An Historical Screw Up

Map of Mesopotamia

In the early part of the third century B.C.E., two priests of local long established civilizations attempted to introduce to the Greeks the culture and history of their respective civilizations. They were the Egyptian Priest Manetho and the Babylonian Priest Berossus. Both wrote short books giving an outline of the histories of their respective cultures going back to mythological times. In the case of Manetho, who I have discussed in an earlier posting,1 despite the apparent lack of interest by most Greco-Romans in his book enough survived, mainly because Christian writers preserved large sections of Manetho’s chronology. This gave to modern Egyptologists the familiar outline Egyptian history has a series of dynasties and it turned out to be reasonably accurate.2 Despite the fact that Manetho’s account used Ancient Egyptian records his short book was generally ignored by the Greco-Romans and in fact what was preserved by the later Christian writers, i.e., Manetho’s dynastic list was from summaries. It appears that the actual book had swiftly become a rarity and disappeared fairly rapidly. It appears for their history of Ancient Egypt the Greeks and the Romans preferred the mess of Herodotus or the fantasies preserved by Diodorus. So what the pagan writers preserved were cute stories and interesting anecdotes; only later Christian writers with a different mindset preserved much of the dynastic list provided by Manetho.3

With Berossus it is much, much worst. What we have is summaries of summaries of summaries etc., and the information is even more garbled than that of Manetho.

Guilty Pleasure

Book Cover 

Warning!

Spoilers Galore

Sidney Sheldon was one of the most successful English language Novelists of the last fifty years and who wrote eighteen novels about the lives of the “fictional” rich and famous. His novels also have the distinction of being some of the most monumental drek ever. Here I will briefly review one of Sidney’s “Masterpieces” A Stranger in the Mirror.

The Stoned Nailmaker’s
“Jump the Shark" Page Post Part III

In two previous postings1 I listed 10 TV shows in each and my opinion of when they “jumped the shark”. Here are ten more.

The Stoned Nailmaker’s
“Jump the Shark Page” Post Part II

In a previous posting I listed 10 TV shows and my opinion of when they “jumped the shark”. Here are 10 more.

11, Absolutely Fabulous. The Fourth Season. After using the concept of just 3 seasons of 6 episodes each and working together a satisfactory, even brilliant, story arch about our two drug-ridden, drunken pieces of garbage, the creators decide to go to the cash cow two more times. Sorry it didn’t work from the first “Darling”. The fact is the antics of two middle aged narcissistic alcoholic potheads can get very tedious. My favorite character was the very practical Saffron who could barely tolerate her hideous mother Edina.

Scene from Absolutely Fabulous

12, The Honeymooners. A show which had the good sense not to go on forever and thus did not “jump the shark”. A truly amazing piece of TV history. Proof that mass entertainment doesn’t have to be stupid. Endlessly ripped off by far less creative people terrified of new ideas and thus attracted to necrophilia. The most common rip-off is the wacky next door neighbour Ed Norton; see Kramer. (Like Jerry Seinfeld and TV executives). I should mention that I adore this show even though I dislike Jackie Gleason quite intensely.

Scene From The Honeymooners

13, I Love Lucy. A show that stayed on a generally high note for its entire run. Watching episodes of I Love Lucy and then Leave it to Beaver is shocking. It is hard to believe that they were made at the same time! However a decline started with Lucy and Rickie going to California. From then on the show increasingly depended on guests and gimmicks and started to lose its edge. For example virtually the entire Ricardo’s visit Europe series was one very long exercise in self indulgence.

Cast of I Love Lucy

14, Married with Children. The only thing that keeps this show from being a “in the Toilet from day one show” is that it was deliberately and relentlessly horrid and totally without pretentiousness. The regulars worked real hard to be horrible and they were! So Married with Children was very much a guilty pleasure. The show started downhill when they introduced Seven a cute eight year old for part of one season. The introduction of “family values” fatally damaged the hideous ambiance of the show. The show had the distinction of being considered through most of its runs one of the most tasteless, crude pieces of trash on TV, but at least it was not pretentious, unlike Seinfeld.

Cast of Married With Children

15, Bonanza. One of the “essential” TV westerns, complete with hackneyed plots in an ersatz west. It definitely had a certain charm. Show started to decline when Parnell Roberts as the eldest son, (who had an attitude problem) left leaving the field to the fat guy and the goody-good younger son. I don’t know about you but Michael Landon especially when he was later incarnated into the prefect father, Little House on the Prairie, and then an angel in Highway to Heaven was very annoying. Also the repeated use of the same shots of them riding around got stale fast.

Cast of Bonanza

16, My Mother the Car. Another Hollywood abortion. Who thought this idea would work? Only TV executives who can seem to be amazingly clueless. Moment it went downhill, when we realize that our “hero’s” mother was reincarnated in a car. (Idea brought to us by cowardly 60’s TV executives). Yes it is hard to believe that this show was for real, and lasted for ONE full season of 30 episodes before it was killed by lethal injection. The “star” of the show took well over a decade to have his carrier recover from this fiasco. (He stared as the lead in Coach)

Scene from My Mother the Car

17, Get Smart. A totally in your face farce on spying. With the wonderful Don Adams and the underrated Barbara Feldon as the wondrous 99. You have to have a high tolerance for blunt slapstick and really bad puns to like this one. Decline began when Max and 99 decide to get married. The tension between the intelligent 99 and the really stupid Max (Agent 86) was lost forever. They also had twins. There were attempts latter on to create sequels to the show. The less said the better about those “efforts”.

Scene from Get Smart

18, The John Larroquette Show. After a really great first season which played up the story of a man who had wreaked his and other peoples lives through his alcoholism trying to get back up and out of the pit he dug for himself. Then the network decides to “improve” the show by giving John a new apartment and to really downplay the “downer” aspects of the show. The result was another sitcom full of “characters” with no depth. Under the shows “new” “improved” direction the main characters drinking problems and literary interests largely disappeared from the plots of the episodes making the show just another generic sitcom. The show survived the mutilation for a couple of years but was unwatchable.

Cast of John Larroquette Show

19, Keeping up Appearances. A show with one of the most horrid TV characters ever created, the infamous Hyacinth Bucket. A snob, social climber to the nth degree. The show was very funny and creative but decline it did. I never quite figured how her and her husband could have had a son? How could anyone or anything have sex with Ms. Bouquet? Yuck at the thought!! The show did not “jump the shark” at any one moment but more or less did so gradually as the audience wonders why no one has told that “bitch” off or at least shot her to death. (A Judge would have considered it a mercy killing). My favorite character was Ms. Bouquet’s brother in law Onslow, who would lie in bed and read books about such things as quantum mechanics. Onslow also quite rightly realized what a curse Hyacinth is.

Scene from Keeping Up Appearances

20, The Dukes of Hazzard. A definite Hollywood blackhead filled with infested rotting pus. How this made it on the air let alone lasted 6 years is inexplicable and a possible proof that TV executives are indeed in league with Satan. Another show that started in the tank and stayed there only to became infested with fungi. Turning point came when the two leads were temporarily replaced revealing that the best actor in the series was indeed the car the General Lee. The show consisted of the Dukes getting in their car being chased, getting out of their car, getting back in their car, being chased, and repeat and repeat. The show also was “notable” for showing both front and back cleavage, (Daisy Duke). The show spawned (Yep that’s the word), a number of even more horrid spin-offs that are now hopefully forgotten.

Cast of The Dukes of Hazzard
Pierre Cloutier

A Day in the Life

Cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band

It was c. 43 years ago that the Beatles came out with perhaps the greatest Rock album ever. I am of course referring to Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. When it was released in 1967 it was greeted with a flurry of positive reviews and quite massive sales along with a blizzard of incomprehension. After all this was a Rock album and since when did Rock musicians try to produce musical art?

Well in the case of the Beatles anyone who was paying attention would have realized that within the confines of that particular commercial art form the Beatles had been trying to produce “art” for quite some time. After all the Beatles had tried to expand the boundaries of what they were doing for quite some time. Such simple tricks as sometimes having the Bass guitar lead or changing the lead singer during a song were things the Beatles were doing from early on. Beneath the top 40, boy meets girl commercial sensibilities of the early Beatles was musical art trying to be unleashed.

The Beatles were also fortunate in encountering George Martin, nicknamed the 5th Beatle, who proved to be a musical genius who had a pretty good idea of what the Beatles were about and tried very hard to carry out what the Beatles wanted and realized that the Beatles were not just pop singers but serious musicians.1

Even in the early stuff we got such songs as In my Life, a decidedly serious and musically only superficially simple song that may be one of the best if not the best pop song produced between 1900 and 2000. There was also the innovative Rubber Soul and Revolver albums and such material as the Sitar enhanced, trippy Norwegian Wood. In Sgt. Pepper’s... the Beatles decided to go whole hog for both commercial and artistic success, within the commercial constraints of popular music.

Now the commercial constraints of popular music in those days were pretty severe. Basically albums had to be collections of boy meets girl love songs, and each song hopefully under 3 minutes so they could gets lots of air play on top 40 stations and sell lots of records. Further albums were considered vehicles for selling top 40 hits and any material on the album not ear marked for top 40 hits was simple filler. Also of course albums were definitely not considered as works of musical art to be conceived as a whole.

There had been efforts to move Albums and pop music in a more serious direction and to conceive of albums as works of musical art as a whole. For example The Beach Boy’s classic Album Pet Sounds,2 was a very determined effort in this direction. In fact the album Pet Sounds is considered to be one of the great rock albums. Unfortunately the album ran into critics and buyers who simply went “What the fuck is that!!”, and album was initially a sort of dud. It has since gained, deservedly so, high status / prestige.

The entire Sgt. Pepper’s... album was conceived as a whole. Even the cover was conceived as a serious work of art that integrated with the music. With its innovative use of colour and its mass audience of famous figures, (Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, Oscar Wilde etc.), and its deliberate duplication of the Beatles in their old form and then in their incarnation as Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Even such jokes as having the Beatles name spelled out with marijuana plants above it. Including such little tricks as having an insert of cut outs and printing the lyrics on the back. Printing lyrics with a pop album was not very common, and in fact I’m not sure if it had happened before. Printing the lyrics did indicate that the Beatles wanted people to pay attention to what they were singing not just the music. After Sgt. Pepper’s... it became almost de-rigure to print the lyrics with a pop album. Musically, the Beatles employed an orchestra and continued their exploration of the limits of popular music.3

The album was built around the concept of a Band concert in which an old well established band performs apparently for a group of middle aged / senior citizens. It as about it the faint air of nostalgia and the crushing ennui of modern life and the desperate effort of so many to escape boredom and loss.

The opening tune sets the stage for the concert.

It was twenty years ago today Sgt. Peppers taught the band to play
And we’ve been going in out of style but we're guaranteed to raise a smile…4

Of course the raise the smile aspect is ironic. This is not a happy album.

After the opening we get A Little Help from my Friends, were we learn that in the doldrums of life friends help and then if you really need it you can:

Get high with a little help from my Friends.
Get by with a little help from my friends.5

I don’t think the Beatles are referring just to drugs here but to how necessary friends are in making life endurable, but the undertone is one of barely repressed pessimism. Friends don’t make life great just bearable.

The third piece Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, has produced a whole myth of inspiration. The idea being that the song is about LSD, (Lucy, Sky, Diamonds). The notion is patently ludicrous. It appears that John’s son Julian had a friend in his school named Lucy and he drew a picture of her on a horse and John asked what the picture was, Julian replied “It’s Lucy in the sky with diamonds”. That the song is associated with drugs is not a surprise given its surreal imagery which indicates a longing to escape drab contemporary life.6

Newspaper Taxis appear on the shore waiting to take you away.
Climb in the back with your head in the clouds and your gone!7

Getting Better, is a faux optimistic song about self delusion. In the face of reality the narrator of the song insists that life is getting better when it is not. The narrator insists things are getting better and even pooh-poohs his own bad behaviour. Self delusion at a high level for example.

I used to be mad at my women.
I’d beat her and kept her apart from the things she loved.8

Fixing a Hole, is another song about dreary, drab modern life.

I’m fixing a hole where the rain comes in
To stop my mind from wondering where it will go?9

It isn’t clear why he is doing it; is it just to keep himself from going crazy from boredom or because he doesn’t want water damage?

The next song, She’s Leaving Home, about a young women running away from home to be with someone else makes it very clear that she is running away from home to get away from something not to run towards something. The home is loveless and in a few economical lines that is conveyed:

She’s leaving home; after living alone.
For so many years.10

For the Benefit of Mr. Kite, is a rather strange piece of work, obviously a parody of the novelty song it is however not a fun novelty song. It has in it a strong under current of sheer desperation; of the search for excitement and novelty at any price. The narrator sounds fanatic, almost hysterical in his effort to drum up excitement in what seems to a collection of rather ho-hum novelty acts, but he can’t quite escape not sounding bored with the whole damn thing!

…and of course Henry the Horse dances a Waltz!!11

Yawn!

Within You, Without You, is about the desperate but quiet and determined efforts of the narrator to connect with someone. I presume the women he loves and how these efforts always fall short.

We were talking about the space between us and the people who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion and never glimpse the truth. Then it is far too late and then they pass away.12

With its Indian melody and sitar playing the song evokes an other worldly feel. Amazingly for all the song’s frustration with the inability of the narrator to really communicate with his love, it is optimistic in that resolution is possible if you live with out illusion.

When you see beyond yourself
Then you may find peace of mind is waiting there.13

When I’m Sixty-Four, is on the surface a fun silly little song, sort of like the crap Paul McCarthy wrote after leaving the Beatles. That is just what it appears to be in reality it is being there for someone else. In this case it is old age. Not many people in their twenties and thirties think about what life might be like for them in old age. Behind the jolly melodies of the tune is a crushing fear of loneliness and abandonment.

Will you still need me.
Will you still feed me.
When I’m sixty-four!14

Lovely Rita Meter Maid, is another superficially happy tune that isn’t really about love but about desperation and the longing for novelty. In the song our narrator is apparently a bit of a gigolo and out for his own satisfaction.

Got the bill and Rita paid it.
Took her home and nearly made it.
Sitting at home with a sister or two.15

Good Morning, Good Morning, is another “happy” tune about the narrator who is desperately trying to get through his day.

Going to work.
Don’t want to go feeling low down.
Heading for home you start to roam then your in town.
Everybody knows there’s nothing doing.
Everything’s closed its like a ruin.16

Work is destroying his spirit and so is the soulless nature of his life and experience. However our narrator puts a brave face on it.

I’ve got nothing to say,
But its okay!
Good Morning! Good Morning!17

Then there is a reprise of the first song:

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heats Club Band,
we hope you have enjoyed the show.
Sgt Pepper’s lonely Hearts Club Band,
we’re sorry but we have to go.18

However the audience wants an encore and gets it.

The encore, A Day in the Life, is considered by many to be one of the finest pieces of pop music ever written. The song is also almost relentlessly downbeat and filled with existential ennui. It is a primer in disillusionment. The narrator is profoundly fed up with life in the modern world. He is beyond angry with it anymore; he is simply thoroughly tired of the whole thing.

I read the news today, Oh Boy,
About a lucky man who made the grade.
Though the news was rather sad,
I just had to laugh.
I saw the photograph.
He blew his mind out in a car.
He didn’t notice that the lights had changed.19

Occasionally through the song a random thought passes through our narrator’s head, meaning nothing in particular but indicating a longing for some real feeling in his life.

I love to turn you on.20

Later the song gets back to the omnipresent ennui of modern life and the desperate effort to generate some sort of excitement into it.

I read the news today, Oh Boy,
4000 holes in Blackburn Lancashire.
And though the holes were rather small.
They had to count them all.
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall!21

The above piece of apparent nonsense was inspired by a real newspaper piece about 4000 holes in Lancashire that were apparently measured and found to be about the size of the Albert Hall and this was actually reported as news. Apparently the Beatles were struck how this piece of mindless crud showed the ennui of modern life and it helped to inspire this song.

The song ends on a crashing cord / crescendo that ironically counterpoints both the song and an album that is about the ennui and soul destroying boredom of modern life.

Since then the concept album has gone in all sorts of directions but it is arguable that it has never been done better.22.

1. George Martin, Wikipedia, Here.

2. Pet Sounds, Wikipedia, Here.

3. Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, Wikipedia, Here.

4. From Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, (hereafter Sgt.) From song Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.

5. From Sgt., song I Get by with a Little Help From my Friends.

6. See Footnote 3. I am also relying on my memory.

7. Sgt., song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

8. IBID, Getting Better.

9. IBID, song Fixing a Hole.

10. IBID, song She’s Leaving Home.

11. IBID, song For the Benefit of Mr. Kite.

12. IBID, song, Within You, Without You.

13. IBID.

14. IBID, song When I’m Sixty-Four.

15. IBID, song Lovely Rita Meter Maid.

16. IBID, song Good morning, Good Morning.

17. IBID.

18. IBID, song Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band: Reprise.

19. IBID, song, A Day in the Life.

20. IBID.

21. IBID.

22. There is a British music magazine, which shall remain nameless, that listed Sgt. Pepper’s... as the 50th best rock album ever made. Considering what they thought was better, for example such tripe as the Bee Gees, one doesn’t quite know what to say to such know nothingness. If they had not ranked the Sgt. Pepper’s... as the best no particular problem. However 50th indicates a very determined effort to go against the grain and downplay the album.

Pierre Cloutier

Dianaohroea

Flowers for Diana, Kensington Palace 1997
On August 31, 1997 died in a car crash in a tunnel in Paris Diana Spencer, former Princess of Wales and the resulting wave of mass mourning was one of the most remarkable mass phenomena’s of the Twentieth century. It was also one of the most stomach turning displays of cheap sentimentality ever. It became a wonderful excuse for people to indulge in a display of emotional excess. It served as an excuse to narcissistically put on a display of “sincerity” that cost little and in the end meant little.

The desire to wallow in a show of mourning was evident; complete with tears and theatre performances of “heart felt loss”. It was like the widow who carefully plans what to wear for the funeral and carefully calculates every tear, every sigh and every wail and melodramatically has fits etc., all designed to impress everyone with the depth of her feeling about her loss.

The object of this display of cheap, self indulgent, narcissistic sentimentality was of course not around to enjoy or be appalled by so much emotional kitsch. However let us briefly review the life of Diana Spencer former Princess of Wales.

Diana aside from being born into a very blue blooded English aristocratic family had done little of any note, or in fact worth mentioning until she was selected by the royals (mainly Prince Phillip) to be wife of Charles Prince of Wales. Charles apparently was very reluctant to marry her given her age (He was 33 and she 19) and the fact they were very different people.

The marriage proved to be a disaster. Diana however because she was very pretty, had great fashion sense and was very good at media manipulation was almost at once a media superstar. The media and much of the public could not get enough of her. Certainly Diana seemed to be a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the rather staid royal family.

Soon it became rather clear that there were serious problems with the marriage. Within a few years began the tired soap opera of the “fairy Princess” versus her “wicked” in-laws. The media with embarrassingly few exceptions, aside from wasting its time with microscopically absurd coverage of Diana’s every move, portrayed Diana as a poor victim of the wicked royals.

Diana fed the process by strategic leaks and manipulation to an all too willing media that pandered to her self image as a poor victim. It was pure soap opera and like a soap opera about as close to reality.

Diana never got that the royals, whose benchmark was set by the Queen, had responsibilities as well as rights. Diana believed in her right to personal fulfilment and happiness in a situation in which no such rights existed. The Queen expected everyone in the “family firm” to accept that their duties as members of the royal family trumped everything else. Personal happiness / fulfilment were just not as important as fulfilling one’s duties and responsibilities. I do not think Diana ever got that. The fact that the Queen who very clearly in the public performance of her duties fulfilled this ideal of public service and was therefore even less willing to indulge Diana’s whining, hysterics and crass self indulgence should not be a surprise.

In all fairness it should be mentioned that Diana was married to a much older man who was rather staid and very conservative in many of his ways. The fact that he was apparently still in love with someone else did not help matters.

Diana soon proved to an absolute natural at charming the press and getting people to ohhh and ahhh over her. The press started it’s rather absurd infatuation with her which continued until Diana died.

It is pointless to go over the relentlessly reported details of the collapse of Charles and Diana’s marriage except to note the very expert way Diana manipulated the press into seeing things as Diana versus the heartless royals. Diana was especially good at making he husband look like the villain in the piece. I can remember an episode of the Donahue T.V. show where he was interviewing some royal watchers that when ever they said anything even slightly negative about Diana the audience would loudly murmur its distress.

When the marriage finally fell apart and Diana’s antics finally provoked the Queen into ordering Charles and Diana to get a divorce the media continued it’s infatuation with “St.” Diana of Spencer. Diana also continued her relentless campaign to both embarrass the royals and to cater to her seemingly endless need for personal self indulgence and attention.

A then friend of mine claimed with all seriousness that the Queen was “clicking her heels with joy” that Diana was dead and that Royals had been out to “destroy” Diana. Of course there was and still is no evidence to back up this rather silly notion. However the story of the “Fairy Princess” requires a “Wicked Step Mother” or mother in law in this case, to keep the fantasy going.

This nauseating spectacle of turning the Royals into villains reached its height with Diana’s brother's self serving and nauseating eulogy at the funeral, which seemed to consist of spitting in derision at them. That Lord Spencer was in no position to throw stones was largely ignored.

So eventually we get to the crash in the Paris tunnel. With the driver apparently, if not drunk, nearly so. The hordes of bloodsucking paparazzi chasing the car. The mangled corpses and the Paparazzi disgracing themselves by interfering with the Paramedics.

Then came the mourning, a wave of what amounted to public hysteria, in Britain and much of the rest of the world. It was amazing how so many who the day before would have dismissed Diana as an air head now went through paroxysms of grief; it was also cheap and easy entertainment for people bored with their lives.

So many had brought the idea that Diana was a victim and therefore her death was just the culmination of her victimhood. It is distressing to note that because of Diana’s death and the over the top campy mourning that took place afterwards the death of Mother Theresa, which took place at about the same time, was entirely eclipsed.

At her death Diana changed from:

… the ‘simpering Bambi narcissist’ became not only the loveliest woman of the century but also the Queen of Hearts, the Nabob of Sob.1

Members of Parliament seriously suggested that Heathrow be renamed Diana Airport among other over the top responses. We of course got endless displays of histrionic playing for the audience grief.

Of course those people who thought that the whole thing was too much where hooted down by the hordes of Diana gawkers. The B.B.C., for example got an enormous number of phone calls from people complaining that coverage was excessive. Those who said they thought the whole thing was over the top where treated like lepers or someone who had just loudly farted at a wedding.

The Queen was roundly attacked for not being emotionally extravagant enough; for not putting on a show of hysteria and fake “sincere” emotionalism. The nonsense about the Royal ensign not being flown at half mast was stomach turning. The fact is the Royal ensign is NEVER flown at half mast even when the monarch as died seemed to pass people by.

Such stomach turning examples of dishonest or frankly mawkish statements about Diana’s death as a man who said that he cried far more a Diana’s funeral than at his own father’s; tell us far more about the cult of celebrity and emotional immaturity than they do about anything else.

Basically Diana’s funeral was an episode of mass hysteria, a good excuse for people to come together for a good cry and to feel sorry for themselves. In other words an example of self-indulgence, that I hope 12 and ½ years later people are embarrassed about it. What people where mourning was the passing of their fantasy and the waking up to real life.

The whole absurd mythology about was Diana murdered, which led to an expensive and useless investigation of her death was a further example of the desire of so many even after Diana’s death to engage in fantasy. Of course the investigation found no evidence of a murder, which was apparent right from the beginning.2

Indulging in sentimental tosh can be quite pleasant and that was what the Diana funeral hysteria was mainly about. Of course saying so at the time was considered both heresy and bad taste. Periodically people want an excuse to have a good self-indulgent cry.

Far from being signs of “greatness” or emotional maturity, the periodic swellings of emotion in England over the past couple of centuries were the anguished pleas of a lonely and atomized populace, desperate for company.3

In other words it was not about Diana it was about us.

As for my own opinion about Diana. I personally at the time thought she was an upper class twit, who although she did some good work, was self centred and shallow. Further I saw her as a manipulative bitch. The celibrityitis around her appalled me, and I was sick to death about hearing of her.

However although I still see in her a far too shallow twit and manipulative bitch I do see that she was less the airhead I thought she was. After her death I found out that she used to take Prince William and Harry to hospitals to see and meet with chronically ill patients with diseases like Aids, Cancer and so forth all without the media being around; in order for her very privileged sons to get a dose of reality. So it appears that her concern for these people was not just for the photo ops she would get.

I did watch the funeral, (what can I say the hype got to me), and I must admit that I was genuinely moved when I saw the close up of the card on the coffin which said simply MUMMY. But then someone would have to have a heart of iron not to have been moved by that. It was a very forceful reminder that two young men had lost their mother. Beneath all the sentimental, self indulgent hogwash was that painful truth; two boys who had just lost their mother.

1. Wheen, Francis, How Mumbo-Jumbo conquered the World, Public Affairs, New York, 2004, p. 193.

2. See Coroner’s Inquests into the Deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr. Dodi Al Fayed, Here.

3. Wheen, p. 199.

Aside from my own, not entirely reliable memory, I used pp. 192-204 of Wheen’s book.

Pierre Cloutier

The Pacification

Scales of Justice
One of the most disturbing features of our age is an unreflective nostalgia for the past. Usually it for a past that never existed and those that bemoan the passing away of that past are those that would not ever be caught dead actually living in that past.

One of the most prevalent features of this mindless nostalgia for what never was is the notion that in the past crime was less and we were safer.

This is a myth. Of course if you are talking about say the 1950’s then you would be right the rate of violent crime as in fact gone up considerably since then. However if you go back considerably further you find out something completely different. What you find is interpersonal violence on a truly massive scale.

Thus in Europe c. 1000 C.E. most European societies were characterized by blood feuds and codes of personal vengeance. This was combined with a code of personal honour which made it permissible to punish with violence all sorts of real and alleged violations of personal “honour”.1

Not surprisingly society was characterized by a vast amount of insecurity, instability and interpersonal violence. The lack of over arching institutions tended to create a fragmented society in which groups of individuals were pitted against other groups.

It was in England that we have the clearest picture of the emergence of a powerful set of behavioural and intellectual mores that began to inhibit the use of violence to settle issues of “honour” and real dispute.

A factor in the emergence of these norms was the emergence in pre-Norman times of the idea of the King or Royal government as the fount of the law. In this scenario the idea was that the King was the arbiter of disputes and attempts by private parties to settle disputes outside of this norm were violations of the King’s prerogatives, in effect a form of treason. Of course the spread of the idea of the “King’s Justice” via the system of Shires, local courts, Sheriffs etc., was not because of benevolence but because this provided a potent avenue for the extension of Royal power and just as importantly the extension of the Royal powers of taxation and expropriation. In other words it was good for the Royal treasury. In England the Kings profited by trying homicide cases through fines and confiscation of property.2

Even the rates of violence were by contemporary standards quite astounding. For example in 14th century London the rate was between 36-52 murders per hundred thousand per year. Oxford with its tradition of feuding, brawling and drunken students had a rate of over 100 murders per hundred thousand per year.3

Thus in quarrels with neighbours or drunken brawls some especially if they were male had a good chance of ending up dead, especially in a environment in which all sorts of slights were thought to excuse if not justify violence in response.

What happened was that the gradual process by which the “King’s Justice” was used to curtail violence among the elite, because of its threat to the Kings power and ability to collect revenue gradually percolated through all layers of society. Basically uncontrolled violence was viewed as a threat to both personal safety and the sanctity of property.

It is of interest that in contrast to England this process started much later in most of Europe.4

Now this process could only happen in England because of the emergence of courts and enormous pressure from the Royal administration and bureaucracy to use the courts to settle disputes rather than take personal vengeance or some other violent solution. This was so despite a violent culture that exalted violence as a solution to problems. Despite these problems by 1200 C.E., the government had managed to take one step forward by virtually ending the institutional blood feud. Royal courts were already instituting the practice of legally binding people to keep the peace. Also Royal courts had acquired by then virtually sole jurisdiction to try and punish violent offences or those having violent / severe punishment. Although the nobility might engage in a posture of violence and murderous talk there was already a tendency to use the courts instead and engage in rhetorical violence instead.5

By the 15th century violence was ratcheted to a new lower level. Frankly by then in virtually all of society there was a tendency for friends and neighbours to try to lower the level of violence and to prevent disputes from escalating into a violent resolution. Not simply because violence was considered immoral but because once blood was shed you would get the costly, time consuming intervention of the Royal courts which would hamstring peoples lives for what could seem like an interminable amount of time. The result was the flourishing of an entire culture of postured violence, of rhetoric and bluff all designed to SEEM threatening and violent but really just play acting. This was further redoubled by the ever greater use of the courts to settle disputes. The only acceptable violence was on behalf of God and the authorities all other violence was deemed illegitimate and in effect immoral if not evil.6

By the 17th century in contrast to countries like France were the institutional apparatuses of the State barely penetrated locally, England had a fairly well developed system of governmental authority to impose local order.

In France as indicated above the authorities were not much interested in imposing order unless it interfered with collection of taxes or seemed like incipient rebellion. Flying off the handle and the easy resort to violence to settle disputes were common so was widespread antipathy between different classes. Battles between poachers or gamekeepers occurred. So did extralegal violence to settle disputes. Life was riddled with assaults and homicides.7

In England by then the pacification had proceeded, culture and life was permeated with the idea that while threatening violence was in some cases permissible actually doing it was quite another matter. Instead there were the courts where people were encouraged and frequently coerced to go in order to settle disputes. In fact England by this time had acquired the reputation of being a very litigious society. And even if people did not go to court there was a powerful tendency for people to try to settle matters by informal arbitration before things got out of hand. Cash payments to settle issues was commonplace.

Even more remarkable English criminals had a strong tendency, compared to the continent to NOT accompany their criminal acts with excessive violence. For example beating or killing people you robbed was generally not done and was decidedly less frequent than elsewhere. In effect self policing had become common and people were restraining themselves as part of the effort to impose order.8

In the 18th century the decline continued so that by 1800 C.E., the murder rate was apparently below 2 per hundred thousand.9 The rather horrible list of capital crimes was tempered by procedural rules and juries who were increasingly reluctant to inflict violent punishment. England had for example no routine torture of alleged criminals as part of the process of investigation unlike much of the continent. Despite the truly Draconian penalties in law remarkably few people actually suffered the full legal penalties. According to the best available figures between 1749-1771 only 81 people were convicted of murder in London / Middlesex. Whereas in Rome, ¼ the size of London, in ½ that time period had 4000 murders.10

What the century saw was the emergence of a “Middle Class” ideology that emphasized politeness and civility and frowned upon any sort of violent assertiveness, especially violence. A key part of this was the campaign against duelling which was considered a reversion to barbaric and uncivilized manners and as such to be both opposed and suppressed as murder plain and simple. At the same time English criminals continued their trend of avoiding gratuitous physical violence and were commented on by continental visitors for being “humane” in comparison to continental criminals.11

This was accompanied by the decline and in fact “death” of the concept of personal honour that required the cultivation of status and the punishment of alleged and real slights to ones honour by means of personal action.

In the 19th centuries this developments reached a climax in that the growth of philanthropy, and a culture that frowned quite vigorously on the idea of spur of the moment violence as a solution to problems. Basically more and more people absorbed basic inhibitions to violence that even inhibited spur of the moment behaviour. The idea was that giving into those spur of the moment impulses indicated a failure to control oneself. To commit violence even in the face of provocation was considered a moral failure by the individual who was considered bound to use other non-violent ways of registering his anger or disgust and not just act out. Even criminals had by then absorbed the ethos that violent acting out was unacceptable. The ethos that emerged found displays of violence for entertainment profoundly disturbing and began to ban them even if they involved animals. There was also a climate of respectability and the idea of proper appearance that fostered a lower crime rate.12

The result was by 1900 the English homicide rate was below 1 per hundred thousand.13

Of course all this came at a price in conformity and exploitation but as indicated by reforms of the Victorian period, the continued decline in the homicide rate was not incompatible with significant political and social reforms which however much they diffused economic and political power away from the landed elite did not cause an upsurge in violence.

In most of western Europe they had to wait until the 19th century for the great pacification. In much of eastern Europe until the 20th century. As for 20th century developments there was in England and the in western Europe a rise in the crime rates in the 1960’s and 70’s although contrary to hysteria it was not a rise to unprecedented levels.

The fact is the great pacification worked and is still working at least in England and Europe.

1. Leyton, Elliott, Men of Blood, McClelland & Stewart Inc., Toronto, 1995, pp. 99-101.

2. IBID, pp. 99-103, Moore, R. I., The Formation of a Persecuting Society, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Pub., London, 2007, pp. 102-104, 123-128.

3. Leyton, p. 102. Leyton gives the homicide rate of 13th century England as 10 to 20 times the current rate, p. 103. This works out to 10-20 murders per hundred thousand.

4. IBID, p. 103.

5. IBID, pp. 103-105.

6. IBID, pp. 105-107.

7. IBID, pp. 107-108.

7. IBID, pp. 107-109.

9. IBID, p. 109.

10. IBID, p. 109.

11. IBID, pp. 107-112.

12. IBID, pp. 112-114.

13. IBID, p. 115.

Pierre Cloutier

Cloning and Boring
Capsule reviews of three Star Wars flicks

Movie Poster

Last year I saw the latest Star Wars flick. The aptly named Star Wars: The Clone Wars. George Lucas' surrender of what little is left of his integrity continues. The movie sucks on so many levels, but one is especially annoying. The Teenage sidekick with attitude. Please see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for why such adolescent abortions should indeed be aborted before they are born and terminated by infanticide if they are born. Basically George Lucas has surrendered integrity for cash, which is why his movies now reek with clichés, and stereotypes. He wants his movies to make piles of money so banal clichés now submerge his films in a stew of mediocrity, catering for the lowest common denominator. Hence the saccharine Ewoks, (chosen because they were more merchandisable than the Wookies for the third film), having the dis-improvement of Solo shooting Greedo after Greedo tries to shot him. (Thus making Solo a more "acceptable" "goody goody" hero. This of course also explains the abomination of Jar Jar Binks, and young Anakin's vile and evil mop top hair cut. (Proof positive of a complete surrender of all artistic integrity).

The Film is indeed a clone, with has much feeling as a clone and has much integrity has a clone. In other words none at all. The movie is designed to feed George's huge bank account by catering to the lowest common denominator of banalities and cliché. The lack of originality, the sheer idiocy of the script are breath taking. This is to movie making what cold MacDonald's food is. BORING!!!

Movie Poster

When I saw Revenge of the Sith, and I must say that there was some things to like and much to dislike.

Like:

a), The "Emperor", his carpet chewing over the top performance was wonderful, like that in Return of the Jedi, (One of the few saving graces of that shit fest).

b) The "birth" of Darth Vader. Yeah!! With the Voice!!

c), The Wookies!!

Dislike:

a), Anakin as "misunderstood", and "well meaning". His performance was cloying and saccharine. I thought he was performance was one long whine. "I want my mommy!!"

b), Lucas once again thinks that effects can compensate for serious defects like:

c), Bad script. People say the dumbest things!

d), Acting generally Space Opera bad.

e), Finally Yoda. "Conceited, self satisfied jerk is he". Terminally annoying and the way he talks is no longer amusing the millionth time you hear his backwards shtick. After hearing his stupidities in the other two movies of the second trilogy I was so hoping not to see or hear him.

Movie Poster
The Return of the Jedi, is indisputably the worst Star Wars flick of the first three (of course Revenge of the Sith of the three prequels is certainly worst, one can argue about the other two) for it has the following idiocies.

A) The Ewoks, a saccharine creation designed quite coldly to sell merchandise, unlike the non cute Wookies. Ewoks remain in desperate need of extermination.

B) The battle on Endor. One of the stupidest battle scenes ever. I note the almost total absence of Ewok dead, the reams of Storm Trooper dead. I further note that this battle scene is believable only if you think that !Kung Bushmen armed with spears can destroy a Nazi Panzer Division, and about has believable.

C) The we're the good guys so we will win by sheer dumb luck crap. Our Heroes walk into a trap, being totally out smarted by the Emperor but they still win! It never occurs to anyone to have a plan B. An OLD, OLD!! bit of cliché crud.

This film coasts to its relatively high status, in my opinion entirely on the coat tails of the other films in itself it is badly acted, badly scripted etc., aside from the three criminal errors noted above.

Pierre Cloutier

Notes on Aztec Art

The Aztec Empire before it was conquered and destroyed by the Spanish produced some of the most extraordinary art that the world has seen. The fact that this art was based upon a very disturbing series of practices and a, from a European point of view, rather odd way of perceiving the world as made this art a very disturbing art for many. This is because of the Aztec practice of mass human sacrifice, along with ritual cannibalism, genuinely horrified contemporary Europeans even as it continues to horrify us. This rather grotesque practice or more correctly atrocity has continued to color the perception of the Aztec's and their culture.1

Now if it is without question that mass human sacrifice is indeed an atrocity, (an opinion I hold), then of course we should condemn the Aztec's for practicing it. If occasional human sacrifice is an abomination than of course mass human sacrifice is even more so. However condemnation is not enough after condemnation comes how do we understand such practices and further how does it affect our evaluation of Aztec culture and society? Of course using one vile practice to condemn utterly a society / culture is generally not fair and certainly it cannot be said that the Spanish were moral improvements over the Aztecs.2 After all what the Spanish oversaw in the conquest of Mexico and its aftermath was the veritable annihilation of a civilization to say nothing of what can only be described as sheer brutal murderous terror and exploitation. The extent of Spanish responsibility for the dramatic and spectacular fall in the Population of Mexico or whether it was the "accidental" effects of disease are hotly contested points. Still it appears to be the case that the population of Mexico was smaller in 1900 C.E., than it was in 1515 C.E., shortly before the Spanish came.3 If anything a damning indication of the catastrophic effects of the conquest.

It appears that the first couple of generations after the conquest were for the native population an age of unimaginable horror and disaster, during which time a steel curtain fell between the world before the conquest and world after. We have very few native voices of this horror. It appears that the native population fell at least 80% and likely 90% or more. We have from Europe chronicles and accounts of the horror of the black death that killed c. 33% of the population of Europe, (1347-1350 C.E.), and its terrible aftermath, which may have reduced Europe's population by c. 40% by 1400 C.E. We have very little concerning the native Mexican reaction to an incomparably worst horror. Further Europe had recovered its population losses by 1500 C.E. As mentioned above Mexico may not have recovered to population levels of c. 1515 C.E., until c. 1920 C.E.4

The aftermath of the conquest puts Aztec atrocities into perspective. There is simply no way to morally use Aztec atrocities to justify this. Further the fact that the Spanish were largely motivated by greed and ambition and not by any desire to end Aztec atrocities also should be factored in. In the end it is simple straight forward Colonialism and Imperialism using Aztec atrocities as a fig leaf of justification.5

As I said a steel curtain as come down between us and the Aztecs because of the Spanish Conquest, which may be compared to something like a "War of the Worlds". However due to Spanish documents describing the old society etc., Indian survivals in modern Mexican culture, Archaeology and the surviving art of the Aztecs we can get a glimpse into their world.

Map of the Aztec Empire showing its expansion under various rulers

The Aztecs started out as a wondering tribe of nomads who settled on some islands in the midst of lake Texcoco c. 1325 C.E., calling the city Tenochtitlan. A century, c. 1420 C.E., later they broke free of vassalage to local rulers and established in alliance with two other cities, (Texcoco and Tlacopan) an alliance to establish a Empire.

Under a succession of able rulers they established an empire which dominated Mexico by the time the Spanish arrived.

Their Capital Tenochtitlan, was a island city crisscrossed with canals and one of the most densely populated cities in the world in 1517 C.E., with a population of c. 150-200 thousand.6

Map of Tenochtitlan c. 1518 C.E.

The art of the Aztecs being Imperial as the usual attributes of Imperial powers. Massive size and the attempt to intimidate.

An example of this is Aztec Temple pyramids like the following two pictures of the pyramid at Teopanzolco.

View of Pyramid of Teopanzolco

View of Pyramid of Teopanzolco

This massive pyramid erected in the late 15th century has on its top the typical two temples of the most important Aztec Gods. One is the common central Mesoamerican rain god Tlaloc the other is the Aztec tribal war god and patron deity Huitzilopochtli, ( Left handed Hummingbird). 7

Among the peoples of Mesoamerican it was a common belief that the Gods shed their blood and lives so that the Man and life could go on living and the Universe could continue to exist. Given that it was considered fair that Humans should shed their blood and lives so that the Gods could continue to live.

Tlaloc the rain God for example shed rain so that the Earth would continue to give forth crops and the peoples of Mesoamerica considered rain and water to be analogous to blood. Tlaloc thus shed his blood so that man should have crops so ergo men should shed blood so that Tlaloc could continue to exist and nourish the Earth.

Huitzilopochtli was also thought of in the same terms and he needed blood and sacrifice so that he could continue to patronize the Aztecs and give them success and victories and as he was assimilated with other gods, like the the Sun he too needed human blood so that the Earth could continue to exist.8

Pyramid at Santa Cecilia Acatitlan

This pyramid erected in the late 15th century is a temple of Huitzilopochtli, which was reconstructed recently. Next to it is the unreconstructed remains of a pyramid to the God Tlaloc. The stone in front was the sacrificial stone on which human sacrificial victims had their hearts torn out with sacrificial flint knives.9

Plan of site of Tetzcotzinco

Built in the late 15th century by the Poet, Philosopher, Diplomat, Warrior and Engineer Nezahualcoyotl, king of Texcoco one of the two allies of the Aztecs. This site consisted of agricultural terraces, a Palace and several villas along with several small temples and baths, and Plazas. The most remarkable part of the system was the massive aqueduct that surrounds the whole site which is a mountain top.10

Remains of stone cut baths of Nezahualcoyotl

The following is a reconstruction of the famous Aztec sun stone as it may have looked like when it was completed in the early 16th century.

Aztec Sun Stone

The stone sums up Aztec and central American conceptions of the Universe. The face in the center is Tonaliuh the Sun God. He is sticking out his tongue, which is in in the form of a sacrificial knife. his face has wrinkles indicating old age. The claws of either side of the head grasp human hearts. Around the God's head is the symbol Nahui Ollin or fourth movement which is the date on which this sun was created at Teotihuacan. Around the head of Tonaliuh are four boxes showing the names of the four previous creations, four Jaguar, four Wind, four Rain, four water. The world that Tonatiuh dominates is the fifth creation or the fifth sun.

Also around the head of Tonatiuh are symbols representing the four cardinal points. North is a warriors head gear symbolizing the power of the Aztecs. The south is symbolized by a monkey which represents one of previous suns of creation. The east is represented by a sacrificial knife or Tecpatl. The west is Tlalocan or the house of Tlaloc the rain god and represents life giving water.

Around the head are the twenty days of the month. The Aztecs had a calender of 18 months of 20 days each complete with a extra month of five days. after that is a ring composed of the names of the months of the Aztec calender. Out of that circle eight arrowheads symbolized the suns rays. The last circle was in the form of two fire serpents that connected heaven and the underworld and also the earth with each other. At the bottom the serpents open their mouths with two heads emerging. One figure is Quetzalcoatl as Tonatiuh the sun or day. The other figure is Tezcatlipoca as Xiuhtecuhtli the night. Thus symbolizing the contest between day and night. They are sticking out their tongues, which are touching. This represents the continuity of time and the alteration of day and night. Further the Gods Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca were in continuous conflict with each other with Quetzalcoatl symbolizing creation and Tezcatlipoca destruction.

Thus the stone represents the balance of creation and destruction in the world, further on the sun stone is a glyph representing the mythical date on which the Aztecs left their mythical homeland of Aztlan to eventually settle in the valley of Mexico and also the date the Aztecs defeated the Tepanec ruler Maxtla to become rulers of the valley of Mexico.

The stone also represents the creation of the world of the fifth sun. In the legend of creation after the destruction of the world of the fourth sun the gods gathered at Teotihuacan to create the world anew. The god Tecuciztecatl volunteered to throw himself into a fire and be reborn as the new sun. The God Nanahuatzin, a minor god of venereal disease, was selected to accompany him. Tecuciztecatl hesitated and drew back but Nanahuatzin threw himself in without hesitation and was reborn as the sun Tonatiuh. Techuciztecatl, thoroughly ashamed, threw himself in and was reborn as the moon.

Tonatiuh was however unable to move and demanded the blood of his fellow gods so he could move. The other gods agreed to this. So Quetzalcoatl sacrificed his fellow gods by removing their hearts with a sacrificial knife. Nourished the sun began to move. But from then on in order to continue to move the sun needs the blood and hearts of humans.11

Statue of Coatlicue

The above statue of Coatlicue is over 10 feet tall and is overall a very frightening image. With her claw like hands and her necklace of human heats, hands and a skull, along with her skirt composed of interlocking serpents this is a frightening image. The climax of stunning grotesqueness is the "head" composed of two serpent heads meeting and forming a terrifying mouth and divided tongue and two eyes. Although that is the visual intent of that part of the sculpture is to suggest a head in reality it is not a head. In fact Coatlicue is in fact shown decapitated and the serpents symbolize streams of blood from her neck.

Coatlicue is in fact an Earth Goddess, a mistress of life and death, fertility and destruction. Like many Mexican deities she has dualistic and contradictory aspects so that she is both a goddess of life and a goddess of death. Coatlicue is also the mother of the Aztec patron god Huitzilopochtli, and gave birth to him as she was dying.12

Sculpture of Tlaltecuhtli

The above sculpture was found near the remains of the great pyramid in Mexico city in 2008 C.E.; it represents another Earth Goddess, this time called Tlaltecuhtli. Like the statue of Coatlicue it is a monumental sculpture over 10 feet tall. The claw like hands and feet and the tongue indicating a avid need for blood, human blood. The image is one of raw elemental power.

Like virtually all the Mexican gods Coatlicue and Tlaltecuhtli have to shed their blood and die and be reborn so that man could live, crops could grow and the universe continue to exist.

The pre-columbian Mexicans associated water with blood. Basically water, which was the blood of the gods nourished the earth and gave life to both man and beast and therefore man and beast should shed their blood and sometimes give their hearts to nourish the gods so they could continue to nourish the earth and men.13

Stone of Coyolxauhqui

In Aztec myth Coyolxauhqui was the sister of Huitzilopochtli. When she found out that her mother Coatlicue was pregnant, supposedly by a ball of down at the hill of Coatepec, Coyolxauhqui allied with her 400 brother slew her mother. As she lay dying Huitzilopochtli was born and springing from the womb of his mother he avenged her death by dismembering his sister Coyolxauhqui and routing the 400 hundred brothers. Huitzilopochtli was armed with a fiery serpent called the Xiuhcoatl. Coyolxauhqui's dismembered body fell to the base of the hill of Coatepec.

The stone image depicts Coyolxauhqui at the moment of dismemberment with her head and arms and legs cut off. The arms and legs are in a curious swastika like design. She is naked except for a belt around her waist with a skull attached, along with a headdress, skull like images on her knees and sandals. The image is believed to date from c. 1490 C.E., and is about 13 feet across.

In Aztec myth Coyolxauhqui represented the forces of evil and chaos which had to be defeated so that order could be imposed. She was also associated with the ballgame. Temples to Huitzilopochtli had a ball court next to them. At this ball court there would be re-enactments of the battle between Huitzilpochtli and Coyolxauhqui, and of course the forces of order would triumph over the forces of chaos. This sculpture was found at the base of the great pyramid in Mexico city, where it served to symbolically represent the sacrificial victim who like Coyolxauhqui falling down the hill of Coatepec would be thrown the pyramid steps after sacrifice.

It is possible that the contest between Huitzilpochtli and Coyolxahqui represents in highly mythologized form a contest between different factions among the Aztecs during their migrations which reached some sort of violent resolution at the hill of Coatepec.14

Throne of Motecuhzoma II

The above is believed to be a ceremonial throne built c. 1510 C.E., in the shape of a pyramid, for the Aztec Emperor Motecuhzoma II, the unfortunate Emperor who encountered Cortes. Aside from the usual Aztec motifs of skulls and feathered warriors the top image depicts a sun disk with the rain god Tlaloc on one side and Motecuhzoma II on the other.

It appears that Moteuhzoma II is being depicted as some sort of intermediary between and subjects and the rain god Tlaloc to ensure the fertility of the soil and the continued well being of the empire. This apparently goes well with Moteuhzoma's attempts to consolidate the empire and to exhault his own status as semi divine. 15

Coiled Serpent possibly Xiuhcoatl

Depictions of serpents are very common in Aztec art generally speaking they can come in two forms. Serpents like the above, which are fairly realistic depictions of snakes are likely representations of Huitzilopochtli weapon Xiuhcoatl with which he destroyed his sister Coyolxauhqui and her brothers.16

Feather Serpent representing Quetzalcoatl

Feathered Serpent Representing Quetzalcoatl

One of the great Gods of pre-Columbian Mexico was Quetzalcoatl, the so-called feathered serpent. He was commonly depicted as a serpent with feathers. In Mesoamerican mythology he was associated with creation, civilization, culture and order. He was also associated with benevolence on the one hand and the cruelty needed to impose order. Quetzalcoatl was partly named after the Quetzal bird with its magnificant emerald green feathers which were considered prize treasures by the peoples of Mesoamerica. The feathers on the sculptures and paintings of the feathered serpent were quetzal feathers.

As mentioned above it was he who sacrificed his fellow gods so that the world of the fifth Sun could continue to exist. Because of this the priests who engaged in human sacrifice by heart extraction were often called Quetzalcoatl, given that in symbolic terms they performed same function as the god Quetzalcoatl did in order for the world to continue to exist.

In Mesoamerican myth Quetzalcoatl was in eternal conflict with the forces of disorder, chaos and destruction symbolized by the god Tezaltlipoca.17

Aztec Jade Mask

This magnificant jade mask was apparently among the items sent by Cortes to Charles V in about 1518 C.E. probably because it was not made of gold or silver it was not melted down. Exactly who or perhaps what it represents is not known. Possibly it is a representation of death. The pre-columbian Mexicans considered jade more valuable than gold or silver so to them this would be a exceptionally valuable treasure. Fortunately for this object the Europeans did not think that it was valuable; so it survived intact.

It was probably a ceremonial mask worn on ritualistic occasions.18

Page from the Codex Mendoza

This is the first page of the Codex Mendoza a post conquest Mexican book produced c. 1540 C.E., written for the then Spanish Viceroy of Mexico Mendoza. The Codex Mendoza is 71 pages long. It is divided into three parts. It is in the form of the hieroglyphic writing of the Aztec with extensive annotations written in Spanish on the manuscript. It was written by surviving Aztec scribes.

The first part is a history of the Aztec from the foundations of the Aztec Empire in 1325 C.E., to the fall of the Empire to the Spanish. The second part is a tribute list of the tributary provinces of the Empire. It appears to be incomplete. The third part is an over view of Aztec life, pre-conquest, covering occupations, life, law and administration.

The above picture is of the first page of the Codex Mendoza Which depicts the foundation of the Aztec Capital Tenochtitlan in 1325, on islands in lake Texcoco. The name Tenochtitlan means cactus flower so the depiction of a flowering cactus with the Eagle on top representing the imperial destiny of the Aztecs. Often the eagle is shown eating a serpent. In fact this image is on the modern flag of Mexico.

The division into four quarters represents the division of Tenochtitlan into four quaters with the men inside each section representing leaders at the time of foundation. The figures at bottom represent early conquests of the Aztecs.19

Page from the Codex Mendoza

The above is part of the third section from the Codex Mendoza. In this case a governement official is instructing two youths in various tasks and also instructing them to avoid idlness and thievery. The two figures on the right repesent a tramp and a thief.20

Page from a divination text

The image above is from a divination text and depicts the thirteen days in Aztec sacred calender of 260 days, (13 times 20). This calender operated simultaneously with the regular calender of 365 days. It was believed that careful consultation of auspicious versus inauspecious days could achieve good fortune and avoid bad fortune. Further it was believed that the day on which one was born helped to dertermine one's fate and that careful attention to the effects of being born on a particular day could avoid disaster.21

Page from a divination text

This page represents a god eating a human arm while around him floats day signs indicating various days in the sacred calender.22

Sacrificial Offering

The above is the front of a skull with inlays in the eye sockets and a sacrificial blade in the nasal cavity. It is certainly a goulish image and quite horrifying. It was among the offerings found in Great pyramid of Tenochtitlan. The blade in the nasal cavity symbolizes the way a sacrificial blade snuffs out the breath of life in the sacrificial victim. In this case the former occupant of the skull. The bulging inlaid eyes symbolize death. The back of the skull as been removed which adds to the macabre horror of this image. This offering was probably made to the Aztec patron god Huitzilpochtli.23

As this brief view of Aztec art indicates, much of this art is visiseral dealing with deep unconcious forces of life and death. This art also dealt with elemental, almost Freudian forces, of the id and the violent. It as elements of horror and brutality and a frightening awarness of how close the forces of creation and destruction are to each other and in fact how dependent they are on each other. To those who want brutal realities of life and death carefully hidden Aztec art is too direct, too in your face.

1. See Keen, Benjamin, The Aztec Image in Western Thought, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick NJ, 1971, pp. 43-47, 96-97, 525-526, Austin, Alfredo Lopez, Lupin, Leonardo Lopez, Aztec Human Sacrifice, in The Aztec World, Editors, Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., Feinman, Gary M., Abrams, New York, 2008, pp. 137-152.

2. See Todorov, Tzvetan, The Conquest of America, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1984, Las Casas, Bartolome, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, Penguin Books, London, 1992, (Modern study indicates that although this account is both one sided and exagerates it contains far too much truth to be dismissed as simply propaganda), Rivera, Luis N., A Violent Evangelism, John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, 1992, Leon-Portilla, Miguel, Editor, The Broken Spears, Second Edition, Beacon Press, Boston MASS., 1992, Denevan, William M., Estimating the Unknown, in The Native Population of the Americas in 1492, Second Edition, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison WI., 1992, pp. 1-12, at pp. 4-7.

3. See Denevan, Native American Populations in 1492: Recent Research and a Revised Hemispheric Estimate, in Denevan, pp. XVII-XXIX, at p. XXVIII, Gives a total population of Mexico in 1518 C.E., as 17,174,000. In McEvedy, Colin, Jones, Richard, Atlas of World Population History, Penguin Books, London, 1978, p. 292 gives the population in 1900 as 13.5 million.

4. See Sanders, William T., The Central Mexican Symbiotic Region, in the Basin of Mexico, and the Teotihuacan Valley in the Sixteentth Century, in Denevan, pp. 85-150, McEvedy, p. 292, Whitmore, Thomas M., Disease and Death in Early Colonial Mexico, Westview Press, San Francisco CA., 1992, pp. 201-214, Prem, Hanns, J., Disease Outbreaks in Central Mexico during the Sixteenth Century, in "Secret Judgements of God", Editors, Cook, Noble David, Lovell, George, University of Oklahoma Press, London, 1992, pp. 20-48, Stannard, David E., American Holocaust, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992, pp. 75-82, Todorov, p. 133.

5. See Todorov and Las Casas, Townsend, Richard F., The Aztecs, Third Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2009, pp. 220-241, Smith, Michael E., The Aztecs, Second Edition, Blackwell, London, 2003, pp. 272-279. see also Diaz, Bernal, The Conquest of New Spain, Penguin Books, London, 1963, and Prescott, William H., The History of the Conquest of Mexico & The History of the Conquest of Peru, Cooper Square Press, New York, 2000, (Originally Published in 1843 and 1847), Thomas Hugh, Conquest, Touchstone Books, New York, 1993.

6. Sanders, William T., Tenochtitlan in 1519: A Pre-Industrial Megalopolis, in Brumfiel, pp. 67-85, at p. 84.

7. Aguilar-Moreno, Manuel, Handbook to Life in the Aztec World, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, p. 241.

8. Ibid, pp. 148, Miller, Mary & Taube, Karl, The Illustrated Dictionary of The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya, Thames and Hudson, london, 1993, pp. 93-96.

9. Aguilar-Moreno, p. 240.

10. IBID, pp. 244-247.

11. Miller, pp. 158, 172, Aguilar-Moreno, pp. 140, 181-182, The names of the months of the Aztec Calander are Cipactli (Crocodile), Ehecatl (wind), Calli (house), Cuetzpallin (Lizard), Coatl (serpant), Miquiztli (death), Mazatl (deer), Tochtli (rabbit), Atl (water), Itzcuitli (dog), Ozomatli (monkey), Malinalli (plant, grass), Acatl (reed), Ocelotl (jaguar), Cuauhtli (eagle), Cozcacuauhtli (vulture), Ollin (movement), Tecpatl (flint, obsidian), Quiahuitl (rain), Xochitl (flower). The special five day month at the end was called Nemontemi (usleless, nameless) and was considered unlucky.

12. Aguilar-Moreno, pp. 190-191, Miller, pp. 64-65, 68, Davies, Nigel, The Ancient Kingdoms of Mexico, Penguin Books, 1982, pp. 201-202, 223-224. .

13. Townsend, p. 185.

14. Miller, pp. 64- 65, 68, 93-96, 188-189, Aguillar-Moreno, pp. 224, 192-193.

15. Aguilar-Moreno, p. 186-187.

16. Aguilar-Moreno, pp. 195-196, Miller, pp. 188-189.

17. Aguillar-Moreno, pp. 139-141, 149-150, 195, Miller, pp. 140-142, Davies, 220-223.

18. Coe, Michael D., Koontz, Rex, Mexico, Sixth Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008, p. 168.

19. Ross, Kurt, Codex Mendoza, Miller Graphics, Ch-Fribourg, 1978, pp. 11-12, 18-22.

20. IBID, p. 114.

21. Brumfiel, p. 180, Davies, pp. 225-227, Miller, pp. 48-54, Aguilar-moreno, pp. 290-299.

22. Phillips, Charles, The Complete Illustrated History of the Aztec and Maya, Hermes House, London, 2005 , p. 379.

23, IBID.

Pierre Cloutier