Автор: Julie Delvaux, 2004

Англичане любят классику. Это очень практично: вас никто и никогда не сможет упрекнуть в дурновкусии, если вы скажете, что обожаете Моцарта. То же о живописи: можно не любить современное искусство, но титаны Возрождения – это совсем другое. Здесь не нужно додумывать, – здесь можно только восхищаться.

Первая крупная выставка раннего творчества Рафаэля Урбинского на английском берегу, организованная лондонской Национальной Галереей, показательна именно в смысле вышеозначенного отношения к достоянию мировой культуры. Народ валил валом, – так, что музею пришлось указывать в билете время посещения, около получаса, в течение которого вы могли вдоволь насладиться прелестью Мадонн и точностью эскизов для множества полотен, написанных Рафаэлем между 1500 и 1513 гг. Название экспозиции – «Из Урбино в Рим» – говорит само за себя: ее задача – проиллюстрировать процесс становления творчества гениального итальянца от начала его работы в мастерской в Урбино до переезда в Рим, ко двору ренессансных пап. В то же время его популярность вполне объяснима тем фактом, что на фоне Микеланджело и Леонардо Рафаэль – наиболее постижимый. Его Мадонны не улыбаются так загадочно, как Джоконда, а фигуры не выворачивают суставы в экспрессии. Его живопись приятна и приносит успокоение и при этом отличается удивительными по силе колоритом и игрой светотени.

Первый зал самого нижнего этажа Крыла Сейнсбери посвящен времени, что Рафаэль провел в мастерской своего отца, придворного живописца герцогов Урбинских, до переезда в Перуджу в 1502, где он немедленно попал под влияние Пьетро Перуджино и Пинториккьо. У первого он перенял уже упомянутую теплоту и приятность, у второго – декоративность. Первый зал поэтому логично отводит главное место их живописи, вкупе с несколькими работами Джованни Санти. Из работ Рафаэля здесь экспонируется приписываемый ему процессионный крест (ок. 1498-1502), отличающийся исключительной проработкой деталей.

Второй зал продолжает тему первого, но уделяет гораздо большее внимание работам самого Рафаэля в 1500-04 гг. В это время он работает не только для Перуджи и Урбино, но и небольшого Читта ди Кастелло, где он сменил ведущего живописца Луку Синьорелли. К этому периоду относится «Мадонна Конестабиле» (1502), привезенная из Эрмитажа.

Экспозиция третьего зала вызвала споры критиков. Он посвящен первому знакомству Рафаэля с Флоренцией и творчеством Микеланджело и Леонардо. Из работ последних, которые Рафаэль потенциально видел, здесь представлены следующие: эскиз мужской фигуры, сделанный Микеланджело для фрески «Битва при Кашине» в Палаццо Веккьо (ок. 1504-5); и два полотна Леонардо – «Богоматерь с младенцем и кошкой» (ок. 1481) и «Богоматерь с младенцем и святыми Анной и Иоанном Крестителем» (ок. 1499-1500). Работа во Флоренции, во-первых, открыла для Рафаэля трехмерную живопись, а, во-вторых, здесь он впервые начал делать эскизы обнаженных мужских фигур, что подтверждают пять зарисовок 1505-6 гг. Недовольство критиков, главным образом, состоит в том, что на фоне Микеланджело и Леонардо Рафаэль выглядит уж слишком блекло. В ответ на это можно лишь возразить, что, не приехай он во Флоренцию, гений Рафаэля, каким мы представляем его по «Афинской школе» или «Сикстинской Мадонне», мог никогда бы не раскрыться, и произошло это во многом под влиянием упомянутых титанов. Упорство, с каким он вместе со своим флорентийским другом Бастиано да Сангалло копировал микеланджеловский картон, наводит на мысль, что он и сам прекрасно отдавал себе отчет в недостатках своего стиля. Для того чтобы их исправить, он и жил во Флоренции подолгу.

Впрочем, жаловаться ему было не на что: его имя, прославленное работами в Урбино и Перудже, уже было на слуху у богатых флорентийских купцов, которые активно эксплуатировали теплоту и гуманность рафаэлевского стиля, заказывая портреты и изображения Мадонн. В четвертом и пятом зале представлены все основные полотна флорентийского периода (1504-08), до отъезда в Рим. «Мадонна Ансидеи» (1505), «Мадонна Бриджуотер» (ок. 1507), «Дама с единорогом» (ок. 1505-6), «Святая Екатерина» (ок. 1507), а также серия картонов для алтаря в Галерее Боргезе (1507) показывают нередко прямое заимствование технических приемов у Леонардо, с их последующей авторской адаптацией. В частности, «Дама с единорогом» и зарисовки к ней ясно указывают на знакомство Рафаэля с «Джокондой».

В четвертом зале эскпонируется и недавнее приобретение Национальной Галереи, – «Мадонна с гвоздиками» (ок. 1506-7). Прежде чем окончательно войти в собрание НГ, она совершила путешествие по всей Британии, с остановками в Кардиффе, Манчестере и Эдинбурге. Ни изображение Мадонны, ни собственно символика полотна не являются вполне традиционными для Рафаэля. Это, возможно, самая камерная из всех его Мадонн, предположительно написанная по заказу вдовы, уходящей в монастырь. На возможность подобной трактовки наводит как размер картины (29 х 23 см), так и сюжет: богоматерь сидит подле окна с младенцем Христом на коленях, и оба держат в руках гвоздики. «Странность» полотна в том, что гвоздика символизирует, с одной стороны, раны Христа, а, с другой, является и эмблемой брачного союза. На этой картине, таким образом, богоматерь представлена по отношению к Христу не только как мать, но и как невеста, – это, безусловно, весьма оригинальный взгляд на старую тему. Искусствоведы разделились во мнениях относительно авторства Рафаэля, однако детальный сравнительный анализ его подтверждает.

Последние два зала освещают «римский» период, с 1508 по 1513 г. Приехав декорировать папский дворец в Ватикане по приглашению Юлия II, Рафаэль начал с его частной библиотеки, для которой он выполнил фреску «Диспут» (ок. 1508-9), за чем последовал контракт на роспись всех папских апартаментов. В это же время он сотрудничает с литографом Маркантонио Раймонди, который, в частности, делает копию с «Избиения младенцев» (ок. 1510). В седьмом зале мы видим четыре всемирно известных полотна: «Автопортрет» (ок. 1506), «Мадонна Альба» (ок. 1509-11), «Портрет папы Юлия II» (сер. 1511) и «Ла Донна Велата» (1512-13). В Риме манера Рафаэля окончательно кристаллизуется, приобретя вдобавок мягкость венецианской живописи, с которой он имел возможность хорошо ознакомиться в эти годы. В то же время, оказавшись столь близко к колыбели цивилизации, Рафаэль не мог не впитать дух античного Рима, что явно демонстрируют его работы после 1513 г., не представленные на выставке.

- - -

Экспозиция работ Эдгара Дега представляет собой яркий контраст с выставкой Рафаэля, прежде всего с точки зрения их пространственной организации. К сожалению, весь эффект, который НГ стремилась произвести, демонстрируя британцам и гостям Лондона творчество Рафаэля, исчезает, как только вы вступаете под низкие своды Крыла Сейнсбери. Здесь, ненароком наступая кому-то на ногу, вы вынуждены вставать в очередь, чтобы получить возможность разглядеть очередной эскиз. Безусловно, русский посетитель с тоской вспоминает галерею ГМИИ или просторные залы Эрмитажа, где Рафаэль производил бы куда большее впечатление. Не помогают даже «часы посещения», предписанные билетом, поскольку ценителей классики все равно больше, чем могут вместить миниатюрные комнаты.

На выставке Дега все куда проще: и людей меньше, и картины не самые известные, и почти каждую вторую копируют дальневосточные девушки, вооружившись альбомом и цветными грифелями. Да-да, пока европейцы наслаждаются «классикой», постигая живопись Ренессанса, не-европейцы упиваются творчеством тех, кто в большей степени, нежели титаны Возрождения, повлияли на современное искусство. На выставке представлены как широко, так и малоизвестные полотна Дега, включая «Портрет Элены Карафа» (ок. 1875), «Причесывание» (ок. 1896) и «Русские танцоры» (ок. 1899). Конечно, нужно быть очень большим знатоком искусства или просто почитателем импрессионизма, чтобы и в размытых лицах Мадонн второй половины 19 века увидеть ту же приятность и красоту, которые так восхищают нас при взгляде на полотна Рафаэля. Дега – это искусство для интеллектуалов, не случайно и эскпозиция названа «Искусство в процессе»: художник хорошо известен тем, что любил снова и снова возвращаться к своим полотнам, чтобы улучшать и перерабатывать. Зачем? – вот главный вопрос, который вы не перестаете себе задавать, взирая на его полотна.

Бесспорно, за три с половиной столетия, от Рафаэля до Дега, само отношение к живописи изменилось. После европейских революций 19 века и накануне Первой мировой войны Мадонны стали эмансипированными, пили абсент и проводили вечера в парижских кафе. Размытые черты лица, нарочито обнаженные тела, длинные волосы – это знак времени, символ уязвимости перед внешним миром и боязни перемен, и здесь индивидуализм и экспрессия модели проявляются едва ли не в большей мере, чем в эпоху Возрождения. Дега, как и все прочие импрессионисты, куда ближе нашему времени, чем Рафаэль. Однако, как это часто бывает, люди закрывают глаза на происходящее вокруг и обращаются к тому, что дает им покой и веру. Я уходила из НГ со странным ощущением, что вокруг Дега не будет такого ажиотажа, как вокруг Рафаэля. И дело не только в том, что англичане первый раз принимают итальянского гения на своем берегу. Рафаэль – это приют душ измученных терроризмом посетителей музея. Когда люди обращаются к классике, им нужен мир. А когда наступит мир, тогда они задумаются о революции.

Following the publications in the European press, the article looks at the English and French bids, and at why London has become the host city.

By Julie Delvaux

(First published at Exzibit.net on 07 July 2005)

Ever since 1066 England and France have been connected firmly by either cultural or political ties, and given this fact it is easy to see why there is still so much to debate. Be that politics, or sports, or arts, the Lion is always eagerly up against fleur-de-lis, or vice versa.

Centuries ago, during the Hundred Years, this rivalry was conducted through creating an image of an enemy. The French, of course, considered themselves more refined, while the English saw in their mirrors a reflection of sheer sophistication. The English said the French were cowards; the French said the English were drunkards. The discussion did not evolve around men only, it also included women. The English thought French women were ugly and deceitful; the French thought English women were deceitful and ugly. On the intimate matters the French wrote that because of their eternally drunk husbands, the English ladies have to please themselves, unless they wanted to wait till the second kingdom for their men to do anything. In response, the English author explained, why Joan of Arc was a virgin: she was so hideous, he wrote, that no man wanted to lie with her.

Five centuries after France beat England the two nations were again competing against each other in the race to host the Olympic Games in 2012. Like his predecessors, Chirac didn’t spare England of angry comments on their food. He went as far as to remind everyone that it was the British who imported ‘mad cow disease’ in Europe. And, truly, I wonder what he will be thinking in the forthcoming few days at the Gleneagles, where he will be eating British or at least British-cooked food. Most probably, he will be biting his tongue, but not because the food is atrocious. It will rather be a post-factum action that he should have performed at the time when the comments of English food were leaving his lips.

This time, thanks to the Olympic Committee, England responded in the best way one could only imagine. A comment on BBC’s Have Your Say read: ‘The face of Jacques Chirac will now be like the snails he eats’. And it’s not the first time in this year, unfortunately, that Monsieur Chirac is being gravely disappointed. First there was a parliamentary crisis, then the EU vote was lost despite all attempts to raise the ‘yes’ bid, and now the Olympics will be held in London, even though Paris was far better prepared in almost everything. Most of its infrastructure would only be improved, whereas the Olympic village, provided it was to be built, would subsequently become a new city quarter, thus leading to Paris’s expansion.

Unlike Chirac, Tony Blair’s 2005 has so far been lucky. He managed to stand up against all critique in a fierce electoral campaign in spring. His reputation has been tarnished by Iraqi war, education and health care problems, crime and tax rise, but whether with the help of Chancellor Brown or without it, Blair got the historic third term for Labour. And now he’s sealed his fortune with a historic battle in the Olympic bid, by winning at 54 votes against 50 in the closest ever race. He is the chief of the European Union, and keeps his cards close to his chest, like a true Grey Cardinal. And now he is also hosting the G8 summit, hoping to persuade the other seven richest countries to revise their African policy. And he backed Geldof’s initiative in calling in for music stars to press on the politicians. He had all the reasons to punch a fist in the air – it’s not the time to think of the political etiquette.

Of course, not everyone is happy. I spoke to Mancunians who were almost praying for Paris to win, because of London’s arrogant attitude to Manchester’s own Olympic bid. Even Londoners are concerned that the money which London needs to perform at the best level as the Olympic host will be extracted from their pockets. You may say it is pretty evident, but then in spring Tony Blair promised no tax rise, so now it seems to be the first promise that is severely and openly broken. The pressure on London is as bigger as the city has not hosted the Olympic Games since 1948. On the other hand, Paris has last been an Olympic capital in 1924.

So, while the Londoners cheered, what did the Parisians do? The video coverage on LeMonde.fr showed Parisians assembling at the ground near the Hotel de Ville to watch the announcement of the bid winner. As Moscow, New York and Madrid were being eliminated, anticipation intensified with every passing second. But as the name ‘London’ has left the lips of Jacques Rogge, a loud groan of disappointment and disbelief covered the ground. A little girl who was crying helplessly may remember this day all her life, so upset she was. London’s victory was a huge loss for Marseillais, who came to Paris all the way from his native city by an early morning train. A young lad with a Paris 2012 sticker on his forehead looked devastated. The ground in the centre of Paris, so full with people, emptied within minutes, and there has been no reaction at all, except for shatter and a total sense of devastation.

No-one on the French side can explain what happened. Indeed, throughout the race up until the announcement Paris was the favourite, having almost all major sport venues at hand. The video was compelling, made in the best traditions of the French cinema, somewhat nostalgic, very classy, with a little hint of miraculous grace of Amelie. Not only did high officials appear in the film backing up the Parisian bid, but also some stars, like the actor Jean-Paul Belmondo and the rock-singer Johnny Halliday. The entire bid, according to the TV presenter Michel Drucker, was telling ‘a love story between France and the Olympic Games’. However, the Olympic “Shrew” happened to be untameable. As Thierry Rey, former Olympic judo champion put it, following the loss of the bid: ‘We don’t understand… what more could we have done? I wonder if sometimes people don’t want us?’ [Reuters].

And that is a rather rhetoric question. Do people want France, and who actually speaks for them? The French may well organise furious demonstrations outside the houses of Juan Antonio Samaranch and Jacques Rogge, a la the G8 protesters, which of course will change nothing. As it happens, the decisions are made by those to whom power is delegated, and in this case it is the Olympic Committee, who knows better which city can be the best host.

Is London really the best host? Time will show, as the British capital first needs to deliver all its promises. However, as the Mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoe said, the French ‘don’t have the same culture of lobbying, as the Anglo-Saxons’ (Le Monde, July 6^th 2005). Instead of promoting the infrastructure and facilities of the city, Lord Coe’s delegation turned to the Olympic ideals and principles of business. Paris did the same, but it was too eloquent on the occasion.

The key words of Paris’s presentation were ‘frankness, openness, humility and energy’. And they did address children, starting with the opening song by Charles Trenet about a man who recalls himself being a little boy in Paris. He adores the place, he is ‘only a little Parisian/Only a child/So simply’. Along with the steadiness, there was a constant nostalgic sense, and if anything else, it has definitely decreased Paris’s chances to win. It was as if Paris was more inviting people to visit France rather than showing France’s commitment to the Olympic movement and its future.

On the contrary, London came along with the promise of magical experience, best partnership, and the ‘lasting sporting legacy’. There was no word said about either media representation, or food, or London’s Olympic passion. Instead, all eyes were turned on the future of the Olympic sports, which are indeed the children. And so implicitly the British team has broken an Olympic golden rule. In the words of Le Monde correspondent, it is never the Games that need the city – it is the city that needs the Games. London needs the Olympics to transform the dens of the East End into a flourishing quarter. However, by focusing on children more than on anything else the team made the Olympic Committee feel like London is the only city out there that can maintain the sporting spirit. This is not to mention the wholehearted support of the Olympic bid from the government and the Royal House all the way through the campaign. And never mind the small businesses in the East End that will be ditched to make the dream come true. They will be dispersed for the sake of the future and children, and this is all that matters.

One should not of course discard the “lobbying culture”. However, Paris will have reconsidered its bidding approach, if it decides to re-enter competition for the Olympics 2016. The French may think it is not polite to press on the Committee in Lord Coe’s manner, but they have to listen to his words. Time and again in his speech he underlined the fact that nowadays it is more and more difficult to involve a child in a sporting activity. Thus, pressure is inevitable, but in this case the goal may well justify the means. The French were well prepared, and spoke from their hearts, and spoke a lot. But perhaps for their next bid they will need to reassess the legacy of de Coubertin and to rejuvenate the spirit of the presentation. And for once take the British as an example.

A review of the world’s best-seller for the MOOCH magazine (CSV Media, Manchester, April 2005)

By Julie Delvaux

(First published at Exzibit.net on 05 May 2005)

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown begins with a murder of a curator of the Parisian Louvre. As Robert Langdon, an American professor of religious symbology, investigates the case, curious details about Christ and his legacy come to surface. First, we’re told that for ages the Catholic Church has been concealing the fact that Christ was married to Mary Magdalene. Secondly, Mary was never a prostitute, but the aptest disciple and a gospeller. Thirdly, the two had born a child, and provided he/she had lived long enough to become a parent, it may well be that you’re sitting next to Christ’s offspring, as you’re reading this text. Finally, the Truth was protected for ages by various people and groups, including the genuine Leonardo.

It’s fairly easy to see why The Code is so popular. On the one hand, it’s a THRILLER, albeit boring at times. The further the book goes, the tenser it becomes, partly because Brown makes you wait for several chapters before finally releasing you from one and throwing into another ‘waiting’ turmoil. However, the message that everything the book talks about regarding Christ, Leonardo and the Church is a true historical fact is perhaps what drew attention to it in the first place. With those facts in his pocket, Brown potentially undermines our idea of who Christ was. And so I decided to summarise the public perception of this mind-blowing controversial message.

Vatican and the faithful are not amused. The Church has already been attacked in the 1980s, when a book The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was first published, on which Brown relies heavily. But that was an academic study, scrapped from the reading (or misreading) of the sources (purportedly forged). The Code is quite different: based on the study of the images, which are always seen from the point of view; and it’s an easy-to-read repercussion of a medieval legend of a quest for the Grail. And, while Vatican condemns the book, it looks that the Church is being slowly encircled by its critics – the 1980s’ battalion came from the historical side, and The Code encroaches from the flank of the history of art.

Being an historian myself, I happily join my sceptical colleagues. I am very grateful to Tony Robinson for his wonderful programme, which elegantly unveiled the fictional character of most “historical” facts that Brown filled The Code up with. The only problem is, again, that people tend to read more for pleasure than for knowledge. I can’t ever remember anyone reading a history book in the street. But I do remember London last November, all beige with The Code covers. And now, in Manchester, I’ve recently run into a man with The Digital Fortress instead of a head.

Finally, as an avid reader and writer, and having spoken to some well-read friends of mine, I have to say that Brown’s book is far from being a masterpiece. Most of methods he uses in The Code have already been used in his other books. And although there may be nothing wrong with that, I nonetheless think that it’s essential for a good writer to vary in his style and technique. Surely, Brown’s literary career is by no means finished, but I doubt he’ll surprise me.

So, while Vatican frowns, and scholars dismiss, people carry on consuming the age-old tales. I expect this frenzy to reach its peak with a film release in 2006. Tom Hanks stars as Robert Langdon. I’d introduce a new anti-Oscar nomination for him, say, ‘A Remarkable On-Screen Thrust’. Indeed, what a progress: from Forrest Gump to a professor of religious symbology… It only happens in the films, you’d say.

Putting all minuses and pluses together, what did Dan Brown give to us? Well, admittedly, he gave us a myth, a doubt, a hope, and we’re all free to use it at our wish. A recent example comes from Canberra, Australia, where a man was arrested. He cut pages of The Code to smuggle drugs. So, in the end of the day, it’s not just a “hidden Code” – it’s also a hiding one.

Medieval people worshipped nails, bones and even dogs. Centuries later, has something really changed?

By Julie Delvaux

(first published at Exzibit.net on 17 May 2005)

Man has this vital necessity to believe in something. There are simple superstitions, like the number thirteen or a black cat. There is also an age-long tradition of searching for an idol and worshipping it. All the pagan deities and gods had their cults, festivities, temples and relics.

Christianity did not change much, albeit, God knows, it tried hard. The holy groves and temples were cut down or burnt, as were the heretics. And yet over the centuries the Church has created its pantheon of saints, who had their own cults, in whose names the religious festivities were held, to whom cathedrals and chapels were dedicated, where the relics of these saints were preserved. Christianity failed to suppress paganism, but that is not an insult. It simply proves that this burning desire to collect, to own or at the very least to contemplate a part of your idol is deeply imprinted in the collective memory of the mankind.

By the 20^th century, very little has changed. There were Elvis and The Beatles, with their icon-like posters glowing on the walls in every teenager’s bedroom. Boys wanted to be like them to be adored by the girls. Girls wanted their boys to look like those idols, so they could adore them. At that point, guys and girls were commonly idolising men. Now we tend to idolise females. Men undergo plastic surgery to look like J. Lo, the bootilicious craze is going over the top, while Britney is still toxic, despite all style and behaviour flops. There are no more sacrifices as such, but there still are prayers and icons.

Having been tarnished by cynicism, nihilism, atheism, etc., society has now left the Church behind. Looking at how celebrities make their money is far more beneficial, and we therefore have religious cults that spring up and subsist strictly within the society, and never in the Church. So, the “saints” do exist, but they are no longer poor or sick. It is nonetheless valid to compare the Middle Ages to the 21^st century. Firstly, now, as then, these cults are supported by the multitudes of people, who do not tend to exhaust themselves in separating the wheat from the chaff. A big name is often worshipped alongside something pathetic. Secondly, having found an object of reverence, people fall into a frantic accumulation of the ‘relics’, create outrageous cults or myths, or even zealously follow the path of the idol. In total, there are fantastic, intriguing and oftentimes hilarious examples that link medieval naivety to our post-industrial quest for a hero.

For instance, Robert Torkington went on a pilgrimage in 1516. In his account, which is one of the earliest English travel diaries, he jots down the shrines and relics he had seen on his way. Venice was stocked with ‘the holy bodies and arms’, ‘the faces, the fingers, the teeth’ of the saints, and, quite correctly, he concludes that all this ‘is a great marvel to see’. One of the Cistercian monasteries there preserved a bone of St. Mary Magdalene, and the Benedictine monks stored one of the pots, in which Christ turned water into wine. Some of the most fascinating relics were located in Padua: the rib of St. Bonaventure, the tongue of St. Anthony, ‘yet fair and fresh’”, and the finger of St. Luke ‘that he wrote the gospel with’. And St. John the Baptist’s finger, with which he pointed to Jesus, was preserved both in France and on the Isle of Rhodes.

Fingers and bones were not the only collectables in pious medieval Europe. There were an enormous number of places that claimed to have a chalice, in which Joseph of Arimathea had collected Christ’s blood. Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland was erected especially for the Holy Grail. The oddity of the story is in that a benefactor of the chapel had received the Grail from a Templar a hundred years after the last Templar had died. The quantity of nails from the Cross that was kept in reliquaries across Europe could build a house. And some sites have boasted to have exceptionally rare relics: at one, a faithful could see hay from Jesus’s cradle; at another, he would see the milk of the Holy Virgin.

In the 21^st century we still thrive to possess something tangible of our idol. Of course, if someone auctions off a finger of “Freddie Mercury”, he will be put into a lunatic asylum. But why seek for something, which you cannot use to your advantage? The idols are there to fill us with strength, luck, money, and power. So, instead of collecting fingers, try and do what the paparazzi for the National Enquirer have been doing. Say, take a photo of Elvis in his casket. The photo will become an icon itself, but it will also make you an icon for all aspiring paparazzi. And will you live in a place of your dreams, no less known or credited, than Elvis himself.

The exercise of the cults became extremely individual and largely depends on our financial abilities. A character of Christopher Lambert from the film Janis and John (2003) was heavily drugged and drunk, when he “saw” Janis Joplin and John Lennon coming together in to the lavatory, to wash hands. They exchanged glances, and the duo promised to return. Since then Lambert’s character devoted himself and his fortune to creating The Joplin and Lennon Museum, to make them feel at home when they eventually come back. The story may be satirical, yet quite credible.

Then and now, the cults were invented and legends were spread. One of the best known myths of medieval times is related to St. Ursula’s pilgrimage, on which she was accompanied by her servants. A medieval misreading of Latin “XI MV” as ‘11 thousand virgins’ instead of ‘11 virgin martyrs’ has led to a long-lasted mistake, widely commemorated in art. The strangest cult of Saint Guinefort flourished in a village, where the worshippers sent their prayers to none other, but a greyhound.

These days the possibility of such mistakes is dramatically low. The advent of the paparazzi and of the internet meant that there would be no confusion as to what the idol is. Centuries back, the papal inquisitors were frightened to hear that the villagers worship someone hairy, with a tail. Today no-one would have time to get perplexed, because Saint Guinefort would make it in the news before the inquisitors could reach the village. However, it does not mean that there are no longer any myths. Is Elvis alive or not? Films like “The Velvet Goldmine” seem only to support the view that fame can bore a person to the extent that he stages his own death. If we presume that Elvis had not died, aren’t we waiting then for his Second Coming? The bigger the idol, the less people believe that he can perform a human act of death. And it is quite logical, because the gods and kings do not die, do they?

And, finally, we use our idols for deeply humanitarian ends. Once charity has ceased to be an exclusively religious activity, it does sometimes get its money from using celebrities in the most outrageous ways. Even five years ago, celebrity’s pregnant bliss could not be threatened by indiscreet invasion. This time Sky reports that Britney Spears’s pregnancy test was snitched from a bin in her hotel room. It was sent to an auction, and money will go to help disabled and cancer-affected children. Doesn’t it remind you of the milk of Our Lady, a tongue of St. Anthony, or a finger of St. John? The question to ask next is how can this piece of your idol possibly help improve YOUR life? Well, the effects may not be tangible, but at the very least you are making a story for the headlines. And that may only be the beginning…

All these examples prove that people did not change in their basic desires. They still aspire for well-being, money, power, strength, fame, love, all of which incidentally are being idolised, too. And so we use idols to worship idols; we strive to create the Brave New World, locking humanity into a reservation. And whether a bone or a dog, a man will trust in them to make him ever mightier. Is this inability to be strong on your own is also imprinted in our collective memory? I do hope this is just another erroneous belief.

]]> http://avidadollars.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/the-divine-canine-cults-and-idols-from-the-middle-ages-to-nowadays/feed/ 1 avidadollars http://avidadollars.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/the-name-for-the-king/ http://avidadollars.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/the-name-for-the-king/#comments Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:15:01 +0000 avidadollars http://avidadollars.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/the-name-for-the-king/ ]]>

Shortly before Christmas, one of the TV news programmes broadcast a special report on Prince Charles. They said His Royal Highness is considering a change of the name and is thinking of using his middle name George when he eventually ascends the throne. Is the Prince being unnecessarily superstitious, or is name really a big deal for a king?

By Julie Delvaux

(first published at Exzibit.net on 28 Dec 2005)

There are different opinions on a theory that personal names pretty much define people’s life. Some equal the theory to astrology and call it a “sham”; others quite honestly believe that name is highly important. Ultimately, it all depends on whether or not we believe in fate. If we do, we will probably avoid calling the child an old-fashioned or ‘unfortunate’ name, like Marmaduke or Caesar. If we have no such hang-ups, our choice will be opulent, like Queen, or health-friendly, like Apple, or urban, like Brooklyn.

The abovementioned report left mixed feelings. For those who cannot give a damn about monarchy, Charles’s intentions look ridiculous. Perhaps, even monarchists cannot quite understand him. Although the present Windsor monarch shares her name with Tudor Gloriana, she is neither as remarkable a politician, nor could she protect her royal house from public jeer. Of course, these things are not necessarily to be blamed on her, but the truth is: as much as Elizabeth is a great and promising name, it could not and it would not allow Elizabeth II to fully match her famous namesake.

Now that the Prince’s plans are rumoured, and some historians have already expressed themselves on the subject, let us see if their fears are historically valid. Let us start with Charles. In England, Charles I was beheaded, and Charles II was raised in exile and is remembered for his promiscuity, the Plague and the Great Fire of London. Both, though, were the patrons of arts: under Charles I, van Dyke’s paintbrush flourished, under Charles II – Wren’s architectural genius. On the other hand, Charles I was sometimes unbearably idealistic. At the dawn of his youth he travelled to Spain incognito in an attempt to win over the Infanta’s heart. The quixotic heir mistook politics for windmills, wholeheartedly believing that his boldness and courage would make up for not converting to Catholicism. Of course, it did not work.

Continental rulers named Charles, Carlos, or Karl usually were not predestined to anything spectacular or disastrous. The Carolingian dynasty in France was named after Charles Martell and Charlemagne. The latter’s reign was famous for political prominence of the Frankish state, as well as for one of the fascinating periods in European culture, known as the Carolingian Renaissance. Charles VII’s astonishing victory over the English in the Hundred Years War is not outshone by his infamous abandonment of Joan of Arc. Some French Charleses were not very fortunate, however: Charles VIII died at 28, having accidentally run his head into a stone lentil; and Charles X was deposed as a result of the July Revolution, in 1830.

In Spain, Carlos IV’s reign was gloomy. First, he had to entrust his realm to Manuel Godoy, a terrible politician and the lover of his wife. When Napoleon invaded Spain, Carlos had to abdicate. Eventually, both he and his son Ferdinand were deposed, and Carlos fled the country and died in exile in Rome. Unlike Carlos IV, the present Spanish monarch Juan Carlos I will forever be remembered for his democratic reforms after he ‘inherited’ the realm, following the death of Franco. Indeed, Carlos is only a part of his name, but it did not seem to have diminished the political input of its bearer.

And in Germany the well-known Karl V Habsburg propelled the Holy Roman Empire of the German People to the unprecedented heights. His influence on politics, arts and religion cannot be underestimated. Neither should be the fact that the decline of the state that began soon after his death, later coupled by the dissolution of the Empire, had played a crucial part in creating the feeling of national humiliation. This feeling contributed decisively to both the First and the Second World wars.

Most royal names in English history never gave any definitive reason for great expectations. William I the Conqueror was an outstanding, although unwelcome, foreign monarch; William II Rufus was killed by conspirators; and in William IV’s reign the Reform Crisis had begun. The most ‘bearable’ name was Henry in that the only English monarch to be murdered was Henry VI, while the other seven Henries normally lived long and remarkable lives.

If we look over the Channel, we will see exactly the same situation with the name Louis in France. Louis XVI was beheaded, and Louis IX died of dysentery in Tunis, but Louis XIV, The Sun-King, is never to be forgotten. True, the last three Louises on the French throne did not manage to equal their great predecessors, but it is their reigns that show: no matter what your name is, time will always have the last word.

In Russia, Alexander II well matched his grandfather, Alexander I the Liberator, who famously drove Napoleon out of the country. Grandson’s sobriquet, the Reformer, was inspired not only by abolition of slavery in 1861, but also by his gradual and cautious attempts to ‘democratise’ Russian monarchy. However, political climate of 1860s-70s in which the grandson had to rule was altogether different from the early 19^th c. The disdain of monarchy’s rigour grew to the extent, when the attempts on Alexander II’s life were carried out repeatedly. He was eventually killed in 1881 on his way to the palace – to sign what could become the first Russian constitution.

Against all listed examples that show a relative unimportance of the name in a monarch’s life those who believe in the connection between name and fate could weigh one, and truly gruesome, counterargument. It comes from English history, where the really ‘unfortunate’ name was Edward. Edward II was violently murdered, Edward IV was deposed and exiled, an infant Edward V was killed by his uncle, another boy-king Edward VI died before he reached 16, and Edward VIII abdicated. Edward VII was possibly as much an admirer of the fairer sex, as Charles II, and even Edward III is of dubious fame. In addition to throwing his country into the turmoil of the Hundred Years War, he also committed the least conceivable blasphemy by making garter a symbol of his chivalric order. The only ‘good’ king left is Edward I, praised by the English for the Eleanor Crosses and loathed by the Scots for all good reasons.

The name George that Charles is considering to take on, according to the media report, also cannot boast blissful history. George III was repeatedly “losing his head” (figuratively speaking), while the bedroom feats of George IV have allegedly reached a stupendous number of 7000, – much like Charler I and Charles II, respectively. The reign of George V saw the outburst of the First World War, the reign of George VI – of the Second World War. For a truly superstitious person, the perspective of ruling the nation at war (even nominally) should be just as horrible as that of decapitation or sexual notoriety.

Among some of the best-known and admirable historical Georges one was a father-founder of the United States, another – a brave defeater of Napoleon at Waterloo. But they were not kings, and are not likely to be used as parallels by the public opinion. The latter will most probably prefer to recall the ‘Bush’ dynasty, whose both members seem to be very belligerent: if anything else, they show great deal of consistency in motives, as in targets.

Historically, Charles’s two other middle names, Philip and Arthur, also do not give much hope. Philip is not an altogether new name in the history of British monarchy. Queen Mary I Tudor was married to Philip II of Spain, and the present Queen’s spouse is Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. But Mary’s husband, although styled “King of England”, had rather limited powers and left the country where he was disliked after a little more than a year. The Duke of Edinburgh was never granted the title of Prince-Consort and does not enjoy much popularity in the masses. Those who trust in names will certainly speculate on whether a royal contender named Philip can ever become a King in England, let alone a popular one. The Glastonbury legends claim that King Arthur shall rise one day, and centuries ago in a society more poetic and less cynical the Arthurian Cycle would have provided an enviable background to royal representation. If the Prince was to adopt this name today, the public opinion would be more than happy to dismiss him as the “wrong” Arthur.

As succession is not imminent, it may be that Charles decides not to undergo the name change. What is useful to remember is that both history of mankind and history of monarchy show two things. Fame and tradition, either good or bad, can be changed; and monarchy, with all its dependence on both, is no exception. As for people, their names are only remembered for their acts – and never otherwise.