View allAll Photos Tagged speculation
Mental Constructs: the cornerstone of self-improvement
Think about what moved you to self-improvement in the first place.
I guess that it probably was some frustration or some obstacle on the pursuit of an objective, which made you stop, step back, and think that maybe it was your own behavior or attitude which needed to change, rather than external circumstances.
Hopefully you solved your problem.
Nonetheless, the assumption you made — that you could change your own point of view and beliefs — would have not been possible for normal people before some centuries ago.
Before the birth of Kantian philosophy and then psychology, people could not even imagine that they had an inner life, that their psychology was separate from external reality, and that the former was viable to errors, and to be even doubted and changed. Your banal assumption is then the product of centuries of philosophical speculation by the finest minds humans have ever known.
What’s truly interesting about that idea though, is that its explicit content — that we can change our way of seeing things — is at once the application of such content to yourself. By thinking that maybe your way of seeing things can be modified, you are indeed already influencing your though patterns. You are moving your focus on different elements, from external elements, to your own thought process.
The consequences are real: your actions might change, your empathy towards others might too — maybe you’ll stop thinking you are right, and you might start thinking that your opinion is one among many. You might experiment with new ways to deal with people, or do things.
There nowadays exist entire professions devoted to studying and influencing our perceptions of things: psychologists, psychiatrists, marketers, politicians, philosophers, journalists. The common thread is the basic, uninteresting idea that our ideas, feelings and reality might not coincide. That we might be wrong.
Welcome to mental constructs.
The anatomy of Mental constructs
The example above is the father of mental constructs, while being a mental construct itself.
Mental constructs are simply the set of ideas and beliefs that we hold. While this seems easy on the surface, truth is that most mental constructs are so deeply ingrained in us, and backed up by so many experiences and emotional baggage, that we fail to see them as opinion, not facts.
Furthermore, I like referencing to them as constructs, rather than only beliefs, because they they indeed possess entire scaffolds to back them up, and we mostly experience them as entire world views, rather than individual ideas. This makes it even harder to separate them from facts.
Mental constructs literally form the structure of our world. This is because they orient our attention, and therefore actions in the World. They give meaning to our experiences. They are meaning itself. Experience without it would be raw data, as much as a foreign language is just mere sound before you know not only its words, but its rules as well.
The very idea of “World” is a mental construct.
We can’t ever really escape mental constructs, nor should we. The very beliefs which might not be fully accurate are the same ones that allow us to feel emotions and give richness to experiences.
The power of Mental Constructs
Mental constructs are power itself, as philosopher Michel Foucault held. They are since power itself is the desire to influence the world, and we define what is the world, and how to influence it, by mental constructs.
Mental constructs form the invisible net through which you live your life, the maze which you try to navigate and which determines which choices you’re allowed to take, and which ones seem inaccessible to you.
Your emotions are products of them, since emotions are our reaction to our perception of events. Between events and feeling stand the transparent world of ideas and beliefs, which determine if we feel sadness or joy, anger or calm.
We like to think that events are reality: we do since events are tangible, and therefore more readily available. Thoughts are not. We also do since most of our mental constructs are strongly backed up by hard emotions, since they constitute our most fundamental mean of power and security in life.
Mental constructs are the fabric of our worlds, and this is not going to change.
What can we do about it?
Some practical tips to use mental models
1)Discerning emotions, thoughts and facts
The basic tip is one from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
When living an experience, learn to discern between emotions and thought, and thought and facts.
You do this by questioning “is this an emotion, a thought, or a fact?”. Everyone gets this wrong from time to time. “I feel you are right” is actually an opinion, and should say “I think you are right, therefore I feel secure”.
The above tool is useful, and is taught in CBT sessions to patients, because emotions, thoughts and facts need to be dealt with differently.
Emotions need to be accepted as they are and experienced. They cannot be directly changed.
Facts must be accepted, but can be influenced with action.
Opinions can be seen, accepted but also questioned. “How much is this opinion realistic, and useful?”. This is the question to apply to opinions, after you’ve spotted it out.
Problems start when:
you treat emotions as facts, so you try to force them to change, you deny them, or you apply judgement (so called secondary beliefs) to them, thus making the feeling usually worse
you treat thoughts as facts or emotions, therefore forgetting that they can be questioned in their usefulness
It’s usually hard to treat emotions as thoughts since emotions are more direct and hardly get mistaken for something colder like a thought.
It is usually helpful to start from emotions, as they are directly noticeable due to their physical quality, then discern the event or fact associated to it, and last individuate the thought which stands in the middle. Thoughts are more elusive and usually taken for granted, so they are harder to pinpoint at first.
2)Finding alternatives to thoughts
Try it now. Pick a thought you had recently, maybe about an argument you had. Try for a moment to imagine an alternative explanation to it. Maybe you thought “they’ve been really rude to me”. Try to think “they behaved rudely, but maybe I need to understand their reasons”. Now check your emotions. Do you feel a difference? At first you felt resentful, annoyed. Now you feel calmer.
This brief experiment is simply to show you how experimenting with different perspectives can truly shift our feelings about a situation, and it also show how two different opinions are not more or less real, as they both feel true when you hold them.
It is not “lying to ourselves” as we do this all the times, albeit unknowingly.
The knowledge of mental models hopefully give you the tool to be more in control of your inner state in a conscious way.
A core idea is that of experimenting with new perspective after you’ve spotted an opinion. This is since we all hold our opinions very dearly and trying to force them to change can actually work against us, causing negative emotions and self-judgement to take place.
3)Accept your emotions, be compassionate of your mental constructs
Emotions are experientially closer to facts than opinions, because they are experienced in the body. Emotions cannot really be influenced directly (without the use of substances) but can be influenced modifying opinions and facts (although the latter are always filtered by mental constructs).
We often feel bad for some emotions we experience, or some thoughts we entertain. You might feel shame, or guilt. These are usually the consequence of secondary thoughts which we formulate about our own emotions.
Fact is, our mental construct were mostly there before we even noticed them. We are not to be held responsible for their creation (nor are our parents). Most importantly, we can put them in perspective and even experiment with alternative ones.
We can react to our own mental constructs, and work on building more useful ones.
An useful mental construct is to see them as something we were endowed with during our growth, but which are passible of change, and improvement.
4)In every situation, know a mental construct is in action
We often get stuck in life and feel there is no way out of situation when we forget that we are employing a mental construct to interpret it.
We see reality and our emotions so tied that we deduce they must be one.
The knowledge of mental constructs lets you now that the key to your wellbeing is really inside of you, not in some deep way but simply in your possibility to choose the mental construct which you live by.
Often facts need to change to make us finally well-off, but cannot influence facts until we come to see them as passible of being acted upon, and that comes through a change of mental construct.
Change comes after we decide we can change, or something makes us realize that we can do it.
The way you see and approach a situation determines the elements you’ll pay attention to, and the action you will take.
By knowing this and reminding yourself of it, you will hopefully feel more empowered and less victim to circumstances.
To conclude
Mental constructs are at work continuously in our lived. There is no escape from them.
While this might seem a prison, and we might never come to see reality as it is, it actually is the source of great power. The power to, literally, choose the form of the world we live in.
Self Improvement
Mindset
Thoughts
Personal Development
Self Awareness
205
1
More from Richard Ragnarson, MD, Psychiatrist
Follow
Truth is under every stone: turn ’em all. Get more self-improvement tips that actually work : mailchi.mp/280008177cbc/richard-ragnarson
Dec 8, 2018
How to overcome creative blocks. An essay on Creativity
A creative block is a scary moment in the path of a maker. It not only undermines progress, but it raises doubts on the creator’s identity. As a creator you create: if you are stuck, maybe you are a phony and not so much creative after all. Creative blocks are…
Creativity
17 min read
How to overcome creative blocks. An essay on Creativity
Share your ideas with millions of readers.
Write on Medium
Dec 7, 2018
What my Italian barber taught me about Mastery and Relationships
Mastery in craft and relationships are common themes in my life, as I strive to improve both constantly. I believe Truth is to be found everywhere. Recently I was able to gain new insights on them after a trip to get my hair and beard trimmed. Here’s how it happened. Italian barbers and craft mastery …
Life Lessons
7 min read
What my Italian barber taught me about Mastery and Relationships
Oct 16, 2017
The dangers of self-medicating poetry
I recently fell in love with poetry. As a long time avid philosophy reader, I had always discarded poetry as a weaker, wimpier, softer form of Truth finding. Until recently, and I need to thank philosophy for that. Contemporary philosophy tells us that Truth is always one step out of…
Poetry
2 min read
The dangers of self-medicating poetry
Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.
Try Knowable
Recommended from Medium
matt m
matt m
How Buildings Talk and Why Bad Buildings are Frozen Mistakes
asaki
asaki
Features of Exchange Form D, Overall Structure of this Essay, Liberal Attitude
Antislavery medallion ca. 1787 Josiah Wedgwood British www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/191076
Bruno Oliveira
Bruno Oliveira
The Cure to COVID-19
Aaditya Joshi
Aaditya Joshi
Thoughts on words and communication…
Giorgi Vachnadze
Giorgi Vachnadze
Unwelcome: A Metaphysical Suicide
Louis Dietvorst ☯
Louis Dietvorst ☯
Let’s take NO for an answer when shifting paradigms
Lincoln
Lincoln
On Morality: Are Our Intuitions and Opinions True?
Giorgi Vachnadze
Giorgi Vachnadze
Transcendental Self-Questioning
medium.com/@richardragnarson/mental-constructs-the-corner....
Im Appenzeller Hinterland sind am 13. Januar die Sylvesterchläuse unterwegs, und wünschen "Es guets Neus" in der Tradition des Julianischen Kalenders.13 January, «Old New Year's Eve», the «Chläuse» make their way around the Appenzell hinterland. The origin and meaning of this ancient custom are the subject of speculation, because few written documents exist.
Paris / Palais-Royal - Place Vendôme
Colonne Vendôme
The Place Vendôme (French: [plas vɑ̃dom]; lit. 'Vendôme Square'), originally the Place Louis-le-Grand ('Louis the Great Square'), and later the Place Internationale ('International Square'), is a public square in the 1st arrondissement of Paris, located to the north of the Tuileries Gardens and east of the Église de la Madeleine. It is the starting point of the Rue de la Paix. Its regular architecture by Jules Hardouin-Mansart and pedimented screens canted across the corners give the rectangular Place Vendôme the aspect of an octagon. The original Vendôme Column at the centre of the square was erected by Napoleon I to commemorate the Battle of Austerlitz; it was torn down on 16 May 1871, by decree of the Paris Commune, but subsequently re-erected and remains a prominent feature on the square today.
The Place Vendôme (French: [plas vɑ̃dom]; lit. 'Vendôme Square'), originally the Place Louis-le-Grand ('Louis the Great Square'), and later the Place Internationale ('International Square'), is a public square in the 1st arrondissement of Paris, located to the north of the Tuileries Gardens and east of the Église de la Madeleine. It is the starting point of the Rue de la Paix. Its regular architecture by Jules Hardouin-Mansart and pedimented screens canted across the corners give the rectangular Place Vendôme the aspect of an octagon. The original Vendôme Column at the centre of the square was erected by Napoleon I to commemorate the Battle of Austerlitz; it was torn down on 16 May 1871, by decree of the Paris Commune, but subsequently re-erected and remains a prominent feature on the square today.
History
The Place Vendôme was begun in 1698 as a monument to the glory of the armies of Louis XIV, and called the Place des Conquêtes, to be renamed the Place Louis le Grand, when the conquests proved temporary. An over life-size equestrian statue of the king by François Girardon (1699) was donated by the city authorities and set up in its centre. It is believed to be the first large modern equestrian statue to be cast in a single piece. It was destroyed in the French Revolution; however, there is a small version in the Louvre. This led to the popular joke that while Henry IV dwelled among the people by the Pont Neuf, and Louis XIII among the aristocrats of the Place des Vosges, Louis XIV preferred the company of the tax farmers in the Place Vendôme; each reflecting the group they had favoured in life.
The site of the square was formerly the hôtel of César de Bourbon, Duke of Vendôme, the illegitimate son of Henry IV and his mistress Gabrielle d'Estrées. Jules Hardouin-Mansart bought the building and its gardens, with the idea of converting it into building lots as a profitable speculation. The plan did not materialize, and Louis XIV's Minister of Finance, François-Michel le Tellier, Marquis de Louvois, purchased the piece of ground, with the object of building a square, modelled on the successful Place des Vosges of the previous century. Louvois came into financial difficulties and nothing came of his project, either. After his death, the King purchased the plot and commissioned Hardouin-Mansart to design a house-front that the buyers of plots round the square would agree to adhere to. When the state finances ran low, the financier John Law took on the project, built himself a residence behind one of the façades, and the square was complete by 1720, just as his paper-money Mississippi bubble burst. Law suffered a major blow when he was forced to pay back taxes amounting to some tens of millions of dollars. With no way to pay such an amount, he was forced to sell the property he owned on the square. The buyers were members of the exiled Condé branch of the House of Bourbon who later returned to the country to reclaim their land in the town of Vendôme itself. Between 1720 and 1797, they acquired much of the square, including a freehold to parts of the site on which the Hôtel Ritz Paris now stands and in which they still maintain apartments. Their intention to restore a family palace on the site was dependent on the possible intentions of the adjacent Justice Ministry to expand its premises.
The Foire Saint-Ovide settled in 1764 on the Place until 1771.
When France established diplomatic relations with the short-lived Republic of Texas, the Texan legation was housed at Hôtel Bataille de Francès in 1 Place Vendôme.
The Vendôme Column
Creation
The original column was started in 1806 at Napoleon's direction and completed in 1810. It was modelled after Trajan's Column, to celebrate the victory of Austerlitz; its veneer of 425 spiralling bas-relief bronze plates was made out of cannon taken from the combined armies of Europe, according to his propaganda. (The usual figure given is hugely exaggerated: 180 cannons were actually captured at Austerlitz.) These plates were designed by the sculptor Pierre-Nolasque Bergeret and executed by a team of about 30 sculptors including Jean-Joseph Foucou, Louis-Simon Boizot, François Joseph Bosio, Lorenzo Bartolini, Claude Ramey, François Rude, Corbet, Clodion, Julie Charpentier, and Henri-Joseph Ruxthiel. A statue of Napoleon by Antoine-Denis Chaudet was placed on top of the column. Napoleon is depicted dressed in Roman attire, bare-headed, crowned with laurels, holding a sword in his right hand and a globe surmounted with a statue of Victory (as in Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker) in his left hand.
In 1816, taking advantage of the Allied occupying force, a mob of men and horses had attached a cable to the neck of the statue of Napoleon atop the column, but it had refused to budge – one woman quipped: "If the Emperor is as solid on his throne as this statue is on its column, he's nowhere near descending the throne". After the Bourbon Restoration the statue, though not the column, was pulled down and melted down to provide the bronze for the recast equestrian statue of Henry IV on the Pont Neuf (as was bronze from sculptures on the Column of the Grande Armée at Boulogne-sur-Mer), though the statuette of Victory is still to be seen in the salon Napoléon of the Hôtel des Monnaies (which also contains a model of the column and a likeness of Napoleon's face copied from his death mask). A replacement statue of Napoléon in modern dress (a bicorn hat, boots and a redingote), however, was erected by Louis-Philippe, and a better, more augustly classicizing one by Louis-Napoléon (later Napoleon III).
Demolition during the Paris Commune
Karl Marx predicted the collapse of the Vendôme Column in his 1852 political pamphlet Le 18 Brumaire de Louis Bonaparte. This pamphlet, sharply critical of the political figure of Napoleon III, ends with the words: "But if the Imperial mantle finally falls on the shoulders of Louis Bonaparte, the bronze statue of Napoleon will fall from the height of the Vendôme Column".
During the events in the run-up to the founding of the Commune, 22 March 1871 saw disturbances outside against the National Guard, when demonstrators holding banners declaring them to be "Friends of Peace" were blocked from entering the Place Vendôme by guardsmen who, after being fired on, opened fire on the crowd. At least 12 people were killed and many wounded.
During the Paris Commune in 1871, the painter Gustave Courbet, president of the Federation of Artists and elected member of the Commune, who had previously expressed his dismay that this monument to war was located on the Rue de la Paix, proposed that the column be disassembled and preserved at the Hôtel des Invalides. Courbet argued that:
In as much as the Vendôme Column is a monument devoid of all artistic value, tending to perpetuate by its expression the ideas of war and conquest of the past imperial dynasty, which are reproved by a republican nation's sentiment, citizen Courbet expresses the wish that the National Defense government will authorise him to disassemble this column.
His project as proposed was not adopted, though on 12 April 1871 legislation was passed authorizing the dismantling of the imperial symbol. When the column was taken down on 16 May its bronze plates were preserved. After employing a series of ropes and quarry workers, observers saw that the statue...
...fell over on the heap of sand prepared for it, with a mighty crash. There was no concussion on the ground, the column broke up almost before it reached its bed, and lay on the ground, a huge mass of ruin. An immense dust and smoke from the stones and crumpled clay rose up and an instant after a crowd of men, National Guards, Communards, and a sight-seeing Englishman flew upon it, and commenced to get bits of it as remembrance, but the excitement was so intense that people moved about as in a dream.
Immediately following the destruction of the column and in repudiation of its perceived glorification of national chauvinism and bellicosity, the Place Vendôme was renamed the Place Internationale in celebration of the Communards' promotion of international fraternity.
After the Paris Commune
After the suppression of the Paris Commune by Adolphe Thiers, the decision was made to rebuild the column with the statue of Napoleon restored at its apex. For his role in the Commune, Courbet was condemned to pay the costs of rebuilding the monument, estimated at 323,000 francs, in yearly installments of 10,000 francs. Unable to pay, Courbet went into self-imposed exile in Switzerland, the French government seized and sold the artist's paintings for a minor amount, and Courbet died in exile in December 1877. In 1874 meanwhile, the column was re-erected at the center of the Place Vendôme with a copy of the original statue on top.[citation needed] An inner staircase leading to the top is no longer open to the public.
Features
At the centre of the square's long sides, Hardouin-Mansart's range of Corinthian pilasters breaks forward under a pediment, to create palace-like fronts. The arcading of the formally rusticated ground floors does not provide an arcaded passageway as at the Place des Vosges. The architectural linking of the windows from one floor to the next, and the increasing arch of their windowheads, provide an upward spring to the horizontals formed by ranks of windows. Originally the square was accessible by a single street and preserved an aristocratic quiet, except when the annual fair was held there. Then Napoleon opened the Rue de la Paix, and the 19th century filled the Place Vendôme with traffic. It was only after the opening in 1875 of the Palais Garnier on the other side of the Rue de la Paix that the centre of the Parisian fashionable life started gravitating around the Rue de la Paix and the Place Vendôme.
In popular culture
The Place Vendôme has been renowned for its fashionable and deluxe hotels such as the Ritz. Many famous dress designers have had their salons in the square. The only two remaining are the shirtmaker Charvet, at number 28, whose store has been on the Place Vendôme since 1877, and the couturier Chéruit, at number 21, reestablished in 2008. Since 1718, the Ministry of Justice, also known as the "Chancellerie", is located at the Hotel de Bourvallais located at numbers 11 and 13. Right on the other side of the Place Vendôme, number 14 houses the Paris office of JP Morgan, the investment bank, and number 20 the office of Ardian (formerly AXA Private Equity).
After his death in 1990, American artist Keith Haring was cremated and his ashes were sprinkled out on a hillside near Kutztown, except for one handful, that Yoko Ono brought to the Place Vendôme because she believed the spirit of Haring had told her to.
The Place Vendôme is described in detail in the 1924 novel The Green Hat by Michael Arlen.
In the 1920s, American architect, Alonzo C. Webb worked making advertisements and designs in English for some of the fashionable houses along the Place Vendôme.
Place Vendôme was a 1998 movie by Nicole Garcia starring Catherine Deneuve.
Mark Twain made reference to the Vendôme Column in his speech "Some Thoughts on the Science of Onanism".
The Place Vendôme is the setting for the theft of the Black Pearl in Episode 1 of Season 3 of the Netflix series Lupin.
(Wikipedia)
Die Place Vendôme ist einer der fünf „königlichen Plätze“ (Places Royales) von Paris und liegt inmitten der Stadt zwischen der Pariser Oper und dem Tuileriengarten im 1. Arrondissement. Der im klassizistischen Prachtstil ab Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts gestaltete und von prunkvollen Stadthäusern (genannt Hôtels particuliers) umrahmte Platz ist heutzutage vor allem bekannt als Standort des französischen Justizministeriums und des Hotel Ritz sowie für die am Platz zahlreich angesiedelten Verkaufsräume luxuriöser Schmuck- und Uhrenhersteller.
Lage und Bedeutung
Die Place Vendôme liegt etwa 600 m südlich der Opéra Garnier bzw. ca. 650 m nordwestlich des Louvre. Sie ist im Süden über die Rue de Castiglione mit der Rue de Rivoli (am Jardin des Tuileries) sowie der Rue Saint-Honoré verbunden, die in ihrer Verlängerung in die Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré (mit dem Elysée-Palast) übergeht. Im Norden führt die Rue de la Paix direkt zur Pariser Oper.
Die Place Vendome wird nicht unmittelbar von der Pariser Metro bedient. In der Nähe liegen die Haltestellen der Métrolinie 1 (Concorde) und Métrolinie 8 (Madeleine).
Der Platz ist eine Einkaufsmeile für Luxusgüter. Er gleicht insofern den in seiner Nähe liegenden Straßen Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré und Rue de Rivoli.
Geschichte
Nach dem Vorbild der Place des Vosges plante König Ludwig XIV. den Bau eines weiteren Platzes, diesmal im 1. Arrondissement. Der König übertrug die Baupläne dem berühmten Pariser Baumeister Jules Hardouin-Mansart, der eine sehr anspruchsvolle Bebauung vorsah. Geplant waren eine Bibliothek, Akademien und die Münzprägeanstalt, die durch Arkadengänge miteinander verbunden sein sollten. Auf dem für die Bebauung vorgesehenen achteckigen Grundriss standen noch zwei Gebäude, nämlich das Kapuzinerinnenkloster (franz. Couvent des Capucines), ein ab 29. Juni 1604 durch Marie de Luxembourg, Duchesse de Mercœur und Gattin des Cèsar de Vendôme, errichtetes Nonnenkloster, und das Stadtpalais Hôtel de Vendôme, welches ab 1603 für César (1594–1665), den illegitimen, aber bereits im Alter von nur 9 Jahren zum Herzog von Vendôme ernannten Sohn Heinrichs IV. erbaut wurde. Das Gebäude wurde am 4. Juli 1685 für 660.000 Livres von François Michel Le Tellier de Louvois, dem ein Jahr später von Ludwig XIV. zum Kriegsminister ernannten Staatsmann, erworben und abgerissen. Nach diesem Stadtpalais wurde später der Platz benannt; zunächst hieß er jedoch Place des Conquêtes („Platz der Eroberungen“). Beide Gebäude fielen den Neubauplänen zum Opfer; den Abrissauftrag erhielt für 620.000 Livres der Bauunternehmer Jean Masneu] durch Dekret vom 12. September 1685. Die Nonnen zogen bereits am 26. Juli 1686 in ein durch François d’Orbay entworfenes Gebäude am Nordende des Platzes um.
Mansart und Germain Boffrand ließen auf dem damals 152 m breiten und 177 m langen Platz – nunmehr unter dem Namen Place de Louis le Grand – Fassadenkulissen für 27 Gebäude errichten. Ihre Grundstücke sollten später verkauft und sodann komplett bebaut werden. Die Bauzeit verzögerte sich jedoch aus zwei Gründen. Einerseits starb der beaufsichtigende Bauminister Marquis de Louvois am 16. Juli 1691; andererseits musste König Ludwig XIV. den Platz am 7. April 1699 wegen finanzieller Schwierigkeiten an die Stadt Paris verkaufen. Diese ließ neue, weniger ambitionierte Pläne erstellen; die Fassadenpläne blieben jedoch erhalten. Um die Baukosten zu senken, wurde statt der geplanten Arkadengänge lediglich eine Rundbogenarkatur mit 110 Arkadenbögen realisiert.
In der Platzmitte wurde inzwischen am 13. August 1699 ein von François Girardon gestaltetes, 7 m hohes Reiterdenkmal mit dem König auf einem 10 m hohen Sockel errichtet, das aber am 7. August 1792 während der Französischen Revolution zerstört wurde. Masneuf führte auch zwischen 1699 und dem 1. Oktober 1701 die von Mansart geplante Randbebauung des Platzes aus, für die zunächst lediglich Fassadenkulissen vorgesehen waren. Die realisierte Platzgestaltung wurde zum Vorbild für die meisten Platzanlagen Frankreichs. Über einem Rustikageschoss mit Bogenöffnungen befinden sich zwei Obergeschosse, zusammengezogen durch eine Pilasterordnung sowie steile Knickdächer mit Dachgaupen. Die Mitten der Langseiten und die Eckabschrägungen sind durch Risalite leicht hervorgehoben. Der schottische Bankier John Law finanzierte ab 1718 große Teile dieser Randbebauung und übernahm im selben Jahr Haus 23. Er musste jedoch wegen Steuerschulden 1720 an das Haus Bourbon-Condé verkaufen. Die Familie Bourbon-Condé erwarb bis 1797 den größten Teil der Gebäude einschließlich des Freigeländes, auf dem seit 1898 das heutige Hôtel Ritz steht. Nach der Revolution hieß der Platz Place des Piques (nach einer der revolutionären Sektionen in Paris).
Gebäude und Nutzung
Die baulich nahezu identischen Stadthäuser an der Place Vendôme sind auf der westlichen Seite im Uhrzeigersinn in aufsteigender Reihe mit den ungeraden Zahlen von 1 bis 23 nummeriert und auf der östlichen Seite entgegen dem Uhrzeigersinn in aufsteigender Reihe mit den geraden Zahlen von 2 bis 28 nummeriert und tragen alle historische Namen, wie etwa Hôtel de Boullongne (Nr. 23, heute eine Cartier-Boutique) oder Hôtel Duché des Tournelles (Nr. 18, Chanel-Boutique). In der Place Vendôme Nr. 17 (Hôtel Crozat) eröffneten im Jahr 1939 die Freunde Leo Castelli und René Drouin eine Galerie. Auf der Westseite des Platzes steht mit der Nr. 15 (Hôtel de Gramont) das von César Ritz im Jahre 1898 gegründete luxuriöse Hotel Ritz. Es gehörte seit dem Jahr 1979 dem ägyptischen Milliardär Mohamed Al-Fayed. Das Ritz beherbergte auch Lady Diana im Jahre 1997, bevor sie auf dem Weg aus dem Hotel tödlich verunglückte. Zu den prominenten Gästen des Hotels gehörten u. a. Coco Chanel, Ernest Hemingway und Marcel Proust. Im Hause Nr. 13, dem Stadthaus Hôtel de Bourvallais, ist seit 1718 das französische Justizministerium untergebracht. Das Gebäude gehörte ursprünglich dem wegen Betrugs angeklagten Paul Poisson de Bourvallais, der es im Jahre 1716 dem Staat übergeben musste, um nicht schuldenhalber ins Gefängnis zu gehen. Im Haus Nr. 12 (Hôtel de Simiane) ist Frédéric Chopin gestorben. Im selben Haus lernte Napoleon III. seine spätere Ehefrau Eugénie de Montijo kennen.
Ab Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, nach der Eröffnung der Opéra Garnier 1875 nebenan, siedelten sich zahlreiche Luxusläden, wie der Hersteller kostspieliger Herren- und Damenschuhe Hellstern & Sons (1900), viele Schmuck- und ab Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts auch Uhrenhersteller an der Place Vendôme an, die dort bis heute mit ihren luxuriösen Boutiquen vertreten sind: Boucheron (1893), Cartier (1898), Chaumet (1902), Van Cleef & Arpels (1906), Bulgari (1986), Mikimoto (1986), die Schmuck- und Uhrensparten von Chanel (1991), Dior (2001) und Louis Vuitton (2012) sowie die Uhrenhersteller Piaget (1991), Patek Philippe (1995), Jaeger-LeCoultre, Breguet SA (2006) oder Rolex (2008) und weitere. Einzelhandelsgeschäfte aus anderen Branchen sind zum Stand 2012 direkt an der Place Vendôme kaum vertreten, wenngleich die japanische Modefirma Comme des Garçons in der Nr. 16 (Hôtel Moufle) ihren Sitz hat und im Juli 2012 im Haus Nr. 21 (Hôtel de Fontpertuis) eine Schiaparelli-Boutique (Marke seit 2006 im Besitz von Diego della Valle) eröffnete. Bis Mitte der 2000er Jahre betrieb Giorgio Armani zwei Armani-Boutiquen an der Place Vendôme. Gastronomiebetriebe gibt es an der Place Vendôme außer in Hotels nicht. Nur an den beiden kurzen Straßen-Ausläufern des Platzes im Norden (bis Rue des Capucines / Rue Danielle Casanova) und Süden (bis Rue Saint-Honoré) befinden sich ein weiteres Hotel (Hôtel de Vendôme) und wenige Modegeschäfte. Im Haus Nr. 2 (Hôtel Marquet de Bourgade) betreiben zudem der Parfümhersteller Guerlain und der italienische Juwelier Damiani Boutiquen. Ansonsten sind noch Banken und Versicherungen an der Place Vendôme ansässig. Auf der südwestlichen Seite des Platzes gehört dem Sultan von Brunei ein ganzer Gebäudekomplex.
Der Platz ist links und rechts vorbei an der Siegessäule zwischen Rue de Castiglione im Süden und Rue de la Paix im Norden jeweils zweispurig befahrbar, und auch vor den Fassaden der Stadthäuser befindet sich eine im Viereck angelegte Einbahnstraße, die ringsum entgegen dem Uhrzeigersinn einspurig befahrbar ist und die Zufahrt zu Tiefgaragen ermöglicht. Diese Straßen tragen alle den Namen Place Vendôme. Ansonsten ist der gepflasterte und von Jugendstil-Straßenlaternen gesäumte Platz durch Poller für Autos gesperrt.
Sonstiges
Am 17. Oktober 1849 starb Frédéric Chopin im Haus Nr. 12, am 10. Januar 1971 starb Coco Chanel in ihrer Suite im Hotel Ritz an Altersschwäche. Die Säule gehört seit dem 31. März 1992 zu den Monument historiques.
Ende der 1960er Jahre wurde der damals zum Abstellen von Kraftfahrzeugen genutzte Platz teilweise aufgerissen und in der Baugrube eine Tiefgarage angelegt. Danach wurde die Place Vendôme in einen den Plänen von Mansart entsprechenden Zustand versetzt.
(Wikipedia)
Die mitten auf der Place Vendôme in Paris stehende Colonne Vendôme ist eine Siegessäule, die 1806 bis 1810 errichtet wurde und eine wechselvolle Geschichte hat. Die Säule gehört seit dem 31. März 1992 offiziell zu den Baudenkmälern (historischen Monumenten) der Stadt Paris.
Lage
Die Place Vendôme liegt im Zentrum von Paris zwischen der Pariser Oper und der Rue de Rivoli bzw. Rue Saint-Honoré. Der Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts im klassizistischen Prachtstil gestaltete Platz gehört zu den fünf „königlichen Plätzen“ von Paris und umrahmt die Colonne Vendôme mit repräsentativen Stadthäusern. Die Säule steht im Zentrum des oktogonalen Platzes in der Achse der Rue de la Paix.
Die nächsten Stationen der Métro sind Madeleine (Linie 8, 12 und 14), Opéra (Linie 3, 7 und 8) und Tuileries (Linie 1).
Beschreibung
Die Säule ist 44,17 Meter hoch und hat einen Durchmesser von 3,67 Meter.[2] Sie steht auf einem Sockel und wird von einer Statue Napoleons bekrönt. Als Vorbild diente die Trajanssäule in Rom.
Der Säulenschaft besteht aus 98 Steintrommeln, die mit einem bronzenen Relief verkleidet sind. Die Steintrommeln bestehen jeweils aus sechs Einzelteilen, Kuchenstücken ähnelnd, welche über Metallbolzen miteinander verbunden sind. Zusätzlich wurden Metallklammern in den Steinen montiert, die zur Befestigung des Reliefs dienen. Auf diesem werden Schlachtenszenen und Trophäen der „Grande Armée“ unter der Führung Napoleons aus der Dreikaiserschlacht bei Austerlitz dargestellt. Das Band, welches sich um die Säule windet, besteht aus 425 bronzenen Platten und ist 220 Meter lang. Es wurde von Pierre Bergeret gestaltet und von mehreren Künstlern ausgeführt: Jean Joseph Foucou, Louis Boizot, François Joseph Bosio, Lorenzo Bartolini, Claude Ramey, François Rude, Edme Gaulle, Clodion, Ruxthiel u. a.
Im Innern der Säule führt eine Treppe zur bekrönenden Plattform, auf der die Statue Napoleons steht. Die Statue stellt Napoleon in römisch-kaiserlicher Tracht mit Lorbeerkranz auf dem Kopf und Weltkugel mit Siegesgöttin in der Hand als „Caesar Imperator“ dar.
Der Sockel besteht aus Porphyr, der in Algajola auf Korsika gewonnen wurde. Auf diesem sind die Embleme des in der Schlacht besiegten russischen Zaren Alexander I. und des ebenfalls besiegten österreichischen Kaisers Franz II. abgebildet. Die lateinische Inschrift lautet:
NEAPOLIO IMP AVG
MONVMENTVM BELLI GERMANICI
ANNO MDCCCV
TRIMESTRI SPATIO DVCTV SVO PROFLIGATI
EX AERE CAPTO
GLORIAE EXERCITVS MAXIMI DICAVIT
Zu Deutsch etwa:
Napoleon Imperator Augustus (erhabener Kaiser),
widmete dieses Denkmal des unter seiner Führung im Zeitraum von drei Monaten zu Ende gebrachten Kriegs in Deutschland im Jahre 1805, gemacht aus vom Feind erbeuteter Bronze, dem Ruhm der Grande Armée (Großen Armee).
Geschichte
Am 12. September 1685 war unter König Ludwig XIV. ein Dekret zum Bau der Place Vendôme veranlasst worden. Der Platz wurde daraufhin vom Bauunternehmer Jean Masneuf freigelegt und von dem Architekten Jules Hardouin-Mansart geplant. Der Platz sollte die Eroberungen Ludwigs XIV. feiern und bekam den Namen „Place des Conquetes“ (dt.: Platz der Eroberungen), sein offizieller Name war in Bezug auf Ludwig XIV. „Place de Louis le Grand“. Auf ihm wurde in der Platzmitte am 13. August 1699 ein von François Girardon gestaltetes, 7 Meter hohes Reiterstandbild Ludwigs XIV. auf einem 10 Meter hohen Sockel errichtet, welches am 9. April 1792 im Zuge der Französischen Revolution als symbolischer Akt der Überwindung des Ancien Régime zerstört wurde. Zudem bekam der Platz den neuen Titel „Place des Piques“ (dt.: Platz der Speere), da auf diesem, nach der Zerstörung des Reiterstandbildes, die aufgespießten Köpfe von zwei königlichen Garden präsentiert wurden.
Nach dem Sieg Frankreichs im Italienfeldzug unter dem Feldherrn Napoleon Bonaparte wurde im Januar 1798 beabsichtigt, die Trajanssäule in Rom zu demontieren und auf den leeren Platz zu stellen, dies wurde jedoch nie umgesetzt.
Seit 1799 trägt der Platz seinen heutigen Namen, Place Vendôme, benannt nach dem Hotel de Vendôme, welches bis 1685 auf dem für die Bebauung des Platzes vorgesehenen Grundriss stand.
Im Mai und im Juni 1800 wurde ein Dekret ausgestellt, in allen Departements Frankreichs Säulen für die französischen Soldaten zu errichten, worunter auch eine Säule auf der Place Vendôme vorgesehen war. Am 1. Oktober 1803 ordnete der mittlerweile zum Ersten Konsul aufgestiegene Napoleon Bonaparte, im Sinne des Dekrets, den Bau einer Säule auf der Place Vendôme an. Diese sollte nach dem Vorbild der Trajanssäule in Rom gestaltet werden.
Nach dem Sieg Frankreichs in der Schlacht bei Austerlitz im Jahre 1805 nahm das Vorhaben schließlich konkrete Gestalt an. Der damalige französische Innenminister Jean-Baptiste Nompère de Champagny gab Dominique-Vivant Baron Denon den Auftrag zur Bau der Siegessäule. Denon schlug vor, eine Siegessäule aus den erbeuteten russischen und österreichischen Kanonen zu errichten, auf welcher ruhmreiche Szenen aus der Schlacht abgebildet werden sollten. Das Kapitell sollte von einer Statue des Kaisers Napoleon gekrönt werden. Ein Jahr später wurde dieser Vorschlag in die Tat umgesetzt.
Die Grundsteinlegung der 44,17 m hohen Säule mit Napoleon als Imperator erfolgte am 25. August 1806. Die Triumphsäule wurde aus 133 (und nicht wie oft zu lesen 1.200) russischen und österreichischen Kanonen gegossen. Die Baukosten betrugen 1.335.031,82 Francs.
Die feierliche Einweihung als „Colonne de la Grande Armée“ fand am 15. August 1810, dem Geburtstag Napoleons, statt.
Sturz der Säule
Die Säule wurde am 16. Mai 1871 während der Pariser Kommune gestürzt, wofür der Maler Gustave Courbet, der sich als Mitglied der Kommune für die Versetzung der Säule vor das Hôtel des Invalides ausgesprochen hatte, mitverantwortlich war. Der zu seiner Zeit bereits bekannte und politisch aktive Courbet, der in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft zu der Säule wohnte, forderte wiederholt die Entfernung der Colonne Vendôme aus politischen wie aus ästhetischen Gründen. Während der Pariser Kommune entsprachen die Kommunarden dem Wunsch Courbets und trugen ihm die Leitung der Arbeiten für den Abriss der Säule auf. An der Säule wurde ein Holzgerüst angebracht, die Säule in mehrere Segmente zersägt und der Platz vor der Säule, auf den die Überreste fallen sollen, mit Stroh bzw. Mist ausgelegt. Am 16. Mai 1871 wurde die Colonne Vendôme mit Hilfe von Seilen und einer Winde vor vielen Schaulustigen umgerissen, nachdem zuvor zwei Mal das Seil gerissen war. Auf der Spitze der Säule wurde zuvor der an die Napoleon-Statue adressierte Vierzeiler angebracht: „Tireur juché sur cette échasse, Si le sang que tu fis verser, Pouvait tenir sur cette place, Tu le boirais sans te baisser“, was übersetzt bedeutet: »Schütze hoch oben auf dieser Stelze, würde das von Dir vergossene Blut auf diesem Platz gesammelt werden, könntest Du es trinken, ohne Dich bücken zu müssen.« Die Bronzeplatten der Säule wurden aufbewahrt. Nach dem Sturz der Kommune in der blutigen Maiwoche 1871 beschloss 1873 der Präsident der neu geschaffenen Republik, Patrice de Mac-Mahon, die Colonne Vendôme auf Kosten von Gustave Courbet wieder errichten zu lassen. Zum Zeitpunkt seines Todes 1877 hatte der Maler die enorme Summe noch nicht abbezahlt.
Statuen von Napoléon
Die erste Statue Napoleons auf der Säule wurde von dem Bildhauer Antoine-Denis Chaudet (1763–1810) geschaffen und stellte Napoleon als heldenhaften Caesar dar. Als Frankreich die Völkerschlacht bei Leipzig (16.–19. Oktober 1813) verlor und Napoleon ins Exil nach Elba musste, forderten Royalisten am 6. April 1814 im Journal de Debat, nachdem zuvor am 31. März die siegreichen Koalitionstruppen in Paris einmarschiert waren, die Statue Napoleons von der Säule zu entfernen. Zwei Tage später wurde dies mit einer öffentlichen Zeremonie in die Tat umgesetzt. An der Spitze der Säule wurde ein Krangerüst aus Holz angebracht, woran die Statue mithilfe von Seilen befestigt war. Die Statue sollte zunächst mithilfe von an die Seile gespannten Pferden von der Säule gezogen werden, diese ließ sich jedoch kaum bewegen und musste schließlich abgesägt werden. Die Bronzestatue wurde schließlich eingeschmolzen um daraus ein Reiterstandbild von Heinrich IV. auf dem Pont Neuf zu errichten.
Nach der Julirevolution 1830, und dem damit einhergehenden endgültigen Sturz der Bourbonen, kam der vom Volk gewählte „Bürgerkönig“ Louis-Philippe auf den Thron und beschloss 1831 die Wiederaufstellung einer Napoleon-Statue auf der Vendôme-Säule, wofür er einen Wettbewerb anordnete. Dieser wurde von dem Bildhauer Charles Emil Seurre gewonnen, der Napoleon als „petit caporal“ (dt.: kleiner Unteroffizier) in Uniform mit Zweispitz und Mantel, Kanonenkugeln zu seinen Füßen und seinem Schwert darstellt. Am 28. Juli 1833, einem Gedenktag an die Julirevolution, wurde die neue Statue feierlich auf der Säule enthüllt.[
Als Napoleon III. Kaiser Frankreichs wurde, ließ dieser die Statue 1852 durch eine Kopie der Ersten ersetzen, um Napoleon wieder machtvoller und bedeutsamer darzustellen. Diese Nachbildung wurde von Augustin-Alexandre Dumont geschaffen. Die „petit caporal“ Statue wurde daraufhin auf den Rond point de Courbevoie umgestellt. Nach der Kapitulation Napoleons III. bei der Schlacht von Sedan 1870 versuchte man angeblich, die Statue vor der preußischen Armee in Sicherheit zu bringen.[3] Diese ging beim Transport auf der Seine unter, wurde allerdings wieder geborgen und steht seit 1911 im Cour d´honneur des Hôtel des Invalides.
(Wikipedia)
Warkworth Castle in Northumberland is forever associated with the Percy Earls of Northumberland but the site did not start with them. Indeed there is some mystery over who first built it and when. Located on a tight bend in the River Coquet and about a mile from the sea, the castle sits on the neck of this land which means that the enclosed space becomes an outer ward with the river as its moat on three sides. The medieval church and modern village now occupy the bend.
As an easy to defend site, close to the English/Scottish border, the speculation is that it may have had some sort of fortification well before the present building but this is now elusive - especially so if the first fortification was of mere earth and timber. Henry, son of King David I of Scotland, was granted the site around 1139 AD and he, in turn, granted salt pans to various local monks. As the new Earl of Northumberland the old guide book speculates that he either built the first castle or he improved an existing motte and bailey with new stone walls; the guide book certainly notes ‘Norman’ foundations at various points in the current building. A castle certainly exists in documents of 1157 AD.
King John of England confirmed the castle to Robert of Clavering in 1199 AD. Robert spent much time in the area as Sheriff of Northumberland and was gifted other local estates. He is thought to have built the main gateway, some of the walls and improved the Great Hall. He may also have built or improved the keep but this work has since vanished under the large and luxurious later Percy building. The Claverings held the castle but such was its importance that royal troops were also garrisoned here at times - at the king’s expense - due to the Scottish wars. In 1322 the constable of the castle sent 26 light horsemen (hobilars) to join the English army. The Scots were beaten off in 1327 and again the following year when Robert The Bruce besieged it.
The last Clavering male died in debt in 1332 and the castle eventually passed to Henry, the second Lord Percy of Alnwick. He improved the gatehouse and walls and may have added the Grey Mare’s Tail tower on the eastern side. From this time onwards Warkworth was the second castle home of the Percys and much favoured by them. The third Percy lord was a great soldier in the 100 Years War in France and was created Earl of Northumberland in 1377 before winning the battles of Otterburn and Homildon Hill against the Scots.
Sometime during this period extensive building work was carried out by the Percys with the keep on the motte being rebuilt as a sumptuous and comfortable building with decent accommodation, ample water management and drainage. It even had a very modern feature - a light well extending down the centre of the building to draw in both light and fresh air. For the ‘grim north’ this was a very princely home.
However after supporting Henry IV’s 1399 coup against Richard II, the Percys fell out with King Henry and rebelled - leading to executions and a period of disgrace. During this time Warkworth was attacked by a royal army with gunpowder artillery and it surrendered after seven discharges of the royal cannons. It is thus the first British castle to be successfully attacked by artillery despite the claims of nearby Bamburgh Castle.
John, Duke of Bedford held the castle for 11 years before it was returned to the next Percy - Henry, Earl of Northumberland. He was drawn into disputes with the junior Nevilles (the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick) but was supported by the senior Nevilles, the Earls of Westmoreland, who had their own issues with the junior Nevilles. Inevitably all this was mostly about money and inheritance. It paved the way to private battles between these families BEFORE the so-called Wars of the Roses. Indeed the first Battle of St Albans in 1455 may be more of a Mafia-style ‘hit’ as the Yorkists were lead by the three Richards (York, Salisbury and Warwick) and the principal dead were the Duke of Somerset, Henry Percy and a Percy kinsman, Lord Clifford.
The castle passed into Yorkist hands and - at various times - the Earl of Warwick directed sieges at Alnwick, Bamburgh and Dunstanburgh using Warkworth as his base. Warwick’s brother John Neville was given the castle and the earldom of Northumberland for a time but Edward IV eventually returned it to Henry Percy, the 4th Earl of Northumberland. John Neville was thus ‘downgraded’ to 1st Marquis of Montague and was thoroughly alienated by this action, leading to John joining his brother Warwick in rebellion against Edward IV. Warkworth’s Montague Tower is probably his work.
The 4th Percy earl carried out some work in his own right. One oddity is that a collegiate church was planned right in front of the keep which would have cut the keep off from the rest of the inner bailey. We know this as the present church foundations contain a tunnel which would have passed under the massive building to allow access to the keep from the bailey. However the guide book suggests the church was never finished and that the foundation crypts were partly buried and then became used for storage.
Henry the 4th earl became infamous for not supporting King Richard III at Bosworth in 1485. He then managed to get himself killed by the locals at Cocklodge in 1489 and is now buried in Beverley Cathedral. Later Percys got involved in the 16th century religious conflicts in England and none of them came out of it well. One even got involved in the Gunpowder Plot against the new Protestant King James I of England. One footnote is that King James visited Warkworth in this period and found it ruined and overrun by goats and sheep in every chamber. Some of his party went into the castle and were: “Much moved to see it so spoiled and so badly kept”.
Later Percys favoured Alnwick over Warkworth and it was one of these (now a Duke) who turned the site over to the future Ministry of Public Building and Works in 1922. It is now an English Heritage site and well worth a visit.
Warkworth Castle in Northumberland is forever associated with the Percy Earls of Northumberland but the site did not start with them. Indeed there is some mystery over who first built it and when. Located on a tight bend in the River Coquet and about a mile from the sea, the castle sits on the neck of this land which means that the enclosed space becomes an outer ward with the river as its moat on three sides. The medieval church and modern village now occupy the bend.
As an easy to defend site, close to the English/Scottish border, the speculation is that it may have had some sort of fortification well before the present building but this is now elusive - especially so if the first fortification was of mere earth and timber. Henry, son of King David I of Scotland, was granted the site around 1139 AD and he, in turn, granted salt pans to various local monks. As the new Earl of Northumberland the old guide book speculates that he either built the first castle or he improved an existing motte and bailey with new stone walls; the guide book certainly notes ‘Norman’ foundations at various points in the current building. A castle certainly exists in documents of 1157 AD.
King John of England confirmed the castle to Robert of Clavering in 1199 AD. Robert spent much time in the area as Sheriff of Northumberland and was gifted other local estates. He is thought to have built the main gateway, some of the walls and improved the Great Hall. He may also have built or improved the keep but this work has since vanished under the large and luxurious later Percy building. The Claverings held the castle but such was its importance that royal troops were also garrisoned here at times - at the king’s expense - due to the Scottish wars. In 1322 the constable of the castle sent 26 light horsemen (hobilars) to join the English army. The Scots were beaten off in 1327 and again the following year when Robert The Bruce besieged it.
The last Clavering male died in debt in 1332 and the castle eventually passed to Henry, the second Lord Percy of Alnwick. He improved the gatehouse and walls and may have added the Grey Mare’s Tail tower on the eastern side. From this time onwards Warkworth was the second castle home of the Percys and much favoured by them. The third Percy lord was a great soldier in the 100 Years War in France and was created Earl of Northumberland in 1377 before winning the battles of Otterburn and Homildon Hill against the Scots.
Sometime during this period extensive building work was carried out by the Percys with the keep on the motte being rebuilt as a sumptuous and comfortable building with decent accommodation, ample water management and drainage. It even had a very modern feature - a light well extending down the centre of the building to draw in both light and fresh air. For the ‘grim north’ this was a very princely home.
However after supporting Henry IV’s 1399 coup against Richard II, the Percys fell out with King Henry and rebelled - leading to executions and a period of disgrace. During this time Warkworth was attacked by a royal army with gunpowder artillery and it surrendered after seven discharges of the royal cannons. It is thus the first British castle to be successfully attacked by artillery despite the claims of nearby Bamburgh Castle.
John, Duke of Bedford held the castle for 11 years before it was returned to the next Percy - Henry, Earl of Northumberland. He was drawn into disputes with the junior Nevilles (the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick) but was supported by the senior Nevilles, the Earls of Westmoreland, who had their own issues with the junior Nevilles. Inevitably all this was mostly about money and inheritance. It paved the way to private battles between these families BEFORE the so-called Wars of the Roses. Indeed the first Battle of St Albans in 1455 may be more of a Mafia-style ‘hit’ as the Yorkists were lead by the three Richards (York, Salisbury and Warwick) and the principal dead were the Duke of Somerset, Henry Percy and a Percy kinsman, Lord Clifford.
The castle passed into Yorkist hands and - at various times - the Earl of Warwick directed sieges at Alnwick, Bamburgh and Dunstanburgh using Warkworth as his base. Warwick’s brother John Neville was given the castle and the earldom of Northumberland for a time but Edward IV eventually returned it to Henry Percy, the 4th Earl of Northumberland. John Neville was thus ‘downgraded’ to 1st Marquis of Montague and was thoroughly alienated by this action, leading to John joining his brother Warwick in rebellion against Edward IV. Warkworth’s Montague Tower is probably his work.
The 4th Percy earl carried out some work in his own right. One oddity is that a collegiate church was planned right in front of the keep which would have cut the keep off from the rest of the inner bailey. We know this as the present church foundations contain a tunnel which would have passed under the massive building to allow access to the keep from the bailey. However the guide book suggests the church was never finished and that the foundation crypts were partly buried and then became used for storage.
Henry the 4th earl became infamous for not supporting King Richard III at Bosworth in 1485. He then managed to get himself killed by the locals at Cocklodge in 1489 and is now buried in Beverley Cathedral. Later Percys got involved in the 16th century religious conflicts in England and none of them came out of it well. One even got involved in the Gunpowder Plot against the new Protestant King James I of England. One footnote is that King James visited Warkworth in this period and found it ruined and overrun by goats and sheep in every chamber. Some of his party went into the castle and were: “Much moved to see it so spoiled and so badly kept”.
Later Percys favoured Alnwick over Warkworth and it was one of these (now a Duke) who turned the site over to the future Ministry of Public Building and Works in 1922. It is now an English Heritage site and well worth a visit.
After much speculation Suede reformed in 2010 for a series of concerts. Three years on from their reunion gigs, Suede released their sixth album, Bloodsports. It was well received by critics and returned the band to the top ten in the UK. Their seventh album, Night Thoughts, followed in 2016 and became an even bigger critical and commercial success than its predecessor. Their eighth studio album, The Blue Hour, was released in September 2018. It became the group's first top five record since Head Music. Their ninth and most recent studio album, Autofiction, was released in September 2022.
After weeks of speculation about the future of First Aberdeen Coach Hire, the company has come out and reaffirmed that the division will continue, but the private hire element will be scaled back to focus on the school, rail replacement and oil company contracts, The changes will result in a reduction in the overall coach fleet the two Mercedes-Benz Tourismos being the first casualties in a phased reduction in the fleet over the next year.
Scania Irizar PB 23314 is seen here on Union Street on contract work. While a regular on private hire work, the first Plaxton Paragon has recently been withdrawn so the Scania coaches may survive the cull.
New Brickton - 30 years ago:
Anonymous editorial from the “New Brickton Post”
To all who live in the city of New Brickton,
There has been much speculation recently about my existence and my purpose. I can assure you New Brickton, I do exist. To all of my critics who accuse me of being a vigilante, I have the following to state. I do not see this title as an insult as it derives from the Latin word “vigilantem” which means to be watchful. Know this New Brickton, I am watching.
No tragedy defines me, no great loss has driven me to do what I do. I am one more angry citizen tired of the corruption that festers away at the heart of this city. One more person who is tired of helplessly watching their city fall into degradation and violence as the authorities sit idly on their hands. I am merely one more voice in the crowd. However, my voice will not be silenced.
If you commit acts of evil, I will find you. If you continue to corrupt this once great city, you will not be able to hide from me for long. Your dark underworld is my home now. From this day forward, let the name Gothic be on the minds of all who harm the innocent, for you will no longer find refuge in the shadows.
The refusal of good people to stand up for what is right is just as criminal as those who break the law.
Forever vigilant,
Gothic
*** Created for the League of Lego Heroes Flickr Group
Suit up today and create your own legend!!!
*** Yes, this entire newspaper was crafted using MSPaint. :D
The water was very still, so a great reflection.
For more information/speculation,,, see flic.kr/p/dYuXQX
Update April 2022 - extra information from Colin of Foxes Afloat May 2021... www.facebook.com/FoxesAfloat
"It's called, Chica, an affectionate Spanish term for a girl, although she was originally called Flora when she was launched in Norway back in 1894. Her job then was to carry saltfish from one end of the country to the other, but that stopped when Germany occupied Norway during the second world war. When the war was over she was used for gun running and smuggling cigarettes between Gibraltar and the African coast. By 1950 she ended up as part of the Liverpool fishing fleet before being brought here to the north west in 1981 and she was used as a hotel boat here on the River Weaver. An inspection said she was too dangerous to be refitted and she was left here by the owners, right by Dutton Locks. In 1993 she started to take on water and capsized and that's where she is now. She's 127 years old and because it's not obstructing other boats and the cost of removing would just be too much, she's been left here as a sad reminder of the river's history and it's now a bit of a tourist attraction for walkers and boaters who passed the lock."
German postcard by Ross Verlag, no. 3241/1, 1928-1929. Photo: United Artists. Lupe Velez in The Gaucho (F. Richard Jones, 1927).
Lupe Velez (1908-1944), was one of the first Mexican actresses to succeed in Hollywood. Her nicknames were 'The Mexican Spitfire' and 'Hot Pepper'. She was the leading lady in such silent films as The Gaucho (1927), Lady of the Pavements (1928), and Wolf Song (1929). During the 1930s, her well-known explosive screen persona was exploited in a series of successful films like Hot Pepper (1933), Strictly Dynamite (1934), and Hollywood Party (1934). In the 1940s, Vélez's popularity peaked after appearing in the Mexican Spitfire films, a series created to capitalise on Vélez's well-documented fiery personality. She had several highly publicised romances and a stormy marriage. In 1944, Vélez died of an intentional overdose of the barbiturate drug Seconal. Her death and the circumstances surrounding it have been the subject of speculation and controversy.
Lupe Vélez was born María Guadalupe Villalobos Vélez in 1908 in the city of San Luis Potosí in Mexico. She was the daughter of Jacobo Villalobos Reyes, a colonel in the army of the dictator Porfirio Diaz, and his wife Josefina Vélez, an opera singer according to some sources, or vaudeville singer according to others. She had three sisters: Mercedes, Reina and Josefina, and a brother, Emigdio. The family was financially comfortable and lived in a large home. At the age of 13, her parents sent her to study at Our Lady of the Lake (now Our Lady of the Lake University) in San Antonio, Texas. It was at Our Lady of the Lake that Vélez learned to speak English and began to dance. She later admitted that she liked dance class, but was otherwise a poor student. Denny Jackson at IMDb: "Life was hard for her family, and Lupe returned to Mexico to help them out financially. She worked as a salesgirl for a department store for the princely sum of $4 a week. Every week she would turn most of her salary over to her mother, but kept a little for herself so she could take dancing lessons. By now, she figured, with her mature shape and grand personality, she thought she could make a try at show business." She began her career as a performer in Mexican vaudeville in 1924. She initially performed under her paternal surname, but after her father returned home from the war, he was outraged that his daughter had decided to become a stage performer. She chose her maternal surname, "Vélez", as her stage name and her mother introduced Vélez and her sister Josefina to the popular Spanish Mexican vedette María Conesa, "La Gatita Blanca". Vélez debuted in a show led by Conesa, where she sang 'Oh Charley, My Boy' and danced the shimmy. Aurelio Campos, a young pianist, and friend of the Vélez sisters recommended Lupe to stage producers, Carlos Ortega and Manuel Castro. Ortega and Castro were preparing a season revue at the Regis Theatre and hired Vélez to join the company in March 1925. Later that year, Vélez starred in the revues 'Mexican Rataplan' and '¡No lo tapes!', both parodies of the Bataclan's shows in Paris. Her suggestive singing and provocative dancing were a hit with audiences, and she soon established herself as one of the main stars of vaudeville in Mexico. After a year and a half, Vélez left the revue after the manager refused to give her a raise. She then joined the Teatro Principal but was fired after three months due to her "feisty attitude". Vélez was quickly hired by the Teatro Lirico, where her salary rose to 100 pesos a day. In 1926, Frank A. Woodyard, an American who had seen Vélez perform, recommended her to stage director Richard Bennett, the father of actresses Joan and Constance Bennett. Bennett was looking for an actress to portray a Mexican cantina singer in his upcoming play 'The Dove'. He sent Vélez a telegram inviting her to Los Angeles to appear in the play. Vélez had been planning to go to Cuba to perform, but quickly changed her plans and travelled to Los Angeles. However, upon arrival, she discovered that she had been replaced by another actress.
While in Los Angeles, Lupe Vélez met the comedian Fanny Brice. Brice recommended her to Flo Ziegfeld, who hired her to perform in New York City. While Vélez was preparing to leave Los Angeles, she received a call from MGM producer Harry Rapf, who offered her a screen test. Producer and director Hal Roach saw Vélez's screen test and hired her for a small role in the comic Laurel and Hardy short Sailors, Beware! (Fred Guiol, Hal Yates, 1927). After her debut, Vélez appeared in another Hal Roach short, What Women Did for Me (James Parrott, 1927), opposite Charley Chase. Later that year, she did a screen test for the upcoming Douglas Fairbanks feature The Gaucho (F. Richard Jones, 1927). Fairbanks was impressed by Vélez and hired her to appear in the film with him. The Gaucho was a hit and critics were duly impressed with Vélez's ability to hold her own alongside Fairbanks, who was well known for his spirited acting and impressive stunts. Her second major film was Stand and Deliver (Donald Crisp, 1928), produced by Cecil B. DeMille. That same year, she was named one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars. Then she appeared in Lady of the Pavements (1929), directed by D. W. Griffith, and Where East Is East (Tod Browning, 1929), starring Lon Chaney as an animal trapper in Laos. In the Western The Wolf Song (Victor Fleming, 1929), she appeared alongside Gary Cooper. As she was regularly cast as and 'exotic' or 'ethnic' woman who was volatile and hot-tempered, gossip columnists took to referring to Vélez as "Mexican Hurricane", "The Mexican Wildcat", "The Mexican Madcap", "Whoopee Lupe" and "The Hot Tamale". Lupe Vélez made the transition to sound films without difficulty. Studio executives had predicted that her accent would likely hamper her ability to make the transition. That idea was dispelled after she appeared in the all-talking Rin Tin Tin vehicle, Tiger Rose (George Fitzmaurice, 1929). The film was a hit and Vélez's sound career was established. Vélez appeared in a series of Pre-Code films like Hell Harbor (Henry King, 1930), The Storm (William Wyler, 1930), and the crime drama East Is West (Monta Bell, 1930) opposite Edward G. Robinson. The next year, she appeared in her second film for Cecil B. DeMille, Squaw Man (Cecil B. DeMille, 1931), opposite Warner Baxter, in Resurrection (Edwin Carewe, 1931), and The Cuban Love Song (W.S. Van Dyke, 1931), with the popular singer Lawrence Tibbett. She had a supporting role in Kongo (William J. Cowen, 1932) with Walter Huston, a sound remake of West of Zanzibar (Tod Browning, 1928) which tries to outdo the Lon Chaney original in morbidity. She also starred in Spanish-language versions of Universal films like Resurrección (Eduardo Arozamena, David Selman, 1931), the Spanish version of Resurrection (1931), and Hombres en mi vida (Eduardo Arozamena, David Selman, 1932), the Spanish version of Men in Her Life (William Beaudine, 1931) in which Lois Moran had starred.
In 1932, Lupe Vélez took a break from her film career and travelled to New York City where she was signed by Broadway impresario Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. to take over the role of "Conchita" in the musical revue 'Hot-Cha!'. The show also starred Bert Lahr, Eleanor Powell, and Buddy Rogers. Back in Hollywood, Lupe switched to comedy after playing dramatic roles for five years. Denny Jackson at IMDb: "In 1933 she played the lead role of Pepper in Hot Pepper (1933). This film showcased her comedic talents and helped her to show the world her vital personality. She was delightful." After Hot Pepper (John G. Blystone, 1933) with Edmund Lowe and Victor McLaglen, Lupe played beautiful but volatile, characters in a series of successful films like Strictly Dynamite (Elliott Nugent, 1934), Palooka (Benjamin Stoloff, 1934) both opposite Jimmy Durante, and Hollywood Party (Allan Dwan, a.o., 1934) with Laurel and Hardy. Although Vélez was a popular actress, RKO Pictures did not renew her contract in 1934. Over the next few years, Vélez worked for various studios as a freelance actress; she also spent two years in England where she filmed The Morals of Marcus (Miles Mander, 1935) and Gypsy Melody (Edmond T. Gréville, 1936). She returned to Los Angeles the following year where she appeared in the final part of the Wheeler & Woolsey comedy High Flyers (Edward F. Cline, 1937). In 1938, Vélez made her final appearance on Broadway in the musical You Never Know, by Cole Porter. The show received poor reviews from critics but received a large amount of publicity due to the feud between Vélez and fellow cast member Libby Holman. Holman was irritated by the attention Vélez garnered from the show with her impersonations of several actresses including Gloria Swanson, Katharine Hepburn, and Shirley Temple. The feud came to a head during a performance in New Haven, Connecticut after Vélez punched Holman in between curtain calls and gave her a black eye. The feud effectively ended the show. Upon her return to Mexico City in 1938 to star in her first Mexican film, Vélez was greeted by ten thousand fans. The film La Zandunga (Fernando de Fuentes, 1938) co-starring Arturo de Córdova, was a critical and financial success. Vélez was slated to appear in four more Mexican films, but instead, she returned to Los Angeles and went back to work for RKO Pictures. In 1939, Lupe Vélez was cast opposite Leon Errol and Donald Woods in the B-comedy, The Girl from Mexico (Leslie Goodwins, 1939). Despite being a B film, it was a hit with audiences and RKO re-teamed her with Errol and Wood for a sequel, Mexican Spitfire (Leslie Goodwins, 1940). That film was also a success and led to a series of eight Spitfire films. Wikipedia: "In the series, Vélez portrays Carmelita Lindsay, a temperamental yet friendly Mexican singer married to Dennis 'Denny' Lindsay (Woods), an elegant American gentleman. The Spitfire films rejuvenated Vélez's career. Moreover, they were films in which a Latina headlined for eight films straight –a true rarity." In addition to the Spitfire series, she was cast in such films as Six Lessons from Madame La Zonga (John Rawlins, 1941), Playmates (David Butler, 1941) opposite John Barrymore, and Redhead from Manhattan (Lew Landers, 1943). In 1943, the final film in the Spitfire series, Mexican Spitfire's Blessed Event (Leslie Goodwins, 1943), was released. By that time, the novelty of the series had begun to wane. Velez co-starred with Eddie Albert in the romantic comedy, Ladies' Day (Leslie Goodwins, 1943), about an actress and a baseball player. In 1944, Vélez returned to Mexico to star in an adaptation of Émile Zola's novel Nana (Roberto Gavaldón, Celestino Gorostiza, 1944), which was well-received. It would be her final film. After filming wrapped, Vélez returned to Los Angeles and began preparing for another stage role in New York.
Lupe Vélez's temper and jealousy in her often tempestuous romantic relationships were well documented and became tabloid fodder, often overshadowing her career. Vélez was straightforward with the press and was regularly contacted by gossip columnists for stories about her romantic exploits. Her first long-term relationship was with actor Gary Cooper. Vélez met Cooper while filming The Wolf Song in 1929 and began a two-year affair with him. The relationship was passionate but often stormy. Reportedly Vélez chased Cooper around with a knife during an argument and cut him severely enough to require stitches. By that time, the rocky relationship had taken its toll on Cooper who had lost 45 pounds and was suffering from nervous exhaustion. Paramount Pictures ordered him to take a vacation to recuperate. While he was boarding the train, Vélez showed up at the train station and fired a pistol at him. During her marriage to actor Johnny Weissmuller, stories of their frequent physical fights were regularly reported in the press. Vélez reportedly inflicted scratches, bruises, and love bites on Weissmuller during their fights and "passionate love-making". In July 1934, after ten months of marriage, Vélez filed for divorce citing cruelty. She withdrew the petition a week later after reconciling with Weissmuller. In January 1935, she filed for divorce a second time and was granted an interlocutory decree that was dismissed when the couple reconciled a month later. In August 1938, Vélez filed for divorce for a third time, again charging Weissmuller with cruelty. Their divorce was finalised in August 1939. After the divorce became final, Vélez began dating actor Guinn "Big Boy" Williams in late 1940. They were reportedly engaged but never married. Vélez was also linked to author Erich Maria Remarque and the boxers Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey. In 1943, Vélez began an affair with her La Zandunga co-star Arturo de Córdova. De Córdova had recently moved to Hollywood after signing with Paramount Pictures. Although de Córdova was married to Mexican actress Enna Arana with whom he had four children, Vélez granted an interview to gossip columnist Louella Parsons in September 1943 and announced that the two were engaged. Vélez ended the engagement in early 1944, reportedly after de Córdova's wife refused to give him a divorce. Vélez then met and began dating a struggling young Austrian actor named Harald Maresch (who went by the stage name Harald Ramond). In September 1944, she discovered she was pregnant with Ramond's child. She announced their engagement in late November 1944. On 10 December, four days before her death, Vélez announced she had ended the engagement and kicked Ramond out of her home. On the evening of 13 December 1944, Vélez dined with her two friends, the silent film stars Estelle Taylor and Venita Oakie. In the early morning hours of 14 December, Vélez retired to her bedroom, where she consumed 75 Seconal pills and a glass of brandy. Her secretary, Beulah Kinder, found the actress's body on her bed later that morning. A suicide note addressed to Harald Ramond was found nearby. Lupe Vélez was only 36 years old. More than four thousand people filed past her casket during her funeral. Her body was interred in Mexico City, at Panteón Civil de Dolores Cemetery. Velez's estate, valued at $125,000 and consisting mostly of her Rodeo House home, two cars, jewelry, and personal effects was left to her secretary Beulah Kinder with the remainder in trust for her mother, Mrs. Josephine Velez. Together with Dolores del Rio, Ramon Novarro, and José Mojica, she was one of the few Mexican people who had made history in the early years of Hollywood.
Sources: Denny Jackson (IMDb), Wikipedia, and IMDb.
And, please check out our blog European Film Star Postcards.
German postcard by Ross Verlag, no. 4116/1, 1929-1930. Photo: United Artists. Lupe Velez in Lady of the Pavements (D.W. Griffith, 1929).
Lupe Velez (1908-1944), was one of the first Mexican actresses to succeed in Hollywood. Her nicknames were 'The Mexican Spitfire' and 'Hot Pepper'. She was the leading lady in such silent films as The Gaucho (1927), Lady of the Pavements (1928), and Wolf Song (1929). During the 1930s, her well-known explosive screen persona was exploited in a series of successful films like Hot Pepper (1933), Strictly Dynamite (1934), and Hollywood Party (1934). In the 1940s, Vélez's popularity peaked after appearing in the Mexican Spitfire films, a series created to capitalise on Vélez's well-documented fiery personality. She had several highly publicised romances and a stormy marriage. In 1944, Vélez died of an intentional overdose of the barbiturate drug Seconal. Her death and the circumstances surrounding it have been the subject of speculation and controversy.
Lupe Vélez was born María Guadalupe Villalobos Vélez in 1908 in the city of San Luis Potosí in Mexico. She was the daughter of Jacobo Villalobos Reyes, a colonel in the army of the dictator Porfirio Diaz, and his wife Josefina Vélez, an opera singer according to some sources, or vaudeville singer according to others. She had three sisters: Mercedes, Reina and Josefina, and a brother, Emigdio. The family was financially comfortable and lived in a large home. At the age of 13, her parents sent her to study at Our Lady of the Lake (now Our Lady of the Lake University) in San Antonio, Texas. It was at Our Lady of the Lake that Vélez learned to speak English and began to dance. She later admitted that she liked dance class, but was otherwise a poor student. Denny Jackson at IMDb: "Life was hard for her family, and Lupe returned to Mexico to help them out financially. She worked as a salesgirl for a department store for the princely sum of $4 a week. Every week she would turn most of her salary over to her mother, but kept a little for herself so she could take dancing lessons. By now, she figured, with her mature shape and grand personality, she thought she could make a try at show business." She began her career as a performer in Mexican vaudeville in 1924. She initially performed under her paternal surname, but after her father returned home from the war, he was outraged that his daughter had decided to become a stage performer. She chose her maternal surname, "Vélez", as her stage name and her mother introduced Vélez and her sister Josefina to the popular Spanish Mexican vedette María Conesa, "La Gatita Blanca". Vélez debuted in a show led by Conesa, where she sang 'Oh Charley, My Boy' and danced the shimmy. Aurelio Campos, a young pianist, and friend of the Vélez sisters recommended Lupe to stage producers, Carlos Ortega and Manuel Castro. Ortega and Castro were preparing a season revue at the Regis Theatre and hired Vélez to join the company in March 1925. Later that year, Vélez starred in the revues 'Mexican Rataplan' and '¡No lo tapes!', both parodies of the Bataclan's shows in Paris. Her suggestive singing and provocative dancing was a hit with audiences, and she soon established herself as one of the main stars of vaudeville in Mexico. After a year and a half, Vélez left the revue after the manager refused to give her a raise. She then joined the Teatro Principal but was fired after three months due to her "feisty attitude". Vélez was quickly hired by the Teatro Lirico, where her salary rose to 100 pesos a day. In 1926, Frank A. Woodyard, an American who had seen Vélez perform, recommended her to stage director Richard Bennett, the father of actresses Joan and Constance Bennett. Bennett was looking for an actress to portray a Mexican cantina singer in his upcoming play 'The Dove'. He sent Vélez a telegram inviting her to Los Angeles to appear in the play. Vélez had been planning to go to Cuba to perform, but quickly changed her plans and traveled to Los Angeles. However, upon arrival, she discovered that she had been replaced by another actress.
While in Los Angeles, Lupe Vélez met the comedian Fanny Brice. Brice recommended her to Flo Ziegfeld, who hired her to perform in New York City. While Vélez was preparing to leave Los Angeles, she received a call from MGM producer Harry Rapf, who offered her a screen test. Producer and director Hal Roach saw Vélez's screen test and hired her for a small role in the comic Laurel and Hardy short Sailors, Beware! (Fred Guiol, Hal Yates, 1927). After her debut, Vélez appeared in another Hal Roach short, What Women Did for Me (James Parrott, 1927), opposite Charley Chase. Later that year, she did a screen test for the upcoming Douglas Fairbanks feature The Gaucho (F. Richard Jones, 1927). Fairbanks was impressed by Vélez and hired her to appear in the film with him. The Gaucho was a hit and critics were duly impressed with Vélez's ability to hold her own alongside Fairbanks, who was well known for his spirited acting and impressive stunts. Her second major film was Stand and Deliver (Donald Crisp, 1928), produced by Cecil B. DeMille. That same year, she was named one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars. Then she appeared in Lady of the Pavements (1929), directed by D. W. Griffith, and Where East Is East (Tod Browning, 1929), starring Lon Chaney as an animal trapper in Laos. In the Western The Wolf Song (Victor Fleming, 1929), she appeared alongside Gary Cooper. As she was regularly cast as 'exotic' or 'ethnic' women that were volatile and hot-tempered, gossip columnists took to referring to Vélez as "Mexican Hurricane", "The Mexican Wildcat", "The Mexican Madcap", "Whoopee Lupe" and "The Hot Tamale". Lupe Vélez made the transition to sound films without difficulty. Studio executives had predicted that her accent would likely hamper her ability to make the transition. That idea was dispelled after she appeared in the all-talking Rin Tin Tin vehicle, Tiger Rose (George Fitzmaurice, 1929). The film was a hit and Vélez's sound career was established. Vélez appeared in a series of Pre-Code films like Hell Harbor (Henry King, 1930), The Storm (William Wyler, 1930), and the crime drama East Is West (Monta Bell, 1930) opposite Edward G. Robinson. The next year, she appeared in her second film for Cecil B. DeMille, Squaw Man (Cecil B. DeMille, 1931), opposite Warner Baxter, in Resurrection (Edwin Carewe, 1931), and The Cuban Love Song (W.S. Van Dyke, 1931), with the popular singer Lawrence Tibbett. She had a supporting role in Kongo (William J. Cowen, 1932) with Walter Huston, a sound remake of West of Zanzibar (Tod Browning, 1928) which tries to outdo the Lon Chaney original in morbidity. She also starred in Spanish-language versions of Universal films like Resurrección (Eduardo Arozamena, David Selman, 1931), the Spanish version of Resurrection (1931), and Hombres en mi vida (Eduardo Arozamena, David Selman, 1932), the Spanish version of Men in Her Life (William Beaudine, 1931) in which Lois Moran had starred.
In 1932, Lupe Vélez took a break from her film career and traveled to New York City where she was signed by Broadway impresario Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. to take over the role of "Conchita" in the musical revue 'Hot-Cha!'. The show also starred Bert Lahr, Eleanor Powell, and Buddy Rogers. Back in Hollywood, Lupe switched to comedy after playing dramatic roles for five years. Denny Jackson at IMDb: "In 1933 she played the lead role of Pepper in Hot Pepper (1933). This film showcased her comedic talents and helped her to show the world her vital personality. She was delightful." After Hot Pepper (John G. Blystone, 1933) with Edmund Lowe and Victor McLaglen, Lupe played beautiful but volatile, characters in a series of successful films like Strictly Dynamite (Elliott Nugent, 1934), Palooka (Benjamin Stoloff, 1934) both opposite Jimmy Durante, and Hollywood Party (Allan Dwan, a.o., 1934) with Laurel and Hardy. Although Vélez was a popular actress, RKO Pictures did not renew her contract in 1934. Over the next few years, Vélez worked for various studios as a freelance actress; she also spent two years in England where she filmed The Morals of Marcus (Miles Mander, 1935) and Gypsy Melody (Edmond T. Gréville, 1936). She returned to Los Angeles the following year where she appeared in the final part of the Wheeler & Woolsey comedy High Flyers (Edward F. Cline, 1937). In 1938, Vélez made her final appearance on Broadway in the musical You Never Know, by Cole Porter. The show received poor reviews from critics but received a large amount of publicity due to the feud between Vélez and fellow cast member Libby Holman. Holman was irritated by the attention Vélez garnered from the show with her impersonations of several actresses including Gloria Swanson, Katharine Hepburn, and Shirley Temple. The feud came to a head during a performance in New Haven, Connecticut after Vélez punched Holman in between curtain calls and gave her a black eye. The feud effectively ended the show. Upon her return to Mexico City in 1938 to star in her first Mexican film, Vélez was greeted by ten thousand fans. The film La Zandunga (Fernando de Fuentes, 1938) co-starring Arturo de Córdova, was a critical and financial success. Vélez was slated to appear in four more Mexican films, but instead, she returned to Los Angeles and went back to work for RKO Pictures. In 1939, Lupe Vélez was cast opposite Leon Errol and Donald Woods in the B-comedy, The Girl from Mexico (Leslie Goodwins, 1939). Despite being a B film, it was a hit with audiences and RKO re-teamed her with Errol and Wood for a sequel, Mexican Spitfire (Leslie Goodwins, 1940). That film was also a success and led to a series of eight Spitfire films. Wikipedia: "In the series, Vélez portrays Carmelita Lindsay, a temperamental yet friendly Mexican singer married to Dennis 'Denny' Lindsay (Woods), an elegant American gentleman. The Spitfire films rejuvenated Vélez's career. Moreover, they were films in which a Latina headlined for eight films straight –a true rarity." In addition to the Spitfire series, she was cast in such films as Six Lessons from Madame La Zonga (John Rawlins, 1941), Playmates (David Butler, 1941) opposite John Barrymore, and Redhead from Manhattan (Lew Landers, 1943). In 1943, the final film in the Spitfire series, Mexican Spitfire's Blessed Event (Leslie Goodwins, 1943), was released. By that time, the novelty of the series had begun to wane. Velez co-starred with Eddie Albert in the romantic comedy, Ladies' Day (Leslie Goodwins, 1943), about an actress and a baseball player. In 1944, Vélez returned to Mexico to star in an adaptation of Émile Zola's novel Nana (Roberto Gavaldón, Celestino Gorostiza, 1944), which was well-received. It would be her final film. After filming wrapped, Vélez returned to Los Angeles and began preparing for another stage role in New York.
Lupe Vélez's temper and jealousy in her often tempestuous romantic relationships were well documented and became tabloid fodder, often overshadowing her career. Vélez was straightforward with the press and was regularly contacted by gossip columnists for stories about her romantic exploits. Her first long-term relationship was with actor Gary Cooper. Vélez met Cooper while filming The Wolf Song in 1929 and began a two-year affair with him. The relationship was passionate but often stormy. Reportedly Vélez chased Cooper around with a knife during an argument and cut him severely enough to require stitches. By that time, the rocky relationship had taken its toll on Cooper who had lost 45 pounds and was suffering from nervous exhaustion. Paramount Pictures ordered him to take a vacation to recuperate. While he was boarding the train, Vélez showed up at the train station and fired a pistol at him. During her marriage to actor Johnny Weissmuller, stories of their frequent physical fights were regularly reported in the press. Vélez reportedly inflicted scratches, bruises, and love-bites on Weissmuller during their fights and "passionate love-making". In July 1934, after ten months of marriage, Vélez filed for divorce citing cruelty. She withdrew the petition a week later after reconciling with Weissmuller. In January 1935, she filed for divorce a second time and was granted an interlocutory decree that was dismissed when the couple reconciled a month later. In August 1938, Vélez filed for divorce for a third time, again charging Weissmuller with cruelty. Their divorce was finalised in August 1939. After the divorce became final, Vélez began dating actor Guinn "Big Boy" Williams in late 1940. They were reportedly engaged but never married. Vélez was also linked to author Erich Maria Remarque and the boxers Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey. In 1943, Vélez began an affair with her La Zandunga co-star Arturo de Córdova. De Córdova had recently moved to Hollywood after signing with Paramount Pictures. Despite the fact that de Córdova was married to Mexican actress Enna Arana with whom he had four children, Vélez granted an interview to gossip columnist Louella Parsons in September 1943 and announced that the two were engaged. Vélez ended the engagement in early 1944, reportedly after de Córdova's wife refused to give him a divorce. Vélez then met and began dating a struggling young Austrian actor named Harald Maresch (who went by the stage name Harald Ramond). In September 1944, she discovered she was pregnant with Ramond's child. She announced their engagement in late November 1944. On 10 December, four days before her death, Vélez announced she had ended the engagement and kicked Ramond out of her home. On the evening of 13 December 1944, Vélez dined with her two friends, the silent film star Estelle Taylor and Venita Oakie. In the early morning hours of 14 December, Vélez retired to her bedroom, where she consumed 75 Seconal pills and a glass of brandy. Her secretary, Beulah Kinder, found the actress's body on her bed later that morning. A suicide note addressed to Harald Ramond was found nearby. Lupe Vélez was only 36 years old. More than four-thousand people filed past her casket during her funeral. Her body was interred in Mexico City, at Panteón Civil de Dolores Cemetery. Velez' estate, valued at $125,000 and consisting mostly of her Rodeo House home, two cars, jewelry, and personal effects were left to her secretary Beulah Kinder with the remainder in trust for her mother, Mrs. Josephine Velez. Together with Dolores del Rio, Ramon Novarro, and José Mojica, she was one of the few Mexican people who had made history in the early years of Hollywood.
Sources: Denny Jackson (IMDb), Wikipedia, and IMDb.
And, please check out our blog European Film Star Postcards.
.... Artist, Michel de Broin's 'One Thousand Speculations', a 7.9 metre / 25 foot in diameter ball made up of 1,000 mirrors .... the world's largest mirror ball
Italian postcard by Cinema-Illustrazione, Milano, Serie 1, no. 36. Photo: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
The popular magazine Cinema-Illustrazione was founded in 1930. It originated from the journal Illustrazione, which started in 1926. From 1930 on, it only focussed on cinema. Among the editors was the later screenwriter Cesare Zavattini. The magazine offered bios of popular Hollywood stars and lots of glamour photos. In 1938, due to the Alfieri law, a monopoly on the import of American films by the Italian state started. Therefore the magazine gave more attention to Italian actors and films from then on. The magazine stopped to appear in September 1939.
Lupe Velez (1908-1944), was one of the first Mexican actresses to succeed in Hollywood. Her nicknames were 'The Mexican Spitfire' and 'Hot Pepper'. She was the leading lady in such silent films as The Gaucho (1927), Lady of the Pavements (1928), and Wolf Song (1929). During the 1930s, her well-known explosive screen persona was exploited in a series of successful films like Hot Pepper (1933), Strictly Dynamite (1934), and Hollywood Party (1934). In the 1940s, Vélez's popularity peaked after appearing in the Mexican Spitfire films, a series created to capitalise on Vélez's well-documented fiery personality. She had several highly publicised romances and a stormy marriage. In 1944, Vélez died of an intentional overdose of the barbiturate drug Seconal. Her death and the circumstances surrounding it have been the subject of speculation and controversy.
Lupe Vélez was born María Guadalupe Villalobos Vélez in 1908 in the city of San Luis Potosí in Mexico. She was the daughter of Jacobo Villalobos Reyes, a colonel in the army of the dictator Porfirio Diaz, and his wife Josefina Vélez, an opera singer according to some sources, or vaudeville singer according to others. She had three sisters: Mercedes, Reina and Josefina, and a brother, Emigdio. The family was financially comfortable and lived in a large home. At the age of 13, her parents sent her to study at Our Lady of the Lake (now Our Lady of the Lake University) in San Antonio, Texas. It was at Our Lady of the Lake that Vélez learned to speak English and began to dance. She later admitted that she liked dance class, but was otherwise a poor student. Denny Jackson at IMDb: "Life was hard for her family, and Lupe returned to Mexico to help them out financially. She worked as a salesgirl for a department store for the princely sum of $4 a week. Every week she would turn most of her salary over to her mother, but kept a little for herself so she could take dancing lessons. By now, she figured, with her mature shape and grand personality, she thought she could make a try at show business." She began her career as a performer in Mexican vaudeville in 1924. She initially performed under her paternal surname, but after her father returned home from the war, he was outraged that his daughter had decided to become a stage performer. She chose her maternal surname, "Vélez", as her stage name and her mother introduced Vélez and her sister Josefina to the popular Spanish Mexican vedette María Conesa, "La Gatita Blanca". Vélez debuted in a show led by Conesa, where she sang 'Oh Charley, My Boy' and danced the shimmy. Aurelio Campos, a young pianist, and friend of the Vélez sisters recommended Lupe to stage producers, Carlos Ortega and Manuel Castro. Ortega and Castro were preparing a season revue at the Regis Theatre and hired Vélez to join the company in March 1925. Later that year, Vélez starred in the revues 'Mexican Rataplan' and '¡No lo tapes!', both parodies of the Bataclan's shows in Paris. Her suggestive singing and provocative dancing was a hit with audiences, and she soon established herself as one of the main stars of vaudeville in Mexico. After a year and a half, Vélez left the revue after the manager refused to give her a raise. She then joined the Teatro Principal but was fired after three months due to her "feisty attitude". Vélez was quickly hired by the Teatro Lirico, where her salary rose to 100 pesos a day. In 1926, Frank A. Woodyard, an American who had seen Vélez perform, recommended her to stage director Richard Bennett, the father of actresses Joan and Constance Bennett. Bennett was looking for an actress to portray a Mexican cantina singer in his upcoming play 'The Dove'. He sent Vélez a telegram inviting her to Los Angeles to appear in the play. Vélez had been planning to go to Cuba to perform, but quickly changed her plans and traveled to Los Angeles. However, upon arrival, she discovered that she had been replaced by another actress.
While in Los Angeles, Lupe Vélez met the comedian Fanny Brice. Brice recommended her to Flo Ziegfeld, who hired her to perform in New York City. While Vélez was preparing to leave Los Angeles, she received a call from MGM producer Harry Rapf, who offered her a screen test. Producer and director Hal Roach saw Vélez's screen test and hired her for a small role in the comic Laurel and Hardy short Sailors, Beware! (Fred Guiol, Hal Yates, 1927). After her debut, Vélez appeared in another Hal Roach short, What Women Did for Me (James Parrott, 1927), opposite Charley Chase. Later that year, she did a screen test for the upcoming Douglas Fairbanks feature The Gaucho (F. Richard Jones, 1927). Fairbanks was impressed by Vélez and hired her to appear in the film with him. The Gaucho was a hit and critics were duly impressed with Vélez's ability to hold her own alongside Fairbanks, who was well known for his spirited acting and impressive stunts. Her second major film was Stand and Deliver (Donald Crisp, 1928), produced by Cecil B. DeMille. That same year, she was named one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars. Then she appeared in Lady of the Pavements (1929), directed by D. W. Griffith, and Where East Is East (Tod Browning, 1929), starring Lon Chaney as an animal trapper in Laos. In the Western The Wolf Song (Victor Fleming, 1929), she appeared alongside Gary Cooper. As she was regularly cast as 'exotic' or 'ethnic' women that were volatile and hot-tempered, gossip columnists took to referring to Vélez as "Mexican Hurricane", "The Mexican Wildcat", "The Mexican Madcap", "Whoopee Lupe" and "The Hot Tamale". Lupe Vélez made the transition to sound films without difficulty. Studio executives had predicted that her accent would likely hamper her ability to make the transition. That idea was dispelled after she appeared in the all-talking Rin Tin Tin vehicle, Tiger Rose (George Fitzmaurice, 1929). The film was a hit and Vélez's sound career was established. Vélez appeared in a series of Pre-Code films like Hell Harbor (Henry King, 1930), The Storm (William Wyler, 1930), and the crime drama East Is West (Monta Bell, 1930) opposite Edward G. Robinson. The next year, she appeared in her second film for Cecil B. DeMille, Squaw Man (Cecil B. DeMille, 1931), opposite Warner Baxter, in Resurrection (Edwin Carewe, 1931), and The Cuban Love Song (W.S. Van Dyke, 1931), with the popular singer Lawrence Tibbett. She had a supporting role in Kongo (William J. Cowen, 1932) with Walter Huston, a sound remake of West of Zanzibar (Tod Browning, 1928) which tries to outdo the Lon Chaney original in morbidity. She also starred in Spanish-language versions of Universal films like Resurrección (Eduardo Arozamena, David Selman, 1931), the Spanish version of Resurrection (1931), and Hombres en mi vida (Eduardo Arozamena, David Selman, 1932), the Spanish version of Men in Her Life (William Beaudine, 1931) in which Lois Moran had starred.
In 1932, Lupe Vélez took a break from her film career and traveled to New York City where she was signed by Broadway impresario Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. to take over the role of "Conchita" in the musical revue 'Hot-Cha!'. The show also starred Bert Lahr, Eleanor Powell, and Buddy Rogers. Back in Hollywood, Lupe switched to comedy after playing dramatic roles for five years. Denny Jackson at IMDb: "In 1933 she played the lead role of Pepper in Hot Pepper (1933). This film showcased her comedic talents and helped her to show the world her vital personality. She was delightful." After Hot Pepper (John G. Blystone, 1933) with Edmund Lowe and Victor McLaglen, Lupe played beautiful but volatile, characters in a series of successful films like Strictly Dynamite (Elliott Nugent, 1934), Palooka (Benjamin Stoloff, 1934) both opposite Jimmy Durante, and Hollywood Party (Allan Dwan, a.o., 1934) with Laurel and Hardy. Although Vélez was a popular actress, RKO Pictures did not renew her contract in 1934. Over the next few years, Vélez worked for various studios as a freelance actress; she also spent two years in England where she filmed The Morals of Marcus (Miles Mander, 1935) and Gypsy Melody (Edmond T. Gréville, 1936). She returned to Los Angeles the following year where she appeared in the final part of the Wheeler & Woolsey comedy High Flyers (Edward F. Cline, 1937). In 1938, Vélez made her final appearance on Broadway in the musical You Never Know, by Cole Porter. The show received poor reviews from critics but received a large amount of publicity due to the feud between Vélez and fellow cast member Libby Holman. Holman was irritated by the attention Vélez garnered from the show with her impersonations of several actresses including Gloria Swanson, Katharine Hepburn, and Shirley Temple. The feud came to a head during a performance in New Haven, Connecticut after Vélez punched Holman in between curtain calls and gave her a black eye. The feud effectively ended the show. Upon her return to Mexico City in 1938 to star in her first Mexican film, Vélez was greeted by ten thousand fans. The film La Zandunga (Fernando de Fuentes, 1938) co-starring Arturo de Córdova, was a critical and financial success. Vélez was slated to appear in four more Mexican films, but instead, she returned to Los Angeles and went back to work for RKO Pictures. In 1939, Lupe Vélez was cast opposite Leon Errol and Donald Woods in the B-comedy, The Girl from Mexico (Leslie Goodwins, 1939). Despite being a B film, it was a hit with audiences and RKO re-teamed her with Errol and Wood for a sequel, Mexican Spitfire (Leslie Goodwins, 1940). That film was also a success and led to a series of eight Spitfire films. Wikipedia: "In the series, Vélez portrays Carmelita Lindsay, a temperamental yet friendly Mexican singer married to Dennis 'Denny' Lindsay (Woods), an elegant American gentleman. The Spitfire films rejuvenated Vélez's career. Moreover, they were films in which a Latina headlined for eight films straight –a true rarity." In addition to the Spitfire series, she was cast in such films as Six Lessons from Madame La Zonga (John Rawlins, 1941), Playmates (David Butler, 1941) opposite John Barrymore, and Redhead from Manhattan (Lew Landers, 1943). In 1943, the final film in the Spitfire series, Mexican Spitfire's Blessed Event (Leslie Goodwins, 1943), was released. By that time, the novelty of the series had begun to wane. Velez co-starred with Eddie Albert in the romantic comedy, Ladies' Day (Leslie Goodwins, 1943), about an actress and a baseball player. In 1944, Vélez returned to Mexico to star in an adaptation of Émile Zola's novel Nana (Roberto Gavaldón, Celestino Gorostiza, 1944), which was well-received. It would be her final film. After filming wrapped, Vélez returned to Los Angeles and began preparing for another stage role in New York.
Lupe Vélez's temper and jealousy in her often tempestuous romantic relationships were well documented and became tabloid fodder, often overshadowing her career. Vélez was straightforward with the press and was regularly contacted by gossip columnists for stories about her romantic exploits. Her first long-term relationship was with actor Gary Cooper. Vélez met Cooper while filming The Wolf Song in 1929 and began a two-year affair with him. The relationship was passionate but often stormy. Reportedly Vélez chased Cooper around with a knife during an argument and cut him severely enough to require stitches. By that time, the rocky relationship had taken its toll on Cooper who had lost 45 pounds and was suffering from nervous exhaustion. Paramount Pictures ordered him to take a vacation to recuperate. While he was boarding the train, Vélez showed up at the train station and fired a pistol at him. During her marriage to actor Johnny Weissmuller, stories of their frequent physical fights were regularly reported in the press. Vélez reportedly inflicted scratches, bruises, and love-bites on Weissmuller during their fights and "passionate love-making". In July 1934, after ten months of marriage, Vélez filed for divorce citing cruelty. She withdrew the petition a week later after reconciling with Weissmuller. In January 1935, she filed for divorce a second time and was granted an interlocutory decree that was dismissed when the couple reconciled a month later. In August 1938, Vélez filed for divorce for a third time, again charging Weissmuller with cruelty. Their divorce was finalised in August 1939. After the divorce became final, Vélez began dating actor Guinn "Big Boy" Williams in late 1940. They were reportedly engaged but never married. Vélez was also linked to author Erich Maria Remarque and the boxers Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey. In 1943, Vélez began an affair with her La Zandunga co-star Arturo de Córdova. De Córdova had recently moved to Hollywood after signing with Paramount Pictures. Despite the fact that de Córdova was married to Mexican actress Enna Arana with whom he had four children, Vélez granted an interview to gossip columnist Louella Parsons in September 1943 and announced that the two were engaged. Vélez ended the engagement in early 1944, reportedly after de Córdova's wife refused to give him a divorce. Vélez then met and began dating a struggling young Austrian actor named Harald Maresch (who went by the stage name Harald Ramond). In September 1944, she discovered she was pregnant with Ramond's child. She announced their engagement in late November 1944. On 10 December, four days before her death, Vélez announced she had ended the engagement and kicked Ramond out of her home. On the evening of 13 December 1944, Vélez dined with her two friends, the silent film star Estelle Taylor and Venita Oakie. In the early morning hours of 14 December, Vélez retired to her bedroom, where she consumed 75 Seconal pills and a glass of brandy. Her secretary, Beulah Kinder, found the actress's body on her bed later that morning. A suicide note addressed to Harald Ramond was found nearby. Lupe Vélez was only 36 years old. More than four-thousand people filed past her casket during her funeral. Her body was interred in Mexico City, at Panteón Civil de Dolores Cemetery. Velez' estate, valued at $125,000 and consisting mostly of her Rodeo House home, two cars, jewelry, and personal effects were left to her secretary Beulah Kinder with the remainder in trust for her mother, Mrs. Josephine Velez. Together with Dolores del Rio, Ramon Novarro, and José Mojica, she was one of the few Mexican people who had made history in the early years of Hollywood.
Sources: Raffaele De Berti (Dallo schermo alla carta), Denny Jackson (IMDb), Wikipedia, and IMDb.
And, please check out our blog European Film Star Postcards.
Below is a copy of an actual debate between myself (as Truth in science) and some militant atheists.
Is atheism exposed as bankrupt? Read the debate below, and judge for yourself .....
This debate took place in response to an image ridiculing Christians posted by militant atheist (Silly Deity) on his photostream. Anyone looking at his photostream can see it wholly consists of images insulting and ridiculing religion and religious people.
It commenced with a comment by another militant atheist (Badpenny) supporting the image posted by Silly Deity ...
The image posted by Silly Deity with the original debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/131599163@N05/18212093014
I have copied it all in this post to give it more public exposure, and also in case the original is deleted.
THE DEBATE FOLLOWS:
__________________________________________
Bad penny begins the debate by commenting on an image ridiculing Christians. It insinuates that Christians have no sensible argument, and that the only argument they have is to threaten people with Hell.
____________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
I reckon that neatly sums it up :)
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Wrong! Theists do have a VERY reasonable argument based on logic, natural law and fundamental scientific principles. Unlike atheists, who have no such logical argument,
Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Sorru #TruthinScience but you've pedalling that same old bollocks for ages now in the hope that the gullible or those with no understanding will buy your sciencey sounding shite as truth
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You obviously have no understanding.
Apparently, you have swallowed the ludicrous fable that the universe created itself from nothing, without any cause and for no reason - and you think that is 'science'.
If you disagree with my logical argument (based on natural law and scientific principles) let's see your point by point logical and scientific argument for your non-contingent, autonomous, self-creating, adequate, natural, first cause?
Or is it just the usual bluff, bluster and hot air that I get all the time from atheists? Who are very good at dishing out ridicule and abuse to anyone who refuses to swallow their naturalist ideology, but very poor at logically or scientifically justifying it.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
So basically there has to be a beginning,a prime mover,an initial cause for,well,everything so therefore it follows from the point of view of logic that this first cause is god.
Is that a fair summation of your proof and scientific evidene ???
How do you know this initial cause was god.
Perhaps there was a some event outside of our universe that set our universe into existence.Something non intelligent or sentient that pushed the plunger that ignited the big bang.
I am unable to determine in any realistic way what it was that started the ball rolling in exactly the same way you are unable to.
All you have done here is taken a logical argument and applied it to something that you know fine no one can verify or refute.
Your logical and scientific evidence is mere speculation in the same way all theories of what occured before the big bang are specualtion.Without being able to look back before the beginning to see if there is a cause or anything at all it's all just interesting notions.
If you are touting logic as the proof of your viewpoint then the same logic dictates that something came before god so what was that then ????
Presently cause and effect are deemed to be a universal rule,you're own explanation as I've understood it so far demands this particular order and progression of events but back beyond the big bang,the singularity the laws of physics appear to breakdown so can you definitively show that the time and the law of cause and effect alone remains in tact.
Of course,unless you're privvy to some special knowledge that no one else has ever know or knows today then in all truth you are stumbling around in the dark like everyone else .No ????
Also,you are doing the usual if not this then that juggle that people use all the time.
If there has to be an initial cause then that cause has to be god.
As I've said,yes cause and effect are the fundamental to our universe but until we can say that there is nothing outside or before our universe OR that there is then all bets are off.The laws that dictate here may hold no sway outside our universe and maybe they do but at this point in time we have no way of saying either way.
Obviously you are convinced you can so I'd love to hear how you think you are able beyond applying logic puzzles to that which we can neither see,measure or even state with confidence exists,existed or even possible
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Of course,you do realise logic is just a tool help you think objectively.It's not truth itself just like mathematics is just a language to describe reality not reality itself.
Putting something into a logical argument is just away to apply logic to something,it doesn't make that thing true or suddenly real....you do understand that don't you ???
I could make a logical argument to say that I could become the president of the US but that doesn't mean I will be.
Applying logic to anything at all you can imagine has no effect whatsoever on the real,physical world.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You wrote:
"So basically there has to be a beginning,a prime mover,an initial cause for,well,everything so therefore it follows from the point of view of logic that this first cause is god.
Is that a fair summation of your proof and scientific evidene ???
How do you know this initial cause was god.
Perhaps there was a some event outside of our universe that set our universe into existence.Something non intelligent or sentient that pushed the plunger that ignited the big bang."
The first cause cannot be a natural first cause, that is obvious because all natural events are contingent. There is no such thing as a non-contingent natural entity or event. Science is about looking for causes for every natural thing or occurrence. Every natural effect has to have a cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause/s. That is the fundamental principle behind ALL scientific enquiry. If you don't accept that principle you cannot practice science. A first cause has to be uncaused, or it wouldn't be first. If it is the very first cause in a chain of causes and effects it not only has to be uncaused it also has to be adequate to produce everything that follows it. Nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to that which ultimately caused it. So, the first cause has to be capable of creating every property and quality that exists in the universe. Which, of course, includes life, intelligence, information, consciousness etc.
If you think there can be such a thing as an uncaused, natural, first cause which is capable of creating all those attributes, please tell us what it is?
You wrote:
"The laws that dictate here may hold no sway outside our universe and maybe they do but at this point in time we have no way of saying either way"
Laws of nature are based on the properties of natural things, they describe those properties. contingency is a basic property of all natural things. That law is fundamental, it cannot be different elsewhere. If matter/energy was once some sort of non-contingent, autonomous being, why would it change its nature to an inferior one where it is subject to the limitations of causality? To claim that matter/energy is, or once was, an autonomous, non-contingent entity is to imbue it with the attributes of God. It is simply replacing the supernatural, first cause - God, with a natural deity.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Again you are making sweeping assumptions about the conditions previous to our universe and stating as fact that what's a natural law within the universe is both fundamental and natural outwith it or before it.
___________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Until you can categorically state what was before the big bang,that the universe is all there is where nothing exist beyond it.Until you can state what conditions prevailed before our universe began you cannot with certaintity make definitive claims what the first cause consist of because you cannot difinitively state what was natural and fundamental before the start of our universe.You cannot even do more than claim that the big bang was a result of a first cause.How do you know the there aren't entirely different laws that prevail in the time and/or space before/beyond our present universe.
There could be an infinite number of universe that all have different laws prevailing within them.
Until you fully know the nature of our universe,whether it's all there is,the first and only one to exist you cannot say with certainty that laws the govern how ours work our the same laws outwith and therefore all statements pertaining to the conditons before our universe are equally uncertain.
How exactly does the quantum world relate to your ever regressing complexity of causes as much of what is observed there does necessarily conform strictly to your natural laws of cause and effect.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Fundamentally what you are doing is the ultimate example of the god of the gaps.Everything that has happened since the big bang is natural therefore what came before cannot be natural or contingent because that is the natural law ever since.You cannot and don't know what came before so it has to be god because the big bang was the first event.The first event that created the conditions we exist in so.........
Yes it was the beginning of our universe but perhaps there's a continous cycle where the universe begins,has it's life cycle before collapsing in on itself down to an infinite point where it begins all over again so on and so on.
Until it is possible to observe back beyond/before the big bang which it seems likely is impossible you cannot apply the laws that govern here.
You would have to know for sure these fundamental laws were created in the event that created the universe or that they existed before,beyond and outwith the universe all together .Again you cannot make such categorical statements while knowing nothing of what was before it.How can you even be sure time existed before the big bang.
Without time,without entropy and the conservation of energy there may be no order the governs cause and effect.There may even be a god or there may not be,with no knowledge what came before the beginning of our universe you cannot be certain what laws are a product of the universe and what are laws outwith it.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
So you want to indulge in fantasy and still claim it is science.
If you want to evade the Law of Causality, and other natural laws that destroy your naturalist argument, you step outside of science.
Nevertheless, you still pretend to be working within a scientific framework by proposing causes which are actually non-causes.
You seem to think you can glibly dismiss natural laws as irrelevant to the argument, when they are absolutely crucial to any ‘scientific’ argument.
There is NO god of the gaps.
The so-called gaps are created by your own, unscientific fantasies.
The universe was CAUSED - there are no gaps, there is only the question – was the CAUSE natural or supernatural?
If you claim it was ‘natural’ but at the same time you want to claim that natural laws did not apply, you are simply contradicting yourself. You are effectively claiming supernatural abilities for a natural cause, which cannot possibly have supernatural abilities. In other words, you are endowing nature with godlike abilities and attributes, which science tells us nature certainly does not possess.
The god of the gaps argument is stupid. We can only deal in known facts, not a never ending, stream of what if’s or maybes, conjured up by fertile imaginations working overtime.
And all your - ‘what if’s?’ can be easily debunked.
For example - a cyclical universe, is similar to applying the scientifically, discredited idea of perpetual motion on a grand scale to the universe. Firstly, matter/energy is contingent, it always is, and always has been, contingent. It is not, and cannot be, autonomously, self-existent.
Secondly, the universe is running down from a peak of initial, energy potential at its creation. It cannot rewind itself any more than a clock can – there is no such thing as a free lunch, to suggest otherwise is fantastical nonsense, not credible science or logic.
‘What if’s’ or maybes are not logical arguments, they are just a way of evading definitive conclusions which are uncomfortable.
That is the whole basis of the god of the gaps argument, they are just fantasy gaps which can never be filled by anything, because as one gap is filled another can be immediately invented.
Anyone can attempt to destroy any logical conclusions by creating their own ‘gaps’ with endless, bizarre - what if’s and maybes?
Well how about this - What if I don’t actually exist? ‘What if’ you think you are having this discussion with a person, but really, I am just a clever, robotic, word generator in cyberspace? It would mean you are wasting your time, because I can just generate answers and ‘what if’s’ until the cows come home – and ‘what if’ the cows don’t ever come home? – It means all your arguments are just gaps in my – endless stream of - what if’s? And if you manage to fill one gap and answer one of my - what if’s?, I can just keep creating more and more, so your argument is, and always will be, useless. It is just an argument of never-ending gaps.
As for time – time is a physical thing, which theists knew long before Einstein confirmed it.
Theists have always known that where physical things exist, time MUST exist. Put simply, time is the chronology of physical events.
Matter/energy cannot exist in a timeless state. Only non-physical entities can be timeless.
2 + 2 = 4 is both statistical information and a true fact. Information and truth are both non-physical entities which (unlike physical entities) can exist independently of time. They are, in effect, eternal. Time does not in any way affect them. Only the tangible expression of information and truth in physical media can be eroded by time, but not the essence of their existence.
Truth and information exist whether they are made tangible in physical form or not.
If any physical thing or cause existed before the alleged Big Bang, it had to be subject to time.
Which, means - that which existed in a timeless state before the creation event of a physical universe (the first cause) had to be a non-physical entity. There is no other option.
Your claim that we can have no knowledge of anything before the material universe or the alleged Big Bang is completely spurious. Logic and science are tools that help us to make predictions and sensible and reasonable assessments and conclusions. They help us to know what is possible and likely - and especially, in this instance, to know what is IMPOSSIBLE. We do KNOW that a self-created, autonomous, NATURAL, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE. There are no ifs and buts about it, that is what science, logic, reason and common sense tells us.
And that is enough to debunk the atheist belief in an all-powerful, self-creative, non-contingent, Mother Nature.
To dispute that is not only irrational, it is the hallmark of a dogmatic, illogical and unscientific ideology.
As for quantum effects, they may appear random and uncaused, but they are most definitely not. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
So, the idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a particular number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc. we could predict the number in advance. So just because, in some instances, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the end result, doesn’t mean there are ever no causes.
You wrote:
"There could be an infinite number of universe that all have different laws prevailing within them."
No there couldn't.
The 'Multiverse' idea is as nonsensical as it sounds, and has been soundly debunked.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15897203833
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Since the bizarrely named "Truth in science" is so fond of repeating the fallacy that his drivel is based on "the principles of science" let's look at the principles of science shall we?
There are five basic components to the scientific method:
1) From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem).
2) Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome.
3) Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. ( All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable.)
4) Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis.
5) Further modify and repeat the experiments.
"Truth in science" fails to get beyond step 2.
He is also repeatedly pedalling the notions so succinctly described earlier as "bollocks" otherwise termed logical fallacies.
This is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.
So.........."Truth in science" fails the Principles of Science test and also uses logical fallacies as a means to deceive.
Yep!! Bollocks just about sums it up!
____________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Ah no way my latest reply written last night has gone astray.
It was very much along the lines of your response Silly Diety although I'd hasten to admit not as eloquently put.
Basically,if you live by the sword then you will die by the sword.Or more aptly if TruthinScience is going to continously invoke science to frame his argument in a manner that appears both authoritative and beyond argument then he has to remain within the bounds of science.
As I think I said in an earlier reply science,much like critical thinking,logic and reason,is not a particular set of complex or technological subjects but a tool and a framework for the study and advancement of knowledge that is based on observation,analysis,hypothesis,prediction,experimentation to tthe predictions,divising similarly or more liable explanations...i.e falsification and then ongoing refining ofyour hypothesis even if it is fully accepted and becomes a scientific theory.....as Newton's work on gravity gave way to Einstein centuries later.There are NO sacred cows in science as Newton would attest if he were alive today and the day may come when Einstein is proven to have got relativity completely upside down if the evidence is stong enough to prove it.
Now why doesn't TruthinScience's claims bear any resemblence to science ???
Quite simply he is making definitive statements that he knows and can prove what happened before our universe began.
His arguments about causality and contingent and natural causes sound very compelling at first glance,science certainly does seem to confirm cause and effect and certainly seems at first to support time as a river that only flows one way but the point is that these natural laws as he puts it,these fundamental laws that govern our universe have as he suggests been observed to apply across the entire universe from the moment of the big bang forwards until this second.
But we CANNOT look further back in time than the big bang,our science and laws of physics can alliw us to model and imply what happened millionths of a second after the big band but note AFTER not before.
We have no way of observing back before the big bang and can only see as far as light has travelled since then giving us a horizon beyond which we can not see and therefore cannot make observations of,about,from either.
Therefore the science cannot say anything at all about either what occured,what was there,the potential cause,whethee time and space existwd in any sense we could understand or even if such fundamental laws like causality applied.If everything started with the big bang i.e time and space,then seeing as causality (cause and effect) are contingent on time then is there any reason at all to imagine causality meant anything pre big bang ???
The real answer is,the scientific answer absolutely,is there is simply no way of knowing,there may never be a way of see back before the big bang so the probability is we may never know though every time such statements have been made,that some knowledge is beyond science it's eventually been discovered and understood by science but.......
TruthinScience is clearly taking laws of physics that are well established and seemingly understood amd applying them to an area that isn't.That is a sound logical and reasoned approach but to apply them to something that is so far beyond our knowledge we don't even know if it can ever be observed or how that could happen is completely unscientific......it's what's known as psuedoscience.If it had any true grounding in logic or reason it may be a form of philosophy but it's too ad hock and cobbled together to be that.
At the very best and most generous his claims could be said to amount to an hypothosis but when they are based on a fog of reason like they are that's being too kind.
I know what it is he objects too so strongly and that's other hypothoses by real scientist about possible causes or ways that the universe could have come about without the necessity for a FIRST SUPERNATURAL INTENTION CONTINGENT CAUSE i.e god.Personally,the only one I've really read and have an understanding of is Laurence Kraus and his 'A Universe from Nothing' which I highly recommend anyone to read.
The one thing to note though is as he takes great pains to stress throughout the book it's a hypothosis that COULD explain how a universe can be created from seemingly nothing (although it would appear nothing is the operative word as empty space devoid of matter of any kind still has mass and energy).What TrurhinScience and many,many other theists fail to grasp os he's offering an expanation that remains within the bounds of science yet he freely admits that doesn't mean it's what happened,that there is no way of knowing what happened for all the reasons I've stated.
Shit,who knows there may be something extremely bizarre behind it all like some big,old bearded man who waved his hand and 7 days later
.......lol
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
As Bertrand Russell so eloquently stated:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
The reliance on logic alone to "prove" something fails because logic is not empiricism (which is fundamental to science). It fails to provide EVIDENCE..........something sorely lacking in "Truth in science's" rants. His presumption that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other is simply an example of false cause. To make such presumptions with no evidence means that his argument falls flat on its face.
So he fails on the scientific principles (miserably) and he fails on logic too.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
Nice try, but I am afraid it is another gigantic fail. You have simply hoisted yourself on your own petard.
None of the proposed, fantasy, natural, origin scenarios invented by atheists in order to get around natural laws and scientific principles are testable - none are observable - none are subject to experiment and - none are repeatable.
So NONE of them have got anything whatsoever to do with genuine science.
For example, tell us how a ‘singularity’ or a ‘multiverse’ can be tested, observed, or demonstrated by repeated experiment?
The Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws which atheists glibly dismiss, and which definitively rule out a natural, first cause - ARE testable - ARE observable and - ARE subject to repeatable experiment.
We can only deal in FACTS, not atheist myths and fantasy.
The existence and veracity of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws IS A FACT.
The idea that natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method didn’t apply to the origin of the universe or of matter/energy is NOT a fact, it is no better and no more credible than a fairy story or Bertrand Russell’s, flying teapot.
I don’t claim that a supernatural first cause can be proven by science, it can’t, because it is outside the remit of science, which can only deal with natural events and entities.
But the atheist idea of a natural, first cause can also never be proven by science.
However, science CAN DISPROVE a natural, first cause of the universe - and that is exactly what it does.
Science tells us that a natural first cause is impossible. Science can only look for adequate causes, that is the fundamental principle and raison d’etre of the scientific method.
Science cannot look for non-causes – or for inadequate causes – or for non-contingency – or for natural things self-creating themselves from nothing.
Therefore, the claim that atheist naturalism has anything to do with science is completely bogus.
In fact, atheism is anti-science - because it seeks to contradict the verdict of the scientific method and natural law.
If we apply the scientific method to the origin of the universe/matter - science tells us that it had to have an adequate cause, but atheists say no! We can't accept that, science must be wrong, we propose that the universe was causeless.
If that is what atheists want to believe, then fair enough, but they should stop calling it 'science', it is anti-science.
As for Mr Krauss and - his universe from the ‘nothing’ that isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’ - space/time, you would need to be extremely gullible to fall for that load of nonsense.
It is just another desperate, atheist attempt to get around the Law of Cause and Effect.
Presumably he thinks that if he can fool people into believing that something, which is an integral part of the material realm is – no different from nothing (i.e. no thing). Then he can avoid having to explain what caused it?
Nothing (that which doesn’t exist) obviously doesn’t need a cause. However, Mr Krauss’ nothing is a bogus ‘nothing’ … so, unfortunately for him, it certainly does require an adequate cause, just like everything else in the material realm. So the whole exercise is spurious and devious nonsense. One thing is certain, it is not science, it is just fantasy.
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
Getting a bit desparate eh?
Can't refute the issue that you don't understand the science or scientific principles?
Can't deny that you use logical fallacies?
So you pepper your response with a few more of the latter, ignoring the self-same scientific principles you claim to espouse, while introducing the odd red-herring and conflating theories of the origin of the universe with atheism.
A bit of a messy really.
Desparate too.
_______________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Truth in PsuedoScience I honestly cannot be bothered trying to refute your nonsense anymore I'm losing interest and the will to continue by going over and over it ad infinitum .....of course you,like all theists will claim it as your victory but you don't get it,you refuse to contemplate anyrhing that doesn't fit you particular beliefs and you won't be remotely swayed from your abslotue certainty despite the fact you're making a fool.of your self by firmly clinging to the label scientific....even a high school kid just starting out in basic science could see the gaping fallacy at the heart of your bullshit but you blythely ignore it making you dishonest or you just don't see it making you not exactly the sharpest tool.
Either way m8 I have to respect the law of free speech (the most important and fundamental of laws lol) which afterall allows you to talk whatever pigs swill you like and be judged by it.
Can I just add with science observations,results,evidence are what determines the theory the outcome if you like.You DON'T start with a confirmed conviction and shape the evidence to fit it.
____________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
Is that the best either of you can do?
In other words, like every other atheist I have encountered, you don't have a credible answer or response.
Of course, you bluff it out and pretend that you have refuted my argument.
But I have shown that it is science and logic that you are trying to refute, not me. And that is why you are doomed to failure.
Atheists masquerade as the champions of science but, all the while, they hate the verdict that science has for their cherished ideology.
The only arguments they ever present to justify belief in their religion of naturalism are based on fantasies which seek to undermine natural laws and basic scientific principles. Such as; a universe self-creating from some sort of bogus 'nothing' or a magical, so-called singularity where no laws apply. They are clearly nothing to do with genuine science, they are just devices to fool people into thinking atheist naturalism is credible.
Atheist naturalism is a completely blind faith, one that has no support from natural law, logic or science.
You obviously can't answer the question I posed: tell us how a ‘singularity’ or a ‘multiverse’ can be tested, observed, or demonstrated by repeated experiment?
I will leave people reading through my arguments and your responses to judge who has won the argument - but they can be sure of one thing that I have demonstrated, that the point presented in the image is completely erroneous. It is not theists, who don't have a reasonable rebuttal of any arguments, but atheists.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
Bob
He's the one making the claims here...........no one else. He can't provide evidence to support those claims so resorts to flim-flam.
As I said earlier................just a bit desparate.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Come on PsuedoScience now you are throwing out scientific method as if you were applying it all along.
A multiverse ???
Have you not read my main arguement over umpteen replys now I have stated that we are unable to observe back before thw big bang and the 'birth' of our universe.That means no observations of god with a match,a multiverse,a continueing cycle of big bangs or any other hypothesis rational or batshit crazy you can possibly suggest.
Do you not get this fundamental basic fact,i cannot prove,observe or test or take a fucking stroll in a multiverse.I thought that point was self evident any more than you can prove,observe or state what came before either.The point is neither of us can say anymore than the other but science which you claim is your master can at best just hypothosise it cannot state fact,prove,observe,test anything pre big bang either so your claims being proven by science are as disingenuos as any claim I decided to state as fact.
Do you not understand that yet.No obsevations,no way to test or experiment,predict etc,etc means science has nothing definitive to say about it as yet nor can it prove what happened.......do you not get this genuinely straight forward premise.
As for singularitys.......observe the centre of almost any galaxy you wish to study.You'll find a super massive black hole or all the predicted effects of one.Isn't a black hole a singularity then ????
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
I know Silly Deity that he's the one making spurious claims but seriously beginning to piss me off.....not because of his pure unshackelled belief that he's cracked it and won't listen but because people may actually believe he's based his claims in sound science
___________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Oh yes and Psuedo you do realise that simply 'defeating' the multiverse or singularity idea in your own mind doesn't mean your claims are true.
I cannot prove of make statements of fact about the origin of the universe but that doesn't mean that you in that case must be right.It's not either or.
Your whole premise of calling something bogus or demanding that everyone else's suggestions must withstand scientific rigour you don't apply to your claim is basically a straw man.As if the best argument against your beliefs is the multiverse hypothesis so if you can show it cannot be proven therefore you win.No it doesn't work that way.
How have you made observations of your first cause god then,how did you measure,quantify his existence and that he was responsible for putting it all into action.Experiments and test ???
Come on,just banging on about natural laws and causality does nothing whatsoever to observe,analyse,test,experiment on god.
Come on,you're the real,true scientist here......explain how first before you can expect anyone to take you seriously
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You wrote:
"Do you not get this fundamental basic fact,i cannot prove,observe or test or take a fucking stroll in a multiverse.I thought that point was self evident any more than you can prove,observe or state what came before either.The point is neither of us can say anymore than the other but science which you claim is your master can at best just hypothosise it cannot state fact,prove,observe,test anything pre big bang either so your claims being proven by science are as disingenuos as any claim I decided to state as fact."
So why do atheists continuously present such unscientific nonsense as a 'multiverse', or the universe from nothing without a cause, as 'science'? It doesn't even make logical or common sense, let alone scientific sense.
It is all sheer, magical fantasy.
If you are going to frame a scientific hypothesis, then you should do so according to the facts we know - and within the framework of natural laws and the principle of causality which lies behind the scientific method.
You should not just dream up any old, imaginative nonsense, which tramples on natural laws and the basic principle of science, and then present it as the latest, greatest, scientific explanation of how the universe originated and/or a so-called 'Theory of Everything' which effectively makes a supernatural, first cause redundant. When, in fact, it is a Theory of absolutely Nothing,
it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory.
And then why have the barefaced cheek to accuse anyone who challenges atheist, naturalist fantasies or questions the scientific credibility of abandoning natural laws and scientific principles with such airy fairy, mythological fables, as indulging in pseudoscience and advocating a "god of the gaps?"
The ONLY motivation atheists have for dismissing and opposing natural laws and scientific principles, concerning origins, is an ideological one. It is nothing whatsoever to do with science or logic. It is ONLY to do with trying to preserve their religious devotion to naturalism. So, stop pretending it is science.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. The fact that atheists deliberately abandon natural laws and scientific principles in ALL of their proposed origin scenarios, just because they are inconvenient to their naturalist ideology, actually makes atheism - anti-science.
Put simply - I respect natural laws and the fundamental principle of the scientific method. And I present a logical argument for the origin of everything, simply on that basis.
Whereas - you reject and hate natural laws and the fundamental principle of the scientific method as far as they relate to origins.
And you live in the vain and contradictory hope that somehow, someday, someone will present a 'scientific' argument for the origin of everything which can ignore or refute natural laws and basic scientific principles. In the meantime, you are quite willing to consider any hair-brained unscientific idea or fantasy that supports your naturalistic beliefs, regardless of whether they violate natural laws, in preference to any logical argument that respects them.
And you refer to my logical argument based on natural laws and scientific principles as the 'god of the gaps'. The 'gaps' are only created by your fantastical belief and wishful thinking that natural laws will someday be shown not to apply.
So who is indulging in pseudoscience? I think the answer to that is obvious.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
So......................................back to familiar territory yet again with strawman arguments and ad hominem atttacks.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) did NOT present the multiverse as a cause. If you actually bothered to read his response you would have realised that he was saying nothing of the sort.
You plainly DON'T respect the scientific method otherwise you would present evidence to support your claims. You consistently fail to do that.
Your rant simply confirms the caricature in my image. Talk about life imitating art!
___________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
"Life imitating art!" He, he. Love it!!!!
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
If you had actually bothered to read my comment properly you would know that I didn't accuse him of presenting the multiverse as a ‘cause'.
I asked: "So why do atheists continuously present such unscientific nonsense as a 'multiverse', or the universe from nothing without a cause, as 'science'?"
In fact, the only reason that atheists invent such bizarre, origin scenarios as; a multiverse - or a universe from nothing, is to avoid having to explain a cause.
They think they can hoodwink the public into believing they are credible explanations of how everything could come into existence from nothing, without needing an adequate cause.
The scientific fact that every natural occurrence and entity requires an adequate cause is absolutely fatal to atheist, naturalist beliefs. So, atheists are compelled to waste their lives trying to devise origin scenarios which they think can fool people into believing that everything CAN come from nothing without a cause. Unfortunately for them, every sensible person, who is not indoctrinated with atheist pseudoscience, knows it CAN'T.
The amazing thing is, that you and the other 2 stooges, on here actually fall for such nonsense and think it is credible science.
Atheists even have the cheek to rip off theist arguments to try to silence any opposition. Such as the theist argument that ("to ask what caused God? is an invalid question, because the first cause - by virtue of being first - could have no preceding cause"). Atheists cynically apply a similar concept (in disguise) to their naturalistic fantasies - i.e. "to ask what caused the universe to arise from nothing? is an invalid question. It is like asking what is north of the North Pole?" Which of course anyone with any sense knows it isn't. To ask - what caused any and every natural occurrence or entity? Is not only a valid question, it is also an essential question. A question which true science demands we ask.
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 science and natural law. You can't do both...
Which do you choose?
________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
Let me translate what you've just stated:
I've repeatedly dodged providing evidence to support the initial claim that I made.
Instead I've quoted one of the individuals who questioned the validity of my claim and then turned that into a straw man argument by distorting his question to give the impression I was refuting his argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by him in the first place.
I know that this was pointed out to me but I flatly deny that I've done this and will now repeat that self-same straw man (incorporating sweeping generalisations).
Now having tried to wriggle out of that I'll make some bizarre and inaccurate statements about science and throw in some ad hominem attacks for good measure as that's something I like to do.
I'll round it off with a false dichotomy which results in me once more dodging the fact that I've no evidence to support my original claim and tries to hide that I'm talking absolute bullshit.
Yes. Life imitating art it most certainly is. I posted that image little realising how accurate it was but true to form "Truth in pseudoscience" you have repeatedly confirmed its accuracy.
__________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You have produced no logical or scientific justification for atheism. Whereas I have presented a logical argument based on natural law and scientific principles for theism which should satisfy any reasonable person. Furthermore, I have presented a logical argument as to why atheist naturalism is unscientific nonsense. I don’t expect you, or any other died-in-the-wool atheist to accept it, because 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. 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.
Your 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. You are clearly not a genuine agnostic, because you come down firmly on the side of atheism made evident by the fact that you support ‘silly deities’ posts and photostream which attacks theism. 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”.
As I said before:
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...
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
I'll make this very simple "Truth in pseudoscience"
You made a claim.
The scientific method requires that you provide evidence for your claim. That is a fundamental scientific principle.
Logical argument is not evidence. Particularly when such arguments are logical fallacies. For example I could state the following:
1. Some men are doctors.
2. Some doctors are women.
3. Therefore, some men are women.
Logically that is correct, however it is patently wrong. In order to prove it true I would have to provide evidence. That is the problem with your arguments. Arguments are not evidence. You may think they are logical but they fail because they are logical fallacies and because you provide no EVIDENCE to support your claim.
Everything else you've stated (the straw man arguments, the reversal of burden of proof, the ad hominem attacks, the quoting the phrase "natural laws" ad nauseum) is merely you dodging for the umpteenth time the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim.
I'll repeat, the scientific method requires that you provide evidence for your claim. That is a fundamental scientific principle.
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE
Your failure to grasp this and the nature of your responses simply reinforces the satire contained in the original image.
________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
Your comments are as pathetic as your original image.
Your ridiculous image, which you seem to be so proud of, is a straw man portrayal of a Christian, which bears no relationship whatsoever to any Christian I know, or know of. It is nothing more than a crude and offensive stereotype which exists only in the imagination of atheist ideologues and zealots. I have shown it to be entirely false. I have shown that theism is based on eminently reasonable arguments and that it is atheism that is unreasonable nonsense with NO credible, logical or scientific argument Furthermore I have not mentioned, nor have I needed to mention, anyone being condemned to hell.
As for your stupid example of a logical argument, it bears no comparison to my logical argument.
Science uses natural laws to predict and assess the answers to questions, that is all science can do. It cannot make predictions or assessments based on the idea that natural laws are not valid. My logical argument is the ONLY possible assessment based on the validity of natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method. if you think that is wrong, once again, I challenge you to give a logical or scientific argument against it?
My evidence is that natural laws can be observed, and tested by repeated experiment and have been shown to be valid in all known circumstances - AND that scientific research cannot even be carried out without an acknowledgement that we can expect every natural occurrence to have an adequate cause. I cite the known and tested universality of natural laws and scientific principles as my evidence.
My evidence is the fact that science and natural law supports my logical argument for a supernatural, first cause and definitively rejects the notion of a natural, first cause. It couldn't be clearer than that.
My argument is based on things we know, ALL atheist arguments are based on fantasy - what ifs, maybes, what we don't know and are never likely to know.
_________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
So your evidence is...........just a repeat of you saying you're right and everyone else is wrong? You don't seem to get what the scientific method requires of those who make claims.
A central theme of science and scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or at least empirically based, that is, it should depend on evidence or results that can be observed by our senses. Scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experience or observations and empirical data is based on both observations and experiment results.
Not one of your statements refers to empirical evidence of a supernatural being.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Aimless Alliterations
Thanks for that. It saves me the trouble of having to explain the concept of evidence yet again to our scientifically-challenged "friend".
"Truth in pseudoscience" The example of flawed logic I provided you with was just that - an example. You appear to have some difficulty understanding that trying to prove an argument through the use of logic is always going to fail if you use flawed logic. Your repeated use logical fallacies simply illustrates this.
Your constant ad hominem attacks when you are accused of such behavour are further examples of logical fallacies. So my comments are far from pathetic......they are an uncannily accurate reflection of the satire contained in the original image.
If you can't see that, then that's your problem and I think we can safely say this debate is at an end.
___________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
Yes. For someone who claims to use science to supposedly support his claims there appears to be some pretty fundamental gaps in "Truth in pseudoscience's" knowledge of science and scientific principles.
Something that's reflected in all of his bizarre claims.
__________________________________________
Mark 2y
@"Truth in science" and pretty much everyone too..
1. Your wish thinking does not work as advertised. (unlikely headline: prayer meeting ends world hunger)
2. Your convoluted blathering is only a neon sign to the above.
3. As a person raised on the secular ideals of the U.S. I can not support any leader who is not answerable to the rest of us, so "worship" is totally out of the question.
(even the "inalienable rights" line proves the plastic nature of a simple deist assumption of a god's nature, let alone one who takes more license)
4. I'm disappointed that anyone gives you the time of day, as your kind need not be eliminated but simply left to wither away.
____________________________________________
The debate ended with the comment by atheist 'Mark' above.
I didn't think there was any point in continuing, as the arguments were already becoming repetitive.
I think I am justified in concluding that this debate (as many others) demonstrated that the atheist belief in naturalism - and the belief that there was no adequate, infinite, first cause of everything temporal - is bankrupt. It is bankrupt because it relies completely on natural laws not being universally valid. Atheist HAVE TO dismiss natural laws, because they are fatal to their ideology of naturalism. To dismiss natural laws is not scientific, we depend on the reliability of natural laws to make scientific predictions. We cannot practice science without trusting in natural laws. So, atheism, in seeking to debunk natural laws, is exposed as ANTI-SCIENCE.
The image posted by Silly Deity with the original debate can be seen here:
Dutch postcard by JosPe, Arnhem, no. 319. Photo: MGM.
Lupe Velez (1908-1944), was one of the first Mexican actresses to succeed in Hollywood. Her nicknames were 'The Mexican Spitfire' and 'Hot Pepper'. She was the leading lady in such silent films as The Gaucho (1927), Lady of the Pavements (1928), and Wolf Song (1929). During the 1930s, her well-known explosive screen persona was exploited in a series of successful films like Hot Pepper (1933), Strictly Dynamite (1934), and Hollywood Party (1934). In the 1940s, Vélez's popularity peaked after appearing in the Mexican Spitfire films, a series created to capitalise on Vélez's well-documented fiery personality. She had several highly publicised romances and a stormy marriage. In 1944, Vélez died of an intentional overdose of the barbiturate drug Seconal. Her death and the circumstances surrounding it have been the subject of speculation and controversy.
Lupe Vélez was born María Guadalupe Villalobos Vélez in 1908 in the city of San Luis Potosí in Mexico. She was the daughter of Jacobo Villalobos Reyes, a colonel in the army of the dictator Porfirio Diaz, and his wife Josefina Vélez, an opera singer according to some sources, or vaudeville singer according to others. She had three sisters: Mercedes, Reina and Josefina and a brother, Emigdio. The family was financially comfortable and lived in a large home. At the age of 13, her parents sent her to study at Our Lady of the Lake (now Our Lady of the Lake University) in San Antonio, Texas. It was at Our Lady of the Lake that Vélez learned to speak English and began to dance. She later admitted that she liked dance class, but was otherwise a poor student. Denny Jackson at IMDb: "Life was hard for her family, and Lupe returned to Mexico to help them out financially. She worked as a salesgirl for a department store for the princely sum of $4 a week. Every week she would turn most of her salary over to her mother, but kept a little for herself so she could take dancing lessons. By now, she figured, with her mature shape and grand personality, she thought she could make a try at show business." She began her career as a performer in Mexican vaudeville in 1924. She initially performed under her paternal surname, but after her father returned home from the war, he was outraged that his daughter had decided to become a stage performer. She chose her maternal surname, "Vélez", as her stage name and her mother introduced Vélez and her sister Josefina to the popular Spanish Mexican vedette María Conesa, "La Gatita Blanca". Vélez debuted in a show led by Conesa, where she sang 'Oh Charley, My Boy' and danced the shimmy. Aurelio Campos, a young pianist, and friend of the Vélez sisters, recommended Lupe to stage producers Carlos Ortega and Manuel Castro. Ortega and Castro were preparing a season revue at the Regis Theatre and hired Vélez to join the company in March 1925. Later that year, Vélez starred in the revues 'Mexican Rataplan' and '¡No lo tapes!', both parodies of the Bataclan's shows in Paris. Her suggestive singing and provocative dancing was a hit with audiences, and she soon established herself as one of the main stars of vaudeville in Mexico. After a year and a half, Vélez left the revue after the manager refused to give her a raise. She then joined the Teatro Principal, but was fired after three months due to her "feisty attitude". Vélez was quickly hired by the Teatro Lirico, where her salary rose to 100 pesos a day. In 1926, Frank A. Woodyard, an American who had seen Vélez perform, recommended her to stage director Richard Bennett, the father of actresses Joan and Constance Bennett. Bennett was looking for an actress to portray a Mexican cantina singer in his upcoming play 'The Dove'. He sent Vélez a telegram inviting her to Los Angeles to appear in the play. Vélez had been planning to go to Cuba to perform, but quickly changed her plans and traveled to Los Angeles. However, upon arrival, she discovered that she had been replaced by another actress.
While in Los Angeles, Lupe Vélez met the comedian Fanny Brice. Brice recommended her to Flo Ziegfeld, who hired her to perform in New York City. While Vélez was preparing to leave Los Angeles, she received a call from MGM producer Harry Rapf, who offered her a screen test. Producer and director Hal Roach saw Vélez's screen test and hired her for a small role in the comic Laurel and Hardy short Sailors, Beware! (Fred Guiol, Hal Yates, 1927). After her debut, Vélez appeared in another Hal Roach short, What Women Did for Me (James Parrott, 1927), opposite Charley Chase. Later that year, she did a screen test for the upcoming Douglas Fairbanks feature The Gaucho (F. Richard Jones, 1927). Fairbanks was impressed by Vélez and hired her to appear in the film with him. The Gaucho was a hit and critics were duly impressed with Vélez's ability to hold her own alongside Fairbanks, who was well known for his spirited acting and impressive stunts. Her second major film was Stand and Deliver (Donald Crisp, 1928), produced by Cecil B. DeMille. That same year, she was named one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars. Then she appeared in Lady of the Pavements (1929), directed by D. W. Griffith, and Where East Is East (Tod Browning, 1929), starring Lon Chaney as an animal trapper in Laos. In the Western The Wolf Song (Victor Fleming, 1929), she appeared alongside Gary Cooper. As she was regularly cast as 'exotic' or 'ethnic' women that were volatile and hot-tempered, gossip columnists took to referring to Vélez as "Mexican Hurricane", "The Mexican Wildcat", "The Mexican Madcap", "Whoopee Lupe" and "The Hot Tamale". Lupe Vélez made the transition to sound films without difficulty. Studio executives had predicted that her accent would likely hamper her ability to make the transition. That idea was dispelled after she appeared in the all-talking Rin Tin Tin vehicle, Tiger Rose (George Fitzmaurice, 1929). The film was a hit and Vélez's sound career was established. Vélez appeared in a series of Pre-Code films like Hell Harbor (Henry King, 1930), The Storm (William Wyler, 1930), and the crime drama East Is West (Monta Bell, 1930) opposite Edward G. Robinson. The next year, she appeared in her second film for Cecil B. DeMille, Squaw Man (Cecil B. DeMille, 1931), opposite Warner Baxter, in Resurrection (Edwin Carewe, 1931), and The Cuban Love Song (W.S. Van Dyke, 1931), with the popular singer Lawrence Tibbett. She had a supporting role in Kongo (William J. Cowen, 1932) with Walter Huston, a sound remake of West of Zanzibar (Tod Browning, 1928) which tries to outdo the Lon Chaney original in morbidity. She also starred in Spanish-language versions of Universal films like Resurrección (Eduardo Arozamena, David Selman, 1931), the Spanish version of Resurrection (1931), and Hombres en mi vida (Eduardo Arozamena, David Selman, 1932), the Spanish version of Men in Her Life (William Beaudine, 1931) in which Lois Moran had starred.
In 1932, Lupe Vélez took a break from her film career and traveled to New York City where she was signed by Broadway impresario Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. to take over the role of "Conchita" in the musical revue 'Hot-Cha!'. The show also starred Bert Lahr, Eleanor Powell, and Buddy Rogers. Back in Hollywood, Lupe switched to comedy after playing dramatic roles for five years. Denny Jackson at IMDb: "In 1933 she played the lead role of Pepper in Hot Pepper (1933). This film showcased her comedic talents and helped her to show the world her vital personality. She was delightful." After Hot Pepper (John G. Blystone, 1933) with Edmund Lowe and Victor McLaglen, Lupe played beautiful but volatile, characters in a series of successful films like Strictly Dynamite (Elliott Nugent, 1934), Palooka (Benjamin Stoloff, 1934) both opposite Jimmy Durante, and Hollywood Party (Allan Dwan, a.o., 1934) with Laurel and Hardy. Although Vélez was a popular actress, RKO Pictures did not renew her contract in 1934. Over the next few years, Vélez worked for various studios as a freelance actress; she also spent two years in England where she filmed The Morals of Marcus (Miles Mander, 1935) and Gypsy Melody (Edmond T. Gréville, 1936). She returned to Los Angeles the following year where she appeared in the final part of the Wheeler & Woolsey comedy High Flyers (Edward F. Cline, 1937). In 1938, Vélez made her final appearance on Broadway in the musical You Never Know, by Cole Porter. The show received poor reviews from critics but received a large amount of publicity due to the feud between Vélez and fellow cast member Libby Holman. Holman was irritated by the attention Vélez garnered from the show with her impersonations of several actresses including Gloria Swanson, Katharine Hepburn, and Shirley Temple. The feud came to a head during a performance in New Haven, Connecticut after Vélez punched Holman in between curtain calls and gave her a black eye. The feud effectively ended the show. Upon her return to Mexico City in 1938 to star in her first Mexican film, Vélez was greeted by ten thousand fans. The film La Zandunga (Fernando de Fuentes, 1938) co-starring Arturo de Córdova, was a critical and financial success. Vélez was slated to appear in four more Mexican films, but instead, she returned to Los Angeles and went back to work for RKO Pictures. In 1939, Lupe Vélez was cast opposite Leon Errol and Donald Woods in the B-comedy, The Girl from Mexico (Leslie Goodwins, 1939). Despite being a B film, it was a hit with audiences and RKO re-teamed her with Errol and Wood for a sequel, Mexican Spitfire (Leslie Goodwins, 1940). That film was also a success and led to a series of eight Spitfire films. Wikipedia: "In the series, Vélez portrays Carmelita Lindsay, a temperamental yet friendly Mexican singer married to Dennis 'Denny' Lindsay (Woods), an elegant American gentleman. The Spitfire films rejuvenated Vélez's career. Moreover, they were films in which a Latina headlined for eight films straight –a true rarity." In addition to the Spitfire series, she was cast in such films as Six Lessons from Madame La Zonga (John Rawlins, 1941), Playmates (David Butler, 1941) opposite John Barrymore, and Redhead from Manhattan (Lew Landers, 1943). In 1943, the final film in the Spitfire series, Mexican Spitfire's Blessed Event (Leslie Goodwins, 1943), was released. By that time, the novelty of the series had begun to wane. Velez co-starred with Eddie Albert in the romantic comedy, Ladies' Day (Leslie Goodwins, 1943), about an actress and a baseball player. In 1944, Vélez returned to Mexico to star in an adaptation of Émile Zola's novel Nana (Roberto Gavaldón, Celestino Gorostiza, 1944), which was well-received. It would be her final film. After filming wrapped, Vélez returned to Los Angeles and began preparing for another stage role in New York.
Lupe Vélez's temper and jealousy in her often tempestuous romantic relationships were well documented and became tabloid fodder, often overshadowing her career. Vélez was straightforward with the press and was regularly contacted by gossip columnists for stories about her romantic exploits. Her first long-term relationship was with actor Gary Cooper. Vélez met Cooper while filming The Wolf Song in 1929 and began a two-year affair with him. The relationship was passionate but often stormy. Reportedly Vélez chased Cooper around with a knife during an argument and cut him severely enough to require stitches. By that time, the rocky relationship had taken its toll on Cooper who had lost 45 pounds and was suffering from nervous exhaustion. Paramount Pictures ordered him to take a vacation to recuperate. While he was boarding the train, Vélez showed up at the train station and fired a pistol at him. During her marriage to actor Johnny Weissmuller, stories of their frequent physical fights were regularly reported in the press. Vélez reportedly inflicted scratches, bruises, and love-bites on Weissmuller during their fights and "passionate love-making". In July 1934, after ten months of marriage, Vélez filed for divorce citing cruelty. She withdrew the petition a week later after reconciling with Weissmuller. In January 1935, she filed for divorce a second time and was granted an interlocutory decree that was dismissed when the couple reconciled a month later. In August 1938, Vélez filed for divorce for a third time, again charging Weissmuller with cruelty. Their divorce was finalised in August 1939. After the divorce became final, Vélez began dating actor Guinn "Big Boy" Williams in late 1940. They were reportedly engaged but never married. Vélez was also linked to author Erich Maria Remarque and the boxers Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey. In 1943, Vélez began an affair with her La Zandunga co-star Arturo de Córdova. De Córdova had recently moved to Hollywood after signing with Paramount Pictures. Despite the fact that de Córdova was married to Mexican actress Enna Arana with whom he had four children, Vélez granted an interview to gossip columnist Louella Parsons in September 1943 and announced that the two were engaged. Vélez ended the engagement in early 1944, reportedly after de Córdova's wife refused to give him a divorce. Vélez then met and began dating a struggling young Austrian actor named Harald Maresch (who went by the stage name Harald Ramond). In September 1944, she discovered she was pregnant with Ramond's child. She announced their engagement in late November 1944. On 10 December, four days before her death, Vélez announced she had ended the engagement and kicked Ramond out of her home. On the evening of 13 December 1944, Vélez dined with her two friends, the silent film star Estelle Taylor and Venita Oakie. In the early morning hours of 14 December, Vélez retired to her bedroom, where she consumed 75 Seconal pills and a glass of brandy. Her secretary, Beulah Kinder, found the actress's body on her bed later that morning. A suicide note addressed to Harald Ramond was found nearby. Lupe Vélez was only 36 years old. More than four-thousand people filed past her casket during her funeral. Her body was interred in Mexico City, at Panteón Civil de Dolores Cemetery. Velez' estate, valued at $125,000 and consisting mostly of her Rodeo House home, two cars, jewelry, and personal effects were left to her secretary Beulah Kinder with the remainder in trust for her mother, Mrs. Josephine Velez. Together with Dolores del Rio, Ramon Novarro, and José Mojica, she was one of the few Mexican people who had made history in the early years of Hollywood.
Sources: Denny Jackson (IMDb), Wikipedia and IMDb.
And, please check out our blog European Film Star Postcards.
Reconstruction of the Terme Ruler, 2018, bronze cast, 280 x 93 x 80 cm, recostruction created by Vinzenz Brinkmann and Ulrike Koch-Brinkmann (Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung, Frankfurt am Main, Sammlung Stäelisches Kunstinstitut)
Reconstruction of the Terme Ruler, 2018, bronze cast, 280 x 93 x 80 cm, recostruction created by Vinzenz Brinkmann and Ulrike Koch-Brinkmann (Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung, Frankfurt am Main, Sammlung Stäelisches Kunstinstitut)
Marble stele (grave marker) of a youth and a little girl, c. 530 B.C.E., marble, 423.4 cm high (The Met)
Begun as a land speculation project of William Duer, the Scioto Company had hoped to encourage European investors to purchase lands in its grant in the Ohio country. The project proved especially attractive to the French middle class, who were just beginning to feel the effects of the French Revolution. Hundreds invested their money hoping to find security and prosperity in their new homes. Upon their arrival in the United States, they found that the deeds they had purchased were worthless, since the Scioto Company had not paid for the land, they bought.
The disillusioned French settlers left Alexandria, Va., on June 29. 1790, on their journey to the Ohio country. The new settlers were unadapted to the hardships of frontier life since many of them were noblemen, doctors, army officers, manufacturers, tradesmen, and lawyers. They continued to live in the formal French manner to which they were accustomed. Common sense and the application of their trades, however, helped them to establish, a thriving river trade in a short time. By the end of 1790 there were between 300 and 400 Frenchmen in the settlement. Today, the city of Gallipolis is much like any other Ohio River town, except that the vestiges of the French settlers remain as the proud possessions of the citizens of Gallipolis.
*Excuse the photo rained heavyily.
When life gives you lemons, take photos of them in such a way as to cause speculation and over interpretation.
.... Artist, Michel de Broin's 'One Thousand Speculations', a 7.9 metre / 25 foot in diameter ball made up of 1,000 mirrors .... the world's largest mirror ball
Tutankhamun's painted chest features scenes of the king battling Egypts enemies, on the long sides he is shown as a warrior in his chariot attacking Libyans, Hittites and Nubians (there is some speculation over whether this is mere decoration to empower the pharaoh's image, or possibly Tutankhamun may have been actually involved in battle and suffered a fatal injury). The short sides depict the king as a sphinx-like creature trampling further enemies, and whilst the decoration is beautiful in detail, it is brutal in content!
The most celebrated part of the Cairo Museum's collection has for the best part of a century been the incomparable treasures of Tutankhamun's tomb housed in two long galleries on the upper floor. The greatest archaeological discovery of all time, the virtually intact tomb of the young pharaoh was discovered in 1922 in the Valley of the Kings, undisturbed since antiquity owing to the King's relative obscurity.
Tutankhamun was born Tutankhaten, son and successor of the 'heretic' pharaoh Akhenaten who dispensed with Egypt's centuries old religion in favour of his new god, the sun disk he called Aten. At Akhenaten's death Tutankhaten was only nine years old and early in his reign was persuaded to restore Egypt's religion and traditions, abandoning the cult of Aten and restoring the prominence of Amun, god of Thebes, thus changing his name to Tutankhamun. His early death barely a decade later and association with his reviled father led to the young pharaoh sharing his fate in being struck from the records and lists of Kings (an act of damnatio memoriae), thus his tomb itself was quickly forgotten and hidden beneath later structures whilst those of more famous rulers were stripped bare, probably within decades.
Howard Carter's discovery of the still sealed tomb in 1922 caused a sensation, nothing so complete had ever been found before. The tomb itself was small by pharaonic standards, prepared in a hurry as the king died in his late teens with two main chambers and a further two side chambers crammed with artworks, treasures and furnishings, along with the king's body sealed within four gilded-wooden shrines, three superbly rich coffins and the incomparable golden mask upon his head. Better still, the pharaoh's reign in the 18th Dynasty coincided with a particularly high period for artistic achievement, meaning that so much was of the highest quality. One can only imagine the riches that must have disappeared from the much larger tombs of the more famous rulers, compared to this tiny treasure-trove!
Tutankhamun's collection has resided in Cairo's Egyptian Museum ever since its discovery, but by the end of 2018 will have moved again to the new Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza (currently being prepared for partial opening later this year). The treasures will be displayed in their entirety for the first time, and many pieces have already been transferred. This visit offered us a last opportunity to view most of the major pieces in their central Cairo home for one last time.
For more on the 'obscure' pharaoh who millennia later became Egypt's most celebrated, see the link below:-
Sovereign is the first super yacht to moor on the Tyne. Speculation is rife amongst the locals to whom this boat might belong to, many suggesting that it might belong to Simon Cowell, or Vince McMahon .... both might be considered worthy of such speculation, as Cowell has been spotted on Tyneside and it was recently suggested that McMahon had shown interest in purchasing Newcastle United .... I think the question should be asked why would such a yacht be moored in a spot that would be a logistical nightmare, more so with the drunken hordes that frequent the quayside every weekend ... with the Law Courts being a stones throw away could the answer be a lot simpler
Tutankhamun's painted chest features scenes of the king battling Egypts enemies, on the long sides he is shown as a warrior in his chariot attacking Libyans, Hittites and Nubians (there is some speculation over whether this is mere decoration to empower the pharaoh's image, or possibly Tutankhamun may have been actually involved in battle and suffered a fatal injury). The short sides depict the king as a sphinx-like creature trampling further enemies, and whilst the decoration is beautiful in detail, it is brutal in content!
The most celebrated part of the Cairo Museum's collection has for the best part of a century been the incomparable treasures of Tutankhamun's tomb housed in two long galleries on the upper floor. The greatest archaeological discovery of all time, the virtually intact tomb of the young pharaoh was discovered in 1922 in the Valley of the Kings, undisturbed since antiquity owing to the King's relative obscurity.
Tutankhamun was born Tutankhaten, son and successor of the 'heretic' pharaoh Akhenaten who dispensed with Egypt's centuries old religion in favour of his new god, the sun disk he called Aten. At Akhenaten's death Tutankhaten was only nine years old and early in his reign was persuaded to restore Egypt's religion and traditions, abandoning the cult of Aten and restoring the prominence of Amun, god of Thebes, thus changing his name to Tutankhamun. His early death barely a decade later and association with his reviled father led to the young pharaoh sharing his fate in being struck from the records and lists of Kings (an act of damnatio memoriae), thus his tomb itself was quickly forgotten and hidden beneath later structures whilst those of more famous rulers were stripped bare, probably within decades.
Howard Carter's discovery of the still sealed tomb in 1922 caused a sensation, nothing so complete had ever been found before. The tomb itself was small by pharaonic standards, prepared in a hurry as the king died in his late teens with two main chambers and a further two side chambers crammed with artworks, treasures and furnishings, along with the king's body sealed within four gilded-wooden shrines, three superbly rich coffins and the incomparable golden mask upon his head. Better still, the pharaoh's reign in the 18th Dynasty coincided with a particularly high period for artistic achievement, meaning that so much was of the highest quality. One can only imagine the riches that must have disappeared from the much larger tombs of the more famous rulers, compared to this tiny treasure-trove!
Tutankhamun's collection has resided in Cairo's Egyptian Museum ever since its discovery, but by the end of 2018 will have moved again to the new Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza (currently being prepared for partial opening later this year). The treasures will be displayed in their entirety for the first time, and many pieces have already been transferred. This visit offered us a last opportunity to view most of the major pieces in their central Cairo home for one last time.
For more on the 'obscure' pharaoh who millennia later became Egypt's most celebrated, see the link below:-
With the rain falling harder, it was a bit of a route march to Holborn and my next church, the stunning St Sepulchre, which was also open.
-----------------------------------------------------
St Sepulchre-without-Newgate, also known as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Holborn), is an Anglican church in the City of London. It is located on Holborn Viaduct, almost opposite the Old Bailey. In medieval times it stood just outside ("without") the now-demolished old city wall, near the Newgate. It has been a living of St John's College, Oxford, since 1622.
The original Saxon church on the site was dedicated to St Edmund the King and Martyr. During the Crusades in the 12th century the church was renamed St Edmund and the Holy Sepulchre, in reference to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The name eventually became contracted to St Sepulchre.
The church is today the largest parish church in the City. It was completely rebuilt in the 15th century but was gutted by the Great Fire of London in 1666,[1] which left only the outer walls, the tower and the porch standing[2] -. Modified in the 18th century, the church underwent extensive restoration in 1878. It narrowly avoided destruction in the Second World War, although the 18th-century watch-house in its churchyard (erected to deter grave-robbers) was completely destroyed and had to be rebuilt.
The interior of the church is a wide, roomy space with a coffered ceiling[3] installed in 1834. The Vicars' old residence has recently been renovated into a modern living quarter.
During the reign of Mary I in 1555, St Sepulchre's vicar, John Rogers, was burned as a heretic.
St Sepulchre is named in the nursery rhyme Oranges and Lemons as the "bells of Old Bailey". Traditionally, the great bell would be rung to mark the execution of a prisoner at the nearby gallows at Newgate. The clerk of St Sepulchre's was also responsible for ringing a handbell outside the condemned man's cell in Newgate Prison to inform him of his impending execution. This handbell, known as the Execution Bell, now resides in a glass case to the south of the nave.
The church has been the official musicians' church for many years and is associated with many famous musicians. Its north aisle (formerly a chapel dedicated to Stephen Harding) is dedicated as the Musicians' Chapel, with four windows commemorating John Ireland, the singer Dame Nellie Melba, Walter Carroll and the conductor Sir Henry Wood respectively.[4] Wood, who "at the age of fourteen, learned to play the organ" at this church [1] and later became its organist, also has his ashes buried in this church.
The south aisle of the church holds the regimental chapel of the Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment), and its gardens are a memorial garden to that regiment.[5] The west end of the north aisle has various memorials connected with the City of London Rifles (the 6th Battalion London Regiment). The church was designated a Grade I listed building on 4 January 1950.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Sepulchre-without-Newgate
The Early History of St. Sepulchre's—Its Destruction in 1666—The Exterior and Interior—The Early Popularity of the Church—Interments here—Roger Ascham, the Author of the "Schoolmaster"—Captain John Smith, and his Romantic Adventures—Saved by an Indian Girl— St. Sepulchre's Churchyard—Accommodation for a Murderess—The Martyr Rogers—An Odd Circumstance—Good Company for the Dead—A Leap from the Tower—A Warning Bell and a Last Admonition—Nosegays for the Condemned—The Route to the Gallows-tree— The Deeds of the Charitable—The "Saracen's Head"—Description by Dickens—Giltspur Street—Giltspur Street Compter—A Disreputable Condition—Pie Corner—Hosier Lane—A Spurious Relic—The Conduit on Snow Hill—A Ladies' Charity School—Turnagain Lane—Poor Betty!—A Schoolmistress Censured—Skinner Street—Unpropitious Fortune—William Godwin—An Original Married Life.
Many interesting associations—Principally, however, connected with the annals of crime and the execution of the laws of England—belong to the Church of St. Sepulchre, or St. 'Pulchre. This sacred edifice—anciently known as St. Sepulchre's in the Bailey, or by Chamberlain Gate (now Newgate)—stands at the eastern end of the slight acclivity of Snow Hill, and between Smithfield and the Old Bailey. The genuine materials for its early history are scanty enough. It was probably founded about the commencement of the twelfth century, but of the exact date and circumstances of its origin there is no record whatever. Its name is derived from the Holy Sepulchre of our Saviour at Jerusalem, to the memory of which it was first dedicated.
The earliest authentic notice of the church, according to Maitland, is of the year 1178, at which date it was given by Roger, Bishop of Sarum, to the Prior and Canons of St. Bartholomew. These held the right of advowson until the dissolution of monasteries by Henry VIII., and from that time until 1610 it remained in the hands of the Crown. James I., however, then granted "the rectory and its appurtenances, with the advowson of the vicarage," to Francis Phillips and others. The next stage in its history is that the rectory was purchased by the parishioners, to be held in fee-farm of the Crown, and the advowson was obtained by the President and Fellows of St. John the Baptist College, at Oxford.
The church was rebuilt about the middle of the fifteenth century, when one of the Popham family, who had been Chancellor of Normandy and Treasurer of the King's Household, with distinguished liberality erected a handsome chapel on the south side of the choir, and the very beautiful porch still remaining at the south-west corner of the building. "His image," Stow says, "fair graven in stone, was fixed over the said porch."
The dreadful fire of 1666 almost destroyed St. Sepulchre's, but the parishioners set energetically to work, and it was "rebuilt and beautified both within and without." The general reparation was under the direction of Sir Christopher Wren, and nothing but the walls of the old building, and these not entirely, were suffered to remain. The work was done rapidly, and the whole was completed within four years.
"The tower," says Mr. Godwin, "retained its original aspect, and the body of the church, after its restoration, presented a series of windows between buttresses, with pointed heads filled with tracery, crowned by a string-course and battlements. In this form it remained till the year 1790, when it appears the whole fabric was found to be in a state of great decay, and it was resolved to repair it throughout. Accordingly the walls of the church were cased with Portland stone, and all the windows were taken out and replaced by others with plain semi-circular heads, as now seen—certainly agreeing but badly with the tower and porch of the building, but according with the then prevailing spirit of economy. The battlements, too, were taken down, and a plain stone parapet was substituted, so that at this time (with the exception of the roof, which was wagon-headed, and presented on the outside an unsightly swell, visible above the parapet) the church assumed its present appearance." The ungainly roof was removed, and an entirely new one erected, about 1836.
At each corner of the tower—"one of the most ancient," says the author of "Londinium Redivivum," "in the outline of the circuit of London" —there are spires, and on the spires there are weathercocks. These have been made use of by Howell to point a moral: "Unreasonable people," says he, "are as hard to reconcile as the vanes of St. Sepulchre's tower, which never look all four upon one point of the heavens." Nothing can be said with certainty as to the date of the tower, but it is not without the bounds of probability that it formed part of the original building. The belfry is reached by a small winding staircase in the south-west angle, and a similar staircase in an opposite angle leads to the summit. The spires at the corners, and some of the tower windows, have very recently undergone several alterations, which have added much to the picturesqueness and beauty of the church.
The chief entrance to St. Sepulchre's is by a porch of singular beauty, projecting from the south side of the tower, at the western end of the church. The groining of the ceiling of this porch, it has been pointed out, takes an almost unique form; the ribs are carved in bold relief, and the bosses at the intersections represent angels' heads, shields, roses, &c., in great variety.
Coming now to the interior of the church, we find it divided into three aisles, by two ranges of Tuscan columns. The aisles are of unequal widths, that in the centre being the widest, that to the south the narrowest. Semi-circular arches connect the columns on either side, springing directly from their capitals, without the interposition of an entablature, and support a large dental cornice, extending round the church. The ceiling of the middle aisle is divided into seven compartments, by horizontal bands, the middle compartment being formed into a small dome.
The aisles have groined ceilings, ornamented at the angles with doves, &c., and beneath every division of the groining are small windows, to admit light to the galleries. Over each of the aisles there is a gallery, very clumsily introduced, which dates from the time when the church was built by Wren, and extends the whole length, excepting at the chancel. The front of the gallery, which is of oak, is described by Mr. Godwin as carved into scrolls, branches, &c., in the centre panel, on either side, with the initials "C. R.," enriched with carvings of laurel, which have, however, he says, "but little merit."
At the east end of the church there are three semicircular-headed windows. Beneath the centre one is a large Corinthian altar-piece of oak, displaying columns, entablatures, &c., elaborately carved and gilded.
The length of the church, exclusive of the ambulatory, is said to be 126 feet, the breadth 68 feet, and the height of the tower 140 feet.
A singularly ugly sounding-board, extending over the preacher, used to stand at the back of the pulpit, at the east end of the church. It was in the shape of a large parabolic reflector, about twelve feet in diameter, and was composed of ribs of mahogany.
At the west end of the church there is a large organ, said to be the oldest and one of the finest in London. It was built in 1677, and has been greatly enlarged. Its reed-stops (hautboy, clarinet, &c.) are supposed to be unrivalled. In Newcourt's time the church was taken notice of as "remarkable for possessing an exceedingly fine organ, and the playing is thought so beautiful, that large congregations are attracted, though some of the parishioners object to the mode of performing divine service."
On the north side of the church, Mr. Godwin mentions, is a large apartment known as "St. Stephen's Chapel." This building evidently formed a somewhat important part of the old church, and was probably appropriated to the votaries of the saint whose name it bears.
Between the exterior and the interior of the church there is little harmony. "For example," says Mr. Godwin, "the columns which form the south aisle face, in some instances, the centre of the large windows which occur in the external wall of the church, and in others the centre of the piers, indifferently." This discordance may likely enough have arisen from the fact that when the church was rebuilt, or rather restored, after the Great Fire, the works were done without much attention from Sir Christopher Wren.
St. Sepulchre's appears to have enjoyed considerable popularity from the earliest period of its history, if one is to judge from the various sums left by well-disposed persons for the support of certain fraternities founded in the church—namely, those of St. Katherine, St. Michael, St. Anne, and Our Lady—and by others, for the maintenance of chantry priests to celebrate masses at stated intervals for the good of their souls. One of the fraternities just named—that of St. Katherine— originated, according to Stow, in the devotion of some poor persons in the parish, and was in honour of the conception of the Virgin Mary. They met in the church on the day of the Conception, and there had the mass of the day, and offered to the same, and provided a certain chaplain daily to celebrate divine service, and to set up wax lights before the image belonging to the fraternity, on all festival days.
The most famous of all who have been interred in St. Sepulchre's is Roger Ascham, the author of the "Schoolmaster," and the instructor of Queen Elizabeth in Greek and Latin. This learned old worthy was born in 1515, near Northallerton, in Yorkshire. He was educated at Cambridge University, and in time rose to be the university orator, being notably zealous in promoting what was then a novelty in England—the study of the Greek language. To divert himself after the fatigue of severe study, he used to devote himself to archery. This drew down upon him the censure of the all-work-and-no-play school; and in defence of himself, Ascham, in 1545, published "Toxophilus," a treatise on his favourite sport. This book is even yet well worthy of perusal, for its enthusiasm, and for its curious descriptions of the personal appearance and manners of the principal persons whom the author had seen and conversed with. Henry VIII. rewarded him with a pension of £10 per annum, a considerable sum in those days. In 1548, Ascham, on the death of William Grindall, who had been his pupil, was appointed instructor in the learned languages to Lady Elizabeth, afterwards the good Queen Bess. At the end of two years he had some dispute with, or took a disgust at, Lady Elizabeth's attendants, resigned his situation, and returned to his college. Soon after this he was employed as secretary to the English ambassador at the court of Charles V. of Germany, and remained abroad till the death of Edward VI. During his absence he had been appointed Latin secretary to King Edward. Strangely enough, though Queen Mary and her ministers were Papists, and Ascham a Protestant, he was retained in his office of Latin secretary, his pension was increased to £20, and he was allowed to retain his fellowship and his situation as university orator. In 1554 he married a lady of good family, by whom he had a considerable fortune, and of whom, in writing to a friend, he gives, as might perhaps be expected, an excellent character. On the accession of Queen Elizabeth, in 1558, she not only required his services as Latin secretary, but as her instructor in Greek, and he resided at Court during the remainder of his life. He died in consequence of his endeavours to complete a Latin poem which he intended to present to the queen on the New Year's Day of 1569. He breathed his last two days before 1568 ran out, and was interred, according to his own directions, in the most private manner, in St. Sepulchre's Church, his funeral sermon being preached by Dr. Andrew Nowell, Dean of St. Paul's. He was universally lamented; and even the queen herself not only showed great concern, but was pleased to say that she would rather have lost ten thousand pounds than her tutor Ascham, which, from that somewhat closehanded sovereign, was truly an expression of high regard.
Ascham, like most men, had his little weaknesses. He had too great a propensity to dice and cock-fighting. Bishop Nicholson would try to convince us that this is an unfounded calumny, but, as it is mentioned by Camden, and other contemporary writers, it seems impossible to deny it. He died, from all accounts, in indifferent circumstances. "Whether," says Dr. Johnson, referring to this, "Ascham was poor by his own fault, or the fault of others, cannot now be decided; but it is certain that many have been rich with less merit. His philological learning would have gained him honour in any country; and among us it may justly call for that reverence which all nations owe to those who first rouse them from ignorance, and kindle among them the light of literature." His most valuable work, "The Schoolmaster," was published by his widow. The nature of this celebrated performance may be gathered from the title: "The Schoolmaster; or a plain and perfite way of teaching children to understand, write, and speak the Latin tongue. … And commodious also for all such as have forgot the Latin tongue, and would by themselves, without a schoolmaster, in short time, and with small pains, recover a sufficient habilitie to understand, write, and speak Latin: by Roger Ascham, ann. 1570. At London, printed by John Daye, dwelling over Aldersgate," a printer, by the way, already mentioned by us a few chapters back (see page 208), as having printed several noted works of the sixteenth century.
Dr. Johnson remarks that the instruction recommended in "The Schoolmaster" is perhaps the best ever given for the study of languages.
Here also lies buried Captain John Smith, a conspicuous soldier of fortune, whose romantic adventures and daring exploits have rarely been surpassed. He died on the 21st of June, 1631. This valiant captain was born at Willoughby, in the county of Lincoln, and helped by his doings to enliven the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. He had a share in the wars of Hungary in 1602, and in three single combats overcame three Turks, and cut off their heads. For this, and other equally brave deeds, Sigismund, Duke of Transylvania, gave him his picture set in gold, with a pension of three hundred ducats; and allowed him to bear three Turks' heads proper as his shield of arms. He afterwards went to America, where he had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Indians. He escaped from them, however, at last, and resumed his brilliant career by hazarding his life in naval engagements with pirates and Spanish men-of-war. The most important act of his life was the share he had in civilising the natives of New England, and reducing that province to obedience to Great Britain. In connection with his tomb in St. Sepulchre's, he is mentioned by Stow, in his "Survey," as "some time Governor of Virginia and Admiral of New England."
Certainly the most interesting events of his chequered career were his capture by the Indians, and the saving of his life by the Indian girl Pocahontas, a story of adventure that charms as often as it is told. Bancroft, the historian of the United States, relates how, during the early settlement of Virginia, Smith left the infant colony on an exploring expedition, and not only ascended the river Chickahominy, but struck into the interior. His companions disobeyed his instructions, and being surprised by the Indians, were put to death. Smith preserved his own life by calmness and self-possession. Displaying a pocket-compass, he amused the savages by an explanation of its power, and increased their admiration of his superior genius by imparting to them some vague conceptions of the form of the earth, and the nature of the planetary system. To the Indians, who retained him as their prisoner, his captivity was a more strange event than anything of which the traditions of their tribes preserved the memory. He was allowed to send a letter to the fort at Jamestown, and the savage wonder was increased, for he seemed by some magic to endow the paper with the gift of intelligence. It was evident that their captive was a being of a high order, and then the question arose, Was his nature beneficent, or was he to be dreaded as a dangerous enemy? Their minds were bewildered, and the decision of his fate was referred to the chief Powhatan, and before Powhatan Smith was brought. "The fears of the feeble aborigines," says Bancroft, "were about to prevail, and his immediate death, already repeatedly threatened and repeatedly delayed, would have been inevitable, but for the timely intercession of Pocahontas, a girl twelve years old, the daughter of Powhatan, whose confiding fondness Smith had easily won, and who firmly clung to his neck, as his head was bowed down to receive the stroke of the tomahawks. His fearlessness, and her entreaties, persuaded the council to spare the agreeable stranger, who could make hatchets for her father, and rattles and strings of beads for herself, the favourite child. The barbarians, whose decision had long been held in suspense by the mysterious awe which Smith had inspired, now resolved to receive him as a friend, and to make him a partner of their councils. They tempted him to join their bands, and lend assistance in an attack upon the white men at Jamestown; and when his decision of character succeeded in changing the current of their thoughts, they dismissed him with mutual promises of friendship and benevolence. Thus the captivity of Smith did itself become a benefit to the colony; for he had not only observed with care the country between the James and the Potomac, and had gained some knowledge of the language and manners of the natives, but he now established a peaceful intercourse between the English and the tribes of Powhatan."
On the monument erected to Smith in St. Sepulchre's Church, the following quaint lines were formerly inscribed:—
"Here lies one conquered that hath conquered kings,
Subdued large territories, and done things
Which to the world impossible would seem,
But that the truth is held in more esteem.
Shall I report his former service done,
In honour of his God, and Christendom?
How that he did divide, from pagans three,
Their heads and lives, types of his chivalry?—
For which great service, in that climate done,
Brave Sigismundus, King of Hungarion,
Did give him, as a coat of arms, to wear
These conquered heads, got by his sword and spear.
Or shall I tell of his adventures since
Done in Virginia, that large continent?
How that he subdued kings unto his yoke,
And made those heathens flee, as wind doth smoke;
And made their land, being so large a station,
An habitation for our Christian nation,
Where God is glorified, their wants supplied;
Which else for necessaries, must have died.
But what avails his conquests, now he lies
Interred in earth, a prey to worms and flies?
Oh! may his soul in sweet Elysium sleep,
Until the Keeper, that all souls doth keep,
Return to judgment; and that after thence
With angels he may have his recompense."
Sir Robert Peake, the engraver, also found a last resting-place here. He is known as the master of William Faithorne—the famous English engraver of the seventeenth century—and governor of Basing House for the king during the Civil War under Charles I. He died in 1667. Here also was interred the body of Dr. Bell, grandfather of the originator of a well-known system of education.
"The churchyard of St. Sepulchre's," we learn from Maitland, "at one time extended so far into the street on the south side of the church, as to render the passage-way dangerously narrow. In 1760 the churchyard was, in consequence, levelled, and thrown open to the public. But this led to much inconvenience, and it was re-enclosed in 1802."
Sarah Malcolm, the murderess, was buried in the churchyard of St. Sepulchre's in 1733. This coldhearted and keen-eyed monster in human form has had her story told by us already. The parishioners seem, on this occasion, to have had no such scruples as had been exhibited by their predecessors a hundred and fifty years previous at the burial of Awfield, a traitor. We shall see presently that in those more remote days they were desirous of having at least respectable company for their deceased relatives and friends in the churchyard.
"For a long period," says Mr. Godwin (1838), "the church was surrounded by low mean buildings, by which its general appearance was hidden; but these having been cleared away, and the neighbourhood made considerably more open, St. Sepulchre's now forms a somewhat pleasing object, notwithstanding that the tower and a part of the porch are so entirely dissimilar in style to the remainder of the building." And since Godwin's writing the surroundings of the church have been so improved that perhaps few buildings in the metropolis stand more prominently before the public eye.
In the glorious roll of martyrs who have suffered at the stake for their religious principles, a vicar of St. Sepulchre's, the Reverend John Rogers, occupies a conspicuous place. He was the first who was burned in the reign of the Bloody Mary. This eminent person had at one time been chaplain to the English merchants at Antwerp, and while residing in that city had aided Tindal and Coverdale in their great work of translating the Bible. He married a German lady of good position, by whom he had a large family, and was enabled, by means of her relations, to reside in peace and safety in Germany. It appeared to be his duty, however, to return to England, and there publicly profess and advocate his religious convictions, even at the risk of death. He crossed the sea; he took his place in the pulpit at St. Paul's Cross; he preached a fearless and animated sermon, reminding his astonished audience of the pure and wholesome doctrine which had been promulgated from that pulpit in the days of the good King Edward, and solemnly warning them against the pestilent idolatry and superstition of these new times. It was his last sermon. He was apprehended, tried, condemned, and burned at Smithfield. We described, when speaking of Smithfield, the manner in which he met his fate.
Connected with the martyrdom of Rogers an odd circumstance is quoted in the "Churches of London." It is stated that when the bishops had resolved to put to death Joan Bocher, a friend came to Rogers and earnestly entreated his influence that the poor woman's life might be spared, and other means taken to prevent the spread of her heterodox doctrines. Rogers, however, contended that she should be executed; and his friend then begged him to choose some other kind of death, which should be more agreeable to the gentleness and mercy prescribed in the gospel. "No," replied Rogers, "burning alive is not a cruel death, but easy enough." His friend hearing these words, expressive of so little regard for the sufferings of a fellow-creature, answered him with great vehemence, at the same time striking Rogers' hand, "Well, it may perhaps so happen that you yourself shall have your hands full of this mild burning." There is no record of Rogers among the papers belonging to St. Sepulchre's, but this may easily be accounted for by the fact that at the Great Fire of 1666 nearly all the registers and archives were destroyed.
A noteworthy incident in the history of St. Sepulchre's was connected with the execution, in 1585, of Awfield, for "sparcinge abrood certen lewed, sedicious, and traytorous bookes." "When he was executed," says Fleetwood, the Recorder, in a letter to Lord Burleigh, July 7th of that year, "his body was brought unto St. Pulcher's to be buryed, but the parishioners would not suffer a traytor's corpse to be laid in the earth where their parents, wives, children, kindred, masters, and old neighbours did rest; and so his carcass was returned to the burial-ground near Tyburn, and there I leave it."
Another event in the history of the church is a tale of suicide. On the 10th of April, 1600, a man named William Dorrington threw himself from the roof of the tower, leaving there a prayer for forgiveness.
We come now to speak of the connection of St. Sepulchre's with the neighbouring prison of Newgate. Being the nearest church to the prison, that connection naturally was intimate. Its clock served to give the time to the hangman when there was an execution in the Old Bailey, and many a poor wretch's last moments must it have regulated.
On the right-hand side of the altar a board with a list of charitable donations and gifts used to contain the following item:—"1605. Mr. Robert Dowe gave, for ringing the greatest bell in this church on the day the condemned prisoners are executed, and for other services, for ever, concerning such condemned prisoners, for which services the sexton is paid £16s. 8d.—£50.
It was formerly the practice for the clerk or bellman of St. Sepulchre's to go under Newgate, on the night preceding the execution of a criminal, ring his bell, and repeat the following wholesome advice:—
"All you that in the condemned hold do lie,
Prepare you, for to-morrow you shall die;
Watch all, and pray, the hour is drawing near
That you before the Almighty must appear;
Examine well yourselves, in time repent,
That you may not to eternal flames be sent.
And when St. Sepulchre's bell to-morrow tolls,
The Lord above have mercy on your souls.
Past twelve o'clock!"
This practice is explained by a passage in Munday's edition of Stow, in which it is told that a Mr. John Dowe, citizen and merchant taylor of London, gave £50 to the parish church of St. Sepulchre's, under the following conditions:—After the several sessions of London, on the night before the execution of such as were condemned to death, the clerk of the church was to go in the night-time, and also early in the morning, to the window of the prison in which they were lying. He was there to ring "certain tolls with a hand-bell" appointed for the purpose, and was afterwards, in a most Christian manner, to put them in mind of their present condition and approaching end, and to exhort them to be prepared, as they ought to be, to die. When they were in the cart, and brought before the walls of the church, the clerk was to stand there ready with the same bell, and, after certain tolls, rehearse a prayer, desiring all the people there present to pray for the unfortunate criminals. The beadle, also, of Merchant Taylors' Hall was allowed an "honest stipend" to see that this ceremony was regularly performed.
The affecting admonition—"affectingly good," Pennant calls it—addressed to the prisoners in Newgate, on the night before execution, ran as follows:—
"You prisoners that are within,
Who, for wickedness and sin,
after many mercies shown you, are now appointed to die to-morrow in the forenoon; give ear and understand that, to-morrow morning, the greatest bell of St. Sepulchre's shall toll for you, in form and manner of a passing-bell, as used to be tolled for those that are at the point of death; to the end that all godly people, hearing that bell, and knowing it is for your going to your deaths, may be stirred up heartily to pray to God to bestow his grace and mercy upon you, whilst you live. I beseech you, for Jesus Christ's sake, to keep this night in watching and prayer, to the salvation of your own souls while there is yet time and place for mercy; as knowing to-morrow you must appear before the judgment-seat of your Creator, there to give an account of all things done in this life, and to suffer eternal torments for your sins committed against Him, unless, upon your hearty and unfeigned repentance, you find mercy through the merits, death, and passion of your only Mediator and Advocate, Jesus Christ, who now sits at the right hand of God, to make intercession for as many of you as penitently return to Him."
And the following was the admonition to condemned criminals, as they were passing by St. Sepulchre's Church wall to execution:—" All good people, pray heartily unto God for these poor sinners, who are now going to their death, for whom this great bell doth toll.
"You that are condemned to die, repent with lamentable tears; ask mercy of the Lord, for the salvation of your own souls, through the [merits, death, and passion of Jesus Christ, who now sits at the right hand of God, to make intercession for as many of you as penitently return unto Him.
"Lord have mercy upon you;
Christ have mercy upon you.
Lord have mercy upon you;
Christ have mercy upon you."
The charitable Mr. Dowe, who took such interest in the last moments of the occupants of the condemned cell, was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldgate.
Another curious custom observed at St. Sepulchre's was the presentation of a nosegay to every criminal on his way to execution at Tyburn. No doubt the practice had its origin in some kindly feeling for the poor unfortunates who were so soon to bid farewell to all the beauties of earth. One of the last who received a nosegay from the steps of St. Sepulchre's was "Sixteen-string Jack," alias John Rann, who was hanged, in 1774, for robbing the Rev. Dr. Bell of his watch and eighteen pence in money, in Gunnersbury Lane, on the road to Brentford. Sixteen-string Jack wore the flowers in his button-hole as he rode dolefully to the gallows. This was witnessed by John Thomas Smith, who thus describes the scene in his admirable anecdotebook, "Nollekens and his Times:"—" I remember well, when I was in my eighth year, Mr. Nollekens calling at my father's house, in Great Portland Street, and taking us to Oxford Street, to see the notorious Jack Rann, commonly called Sixteenstring Jack, go to Tyburn to be hanged. … The criminal was dressed in a pea-green coat, with an immense nosegay in the button-hole, which had been presented to him at St. Sepulchre's steps; and his nankeen small-clothes, we were told, were tied at each knee with sixteen strings. After he had passed, and Mr. Nollekens was leading me home by the hand, I recollect his stooping down to me and observing, in a low tone of voice, 'Tom, now, my little man, if my father-in-law, Mr. Justice Welch, had been high constable, we could have walked by the side of the cart all the way to Tyburn.'"
When criminals were conveyed from Newgate to Tyburn, the cart passed up Giltspur Street, and through Smithfield, to Cow Lane. Skinner Street had not then been built, and the Crooked Lane which turned down by St. Sepulchre's, as well as Ozier Lane, did not afford sufficient width to admit of the cavalcade passing by either of them, with convenience, to Holborn Hill, or "the Heavy Hill," as it used to be called. The procession seems at no time to have had much of the solemn element about it. "The heroes of the day were often," says a popular writer, "on good terms with the mob, and jokes were exchanged between the men who were going to be hanged and the men who deserved to be."
"On St. Paul's Day," says Mr. Timbs (1868), "service is performed in St. Sepulchre's, in accordance with the will of Mr. Paul Jervis, who, in 1717, devised certain land in trust that a sermon should be preached in the church upon every Paul's Day upon the excellence of the liturgy o the Church of England; the preacher to receive 40s. for such sermon. Various sums are also bequeathed to the curate, the clerk, the treasurer, and masters of the parochial schools. To the poor of the parish he bequeathed 20s. a-piece to ten of the poorest householders within that part of the parish of St. Sepulchre commonly called Smithfield quarter, £4 to the treasurer of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and 6s. 8d. yearly to the clerk, who shall attend to receive the same. The residue of the yearly rents and profits is to be distributed unto and amongst such poor people of the parish of St. Sepulchre's, London, who shall attend the service and sermon. At the close of the service the vestry-clerk reads aloud an extract from the will, and then proceeds to the distribution of the money. In the evening the vicar, churchwardens, and common councilmen of the precinct dine together."
In 1749, a Mr. Drinkwater made a praiseworthy bequest. He left the parish of St. Sepulchre £500 to be lent in sums of £25 to industrious young tradesmen. No interest was to be charged, and the money was to be lent for four years.
Next to St. Sepulchre's, on Snow Hill, used to stand the famous old inn of the "Saracen's Head." It was only swept away within the last few years by the ruthless army of City improvers: a view of it in course of demolition was given on page 439. It was one of the oldest of the London inns which bore the "Saracen's Head" for a sign. One of Dick Tarlton's jests makes mention of the "Saracen's Head" without Newgate, and Stow, describing this neighbourhood, speaks particularly of "a fair large inn for receipt of travellers" that "hath to sign the 'Saracen's Head.'" The courtyard had, to the last, many of the characteristics of an old English inn; there were galleries all round leading to the bedrooms, and a spacious gateway through which the dusty mail-coaches used to rumble, the tired passengers creeping forth "thanking their stars in having escaped the highwaymen and the holes and sloughs of the road." Into that courtyard how many have come on their first arrival in London with hearts beating high with hope, some of whom have risen to be aldermen and sit in state as lord mayor, whilst others have gone the way of the idle apprentice and come to a sad end at Tyburn! It was at this inn that Nicholas Nickleby and his uncle waited upon the Yorkshire schoolmaster Squeers, of Dotheboys Hall. Mr. Dickens describes the tavern as it existed in the last days of mail-coaching, when it was a most important place for arrivals and departures in London:—
"Next to the jail, and by consequence near to Smithfield also, and the Compter and the bustle and noise of the City, and just on that particular part of Snow Hill where omnibus horses going eastwards seriously think of falling down on purpose, and where horses in hackney cabriolets going westwards not unfrequently fall by accident, is the coach-yard of the 'Saracen's Head' inn, its portals guarded by two Saracen's heads and shoulders, which it was once the pride and glory of the choice spirits of this metropolis to pull down at night, but which have for some time remained in undisturbed tranquillity, possibly because this species of humour is now confined to St. James's parish, where doorknockers are preferred as being more portable, and bell-wires esteemed as convenient tooth-picks. Whether this be the reason or not, there they are, frowning upon you from each side of the gateway; and the inn itself, garnished with another Saracen's head, frowns upon you from the top of the yard; while from the door of the hind-boot of all the red coaches that are standing therein, there glares a small Saracen's head with a twin expression to the large Saracen's head below, so that the general appearance of the pile is of the Saracenic order."
To explain the use of the Saracen's head as an inn sign various reasons have been given. "When our countrymen," says Selden, "came home from fighting with the Saracens and were beaten by them, they pictured them with huge, big, terrible faces (as you still see the 'Saracen's Head' is), when in truth they were like other men. But this they did to save their own credit." Or the sign may have been adopted by those who had visited the Holy Land either as pilgrims or to fight the Saracens. Others, again, hold that it was first set up in compliment to the mother of Thomas à Becket, who was the daughter of a Saracen. However this may be, it is certain that the use of the sign in former days was very general.
Running past the east end of St. Sepulchre's, from Newgate into West Smithfield, is Giltspur Street, anciently called Knightriders Street. This interesting thoroughfare derives its name from the knights with their gilt spurs having been accustomed to ride this way to the jousts and tournaments which in days of old were held in Smithfield.
In this street was Giltspur Street Compter, a debtors' prison and house of correction appertaining to the sheriffs of London and Middlesex. It stood over against St. Sepulchre's Church, and was removed hither from the east side of Wood Street, Cheapside, in 1791. At the time of its removal it was used as a place of imprisonment for debtors, but the yearly increasing demands upon the contracted space caused that department to be given up, and City debtors were sent to Whitecross Street. The architect was Dance, to whom we are also indebted for the grim pile of Newgate. The Compter was a dirty and appropriately convictlooking edifice. It was pulled down in 1855. Mr. Hepworth Dixon gave an interesting account of this City House of Correction, not long before its demolition, in his "London Prisons" (1850). "Entering," he says, "at the door facing St. Sepulchre's, the visitor suddenly finds himself in a low dark passage, leading into the offices of the gaol, and branching off into other passages, darker, closer, more replete with noxious smells, than even those of Newgate. This is the fitting prelude to what follows. The prison, it must be noticed, is divided into two principal divisions, the House of Correction and the Compter. The front in Giltspur Street, and the side nearest to Newgate Street, is called the Compter. In its wards are placed detenues of various kinds—remands, committals from the police-courts, and generally persons waiting for trial, and consequently still unconvicted. The other department, the House of Correction, occupies the back portion of the premises, abutting on Christ's Hospital. Curious it is to consider how thin a wall divides these widely-separate worlds! And sorrowful it is to think what a difference of destiny awaits the children—destiny inexorable, though often unearned in either case—who, on the one side of it or the other, receive an eleemosynary education! The collegian and the criminal! Who shall say how much mere accident— circumstances over which the child has little power —determines to a life of usefulness or mischief? From the yards of Giltspur Street prison almost the only objects visible, outside of the gaol itself, are the towers of Christ's Hospital; the only sounds audible, the shouts of the scholars at their play. The balls of the hospital boys often fall within the yards of the prison. Whether these sights and sounds ever cause the criminal to pause and reflect upon the courses of his life, we will not say, but the stranger visiting the place will be very apt to think for him. …
"In the department of the prison called the House of Correction, minor offenders within the City of London are imprisoned. No transports are sent hither, nor is any person whose sentence is above three years in length." This able writer then goes on to tell of the many crying evils connected with the institution—the want of air, the over-crowded state of the rooms, the absence of proper cellular accommodation, and the vicious intercourse carried on amongst the prisoners. The entire gaol, when he wrote, only contained thirty-six separate sleeping-rooms. Now by the highest prison calculation—and this, be it noted, proceeds on the assumption that three persons can sleep in small, miserable, unventilated cells, which are built for only one, and are too confined for that, being only about one-half the size of the model cell for one at Pentonville—it was only capable of accommodating 203 prisoners, yet by the returns issued at Michaelmas, 1850, it contained 246!
A large section of the prison used to be devoted to female delinquents, but lately it was almost entirely given up to male offenders.
"The House of Correction, and the Compter portion of the establishment," says Mr. Dixon, "are kept quite distinct, but it would be difficult to award the palm of empire in their respective facilities for demoralisation. We think the Compter rather the worse of the two. You are shown into a room, about the size of an apartment in an ordinary dwelling-house, which will be found crowded with from thirty to forty persons, young and old, and in their ordinary costume; the low thief in his filth and rags, and the member of the swell-mob with his bright buttons, flash finery, and false jewels. Here you notice the boy who has just been guilty of his first offence, and committed for trial, learning with a greedy mind a thousand criminal arts, and listening with the precocious instinct of guilty passions to stories and conversations the most depraved and disgusting. You regard him with a mixture of pity and loathing, for he knows that the eyes of his peers are upon him, and he stares at you with a familiar impudence, and exhibits a devil-may-care countenance, such as is only to be met with in the juvenile offender. Here, too, may be seen the young clerk, taken up on suspicion—perhaps innocent—who avoids you with a shy look of pain and uneasiness: what a hell must this prison be to him! How frightful it is to think of a person really untainted with crime, compelled to herd for ten or twenty days with these abandoned wretches!
"On the other, the House of Correction side of the gaol, similar rooms will be found, full of prisoners communicating with each other, laughing and shouting without hindrance. All this is so little in accordance with existing notions of prison discipline, that one is continually fancying these disgraceful scenes cannot be in the capital of England, and in the year of grace 1850. Very few of the prisoners attend school or receive any instruction; neither is any kind of employment afforded them, except oakum-picking, and the still more disgusting labour of the treadmill. When at work, an officer is in attendance to prevent disorderly conduct; but his presence is of no avail as a protection to the less depraved. Conversation still goes on; and every facility is afforded for making acquaintances, and for mutual contamination."
After having long been branded by intelligent inspectors as a disgrace to the metropolis, Giltspur Street Compter was condemned, closed in 1854, and subsequently taken down.
Nearly opposite what used to be the site of the Compter, and adjoining Cock Lane, is the spot called Pie Corner, near which terminated the Great Fire of 1666. The fire commenced at Pudding Lane, it will be remembered, so it was singularly appropriate that it should terminate at Pie Corner. Under the date of 4th September, 1666, Pepys, in his "Diary," records that "W. Hewer this day went to see how his mother did, and comes home late, telling us how he hath been forced to remove her to Islington, her house in Pye Corner being burned; so that the fire is got so far that way." The figure of a fat naked boy stands over a public house at the corner of the lane; it used to have the following warning inscription attached:— "This boy is in memory put up of the late fire of London, occasioned by the sin of gluttony, 1666." According to Stow, Pie Corner derived its name from the sign of a well-frequented hostelry, which anciently stood on the spot. Strype makes honourable mention of Pie Corner, as "noted chiefly for cooks' shops and pigs dressed there during Bartholomew Fair." Our old writers have many references—and not all, by the way, in the best taste—to its cookstalls and dressed pork. Shadwell, for instance, in the Woman Captain (1680) speaks of "meat dressed at Pie Corner by greasy scullions;" and Ben Jonson writes in the Alchemist (1612)—
"I shall put you in mind, sir, at Pie Corner,
Taking your meal of steam in from cooks' stalls."
And in "The Great Boobee" ("Roxburgh Ballads"):
"Next day I through Pie Corner passed;
The roast meat on the stall
Invited me to take a taste;
My money was but small."
But Pie Corner seems to have been noted for more than eatables. A ballad from Tom D'Urfey's "Pills to Purge Melancholy," describing Bartholomew Fair, eleven years before the Fire of London, says:—
"At Pie-Corner end, mark well my good friend,
'Tis a very fine dirty place;
Where there's more arrows and bows. …
Than was handled at Chivy Chase."
We have already given a view of Pie Corner in our chapter on Smithfield, page 361.
Hosier Lane, running from Cow Lane to Smithfield, and almost parallel to Cock Lane, is described by "R. B.," in Strype, as a place not over-well built or inhabited. The houses were all old timber erections. Some of these—those standing at the south corner of the lane—were in the beginning of this century depicted by Mr. J. T. Smith, in his "Ancient Topography of London." He describes them as probably of the reign of James I. The rooms were small, with low, unornamented ceilings; the timber, oak, profusely used; the gables were plain, and the walls lath and plaster. They were taken down in 1809.
In the corner house, in Mr. Smith's time, there was a barber whose name was Catchpole; at least, so it was written over the door. He was rather an odd fellow, and possessed, according to his own account, a famous relic of antiquity. He would gravely show his customers a short-bladed instrument, as the identical dagger with which Walworth killed Wat Tyler.
Hosier Lane, like Pie Corner, used to be a great resort during the time of Bartholomew Fair, "all the houses," it is said in Strype, "generally being made public for tippling."
We return now from our excursion to the north of St. Sepulchre's, and continue our rambles to the west, and before speaking of what is, let us refer to what has been.
Turnagain Lane is not far from this. "Near unto this Seacoal Lane," remarks Stow, "in the turning towards Holborn Conduit, is Turnagain Lane, or rather, as in a record of the 5th of Edward III., Windagain Lane, for that it goeth down west to Fleet Dyke, from whence men must turn again the same way they came, but there it stopped." There used to be a proverb, "He must take him a house in Turnagain Lane."
A conduit formerly stood on Snow Hill, a little below the church. It is described as a building with four equal sides, ornamented with four columns and pediment, surmounted by a pyramid, on which stood a lamb—a rebus on the name of Lamb, from whose conduit in Red Lion Street the water came. There had been a conduit there, however, before Lamb's day, which was towards the close of the sixteenth century.
At No. 37, King Street, Snow Hill, there used to be a ladies' charity school, which was established in 1702, and remained in the parish 145 years. Dr. Johnson and Mrs. Thrale were subscribers to this school, and Johnson drew from it his story of Betty Broom, in "The Idler." The world of domestic service, in Betty's days, seems to have been pretty much as now. Betty was a poor girl, bred in the country at a charity-school, maintained by the contributions of wealthy neighbours. The patronesses visited the school from time to time, to see how the pupils got on, and everything went well, till "at last, the chief of the subscribers having passed a winter in London, came down full of an opinion new and strange to the whole country. She held it little less than criminal to teach poor girls to read and write. They who are born to poverty, she said, are born to ignorance, and will work the harder the less they know. She told her friends that London was in confusion by the insolence of servants; that scarcely a girl could be got for all-work, since education had made such numbers of fine ladies, that nobody would now accept a lower title than that of a waiting-maid, or something that might qualify her to wear laced shoes and long ruffles, and to sit at work in the parlour window. But she was resolved, for her part, to spoil no more girls. Those who were to live by their hands should neither read nor write out of her pocket. The world was bad enough already, and she would have no part in making it worse.
"She was for a long time warmly opposed; but she persevered in her notions, and withdrew her subscription. Few listen, without a desire of conviction, to those who advise them to spare their money. Her example and her arguments gained ground daily; and in less than a year the whole parish was convinced that the nation would be ruined if the children of the poor were taught to read and write." So the school was dissolved, and Betty with the rest was turned adrift into the wide and cold world; and her adventures there any one may read in "The Idler" for himself.
There is an entry in the school minutes of 1763, to the effect that the ladies of the committee censured the schoolmistress for listening to the story of the Cock Lane ghost, and "desired her to keep her belief in the article to herself."
Skinner Street—now one of the names of the past—which ran by the south side of St. Sepulchre's, and formed the connecting link between Newgate Street and Holborn, received its name from Alderman Skinner, through whose exertions, about 1802, it was principally built. The following account of Skinner Street is from the picturesque pen of Mr. William Harvey ("Aleph"), whose long familiarity with the places he describes renders doubly valuable his many contributions to the history of London scenes and people:—"As a building speculation," he says, writing in 1863, "it was a failure. When the buildings were ready for occupation, tall and substantial as they really were, the high rents frightened intending shopkeepers. Tenants were not to be had; and in order to get over the money difficulty, a lottery, sanctioned by Parliament, was commenced. Lotteries were then common tricks of finance, and nobody wondered at the new venture; but even the most desperate fortune-hunters were slow to invest their capital, and the tickets hung sadly on hand. The day for the drawing was postponed several times, and when it came, there was little or no excitement on the subject, and whoever rejoiced in becoming a house-owner on such easy terms, the original projectors and builders were understood to have suffered considerably. The winners found the property in a very unfinished condition. Few of the dwellings were habitable, and as funds were often wanting, a majority of the houses remained empty, and the shops unopened. After two or three years things began to improve; the vast many-storeyed house which then covered the site of Commercial Place was converted into a warehousing depôt; a capital house opposite the 'Saracen's Head' was taken by a hosier of the name of Theobald, who, opening his shop with the determination of selling the best hosiery, and nothing else, was able to convince the citizens that his hose was first-rate, and, desiring only a living profit, succeeded, after thirty years of unwearied industry, in accumulating a large fortune. Theobald was possessed of literary tastes, and at the sale of Sir Walter Scott's manuscripts was a liberal purchaser. He also collected a library of exceedingly choice books, and when aristocratic customers purchased stockings of him, was soon able to interest them in matters of far higher interest…
"The most remarkable shop—but it was on the left-hand side, at a corner house—was that established for the sale of children's books. It boasted an immense extent of window-front, extending from the entrance into Snow Hill, and towards Fleet Market. Many a time have I lingered with loving eyes over those fascinating story-books, so rich in gaily-coloured prints; such careful editions of the marvellous old histories, 'Puss in Boots,' 'Cock Robin,' 'Cinderella,' and the like. Fortunately the front was kept low, so as exactly to suit the capacity of a childish admirer. . . . . But Skinner Street did not prosper much, and never could compete with even the dullest portions of Holborn. I have spoken of some reputable shops; but you know the proverb, 'One swallow will not make a summer,' and it was a declining neighbourhood almost before it could be called new. In 1810 the commercial depôt, which had been erected at a cost of £25,000, and was the chief prize in the lottery, was destroyed by fire, never to be rebuilt—a heavy blow and discouragement to Skinner Street, from which it never rallied. Perhaps the periodical hanging-days exercised an unfavourable influence, collecting, as they frequently did, all the thieves and vagabonds of London. I never sympathised with Pepys or Charles Fox in their passion for public executions, and made it a point to avoid those ghastly sights; but early of a Monday morning, when I had just reached the end of Giltspur Street, a miserable wretch had just been turned off from the platform of the debtors' door, and I was made the unwilling witness of his last struggles. That scene haunted me for months, and I often used to ask myself, 'Who that could help it would live in Skinner Street?' The next unpropitious event in these parts was the unexpected closing of the child's library. What could it mean? Such a well-to-do establishment shut up? Yes, the whole army of shutters looked blankly on the inquirer, and forbade even a single glance at 'Sinbad' or 'Robinson Crusoe.' It would soon be re-opened, we naturally thought; but the shutters never came down again. The whole house was deserted; not even a messenger in bankruptcy, or an ancient Charley, was found to regard the playful double knocks of the neighbouring juveniles. Gradually the glass of all the windows got broken in, a heavy cloud of black dust, solidifying into inches thick, gathered on sills and doors and brickwork, till the whole frontage grew as gloomy as Giant Despair's Castle. Not long after, the adjoining houses shared the same fate, and they remained from year to year without the slightest sign of life—absolute scarecrows, darkening with their uncomfortable shadows the busy streets. Within half a mile, in Stamford Street, Blackfriars, there are (1863) seven houses in a similar predicament— window-glass demolished, doors cracked from top to bottom, spiders' webs hanging from every projecting sill or parapet. What can it mean? The loss in the article of rents alone must be over £1,000 annually. If the real owners are at feud with imaginary owners, surely the property might be rendered valuable, and the proceeds invested. Even the lawyers can derive no profit from such hopeless abandonment. I am told the whole mischief arose out of a Chancery suit. Can it be the famous 'Jarndyce v. Jarndyce' case? And have all the heirs starved each other out? If so, what hinders our lady the Queen from taking possession? Any change would be an improvement, for these dead houses make the streets they cumber as dispiriting and comfortless as graveyards. Busy fancy will sometimes people them, and fill the dreary rooms with strange guests. Do the victims of guilt congregate in these dark dens? Do wretches 'unfriended by the world or the world's law,' seek refuge in these deserted nooks, mourning in the silence of despair over their former lives, and anticipating the future in unappeasable agony? Such things have been—the silence and desolation of these doomed dwellings make them the more suitable for such tenants."
A street is nothing without a mystery, so a mystery let these old tumble-down houses remain, whilst we go on to tell that, in front of No. 58, the sailor Cashman was hung in 1817, as we have already mentioned, for plundering a gunsmith's shop there. William Godwin, the author of "Caleb Williams," kept a bookseller's shop for several years in Skinner Street, at No. 41, and published school-books in the name of Edward Baldwin. On the wall there was a stone carving of Æsop reciting one of his fables to children.
The most noteworthy event of the life of Godwin was his marriage with the celebrated Mary Wollstonecraft, authoress of a "Vindication of the Rights of Women," whose congenial mind, in politics and morals, he ardently admired. Godwin's account of the way in which they got on together is worth reading:—"Ours," he writes, "was not an idle happiness, a paradise of selfish and transitory pleasures. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to mention, that influenced by ideas I had long entertained, I engaged an apartment about twenty doors from our house, in the Polygon, Somers Town, which I designed for the purpose of my study and literary occupations. Trifles, however, will be interesting to some readers, when they relate to the last period of the life of such a person as Mary. I will add, therefore, that we were both of us of opinion, that it was possible for two persons to be too uniformly in each other's society. Influenced by that opinion, it was my practice to repair to the apartment I have mentioned as soon as I rose, and frequently not to make my appearance in the Polygon till the hour of dinner. We agreed in condemning the notion, prevalent in many situations in life, that a man and his wife cannot visit in mixed society but in company with each other, and we rather sought occasions of deviating from than of complying with this rule. By this means, though, for the most part, we spent the latter half of each day in one another's society, yet we were in no danger of satiety. We seemed to combine, in a considerable degree, the novelty and lively sensation of a visit with the more delicious and heartfelt pleasure of a domestic life."
This philosophic union, to Godwin's inexpressible affliction, did not last more than eighteen months, at the end of which time Mrs. Godwin died, leaving an only daughter, who in the course of time became the second wife of the poet Shelley, and was the author of the wild and extraordinary tale of "Frankenstein."
Reconstruction of the Small Herculaneum Woman, 2019, marble stucco on plaster cast, egg tempera, and gold foil 185 x 56 x 65 cm, created by Vinzenz Brinkmann and Ulrike Koch-Brinkmann (Liebieghaus Skulpturensammlung Frankfurt, on permanent loan from Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main)
Thank you for your interest. Please do not post spam, irrelevant poetry or prose, or links to your works in the comment section. I will find my own way to your images. All my images are my own original work, under my copyright, with all rights reserved. This means the owner's permission must be sought and obtained, before using any image for ANY purpose.
Copyright infringement is theft.
The Caged Eagle: Angus McBride and the Aquila of Legio II Parthica
Imperial Roman Legionary AD 161-284 features a dramatic battle scene by the late Angus McBride.
It depicts a civil war clash between the Praetorian Guard and Second Parthica Legion. Both units were present at the battle fought by Macrinus and Elagabalus at Imma on 8 June AD 217. The praetorians fought heroically for Macrinus - until he lost his nerve and fled the field. Second Parthica sided with Elagabalus, but the position of units in the opposing lines is not known and it was pure speculation on my part to have the closely-associated regiments collided head-on.
I was not entirely thrilled on learning that Angus McBride was working on the artwork for Roman Legionary 58 BC - AD 69 and Imperial Roman Legionary AD 161-284 (both published by Osprey in 2003). If McBride had produced the cover of a heroic fantasy novel by David Gemmell, I probably would have loved it. Imagine mighty Druss, the Captain of the Axe, painted by Angus McBride! But I thought his Conan-esque figures looked ridiculous in historical contexts. My favourite illustrator was, and remains, Peter Connolly, but McBride got the gig and did a splendid job. (As did Steven Dp Richardson. When photographic permissions could not be secured or licensing fees were prohibitively high, Steven stepped into the breach and quickly prepared sketches of helmets, swords and other relevant artefacts.)
Like all Osprey authors do, I conceived the illustrations and put together design briefs and pictorial reference packages for the artist to work from. The Osprey artist is not required to have any knowledge of the historical period s/he is illustrating. It is not a collaborative process. I had no contact with McBride. My editors at Osprey forwarded the design packages to him and I later received A3-sized colour proofs of the artwork from the publisher. Despite my reservations about his style, McBride followed the briefs closely. I was told McBride was an irascible character and would not make changes to his work, but when I requested minor alterations to three of the illustrations, he did so promptly and apparently without comment. However, Legionary 58 BC - AD 69 went to press with the uncorrected illustrations.
The best illustration in Legionary 58 BC - AD 69 is the last stand of Marcus Caelius and the veterans of the Eighteenth Legion in the Teutoburg Forest (AD 9). One look at the cenotaph of Caelius tells you everything (flic.kr/p/eJKwDF). The centurion was hard-faced, powerfully built and laden with the most prestigious military awards for acts of high valour. He was a bellator (warrior). You know that Caelius went down fighting. McBride captured that warrior spirit perfectly.
McBride was in playful mood when working on the illustrations for Legionary AD 161-284. Dainty songbirds flit around the feet of Herculean legionaries and a muscle-bound emperor Marcus Aurelius. This whimsy excited no comment from the Osprey fanboys, who collect the books for the artwork and have little interest in the text. The Battle of Imma illustration, however, was criticized on hobbyist forums and in reviews on Amazon. That the praetorians and legionaries fought without body armour (suggested by Dio 78.37.4), or even helmets, went unnoticed. The problem was the standard carried by the aquilifer of the Second.
Felsonius Verus, a native of Etruria and aquilifer (eagle-bearer) of the Second Parthica Legion, died during the Persian War of Gordian III. He was commemorated by his wife, Flavia Magna, at Apamea in Syria (AE 1991, 1572). The fortress of Second Parthica was at Albanum (Albano) near Rome, but Apamea acted as the legion’s base for campaigns against the Parthians in AD 216-218, and the Persians in AD 231-233 and 242-244 (when Verus died).
Verus’ tombstone was rediscovered by Belgian archaeologists in 1986/87. It depicts the deceased with a most unusual aquila (eagle standard). Instead of the typical shaft topped by a proud raptor clutching a thunderbolt or wreath in its talons, Verus’ eagle peeks out of a container with X-shaped bars. The excavators initially considered this “a very strange and abberant model of an aquila, which deserves more study” but later concluded the eagle “was clearly a live one in a cage” (Balty 1988, 101; Balty & Van Rengen, 1994, 12).
I was very taken with Balty and Van Rengen’s interpretation and decided to have Felsonius Verus’ predecessor carry a live eagle mascot in the battle of Imma reconstruction. I also sought permission from Balty and Van Rengen to reproduce images of Verus’ gravestone, but my request went unanswered. Quality CC-licensed photographs of the monument can be found on Flickr (flic.kr/p/5Bj2MY) and elsewhere (e.g. vici.org/image.php?id=35257), but sourcing images was not so simple at the dawn of the 21st century.
Pictures of the Apamea aquilifer were included in the design package but the artist, perhaps mischievously, or perhaps feeling that an actual bird would not be contained by crossbars, made a notable change. McBride’s bold aquilifer advances determinedly with a fierce eagle hunched in what looks like a parrot cage. Cue scowls, and the occasional howl of outrage, from Osprey fans.
The complaints were justified. Felsonius Verus was not in charge of an actual eagle; the Roman legions did not have live animal mascots like British army regiments do. The aquila was the genius (spirit) of the legion, a sacred totem made of silver and plated with gold. What is depicted on the gravestone of Felsonius Verus is a gilded statuette in a portable aedicula (shrine). The aquila left its aedes (temple) in the fortress only when the complete legion went to war (Dio 40.18.1). The mini-aedicula held by Verus acted a as protective case while the legion was on the march but still allowed the sacred aquila to be seen (Stoll 1991).
Other iconography indicates that aedicula-cases were removed for battle and the eagles brandished in their full golden glory. But would Angus McBride’s painting, which also graced the cover of the book, have been so arresting if the aquilifer had carried an uncovered aquila? Probably not.
References
J. Ch. Balty, ‘Apamea in Syria in the Second and Third Centuries A.D.’, Journal of Roman Studies 78 (1988), 91-104
J. Ch. Balty & W. Van Rengen, Apamea in Syria: The Winter Quaters of Legio II Parthica (Brussels 1993)
O. Stoll, ‘Der Adler im “Käfig”. Zu einer Aquilifer-Grabstele aus Apamea in Syrien’, Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt 21,4 (1991), 535-538. Reprinted with addenda in Stoll, Römisches Heer und Gesellschaft. Gesammelte Beiträge 1991-1999. MAVORS 13 (Stuttgart 1991), 13-46
For the Substack version of this post, see rosscowan.substack.com/p/the-caged-eagle
The unknown years of Jesus (also called his silent years, lost years, or missing years) generally refers to the period of Jesus's life between his childhood and the beginning of his ministry, a period not described in the New Testament.
The "lost years of Jesus" concept is usually encountered in esoteric literature (where it at times also refers to his possible post-crucifixion activities) but is not commonly used in scholarly literature since it is assumed that Jesus was probably working as a carpenter in Galilee, at least some of the time with Joseph, from the age of 12 to 29.
In the late medieval period, there appeared Arthurian legends that the young Jesus had been in Britain. In the 19th and 20th centuries theories began to emerge that between the ages of 12 and 29 Jesus had visited India, or had studied with the Essenes in the Judea desert. Modern mainstream Christian scholarship has generally rejected these theories and holds that nothing is known about this time period in the life of Jesus.
The use of the "lost years" in the "swoon hypothesis", suggests that Jesus survived his crucifixion and continued his life, instead of what was stated in the New Testament that he ascended into Heaven with two angels. This, and the related view that he avoided crucifixion altogether, has given rise to several speculations about what happened to him in the supposed remaining years of his life, but these are not accepted by mainstream scholars either.
Among all of Israel’s neighbors, Egypt is the most prominent one in the Bible, especially in relation to Moses in the Old Testament, and in the New – to Jesus. Though not a lot of Egypt’s own history is described in the Bible, it carries great significance in Biblical history and in Jewish life.
Since the rebirth of modern Israel in 1948, relations between the Jewish state and neighboring Egypt have only gained momentum. Peace treaties, negotiations over the Suez Canal, and mediation with Gaza are just examples of how much has been happening on Israel’s southern border.
But politics aside, the land of Egypt is mentioned by the Jewish people on a regular basis. Why? Consider the story of Passover – it begins in Egypt! The entire Book of Exodus (meaning ‘departure’ or ‘escape’) speaks of the Hebrews fleeing Egypt and finding their way to the Promised Land through the desert.
Most notably, Mount Sinai is likely located in present-day Egypt, on Sinai Peninsula, where Moses received God’s commandments. You may be wondering: How do the Jewish people feel about Egypt today? Is it hard for Egyptian believers to read the Old Testament? Do they take the harsh words about Egypt personally? Let’s take a closer look at history.
Ancient Egypt and the Modern Arab Republic
Before visiting Egypt, I knew quite a bit about her ancient beginnings from schoolbooks, movies and photo albums. But although the ancient tombs and temples remain impressive to this day, I was curious about believers in present day Egypt. Because what does Egypt mean to us?
Some may think of hieroglyphs of slender men and women with neatly shaved or trimmed hair. Others will immediately think of pyramids and the Sphinx. Still, some may associate Egypt with the kingdom described in the Old Testament – the enemy that oppressed the Jewish people. And a nation that endured plagues and served pharaohs.
If you follow modern-day events, you may think Egypt is a turbulent country that was at the forefront of the Arab Spring in early 2010s. One thing is abundantly clear. Egypt was and is a unique place that is in great need of our prayers.
Egypt – the Cradle of Civilization
Egypt’s remarkable historical heritage is a major part of her people’s identity even today. Which is easily noticeable at every step, with ancient symbols appearing on items of common use. Egyptians are proud of the superpower that the ancient Egypt once was.
We know from the Bible that Egypt had wealth, a strong army and powerful kings. Abraham and many of his descendants sojourned to Egypt in difficult times, for food and shelter. This only confirms that it was the most powerful and prosperous nation in the region.
Already in antiquity Egypt became known for its advancements in construction, medicine and agriculture. Their achievements are recognized to this day in mathematics or literature (including early paper production). And also in art, for example in unique ceramic and glass techniques.
On top of that, Egypt had an elaborate religious system. The pagan nature of the land was very evident. Kings were considered to be gods and superstition was common. After the Israelites escaped slavery in Egypt, the Bible instructed them not to follow the ways of Egypt (Lev. 18:3).
How Long were Israelites in Egypt?
Joseph, son of Jacob, did not end up in Egypt by choice (Genesis 37). But God raised him to hold a very influential position in this foreign land. Historically, Egypt was known for cooperating with other tribes and kingdoms, even allowing foreigners to take high positions in governance. We read that Joseph became second only to Pharaoh (Genesis 41:39-41) in all of Egypt.
In the end, the entire family of Jacob moved to Egypt, escaping famine and drought. For as long as Joseph was remembered by the rulers in the country, the Hebrews led a peaceful and good life among the Egyptians. But that changed once a new Pharaoh ascended to the throne “who did not know Joseph.” (Exodus 1:8)
Life conditions became progressively worse for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This situation deteriorated to the point that a few generations later, they became slaves to the Egyptians. But then, we read that God heard their cry (Exodus 3:7-8) and raised up Moses to lead them out of this land and into freedom.
Despite Moses being raised in the Pharaoh’s house, it was no easy task to set his people free. It took some intense negotiations, ten plagues and the death of Pharaoh’s own son for the Israelites to finally leave Egypt. The Bible says that the chosen nation spent 430 years in Egypt (Exodus 12:40-41) , but it was time for them to return home.
The Foreign Affairs of the Promised Land
Moses is considered to be the most important prophet in Judaism. And the Exodus from Egypt was undoubtedly the most significant event on the Nile that is mentioned in the Bible. But it is far from the last one. As Israelites were taking possession of their Promised Land, they were still very aware of the powerful kingdom to the south.
That could be the reason why Israel’s third king, Solomon, made the diplomatic decision to marry Pharaoh’s daughter: “And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David…” (1 Kings 3:1).
What may have seemed like a good political move did not turn out to be a good one spiritually. The many wives of Solomon weakened his devotion to the Lord. One of his biggest downfalls was building altars to other gods for his wives. His rulership ended with the Kingdom of Israel being split into two. But it was his son who reaped the fruit of his failures:
“Rehoboam, son of Solomon and the first king of Judah, was attacked in the fifth year of his reign by an Egyptian pharaoh. As a result of his defeat, Judah became a vassal state, subordinate to Egypt. The Israelites had forsaken the LORD and so, the LORD left them to the hands of Pharaoh. And it came to pass, that in the fifth year of King Rehoboam Shishak King of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord.” (2 Chronicles 12:2)
Jesus in Egypt
The family of Jesus was instructed to seek shelter in Egypt when His life was in danger (Matt. 2:13). We don’t know much about the time they spent by the Nile, but we can assume they were safe. God Himself instructed them to find refuge in the south. Egyptian Christians share this story with pride, even though not much else can be said about it.
But this remains true: the Jewish Messiah, our Savior and Son of God, lived for a short season in Egypt. What an exceptional fact to have as a part of your nation’s history! Nevertheless, not too many Egyptians know this, given that the majority of the country follows Islam.
It is legal to be a Christian in Egypt, as long as you are born one. Every citizen has their religious affiliation specified on their identity card. If your passport or other document states you were born into a Muslim family, you cannot change it.
This means that the right to choose what to believe is practically withdrawn from you at the moment of birth. So, are there no people in Egypt who consciously chose to accept Jesus as their Savior? There are. But often they have to keep their faith secret, to avoid persecution or even death.
My Egyptian host explained to me how significant the stories of Joseph and baby Jesus are to the believers in his country. It is what unites them all across Egypt. And then, he started asking me about Western countries, and sighed: “It must be wonderful to live in a country where everyone’s a Christian…” Inadvertently, I sighed as well.
Why is Egypt in the Bible?
I asked my host how the Egyptian Christians look at some of the prophecies and harsh words about Egypt in the Old Testament. Aside from actual events that took place in Egypt or in relation to Egypt, the Bible often uses this nation as a negative example or a lesson to learn.
After enslaving the Hebrews and because of idolatry, Egypt became synonymous with sin and bondage. Compelling the Jewish people to choose life, God cautions them about returning to Egypt and living in sin (Deut. 17:16).
Since the days of the Old Testament’s prophets, many of the prophecies about Egypt have been fulfilled. The glory of the Pharaohs is long gone, and Egypt is not as powerful as it was in antiquity. As the prophets had foretold, Egypt became a home of rebellion and internal conflicts.
But just as God said Egypt will be smitten, He also promised that she will be healed. Christians in Egypt hold on to this promise and continue to pray for their nation. In response to my question, my host smiled with understanding. Maybe I wasn’t the first one to ask these questions.
He humbly replied, “This country probably deserved great damnation in the past. But Jesus came to earth for that very reason. He showed us that there is such a thing as grace.”
Thanks to the prophet Isaiah, we know that to be true. “And when the Lord will strike Egypt, strike and heal, then they will turn to the Lord, and He will turn to God, let them plead and heal them.” (Isa. 19:22)
firmisrael.org/learn/from-moses-to-jesus-egypt-in-the-bib...
The 18 unknown years
Following the accounts of Jesus' young life, there is a gap of about 18 years in his story in the New Testament. Other than the statement that after he was 12 years old (Luke 2:42) Jesus "advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men" (Luke 2:52), the New Testament has no other details regarding the gap.[4] Christian tradition suggests that Jesus simply lived in Galilee during that period. Modern scholarship holds that there is little historical information to determine what happened during those years.
The ages of 12 and 29, the approximate ages at either end of the unknown years, have some significance in Judaism of the Second Temple period: 13 is the age of the bar mitzvah, the age of secular maturity,and 30 the age of readiness for the priesthood, although Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi.
Christians have generally taken the statement in Mark 6:3 referring to Jesus as "Is not this the carpenter...?" (Greek: οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, romanized: ouch outos estin ho tektōn) as an indication that before the age of 30 Jesus had been working as a carpenter. The tone of the passage leading to the question "Is not this the carpenter?" suggests familiarity with Jesus in the area, reinforcing that he had been generally seen as a carpenter in the gospel account before the start of his ministry. Matthew 13:55 poses the question as "Is not this the carpenter's son?" suggesting that the profession tektōn had been a family business and Jesus was engaged in it before starting his preaching and ministry in the gospel accounts.
Background of Galilee and Judea
Cultural and historical background of Jesus
The historical record of the large number of workmen employed in the rebuilding of Sepphoris has led Batey (1984) and others to suggest that when Jesus was in his teens and twenties carpenters would have found more employment at Sepphoris rather than at the small town of Nazareth.
Aside from secular employment some attempts have been made to reconstruct the theological and rabbinical circumstances of the "unknown years", e.g., soon after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls novelist Edmund Wilson (1955) suggested Jesus may have studied with the Essenes, followed by the Unitarian Charles F. Potter (1958) and others. Other writers have taken the view that the predominance of Pharisees in Judea during that period, and Jesus' own later recorded interaction with the Pharisees, makes a Pharisee background more likely, as in the recorded case of another Galilean, Josephus studied with all three groups: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.
Other sources
See also: Infancy gospels and Pseudepigrapha
The New Testament apocrypha and early Christian pseudepigrapha preserve various pious legends filling the "gaps" in Christ's youth. Charlesworth (2008) explains this as due to the canonical Gospels having left "a narrative vacuum" that many have attempted to fill.
Jesus's childhood is described in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and the Syriac Infancy Gospel, among other sources.
Claims of young Jesus in Britain
The story of Jesus visiting Britain as a boy is a late medieval development based on legends connected with Joseph of Arimathea. During the late 12th century, Joseph of Arimathea became connected with the Arthurian cycle, appearing in them as the first keeper of the Holy Grail. This idea first appears in Robert de Boron's Joseph d'Arimathie, in which Joseph receives the Grail from an apparition of Jesus and sends it with his followers to Britain. This theme is elaborated upon in Boron's sequels and in subsequent Arthurian works penned by others.
Some Arthurian legends hold that Jesus travelled to Britain as a boy, lived at Priddy in the Mendips, and built the first wattle cabin at Glastonbury. William Blake's early 19th-century poem "And did those feet in ancient time" was inspired by the story of Jesus travelling to Britain. In some versions, Joseph was supposedly a tin merchant and took Jesus under his care when his mother Mary was widowed. Gordon Strachan wrote Jesus the Master Builder: Druid Mysteries and the Dawn of Christianity (1998), which was the basis of the documentary titled And Did Those Feet (2009). Strachan believed Jesus may have travelled to Britain to study with the Druids.
Claims of young Jesus in India and/or Tibet
Nicolas Notovitch
In 1887, Russian war correspondent Nicolas Notovitch claimed that while at the Hemis Monastery in Ladakh, he had learned of a document called the "Life of Saint Issa, Best of the Sons of Men" – Isa being the Arabic name of Jesus in Islam.[30][31][32] Notovitch's story, with a translated text of the "Life of Saint Issa", was published in French in 1894 as La vie inconnue de Jesus Christ (Unknown Life of Jesus Christ).[7][32]
According to the scrolls, Jesus abandoned Jerusalem at the age of 13 and set out towards Sind, “intending to improve and perfect himself in the divine understanding and to studying the laws of the great Buddha”. He crossed Punjab and reached Puri Jagannath where he studied the Vedas under Brahmin priests. He spent six years in Puri and Rajgirh, near Nalanda, the ancient seat of Hindu learning. Then he went to the Himalayas, and spent time in Tibetan monasteries, studying Buddhism,[30] and through Persia, returned to Jerusalem at the age of 29.
Notovitch's writings were immediately controversial and Max Müller stated that either the monks at the monastery had deceived Notovitch (or played a joke on him), or he had fabricated the evidence.[30][33][34] Müller then wrote to the monastery at Hemis and the head lama replied that there had been no Western visitor at the monastery in the past fifteen years and there were no documents related to Notovitch's story.[35] J. Archibald Douglas then visited Hemis monastery and interviewed the head lama who stated that Notovitch had never been there. Indologist Leopold von Schroeder called Notovitch's story a "big fat lie". Wilhelm Schneemelcher states that Notovich's accounts were soon exposed as fabrications, and that to date no one has even had a glimpse at the manuscripts Notovitch claims to have had.
Notovich responded to claims to defend himself. But once his story had been re-examined by historians – some even questioning his existence – it is claimed that Notovitch confessed to having fabricated the evidence. Bart D. Ehrman states that "Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax".However, others deny that Notovich ever accepted the accusations against him – that his account was a forgery, etc. Although he was not impressed with his story, Sir Francis Younghusband recalls meeting Nicolas Notovitch near Skardu, not long before Notovitch had visited Hemis monastery.
In 1922, Swami Abhedananda, the president of the Vedanta Society of New York between 1897 and 1921 and the author of several books, went to the Himalayas on foot and reached Tibet, where he studied Buddhist philosophy and Tibetan Buddhism. He went to the Hemis Monastery, and allegedly found the manuscript translated by Notovitch, which was a Tibetan translation of the original scrolls written in Pali. The lama said that it was a copy and that the original was in a monastery at Marbour near Lhasa. After Abhedananda's death in 1939, one of his disciples inquired about the documents at the Hemis monastery, but was told that they had disappeared.