Romantic Commitments, Part 2

Michael Colhaze



Tonight the winds begin to rise
And roar from yonder dropping day
The rooks are blown out of the skies
The last red leaf is whirl’d away.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809 – 1892)

Ah, the rooks! The red leaves too! And the rising winds

But I mustn’t fall over my own feet to get where I have to go. Let us therefore take a look at poor Andromeda first. As you can see, she has been abducted by a hideous and revolting creature, reptilian in essence, a macho-monster without pity, let alone a heart. His jaws are wide open and he spews soot and sulphur. Flapping his bat-like wings, he is brutishly arresting her arms while divesting the delicious body of its already flimsy attire, an outrage marvellously accentuated by one beautiful long thigh gleaming silkily in the early morning sun. Her flaming red mane, which reaches to the slim ankles and beyond, could easily cover her nudity, but the artist won’t permit it. As might be expected, her expression is rather pained, and it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what she believes will befall her ere long. Yet she and we have reason to rejoice, because in this very moment a deadly arrow pierces the swinish sadist’s slippery hide.

Advertisement

What you are looking at is a masterpiece by one of the world’s greatest painters, Frederic Lord Leighton. A few years back I had the great good fortune to see some of his works in the original, including perhaps the most expressive portrait ever painted, Captain Sir Richard Burton.  As to the paintings themselves, a few of my favourites were on hand, most notably Invocation, Clytie and Flaming June.

All three, if observed from nearby and with the right illumination, are so sublimely beautiful and transparent, so obviously fashioned with superhuman skill that there can’t be any explanation other than the Muses Themselves had a hand in it. By the way, the master and I have lived for a while in the same picturesque village on the south coast of Rhodes, depicted in Winding the Skein, but he a hundred years earlier than me, for which I still envy him.

Lord Leighton was President of the Royal Academy from 1878 until his death in 1896. If you observe his art, and that of his contemporaries in Europe and America, you get a clear idea of the cultural pinnacle we were inhabiting then, and how deep we plunged from it only a century later. Because the present president of the RA is a trite modernist architect whose masterpieces are dreary concrete heaps resembling plastic sausages, and the art he peddles are gems like Damian Hirst’s Rotting Shark or Tracy Emin’s Stinking Bedstead, all chaperoned by that unspeakable grease-pot and carpetbagger Saatchi, nomen est omen, and financed through the Jerusalem Foundation, the Henry Moore Foundation and similar maggots who have long since sequestered the hallowed halls and now gnaw at their very foundations. As to the RA’s present worship of feminine beauty and splendour, you only need to cast a fleeting glance at one of Lucian Freud’s chef d’oeuvres to know where we stand.

Or better, where we slouch and slump and slurp, because that is the present niveau of our once great culture after it was sequestered and utterly debased by the aforementioned alien invaders who understand as much about beauty and aesthetics as you and I about Einstein’s Relativity Theory or Freud’s Oedipus Complex.

But again, I must not forestall myself and return instead to our point of departure, the incomparable Eve of Autun. Divinely initiated at the very dawn of man when those unknown painters at Lascaux and Altamira crept into their dimly lit caves and fashioned murals of breathtaking grandeur, was her spiritual and creative birth some fifteen thousand years later the spark that led to the world’s unique and never matched epoch of artistic splendour.

Yet in order to understand it fully we must remember its foundations, namely the cataclysm that had happened a millennium earlier and now began to blossom into the mysterious flower that is mankind’s one and only hope for a distant salvation. If this sounds too farfetched or improbable altogether, let me tell you that those men and women who nourished the flower weren’t confounded fools or delirious dreamers, but bright, independent and clear-minded scholars who could have stood up to any present-day academic with absolute ease. Take St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who commanded an immense respect among peasants and nobles alike, due to a brilliant mind combined with the profound conviction that whatever views he postulated had a sound and demonstrable base. This is a scrap of his famous Canticle.

Love seeks no cause beyond itself and no fruit. It is its own fruit, its own enjoyment. I love because I love. I love in order that I may love…

In the windfall of this extraordinary gnosis prospered a poetic revival that began around 1050 AD with the French Troubadours and culminated in the German Minnesingers, whereby the latter developed a highly stylised form of female veneration called Minnesong. Now Minne is Old High German and means Love, but in this case has some very particular connotations. Because the lyrical hymns those battle-hardened knights and nobles, their emperor included, composed and performed in praise of an adorable lady were almost as pure and exalted as Schubert’s Ave Maria.

Which does not mean the adored ones were unaware of their seductive appeal. This is a captivating excerpt from a courtly tale of those days, Lanval, written by the exquisite Marie de France.

She had an attractive, slim-waisted figure. Her neck was as white as snow on a bough. Bright eyes in a pale face, a lovely mouth, a perfect nose, dark eyebrows. Her hair was wavy and corn-coloured. In the sun it had a light finer than spun gold. She was dressed into a white linen shift, loosely laced at the sides so that one could see the skin from top to bottom.

Attractive indeed, so help me God! Yet what really mattered was the emotional depth tempered by a chivalrous restraint that imbued the recital with a sublime thrill, a deeply gratifying delicacy. Qualities of feeling that seem today as remote as the next Milky Way, particularly if you watch a liberally sound, democratically approved and politically correct piece of pornography, be it some inter-racial gangbang or just a spot of raping, flogging and buggering in the dungeon.

Walther von der Vogelweide (ca. 1170 – 1230 AD)


Once again, I’m galumphing ahead.

The Gothic Era, an epoch so marvellous, magical and perplexing that I must leave it untouched in this little essay, triggered a rebirth or Renaissance, another magnificent period that, most important, rediscovered the great cultures of our forebears, Greek and Roman alike, and polished them off with Christ’s maxims. Thus the first literary giants of Christianity stepped onto the stage and Humanism was born. Amazing heroines like Petrarch’s Laura or Dante’s Beatrice captivated the hearts of educated Italy and beyond. As a result, the veneration of the weaker sex received yet another boost, and those dukes, popes, counts and condottieri, all with an infallible sense for beauty and elegance, had their spouses, daughters and mistresses educated, usually by the best scholars money could buy. Thus while proudly exhibiting the ladies’ outer splendour, it was touted with equal delight that they could read Virgil in the original and, perhaps over a glass of sublime Montepulciano, embark on a spirited critique of his certainties and fallacies.

Small wonder therefore that Lorenzo the Magnificent, ruler of Florence, decided one day to bestow immortality on an exceptionally lovely maiden, most likely a closer acquaintance of his. He entrusted the task to a preferred protégée, one Sandro Botticelli, and to imbue it with a measure of subdued passion and complex intellectual depth, as was the fancy in those days, he invited his bosom friend, the venerated humanist and poet Angelo Poliziano, for a little parley. During which they forged an emotionally staggering and philosophically overwhelming allegory as underpinning for the world’s most beautiful work of art.

Angelo, by the way and if I remember well, was the first Christian lyricist who wrote an elegy on the death of his beloved dog. Which is, at least in my book, one of the finest credentials a true humanist can advance if asked to declare himself.

Thus the Birth of Venus was born.

The Goddess of Love stands in a shell that swims close to the shore. She is immensely beautiful, with shimmering red hair and light-blue eyes. Though naked, she radiates an impression of virginity and purity. She covers herself with a strand of her long hair. To the left hovers a winged couple, firmly embracing each other, also naked but clad into a sky-blue cloth. They fly in a cloud of wild roses and both are blowing air, in this way producing a breeze that pushes the Goddess ashore. There waits a young woman, ready to receive her. She represents Mankind and holds a finely woven cloak, clearly intended to wrap the Goddess into it after taking possession of her.

What makes the painting so incomparable, its sheer beauty apart, are two features. First, the young couple with the wings. They are, of course, God the Creator who never before in European art has been depicted as an entwined male and female, naked at that. Second, His gift, the greatest ever handed to Mankind. Often mistaken for just a sensually induced agitation, is it in fact much more than that, namely Love with a capital L. A mundane attitude, an all-encompassing sentiment, a perennial philosophy, a divine principle. Love of goodness, love of truth, love of justice. Love for the sad, poor and downtrodden. Love for a tree, a butterfly, a sunset, a bear, a child. Love as Mankind’s final and highest achievement, its only key to a distant Utopia. And, above all else, love between a man and a woman.

Lorenzo de Medici (1449 – 1492) Terracotta by Verrochino


So there she stands, the Goddess supreme, and I can’t imagine a greater compliment to our women-folk but her. In passing I might point out that Lorenzo commissioned Botticelli to make further use of the same lovely model, namely by portraying her as the Holy Virgin. Now this might strike you as odd, even indecent, but let me assure you that you are mistaken. Because the two Goddesses are identical, with only the very small difference that one is dressed and the other is not.

Which is a reason why I’m unable to comprehend the vow of celibacy imposed on the catholic priesthood, not even in terms of a sublime enhancement as to their daily communion with God. Obviously someone got it terribly wrong a long time ago, which has led to the sad fact that a clown is nowadays residing on the throne of St. Peter and our temples are closing down for want of a sturdy curate who is able to dispense Christ’s message happily, with fervour and convincingly.

However that may be, the Magnificent Millennium evolved, only occasionally marred by war, upheaval or famine. Canvas and sculpture flourished unhindered, its excellence only marginally vacillating with the passing time. Music of unbelievable beauty, delicacy and complexity was composed, from a lovely folksong to a grandiose symphony or opera. Literature reached heights of expression so vast and powerful that we still stand stunned and amazed. And of course heroines abounded, one more lovely and captivating than the other, all unforgettable, no matter if innocent, virtuous, mischievous, wicked, heroic, tragic or joyful.

Go To Part 3.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

11 Comments to "Romantic Commitments, Part 2"

  1. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    February 11, 2011 - 11:54 pm | Permalink

    I think we have become too jaded to appreciate the originally of our art and literature.

  2. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    February 11, 2011 - 11:58 pm | Permalink

    Pardon me, I meant to say “originality.” (Don’t know how to edit.)

    • Anonyma's Gravatar Anonyma
      February 12, 2011 - 9:15 am | Permalink

      Technical advice sought

      I there anything one can do to “edit” or make minor alterations to a comment once it has been posted? (e.g., irritating typos)

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      February 12, 2011 - 1:53 pm | Permalink

      @ Heather and @ Anonyma …

      I shall provide you with an UNOFFICIAL response, on behalf of TOO. Note that I have no connection with this blogsite’s owner or webmaster, other than the CONTACT US info provided in the title header of this website.

      Currently, there is no edit facility at the TOO website.

      Providing an edit function is difficult, as it is a potential security breach. The Webmaster has to ensure that only the original author can edit his/her comment, and not anyone else. The technical demands of achieving this add to the total costs needed to set up and maintain this website.

      Usually, edit facilities are only provided by those blogs that enforce a registration requirement upon everyone.

      Suggestion: If your computer is running MS-Windows, then you could always create your comment first inside WordPad before posting. Then just cut and paste once you have done your checks/edits.

  3. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    February 12, 2011 - 1:41 am | Permalink

    monks try to get closer to God by staying away from carnality. There is logic in this practice. Sexual love is carnal. Love of God, of actual people, children, your race, is not carnal. Carnal includes selfishness. Not to perceive the selfishness in mere sex is to miss a striking feature of our animal nature. To elevate sex by marriage, and especially children, is to “redeem” mere sex.

    The Jews have a lot of animal sex and think that is next to Freudliness. Blacks…forget about it. White Christians or nominal Christians rightly consider sex a problem Sex IS a problem. There is a problem for folks who consider themselves beyond religion and it is the Apple again.. Who knows?
    (
    is it possible that Apple Computer consciously chose the apple with a bite out of it….for very smart reasons? Computers challenging God…very Jewish.)

    Do you know more than God? (or, the opinion of Mankind (Aristotle)? Probably not. White Nationalists are usually without God and thus the problem of self-regulation presents itself. There are a lot of self-professed Nietzscheans out there sorely in need of self-regulation.

    What a piece of work is Man.

  4. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    February 12, 2011 - 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Anglo Saxon. Using word pad is an excellent suggestion.

    Joe Webb, it seems to me that men of reason reject superstition.
    Faith is a belief system and susceptible to superstition. Reason produces science, science is exact with no room for superstition. I am not saying faith is superstition; our Lord, Himself, stressed “truth”, but I am a little puzzled how logical men are able to produce great science and have faith in an unseen God. It’s as if they are incompatible. Can a scientific mind believe in God? I personally believe that God is both reason and emotion, that love is the core of our being and that beauty, as expressed in gallantry, nobleness, art and poetry, is the wellspring of love.
    We have heard the expression “the sacred heart of Jesus” without understanding why. The sacred heart of Jesus is the overwhelming essence of love and tenderness. The sacred heart quivers with emotional love. Someone must have had a vision of it or sensed it. All great and beautiful things flow from love.

    • Ciaran's Gravatar Ciaran
      February 13, 2011 - 11:45 am | Permalink

      Heather – the great works so lovingly, elegantly celebrated by the sublime Colhaze are the result of faith.

      Please do not put all your faith in “science” Science is pursued by mere humans – and science, like Nations – is only as good as the people involved.

      Science, like art, has been seriously degraded by the Oldest Enemy. Look at the names, Heather.

  5. monte's Gravatar monte
    February 12, 2011 - 4:16 pm | Permalink

    heather blue

    ALL GREAT AND BEAUTIFUL THINGS FLOW FROM LOVE.

    Beautifully said, really. And bless you, dear.

  6. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    February 12, 2011 - 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Hi Heather Blue, Joe here. I am not a believer, but have immense respect for the religious. The scandal of adolescent-like intellectual behavior of many atheists is embarassing, at least, to me. Sort of like Village Idiots and village atheists.

    The mystery of things, especially beautiful things, is captured by belief in God for most people. Who wants to gainsay that and for what? It is useless and harmful for WN to go in for pagan silliness when all it does is frighten away good Christians.

    There is nothing to be gained by strident atheism, even agnosticism. A calm agnosticism that one can offer if asked is ok.

    The single largest factor in our work with our Folk: keep smiling, keep loving.

    As for how very intelligent men and women of a scientific bent can combine reason and belief in God is easy. They know the limits of Reason and,or the limits of human intelligence.

    Evolution seems a better guide to figuring things out in our human, social context…than any other claim, religious or otherwise. However, there cannot be any claim to Totality that can be logically demonstrated. Therefore, God is still in the periodic table, not yet discovered, maybe. Joe

  7. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    February 12, 2011 - 9:31 pm | Permalink

    As mythological figures–human representations of abstract qualities–Botticelli’s Venus is newborn innocence and virginity; the winged couple depict Zephyr (god of the gentle west wind) and either Chloris (nymph associated with flowers and spring, whom Zephyr abducts and later marries), or Aura (Goddess of the morning breeze, hubristic virgin-huntress, punished for being so by being raped by Dionysius). On shore, one of the Horae, goddesses of seasons and time, waits to put her in her proper place.

    What I see is a lovely female form as yet without function–unlike real newborns, a tabula rasa. Her body language is vaguely defensive, her facial expression lacks awareness; she knows not who or where she is. She stands midway between two contrasting forces. From her right, a male rushes toward her; willfully blowing away her innocence; he prefers a female who clings to him; passenger style, one with coarser features; one who “knows the score.” (The couple reminded me of my thought on seeing groups of motorcyclists with their women seated behind them — the men are off for a guy-thing adventure, portable cooler and portable sex machine securely strapped on in back.)

    If Venus moves toward her left, a woman whose face, demeanor, hair, and dress convey the calm self-assurance of intelligence and good breeding, offers her a beautiful raiment with which to cover her nakedness. I favor the greater awareness shown by Venus Lely and Vénus Accroupie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crouching_Venus .

    In The Holy Virgin I see a female no longer virgin, made beautiful and holy by the loving hopes and concerns she feels for her child.

    More rewarding than worshipping or being worshipped is the mutual respect for self and partner that we see in Breker’s Grace: http://hypercrypton.livejournal.com/958174.html.

    MOB

    • Ciaran's Gravatar Ciaran
      February 13, 2011 - 11:58 am | Permalink

      I don’t favor those other Venii. Botticelli’s Glorius Girl *looks* like a Goddess. The other 2 look like courtesans. A Goddess, by vitrue of being a Goddess, is not supposed to look like she’s been used by the the world. Sh’es supposed to be above the world- better than the sordid world – the embodiment of the Highest Dream of the world.

      The Glorious Goddess of Botticelli is not “unaware” of who she is. She completely knows that She IS. This is why her human devotee – her Priestess – so calmly welcomes her, and offers her protective and concealing rainment, in order to be in the world. We want HER in the world. But we do not want her supernatural qualities to be exposed, and thus defiled, by the world.

2 Trackbacks to "Romantic Commitments, Part 2"

  1. on March 9, 2011 at 10:26 pm
  2. on July 4, 2011 at 6:22 pm

Comments are closed.