-justice..
ps some tune to lighten up the mood..
Disclosure - Lividup
I'm Houser, and I'm now a moderate on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
From the more bad news from your friendly Flickr Censorship Bureau, apparently Flickr has pissed off one of their most significant developers big time. Andrew Houser, the developer of the popular FlickrLeech program, posted on his Flickr stream yesterday that Flickr has censored 100% of his Flickr photostream. Not only is Houser a kick ass photographer and popular Flickr user in his own right, he is the developer behind what I consider the number one Flickr API application on the internet today.
FlickrLeech allows you to browse Flickr in chunks of 200 photos at once rather than require a member to page endlessly through Flickr's own pages. I'm not sure if this recent move on Flickr's part is some sort of retaliation against Houser because they don't like how he's using the API, but it sucks big time. I rated Houser's FlickrLeech application the number one hack on Flickr in an article last year on the top 10 hacks on Flickr.
From Houser:
"I just received an email. I'll save you all the long of it and sum it up with the following sentence:
"If you don't apply filters correctly, there's a very good chance another member will let us know - in fact that's why we've taken action today. (No need to be upset - it's every member's right to let us know if they ever feel uncomfortable. Yours too.)"
I've had a couple drinks this evening, so I'm probably best advised not to convey my actual feelings on this matter. I am typically very careful to mark anything that contains any hint of direct nudity as restricted and anything that is close as moderate. I suppose I have a bit of a European view of nudity and the body, and think that the American puritanical double-standard is, well, ridiculous and hypocritical.
What this means is that if you are not a Flickr member and you have not set your Safe Search filter to Moderate, you can not see my work - ANY of it. Not my child. Not my landscapes. Nothing. How ridiculous is that??? It makes me almost want to close my account. It's removes any possibility that people looking for my landscape work - local publishing editors, etc - can ever see my work. It is, in no mixed words, censorship."
Houser goes on to say that if Flickr does not uncensor his account this week that he will be closing his account and taking down his popular Flickr API app FlickrLeech.
Again, from Houser:
"I am one of Flickr's longest standing paying members. I've been using Flickr since it was a Flash application! I have asked Flickr/Yahoo to assist me in moving my account from Moderate to Safe status and I will take whatever action I need to do in order to facilitate the change. If they fail to respond, I will be removing this account and taking down FlickrLeech - removing all support for this service - this week. "
Quite frankly, this sucks.
Flickr's censorship sucks. As great a place as Flickr is for hosting photos, the ongoing censorship issue continues to be a huge pain in the ass. Whether it's not letting Germans see boobies or taking down politically sensitive photos, or removing text that they disagree with in community forums it sucks. I'm going to be pissed if this action causes Flickr to lose FlickrLeech. I use FlickrLeech every single day as part of my Flickr experience. I'm also going to be pissed if we lose the great photography of Andrew Houser from the Flickr experience.
The other part about this this sucks though is that even if Houser's account does get uncensored, it probably only will happen because he's a popular user and people protested about it. Flickr censors thousands of other users every year who have little recourse but to either put up with it or close their account.
Flickr, do the right thing. Treat us like the adults that we are and unrestrict Andrew Houser's account. You are stewards of one of the greatest collection of photographic imagery on earth. You owe us more than this sort of censorship.
Update: Although the censorship issue does not appear to be resolved, Houser has put FlickrLeech back online and added the following note to his Flickrstream: "I've decided to put FlickrLeech back online. I've received too much support over the few years it's run to, in good conscious, pull it from people who use it. There have been enough infractions this week on what we can and can't see, so I won't add to it. I just will ask that you consider the censorship issues Flickr has to deal with - which, granted, are numerous and not easy to manage the traffic of - and urge Flickr to spend some time and money making the system better."
Little did I realise when my partner and I were having photographic fun amongst the oak trees, taking photo's of ourselves pretending to be the Green Man or Green Woman, that I would be using this particular image in an effort to save those very same trees. I wouldn't normally use flickr to air my grievances, social, political, religious or otherwise, but on this particular occasion I feel it necessary to do so.
As this shot was being taken, and unbeknown to me, the UK Government had put forward their plans to sell off to the highest bidder the rights of public ownership of our woodlands and forests (so far Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland aren't involved…so far). They justify this action under the ethos of their current political agenda, which is to involve the public more in what goes on in our society thereby diminishing Government involvement or interference in our lives, or in their own words, 'Big Society!' rather than 'Big Government!'. All very admirable you might say but it's my personal belief, and it would appear to be many other people's also, that in this case it’s actually the window dressing to hide a very cynical ploy to divert the publics attention away from what this sale is truly about, a crude and incompetent attempt to make money fast to top up the Government coffers. Apparently, so we’re told, this sale is all for our benefit, local communities for instance, can get the chance own a wood, until, that is, they can't afford to run it year after year, and we then get to see woodlands sold, fenced off, cut down, bulldozed, built on with new luxury houses and new golf courses or charged entry fees to have access, the fact that it helps with the National Deficit is a bonus. That they want to sell back to us what we already own, I find particularly offensive and insulting. What they also conveniently forget to tell you is that today (Wednesday) in the House of Lords they start with their new underhanded strategy, which is to change the current laws which prevent them from selling off the truly big woodlands and forests like Sherwood Forest, The Forest of Dean and The New Forest, for they are the forests where the really big profits lie. It’s the same age old story, if a Government can't get its own way with the current laws, then it changes them so that it can!
But, the Government has been taken aback by the furore that's followed since the announcement. Everyone from the 'man and woman in the street' to environmental groups and experts, actors, artists, politicians(?), and even celebs (this is one band wagon I don't mind them jumping on!), have all joined in the increasing chorus of condemnation. In response, the Government is falling over itself to reassure us by saying that they will create new laws, regulations, standards, government watch-dogs, anything in fact to fool us into believing we're not losing a valuable asset forever. They say they'll give priority to charities, local communities and environmental organisations etc to have first bite of the woodland apple when the properties come up for sale. That'll be an interesting day at the woodland fire sale, for as a Forestry Commission spokesman quitely rightly said, it's one thing to buy some woodland but it's quite another thing to have the knowledge, tools and more importantly the finances to look after that woodland and to care for it practically year on year. As for private business/corporations being in ownership, they have two people to keep happy, their bank manager and their shareholder, and that means profit margins and making money. If it's Forestry Commission conifer plantations they buy, they can clear fell the mature trees and then wait around for a few years as younger trees come to maturity, so it's not a fast way to make money. If it's mixed deciduous woodland then it's full of trees that are massively in demand for expensive furniture and veneers for our kitchen units and tables etc, unfortunately, once you cut that lot down you will be waiting for many, many years before any newly planted trees come to maturity and profit. Either way, its a slow way to make money, unless, that is, you convert the actual land itself to other uses; golf courses, industrial units, luxury housing, private estates, Centre Parcs…you get the idea. In the current financial climate and for the foreseeable future what do you think will be going through their minds as they look at a plot woodland? These people literally can't see the wood for the cash! The Forestry Commission is not perfect, not by a long mark but surely it's better to fix it than let the Government sell it off to line their own pockets. Better the devil you know, and can redeem, than the devil you don't. Once the current form of public ownership is broken up piecemeal, we've lost it all.
So, you ask, what's the point of this post then, you depressing bugger, Tony? The point is, I'm asking that you, the British person reading this, to just say, NO! No, to the Government selling off OUR woodland. No, to the short term profit gains and long term environmental and social losses. No, to them depriving us access to something that is currently free, to something that heals and mends us just by being there. No, to the destruction of wildlife habitats and the death of trees, flowers, animals, insects, fungi...all those innocents in this human folly. The word ‘No’ is a simple word, just two letters, but it’s also one of the most powerful words in the world. By saying ‘No!’ to their plans you’re saying ‘Yes!’ to life, ‘Yes!’ for the future of our children and nature. If enough people speak with one voice they will be heard, they will be listened to.
Personally, as a lover of nature in all its forms and manifestations, and as a photographer who loves to try and capture its awesome beauty, I feel sick to my gut that one day I might not be able to gain entry to my favourite woodland or worse still see it and others chopped down, destroyed for the sake of a profit margin, or stand on the other side of the fence and watch the privileged few enjoy what was once everyones pleasure, especially so if it was because I did nothing to stop it. I don't know about anybody else but as a photographer I just can’t sit on my hands and not give something back to the woodland that has given me so many photographs. But, and more importantly for me as a human being, it’s not just the photographs it’s also all the magical experiences that I’ve had in the woods, the moments that made my skin tingle with excitement and anticipation, the awe inspiring sights that have burned themselves into my eyeballs and memories, it's the countless times I’ve had my soul touched and healed by the innocent gaze of a deer, fox or blackbird, by the shafts of light on misty mornings, by the rustle of autumn leaves talking with the wind as the sun goes down, or standing in awe listening to bird song so insanely musical that it brings a lump to my throat and makes my heart leap with joy, and then... and then there are the soft, deep silences in between those songs, that penetrate my body and tremble my soul with their touch, and speak without words of profound mysteries... When I think of all those things that I’ve been given freely, is it really too much for the woods and all the living things therein to ask that I help them in their time of need?
So that's what I'm doing, I'm helping them because I choose to owe them that help, and I'm asking you to choose to help them too. There are two things you can do; 1) Sign the national on-line petition at this address, www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests - nearly 400,000 people have signed it so far. 2) Take 5 or 10 minutes to log on to your MP's website and write to them telling them of your outrage at their plans, and what you WANT them to do about it, or just say whatever's within your heart to say. Don’t leave it for somebody else to do. If you're reading this then you DO have the time to do those two important but simple actions. As you sit there in front of your screen, enjoying your own space and doing what you want to do, ask yourself, which is more important, saving the woodland you love and photograph or clicking onto another stream, another photograph, making another comment. You don't have to worry, those things will continue to be there for you to do night after night but one day that woodland you photograph may not be…unless right now you just take a 10 minute time out and give a tree a hug by signing the petition and writing to your MP. And if you feel particularly pro-active there are many groups out there to lend your support to, lots of websites to view so you can get the real facts about this proposal rather than the Government propaganda, or you could even start up your own group or a website, as a 17 yr old teenager has just done near to me, or join a march…so go on, do something, if nothing else you could at least scare an MP to death by expressing your unwillingness to vote for them at the next election unless they stop this madness! We must all say No! to the faceless bureaucrats and career politicians who would deprive us and future generations from the simple and free pleasure of OUR woodlands.
I’ve gone on a bit, and I’ve probably bored people who don’t give a damn, or annoyed those that inexplicably agree with the sale but, I really don’t care if I have. I don’t care because nature is far more important to me than ruffling someone’s feathers or hurting someone’s feelings. The line has to be drawn somewhere, let’s draw it together. Remember, if enough people speak with one voice they will be heard, they will be listened to!
UPDATE We have won the battle against the sell-offs of our woods and forests but we may lose the war to save our countryside. The Government are still determined to press ahead with their exploitation and destruction of our countryside for the benefit of a rich, powerful elite and big business. They are now proposing via DEFRA a new concept of Biodiversity Offsetting whereby developers (housing and industrial) can come and cut our woods down, fill in ponds and lakes, build on heathland and village greens etc as long as they compensate for it by creating something 'green' to replace that which they destroyed. The thing is, how do you replace an environment that's taken hundreds or thousands of years to develop and grow? How do you uproot a woodland and transpose it to another site as one Tory Minister suggested? Are these people truly clueless, incompetent idiots with regards to nature and the environment? Judging by the statements that come out of their arrogant, condescending mouths, they are. They are prepared to say anything as a smokescreen to hide what they really want and to hide what's being done behind closed doors, even if it makes them seem idiots, as was the case when this government of profiteering parasites changed the planning laws to enable their financial backers, the developers and construction companies, total free rein over our countryside.
Owen Paterson Tory MP (Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, supporter of the badger cull and GM foods) and Eric Pickles Tory MP (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and the man who rubber stamps through any and all planning applications regardless of local opinions) have been working hard behind our backs to ensure that once again they and their supporters get what they want. Yet again the promises of David Cameron have been shown to be lies, just statements to con the public with in order to win votes and stay in power. Whatever happened to the 'Big Society', 'the greenest Party ever', 'local people deciding what's best for their local communities' and God knows how many more shallow sound-bites? There's no point expecting the Liberal Party to do anything, they just keep quiet and hang onto the apron strings of the Tories in a bid to stay in power.
What we as the people of this country want, and what politicians and big business want, are two totally different things, and right now the rich, ivory towered elite of politicians and big business are winning. I wonder what our children and future generations will think of us if we don't stop the destruction of this once beautiful country? They will probably wonder why we chose to watch the X Factor rather than the Axe Factor.
One last thing! DEFRA have announced that they have no money for at least 2 years to plant any more trees, and there are even doubts about whether they'll have any after that. Strange that they have more than enough money to pay gunmen to kill badgers, though!
Please note that any Invitations from groups which are running Sweepers and have hypocritic admins that are hiding behind them, are ΝΟΤ welcome and will not be accepted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweepers are insulting for photographers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Also note that any Invitations from groups with admins who are MORE
Photographers and LESS counters are happily accepted <<<
I hope you have not been leading
a double life, pretending to be
wicked and being good all the
time.
That would be hypocrisy
Louisville Metro Council wants to force McDonald's to offer a customer water, first, prior to "letting them" get a soda - *for the kids' health* - yet these gumball, candy and soda machines are on display and open for business in their Metro Government Building. What hypocrites.
***********
PSA from The Pope on Twitter (October 19, 2019):
Pope Francis
✔
@Pontifex
How do we root out hypocrisy? There's a good medicine that can help us not be hypocrites: point the finger at ourselves and say to the Lord "Look at the way I am, Lord!", and say it with humility. #SantaMarta
***********
"Want a Coke with that Happy Meal? Louisville restaurants may have to offer water first" - Phillip M. Bailey, Louisville Courier Journal Published 8:36 a.m. ET April 19, 2018 | Updated 3:49 p.m. ET April 19, 2018
Metro Council Democrats aren't happy with the Happy Meals being served to Louisville's youngest customers, and they want healthier options, like milk or water, to be offered first.
Saying they want to fight childhood obesity, two council members — Rick Blackwell and Vicki Aubrey Welch — have proposed to change what fast food companies like McDonald's and other local restaurants have on their kids' menus.
"There is no mandate in here," said Welch, who is a registered nurse. "It is a default where the first choice that is going to be given is a healthy food, juice or a milk, but if the parent says, 'Oh I want my kid to have a Coke' they can give them a sugar drink if they want."
The effort is likely to conjure up comparisons to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ban on 16-ounce sugary drinks that agitated customers until the courts knocked that rule down.
But the sponsors say their measure makes it clear that if the new rule were implemented, it would not forbid a restaurant from selling alternatives or stop a parent from buying their child whatever they want.
Opinion: You should decide what your kids eat, not Metro Council members
Council Republicans worry the change could be the beginning of local government forcing stricter dining regulations on businesses. They argue the city shouldn't be telling restaurants what should be on their menus.
"This heavy-handed tactic is not the way to achieve the goal of a healthier community," said Councilwoman Marilyn Parker, who is also a registered nurse.
Councilwoman Angela Leet, R-7th, who is running for mayor, said in a tweet on Thursday that she wants children to be healthy but, "this ordinance is the very definition of government overreach. If the ordinance stays in its current form I cannot support it."
Mayor Greg Fischer did not take a position on the legislation when responding to Courier Journal but a spokesman said he appreciates that the sponsors are engaging with the city's health department on how to enforce the ordinance.
"The mayor is aware of some concerns in the community on implementation and encourages dialogue on how to potentially address those concerns," Fischer spokesman Chris Kenning said.
Under the proposal, any food service business with a children's meal can only sell it if it offers certain foods and beverages as the first option.
Specifically, it says that businesses must provide fresh fruit or vegetables, a whole grain product or a lean protein, one 20-ounce serving of nuts, seeds, dry beans, peas or one egg. For beverages, the restaurant must make available either a water, sparkling water, flavored water with no added natural or artificial sweeteners, non-fat or 1 percent milk product.
Read this: Louisville police need to stop shooting the mentally ill and drug addicted, CLOUT says
Andrew Snow, an advocacy manager at the American Heart Association — which is spearheading the proposal and has led similar legislation nationwide — said about 12 cities have adopted similar rules mostly in California.
The most recent city to adopt rules for kids' menus was Baltimore, which in March required restaurants to offer water, milk or real fruit juice. The mayor of Baltimore signed the legislation Thursday.
A spokesman for Nashville said the Tennessee city has no such requirements but that the health department and school district have worked together to lower the level of sugar in the chocolate milk served at schools.
In Indianapolis, a spokesman for the Marion County health department said there is nothing on the books requiring what commercial restaurants can or cannot serve.
Stacy Roof, president and CEO of the Kentucky Restaurant Association, said the group hasn't taken a position on the Louisville ordinance but that its members have voiced concerns about the city forcing them change their menu items. She questioned if such a rule is needed.
"How many kid's meals are purchased a week in the average family? I think it's a treat and it's not typically something that's a daily occurrence," Roof said. "As a parent, when I had younger children I would look at that and say, 'I don't know that they need to be telling me what I should ordering.' I think it's a bit much."
www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-governm...
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ سَبَّحَ لِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ (1) Whatever is in the heavens and on earth,- let it declare the Praises and Glory of Allah: for He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ ۖ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ (2) To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: It is He Who gives Life and Death; and He has Power over all things.
هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (3) He is the First and the Last, the Evident and the Immanent: and He has full knowledge of all things.
هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ ۚ يَعْلَمُ مَا يَلِجُ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَمَا يَخْرُجُ مِنْهَا وَمَا يَنزِلُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ وَمَا يَعْرُجُ فِيهَا ۖ وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُمْ ۚ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ (4) He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and is moreover firmly established on the Throne (of Authority). He knows what enters within the earth and what comes forth out of it, what comes down from heaven and what mounts up to it. And He is with you wheresoever ye may be. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
لَّهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ وَإِلَى اللَّهِ تُرْجَعُ الْأُمُورُ (5) To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: and all affairs are referred back to Allah.
يُولِجُ اللَّيْلَ فِي النَّهَارِ وَيُولِجُ النَّهَارَ فِي اللَّيْلِ ۚ وَهُوَ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ (6) He merges Night into Day, and He merges Day into Night; and He has full knowledge of the secrets of (all) hearts.
آمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَأَنفِقُوا مِمَّا جَعَلَكُم مُّسْتَخْلَفِينَ فِيهِ ۖ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَأَنفَقُوا لَهُمْ أَجْرٌ كَبِيرٌ (7) Believe in Allah and His messenger, and spend (in charity) out of the (substance) whereof He has made you heirs. For, those of you who believe and spend (in charity),- for them is a great Reward.
وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ ۙ وَالرَّسُولُ يَدْعُوكُمْ لِتُؤْمِنُوا بِرَبِّكُمْ وَقَدْ أَخَذَ مِيثَاقَكُمْ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ (8) What cause have ye why ye should not believe in Allah?- and the Messenger invites you to believe in your Lord, and has indeed taken your Covenant, if ye are men of Faith.
هُوَ الَّذِي يُنَزِّلُ عَلَىٰ عَبْدِهِ آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ لِّيُخْرِجَكُم مِّنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ ۚ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُمْ لَرَءُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ (9) He is the One Who sends to His Servant Manifest Signs, that He may lead you from the depths of Darkness into the Light and verily Allah is to you most kind and Merciful.
وَمَا لَكُمْ أَلَّا تُنفِقُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلِلَّهِ مِيرَاثُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ لَا يَسْتَوِي مِنكُم مَّنْ أَنفَقَ مِن قَبْلِ الْفَتْحِ وَقَاتَلَ ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ أَعْظَمُ دَرَجَةً مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أَنفَقُوا مِن بَعْدُ وَقَاتَلُوا ۚ وَكُلًّا وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَىٰ ۚ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ (10) And what cause have ye why ye should not spend in the cause of Allah?- For to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth. Not equal among you are those who spent (freely) and fought, before the Victory, (with those who did so later). Those are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. But to all has Allah promised a goodly (reward). And Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do.
مَّن ذَا الَّذِي يُقْرِضُ اللَّهَ قَرْضًا حَسَنًا فَيُضَاعِفَهُ لَهُ وَلَهُ أَجْرٌ كَرِيمٌ (11) Who is he that will Loan to Allah a beautiful loan? for (Allah) will increase it manifold to his credit, and he will have (besides) a liberal Reward.
يَوْمَ تَرَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَسْعَىٰ نُورُهُم بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَبِأَيْمَانِهِم بُشْرَاكُمُ الْيَوْمَ جَنَّاتٌ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ (12) One Day shalt thou see the believing men and the believing women- how their Light runs forward before them and by their right hands: (their greeting will be): "Good News for you this Day! Gardens beneath which flow rivers! to dwell therein for aye! This is indeed the highest Achievement!"
يَوْمَ يَقُولُ الْمُنَافِقُونَ وَالْمُنَافِقَاتُ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا انظُرُونَا نَقْتَبِسْ مِن نُّورِكُمْ قِيلَ ارْجِعُوا وَرَاءَكُمْ فَالْتَمِسُوا نُورًا فَضُرِبَ بَيْنَهُم بِسُورٍ لَّهُ بَابٌ بَاطِنُهُ فِيهِ الرَّحْمَةُ وَظَاهِرُهُ مِن قِبَلِهِ الْعَذَابُ (13) One Day will the Hypocrites- men and women - say to the Believers: "Wait for us! Let us borrow (a Light) from your Light!" It will be said: "Turn ye back to your rear! then seek a Light (where ye can)!" So a wall will be put up betwixt them, with a gate therein. Within it will be Mercy throughout, and without it, all alongside, will be (Wrath and) Punishment!
يُنَادُونَهُمْ أَلَمْ نَكُن مَّعَكُمْ ۖ قَالُوا بَلَىٰ وَلَٰكِنَّكُمْ فَتَنتُمْ أَنفُسَكُمْ وَتَرَبَّصْتُمْ وَارْتَبْتُمْ وَغَرَّتْكُمُ الْأَمَانِيُّ حَتَّىٰ جَاءَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ وَغَرَّكُم بِاللَّهِ الْغَرُورُ (14) (Those without) will call out, "Were we not with you?" (The others) will reply, "True! but ye led yourselves into temptation; ye looked forward (to our ruin); ye doubted (Allah´s Promise); and (your false) desires deceived you; until there issued the Command of Allah. And the Deceiver deceived you in respect of Allah.
فَالْيَوْمَ لَا يُؤْخَذُ مِنكُمْ فِدْيَةٌ وَلَا مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ۚ مَأْوَاكُمُ النَّارُ ۖ هِيَ مَوْلَاكُمْ ۖ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ (15) "This Day shall no ransom be accepted of you, nor of those who rejected Allah." Your abode is the Fire: that is the proper place to claim you: and an evil refuge it is!"
۞ أَلَمْ يَأْنِ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَن تَخْشَعَ قُلُوبُهُمْ لِذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَمَا نَزَلَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ وَلَا يَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلُ فَطَالَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْأَمَدُ فَقَسَتْ قُلُوبُهُمْ ۖ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ (16) Has not the Time arrived for the Believers that their hearts in all humility should engage in the remembrance of Allah and of the Truth which has been revealed (to them), and that they should not become like those to whom was given Revelation aforetime, but long ages passed over them and their hearts grew hard? For many among them are rebellious transgressors.
اعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يُحْيِي الْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا ۚ قَدْ بَيَّنَّا لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ (17) Know ye (all) that Allah giveth life to the earth after its death! already have We shown the Signs plainly to you, that ye may learn wisdom.
إِنَّ الْمُصَّدِّقِينَ وَالْمُصَّدِّقَاتِ وَأَقْرَضُوا اللَّهَ قَرْضًا حَسَنًا يُضَاعَفُ لَهُمْ وَلَهُمْ أَجْرٌ كَرِيمٌ (18) For those who give in Charity, men and women, and loan to Allah a Beautiful Loan, it shall be increased manifold (to their credit), and they shall have (besides) a liberal reward.
وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الصِّدِّيقُونَ ۖ وَالشُّهَدَاءُ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ لَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ وَنُورُهُمْ ۖ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَكَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا أُولَٰئِكَ أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ (19) And those who believe in Allah and His messengers- they are the Sincere (lovers of Truth), and the witnesses (who testify), in the eyes of their Lord: They shall have their Reward and their Light. But those who reject Allah and deny Our Signs,- they are the Companions of Hell-Fire.
اعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا لَعِبٌ وَلَهْوٌ وَزِينَةٌ وَتَفَاخُرٌ بَيْنَكُمْ وَتَكَاثُرٌ فِي الْأَمْوَالِ وَالْأَوْلَادِ ۖ كَمَثَلِ غَيْثٍ أَعْجَبَ الْكُفَّارَ نَبَاتُهُ ثُمَّ يَهِيجُ فَتَرَاهُ مُصْفَرًّا ثُمَّ يَكُونُ حُطَامًا ۖ وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ وَمَغْفِرَةٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانٌ ۚ وَمَا الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا إِلَّا مَتَاعُ الْغُرُورِ (20) Know ye (all), that the life of this world is but play and amusement, pomp and mutual boasting and multiplying, (in rivalry) among yourselves, riches and children. Here is a similitude: How rain and the growth which it brings forth, delight (the hearts of) the tillers; soon it withers; thou wilt see it grow yellow; then it becomes dry and crumbles away. But in the Hereafter is a Penalty severe (for the devotees of wrong). And Forgiveness from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure (for the devotees of Allah). And what is the life of this world, but goods and chattels of deception?
سَابِقُوا إِلَىٰ مَغْفِرَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَجَنَّةٍ عَرْضُهَا كَعَرْضِ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ أُعِدَّتْ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ (21) Be ye foremost (in seeking) Forgiveness from your Lord, and a Garden (of Bliss), the width whereof is as the width of heaven and earth, prepared for those who believe in Allah and His messengers: that is the Grace of Allah, which He bestows on whom he pleases: and Allah is the Lord of Grace abounding.
مَا أَصَابَ مِن مُّصِيبَةٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا فِي أَنفُسِكُمْ إِلَّا فِي كِتَابٍ مِّن قَبْلِ أَن نَّبْرَأَهَا ۚ إِنَّ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ (22) No misfortune can happen on earth or in your souls but is recorded in a decree before We bring it into existence: That is truly easy for Allah:
لِّكَيْلَا تَأْسَوْا عَلَىٰ مَا فَاتَكُمْ وَلَا تَفْرَحُوا بِمَا آتَاكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ كُلَّ مُخْتَالٍ فَخُورٍ (23) In order that ye may not despair over matters that pass you by, nor exult over favours bestowed upon you. For Allah loveth not any vainglorious boaster,-
الَّذِينَ يَبْخَلُونَ وَيَأْمُرُونَ النَّاسَ بِالْبُخْلِ ۗ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ (24) Such persons as are covetous and commend covetousness to men. And if any turn back (from Allah´s Way), verily Allah is Free of all Needs, Worthy of all Praise.
لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَنزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْمِيزَانَ لِيَقُومَ النَّاسُ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَأَنزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَلِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ مَن يَنصُرُهُ وَرُسُلَهُ بِالْغَيْبِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ (25) We sent aforetime our messengers with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice; and We sent down Iron, in which is (material for) mighty war, as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help, Unseen, Him and His messengers: For Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might (and able to enforce His Will).
وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا وَإِبْرَاهِيمَ وَجَعَلْنَا فِي ذُرِّيَّتِهِمَا النُّبُوَّةَ وَالْكِتَابَ ۖ فَمِنْهُم مُّهْتَدٍ ۖ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ (26) And We sent Noah and Abraham, and established in their line Prophethood and Revelation: and some of them were on right guidance. But many of them became rebellious transgressors.
ثُمَّ قَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِرُسُلِنَا وَقَفَّيْنَا بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ وَجَعَلْنَا فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ رَأْفَةً وَرَحْمَةً وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ابْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ فَمَا رَعَوْهَا حَقَّ رِعَايَتِهَا ۖ فَآتَيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْهُمْ أَجْرَهُمْ ۖ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ (27) Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَآمِنُوا بِرَسُولِهِ يُؤْتِكُمْ كِفْلَيْنِ مِن رَّحْمَتِهِ وَيَجْعَل لَّكُمْ نُورًا تَمْشُونَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ۚ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (28) O ye that believe! Fear Allah, and believe in His Messenger, and He will bestow on you a double portion of His Mercy: He will provide for you a Light by which ye shall walk (straight in your path), and He will forgive you (your past): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
لِّئَلَّا يَعْلَمَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ أَلَّا يَقْدِرُونَ عَلَىٰ شَيْءٍ مِّن فَضْلِ اللَّهِ ۙ وَأَنَّ الْفَضْلَ بِيَدِ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ (29) That the People of the Book may know that they have no power whatever over the Grace of Allah, that (His) Grace is (entirely) in His Hand, to bestow it on whomsoever He wills. For Allah is the Lord of Grace abounding.
Al-Hadid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Sura 57 of the Qur'an →
سورة الحديد
Sūrat al-Ḥadīd
The Iron
Surat Al-Ḥadīd (Arabic: سورة الحديد ) (Iron) is the 57th sura of the Qur'an, with 29 ayat.
Iron in the Qur'an
Surat Al-Hadid is the 57th Surah of the Qur'an prefixed by the Basmala (the 9th. sura is not - see also Sunnan Abu Dawood a hadith 785-787). This sura is the only one named for a chemical element. (And We also sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind)… (Qur'an, 57:25) The reference to iron is in verse 25 of this Surah, which states: "...We sent down Iron, in which is (material for) mighty power, as well as many benefits for mankind...".
Other chemical elements mentioned in the Qur'an include gold and silver as valuables (e.g. Sura 3, 14 & Sura 9, 34), copper (Sura 55, 35) and copper in the context of molten brass or bronze (e.g. Sura 34, 12).
Classification of Believers
57:10 وَمَا لَكُمْ أَلَّا تُنفِقُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلِلَّهِ مِيرَاثُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ لَا يَسْتَوِي مِنكُم مَّنْ أَنفَقَ مِن قَبْلِ الْفَتْحِ وَقَاتَلَ أُوْلَئِكَ أَعْظَمُ دَرَجَةً مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أَنفَقُوا مِن بَعْدُ وَقَاتَلُوا وَكُلًّا وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ
Moreover, what could be the matter-rationale for you people that you might not spend in the Path of Allah the Exalted? While the reality is that the domain of the Skies and the Earth is eternally the belonging for Allah the Exalted.
Those, who had spent before the event of the Conquest of Mecca and confronted war, do not and will never equal-equate with any one from amongst you, the living people.
They are the people who are comparatively great. Their greatness is in elevated rank-position and status in contrast to all the people who did the same act of spending and confronting war in time and space in time-line after the Conquest.
However/though Allah the Exalted has promised, for all an appropriate/proportionate reward. Remain mindful that Allah the Exalted is perpetually informed/aware of all those acts which you people keep doing. [57:10]
Allah, the Exalted has classified the Believers of Mohammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam and the Grand Qur'an in two groups. The classification is with reference to the Event of the Conquest of the Sanctified City of Mecca. The Believers, men and women, of the period immediately before this Event are the First Group and are declared as the great over all others, the other Group, who became or become believers after that Event. This greatness is with reference to their elevated Rank and position over all other believers of Mohammad Sal'lallaa'hoalaih'wa'salam and the Grand Qur'an, in time and space. [For detailed study please see (1) Surat Fateha-"Word by Word Analysis"]
SO I was trying to experiment with painting with light and well, I did it mid-day in my BRIGHT dinning room so it was a little hard to do...but this is the end result...sorta happy with it.
Anyways, Always try to stay positive...I know I am a hypocrite saying that but I am trying really hard. God is great and has a plan for me and If I keep that est in my mind and heart, I will be good to go! Have a Great Sunday everyone!
A reinvention of my final college project of the year.
I used beauty products found around the home to damage my negatives.
I was hoping to suggest the idea that despite the fact that magazines and the media tell us that by buying these products we'll become perfect, yet we remain damaged and flawed.
For someone who eventually hopes to work in the fashion industry I suppose Its a little hypocritical but ah well, its just a thought.
I decided to mix them up a little and add some colour. I'll make a blog post later about the actual installation and how they looked before I scanned them.
Also, I realise the title is awful but it was chosen for the project at the last minute, and I couldn't name yet another project as Umtitled!
| 120 film | Hassleblad |
15/09/1949
King's Rhapsody (Musical Romance)
Ann Carson - Maid
Anne Pinder - Olga Varsov
Arnott Mader - Albanian Groom
Denis Martin - Count Egon Stanieff, Serenader
Douglas Orr - Manservant
Edgar Elmes - Serenader
Eric Sutherland - Major Domo
Gawn Grainger - Boy King
Gordon Duttson - Tormas
Harry Fergusson - Manservant
Irene Claire - Albanian Bride
Jack Buchanan - Nikki
Jacqueline Le Geyt - Madame Koska
John Palmer - Mr. Trotzen
Joyce Hartwell - Gypsy Queen
Larry Mandon - 3rd Revolutionary, Serenader
Leon Biedrycki - Tartar Chief
Melville Denham - Serenader
Michael Anthony - Jules, Volkoff, 1st Revolutionary, Archbishop
Micheal Stoller -Serenader
Olive Gilbert - Countess Vera Lemainken
Pamela Harrington - Princess Kirsten
Penny Jones - 3rd Revolutionary
Phyllis Dare - Marta Karillos
Robert Andrews - Vanescu
Tom Gillis - 2nd Revolutionary
Trisha Colbourne - Georgian Girl
Vanessa Lee - Princess Cristaine
Victor Boggetti - King Peter of Norseland
Wendy Warren - Princess Hulda
Zena Dare - Queen Elana of Murania
Ivor Novello
Ivor was born January 14th 1893 to accountant David Davies and Welsh singer Madame Novello Davies. The child was named David Ivor after his father, though was known as Ivor from an early age.
When Ivor was five months old his mother was to travel to America for the World’s Fair to represent Wales with her Ladies Choir. Her group won first prize and much acclaim in America, soon finding much demand for them to tour. She was then asked to give a command performance for the Queen, which further enhanced her reputation. Ivor grew up in an environment filled with music and many celebrities associated in the field such as the great singer Clara Butt.
The first time Ivor sang in public was when his mother prompted him unwillingly forward before a host of friends at a party before another tour of America.
His mother became widely recognised as an accomplished teacher and travelled to London to instruct classes on a regular basis. On one particular trip Ivor accompanied her and saw his first West End play entitled “English Nell”. He was inspired by this new entertainment and he was further inspired to complete his studies and start his own puppet theatre to entertain friends.
In 1903 Ivor went to the National Eisteddfod at Aberystwyth, a competition for Welsh Opera. His mother entered him under the name Ivor Cardiff so as not to risk prejudice in the judging procedure. The ten-year-old boy won first prize. His identity revealed, Madame Clara was once again congratulated upon producing another successful student. Ivor was never short of company as he was constantly surrounded by all manner of people from the art world as well as having an adopted sister, whom his mother called Marie Novello.
Ivor was schooled at a private academy in Cardiff, where he made his first appearance, in the pantomime “Aladdin”. Interested in all things musical, Ivor obtained his first gramophone at the age of twelve and along with his piano, it became a favourite as he listened to the great singers of the day.
He then left for Gloucester where he studied for a period under one of his mother’s friends Mrs Arthur Sly. At this point Ivor was enamoured with a girl named Dorothy Jones, who lived at Longford House, Gloucester. The house had a private theatre attached and it was here that Ivor played his first real acting part as Sir Peter Teazle in Sheridan’s “The School for Scandal”. The experience was so enjoyable that Ivor decided there and then that one day he would become an actor.
Initially it was Ivor’s voice which sent him to Magdalen College on a Scholarship in 1903. Ivor sang solo in the choir there for five years. At the age of 16 and a half his voice broke and a career in singing was left behind with his childhood.
Ivor had been busy composing and after many attempts Arthur Boosey, a London music producer, accepted a song entitled “Spring of the Year”, a waltz. The piece, published under the name Ivor Novello, was not a great success but convinced Ivor that it was a path he wished to pursue. With much practise, Ivor improved and further pieces became well recognised, such as “Little Damozel”. Upon leaving school he went to live at his mother’s London home.
As he matured, Ivor became strikingly handsome with his dark hair, brown eyes complimented by a pale complexion. At one time he was described as “the handsomest man in Britain”.
The thought of acting had never left his mind and Ivor yearned to take to the stage, spending his money on attending as many shows as possible at Daly's and the Gaiety Theatre. This was in spite of his mother who was firmly opposed to the idea and only wished him progress further with composing.
Ivor produced his first musical comedy called “The Fickle Jade”, which was not very successful, but he was able to meet many other young composers and gain valuable experience. In 1910 Ivor heard his first piece of music to be performed by an orchestra at the Crystal Palace, which gave him a huge thrill.
The following year Ivor visited America for the first time and after recent successes, Ivor was charged with writing the music for a pageant with which to tour Canada, but the project fell through financially. Ivor had written many pieces of music but was able to visit New York and the Metropolitan Opera House not to mention the many theatres.
Before leaving New York, Ivor acquired a small dog named Wudge. When he was about to leave for England on the "Empress of Ireland", Ivor could not find the dog anywhere; being a sensitive soul he missed his voyage so that he may find the dog, which he found back at his apartment. Meanwhile the ship was rammed and sunk in thick fog, with the loss of 950 lives.
When he returned later to England, Ivor was determined to recreate the successes he had seen in New York. By 1914 Novello had produced some fairly successful musical pieces and they were being regularly performed by some of Madame Clara's pupils, including his adopted sister Marie.
In August of 1914 war broke out and Ivor composed work with a patriotic flavour. With Lena Ford, an American poet who wrote the words (with exception of the new piece’s title) he wrote "Keep the Home Fires Burning". It was a song that changed Ivor’s life overnight as its success spanned the length and breadth of the Britain and America. Ivor was still only 21 years old.
Ivor soon attained a commission in the Royal Naval Air Service as Flight Sub-Lieutenant. Song-writing had to take a back seat. “Keep the Home Fires Burning” meanwhile was going from strength to strength, widely published and Novello became a celebrity. It became a call to arms and fed patriotism, inspiring people to take up arms against German Imperialism.
Novello was a great entertainer as well and held many gatherings at his flat on the Strand, meeting regularly with many creative talents such as a young Noel Coward. As the war continued and the Americans entered the conflict, Ivor’s romantic notions of being a pilot were dashed when he had two crashes in 1916. He took an office job, which he disliked, but it did enable him to work upon his composing more. He enjoyed some success during this period and saw several pieces reach the West End.
During the climax of the war Ivor was sent to Sweden to help suppress the popularity of German cabaret in Stockholm. He was a great success but whilst there, Armistice was declared and he missed the fevered celebrations at home. When he did finally return home he found that a dear friend Billie Carleton had died. Hence, even though Ivor was a financial success, he felt somewhat hollow.
His mother suggested a visit to New York to get over the war as she had taken an apartment there. With a newfound lease of life Ivor jumped at the chance and set sail with his mother and close friends. Ivor was thoroughly enchanted by the city and Broadway in particular. On the return voyage, Ivor was unexpectedly sent a cable from his agent, asking if he would like to act in his first film. Ivor had not acted since his school days but he went to Paris and met with Louis Mercanton a French director.
He was to co-star in the picture “The Call of the Blood” with Phyllis Neilson-Terry. Ivor turned out to be a natural and the film was a success, though Ivor himself was not wholly impressed with his own performance. Despite this newspapers reported him as being the new rising star. The film acting did not vastly interrupt his composing work and he saw it as a welcome distraction.
Novello also hankered after a theatrical role as many of his idols had been on the stage. On November 3rd 1921 Ivor played Armand Duval in HM Harwood’s stage production of “Debram”. It was hardly as well paid as the film work but it was an opening into the theatrical world. Further stage roles followed and soon found hoards of admiring fans at each performance. Novello soon had a contract in Hollywood at MGM.
Ivor took a part in “The Bohemian Girl” alongside Gladys Cooper and Constance Collier, but more importantly for him, Ellen Terry the great stage tragedian. In 1923 Novello was called to Hollywood to star in DW Griffith’s new film “The White Rose”, a huge honour, as Griffiths was one of the most renowned directors of the period.
The film turned out to be very successful and this was reflected in glowing reviews in the New York press. This certainly helped with his profile in England and he starred in “Bonnie Prince Charlie”. Ivor had also produced his own screenplay called “The Rat”, which he had written some time before but had not been able to stimulate interest in. His sudden rise to fame and new acquaintances enabled him to adapt the piece for the stage. It was a venture, which Ivor approached whole-heartedly, and “The Rat” opened in Brighton on January 15th Ivor's Birthday. Much interest arose and the house was packed for the first night.
It was not a masterpiece of writing, but was entertaining and Ivor in the lead role was as engaging as ever. Contrary to his friend Noel Coward’s advice, he took the play to the stages of London. It turned out to be a good move and the play ran for well over 600 performances.
Ivor acted in the play but concealed the fact that he had written it through the pseudonym “David Lestrange”. When the public discovered the truth they were even more impressed with the new stage manager and playwright.
Whilst the play was still running, Ivor starred in a film version of directed by Graham Cutts in 1924. The film followed on from the success of the play and Ivor's previous film roles. Unfortunately the newfound confidence Ivor felt led him to make some horrendous theatrical decisions and he was part of several stage failures, including Noel Coward's disastrous “Sirocco”. Novello only seemed suited at the time to roles which he himself cast, and as he had not written any new material he decided to work in films again.
Ivor was soon signed to star in a series of films at Islington Studies, this time in British films, firstly with a sequel to “The Rat”, entitled “"The Triumph of the Rat”. The next film was Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Lodger”, loosely based upon the Jack the Ripper story. “The Bioscope” reported the film as being “possibly the finest British production ever made”.
Following this Ivor starred in Hitchcock’s “Downhill” and Noel Coward’s film version of “The Vortex” which fled to Ivor starring in “A South Sea Bubble”, Ivor's last silent movie.
Novello’s mind was never far from the stage, and he knew that was where his creative talents lay. Cautiously he embarked upon writing “The Truth Game” and toiled over the whole process. The production rehearsals were troubled by a lack of faith from producer Gerald du Maurier and certain cast members. Novello was determined though and the show opened to huge audiences and proved the sceptics wrong, giving Ivor much needed confidence in his own writing.
Ivor followed up this success with “Symphony in two flats” and he was acknowledged as a stage writer. The success of this new play allowed Ivor to adapt it as a talking film and also for Broadway.
The advent of “talkies” put paid to many a silent film star’s career, whose voice simply did not suit the new medium, but Ivor was well suited to the talking picture as his training with Madame Clara had given him a prominent voice.
Upon arrival in Hollywood, Ivor was welcomed by Joan Crawford and taken to MGM studios. His script for “The Truth Game” was radically changed and little appeared on film that actually occurred on the stage; even the title was changed to “But the Flesh is Weak”. MGM had their books full with actors and much to Ivor's disappointment he was only engaged as a screenwriter. Novello was employed on such pictured as “Tarzan the Ape Man” and similarly tedious works, leaving him feeling his talents were being squandered.
He asked to be released from his contract and headed for England in the Spring of 1932. During his time in Hollywood he had completed writing two plays. He immediately opened with one, “I Lived with You” at the Prince of Wales Theatre. Novello played the part of Prince Felix and was a huge success, dispelling any fears he had after his experience in America. He followed this play up with “Party”, which he had written for his own amusement, then “Fresh Fields” which only took 10 days to write.
Novello was rapidly becoming known as a prolific and witty playwright, as his plays were published by Metheun in 1932. His confidence at an all time high, Novello thought once more of returning to film. Novello starred in a remake of “The Lodger” this time in a talking role for Twickenham Films. He also signed for Gaumont British to make “Sleeping Car”, whilst also acting on the stage.
Ivor soon found though that he was stretching himself too far and decided to concentrate on theatre and perhaps musicals with which he had his first real break. Novello had talks with HM Tennent, director at Drury Lane, about producing a large-scale musical production and soon he staged the ambitious “Glamorous Night” opening May 2nd 1935. The play revived Drury Lane and astounded critics, leaving fond memories for all concerned and songs sung down the years. It was particularly satisfying for Ivor who had closely followed the fortunes of the Drury Lane theatre and had seen every production there since 1902.
King George V, Queen Mary, the Duke and Duchess of Kent and Princess Alice all attended Drury Lane to see “Glamorous Night”. To further challenge himself Ivor took a demanding role in “The Happy Hypocrite” a dramatised version of Max Beerbohm's original story. The part demanded Ivor being heavily disguised and focus was therefore centred upon his acting ability and not his appearance. He played the role opposite Vivian Leigh and it was a triumph of his acting abilities, receiving praise across the board in the part of Lord George Hell.
Ivor was recalled to Drury Lane to produce his next show “Careless Rapture” in September of 1936. Novello was almost single-handedly responsible for the rising popularity of the large-scale musical, a market which had been previously dominated by American imports. He then followed up this effort with “Crest of a Wave” in September of 1937, retaining the same cast who were more than happy to appear in another Novello show.
Novello was beginning to make Drury Lane his own and he was devising, writing, composing and starring in each production. Then, much to everyone's amazement, Ivor announced he would stage Shakespeare and produced “Henry V” at Drury Lane. It was a radical departure from his light comedy roles but proved once again his versatility. Critics who expected him to fail were amazed.
Unfortunately for Ivor, war broke out again and audiences were not keen to watch a play with so much conflict depicted. Not disheartened, Novello wrote, “The Dancing Years”, which proved to be his greatest success and ran for 10 years. Ivor also gave several troop concerts with Olive Gilbert playing pieces from his favourite shows.
Whilst reviving “I Lived with You” at the King’s Theatre, Hammersmith on August 26th 1940, London was subjected to one of the worst air raids of the period. Ivor encouraged audiences to stay at the theatre and the cast of the play entertained them until 6 am.
As London closed for the war, Novello took “The Dancing Years” on a tour of the provinces. He did not anticipate the huge demand to see his grand musical, which was very topical, being about a half-Jewish composer who becomes a victim of Nazi persecution in Austria. It turned out to be a long and arduous tour as transport was reduced to essential services and accommodation took the form of school and church halls.
“The Dancing Years” then returned to London before the capital was targeted again in June of 1944. Novello also took a touring company to Normandy and entertained with “Love from a Stranger”. It was not long before Ivor had a new production underway and “Perchance to Dream” opened in London in April of 1945. It was a Regency musical production and was a tremendous success, with hit songs including “We’ll Gather Lilacs”. The play only ended its run because Ivor decided to take his company on a tour of South Africa with African Consolidated Theatres, opening in Johannesburg on December 23rd 1947.
Ivor thoroughly enjoyed the experience and followed up with performances in Cape Town. The tour also gave Ivor the opportunity to work upon his next show “King's Rhapsody”. This new work was one, which Ivor felt was his best piece yet and it opened on September 15th 1949.
The play is set in mythical Muriana with Novello playing a sympathetic King trying to rule against the will of an Old Guard Cabinet. It was one of Novello’s finest pieces of acting, at the age of 58, and critics claimed the play to be an utter triumph.
Ivor Novello played in King’s Rhapsody on March 5th 1951, completing the show and his usual curtain speech, but was then taken ill, dying at his home only hours afterwards. Palace Theatre programme cover for Ivor Novello's "King's Rhapsody".
this is the artwork to the first single release of a good friend of mine and her band "staunch". I got to be performing on a school production with her a little the last days and truthfully I am astonished how damn talented this girl is, already writing and recording her own songs at such young age and actually creating something profound. I feel kind of a hypocrite saying so, but she's one of these people that do really seem to be going somewhere.
if you feel like having a listen, here's the second recording she did so far
This was taken about 15 minutes after the previous one. There is no reflecting pool, and the photographer has moved to the left side of the lighthouse. It's darker but the colours are deeper.
Which do you prefer?
"Red sky at night, sailor’s delight. Red sky in morning, sailor’s warning"
The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? (Matthew 16:1-3)
check out the online preview to my feature in the next edition of New York Arts Mag:
oh, by the way, the hearing story ended with a dead end, so here's a try at something new, at something that's really interesting me, this keymaker has a lot to tell me. god, storytelling, in photos or words, is what keeps every moment thrilling. I don't know why the world aren't artists/writers.
The Master Key
"The key maker lived in a house with 37 rooms. Of course, each of these rooms was locked with a different, ornately designed key which he kept on a ring in his pocket. He loved to lock and unlock things—there were padlocks on his drawers, windows, front gate, and shutters. There were locks to open up his bathroom medicine cabinet, his pantry, and his icebox. He’d even put locks in places that had nothing to open—in the walls, with foreign shaped keyholes and gilded with gold, silver, and stone. He was a man proud of his work, and he was so comfortable with the language of keys that he could simply look at one of the hundreds of locks and feel the shape of the proper bittings in his pocket, without even looking at the ring. He polished each keyhole every day, so that the smooth click of the gears swinging to would be as satisfying as on the first day they were crafted.
He lived in a town with burglary and murder as an everyday occurrence—he was a smart man as well as a dedicated one, and he was correct in predicting that this was the proper place for him to live. People lined up at his door for locks and keys; the poor and the rich together (even the thieves, who wanted to protect their loot). He served them all; mixed metal keys with two teeth for the poor, and heavy, silver beauties with enameled torques and jeweled fobs for the wealthy, a skill which he considered an art.
There was no question that he was capable of making a master key, one that made walls as palpable as butter and every building, from mansions to factories, a palace in which he could romp. And logically he had one. But in terms of the safety of his own home, he was extremely paranoid. He thought about all the people that could target him, envious of his marble baths, heated aquarium (in which a mermaid swam, swam, swam all day long), and ceiling to floor fireplaces, which, when lit, made the wall seem as if it was alight. He knew that other lock-makers were capable of making master keys, and that there were many thieves particularly trained at picking locks and listening to the hum of the bolts so as to charm them into sliding open. He wanted to make his home a fortress, where every possible entrance, window, or crack was padlocked with an ingeniously designed double-sided key. His doors were of pure steel and the locks were indomitable to anyone but him, with his carefully guarded ring of pretties. Any master key, even his own (which was far superior to any other key existing), would not open his doors. However, his master key was more than a master key—it opened any lock, even ones that weren’t of his design. No matter if the lock was a pin tumbler, tubular, a lever lock, or something entirely different altogether, his master key sung to their defensive slots. While his own locks were supreme protectors, every other one was like a trembling doe in the face of his master key.
And so it was that each night the key maker would live a different life, one in which nothing was hidden and everything was attainable. He didn’t steal—he did something much more rewarding. He learned about the things that made families dart their eyes or change the subject. He uncovered men’s pasts, and the words that made them cower. As everyone else was in bed, the constant vibrations of his master key were soporifics. The key maker, free to do as he wished, would light bonfires out of the trash left in bins. He would hammer nails into the marbled corridors of anyone he disliked, all the while the key singing its tune. He hated bounties of them, even the ones that handed him lumps of powdered gold. He hated them because they were cowards and because they were hypocrites, sitting on couches of pinned back skin, complaining of the cow’s skin when they wobbled in their own gray fat. He hated them because they were proud, and greedy, and disgusting, but they tricked themselves into thinking they were not.
This was what the key maker thought, and so he paid it all back to them at night, when his keys were like a cape, and his fingers like wands. He often asked himself if he was a key-maker or a lock-maker. He didn’t know whether he spent more time opening doors or fastening them."
--if you want to read more you can message me!
Bon ben voici le début d'un nouveau projet pour moi , qui va être très inspirée vu mon humeur du moment . Elle se nomme Hypocrite en hommage a tous ces gens qui ont le même caractère que son sobriquet .
Elle sera évidemment hautaine , assoiffée de popularité , râleuse et surtout capricieuse .
Bon ben here the beginning of a new project for me will be very inspired seeing my mood. It is named in honor of a hypocrite all these people who have the same character as his nickname.
It will obviously be haughty, thirsting for popularity, especially complainer and capricious.
I think in Simon's list of 50 best Suffolk churches, Woolpit comes in at number 31. It is now that I remember that I cannot remember why I should go to Woolpit on what would be the last of the EA church visits this year, as Mum was home and in the care of the district nurse, and there was nothing else we could do, not in actions, money or time given. She really has to stand on her own two feet now.
Anyway; Woolpit.
I decided to go, and after looking on the map I saw that with some create route planning, I could go down the 143, then double back and join the A14 eastwards before turning south down our old friend, the A12.
On the way I did also visit Stowlangtoft, which was a wonderful church, a church filled with wonderful things that seemed to hang together as a whole. Woolpit would have to be something special to trup St George.
And it nearly did. Nearly. Woolpit is a picture perfect village, all timber framed buildings, narrow lanes and impossible to park in. I drove through it finding a kind of space just past the church. I could see from the tower and building it was a church on which the Victorians had been very busy.
Most glorious is Mary's roof; double hammerbeam adorned with 208 angels one of the wardens told me. It had been counted several times during a dull sermon. Or two.
The wardens were building the crib for Christmas, so were using a pallet as a base, or something like that. I didn't see it finished, but Ken Bruce was booming out from a radio, preaching the Gospel According to Popmaster to all who would listen.
The angels in the roof and on the walls of the church are indeed impressive, as is the rood screen, but not sure if they are original. There are carved pew ends aplenty, but to my eye, not as well carved or as old as at Stowlangtoft. I could be wrong. But I snap a few anyway.
But I received a warm welcome here, and it is a fantastic church for me.
-----------------------------------------
2008: Woolpit is a village which I often visit, and it is always a pleasure to go into the church. But the entry for St Mary was one of the last on the original Suffolk Churches site, making its appearance in late 2001. In fact, I think it was the last of the old-style entries. I was getting a bit wordy by then.
Woolpit was one of the longest entries, and this wasn't just because there is so much to see. I went off at a great tangent about the meaning of medieval iconography, and how it survived the Reformation. It certainly got some thoughts clear in my own head, even if it confused other people. I actually wrote the entry in the back of an old exercise book sitting outside a café on the Cote d'Azur in southern France. Reading that back, it seems a little pretentious, but I really was there. Here in Ipswich on a frosty February evening, I can't help remembering the heat as I scrawled in the pad.
I've left the original entry almost entirely as it was, apart from the removal of one absolute howler, which I won't mention. I am not sure if Woolpit still has a Sunday market, and I am sure that someone will tell me if it has not. Paul Hocking is no longer Rector of Woolpit, but to my eyes the church continues to go from strength to strength, feeling at once busy and at the heart of its community, the still centre of a busy village. I like it very much.
2001: The clear blue waters of the Mediterranean swirl around my legs, then past me, buffeting the rocks along the silver beach. Millions of tiny flecks of mica swarm through the current, washed out of the hills of Southern Provence. They shine for a fraction of a second with all the light the high summer sun can give, a universe caught in a moment; then turn, disappearing, making of the water a shimmering skein, an ancient memory.
The sea is at the start of all European civilisation. Here, history wells about me. I think of Europe, and the fragmentation of nations. I think of the Balkans, and the Reformation, and the same water surrounding, tending, isolating. I think of time passing.
A week before, I'd been standing in the cool nave of the church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Woolpit - or at least, that is what it probably was once, back then. Today, it is dedicated simply as 'St Mary', in common with the majority of Suffolk's medieval churches, among which it is one of the finest, some say. This is mostly by virtue of its beautiful porch, and extraordinary angel roof.
But is that true? For there are those who love this church that, perhaps, never look up at the porch or roof. Is it the plethora of 15th century bench ends that captures the imagination? Or could it be Richard Phipson's outrageous 1850s tower and lacy spire, straight out of the Nene Valley, its evangelistic slogans around the side in a Victorian equivalent of Piccadilly Circus neon? It ought not to work, and yet it does. Or is it that supremely articulate view to the east, perfect of proportion despite the stripping away of its medieval liturgical apparatus? Above all else, and above most others, this is a church with presence.
It was the bench ends that I was thinking of as I immersed myself out of the intensity of the Provencal sun. A number of questions occured to me, as they have done on other occasions, in other churches. Who made them? What did they mean by them? And how did they survive the iconoclasms of the Protestant Reformation? Here in Southern Europe, I thought I might have found some answers.
Woolpit, then. It is perhaps the most perfect of all Suffolk villages. Not sleepy, and chocolate boxy, but to actually live in. Its shops and pubs are arranged around the pleasant village square, and Phipson's crazy spire towers above them. Woolpit still has its school, and you wouldn't need to get in the car every time you needed a loaf of bread, as you'd have to do in some of Suffolk's more famously picturesque villages, like Kersey and Tuddenham. And Woolpit has its Sunday market, beloved of hundreds of non-sabbatarian junk-hunters each week.
Further, Woolpit has its mythology; the two green children, who climbed out of the ground, speaking a strange language and afraid of the sunlight. The boy died soon after, but the girl grew up and married; she learned to speak English, and told of St Martin's Land, from where she and her brother had emerged. There are holes in the ground around Woolpit, quarries where bricks were made in the 19th century. But perhaps there was once something much older, for every Suffolk schoolchild knows that the name 'Woolpit' is nothing to do with wool, but with the wolves that once lived in the pits here...
So, it is a well-known village. It is because of this as much as anything about St Mary itself that makes this church so well-known to people who haven't heard of the even more interesting and beautiful church of St Ethelbert, Hessett, barely three miles away.
Your first sight of St Mary will be Phipson's crazy spire, visible from miles away, and quite unlike anything else in East Anglia. Suffolk is a county where spires are rare enough, anyway. From the far side of the Gipping valley you can see this one and two others, piercing the soft harvest mist in autumn. They are Phipson's equally absurd Great Finborough, and the 1990s blade of St Peter and St Mary, Stowmarket. There are only about a dozen more in the whole of the county. The excuse for this one was that the tower was struck by lightning in 1852, bringing down the previous lead and timber affair (presumably like the one at Hadleigh). The font is contemporary with the tower, suggesting that the old one was destroyed by the fall.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the artist John Piper produced a series of screen prints of aspects of Suffolk churches; for most, he used the fine perpendicular tower, ramifying it in bold Festival of Britain primary colours. But for Woolpit, he chose the porch, because it is Suffolk's finest. Cautley thought it the best in all England. It is two-storey, 15th century, contemporary with the nave. Mortlock tells us that they were both built by wealthy Bury Abbey, who owned the living here. As at Beccles, it rises way above the south aisle, tower-like in itself.
A rood group of niches surmounts the shields of East Anglia above the door. More flank them. Mortlock says that the work began in the early 1430s, and the niches were filled by a bequest of 1473, suggesting that the porch was forty years in the making. The south aisle and chancel are slightly earlier, the north aisle slightly later, so it is the nave that promises us great things, and doesn't disappoint.
You step into cool darkness, and look up. It is breathtaking. This is Suffolk's most perfectly restored angel hammerbeam roof. It may not have the drama of Mildenhall, the exquisiteness of Blythburgh, the sheer mathematics of Needham Market, but it shows us in detail more than any other what the medieval imagination was aiming at. From the still, small silence of the church floor below, you look up into a great shout of praise. Here are hundreds of figures, both angelic and human. The profusion is ordered, as if some mighty hymn were in progress.
Paul Hocking thinks that it is a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus: We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord... To thee all Angels cry aloud, the Heavens, and all the Powers therein. To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Sabaoth... The glorious company of the Apostles praise thee, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets praise thee, the noble army of Martyrs praise thee...
I know this, because he told me so. I was busy photographing bench ends when this very enthusiastic American bounced in with another visitor, and gave him a whistlestop tour of the church, describing the details with great knowledge and understanding. Solicitously, he talked to me afterwards about what I was doing, and asked me if I'd met the Rector of Woolpit yet. I said that I went out of my way to avoid Rectors wherever possible. He laughed, and replied that, on this occasion, I'd failed, because he was, in fact, the Rector.
After I'd coughed miserably, and he'd laughed again, we had a long chat, uncovering a few mutual aquaintances. He described the roof, which he has obviously spent a lot of time exploring. He pointed out the way the wall posts contained Saints, some with apostolic symbols, some with books, and some with martyr's palms. There are angels on the hammerbeams above, and bearing symbols below. John Blatchly counted 128 angels alone. Some of the shields have letters on them. Are they an acrostic, as on the east chancel wall at Blythburgh? Do they indicate individual Saints? The great Henry Ringham completely restored this roof in 1862, but Mortlock thinks that one of the angels is not his, and I agree - you'll find it in the south west corner. Paul Hocking argues that the restoration was nowhere near as complete as has been made out, and that many features are original.
Henry Ringham also restored the range of bench ends, by duplicating some of the medieval ones, as he did at Great Bealings and Tuddenham St Martin. All are rendered with his customary skill. If Ringham did restore this roof, then the imagery must have been destroyed at some point. One instinctively thinks of William Dowsing, the Puritan inspector of the churches of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, who progressed across the counties during the course of 1644. His delight in the destruction of angel roofs was matched only by that at the destruction of stained glass.
And Dowsing did visit this church. He arrived here in the afternoon of February 29th 1644. It was a Thursday, and he had come here across country from Helmingham, where he had found much to do. He also planned to visit Beyton that day, but in the end stayed overnight at the Bull hotel, and inspected All Saints there in the morning. He then rested for the weekend - the following week, he had a busy tour of southern Cambridgeshire ahead of him.
Dowsing records in great detail what he found to do at each church. In the case of Woolpit, the angel roof is the Dog That Didn't Bark: My Deputy. 80 superstitious pictures; some he brake down, and the rest he gave order to take down; and three crosses to be taken down in 20 days. 8s 6d. There are only two possible reasons why Dowsing doesn't mention the roof. Either he didn't notice it (extremely unlikely) or it had already been destroyed. This second option seems certain; mid-Suffolk was a strongly protestant area, and nearby Rougham, which clearly had a similar roof, was not visited by Dowsing, but was vandalised even more comprehensively than Woolpit. Most likely, the destruction at both churches dated from a hundred years earlier, although it is possible that the Rougham and Woolpit congregations had been puritan enough in the 1630s to do it to their own churches themselves.
Beneath the roof, the church is broad, its two aisles giving room for the panoply of medieval liturgical processions. At the east end of the south aisle was once the shrine of Our Lady of Woolpit, a site of medieval pilgrimage in connection with a nearby holy well. Apart from the front rows, many of the benches appear to be in their original positions. Some of the bench ends are 15th century, others are Ringham's 19th century copies. I wandered around the medieval bench ends, running my hands over them, crouching down and engaging them, face to face. For anyone educated in a Marxist or Weberian historical tradition, as most of my generation were, interpreting the less-obviously liturgical or theological features of a medieval church is fraught with difficulties. One possibility is to do a Cautley, and try not to interpret them at all. But it is more fun to try to do so, don't you think?
The bench ends of Woolpit are remarkable for their abundance. They are not representations of sacraments, virtues and vices as at Tannington and elsewhere, or Saints as at Ufford and Athelington. They are almost all non-allegorical animals, although not the art objects we find at Stowlangtoft, or the mysterious beasts of Lakenheath. Perhaps a good comparison is the similar body of work at nearby Combs. Indeed, although they do not appear to be from the same workshop, it is likely that their creators knew of each others' work. There are dogs, with geese hanging from their mouths, and another which may be a cat with a rat or lizard. There are lions and bears, and a chained monkey, and birds in profusion. So who did them, and why are they here?
There is one school of thought that says that they are simply there to beautify the church, and that they were made by local craftsmen doing what they were best at. If they could do lions, they did lions. If they could render a decent rabbit, then that is what they did. And so on.
But I think that there is rather more to it than that. On my journey down through France, I had spent an afternoon in one of my favourite towns, Autun, in Burgundy. One of the reasons I like Autun is its 11th century Cathedral of St-Lazaire; this is Lazurus, raised by Christ from the dead, and until the 18th century his relics were venerated at a shrine here. St-Lazaire is most famous for its great tympanum above the west door, generally recognised as one of the greatest Romanesque art treasures in the world, and with International Heritage status. It was created during the middle years of the 12th century, and shows the Last Judgement. To emphasise Christ's majesty over all the world, it features all manner of beasts, domestic, wild and mythical.
Throughout the Cathedral, animals infest the famous capitals, which tell the Gospel story. Abbe Denis Grivot, in his Un Bestiaire de la Cathedrale D'Autun (Lyon, 1973) argues that the 12th century creators of all this filled it with animals to echo the final verse of the 150th Psalm, the crowning point of that great sequence of hymns of praise: Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord!
Standing in the nave at Autun, I instantly recalled Paul Hocking's words about the roof at Woolpit, when he said he thought it was a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus. The Te Deum is one of the canticles; another is the Benedicite, traditionally sung through Lent: Oh all ye Works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord; praise him and magnify him for ever... O ye whales, and all that move in the Waters, bless ye the Lord... O all ye Fowls of the air, bless ye the Lord... O all ye beasts and Cattle, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him for ever!
Could it be that the bench ends at Woolpit, and elsewhere in Suffolk, were intended to reflect and represent the praise defined in the canticles and psalms? Both would have been central to the liturgy of the medieval Catholic church. Perhaps the bench ends of Woolpit are liturgical and theological after all.
How would a carpenter, or group of carpenters, go about creating a set of benches like the ones at Woolpit? Who were they? Almost certainly, they were locals. They might have been itinerant jobbing carpenters, but I don't think so. The bench ends at adjacent Tostock are clearly by the same hand. But those at nearby Stowlangtoft and Norton are not, and a third hand seems to be responsible for those at Combs, as I previously mentioned. I do not think that the mutilated ones at Rougham and Elmswell are either; they were probably from the same workshop as each other.
So, we have a conscious attempt by skilled members of a community to create a hymn of praise in carved oak, by representing as many beasts as they felt capable of making. Where did they get their ideas from? They would have had no problems with oxen, cocks, conies - these were all around them, in their daily lives. The person who carved the hunting dog here was very familiar with it. Perhaps it was his own. What about monkeys and lions? These are more problematic. In medieval bestiaries, exotic creatures had fabulous legends attached to them, which gave them a theological symbolism.
But this symbolism doesn't usually seem intended when we see them on bench ends. Sometimes they are rendered accurately, but more often wild animals are fairly imaginary; I think particularly of Barningham's camel, and Hadleigh's wolf. It isn't enough to say that the carvers could have seen pictures of exotic beasts. This is fairly unlikely. Probably, the ordinary people of Woolpit never saw a book other than the missals, lectionaries and hagiographies used in church.
They might have seen pictures of lions and monkeys in wall paintings, either in other churches or here at Woolpit. They might have seen them carved in bench ends, for the same reason. In fact, the representation of wild animals varies so much as to suggest that this is not the case - compare, for example, the lions of Combs with those of Stowlangtoft. Probably, they were created in the imagination from descriptions and attributes in stories. But I think that there is a strong possibility that the woodcarvers of Woolpit did see lions and monkeys in real life.
Here in Catholic Southern Europe, there are many remote small towns which, by virtue of being so very far from each other, take on a rich and complex life of their own. Even small villages have their shops, their craftsmen, their tradespeople; they replicate a situation that existed in Suffolk until well into the 19th century, and in some cases beyond, before the great industrialisation and easy transport swept it away. Further, there are traditions here still that we have lost. Whenever I come here, I am fascinated by the itinerant entertainers, who move from village to village, giving a single performance befre moving on. This must also once have been true of England. The thing that fascinates me most is the multitude of small family circuses.
Many of them seem to be of Italian or Romany origin; all family members have multiple roles, from the oldest grandparent to the youngest child, selling tickets, doing acrobatics, being the straight men to the clown (who is typically Grandpa). They all put up the tent before the performance, and take it down afterwards. They move on, through the remote hills of Provence and the Languedoc, performing on village greens, wastegrounds, the corners of fields, even traffic islands.
As I say, I am fascinated, and can rarely resist them, even though I am shocked, even appalled, by the easy cruelty to animals. Performing animals are still often chosen for their curiosity value, if you can call running around in a circle to the crack of a whip 'performing', poor things.
The choices are strange indeed; camels and zebras often feature; I have seen an old bear on a chain, and at one circus in remote Languedoc a hippopotamus of all things - it caught bread thrown by the crowd. There was no safety fence between the seats and the ring, no Health and Safety Executive to penetrate these lost valleys. I do not know if such circuses existed in medieval Suffolk. But I think that they probably did. Suffolk is a maritime county, and exotic animals were widely known and exhibited in medieval Europe. Before the Protestant Reformation cut us of from the mainland, clerics and merchants thought of themselves as European, and travelled widely - English sovereignty was a hazy concept at best, and 'Britishness' was still centuries away from being formulated as an idea. People owed allegiance to their village, their parish, and their lord, not to the Crown and Parliament in London.
Were the woodcarvers of Woolpit and Tostock remembering this? A circus visit, perhaps back in their childhood? Exotic animals rendered inaccurately, to be sure, but with an enthusiastic nostalgia for that exciting moment in their lives? Was there a lion? A monkey, or a bear? How much more powerful if they also knew the fabulous legends about the beasts - and had seen them in real life!
Some of the carvings at Woolpit are allegorical. One shows a monkey dressed in monk's robes. This, I think, is a joke at the expense of the itinerant friars who went from parish to parish, preaching repentance in the streets. They were sanctioned by the Pope, but were beyond the jurisdiction of the local Bishop. They didn't always go down well with the local Priest and congregation, who considered the Friars nosey and hypocritical. A monkey is often a symbol of foolish vanity - hence, a Friar thinking he was better than anyone else. What better way to make the point than to slip him in as one of the creatures praising the Lord?
How did they survive? But why should they have been destroyed? We make the mistake of thinking of the Puritans as vandals. But the more you read about William Dowsing, the more he emerges as being a principled, conservative kind of chap, despite his clearly flawed and fundamentalist theological opinions. He had no reason to destroy animal bench ends. They weren't superstitious - even Dowsing didn't think Catholics worshipped animals. If he didn't think they were meant to represent the canticles, he wouldn't even have considered them religious. Amen to that.
So much for the 17th century. What about the 19th? St Mary is one of the most enthusiastically restored of Suffolk's churches, despite its survivng medieval detail. But it was done well. Mortlock thought that the 19th century pulpit was the work of Ringham - but the brass lectern is pre-Reformation, a fine example. The rood screen dado panels have sentimental 19th century Saints on them, that may or may not duplicate what was there before. They are actually very good, particularly the gorgeous Mary of Magdala. They have their names painted on the cross beams for the less hagiologically articulate Victorians - from left to right across the aisle they are Saints Barbara, Felix, Mary of Magdala, Peter, Paul, Mary, Edmund and Etheldreda. It is unlikely that Saint Felix would have been on a medieval roodscreen, and Mary almost certainly wasn't - it would have relegated her to a position of no more importance than the others. If it reflects anything of what was there before, it was probably St Anne with the infant Virgin.
The top part of the screen was renewed in 1750, and dated so. The gates are probably a Laudian imposition of 120 years earlier, as at Kedington. This may suggest that, by the time of Dowsing's visit, the chancel was being used for some other practical purpose. Above, high above, set in the east nave wall over the chancel arch, is one of the wierdest objects I've seen in a medieval church. It was installed in the 1870s, and is clearly meant to echo the coving of a rood loft. Goodness knows what it actually is, but it is painted in garish colours, and inscribed with texts. In one of those moments where Cautley and credibility part company, he describes anyone who doesn't think it is a genuine medieval canopy of honour as 'stupid'. I suppose that it has a certain curiosity value.
The three-light window above it would have given light to the rood. The east window contains one of Suffolk's best modern Madonna and child images which was made by the artist Ian Keen for the King workshop in the early 1960s. Ian Keen was also responsible for the beautiful St Margaret in St Margaret's church in Norwich, and for the memorable window of St Francis with a labrador at Somerleyton near Lowestoft.
I turned back westwards, past a superb medieval bench end of the three Marys. This is a delight, and you'd travel to London to see it if it was in the V&A. Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the mother of James and Mary of Magdala huddle together, perhaps on the morning of the Resurrection. One of them has a lily of the Annunciation. One head is destroyed - but was it vandalised? Or is it the result of carelessness, the wear and tear of the centuries? Would 17th century puritans have destroyed it if they'd seen it?
Dowsing rarely mentions bench ends, so perhaps few were left by then anyway. So how could it possibly have survived the violent zeal of the 16th century Protestants, battering the Church of England into existence with their axes, pikes and bonfires? How, even after the 1540 edict of Edward VI which ordered the destruction of all statues and images of Saints, especially those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is it still there at all?
Still more questions than answers, I suppose. I dived beneath the water, and there was beneath me a restless current, shifting and reshifting the silver sand into unique patterns, the work of millennia, still changing, never the same.
- le Rayol Canadel, Cote d'Azur, August 2001.
I think in Simon's list of 50 best Suffolk churches, Woolpit comes in at number 31. It is now that I remember that I cannot remember why I should go to Woolpit on what would be the last of the EA church visits this year, as Mum was home and in the care of the district nurse, and there was nothing else we could do, not in actions, money or time given. She really has to stand on her own two feet now.
Anyway; Woolpit.
I decided to go, and after looking on the map I saw that with some create route planning, I could go down the 143, then double back and join the A14 eastwards before turning south down our old friend, the A12.
On the way I did also visit Stowlangtoft, which was a wonderful church, a church filled with wonderful things that seemed to hang together as a whole. Woolpit would have to be something special to trup St George.
And it nearly did. Nearly. Woolpit is a picture perfect village, all timber framed buildings, narrow lanes and impossible to park in. I drove through it finding a kind of space just past the church. I could see from the tower and building it was a church on which the Victorians had been very busy.
Most glorious is Mary's roof; double hammerbeam adorned with 208 angels one of the wardens told me. It had been counted several times during a dull sermon. Or two.
The wardens were building the crib for Christmas, so were using a pallet as a base, or something like that. I didn't see it finished, but Ken Bruce was booming out from a radio, preaching the Gospel According to Popmaster to all who would listen.
The angels in the roof and on the walls of the church are indeed impressive, as is the rood screen, but not sure if they are original. There are carved pew ends aplenty, but to my eye, not as well carved or as old as at Stowlangtoft. I could be wrong. But I snap a few anyway.
But I received a warm welcome here, and it is a fantastic church for me.
-----------------------------------------
2008: Woolpit is a village which I often visit, and it is always a pleasure to go into the church. But the entry for St Mary was one of the last on the original Suffolk Churches site, making its appearance in late 2001. In fact, I think it was the last of the old-style entries. I was getting a bit wordy by then.
Woolpit was one of the longest entries, and this wasn't just because there is so much to see. I went off at a great tangent about the meaning of medieval iconography, and how it survived the Reformation. It certainly got some thoughts clear in my own head, even if it confused other people. I actually wrote the entry in the back of an old exercise book sitting outside a café on the Cote d'Azur in southern France. Reading that back, it seems a little pretentious, but I really was there. Here in Ipswich on a frosty February evening, I can't help remembering the heat as I scrawled in the pad.
I've left the original entry almost entirely as it was, apart from the removal of one absolute howler, which I won't mention. I am not sure if Woolpit still has a Sunday market, and I am sure that someone will tell me if it has not. Paul Hocking is no longer Rector of Woolpit, but to my eyes the church continues to go from strength to strength, feeling at once busy and at the heart of its community, the still centre of a busy village. I like it very much.
2001: The clear blue waters of the Mediterranean swirl around my legs, then past me, buffeting the rocks along the silver beach. Millions of tiny flecks of mica swarm through the current, washed out of the hills of Southern Provence. They shine for a fraction of a second with all the light the high summer sun can give, a universe caught in a moment; then turn, disappearing, making of the water a shimmering skein, an ancient memory.
The sea is at the start of all European civilisation. Here, history wells about me. I think of Europe, and the fragmentation of nations. I think of the Balkans, and the Reformation, and the same water surrounding, tending, isolating. I think of time passing.
A week before, I'd been standing in the cool nave of the church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Woolpit - or at least, that is what it probably was once, back then. Today, it is dedicated simply as 'St Mary', in common with the majority of Suffolk's medieval churches, among which it is one of the finest, some say. This is mostly by virtue of its beautiful porch, and extraordinary angel roof.
But is that true? For there are those who love this church that, perhaps, never look up at the porch or roof. Is it the plethora of 15th century bench ends that captures the imagination? Or could it be Richard Phipson's outrageous 1850s tower and lacy spire, straight out of the Nene Valley, its evangelistic slogans around the side in a Victorian equivalent of Piccadilly Circus neon? It ought not to work, and yet it does. Or is it that supremely articulate view to the east, perfect of proportion despite the stripping away of its medieval liturgical apparatus? Above all else, and above most others, this is a church with presence.
It was the bench ends that I was thinking of as I immersed myself out of the intensity of the Provencal sun. A number of questions occured to me, as they have done on other occasions, in other churches. Who made them? What did they mean by them? And how did they survive the iconoclasms of the Protestant Reformation? Here in Southern Europe, I thought I might have found some answers.
Woolpit, then. It is perhaps the most perfect of all Suffolk villages. Not sleepy, and chocolate boxy, but to actually live in. Its shops and pubs are arranged around the pleasant village square, and Phipson's crazy spire towers above them. Woolpit still has its school, and you wouldn't need to get in the car every time you needed a loaf of bread, as you'd have to do in some of Suffolk's more famously picturesque villages, like Kersey and Tuddenham. And Woolpit has its Sunday market, beloved of hundreds of non-sabbatarian junk-hunters each week.
Further, Woolpit has its mythology; the two green children, who climbed out of the ground, speaking a strange language and afraid of the sunlight. The boy died soon after, but the girl grew up and married; she learned to speak English, and told of St Martin's Land, from where she and her brother had emerged. There are holes in the ground around Woolpit, quarries where bricks were made in the 19th century. But perhaps there was once something much older, for every Suffolk schoolchild knows that the name 'Woolpit' is nothing to do with wool, but with the wolves that once lived in the pits here...
So, it is a well-known village. It is because of this as much as anything about St Mary itself that makes this church so well-known to people who haven't heard of the even more interesting and beautiful church of St Ethelbert, Hessett, barely three miles away.
Your first sight of St Mary will be Phipson's crazy spire, visible from miles away, and quite unlike anything else in East Anglia. Suffolk is a county where spires are rare enough, anyway. From the far side of the Gipping valley you can see this one and two others, piercing the soft harvest mist in autumn. They are Phipson's equally absurd Great Finborough, and the 1990s blade of St Peter and St Mary, Stowmarket. There are only about a dozen more in the whole of the county. The excuse for this one was that the tower was struck by lightning in 1852, bringing down the previous lead and timber affair (presumably like the one at Hadleigh). The font is contemporary with the tower, suggesting that the old one was destroyed by the fall.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the artist John Piper produced a series of screen prints of aspects of Suffolk churches; for most, he used the fine perpendicular tower, ramifying it in bold Festival of Britain primary colours. But for Woolpit, he chose the porch, because it is Suffolk's finest. Cautley thought it the best in all England. It is two-storey, 15th century, contemporary with the nave. Mortlock tells us that they were both built by wealthy Bury Abbey, who owned the living here. As at Beccles, it rises way above the south aisle, tower-like in itself.
A rood group of niches surmounts the shields of East Anglia above the door. More flank them. Mortlock says that the work began in the early 1430s, and the niches were filled by a bequest of 1473, suggesting that the porch was forty years in the making. The south aisle and chancel are slightly earlier, the north aisle slightly later, so it is the nave that promises us great things, and doesn't disappoint.
You step into cool darkness, and look up. It is breathtaking. This is Suffolk's most perfectly restored angel hammerbeam roof. It may not have the drama of Mildenhall, the exquisiteness of Blythburgh, the sheer mathematics of Needham Market, but it shows us in detail more than any other what the medieval imagination was aiming at. From the still, small silence of the church floor below, you look up into a great shout of praise. Here are hundreds of figures, both angelic and human. The profusion is ordered, as if some mighty hymn were in progress.
Paul Hocking thinks that it is a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus: We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord... To thee all Angels cry aloud, the Heavens, and all the Powers therein. To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Sabaoth... The glorious company of the Apostles praise thee, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets praise thee, the noble army of Martyrs praise thee...
I know this, because he told me so. I was busy photographing bench ends when this very enthusiastic American bounced in with another visitor, and gave him a whistlestop tour of the church, describing the details with great knowledge and understanding. Solicitously, he talked to me afterwards about what I was doing, and asked me if I'd met the Rector of Woolpit yet. I said that I went out of my way to avoid Rectors wherever possible. He laughed, and replied that, on this occasion, I'd failed, because he was, in fact, the Rector.
After I'd coughed miserably, and he'd laughed again, we had a long chat, uncovering a few mutual aquaintances. He described the roof, which he has obviously spent a lot of time exploring. He pointed out the way the wall posts contained Saints, some with apostolic symbols, some with books, and some with martyr's palms. There are angels on the hammerbeams above, and bearing symbols below. John Blatchly counted 128 angels alone. Some of the shields have letters on them. Are they an acrostic, as on the east chancel wall at Blythburgh? Do they indicate individual Saints? The great Henry Ringham completely restored this roof in 1862, but Mortlock thinks that one of the angels is not his, and I agree - you'll find it in the south west corner. Paul Hocking argues that the restoration was nowhere near as complete as has been made out, and that many features are original.
Henry Ringham also restored the range of bench ends, by duplicating some of the medieval ones, as he did at Great Bealings and Tuddenham St Martin. All are rendered with his customary skill. If Ringham did restore this roof, then the imagery must have been destroyed at some point. One instinctively thinks of William Dowsing, the Puritan inspector of the churches of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, who progressed across the counties during the course of 1644. His delight in the destruction of angel roofs was matched only by that at the destruction of stained glass.
And Dowsing did visit this church. He arrived here in the afternoon of February 29th 1644. It was a Thursday, and he had come here across country from Helmingham, where he had found much to do. He also planned to visit Beyton that day, but in the end stayed overnight at the Bull hotel, and inspected All Saints there in the morning. He then rested for the weekend - the following week, he had a busy tour of southern Cambridgeshire ahead of him.
Dowsing records in great detail what he found to do at each church. In the case of Woolpit, the angel roof is the Dog That Didn't Bark: My Deputy. 80 superstitious pictures; some he brake down, and the rest he gave order to take down; and three crosses to be taken down in 20 days. 8s 6d. There are only two possible reasons why Dowsing doesn't mention the roof. Either he didn't notice it (extremely unlikely) or it had already been destroyed. This second option seems certain; mid-Suffolk was a strongly protestant area, and nearby Rougham, which clearly had a similar roof, was not visited by Dowsing, but was vandalised even more comprehensively than Woolpit. Most likely, the destruction at both churches dated from a hundred years earlier, although it is possible that the Rougham and Woolpit congregations had been puritan enough in the 1630s to do it to their own churches themselves.
Beneath the roof, the church is broad, its two aisles giving room for the panoply of medieval liturgical processions. At the east end of the south aisle was once the shrine of Our Lady of Woolpit, a site of medieval pilgrimage in connection with a nearby holy well. Apart from the front rows, many of the benches appear to be in their original positions. Some of the bench ends are 15th century, others are Ringham's 19th century copies. I wandered around the medieval bench ends, running my hands over them, crouching down and engaging them, face to face. For anyone educated in a Marxist or Weberian historical tradition, as most of my generation were, interpreting the less-obviously liturgical or theological features of a medieval church is fraught with difficulties. One possibility is to do a Cautley, and try not to interpret them at all. But it is more fun to try to do so, don't you think?
The bench ends of Woolpit are remarkable for their abundance. They are not representations of sacraments, virtues and vices as at Tannington and elsewhere, or Saints as at Ufford and Athelington. They are almost all non-allegorical animals, although not the art objects we find at Stowlangtoft, or the mysterious beasts of Lakenheath. Perhaps a good comparison is the similar body of work at nearby Combs. Indeed, although they do not appear to be from the same workshop, it is likely that their creators knew of each others' work. There are dogs, with geese hanging from their mouths, and another which may be a cat with a rat or lizard. There are lions and bears, and a chained monkey, and birds in profusion. So who did them, and why are they here?
There is one school of thought that says that they are simply there to beautify the church, and that they were made by local craftsmen doing what they were best at. If they could do lions, they did lions. If they could render a decent rabbit, then that is what they did. And so on.
But I think that there is rather more to it than that. On my journey down through France, I had spent an afternoon in one of my favourite towns, Autun, in Burgundy. One of the reasons I like Autun is its 11th century Cathedral of St-Lazaire; this is Lazurus, raised by Christ from the dead, and until the 18th century his relics were venerated at a shrine here. St-Lazaire is most famous for its great tympanum above the west door, generally recognised as one of the greatest Romanesque art treasures in the world, and with International Heritage status. It was created during the middle years of the 12th century, and shows the Last Judgement. To emphasise Christ's majesty over all the world, it features all manner of beasts, domestic, wild and mythical.
Throughout the Cathedral, animals infest the famous capitals, which tell the Gospel story. Abbe Denis Grivot, in his Un Bestiaire de la Cathedrale D'Autun (Lyon, 1973) argues that the 12th century creators of all this filled it with animals to echo the final verse of the 150th Psalm, the crowning point of that great sequence of hymns of praise: Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord!
Standing in the nave at Autun, I instantly recalled Paul Hocking's words about the roof at Woolpit, when he said he thought it was a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus. The Te Deum is one of the canticles; another is the Benedicite, traditionally sung through Lent: Oh all ye Works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord; praise him and magnify him for ever... O ye whales, and all that move in the Waters, bless ye the Lord... O all ye Fowls of the air, bless ye the Lord... O all ye beasts and Cattle, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him for ever!
Could it be that the bench ends at Woolpit, and elsewhere in Suffolk, were intended to reflect and represent the praise defined in the canticles and psalms? Both would have been central to the liturgy of the medieval Catholic church. Perhaps the bench ends of Woolpit are liturgical and theological after all.
How would a carpenter, or group of carpenters, go about creating a set of benches like the ones at Woolpit? Who were they? Almost certainly, they were locals. They might have been itinerant jobbing carpenters, but I don't think so. The bench ends at adjacent Tostock are clearly by the same hand. But those at nearby Stowlangtoft and Norton are not, and a third hand seems to be responsible for those at Combs, as I previously mentioned. I do not think that the mutilated ones at Rougham and Elmswell are either; they were probably from the same workshop as each other.
So, we have a conscious attempt by skilled members of a community to create a hymn of praise in carved oak, by representing as many beasts as they felt capable of making. Where did they get their ideas from? They would have had no problems with oxen, cocks, conies - these were all around them, in their daily lives. The person who carved the hunting dog here was very familiar with it. Perhaps it was his own. What about monkeys and lions? These are more problematic. In medieval bestiaries, exotic creatures had fabulous legends attached to them, which gave them a theological symbolism.
But this symbolism doesn't usually seem intended when we see them on bench ends. Sometimes they are rendered accurately, but more often wild animals are fairly imaginary; I think particularly of Barningham's camel, and Hadleigh's wolf. It isn't enough to say that the carvers could have seen pictures of exotic beasts. This is fairly unlikely. Probably, the ordinary people of Woolpit never saw a book other than the missals, lectionaries and hagiographies used in church.
They might have seen pictures of lions and monkeys in wall paintings, either in other churches or here at Woolpit. They might have seen them carved in bench ends, for the same reason. In fact, the representation of wild animals varies so much as to suggest that this is not the case - compare, for example, the lions of Combs with those of Stowlangtoft. Probably, they were created in the imagination from descriptions and attributes in stories. But I think that there is a strong possibility that the woodcarvers of Woolpit did see lions and monkeys in real life.
Here in Catholic Southern Europe, there are many remote small towns which, by virtue of being so very far from each other, take on a rich and complex life of their own. Even small villages have their shops, their craftsmen, their tradespeople; they replicate a situation that existed in Suffolk until well into the 19th century, and in some cases beyond, before the great industrialisation and easy transport swept it away. Further, there are traditions here still that we have lost. Whenever I come here, I am fascinated by the itinerant entertainers, who move from village to village, giving a single performance befre moving on. This must also once have been true of England. The thing that fascinates me most is the multitude of small family circuses.
Many of them seem to be of Italian or Romany origin; all family members have multiple roles, from the oldest grandparent to the youngest child, selling tickets, doing acrobatics, being the straight men to the clown (who is typically Grandpa). They all put up the tent before the performance, and take it down afterwards. They move on, through the remote hills of Provence and the Languedoc, performing on village greens, wastegrounds, the corners of fields, even traffic islands.
As I say, I am fascinated, and can rarely resist them, even though I am shocked, even appalled, by the easy cruelty to animals. Performing animals are still often chosen for their curiosity value, if you can call running around in a circle to the crack of a whip 'performing', poor things.
The choices are strange indeed; camels and zebras often feature; I have seen an old bear on a chain, and at one circus in remote Languedoc a hippopotamus of all things - it caught bread thrown by the crowd. There was no safety fence between the seats and the ring, no Health and Safety Executive to penetrate these lost valleys. I do not know if such circuses existed in medieval Suffolk. But I think that they probably did. Suffolk is a maritime county, and exotic animals were widely known and exhibited in medieval Europe. Before the Protestant Reformation cut us of from the mainland, clerics and merchants thought of themselves as European, and travelled widely - English sovereignty was a hazy concept at best, and 'Britishness' was still centuries away from being formulated as an idea. People owed allegiance to their village, their parish, and their lord, not to the Crown and Parliament in London.
Were the woodcarvers of Woolpit and Tostock remembering this? A circus visit, perhaps back in their childhood? Exotic animals rendered inaccurately, to be sure, but with an enthusiastic nostalgia for that exciting moment in their lives? Was there a lion? A monkey, or a bear? How much more powerful if they also knew the fabulous legends about the beasts - and had seen them in real life!
Some of the carvings at Woolpit are allegorical. One shows a monkey dressed in monk's robes. This, I think, is a joke at the expense of the itinerant friars who went from parish to parish, preaching repentance in the streets. They were sanctioned by the Pope, but were beyond the jurisdiction of the local Bishop. They didn't always go down well with the local Priest and congregation, who considered the Friars nosey and hypocritical. A monkey is often a symbol of foolish vanity - hence, a Friar thinking he was better than anyone else. What better way to make the point than to slip him in as one of the creatures praising the Lord?
How did they survive? But why should they have been destroyed? We make the mistake of thinking of the Puritans as vandals. But the more you read about William Dowsing, the more he emerges as being a principled, conservative kind of chap, despite his clearly flawed and fundamentalist theological opinions. He had no reason to destroy animal bench ends. They weren't superstitious - even Dowsing didn't think Catholics worshipped animals. If he didn't think they were meant to represent the canticles, he wouldn't even have considered them religious. Amen to that.
So much for the 17th century. What about the 19th? St Mary is one of the most enthusiastically restored of Suffolk's churches, despite its survivng medieval detail. But it was done well. Mortlock thought that the 19th century pulpit was the work of Ringham - but the brass lectern is pre-Reformation, a fine example. The rood screen dado panels have sentimental 19th century Saints on them, that may or may not duplicate what was there before. They are actually very good, particularly the gorgeous Mary of Magdala. They have their names painted on the cross beams for the less hagiologically articulate Victorians - from left to right across the aisle they are Saints Barbara, Felix, Mary of Magdala, Peter, Paul, Mary, Edmund and Etheldreda. It is unlikely that Saint Felix would have been on a medieval roodscreen, and Mary almost certainly wasn't - it would have relegated her to a position of no more importance than the others. If it reflects anything of what was there before, it was probably St Anne with the infant Virgin.
The top part of the screen was renewed in 1750, and dated so. The gates are probably a Laudian imposition of 120 years earlier, as at Kedington. This may suggest that, by the time of Dowsing's visit, the chancel was being used for some other practical purpose. Above, high above, set in the east nave wall over the chancel arch, is one of the wierdest objects I've seen in a medieval church. It was installed in the 1870s, and is clearly meant to echo the coving of a rood loft. Goodness knows what it actually is, but it is painted in garish colours, and inscribed with texts. In one of those moments where Cautley and credibility part company, he describes anyone who doesn't think it is a genuine medieval canopy of honour as 'stupid'. I suppose that it has a certain curiosity value.
The three-light window above it would have given light to the rood. The east window contains one of Suffolk's best modern Madonna and child images which was made by the artist Ian Keen for the King workshop in the early 1960s. Ian Keen was also responsible for the beautiful St Margaret in St Margaret's church in Norwich, and for the memorable window of St Francis with a labrador at Somerleyton near Lowestoft.
I turned back westwards, past a superb medieval bench end of the three Marys. This is a delight, and you'd travel to London to see it if it was in the V&A. Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the mother of James and Mary of Magdala huddle together, perhaps on the morning of the Resurrection. One of them has a lily of the Annunciation. One head is destroyed - but was it vandalised? Or is it the result of carelessness, the wear and tear of the centuries? Would 17th century puritans have destroyed it if they'd seen it?
Dowsing rarely mentions bench ends, so perhaps few were left by then anyway. So how could it possibly have survived the violent zeal of the 16th century Protestants, battering the Church of England into existence with their axes, pikes and bonfires? How, even after the 1540 edict of Edward VI which ordered the destruction of all statues and images of Saints, especially those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is it still there at all?
Still more questions than answers, I suppose. I dived beneath the water, and there was beneath me a restless current, shifting and reshifting the silver sand into unique patterns, the work of millennia, still changing, never the same.
- le Rayol Canadel, Cote d'Azur, August 2001.
(picture 1 in series of 3) Man falls to his death from WTC tower one just before tower collapsed, September 11, 2001...© 2001 Thomas Dallal.NO PUBLICATION, REPRODUCTION OR ARCHIVING PERMITTED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF PHOTOGRAPHER.Thomas Dallal.90 Eldridge St., 4th floor.New York, NY 10002 USA.tel. (212) 965-8476/7 fax.cell./GSM (917) 287-0243.thomasdallal@compuserve.com.
~ 2/23/20. DAY 195/365 ~ YEAR 5 ~ Day 1672 PHOTO A DAY ~ 365 A Day CHALLENGE ~ DAY 23 FEBRUARY 2020 CHALLENGE ~ "COLORS" ~ "My Catholic Prayer books has a lot of "COLORS" on the outside with the pages being RED and the ribbons being GREEN, RED, BLUE, YELLOW and BLACK. Everyone have a Special Sunday. So happy I got to talk with my son/ and youngest Granddaughter for Brandon's 41st Birthday.".... ~
"In apocalyptic literature, color plays an important role in conveying symbolic meanings. For example, the colors blue, purple, and scarlet played prominent roles in the building of the wilderness tabernacle (Exodus 26:1; 27;16; 28:6). In Numbers 15:37-38, "The LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue'." The woman that John sees in the wilderness, however, sits on a scarlet beast and only wears purple and scarlet (Revelation 17:3-4) while the color blue is noticeably absent. Here purple and scarlet suggest that the woman has become affluent through evil means and not by the blessing of the Lord.
Below is a list of all the colors mentioned in the Bible with both their references and their meanings.
Amber Symbolizes the Glory of God
Black One of the more commonly used colors in the Bible; describes the color of the middle of the night (Proverbs 7:9); diseased skin (Job 30:30); healthy hair (Song of Solomon 5:11; Matthew 5:36); corpses faces (Lamentations 4:8); the sky (Jeremiah 4:28); the darkening of the sun and the moon (Joel 2:10); horses (Zechariah 6:2; Revelation 6:5); and marble (Esther 1:6).
The color black symbolizes sin, death, and famine.
Blue Used to describe the color of a wound, but may refer to the wound itself (Proverbs 20:30). It also describes the sky, Heaven, and the Holy Spirit.
Brown A dark, blackish color referred only to sheep (Genesis 30:32-33, 35, 40).
Crimson Crimson linen was used in the temple (II Chronicles 2:7, 14, 3:14); the color must have been indelible or permanet (Jeremiah 4:30), as crimson is used figuratively as sin. (Isaiah 1:18).
Often refers to blood atonement and sacrifice.
Gold As gold is the highest, most precious metal, so the divine nature is the highest nature, the only nature having immortality (Exodus 28:36; Psalm 21:3).
Gray Used only to describe the hair of the elderly (Genesis 42:38)
Green Normally describes vegetation; used of pastures (Psalm 23:2); herbage (II Kings 19:26); trees in general (Deuteronomy 12:2; Luke 23:31; Revelation 8:7); the marriage bed (in a figurative sense, Song of Solomon 1:16); a hypocrite compared to a papyrus plant (Job 8:16); and grass (Mark 6:39). A word meaning "greenish" describes plague spots (Leviticus 13:49, 14:37) as well as the color of gold. Most often associated with the meaning of growth.
Purple The most precious of ancient dyes made from a shellfish found in the Mediterranean Sea. A total of 250,000 mollusks was required to make one ounce of the dye, which partly accounts for its great price. It was highly valued within the nation of Israel. Used in several features of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1, 27:16) and the temple (II Chronicles 2:14); the color of royal robes (Judges 8:26); the garments of the wealthy (Proverbs 31:22; Luke 16:19); the vesture of a harlot (Revelation 17:4); and the robe placed on Jesus (Mark 15:17, 20).
This color symbolizes kingship and royalty.
Red Describes natural objects such as Jacob's stew (Genesis 25:30); the sacrificial heifer (Numbers 19:2); wine (Proverbs 23:31); newborn Esau (Genesis 25:25); Judah's eyes (Genesis 49:12); the eyes of the drunkard (Proverbs 23:29); and the dragon (Revelation 12:3).
The color of blood, it often symbolizes life; it also suggests bloodshed in the carnage of war.
Scarlet Scarlet cord was tied around the wrist of Zerah (Genesis 38:28-30); used a great deal in the tabernacle (Exodus 25:4); the color of cord hung from Rahab's window (Joshua 2:18); a mark of prosperity (II Samuel 1:24; Proverbs 31:21); the color of the robe placed on Jesus (Matthew 27:28); though scarlet and purple were not always distinguished (Mark 15:17); color of the beast ridden by the harlot Babylon (Revelation 17:3) along with some of her garments (Revelation 17:4) and those of her followers (Revelation 18:16). Often refers to blood atonement and sacrifice.
Silver Used to represent the truth. (Psalm 12:6)
White The color of animals (Genesis 30:35); manna (Exodus 16:31); both hair and pustules located in plague sores (Leviticus 13:3-39); garments (Ecclesiastes 9:8, Daniel 7:9); the robes of the righteous (Revelation 19:8); horses (Zechariah 1:8; Revelation 6:2, 19:11); forgiven sins (Psalm 5:7, Isaiah 1:8); a refined remnant (Daniel 11:35, 12:10); the beloved one (Song of Solomon 5:10); the white of an egg (Job 6:6); the shining garments of angels (Revelation 15:6) and of the transfigured Christ (Matthew 17:2); hair (Matthew 5:36); gravestones (Matthew 23:27); and the great throne of judgment (Revelation 20:11). Portrays purity, righteousness, joy, light, and a white horse symbolizes victory.
Yellow Indicates the greenish cast of gold (Psalm 68:13) and the light-colored hair in a leprous spot (Leviticus 13:30,32)
In Christ,"
You're standing at the crossroads
and you're wondering which way to turn
Should you save your soul for heaven?
Or should you let it burn?
Choose the left hand path
and embrace the endless night
Reject the lies and falsehoods of the
Hypocrites on the right
I think in Simon's list of 50 best Suffolk churches, Woolpit comes in at number 31. It is now that I remember that I cannot remember why I should go to Woolpit on what would be the last of the EA church visits this year, as Mum was home and in the care of the district nurse, and there was nothing else we could do, not in actions, money or time given. She really has to stand on her own two feet now.
Anyway; Woolpit.
I decided to go, and after looking on the map I saw that with some create route planning, I could go down the 143, then double back and join the A14 eastwards before turning south down our old friend, the A12.
On the way I did also visit Stowlangtoft, which was a wonderful church, a church filled with wonderful things that seemed to hang together as a whole. Woolpit would have to be something special to trup St George.
And it nearly did. Nearly. Woolpit is a picture perfect village, all timber framed buildings, narrow lanes and impossible to park in. I drove through it finding a kind of space just past the church. I could see from the tower and building it was a church on which the Victorians had been very busy.
Most glorious is Mary's roof; double hammerbeam adorned with 208 angels one of the wardens told me. It had been counted several times during a dull sermon. Or two.
The wardens were building the crib for Christmas, so were using a pallet as a base, or something like that. I didn't see it finished, but Ken Bruce was booming out from a radio, preaching the Gospel According to Popmaster to all who would listen.
The angels in the roof and on the walls of the church are indeed impressive, as is the rood screen, but not sure if they are original. There are carved pew ends aplenty, but to my eye, not as well carved or as old as at Stowlangtoft. I could be wrong. But I snap a few anyway.
But I received a warm welcome here, and it is a fantastic church for me.
-----------------------------------------
2008: Woolpit is a village which I often visit, and it is always a pleasure to go into the church. But the entry for St Mary was one of the last on the original Suffolk Churches site, making its appearance in late 2001. In fact, I think it was the last of the old-style entries. I was getting a bit wordy by then.
Woolpit was one of the longest entries, and this wasn't just because there is so much to see. I went off at a great tangent about the meaning of medieval iconography, and how it survived the Reformation. It certainly got some thoughts clear in my own head, even if it confused other people. I actually wrote the entry in the back of an old exercise book sitting outside a café on the Cote d'Azur in southern France. Reading that back, it seems a little pretentious, but I really was there. Here in Ipswich on a frosty February evening, I can't help remembering the heat as I scrawled in the pad.
I've left the original entry almost entirely as it was, apart from the removal of one absolute howler, which I won't mention. I am not sure if Woolpit still has a Sunday market, and I am sure that someone will tell me if it has not. Paul Hocking is no longer Rector of Woolpit, but to my eyes the church continues to go from strength to strength, feeling at once busy and at the heart of its community, the still centre of a busy village. I like it very much.
2001: The clear blue waters of the Mediterranean swirl around my legs, then past me, buffeting the rocks along the silver beach. Millions of tiny flecks of mica swarm through the current, washed out of the hills of Southern Provence. They shine for a fraction of a second with all the light the high summer sun can give, a universe caught in a moment; then turn, disappearing, making of the water a shimmering skein, an ancient memory.
The sea is at the start of all European civilisation. Here, history wells about me. I think of Europe, and the fragmentation of nations. I think of the Balkans, and the Reformation, and the same water surrounding, tending, isolating. I think of time passing.
A week before, I'd been standing in the cool nave of the church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Woolpit - or at least, that is what it probably was once, back then. Today, it is dedicated simply as 'St Mary', in common with the majority of Suffolk's medieval churches, among which it is one of the finest, some say. This is mostly by virtue of its beautiful porch, and extraordinary angel roof.
But is that true? For there are those who love this church that, perhaps, never look up at the porch or roof. Is it the plethora of 15th century bench ends that captures the imagination? Or could it be Richard Phipson's outrageous 1850s tower and lacy spire, straight out of the Nene Valley, its evangelistic slogans around the side in a Victorian equivalent of Piccadilly Circus neon? It ought not to work, and yet it does. Or is it that supremely articulate view to the east, perfect of proportion despite the stripping away of its medieval liturgical apparatus? Above all else, and above most others, this is a church with presence.
It was the bench ends that I was thinking of as I immersed myself out of the intensity of the Provencal sun. A number of questions occured to me, as they have done on other occasions, in other churches. Who made them? What did they mean by them? And how did they survive the iconoclasms of the Protestant Reformation? Here in Southern Europe, I thought I might have found some answers.
Woolpit, then. It is perhaps the most perfect of all Suffolk villages. Not sleepy, and chocolate boxy, but to actually live in. Its shops and pubs are arranged around the pleasant village square, and Phipson's crazy spire towers above them. Woolpit still has its school, and you wouldn't need to get in the car every time you needed a loaf of bread, as you'd have to do in some of Suffolk's more famously picturesque villages, like Kersey and Tuddenham. And Woolpit has its Sunday market, beloved of hundreds of non-sabbatarian junk-hunters each week.
Further, Woolpit has its mythology; the two green children, who climbed out of the ground, speaking a strange language and afraid of the sunlight. The boy died soon after, but the girl grew up and married; she learned to speak English, and told of St Martin's Land, from where she and her brother had emerged. There are holes in the ground around Woolpit, quarries where bricks were made in the 19th century. But perhaps there was once something much older, for every Suffolk schoolchild knows that the name 'Woolpit' is nothing to do with wool, but with the wolves that once lived in the pits here...
So, it is a well-known village. It is because of this as much as anything about St Mary itself that makes this church so well-known to people who haven't heard of the even more interesting and beautiful church of St Ethelbert, Hessett, barely three miles away.
Your first sight of St Mary will be Phipson's crazy spire, visible from miles away, and quite unlike anything else in East Anglia. Suffolk is a county where spires are rare enough, anyway. From the far side of the Gipping valley you can see this one and two others, piercing the soft harvest mist in autumn. They are Phipson's equally absurd Great Finborough, and the 1990s blade of St Peter and St Mary, Stowmarket. There are only about a dozen more in the whole of the county. The excuse for this one was that the tower was struck by lightning in 1852, bringing down the previous lead and timber affair (presumably like the one at Hadleigh). The font is contemporary with the tower, suggesting that the old one was destroyed by the fall.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the artist John Piper produced a series of screen prints of aspects of Suffolk churches; for most, he used the fine perpendicular tower, ramifying it in bold Festival of Britain primary colours. But for Woolpit, he chose the porch, because it is Suffolk's finest. Cautley thought it the best in all England. It is two-storey, 15th century, contemporary with the nave. Mortlock tells us that they were both built by wealthy Bury Abbey, who owned the living here. As at Beccles, it rises way above the south aisle, tower-like in itself.
A rood group of niches surmounts the shields of East Anglia above the door. More flank them. Mortlock says that the work began in the early 1430s, and the niches were filled by a bequest of 1473, suggesting that the porch was forty years in the making. The south aisle and chancel are slightly earlier, the north aisle slightly later, so it is the nave that promises us great things, and doesn't disappoint.
You step into cool darkness, and look up. It is breathtaking. This is Suffolk's most perfectly restored angel hammerbeam roof. It may not have the drama of Mildenhall, the exquisiteness of Blythburgh, the sheer mathematics of Needham Market, but it shows us in detail more than any other what the medieval imagination was aiming at. From the still, small silence of the church floor below, you look up into a great shout of praise. Here are hundreds of figures, both angelic and human. The profusion is ordered, as if some mighty hymn were in progress.
Paul Hocking thinks that it is a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus: We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord... To thee all Angels cry aloud, the Heavens, and all the Powers therein. To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Sabaoth... The glorious company of the Apostles praise thee, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets praise thee, the noble army of Martyrs praise thee...
I know this, because he told me so. I was busy photographing bench ends when this very enthusiastic American bounced in with another visitor, and gave him a whistlestop tour of the church, describing the details with great knowledge and understanding. Solicitously, he talked to me afterwards about what I was doing, and asked me if I'd met the Rector of Woolpit yet. I said that I went out of my way to avoid Rectors wherever possible. He laughed, and replied that, on this occasion, I'd failed, because he was, in fact, the Rector.
After I'd coughed miserably, and he'd laughed again, we had a long chat, uncovering a few mutual aquaintances. He described the roof, which he has obviously spent a lot of time exploring. He pointed out the way the wall posts contained Saints, some with apostolic symbols, some with books, and some with martyr's palms. There are angels on the hammerbeams above, and bearing symbols below. John Blatchly counted 128 angels alone. Some of the shields have letters on them. Are they an acrostic, as on the east chancel wall at Blythburgh? Do they indicate individual Saints? The great Henry Ringham completely restored this roof in 1862, but Mortlock thinks that one of the angels is not his, and I agree - you'll find it in the south west corner. Paul Hocking argues that the restoration was nowhere near as complete as has been made out, and that many features are original.
Henry Ringham also restored the range of bench ends, by duplicating some of the medieval ones, as he did at Great Bealings and Tuddenham St Martin. All are rendered with his customary skill. If Ringham did restore this roof, then the imagery must have been destroyed at some point. One instinctively thinks of William Dowsing, the Puritan inspector of the churches of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, who progressed across the counties during the course of 1644. His delight in the destruction of angel roofs was matched only by that at the destruction of stained glass.
And Dowsing did visit this church. He arrived here in the afternoon of February 29th 1644. It was a Thursday, and he had come here across country from Helmingham, where he had found much to do. He also planned to visit Beyton that day, but in the end stayed overnight at the Bull hotel, and inspected All Saints there in the morning. He then rested for the weekend - the following week, he had a busy tour of southern Cambridgeshire ahead of him.
Dowsing records in great detail what he found to do at each church. In the case of Woolpit, the angel roof is the Dog That Didn't Bark: My Deputy. 80 superstitious pictures; some he brake down, and the rest he gave order to take down; and three crosses to be taken down in 20 days. 8s 6d. There are only two possible reasons why Dowsing doesn't mention the roof. Either he didn't notice it (extremely unlikely) or it had already been destroyed. This second option seems certain; mid-Suffolk was a strongly protestant area, and nearby Rougham, which clearly had a similar roof, was not visited by Dowsing, but was vandalised even more comprehensively than Woolpit. Most likely, the destruction at both churches dated from a hundred years earlier, although it is possible that the Rougham and Woolpit congregations had been puritan enough in the 1630s to do it to their own churches themselves.
Beneath the roof, the church is broad, its two aisles giving room for the panoply of medieval liturgical processions. At the east end of the south aisle was once the shrine of Our Lady of Woolpit, a site of medieval pilgrimage in connection with a nearby holy well. Apart from the front rows, many of the benches appear to be in their original positions. Some of the bench ends are 15th century, others are Ringham's 19th century copies. I wandered around the medieval bench ends, running my hands over them, crouching down and engaging them, face to face. For anyone educated in a Marxist or Weberian historical tradition, as most of my generation were, interpreting the less-obviously liturgical or theological features of a medieval church is fraught with difficulties. One possibility is to do a Cautley, and try not to interpret them at all. But it is more fun to try to do so, don't you think?
The bench ends of Woolpit are remarkable for their abundance. They are not representations of sacraments, virtues and vices as at Tannington and elsewhere, or Saints as at Ufford and Athelington. They are almost all non-allegorical animals, although not the art objects we find at Stowlangtoft, or the mysterious beasts of Lakenheath. Perhaps a good comparison is the similar body of work at nearby Combs. Indeed, although they do not appear to be from the same workshop, it is likely that their creators knew of each others' work. There are dogs, with geese hanging from their mouths, and another which may be a cat with a rat or lizard. There are lions and bears, and a chained monkey, and birds in profusion. So who did them, and why are they here?
There is one school of thought that says that they are simply there to beautify the church, and that they were made by local craftsmen doing what they were best at. If they could do lions, they did lions. If they could render a decent rabbit, then that is what they did. And so on.
But I think that there is rather more to it than that. On my journey down through France, I had spent an afternoon in one of my favourite towns, Autun, in Burgundy. One of the reasons I like Autun is its 11th century Cathedral of St-Lazaire; this is Lazurus, raised by Christ from the dead, and until the 18th century his relics were venerated at a shrine here. St-Lazaire is most famous for its great tympanum above the west door, generally recognised as one of the greatest Romanesque art treasures in the world, and with International Heritage status. It was created during the middle years of the 12th century, and shows the Last Judgement. To emphasise Christ's majesty over all the world, it features all manner of beasts, domestic, wild and mythical.
Throughout the Cathedral, animals infest the famous capitals, which tell the Gospel story. Abbe Denis Grivot, in his Un Bestiaire de la Cathedrale D'Autun (Lyon, 1973) argues that the 12th century creators of all this filled it with animals to echo the final verse of the 150th Psalm, the crowning point of that great sequence of hymns of praise: Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord!
Standing in the nave at Autun, I instantly recalled Paul Hocking's words about the roof at Woolpit, when he said he thought it was a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus. The Te Deum is one of the canticles; another is the Benedicite, traditionally sung through Lent: Oh all ye Works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord; praise him and magnify him for ever... O ye whales, and all that move in the Waters, bless ye the Lord... O all ye Fowls of the air, bless ye the Lord... O all ye beasts and Cattle, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him for ever!
Could it be that the bench ends at Woolpit, and elsewhere in Suffolk, were intended to reflect and represent the praise defined in the canticles and psalms? Both would have been central to the liturgy of the medieval Catholic church. Perhaps the bench ends of Woolpit are liturgical and theological after all.
How would a carpenter, or group of carpenters, go about creating a set of benches like the ones at Woolpit? Who were they? Almost certainly, they were locals. They might have been itinerant jobbing carpenters, but I don't think so. The bench ends at adjacent Tostock are clearly by the same hand. But those at nearby Stowlangtoft and Norton are not, and a third hand seems to be responsible for those at Combs, as I previously mentioned. I do not think that the mutilated ones at Rougham and Elmswell are either; they were probably from the same workshop as each other.
So, we have a conscious attempt by skilled members of a community to create a hymn of praise in carved oak, by representing as many beasts as they felt capable of making. Where did they get their ideas from? They would have had no problems with oxen, cocks, conies - these were all around them, in their daily lives. The person who carved the hunting dog here was very familiar with it. Perhaps it was his own. What about monkeys and lions? These are more problematic. In medieval bestiaries, exotic creatures had fabulous legends attached to them, which gave them a theological symbolism.
But this symbolism doesn't usually seem intended when we see them on bench ends. Sometimes they are rendered accurately, but more often wild animals are fairly imaginary; I think particularly of Barningham's camel, and Hadleigh's wolf. It isn't enough to say that the carvers could have seen pictures of exotic beasts. This is fairly unlikely. Probably, the ordinary people of Woolpit never saw a book other than the missals, lectionaries and hagiographies used in church.
They might have seen pictures of lions and monkeys in wall paintings, either in other churches or here at Woolpit. They might have seen them carved in bench ends, for the same reason. In fact, the representation of wild animals varies so much as to suggest that this is not the case - compare, for example, the lions of Combs with those of Stowlangtoft. Probably, they were created in the imagination from descriptions and attributes in stories. But I think that there is a strong possibility that the woodcarvers of Woolpit did see lions and monkeys in real life.
Here in Catholic Southern Europe, there are many remote small towns which, by virtue of being so very far from each other, take on a rich and complex life of their own. Even small villages have their shops, their craftsmen, their tradespeople; they replicate a situation that existed in Suffolk until well into the 19th century, and in some cases beyond, before the great industrialisation and easy transport swept it away. Further, there are traditions here still that we have lost. Whenever I come here, I am fascinated by the itinerant entertainers, who move from village to village, giving a single performance befre moving on. This must also once have been true of England. The thing that fascinates me most is the multitude of small family circuses.
Many of them seem to be of Italian or Romany origin; all family members have multiple roles, from the oldest grandparent to the youngest child, selling tickets, doing acrobatics, being the straight men to the clown (who is typically Grandpa). They all put up the tent before the performance, and take it down afterwards. They move on, through the remote hills of Provence and the Languedoc, performing on village greens, wastegrounds, the corners of fields, even traffic islands.
As I say, I am fascinated, and can rarely resist them, even though I am shocked, even appalled, by the easy cruelty to animals. Performing animals are still often chosen for their curiosity value, if you can call running around in a circle to the crack of a whip 'performing', poor things.
The choices are strange indeed; camels and zebras often feature; I have seen an old bear on a chain, and at one circus in remote Languedoc a hippopotamus of all things - it caught bread thrown by the crowd. There was no safety fence between the seats and the ring, no Health and Safety Executive to penetrate these lost valleys. I do not know if such circuses existed in medieval Suffolk. But I think that they probably did. Suffolk is a maritime county, and exotic animals were widely known and exhibited in medieval Europe. Before the Protestant Reformation cut us of from the mainland, clerics and merchants thought of themselves as European, and travelled widely - English sovereignty was a hazy concept at best, and 'Britishness' was still centuries away from being formulated as an idea. People owed allegiance to their village, their parish, and their lord, not to the Crown and Parliament in London.
Were the woodcarvers of Woolpit and Tostock remembering this? A circus visit, perhaps back in their childhood? Exotic animals rendered inaccurately, to be sure, but with an enthusiastic nostalgia for that exciting moment in their lives? Was there a lion? A monkey, or a bear? How much more powerful if they also knew the fabulous legends about the beasts - and had seen them in real life!
Some of the carvings at Woolpit are allegorical. One shows a monkey dressed in monk's robes. This, I think, is a joke at the expense of the itinerant friars who went from parish to parish, preaching repentance in the streets. They were sanctioned by the Pope, but were beyond the jurisdiction of the local Bishop. They didn't always go down well with the local Priest and congregation, who considered the Friars nosey and hypocritical. A monkey is often a symbol of foolish vanity - hence, a Friar thinking he was better than anyone else. What better way to make the point than to slip him in as one of the creatures praising the Lord?
How did they survive? But why should they have been destroyed? We make the mistake of thinking of the Puritans as vandals. But the more you read about William Dowsing, the more he emerges as being a principled, conservative kind of chap, despite his clearly flawed and fundamentalist theological opinions. He had no reason to destroy animal bench ends. They weren't superstitious - even Dowsing didn't think Catholics worshipped animals. If he didn't think they were meant to represent the canticles, he wouldn't even have considered them religious. Amen to that.
So much for the 17th century. What about the 19th? St Mary is one of the most enthusiastically restored of Suffolk's churches, despite its survivng medieval detail. But it was done well. Mortlock thought that the 19th century pulpit was the work of Ringham - but the brass lectern is pre-Reformation, a fine example. The rood screen dado panels have sentimental 19th century Saints on them, that may or may not duplicate what was there before. They are actually very good, particularly the gorgeous Mary of Magdala. They have their names painted on the cross beams for the less hagiologically articulate Victorians - from left to right across the aisle they are Saints Barbara, Felix, Mary of Magdala, Peter, Paul, Mary, Edmund and Etheldreda. It is unlikely that Saint Felix would have been on a medieval roodscreen, and Mary almost certainly wasn't - it would have relegated her to a position of no more importance than the others. If it reflects anything of what was there before, it was probably St Anne with the infant Virgin.
The top part of the screen was renewed in 1750, and dated so. The gates are probably a Laudian imposition of 120 years earlier, as at Kedington. This may suggest that, by the time of Dowsing's visit, the chancel was being used for some other practical purpose. Above, high above, set in the east nave wall over the chancel arch, is one of the wierdest objects I've seen in a medieval church. It was installed in the 1870s, and is clearly meant to echo the coving of a rood loft. Goodness knows what it actually is, but it is painted in garish colours, and inscribed with texts. In one of those moments where Cautley and credibility part company, he describes anyone who doesn't think it is a genuine medieval canopy of honour as 'stupid'. I suppose that it has a certain curiosity value.
The three-light window above it would have given light to the rood. The east window contains one of Suffolk's best modern Madonna and child images which was made by the artist Ian Keen for the King workshop in the early 1960s. Ian Keen was also responsible for the beautiful St Margaret in St Margaret's church in Norwich, and for the memorable window of St Francis with a labrador at Somerleyton near Lowestoft.
I turned back westwards, past a superb medieval bench end of the three Marys. This is a delight, and you'd travel to London to see it if it was in the V&A. Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the mother of James and Mary of Magdala huddle together, perhaps on the morning of the Resurrection. One of them has a lily of the Annunciation. One head is destroyed - but was it vandalised? Or is it the result of carelessness, the wear and tear of the centuries? Would 17th century puritans have destroyed it if they'd seen it?
Dowsing rarely mentions bench ends, so perhaps few were left by then anyway. So how could it possibly have survived the violent zeal of the 16th century Protestants, battering the Church of England into existence with their axes, pikes and bonfires? How, even after the 1540 edict of Edward VI which ordered the destruction of all statues and images of Saints, especially those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is it still there at all?
Still more questions than answers, I suppose. I dived beneath the water, and there was beneath me a restless current, shifting and reshifting the silver sand into unique patterns, the work of millennia, still changing, never the same.
- le Rayol Canadel, Cote d'Azur, August 2001.
#A #Medusa #ClashoftheTitans #Snake #Rattlesnake #Slimeball #ForkedTongue #scales #hairdye #eastereggdye #PAAS #loreal #missclairol #DonaldTrump #narcissisticpersonalitydisorder #JaredKushner #DonaldTrumpJr #COVID19 #Coronavirus #Pandemic #DrAnthonySFauci #MikePence #testicle #penis #dick #balls #AsktheMortician #disease #pneumonia #infection #flu #JimmyKimmel #JimmyFallon #StephenColbert #SethMyer #minilogue #quarantine #sociadistancing #6feet #MitchMcConnell #handsanitizer #novelcoronavirus #trumplies #wipes #stayathome #workfromhome #homeschooling #deathtoll #StevenMnuchin #MikePompeo #testspositive #testsnegative #farright #freaks #ventilator #medicalmask #hospitalbed #temporarymorgue #WuhanChina, #novelcoronavirus #sociallydistant #selfquarantine #SeanHannity #FakeNews #infectiousdisease #FoxNews #epidemic #publichealthemergency #CDC #AndrewCuomo #CenterForDiseaseControl #CNN #flatteningthecurve #worldhealthorganization #recession #depression #contagious #WHO #narcissisticpersonalitydisorder #positive #negative #coronavirus #pandemic #COVID19 #infection #Dr.AnthonyFauci #trumpcausescancer #windmill #windpower #windturbine #antivaxxer #bigfoot #UFO #lochnessmonster #flyingsaucer #mythology #atlantis #bermudatriangle #flatearth #wikileaks #angels #fallenangels #45 #BiggestBaby #dirtydiaper #TheMuellerInvestigation #WilliamBarr #AttorneyGeneral #Report #TheEmperorsNewClothes #TheExorcist #Pazuzu #God #JesusChrist #LindaBlair #possessed #KingofDemons #SarahSanders #hypocrite #Exorcism #Pampers #TheWall #NeverGiveIn #Bullshit #dirtydiaper #diaperrash #PooPooBaDoop #Clemson #Wendys #burgerking #football #KellyanneConway #SarahHuckabee #Trolls #Kremlin #KremlinTroll #RussianTroll #RobertMueller #FISA #SteveBannon #MikePence #Twitter #Tweet #wiretap #Twit #wiretapped #Twat #dontaldtrump #WashingtonDC #MamaAyeshas #wallofpresidents #CIA #GOP #KKK #ISIS #FBI #BLM #LGBT #Russia #VladimirPutin #Russianinterference #AlternativeFacts #MicrowaveOven #Camera #sexdrugsandrockandroll #HillaryClinton #BernieSanders #BarackObama #PresidentoftheUnited #plannedparenthood #bigot #jihad #OsamabinLaden #DumpTrump #NotMyPresident #Dontee #DonteesInferno #thewalkingdead #republican #pedophile #WomensMarch #badhombre #conservative #rape #RiencePriebus #DonaldMcGahn #FrankGaffney #JeffSessions #GeneralJamesMattis #GeneralJohnKelly #StevenMnuchin #AndyPuzder #WilburRoss #CathyMcMorrisRodgers #MitchMcConnell #KTMcFarland #MikePompeo #NikkiHaley #LtGenMichaelFlynn #BenCarson #BetsyDeVos #TomPrice #ScottPruitt #SeemaVerma #PaulRyan #TrumpTower #MarriageEquality #KuKluxKlan #NewYorkCity #Hanksy #MelaniaTrump #BarronTrump #IvankaTrump #TiffanyTrump #EricTrump #DonaldTrumpJr #JaredKushner #conflictofinterest #emolument #RiggedElection #TemperTantrum #Tweet #Twitter #Twit #ManChild #DiaperBlowout #Trump #poop #turd #bigbaby #manindiapers #Inauguration #ScottBaio #TedNugent #TheRockettes #RadioCityMusicHall #MormonTabernacleChoir #Medusa #breitbart #lies #NationalEnquirer #douchebag #POS #Pussy #PussyGrabber
#terrorist #Taliban #jihad #MexicanWall #racism #jihad #nobannowall #confederateflag #Nazi #Islam #Freedom #AmericanNaziParty #TheRollingStones #Democrat #CivilRights #Idiot #abortion #tinfoilhatsociety #tyrant #foxnews #MerylStreep #Liberal #SaturdayNightLive #AlecBaldwin #MelissaMcCarthy #AdolfHitler #BenitoMussolini #Dictator #Megalomaniac #KingComplex #Demagogue #Narcissist #Delusional #Nuts #Oligarch #Populist #tyrant #Narcissistic #Autocracy #Oligarchy #DelusionsofGrandeur #GodComplex #MangoMussolini #DerPumpkinfuhrer #Apocalypse #NuclearButton #OvalOffice #civilliberties #goldenshowers #tinyhands #discrimination #TrumpGate #freedomandjusticeforall #TheBible #JesusChrist #The12Apostles #FredPhelps #GodHatesFags #WestboroBaptistChurch #RedNeck #ScienceFiction, #rapistsandmurderers #antiGay #homophobe #dinosaurs #religiousright #AmericanFamilyAssociation #hategroup #BruceJenner #CaitlynJenner #BarbieandKen #Mattel #PopeFrancis #QueenElizabeth #KeepYourPeckerUp #PatRobertson #BatteredWomanSyndrome #FranklinGraham #Cracker #JudyGarland #TheWizardofOz #BarbraStreisand #BettyWhite #MarilynMonroe #ValleyoftheDolls #PeytonPlace #DowntonAbbey #MaggieSmith #JudyDench #EvaGreen #MissPeregrine #DarylDixon #jabbathehutt #EmperorPalpatine #StarWars #StarTrek #RickGrimes #TeaParty #GlennBeck #RushLimbaugh #fakeNews #politicallyincorrect #BillMaher #AngelaMerkel #TheresaMay #RosieODonnell #MegynKelly #TheManchurianCandidate #BadCombOver #commemorativecoin #collectorsitem #ebay #buffalonewyork #artvoice #carlpaladino #byecarl #OutrageFatigue #hotair #weaponsofmassdestruction #motherofallbombs #farts #farting #robertmueller #bombingsyria #kellyanneconway #brettkavanaugh #sexualassault #harrassment #metoo #supremecourt #kanyewest #kimkardashian #idiot #incoherent
"Pleasant little family party at Mr. Pecksniffs" by Phiz (Hablot Knight Browne).
Quoting from the book (page 42):
“This,” said Mr. Pecksniff rising, and looking round upon them, with folded hands, “does me good. It does my daughters good. We thank you for assembling here. We are grateful to you with our whole hearts. It is a blessed distinction that you have conferred upon us, and believe me” – it is impossible to conceive how he smiled here – “we shall not easily forget it.”
“I am sorry to interrupt you, Pecksniff,” remarked Mr. Spottletoe, with his whiskers in a very portentous state; “but you are assuming too much to yourself sir. Who do you imagine has it in contemplation to confer a distinction upon you sir?”
A general murmur echoed this enquiry, and applauded it.
“If you are about to pursue the course with which you have begun sir,” pursued Mr. Spottletoe in a great heat, and giving a violent rap on the table with his knuckles, “the sooner you desist, and this assembly separates, the better. I am no stranger sir, to your preposterous desire to be regarded as the head of this family, but I can tell you sir –”
[Note: Pecksniff, one of the biggest hypocrites in fiction, and Spottletoe, married to old Martin Chuzzlewit's niece, both have designs on old Martin's money.]
productions of old pagan minds, with many of whom debauchery was a virtue, drunkenness praise-worthy, wicked warriors objects of eulogy, and suicide commendable. Indeed, it is no wonder that most students leave College so much worse than when they enter. Nay, more; it is strange that so many young men come from our Colleges with minds not altogether destroyed. Nothing but the grace of God, especially through the influence of the early instruction of good parents, can keep young men thus educated from total ruin. To those, especially, who intend the study of Theology, does the study of the usual course in College appear the most useless and inappropriate.
In the Edinburgh Review for April, 1849, there is an article on the subject of remodeling the course of study in the Universities, by increasing the amount of Science and diminishing the amount of the dead languages, after copying which, the Editor of the Covenanter (Phil.) pithily remarks, – speaking of the reviewers:
‘Their object is so to change the whole course of University education as to lay a better foundation, by the introduction of a larger infusion of science, for the active business and professional pursuits to which most graduates are destined; – and, viewed from their ‘stand-point’ – the fitting of students for this world's strife and honors – they are laboring wisely. We also wish to effect certain changes in the course of education, not by curtailing the amount of instruction in the dead languages, but by so altering the course as that, while a sufficient knowledge is acquired of these tongues, and a corresponding amount of intellectual training secured, there may be, at the same time, an exclusion of corrupting elements, and a much larger amount of Scriptural and sanctifying attainments put in the way of the student. Men of the world see the folly of employing young men, for years, in studies largely foreign to their future occupations; we see, or think we see, the folly and the sin of employing them for years in studies not only foreign to their future occupations, but absolutely hurtful to their Christian and moral character. These men are not seduced by a blind devotion to the pagan classics to imagine that to know them is to be educated. Let them teach us. – Besides, it is a significant fact, that academical distinctions have latterly been thrown into the back-ground in professional and public life;’ and that in England, where these ‘distinctions’ have been so dearly won, and where, of course they should have opened the best and shortest road to eminence, the ‘best lawyers’ have not risen from among ‘the most laborious scholars (in the languages, meaning,) and mathematicians of the University.’ Why not, if by these studies only mind can be polished, and invigorated, and fitted for forensic efforts? Let the hyper-admirers of pagan classical learning answer. We mistake the signs of the times, if we imagine opposition to pagan literature as the basis of a finished education is hopeless. It is gradually wearing out. They would substitute natural science, political economy, jurisprudence &c.; without neglecting them, we would substitute the bible, in the original tongues, and Christian literature.’
MRS. SWISSHELM AND
GENERAL TAILOR.
This lady in speaking of her interview with General Taylor, who was in Pittsburgh on the 18th ult., says : ‘We were placed under the necessity of denying the charge of being a Whig, and charging ourself, instead, with the crime of abolition and anti-warism. His Excellency laughed very good humoredly, and said that he too was anti-war; and here the crowd ended our conference. There is a remarkably merry and kind expression or rather twinkle in his eye, which reminded us of Judge Bredin, who is the soul of conviviality. General Taylor's manner is frank, hearty, but wanting in sell-possession. We think more of the man and less of his trade, and peculiar institution. War and Slavery have converted thousands of warm-hearted, openhanded, generous men, into so many scourges to their race. Of these, General Taylor is a fair specimen. In favor of peace, as he says, and as his better nature must be, he has spent his days desolating firesides. Professing that all men are free and equal, he buys and sells part of them, as cattle.’
MEETING AT SENECAVILLE.
Our “rally for the Slave,” at Senecaville on last Friday, was a joyful one to the true friends of truth and right. At 1 o'clock, the people collected from town and country, and filled a large church with which we were favored.
J. M. Simpson, of Zanesville, first addressed the auditory on the “hope of the Abolitionists,” in a style peculiarly happy. While he rehearsed the numerous evidences of anti-slavery reform, all could see the bright prospects of their speedy triumph. Not among the least of them is the fact that so many able and faithful advocates of human rights, arising to battle for the truth, among whom Mr. Simpson is by no means the least.
He was followed by Prof. George in an able address on the constitutionality of Slavery.
For the profound attention given by the audience to a discussion bearing so hard upon the inconsistency of Free Soilers and Liberty men, the speaker owed many thanks. Almost all present gave evidence that they were willing to hear the discussion of any question connected with that of Slavery, however much the speaker may have differed from them on the constitutional question.
Rev. E. Garey, of the West Indies, then followed, in an eloquent manner depicting the effects of prejudice against color in the U. S., and contrasting the condition of the colored man in the British West Indies with his condition here.
In the evening meeting, at which there was a large and very attentive audience, after an address by N. R. Johnston, Mr. Simpson again spoke with peculiar power and eloquence: his subject was, the nature and influence of American Slavery.
The few pro-slavery hearers, especially one who has written a book to prove that the relation of Master and Slave is of divine sanction, must have writhed under his severe castigations. The lashes of truth and irony were handled admirably. All true friends of the slave must have felt that it was a good time for the cause.
Verily, if Messrs. Garey and Simpson will engage in the Anti-Slavery field we would see another cheering evidence that “the good time is coming.”
DICTATION.
The author of “Dr. Holston's article on Female Physicians,” which we refused to publish last week unless expurgated, has been reading the article to as many as possible, and has learned from the “ladies” that it is fit for publication, without expurgation; and has taken it upon himself to prepare an editorial for us. By request of the writer, it was handed to us, and we accordingly give it. We are thankful that learned and professional gentlemen are so much interested in our paper as to dictate editorials for us. By the aid of a few more such, may we not hope to make the Free Press a very worthy sheet? Here it is:
‘As a number of the readers of the free press and among them some ladies, of whom we had expected better things – differ with us on the propriety of withholding Dr. Holston’s article on female physicians from the public – we give the article in question entire so the public may judge. We do this without in the least degree retracting our say so about the article or on the subject of female physicians.’
The Concord Free Press has received $2,000 from a Wm. Tabor and $1,000 from the Rev. J. M. Beattie, on subscription! Would that we had a few such subscribers!
– Guernsey Jeffersonian.
We would respectfully ask the Jeffersonian to examine Webster's Dictionary on the word LIE.
The People's Platform, noticing the death of Wm. Abel, late Treasurer of Guernsey County, thinks we erred in calling it suicide. From what the Cambridge papers say, it would seem that we were in error. We wrote our notice of the death immediately after being informed of it by a gentleman of veracity directly from Cambridge, who told us without any hesitation, that the deceased had shot himself, and that he had given evidence of insanity and had made threats shortly before. As no one saw the deed, no one can tell positively; but we learn that the common belief of the community is that it was suicide. Perhaps for the sake of living friends, it is better to say that it was done accidentally.
To the communication on the Sons of Temperance we defer a reply until next week – no time this.
That lady in town who says her husband ‘don’t take the Free Press,’ but that it is just thrown into them, will please have him call and settle his bill, if they don’t want the ‘moral nuisance’ ‘thrown in’ any longer. If the sheet is not desired, we would be sorry to inflict its reading upon so worthy a family.
LECTURES IN CAMBRIDGE. – Rev. E. Garey, of the West Indies, will deliver his course of lectures at Cambridge, commencing on Monday evening, 10th instant.
His subjects will be, The Providence of God, as illustrated or developed in the History of Man – Temperance; and Emancipation in the West Indies.
TELEGRAPHIC DESPATCHES.
Philadelphia, Aug. 31.
The brig Salvador has arrived from N. Orleans, eight days from Havanna, having Rey* on board, who testified to having been abducted. He was ordered to give bail for his appearance at the Consul's trial.
[*This is the individual abducted from New Orleans, as was suspected, through the agency of the Spanish Consul, carried to Cuba, and thence demanded by our Government. He is accused of some political offence, for which the Spanish Government sought to punish him. The Consul, if really concerned in the affair, is a very stupid ass.]
GREAT MASS MEETING
IN NEW YORK.
New York, Aug. 28.
A tremendous meeting was held in the Park yesterday afternoon in favor of Hungary. From fifteen to twenty thousand persons were present, and spirited resolutions were passed. Great enthusiasm prevailed.
PROGRESS OF CHOLERA.
CHOLERA AT BUFFALO.
Buffalo, Aug. 28.
Thirty deaths from Cholera during the forty-eight hours ending yesterday.
Albany, Aug. 28.
Twenty-six cases of Cholera and 11 deaths.
Cincinnati, Aug. 31.
Eleven interments from Cholera; other diseases 83.
THE TERRITORIES.
An effort was made, while the President was here to get hold of his views on the Wilmot proviso; but he planed them shy on the subject. A committee of gentlemen from the Reserve, put it to him pretty plainly with regard to Slavery in the territories. His reply was, that it would be “settled constitutionally,” ‘Yes,’ it was replied, but what are your views on the constitutionality of the Proviso, General!! An evasive reply was given by the latter, which wound up by reiterating that the matter would be ‘settled constitutionally.’
In conversation with some of our own citizens on the subject he informed them that he received a letter from Gov. Smith of California since he left Washington, stating that both California and New Mexico would make application at the next Congress to be admitted as States. – To secure this has been the great object of the administration, and it appears that by the aid of the government set up in the territories, they expect to succeed. We trust, however, that they will not be admitted, except their constitutions forever prohibit slavery.
– Mercer Luminary.
SUICIDE – SLAVERY.
The St. Louis Union of Aug. 23, says:
“A gentleman who came passenger on the steamer Martha No. 2, which arrived in port from Cincinnati yesterday, relates the following story: While the above boat was making her last trip from this city to Cincinnati, and after she had been out of port some time, the commanding officer discovered concealed on board the boat, a negress some twenty-four or five years of age, whom he believed to be a runaway slave. Being too far from port to return, the officer secured the woman and took her through to Cincinnati, with the intention of bringing her to this city on his return trip. The boat got under way, and while passing down the Ohio, the negress learning that she was to be returned here, effected her escape from confinement, jumped overboard and was drowned. While she struggled in the water, the boat was stopped, and great exertions were made to rescue her, but she sank and was lost. Whether she was a slave or free, what led to the commission of the fatal act, and who she was, or where she belonged, remains a secret.”
The Captain of a Steamboat is compelled to become a slave catcher; for if he even innocently aids in the escape of a slave, he is liable to suit for the value of the property. Capt. Allen, some years ago, paid $500 for a slave woman who came on his boat ostensibly as the servant of a white lady, at Louisville, and left the float at Cincinnati – neither he nor any officer on board suspecting her to be a slave. He “compromised” for five hundred dollars, with lawyer Thurston, of Louisville, if we recollect.
The Florida Indians. – The National Intelligencer states Major Twiggs has been instructed to treat with the Indians remaining in Florida, for their peaceable removal to the Far West, instead of entering on another bloody war with them, to gratify the cupidity and malignity of the Slaveholders of Florida, who wish to spend a few more millions of national revenue to punish the Indians for harboring runaway Slaves.
The Cleveland True Democrat says that the Hon. Joshua R. Giddings is now at home, and cannot attend the peace congress at Paris.
The Commencement exercises of Yale College occurred on Thursday, Aug. 16. The number of graduates was 97.
Retiring postmasters are all said to have the Collamer morbus.
THE UNION CONVENTION
IN N. YORK.
The attempted union of the Hunker and Barnburner divisions of the New York democracy at Rome last week was unsuccessful. Committees of Conference were appointed by each convention and various overtures were made from one to the other, but without success, as neither would give way sufficiently to satisfy the other. The Barnburners
Resolved, That the views of this convention on this are as follows:
That it is not questioned or disputed that Congress has the power over Slavery in the District of Columbia.
That it is not questioned or disputed that Congress does not possess the power over Slavery in the States.
In respect to the power of Congress over Slavery in the new territories of the United States, this Convention holds that the Federal Government possesses the Legislative power over Slavery in the Territories, and ought to exercise it so to prevent the existence of Slavery there.
While on the other hand the Hunker convention adopted the following as their basis of action:
“1st. That all questions that have hitherto divided the party, be waived entirely on the organization of the Union Convention.
2d. That they agree to adopt such resolutions as have usually been passed at the Democratic Conventions, previous to the division in the party. That the subject of Slavery be dropped leaving every man to the enjoyment of his individual
opinion.”
This was asking too much of the Free Soil portion of the party for it was virtually an invitation to them to surrender the great principle upon which they had divided, and the two conventions adjourned after a three day's session each well satisfied that the last hope of union in one “unterrified Democracy” was gone forever.
A Kidnapping Case. – Amos McFarlan and Solomon Staites have been convicted of kidnapping a colored boy in the region of Downington, Pennsylvania, and selling him into slavery. They enticed the boy to Philadelphia, on a pretence of getting him a better place. From thence they took him to Baltimore, and transferred him to a large gloomy building which proved to be a slave establishment. The story of the boy led to his liberation, and the detection and punishment of the parties guilty of bis abduction. They will have a home in the Penitentiary for five or six years. One of the kidnappers was a colored person, the other white.
– Boston Republican
Attempted Negro Insurrection at St. Mary's, Georgia. – We have heard to-day, of an attempted insurrection among the negroes in the neighborhood of St. Mary's, Georgia. It is said about 300 of them intended seizing the steamboat Wm. Gaston, and carrying her to Nassau, N. Providence. Owing to delay in the arrival of the boat their scheme was detected. Numerous arrests were made.
– Wakulla (Fl.) Times, July 18.
The French Republic has, according to its promise, made an official recognition of the Liberian Republic, and the flag has been formally saluted by the French frigate and sloop of war Penelope and Caymar.
A Second Attempt at Union. – A mass Convention of the Democracy of the State of New York is to be held at Syracuse, on the 17th day of September next. The object is to make another effort at union between the Hunkers and Free Soilers. It will probably prove a second Rome Convention affair, perhaps a little more so!
There are three sights most detestable – a proud priest, giving his blessing, a knavish hypocrite saying his prayers, and a false patriot making a harangue.
Why are all the ladies in favor of “Old Bullion?” Simon (the rascal) says it's because they're all “Bent-on-men.”
THE LAW OF NEWSPAPERS.
For me benefit of ourselves, and some of our subscribers, who appear to have very imperfect notions of their responsibilities to newspaper publishers, we give below some of the common law principles of newspaper obligations, which our courts have established:
1. Subscribers who do not give express notice to the contrary, are considered as wishing to continue their subscriptions, and are legally responsible for the same.
2. If subscribers order the discontinuance of their papers, the publisher may continue to send them until all arrearages are paid.
3. If subscribers neglect or refuse to take their papers from the office to which they are directed, they are held responsible until they have settled the bill and ordered them discontinued.
4. If subscribers remove to other places without informing the publishers, and the papers are sent to the former direction, they are held responsible.
5. When newspapers are not taken from the post office, it is the duty of the postmaster to inform the subscribers of the same, and in default of doing so he is subject to reprimand or removal, from the head of the department.
6. Subscribers can have their papers stopped by paying up the arrearages, and directing the post master to order its discontinuance, or doing it themselves.
LIBERTY AND EQUALITY.
Rev. E. Garey will hold an Anti-Slavery meeting at Cambridge, on Thursday evening, 13th inst., commencing at 7 o'clock. Let all who desire to hear an able and eloquent advocate of Equality, in the person of one whom our laws doom to prejudice, scoffing, abuse, degradation or Slavery, attend and see the proud boaster of “superior Anglo-Saxon blood” put to shame.
RELIGIOUS NOTICE.
Rev. D. McLane, will preach in the College Hall, next Sabbath at eleven o’clock.
TEMPERANCE MEETING.
Rev. Mitchell, of Adamsville, will deliver a lecture on Temperance, in the College Hall, on Saturday, 15th inst., at 3 p. m.
The Friends of Temperance are respectfully invited to attend.
A census of Oregon has just been taken which shows a population of 8,903. There are less than 300 foreigners. The voters number 2,509.
Central Ohio Railroad. – The citizens of Zanesville, on Saturday last, voted to complete the subscription by that city of $50,000 to the stock of this work. Muskingum county has already subscribed $60,000, and the people of the county are soon to vote on the propriety of raising this sum to $100,000. In the city of Zanesville, only seven votes were cast against the subscription, and 257 in its favor.
The Cholera is gradually abating in the eastern cities.
All the members of the French provisional government of 1848, are in disgrace or exile, except Lamartine and Cremieux.
RECEIPTS.
Wm H. Robinson, 62 1/2
Thos. Robinson, 62 1/2
Samuel B. Wilson, 1,56
Dr. J. T. Boyd, 1,25
Wm. Johnston, 1,50
Robert Reed,1,25
John F. Davis, 1,00
Anthony Maybra,1,25
Meteorology.
REPORTED BY PROF. IRVINE.
The month of August has been cooler than usual for this season of the year. – The warmest day was the 28th; the Thermometer standing at 87 at 3 p. m. The mean temperature during the month was, at sun-rise, 64,6; at 9 a. m. 72,9; at 3 p. m. 80,9; at 9 p. m. 69,7. The whole amount of rain during the month was 4,34 inches, on eight different days.
DEATHS.
Died – On the the 30th ult., of Cholera, Parvin Eckelson, at St. Louis, Missouri.
At Indianapolis, Ia., Prof. John McArthur, formerly of Miami University, Oxford, O.
On the 4th inst., of pulmonary consumption, Robert Morehead, of Muskingum co., aged about 50 years.
Business Notices.
ANOTHER OFFER.
Any subscriber who owes from the beginning of the present volume, and who will send us one dollar and the names of three new subscribers, either with or without their money, will be receipted for the paper for one year.
ANOTHER. – Any one owing in like manner, who will send us the names of two new subscribers, accompanied with three dollars, will be receipted for one year.
To Clubs. – Clubs of three, at one Post Office, forwarding three dollars in advance, shall have three copies one year.
To MINISTERS. – Any minister who will procure four new subscribers and send us five dollars, may have a fifth copy gratis for one year.
LIST OF LETTERS – Remaining in the Post Office at New-Concord, for the quarter ending June 31, 1849.
B
Bell James
Bell Jane Miss
Bell Mrs William
Bundy Sarah
Black Allen
Barnet Eliza Miss
Booth H M & J
Beaton Elizabeth Mrs
C
Carson Ebenezer
Campbell Dr
Campbell Thos
D
Donnahoo Israel
E
Ellis Dr
F
Forsythe Thomas
G
Gray Richard
Guthrie John
H
Harper Joseph
Hugh Mary Ann
J
Jamison John
L
Leetch Samuel
M
Mavay John
Montgomery Elizabeth
McBeth David N
McMillen Saml B 2
P
Paxton James
R
Reasoner Harriet Miss
Roberts Samuel
S
Speer Alexander 2
Strothers John H 2
Stout Jacob
T
Trace Samuel
W
White Elizabeth Miss
Wilson Polly Mrs
Walker Andrew
July 4, 1849.
WM. MORGAN, P.M.
SUBSCRIBERS who have paid for their paper, and whose subscription year is about to terminate, upon sending us two new subscribers, shall have the three copies for three dollars, in advance.
NEW SUBSCRIBERS will please bear in mind that we have put down our paper to terms exceedingly low, giving three months to pay their $1.25. We will expect all to pay punctually within that time; if they do not, they must not expect us to give the paper at that price. We will expect our terms to be adhered to strictly. “The laborer is worthy of his hire.” One dollar and twenty-five cents can easily be sent in a letter. The risk is ours.
Advertisements.
THE SUBSCRIBER
Earnestly requests all who have accounts with him, to call within the course of a few weeks, and make settlement. He is under the necessity of collecting a considerable amount of money, and where his friends cannot pay all, their notes will answer a valuable purpose at this time. He is really in earnest and needy, and can be greatly accommodated by a prompt compliance with the above request.
He is still selling goods as cheap as ever and cheaper. Those who wish to get extraordinary good bargains in Cloths, Cassimeres and Tweeds had better give him a call; the variety is complete, and the price positively low. Also – A complete variety of Embroidered Thibet Wool Silk Fringe Shawls can be had for three dollars less here, than precisely the same articles have been sold in Zanesville.
W. E. LUKENS.
New-Concord, Aug. 8, 1843.
FARM FOR SALE.
Notice is hereby given that there will be offered at public sale on Wednesday, the 22nd of August, 1849, between the hours of 11 o'clock, a. m.. and four o'clock, p. m., of said day; the farm belonging to the widow and heirs of Benjamin Wortman, deceased, of Union Township, Muskingum Co., Ohio, laying south-west and adjoining the town of Norwich, on the national road, containing
143 Acres.
This farm is pleasantly situated with several good springs of water, and near one hundred acres of cleared land, of productive soil.
ALSO:
One lot in the town of Norwich will be offered on said day. Terms of sale made known on the day and at the place of sale. To be sold by the heirs.
August 8, 1849.
Dissolution!!
THE co-partnership heretofore existing between J. & J. H. Herdman, is this day dissolved by mutual consent. Persons indebted to the firm will make immediate payment to James Herdman; and persons having claims against the firm will present them to him for settlement.
J. & J. H. HERDMAN.
N. B. – A few pairs of mens' coarse boots and womens' shoes of an excellent quality, for sale very low for cash, at Harper & Paterson's. The boots were made by D. W. Myles, and will be sold without regard to cost.
JAMES HERDMAN.
New-Concord, August 8, ‘49.
ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE.
NOTICE is hereby given that the property belonging to the estate of NANCY SMITH, deceased, consisting of one House and Lot in the town of New-Concord, and a Pasture Lot of three acres adjoining town, will be sold at vendue on SATURDAY, the 18th day of AUGUST next, commencing at 2 o'clock, P. M.
Terms made known on the day of sale.
SAMUEL McCORMIC, Adm'r.
July 25, 1849.
N. B. – All persons knowing themselves indebted to, or having claims against, said estate, are earnestly desired to call immediately and make settlement.
S. McC.
ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE.
NOTICE is hereby given that the personal property belonging to the estate of SAMUEL FINDLEY, deceased, consisting of Carding Machines and various other articles: also, one Buggy and Harness, and one Cooking Stove, will be sold at vendue, at New.Concord, on SATURDAY, the 18th day of AUGUST next, commencing at 10 o'clock, A. M.
ROBERT HARPER, Adm’r
July 25, 1849.
N. B. – All persons knowing themselves indebted to, or having claims against, said estate, are earnestly desired to call immediately and make settlement.
R. H.
NEW FIRM.
THE subscribers respectfully announce to the public that they have formed a co-partnership in Merchandizing, to be known by the name of HARPER & PATTERSON, and are now prepared to sell goods on as cheap and accommodating terms as they can be bought in this place or vicinity. Their stock consists of a full assortment of DRY GOODS, GROCERIES, HARDWARE, QUEENSWARE, &c.
Purchasers are invited to give us a fair trial, and we are satisfied they will find it to their advantage.
R. HARPER,
J. PATTERSON.
P.S. Those indebted to R. HARPER for purchases made prior to the co-partnership, are requested to call and make settlements as soon as convenient.
New-Concord, June 6, 1849.
LOOK HERE!
The subscriber respectfully informs his friends and the public generally, that he continues to run the NORWICH STEAM MILL. He can assure the public that the mill is in good repair, and that he is now in readiness to do Grist Work. There will be particular attention paid to customers, to render satisfaction to all who may favor him with their custom.
WOOL CARDING will be done in the best manner, and at the shortest notice. The proprietor having had many years experience at the business, will warrant good work under all circumstances, when the wool is delivered in good order. The price will be as cheap as any can afford to do good work.
The undersigned returns his sincere thanks to the public for the liberal patronage heretofore extended to him, and promises to make every effort to deserve its continuance.
G. W. HUTCHISON.
Norwich, May 23, 1849 – ad lib.
JOB WORK done with neatness and dispatch at this office.
J. D. Millard, James Johnston and Jos. A. Wickerham are authorized to act as agents for the Free Press.
I think in Simon's list of 50 best Suffolk churches, Woolpit comes in at number 31. It is now that I remember that I cannot remember why I should go to Woolpit on what would be the last of the EA church visits this year, as Mum was home and in the care of the district nurse, and there was nothing else we could do, not in actions, money or time given. She really has to stand on her own two feet now.
Anyway; Woolpit.
I decided to go, and after looking on the map I saw that with some create route planning, I could go down the 143, then double back and join the A14 eastwards before turning south down our old friend, the A12.
On the way I did also visit Stowlangtoft, which was a wonderful church, a church filled with wonderful things that seemed to hang together as a whole. Woolpit would have to be something special to trup St George.
And it nearly did. Nearly. Woolpit is a picture perfect village, all timber framed buildings, narrow lanes and impossible to park in. I drove through it finding a kind of space just past the church. I could see from the tower and building it was a church on which the Victorians had been very busy.
Most glorious is Mary's roof; double hammerbeam adorned with 208 angels one of the wardens told me. It had been counted several times during a dull sermon. Or two.
The wardens were building the crib for Christmas, so were using a pallet as a base, or something like that. I didn't see it finished, but Ken Bruce was booming out from a radio, preaching the Gospel According to Popmaster to all who would listen.
The angels in the roof and on the walls of the church are indeed impressive, as is the rood screen, but not sure if they are original. There are carved pew ends aplenty, but to my eye, not as well carved or as old as at Stowlangtoft. I could be wrong. But I snap a few anyway.
But I received a warm welcome here, and it is a fantastic church for me.
-----------------------------------------
2008: Woolpit is a village which I often visit, and it is always a pleasure to go into the church. But the entry for St Mary was one of the last on the original Suffolk Churches site, making its appearance in late 2001. In fact, I think it was the last of the old-style entries. I was getting a bit wordy by then.
Woolpit was one of the longest entries, and this wasn't just because there is so much to see. I went off at a great tangent about the meaning of medieval iconography, and how it survived the Reformation. It certainly got some thoughts clear in my own head, even if it confused other people. I actually wrote the entry in the back of an old exercise book sitting outside a café on the Cote d'Azur in southern France. Reading that back, it seems a little pretentious, but I really was there. Here in Ipswich on a frosty February evening, I can't help remembering the heat as I scrawled in the pad.
I've left the original entry almost entirely as it was, apart from the removal of one absolute howler, which I won't mention. I am not sure if Woolpit still has a Sunday market, and I am sure that someone will tell me if it has not. Paul Hocking is no longer Rector of Woolpit, but to my eyes the church continues to go from strength to strength, feeling at once busy and at the heart of its community, the still centre of a busy village. I like it very much.
2001: The clear blue waters of the Mediterranean swirl around my legs, then past me, buffeting the rocks along the silver beach. Millions of tiny flecks of mica swarm through the current, washed out of the hills of Southern Provence. They shine for a fraction of a second with all the light the high summer sun can give, a universe caught in a moment; then turn, disappearing, making of the water a shimmering skein, an ancient memory.
The sea is at the start of all European civilisation. Here, history wells about me. I think of Europe, and the fragmentation of nations. I think of the Balkans, and the Reformation, and the same water surrounding, tending, isolating. I think of time passing.
A week before, I'd been standing in the cool nave of the church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Woolpit - or at least, that is what it probably was once, back then. Today, it is dedicated simply as 'St Mary', in common with the majority of Suffolk's medieval churches, among which it is one of the finest, some say. This is mostly by virtue of its beautiful porch, and extraordinary angel roof.
But is that true? For there are those who love this church that, perhaps, never look up at the porch or roof. Is it the plethora of 15th century bench ends that captures the imagination? Or could it be Richard Phipson's outrageous 1850s tower and lacy spire, straight out of the Nene Valley, its evangelistic slogans around the side in a Victorian equivalent of Piccadilly Circus neon? It ought not to work, and yet it does. Or is it that supremely articulate view to the east, perfect of proportion despite the stripping away of its medieval liturgical apparatus? Above all else, and above most others, this is a church with presence.
It was the bench ends that I was thinking of as I immersed myself out of the intensity of the Provencal sun. A number of questions occured to me, as they have done on other occasions, in other churches. Who made them? What did they mean by them? And how did they survive the iconoclasms of the Protestant Reformation? Here in Southern Europe, I thought I might have found some answers.
Woolpit, then. It is perhaps the most perfect of all Suffolk villages. Not sleepy, and chocolate boxy, but to actually live in. Its shops and pubs are arranged around the pleasant village square, and Phipson's crazy spire towers above them. Woolpit still has its school, and you wouldn't need to get in the car every time you needed a loaf of bread, as you'd have to do in some of Suffolk's more famously picturesque villages, like Kersey and Tuddenham. And Woolpit has its Sunday market, beloved of hundreds of non-sabbatarian junk-hunters each week.
Further, Woolpit has its mythology; the two green children, who climbed out of the ground, speaking a strange language and afraid of the sunlight. The boy died soon after, but the girl grew up and married; she learned to speak English, and told of St Martin's Land, from where she and her brother had emerged. There are holes in the ground around Woolpit, quarries where bricks were made in the 19th century. But perhaps there was once something much older, for every Suffolk schoolchild knows that the name 'Woolpit' is nothing to do with wool, but with the wolves that once lived in the pits here...
So, it is a well-known village. It is because of this as much as anything about St Mary itself that makes this church so well-known to people who haven't heard of the even more interesting and beautiful church of St Ethelbert, Hessett, barely three miles away.
Your first sight of St Mary will be Phipson's crazy spire, visible from miles away, and quite unlike anything else in East Anglia. Suffolk is a county where spires are rare enough, anyway. From the far side of the Gipping valley you can see this one and two others, piercing the soft harvest mist in autumn. They are Phipson's equally absurd Great Finborough, and the 1990s blade of St Peter and St Mary, Stowmarket. There are only about a dozen more in the whole of the county. The excuse for this one was that the tower was struck by lightning in 1852, bringing down the previous lead and timber affair (presumably like the one at Hadleigh). The font is contemporary with the tower, suggesting that the old one was destroyed by the fall.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the artist John Piper produced a series of screen prints of aspects of Suffolk churches; for most, he used the fine perpendicular tower, ramifying it in bold Festival of Britain primary colours. But for Woolpit, he chose the porch, because it is Suffolk's finest. Cautley thought it the best in all England. It is two-storey, 15th century, contemporary with the nave. Mortlock tells us that they were both built by wealthy Bury Abbey, who owned the living here. As at Beccles, it rises way above the south aisle, tower-like in itself.
A rood group of niches surmounts the shields of East Anglia above the door. More flank them. Mortlock says that the work began in the early 1430s, and the niches were filled by a bequest of 1473, suggesting that the porch was forty years in the making. The south aisle and chancel are slightly earlier, the north aisle slightly later, so it is the nave that promises us great things, and doesn't disappoint.
You step into cool darkness, and look up. It is breathtaking. This is Suffolk's most perfectly restored angel hammerbeam roof. It may not have the drama of Mildenhall, the exquisiteness of Blythburgh, the sheer mathematics of Needham Market, but it shows us in detail more than any other what the medieval imagination was aiming at. From the still, small silence of the church floor below, you look up into a great shout of praise. Here are hundreds of figures, both angelic and human. The profusion is ordered, as if some mighty hymn were in progress.
Paul Hocking thinks that it is a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus: We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord... To thee all Angels cry aloud, the Heavens, and all the Powers therein. To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Sabaoth... The glorious company of the Apostles praise thee, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets praise thee, the noble army of Martyrs praise thee...
I know this, because he told me so. I was busy photographing bench ends when this very enthusiastic American bounced in with another visitor, and gave him a whistlestop tour of the church, describing the details with great knowledge and understanding. Solicitously, he talked to me afterwards about what I was doing, and asked me if I'd met the Rector of Woolpit yet. I said that I went out of my way to avoid Rectors wherever possible. He laughed, and replied that, on this occasion, I'd failed, because he was, in fact, the Rector.
After I'd coughed miserably, and he'd laughed again, we had a long chat, uncovering a few mutual aquaintances. He described the roof, which he has obviously spent a lot of time exploring. He pointed out the way the wall posts contained Saints, some with apostolic symbols, some with books, and some with martyr's palms. There are angels on the hammerbeams above, and bearing symbols below. John Blatchly counted 128 angels alone. Some of the shields have letters on them. Are they an acrostic, as on the east chancel wall at Blythburgh? Do they indicate individual Saints? The great Henry Ringham completely restored this roof in 1862, but Mortlock thinks that one of the angels is not his, and I agree - you'll find it in the south west corner. Paul Hocking argues that the restoration was nowhere near as complete as has been made out, and that many features are original.
Henry Ringham also restored the range of bench ends, by duplicating some of the medieval ones, as he did at Great Bealings and Tuddenham St Martin. All are rendered with his customary skill. If Ringham did restore this roof, then the imagery must have been destroyed at some point. One instinctively thinks of William Dowsing, the Puritan inspector of the churches of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, who progressed across the counties during the course of 1644. His delight in the destruction of angel roofs was matched only by that at the destruction of stained glass.
And Dowsing did visit this church. He arrived here in the afternoon of February 29th 1644. It was a Thursday, and he had come here across country from Helmingham, where he had found much to do. He also planned to visit Beyton that day, but in the end stayed overnight at the Bull hotel, and inspected All Saints there in the morning. He then rested for the weekend - the following week, he had a busy tour of southern Cambridgeshire ahead of him.
Dowsing records in great detail what he found to do at each church. In the case of Woolpit, the angel roof is the Dog That Didn't Bark: My Deputy. 80 superstitious pictures; some he brake down, and the rest he gave order to take down; and three crosses to be taken down in 20 days. 8s 6d. There are only two possible reasons why Dowsing doesn't mention the roof. Either he didn't notice it (extremely unlikely) or it had already been destroyed. This second option seems certain; mid-Suffolk was a strongly protestant area, and nearby Rougham, which clearly had a similar roof, was not visited by Dowsing, but was vandalised even more comprehensively than Woolpit. Most likely, the destruction at both churches dated from a hundred years earlier, although it is possible that the Rougham and Woolpit congregations had been puritan enough in the 1630s to do it to their own churches themselves.
Beneath the roof, the church is broad, its two aisles giving room for the panoply of medieval liturgical processions. At the east end of the south aisle was once the shrine of Our Lady of Woolpit, a site of medieval pilgrimage in connection with a nearby holy well. Apart from the front rows, many of the benches appear to be in their original positions. Some of the bench ends are 15th century, others are Ringham's 19th century copies. I wandered around the medieval bench ends, running my hands over them, crouching down and engaging them, face to face. For anyone educated in a Marxist or Weberian historical tradition, as most of my generation were, interpreting the less-obviously liturgical or theological features of a medieval church is fraught with difficulties. One possibility is to do a Cautley, and try not to interpret them at all. But it is more fun to try to do so, don't you think?
The bench ends of Woolpit are remarkable for their abundance. They are not representations of sacraments, virtues and vices as at Tannington and elsewhere, or Saints as at Ufford and Athelington. They are almost all non-allegorical animals, although not the art objects we find at Stowlangtoft, or the mysterious beasts of Lakenheath. Perhaps a good comparison is the similar body of work at nearby Combs. Indeed, although they do not appear to be from the same workshop, it is likely that their creators knew of each others' work. There are dogs, with geese hanging from their mouths, and another which may be a cat with a rat or lizard. There are lions and bears, and a chained monkey, and birds in profusion. So who did them, and why are they here?
There is one school of thought that says that they are simply there to beautify the church, and that they were made by local craftsmen doing what they were best at. If they could do lions, they did lions. If they could render a decent rabbit, then that is what they did. And so on.
But I think that there is rather more to it than that. On my journey down through France, I had spent an afternoon in one of my favourite towns, Autun, in Burgundy. One of the reasons I like Autun is its 11th century Cathedral of St-Lazaire; this is Lazurus, raised by Christ from the dead, and until the 18th century his relics were venerated at a shrine here. St-Lazaire is most famous for its great tympanum above the west door, generally recognised as one of the greatest Romanesque art treasures in the world, and with International Heritage status. It was created during the middle years of the 12th century, and shows the Last Judgement. To emphasise Christ's majesty over all the world, it features all manner of beasts, domestic, wild and mythical.
Throughout the Cathedral, animals infest the famous capitals, which tell the Gospel story. Abbe Denis Grivot, in his Un Bestiaire de la Cathedrale D'Autun (Lyon, 1973) argues that the 12th century creators of all this filled it with animals to echo the final verse of the 150th Psalm, the crowning point of that great sequence of hymns of praise: Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord!
Standing in the nave at Autun, I instantly recalled Paul Hocking's words about the roof at Woolpit, when he said he thought it was a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus. The Te Deum is one of the canticles; another is the Benedicite, traditionally sung through Lent: Oh all ye Works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord; praise him and magnify him for ever... O ye whales, and all that move in the Waters, bless ye the Lord... O all ye Fowls of the air, bless ye the Lord... O all ye beasts and Cattle, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him for ever!
Could it be that the bench ends at Woolpit, and elsewhere in Suffolk, were intended to reflect and represent the praise defined in the canticles and psalms? Both would have been central to the liturgy of the medieval Catholic church. Perhaps the bench ends of Woolpit are liturgical and theological after all.
How would a carpenter, or group of carpenters, go about creating a set of benches like the ones at Woolpit? Who were they? Almost certainly, they were locals. They might have been itinerant jobbing carpenters, but I don't think so. The bench ends at adjacent Tostock are clearly by the same hand. But those at nearby Stowlangtoft and Norton are not, and a third hand seems to be responsible for those at Combs, as I previously mentioned. I do not think that the mutilated ones at Rougham and Elmswell are either; they were probably from the same workshop as each other.
So, we have a conscious attempt by skilled members of a community to create a hymn of praise in carved oak, by representing as many beasts as they felt capable of making. Where did they get their ideas from? They would have had no problems with oxen, cocks, conies - these were all around them, in their daily lives. The person who carved the hunting dog here was very familiar with it. Perhaps it was his own. What about monkeys and lions? These are more problematic. In medieval bestiaries, exotic creatures had fabulous legends attached to them, which gave them a theological symbolism.
But this symbolism doesn't usually seem intended when we see them on bench ends. Sometimes they are rendered accurately, but more often wild animals are fairly imaginary; I think particularly of Barningham's camel, and Hadleigh's wolf. It isn't enough to say that the carvers could have seen pictures of exotic beasts. This is fairly unlikely. Probably, the ordinary people of Woolpit never saw a book other than the missals, lectionaries and hagiographies used in church.
They might have seen pictures of lions and monkeys in wall paintings, either in other churches or here at Woolpit. They might have seen them carved in bench ends, for the same reason. In fact, the representation of wild animals varies so much as to suggest that this is not the case - compare, for example, the lions of Combs with those of Stowlangtoft. Probably, they were created in the imagination from descriptions and attributes in stories. But I think that there is a strong possibility that the woodcarvers of Woolpit did see lions and monkeys in real life.
Here in Catholic Southern Europe, there are many remote small towns which, by virtue of being so very far from each other, take on a rich and complex life of their own. Even small villages have their shops, their craftsmen, their tradespeople; they replicate a situation that existed in Suffolk until well into the 19th century, and in some cases beyond, before the great industrialisation and easy transport swept it away. Further, there are traditions here still that we have lost. Whenever I come here, I am fascinated by the itinerant entertainers, who move from village to village, giving a single performance befre moving on. This must also once have been true of England. The thing that fascinates me most is the multitude of small family circuses.
Many of them seem to be of Italian or Romany origin; all family members have multiple roles, from the oldest grandparent to the youngest child, selling tickets, doing acrobatics, being the straight men to the clown (who is typically Grandpa). They all put up the tent before the performance, and take it down afterwards. They move on, through the remote hills of Provence and the Languedoc, performing on village greens, wastegrounds, the corners of fields, even traffic islands.
As I say, I am fascinated, and can rarely resist them, even though I am shocked, even appalled, by the easy cruelty to animals. Performing animals are still often chosen for their curiosity value, if you can call running around in a circle to the crack of a whip 'performing', poor things.
The choices are strange indeed; camels and zebras often feature; I have seen an old bear on a chain, and at one circus in remote Languedoc a hippopotamus of all things - it caught bread thrown by the crowd. There was no safety fence between the seats and the ring, no Health and Safety Executive to penetrate these lost valleys. I do not know if such circuses existed in medieval Suffolk. But I think that they probably did. Suffolk is a maritime county, and exotic animals were widely known and exhibited in medieval Europe. Before the Protestant Reformation cut us of from the mainland, clerics and merchants thought of themselves as European, and travelled widely - English sovereignty was a hazy concept at best, and 'Britishness' was still centuries away from being formulated as an idea. People owed allegiance to their village, their parish, and their lord, not to the Crown and Parliament in London.
Were the woodcarvers of Woolpit and Tostock remembering this? A circus visit, perhaps back in their childhood? Exotic animals rendered inaccurately, to be sure, but with an enthusiastic nostalgia for that exciting moment in their lives? Was there a lion? A monkey, or a bear? How much more powerful if they also knew the fabulous legends about the beasts - and had seen them in real life!
Some of the carvings at Woolpit are allegorical. One shows a monkey dressed in monk's robes. This, I think, is a joke at the expense of the itinerant friars who went from parish to parish, preaching repentance in the streets. They were sanctioned by the Pope, but were beyond the jurisdiction of the local Bishop. They didn't always go down well with the local Priest and congregation, who considered the Friars nosey and hypocritical. A monkey is often a symbol of foolish vanity - hence, a Friar thinking he was better than anyone else. What better way to make the point than to slip him in as one of the creatures praising the Lord?
How did they survive? But why should they have been destroyed? We make the mistake of thinking of the Puritans as vandals. But the more you read about William Dowsing, the more he emerges as being a principled, conservative kind of chap, despite his clearly flawed and fundamentalist theological opinions. He had no reason to destroy animal bench ends. They weren't superstitious - even Dowsing didn't think Catholics worshipped animals. If he didn't think they were meant to represent the canticles, he wouldn't even have considered them religious. Amen to that.
So much for the 17th century. What about the 19th? St Mary is one of the most enthusiastically restored of Suffolk's churches, despite its survivng medieval detail. But it was done well. Mortlock thought that the 19th century pulpit was the work of Ringham - but the brass lectern is pre-Reformation, a fine example. The rood screen dado panels have sentimental 19th century Saints on them, that may or may not duplicate what was there before. They are actually very good, particularly the gorgeous Mary of Magdala. They have their names painted on the cross beams for the less hagiologically articulate Victorians - from left to right across the aisle they are Saints Barbara, Felix, Mary of Magdala, Peter, Paul, Mary, Edmund and Etheldreda. It is unlikely that Saint Felix would have been on a medieval roodscreen, and Mary almost certainly wasn't - it would have relegated her to a position of no more importance than the others. If it reflects anything of what was there before, it was probably St Anne with the infant Virgin.
The top part of the screen was renewed in 1750, and dated so. The gates are probably a Laudian imposition of 120 years earlier, as at Kedington. This may suggest that, by the time of Dowsing's visit, the chancel was being used for some other practical purpose. Above, high above, set in the east nave wall over the chancel arch, is one of the wierdest objects I've seen in a medieval church. It was installed in the 1870s, and is clearly meant to echo the coving of a rood loft. Goodness knows what it actually is, but it is painted in garish colours, and inscribed with texts. In one of those moments where Cautley and credibility part company, he describes anyone who doesn't think it is a genuine medieval canopy of honour as 'stupid'. I suppose that it has a certain curiosity value.
The three-light window above it would have given light to the rood. The east window contains one of Suffolk's best modern Madonna and child images which was made by the artist Ian Keen for the King workshop in the early 1960s. Ian Keen was also responsible for the beautiful St Margaret in St Margaret's church in Norwich, and for the memorable window of St Francis with a labrador at Somerleyton near Lowestoft.
I turned back westwards, past a superb medieval bench end of the three Marys. This is a delight, and you'd travel to London to see it if it was in the V&A. Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the mother of James and Mary of Magdala huddle together, perhaps on the morning of the Resurrection. One of them has a lily of the Annunciation. One head is destroyed - but was it vandalised? Or is it the result of carelessness, the wear and tear of the centuries? Would 17th century puritans have destroyed it if they'd seen it?
Dowsing rarely mentions bench ends, so perhaps few were left by then anyway. So how could it possibly have survived the violent zeal of the 16th century Protestants, battering the Church of England into existence with their axes, pikes and bonfires? How, even after the 1540 edict of Edward VI which ordered the destruction of all statues and images of Saints, especially those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is it still there at all?
Still more questions than answers, I suppose. I dived beneath the water, and there was beneath me a restless current, shifting and reshifting the silver sand into unique patterns, the work of millennia, still changing, never the same.
- le Rayol Canadel, Cote d'Azur, August 2001.
The US embargo against Cuba is an outdated and hypocritical foreign policy. The US has diplomatic and economic relations with the largest communist country China and also trade with Communist Vietnam. Lest we forget the US fought a war with the latter in which over 50 thousand Americans died. So the argument that we cannot have contact with countries that we do not share ideology or human rights concern with seems flawed to say the least. The Cold war is over, End the Embargo! This poster was created to raise public awareness of the 44-year-long US embargo against Cuba
Five Reasons to End the Embargo
1. A majority of 85% of Americans polled in 2000 favored ending the embargo.
2. The embargo is bad for business; key agricultural and business interests oppose trade restrictions.
3. The embargo hurts Cuban families, not the government.
4. The embargo prevents us from supporting shade coffee farmers in Cuba who provide vital habitat to dozens of migratory bird species.
5. The embargo is condemned by the entire world; just three countries voted with the US at the United Nations in 2004 (Israel, Palau, Marshall Islands, with Micronesia abstaining), 179-4.
Source: Thanksgiving Coffee Company
www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article...